Tech CEO Arrested In 1992 Mountain View Cold Case Slaying After DNA Breakthrough (thedailybeast.com) 70
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Daily Beast: On Sept. 5, 1992, computer engineer Laurie Houts, 25, was found fatally strangled in her car near a California garbage dump. Her boyfriend's roommate was arrested in connection with the case, but two trials -- and two hung juries -- later, a judge dismissed the case. The roommate moved to the Netherlands soon afterward. Over the weekend, the roommate -- now the chief executive of a small software company -- was arrested as he landed at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City, according to the Santa Clara County Office of the District Attorney. John Woodward, the 58-year-old CEO and president of ReadyTech, is expected to be extradited to Santa Clara County by the end of the month, District Attorney Jeff Rosen said Monday. Once there, Woodward will be arraigned for the third time in Houts' murder by strangulation.
Houts' body was discovered by a passerby less than a mile from her office at Adobe Systems in Mountain View more than 30 years ago, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. A rope was around her neck, and there were footprints on the inside of her windshield, which were called "a sign of her struggle with Woodward" by the district attorney's office. Forensic science at the time was able to match Woodward to fingerprints found outside the car, but investigators could not prove that he had been inside the vehicle. Still, when Houts' boyfriend made a call, monitored by police, to Woodward soon after the 25-year-old's death, he "did not deny" killing Houts. Instead, according to a police summary of the matter, Woodward asked what evidence the authorities had against him and suggested to the roommate that they "meet in a parking lot" to talk more.
Woodward, who had no alibi for the night Houts was killed, was arrested that same year. Prosecutors alleged that Woodward had developed an "unrequited" romantic interest in Houts' boyfriend. The theory was criticized as homophobic at Woodward's first trial by his defense lawyer in 1995, the The Mercury News reported Monday, and the jury deadlocked on his innocence, voting 8-4 for acquittal. A year later, despite a judge barring the romantic-rival argument, the jury hearing Woodward's second trial again hung itself, this time ruling 7-5. The judge soon dismissed the case for insufficient evidence. But advances in DNA technology allowed detectives to link Woodward to the rope around Houts' neck for the first time last year, Rosen's statement said. Investigators in both the Santa Clara County Crime Lab and Mountain View Police Department matched both Woodward's genetic material and fibers on his sweatpants to "the murder weapon," police said.
Houts' body was discovered by a passerby less than a mile from her office at Adobe Systems in Mountain View more than 30 years ago, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. A rope was around her neck, and there were footprints on the inside of her windshield, which were called "a sign of her struggle with Woodward" by the district attorney's office. Forensic science at the time was able to match Woodward to fingerprints found outside the car, but investigators could not prove that he had been inside the vehicle. Still, when Houts' boyfriend made a call, monitored by police, to Woodward soon after the 25-year-old's death, he "did not deny" killing Houts. Instead, according to a police summary of the matter, Woodward asked what evidence the authorities had against him and suggested to the roommate that they "meet in a parking lot" to talk more.
Woodward, who had no alibi for the night Houts was killed, was arrested that same year. Prosecutors alleged that Woodward had developed an "unrequited" romantic interest in Houts' boyfriend. The theory was criticized as homophobic at Woodward's first trial by his defense lawyer in 1995, the The Mercury News reported Monday, and the jury deadlocked on his innocence, voting 8-4 for acquittal. A year later, despite a judge barring the romantic-rival argument, the jury hearing Woodward's second trial again hung itself, this time ruling 7-5. The judge soon dismissed the case for insufficient evidence. But advances in DNA technology allowed detectives to link Woodward to the rope around Houts' neck for the first time last year, Rosen's statement said. Investigators in both the Santa Clara County Crime Lab and Mountain View Police Department matched both Woodward's genetic material and fibers on his sweatpants to "the murder weapon," police said.
How is this "homophobic"?! (Score:5, Interesting)
How is this theory — whether it was true or not — "homophobic"? On the contrary, it was confirming the homosexuals' ability to feel strong romantic passions...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I agree that the theory is not homophobic. But I think some people would see it like it was assuming that because he is gay he would be interested in his roommate and commit murder because of that. It assumes, apparently correctly in this case, that a gay person would not control their urges or suicide rather than commit a heinous crime.
Analogy. Let's assume smokers are known for liking cigars. If a smoker is accused of stealing a cigar, with the only evidence being that he had been window shopping at the c
Re:How is this "homophobic"?! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How is this "homophobic"?! (Score:4, Insightful)
But we know, that (some) heterosexuals are prone to what's known as "crimes of passion". Did Shakespeare manifest heterophobia (and racism) by writing "Othello"? Of course, not...
The defense lawyer did his job back then — but, that this particular line helped him, reflects badly on the society. And it only got worse since...
That phrase... I do not think it means... (Score:2)
...what you think it means. [wikipedia.org]
I.e. Premeditated crimes, by definition, can't be "crimes of passion".
Also... That's a very poor choice of analogy when trying to prove absence of prejudice based on sex or gender. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I think, you understood my meaning.
I'm not claiming absence of prejudice. I'm claiming, this particular argument does manifest prejudice. Au contraire, it presumes, that homosexuals are capable of killing out of jealousy, just as the heterosexuals are.
And I was not talking about men in particular either — there are hideous domestic abuser [pinknews.co.uk]
Re:How is this "homophobic"?! (Score:5, Informative)
I agree that the theory is not homophobic. But I think some people would see it like it was assuming that because he is gay he would be interested in his roommate and commit murder because of that. It assumes, apparently correctly in this case, that a gay person would not control their urges or suicide rather than commit a heinous crime.
Analogy. Let's assume smokers are known for liking cigars. If a smoker is accused of stealing a cigar, with the only evidence being that he had been window shopping at the cigar store, you can assume that the accusers are being prejudicial because they believe he did it just because of the fact that he liked cigars. The assumption is that smokers are easily willing to steal, so you don't need other evidence or proof.
More generally I'd say it was the implication that homosexuals were inherently deviant and uncontrollably lusting after straight men to the extent that one would be willing to murder his roommate's girlfriend.
As it turns out he probably did kill her, though that doesn't mean they got the motive right. The article is light on the details but it does seem a somewhat odd motive for murder.
Re: (Score:2)
From the summary, it says the "homophobic" accusation was leveled by the defense attorney. Which should be sufficient explanation as to how it is "homophobic".
Re: (Score:2)
... and this, right here, shows why the motive was described as homophobic. Because you have pieces of shit like the above poster that think that because someone is gay, they can't keep their hands to themselves and only engage in consensual relations. It's the same argument that has been pervasive since the 1940s from uptight dipshit we-wish-we-were-still-living-in-1947 conservatives.
Guess what? Heterosexuals rape and murder people all the god damn time too. As it turns out, someone being gay has nothi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
A defense argument impugning a prosecutorial theory doesn't have to be reasonable. It just has to raise doubts *in a single juror's mind*.
Re: (Score:2)
How is this theory — whether it was true or not — "homophobic"?
It may have something to do with the fact that homosexuals have substantially higher "intimate partner" homicide rates, and the social taboo in some circles around saying anything that might be perceived as dispagaing to minorities. i.e. political correctness.
You can say that men have higher homicide rates than women, but any talk of race or sexuality with crime is taboo.
Of course the rate of such homicides are still very low, and no cause for any "phobia" or disparagement of t
Re: (Score:1)
Or, it actually is homophobic because it plays on the ridiculous and insulting stereotype that gay men can't keep their hands to themselves, and are all pederasts because of it. See: Boy Scouts of America, and any christian fundamentalist organization's stance.
It's total fucking horseshit, and was commonly accepted until the early 90s, which is when that trial was taking place. Apparently, looking at some of the comments in this discussion, it is still accepted by dipshits that know it's wrong so they pos
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not homophobic, because homophobia is a fear of homosexuals. But is it anti-gay? Well the theory would be that bringing out that the defendant was gay might be intended to evoke anti-gay sentiments in the jury, which at the time was probably a reasonable expectation, especially considering AIDS was raging at the time.
suicidal jury (Score:5, Funny)
"the jury hearing Woodward's second trial again hung itself" .. oh my god, how bad was the case?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I fail to see how their genital endowment is relevant.
Re: (Score:3)
choking hazard
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks professor.
Re: (Score:2)
"the jury hearing Woodward's second trial again hung itself" .. oh my god, how bad was the case?
And how the heck did they do it "again"?
Re: (Score:1)
For case law on this, see Hang'Em High vs. Clint Eastwood.
Re: (Score:2)
"the jury hearing Woodward's second trial again hung itself" .. oh my god, how bad was the case?
Apparently that was a well-hung jury!
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, well, but learn the difference between "hung" and "hanged." It doesn't say that the jury hanged itself.
Re: (Score:2)
What new evidence does the State have to successfully convict?
You didn't even read the summary?
Re: (Score:2)
evidence of DNA on the rope that's how old? It does decay over time [livescience.com] but hey what do we know right? they've only tried to convict the guy a few times. His lawyer will get a jury trial and all it'll take is one person to say that he didn't do it. It's been since 1985 that DNA has been used in trials and amazingly within the same timeframe this person was murdered. Why didn't the detectives, prosecutors etc. bring that evidence in his previous trials? How has that evidence been preserved and handled for 30 yea
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, forensic science has now advanced to the point that DNA can be obtained from ever more deteriorated samples, especially if the rope has been stored for this purpose, let's say in liquid nitrogen.
Re: (Score:3)
https://cen.acs.org/analytical... [acs.org]
Lawyers will argue, experts will testify, the jury will decide. As it should be.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't discount that science has improved but frankly after dealing in a lot of evidence preservation questions, there's a ton of things a defense lawyer can do to shoot holes in evidence, creating doubt in the minds of jurors. It'll be an interesting case to watch. Not as fun as Depp. v. Heard but still interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't discount that science has improved but frankly after dealing in a lot of evidence preservation questions, there's a ton of things a defense lawyer can do to shoot holes in evidence, creating doubt in the minds of jurors.
DNA evidence is more reliably used to introduce doubt or even proof, to rule out someone who is accused (oftentimes, long after their conviction and imprisonment).
Re: (Score:2)
As in the GGP post, where DNA analysis ruled out the very strong suspect, before it confirmed the actual murderer.
Re: (Score:2)
Advances in DNA technology are routinely being used to solve cold cases from many decades ago, both through direct analysis of old samples, and through the use of genetic genealogy. Things have changed an awful lot since the "Pitchfork case" in 1986.
The problem here is that a significant amount of dust (not all of it as is commonly claimed, but enough) in homes is made of shed human skin cells, all containing DNA. Have you ever seen a bright beam of sunlight? That stuff is absolutely anywhere. So that means that advanced techniques that can amplify smaller and smaller traces of DNA are going to find your DNA on absolutely everything in the place you live and on people who have visited your home and on their clothes and quite possibly anywhere they have
Re: (Score:2)
In which case, the defense can make all those points during the trial in order to defeat "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Remember, felony indictments don't happen unless a grand jury signs off, and the defense's first move is going to be trying to get a judge to throw out the DNA evidence in a pre-trial motion.
As far as "why didn't they use this the first two times" the god damn summary says that the technology to lift the DNA off the rope didn't exist in the 90s.
This is why we have trials. He wasn't acquitted
Re: (Score:2)
How many trials need to be done? What new evidence does the State have to successfully convict? If the evidence wasn't there 30 years ago, what makes them think they'll actually be able to convict?
FTT (From The Title):
Tech CEO Arrested In 1992 Mountain View Cold Case Slaying After DNA Breakthrough
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seems odd that the prosecution isn't constrained by double jeopardy after not one but two hung juries. In some states I believe that's the case, but in California . . . ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not just one hung jury, but two. Some states have limits. I think New York limits it to two.
i call bs (Score:1)
I hope the defense has the money to have the other dna on the rope tested.
Re: (Score:2)
> I hope the defense has the money to have the other dna on the rope tested.
I guess there's a small chance it was her rope and they were roommates. Or that he often got a ride from here so of course his DNA was in the car.
The article is probably wrong on the details, as per usual.
Re: Yes, but did he ... (Score:2)
nah they busted Reiser immediately.
Re: (Score:2)
nah they busted Reiser immediately.
I believe the tabloid headline was "It Was Reiser FFS".
Crappy cops and Prosecutor (Score:3)
They mentioned "Did not deny" committing the crime. Guess what, I am willing to bet that the majority of people here have not denied committing the crime.
That is the worst example of cop logic I have heard. He must be be guilty because he didn't deny it? No wonder the jury hung twice, the authorities here seem to to be idiots.
I hope this new DNA evidence is better than the rest of the evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
They mentioned "Did not deny" committing the crime. Guess what, I am willing to bet that the majority of people here have not denied committing the crime.
That is the worst example of cop logic I have heard. He must be be guilty because he didn't deny it? No wonder the jury hung twice, the authorities here seem to to be idiots.
I hope this new DNA evidence is better than the rest of the evidence.
That's actually not as bad logic as it sounds.
People who commit crimes tend to think their actions are justified or at least explainable, so they tend to stumble when asked to deny them outright. Jerry Sandusky is a classic example [businessinsider.com], during a televised interview, while trying to prove he wasn't a pedophile, instead of outright denying a sexual attraction to young boys he started out by trying to explain how his particular feelings were different than sexual attraction.
I don't know if there's a clinical descr
Re: (Score:1)
I think anyone would stumble on a TV interview.
"Mr. Quantaman, prove you're not a pedophile." That's right up there with "Mr. ebvwfbw, prove you didn't kill all the people found in the Guiana camp with Jim Jones." A mass murder heard around the world. I can't prove I wasn't there nor that I didn't do it. Other than not having a passport, being a kid at the time. Proving it now? I don't think I could. Everyone in the audience looks at you - this guy is a monster. Maybe a rope that was part of my jacket when
Re: (Score:2)
I think anyone would stumble on a TV interview.
Except he did stumble in a TV interview. And he's not [bodylanguagesuccess.com] the first [bodylanguagesuccess.com]
"Mr. Quantaman, prove you're not a pedophile." That's right up there with "Mr. ebvwfbw, prove you didn't kill all the people found in the Guiana camp with Jim Jones." A mass murder heard around the world.
Yeah, I severely doubt the friend asked a deliberately indirect question.
It was probably more like, "Q: Did you kill her? A: Why are you asking me that?"
Which superficially seems fine, but really, a normal person asked if they did something horrendous will instinctively reply with a strong denial. The problem with trying being a good liar in that instance is it's hard to put yourself in the shoes of a normal person, you don't instinctively repl
Re: (Score:1)
I think anyone would stumble on a TV interview.
Except he did stumble in a TV interview. And he's not [bodylanguagesuccess.com] the first [bodylanguagesuccess.com]
Yes, the point I was making. Consider a famous one recently - "Ok, we now know Mr. Epstein was murdered. Prove you didn't do it." I'd be - Uh... well... It's hard to prove it unless you were in jail at the time. Alibis can be broken. Even with a date I'm not sure what I was doing when that happened. I may have been at a Federal facility. I understand that can't be used to prove I didn't do something. Even with cameras. That's what they tell me.
"Mr. Quantaman, prove you're not a pedophile." That's right up there with "Mr. ebvwfbw, prove you didn't kill all the people found in the Guiana camp with Jim Jones." A mass murder heard around the world.
Yeah, I severely doubt the friend asked a deliberately indirect question.
It was probably more like, "Q: Did you kill her? A: Why are you asking me that?"
Which superficially seems fine, but really, a normal person asked if they did something horrendous will instinctively reply with a strong denial. The problem with trying being a good liar in that instance is it's hard to put yourself in the shoes of a normal person, you don't instinctively reply with a strong denial because you don't find the prospect of that murder to be horrendous.
Depends on how it was done. If he knew he was going to be asked
Re: (Score:2)
I think anyone would stumble on a TV interview.
Except he did stumble in a TV interview. And he's not [bodylanguagesuccess.com] the first [bodylanguagesuccess.com]
Yes, the point I was making. Consider a famous one recently - "Ok, we now know Mr. Epstein was murdered. Prove you didn't do it."
Not a quote I could find and I'm not even sure the specific person being asked was supposed to be.
I'd be - Uh... well... It's hard to prove it unless you were in jail at the time. Alibis can be broken. Even with a date I'm not sure what I was doing when that happened. I may have been at a Federal facility. I understand that can't be used to prove I didn't do something. Even with cameras. That's what they tell me.
Again, this isn't asking someone to PROVE they didn't do X, it's asking someone IF they did do X.
That's a really, really critical difference when you're considering the response.
Asking someone to prove a negative is famously difficult, I'd expect them to stumble. Asking someone if they did something, that should be a very simple variation on yes or no. If they stumble it's a big red flag.
Because I know of plenty of cases where they get rid of it long before 30 years. I have a cousin that was very brutally murdered in the 1970s and we know who did it. Today they could probably prove it. It turns out they threw all the stuff related to his murder away in the 1980s. FBI, Locals, etc. Nobody has any of it anymore. When I say brutal, I mean it took them weeks to finally get around to killing him. He was tortured during that time. It was a cross-country trek. The police really wanted to get them.
I'm very sorry to hear
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, the point I was making. Consider a famous one recently - "Ok, we now know Mr. Epstein was murdered. Prove you didn't do it."
Not a quote I could find and I'm not even sure the specific person being asked was supposed to be.
Consider whether the question was to me, or you. I didn't do it and I'm fairly sure you didn't do it. Proving that is tough.
I'd be - Uh... well... It's hard to prove it unless you were in jail at the time. Alibis can be broken. Even with a date I'm not sure what I was doing when that happened. I may have been at a Federal facility. I understand that can't be used to prove I didn't do something. Even with cameras. That's what they tell me.
Again, this isn't asking someone to PROVE they didn't do X, it's asking someone IF they did do X.
That's a really, really critical difference when you're considering the response.
Asking someone to prove a negative is famously difficult, I'd expect them to stumble. Asking someone if they did something, that should be a very simple variation on yes or no. If they stumble it's a big red flag.
Sounds like you haven't been at the receiving end of such things. If you're being asked such a question, they are usually darn sure you did it. They're not asking about your health. While there is a difference in the end there is no difference. Answer very carefully because you can talk yourself into trouble. If they knew for sure they wouldn't be asking. I know guys that I bet could m
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that is exactly the HORRIBLE logic cops use. No.
That is illogical, moronic bullcrap. If you deny it, they say that is proof you did it. If you do not deny it, they say that is proof you did it.
You want to know what is evidence someone did it? Fingerprints, DNA, recordings, confessions, eye witness testimony and finally, 'knowledge that only the criminal had', that is not secretly given to them by a cop.
Bullshit psychological mumbo jumbo is not evidence - and that comes from the son of a psychiatr
Re: (Score:2)
Murderer.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if he did deny it - well we all know that murderers never lie.
I'm not sure I want to live in a world where not denying something is equated to admitting guilt. I guess I'll just have to start denying literally everything in order to avoid malicious prosecution now.
For the record: I deny that I've ever killed anybody. Now I'm free from arraignment, right?
Forgetful in his old age? (Score:2)
So the suspect flees the country after a second hung jury. Years later forgets that he was not acquitted. Forgets that there is no statute of limitations on murder. Or that he can be arrested in one state (NY) for crimes committed in another (CA). Is he guilty of murder? He's certainly guilty of stupidity.
Doesn't double jeopardy apply? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The trials did not end with a judgement, therefore it ended in mistrial, and can be tried again. Often, prosecutors don't bother because if they couldn't make the case the first time, it's unlikely a different jury is going to come to a different result. But there's no legal bar to a do-over.