| 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 |
The main evidence at Grover Reed’s trial for the sexual assault and murder of Betty Oersmann was that a fingerprint of his was on a cheque belonging to the victim’s husband, and his blood group was the same one as that of the perpetrator.
You now know that the Fingerprint expert, Bruce Scott, had either resigned or been dismissed some 5 months before the trial because of an on going drug abuse problem he had. The Serologist, Paul Doleman, effectively proved that whoever committed the sexual assault, it was not Grover Reed. Another piece of evidence from the victim’s home was the hair.
FDLE Expert James Luten testified for the prosecution, having supplied the defence with a deposition some 45 days earlier. Once again Richard Nichols, defending failed to obtain expert advice on behalf of Grover Reed. Again, the chain of custody of the evidence was not challenged or established, despite Mr. Luten’s admission he "did not receive the actual exhibits".
In testimony at the trial Luten confirmed that head and pubic hair strands from the victim had been received in a sealed condition, as were those of the defendant, Grover Reed. This is in direct conflict with his deposition, and again Richard Nichols failed to challenge the point.
The essence of Mr. Luten’s testimony was that there were four hairs found at the scene that could have come from Mr. Reed. Two head hairs came from a cap in the house and one head hair was found on the floor. The fourth hair was a pubic hair that could have belonged to Grover Reed.
Despite leading questions from the prosecution, Luten failed to appear certain that any of the hairs were definitely Grover Reed’s. Again Richard Nichols’ cross-examination of this witness was brief and ineffective.
It should be understood that Grover Reed, his girlfriend and daughter had lived at the Oermann residence previously, and he was still an occasional visitor to the home. Any visitor to any home could leave head hair almost anywhere. If you wear a cap, check it for yourself!
For a moment, overlook the fact that
the chain of custody of evidence was again not established.
Also overlook the contradictions between
Luten’s deposition and oral evidence, and the ineffective counsel. The
only evidence that exists is that 3 head hairs exist which could have belonged
to Grover Reed, a known visitor to the household, and one pubic head that
again could belong to Grover Reed.
So much for the prosecution case. If ‘all reasonable doubt’ were afforded to the prosecution instead of the defence, there would still be no case to answer.
... Read Part 6
| 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 |
