East Texas

By KENNETH DEAN
Staff Writer

NEW BOSTON — After a late start in hearing testimony Thursday morning, a retired Texas Ranger testified about his investigative role in the 1983 mass murders of five people abducted from an East Texas eatery. But it was on cross examination when the former Ranger faced an onslaught of questions aimed at discrediting his testimony.

Glenn Elliott, who retired from the Rangers in the late 1980s, kept his composure during the questioning by lead defense attorney Jeff Haas. Haas and David Griffith are defending Romeo Pinkerton who, along with his cousin Darnell Hartsfield, has been charged with abducting and killing Mary Tyler, 37; Opie Ann Hughes, 39; Joey Johnson, 20; David Maxwell, 20; and Monte Landers, 19. Their bodies were found Sept. 24, 1983, in a rural Rusk County oilfield. Each had been shot at least twice — “execution style.”

The trial was delayed earlier in the morning after one of the jurors was stuck behind an accident involving a logging truck. The accident blocked the highway and the juror had to be re-routed to the Bowie County Courthouse in New Boston, where the trial is being held.

Haas jumped at the opportunity to question Elliott about evidence including a box and napkin Elliott has testified was located in the Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant where the victims were abducted from.

Haas asked Elliott where the photo log the retired ranger said he created while another officer took photographs was put.

“I have an idea that when I learned the photos were no good, then the log was no good, so I threw it away,” Elliott said.

Haas then asked, “In all the notes you have in this case, do I understand you never wrote down anything about the box or napkin?”

“No I didn’t,” he replied.

Elliott said he pointed out the napkin to Danny Pirtle (former Kilgore Police detective). “I remember telling him we needed a photo of that,” he said.

Pirtle testified earlier this week he never saw the napkin or the box in the restaurant. The state contends the box and napkin have DNA evidence linking the two cousins to the case and on this evidence were able to secure an aggravated perjury conviction against Hartsfield in 2005.

Some in the gallery became agitated with Haas’ questioning of Elliott and began whispering between themselves.

Elliott testified there was a problem with chain of custody in the case and that the KFC crime scene was like a zoo when he arrived, because its integrity had not been maintained.

Haas continued with his questioning, “Did you tell Mr. Kieny that you picked up a white box and napkin and just had forgotten about them, and you placed them in a trunk or back of a car for 11 days?” “No. No I did not.”

Haas then asked, “Do you remember telling Mr. Kieny that you wouldn’t lie, that if you messed up, you messed up?”

“I don’t think I would have said it like that,” Elliott said. “He may have been trying to lead me, and I wasn’t going to let him.”

On the redirect, state prosecutor Lisa Tanner asked Elliott if it had been a long time since the case, to which he answered yes.

State prosecutor Laura Popps then questioned Dr. M.F. Gilliland in reference to the autopsies in the KFC case at the Southwest Institute of Forensic Sciences in Dallas.

During the testimony, family members became emotional as they listened to the injuries that killed their loved ones. Behind the defense table, Pinkerton, wearing a dark suit, rocked slowly back and forth at times.

Dr. Gilliland testified that a rape kit was not performed on either of the female victims, although she noted in her autopsy report that Mrs. Hughes was not wearing underwear.

The doctor said she believed it was strange, but she did not see any other evidence to suggest a sexual assault had taken place. Earlier this week, the prosecution said new DNA testing of Mrs. Hughes’ pants showed semen belonging to an unknown individual.

Dr. Gilliland also testified she was the one who found a torn fingernail on the body of Johnson and she noted that none of the victims’ nails were similar to the torn nail she found.

DNA testing in the 1990s concluded the nail belonged to Mrs. Tyler.

Griffith questioned the doctor in regard to the nail and asked if it was her opinion at the time that she thought the nail was important. She replied yes. She had testified earlier that she had placed the nail into an envelope for evidence. “I thought it was going to be important so I wanted to protect it.”

The trial is scheduled to resume Friday morning.