After you measure the mark, what did you do?
W:I complied a report
Did you use a microscope?
W:I took a photo with my microscope
What info did u learn?
W;They are small toolmarks, consistent with slicing
W: the grinding process shows in the bone, unlike a natural striation
'no microscopic marks of note observed'
3 conclusions possible w/a toolmark:
exclusion/identification or indecisive
'didnt have a tool to compare'
'it could not be determined if by tool or by environmental exposure'
'these marks could have been made by 2 separate tools'
tool= the hardest of 2 objects
D:did you look age the scrape marks above the brow also?
Yes, but could not make a definite conclusion , whether by tool or environmental exposure
So you could not determine if any of these marks came from tools, environment or animals?
CORRECT
Cross Exam:
P: your FBI lab is credentialed etc, with scientific sound measures, etc/ and you have worked on thousands of cases over the years, many w/firearms and brutal murders...
In that work, what you seek to do is compare spent casings with others for a match, correct?
W;Yes
P: which is why casings are often not left behind
yes, if I dont have the item I can't make the comparison
P: in this case, the FBI was contacted by La Plata, and you generated a report, and so we have spoken before...you were asked to identify injuries and see if they were tool marks...in this case you in fact saw tool marks in his skull, which is harder object cutting into human bone..
yes..
objection, out of his expertise/over ruled
P: you described a slicing or cutting action, by a tool,
yes
P: wildlife is out of your area of expertise, correct?
Yes
P;so for that you might look to a forensic pathologist, correct?
yes
I believe you said you'd have to have a tool to compare it to..
Correct
and you would have to cast a mold to do so..?
Correct, that is one way
redirect: counsel pointed out you are not an animal expert
Yes
P: but you have been a FBI analyst for many years and you take your testimony very seriously, correct?
and you said it was possibly a mark from an animal, correct?