Evidence of Murder

by Samuel Roen

  “I did not see any indication,” Dr. Gore answered in a quiet but firm voice.

  Ashton stepped back from the podium and in a clear, strong voice asked, “Based upon your examination in this case, do you have an opinion as to the cause of death of Carla Larson?”

  The courtroom grew totally silent, awaiting the doctor’s response. “Yes, sir” was the firm, positive answer. “Yes, sir.”

  Ashton asked, “And what is that opinion?”

  “In my opinion,” Dr. Gore began, aware of how important his answer would be, “the cause of death in this particular case is asphyxiation.” He halted to define what he meant. “That is the common word, meaning depriving of oxygen to the human body as a result of severe neck injury and strangulation. So when that is inflicted, naturally the fresh oxygen to the body is curtailed, and that is the state we call asphyxiation, asphyxia.”

  Ashton questioned the doctor: “Is it possible scientifically for you to give a precise time of death?”

  Gore shook his head emphatically. “No.”

  Ashton tried again. “Based upon what you saw, is it possible to give estimates as to whether certain dates and times are consistent with being the time of death?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  The prosecutor asked, “Would what you saw be consistent with Carla Larson dying sometime between noon and one on June 10, 1997?”

  “It is not inconsistent with that.”

  Ashton continued: “Would, in fact, the potential time of death be much broader than that hour?”

  “Yes, sir. That’s the reason that we gave the cause of death that early time, from noon to maybe two or three o’clock. But we can’t be a hundred percent certain. Nobody can, in fact.”

  For the record Jeff Ashton had achieved a reasonable time frame of the actual killing.

  Bob Wesley rose and strode commandingly to the podium. He initiated a series of detailed questions about antemortem and postmortem trauma, Gore’s record keeping, taking of photographs and how the ME went about making his tests.

  The lawyer asked a preponderance of questions, in hopes of countering the accuracy of the medical testimony.

  Wesley asked, “Dr. Gore, another test that you performed is to remove a semen sample from the vagina of Ms. Larson, is that correct?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “And that was obtained with a swab?”

  “Correct.”

  “And the purpose of taking that sample was for testing or comparison, correct, sir?”

  The doctor agreed.

  Wesley asked the doctor the procedure of how the work was done, if he was the person who retrieved the sample or if it was done under his direction. “Was it the standard pathological exam?”

  The doctor answered yes.

  Strangely, Wesley did not pursue this line, especially since the investigation found that the semen taken from Carla’s body did not match Huggins’s. Testing determined that it was from her husband, Jim Larson.

  Wesley asked a series of detailed questions about trauma to the genital area, which Dr. Gore answered fully.

  Wesley added, “And there was no trauma to the perianal region, is that correct?”

  “That is correct.”

  Wesley moved their attention to defensive wounds.

  “Doctor,” Wesley asked, “when you examined Ms. Larson’s body, you did not find any broken fingernails, did you?”

  When Gore told him that was correct, Wesley continued: “There was no skin or debris underneath the fingernails, is that correct?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “Nothing,” Wesley went on, “to indicate that there had been a struggle, that she used her hands to defend herself, is that correct?”

  This disclosure brought a buzz of whispers among the people attending: “Where was Wesley heading? Was he implying that Carla didn’t try to fight back? Why didn’t she? Maybe, for whatever reason, she wasn’t able to defend herself?” they asked. Judge Perry rapped his gavel, silencing the noisy comments.

  The doctor thought for a moment and then stated, “My findings only tell me that I did not find anything between the nails and the finger beds. Now, whether it was washed off, whether it went off, we don’t know. But my finding is that I did not see anything, any skin tags, blood or fiber.”

  “Okay, Dr. Gore, when you do your work, when you go to a crime scene, isn’t one of the procedures that you place bags over the hands of the victim?”

  When Gore agreed, Wesley asked, “What is the purpose of placing bags over the hands?”

  “The reason is simple. That we should not lose any trace evidence.”

  “And that is because your job is to collect, preserve, every bit of evidence, correct? So the hands of Ms. Larson would have been bagged at the scene, correct? Could you have put bags over the feet also?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  Wesley, satisfied that he made points about evidence, continued asking detailed questions about defensive wounds, blood discoloration, abrasions.

  One of the issues that defense raised involved the question of breast cancer, which Ashton vehemently objected to, arguing, “It isn’t relevant to this case.”

  After heated discussions Judge Perry agreed.

  Despite Judge Perry’s ruling on the breast cancer issue, Bob Wesley continued to bring up irrelevant issues with the clear intention to confuse and complicate the proceedings.

  Ultimately Dr. Shashi Gore’s testimony concluded and he stepped down from the stand, obviously tired and glad to be finished.

  After Ashton and Culhan gathered their files and papers together and secured them for the night, they went to dinner to unwind from the pressures of the day.

  “I don’t know about you, Ted, but I’m bushed,” Ashton said as they looked over the dinner menu.

  Culhan held up his thumb in agreement. “What are you going to have, Jeff? I think we earned a good dinner.” He smiled.

  “I’ll stick with a steak.”

  “Me too. Can’t go wrong with that.”

  While they waited for their food to arrive, Ashton said, “I don’t think today would have been so intense if our friend Shashi Gore were not so thorough and meticulous. He does run on sometimes.”

  “Hey, he was a great witness. I agree that he tends to be a bit too technical sometimes, but overall he presented his information and was very effective.”

  “He always is,” Ashton agreed. “He’s a nice guy and you can depend on him to do an excellent job. He knows his business. But he can wear you out.” Ashton grinned. “It’s early to bed for me tonight.”

  “That is an excellent idea.”

  CHAPTER 25

  After a restful night the two prosecutors were totally revived and ready to continue when court convened; they were dressed in their well-tailored suits and sober neckties.

  Ronald Weyland was the next witness. He is a specialist in forensics and is seriously devoted to his work. He has a pleasant, friendly smile, and is a trim, 5’9”, well-built man, with a round face and healthy reddish complexion.

  Prosecutor Ted Culhan, in his usual clear voice, asked the witness for his name, occupation and his special assignment.

  He answered, “Ronald Weyland,” and stated that he was a deputy with the Orange County Sheriff’s Department for six and a half years, working with the forensic unit.

  Asked to explain his work, Weyland replied, “I respond to crime scenes; I take notes, photographs and document the scene, process evidence.”

  “Were you assigned to be the crime scene technician on June 10, 1997, in the murder case of Carla Larson?”

  “Yes,” he answered, very self-assured.

  The stocky prosecutor asked a series of questions relating to Weyland’s procedures in the case, and the witness explained that a command post was set up on that date, composed of a large number of deputies, Disney employees and civilians, as well as canines, along with several specially trained persons with vehicles and a metal detector to search the wide area.r />
  “We were prepared and determined. We had a major area to examine, and we were going to go through all of it thoroughly.”

  After a number of questions about the search, the finding of the body and the subsequent investigation, Culhan asked, “Did you assist employees of the television show America’s Most Wanted?”

  “Yes, I did.”

  “And for what purpose?”

  The forensic specialist thought for a moment and answered, “To re-create the scenario and the scenes to depict what might have happened, and possibly develop leads that could be used in solving the case.”

  Culhan moved to questions about Weyland’s work on the burned Ford Explorer, which he explained in detail.

  The prosecutor asked about the search of Faye Elms’s home, where Angel Huggins was living. Weyland explained the purpose of the search.

  Culhan had Weyland relate the removal of the jewelry and photographing of the electrical box in which the jewelry was discovered. Weyland explained how earlier they searched two electrical boxes in the shed but not the one low to the floor where the jewelry was found. He emphasized that when an investigation is under great pressure, sometimes something can be overlooked.

  Ted Culhan turned the focus to the area where the purse was found, and he established that this purse was Carla Larson’s. The prosecutor inquired if the witness took pictures of the purse, and also if he took the item into evidence.

  “Yes, I did,” Weyland answered.

  After receiving permission from Judge Perry, Culhan showed the purse to the witness, who nodded his head, confirming that it was the purse being discussed.

  “Did you take any of the contents out?”

  The witness replied affirmatively and described several items that were in the purse.

  Defense lawyer Tyrone King objected and an exchange ensued about the contents of the purse. The prosecution and defense teams wrangled back and forth until Culhan, feeling that the arguments were impeding the flow of his questioning, finally suggested, “I can move on to something else. We can do this tomorrow morning.”

  Judge Perry looked at the defense, then made a quick appraisal of the prosecution and in a low voice said, “Okay.”

  Culhan returned to questioning Weyland, asking various questions about photographs that the witness took of the contents of the purse. The defense objected to almost every question.

  Mercifully, Judge Perry, seeking a way out of the endless cross fire, asked, “Is this a convenient point for you to stop?”

  When it was agreed, the judge sent the jury out of the courtroom.

  After the jury left, Ted Culhan rose and announced, “Let’s take up the contents of the purse now.”

  Tyrone King stood and stated, “Your Honor, the defense objects to all of the exhibits. There is argument as to each piece. Our objection is to the relevance of the miscellaneous paper contents in the purse.”

  Ted Culhan, speaking directly to Judge Perry, responded that the relevance was that the prosecution believed that the purse was discarded intact, hastily thrown out the window of the car while the defendant was speeding away from the scene. He said that from the evidence it was reasonable to infer that the defendant tossed the purse out the window as he was going down off the ramp of the parkway. Culhan argued that apparently nothing was removed. This was in keeping with the theory that the defendant made a very quick movement back to the Days Inn, which the prosecution thought was a reasonable inference from the evidence.

  The defense argued that there was no evidence to show that nothing was removed from the purse, or that the purse was discarded in a quick manner.

  The judge overruled King’s objection, but the wrangling continued, with the defense attorney still objecting as to relevance.

  Culhan’s argument was that the purse contained credit cards, which a thief would take if he rifled through the purse.

  The arguing went on and on, with the judge overruling the defense on each point.

  As the fray continued, the crowded courtroom became more and more restless, until Perry once again rapped for order with a threat to clear the room.

  When court resumed, Deputy Weyland was still on the witness stand. The questions asked of him were about the items he ID’d that were inside the victim’s purse, including a four-leaf clover, Carla Larson’s driver’s license, a pen and her Social Security card. Culhan asked the court to admit these items into evidence.

  Defense lawyer King objected vehemently, but he was overruled by the judge.

  King’s cross-examination concerned Weyland’s search of the Elms house, his methods and specifically on the electrical wall boxes. He asked countless questions that finally began to tire the witness.

  King asked, “Did you find any jewelry?”

  “No,” he answered tersely.

  The defense lawyer asked about other items collected by the investigator. He concentrated on some envelopes of letters written by John Huggins to Angel, asking about their use for DNA. He also asked about blood samples, including one taken from Jim Larson.

  Culhan sprang to his feet. “Your Honor, I object to this as being beyond the scope of direct examination.” There was a low fire in the prosecutor’s voice.

  Judge Perry ruled, “Sustained.”

  King asked interminable questions about items taken into evidence: fingerprints, swabs, items from the purse, jewelry, tests made for latent prints, trace evidence, hair fiber.

  Finally Culhan objected, and the judge sustained his objection.

  After a short requestioning session by Culhan, and another brief cross-examination by King, Weyland left the witness stand.

  As the two prosecutors ate their lunch, Culhan suggested, “I’m thinking maybe we can drive down to Orlando for the weekend. What do you think?”

  “That sounds great,” Ashton answered. “I sure would like to spend a little time with my family, get caught up on all their activities. I feel like we’re totally isolated, out of touch with the rest of the world. I haven’t read a newspaper or seen TV news in so long; I haven’t the foggiest idea of what’s happening outside of that courtroom. A change of subject would be a welcome relief, give me a chance to recharge my batteries.” He laughed.

  “It all depends on the way the trial goes. If the judge calls a Saturday session, it wouldn’t be practical to go just for Sunday.”

  “I know, and he’s pretty determined to move this trial along expeditiously,” Ashton said wistfully.

  “We’ll just have to play it by ear. Now, to more practical matters, I’m starved. Gotta keep up my strength.” Culhan grinned.

  “Yeah, I could do with something hearty.” Ashton laughed. “And when we get back to the suite this evening, I’m going to call home.”

  Deputy Todd Howard of the Brevard County Sheriff’s Department took the stand and was sworn in.

  Ted Culhan questioned him about the blazing destruction of the Explorer on June 26, 1997. He asked about the fire and the condition of the burned vehicle. Then he showed the witness a photo of the destroyed automobile, asking him to confirm whether that was the way it looked when the fire was out.

  “Yes, sir, that’s it,” Howard confirmed, nodding his head.

  With permission from the judge, Culhan introduced an aerial photo of the area where the vehicle was burned. He asked the witness to point out the location of the vehicle, which he did. The photo was entered into evidence without objection.

  In his cross-examination, defense attorney Wesley viewed the photo with Deputy Howard and asked specific questions about the location, trying to establish it specifically. “For the jurors’ reference, this is the same general area as Kennedy Space Center? And right here to the south would be Patrick Air Force Base?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  After a number of follow-up questions, the attorney concluded.

  Prosecutors Culhan and Ashton called several expert witnesses for technical questioning about the destroyed Ford Explorer.

  The first was
Charles LaCorte, identified as a lieutenant with the Bureau of Fire and Arson Investigation, Division of State Fire Marshal. He testified to his findings about the vehicle. In his distinctive voice LaCorte gave an involved account, relating the technical observations that he made about the obvious arson and the condition of the vehicle, specifying the open doors, raised hood, burned interior, melted submerged tires and the dent in the rear left side of the body.

  He was followed by Virginia Casey, crime scene investigator and latent fingerprint examiner with the Brevard County Sheriff’s Department, who explained how her collecting of evidence involved the burned SUV. Casey made clarifying statements, further explaining the arson destruction to the Explorer, plus detailing her extensive work in the search for fingerprints.

  Next came Sandy Cawn with the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, assigned to the forensic unit. Her testimony dealt with her participation in the collection of Carla Ann Larson’s jewelry at Faye Elms’s residence in Melbourne, Florida. This aspect of their work with the jewelry evidence would prove to be of greatest importance in the case against John Huggins.

  At the conclusion of the technical experts’ testimony, the state called Annette Moore, the neighbor who lived across the street from Faye Elms’s home in Melbourne. Moore, a fortyish woman with dark brown eyes and hair, eagerly recounted seeing the white Ford Explorer parked at the Elms residence on June 11, 1997. She seemed like the kind of person who missed nothing in her neighborhood.

  The solemnity of the courtroom changed to levity with the appearance of the next witness, Derek Hilliard, who shared a home with Annette Moore. Before testimony began, defense attorney Bob Wesley objected to the T-shirt that the witness was wearing. Printed on the front of the shirt was REAL FEAR and on the back HE WHO DIES WITH THE MOST TOYS, STILL DIES.

  Wesley stated, “It’s prejudicial.” He claimed that it was a religious message and “deals with the subject of death.”

  After heated discussion the objection was overruled.

  Hilliard’s testimony, which supported Moore’s observations, was that he also saw the Ford Explorer parked at the Elms home, across the street from his residence, on June 11, 1997.