 |
| DNA Disaster Anyone can see these don't match. |
The ridiculous premise for the case against Stuart's innocence reads something like what follows: "Well, yeah, he had no blood on him, no hair, no fibers ... he had alibi witnesses ... didn't leave any fingerprints ... he supposedly left the crime scene in a rush, and managed to do so without getting a speck of anything in his truck ... but someone said some DNA matched, so he must be guilty."
Let's go back and say that again, for people who keep looking for Stuart's guilt with this. This was a brutal, brutal crime. Over 80 stab wounds. Krystal fought her attacker hard.
She had been visiting with her killer and other people who were with him for hours. There was not one speck of blood transfer, hair or fiber transfer, on Stuart, in his truck, under his nails, on Krystal, in the house or on anything tested. Look at Curtis's statement above. Stuart's not being covered in Krystal's blood would have been impossible. Stuart's fingerprints were not found anywhere. The time frame from the murder to the killer's exit was short. Certainly too short to commit the crime, separate only one person's fingerprints and evidence out and clean only that out of the crime scene. (Yes, that's what would have had to have happened!) Not one speck of anything anywhere on Stuart or at the crime scene implicated Stuart. The proposed timeline is humanly impossible, and the DNA result pictured here is what convicted him. Why on earth can't people see and acknowledge what is right in front of their faces?
 |
| Curtis's statement about the scene when he found Krystal's body |
She had been visiting with her killer and other people who were with him for hours. There was not one speck of blood transfer, hair or fiber transfer, on Stuart, in his truck, under his nails, on Krystal, in the house or on anything tested. Look at Curtis's statement above. Stuart's not being covered in Krystal's blood would have been impossible. Stuart's fingerprints were not found anywhere. The time frame from the murder to the killer's exit was short. Certainly too short to commit the crime, separate only one person's fingerprints and evidence out and clean only that out of the crime scene. (Yes, that's what would have had to have happened!) Not one speck of anything anywhere on Stuart or at the crime scene implicated Stuart. The proposed timeline is humanly impossible, and the DNA result pictured here is what convicted him. Why on earth can't people see and acknowledge what is right in front of their faces?
This was one of the first DNA cases that ever went to trial. Prime candidate for some open-mindedness regarding the fact there may have been some errors made in this case.
 |
| DNA Match |
These samples in this photo are NOT from Stuart's case. This was pulled from an Internet page to show what a real DNA match looks like. THESE match. Now go back and look at the picture of Stuart's test. Those samples do not match!
The testifying expert in Stuart's case claimed there was a band present that proved a match. Other "experts" say there was no match. The very person who said it matched contradicted his own testimony in an article he himself wrote! Realize — this supposed semen sample was not even found until after the body had already been gone over head to toe, then washed. Then suddenly, "Oh, how'd we miss this one tiny drop of semen?" This is a circus! (And in whose universe would one tiny speck of semen equal murder anyway with no supporting eye witnesses, no supporting blood evidence, fingerprint evidence or any other forensic evidence!?) No one had ever seen Stuart with Krystal ... because he never had been! Her best friend, of all people, would have certainly known if Krystal was having an affair with a married man! CLICK HERE FOR STACI "AMERICA" WOMACK'S INTERVIEW But she had never heard of Stuart. Why? Because Stuart never had anything to do with Krystal Naab. Ever. The correct question has always been, "There is no evidence Stuart was anywhere near that trailer. How did that DNA test end up the way it did?" No one could leave a tiny speck of semen and nothing else anywhere .... especially not in a violent act of that magnitude. It's not possible.
How about looking at the fact that Stuart had alibis from people who actually knew him and weren't going to mistake his identity? How about the fact there is absolutely no motive for Stuart to have committed this crime? How about looking at the fact there is no human way possible for Stuart to have been in two places at once, nor could he have made the trip and committed that crime as fast as he would have to have ... how about looking at all the evidence that supports his innocence and saying, "Who messed up the DNA test? How was that mangled so badly? AND WHY WAS STUART CONVICTED OF A CRIME WHEN THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE HE COMMITTED IT!?"
It's time for someone to stand up and acknowledge that this case stinks to high heaven. It's time for common sense to step forward and say, "Someone messed with that DNA test. Either accidentally or on purpose, but someone messed up severely."
You don't have an iffy, inconclusive match on one test only to have a "perfect match" on the next unless someone ... somewhere ... messed up. You don't have a standard sample from a person with other people's mixed in unless someone ... somewhere ... messed up.
You can't stab someone 80 times + with scissors and not get blood all over you. There is no way someone could wash that kind of blood content off of themselves and their truck. Especially not within only a short time! There is no way someone can only clean up their evidence at that kind of violent crime scene and leave everyone else's. No one could do that. NOTHING AT THE SCENE MATCHED STUART HEATON. Nothing!
There is no motive. There was NO EVIDENCE SUPPORTING STUART'S GUILT. The time line proposed by then-D.A. Don Sheaffor doesn't match the facts. His statement that that much co-mingled blood can't be separated and tested ... that isn't true. It wasn't as possible back then, but it's more than possible now.
When is someone out there in a position of power going to say, "You're right. This case stinks. There is no evidence, and the DNA test was messed up"!?
Let's be real. When looking for a murderer in this kind of case, you need someone who knew the victim well. Stuart didn't. You need someone with physical evidence from the crime scene on their person. Stuart didn't have any. You would have blood transfer from the murder all over the vehicle. From the cuts on your hands, your steering wheel would have blood on it. Stuart's had none. You would have wounds. Stuart had none. You need a motive. Stuart had no motive whatsoever, and the medical examiner's report blew the prosecution's accusations of rape out of the water.
What about the guy who did have a social relationship with the victim? (*) Who had a history that involved threatening a woman with a pair of scissors and jerking a phone off a wall? (*) What about the fact he was seen with her prior to the crime? (*)
What about the white truck he drove that mysteriously disappeared without ever being searched for evidence? What about the cuts on his hands? (*) What about the threats he made and the admissions he made to others after the crime?? (*) (**) Will someone step forward and ask who is protecting this man and why??? When is someone going to stand up and give Stuart Heaton and his family their lives back? When is someone going to care that there is a bloody palm print on the phone that was never matched to anyone? When is someone going to find out whose fingerprints and DNA are all over the five cups that sat in an otherwise-clean kitchen? CLICK HERE
 |
| Affidavit of former mayor |
That DNA test is a travesty of justice. It's time someone yelled foul at the top of their lungs and did something about this. It's time some people start asking some serious questions and getting some real answers.
More-realistic DNA scenario: The first DNA test is NOT a match (look at the picture, for Pete's sake!). By the time the second test was done, the renovation had been done to the courthouse, and the evidence box had been tossed around, filled with debris (yes, this is all documented as having happened) and some things got cross-contaminated, mixed up ... etc. The second test is performed ... perfect match, because the test was comparing Stuart against his own standard. If it was the standard from Krystal Naab's body, her profile would have been the one across the board ... not Stuart.'s Why would Krystal's profile only been part of the way across the sample if it was truly her sample? No, some people majorly messed this up. You don't get a result as pictured above on the first test and get a dead-on match on a second test under those circumstances. Especially not when there weren't enough alleles to perform a proper test in the first place. There was no DNA match to Stuart concerning any part of this crime. He wasn't there.
Furthermore, how about looking at the blood evidence. You know, the blood transfer that would have happened between the victim and her killer as he stabbed her over 80 times with scissors. How about finding out whose profile was in the blood evidence and forget about that tiny, crusty speck of semen that they didn't even claim to find until after Krystal's body had already been examined then washed completely down from head to toe?
