mombomb
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2008
- Messages
- 1,437
- Reaction score
- -3
Cross exam of FBI analyst Karen Lowe by JB
Jury still out.
Proffer
HHBP giving witness National Academy of Science report.
She has seen the trace parts of it. Report commissioned by congress to identify the needs of forensic scientists in the community and to give guidance to forensic scientists on how to move forward. Not all members of Academy are scientists.
She is aware of criticisms of microscopic hair analysis - limitations of discipline as opposed to criticism. Identification can't be done without DNA analysis. She agrees. That's what the FBI lab does.
She doesn't believe this article says that the FBI lab made positive identifications based solely on microscopic hair analysis. (Looks like JB is scrolling through his iphone at the podium).
She is familiar with Michael Malone. She doesn't believe he is still an agent.
She is familiar with the Gates case from Washington D.C. A man was convicted based on Mr. Malone's testimony that the hairs found at a rape scene were microscopically indistinguishable from Gates. Case was overturned later by DNA.
Microscopically indistinguishable = exhibits the same characteristics.
HHBP not allowing any testimony given in any other case. Not trying another case in this courtroom. DON'T EVEN GO THERE.
Witness has recognized portion as being authoritative as a scientific treatise, not necessarily a policy.
FBI study by Hock and Adoli (?) page 161. This study looked at correlation of microscopic assessment of hairs and the mitochondrial DNA results of hairs.
Can't say a hair comes from one person to the exclusion of all others.
DNA hair results might differ from microscopic exam. 8 of the hairs were found to be different in this case.
JA asking about relevance - How is it relevant to get the witness to agree that other people agree with her. Results of Adobe study are not relevant to impeach an identification she did not make.
HHBP - if JB wants to bolster the witness's testimony, he will let him do that.
Adobe study can be brought out in redirect.
JA getting testy with JB.
HHBP - I know it's Saturday morning, but I think I've made my self abundantly clear about what should not be done and I firmly believe Mr. Baez heard me.
JB - I will not be discussing any prior cases Judge.
HHBP - You mention the Menendez case. Was there anything particular you wanted to use that for?
JB - No sir. Just for authoritativeness.
HHBP - Okay. All right, lets return the jury.
Jury still out.
Proffer
HHBP giving witness National Academy of Science report.
She has seen the trace parts of it. Report commissioned by congress to identify the needs of forensic scientists in the community and to give guidance to forensic scientists on how to move forward. Not all members of Academy are scientists.
She is aware of criticisms of microscopic hair analysis - limitations of discipline as opposed to criticism. Identification can't be done without DNA analysis. She agrees. That's what the FBI lab does.
She doesn't believe this article says that the FBI lab made positive identifications based solely on microscopic hair analysis. (Looks like JB is scrolling through his iphone at the podium).
She is familiar with Michael Malone. She doesn't believe he is still an agent.
She is familiar with the Gates case from Washington D.C. A man was convicted based on Mr. Malone's testimony that the hairs found at a rape scene were microscopically indistinguishable from Gates. Case was overturned later by DNA.
Microscopically indistinguishable = exhibits the same characteristics.
HHBP not allowing any testimony given in any other case. Not trying another case in this courtroom. DON'T EVEN GO THERE.
Witness has recognized portion as being authoritative as a scientific treatise, not necessarily a policy.
FBI study by Hock and Adoli (?) page 161. This study looked at correlation of microscopic assessment of hairs and the mitochondrial DNA results of hairs.
Can't say a hair comes from one person to the exclusion of all others.
DNA hair results might differ from microscopic exam. 8 of the hairs were found to be different in this case.
JA asking about relevance - How is it relevant to get the witness to agree that other people agree with her. Results of Adobe study are not relevant to impeach an identification she did not make.
HHBP - if JB wants to bolster the witness's testimony, he will let him do that.
Adobe study can be brought out in redirect.
JA getting testy with JB.
HHBP - I know it's Saturday morning, but I think I've made my self abundantly clear about what should not be done and I firmly believe Mr. Baez heard me.
JB - I will not be discussing any prior cases Judge.
HHBP - You mention the Menendez case. Was there anything particular you wanted to use that for?
JB - No sir. Just for authoritativeness.
HHBP - Okay. All right, lets return the jury.
