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-
