10:54
DIRECT EXAMINATION OF DR. MICHAEL RICKENBACH BY JB
He is a forensic chemist examiner at the FBI.
Previously designated as an expert witness in forensic chemistry.
7/6/09 report.
He was given items to test - bottle with liquid, syringe with liquid, unknown substance in bottle.
OBJECTION - items not in evidence - SUSTAINED
SIDEBAR #4 (10:57-11:02)
12/11/08 report.
He received items from his evidence control unit which came from OCSO. A car seat (Q-47) and a steering wheel cover (Q-48). These were received from the Sunfire.
JA has no objection.
He was asked to test for the presence for chloroform. His results were that chloroform was not identified on either items.
He did not know why the steering wheel cover was requested.
Were you informed that chloroform might have been on someone's hands?
OBJECTION - hearsay and relevance - SUSTAINED
No chloroform was identified on the car seat either. He did not analyze the entire car seat and no chloroform was identified on his cuttings.
7/6/09 report.
He was given...
JA - if item is marked, it should be put into evidence before being discussed.
HHJP - he can say what he has seen.
Box marked as Defense Exhibit 33. It was a doll. He examined the doll for chloroform and he took a sampling. Analysis of the sampling showed no chloroform identified.
No further questions.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY JA
Regarding doll, was there not an earlier indication of chloroform? When analyzing the doll, there were indications that chloroform may be present in very small amounts. He asked for another doll. A co-worker presented a doll. Again, very small amounts were found and he stated there was not enough for him to make a determination.
OBJECTION BY JB
SIDEBAR #5 (11:11-11:13)
The negative control is usually run with the same sample. Because he got indications of possible chloroform, he wanted a negative control doll. He got it and it gave very, very low indications of chloroform also and therefore, he was not comfortable to say chloroform was present. The negative control was a similar doll.
The amounts of chloroform were too small.
No further questions
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY JB
A co-worker has a doll with chloroform on it? Not what he said.
He did not have enough data to say that chloroform was on either item. Chloroform may have been produced in the manufacture.
SIDEBAR # 6 (11:17-11:18)
7/6/09 report.
He was asked to analyze the unknown liquid in the gatorade bottle and syringe.
He was shown Defense Exhibit 32 - a photo of the gatorade bottle. The liquid inside was determined to be - could have been a cleaning product and testosterone products were also identified. The syringe also contained testosterone compounds.
The liquid substance was identified by using GCMS and time of flight MS.
He also detected very low levels of chloroform in the liquid in the bottle. He did not report them out because they were at such low levels and could have come from the cleaning product.
JA - testimony was provisional with the items being placed into evidence at some later point.
RE-CROSS EXAM BY JA
He did not report out the chloroform because it was in such a low amount.
The GCMS can't identify a cleaning product, but the components led to the possibility that it could be a cleaning product.
Witness excused. (11:24)
DIRECT EXAMINATION OF DR. MICHAEL RICKENBACH BY JB
He is a forensic chemist examiner at the FBI.
Previously designated as an expert witness in forensic chemistry.
7/6/09 report.
He was given items to test - bottle with liquid, syringe with liquid, unknown substance in bottle.
OBJECTION - items not in evidence - SUSTAINED
SIDEBAR #4 (10:57-11:02)
12/11/08 report.
He received items from his evidence control unit which came from OCSO. A car seat (Q-47) and a steering wheel cover (Q-48). These were received from the Sunfire.
JA has no objection.
He was asked to test for the presence for chloroform. His results were that chloroform was not identified on either items.
He did not know why the steering wheel cover was requested.
Were you informed that chloroform might have been on someone's hands?
OBJECTION - hearsay and relevance - SUSTAINED
No chloroform was identified on the car seat either. He did not analyze the entire car seat and no chloroform was identified on his cuttings.
7/6/09 report.
He was given...
JA - if item is marked, it should be put into evidence before being discussed.
HHJP - he can say what he has seen.
Box marked as Defense Exhibit 33. It was a doll. He examined the doll for chloroform and he took a sampling. Analysis of the sampling showed no chloroform identified.
No further questions.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY JA
Regarding doll, was there not an earlier indication of chloroform? When analyzing the doll, there were indications that chloroform may be present in very small amounts. He asked for another doll. A co-worker presented a doll. Again, very small amounts were found and he stated there was not enough for him to make a determination.
OBJECTION BY JB
SIDEBAR #5 (11:11-11:13)
The negative control is usually run with the same sample. Because he got indications of possible chloroform, he wanted a negative control doll. He got it and it gave very, very low indications of chloroform also and therefore, he was not comfortable to say chloroform was present. The negative control was a similar doll.
The amounts of chloroform were too small.
No further questions
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY JB
A co-worker has a doll with chloroform on it? Not what he said.
He did not have enough data to say that chloroform was on either item. Chloroform may have been produced in the manufacture.
SIDEBAR # 6 (11:17-11:18)
7/6/09 report.
He was asked to analyze the unknown liquid in the gatorade bottle and syringe.
He was shown Defense Exhibit 32 - a photo of the gatorade bottle. The liquid inside was determined to be - could have been a cleaning product and testosterone products were also identified. The syringe also contained testosterone compounds.
The liquid substance was identified by using GCMS and time of flight MS.
He also detected very low levels of chloroform in the liquid in the bottle. He did not report them out because they were at such low levels and could have come from the cleaning product.
JA - testimony was provisional with the items being placed into evidence at some later point.
RE-CROSS EXAM BY JA
He did not report out the chloroform because it was in such a low amount.
The GCMS can't identify a cleaning product, but the components led to the possibility that it could be a cleaning product.
Witness excused. (11:24)
