Letters

Farewell to Sugar-Booger
I am disappointed that the article by Randall Patterson focused on rumors and allegations that are almost five years old and ignored the significant accomplishments that the Texas Wildlife Rehabilitation Coalition has made since that time [“Beastly Behavior,” August 22]. It has operated every day for more than four years with community volunteers — the only wildlife shelter targeted at urban wildlife that exists in Texas. They were inspected in February of this year by an out-of-state team of experts from the International Wildlife Rehabilitation Council. As a result, TWRC expects to receive certification as the 14th shelter in the world to meet the strict standards of the International authority, and the first in Texas. Our local and internationally recognized veterinarian Dr. Fred Soifer has joined TWRC to provide supervision and rehabilitation training since January of this year. TWRC provides the largest pool of trained permitted rehabilitators to assist in animal rescue in the event of an oil or other chemical spill on the Gulf Coast. All of this is in stark contrast to the picture of unprofessional eccentric weirdoes painted by Randall’s piece.

On a positive note, Randall’s article may quiet down the wildlife rehabilitation Hezbollah for a while. Oh, and readers will be glad to know that I no longer refer to my wife as “sugar-booger.” After seeing Vivian’s photograph on the front cover of the Houston Press, I now call her “Vern” — know what I mean?

Edmund Steele
Houston

Aroused
A while back I read one of your papers that featured an article on the Latin Connection [“Lovely Latin Ladies! Order Now!!” by Randall Patterson, August 1]. I wasn’t sure what it was until I read it. Boy, was I surprised! I had no idea there were people trafficking in beautiful women (or mail-order brides).

But that article got my curiosity aroused. I contacted them. One thing led to another, and before you know, that ol’ boy who runs the place had me signed up. I picked several girls out of the first catalog they sent me and am looking forward to meeting my Mexican beauties!

So thanks for the article. It turned my whole life around.
Steve Galindo
Houston

High Caseload, Low Morale
Regarding your article on the Harris County Department of Social Services’ Guardianship Program. [“The Last Safety Net,” by Steve McVicker, August 15]: I was employed as a social worker for this agency for four years, and I can definitely tell you that the whole department needs an overhaul. The people in charge are so afraid of losing the guardianship program that they think nothing of railroading someone like John Booth so they won’t have to take the blame. Workers are constantly looking over their shoulders, wondering if they will be next. Favoritism prevails, comp time is only allowed for a few chosen workers and positions are filled according to years of service or if you’ve brownnosed enough. Consequently, the turnover rate is unbelievable: I personally know of more than 30 people who left the agency in three years. People are in managerial positions who possess no supervisory skills at all.

I left because I couldn’t stand the management, not the work. Even though the caseloads are high and morale is low, I attempted to do the best job that I could do, but working overtime for an organization that treats its employees so badly is very hard. I still think about some of my wards and wonder what will happen to them, and wish that I could have had the time to listen and tend to their problems like I wanted to, but it was impossible without working 80 hours a week. The Guardianship Program belongs in the hands of someone who knows the legal ramifications, and who has actually done hands-on social work in the last ten to 15 years; as it stands now, the assistant administrator and guardianship administrator don’t have a clue what is going on out there. I can only hope that the article you wrote will expose the wound so it can heal, because the elderly and indigent need more attention and dignity than they are currently receiving.

Name withheld by request
Houston

Science and Politics
As Dr. Elizabeth “Libby” Johnson’s husband, I am familiar with the controversy concerning her DNA analyses at the Medical Examiner’s office. Steve McVicker has done his usual fine work in covering this complex subject for the Houston Press [“Blood Feud,” May 30, and “Split Decision,” August 8], but some issues remain unknown to the public. Sparked when the District Attorney’s Office initiated a grand jury’s review of Libby’s work, this controversy is not really about the validity of the science, every aspect of which has been meticulously validated. Rather, it’s about the difference between political and factual truths, or loud assertions from an influential person versus facts.

This controversy began with a dubious hair analysis from the ME’s office in the Durrett bludgeoning double-homicide case. Hair found in a victim’s hand was “matched” to the suspect, Joe Durrett, but something obviously was wrong with that analysis. The victim’s hair was very long, while the suspect’s hair was short. Most of the hairs from the victim’s hand were very long, but they were not compared to the victim’s hair, as should always be done. Rather, the shortest of the hairs were selectively compared only to the suspect’s hair and a “match” was proclaimed (a political truth). As horrible as it is to think about, however, hair in a bludgeoning victim’s hand is usually the victim’s own hair, because the victim reflexively grabs the head after being struck, and pulls out his or her own hair during the agony. Nevertheless, this so-called hair “match” enabled the D.A.’s Office to arrest Durrett.

When Libby’s extensive DNA testing found nothing to incriminate Durrett, the D.A.’s Office attacked the bearer of the news, rather than question the favorable but illogical hair analysis. They demanded the return of the evidence and sent it to another DNA laboratory; the second lab confirmed Libby’s findings, but still there was no questioning of that incredible hair analysis.

Two DNA labs agreed, but did the D.A.’s Office investigate the crime itself further? No. Instead, the assistant district attorney in that case, Craig Goodhart, subpoenaed Libby to appear before a grand jury and produce all records in the Durrett case and four others where the DNA evidence did not fit the D.A.’s theories. Although 75 percent of the cases from Libby’s lab have supported the prosecution, none of those were subpoenaed. The grand jury was ostensibly intended to review Libby’s DNA analyses and protocols.

With no support from the ineffectual “between chiefs” administration at the ME’s office, Libby consulted Dick DeGuerin, who became involved as her attorney. I am convinced that his involvement prevented this grand jury witch-hunt from becoming a complete railroad job. The D.A.’s Office immediately removed the vindictive Goodhart from further direct involvement. Why was Goodhart vindictive? Did he wish to discredit the DNA work and try Durrett on purely circumstantial evidence? Did he want rid of someone he perceived as “not a team player?” Or was it something else?

Suspiciously, when the D.A.’s Office and the Pasadena Police demanded the return of the Durrett evidence for retesting, numerous questions were asked about the availability of a liquid blood sample from Joe Durrett, and further, chagrin was expressed over Libby’s insistence that the evidence be sealed. But careers, egos, emotions and money are all involved, and tampering is simply too easy to do. Since her analyses had already informed these interested parties as to whose blood was where, Libby took appropriate steps to protect the integrity of the evidence. (Fortunately, nothing untoward occurred, since the second lab confirmed Libby’s findings.)

Scientists welcome peer review as the best way to maintain quality. Normally, an eminently qualified reviewer provides a written critique, to which the reviewed scientist can respond. Although the reviews of Libby’s work are now complete, the D.A.’s Office is treating them as closely guarded secrets, having produced only a flush letter from first assistant district attorney Don Stricklin indicating they would not pursue the matter further. Ironically, the only criticism quoted was grossly invalid. The reviewer(s) asserted that no validation studies exist for the use of 35 PCR cycles (yet another political truth). In fact, studies validating 35 and even 40 PCR cycles appeared more than five years ago; one of those was from the FBI (revered by prosecutors), and the other involved the manufacturer’s scientists who developed the PCR kits.

This witch-hunt has cost Harris County taxpayers the fees for a second laboratory to confirm Libby’s findings, and as much as $250 an hour for each of two reviewers. Now, the D.A.’s Office should admit its mistakes, issue a public apology to all concerned and notify all Harris County investigatory agencies of its confidence in Libby’s work. It should also, at long last, take a look at that original hair analysis in the Durrett case. I doubt any of that will occur, however, because I doubt the D.A.’s Office has sufficient maturity or integrity to face the facts and admit it was wrong.

Kevin D. Ballard
Houston

His Business Is None of Our Business
It was very disturbing to see your paper making an attempt to scrutinize the way the Empire Cafe does business in Megan Halverson’s article “Counter Revolution” [July 11]. Halverson’s spin shows her lack of business and people experience. The type of behavior she describes is a cancer in our society. If employees don’t like the way things are being run, let them try to start their own business and see how they feel about employees stealing and making their own rules. I think most people would agree that Smoot Hull has put together a beautiful restaurant. For you to air his growing pains is not only inappropriate, it’s none of your business.

Greg Boerner
Houston