mombomb
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2008
- Messages
- 1,437
- Reaction score
- -3
8:55 (no Jury)
SIDEBAR #1 no court reporter (8:55-8:58)
Defense's first witness - Maureen Bottrell
DIRECT EXAMINATION OF MAUREEN BOTTRELL BY JB
A geologist forensic examiner with the FBI for 16 years.
BS and MS in geology from UGA. Also participated in training and additional courses. She's lectured and given courses. She published an article on glass analysis. She has testified approx. 40 times in federal and state courts.
Witness tendered as an expert in geology, no objection by JA.
She received evidence in this case for analysis.
A geologic exam for forensic purposes involves a comparison analysis or a determination of what a material is. They first look at an item to see if they have anything on it to compare. If so, they will collect an item and then begin analysis - color, texture and mineralogy.
Two microscopes are used - a stereo microscope, and one that transmit different types of lights.
There are 3 geologic forensic examiners at the FBI.
3/4/11 report - she received items from the Sunfire - debris that had been collected from the trunk and around the trunk. She also received a shovel. She also received items from the A's - 22 pairs of shoes and a transport bag. She also received items from Suburban Drive.
Her conclusions .....
JA whispering with JB
Stipulation that soil samples from the scene were taken after the top layer had been taken away.
Her conclusions - trunk vehicle was a mix of materials - there was no comparison done of the material in the trunk and the scene.
Shovel - they did a promenade study - this study was stopped when they found the body. She was never asked to do anything else with it.
Shoes - majority either had no geologic material on them (appeared to be unworn) or the material was so limited. 3 pairs - they were able to do comparison - all had materials different from the crime scene.
Transport bag - there was insufficient material for comparison.
OBJECTION JA - what item?
Transport bag was the bag that the shoes came in. This is tested because some of the soil from the shoes might fall off in the bag. There was no material for comparison.
No further questions.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY JA
She could not determine that the 3 shoes were never at Suburban Drive. Soil could have not stuck, could have fallen off, could have become contaminated, or had never been there.
Asbence of soil is meaningless as to whether a person had been there.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY JB
She did not find anything meaningful to connect ICA to Suburban Drive. She is only looking at the items she received and testifying to what she found
Witness excused. (9:18)
SIDEBAR #1 no court reporter (8:55-8:58)
Defense's first witness - Maureen Bottrell
DIRECT EXAMINATION OF MAUREEN BOTTRELL BY JB
A geologist forensic examiner with the FBI for 16 years.
BS and MS in geology from UGA. Also participated in training and additional courses. She's lectured and given courses. She published an article on glass analysis. She has testified approx. 40 times in federal and state courts.
Witness tendered as an expert in geology, no objection by JA.
She received evidence in this case for analysis.
A geologic exam for forensic purposes involves a comparison analysis or a determination of what a material is. They first look at an item to see if they have anything on it to compare. If so, they will collect an item and then begin analysis - color, texture and mineralogy.
Two microscopes are used - a stereo microscope, and one that transmit different types of lights.
There are 3 geologic forensic examiners at the FBI.
3/4/11 report - she received items from the Sunfire - debris that had been collected from the trunk and around the trunk. She also received a shovel. She also received items from the A's - 22 pairs of shoes and a transport bag. She also received items from Suburban Drive.
Her conclusions .....
JA whispering with JB
Stipulation that soil samples from the scene were taken after the top layer had been taken away.
Her conclusions - trunk vehicle was a mix of materials - there was no comparison done of the material in the trunk and the scene.
Shovel - they did a promenade study - this study was stopped when they found the body. She was never asked to do anything else with it.
Shoes - majority either had no geologic material on them (appeared to be unworn) or the material was so limited. 3 pairs - they were able to do comparison - all had materials different from the crime scene.
Transport bag - there was insufficient material for comparison.
OBJECTION JA - what item?
Transport bag was the bag that the shoes came in. This is tested because some of the soil from the shoes might fall off in the bag. There was no material for comparison.
No further questions.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY JA
She could not determine that the 3 shoes were never at Suburban Drive. Soil could have not stuck, could have fallen off, could have become contaminated, or had never been there.
Asbence of soil is meaningless as to whether a person had been there.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY JB
She did not find anything meaningful to connect ICA to Suburban Drive. She is only looking at the items she received and testifying to what she found
Witness excused. (9:18)