You can go straight to copies of the
Forensic Reports by clicking opposite
or click the links in the summary below
SUMMARY
On the night of his friend Richard Richardson’s brutal murder, Milo Rose happened to break up a fight and received a bloody nose for his pains; he was still bloodstained when he was arrested. Witnesses corroborated his story, but Detective Peter Fire claimed there was too much blood to be accounted for by a nosebleed alone. You’d think the issue could be resolved quite simply through forensic tests, but you’d be wrong...
EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE
At the Tampa Regional Crime Laboratory, swabs were taken from Milo’s body and bloodstained tissues found on his person were tested: Crime Lab Analyst Kathy M. Guenther produced a forensic report on December 9th 1982, prior to Milo's trial. The report was submitted to Sidney Klein, Chief of Police of the Clearwater Police Dept.
However, the State’s own forensic report exonerates Milo Rose. Not a single drop of the victim’s blood was present, despite the fact that the victim was killed by repeated, crushing blows to the head from a 35lb concrete block. Case dismissed?
Unfortunately, no. This exculpatory evidence was simply treated as an inconvenient fact by the prosecution. The forensic report was withheld from Milo’s defense attorneys and never produced at trial. But how to explain to the jury why the State had failed to produce any physical evidence?
DECEIVING THE JURY
At the trial Detective Peter Fire obfuscated the lack of scientific blood evidence by stating under oath that the test had been mishandled at the Crime Lab. He claimed that only a single swab had been used on the various blood splotches, implying contamination of evidence. Naturally, the Crime Lab Analyst herself wasn’t called to testify, so Detective Fire left the jury in no doubt that although the test had been botched there had definitely been “mixing” of Milo’s and the murder victim’s blood.
This was completely false (see below). The prosecution had it both ways: they suppressed their own forensic test because they couldn’t explain away the total absence of the victim’s blood, but still indulged in the highly emotive gesture of waving Milo’s bloodstained clothing under the jury’s noses.
THE TRUTH EMERGES
After Milo’s Death Warrant was signed in 1987 he was permitted an appeal for an evidentiary hearing. During the preparations the State’s suppressed forensic report finally came to light. The defense obtained a second forensic report by H. Dale Nute, a Fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences who had qualified as an expert witness in over 200 criminal trials.
He pointed out the elementary scientific fact that even if there had been “mixing” of the two blood types by using a single swab the test results would still have been valid: as Milo’s blood type is Type 'O' and the victim’s was Type 'A', the victim’s blood would still have been detected if any were present.
His affidavit states the fact:
“When ABO type O blood is mixed with any other type, the other type is detected.” (page 3)
He continues:
“Although using one swab to take several samples... is not the best procedure, it did not result in any “mixing” of Mr Richardson’s and Mr Rose’s blood according to the analysis conducted by the Tampa Regional Crime Lab.” (page 2)
His report concludes:
No ABO type A blood was found anywhere on Mr Rose or objects in his possession. ...there is no reason to believe that the blood swabbed from Mr Rose’s person was anything other than his own blood. “Mixing of blood” is apparently disproven by the physical evidence. (page 3)
Milo Rose has consistently sought an evidentiary hearing on the basis of this, and other (see Pro Se Motion), exculpatory evidence. However, the events surrounding the blood evidence were described as a “harmless error” by the trial judge, Susan Schaeffer, when denying Milo’s request for an evidentiary hearing!!