Here is a very recently published study (Senter 2010):
"Using creation science to demonstrate evolution: application of a creationist method for visualizing gaps in the fossil record to a phylogenetic study of coelurosaurian dinosaurs"
A careful read of this shows what we have seen as a definite pattern. There is great morphological evidence for a "Tyrannosaur cluster" and also for a "Bird-Like Cluster".
But no evidence that those two groups are related.
Here is the interesting way the article puts it:
"As shown here, according to one of their own statistical measures, baraminologists must consider Archaeopteryx and other basal birds – including the more typically birdlike Confuciusornis and Sapeornis– the genetic relatives of dromaeosaurids and other birdlike coelurosaurs, and possibly even compsognathid and tyrannosauroids."
It uses the word MUST in reference to the relatedness within the Bird-like cluster.
But it uses the word POSSIBLY for any relatedness between that group and compsognathid and tyrannosauroids. Which is where the actual issue is.
"Tyrannosauroidea, Compsognathidae and Ornitholestes [the "Tyrannosaur cluster"] form a morphologically continuous group. Basal birds (Archaeopteryx, Confuciusornis, Sapeornis) are part of a morphologically continuous group that also includes Dromaeosauridae, Troodontidae, Epidendrosaurus + Epidexipteryx, Protarchaeopteryx + Incisivosaurus and Falcarius [the "Birdlike cluster"]. Therefore, baraminologists must consider the members of each group to be genetically related. The distance between the two groups is also small enough that within the baraminological paradigm both groups are arguably genetically related to each other."
Again the same story. There is great morphological evidence for a "Tyrannosaur cluster" and also for a "Bird-Like Cluster". But no evidence that those two groups are related.