 |
 |
 |
We, the Undersigned, hereby request Missouri Supreme Court to authorise the complete and full re-investigation into the murder of Ms Gladys Kuehler. We request this re-investigation on the following grounds:
Incomplete DNA testing – hair (on victim's stomach) and blood cell debris (under victim's fingernails) discovered are not consistent to Walter Barton. Sexual assault after death, with no seminal DNA evidence left behind to conclusively prove assault was committed by male. We believe that these two components should have resulted in DNA from fingernail debris and hair being tested against ALL those who were relevant to this case, both Male AND Female.
Motive. Ms Selvidge originally testified that substantial sum of money was missing from trailer, from sale of car. No indication of receipt confirming sale of car mentioned in transcripts. However, victim's checkbook, jewellery and purse with money inside, left untouched.
Constant Retraction of statements on Prosecution Witness’s part, including statements that previously confirmed Mr Barton’s Innocence, as follows:-
Telephone call by Ms Debra Selvidge as originally being one of 25 minutes duration, which confirmed that Ms Selvidge spoke with Ms Kuehler after Walter Barton’s departure from Ms Kuehler’s trailer. Ms Selvidge then changed this statement to TWO calls at a later date, with no response on the second call. This removed evidence of Mr Barton's Innocence.
Retraction of original TWO statements by Ms Debra Selvidge that verified Walter Barton’s statement that he had slipped and fallen, thus receiving the tiny amount of blood on his shirt. This statement originally verified Mr Barton’s innocence – twice – its retraction removed that fact.
Failure by State to authorise re-enactment for evidence purposes in consideration of ‘Fall’ statement being true. Expert Witness being Firearms and Tool only, with no prior blood spatter expertise, and both unwilling and unable to support his conclusions scientifically.
Revelation in court – fifteen years into the case – that Ms Selvidge did originally have key, but was asked to return it the night before Ms Kuehler was killed. Failure on State’s part to question as to why Ms Selvidge did not reveal possession of key to Missouri State policeman Lyle Hodges on 9th October, 1991.
Walter Barton’s presence at discovery. Ms Selvidge stated in court that the reason for her request for attendance of both Walter Barton and Carol Horton at crime scene, was to ‘verify to my grandmother that I wasn’t breaking in.’ Failure on State’s part to investigate this statement further.
Ante-mortem bruising on legs and inner thighs. Failure by State to disclose whether this ante-mortem bruising was part of this attack, or indications of a recent, prior attack.
Check. State investigated handwriting (match with victim’s), and prints (none usable) but failed to investigate climatic conditions at time of discovery. Wind speeds arose on 11th October of 21mph. High probability in light of this fact, that the check was dropped on the evening of the 11th after 21mph winds had abated, and at which point Walter Barton was already in custody. Weather conditions confirmed with Weather center in NC.
In light of ante-mortem bruising – Failure by State to consider possibility of previous Elder Abuse.
In light of sexual assault after Death having no DNA, being of lesser violence (sharp weapon put down and blunt instrument being used), - Failure by State to consider possibility of Staged Sexual Assault.
In light of the inconsistencies, retractions, and anomalies created by Ms Selvidge’s testimony, along with her now public convictions in Greene County Circuit Court – whether Ms Selvidge is still viable as a witness.
We hereby request that in light of the above disclosures and omissions on both State and Witness part, this case be re-investigated in the name of Justice for both Walter Barton and Gladys Kuehler.
Many thanks.
(We have the deepest sympathies for Ms Kuehler's family, and apologise for the necessity of raising this petition.) |
 |
|
(fields marked with * are required)
|
|
|
Arkie lost in the Supreme Court by 4-3. Judge Wolff's dissent is below. As the case is now out of the Supreme Court, reinvestigation is now possible, and set to happen.
Judge Wolff's conclusion (dissenting):-
'In order to reach its result, the majority of the Court must not only overlook the protection of the Double Jeopardy Clause, but it must also imagine that the evidence is better than it is. The Court must imagine that "Katherine Allen" is telling the truth. The Court must also imagine that the prosecution did not attempt to subjorn perjured testimony of the other jailhouse snitch, Larry Arnold, who recanted his previous testimony regarding Barton's supposed admissions. The Court must imagine that a check made out to Barton and found miles away from Ms Keuhler's trailer days after the crime somehow constitutes evidence of motive or an admission of guilt or an attempt to conceal evidence. The Court must imagine that witness testimony placing Barton in Kuehler's trailer for a brief period of time at some point on the day of the murder is sufficient to implicate Barton as the murderer. The Court must imagine that after repeatedly and violently stabbing Barton, Barton walked away from the crime with two small bloodstains on his shirt and little or no blood on his boots. The Court must imagine that this blood evidence means something more than it does.
I can imagine why the court would affirm the conviction of Walter Barton. After all, at least 36 of the 48 jurors who have heard the evidence - tainted thought it may be - have voted to convict. If this were not a criminal trial, that would be a landslide.
I cannot imagine, however, why the court would approve the death sentence on this sorry record.
I respectfully dissent.'
What is Elder Abuse?
http://www.dhss.mo.gov/ElderAb...
Staging Reference:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/no...
Greene County Circuit Court
Party Name Type Opponent Name Date Case Number
BILLIE ANN HARRAL vs. DEBRA K SELVIDGE 101DR2458
SELVIDGE, DEBORAH K D STATE OF MISSOURI 04/23/02 302CM3750
SELVIDGE, DEBORAH K D STATE OF MISSOURI 01/28/03 303CM0385
https://www.courts.mo.gov/case...
Revised Missouri Statute defining 3rd Degree Assault: (For legal clarification of charges on above Docket Sheets.)
http://www.moga.mo.gov/statute...
It has been pointed out to me that many people are consulting the 'Findlaw' sites. I would like to advise that these sites are prosecutorial based, and should not be considered as wholly accurate.
In Arkie's site, for instance, it states 'Selvidge, Horton and Horton's son went to the trailer' - it omits to mention that Horton's son was a minor in the back of the car. If non-State websites are consulted, these discrepancies are more apparent.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ________ COUNTY ____________________ ...
Debbie Selvidge had blood on her coat and told him that she had gotten it from kneeling near ... 29.15 relief was not reached by the Missouri Supreme Court. ...
http://www.pilc.net/PDF/29151....
SC 83615 - Barton v State of Missouri (Audio Link)
http://www.missourinet.com/asp...
Springfield Forum:
http://www.topix.net/forum/cit...
OTHER MISSOURI MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE AS COMPILED BY MISSOURIANS AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY
http://home.kc.rr.com/wmcadp/m...
|
 |
|
This petition is signed by Walter Barton's wife, family, friends, supporters, and all those who believe the State of Missouri has committed a grave injustice. |
|
The views expressed in this petition are solely those of the petition's
sponsor and do not in any way reflect the views of iPetitions.
iPetitions is solely a provider of technical services to the petition
sponsor and cannot be held liable for any damages or injury or other
harm arising from this petition. In the event no adequate sponsor is
named, iPetitions will consider the individual account holder with which
the petition was created as the lawful sponsor.
|
|
|
