When looking at the investigation the police conducted it becomes clear they did far less then a thorough job. They had no physical or forensic evidence connecting Hank to the crime scene. Evidence that could have been collected (i'e. tire molds, etc.) which could have clearly linked Hank to the crime scene was never taken. What would this evidence had shown? Would it have shown Hank was not the perpetrator? Would it have shown that there was never even a crime committed? All the police had was the testimony of a very scared 12 year old girl and as powerful as this may seem there are countless cases where young victims, for whatever reasons, have been coerced to lie about the commission of a crime.
Here are instances where the police "botched" the investigation:
- (1) Police said they were unable to obtain any latent fingerprints from the 16 ounce Budweiser beer bottles found at the crime scene because according to them there was moisture on the bottles. Therefore the beer bottles could not connect Hank to the crime scene. *** - It should be noted that finger prints and DNA evidence can be lifted off of evidence submerged in a dirty river after several months and with moisture on them. Was the issue with moisture the police and DA's deception because they knew the jury would never question the police when they stated that fingerprints couldn't be lifted because of the moisture?
- (2) Police were unable to obtain any latent fingerprints from the knife found at the crime scene because of moisture. Therefore the knife could not connect Hank to the crime scene. *** - It should be noted that finger prints and DNA evidence can be lifted off of evidence submerged in a dirty river after several months and with moisture on them. Was the issue with moisture the police and DA's deception because they knew the jury would never question the police when they stated that fingerprints couldn't be lifted because of the moisture?
- (3) Police performed no analysis of the broken glass found at the crime scene from the beer bottle Tanya testified she had used to cut Hank's face. Could there have been blood or DNA on the broken glass from the Budweiser bottle that could have identified the perpetrator? Because nothing was tested on the broken glass, it could not connect Hank to the crime scene. *** - It should be noted that the broken beer bottle wasn't even collected as evidence--exculpatory evidence.
- (4) Police took no plastic molds of the tire tracks found at the scene because they said the ground was too hard; remember this was the middle of July and as the police stated there was moisture on the knife and beer bottles. At the very least why weren't photographs taken? Had molds or photos been taken it could have proved or disproved that the tire tracks at the crime scene matched or didn't match Hank's car. There was nothing to connect Hank's car being at the crime scene. *** - It should be noted that there were photographs of the tire tracks, good ones that Det. Whitehead is standing over and pointing at them, and the police never compared them to Hank's car or if they did they never brought it up at trial. At the trial they couldn't compare the photographs of the tire tracks to Hank's car because his car had been given away; given away before the trial to a person that no one knew who had it. This was clearly exculpatory evidence.
- (5) Police never contacted drive-in theater management to see if they or anyone heard or saw anything the night of July 18th when Tanya attempted to escape by running to the front of the screen screaming and yelling for help. *** - It should be noted that Tanya stated the movie theater was closed the night of the crime and that's the reason no one heard her yelling and screaming for help, yet in later testimony Police Officer Pacitti said the movie theater was open that night; later verified by theater management?
- (6) Police photographs taken at Hank's arraignment showed no cuts on his face. Nothing entered in the police booking sheet mentioned cuts on Hank’s face. There were no cuts or marks on Hank that would validate Tanya’s testimony that she cut Hank when she threw a beer bottle at him. Didn't the police find this strange?
- (7) Police never produced any reports or evidence of the testing of the bathing suit Tanya was wearing during the alleged crime, nor any results of the rape examination done on Tanya by nurses at the hospital after the crime. What were the results of the testing done on the bathing suit? What was the result of the examination done on Tanya; did it show she was raped? Was there any reports written? If reports were written why weren’t they presented as evidence at the trial? Why wasn’t the nurse and others doing the examination on Tanya called to testify? Why didn't Hank's lawyer demand to see these results?
- (8) Police checked on numerous residences at Belmont and Eldridge Ave. at all times during the day and night of July 19th - 21st before Hank was arrested; yet Daniel Mastroianni was able to locate Hank and his car on his first try on July 21st? Were the police trying to infer Hank couldn’t be found because he fled the area so as not to be apprehended and appear guilty?
- (9) Tanya stated in her testimoney that after the rape Hank and she went to a McDonald's drive-in restaurant for breakfast on the morning of July 19, 1982. Yet the police never checked with McDonald's to verify that Hank and Tanya were there at the time Tanya stated they were. Were the police so convinced of Tanya's story, in spite of the lack of physical evidence that they didn't feel the need to validate her story?
