Cross exam of FBI analyst Karen Lowe by JB
National Academy of Science report was commissioned by Congress. Put together forensic sciences and individuals from the Court system to look at a better way to put forensics evidence in.
Where they highly critical in the area of microscopic hair analysis? Parts dealt with the limitations of the science - hair can't be a means of id without DNA, but they never are so the criticism is really pointing out a limitation of the science. She agrees. She says that in her reports and testimony. Must have an accompany mitochondrial DNA analysis. Nuclear DNA would be required to say a hair came from a specific individual.
Mitochondrial DNA is inherited maternally
Nuclear DNA is unique to an individual
She cannot testify that one hair comes from one individual. Report suggests doing accompanying DNA comparison.
This is the first time she has testified as an expert witness on hair banding.
She is an expert in the microscopic analysis and comparison of hair. She is not an expert in the physiology of hair.
Her expertise is based on 6 month training, some on the job training, 4 articles, 13 years of case analysis.
She does not know what causes port mortem banding. Studies show that it is seen as early as 8 hours after death. She doesn't know how long it takes to develop, as early as 8 hours. Not everyone who is deceased has post mortem banding. Doesn't know the frequency.
Post mortem root banding has not been replicated in conditions other than from someone who is deceased.
She requested the case agent to find more hairs.
She was informed that there might be hair from the vacuuming of the trunk. She requested them. "If we find more than one hair with decomp, the significance increases". She did not have doubts.
She did receive more hairs.
Starting with 8/1/08 report - she was given 12 items that were identified as coming from the vehicle. Some were hairs. Hairs had different characteristics. the only hair she compared to known samples was the hair showing decomp. 11 of the 12 items she received had some hairs. None showed characteristics of decomp.
8/6/08 report - the items submitted were pieces of trunk liner and other items from the car. None of the hairs showed decomp.
8/13/08 report - she received items of clothing from ICA.
10/6/08 report - she received items and hairs to inspect, vacuum sweepings from the car. Results showed none of these hairs showed decomp.
10/15/08 report - she received a single item. Results showed no hairs with decomp.
10/21/08 report - she received additional hair. Results showed no hairs with decomp.
11/6/08 report - she received additional hairs found in the trash bag and paper towels from the vehicle. Results showed no hairs with decomp.
6/25/09 report - regarding items found in the car, Q 319-337, results showed no hairs with decomp.
Even after she requested additional hairs after the original submission - and receiving multiple additional hairs, there were no additional hairs found associated with the car with signs of decomp. Only Q-12. Relative to this one hair she cannot absolutely say death is the reason for the characteristics.
JB conferring with DS.
No standards in identifying root banding. It's visual. It is one person's opinion. This conclusion in this case was verified by someone else in her unit.
On 7/31 she did a comparison to ICA sample.
Post mortem root banding should be in the root portion of the hair. In this hair, the banding is slightly above the root. Did not show Jury a photo of this hair.
JA objects.
Sidebar
