The Forensic Evidence and the Questions It Left Behind

June 24, 2026 | Freeport, IL

More than a decade after Traveontaye Berry was convicted of murdering Carl Green Jr., questions remain about the forensic evidence presented to the jury.

According to testimony presented during Berry's trial, no fingerprints linked him to the alleged murder weapon. DNA recovered from the evidence was not sufficient to include or exclude him as a contributor. Experts also testified there was not enough conclusive evidence to determine whether he fired the gun.

Yet despite those facts, a jury convicted Berry after less than two hours of deliberation.

The question is not whether Berry was convicted. The question is what evidence convinced jurors beyond a reasonable doubt.

No Fingerprints on the Gun

According to reporting by the Journal-Standard, Illinois State Police forensic scientist Edward Rottman testified that Berry's fingerprints were not found on the silver Ruger 9mm pistol prosecutors identified as the murder weapon in the shooting death of Carl Green Jr.

The firearm had been recovered from beneath a porch at 1242 S. Float Avenue.

Rottman testified that he conducted four forensic examinations on the firearm and also examined an empty magazine recovered during the investigation.

Jurors heard testimony that no fingerprints were identified on the firearm and no fingerprints were identified on the magazine. They also heard testimony that DNA recovered from the evidence was of insufficient quality to include or exclude Berry as a contributor.

Perhaps most notably, experts testified there was not enough conclusive evidence to determine whether Berry fired the weapon.

For many observers, that raises a simple question:

If there were no fingerprints, no usable DNA, and no conclusive forensic evidence establishing who fired the weapon, what evidence ultimately convinced a jury to convict Berry after less than two hours of deliberation?

The Empty Magazine

Another detail from the testimony deserves closer examination.

According to the article, investigators recovered an empty magazine during the investigation. That fact becomes significant when viewed alongside the testimony of the prosecution's key eyewitness. Throughout witness statements reviewed by Fighting4Freeport, Myleka Avery repeatedly described hearing only two shots.

"Pow. Pow."

Two shots. Yet the magazine associated with the Ruger pistol was reportedly empty.

How many people keep a firearm loaded with only two rounds? Were additional rounds fired before the shooting? Were additional rounds fired during the incident that witnesses failed to observe? Or does the condition of the firearm suggest a version of events different from the one ultimately presented to the jury?

Perhaps the most important question, however, is one the article never answers.

Was the empty magazine found inside the Ruger pistol or recovered separately?

The distinction matters.

If the magazine was still inserted into the firearm when it was recovered beneath the porch at 1242 S. Float Avenue, that may suggest one set of circumstances. If it was recovered somewhere else entirely, that may suggest another.

Where exactly was the magazine found? Was it recovered beneath the porch with the firearm? Was it recovered inside the apartment? Was it recovered elsewhere? How many rounds was it designed to hold?

Without answers to those questions, it becomes difficult to determine what significance should be attached to the magazine's condition.

What Was Actually Fingerprinted?

The testimony established that fingerprints were not found on the firearm or magazine. But that naturally leads to another question.

What else was tested?

If investigators believed a gunman entered through the back door, struggled inside the apartment, fired shots, fell onto the kitchen floor, got up, and fled through the front door, one would expect numerous opportunities for physical evidence collection.

Were fingerprints collected from the back door? The door frame? The kitchen floor area? The countertops? The front door? The doorknob? The porch? Any furniture?

More importantly, was the inside of the apartment fingerprinted at all?

During multiple interviews, witnesses reportedly told investigators they did not know the shooter and did not know Traveontaye Berry.

If investigators truly believed those statements, one would expect fingerprint evidence recovered throughout the apartment to either support or challenge them. Finding Berry's fingerprints on a drinking glass, in a bathroom, on a bedroom door, or elsewhere inside the residence would have provided evidence that he had previously been inside the apartment.

Likewise, the absence of such evidence may have raised additional questions.

Were those comparisons ever made? Were latent fingerprints recovered from inside the apartment? If so, whose were they? Were any compared to Berry? Were any compared to Carl Green Jr.? Or was the focus primarily limited to the firearm itself?

A homicide investigation is not merely about proving a theory. It is also about testing that theory against the physical evidence.

Sometimes the most important evidence is not what investigators find. It is what they look for in the first place.

The DNA on the Back Porch

Another question that continues to surface involves DNA reportedly collected from the back porch.

During witness interviews, investigators referenced DNA recovered from the area behind the apartment. Yet from the trial reporting reviewed thus far, it remains unclear exactly whose DNA was recovered, where it was recovered, and what conclusions investigators ultimately drew from it.

At this point, it also remains unclear whether the DNA referenced by investigators was blood, touch DNA, skin cells, or another biological sample. That distinction matters because different types of DNA evidence can tell investigators very different things about what occurred at a scene.

Those details become particularly important because the location of Carl Green Jr. when he was shot lies at the center of competing versions of what happened.

If Green was standing on the back porch when shots were fired from inside the apartment, DNA evidence on the porch could potentially support that scenario. If Green was shot near the porch by someone standing outside, DNA evidence could support an entirely different reconstruction of events. If Green was wounded on the porch, walked down the stairs, crossed the yard, and ultimately collapsed in a neighboring yard, that would suggest another possibility altogether.

The questions become straightforward.

Whose DNA was found on the back porch? Was it identified as belonging to Carl Green Jr.? If so, how much DNA was recovered? Was there enough biological material to suggest Green was bleeding on the porch? Or did it merely establish that he had been present in the area at some point? Was the DNA concentrated in a specific location? Did investigators determine whether the evidence suggested Green was shot on the porch? Or did it only establish that he was in the vicinity of the porch at some point before or after the shooting?

More importantly, did the DNA evidence support the theory that Green was shot by someone laying on the kitchen floor before making his way down the stairs and ultimately collapsing in a neighboring yard?

Or did it support a different version of events entirely?

These questions are important because the answers may help establish whether Green was shot from inside the apartment, from the doorway, from the porch, or from somewhere else entirely.

The Problem With the Gun's Location

Perhaps the most difficult question raised by the forensic evidence involves the location of the Ruger pistol itself.

According to on version of a witness’ testimony, the shooter allegedly fired from inside the apartment before fleeing out the front door. Berry was ultimately apprehended south of the residence. Yet the Ruger pistol was recovered underneath the porch of a neighboring home north of the apartment.

Those facts appear difficult to reconcile.

According to the Freeport Police Department’s theory, the shooter fired from inside the apartment, ran out the front door, and fled south. Where officers arrested Berry within forty feet of the front door, south of the apartment.

The Ruger pistol was recovered underneath a neighbor’s porch, north of the apartment.

If investigators believed Berry was the shooter, how did the weapon end up hidden in the opposite direction of his alleged flight path?

For the investigating officer’s theory to be correct, someone would have had to move the firearm from within the apartment to north of the apartment before it was recovered just feet from where Green was found.

Who moved it? When was it moved? How was that determination made? And if there was zero conclusive evidence that Berry was the shooter, would a more appropriate theory be - there was another shooter(s) who was able to wipe and hide the gun, and ultimately get away behind the apartment building, while officers were distracted with Berry running out of the front?

The location of the firearm becomes even more difficult to reconcile when viewed alongside the lack of fingerprints, the absence of usable DNA, and expert testimony that could not conclusively determine who fired the weapon.

The Bigger Question

A man is dead. Carl Green Jr. lost his life on October 16, 2013.

A teenager was convicted of murder and sentenced to spend decades behind bars.

More than ten years later, however, questions remain about the physical evidence used to reach that conclusion.

No fingerprints linked Berry to the firearm. No usable DNA identified him as the shooter. Experts could not conclusively determine he fired the weapon. The magazine was empty. bDNA was reportedly recovered near the back porch. The firearm was recovered north of the apartment while Berry was arrested south of it.

Perhaps there are answers to each of these questions. If so, they deserve to be examined.

As Fighting4Freeport continues its review of this case, our goal is not to tell you what to think, but rather to encourage you to think.

To examine the evidence. To ask questions. And to follow the facts wherever they lead.

Because justice is best served when the truth is allowed to stand on its own.