|
Case info sheet for Francis Harris
Mn name is Francis "Frankie" Harris and I am on death row for a crime I could not have committed. I am looking for support in the form of penpals, forensic experts, research aid, legal advice, internet search help, and anyone that can help me to sell my artwork to pay for and help fund my DNA testing. These are some of the reasons why I need so much help in my case. Please read and take the time to write if you can. As time is such an important factor in my life. I do not want to die for something I did not do!
1.
The original fight that the case was built on was a lie. The victim was
never stomped in the manner the state says by Frankie. What's more
important is there are now witnesses coming forward to identify another
man that was guilty party to the "aggravated" part of the
fight. 2.
There was a $5,000 cash reward that was offered to one or two of the
witnesses to testify, one had to change his story completely from the
statement he gave on the night of the fight, to one that fit the states
version. He did so only after the reward was posted, some four months
later, and after he may have been visited by the victim who was planning
to sue for a large amount of money. If he got Frankie convicted, this
information would be discovered during the murder investigation. The
cash pay off Information is still not turned over to the defense. 3.
At an appeal hearing the states best witness even said that the victim
came up behind Frankie and grabbed him, it was then Frankie turned
around and punched him in self defense, but never was engaged in the
required "stomping" of an unconscious victim needed to support
the aggravated assault. 4.
The main witness for the state, a scorned woman named Maxine Snook,
never gave a statement to police until she herself was put in handcuffs
some 4 months later and taken to the police station to be charged. It
was then she decided to trade her statements against Frankie for her
freedom. It was discovered that she also has done this to several of her
"ex-sex" partners before. 5.
The court appointed defense did no testing of any forensic evidence used
in Frankie's trial. Evidence he has been trying to get tested for years
now. 6.
The DNA evidence is suspect since the first time it was tested it came
back inconclusive it then was tested a few months later when "new
stains" were identified! These new stains are suspect and Frankie
wants them tested, especially since the state forensic examiner did not
even see these stains. 7.
The hairs found were never DNA tested. Frankie wants this tested as he
believes that are not the victims hairs. 8.
The blood splatter evidence does not support the theory offered at
trial. In fact the crime scène was so corrupted since no less than six
people trampled thru that blood evidence before any photo was taken to
be analyzed. In fact the car in the photo was towed to a different
location first and then photographed, making the blood stains unusable. 9.
Not one witness (except the co-defendant trying to save her own skin)
ever placed Frankie at the scene or the truck he was driving that night.
In fact, a video surveillance tape taken from a turkey hill store that
the states witness said Frankie allegedly stopped in the night of the
murder does not have him on it. 10. Not a single fingerprint was found at the scene belonging to Frankie. The state never produced any gloves to show why. Frankie also believes there is an earlier given statement from the witness for the state placing Frankie inside the victims vehicle prior to the murder, yet the police did not recover any of his prints. 12.
Letters where co-defendant describes the color of victims shirt and type
of neck wound before any discovery was filed was kept from the defense.
But was used against her in her trial to show she was a liar. These are
details only a person close enough to kill the victim should have know.
Yet her own testimony claims that she was never that close, so how did
she know these details? 13.
Even though this was described to be a viscous and very bloody attack.
The cloths allegedly worn by the attacker have virtually no blood on
them. There was a swipe, that the state said appeared to be from the
wiping off of the knife on the shirt. And only after they could not get
a DNA result from that swipe, did a few new stains APPEAR. These were in
the form of a 4 pinpoint drops, There is no other blood on a shirt that
should have been covered in blood. The shots allegedly worn only has a
faint trace that could only be determined to be human blood since the
spot was so small. This from a pair of shoes that would have been
'sloshing' thru a lake of blood in a messy attack. 15.
The co-defendant did not implicate Frankie in this crime, until after
the police told her two lies. One that he was having affairs with women,
and two that he was blaming her for this crime. This was never told to
his jury but the DA used that same fact against her in her trial. 16.
The jury in Frankie's trial was told the co-defendant was not threatened
in any way or made any special promises in exchange for her testimony.
They were told she was facing 40-80 years in prison. But at her appeals
the truth came out, that she was threatened with the death penalty, that
they used her kids to coerce her. They used lies, intimidation, even
drugged her in prison to break down her will. She was threatened with a
witness intimidation charge because of a letter written to her own
sister on her behalf. She was told she would get a 2-10 year sentence
early on by police. Her own lawyers told her she would be acquitted of
the charge. But Frankie would never hear any of that. 17.
The co-defendants own letters written while she was in jail, implicate
the police and DA, as being involved in misconduct, coercion, and
inappropriate sexual advances towards her. The letters also show how she
was manipulated by them throughout the entire process to testify the way
they needed her to do. Address: Frank
Harris #DL-0556 E-mail: faa.cue@hotmail.com Websites:
|
