Dr. Arpad Voss testimony (Oakridge Laboratories)

[mombomb]

Continued voir dire of Dr. Vass by JB.

Results of LIBS showed inorganic elements consistent with decomp were elevated compared to the sample - calcium, magnesium, sodium, carbon, iron. He doesn't personally conduct LIBS exams. Elements are found in everything known to man. He is not a physicist. He knows which inorganic elements are liberated and elevated in decomp and thinks he can make a conclusion that since all these elements are elevated - it's just another corroboration of what his nose tells me is correct.

HE SAID HE DIDN'T THINK JB QUITE UNDERSTOOD WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT - haha!

They were comparing the car sample to the control sample.

JA objected - overruled.

JB - the only comparison was between the junk yard sample and this car in terms of LIBS.

No further question.

JB objects - testimony outside of scope of expertise and comparative analysis. Objection overruled. State and Defense asked to read page 745 of the 2010 ed of Eirhardt - first 2 full paragraphs particularly dealing with foundation requirement that must be laid before experts can regurgitate other things so things can move on.

Jury coming back.

 

[wenwe4]

HHBP reading law re: expert usually use data

permit experts to reach opinion to explain in same manner as they would in their place of work.....citing law
u
use their opinions in court as they would in their settings (ie: hospital records, notes, with colleagues ,etc)

Mr. Baaaeezz - under the impression you were exactly going for.....abundantly clear experts are able to rely on other's reports ....even if evidence ....reasonably relied upon by expert to support their opinions....you may go into proper subject for cross exam not necessarily deal with what you indicated this is what you want to do.....continue your proffer to see where you were going with this

you may proceed..

JB - results of LIBS

Dr. V - showed inorganic elements associated with human decomp significant elevated over control sample....calcium, sodium, carbon, iron, magnesium, extent of ability of LIBS

don't personally regularly conduct LIBS exam....elements found ....not a physiscist.....know which inorganic compounds elevated in human decomp events.....logical conclusion all these are elevated - should be elevated confirm what my nose tells me is correct.

testify able gain some knowledge from these chemicals as relate to studies of inorganic study ....comparative analysis on types of studies conducted.....variable conditions ...buried bodies, inorganic work done on surface decomp....compared to actual studied? Not true you can compare anything you want!

chemical compound of the libs to a buried body to a surface body....you don't understand what is happen ....we compared what found in trunk in car to control samples from junk yard.....can't compare soil sample with paint chip.....not fair.....

compare junk car in TN vs. this car ...only comparison you can make and (object- overrule) HHBP - he is proffering @ this time

only comparison done was junk yard sample and the car in this car.....in terms of LIBS correct.....

JB objects to this witness outside the scope his area of expertise and outside scope of comparitive analysis (object overrule) ask State and defense over recess read pg 745 2010 edition of airheart first 2 full paragraphs....foundation require before experts can regugatite other things....move more expeticiously return the jury....

 

[mombomb]

Jury back.

Continued direct of Dr Vass by JA.

The chart he was shown (marked as next Exhibit) is the graph showing the inorganic compounds found on the LIBS from the junkyard car sample. Calcium was essentially not even present. The tall peaks were from the ICA car - calcium one of the main inorganic compounds in decomp.

He also tested the carpet using very minor chemical extracts. He did them. They cut a few of the fibers and placed it in methynol overnight and then injected it into the GCMS. This was to detect compounds that weren't going into gas form. The headspace test only shows elements coming off of carpet, not stuck in it. They found the presence of beuteric acid - a volotile fatty acid found in decomp. It is the first compound liberated during decomp of the volotile fatty acids. This was actually in the carpet itself.

His first reaction to opening the can - he jumped back a foot or two. It was very, very strong and he immediately recognized it as human decomposition that he has smelled for 20 years.

 

[mombomb]

Direct examination of Dr. Arpad Vass by JA continued.

He agreed he also examined scrapings of the wheel well of the car. He identified the package as being the sample.

ICA sitting expressionless.

Scrapings admitted into evidence over defense objection as Exhibit 125.

He did a chemical extract of the scraping - of particular interest - acidic acid found which is a byproduct of human decomp and also of manufacturing of chloroform.

He also received paper towels from Dr. Neil Haskell. He identified the package.

Sidebar #4 regarding the papertowels being admitted.

 

[wenwe4]

sorry folks missed a couple minutes...


placed carpet sample into methonal....inject into GCMS system....peaks of compounds that are not going into gaseous form......headspace sample is just gas coming off thru evaporation.....we wanted to look deeper to see what was stuck in fibers.....presence of butyric acids.....volitle fatty acids for determine post-mortem human decomp....first one liberated during human decomp...it was in the carpet itself.....

JA- w/ Dr. Vass.....

when first opened the can ....essentially jumped back a foot or two - odor extremely strong....recognize odor in can as human decomp.....also given another item scrapings from wheel well in car....item for identify initials....little glass vial w/scrapings if I remember right...open package... pull out plastic dish not glass

enter in evidence over objection

also did chemical extract....compounds ...acedic acid ....by product of human decomp and manufacturing (?) obtain from Dr. Neil Haskell...

doesn't recognize box...gigles it is a box.....JA opens box

Dr. V examines interior of box...confirm items sent by Dr. Haskell......

JA wants to move to .....object Approach!

 

[mombomb]

Continued direct exam of Dr. Vass by JA.

He received the paper towels in a white bag. It was sealed.

JA attempted to get paper towels admitted into evidence. JB wanted to inspect the box and then renewed objections.

Paper towels conditionally received into evidence as Exhibit 126.

Jury recessed for lunch until 1:30

 

[wenwe4]

continue

Dr. V w/ JA - white trash bag associated with it....don't remember exactly that but it has been awhile...jB asks to inspect the box....BJ on floor @ Ashton's feet (priceless moment!)

JB w/ HHBP - it will be initially received...

2 minutes before noon - recess for lunch.....

in recess til 1:30 EST

 

[mombomb]

Continued direct examination of Dr. Arpad Vass by JA.

Left off at Exhibit 126 - paper towels sent to him. Chemical extraction in methynol of the stained and unstained sections and ran it through the GCMS. The instrumental analysis revealed a number of fatty acids present on the towels. These fatty acids make up adoposere (sp) or grave wax - the byproduct of the breakdown of fat and is associated with decomp.

He also analyzed the carbon filter traps to confirm that the carpet sample was the point source of the odor. They also did an air sample of the garbage that had been reported to have been in the trunk. They confirmed that the carpet WAS the point source of the odor. It was a combination of chemical compounds. They also looked at the other parts of the car, the garage, etc. The same group of compounds in the carpet was not found in the trash or the garage air.

Rose has one set of chemicals, trash has another set. The total combination of the source is what makes it unique. In the car trunk sample there were 51 different compounds. 41 were related to human decomp. Of those 41, there was overlap with gasoline. They did not know if the gas odors came from gas or decomp, so they eliminated those, leaving 24 compounds. They then began looking at control samples and eliminating compounds found in the control car, squirrel, pizza, garage. This left approximately 16 compounds. 7 of these are considered significant - meaning in the 2008 paper there are 30 compounds considered relevant to decomp. Of the 500 found, they paired it down to 30 - looking at the longevity of the compound, normally found in environment, how unusual.

In the trunk of the car, they found essentially 13 of the 30 - eliminating some due to the gas, left 7.

The gas compounds were eliminated because they did not know whether the source was from gas in the trunk or decomp.

Objection by JB - overruled.

30 compounds - as in 2008 paper - come from different stages of decomp - what they consider the most relevant compounds either in early or late. Decomposition is cyclic due to different degradation rates of elements. It is highly unlikely that at any one point in decomp you would find all 30 compounds.

7 compounds left - these were found to be in the list of 30 compounds that they found to be most relevant to human decomposition.

He does not think there is a specific chemical odor signature for human decomp.

He considers the odor in the car consistent with human decomp.

Regarding scraping from tire well, the acetic acid is a product of decomp - just not one of the 30. It is also found in many things - vinegar.

Regarding spare tire cover - all the inorganic compounds of decomp were indeed elevated, but these elements can be found in other things.

Regarding carpet extraction - beuteric acid is not normally seen in environmental samples, but very consisent in decomp. It is usually metabolized by micro organisms and therefore not normally seen in the environmental samples.

Taking all of the instrumental examinations and adding to that his olfactory observation of the carpet smell, it is his opinion that there was a decomposing body in the trunk of the car at some point. He can find NO OTHER PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION.

End of direct exam.

 

[wenwe4]

JA w/Dr. Vass - afternoon session

chemical extraction of methanol ...reason insect pupae ....

instrument revealed number of fatty acids; palmetic, oleic, steric....etc. composition make of up adipocere or grave wax....breakdown of fat....associated with decomp...receiving 8 triple sorbent traps (tst) from OCSO - want to confirm carpet sample was point source of the odor....also contained tst on garbage from the trunk...examine tst confirm carpet point source of odor - combination of chemical components present....looked @ trash, interior of car, garage air ....hi abudance in carpet sample....none in trash or garage air in those concentrations.

when encounter odor - flowers/trash etc... concentration of chemicals that make each odor unique....going to be unique cross reactivity - rose may have 12 chemicals and trash has another 20 chemicals...may have same chemicals in rose and trash but interraction between the chemicals ....10 comounds in rose 2 are found in the trash .... each chemical gives odor signature....51 compounds 41 human decom of those 41 overlap w/gasoline....ie; benzine..... eliminate all gasoline components to eliminate confusion....control samples eliminated.....eliminate decompose pizza/squirrel remnants/garage air left approx. 16 compounds 7 are significant....in 2008 paper published list 30 compounds relavant and significant to human decomp.......500 compounds w/decomp narowed down to 30....narrowed how unusual, chemical class, environ. factors..... eliminate 13 overlap with gas, left 7, in back car one expects to se gas in car (object-overrule0

decesion tree of 08 paper.....most relevant compounds differentiate anareobic compounds, early decomp or late decomp compounds - decomp is cyclic ....bacteria degrades @ different rates...early decomp and late and anaerobic and aerobic.

7 compounds left out of 30 relevant out of the 500 compounds of decomp

based upon odor - opinion? consistent w/decomp....acedic acid product of decomp....not unusual it's in vinegar....spare tire cover consistent w/decomp...inorganic compounds elevated

carpet of spare tire cover extraction....butyeric acid....consistent w/decomp..don't see a lot of enviornmental control samples ....very early decomp event....usually metabolized by ......don't see it often in

adipocere - breakdown of adipose tissue -fat - every one of fatty acids identified on paper towels....not just human....sodium is higher is reported in literature is more human like vs. pigs.......

adding to ofactory observation....opinion whether decomoposing human body in the trunk of that car...do have an opinion- No Other Plausible explanation to explain what we found!

Cross

 

[wenwe4]

JB w/Dr. V
not a chemist....can't comment on something you don't know


Bach. biology in administrating justice, masters anthropology, PhD not listed, Dr. V updated w/new curriculum vitae...

2 co-authors - Dr. Martin - physist, Mark Wise - analylical chemist... Dr. V put down research scientist.......

consult w/Dr. Wise.....area expertise chemistry....last time took course in 1980's during clinical ....have you ever held yourself out as chemist? I don't think I have ever have.....FB account lists you...object -

Wikipedia explaination? Never submitted FB account or wikipedia...never auth. anyone from Body Farm list as bio-chemist? Object

Make money on this?
Done over course of career - buried remains - one of them

comprised built data base....use to come to conclusions....peer review publications is what used.....

research develop comprise this data base.....478 of them mention this data base....buried 4 bodies in 2004....set up contraptions discussed....measure what comes out ground from body.


@ the body interface....moving up the soil column.....17 days



some missed....data base not turned over to defense? (object- Sidebar)

 

[mombomb]

Cross examination of Dr. Arpad Vass by JB.

He is not a chemist, not an analytical chemist, not a bio chemist.

On his cv - b.s. in biology, masters in criminal justice. PhD in anthropology. He stated that was an omission on his prior CV and has updated it since.

His report is a forensic report - co -author Dr. Martin - physicist and Dr. Wise - an analytical chemist. Under his name he put research scientist, not anthropologist. He consults with Dr. Vass because his area of expertise is chemistry. Dr. Vass's last chemistry class would have been in the eighties. He has never allowed people to think he is a chemist.

Has he read a Facebook post saying he is a bio-chemist. He has never posted anything on Facebook. He has never submitted anything to Wiki. He has never authorized Oakridge Lab to hold him out as a chemist.

He does not have a financial interest in this case.

Two papers he relies on comprise and built a database. The peer publication is what he uses to render his opinions. The database was used to present the data in the publications.

The database consists of 478 chemical compounds. They buried 4 bodies (2004 paper), set up instruments to measure what was generated at the body, what was moving up the soil and what was being liberated at the surface of the soil. It took 17 days for the chemicals that are generated at the body to migrate up through the soil column to the surface.

JB asked if the database was turned over to the defense.

Sidebar #4 or 5?

 

[mombomb]

Continued cross examination of Dr. Arpad Vass by JB

Objection overruled.

The database is not his to turn over. It was a "deliverable" to the organization who paid for the research. He does not know if it has been turned over. He actually thought it had been turned over. Without the grant money, there is no research. They are a research lab. Their product is research data. Part of his job is to bring in research money.

He holds the patent of the "Labradore" equipment which utilizes the compounds found in the 2008 paper. It is a hand held device that looks like a metal detector. His position requires him to file invention disclosures. This equipment was formulated thru a grant for the Department of Justice. It is the lab's decision whether or not to file a patent. He has no say in that decision at all. His goal is not to sell the equipment at all - rather to develop it. The goal was to create a technological tool that law enforcement could use to locate clandestine graves.

If a licensee licenses the patent, there is a royalty fee associated with that, but he considers it an insignificant amount. He doesn't know if the royalty is related to the number of units sold. 15% royalties is split between the inventors.

JB wanting to know if part of the process is to get verification in Court - objection by SA - sustained.

In 2006 there was an initial prototype. His CV shows other products.

Objection - improper impeachment -

Sidebar

 

[wenwe4]

object overrule-
refused to turn over to defense....not mine to turn over.....part of a research - not turned over to defense Dr. V. thought it was turned over because had depo on this just the other day ....thought given the database...
...
used this database...turned over to people who gave grant.....research scientist must apply for grants....our product is research data...bring in suffiencent $ to maintain research....hold patent on Labradore....on patent disclosure.....uses compounds in 2008 paper.....partially - doesn't use every compound in data base...

devices to sell to police depts all over country.....required to file invention disclosure....Nat. grant from Institute of Justice..instrument to aid and augment clandestine graves...invention developed dutifiully and correctly filed invention disclosure....lab decsion whether to file a patent - Dr. V has no authority to


Dr. V is not to sell these at all...his goal is to develop - someone could come in and patent they could use to locate clandestine graves....prior to this being sold must have court of law (object- sustained) royalties if this device is sold? I don't understand the tech. resources @ lab....he understands there is a royalty fee associated with that but it is insignificant ..of.amt of $ you get depends on how many of these are sold.....I don't know I think it's licensee ......15% of royalties? split between the inventors....

built it with same funding source given for labradore?
no but done around the same time....

first patent disclosure on a prototype that did not end up being final product...in CV you have subsequent patents (object- impeach - sidebar)

 

[wenwe4]

object - sustained

Dr. V w/JB

must disclose financial interest? don't think that is true...

HHBP - Dr.do you understand the question?
No
disclose financial interest w/database? No not in report to inspector and detective..... work in research lab different from forensic...research lab does experiments...research lab don't have protocols.....usually develop protocals in research lab......

no protocols in this case....protocols used outlined in 2008 paper....cryfocus, used gcms ....those protocols used ...

nothing in writing tell what procedure to tell you what todo when.

all you have to look @ procedures and protocols listed those publication

publication studied buried remains.....2004 study buried remains...2008 study included others.....

no quality control? we run blanks, standards all part of quality control.....used in this case....any writing to confirm no contamination....what type contamination? volitle chemicals....certain components could be contaminated? instruments or samples? I believe Dr. Wise wrote down all of that ....don't recall anything other than Dr. wises notes....

qualitative analysis - identify certain chemicals..how much chemical is there....big peak or minute peak....like to be precise.......especially occassions as precise as possible.


qualitative analysis what was present then give rough idea of how much present....big or little amounts.



issued report in Aug. as preliminary report - tells what look @ so far...not final conclusions...aware before conclusion reported to media you had found human decomp in this car? (object- sustained - approach)

 

[mombomb]

Continued cross exam of Dr. Arpad Vass by JB

Financial disclosure required for some journals. JB asked him if he filed a financial disclosure in his report in this case. He did not.

Research lab/forensics lab - research data is their product. Usually the research lab develops and establishes the protocols. Some of their testing has protocols. For this case the protocols are published in the 2008 and 2004 peer reviewed publications. He does not think that is totally different than what he did in this case. Procedurely they used the same things. It is found the Materials and Methods section. If you want to replicate an experiment, the procedures and protocols are listed in the publications. Buried remains were part of the 2004 study. In the 2008 study they looked at surface and skeletal bodies.

Quality control - they run blanks and standards.

Regarding contamination - the bench notes would address any contamination issue.

He did a qualitative analysis in this case. This meant they were identifying certain chemicals. As opposed to quantitative analysis which measures the amount. Qualitative can also address the size of the peeks. They were looking at whether the compounds were present or not and then a rough idea as to the abundance - big, little, trace.

His preliminary report was issued in August. It did not contain his final conclusions.

JB asked him if he issued an opinion to the media before his report that there was decomp in the trunk. Objection - move to strike.

Sidebar.

 

[mombomb]

Continued Cross exam of Dr. Arpad Vass by JB.

Preliminary report issued in August 2008.

He doesn't know if his report became publicly immediately. He was made aware that it was issued to the public.

He was upset with all the media attention as shown in an email exchange with CSI Vincent.

He agreed his conclusions were being discussed before he finished his work. He was not pleased with it.

The carpet sample showed 54 chemical compounds - per his first report.

JB then showed him his second report.

Preliminary report #2 showed 51 chemical compounds. The reason for the differences is that they realized there was some overlap of gasoline. Some compounds have more than one name. They then eliminated some of the duplications, resulting in the 51 compounds.

In report #1, of the 54, 43 were consistent with decomp.

In report #2, of the 51, 41 were consistent with decomp.

After that, on the first report - only 19 overlapped with gasoline components.

In report #2, 17 overlapped with gasoline components.

He doesn't recall if he came up with the same percentage. He stated that his conclusions were, OF COURSE, not based on these numbers.

He considered the final report to be most accurate.

At the junk yard they got 3 Pontiac Sunfires - later corrected in the final report to 2. They intentionally chose the worst possible urban like situation to compare. They considered a new carpet to be an unfair comparison. He thinks the initial error of 3 cars, was that they took two samples from one of the two cars. He later did an affidavit correcting this error.

Sometimes he takes notes along the way, and sometimes he doesn't. Regarding bench notes, he did not review Dr. Wise's.

JA objects - HHBP - are you using Dr. Wise's bench notes? Objection sustained.

He doesn't know the history of the junk yard cars or the car in Florida. He is doing a comparative analysis. One of the two junk yard cars had trace amounts of chloroform. They did a qualitative analysis.

He agreed he has not done a study of chemicals in carpet in general.

Chemical compound of garbage depends on what is in the garbage.

He got a list of the items found in the trash. He did not see the items - just the list. He did not witness the actual garbage and did not know what the chemical breakdown of each item. However, they did sample the air of the composite of the garbage, but didn't recall the date.

JB asks for a moment.

The samples were taken on 8/30/08 - Exhibit 122 - Not on July 16. Air is free flowing and the chemical composition can change from moment to moment.

He doesn't know what was done to the garbage between 7/16 and 8/30/08.

He was directed to his table showing the breakdown of the air samples (table 1). He did not reference Exhibit 118 - the air sample of the trunk, in his table because the complete liner had been removed. It was not a valid comparison.

The table indicates that without doubt, the point source of the odor, was the trunk. They did an analysis showing trace amounts of sulfur and chloroform even after the liner had been removed, which he felt was not a valid comparison.

17 chemical compounds - 7 were relevant to decomp. Because of trace, they reduced it to 5. They were very, very conservative. This number was then reduced to 3 that did not overlap.

He mentioned difusion - if the trash was in the car and the liner was emanating, a small amount of that could have adhered to the trash.

You cannot account for, but you can make an assumption based on quantity.

Assumptions are sometimes relevant in conclusions - common sense included.

 

[mombomb]

Continued cross of Dr. Vass by JB.

He is not a physicist.

LIBS - calcium, magnesium, sodium, carbon and iron. All found in the environment.

He is not a chemist.

He doesn't know how long the junk yard car was there. In most cases, the cars in the junk yard had trunk lids that were open. He was told that.

Afternoon recess to 3:15.

 

[mombomb]

Jury excused.

JB proffer of Dr. Vass. ICA talking to DS.

He was asked to test soil samples from the Barker ranch in 2008. He then went on a trip to the actual site and used several instruments in several locations. As a result, an exploratory excavation ensued. At the depth they dug, they did not find anything. But, at the depth they dug, they just got to the surface of the original ground 40 years ago.

He made the statement at that time that they did not understand the environmental parameters enough. He feels the chemistry is well established.

He was asked if he made the statement that the science was at its infancy. Objection by JA - sustained.

Error rates for coming up with body after GCMS? He said that in 2007-08 they did not fully understand environmental parameters, for example - barometric pressure.

Statement to AP in 2008 - trying to improve science, it is still in its infancy - he could not verify this statement and feels it was taken out of context.

No further questions by JB.

Cross exam of proffer by JA - the limitation of the depth of the dig was time constraints and it was exploratory. No one knows at this point if there are bodies there or not.

HHBP clarifies the Barker Ranch is where Charles Manson buried people. The witness said the murders occurred 40 or 50 years ago and had no bearing on this case.

HHBP - questions regarding Barker Ranch - objections will be sustained. Is irrelevant and immaterial to this case unless it can be shown that it has some bearing or relationship to this case.

Jury coming back in.

 

[wenwe4]

Jury excused will get back to them as soon as they can....

matter to take up without jury present....


Mr. Baez - proceed w/profer....in 3/2008 asked to analyse soil samples for barker ranch....sent soil samples....used gcms....initial findings consistent w/decomp event...later went back to that site.....used samples .....exploratory excavation...


missed some testimony....

we didn't understand environmental factors well enough....the chemicals we understood....

did you make statement while granting interview w/media ....science in it's infancy.....object-sustained unless date time and place....

only time used this specific data base...barker ranch? no

coming up with bodies on gcms - what are error rates? you can measure error rates ....doesn't apply ....in 2007 and 2008 timeframe didn't understand fully environmental perimeters.....

no further questions


STate

on 522/08 - statement of AP reads statement from a reporter...don't know what question was...did you say this is most frustrated I have been? sounds like something I would say.....digging holes is not something....


JA up - time constraints - full explanation...any indications that a burial situation happend....

Barker ranch is a ranch where Charles Manson murdered and buried some people....murders 40 - 50 years ago - no bearing on this case at all..

question deal w/barker ranch - objection will be sustained....cross contamination with trash in car vs. odor of decomp ok to ask but Barker ranch is irrelevant and immaterial....environmental conditional unless shown bearing or relationship to this particluar case......

take a break before return jury

guess allright -
return the jury

 

[mombomb]

Jury back.

Cross Examination of Dr. Vass by JB.

Moving to area of protocols - part of which could include specific instructions for collecting samples, which could be to not collect samples where gasoline is present - also trash. He feels JB is taking this out of context - these were written in response to an investigator wanting to take samples in a large area like an open field. They did not want the control sample to come from an area in the big field where there is trash, unless that is part of the crime scene. The question that was asked "where should I collect the control sample?" in a 40 acre field.

He was then asked about divining rods. JA asked for a SIDEBAR.