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"?
|
