Physical evidence

Introduction

Examples

Park City man held in 17-year killing spree(L.A. Times and Wichita [KS] Eagle, 2/27/05, 6/27/05, 8/19/05)

On 2/25/05 Wichita Police arrested Dennis Rader, 59, a Park City code enforcement officer, for ten killings between1974 and 1991. Rader left semen at each scene. He tauntedpolice and the media with notes signed “BTK” (bind, torture,kill).

Despite collecting DNA from 5,000 persons there was littleprogress until recently when, after 25 years of silence, thekiller resumed sending letters and leaving victim’s belongings in public places. Surveillance footage showed a Park City animal control van. A computer disk he left was traced to a computer in Rader’s church. Crime scene DNA was matched against a sample of Rader’s daughter’s DNA.

Rader, the leader of his local church’s lay group, was a zealous officer. “We always said he was invisible because he was most likely so ordinary,” said a retired detective. “As it turned out, he was exactly ordinary. He went to work. He went to church. He went to Boy Scouts. He did family things. Just an ordinary guy.”

On June 27, 2005 Rader pled guilty to the ten slayings and “without emotion” recited details about each. Rader said the “projects” were done for sexual gratification. He received ten consecutive life sentences.

“After killing [a] neighbor, Rader took her body to his church and photographed it on the altar. Then he hid her body, changed into his Scouting uniform and went off to chaperon a camping trip.”

Robert Blake – the murderof Bonnie Lee Bakley On May 4, 2001 about 7:30 pm Blake and Bakley

had dinner at Vitello’s restaurant. Blaked parked1½ blocks away, by a dumpster.

They left about 9:30 pm. Minutes later, Blake, looking flustered, returned and said he had left his gun behind. He drank two glasses of water and left.

Blake said he walked back to his car and found Bakley shot. He ran to a nearby house and its resident called 9-1-1. They went to Blake’s car. The resident tried to stop the bleeding. Blake ran back to the restaurant, supposedly to look for a doctor.

The murder gun was later found in the dumpster by Blake’s car. Two stuntmen testified that Blake asked them to kill his wife but they

refused. Blake purchased telephone call cards so they could call each other using pay phones. Blake told many persons how much he hated the victim.

Blake claimed that Bakley, who once made her living hustling, was being stalked, possibly by a disgruntled ex-client.

Why was Blake acquitted?The jury speaks

Jury foreman Thomas Nicholsonsaid the case was “flimsy” and“disjointed”. “You couldn't put thegun in his hand....There was no[gun shot residue], no blood on hisclothing — there was nothing.” (Court TV)

Juror Lori Moore: “We just didn't have enough evidence to say whether or not he did it.“ (Court TV)

Juror Cecilia Maldonado said that TV shows like CSI created a higher expectation: “I just expected so much more," she said. Jurors wanted “more-convincing evidence, such as conclusive gunshot residue on Blake's hands, or a fingerprint on the murder weapon.” All jurors but one also thought that the stuntmen were lying.

L.A. County D.A. calls Blakejury “incredibly stupid”L.A.Times, 3/24/05

On 3/24/05 the Los Angeles Times reportedthat L.A. County District Attorney Steve Cooleycalled the Blake jury “incredibly stupid” foracquitting “a miserable human being” who was obviously “guilty as sin”.

According to Cooley, prosecuting celebrities in Los Angeles is very difficult. He predicted that his office would face similar challenges in the next celebrity murder trial, of record producer Phil Spector.

Cooley pointed to shows such as “CSI” as being part of the problem, as they raise “false expectations” about the evidence that can be presented.

A current case:the murder of Imette St. Guillen

On 2/25/06 Imette St. Guillen, a graduate student atJohn Jay College of Criminal Justice was foundstrangled. She had been sexually assaulted.

St. Guillen was last seen late the previous evening in a bar. The bar’s bouncer, Darryl Littlejohn, had escorted her outside at closing.

Littlejohn, a parolee, was apparently the last person who saw the victim alive. He was later accused of her murder.

Use the video in the next slide to answer these questions:– What physical evidence ties Littlejohn to the slaying?– Assuming that Littlejohn had no connection to the bar or to the

victim, would the physical evidence have led to him?– Assuming that your answer is “yes”, would the physical evidence

be enough to arrest Littlejohn? To convict him?

But on November 18, 2005 . . .

By a vote of 10-2, a civil court jury foundRobert Blake responsible for killing hiswife, Bonnie Lee Bakley. On a 9-3 votethey awarded the plaintiffs – their daughter and Bakley’s three other children – $30 million.

According to jurors the key were inconsistencies between Blake’s testimony, what he had told police and what other witnesses had to say.

Blake did not testify during the criminal case. But he had to testify in the civil trial, thus making his believability an issue. And that, according to Duke Law School professor Erwin Chemerinsky, turned the tide. “Here the jury didn't believe him.“

Los Angeles Times, 11/18/05

April 2006:The Duke scandal

In April 2006 two Dukelacrosse players werearrested for allegedly rapingan exotic dancer who waspaid to perform for the teamat a frat house

DNA samples from the entire team were taken, but no match was made to biological samples taken from the complainant

Defense lawyers called it a vindication Prosecutors said that the absence of a suspect’s DNA did not

prove there was no rape and suggested condoms might have been worn

Problems with physical evidence

The “C.S.I. effect”

"There is no doubt that there's increasing expectation by jurors..." said an Oregon prosecutor. “Prosecutors across the country are very concerned about this.“Blake jurors "seemed very dismissive of circumstantial evidence....Well, guess what? In most cases…you don't have physical evidence.“

There is "an expectation that peoplefrom the crime labs will have supertechnology to resolve a case," saidBarry Scheck, a member of theO.J. Simpson defense team. ButScheck thinks the factor here wassimply “an absence of evidence.”

Is forensic science“scientific”?

"When you move over to forensic science[from conventional science] there isastonishingly little research to test the fundamental assumptions," says Michael Saks, Professor of Law at Arizona State University.

Saks was interviewed by the Los Angeles Times in connection with the Phil Spector trial, where prosecution experts testified that blood spatter does not travel more than three feet, while defense experts said it can go as far as six or seven feet.

But -- no one had ever shot off a gun inside a living person’s mouth to test a hypothesis about how far blood spray from the mouth can travel. Defense experts cited experiments where blood was dripped on a fan. But the actual experimenter in that study did not testify, probably because his conclusions were too qualified to be useful to the defense.

One problem, said Saks, is that prosecutors and defense attorneys interview experts in advance, screening out those who come to unfavorable conclusions. Then it’s up to the jurors to decide whom to believe.

Excessive confidence inphysical evidence and experts

In 1984 Ken Marsh was convicted for beating to death his girlfriend’s 2-year old son, whom he was babysitting. March denied doing so and said that the boy fell and hit his head. Although a detective agreed, hospital doctors insisted otherwise. Marsh was prosecuted without police involvement and convicted of murder.

Marsh refused to plead guilty to a lesser charge. Even when imprisoned and offered leniency, he refused to cave in.

In January 2006, after serving 21 years, Marsh was declared factually innocent and awarded $756,900. Marsh’s prosecutor still feels that Marsh is guilty, but San Bernardino County D.A. Michael Ramos, who heads the California compensation board, formally apologized to Marsh.

The saga ofTimothy Masters

In February 1987 the body of Peggy Hettrick,36, was recovered from a field in Ft. Collins,CO. She was stabbed to death with one“forceful blow” to her back. Her left nippleand the skin around her vagina were excised with a special instrument, a procedure that a doctor later said could have only been done by an expert.

Suspicion quickly fell on a troubled 15-year old boy that lived nearby, Tim Masters. He admitted riding his bicycle past the body but said he thought it was a mannequin. A search of his bedroom turned up several knives and, hidden in the handle of one, a scalpel. He had made hundreds of drawings depicting violence and torture, including women being stabbed with knives and swords. He also had sketched a body being dragged in the way that police think the killer dragged Hettrick and a map of the scene with an “X” showing where the body was found (Masters said he drew it after the fact in response to a friend’s question.)

None of the knives had blood on them. Masters steadfastly denied killing the woman. He was so small and slight that officers didn’t think he had the strength to overcome the victim. He was not arrested.

Eleven years later, in 1998, officers received a report from a California forensic psychiatrist that the pictures drawn by Masters, including one depicting what seem to be the stabbing of a vagina, were a “fantasy rehearsal” for a homicide. Masters was then arrested and, based mostly on the psychiatrist’s testimony and the drawings, he was convicted of murder. His conviction was upheld on appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court.

On January 22, 2008 Masters was released afterserving nine years. New results indicated that DNAfound on the victim’s body belonged to another man,who had been interviewed by police in 1987. He haddenied having any contact with the victim and wascleared.

Master’s conviction was overturned. Police andprosecutors agree that the evidence now points to thisother man.

There is no compensation law in Colorado. Disciplinaryactions against the detectives and prosecutors on this case (they are now judges) for withholding evidence are pending.

Released after two yearsand four months

A 23-year old Marine, Todd Sommer, diedin 2002 at his San Diego home. His deathwas first ruled as natural. Tests showedhigh levels of arsenic in his organs.

His wife, Cynthia, partied hard after his death, had multiple affairs and used money from the $250,000 life insurance for breast implants. In January 2007 prosecutors used the arsenic plus evidence that she was “celebrating” instead of “mourning” to convict her of murdering her husband for his insurance. She could have gotten life without parole.

However, in December 2007 she was granted a new trial because her lawyer had incompetently portrayed her as a “model wife,” opening the door for a rebuttal by prosecutors that the judge felt unduly prejudiced jurors. A new exam by another lab found no arsenic in the tissues. An expert said that the first results were probably contaminated and that her husband likely died from sudden cardiac arrest, a relatively common problem in young people.

She wasn’t retried. On April 18, 2008 Sommer was released on the motion of prosecutors, who felt that there was now reasonable doubt of her guilt. However, they insisted that the system worked as intended.

A special concern:staged events

Purposeful acts (e.g., arson, murder, staged car crashes, etc.) disguised as accidents

Clues:– Inconsistency between

crime scene and characteristics of a real event

– Inconsistent victim and witness statements

– Inconsistency between recovered evidence and what would be found at a true event

– Same claimants involved in repeated incidents

Gathering physical evidence

It usually starts withshoe leather...

Few cases are solved by physicalevidence alone

– Usually need to identify a suspectfirst through other means(witnesses, interviews, etc.)

Major exceptions– Excellent latent prints are available and the suspect’s prints are on a

shared system– Sufficient suspect DNA is available and the suspect’s DNA profile is on a

shared system– Must still rule out innocent deposits of fingerprints or DNA

Even when physical evidence is crucial, facts are necessary to “lay the foundation” for its introduction. Testimony is necessary to:

– Connect the physical evidence to the circumstances of the crime– Demonstrate how and where the evidence was recovered and collected– Demonstrate that the evidence was not altered

Crime scenes

Definition– Physical location where

a crime took place– Any location where

evidence of a crime may be present

Multiple scenes– Example: Montana

fugitives

What is evidence?

Anything that might help toestablish whether (if) a crime wascommitted, and by whom

– What are the elements of thecrime?

– What evidence might be present?– What is native to the location?

What is foreign?– How would the natural

environment have changed ifa crime occurred?

Potentially exculpatory evidence– Must be collected and disclosed to the defense

Issues in seizing evidence

Cannot take everything Limitations

– Resources (time, money, manpower,analytical, storage capabilities)

Sufficiency of quantity – need “control” samples– Destructive examination– Analysis by defense– Presentation in court

Taking objects that bear evidence(fingerprints, bullets, bomb fragments,explosive residue)

Access and inspection– By officers– By suspect (necessities of life or business)

“Questioned” and “known”

Questioned evidence: evidence whose source or place of origin is unknown

Objects, prints and impressions, residue, etc. found on a suspect or at a crime scene but originating elsewhere

Latent fingerprints, paint transfers, foreign dirt, hairs and fibers, DNA

Known evidence: evidence whose source or place of origin is known

– Things known to be associated with a suspect or a crime scene

– A known person’s DNA, hair, fibers from their clothes, tread patterns from their shoes, paint from their car

“Class” and “individual” characteristics

• Class: Physical details common to all objects of a certain type

• Individual: Details unique to a particular object, due to wear, contact with foreign materials, etc.

Documenting the collection process

Before and after– Photography– Sketch

Where found Chain of custody Recording and labeling Using “finders”

Alternative collection methods

Drawings and photos– Permanent features (landmarks;

obstructions to view– Relative positions (buildings, signs

and objects)

Detection and imaging devices– Sniffers– X-rays, fluoroscopes

Animals

Physical evidenceis fragile!

Must be preserved andprotected

Removal – destruction – alteration– Innocent– Purposeful

Loss and breakage Contamination

– Transfer between different scenes Decay

– Evaporation and solidification