Alex, I'll take soil for $1,000
All right. We have some answers about soil. Shelly Hartley took the stand after our lunch break. She said that she tested the soil for blood using phenolphthalein. The results, she testified, were negative for blood. So maybe since her results were negative the sheriff's office decided not to have the SBI test the soil for blood? But why would you send the soil there, which this morning, SBI Agent Jenny Elwell said they received the soil just didn't test it. Oh well. At least we now know that the soil that was collected from around the tree where the cadaver dogs alerted to a decomposing scent did not have blood in it. Since, Elwell took the stand. She's keeping in line with what she said this morning. She said blood was detected on two samples - one from the floor of the cab and one from a piece of mat taken from the tractor. She said she could not get a DNA profile from either of those two samples. Elwell is currently in the middle of cross-examination from the defense. The prosecution might re-direct, and then if they finish up this afternoon, Stafford should retake the stand. C-ya at five.
posted by THE HICKORY DAILY RECORD at at
3:48 PM
8 Comments:
okay--no blood in soil around tree where beer drinking dog smelled something dead, no blood dna match,no murder weapon,paint chip match in question, evidence either lost or not collected, evidence that was collected has poor or no chain of custody,no note taking to speak of by investigating officers,no follow up on leads until investigators hear it in this court, medical examiner targeted time of death 2 to 4 days prior to autopsy, please stop this nonsense unless they have a signed confession from the defendant.
Why on earth did the prosecution go through all that fuss with the dog handler on the stand - remember the jury going in and out of the room. And then bringing McNeil back to testify again. Why go through all that if their very own witness then says there was no blood in the soil anyway?
A freshly shot body with 4 holes in it and no blood? Clearly the body was not there. So clearly the dogs were wrong.
I think a school kid could have reasoned this out better than the prosecution.
Let's say if you were investigating this case what would you have done early on--say the day Jerry reported Emily missing? This should generate some interesting comments. Keep in mind some of the investigators have testified they had not ruled out anything or anyone even before the body was found if I remember correctly. Think like the investigator assigned to the case when it was still a missing person and go from there.
Don't you find it odd that the day she goes missing and the detectives start working a missing person case they don't ask (or their is no mention of asking) the employees at the dairy if they've seen anything unusual or when was the last time they saw Emily. Only later does it come out that they saw her and Jerry drive in to the woods? If the investigators didn't rule anything out they sure as the world didn't consider any other options than Jerry being responsible.
I for one would have looked at the information given in the initial missing persn report that was filed. I would have followed up immediately to all the places they were told she was going that day. I would have asked to view all security cameras at all locations to see if any of them showed her or her vehicle. If none of these leads produced any information I would have been back at the farm as soon as possible to begin preliminary questioning of all the workers and jerry. You do not give anyone time to fabricate their stories or hide things. I would have asked to look at their computers and checked her e-mail and his. If you get information when it is fresh it is easier to follow the trail. You must in your collection of statements and evidence develop a step by step layout of who,what,when,where and why. As your investigation continues you will begin to see a link between the hard evidence you have gathered along the way that goes along with your individual interviews and statements from people of concern. It is alot of work but if done properly early on it will make things alot easier when it comes time to arrest, present your case and convict your suspect. Everything should have an order to them during the whole process.
ret-investigator.. the steps and procedures you've laid out are so obvious it's almost painful to see the next post by JM. I'm not convinced that the prosecution even has a timeline of events but instead a mish-mash of questionable evidence. What in the world possessed them to bring this case to trial? Are they that stupid?
justwatchin--I do not think the investigators are stupid--I firmly believe up until the body was found the Sheriffs office investigator in this case treated it as a missing person / grown woman who just up and left her husband and never put much thought in it. Then when the body was found they were caught off guard because they had not done their preliminary work and too much time had passed for them to get caught up and too much real evidence had become contaminated or destroyed. This is why you always take the high road especially in a reported missing person case by doing your early work even if it later proves out to be nothing more than a wife leaving her husband or someone running away from home. Unfortunately in this case it proved to be someone killed and then trying to catch up. Really sad and I feel for Emily's family that is sitting in that courtroom enduring this poorly constructed trial.
Is it posisble this case will be thrown out before the jury goes into deliberation?
Post a Comment
<< Home