COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY
AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN BALSHY
Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared John Balshy, who, after first being duly sworn according to law, deposed and said:
1. That he is a private investigator who specializes in criminal investigations, police procedure, evidence and forensics.
2. That he obtained his expertise by serving twenty-seven years as an officer of the Pennsylvania State Police force.
3. That he was the forensic examiner in more than one hundred criminal investigations for the Pennsylvania State Police.
4. That he has consulted on several cases where the crime was committed several years prior to his investigation.
5. That he has analyzed the criminal investigation into the death of George Wilhelm, as testified to by detectives from the City of Pittsburgh Police Department, Homicide Unit, and has found the following errors and/or oversights to be inconsistent with sound forensic and homicide procedures utilized by police in murder investigations:
(a) The crime scene was thoroughly combed for evidence and forty pieces of evidence were collectedAt least forty photographs were taken of the scene and evidence but not all of the collected evidence was analyzed by the crime lab and critical photographs were not taken.
(b) Several blood stains were reported in the vehicle involved in the crime including blood spatters on the dashboard moving in a left to right direction.
(c) The vehicle was impounded by the Police, but no photographs were taken of its interior.
(d) The splatters on the dashboard were scraped without first being photographed.
(e) The scraped blood was removed from the surface without being photographed using a measurement scale to indicate the length and width of the blood pattern in relation to the surface on which it is found.
(f) An attempt to type the scraped blood removed from the dashboard was not made until two hours before Peter Marrone of the Allegheny County Crime Lab was to testify at the Goldblum trial. Accordingly, blood typing was impossible.
(g) Fingernail scrapings taken from the victim were not thoroughly analyzed.
6. That if evidence had been preserved properly, if a photograph with a scale present had been taken of the blood spatters on the dashboard, if the blood spatters had been precisely measured for size, both length and width, a forensic criminalist could determine the angle of impact of the blood. That information, in turn, could have illustrated to a fair degree of precision where the victim and the assailant were positioned at the time of the assault, and how the spattering of the blood on the dashboard occurred.
7. That this case in its early stages was one where the Police had to have been aware that it was necessary to determine which of the two defendants was the assailant who wielded the grass shear and did the stabbing. In such a case it is a clear imperative to gather as much evidence as possible, especially important evidence relating to the relative positions of each of the parties during the commission of the crime and what could have been done by these parties from the positions they were in. There is no evidence that this occurred in this case. In the context of an investigation under these circumstances by such a well regarded Homicide Unit, it is hard to logically explain these oversights.
8. That the Police recovered the clothing worn by Goldblum on the night of the murder and it was void of the victim’s blood; the co-defendant, Miller, admitted to the police that he discarded the clothing he wore. After learning this information, no further investigation was undertaken to attempt to determine who the assailant was. That this information did not raise any doubt or question by this Homicide Unit and did not lead to further investigation or reconsideration is difficult to understand.
9. The crime lab report by Mr. Peter Marrone indicated that the results of his examination of fingernail scrapings taken from the victim were “negative.” The report fails to describe the composition or ingredients of the scrapings. The report fails to describe the fingernail scrapings. That a specific ingredient description is not given, is not in accord with accepted investigative procedure.
10. That Goldblum’s counsel, David Rothman, did not conduct a private investigation of the crime scene.
11. That at the time the crime occurred, there were several well respected forensic experts available who could have been called upon by the defense.
12. That a private investigation would have assisted in Charles Goldblum’s defense and raised serious doubts as to the Commonwealth’s theory of the case.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 15 day of March, 1996
( signed )
John Balshy
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY
AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN BALSHY
Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared John Balshy, who, after first being duly sworn according to law, deposed and said:
1. That he is a private investigator who specializes in criminal investigations, police procedure, evidence and forensics.
2. That he obtained his expertise by serving twenty-seven years as an officer of the Pennsylvania State Police force.
3. That he was the forensic examiner in more than one hundred criminal investigations for the Pennsylvania State Police.
4. That he has consulted on several cases where the crime was committed several years prior to his investigation.
5. That he has analyzed the criminal investigation into the death of George Wilhelm, as testified to by detectives from the City of Pittsburgh Police Department, Homicide Unit, and has found the following errors and/or oversights to be inconsistent with sound forensic and homicide procedures utilized by police in murder investigations:
(a) The crime scene was thoroughly combed for evidence and forty pieces of evidence were collectedAt least forty photographs were taken of the scene and evidence but not all of the collected evidence was analyzed by the crime lab and critical photographs were not taken.
(b) Several blood stains were reported in the vehicle involved in the crime including blood spatters on the dashboard moving in a left to right direction.
(c) The vehicle was impounded by the Police, but no photographs were taken of its interior.
(d) The splatters on the dashboard were scraped without first being photographed.
(e) The scraped blood was removed from the surface without being photographed using a measurement scale to indicate the length and width of the blood pattern in relation to the surface on which it is found.
(f) An attempt to type the scraped blood removed from the dashboard was not made until two hours before Peter Marrone of the Allegheny County Crime Lab was to testify at the Goldblum trial. Accordingly, blood typing was impossible.
(g) Fingernail scrapings taken from the victim were not thoroughly analyzed.
6. That if evidence had been preserved properly, if a photograph with a scale present had been taken of the blood spatters on the dashboard, if the blood spatters had been precisely measured for size, both length and width, a forensic criminalist could determine the angle of impact of the blood. That information, in turn, could have illustrated to a fair degree of precision where the victim and the assailant were positioned at the time of the assault, and how the spattering of the blood on the dashboard occurred.
7. That this case in its early stages was one where the Police had to have been aware that it was necessary to determine which of the two defendants was the assailant who wielded the grass shear and did the stabbing. In such a case it is a clear imperative to gather as much evidence as possible, especially important evidence relating to the relative positions of each of the parties during the commission of the crime and what could have been done by these parties from the positions they were in. There is no evidence that this occurred in this case. In the context of an investigation under these circumstances by such a well regarded Homicide Unit, it is hard to logically explain these oversights.
8. That the Police recovered the clothing worn by Goldblum on the night of the murder and it was void of the victim’s blood; the co-defendant, Miller, admitted to the police that he discarded the clothing he wore. After learning this information, no further investigation was undertaken to attempt to determine who the assailant was. That this information did not raise any doubt or question by this Homicide Unit and did not lead to further investigation or reconsideration is difficult to understand.
9. The crime lab report by Mr. Peter Marrone indicated that the results of his examination of fingernail scrapings taken from the victim were “negative.” The report fails to describe the composition or ingredients of the scrapings. The report fails to describe the fingernail scrapings. That a specific ingredient description is not given, is not in accord with accepted investigative procedure.
10. That Goldblum’s counsel, David Rothman, did not conduct a private investigation of the crime scene.
11. That at the time the crime occurred, there were several well respected forensic experts available who could have been called upon by the defense.
12. That a private investigation would have assisted in Charles Goldblum’s defense and raised serious doubts as to the Commonwealth’s theory of the case.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 15 day of March, 1996
( signed )
John Balshy