Stephen Shaw testimony (FBI fiber and textile and hair examiner)

momtective said:

Are you freakin' kidding me!

Click to expand...

I hope this little gesture is in every newspaper and on TV! This is just unreal!

:maddening:

Shaw says Q12 hair matches hair mass but cannot say to exclusion of all others.

State Calls Stephen Shaw to the witness stand.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY JA:

He is hair and fiber examiner for the FBI. He has held this position for 6 years. He has a BS and MS in textile chemistry from NCSU. Upon graduation he was a research associate at the university for 6 months. He then worked in private industry for 6 months. Then to the FBI.

FBI training included 1 year of training under the direct guidance of qualified hair and fiber examiners and completed tests throughout the training.

After the year of training he began working as a hair and fiber examiner.

He has testified in Court 12 times - Florida, New York, Virgin Islands, Montana, Virginia.

Submitted as expert witness - no objections by JB.

In 2008 he did a confirmation exam on the hair in this case (Q12).

Confirmation process is a quality assurance test.

(JB OBJECTS on FREY - OBJECTION OVERRULED)

A second examiner does an independent examination. He is aware of the prior results. He did a confirmation for the apparent decomposition as well as microscopic similarities to the hair in the hairbrush. He confirmed both.

Later in 2008 he did a second evaluation because Ms. Lowe was not available.

He analyzed a "hair mass" and identified it in a photo. He examined the hairs microscopically and compared them to the hair from the trunk. Hair band is Q-59.

The hair mass had signs of apparent decomposition - he also found a band just above the end of the root. The band was not similar to the hair in the trunk - it was from a later stage of apparent decomposition due to the brush on the root.

Hair in hair mass was the same microscopically as the hair in the trunk. He can not use this as a positive means of identification. However, he can only say it is consistent.

The hair mass is not a suitable known hair sample as he did not have them plucked from the scalp itself.

He has participated in research - conducting a study that is still ongoing - preliminary results are 600 hairs stored in various locations collected from 15 living individuals - in doors on a window sill, in doors buried, in doors submerged in water, out doors in a trunk of a vehicle, underneath the seat of a second vehicle and on the dash and in the trunk of a third vehicle parked in the sun. From a week to 7 months. He then examined them at the root end microscopically at the root end. No hairs in doors exhibited apparent decomp. Some of the other hairs exhibited apparent decomp. However, none of these hairs exhibited the banding. He then included hairs that included which were from a known deceased body. These were given to three examiners with a questionnaire. All of the post mortem hairs were correctly identified. Each examiner originally made an error in determining the banding. With a confirmed results they excluded the erroneous hair.

He prepared a power point presentation to demonstrate the results of his study - State's Exhibit Q-12. JA wants to use it for demonstrative purposes only as it does not involve this case.

JB requests Sidebar.

SIDEBAR #1 of the day.

JA: State will call Stephen Shaw.
(He is sworn in)
SS: I'm Stephen Shaw.
JA: Okay Mr. Shaw how are you employed?
SS: I'm a hair and fiber examiner for the FBI laboratory
JA: And how long have you been employed in that capacity?
SS: I've held my current position for approximately 6 years.
JA: What educational background do you have that led you to your present position?
SS: I have a bachelors of science and a masters of science. Both degrees are in textile chemistry and bother degrees are from North Carolina State University.
JA: After you obtained your degrees did you immediately go to work for the FBI?
SS: No. After getting my degrees I was a research associate for the university for approximately 6 months, then I took another job in the textile industry where I was a senior research associate for approximately 6 months and then I began to work at the FBI laboratory.
JA: During your time with the FBI did you have additional training through the FBI itself?
SS: Yes I did.
JA: What type of training was that?
SS: I received to become a hair and fiber examiner, I received approximately a 1 year training program where I was under the direct guidance of qualified hair and fiber examiners and during that time I examined numerous hairs, numerous fibers and I had to complete tests throughout my training program including identification tests, matching tests, oral boards as well moot coordination exercises.
JA: And after that year time did you then begin working independently as a hair and fiber examiner?
SS: After completing that year time I began working independently as a hair and fiber examiner.
JA: Have you previously testified in that area in courts of law in the United States?
SS: Yes I have.
JA: Approximately how many times?
SS: 12 times.
JA: And in how many jurisdictions?
SS: I've testified prior in Florida, New York, Virgin Islands, California, Montana, Illinois, Virgina are a few.
JA: Alright. This time Your Honor I would submit the witness as an expert in the area of forensic hair and fiber identification and analysist.
HJBP: What says the defense?
JB: No objections.
HJBP: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury the witness will be accepted as an expert witness in the area of hair and fiber identification. You may continue Mr. Ashton.
JA: Sir back in the middle part of 2008, you were working at the FBI lab at that time, is that correct?
SS: That's correct.
JA: Did you become involved in doing a confirmation examination of a hair in the case involving Caylee Marie Anthony which was designated as Q12 that Karen Forsberg Row(?) had previously examined?
SS: Yes.
JA: What's the purpose of that process of confirmation?
SS: The confirmation process is really a quality insurance step to make sure anytime we have (Baez Objects, previous motions and objections on Frye. HJBP: Based upon that objection, objection will be overruled. Thank you.)
JA: Go ahead...
SS: So it's part of our quality insurance procedure so whenever we have an identification or we association we then ask and have a second examiner to do an independent examination to see if they can reach the same conclusion or not.
JA: Now when you do that you already know the conclusion the other examination has found?
SS: Yes we do.
JA: In this case were you looking to confirm the identification of apparent decomposition? Just that or the comparison from known hair as well?
SS: It was a confirmation for the apparent decomposition as well as microscopic similarities to a hair collected from a hair brush.
JA: And did you compare both the apparent decomposition and the microscopic similarity to the hair from the hair brush?
SS: Yes I did.
JA: Did there come a time in later 2008 when you were called upon to examine some additional evidence as to the same case?
SS: Yes.
JA: What came into the laboratory, first of all why did you do the second examination as opposed to Ms. Lowe?
SS: Because Ms. Lowe wasn't available at the time.
JA: Were you submitted what is referred to as a hair mass?
SS: Yes I was.
JA: If I could have states exhibit 271. Let me show you states exhibit 271 and ask if you recognize that as the item that was submitted to your laboratory.
SS: I do recognize it.
JA: And should that contain the hair mass that was submitted by the Orange County Sheriff's Office.
SS: Yes according to the laboratory markings it should.

JA: Now what type of examination did you perform on you designated as Q59 for your purposes, correct?
SS: That's correct.
JA: So what type of examination did you do on states exhibit 271, your Q59?
SS: I examined the hairs from the hair mass microscopically and I also then compared those hairs a hair previously imported as originating from the trunk of the vehicle.
JA: Now when you examined the hair mass did you find evidence of apparent decomposition on the hair mass?
SS: Yes.
JA: Did you find a band similar to what you had see in the Q12 hair in the hair mass?
SS: There was a band just above the end of the root it was not similar I would say to the hair in the trunk, the band itself it was a band just above the root and the root itself had sort of a brush like appearance so it's really a later stage of apparent decomposition than what was seen in the trunk.
JA: So the hair in the trunk did it still, it had the band and still had the root. Do I understand that correctly?
SS: Yes. The hair in the trunk still had the band with root material below the band.
JA: And the hairs in the Q59 had the band but the root had a brush like appearance?
SS: That's correct.
JA: And is that brush like appearance associated with later stage decomposition?
SS: Yes.

CFNews13Casey Casey Anthony News13
Prosecutors at times chuckle to themselves during Baez questioning of witness. At one point Ashton shakes his head "no" during a question.

JB: Did you expose the children's hairs to the same conditions that you exposed the ones that showed apparent decomposition?
SS: Yes.
JB: Including water?
SS: Um, I'll have to check and see... (checks report)
JB: Please do.
SS: No. The children were used in the, one child was used in the first 4 locations. My last 4 location studies that I did, that was all adults. Immersed in water, buried in potting soil, one of the studies in a wooded area and one of the studies on a lawn in a grassy area.
JB: And none of these subjects, all 15 of them, their hairs were never exposed to any type of trash or garbage?
SS: No. Not that I'm aware of.
JB: No further questions.

Jury out.

JB requests the power point presentation be done in the form of a proffer. JA did not want to do that as he was questioned about it in his deposition. JB saying he has no knowledge of the power point. JA agreed JB has not been given the actual power point, but he did get the photos that are included in it. JB said he just got them this morning - previously received photo copies in black and white.

PROFFER BY JB:

Slide #1 - hairs stored inside on window sill for 233 days - before on left, after on right.

Slide #2 - hairs stored on vehicle dash for 202 days - before on left, after on right. The after photo showed the medula, the central portion of the hair and was not apparent decomp. The darkening was natural.

Slide #3 - hairs stored in the trunk of the vehicle - before and after.

Slide #4 - hairs stored in the wooded area before and after. Darkening in the root area on the right side are characteristics of apparent decomp without a band.

Slide #5 - Hair stored in the vehicle before and after. Darkening in the root area on the right side are characteristics of apparent decomp without a band.

Slide #6 - Hair stored in a grassy area. Darkening in the root area on the right side are characteristics of apparent decomp without a band.

Slide #7 - Additional hairs stored in an outdoors grassy area. Darkening in the root area on the right side are characteristics of apparent decomp without a band.

The band has to be above the root and opaque and defined thickness and length to be signs of apparent decomp. The last one was not clearly defined.

Slide #8 - Hairs stored in an outdoor wooded area. Darkening in the root area on the right side are characteristics of apparent decomp without a band.

Slide #9 - Hairs submerged in water. Darkening in the root area on the right side are characteristics of apparent decomp without a band.

Slide #10 - Hairs submerged in water. Darkening in the root area on the right side are characteristics of apparent decomp without a band.

Submerged hairs - he does not know why the apparent decomp looks different in the anti-mortem hairs.

Slide #11 - Hairs submerged in water for 100 days. Before on top left, after in top right and lower center. Darkening in the root area on the right side are characteristics of apparent decomp without a band.

Slide #12 - Hairs submerged in water for 100 days. Before on left, after on right.

Slide #13 - Additional hairs submerged in water for 100 days. Before on left, after on right. Apparent decomp is shown.

Slide #14 - Additional hairs buried in potting soil. Before on left, after on right.

Apparent decomp includes post-mortem banding.

Slide #15 - Additional hairs buried in potting soil. Before and after.

Slide #16 - Buried in potting soil before and after.

Slide #17 - Buried in potting soil for 100 days before and after.

Slide #18 - Hair stored in water for 17 days exhibiting characteristics of apparent decomp - not necessarily seen in post-mortem. This is one he identified as banding.

Slide #19 - Photo of hair that examiner 2 identified as banded.

The examiners were trained hair and fiber examiners like him and Ms. Lowe.

Slide #20 - a post-mortem hair included in the test showing a post-mortem band from a cadaver stored outside on the ground surface. The body was placed outside for over a month - didn't believe it was completely skeletonized. Tennessee in January.

Slide #21 - another hair from a cadaver stored outside on the ground surface from the same person as above. They both showed post-mortem banding. One appeared to be closer to the root than the other.

Slide #22 - another post-mortem hair from a cadaver stored inside the house in Tennessee. He did not know the atmospheric conditions.

Slide #23 - hair removed from a cadaver stored inside a house in Tennessee from Feb to March.

Slide #24 - hair from another cadaver stored inside a house in Tennessee.

Slide #25 - Post-mortem hair from a cadaver stored outside on the ground.

Slide #26 - Post-mortem hair from cadaver stored outside on the ground.

Slide #27 - another hair from cadaver stored outside on the ground.

Slide #28 - another hair from cadaver stored outside on the ground.

Slide #29 - another hair exhibiting post-mortem banding from a cadaver stored outside.

Slide #30 - hair removed from cadaver stored in a vehicle.

Slide #31 - hair from cadaver stored inside a house.

Climate can affect the rate of decomp. This is not his area of expertise. They have studied effects of climate - 20,000 hair study - cadavers in warmer clients will produce root banding sooner than hairs in cold climates.

(JB conferring with DS)

By JB:

All these hairs are from adults, he believes. They can't determine if a hair is from a child or adult. He does not observe different characteristics of hair in children or adults. A younger child's hair may be thinner. The study included 15 individuals, 600 hairs, 2 children. Children's hairs were subjected to the same conditions. One child's hair were used in the first 4 locations. None of the 15 subjects were exposed to trash or garbage.

JB OBJECTS, Cumulative, unfair prejudice (403 and 6th amendment) (because they received this late - no opportunity for independent study), improper bolstering, different conditions.

HHJBP asks witness when the study was done - In March 2011 they told the state and defense that they had conducted a study. Ms. Lowe informed them. The study was provided to the State in a written format with the photos in color. There was a depo in early May in which the photos were discussed and provided to the State and Defense. The written portion was done later. Photos were emailed to Orlando and they were in color.

JA - In March 2011 the state and defense were informed about the existence of the study in a telephone conference. Mr. Shaw's depo was scheduled for 5/3 and the study was discussed. It is JA's understanding that the photos were sent to the local FBI field office and that counsel was permitted to go to that office to view the photos. This is the first he has heard that the defense did not receive color photos. The written portion was provided to the defense the early part of last week.

HHJBP to DS - she received something on the 9th - black and white photos and not all of the power point.

JA - 4 additional photos were provided last night. He was not informed that the copies were not acceptable until just now.

DS - had previously requested that all photos and data be brought to the depo. She did not advised that all the photos were not there. She went to the FBI to look at the color photos that she was not permitted to copy. She went back a second time and was still not permitted to make copies.

OBJECTION BY DS BASED ON FRYE.

JA - FBI could not release because it is an ongoing study. However, they went to great lengths to get these photos to the defense.

HHJBP - improper bolstering issue? - This testimony is to address whether the post-mortem banding can be caused by any other means. He does not feel this is bolstering.

JB - Study not peer reviewed and done specifically for this case - and actually began after this case.

JA - Material was available for the defense's expert and they did not do that. Study was started before this case and not done specifically for this case.

HHJBP - 3.220 - State has specific obligation to provide certain things, not the FBI. 6th and then 14th amendment - right to confront witness. No objection lodged at depo. The Court is troubled that the State at the 9th hour provides a power point with color photos that was not provided to the Defense. THE COURT WILL NOT PERMIT THE USE OF THE POWER POINT SINCE IT WAS NOT PROVIDED TO THE DEFENSE. Since there was no objection to the study, the record will stay as it is. It is the State's obligation, not the FBI, to decide when they want to let something go - particularly with the death penalty issue.

OBJECTION SUSTAINED - No power point.

HHJBP - If the defense starts asking about pictures that might change things. YOU CANNOT USE A SHIELD AND TURN IT INTO A SWORD.

JB: it's an unfair prejudice. We don't have an ability of conducting an independent study, it's apparent results of a study. It was specifically designed that it's for this case

Judge: so your argument is not 405, it's (gives another number that I forgot)

JB: I would classify it under 405 as well

to do a complete study with two powerpoint presentations with thirty photographs, I see numerous issues with this witness

Judge: when was this study presented?

March 2011

What information was presented to the defense concerning this study and when?

Miss lowe informed that we had done this study?

Was this study ever provided to State of Florida?

It was provided in hard copy and photographs in color.

Judg: trying to ascertain when that written study was provided to the State.

We had a deposition in early May where the photographs were discussed and provided to both the state and defense.

Judge: Were the photographs in color or black and white?

I emailed them in color, I don't know how they were printed out.

Prosecution: There was a telephone conference, deposition was taken May 3rd

Photographs were sent to local FBI office and counsel was allowed to view the photographs there.

At some point FBI agreed to provide copies and they were forwarded to Sims.

As far as I know they were in color, this is the first time I've heard they didn't get theirs in color.

Sims: we got some photographs that are not very clear

Prosecution: I am not aware that the copies were not acceptable until a moment ago.

Sims: I went to FBI to view photographs and a report I was not permitted to copy and I was not able to speak with Shaw

this is an experiment and it has not been established that the methods are

Prosecutor: FBI said that they can't release unpublished data since this is an ongoing study. Ms. Sims has seen all the photographs

This is further scientific research to answer the questions raised in Ms. Lowe's testimony about whether postmortem banding can be produced by something else.

This expert is talking about his own research so it's not hearsay.

JB: we brought this to court attention in March. We're in a trial and expert takes a stand and we can't have had an independent evaluation about it. We have done everything we can, goign to FBI office on Saturday and they've been very cooperative but it doesn't take it away, we've dealt with open statements, but they're talking about showing photographs, and that's where we are... We've been dealing with the FBI and the court can't come to us and say you had the opportunity to deal with this and you didn't, we have, I wasn't able to be there but Ms. Sims was, and here we are at the last stages of State's case ....

Pros:
Defense did not take them up on the offer to let their expert study this material. Obviously the deposition hurried them on doing this research but it began from an article saying extra research needed to be done so it's false to say it was done just for this case.

Judge: Lists CA's charges.
It's not the FBI sole responsibility to provide certain items. Every defendant has the right to confront witnesses against himself or herself. There was no objections of Mr Shaw but the court will not allow the Powerpoint since it was not provided to the defense but since there is no objection to his testimony the record will stay like it is.

It's the FBI's study and they have the right to disseminate when they want to but they can't use it in the court of law whenever they want to, it's the State of Florida's responsibility to follow the law. The court will sustain the objections against using the Powerpoint but since there was no objection to the testimony you can continue. Recess for 5 minutes.

The flipside of this is, if the defense opens the door it may open the issue. You can't use a shield and turn it into a sword.

Jury still out.

BY HHJBP - Basis of Ruling - cumulative, 403 - undue prejudice, and improper bolstering. Ruling was based on the 6th amendment issue because they had not seen the power point presentation and they received only black and white photos. Defense had opportunity to take depo of witness and to see the study. Defense has not pointed out anything the witness has testified to anything they did not know or that they could not have known regarding post-mortem hair banding. Even though exhibit was demonstrative, the Defense was disadvantaged by not having to seen it earlier.

OBJECTION to study OVERRULED. OBJECTION to power point SUSTAINED.

JB - Could not dispose witness after they received the last material.

HHJBP - What would you have hoped to glean at that time that you did not already know?

JB conferring with DS.

JB - wanted to be able to inquire - more questions on the study.

HHJBP - IT IS A WIDE UNIVERSE OF THINGS WE DO NOT KNOW. I DON'T KNOW TRANSLATES INTO NOTHING.

JB - Did not have opportunity to duplicate this with their independent expert.

HHJBP - new studies appear every day. The fact that you can't duplicate is not the basis for an objection. Not aware of any case.

JB - unhappy this is occurring at the end of the State's case.

Jury coming back.

Jb wants to clarify for the record that 9.06 am he did object and in March they also objected.

Judge: Your previous objections dealt with Frye and we had a hearing on Frye issue. They were cumulative, prejudice and improper bolster. The court's ruling was based on an 6th amendment issue based on an exhibit that you had not seen, the color items that were provided in black and white, it would be unfair so the court struck that particular item. You have had an opportunity to take a deposition and look at the study and you have had numerous opportunities to do that. You have not outlined anything that Shaw has testified to that you did not know in deposition or that you could not deal with postmortem hairbanding issue. This court felt that this exhibit did put the defense at a severe disadvantage by not having an advantage to view it ahead of time. I overrule the objection about the testimony but dissallowed the use of the exhibit. You did not say that you didn't have an opportunity to take his deposition.

JB: The only issue is that we could not depose him after we had got that..

Judge: What information you would have hoped to glean from an additional deposition that you didn't already have?

JB: we wanted to inquire on the basis of what we're observing and ask him questions about the study.

Judge: There is a vast universe of things we don't know. Brady vs Maryland, you must be able to show prejudice because I don't know translates to nothing.

JB: We are not able to replicate anything.

Judge: It's not a basis that you weren't able to duplicate or if you know a case I'm all ears.

Pros: What caused you to be interested in these studies?

Shaw: A thesis I came across, took hairs from living individuals and put them in soil and water got apparent decomposition in those hairs and suggested they be compared to postmortem hairs.

Pros: so the thesis found some artifact from living people's hairs
Did this case give you additional inspiration?

I would have done it anyway, but not so soon, it became more prioritized.

Is the purpose to see if this particular phenomenon can occur in living person's hair

Yes. Volunteers volunteered their hairsamples.

JB objects, judge overrules.

I used 15 hair samples in this sample.

They were pulled from volunteers?
Yes, males and females, youngest was 3, oldest in their fifties.

What environmental conditions

Windowsill, buried, plants, indoors in water, outdoors in sunlight and out of sunlight, 3 vehicles, in trunk, dash, seat. Some vehicles were used normally.

How did you place the hairs so they would be undisturbed?

Used tape to distal end, leaving proximal end free
Told the vehicle user to leave them be, not clean vehicle.

Did you check the hairs at intervals or at the end.

I would check at an earlier time period and a longer time period. 3-7 months.

Objection overruled

Is there a difference between hairbanding and other kinds of decomposing?

IMO it's an obvious difference

Did you find any PMHB?
No.

Two different examiners examined the hair samples, Examiner 1 correctly identified all the post mortem hairs and initially identified one antemortem hair as banded. Examiner 2 did the same. They did not identify the same AM hairs as banded so in their confirmed results they excluded them.

JURY BACK.

DIRECT EXAMINATION OF STEPHEN SHAW BY JA (continued):

What inspired this study? Started because of a thesis he came across where they had taken hairs from living individuals and had placed them in soil and water and had gotten apparent decomp at the root end. It was suggested that additional research be needed and that the hairs should be compared to post-mortem hairs and so that is what he did.

He probably would have done this study any way, but it became more of a priority because of the issues of this case.

Purpose of this study - to try to create banding in hairs from living individuals.

All hairs can decompose if exposed.

The hairs from the study came from volunteers.

JB OBJECTED - saying they didn't have a copy of this. OBJECTION OVERRULED.

He received hair samples from 18 and used 15. These were actually pulled from individuals - males and females - youngest 3, oldest 53.

Hairs were exposed - indoors on window sill, in potting soil, submerged. Outdoors exposed to sunlight, in wooded area and in three different vehicles - in trunk and under seat of vehicle being used and in the trunk of a vehicle in direct sunlight not used.

He used tape to fold over the tip end, leaving the root exposed. He then gave that to individuals to place in the vehicle.

He checked at one to 4 weeks and then checked at a longer time period. Some were collected early and some were left for 3 to 7 months.

Post-mortem banding (OBJECTION leading - OVERRULED)

He did not find any samples from live individuals which showed post-mortem banding.

Blind study - He included all the hairs with any possible changes as well as hairs from known deceased individuals. Given to 2 different examiners to compare. They were given 3 answer sheets - initial analysis and a confirmed analysis sheet. Examiner 1 correctly compared all the post-mortem hair, as well as one of the anti-mortem hairs as showing post-mortem banding. The second examiner also correctly identified all of the post-mortem hairs, and also initially identified one of the anti-mortem hair - different than the one the first examiner. In their final confirmed results - they both excluded the two anti-mortem hairs. This coming together is similar to real life conditions.

The study found hairs with apparent decomp. Post-mortem banding is a subset of decomp. None of the anti-mortem hairs showed post-mortem banding.

CD marked as EXHIBIT 301, published to Jury. Identified as the photo of the hair in this case. He identified the post-mortem band (a dark area in the middle).

OBJECTION BY JB - OVERRULED.

This pot-mortem banding was not seen in any of the photos in his study of hairs from live people.

No further questions.

JB - MOTION TO STRIKE. DENIED.

Do you see the postmortem banding in this photo of Q12?

It's here.

Is that a fairly classic example of PM banding?

Objection overruled.

It's what I would identify as PM banding, yes. Above the root.


Was that seen in any of the photographs in your study involving live persons?

No.

No further questions.

Motion to strike will be denied.

JA: How many individuals did you take hair samples from?
SS: I took hair samples from, well, I received hair samples from 18 individuals. I used 15 in this study.
JA: And were these hairs that were actually pulled from the volunteer individuals?
SS: Yes that is correct.
JA: What was the gender distribution of these individuals?
SS: Males and females.
JA: What were the ranges of the individuals?
SS: The youngest was 3, the oldest was I believe 53. I may have to check, 53 or 53.
JA: In their 50's?
SS: Yes.
JA: Okay. And what variety of environmental conditions did you expose these hairs to in order to study?
SS: Indoors, on a window sill. Indoors buried in potting soil with plants that were watered and fertilized. Indoors submerged in water. Outdoors in an area exposed to sunlight. Outdoors in a wooded area not exposed to sunlight. And in 3 vehicles, the trunk of a vehicle that was used during the time period. Underneath the seat of the second vehicle that was also used during the time period and on the dash and trunk of the third vehicle that was not used during the time period and was parked, remained stationary throughout the time period and was parked in direct sunlight.
JA: When you say used during the time period, you mean someone's vehicle that was actually used on a daily basis?
SS: Correct. I mean someone continued about their normal use with the hairs in their location.
JA: And how did you place the hairs or isolate them so that they would be undisturbed for the study, like in the cars for instance?
SS: I used tape to fold over the distal and tip end of the hairs leaving the proximal root of the hairs exposed and then I gave these hairs to individuals to place in the vehicles and told them not to clean. We agreed they would place these hairs as their vehicle is or whatever the conditions, however they exist.
JA: Alright. And did you check the hairs at intervals as to each environmental condition or just at the end?
SS: I would check sort of around earlier time periods around 1 to 4 weeks then I would check at a longer time period. So the ones collected at a shorter time period were collected and examined, there were additional hairs that were not disturbed and those were placed between 3 months and approximately 7 months.
JA: Is the difference between what you refer to as post mortem banding and other types of decomposition a subtle difference?
(Baez objects, it is overruled)
SS: In my opinion, it's an obvious difference.
JA: And in your study when you examined all of these hairs from all of these different environmental conditions from live people did you find any that would qualify in your opinion as post mortem banding?
SS: No I did not.