Shooter's clothing compared to defendant's

Expert video analyst Grant Fredericks testified last week that clothing worn by Devon Anglin, accused of killing 4-year-old Jeremiah Barnes, appeared indistinguishable from those worn by the shooter.

Anglin has pleaded not guilty to the murder of the child, the attempted murder of the boy’s father, and possession of an unlicensed firearm.

Mr. Fredericks said he had analyzed images from the CCTV camera at the Hell Service Station, where the shooting took place around 8 p.m. on Feb. 15, 2010. He also had photos of Anglin, his shoes and jeans, plus images from CCTV in the court house, where Anglin had appeared the morning of the shooting on a traffic charge.

Images of the blue jeans worn by the gunman were compared with images of the jeans Anglin wore to court that morning.

Mr. Fredericks told the court that crease patterns he examined on both pairs of jeans were in the same position and of the same shape, length and direction. Both pairs of jeans were too long for the wearer, as seen in the way the cuffs bunched, he noted.

Mr. Fredericks concluded that the gunman’s jeans could not be eliminated as the jeans worn by Anglin. He could find nothing to distinguish them in any way.

The shoes of the shooter also could not be distinguished from Anglin’s shoes, he said. Both pairs were dark, laced and had a reflective object at the beginning of the laced area. They were of the same color and class. “What we look for are unique features before we say [the items] may be the same,” he said in response to a question from defense counsel David Fisher.

Mr. Fisher asked about the lighter color of the welt [between the sole and the upper shoes] that could be seen in a high resolution photograph of Anglin’s shoes, but not seen on the gunman’s shoes. Mr. Fredericks said the difference could be because of the low resolution of the CCTV image or because the lighter welt was not present.

The third item of interest came from a photograph of Anglin in custody, in which he is seen lying on a bed and wearing boxer shorts over briefs. The pattern on the boxer shorts had the same design as seen on footage from the service station CCTV, when the gunman raised his arms, exposing his waist.

Questioned by Mr. Fisher, Mr. Fredericks agreed that he could not say positively that what was seen on the gunman was boxer shorts; it could have been something protruding downward from a garment worn on the upper body.

Mr. Fredericks also analyzed the service station CCTV and said it appeared that the gunman was wearing a mask from the bridge of the nose to below the jaw.

The trial is scheduled to continue on Monday with several civilian witnesses.

Justice Charles Quin is hearing the matter without a jury, as Anglin elected. Anglin was found not guilty after a judge-alone trial in 2011. The Court of Appeal overturned that verdict and ordered a retrial, saying justice Howard Cooke had made a decision that was erroneous on a point of law.

Mr. Fredericks told the court that crease patterns he examined on both pairs of jeans were in the same position and of the same shape, length and direction.