MARK GOUDEAU INNOCENT BLOG
HOLY CRAP!
LIES, CORRUPTION AND COVER UPS - What everyone (PPD) knows about the Mark Goudeau case, but no one wants to talk
Phoenix Law Enforcment Association - CLICK HERE TO VIEW POLICE SUPERVISOR'S COMMENTS ON "PLANTING EVIDENCE" AND CALL MARK A N-R!!
Detective Frank Duran lies to grand jury
Detective Frank Duran lies to grand jury
This posting comes very late, but speaks clearly of the deceitful tactics used by the
As a witness giving testimony to a grand jury, September 14, 2006, Detective Frank Duran was asked repeatedly by the several members of the grand jury on how was it law enforcement first became aware of Mark. Instead of telling the grand jury the facts - that Mark had been singled out and targeted by the police, he falsely tells them he first came to know of Mark when he was alerted to a DNA database “hit” by the State’s DNA technician Lorraine Heath.
Later, at a pre-trial interview with Heath, and testimony from Duran himself during trial, both give very different accounts as to when Mark’s name actually did first came to them. Both admit, only after being pressurized, that Duran himself provided Heath Mark’s name. Heath then fishes Mark’s DNA out of the database. There was never a cold “hit.”
The following statements are from the grand jury proceeding transcripts:
Juror: “How is that you came - - found our about this suspect (Mark)?” “So did
Duran: “I know she provided me that name after she did a comparison with the DNA that was available.”
Later at the August 2006 trial for the sexual assaults of the Lara sisters, Duran changed his story and testified that he provided Mark’s name to the State’s DNA technician, Lorraine Heath.
This is also further supported by Heath during an April 2, 2007 pre-trial interview with defense attorney Corwin Townsend. Heath herself states that Mark’s name was provided to her by law enforcement on a “list.”
Heath: “I had compared it to samples that they had previously asked us to investigate. They were persons of interest.”
Townsend: “Okay. Now we're getting somewhere. Okay. So now you're saying that they actually had given you information to -- or people to identify or identify people they wanted you to see?”
Heath: “No, not quite.” (Heath’s response is deceptive and pressure by Townsend finally results in Heath admitting the true facts.)
Townsend: “Okay. Well, tell me, tell me then -- because I want to understand. You just indicated that they had given you a list of names.” After she was provided Mark’s name Heath fished Mark’s DNA out of the CODIS database – and manipulated and exaggerated the ease of analyzing a three-person DNA mixture, of which the male profile was insignificant. The following is an example of a two-person DNA mixture analysis by world renowned Professor Allan Jamieson, director of the Forensic Institute in Glasgow – bear in mind that the sexual assault Mark has been accused of was a three-person saliva mixture. Not only is there the scientific challenges of a rare three-person DNA mixture as described above, the actual truth is there never was a “hit” or match in the DNA database (CODIS) against Mark’s DNA as Duran claimed to the grand jury. Never. Duran, Heath and other law enforcement officials have misused and corrupted the DNA science, misrepresenting and manipulating the facts to secure a conviction. The DNA evidence was inaccurately and unlawfully used, not to mention completely consumed by law enforcement leaving nothing for the defense to use for independent testing.
Heath: “They had a list of names, yes.”
“I suspect most people imagine that all DNA profiles obtained emanate from blood, semen, or some other clear stain. But often there is no visible stain at all, and the profile is a mixture. Mixtures create the potential for more difficulty. By way of illustration: if I have profile AB and you have profile CD, our mixed cells would have a profile ABCD. However, the same profile could be produced by two people with profiles AC and BD, or AD and BC. If this mixture was found at a crime scene, we now have six "suspect" profiles. If the person with the BD profile is unlucky enough to live in the area where the crime was committed, BD now needs to explain why he has no association with the material found at the scene. In fact, a mixed profile could generate about 60,000 suspects.” http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/feb/28/ukcrime.forensicscience
Duran perjured himself to the grand jury.
Lorraine Heath has since left the country and now resides in
Dec 2007 Lorraine Heath testifies in
Back to Mr. Dixon, azcentral.com, which has an enormously difficult time getting the actual facts printed quotes Sgt. Mike Horn, spokesman for Tempe Police Department, as saying “The Bowdoin family "had to wait through several generations of technological advancements in DNA testing to get to the point where they could identify without question Clarence Dixon in this case," Horn said.”
Uh, what? That certainly is not what the State’s DNA witness said at all.
A Message From Mark's Wife
A Message From Mark's WifeMy name is Wendy Carr and my husband, Mark Goudeau, has been accused of being the Baseline Killer.
Mark and I remain shocked at this allegation and hope that one day we will both wake up from this terrible nightmare and have our normal lives restored.
It’s been said that serial killers that were married went about their heinous crimes without detection by their spouses. I have been asked why it would be any different for me, given these allegations against Mark.
Was my love for Mark blind, as it may have been for these wives of serial killers? Was I indirectly or unconsciously allowing my husband to go out and commit murder and rape throughout 11 months of our relationship?
Here is what the research shows on this topic:
Serial-killing husbands commit their crimes over a period of years, not a few months as has been the accusation for Mark. (We have been married for 20 years! Husbands don’t just wake up one morning and turn into serial killers).
Their wives find stuff. One wife found a poem written by her husband about a brutal murder. Another wife found a stash of condoms in their garage and in the frame of his truck.
Hindsight reveals truths. These women look back and see clearly how they were being deliberately misled: one remembered her husband encouraging her to leave and visit family (so that he could be left alone to commit unspeakable and wrongful acts).
Mark’s accusers say he was responsible for more than 20 crimes spanning a period of only 13 months. This was the work of a truly disturbed person on a rampage, sometimes committing rapes and murders only 1-2 days apart! If this were Mark, certainly I would have seen or noticed something. But there was nothing odd or peculiar that I saw.
And I’ve reflected back at our lives together during that time period and can say there was never anything strange or out of order, odd or unusual; just a couple of regular people who loved each other’s company, enjoying even the smallest things of life.
What I do see when I look back is a hard working, loving, thoughtful (at times too kind to others), encouraging man who was always at my side, and who was always proud of me. Someone who has endured more than most people will ever in a lifetime, yet come out a whole and happy person, not pressurized or crumbling into becoming someone different or broken.
When I look back, this is what I recall. Mark helping me keep up with the house chores, even after working 8-10 hours in the hot sun. I remember him crying with me when we had to put a pet down. I remember coming home to find his dinner specialty, chili dogs, waiting for me. I remember Mark being so moved after 9/11 and wanting to help. I remember a man who would not watch the news since he could not bear to see others suffering hardships. I remember a man who loved this city, where he was born, and the people who live here. I remember a man, who had gone through so much, but who was grateful, not bitter, and took nothing for granted; happy for his home, career, marriage, freedom, working in the yard. . . .
A reporter said to me that people ask “how could she ignore” what was going on. I am here to say there was nothing to ignore since Mark did not commit these crimes. If I had ever seen a propensity for such behavior in Mark I would have left him years ago.
These same people should instead be asking “if she didn’t see anything, (and surely she would have), it must be because Mark did not commit these crimes and is innocent.”
What I know about my husband means something.
These same people should be asking: “How would I feel if my husband was falsely accused of some awful act, and I knew he was innocent. Yet when I protested they would tell me I was naïve and blind?”
I ask that people think for themselves and not be misleading by the propaganda and sensationalism of the media and grand standing by police and city officials.
The fact remains this is a horrible miscarriage of justice.
My father was a police officer for the City of This is what I know:
The importance of justice in this country is how it works in the smallest of things. This is not a man who keeps re-offending over and over again. This is a man who has been victimized by our judicial system over and over again. If this happened to one of your loved ones, you would sound like this too.
Did you know Mark is African-American?
Did you know Mark is an ex-offender?
In our justice system, this makes him the smallest of things.
Did you know this makes him very vulnerable for re-arrest?
Mark is innocent.
I love this man with all my heart.
My love for him is no small thing.
I would ask that people stay open minded, see things for what they are, and think for themselves.
Police destroy DNA evidence. . . .May 9, 2007
The Verdict and DNAAn open letter to Alejandra and Lorena Lara
Order by judge to prosecution: "You MAY NOT use the word MATCH when referring to the DNA at trial." June 22, 2007
When asked in court if one of the sisters sees the suspect, she says "I think so" and picks one of MARK'S ATTORNEYS, Cary Lackey. June 22, 2006
DPS DNA technician Lorraine Heath did not tell police the limitations of her DNA analysis when she called them saying she had a "match." (Mark's DNA is consistent with only 3 of 13 genetic markers.) Her phone call resulted in Mark's arrest.
DPS DNA Technician, Lorraine Heath, past mistakes with DNA ratio probability numbers!
The Verdict and DNA
8/4/2007: Professor Paul Wilson, Bond University, Australia
"It's very, very dangerous to convict purely on forensic science evidence...." (Source: The Courier Mail)
8/15/2007: Robert Perry, Legislative Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union The jurors could not get around the DNA 360 trillion likelihood ratios, and that inability to see the flaws in this science has convicted an innocent man. Why would anyone think this new science is the be-all end-all? They would have to believe science is perfect, and how can it be when it's based on human interpretation and assumptions, not to mention the DNA was inconclusive. There are no national standards labs to analyze data. In the case of Mark, two crime labs, City of How many other innocent people will find themselves convicted of crimes they did not commit? The true fact is, Mark was convicted by inclusive DNA, and he only matched 3 out of 13 markers, and nothing else. It reminds me of how people used to think of doctors in prior days -- like they were gods, who must be revered, who never made mistakes, who couldn't be challenged. After all the malpractice lawsuits and other scenarios that have come to light over the years, we know that doctors are only human like all of us and do make mistakes -- sometimes big, devastating ones that cost lives. Same with medical technology -- equipment relied upon to diagnose disease miss things, medicine can be ineffective or harmful, and processes are inconsistently executed. Again, nothing proves to be fail safe, like people used to think is was (remember when people thought computers were the same way?)."
"DNA is promoted as the gold standard in forensic science but it is not infallible and is subject to human error." (Source: Reuters)
8/8/2007: Director Roger Koppl,
“Making forensic science services independent of the police and equally available to prosecution and defense would reduce the influence of the police on forensics. Random redundant testing would make it harder for crime labs to cheat.” (Source: International Herald Tribune)
We have all heard of innocent people being convicted based on forensics and science, released years later because the "science" is learned later to have flaws and inaccuracies i.e., hair analysis, fingerprints, bite marks. . . .
Below is an email from a friend who gets it, not blinded and gulled into thinking DNA science, especially what was used in this case, is perfect.
"What frightens me so much about this whole thing, Wendy, is that it appears that these DNA "experts" yield the ultimate, unconditional power and authority over people's lives. I will be the first to admit I know nothing about DNA theory; however, it's just a science, like anything else. Not infallible. Equipment can be faulty, errors in process or procedure, variances in opinion and interpretation. Nothing is fail safe, and nothing should be treated like it is."
Alejandra, you know that you do not remember the face of your attacker, even telling your boyfriend, Mitchell, that you can’t put it back together, that you’re trying to throw the memory away. You never got a good look at your attacker’s face, and even if you did, it’s unbelievable that nearly two years later you claim that you can recognize him.
Lorena, you picked out Mark’s attorney, who is a light skinned black at the June 22 hearing. Before you entered the court room the prosecutor had coached you who to pick out “as light skinned”, and you did. Only it wasn't Mark, it was one of his attorneys, Cary Lackey. When you were previously shown a photo lineup of suspects before the trial, you shook your head and told the detective “I can’t remember.” And yet, now you claim you can. Your nerve is unbelievable.
Now you are accepting money from the State. I know it's been cloaked as a safety issue, and you relocated, but Alejandra did not and evidently feels safe enough to stay. I understand $1,100.00 a month for one year is hard to walk away from. After all, the State is only asking you to testify against Mark. In other words, you’re being paid for your testimony. Do you not think that if I offered to testify against Mark the state would pay me money as well for "safety." But since I refuse to lie about an innocent man there has been no offer of payment.
Both of you claim you can now recognize your attacker and you falsely point your fingers at Mark. Neither of you can recall the face of your attacker since it was dark, you were told to look at the ground, your focus on the gun, and the sheer stress and trauma. Why is it that you would make such an accusation when you both know in your hearts that you can’t pick out your attacker, much less Mark? An innocent man who had nothing to do with what happened to you.
You’ve both allowed yourselves to be coached and persuaded by overzealous prosecutors who want nothing more than a conviction of somebody. It was only after Susan Cohen, the prosecutor, visited you both at your home June 2006 and coached you into saying Mark looks like your attacker since you had NEVER done this, not even after his face was splashed all over TV. Neither of you had even said to each other or to other family members "that's him!" You couldn't even pick Mark out of a photo line up the day of his arrest.
The prosecutor convinced you that Mark’s DNA is a match when in fact Mark’s DNA only matches three genetic markers out of 13 - a far cry from a DNA match. The DNA does not put Mark at the scene of the crime. Guilt or innocence doesn't’t matter to the prosecutors, only a notch in their belt of convictions. Why you both would allow yourselves to be so mislead and gamble ruining the life of an innocent person is beyond me. Mark was a happy, hard working, caring person who loved live and lived it to its fullest. He did not harm you.
It’s ok to say you can’t remember. People would understand that. You don’t know who attacked you and you will never be able to recognize him. What you two are doing to Mark is no less of a crime than what happened to you. What you are doing is ultimately between you and God.
UPDATES
August 29, 2007
Alejandra Lara's boyfriend, Mitchell Toten, takes the stand as a witness for the defense. Mitchel told news reporters at Alejandra's house on Sept 7, 2006, that Alejandra personally told him that she cannot recall the face of her attacker. He also says to the media, although not played for the jurors, "that she is too messed up in the head" to remember. On the stand Mitchell now says he was lying to the media and that Alejandra never told him that. He does admit, however, that Alejandra never told him, even after seeing Mark's face on TV, that she recognized him as her attacker.
Mark's former supervisor, D. Diaz takes the stand and one of the items of his testimony is that Mark was subjected to random drug tests just like anyone else in the company. If Mark had tested dirty in any of the drug tests, his employment with the company would at the very least have been altered if not terminated.
The media fails to inform people that Mark's drug tests for the past 16 years have all been clean, "crystal clear" as described by a spokesperson for the Department of Corrections. Mark also passed random drug tests by two different employers while on parole, and also drug screening by the parole office.
Week of August 20, 2007
A stipulation is read to the court that Lorena and Alejandra both were offered money by the State. The State cloaks this payoff that the sisters were offered money to relocate for their safety. Lorena takes the state up on their deal and relocates to Chandler and is receiving $1,100.00 a month for housing for one year. Alejandra, who was more viscously attacked, remains in the same home near the park where the assault took place.
While Mark's wife has been shot at while at home one night while sleeping she has never been offered any sort of financial assistance for her safety. I am sure that if Mark's wife offered to testify against him the State would have been more than willing to pay for her testimony as well as it has done for the Lara's.
August 23, 2007 Trial Update
Detective Fermenia, who is the case agent, testifies under oath that Mark provided him detail of his family members. (They are trying to exclude Mark's paternal relatives from the DNA to point it more specifically at Mark. The DNA is not a match, and therefor the police's exercise in futility of trying to identify who is who in the Goudeau family.) Mark never had this extensive conversation with Fermenia. Fermenia has never produced a police report or video tape of this so-called interview. Fermenia also testified that he had researched birth and death certificates but those, to-date, have not been entered into evidence.
August 24, 2007
Police visit a sleeping nephew of Mark's at midnight to say that they were there on a disturbing the peace complaint. The nephew is handcuffed and seated on the couch while the police search his home and question him on Goudeau family members. He is threatened throughout the night that will find something to arrest him on.
August 22, 2007 Trial Update
Detective Schira was questioned regarding the crack cocaine that was supposedly found in Mark's truck console two weeks after his arrest. Schira and two other cops did the search on the truck. Supposedly there was also one rubber glove in the glove box. See Mark's fingerprints aren't present so, miraculously enter one glove.
Two jury questions after Schira's testimony were: 1) Did you send the glove to be tested for DNA or gun powder residue? Answer: No. 2) Did Schira have access to drugs because of his former position.? Answer: Yes. (Schira testified that until very recently, he was an undercover narcotics cop for five years.)
The jurors could not get around the DNA 360 trillion likelihood ratios, and that inability to see the flaws in this science has convicted an innocent man. Why would anyone think this new science is the be-all end-all? They would have to believe science is perfect, and how can it be when it's based on human interpretation and assumptions, not to mention the DNA was inconclusive. There are no national standards labs to analyze data. In the case of Mark, two crime labs, City of
Mark's DNA is NOT a match to the crime scene DNA. Under cross-examination by Mark's attorney, August 1, 2007, Lorraine Heath, the State’s so called DNA expert, admits she did not inform the police that her analysis of the DNA had limitations - that Mark's DNA was only consistent with 3 of the 13 genetic markers and not a match. Mark was arrested that very day based on her misinformation to the police. Normally an arrest would not have been made on such a limited DNA analysis.
Truth is,
Heath has since left the country and now resides in Canada.
Arizona Daily Star (Tucson)
March 29, 2006 Wednesday
Final Edition
Attorney makes another bid for mistrial
BYLINE: Kim Smith, ARIZONA DAILY STAR
Defense attorney Brick Storts again asked for a mistrial in the Dr. Bradley Schwartz murder trial Tuesday after a DNA expert offered an opinion that Storts said violated an earlier court ruling.
Arizona Department of Public Safety criminalist Lorraine Heath told jurors that after having looked at her data and the data of another DNA expert she "felt strongly" Ronald Bruce Bigger could not be excluded as the source of DNA found on radio knobs in murder victim Dr. David Brian Stidham's car.
Heath hadn't even completed her sentence before Storts loudly objected. Judge Nanette Warner sustained the objection.
Storts then demanded a mistrial and Warner quickly had the jury ushered out of the courtroom for the day, 30 minutes early.
Earlier Tuesday, Warner told prosecutors Heath would not be allowed to testify about how she combined her DNA analysis with criminalist Curtis Reinbold's analysis to compute random statistical probabilities.
The judge said the way Heath performed the combined analysis is not generally accepted in the scientific community.
The ruling was a victory for the defense, because had Heath been allowed to talk about statistics, she would have said that the frequency with which the same partial DNA profile discovered on the radio knobs would be found in the general population would be 1 in 8.6 billion and Bigger's DNA is consistent with that DNA profile. When Heath testified that she combined Reinbold's data with her own to reach a conclusion, she violated the judge's ruling, Storts complained.
Storts said he'd be filing a formal motion for a mistrial this morning - his fourth since testimony began March 7.
Prosecutor Sylvia Lafferty said she couldn't comment on Storts' complaint because she wants to see his written motion first.
The judge asked for the motion to be filed by 10 a.m. today. It's unclear when she will rule.
Schwartz, an eye surgeon, is on trial for first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder.
Prosecutors say he hired Bigger to kill Stidham because Stidham opened his own office while Schwartz was in drug rehab and took some of Schwartz's patients and staffers with him.
Storts told jurors during opening statements that if they don't believe Bigger killed Stidham, then they have to acquit Schwartz. Bigger is scheduled to go to trial in July.
Most of Tuesday was spent discussing the DNA found in Stidham's car, which was stolen the night he was slain and found the following evening.
Heath performed Y-STR testing on blood found on Stidham's radio knobs. That involves looking at Y chromosomes, which only men have, and is often used when there is only a small quantity of DNA available.
She testified she found two sources of DNA on the radio knobs. Most of the DNA came from Stidham, but she only found a partial profile on the secondary DNA source. Based on her analysis alone, Heath said she couldn't exclude Bigger as the source of that DNA.
Earlier, Reinbold testified he conducted STR analysis of the DNA on the knobs. He, too, said the majority of the DNA came from Stidham and he couldn't exclude Bigger as the secondary source of the DNA.
Reinbold also testified under cross-examination that he didn't do any testing on the six hairs found on Stidham's body because they didn't have roots. He said although mitochondrial DNA, which doesn't require roots, could have been performed by another lab, the hairs weren't sent out for testing.
Storts asked for a mistrial last week after prosecutors used evidence from Schwartz's PalmPilot without first telling him about it and when Schwartz's former fiancee mentioned a federal indictment that wasn't supposed to be mentioned. Fellow defense attorney Maria Davila asked for a mistrial March 16 when questions about a witness meeting Schwartz at the federal courthouse potentially tipped jurors that Schwartz was once federally indicted.
* Contact reporter Kim Smith at 573-4241 or kimsmith@azstarnet.com
Arizona Daily Star (
April 21, 2006 Friday
Final Edition
BYLINE: Kim Smith,
The state of Bruce Budowle, who has a doctorate in genetics and works for the FBI, told jurors in Pima County Superior Court that he believes that one in every 13,000 white people shares the same partial DNA profile as that found on the car radio knob of slaying victim Dr. David Brian Stidham.
Prosecutor Sylvia Lafferty told Judge Nanette Warner Wednesday that she was forced to call Budowle to the stand because one of her other experts, Department of Public Safety criminalist Curtis Reinbold, made a mistake when he told jurors early in the trial that one in every 20 million white people shares that DNA profile.
Lafferty said that although the prosecution "would be taking a hit" by having Budowle testify, she couldn't ethically leave jurors with the false impression that the DNA profile is that rare.
Defense expert Brian Wraxall told jurors that he believes one in every 1,658 white people shares that profile.
Although it appears as though one in 13,000 and one in 1,658 are far apart, Budowle said that statistically speaking, they aren't. Wraxall just used a different database to get his figures, Budowle said.
Regardless of the numbers, all three of the experts agreed Ronald Bruce Bigger could not be excluded as the source of the DNA.
After Budowle left the stand, Warner sent the jurors home, telling them to return for final jury instructions and closing arguments at 10:30 a.m. Tuesday.
According to prosecutors, Schwartz hired Bigger to kill Stidham in October 2004 because Stidham abandoned the medical practice they shared when Schwartz was forced into drug rehab after an indictment on prescription-fraud charges.
Defense attorney Brick Storts told jurors during opening arguments on March 7 that if they didn't believe Bigger was responsible for Stidham's death, then they must acquit Schwartz. Schwartz is facing one count each of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder.
If convicted, he could receive a life sentence with or without parole on the murder charge. The conspiracy charge carries a life sentence with parole possible after 25 years. * Contact reporter Kim Smith at 573-4241 or kimsmith@azstarnet.com
April 21, 2006 Friday Final Edition
DNA expert's testimony could aid doctor's defense
The state of Bruce Budowle, who has a doctorate in genetics and works for the FBI, told jurors in Pima County Superior Court that he believes that one in every 13,000 white people shares the same partial DNA profile as that found on the car radio knob of slaying victim Dr. David Brian Stidham.
Prosecutor Sylvia Lafferty told Judge Nanette Warner Wednesday that she was forced to call Budowle to the stand because one of her other experts, Department of Public Safety criminalist Curtis Reinbold, made a mistake when he told jurors early in the trial that one in every 20 million white people shares that DNA profile.
Lafferty said that although the prosecution "would be taking a hit" by having Budowle testify, she couldn't ethically leave jurors with the false impression that the DNA profile is that rare.
Defense expert Brian Wraxall told jurors that he believes one in every 1,658 white people shares that profile.
Although it appears as though one in 13,000 and one in 1,658 are far apart, Budowle said that statistically speaking, they aren't. Wraxall just used a different database to get his figures, Budowle said.
Regardless of the numbers, all three of the experts agreed Ronald Bruce Bigger could not be excluded as the source of the DNA.
After Budowle left the stand, Warner sent the jurors home, telling them to return for final jury instructions and closing arguments at 10:30 a.m. Tuesday.
According to prosecutors, Schwartz hired Bigger to kill Stidham in October 2004 because Stidham abandoned the medical practice they shared when Schwartz was forced into drug rehab after an indictment on prescription-fraud charges.
Defense attorney Brick Storts told jurors during opening arguments on March 7 that if they didn't believe Bigger was responsible for Stidham's death, then they must acquit Schwartz.
Schwartz is facing one count each of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder.
If convicted, he could receive a life sentence with or without parole on the murder charge. The conspiracy charge carries a life sentence with parole possible after 25 years.
* Contact reporter Kim Smith at 573-4241 or kimsmith@azstarnet.com
LOAD-DATE: June 6, 2007
DNA expert's testimony could aid doctor's defense
