Capozzi "evidence snafu"

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Handling of Capozzi evidence spurs feud
ECMC officials, Clark at odds over blame for ‘evidence snafu’
By Maki Becker and Michael Beebe


There’s a mystery at the center of the wrongful conviction case of Anthony J. Capozzi: Why were police officers repeatedly told that there was no physical evidence left from his alleged rapes in the 1980s at Erie County Medical Center when, in fact, there was?

It’s a vexing question that has erupted into a nasty feud between District Attorney Frank J. Clark and ECMC over who is to blame for the delay in finding slides taken as part of the rape kits done on Capozzi’s alleged victims.

The controversy has prompted the hospital to conduct an internal investigation into what went wrong.

Clark had sharply criticized the hospital during his news conference Wednesday after announcing that DNA taken from the ECMC slides proved that Capozzi was innocent and that the evidence instead pointed to suspected Bike Path Killer Altemio C. Sanchez.

But Capozzi’s defense attorney and an investigator on the Bike Path Rapist Task Force both say they don’t believe the hospital bears any responsibility.


http://www.buffalonews.com/101/story/43646.html

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Okay. Now I'm really baffled.

Supposedly, everyone had been trying to get Capozzi released for years but were told no DNA evidence existed that they could use.

But, to quote an earlier News article, "ECMC attorney Anthony J. Colucci III said he is not aware of any law enforcement agencies having asked for slides until the hospital was sent a subpoena via e-mail March 16.

He also said he does not know of any other subpoenas for the slides or any other attempts by law enforcement officers or lawyers to obtain the evidence."


So what's going on here?

[speaker]

Of course the DA's office asked for the DNA results. Especially in this case of a rapist going on for 20+ years, and after Capozzi was jailed and the rapes went on.
ECMC has employees who are very irresponsible, thanks to the union that has defeated any progress there in years.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Of course the DA's office asked for the DNA results. Especially in this case of a rapist going on for 20+ years, and after Capozzi was jailed and the rapes went on.
ECMC has employees who are very irresponsible, thanks to the union that has defeated any progress there in years.

So, your thought is that ECMC slugs didn't really bother to look for the evidence?

From what I've seen, that place is pretty disorganized.....so maybe you're right.

[therising]

The DA's office is so quick to pin the blame on ECMC. But they didn't subpoena until March 16th?

The excuse that "we called them numerous times" is lame. If they verbally asked for something so crucial, and were repeatedly ignored, why didn't they put it in writing? Wouldn't you think that investigators would know that??

[atotaltotalfan2001]

The DA's office is so quick to pin the blame on ECMC. But they didn't subpoena until March 16th?

The excuse that "we called them numerous times" is lame. If they verbally asked for something so crucial, and were repeatedly ignored, why didn't they put it in writing? Wouldn't you think that investigators would know that??

Also a good point. It makes me wonder how hard these guys really were trying to win Capozzi's release before the Bike Path Killer investigation focused on Sanchez.

Surely to God his attorney would have made formal requests to ECMC for the DNA evidence. Clark's office too.

Seems like everyone is being less than honest here.

I wouldn't ECMC off the hook, though. That place really is disorganized and lacking energy, at least in my experiences with it.

[buffy]

Also a good point. It makes me wonder how hard these guys really were trying to win Capozzi's release before the Bike Path Killer investigation focused on Sanchez.

Surely to God his attorney would have made formal requests to ECMC for the DNA evidence. Clark's office too.

Seems like everyone is being less than honest here.

I wouldn't ECMC off the hook, though. That place really is disorganized and lacking energy, at least in my experiences with it.

Disorganized? they have slides from 1972! Any idea when the new ECMC was built? Around 1977. That means they moved the entire hospital over to the new building and still preserved the slides. They DID their job. Give me a break.

It all comes down to this, what caliber of lawyer doesn't issue a subpoena to obtain evidence? YOu would think a subpoena would have been issued just so "the record shows" a subpoena was issued to no avail. The cries of "we asked, we asked" doesn't fly in court.

Some people are keen on knowing "who asked whom" does it matter? Can't we guess? Some politically connected lawyer in the DA's office asked some politically connected lawyer in the County Attorney's Office and came up with shoulder shrugs. NO one followed through. Who didn't do their jobs? Clarks spinning.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Disorganized? they have slides from 1972! Any idea when the new ECMC was built? Around 1977. That means they moved the entire hospital over to the new building and still preserved the slides. They DID their job. Give me a break.

It all comes down to this, what caliber of lawyer doesn't issue a subpoena to obtain evidence? YOu would think a subpoena would have been issued just so "the record shows" a subpoena was issued to no avail. The cries of "we asked, we asked" doesn't fly in court.

Some people are keen on knowing "who asked whom" does it matter? Can't we guess? Some politically connected lawyer in the DA's office asked some politically connected lawyer in the County Attorney's Office and came up with shoulder shrugs. NO one followed through. Who didn't do their jobs? Clarks spinning.

So that would mean none of the other parties here -- the lawyer, the D.A.'s office -- ever actually made an inquiry. I can see Clark being half-hearted about it. He already had his bad guy behind bars.

But how about Capozzi's attorney? You'd think he would have made formal requests for the information.

Someone dropped the ball. I have enough experience with ECMC's operations, however, not to let its employees off the hook. Could be some low-level slug got a verbal request and blew it off. That stuff happens in all big organizations.

[4248]

So that would mean none of the other parties here -- the lawyer, the D.A.'s office -- ever actually made an inquiry. I can see Clark being half-hearted about it. He already had his bad guy behind bars.

But how about Capozzi's attorney? You'd think he would have made formal requests for the information.

Someone dropped the ball. I have enough experience with ECMC's operations, however, not to let its employees off the hook. Could be some low-level slug got a verbal request and blew it off. That stuff happens in all big organizations.

Why do you guys want to pass the buck?

D.A. and Prosecutors "Dropped the ball."

Capozzi's attorney cant cross examine what isn't brought in the court.

The D.A. and friends either omitted the DNA sample/evidence or conveniently forgot about it .

Then D.A. Clark says, "We lost it when we moved."

Why did he say that if he didn't know the facts or did he just forget the facts?

Who's "Job" was it to collect that evidence?

,,

[Smiley]

So that would mean none of the other parties here -- the lawyer, the D.A.'s office -- ever actually made an inquiry. I can see Clark being half-hearted about it. He already had his bad guy behind bars.

But how about Capozzi's attorney? You'd think he would have made formal requests for the information.

Someone dropped the ball. I have enough experience with ECMC's operations, however, not to let its employees off the hook. Could be some low-level slug got a verbal request and blew it off. That stuff happens in all big organizations.

Fan,

Why is it that you are always looking to blame the low-level slug (as you refer to them as)for everything? Now... Do you really think that a request as important as that would go to a "low-level slug?" Nice try, but hit a little higher and leave the working people alone.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Fan,

Why is it that you are always looking to blame the low-level slug (as you refer to them as)for everything? Now... Do you really think that a request as important as that would go to a "low-level slug?" Nice try, but hit a little higher and leave the working people alone.

Didn't take you long to post a personal attack. That's too bad. That is usually the point on this message board at which things really start going downhill.....

I haven't been reading the Amherst threads much, but I thought you'd stopped with the personal attacks. Guess I was wrong.

[buffy]

It makes more sense to believe the DA didn't really care about anything after the three victims ID'd Capozzi. Looks like they just moved on, case closed.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

It makes more sense to believe the DA didn't really care about anything after the three victims ID'd Capozzi. Looks like they just moved on, case closed.

Now that Sanchez resurfaced, there's suddenly this need to look back.

Makes me wonder about Capozzi's lawyer. I mean, wouldn't a good lawyer have made formal requests for the DNA at some point after DNA became a tool for identifying the guilty or innocent. That would have been in the mid 1990s, I think.

What was the guy doing all those years?

[speaker]

Disorganized? they have slides from 1972! Any idea when the new ECMC was built? Around 1977. That means they moved the entire hospital over to the new building and still preserved the slides. They DID their job. Give me a break.

It all comes down to this, what caliber of lawyer doesn't issue a subpoena to obtain evidence? YOu would think a subpoena would have been issued just so "the record shows" a subpoena was issued to no avail. The cries of "we asked, we asked" doesn't fly in court.

Some people are keen on knowing "who asked whom" does it matter? Can't we guess? Some politically connected lawyer in the DA's office asked some politically connected lawyer in the County Attorney's Office and came up with shoulder shrugs. NO one followed through. Who didn't do their jobs? Clarks spinning.

buffy--those were two file cabinets they moved, and probably never looked in them!
As far as "Some politically connected lawyer in the DA's office asked some politically connected lawyer in the County Attorney's Office and came up with shoulder shrugs."

if this was the case maybe those files would have been found. But the investigators got the answer from some "low-level slug" that "we don't save those files". Because "there isn't any law that says we have to". That is what was said when this first unfolded.
I agree his lawyer should have followed up more aggressively.

[Surfing USA]

Capozzi's attorney cant cross examine what isn't brought in the court.

The D.A. and friends either omitted the DNA sample/evidence or conveniently forgot about it .

When Capozzi was convicted, DNA profiling wasn't used in any courts. It was developed in Britain in 1984, but wasn't advanced enough to use in a British court until 1987. In the USA, the first person to have a conviction overturned on the basis of DNA evidence wasn't until 1989. He had served 8 years of a 25 - 50 year sentence for rape.

I believe Anthony Capozzi's attorney should be the one to shoulder the bulk of the blame. Considering the aforementioned case was similar to Capozzi's, his attorney should've had ECMC served with a subpoena back in 1989 or 1990. From what I understand, he didn't even so much as request the samples until 1993. Had he acted more responsibly back in 1993 by requesting for a judge to issue a subpoena, we probably wouldn't be discussing Capozzi's exoneration today.