California v. Douglas S. Mouser

State of California v. Douglas S. Mouser
County of Stanislaus, Case No. 139818

In this case, a man named Douglas Mouser was tried for the murder of Genna Lyn Gamble, his step-daughter. Her nude body was found along Dry Creek near Waterford, CA on October 14, 1995. She had been strangled to death.

The state theorized, based on the speculations of detectives and a DOJ Profiler, Michael J. Prodan, that Doug Mouser first killed Genna Gamble at their home in Modesto and then drove her body 20-30 minutes away to dispose of it, likely after she had taken a shower (this, they argued, explained her nudity). There was no evidence of a crime at the Gamble residence. And there was no evidence of Doug Mouser's involvement with the crime at all. During the entire five month trial, only one piece of associative physical evidence was offered by the prosecution: a mark on her leg examined by an expert named Gary Robertson (a photogrammatrist). He testified that this mark was identical to the pattern on the seatbelts in Doug Mouser's car, which he argued supported the prosecution's theory.

However, Mr. Robertson was alone in his opinions. Every other forensic expert that testified on this issue concluded that Mr. Robertson's interpretations had no legitimate basis, and/ or the pattern on her leg was consistent with an underwear mark. This included Dr. John Thornton (defense criminalist); John Yoshida (DOJ criminalist, testifying for the prosecution); Dr. Robert Lawrence (forensic pathologist who conducted the autopsy, testifying for the prosecution); and Dr. James R. Williamson (an expert in photogrammetry with a PhD in Engineering, who has trained the FBI in image analysis, testifying for the defense).

Even when the prosecution attempted to have Mr. Roberston's findings validated by the FBI's Image Analysis Unit, they reported in essence that Mr. Roberston had overstated his findings. As part of their report, they explained that Mr. Robertson had not done anything to exclude other sources for the pattern on Genna Gamble's leg. They further reported, in essence, that he did not apparently understand the difference between class evidence and individuating evidence.

It should also be noted that Mr. Robertson did not have a professional CV, and was unable to define the term forensic science when asked to do so by the defense.

On Monday, December 20th, 1999, the jury convicted Douglas Mouser of murdering his 14-year-old stepdaughter. - Article -

"Experience is neither a liability nor an enemy of the truth; it is a valuable commodity, but it should not be used as a mask to deflect legitimate scientific scrutiny, the sort of scrutiny that customarily is leveled at scientific evidence of all sorts. To do so is professionally bankrupt and devoid of scientific legitimacy, and courts would do well to disallow testimony of this sort. Experience ought to be used to enable the expert to remember the when and the how, why, who, and what. Experience should not make the expert less responsible, but rather more responsible for justifying an opinion with defensible scientific facts."

-Thornton, John I., "The General Assumptions And Rationale Of Forensic Identification," for David L. Faigman, David H. Kaye, Michael J. Saks, & Joseph Sanders, Editors, Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law And Science Of Expert Testimony, Volume 2, (St. Paul: West Publishing Co., 1997)

Expert Testimony:

SA Michael J. Prodan (for the prosecution)

October 19, 1999: Direct Examination

October 19, 1999: Cross Examination, pt 1

October 19, 1999: Cross Examination, pt 2

Testified to the following:

The profilers at the FBI Academy in Quantico are advisors only;

He is not a forensic scientist, nor does he know what Locard's Exchange Principle is;

Crime scene evidence and victimology are important parts of crime analysis;

He did not review much of the available victim information, including the fact that her brother dealt drugs out of the home, and that she had been spending time with and courting two sex offenders;

He did not visit the crime scene;

He reviewed only 15 of the several hundred crime scene and autopsy photos;

He did not review Dr. Thornton's crime reconstruction of the case;

Genna Gamble was a low risk victim;

Genna Gamble was most likely killed by someone who knew her;

Genna Gamble likely first encountered her attacker in her home.

Note: No relevant case facts were offered to support any of the opinions provided by Mr. Prodan. Rather, the basis for his opinions was stated simply as being derived from his education, training, and experience.

Dr. John I. Thornton (for the defense)

November 9, 1999: Day 1 - coming soon

November 10, 1999: Day 2- coming soon

Thornton, Crime Scene Reconstruction Report

Testified to the following:

Genna Gamble was likely killed at or near the location where her body was found;

The pattern on Genna Gamble's leg is most consistent with the elastic from her underwear;

Photogrammatrist Gary Robertson's interpretation of the pattern on Genna Gamble's leg has no legitimate basis.

Brent E. Turvey, MS (for the defense)

November 18, 1999: Day 1

November 19, 1999: Day 2

Turvey, Written Proffer

Testified to the following:

Examined all of the material related to the victim provided by discovery;

Examined all of the forensic examinations and reports generated by defense and prosecution criminalists;

Reviewed all of the photographs as well the crime scene video;

Visited the crime scene twice - once with Dr. Thornton;

Genna Gamble was likely killed at or near the location where her body was found;

Genna Gamble was at a high risk of being the victim of a violent crime;

The likely relationship between victim and offender is a profiling opinion, and should not be given when profiling opinions are disallowed by the court.

There are many unexplained sexual aspects to the circumstances of Genna Gamble's death, and no evidence of profit or anger motivation in the crime scene.

The findings of Michael Prodan are, even by his own standards, woefully incomplete and underinformed.