First defense witness testimony in Bodhi Tree case total letdown

No, it was not Bodhi Tree. Today, the defense presented a witness and this was out of order due to the witness' schedule. Whether there will be any other defense witness? Who knows? Hopefully, if there is, one can only hope that there will be some purpose to the testimony.

The prosecution will continue with their case tomorrow. The Bodhi Tree trial which was expected to end June 27 is still going on. No new information has been revealed in the last week and today was no exception.

At least the prosecution's witnesses last week gave information on chain of custody, how evidence was secured, details about the wounds. And the defense theory that purports shoddy investigation has yet to be proven.

There has been no media presence from Times-Standard or Channel 3 all of last week. No one from T-S, Channel 3 or Mad River Union was there today and they made a wise decision. Today's entire morning consisted of questioning of this one defense witness by Ms. Holmquist and Ms. Firpo.

The witness called by the defense was Daniel Schumaker. He is a self-employed, self-defined "crime reconstructionist" who owns a company called Contrast Forensics. He has a B.A. in Fine Arts and 15 years ago decided to use his graphics training in the courtroom. Ms. Holmquist asked him his qualifications, he said he had testified in 57 criminal trials, 21 civil cases. He uses a lot of equipment that other certified crime reconstructionists do not and some of the software he uses has largely been used in gaming.

He said he has worked for attorneys, public defenders and the DOJ but on cross by Ms. Firpo, he said he had only been approached for the DOJ for four years and never testified in court about the work that he did for them. And the work was about "1/2 a dozen trials.'

He name dropped the George Zimmerman trial and said he had worked for Fortune 500 companies.

Ms. Firpo objected to him being designated as an expert, and during the voir dire process, Ms. Firpo questioned him on several issues which were further brought out on cross. Ms. Firpo asked Schumaker that in order to do crime reconstruction, one has to see the original scene. Schumaker did not go to the crime scene. He went to the house in March 2014. There are different people living at the house and Ms. Firpo noted that the furniture, the way things were are not the same.

The diagrams he presented to the defense are based on photos and autopsy reports. He did not specify if they were photos by law enforcement or defense or both.

He was eventually designated an expert but during voir dire and cross, Ms. Firpo had him on the defense, got him to admit that diagrams he constructed had items missing that were present in photos he used to reconstruct the scene.

 When Ms. Holmquist questioned him initially, he had said he uses a lot of equipment no one else uses. When Ms. Firpo asked him that his equipment was not industry standard, he could not counter with anything to refute that statement. He is not a member of any accredited organizations and the one he belongs to, he was unable to provide numbers or any certification. Ms. Firpo questioned him about his work not being verified by any one else, that he had no law enforcement or investigation training or medical training.

Ms. Firpo asked Schumaker that he was not a medical expert and yet he generated diagrams from autopsy. His response was that Dr. Super and a forensic scientist from the DOJ reviewed his work.

Schumaker was paid $5,200 by the defense for two trips and his work on this case, which included today's appearance. All that work and money, and no new information was revealed, no new theory. When Ms. Firpo showed photos, read from testimony and told Schumaker that Dr. Super had mentioned some inaccuaricies in his diagrams, Schumaker reacted by saying, "then he changed his opinion, that is not what he said in our meeting." His response to being asked if he accurately portrayed the bullet trajectories was "that is why I put a skeleton in my diagrams" and people can count to where the 11th vertebrae is but refused to point out where this was on the body despite claiming he understood medical terms and could interpret autopsies.

Little details like missing blankets when recreating crime scene and removing dreadlocks on most diagrams of Mr. Marcet were Schumaker's preogative.

Instead of explaining anything, Schumaker deflected the responsibilty saying Dr. Super had viewed his diagrams. Schumaker insinuated that his computer software and interpretation of the crime scene was more accurate than Dr. Super.

For weeks, when more qualified experts and coroners have testified, Ms. Holmquist has been vigorous in her questioning. Yet when Ms. Firpo was questioning Schumaker, Ms. Holmquist seem annoyed, stood behind Ms. Firpo for quite a while and rolled her eyes when Ms. Firpo was asking questions.

I suppose there would be no need for a trial or the criminal justice system  if we were just to blindly accept the defense theory, and agree with Ms. Holmquist that Bodhi Tree did not do it!