Mary Jane Conneally
Mr. Ippolito
Forensics D Even
Current Event
“Ex-principal who spent 33 years in prison for wife's murder fights to clear his name”
ABC News, ABC News October 14, 2021
In 1985 a murder of an Elementary school teacher shook Clifton, Texas, a small town. Joe Bryan was accused of killing his wife, Mickey Bryan. Joe was a high school principal, and Mickey was a fourth-grade teacher who everyone loved. The last time they spoke on the phone together was the night of October 14th, 1985. Joe was at a principal conference in Austin, Texas, around 120 miles away. The following day after the phone call, Mickey didn't show up to work, and she was usually the first one to get to work. Most of Mickey's coworkers were getting worried she wasn't showing up for work, so her school principal drove to her house; while they were with Mickey's parents, they found Mickey's body in her bedroom. Mickey ended up being shot in the head four times with a 357 caliber gun loaded with snake shot rounds and a round plastic cap filled with tiny lead pellets.
Some of the police thought it was a burglary gone wrong. The Bryans had left their garage opened, and there were no signs of someone trying to force themselves into the house. The investigators who were at the crime scene found nearly $1,000 cash gone. Mickey's brother flew out from Florida for the funeral. He had borrowed Joe's car; however, he asked a former FBI agent friend to come to town and help advise him on Mickey's murder investigation. They had now found a flashlight in the trunk of Joe's car, and the authorities believe it speaks of blood and some plastic tape on the lens. Texas Rangers had determined that the speck of blood on the flashlight had matched Mickey's blood the last time Joe Bryan saw the flashlight was on the dresser inside their bedroom. On October 23rd, 1985, only eight days after his wife was murdered, police arrested Joe Bryan and charged him with the murder. The Prosecutor's head leaned heavily on the evidence of the flashlight. Later Joe Bryan was convicted of first-degree murder in April 1986, and he was sentenced to a maximum penalty of 99 years in prison. Joe went back on trial, but once again, they only used the flashlight so Joe would spend the next three decades in jail. Former police officer Dennis Dunlap had been with force for only a few months in 1985. He was now considered a suspect for her murder. He denied having anything to do with her murder; he ended up killing himself. Dennis Dunlap was convicted in 1999 that he was responsible for killing someone else. Even though the authorities never tied Dunlap, Mickey's family believes he is the one who did it. Many years later, they tested the blood again with new technology. They found out it wasn't Joe and that he had been behind bars for 33 years for something he didn't even do. Joe is now out of jail and is trying to clear his name and live life with what he has.
Reading this article shows how important technology is to a crime and how it helps prove if someone did the crime or not. If they had the blood splatter technology like they do today, Joe might not have gone to jail for as long as he did. It's also important to look at everything that has happened in a crime and not just one piece because many different things can show other things.
2 comments:
Brody Pearlman
Taudte, Jeca. “Ex-Principal Who Spent 33 Years in Prison for Wife's Murder Fights to Clear His Name.” ABC News, ABC News Network, abcnews.go.com/US/murders-texas-town-connected-convicted-killer-maintains-innocence/story?id=80564869.
Bronxville HS Forensics Blog: Ex-principal who spent 33 years in prison for wife's murder fights to clear his name (bhscsi.blogspot.com)
One aspect that was done well by Mary Jane was the usage of the backstory of Joe Bryan to help detail the article’s points. This helped to showcase the trails and the nature of the prosecution's argument. Another aspect that was done well was showcasing the consequences of the case as to this day Joe still has to make his name clear to society. This was important as it provides a new perspective on those that are freed legally but perhaps not changed in the public's viewpoint. Finally, she used a good explanation of the discovery of the flashflight that convicted Joe which would have seemed out of place without it.
One thing that Mary Jane could have improved on is the explanation on why Joe’s second trial did not use more information for the defense that could have helped him. This could have supported the need for DNA testing that was not used in his defense as it was not available. Furthermore, she could have added more reasoning on why the police officer may have killed her, or any further testing to see if she was killed by him or another suspect altogether.
Overall, Mary Jane's review helped make me realize that DNA testing soley does not improve one's standing in the public eye, as many people do not fully trust DNA testing or are simply unaware of its abilities. This will change my perception on DNA testing, as I feel it is much more needed in cold cases to confirm or reopen more somewhat weak cases.
Brody Pearlman
Taudte, Jeca. “Ex-Principal Who Spent 33 Years in Prison for Wife's Murder Fights to Clear His Name.” ABC News, ABC News Network, abcnews.go.com/US/murders-texas-town-connected-convicted-killer-maintains-innocence/story?id=80564869.
Bronxville HS Forensics Blog: Ex-principal who spent 33 years in prison for wife's murder fights to clear his name (bhscsi.blogspot.com)
One aspect that was done well by Mary Jane was the usage of the backstory of Joe Bryan to help detail the article’s points. This helped to showcase the trails and the nature of the prosecution's argument. Another aspect that was done well was showcasing the consequences of the case as to this day Joe still has to make his name clear to society. This was important as it provides a new perspective on those that are freed legally but perhaps not changed in the public's viewpoint. Finally, she used a good explanation of the discovery of the flashflight that convicted Joe which would have seemed out of place without it.
One thing that Mary Jane could have improved on is the explanation on why Joe’s second trial did not use more information for the defense that could have helped him. This could have supported the need for DNA testing that was not used in his defense as it was not available. Furthermore, she could have added more reasoning on why the police officer may have killed her, or any further testing to see if she was killed by him or another suspect altogether.
Overall, Mary Jane's review helped make me realize that DNA testing soley does not improve one's standing in the public eye, as many people do not fully trust DNA testing or are simply unaware of its abilities. This will change my perception on DNA testing, as I feel it is much more needed in cold cases to confirm or reopen more somewhat weak cases.
Post a Comment