Prosecutors say it ties Alex Ewing to the crime, but the protection lawyers dilemma no matter whether the evidence could have been contaminated.
CENTENNIAL, Colo. — Forensic serology – the analysis of organic proof – has taken heart phase at the trial of a gentleman accused of beating a couple and their daughter to dying with a hammer in January 1984.
Organic evidence is crucial in the circumstance – prosecutors want to convince the jury there is no innocent rationalization for the existence of Alex Christopher Ewing’s DNA at the criminal offense scene though defense attorneys want to forged uncertainties on the validity of that proof.
Similar: Bennett household murders: Whole coverage of suspect’s trial
It was in opposition to those people competing passions that jurors have listened to several hours of at-moments cumbersome testimony about evidence in the scenario, and the work to detect and comprehend the implications of blood and semen observed at the scene.
Ewing, 60, faces several counts of first-degree murder in the killings of Bruce and Debra Bennett and their 7-calendar year-old daughter, Melissa, who was also sexually assaulted.
In the course of the passage of much more than a few many years from the criminal offense to the time a DNA match introduced Ewing into the sights of police investigators in 2018, the science of serology has progressed drastically.
Back again then, the plan of working with DNA to identify the perpetrator of a crime was, in the words of one detective who has testified in the trial, “pie in the sky for legislation enforcement.”
Now, a genetic profile can be designed from a handful of pores and skin cells or a fall of blood that just can’t be found by the bare eye.
Connected: Jurors hear about Lakewood murder linked by DNA to 1984 killing of Bennett family members
And more than the previous two days, jurors in Ewing’s demo listened to much more than 3½ hrs of in depth testimony from an qualified in forensic serology who analyzed a lot of the evidence early in the investigation.
That incorporated a section of carpet on which Melissa Bennett’s overall body was located, a comforter that lined her, and a serviette with blood on it learned in close proximity to a sink on the Aurora home’s next ground, where the bedrooms have been found.
On the stand, Jeanne Kilmer, a longtime forensic serologist who was doing the job at the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in 1984, recounted going to the Bennett crime scene. There, investigators suspected the carpeting on which Melissa’s system was found might have had semen on it. Kilmer explained to jurors she personally cut the segment of carpet from the flooring and took it back to the CBI lab.
But her subsequent check for semen was detrimental – a stage defense attorney Stephen McCrohan hit on in questioning her.
“You did your very best work?” he asked her.
“You ended up conscious these have been most likely essential pieces of evidence?” he questioned.
“All objects of evidence are potentially significant,” Kilmer answered.
There is a motive McCrohan stressed the failure to locate semen on that carpet in 1984: Follow-up screening performed in 1999 observed semen on that part of carpeting, and the DNA profile it contained was finally matched to Ewing in 2018.
Semen was also observed on the comforter that lined Melissa – it, as well, was matched to Ewing.
And whilst protection lawyers have advised there could have been cross-contamination of proof – and have raised challenges about how it was dealt with, these types of as the truth lots of investigators did not use gloves – beneath questioning from prosecutor Megan Brewer, Kilmer claimed the carpeting and the comforter were being not packaged collectively and were being not at the CBI lab at the similar time.
Kilmer also testified at good size – she expended more than 3½ hrs on the stand the earlier two times – about blood evidence.
McCrohan advised in opening statements that a bloody serviette located on a vanity involving Bruce and Debra Bennett’s bed room and lavatory – and unidentified fingerprints discovered in the vicinity of it – cast question on the assertion that Ewing dedicated the criminal offense.
That serviette, Kilmer reported, experienced blood on it reliable with Bruce Bennett’s. McCrohan has advised that the killer used that napkin to wipe blood from his arms, then tried using to wash up at the close by sink, leaving fingerprints on the faucet tackle.
The person those people fingerprints belong to has by no means been determined.
Kilmer was adopted to the stand by longtime law enforcement detective Marvin Brandt, who was named to the Bennett house the working day the bodies were found and later on served as the lead detective on the circumstance. He testified at duration about a variety of techniques he took in the case, including an hard work in 1988 and ’89 to go by way of all the evidence – a method carried out in a safe place in the making wherever the law enforcement office saved evidence.
But McCrohan got him to admit that he from time to time laid out proof on tables that hadn’t been included with sterile paper, that he didn’t sanitize a tape evaluate that was photographed on multiple items of proof, and that the wrapping covering some items of proof had been opened by other investigators and not adequately resealed.
At the time Ewing was discovered as a suspect in the Bennett killings – and the murder the former week of Patricia Smith in Lakewood – he was at the rear of bars in Nevada, serving a sentence for a late-evening ax take care of attack on a pair in Henderson. That assault happened about seven months immediately after the Bennett and Smith murders.
Ewing is scheduled to go on demo in Smith’s murder in October in Jefferson County.
Get hold of 9News reporter Kevin Vaughan with recommendations about this or any story: [email protected] or 303-871-1862.
The tale of the assaults, the look for for a killer, and the panic that gripped the survivors and altered lifestyle in the Denver metro space is the issue of a 9Would like to Know investigative podcast.