Dave Honnick (in the front), an Owego resident that owns land surrounding the Harris property in Spencer, N.Y., is seen departing the Schoharie County Courthouse on Tuesday. Pictured walking with Honnick is Michele Harris’ father, Gary Taylor. Taylor has not had a presence inside of the courtroom during this fourth trial. (Photo by Wendy Post)
Now in its seventh week, the defense for Calvin Harris in his fourth second-degree murder trial is claiming that the investigation was biased, and that investigators failed to look into other leads. This theory by the defense was brought out in court when Senior Investigator Terry Shultz took the stand on Tuesday.
A 29-year employee of the New York State Police Department, Shultz was directly involved in conducting an interview in July of 2014 with Stacey Stewart, the man that the defense claims to have had a connection with Michele Harris’ disappearance and presumed murder.
Shultz testified on Tuesday, in a limited fashion, about his interview with Stewart and about a search in December of 2014 of ponds that are located around Stewart’s former residence in Lockwood, N.Y. – searches that Shultz ordered.
The defense, on Tuesday, was drawing out testimony that they hoped would prove that the investigation into Michele Harris’ disappearance was flawed, and that the investigators failed to follow other leads.
The defense presented lead sheets to Shultz from interviews conducted with several individuals that know Stacey Stewart, along with previous testimony by defense witnesses that have been presented over the last week and a half.
When asked by the defense why they decided to search the ponds around Stewart’s home, Shultz testified, “Michele is still a missing person, so we are still looking.”
“We want to leave no stone unturned,” said Shultz on the witness stand.
He added, “We may not believe what you [the defense] are saying, but we need to keep trying.”
And although the investigators ordered a search of the ponds near Stewart’s home, which did not reveal any findings, they did not order an excavation of the burn pit at Stewart’s home – in spite of statements that bloody clothing was burned at that location.
Shultz testified that he did not think that searching the burn pit was relevant, and noted that they did not find the claims of the burning of clothes to be credible.
The December search of the ponds was the first search at Stewart’s property, according to Shultz.
Shultz also went to Texas in July of 2014 to interview Stacey Stewart in what he testified as being a pursuit of the “real story.”
The defense, however, spent the next two hours probing the investigator about the inconsistencies of statements offered by Stewart in 2001 following Michele’s disappearance, and the interview conducted by Shultz of Stewart in 2014.
Inconsistencies were also revealed in statements given by Christopher Thomason, and from interviews with Stacey Stewart.
Brought up as an example was an interview that investigators conducted with a woman who knows Stewart and Thomason. In her interview, she offered information about Christopher Thomason burning bloody clothing in a burn pit.
This statement conflicted with those from Stewart and Thomason. The investigator, because of third-party culpability rules, was not allowed to say what was in the statements given by Stewart and Thomason, he could only testify as to whether they conflicted or not.
The prosecution, following direct from the defense, declined to cross-examine the witness.
Christopher Thomason was previously requested to testify at the trial, but he refused and sent a letter from a Texas prison stating that he would plead the fifth. The defense, to date, has not been able to locate Stacey Stewart.
Also taking the stand on Tuesday was a landowner, Dave Honnick, and the defense’s photography expert.
Defense testimony will continue on Wednesday in Schoharie County, with more testimony surrounding the burn pit expected, as well as testimony from the defense investigator.
The defense had hoped to rest on Wednesday, but testimony might extend through the day. Closing arguments are expected as early as next week.
