Direct Exam: Travis Vieux

Mr. Hillard is a Senior criminalist for the City of Cincinnati. He was a Cincinnati police officer for 28 years and then became a criminalist. He has attended FBI training and does crime scene photography, collecting evidence, fingerprints and analyzing crime scenes . A lot of it is on the job training, but he's gone to several schools in the southern part of the US. Cincinnati will assist in crime scene investigations in places that don't have a lot of experience with homicide investigations. He's assisted in Forest Park, Reading and Norwood and has worked for Cincinnati for his entire career. Cincinnati has about 70 homicides a year and he's worked about half of those. In his career he has worked hundreds of homicide cases and has testified in court in several counties. He also teaches at the Cincinnati Police Academy.   He said he testified in this case previously.

He explained to the jury what latent fingerprints are; fingerprint powder is used to bring out finger prints that usually can't be seen with the naked eye. Feet and fingers, as well as the back of a person's hand can create impressions but a different approach is used for impressions that are not from fingers. He's also experienced in processing scenes that have been altered or cleaned up.   For example,   suicides.   Loved ones often attempt to doctor the scene to make it look like something else.  

He was contacted by Warren County to help process this scene. His help was needed to identify prints but he didn't know what the case was about at that time. The first thing he does at the scene is process large items so he started with the bathtub at the Hamilton Twp. property room.   Sometimes,   he can get an impression of fingers on the tub, but not enough points of pressure that give a good print.

He first examined some fingerprints that he found on the side of the tub. He didn't place fingerprint powder on them and didn't take measures to preserve the fingerprints at that time, but he did wear gloves. He took photos and examined them using a magnifying glass first. He believed they were fingerprints going downward, made by a person of small stature but couldn't say when they were made. He pointed out the tips of the fingers to the jury. Vieux asked if he found any latent prints of value in that section of the tub and he replied, "No".   He said it didn't appear that the area where the prints were located had been wiped or cleaned.

He then noted a forearm impression on the front right side of the tub but couldn't say when it was made. He said someone tried to clean that area but also couldn't say when. The impression had hair follicles and was made by a large person.   Based on his training and experience and the size of the hair follicles, it was a male. Vieux pointed out some circular marks and Hillard said it appeared that bottles had been there and the forearm impression was made after the bottles were moved. He found no evidence on a portion of the top edge of the tub that it had been wiped or cleaned.

He said some areas along the top and side of the tub appeared to have been wiped or cleaned because there were marks of an apparent rag swirl but he can't say for sure when this impression was made. He pointed out on the tub, the areas that he observed with marks that show "swirls".

He said a police officer brought a letter to him to analyze for fingerprints. He developed what looked like a palm print on the letter but couldn't positively identify the mark as that.

He said sometimes he's had to return to a crime scene for further investigation because he didn't have all the facts at the time of the initial investigation. After he interviews people connected with the incident, he often has more to look for. He has responded to a scene when the cause of death was unknown, then had to return later. Nothing further.

Cross Exam: Jay Clark

Hillard agreed that when he first processes a crime scene he treats it like it is the one and only time he will be there, because of contamination. He didn't know if the tub had been secured and in police custody when he was asked to analyze it but found out after the second trial that the crime scene had been released before he examined the tub.

He didn't put any fingerprint dust on the tub himself, but understood that Det. Braley did once. He found the tub as it is now. He didn't know that another fingerprint expert from Miami Valley Crime Lab had inspected it and he didn't see their sticker attached to the tub. He didn't consult with anyone else about the tub. He didn't know how long the prints were there or the temperature and humidity environment the tub was stored in before he analyzed it. He said he initials the item when he lifts a print.

Clark placed a photo of the tub still in the house, on the screen and Hillard said the condition of it is different from when he analyzed it at the police property room; there was more powder on it when he saw it. When he processed the tub, he didn't see any evidence that super glue had been used to collect prints.

He agreed that forearm prints don't have friction ridges like palm, fingers, feet and toes have and there's no scientific research that compares forearm impressions.

Clark pointed out there is no fingerprint powder on the bottom of the tub and asked if the crime scene investigators would want to look for foot prints from someone stepping into the tub, would there be powder? Hillard replied, "Yes".

Asked about the forearm impression over the circular marks, Hillard said the circular marks were made first, but he doesn't know when the circular marks were put there, or who put them there. He used superglue fumes to help lift prints.

Clark handed him the report he filled out on the case dated November 2008. Hillard said earlier he thought he got involved in the case during the summer.

Clark reminded Hillard, that earlier he testified someone had cleaned the Widmer bathtub. Clark asked, "Is cleaning a bathtub suspicious?" and Hillard replied, "No sir."

Clark showed the photo of the tub when the Lysol wipes were on the edge of the tub along with three tubes. He pointed where the circular marks were found, indicating three tubes of some creams and lotion. Hillard agrees that the forearm print overlays the circular marks. Hillard said the large circular mark was not where the Lysol container was placed in the photo.

Hillard met with Det. Braley, who showed him the tub and told him it had been processed. Asked how long impressions and fingerprints last, Hillard replied, indefinitely.

Clark: Have you ever seen a scene, where things don't seem right and it turns out not to be a crime? Hillard: Yes.

Clark: Have you ever seen a scene, where things don't seem right and it turns out to be a natural death?  Hillard: Yes.

Have you ever seen a scene, where things don't seem right and it turns out that it cannot be determined?   Hillard: Yes.

Clark asked if he can determine which hand made an impression, left or right? Hillard replied that the impressions were from finger tips not pads. Hillard agreed he can't tell how hard a hand pushed on the tub. Nothing further.

Re-Direct: Travis Vieux

Hillard said the second time he came to Hamilton Twp was to meet with defense counsel.

Humidity is one of the environmental factors determining how long a print will last.

A print would not adhere to a surface as well if it was wet or humid. It would adhere better if it was dry. There were fingerprints found in King Tut's tomb because it was a dry environment? Hillard agreed.

Hot running water in a tub is humid? "Yes".    Nothing further.