It's up to the jurors if the paint chips match
SBI agent Brewer said she tested two paint samples: One from outside the John Deere front-end loader and one from inside the bucket of the John Deere tractor. To no surprise, as she testified, the samples matched. She testified that a former co-worker, now retired, tested the sample from outside the tractor with a sample of a paint chip on the sweatshirt Emily Anderson was wearing. They matched. However, the defense objected to Brewer testifying that all three samples had the same color, texture and chemical composition. So, of course, the jurors were excused so Judge Cayer could hear the testimony and make a decision. The defense said since Brewer did not herself test the paint chip sample from the sweatshirt, she should not be allowed to testify that all three samples matched. The judge agreed.
But, does it make sense... If the sample from on the sweatshirt matches the sample from on the tractor and the sample on from on the tractor matches the sample from inside the bucket, does that mean the sample from the sweatshirt matches the sample from inside the bucket??? I guess that's a conclusion for the jurors to decide.
Now, the defense brought up an interesting point. On Beth Flanagan's notes (the retired SBI agent), she stated, Brewer read, that when originally reviewing the sweatshirt that she did not find any yellow paint chips. That was June 2006. In November 2006, the lab received a yellow paint chip from the sweatshirt with the request to compare it to the samples from the outside of the tractor and with inside the bucket. So, what does that mean? Did Flanagan miss the yellow paint chip in June? Did investigators remove the paint chip before sending off the sweatshirt and sent it later? I wonder if we'll hear an explanation for that.
Bellas was in the middle of re-direct when we stopped for lunch. I'll be back this afternoon.
But, does it make sense... If the sample from on the sweatshirt matches the sample from on the tractor and the sample on from on the tractor matches the sample from inside the bucket, does that mean the sample from the sweatshirt matches the sample from inside the bucket??? I guess that's a conclusion for the jurors to decide.
Now, the defense brought up an interesting point. On Beth Flanagan's notes (the retired SBI agent), she stated, Brewer read, that when originally reviewing the sweatshirt that she did not find any yellow paint chips. That was June 2006. In November 2006, the lab received a yellow paint chip from the sweatshirt with the request to compare it to the samples from the outside of the tractor and with inside the bucket. So, what does that mean? Did Flanagan miss the yellow paint chip in June? Did investigators remove the paint chip before sending off the sweatshirt and sent it later? I wonder if we'll hear an explanation for that.
Bellas was in the middle of re-direct when we stopped for lunch. I'll be back this afternoon.
posted by THE HICKORY DAILY RECORD at at
12:41 PM
15 Comments:
The tractor was seized 1-18-06.
Why did it take so long to get the paint chips tested?
Also whats the deal with the paint chips on the shirt,none in June then chips show up in Nov.?
This whole case sounds like make it up as we go!
Emily also worked at the farm. That said, I don't see how having paint chips on her is so unusual. I bet if the sweatshirts of the other farmhands were tested.. there would be paint chips on them too.
The whole idea that paint chips showed up 6 months later is beyond comprehension. I agree with jaseven.. The state decided Jerry was guilty and then started making up the evidence. I'm locking my windows and doors because I believe there is a killer on the loose in Sawmills. I'd advise anyone else in the area to do the same.
Paint chips from the sweater showing several months after the sweater was checked--Give me a break--I know what the prosecution is going to say--They will put another Sheriff's Office person on the stand and they will testify the paint chip fell off the sweater and they found it in the evidence room later--I thought for awhile today we were going to hear some solid evidence but the SBI persons bring in more hearsay evidnece from retired agents. Also just because the other agent is retired they should have been and could have been summoned to testify in the case. Trust me retirement would not keep an officer from testifying in a case of this importance. The state should have summoned these agents to court.
It does sound a little questionable that when the SBI (true investigative professionals) received the sweatshirt they couldn't find the paint chips. For the conspiracy theorists out there it would be easy to say that since the Sheriff's dept's case was so weak they had to find "some"...I mean "the" paint chips before sending them back to the SBI. Chalk another one up for the evidence collecting abilities of the Caldwell County Sheriff's Dept! Maybe they just thought the SBI would like to look at the sweatshirt before actually sending the paint chips? Who knows?
justwatchin - I agree about it not being unusual for the paint chips to be on her since she did work on the farm also. I mean if the paint chips were all over the back of her sweatshirt (and easily found by the SBI) I could imagine her having been in the bucket of the tractor. Next thing you know the prosecution is going to tell us that Jerry did it because Emily had cow manure on her pants leg and since Jerry owned cows he had to have done it! My only question about the paint chips is this, wouldn't John Deere more than likely use the same paint or type of paint on all their tractors? So does that mean that anyone in the area with a John Deere tractor with a yellow bucket on it could be a suspect?
I agree the sheriff's department has totally botched this investigation....kind of reminds you of Barney in Mayberry. But remember back to the OJ Simpson trial; the prosecution from the big city of LA thought they had the case sealed up tight with all their so-called evidence.
I think Jennifer should seriously consider changing the name of this blog to Murder In Duncan.
Do you have any concrete evidence that would support your idea that the murder took place in Duncan?
purpledog--read the majors testimony about the body and look at my definition of rigor mortis and you tell me if the murder happened on Dec. 29 and if you believe that it did then explain it based on the major just testified too. It would be interesting to hear your views.
Your attempt to explain rigor mortis was good but you forgot some other factors.
The body muscles will normally be in a relaxed state for the first three hours after death, stiffening between 3 hours and 36 hours, and then becoming relaxed again. However, there is considerable uncertainty in estimates derived from rigor mortis, because the time of onset is highly dependent on the amount of work the muscles had done immediately before death.
Decomposing bodies start producing ammonia (NH3) in the lungs quite soon after death, and the ammonia diffuses outward through the nose and mouth. Ammonia is lighter than air, and it diffuses rapidly. The rate of production of ammonia decreases with time after death.
Within a few hours, depending on weather conditions, a body starts to produce heavier amines in its tissues, e.g., putrescine (1,4-diaminobutane), and cadaverine (1,5-diaminopentane). These amines are much heavier than air, and they diffuse relatively slowly.
However decomposition can be altered. Take for instance the following case:
“Workmen cutting brush along a roadside in the middle of the summer discover the fully clothed body of a woman that has been dead for an indeterminate period of time. Initially, investigators believe that the body has been dead for a relatively short time because there are little outward signs of decomposition, and no insect activity. Eventually it is found that the woman has been dead for almost four months. The killer had sprayed the body with insecticide and deodorizers to prevent insect activity and mask decomposition odor (something they may have learned from a "CSI" television show). However, without realizing it, the killer had essentially sterilized the body by eliminating insect activity and preventing flies from laying eggs and giving rise to subsequent maggot development.
At autopsy, the medical examiner discovered there had been relatively little internal decomposition, as well. The pesticides had been absorbed through the skin, and entered the lungs and blood, spreading throughout the body and preventing most of the normal bacterial decomposition from proceeding. Data for conditions of this type are also available in the Body Farm's database.” This information is from Dr. Doug Hanson
Purp... is there a point in that lengthy diatribe?
I am sorry that you miss ret-investigastor's comment. I was responding to:
ret-investigator said...
purpledog--read the majors testimony about the body and look at my definition of rigor mortis and you tell me if the murder happened on Dec. 29 and if you believe that it did then explain it based on the major just testified too. It would be interesting to hear your views.
Do you not understand that the body could have been tampered with to hinder pinpointing the time of death?
Yes Purple dude.. I read it. However I think your explanation gives way too much credit to whomever perpetrated this crime. I prefer to go with the most logical, most likely, most probable explanation of Emily's death. 2-4 days is much more believable that pesticides and deodorants. And.. if pesticides, deodorants, or whatever preseravative were apparent on the body, prosecutors (cough) would have let us know.
Did the ME check for pesticides and deodorants? Please do not underestimate the intelligence of the person or persons that carried out this crime.
Purp.. I think you've been watching too much CSI.
Post a Comment
<< Home