06-04-2011, 09:09 AM #1
HHBP - if the state fails to lay a proper foundation that she is qualified, he will let BP voir dire the expert. Reference 9705.
JB not understanding ruling.
What do you want to voir dire the witness about?
JB Witness qualified? Methodology?
HHBP - to JB you didn't have any objections at the Frye hearing. Correll vs. State dealing with blood evidence.
JB - in order to establish proper predicate, he feels voir dire is necessary.
HHBP - I've ruled and we've wasted enough time on that!
Here comes the Jury.
06-04-2011, 09:10 AM #2
JB: is bringing up his previous objections
HHJP: we have done that at the Frye hearing, all you have to do is object. The state has to lay a foundation like they do with all witnesses, we don't do a mini Frye hearing we all ready did that.
JB: no of course...we need to do some voir dire...we are intitiled to voir dire the witness to see if the witness meets the qualifications.
HHJP: if they did not have qualifications...but we are not going to have a mini Frye hearing. I will note your motion. To exclude the post mortum banding and the unreliablity of scientific...or some defect in the predicate I will allow you to voir dire but we already had a frye hearing.
JB: we feel that voir dire the witness at that time would help the jury...methodology employed.
HHJP: an expert may testify with their opinions...that is what that talks about, correct?
JB: am I not allowed to voir dire the witness or will the court give me some type of indication?
HHJP: what are you trying to voir dire the witness on?
HHJP: we had a frye hearing on that...no. Unless she testifies to something totally different as to her qualifications...as I remember you did not have any objections during the frye hearing. Your objections were based on the idea this was new and novel evidence. We have established you cannot have a mini frye hearing.
JB: her qualifications she was questioned about that, we maintain our position.
HHJP: you can maintain your position. I have ruled. If they don't lay a predicate and the witness testifies...and for whatever reason...I have ruled and we have wasted enough time on that. Let's bring in the jury.John 14:6
06-04-2011, 09:15 AM #3
Karen Korsberg Lowe being questioned by JA.
Trace evidence expert with the FBI. Worked for FBI for over 15 years, 13 in this position.
BS in Biology, MS in Criminal Justice and several post grad forensic sciences classes.
FBI training - just over a year in training within FBI, tests, Boards. 13 years qualified as an examiner. She has been qualified in court 44 times to give expert testimony in trace examining.
Majority of expert testimony has touched on microscopic examination of hairs
JA presented her as Expert.
JB objected and HHBP allowing him to voir dire the witness.
This is the first time she has testified on hair banding
06-04-2011, 09:16 AM #4
The witness is explaining her credentials.
JA: how long ago that you became qualified as an examiner?
JA: ever been called to testify?
JA: how many juristictions?
federal, state and local area
JA: how many time for hair?
I don't track it that way but most have a least touched on hair
JA: your honor this is an expert on trace evidence, specifically hair
HHJP: you can have a small voir dire as to her expertise.
JB: is going to question this witness about her being an expert "or not."John 14:6
06-04-2011, 09:20 AM #5
JB: miss lowe the topics you will cover today. the amount of training you received is a six month course.
six months yes
JB: the course you have taken on this topic there are a total of three or was it just that course.
on the job training
JB: and only six months contained this part
JB: only read articles
articles and case work
JB: you render an opinion?
JB: your on the job training is you giving an opinion
JB: no further questions
(nice try Jose)John 14:6
06-04-2011, 09:26 AM #6
JA: the history of the science of hair banding
the late 1700's in the USA since the 1930's
three steps: collection, identification and comparison. Does with a microscope, a comparasion microscope are two high powered microscope...kind of like a split screen so I can compare the samples...if a characteristic is the same as another I can identifiy it is like the other.
JA: please give some info regarding how this works.
(I missed a big explanation)
JA: they do these examinations around the world?
JA: in the literature is there something about decomp and the hair
JA: history of that?
1988 Petraco, an evaluation of the morphology...they looked at hairs at all the growth stages...the portion of the hair the keratin was hardened...evaluation of human hair...journal of forensic sciences...can nuclear dna...enzyme mimicks one of the characterists of human decomp...John 14:6
06-04-2011, 09:29 AM #7
The hair portion of her extensive training was 6 months. This was during the year of on the job training. Rest of knowledge comes from reading articles and experiencing case work. She does examination then renders opinion.
End of voir dire by JB.
JA submits witness as expert. HHBP accepts her as expert on hair examination.
History of hair examination - since late 1700s. In U.S. since the late 1930's.
Forensic examination of hairs is done in 3 steps - collection, examination and comparison.
Hair examination is not a means of positive I.D. She can say consistent or can exclude - example - race. Can tell if hair was pulled or fell out. Can determine disease or chemical treatment.
Signs of decomposition shown in hair - first paper in 1988 which looks at hairs in all the growth phases and defined characteristics of post mort. hair banding. Next paper looks at nuclear hair banding. 2000 paper studies two cases of post mort. hair banding. 2001 two part paper - first looks at 22 post mort hair band cases. Post mort root band first seen at 2 days. Second portion looks at post mort hair put out for a period of time with no changes. These papers are all published in the Journal of Forensic Science.
Cause of root banding not known. Artifact has not been replicated in anything other than a decomposing body.
JA shows poster prepared by her lab for educational purposes.
06-04-2011, 09:30 AM #8
JA: the original paper from 1988...
JA: the last paper you talked about: hairs in evironments...
none of the hairs in that studies showed any changes.
JA: all of these studies are they all published?
JA: does the research reveal what causes the hair band?
no, we are not sure exactly what causes it just what the microscopic appearance is
JA: is there any indication that this artifact is created something other than the contact between the hair and the decomposing body.
JA: may I approach the witness, this is a poster prepared by your lab for educational purposes, would it help you?
yes it would
JA: (bringing over a poster for visual reference while the witness explains a method that is used to determine if a hair is from a human cadaver.)John 14:6
06-04-2011, 09:32 AM #9
Karen Lowe explaining what is observed in hair analysis
jurors view photos of hairs.John 14:6
06-04-2011, 09:38 AM #10
The top show the three growth stages: pigment production all the way through in the first stage, it was still actively growing, within the folicle...
JA: internal root sheath?
within your scalp. so the outer portion of the hair...if you have pulled out a hair that is why. The portion that is still on the scalp...the keratin...keeps it soft.
This hair has completed the cycle and has shed...kind of looks like a q tip...if I see this hair I know it has been naturally shed....
JA: is that because they are shed before death
they may still be in the head and not shed yet. it is thought because the keratin has hardened it is not as moldable. Still in the andogyn phase...the portion above the band had hardened and what is underneath is still soft.
JA: the transistion phase between what is still growing and what is hard and set
may be darkened and come to a point. The paper by lynch. Something similar...
JA: this appearance according to lynch...
this appearance has not been replicated by andogyn hairs....
last is a brush like appearance, sometimes this also has a reddish brown...a later stage of decomp...so any of these characteristics could be called characteristics of decomp.
JA: nothing elseJohn 14:6
06-04-2011, 09:42 AM #11
if you see those characteristics in the hair we know it is a part of decompositon. Some of the articles mentioned where the band was found, it is a couple of mm from the root band but it does not have to be that measurement to be concidered post mortum root banding.
JA: two dimentions?
JA: what actual training do you do, to recognize post mortum root banding?
those are covered in the training period plus the cases you work.
JA: are you able to give a guesstamate how many hairs you have seen with post mortum banding?
I don't keep track...but there have been a fair number of cases
JA: more than a hundred less?
dont want to guess
JA: were those hairs already know to be from a person who is deceased?
this is the only case where I had a sample outside of the ...usually they are items from the person who is deceased...
JA: how often have you seen the banding?
in the cases where the decomp was noted, yes.John 14:6
06-04-2011, 09:44 AM #12
JA asked if she was asked to do the work on the case of Caylee Maire. She said yes. Jeff wants to show her states exhibit...
she does recognize her lab markings. Jeff is showing to the witness another, and she has the same response: she recognizes the exhibit by her markings. JA, is asking this about several items, the response is the same.John 14:6
06-04-2011, 09:48 AM #13
JA: is giving the witness one of the hairs she was given to identify. He would like to move that into evidence.
JB: no objections (Casey looked at Jose)
JA: want to show you exhibit "it"
JA: a known sample you submitted?
HHJP: what says the defense?
JB: (sadly) no objections
JA: exhibit iw for identification
JA: That was from Cindy Anthony?
lab markings and my initials...John 14:6
06-04-2011, 09:51 AM #14
JA: were submitted a hair brush?
yes a hair brush and comb
JA: found hairs?
on the brush
HHJP: entered into evidence
Hear that Casey? That is the forensic evidence of what you did to Caylee being entered into evidence...as FACT.
JA: did you find human hairs in the exhibit?
JA: how many?
I have to resort to my notes
JA: go ahead.John 14:6
06-04-2011, 09:57 AM #15
a least ten items had ten or more hairs.
JA: any of the hairs that were examined did you find any that had apparent decomp
JA: which of your numbers was it Q12
JA: is this the item?
JA: what did you find?
the hair in Q12 was caucasion that had the characteristics of post mortum banding.
JA: did you examine that in the manner you described?
micro scope and comparasion scope
JA: three dee?
light to medium brown...nine inches long.
JA: any other hairs have the post mortum banding or changes?
JA: any other of those hairs in sample can you conclude they were from the same person
I was looking for decomp and then compared from a hair from Caylee
JA: compare Caylee and Casey
the hair in Q12 was microscop dissimilar as one belonging to Casey...the hair brush was similar...due to a known sample...
JA: compare to Cindy Anthony?
JA: it was nine inches?
JA: do you have an opinion about the hair found in states exhibit shows apparent deomp?
it has the banding similar to the root in the poster and this is characteristic of human decomp
it has not been shown to be found under other circumstances
I preserved the portions that showed the darkened portions and sent some out for additional analysis
that was mounted on another slide and kept for analysisJohn 14:6
By mombomb in forum Witness Testimonies and Closing ArgumentsReplies: 38Last Post: 06-27-2011, 10:29 AM
By wenwe4 in forum Witness Testimonies and Closing ArgumentsReplies: 6Last Post: 06-22-2011, 12:05 PM
By truthsleuth in forum Witness Testimonies and Closing ArgumentsReplies: 5Last Post: 06-16-2011, 03:18 PM
By STEADFAST in forum Witness Testimonies and Closing ArgumentsReplies: 11Last Post: 06-09-2011, 02:12 PM
By MADJGNLAW in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years oldReplies: 59Last Post: 03-31-2011, 07:41 AM