Get on the path to results today.
I have maintained that I did not commit these murders. My conviction was based largely on changing eyewitness accounts, questionable identification procedures, testimony from people with reasons to protect themselves, and a DNA statistic that did not uniquely identify me. At the same time, important physical evidence, timeline evidence, and investigative leads point away from me or were never fully pursued.
The murders occurred at approximately 6:00 p.m. or shortly afterward.
The six-year-old child's descriptions of the woman he said he saw changed several times. One important detail was that he described the woman as having black hair.
I did not have black hair at the time of the murders. I was blonde.
Surveillance video from Subway at approximately 8:30 p.m. that evening showed me with blonde hair. Paul Balmer did not dye my hair until later that night, after the Subway video was recorded. This creates an important conflict between the child's original description and my actual appearance at the time of the murders.
The circumstances surrounding the child's identification also raise serious concerns. His mother reached him before law enforcement arrived and participated in discussions about what the woman looked like. She reported that her son said the woman had a Band-Aid on her neck. I did not have a Band-Aid on my neck.
The child was later sitting on his mother's lap while a detective questioned him about identifying me. These interactions were not recorded, leaving no objective record of exactly what the child was asked, what he was told, or how his answers developed.
The photographic identification procedure was also questionable. My photograph was younger than my actual appearance and was smaller than the other photographs, making it stand out.
A six-year-old child's identification should have been handled with extraordinary care to avoid suggestion or influence.
The child reportedly said he saw the woman take drugs.
However, one of the victims had a baggie containing a substantial quantity of pills, reportedly worth approximately $20,000 or more, which can be seen in autopsy photographs.
The presence of those drugs creates other possible motives and possible suspects that deserved serious investigation.
DNA recovered from the handle of the gun was a mixture involving three contributors.
Two contributors were unknown.
The prosecution's evidence regarding the remaining DNA did not establish that it was mine. The statistic presented was approximately 1 in 2,200, meaning I could not be excluded from the mixture. That is very different from a unique DNA identification.
Most importantly, there were two unknown DNA contributors on the gun.
At the time, investigators said the unknown DNA was insufficient for CODIS testing. DNA technology has advanced dramatically since 2008. The original biological evidence and the underlying laboratory data should be reviewed by modern independent DNA experts to determine whether the unknown contributors can now be separated, compared, or potentially identified through newer forensic methods.
Identifying either unknown contributor could be extremely important to determining who actually handled the murder weapon.
Despite a violent scene involving multiple gunshot victims and visible blood spatter, there was no victim blood or victim DNA found on me or on my personal belongings.
That absence is significant considering the prosecution's theory that I personally committed three murders at close range.
The guns connected to the crime had been reported stolen from me approximately two months earlier, in October.
There was information identifying who had committed the robbery and who could have taken the guns.
The fact that a weapon was once mine does not establish that I possessed or fired it on the night of the murders—especially when it had already been reported stolen.
Paul Balmer testified that he visited Ed Mollett twice on the day of the murders.
He admitted possessing the gun and admitted "hiding" it. But in another statement said I did.
He also claimed that he disposed of clothing by throwing it from a vehicle along the road on December 22.
That claim conflicts with what my mother personally observed. She saw clothing inside Balmer's house on December 26, four days after he claimed he had thrown it away, when his father told her to come get my things.
That contradiction deserves serious examination because the clothing did not contain any physical evidence of being used in murders, never described as such until AFTER they were Found.
Law enforcement was outside the motel on December 23 near the garbage can and mailbox area where the guns were supposedly hidden on the ground under some weeds. Yet officers did not discover the guns.
Balmer later directed detectives to the location after returning from Florida, around January 3.
This raises an obvious question: if the guns were already there on December 23, why were they not seen by officers who were in the immediate area?
The location was also directly visible from a nearby bank branch with a drive-through. Yet investigators apparently did not obtain surveillance video from the bank.
Investigators sought surveillance footage from the motel, Family Dollar, and Subway. Subway footage existed and became important because it showed that I was still blonde at approximately 8:30 p.m.
Why was footage not sought from the bank overlooking the location where the guns supposedly had been hidden?
That could have shown when the guns were placed there and who placed them there.
Paul Balmer wanted me to leave for Florida with him that night.
I refused because I had a doctor's appointment the next day.
Documentation confirms that I actually had that appointment.
When my cousin later called and told me that the sheriff's office was looking for me, I went in.
Paul Balmer did the opposite.
He took my car and my telephone, which he had possessed during the day, and fled to Jacksonville, Florida.
His flight, his possession of the weapons, his possession of my phone, and admitted concealment of evidence should be considered together.
Evidence concerning the bullet paths indicated that some shots traveled on a slightly downward trajectory.
One victim was approximately 5 feet 10 inches tall and appears to have been standing when shot, based on the position of his fall and his impact with a table.
I am approximately 5 feet 2 inches tall.
Paul Balmer is approximately 6 feet tall.
A qualified independent shooting-reconstruction expert should review the original crime-scene measurements, autopsy findings, bullet trajectories, victim positions, and blood-spatter evidence to determine what can legitimately be concluded about the shooter's position and approximate height.
This should not be based on speculation; it should be scientifically reconstructed from the original evidence.
The shooting would have required considerable accuracy.
I have significant difficulty seeing at a distance and normally wear glasses, but I did not have them.
There was also testimony or evidence concerning drug use.
Those circumstances raise additional questions about whether the prosecution's version of events was physically realistic.
Detective Triggs testified that he spoke with Balmer approximately four times while Balmer was at his mother's house.
Those communications deserve close examination.
Because Balmer later became an important witness against me, it is important to know exactly what investigators told him, what information they disclosed, whether his accounts changed after those conversations, and whether his statements became more favorable to the prosecution over time.
Recordings, notes, telephone records, reports, and prior statements should be compared carefully.
There were multiple ways to reach the Mollett property, including access from the hill behind the residence.
A neighbor on the other side of the hill reportedly told the sheriff that he heard four-wheelers coming down from the hill near his house.
According to the neighbor, the sheriff suggested that what he heard was law enforcement.
However, if law enforcement did not have four-wheelers or similar vehicles there at the relevant time, that explanation deserves further investigation.
This could indicate another person or persons accessing or leaving the area.
Paul Balmer's father, Harry, told me that Detective Spencer had made a statement approximately one or two weeks before the murders suggesting that "this would all be over in two weeks."
If accurately remembered, that statement raises the question of what the detective believed was going to happen and why.
Deputy Malone also told me months earlier that law enforcement believed Balmer had killed his common-law wife in May and that they would eventually "get him."
These statements should be investigated through witnesses, reports, personnel records, and any available documentation rather than simply accepted or dismissed.
Balmer made a deal concerning his role in events.
He claimed that he transported me but did not hear or see anything, while also admitting possession and concealment of critical evidence.
Yet he was not charged with participating in the murders.
Whenever a prosecution witness receives immunity, leniency, reduced charges, or another benefit, that creates a powerful motive to give testimony favorable to the prosecution.
His testimony should therefore be compared carefully against every earlier statement he made and against the physical evidence.
At least one informant who testified or provided evidence against me later admitted that she lied.
She wrote a letter to me years later acknowledging that she had lied.
She also reportedly stated during a television program that she said what the prosecutor told her to say.
If a witness whose testimony helped convict me later acknowledged lying, that evidence should be fully investigated and evaluated in determining whether my conviction remains reliable.
Any single issue might be explained away by the prosecution. The importance comes from considering the evidence together:
I cannot undo what happened that night, but I can continue asking that the evidence be examined honestly.
I am not asking anyone simply to take my word for it.
Test the unknown DNA. Examine the original DNA data with today's technology. Review the surveillance evidence and why the bank footage was never obtained. Compare every version of the child's identification. Compare every statement Paul Balmer made. Examine the physical evidence, shooting trajectories, clothing, telephone records, witness benefits, and the statements of witnesses who later admitted lying.
I have said that if I had proof of my innocence, I would not still be here.
But there is evidence that can be tested.
There are unanswered questions that can be investigated.
And there are facts that should never have been ignored.
I am asking for the opportunity to have that evidence examined with the scientific tools and knowledge available today.
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.