Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Reviewing forensic evidence from Corey Lyons murder trial than comparing past actions in the Ricardo Juarez Trial.

 So today while I was out running errands by chance I happen to come across the local California Department of Justice  Forensic laboratory.Imagine my surprise when I saw this beautiful newer building on the corner of Hollister Avenue and David Love Place.So I pulled over and took a couple of pictures to share with all of you.  Are you as amazed as I was as to how modern this building looks.

Forensic Testimony in the first Corey Lyons double murder trial below
“Sanger brought up the fact that Santa Barbara Police Department’s crime lab is essentially a windowless, 20-foot by 25-foot closet, and that members of California’s Department of Justice (DOJ) crime lab — located in Goleta — are oftentimes called in to assist with scene investigation. In this case, three members of the DOJ worked the Mesa home alongside Ullemeyer.”(I feel some what mislead by both our Santa Barbara District Attorneys office and defense Attorney Robert Sanger. I mean based on the above testimony you would think all of the forensics in Santa Barbara was how do I say this"in the dark". Also what role the 3 criminologist from the D.O.j. played that first day with the investigation is never covered by the defense or prosecutor, pretty suspicious if you ask me)

The media than goes on to report
“The next witness called to the stand was Laurie Kaminski, the forensic scientist who carried out the gunshot residue analysis of samples taken from Corey and his belongings shortly after his arrest. Kaminski, an employee of Forensic Analytical Sciences Inc.,”( which makes me ask with all the local forensic capabilities why did our Santa Barbara District Attorneys office feel the need to go outside the area to a private lab? I would feel the Department of Justice stamp on forensics evidence would lend itself to superior credibility with the jury, wouldn't you? I also have to question did the prosecutor test any one or any thing for Gun Shot Residue for 22 or 38 caliber handgun? I can understand the defense not wanting to incriminate his client if he was to have tested positive. I can only guess here but if they did in fact test Mr. Lyons and it was negative than you would be forced to look into more than one gunman.)

Well based on all the comments I received after my last posting I am not alone in questioning the events and trial of Corey Lyons. The testimony of Santa Barbara criminologist Mike Ullemeyer work could be labeled juvenile at best. His efforts to reconstruct the events of that night by patching pictures of the scene together reflects an attempt to confuse the jury and camouflage what actually transpired on the morning of the murders. Even with me taking into account the poor media coverage I do not feel Mr. Ullemeyer has properly addressed any issue including the actual location where the 4 shotgun blast came from on the second floor.

This is by no means the first time I have questioned the forensic work in a Santa Barbara murder trial. Before we can go forward we must be sure to look behind us because history says there are grave concerns from the past that have never been properly addressed. I am of course speaking of The framing of a 14 year old boy named Ricardo Juarez for murder. No I am not going to address the whole trial but I do have 4 media reports to review here and now.

This media report was from the murder trial I challenged this report and Burns testimony from the beginning;
"Immediately following Anthony’s testimony, Tuesday’s next expert witness was criminologist Diane Burns, who inspected all of the submitted evidence for biological materials - most specifically, blood.
Burns described how she processed the evidence, carefully examining it visually and then with the aid of several different microscope instruments. Having detected stains that looked like potential blood samples, Burns explained that she used a test that determined the presence of hemoglobin, a component of blood, and if the test had positive results, she collected samples to send to the DNA lab. Of all of the evidence, two pairs and one single glove tested positive for blood, along with a white pair of tennis shoes belonging to the defendant, and other articles of clothing collected from the suspects. While Burns could not determine whose DNA was on which objects, the court will most likely have another scientist from the DNA lab testify on this matter in the future to elucidate the unanswered questions."

This media report was from one of the preliminary hearings and makes one of these two testimony's falsified.
http://www.independent.com/news/2008/sep/12/final-witness-cross-examined-thursday-juarez-murde/  Of particular note was “item #22,” a knife with a seven-inch blade that investigators found in a trash can near the scene of the crime. The weapon was introduced during testimony from Dianne Burns, a forensics scientist who claimed she positively identified DNA found on the handle as belonging to Juarez.

So did the California Department of Justice criminologist commit perjury based on her two contradicting statements you just read?

http://www.independent.com/news/2008/sep/15/defense-begins-calling-witnesses-juarez-trial/#c8459 2007, she said Romero used a blue bandana to wipe the blood off of his hands, and then said something along the lines of “Don’t worry, I don’t think it’s my blood.” According to testimony in the trial last week, both Romero’s and Linares’s DNA were found on the gloves-which were confiscated from the witness from a dresser drawer in her Eastside home by police a few days after the stabbing incident.( so how did the gloves make it home)( Stomper also testified he found the knife(murder weapon) on the ground than picked it up and threw it in the trash can where it was later found)
http://www.independent.com/news/2008/sep/25/stomper-testimony-recreated-juarez-trial/ The several-hours-long reenactment contradicted both accounts given recently by witnesses - sometimes even seemed to contradict itself - about Stomper’s actions right after the State Street fight, including information about a knife found with Stomper’s DNA on it, which he said he had picked up near the scene of the crime and thrown into a trash can.( So why did D.O.J. criminologist Barbara Burns not testify to that fact earlier?)

 I did not switch between murder case's because I am satisfied with my coverage of the Lyons case. In fact there is so much that still bothers me. However what bothers me more is that complete lack of professionalism in most any case here in our Santa Barbara criminal court system. An it is because of my exploration of events or circumstances that my following has grown to the heights that it has. I will admit to this in closing. That because of my time away from the Juarez case I was able to IDENTIFY new concerns with D.O.J. criminologist  Barbara Burns testimonies between 2 preliminary hearings and 1 trial.

We cannot move forward until we hold those to answer for there past criminal behavior even if they where a Badge.It seems we have an court that is orchestrated in advance rather than played out live, and I have made that statement for years now. Our court system seems to never raise the bar above the expectations of there counter part or the presiding Judge and it has become evident to more than just me. 

No comments: