No match on fingerprints
Well, this morning Investigator Hartley testified about the fingerprints. During re-direct, Bellas asked Hartley how many fingerprints she submitted to the SBI lab. She said she sent off five the Monday after Emily's body was found. She testified there were no identifiable prints located. Why would you not ask that question yesterday or Friday when you originally talked about the fingerprints? I thought maybe the SBI agent that did the test would have to testify the results. Law... They also didn't go into Hartley's response. What does that mean? If there were no unidentifiable fingerprints, does that mean they aren't Emily's (that would be good to know) or maybe they aren't Jerry's either. Does that mean the prints are someone else's or does that mean the prints weren't clear or were partial or something to where you couldn't tell whose they were. I have so many questions, but I'm not the lawyers up there.
Hartley stepped down at 10:30. Chris Haas, an SBI agent, is on the stand. However, the jurors left so the judge could hear some of his testimony without the jury present. Haas did the polygraph on Anderson before Emily's body was found. It's North Carolina law that polygraph test results are not admissible in court. However, the defense plans to ask questions about conversation Haas had with Jerry after the polygraph. For example, Jerry reportedly told Haas that he did not believe Emily ran away. He believed Emily was with Jesus. This statement was made before Emily's body was found. Well, the defense argues that the jury should be allowed to hear the context behind the statement. Haas said earlier in the conversation, Jerry was talking a lot about religion and church. So, in that sense, Haas said Jerry's statement that Emily is with Jesus is not unusual or out of the ordinary. The judge ruled the prosecution can ask Haas questions about conversations outside the polygraph test. He said the defense can ask questions regarding the context of the conversation and background.
We'll see what happens.
Hartley stepped down at 10:30. Chris Haas, an SBI agent, is on the stand. However, the jurors left so the judge could hear some of his testimony without the jury present. Haas did the polygraph on Anderson before Emily's body was found. It's North Carolina law that polygraph test results are not admissible in court. However, the defense plans to ask questions about conversation Haas had with Jerry after the polygraph. For example, Jerry reportedly told Haas that he did not believe Emily ran away. He believed Emily was with Jesus. This statement was made before Emily's body was found. Well, the defense argues that the jury should be allowed to hear the context behind the statement. Haas said earlier in the conversation, Jerry was talking a lot about religion and church. So, in that sense, Haas said Jerry's statement that Emily is with Jesus is not unusual or out of the ordinary. The judge ruled the prosecution can ask Haas questions about conversations outside the polygraph test. He said the defense can ask questions regarding the context of the conversation and background.
We'll see what happens.
posted by THE HICKORY DAILY RECORD at at
11:01 AM
7 Comments:
So why on earth did the prosecution bring up those fingerprints if they were not identifiable? Someone needs to explain that to me. Those prints could have been anything - a worker holding the lid open 3 years ago while getting a tool. If they are not identifiable then they serve no purpose in this case.
Why not also bring up a random hand gun found in a trash bin in Mexico City? It would have just as much legal bearing.
Who are these prosecutors? Have they ever tried a murder case before?
This jury gets sent out of the courtroom and wonders to themselves how in the devil some of these persons became law enforcement officers. It is a scary thought. How can this judge allow this fiasco to continue? I'm curious as to how of the physical evidence that was collected by the Sheriff's office has been allowed into the trial as "Physical Evidence Exhibit Number Whatever". I cannot see any being allowed if the defense "objected" on the grounds of the errors made by the evidence tech. and others in the collection,labeling,logging,chain of custody ect. Would be interesting to know.
The prosecution brought up the fingerprints becasue if he didn't, you would be complaining that he didn't bring that up. I think that it is very important to explain that there were five fingerprints found on the toolbox and that they were all partials. They can't tell you whether they are Emily's, Jerry's, or anyone elses. And as far as the prosecutors go, they have been trial attorney's for almost 20 years and they know what they are doing. They have tried many murder cases and are doing the best that they can with what they have to work with.
allison--from the comment here it sounds like you stepped on "know the facts" toes--some folks do not understand this is just a site where folks can air the opinions and ask questions--some folks get their feelings hurt or take things to personal-- they are doing the best they can with what they have to work--i believe the DA's office has their own investigator also so what has he / she brought to the table--just a thought
I'm going to ask what I think should be a dumb question:
Were the fingerprints checked against a national database?
Normally I would agree my question is dumb. But the prosecution in this case didn't think it necessary to do a DNA test on the rape kit. Nor did they think it necessary to look at the video tapes of the crime scene before throwing them out.
So were the fingerprints checked against a national database or were they only checked for a match with a Jerry and Emily?
Well ya'll from the text I've read from the reporter covering the trial, the state doesn't have much. They're basing their case on random comments and hearsay and to someone who is a casual follower it seems like this trial should have been dismissed days ago.
Has anyone looked at the other court cases that Dubs and Campbell have worked? There's some info on another forum about tactics Dubs has tried. It seems she's tried the same things in at least a couple of her cases....trying to get a mistrial declared, pointing fingers at Law Enforcement, bringing in her own expert witnesses who will testify opposite of what the prosecution's expert witnesses have, etc. as well as all the drama in the courtroom. I guess that's what you do when you're a court appointed attorney with the responsibility of defending the accused.
I know Dubs and Campbell lost the Janet Bell Hall case, which they tried to blame on medicine Hall was taking.
They also defended Lisa Greene, the woman who admitted that she set a fire to kill her children. In that case, they claimed the woman was innocent of the charges and that she confessed only because she was called to the police department on the day of her children's funeral services and was under the influence of tranquilizers. I have not been able to find out how that case turned out though.
Does anyone know of cases Dubs and Campbell have won?
What cases has Bellas tried and how did they turn out?
Post a Comment
<< Home