LIVE UPDATES | Day 5: Murder trial for Brad Compher, man accused of killing Nori Jones
Published at | Updated at
Day four of the trial for Brad Compher is underway in Bannock County. Compher is charged with one count of murder with a deadly weapon enhancement for the 2004 stabbing death of 25-year-old Nori Jones. EastIdahoNews.com reporter Kalama Hines is in the courtroom and will update this story with the latest developments all afternoon.
UPDATES
3:50 p.m. We are continuing outside the presence of the jury. State expected to rest after tomorrow’s witnesses.
3:48 p.m. State has no more witnesses today. Gabiola is excusing the jury with instructions to return tomorrow at 10:30 a.m.
3:46 p.m. Lopez testifies to chain of custody documentation for buccal swabs of Compher’s DNA.
3:41 p.m. Pocatello PD evidence tech Aida Lopez, state’s next witness.
3:35 p.m. He collected blood, saliva and hair from Compher.
3:35 p.m. Westfall served a detention order on Compher in December 2014. He also collected DNA samples.
3:33 p.m. State’s next witness: Steven Westfall, former Pocatello PD detective.
3:32 p.m. Recess ran long as attorneys met in chambers to discuss something off the record.
3:04 p.m. 10-minute recess.
3:01 p.m. Proctor on cross. Vanderschaaf confirms that he was a narcotics detective, also that Compher was not the subject of a narcotics investigation.
3:01 p.m. Vanderschaaf says he saw Compher flick the cigarette butt into the road. Vanderschaaf picked it up while wearing a rubber glove.
3 p.m. State’s next witness is Vanderschaaf. Brian Trammell on direct.
2:58 p.m. Harris is not aware of a cut on Spillett’s hand following the murder. He is also unaware of a bloody towel found on the route between Nori’s house and Spillett’s house
2:57 p.m. Harris was not a member of Pocatello PD in 2004. But, as a detective handling the cold case, he reviewed extensively the evidence. He says he is not aware of any evidence linking Spillett to the crime.
2:56 p.m. Proctor on cross. Among the items Harris took to the lab was a buccal (cheek) swab from Robert Spillett. Proctor asks, “10 years after Nori Jones was killed, Robert Spillett was still a suspect?” Harris says he was a person of interest.
2:55 p.m. Harris testifies to the items kept in a sex crime kit.
2:54 p.m. Harris took evidence items, including the sex crime kit, to a lab in Salt Lake City for analysis.
2:53 p.m. Harris testifies to storage and sealing of sex crime kit.
2:50 p.m. State’s next witness: Matt Harris, PPD detective.
2:48 p.m. Re-re-direct, Radford asks Long if he knew of Compher in 2004. Long did not. Radford asks Long if he can estimate Compher’s weight in 2004. Long says he cannot. Long is dismissed.
2:47 p.m. Re-cross, Andrew asks Long to estimate Compher’s weight loss. He says he believes Compher has lost 15 to 20 pounds since 2014.
2:46 p.m. On re-direct, Long testifies that Compher is slighter of frame than he was in 2014. He also says he was wearing gloves during the butt collection, and did not touch the butt.
2:45 p.m. Andrew, on cross, asks about chain of custody.
2:44 p.m. As part of due diligence, detectives determined Compher did not have a paternal brother — he apparently has half-brothers, maternal.
2:43 p.m. A second set of evidence — bedding, broken necklace from the scene and others — was later taken to the forensics lab in August 2014. Again, Long testifies to proper sealing, storage and chain of custody.
2:42 p.m. Long checked evidence out from longterm evidence storage to have them tested. He testifies to proper storage and chain of custody.
2:40 p.m. After testing the butt, in late May 2014, Long received DNA “gel extracts” from ISP crime lab. He then asked for those extracts to be tested against evidence collected from the scene — including the ring and fingernail clippings.
2:38 p.m. Long says he wanted the butt to be tested against the unknown DNA collected from the murder scene. Andrew objects; Gabiola overrules.
2:38 p.m. Butt was turned over to evidence technicians for transport to ISP forensics lab in Meridian.
2:35 p.m. Long testifies that when he contacted Vanderschaaf, Vanderschaaf was holding the butt in one gloved hand. The butt was stored in a glass container — per the recommendations from ISP analysts. Once cooled, the butt was stored in an evidence envelop and sealed.
2:34 p.m. Seems the defense would rather have the other detective, Theo Vanderschaaf, testify to the recovery of the butt.
2:33 p.m. Andrew objects, asks if he saw the detective collect the cigarette himself. Objection sustained. Line of question redirected.
2:32 p.m. Long and one of the detectives “tailing” Compher recovered a cigarette butt in February 2014. Compher was smoking while walking on the roadway and discarded the butt.
2:27 p.m. Long said he wanted a cigarette butt because it goes into the target’s mouth and is usually discarded — often onto the street.
2:26 p.m. Long began surveilling Compher in January 2014. Pocatello PD narcotics detective unit assigned to surveillance.
2:24 p.m. Long was aware of fingerprints and that they returned a match to Compher. He also knew of a DNA profile available through LabCorp.
2:23 p.m. When Long took over the case, he did not have a known DNA sample from Compher. He made the decision to surveil Compher in search of a DNA sample.
2:21 p.m. Long describes cold cases. Says some were reviewed annually, other reviewed as often as monthly. When he took over Nori’s investigation, it was already designated a cold case.
2:20 p.m. Long was with PPD from 2002 to 2022.
2:18 p.m. Jury is back. State calls Scott Long, former Pocatello PD detective.
2:08 p.m. Gabiola has denied the state’s request for a reenactment. Still five minutes left in recess.
2:08 p.m. Gabiola says he is “grappling” with whether a reenactment would be accurate.
2:05 p.m. Radford makes a motion that the “Cushman” testimony did not fully portray to the jury what Cushman was saying. Radford now asking if a Detective Long, the state’s next witness, can reenact.
1:55 p.m. State requests to make a motion outside the presence of the jury before calling its next witness. Back at 2:15
1:54 p.m. In re-direct: Clement explains that in the case of secondary transfers, there will be two donors. The one with the greater transfer is the “primary” donor while the other is the “secondary” donor.
1:53 p.m. Fry finishes with “secondary transfer.” Apparently, someone gets someone else’s DNA on them, then transfers that to another source.
1:45 p.m. I have zero training in this, so I have no understanding what she is saying. I am sure a few jurors understand this, but I can’t imagine they ALL do.
1:44 p.m. During direct, Clement said her lab required 50 RFU — relative fluorescence units — for a match. Fry, during cross, asks if that requirement was a standardized requirement or if that was something her lab determined. That requirement was something her lab determined.
1:40 p.m. Focus has shifted to finding the X and Y chromosomes within a DNA profile. DNA taken from the window was a “single-source male.”
1:38 p.m. Clement says at least two technical reviews were done. Others may have been done, but they were not documented because they were not required for approval of findings.
1:35 p.m. Fry challenges Clement’s ability to testify to the process taken by the tech who initially examined the DNA in question. Because, as a supervisor, she provided technical and administrative review of the findings, Gabiola rules that she can testify to this info.
1:26 p.m. Clement says she was responsible for reviewing the report and determination made by the tech.
1:24 p.m. Clement explains that any determination made through forensic analysis goes through multiple levels of review before it is accepted.
1:22 p.m. Clement reads the chain of custody document and says that the item was sealed with proper documentation.
1:17 p.m. State will have to recall one of the investigating detectives to have them explain why they believe the window was the entry point. Then the defense will be able to challenge that during cross.
1:15 p.m. Item currently being discussed is a fingerprint lifted from the window believed to be the entry point the murderer used to get into Nori’s home. Reminder: That information has not been given to the jury.
1:14 p.m. Jury is back.
1:10 p.m. They are redacting that claim from an exhibit to be published to the jury later.
1:08 p.m. Fry is still concerned about investigators referring to the window they believed to be the entry point as such.
1:05 p.m. Fry asks for the jury to be removed from the room so he can discuss an objection outside of their presence.
1:01 p.m. We are back with Clement still on the stand. She is answering questions regarding a chain of custody document.
11:50 a.m. Gabiola calls for lunch. Back at 1
11:50 a.m. Clement now explaining how a lab can be accredited as a DNA forensics lab. The lab she was working in was accredited, she said.
11:48 a.m. Clement likens a DNA readout to an EKG chart — with peaks and valleys to be compared.
11:45 a.m. Chemicals “open” DNA for “extraction.”
11:44 a.m. Clement explains how DNA analysis changed between 2004 and 2011. Process remained the same, she says, but technology advanced.
11:37 a.m. Has testified as a DNA expert, in more than 30 states, nearly 400 times. Gabiola has accepted her as an expert witness without objection.
11:35 a.m. She was in North Carolina as a supervisor in 2004.
11:34 a.m. Prior to opening her own consultation firm, Clement worked for labs under LabCorp.
11:33 a.m. Clement explains different techniques for forensic analysis.
11:29 a.m. She is a consultant expert for DNA analysis.
11:27 a.m. Jury elects to continue with the next witness rather than taking an early lunch. State calls Meghan Clement, a forensic scientist. Johnathan Radford on direct examination.
11:25 a.m. Price, in re-direct, asks Nowlin if there was any way for Nori to have DNA on her from someone else without there being ejaculate. She says there is other DNA transferred.
11:22 a.m. Fry asks a question that Nowlin cannot fully understand. She asks him to repeat and he cannot — does not recall where the question was going, so he asks for “whatever question that was” to be stricken.
11:20 a.m. Fry confirms through Nowlin that if someone ejaculated and produces sperm it would be found in this test.
11:18 a.m. Nowlin describes a “Christmas tree dye” used to identify sperm on samples. She did the dye test and did not “visually” detect any sperm in the sample.
11:16 a.m. While examining the sex kit, the swab changed colors under chemicals. Nowlin says that the color change could indicate the presence of semen, but it does not prove that conclusively.
11:12 a.m. Hair was collected from sex assault kit but not sent for testing. Nowlin says, in 2004, examining hair comparison was done by experts who specialized specifically in that field.
11:06 a.m. Nowlin says she examined the sex assault kit without knowing beforehand if there was possible sexual assault.
11:03 a.m. Fry asks again if Nowlin recalls her process of changing gloves, bleaching and placing paper on exam table between evidence items. She again says she does not recall specifically but says that is her standard practice.
11 a.m. Nowlin says, when someone is bleeding, they will have their own blood under their nails, as their natural reaction is to grab at their own wounds.
10:58 a.m. Nowlin says the fiber was not sent out for private investigation. She does not know why that was not done.
10:57 a.m. Nowlin noted a black fiber under the fingernail clippings as well. She says a trace analyst would be the person to identify the fiber. Nowlin says it’s possible the fiber could have been hair or upholstery.
10:55 a.m. “Red-brown flaky substance” on the undersurface. She does not recall if it was on every fingernail.
10:54 a.m. Nowlin testifies that while she does not include it in her notes, her standard practice is to change her gloves and bleach her exam table between pieces of evidence.
10:51 a.m. Questions, again, about potential contamination.
10:51 a.m. Fry to handle cross.
10:50 a.m. Testing in 2004 searched for bodily fluid. Those techniques are still used today, but there are other items that can be tested now.
10:48 a.m. Nowlin defines touch or transfer DNA. ISP is now able to analyze this type of DNA — it could not in 2004.
10:46 a.m. Nowlin looks at JaNiece Price while being questioned but looks at the jury to answer. Jurors heads bouncing back and forth with her. I do not recall a witness doing this as much — and the jury (at least all of it) has not done this. Nowlin’s testimony has their full attention.
10:45 a.m. Nowlin examined a men’s ring. She is aware of another ring entered as evidence but she did not “interact” with it at all.
10:43 a.m. For private lab DNA results to be entered in CODIS, a state-run lab must review findings. Nowlin was responsible for reviewing LabCorp’s findings.
10:41 a.m. Swab was sent to private DNA lab — LabCorp. At that time, ISP lab did not examine “touch” or “transfer” DNA.
10:39 a.m. Nowlin responsible for evidence collection from window believed to have been the entry point. Used a buccal swab to collect potential DNA from what was believed to be a handprint from the window.
10:38 a.m. Nowlin did not detect semen while examining sex assault kit. She alsoo did not find “foreign tissue” while examining fingernail clippings.
10:37 a.m. More note-taking from the jurors right now than during previous witness testimony. Info is coming faster than it had been previously.
10:36 a.m. Nowlin also examined Nori’s sexual assault kit.
10:35 a.m. Nowlin takes notes throughout the examination. When exam is done, she writes up a report based on notes. That report and notes are then reviewed by peer to confirm exam was handled properly.
10:33 a.m. Looks for any possible “foreign” tissue from Nori’s fingernails. She found what she believed to be blood.
10:32 a.m. Nowlin describes how scientists in the state lab prevent contamination. Items are stored in a locker when not being examined by the responsible scientist.
10:27 a.m. After receiving evidence, before it is accepted into lab for exam, the evidence is confirmed for proper seal and correct chain of custody documentation.
10:25 a.m. Nowlin herself examined “many items” of evidence. Examined fingernail clippings from Nori Jones and issued repot of finding in Oct. 2004.
10:25 a.m. She examined 131 items of evidence from the Nori Jones murder scene.
10:25 a.m. In order to maintain her good standing as a forensic scientist, she must undergo at least 8 hours of training annually. She does around 40 per year, she said. She has testified as an expert in court around 100 times. Gabiola accepts her as an expert witness following objection from defense.
10:20 a.m. Rylene Nowlin is the forensic lab manager at ISP forensics lab. She was previously a forensic scientist.
10:18 a.m. Parker is excused. State’s next witness is Rylene Nowlin.
10:17 a.m. Parker says he cannot say when the latent print was placed, noly knows when they are lifted because of the date on the lift card.
10:15 a.m. Parker says “most of the time” he can tell when a print was taken from blood or were left in sweat. Blood is “usually” a “heavy source.”
10:13 a.m. Rilie Fry handling cross. Parker says it’s a “rare occasion” when different analysts disagree.
10:10 a.m. Parker is highlighting areas of the known fingerprints he used to match to the latent.
10:05 a.m. We are back. Parker still on the stand.
9:48 a.m. Gabiola calls recess. Will be back at 10.
9:43 a.m. Parker explains how he used a “scar pattern” to match Compher’s known to the latent lift. Scars, he said, permanently affect fingerprints.
9:36 a.m. We are back to witnesses being asked to point out where “here” and what “this” is.
Quick recap The process by which Compher’s print was matched to the latent taken from Nori’s door: The known and latents were matched by AFIS; that match was confirmed by Maria Eguren, ISP fingerprint tech; it was then matched by Gary Cushman, ISP fingerprint analyst; his match was then confirmed by Parker, another analyst.
9:32 a.m. If the two analysts did not come to the same conclusion, they would not sign off on the match. Parker says he and Cushman both signed off on Compher’s match to the latent found on the exterior door at Nori’s home.
9:30 a.m. Parker explains the multi-step process of matching latent to known prints. Multiple will examine and compare. If they agree, it is accepted. If they do not agree, they discuss the difference they found.
9:29 a.m. Gabiola accepts Parker as a fingerprint analysis expert without objection from defense.
9:25 a.m. Parker, speaking directly to the jury, explains why every person has different fingerprints. We can have similar patterns, but they are all different, he says.
9:23 a.m. Parker says he received more than 2,000 hours of training to become an expert fingerprint analyst. He has testified in court as an expert 10-15 times.
9:21 a.m. State’s next witness is Randy Parker, a former ISP forensic analyst.
9:19 a.m. “Cushman” gets admonishment not to discuss his testimony with other witnesses. Gabiola acknowledges that he is not Cushman, only playing Cushman.
9:18 a.m. The transcript reading has concluded.
9:16 a.m. “Cushman” explains that Compher would have to be standing “this way or this way” to place his print in the position it was found, but makes no gesture or reenactment.
9:11 a.m. Proctor and “Cushman” discussing how Compher would have left his print on Nori’s door. Cushman and Compher are about the same height — 5-foot-8 and 5-foot-9, respectively. a fingerprint lifted from the door was lifted from the door at some point on Cushman’s head. Defense seems to be suggesting it would not have been natural for someone Compher’s height to leave that print.
9:08 a.m. We picked back up this morning on the 309th page. We just reached re-direct.
9:02 a.m. “Cushman” and Proctor referring to “this side of the door” and “this part” and “that” but are both sitting without actually pointing things out.
8:54 a.m. Attorneys for both sides are prepared. The jury should be entering the courtroom shortly. Today will begin with the completion of the Cushman transcript reading.
