QUOTE OF THE DAY: "Eikelenboom said, “Even after 50 years, a lot of blood stains still contain enough to determine with reasonable protocols. With touch DNA, it’s more than most would expect.”
——————————————————
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "When the state got its chance to cross-examine the forensic expert, the prosecutor quickly began punching holes in Eikelenboom’s credentials."
------------------------------------------------
STORY: "Expert gives conflicting testimony in hearing for Florida’s longest-serving death row inmate," by Investigative Reporter Greg Fox, published by WESH 2, on December 3, 2025. (Greg Fox has been a member of the WESH 2 News team since May 1987 as an anchor and reporter. He is currently the Investigative and Political reporter.)
GIST: "Tommy Zeigler was wheeled into court on Wednesday for a scheduled weeklong evidentiary hearing to determine if his murder convictions from half a century ago will be tossed out, granting him a new trial or immediate prison release.
It was a full day of the packed courtroom audience listening to talk of gunshots, terms like blood spatter, droplets and “touch DNA.”
Spending most of the day on the stand was defense witness Richard Eikelenboom, a forensic scientist with Independent Forensic Services LLC. He interpreted the results of complex scientific DNA testing on crime scene evidence conducted by the Forensic Analytical Crime Lab of Hayward, California. It included tests on nearly four dozen items of clothing: shirts, coats, pants and shoes from both the victims and Zeigler.
Eikelenboom testified that none of the Zeigler family members’ blood was on Zeigler’s clothing.
Using Virginia Edwards’ murder as an example, the defense attorney asked, “Was any of Virginia Edwards' blood found on Mr. Zeigler’s shirt?”
Eikelenboom answered, “No.”
The defense attorney followed up, “How about Mr. Zeigler’s pants? Socks?”
Eikelenboom responded the same to each inquiry, “No.”
He concluded that the science just didn’t point to Zeigler, who was found guilty and sent to Florida’s death row in July 1976 as the killer.
Eikelenboom also marveled at the detail in the DNA results, compared to a prior round of testing, to which he testified in 2016, in an unsuccessful effort then to win a new trial for Zeigler.
Eikelenboom said, “Even after 50 years, a lot of blood stains still contain enough to determine with reasonable protocols. With touch DNA, it’s more than most would expect.”
The state has theorized in recent years that Zeigler may have worn a raincoat to shield himself from blood spatter, but no such coat was ever found.
And Mays’ blood was found on Zeigler’s clothing, possibly from crawling on the floor to a phone after, Zeigler claims, he was shot in the stomach by the actual killer or killers.
When the state got its chance to cross-examine the forensic expert, the prosecutor quickly began punching holes in Eikelenboom’s credentials.
Assistant Attorney Joshua Schow asked, “You never visited where the murders took place, did you?”
Eikelenboom responded, “No.”
He also acknowledged that he did not receive and review the results of the latest DNA testing until mid-summer, and worked hastily to prepare a report with his assessment of the results for the court in time for an August hearing.
He admitted that when he wrote the report, he did not have copies of the medical examiner’s findings for the four victims.
Schow asked, “When you wrote your report back in August 2025, you did not have the autopsy reports, did you?”
Eikelenboom replied, “No.”
Schow continued, “In fact, you reviewed those reports only in the past couple of weeks?”
Eikelenboom responded, “Correct.”
The witness further admitted that he never saw the best photographic evidence of the scene until the state provided him with photos.
Pressing more, Schow asked, “After reviewing the evidence, that you discovered you had made some factual errors in your report, you did not issue an addendum to your report, did you?”
Eikelenboom replied, “No, that was very recent, so there was not much time to do anything about the actual findings.”
Testimony in the evidentiary hearing continues Thursday, and possibly Friday.
In what may have been a gesture to Zeigler’s cousin, Connie Crawford, who has been sitting in court, a smiling Zeigler appeared to say “Hello” and a second later, “How are you,” as he was being wheeled out of the courtroom.
The hearing recessed at 6:15 p.m. on Wednesday and will resume at 9 a.m. Thursday.
"https://www.wesh.com/article/conflicting-forensic-testimony-tommy-zeigler-hearing/69624527
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
———————————————————————————————
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
-------------------------------------------------------------------
