Smith is going over latent prints that Scott went over earlier.
Smith: Which patent and latent prints do you label or lift?
Eganhouse: We go over all of them and label and lift, unless they didn't have any ridge detail to be identifiable. They only photograph patent ones, they don't lift those.
Smith is mostly going over prints that weren't tested or examined because they didn't have enough ridge detail.
She trying to show there could have been other prints, which could possibly be from another suspect.
Johnston said in his opening Mitchell should have been charged for robbery but evidence would show he wasn't the person who killed her.
I explained early when Scott was questioning but latent prints are ones that can't been seen with naked eye until dust material is put on them to lift off surface and patent prints can be seen.
Eganhouse: The older people get, ridge detail wears down.
Eganhouse: There were only three patent prints that would identified.
Smith: You couldn't say the time frame of when those were created?
Smith: There's no way of knowing partial patent prints were from same person of the three prints that were identified?
Smith: The latent print off beer can found by cab hasn't been identified to this day?
Smith: There was sufficient ridge detail?
Judge calls for break. Be back in 15.
Smith is having Eganhouse identify photos taken at Mitchell's resident or from items taken from his home.
Smith: They are items of clothing or shoes?
Smith: Was everything, clothing collected?
Eganhouse: No. Looking for ones with blood or some substance for DNA. Didn't take ones that appeared to be freshly laundered and wouldn't have anything left on them if they did.
Eganhouse: They collected over 20 items.
Eganhouse: He thinks there were over 20 tested by DCI lab.
Smith asks him to name them.
Eganhouse: Swab from bank bag, nail scrapping from Mitchell's right and left hand, bucal swab from Mitchell, swab from Stickley, sex assault kit from Stickley (just normal procedure, they didn't think she was sexually abused), Mitchell's shirt, swab from bloody palm print.
Eganhouse: Swab from passenger door, swab from inside passenger door handle, swab from log sheet, suspect's shoes, black hooded sweatshirt with possible blood on sleeves, two shoes laces appeared to be bleached, jean shorts with bleach, black t-shirt, black jeans with blood stain.
Eganhouse: Swabs from lip of beer can, bucal swab of Mitchell to compare to beer can, crack pipe from Mitchell's trash, blood swabs from fence gate, swabs from outside of bank bag, fingernail scrapping from Stickley taken from medical examiner, swabs from outside of driver's door.
Eganhouse: Another swab from outside of driver's door, exterior of driver's side, swab from outside of passenger back door, outside of passenger front door, crack pipe submitted again for drug chemistry testing.
That's it for evidence submitted to lab.
Scott on re-direct: Is it possible suspect didn't cut himself?
Scott: Was that just speculation of how homicide happened?
Eganhouse: Yes, just his opinion. He admits to not being a blood splatter expert.
Scott: Search of Mitchell's home wasn't until May 3, 2011?
Eganhouse: Yes, almost four days.
Scott: The blood that flowed into latent print on door?
Eganhouse: Not enough detail on it. Wasn't same as patent print next to it - not same ridge surface.
Scott: Did you take any samples of fibers from cab?
Eganhouse: No, not as helpful as they show on TV. Cabs are public areas. It wasn't a clean area.
Ron Johnson, CRPD identification officer with crime scene unit, takes the stand.
R. Johnson: He examined latent images from crime scene. He then entered them into fingerprint identification system.
R. Johnson has extension latent finger and hand print training/expertise.
R. Johnson: Depends on clarity and characteristics in print. He likes to have 8 to 10 characteristics to make a match. Difficult on cab - could be several different ones, weather affects it.
R. Johnson: Two patent prints from driver's side door of cab matched Mitchell.
He shows a chart of characteristics on prints which compares Mitchell's print to prints on cab.
R. Johnson: When palm print was entered into system as from a right palm to identify, it didn't produce a respondent. It wasn't a right hand but was a left hand palm print and matched Mitchell's. He said he has no doubt this belonged to Mitchell based on characteristics.
R. Johnson: Upper part of driver's door, there's a patent print from right index finger- joint area. It was first entered in as fingertip and there was no match. When he looked at Mitchell's right index finger joint area - it matched print.
R. Johnson: No doubt it matched Mitchell.
R. Johnson: Patent print found on street directory binder that was on passenger seat of cab. All characteristics matched Mitchell.
R. Johnson: He thinks the prints were made from a hand with blood on it, then put on the item or surface.
R. Johnson: None of latent prints came back to Stickley. That's not unusual. Ridge wears off over time and unless she was outside the cab touching it, there wouldn't be any. It's not like TV where they get good prints every time.
Judge is excusing jury for the day.
Thanks for following. See you tomorrow at 9 a.m.