PDA

View Full Version : Maureen Bottrell testimony (FBI Trace Evidence Unit)


mombomb
06-22-2011, 09:18 AM
8:55 (no Jury)

SIDEBAR #1 no court reporter (8:55-8:58)

Defense's first witness - Maureen Bottrell

DIRECT EXAMINATION OF MAUREEN BOTTRELL BY JB

A geologist forensic examiner with the FBI for 16 years.

BS and MS in geology from UGA. Also participated in training and additional courses. She's lectured and given courses. She published an article on glass analysis. She has testified approx. 40 times in federal and state courts.

Witness tendered as an expert in geology, no objection by JA.

She received evidence in this case for analysis.

A geologic exam for forensic purposes involves a comparison analysis or a determination of what a material is. They first look at an item to see if they have anything on it to compare. If so, they will collect an item and then begin analysis - color, texture and mineralogy.

Two microscopes are used - a stereo microscope, and one that transmit different types of lights.

There are 3 geologic forensic examiners at the FBI.

3/4/11 report - she received items from the Sunfire - debris that had been collected from the trunk and around the trunk. She also received a shovel. She also received items from the A's - 22 pairs of shoes and a transport bag. She also received items from Suburban Drive.

Her conclusions .....

JA whispering with JB

Stipulation that soil samples from the scene were taken after the top layer had been taken away.

Her conclusions - trunk vehicle was a mix of materials - there was no comparison done of the material in the trunk and the scene.

Shovel - they did a promenade study - this study was stopped when they found the body. She was never asked to do anything else with it.

Shoes - majority either had no geologic material on them (appeared to be unworn) or the material was so limited. 3 pairs - they were able to do comparison - all had materials different from the crime scene.

Transport bag - there was insufficient material for comparison.

OBJECTION JA - what item?

Transport bag was the bag that the shoes came in. This is tested because some of the soil from the shoes might fall off in the bag. There was no material for comparison.

No further questions.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY JA

She could not determine that the 3 shoes were never at Suburban Drive. Soil could have not stuck, could have fallen off, could have become contaminated, or had never been there.

Asbence of soil is meaningless as to whether a person had been there.

RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY JB

She did not find anything meaningful to connect ICA to Suburban Drive. She is only looking at the items she received and testifying to what she found

Witness excused. (9:18)

wenwe4
06-22-2011, 09:18 AM
JB w/Maureen Bottrell - geologist & forensic exam FBI 16 yrs...in trace elements unit...Masters Geology - instrumentation and analysis...Geologist and Forensic Examiner - courses in Geology, soil materials, using analytical techniques....given several training classes....review article for glass analysis....soil minerals and glass....main duties geologic material rocks, soil, also glass and
testified 40 times federal, state - expert witness accepted

anayltical process in lab - geology exam useful - evidence sent to her - comparison analysis - could two or more materials come from source - look @ shoes to determine if soil from a crime scene....

look @ materials color/texture/commonality- object has anything on them to compar - shoes with soil (if no soil - complete analysis) what is color and texture....if different stop...but if same will still go on.....how rounded individual sand grains ....do they contain similar occlusions -

prominance - stereo microscope - 400x magnification and transmitted light microscope with particular properties to allow identification of minerals - 2 typically use ...have other instruments @ disposal but rarely others are used....there are 3 geologists @ FBI

on 3/4/09 report - receive items from Pontiac Sunfire - received debris collected from trunk and received a shovel (Brian Burner's)....items from A home including shoes and transport bag...22 pairs of shoes....evidence markers from remains site on Surburban drive.....conclusions after conduct test? JA speaks w/JA on the side.......

samples taken from the scene after top layer was scraped per JA....JB concurs


material from trunk and soil did prominance study where did these materials come from....2 samples were set aside....mix of materials --can't do prominance study - can't know which come from each location....unsuitable for this type of study....

no comparison done between material in the car and the scene.....

shovel promininace study - where material come from.....underway test was done ....the body was found during this testing- testing was stopped not completed.....never asked to compare the scene with the shovel

majority of shoes had no geologic material on them - some appeared to be unworn...3 pairs of shoes had geologic material on them - but different from crime scene...some shoes had been worn but not much material on them....only 3 pair shoes with soil on them to compare......transport bg - insufficient material in transport bag to test......transport bag - bag shoes came in? yes my understanding....some soil might fall off shoes and go into bag.....nothing to connect kc's shoes to Surburban drive....no further questions

JA - 3 pair of shoes you examined have never been to Surburban Drive? no - you cannot say that....you can walk across scene without colleting soil....you can walk thru and pick up soil but it falls off.....walk across area get soil on shoes and go on to next area and get more soil on shoes and mix it together - out of 4 possiblity cannot tell for sure....absence of soil is meaningless in establishing if some one was actually there or not? correct!

JB employed by FBI - look for all these items was your purpose of looking...didn't find anything meaningful connecting kc to surburban drive....NO can't testify to science can't see.....all speculating......if I were to chose one of the 4 but I am not speculating .....only testifying to items received and tested.....

witness excused