Edward (Ed) Hueske, Consulting Forensic Scientist, provides services
through his forensic training and consulting company in Texas. He is
known for his expertise in firearms examinations, trace evidence analysis,
bloodstain pattern analysis, shooting incident reconstruction and gunshot
and primer residue.
Ed claims to have provided expert testimony over 500 times in civil and
criminal court representing defense and prosecution equally.
through his forensic training and consulting company in Texas. He is
known for his expertise in firearms examinations, trace evidence analysis,
bloodstain pattern analysis, shooting incident reconstruction and gunshot
and primer residue.
Ed claims to have provided expert testimony over 500 times in civil and
criminal court representing defense and prosecution equally.
Ed Hueske, was requested to examine the assault rifle that Mr. Webb allegedly pointed toward the officers in an effort to determine if there was any physical
evidence present that could indicate what position the rifle might have been in when Deputy Kade opened fire on Mr. Webb.
He reviewed the following documents:
Raleigh County Sheriff’s Office Incident Reports
Raleigh County Sheriff’s Office Dispatch Record
Copies of evidence and scene images (both hard copies and electronic)
Autopsy Report on Robert Webb
Transcripts of Depositions of Deputies Hajash and Kade
Scene measurements
He traveled to Beckley, WV on 10/30/2009 where he inspected the assault rifle, a fired shot shell, and fired shotgun pellet fragments in evidence at the Raleigh
County Sheriff’s Office. He did not testify at trial because of the ‘stipulation’ in place stating that Rob had his weapon raised at the time the deputies fired on him.
Questions:
Why was Ed Hueske’s introduction so vague and not consistent with the other versions stated?
Does Beckley have a forensics lab that Ed Hueske performed these inspections at or did he go to the State Police Lab in Charleston?
Why did they wait until 2009 to have an expert inspect the rifle? Shouldn’t that have been done in a thorough investigation conducted in 2006?
Mr. Hueske is an expert in crime scene reconstruction, why did they not use that expertise for this case to prove where Hajash and Kade was standing when
firing their weapon, considering that it is impossible to be at the right rear of a vehicle and shoot someone that is on the ground with a truck obstructing visibility
from the torso down?
Why did this expert not have an opinion on which arm he shouldered the rifle?
Considering the rules (in the documents) listed below, why did Ed Hueske not provide the list of the last four years as a witness or a statement of compensation
paid for this case. And furthermore, why did the judge allow it if it did not comply with federal rules?
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)9B) states:
A written report unless otherwise ordered or stipulated must contain:
(v) a list of all other cases in which, during the previous four years, the witness testified as an expert at trial or by definition and
(vi) a statement of the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony of this case.
evidence present that could indicate what position the rifle might have been in when Deputy Kade opened fire on Mr. Webb.
He reviewed the following documents:
Raleigh County Sheriff’s Office Incident Reports
Raleigh County Sheriff’s Office Dispatch Record
Copies of evidence and scene images (both hard copies and electronic)
Autopsy Report on Robert Webb
Transcripts of Depositions of Deputies Hajash and Kade
Scene measurements
He traveled to Beckley, WV on 10/30/2009 where he inspected the assault rifle, a fired shot shell, and fired shotgun pellet fragments in evidence at the Raleigh
County Sheriff’s Office. He did not testify at trial because of the ‘stipulation’ in place stating that Rob had his weapon raised at the time the deputies fired on him.
Questions:
Why was Ed Hueske’s introduction so vague and not consistent with the other versions stated?
Does Beckley have a forensics lab that Ed Hueske performed these inspections at or did he go to the State Police Lab in Charleston?
Why did they wait until 2009 to have an expert inspect the rifle? Shouldn’t that have been done in a thorough investigation conducted in 2006?
Mr. Hueske is an expert in crime scene reconstruction, why did they not use that expertise for this case to prove where Hajash and Kade was standing when
firing their weapon, considering that it is impossible to be at the right rear of a vehicle and shoot someone that is on the ground with a truck obstructing visibility
from the torso down?
Why did this expert not have an opinion on which arm he shouldered the rifle?
Considering the rules (in the documents) listed below, why did Ed Hueske not provide the list of the last four years as a witness or a statement of compensation
paid for this case. And furthermore, why did the judge allow it if it did not comply with federal rules?
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)9B) states:
A written report unless otherwise ordered or stipulated must contain:
(v) a list of all other cases in which, during the previous four years, the witness testified as an expert at trial or by definition and
(vi) a statement of the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony of this case.
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |