2011.06.03 TRIAL Day Nine (Afternoon Session)
- Thread starter beach
- Start date
- Status
Miss Anarchy
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2009
- Messages
- 427
- Reaction score
- 0
I think JB is trying to take a buddy buddy approach with this fellow Hispanic CSI.
smart blonde
Websleuths Member
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2009
- Messages
- 6,870
- Reaction score
- 38
Baez is hoping so much that the gallery will think he is a legal genius.
mombomb
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2008
- Messages
- 1,437
- Reaction score
- -3
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.
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.
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2010
- Messages
- 13,979
- Reaction score
- 45,293
Good old JB...starts doing a good job, then takes it way too far. He's as predictible as rain.
Blue Ridge
Armchair Detective
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2008
- Messages
- 35,478
- Reaction score
- 9,166
OOOPsie....mentioned Dr Lee....objection...sustained......sidebar.........
wenwe4
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 9,500
- Reaction score
- 7,367
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)
logicalgirl
Peace Hawk
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2009
- Messages
- 16,024
- Reaction score
- 2
Baez trying to slide Dr. Lee in there -sustained and a wave to approach the bench.
Naughty naughty Mr. Baez!
Naughty naughty Mr. Baez!
Blue_Dolphin308
We can't help everyone, But everyone can help some
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2006
- Messages
- 3,411
- Reaction score
- 131
Uhoh the Judge sounds pizzzed!!!!!!!!!
BigFatMommyDog
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2008
- Messages
- 4,932
- Reaction score
- -25
Boom HeadShot!
I think they had 2 small dogs
sleutherontheside
Retired WS Staff
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2009
- Messages
- 9,874
- Reaction score
- 4
Had to get Lee's name in again!!
concentric
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2008
- Messages
- 10,036
- Reaction score
- 11
JB - You did a very thorough job sir?!
IMO: (wonder if he is patting the Dr. on the head)
IMO: (wonder if he is patting the Dr. on the head)
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2009
- Messages
- 29,825
- Reaction score
- 126,040
This is not the only car witness has inspected.
He was present when the defense was inspecting the car. In fact, ...Dr. Lee.... Objection!
He was present when the defense was inspecting the car. In fact, ...Dr. Lee.... Objection!
- Status
Similar threads
Staff online
-
SillybillyAdministrator
Online statistics
- Members online
- 68
- Guests online
- 3,222
- Total visitors
- 3,290