Home
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/they-lied-us-mom-says-police-deceived-her-get-her-n1140696
[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]
By Jon Schuppe
VALDOSTA, Ga. — On an October morning in 2018, Eleanor Holmes and her husband left home to run an errand and found two men inside their front gate. They introduced themselves as detectives from Orlando, Florida, and said they needed the couple’s help.
Standing in the driveway, the casually dressed detectives said they were trying to identify someone who’d been found dead many years earlier, the Holmeses recalled. They were looking for the person’s relatives, and were using DNA and genealogical records to stitch together a family tree that they hoped would lead them to a name. Friendly and businesslike, they said they’d already got DNA samples from Eleanor Holmes’ sister and an aunt. And now they wanted hers.

Holmes already knew about the detectives’ visit to her sister. It worried her that someone in her family had died without anyone knowing about it. She had relatives in Orlando, including a niece whom she hadn’t heard from in more than a decade. So she agreed.
“I just did it because that was the only thing on my mind, my niece. That was it, bottom line,” Holmes said in a recent interview.
The detectives, still standing in the driveway, swabbed Holmes’ cheek and put the sample in a container. They thanked her, gave her a business card and drove away.
She thought nothing of it until a few days later, when she got a frantic phone call from the girlfriend of one of her sons, Benjamin Holmes Jr. Orlando police had just arrested him for allegedly fatally shooting a college student, Christine Franke, in her Florida home in 2001. They’d used DNA and genealogical records to tie him to the crime.

Christine Franke was 25 when she was killed on Oct. 21, 2001.Orlando Police Department
In that panicked moment, it dawned on Holmes that the detectives hadn’t told her the truth. They’d used her DNA to help build a case against her son.
“When they arrested him, I knew they were lying,” Holmes said. “They lied to us.”
Police have said that the arrest of Benjamin Holmes Jr., 39, shows their commitment “to do everything we can to solve crimes.” Franke’s family says the arrest has given them long-needed answers about her death and allowed them to stop wondering if the killer was still out there, free to prey on others.
Benjamin Holmes Jr. and his parents, though, say he is innocent. He has pleaded not guilty, and his trial, scheduled for June, may be the first to explore how police conduct investigations using genetic genealogy, a largely unregulated technology that has exploded in popularity in recent years.
Holmes and her husband, who are both in their mid-70s, aren’t the only ones in their family who feel misled by police. In the months before taking her DNA, Orlando detectives visited more than a dozen of her relatives in Florida and Georgia. Several said they were told a similar story before agreeing to provide DNA samples.
“It was just deception, not only to me but all my other family members, because they know what they were looking for when they took the DNA,” Holmes said. “They weren't looking for someone in our family that had been killed, or that was dead. They were looking totally to find out whether or not our DNA coincided with Benjamin's. That's what they were looking for.”
A new tool for a cold case
For 17 years, Orlando police detectives had tried to figure out who killed Franke. Although the case had gone cold, each did what they could with the available technology and manpower. But every lead, every potential clue found at the scene, left them, and Franke’s family, without answers.
“I thought they’d never catch him,” Franke’s mother, Tina, 70, said.

Tina Franke, right, the mother of murder victim Christine Franke, gets a hug from Christine's niece, Ashley, after a press conference on Nov. 5, 2018, at Orlando Police Department headquarters announcing the solving of the cold case from 2001.Joe Burbank / Orlando Sentinel via AP file
Franke, 25, was one of four siblings raised in Vero Beach, outside Orlando. An aspiring elementary school teacher, she was studying at the University of Central Florida while working as a server at a restaurant near the Universal Orlando theme parks. She lived with her girlfriend about a half hour away, on the north side of town.
Early in the morning of Oct. 21, 2001, after working a double shift, Franke returned home to an empty apartment; her girlfriend was out of town. Later that day, after the girlfriend was unable to reach her, she called a neighbor, who found Franke dead just inside the apartment door.
She’d been shot once in the head, and her wallet, containing no cash, had been discarded on the floor, according to court documents. Her clothing had been partially removed, and investigators found semen on her body. Police surmised that she had resisted the killer’s attempts to rob and rape her.
Police took a sample of the semen and submitted it to the state crime lab, which developed a profile and entered it into a national criminal database. There was no match. They took DNA from dozens of people ─ potential suspects, as well as friends, relatives, co-workers, neighbors, acquaintances and witnesses ─ and compared their profiles to the DNA found at the scene. Again, no hits.

An evidence marker at the scene of Christine Franke's shooting death.Orlando Police Department
They tried other forensic methods ─ lifting fingerprints from the apartment, entering a shell casing into a national firearms database ─ and found nothing. Years passed with no progress.
That changed in April 2018, when California authorities announced that they’d used a groundbreaking technique to identify a man they said was the Golden State Killer, a serial rapist and murderer who’d terrorized the state in the 1970s and the 1980s. Law enforcement officials said they’d solved the case by entering crime-scene DNA into an online database called GEDmatch, where people shared profiles purchased from direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies such as Ancestry.com and 23andMe.
Sounds like good police work to me.
As far as I know, police aren't required to tell the truth when collecting evidence of a crime. In any case, the woman gave consent to the officers collecting DNA - what they used it for is immaterial.
Originally Posted by doubletap
Sounds like good police work to me.


Yeah. TS Blicktims...

TS would be true reguardless of race - but some always consider themselves "victim" no matter what crime they or theirs have committed..
Great police work, another scab looking for a lawsuit! Nothing here.
So far it sounds good.

I am somewhat amazed that no matter what the little darlings have done,they did not do it.

They were just turning their live around just good old boys.
They’re more upset about this than they are about the fact that that their son is a cold-blooded killer? What the hell is wrong with these people!
Cops don't have to tell the truth. Now mommy's baby boy is held to account.

fryfuckerfry
What’s wrong with these people is their ancestors got a raw deal. In their minds that justifies anything they do v


Ever consider how easy it would be to set people up by using their DNA at a crime scene. Too much weight put on DNA, now fingerprints that's another matter. Amazed that defense attorneys don't question DNA more. GW
Good point.
No telling what the little thug has done since then. They may need more than DNA to fry him.
There is no end of the self righteousness ......my son killed someone but we were tricked.
If it was their child.......

There is an organization that uses the same type of evidence to open old cases. Before DNA was used.

ONE HALF of those cases prove again the guy was guilty. They knew it when they tried to get another trial!!!!! ONE HALF!!!!!!!

Not only self righteous.......but stupid!!!!
POS low lifes.

Whitey lied to us. No consideration for what they did to whitey first. Cops weren't fair, like their scum was to that girl.

Didndos are always the victims.
I agree the end justifed the means, but I wonder why the police just did not request a search warrant for the DNA
Mama ain't pissed because they arrested Junior...

She's pissed 'cause she didn't inherit $$$$ from the fake dead guy she thought she was kin to.
Originally Posted by oldtimer303


Ever consider how easy it would be to set people up by using their DNA at a crime scene. Too much weight put on DNA, now fingerprints that's another matter. Amazed that defense attorneys don't question DNA more. GW

Yes, it would be easy based on today's information. 19 years ago he did not realize how important it would be to clean up after himself.

Now that it is common knowledge they may have a case against the process. Nobody set that 30-year-old up to murder the young lady.

It is better than good police work.
"Lawsy! Dem officers done lied to me!!! My baby Dindonuffin!!!"

Unbelievable, our fine African American are upset that police lied, but it is OK that their son is a rapist and a murderer.
if she said no, they probably would have gone thru her trash and got a cigarette butt or a nail clipping - whatever
Originally Posted by Ben_Lurkin
They’re more upset about this than they are about the fact that that their son is a cold-blooded killer? What the hell is wrong with these people!



They're Black, and in their mind, police aren't supposed to arrest Blacks....especially, using methods that "trick" them.

Dang good work by the cops, if you ask me.
Originally Posted by killahog
I agree the end justifed the means, but I wonder why the police just did not request a search warrant for the DNA

A warrant to collect evidence on someone who is not a suspect? Probable cause, showing that the evidence is likely in the place to be searched. Might have been too big a hump to cross. Remember, they did this to several members of the family.
And her looser son never lied?
It's always the poor me, poor me. or not me.
Glad they got the dirt bag.
Originally Posted by oldtimer303


Ever consider how easy it would be to set people up by using their DNA at a crime scene. Too much weight put on DNA, now fingerprints that's another matter. Amazed that defense attorneys don't question DNA more. GW



Yep.
While I'm always glad to see justice served, false pretenses and a really good lawyer might be able to get that evidence suppressed. Likely other samples had things zeroing in on the family and mom's donation nailed the kid.

Have a distant buddy who is a consulting defense detective. His advice for any issue is do not volunteer any info and, above all, keep ones mouth shut.
Lennie: This is a prime example of GREAT police work!
Wouldn't YOU say so?
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy
I do not pity either the killer or his parents.

That said...

Do not cooperate with LEOs any more that you are legally obligated to. And get a lawyer ASAP.
Shouldn’t they be happy that the police caught a murderer and ashamed that their son is a murderer?
There is going to be more of this as time goes by. I think it’s a good thing.
She should probably be upset with herself for raising a Killer.
No, she's just upset that her killer son got caught. It reflects badly on her, you know.
Its good he got caught, but this ends justify the means stuff is why we have a Constitution. The cops just found a clever way to circumvent it. Its not going to be so nice in ten years or so when all conservative white guys are declared terrorists, and they use those tactics against you.
Originally Posted by 1minute
While I'm always glad to see justice served, false pretenses and a really good lawyer might be able to get that evidence suppressed. Likely other samples had things zeroing in on the family and mom's donation nailed the kid.

Have a distant buddy who is a consulting defense detective. His advice for any issue is do not volunteer any info and, above all, keep ones mouth shut.


It might, but generally the exclusionary clause would not apply to a violation of a third party. 9th circuit not withstanding. A violation of moms rights doesn’t automatically rise to a violation of sons rights.
Do we assume that because he is black he must have done it? Do we assume some kind of moral superiority on the part of law enforcement that if they accuse the person they must be guilty? Do we imply such infallibility or moral integrity on the part of the police that they can never be wrong?

I've seen too many walk out after decades in prison when error and dishonesty on the part of the system is proven to ever take a stand like a presumption of guilt. Innocent until proven guilty is enshrined at the very core of our American value. It is enshrined in our constitution. If we are to toss that out for any reason we might as well toss out everything we believe and stand for with it.

If he's guilty he should hang, but not until after he is afforded due process.
Originally Posted by Armednfree
Do we assume that because he is black he must have done it? Do we assume some kind of moral superiority on the part of law enforcement that if they accuse the person they must be guilty? Do we imply such infallibility or moral integrity on the part of the police that they can never be wrong?

I've seen too many walk out after decades in prison when error and dishonesty on the part of the system is proven to ever take a stand like a presumption of guilt. Innocent until proven guilty is enshrined at the very core of our American value. It is enshrined in our constitution. If we are to toss that out for any reason we might as well toss out everything we believe and stand for with it.

If he's guilty he should hang, but not until after he is afforded due process.



DNA doesn’t lie. It has set a bunch free, but put a lot more in jail. A lot were railroaded for sure.
Originally Posted by Jim_Conrad
Originally Posted by oldtimer303


Ever consider how easy it would be to set people up by using their DNA at a crime scene. Too much weight put on DNA, now fingerprints that's another matter. Amazed that defense attorneys don't question DNA more. GW



Yep.


don't question big brother...…...in a perfect world no problem......but we live in a perfectly corrupt world...




now look straight ahead at this pen I am holding...……...bob
Originally Posted by hanco
Originally Posted by Armednfree
Do we assume that because he is black he must have done it? Do we assume some kind of moral superiority on the part of law enforcement that if they accuse the person they must be guilty? Do we imply such infallibility or moral integrity on the part of the police that they can never be wrong?

I've seen too many walk out after decades in prison when error and dishonesty on the part of the system is proven to ever take a stand like a presumption of guilt. Innocent until proven guilty is enshrined at the very core of our American value. It is enshrined in our constitution. If we are to toss that out for any reason we might as well toss out everything we believe and stand for with it.

If he's guilty he should hang, but not until after he is afforded due process.



DNA doesn’t lie. It has set a bunch free, but put a lot more in jail. A lot were railroaded for sure.



Yes, DNA tells the story. If it's alright to use DNA to free a wrongly convicted person, then why not use it to catch a killer. Killers should get "due process".............except in the form of a rope around their neck.
It is possible that law enforcement after decades of not solving a case became so emotionally driven they secretly collected sperm from an innocent person and then proceeded to collect dna from his extended family as cover before collecting his mother’s dna, to prove this innocent person killed this stranger.

As to dna- it is circumstantial evidence. A profile of a person left dna at this crime scene. In this case seman. It is circumstantial that a profile of a suspect has very very very similar dna to the seman found at the crime scene
They did this because they knew she wouldn't cooperate and would try everything to keep her murderer son out of prison.....I say great job!
Originally Posted by KRAKMT
It is possible that law enforcement after decades of not solving a case became so emotionally driven they secretly collected sperm from an innocent person and then proceeded to collect dna from his extended family as cover before collecting his mother’s dna, to prove this innocent person killed this stranger.

As to dna- it is circumstantial evidence. A profile of a person left dna at this crime scene. In this case seman. It is circumstantial that a profile of a suspect has very very very similar dna to the seman found at the crime scene


Be careful. You will get beat-up here for this line of thinking.
You could frame someone with DNA. The simplest thing, the cop gives the gal at the crime lab an envelope with a hundred Ben Franklins in it, and in return, the next day she realizes the DNA is a match! You think that has never happened?

But all in all the DNA is a great and proven tool for the cops. I don't have a problem with them lying to mama to get the DNA.
Originally Posted by KRAKMT
It is possible that law enforcement after decades of not solving a case became so emotionally driven they secretly collected sperm from an innocent person and then proceeded to collect dna from his extended family as cover before collecting his mother’s dna, to prove this innocent person killed this stranger. As to dna- it is circumstantial evidence. A profile of a person left dna at this crime scene. In this case seman. It is circumstantial that a profile of a suspect has very very very similar dna to the seman found at the crime scene
I am not an attorney. A victim is found robbed, sexually violated, and murdered by gunshot has semen found on or in her body. I don't know that would really be circumstantial evidence, seems more along the lines of physical evidence. Unless his lawyers can convince the court that he was in a relationship with the victim and had recently been with her he is in a heap of trouble. The DNA when they take his will put him way past reasonable doubt. I guess physical evidence can be classed as circumstantial but enough circumstantial evidence can sure convict you and execute you.
DNA itself is actually circumstantial evidence. Really strong evidence but you must infer that dna with the crime scene profile is similar to the dna of suspect. It is statistically possible that DNA is same from two different individuals. DNA should be only one piece of puzzle.
PeeDeeRiver: You are missing the point or misdirecting your irrational contempt?
If "you" or "I" commit a heinous crime "you" and "I" deserve to be caught by the police who may use (as authorized by the courts, that I know of, for many decades now - devious tactics!)!
"I" have absolutely nothing to worry about because "I" am not going to be committing any heinous crimes - I advise "you" to do the same thing!
Again, I say, great police work.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy
I am trying to imagine how they could "secretly take semen from an innocent person" and retroactively "find" it at a crime scene 17 years ago.

As to the deception in getting samples from the family, the true and honest explanation would be that they are trying to eliminate innocent people from the list of suspects. However, the straightforward approach would have been to get a sample from the suspect himself. Naturally, he would have refused the request, thereby opening an avenue for a warrant to obtain same. That's in my non-lawyer non-police opinion.
KRAKMT: I disagree completely with your "definition" of "circumstantial evidence!
DNA is NOT "circumstantial evidence" it is EVIDENCE!
Circumstantial evidence is Rastus being in the same city block at about the same time as a crime was committed in that city block - its not direct evidence. but it is "circumstantial evidence" and as that it does have a certain amount of evidentiary value in a court proceeding or when being consider by prosecutors when deciding on whether or not to bring criminal charges against Rastus!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy
P.S.: Maybe this will help from Wikipedia = Direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion (in criminal law, an assertion of guilt or of innocence) directly, i.e., without an intervening inference. Circumstantial evidence, by contrast, consists of a fact or set of facts which, if proven, will support the creation of an inference that the matter asserted is true.
What is the chance that my DNA would match someone else that is not my identical twin? From what I read it would be millions if not billions. And for some reason the police already suspected this man with no DNA evidence.
(1) "Circumstantial evidence" is that which tends to establish a fact by proving another and which, though true, does not of itself conclusively establish that fact but affords an inference or presumption of its existence.

(2) (a) "Conclusive evidence" is that which the law does not permit to be contradicted.

(b) No evidence is by law made conclusive unless so declared by statute.

(3) "Corroborative evidence" is additional evidence of a different character to the same point.

(4) "Cumulative evidence" is additional evidence of the same character to the same point.

(5) "Direct evidence" is that which proves a fact without an inference or presumption and which in itself, if true, establishes that fact.

(6) "Prima facie evidence" is that which proves a particular fact until contradicted and overcome by other evidence.

DNA merely proves that a person with a DNA profile of xxxxxxx was at the crime scene. It is circumstantial that defendant has a similar profile of xxxxxxxx.
It is not direct evidence of the crime.

Just like semen at the crime scene is circumstantial evidence of rape, not direct evidence- it is possible that semen could have gotten on the victim another way. As a defense would argue.
The end justifies the means. Hmmm. Sounds like the Dems on red flag laws and gun confiscation. Line up boys it’s ok because the end justifies the means. WOW! [bleep]. Ed k
Not all ends and not all means, Ed. Keep some perspective here.

Also, a poor analogy. Red Flag laws are directed at HYPOTHETICAL violators of crime. This and similar acts are aimed at actual suspects of committed crimes.
I’m just saying the law should apply to all. I was on a jury trial which had a video of the detectives questioning and lying to a guy. Now the guy wasn’t real bright so they got him to confess to a crime he was not convicted of. 12 of us were very disturbed by the video. I am as anti criminal as you can get but if the police are not held to standards they will get lower and lower on treatment of everybody including you. Ed k
Originally Posted by doubletap
Sounds like good police work to me.

That’s how I read it. Defense lawyers will push hard at a suppression hearing, but from what the “news” is “reporting,” it looks like two detectives caught a murderer by using their people skills.
© 24hourcampfire