Last I heard, prosecutors were categorically opposed to the Innocence Project, in which convictions were re-examined if there were DNA evidence available but it were untested.
We've incentivized convictions. Justice is a side-effect that we seem to hope would go along with them.
2
Doesn't seem like Joe did it, to me. There are several things pointed out in the article that are muddy, like the money in the bag and the flashlight, and the brother's actions. I think the town was just glad to have someone on trial, and they didn't care who it was as long as someone was, in their mind, convicted for the killings and they probably tied the other teen's killing to it as well and put it to bed so they could go on with their lives, convincing themselves that the killer was behind bars. Feel sorry for Joe, wow his life was shattered.
1
I have great sympathy for Joe Bryan, regardless of his skin color. Undoubtedly, people of color are incarcerated on sparse or nonexistent evidence all the time, but Mr. Bryan was still a victim of lazy law enforcement, homophobia, and a community's desire to quickly wrap up a horrible crime with a comforting conviction instead of finding the actual murderer. I can only hope that these articles help Mr. Bryan live his last years in freedom and in peace.
5
And how many people of color are incarcerated on sketchy evidence on a daily basis, found guilty and currently imprisoned....and who speaks for all of them? I honestly can't work up any enthusiasm for this story when there are ongoing injustices for so many others.
We may never know for sure, but i do believe Joe is not guilty. Soon all the characters will meet a Higher Power and will have to answer for their deeds. I like to believe Joe will quickly be reunited with his beloved wife. His Life Review will be short and quick. Not so much with all the others and that includes the people of his town who turned their backs on him.
1
It will be interesting to read part 2; does no one find the story of Bryan driving 25 miles to follow the female students to Lake Whitney a tad creepy? Notifying their parents that they weren’t in school would have been more appropriate. He seems to have made it a practice to offer emotional support to female students, which seems a bit unusual. I do wonder if the two murders were linked, and the hotel sting story is really weird. And who takes a sack of cash in the trunk to go shopping?
1
In short, no, i didn't read anything that made me think Joe Bryan was creepy. It was obvious he was beloved. If you read part 2 you will see that the two murders were not linked. While the sack of money in the trunk seems odd, I don't think it was quite so odd in the mid-1980's as it is now. Using credit cards for everything was not as ubiquitous as it is now.
2
Bit strange that no evidence was presented (??) to prove Joe indeed drove 120 miles each way... Where did he get the gas to cover 240 miles ? Either he filled a full tank before the trip or must have got some during the trip and most likely paid in cash.
3
An appalling story. If this had happened in some rural county in the 1920s, maybe it would not be so surprising for the police, prosecutors, and defense to have completely ignored basic rules of evidence. For it to have happened in the '80s is inexcusable. To be specific: the car wasn't secured, and thus there wasn't any way to prove beyond doubt that the flashlight had been there since the murder. And if even if the flashlight was admitted as evidence, it needed to be attacked by the defense: why would Joe Bryan use a flashlight in that situation? He was (supposedly) in his own home, he could've just flipped the lights on, his wife would've had no reason to be alarmed? Why wouldn't he have ditched the flashlight along with the gun? It's all so preposterous, and yet ...
2
And moreover there seems the possibility that it was Blue, Mickey's brother, who put the flashlight there. Neither this piece nor part 2 follows up on what Blue is up to these days, and it's not clear why no one seems interested in talking to him further. Did I miss that he has died perhaps?
6
Among the things that most shocked me about this story were the quiescence with which Joe Bryan's neighbors accepted his guilt and moved on. Do people in this small town know each other so little, or feel so little loyalty to one another, that they could just accept the finding of an authority and abandon one of their own? It sounds like a cold, cold place.
8
This is pure speculation on my part.
If Joe killed his wife a single shot would have done it.
The blood spatter on the four walls suggests there was a violent struggle between Mickey and her killer. Blood on the 4 walls suggests the shots came from different directions.
It is convenient all too convenient for Blue to have found the flashight in the trunk.
I don't think Blue committed the murder but I think he believed Joe was guilty and decided to help frame him by planting the flashlight in the trunk.
There is absolutely no reason for Joe to have kept that flashlight..
The insurance money was no doubt a factor.
2
In NYS a body where the death could be suspicious can not be moved until a forensic pathologist comes to the scene.
I don't know what the law is in Texas.
Why was Mickey shot 4 times.
This "blood expert" sounds like a quack.
4
Thorman confidently threw some technical mumbo-jumbo at the jury and turned the case is clear evidence that a jury of untrained citizens is not the way to conduct complex trials. Why do we think that such an important piece of decision making should be done by an average clueless citizen. The Supreme court relies on justices for a decision then why should lower courts leave the decision of a person's life on a jury?
6
Exactly. Look at the Casey Anthony jury.
I think the guy was framed. Motive is number one. There doesn't appear to be any serious motive. Behavior is number two. Murder would have been completely out of character for this person. Opportunity is number three. That's a stretch. The guy was framed and his community abandoned and betrayed him - let alone his brother-in-law. The real killer got away. That's what happens when an innocent person if framed. Justice was perverted - not served. Hope he gets exonerated.
8
This story is a "brain smasher" for an European. Just unbelievable. What do prosecutors or this so called specialist for "blood stains" think they are. A psychologist should take a look at them.
Thank you for this detailed report. I am waiting for part two.
3
Several cases reported both in NYT and in investigative podcasts such as “In the Dark”, show that the American law enforcement in rural areas is terrible: incompetent, poorly trained, and swayed by mob prejudice. This is what happens when sheriffs are elected. Law enforcement and the judiciary are professions that require specialized education and training, and that need to be accountable to the civil service and the government, not to a bunch of high-school dropouts who constitute their electoral base. Several comments below (not surprisingly by Texans) seem to show that the avarage Joe does not even grasp what presumption of innocence means. The man at the center of this case may have killed his wife but this is irrelevant. What is relevant is that no competent judge and jury should have convicted him on the basis of the contaminated and mishandled evidence presented here. If this is what justice looks like in Texas, a better name for it is lynching.
7
This is a sad, sad case. For Mickey, and for her husband. Bullying gone extreme in the character assassination. Two lives lost.
I will be shocked if part II shows anything other than this man should be exonerated.
3
After reading this, I know that if I was on either jury, I would have voted "Not guilty." The idea that this man could travel hundreds of miles back and forth and in the interim murder his wife is ridiculous. And the victim's brother's activity in all of this seems suspicious to me. I can't wait to read Part II.
5
I don't know if he is guilty or not but it certainly appears the jury should have acquitted on the basis of their being reasonable doubt that he committed the crime. However, there were psychological factors at work here-the hired gun, Lewellen, was a forceful presence in the courtroom. The blood spatter "expert" and the Texas ranger were effective witnesses. There is, not only in Texas, a presumption by some that law enforcement gets it right and that the "guy" would not have been charged unless he did something wrong. Within the jury there is the variable of group dynamics.
I do not know what I would have done were I a juror--not because after reading part I, I do not have reasonable doubt. I might hope that I acted in a certain way but because I did not experience the event, I truly do not know. With what has been presented so far, I do have doubt. With that, guilty or not, Joe should have been acquitted.
But: The events summarized in the article are retrospective and historical, and an author must be selective in what is presented:there are only so many words allowed... When the trial was unfolding prospectively for the jurors, the situation was quite different and my guess is that psychological factors did come into play. Not an excuse but an observation...
2
Interesting story. I sure wish the NYT would not break it up into a series though. I want to know what happened and I am too tempted to Google it!
First rate
This is why I subscribe to the New York Times
1
When is part 2???
Since NYT Magazine editor Jake Silverstein previously edited Texas Monthly, and Pamela Colloff was a lead writer there for many years, I have to assume that the title of this piece, as appropriate as it is for the key evidence in the case, is something of a hat-tip to Texas Monthly's legendary writer Gary Cartwright, who was a hell of true-crime storyteller himself and wrote the book "Blood Will Tell" in 1979 about the Cullen Davis murder trial. (According to the TM archives, the original article that the book was based on had a much less memorable title -- "Rich Man, Dead Man.") In fact this piece, from headline to photos to the subject matter and pacing, reads like a classic TM article. Texas Monthly's loss of Silverstein and Coloff is clearly the NYT Mag's (and in Colloff's case, also ProPublica's) gain....!
1
It would be nice to believe that criminal investigations or forensics have gotten much better since 1985, unfortunately these stories still appear all too frequently.
Until we decide to pay taxes to support a truly professional police force stories like this will continue.
4
This piece and the comments demonstrate the power of narrative. We read and absorb the narrative. Yet our minds obscure that it is a representation of reality; they suppress the representation aspect, and substitute in and accentuate the reality aspect. We end up using narrative to make conclusions about reality, and we feel strongly about these conclusions.
This happens here, with this article. It happens in courtrooms, in legal teams' performances of narrative. It happens in politics. Etc.
3
A person should be convicted of a crime only if there is conclusive physical evidence proving guilt.
That the accused had a motive should not be sufficient.
That there seem to be no other suspects with a motive should not be sufficient.
5
No motive was ever presented, though. A life insurance policy isn't really enough. Most married couples have them yet don't murder each other.
Indeed, I share anticipation with others below in waiting for part 2.
Kudos in an excellent report.
As a Texan, I may be an exception to others below in having an open mind about this case and Joe's guilt.
The story also highlights human attitudes - regardless from a small town in Texas to NYC, for that matter - that folks end up not standing by people in whom they had ultimate faith at one time.
It's a strange world indeed. And research reports that document preference of long time serving criminals to jails rather than freedom - Joe is a poster child.
They may become free but like Joe found out in two years of in between trials - most prefer him to be behind bars.
7
If the only evidence is what is stated in his article then I believe it was right to see him as a suspect..
The defendant does not have to prove he is innocent.
The prosecutor has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
I believe the prosecutor did not make a case that was anywhere close enough to satisfy that requirement.
I think the same will be true about Weinstein.
I believe that most people want to see the guilty person punished so if they think a person is guilty even when that has not been proven they want that person to pay.
This is what happenned here and what can happen to Weinstein.
Weinstein? Why did you bring Weinstein into this discussion? Weinstein is a case of he said she No. 1 said and she No. 2 said and she No. 3 said and she No. 4 said and she No. 5 said.... There's really no comparison between the cases.
How many times have we heard of the tragic instance where less than competent law enforcement personnel have performed slipshod, if not deviant and dishonest, maneuvers to bring a suspect into custody. Has happened too often in the past with many innocent people now being exonerated because of updated information (i.e., DNA results) and advocates who relentlessly pursue the truth - seems like Mr. Bryan has played an unwitting role in an updated version of Kaffka's "The Trial."
15
According to the article Joe Bryan was a great distance away from the crime scene just before the murder and just after the murder.
That would seem to provide reasonable doubt and he should have been acquitted on that basis alone.
The problem is with technical evidence like blood spatters a jury is unable to evaluate such evidence.
So what does a jury do.
They look at the defendant and ask does the defendant look guilty.
In NYS a judge can reverse a jury's guilty verdict but of course not the other way around changing an innocent verdict to guilty.
I don't know what Texas law is but if the judge has that power this case certainly cries out for it.
The blood data is a matter of conjecture.
Joe Bryan's whereabouts provided an absolute alibi which must override conjecture.
16
Great piece; waiting for part 2.
12
Is there still evidence that can be analyzed by DNA? I’m appalled at the outcome. And vexed by no further investigation, given how sophisticated crime scenes can now be analyzed. The hairs, the blood splatters, the cigarette butt... Nothing adds up. Chilling how quickly a life can be destroyed.
26
fascinating read. Do I have to wait until next week just like TV?
13
Motive for husband? Motive for brother-in-law? Good story.
10
Article looks fascinating.
How about an abstract for those of us without the time to wade through the whole thing?
As someone who has seen first hand how Texas justice "works," nothing would surprise me about innocents being locked up, or even killed with the death penalty.
For another egregious case, that I could read about when less busy, see this:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/09/07/trial-by-fire
9
The case in that New Yorker article is plain and simply haunting.
As a native Texan who no longer lives there, my heart assumes the jury is wrong. That feeling is totally non-scientific and not based on law but on knowing my people and how they need to simple, fast justice. A friend was murdered brutally in Fredericksburg TX. It was never solved, but when her former husband died a few years later, the police reopened the case and pinned it on the dead man even though he had had an alibi. How simple! How Texan.
31
Bizarro! Why would Joe, if guilty, leave a blood-splattered flashlight in his trunk? But then why lie about the money? And the money box with unidentified hairs ... and with the money gone from it, but still dust-covered? And the sloppiness of Wilie dragging a cigarette into the evidence area? And the murder 4 months earlier, and the peeping Tom. And so on. This could almost be a made-up (and very good) mystery novel. Looking forward to Part Two. Or will that still leave us in the dark?
10
There is a mystery novel about these events titled No Motive in Murdoch. You can find it on Amazon in paperback or ebook. It's a great read!
Well that’s left me hanging like you wouldn’t believe .... can’t wait for part 2.
13
Looking at the January photo of Bryan before having read the story or the headline, my first thought is that he looks like a cold blooded killer.
Probably how all criminal trials should be adjudicated: by defendants' looks.
32
Prison photos don't really tend to be flattering. You might not look so great in prison garb, after 20 years, especially if you didn't commit the crime you were imprisoned for. (I'm not saying that's the case, just that seriously, whether he's guilty or not, judging on that photo is pretty ridiculous.)
33
I served on a jury once and during voir dire the defense attorney asked how many of the prospective jurors believed that just because a person was arrested that meant he was guilty. Several raised their hands and were immediately dismissed. People have all kinds of prejudices and preconceived notions and misunderstandings about how the law works, about trials, and about those caught up in the criminal justice system. Judging a man guilty from a photo in a newspaper is not unusual. It's a rare trial that really results in justice.
3
I notice that several of the strongest believers that Joe Bryan is, or might be, guilty are Texans. Apparently, folks there don't believe in reasonable doubt— and reasonable doubt resonates with virtually every point the prosecution relies upon to prove his guilt. I keep waiting for one legitimate reason why Bryan would murder his wife. I agree that we still have more to learn but, so far, it appears the criminal justice system there has destroyed the life of a man through, rumor, innuendo and bad science.
38
Fascinating article. The husband had no apparent motive. No girlfriend turned up (as frequently happens in cases like this).
But no one else had a motive either.
The brother? Maybe, but how would he have done it? A hit man? His involvement afterwards seems a bit odd, more than one would expect.
There didn’t seem to be overkill (if the husband had been hating her for months or years, often he’ll go wild with excess violence.) It doesn’t seem connected to the earlier murder at all.
The story of the hotel guard seems strange. Why would the husband come up with this story?
There are some elements that remind me of the Wallace case in 1930’s Liverpool. Someone brutally murdered Wallace’s wife. He had no apparent motive but neither did anyone else. The jury convicted but it was later overturned.
Not even someone like the brother in this case.
2
You seem to forget that another women was murdered.
Did Joe kill her as well?
2
Odd story, true. But maybe the idea was to get his keys and copy them. ? Were they his house keys? Simply because no one meeting that description worked there is not proof positive it did not happen.
The brother does seem unusual, but, then again, maybe his sister had conveyed something to him. Most murders are by those close to or related to the person. Also, why do you think there was not overkill? She was shot at point blank range, it seems. The blood spatter "expert" was hardly one. But Joe could have killed her, despite the lack of good evidence.
However, it does not seem that there was guilt beyond reasonable doubt, so if he is the killer or if he is not, the verdict seems "off."
1
So the thinking of the police was that the man brutally murdered his wife.. because he was a closeted homosexual.?? -Ignorance and prejudice seemed to be the prosecutions main ally..
47
That's what I thought- Prejudice and it was based on rumors and no hard evidence.
Amazing how people will believe rumors over years of wonderful service and devotion to wife and job. Poor man has been ruined even if he gets freed. Can't make up for the lost years.
1
Texas Rangers aren't always the guys in white hats evidently.
16
Whew. That was a hard read. Can't wait for part 2.
8
With all due respect, commenters are assuming, based on the article, that he's innocent. I feel the article is slanted and plays down the weird story Joe concocted about the "hotel investigation" into stealing maids. I'm NOT saying this proves he's guilty, but what an odd thing to make up, unless your looking for an alibi.
7
The weird hotel story may indicate he did have a dalliance at the hotel and was trying to cover it up, but that's a little different than driving 240miles overnight to kill someone; with no blood or evidence found inside the car. If you feel the article is slanted, how do you feel about the actual investigation by a group of clearly biased investigators who focused on his sexuality? And that the key piece of evidence had been handled many times before it was turned into authorities. that would be inadmissible today.
19
The weird hotel story and a dalliance? Never occurred to me about a dalliance. Maybe the dalliance was with a guy? The "security person" was a man? Not sure...
The biggest problem with the cops' theory and that of prosecutor is the travel time and the clean car. And if it were he, how did he clean up, get back in car, discard clothes etc. and not leave clues? But then the story about the $850 is weird too. She and he were going shopping? With $850 cash in the trunk? Something else was going on. But, even if it were , that does not necessarily translate to murder....
Then again, if he had someone on the side....will we ever know?
1
Possible the story he told is true; and the hotel telling the truth also in saying they had no security guard or employee that matched the description, i.e., someone could have pretended to be a security guard and was looking for marks at the hotel? But was anything stolen from his hotel room when the person went in? Could copies of his house keys have been made? Who knows.
Is it just me, or did anyone else get the idea that her brother was the one that killed her. Starting with the fact that they were already distant, to the fact that he did a bunch of stuff in secret, and then worked so hard and fast to get control of Mickey's estate and savings before Joe could get anything out of it. I say her brother planted the flash light and the same way he secretly hired private investigators, he hired a hitman to take his sister out, because he needed the money for some unknown reason.... but that's just what I got out of all the evidence that was presented in this piece. Excited to read part 2.
61
Yes. Sometimes when a relative hires their own police investigator, it's suspicious. I recall (?) that Claus Von Bulow was acquitted in his famous case in large part for that reason. (On the other hand, when police act egregiously, sometimes the family has to hire somebody to investigate the police).
7
The brother did it. I think.
13
I too thought the brother most likely guilty. There is however the unsolved earlier murder of the teenage girl. Coincidence? Maybe not.
Kudos to the writer.
What a dismal waste of a good life. How could a jury convict on such flimsy evidence?
44
Texas Justice, this happened in Texas. That sums it up for me.Horrific and heartbreaking all around.
19
Joe Bryan was hardly railroaded into a conviction. He was caught in so many lies. One he said money had been stolen out of a floor safe and jewelry taken. Days later the jar of money and jewelry turned up in his auto. He also had a hard time explaining a blood-splattered flashlight, matching his wife's DNA, found in the trunk of his vehicle. Also, the weapon of choice was a pistol belonging to him...etc. It's easy for a writer to take liberty with the facts.
4
Did it match her DNA? I didn't think DNA typing was available in the 80s. It matched her blood type, O. Her jewelry turned up in his trunk? That wasn't mentioned here, if that's true, what an oversight.
8
No, there was no DNA match in the article. Let's all take a step back here, and wait for part 2 before jumping to conclusions.
14
OK, throw out all of the blood splatter testimony and disregard it completely. There is still more than sufficient evidence to convict. First, Joe had the means and ability to kill his wife. Could he have driven the distance from Austin to Clifton to do the deed through the night? Of course. Second, there was no forced entry. If this was a stranger, do you really believe that Mickey would have answered the door in her nightgown? Even Joe would say no. Third, explain to me Joe's assertion about the money in the trunk when it was so obvious a lie. Ask yourself, like the jury did, why would he lie. Fourth, what about the fantastic story about his being recruited by hotel security to catch a thief? Did you know that he gave law enforcement a sworn statement in which he stated that someone got into his hotel room, took the key he left out (per instructions), made a copy of it and then drove through the night to go to his house, let himself in and then murder his wife in a bloody rampage, not leaving a single shred of physical evidence that would link him to the crime scene? That was his defense at trial. Why did the author not discuss and analyze this in her piece? I'll tell you why. Because it clashes with the conclusion she has already reached - Joe is innocent because of faulty blood splatter evidence. But it didn't matter to the jury or to the appellate court that reviewed the evidence. Colloff has done this before: backloading a case with cherry-picked facts.
10
Yes, that may well be. After watching "Making a Murderer" on Netflix, I read through the transcript of the trial, every single line of it. After that, I sided with the jury in the case. The documentary was cherry picking and focusing on weak evidence and tried to confer that the conviction was solely based on this weak evidence while ignoring all the other evidence and witnesses that in combination painted a very conclusive picture. Does anyone know if the original court files of the case mentioned in this article are publicly available?
3
"do you really believe that Mickey would have answered the door in her nightgown?" - If she thought she knew who was at the door - say, her brother - she might have.
11
You do not convict because the accused "could have" committed the crime.
You convict only if you have direct physical evidence proving guilt.
2
While this story certainly strongly pushes the notion that Joe Bryan is innocent, there are two sides to every story. We should all reserve judgement at least till part 2 is published, and see what further developments in the case turn up.
As in the case of Adnan Syed, made famous by the Serial podcast, innocence or guilt may be muddied as more details emerge.
3
This story is incredibly intriguing and I cannot wait for the second part to be published. Based on the evidence presented during the trial as recounted by NYT, I feel incredibly sorry for Joe, his family, and of course Mikey, who may never get justice at this point.
The police departments tactic to imply that Joe was perhaps a closet gay man was clearly effective and worked amongst the local demographic. It's almost horrifying to imagine how many innocent American citizen's this has happened to, but again I am assuming he is innocent based on the facts I read in the article. I feel there will be a lot more to learn about Mr. Blue and his private investigator, but more to come...
20
This is a terrifying, twilight-zone-like story. The 1980's were a weird time, when Cold War fear-ism combined with backlash against cultural others reigned in the psyche but before a skeptical apparatus had been constructed against such narratives.
This man seems to have fallen afoul of group think.
11
I grew up 3 blocks from their house - the article is spot on in its description of how the town turned against him. I was raised to almost hate this man. I am however completely shocked to read the details of the trial. The stories of the trial and evidence I was told growing up are so beyond incorrect and fabricated I can't believe it. I very much remember the fear and hysteria that gripped the town about these two murders. The gay rumors were not confined to the police - that got out into the community and spread like wildfire. The depiction of the legal system at that time in Bosque county does not surprise me one bit. I am sure there are many Joe Bryans from small towns sitting in prisons all over this country.
78
Do you recall hearing about the first murder? I hope there is some kind of DNA evidence for that one, because it sounds as though everyone just pinned it on Joe.
It seems pretty obvious the brother-in-law framed him for the estate. Why was no one else in their family and workplace investigated? Shameful failures. I remember the 1980s very clearly. Those were not times of yore when forensic science was nonexistent, or human psychology terra incognito. The law enforcement in charge of these crimes was grievously remiss.
23
Was there key card technology available in 1985? As opposed to regular keys to gain entry into a room. A key card can track whether you've been in and out of your room. Was there CC TV in the hotel? Where did the bloody clothes and washcloth go? If he indeed cleaned himself up after the grisly murder where did he wash up? Didn't they do a luminol testing in the drains? I don't think he travelled 120 miles to kill his wife without anyone see him leave or return I don't think I would have found this man guilty too many unanswered questions.
14
I have never understood why anyone would have faith in the legal system (not the "justice" system). People who believe the system is set up to exonerate the innocent as well as convict the guilty are hopelessly naive. These are the people who talk to investigators without an attorney (I'm innocent, why would I need an attorney?) and allow warrantless searches (I have nothing to hide). Only honest citizens believe the system works - the criminals are the ones who know how to navigate it.
12
I am a criminal defense lawyer and have tried hundreds of felony trials over the years. That's the way it goes when you try a case before a jury. And it goes the other way too-where the guilty are found not guilty. Any time a case goes before a jury, it is a gamble. And yet I would not have it any other way.
1
One thing I was always wondering: let's say someone rejects a plea deal for "a medium serious crime", maybe tax evasion or car theft or something like that and is later found guilty by a jury trial. Does the court then impose a stricter sentence than was offered in the plea deal by default to keep the plea-deal-system attractive or are there cases where defendants get actually lighter sentences after found guilty because the court feels lenient and/or thinks that the person convicted is not all bad and has a good chance for rehabilitation?
1
In the state system, at least, if the Court accepts the terms of the plea agreement, she/he is bound at sentencing to sentence within the range of penalties agreed to (or if sentence is argued, usually it will be with a "cap" on executed time). If the defendant was found guilty by a jury or pleaded without an agreement, the Court is required to look at the statutory factors constituting aggravators and mitigators to arrive at a sentence. One mitigator is indeed if the person shows remorse and would/could benefit from probation supervision for at least part of the sentence.
2
Isn't there a Catch 22 aspect to the necessity of requiring someone show remorse? It starts out with the presumption that the person was indeed rightfully convicted. If they were, then showing remorse does seem an appropriate requirement for mitigation in sentencing or, later, for parole. But it leaves the person who has been wrongfully convicted in an impossible situation. They are now required to lie--which is what showing remorse would be if they did not in fact commit the crime--in order to receive mitigation in sentencing or receiving parole. And it would not just be lying but also convicting themselves of a crime they didn't commit--after all, how can you express remorse for something you didn't do, so if you express remorse, then you by definition did do the crime that you in reality didn't do. Catch 22 indeed.
2
Great reporting of this tragic tale. While the case against Joe is flimsy, Joe's stories about finding the money in the already-searched trunk, and especially the non-existent security guard trying to catch the maid stealing, are quite implausible.
3
Why do conservative people accept "the certainty of science" in court from one "expert" with a week of training, yet reject the strong consensus of many true experts on climate change? Is it because the costs of accepting science in court fall on someone else (the defendant), while the costs of accepting climate science fall on the people themselves?
Why are conservative people not as driven to protect the innocent from the justice system, as they are from abortion? Isn't it worse to have life destroyed by those acting in your name and on your behalf, than by private citizens acting on their own?
48
Reading this hefty yet absorbing article, I can't help but draw parallels between the case described here and that written about in Nicholas Kristof's piece, "Was Kevin Cooper Framed for Murder?" Though race takes a role in Kevin Cooper's case that it does not appear to play here, both stories call into question the motivations of law enforcement officers, what constitutes a fair trial, and how we will elect to move forward with further advancements in forensic analysis. And at the heart of it, both articles tell the story of a man who we are inclined to believe is innocent. How are we to operate in a world where the surmisings of one police chief or judge can capsize the entirety of someone's existence?
I am waiting anxiously for part two.
19
A brilliantly written piece about the true-life events I lived through in Clifton, Texas. (I was a student in Susan Kleine's fifth grade class at the time). In fact, my mother and I spent decades exploring these events - including the unexplained death of Judy Whitley (mentioned only in a paragraph in this story). We used Mickey and Judy's stories as the basis for our fiction novel, No Motive in Murdoch. It was under written under a pen name, J.L. Bass and released earlier this year on Amazon (www.JLBassBooks.com). Amazing to see this all of this come to light again!
8
What a fascinating piece. Looking forward to Part 2.
For what it’s worth, I think the brother did it and framed the husband. Or, it was somebody else. Just call me Perry Mason!
11
This was fascinating!! Being a native Texan myself, it's easy to imagine myself there in the late '80s investigation. The evidence that convicted Joe Bryan seemed pretty flimsy to me, but we'll see how part two goes. Can't wait! Amazing writing, Mrs. Colloff!
6
The author aptly describes the abiding trust in and high regard for the judicial system and law enforcement authorities as evidenced by the shunning behavior of Joe's former friends and acquaintances, and apparently by most of the community. They're a profoundly naive and gullible bunch of people, very likely the sort who consistently vote for crooked politicians who control the justice system and work against their community's best interests. These are also the type of people who make up the community's potential jury pool.
27
Riveting (though tragic) story. I'm not convinced by the "blood evidence." Not sure that Thorman, a guy with only a 40-hour course in forensic blood analysis ought to be considered "an expert." In my own scientific field, an expert is usually someone who has tens of thousands of hours of knowledge and direct experience in a field. Not sure how the blood or blood spatter evidence proved that the flashlight was at the crime scene. And, without DNA evidence, identity of the person contributing blood to a surface will never be known for certain. Far from it.
28
Not having been in the courtroom it's hard to tell, but this reads as if Joe Bryan's defense in the first trial was incompetent.
21
Wonderful writing. Shows how vulnerable the truth is to societal and peer pressure ... and the passage of time. I can't wait for Part 2.
29
I am not sure how any of us readers can come to any conclusion about the guilt or innocence of Joe Bryan; we are reading a short summary of a lot of evidence and none of us was in the court room. I have to say though that it amazes me that someone can be brought to trial on such flimsy evidence. If nothing else, this article points out the arbitrariness of our criminal justice system - with a different prosecutor, defense lawyer, police investigators, or jury, the outcome could well be very different.
47
Agree. I'm left wondering where Blue got the flashlight with her blood splatters if he didn't find it in the trunk. Is the implication he might have hired the job and the killer gave him the flashlight to then plant? Just strange all around.
8
Thank you Pamela Colloff for your fight for righteousness and for brilliant insight to this amazing, yet heartbreaking story. I knew Joe; he was my High School principle. He was the epitome and embodiment of love and honor. He was in love with his wife deeply and was committed to her. Joe molded my life in my early years and had a huge positive impact on me. I hope he is released. Thank you for fighting for him.
90
What a well written story. This reminds me of Making a Murderer. Can't wait for part 2!
15
This story almost takes your breath away. The ease with which a man's life was ruined and his reputation forever sullied by zealous law enforcement people is astounding. The blind belief that law enforcement is always right and the ease with which a community will accept that without question is frightening. Had there been irrefutable evidence it would be different. But there was nothing except the fantasies and wild theories of gung ho law enforcement.
If it could happen to a person like Joe Bryan, it could happen to anyone. That is the message.
98
@JKile White Haven:
Well stated and articulated!
I share and fear your closing sentence "If it could happen to a person like Joe Bryan, it could happen to anyone."
9
Pam Colloff is an outstanding writer and journalist (also a darn good person); thanks to the Times and ProPublica for publishing this story.
After reading this, and having to consider the possibility that the state railroaded an innocent man, how can one have a great deal of confidence in the workings of the criminal justice system? Joe Bryan was a pillar of the community, not a victim of racism, and yet could still be convicted by blindered (and desperate) investigators willing to resort to a vile campaign of character assassination. How much easier is it to secure convictions of the poor, the friendless, the racial minority? Sadly we have seen this again and again, and not only in Texas.
59
Not a victim of racism but perhaps of homophobia.
14
This article was as frightening as it was compelling. I believe Joe Bryan is innocent. For a really smart guy to allegedly clean up the crime scene, change his clothes and shoes and throw them into a bag, as well as wipe down the lavatory, and then walk out the front door . . . why would he allegedly leave the flashlight behind with blood spatters on it instead of throwing that into the bag of clothes and shoes as well?
This poor man got railroaded by the justice system as well as his wife's brother. As this story unfolded with each sickening turn, my heart broke a little more for Mr. Bryan.
I cannot wait to read the second part of this tragic story.
An extremely brilliant job of reporting and writing Ms. Colloff. Thank you. And thank you NYT for running this story.
64
This story is so well written, so intense, that I could not read it all on the first attempt.
Thank you for partnering with ProPublica, and this article shows the stellar results you can have when you combine two outstanding teams of investigative journalists.
Both the Times and ProPublica are news resources that must be supported by individuals if our democracy is to survive.
104
"Both the Times and ProPublica are news resources that must be supported by individuals if our democracy is to survive."
Very true, and I'd add NPR/Public Radio stations to that list.
8
I just set up a monthly donation to ProPublica and urge all of you to do the same.
9