Posted on 01/29/2013 11:29:47 PM PST by nickcarraway
A former Akron, Ohio, police captain who was convicted of murdering his wife in 1997, has been cleared of the crime and released after more than 14 years in prison.
Douglas Prade walked out of the Madison Correctional Institution around 4:30 p.m. Tuesday, CNN affiliate WOIO reported, a few hours after Summit County Common Pleas Judge Judy Hunter ruled he was innocent of the crime and ordered him released. County officials said they will appeal the decision.
Margo Prade, a popular doctor, was found dead of multiple gunshot wounds in her vehicle in her office's parking lot in November 1997. Douglas Prade was indicted for aggravated murder the next February and convicted in September of that year. He was sentenced to life in prison. The case dominated local headlines for months and was the subject of crime shows on national TV.
Although DNA tests conducted at the time were inconclusive, the main evidence against the captain was a bite mark on the victim's arm and lab coat that a prosecution expert matched to her husband's teeth. No weapon was found and prosecutors produced no one who witnessed the killing.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
It’s hard to be certain from the gloss given here but apparently there was male DNA extracted from saliva left on a lab coat from a bite that has been shown, conclusively, to not match Capt. Prade’s DNA. if my reading is correct he’s probably not guilty.
My cable provider had just added Court TV when the trial began.
CNN and the “Innocence Project” fail to mention a crucial fact.
There is a low quality video of the murderer in the parking lot.
Although the convicted Police captain (who is Black) can’t be identified, the image does appear to be a large Black male.
Also, the exact time of the murder is recorded, and the convicted captain has no alibi.
The defense team made a spectacular courtroom demonstration on the “bite” evidence.
They had the captain bite down on a towel as hard as he could.
Then the defense attorney yanked the towel out of his mouth and all the captain’s false teeth came right out of his mouth clamped on the towel.
Everyone in the courtroom gasped.
I was sitting at home, sat straight up in my chair, and yelled “Whoa!”
At the end of the trial I would have voted guilty because the prosecution had a lot more evidence, like violent threats and stalking, as I recall.
In most of these “Innocence Project” cases, it is VERY misleading when they claim “the defendant’s DNA was not at the scene.”
In 90% of murder cases the defendant’s DNA is NOT found at the scene.
Muir,
I watched the whole trial.
The prosecution had a lot of circumstantial evidence against this guy.
He may be not guilty.
But that also means he’s one of the unluckiest people in the world.
Please check my Comment #3.
It seems every jury wants DNA evidence or some spectacular CSI conclusion. Television has wormed its way into the court room and may truly harm our justice system.
Interesting but before I pass judgement I’ll need to know if he is a registered Democrat.......
The proponents of bite mark evidence would like you to believe that bite marks are as distinctive as fingerprints, and that is pure bullsh!t.
A bite mark may rule out someone as making it, but can never be absolute proof that a specific person did made it. The best that can be said is that the mark is consistent with the suspected individual and could have been made by that person.
It’s also possible that in the months or years between the crime and his lawyers grandstanding display that he either had his teeth pulled or his dentures changed.
...Judge Judy Hunter ruled he was innocent of the crime....
***
I don’t know anything about law, but I am pretty sure that judges can rule “not guilty”, but they don’t rule defendants “innocent”.
This piece is just so poorly written.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.