Nuxoll murder trial shifts to defense: Forensics expert says print on wall can’t be ID’d...

[Steve Everist]

This was taken from the "Weekly Detail..." news stories:

The Lewiston Tribune 10-30-18
Nuxoll murder trial shifts to defense
The defense in Patrick Nuxoll’s first-degree murder trial began in earnest Monday, with a forensic analyst disagreeing with previous testimony that a finger imprinted in a bloody smear on a wall belonged to Nuxoll.
https://lmtribune.com/northwest/nuxoll- ... 5e85f.html


Here's the part of the article I found of interest:

Earlier in the trial, Idaho State Police forensic lab technician Jennie Ayers said she analyzed and compared photographs of a bloody print and claimed to positively identify Nuxoll’s print in the blood. Ayers reported multiple identical comparisons, and another forensic analyst who verified her work came to the same conclusion.

Donald Schuessler, a private forensic consultant, testified Monday that he analyzed the same photograph and found some of the ridges in the bloody print were identical to Nuxoll’s, but several deformations in the print led him to believe identifying the print was not possible. He also had his work verified by another forensic analyst, who came to the same conclusion. Schuessler said he could not exclude Nuxoll as the owner of the bloody fingerprint, but there were too many discrepancies to say with certainty that the print belonged to Nuxoll.

The first thing is the language used. Is it the author's words or from testimony; 'positively identify' and 'identical.'

The second thing is that this is the only discussion on there being a disagreement of conclusion, without any regarding what those conclusions were based on. Of course, it's just a news article and there's only so much space to dedicate to this for the general public. Both conclusions were said to be verified. One through the state lab in Idaho. The other through another forensic analyst. This seems to be an ID/Inconclusive disagreement. I'd be interested in what the inconclusive finding was based on and the qualifications of Mr Schuessler to come to his conclusion with the data present. It appears that his specialty centers around bloodstain, but there have been a few classes and some work in latent prints in the Eugene PD's lab through 2005. His CV can be found at his site here: http://www.eugeneforensics.com/shop/wpi ... ef0516.pdf

Ultimately, he was convicted, but as a latent print examiner, I'm still interested in this disagreement of conclusion for a type of print that can often be complex.

[NRivera]

In the infamous words of a wise man: Show me the print.

[Steve Everist]

In the infamous words of a wise man: Show me the print.

I'm curious as to if there were more than just two competing conclusions presented in court. Assuming the State's witness presented the basis for conclusion, I'd hope the defense witness would have "shown his work" in why he felt that it was inconclusive. It's not just a simple disagreement of conclusion - or it shouldn't be.

[Boyd Baumgartner]

Here's an article that outlines more evidence than just fingerprints in the case.

MOSCOW, Idaho
An Idaho man was found guilty of first-degree murder in the death of his friend.
A Moscow jury deliberated for about four hours Wednesday before returning a verdict of guilty for Patrick Nuxoll in the 2015 killing of David Cramer, the Lewiston Tribune reported .
Cramer was found drenched in blood in a chair in Nuxoll's Lewiston home, court records show. No one witnessed the attack, and Nuxoll said he was innocent and was sleeping while his friend was stabbed, slashed and bludgeoned more than 200 times.
Nuxoll's knives were found with Cramer's blood on them. One was plastered to the floor in dried blood near Cramer.

The other murder weapons in the home, a kitchen chair with Cramer's blood on it was in the living room, and a ceramic yard ornament was found behind Cramer's body.

Metal fragments collected from Cramer's body matched one of the knives.

A paper towel tossed into a fireplace with red stains on it contained both Nuxoll's and Cramer's DNA.
Video surveillance at Walmart showed Cramer and Nuxoll stumbling around as they purchased vodka, leaving the store by 9:20 p.m. on May 20, 2015.
Nuxoll called 911 at 2:34 a.m.

Blood was flecked in Nuxoll's hair, on his face, behind his ears, on his hands and under and on his clothes.

Despite overwhelming evidence, with Cramer's blood all over Nuxoll, Nuxoll's attorney, Rick Cuddihy, said that none of his client's fingerprints or DNA were found on any of the murder weapons. Nuxoll had no injuries to his hands or anywhere else. Officers clipped his finger nails and found no blood underneath them.

Cuddihy repeatedly tried to point the jury's suspicion to Cramer's brother, Ronald, claiming he broke into Nuxoll's home and killed David Cramer.
Nuxoll claimed to have pounded on Cramer's chest in an attempt to perform CPR and put both ears to Cramer, allegedly accounting for the blood on him.

The trial was held in Moscow after an unbiased jury could not be assembled in Lewiston. A scheduling conference to determine a sentencing hearing was set for Nov. 7

However that being said, I'm curious as to how the case of consultants plays out in court post all the NAS-OSAC-QWETRY stuff. More than likely, they're not accredited, aren't held to standard operating procedures, might not even follow conventional conclusions (To Steve's point) and can verify shop until they get the conclusions that they want. You'd think any prosecutor worth their salt would either allow a defense attorney to poke at the NAS, PCAST, Human Factors stuff all day and go on about best practices and then point out the consultant doesn't live up to any of that.

[NRivera]

It's not a surprise that two experts can disagree on sufficiency to ID (i.e. ID vs. inconclusive). That horse has been beaten sufficiently. It's why we don't testify to absolute certainty any more.