|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
Like radioactive material, crime reports have half-lives. Data is lost, witnesses pass away or forget; the longer a case stands on record the more difficult it is to reexamine, much less change the outcome. The only information that doesn't change is stored inside the brain, and now there may be a scientifically verified way to access the lost archives of the human mind.
Anne Danaher first became involved in the life of Terry Harrington seven years ago, when she was living in Fairfield and working part time as a barber in the Fort Madison jail. "I came upon this young man's family one day," says Danaher. "I asked them a few questions, why they were here and so on, and one thing led to another. They told me they were coming to visit their son, who had a life sentence and no chance for parole, and had been in prison for 16 years."
On a June morning in 1977, retired police captain John Schweer, who was working as a security guard at a car lot, was found shot to death on the railroad tracks in Council Bluffs. Harrington was convicted of the murder based on the testimony of his friend Kevin Hughes, who testified that Harrington shot Schweer in a botched car theft. Harrington, 17 years and enrolled in college at the time of his arrest, was sent to prison for life.
Harrington has always maintained that on the fateful night he was at an outdoor concert in Omaha, 20 miles away, and that afterwards he and some friends drove around and got some dinner at an Arby's restaurant. Several witnesses, including Harrington's football coach, testified under oath to seeing him at the concert.
This story captured Danaher's attention, and she proceeded to meet Harrington and take up his cause. For six years, she attempted to bring attention to this man who had spent most of his life in prison for a crime she was convinced he did not commit. Then Danaher learned about Brain Fingerprinting, the revolutionary technology developed by Dr. Larry Farwell, who shared a mutual interest in Harrington.
The technology of Brain Fingerprinting has made it possible to examine whether or not the information present in a person's brain matches that information in the brain of the perpetrator. Individuals who are undergoing BF wear headbands equipped with sensors that feed brain-wave data into a computer. It measures responses to words and pictures flashed on another computer screen. A positive "brain recognition" is called a MERMER, an acronym for Memory and Encoding Related Multifaceted Electroencephalographic Re-sponse.
"We collected crime information that would apply to the case," explained Dr. Farwell, who with Danaher collected police and court reports from the original trial. "The information is only significant in its proper context. For example, if the victim was beaten to death with frozen hams, you have to give that information in the context of the murder weapon, by saying, 'You will be seeing the murder weapon.' Otherwise, the brain may recognize the phrase 'frozen hams,' but that doesn't mean the person is guilty."
For Harrington's Brain Fingerprinting test, Farwell used the phrase "weeds and grass," because the teen who named Harrington as the shooter testified that he saw him running out from behind a building, which was overgrown with waist-high underbrush. "The information about the concert was stored in the brain, but not the information about the crime," says Farwell.
It is much more difficult to apply Brain Fingerprinting when a person has already been through a trial. "The day after the crime, the perpetrator knew all about the crime, and an innocent suspect knew nothing about it. This would have made it much easier then than now to construct a Brain Fingerprinting test to prove who had a record of the crime stored in his brain and who did not," said Farwell.
Danaher claims that there is a "pattern of corruption and deceit" in the Council Bluffs law enforcement unit, and because of the political implications of the crime&emdash; the fact that the victim was an ex-policeman and the supposed perpetrator is African-American&emdash;there was a rush to judgement. She claims state prosecutor Hrvol, now a private investigator, is "subject for scrutiny based on his pattern of the ends justifying the means in making convictions," several of which have been overturned later, she said. Newspapers from the time confirm that after six weeks and no murder suspect, a great deal of public outcry really put pressure on the authorities to solve the case. Danaher claims that policeman Dan Larsen rounded up three black youths, Kevin Hughes, Clyde Jacobs, and Rhoderick Jones, and "worked them over" until they agreed to the following story: Harrington, Hughes, and Curtis McGhee drove to an auto dealership on 24th Street. Harrington got a shotgun out of their truck and then entered the car lot. Hughes sat on the hood of the truck listening to music, then heard a shotgun blast and saw Harrington come running out, stuffing the gun back in the truck as they drove away. Later, they dropped Hughes off at a park with some of his girlfriends who claimed that he was "in a car like Harrington's dark green Oldsmobile," and that Harrington boasted, "I shot a cop."
In order to assist Farwell in testing Harrington's alibi, she purchased the original police report for $90. If most crime reports break down over time, this one was written in magic ink. "Two-thirds of it was missing," says the enraged Danaher. Even though the report was incomplete, she uncovered some basic facts that had somehow managed to escape the eye of defense attorneys for 23 years. Council Bluffs detectives used the identification of Harrington's car at the crime scene as a key ingredient to the prosecution of Harrington, and felt that he was part of a gang that stole cars. However, it seems that they may have had him confused with someone else. In the testimony of Clyde Jacobs and Roderick Jones, their girlfriends, and police officer Larry McGlade, they reported that they saw a dark green Olds near the scene of the crime on the night of the murder. However, Harrington's car was dented from a recent accident, and no dents were indicated in the police report. Harrington had claimed that there was another car similar to his with Nebraska plates driven by another African American male, Joseph Rogers. Rogers was also a friend of co-defendant Curtis McGhee, who had a reputation for stealing cars. Danaher uncovered police reports indicating a stolen car was found in an alley behind Rogers' home, and a stolen auto report placed that same car at the car lot that day with three African-American males. Not only was Rogers never considered a suspect in the murder, but he was initially McGhee's key alibi witness, until "questioned" by the police, and then became a witness for the state. Danaher has found other reports of shady practices by prosecutors Hrvol and Dan Larsen.
Chris Clayton of the Omaha World Herald, who covered the hearings in November and December, said that it was fairly obvious that prosecutors had fabricated the case against Harrington. "The fact that their number one suspect in the case was never turned over to the defense reflects badly on them, as well as the discrepancies in the testimony of Kevin Hughes, who was never really credible to begin with."
Harrington's defense attorneys, Mary Kennedy and Tom Frerichs, asserted that Hrvol had violated Brady vs. Maryland, a 1963 Supreme Court case, by not disclosing that there was another key suspect in the murder. The suspect, they said, fit the description of a man the victim chased off the car lot two days before the incident. Kennedy and Frerichs also argued for a legal precedent to admit Harrington's brain fingerprinting results, which supported his alibi.
The verdict was issued in the Pottawottamie District Court by judge Timothy O'Grady on March 5th. The judge denied Harrington's request for a new trial. Harrington's attorneys have 30 days to appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court, and plan to do so. Danaher vows to continue to assist in this process. "I believe that with the newly discovered evidence, we will be successful outside the district," she says. "I will continue to work with the attorneys to present the briefs to the appellate court. I think we have good grounds to move forward."
For more information about the Brain Fingerprinting technology, visit www. brainwavescience.com.
