Marlo Charles' News Forum
Case No: 345943
Date of the Crime: 3-12-1981
Date of Conviction: 3-1-2002
Sentence: Life without the benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence
A white woman claims, she was raped by a black man.
possibly innocent in Louisiana
"I seen subj. around 1:45 a.m. because I had just looked at my watch, because when I stop and check someone out it's a good idea to look at the time in case something would happen."
Dy. Harold Domangue
Later at Clyde's trial the officer stated that the time was about 2:25 to 2:45 a.m. At my trial it was stated that the time was 3:30 a.m.
The District Attorney claimed that this rape happened between 2:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m, when the victim, Ms. Marsha Domangue (Rome), claimed that she was raped between 2:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m.
Who should know when this alleged rape happened? The victim or the the District Attorney?
The victim was a married woman. She was out with her boy-friend (lover) at a bar until 2:00 a.m., she said. They left the bar and went to a friend's house, and then to her mother's home at or about 3:00 a.m.
How could she be at a bar at 2:00 a.m. and her mother's home at 3:00 a.m., when she claimed to have been on Highway 57 being raped between these hours?
"At 2.00 P.M. [a.m.] I was driving around in my car and I wanted to be alone thinking my problems over."
Witness: Det. Jerry Larpenter
Signed: Marsha D. Rome
I was at my job at 3:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m. the morning of March 12th, 1981. It is hard for me to find anyone from my job to verify that they saw me that morning or find the time card for that morning. It is even harder for me to place myself at a particular place when this alleged rape was taking place.
Many questions have not been answered. What is even more important is how the District Attorney's office framed my brother Clyde Charles for a crime they knew he could not have committed.
And now, how the judge allowed the District Attorney office turn around after 20 years past and claim that I, Marlo Charles, committed this crime.
This was all done to cover up the conspiracy that took place to have Clyde Charles prosecuted. There is a bigger conspiricy that has taken place and that is the prosecution of Marlo Charles.
...How the state allowed the state witnesses to lie on the stand.
...How the judge allowed false testimony and evidence to go before the jury.
...How the expert witness on D.N.A. (She only has a B.S degree in mic biology) gave misleading testimony to the jury that they did not understand.
I tell this story, so that you can come to your own conclusion as to whether this is justice in the state of Louisiana.
DNA Evidence and Blood TypesAs in my brother Clyde A. Charles' trial, who is now dead, the judge and the district attorney have positive proof that he did not commit the crime of rape in the form of blood typing testing that was done in 1981. It showed that Clyde has type "B" blood and the spermatozoa that was retrieved from the victim was that of a person with type "O" blood. This was stated in Dr. Shirley Phillips' scientific analysis report.
The judge would not allow this scientific evidence into his court room. These facts were kept from the jury, and an innocent man was tried and convicted for a crime he did not commit.
Now these same facts concerning Marlo Charles' blood typing is withheld by the judge and the district attorney. Marlo Charles has a so called Rh factor on his red blood cell's surface. This is also an antigen and those who have it are called Rh+. Marlo Charles' blood type is "O+" or "O positive". For detailed info on blood types go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_type.
The rapist's blood type is: "O-" or "O negative"
Clyde Charles' blood type is: "B+" or "B positive"
Marlo Charles' blood type is: "O+" or "O positive"
Prosecutorial MisconductMore facts from the trial of Marlo and Clyde Charles' that show how the prosecutors Mark Rhodes and Jimmy Alcock used false evidence and testimony to mislead the jury to find Marlo guilty (2002) and Clyde guilty (1981) of a crime that was fabricated.
The D.A. Mark Rhodes provides victim Marsha Doumangue Rome Falgout with her testimony concerning the crime scene. Marsha's written statement ("I didn't write a statement, but I signed one."):
"He grabbed me around the neck and dragged me out the road onto the shells and on the side of a building. I was fighting him, but I couldn't get away. He held me down on the ground and pulled my pants and underwear off. He raped me there. (Page 2 of 2, Police Report)
Marsha's testimony from Clyde's trial (page 241 transcript):
A: "He leaped over and grabbed me around the neck [They have been walking together for 20 to 30 minutes] and was dragging me to the side of the road, the shell part of the road, to the side of the building, and we were fighting and struggling and I was screaming and he was tugging me by the hair, and just not letting me go, and I remember swinging around and just, you know, trying to get away, but I couldn't, and he brought me to the side, drug me to the side of the building , past the building, where they had these large tanks like, and it wasn't shell, it was more like rocks on the ground.
(page 242 transcript)
A: There was a lot of light around there, he drug me around the side, you know, the side of the tanks behind the tanks where he raped me."
Q: "How long did this last?"
Answer: "20 to 30 minutes." "All I could see clearly was his face."
Q: "The face of the man that raped you?"
Marsha's testimony from Marlo's trial transcript:
A: "He dragged me further around the side of the building and then further by the tanks."
Q: "Did you see anything?"
A: "Yes, Sir. (page 623, line 13) It was tanks, there was a truck with rocks with pipe on them and a crane. He raped me behind the tanks behind the crane."
Investigator Jerry Larpenter's testimony of the crime scene:
(Marlo's transcript page 733, line 7)
A: "Due to the darkness, it was probably the darkest night I've ever seen, there was no moon out. It was real dark, again, it was kind of an April - I mean a March night, cool but not cold, dry and due to … like I said, due to darkness, we couldn't …we didn't have the lighting capacity to go out and search the entire area.
(page 741, line 28-30, defense attorney Mr. Robert Jenkins)
"Your Honor, I have no questions of the Sheriff."
[At Clyde's trial Sheriff Jerry Larpenter was the lead investigator. He did not see any of these things. How could Marsha see all these things the night of March 12th, 1981 with all that was happening to her? The grabbing, the dragging, the fighting, the struggling and the tugging. She noticed all these things and could not tell the jury the color of the eyes of her attacker. She did not see all this until the D.A. Mark Rhodes brought Clyde's transcripts and the photographs of the alleged crime scene to her home for her to review.]
(Page 628, line 25, and again page 646, line 17, Marlo's transcripts)
Mr. Jenkins/Q: "Did you review the testimonies from 1981?"
A: "Yes, I did."
[Mark Rhodes pointed this thing out to her and told her that she had to agree to say that this was what she saw and where this alleged rape occurred. She did what she was told to do: "lie".]
Prosecutor Mark Rhodes' opening statement to the jury:
"Member of the jury, I cannot prove this case beyond a shadow of doubt nor can I prove it beyond a reasonable doubt." "I need you all to lower the bar of justice [the standard of law] so that I can prove my [claim] case."
Mark Rhodes' [District Attorney] responsibility pertaining to law
The Evidence in Criminal Prosecutions:
L.Ed.2d.560 (1979) in Jackson v. Virginia, supra The United States Supreme Court set out the standard by which appellate courts are to review the sufficiency of the evidence in criminal prosecution. The relevant question is whether after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution any rational trier of the fact could have found the essential elements of the crime "beyond a reasonable doubt".
This standard was adopted by Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Matthews, 375 So.2d 1165 (LA.1979). This court in State v. Dixon, 620 So.2d.904 (LA. App.1st Cir. 1993) stated:
The standard of review for the sufficiency of the evidence to uphold a conviction is whether or not viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could conclude that the state proved the essential elements of the crime "beyond a reasonable doubt".
In this case, the state did not prove the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
All this was done by D.A. Mark Rhodes to win this case. I think, this man cares nothing about the rights of people and the integrity of law and justice. His only interest may be to improve his conviction record by any means he chooses.
Your donation is vital to IIPPI.
Crime Scene Area