David Thorne's conviction rests entirely on the testimony of an accomplice who avoided death row by pointing the finger at him. Despite multiple witnesses placing Thorne miles away when Yvonne Layne was murdered in 1999, investigators ignored leads pointing to other suspects.

The case against Thorne exemplifies how tunnel vision in investigations can lead to wrongful convictions. The prosecution's entire case hinged on the testimony of Joseph Wilkes, a troubled young man who initially denied any involvement in the murder. After extensive interrogation and facing the death penalty, Wilkes suddenly changed his story, claiming Thorne had hired him to kill Layne. The jury never learned about the intense pressure tactics used during Wilkes' interrogation, nor about the full extent of the deals he received in exchange for his testimony.

The alibi evidence supporting Thorne's innocence was substantial. Multiple witnesses, including business owners and employees, confirmed seeing him at locations miles from the murder scene during the critical time period. Security camera footage and business records corroborated these accounts. However, investigators dismissed this evidence, focusing instead on building a case around Wilkes' questionable testimony. They also ignored several promising leads, including reports of suspicious individuals in Layne's neighborhood the morning of the murder and potential connections to local drug activity.

Independent investigations have uncovered troubling irregularities in the prosecution's case. Crime scene photos reveal evidence manipulation and improper documentation procedures. Blood spatter analysis, which helped convict Thorne, has been challenged by forensic experts who argue it shows signs of staged crime scene characteristics inconsistent with the prosecution's theory. Additionally, witness statements that didn't fit the prosecution's narrative were systematically dismissed or altered during the investigation.

The human cost of this wrongful conviction extends far beyond Thorne. His young son has grown up without a father, and Yvonne Layne's family has been denied true justice as the real killer potentially remains free. The case has also exposed systemic problems in how investigators handle evidence that contradicts their initial theories, and how the promise of leniency can produce unreliable testimony from codefendants facing severe sentences.

Despite mounting evidence supporting his innocence, including new witness statements and forensic analyses that contradict the original prosecution theory, courts have repeatedly denied Thorne's appeals. His case highlights how difficult it can be to overcome a wrongful conviction, even when the evidence supporting guilt was questionable from the start. Today, advocacy groups continue fighting for a thorough reinvestigation of the case, arguing that Thorne's conviction represents a perfect storm of tunnel vision, coerced testimony, and ignored evidence.