Gerardo Bloise testimony (OCSO crime scene investigator)

[liltexans]

Bloise says "you will never forget that smell" #CaseyAnthony -fell
by cfnews13casey via twitter at 3:25 PM

This testimony mirrors George's. Once you smell a dead body, you never forget, says Bloise.
by Gabe Travers/WESH.com at 3:25 PM

CSI:you will never forget that smell. (of a decomposing body)
by oscaseyanthony via twitter at 3:25 PM

Baez asks what he smells when he goes to medical Examiners office. Bloise says the smell of a decomposing body is very unique. #CaseyAnthony
by cfnews13casey via twitter at 3:24 PM

Juror 11 is leaning forward, eyes fixed on the CSI guy.
by stevehelling via twitter at 3:24 PM

#caseyanthony appears to be looking at Baez as he asks questions and then back to the witness for the response.
by oscaseyanthony via twitter at 3:23 PM

 

[Chiquita71]

JB: the Pontiac Sunfire when it arrived. The first thing you did was an exterior inspection?

yes

JB: after that internal?

correct

JB: in plain english look inside the car?

correct

JB: I heard you testify that you upon opening the door of the car you smelled decomposition?

yes

JB: you said decomp and not human because something is decomposing?

yes

JB: and that could be animals?

yes

JB: meats?

yes

JB: could also be human?

yes

JB: you said you smelled various bodies at various stages of decomp?

yes

JB: in various environments?

correct

JB: one of the common things that you see when you see a decomposing body is maggots?

when completely deomposed yes

JB: depending on the stage of decomp you would see thousands of maggots, hundreds of thousands of maggots?

yes

JB: Pupilla...?

Not my experitse, I know human decomp in different stage but talking about that specific topic is not my expertese.

JB: I only want your visual.

Thank you.

JB: no prob. you have gone to medical examiners offices?

yes

JB: wouldn't you agree what you smell is formaldihide?

yes

JB: that is what ME use to perserve tissue?

yes, but in different area, most likely there are no chemicals in that area just the body in the freezer.

JB: when you go to any ME area you smell it everywhere?

yes

JB: fecal matter?

yes

JB: those are different smells and it is hard to smell what comes from what?

It depends if I do finger prints I know the smell of decomposing that is unique. That smell once you smell it you will never forget it. I want to deferenciate the chemicals that you smell at the ME and the full decompostion is different and you will never forget it in your life.

JB: different stages

the only difference is the other when it starts its decomposting smell but when it is full deomp it is strong.

JB: at different stages of decomp there are different smells? once a bodies orifices are exposed it is different than a newly decomposing body?

I agree

JB: Gas guage?

yes

JB: you did not take the car out for a spin?

no

JB: all you can testify is that you put gas in and it rose up a little bit.

correct

JB: dryer sheets, where you given any info about that car before you received it?

only that it was a case of a missing child.

JB: did you know Cindy put the dryer sheets in?

no

JB: the leaves were of no forensic value were they?

it depends.

JB: as far as you know those leaves have no forensic value to that case?

objection
sustained

JB: were those leaves sent out for further analysis?

to another lab

JB: then you focused on the trunk?

?

JB: you did a through search of the trunk of the car?

yes

JB: using tweezers and pulling out hair?

yes

JB: vaccumings of the car?

correct

JB: a hand held devise that catches debris and picks up the most minute particles in that trunk.

correct

JB: you used a ? light source?

yes

JB: for stains

yes

JB: doesn't mean those stains have forensic value but where you would concentrait on

yes

JB: so when you did that you found a portion of the car that had a stain?

yes

JB: it is not uncommon to find stains in trunks of cars

it is possible

JB: fairly common though right?

yes

JB: all right

JB: you used Blu Star?

yes

JB: not lumenal?

correct

JB: luminal is to identify blood

correct

JB: is important because if there is blood in the trunk it is important

correct

JB: blue star exposed the stain for a longer time. better than luminal because there are certain items it can show that luminal can not.

correct

 

[Chiquita71]

JB: you found how many hairs and please feel free to refer to any of your notes

hairs in total 12

JB: we are going to take this one step at at time. when did you collect your first set of hairs?

july 17th 2008 tag number found on the front edge of the car.

JB: these hairs are different lengths.

one was long, but the other one I can't say the size.

JB: they were different sizes and colors

I cannot say

JB: your visual

yes, I can say one was a long hair but the other ones were collected by the vaccuum

JB: ?

12 by hand (he collected)

JB: some of them were dark brown

I don't remember

JB: blonde?

I don't remember

objection
sustained

JB: you found animal hair in the trunk?

I can't say that.

JB: we will get back to that in a few. you are experienced in trance recovery?

I have some experience in trace evidnece

JB: and that means recovery of evidence that is minute which would include hairs

yes

JB: textile fibers a whole array of things?

yes

JB: don't want to contaminate, wear suit and hair net and gloves so no DNA and often times even a mask.

correct

JB: this is all to protect further contamination of the car?

correct

JB: because hair is one of the easiest things we shed

yes

JB: that is what assists you in your job

correct

JB: to find hairs in the trunk of the car is very common

i don't think so

JB: lets explore that, I have a stupid story to tell and waste time, and hair gets in the trunk

with that story yes it could have

JB: how old is the car?

98

JB: and it was ten years old?

yes

JB: lots of trace evidence?

objection
sustained

JB: inspect older cars?

sometimes, what is definition of old?

JB: ten years or older

yes

JB: those are much more dirty than newer

depending on owner

JB: did you send each and ever single hair for Mitrochondrial DNA?

yes, I send it to the lab but I cannot say that every single one was, I just submitted it to the lab. that is not my decsion that is for the lab

JB: Mitrochrondrial DNA is blah blah blah...

objection
sustained

JB: you send pieces of evidence to a lab all the time

yes

JB: you know which pieces go where

correct

JB: finger print to...

yes, once again when I submit hair my explaination in the sentince is DNA whether or not MIT DNA is not my decision. That is the lab not me.

JB: you got 12 by hand

yes

JB: how many by vaccuum?

11

JB: total of 23?

approx

JB: after inspecting the car how many times?

about 12 times, yes about 12 times

JB: so that car were searched top to bottom

I did the best I can I inspected it very well.

JB: very through job sir

yes

JB: in fact this car is the most through you have been on any car.

OH MY here is the conspiresey (sp?) files!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[mombomb]

JB - cross exam of inv. Bloise.

The first thing he did was an inspection of the exterior of the vehicle. He would then inspect the interior. He agreed he smelled decomp when he opened the door. He agreed he did not know if it was human or nonhuman. That means something is decomposing. Could be animals, meats and also human. He agreed he also has smelled various bodies in various stages of decomposition in various environments. He agreed maggots are common. The stage would determine how many. This would also include pruparia (sp). However, this is not his expertise and doesn't feel confident talking about this topic. (This witness is very polite and respectful to JB). He agreed at ME's, he smells formaldehyde - but most likely, the area he goes to does not have chemicals, just the body. He agreed he also smells fecal matter when a body is decomposing. The smell of a decomposing body is unique - the first time he smelled it in Puerto Rico - he knew - once you smell it, you never forget it. (For someone with a thick Hispanic accent, this witness is amazing. He is explaining so well to the Jury).

He agreed he did not drive the car. He doesn't know if after driving the car for a short period of time, the gas gauge sinks. All he can say is he put gas in it and the gauge rose.

The only info he obtained from the detective is that the vehicle was related to a missing child. He was not informed that CA put the air freshener in their or sprayed with Fabreeze.

The dried leaves would have forensic value if there was a standard to compare. He submitted them to the lab. He doesn't recall receiving any results that would have assisted in the investigation.

He agreed he did a thorough search of the trunk of the car - going thru with tweezers and pulling out hairs and doing vacuumings with a hand held device with a filter to catch any evidence which is more thorough than the naked eye exam. He also used an alternate light source which looks for stains which may or may not have forensic value. He found a stain. It is not uncommon to find a stain in the trunk of a car. He then used Blue Star, similar to Luminal, but not Luminal. Its one of the leading chemicals to identify blood. Blue Star exposes the stain for a longer period of time than Luminal. It also identifies items that Luminal won't and limits the false positives.

When he sprayed the stain area with Blue Star, the results were NEGATIVE.

He then did a presumptive test, taking it a step further, which would give a preliminary result as to whether it was blood. This test was NEGATIVE for blood.

The next step is a swab for DNA. He did that. This is part of the protocol. He did not know what the results were.

Regarding hairs in the trunk, he initially found 12 hairs. The first hair was collected on 7/17/08. This hair was long. The other was longer. The rest, he couldn't comment on the sizes. He did not know. They were collected by the vacuum and were mixed with dirt. He collected 12 hairs by hand. He did not remember the color. (The witness seems very sincere.) He didn't recall finding animal hair in the trunk.

He agreed he did not want to contaminate anything, so he wears a Tyvek suit, a hair net and gloves and mask.

He did not feel that it is very common to find hairs in the trunk of a car, but agreed that putting other items in the trunk could transfer hair. The car is 10 years old.

He sent every hair for mitocondrial DNA testing. He did not know if every hair was tested. The decision about testing on the item is not his to make. It's the lab's decision.

He got 11 hairs from the vacuum for a total of 23. This is after inspecting the car 12 times. He feels he inspected the trunk very thoroughly. This is not the only car he has spent this much time on a car. It's right up there with the longest he has searched a car.

He was also present when the Defense searched the car JB mentioned Dr. Lee. State objected, judge sustained, everybody went to sidebar.

 

[wenwe4]

JB w/GB - when you enter Medical Examiner office the smell of decomposing bodies is everywhere and fecal matter smell? - yes

GB - I am in ME office smell dead body....you will never forget that smell in my professional opinion.....

JB - different smells at different rates of decomp?

GB - in full decomposition it is very strong smell..

JB - once a body orifaces are exposed - different smell than recently deceased body - yes
You didn't take car out for spin? no All you can say is put gas in car ...

GB only info I had was related to missing child
didn't know CA put dryer sheets or sprayed entire car with Febreeze, dry leaves have no forensic evidence? object - sustained.....Were they sent out for analysis? Not to my recollection, began to focus on trunk, did a thorough search trunk - going thru with tweezers and pulling out hairs - after removed liner, also did vacuums, hand held device with a filter to catch evidence - more thorough than inspector pick up with naked eye and pick up minute articles.....used an alternate light source - identify reflections where there might be stains - tell you where to concentrate ALS helps....

use a product called BlueStar - similar to luminol but not luminol - leading forensid tool to identify blood . . .blood in trunk would be important...BlueStar exposes stain for longer period of time than Luminol - and identifies certain items that Luminol does not...eliminate false positives...BlueStar - negative results on the liner....
Presumptive test - negative results on areas suspected to be blood
Stain . . . swab for dna even though BlueSTar and Presumptive tests were negative . . .part of protocol ...don't know the results ..... (object-sustained)

Hairs...refer to your report and/or notes

Hairs by hand in total - 12, first set hairs collected - 7/17/08 front edge of the veh....multiple lengths? that one in particular was long....there was another one that was long....can't say the size....they were collected by vacuum..
12 hairs collected by hand....don't remember if dark brown or blond....(object-sustained)...also found animal hair? No I can't say that!....we will get to back tothat

experienced in trace recovery....trace evidence...minute amounts of evidence...textile fibers and array of different things...don't want to contaiminate what your are examining..wear a suit....tyvek....hairnet and gloves.....mask....(JB I noticed you got a little shrubbery there - whiskers)....take all precautions hair is easiest to shed ..we shed 100s every day...assist in GB's job...hairs in trunk is very common? I don't think very common....I take off sweater off/back pack off and put in trunk of car....car is 1998...over 10 years old when inspected - quite a bit of trace evidence in that car....Object-sustained
ever inspected older cars? sometimes
much more dirty than 1 year old car - depends on owner
do you send each and every single hair to test for mitochondrial dna? I send them to the lab but I cannot say what the lab will test....not my decision - lab decision.....
mitochondrial dna - (object- sustained)
you send pieces to labs all the time - you are aware which pieces evidence sent to different dept's bullet to ballistics - fingerprints,
when I submit hair - explanation is dna -mitrochondrial dna is not my decision bythe lab not by me

Inspected vehicle 12 times searched top to bottom...did best I can - inspected vehicle very well...very thorough....this car is most thorough you have been on any car? This is not the only car that I have spent days..... the time yes of any car.....
DT contracted Dr. Henry Lee (object- sustained! sidebar)

 

[Chiquita71]

JB: Dr. Henry Lee

LDB: your honor I object

HHJP: Sustained

(Yeah, Jose THIS guy was out to get ICA) If this wasn't so sad it might be funny. :tsktsk:

 

[Chiquita71]

LDB: move to strike the question from the record

HHJP: I will ask the jury to disregard the last question

JB: the defense inspected the car

yes

JB: that was the trunk liner?

yes

JB: additional hairs were found?

correct

JB: you admitted them into evidence?

yes

JB: animal hairs?

I do not have any knowledge of animal hair

JB: where are your notes?

I destroyed them, this is my report

JB: the report for the car was jan 1 2009 this was six months after you inspected the car

I want to clarify

JB: answer then clairfy

yes, that is the day my supervisor reviewed the report our report is 43 pages and is logged by day. the supervisor reviewed the report and put the date he reviewed it

JB: you are saying you wrote the report but it was not viewed until six months later



JB: garbage?

trash

JB: so you had some trash that was given to you

correct

JB: this was most garbage?

yes, most trash, I used trash in my report

JB: that is okay we will talk trash. in this trash there were multiple packages of food

objection
overruled

JB: on page 23 and 24 of your report there are 37 items of garbage of trash that was listed as evidence

correct

JB: and rather than read them all into the record, I will read

go ahead

JB: a bottle with tobacco spit in it?

can you help me out, show me

JB: sure

(Jose said it...it would be malpractice not to try... :dunno: )

JB: it is not in here is it sir, can you identify a bottle with chewing tobacco spit in it?

the only thing on page 23 is a coppenhagen tobacco container I dont' see any spit, let me see...in page 24 (pause)

 

[momtective]

 

[mombomb]

JB - cross exam of inv. Bloise.

Defense examined car and trunk liner. He agreed additional hairs were found. He collected them and submitted them as evidence. He doesn't have any recollection of animal hairs being found them. He has destroyed his notes. All he has is his report. This report was written on 1/1/09 - 6 months after his inspection. This date is the date his supervisor reviewed and signed his report. His 43 page report was reviewed and signed by his supervisor on the date that he reviewed it.

He does not recall garbage turned over to him. He then recalled trash. It was moist trash.

JB - We'll talk trash!

He agreed that in the trash there were multiple packages of food. LDB objected - overruled.

37 items of trash listed. JB pointed out a bottle of chewing tobacco spit. The witness did not find it listed. He stated #5 was Copenhagen tobacco. He didn't see spit. #13 was empty Crystal Light bottle with brown liquid. He could not say what it was. There were 3 boxes of Velvita.

LDB objected that this was not covered on Direct. Sustained.

 

[mombomb]

JB through.

Redirect by LDB of Inv. Bloise.

Regarding negative results of using Blue Star - they are negative for BLOOD.

Regarding his notes, he handwrites notes as he goes along. He then makes a report from his notes. He then destroys his notes pursuant to OCSO policy.

JB objected to leading and hearsay. Overruled as to hearsay, as to leading sustained.

Once he has written a report from the notes, he then destroys them based on Legal Bulletin 97-09, based on that legal decision.

The Defense individuals inspecting the vehicle took the contamination precautions. They only wore gloves, not hair nets.

Based on his 23 years of experience and 35 to 40 decomposed bodies, it is his opinion that the odor was human decomposition.

JB objects to witness not qualified - overruled.

Recross by JB.

Regarding the destroyed notes, they cannot be inspected by the Defense. Everything in his report is accurate to his handwriting.

He agreed that during cross exam he used the word decomposition. He agreed that it was because he could not determine the type. LDB asked him about his experience and he could say it was human decomposition.

Witness excused.

 

[Chiquita71]

item 12 Crystal light bottle. Brown liquid.

JB: brown liquid

yes

JB: is that tobacco spit

I can't tell that

JB: packages of cheese

yes

JB: many packages of velvetta cheese

objection from LDB I have not been able to cover these things.

HHJP: correct sustained.

JB: I thought I was smarter than that.

HHJP: that was the other witness, the State is correct.

(Jose is flipping through his pages quickly)

HHJP: any redirect?

LDB: when you refer to the negative results as a results of using negative results for?

blood

LDB: when you inspect a car or preserve the evidence you take notes on a pad of paper how do you record what you are doing

on paper and activity log

LDB: do you then take those notes and make a report from your notes?

correct

LDB: once your report is completed you destroy the notes per the OCSO

objection
hearsay overruled
the other sustained

LDB: ?

I destroy the notes based on a legal decision and I destroy the notes

LDB: universal precausion taken to stop cross contaimination, when the defense was inspecting the car did they wear hair net?

just gloves but no hair nets?

LDB: just gloves?

correct

LDB: based upon the

JB: objection he is not a expert in human decom?

overruled

LDB: is the smell of a particular type of decomp

yes, I can say professionally speaking it was the smell of human decomposition

LDB: thank you your honor

JB: the notes that are since destroyed could never be inspected by the defense

no

JB: you can't testify there are things in your notes that are not in your report

everything is accurate to what I wrote

JB: asked the same thing

overruled

everything I did with my handwritten notes in reflected in my report

JB: asked the same again.

(missed what happened)

JB: you couldn't determine what kind of decomp it was

yes, but I used it as deomp in my report

JB: right that is because there are different types

correct

JB: that is why you did not specify it was human

correct

JB: but when LDB comes up now it is human

yes because she asked me about my experience

JB: but before you weren't talking about your experience

objection
sustained

objection
sustained

JB: someone else's opinion?

overruled

my opinion

JB: thank you

HHJP: excused subject to recall.

 

[wenwe4]

Jurors disregard last comment
JB-GB....DT inspecting the trunk liner - later inspecting trunk liner- animal hairs ...no recollection animal hairs....took notes but destroyed notes when wrote report....You.Destroyed.the.notes.from what.you.....Correct based upon OCSO....You destroyed notes? yes

report written 1/1/2009 - approx 6 months after....let me explain..answer question then explain...that is the date my supervisor reviewed my report...activity log investigation .....Supervisor signed date he reviewed the report six months later.....testified on direct about garbage ...don't recall garbage...trash....trash given to you ....trash is moist...prefer word trash....page 23 & 24....we'll talk trash!

In this trash multiple packages of food...rather than read all into record want to point out items - bottle with chewing tobacco spit...what numbers counselor can you help me? sure...it's not in here is it sir? look @ 1-37 see if you identify a bottle with chew tobacco spit...#5 Copenhagen tobacco that is related with tobacco....page 24 I don't see....item #13 Crystal lite bottle with brown liquid...does that appear to be chewing tobacco spit? I can't tell you that....3 boxes of velveeta cheese...(object-sustained)

JB: I thought we were getting into that area
HHBP: That is the other witness that photographed the ....

JB I will reserve ....

redirect:
LDB- negative results for blood with using the BluStar in the trunk...handwritten notes on notepad piece of paper ...after complete processing of vehicle or other item of evidence take those notes and create report from those notes...that is when you destroy notes pursuant to OCSO policy (object-leading/hearsay... hearsay overrule)
with the notes when report finished ....OCSO legal position then he destroys the notes....Universal precautions taken to inspect evidence...when DT looked @ the items did they wear hair nets? no just gloves....no hair nets! Opinion of odor in trunk? (object-not expert-overruled)....smell in vehicle was a particular type of decomp....based upon experience professional opinion is smell of human decomp vs. decomposing food....

JB - notes since destroyed could never be inspected by defense - things in notes not writte....

GB everything reflected in this report was reflected in handwriting..

JB can't say everything in report is all handwriting notes....

clear use word decomposition...reason chose it ....couldn't determine which type it was....use that terminology in simple way...intention when I put it in my report...different types of decomposition didn't specify human decomp in the report....LDB asked you said human decomp ...yes because she asked about my experience....You weren't talking about your experience in your report/someone elses opinion? My opinion (multiple objects!)

witness excuse - subject to recall.

 

[Chiquita71]

HHJP: The 8:30 hearing was cancelled this morning. Any thing else?

JA: ?

HHJP: hair banding?

LDB: Mr. Blosy here in case testimony takes less than four hours.

HHJP: Your best guesstmiate as to when you will be wrapping up

LDB: ?

HHJP:

LDB: Friday June 17th? Is that what I heard?

HHJP: that saturday morning...today is the third

JA: ?

HHJP: recess until 9 am tomorrow morning.

 

[mombomb]

CSI Gerardo Bloise' next witness.

Direct Examination of Gerardo Bloise by LDB.

LDB asked him about the trash or garbage bag which he received from OCSO Awilda McBryde on Jule 16, 2008 at about 11:06pm. He took possession of it. He then removed the plastic bag from the paper bag and did a visual inspection of the items. He also photographed the item as he received it and opened it.

He identified a photo of the plastic bag with blue handles. This photo was marked as Exhibit 127 with no objection from JB. Photo puplished to the jury.

Exhibit 127 showed the paper bag and the plastic bag. You can see the contents, but through the plastic. There was a little wet in the area on the paper bag. It was his best recollection that it was a little wet. The mouth of the plastic bag was open.

After photographing, he started to inspect the contents of the plastic bag.

He was shown a photo of the contents of the plastic bag. He pulled the items out of the bag. This photo was marked as Exhibit 128with no objection from JB and it was published to the jury.

He did a visual inspection of the items and then put the items with the paper inside the dry room which is the room used to place wet items in order to get them dry. Some of the items in the bag were wet. Regarding the odor, it was the smell of normal trash and not the same smell as the car. The items remained in the dry room until he removed them on the 18th and placed them in a box and then put them in the evidence locker. When he removed them, they were dry.

He was shown another photo depicting a close up of some of the trash items - the napkins, Velveeta package. This photo was marked as Exhibit 129 with no objection from JB and was published to the Jury.

He identified the napkin in the photo.

He was shown another photo and identified it as the napkins he collected from the trash. He put them in a plastic bag prior to his inspection. The photo was marked as Exhibit 130 with no objection from JB and it was published to the Jury.

He eventually placed all the items in the bag on a table and photographed them. He was shown a photo depicting the items spread out, napkins, foil, dryer sheet, empty cig pack, part of detergent bottle. The photo was marked as Exhibit 131 with no objection from JB and it was published to the Jury.

He was shown another photo of items in the bag. This photo was marked as Exhibit 132 with no objection from JB and was published to the Jury. It showed dryer sheet, papers, foil, bottle of Crystal Lite and Cola, detergent and other items.

He was shown another photo of items in the bag. He agreed it was the items in the trash bag. Item marked as Exhibit 133 with no objection from JB and was published to the Jury. This photo showed the entire contents of the plastic bag.

He was shown another photo and identified it as a photo of a receipt from Fusion Lounge. It was inside the garbage. This photo was marked as Exhibit 134 with objection - relevance and 403, overruled - marked as Exhibit 134 and published to the jury.

He was shown another photo and identified is documentation from Full Sail. It was in the garbage. It was marked as Exhibit 135 with no objection from JB and published to the Jury.

He was shown a large box and identified it as the box he prepared to put the trash items in. Exhibit 126 was previously conditionally admitted. JB objected because the other witness has not testified to chain of custody. HHBP said he would wait until the other witness testified.

He was shown another box and identified is as the box containing the napkins he collected from the garbage. This box was marked as Exhibit 135 with no objection to JB.

LDB asked to introduce an envelope into evidence - no objection from JB. Item marked as Exhibit 137.

he inventoried the items in the white trash bag. LDB referred the witness to page 23 of his report. There were 37 items in the bag. He placed them all in separate envelopes in the box.

1- empty Coke can
2- empty Coke can
3- empty Milwalkee beer can
4- empty Sprite can
5- empty Copenhagen box
6- hair pin
7- 3 plastic tie wraps
8- empty Dr. Pepper can
9- empty Sprite can
10- empty Mt. Dew can
11- Oscar Meyer plastic container
12- Empty small Crystal Lite container
13- Empty Crystal Lite bottle with brown liquid inside
14- Bottle of Kiwi sport cleaner
15- Empty Bottle of Arm & Hammer
16- Crystal Lite soft drink mix
17- Empty black container
18- Empty pizza box
19- Empty carton of Cherry Coke
20- Velveeta with napkin attached
21- Carton of Velveeta
22- Velveeta
23- Empty package of Pal Mal lights
24- Empty package of Marlboro
25- Empty pack of Trident
26- 2 empty alum wraps of Velveeta
28- broken plastic hanger
27- Piece of fabric
29- Ful Sail
30- Receipts
31- Air freshener sheets
32- plastic wrap of garlic chicken
33- 3 small pieces of plastic wrap
34- small pieces of alum foil

All cans were empty. Laundry detergent was empty. Crystal lite bottle empty. Pizza box was empty. Velveeta package were empty. Garlic Chicken wrapper empty. Dryer sheets same as found in vehicle.

End of direct exam.

 

[mombomb]

Cross Examination of CSI Bloise by JB

Trash was wet. He put it in a dry room. After they came out of the dry room, they were dry.

He was shown Defense Exhibit C which included photos of the trash (Exhibits 133 and 128). this was published to the Jury.

These 2 photos look completely different as a result of the dry room.

His inventory was done after the items came out of the dry room.

When he received it, it was treated as evidence. He had no idea at that time that it would become a disputed item in this case, and it was not his intent to destroy evidence.

Objection by LDB as to destruction of evidence. Objection sustained.

When he received the trash, he proceeded to preserve it in a dry form. He had no idea that it would alter the evidence.

Objection by LDB as to asked and answered - overruled.

He preserved the evidence, photographed it - normal procedure.

JB - no one is accusing him of altering evidence.

Objection by LDB that there was any alteration of evidence. (didn't hear HHBP's ruling)

He was shown Exhibit 130 (photo of paper towels in bag). They were at one time moist, then placed in dry room, and then they were dry. He then put them in a plastic bag.

If items need to be tested for DNA, they should not be placed in plastic bag.

Objection by LDB - sustained.

He anticipated it was important enough evidence to be separated. He inspected them very well and he did not see any forensic value such as blood or body fluid that would need to be tested for DNA. He agreed you can't test blood for DNA.

Objection by LDB

JB - object to speaking objection.

HHBP - next question

DNA can be obtained from semen.

It was never his intention to alter or destroy evidence.

Objection by LDB to form of question - sustained.

It was not your intention to destroy

Objection by LDB - sustained, he's been asked that question a couple times.

REDIRECT exam by LDB

Evidence is dried as a part of protocol because it is a better condition to inspect.

If an item is wet, it can become moldy.

Protocol requires items to be packaged in a form where they can breathe - paper.

Carpet removed from car was also dry.

He didn't remember if the paper towels contained bug larva.

RECROSS BY JB

Protocol calls for drying evidence. He doesn't recall if air samples were taken of the dry garbage.

Objection by LDB - Overruled.

LDB mentioned insect larva on the trash - he didn't recall that. Can you collect DNA from insect larva.

Objection - outside of witness... - sustained

You are aware that DNA....

Objection - sustained


Witness excused.

 

[mombomb]

Day 1 of the Defense.

ICA wearing a white button down sweater with her hair in a bun.

Jury coming in.

Defense calls Gerardo Bloise.

 

[mombomb]

DIRECT EXAMINATION OF GERARDO BLOISE BY JB:

Works as CSI for OCSO.

On July 23, 2008 he was asked to inspect the car. The car belonged to TL. He did a vehicle inspection of the interior and exterior. Wanted to check it with an alternating light source and for blood?

OBJECTION BY LDB - leading - SUSTAINED

Inspected the exterior and the trunk area. Saw stain on the carpet. He used the alternative light source which was positive, then presumptive blood test which was negative.

OBJECTION BY LDB - leading - SUSTAINED

He did not place the car on a lift.

(ICA moved to the chair to her right)

He did not collect any items of evidentiary value from TL's car.

On August 6, 2008 he executed a search warrant at the A's. He was to check the bedroom that belongs to ICA and then to check the clothing with alternate light sources. The only things they checked were the living room, garage, the car. He did a visual inspection of the master.

He was shown photos marked as Defense X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AH, AG, AI, AJ. X - photo of ICA's bedroom. Marked as Exhibit D-2. Other photos marked as D 3-14.

D-2 published to the Jury.

Single bed with pillows, nightstand, dresser, photo collage on closet wall.

On that day he was to collect some pieces of clothing from the closet and check them with the alternative light sources and collect them.

It was understanding that he was going to look at all of her clothing to inspect with alternative light sources for suspected stains. He would then collect those items. He did this by putting a black cover on the window to make the room dark. He then put any suspected items in a paper bag as evidences.

The next photo showed the closet. Some clothing came from the closet.

He doesn't recall if he checked the drawers. He believes he would have done a thorough job of checking the room.

He was shown D-5 and agreed it was one of the items he inspected. Charcoal grey pants. He was informed she was wearing them on June 16, 2008.

He inspected the clothing one piece at a time and photographed stains as he saw them.

He was shown D-14 which showed how the stains appeared under the alternating light source. He then submitted the stained items to the FBI lab.
D-14 was a medium sized stain.

D-12 showed stains. He classified them as small stains.

After inspecting, he packaged the clothing and submitted to FBI.

He was wearing a Tyvak jumpsuit, gloves, no booties. He did wear a hear net. He doesn't speak while doing this because he was by himself (hahaha). (ICA thought that was funny too).

Alina Burroughs was with him also.

D-12 was taken in the forensic lab.

The clothing was photographed in the lab.

He photographed the items and submitted them with property forms to the FBI lab in a paper evidence bag that is sealed.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY LDB:

Scope of search warrant was only to locate ICA clothing. The pants possibly worn on 6/16/08 had been washed by CA.

TL's jeep - didn't smell like a dead body had been in it.

(JB conferring with CM)

REDIRECT BY JB:

TL's car - no garbage bag.

WITNESS EXCUSED.

Alina Burroughs was with him in ICA's room. So was YM.

 

[wenwe4]

DT calling their first witness:

JB calling Gerardo Bloise .....CSI OCSO - on Wed. 7/23/08 inspect the vehicle...belonging to Tony Lazarro.....veh. inspection of exterior and interior and check car for Alternate Light Source (ALS)....test for blood (object-sustain) check trunk area....stain on carpet... light source....next step presumptive blood test in the area was negative....ALS is tool to check for body fluids....photograph interior and exterior of the car....didn't put it on a lift.... (kc switched chairs to her right)....@ 16:13 hours moved veh. to the garage...tag number not listed...nothing collected from TL car...

8/6/08 - search warrant @ A's home....check bedroom of KC...check for clothing inspect using ALS and collect pieces of clothing....checked the living room area and the garage area...did a visual inspection of CA & GA room.....
JB shows multiple pages to GB....pics of kc bedroom....received publish and SA agree to all pics entered and publish...

pic of kc's room all neat and tidy....collect pieces of clothing from closet....check items with ALS ...goal? inspect items w/ALS collect any items with suspected stains....black cover on the window to get room dark...use ALS flourescing light....see any suspected stains - separate item and put in evidence bags ....

pic of closet....not all clothing some of them.....believes thorough job checking the entire room....show clothing on another picture....show zinc dark colored with light striped pants? and silver buckle....grey pants size 5 - ALS no stain found....these were pants kc wore on 6/16/08? was informed that......

put black paper on windows make room as dark as possible...take 1 piece clothing @ time...photo stains as see them....show a stain under ALS - medium stain...submit items to FBI lab....

pic of scales with arrows - show some stains on a corderoy type fabric 2 little spots....

package in paper bag and submit to fbi - lab tieback jumpsuit wearing....gloves....no foot protection ....hair nets.....do not speak while doing these things - he is by himself.....

items taken to the lab- photo @ lab...YM and Alina -CSI was @ the home @ time of collection......

submit items to FBI lab...paper bag sealed w/initials on it....No more questions...

Cross- LDB
(kc moves back to her chair)

LDB --GB, pants looking for garment worn by kc on 6/16/08 was washed by her Mother....inspected TL jeep ....did it smell like dead body in it? NO

Re-direct.....
JB - when inspected TL car - did find bag of garbage in there for 3 weeks? NO

excuse witness

 

[mombomb]

10:26

DIRECT EXAMINATION OF GB BY JB

He was shown Defense Exhibit EL and agreed he testified to this drawing in March of this year showing the forensics bay and ICA's car.

He testified that there was only one car that the canine handler deployed his car on.

Drawing marked as Defense Exhibit #60.

CROSS EXAM BY LDB

The focus of his investigation on that day was LDB. That was what he was documenting on that day.

REDIRECT BY JB

His job requires him to focus on the minute details.

Witness excused subject to recall at 10:29

15 minute recess to 10:45