Alliance, Ohio is a small town with a population somewhere slightly above 20,000 according to the last few censuses, that most people consider to be a part of the Canton-Massillon Metropolitan area. The city had once been a major player in the construction of the railroad system, but today it’s mostly known as the home of the University of Mount Union. And one particularly brutal murder where the man convicted of the crime might or might not have actually done it.
The Murder of Yvonne Layne
When we look at a murder trial, we often stick like to stick to the basic facts. And, at first glance, the murder of Yvonna Layne seems fairly simple. On April 1, 1999, her mother arrived at her apartment to drive one of her daughter’s children to school only to find that Yvonne had been brutally murdered. Her throat had been slashed and there was blood everywhere.
One of the people the police quickly look at was a young man named David Thorne. He had dated Yvonne previously and was known to be the father of one of her children. Part of the reason the police were interested in him was because Yvonne had recently filed for Child Support against David and believed that he was behind on his payments. The problem for detectives was that David had a rock-solid alibi for the time when Yvonne was killed.
The second person the detectives began to focus on was named Joe Wilkes after Rose Mohr and Chris Campbell told detectives they had run into him at a mall where he showed them a knife and informed them that he was in town to kill someone. When he was interrogated, Wilkes confessed saying that David had hired him to kill Yvonne because he didn’t want to pay child support and he wanted full custody of their son. He further said that David paid him $300, plus a little extra for “supplies” (such as the knife).
Joe also told detectives that David had picked him up from the hotel where he was staying the night of the murder and drove him to a friend’s house where he hid the pants he was wearing during the murder, although Joe was unable to tell where the shirt or shoes he had been wearing had gotten to.
Part of Joe’s confession was that he agreed to testify against David at trial and that doing so would prevent prosecutors from seeking the death penalty.
David’s trial started the following January and with Joe as their star witness, David was convicted and will remain in prison without the possibility of parole.
After the trial, Joe recanted his confession, but by then it was too late. David, likewise, professes his innocence. He remains in prison and will not be eligible for parole until 2029.
Was It a Fair Trial?
On November 13, 1999, David Thorne’s new attorney filed a Motion to Vacate or Set Aside Judgement and Sentence – in other words, they wanted to throw everything about the first trial out because it was unfair in some ways. Everyone convicted in the courts have a right to do this and many of them try, although they’re only rarely successful.
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice, but I hear it’s nearly impossible to find any level of success. First off, there are strict rules regarding what claims can be made, how they can make them, and when. These rules are clearly not in the convicted party’s favor. Secondly, the Criminal Justice System isn’t going to work if everyone can easily abuse the system by getting a do-over every time they get a verdict they don’t like. No trial ever goes perfectly and in retrospect both sides will always find things they could have done better. However, the courts must assume that everyone did the best they could, and the results should be set in stone.
For some, this seems counterintuitive considering the legal system is often known to quote Blackstone’s Ratio (or Blackstone’s Formulation) that states:
It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.
Although the reality appears to be quite the opposite.
Looking back at the investigation into Yvonne Layne’s murder, as well as the convictions for both Wilkes and Thorne, there is a lot of room for concern. Many of the choices made by investigators seem a bit off, seemingly important avenues for investigation were never followed, the crime scene itself was improperly handled as was some of the collected evidence. During the trial there were issues as well, some with the prosecution but also many with Thorne’s own attorney (who had been hired by his grandfather).
Many people today have serious doubts about whether Thorne’s trial was fair or not because outside the legal profession, it certainly seems that way. As for what they think inside the legal profession … well, that all depends.
Thorne’s Post-Conviction Appeal
Thorne’s post-conviction appeal pointed out quite a few issues:
- The police chief arrived at the crime scene and allowed a civilian “observer” to enter Yvonne’s apartment before it could be properly examined and before evidence could be collected.
- Several determinations that the United States Department of Justice deemed were important were not made.
- The Crime scene was not recorded before detectives began collecting evidence and moving things around.
- The temperature of the body was not recorded, nor were any signs of lividity that would determine the time of death.
- Tawnia Layne, Yvonne’s mother, told police about several individuals who might want to harm her daughter, including one individual named Eric who had a history of doing so, also indicating that other members of his family should be looked at, too. Tawnia also brought up several other possible suspects, such as a former friend of her daughter Pam, who had stolen her purse a year earlier; a former Alliance police officer named Artis who Yvonne feared after an attempted sexual assault that was interrupted. There is no indication that any of these leads were ever followed up on, with the exception of Eric who gave a minor interview. Police believed that he could not have been responsible because he was in prison and never seemed to consider anyone else from his circle of friends or family.
- When asked about David Thorne, Tawnia stated that she could not believe that David would hurt Yvonne, as she believed the two were in the process of reconciliating and seemed to be on good terms with each other.
- Tawnia also was asked about a cream-colored truck with a ladder on top and said she only knew of one person who drove a truck like that, Eric’s father, who had been contacting her daughter in recent months. Again, this lead was not followed up on.
- On advice from his lawyer, David Thorne did not immediately answer questions from detectives, as was his Constitutional Right. This enraged the police officers who were wanting to interrogate him, who wrote this was a “red flag” in their police report.
- When Eric was questioned, he also mentioned a police officer named Artis who had attempted to sexually assault her and was exhibiting stalking behavior.
- Thorne’s sister, Gina, told detectives that Amy, Thorn’s current girlfriend, had made several statements that she wished Yvonne was dead because that would mean it would be easier for Thorne to get custody of his son. Amy also asked Gina’s husband if he knew how much it would cost to hire a hitman and that if Amy and David ever broke up, that Thorne should live in fear. Gina also said that she did not fear Amy, only mentioning that she was a very controlling person. It’s also worth noting that much of this information was not included in the discovery presented to Thorne’s attorneys, although the courts felt this was an accident. There is no evidence that police ever questioned Amy or considered her as a possible suspect.
- Eric’s parents, Linda and John, told investigators they believed that Yvonne was killed by someone named Shannon, however the police did not follow up on this because Shannon was in prison on the night of the murder. They did not follow up on why they believed this, nor did they question if someone close to Shannon could have done it.
- David Thorne was not a suspect in Yvonne’s murder until they had talked to Rose, who said that she and her boyfriend Chirs had run into Joe Wikles at the mall and that Joe said that he was in town to kill some girl. They said he said he’d been hired by some girl. Chris, when questioned, told detectives that Joe said he’d been hired by his girlfriend. Finally, they said that Joe had produced a pocketknife saying that was what he was going to use. (Several of the statements Rose and Chris made were inconsistent with evidence provided at trial.)
- Joe Wilkes had given two statements to the police. After the first, the police found him to be uncooperative. They threatened physical violence, and lied to Joe by saying that David was in the next room giving statements implicating him (Joe) and that based on what David was saying, Joe was headed to death row. The only way he could avoid this would be a full confession. Police spoke with Joe off the record for nearly a half hour before he gave his second statement, confessing to the murder of Yvonne Layne. (The supreme court said such tactics were legal, while many advocates say it is deeply unfair.)
- Summer Enoch, and her parents Brent and Karen were interviewed separately and gave contradictory information. The parents said that Thorne had been to the house several times (which later Thorne could prove an alibi for) and they overheard Thorne telling Joe to be careful about phone calls because he didn’t want to be connected to the Enochs or have them dragged into any matters. Summer’s statement did not include any of this information.
The lead detective stated in his official paperwork that nobody else had a motive to kill Yvonne, in spite of all the other possible suspects that were given to the police. It was clear from the detective’s report that none of those leads, except those pertaining to Wilkes and Thorne, had ever been looked at.
Thorne’s new lawyer also stated in his brief to the court that Thorne’s previous lawyer, Jeff Haupt, had a substantial problem with alcohol, noting that several individuals had made comments during the trial that he had been drunk, or that they could smell alcohol on his breath. Even more people told Thorne’s new lawyers about similar issues with other trials, even one of Haupt’s former employees told of how she quit because of repeated issues over his alcoholic abuse.
Haupt also failed to counter any of the forensic evidence given at trial or question contradictory statements given by various witnesses.
Put everything together, the new lawyer argued, it was a clear case of ineffective counsel.
A case was made where the prosecution knowingly allowed witnesses to lie during the trial. Or, that certain contradictory information was relied upon by the prosecution. (For example, the pocketknife that was testified to did not resemble the murder weapon. Clothing witnesses saying they saw someone wear was massively different than what they later testified to in court.)
Brent Turvey, currently a director of the Forensic Institute (and someone who has literally wrote the … or a … textbook on forensic science) personally examined the case, in detail, and submitted a detailed and graphic brief to the court (it’s available online, but I don’t suggest reading it during or shortly after dinner) how many of the conclusions the police came to, which were later presented to the courts, were inconclusive or downright false.
Clearly all this meant that Thorne didn’t get a fair trial? Right?
Sadly, the courts saw it differently.
Other People Investigate
The friends and family of David Thorne (as well as David himself) have maintained his innocence from the start.
This story has also been featured in various forms of media, most notably on Forensic television shows, most notably the A&E series Dead Again which featured the topic in their pilot episode. The case has also been profiled in several podcasts, mostly ones that recap the events and major theories within a half hour to forty-five minutes, the exception being the brilliant Murder in Alliance.
Most (if not all) of these focus on the investigation and what happened in court while asking questions like: Is David Thorne and Joe Wilkes innocent or guilty? Did David get a fair trial? They have brought up many of the same issues I spoke about earlier – mostly about how information given to the police were never followed up on, and certain important “facts” relied on in court either changed for some unknown reason between the interview with the police and when they were brought up in court.
Some of these sources have also discovered additional facts that weren’t used at trial … or, came up with a new way of looking at the evidence than what was presented in court.
For example, the police and prosecution’s theory of the case was that David wanted Joe to kill Yvonne because she had just filed for child support, that he didn’t want to pay. They also said that he was behind on his payments, suggesting there wasn’t a single payment from him to her. There had also recently been a paternity test which found that David was the biological father of Yvonne’s eldest son, further implying some contention between Yvonne and David. Yet, there just may be another way of looking at this. Several of David’s friends and family (as well as comments made by Yvonne’s mother) suggested that David and Yvonne were going through some sort of reconciliation. That could mean the two were possibly wanting to get back together again, as a couple, or that David was trying to repair the relationship he had with his son’s mother, so there wouldn’t be a personal issue hovering over their shared child.
There likewise could be an easy explanation for the child support payments. Yvonne had recently gone on Public Assistance. Because she had children, it was the state of Ohio that pushed for (and got) the child support payments, especially after the paternity test determined that David was the father of one of Yvonne’s children. As soon as the order was granted, that money was automatically deducted from David’s paycheck every month and was sent to the state’s Department of Children and Family Services, which would then pass it on to Yvonne. So, the idea that there were no payments directly from David to Yvonne is kind of moot at this point – as are any notions that come from the fact that Yvonne had filed for child support. To play Devil’s Advocate here, this has no bearing on the idea that David didn’t want to pay Child Support and therefore had a reason to want Yvonne dead, even if there are other factors that do say exactly that.
Another issue not covered at trial was Yvonne’s history as a sex worker and the “relationships” she had with several members of the Alliance Police Department. One police officer, identified as Artis, had followed her home after a traffic stop and on several occasions was seen stalking her, trying to break into her house, intimidate her into sexual relations, and was even in the process of an attempted sexual assault when interrupted. Another police officer, known only as “Rick” is believed to have been the father of at least one of Yvonne’s children, but there is, unfortunately, more than one man named “Rick” with the Alliance PD.
One of the major complications that Maggie Freleng of the Murder in Alliance Podcast points out is that it is possible that various members of Alliance’s law enforcement departments easily could have known Yvonne Layne because they used her services as a sex worker, and it is entirely possible that their lack of investigation into certain matters, their botching of the crime scene, as well as other investigatory mishaps could be because they had a motive to harm Yvonne, especially if it came out that she was the father of one of their children. Or it is entirely possible that any of that could have happened not because any policeman was connected to the murder itself, but because they feared what might happen if their involvement with an escort came out.
Another thing the podcast brings to light is that in most versions of the story, both Joe and David were portrayed in an entirely positive light, at least before the murders. I can see why this is important for those who are protesting their innocence but is that really the case? David repeatedly told anyone who would listen that he did not know that Yvonne was a sex worker until that issue was brought up at the trial. Several people, including David himself, implied he did not have a violent bone in his body.
As it turns out, it’s entirely possible that neither of these things are true. David was once in an “incident” involving Yvonne where, after the two had broken up, David shot the tires out of the car she had been driving (although in his defense, he says it was his car … but he does not deny the fact that he did point a gun at a car his ex-girlfriend driving and pull the trigger.) There is also evidence that David Thorne was connected to an adult phone service that sold calendars of exotic dancers and sex workers so it’s possible he’s known all along.
Who Killed Yvonne Layne?
So far, most of what I’ve read online has looked at the botched investigation, the (potentially) unfair trial, and trying to figure out if what they alleged at trial really happened. (The answer is most likely no.)
There is a good possibility, even still today, that David and Joe are, in fact, guilty. Joe claims to have a huge gap in his memory and several of the things he remembers are wrong.
But, even if the theory that David killed Yvonne because she wanted child support doesn’t continue to hold up – it’s also possible that he killed her for other reasons – for example, he was wanting custody of his son to get him away from the sex work.
Just for the sake of doing so – let’s assume for just a moment that David and Joe are innocent – at least of Yvonne’s murder. If they didn’t do this … then, who did?
One of the most obvious alternatives is a member of The Alliance Police Department, considering this would be a convenient explanation for the botched investigation and crime scene contamination. There were, at the time, corruption issues with the Alliance Police Department. One member, Artis, had a history of stalking Yvonne (and was let go from the PD for a separate, but oddly similar offense shortly after Yvonne’s murder.)
Yvonne’s ex Eric should, most likely, also be considered a suspect. We know for a fact that he was behind bars on the night Yvonne was killed, so he, himself, could not have done it. However, other members of his inner circle, including family members or friends, could have done something on his behalf. Since Yvonne had gone onto public assistance and the State of Ohio was going after the fathers of her children for child support, this could have been a motive. (That, however, is just speculation on my part – for now.)
Another possibility is that another sex-worker client, or possibly another sex worker had killed Yvonne for reasons that have nothing to do with anything that’s been said so far. We don’t know what kind of world they lived in, but sex work can often be a dangerous profession. So, it is possible.
Yvonne may have had an issue with another one of her friends, or past associates, such as Amy – who had stolen Yvonne’s purse (which the two had previously physically fought over). Again, this is a possibility that could be looked into.
Or, because the crime scene was quickly contaminated by the Alliance PD, because the prosecution was less than reliable with their discovery material, because of any number of other problems that plagued the case since the beginning, we can’t rule out the possibility that someone else … someone who had, so far, flown under the radar, may be the responsible party.
There were too many errors – it’s likely going to be impossible to tell.
