Artificial Plants and False Morels: Botanical Search Fruitless

[XLFD]

Mock Orange

 

Science is not always an exact science.  Witness how nutritional science changes every so often, how psychology has evolved over time, how global cooling changed to global warming until it went to the ambiguous climate change.  The trial of Sean Phillips had some interesting forensic work prepared by two botanists from MSU.  One of them was Peter Howie Carrington (shown below on Friday 6-28-2013), an expert in the field, he went over the various identifications of plant parts on Sean Phillips' shoes in his scientifically sound way, but was caught by the cross-examination: 

 

 

BY MS. SMEDLEY: Q. So what you have in front of you is particles, seeds, fruits, items that were taken from sand from the bottom and sides of Mr. Phillips shoes?

A. Correct.

Q. And in all these containers they could come from a wet, moist area, some of them?

A. Urn-hum.

 

Q. A dry area, some of them?

A. Some.

 

Q. And but they all came from somewhere outside?

A. Yes.

 

Q. And somewhere in Michigan?

A. Well, I cant prove that.

 

Q. So they might be from somewhere in the United States?

A. Or anywhere else.

 

Q. Or anywhere else. So what we have in the samples that you did is fruits and seeds that come from places you dont know specifically where they came from?

A. Correct.

 

Q. Or when they got there?

A. Or when they got where?

 

Q. On the shoes?

A. Okay, no.

 

MS. SMEDLEY: Nothing further.

[Page 139-140, Testimony of Plant Identifier Peter Howie Carrington, April 24, 2012 Trial of State of Michigan v Sean Phillips, unedited]

 

His testimony effectively echoed what his colleague, Professor Frank Telewski, had related earlier, when questioned by Defense Attorney Annette Smedley.  Like Carrington, the prosecutor had him making an awful lot of conclusions about the botanical science showing guilt, but once again the defense brought it down to earth, as shown in unedited form:

 

Q. So you could possibly have different layers that from -- you could have visited several different areas and have each, something from each one of those areas on your shoe?  A. Yeah, that's possible.

 Q. So all of the items that were found are not necessarily just found in one area?  A. Not necessarily.

 Q. And there is many other areas in Ludington that could possibly have these ingredients that you didnt check.  Correct?  A. Absolutely.

 Q. And did you know that Mr. Phillips did his guard duty in Grayling, Michigan?  A. Did not know that.

 Q. Could some of these items have come Grayling?  A. Some of them, possibly. I have been in the Grayling area. But Im not that familiar with the vegetation, particularly of the military base at Grayling.

Q. So it could of?  A. Possibly.

 Q. So you have shoes, you have dirt from the bottom of shoes, and that dirt could have come from many different places, correct?  A. Possibly.

 Q. And it could have gotten there at different times?  A. Again, the fresher the material, the more fresh the material, the more likely it would be associated with the shoe. Your Grayling example, if I could use that as an example, I dont know how long previous to that that he would have been at Grayling, but the probability is if he had been there days before, weeks before, the probability of that still being on the shoe would be much lower.

 Q. But it could be there, parts of it, correct?  A. Possibly.

 Q. So we have a pair of shoes that has some sand and some dirt and some vegetation on that you dont know where it came from, correct?  A. Correct.

 Q. You dont know how it got?  A. Oh, it came from Michigan. Im pretty sure about that.

 Q. Came from Michigan. You dont know how it got there other than him walking, Mr. Phillips walking on it?  A. Walking, yes.

 Q. And you dont know how long its been there?  A. Correct.

 MS. SMEDLEY: I have nothing further.

[p114-116, April 24, 2012, trial of State of Michigan v. Sean Phillips, unedited}

 

Bogus Bog Rush 

 

Peter Howie Carrington and Frank Telewski testified thusly when the amount of biological material was examined closely for a period of months and five different plants were identified (plus mown grass).  Now that the trial is over, another year, elapsed, and there are twice the plant species identified from this pair of shoes (which are unlikely to be the ones Sean wore that afternoon anyhow), the answers would be undoubtedly the same.

 

Carrington and Telewski, both from the public land grant university of Michigan State are however subject to FOIA request to see material that they compile in relation to their duties, with some exemptions.  Here is the full content of my FOIA reply from MSU where I was requesting electronically-stored plant "research"  (as defined in my request) regarding the Baby Kate case:   May 3, 2013 reply from MSU.

 

Consider the exemptions MSU uses to blot out some of the information using the 'police investigation' exemption (sec 13 (1) (b) from FOIA.  Using this exemption, according to FOIA, means the agency must show how the material would interfere with law enforcement proceedings or would disclose law enforcement techniques or procedures.  I am finding it difficult to figure out why they backen out the following information (since the info is blacked out, some of the edits have to be interpreted by context):

 

1) (p 6) they blot out Peter Carrington's name/E-mail address

2) (p.7) they blot out the re: line, and all the conversation between R Jan Stevenson (RJS) and Det, JB Wells (JBW) of the Ludington Police Department (LPD).

3) (p. 8), they blot out all of RJS forensic research, presumably claiming it law enforcement procedures. 

 

And the rest of the 28 pages only get worse not better.  If you check out page 21, you find an exhibit used at the Baby Kate trial, (people's exhibit #64 as seen on transcript page 98 here), but this "people's exhibit" cannot be seen by the people, nor can we see the photographs associated with it.  At trial, Dr. Telewski describes in detail what are on these three pages but all 'research' or mention of plants is blotted out in my copy obtained through FOIA: 

 

 

Over a year after the trial has concluded, this information is being withheld.  Is it safe to conclude that our good professors at MSU are trying to cover up the basic fact that their research isn't all that they wish it could be.  There is nothing here that needs to be exempted; this is a public record presented to the court under the name of the people, and according to Telewski it's information about two-needled pines, sedges, white cedar, etc., with pictures attached.  No pictures were sent in this reply, nothing about the research conclusions were left in.

And did you catch the fact that Frank Telewski says on the small amount of unedited material on the second page that Wells picked up the shoes from Telewski in March after having them delivered from Dr. Crum to him (Telewski).  Yet twelve days later Frank testifies that he had never saw the shoes until April:

 

 

SHAMrocks

 

To cover the search, our two county sources for news duly reported what was going on, with several restrictions, as did other area news sources, which basically shared information.  Like the media, the searchers were limited to what they could take with them to record what they found, such as cameras and cell phones.  Though the area that was covered seems to be around Grant Township on federally-owned land adjacent to Modjeski Road, the area meant to be covered is never fully disclosed, nor the reason why they chose this area over others.  The Ludington newspaper reported the process, but not much of interest to the particulars behind the search:

 

"About 80 volunteers were divided into five color-coded teams tasked with walking in a straight line into the woods. Of course, the woods aren’t clear or flat, so searchers did their best to stay in a line walking forward as they scanned the forest floor for the different plant species.

When someone identified something, the line controller — in this case Mark Annis of the Pugsley Correctional Facility in Kingsley — asked the line to hold while he and Michigan State Police Trooper Michael O’Brien joined with one of the plant experts. The orange team’s experts were Juan Larrain of the Chicago Field Museum of Natural History and Dr. Peter Carrington of Michigan State University.

Once Carrington or Larrain identified the species, Annis got GPS coordinates and O’Brien processed the plant like it was evidence.

Once that process was completed, the searchers got to step five feet forward.

Authorities hoped to clear 13 such grids Friday and today."

http://www.ludingtondailynews.com/news/71943-searching-for-clues-in...=

 

The usually information-rich pen of the MCP editor seemed mostly out of ink in reporting on anything other than general terms, but included the statement by the two leaders of this botanical search at it's conclusion:

 

"The two-day search in northern Mason County has ended. It included over 100 volunteers, the majority experts in the field of botany. Their goal was to collect plant material that, combined, was found on Sean Phillips’ shoes the day Kate disappeared on June 29, 2011.

Ludington Police Department and Mason County Sheriff’s Office have jointly conducted the investigation. This afternoon Ludington Police Chief Mark Barnett and Sheriff Kim Cole issued the following statement about the search:

After two days of intensive searching, this phase of our investigation into the Baby Kate case has concluded. The search teams are all out of the field. The search went smoothly and according to plan. The next phase of this process is for the evidence to be examined by laboratory technicians. It is unknown how long this examination will take.

We are pleased searchers found and collected materials that investigators anticipated finding in the search areas which will further this investigation toward a positive conclusion and obtain our goal of closure for the family and the entire community. The results of the search exceeded our expectations and helped us to reduce the target area by eliminating the larger part of the initial search area.

Our thanks go out to all of the volunteers from all areas and disciplines. This entire phase of the investigation would never have reached a successful conclusion or even had been possible without the efforts and the dedication of all taking part."

http://www.masoncountypress.com/2013/06/29/evidence-search-conclude...

Barren Fields

 

Everything went according to plan.  'Evidence' (?!) will be examined.  We will obtain a positive conclusion and closure.  Results exceeded our expectations.  Helped reduce target area, by eliminating the larger part.  This investigation phase would not have reached a successful conclusion.

 

Frankly, these confusing phrases meant nothing, and the search was nothing but show, with the investigation leaders running the show under their secretive terms.  I had sent a FOIA request to the City/LPD back on June 6 asking for:  "The selection process guidelines/protocols used for determining/choosing the botanical search team members for the Baby Kate botanical search and the E-mail contact list used for sending messages to them. Also subscribe me up for future transmissions sent to them for the next six months (i.e. include me on the list of contacts)."

 

At the end of Friday (22 days later, the max time for a FOIA reply), I received effectively the E-mail contact list, and the initial ads for the search  Plant search FOIA.pdf.  Which means that the LPD arbitrarily picked the searchers, and would have us believe that they have not been updating the searchers except in person or by phone.  It's possible, but a very weird way to run things in this day and age.

 

So what do we all have. 

1)  Our two experts, Telewski and Carrington admitting their forensic science is far from exacting while under oath, Telewski varying in testimony as to the chain of control over perhaps the prosecutions biggest piece of evidence (the wet shoes).

2)  Five, then ten species of plants likely picked up around Sean's stomping grounds by a pair of shoes which were almost assuredly not wore during the afternoon of 6-29-2011.

3)  A small cadre of professors conducting research that is offered in court as evidence but later suppressed because two-needled pine identification, and the like, would interfere with law enforcement proceedings over a year later.

4)  A plant search conducted two years after the disappearance almost as if it was a secret raid into a hostile foreign land, complete with media censorship, gag orders and camera-bans for the searchers, and general silence over the area and rationales of the search by the leaders.  Followed by a cryptic statement claiming great success, without giving any real measure of why it was.

 

I applaud those who searched for their efforts and their tolerance of our local law enforcement leaders directives.  I'm sure they feel good that they had a part in all this.  But at the end of the day, what exactly did they accomplish?