Did Prosecutors Railroad Genna Gamble’s Stepfather?
(“Picture This,” Forensic Files)
Most Forensic Files cases offer more than enough evidence to make viewers relieved the perpetrator ended up behind razor wire.
Douglas Mouser’s conviction for the murder of his stepdaughter, on the other hand, leaves doubts.
Authorities seemed to mold evidence to fit their own theory about how high school sophomore Genna Gamble ended up lifeless in a ditch not far from her home in Modesto, California.
Reprimanded and warned. For this week, I looked into Mouser’s whereabouts today and whether he has snagged the support of any innocence advocates.
So let’s get going on the recap of “Picture This” along with additional information from internet research.
On the morning of Oct. 14, 1995, an aerobics instructor named Kathy Mouser reminded her 14-year-old daughter, Genna, that she was grounded for the weekend and forbidden to use the phone.
Thrown away. Then, Kathy left for the gym to teach a class. When she returned at 1 p.m., no one was home.
Kathy would never see her daughter alive again.
Police located the Beyer High School student’s unclothed body in a lonely area next to a walnut orchard 20 miles from the Mousers’ house. She had been strangled via ligature.
Genna had also sustained blunt force injuries, but had not been sexually assaulted.
Her feet had no dirt on them, suggesting the assailant had killed her elsewhere, than transported her body to the disposal site.
Suspect character. Phone records revealed that Genna had defied her parents and made several calls that day. Her friends didn’t remember Genna bringing up anything beyond the usual chitchat.
But one said that Genna suddenly hung up without saying goodbye.
Her pals also mentioned that there was a sketchy character, a guy of around 18 or 19, in Genna’s life and he liked to prey upon younger girls, according to defense attorney Richard Herman, who appeared on Forensic Files.
Security malfunction. But he had an alibi, so investigators turned to another male close to Genna: her stepfather, who had raised her since age 2.
Douglas Scott Mouser, who worked at federal research facility Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, seemed to have an alibi at first. He said he was at work — he had gone into the office for a few hours on Saturday — at the time of Genna’s disappearance.
In an odd coincidence, the security cameras at his office weren’t working that day and neither were the ones at the Jack in the Box where Mouser said he bought lunch.
A guard at Lawrence Livermore didn’t recall seeing Mouser that day.
Investigators had their suspect.
Bring on the junk science. With no forensic evidence in the house, they concentrated on Mouser’s car and soon connected it to the murder.
The police brought in Gary Robertson, a Canadian specialist in photogrammetry, the practice of using mathematical calculations to uncover information about a picture.
Robertson theorized that postmortem indentations found on Gemma’s thigh matched the impressions a seatbelt and car rug in Douglas Mouser’s vehicle would leave — if her body lay in a certain position.
Story concocted. That part makes no sense to me. Couldn’t they arrange the seatbelts and rug and a test model in any car to line up with virtually any impressions?
But that didn’t stop prosecutors from creating their own narrative.
Perhaps, Mouser become enraged when he witnessed Genna flouting his authority by using the phone, they thought.
She was quite the handful.
Impossible years. Deputy attorney general Birgit Fladager mentioned that Genna had seen a counselor for oppositional defiant disorder.
According to the Mayo Clinic website, the syndrome, known as ODD, can cause frequent loss of temper, anger, resentment, argumentativeness toward authority figures, vindictive behavior, and deliberate attempts to annoy others.
In other words, Genna acted like a teenager.
Police, spurred by the conjecture of FBI-trained profiler Michael J. Prodan, maintained that Mouser struck his stepdaughter in anger during an argument, and then panicked because a child abuse charge could threaten his job.
Telltale technology. So, he strangled her, disrobed her to eliminate forensic evidence, and threw her body in the ditch off Tim Bell Road outside of Waterford, they asserted.
It was all speculation. The only solid evidence the state had against Mouser was that his employer disputed his claim that he logged onto his computer around the time of the homicide.
Mouser was charged with first-degree murder in August 1997. Superior Court Judge Hurl W. Johnson later reduced Doug’s bail from $1 million to $500,000.
Plant physiology lesson. Birgit Fladager and fellow Stanislaus County assistant district attorney Joseph “Rick” Distaso served as prosecutors during the three-month trial.
The duo didn’t have DNA or blood splatter or ballistics to help them, so they hawked their dubious forensics — the photogrammetry plus some forensic botany. A vegetation expert determined that pieces of yellow star thistle found on the underside of Mouser’s car were in the same life stage as star thistle found at the dump site.
Next, came the circumstantial evidence.
Anger and flak. Although Forensic Files didn’t mention it, the prosecution obtained a tape of a suspicious conversation between Kathy Mouser and her son, Gerren Gamble, 18.
When Gerren asked Kathy whether Doug Mouser had killed his sister, Kathy answered, “You know how Genna was.”
And there was also the matter of Mouser allegedly telling neighbors that he and Genna argued about chores — evidence of flaring tempers that could have boiled over — the day she disappeared, according to court papers.
Sneaked out? To me, the strongest evidence against Mouser was the statement from her friend that Genna hung up without saying goodbye. If an unknown assailant entered Genna’s room, she would have screamed or asked for help. If one of her guy friends stopped by, she would have had a chance to say goodbye to her gal pal on the phone. Only a surprise drop-in by a parent would spur her to instantly hit the receiver.
Mouser’s lawyer put together a different narrative.
Richard Herman theorized that after Doug Mouser left for work, Genna slipped out of the house and was killed by an unknown assailant or an unsavory acquaintance.
Profiler assailed. Genna’s brother sold drugs out of the house and Genna had socialized with at least one sex offender, according to the book Criminal Profiling: An Introduction to Behavioral Evidence Analysis by Brent E. Turvey.
The tome also suggests that criminal profiler Michael J. Prodan examined only a few of the available crime scene photos, never actually visited the site, and didn’t know about the alleged drug activity going on in and around the Mouser house.
During the trial, the jury members traveled to the house and the dump site to see them with their own eyes.
Outcome a surprise. It was all a lot to digest.
They deliberated for six days before convicting Mouser of second-degree murder in December 1999. He received a sentence of 15 years to life.
Fladager believed the lack of forensic evidence actually made the case stronger. “It’s hard to attack circumstantial evidence,” she said.
The Contra Costa Times would later call it a “stunning victory” for the prosecutors.
‘Intent to kill.’ Richard Herman, meanwhile, said the case was the biggest failure of his life. “This shakes my whole foundation of my practicing of criminal law,” Herman said. “This is a tragedy for the family and a tragedy for justice.”
His client hasn’t had much post-conviction luck.
The California Supreme Court declined to review Mouser’s 2004 appeal. A subsequent court action affirmed the attorney general’s opinion that “the evidence strongly suggests that defendant possessed an intent to kill.”
Declined again and again. In 2011, Genna’s biological dad, Tom, and his wife, Carole Gamble, appeared at a parole hearing to encourage the board to keep Mouser incarcerated.
Despite Mouser’s status as a “model prisoner,” the board turned down his bid for freedom in 2011.
He was refused again after a 2014 parole hearing where Birgit Fladager argued that Mouser had shown no remorse and refused to admit his crime or provide details about it.
Of course, that could mean he didn’t really do it.
A 2018 parole hearing was postponed, but the board met and heard a victim impact statement from Tom Gamble.
So, is anybody in Douglas Mouser’s corner?
Believers exist. The Innocence Project has not taken up his case, but his wife — Genna’s biological mother — reportedly believes in his innocence and at one point moved to be closer to his prison.
And Douglas Mouser has defenders in the court of public opinion. Two recent reader comments from the Stanislaus County District Attorney’s Facebook page:
“I knew Doug Mouser back then and I will never believe that he did this. All evidence was circumstantial at best. He was and I believe still is a good man wrongfully convicted. To continue to deny him parole is cruel…. [Genna] had a questionable boyfriend that was never questioned.” — Polly Wallis
“With no evidence the jury were convinced on the theatrics of the prosecutors. This is a seriously unsafe conviction with probably an innocent man in jail and a killer possibly still free.” — Graham Bevan
Sensational trial. Today, Douglas Scott Mouser, 59, also known as #P76180, resides in Valley State Prison, a medium-security facility in Chowchilla, California.
Meanwhile, the lawyers responsible for putting him there have enjoyed upward career trajectories.
In a sensational trial watched around the world, Birgit Fladager and Rick Distaso successfully prosecuted Scott Peterson — for murdering his wife, Laci, when she was eight months pregnant— despite that they had scant forensic evidence and were up against celebrity lawyer Mark Geragos.
Everybody loves Birgit. The earnest, mild-mannered Fladager later won her bid for Stanislaus County District Attorney.
She has received a lot of public approval. “I found Birgit to be a prosecutor’s prosecutor – gutsy, savvy, knowledgeable, competent, tough and ethical,” wrote her former colleague Thomas Fontan in the Modesto Bee.
Even her old foe Richard Herman praised her “believability” as a prosecutor.
Rick Distaso has also moved up in the world, becoming a superior court judge.
That’s all for this post. Until next time, cheers. — RR
Watch the Forensic Files episode on YouTube
Thanks, Rebecca – an ep I’ve not seen. “… the evidence strongly suggests that defendant possessed an intent to kill.” Either this is soppy phraseology (about motive) or there’s evidence unreported. That phrase suggests that Mouser had expressly or implicitly desired poor Genna’s ‘removal’. Whereof the evidence?
I agree that as you present it the conviction is tenuous. Photogrammetry: hardly conclusive unless the ‘imprinted’ features of the car on the body were unique or uncommon (doesn’t seem like it). Botany: hardly conclusive unless the flowers at their stage of life attached to the car were unique to the body’s location (seems unlikely).
On the other side, computer logins would be recorded at his work – so why none? A fault with the system? For he cannot plausibly have been mistaken as to whether he used the computer: either he did or didn’t. What work did he do on it? Surely there’d be a record? This does raise some suspicion. Unless the security guard manned the only entrance throughout the relevant period (?) he could’ve missed Mouser’s arrival and departure – bit that evidence could be significant.
It is possible that he invented the alibi to strengthen his case for innocence and yet be innocent: it’s happened before when the suspect has perceived s/he needed an alibi – but if that’s the case I’d have expected him to say so when it didn’t work….
Question: were the house’s doors locked? If so, and there was no evidence of break-in, that would support the contention that Mouser let himself in (and Gemma put the phone down quickly). On the other hand, Mouser would know that this scenario would implicate him…
I imagine the prosecution adduced evidence of bad relationship between convict and victim (beyond that which you mention, as to me that doesn’t add up to ‘I want her dead’. Intriguingly, there’s implication that the mother, Kathy, may have known that Mouser killed.
Now prompted to go off and look the case up!
To those who say “free Doug”: You don’t reward a guy (and let him off) because he was smart enough to (almost) commit a perfect crime. He’s the only one who reasonably COULD have done it (e.g. no evidence of sexual assault even though she was naked, and she hung up the phone quickly when he saw her using it), and his alibi (“I was at work on my computer”) was shown to be false. Case close. We all know you did it, pal. And since you won’t admit it at your parole hearings, you should NEVER be let out.
One, he DIDN’T lie about being at work. It just couldn’t be confirmed that he was (despite him going past two cameras that should have proven/not proven it). Those two are NOT the same thing.
Two, finding guilt is NOT a process of elimination where someone can be guilty because ‘no one else could have done it.’ This isn’t an episode of ‘Murder, She Wrote’ where one of the characters must be guilty! You need to prove that he did it, NOT that he must have because no one else supposedly could have!
Three, you suggesting she hung up the phone because he saw her on it is PURE speculation.
Your reasoning is absurdly poor. In our system we need to prove someone guilty to beyond a reasonable doubt (95% sure). This case came nowhere close to that standard!
There are many people posting here that think this guy didn’t do it. There are many things pointing to him, and his behavior did him no favors in changing that.
Livermore Labs is famous for its long history of research into nuclear weapons, bio science, pathogens, global security, and other publicly known and secret R&D. As one of the most secure facilities in the world, they are not just relying on gate guards and flimsy cameras for access due to national security. They have hand or card scanners on most every door, armed security patrols, and multiple live and recording cameras throughout the installation. Not to mention that their computer networks are DOD level login and access. And this was even in the 70’s, and 80’s, way before this incident. Whatever was mentioned about this man’s alibi, it is impossible that there would be no record of any of his comings and goings to that secure facility besides the memory of a gate guard and a broken camera. There are multiple high levels of security involved, including most doors in these facilities being only accessible by card, security badge, or fingerprint scan, which are all recorded and time-stamped.
And yes, responding to a post below, finding guilt can be, and many times is a “process of elimination,” where evidence or behavior is presented that points to a suspect as the only person to have any access or circumstance to have committed a crime. This happens all the time, and you can see it happen in a very large number of true-crime shows and live court trials.
The justice system is not based in facts. Although facts are presented, it ultimately comes down to a jury’s feelings of guilt or innocence. Facts and circumstances are presented only to “convince” a jury. The entire system is based on convoluted sets of trial “rules” that are supposed to make it “fair” and prevent wrongful convictions. But the standard of “reasonable doubt” that everything ultimately comes down to, is not what most people assume it to be. It’s legal definition is purposely vague and undefined. It doesn’t mean “reasonable” or “doubt” as most people believe. It is simply a placeholder term to describe a jury’s feelings and emotional response to a defendant resulting in their verdict. Jury instructions are a nice reinforcement for logic and “rule following,” but the jury are not robots, and they can (and many times do) disregard these instructions mentally, and no one would or could know, and it couldn’t be proven anyway. Once a verdict is reached, there is no judicial follow-up on their “secret” decision-making process behind their deliberation. Unfortunately, the justice system is based on a very old process of “law” that existed at a time when there was no way to know of a person’s guilt or innocence except through witnesses, confessions, and absent both of those, a person’s “standing” in the community. The justice system as a whole fiercely resists any and all attempts to advance itself in step with society and technology, except for adding many minutia of increasingly illogical rules for trials and lawyers to constantly re-interpret, as if it were a very complicated adversarial game.
In this case, this man had access and circumstance to kill this poor girl. She was found naked, with no evidence of SE, or DNA, or anything on her body at all… Young girls are never kidnapped and found nude without a sexual motive. And strangulation and restraint is almost always a factor somewhere in their deaths when found in such a way. The lack of any evidence on her is really evidence itself. So a girl is kidnapped out of her house while on the phone, killed with a blow to the head, stripped naked for no reason since no SE, all clothes taken from the scene, no forced entry to the house means she either knew the assailant or he took great care to meticulously enter and leave an evidence-free primary and then secondary crime scene which are totally clean of fingerprints, fibers, or DNA? Very bizarre for a stranger abduction. Even her “drug dealer” brother would be a very unlikely suspect to perform all of this.
Nowhere in these comments are there expressions of sadness or memory of this young girl who had her life snuffed out so terribly..
…On a side note, and to make this post as long as possible: There is a Dateline episode about a case in which the current defense lawyer for Karen Read, as a prosecutor in LA a few years ago, where a model was murdered, and a whole lot of DNA left at the crime scene due to the hired killer fighting hard with the girl to ultimately kill her.. DNA wasn’t the only evidence left there either. The killer, a woman sent by some wealthy criminal psychopath, was tried and found innocent because the defense used a “jury consultant” that psychologically profiled the prospective jurors and helped chose dimwits that “wouldn’t be swayed with facts like DNA.”
Also, the Delphi suspect was recently convicted, in which some of the evidence presented by the prosecution were nonsense, such as a “bullet” found at the scene matched to the suspect’s gun. The bullet was a regular unfired round that they said was “cycled through” the gun. They somehow got someone to match “marks” on the bullet, like is done with fired bullets. This ridiculous nonsense was presented as “forensic matching.” Shockingly, no one, including the media and all the pundits covering the trial have mentioned anything about this at all. A bullet “cycled though” a gun is just ejected when you “cock” it, and the term”cycled through” is a gross exaggeration of confusing terminology to make it sound more complicated than it is. Unlike firing a bullet, the hammer doesn’t strike the casing, leaving any mark, and the “lead tip” doesn’t travel through the barrel, also leaving tell-tale marks that can be matched forensically. The markings, if any, microscopically left on a bullet casing after being randomly scratched up by jamming it into the magazine with your fingers in any random number of ways, and then popped out of the gun by cocking it, is not a forensically repeatable process to exact matching circumstances, and I have never heard of or read about this type of “science” in matching unused unfired ammunition being used in identifying suspects in crimes, except for this case.
These are examples of the adversarial gamesmanship in the system that steer “reasonable doubt.”
Thank you for writing in with the knowledge of LL Labs — it’s fascinating and makes me feel a little better about his conviction. I know it’s a cliché, but I really hope he’s guilty because a wrongful conviction would mean two tragedies.
This was a tough episode for me, regarding guilt and innocence The FF episodes almost always end with no doubt as to the guilt/innocence of the perp. But this one was different. There didn’t seem to be much evidence presented on the show, but maybe there is more evidence that was not shown on TV. It is called “Forensic” Files for a reason, the show tends to focus on the forensic evidence and the show might not show all evidence against a defendant if said evidence wasn’t forensically found or tested. Maybe there was more to the argumentative nature of both individuals. Just a thought.
If I was a juror I doubt I would have convicted on just what was presented on FF. I’d be curious to know if there was anything else the prosecution came up with against Mouser that was not shown on FF. For his jury to conclude that he was guilty, and for judges to deny his appeals, I would think there would be other info that wasn’t shown on TV.
Thank you again RR for another great summary. You don’t know how much I look forward to these every week or so. You do a great job!
Thanks, Tim — so glad you’re enjoying the blog! And I also hope there was more evidence against Doug Mouser than what we saw on Forensic Files’ 22-minute version of the story.
I watched the episode and I didn’t agree there was enough evidence. I didn’t see it. He’s not getting parole because he won’t admit he killed her and express remorse. Sounds like an innocent man to me: I don’t know whether he did it — I just don’t think there was enough to convict him.
I agree!
Sadly, it seems as though Genna’s brother, Gerren, a witness at Mouser’s trial, died in ’15, aged 37:
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/143623146/gerren-gamble
I think you’re right — he stopped posting on Facebook in March 2015, just a couple days before the date from the obituary. How sad for his mother. Two kids gone.
R: Indeed; health or drug overdose, I’m guessing (he MAY have been a drug-user given mention in legal docs that he was a dealer when young – but that doesn’t entail taking or that if he did he hadn’t stopped years before). Terrible, whyever, for the poor family.
A word about the vexed issue of circumstantial evidence.
Examples of circumstantial evidence are fingerprint, blood or DNA found at the scene. These types of evidence may strongly point to a certain conclusion when taken into consideration with other facts – but if not directly witnessed by someone when the crime was committed they are still considered circumstantial. However, when proved by expert witnesses, they are usually sufficient to decide a case, especially in the absence of any direct evidence.
A COMMON MISCONCEPTION is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or significant than direct evidence. Yet many successful criminal prosecutions rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence. Indeed, the common metaphor for the strongest possible evidence – the ;smoking gun’ – is an example of circumstantial evidence. Similarly, video, sound, photo, and many other examples of physical evidence that support the drawing of an inference – ie, circumstantial evidence – are considered very strong possible evidence.
Circumstantial evidence can have an advantage over direct evidence in that it can come from multiple sources that check and reinforce each other. Eyewitness testimony can be inaccurate, and many have been convicted on the basis of perjured testimony or otherwise had evidence dismissed ‘cos of mistaken testimony. For example the ship Titanic sank in the presence of c. 700 witnesses. For many years there was vigorous debate on whether the ship broke in two before sinking. It wasn’t until the ship was found in ’85 that the truth was known. Thus, strong circumstantial evidence can provide a more reliable basis for a verdict than eyewitness testimony.
However, there is often more than one conclusion inferable from the same set of circumstances. In cases where one conclusion implies guilt and another innocence, the ‘benefit of the doubt’ principle should apply. Indeed, if the circumstantial evidence suggests a possibility of innocence, the prosecution has the burden of disproving that possibility. THIS is the issue, I think, re Mouser, not that of circumstantial evidence per se
My point: to those who say that evidence was ONLY/MERELY circumstantial (such as the person in Rebecca’s text whom she quotes), they are making no significant point: they aren’t doing what they think they are in disparaging a ‘guilty’ case. If circumstantial evidence is weak or interpretable favourable to the defendant, it needs stating/showing. It won’t do merely to label it (only) ‘circumstantial.’
The well-known ‘CSI effect’ may have something to do with the above phenomenon of demanding certain kinds of circumstantial evidence, such as DNA – forensic evidence – for disparagement of other forms of circumstantial evidence such that ‘if it’s not there, we can’t safely convict.’ Such a view is misconceived…
I looked for a similar post specifically for this reason. I have huge problems with this case and subsequent conviction. The lack of evidence in this case was truly appalling. Even if the police and prosecutors believed in their heart of hearts that he was guilty, they never should have gone forward with the trial without a single piece of strong evidence or motive. IMO this would fall under the whole ‘rather ten guilty men go free than one innocent man get convicted’ idea that our justice system is supposed to be based on.
As far as the so called “evidence,” I’d like to know how certain those employer login records are. I’d also like to know how often those security cameras malfunctioned at both places and whether or not Doug Mouser could have known about it at either location. To me, the fact that both places he alleged being at just so happened to have turned off or malfunctioning security cameras seems more suspicious to me than simply bad luck. As far as the seat belt mark evidence, I think that is a complete stretch and a laughable form of “junk science.” If this violent murder did occur how the prosecution states, where is the physical evidence at the house?? If you’re going to hit somebody so hard as to knock them out such as the prosecution suggested, you’re telling me there would be no physical evidence at the scene?? No blood, no signs of a struggle, no marks or bruising on his knuckles or signs of a weapon if he didn’t use his hands? I just don’t believe it. If she was then strangled to death, wheres the urine or the blood that occasionally seeps from the mouth? You’re telling me he did such a good job erasing every ounce of physical evidence at the crime scene and then made no attempt to clean the car (as police claim) that he transported her battered body in? Are we supposed to forget that this was in fact a brutal murder? Wounds that would be sufficient enough to knock out and kill a young girl would leave a trace somehow, someway…theres no way you can convince me otherwise. And if he did transport her body in his car, then where is the evidence of her being there (blood, hair, fibers, etc). Either the murder did not take place at that house, or the police did a piss poor job of looking for it and collecting it. I don’t think the motive they presented was really believable. So this otherwise upstanding citizen with a good job and family, in a moment of anger knocks out his stepdaughter that he raised nearly her entire life, and then thinks “well, now I have to kill her.” I just don’t believe that. The police, family, and her friends all admit that he loved her as his own, and that they had a good relationship. I just can’t believe that a father would murder his daughter to cover up a mistake simply to avoid the possibility of losing his job. I’d be more likely to believe he murdered her if there were accusations or proof of sex abuse.
Regardless, there’s no way that this case should have even been presented to a jury. There’s a lot of people out there that believe in the police and prosecution so much that they think that merely bringing a person to trial indicates their guilt. Let’s not pretend that wrongful convictions don’t occur. I’m not saying I believe that this man is completely innocent, I’m only saying that there is enough doubt in the lack of evidence and motive along with other plausible alternate possibilities that I don’t think this man should be sitting in prison. Genna states in her own words that boys in her high school ignored her, and I think being a young girl and so desperate for male affection, that she would talk to any boy or man who would have her. Even her own friend admits that Genna was talking to at least one shady character.
Lastly, to counter a point from another commenter who stated that not winning his appeal must indicate that a judge must have seen more evidence than we’re aware of I will say this…..Once convicted, it is nearly impossible to get it overturned. To even be granted a new trial you need to prove that new evidence exists (such as DNA, items that may not have been tested, etc) or that the prosecution withheld evidence that could have exonerated the defendant. It is then up to the DA’s office to determine whether to bring the case to trial again or allow the conviction to be vacated. Theres not a DA’s office in the country that wants a wrongful conviction on their record. It makes them seem incompetent and also opens up the county to expensive civil lawsuits. To save face, the DA’s office may offer a plea to a lesser charge (ie manslaughter instead of murder) which will get you out of prison on time served or, risk going to trial and being convicted again. And honestly which would you chose even if you were innocent? If innocent you probably wouldn’t trust a jury again and wouldn’t want to remain in prison waiting for the retrial. What bothers me most about this case is that there may be someone out there that got away with murder and could commit subsequent murders as a result of this wrongful conviction.
I agree that the evidence was not as persuasive as I’m used to seeing on forensic files. I’m not sure how I’d convict or not convict if in the jury as the show can leave out things and how things may be presented in court but it certainly didn’t seem like a strong case to me.
I do want to note that you wrote that she was behaving like a regular teenager in regard to her oppositional defiance disorder diagnoses, but the behavior required to be given that label is far beyond normal teenage issues (though obviously some are misdiagnosed). I’d be interested to hear more about her home life — was it happy and stable? I don’t recall that being really addressed. Also the point of her hanging up suddenly was interesting, it certainly points towards her father coming in and not someone else but who really knows
“I’d be interested to hear more about her home life — was it happy and stable?” Could that get us closer to the truth, though? If not it’s merely a detail…
I was her best friend growing up. Not sure who the girl in the forensic files show was.
Sorry for your loss and sadness.
Let’s say Mouser did knock her out. He wasn’t necessarily going to lose his job. Killing her to cover it up makes no sense. Why would she be using the phone if he never left the house. How would he have known the cameras were not working. She hung up because she heard someone coming — didn’t see who it was. Jury had a reasonable doubt
The postulation that he didn’t intend to kill her but struck her then panicked makes no sense to me. If he hurt her he killed her and intended it As she had a record of ‘bad behaviour’ he could’ve claimed she was the aggressor and he was defending himself, any injury to her being an accident, thus averting trouble for himself.
He could easily have known the work cameras were inoperative; but it’s unlikely he knew the ‘lunch’ ones were.
What must be reconciled is, first, his claim that he logged onto the computer system yet no record existed. Insofar as it’s untenable that such a record would not exist despite computer use, he lied. Assuming he lied, was that because he needed an alibi because he killed her or merely to strengthen his case? Second, is it reasonably possible that the security guard could have missed him – or is that another lie for the aforementioned reasons? He DOES appear to’ve lied for the work alibi…
As to motive, a ‘difficult’ teen not his own, wearing him down, could certainly be sufficient to cause him to ‘snap’ in my view.
It would be interesting to know why, given the alleged poverty of evidence against Mouser, his appeals have been rejected and support from the usual wrongful conviction agencies isn’t, apparently, forthcoming. The inference is that they consider the evidence sufficient. Do they know more than was reported in FF and here?
What are your thoughts on scott peterson?
Hello Alamin: If you’re addressing me, I’ve read little of that case – but I don’t get the impression P’s guilt is doubted, nor his motivation (trading in wife for a new model; didn’t want child). Mouser’s guilt seems *somewhat* tenuous; not P’s.
Have you a view?
Just seeing the FF case made me look for more information and an update on Doug Mouser. Denials of parole are understandable, in a way. Parole Boards don’t contemplate wrongful conviction, especially in a tragic and horrific murder case. If he did commit the murder, he’d be more likely to be paroled if he admitted it and showed remorse. Thanks for your post, RR. You are always in depth and interesting. I also appreciate your apt comments, Marcus.
Pie: Many thanks. I think you’re right about parole: though its granting moved away from admission requirement (at least is some states), due to wrongful convictions, the panel is surely more likely to grant it if admission and remorse is expressed. However, as you suggest, the murder of a ‘teen will garner no sympathy, and the board must assume guilt whatever claim is made by the alleged perp and supporters of innocence.
I found this comment on find grave website. Quite interesting addition and not that long ago, 2019:
“Oliver Shrenk
Friend
1/16/2019
This young man’s life was snuffed out, not by the divorce & subsequent remarriage of his wife to another man, but by carrying the burden of being forced to lie in a court of law about the murder of his sister, Genna, at the hands of their stepfather, Doug Mouser…and the manipulation of his mother, Kathy Mouser in order to hide the truth.“
How haunting. Not sure what exactly he’s saying, though…
Agreed: it’s either ambiguously expressed or deliberately cryptic, so is pointless. How, by whom, and why was he ‘forced’ to give false testimony about what? Or at least who’s being blamed: both parents, one, or the other?
I was the “model” used in the car for the photogrammetry. I was employed as a legal clerk in the district attorney’s office and was the same height and weight as Genna. At the time when Mr. Robertson came from Canada for the photogrammetry, the prosecutor assigned to the case was Brad Nix, not Birgit. Birigt was assigned to the case later because Brad had other cases going at the same time. Brad asked me if I could help them out with this “new” technology from Canada. It had never been used in the United States. I agreed and went to a storage shed behind Scenic Hospital in Modesto where the car had been stored for the past 2 years.
It was January and really cold and dusty in the car. I lay there, with my black leggings rolled all the way up, for about 20 minutes. After the twenty minutes, Mr. Robertson brought his ruler over and photographed my leg. We were amazed that the marks on my leg were EXACTLY THE SAME as the marks on Genna’s leg. Looking at the interior of the car and the carpet, you would never think the marks would look as they did, but it was a perfect match.
I was not allowed to be in the courtroom during the trial as I could potentially be called as a witness since I helped with the photogrammetry, and I also went to the Mouser home where we made a video re-enacting what we thought happened. Forensic Files had a few things that were not accurate, like how they showed Mr. Mouser in the shower and Genna in her room. Genna was in the shower, and had snuck the phone into the bathroom to call her friend. We believed that he caught her on the phone. When her body was found, it appeared that her hair was probably wet when the body was dumped; her just getting out of the shower explains why she was found naked.
During the trial, her mother brought their newborn grandchild (Genna’s brother’s child) to court every day, and would approach jurors with the baby outside of the courthouse during lunch breaks. It was pretty disgusting. And as far as the computers at work for Mr. Mouser, he worked at Livermore Lab, a top secret military lab in the Bay Area. EVERYTHING there is strictly monitored. There is no way you could even get close to it without going through some type of security gate, and I am sure their computers are more strictly monitored there than just about anywhere else in the world. For Livermore Lab to have no record of him being there that day, I would say that he absolutely was not there. They know exactly who comes and goes at all times.
I believe the jury got this one right. Even though I was not able to view the actual trial, I am pretty familiar with the evidence that led to the conclusion that he was the one that did it. I am glad that he is still locked up, but am really disappointed that Genna’s mother remained loyal to him through it all, and even went so far as to bring a newborn to court every day. Thankfully, the jury was not swayed by her performances with the baby.
Shelia, thanks so much for writing in. Great insight into the case, particularly the part about the security at Lawrence Livermore. Glad to hear that you think Doug Mouser is guilty — I hate the thought of an innocent man sitting in prison.
My pleasure. I have wondered about the case over the years, and did not even realize there was a Forensic Files episode about it. Did a Google search on Douglas Mouser a couple of days ago and ended up here. I watched the episode on Netflix, and there was a lot of stuff that was left out. It’s been many years, so I don’t remember all of the details, but I know that I was convinced of his guilt at the time.
Interesting extra info, thanks. That he was unseen by security AND there was no record of his computer working would have to be regarded as suspect; but that this was a high-security facility compounds this. I wonder what he said, or would have, were the question put to him why there was no record of him logging-on/in? I presume he’d have to aver tech failure…
Even granting that there was no record of his computer access, presumably he was doing work on the computer (not just checking email, say): wouldn’t there be evidence of that?
The seemingly poor motive, and mere modest positive evidence against him, then, seems largely (but not completely) offset by not just lack of, but confected, alibi. Of course that doesn’t make him guilty per se: he could simply have sought to create alibi because he lacked one. But it was foolish of an intelligent person to lie like this as it was bound to backfire.
Thanks for this great blog. I love Forensic Files, the narrator and the music. But some of the ‘cutting-edge’ forensic techniques it showcased are now recognized to be junk science and have led to many wrongful convictions (hair, fiber, bite marks etc.). Fortunately, most of the cases in FF had other overwhelming evidence and so the convictions were secure. Douglas Mouser is the stand-out FF case that didn’t have any convincing evidence at all. I am a developmental biologist. The prosecution claim that yellow star thistle fragments under his car were linked by their developmental stage to the crime scene sounds like nonsense. And the ‘photogrammetry’ used in his case was just a primitive type of image analysis. The marks on the victim’s legs could have been made in any number of cars. Fortunately, FF profiled plenty of good forensic science: I remember that episode where a DNA profile from palo verde pods linked the killer to the crime scene. Now that was great science!
Michael: ‘FF’ is a bit of a misnomer since most of the cases featured, while having a ‘forensic’ angle, are ‘solved’ by a combination of circumstantial as well as direct evidence, though some are largely one or t’other.
I’m sure you’re right about the probative quality of forensics in Mouser’s case – but acknowledgement of circumstantial evidence should be made. Although by no means a ‘slam-dunk,’ there was some such reasonably substantial evidence against him, such as the claimed computer work there was no evidence of (presumably, no logging-in record and no substantive work to produce instead), and to a lesser extent not being seen by security or CCTV (he may have known it wasn’t functioning to refute his alibi). Therefore he likely had the opportunity, even if he didn’t do it (and I’ve stated elsewhere that he could have contrived the (poor) alibi to strengthen his actual innocence).
It needs re-stating that circumstantial evidence is not legally of a lesser status than direct evidence. But in this era of ‘forensic porn’ the danger is that jurors/observers unjustifiably expect it in order to convict. There is nothing in principle legally lesser of an entirely circumstantial case…
Re your ‘junk science’ observation, who couldn’t agree? Poor arson investigation has resulted in heartache (put right, eventually) in an ep I recall – one in which the mother was blamed for arson killing her baby, later shown to be per electrical malfunction.
The weaker of so-called experts have to find work to prove their worth and make money. Incompetence is bad enough; egregiousness, far worse. And it happens with prosecutors too.
Doug Moser has his 4th Parole Board Hearing Dec 16,2020. Just discovered this great blog. Periodically look for comments about person most likely responsible for Genna’s murder. Now, Sheila’s July comment. First, kudos to you for attempting to help out. DA gets kudos for attempting to solve a tragic murder with a unique experiment. However, can’t let those reading this blog go away without the true story of the results since this would have been a powerful factual evidence that he was the murder. After the experiment and the DA sent all the photos of your leg, and description of how obtained, to the best crime lab in California – The California Crime Lab. Months later they sent a letter back to our DA saying they examined all the photos and evidence and couldn’t match the stitching to the model’s leg. So, the DA went a step further, she sent all the evidence the the best lab in the nation, the FBI Crime Lab in Washington, D.C. Months later, they sent their letter back saying they couldn’t match the stitching to the photos. Soooo, that’s where young photogrammetrist Gary Robertson comes in. He was willing to say the stitches on your leg belonged to Doug’s car. He testified so, at the prelim. Unbeknownst to the DA, one of the creators(?) of this little known science for the CIA was obtained by defense council and flown in from Texas to listen at the prelim. He coached defense attorney Herman on the questions to ask to determine the unique mathematical formula that Robertson used to determine his conclusions. Trial comes and the battling photogrammetrist present their case outside of the juries presence. Judge decides for defense and says Robertson can testify about his science and other things but he’s forbidden to say the photos show the stitching is unique to Mousers car. Then, Herman, on cross makes a mistake in asking a question that Robertson uses to slip in enough testimony that could have the jury believe what the judge has forbidden. Herman makes the ultimate mistake and doesn’t object! Guilty. Sooooo, case goes on appeal. Fifth Appellate Court, Case F035773. This is major point. Appellate Court Judge Buckly rules that since Herman didn’t object at the trial, this point is moot. But interestingly, he goes on to say, Page 36 of his decision: “Robertson did not testify that he concluded that Genna’s body had been placed in the Honda. He never testified that the impression marks could only have been made by objects in the Honda and not by objects in another vehicle.” So there you go Sheila. As Paul Harvey used to say: “And that’s the rest of the story”! A.
Since this blog is the result of the Forensic Files program, let me tell you about FF having its audience believe that a plant found under Mouser’s car and also found at the crime scene, proves he was the murderer. The plant, star thistle, is the most common weed in California, found almost anywhere weeds grow. Defense had interviewed and had under subpoena, the head of the Stanislaus County Agriculture Commissioner to testify of the proliferate nature of this weed in our county and bring with him a map of this county showing how it was almost everywhere in rural and urban areas. A college professor (astronomy class) was set to testify of going with Mouser, weeks prior to the murder, to a particular rural area on the west side of this county, and parking alongside the road in a weedy area. They had telescopes to study stars. Admittedly, years later, that area was found and it was covered with star thistle. Pictures were taken, and had they been used in court an explanation of the time difference would have been given. This presenter cannot account for either defense witness actually testifying, but can account that they were under subpoena. The reader of this blog can form their own opinion as to the meaningfulness of what the FF program attests. It was felt by defense, prior to trial, that the D.A. would not try to argue such a weak point to the jury, because it would further expose her weak case!
Cameras: FF left out the most important 3rd camera. Upon immediate questioning of Mouser, S/O penned his alibi down. (Standard police work.) Viewers know about the work camera (broken) and the fast food camera (not turned on). Mouser told S/O that he had a “permanent” cup for soft drinks that could only be used at the AM/PM market and its location. He always stopped there to get a drink, on his drive to work. He had done so that day. S/O went to a rival market, immediately around the corner from where Mouser lived. They pulled the security tape (intact) and after viewing, and re-viewing the entire day’s tape, concluded that Mouser was lying about his alibi as he wasn’t seen on the tape! Days, possibly weeks went by before they determined their error. They went to the correct AM/PM and found the exact days tape had been taped over and not recoverable. Defense was sure that by then, with no tapes to prove his alibi, S/O felt he was guilty of the murder. Their one problem was the gate guard at Lawrence Livermore Labs thought he had come through the gate that day. S/O sent two detectives back out to re-interview him, with pictures of Mouser’s car showing slight damage to one fender. They questioned his competency of not recognizing the damaged fender, and got him to change his story. (Yes two police reports!) It seems they convinced him that if he didn’t see the fender damage he hadn’t seen Mouser come through that day. I’ll stop here for now, more later.
If all this is true, this is incredible. How do you know about this?
First case on FF that my family was asking, was that it? They came up with a step-dad catching a teen on the phone that she was grounded from using, to hitting, killing, undressing,loading in car, dumping at another location?????? How many other cars that size did this guy test with this model to compare with??? They should have collected DNA that now can be tested. Hair, skin, carpet from the car.. something with his DNA on her or his car. If not let this man out on parole!
Sue: Children ARE killed in anger due to snapping by parents (and vice-versa) – which is why this was not a premed conviction. If out of momentary fury you kill someone, you’re suddenly faced with the prospect of a grave, life-changing conviction and years of prison. Some panic at that prospect and do precisely what Mouser’s accused of – perhaps embarking on before re-thing but considering one’s in too deep and completing the attempted concealment. Is it unlikely: yes; is it unheard of: absolutely not. Was he more likely the perp than an unknown assailant (given the lack of break-in particularly): yes.
Other possibilities: did she mix with low-lifes? There’s some evidence, as there is that the brother, Gerren, was either dealing or otherwise involved with drugs, thus also mixing with low-lifes.
“BUT” This 3 letter word means the “kiss of death” for your parole. In Mouser’s case on Dec 16, 2020 “BUT” followed the now familiar mantra of the 4th parole board hearing: Yes, you’ve spent 20 years in prison, yes you’ve done countless technical and non-technical jobs, yes you’ve constantly received laudatory evaluations from staff, yes you’ve partaken of every self-help and behavior program that other prisoners take who have admitted their offenses, yes, but for one administrative offense (at year 18) your record has been spotless, yes your most recent CDC psychological evaluation says your are less likely than anybody to re-offend if released—–”BUT” we are denying parole!
Come back in 3 years and see us.
Keep in mind that Mouser’s crime, 2nd degree murder carries a 15 to life sentence. After 15 years he’s eligible for parole. A parole board must designate a “reason” to keep someone in custody longer. “Presenting a continuing risk to society” is a legitimate reason. So this always goes immediately after “BUT.” But that, by case law, has to be identified to stand the challenge of a prisoner appeal. So, “lack of insight” is the parole board’s golden key to keep someone (Mouser) locked up longer.
So, my question to this blog’s followers is: How can a person who maintains his innocence, ever demonstrate to a parole board that he has insight into a death he knows he didn’t do? I’m waiting.
It definitely puts him in a tight spot if he’s innocent.
We know that parole is not now in principle contingent upon admission of guilt, and therefore of indicating potential insight. But there are those who maintain innocence despite overwhelming evidence, who are regarded as guilty and whose refusal to admit can reasonably be interpreted as moral and psychological blindness (‘lack of insight’), and those who *could* be innocent and whose parole shouldn’t reasonably be contingent upon the aforementioned. This judgement is subjective. Perhaps the board is certain of guilt (however unreasonable) and therefore has a reasonable expectation of admission-as-insight.
Mouser has an indeterminate life sentence. The *default* is life, not 15 years, so the decision to parole is very far from formulaic (as you outline the formulae – which isn’t a crit of that outline!). Parole’s typically regarded as a privilege – one that cannot *simply* be earned as it were by ‘good works’; but the flip side – which to continue the Christian analogy is ‘grace’ – is pretty subjective, of course, and a determinant that the board evidently finds lacking.
I’m not arguing for this approach, merely inferring that it’s broadly what is theirs. And yes, I too would be interested in their reasoning about such decisions… Having largely the final word, their reasoning can be incoherent and the applicant can do nothing…
I imagine that sometimes – often? – intelligence/professional persona works in one’s favour in this context; other times the ‘you should’ve known better’ (than the poor/blacks/druggies etc) argument prevails (an analogue is typically seen in fraud – ‘white collar’ convictions: the ‘making an example of’ kind.
Marcus: I’ve read that 90% of those in prison have admitted to their offense. Yes, I’m confident, as you say, that some deny their offense, even with overwhelming evidence against them. And, unfortunately, each of Mouser’s parole boards have listened to witnesses who proclaim this exact reframe. The board says they have read the “records” showing them his plea of innocence is impossible based upon the evidence. (Keeping in mind that there was no “evidence” per se.)
At several boards they name items that they based their decision on. Since the board has the last word, it’s three or more years later that Mouser’s new (appointed) attorney or representative can point out those mistaken beliefs, showing absolute proof of their errors! Of course, the denial decision was made years prior and now his supporter(s) are giving the truthful version to a different board. But surprisingly, this new board uses similar language in denying parole once again!
So, even though it will make no difference to Mouser’s current situation, my next correspondence to this blog will be to walk you through what actual witnesses testified in court as to the victim’s activities the day she was killed, plus what the victim herself tells us.
Justice VS the Inflammatory Effect
Those appearing before the parole board advocating that Mouser never be released on parole after 20 years and a remarkable (positive) record in prison, continue to equate his steadfast plea of innocence with proof of his “current” dangerousness to society. After all, anyone saying they are innocent can’t prove to the parole board they’ve gained “insight” and therefore are likely to repeat their crime again! This mantra and the DA’s boastful proclamation that this was “slam dunk” type case prove he is deceitful. In past hearings, the parole panels have chosen this reference to his obvious guilt, to justify their continued denial.
Showing this blog how the actual evidence so incredibly deviates from what continues to keep Mouser in custody will do nothing to free him sooner. But to this writer, the truth is what our justice system is based on, even though individuals sometime have other agendas, like getting a conviction regardless of facts or a reasonable motive.
The following people actually provided reports and actually testified in court: 1) The neighbor in the cul-de-sac that saw Genna leave the house that morning with another girl. 2.) The off duty Ca. Highway Patrol Officer that saw her in a violent argument with a young man several miles from her home. 3.) The car salesman in Waterford, Ca. that saw her hitch-hiking. 4.) The Waterford Police Officer that talked to her about where she was hitch hiking to. Each of these 4 witnesses responded to a picture of Genna in our local paper two days after her body was found. All alleged sightings fit the exact time lines for relevancy.
Genna’s diary provided information about a named 16 year old boy she had met at Camelot Fun Center (where she had been the night before her death). This boy kissed her, and later asked to show her sex. Eventually, the S/O discovered that he had given Genna a bogus name. He was 18 yrs old, not 16, and he was a registered sex offender with a record. (They found him in jail on another offense.) He provided an airtight alibi for the day of the offense. The S/O moved on to their prime suspect, Mouser.
Later, surprisingly, they learned that this 18 year old had lied to S/O detectives about his alibi but any further investigation seems to have stopped here??
What the defense investigator learned: The crime occurred miles outside of Waterford, Ca. The crime site was yards from an orchard road that was used by kids from Waterford, Ca. as a lover’s lane. The lane was on the opposite side of a stream from where the body was found nude. The D.D.A.’s story to the jury was Genna’s body was dumped by Mouser from the top of the pull out, from the trunk area of his car. Her body rolled down through the trash dump and came to a rest about 15-20 yards from a stream.
Fact: the body had a small green plant on it. Defense expert testified that it was a common water plant called duckweed that was found in that same stream. The DDA’s “expert” testified that he couldn’t identify the plant! (Yes, I can’t make this up!) But do remember that in Forensic Files the S/O and DA were quick to focus on the star thistle plant found underneath Mouser’s car that was also found at the site. So now we have a Lover’s Lane, a stream with duckweed, and a nude body found on the other side of the stream with a Duckweed plant on it!
Another never fully explained phenomena for the DDA was that Genna’s feet were facing uphill, her head downhill, and if she slid downhill, why was her hair farther downhill from her head when her body came to a stop? Finally, those who knew the 18 year old claimed he had a connection to friends in Waterford, Ca.
Wow, great defense evidence, huh? Well, it was too great for the seekers of truth, the 2 DDA’s. They, outside of the jury, convinced the judge that the jury could hear everything about the 18 year old except the adults record of convictions, his sex registration status, and other uncharged “bad acts” the defense was prepared to present.
They argued successfully, defense couldn’t call the sex offender’s ex wife to learn what he had done to her.
This writer later heard that the argument used by the DDA was that this was a murder case and everything the defense wanted the jury to hear, about the sex offender, concerned sex crimes so it wasn’t relevant.
Then upon appeal, the Appellate Court upheld the original court’s decision to bar the sex evidence, and actually wrote in his decision “the value of the evidence would not be ‘great’ and that it’s ‘inflammatory effect’ would be ‘very great.’
Imagine, fighting for your life, before a jury that only knows that you were the one arrested, and are the one going on trial after the police and district attorney focused in on you and nobody else. The judge, saying that the jury couldn’t hear the relevance of another person in Genna’s life, because they might be “inflamed” at what they would be hearing! Heaven forbid!
The innocent prisoner’s dilemma is a detrimental effect of a legal system in which admission of guilt can result in reduced sentences or early parole. When an innocent person is wrongly convicted, legal systems which need the individual to admit guilt — as, for example, a prerequisite to parole — punish an innocent person for their integrity, and reward a person lacking in integrity. There have been cases where innocent prisoners were given the choice between freedom, in exchange for claiming guilt, and remaining imprisoned and telling the truth. Individuals have died in prison rather than admit to crimes that they did not commit.
US law professor Daniel Medwed says convicts who go before a parole board maintaining their innocence are caught in a Catch-22 that he calls “the innocent prisoner’s dilemma”. A false admission of guilt and remorse by an innocent person at a parole hearing may prevent a later investigation proving their innocence.
Denial is not a valid measure of risk. In fact, research has shown that prisoners who openly admit to their crimes have the highest risk of re-offending.
One, a ten-year study of 180 sex offenders by Harkins, Beech and Goodwill found prisoners who claimed to be innocent were the least likely to be re-convicted, and that those who ‘admitted everything’, claiming to be guilty, were most likely to reoffend. Research by Hanson et al. in 2002, suggested that the denial by the prisoner of their offences had no bearing on their likelihood of re-offend.
Mouser was denied parole for three years in Dec ’20 (aged 60); he became eligible in ’11. By Dec ’23 he’ll have served some 26/7 years.
I hope for his sake he’s guilty…
I wish there was more about this case. It’s absolutely fascinating. Netflix should do a mini docuseries and dissect both sides of the story.
I agree — it really calls for a longer treatment. Netflix would be great.
More background might be entertaining, but assuming anything probative to the safety of conviction existed we must assume it’d have surfaced by now (or likely never will) after all these years. That would seem to be confession by another, otherwise if Mouser’s guilty it’s reasonable to assume prosecution narrative’s broadly correct. And any info that wasn’t heard in court that isn’t probative, merely interesting, by definition can’t make any difference to guilt. That seems to leave only court transcript for stuff that didn’t make it into the programme (plus the ‘human interest’ angle that’s insubstantial).
But maybe I’m being too literal/blinkered/unimaginative…?
There might be some undiscovered evidence out there. By now, the Mousers have probably run out of money to support their cause. Netflix could pick up the torch.
Rebecca, your forte’s ferreting information out and nicely presenting it for our education and entertainment. If it’s there you’ll find it and report it here first! Next stop, Pulitzer Prize.
Yikes. Just watched this case, and even before seeing the article here, I found myself with some severe doubts.
I’ve read the comments above too, but I still struggle to understand how someone can be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt based on what they seemed to have.
She had a great relationship with her stepfather, who was described as really loving her and she him, but using the phone while she was grounded caused him to ‘snap’? That really strains credulity to me. The post-mortem ‘marks’ from being in his car seemed like they could have been made by a million different things
We’ve also seen plenty of people who definitely were guilty get off with a lesser sentence or parole. I’m thinking specifically of “A Clutch of Witnesses” where Joseph Wehmanen beat the snot out of someone in a bar fight that spilled out into the parking lot, then drove over the guy as he was laid out on the ground (twice!) before taking it and dumping it in a lake. He got 12.5 years. Doug has served 20 years.
Unfortunately, it seems like parole boards see not being willing to admit guilt as a reason to deny someone parole, even for someone with no history of violence before this one alleged incident.
That’s my take, at least.
https://www.modbee.com/news/local/crime/article248890134.html says he can request parole again in 2022.
We fail to recognize just how many victims there are in the story, the girl the step dad, mother, son, and their families. After reviewing the videos and reading the articles, I am left with more questions than answers. I had the privilege of knowing Doug’s family and being a lifelong friends with his parents. Everyone, including his wife, believed and still believes that an innocent man is in prison. I invite you to step back in to review the evidence or lack thereof. Also consider the political environment at the time and how the conviction of this trial impacted the growth of the prosecution, just saying.
One of the reasons I doubt his guilt is him mentioning he went to work and to Jack In The Box. He would be aware that both of these places have cameras and, in particular, would have first-hand knowledge of their presence at his workplace. Any government institution has cameras. If he had committed the crime and needed an alibi, any intelligent person, which he evidently was, would know not to say he was at these places.
He may have know the workplace cameras weren’t working. Problem is he claims he logged into computer at work but there was no evidence of the login. That could’ve been a tech fail or could’ve been a lie in desperation despite his being innocent. But it’s concerning. He was also unseen by security at work on a quiet day, which doesn’t help either but isn’t conclusive.
Could he have visited the restaurant the day before, say, and a staff member mentioned that the cameras weren’t working? Or did he just claim the visit out of desperation, chancing it? I guess he had to claim he paid by cash…
“If he had committed the crime and needed an alibi, any intelligent person, which he evidently was, would know not to say he was at these places.”: illogical. If he committed the crime no conclusive alibi was possible – obv – so he did the best he could with an inconclusive one. A poor alibi isn’t proof that an intelligent person is innocent. Put another way, what sort of alibi could he have sought that would have been ‘better’ were he guilty? The best the guilty person’s alibi could be (assuming no murder-for-hire or co-conspirator who lies) is that they were somewhere where they happened to be unnoticed and nothing time-recorded their presence… which is just what he claimed (and what he intended?)
In my view Mouser is probably guilty and certainly so on the balance of probabilities, principally because of the highly improbable alibi. That, however, does not indicate guilt per se, just lies, borne of desperation despite innocence. But I don’t know that the criminal standard’s reached.
As an aside, I can imagine an angry parent of a seemingly ‘difficult’ ‘teen finding she’d defied him could have lost control, put his hands round her neck and strangled her to the point of suffocation unintentionally (note: not remotely suggesting this is mitigation), then panicked and made it look like abduction/stranger attack via undressing her. Lack of sexual assault is consistent. However, none of this is probative of guilt.
I wonder whether other cameras along the route to work could’ve picked him up? Did anyone check? There were far fewer in ’95 but plainly there were some, including on expensive domestic properties monitoring drive gates, etc. Perhaps the quality was too poor.
“He may have know the workplace cameras weren’t working.” – Very highly doubt it. I’m a fed too. They don’t announce those kind of things. If they did, they would be opening themselves up to all kinds of threats.
“If he had committed the crime and needed an alibi, any intelligent person, which he evidently was, would know not to say he was at these places.”: illogical.” – Not quite. If he’s looking to cover his tracks, he’s not going to mention places he hasn’t been that any obvious person would know has cameras esp a government facility.
“He was also unseen by security at work on a quiet day, which doesn’t help either but isn’t conclusive.” – OK, so maybe we have a lackadaisical security guard.
Plus the seatbelt/impression evidence could have come from any number of cars.
The bottom line – The whole thing is based on very speculative evidence. Nothing was presented that he ever lashed out on his stepdaughter in the past. He definitely shouldn’t have been convicted because the evidence presented presents reasonable double.
Steve: It’s unlikely he knew about the cameras – sure – but is it any less likely that cameras in a secure facility all, apparently, failed (since one assumes there were quite a few)?
Leaving that aside, “Not quite. If he’s looking to cover his tracks, he’s not going to mention places he hasn’t been that any obvious person would know has cameras esp a government facility.” I don’t see your point (which may be my obtuseness): he had to say he was somewhere work-related or otherwise plausible; he didn’t have the range of options for possible places you suggest that could be plausible. Work/restaurant/shopping locally (but only using cash): that’s about it, so I can’t agree he had the choice of putative venues you imply that could’ve ‘covered’ him and that would’ve been remotely plausible to police, anyway.
“OK, so maybe we have a lackadaisical security guard.” That does contradict somewhat your argument about *diligent* security not mentioning failed cameras. And I imagine there was more than one at such a facility. Plainly his presence on a quiet day unnoticed was regarded as significant – which seems fair, if unconclusive – but combined with the more inexplicable non-login I’d be persuaded of its significance (and I’d have explored if he could’ve know about the cameras). However, that assumes premeditation, and the evidence doesn’t suggest that but rather an attempt to pull together an alibi that doesn’t work but is the best there is.
I agree that the seatbelt evidence per se is tenuous, but I don’t think that’s what convicted him, being merely ‘consistent’ with the circumstantial evidence we’re discussing.
I don’t go as far as you in considering the evidence very speculative. There need be no history of physical aggression – although do we know there wasn’t? – for his to have ‘snapped’. Indeed it’s almost the definition of snapping that it’s spontaneous and discrete.
Still, I agree that the evidence may not rise to the threshold and would be interested to know what the jury may have heard in court that we haven’t that persuaded them… Forensic Files presents the evidence it regards as most pertinent, not necessarily what the jury found most persuasive.
I’m sure we both hope he’s guilty for the avoidance of an appalling injustice.
Best wishes.
Maybe he did it, maybe he didn’t. Regardless of whether he did it or not, I still think the evidence is flimsy. He shouldn’t be in prison.
You would be surprised how often the cameras are down in a ‘secure facility.’
Ever looked into the Anthrax letters? Anthrax that only existed in 1 secure facility. Only 11 humans on earth had access to it. Still the FBI took years to name a suspect (which I don’t believe either but that’s another story).
This case is the most disgusting miscarriage of justice I have ever seen on a “Forensic Files” episode. If he did it, he would now just “lie” and accept responsibility in order to get out of prison. That is just a footnote to the overwhelming amount of reasonable doubt in this case. This should have never been brought to a jury. Complete and total speculation with absolutely NO physical evidence. Truly appalling behavior on the part of the lead detective and Birgit.
It’s always bothered me, too. Seems like the molding of evidence to fit a theory.
I’m unsure if admission of guilt – the so-called prisoner’s dilemma – is now enabled to make any difference. Some jurisdictions have accepted that admission when innocent for a shorter sentence is perverse and admission when guilty may be entirely self-interested and far from sincere (or whatever it’s thought to be, such as redemptive), so they no longer require admission. Also, admitting filicide is particularly difficult, rendering the perp a pariah in or out of prison, so I’m unsure how probative of guilt this would be. That said, one would much rather be a free than confined pariah!
Ultimately any wrongful verdict must be attributed primarily to defence (incompetent) and jury (credulous) rather than police and prosecution (assuming there was no misconduct). Appeal judges determined that on the evidence jury was ‘reasonable’ to find guilt (which isn’t the same as stating they would). Of course appeal is only over matters of law, not fact. I too would like to know what evidence for the jury surpassed the guilt threshold. I presume there was no third-party DNA. As we know the perp did not engage in sexual assault (or at least there was no evidence of), could that mean perp worse gloves? Ironically the lack of that assault probably counted against him, since it would not be expected that a step-father would engage in that but a third-party would be more likely to of a pubescent female. This returns us to the motive for the crime (not that the motive need be sexual).
If he’s innocent it leaves disturbing questions about his alibi (logging on to work computer – no evidence of); and the lament that evidence was ‘only circumstantial’ doesn’t wash as this applies to most criminal convictions, contrary to perception.
Mouser was denied at his fifth parole hearing in Aug ’22 for five yrs – so that’s Aug ’27:
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.stanislaus-da.org/pdf/news/2022/press-release-mouser.pdf
DA cites ‘overwhelming’ evidence of guilt as base but *implies* that failure to admit guilt and/or co-operate with ‘rehabilitation’ programme (presumably necessitating admission) as reason. Interestingly, Genna’s biological father stated at the parole hearing (all of which he’s attended) that he’d support parole if Mouser would admit guilt.
Again, I hope he’s guilty and not so principled that he’s innocent thus refusing false confession. Having re-read the lady’s entry above who modelled for the car ‘flesh imprinting’ recreation, who states Mouser’s workplace was so ‘high security’ it’s inconceivable he could’ve come and gone (and logged-in) unrecorded, that seems pretty probative (albeit she is speculating). I take it the court had more convincing testimony that it would’ve been impossible?
Yes, the ‘imprinting’ evidence may be unpersuasive itself, even combined with the botanic – but the circumstantial evidence taken as a whole does seem strong. I note posters who disagree guilt threshold was reached seem to concentrate on individual evidential factors rather than the totality (though from strict logical argument – which doesn’t apply to empirical evidence – several leaky buckets hold not more water than one).
For me, then, the consistent absence of evidence of Mouser’s presence where he said he was as alibi – partic the high-security workplace – is persuasive. Yes, absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence… but this is a cumulative circumstantial case, and reaches the threshold to me. His lawyer on FF stated its lack of presence proof was ‘bad luck’.
Bottom line; reasonable doubt exists. Solution: if in FACT not guilty; set free. If in FACT guilty; he served his time: set free.