Posted 11:54 am Thursday, May 13, 2010
Send to Kindle
UPDATE: Defense Rests; Jury May Get Case Monday
Editor's Note: Tyler Morning Telegraph reporter Kenneth Dean is covering the trial of capital murder defendant Blaine Milam, which is under way in Conroe, Texas. Dean is blogging from the trial in its second week as events unfold. More recent installments appear at the top of this report.
Posted Thursday, May 13, 2010 at 11:53 a.m. CDT
Cannon Levoy, a Rusk County Sheriff's deputy, was called to the stand by the defense to testify about a bag of objects taken from the Milam home the day of the murder.
As the bag was opened in front of the jury, a doll began talking and saying a portion of the Lord’s Prayer.
The bag was labeled as having blankets, toys and clothing, but there were no items of clothing in the bag.
Jimerson asked Levoy if blood stains in the master bathroom caught his attention. Levoy said it did, and that he made notes in regards to the stains he believed were blood splatter.
Jimerson asked why Levoy did not go to the other end of the home and check the rooms.
“We were putting all of our attention on where baby Amora was found,” he said.
Jimerson also made it a point to show Levoy was a sergeant in criminal investigations the day of the murder, but was reassigned 28 days later as a jailer.
Outside the presence of the jury, Levoy was questioned as to his current suspension from the Rusk County Sheriff’s Office due to a criminal charge against him for assault/family violence.
Judge Clay Gossett warned Levoy anything he said could be used against him because it was an official court setting.
Gossett then cleared the courtroom of all parties except Levoy, the court reporter and himself and questioned Levoy about the allegations against him.
After the hearing, the defense excused Levoy from the stand. The defense then rested without calling Milam to testify in the case.
The case is scheduled to be reconvened Monday when the jury will hear the charges against Milam and then deliberate on the case to determine guilt or innocence.
The bag was labeled as having blankets, toys and clothing, but there were no items of clothing in the bag.
Jimerson asked Levoy if blood stains in the master bathroom caught his attention. Levoy said it did, and that he made notes in regards to the stains he believed were blood splatter.
Jimerson asked why Levoy did not go to the other end of the home and check the rooms.
“We were putting all of our attention on where baby Amora was found,” he said.
Jimerson also made it a point to show Levoy was a sergeant in criminal investigations the day of the murder, but was reassigned 28 days later as a jailer.
Outside the presence of the jury, Levoy was questioned as to his current suspension from the Rusk County Sheriff’s Office due to a criminal charge against him for assault/family violence.
Judge Clay Gossett warned Levoy anything he said could be used against him because it was an official court setting.
Gossett then cleared the courtroom of all parties except Levoy, the court reporter and himself and questioned Levoy about the allegations against him.
After the hearing, the defense excused Levoy from the stand. The defense then rested without calling Milam to testify in the case.
The case is scheduled to be reconvened Monday when the jury will hear the charges against Milam and then deliberate on the case to determine guilt or innocence.
Posted Thursday, May 13, 2010 at 11:04 a.m. CDT
On cross-examination, Isaac told Lisa Tanner, Texas Attorney General prosecutor assisting Rusk County District Attorney Micheal Jimerson with the case, that odontology is a good science and not some “voodoo science.”
Isaac said he did not come to testify to say nobody else on the planet could have made the bite marks besides Milam or Ms. Carson.
Isaac said the best mark was on her knee, and that bite was consistent with Milam and no one else in the case.
Isaac said the bite on Amora's chin was one where he could actually see the outlines of each individual tooth, consistent with Milam's teeth.
Tanner asked if Isaac believed Milam bit the child.
“I cannot exclude him. I can't say that I can exclude either one. I don't know what was going on there, but I cannot exclude either one of them,” he said.
Isaac said he too had never seen a case where a person had as many bite marks as what Amora suffered.
Isaac said the best mark was on her knee, and that bite was consistent with Milam and no one else in the case.
Isaac said the bite on Amora's chin was one where he could actually see the outlines of each individual tooth, consistent with Milam's teeth.
Tanner asked if Isaac believed Milam bit the child.
“I cannot exclude him. I can't say that I can exclude either one. I don't know what was going on there, but I cannot exclude either one of them,” he said.
Isaac said he too had never seen a case where a person had as many bite marks as what Amora suffered.
Posted Thursday, May 13, 2010 at 10:32 a.m. CDT
Isaac said Milam could not be excluded from making one of the bite marks on the baby. On the same bite, he said Ms. Carson and Milam's brother were excluded from the mark.
He testified he knew of no database showing that one person's teeth are specific to one person only.
He took a patient's teeth that visited him at his office in El Paso and he made a molding of the man's teeth and showed the jury the man's teeth pattern fit the bite mark as well.
“You can always find somebody somewhere that their teeth is similar to someone else's,” he said.
On other bites, he could not exclude Milam or Ms. Carson as being the person who caused the bruises. On one, he could not exclude Milam's brother as the person causing the injury.
Of the photo of the bite marks on Amora's neck and chin, Isaac said it was the best of all the pictures to show who or how many people bit the child.
“Looking at this, I see two bite marks and just by looking, I see two different bite marks by two different people,” he said.
“There's no doubt in my mind with just two people around this child, I can tell you in confidence I cannot exclude Jesseca from this bite mark. But I can exclude Blaine from making it,” he said.
Issac said he believes two people were responsible for the bite marks that he examined.
He took a patient's teeth that visited him at his office in El Paso and he made a molding of the man's teeth and showed the jury the man's teeth pattern fit the bite mark as well.
“You can always find somebody somewhere that their teeth is similar to someone else's,” he said.
On other bites, he could not exclude Milam or Ms. Carson as being the person who caused the bruises. On one, he could not exclude Milam's brother as the person causing the injury.
Of the photo of the bite marks on Amora's neck and chin, Isaac said it was the best of all the pictures to show who or how many people bit the child.
“Looking at this, I see two bite marks and just by looking, I see two different bite marks by two different people,” he said.
“There's no doubt in my mind with just two people around this child, I can tell you in confidence I cannot exclude Jesseca from this bite mark. But I can exclude Blaine from making it,” he said.
Issac said he believes two people were responsible for the bite marks that he examined.
Posted Thursday, May 13, 2010 at 9:33 a.m. CDT
Defense attorneys for defendant Blaine Milam led off today by calling George Isaac, a dentist and odontologist, who testified “there is pretty room for error in bite mark comparison due to human skin.”
Isaac was called by defense attorney John Moore to debunk some of the testimony given by one of his peers in the field, Robert Williams, for the state in the baby exorcism trial of Milam.
Milam and his girlfriend are accused of killing her 3-month-old daughter Amora in a vicious beating and strangulation.
A medical doctor who performed the autopsy of Amora after her death on Dec. 2, 2008, Williams testified earlier that Amora suffered hours of beating and sexual assault and was bitten more than 20 times.
Isaac said while bite mark analysis is not “junk science,” there is no real discipline and there is room for too much subjectivity from each person working on a case.
Isaac said he looked at more than 100 photos sent to him by Williams as a peer review.
Williams told jurors that Milam was the contributor to at least eight of the bite marks on Amora's body and that Ms. Carson may have contributed to one of the bites.
Isaac referred to one of three wounds on the baby's arm which Williams said was a series of bite marks, and told the jury he did not see a bite mark but only a bruise with no pattern.
Isaac said if the camera used to take the photos for odontology was not placed in the right degree of angle, it could make a bruise tend to look like it was a bite.
Isaac took several of the photos and said he did not see the evidentiary information to classify the bruises as bite marks.
Regarding one injury on the child's hand, he said, "There is just nothing to work with here. This is just a big bruise."
Milam and his girlfriend are accused of killing her 3-month-old daughter Amora in a vicious beating and strangulation.
A medical doctor who performed the autopsy of Amora after her death on Dec. 2, 2008, Williams testified earlier that Amora suffered hours of beating and sexual assault and was bitten more than 20 times.
Isaac said while bite mark analysis is not “junk science,” there is no real discipline and there is room for too much subjectivity from each person working on a case.
Isaac said he looked at more than 100 photos sent to him by Williams as a peer review.
Williams told jurors that Milam was the contributor to at least eight of the bite marks on Amora's body and that Ms. Carson may have contributed to one of the bites.
Isaac referred to one of three wounds on the baby's arm which Williams said was a series of bite marks, and told the jury he did not see a bite mark but only a bruise with no pattern.
Isaac said if the camera used to take the photos for odontology was not placed in the right degree of angle, it could make a bruise tend to look like it was a bite.
Isaac took several of the photos and said he did not see the evidentiary information to classify the bruises as bite marks.
Regarding one injury on the child's hand, he said, "There is just nothing to work with here. This is just a big bruise."
