Michael Benson's True Crime Bundle

by Michael Benson

The photo was entered into evidence.

  Other pieces of evidence were introduced and Watts identified all—shovel, heart ring, flashlight, blanket, and jacket—as those found in the Camaro. Yes, they were in the same condition as when she first saw them. Well, the shovel was a little different. There had been more dirt adhering to the spade, but some had flaked off.

  When introducing the ring into evidence, O’Donnell reminded the jury that it had been stipulated that the ring belonged to Denise Lee.

  Was anything else found in the car? Yes, a cell phone battery, presumably pulled from its home to prevent the victim from further communication with the outside world.

  Yes, the phone and battery were checked for fingerprints, yielded more partial prints. Once again, Watts used black powder, superglue, tape, and a card to collect the evidence.

  “Okay, let’s shift gears for a moment and talk about trace evidence,” O’Donnell said. “What exactly are we talking about when we use that term, ‘trace evidence’?”

  “That refers to hairs or fibers that might be pertinent to who committed a crime.”

  “And how is trace evidence collected?”

  “We use a sheet of clear plastic. One side is sticky and we tap it down over an area. It is then lifted—the trace evidence adhering to it—and taken to the lab to be examined.”

  “And did you collect trace evidence from the defendant’s automobile?”

  “Yes, from the backseat.”

  O’Donnell switched subjects again. After collecting evidence from the car, when was Watts next involved with this case? It was 12:45 A.M., January 18, when she photographed the defendant on the second floor of the NPPD. The witness positively identified photos as those she had taken. They were projected so the jury could see. These photos showed Michael King wearing a camouflage shirt, jeans, and black sneakers. There was dirt on the jeans, especially at the knees, and across the bottoms.

  At 8:45 A.M., January 18, Watts reported to King’s house and was briefed on the incident and scope of the search warrant by Detective Christopher Morales. She made a videotape of the house, thoroughly capturing the exterior. After entering through the sliding door at the back, she videotaped the interior of the house as well. That tape was shown for the jury, with Watts offering narration. Between the exterior and interior shots, the camera was paused for a moment as Watts put her “detective equipment on”—booties, gloves, and plastic suit—to prevent crime scene contamination. She noted that with the exception of a television in the front room and a chair in the master bedroom, the house was without furniture. On the videotape’s audio, one could hear considerable background noise. She explained that the TV was on, with the volume turned way up. To further create a cacophony, a clock radio on the bedroom floor played music with the volume cranked.

  This had been done presumably to mask any suspicious noises—screams for help, for example.

  A floor plan of King’s house was shown to the jurors so the jury panel could better visualize where things in the home were in relation to one another. There were several mirrors on one wall, but one had been removed. There was a bar area in the kitchen, and on that bar was a roll of duct tape.

  The videotape showed the drawers and the area under the sink in the kitchen being searched. On the kitchen counter was a pizza box, as well as a small pile of mail addressed to King.

  “Did you find anything of interest in the kitchen area?” O’Donnell inquired.

  “Yes, inside a garbage bag in the kitchen pantry, I found a ball of duct tape with long hairs adhering to it.”

  O’Donnell introduced that duct tape into evidence, explaining that it was no longer balled up because it needed to be flattened for crime lab testing. It had been white and gray when the witness first saw it, but it had picked up blackish spots during testing. Despite the change in appearance, Watts could positively ID it as the same tape she discovered in the garbage bag, because she had dated and initialed the bag it was stored in. The chain of evidence from discovery until the present was intact.

  After processing the defendant’s kitchen, Watts did the master bedroom, where the items she observed included the previously mentioned chair and clock radio, another wad of tape, a blanket with Winnie-the-Pooh on it, and another blanket that had been tacked up over the window. One long-sleeved shirt was also bagged as evidence.

  Next she processed the bathroom, which had a walk-in closet. In there, she found a circular piece of elastic such as what might be used to tie a woman’s hair back, and a mirror that was not attached to the wall, but rather rested on the floor and against the wall at an angle.

  Judge Economou reminded the jury that it had been stipulated by the prosecution and defense that the hair ties found in Michael King’s house were “the same type” as those usually worn by Denise Lee.

  The witness was shown the Winnie-the-Pooh blanket, which she identified as the same one, in the same condition as when found, with the exception of some crime lab markings.

  Next evidence was a piece of carpet that had been cut out from the defendant’s floor. Watts ID’d that piece of rug, and it was entered into evidence.

  “Why was the rug taken as evidence?”

  “I noticed on that section of rug what appeared to be bodily fluids of some sort,” the witness said.

  “Were those stains visible to the naked eye?” O’Donnell asked.

  “No, we looked at the rug first with an alternative light source, which made the stains easier to see.”

  “When you say ‘alternative lighting’?”

  “Black light. It makes hairs, fibers, and stains more visible. We look through a pair of orange glasses when using the alternative light source.”

  “And using the glasses and black light, the fibers and stains fluoresced?”

  “Yes.”

  “And after seeing these things on the rug and cutting the carpet up for removal, this evidence was sent to the crime lab?”

  “Yes.”

  “After seizing and processing evidence at the defendant’s home, what was your next involvement with this case?”

  “On January twentieth, I was called to a location off Plantation Boulevard very near to where the body was found. A shell casing had been discovered,” the witness replied. When she got there, she had no trouble finding the casing, as a small flag had been placed there to indicate the location.

  O’Donnell projected a photo in which the casing and flag were visible. Watts said yes, that was just the way it looked. The casing was partially covered by dirt, which Watts took to mean that it had rained since the casing was dropped at that spot.

  “Did you lift prints from the casing?”

  “No prints were found.”

  “While you were at the scene, did you see a tree you found interesting?”

  A sidebar was immediately called and the witness was never allowed to answer the question. O’Donnell tried to undermine the defense’s now predictable cross-examination with her next line of questioning. Did the witness search King’s entire house? Yes. Find a nine-millimeter gun? No.

  That concluded Suzanne O’Donnell’s direct examination of the criminalistics specialist, and the day’s testimony. Judge Economou ordered everyone back first thing in the morning.

  Following the second day of testimony, Nate Lee said he was concerned about Denise’s legacy. “I want her to be remembered for the person she was and all of the things she did to get this person caught. Hopefully convicted. I don’t want her to be remembered for the horrifying 911 call that she made.”

  Ah, but Denise Lee had left a trail of bread crumbs that led police to her killer, and the 911 call was the biggest crumb of all.

  CHAPTER 17

  DAY THREE

  Come morning, Cortnie Watts returned to the stand, where she was cross-examined by Jerry Meisner.

  “You are aware that there is such a thing as contamination of evidence, right?”

  “Yes.”

  “Transfer contamination?”

/>   “Yes.”

  “Walking from here to there, I might pick up hairs and fibers, or deposit them. Isn’t that correct?”

  “Yes.”

  “And trace evidence I might have picked up in my home this morning, I might now deposit here in the courtroom?”

  “Yes.”

  “Now, when you reported to the house on Latour Avenue, there were already police there when you arrived?”

  “Yes.”

  He showed the witness a fingerprint recovered at the Lee home and asked if she recognized it. She didn’t, as it wasn’t one she personally lifted. Meisner asked how that could be, and she replied that at the scene were criminalistics specialists from several law enforcement agencies, including the FDLE.

  “Who lifted this print? Was it someone named Justin Rogers?”

  “I don’t know. I would have to look at the card.”

  “Okay, here.”

  “This print was lifted by FDLE employee Justin Rogers,” she said.

  Meisner asked her about another print, not lifted by her, and she had to read the card to know who lifted that one as well. Another was signed by a P. S. Bauman. Meisner asked Watts how many FDLE employees were at the Latour Avenue scene and she said she did not know.

  Meisner then set out to show that even given the evidence that she herself discovered, her search for fingerprints was less than exhaustive. She had dusted the gas can, but not the flashlight; a wooden banister from the car, but not the shovel.

  “Before entering the home on Sardinia, you say you donned protective equipment, correct?”

  “Yes.”

  “Were you the first member of law enforcement to enter that home?”

  “No.”

  “Did the members of law enforcement who entered the house before you don the protective garb?”

  “I don’t know.”

  Meisner forced the witness to admit that not all of the search for evidence was timely. The cell phone and battery found in the Camaro, for example, were not dusted for prints until months after the murder. Watts had to check notes to recall that the cell phone was processed for prints on April 9, 2008; the battery was on June 11.

  “Okay, I’d like to go back to January seventeenth again, all right?”

  “Yes.”

  “On that day, you took photos of tire marks outside the Latour Avenue home, correct?”

  “Yes. There was a sandy area on the driveway and road where prints were visible.”

  Yes, she’d also made ink tire prints of the defendant’s car not long after it was seized. Yes, the photos, ink prints, and the actual ties from the Camaro were sent to the FDLE.

  “During the course of this case, was there ever an occasion when you went to the home of Harold Muxlow to process that scene?”

  “No.”

  Did she go to the home of Robert Salvador? No. Did she ever search for evidence in Robert Salvador’s storage unit? No. Did she at any time search for and process evidence in and on Robert Salvador’s car? No.

  “No further questions, Your Honor,” Meisner said.

  The state had no questions on redirect, and the witness was excused.

  The state called Pamela Schmidt, who was questioned by Suzanne O’Donnell. Schmidt testified that she’d been a criminalistics specialist since 2003. To earn that position with the NPPD, she had taken seven hundred hours of training, learning how to collect and preserve the integrity of evidence. Regarding this case, it had been her duty to process the defendant’s body. This process had taken place at five-thirty in the morning on January 18, 2008, in interview room number 2 at the NPPD. Also in the room were two detectives. The defendant’s clothing, which she seized, included a green camouflage shirt, jeans, underwear, and sneakers. The jeans were muddy and dirty from the knees down; while not dripping, they were still cold and damp. There was mud on the sneakers, especially at the toes and on the laces. She was shown the jeans and identified them as those that the defendant wore. Although they were now dry, the mud on them was still visible.

  Schmidt, along with others, participated in the search and seizure of items at Michael King’s house, beginning at 9:30 A.M. on January 18. It was also her sad duty to attend the victim’s autopsy at 8:30 A.M. on January 20. She processed the swabs made by Dr. Daniel Schultz from the victim’s mouth, vagina, and anus—inside and outside. That evidence was catalogued carefully and placed inside envelopes provided by the medical examiner’s office. She photographed the body during various stages of the autopsy, and she noticed that when the victim’s head was lifted so the back of the head could be photographed, there were pieces of gray duct tape still sticking to the hair. One was longer than the other and went from ear to ear across the back. That tape was carefully removed and was photographed before it was packaged. O’Donnell now showed this evidence to the witness, who identified each piece. They were all in the same condition as when she first saw them, with the exception of certain markings that were made by the lab and the remnants of black fingerprint powder clinging to the tape. During the autopsy, Schmidt fingerprinted the body, so her prints could be easily identified when found at the various crime scenes. The prints, once taken, were packaged and sent to the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS). The witness was shown those prints and identified them as those she’d taken at the autopsy.

  Schmidt’s next involvement with the case came on January 22, 2008, when she reported to the site, not far from the burial site, where a bra strap, men’s boxer shorts, and ladies’ red underwear had been discovered. When she arrived at the scene, those clothes items had not yet been touched or moved. Officers were standing around the scene, but none had disrupted the evidence.

  The jurors were shown an aerial photograph that showed both the burial site and where the clothes were found, so the jury panel could appreciate the proximity.

  “Lieutenant Fitzpatrick was there?”

  “Yes, he’s the one who asked for me.”

  Schmidt had photographed the items from every possible angle. The jury was shown a sampling of the photos, and Schmidt verified that she created those images. The item that was hardest to see was the bra strap, which was slung over a tree branch.

  “At that time, did you know that these items of clothing belonged to Denise Lee?”

  “No.”

  Schmidt was shown the bagged items of clothing and identified them as the same as those she’d seized on January 22. Judge Economou informed the jury that the prosecution and defense had stipulated that though Nate Lee did not identify the red panties as belonging to his wife, he did say they were of the same size and type as those she wore. The boxer shorts he did identify as a pair of his that his wife enjoyed wearing.

  Later, when Schmidt was called back to the site, there was excavation equipment there “skimming” the area, clearing the brush, to make any evidence easier to find. This process bore fruit. One time the claw came up and a shirt was visible, still half under the ground.

  She ID’d photos of the shirt sticking out of the ground as those she took. She’d used a small spade to dig out the shirt, seizing and bagging, along with the shirt, a large chunk of the dirt around it. She was shown a bag with a shirt and soil in it and positively ID’d it.

  The bra was found last. More photos, more identifying, plus a stipulation that Nate Lee had ID’d the bra and shirt as belonging to his wife. Schmidt found the serial number and size of the discovered bra and contacted the manufacturer to acquire a photo of a pristine version of the same bra, which was then shown to the victim’s husband for identification. O’Donnell concluded her questioning.

  John Scotese handled the short cross-examination, in which he implied that rape kit results were subject to contamination and that law enforcement was so tunnel-visioned regarding Michael King’s guilt that they failed to collect hair samples from other men who might have been involved.

  The prosecution recalled Harold Muxlow, this time to ask only one question: what type of shirt was King w
earing when he saw him on January 17? Muxlow said it was a white shirt with some sort of design on it. There was no cross-examination.

  Detective Michael Saxton testified that he was an NPPD trainer and a CSI who began working crime scenes in 2001. From 2003 through 2009, he’d headed up his own CSI team. In July 2009, he became a CSI trainer. As a rule, he only reported to crime scenes when Cortnie Watts and Pamela Schmidt were off duty. Yes, he did work this case. He was called in to process the Camaro while it was still pulled over on the shoulder of the interstate. He dusted the exterior and discovered a partial palm print on the outside of the driver’s-side window. He carefully used tape to lift that print and put it on a card, which was sent to the lab.

  On the evening of January 18, Saxton took samples from the defendant’s person. A warrant had been secured allowing law enforcement to take swabs of DNA samples from Michael King, who was completing his first full day of residence at the Sarasota County Jail. Saxton took evidence from the insides of King’s cheeks, from both sides of his hands, and from his groin area. Asked if he saw in the courtroom the man from whom he took the DNA samples, Saxton said he did. He pointed out the defendant, identifying King as the “man in the yellow shirt.”

  After that jail visit, Saxton went to a firing range, where he met with a man named Robert Salvador.

  “What did you do when you arrived?”

  He’d asked Robert Salvador to show him the area where he and King had been target shooting before the murder. Once there, he picked up shell casings. He took the casings from an area on the far side of a sidewalk from the targets, where casings are regularly swept. He discovered at that location casings for a nine-millimeter Luger Winchester.

  “Did you pick up all of the shell casings you saw?”

  “No, just the nine-millimeter [ones].”

  Saxton was shown an evidence bag containing shell casings, and the witness identified them as the casings he had discovered at the gun range.

  During cross-examination, Saxton admitted that he had no way of knowing how long the nine-millimeter shell casings from the gun range had been there.