PAGE FIVE...

The last aspect of this case to look into (at least up to this point) is the "blood splatter" evidence. For those who do not know what that is, you look at the way the blood stains were found at the crime scene DIRECTLY AFTER THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED WITH NO ONE ALTERING THEM AT ALL, IN ANY WAY. From this you can make certain assumptions about how the crime happened. However the key to this evidence is that from the time the crime has ENDED to the time the bloodstains are ANALYZED, there can be no other activity in the bloodstains or the stain you end up using, is ALTERED due to what ever happened to it AFTER the crime was committed. This is very important since the defendant is asserting that the blood stain evidence used against him in his trial was so CORRUPTED by several parties moving in and out of the crime scene and the car used as an exhibit was actually TOWED to another location BEFORE the photo’s used in trial were taken, that no reliable theory from the blood stains could have been reached because there is no way of telling what blood stains happened as a result of the crime, and what blood stains happened as a result of activity in the scene after the crime,. To understand this clearly you will need to look at the exhibits attached to this update. The first exhibit "A" is simply a copy of the view of the crime scene from a "birds eye" view. It simply shows the car, the victims body and the pool of blood exactly how it was found at the crime scene. This was taken from all the exhibits used in the trial. The next set of exhibits are numbers 1D, 2D, 3D, and 4D. These are diagrams of the defense theory. The next set of exhibits are numbered 1C, 2C, 3C, and 4C.

These are the Commonwealths theory of the murder and were taken from a combination of the trial transcripts, and exhibits entered, and a re-enactment put on by the state. All of which are public record and can be accessed by ANYONE wishing to challenge this update. There is why the defense says two things about this evidence used against him. 1). The blood stains are unusable! Why, because if a crime happens and blood travels in patterns that tend to show how it happened that evidence is only TRUE if it has not changed from the time the crime has happened until the time the stains are studied. ( the only exception being if "time" was an actual factor! Which in this case no one has asserted that). The reason why this evidence is unusable:? Afer the murder several people trampled thru the crime scene, walking right thru the pool of blood AND even touching and at one point moving the victims body! The DA’s own discovery has the following; pg 2, Mark Berry 2628, Northfield drive., East Petersburg, Pa. 17520, walked thru crime scene, handled victims body turned him from his side over onto his stomach and cut off shirt. Also checked for pulse. Had to remove "cover" from him first and then place cover back on victim. Pg. 6, Corporal Roberts, approach victim with Mark Berry and lift off "cover" to visually examine. Standing in the pool of blood at this time, and had to walk thru it to do so. Pg. 8-9 Robert Torres Jr. Of 311 Clover Ave. Lancaster, Pa. Walks thru the crime scene to body and checks for pulse. Pg. 15, Bill Johnson of 1254 Heritage Ave. Lancaster Pa. Helped owner of bar, cover body with sleeping bag. Had to walk thru crime scene to do so. Pg. 18, the DA, Dr. Walp, and Det Savage all examined the body, walking thru crime scene to do so. Det. Savage had to handle body in order to recover evidence from the pockets. Pg 25 Miss Cathy Newman, covers body with jacket. Once again, walking thru the crime scene. Also says her boyfriend (victims brother), had to walk thru the crime scene TWICE. Once when original discovered body, again when returned from asking for help. In fact these two people had so much blood on their shoes the police took them into evidence!! Pg. 26 Miss Newman states that in her presence a girlfriend of a bystander, checked the victim for a pulse.

All these people some trained, and a lot untrained in the art of crime scene preservation had trampled thru a lake of blood, handled the body, and altered the blood stains when covering the subsequently removing to cover to view this body. All the activity will ALTER the blood stains and there is no way to tell which stains were made as a result of the crime and which were made by them. The only time that distinction was ever made was by Dr. Ross when he said the "swipe" on the car could have been made by an EMT. (Pg. 2497 or trial transcript). There also was at least 22 people at that crime scene and we have no way of knowing which of them were taking part in this parade thru the crime scene. (List of names provided in the DA discovery). Also to make matters worse the photos taken at the crime scene were so dark and did not depict the blood stains clearly enough for analysis, that the witness for the state had to HAVE THE CAR TOWED TO ANOTHER LOCATION! (Causing blood splatter to be thrown from the tires onto the vehicle) and once there, go and have clearer photo’s taken and would use THOSE photo’s to present his theory at trial. (See pg. 2492 of trial transcripts. Car was actually not examined until MARCH 1997, Then JUNE 1997, and the blood stains are documented at this time). (pg.2493, uses these photo’s in court). For the reasons stated above the defendant would like an expert to testify that NONE of the blood stained evidence was reliable and there for should NOT have been presented to the jury. The other reason the defendant challenges this evidence is 2). Even if you IGNORE all the altering of the stains that took place, the theory presented does not even make sense! To understand this better it is useful to look at the diagrams mentioned earlier. Exhibit "A" shows how the body was found and the pool of blood it was surrounded by. Exhibit "1D-4D" show about how the defense thinks this crime happened and how the body came to be in that position. As you can see the movement of the body and how it lands makes sense with the pool of blood AND the blood splattering and stains found at the scene. In 1D, the victim is near the driver side door, with his back to the perp. If he is first stabbed here, the blood will start to come out at this point and spill onto the ground. In 2D, you can see that if the victim had turned slightly to his right after he was cut, the continue spill of blood would fall right where it was found. In 3D, if the victim then falls to the ground it would be consistent with the injuries to the knees and hands, ( as shown by Dr. Ross on pg. 2476, trial transcripts, pg. 2526, hand onto ground with blood already on it).

And finally in 4D, you can se how victim would end up in exact position that he was found in. Falling forward face first into the blood already on the ground. This is what the defense thinks happened. And MOST of it is supported by the states own evidence. Now turning to the Commonwealths theory offered at trial. You can see a depiction of this on exhibits "1C-4C". In the first (1C) the expert for the state stays the victim was either bending down or on his knees at the time of the attack. In the front of the car near the flat tire ( see trans. Pg. 2524). Yet clearly in the diagram which is drawn from the actual crime scene photo’s, there is no blood that far in the front of the car. So essentially he was stabbed in the neck here, BUT DID NOT GET ONE DROP OF BLOOD ON THE GROUND!! Moving to exhibit 2C, you see the states theory that he is now fighting for his life. The interesting part of this theory lies in the cast off pattern. In order for the cast off pattern to show it was RIGHT HANDED attacker, the victim has to be slashed in THIS position at this location near the vehicle in order for the "cast off" to be from the left to right, as asserted by the state. ( see trial trans. Pg. 2500-2501, also Com. Exhibit #3, see also pg. 2517, pg. 2527, during re-enactment, and pg. 2545. Says victim still on all fours at the this time.). The problem the defense has with this? Still no blood on the ground where this is going on! Not one drop! The states answer to this? He suddenly gets to his feet and fights some more, all the while moving around to FACE THE RIGHT DIRECTION! ( to fit with the position he was found in). He states that the stains on the victims sneakers also helped prove this. ( see transcription pg. 2486, 2484,pg.2495 explains "cast off". Pg. 2537 victim gets back to feet.). Moving on to "3C" you see how the state then offers that the victim was finally turned around into the position he was found in because the perp. Was "riding him like a horse" ( See pg. 2496, 2498, 2518, and 2526). And in "4C" you see now the victim comes to rest in the position he was found in. All this going on and the perp has virtually no blood on him. And the sate never explained how the victim managed to do all that fighting up at the front of the car, getting his throat slashed repeatedly, and never leaving one drop of blood there. ( In fact there was an interesting exchange with defense counsel and the expert for the state, Dr. Ross when the Dr .stated he has seen several cases where that can happen and has testified to that fact before, but when asked to provide those cases, the Dr. said he could not. ) There are several other points that are of interest here as well. On pg.2462 of the trial transcript, the Dr. says there was "gravel" on both the front AND back of the victim. This shows to what extent this body was handled AFTER the murder, further ruining the blood stain evidence. In pg. 2476, Ross claims the bruises on the knees were from blunt force trauma, someone kicking or kneeing the victim to the ground. Once again this would have the perp. sloshing around in the same blood as the victim was! Yet there was virtually no blood on the defendant according to the witness for the state. On pg. 2484, Dr. Ross never tested the victims pants for blood stain, yet tells the jury, "I’m sure there WAS some blood on there". On pg. 2486 and 2488 Dr. Ross claims that the blood swipes and splatter on victims shoes prove he was moving the thru crime scene. Yet the EMT, clearly moved him to cut the shirt open! In pg. 2511 Dr. Ross says the ONLY stain he saw on the shirt found at the scene allegedly worn by the perp. Was a "swipe" pattern, as if someone wiped a knife on it. ( remember in earlier updates new stains would suddenly appear on this shirt!) On pg. 2531 he Dr. Ross says he used a surrogate that was like Kim would have been at that time ( in earlier updates it was shown she claimed to be four feet round. Yet no one ever measured her ). Bu the doctor never offered this surrogate to the court. Who is she? What did she really look like? Did he really just happen to have a 5 foot 7 inch, 160 pound pregnant woman who happened to measure four feet around laying about in his office? Why was there no need to present this kind of person? On pg. 2533 of the trial tans. Dr. Ross says that if Kim Kistler was the one to do this attack the victim would have had to TURN HIS HEAD TO THE SIDE for her to do it! Ask yourself this, a person comes up behind you, they reach over your shoulder, you feel the arm on your shoulder, isn’t the first thing you do, to TURN YOUR HEAD to the side to see who it is?? In trans. Pg.2535 Dr. Ross says that if Kim did it, she would have to had hit his arteries on the first slash and then would go down quickly. But goes on to say then there would not have been all those " blood splatters" at the scene. What

about all the people trampling thru the crime scene after? Would that not account for the blood splatters? What about the towing a car to a garage after? Would that not explain some of the blood being thrown off the spinning tires onto the undercarriage?

The truth is this, none of the blood stain evidence is reliable. In fact if you choose to believe it, you will see that the only way that "cast off" pattern could have gotten where it was ? Was if the attacker was LEFT HANDED! The state placed two people at the crime scene. They did this with Kim KISTLER’s testimony. The first person they placed at the scene was the defendant. Keep in mind Kim Kistler was the ONLY person to state this. There was not one single piece of evidence taken by itself that would have placed him there. He is right handed. The other person placed at the scene? Kim Kistler. This was done by Kim herself. Then there were several other witnesses that placed her there, Kim is LEFT HANDED.