Criminal conduct including evidence tampering and perjury.

STATE OF NEW MEXICO
COUNTY OF Santa Ana.
§
§
§
AFFIDAVIT
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared Dr. Larry
Ytuarte, who, after being by me duly sworn, upon oath said:

My name is Dr. Larry Ytuarte. I am over the age of 18 and competent to make this
affidavit.

From September of 1990 to September of 1994, I worked at the Bexar County Forensic Science Center in San Antonio, Texas as a forensic toxicologist. When I worked at the Bexar County Forensic Center, I did not work on the Sonia Cacy case. However, from being in the lab when the work on her case was ongoing, I had personal knowledge of the following facts.

In November of 1991, a sample of burned clothing removed from the body of Bill Richardson (Case # ME 1578-91, autopsy performed by then Medical Examiner Robert Bux)was delivered from the autopsy room to the toxicology lab. The Medical Examiner was requesting an arson analysis. The clothing sample was sent with an evidence receipt form. The person in the toxicology lab who received the sample never signed or initialed the evidence receipt form. In 1993, as the Sonia Cacy trial was approaching, Assistant Chief Toxicologist Joe Castorena typed up an evidence receipt form for the sample and submitted it. It was meant to appear like it was an evidence receipt from 1991 when the sample had come into the toxicology
lab, but Castorena made a mistake and typed "1993" instead of" 1991" on the form. When he realized his mistake, Castorena typed out a "corrected version," this one showing the year as 1991, and submitted that one as well.

On November 18, 1991, that clothing sample was analyzed for accelerants by toxicologist Robert Rodriquez. Prior to the completion of the arson analysis, Rodriguez and Castorena discussed the case with me. They told me that Mr. Richardson had been murdered by Ms. Sonia Cacy. Castorena offered a theory as to Ms. Cacy's motives for the murder and explained to me how she had piled furniture on Mr. Richardson, doused him with gasoline, and set him on fire.

Rodriguez, who performed the analysis, told me that he was very upset that Ms. Cacy had killed two dogs in the process of committing the murder. It was clear from their words that both Rodriguez and Castorena already believed Ms. Cacy was guilty of the crime before the arson analysis had been carried out.

The analysis used by Rodriguez involved a "purge and trap" technique, and gas
chromatography/mass spectrometry. The result of the analysis was an unambiguous none detected, meaning no accelerant was found in the clothing remnants. When I discovered that Castorena identified the analysis as positive for the presence of an Class II accelerant, I took a look at the actual instrumental data: the GC/MS chromatograms. In the past, I had been told by Rodriguez, and Jeff Todd (the chemist who was performing arson analyses before the task was handed to Rodriguez), that arson analysis results depended on "pattern recognition."

According to Rodriguez and Todd, "pattern recognition" meant comparing chromatograms of samples of actual gasoline (or other accelerants) with chromatograms obtained from the sample submitted for analysis. When I compared them, I could see that they did not match. There was no "pattern" to "recognize" between the genuine sample of gas and the Richardson sample. But I
had never performed an arson analysis, nor had I been required to interpret arson analysis data.


It was just my opinion. It wasn't until I learned that Gerald Hurst and many other arson experts looked at that actual data and said that there was no evidence of gasoline in the sample that I knew that my opinion was correct. I learned that Hurst and the other experts had looked at the data and expressed their opinion in approximately 1998.

Castorena testified at trial that he had performed the analysis and that the analysis had found the presence of a Class II accelerant (gasoline is a Class II accelerant). Both statements are false. Rodriquez had performed the analysis, and no accelerant had been found. Castorena also submitted documents as evidence which claimed he had performed the analysis and that an accelerant had been found.

In September of 1994, I was fired from the Bexar County Crime Lab for going to the
Bexar County Commissioners Court, the Bexar County District Attorney's Office, and the American Academy of Forensic Sciences with a variety of complaints about the crime lab. These complaints included the fabrication of results, the falsification of chain-of-custody documents, and the use of scientifically worthless testing methods. I sued Bexar County under the Texas Whistleblower laws, and in July of 1997 the matter ended in a settlement which included the term that I not be bound by any rules of nondisclosure regarding the facts of my lawsuit. One example case, that I identified as a basis for my claims was Case #ME 1578-91, of
the deceased, Bill Richardson.

I did not work on this case in an official capacity at the Bexar County crime lab.
Accordingly, my identity and my knowledge of Ms. Cacy's case were unknown to Ms. Cacy and her trial counsel at her trial in 1993 and also at her second punishment hearing in 1996.In late 1998 and early 1999, I wrote Ms. Cacy telling her what I knew about these facts.

Prior to that time, I had never discussed this case with Ms. Cacy or her lawyers.

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared Larry Ytuarte, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the forgoing instrument, and after being duly sworn by me did state upon oath that the facts contained in said instrument are true
and correct.

John Lentini, CFI, D-ABC
Fire Investigation Consultant
Florida Keys
[www.firescientist.com]