2011.06.07 TRIAL Day Twelve (Morning Session)

[Quiche]

This guy is 50/50, I think we could have done without him.

We needed the chemist... especially after JB harped on and on about that status. mo

 

[whiteangora]

JB even thinks his questions are poorly formed.:floorlaugh:

 

[ami]

Parts per trillion are in the normal range, or what you'd expect-- parts per million are very high. Vass was getting parts per million as well.

Exactly. So actually their data is more or less in agreement.

From the FBI guy's perspective, if it has had a chance to dissipate, it's not a good sample. He is used to working with liquids, and he is used to the liquids being sent to him in a sealed container (still in liq form, therefore not dissipated). Therefore, the residue levels were low compared to what he's used to finding.

As I understand it, the other lab worked with gas and solid, and assumed they were only looking for "residue" because they already knew they weren't handling liquids. This is why they were surprised to see such high levels they expected there to be as low levels as one would normally find as residue (parts per trillion)

 

[Celt1997]

JA is not happy with his witness.

 

[ColdDayIn]

I wonder if it's the K-9s next!

 

[wenwe4]

JA ask find cleaning products.....didn't test for cleaning products ....looked for chloroform...low vs high are subjective terms....ever in career asked to test for solid dry item looking for chloroform....usually liquid form....product tampering or general unknown analysis....what might be high or low chloroform in a carpet sample....would want to do control studies...

how did it come to you how is it packaged? trunk liner inside a cardboard box....what affect packaging have on levels of chloroform ...object(overrule) it would leak out not an airtight container.....surprised got any chloroform off that...volitle substance doesn't stay around very long...having object come in like that and test for chloroform ....not expect.....expected it to be volitilized and not able to detect it.....

rather than use high and low there are general numbers....numbers of the intensity of the peak.....positive control vs. amt of chloroform detected on another object.....not appropriate to say quantitative analysis but have a general idea....mixed a control of chloroform for positive control....mixed to certain concentration.....0.01 in water....equates to 100 ppm...standard to compare test results to amount to detect positive control ...didn't want to put too much or too little....initial it was qualitiative analysis...later I was asked to get idea of quantity....very rough idea....Q-22 spare tire cover piece in airtight can...sealed in can better than keeping in box....for this type volitile ....appropriate way to do it seal in can.... compared height of peaks to positive control significantly less....rough control not appropriate way to do it in forensic science but I did give a general range......reference report - Q-22 based on data submitted area counts and height counts...not peer reviewed or tech reviewed....5% based on control ...very rough estimate....5% of 100ppm....what he calculated but no certaintly on actual amount...on Q-23 = .1% actual unsealed spare tire cover....fair to say sealed container contained much more chloroform than the spare tire cover....

skip Q-24 & 25 consistent with chloroform

Q-44 carpet sample in sealed container- rough percentage on that = approx 1% as compared to positive control

Q-45 approx .2% highest concentrate on Q-22 sealed sample in a can....the amount he sampled and cut out....not same didn't make sure each amount of sample is not the same bigger cutting on Q-22 vs. 45 - bigger samples or smaller is not fair way to compare samples.

whatever amt of chloroform actually is in the sample ....chloroform would have evaporated prior to put in the can....if trunk open 6-7 hours then later sealed and 2 weeks later sample removed (object- overrule) chloroform volitle chemical open would expect less on item vs. closed container...if figures accurately reflect ..would that add up to low parts per million range....other than test ing for chlorform in liquids ever tested in air samples? no (object-overrule) high low shocking amounts in context of samples liquid vs. residual samples (object- overrule)



trying to guess how to determine how much to be there....qualitative very difficult.....box vs. can speculating? on package first hand knowledge on chemistry...way it should be appropritely packaged....JB - give qualitative amt - speculating

JA- if no legit. infor can be obtained about quality of chloroform how is it answer JB's question (object 0verrule) if can dectect chlroform in cleaning products and amts compared to positive control...it is detectable that is all he meant - detectable.

witness excused

 

[3doglady]

Thank goodness. Witness may be excused.

 

[mombomb]

Sidebar #4 over.

Objection by JA - SUSTAINED

Cross Examination of Dr. Michael Rickenbach by JB - continued

Levels that were tested are equal to what has been detected in substances used as cleaning products.

REDIRECT EXAM by JA

Asked if he found any other substances consistent with cleaning products - he did not test for them.

Regarding "very low residue" these are subjective terms.

He has never tested a solid dry object specifically for chloroform. He has used this technique to analyze unknown liquids for chloroform such as product tampering items.

He would need to do a validation study.

Spare tire cover came to him thru the normal channels. How did it come?

Objection by JB- outside scope - overruled.

It was inside a box. The packaging effect?

Objection by JB - outside scope - overruled.

The box is not an air tight container.

Objection by JB - overruled.

He was surprised they got any result for chloroform off the sample because it was in the box. Chloroform does not usually stay around long - it is volatile.

The height of the peaks can be compared to the known sample and that is what he was referring to as to the idea of how much is there. It is not a quantitative analysis.

The positive control was a concentration of 0.01% in water. 100 parts per mil. This is the standard that he compares to to detect the qualitative positive control.

He initially did a qualitative analysis and using the positive control would be the only way to give an "idea" as to the amount.

Regarding Q-22, spare tire cover in air-tight can, this is a better way for this analysis than the box and is the appropriate way to do it.

As to Q-22 - I didn't want to put a number or percent as compared to positive control, however, it was significantly less. In future conversations, he was asked to give percentage - not the appropriate way in science to do it, but he did provide a percentage. He was shown his report and stated the percentage he gave was 5% - not peer or tech reviewed. It is a very rough estimate. 5% of control of 100 parts per million.

As to Q-23 (actual unsealed spare tire cover) - it is approximately .1%.

He agreed the sealed container contained much greater level of chloroform.

Q-44 - carpet sample in sealed container - rough percentage was 1% as compared to positive control.

Q-45 - approx .2%.

Highest concentration is on Q-22, the sealed sample in the can. Must take into account that the amount that he sampled, that he actually cut out, he did not ensure that each sample size was the same. If the sample size varied, the results would vary. Not the best way to relate these numbers.

Chloroform possibly evaporated prior to being put in the can.

If trunk was left open for 6-7 hours, then sealed, then weeks later, the chloroform level would not be expected to be the same....

Objection by JB hypothetical - OVERRULED.

Based on chloroform being volatile, if the container was open, he would expect less concentration than on a closed container.

He has not tested for chloroform in air samples...

Objection by JB as to outside scope - overruled

No first hand knowledge of concentrations of chloroform in air samples.

Prior to this case, his knowledge of chloroform....

Objection by JB as to outside of scope and highly misleading - OVERRULED

His experience is mostly testing chloroform in liquids.

No more questions.

RE-RE CROSS by JB

(Back to the easel)

to give formal amounts of a compounds, doing this way is not the way to do it? Because you don't want to mislead the jury.

Objection by JA - Overruled

He would not want to give an impression of the specific amounts based on the techniques he used because as a scientist he wants to be precise.

He does not have experience in detecting chloroform in a carpet sample prior to this case. Trying to determine if it is there - qualitatively is not the correct way to do it.

Regarding packaging, he has first hand knowledge, the way the evidence is packaged and how it should be packaged. Quantitative amount would be speculation.

REDIRECT by JA

If no legitimate information can be given as to the quantity of chloroform, how can he answer JB's question.

JB objection as to outside scope - overruled

If chloroform can be detected in cleaning items, he meant that the chloroform was detectable.

No more questions by JA.

Witness is excused - subject to recall by the Defense.

 

[QB.]

If it is a known fact that the A's did not use chlorine for their pool why isn't this being brought up by the state?

 

[watergirl]

ICA smirking because JA is riled up.

:slap:

 

[darcedarce]

omg throwdown...

 

[rosepetal1065]

witness is excused....

 

[sleutherontheside]

New name.....Jeff "last word" Ashton

 

[Chiquita71]

JB: you said doing something like this is not appropriate in forensic science.

yes

JB: you don't want to give anything that will influence a jury?

I would not want to give an impression of specific amounts

JB: because as a scientist you want to be precise

yes

JB: especially in a court of law?

yes

JB: you said you have no experience in collecting chloroform that was solid

yes

JB: nothing more than a guess?

?

JB: qualitativly whether something is in a box or a can, that is speculating...

based on my experience...I do have knowledge how it should be packaged, I do know that.

JB: qualitatively to speculate would be wrong?

yes

JB: if it is impossible to answer what the defense is saying, then how can you say they are in cleaning products?

if we can detect chloroform in cleaning products you can detect them in these items just they are compared to the control.

JA: all you meant was it was detectable?

yes

JA: nothing further (bam! go JA! )

HHJP: witness may step down

JB: subject to recall.

 

[FaerieB]

Jason Forgey called to the stand.

 

[Softail]

Jason Forgey is up next!

:great:

 

[Mountain_Kat]

Witness excused.

(My headache thanks you.)

 

[ami]

This may mean nothing, but when Baez knocked the large pad off the easel, jurors 14 and 15 exchanged a smirk at his expense.
by stevehelling via twitter at 11:23 AM

 

[Eileen730]

Now this cop looks prepared!

 

[sophie01]

I have a project I am working on today, so can't pay close attention, but is this man destroying all of Dr. Vass's testimony from yesterday. Can someone please explain.