OK OK - Girl Scout Murders, Lori Farmer, 8, Michelle Guse, 9, Doris Milner, 10, 1977

[HoneyWest]

The source of the DNA was semen. In the late 80's, with advanced testing capabilities, it was conclusively matched to Hart and ONLY Hart.

My last post on the case. It was solved through science years ago.

BBM - Nope, not true at all. In May 2007 the lab which tested the semen from the anal swab and the pillowcase released a report stating that no DNA evidence was obtained from the evidence. In July 2007, another lab, Sorenson Forensics conducted analysis on the sperm and the pillowcase. No results could be obtained from the sperm, but a degraded partial DNA profile was obtained from the stained pillowcase, and that DNA profile was genetically typed as female! The OSBI then conducted analysis of the victims' parent's DNA against the partial female profile and concluded that the DNA from the pillowcase could not be excluded as being from one of the victims.

Now, there's nothing left to test. To this day, this case has not been solved, through science or other any other means. There has been no closure for the families and friends of the victims.

 

[HoneyWest]

I'm reading " Tent Number Eight" right now. I am a bit dismayed by the lack of proper proofreading. There are many errors in the book...
I REALLY don't care how many objections the defense team made vs. the number the prosecution made, and that's about all I am getting out of the book. It is very dry reading for me.

Is that all you got out of the book? Some typos and number of objections? Granted, the book does not go into gory details or wild speculations, but gave a never-before public description of the trial and witness testimony. The POINT of the author's (who is an Oklahoma attorney) notations on objections was to present errors made by the state - several times they should have objected, but didn't, which allowed the defense more leeway. This is huge. Had the State been as aggressive as the defense in their objections, the entire trial would have most likely taken a very different turn, possibly a conviction of Hart.

One thing I picked up on early was a very strong hint from the author that he believes a female camp counselor was or could have been involved.
Did you pick up on the accusatory statements? He criticizes one teenaged camp leader more than he ever does Hart. She is the same counselor who was filmed in " Someone Cry For the Children", and she is the same person who said it was very unusual for an AA child to be at Camp Scott in that time period.

Did we read the same book? No, I did not pick up on any suggestion by Gloyd that a camp counselor was involved. I know who you are speaking of...her name is Carla, she was the youngest counselor in the unit, and Denise was the only African American child in the Kiowa unit. BTW, her name wasn't Diane Denise Milner, it was Doris Denise Milner and she went by the name "Denise".

I was impressed with the interviews and very long narratives done by Johnny Cash and Dale Robertson with scenery from the area..

I own a copy of the DVD "Someone Cry for the Children"; I've practically memorized it. It's a good source of information, but by no means is it as comprehensive as the book, not should it be considered the end-all source for information on this case. It was filmed many years ago and much has happened since then. The scenery from the area you mention does not in any way look that way today. I remember how it looked in '77 but now I'd probably get lost in those woods.

IMO,the Cherokee Nation should have had enough respect for US Justice to leave their shapeshifting theories and their " medicine" out of the investigation and trial. They played mind games with some OSBI agents who were Native American!!

US Justice? Umm..this wasn't a US federal trial, it was a state trial. Also, the Cherokee Nation had nothing to do with getting involved in the investigation. Three OSBI agents were intent on investigating the native folklore they had heard of - the shapeshifting and possible protection of Hart. Harvey was the OSBI agent who is full-blood Cherokee and it was through him that they finally convinced a reluctant medicine man to even talk to them or help them. In the documentary, he's called "Crying Wolf", but that's not his name and he insisted upon anonymity.

As a former Girl Scout, a former Camp Scott camper, and a member of the Cherokee Tribe, I'd be very interested to hear how you interpreted anything in the book or the documentary as the entire Cherokee Nation (there are a LOT of us!) was playing mind games with the OSBI. But I guess I won't, since the case is closed for you and you've posted your last post in this thread.

 

[kemo]

I'm confused about this DNA issue. There was NO DNA comparison in 1978. Forensic DNA comparison only began in the late 1980's. The original forensic DNA comparison available in the late 1980's was LFLP. This was quite slow and expensive and it was limited to fairly large samples of biological material. If there had been any decomposition or contamination, it was often unusable of only a limited points of comparison would be available. This is genially where the concept of a "partial match" comes up. The more points that could be compared, the smaller the pool of people in any given population that would be a match.
I have read that only 12 in 100,000 people, including Hart were a match for this sample. Technically, this would mean 125 men in Oklahoma would match this sample. If Hart was identified from a cold hit on, say a list of sex offenders, this would noteworthy but not rock solid proof. The fact that Hart was the prime suspect with other, abet circumstantial, evidence against him is quite compelling. This comes pretty close to "beyond all reasonable doubt".

A problem with this analysis is that the "12 in 100,000 figure is based on the public at large, not any particular pool of people. Hart was pure-blood Cherokee. This combinationation of genetic markers might be very common (or very rare) in the pool of Cherokee men. Without that information, we cannot really judge the relevance of the DNA evidence.

 

[Still_Seek_Answers]

Ok, so now that I am totally confused by rather or not the DNA was matched to Hart, which causes me to ask the question, how did they get a non degraded sample of his sperm, so many years after his death? I am not sure one can really compare sounds made during sex with any degree of accuracy, especially since in the second instance nobody truly heard the clear sounds.
I am not sure at this point a fair conclusion can be drawn, as so much as the evidence has been tainted by a HART DID IT, NO DOUBT attitude.I saw nothing scientifically that lead me to that conclusion. A couple questions that nags at me though, WHY was that tent so far away from the others? WHY was the tent that was furthest away from the others the only one without a camp counselor in it? That almost makes it appear someone set that tent apart to be more easily targeted. I also have to agree with the...no knowledgeable woodsman would be walking through that type of underbrush, with the snakes known to the area, in tennis shoes....sorry, but knowledgeable woods woman here....
However, I did see enough to know this was a horrible disaster and my heart goes out to these families.

 

[sayd]

Yes, Hart's semen was DNA matched to that found inside the 3 girls.
You can find the updated info on You Tube on " Someone Cry For The Children", which was produced by the Discovery channel and aired sometime in the late 80s. DNA testing had advanced to the point that they could definitely say that Hart was the attacker.

Thank you for posting this. I just watched the whole thing. It was really worth watching. I'd say with the DNA results obtained 12 years later, this is a closed case. Sometimes our justice system just doesn't get it right.

 

[wfgodot]

Arguing the DNA "evidence" "proves Hart did it" is remarkably wrong-headed, as it does nothing of the sort. Also, Hart was found innocent of charges by a murder jury - the best evidence that he was, in fact, not guilty of the crime.

 

[Betty P]

Arguing the DNA "evidence" "proves Hart did it" is remarkably wrong-headed, as it does nothing of the sort. Also, Hart was found innocent of charges by a murder jury - the best evidence that he was, in fact, not guilty of the crime.

In addition to the DNA evidence, there was also a great deal of circumstantial evidence. The evidence, some of which was very damning, from the rapes he committed on two Tulsa women was not allowed in the trial. The noises he made while attacking the women were similar to those heard by the camp counselor, as were the methods and types of bindings used and the habit of stealing prescription glasses from victims. Hart had poor vision and had the habit of stealing glasses during crimes so he could see what he was doing.

Had the jury known of his previous crimes, the evidence from them, and the similarities in his MO, they might have convicted him.

 

[Still_Seek_Answers]

BBM - Nope, not true at all. In May 2007 the lab which tested the semen from the anal swab and the pillowcase released a report stating that no DNA evidence was obtained from the evidence. In July 2007, another lab, Sorenson Forensics conducted analysis on the sperm and the pillowcase. No results could be obtained from the sperm, but a degraded partial DNA profile was obtained from the stained pillowcase, and that DNA profile was genetically typed as female! The OSBI then conducted analysis of the victims' parent's DNA against the partial female profile and concluded that the DNA from the pillowcase could not be excluded as being from one of the victims.

Now, there's nothing left to test. To this day, this case has not been solved, through science or other any other means. There has been no closure for the families and friends of the victims.

But that was not so...no DNA was obtained from the evidence (SEE ABOVE QUOTE). How do you test NO DNA and get any match, let alone a total match. I'd love to see this case closed for the families, but that closure has to come honestly. This I know for certain, from experience.....maybe's and could be's give you no peace.

 

[Still_Seek_Answers]

In addition to the DNA evidence, there was also a great deal of circumstantial evidence. The evidence, some of which was very damning, from the rapes he committed on two Tulsa women was not allowed in the trial. The noises he made while attacking the women were similar to those heard by the camp counselor, as were the methods and types of bindings used and the habit of stealing prescription glasses from victims. Hart had poor vision and had the habit of stealing glasses during crimes so he could see what he was doing.

Had the jury known of his previous crimes, the evidence from them, and the similarities in his MO, they might have convicted him.

I saw in the story Hart was wearing woman's glasses when captured. I did not however see that those glasses belonged to any of the girls. I still find the noise argument a bad one...simply because if a camp counselor heard those noises that well, surely she would have checked on the girls.....I mean who wouldn't? If you had a group of kids camping and you heard those noises, would you simply roll over and go back to sleep? I doubt it....I think you'd go take a head count...make sure all the kids were ok......I know i would anyhow. So that says to me she heard lite sounds that raised no concerns...not a good comparison. Also since NO DNA could be gathered off the evidence, any comparison was done with DNA partially degraded, and to use that to take a mans life....no I don't think that comparison is good either.
The fact that tent was intentionally placed the furthest away, and it was the only one with no counselor inside, still makes me think it was targeted. That took someone inside the camp. Did they know it would result in 3 murders.......doubtful.....but they knew something bad was gonna happen ...and they wanted that tent far enough away the others did not hear.

 

[sayd]

Arguing the DNA "evidence" "proves Hart did it" is remarkably wrong-headed, as it does nothing of the sort. Also, Hart was found innocent of charges by a murder jury - the best evidence that he was, in fact, not guilty of the crime.[/QUOTE]

Bolded by me...I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. The Casey Anthony trial clarified that one for me.

The FBI DNA testing done 12 years after the murder showed that there were only 7800 people that could have done the crime, including Hart. So although it wasn't conclusive, it certainly limited the gene pool. Remember DNA testing was still in its infancy back then. The more recent testing 2007/08, said that the samples were too old to determine anything.

Spend the hour and watch "Someone Cry For The Children" on youtube.

My last post on this topic too.

 

[Still_Seek_Answers]

I have watched the movie, and it can certainly tear your heart out. I don't see how this in any way resembles the Casey Antony case, and I would not have freed her either.
Had I been a member of the jury on the Hart case, then I may have seen or heard something to make me feel differently. Right now all I have to go by is what is posted here and on the different sites. Movies often are not the most reliable sources.
I agree this is a case many have disagreed on, and I can see why. So I guess someday maybe science will actually be able to tell us who did this terrible crime.
Until then, we can only go by what feels right to us...and I am sorry, but the circumstances of that tent really bothers me....

 

[HoneyWest]

But that was not so...no DNA was obtained from the evidence (SEE ABOVE QUOTE). How do you test NO DNA and get any match, let alone a total match. I'd love to see this case closed for the families, but that closure has to come honestly. This I know for certain, from experience.....maybe's and could be's give you no peace.

Sorry, I didn't phrase that correctly. I meant that no DNA profile was obtained from that analysis.

 

[HoneyWest]

Ok, so now that I am totally confused by rather or not the DNA was matched to Hart, which causes me to ask the question, how did they get a non degraded sample of his sperm, so many years after his death?

That was exactly the problem...the sperm samples they had were from one anal swab from one of the girls and one pillowcase. The reason the tests came back as inconclusive is because the samples were so degraded.

Here's an article which explains:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080625_12_A1_hFamil776146&r=876

A couple questions that nags at me though, WHY was that tent so far away from the others? WHY was the tent that was furthest away from the others the only one without a camp counselor in it? That almost makes it appear someone set that tent apart to be more easily targeted. I also have to agree with the...no knowledgeable woodsman would be walking through that type of underbrush, with the snakes known to the area, in tennis shoes....sorry, but knowledgeable woods woman here....
However, I did see enough to know this was a horrible disaster and my heart goes out to these families.

Well, the camp was set up back in the late 20's. I'm not sure when those particular tents were set up the way they were. They were kind of semi-permanent, set up on wooden bases which kept them off the ground. Actually, the tent #7 wasn't really that far from the others. The tents were in somewhat of a semi-circle, tent #7 just happened to be the last in the semi-circle and sat closest to the most wooded area. You're right in that it would have been the easiest tent to target for a sexual predator, because the killer could have disappeared into the woods without having to pass any other tents.

None of the girl's tents had camp counselors in them. The counselors shared their own tent, which was closest to tent #1 and the dining hall. There were 4 girls to a tent except for tent #7 which contained 3...Michele, Denise, and Lori.

 

[Still_Seek_Answers]

Well, the camp was set up back in the late 20's. I'm not sure when those particular tents were set up the way they were. They were kind of semi-permanent, set up on wooden bases which kept them off the ground. Actually, the tent #7 wasn't really that far from the others. The tents were in somewhat of a semi-circle, tent #7 just happened to be the last in the semi-circle and sat closest to the most wooded area. You're right in that it would have been the easiest tent to target for a sexual predator, because the killer could have disappeared into the woods without having to pass any other tents.

None of the girl's tents had camp counselors in them. The counselors shared their own tent, which was closest to tent #1 and the dining hall. There were 4 girls to a tent except for tent #7 which contained 3...Michele, Denise, and Lori.

Right now it is 3:29 a, so I am not at my best. I do however remember reading on one of sites, which I will re-read once I get some sleep, something about this being the only tent with no adult.....don't quote me on that, until I find the actual wording they used.

Thank You for explaining the DNA thing to, but if a profile could not be made, then an exact match could not be made.I refuse also to accept the noise thing as evidence. If a counselor had heard noise loud enough to bother her, she would have surely taken a head count, even then. Since I take that to mean the noise was not loud enough to upset her, so certainly not loud enough to be confirmed as sexual.

I am sorry, I'd love to see this case have real closure...but I do know by experience, that means the I's dotted and the T's crossed, and so far that has not happened here.

 

[Still_Seek_Answers]

DNA linked to 1977 case inconclusive

1 / 3Showing image 1 of 3
Families of three slain Girl Scouts still hope to one day know the truth.
By SARA PLUMMER World Staff Writer
Published: 6/25/2008 2:09 AM
Last Modified: 6/25/2008 2:23 AM

Families of three slain Girl Scouts still hope to one day know the truth.



PRYOR — More than 30 years after the murder of three Girl Scouts near Locust Grove, the victims' families still don't know for sure who killed them.

Mayes County District Attorney Gene Haynes announced Tuesday that DNA testing from the 1977 murders was ruled inconclusive. The physical evidence was too deteriorated to form a DNA profile, according to a statement from Haynes.

On June 13, 1977, 8-year-old Lori Farmer of Tulsa, 9-year-old Michelle Guse of Broken Arrow and 10-year-old Doris Milner of Tulsa were found slain at Camp Scott in Mayes County.

Gene Leroy Hart was tried for the killings, but he was acquitted in 1979. He later died while in prison on unrelated charges.

Bettye Milner, Doris' mother, said she was disappointed when she learned of the DNA results earlier this year.

"I'm a big 'CSI' fan. You see all this stuff on TV and the things they can do," Milner said. "I was hoping we would have conclusive results."

Sheri Farmer, Lori's mother, said she and her husband weren't surprised by the results, but are still hopeful.

"We still think in our lifetime we will know the answer, it just wasn't this time," Farmer said. "I still have hope. One day someone will come forward or they'll come up with new technology."

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080625_12_A1_hFamil776146&r=876

See these families wantREAL answers with CONCLUSIVE results

 

[sayd]

I have watched the movie, and it can certainly tear your heart out. I don't see how this in any way resembles the Casey Antony case, and I would not have freed her either.
Had I been a member of the jury on the Hart case, then I may have seen or heard something to make me feel differently. Right now all I have to go by is what is posted here and on the different sites. Movies often are not the most reliable sources.
I agree this is a case many have disagreed on, and I can see why. So I guess someday maybe science will actually be able to tell us who did this terrible crime.
Until then, we can only go by what feels right to us...and I am sorry, but the circumstances of that tent really bothers me....

It's NOT a movie, it is a documentary. It has pictures of the actual tents, interviews with the actual counselors, etc. Not sure where you got it was a movie?

 

[Still_Seek_Answers]

Perhaps I looked at something different than what you were referring to. I will go over and take a look. However even documentaries are often shown in such a way to lead you to the conclusion they want you to make. Don't misunderstand, I am not saying Hart did not do it. As a family member who after 40 years still does not have a conclusive answer, I simply know exactly how these families feel.
These families want rock solid answers. All I am saying is the evidence I saw left me with several unanswered questions. I very much agree with what the family said in the interview, I hope someday they find the answers they seek to give them the peace they deserve.

 

[sayd]

Perhaps I looked at something different than what you were referring to. I will go over and take a look. However even documentaries are often shown in such a way to lead you to the conclusion they want you to make. Don't misunderstand, I am not saying Hart did not do it. As a family member who after 40 years still does not have a conclusive answer, I simply know exactly how these families feel.
These families want rock solid answers. All I am saying is the evidence I saw left me with several unanswered questions. I very much agree with what the family said in the interview, I hope someday they find the answers they seek to give them the peace they deserve.

I agree with you on documentaries! On this documentary I did enjoy the diagrams of the camp, the pictures, and the interviews with the camp counselors, the investigators, and the parents of the 3 victims.

OT, but I wanted to add that I am sorry to hear about your family member. I can only imagine. When I was in high school a friend of mine's sister was murdered. We all knew who did it, but they couldn't prove it. About a year ago I was searching for information on that crime and found that the guy who we all knew killed her had killed someone else and was convicted of that murder. If only he would have been convicted of the first murder. I am sure, like you, there is still no full closure for my friend and her parents.

 

[Still_Seek_Answers]

I agree with you on documentaries! On this documentary I did enjoy the diagrams of the camp, the pictures, and the interviews with the camp counselors, the investigators, and the parents of the 3 victims.

OT, but I wanted to add that I am sorry to hear about your family member. I can only imagine. When I was in high school a friend of mine's sister was murdered. We all knew who did it, but they couldn't prove it. About a year ago I was searching for information on that crime and found that the guy who we all knew killed her had killed someone else and was convicted of that murder. If only he would have been convicted of the first murder. I am sure, like you, there is still no full closure for my friend and her parents.

First let me say Thank You for your kind words. Second, I am sorry for your friend and her family.It is cases like that one that keeps us fighting for stricter laws. The serial killer who killed my sister(as far as we know) actually killed girls while he was out on bail. Thank heavens now murder charges mean no bail. Sadly that gives little comfort to the families already affected.
They have my prayers. While we are relatively certain which serial killer took my sister, there is no comfort in that.
That is why I feel such empathy for the families of these girls. A detective who works on my sisters case said it best....HE said, it's the pain, the pain is as deep as in a fresh wound, and it does not matter if it has been thirty years. HE is very correct, and I just feel so terrible for these families .I feel even worse knowing the science let them down. I really hope and pray the science can soon give them an answer, they deserve the closure.....they deserve the peace. I did watch the documentary, I am not sure what I watched first time, I must have been half asleep. I still have so many more questions than answers. I understand why the tent was put there, since that is where the "floor"was, but I still don't know why the floor was there....I have to stop and remind myself, back then we still had an age of innocence and people did not have to look for monsters around every corner.......and one certainly can't blame people for that........
God be with you and them

 

[kemo]

I saw “Someone Cry for the Children", on You Tube; a "must see" for anyone who wants understand the case. It the case was circumstantial and it really wasn't all that strong. It's too bad those items belonging to the camp counselor weren't found on the initial search. They were good evidence but became suspected as "planted evidence" due to the manner they were found. The prosecutions biggest mistake was bringing it to trial at all. Hart had a long prison term to serve. They shouldn't have been in any hurry.

If the analysis of the DNA test was Valid, it pretty convincing that Hart did it. Forensic DNA at the time (the late 80's) was still in its infancy and interpretation wasn't quite as clear as it would be now. Any advocate for Hart's innocence (or someone else's guilt) ought to be able to obtain the actual test result and review the determination