THE BLOODY FOOTPRINT DEFENSE
When investigators worked the crime scene, they found a bloody footprint. It was
documented in writing (in a 3-page, "front page" crime scene report).
A photograph was taken, and an actual "lift" of the print was made, and studied, and
reported on by Forensics.
When the prosecution referred to the footprint in cross-examination of their so-called
crime scene expert (an ex-cop with a high school degree and a silly grin), Sherman
Powell jumped to his feet to object. Sherman Powell claimed the bloody footprint had
been withheld from them by police and prosecutors. I believe his exact words were,
"WE'VE NEVER HEARD OF IT!" Judge Glenn Thompson angrily sustained the
objection, and prohibited the State's use of the footprint as evidence in the trial.
Once the sentencing was done, the defense lawyers filed motions for acquittal and/or
retrial and gave a list of reasons, including the bloody footprint. However, in the
document they filed with Thompson, they listed the documents they acknowledged they
had received from the State of Alabama, and the list INCLUDED THIS VERY
Incredibly, in the very same document they admitted having the report, they again
claimed this bloody footprint evidence was withheld from them, and asked for
retrial, which the judge awarded, without citing any specific reason; that is,which piece
of alleged evidence justified a new trial.
In his ruling, Thompson specifically complained about evidence made available "only in
the middle of the trial." To my knowledge, the bloody footprint is the only piece of
evidence "released" to them in the middle of the trial. So I believe the low-functioning
judge unwittingly put his specific stamp of approval on this claim... He didn't mean to;
he tried to avoid associating himself with any of the stupid claims... but I believe he has
inadvertently told the world he believed this bloody footprint thing.
And so this claim by defense lawyers that "evidence was withheld" from them (and the
jury) was given credibility by the judge TWICE; the first time in court to PREVENT the
State from using the evidence at all in court... and then he gave the same accusation
credibility even after they admitted in writing they'd had the very document at issue 16
months prior to trial.
This is a polite way of saying the defense team blatantly lied in court, were rewarded by
the judge, and then they admitted they were lying and made the same lie again...
And the judge said, "duhhhh.... OK"
I recognize it is a strong claim that two lawyers and a judge could be so unethical. But I
wouldn't even bother to make the claim if I didn't also think they are so STUPID that
they haven't even bothered to cover themselves.
If you're going to lie for a living, you're gonna' have to be smart. (Unless, apparently,
you're a lawyer in Alabama.)
And although Catherine Halbrooks is a lot of things, I've not heard anyone yet accuse
her of being SMART. It's not a word I've ever heard in connection with the judge,
either. They've got a real problem, it seems, with smart people, because they make
them look even dumber than they can on their own--albeit not by much.
And as for credibility of NEW WITNESSES...
Your Honor, I've sat at a table before with three men that all KNEW they were Jesus
Christ. They were really angry with each other, incidentally, and accusing the other two
of being evil imposters...
If Sherman Powell puts a schizophrenic on the stand that will testify he is Jesus, and
that he KNOWS DWM is innocent... will you just let DWM go, or will you have to
change churches, too?