Grover ' Bear' Reed - death row, Florida

Return to Grover "Bear" Reed's Homepage

... read part 4

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

Part 9

3. The Fingerprint Man

The people involved in this issue are...

Bruce C. Scott – a Crime Laboratory Assistant with the Florida Department of Law
Enforcement, (FDLE) Latent Print Section, based at Jacksonville.

Ernest Hamm – Crime Laboratory Analyst Supervisor, who was Bruce C. Scott’s immediate
Supervisor

Steve Platt – Jacksonville Crime Laboratory Chief

Inspector Wayne Thompson – Internal Investigator

Special Agent Greg Marr – appointed by Bureau Chief Jamie McLaughlin to investigate
possession of cocaine

Ray Frederick – FDLE Polygraph Examiner

William J Sheppard – Scott’s attorney

Bruce Carl Scott worked as a Crime Laboratory Analyst from 15th June 1984 to 13th June
1986. He worked on fingerprints, Guns, Shoes and Tyres.

On 4th March 1986 Bruce Scott raises a fingerprint found on a cheque (check) belonging to the
victim. Cheque no. 369 had a fingerprint on the lower right face that is later identified as the right thumbprint of Grover Reed. There is another unidentified print on cheque (check) No. 400

On 10th March 1986 Bruce Scott lists the exhibits in routine fashion.

On the 4th June 1986 * in a routine security check, Steve Platt saw Bruce C. Scott. According
to Platt, Scott appeared emotionally upset, feeling that he had been a disappointment to Platt, the Crime Lab and the FDLE, and admitted to using cocaine residue 3 to 4 times in the Crime
Laboratory. Scott explained he’d been accidentally exposed to cocaine while conducting latent examinations on a ‘large’ Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) case some 12 to 18 months earlier. Scott further admitted he had ingested cocaine powder that afternoon (4th June).

On 5th June 1986 * Platt advises Inspector Wayne Thompson of the previous days’ events.

On 6th June 1986 * Scott is interviewed by Thompson in the presence of Platt. The interview
was taped. Scott confirmed he had told Platt what he had as ‘I, in my own mind, felt guilty’ ‘My
conscience was bothering me…’ ‘I felt that I was being watched….’ I should confess to it.’ Scott
further confirmed he had been accidentally exposed to cocaine while working on a big DEA case with 80 or 90 great big bags during the Fall (autumn) of 1984.

Scott further confirmed that about 6 months after the accidental exposure he had purposely used cocaine for the first time out of curiosity by putting some to his mouth. He also confirmed that he collected what he thought was cocaine in a line, with a rolled piece of paper about nine times. He later refers to this as ‘nine or ten times’ but thought it was actually cocaine only on two or three times.

He further confirmed that he had used cocaine on 4th June, using more than all the other times put together, because he was trying to figure out what a ‘high’ was.

At the end of the interview, Scott said ‘no’ when asked if there was anything he would wish to
state or add, and if there were any pertinent questions that had not been asked. Scott also agreed to participate in a polygraph examination.

A 39-page transcript of the taped interview is available on request from the Author

On 8th June 1986 Wayne Thompson requests a polygraph test for Bruce Scott at the FDLE
Polygraph Examination Office.

On 11th June 1986 * Scott voluntarily participated in a polygraph examination administered by
Ray Frederick. The Polygraph tests began at 2pm and finished at 4.30pm. During and
immediately after the polygraph examination Scott disclosed he had taken cocaine from his place of work to his home and had used it there and had removed some cocaine from an exhibit prior to it being analysed by the Chemistry Section on at least one occasion.

The opinion of Ray Frederick was that Scott had been truthful in his answers that the Fall of
1985 was the first time Scott had deliberately used cocaine, and that he had not used cocaine
apart from at his home or the Laboratory, and that he did not have possession of any controlled
substance for his personal use. Frederick’s opinion was that Scott was untruthful when he denied ever using cocaine other than residue.

In a post test interview, Scott admitted to Frederick that he got ‘high’ a couple of times while at
work at the DDLE Lab (source Investigative Report dictated 19th June)

Also on 11th June 1986 Bruce Scott signs a work appraisal, which the ‘Rater’ compiled on 9th
June, Steve Platt Reviewed on 10th June. Scott confirms by signature that his work post
description was discussed and that it represented the major duties and responsibilities. Of the 7
areas listed Scott is shown as either achieving performance standard (3 items) or exceeding
performance standards (4 items).

13th June 1986 Bruce Scott gives in direct examination evidence on the fingerprint in the case.
His evidence starts at 1.40 p.m. In the transcript Scott explains he eliminated all prints belonging to the victim’s husband, (the Revered Oermann) and two other persons not relevant to the enquiry. Two cheques (checks) are in evidence. He identifies Grover Reed’s print on No. 369 and an unidentified print is on Cheque No. 400. In questioning he confirms he believed there was value in the unidentified print on number 400.

He confirms that his supervisor, Ernie Hamm had matched the print on 369 with Grover Reed
when he was wasn’t there, and that John Reed also did, and that he concurred the view. He also confirms that the prints were processed more times than normal by various applications. The rest of the time was taken in concluding the deposition, which concluded at 4.30 p.m.

Scott immediately thereafter resigns from his post. The exact words of the resignation are
"Steve, I respectfully submit my resignation effective today for what he quotes as ‘personal
reasons’ personal reasons. Bruce C. Scott." The resignation is timed as being received the same day at 4.55pm by Bureau Chief Steven Platt.

A 21-page transcript of the direct evidence is available on request from the Author

On 17th June 1986 * Scott was voluntarily interviewed by Inspector Greg Marr, Executive
Investigations in the presence and hearing of Thompson, the interview being tape recorded. Scott was placed under oath and was read his rights (Miranda) prior to the interview and he waived his rights. Scott said he did not understand how Platt and Thompson misunderstood his previous statements, and that all he was trying to do was tell them he was concerned at his working environment. He contended that during routine latent examinations, he and other examiners were exposed to cocaine dust.

An 8-page transcript of the interview is available on request from the Author

On 18th June 1986 Bureau Chief Steven Platt compiles a memorandum of events from 4th June
onwards in relation to Bruce C. Scott and his admissions of cocaine misuse.

Also on 18th June 1986 Bruce Scott writes from home to Commissioner Deppsey(?) claiming
that on June 11th he had told Steve Platt he had been working on a large number of cases and had accidentally inhaled cocaine dust, fingerprint powder and other dangerous chemicals and that he had been concerned it was affecting his health. In this letter he claims that he was asked to resign by Steve Platt for the good of everybody. His letter culminates with a request to be re-instated in his former position.

From 16th to 18th June 1986 Inspector Wayne Thompson reviewed all cases where Scott
could have been involved between 14th June 1985 and 15th May 1986. It concludes there were
no cases of him handling more than 28 grams, which would be considered a ‘trafficking’ offence.

On 20th June 1986 Steve Platt recommends that Scott is not to be eligible for re-hire, citing
‘Internal100-78-2001’. This pro forma is countersigned by Division Director Moore, who
endorses ‘This employee is not eligible for re-hire’ in his own hand.

On 21st June 1986 Bruce Scott writes to the Career Service Commission in the manner of his
letter of 18th June requesting help with re-instatement

On 25th June 1986 the Career Service Commission of Talahassee acknowledge a claim made by Scott of ‘forced resignation’ by the FDLE. This contains an unsigned resignation typed on 20th June showing a resignation effective on 13th June at 5 p.m.

The 26th June 1986 report by Wayne Thompson, and Investigative Summary, which highlights
items marked * thus, concludes that Scott’s admission of the conversation of evidence concludes a ‘sustained finding of a violation of the Department rule regarding the failure to Inventory, Process and reasonably care for Recovered or Seized property, or Conversation etc of any property or evidence as stated in Chapter 11I-1.11 Florida Administrative Code, Subsection (21).

It further concludes that Scott ‘admitted obtaining evidence for his own use, to wit: the taking of cocaine from exhibits, which had been submitted for latent examination. These actions constitute theft as defined by Chapter 812.014(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and support a sustained finding of a violation of the Department rule regarding violations of Rule or Law, pursuant to Chapter 11I-1.11 Florida Administrative Code, Subsection (2).’

On 28th August 1986 the Florida Law Enforcement Agency (FDLE) who intend to prosecute
Grover Reed’s case decide not to prosecute Bruce Scott. Scott was informed that due to
FDLE rules his statement could not be used in court, and was therefore inadmissible evidence.

On 7th September 1986 St. Vincent’s Medical Centre requested a reference for Bruce Scott as
a prospective employee. The Acting Bureau Chief of Personnel ignores most questions, but
confirms the FDLE would not re-employ quoting ‘Internal 100-78-2001’.

On 13th October 1986 an original copy of the sworn depositions of Scott and 4 others was
delivered to Richard D. Nicholls (the Public Defender for Grover Reed) at his office in
Jacksonville

On 15th November 1986 Bruce Scott files a lawsuit against FDLE according to Times Union &
Journal Newspaper article.

16th November – 20th November 1986 The trial of Grover Reed of for first degree murder,
resulting in conviction on all charges, first-degree murder, sexual battery and robbery. During the trial Bruce Scott was an expert witness for the state on fingerprints. It was not known to the
defence team or Jury that he no longer worked for the FDLE following his resignation and
admission of drug abuse covering the time of his investigation. His oral evidence did not include reference to cheque (check) no. 400, and Richard Nicholls (Grover Reed’s Public defender) did not question or challenge this.

Comments...

I have copies of everything listed above except the trial transcript, which I hope to receive shortly.
This will verify my assertion that cheque number 400 was not mentioned. I expect that transcript to also show that Scott testified he was a serving member of the FDLE and that he was able to ‘date’ the fingerprint of Grover Reed (unsurprisingly to the day of the crime), which is something no other fingerprint expert can do!

Clearly Bruce Scott has been inconsistent about his admissions regarding abuse of cocaine, and possibly other substances.
But is he alone in these inconsistencies?

Let’s sum up in layman’s terms what we have here. Put yourself in Bruce Scott’s position. By
accident or design, as a fingerprint expert, you get involved in drug abuse. By your own admission it’s been going on since Autumn 1985. You work on Grover Reed’s case in March. Your drug abuse is discovered, or volunteered by you,

on 4th June 1986. Two days later you are interviewed about this and the interview is taped.
On 11th June you submit to a polygraph test which reveals you are not wholly truthful about your use of drugs. On the same day you sign an appraisal about yourself which shows you in a good light as an employee. This report is signed by Steve Platt on 10th June, 4 days after he interviews you about drug abuse!

Two days later you are in court giving direct evidence in a capital murder case, where your expert testimony is crucial. You complete your deposition at 4.30 p.m., and 25 minutes later Steve Platt receives your resignation for ‘personal reasons’.

On 17th June, 4 days after you left, you voluntarily submit to a further interview, taped and under caution (Miranda) about the drug abuse.

On the 18th June (and the 21st) you seek re-instatement saying you’d been asked to resign. But
the FDLE not only won’t re-instate you, but they are quite prepared to tell prospective employers of the fact.

The day before Grover Reed’s trial for his life it’s reported that you filed a law suit against the
FDLE.

Yet within a day or two you are in court testifying for the FDLE with everyone getting the
impression that you are actively employed by them.

So tell me, what happened with the lawsuit?

Finally (for this chapter) – this does not give proof of Grover Reed’s innocence of the crime for
which the State wants to kill him. It certainly casts doubts on the value of the fingerprint issue.

Perhaps I should explain here that Grover Reed was no stranger to the Oermann’s house. He used to live there and was a frequent visitor to the Oermann’s house, so a fingerprint on a cheque is no more surprising than the hair identified to him in the house. Grover Reed doesn’t specifically recall, but doesn’t deny the fingerprint, but is that so unusual when he occasionally fetched their groceries?