Story updated 6 p.m.
CONCORD, NH – A defense witness who is an expert in analyzing digital photos punched holes in the prosecution’s case that a troublesome shell casing tied to the shooting deaths of Djeswende and Stephen Reid was at the crime scene before it was found May 20, 2022, a month after the Concord couple was shot.
Jason Latham testified that an object in a May 10, 2022, photo taken by the FBI at some distance from where the casing was found does not match the casing in photos taken by Det. Wade Brown of the Concord Police Department on May 20, 2022. The FBI photo was not of the casing, but of the scene in general, and several yards from a large tree near where the casings were found.
“I was not able to identify an object (in the May 10) image that is consistent with shell casings,” Latham testified at the end of two hours of direct questioning by defense attorney Mariana Dominguez.
The casing is key to the prosecution case that Logan Clegg, 27, shot the Reids on Marsh Loop Trail in Concord’s Broken Ground Trail System April 18, 2022. It’s the only evidence that possibly ties Clegg to the actual shooting, since it was found at the scene and, according to a state ballistics expert, matches casings of bullets fired from a gun found in Clegg’s possession when he was arrested six months after the Reids were shot.
Defense attorney Caroline Smith said Tuesday during a hearing on an unsuccessful motion to dismiss the indictments against Clegg that the defense believes the casing was planted. The hearing was held without the jury present.
Clegg is being tried on two counts of second-degree murder, and other charges, in Merrimack County Superior Court. The trial began Oct. 3.
Latham’s testimony Wednesday afternoon came after a potential bombshell in the case – a Concord police detective emailed the prosecution during testimony Wednesday morning claiming he could identify a casing in a photo taken at the scene April 22.
Judge John Kissinger overruled the defense object after a brief, but contentious, hearing on the defense’s objection after the jury was dismissed for lunch.
Dominguez said introducing the evidence from Det. Brendan Ryder constituted unfair surprise and that the testimony would be prejudicial. She said allowing Ryder to testify about what he sees in the photo, since he’s not an expert trained to analyze photos, is a “slippery slope,” particularly since he would be the second member of the Concord Police Department to offer such non-expert testimony.
“What is to stop every single one of the state’s employees from looking at a photo and making wild speculation?” Dominguez asked, adding that the late introduction of the evidence is “stonewalling our defense.”
Assistant Attorney General Joshua Speicher argued that the photos have been available to both sides since January. He said if the defense doesn’t call Ryder to the stand, the state will, because “the probative value will be extremely high.”
Kissinger ruled that Ryder’s testimony could be introduced, as long as Ryder did not call the object a shell casing, but instead referred to it as an “object.”
The potential bombshell, though, seemed to be defused by Latham’s testimony about how he analyzed the FBI photo from May 10 and Brown’s May 20 photos of the casings after they were found.
Dominguez briefly brought up the April 22 photo at the end, projecting it on the wall behind Latham, though she did not say when it was taken or why she was showing it.
Latham was asked to analyze the April 22 photo about an hour before his testimony, and acknowledged he was without much of the software, or the time element, he normally has.
“What are we looking at?” Dominguez asked.
After Latham explained how he clarified the image, and zoomed in, he said an object in the photo – presumably the one Ryder identified as a shell casing – “was not consistent with a handgun or rifle ammunition casing.”
Latham said that the shape and the way the light reflected on the object led to his conclusion.
Assistant Attorney General Ryan Olberding did not ask Latham about the April 22 photo during cross-examination.
Most of Latham’s testimony was spent comparing the May 10 FBI photo to the May 20 photo taken by Brown with his iPad after then-Assistant Attorney General Geoffrey Ward, visiting the crime scene, looked down and saw two shell casings at his feet. In the weeks in between when the Reids were shot and Ward saw the casings, the area had been searched extensively with metal detectors, ballistic-sniffing dogs and a law enforcement line search.
Brown had been allowed to testify about the May 10 photo, but wasn’t permitted to say in front of the jury that he believed the object was a shell casing since he is not qualified as an expert on photo imagery analysis.
Brown in his testimony last week showed how he zoomed in with the FBI photo, taken from a distance away, to reveal an object that was remarkably similar to the one in his May 20 photo.
Latham explained that simply zooming could distort distances, and zooming in too far in could distort objects.
During a lengthy explanation about the process he uses to analyze and compare photos, Latham said he finds fixed objects in photos – tree roots and other elements that aren’t easily moved – and also finds transient ones. Both help him orient what he’s looking at when comparing photos to determine if an object is in the same place.
“I literally spend hours on each image dissecting it in a methodical way,” he said.
He also testified that his company has a “robust” bias litigation policy, so that he’s not influenced by information about a case. He is given little information by his clients and is not told what to look for or given any information about the case, or whether objects in photos will help or hurt his client’s case.
“I’m an advocate for the data,” he said.
Latham initially didn’t find any objects in the May 10 FBI photo similar to the “object of interest” – which he believed was a shell casing – that he found in Brown’s May 20 photo. He provided his initial report on Aug. 23, 2023, after beginning the examination Aug. 2. He had not been asked to find a shell casing, just to look for objects and anomalies, and determine if they were shared by both photos.
Tuesday, after Latham had arrived in New Hampshire from Colorado, he was asked to look again at the May 10 photo and “evaluate an anomaly.”
The blurry blown-up image from Latham’s analysis showed the object was a different color than the shell casing in Brown’s May 20 photos, and slightly bent. In Brown’s zoomed-in photo last week the objects were much more similar.
Latham also showed how he used objects in the photo – both fixed and transient – to create a grid to determine location. The May 10 object was not in the same spot as the May 20 one, though in the general area.
Earlier in his testimony, Dominguez had pointed to a stick across the root of a large pine tree, apparent in both photos, and asked Latham why, to determine a location, he couldn’t just trace from the stick down to where the object was in the other photo to determine location. She didn’t say it Wednesday, but that’s what Brown did in his comparison, and the casings in both photos seemed to be in the exact same spot.
Latham said Wednesday that there’s a “perspective effect,” since one photo was taken from above and the other was taken straight-on from a distance, meaning the objects won’t line up correctly and distances will be distorted.
Under cross-examination by Olberding, Latham again went over the May 10 and May 20 photos. Olberding asked again about comparisons of the two images.
Latham said of the May 20 object, “I’m very comfortable that’s a shell casing.”
Of the May 10 object, he said he was not comfortable identifying it as one, or as the same object since there were so many dissimilarities.
Olberding asked him if it was an object of interest.
“It’s an object of interest, but it’s not the object of interest,” Latham said.
Olberding also pressed Latham on whether he could tell if there was an incline in the area, and if that incline would cause an object to move.
Latham said he could tell from photos if there was an incline but acknowledged under questioning that someone at the scene would have a better perspective on it. He said he wasn’t comfortable commenting on how an object would move or how far, since that was beyond his scope of analysis.
Latham also acknowledged under Olberding’s questioning that there are many objects that he initially sees when he compares photos that he doesn’t include in his final report.
“You just kind of pick and choose which objects appear to [be significant]?” Olberding asked.
“I wouldn’t say pick and choose,” Latham responded. He said he analyzes objects to determine if they are worth noting. “My client would be charged a million dollars if I identified every single object,” Latham said.
That prompted Olberding to ask Latham how much he was being paid for his work, including travel time, asking him to estimate how much he’d be paid overall.
Latham said that he hadn’t totaled up everything, but said he is paid for his work, as well as time, travel and accommodations when he testifies. “I have a business to run, a family to support,” he said. But he added, “I’m here for the data. I love what I do. Money is tertiary.”
On re-direct, Dominguez asked Latham about his compensation, and if he has bills to pay. He said yes, since he’s running a business.
She asked what would happen to the business if he were to perjure himself while testifying.
“That would have severe consequences,” Latham said. The rest of his answer was cut off by an objection from Olberding. Kissinger sustained the objection and told the jury to disregard the question and Latham’s answer.
No DNA tying Clegg to shooting
Ryder’s email to prosecution about the possible bullet casing in the April 22, 2022, photo arrived Wednesday morning while defense attorney Smith was questioning Amber Smith, of DNA Labs International, in Florida, about her results testing 63 samples from 31 items collected from the Reids and Clegg.
The Reids were dragged about 50 yards off Marsh Loop Trail, and the Concord Police Department hoped the person who dragged them and concealed their bodies under a pile of leaves and other woodland detritus would have left DNA on the Reids’ clothing.
Amber Smith testified that Clegg “couldn’t be excluded” from some items of Stephen Reid’s clothing, but further testing found it was more likely the DNA was from an unknown contributor than from Clegg.
Several items of Stephen Reid’s clothing had touch DNA from one or more unknown male contributors. Touch DNA is DNA that’s left when someone comes into contact with an object. None of the items tested had DNA from bodily fluids other than those belonging to the Reds.
“There’s nothing to support Mr. Clegg being a contributor [on any of the items tested]?” Smith, the attorney, asked.
“That’s correct,” Amber Smith responded.
On cross-examination, Assistant Attorney General Meghan Hagaman asked Smith if a person came into contact with physical evidence and it was left out in the rain, “Would it surprise you if the results would be inconclusive?”
Smith said there is not always touch DNA on items, and it would not surprise her.
Clegg is charged with two counts of second-degree murder for “knowingly causing the death” of each of the Reids, two alternative second-degree murder charges for “recklessly causing” their deaths, four counts of falsifying physical evidence and one count of being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm.
Testimony in the trial is expected to end, as scheduled, Friday. At the end of Wednesday’s testimony, Kissinger had a quick bench conference with the three-attorney state team and two-attorney defense team about juror instructions before deliberations begin. There are 15 jurors, but three alternates, yet to be chosen, will be dismissed once testimony is complete.
The defense will continue presenting its case when court resumes at 9 a.m. Thursday.