Opinion ID: 788147
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Crime Scene Photographs

Text: 268 A photograph offered into evidence at Lambert's trial showed Laurie Show lying dead on the floor of her apartment. The photograph showed a telephone cord wrapped once around her leg near her ankle. Lambert contends that there was no telephone cord wrapped around Show's leg before law enforcement authorities became involved with the crime scene. She contends that several hours after Show's body was removed from the crime scene, the police brought the corpse back to the apartment, wrapped a telephone cord around its leg, and photographed the body. 269 Lambert claims that the police did this in order to discredit the statement she gave to the police upon her arrest. In her statement, Lambert told the police a version of events where [Show] tried to grab the phone and [Buck] grabbed it away and threw it down. Appellate App. 1577. According to Lambert, the fabricated crime scene photographs showing a telephone cord around Show's leg served to discredit Lambert's testimony that it was Buck who struggled with Show, and in doing so, threw a telephone across Show's room. Lambert Br. 62. 37 270 Lambert sought to prove to the PCRA Court that this misconduct occurred through alleged inconsistencies between the photograph and (1) a crime-scene drawing, and (2) testimony regarding the crime scene. The PCRA Court flatly rejected this contention, finding that the evidence did not nearly suffice to show that the government engaged in such outrageous conduct. The Court's conclusion was certainly reasonable in light of the record. Indeed, the evidence in the record virtually compelled the Court to reach that conclusion. 271 Officer Robin Weaver composed the crime scene drawing. The drawing presents a bird's-eye view of the room where Show's body was found and depicts the location of Show's body, furniture, and several miscellaneous objects. The drawing is inconsistent, in certain respects, with the photographs of the crime. The drawing depicts the telephone cord near Show's leg, for example, not touching or wrapped around it as in the photograph. Similarly, the drawing depicts bloody envelopes located closer to Show's body than they appear in the photograph. And the photograph shows objects, such as a coat and an electrical appliance, that do not appear in the drawing. Lambert argues that these inconsistencies-especially the location of the telephone-show that the police fabricated the crime scene photographs. 272 Officer Weaver testified at the PCRA hearing and explained why the drawing was not entirely consistent with the photographs. Weaver testified that he was told to make a rough sketch of the bedroom floor layout in order to depict the location of evidence the police collected. He did not compose the drawing to scale. Nor did he depict everything that existed in the room, since [t]here were hundreds of items in the bedroom. App. 4512. In addition, Weaver placed items in the drawing (including the telephone) after Show's body was removed from the room. 273 Officer Weaver's testimony was sufficient for the PCRA Court to reject Lambert's spurious allegations, but his testimony was not even necessary. We first note that Lambert seriously misrepresents the content of her statement to the police-the statement that allegedly provided the motive to fabricate evidence. She states in her brief that she told the police Buck threw a telephone across Show's room. Lambert Br. 62. In her actual statement to the police, however, Lambert merely said that Buck grabbed the phone from Show and threw it down. Appellate App. 1577. This is an important distinction. 38 274 And even if Lambert had told the police initially that Buck threw the telephone across the room-which she did not-the crime scene drawing would not support her extraordinary allegations that police returned the body to the crime scene and rearranged it. Lambert apparently contends that if Buck threw the telephone across the room, it would have been impossible for the phone to end up near Show's body. But the crime scene drawing itself shows the telephone close to Lambert's feet. Thus, on its face, it defeats Lambert's allegations of police misconduct: even if the police thought that evidence showing the phone near Show would have discredited Lambert, there would have been no need for the police to stage a photograph. The drawing accomplishes the same object. Whether or not the cord was touching Show's feet is immaterial. 39 275 Lambert further argues that testimony from individuals who witnessed the crime scene on the day of Show's murder establishes that the police fabricated the crime scene photographs. Specifically, witnesses testified at the PCRA hearing that they saw Show's feet at the crime scene and a telephone cord was not wrapped around them. In addition, witnesses testified that Show's body lay parallel to the closet, while the photograph depicted her body at a slight angle. 276 Lambert's arguments hinge on an unsupported view of crime scenes as antiseptic and static environments, and an utterly unrealistic supposition about the precision of witness observations and memories. We agree with the PCRA Court's conclusion that the telephone could have been moved as the several medical and police personnel tended to Laurie or processed the crime scene. PCRA Decision 236. And slight inconsistencies between the body's position in the photograph and witness's recollections (parallel to the closet versus at a slight angle) do not establish an elaborate conspiracy to implicate Lambert in Show's murder. 40 277 Finally, Lambert argues that evidence regarding the presence of blood on Show's face shows that the police brought her body back to the crime scene in order to fabricate the photographs. Specifically, the funeral director where Show's body was taken on the afternoon following the murder testified that he removed blood from Show's face when her family came to view her. Yet the autopsy report from the next morning indicated that much dried blood was on Show's face. Lambert argues that [t]he only possible explanation for this is that the body had been returned to the crime scene after it had been at the funeral home so photos could be fabricated. Lambert Br. 67. 278 The funeral director certainly testified that he cleaned Show's face when her family came to view her. He stated: [W]hen I heard that the father and possibly other family members were coming in, I had taken a damp towel and had cleaned up her face and also covered her neck area. Appellate App. 1492. He did not indicate, however, that he removed all the blood from her face. And nothing in his testimony is necessarily inconsistent with the observation at the autopsy the next day that [m]uch dried blood is seen covering the face and the neck. Appellate App. 1551. Lambert urges us to draw the strongest possible inferences from relatively indecisive evidence and conclude that the police engaged in unconscionable acts of misconduct to fabricate evidence of marginal, if any, utility in implicating Lambert. 41 The PCRA Court understandably declined to do so, and we unhesitatingly defer to its reasonable determination.