Bite-mark expert stands by his testimony, though he can't recall much about it
A bite-mark expert who claimed to have matched bite marks on an elderly woman’s body to the man accused of her murder didn’t see the need to prepare for a deposition taken after the case was reopened.
During the April deposition, the expert, Michael West, was “belligerent, profane, and combative” as he was questioned about his conclusions in Mississippi’s case against Eddie Lee Howard, the Washington Post reports.
Howard was convicted in 1994 and sentenced to death. He is represented by lawyers from the Innocence Project, who cite tests showing Howard’s DNA was not on the knife allegedly used to kill the 84-year-old victim.
West has defended his work, though he said in a 2011 deposition the science “is not as exact as I had hoped” and “DNA has made it fairly obsolete.” Critics have long questioned his forensic claims and have alleged he is able to see marks on the skin with the help of a blue light that others have been unable to detect.
West defended his testimony in Howard’s case in the April deposition, though he doesn’t appear to recall much about it.
According to the Post, the deposition began this way:
Q: Dr. West, I see that you have no documents with you; is that right?
West: Yes.
Q: Did you look for any documents before you came here today?
West: No.
Q: Did you do anything to prepare for this deposition at all?
West: No. …
Q: And you realize that we’re here about Eddie Lee Howard’s convictions?
West: Okay.
Q: Well, I’m telling you that it’s about Eddie Lee Howard. Do you remember the Eddie Lee Howard case?
West: No.
As the deposition progresses, West tells his questioner he stands by his testimony, though he may not remember it now. “I told you if it’s in the transcript, I stand by it,” he says. “If I remembered it—I don’t remember what the f**k I had for breakfast two years ago, but I do believe I ate eggs.”
At another point, West is asked about his testimony about the number of bite-mark cases he has worked on. The questioner tells West he has transcripts if he needs to remind himself about his testimony. This exchange follows:
West: I don’t want to remind myself.
Q. Okay. Why is that?
West: This isn’t my problem. It’s yours.
Q: Well, there’s a man on death row in this case. You understand that, right?
West: You’re telling me the state of Mississippi wants to execute this guy for killing this woman, and y’all want to cut him loose so he can kill some more. Y’all do what you want to. I’m out of it.
Q. Right. That wasn’t really what I’m getting at, though.
West: You do want him out, don’t you?
Q. Well, we want to make sure that we find the truth. That’s what we’re looking for.
West: Well, read the transcripts. There’s the truth right there.
Later, West says his opinion today “would probably be a little different than it was back then, but I would have to go back and completely redo the whole thing. And I would cheerfully do that if you retain me and pay me.”
West continues to hammer home his complaint about a lack of payment:
West: You’re not paying—let’s make it sure. You’re not paying me for today, are you?
Q. Would that make a difference in your testimony today?
West: No. It would make a difference in my bank account. But are you paying me for my appearance here today?
Q. I’m asking you whether or not your testimony depends on my paying you for it, or are we just going to talk about the truth here today?
West: No. The truth is I’m not being paid for my services.
