Day 14 - March 1, 2007
Leslie Eisenberg qualified her identification of quarry bone and explained her burn-site opinion. Curtis Thomas identified burned device parts and described limits on data recovery. William Newhouse gave differing conclusions for two bullets and was questioned about his comparison methods and documentation.
Full day summary
1. Leslie Eisenberg — Cross/Redirect/Recross (Part 2)
Leslie Eisenberg continued her testimony about burned bone from the garage area, a burn barrel, and the quarry, maintaining that the garage-area burn pit was the most probable burn site while acknowledging uncertainty about some fragments and other possible sites.
Highlights
Leslie Eisenberg — Crosstestimony highlightEisenberg identified quarry-area pelvic fragments as possibly human, not definitively human; the court allowed a question about bone thickness over the State's objection.Leslie Eisenberg — Crosstestimony highlightAfter an objection to Strang's characterization of transport, the court had him ask again. Eisenberg said she believed human bone was moved from the original burn pit and adjacent areas to barrel number two, explaining that opinion through the relative volume and character of remains at the two locations.Leslie Eisenberg — Cross“There is evidence from the Avery property that there was transport of human bone. And I believe that transport occurred from the original burn pit and adjacent areas, to barrel number two.”— Leslie EisenbergShe stated her opinion about the direction in which human bone was moved.Leslie Eisenberg — CrossadmissionEisenberg identified the area behind Avery's garage as the most probable burn site on the evidence available to her, while acknowledging that she could not rule out another possible burn site.Leslie Eisenberg — Recrossevidence eventFallon read the parties’ stipulation that specified bone fragments were sent to the FBI Laboratory for further DNA analysis but, because of their condition, no DNA examinations could be conducted. Strang confirmed the stipulation, and the court told the jury it could take those facts as established.Leslie Eisenberg — Recross“If called to testify, Dr. Leslie McCurdy, of the FBI DNA Analysis Unit, would testify that due to the condition of the submitted bone fragments, no DNA examinations could be conducted.”— Thomas J. FallonThe stipulated account states the limit of the attempted FBI analysis without claiming that DNA testing produced a result.
2. Curtis Thomas — Direct/Cross/Redirect/Recross
FBI electronics engineer Curtis Thomas identified burned phone, camera, and PDA components. Cross-examination focused on the limits of data recovery and what could be determined from the surviving pieces.
Highlights
Curtis Thomas — Directtestimony highlightThomas identifies components from approximately three devices in the burned-electronics submission: a Motorola RAZR phone, a Canon PowerShot camera, and a Palm Zire PDA.Curtis Thomas — Crosstestimony highlightThomas said no camera-card data retrieval was attempted because the damaged material crumbled when handled. He acknowledged that his laboratory could remove flash-memory chips to read them, but had not done so here.Curtis Thomas — Cross“The condition that these cards were in precludes any sort of testing that we would have done, lest we completely destroyed this evidence. As you touch most of this stuff, it is crumbling apart.”— Curtis ThomasThomas gave his reason for not attempting to retrieve data from the damaged camera cards.
3. William Newhouse — Direct/Cross/Redirect/Recross
Firearms examiner William Newhouse linked 11 cartridge casings and bullet FL to a Marlin .22-caliber rifle on Day 14, but could not identify the gun that fired bullet FK. Questioning focused on his comparison markings and review records.
Highlights
William Newhouse — Directtestimony highlightNewhouse testified that all 11 submitted cartridge casings were fired in the rifle he test-fired.William Newhouse — Directtestimony highlightNewhouse said bullet FK retained matching class characteristics but lacked enough fine markings to identify a particular gun.William Newhouse — Direct“And the fact of the matter is, I cannot specify exactly what gun this bullet was fired in, again, because I don't have those small stria, those scratches on the bullet surface, that I can use for that kind of conclusion.”— William NewhouseExpressly limits what he could conclude about bullet FK.William Newhouse — Directtestimony highlightNewhouse concluded that bullet FL was fired from the rifle, based on microscopic markings he compared with test-fired bullets.William Newhouse — CrossadmissionUsing the bullet worksheet, Buting established that it recorded no minimum matching-striae count; Newhouse also said the laboratory's written procedures did not specify what was required for an identification.William Newhouse — CrossadmissionNewhouse said the case file did not contain documentation of another examiner's review of the FL identification. He said a computer record existed but acknowledged he had not brought it to court.