|
Post by William Ruddock on Aug 5, 2011 18:16:57 GMT -5
Thank you Auntthula... I've just re-read the trial transcripts for detective Bowdish. He was called as a witness both for the prosecution and for the defense. The defense attempted to show that Bowdish and the DA chose certain things to test for DNA evidence and chose not to test others. According to testimony at trial, there were wine bottles outside the home: One intact, the other broken, and a bottle neck. None of these were tested. According to Bowdish, they were weather beaten and probably had been laying around a while. This line of testimony is found here: erickwestervelt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=90 I have not found that there were two wine glasses in the sink. If there were they were not (at least as far as I can tell) collected as evidence. It is so good to have people present at trial here to give their views. Thank you Aunthula... Bill
|
|
wds
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by wds on Aug 6, 2011 9:47:11 GMT -5
Bill, I just wanted to clear up the record a bit. Per Erick's website, during the trial testimony, PO Jeffrey Vunck (the 1st BPD officer at the crime scene), testifyed that there were only 2 glasses in the kitchen sink at 95A Elsmere Avenue. Then Mark Sacco, Erick's attorney asked him to read over his police report to refresh his memory. PO Vunck then testifyed that "there were several empty glasses in the sink". That was the last thing PO Vunck said at the trial. ADA Rossi declined to question him further. None of these glasses were ever tested for DNA per Detective Bowdish's testimony later. Determing what to test for DNA was decided by ADA Rossi and Bowdish during a meeting of some sort. I find all of this quite fascinating but disgusting that they didn't test everything.
|
|
|
Post by William Ruddock on Aug 6, 2011 16:51:58 GMT -5
WDS... Thank you I went looking for the testimony concerning the glasses in the sink and I just couldn't find it. Also note, there were no descriptions of the glasses given at trial. They were not referred to as "wine glasses" Just "glasses." Those interested in Vunk's testimony may find it here: erickwestervelt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14&Itemid=72 We are trying to keep what is posted here in this forum as close to the truth as we understand it from the record. Anytime a member sees an error, please make a similar point as WDS has done. Thanks again.
|
|
|
Post by bobbyo1011 on Aug 7, 2011 10:41:41 GMT -5
Thanks Bill for clarifying the facts as they come up. We are counting on you to keep guys like me from going astray. We will keep doing what we do best to direct people to this website so they can learn the truth about Erick's case.
We all have our special gifts. Yours is being completely accurate which we will need to maintain credibility in trying to secure a pro-bono attorney to represent Erick. He is in dire need of one.
|
|
|
Post by justducky on Aug 9, 2011 15:29:18 GMT -5
Is there a place where we can read the trial transcripts and view the dna evidence that was used at his trial? I would like to read more factual information about his case from an objective point of view. Also has the innocence project been contacted about this case??
|
|
|
Post by bobbyo1011 on Aug 9, 2011 15:47:24 GMT -5
Was there any DNA testing in Erick's case. Maybe, I missed it when reading the trial transcripts. Isn't that what Erick's complaint was? That there were items which could have collected and tested for DNA but weren't? Such as the cigarette butt which he saw later in a crime scene photo?
I do not know what was collected by the crime scene processing team and what is still held in evidence. I would assume Erick would have been provided a record of that by the prosecutors under discovery. It has been my understand that The Innocence Project normally will only get involved where there is evidence which can be tested for DNA.
|
|
|
Post by marsez on Aug 9, 2011 20:29:42 GMT -5
justducky, there was no DNA evidence found at the crime scene that could be traced to Erick. Also there were no traces of DNA in Erick's car that could be traced to Tim or the crime. I recall at the trial one of the Detectives mentioning some items found and tested for DNA ...one being a piece of chewing gum found outside the home...but it was a female DNA and readily dismissed. The trial transcripts can be found on the www.erickwestervelt.com website on the left hand menu.
|
|
|
Post by William Ruddock on Aug 9, 2011 22:22:40 GMT -5
Thank you marsez. It is so good to have people who were at trial and watched it unfold on this board to give further credence to our dialog.
Some of the items collected at the crime scene were tested but far from all of the ones collected. This fact was covered in Detective Bowdish's testimony. And marsez is correct about the gum. There was only one item collected at the scene with traces of DNA didn't match the victim and that was a wad of gum which was from a female. If there was an attempt to match this DNA with any of the known women who might have been in the back yard, that was certainly not presented at trial.
I don't know what is "still in evidence" from Bobbyo's post above. I don't know that New York State law requires that anything be kept. One would hope that the gum is still stored somewhere and perhaps, if the Innocence Project ever did get involved, they could push to have that further tested.
Bill
|
|
|
Post by bobbyo1011 on Aug 10, 2011 12:20:14 GMT -5
I do not know the answer to your question either Bill. An open homicide case would be kept until the case is solved. I not know the legal requirements to retain evidence in cases that are closed by arrest.
I do know that all of the evidence collected in the Marty Tankleff wrongful conviction was kept, including some that may turn out to be exculpatory. When the AG investigated Suffolk DA Tom Spota's handling of Marty's case they discovered a bloody rag with the perfect outline of the knife which was used in the homicide. It did not match the knife the prosecution claimed was used which had no traces of blood on it.
What was particularly damning was that this item of evidence was completely withheld from the defense and no one even knew it existed until the AG discovered when examining the evidence. AG Sneiderman's office fought tooth and nail to prevent Marty's attorneys from having the crime scene evidence turned over to them for Marty's civil suit which is still in the discovery phase. More exculpatory evidence might very likely be found.
From what I have seen, police departments suddenly "lose" evidence or it gets destroyed in storage. Does Erick have a detailed inventory of the evidence which was secured from the crime scene. I would imagine any attorney representing him in the future is going to need that information.
|
|
|
Post by bobbyo1011 on Aug 10, 2011 12:22:38 GMT -5
BTW, this is a letter to the editor to the Soho Journal about Erick's case. The Soho Journal has a pretty big distribution throughout lower Manhattan and the east end of Long Island including the Hamptons. Just cut and paste and put in your web browser if unable to click on the link. sohojournal.com/content/letter-editor
|
|
|
Post by deepblue on Nov 20, 2011 21:44:32 GMT -5
What did the letter say in Italian?
|
|
|
Post by deepblue on Nov 21, 2011 13:21:19 GMT -5
I have another question. How does Erick explain is computer searches on murder and how to sharpen a hacket?
|
|
|
Post by William Ruddock on Jan 12, 2012 1:53:30 GMT -5
deepblue asked the following question: "I have another question. How does Erick explain is computer searches on murder and how to sharpen a hacket?"
Several point need to be made here.
1) "How does Erick explain is computer".... deepblue, do you mean his computer vs is computer? 2) Assuming you mean "his" computer, the computer in question was not "his" at all. This was a family computer, available to all members of the Westervelt household. 3) There was no query found that was about sharpening a "Hatchet." 4) No member of the Westervelt household, Wendy, John, Erick or Jason has any recollection of ever doing any search involving sharpening knives. 5) The NY State police computer investigative unit, after looking at the disk drive for 9 months, found material in a Windows ME restore point showing a Netscape Query was performed at a point in time. That query on a community PC was concerning sharping knives (not hatchets). 6) There is much confusion at trial on this term. A hatchet is a weapon with a metal head. A Tomahawk has a wooden or stone head. 7) We don't know who did this query. Indeed we don't really know when this query was even run, and I'll go so far as to say we don't know if this query was even run on the Westervelt computer. 8) Given that the murder of Timothy Gray did not involve sharp knives it is hard to see how this search has anything to do with the this case.
The Westervelt family computer was used to look up all kinds of things on the Internet. I do the same with my computers.
An internet query does not = a crime or even an intent to commit a crime.
Bill
|
|
|
Post by abqshell on Apr 23, 2012 19:42:19 GMT -5
Greetings to All - First of all, without going into much detail (because this is not about me) I came across Erick's Case because I, too, was convicted of a crime I did not commit - accused by my ex-husband and pursued by his Uncle who happened to be a 20yr veteran detective in that dept. To make a long story short, I sat in jail with NO bond, for 10 months because I refused to sign a total of 4 Plea Agreements (they offered me a new one each time I denied one but each new one was worse than the previous one) saying I was Guilty even tho I would've been immediately released on Probation as I had never been in trouble, have a BS in Criminal Justice and worked at a Juvenile Prison at the time. In short, the State finally threatened to put my children in State's custody and put them up for adoption if I stayed in jail long enough to go to trial. I have mounds of evidence that would've exonerated me but I could not risk losing my kids and am now a convicted felon and on 8 years probation for a crime (Felony Stalking - I didn't even speak or see the man or live in the same state for 12 years!) I did not commit. Needless to say, this sent me searching for other people in the same situaton and I found Erick's case. I have spent dozens of hours researching and reading his case and am so convinced of his innocence I have started a Facebook page for him at www.facebook.com/FreeErickWestervelt [http://www.facebook.com/FreeErickWestervelt] PLEASE go to this Faceboon Page and click on "Like" so we can get his story out there. The one and only question I have about his case involve's the Italian Letter found at the crime scene - In the Denial of his Appeal, the court site's that there was a Google Search found on his computer that he searched for "commit murder leaving behind a note". I could not find this info anywhere else in the case??? Did you read the Denial and do you know anything about this search?? I look forward to helping free Erick in any way I can. Thank you!
|
|
|
Post by ahelper on Dec 24, 2013 10:09:27 GMT -5
There are a number of things that defense counsel should have done at trial, which might have at least raised reasonable doubt. The wine glasses; not calling as a witness the neighbor who heard the scream; not hiring a computer forensic expert; not preparing the psychologist to explain in everyday language to the jury about false confessions (or hiring someone from the midwest or the west who was experienced at this, who had written about this, such as Prof. Richard Leo).
Prof. Leo would have been perfect. He is co-author of the book, "The Wrong Guys," about the young sailors who were coerced into false confessions for rape and murder. Had Erick known this story before agreeing to go to the police station without a criminal defense attorney, he would not have agreed to a polygraph. The Norfolk Four, the young sailors, passed polygraphs and then were told lies--that they had failed.
Young people, especially, should never trust the police. Never speak with them unless you have someone at your side who knows how to protect your rights.
|
|