Sleuthing That Worked: How Police Finding Cat Hairs Solved This Mail Bomb Case

In the Poff case, investigators took the extra steps they needed.  Now they've got a strong case, and likely a winning one.

With all the crime shows on television showing investigators painstakingly combing through evidence, matching DNA, and uncovering unexpected clues in surprising places, it’s no wonder that jurors expect the same kind of proof at real-life trials.

The reality is, however, that few cases are backed up by intricate forensic evidence and rarely do police jump through hoops, like their TV counterparts, to make sure they’ve got the right perpetrator.

The approach more followed is:  If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck — it’s a duck.  Thus, in the criminal justice world, if the defendant was found near the scene, fits the basic description given (generally race, height, and generic clothes), and has a criminal history or tries to run away — that’s the right guy.

In busy criminal hubs like New York, Chicago, L.A., or New Orleans, police don’t have the money, time, or luxury to sift things through to their finest components.  Dusting for fingerprints, submitting materials for DNA, or running down leads counter to their original theory of the case takes time and effort.  That’s why innocent people sometimes get convicted.

If a cop says he saw a guy sell a packet of crack in a transaction that took under five seconds and involves a “twist” no bigger than the cop’s pinky, that’s enough to arrest.  The alleged seller might have just been giving the alleged buyer a friendly greeting, not exchanging drugs, but once the twist is recovered, there’s an assumption made.  It won’t be submitted for DNA or prints.  When a cop says it happened, done deal, it happened.

Additionally, many police don’t want to deal with the nitty-gritty of investigative work — it takes too long.  That’s why detectives often call the suspected perp and ask him to come to the precinct for a chat.  Having the guy come to them is a lot easier than going out to make the arrest.  (You’d be surprised at how many people actually do this, and without a lawyer!)

Because most big cities reward numbers of arrests over quality of arrests, there’s simply no incentive to work the hard cases.

Sponsored

That’s why when I read a story this week about careful police work, where investigators took extra steps to really lock in a prosecution, I was impressed.

Because of the solid work by federal agents, a woman accused of sending letter bombs to Texas Governor Greg Abbott and then-President Barack Obama was recently arrested and indicted.  Some of the key pieces of evidence in the case were cat hairs.  Yes, cat hairs.

Julia Poff was charged with several counts of transporting explosive devices with the intent to kill.  One such device was mailed to Governor Abbott reportedly because Ms. Poff was angered that, since Abbott took office, her ex-husband no longer made his support payments to her.  Abbott was not injured.

Poff also allegedly sent former President Obama a letter bomb simply because she didn’t like him. That letter was caught in the White House screening process and the investigation began.

Inside the mail was a combination of a salad dressing cap, a cigarette box, various types of powder, and a fuse.  The cigarette box in at least one of the letters had a Texas tobacco stamp, which helped the FBI trace it to the store that sold it.  They then connected Poff’s credit card with the purchase of the box.  But they went a step further.

Sponsored

An observant investigator noted a cat hair caught under the address label on the letter.  They examined it microscopically and matched it to a hair from Poff’s house cat.  I haven’t figured out how the FBI got a hair from Fluffy (or whatever the cat’s name is); assumedly they obtained a search warrant.  But I like to picture them lying in wait outside the house to nab the cat and pluck a hair.  Whatever they did, once retrieved, it was studied and matched to the hair on the letter.  (If any reader knows how they got to Fluffy, please write us.)

I have no idea how similar or dissimilar cat hairs look under a microscope, but you can bet Poff’s defense attorney is looking for an expert to get to the bottom of that soon.

I often listen to prosecutors on voir dire telling jurors to convict in spite of the lack of forensic evidence. “That’s only on TV,”  they say.  But in the Poff case, investigators took the extra steps they needed.  Now they’ve got a strong case, and likely a winning one.


Toni Messina has tried over 100 cases and has been practicing criminal law and immigration since 1990. You can follow her on Twitter: @tonitamess.