Jean Direct Examination

Good Afternoon, Ms. Hair-e-mans, please state your name for the court.

My name is Jean Heremans

What do you do for a living?

I am a Senior Forensic Specialist Supervisor with the Pennsylvania State Police.

Can you explain your background in Forensic Science?

I have degrees in Physics and Computer Science from Penn State, I completed a forensic sciences program at Carnegie Mellon after serving in the Coast Guard, and I have over 15 years of experience in forensic investigation. I’ve testified in hundreds of cases, and my opinions are rendered within a reasonable degree of scientific certainty.

Turning to this specific case, how are you involved?

The Wisawe Police Department requested urgent forensic assistance on October 31, 2024. I led my team in processing evidence collected at the scene of the crime at Ruffed Grouse High School.

Can you explain the methods used to establish the location of phones belonging to the suspects?

Certainly. We used three methods: WiFi connection logs, GPS data, and cell site triangulation. These methods can provide reliable information about a phone’s location.

Using these methods, were you able to locate the phones of the three suspects: MacLeod, Gerevich, and Locksley?

Yes. Robin Locksley’s phone had precise GPS data and was connected to the school’s network, placing Locksley at the scene during the time they admitted being there. Ali Gerevich’s phone and Connie MacLeod’s phone both lacked GPS data but were triangulated to within half a mile of the school around the time of the crime.

How does this data align with their statements?

Locksley’s phone data corroborated their account of being present but leaving before the crime occurred. However, MacLeod’s phone was placed near the scene at a time inconsistent with their account.

Is there any physical evidence connecting MacLeod to the crime scene?

Particulates that matched the unique composition of early 20th-century concrete from the damaged area at Ruffed Grouse High School were found on some clothing in MacLeod’s dorm room. Additionally, coal dust, which was consistent with the school’s old heating systems, was detected on MacLeod’s socks.

How could such evidence end up on MacLeod’s clothing?

The concrete particulate suggests close proximity to the destruction of the school’s structure, such as during the use of a sledgehammer. The coal dust indicates the presence in areas like the school’s old boiler room, which is adjacent to the site of the theft.

Was there any other physical evidence present at the crime scene?

Yes, we did recover several fingerprints from the scene, including prints on the broken door handle and some of the objects that were disturbed. MacLeod's fingerprints were found on a key piece of evidence — an object that was used to damage the door.

Did the forensic analysis find evidence of network activity from MacLeod or the other suspects at the school?

Yes. While Locksley’s account matched the network logs, there was a suspicious login attempt using administrator credentials after Locksley’s departure. The device associated with this attempt was linked to an iPad reported stolen from ZenoPharma, but we could not directly tie this to MacLeod without further evidence.

In your expert opinion, does the evidence suggest MacLeod’s involvement in the crime?

Based on the forensic evidence — including locational data, particulate analysis, and inconsistencies in their account — MacLeod’s presence at or near the scene during the crime is strongly supported.

So based on your review and investigation, were the important factors when concluding the case, coal, prints, and dust, consistent with any other suspect?

No, MacLeod is the only suspect who was consistent with ALL of these factors.