A DNA expert who was fired from the Harris County
Medical Examiner's Office testified Friday that she suspected there was
going to be a cover-up in the capital murder case against Joe Durrett.
Dr . Elizabeth
Johnson , the former director of the county's DNA lab,
told the jury that her analysis of evidence did not tie Durrett to the
murders of his estranged wife, Martha Parmer Durrett, and her sister,
Linda Parmer Harrison.
The two women were found bludgeoned to death in their Pasadena home
on April 5, 1995. Durrett, who witnesses said stalked his wife, was the
immediate suspect and was arrested. But based on Johnson
's report, charges were dismissed. A year later, however,
he was indicted again.
Called to testify by the defense, Johnson said
Pasadena police and prosecutors were upset that her analysis did not
match their theory. One of her colleagues, Amy Haralson, had told
investigators and prosecutors that a hair from the scene she analyzed
was an identical match to one of Durrett's hairs. However, when Johnson
tested the hairs for DNA, she determined that evidence of
a match was inconclusive.
Also, Johnson said she
tested blood found in Durrett's home and evidence from the home where
the killings took place. According to her tests, none of the victims'
blood was found in Durrett's home - only his own. Other tests were
inconclusive.
Johnson said she told the
police that she could not make a conclusion based on the hair analysis.
In fact, she testified that she found another person's DNA in the hair.
"I asked them if there was another person involved," she
said.
She said when she asked Pasadena police Sgt. Ron Johnston, he said,
"No. We know Joe did it."
And when she called Prosecutor Craig Goodhart, he was
"absolutely livid."
One month later, the Pasadena police came to her lab to collect the
evidence to ship it to a private lab, she said. She refused to give the
officers vials of blood, she said she was suspicious of what they would
do with it. She had the evidence bags taped shut.
"I thought there was going to be a frame-up or cover-up in this
case," she said. "I thought the truth was being ignored."
Johnson was suspicious
enough that she called the private lab to warn them that she feared the
evidence may have been tampered with and asked them to photograph the
evidence when it arrived.
She testified that the private lab came to the same scientific
conclusions she had.
The case was dismissed and then refiled in December.
Johnson testified before the
grand jury that her analysis of the physical evidence did not connect
Durrett to the murder scene. However, prosecutors presented a new DNA
analysis that apparently linked Durrett to the crime, and the grand jury
returned an indictment.
Shortly after testifying before the grand jury, Johnson
was fired. County officials said the reason for her
dismissal was that she was working too much overtime.
Johnson is suing Harris
County, the Medical Examiner's Office and Prosecutor Craig Goodhart for
allegedly violating the Whistleblower Act. She now works for a private
laboratory in California.
In cross examination, prosecutor Ira Jones suggested that Johnson
did not follow the protocols recommended by the
manufacturer of the DNA testing kits. Johnson said
she used her own protocols, which have been proven valid.
Jones asked her why she used a heating pad from Target to heat vials,
and questioned if that was the proper and recommended procedure. Johnson
replied that false readings can occur when the
temperature is off, and a heating pad can correct the problem.
"What other scientific minds might see as the blood of murder
victims, you made it go away with a heating pad," Jones said.
Jones also questioned Johnson 's
decision to test 12 items of evidence when about 100 were available. Johnson
said she started with the most important ones and then
was told to stop testing.
The evidence Johnson had for
testing was blood found in Durrett's kitchen, bathroom and on the
washing machine. She tested his clothes and hairs and blood from the
murder scene.
Jones also asked about the hairs. Johnson said
she thought there was some dishonesty on the part of Haralson, who said
one thing and wrote another in her report.
Haralson testified earlier that she did everything properly.
The defense rested Friday, and the state will call rebuttal witnesses
Monday, including another expert who tested the evidence.
Harris County Commissioners Court accepted County Attorney Michael P.
Fleming's recommendation to settle the case with Dr. Elizabeth
"Libby" Johnson. Johnson sued the county in March 1997,
contending that Chief Medical Examiner Dr.
Joye Carter wrongly fired her
for reporting potentially illegal cover-ups and sabotage at the office.
A jury sided with Johnson in February and awarded her $315,000 plus
attorney's fees. The county immediately appealed the verdict to the
First Court of Appeals.
Fleming said Tuesday that, in the intervening months, the county's
bill has risen to $453,000. With the potential that costs would rise and
the unlikely prospect of getting the verdict overturned, Fleming
suggested the county cut its losses.
Fleming proposed settling the case for $375,000 and dropping the
appeal - a suggestion Commissioners Court accepted unanimously Tuesday.