Kim Jackson Florida Death Row

Spread the love
Kim Jackson Florida Death Row

Kim Jackson Florida Death Row

Debra Pearce was stabbed to death in her kitchen on or around October
17, 2004. The murder remained unsolved until 2008, when DNA from a hair
found on Pearce’s body was matched to Kim Jackson and a fingerprint
found in blood on the sink above Pearce’s body was also matched to
The Murder
Pearce was last seen by her mother
between midnight and 1:30 a.m. on October 15 to 16, 2004. Pearce was
discovered late in the evening on October 18, or in the early morning
hours of October 19, by a neighbor and friend of Pearce who purchased
drugs from her and used them at the house. That evening, the friend
walked past Pearce’s house and saw that the gate was open. Over the
previous days, he had called her several times, but received no answer,
and he had noticed that her van was not in her driveway. When he
approached the house, he saw that the sliding glass door was open. He
entered and found Pearce’s body. He returned to his house and called the
The medical examiner determined that the cause of
Pearce’s death was hypovolemic shock due to vascular hemorrhage as a
result of stab wounds to the neck and shoulder—in layman’s terms, Pearce
bled to death as a result of a fatal stab wound to her neck that struck
her jugular vein and a fatal stab wound to her chest/shoulder area that
struck her subclavian artery and vein. The stab wound to the chest
pierced through Pearce’s bra, sliced her left breast, continued across
into the right side of her chest, and pierced her scapula. The knife,
which had been left in Pearce’s chest, was only five inches long, but it
had penetrated seven to eight inches into her body. The blow with the
knife was forceful enough to pierce the scapula and break off a 3/4 inch
area of bone, and the wound would have caused a significant amount of
blood loss as well as an arterial blood spurt pattern.
The medical
examiner also found several other injuries. Because the body was in the
early stages of decomposition, the medical examiner could not determine
whether certain injuries were lacerations or incisions. One such injury
was a superficial wound to Pearce’s forehead, and another was a wound
to her left cheek. Additionally, there were two wounds to Pearce’s
chin—one where the blade entered, and the other where the blade exited.
Pearce also had two cuts across her ear, a scrape or abrasion on the
left side of her head that indicated she had been hit or her body was
dragged, and five shallow cuts on the left side of her head. Her right
eye was bruised from a forceful blow. Additionally, Pearce had two
lacerations/incisions to her right forehead that were jagged, due to
either a knife with a dull blade, or the blade of a knife being raggedly
ripped across her skin.
The medical examiner could not be certain
as to whether Pearce was conscious throughout the attack, but stated
that it was possible because she bled to death—she was not knocked
unconscious, her spinal cord was not severed, and no major organs were
involved. Additionally, Pearce’s right pinky finger had a deep cut that
penetrated the tendons and was consistent with a defensive wound. Pearce
also had a cut on the back of her left forearm that went from shallow
to deep, which could have occurred while she attempted to ward off a
blow. Further, the medical examiner testified that minor blunt-force
injuries which were present—including those to her forehead, head, and
ear—demonstrated that she struggled.
A crime scene
reconstructionist was called to Pearce’s house on October 19, and he
noted that Pearce, who was face-down on the kitchen floor below the
sink, had been dead for some time. The reconstructionist retrieved a
dark-colored hair from the back of Pearce’s right calf that appeared out
of place. He observed the knife that had been left in Pearce’s chest
and also found a second knife beneath her body.1
Additionally, the reconstructionist found significant blood spatter in
the kitchen and determined that the spatter around the sink was
consistent with either a weapon being swung back, or from the impact
when the weapon was swung down. He also discovered a fingerprint in
blood on the lip of the sink.
The reconstructionist utilized
luminal testing on red stains detected on the rug outside of the
kitchen, which revealed an impression left by a person wearing a sock,
and another impression left by a person wearing a shoe. He testified
that it appeared as though the person who left the tread dragged his or
her feet, and the tread appeared to lead toward the master bathroom. He
could not determine whether the impressions had been left by more than
one person and stated that it was possible more than one person had been
at the scene.
The investigation revealed that around the time of
the murder, an eyewitness saw three individuals near the back of
Pearce’s house. The lead detective spoke with two of these individuals,
who admitted that they took several items from the house, including a
television, a VCR, and a DVD player. However, no forensic evidence
linked these individuals to the home or Pearce.
Fingerprints that
were found at Pearce’s house were submitted to the Florida Department of
Law Enforcement (FDLE) latent print unit in Jacksonville. The analyst
there determined that none of the prints were of value. However, the
lead detective discovered that the Pinellas County unit possessed
equipment that could enhance latent prints, and the sink was transported
there so that more detail could be obtained from the latent fingerprint
located on the sink. Although the equipment did not prove to be
particularly useful, the Pinellas County latent print unit examined the
photographs of the sink fingerprint and determined that it was of value.
However, no match for the fingerprint was found at that time. The lead
detective also submitted photographs of several of the prints lifted
from Pearce’s house to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The
FBI determined that among the prints it received, one latent fingerprint
was of value (the sink fingerprint), and one latent palm print was of
value. The FBI was also unable to match either print to any known
individual at that time.
It was only later that FDLE matched DNA extracted from the hair that was found on Pearce’s calf to Jackson.2
After receiving this information, the lead detective located Jackson in
Georgia, where he had been incarcerated since 2005. During an interview
with Jackson on January 22, 2008, the lead detective asked whether
Jackson knew Pearce or had been to her house. The detective showed
Jackson a photograph of Pearce, as well as several pictures of her
house. Jackson asserted that he had never met or seen Pearce, and had
never been to her house.
After Jackson was identified as a
suspect, latent print analysts with the FBI and Pinellas County were
asked to compare Jackson’s known prints with the fingerprint from the
sink. Jacqueline Slebrch, the FBI latent print examiner, examined the
photograph of the sink fingerprint.3
She noted spots or distortion on the fingerprint, and that the
fingerprint was one of multiple prints left on top of each other.
However, she determined that the print was of value and matched the
right ring finger of Jackson. With respect to when the fingerprint could
have been placed on the sink, Slebrch testified that she had never
encountered a situation in which a fingerprint was left and, at a later
date, captured and preserved by being coated in a substance such as
blood, but that such an occurrence could be possible. She also explained
that when a person has an excess amount of blood or other substance on
his or her hand and then touches a surface, the substance will be pushed
between the friction ridges on a fingerprint, and an imprint of the
furrows will be left on the surface. She testified that this is a factor
to consider when looking at a latent print such as the sink
The sink fingerprint was also examined by William
Schade, who worked for the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office. Like
Slebrch, he concluded that the sink fingerprint matched the right ring
finger of Jackson, and that the fingerprint was left on the sink while
Jackson’s finger was coated in a wet substance, such as blood. When
Schade made the comparison, he had no knowledge that Slebrch had also
concluded that the sink fingerprint matched the right ring finger of
However, during trial, Jackson presented the testimony of
Michelle Royal, the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office latent print analyst
who concluded that the sink fingerprint was of no value and could not be
used to identify any suspect. She nonetheless testified that even
prints of no value can be used to exclude suspects, and acceded both
that Jackson could not be excluded as the individual who left the sink
fingerprint, and that similarities existed between the sink fingerprint
and the known print of Jackson.
Jackson presented as
an alibi that he visited Adel, Georgia, between October 15, 2004, and
October 22, 2004, to celebrate his birthday with his family, which he
did every year for a weekend around his birthday. His birthday is
October 13, which fell on a Wednesday in 2004. October 15 was the Friday
that followed his birthday. The testimony of Jackson and his wife,
sister, and father presented as an alibi that his cousin drove him to
Adel on Friday, October 15, and he did not return until after the murder
occurred. He had intended to return on Sunday with his cousin, but did
not, and later obtained money from a friend for bus tickets, missed the
initial bus, and eventually returned to Jacksonville by bus on October
22. The friend who provided Jackson with bus money testified that she
recalled that Jackson visited her work place in October 2004, but she
could not recall the date.
Jackson testified that he knew Pearce
through her boyfriend, had met her between five and ten times, and had
been to her house approximately five times. He had previously purchased
crack cocaine from Pearce’s boyfriend, as well as from Pearce. He also
testified that he and Pearce had become comfortable interacting with
each other, and that she would let him enter her house.
explained that when he was interviewed by the lead detective, he did not
admit that he knew Pearce or that he had been to her house because he
knew the detective was investigating a homicide, wished to distance
himself from Pearce, and did not want to be implicated in something he
did not do. He also testified that he did not recognize Pearce in the
photograph he was shown during the interview because it was in black and
white, and she appeared dead in the photograph.
Jackson testified
that he had been at Pearce’s house one week before his trip to Adel,
and he helped move a couch while he was there. Jackson explained that
his fingerprint could be on the sink because he had removed a rag from
the garbage disposal and placed his hand on the sink while he looked
under it. He admitted that his hands were not bloody when he repaired
the disposal, and that this occurred months before the murder.
rebuttal, the State presented the lead detective, who testified that
Pearce’s vehicle was found on the same road where Jackson resided at the
time of the murder. The vehicle was approximately one to one and a half
miles from his residence. However, no evidence connected Jackson to the
the evidence suggested that another person may have been present during
the murder—i.e., the footprints and the second knife with DNA that did
not match Pearce or Jackson—the State requested that a principal
instruction be given. The trial court agreed, and a principal
instruction was read to the jury. On April 17, 2013, the jury found
Jackson guilty of the first-degree murder of Debra Pearce.

Kim Jackson 2019 Information

kim jackson 2019 photos
ID Photo
DC Number:135963
Birth Date:10/13/1969
Initial Receipt Date:10/02/2013
Current Facility:UNION C.I.
Current Custody:MAXIMUM
Current Release Date:PENDING
Tags: ,

Leave a Reply

Spread the love

Please disable your adblocker or whitelist this site!

%d bloggers like this: