Prosecutors said it was a single fingerprint from a man’s left pinkie that helped Lawrence police crack a decade-old rape case.
Now, the 36-year-old man who is accused of leaving that print is on trial, charged with raping a then-21-year-old Kansas University student in May 1997.
“It is every woman’s worst nightmare,” Douglas County Chief Assistant District Attorney Amy McGowan told jurors during her opening statements Monday, “to be abducted at gunpoint ... taken to a secluded place where you are viciously and violently raped in the dirt.”
Prosecutors will present evidence this week from the case that had gone cold. On May 11, 1997, the victim reported a man approached her as she was parking her car in the lot near Naismith Hall. The suspect forced his way into her car at gunpoint, drove her to a secluded area near the tennis courts at Lawrence High School, made her get out of the car and then raped her.
Police dusted the car for fingerprints, and 10 years later, on Aug. 8, 2007, one of those fingerprints that had been entered into the FBI’s Automated Fingerprint Identification System, or AFIS, received a “hit.”
The fingerprint matched the defendant’s, who was in custody at the time in the Johnson County Jail on an unrelated charge.
McGowan told jurors that police then obtained a DNA sample from the defendant, which Kansas Bureau of Investigation scientists will testify matched the DNA profile of the rapist. The likelihood of that occurring, according to McGowan, is one in 13 quadrillion.
But defense attorney Jessica Travis told jurors there’s more to the case than meets the eye.
“Remember Paul Harvey, and ‘now for the rest of the story,’” Travis said. “That’s what this case is all about.”
Travis told jurors that her client recognized the victim when she testified at the preliminary hearing as someone whom he had met at the Cadillac Ranch and had consensual sex with.
Travis also said during opening statements that the victim got a good enough look at the suspect that she was able to provide police with enough details to make a composite sketch, yet she has never identified the defendant as the attacker.
“She told detectives that she would be able to identify the rapist if she saw him again,” Travis said.
Prosecutors will put on its first witness when the trial resumes this morning.
Prior to the trial’s start, Judge Peggy Kittel denied a motion by the defense seeking confidential information in an ongoing police investigation. Travis was seeking a detailed description of a so-called “serial rapist,” a man police believe is responsible for about a dozen unsolved rapes in Lawrence and Manhattan dating back to 2000.
But after meeting last week with police and being briefed on the status of the investigation, Kittel determined the information wasn’t relevant to the current case.
“There is no reason to believe that investigation or that suspect has anything to do with this case,” Kittel said.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
Unix_Admin (anonymous) says…
I was on this jury panel today. Not selected, but one thing is for sure. They really need to turn up the air conditioner in the jury assembly room!!
nekansan (anonymous) says…
Confusing headline. Is the victim 12 years old or the case? After reading the article it appears the victim was 21 years of age at the time of the incident 12 years ago.
matahari (anonymous) says…
Yea, makes you wonder about how bad the writer needed some exposure. I am hoping she gets a reprimand for her shotty headliner!
srj (anonymous) says…
I sure hope a fingerprint alone is not enough to be found guilty in this country.
lawthing (anonymous) says…
just couldn't stay out'a trouble!
imisspattersonliquor (Shelley) says…
Matahari-
As to writing abilities, ever hear about the pot calling the kettle black? The word is shoddy...not shotty.
landb (anonymous) says…
I don't know about the Journal World, but at a lot of newspapers, the headline writer and the article writer are two different persons.
KEITHMILES05 (anonymous) says…
It's a matter of public record if this is jury trial. I don't understand why the defendant isn't named.
igby (anonymous) says…
Strange!
Indeed!
somebodynew (anonymous) says…
KM05 - It is the "stated" policy of the LJW not to name sex suspects until conviction. (I have seen that ignored in some cases.) But, I think they feel (as do other media) that being accused of any sex crime attaches a stigma to the person that may not go away if found not guilty. I don't neccessarily buy that, but that is for them to determine.
Eurekahwk (anonymous) says…
Fingerprints alone aren't enough for convictions, but DNA seals the deal. Actually, in this podunk town I'm from, getting arrested is usually enough for the conviction.
redmoonrising (anonymous) says…
This is so true, Eureka. When cases like this happen and the media places the defendant's name out there, even if found innocent later, the person is usually branded for life. I'm not saying this defendant is innocent by any means, nor am I ready to hang him. And some guilty people get off because they had the better attorney. This is boiling down now to a male defendant with a female attoryney saying, "Look, she wanted it and then had remorse later." Now it comes down to a he said/she said and who the jury finds the most believable. This explains away the fingerprint and DNA evidence, right? But I would ask, why would a woman who was not raped obviously had a rape kit done if they still have the DNA profile from that alleged crime 12 years ago? And if she just met the guy at a bar, why would she go to the trouble of reporting it as a rape? Wouldn't you have to know someone well to want to get back at them that much as to put yourself through all this? I'm not saying she couldn't have made it all up either but these are the questions that go through my mind. And when they get to court the attorneys will have them dressed up as Pastor Bob and Mary Sunshine to prove how believable they both are.
xbusguy (chris Ogle) says…
Imagine being the victim, and having to re-live this 10 years later....
preebo (anonymous) says…
Rape cases are difficult to prosecute anyway...
and 12 years later?!?
This is going to be what we in the legal profession call a CSI/Cold Case trial, where the jury carries huge assumptions from television shows like, CSI, Cold Case, and Law & Order. The DA's office will attempt to wow the jury with scientific processes, like DNA mapping, and numbers like, "one in 13 quadrillion."
With the burden of proof on the prosecution, DNA is a huge help, however, I cannot overstate how important the timeline in the case is.