Stephen Shaw testimony (FBI fiber and textile and hair examiner)

[okiedokietoo]

JA:
Shaw: brush like appearance from hair mat, more advanced decomp
JA: Q12 hair, was it a shed hair
Shaw: no, hair was removed by force
JA: ever see hair with decomp band that didn't come from a corpse
Shaw: No

JB: 1st time testified about this, are you aware of the thesis based on this study
JA: Sidebar

 

[Donjeta]

Cross by JB

You testified that when you got the hairmat that the characteristics were not similar.

What I was talking about was the characteristics of the root portions.

The hair in the trunk had root material below the band.

So there was a different appearance and that's why you testified they were not similar.

Speaking strictly of the root portions, yes.

JB refers to a study in which apparent postmortem banding were found in living people.

Witness disagrees, they found banding in a different position.

Does that best fit the Q59 sample?

The hair mass did not have much of any root material left.

You see darkenning in the root or near the root, in live people?

Yes.

You see striations higher up.

And you say the difference is obvious?

Apparent decomposition includes several types of changes, it's a broader term.

That's why Ms. Lowe indicated in the report that there was apparent decomposition.

So it's apparent to you but it wasn't apparent to your examiners?

Correct, they identified some living hairs as banded.

You examine them under the microscope and make a call?

Correct.

So these two examiners were wrong?

Correct.

So what they say is banding is different from what you say is banding.

Incorrect. They realized there were errors in their initial analysis and corrected.

You don't know if PMHB is exclusively from dead people and couldn't testify to that.

Correct.

So they were wrong compared to what you consider PMHB.
They are just as trained and have as much experience as you do.

Less.

So why did you choose less experienced examiners?

They weren't involved in the initial stages of study.

So when Examiner A examined root his opinion was different from yours.

Correct, in that initial analysis.


So when Examiner B examined root his opinion was different from yours.
Correct, in that initial analysis.

It's a new research?

based on hair examiner experience.


You were deposed? JA was present? I was present?
Subsequently you did this study, after the depositions.

So you wrote your report?
Correct

And you testified?
Correct

And then you did a validation study.
Correct. I would say it was already validated based on experience.

A huge part of what you've established is that you can't say PMHB comes from dead persons, and various conditions can get darkening in a hair to the point that a trained examiner can identify root banding.

Correct.

Q12 is only one hair.

Correct.

We shed on average around 100 hairs a day.

Sometimes we brush our hair and hair will stick on clothing, right?
Correct

Hairs are found everywhere.
Yes.

It's one of the most frequent things that are left in the scene.

Yes, we see it a lot.

Some of it are transfer. I have some contact with you and I can transfer your hair

Yes, indirect transfer,

Or secondary transfer.

If you only find one hair that's consistent with transfer, right. It doesn't mean the person was there, right?

Right, I can't tell you how the hair got there.

If you find multiple hairs, numerous hairs, that's not as consistent with transfer as if you only find one hair.

Well, finding any hairs separate from the person's scalp, we don't know how it got there, if it was directly transfered or indirectly transfered.

And to conclude from your study, the conditions were completely different. They weren't done in Florida?

No, they were done in Quantico Virginia, between August and April.

Heat plays a role in decomposition?

It is my understanding that it does but it's not my area of expertise

Recross:
Is there an indication of further decomposition in the hair mat?

Yes.

What were the hairs that the error occurred?

They were both submerged in water.

Not in a trunk?

No.

Was Q12 shed?

No.

Would it be a fair assessment that you've seen thousands of hairs?
Yes.

Have you ever seen hair with decomp band that didn't come from a corpse?
No.

Recross

This is the first time you've testified about this.
yes.

Are you aware of the thesis that you based this study on, the conclusion?

I read it and I'm familiar with it.

Objection, hearsay.

Sidebar.

 

[Eidetic]

JA: Just a couple questions sir. The brush like appearance that counsel asked you about that distinguished the Q59 hairs found at the scene of the body and the Q12 hair from the trunk, is that an indicator of more advanced decomposition?
SS: Yes, the hair mass and the brush like appearance is an indicator of further decomposition.
JA: The two hairs that Mr. Baez spent some time speaking to you about that initial examiners included as banding and then excluded what were the environmental conditions in which those two hairs were maintained?
SS: They were both submerged in water for approximately 17 days.
JA: So neither one of those hairs was in the trunk of a car?
SS: That's correct.
JA: The Q12 hair that counsel was asking you about he talked about shed hairs, was Q12 a shed hair?
SS: No. Q12 was an anagen or stretched root hair which would indication some force was required to removed that hair
JA: And counsel correctly pointed out that you see hairs all the time from crime scenes, correct?
SS: Yes.
JA: Over your career would it be a fair statement that you've seen thousands of hairs?
SS: That's fair, yes.
JA: Aside from this particular case, the Q12 hair, have you ever seen a hair with the decomposition band that didn't come from a corpse?
SS: No, i have not.
JA: No further questions.

 

[mombomb]

CROSS EXAMINATION OF STEPHEN SHAW BY JB:

Hair mass and trunk hair - he did not do a side by side. The trunk hair had root material below the band. The hair mass had a more brush like appearance. Speaking of only the root portions - the two hairs were dissimilar.

The thesis he used referred to some of their changes as fraying and darkening and banding closer to the end of the root than in post-mortem banding. They were seeing decomposition in the actual root material. The hair mat did not have much root material remaining.

The difference is obvious between the apparent decomposition and post-mortem root banding. Apparent decomp is an umbrella. Post-mortem banding is a type. Examiners' initial analysis both identified one hair incorrectly. They then realized between themselves they had made errors and their confirmed results corrected that.

OBJECTION BY JA - SUSTAINED.

He does not know if post-mortem root banding is specifically from people who are deceased. If someone says post-mortem root banding, they can't say if it is from deceased.

Examiners had less experience. They were 2 examiners that were not involved in his initial analysis of these hairs.

Research continues on post-mortem root banding. It is a pretty well established discipline, but for the most part based on examination of hairs.

He has never testified in Court on post-mortem root banding. This is the first time.

He had a depo done in this case. Since then, he has submitted this study. He requested approval of that study to be expedited in order for it to be complete for this trial. This was done after the deposition and his reports in this case.

Post-mortem root banding was already valid - primarily based on experience.

Not many studies based on environmental factors on anti-mortem hair.

Cannot say that post-mortem root banding comes from a dead person.

Subjecting hair to different environments can alter the appearance of hair, darkening, to the point that a trained examiner would see that.

Q-12 hair is only one hair. 100 hairs shed a day, most have a club-like appearance. Shed hairs can be transferred. Hairs are at scenes all the time. They can be transfer hairs, including indirect or secondary transfer. A hair left at a crime scene does not mean the person was there. Finding any hair separate from a person's scalp is transfer.

Finding only one hair may indicate indirect transfer.

The hair samples in his study were tested around Quantico. It gets cold there. Climate and heat can increase the rate of decomp.

No further questions by JB.

REDIRECT BY JA:

Brush like appearance in hair mass is an indicator of further decomposition.

The 2 hairs the examiners originally included had both been submerged in water for 17 days - not in the trunk of a hair.

Q-12 was an andegen or stretched root - requiring force to remove the hair.

He has seen thousands of hair during his career.

He has never seen a hair with the decomp band that has not come from a dead body.

RECROSS EXAM BY JB:

This is the first time he has testified on this topic.

Regarding prior thesis - he is familiar with the conclusion.

OBJECTION - HEARSAY -

SIDEBAR #2

RECROSS EXAM BY JB:

Without proper training, environmental effects can cause confusion in determining post-mortem root banding.

The Q-12 hair could have come out by a brush.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY JA:

Moving a dead body could have been one of the ways a hair could have been pulled out.

Witness is excused.

 

[Eidetic]

JA: Would moving a dead body be one of those ways that would pull the hair out?
SS: It could, yes.
JA: No further questions.

 

[truthsleuth]

JB What are we looking at here? (evidence)
SS Hair stored in water for 17 days. Came from living individual. (Has death band!)

 

[truthsleuth]

SS: The examiner identified it initially as death banding in their initial analysis.

 

[truthsleuth]

A second examiner did NOT identify it as death banding.

What knowledge did the individuals have to examine this hair?

They knew I had been doing such a study. Did know if I had put any post-mortem hairs in the test.

Examiner 1 did identify one as death banded.
Examiner 2 did identify another hair as death banded.

JB They didn't think this was an actual case they were working on correct? They knew of the test?

SS Yes.

 

[truthsleuth]

JB: That's another antemortem hair--it's the one EX. 2 identified as having death banding. One of the examiners made a mistake with this hair initally?

SS: I believe the hairs are clearly different. They excluded this hair through further testing and examination.

JB: What is this here sir?

SS: Another hair from a living individual that was stored in potting soil for 100 days.

JB: And is there beginning composition on this hair?

SS: Yes. There is some striping in this are here.

Commercial! Sorry!

 

[truthsleuth]

Back from commercial...

JB wants "moment." Asks to "unpublish" evidence? Is that possible?

JB: What were you asked to do on this date sir?
SS: In this report I reported on hairs and fibers from hair mass ... three pieces of duct tape.
JB: What were your findings?
SS: There were no hairs suitable for me to make a microscopic comparison. They were microscopically dissimilar to the hair from the hair mass.
---
JA up.
SS: All hairs suitable for comparison were from the same person.
JA: Did you do studies of hairs decomposing in cars and car trunks, right?
SS: Yes.
JA: But none of the hairs Mr. Baez showed you today came from those locations, right?
SS: No they didn't.

Commercial!

 

[truthsleuth]

I'm guessing Baez is about to be buried by JA's cross.

 

[truthsleuth]

SS: This hair was in direct sunlight for 202 days in a vehicle. This started in august and continued for 7 months.
JA: Was there decomposition on these hairs?
SS: No. None at all.
Other hair shown to SS. No decompositional changes after 7 months. This vehicle was in a direct-sunlight area for 7 months.

SS: Other hair shown, was in direct sunlight. Some change, slight darkening, lower half are additional hairs. Outdoors what happened a lot was root was missing from hair. That's what appears happened in this hair. Root is missing.
JA: Was some of that in 259 hairs? Roots missing?
SS: Yes.
SS: Other hair in wooded area for 14 days and there is some decomp at root area but no postmortem banding.

 

[truthsleuth]

JA: Takes a great deal of training to find the subtle changes in hairs and determine root banding, correct?

SS: Yes. ... looking for banding about soft tissue of roots.

Other hair shown.

SS: No post mortem banding.

More hair shown.

SS: Hair was kept out for 107 in grassy area. Not postmortem banding however.

Additional hair stored for 107 days in grassy area.

SS: Some decomp in this area, not really a band, but more "darkening."

 

[truthsleuth]

Hair immersed in water for 17 days. Shows darkening but not banding.
Additional hair immersed in water for 100 days. Some darkening, stripes.
Hair immersed for 100 days, darkening above root. It's darkened but not postmortem banding.
Going through slide after slide ... not postmortem banding.

 

[truthsleuth]

Explaining why what is seen in a slide is NOT postmortem banding.

JA: look at this under a microscope, you will appreciate where the root begins and ends, correct?
SS: Yes, seen better with a microscope.
JA: Is this another hair Mr. Baez asked about?
SS: Yes. This one is too far down into the soft tissue of the hair to be post-mortem banding.

Foiled again Mr. Baez!

 

[truthsleuth]

Going through dozens of individual hairs. Some are from cadavers ...

Boring. Sparing you all the transcription and sparing me the typing.

 

[truthsleuth]

JB: Were any hairs stored in a acar that could be similar to or taken for postmortem banding?
No.
The hairs from the trunk, did you put them in garbage? Did you have any that were in garbage?
No.
All the hairs from living people have the number of days before they were selected, right?
That's right.
But all the slides from post-mortem individuals don't have any dates, is that correct?
That's right. It wasn't put on the slides themselves.
Let's talk about these for a second. For example, this hair that was outside a house on the ground, how long has it been there?
Let me look at my notes for a second ...

 

[truthsleuth]

JB: Every slide you have from a live person has the exact days, and every slide you have from a deceased person does not have the days it was there. Is that correct?
Yes.
JB: These were in Tennessee in the winter time? the environmental conditions are completely different than that which would be in this case? Correct?
Yes.
JB: Another hair from Tennessee in the wintertime?
Yes.
JB: Completely different than this case. Here's another from a inside a house. Did the house have heating do you know? Completely different than environmental conditions in this case.
Yes.
JB: Same thing with this one from in the house. How long was the body there?
Two weeks.
JB: Different than environmental conditions in this case?
Yes.

ON AND ON AND ON...

 

[mombomb]

9:10

DIRECT EXAMINATION OF STEPHEN SHAW BY JB

Witness was re-certified as an expert in trace evidence, hair and fibers with no objection by the State.

Witness was shown Defense Exhibits DC, DB, DA, CZ, CY and CX.

He recognized the photos which were taken of anti-mortem hairs stored in various conditions in his study which was conducted after his depo.

SIDEBAR #2 requested by JA (9:12-9:15)

Items marked as Exhibits 39-44

He collected 600 hairs from 15 living individuals. Study was to show that the darkening band could be from living people?

OBJECTION - leading - SUSTAINED

One of your goals was to...

OBJECTION - leading - SUSTAINED

Purpose of study was inspired by a thesis regarding hairs submerged in water. The thesis suggested the additional testing. He put hairs from living individuals to try to get post-mortem banding on the hairs.

OBJECTION - leading/compound - SUSTAINED as to compound.

The purpose of his study was to expand on the prior study.

He was shown State's N.O. It was an exhibit to demonstrate what post-mortem banding looked like. It was published to the Jury.

He also published to the Jury Defense Exhibit 39. (JB called it State's Exhibit and JA had to correct him)

He identified it as a hair form a living being that was stored in water for 17 days. This was one of the hairs put into the test. It was initially identified by post-mortem banding by one of the examiners that took the test in their initial analysis.

They mistook it?

OBJECTION - SUSTAINED

The examiner initially identified it as post-mortem banding in their initial analysis. The other examiner did not. When the two conferred, they excluded this hair.

Both examiners...

OBJECTION - leading - SUSTAINED

Were both...

OBJECTION - leading - SUSTAINED

The examiners knew it was a test and that he had been conducting a study on environmental studies on human hairs. They examined over 200 hairs. In their initial analysis identified all the post-mortem hairs. In their initial analysis they both initially identified two anti-mortem hairs, then after they conferred, they excluded these and correctly identified the hairs.

He was shown Defense Exhibit 41. Another anti-mortem hair submerged in water for 17 days. This is the hair that examiner 2 initially identified as a banded hair in their initial analysis.

He believes these two are clearly different than the post-mortem banding.

Exhibit 42 - an anti-mortem hair stored in potting soil for 100 days. He indicated the area of apparent decomp beginning to develop.

Exhibit 41 - an anti-mortem hair stored in potting soil for 100 days which also showed apparent decomp beginning.

Exhibit 40 - an anti-mortem hair submerged in water for 17 days. It showed apparent decomp. The root could be dark as shown here on a living individual.

Any other ongoing studies at the FBI? No.

How many other studies on environmental studies on living hair? He is aware of 3. It is an ongoing area of study. He is still conducting research.

1/27/09 report -

(JB and JA and FG conferring at the podium)

In this report, he reported on hairs and fibers that were recovered from the hair mass, debris from the skull and 3 pieces of duct tape.

JA - Evidence #s?

Hair mass (State's 271) and (States 301) tuct tape.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY JA

He found no hairs suitable for meaningful exam on the duct tape that were also microscopically dissimilar to the hair mass. All hairs on the duct tape were the same as the hairs on the hair mass.

He also recovered textile fibers, but did not conduct any testing.

These photos were a part of his power point that he was not allowed to show.

His study contained studies on hairs that were found in the trunk.

Power point exhibit marked as State's Exhibit 305 with no objection from JA

Power point being published to the Jury.

Figure #1 - 600 hairs from 15 living individuals - this is a representation of some of the hairs. These are hairs stored indoors on the window sill for 322 (?) days. Left before exposure - right after. There is some discoloration, but no apparent decomp. The two hairs are from different people who had different color hair.

Next slide - additional hairs stored on the dash of a vehicle in direct sunlight for 202 days, unused, starting in August then for 7 months. Before on left and after on right. There was no apparent decomp.

Next slide - hairs stored in the trunk of the vehicle for the same time period. Left showed hairs before and right showed after exposure. No apparent decomp.

Next slide - hairs stored outdoors in a grass area where it could receive direct sunlight for 6 weeks. There is some slight darkening after exposure. The roots were missing in some of the outdoor hairs, probably from insects.

Q-59 hairs - there were some roots missing.

Next slide - hair stored outdoors in wooded shaded area for 14 days showing apparent decomp at the root end but no post-mortem banding.

For post-mortem banding you need to have an opaque banding just above the root. The root should mostly be in tact with a band just above it. This is an essential aspect. A 3-D stereo microscope is needed.

Next slide - another hair stored outside in a wooded area for 14 days. The three after shots show apparent decomp with no post-mortem banding.
Next slide - additional hair stored outside for 107 days showing some apparent decomp in the soft tissue of the root, but no post-motem banding.
Next slide - hair stored outside in a grassy area fo 107 days showing some apparent decomp, no banding - a subtle distinction.
Next slide - 2 additional hairs stored outside - after shows apparent decomp in the soft tissue of the root. Root appears to be shriveling.
Next slide - hair submerged in water for 17 days showing considerable change in the root. There is darkening but too far down into the soft tissue of the hair.
Next slide - hair submerged in water for 100 days showing striations.
Next slide - hair submerged in water for 100 days showing significant change in the root, darkening but no banding.
Next slide - hair submerged in water for 100 days showing changes but no post-mortem banding.
Next slide - hair submerged in water for 100 days showing slight changes but no post-mortem banding.
Next slide - hair buried in potting soil for 17 days with significant changes but no post-mortem banding.
Next slide - hair buried in potting soil for 17 days with a lot of root soft tissue decomp, but no post-mortem banding.
Next slide - hair buried in potting soil for 100 days showing soft-tissued decomposing but no banding.
Next slide - hair buried in potting soil showing root end changes but no banding.

The next slide (one shown by JB as initially being found to be post-mortem decomp by examiner) there is very little to no tissue on the root itself. Looking at it microscopically is necessary to show where the soft tissue starts and ends. This hair was stored in water for 17 days, not in the car.

The next slide (one shown by JB) this is not post-mortem banding because the darkening is too far down into the soft tissue of the hair.

Post-mortem banding - there is a certain area of the hair that is susceptible to decomp. Just above the band the hair is completely hardened and dead. Where the band is, the hair is not completely keratinized. Below that is soft-tissue which is further down the follicle and better protected.

Next slide -hair is from post-mortem cadaver stored outside - one of the hair used in the test.
Next slide - another hair used in the test from cadaver stored outside on the ground.
Next slide - hair from cadaver stored inside house. The discoloration may be an artifact
Next slide - hair from cadaver stored in vehicle.
Next slide - hair from cadaver inside a house.
Next slide - hair from cadaver stored outside.
Next slide - hair from cadaver stored outside.

Five cadavers were used in the study.

Next slide - hair from cadaver stored outside.
Next slide - hair from cadaver stored outside.
Next slide - hair from cadaver stored outside.
Next slide - hair from cadaver stored in a vehicle.
Next slide - hair from cadaver stored in a house.

These are all hairs showing post-mortem root banding.

Next set of slides - examples of hairs from living people.

First slide - apparent decomp but no post-mortem banding.
Next slide - same as above
Next slide - same as above
Next slide - anti-mortem hair buried in potting soil for 100 days. It may have change, but no banding.

He had no hairs stored in a car that displayed anything that could have been mistaken for post-mortem banding.

RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY JB:

Hairs tested in trunk were not in garbage. He had no hairs in garbage.

Power point showed number of days before results were collected for anti-mortem hairs. Post-mortem hairs did not have dates (he has them, but not put on the slides).

The slide he was shown was a hair placed outdoors in Tennessee in the wintertime on 1/27/04 and collected on 3/5/04. He agreed the outside conditions were completely different than in this case.

Next slide showed a hair outdoors for a month - completely different temps than he would expect in June in Florida.

Next slide of hair stored in house for a month. Didn't know if house had heating or A/C.

Next slide of hair stored in vehicle for a little less than a month in Tennessee in the wintertime. Car was outdoors. Colder conditions than in this case.

Next slide showed hair stored in a house for 2 weeks.

Next slide showed hair stored for 3 weeks in Tennessee in the wintertime.

Next slide showed hair stored in Feb for about a month.

Next slide showed hair stored outside in Tennessee in the wintertime.

Next slide showed hair stored outside for a little over a month in Tennessee.

Next slide stored outside for a month in Tennessee.

His findings showed they got different reactions to the hair with different environmental conditions.

Could you replicate...

OBJECTION - leading - OVERRULED

He did not replicate all the conditions in this case. This hair could have been there for months and exposed to any number of environmental conditions.

Post-mortem banding is a well-established science - based primarily on experience of examiners. The research is there to learn more. He is trying to learn more.

He tried to replicate post-mortem banding.

He wants to learn more and know as much about it as possible. The goal is not to say that post-mortem banding only comes from deceased individuals.

Post-mortem banding is wel-established based on experience of examiners in the field. Even in case work, they deal with environmental conditions. He has yet to find a hair with post-mortem banding that he can't relate to a deceased.

OBJECTION - SUSTAINED

RE-CROSS EXAMINATION BY JA

The literature contains data from post-mortem banding from all over the country.

OBJECTION BY JB - bolstering - OVERRULED

To this point, the only environmental condition that leads to post-mortem banding is being attached to a decomposing body.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY JB

Did you do this study to learn more?

OBJECTION - SUSTAINED

No further questions.

Witness excused. 10:18

Recess until 10:40

 

[KikiWanBaniki]

I hope this is in the right place, not redundant, etc.--I'm fairly new, so please feel free to delete/redirect, etc., mods...

My (brilliant--at least mom thinks so!) daughters have become interested in this case since I've been on Caylee's forum here, and today, one of them asked me one of those questions that just makes a person think, "Hey--why the heck didn't I think of that?!" She asked me:

"If they can do drug testing on people's hair for illegal drugs, and they have a piece of Caylee's hair, why don't they test it for chloroform?"

:waitasec: !

Maybe it's been asked here before, but if so, I've missed it as a latecomer...

Thoughts?