honoluluadvertiser.com

Sponsored by:

Comment, blog & share photos

Log in | Become a member
The Honolulu Advertiser

Posted on: Wednesday, July 25, 2001

Edmonds case may not suffer from lack of DNA

By Johnny Brannon
Advertiser Staff Writer

Convicting Delmar J. Edmonds of Dawn Bustamante's 1975 murder will be difficult if authorities have no DNA evidence, but testimony that was unavailable then is sure to help prosecutors, legal experts say.

"DNA evidence is just one tool, one type of evidence," said Virginia Hench, a University of Hawai'i law professor who teaches criminal justice. "It's like building a brick wall. You put all the evidence together and at some point it's solid."

Deputy prosecutor Rom Trader declined to say whether fluid samples collected from the 13-year-old's body after she was raped and shot to death in Kailua in 1975 still exist, but he has indicated that DNA evidence will not be used at trial.

"We've thought of that, and essentially we're proceeding now with what we have," he said. "The case is going to present certain challenges based on the amount of time that has passed, but we would not have proceeded with the case if we didn't think there was sufficient evidence."

Honolulu Medical Examiner Kanthi von Guenthner said evidence obtained during Bustamante's autopsy had been turned over to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service about a year ago; the NCIS special agent for the Bustamante case, Bruce Warshawsky, did not return calls.

Edmonds denies killing Bustamante and was shocked when he was arrested for the crime in Indianapolis July 17, his attorney said. An Indiana judge agreed yesterday to postpone until August 28 an extradition hearing that could force Edmonds to Hawai'i to stand trial.

Deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA, is composed of organic substances whose arrangement in a cell is unique to an individual. Samples of blood, semen, bone, saliva and other elements that contain DNA can prove with near certainty that a suspect had contact with a victim.

But DNA samples can also deteriorate over time and become less valuable as evidence, said Peter Keane, dean of Golden Gate University Law School in San Francisco.

Based on the limited amount of evidence described in an affidavit supporting Edmonds' arrest, prosecutors could have a tough time convincing a jury that the former Marine is guilty, Keane said.

"It's a very weak case, but they do have a case," he said. "It seems to be just about the bare minimum amount of evidence for a conviction."

According to the affidavit, a former Marine told police that Edmonds stated the night of the killing that he had shot a woman because she had angered him and gotten blood on the back seat of his car.

Other Marines said Edmonds asked them to back up a false alibi, and that he had owned a gun like the one described by a friend of Bustamante who escaped. The second girl, also 13, described Edmonds' car and picked him out of a police lineup days after the killing, but could not positively identify him.