Nuxoll murder trial shifts to defense: Forensics expert says print on wall can’t be ID’d...
Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2018 8:21 am
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:
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.
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:
The first thing is the language used. Is it the author's words or from testimony; 'positively identify' and 'identical.'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 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.