the staging of a crime scene
THE STAGING OF CRIME SCENE: THERE'S NO BLOOD AT ALL ONE SECOND, AND THEN ALL KINDS OF BLOOD THE NEXT, AND NOBODY QUESTIONS THIS!
With regard to the 3 Warrantless Searches conducted:
1) During first and second searches there was no blood and nothing to indicate anybody
had been injured.
2) House was closed up and left unattended and unsecured with a broken window and
door and no police presence (1 1/2-2 hours).
3) 4 1/2 hours later, a third search occurred, and then there was suddenly blood
everywhere and an overturned dining room chair.
There were 3 warrantless searches of Larsen's home conducted during 2 warrantless entries to the home. Around 11AM, 5-7 rescue personnel entered the home for the first and second warrantless searches (two searches during one entry). They searched the home thoroughly, for child or adult, and found nobody. Finding no one, the same 5-7 people split up again, and searched the entire home a second time for child or adult, and found nobody. The two searches consumed 15-20 minutes (on scene 32 minutes) with 5-7 rescue personnel searching a modest ranch home. Nobody was found in the home and there was no mention of potential areas of blood or anything that indicated that somebody had been injured.
They had initially broken into the home by using an axe to pry open a door and also apparently breaking a window. They then cleaned-up the mess they made breaking in, and left a note indicating that they had forced entry. The home was left unattended and unsecured (broken window and door) from at least 11:32AM-12:58PM (possibly longer) with no police presence whatsoever.
Then, 4 1/2 hours later, at 3:28PM, a second entry is made to the home for the third warrantless search. There were suddenly large amounts of blood where there was none previously, and that blood was in the one main thoroughfare of the home that couldn't possibly have been previously not seen. It was in the one and only place that those 5-7 people from the earlier two searches would have had to pass through repeatedly, and there was also at that time an overturned dining room chair in the same area.
There are several very odd things worth noting about this third warrantless search at this point:
1) In order to claim "exigent circumstances" as a reason for entering without a warrant, there has to be a "perceived need to immediately render assistance to somebody".
2) Two very thorough searches had already been conducted, and there was no new need to think anybody needed assistance as they knew nobody was there.
3) The scope of that third warrantless search was not even tailored to respond to an emergency because there were NO EMT's or rescue personnel even present.
4) Officers had chosen to get their permission to search from a prosecutor, rather than a judge as is required by law.
5) All of the people entering on that third warrantless search were a prosecutor and members of a criminal investigative team.
6) They had over 4 hours to obtain a warrant, but had chosen not to.
7) According to case law, "exigent circumstances" searches are always restricted to very short periods of time; quite often just a matter of minutes. In Larsen's situation, numerous police began tearing-up the house for over 7 hours, and they weren't there to look for a person as they claimed because their own reports show that just minutes after entering they began rummaging through drawers, filing cabinets and boxes, opening small safes, and searching through piles of business related documents.
The pages that follow show relevant transcript references to the above.
Relevant Transcript References: (to the above information)
E followed by a number refers to a page of the evidentiary hearing transcript. Also, the following excerpts include statements from 3 different officers: 1) Lt. Thomas Sweet, shift commander of Racine County Sheriff Department in charge at the scene. 2) Deputy Mark Anderson, Sheriff at the scene. 3) Inv. Eileen Reilly, an investigator with the Racine County Sheriff Department.
Lt. Thomas Sweet (entering residence) E16-17
Q. So you made the call to enter the residence?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And how did you do that?
A. E.M.S. and fire people used an ax to pry open a side door, and we made entry through a
west side door of the residence.
Q. Did you go in first? Or E.M.S. go in first?
A. I believe I went in first.
Q. And did E.M.S. go in with you as well?
A. Yes.
Q. And basically what did you do when you got inside?
A. We looked-- we looked for anybody that needed assistance.
Q. I take it you-- well, did you move things? Can you-- back up here. Can you describe how
the residence looked when you entered into it? Was it--
A. It was-- it was a-- what appeared to me to be a single family residence. It was what I
term to be organized, but there was a lot of material there. You had to kind of be careful
moving around so you didn't knock things over and bump into things. There seemed to be
a lot of material, but organized in its way.
Q. And there were a lot of boxes in the residence?
A. I don't recall boxes. Just a lot of things. There was business material in an office. There
was toys. There was-- there may have been some boxes on the floor.
Q. And you basically walked in this residence looking for a body, correct?
A. Looking for-- yeah. We were looking for somebody to render assistance to.
Lt. Thomas Sweet (after Second search completed) E31-33
Q. Still found no one?
A. That is correct.
Q. Found nothing suggesting anyone was injured in the home?
A. I didn't see anything that indicated to me that somebody had been injured there.
Q. Neither did any of the other four people with you report to you seeing anything that
suggested someone was injured in the home?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, having twice gone through this house, were you satisfied that this group of people
who came in had looked every place where an injured person might be?
A. Yes.
Q. It was only once you were satisfied that you had met this, you know, community
caretaker obligation that the Police have that you left the home?
A. I felt that we could-- that our presence there no longer accomplished anything, and that
we could leave knowing that we hadn't left anybody behind that needed assistance.
Q. Right. When you say no longer accomplished anything, there was no assistance to render
in the home?
A. That's correct.
Q. So you left. And you describe what you personally did after leaving the home on
Saturday morning. And you have also told us about Deputy Anderson going back to the
Larsen home at some point that morning. Just to get you re-oriented, okay? My
question is, whether there was a time when you left for the Norway Police Department
-- I think you took Anderson with you, right?
A. We both had our own squads. One followed the other.
Q. Right. You're in separate squads, but you both went to the Norway Police Department?
A. Three of us went. The Norway Officer, myself, and Deputy Anderson.
Q. Three separate squads?
A. Correct.
Q. The emergency-- that is, the rescue people left and went back to wherever they came
from?
A. That's correct.
Q. So there was a time there in which no law enforcement Officer was present at the
Larsen home?
A. That is correct.
Lt. Thomas Sweet (decided to protect the scene) E46-47
Q. You want to dispatch log?
A. Please.
Q. Okay. I am going to leave that with you.
A. The notation here is that at 12:58 that 5055, which is Deputy Anderson, would be
standing by maintaining the residence at 26841 Oakridge Drive.
Q. So I want to be clear. By a couple minutes to 1:00 p.m. that day, this possible crime
scene in your mind had become a scene that needed to be protected?
A. That is correct. And that was Deputy Anderson's responsibility, to protect the crime
scene at that point.
Deputy Mark Anderson (First and Second searches) E76
Q. After-- and let me ask you this. Were there other people also searching the house?
A. Yes.
Q. How many other people?
A. Myself. Lieutenant Sweet. I remember a first responder by the name of Wayne Meyers.
And then there were three or four other firefighters or first responders also looking.
Q. Did any of them find anything in the house?
A. No.
Deputy Mark Anderson (First and Second searches) E76-77
Q. Once you had gone through the house, what happened?
A. Myself and Lieutenant Sweet, we made a decision that we were done, and we spent
some time cleaning up the glass in the area where we broke the door. We felt that was
the least we could do, was to secure the house and sweep up the glass. And I believe
we left a note, and then we exited the house.
Q. And let me just clarify. During your search of the house, did you make one trip through?
Or two?
A. I am going to have to say it's two, but it's like one. I mean, I searched the rooms, and
then sometimes guys will switch and I will search-- walk into a room that somebody else
just walked through, and he will walk into a room maybe that I just walked through.
Q. After everybody had done those, including crossing over, and you cleaned up, what did
you do?
A. We secured the house and left.
Inv. Eileen Reilly (Second warrantless entry, Third search) E122
Q. Do you know who made the decision to enter that residence at 3:28 p.m. on the
afternoon of January 31st, 2004?
A. Investigator Dobesh spoke to our District Attorney Robert Flancher and briefed him of
the details we knew at that point, and he authorized that we could go in.
Q. So you and Investigator Hanrahan were the first two to enter the residence at that
time?
A. Yes.
Q. And that was after it had been conveyed to you that D.A. Flancher had indicated that
there was exigent circumstances?
A. That's correct.
Q. When you entered the residence-- or let me back up here. Why did you enter the
residence on 3:28-- at 3:28 p.m. in the afternoon of January 31st, 2004? What were you
looking for?
A. Up to this point no one had mentioned the children, and we were looking for the kids to
see if perhaps he left the children in the house, or had caused harm to the children and
they would be laying in the house somewhere.
Inv. Eileen Reilly ("big chunk of blood" comment) E125
Q. That happened after the initial 20 minute search, approximately?
A. We saw a big chunk of blood when we first entered into the room as we were searching
for the kids. We didn't spend any time on that, because we were still searching for the
children.
Q. Where did you see that big chunk of blood?
A. In the front hall room. Room right off the front hall.
Inv. Eileen Reilly (Third search, large amount of blood) E126-127
Q. About how soon after you walked in that residence did you see the blood?
A. I saw it as soon as I entered. I saw it as soon as I entered that room.
Q. And how did you know it was blood? Or what drew your attention to it?
A. It was a large blotch. As I recall, the carpeting was light tan and it was very red.
Q. Can you-- I know you have indicated with your hands-- is that approximately two feet
around? Or was it--
A. Foot-and-a-half, two feet, yeah, diameter.
Q. Was it round? Or in a rectangle shape, approximately? If you can recall.
A. As I recall, it was circular.
Q. Did you point that out to Investigator Hanrahan?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you see any other-- when you walked into that living room area, did you see any
other evidence of blood or things that jumped out to you fairly quickly?
A. There was a chair overturned kind of in the area of his blood splat. From the dining
room table. And we found more later, but at that point that was the first thing I noticed.
Q. And that blood you saw on the floor was immediately apparent to you when you
walked in that room?
A. Yes.
Considering all of the above testimony by those who were not present at the scene, but in charge of it, why has nobody ever questioned why there was no blood one search, and then all kinds of blood the next? She (Teri) had an hour and a half to waltz in with her key and stage whatever she pleased. Furthermore, if all that blood had been there during the first TWO searches, wouldn't it have immediately been considered a possible crime scene and also immediately protected? But that is NOT what occurred! There was no police presence, and then 4 1/2 hours later they decided to declare it a crime scene. This makes no sense at all. Then to top it all off they re-entered for a third warrantless search while claiming to be looking for injured children, but there were NO EMT's or rescue personnel present. Not to mention the fact that not a single person has made any type of comment or allegation about children possibly even being injured at any time. One investigator, apparently on her own accord, decided to state this must be possible without any reason or cause for stating such, other than needing an excuse to re-enter a building without a warrant. Why is none of this ludriousness questioned? Under that ridiculous premise can't police break into any home at any time just to verify the well-being of its occupants by assuming a horrible situation that they already know does not exist? You have confirmation that they knew this situation did not exist by virtue of the TWO earlier searches, not to mention that their own records clearly show they were NOT looking of children, but instead were immediately upon entering rummaging through drawers, safes, and boxes, etc... This is documented within their communication just minutes after entering!