Testimony Notes 1 March 2007
Anthropologist Leslie Eisenberg continued her testimony. There was an odor of fuel when she opened the box containing bones from the Janda burn barrel, but there was no odor on the bones. There was no residue or oder of burned rubber associated with any of the recovered bones.
She said that the bones recovered in the gravel pit were mostly animal bones. There were some that were inconclusive. This was important in March, 2006. That is when Calumet County Investigator Mark Weigert and Wisconsin Special Agent Tom Fassbender extracted a confession from sixteen‑year‑old Brendan Dassey. They had Dassey say that Steven Avery later took a bucket of bones and dumped them in the quarry. But, there was no mention of the Janda burn barrel in the “confession.”
The bones recovered from the quarry had the same appearance of burning as the ones found in the burn pit and the Janda burn barrel.
Defense attorney Dean Strang attempted to have her testify about the condition of the bones and whether they had been transported to the pit. First, she said no because she didn’t see any chipping or breakage. But, when Strang pointed out the treatment of the bones during the shoveling, sifting, and gathering, she said it was possible. But, she still would not agree that the bones could have been moved.
Tom Fallon asked whether the fact that the recovered bones did not show damage was a tribute to the carefulness of the recovery team. Eisenberg answered yes. But, the locations were not documented; the bones were shoveled and sifted before being placed loosely in a box. That was hardly work to be proud about. Would an independent expert have a different opinion on the condition and care of this material?
An FBI technician testified that he looked at three items but could not recover any information due to the amount of damage. He identified the items by type and brand which corresponded to similar items owned by Teresa Halbach.
There was a camera memory card labeled with Halbach’s name that was found in her Toyota. So far, there is no information on material recovered from that item.
The next witness was the ballistics technician from the Madison Crime lab. How good is this? There are no standards. To put this in perspective
“Forensic law holds that you don’t have to go to college to become a firearms examiner. There’s also no requirements for formal training, certification, or licensing.… Most experts testify for the prosecution (and try to balance this by testifying for the defense once in awhile)…(1)
Bill Newhouse firearms and tool mark analyst with the State Crime Lab in Madison testified that he examined two bullet fragments found Avery’s garage in March, 2006. These bullets were not discovered in the thorough searches that took place in November, 2005. These fragments were the result of search warrants executed after the infamous Dassey confession.
One bullet fragment was clearly visible in this March, 2006 search. The second, found under a compressor stand, was easily seen by any casual searcher. The second was the fragment that State Crime Lab DNA analyst Sherry Culhane said contained Teresa Halbach’s DNA.
Newhouse could not match the first fragment that was found on the floor in the middle of the garage. The second fragment was matched very definitely to what he called a Marlin and Glenfield Model 60 22 autoloader.(2)
Newhouse was adamant on the match and frequently launched rhetoric of why ballistics matching is so accurate. He refused to address the subjectivity involved. He appeared to deny that the lack of measurable standards had any impact on the quality of identification.
Jerome Buting questioned him about the protocol of having his work checked. He explained that an analyst the Milwaukee branch of the crime lab checked and approved his work. He also did the same for the Milwaukee based analyst. Buting asked why there were no records in the file to show this was true for this fragment. Newhouse responded that the record was “on the computer” and his supervisor would not approve the report without it. But, there was no record produced for the trial.
There is also the problem that occurs when the same two individuals check each other’s work. There is no substitute for having person outside an organization check matches or for having a variety of persons doing the checking.
What Newhouse would not admit is that there are no standards and no certification programs for his field. A study of fingerprint analysis, another subjective field, yielded amazing information about the analysts and how information provided influenced the results of their work.(3)
He was enthusiastic and perhaps convincing to some. I have a distrust of people who are convinced of their infallibility. Buting characterized bullet matching as voodoo. He may be correct given the lack of standards and double‑blind verifications.
If I were dealing with a medical technician using the same level of science and claiming such infallibility, I would want to go elsewhere to get my testing. Why is this allowed in law when the consequences are so great?
There are some loose ends here. In November, 2005 Special Agent Tom Fassbender told Shirley Culhane that he wanted Halbach placed in Avery’s home and garage. He finally got is his wish in March 2006. Coincidentally, Culhane used all the available DNA to obtain the requested result. Now Newhouse claims a match to the exact same bullet fragment that contained this DNA. The tested rifle was logged in as result of a search warrant on 10 November, 2005. The Avery’s were shut out of their property on 5 November, 2005.
There was no Steven Avery DNA found on the rifle. There was no Teresa Halbach DNA found on the rifle. There was no Brendan Dassey DNA found on the rifle. Whether any other DNA was found on the rifle is unknown. The prosecution can argue that Avery was clever enough to clean the weapon. There were however, eleven spent shell casings found in Avery’s garage; apparently a small oversight in the clean up attempt.
References
http://www.nrapublications.org/tar/MarlinGlenfieldEXView.asp “Marlin stopped using the Glenfield name altogether in 1983, and the Glenfield Model 60 became the Marlin Model 60.”
in category Steven Avery
