“I wouldn’t describe that as demanding,” answered Rios. “We had a discussion about the collecting and the removal of the bodies.”
Sawyer also asked if she changed latex gloves every time she took a swab. Rios stated, “Whenever they looked contaminated.”
“You understand that not changing gloves between swabs in the field furthers the risk of cross-contamination,” proclaimed Sawyer. “That is, if a contaminant is taken off the swab onto the glove and then you swab the second thing, that you have enhanced the risk of cross-contamination.”
The picture Sawyer painted did not look good for the prosecution.
The grim testimony continued when medical examiner Dr. Tommy Brown testified. Brown performed the autopsies on the four girls on Saturday morning, December 7, 1991. He presented pictures of the autopsies to the jury as he described specific details of their deaths. He did not show the photographs to the gallery.
Brown described how each girl was shot at point-blank range. Each received a “contact gunshot wound.” He described such a wound as one that “when the gun is pressed up against the scalp, the gas that comes out of the end of the gun barrel goes beneath the scalp, and there between the scalp and the hard bone, the gas expands that and splits the tissue or causes a laceration.”
Brown went on to describe Amy Ayers’s corpse.
“She had a gunshot wound that was located at the top of her head.... She also has another entrance gunshot wound in the left occipital area, which is located between the top of the ear and the back of the head.
“She also had a ligature around her neck. She had petechia, which is small blood hemorrhages all over her face but mainly around the orbits of the eyes.
“She had a bullet exit laceration of her right cheek area . . . bruise of the left lower lip area . . . hemorrhage around the right eye . . . [and a] scrape underneath her chin.”
Brown stated that Amy’s skin had received second-degree radiation burns.
DA Smith asked about the petechia. “What does the presence of petechia indicate to you, sir?”
“She had a ligature around her neck, and the ligature closes off the blood supply. When you close off the blood supply, then that backs up the blood and it causes petechia, or little blood blisters.”
“What does that signify to you, sir?”
“Strangulation.”
“Do you have an opinion as to whether or not she was alive at the time she was strangled?”
“Yes, she was alive,” the doctor responded.
Smith followed up with the bullet wounds. “Now, you described two separate gunshot wounds that you observed. Could you go through these in detail, please?”
“Yes, sir. The gunshot wound to the top of the head was five-eighths of an inch to the left of midline. The bullet went through the scalp. It hit the top of the skull and knocked a small plug, just a little bit larger than the size of the bullet, down on top of the brain. The bullet stopped there. It did not go into the brain.”
The doctor testified that the first shot probably did not kill Amy Ayers. “She might have even been conscious after that gunshot,” Brown added.
“Was there an exit wound associated with that first gunshot wound that you described?”
“No. I collected the bullet at the autopsy from in the skull. It’s a small-caliber lead bullet.”
“Could you describe, please, gunshot wound number two that you mentioned?” inquired Smith.
“That gunshot wound was located in the left temporal occipital area. It’s four-and-a-half inches below the top of the head and it’s three-and-a-half inches to the left of midline. It’s in between the top part of the ear and the back of the head.
“This bullet was also a contact gunshot wound. [It] traveled through the left side of the cerebellum or the back part of the brain. It then struck the brain stem. It grazed across the floor of the right side of the cerebrum and it went in beneath the petrous bone, which is a bone at the base of the skull.
“When it did that, then it went down through the face and the sinuses . . . and came out in an exit wound, which is a slitlike exit wound present on the right anterior-cheek area. That was a ‘through-and-through’ gunshot wound.”
“Did you note injury along the bullet track inside the brain itself?” asked Smith.
“Yes. It did significant injury to the cerebellum, brain stem, and also the cerebrum and the base of the skull. It also caused some fractures of the base of the skull at various points.”
“Do you have an opinion as to whether or not this would have been a fatal gunshot wound?”
“Yes, this was fatal. It would have been instantaneous because of the location of the wound track. This would have been an instantaneous death.”
“Do you have an opinion as to whether or not she was, in fact, alive before she was shot with that second gunshot?”
“In my opinion, she was alive when this gunshot wound was delivered to her head.”
Dr. Brown also performed a rape kit to determine whether Amy Ayers had been sexually assaulted.
“Did you note any trauma to the female sexual organ or rectum of Amy Ayers?”
“No.”
“Does the absence of trauma in your experience preclude the possibility that sexual activity had occurred of some kind?”
“No.”
The potential rape of Amy Ayers was a key factor for the defense’s argument. Part of Michael Scott’s testimony was that he raped Amy before she died.
Dr. Brown methodically plowed through the autopsy results of Eliza Thomas, Sarah Harbison, and Jennifer Harbison. He described how he believed each girl was killed. He also spoke of the damage the fire caused to the three girls.
He described the condition of Eliza Thomas’s body as “seriously charred from the top of her head to the bottom of her feet. She had third-degree burns. Some people call it fourth degree, in which the charring has occurred. She had burned away the top part of her hair in the front, and her face, ears, and . . . all of her face was extremely charred.”
Brown testified that Eliza’s neck, chest, abdomen, genitalia, and lower legs were charred. The fire was so hot that it caused heat ruptures, or rupturing of the skin, similar to the rupturing of a hot dog that had been left too long in a microwave, around her pelvis and thighs. Her back and buttocks showed sparing, which indicated her body lay on its back while she burned.
Brown also stated that Eliza had a gag in her mouth, which was tied at the back of the neck. Furthermore, her hands had been tied behind her back with a bra.
A sexual assault examination did not indicate any sexual abuse. Eliza did have some blood in her endometrium, or the lining of her uterus, which indicated she may have been on her period.
Similar to Amy, Eliza died from a contact gunshot wound to the back of the head. She, too, was dead before the fire.
Sarah Harbison’s autopsy findings were similar to Eliza’s. She had been severely charred. A gag was found in her mouth. Hands tied with panties. Heat ruptures on her lower extremities. Dr. Brown also discovered “abrasions of the inner—the vestibule or the opening into the vagina.”
“Can you tell us what you mean when you say an ‘abrasion’?” asked Smith.
“It’s a forceful scrape of the skin,” answered Dr. Brown. “This is a protected area, so it did not come from a fall. This would have to be some type of external force.”
“Is it consistent with a penis or a hard type of object being inserted into her?”
“A hard object.”
“Would it be consistent with that metal ice scoop being inserted into her vagina?”
“It could be.”
Dr. Brown described Sarah’s contact gunshot wound. It was slightly different from Amy’s and Eliza’s. The wound was located at “the direct center of the back of the head.”
Dr. Brown also noted that Sarah wore a Mickey Mouse watch on her left wrist.
The sixty-two-inch, eighty-six-pound body of Jennifer Harbison was the most badly charred, according to Dr. Brown. The front part of her hair had burned off. Her face was burned so badly that her teeth were charred. She also had heat ruptures and severely burned genitalia. Her gunshot wound was similar to her best friend Eliza’s: back of the head just to the left of the midline. Also, just like her best friend, she had been having her period.
Jennifer was also dead at the time of the fire, according to Dr. Brown.
Robert Smith passed the witness to Joe James Sawyer, who asked Judge Lynch if he could approach the bench. The judge agreed and the attorneys stepped toward the judge’s bench.
“You actually saved me.” Sawyer sighed. “I was afraid I was going to start crying.”
“You what?” queried Judge Lynch, somewhat taken aback.
“I was afraid I was going to break down and start crying. I forgot how much these girls . . .” His voice trailed off. “I’m a father.”
Judge Lynch announced a ten-minute recess.
Sawyer composed himself and crossed Dr. Brown. He attempted to discern the order in which the doctor believed weapons were used on Amy Ayers. Brown stated that he would place the strangulation first, the gunshot to the top of the head second, and the gunshot on the left side of the head third. Or, you could change the order of the strangulation and the gunshot wound to the top of the head.
Sawyer asked Brown to describe what he thought happened to Amy.
“The scenario I would put forth would be that they were all in the same room at one time. Amy had the spunk to try to get the hell out of there,” Dr. Brown speculated. “And I think that she—I don’t know if it was because of the ligature or if she was shot and she did not lose consciousness, but she knew that she was in for some horrible times, so she was trying to get out of there.”
CHAPTER 60
Friday, May 11, 2001
167th District Court
Austin, Texas
The main focus for the day was the fire. David Spence, supervisor of the trace evidence section of the Southwestern Institute of Forensic Science, aka the Dallas Medical Examiner’s Office, discussed various types of accelerants. An accelerant is the source of ignition used to start a fire. He explained that just because no accelerants were detected did not mean one was not used. He also testified that water tends to wash away accelerants.
The fulcrum of the case for the defense, however, was on the horizon. Robert Smith called arson investigator Melvin Stahl to the stand. Stahl was the on-scene investigator at the yogurt shop.
Melvin Stahl worked for the Austin Fire Department for twenty-five years and one week. He retired on March 1, 1997. He was hired by AFD in 1972 and worked as a firefighter for six years. He was promoted to fire specialist at Station 20, where he worked for four years. He was promoted to lieutenant in November 1981 and worked in the fire marshal’s office, where he worked investigations until he retired. He had been employed by AFD for almost twenty years on the night of the murders.
Prosecutor Efrain de la Fuente elicited from Stahl that he was the first arson investigator on the scene.
“How do you work a crime scene as an arson investigator?” de la Fuente wanted to know.
“All fire scenes are treated as a crime scene until you prove that it’s an accidental fire.”
Stahl stated he took several photographs to assist in his investigation. He later escorted EMS inside to pronounce the bodies dead. He also helped the medical examiner remove all four bodies. In addition, he interviewed several firefighters at the location.
De la Fuente asked Stahl to explain “V shape.”
“Fire will travel up, out, and down. If you set a fire in a chair against the wall, that fire is going to travel up and out until it hits something that stops it.
“If it travels up and out and hits the wall, it’s going to go up until it hits the ceiling. As it continues to burn, the fire will roll across the ceiling, and that will give you your V pattern, where it travels up, out, and down.
“The inverted V, or cone, would be indicative of some type of liquid accelerant.”
Stahl claimed that there was a V pattern in the cooler and shelves area.
“At any time, did you go back and relook at your findings as to where the origin of the fire was?”
“Yes, I did.”
“And at whose direction was that?”
“I met with ATF agent Marshall Littleton.” Stahl added he looked at photographs of the crime scene in addition to a report prepared by Littleton.
“Have you also gone back in looking at these photos and looked at the bodies themselves in a much more detailed manner?”
“Yes, I have.”
“And having gone back and revisited your initial findings, what have you concluded as regard to the origin of the fire?”
“I believe the fire originated more toward the center of the room rather than in the corner.” This, of course, was a drastic change from his on-site impression ten years earlier. Stahl claimed that the combustibles near the bodies and the V pattern, which led back toward the bodies, were what convinced him to change his official report.
Joe James Sawyer was licking his chops.
“This report that you relied on in changing your opinion . . . that’s dated November 17, 1999. Is that correct?”
“Yes,” Stahl sheepishly replied.
“How did you get it?”
“We’re not certain. I think it was through the DA’s office.”
Sawyer wanted to know who in the district attorney’s office asked Stahl to look at Littleton’s report and consider whether he (Stahl) was wrong.
“They never asked me to consider my report if it was wrong,” Stahl clarified. “They just asked me to read Agent Littleton’s report and to possibly sit down and meet with him at a later date.” Stahl testified that he met with Littleton earlier in 2001.
“At the time that you met with Agent Littleton,” Sawyer asked, “had you already changed your mind?”
“No, I had not.”
“So even after you considered his report, it wasn’t until you actually met with him, face-to-face, that you began changing your mind?”
“No. I did not have the opportunity to review the photographs before we met.”
“Wouldn’t you expect that you would find evidence if there had been a fire in the center of a room that had entrained oxygen, and if it can cause those burns—why isn’t the concrete blistered? Why isn’t there some spalling? Why is there no evidence of a fire there?”
“The area where it’s burning, the bodies actually protected the floor. The bodies were absorbing the heat.”
“In all the years until you were contacted by the district attorney’s office,” Sawyer drilled, “had anyone so much as questioned your findings or suggested to you that they were wrong?”
“No one suggested they were wrong,” Stahl quietly answered.
Next up for the state, appropriately enough, was Marshall Littleton.
Marshall Littleton worked as a field agent in the Houston field division of the ATF. He worked for the ATF for thirteen years. Prior to ATF, he worked for ten years in the Austin Police Department. His current job with ATF was explosives and fire investigator.
De la Fuente asked Littleton how he became involved in the yogurt shop case.
“I was first called in January of 1999 to look at this fire to see what the probability of running FPE (fire protection engineering) tool on this particular fire was.”
“So you were called upon to fire model the rear of the yogurt shop?” de la Fuente asked.
“Yes, sir. That’s correct.”
“And when you fire model, what are you talking about?”
“It is a zone-type model that makes the assumption that the room is basically divided into two zones, a hot zone and a cold zone. It will make calculations such as upper hot-gas-layer temperatures, flame plume temperatures, smoke flow through an opening.
“It does not model the fire, per se; it models the impact of the fire on its environment.”
“Were you able to fire model the rear of the yogurt shop?” posed de la Fuente.
“No, sir, I was not.”
“Can you tell the jurors why?”
“The model makes the assumption that a hot-gas layer is going to be able to build up, which basically means that there will not be an opening to the room of origin or above the ceiling.
“Too much of the strength of the fire,” Littleton explained, “is lost to the chimney effect if there is a hole in the ceiling.”
“What was it about the rear of the yogurt shop that prevented you from fire modeling?” de la Fuente asked.
“Above the walk-in cooler,” Littleton described while pointing toward a diagram of the yogurt shop, “we have an opening that goes from the top of the cooler to the drop ceiling.
“We also have an opening from here that there is no header”—or something like an exit sign above a door or archway. This would not allow a hot-gas layer to build up very uniformly in this particular room. Therefore, the model itself would not be that robust.”
“So, despite the fact that you were not able to fire model the rear room of the yogurt shop,” asked de la Fuente, “how did you proceed in trying to determine the origin and the cause of the fire?”
“I was contacted by assistant United States attorney Jerry Carruth,” who asked Littleton about the call Melvin Stahl had made on the fire. Littleton believed that “the damage that was described . . . simply did not fit all of the physics involved in this particular fire.”
Littleton continued with his fire testimony. “A fire has got to burn according to all the laws of physics. One of the things you have to do is find the irrefutable facts. The irrefutable fact was, we have damage to the victims.” He also mentioned an oxygen-depleted environment, a melted ladder, a melted hamper, and firefighters at the scene near the end of the flames.
“That fire is getting ready to burn itself out, which tells you that most of the things that are going to be able to burn in that area have already burned.”
Littleton referred to his meeting with Carruth. The assistant attorney asked him “if a fire set in the center of the room on the victims would [it] yield the type of damage” that was seen at the yogurt shop.
“I said at the time my intuition says yes.”
“So do you have an expert opinion as to where the origin of the fire started?” asked de la Fuente.
“In the center of the room.”
“Also, do you have an expert opinion as to what caused the fire?”
“The open flame ignition of available combustibles.” In other words, items that were stacked on top of the bodies.
The defense chose to defer their examination of Marshall Littleton until Robert Springsteen’s defense. The first week of the trial had ended.
Things were about to heat up.