This story serves as the introduction to an ongoing series that runs through Monday. To catch up on stories published so far, go to News-Leader.com/ConvictedByBlood.

Early on Christmas Day, 2006, Lisa Jennings went into the bedroom of her Buffalo home, took a handgun off a closet shelf and ended her life.

At 39, she committed suicide and left behind a husband of 18 years and three children.

At least, that was the initial finding of the Dallas County coroner and the Dallas County Sheriff’s Office.

Records of the investigation show that a county deputy sheriff administered a gunshot residue test that night — standard procedure in law enforcement — that indicated Jennings herself had fired the gun.

Six weeks later, a front-page story in the Buffalo Reflex quoted Wayne Rieschel, Dallas County prosecuting attorney, saying the death was, in fact, a suicide.

"There is zero evidence to show otherwise," Rieschel said.

Two months after Lisa Jennings was laid to rest, records show, her younger sister went to the Springfield office of the Missouri State Highway Patrol and met with Sgt. Dan Nash. She suspected her sister was murdered by Lisa's husband, Brad Jennings.

Detective Nash has worked hundreds of homicide cases, including high-profile cold cases in the Ozarks such as the 1985 murder of Jackie Johns.

This case was not nearly as cold.

As a result of that meeting, Nash — whose credibility has since been questioned by defense attorneys — decided to re-investigate the death of Lisa Jennings.

He pulled the investigative file from the sheriff's department, including 90 photos from the crime scene and autopsy. He studied pictures of blood spatter and focused on a photo of Lisa Jennings' right hand; it had a single blood drop on it. Nash thought there should be more "blow-back" from the gunshot.

In the end, Nash came to a different conclusion than prior investigators. He believed Lisa Jennings was shot in the head by her husband.

According to court records, Nash told that to Brad Jennings, who denied killing his wife and for the past decade has continued to deny it.

Despite the accusation, Jennings voluntarily cooperated with Nash, records show. Jennings let the highway patrol take crime-scene measurements in his home. He agreed to be interviewed without a lawyer present. He willingly offered a DNA sample.

He also handed over to Nash the bathrobe he wore that night so it could be tested.

Jennings had not bothered to wash it since Lisa's death.

Subsequently, the highway patrol found microscopic traces of blood on the bathrobe that could not be seen by the human eye because, in part, the bathrobe was black.

On Christmas Day, Jennings told sheriff's deputies that he held his wife's bloody body to him before calling 911.

Robert Ramsey, a St. Louis attorney who now represents Jennings, said that his client, like most people, had the utmost faith in the motives of police.

"Brad’s position was that they are law enforcement officers; they are not going to lie and cheat," Ramsey said.

After the highway patrol tested the bathrobe, Nash concluded the blood on the robe could only have come from a high-velocity gunshot wound, according to court records.

Brad Jennings hadn't just held his wife's body after she died — according to Nash — he pulled the trigger.

Jennings was charged with second-degree murder and armed criminal action. He was convicted in August 2009 by a Dallas County jury and sentenced to 25 years in prison.

During the trial, the prosecutor suggested that Jennings — who did not testify — killed his wife while wearing the bathrobe, then changed clothes and washed up to remove gunshot residue from his hands before police arrived.

The prosecutor also suggested that the reason Lisa Jennings had gunshot residue on her right hand was not because she fired the weapon, but because she was near Brad Jennings when he fired it.

Today, Jennings, 61, is locked up at the South Central Correctional Center in Licking, Missouri.

His sister Marsha Iler, his only sibling, visits him weekly.

Iler, a registered nurse, is zealous in her belief that her brother did not kill his wife.

She has spent approximately $200,000, thus far, paying the mortgage on her brother's farm and hiring lawyers and private investigators to try to prove his innocence. She hired investigator J. Dwight McNiel in January 2012.

McNiel reviewed the case through the eyes of law enforcement — he once was the sheriff of Christian County — and he had one overriding piece of advice for Iler.

If the Missouri State Highway Patrol tested the bathrobe for blood spatter, McNiel said, they more than likely also tested it for gunshot residue to see if Brad Jennings fired the gun while wearing the bathrobe, as the prosecution contended he did.

It turns out, the highway patrol did test the unwashed, blood-stained bathrobe for gunshot residue.

The results, contained in a report dated July 17, 2007, were negative.

This seemingly crucial piece of evidence was never given to Brad Jennings’ defense lawyer. It was never revealed to the jury that convicted him.

In fact, Jennings' defense lawyer, Darrell Deputy of Lebanon, in his closing argument in 2009 pleaded with jurors to ask themselves why patrol investigators did not conduct such a test — apparently unaware that they actually did.

“I would have done it in a heartbeat," Deputy told jurors, according to a trial transcript.

Instead, the results of that gunshot residue test sat in evidence storage with the highway patrol until December 2015, when an attorney hired by Iler came calling.

That attorney, Lindsey Phoenix, suspected the test existed and physically reviewed the evidence file.

After 90 minutes, she found two small canisters marked "GSR, black robe Right" and "GSR, black robe Left."

This evidence contradicts, according to Phoenix, the prosecutor's theory — if Jennings shot his wife while wearing the bathrobe, then the bathrobe would have absorbed residue from the gunshot along with her blood.

It also bolsters the defense's contention that the reason there was no gunshot residue detected on his hands that night is simple: Brad Jennings did not fire a gun.

Now, the question is this: Is that lack of disclosure enough to free Brad Jennings? Is it enough to award him a new trial?

In recent legal filings, the Missouri Attorney General's Office has said prosecutors did not know at the time of trial that the test was done and did not know the results, putting the question of disclosure squarely on the highway patrol.

In December, defense attorney Ramsey filed a writ of habeas corpus, a convicted person's last legal hope.

It is a request for a judge to vacate the prior conviction and either release Jennings or award him a new trial. Ramsey has pinned his argument on the unfairness of the lack of disclosure at trial.

The judge has scheduled an evidentiary hearing — where witnesses are expected to testify — Nov. 7-8 in Rolla.

In his petition, Ramsey wrote: “What was clearly a close case would likely have had a different result ... (if not for) the suppression of the highly material gunshot residue test on petitioner’s robe which clearly and convincingly exhibits that petitioner is actually innocent."

Ramsey also took aim at the credibility of the highway patrol detective, Nash, alleging in court filings that he has a "history and propensity" to "present false and fabricated evidence and testimony."

Such claims, if substantiated, could have broad repercussions considering the number of cases in which Nash has been a lead investigator and pivotal witness at trial.

The News-Leader twice sought a response from Nash, who said he was prohibited by highway patrol policy from discussing the case.

Oct. 1, the News-Leader met with Timothy Davis, a Branson attorney representing Nash in this matter.

In short, Davis said, it wasn't Nash's legal responsibility to decide what was disclosed to Jennings' defense attorney. That decision is up to the prosecutor, Davis said. He also disputed the allegation that Nash has a history of presenting false evidence.

“Dan is not in a position to intercept the document, cancel it or tamper with it," Davis said. “Dan had no control what they received or did not receive from the crime lab.”

Court records indicate the results of the gunshot residue test were faxed to Nash.

Even so, Davis said, it would be up to the prosecutor to decide what to disclose to the defense attorney prior to trial.

The newspaper asked Davis if Nash knew, prior to trial, if the test results existed.

"I don't know," he said.

Jennings is eight years into a 25-year sentence. Ramsey would not allow the News-Leader to speak to him directly because Jennings is expected to testify at the hearing.

But for the first time in years, Iler said, her brother has hope.

About this series

The stories in this series are based substantially on court documents. A copy of the prosecution's case file — as handed over by prosecutors to defense lawyers — was given by defense lawyers to McNiel, a private investigator working for the defense.

McNiel, in turn, released it to the News-Leader.

The newspaper independently requested the case file from the Missouri State Highway Patrol through the state's open records law. The patrol denied the request on the grounds that an appeal is pending.

In addition, the newspaper reviewed the 915-page transcript of the trial of Brad Jennings; the 225-page transcript of the appeal of Jennings' conviction; and conducted multiple interviews with family members, attorneys and others.