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"?
|
