| Return to Grover "Bear" Reed's Homepage |
| Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 |
4. The Blood type
At Grover Reed’s trial Paul Doleman was the Serology expert. His testimony was as follows
Doleman testified that the victim, Betty Oermann had type ‘O’ blood and was a secretor. He explained a secretor ‘will demonstrate their blood, in this case blood type ‘O’, in their body fluids other than blood.’ He continued that ‘body fluids such as saliva or vaginal secretions, would in fact, exhibit her blood type.’
Doleman also testified that Grover Reed was a non secretor, ‘does not demonstrate their blood type, in this case blood type ‘O’ in their body fluids other than blood’. He continued ‘Grover Reed’s blood type cannot be found in his other body fluids, again such as saliva or seminal fluid… or speramtoza’.
Doleman then described how a vaginal swab had been used to make the swabbing of the vaginal vault, and how the swabs are tested for body fluids, and how those fluids can be tested as to the blood type of the person who emitted them. He then described how he found spermatozoa and seminal fluid on the swab.
No chain of custody of the samples was confirmed and Doleman stated in his earlier deposition that he had assumed the swabs were done by the medical examiner.
Doleman then testified he performed a testing procedure for blood group antigens and ‘was able to detect on the vaginal swab H antigenic activity’ and then stated ‘H antigenic activity is consistent with or equivalent to blood type ‘O’’.
To this point the testimony is consistent with the FDLE Lab report dated 11the July 1986.
The prosecution asked ‘What conclusion
were you able to draw with reference to the findings of H antigenic activity
as it relates to the defendant?’ Doleman replied ‘Having determined the
blood type and the secretor status of Betty Oermann and having determined
that H antigenic activity was present on the vaginal swab, I am able to
make a determination that Grover reed falls into the population, the male
population, that could have had intercourse with Betty
Oermann.’
On cross examination only one question
was asked by Richard Nichols, defending, namely the percentage of population
which could also have been the person to have intercourse with the victim
(56%). This is the same Richard Nichols, defending, who is on prior record
as saying ‘this testimony
is going to be real critical in this
case’!
In plain English, if Mr Doleman’s evidence
that Grover Reed is a non-secretor is acceptable, and this has never been
challenged, then the only certain thing is that Grover Reed is ruled out
entirely from being the person who had intercourse with the victim. Equally
if Mr. Doleman’s evidence were
not reliable, then there would simply
be no case to answer.
Not only did Richard Nichols abysmally fail to pick up this point, but also the prosecution, who must have realised the inconsistency, continued to use Mr. Doleman’s evidence in closing speeches to the jury, the prosecution stated:
"Mr Doleman told you, and I’m not trying to make too much of this, but
Mr.
Doleman told you that when he compared
the semen, when he typed the semen, the sperm that was found in Mrs.
Oermann’s body, that it was consistent with the defendant’s blood type.
Now that’s not - - - blood comparison, blood typing is not a means of absolute
identification but the point it this, that was a chance for this defendant
to be eliminated. That blood test could have totally eliminated this defendant
from this case if the blood type didn’t match. It’s another circumstance
of guilt that points to the defendant’s guilt. The blood typing was consistent
with this defendant, the blood typing of the sperm was consistent with
this defendant’s blood type because he was the one that raped Betty Oermann."
Again Richard Nicholls defending failed to spot the obvious. The sperm in the victim’s body was the same as Grover Reed’s and 56% of the male population. But since Grover Reed is a non-secretor, all that is proved is that he could not have been the one having the intercourse.
Even the Jury thought something was amiss here. The Forewoman of the Jury sent a note to the court saying ‘We need to read the testimony from the forensic serologist regarding the blood type in relation to the semen.’ Juror David Booker asked in writing ‘Using the second characteristic of Grover Reed’s blood, as I understand it, his blood type cannot be obtained from his saliva or sperm. What I want to know is whether or not his testimony is consistent to the fact that the sperm could and did contain Grover Reed’s blood type.’
This evidence was so critical to the court and this case that Mr. Doleman’s entire testimony was read back to the jury. This included the minimal ineffective cross-examination by Richard Nicholls.
Clearly the jury were in some conflict here, yet they chose to convict Grover Reed. Why? The answer probably lies in them believing either
a.that Grover Reed’s seminal fluid could show his blood type (which means disbelieving what Doleman said or...
b.Doleman erred in his description of Grover Reed as a non secretor or
c.Doleman erred in his description of a secretor or
d.that the sperm or seminal fluid showed blood type ‘O’.
Any of these false assumptions, combined with Juror Booker’s question would likely lead to a conviction. Add to that the general acceptance of the public that the Prosecutor has no motive to lie in a capital case. Add again that the defence by Richard Nichols seemed to question less than the Jury and it is possible the Jury felt the defence believed Grover Reed’s guilt.
This is further highlighted by the earlier mention that the Chain of Custody of the evidence was never established. Yet in cross examining Carol Herring of the FDLE’s testimony on hair samples, Nichols said ‘…… I don’t intend to raise any objection to or any criticism to this chain of custody…..’
You perhaps need to be reminded here that Richard Nichols
was defending his client’s life!
The State prosecution of Grover Reed
was for the Sexual Battery of and murder of Betty Oermann.
The State was at pains to state that
whoever did the sexual battery also did the murder. By their own witnesses
the only thing they prove is either that Grover Reed did not do the crime
or their Serology expert witness, Paul Doleman’s evidence simply cannot
be relied on.
Now combine this start witness with the Drug Abusing fingerprint expert in the last chapter, and you see largely the entire state case against Grover Reed.
Either way Grover Reed should not be
sitting on death row.
... Read Part 5
| Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 |
| Return to Grover "Bear" Reed's Homepage |
