FRANKIE HARRIS ON PA DEATH ROW INNOCENT

Hi, my name is Francis "Frankie" Harris, and I am on death row for a crime I couldn't of committed. I am looking for support in the form of pen pals, forensic experts, research aid, legal advice, internet search help, and anyone that can help me sell my art work to fund my DNA testing. These are some of the reasons why I need so much help in my case. As time is such an important factor in my life. I do not want to die for something I did not do.

1. The original fight that the case was built on was a lie. The victim was never stomped in the manner the state says by Frankie. What's more important is there are now witnesses coming forward to identify another man that was guilty party to the "aggravated" part of the fight.

2. There was a $5,000 cash reward that was offered to one or two of the witnesses to testify. One had to change his story completely from the statement he gave on the night of the fight, to one that fit the states version. He did so only after the reward was posted, some four months later, and after he may have been visited by the victim who was planning to sue for a large amount of money. If he got Frankie convicted. This information would be discovered during the murder investigation. The cash pay off information is still not turned over to the defense.

3. At an appeal hearing the states best witness even said that the victim came up behind Frankie, and grabbed him, it was then Frankie turned around and punched him in self defense. But never was engaged in the required "stomping" of an unconscious victim needed to support the aggravated assault.

4. The main witness for the state, a scorned woman named Maxine Snook, never gave a statement to police until she herself was put in handcuffs some 4 months later and taken to the police station to be charged. It was then she decided to trade her statements against Frankie for her freedom. It was discovered that she also has done this to several of her "ex-sex" partners before.

5. The court appointed defense did no testing of any forensic evidence used in Frankie's trial. Evidence he has been trying to get tested for years now.

6. The DNA evidence is suspect since the first time it was tested it came back inconclusive it then was tested a few months later when "new stains" were identified! These new stains are suspect and Frankie wants them tested, especially since the state forensic examiner did not even see these stains.

7. The hairs found were never DNA tested. Frankie wants this tested as he believes that are not the victims hairs.

8. The blood splatter evidence does not support the theory offered at tril. In fact the crime scene was so corrupted since no less than six people trampled thru that blood evidence before any photo was taken to be analyzed. In fact the car in the photo was towed to a different location first and then photographed, making the blood stains unusable.

9. Not one witness (except the co-defendant trying to save her own skin) ever placed Frankie at the scene or the truck he was driving that night. In fact, a video surveillance tape taken from a turkey hill store that the states witness said Frankie allegedly stopped in the night of the murder does not have him on it.

10. Not a single fingerprint was found at the scene belonging to Frankie. The state never produced any gloves to show why. Frankie also believes there is an earlier given statement from the witness for the state placing Frankie inside the victims vehicle prior to the murder, yet the police did not recover any of his prints.

11. A key witness to show the states witness was a liar "dropped out of sight" during Frankie's trial. That same witness would suddenly show up at the co-defendants trial and give testimony that would have helped Frankie's defense.

12. Letters where co-defendant describes the color of victims shirt and type of neck wound before any discovery was filed was kept from the defense. But was used against her in her trial to show she was a liar. These are details only a person close enough to kill the victim should have known. Yet her own testimony claims that she was never that close. So how did she know these details?

13. Even though this was described to be a viscous and very bloody attack. The clothes allegedly worn by the attacker have virtually no blood on them. There was a swipe, that the state said appeared to be from the wiping off of the knife on the shirt. And only after they could not get a DNA result from that swipe, did a few new stains APPEAR. These were in the form of a 4 pinpoint drops. There is no other blood on a shirt that should have been covered in blood. The shoes allegedly worn only has a faint trace that could only be determined to be human blood since the spot was so small. This from a pair of shoes that would have been ‘sloshing' thru a lake of blood in a messy attack.

14. A letter Frankie wrote to his co-defendant was edited to remove a section where he tells her he will not let them kill her for this, he will take the blame if it has to be that way. The jury would never hear that part of the letter.

15. The co-defendant did not implicate Frankie in this crime, until after the police told her two lies. One that he was having affairs with women, and two that he was blaming her for this crime. This was never told to his jury but the DA used that same fact against her in her trial.

16. The jury in Frankie's trial was told the co-defendant was not threatened in any way or made any special promises in exchange for her testimony. They were told she was facing 40-80 years in prison. But at her appeals the truth came out, that she was threatened with the death penalty, that they used her kids to coerce her. They used lies, intimidation, even drugged her in prison to break down her will. She was threatened with a witness intimidation charge because of a letter written to her own sister on her behalf. She was told she would get a 2-10 year sentence early on by police. Her own lawyers told her she would be acquitted of the charge. But Frankie would never hear any of that.

17. The co-defendants own letters written while she was in jail, implicate the police and DA, as being involved in misconduct, coercion, and inappropriate sexual advances towards her. The letters also show how she was manipulated by them throughout the entire process to testify the way they needed her to do.