The first day of week 4 comes to an end
Well, we almost made it a day without sending out the jurors (and they didn't get here until 2). They were only gone about 10 minutes. The judge wanted to hear Agent Elwell's answer to a Bellas question without the jury present to make sure her response would not confuse jurors. Bellas asked what are reasons you can't get a DNA profile from blood, besides it not being blood or being animal blood - a question Campbell asked Elwell on cross-examination. Cayer allowed her to answer Bellas' question in front of the jurors. She said the most common reasons you can't get a DNA profile are because there is not enough sample there, it's not human blood and the sample is inhibited, meaning it's dirty or come in contact with something that would not allow it to be amplified to where an analyzer could get a profile. Science, man. It definitely wasn't my favorite subject in school. The defense asked Elwell about a rape kit. Basically, Campbell asked her to explain how a rape kit works, and then he asked her if she received one in this case. She said no. I had a feeling the defense was going to bring that back up. Remember, the sheriff's office never sent the rape kit off to be tested.
Stafford took the stand the last 15 minutes of the day. He explained a group of photos to the jurors. They were photos of the open field and wooded area searched on Jan. 18, 2006, the day the cadaver dogs were there. One photo was of the tree were the dogs alerted to a scent. He showed the jurors a discoloration in the tree. I am about 10 yards away from the jurors, but to me, the discoloration looked red. And, some of the bark had been chipped away somehow, Stafford explained. Does that mean Emily died in the woods behind the dairy? I guess that's up for the jurors to decide.
That will still be weeks, if not a month, away. Bellas said he hopes to be finished by the end of the week with his witnesses. Then, it's the defense's turn. Recalling the names of potential witnesses read on the first day of jury selection, the defense has more witnesses than the prosecution. I bet it'll be another four weeks of testimony. I don't know how long the jurors will take to deliberate. We'll find out sometime in the coming weeks...
Stafford took the stand the last 15 minutes of the day. He explained a group of photos to the jurors. They were photos of the open field and wooded area searched on Jan. 18, 2006, the day the cadaver dogs were there. One photo was of the tree were the dogs alerted to a scent. He showed the jurors a discoloration in the tree. I am about 10 yards away from the jurors, but to me, the discoloration looked red. And, some of the bark had been chipped away somehow, Stafford explained. Does that mean Emily died in the woods behind the dairy? I guess that's up for the jurors to decide.
That will still be weeks, if not a month, away. Bellas said he hopes to be finished by the end of the week with his witnesses. Then, it's the defense's turn. Recalling the names of potential witnesses read on the first day of jury selection, the defense has more witnesses than the prosecution. I bet it'll be another four weeks of testimony. I don't know how long the jurors will take to deliberate. We'll find out sometime in the coming weeks...
posted by THE HICKORY DAILY RECORD at at
5:07 PM
7 Comments:
Ok.. not to state the obvious here but.. didn't we learn earlier today that the soil where the dogs alerted did NOT contain blood? Are we to believe that a picture of a tree with a mark that LOOKS like blood should be considered over a scientific test confirming there WASNT any blood? I'm so confused.
Let' see what we have at the end of this day. No tangible evidence from any SBI lab people--Lead investigator showing pictures of a field and tree that where taken on Jan 18 and they are saying the murder happened on Dec. 29,tree has some possible red on it and bark missing,,did anyone look for missing bark, did anyone say what the red discoloration is. Did the defense ask the lead investigator why it took him and his people until Jan 18 to go to this field and do this brilliant piece of investigation that is the hot spot for a beer drinking dog to alert on.
Jan 2, rained 0.98 inches, wind to 22 mph
Jan 11, rained 0.54 inches, wind to 14 mph
Jan 13, rained 0.79 inches, wind to 25 mph
Jan 17, rained 0.29 inches, wind to 35 mph
It even rained on the morning of Jan 18th when the pictures were taken. And with all this rain and wind swirling about, something as water soluble as blood didn’t wash off and in fact kept its red color 21 days after the crime?
And what kind of blood is visible to the naked eye but not "visible" to chemical tests?
Oh wait, this is from the same people who made paint chips magically appeared 6 months later
Don't forget that the "blood" on the tree could have just as easily been from a deer killed by a hunter. The state probably won't mention that or the tree stand near by or the people who poach on the land. They'll wait and let the defense bring that up for them.
Also they found blood in the cab but no mention of any in the bucket? So what did Jerry do? Walk around in blood to incriminate himself and then climb in to the cab of the tractor? Or did he drag the body up in to the tractor? Since the DNA tests can't tell whether its human or animal blood they found in the tractor doesn't someone need to inform the state that the Anderson's ran a dairy farm and that animals do occasionally bleed?
I just finished reading an article in a local paper from today's court proceedings and I find it very alarming that this Sheriff's Office allows so many civilians to be involved in the collection of evidence. I'm referring to the wrecker company owner Keith Keen. It seems according to Det Hartley's testimony he was involved in removing items from the tractor and the truck. Why in the hell do you allow this to happen in this type of case. Is he a Det. in training or something? Could Det. Hartley not get in the tractor? Was she the only investigator there at the time?
Something not to be forgotten with the tractor. Remember how the Police wouldn't give the tractor back to John Deere or the bank. I think there was even a court session a few months back on this topic. The police said they needed it as evidence while the rest of us couldn't figure out why they couldn't just take a few swabs for blood testing and release the tractor.
Now it comes out that paint chips supposedly found on Emily's sweater are sent in for testing only after the forensics expert couldn't find any such evidence on the sweater.
This looks so bad. The Police managed to "find" the paint chips 6 months later - and they had access to the tractor. Wow does this stink to high heaven.
Heads need to roll for this. Not only does Emily not get justice..neither does Jerry. If he's guilty.. they botched it. If he's innocent.. no one will ever believe he is since the investigation was so messed up.
A very sad state of affairs. Jay Gaither's boss should lose his job too.. (is that the governor?)
Post a Comment
<< Home