Introduction: The Cracks in the Case
It is a cornerstone of our justice system that a conviction represents a truth, painstakingly assembled from evidence and testimony. But what happens when a closer look at that foundation reveals not solid rock, but a series of deep, unsettling cracks? How can a case that seems airtight to a jury appear profoundly questionable under detailed scrutiny?
The conviction of Scott Davis for the 1996 murder of David Coffin is a stark example. The prosecution presented a simple, powerful narrative of a jealous ex-husband who killed his romantic rival in a rage. However, a meticulous review of the case files and evidence tells a different story—one filled with shifting testimonies, disregarded science, and startling official misconduct. This post explores five of the most surprising takeaways from the case that fundamentally challenge the integrity of Scott Davis’s conviction.
——————————————————————————–
1. The State’s Star Witness Couldn’t Keep Her Story Straight
The prosecution’s case hinged on a single, critical claim: Scott Davis knew the victim, David Coffin, had been “shot” before law enforcement officially released that information. They argued that Scott told his ex-wife, Megan Davis, who then became the state’s star witness against him.
The state didn’t just build its case around an inconsistent witness; it knowingly built it on a lie. The documented reality shows that Megan changed her story three separate times, with her final, incriminating version only emerging after a massive financial reward was offered. Evidence proves Megan herself was the source of the “shot” information. Multiple witnesses—Jennifer Jenacova, Craig Foster, and Stephanie Limburger—heard Megan say Coffin was “shot” during her first phone call at 12:08 am. Phone records irrefutably show that Megan did not call Scott until 12:18 am, a full ten minutes later.
Even more damning, the lead detective, Rick Chambers, knew this from the very beginning. Craig Foster, the victim’s best friend, confirmed he told Detective Chambers on that first morning that Megan was the one who told everyone Coffin had been shot. Worse still, the prosecution possessed their own notes from a 1997 interview where Megan admitted to Assistant District Attorney Joe Burford that she was the one who told Scott. The state suppressed those notes for decades, only producing them in 2023.
In a recorded statement, when a friend asked Megan how she knew Coffin had been shot, her confusion was palpable:
“Did I say that? I must have told Scott that too. I thought they only told me he didn’t die in the fire. I may have said it. But I was in shock and on valium.”
The state built its entire theory of guilt on a narrative they knew was false, hiding exculpatory evidence from their own files that single-handedly guts their entire theory of the crime.
2. Fire Science Proves Scott Davis Couldn’t Have Set the Fire
The State’s theory relied on a specific timeline, alleging the fire at David Coffin’s home was started between 8:30 pm and 9:00 pm. This created a window of opportunity during which Scott’s whereabouts were supposedly unaccounted for.
This timeline, however, was pure speculation. The State’s own fire expert, Brian Grove, admitted under oath that he had “no scientific evidence” for his timeline and conceded, “There is no degree of scientific testimony that can tell you exactly when that fire was started.”
In stark contrast, the defense expert’s scientific analysis in the Carpenter Report concluded the fire was set precisely at 9:18 pm—a finding corroborated by the victim’s own watch, which was stopped by the fire at that exact time. This timing is crucial. Phone records confirm that Scott was at his home—9 miles and a minimum 10-minute drive away—at 8:55 pm, when he was on a phone call. For Scott to have set a fire that started at 9:18 pm is a logistical impossibility. Concrete, evidence-based science provided Scott with an alibi that gave him “over a 30 minute margin” of innocence for the arson.
3. The “Stalking” Motive Was Based on the Wrong Address
To establish a motive, the prosecution painted Scott as an obsessed ex-husband. They claimed he hired a private investigator, James Daws, to get David Coffin’s address so he could hunt down and kill his “competition.”
This narrative completely falls apart when examining Daws’s own Grand Jury testimony. Daws testified under oath that he provided Scott with the address 195 W. Conway. This was the wrong address. The victim, David Coffin, lived at 951 W. Conway.
Even more critically, phone records show that Daws didn’t provide even this incorrect address to Scott until Tuesday, December 10th—after David Coffin was already dead. This single, verifiable fact dismantles the prosecution’s entire theory of a premeditated murder based on information Scott supposedly stalked and obtained days earlier.
4. Key Testimonies Changed Only After a Massive Reward Was Offered
A staggering $300,000 reward was offered for information in the case—the largest in Georgia history at the time and equivalent to nearly $600,000 today. Crucially, the reward came with a dangerous condition: it was only to be paid if Scott Davis was convicted.
Following the announcement of this conviction-contingent reward, the testimony of several key individuals changed dramatically from neutral or exculpatory to damning.
* Erik Voss: In a 1997 interview, Voss was “positive and supportive of Scott.” Only after the reward was offered did he come forward with a new claim that Scott had once threatened to “kill anyone who slept with Megan.”
* James Daws: The private investigator, whose testimony about the address was central to the stalking motive, came forward with his story on the very day the reward was announced.
* Megan Davis: The star witness changed her story about the “shot” information from being uncertain or having told Scott herself, to definitively claiming Scott told her—the version that secured her role as the linchpin of the prosecution.
The introduction of such a massive, life-changing sum of money, payable only upon conviction, raises profound questions about the corrupting influence it had on witness testimony and the pursuit of objective truth.
5. More Than 100 Pieces of Evidence Disappeared—Including Prints That Exonerated Scott
The issue was not just incompetence; it was the intentional destruction of exculpatory evidence. Over 100 pieces of physical evidence were lost or destroyed by six separate Georgia agencies, including the core physical evidence of the murder.
Some of the most critical missing items include:
* The fatal bullet and all related ballistic evidence
* The victim’s Porsche, which was central to a related burglary
* Gas cans from the crime scenes
* Fingerprints lifted from the Porsche that were confirmed to not match Scott Davis
The destruction of the fingerprints is a story of active deception. In 1996, prints from the victim’s Porsche were confirmed not to be Scott’s. In a clear violation of standard operating procedure, they were never run through the national AFIS database to identify another suspect. For years, prosecutor Sheila Ross lied to the defense, claiming the prints were destroyed in the 90s. In reality, two sets of the fingerprint cards were still in the possession of the GBI and the Fulton County DA’s office in early 2005. They were then destroyed right before Scott was indicted, eliminating the defense’s best chance of identifying the real perpetrator.
——————————————————————————–
Conclusion: A Verdict in Question
This was not a conviction with minor flaws; it was a conviction achieved through suppressed evidence, testimony tainted by a conviction-contingent reward, and the intentional destruction of evidence that pointed away from Scott Davis. The verdict rests on the shifting story of a compromised star witness, a timeline disproven by science, a motive based on incorrect information, and a staggering amount of lost exculpatory evidence. The facts presented raise profound and disturbing doubts about the integrity of the process that led to his conviction.
When the pillars of a pro
secution crumble under scrutiny, what does justice truly demand we do next?
Be First to Comment