Brett's defense counsel relied solely on the "State's Evidence" during his trial. Brett and his family had been under the impression that "No" blood spatter, or forensic consultants were ever retained to prepare for his defense. It was not until July of 2004 when Brett's mother filed for, at her own expense, a Public Records Act. In doing so she received copies of court records that included the following;
- "Upon application of defendant, and for good cause shown,
counsel for defendant is permitted to employ the services of Barton Epstein and Terry Laber as experts to assist defendant in his defense".
(Court of Common Pleas Summit County, Ohio Case No Cr 97 09 1987 Judge Callahan)
These court records also included an Inter-Department memo regarding a recommendation from the B.C.I. To the police handling the case;
- "...Recommends that we contact Terry Laber and Bart Epstein
from Minnesota. These gentlemen are nationally recognized blood spatter interpretation experts. If we do not contact them in the near future and if the attorney for Hartmann learns of the spatter he will certainly contact them to use them against us".
The following was received from these "nationally recognized", (and recognized by the B.C.I.) blood spatter experts, when Brett inquired about what services they had provided, or what conclusions they may have reached.
- "We were retained by (Brett's attorney) and we did review the
report of Rod Englert as well as examine items and perform a number of experiments. For what ever reason (Brett's attorney) did not follow up with our work. We returned the evidence to him in April 1998 and we were never contacted after that. I believe our evaluations would have been helpful for you at trial".
Barton Epstein August 6, 2004
- "I am enclosing a copy of the letter Terry Laber sent to (Brett's
attorney) on April 19, 1998. This letter briefly outlines the experiments we performed and some of our conclusions. We were prepared to do additional work if needed. We never heard back from (attorney) after we sent this letter".
Barton Epstein September 26, 2004
- "there are a number of conclusions that Rod Englert states that
we do not agree with. These same areas of disagreement appear in his testimony. In many of these areas Rod Englert has over stated what the specific data shows and in some cases he shows a lack of scientific knowledge. A few examples are;
- Rod Englert indicates in one area of testimony that there is a
"void" area of blood on the bedspread and this is a basis for the shirt being close. Later he admits that there is some blood in this area and therefore it is not a void". This is manipulation of data.
- He claims that he sees the "...Impression of a knife..."under the
"d" of Bud on the front of your shirt (p. 1453). This is an overstatement at minimum and outright wrong at worse.
- He gives testimony about drying times and clotting times that
are vague and not supported by scientific data".
Barton Epstein September 1, 2004
- "I and a number of other forensic scientists have brought ethics
charges against Rod Englert to the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS)". The AAFS are still considering appropriate actions. The material we sent the AAFS indicated that Rod Englert "materially misrepresented his credentials and materially misrepresented data that was the basis for his conclusions...". This has happened over at least 10 years in may cases and in many different courts. It appears that he has done this in your case".
Barton Epstein September 1, 2004
We also found the following about the states expert blood spatter witness;
- He is not certified by the American Academy of Forensic
Sciences.
- He is not certified as a Forensic Scientist, or by any other
organization.
- He is under suspicion due to controversy over evidence that
had been altered during the time that he had the "chain of custody". (United States v. Holt Attorneys Affidavit pg. 15)
- He acknowledges that blood spatter evidence is a science that
has a vast amount of math, physics, hard science physics, fluid dynamics, and dynamics of the anatomy.
- He admits that he has no background in these areas, nor any
type of degree.
Administrators note: We are at a loss trying to understand,
- Why would his defense counsel rely on "State" evidence for trial.
- Why didn't Brett's counsel check the credentials of the states
blood spatter person, and object to his testimony.
- Barton and Laber informed Brett's defense counsel that they
had information that would be helpful at trial, and that they were willing to do more work. Why then, would they not follow up. Why would they hide this information from, not only Brett, but the court (jury).
- It's obvious that the B.C.I. felt that Barton and Laber were blood
spatter experts that the State should obtain. Why would they then go with Englert, who is felt by many, " to be an expert for hire"?
|