Day 9 of La Mesa Murders Trial: “Missing items indicate murderer cleaned the scene,” say detectives

Missing evidence from the home indicates the murderer tried to alter the scene according to retired Homicide Detective Clay Pouquette, Yuma Police Department, in day nine of the La Mesa Street Murders Trial.

According to investigators, there was missing evidence from the crime scene and indications the murderer tried to change things.

“There clearly appeared to be items moved or missing. It showed efforts were made to change or clean the scene,” Pouquette explained.

Pouquette continued on the witness stand Tuesday explaining to the jury that detectives were never able to find the cords or cables believed to have been used in tying 9-year-old Inez Newman.

“Inez Newman had binding marks on her but in her room, and in the room next to others, there were no bindings found,” Pouquette said.

According to investigators, some of the other victims had been bound with common household items, like cell-phone cables and a curling iron.

“The home phone was also missing, the victims’ phones, wallets,” said Pouquette.

Moreover, the prosecution questioned Pouquette about some of the items collected as evidence and sent to the Department of Public Safety Crime Lab in Phoenix, as well as evidence sent to the FBI Crime Lab.

Among the items considered of high interest to detectives, according to Pouquette, was plastic wrap found next to a trash can in the home’s kitchen.

“It [the trash can] contained a number of items that to me had a better probability of test results. A knife that had no damage, and it also contained plastic. Since the cause of death was asphyxiation, I was very interested in it,” said Pouquette.

According to Pouquette, investigators at the crime lab found hair and a glass knob wrapped in the plastic wrap. The glass knob resembled those on a new dresser in the master bedroom where the bodies of 29-year-old Adrienne Heredia and 6-year-old Danny Heredia were found.

Pouquette said that the plastic wrap also resembled that of a commercial grade quality.

He said staff from the crime lab also found that the wrap was cut up in multiple pieces.

According to Pouquette, there was also a bag of fast food collected as evidence.

“It appeared to be fresh food; so there was the additional follow up as to who brought it, why it wasn’t eaten, and where it came from,” Pouquette explained.

Prosecutors further questioned Pouquette about the quantity of items sent for analysis to both the DPS and FBI crime labs.

Pouquette said that there were several items sent to the DPS lab, perhaps hundreds, and that not all of them were tested.

He said results started trickling in early to mid 2006. The evidence was submitted a few weeks after the murders.

Likewise, Pouquette said several items were sent to the FBI for testing and not all of those were tested either.

Pouquette also testified about the pros and cons of using fingerprinting and DNA testing, saying sometimes the two types of analysis conflict with each other, though not always.

“Some items are better for fingerprinting, such as nonporous smooth surfaces; while others are better for DNA testing such as a blood stain,” said Pouquette.

“From the onset it was very clear, it would be a difficult process for DNA and latent finger printing,” said Pouquette,” There were multiple victims, with multiple people that could have visited, but I was optimistic in the long period of time that transpired.”

According to Pouquette, since the murders occurred over a longer period of time, there was a higher likelihood of the suspect leaving behind evidence.

The prosecution also asked Pouquette about different interviews that took place throughout the investigation.

He said that different people respond differently to the interview process with some being more willing and open to share information while others can be hesitant or even lie.

“Unwillingness can come from a number of different reasons. They may or may not have a criminal liability, they may be protecting someone, or they may be leery in sharing information,” explained Pouquette.

In turn, the defense later asked Pouquette if he recalled an interview with a key-witness, whose name the court has asked be withheld, in early 2011.

Pouquette replied that he did.

“The witness had expressed interest in talking to someone,” Pouquette explained.

Pouquette said it was late at night and he was already at home sleeping when he was asked to go to the Yuma Police Department for the interview.

“Did he seem relaxed?” Defense Attorney Bill Fox asked Pouquette.

“I would say yes, maybe somewhat emotional,” Pouquette replied.

“He made no effort to modify the description of who he saw in the past?” asked Fox.

“No, he did not,” Pouquette replied.

The witness testified last Thursday, on day six of the trial, and changed his description of the suspect saying he had been lying for over 10 years when he described the suspect as Hispanic male.

The witness said, that the person he saw in the backyard of the home, on June 24, 2005 was in reality Preston Strong.

The defense also questioned Pouquette about the “defensive wounds” found on Adrienne Heredia’s body during the autopsies.

“Could the wounds have been from something else?” Fox asked.

“It is possible,” Pouquette answered.

Pouquette was also asked about a plastic bag found tied to 6-year-old Danny Heredia’s neck.

Danny was found with a gunshot wound to his upper forehead area. The bag had a hole that the Prosecution alleges- in previous days- indicates the bullet traveled through the bag before impacting Danny. The prosecution also argued that Danny’s cranium showed signs of charring indicating he was shot at close range.

“If Danny had charring, shouldn’t the bag have it too?” asked Fox.

“Not sure how that withstands with plastic but that makes sense,” replied Pouquette.

In previous evidence pictures, the plastic bag showed no apparent signs of charring.

The trial resumes on Thursday.