Latest / The Knife: A True Crime Podcast / Off Record: Behind the Bloodstains (with Anita Vita)

Transcript

Off Record: Behind the Bloodstains (with Anita Vita) · The Knife: A True Crime Podcast

0:00
Speaker 1: This story contains adult content and language. Listener discretion is advised.
0:05
Speaker 2: The claims and opinions in this podcast are those of
0:07
Speaker 2: the speaker and do not necessarily represent the Knife or
0:10
Speaker 2: Exactly Right Media.
0:14
Speaker 3: You know, you're sitting in this seat that other people
0:16
Speaker 3: have sat in, and then you go into your car
0:20
Speaker 3: and transfer some of that DNA into your car, and
0:22
Speaker 3: then you go home and you transfer some into your home.
0:25
Speaker 3: God forbid that person ends up murdered. You know, you've
0:29
Speaker 3: got their DNA in your home and you never met them.
0:45
Speaker 2: Welcome to The Knife Off Record. I'm Patia Eaton. If
0:49
Speaker 2: you've been listening to our show for a while, you
0:51
Speaker 2: might have noticed that last week's episode was also an off-record.
0:55
Speaker 2: And typically, I know we alternate between our interview and
0:58
Speaker 2: off-record formats every week. But while Hannah's on leave, we're
1:02
Speaker 2: deviating from that just briefly and we'll be releasing a
1:05
Speaker 2: few more, more conversational interviews before getting back into our
1:09
Speaker 2: usual format. But they are great episodes and I think
1:13
Speaker 2: that you will love them. Today, I'm speaking with Anita Vida,
1:17
Speaker 2: an independent forensic consultant and bloodstain pattern analyst, about her
1:21
Speaker 2: work analyzing evidence for a legal team that was seeking
1:25
Speaker 2: to appeal their client's murder conviction. Anita's work sits at
1:30
Speaker 2: the intersection of science, investigation, and human behavior, where tiny
1:34
Speaker 2: details can become crucial pieces of a much bigger story.
1:39
Speaker 2: It's about asking questions and understanding limitations of evidence, and
1:43
Speaker 2: maybe most importantly, being willing to say when the evidence
1:46
Speaker 2: doesn't support a conclusion. We'll also explore the human side
1:50
Speaker 2: of this work, what it's like examining some of the
1:52
Speaker 2: most difficult and disturbing scenes imaginable, and why maintaining objectivity
1:58
Speaker 2: in the face of that is so important. Let's get
2:02
Speaker 2: into it. Hi, Anita. Thank you so much for taking
2:08
Speaker 2: the time to speak with me today.
2:10
Speaker 3: Hi, thanks for having me.
2:12
Speaker 2: So, Anita, you are a forensic consultant with experience in
2:17
Speaker 2: bloodstain pattern analysis and crime scene investigation. And today we're
2:22
Speaker 2: going to speak about your work on one case in particular.
2:26
Speaker 2: But before that, I would love to know, how does
2:29
Speaker 2: one find themselves in a career like this?
2:34
Speaker 3: Well, for me, it was actually kind of a mistake, almost.
2:39
Speaker 3: And I just kind of fell into it. When I
2:41
Speaker 3: went back to school, I wanted to go for behavioral profiling. And,
2:46
Speaker 3: you know, back in the dinosaur age, when I was younger,
2:49
Speaker 3: they didn't really have programs for that like they do now.
2:52
Speaker 3: So most of my work had been in the medical field.
2:55
Speaker 3: I worked in an emergency room. And then on the
2:58
Speaker 3: donor side of transplant, actually, performing the recoveries of bones, eyes, veins, hearts,
3:03
Speaker 3: things like that. And so I really wanted to get
3:07
Speaker 3: into the behavioral profiling. The only program that was remotely
3:11
Speaker 3: similar in the area, because I had a sick parent
3:14
Speaker 3: at the time, I needed to stay here, was a
3:16
Speaker 3: forensic chemistry program. And that program required an internship. And
3:21
Speaker 3: I knew that I did not want to be in
3:23
Speaker 3: a lab all day long. And as it happened, who's
3:26
Speaker 3: widely known as the father of bloodstain pattern analysis, Herb
3:29
Speaker 3: MacDonald lived just a couple hours away. So I ended
3:33
Speaker 3: up doing my internship with him, and it started with
3:37
Speaker 3: a basic 40-hour bloodstain pattern analysis course. And then I
3:41
Speaker 3: stayed on with him for a while for the rest
3:43
Speaker 3: of the internship, and here I am 22 years later
3:46
Speaker 3: still doing it.
3:47
Speaker 2: I mean, I love stories like that where I think
3:49
Speaker 2: all of us in one way or another end up
3:51
Speaker 2: somewhere we didn't think we would be, or at least
3:53
Speaker 2: arrive there in a way we didn't think that we would. But,
3:58
Speaker 2: you know, bloodstain pattern analysis, I imagine, takes a very specific,
4:04
Speaker 2: whether it's personality type or just learned skill, because, I mean,
4:10
Speaker 2: many learned skills, but I'm talking about more the side
4:13
Speaker 2: of what it means to look at bloodstains and to
4:18
Speaker 2: be able to sort of remove yourself from maybe what
4:21
Speaker 2: you're actually looking at and analyze it. Can you speak
4:24
Speaker 2: a little bit to that?
4:26
Speaker 3: Yeah, absolutely. I think that the medical background actually prepared
4:30
Speaker 3: me very well for doing this because I had seen
4:33
Speaker 3: a lot of bleeding in my time, but to actually
4:37
Speaker 3: analyze it and see what that means is a whole
4:41
Speaker 3: different ballgame. And learned objectivity is really important in all
4:48
Speaker 3: forensic disciplines. And it really is a learned skill. I
4:51
Speaker 3: think most of us believe that we are not biased
4:55
Speaker 3: and we are objective and things like that. But we
4:58
Speaker 3: have such deep-seated things in us from the way we
5:02
Speaker 3: were raised, the environment we grew up in, all of
5:04
Speaker 3: these things. And I'm not saying that they're bad. It's
5:06
Speaker 3: just who we are, that we don't recognize that there's
5:10
Speaker 3: something we have to turn off to be able to
5:12
Speaker 3: do this.
5:13
Speaker 2: Right. I mean, remaining objective is not always easy. I mean,
5:18
Speaker 2: we're all just human. And especially in the face of
5:21
Speaker 2: what might be really graphic crime scene images where in
5:26
Speaker 2: some of the times someone has died and someone else
5:29
Speaker 2: is being accused of being responsible for their death in
5:32
Speaker 2: some way. The stakes are really high, which brings me
5:35
Speaker 2: to your work as a forensic consultant, which means you're
5:39
Speaker 2: often asked to weigh in on cases as an expert.
5:43
Speaker 2: Can you tell us a little bit more about that?
5:46
Speaker 3: Sure. And I just want to backtrack for half a
5:48
Speaker 3: second and say it's not only their freedom on the line.
5:51
Speaker 3: In some cases, it's potentially their life. Right. And it's
5:55
Speaker 3: so important to be able to remove yourself. But on
5:58
Speaker 3: the flip side of that, it can also make you
6:01
Speaker 3: very numb to yourself. things in your life that you
6:04
Speaker 3: shouldn't be numb to. So anyway, back to your question,
6:07
Speaker 3: as a forensic consultant, you're absolutely right. I get retained
6:10
Speaker 3: either by plaintiff, prosecution, defense, even private individuals sometimes, police
6:17
Speaker 3: departments at various stages in the process. It can be
6:21
Speaker 3: anything from a brand new scene to 20, 30 years post-conviction.
6:26
Speaker 3: It can be used in civil cases as well for
6:29
Speaker 3: things like death investigations, you know, equivocal death investigations, product liability,
6:36
Speaker 3: personal injury, things like that. It can be used for
6:39
Speaker 3: as well. Yeah.
6:41
Speaker 2: So getting into the case that we're going to be
6:44
Speaker 2: speaking about, I'll just give a brief overview. On March 29, 2000,
6:49
Speaker 2: a woman named Sandra Deist was found deceased in her
6:52
Speaker 2: home with what initially looked to be one gunshot wound
6:56
Speaker 2: to her head. Sandra lived with her husband, David. They'd
7:00
Speaker 2: been married roughly 18 years and had three children together.
7:04
Speaker 2: All of their children were born in the 1980s, so.
7:07
Speaker 2: When this happened, the kids were adults or nearing adulthood.
7:11
Speaker 2: Sandra was a wife, a mother, a grandmother, and avid
7:15
Speaker 2: equestrian who was born and raised in Michigan, and much
7:18
Speaker 2: of her family still lived there when she passed. Anita,
7:21
Speaker 2: can you start us off with how you were first
7:24
Speaker 2: introduced to this case? I know you were working with
7:26
Speaker 2: Irv McDonald, doing an internship with him.
7:29
Speaker 3: So I was still working with Dr. McDonald at the time,
7:33
Speaker 3: and the case came to him. And at that point, essentially,
7:37
Speaker 3: The general arrangement was that I would do the review
7:40
Speaker 3: of the case and then kind of brief him, and
7:42
Speaker 3: then we would decide next steps from there. So this
7:45
Speaker 3: was a case that he had given me to look at.
7:47
Speaker 3: So it must have been in 2004. So this would
7:51
Speaker 3: be post-conviction. And that's how I got involved. I was
7:56
Speaker 3: down at his place and came back with a box
7:58
Speaker 3: of material and got to work.
8:00
Speaker 2: You know, because you were brought in in 2004 post-conviction,
8:04
Speaker 2: what can you tell us about how the initial proceedings
8:09
Speaker 2: or death investigation played out?
8:12
Speaker 3: Well, from my review of the materials, they were having
8:15
Speaker 3: some marital difficulties. David was having an affair and Sandra
8:20
Speaker 3: had suffered a head injury a couple of years prior.
8:23
Speaker 3: I believe it was 1998 that was said to be
8:27
Speaker 3: a horse accident.
8:29
Speaker 2: Just to provide some context to listeners, the horse-related accident
8:35
Speaker 2: is said to have taken place in November of 1988
8:38
Speaker 2: when Sandra was feeding her horse Dexter and he kicked
8:42
Speaker 2: her in the head and she was bleeding but was
8:45
Speaker 2: able to essentially crawl to her neighbor's house for help.
8:50
Speaker 2: But this is when it seems like trouble really started
8:55
Speaker 2: for her.
8:57
Speaker 3: Yes. There's many people that testify that she was a
9:00
Speaker 3: very different person after the head injury. And she was
9:03
Speaker 3: very depressed and, you know, things like that. not keeping
9:07
Speaker 3: up with changing bed sheets or anything like that. So
9:10
Speaker 3: David was sleeping out in the living room and she
9:14
Speaker 3: was in the bedroom. He said that he heard a shot,
9:18
Speaker 3: he heard the loud noise. So he went in and
9:20
Speaker 3: he said that he found her, he described it as
9:22
Speaker 3: cocooned in a bed sheet, that it was wrapped around
9:26
Speaker 3: her and under her hand and through the trigger guard
9:30
Speaker 3: of the pistol. And typically, if somebody shoots themselves, they
9:34
Speaker 3: drop the gun because it's just an involuntary thing when
9:37
Speaker 3: your muscles go loose.
9:39
Speaker 2: Right.
9:39
Speaker 3: But because of the way this was set up, it
9:42
Speaker 3: was still kind of in her hand because that sheet
9:44
Speaker 3: was through the trigger guard and, you know, it couldn't
9:47
Speaker 3: freely fall.
9:48
Speaker 2: So just so I'm picturing it correctly, and it's okay
9:51
Speaker 2: if you don't remember too, so her body's cocooned in
9:54
Speaker 2: the sheet, but her hand is free to hold the gun?
9:58
Speaker 3: So it's around the back of her hand and through
10:01
Speaker 3: the trigger guard under her finger.
10:03
Speaker 2: Oh.
10:04
Speaker 3: So that she wouldn't, allegedly or, you know, apparently, so
10:09
Speaker 3: as to not leave any DNA or prints.
10:11
Speaker 2: Oh, so her skin was not making contact with the gun.
10:14
Speaker 2: It was through the sheet? Right.
10:16
Speaker 3: As best I understand it, yes.
10:18
Speaker 1: Okay.
10:19
Speaker 3: Wow.
10:19
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's interesting. I mean, that seems unusual.
10:22
Speaker 3: Yeah. Well, it is. And it sounds a little weird.
10:25
Speaker 3: But then you put that together with the fact that
10:27
Speaker 3: there were other suicide attempts, one of which she was wearing,
10:32
Speaker 3: you know, like the yellow kitchen gloves and had a
10:34
Speaker 3: butcher knife up to her chest. And when David walked
10:36
Speaker 3: in and she's down, come on, push it in, push
10:38
Speaker 3: it in, go do it. So in light of that behavior,
10:42
Speaker 3: it's not all that doesn't sound all that crazy anymore. Right.
10:47
Speaker 2: I mean, I owned horses for much of my life.
10:50
Speaker 2: I've been kicked by a horse more than once, luckily
10:53
Speaker 2: not in the head, it can be extremely painful. I mean,
10:56
Speaker 2: they are strong. Like to survive being kicked in the
10:59
Speaker 2: head can, under the right circumstances, be just like an
11:03
Speaker 2: extraordinary miracle. But I imagine it does do a lot
11:07
Speaker 2: of damage to the brain. Do you know if Sandra
11:12
Speaker 2: had MRIs or visits with doctors that were able to
11:18
Speaker 2: examine her her head injury and maybe assess how bad
11:22
Speaker 2: it was?
11:23
Speaker 3: That's a good question. I don't know the answer to that. And,
11:27
Speaker 3: you know, if this were one of my cases now,
11:29
Speaker 3: I'm certain that's something I would know. But this was,
11:32
Speaker 3: you know, back before I was, you know, out on
11:35
Speaker 3: my own and that sort of thing. So that part,
11:37
Speaker 3: I don't know about the history.
11:40
Speaker 2: No worries.
11:40
Speaker 3: I would assume that she got some care. Yeah. Because
11:43
Speaker 3: it was a pretty significant injury. Right. Yeah.
11:47
Speaker 2: And so Sandra also left behind a note. Were you
11:52
Speaker 2: familiar with this part of the case?
11:54
Speaker 3: I am.
11:55
Speaker 2: Do you recall, I guess, what it said, not word
11:57
Speaker 2: for word, but what she was trying to get across?
12:01
Speaker 3: Yes, she had apparently taken it to or let folks
12:05
Speaker 3: in her prayer group know that if anything ever happened
12:08
Speaker 3: to her, there was a letter in the bureau. And
12:12
Speaker 3: the bureau essentially said that if anything happens to me,
12:15
Speaker 3: look at my husband. The accidents in the stall was
12:19
Speaker 3: not an accident that David hit me with a hammer axe.
12:23
Speaker 3: And so if anything happens to me, look to him
12:26
Speaker 3: because I would never kill myself.
12:28
Speaker 2: I mean, that's pretty damning.
12:30
Speaker 3: I mean, I'll be honest, when I read that note or,
12:33
Speaker 3: you know, the copy of the note, I was like, oh, boy.
12:37
Speaker 2: I mean, it's hard to imagine writing that if it
12:40
Speaker 2: wasn't the case. But, you know, you have a lot
12:43
Speaker 2: of different factors at play when there's marital tension and
12:46
Speaker 2: mental illness or head injuries. When Sandra was initially found deceased,
12:52
Speaker 2: do you remember what were the first impressions from the
12:55
Speaker 2: first responders and law enforcement who were at the scene?
12:59
Speaker 3: When EMS showed up, they and the investigators and David
13:02
Speaker 3: told them, you know, his story, they everybody was OK
13:06
Speaker 3: with saying this. This was a suicide. And they took
13:08
Speaker 3: her to the hospital. And then she went from there
13:12
Speaker 3: almost directly to the medical examiner's office. It was not
13:14
Speaker 3: a long period of time. But but in that time,
13:17
Speaker 3: family friends were told that they could clean up the room.
13:20
Speaker 3: So they did that. They balled up all the bedding
13:22
Speaker 3: and threw it in a plastic garbage bag and took
13:24
Speaker 3: it to the dump and the mattress. And there was
13:28
Speaker 3: a comforter kind of folded at the foot of the bed,
13:31
Speaker 3: you know, like in case you need it, that got
13:34
Speaker 3: thrown away and all of that.
13:36
Speaker 2: So probably not great protocol.
13:39
Speaker 3: Yeah. But on the other hand, you know, they didn't
13:41
Speaker 3: have anything to, any reason to suspect that it was
13:44
Speaker 3: not as it appeared. And you know, that's somebody's.
13:47
Speaker 2: Home, right?
13:48
Speaker 3: Where else are they going to go? So it's always
13:51
Speaker 3: a balance for them. It's not, it's not always an
13:53
Speaker 3: easy choice. When she went for her autopsy, they cut
13:57
Speaker 3: her nightgown off and they threw that away at the
14:00
Speaker 3: medical examiners. And when they did the autopsy, they found
14:04
Speaker 3: that there were two entry and exit wounds and They
14:07
Speaker 3: said both of them would have instantly incapacitated her. She
14:10
Speaker 3: could not have pulled the trigger a second time. And
14:12
Speaker 3: so this had to be a homicide. So they went
14:16
Speaker 3: and got stuff back from the dump that they could.
14:20
Speaker 3: Especially that volume of blood takes quite some time to dry.
14:23
Speaker 3: And when you ball it up and put it in plastic,
14:25
Speaker 3: It's going to create all kinds of other bloodstains that
14:28
Speaker 3: were not there to begin with.
14:29
Speaker 2: I see.
14:30
Speaker 3: So those were brought back. They were laid out on
14:33
Speaker 3: the driveway, which is really not best practices. And then
14:38
Speaker 3: for a second time, the comforter that was at the
14:40
Speaker 3: foot of the bed was thrown away because they didn't
14:43
Speaker 3: see any bloodstains on it. So that got thrown away again.
14:47
Speaker 3: And the other things were saved and analyzed by various individuals.
14:53
Speaker 2: And just local law enforcement.
14:55
Speaker 3: Law enforcement, the lab, things like that, and experts, retained experts.
15:01
Speaker 3: And David's T-shirt was collected and examined at the crime
15:06
Speaker 3: lab with a magnifying glass, and they found no visible
15:10
Speaker 3: bloodstains on his T-shirt initially. But then an expert was
15:15
Speaker 3: retained who examined the shirt and said that he found
15:19
Speaker 3: numerous very small stains. They tested a few, and it
15:23
Speaker 3: came back to be Sandra's DNA. Now, David had said
15:26
Speaker 3: that when he came into the room, because the gun
15:30
Speaker 3: was still kind of partially in her hand, he took
15:33
Speaker 3: it out, popped the magazine out and laid it on
15:35
Speaker 3: the bed. So the expert examined the bedding and decided
15:41
Speaker 3: that David had to have been standing behind her. She
15:44
Speaker 3: was kind of laying on her left side. So he
15:46
Speaker 3: would have been behind her with his arm outstretched over
15:49
Speaker 3: the bed and shot her twice. And he was convicted.
16:01
Speaker 2: Sandra's horse accident happens in the fall of 1998. And
16:05
Speaker 2: then in March of 2000 is when she's found deceased
16:08
Speaker 2: with two gunshot wounds to her head. And by March
16:13
Speaker 2: of 2001, a year after her death, her husband, David,
16:18
Speaker 2: is convicted of having murdered her and he's sentenced to
16:21
Speaker 2: life without parole. So who then reached out to you about...
16:28
Speaker 2: taking another look at this case and the photos of
16:33
Speaker 2: the evidence?
16:34
Speaker 3: His appellate attorney. So typically the way it works is
16:38
Speaker 3: that whoever wants you to look at the case will
16:40
Speaker 3: call you, give you kind of a Reader's Digest version
16:43
Speaker 3: of the case and what information they're hoping to ascertain
16:46
Speaker 3: by the analysis. And then they send the materials, you
16:50
Speaker 3: review it, and you have a discussion with them. So
16:54
Speaker 3: cases like this and the other ones where bloodstain pattern
16:57
Speaker 3: analysis are in the news are obviously cases where there's
17:00
Speaker 3: some sort of, you know, the sides don't agree and
17:03
Speaker 3: it's a battle of the experts. But I would say
17:05
Speaker 3: probably even more often in case work, it's the case
17:10
Speaker 3: that we, when we talk to whoever retained us about
17:13
Speaker 3: our findings, it's a, well, this does not match your
17:17
Speaker 3: theory of the case. So this is not, Good for you.
17:21
Speaker 2: I see. So you could very well go to anyone
17:24
Speaker 2: who hires you to, you know, hopefully get someone's conviction overturned, say,
17:28
Speaker 2: and you could very well go back to them and say, no,
17:32
Speaker 2: I can't get on the stand and say what you
17:34
Speaker 2: want me to say.
17:36
Speaker 3: Absolutely. And they don't typically tell you what they want
17:40
Speaker 3: you to say. They'll say things like, is it possible
17:44
Speaker 3: that these bloodstains could have occurred while the person was
17:49
Speaker 3: holding this thing versus it on the ground? Or can
17:53
Speaker 3: you sequence events, particularly if it's a self-defense claim? Can
17:57
Speaker 3: you tell what event happened first, second, third, that sort
18:01
Speaker 3: of thing? Possibly what weapon inflicted what... You can sometimes
18:06
Speaker 3: determine how long somebody may have survived, you know, if
18:10
Speaker 3: they were up and around after an attack, things like that.
18:13
Speaker 3: If the perpetrator might have been injured and which things
18:16
Speaker 3: should be tested, you know, all of those sorts of things.
18:19
Speaker 3: And so then at the end, it's really not uncommon
18:22
Speaker 3: for me at all to say, so can you get
18:25
Speaker 3: a plea?
18:26
Speaker 2: I see.
18:27
Speaker 3: You need to have a come to Jesus talk with
18:28
Speaker 3: your guy.
18:29
Speaker 1: Yeah.
18:29
Speaker 2: So you're really more of an advisor first than.
18:34
Speaker 2: Like, okay, here's how we can look at this in
18:37
Speaker 2: favor of what you're asking.
18:39
Speaker 3: Right, right. My integrity cannot be bought. I've spent 22
18:44
Speaker 3: years building a reputation of being somebody that is fair
18:48
Speaker 3: and a straight shooter. And I'm not going to compromise
18:51
Speaker 3: that for anything because it just doesn't matter which side
18:55
Speaker 3: puts me up on the stand. The evidence just is
18:57
Speaker 3: what it is.
18:59
Speaker 2: So in 2004, you're contacted by David Deist's defense. They
19:04
Speaker 2: are appealing his murder conviction. And now your job is
19:08
Speaker 2: to review photos because a lot of the evidence has
19:12
Speaker 2: at that point been thrown away. Would you mind describing
19:15
Speaker 2: them for me? Because I think it's important to sort
19:19
Speaker 2: of understand what you're looking at.
19:22
Speaker 3: So there was a large area of saturation and clotting
19:26
Speaker 3: up by her head. Obviously, head wounds bleed profusely. There
19:30
Speaker 3: was some spatter on the blinds behind the headboard of
19:34
Speaker 3: the bed, and then areas of transfer, things like that,
19:37
Speaker 3: on the sheets where EMS extracted her. You can see
19:40
Speaker 3: very linear lines where the backboard, you know, was brought
19:43
Speaker 3: across the bed and that sort of thing. So that's
19:46
Speaker 3: pretty much what we're looking at. It was a fairly
19:48
Speaker 3: confined area, that's the blood was confined to.
19:52
Speaker 2: I saw some of the photos in the case review.
19:55
Speaker 2: They're hard to look at. In one of them, you know,
19:57
Speaker 2: you're looking at her actual head wounds, which requires, you know,
20:02
Speaker 2: peeling back of skin. And you're just looking at things
20:05
Speaker 2: that most of us never look at. When you see
20:08
Speaker 2: pictures like that, Do you ever have to just like
20:11
Speaker 2: take a break?
20:15
Speaker 3: I would say not so much now. I mean, I've
20:16
Speaker 3: been to, you know, dozens and dozens of autopsies in
20:19
Speaker 3: my time and seen thousands of photographs like that. You know,
20:24
Speaker 3: so for me, it's kind of routine that for other people,
20:27
Speaker 3: it's shocking.
20:29
Speaker 2: So you're retained and you're looking at these photos. And
20:32
Speaker 2: what story are these photos telling you?
20:35
Speaker 3: So the proper way to review a case is to
20:37
Speaker 3: really look at all of the photos. and describe what
20:42
Speaker 3: you see. So in this case, the impact spatter could
20:46
Speaker 3: resemble based on size, shape, distribution, and location, which is
20:49
Speaker 3: the definition of bloodstain pattern analysis. Those are the things
20:53
Speaker 3: we're looking at. We can have forward or back spatter
20:56
Speaker 3: because she's got entrance and exit wounds. We could have
20:59
Speaker 3: satellite spatter because blood's dripping. We could have expirated blood.
21:03
Speaker 3: So when you see stains of those sizes. You say,
21:08
Speaker 3: so it could be this, this, or this. And then
21:11
Speaker 3: as you get into the case information, you can rule
21:14
Speaker 3: things in and rule things out. And that was what
21:17
Speaker 3: ended up being kind of the issue in this case.
21:20
Speaker 3: You know, that bloodstains on his shirt were very small,
21:23
Speaker 3: that a scientist with a magnifying glass did not see them.
21:27
Speaker 3: So we're talking about very small bloodstains. So that could
21:31
Speaker 3: be impact satellite or expirated. We really didn't have satellite opportunity.
21:38
Speaker 3: There really wasn't blood dripping into blood where it would
21:40
Speaker 3: have gotten on his shirt. But hugely important is that
21:46
Speaker 3: EMS documented is that she was spraying blood out of
21:50
Speaker 3: her nose and mouth. So, expirated is a real possibility,
21:55
Speaker 3: especially when you take his statement that he went in,
21:59
Speaker 3: you know, kind of in front of her to take
22:01
Speaker 3: the gun out, pop the magazine out, and put it
22:03
Speaker 3: on the bed. So, he would have been standing.
22:05
Speaker 2: Right in the line of fire of all this expirated
22:08
Speaker 2: blood through her nose and mouth. So, when the EMTs arrived,
22:12
Speaker 2: they were seeing that still happening or she was already passed? Oh, gosh.
22:18
Speaker 3: Yes, that is their documentation of what they saw. You
22:22
Speaker 3: really you can't rule that out.
22:23
Speaker 2: Right. Because it's like, well, OK, this part of his
22:26
Speaker 2: story is not tracking.
22:28
Speaker 3: Right. And that's kind of the last step in the
22:31
Speaker 3: in the process is after you go through all the
22:34
Speaker 3: case stuff, then you look at the statements and say,
22:37
Speaker 3: does this support or refute eyewitnesses or victim suspect statements? Right.
22:44
Speaker 2: One of those pieces of evidence was or perhaps should
22:47
Speaker 2: have been the bedding, like the bedding of the bed
22:50
Speaker 2: that she was laying on because that's where she was
22:52
Speaker 2: when she died. But you said that this bedding was
22:56
Speaker 2: laid out on the driveway and then eventually thrown out
22:59
Speaker 2: or missing, but there were still photos of it. So
23:03
Speaker 2: did you consider what you saw in those photos of
23:05
Speaker 2: the bedding when you were reviewing everything or what was
23:08
Speaker 2: your take on that?
23:10
Speaker 3: Well, I would say that the betting was irrelevant and,
23:14
Speaker 3: you know, there's too much artifact for it to be
23:18
Speaker 3: of any practical use. But the prosecution experts felt that
23:23
Speaker 3: they could be used in their analysis. And in that analysis,
23:27
Speaker 3: they described that there was a cone-shaped void on the sheet.
23:32
Speaker 3: that was allegedly caused by David's arm being extended over
23:37
Speaker 3: the unoccupied side of the bed to kind of the
23:40
Speaker 3: back and top of her right ear areas where those
23:44
Speaker 3: entrance wounds were. And they came out kind of the
23:46
Speaker 3: left forehead area. So there's a couple of issues with
23:49
Speaker 3: that in that I didn't see a cone-shaped void on
23:55
Speaker 3: the sheets. And even if there were, that would indicate
24:00
Speaker 3: the blood would have had to have been coming from
24:03
Speaker 3: over his arm in order for it to block deposition
24:06
Speaker 3: on the bed. And so the problem there would be
24:10
Speaker 3: that the blood would have had to skip over the
24:13
Speaker 3: unoccupied portion of the bed and hit him in the shirt,
24:16
Speaker 3: like in his lower chest, abdomen area. Well, that that
24:21
Speaker 3: can't be. I mean, that's just not right. The laws
24:24
Speaker 3: of physics. Right.
24:25
Speaker 2: Like some of those blood droplets spraying on him would
24:29
Speaker 2: have fallen sooner than hitting his shirt.
24:32
Speaker 3: Exactly. Exactly. And blood comes out from a wound like that,
24:37
Speaker 3: 360 degrees, all the way around the wound, like a
24:40
Speaker 3: little cloud almost, like a donut cloud around the wound.
24:44
Speaker 2: So you're going through the photos and determining, like, not
24:49
Speaker 2: everything that you think is lining up with the way
24:51
Speaker 2: the prosecution and their experts saw it. Did you then
24:55
Speaker 2: come to a conclusion or were you able to come
24:57
Speaker 2: to a conclusion about what or who actually caused Sandra's death?
25:03
Speaker 3: So basically, you know, the question was, is the evidence
25:07
Speaker 3: consistent with a homicide or a suicide? Right. That's a
25:09
Speaker 3: pretty common question that is asked. Looking at the size,
25:12
Speaker 3: shape and distribution of stains on his shirt, which is
25:15
Speaker 3: what seemed to be the biggest issue other than the
25:18
Speaker 3: the sheets. both expirated and impacts batter, both forward and
25:23
Speaker 3: backs batter are possible. You can't rule that out. So
25:27
Speaker 3: if you have two equally likely mechanisms, that in and
25:32
Speaker 3: of itself should be reasonable doubt. You know, in getting
25:36
Speaker 3: involved in the post-conviction, it's a lot harder to undo
25:39
Speaker 3: a conviction than it is to acquit in the beginning.
25:43
Speaker 3: So when I saw that, as I got through the
25:47
Speaker 3: case documentation and I read what EMS wrote, that was
25:52
Speaker 3: probably the biggest, most important piece of information that I
25:56
Speaker 3: saw in that case that made me say, hey, this
25:59
Speaker 3: isn't right here.
26:01
Speaker 2: So because he's saying, I approached her walking up to
26:05
Speaker 2: her where she's facing me, and EMS is saying she's
26:09
Speaker 2: expirating blood from her nose and her mouth, your takeaway
26:13
Speaker 2: was there's good potential that that is how these bloodstains
26:16
Speaker 2: arrived on his clothing.
26:18
Speaker 3: Right.
26:19
Speaker 2: Okay. And so you have this piece of the case
26:23
Speaker 2: where you're like, they, in my opinion, have interpreted this
26:27
Speaker 2: differently than I do as an expert myself. But then
26:30
Speaker 2: you were saying you look at it as a whole
26:33
Speaker 2: compared to statements. And do you also weigh it against
26:37
Speaker 2: other evidence brought up in the case?
26:40
Speaker 3: Yeah, so then you compare it to witness, suspects, statements.
26:47
Speaker 3: And then if in a case like this, where it's post-conviction,
26:50
Speaker 3: then you look at the testimony of the pertinent people
26:53
Speaker 3: in the case, EMS, medical examiner, whatever experts they have,
26:58
Speaker 3: the laboratory personnel. And then you compare it with what
27:01
Speaker 3: they've said and if good information got in front of
27:04
Speaker 3: the jury. I see.
27:07
Speaker 2: Because there were others, you know, strange things where like
27:11
Speaker 2: David Deist purchased a gun in January of 2000. And
27:15
Speaker 2: in the days before Sandra's death told her that he
27:18
Speaker 2: was leaving her, like you mentioned earlier, he was having
27:20
Speaker 2: an affair. They weren't getting along, but you were being
27:24
Speaker 2: retained by the defense. And so you can fairly then
27:28
Speaker 2: say to the defense, look, this part of what they said,
27:33
Speaker 2: I'm not in agreement with, and here's what I would
27:35
Speaker 2: say about it. Yeah.
27:37
Speaker 3: Yeah. Sometimes you can have a case where the evidence
27:41
Speaker 3: will kind of seem like it is good for them.
27:45
Speaker 3: But as you go through the case material, you become
27:47
Speaker 3: aware of the other peripheral things that are not really
27:49
Speaker 3: in your purview or your scope of work. Right. And
27:51
Speaker 3: so the conversation might be that, well, you know, the
27:55
Speaker 3: bloodstain evidence is not bad for you, but I don't
27:58
Speaker 3: think it's going to help you in light of this
27:59
Speaker 3: other stuff. You know, your money's probably better spent with
28:02
Speaker 3: a different expert for this, you know. I see.
28:06
Speaker 2: So you could go to them and say, look, here's
28:08
Speaker 2: something I think is slightly favorable for you, but I'm
28:11
Speaker 2: not going to advise you to try to appeal it
28:13
Speaker 2: based on this.
28:16
Speaker 3: Yeah. And in the end, obviously, strategy is the attorney's purview, 100%.
28:21
Speaker 3: But they need experts to help them decide what to
28:24
Speaker 3: do because they're not experts in everything. They kind of
28:26
Speaker 3: have to become mini experts in the things that are
28:29
Speaker 3: related to their trial before trial. I mean, in this case,
28:33
Speaker 3: it was Pretty much all good news for them that, yes,
28:38
Speaker 3: expirated can, in fact, resemble impacts better and often does.
28:43
Speaker 3: And we have this documentation that says she was spraying
28:47
Speaker 3: it out of her nose and mouth, which is precisely
28:49
Speaker 3: what expirated is. But then we still have the problem
28:52
Speaker 3: of the two gunshots, right? She was repeatedly described as
28:57
Speaker 3: brain dead prior to cardiac death. which is not uncommon,
29:02
Speaker 3: but there are some involuntary reactions. One of them is
29:05
Speaker 3: actually called a trigger finger because it's like you're pulling
29:07
Speaker 3: a trigger. Now, somebody else, another physician that reviewed her
29:12
Speaker 3: autopsy said that they don't think she would have even
29:15
Speaker 3: been capable of involuntary movement. And that particular pistol, so
29:20
Speaker 3: when it was examined, it was not found to be malfunctioning. However,
29:24
Speaker 3: they also retained a firearms expert who demonstrated, there are
29:29
Speaker 3: several videos, that this gun, and I'll say, for lack
29:34
Speaker 3: of a better word, it can be kind of contaminated
29:36
Speaker 3: in such a way that it malfunctions, but on visual
29:39
Speaker 3: and it doesn't appear as anything is wrong. And it
29:43
Speaker 3: will double fire with one pull of the trigger. And
29:47
Speaker 3: her wounds, if I remember correctly, were an inch and
29:50
Speaker 3: a quarter apart. And on one of the demonstrations they
29:53
Speaker 3: did kind of on a piece of plywood, the wounds
29:56
Speaker 3: were exactly an inch and a quarter apart.
30:06
Speaker 2: And so how did their appeal go for them?
30:10
Speaker 3: He lost it. He lost.
30:12
Speaker 2: Yeah.
30:13
Speaker 3: Which also is not uncommon. And sadly, he died in
30:17
Speaker 3: prison in 2018.
30:18
Speaker 2: Yeah, I read that he passed away in prison after
30:22
Speaker 2: a short illness. Is it difficult for you when you're
30:25
Speaker 2: going through something like this and trying to stick to
30:27
Speaker 2: just analyzing what you're asked to analyze to... make an
30:33
Speaker 2: just internal judgment, guilty, innocent?
30:37
Speaker 3: That's another good question. And you know what? I'm a
30:39
Speaker 3: human being. We all have our opinions about somebody's guilt
30:43
Speaker 3: or innocence, but it absolutely cannot play into your evaluation
30:48
Speaker 3: of the evidence. It just can't. And sometimes it feels
30:51
Speaker 3: like a crisis of conscience. There's one in particular that
30:54
Speaker 3: sticks in my head that I was like, oh, this
30:57
Speaker 3: guy needs to be behind bars, but this was done
31:01
Speaker 3: wrong and this conclusion was wrong. And all of this
31:04
Speaker 3: should get thrown out, which means all the rest of
31:06
Speaker 3: it gets thrown out if the judge rules that way.
31:08
Speaker 3: But you have to just do your job and do
31:13
Speaker 3: your scope of work and let the system do its thing.
31:16
Speaker 3: And as it turned out in that case, he did
31:19
Speaker 3: get to go behind bars for a very long time.
31:22
Speaker 3: So what I believed was the right thing happened anyway.
31:26
Speaker 3: But my opinion about somebody's guilt or innocence just doesn't,
31:31
Speaker 3: it's irrelevant.
31:32
Speaker 2: Yeah, so I don't suppose you could even speak about
31:35
Speaker 2: it on this case, like what your thoughts are overall.
31:39
Speaker 3: I would say that I don't think the evidence used
31:44
Speaker 3: to convict him was sufficient. I don't think that the
31:47
Speaker 3: jury got all of the information they should have by
31:51
Speaker 3: which to make an informed decision. And that's really our job.
31:54
Speaker 3: Our job is not to advocate for one side or
31:57
Speaker 3: the other. It's to advocate for the science and to
32:00
Speaker 3: assist the trier of fact in understanding a material issue
32:04
Speaker 3: of the case. And I don't believe the jury in
32:06
Speaker 3: that case got all the information.
32:10
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that's a really fair way to be
32:12
Speaker 2: thinking about it and the only way I would want
32:15
Speaker 2: someone thinking about it who was in your shoes if
32:17
Speaker 2: I were being accused of something I mean but it
32:21
Speaker 2: is I'm sure difficult you have someone whose wife has
32:25
Speaker 2: been seriously injured and they're unfaithful and like all of
32:29
Speaker 2: these other things it's hard not to look at them
32:31
Speaker 2: and think okay obviously something happened here you.
32:35
Speaker 3: Know how many times do you stay on the true
32:38
Speaker 3: crime stuff and you know for the length of time
32:39
Speaker 3: that you've been doing it yeah I mean, the divorce
32:42
Speaker 3: rate is over 50%. That means there's not a lot
32:45
Speaker 3: of happy marriages out there. And that's just the divorce rate.
32:48
Speaker 3: That's not the ones that are in a marriage that
32:50
Speaker 3: are unhappy and things are going on. And, you know,
32:54
Speaker 3: the vast majority of those do not result in a murder.
32:57
Speaker 3: Is that a motive? Absolutely. Absolutely can be. But the
33:00
Speaker 3: simple fact that somebody was having an affair or, you know,
33:05
Speaker 3: there were marital issues or whatever does not automatically make
33:08
Speaker 3: somebody guilty of the other one's death. You know, you
33:13
Speaker 3: really have to be willing to take a deep dive
33:17
Speaker 3: into the actual evidence and what does the physical evidence say.
33:23
Speaker 3: And I believe in this case that if the jury
33:26
Speaker 3: were told that it is just as likely expirated as
33:30
Speaker 3: impact spatter, that would have been or could have been
33:34
Speaker 3: reasonable doubt. Yeah.
33:36
Speaker 2: You know, one thing we talked about on an earlier
33:38
Speaker 2: call that I would love to touch on here is.
33:41
Speaker 2: you know, what are the misconceptions of bloodstain pattern analysis?
33:47
Speaker 3: That's another good question. Thank you for asking it. So
33:50
Speaker 3: there's been kind of a lot of bad press about
33:53
Speaker 3: bloodstain pattern analysis over the last, I don't know, decade
33:56
Speaker 3: or so. It seems to come up kind of cyclically
34:00
Speaker 3: every few years and something will come up. And the
34:03
Speaker 3: biggest complaint or issue that people tend to have with
34:06
Speaker 3: that is that they say it's junk science because it's
34:09
Speaker 3: all subjective and it's nothing more than a guess. And
34:12
Speaker 3: that's not true. It's based on the sciences of physics, math, biology.
34:20
Speaker 3: And it's a repeatable thing. That's how we're able to
34:22
Speaker 3: teach it and do the experiments because we will get,
34:25
Speaker 3: you know, when a liquid is acted upon by a force,
34:28
Speaker 3: it's going to behave in a predictable manner. And that's
34:31
Speaker 3: what we study so that we can come to conclusions.
34:34
Speaker 3: The problem comes in where we don't have people that
34:38
Speaker 3: have enough education. The basic 40-hour bloodstain pattern analysis course
34:44
Speaker 3: is not sufficient, in my opinion, and in most people's opinion,
34:48
Speaker 3: to be analyzing a scene and coming up with whether
34:52
Speaker 3: it's more likely or not something is a suicide or not.
34:56
Speaker 3: Because the federal rules of evidence say you're an expert
35:00
Speaker 3: if you have knowledge, education, skills or experience that's greater
35:06
Speaker 3: than that of the average person. So that 40-hour course,
35:10
Speaker 3: by those standards, makes you an expert. But in practice,
35:15
Speaker 3: it's so much more nuanced than that. The basic 40-hour
35:18
Speaker 3: course is to help people who go to scenes identify
35:21
Speaker 3: some of the major patterns and to identify when something,
35:25
Speaker 3: you know, this spot doesn't go with the rest of them.
35:27
Speaker 3: That's know how to document them so that it can
35:33
Speaker 3: be given to a proper expert. But unfortunately, a lot
35:36
Speaker 3: of times what we have is people with only a
35:38
Speaker 3: 40-hour course testifying as experts or pathologists who have never
35:44
Speaker 3: taken a bloodstain course simply because they've seen a lot
35:47
Speaker 3: of blood in their career. And that does not make
35:50
Speaker 3: you an expert either. I had seen a lot of
35:52
Speaker 3: blood in my vocation as well, but I absolutely did
35:56
Speaker 3: not know all the stuff that I know now.
35:58
Speaker 2: But you weren't studying the way that blood leaves the
36:01
Speaker 2: body and travels at different speeds and different force. And yeah,
36:06
Speaker 2: it is, it's totally different.
36:08
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's a whole different, like I, when I learned
36:10
Speaker 3: about arterial gushing, I can connect that to arterial bleeding
36:15
Speaker 3: that I saw in the operating room and in the
36:17
Speaker 3: emergency room. So I know what that looks like when
36:20
Speaker 3: it happens. So I have that. But I often liken
36:24
Speaker 3: bloodstain pattern analysis to, it's most similar to pathology in
36:28
Speaker 3: that both disciplines have to have a working knowledge of
36:31
Speaker 3: other disciplines like DNA, firearms, things like that. And we
36:36
Speaker 3: have to take scene information into account and all of
36:39
Speaker 3: those sorts of things. and come up with an opinion.
36:43
Speaker 3: And yes, there is subjectivity in what we do, but
36:46
Speaker 3: that's true in all of the forensic disciplines, not just
36:50
Speaker 3: this one. The problem is that, you know, in order
36:53
Speaker 3: to do an autopsy and come to a forensic pathology opinion,
36:57
Speaker 3: you have to be a forensic pathologist first. So that
37:00
Speaker 3: ensures that you have X number of years of school
37:03
Speaker 3: and X number of years of residency and all of that.
37:07
Speaker 3: That's not the case for bloodstain pattern analysis. There is
37:10
Speaker 3: no universal minimum standard. And I think that's where it
37:14
Speaker 3: gets the bad rep because, you know, you only see
37:17
Speaker 3: the cases where there's controversy, right? You don't see the
37:20
Speaker 3: ones where all the experts agree on both sides agree.
37:24
Speaker 3: Those don't make the news.
37:25
Speaker 2: It's also, I think you mentioned on one of our
37:27
Speaker 2: earlier calls, it's a piece of the puzzle and not
37:30
Speaker 2: something to be relied upon solely. Right.
37:33
Speaker 3: Right. And that's true of all the disciplines, too, including DNA.
37:37
Speaker 3: You know, it's long been held as the quote unquote
37:40
Speaker 3: gold standard. But when you're dealing with mixtures, there is
37:44
Speaker 3: an element of subjectivity that goes into that by the
37:48
Speaker 3: analyst as well, deciding what goes with what profile. And
37:52
Speaker 3: so all of the forensic disciplines are tools in the toolbox.
37:57
Speaker 3: Every once in a while, whatever discipline it is might
38:00
Speaker 3: be the one that is the linchpin of the case.
38:03
Speaker 3: But more often than not, that's how they should be
38:06
Speaker 3: treated as tools in the overall picture. And it's the
38:09
Speaker 3: trier of fact that gets all of the pieces of
38:13
Speaker 3: the puzzle and they put them together. You know, we
38:16
Speaker 3: do have one of the best systems, I will say that,
38:18
Speaker 3: but it's not infallible as we've seen with, you know,
38:22
Speaker 3: the death row exonerations and things like that. And as
38:26
Speaker 3: you said in the beginning, these are people's lives and
38:29
Speaker 3: liberty on the line. Being complacent about that is dangerous.
38:36
Speaker 3: And it could be any one of us. And I
38:39
Speaker 3: think that people, especially with fingerprints and DNA, I think
38:42
Speaker 3: people don't really understand what it can and cannot tell you.
38:47
Speaker 3: You cannot timestamp either one of those. And there's a
38:51
Speaker 3: thing known as the secondary, even tertiary transfer of DNA.
38:56
Speaker 3: You know, and often they'll use the jurors as an
38:59
Speaker 3: example that, you know, you're sitting in this seat that
39:02
Speaker 3: other people have sat in. And then you go into
39:05
Speaker 3: your car and transfer some of that DNA into your car.
39:08
Speaker 3: And then you go home and you transfer some into
39:10
Speaker 3: your home. God forbid that person ends up murdered. Right.
39:15
Speaker 3: You know, you've got their DNA in your home and
39:17
Speaker 3: you never met them. Right. And I remember one time
39:20
Speaker 3: I checked into a hotel. I saw some bloodstains at
39:22
Speaker 3: the bottom of the bathroom door.
39:24
Speaker 2: Oh, no.
39:26
Speaker 3: I took a picture. I sent it to my boyfriend
39:29
Speaker 3: at the time. I said, listen, this was here when
39:32
Speaker 3: I got in the room.
39:32
Speaker 2: You're like high velocity.
39:39
Speaker 3: Wow.
39:39
Speaker 2: Meanwhile, some kid's got a bloody nose.
39:41
Speaker 3: I have a very warped view on life in general.
39:46
Speaker 3: I think most people would not do that, but here
39:48
Speaker 3: I am.
39:49
Speaker 2: I understand it. I understand it. Well, thank you so
39:53
Speaker 2: much for taking the time to speak with me today.
39:55
Speaker 2: I mean, this is a really interesting case and, you know,
39:58
Speaker 2: a tragedy any way you look at it.
40:01
Speaker 3: Yes, absolutely. And you know what? Most of them aren't.
40:05
Speaker 2: Thank you so much for listening. We will be back
40:08
Speaker 2: next week. If you have a story for us, we
40:12
Speaker 2: would love to hear it. Our email is thenifeatexactlyrightmedia.com. Or
40:16
Speaker 2: you can follow us on Instagram at The Knife Podcast
40:19
Speaker 2: or Blue Sky at The Knife Podcast.
40:21
Speaker 1: This has been an Exactly Right production. Hosted and produced
40:24
Speaker 1: by me, Hannah Smith.
40:25
Speaker 2: And me, Patia Eaton. Our producers are Tom Breifogel and
40:28
Speaker 2: Alexa Samorosi.
40:30
Speaker 1: This episode was mixed by Tom Breifogel.
40:32
Speaker 2: Our associate producer is Christina Chamberlain.
40:35
Speaker 1: Our theme music is by Birds in the Airport. Artwork
40:37
Speaker 1: by Vanessa Lilac. Executive produced by Karen Kilgariff, Georgia Hardstark,
40:42
Speaker 1: and Danielle Kramer.