Murder Porn: Footprint

Murder Porn: Crime shows that depict real events, usually homicides. Especially popular with middle-aged married people.

For the record, I was into Murder Porn way before I was middle-aged and married. Forensic Files is my favorite show in this genre because it is really nerdy and focuses on the science.

In watching all 400+ episodes, multiple times, I have learned that:

  • The more hysterical a 911 caller is, the more likely it is that they committed the crime
  • The criminal justice system is racist
  • When a woman is murdered, chances are her husband (or boyfriend/ex) did it

Once in a while I will see an episode of Forensic Files and actually not be convinced by the evidence. This is one of those cases.

“Purebread” – Season 14, Episode 1

Synopsis: A young woman is brutally murdered; her neighbor, Carloss Robinson, is convicted based on his bloody footprints at the scene – plus a footprint he left on a hamburger bun (hence the punny title).

Robinson claims he entered the victim’s apartment, discovered her body in the bathtub, and then fled the scene. He says that he didn’t call the police because he is black and was afraid he would be framed for her murder.

According to the National Registry of Exonerations, “black people are 7 times more likely than white people to be wrongly convicted of murder”.

When brought in for questioning, Robinson was left in the interrogation room and cameras caught him getting down on his knees to pray. Was that a sign of guilt? Or was Robinson praying because he knew the odds were unfairly stacked against him?

In the end he was convicted – and I think he was innocent. Let me show you why:

Bloody Footprints: Robinson left behind footprints in the victim’s blood.

Robinson lived next door to the victim – which is why he was barefoot. He claims he went over to check on her after hearing loud banging sounds, discovered her body in the tub and at that point got blood on his feet. He fled the scene, leaving bloody footprints behind.

Hamburger Buns: Fresh hamburger buns were strewn about the floor in the bathroom – Robinson’s footprint was found on one of the buns.

9

The prosecution treated this piece of evidence as though it were irrefutable proof that Robinson was the killer. They claimed that, because the buns were moist enough to make a clear impression of his foot, Robinson must have been the one who emptied out the bag – which he then used to store the murder weapon.

However, Robinson claims he walked through the apartment shortly after hearing banging sounds (i.e., the murder taking place). If the buns were emptied during that time, of course they would have still been moist by the time Robinson got there.

What’s more – his footprint on the bun contained no blood. Wouldn’t it be bloody if left by the killer? The killer would have grabbed the hamburger bun bag after the murder, tracking blood through the house, then dumped the buns on floor and stepped on one – leaving blood behind on the bun.

The prosecution claims that Robinson used the empty hamburger bun bag to stash his knife so that it wouldn’t drip blood on the way back to his apartment. They also claim that he left the victim’s body in her bathtub and filled it with water to erase evidence.

If the killer showed signs that he cleaned up the crime scene, and Robinson left behind bloody footprints, doesn’t this suggest that Robinson and the killer are two different people? Why would Robinson make sure to not leave behind blood droplets from a knife, but then track bloody footprints through the house? It doesn’t make any sense.

Bloody Finger Prints: In addition to bloody footprints, Robinson also left bloody palm and fingerprints behind.

Robinson claimed that when he found the victim he slipped on the blood and caught himself on the sink/tub – which is why his prints were left behind. Note: Blood is extremely slippery so it can easily move through the circulatory system.

After being murdered the victim was put in her bathtub and it was filled with water. A scrunchie was used to plug up the drain. When the body was found the water had all drained out, leaving brown residue behind in the tub.

This picture shows a palm print with blood dripping down the side of the tub:

8.PNG

You can see the blood drips down past the water line, which means the print was left by someone after at least some of the water had drained out of the tub and the bloody residue had time to dry. Again, this supports Robinson’s claim that he found the body postmortem.

Blood: The shirt Robinson was wearing the night of the murder had “several small spots of blood” that were tested for DNA. One of the spots was his, and one was the victim’s.

The victim’s throat was slashed, which would have resulted in arterial spray. Therefore, the killer’s clothes would have been completely saturated. The fact that Robinson’s shirt only had a tiny spot of blood on it again supports his claim that he discovered her body postmortem. Perhaps the real killer used the empty hamburger bun bag to stash his bloody clothes?

Semen: Robinson’s semen was found inside the victim. Semen from another man was also found inside the victim. The prosecution did not test the other semen, and in 2017 a judge denied Robinson’s request to have the semen tested. Robinson has been in jail for this crime since the year 2000.

Robinson claims to have had consensual sex with the victim just prior to her murder. He says he had to make a quick exit when he “heard a sound at the door and a man’s voice”.

This brings us to the much more likely scenario that the victim’s abusive ex-boyfriend – a man who had previously tried to kill her with a knife – is the one who murdered her.

The prosecution claims that there was no evidence that anyone besides Robinson was in the victim’s apartment when she was murdered. I wonder, how hard did they look? Testing the other man’s semen would be an obvious place to start. For example, what if the semen belonged to her ex? She had a restraining order against him. Or what if the semen belonged to an entirely different man – one with a violent history? It’s pretty telling that the prosecution did not care to investigate such a crucial piece of evidence.

In conclusion, I think Robinson was wrongly convicted because he happened to contaminate the scene of the crime. What’s more, I think that the forensic evidence used to convict Robinson does not implicate him and actually corroborates his version of what happened.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s