Fingerprints evidence, like DNA, is very especial types of evidence that can be linked with the most certainty to a particular individual or also EXCLUDE a particular individual as being linked. In this case, the officer J. C. Payle, who was responsible for reviewing the prints to compare them to all possible suspects, doesn’t do his job, he purposely destroys the prints without making a report or any other type of documentation to even admit they ever existed. If the state’s prosecution allegations were all true, then Miguel Angel’s fingerprints should have being recovered, and thus provide physical evidence to link him to the scene of the crime, OR, fingerprints may have showed they belonged to another person, such as; one of the deceased, Venegas, who was first arrested for the crime, Milo Flores (the judge’s son whose never been arrested) or even of another person.
Prosecutor Andy Guardiola said that he didn’t even requested any finger prints evidence, yet did not provide Miguel Angel or his trial attorneys any information (which requested) regarding prints to link or exclude Miguel Angel as being at the scene of the crime. No fingerprints evidence was ever presented from the “weapons”, “stolen items”, or anything else recovered by police that could link Miguel Angel to the crime in some way.
Yet, none of Zain’s WORK in Miguel Angel’s case can be reviewed because Zain left NO record of how he reached his conclusions, left inadequate notes to check, and no one ever reviewed or re-test Zain’s work in Miguel Angel’s case. In 1994 a new policy (L. Ginsburg) was started to preserve evidence (blood, hair, and other forensic samples) indefinitely. Samples for Miguel Angel’s case were available in 1994 and Miguel Angel’s attorneys were seeking to conduct their own tests to establish independently and with certainty Zain’s work, however, by 1997, court permission was granted, all samples (that could have shown Zain’s work and testimony were totally false), were mysteriously and inexplicably LOST. Even though, the policy of preservation had been in place for years to keep all samples indefinitely or until a case is resolved. (Miguel Angel was appealing his conviction and death sentence and Venegas still had not gone to trial.) Again, the opportunity to ascertain the link or exclusion of evidence between Miguel Angel and the crime is denied. For the disadvantage and loss of Miguel Angel and coincidentally the benefit of the prosecution—even Milo Flores and Venegas. In itself, it may seem an accident or inconvenience, but together with the “Lost/Destroyed” finger prints evidence—these two compelling physical evidence that could prove favorable to Miguel Angel when properly investigated what his trial attorneys failed to do), is lost, disappears, destroyed, or somehow tampered with. Why could this happen if the evidence would support the state’s case (Through Miguel Angel’s statement) unless, it in fact is False and actually helps Miguel Angel.
Get your own Free Home Page