Thursday, February 12, 2009

 

Another Extension to the Paul House Case

Paul House’s retrial has been extended once again. Now, the House case is set for June 1, 2009, almost a year after he was released from prison on bail. Thanks to an anonymous donor, House was released but has been on house arrest since that time.

Paul House was convicted of the 1985 murder of Carolyn Muncey. In 2007 DNA evidence brought to question House’s participation in the tragic killing. The trial was set for last October, then reset to March 3o and now the defense has requested a continuance in order for them to perform further DNA tests on the evidence including: fingernail clippings, a cigarette butt, and a pair of jeans. This evidence has been in the hands of prosecution for years and now the defense is taking the next 45 days to test and evaluate the evidence in order to rule out all past suspects in the crime, as well as, Paul.

TCASK has worked closely with Paul and his family over the past few years as they continue to struggle to secure his innocence and freedom. We are hopeful that this further testing brings good news for Paul House but recognize that the court ruled for a timely retrial in 2007 and the preparation process is continually lengthening the resolution to this crime.

Knoxville WBIR.com's Story on the extension: Click Here
Comments :
"This is not a case of conclusive exoneration. Some aspects of the State’s evidence—Lora Muncey’s memory of a deep voice, House’s bizarre evening walk, his lie to law enforcement, his appearance near the body, and the blood on his pants—still support an inference of guilt. Yet the central forensic proof connecting House to the crime—the blood and the semen—has been called into question, and House has put forward substantial evidence pointing to a different suspect. Accordingly, and although the issue is close, we conclude that this is the rare case where—had the jury heard all the conflicting testimony—it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror viewing the record as a whole would lack reasonable doubt."

That's a quote from the Supreme Court. It's amazing that you guys are such true believers that you would actually vouch for this guy's innocence. Gimme a break.
 
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]



Links to this post :

Create a Link



<< Home