Victim of Circumstances

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 8/6/2019 Victim of Circumstances

    1/2

    Annals of Crime

    February 27, 2009

    Vol 2 Part 5: Victim of circumstancesBy Pete Kendall/[email protected]'s note: This story is part of the series Annals of Crime Vol. II, which originally appeared in the Times-Review in 2003.

    Gina Dykman was a victim of circumstances, then a victim of murder. Now, three alleged perpetrators face the possibility of paying for her life with theirs.

    Some six years after Dykmans remains were discovered at the rear of Caddo Cemetery between Joshua and Crowley, two men and one woman were indicted in the caselast May by a Tarrant County grand jury.

    Daniel Shockley Miller, 32, Kirk Alan Cantrell, 33, and Beverly J. Cropp, 28, go on trial this spring.

    The three are accused of kidnapping the Richland Hill resident on or shortly after July 21, 1996. She was believed abducted from an east side Fort Worth business, placedin the trunk of a car, beaten, bound with duct tape, transported to Caddo Cemetery, beaten again, and then shot twice execution-style.

    Her car was found abandoned in a high-crime area of Fort Worth two days after her disappearance. On Aug. 9, she was reported missing by her father, who toldauthorities his last contact with the 27-year-old woman was July 14.

    The timeline ended Aug. 22 when her remains were found along with several articles of clothing and a wad of duct tape. Investigators later unearthed two shell casingsat the crime scene. They believe the killers returned to Caddo Cemetery in search of the casings and were unsuccessful.

    Johnson County Detective Sgt. David Cole and Tarrant County Detective Tom Boetcher were players in the investigation along with Johnson County Sheri f Bob Alford andTexas Ranger George Turner.

    All bided their time while cementing slices of evidence as the years passed. The case had seemingly cooled by last spring. But it was a cold case in years only. Thetemperature continually bounced between tepid and scalding.

    Dykman was murdered, investigators said, because she was believed by her assailants to be a drug informant. It was the worst kind of misinformation. It cost Dykmanher life.

    Though not an informant, Dykman was a high-prole, high-risk victim, according to a victimology prole that helped lead investigators to associates and suspects in thecase. She ran with a rough crowd.

    She was from a good moth er and daddy, Turner said. Shed been married. Everybody I talked to said she was a good mother. But she had this side, a dark side if youwill. She w as a party girl. Those were important things, and her dark side ultimately led us to the conclusion of the case.

    The name s of the susp ects, who are now defendants, were out there immediately. Even though we had names, it all fell together by going back and looking at herlifestyle.

    Utilizing statements of fringe characters, investigators eshed out proles of suspects. The fringe characters, like the suspects, were less than solid citizens. Credibilityof those fringe characters was an early and prominent issue and may have caused some legal authorities to back away from the case initially.

    Because of the element of the witnesses involved, a lot of people were not comfortable with it, Alford said.

    So investigators continued to probe, re-tracing old paths and charting newer courses.

    We interviewed and re-interviewed people who had access to certain information you wouldnt get from people in a church Sunday school, Alford said. They said shewas killed because she was alleged to be a narcotics informant. She was not, but she was executed.

    Each shred of information pointed to the two males and one female ultimately arrested, Alford said.

    Weve got quotes from people who are willing to come to court and testify that the particular individuals told them that story, that she was killed because she was aninformant.

    When all those stories were put together before the grand jury, which is what was done in Tarrant County, it was enough to convince the grand jury that there was acase.

    Suspects proles were assembled through a combination of evidence, interviews and surveillance.

    That was a big part of it. Thats a big part of any cold case, Alford said. Weve done numerous hours of surveillance in Tarrant County, Turner and myself primarily.Sgt. Cole has been up there on two or three of those occasions.

    The Fort Worth PD assisted us overwhelmingly in developing the case. They felt positive about it. At one time they said if we hadnt been able to get the murderindictments, they would have gone with the kidnapping case.

    They had run that by the Tarrant County district attorney (Tim Curry), and he was comfortable with that, due to the fact that the kidnapping actually occured in thatcounty. In my opinion, the kidnapping would have been harder to prove than the murder.

    The prosecutors told us the evidence was there, that it was a good case, that they felt comfortable taking it to the grand jury. Tarrant County has assured us theyll seekthe death penalty on it. Im condent that justice will nally be served.

    The complex case initially involved three law enforcement agencies...Johnson County Sheri f s O ce, Cleburne PD and Texas Rangers.

    The Sheri f s O ce responded, and the Cleburne PD came out to help with it, Alford said. Turner was the Ranger here at that time, and he was brought in. You take allthe help you can get. They worked on it pretty extensively, according to George and David Cole. It just didnt go forward at that time.

    That happened before I took o ce. Of all the cases I reviewed when I came in, that case was closer to being closed than any other case in the old le.

    The crime scene investigation was key. It always is, Alford said.

    The rst 24 to 48 hours of the investigation is the most crucial in any homicide. Its the time you spend at the scene. You cant just run out there and take a couple of pictures and draw a little diagram and drive o f .

    Youve got to spend hours there. Youve got to go back over it. Youve got to go back the next day and the day after in order to make sure something hasnt beenmissed. Because when somebody comes by the next year or ve years later or 10 years later, theres no crime scene. All they can go on then is whats in a report andwhat somebody said.

    mailto:Kendall/[email protected]://www.cleburnetimesreview.com/crimeseries/x489011826/Vol-2-Part-5-Victim-of-circumstanceshttp://www.cleburnetimesreview.com/crimeseriesmailto:Kendall/[email protected]://www.cleburnetimesreview.com/crimeseries/x489011826/Vol-2-Part-5-Victim-of-circumstanceshttp://www.cleburnetimesreview.com/crimeseries
  • 8/6/2019 Victim of Circumstances

    2/2