Caylee Marie Anthony-MURDER TRIAL - DAY 10

10:25 Sat June 4, 2011 Court is in session:

Recess is over......

JBP is asking Baez about a paper called "Strengthening Forensic Science", Baez wants to use it but JBP said that it may or may not be a learned treatise. Baez is citing law or trying to. Showing that law to Jeff Ashton. Baez is reading to fast and JBP tells him to slow down. Baez is reading something into the record that hair analysis is unreliable. JBP tells Baez that she did not say it was identical, she said it was similar. She testified to this already. Jeff Ashton wants this to be proffered cuz it makes no sense. JBP wants to take it through the numbers with the witness, this is no different than what she testified to in her direct examination. He is schooling Baez and told him you didn't even have this with you to ask her about it, now you do. JBP says lets get her back in here and ask her about it. JBP seems to be very tired of Baez but coping.

Karen Lowe is returning to witness stand........

Baez asks her if she is familiar with this report? She says yes. The Natl Academy of Science is respected and started by Congress? Yes. To give guidance on the scientific community on how to do things? Well, it can but it is not all scientific, so yes and no. Are you aware of the criticisms in this report about microscopic hair analysis? Yes but some of it is not qualified and she agrees with some of it and not all of it. You can't identify someone by their hair alone? No. JBP says did your lab try to do that? she says No. Are you familiar with a forensic analyst by the name of Michael Malone? Yes. Are you familiar with the Gates case? Yes. A man was convicted on Mr. Malone's hair testimony and this conviction was later overturned? Yes. It was overturned later by mitro DNA. His testimony was correct according to you? If he said the hairs were microscopically similar to the evidence. You would agree with that? Objection. JBP is telling Baez not to even go any further. Ashton asks would you say this is a scientific treatise but not basically written in stone? Baez is asking her about another study, about accuracy rate of hair comparisons and Mitro DNA. She doesn't agree, she has said a lot of times now that hair comparisons cannot be 100 percent. Jeff says your honor the proffered statements of this examination have not gone against it, it has agreed with it. This witness hasn't said there was an identification in this case. He can't impeach her on what she hasn't said. JBP is getting angry, he says I have made myself abundantly clear and Mr Baez heard me..........Baez is whimpering about I will not use other cases. Baez is making no sense at all to me at this point. I think the judge is lost too.

Returning the jury..........

Karen Lowe is back on the witness stand...

Baez is up.......

Ms Lowe we were discussing the history of hair analysis and then the Congressional report? Yes. It tried to look for a better way to introduce forensic science in the courtroom? Yes. You find this paper, authoritative? Yes. They were critical of hair analysis? The criticism is about something they already do not do. They use DNA. They use nuclear DNA, instead of Mitro DNA. Cindy, Casey and Caylee all have the same Mitro DNA? Sustained. That is the reason why one hair comes from one individual and this was a problem the NES report saw in 2009? Yes, they suggested doing DNA with hair. This is the first time you have testified in banding in hair? Yes. Are you an expert in it? My training experience gives me my knowledge and my on the job training and 4 papers on it. You don't know what causes post mortem banding? No. You don't know when it develops? No, it varies. Not everyone who is deceased has post mortem root banding? Yes. You don't know how often hair banding comes up in deceased people? No. The testimony you have given here today is based on your training and on the job training using opinion? Yes that together with all I know about it. You really can't testify on this specific topic of post mortem banding? I testified on what I know for sure, there was post mortem root banding on the hair in this case. You have never rendered an opinion on an unknown person having a single root banding? No. You requested more hairs? Yes, I wanted more hairs. You stated that if they found more than one hair with root banding it would make it a stronger case? No. I just wanted to know it was from a body and not some other random possibility what caused the root banding. You wanted more hairs for no reason what so ever? Sustained. You did actually get more hairs? I did. When was the next time you got some hairs? Refers to report. Baez says never mind, we will start with your first report, you were given more hairs in your first report? Yes. These hairs had different characteristics? Yes. Throughout all the other hairs there were no decomp hairs? Yes. You did another report on more hairs on Aug 6th report? None of those hairs had decomp. After that you did another report on Aug 13th? Sustained items not in evidence. You did another report on Oct 6th you were given multiple items and vacuum sweepings? None of the hairs had decomp. You did a report on Oct 15th, correct? Yes. What did you find? No hair with decomp. You did a report on Oct 21? Yes. What did you find? No hair with decomp. Nov 6th you were given more items from the trash bag? Yes. What did you find? No hair with decomp. You did a report on June 25, 2009, of the items found in the car, what did you find? Sustained. Jeff wants to know which items? Q319 through Q337 what did you find? No hair with apparent decomp were found. Where there any other items we have not discussed? Yes. What were your findings? No hair with apparent decomp. So after you tried to find more hairs to make your case stronger, LE helped you. You couldn't make the case stronger? Sustained. Where there any other hairs that showed signs of decomp? No, not from the car. You still can't say that one hair was from a dead person? No, not one 100 percent but it had the characteristics of post mortem banding. There are no standards of what post mortem root banding? Right it is my opinion. There are no error rates as to the identification of this banding? That is correct. When did you first examine this hair, Q12? July 21, 2008. When you do these inspections the post mortem root banding should be at the root? Yes. This hair banding was not at the root, it was slightly above it? Objection, side bar.........

Side bar over..........

Baez is up..........the pic you took of the Q12 hair, you never showed it to this jury? Objection, item not in evidence. Rephrase the question...ma'am at looking at that photo can you see where the band is? I would like to look at it under a microscope. Is that why you don't feel comfortable not showing this jury the photo? Sustained, impeachment. Ms Lowe, would you say that it is difficult to view a pic to view the characteristics of a hair but you wouldn't be able to capture the changes? So it is difficult to know where the root ends in a photo? Can be, depends on the hair. Knowing these difficulties you still brought photos to show the jury? Yes, because they showed root banding. These articles you read don't come with hairs, they come with photos? Yes. Did you fail your first proficiency test? Yes. After your depo was taken your lab developed a study............objection relevance...Side Bar.....

Side bar over.........

JBP asks the name of this study? Jeff Ashton says the study doesn't have a name, it is being done by Steven Shaw. JBP asks her if any of her testimony has to do with this study of Steven Shaw? She says no. Objection sustained.

Recess for 5 minutes............

Recess is over.........

Baez is up...........

Karen Lowe on witness stand:

Ms Lowe did you go to meetings on trying to reinforce that post mortem root bandings exist? No, I think the most we will ever go to is that the hair came from a dead body. You saw this hair and the root banding? Yes. At the time you examined this hair you didn't know who it belonged to? I thought it was similar to a hair from a hair brush belonging to Caylee. Were you told this brush belonged only to Caylee? Yes. Baez asked if she knew of anything to do with the brush being used by others? Objection.....sustained. The little girl was still missing at this time? Yes. You can actually do nuclear DNA if you have a root? Yes. You have this hair with a root and you didn't send it for nuclear DNA? Yes, there was no tissue on the root. You are not the one to make that call? Yes I am, I send it to Mitro or Nuclear DNA, sometimes I will ask the DNA examiner if they think it could have nuclear DNA. So now we can say that the hair belonged to Caylee, Cindy, Casey or Cindy's mother? Yes. Finding hairs in a trunk is not that uncommon? Yes, you shed up to 100 hairs per day. If you shed a hair from one person to another that is called transfer? Right. There is also something called secondary transfer? Yes. You would want to know if this came from primary or secondary transfer? Not exactly. Don't you want to know how a hair got there? Depends.

Jeff Ashton up................

Are the standards you use long existent with FBI policy? Yes, there is an accompanying statement, that it is not positive without DNA, it is just based on characteristics. Was the hair with decomp an anagen hair or a tillagen hair? It was an anagen hair. Mitro DNA will have the same maternal line? Yes. Did you eliminate the victim's mother as a suspect of the decomp root? Yes. It could have come from another maternal relative that had 9inch light brown hair? Yes. Was the decomp hair treated in anyway? No. Her hair in the hairbrush did not have a root band? Yes. The hair banding you found in the Q12 decomp hair and the hair you found of Caylee's hairbrush, the decomp was not something found in the hair from the hairbrush? No.

Baez up..........
You don't know the treatments of Casey's hair? Yes. At then end of the day you can't say that Q12 came from a dead body? No, it just had characteristics of a decomp hair.

Witness is Mike Vincent..............

Linda is up, he is the CSI for Orange County Sheriff's office. He has a lot of prior LE experience. He served in the Air force for 8 years as LE. He has been in CSI with LE for 30 years. He is the assistant supervisor of Geraldo Bloise. In July, 2008 he was the asst. supervisor of Geraldo Bloise. He assisted with the examination of the Pontiac Sun Fire. He initially collected stain samples for blood on the trunk liner, they came out negative. He also collected air samples and piece of the trunk liner and put them in tin cans. The collection of air samples began on July 21, 2008, he was assisted by people from the University of Florida. He is telling the jury how air sample collecting began. They tried to suck the air out of the trunk with a syringe then transferred the air into 2 teflar bags. He also hung a filter to absorb the air, they performed the procedure, he watched. The samples were sent to Oakridge Labs in Tennessee. She is showing the witness a package, he notes his seal and his initials. The tefflar bag is sealed inside the brown envelope. Did you also cut a sample of the stain from the trunk liner? Yes. Linda hands him a tin can and he recognizes it with his initials and seal and date, 7-22-08. That item in the can, did you send it to Oakridge Labs? Yes, it was shipped there. On July 23, 2008, did you observe another attempt to collect air samples? Yes. How did it differ? It was done by Dr. Sigmund, he put in a filter in the trunk and left it there for 30 minutes, then sealed it. She hands him an envelope and he recognizes it as his initials and seal, the date is July 23, 2008. Once it was collected and sealed and sent to Oakridge Labs in Tennessee. On August 29th, did you conduct another examination to collect samples from it? Yes. Prior to doing this did you receive equipment to do this collection? Yes, Dr Vass sent me a portable air pump and 9 test tubes and instructions on how to collect the air samples. Did you use this equipment on the trunk? Yes on Aug 29th and Aug 30th. He is explaining the air pump and the test tubes for the jury, he is explaining how it all worked. He attaches the pump to the test tubes and then collected samples from the trunk and the forensic bay itself. She handing him envelopes as a group, he is looking at all the envelopes, he recognizes them all because they have his label and his unit evidence tape. He put all of these in another envelope and sealed and initialed that envelope. Hands him one envelope, it is from the passenger side of the car, the collection process took 69 minutes. Next one is passenger are and it took 69 minutes. Next one is from the trash bag on Aug 30th, took 72 minutes. Next one was inside the trunk, shut the trunk and let the pump run 69 minutes. Next one passenger area, took 69 minutes. Next one was air in the garage, it lasted 77 minutes on Aug 30th. The next one is a blank one, that was shipped clean to check for contamination of the others. Next one was from the air in the garage on Aug 30th, for 77 minutes, shipped to Dr. Vass. Did you collect items from the wheel well and send them to Oakridge, Yes. She hands him envelope, he recognizes it as a substance on the inside tire well, it was scraped off, it was sent to Dr Vass, the initials on the seal are Geraldo Bloise. Did you collect other pieces of the stain on the spare tire cover on Oct 8th? Yes. Did you also collect pieces of the spare tire cover that were not stained? Yes as a control. Hands him a can, it is sealed and initialed by him, it was sent to oakridge, it is a 6 inch by 6 inch stain of the spare tire cover. Hands him a can, it is labeled by him, it is 2 and half by 2 inch spare tire cover. Which was the control piece? The smaller one. Did you collect hair standards and buccal swabs from Cindy, George and Lee? On Oct 7, 2008. Yes. Are these samples collected in the same fashion from each person? Yes, he did the buccal swabs and the hair swabs all the same. Hair was pulled with tweezers or the person will pull them out with their fingers.
Linda hands them envelopes, first one is 2 buccal swabs from Cindy, next, 2 buccal swabs from George, next 2 buccal swabs from Lee. They all went into sealed boxes into a sealed envelope, initialed by him. Next envelope, one petri dish of hairs from George, next is one petri dish of hairs from Lee, next is one petri dish of hairs from Cindy. They were all sealed and initialed by him. Did you examine gas cans? Yes. Showing him a pic of the metal red gas can with his info. It is introduced into evidence and published to the jury. Did you change or alter the gas can between the time you collected it and took a pic of it? No. Then he swabbed it for DNA and fingerprints, then returned the item to the Anthony's on Aug 13th at 1103 hours to Cindy. It had no DNA or fingerprints. Linda is introducing hair and buccal standards into evidence. Linda is done........

Baez is up........

When you processed the car on July 17, 2008, you tested for blood? Yes. That was caught on TV, right? The test for blood was not on TV. Just the bay the car was in was on TV? When you tested with Blue Star were the cameras there? I don't know. Lots of stupid questions about how the media got there. All sustained. This is the very first time you have taken air samples? Yes, I had never heard of it being done. This was for you an experiment? No, it was new but I wouldn't call it an experiment. There were multiple tries to collect air samples? Yes. You did it more than once because you couldn't do it right? No. They weren't being done by me. You were part of this process right? Yes, I observed. First there was the syringe then the carbon filters then you got sent the little pump by Dr. Vass? Yes. The problem you had with air samples is that is air is free flowing right? I don't know what you mean. Was the air on different days, different air? Yes. Do you have any info of the air on this car on June 16, 2008? No. Did you sample the air in the Anthony garage? No. The dumpster where this car was by for 3 weeks? No. You attempted to get samples of the bay? Yes. To compare them to the air in the car? What? The forensic bay air is evidence in this case? Yes. Baez is making no sense but I am trying. The reason you took other samples from places other than the trunk was to compare the samples to the trunk? Correct, OK. The problem is you took this on Aug 29, 2008, you didn't take it July 16th for air that was free flowing? Correct. So this air shouldn't be compared to the air in the trunk? I don't understand your question. Objection...Sustained. You also sampled the trash air? Yes. You didn't take this on July 16th you took it on Aug 29th? There was a significant difference of the air on July 16th and the air on Aug 29th? I don't know. Was the trash immediately taken to the dry room? I don't know. Showing him defense Exhibit C, not admitted to evidence. Does this look like the trash when you first got it? I don't know. Do you see a difference in the trash in the other picture? Yes. Why was it put in the dry room? I don't know you would have to ask Bloise. You are his supervisor though right? Yes but I don't know why he put it there. With your common knowledge of being a human being that has trash and dealt with trash all your life, the odor would be significantly different if it was wet or dry? Yes, the smell would be different. When you took the air sample of the trash on Aug 29th the trash was dry? That is possible, the trash was stored in a brown box. The trash wasn't wet when you took the air sample, right? Yes. Showing the witness the metal pic gas can. Linda wants him to lay a predicate that is the same gas can. It is. When you got the gas can, it is metal and had some gas dripping? It was completely dry. Pointing to an area, is that showing wetness? No, it was dry. You processed this can for fingerprints, did it have any? No. Wants to know if it has been wiped down? It did not appear to have any fingerprints. Baez is done....

Linda is up.....

The gas can was pointed out and he retrieved it using gloves, he took possession of it and carried it by it's handle. The Pontiac Sun Fire where was it stored between July 15th and Aug 29th when you took those samples? In the secured bay. Did it ever smell any different? No, it did not diminish in smell. Was the garbage stored separately from the car the entire time? Yes, it was. Linda is done.

Witness is excused.

Judge is excusing the jury. He is telling them he has worked out the kinks with the restaurant #1 and he is trying to work out the kinks in restaurant #2. The hamburgers should be working out, lol.

JBP asking anything else, Linda says that an issue has arisen, they want computer forensic people to be exempted from the rule of sequestration so they can talk to them. They want to talk to them for a limited purpose. Baez says is this a person not on the witness list? Mason says, you want a new consultant for what? Linda says I have a new consultant working with me that will have to talk to the witnesses for a limited purpose. She wants a 3 way conversation instead of relaying it down the grapevine. Defense doesn't object, JBP allows it. Linda did it the right way. Mason says this last witness talks about trash like Geraldo and wants to know if they broke the rule of sequestration? JBP says people use trash and garbage interchangeably. Could also be called refuse or waste management.
They will have a matter in his hearing at 830am Mon morning but they won't be involved in that.

Court is in recess till 9am Monday morning.................