<

Repository Collection 03

Murder Witness Claims Intimidation

ARTICLE SOURCE ENTRY

Last Revised • July 7, 2026

This Source Verification Page documents an Associated Press article published through StarNews Online concerning allegations made by witness Lynette Smith during proceedings related to the murder of Mary Elizabeth Judd. The article discusses claims of witness intimidation, challenges to investigative practices, and concerns regarding the reliability of testimony. Statement of Facts D relies upon this reporting as an independently verified source supporting the allegations referenced in the Supplemental Motion.


Related SMAR Citation

“[Asheville Citizen Times, Nov. 9, 2003]”
“[Asheville Citizen Times]”


Source Name

Murder Witness Claims Intimidation


Author(s)

Associated Press


Publication

StarNews Online


Publication Date

November 9, 2003


Verification Source

Murder Witness Claims Intimidation


Source Location

Associated Press article referencing court documents obtained by StarNews Online


Highlighted Pages

1 - 2


Referenced in the Supplemental Motion

Page 28, Paragraph: 49


Source Status

✔ Article obtained and reviewed.

✔ This article independently supports both Asheville Citizen-Times citations referenced in Paragraph 49 of the Supplemental Motion.

✔ Relevant passages highlighted.

✔ Publicly available source

✔ Included within the Source Verification Archive


Cited to Support

May's allegation that John Collins and David Hammack were jailed in connection with the rape and murder of Mary Elizabeth Judd based largely upon statements attributed to a single eyewitness, Lynette Smith. The article is cited to document Smith's later claim that Sheriff Bobby Medford threatened or intimidated her into making statements implicating Collins and Hammack, as well as reporting that defense attorneys challenged the reliability of the investigation and the prosecution's reliance upon her account. May relies upon this source to support his claim that coercive investigative practices and questionable witness testimony were not isolated incidents within Buncombe County criminal investigations and that concerns regarding the conduct of law enforcement and prosecutors arose in multiple serious felony cases.


Supporting Documents

Original Article

Link to the original article.

View Website →


Highlighted Research Copy

Working research copy containing the highlighted passages cited in the Supplemental Motion.

View PDF →


Continue Your Research

Return to Statement of Facts D

Continue browsing the sources cited throughout Statement of Facts D.

Browse Sources →

Return to Source Verification Archive

Return to the main Source Verification Archive and explore additional sections of the Supplemental Motion.

Browse Archive →