Forensic Examination Report To: Jim Gray, Attorney, P.O. Box 1682, 108 E. Canal St., Picayune, MS 39466 Ph# 601-749-2700; Fx# 601-798-8668 From: Brent E. Turvey, MS, Forensic Solutions, LLC, P.O. Box 2175, Sitka, AK 99835, Office (907) 747-5121; Cell (831) 254-5446 Date: February 3, 2006 Re: Mississippi v. Robert Grant The purpose of this report is to review the forensic examinations and testimony relating to examinations of the evidence in the case of Mississippi. v. Robert Grant (re: homicide of Arthur Joshua on July 16, 2004). Sometime on the evening of July 16th, 2005, after 10:30pm, Terry Wayne Adams, Wesley Jerome Williams, Roderick Shanker, Tishma Peralta, Larry Bowens, aka "Skipper", allege that one or more individuals entered the Adams' residence at 123 Ed Reid Road in Lumberton, MS. They further allege that these individuals fired gunshots, and that they stole items from a safe that was kept on the premises. Mr. Adams claims to have been tied up or partially tied up, and Mr. Williams claims to have been hit twice in the head by a short length of 2 X 4. On December 28, 2005, this examiner received case material related to this matter from Attorney Jim Gray, including, but not limited to: 1. Pearl River County Sheriff's Department (PRCSD) Incident Report by A. Naquin dated 7/17/04. 2. PRCSD Supplementary Report by Det. J. Kramer dated 7/17/04 3. PRCSD Supplementary Report by Det. J. Kramer dated 7/20/04 4. PRCSD Supplementary Report by Capt. E. Rocker dated 7/17/04 5. Photo Log 2004-07-0167 6. Untitled Evidence Log 2004-07-0167 listing exhibits 1-13 7. Evidence / Property Logs re: 2004-07-0167, discover pages 343-351 8. Autopsy Report for Joshua Arthur by Steven T. Hayne, MD dated 7/17/04 9. Evidence Submission forms by Steven T. Hayne, MD for toxicology screening of fluids and trace evidence analysis of clothes. 10. Toxicology Report by ExperTox Inc. Lab, dated 7/21/04 11. Mississippi Crime Lab Evidence Submission Forms for evidence submitted by Capt. Eric Rocker received on 7/22/04. 12. Mississippi Crime Lab Evidence Submission Forms for evidence submitted by Walter Gipson, Pearl River County CMEI, received on 7/30/04. 13. Mississippi Crime Lab Drug Analysis Report dated 9/28/04 14. Mississippi Crime Lab Firearms/ Toolmarks Report dated 4/27/05 (2 pages) 15. Mississippi Crime Lab Firearms/ Toolmarks Report dated 4/27/05 (1 page) 16. Mississippi Crime Lab Trace Evidence Report dated 6/13/05 17. Mississippi Crime Lab Trace Evidence Report dated 8/5/05 18. Mississippi Crime Lab Latent Prints Report dated 9/22/04 19. Mississippi Crime Lab Bioscience/ DNA Report dated 5/27/05 20. Mississippi Crime Lab Bioscience/ DNA Report dated 6/30/05 21. Mississippi Crime Lab Bioscience/ DNA Report dated 10/19/05 22. Forensic Test Results report from Reliagene dated 7/27/2005 23. Interview of Roderick Shanks at scene, 123 Ed Reid Road, by Det. J. Kramer on 7/17/04: 0400 hrs 24. Interview of Terry Wayne Adams at PRCSD by Det. J. Kramer on 7/17/04 25. Interview of Tishma Peralta at PRCSD by Det. J. Kramer on 7/17/04; 1711 hrs 26. Interview of Shannon Landry at PRCSD by Det. J. Kramer on 7/17/04; 2141 hrs 27. Interview of Shannon Landry at Lamar County Sheriff's Jail Facility by Det. J. Kramer on 7/18/04; 1631 hrs 28. Interview of Chris Thomas at 7 Carver Ave. by Det. J. Kramer on 7/21/04: 1215 hrs 29. Interview of Ronald Pinter at Investigations Office in Poplarville by Det. J. Kramer on 8/18/04 On January 12, 2006, this examiner traveled to Mississippi and examined evidence related to this case at the Pearl River County Criminal Justice Center in the presence of Capt. Eric Rocker, PRCSD; Investigator James Runnels of the ODA, 15th Circuit Court Dist.; and Attorney Jim Gray. On that date, this examiner examined and photographed Exhibits 4-6 (without removing them from their clear plastic bag), 9, 12, and 13. This examiner identified a brownish hair approximately 2-3 inches in length on Exhibit 9 (blue pillowcase). This item was collected and packaged into a white envelope, labeled Item BT- 1, and handed to Captain Eric Rocker. On the morning of January 13, 2006, this examiner was present at pretrial interviews of Capt. E. Rocker and Det. J. Kramer in the courtroom at the Pearl River County Criminal Justice Center, conducted at the request of Attorney Jim Gray. On the afternoon of January 13, 2006, this examiner visited the crime scene at 123 Ed Reid Road in Lumberton, MS. This examiner documented the exterior of the residence with measurements and photographs in the presence of representatives from the District Attorney's Office, a representative from the PRCSD, and Attorney Jim Gray. On the evening of January 13, 2006, this examiner re-visited the crime scene and documented the interior with measurements, photographs and video in the presence of Investigator James Runnels of the ODA and Attorney Jim Gray. FINDINGS After a careful review of all of the facts and information provided, it is the opinion of this examiner that: Conclusion #1: Law enforcement efforts to secure and process the crime scene were almost non-existent, and consequently did not meet the minimum national standards for competent forensic practice with respect to adhering to the "fundamental principles of investigating a crime scene and preserving evidence that should be practiced in every case." (TWGCSI, 2000; p.1-2) Conclusion #2: Because of the failure to meet minimum crime scene practice standards, many key items of potentially exculpatory physical evidence were not documented, collected, preserved, or tested. Conclusion #3: The crime scene in this case appears to have been staged to suggest that the shooting occurred outside the residence. Conclusion #4: The available physical evidence in this case is most consistent with the following scenario: a distant gunshot wound delivered by a shooter taller than the decedent, aiming from the area of the back door, while the decedent was standing inside the open front door of the residence at 123 Ed Reid Road. DISCUSSION Conclusion #1: Law enforcement efforts to secure and process the crime scene were almost non-existent, and consequently did not meet the minimum national standards for competent forensic practice with respect to adhering to the "fundamental principles of investigating a crime scene and preserving evidence that should be practiced in every case." (TWGCSI, 2000; p.1-2) These include, but are certainly not limited to, a failure to ensure that the following basic procedures were implemented: a. Failure of first responder (A. Naquin) to "Survey the scene for dangerous persons and control the situation." (p.12) Had this occurred, the decedent's body may have been found and the situation could have been elevated to homicide as much as three hours sooner. As it stands, the body was not located until just before 0300 hrs, by Det. Kramer, who was on scene for at least 2 ½ hours before the body was located. b. Failure to define and control the scene boundaries, and provide a means for protecting and securing the crime scene. "The number of crime scenes and their boundaries are determined by their location(s) and the type of crime. Boundaries shall be established beyond the initial scope of the crime scene(s) with the understanding that the boundaries can be reduced in size if necessary but cannot be as easily expanded." (p.15) This in light of: ? The absence of a perimeter search by both initial responders (A. Naquin & J. Kramer); ? The absence of security tape to identify the area as a crime scene; and ? The absence of a security log to record entry and exit of any personnel. c. Failure to ensure continued scene security and integrity through collection efforts as people and personnel entered and exited the scene. (p.23) d. Failure to identify all witnesses who were at the scene for the purpose of securing an interview. (p.14) ? Larry Bowens was reported to be present during the alleged incident. However, there is no record of him ever being formally interviewed by investigators. ? Wesley Jerome Williams, was allegedly struck twice and injured by the decedent, Arthur Jacobs, who was reported to have been wielding a short length of 2 X 4. However, there is no record of Mr. Williams being formally interviewed by investigators with the other witnesses in this case. e. Failure to secure and separate witnesses to preserve the integrity of their statements. (p.14-15) f. Failure to canvass surrounding areas (p.20). ? Responders A. Naquin & J. Kramer did not survey the outside of the scene for evidence (which would have included bloodstains, the decedent's body, the two bloody masks, and the blue pillowcase containing items from the house). ? There is no record of anyone visiting or even documenting the existence of the second residence on the property, to effect a search for evidence or witnesses. g. Failure to document the precise location and position of all the items at the scene as they were found. (p.16) ? Though photographs of some items were taken, no measurements were taken of any items in the scene. ? Investigative reports give no indication that attempts were made to establish whether items had been moved by anyone before they were photographed. ? There is no photographic documentation or description of the safe that was allegedly robbed. Subsequently it was not processed as evidence. ? No photograph of the rear porch/ door light fixture to show where the bulb had been removed. ? There is no sketch of the crime scene of any kind, smooth, rough, or otherwise. The dimensions of the scene and precise location of any evidence without and without were not documented by law enforcement investigators. h. Failure to document the scene in any adequate fashion (p.24-25) ? No measurements were taken of any evidence to note positions and relationships of evidence in the scene. ? No scales were used to note the size of evidence, with the exception of an ABFO scale showing the length of the injury to Mr. Williams. ? No video of the scene was taken. ? Though Det. Kramer reported that he performed rudimentary trajectory analysis at the scene with short lengths of rod, no measurements, photos or sketches of his examinations or conclusions were made. ? Approximately 119 photographs were taken of the interior and exterior of the scene and vehicles belonging to persons related to this case, mostly close- ups without scale or context. ? Approximately 20 of those scene photographs show the interior of the home. None of these show the front door where the suspects are alleged to have entered by Mr. Williams. None of these show the safe that was allegedly robbed. None of these show the back steps or ground at the rear of the residence where the attacker's allegedly fled. ? There is no documentation by Det. Kramer as to the state of the residence (clean, messy, rifled through, items tossed around, drawers opened). ? There is no documentation of the size and color of pillowcases available in the residence, to determine whether or not one was missing. i. Failure to prioritize and plan out the collection of evidence. Failure to communicate between interior and exterior scene search / processing efforts. (p.26-27) ? A. Naquin did not search the exterior of the residence for evidence or perform a walkthrough of the scene in any fashion. ? Det. Kramer stated that he worked entirely on the interior of the home and did not search it for firearms. He also stated that he performed no search for evidence outside of the home until alerted to something in "the wood line" by a barking dog just before 0300 hrs. He had been onsite for at least 2 ½ hours by that time. ? Captain Rocker, who arrived at approximately 0300 hrs, stated that he concentrated his search efforts on the exterior of residence. He further stated that he did not perform an examination or search of the interior of the scene. He stated that he left that responsibility entirely up to Det. Kramer. j. Failure to collect and preserve evidence (p.27-28): ? Failure to document, collect, and preserve the safe alleged to have been robbed. ? Failure to collect the 2 X 4 alleged to have been used by Arthur Jacobs when attacking Mr. Williams. ? Failure to recognize, collect, preserve, and test potential bloodstain evidence pictured on the coffee table. ? Failure to recognize, collect, preserve, and test potential bloodstain evidence pictured on the tennis shoes of one of the residents at the scene. ? Failure to keep all of the items found in the blue pillowcase, alleged to have been used by the attackers to collect valuables. All of the items in the pillowcase (especially the newspaper, paper, glassware, and currency) should have been kept as evidence and examined for latent prints and trace evidence. Instead, everything was returned to the residents of the home the next day, except the marijuana. ? Failure to formally establish the residence as a crime scene, secure it, and remove its occupants. The residence in this case was treated with disregard other than establishing a portion of the shooting incident, and as such the occupants were allowed to maintain custody of it through the law enforcement scene investigation, which was brief for a homicide. The preceding is not intended as an exhaustive list. Rather it is meant to demonstrate that minimum national standards for competent forensic practice were not met with respect to crime scene processing efforts. This failure represents an overall disregard for adequate crime scene investigation, and a disinterest in corroborating witness statements with the physical evidence. Conclusion #2: Because of the failure to meet minimum crime scene practice standards, many key items of potentially exculpatory physical evidence were not documented, collected, preserved, or tested. a. Failure to process the interior of the scene as the location where the fatal shot occurred, with respect to processing the scene (the front door, the back door, the front and back steps, the ceiling, and the carpet, etc.) for bloodstain patterns. This examination should have been extensive, and would have revealed any high velocity bloodstain patterns from gunshot wounds, low velocity bloodstains from blood dripping off clothing and/ or extremities, and any bloody drag marks that may have been left behind. b. Failure to search the interior of the crime scene for firearms of any kind. c. Failure to recover the projectile lodged in the wall above the bathroom. This examiner located and photographed the location where the projectile came to rest, however it was not recovered, as this would have required a more invasive effort. It is the opinion of this examiner that this projectile should be recovered and ballistic examinations performed to confirm its association with the crime. The location of this projectile is known by Investigator James Runnels of the ODA, who initially located the likely resting place of the projectile. d. The safe that was allegedly robbed was not documented or collected. This should have been photographed, collected and then processed for latent prints and other potential transfer evidence. e. The wooden 2 X 4 was photographed but not otherwise documented or collected. This should have been collected and carefully examined for latent prints, tissue, and hair/ fiber evidence. This to confirm or refute its use as weapon against Mr. Williams at the hands of someone wearing dark gloves. Tissue should be found at the point of impact (given two strikes), and fiber from the assailant's gloves should be embedded in the dry, splintery surface of the wood where it was held. f. There was no search for binding materials allegedly used to bind Terry Wayne Adams. g. There was no search of the residence or property for a white garment from which Exhibits 12 and 13 (white masks with eyeholes and mouth holes) could have been cut. This to exclude the possibility that the garment actually came from the residence. h. Shannon Landry claims to have picked up Robert Grant from the crime scene in her car. The car allegedly owned by Shannon Landry, according to the photo log, was a red Geo Metro. She alleges that Robert Grant entered her vehicle wearing bloody coveralls, after having dragged Arthur Jacobs from near the residence to the tree line. She further alleges that he removed the coveralls while in her vehicle and threw them out the window. If this had occurred, Robert Grant would have blood on his hands and interior forearms that should have transferred onto her vehicle at any one of several points of contact. ? There are four exterior photos and no interior photos of her vehicle. ? This vehicle was not taken into custody and processed for blood or trace evidence. ? Interior photos and processing efforts could have confirmed or refuted the presence of the victim's blood transferred onto any points of contact on the passenger's side. ? Bloody transfer from a 3rd party into this region of her vehicle, on the interior and exterior, would be necessary for her version of events to be true. Conclusion #3: The simulated, or staged, crime scene is that in which evidence has been purposefully altered by an offender to mislead authorities and/or redirect the investigation (Turvey, 2002; p.249). Often, it is the owners or occupants of a residence that stage crime scenes, in order to move investigators away from the obvious conclusion that they were in some manner responsible for the crime that was committed there. The crime scene in this case was staged to appear as though the shooting death of Arthur Joshua occurred outside the residence. This is based on a careful consideration of the following inconsistencies in the evidence: A. According to the report by Det. Kramer, he "discovered that the back porch light had been removed." The light bulb was subsequently located near the back yard door by Capt. Rocker. ? The removal of a porch light bulb by an offender is time-consuming and impractical. It is seen in movies and television but it is uncommon in actual break-ins, especially when the residents are known to be home. ? The light bulb that was collected (Exhibit 8) is pictured in photo #337, covered by the grass. This would require someone placing the bulb into the grass and perhaps even combing grass over it. This is inconsistent with the bulb being dropped, tossed, or thrown. Again, this is time consuming, impractical, difficult to do in the dark, and serves no purpose to a potential home invader aside from increasing their risk of discovery by occupants. ? The back porch light is clearly visible in place, in photo# 339. This is inconsistent with the light having been removed in the first place and requires reconcilement with Det. Kramer's statement in his report. B. According to the statement by Terry Adams, the attacker with the gun "started to try to tie up my hand and that's when my girlfriend and Skipper arrived back home and he broke out." He does not indicate that he was fully tied up, or that his hands were behind his back, or that he was on the floor at any time. According to his girlfriend, Tishma Peralta, she found Adams "on the floor with his hands tied behind his back." She does not indicate what kind of material he was tied with or how he was able to get free. ? There is no documentation of any binding materials found at the scene to confirm that Mr. Adams was tied up. ? There is no documentation of any ligature marks or other injuries to Mr. Adams' wrists that would be present if his hands had indeed been bound behind his back. ? According to the Trace Evidence reports by the Mississippi Crime Laboratory dated June 13, 2005, Terry Adams is the only person in the residence who tested positive for gunshot residue, on his left palm. C. Tishma Peralta claims to have seen two men invading the home. She states that one of them was wearing a white mask with big eyeholes through which she could see his black skin. Ultimately, she states that she sees "the other dude" "run out" after "busting out the back door." This was accomplished, according to her statement, with some force and difficulty. This is when she claims to hear the final gunshot. It is unclear where the shooter is standing in her version of events (inside or outside the residence). Notably: ? She does not describe the exit of the man wearing the white mask (Arthur Joshua). ? If an assailant had to "bust out" or break out of the back door once he had already gained entry into the residence, this would indicate that it was closed and locked. It would certainly not be necessary to "bust out" of a door that one had used to gain entry. This statement by Ms. Peralta precludes the use of the back door as a point of entry. ? There is no documentation or indication that heavy force was used to break or "bust" the back door open from the inside. Upon close examination of photograph #53, the door appears to undamaged from the inside. D. Wesley Jerome Williams alleges that someone entered through the front door and then struck him twice in the head with a wooden 2 X 4, telling him to get down on the floor. Only one injury was documented related to the attack on Mr. Williams - a minor reddening of the scalp in a single linear pattern consistent with at least one of the edges of the 2 X4 (see photo # 56). The following inconsistencies are noted: ? There is only one minor injury to Mr. Williams' forehead, and no other reported injuries to his body. ? There is an absence of swelling in the area of the injury, which would be expected with a heavy blow to the head using a 2 X 4, and the passage of time. At least an hour, if not more, had passed before this photograph could have been taken. ? There is an absence of hemorrhage beneath the skin, which would be expected with a heavy blow to the head using a wooden 2 X 4. ? On close inspection of the photograph, there is an absence of splinters transferred to Mr. Williams' scalp, or injuries from splinters, which would be expected given the condition of the 2 X 4 and the severity of the blow. E. Two bloody white masks were recovered from the scene. Tishma Peralta did not report seeing an assailant that wore two masks. She reported the intruder that she saw, up close, was wearing a white mask with big eyeholes. Only one assailant is known to have been injured in this case, and consequently only one mask should have been found with blood on it. This inconsistent finding begs further examination and investigation. F. Only some of the items allegedly taken from the safe and placed into the blue pillowcase have value to a thief (the cash, the marijuana, perhaps the pipe/ papers, the coins, the wallet, and the GPS). However, the personal note, two drink coasters, a Crown Royale bag, a film container, and the set of glasses w/ glass tray have no value on the street. Taking these items makes little or no sense from the perspective of profit. ? It should be noted that the content of the Crown Royale bag is not documented. ? It should be noted that the content of the film container is not documented. ? It should be noted that there was apparently a white container recovered from the blue pillowcase with the contents undocumented. G. The glass contents of the blue pillowcase were carefully wrapped with newspaper prior to being placed inside. The advertisements on the newspaper used to wrap these items are consistent with the advertisements on the newspaper from the table in the living room at the crime scene (see photo #54). This supports the conclusion that the items were carefully wrapped at the scene. This activity was not described by any of the witnesses interviewed in this case. H. Tishma Peralta, Skipper, and Wesley Jerome Williams would have to be in the living room when the shot that killed Arthur Joshua was fired, ricocheted off the front door, and landed on the couch (detailed in Conclusion #4). There is no documentation that any one of these three individuals suggested this event to investigators. This omission is a logical break in the known sequence of events and must be resolved. I. The victim was shot through the lungs and trachea. His lungs would have collapsed and he would be spitting blood on the inside of his mask, making it difficult to stand, walk, or see. This makes an unassisted exit from the residence unlikely. His body would have to be carried or dragged from the inside of the residence to where it was ultimately found outside. Conclusion #4: The available physical evidence in this case is most consistent with the following scenario: a distant gunshot wound delivered by a shooter taller than the decedent, aiming from the area of the back door, while the decedent was standing inside the open front door of the residence at 123 Ed Reid Road. Facts in support of this conclusion include: A. No projectiles were located outside of the residence. B. No shell casings were located outside of the residence. C. The third unknown bullet path mentioned by Det. Kramer in his report was described to this examiner by the current male juvenile resident of the home, and established by this examiner at the scene, in the presence of Investigator James Runnels of the ODA. This examiner documented the male juvenile's version of events on video #MVI_756 dated January 13, 2006. It is consistent with the known facts in the case. ? Only three 9mm projectiles were located in the crime scene after an exhaustive search by Det. Kramer. ? As seen in photo #37, only three discharged 9mm shell casings were recovered inside the crime scene, and were all found in the same general area. ? Two bullet paths lead to the right of the back door, down the hall into the back room. One of these projectiles was recovered and one remains located in the wall above the bathroom, as previously noted. The firearm was pointed in that direction when discharged, and the shell casings ejected to the right. They apparently hit the wall and dropped to the floor. These bullet paths are described in Det. Kramer's report, and are consistent with someone shooting at low downward angle, not at a specific item or target. ? The third and previously unknown bullet path leads into the living room from the area of the back door. The projectile (Exhibit 5) was fired into the living room area, ricocheted sideways off of the open front door approximately 2inches from the top, and landed on the couch were it was eventually located, photographed, and collected by Det. Kramer. E. The available evidence suggests that the 9mm projectile that was fired into Arthur Jacobs was fired at a distance. ? No tattooing, smudging, or flame injury is noted on the skin or the clothing. For this entrance wound to be near contact, this would need to be evident. With this excluded, the only other possibility is a distant shot, as suggested by the autopsy report. ? The pattern injuries around the gunshot entrance wound are similar to the other pattern injuries on the rest of the body caused by post mortem insect activity (ant bites). F. The available evidence suggests that the 9mm projectile that was fired into the living room (Exhibit 5) is the most likely to have fatally wounded Arthur Jacobs. ? The 9mm projectile that was fired into the living room (Exhibit 5) was determined to have blood on it, and according to the report by Reliagene dated 7/27/05, the partial DNA profile of the blood on Exhibit 5 is consistent with the DNA profile of the victim, Arthur Joshua. ? It is unlikely that a distant gunshot wound would be possible outdoors, with little or no light for the shooter to see their target. ? There is absolutely no physical evidence to support the conclusion that the shooting took place outside (no shell casing, high velocity bloodstain patterns, projectiles, etc.). ? Arthur Jacobs would be standing in the living room, in a path between the front door and the back door, in order to be inflicting any injuries on Wesley Jerome Williams. The ricochet impression in the open front door would be behind him. Tishma Peralta and Mr. Williams suggest this general location of Arthur Jacobs in their statements. ? The projectile entered Arthur Jacobs at a downward angle, indicating a shooter that is taller than him. ? According to the autopsy report, the projectile "is noted to course through the chest was fracturing the anterior [front] 1st left rib, perforating the left lung grazing the trachea … and then perforated the right lung before fracturing the lateral [side] 4th rib. The projectile is noted to course through the right upper extremity and is consistent with the extremity raised." This means that the victim had at least one of his arms up when he was shot. ? For the projectile to have exited the victim's body with his right arm raised, it would have been on an upward angle, in response to ricocheting off of the fractured 4th lateral rib. Consistent with a ricochet as opposed to a straight trajectory, the autopsy report notes that the exit wound is "irregular". This could easily put the projectile on a path consistent with striking the top of the open front door. ? It bears mentioning that raised arms are not the norm for an aggressor, but they are the norm for someone who sees a gun pointed at them from a known threat. This would not be possible outside in the dark. ? There is a potential bloodstain pattern on the table in the living room, around and beneath the uncollected wooden 2 X 4, that was not recognized, documented, collected, or tested. See photo # 54. ? The Mississippi Crime Lab Bioscience/ DNA report on the spent projectile in the living room (Exhibit 5) came back positive with respect for a screening test for blood. The sample was preserved for confirmatory DNA testing but never tested. It should be noted that the gun used to commit this crime was not recovered. Consequently the actual model and origin of the firearm that was used has not been established. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. ______________________________ Brent Turvey, MS – Forensic Science References Technical Working Group on Crime Scene Investigation (TWGCSI) "Crime Scene Investigation: A Guide for Law Enforcement," National Institute of Justice, January 2000 Turvey B. "Staged Crime Scenes" in Turvey, B. (Ed) (2002) Criminal Profiling: An Introduction to Behavioral Evidence Analysis, 2nd Ed., London: Elsevier Science Appendix 1 - Measurements Taken by Examiner at Crime Scene (123 Ed Reid Road) Exterior 76 ft 9½ in. Length of Trailer 15ft 9½ in. Width of Trailer 25ft. 7in. Distance from driveway side of trailer to center of back doorknob. 48ft 3in Length of front porch 10ft. 2½ in Width of front porch 133ft Approximate distance from the approximate location where the pillowcase was found to the approximate location where the body was found. 0.1 mile Approximate distance from top of driveway (Ed Reid Road) to the body. 0.3 miles Approximate distance from top of driveway to the old church on Ed Reid Road. 0.6 miles Distance from driveway to HW 13 at end of Ed Reid Road. 5 miles Approximate distance from the top of the driveway to the City Limits of Lumberton. 5.4 miles Approximate distance from the top of the driveway to the first 25 mph speed marker in the City of Lumberton. Interior 15ft 4in Distance from center of doorknob in front door to wall at end of (South) hallway adjacent to front door. 3ft 1in Width of (South) hallway adjacent to front door. 4ft 8in Wall to South bedroom door 10ft 4in L X 10ft 4in W Dimensions of far (2nd) south bedroom at rear of trailer 7ft 4in L X 10ft 4in W Dimensions of 1st south bedroom adjacent to front door 15ft W X 15ft 3in L Dimensions of Living Room area with two couches 14ft L X 15ft W Dimensions of kitchen area 10ft 7in Distance from center of doorknob in back door to wall at end of (North) hallway adjacent to back door 3ft 7in Width of (North) hallway adjacent to back door 10ft 7in L X 10ft 4in W Dimensions of 1st North bedroom adjacent to front door 1ft 1½in down to 10½in High and low measurement of bullet path on hallway wall across from back door. Starts high near back door, ends low towards end of hallway. 10ft 6½in L X 10ft 4in W Dimensions of 2nd North bedroom at rear of trailer 8ft 8in W X 5ft 9in L Dimensions of bathroom at rear of 2nd North Bedroom 1ft 3¾in Bullet hole in 2nd North bedroom door measured from the floor. 1ft 2in Exterior bullet hole in wall next to North bedroom door from the floor. 1ft 3¾in Interior bullet hole in wall next to North bedroom door from the floor. 7ft 1in Bullet hole at top of 2nd North bedroom wall penetrating in the direction of the bathroom, measured from the floor. Appendix 2 – Recommendations for forensic testing As indicated in this report, there are a number of items that beg further forensic testing to confirm or refute essential elements of this case. This examiner strongly recommends at least the following: 1. BT-1, a single hair collected from Exhibit 9, the blue pillowcase, should be examined by the trace evidence section to establish contact and possible ownership. If it is not a Negroid hair, this excludes Arthur Jacobs and Robert Grant. It could also be used to suggest that the pillowcase was owned by someone else. 2. Exhibits 12 and 13, the bloody white masks with eye and mouth cutouts, should be DNA tested with respect to epithelial cells from saliva on the interior of the mouth holes to establish whether they were actually worn and used in the course of the alleged invasion. 3. Brown Coveralls recovered from HWY 13, Exhibit No. Unknown, should be examined for blood in the area of the exterior wrists and forearms to establish whether there is contact consistent with dragging Arthur Joshua. 4. Brown Coveralls recovered from HWY 13, Exhibit No. Unknown, should be DNA tested with respect to epithelial cells from sweat in the area of the interior wristbands to establish more precisely who has worn these coveralls. 5. The interior of the residence at 123 Ed Reid Road should be examined with blood enhancement reagent to determine the location, nature, and origin of any bloodstain evidence to include high velocity patterns, low velocity drops, and drag marks. This includes examination of the walls, ceilings, and the carpet in the living room (both on the surface and underneath. 6. The interior of Shannon Landry's vehicle, the red Geo Metro, should be examined with blood enhancement reagent to determine the location, nature, and origin of any bloodstain evidence. This to confirm or refute her version of events that evening. Brent E. Turvey, MS MS v. Robert Grant – Page 1