Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Wrongful Conviction of David Thorne


redshoes

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Aftermath said:

First off, redshoes, love the blog!

Second, I agree, the grandfather was merely protecting his grandson.

Third, I also agree that it was a cop.  George Hale, the neighbor who saw a man leave Yvonne's residence that morning was identified as an Alliance police officer in a line up.

Although your idea of a cover-up is compelling, I think I would need more evidence to convince me 100% ...  I'm almost there, just need a shove either way.  I just think the detectives were so inept in their investigation and trying to pin the murder on David that they didn't have to cover-up for one of their own ... ya know?

Thank you for the compliment!

True about the investigation being inept enough that they didn't have to cover for one of their own. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Overall impression of this case:  it's pretty cut and dry that Joe did not kill Yvonne and therefore David was not involved.

Moreover and interesting to note, there were two eye witness reports provided to the detectives on the day Yvonne's body was discovered.  The first was a neighbor saw a man go into Yvonne's home the evening of 31-March.  That man did not fit the description of either David or Joe.  The second was the neighbor who saw a man exit Yvonne's home with the garbage bag the morning of 1-April.  As I mentioned before, that man was identified as an Alliance police officer.  Investigators ignored this - so did the defense.

A wad of chewing gum and men's pinky ring were found by the victim's bed, these items were not collected by investigators.  No DNA testing was performed ... none, no testing done on anything.  My Lord!!  That was a huge mistake.

Edited by Aftermath
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Aftermath said:

Overall impression of this case:  it's pretty cut and dry that Joe did not kill Yvonne and therefore David was not involved.

Moreover and interesting to note, there were two eye witness reports provided to the detectives on the day Yvonne's body was discovered.  The first was a neighbor saw a man go into Yvonne's home the evening of 31-March.  That man did not fit the description of either David or Joe.  The second was the neighbor who saw a man exit Yvonne's home with the garbage bag the morning of 1-April.  As I mentioned before, that man was identified as an Alliance police officer.  Investigators ignored this - so did the defense.

A wad of chewing gum and men's pinky ring were found by the victim's bed, these items were not collected by investigators.  No DNA testing was performed ... none, no testing done on anything.  My Lord!!  That was a huge mistake.

Moreover, from David Thorne's website:

"It was observed that there were empty condom wrappers on the floor of her bedroom and therefore, there may have been evidence on the comforter. However, this was disregarded and the comforter was used to cover Ms. Layne’s body, thereby potentially ruining the chance of collecting semen or blood from the comforter.  This could have been used to determine who she had sex with recently, which may have been her killer."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, redshoes said:

Moreover, from David Thorne's website:

"It was observed that there were empty condom wrappers on the floor of her bedroom and therefore, there may have been evidence on the comforter. However, this was disregarded and the comforter was used to cover Ms. Layne’s body, thereby potentially ruining the chance of collecting semen or blood from the comforter.  This could have been used to determine who she had sex with recently, which may have been her killer."

"This could have been used to determine who she had sex with recently, which may have been her killer."

I think that is the reason why a man was seen leaving with a black garbage bag.  Yvonne's trash was moved out of the trash can and onto the kitchen floor and I believe the murderer went through Yvonne's trash and removed used condoms, as well as possibly any other damning evidence.  Not only could the garbage bag contain the man's bloody clothes, but also his used condoms.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Aftermath said:

"This could have been used to determine who she had sex with recently, which may have been her killer."

I think that is the reason why a man was seen leaving with a black garbage bag.  Yvonne's trash was moved out of the trash can and onto the kitchen floor and I believe the murderer went through Yvonne's trash and removed used condoms, as well as possibly any other damning evidence.  Not only could the garbage bag contain the man's bloody clothes, but also his used condoms.

Bingo.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, regi said:

Well if speaking in generalities was a crime, yeah, I'd say you're guilty as... what you said. :lol:

Edit: Here's a generality: Regi doesn't jump on bandwagons.

I find what you say has merit. . .in general that is. . .

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, timewarrior said:

I find what you say has merit. . .in general that is. . .

You know, if you actually listened, I don't think you'd waste much time wondering what happened.

Edit: I had to correct that comment, but I'd like to add- and this is on a serious note- the fact is, these men are convicted and so to me, the burden is on others to explain to me, not the other way around.  Seriously, I'm sick and tired of always being asked why these perps are/were convicted!

Edited by regi
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, regi said:

You know, if you actually listened, I don't think you'd waste much time wondering what happened.

Edit: I had to correct that comment, but I'd like to add- and this is on a serious note- the fact is, these men are convicted and so to me, the burden is on others to explain to me, not the other way around.  Seriously, I'm sick and tired of always being asked why these perps are/were convicted!

well it is hard to listen these days. . .the speakers in my computer are broken.  Plus I don't think this site has audio.   And while many of us would probably love the burden to try and convince you other wise, the real burden is on the prosecution to present a case without reasonable doubt.  The fact that some of us has reasonable doubt shows that their case is not as air tight as one would believe. . .

 

And exactly how am I wasting time?   So thinking about possibilities is the same as wasting time to you?   So you promote the position to never question the authority instilled above you. . .they can never ever be wrong in your eyes?   so how do you explain the cases were people are free after dna tests?   or other evidence?  

 

Look I question these cases because there is reason to question these cases.  You don't see me on here calling for the release of Charles Manson or the Unabomber.   Or the countless other cases where I agree with the outcome. . .I only question the cases where I find the convictions weak and controversial. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, regi said:

I was saying I don't think you listen. :lol:

Sorry, wasn't listening.  What were we talking about?  :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, timewarrior said:

Sorry, wasn't listening.  What were we talking about?  :rolleyes:

Oh, we were just talking about how you hold me in high regard...that you'll always value my opinion...things along those lines... :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, regi said:

You know, if you actually listened, I don't think you'd waste much time wondering what happened.

Edit: I had to correct that comment, but I'd like to add- and this is on a serious note- the fact is, these men are convicted and so to me, the burden is on others to explain to me, not the other way around.  Seriously, I'm sick and tired of always being asked why these perps are/were convicted!

But I did not ask you why these two men were convicted, I know that answer to that.  I specifically asked you: why do you think they are guilty.

Here is a brief summary of why I believe David Thorne might have been wrongfully convicted:

David Thorne was convicted because of the testimony of one person, Joe Wilkes.  Joe Wilkes' testimony is inconsistent with the physical evidence and in fact the physical evidence directly contradicts his testimony.  For instance, Joe states that after he sliced Yvonne's throat (and with that her vocal cords based on the autopsy) she asked him: "Why?"  This is obviously impossible.  Moreover, Joe states that he sliced Yvonne's throat on the couch, but there was no blood on the couch, no blood splatter on the walls.  The blood splatter was on the sliding glass door indicating that the slicing of Yvonne's neck was done there.  These two, significant details of the murder he got wrong.  Defense counsel was inept and didn't call anyone as an expert to refute Joe's testimony.  Furthermore, Joe Wilkes during the post-conviction trial, recanted his testimony that convicted David and admitted he was lying about the murder, his and David's involvement.  The one person who implicated him admitted he lied ... this means David Thorne had nothing to do with this.

Now, honestly, I do have two reservations: (1) the statement made by Michael Lucas and (2) Joe admitting he wiped the bloody knife on a pillow case.  But, I'm trying to get more information to help me reconcile these items.

So again, have you anything constructive to add about this case?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
2 hours ago, regi said:

Oh, we were just talking about how you hold me in high regard...that you'll always value my opinion...things along those lines... :D

No I'm pretty sure that you were vehemently agreeing that at times the states sometimes gets things wrong so it's usually best to reserve the death penalty only for those where there is absolutely no room for reasonable doubt. . .like in terms of serial killers or caught red handed individuals.  Plus even if those with reasonable doubt are indeed guilty (which is sometimes proven after DNA testing) then years and decades in prison is also far more tortuous when one considers many of the freedoms most prisoners don't enjoy on a daily basis.  

You were also declaring that I was a sexy beast and begging me to move to Texas so you can stalk me from afar and occasionally breath the same air that I do. . .(actually wouldn't mind visiting san Antonio again. . .need some queso fried chicken steak. . .)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Aftermath said:

But I did not ask you why these two men were convicted, I know that answer to that.  I specifically asked you: why do you think they are guilty.

Here is a brief summary of why I believe David Thorne might have been wrongfully convicted:

David Thorne was convicted because of the testimony of one person, Joe Wilkes.  Joe Wilkes' testimony is inconsistent with the physical evidence and in fact the physical evidence directly contradicts his testimony.  For instance, Joe states that after he sliced Yvonne's throat (and with that her vocal cords based on the autopsy) she asked him: "Why?"  This is obviously impossible.  Moreover, Joe states that he sliced Yvonne's throat on the couch, but there was no blood on the couch, no blood splatter on the walls.  The blood splatter was on the sliding glass door indicating that the slicing of Yvonne's neck was done there.  These two, significant details of the murder he got wrong.  Defense counsel was inept and didn't call anyone as an expert to refute Joe's testimony.  Furthermore, Joe Wilkes during the post-conviction trial, recanted his testimony that convicted David and admitted he was lying about the murder, his and David's involvement.  The one person who implicated him admitted he lied ... this means David Thorne had nothing to do with this.

Now, honestly, I do have two reservations: (1) the statement made by Michael Lucas and (2) Joe admitting he wiped the bloody knife on a pillow case.  But, I'm trying to get more information to help me reconcile these items.

So again, have you anything constructive to add about this case?

Policeman picked out of a police lineup and they just ignore it?

i would think this story is pretty cut and dry given that little tidbit.

Means you can't trust anything that happened there 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Usually in these cases there has to some recordings or documentation of a pay off  or of hiring of a hit man , not just a  here say,,of what some one is saying.  so Thorne could be guilty or not ") gee guys blame it on the cop in most of theses cases the husband wanted their  wives dead :(

 

Edited by docyabut2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Aftermath said:

Now, honestly, I do have two reservations: (1) the statement made by Michael Lucas and (2) Joe admitting he wiped the bloody knife on a pillow case.  But, I'm trying to get more information to help me reconcile these items.

On the first point, can you can expand on your thoughts about Michael Lucas' statement?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/27/2017 at 9:27 AM, regi said:

... these men are convicted and so to me, the burden is on others to explain to me, not the other way around.  Seriously, I'm sick and tired of always being asked why these perps are/were convicted!

No one asked you to provide an opinion on "why" these men ("perps", seriously?) were convicted. There is lots of material to review if you are interested. If you are flat out convinced of their guilt (and unwilling to provide context for why you think this), then what is the purpose of posting on this thread? I don't get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/28/2017 at 7:48 PM, redshoes said:

On the first point, can you can expand on your thoughts about Michael Lucas' statement?

 

Sure.  Michael Lucas' statement can be found on pages 128-131 of the Prosecution File, found here: http://mamaphoenixherself.wixsite.com/justicedavidthorne/trial-transcripts

In this letter to the Prosecuting attorney, Michael states that he was David's cell neighbor for almost a year.  During that time they became very close and talked about this case.  Michael states that David admitted he was involved in the murder and hired Joe to kill Yvonne.

It just bothers me, but I know it could just be a flat-out lie ... jailhouse "confessions" are common and sometimes they are not true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎4‎/‎28‎/‎2017 at 8:59 PM, redshoes said:

No one asked you to provide an opinion on "why" these men ("perps", seriously?) were convicted. There is lots of material to review if you are interested. If you are flat out convinced of their guilt (and unwilling to provide context for why you think this), then what is the purpose of posting on this thread? I don't get it.

For regi, conviction equals absolute proof of guilt.   it's the Texas way I think. . .you'll just have to accept that about her. . .learn to adapt. . .assimilate. . .We are the B-.. . .sorry. . .wrong show. . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.