Dr. Kenneth Furton - 6/27/11
6/27/11
10:58
DIRECT EXAMINATION OF DR. FURTON BY JB
He is a professor in chemistry and bio-chemistry at FIU. He's been employed there for 23 years.
BS in forensic science phd in analytical chemistry and post-grad in UK in nuclear science.
Expertise - chemistry dealing with separating, identifying and quantifying complex chemicals - specifically those in forensics evidence.
He's studied human decomp. Research group since 2003 volatile chemicals given off by live and deceased individuals in an effort to locate human remains by the chemicals being released.
He has published - masters and phd students who have published. His involvement is direct supervision of their research, but he joins them in the lab and research field trips.
Government grants - most research in recent years has been done with live human scent, but also decomp
He gives extensive lectures.
Instruments to identify volatile compounds? No instruments specifically designed to identify human remains.
Expert witness experience - this is his first trial on human decomp for forensic chemistry. He has testified over 2 dz times.
Patents - he has 1 patent which for the id of humans based on the volotile chemicals they give off.
American Chemical Society, fellow of American Academy of Forensic Sicences.
Prior testimony in a variety of situations - grand jury hearings, civil and criminal proceedings for both the defense and prosecution
Awards?
OBJECTION - SUSTAINED
Move to have him entered as an expert.
VOIRE DIRE BY JA
Work in the study of decomp is based on what a dog would alert to? Yes.
His studies - the students (as well as himself) do the research
Until recently the studies dealt with training aides. One dealt with whole human remains.
Volatiles during decomp - as a forensic scientist and teaching, he is involved in the general knowledge as it realtes to hsi research.
HHJBP: Expert accepted in chemistry and human decomp in terms of odor analysis
DIRECT EXAM BY JB - continued
Just got back from California.
He received all the records related to the investigation, ME reports, photos, contents of trunk, reports from Oakridge, depos from experts.
He was asked to review the reports from Oakridge and Dr. Sigman's report from the National Center of Forensic Sciences.
Was Dr. Sigman's report the first in this case?
OBJECTION - hearsay - OVERRULED
He believes it was the first chemical analysis done of the trunk.
Then a month later, the report from Dr. Vass? Yes.
He has also reviewed numerous studies dealing with human decomp.
It is his opinion that there is currently no instrumental method that has been scientifically validated to identify the presence or absence of human remains.
He has a Power Point.
OBJECTION BY JA - wants copy to be marked
Power Point accepted as a demonstrative aide. Defense Exhibit FN(?)
He identified it as an animation showing how the instrumentation works - the
GCMS. Samples are injected and go thru the machine. Then a written report - a chromatogram is generated.
(Technical difficulties with the Power Point)
If compounds are close to one another, you have to run additional tests.
Known standard - you buy them from a chemical company which have a confirmed identity and you run them on your instrument to be certain of the identity of a chemical.
Chromatogram does not show how much of a chemical - only estimations or relative to each other. Ultimately you need to run a calibration curve using your known standards - only way to do a quantification.
The chromatogram will give you an indication of the approximate relative amounts - one chemical versus another within the same run.
Next slide - each peak is for a different chemical and he put it into a bar graph with the relative ratios using the 24 identified odor compounds. This involved all living people and the chemicals they give off.
This shows that each of the 10 people gave off a unique pattern of chemicals. Looking at the most abundant to the least abundant - they have determined the reliability to differentiate individuals.
Next slide - bar graph on left was 7 living individuals showing differing chemical components. The next showed 6 deceased that showed more similar chemical components.
Next slide showed the 20 most abundant chemicals in 21 deceased individuals.
Next slide - they also did this for other decomposing animals - K-9s, tuna, chicken, pork, beef. Trying to identify compounds coming from non-human decomp. There is quite a bit of overlap between decomposing organic matter (animal remains) and human remains.
He also had a larger slide, Defense Exhibit DW for demonstrative purposes only.
When complex chemicals are separated, if you go through a sensitive level, you go through thousands of chemicals, then thru refinement you can come up with a handful associated with human remains. Blue are acids. This is a comparison of 8 different studies done on human remains to give a snapshot of similarities and differences. There was an additional paper published last week from a graduate student's dissertation. Dr. Vass's study is included.
Is this a breakdown of what Dr. Vass?
OBJECTION - under (?) case - May we approach?
SIDEBAR #1 (11:31-SIDEBAR #! (11:31-11:35)
Regarding his chart, all the studies are different and study bodies in different stages. There are various people looking at the various chemicals given off of a decomposing body. His table is a summary based on a portion of all of the compounds presented.
(ICA writing notes again)
Dr. Vass's studies are #6 and #7. Dr. Strafalopolis in Greece(sp) is #4 and #5.
What can we learn from the chart?
OBJECTION may be a (case) violation - REPHRASE
If above 50% would show a general agreement among the studies. The numbers were well below that which means there is disagreement at this point. The only that are above the 50% threshold are 4 chemicals. Tolumine and paraxylene, dimethyl disulfide and tri-sulfide.
Next slide - a photo provided to him of contents of trunk after they had been removed and inventoried. This is relative to possible decomp events from food products or volatiles related to consumer products.
Fatty acids - in report by Dr. Vass. These 4 fatty acids are everywhere, related to fatty materials, i.e. milk products, cheese. They are the same compounds found in human body fat.
Sodium, Calcium, Magnesium and Iron are generally found in milk or other materials we ingest.
These fatty acids are not unique to human decomp.
Sodium, calcium.... are not unique to human decomp.
Next slide - shows pork and beef and other items we might consume also contain the same fatty acids reported by Dr. Vass.
Regarding chloroform - Oakridge did not do a quantitative analysis.
Chloroform is everywhere. It is very common in very low quantities. Can be high in bleach....
OBJECTION - JA speaking with JB - JA requests sidebar
SIDEBAR #2 (11:46-11:52
Chloroform can be found in cleaning products, in many products, depending on the concentration level. Bleach has high amounts of chloroform. Other products that contain chloroform would be... Witness then referenced the World Health Organization...
OBJECTION - JA stated the WHO was one of the areas they had talked about - SUSTAINED
Chloroform found in drinking water, household foods (cheeses and soft drinks)
JA - we need to approach (he had a piece of paper he wanted to show the Court.
SIDEBAR #3 (11:54-11:59
Talking heads are noticing that AF is going to sidebars now and CM is staying sitting down.
Recess for lunch until 1:45. Legal matter that needs to be taken up at 1:30.
1:32
Jury not present.
JA: I have a proffer matter.
JB: The Court has ruled. I'm not interested in pre-trying my case. This has been going on far too often and I think the Court has ruled in our favor.
HHJBP: I don't necessarily think we need a proffer. If you have read JA's case he cited - as long as he is giving his opinions, not regurgitating something that he has read. As the Lynn case states, it would then be inadmissible hearsay.
JA: According to his depo - the source of his info are things he read on line. Under Lynn and professor Earhardt has cited Lynn. A witness cannot testify on direct if his underlying facts are inadmissible. Cleaning products and chloroform is hearsay.
HHJBP: I'm not going to require proffer. If it comes out on cross that this is based entirely on hearsay, then his testimony is subject to being stricken with an instruction to disregard. So, you might want to talk with him about it.
JB: The correct interpretation of Lynn is that if the facts are reasonably relied on by experts, as is the internet, then it is admissible and Lynn does not apply.
HHJBP: You can get info in various ways - if he has examined the products or seen analysis over the years, that's fine. The flip side is if I do an internet search and I determine something based on that, and that is the sole basis of my knowledge, then that is where you run into a Lynn problem. I don't know what he is going to say. If this is new found knowledge and based solely on what he read on the internet, you don't need an expert to do that.
JB: I will inquire as to the basis of his knowledge.
HHJBP: We have about 6 more minutes before we start, so if you want to step outside and confer with him, you can.
JB: Goes outside to talk to the witness.
EXAMINATION OF DR. FURTON BY JB
JB: Basis of his knowledge of chloroform - general knowledge of chloroform through his education and experience. He has relied on scientific journals and treatises. At the Frye hearing he testified to a World Health Organization report on toxic chemicals - chloroform - a thorough review of documents and peer reviewed journals. He has been using a GMSC for 25 years and he has had chloroform frequently come up. He has used it as a solvent and seen it in mixtures.
In prep for testimony he has done some testing. The WHO report had some consumer products not listed, so he did internet searches of those products related to chloroform. He used Google Scholar. The references were journal articles and websites of analysis. He has been instructed not to refer to his findings from his most recent internet searches. The opinions he will render have nothing to do with the recent internet searches.
BY JA:
He has not done any research into the presence of chloroform in household products. Everything he knows on that subject is based on his knowledge and experience as an analytical chemist and what he has read.
His expertise is in chemical analysis and chloroform is one of those chemicals.
Chloroform in household products is based on journal articles and government reports.
JA: The witness can give an opinion but he can't announce to the Jury the hearsay on which it is based.
JB: The Court ruled on this at sidebar before lunch. He is a forensic chemist. The witness will state his opinions and not name the particular underlying info.
HHJBP: The doctor can give his opinion and he doesn't have to give the basis of the data relied upon.
JB: If he is cross-examined then he can give the basis.
HHJBP: You are correct.
Jury returned at 1:52
DIRECT EXAMINATION OF DR. FURTON BY JB - continued
What types of products you can commonly find products in?
OBJECTION - opinion Lynn - OVERRULED
Chloroform can be found in bleach and fatty type things such as butter, oils and cheese. It can be found in chlorinated drinking water.
The GCMS will pick up chloroform in water and other volatile organic compounds.
Opinion - after looking at Dr. Vass's 5 chemical compounds - It is his opinion that those five compounds are not unique to human decomp because two of them are found in common household products and the other three have been reported in decomposing organic matter, urban waste trash bigs for example. Are there studies that have found this?
OBJECTION - SUSTAINED
CROSS EXAM BY JA
Have you examined the spare tire cover?
OBJECTION BY JB - move to strike - OVERRULED ON THAT BASIS - It's also beyong the scope - OVERRULED AT THIS POINT
He was shown State's Exhibit 139 - the spare tire cover tested by Oakridge. He does not see any bleach stains on it.
OBJECTION - OVERRULED
The chemical reactions that could create chloroform also occur in other organic compounds.
I bleach were spilled on a dark fabric surface, if it was placed directly on the carpet, he would expect to see it.
Would there be other chemical reactions to show that occurred? Bromides? Are you familiar with that?
Other things can be created, but he doesn't know of anyone who has done peer reviewed studies and it wasn't in anything he has reviewed.
Accidental creation of chloroform and what other things are created? He has not read anything like that.
Iranian study? He doesn't know of that.
The fact that there are so many things that can happen is the reason he has the opinion he has. One Iranian study would not be sufficient.
How many articles are you relying on for your opinion? He has one example article in his report, but there are many other sources of chloroform.
He wasn't trying to come up with an interpretation of a particular outcome.
There are any number of potential sources of chloroform.
To determine if it was from something else, all you have to do is look for the other things. That has not been done and it needs further research.
He did not go far into determining what else it could come from.
Chloroform is a carcinogen and it is in butter and cheese - in low parts per billion.
FDA limit on how much chloroform can be in a product? He doesn't recall. It is in the low parts per billion range.
Chloroform in water - in low levels - parts per billion and sometimes even lower.
Regarding his Power Point presentation - Slide 3 - Volatiles Collected from living and deceased individuals - he agreed that we all smell much more alike when we are dead than alive. We have not yet found the unique set of compounds and their significance in decomp.
Slide 4 - His student performed this study for a paper that was just published this year. His student did it under his direction. Student went to the morgue for 21 bodies using a scent transfer unit - used by LE to collect human scent. The collection medium is inferior to a triple-sorbent trap which would tend to collect a larger amount and more likely to get compounds that appear in smaller amounts. The device was held over the corpse for about a minute - the same sample time LE uses. She did do some samplings away from the body. It was not done out in a natural environment. There were some compounds on every body in the morgue but on no bodies from the crematorium. It is possible that was background. This is on-going research.
Regarding Slide #3 - Tuna, chicken, lamb - this is testing of meats from the animal, unprepared meat that was allowed to decompose. There is a great deal of difference between human and non-human decomp.
Slide that was shown on big board - study that covered the most variety of times of decomp - would be the Vass studies #6 and #7. All the others looked at particular points in time.
How many of the studies used triple-sorbent traps? Strapolopolis and Vass studies. Is that the proper way?
OBJECTION - improper bolstering - OVERRULED
It is one method. He doesn't know if it is the best.
Whole bodies vs parts - Strapolopolis and Vass are the only two studies looking at the entire bodies. The others were all studies of portions of a decomposing body at different stages of decomp commonly used as training aides for cadaver dogs.
Looking at the total list, there are many compounds in most of the studies and they don't necessarily correlate to whole bodies or parts. He thinks they found more compounds because they were using the triple-sorbent traps.
Vass may have found more decomp materials because they used triple-sorbent traps.
OBJECTION - improper bolstering - OVERRULED
As a person decomposes, the chemical signature does not change from day to day of decomp. The ratios will change from one stage of decomp to the next.
Anaerobic decomposition - he believes Dr. Vass is the only one who studied that.
It could be a body buried deep could produce more compounds than one buried shallow.
More information is always better.
Chemical analysis of decomp is important to limiting the possible sources of the odor.
All four things Dr. Vass looked at - it's possible for them to be caused by a dead human body in the trunk of a car with additional chemicals present. The chloroform and the carbon tetrachloride could come from other sources.
He is discrediting Dr. Vass's study in being limited in scope and as being ongoing research.
He knows in Dr. Vass's study they did not run standards, so it is based on mass spectrum interpretation; but other than, Dr. Vass found those two elements. Thoroughly and properly done study? No standards were run.
2/19/11 depo - page 43, line 6. He said "I'm not saying the study was not done properly or thoroughly, but it is ongoing research". Have you changed your opinion? No. He has also done tests not running standards, that doesn't mean the work doesn't have scientific merit - it's just that additional work needs to be done.
Regarding morgue/crematorium study - he agreed they used the spectral library to identify some. They did run standards on the top 20. They published because they weren't focusing on those compounds.
What other one thing could explain the chloroform and other volatiles other than a decomposing body? He said it would be a combination of things - petroleum products and organic decomp.
No one single item that can explain all of the findings other than a dead human body? Even the chemicals present there, could be from a human body plus other residues from other consumer products and background materials - decomposing organic matter for example.
You would have to ignore the peer reviewed papers to come to that conclusion and only rely on Dr. Vass's paper who was the one who did the analysis.
His Saturday depo - page 88 - line 1. On Saturday, I asked you...
OBJECTION - not an inconsistent statement -
SIDEBAR #4 (2:34-2:35)
In his depo he said that all of those things could be caused by a decomposing human body.
OBJECTION - improper impeachment and argumentative - OVERRULED
All of the findings could be explained? There were other compounds indicated in the trunk - gas is one - a decomposing human body along with other compounds could be consistent.
There are compounds present that may not be consistent.
Any other single even or thing that could explain all the findings in the trunk other than a decomposing body? It could be a combination of a non-human body decomposing with other chemicals such as gas or bleach.
All he had available to him was the picture of things in the garbage bag from the trunk. If there was a bag of rotting trash in the trunk, there could be various contributors - decomposing cheese, meat.
There are no peer reviewed articles that have done detailed background studies on these. There is not a strong database of background material.
He agreed that something was decomposing in the trunk. The question is what.
Regarding slide with garbage, he was aware there was no meat in the salami package. He agreed there was not enough there to make an odor strong enough to permeate the trunk - just the package by itself. Velveeta remnants - it's main ingredient is milk and milk fats but not very much cheese. The picture doesn't show much. Let's look at it.
OBJECTION - OVERRULED
The Velveeta package odor would be substantially less if it was dry.
Exhibits 20, 21 and 22.
Exhibit 22 - He looked at it (Velveeta bos) and it did not appear to have any food product on it. He agreed, that item as it was now, would not produce a substantial odor.
Exhibit 21 - He looked at it and all there was was residue but no apparent food product and he agreed, in its present state, would not produce a substantial odor. However, if it was wet and a part of a pool of liquid, it could.
(ICA whispering to JB)
Exhibit 20 - he did not see any food product. Just a soiled box. If it were stained in the same inorganic fatty acids from the Velveeta wrapper.
Exhibit 26 - a foil wrapper with cheese residue on the side. JA wanted to pass it around to the jury.
OBJECTION BY JB - altered evidence - OVERRULED
SIDEBAR #5 (2:50-2:53)
You would agree there is not enough material in the things we just looked at to produce the odor present in the trunk? No - he could not agree with that.
OBJECTION - SUSTAINED
He thought it would be unlikely that those materials would leave a smell that would still be present 2 years later.
You have done work in studying human detection canines?
OBJECTION - OVERRULED
You were provided info regarding the canines used in this case?
OBJECTION - SUSTAINED
You would agree that the items found - well trained human remains detection dog?
OBJECTION - SUSTAINED
No further questions by JA.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY JB
There was no bleach stain that was apparent to him. He never testified to that.
Chloroform levels - why didn't you go to Iran to get that paper? (WHAT?) Why didn't you read that one? He said he may have read it, but he only relied on the articles that he had at his disposal. He is sure there are many out there and he would be happy to read them.
The one he relied on were in the United States? He read peer reviewed papers. He did not know if the Iranian paper was peer-reviewed.
Regarding Slide #3, the chemical compounds are none of the 5 sited in Dr. Vass's study. None of these were found by Dr. Vass?
OBJECTION - OVERRULED
These are compounds found in his studies and were different than Dr. Vass's.
Longitudinal studies. How long?
OBJECTION - SUSTAINED
Would the chemical compounds of long term study be relevant to this case?
OBJECTION - SUSTAINED
Would the chemical compounds assist him in his opinions?
OBJECTION BY JA -that's a (?) violation -
SIDEBAR #6 (3:02-3:03)
In your opinion, would the chemical composition of a body buried over a year be of any assistance in evaluating this case? It would be of limited use, but it is important to look at the body of knowledge. It is known that buried remains will vary compared to above ground remains. There are limited publications.
Are you aware Caylee was last seen on 6/16 and the car was left at the Amscott on 6/27? Yes.
Are you aware Dr. Vass did his first readings until 17 days later?
Dr. Vass, after 8 years of study, ended up having a conclusion as to the uniqueness of the chemicals found. What were his findings?
OBJECTION - hearsay - SUSTAINED
Do you have an opinion if the chemical composition of decomp is unique?
OBJECTION - asked and answered - OVERRULED
It is known that the 5 compounds that were in the end relied upon by Dr. Vass are not unique to human decomp.
OBJECTION - SUSTAINED and jury is asked to disregard
What else could account for these chemicals being in the trunk? Would that include a bag of garbage in the trunk for 3 weeks?
OBJECTION - SUSTAINED
They could be contributors to the compounds found in the study. And could the gas be a contributor?
OBJECTION - hypothetical - SUSTAINED
Do you know the chemical composition of the trunk before the garbage went in there? No. He would hae to know that to give an accurate analysis.
Something was decomposing - that could also be garbage?
OBJECTION - SUSTAINED
He was shown Defense Exhibit C. He sees the garbage on the left and the garbage on the right. Do you see they are altered?
OBJECTION - SUSTAINED
It appears that the garbage has been removed and spread out onto a long table.
He doesn't know if food items were thrown out between collection and drying.
OBJECTION - OVERRULED
Recess until 3:25
Trash does appear to be pretty clean.
3:38
Jury back in at 3:39
REDIRECT EXAMINATION OF DR. FURTON BY JB - continued
(Casey looking very somber - quite a contradiction to this morning)
JB showed Dr. Furton the trash (JA at the witness stand also)
He saw a brown substance in the can and agreed it was a brown substance. It appeared to be empty. Plenty of stuff on outside of can - not a good shot?
OBJECTION - SUSTAINED (JA yelling it in JB's ear since he is standing there)
Purple residue on Velveeta container. He agreed that there is nothing visible other than the dry residue.
Do you see any maggots or puperia
OBJECTION - qualified? -
He has seen maggots before. He saw a little bit of evidence of insect activity. Whatever it is is no longer there.
OBJECTION - SUSTAINED
Black powder outside Velveeta paper? Yes, it appears. You can't take finger prints....
OBJECTION - outside of expertise - SUSTAINED
Chemical composition of wet trash would have been stronger than what it is 3 years later after being put in a dry room.
Has science evolved to identify signature compounds of human decomp? In his opinion - no.
This is your life's work?
OBJECTION - SUSTAINED
RECROSS BY JA:
Primary source always has the strongest odor? Yes, the odor will come from the highest concentration. If the source is moved? If the bag was removed from the trunk, he would think the odor would go with it unless there was residue. Some residue might be left behind?
OBJECTION - asked and answered - OVERRULED
Unless there was a leak in the bag, the odor should go with the bag.
Has anyone said the bag had an odor of human decomp?
OBJECTION - beyond scope - SUSTAINED
He did not read anything that anyone said the bag smelled like human decomp.
Witness is excused (3:47)
