UPDATE: DOG-SCENT EVIDENCE; SCOTT MAXWELL (ORLANDO SENTINEL) SEES MORE PUBLIC ATTENTION - BUT FEW SIGNS OF POLITICAL WILL TO REMEDY INJUSTICE;

Background: This Blog has been delving into the havoc caused by the late John Preston and his magical dog who could purportedly trace scents across water. The focus is also on Deputy Keith Pikett, another so-called dog-scent "specialist", a canine officer with the Fort Bend County Sheriff's Office, just southwest of Houston. Time Magazine has reported on two apparent miscarriages of Justice involving Pikett; The first case studied involves Calvin Lee Miller, who was charged with robbery and sexual assault after Pikett's bloodhounds alerted police to a scent on sheets that Pikett said matched a scent swipe from Miller's cheek. DNA evidence later cleared Miller, but only after he served 62 days in jail. In a second case, former Victoria County Sheriff's Department Captain Michael Buchanek was named as a "person of interest" in a murder case after Pikett's bloodhounds sped 5.5 miles from a crime scene, tracking a scent to Buchanek's home. Another man later confessed to the murder.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scott Maxwell's recent assessment is set out in a commentary which appeared in the Orlando Sentinel on November 10, 2009, under the heading, "Miscarriages of justice: Rotten dog cases getting more light."

"In the past few weeks, the cases of miscarried justice in Brevard County -- all connected to a fraudulent dog-handler -- have started getting more attention ... some of it international," the commentary begins.

"Two things have put this matter back in the spotlight," it continues.

"1) Bill Dillon, freed after 22 years behind bars (and put there after dog-handler John Preston manufactured evidence to "tie" him to the crime), is now seeking restitution for his wrongful imprisonment. And, as part of the process, one of the jailhouse snitches whose testimony also helped convict Dillon has admitted he lied -- and that investigators told him to do so. This very belatedly prompted the Brevard sheriff's office to re-open this decades-old case. (Let's hope Sheriff Jack Parker's motives are pure here ... and that he's truly looking for answers -- and not some sort of twisted way of justifying Brevard's history of fraudulent activity. Residents obviously have reason to be skeptical.) Florida Today praised Parker for looking at this -- but asked the question I have been asking for months: Where are the two men who supposedly care about justice and corruption in this state? Charlie Crist and Bill McCollum. They seem content to let miscarriages of justice continue and potentially innocent men to continue to sit in jail. (Inmates, after all, don't have very deep pockets when it comes to campaign contributions.)

2) The legal process to get DNA testing for Gary Bennett -- another man who has been behind bars for more than 25 years -- has begun. Both the Innocence Project and Centurion Ministries believe he will be the fourth man proven by science to have been wrongly convicted in connection with this dog-handler. (And the Centurion Ministries has prevailed in something like 80-90 percent of the cases it has pursued.)

Between these two stories, news of the mess in Brevard has gone international. I've seen it carried everywhere from Canada to Europe. Even the author of the syndicated "News of the Weird" (Churck Shepherd) has begun following the cases ... because it apparently strikes him as "weird" that things could get -- and remain -- this out of hand.

Among the few who apparently don't find any of this weird or troubling -- at least enough so to do anything serious about it -- are Crist, McCollum and State Attorney Norm Wolfinger."

The commentary can be found at:

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_local_namesblog/2009/11/miscarriages-of-justice-rotten-dog-cases-getting-more-light.html

Harold levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;

MILLER/BUCHANEK CASES: GREAT REPORTING; LESLIE WILBER ON THE SCENT OF SCENT-LINEUP'S FOR THE VICTORIA ADVOCATE;

"THIS IS JUNK SCIENCE. THIS ISN'T EVEN SCIENCE. THIS IS JUST JUNK," SAID JEFF BLACKBURN, CHIEF COUNSEL FOR THE INNOCENCE PROJECT OF TEXAS. THE GROUP WORKS TO FREE THE WRONGFULLY CONVICTED AND BEGAN INVESTIGATING PIKETT RECENTLY."

REPORTER LESLIE WILBER; THE VICTORIA ADVOCATE;

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background: This Blog has been delving into the havoc caused by the late John Preston and his magical dog who could purportedly trace scents across water. The focus now turns to Deputy Keith Pikett, another so-called dog-scent "specialist", a canine officer with the Fort Bend County Sheriff's Office, just southwest of Houston. Time Magazine has reported on two apparent miscarriages of Justice involving Pikett; The first case studied involves Calvin Lee Miller, who was charged with robbery and sexual assault after Pikett's bloodhounds alerted police to a scent on sheets that Pikett said matched a scent swipe from Miller's cheek. DNA evidence later cleared Miller, but only after he served 62 days in jail. In a second case, former Victoria County Sheriff's Department Captain Michael Buchanek was named as a "person of interest" in a murder case after Pikett's bloodhounds sped 5.5 miles from a crime scene, tracking a scent to Buchanek's home. Another man later confessed to the murder.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reporter Leslie Wilber has done a superb job of exposing the brutal injustice caused to innocent individuals such as Calvin Lee Miller and Michael Buchanek when a justice system blindly embraces a scientifically bereft charade such as "scent-lineups" as practiced by snake-oil salesmen such as John Preston and Keith Pikett;

I particularly admired Ms. Wilber's thorough examination of scent line-ups in a story which appeared in the Victoria Advocate on July 12, 2009, under the heading: "Does it pass the smell test?"

On the trail:
"A tall, soft-spoken black man robbed one elderly woman of her life's savings and sexually assaulted another. He attacked the women in their homes, early in the morning, as they left for church," the story began."

"Shops in the small town of Yoakum sold out of Mace. Women took self-defense classes," it continued;

"As pressure mounted on law enforcement to make an arrest, an unnamed source told investigator Collin Lee Campbell Jr. that Calvin Lee Miller was unemployed and "had been buying a lot of cocaine with cash."

Miller, a 43-year-old Yoakum native, is a former high school football player of imposing bulk. He speaks quietly. Police know him as an habitual - though petty and non-violent - criminal.

To divine Miller's connection, the investigator swabbed the suspect with a gauze pad. He took that pad and scent from the victim's sheets to Deputy Keith Pikett in Fort Bend County.

Pikett is the only dog handler in the state who performs scent identification lineups. Pikett's three bloodhounds indicated Miller's scent was on the sheets.

Miller spent 62 days in jail. Finally, he was cleared by DNA evidence and the victims' failure to identify him.

"It was just like my life was taken away from me," he said.

No laws or regulations govern scent lineups, but they're admissible in courts across the nation. Only tighter oversight can keep shoddy - and sometimes shady - scent IDs from becoming key evidence, a growing number of critics say.

"This is junk science. This isn't even science. This is just junk," said Jeff Blackburn, chief counsel for the Innocence Project of Texas. The group works to free the wrongfully convicted and began investigating Pikett recently.

Miller's case and several others across the country reveal problems with scent dogs:

- During a murder investigation, the home of a former Victoria County sheriff's captain was searched after Pikett's dogs led officers there, then identified his scent in a lineup. Another man later confessed to the murder.

- A California man, accused of arson, awaited trial in jail for two years. His arrest was based largely on scent evidence collected from charred shrubs. He was acquitted.

- Two Florida men each spent more than 20 years in prison - one convicted of rape, the other of murder. The evidence against both included testimony from a dog handler the Arizona Supreme Court later called a charlatan.

How scent IDs work

Two ideas underlie scent identification: Dogs have a keen sense of smell - sometimes 10,000 times more sensitive than humans - and everyone has a unique scent. The challenge is to train dogs to overtly and accurately alert observers to matching smells.

The best-run scent lineups can provide results as accurate as witness identification lineups, said Kenneth Furton, the chairman of the federally funded Scientific Working Group on Dog and Orthogonal Detector Guidelines. Furton is a chemistry and biochemistry professor at Florida International University. For a model, he points to the Netherlands, where lineups are closely regulated and happen in near-sterile rooms without human interaction.

But training for dogs in the United States is often left to lone handlers or agencies.

"There isn't really any requirement to adhere to any kind of best practice," Furton said. Lineups are not as widely used as other scent evidence - for example, drug sniffs - so the technique has glided under regulatory radars, he said.

The National Police Bloodhound Association quit endorsing the technique years ago, calling scent lineups unreliable.

"We don't even want to take a chance on that," said Doug Lowry, the group's president and a chief instructor.

Kevin Kocher, president of the National Bloodhound Training Institute, said he doesn't run lineups and finds them hard to defend.

Critics list several potential weaknesses of scent identification:

Handler or observer influence. Dogs are eager to please and can pick up subtle cues, especially if lineups are conducted on leash, said Steven Nicely, a police-dog handler-turned-defense witness. Handlers can read observers and unintentionally relay that information to the dogs.

"They learn about the pressure on the leash and the way you stand," Nicely said.

Sample contamination. Lineups typically include a suspect's scent and scents from five other people. The samples should all be fresh and about the same age because scent fades over time.

The pads should be handled carefully, to avoid contamination, and lineups should be conducted in clean rooms, without distracting smells. Human scent is best stored in glass jars at room temperature and out of direct light, Fulton said.

Handler reliability. Dogs can't talk, so handlers are their voice in the courtroom. Affidavits should be precise. Records should be detailed, showing errors and successes.

"As a dog handler, you'd better be acting as a scientist," Nicely said. "Otherwise, you're acting on myth and folklore."

Troubled cases

Michael Buchanek's federal lawsuit in January 2008 was the first complaint about Pikett's work, said Randy Morse, an assistant Fort Bend County attorney representing the deputy. A scent lineup and trail identified Buchanek as a suspect in the high-profile murder of Sally Blackwell.

Pikett's dogs, Quincy and James Bond, walked from the site where Blackwell's body was found, along Zac Lentz Parkway, to her home more than five miles away. From there, they went to Buchanek's house nearby.

The hounds also picked the former Victoria County sheriff's captain's scent in a series of lineups. The identifications were used to get a search warrant for Buchanek's home.

His lawyer, Rex Easley, represents Calvin Miller in another civil suit that names Pikett.

In one motion, Easley wrote Pikett's lineup was "so recklessly flawed that it violated the constitutional rights of the plaintiff. First, the dogs were leashed during the lineup, which fails to exclude handler input. Second, the site, the pads and the cans were contaminated with countless other scents so as to render it unreliable and impermissible to base a warrant upon."

Easley hired Bob Coote, who led a police-dog force in the United Kingdom and worked with scent dogs guarding the British border, to review Pikett's work in Buchanek's case. The lineup was "the most primitive evidential police procedure I have ever witnessed. If it was not for the fact that this is a serious matter, I could have been watching a comedy," Coote wrote.

In California, Michael Espalin spent two years in jail awaiting an arson trial. Firefighters saw Espalin walking his dog near a Riverside, Calif., landscape fire in 2004. Fire Capt. Robert Rappaport knew bloodhound handler and community college professor Lisa Harvey.

Harvey used a method similar to scent lineup and claimed her bloodhound, Dakota, connected a scent from a matchbook wrapped in toilet paper to a series of fires. Then, she linked the fire-starting device to Espalin's home.

Espalin was arrested, although another suspect - a reported firebug - fit witness descriptions. The other man's truck looked like one seen near several fires.

"She was all fired up about this," said attorney Joseph De Clue, who represents Espalin in a civil suit filed in federal court in California. "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. She looked at it as a new way of solving crimes."

A jury heard Harvey's testimony in January 2007 and deadlocked. Harvey did not testify in the second trial. Espalin was found not guilty.

Discredited handler

Dog handlers and criminal justice advocates draw parallels between current scent identification cases and the work of a man discredited more than 20 years ago.

John Preston's German shepherd, Harass II, gained a super-canine reputation for his work on high-profile, violent crimes. The team's techniques included scent lineups and trailing.

The Pennsylvania state trooper and his dog were called to investigations around the country in the early 1980s.

Florida authorities used Preston in scores of investigations, estimates Seth Miller, executive director of The Innocence Project of Florida. Preston's testimony was part of the evidence that convicted William Dillon of murder and Wilton Dedge of rape.

By the mid-1980s, the Kings County District Attorney in New York gathered a list of 14 dog handlers who said Preston's claims were "highly improbable." The Arizona Supreme Court called Preston a charlatan.

Dedge and Dillon were exonerated in recent years after each spent more than 20 years in prison. The state of Florida paid Dedge a $2 million settlement. Dillon has not been compensated for his 27-year prison stay, which is as long as any exonerated inmate's, Seth Miller said.

Preston has since died.

Agencies, including the FBI, continued to use scent identification even after Preston's work was debunked, former dog handler Nicely said.

Special Agent Ann Todd with the FBI office of public affairs responded to several requests for interviews with an e-mail.

"The FBI does not wish to participate in an interview at this time. The FBI Laboratory's Forensic Canine Program does not currently use dogs to do scent ID lineups," she wrote.

Handlers, too, resist the idea of regulation.

During a pretrial hearing, Harvey said no group would be qualified to evaluate her dogs.

Although Pikett works full time for a sheriff's office, supervisors have not set guidelines for his work, his lawyer said. No one else understands what he does.

"He would just be writing regulations toward himself," his lawyer, Morse, said.

Morse advised against allowing his client to comment for this article.

Legal standing

How does evidence few people understand, and no one monitors, make it into court?

Some prosecutors and investigators support scent identification because it can offer leads where there were none.

San Jacinto County District Attorney Bill Burnett used Pikett as an expert witness to prosecute three co-defendants in a murder case. One was convicted of murder, another of capital murder and the third was acquitted.

"I felt like this evidence was certainly credible," Burnett said. He grew up around hunting dogs and knows they can do incredible stuff, he said.

Big investigative agencies - the FBI, the Houston Police Department and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives - have used Pikett, Burnett said.

An outright ban on a type of evidence is rare, said Eric Ferrero, director of communications for The Innocence Project.

"It's the jobs of courts to police whatever evidence should be allowed into the courtroom," Ferrero said.

Getting binding appellate court decisions about evidence is often a difficult, inefficient process, said Blackburn of The Innocence Project of Texas.

"It takes a good lawyer who raises the issue correctly at trial," Blackburn said. Many public defenders are ill-equipped to mount meaningful criticisms of questionable evidence, he said.

Because it is unmonitored, seeing the full picture of scent ID, with all of its potential flaws, is difficult, Blackburn said.

"As far as we know, no one disallows it," Blackburn said. "That doesn't mean it's being used."

But in prosecutor-friendly states like Texas, California and Florida, he said, scent IDs can get into courtrooms unchecked.

Pikett was disqualified from testifying twice when held to standards for scientific forensic evidence.

"There is no way to adequately examine the theory behind a dog's identification of a suspect," Houston defense attorney Daphne L. Pattison wrote in a motion that successfully barred Pikett's testimony. "We have no way to interview the dog and determine what the dog is smelling, no way to examine the dog's biology to determine the mechanism employed, in short, no way to understand the science."

Pikett's credibility has been upheld by at least one Texas court of appeals. The decision relied on Pikett's testimony that his dogs were almost flawlessly accurate.

The court also noted Pikett's experience and education, including a master's degree in chemistry.

According to transcripts from a pre-trial hearing, Pikett twice told the court he earned the advanced degree.

In a deposition for the Buchanek case, Pikett said that wasn't his testimony. Instead, he has a master's in education from the United States Sports Academy.

The Rin Tin Tin factor

Heroic, loyal dogs lope through the American consciousness in folklore, television and books. Consequently, scent evidence can be compelling once it's in front of a jury, Blackburn said. Most people are raised to trust cops and dogs, former handler Nicely said, and people are reluctant to question those values.

"They don't want to step on the nose or the ears or the tails of Rin Tin Tin or Old Yeller," Nicely said.

The demand for Pikett's services remains, and he performs scent lineups daily in the parking lot of Pilgrim Journey Baptist Church in Rosenberg. Although his attorney, Morse, contends the lineups are legitimate, he said more suits could halt Pikett's work.

"If he becomes a target, I don't know if it's going to be worth it," Morse said.

Waiting for courts to flush bad science from the legal system is slow, Nicely said, so he wants a legislative solution. Detailed records of training and field work should be mandated, he said.

"We need to make it a criminal act to fail to do this," Nicely said.

The Scientific Working Group for Dog and Orthogonal Detection Guidelines is drafting scent lineup guidelines. The group will likely suggest an international board to oversee certifying agencies, chairman Furton said. The agencies would regularly vet dog and handler teams, he said.

Even with certification, Furton said, no criminal case should be built on scent lineups alone.

The lasting effects

Innocence Project volunteers could work for years, Blackburn said, and never find out how many people are wrongfully imprisoned based on what one man says his dogs smelled. The group learns of cases slowly, one at a time.

The Innocence Project of Florida is still searching for cases in which John Preston testified, more than 20 years after the fact, executive director Seth Miller said.

In South Texas, Calvin Miller is trying to pick up the life he had before his arrest.

Good news came to Miller slowly in jail. In April, his defense lawyer, Bill Caraway, called to say DNA evidence proved Miller was not the rapist. The case against Miller unraveled from there, but he was not released until May 5.

Caraway met Miller in the lobby of the Lavaca County Jail. Both men cried. They drank ice-cold, bucket-sized soft drinks in celebration.

But Miller's relief and joy have not tempered his outrage or his fear of police. He moved away from Yoakum, the town where he grew up, attended high school and lived most of his life. He visits his parents there, but never strays far from their houses.

"The place you call home, you can never go there," Miller said.

The crimes he was accused of remain unsolved.

Miller still can't understand how an innocent man can be so easily locked away.

"His question was, 'If I didn't do it, how could those dogs say I did it?'" his attorney Easley said. "And I told him dogs can't talk.""

The story can be found at:

http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2009/jul/12/lw_scentlineup_071209_56411/?counties

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;

THE BILL DILLON CASE: (9); WIKIPEDIA'S TAKE ON JOHN PRESTON - THE MAN WHO CLAIMED HE COULD TRACK DOG-SCENTS OVER WATER?

"SAM BARDWELL, A FORMER PROSECUTOR IN BREVARD IN THE 1980S WHO USED PRESTON AS A WITNESS IN A RAPE CASE, CLAIMS THAT "EVERYONE" KNEW THAT PRESTON WAS A "TOTAL FRAUD". KAREN BRANDON, WHO WORKED IN THE SAME OFFICE AT THE SAME TIME, DENIED THAT ANYONE KNEW THIS."

WIKIPEDIA;
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background: Bill Dillon, was 22 when he was sentenced to life in prison in 1981, for killing a man in Canova Beach on the eastern coast of the state. During the trial, Dillon was adamant that he had not committed the crime. But a man named John Preston testified in court that he and his scent-tracking German-Shepherd connected Dillon to the killer’s bloody t-shirt. Preston, who billed himself as a "scent-tracking expert", said his dog, “Harrass 2,” even tracked Dillon’s scent repeatedly in later tests. Nearly three decades later, in 2007, DNA testing proved that Dillon’s DNA did not match the DNA on the killer’s shirt. The dog was wrong. Just eight months ago, after 26 years behind bars, Bill Dillon walked out of prison a free man. Preston was exposed by a Florida judge in 1984, who became suspicious of Preston and set up his own test for Harrass 2. The dog failed terribly. CNN unearthed documents which demonstrated that Harrass 2 could not even follow a scent for one-hundred feet. The judge determined the dog could only track successfully when his handler had advance knowledge of the case. Preston and his four-legged so-called expert were discredited in 1987 - but according to CNN, "the state of Florida never reviewed cases on which he’d testified . And nobody ever told Bill Dillon – who sat in prison another 20 years before he ever knew a thing about it. It wasn’t until 2006 that he heard Preston was a fake." The Dillon case is now attracting massive media attention in response to the Florida’s Innocence Project's well publicized concerns that dozens of inmates around the country may have been wrongly convicted as a result of John Preston and his dog. The focus now shifts to Florida's response to the Innocence Project's call for an investigation of those cases. Meanwhile, CNN informs us that Preston, the dog’s handler, died last year. He was never charged with perjury or convicted of a crime."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"John Preston (? - 2008)[1] was a dog handler and former state trooper from Pennsylvania who testified for the prosecution in criminal cases across the country in the early 1980s, including dozens of times in Florida," the Wikipedia account begins;

Preston claimed that his dog (Harass II) could perform feats of forensic detection that are beyond the abilities of other investigative dogs, smelling human traces sometimes years after a suspect walked over the ground, even on heavily trafficked streets," it continues;

As an expert, Preston was paid $300 per day; in his previous job as a Pennsylvania state trooper, he was paid $20,000 per year. Brevard county, Florida, paid Preston $37,429 in the first half of 1984 alone.

Preston's testimony was repudiated by the Kings County District Attorney in New York and the Arizona Supreme Court, who called him a "charlatan". A U.S. Postal Service investigation in 1983 claimed Preston led Harass II to the results requested by investigators, which Preston requested before using the dog.

When tested by Judge Gilbert Goshorn during a 1984 trial in Brevard, Florida, Harass II failed to track a scent much simpler and fresher than those it supposedly tracked in other cases. Goshorn offered Preston another chance at the test the next day, but Preston left town instead. He did not return to Brevard to testify again.

Sam Bardwell, a former prosecutor in Brevard in the 1980s who used Preston as a witness in a rape case, claims that "everyone" knew that Preston was a "total fraud". Karen Brandon, who worked in the same office at the same time, denied that anyone knew this.

Effect and fallout
Preston helped convict at least two men who were eventually freed by DNA evidence.
Each spent more than twenty years in prison.

Gorshon, the judge whose test Preston and his dog failed, claimed in a 2008 affidavit:

It is my belief that the only way Preston could achieve the results he achieved in numerous other cases was having obtained information about the case prior to the scent tracking so that Preston could lead the dog to the suspect or evidence in question. I believe that Preston was regularly retained to confirm the state's preconceived notions about a case.

The Innocence Project of Florida believes that as many as 60 people may have been convicted based partially or solely upon Preston's testimony. Florida Today found 15 cases in which Preston testified. The Brevard/Seminole State Attorney claimed that it would not be possible to discover which cases Preston testified in. Later, he announced that he would "re-review" those cases, but that the cases had already been reviewed.

This Wikipedia account can be found at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Preston_(dog_handler)

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;

BILL DILLON CASE: (10) GERALDO RIVERA DEBUNKS JOHN PRESTON AND HIS MAGICAL DOG; SEE IT FOR YOURSELF;

"FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE"--THOSE ARE SERIOUS CHARGES. AND IN THE CASE OF PRESTON, PROVEN. BUT THE FALSE TRACKING AND TESTIMONY AREN'T NEWS NOW. GERALDO RIVERA EXPOSED THE CON JOB ON NATIONAL TV IN 1984. YET PRESTON REMAINED ONE OF BREVARD COUNTY'S STAR PROSECUTORIAL WITNESSES. THE INNOCENCE PROJECT OF FLORIDA, NOW WORKING ON THE CASE OF CONVICTED KILLER GARY BENNETT--ALSO NAILED IN LARGE PART BY PRESTON'S ANTICS--PROVIDED THIS CLIP OF RIVERA ON THE CASE."

PATRICIA PHILLIPS; OKLAHOMA CRIME EXAMINER;

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background: Bill Dillon, was 22 when he was sentenced to life in prison in 1981, for killing a man in Canova Beach on the eastern coast of the state. During the trial, Dillon was adamant that he had not committed the crime. But a man named John Preston testified in court that he and his scent-tracking German-Shepherd connected Dillon to the killer’s bloody t-shirt. Preston, who billed himself as a "scent-tracking expert", said his dog, “Harrass 2,” even tracked Dillon’s scent repeatedly in later tests. Nearly three decades later, in 2007, DNA testing proved that Dillon’s DNA did not match the DNA on the killer’s shirt. The dog was wrong. Just eight months ago, after 26 years behind bars, Bill Dillon walked out of prison a free man. Preston was exposed by a Florida judge in 1984, who became suspicious of Preston and set up his own test for Harrass 2. The dog failed terribly. CNN unearthed documents which demonstrated that Harrass 2 could not even follow a scent for one-hundred feet. The judge determined the dog could only track successfully when his handler had advance knowledge of the case. Preston and his four-legged so-called expert were discredited in 1987 - but according to CNN, "the state of Florida never reviewed cases on which he’d testified . And nobody ever told Bill Dillon – who sat in prison another 20 years before he ever knew a thing about it. It wasn’t until 2006 that he heard Preston was a fake." The Dillon case is now attracting massive media attention in response to the Florida’s Innocence Project's well publicized concerns that dozens of inmates around the country may have been wrongly convicted as a result of John Preston and his dog. The focus now shifts to Florida's response to the Innocence Project's call for an investigation of those cases. Meanwhile, CNN informs us that Preston, the dog’s handler, died last year. He was never charged with perjury or convicted of a crime."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Phillips is the author of a column which ran on June 27, 2009, under the heading: "K9 Con Man John Preston: the Geraldo Rivera debunking."

See it for yourself at:

http://www.examiner.com/x-6121-Oklahoma-Crime-Examiner~y2009m6d27-K9-Con-Man-John-Preston-the-Geraldo-Rivera-debunking?cid=exrss-Oklahoma-Crime-Examiner

"The situation in Brevard County, FL was so bad that one prosecutor resigned because he couldn't stand the lies any more," the column began.

"Nevertheless, officials continued to use discredited K9 handler John Preston as an expert in dozens of cases. Their reliance on Preston put innocent men on Death Row and wrecked multiple lives," it continued.

"It's taken more than 20 years for the entire sorry mess to literally explode. As a behind-the-scenes, unofficial expert, I'm appalled that after my research caught Preston lying on the stand, he remained a key resource for then-State Attorney Doug Chesire (now deceased).

To me, it was a perfect pairing of egos. I sat in the courtroom and watched Preston's testimony be taken apart.

Yet he remained the "go-to"guy for Cheshire and other officials. Not that Preston, like a traveling salesman, didn't travel the U.S. with Harass II, reeling out his long lead and making claims for the dog that simply were not physically possible for any tracking dog, no matter how talented and well-trained.

And Preston's dogs weren't well-trained. In an upcoming stories in this series, I'll tell you how his self-promotion was as factual and reliable as the evidence he produced for Cheshire and his crew.

In a recent editorial, the hometown newspaper, Florida Today, quoted a former prosecutor, Sam Bardwell, who resigned from the State Attorney's office because of the lies.

Titusville attorney and former Brevard prosecutor Sam Bardwell, who encountered Preston in a 1981 rape case, says then-State Attorney Doug Cheshire, also now dead, as well as the Brevard Sheriff’s Office and most law enforcement officers at the time knew Preston was a charlatan.

“I left the State Attorney’s Office because I could not abide by the fabrication of evidence,” Bardwell says.

."Fabrication of evidence"--those are serious charges. And in the case of Preston, proven. But the false tracking and testimony aren't news now.

Geraldo Rivera exposed the con job on national TV in 1984. Yet Preston remained one of Brevard County's star prosecutorial witnesses.

The Innocence Project of Florida, now working on the case of convicted killer Gary Bennett--also nailed in large part by Preston's antics--provided this clip of Rivera on the case."

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;

BILL DILLON CASE (7); FLORIDA TODAY'S ON-GOING INVESTIGATION; l OTHER POSSIBLY TAINTED CASES INVOLVING JOHN PRESTON AND HIS MAGIC DOG;

"IN AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION, FLORIDA TODAY IS STUDYING DOCUMENTS, NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS AND MICROFILM TO LEARN ABOUT THE CASES IN WHICH JOHN PRESTON WAS INVOLVED."

FLORIDA TODAY;

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background: Bill Dillon, was 22 when he was sentenced to life in prison in 1981, for killing a man in Canova Beach on the eastern coast of the state. During the trial, Dillon was adamant that he had not committed the crime. But a man named John Preston testified in court that he and his scent-tracking German-Shepherd connected Dillon to the killer’s bloody t-shirt. Preston, who billed himself as a "scent-tracking expert", said his dog, “Harrass 2,” even tracked Dillon’s scent repeatedly in later tests. Nearly three decades later, in 2007, DNA testing proved that Dillon’s DNA did not match the DNA on the killer’s shirt. The dog was wrong. Just eight months ago, after 26 years behind bars, Bill Dillon walked out of prison a free man. Preston was exposed by a Florida judge in 1984, who became suspicious of Preston and set up his own test for Harrass 2. The dog failed terribly. CNN unearthed documents which demonstrated that Harrass 2 could not even follow a scent for one-hundred feet. The judge determined the dog could only track successfully when his handler had advance knowledge of the case. Preston and his four-legged so-called expert were discredited in 1987 - but according to CNN, "the state of Florida never reviewed cases on which he’d testified . And nobody ever told Bill Dillon – who sat in prison another 20 years before he ever knew a thing about it. It wasn’t until 2006 that he heard Preston was a fake." The Dillon case is now attracting massive media attention in response to the Florida’s Innocence Project's well publicized concerns that dozens of inmates around the country may have been wrongly convicted as a result of John Preston and his dog. The focus now shifts to Florida's response to the Innocence Project's call for an investigation of those cases. Meanwhile, CNN informs us that Preston, the dog’s handler, died last year. He was never charged with perjury or convicted of a crime."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0: Gary Bennett, sentenced to life in prison in for the 1983 murder of a woman neighbor in Palm Bay.

0: Frank Berry, sentenced to 124 years in prison for raping a Merritt Island woman in 1981.

0: Scott Carroll, a serial rapist suspected in numerous Brevard County cases, tried and convicted in New York where he remains in prison.

0: Wilton Dedge, exonerated and released in 2004 after spending 22 years in prison for a 1981 rape that DNA evidence showed he didn't commit.

0: William Dillon, charges dropped last year after DNA evidence excluded him from being connected to a key piece of evidence. Dillon spent 27 years in prison for a 1981 murder.

O: Gary Dirk, sentenced to life in prison for burglary and rape in 1985.

0: James Elmen, 17 years old when a jury acquitted him of burglary and murder charges in 1984.

0: Mark Wayne Jones, serving double life sentences for the murders of two Titusville women to whom he had given a ride in 1981.

0: Elton Kimbrough and Kenneth Michael Burch, murder charges dropped, sentenced to 10 years on burglary charges, in the robbery and death of an 89-year-old Titusville woman. All charges were dropped against two other men.

0: Juan Ramos, found not guilty during a second trial in 1987 after being sentenced to death for rape and murder of a neighbor in 1982.

0: Willie Jessie Snipes, paroled in 1986 after serving four years for manslaughter that occurred during a robbery in 1981.

0: Gerald Stano, a serial killer who confessed to 41 murders. He was convicted in Brevard County for the murder of 17-year-old Cathy Lee Scharf in 1983 and executed.

0: Christopher Wilder, a serial killer who was killed during a struggle with Massachusetts police in 1984. He was accused of murdering a Satellite Beach resident earlier that year.

0: Eugene Wiley, served 11 years for second-degree murder in the death of a Saudi Arabian exchange student in an alleged drug deal.

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;

BILL DILLON CASE; (5); J.D. TUCCILLE; A FORENSIC SCIENCE PERSPECTIVE;

"A REPORT ON THE STATE OF FORENSIC MEDICINE FOR THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF SCIENCE CONCEDES THAT "THE FACT IS THAT MANY FORENSIC TESTS -- SUCH AS THOSE USED TO INFER THE SOURCE OF TOOLMARKS OR BITE MARKS -- HAVE NEVER BEEN EXPOSED TO STRINGENT SCIENTIFIC SCRUTINY." OVERALL, SAYS THE REPORT: [I]N SOME CASES, SUBSTANTIVE INFORMATION AND TESTIMONY BASED ON FAULTY FORENSIC SCIENCE ANALYSES MAY HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE. THIS FACT HAS DEMONSTRATED THE POTENTIAL DANGER OF GIVING UNDUE WEIGHT TO EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY DERIVED FROM IMPERFECT TESTING AND ANALYSIS. MOREOVER, IMPRECISE OR EXAGGERATED EXPERT TESTIMONY HAS SOMETIMES CONTRIBUTED TO THE ADMISSION OF ERRONEOUS OR MISLEADING EVIDENCE."

J.D. TUCCILLE; CIVIL LIBERTIES EXAMINER;

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background: Bill Dillon, was 22 when he was sentenced to life in prison in 1981, for killing a man in Canova Beach on the eastern coast of the state. During the trial, Dillon was adamant that he had not committed the crime. But a man named John Preston testified in court that he and his scent-tracking German-Shepherd connected Dillon to the killer’s bloody t-shirt. Preston, who billed himself as a "scent-tracking expert", said his dog, “Harrass 2,” even tracked Dillon’s scent repeatedly in later tests. Nearly three decades later, in 2007, DNA testing proved that Dillon’s DNA did not match the DNA on the killer’s shirt. The dog was wrong. Just eight months ago, after 26 years behind bars, Bill Dillon walked out of prison a free man. Preston was exposed by a Florida judge in 1984, who became suspicious of Preston and set up his own test for Harrass 2. The dog failed terribly. CNN unearthed documents which demonstrated that Harrass 2 could not even follow a scent for one-hundred feet. The judge determined the dog could only track successfully when his handler had advance knowledge of the case. Preston and his four-legged so-called expert were discredited in 1987 - but according to CNN, "the state of Florida never reviewed cases on which he’d testified . And nobody ever told Bill Dillon – who sat in prison another 20 years before he ever knew a thing about it. It wasn’t until 2006 that he heard Preston was a fake." The Dillon case is now attracting massive media attention in response to the Florida’s Innocence Project's well publicized concerns that dozens of inmates around the country may have been wrongly convicted as a result of John Preston and his dog. The focus now shifts to Florida's response to the Innocence Project's call for an investigation of those cases. Meanwhile, CNN informs us that Preston, the dog’s handler, died last year. He was never charged with perjury or convicted of a crime."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

J.D. Tuccille's perceptive column on the Dillon case ran on June 15, 2009, on Examiner.com under the heading, "Prosecution dog put innocent people behind bars (and other bogus 'evidence' does the same)" - and the sub-heading "Police detection dogs can be helpful -- but they're at least as fallible as any other tool or technology."

Tuccille describes himself "a writer and editor based in northern Arizona" who can best be described as "a political junkie with a radical-libertarian bent."

"William Dillon spent 27 years behind bars for a crime he didn't commit," the column begins;

"Wilton Dedge spent a similar stretch behind bars before finally being exonerated," it continues;

"Juan Ramos was sentenced to death before being freed from prison over a crime he didn't commit. The three men are linked not just by their innocence, but by the role played in their cases by dog handler John Preston, a one-time Pennsylvania state trooper, and his amazingly talented dog, Harass II. Preston was only one of many "scientific" experts later exposed as a fraud, some of whose victims may still wait to be revealed.

Scott Maxwell of the Orlando Sentinel has the details regarding Preston and the wreckage he left behind. But the fact that Preston and his "wonder dog" were so relied upon by prosecutors and courts until exposed in the media and humiliated by one judge demonstrates just how much suspension of disbelief (or outright dishonesty) is behind the acceptance of "forensic science" that too often turns out to be either poorly applied -- or even pure hocum.

Reason magazine's Radley Balko has made justified waves in recent years by exposing the nonsense disguised as medicine peddled by Dr. Michael West, a dentist who offered scientifically implausible evidence of guilt (in several cases, of defendants later proven innocent), based on his exclusive bite-mark "technique."

Balko was also largely responsible for (hopefully) ending the career of the notorious Dr. Steven Hayne, a medical examiner without credentials who seemed to customize his testimony to meet the needs of prosecutors.

But it's not just corrupt individuals who deserve skepticial consideration -- so do whole areas of forensic "science." Drug testing, for instance, is a highly subjective "science" that has a lot to do with the skill -- and honesty -- of technicians. It's not at all uncommon for ordinary soap to test positive for illegal intoxicants.

A report on the state of forensic medicine for the National Academies of Science concedes that "The fact is that many forensic tests -- such as those used to infer the source of toolmarks or bite marks -- have never been exposed to stringent scientific scrutiny."

Overall, says the report:

[I]n some cases, substantive information and testimony based on faulty forensic science analyses may have contributed to wrongful convictions of innocent people. This fact has demonstrated the potential danger of giving undue weight to evidence and testimony derived from imperfect testing and analysis. Moreover, imprecise or exaggerated expert testimony has sometimes contributed to the admission of erroneous or misleading evidence.

"Faulty" science has to include the evidence of dogs, which have become so ubiquitous in recent years because of their supposed ability to connect defendants to crime scenes, or to simply detect forbidden substances.

But, despite the legendary power of their noses, canine-based evidence has to be taken with a grain of salt. For starters, dogs' "testimony" is highly dependent on the word of their handlers. In fact, there's no standard way for a dog to tell us that something has been detected. Some dogs just sit, others jump up and bark -- interpretation is in the eye of the handler.

Dogs, also, are notoriously easy to manipulate, since they develop close bonds with their handlers. For a 2004 report on the unreliability of detection dogs, Auburn University professor Larry Myers, a leading expert on canine detection programs, told CBS News, “They can tell you that something's there, that's not there, simply to get praise, to get food, to get whatever they're working for.”

Through improperly training his dogs, or simply lying about their alerts, it was easy for John Preston to manufacture evidence of the guilt of innocent men.

But fallibility can be as dangerous as fraud. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled in 2007 that canine testimony was acceptable in a case where the dog was only 54% accurate.

How many years of prison time are we willing to let ride on a 54% accuracy rate?

None of this is to say that forensic science is worthless. Properly used and understood it's absolutely necessary. After all, William Dillon and Wilton Dedge were freed of the shackles placed on them by bogus canine testimony because of the more rigorous standards set by DNA evidence.

But presenting fallible and sometimes fraudulent evidence as if it's beyond question runs the risk of discrediting good science along with the bad. The damage done by the John Prestons of the world can only be undone if we treat science as an imperfect part of an imperfect world -- not as the magic so-often peddled by charlatans."

The column can be found at:

http://www.examiner.com/x-536-Civil-Liberties-Examiner~y2009m6d15-Prosecution-dog-put-innocent-people-behind-bars-and-other-bogus-evidence-does-the-same

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;

BILL DILLON CASE: (4); FLORIDA INNOCENCE PROJECT'S PROFILE OF THE CASE - ANATOMY OF A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE WITH BRUTAL RESULTS;

"PRESTON, A PURPORTED EXPERT IN SCENT TRACKING HIRED BY THE STATE, TESTIFIED THAT HIS DOG, HARASS II, HAD, PRIOR TO TRIAL, LINKED DILLON TO THE CRIME SCENE AND THE YELLOW T-SHIRT. PRESTON’S CLAIMS HAVE BEEN THOROUGHLY DISCREDITED BY EXPERTS IN THE FIELD OF SCENT TRACKING, MEDIA REPORTS (INCLUDING AN EXPOSE ON THE TV SHOW 20/20), MULTIPLE STATE SUPREME COURTS (INCLUDING THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT, WHICH CALLED HIM A “CHARLATAN”), POLICE TRAINING MANUALS, AND LAW REVIEW ARTICLES. AND IN 1984, WHEN HE WAS A CAPITAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY, CURRENT BREVARD COUNTY STATE ATTORNEY NORMAN WOLFINGER, SAID, “I WOULDN’T WANT MY LIFE TO DEPEND ON WHAT [PRESTON’S] DOG SAYS.”"

FLORIDA INNOCENCE PROJECT;

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background: Bill Dillon, was 22 when he was sentenced to life in prison in 1981, for killing a man in Canova Beach on the eastern coast of the state. During the trial, Dillon was adamant that he had not committed the crime. But a man named John Preston testified in court that he and his scent-tracking German-Shepherd connected Dillon to the killer’s bloody t-shirt. Preston, who billed himself as a "scent-tracking expert", said his dog, “Harrass 2,” even tracked Dillon’s scent repeatedly in later tests. Nearly three decades later, in 2007, DNA testing proved that Dillon’s DNA did not match the DNA on the killer’s shirt. The dog was wrong. Just eight months ago, after 26 years behind bars, Bill Dillon walked out of prison a free man. Preston was exposed by a Florida judge in 1984, who became suspicious of Preston and set up his own test for Harrass 2. The dog failed terribly. CNN unearthed documents which demonstrated that Harrass 2 could not even follow a scent for one-hundred feet. The judge determined the dog could only track successfully when his handler had advance knowledge of the case. Preston and his four-legged so-called expert were discredited in 1987 - but according to CNN, "the state of Florida never reviewed cases on which he’d testified . And nobody ever told Bill Dillon – who sat in prison another 20 years before he ever knew a thing about it. It wasn’t until 2006 that he heard Preston was a fake." The Dillon case is now attracting massive media attention in response to the Florida’s Innocence Project's well publicized concerns that dozens of inmates around the country may have been wrongly convicted as a result of John Preston and his dog. The focus now shifts to Florida's response to the Innocence Project's call for an investigation of those cases. Meanwhile, CNN informs us that Preston, the dog’s handler, died last year. He was never charged with perjury or convicted of a crime."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"On November 18, 2008, William Dillon was freed from prison after 27 years when postconviction DNA testing demonstrated his actual innocence of a 1981 murder<" the Innocence Project's account begins.

"Dillon’s 27 years equals the longest time served by any of the 232 DNA exonorees nationwide. He is the third man to be exonerated in Brevard County in recent years," the account continues;

"The Crime
On the morning of August 17, 1981, James Dvorak was found murdered at Canova Beach. He had been brutally beaten to death and left in a wooded area, an apparent homosexual meeting place near the beach.

Dillon became a suspect because several days after the murder, while hanging out at Canova Beach, he was approached by police who were questioning people about the crime. Dillon had read about the murder in the newspaper and had seen the yellow police tape in a wooded area near the beach. He told police that he assumed the taped area was where the crime occurred. Perhaps because they had no other suspects, police inferred from this that Dillon had further information about the crime and subsequently brought him in for questioning. After several days and multiple interrogations, police arrested Dillon.

The Trial
The State’s case was based largely on the testimony of four key witnesses—an admitted perjurer, a fraudulent dog scent expert, a snitch whose charges were dropped in return for his testimony, and a half-blind eyewitness—as well as a t-shirt worn by the killer, which now reveals that Dillon was not the murderer.

(1) Donna Parrish: Parrish, Dillon’s sometime sexual partner, was the only witness to testify that she saw Dillon at the crime scene. However, she did not witness the murder itself. She gave inconsistent statements to police throughout the investigation and gave implausible, confused testimony at trial, which seemed to suggest that she had stumbled upon the already-dead body independent of Dillon, told no one, and later followed him back to the body. She also claimed that on the night in question, Dillon was wearing the yellow t-shirt.

Less than a month after trial, Parrish recanted her trial testimony in its entirety, under oath, stating that she had been pressured by the Sheriff’s Office and the State Attorney’s Office and threatened with 25 years in prison. In particular, she said that she had lied about following Dillon to the body and had lied when she said that he had worn or even owned the yellow t-shirt. In fact, she said that she and Dillon had spent the night in question at a motel room with acquaintances, and her entire trial testimony regarding their whereabouts was a fabrication. Furthermore, Florida Today newspaper reported that, during the investigation, Parrish and the lead investigator, Sgt. Charles Slaughter, had a sexual liaison. Slaughter was suspended and eventually resigned as a result.

(2) John Preston: Preston, a purported expert in scent tracking hired by the State, testified that his dog, Harass II, had, prior to trial, linked Dillon to the crime scene and the yellow t-shirt. Preston’s claims have been thoroughly discredited by experts in the field of scent tracking, media reports (including an expose on the tv show 20/20), multiple state supreme courts (including the Arizona Supreme Court, which called him a “charlatan”), police training manuals, and law review articles. And in 1984, when he was a capital defense attorney, current Brevard County State Attorney Norman Wolfinger, said, “I wouldn’t want my life to depend on what [Preston’s] dog says.”

(3) Roger Dale Chapman: Chapman’s testimony was suspect from the outset. He said that Dillon confessed to the murder and reenacted it in the middle of the jail dining hall. Despite the presence of other inmates, however, there were no other witnesses to this alleged confession. Furthermore, Chapman’s report of the confession included numerous details that were at odds with the facts of the case. For example, Chapman said that Dillon had told him that the crime occurred on a beach miles away from the beach where it actually occurred, Canova Beach.

After Chapman agreed to testify against Dillon, the State dropped pending charges against him for the rape of a sixteen-year-old girl.

(4) John Parker: Parker testified that on the night of the murder, he picked up a sweaty, bloody man hitchhiking near the scene of the crime and the two had oral sex. The man, who called himself “Jim,” left behind a bloody yellow t-shirt that Parker later turned over to police. At trial, Parker identified that man as Dillon.

There has always been ample reason to doubt Parker’s identification. He was legally blind in one eye and his description of the assailant differed markedly from Dillon’s actual characteristics. Furthermore, at trial, Parker conceded that he wasn’t sure that Dillon was, in fact, the man he picked up.

(5) The Yellow T-shirt: At trial, the State’s theory was clear: the killer wore the yellow t-shirt during the crime and later left it in Parker’s truck. The State referenced the t-shirt dozens of times throughout trial. By repeatedly linking the t-shirt to the crime scene and Dillon to the t-shirt, the State was able to link Dillon to the crime scene. For example, Parker testified that he picked up the hitchhiker with the t-shirt near the scene of the crime and Parrish testified that Dillon was wearing the t-shirt on the evening of the murder. In addition, through a convoluted series of scent lineups and scent detections, Preston’s dog was able to link Dillon to the t-shirt and to the crime scene.

Postconviction
DNA evidence that demonstrates Dillon’s innocence came as a result of a 2007 motion filed by Dillon’s attorneys, Mike Pirolo and the Innocence Project of Florida. DNA testing revealed that DNA from sweat on the bloody yellow t-shirt (the State’s key piece of evidence at trial) did not come from Dillon; it came from person(s) unknown. This confirmed what Dillon had said all along — that someone other than Dillon committed the murder.

On November 14, 2008, Dillon’s conviction was vacated. He was released on November 18, 2008, when the court granted him bond and he walked out of the Brevard County Jail with his family and his legal team. The State declined to re-try Dillon and filed a Nolle Prosequi with the court on December 10, 2008. Dillon spent over 27 years in prison for a crime he did not commit."

The specifics:

Jurisdiction: Eighteenth Circuit County: Brevard

Charge: First-Degree Felony Murder

Conviction: First-Degree Felony Murder

Sentence: Life

Year of Conviction: 1981

Exoneration Date: 12/10/08

Sentence Served: 27 Years

Real perpetrator found? Not Yet

Contributing Causes: Eyewitness Misidentification, Informant/Snitch, Unreliable/Limited Science, Perjured Witness Testimony, Manufactured Evidence

Compensation? Not Yet

This account can be found at:

http://floridainnocence.org/content/?page_id=49

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;

BILL DILLON CASE (1); FREED AFTER SERVING 27 YEARS; CONVICTION BASED ON "INFALLIBLE SCENT-TRACKING DOG"; DOZENS WRONGLY CONVICTED ON SAME EVIDENCE?

"PRESTON AND HIS FOUR-LEGGED SO-CALLED EXPERT WERE DISCREDITED IN 1987. BUT THE STATE OF FLORIDA NEVER REVIEWED CASES ON WHICH HE’D TESTIFIED . AND NOBODY EVER TOLD BILL DILLON – WHO SAT IN PRISON ANOTHER 20 YEARS BEFORE HE EVER KNEW A THING ABOUT IT. IT WASN’T UNTIL 2006 THAT HE HEARD PRESTON WAS A FAKE."

REPORTER RANDI KAYE; CNN: AC360;
PHOTO: BILL DILLON ON HIS RELEASE FROM PRISON;

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background: Bill Dillon, was 22 when he was sentenced to life in prison in 1981, for killing a man in Canova Beach on the eastern coast of the state. During the trial, Dillon was adamant that he had not committed the crime. But a man named John Preston testified in court that he and his scent-tracking German-Shepherd connected Dillon to the killer’s bloody t-shirt. Preston, who billed himself as a "scent-tracking expert", said his dog, “Harrass 2,” even tracked Dillon’s scent repeatedly in later tests. Nearly three decades later, in 2007, DNA testing proved that Dillon’s DNA did not match the DNA on the killer’s shirt. The dog was wrong. Just eight months ago, after 26 years behind bars, Bill Dillon walked out of prison a free man. Preston was exposed by a Florida judge in 1984, who became suspicious of Preston and set up his own test for Harrass 2. The dog failed terribly. CNN unearthed documents which demonstrated that Harrass 2 could not even follow a scent for one-hundred feet. The judge determined the dog could only track successfully when his handler had advance knowledge of the case. Preston and his four-legged so-called expert were discredited in 1987 - but according to CNN, "the state of Florida never reviewed cases on which he’d testified . And nobody ever told Bill Dillon – who sat in prison another 20 years before he ever knew a thing about it. It wasn’t until 2006 that he heard Preston was a fake." The Dillon case is now attracting massive media attention in response to the Florida’s Innocence Project's well publicized concerns that dozens of inmates around the country may have been wrongly convicted as a result of John Preston and his dog. The focus now shifts to Florida's response to the Innocence Project's call for an investigation of those cases. Meanwhile, CNN informs us that Preston, the dog’s handler, died last year. He was never charged with perjury or convicted of a crime."

See the CNN video here:
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2009/07/30/fake-scent-tracking-dog-sends-man-to-prison-for-life/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Bill Dillon story - subject of a CNN expose - was recently told by reporter Randi Kaye, a correspondent for AC360

A cut-line for the story indicates that "Dillon was sentenced to life in prison in 1981, at the age of 22."

"A Florida man who was convicted of murder in part because of the work of an allegedly infallible scent-tracking dog, is free now, because the dog and the dog’s owner has been exposed as a fraud," the story begins;

"Unfortunately for Bill Dillon he had to spend 26 years in prison before the error in his case was rectified," it continues;

"Bill Dillon, was 22 when he was sentenced to life in prison in 1981, for killing a man in Canova Beach on the eastern coast of the state.

During the trial, Dillon was adamant that he had not committed the crime. But a man named John Preston testified in court that he and his scent-tracking German-Shepherd connected Dillon to the killer’s bloody t-shirt. Preston said his dog, “Harrass 2,” even tracked Dillon’s scent repeatedly in later tests.

Dillon expected to remain in prison for the rest of his life – all because of “Harrass 2,” and his handler, Preston, who billed himself around the country as a so-called scent -tracking expert.

But nearly three decades later, in 2007, DNA testing proved that Dillon’s DNA did not match the DNA on the killer’s shirt. The dog was wrong. Just eight months ago, after 26 years behind bars, Bill Dillon walked out of prison a free man.

“Supposedly the dog got my scent three times,” Dillon told CNN, “and I never saw freedom again.” Dillon also said he remembers the dog’s “huge” head from the trial and that he looked like a “bear.”

In 1981, DNA testing wasn’t used in criminal investigations so authorities relied simply on the presumed legendary nose of Preston’s German Shepherd. Preston testified that his dog had tracked Dillon’s scent to a piece of paper he had touched, and had even tracked Dillon to a room he was in at the courthouse.

Preston and his dog had a track-record – he had convinced juries more than a hundred times of his dog’s miraculous talents. In Dillon’s case, Preston even told the court his dog had the ability to track a scent under water; to actually smell below the water. CNN consulted tracking dog experts in Florida about this. They told us “no way, that’s not possible.”

In 1984, before Preston was exposed as a fraud, he told ABC News that he believed he was never wrong. Tim McGuire, a dog-tracking expert with Florida’s Volusia County Sheriff’s Department, said it was implausible that a dog could have picked up Dillon’s scent back in 1981 eight days after the murder, and just after a massive hurricane had blown through the area.

McGuire viewed videotapes of Preston’s dog, Harrass 2, at work. In the tapes, there are multiple times when the dog urinates on evidence. “The dog should work methodically.” But McGuire said he did not consider what Harrass 2 was doing, “work.”

Preston was exposed by a Florida judge in 1984, who became suspicious of Preston and set up his own test for Harrass 2. The dog failed terribly.

Documents obtained by CNN show he could not even follow a scent for one-hundred feet. The judge determined the dog could only track successfully when his handler had advance knowledge of the case.

Dillon thinks Preston and his scent-tracking dog were part of a larger conspiracy.
“Preston could lead the dog to the suspect or the evidence,” alleges Dillon, but “any cases that were weak, not good enough to go to the jury, they [the prosecution] fed Preston information, paid him good money to come and lie.”
Florida’s Attorney General told CNN it is not aware of any evidence of a conspiracy involving John Preston and his dog.

Preston and his four-legged so-called expert were discredited in 1987. But the state of Florida never reviewed cases on which he’d testified . And nobody ever told Bill Dillon – who sat in prison another 20 years before he ever knew a thing about it. It wasn’t until 2006 that he heard Preston was a fake.

Florida’s Innocence Project believes dozens of inmates around the country may have been wrongly convicted as a result of John Preston and his dog. It is calling for an investigation of those cases. Meanwhile, Preston, the dog’s handler, died last year. He was never charged with perjury or convicted of a crime.ILL"

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;