NCJ Number
167394
Journal
ABA Journal Volume: 82 Dated: (October 1996) Pages: 18-20
Date Published
1996
Length
3 pages
Annotation
This article presents arguments for and against the expert testimony in the Menendez case that involved the computer- generated re-enactment of the crime.
Abstract
Failure Analysis Associates, which has been known primarily for its work on behalf of the auto industry in product liability cases, used state-of-the-art computer imaging techniques to recreate the crime scene scenario that prosecutors used in the trial that led to the conviction of the Menendez brothers for killing their parents. Roger McCarthy, then the chief executive of Failure Analysis, presented the expert testimony and the re- enactment. McCarthy testified that by analyzing more than 800 crime-scene and autopsy photos, the firm had been able to determine the number and most likely sequence of shots, as well as the position of both victims with every shot and the general direction from which each shot came. Allegheny County, Pa., coroner Cyril Wecht maintains that this contention alone is an absurd claim, since nobody has ever attempted to reconstruct a crime scene scenario that involved two killers, two victims, and 12 shotgun blasts in the order of their occurrence. Other forensic experts criticize various claims made by McCarthy. They argue that the firm ignored and misinterpreted evidence, miscalculated the trajectory of several shots, mixed speculation with fact, made assumptions about things that are physically impossible, and ascribed intentions to the defendants' acts. Although McCarthy's testimony may not have had a significant impact on the jury's decision to convict, critics say the episode illustrates the inherent danger of allowing a team of engineers with little apparent expertise in forensic medicine or criminalistics to analyze a crime scene and present questionable findings to a jury.