On October 25th, 1995, I was indicted on two counts of first-degree murder for the murder of Ami Faro on June 16th, 1995. This indictment was based on perjured testimony given to both the Grand Jury and Trial Jury by ex-Lake County States Attorney Mike Mermel and ex-Zion Police Detective Wayne Brooks. February 6th 1997 I went to trial with then Attorney Jed Stone. February 11th 1997 I was convicted of first degree murder. April 11th1997 Lake County Judge Victoria Rossetti sentenced me to an Extended Term sentence of 85 years.There was no physical evidence directly linking me to the crime. The States Attorney relied on DNA evidence which none of the tested blood evidence could conclusively or reliably match Ami Faros standards. I was excluded from contributing to these otherwise inconclusive samples. Evidence from Amis car was never tested nor were fingerprints collected from the crime scene. Blood samples for process of elimination was never obtained from witnesses or suspects. The police did not pursue leads to other suspects they obtained from statements of witnesses.

As of January 2024 my Attorneys from the Exoneration Project of Chicago Illinois Karl Leonard and David Owens completed and filed an application for conviction review with the Lake County Conviction Integrity Unit. Enclosed is the report from Dr. Karl Reich of Independent Forensics of Lombard Illinois. The report will show you the facts of how and why I was indicted by the Lake County Grand Jury and convicted of first degree murder from the perjured forensic testimonies of ex States Attorney Mike Mermel and ex-Zion Police Detective Wayne Brooks. Also comments from Mike Mermel and Sheriff Mark Curran in the 2010  Chicago Tribune, New York Times and the News Sun etc.that is similar in the cases of Juan Rivera of Waukegan, Jerry Hobbs of Zion, And Bernie Starks. All of us pertains to DNA evidence that was non existent or fabricated.

Please sign my petition asking the Governor JB Pritzer, Lake County States Attorney Eric Rinehart and the Conviction Integrity Unit to vacate my convention. 

The following is Documents and Comments from different articles quoting Mr. Mermel. Also transcripts of independent findings.

Ask Mermel about his duty as a prosecutor, and his answer speaks volumes about why he persists in spinning nonsensica! theories, "The taxpayers... pay us to get convictions,  he told the Chicago Tribune.

 You get points for candor, Mr. Prosecutor, but you are flat wrong. That's not just my take. It's the opinion of the Illinois Supreme Court.

"The duty of a public prosecutor is to seek justice, not merely to convict."

A prosecutor is "not simply... an advocate," the justices declared," but also "a minister of justice."

Prosecutor Unimpressed by Fancy-Schmancy DNA Tests; He'll Stick with Hunches

Michael Mermel, chief of the criminal division for the Lake County, Illinois state's attorney's office, is rather unimpressed by the value of exonerating DNA evidence, especially when it conflicts with good ol' eyewitness testimony, confessions, even bite-mark evidence.

Illinois Prosecutor Mike Mermel is set to Retire After Controversial Comments About DNA

By 1 Min Read
*Michael Mermel, the longtime Lake County, Ill., prosecutor under fire for "inappropriate" comments he made to the New York Times about DNA evidence, will retire in January. The announcement by State's Attorney Michael Waller came days after Sheriff Mark Curran called for Mermel's dismissal over controversial statements dating to 1995 that Curran said reflect poorly on the county's criminal justice system, reports the Chicago Tribune.

Sheriff Calls for Senior Prosecutor to Resign Over His Comments About Child-Murder Case Evidence

In an unusual move, a sheriff in suburban Chicago is calling for a top county prosecutor's resignation after a Sunday magazine article in the New York Times (reg. req.) reported his thoughts about the  evidence in a controversial child rape-murder case. 

An article in the Chicago Tribune yesterday doesn't detail why Lake County Sheriff Mark Curran thinks  what he calls "inappropriate statements" by Assistant State's Attorney Michael Mermel need to be addressed in this manner.

However, Curran told the Daily Herald that "there has been a 16 year history of outrageous statements to the press from Mr. Mermel," subsequently adding: "l am disgusted by his comments and feel that  they undermine the constitutional process of a fair trial."

Illinois Prosecutor Who Challenged DNA Evidence Will Resign (Published 2011)

Dec. 7, 2011
 A longtime prosecutor in suburban Chicago known for his brazen comments challenging DNA evidence, including statements to The New York Times that his superiors deemed inappropriate, will retire early next year, the state's attorney's office in Lake County, lit., announced on Wednesday.

The prosecutor, Michael Mermel, will continue working through January in order to allow for the transition of his cases to colleagues. He was quoted extensively in a Nov. 27 article in The New York Times Magazine challenging DNA tests. Some DNA tests have shown that sperm found inside several rape and murder victims did not come from men he prosecuted.

"The comments attributed to Mike Mermel do not reflect my views on the role of the Lake County State's Attorney's Office," the statement said, "nor do they reflect the manner in which my staff has  conducted themselves over the last 21 years. The sole duty of my office is to seek justice. That duty will  continue to be the exclusive mission of the Lake County State's Attorney's Office."

Waukegan defense attorney Jed Stone questioned Waljer's sincerity and timing, since Mermel has made controversial statements for years under Walier"s watch. 

In October 2010, Mermel was quoted in the Tribune as saying: "The taxpayers don't pay us for  intellectual curiosity. They pay us to get convictions."  

The job of a prosecutor is not to obtain a conviction, but to do the right thing, Stone argued.

 

Findings From the Independent Findings.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT LAKE COUNTY, ILLINOIS

 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

Plaintiff,

No. 95 CF 2665

TYRELLIS WRIGHT,

Defendant.

REPORT OF DR. KARL REICH

I have been requested by Mr. Wright, through his attorney, to examine, review and comment on the forensic DNA testimony and opening and closing statements that were elicited and presented in the case of People v. Tyrellis Wright.

More specifically, I have been asked to compare the actual, scientifically derived results, data and conclusions obtained by the Northern Illinois Regional Crime Laboratory and by the Illinois State Police Forensic Services laboratory to the testimony presented to the Grand Jury and to the trier of fact in the trial of Mr. Wright.

Testimony of course refers to the sworn statements by either the investigators or the DNA experts called by the prosecution. Statements refer to the argument presented by the prosecution during the trial.

The question then becomes: is the outline of facts presented by the prosecution av  the opening, and the arguments at closing, supported by the data obtained from the forensic testing of submitted items of evidence or consistent with scientifically supported forensic science conclusion?

In important respects, the answer is no, they do not.

From the transcript of the testimony of Officer Wayne Brooks to the Grand Jury.

Question: But scientific tests later showed that the victim's blood was washed down that

shower?

Answer: Yes, it did.

IL v T. Wright, Report, Attny Leonard, 12 2023

pg. 1 of 8

The answer by Officer Brooks has no actual basis in fact or actual testing results obtained from the shower / stall. No such results were obtained in this case. Further, Officer Brooks had/ has neither the experience, training, nor education to provide an opinion on the potential presumptive luminol test pattern in the shower that would potentially indicate that 'blood had been washed down' the drain.

Question: Now the Northern Illinois Crime Lab employs a mechanism for determining blood which is called Luminol; correct?

Answer: Yes.

Question: It's kind of a mist that they mist onto a surface. And if it hits blood, it will glow like it' s fluorescent.

Answer: Correct. Even washed-down blood.

The test in question, luminol, is a presumptive forensic screening test for blood. The test is indeed sensitive in that the chemical reaction that luminol generates emits light and as human visual sensitivity is very high, very small amounts of reaction-positive substances can be detected. The specificity of the test, however, (i.e., how many other substances will produce a positive reaction), is low. 

Cross-reactive products a d chemicals which can cause a luminol reaction include bleach, oxidizing cleansers (i.e., consumer products used to clean bathrooms) and some types of vegetation, will also test positive with luminol. None of these are blood.

'Washed down blood' would not test positive with luminol as this refers to blood that is no longer present — it has been diluted and drained away. Further, any luminol reaction seen on the shower / stall floor may in fact represent cleanser that was used to clean the surface of the shower stall. The luminol reaction is static - it does not 'swirl down the drain' as Officer Brooks incorrectly claimed.

Officer Brook's testimony is a false description of a narrative that is not consistent with the basics of the orensic science of luminol-based testing.

IL v T. Wright, Report, Attny Leonard, 12 2023

pg. 2 of8

Question: Did you check blood type in the washroom to see if it matched the victim's blood?

Answer: Yes. The blood in the bathroom was the victim's blood.

There are many problems with this statement. First, there is no scientific justification for Officer Brooks' statement that blood typing testing (A, B, O) would be anything close to sufficiently discriminating in order to positively opine on the identification of the source of the blood (i.e., whose blood). The reason that complex and expensive PCRbased DNA testing is performed is because of the inability of blood typing and blood antigen typing (the prior available methods) to provide scientifically accepted genetic identity information. It is, and was, simply false to suggests that blood typing results would be in any way be sufficient for individual identification purposes.

The analysis performed, blood typing, identifies a biological marker that is present in —40% of the population. Put another way, it is a completely and utterly useless test for individual identification as essentially every other person tested would satisfy the blood type Officer Brooks is opining on.

It is inconsistent with basic forensic science (and would be absurd to suggest) that blood typing (A, B, O, blood antigen analysis) would provide any probative identity information. Officer Brooks provide the fact of the blood type that was identified, this is fair, but this fact has no bearing on being able to opine on identity.

Question: It was tested for RNA and found to be consistent with the victim's blood 

Answer: Correct.

Question: It is the victim's blood in the bathroom?

Answer: That's correct.

The facts from the DNA analysis in this care are different from the limited blood typing results. It is important to differentiate between the limited, but mostly consistent DNA testing performed and the strength of the DNA-based data. Even at the time, Mr. Frank, the analyst who performed the limited DNA work, was circumspect in his testimony as to the strength of the data. From what we know now, the available

IL v T. Wright, Report, Attny Leonard, 12 2023                                                                                  pg. 3 of 8

 markers, (both in quality, i.e., power of discrimination and numbers) are not sufficient by any means to meet current requirements for opining identity.

  Officer Brooks made no effort to provide an actual summary of the data or to calibrate his response to match the data obtained by Mr. Franks but rather provided an assurance that is not supported by the science or by the State's own DNA expert. — The Illinois State Police (ISP) laboratory performed very limited PCR-based testing on selected evidence samples. The technology current at the time of ISP's analysis could only use seven (7) genetic DNA markers. Most samples that were tested in this case returned data from fewer than the maximum seven (7); some stains only returned data from one (1) marker.

The DNA testing results obtained at the time should only have been used for exclusionary analysis, i.e., used to eliminate individuals as contributors to the tested sample. There was simply not enough DNA markers ic provide reliable data for an affirmative identification.

Importantly, there were no elimination standards tested in this case, i.e., known reference samples from any individual(s) who had access/ used the bathroom.

No elimination standards were obtained in this C3%.e; scientific requirement when so few genetic markers are being tested. The DNA from person to person is greater than 99.98% identical and this is reflected in our DNA profiles. It requires many more than seven, highly discriminating genetic markers (currently set to twenty (20)) to be able to opine identity- a standard that is nowhere close to being met in this case.

Officer Brooks' flawed comments were not limited to this one statement and continued in additional testimony that is not scientifically supported: claiming that the victim's blood was actually found, not just in the bathtub, but in other places too:

Question: [was the victim's DNA] On the doorknob?

Answer: And on the door knob to the apartment.

Question: And on the door jamb?

Answer: Yes.

IL v T. Wright, Report, Attny Leonard, 12 2023

Question: And on the floor and on the curtain above the shower, and on the shower curtain itself?

Answer: Yes

Officer Brooks' testimony was inconsistent with the forensic science.

It bears mentioning that the DNA results were so incomplete that none of these assertions could have been reliably made as a scientific matter. The facts are that the door knob only returned data from one (1) genetic marker; a result that is much less than would be required to offer an affirmative answer to the questions posed by the prosecutor. Current requirements dictate twenty (20) highly discriminating genetic markers for a full profile — only one marker produced data from the door knob.

The forensic DNA data obtained from the curtain above the shower, glossed over by Officer Brooks, are that a mixed DNA profile was observed (i.e., the DNA profile from more than one contributor is commingled in the sample) and that the defendant was excluded as a contributor.

 Again it can be noted that no elimination standards were obtained or tested in this case including elimination standards from any law enforcement personnel who might have been at the crime scene and examined the shower and surrounding area.

Question: All the victim's blood?

Answer: Yes

Question: Tested by DNA?

Answer: Correct

It is accurate that many of the collected items of evidence were tested using the DNA methods available at the time — either RFLP or PCR. As was well described by the State's experts, the test modality choice was triaged by the amount of DNA recovered from each item of evidence.

To imply that the DNA results were definitive, as Officer Brooks indicates, is false. Only a limited number of DNA markers were used and most samples did not return data from even the limited profile testing available at the time.

           IL v T. Wright, Report, Attny Leonard, 12 2023                                                                                           of 8

pg. 5 

In summary it can be stated that Officer Brooks' testimony was not supported by the actual data and test results that were obtained by the listed laboratories.

From the transcript from the State's Opening Statement:

(  %Testimony)
 they found a little bit of blood dripping down the shower door, and later when they tested that DNA, that blood with DNA, despite the fact that it was not as strong or concentrated as the blood spot on the doorknob, they found that that also matched Ami

Faro's blood, the blood washed down in the shower, at least I believe to about 1 in 1,500

 numbers

One in fifteen hundred is not a rare identification: there would be several individuals at the local suburban high school who would satisfy this (very minimal) level of rarity.

Current DNA profiles, the standard for identity, can generate a statistic in the nonillions: a billion billion million times larger than the blood spot statistic quoted by the prosecutor.

In decimal terms: nonillion = 

 testimony of State's Expert Willam Frank

Mr. Frank described the analysis of the DNA recovered from the various items of evidence using an early version of DNA STR testing. Here, individual genetic markers were tested one by one. This early monoplex PCR reactions can be contrasted with multiplex PCR reactions that started to become available in 1998-1999.

Mr. Frank described that one locus, Disks, returned data from the doorknob plate, exhibits 3A,3B. His testimony continued with a description of the curtain, exhibits 5A, 5B and 5C, which demonstrated a mixed DNA profile from multiple contributors. The  victim was not excluded as a contributor to this sam le, but Mr. Wright was excluded. This result was described as an 'open profile', i.e., an unknown contributor commingled

with the apparent blood of the victim.

IL v T. Wright, Report, Attny Leonard, 12 2023

pg. 6 of 8

Mr. Frank stated that no DNA results were obtained from the toilet seat and that the results from the bathroom door, exhibits 7A,7B, were less definitive but could have originated from the victim. An essentially meaningless statistic was quoted for this sample.

The last sample discussed by Mr. Frank, shower door, exhibit 8A, six markers (out of a possible seven (7) returned data — here the statistic quoted was one in twenty-seven hundred (1:2,700).

From a scientific perspective, the 'take-away' from Mr. Frank's testimony is that there was absolutely no forensic link to Mr. Wright and in fact a probative DNA profile, commingled with the DNA of the victim, was 'open'. Again, no connection to Mr. Wright was mentioned in Mr. Frank's testimony.

 closing argument                            mzSt-Rz;Zuzeø  

Ami Faro's blood is in that shower

The Defendant was the only one who took a shower in that shower and could have placed the blood that matches Ami Faro according to the scientists. IL%/k/ D/L/

 

Given the limited PCR-based DNA testing conducted by Mr. Frank, there was no scientific basis for claiming that Amy Faro's blood was in the shower. This type of exaggeration by the prosecutor , continued from opening arguments, is unfortunate and cannot be squared with the forensic evidence described by the State's own analyst.

The advancements in DNA testing in the intervening years confirm that these statements are not supported by science and further highlight the misstatements of the prosecution. Thus, while it was possible that the blood found in the shower could have originated from the victim (if it was in fact blood), there was (and is) no scientific support for the large leap from the limited data that was accumulated in this case to the statements made by the State at trial.

Indeed, it is possible that the DNA in the shower it originated from any number of other individuals and not from the victim. As Mr. Frank testified at trial, the DNA swab from the shower door contained just six loci and would have "matched" 1 in 2,700 white individuals — an extremely weak connection and absolutely insufficient for identification purposes.

Karl Reich, Ph.D. Independent Forensics

Lombard IL