TRIAL DAY 13 – PART 1 – morning 1
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, TUESDAY, JUNE 25, 2002, 9:10 A.M. (morning 1)

WITNESSES:

Melvyn C. Kong (criminalist, testified about hair found from a gate rail at the Van Dam residence, bedding from Danielle’s bedroom, orange fibers, dog hair, vacuum cleaner)
Jennifer Shen (criminalist, testified about hairs, fibers, fingernail clippings)

–O0O–
THE COURT: GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. APPARENTLY I MISSPOKE YESTERDAY. I SAID WATCH OUT FOR BOBBY BONDS. I’M AFRAID MY AGE AND UPBRINGING IN THE BAY AREA SHOWS A LITTLE BIT. I’M SURE THE PADS HAD WISHED IT WAS BOBBY BONDS HITTING YESTERDAY INSTEAD OF BARRY. IT’S AMAZING HOW EVERYBODY THAT WATCHED THE BALLGAME KNEW WHAT HE WAS GOING TO DO BUT THE MANAGER DIDN’T. SO I HAVEN’T FIGURED THAT OUT YET.
ALL RIGHT. MR. CLARKE.
MR. CLARKE: YES. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
MELVYN KONG.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MELVYN C. KONG,
CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE PLAINTIFF, HAVING BEEN DULY SWORN, TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
THE CLERK: SIR, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND SPELL IT FOR THE RECORD.
THE WITNESS: MY NAME IS MELVYN C. KONG. K-O-N-G.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. CLARKE:
Q: HOW IS MELVYN SPELLED?
A: M-E-L-V-Y-N.
Q: GOOD MORNING, MR. KONG.
A: GOOD MORNING.
Q: WHO ARE YOU EMPLOYED BY?
A: I’M EMPLOYED BY THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO.
Q: ARE YOU ASSIGNED TO A PARTICULAR DEPARTMENT?
A: YES.
Q: WHAT’S THAT?
A: THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
Q: IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT DO YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC POSITION?
A: YES. I’M A CRIMINALIST WITHIN THE CRIME LABORATORY.
Q: IN YOUR DUTIES AS A CRIMINALIST, IS THERE A PARTICULAR SECTION OR UNIT THAT YOU WORK IN?
A: YES. I’M ASSIGNED TO THE TRACE EVIDENCE SECTION.
Q: IS THAT THE UNIT THAT EXAMINES HAIRS, FIBERS, AND OTHER FORMS OF TRACE EVIDENCE?
A: YES, IT IS.
Q: ALL RIGHT.
MR. KONG, WOULD YOU DESCRIBE FOR THE JURY, PLEASE, YOUR EDUCATION, TRAINING, AND EXPERIENCE THAT LED TO YOUR POSITION AS A TRACE ANALYST IN THE SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT.
A: YES. I HAVE A BACHELOR’S DEGREE IN CHEMISTRY FROM OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE IN LOS ANGELES. I WAS A CRIMINALIST WITH THE ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT FOR ABOUT SEVEN AND A HALF YEARS. I WAS ASSIGNED TO DO ALCOHOL ANALYSIS, ANTEMORTEM TOXICOLOGY, CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION, SOLID-DOSE DRUG ANALYSIS, AND GUNSHOT RESIDUE, ALONG WITH TRACE EVIDENCE.
AFTER THAT I WAS A CRIMINALIST WITH THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, ASSIGNED TO THE PHYSICAL SECTION OF THE LABORATORY. I DID ANALYSES ON GUNSHOT RESIDUE, EXPLOSIVE AND ARSON ANALYSIS, TRACE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS AND CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION.
AFTER THAT I WAS A CRIMINALIST WITH THE SANTA ANA POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR ABOUT TWO AND A HALF YEARS. I DID ANALYSES IN SOLID-DOSE DRUG ANALYSIS, ANTEMORTEM TOXICOLOGY, AND BLOOD ALCOHOL ANALYSIS.
AFTER THAT I BECAME A CRIMINALIST WITH THE SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT. I WAS ASSIGNED TO THE PHYSICAL — ACTUALLY THE TRACE EVIDENCE SECTION OF THE LABORATORY. I WAS A CRIMINALIST INVOLVED IN TRACE EVIDENCE FOR ABOUT TWO YEARS. THEN I BECAME A SUPERVISOR FOR ABOUT SIX AND A HALF, SEVEN YEARS. AND I’VE BEEN A CRIMINALIST ASSIGNED TO THE TRACE EVIDENCE SECTION FOR ABOUT TWO AND A HALF YEARS NOW.
Q: CAN YOU DESCRIBE FOR US, PLEASE, IN ALL OF THESE POSITIONS YOU’VE HELD WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, ABOUT HOW MANY YEARS TOTAL HAVE YOU WORKED IN THE AREA OF TRACE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS.
A: VERY CLOSE TO ABOUT TWENTY-FOUR YEARS.
Q: I’M SORRY. HOW LONG?
A: ABOUT TWENTY-FOUR YEARS.
Q: ALL RIGHT.
I WOULD LIKE TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO A PARTICULAR CASE INVOLVING THE INVESTIGATION OF THE DISAPPEARANCE OF DANIELLE VAN DAM AND ASK IF YOU WERE REQUESTED TO PERFORM CERTAIN EXAMINATIONS IN THIS CASE.
A: YES, I WAS.
Q: IN PARTICULAR WERE YOU ASKED TO EXAMINE A HAIR LABELED NUMBER 6, IDENTIFIED AS HAVING COME FROM A GATE RAIL AT THE VAN DAM RESIDENCE?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: DID YOU EXAMINE THAT HAIR?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: HOW DID YOU GO ABOUT THAT EXAMINATION?
A: A COMBINATION OF VISUAL EXAMINATIONS AND MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATIONS.
Q: WERE YOU ABLE TO IN YOUR EXAMINATION OF THAT HAIR DETERMINE ITS ORIGIN IN TERMS OF WHAT TYPE OF HAIR IT WAS?
A: YES.
Q: WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?
A: I DETERMINED IT TO BE AN ANIMAL HAIR, PROBABLY A CAT OR DOG HAIR.
Q: NOT A HUMAN HAIR?
A: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q: DID YOU ALSO IN THE COURSE OF THIS PARTICULAR INVESTIGATION, WERE YOU ASKED TO EXAMINE ITEMS OF BEDDING IDENTIFIED AS COMING FROM THE VICTIM DANIELLE VAN DAM’S BEDROOM?
A: YES.
Q: DID THAT INCLUDE — WELL, PERHAPS YOU CAN DESCRIBE. WHAT WERE THOSE ITEMS THAT YOU EXAMINED FROM THE BEDROOM?
A: I EXAMINED FITTED SHEET, COMFORTER, PILLOWS, AND A BLANKET WITH A POCKET ON IT.
Q: ALL RIGHT.
JUST SO WE’RE CLEAR, YOU’VE MENTIONED A FITTED SHEET. WAS THAT IDENTIFIED AS ITEM NUMBER 4?
A: I WOULD HAVE TO REFER TO MY NOTES. I DON’T RECALL SPECIFICALLY.
Q: ALL RIGHT.
WOULD IT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION TO REFER TO YOUR NOTES WITH REGARD TO THE ITEM NUMBERS?
A: YES, IT WOULD.
Q: ALL RIGHT.
WOULD YOU GO AHEAD AND DO SO. AND AS YOU DO SO, IF YOU WOULD JUST TELL US WHAT PARTICULAR REPORT OR NOTE THAT YOU’RE EXAMINING SO THAT WE CAN CORRELATE THAT.
A: I’M REFERRING TO A REPORT THAT’S DATED FEBRUARY 27TH. THE REPORT LISTS THE ITEMS, AND THE NOTES DESCRIBE THE ACTUAL ITEM NUMBERS. ITEM 4 IS IDENTIFIED AS THE FITTED SHEET.
Q: YOU ALSO I BELIEVE — DID YOU MENTION PILLOWS THAT YOU EXAMINED?
A: YES.
Q: AS WELL AS A BLANKET WITH A POCKET?
A: YES.
Q: AND A PURPLE COMFORTER?
A: YES.
Q: WERE THOSE ASSIGNED A PARTICULAR ITEM NUMBER?
A: YES, THEY WERE.
Q: WHAT WAS THAT?
A: THOSE ITEMS WERE ALL DESCRIBED AS ITEM NUMBER 10.
Q: FROM YOUR EXAMINATION OF THOSE ITEMS, WERE YOU ABLE TO DETERMINE THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF ANY ORANGE ACRYLIC FIBERS?
A: YES.
Q: WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?
A: I DIDN’T FIND ANY.
Q: WERE YOU EVER INSIDE THE VAN DAM RESIDENCE, MR. KONG?
A: YES, I WAS.
Q: WHEN WAS THAT?
A: AGAIN I DON’T REMEMBER THE SPECIFIC DATE. I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE NOTES.
Q: ALL RIGHT.
IF YOU WOULD GO AHEAD AND DO SO.
A: I’M REFERRING TO A REPORT DATED MARCH 25TH OF 2002. IN THAT I LIST THE EVIDENCE COLLECTION THAT I PERFORMED. IT’S LISTED AS THE 21ST OF MARCH THAT I ACTUALLY COLLECTED THE ANIMAL HAIRS.
Q: IS THAT THE ONLY TIME YOU WERE IN THE VAN DAM RESIDENCE OR WAS THERE ANOTHER TIME?
A: THAT’S THE ONLY TIME.
Q: WERE YOU EVER INSIDE A RESIDENCE IDENTIFIED AS BELONGING TO MR. DAVID WESTERFIELD IN A I THINK SHORT DISTANCE AWAY FROM THE VAN DAM RESIDENCE?
A: NO, I WAS NOT.
Q: WERE YOU EVER INSIDE A MOTOR HOME IDENTIFIED AS BELONGING TO MR. WESTERFIELD?
A: NO.
MR. CLARKE: THANK YOU.
I DON’T HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: CROSS-EXAMINATION.

CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q: SIR, YOUR PURPOSE IN GOING TO THE VAN DAM RESIDENCE WAS TO ATTEMPT TO COLLECT TRACE EVIDENCE TO LINK UP A POTENTIAL I’LL SAY INVADER IN THE VAN DAM BEDROOM, IS THAT RIGHT?
A: NO.
Q: WERE YOU LOOKING FOR TRACE EVIDENCE?
A: NO.
Q: DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO INSPECT A PARTICULAR ITEM, 3 OR 4, FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE EXISTENCE OF TRACE EVIDENCE?
A: NO.
Q: SO WHAT DID YOU DO?
A: I JUST COLLECTED HAIR FROM THE DOG.
Q: OKAY. THAT’S THE COMPLETE EXTENT OF YOUR INVOLVEMENT IN THE CASE?
A: NO.
Q: WHAT ELSE DID YOU DO?
A: I’VE EXAMINED OTHER ITEMS OF EVIDENCE. I’VE PERFORMED SOME COMPARISONS AND PACKAGED EVIDENCE.
Q: WHAT OTHER ITEMS OF EVIDENCE DID YOU EXAMINE?
A: I EXAMINED THREE VACUUM CLEANERS. I LOOKED AT THE CONTENTS OF THE BAG FOR A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT ITEMS. FOR AN EARRING BACKING AND ALSO FOR HAIRS.
Q: I’M SORRY. YOU WERE LOOKING FOR AN EARRING BACKING, IS THAT RIGHT?
A: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q: DID YOU FIND ONE?
A: NO.
Q: DID YOU FIND AN EARRING?
A: NO.
Q: OKAY.
A: I ALSO LOOKED AT SOME ITEMS FROM A SPORT UTILITY VEHICLE, A 4RUNNER.
Q: AND THOSE ITEMS, WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF LOOKING FOR THOSE ITEMS IN A 4RUNNER SPORT UTILITY VEHICLE?
MR. CLARKE: OBJECTION. BEYOND THE SCOPE OF DIRECT.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
MR. FELDMAN: NO FURTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
SUBJECT TO RECALL.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING IN. YOU’RE FREE TO LEAVE AT THIS TIME. PLEASE REMEMBER YOU’RE UNDER AN ADMONITION NOT TO DISCUSS YOUR TESTIMONY WITH ANYONE PENDING THE RESULTS OF THE CASE. HOWEVER, YOU CAN CONTINUE TO DO YOUR PROFESSIONAL WORK. THANK YOU.
(THE WITNESS WAS EXCUSED.)
MR. CLARKE: JENNIFER SHEN, YOUR HONOR.

JENNIFER SHEN,
CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE PLAINTIFF, HAVING BEEN DULY SWORN, TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
THE CLERK: WOULD YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND SPELL IT FOR THE RECORD.
THE WITNESS: MY NAME IS JENNIFER, J-E-N-N-I-F-E-R, SHEN,
S-H-E-N.

DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. CLARKE:
Q: GOOD MORNING, MISS SHEN.
A: GOOD MORNING.
Q: WHAT IS YOUR OCCUPATION?
A: I’M EMPLOYED AS A CRIMINALIST AT THE SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT CRIME LABORATORY IN THE TRACE EVIDENCE SECTION.
Q: CAN YOU DESCRIBE FOR THE JURY IF YOU WOULD YOUR EDUCATION, TRAINING, AND EXPERIENCE THAT LED TO YOUR POSITION AS A CRIMINALIST IN THE TRACE EVIDENCE SECTION.
A: YES. MY FORMAL EDUCATION INCLUDES A BACHELOR’S DEGREE IN BIOLOGY FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO, RAVELLE, OR U. C. S. D. AND I HAVE A MASTER’S DEGREE IN FORENSIC SCIENCE FROM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY.
MY JOB TRAINING INCLUDES FIRST I WAS EMPLOYED AS A FORENSIC CHEMIST AT A PRIVATE TOXICOLOGY LABORATORY DOING BLOOD AND URINE DRUG TESTING FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. AND I WAS EMPLOYED THERE FOR APPROXIMATELY THREE YEARS.
AFTER THAT I MOVED TO THE SAN DIEGO SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT AND WORKED IN THEIR CRIME LABORATORY AS A TOXICOLOGIST DOING BLOOD AND URINE DRUG TESTING AS WELL AS SOME ALCOHOL TESTING AND BULK-DRUG TESTING.
SINCE THEN I’VE BEEN EMPLOYED AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT CRIME LABORATORY IN TRACE EVIDENCE.
Q: CAN YOU TELL US APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY YEARS YOU’VE WORKED IN THE AREA OF TRACE EVIDENCE.
A: JUST A LITTLE OVER SEVEN YEARS.
Q: AS FAR AS YOUR TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE, DID THAT INCLUDE THE COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE AS WELL?
A: YES.
Q: CAN YOU DESCRIBE THAT, PLEASE.
A: I HAVE TRAINING IN THE AREA OF TRACE EVIDENCE COLLECTION, SO A LOT OF EXAMINATIONS WE DID WE GET LARGE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE INTO THE LABORATORY AND THEN COLLECT THE EVIDENCE FROM THAT, THE TRACE EVIDENCE FROM THAT. SO I HAVE HAD IN MY COURSE WORK MOST OF IT ON THE JOB AND GIVEN BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IN VARIOUS TYPES OF CLASSES I’VE LEARNED HOW TO BEST COLLECT DIFFERENT TYPES OF TRACE EVIDENCE FROM DIFFERENT TYPES OF EVIDENCE.
Q: WHEN YOU USE THE TERM TRACE EVIDENCE, DOES THAT INCLUDE HAIRS?
A: YES, IT DOES.
Q: DOES IT INCLUDE FIBERS?
A: YES. TRACE EVIDENCE JUST LIKE IT SOUNDS REALLY IS TINY THINGS. SO IT CAN INCLUDE HAIRS AND FIBERS OR VERY SMALL PARTICULATE MATTER, SOIL, PAINT CHIPS, ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
Q: I’M SORRY. PARTICULATE MATTER. WHAT IS THAT?
A: ANYTHING THAT’S VERY, VERY TINY THAT YOU CAN’T SEE READILY WITH YOUR EYES.
Q: THAT IS THE NAKED EYE AS OPPOSED TO THE USE OF MAGNIFICATION SUCH AS A MICROSCOPE?
A: YES.
Q: ALL RIGHT.
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU IF YOU WERE ASKED TO PERFORM CERTAIN DUTIES OR FUNCTIONS IN THE INVESTIGATION OF THE DISAPPEARANCE OF DANIELLE VAN DAM.
A: YES, I WAS.
Q: IN PARTICULAR WERE YOU — I’M SORRY. IN PARTICULAR AS PART OF YOUR DUTIES, DID YOU EXAMINE SOME FINGERNAIL CLIPPINGS?
A: YES, I DID.
(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN MR. CLARKE
AND MR. DUSEK.)
BY MR. CLARKE:
Q: DESCRIBE FOR US WHAT PARTICULAR ITEM NUMBER AND THE DESCRIPTION OF THE ITEM THAT YOU DEALT WITH AS FAR AS FINGERNAIL CLIPPINGS.
A: I BELIEVE THE ITEM NUMBERS WERE 100 AND 101.
Q: OKAY.
DO YOU HAVE NOTES WITH YOU THAT WOULD REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION ABOUT THE SPECIFIC ITEM NUMBERS INVOLVED?
A: YES, I DO.
Q: ALL RIGHT.
IF YOU WOULD REFER TO THOSE NOTES AND ALSO AS YOU DO SO IF YOU COULD JUST TELL US WHAT PARTICULAR REPORT OR NOTE YOU’RE REFERRING TO.
A: REFERRING TO MY REPORT DATED MAY 21ST. I SEE THAT ON THE EVIDENCE LIST ARE THE THINGS THAT I EXAMINED. BUT THE FINGERNAIL CLIPPINGS WERE, INDEED, ITEMS NUMBER 100, WHICH WAS THE FINGERNAIL CLIPPINGS FROM THE VICTIM’S LEFT HAND, AND ITEM 101, THE FINGERNAIL CLIPPINGS FROM THE VICTIM’S RIGHT HAND.
Q: WHAT DID YOU DO WITH THOSE FINGERNAIL CLIPPINGS?
A: I EXAMINED THE FINGERNAIL CLIPPINGS USING WHAT’S CALLED A STEREOSCOPE. AND THAT’S BASICALLY A LOW-POWERED MICROSCOPE WITH A LIGHT SOURCE ABOVE WHAT I’M LOOKING AT. SO THE LIGHT’S BOUNCED OFF THE FINGERNAIL CLIPPINGS. AND I EXAMINE THEM TO SEE WHAT I COULD SEE AT, YOU KNOW, FORTY TO FIFTY TIMES MAGNIFICATION.
Q: AS PART — WELL, WHEN YOU EXAMINED THEM, WHAT ACTIONS DID YOU TAKE?
A: AS I EXAMINED THEM, I FOUND CERTAIN PIECES OF EVIDENCE THAT I LOOKED AT. AND ONCE I FOUND THEM, I WOULD REMOVE THEM AND PLACE THEM ON A SLIDE FOR FURTHER EXAMINATION AT A LATER TIME.
Q: WHEN YOU SAY PIECES OF EVIDENCE, WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?
A: I FOUND A FEW VERY SMALL PIECES OF FIBERS WHICH I COLLECTED. AND I FOUND A COUPLE VERY SMALL PIECES THAT LOOKED LIKE BLUE PAINT WHICH I ACTUALLY LEFT THOSE ON THE FINGERNAIL. I TOOK A VERY TINY PORTION OF THAT TO ANALYZE, BUT THE REST I LEFT ON THE FINGERNAIL.
Q: DID YOU PERFORM ANY SCRAPING OF THOSE FINGERNAIL CLIPPINGS?
A: YES. WHEN I FINISHED LOOKING FOR TRACE EVIDENCE, I THEN TOOK A TOOTHPICK AND SCRAPED THE EDGES, THE INSIDE EDGES, OF THE FINGERNAIL CLIPPINGS AND COLLECTED THOSE ON THE TOOTHPICK AND PACKAGED THOSE UP.
Q: FOR WHAT REASON?
A: TO BE SENT OFF TO ANOTHER LABORATORY FOR D.N.A. TESTING.
Q: WHEN YOU PACKED THOSE PARTICULAR — WERE THEY SCRAPINGS, IS THAT THE CORRECT WORD TO USE?
A: YES.
Q: DID YOU GIVE THEM A PARTICULAR ITEM NUMBER?
A: THEY WERE PLACED IN AN EXTRA-ITEM PACKAGE. I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT MY NOTES TO SEE WHAT THE NUMBER WAS.
Q: ALL RIGHT. PLEASE DO SO.
A: THE FINGERNAIL SCRAPINGS WERE PACKAGED TOGETHER AS
TE-JS4.
Q: ALL RIGHT. I THINK WE HEARD PREVIOUSLY T-E STANDS FOR TRACE EVIDENCE. IS THAT RIGHT?
A: YES.
Q: WHAT ABOUT THE JS4?
A: J-S STANDS FOR JENNIFER SHEN, SINCE I MADE THE ITEM PACKAGING, AND 4, IT WAS THE FOURTH PACKAGE THAT I WAS USING.
Q: WERE THESE ITEMS PACKAGED SEPARATELY OR ALL IN ONE?
A: THE FINGERNAIL SCRAPINGS WERE EACH, EACH FINGERNAIL SCRAPING WAS PACKAGED IN A SEPARATE SMALL ENVELOPE, BUT THE TWO ENVELOPES WERE PACKAGED TOGETHER IN ONE PACKAGE LABELED TE-JS4.
Q: WAS THERE AT LEAST SCRAPINGS IN THE ONE PACKAGE FROM THE LEFT-HAND FINGERNAILS?
A: YES.
Q: WAS THERE A SEPARATE PACKAGE FOR THE RIGHT-HAND FINGERNAILS?
A: YES.
Q: WAS THERE A THIRD PACKAGE IN THAT GROUP AS WELL?
A: YES.
Q: WHAT WAS THAT?
A: THERE WAS A SMALL FLAKE OF WHAT LOOKED LIKE POSSIBLE TISSUE THAT I COLLECTED AS WELL, AND I PUT THAT IN A SEPARATE SMALL PACKAGE.
Q: AND WERE THESE ALL LABELED ACCORDINGLY WITH THE DESCRIPTIONS THAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED?
A: YES.
Q: NOW I WOULD LIKE TO ALSO TURN YOUR ATTENTION TO A DOG IDENTIFIED AS HOPI. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT NAME?
A: YES.
Q: DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN ANY WAY IN TAKING KNOWN SAMPLES FROM A DOG NAMED HOPI?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: TELL US ABOUT THAT, IF YOU WOULD.
A: I WAS ASKED BY DETECTIVE TOMSOVIC TO ASSIST HIM IN COLLECTING A HAIR SAMPLE FROM THIS PARTICULAR DOG. I MET HIM DOWNSTAIRS IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT PARKING LOT. AND I REMOVED A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLING OF HAIRS FROM THE DOG AND PLACED IT IN A BINDLE AND GAVE THE BINDLE TO DETECTIVE TOMSOVIC.
Q: AND WAS IT LABELED ACCORDINGLY?
A: YES.
Q: WERE YOU EVER INSIDE THE RESIDENCE IDENTIFIED AS BELONGING TO DAVID WESTERFIELD ON MOUNTAIN PASS ROAD?
A: YES, I WAS.
Q: WHEN?
A: ON FEBRUARY 13TH.
Q: OF THIS YEAR?
A: OF THIS YEAR.
Q: WERE YOU INSIDE THE RESIDENCE ON ANY OTHER OCCASIONS OTHER THAN FEBRUARY 13TH?
A: NO.
Q: WERE YOU EVER INSIDE A MOTOR HOME IDENTIFIED AS BELONGING TO MR. WESTERFIELD?
A: YES, I WAS.
Q: WHEN?
A: I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK TO SEE EXACTLY WHAT DATE. BUT I BELIEVE IT WAS IN MAY, THE END OF MAY.
Q: IS THAT SOMETHING YOU CAN VERIFY FROM YOUR NOTES?
A: YES.
Q: ALL RIGHT. PLEASE DO SO.
A: YES. IT WAS MAY 29TH OF THIS YEAR.
Q: WAS THERE ANY OTHER TIME THAT YOU WERE INSIDE THE MOTOR HOME?
A: NO.
Q: WERE YOU EVER INSIDE THE VAN DAM RESIDENCE?
A: NO.
Q: YOU MENTIONED HOPI. CAN YOU TELL US WHAT HOPI LOOKED LIKE, THE DOG?
A: A MEDIUM-SIZE DOG. I BELIEVE HE WAS MOSTLY BROWN.
Q: NOT GRAY IN COLOR?
A: NO.
Q: DID YOU PERFORM COMPARISONS OF HAIRS IN THIS CASE?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: JUST SO WE ARE CLEAR ON THE TERM COMPARISON, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN TO YOU AS A TRACE EVIDENCE ANALYST?
A: HAIR COMPARISON TO ME MEANS WE ARE LOOKING AT KNOWN STANDARDS OR HAIR TAKEN FROM A KNOWN SOURCE AND COMPARING THEM TO UNKNOWN HAIRS, HAIRS THAT WE DON’T KNOW THE ORIGIN, AND DOING A MACROSCOPIC COMPARISON, THAT MEANS LOOKING AT THE LARGE CHARACTERISTICS THAT YOU SEE ON A HAIR, FOR INSTANCE, THE LENGTH AND THE COLOR AND THE CONTOUR, SHAPE OF THE HAIR, AND COMPARING THOSE THINGS, THE KNOWN AND THE UNKNOWN, TO SEE IF THEY ARE SIMILAR OR DISSIMILAR.
Q: DID YOU IN FACT PERFORM A COMPARISON OF HAIRS IDENTIFIED AS ITEM NUMBER 103, HAIRS FROM THE VICTIM’S RIGHT HAND?
A: YES.
Q: DID YOU ALSO COMPARE AN ITEM NUMBER 106, DESCRIBED AS HAIR FROM THE VICTIM’S BODY?
A: YES.
Q: WAS THAT A SINGLE HAIR?
A: YES.
Q: DID YOU COMPARE THOSE EVIDENCE HAIRS IN ITEMS NUMBER 103 AND 106 TO KNOWN HAIRS TAKEN FROM DANIELLE VAN DAM?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: DO YOU RECALL THE ITEM NUMBER OF THOSE KNOWN HAIRS?
A: THERE WERE TWO ITEM NUMBERS THAT WERE KNOWN HAIRS FROM THE VICTIM. ONE WAS ITEM NUMBER 1 OF 2, AND THAT WAS A PULLED HEAD HAIR STANDARD TAKEN FROM THE VICTIM.
THERE WAS ANOTHER ITEM NUMBER 108, AND THAT WAS ALL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE VICTIM’S HAIR THAT HAD BEEN CUT OFF BY THE MEDICAL EXAMINER.
Q: SO THESE WERE KNOWN HAIRS BOTH IN ITEMS NUMBER 102 AND 108 THAT WERE OBTAINED AT LEAST AT OR ABOUT THE TIME OF HER AUTOPSY?
A: YES. THERE WAS A THIRD HAIR STANDARD THAT WE WERE USING, AND THAT WAS A SECONDARY STANDARD FROM A HAIRBRUSH. AND I BELIEVE THAT WAS ITEM NUMBER 63. AND WHAT I DID IS I EXAMINED THE HAIRBRUSH STANDARD THAT I HAD BEEN USING, COMPARED IT TO THE KNOWN STANDARDS AND SAW THAT THEY WERE SIMILAR. AND THE HAIRBRUSH STANDARD WAS USED IN SOME OF MY COMPARISONS.
Q: SO YOU HAD BASICALLY THREE DIFFERENT SOURCES OF KNOWN STANDARDS?
A: YES.
Q: AS A RESULT OF YOUR COMPARISON, AND LET’S START WITH ITEM NUMBER 103, THE HAIR FROM THE VICTIM’S RIGHT HAND, WHAT CONCLUSIONS DID YOU REACH AFTER COMPARING THOSE HAIRS TO KNOWN HAIRS FROM DANIELLE VAN DAM?
A: THE HAIRS THAT WERE FOUND TANGLED IN THE VICTIM’S RIGHT HAND WERE CONSISTENT WITH THE HAIRS TAKEN FROM THE VICTIM.
Q: IN YOUR EXPERIENCE IS IT UNUSUAL TO FIND A VICTIM’S OWN HAIRS IN HER HAND OR HANDS AFTER SHE’S BEEN KILLED?
A: NO. THAT’S FAIRLY COMMON.
Q: OR ON THE VICTIM’S BODY ITSELF.
A: IT IS COMMON TO FIND THE VICTIM’S HAIR ON THE VICTIM’S BODY.
Q: WHAT ABOUT THE COMPARISON OF THE VICTIM’S KNOWN HAIRS TO ITEM NUMBER 106, THE HAIR FROM HER BODY?
A: I DID A COMPARISON THERE AS WELL, AND THAT HAIR FOUND ON THE VICTIM’S BODY DESIGNATED 106 WAS ALSO SIMILAR TO THE VICTIM’S HAIR STANDARD.
Q: NOW, DID YOU IN THE COURSE OF YOUR WORK IN THIS CASE ALSO EXAMINE VARIOUS ITEMS FOR THE PRESENCE OF HAIRS AND FIBERS?
A: YES.
Q: WHY DO YOU EXAMINE ITEMS FOR THE PRESENCE OF HAIRS OR FIBERS, TALKING GENERALLY NOW?
A: WELL, GENERALLY IN TRACE EVIDENCE SECTION WHAT WE’RE LOOKING FOR IS SOME — SOMETHING TO SHOW THAT TWO PEOPLE OR A PERSON AND AN OBJECT OR A PERSON AND A PLACE HAD SOME KIND OF CONTACT. AND THAT CONTACT CAN BE MANIFESTED IN ALL SORTS OF WAYS. WE CAN LOOK FOR A TRANSFER OF HAIRS, THE TRANSFER OF FIBERS, TRANSFER OF ANIMAL HAIRS. AND IF ONE PERSON IS COVERED IN SAWDUST, YOU COULD LOOK FOR THAT TRANSFER ONTO ANOTHER PERSON. SO WE’RE ACTUALLY LOOKING FOR ANYTHING THAT MIGHT SHOW THAT TWO PEOPLE CAME IN CONTACT WITH EACH OTHER.
Q: AS PART OF YOUR EXAMINATION IN THIS CASE DID YOU USE AN OVER-ALL APPROACH TO LOOKING FOR THE PRESENCE OF FIBERS IN PARTICULAR?
A: YES.
MR. FELDMAN: VAGUE. OVER-ALL APPROACH.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE ANSWER WAS YES.
BY MR. CLARKE:
Q: WHAT WAS THAT?
A: WHEN I STARTED EXAMINING THE EVIDENCE TAKEN FROM THE SCENE WHERE THE VICTIM WAS FOUND AND FROM THE VICTIM HERSELF, I HAD TO START WITH SOME SORT OF FOCUS. SO WHAT I LOOKED FOR IN PARTICULAR WERE HAIRS THAT WERE FOREIGN TO THE VICTIM AND HER ENVIRONMENT OR HAIRS THAT WERE OR FIBERS THAT WERE — LOOKED LIKE THEY WERE FOREIGN TO HER. SO I WAS LOOKING IN PARTICULAR AS FAR AS FIBERS ARE CONCERNED, I WAS LOOKING FOR IN PARTICULAR FOR CARPET-TYPE FIBERS, CARPET-TYPE FIBERS THAT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THOSE FOUND IN THE MOTOR HOME OF THE DEFENDANT OR THOSE FOUND IN HIS HOME.
SO I STARTED OFF WITH THIS NARROW FOCUS OF LOOKING FOR FOREIGN HAIRS AND CARPET FIBERS THAT WERE CONSISTENT WITH THE DEFENDANT’S ENVIRONMENT.
Q: DID YOU LOOK AT AND I BELIEVE YOU SAID THAT YOU STARTED WITH THE VICTIM’S BODY AND THE AREA AROUND THE BODY. IS THAT CORRECT?
A: YES. I STARTED WITH THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS COLLECTED FROM THE SCENE. AND THEN I WORKED MY WAY THROUGH TO THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS COLLECTED OFF THE BODY AT THE ACTUAL AUTOPSY.
Q: OKAY.
WHAT WERE THE VARIOUS ITEMS THAT YOU LOOKED AT IN TERMS OF THE AREA AROUND THE BODY, ITEMS TAKEN FROM THE AUTOPSY AND SO FORTH?
A: I BELIEVE I STARTED WITH SOME OF THE TAPE LIFTS THAT WERE TAKEN OF THE — FROM THE BODY WHILE THE BODY WAS STILL AT THE SCENE BEFORE THE BODY HAD BEEN REMOVED. SO I STARTED WITH THE TAPE LIFTS, AND THEN I MOVED TO SOME VEGETATION THAT HAD BEEN COLLECTED FROM AROUND THE BODY THAT THE FORENSIC SPECIALIST HAD NOTED THERE MAY BE SOME FIBROUS MATERIAL ON.
SO AFTER I EXAMINED THOSE, I THEN LOOKED AT A LARGE COLLECTION OF VEGETATION AND LEAVES AND SOIL THAT WAS TAKEN FROM UNDERNEATH THE BODY. AND I EXAMINED THAT.
AFTER THAT I MOVED TO THINGS TAKEN FROM THE BODY AT THE AUTOPSY. I BELIEVE THE NEXT THINGS I LOOKED AT WERE THE ACTUAL HAIR FROM THE VICTIM. I LOOKED AT THE HAIR FROM THE VICTIM’S HANDS. I LOOKED AT THE HAIR FROM THE VICTIM’S BODY. AND THEN I LOOKED AT THE PULLED-HAIR STANDARD, AND THEN I LOOKED AT THE CUT-HAIR STANDARD. I WENT THROUGH THE ENTIRE HEAD OF HAIR LOOKING FOR TRACE EVIDENCE.
AFTER I FINISHED THAT, I WENT IN, I LOOKED AT THE VICTIM’S JEWELRY. I LOOKED AT HER EARRINGS AND I LOOKED AT HER NECKLACE. AND I THINK I FINISHED UP AT THAT POINT WITH THE BAGS THAT WERE TAKEN, THE BAGS THAT HAD BEEN PUT ON THE VICTIM’S BODY FOR TRANSPORT. THERE WERE BAGS PUT ON THE VICTIM’S HANDS AND HER FEET AND HER HEAD. AND THE VICTIM HAD BEEN WRAPPED IN A WHITE SHEET, SO I EXAMINED ALL OF THOSE THINGS LOOKING FOR TRACE EVIDENCE AS WELL.
Q: WITH WHAT KIND OF RESULTS?

A: WELL, IT’S KIND OF AN INTERESTING PROCESS BECAUSE YOU START OFF WITH A VERY FOCUSED APPROACH, AND AS YOU LOOK AT THING AFTER THING AFTER THING, YOU START TO NOTICE CERTAIN TYPES OF FIBERS THAT REALLY STAND OUT, EITHER THEIR COLOR IS VERY UNUSUAL OR THEIR QUANTITY IS VERY UNUSUAL. YOU SEE THE SAME FIBER OVER AND OVER AGAIN. SO AS I WENT THROUGH ALL OF THESE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE, I WAS LOOKING FOR FOREIGN HAIR.
AND THEN I STARTED TO NOTICE CERTAIN TYPES OF FIBERS THAT I KEPT SEEING FREQUENTLY. SO BY THE TIME I FINISHED, I HAD SORT OF A COMPOSITE OF FIBER EVIDENCE THAT I HAD FOUND AND HAD LOOKED AT AND CHARACTERIZED, SOME OF WHICH WAS UNUSUAL IN COLOR AND SOME OF WHICH WAS UNUSUAL IN THE NUMBERS OF THEM THAT I FOUND.
Q: DO YOU REPORT OR TALLY THESE VARIOUS TYPES OF FIBERS, LET’S TALK ABOUT FIBERS RIGHT NOW, THAT YOU SEE AS YOU GO THROUGH THE EXAMINATION OF THESE VARIOUS ITEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE BODY AND WHERE IT WAS LOCATED?
A: WELL, AT THE END OF MY ANALYSIS I DID TALLY UP WHAT I HAD FOUND. IT’S SORT OF A WORK IN PROGRESS. SINCE I DON’T REALLY KNOW WHAT IT IS I’M LOOKING FOR WHEN I START, AS I GO THROUGH AND THINGS BECOME FAMILIAR TO ME, I SEE THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN, OR A LOT OF SOMETHING, I WILL BEGIN TO TAKE NOTE OF IT. BUT I CERTAINLY — I DIDN’T HAVE THE TIME NECESSARILY TO CHARACTERIZE EACH AND EVERY FIBER I FOUND. SO I TRIED TO CONCENTRATE ONLY ON THOSE FIBERS THAT WERE UNUSUAL EITHER IN THEIR COLOR, SIZE, OR BY THEIR NUMBERS.
Q: DOES THIS PROCESS TAKE A LOT OF TIME TO LOOK AT INDIVIDUAL FIBERS?
A: IT DOES TAKE A LOT OF TIME TO LOOK AT THE INDIVIDUAL FIBERS, AND IT CERTAINLY TAKES A LOT OF TIME TO LOOK AT ALL OF THOSE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE FOR THOSE FIBERS.
Q: DO YOUR EYES GET TIRED?
A: YES.
MR. FELDMAN: RELEVANCE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE ANSWER WILL STAND.
BY MR. CLARKE:
Q: WHAT’S THE NEXT STEP IN THIS PROCESS?
A: THE NEXT STEP IN THE PROCESS FOR ME WAS THEN, NOW THAT I HAD AN IDEA OF WHAT TYPE OF FIBERS, I HAVE A COMPOSITE OF FIBERS FROM THE VICTIM AND THE SCENE WHERE SHE WAS FOUND, WAS THEN TO LOOK TO SEE IF ANY OF THOSE FIBERS WERE CONSISTENT WITH THE FIBER COMPOSITE THAT I MIGHT DEVELOP FROM THE DEFENDANT’S ENVIRONMENT. SO AT THAT POINT I STARTED TO LOOK AT TAPE LIFTS THAT WERE REMOVED FROM ITEMS THAT WERE REMOVED FROM THE DEFENDANT’S HOUSE.
Q: WHAT TYPE OF ITEMS DID YOU LOOK AT?
A: I DIDN’T GET VERY FAR, BUT I DID LOOK AT FOUR DIFFERENT ITEMS. I STARTED WITH ITEM NUMBER 5. AND ITEM NUMBER 5 WAS LAUNDRY THAT WAS REMOVED FROM THE DEFENDANT’S DRYER — EXCUSE ME — THE DEFENDANT’S WASHER. AND SO ANOTHER ANALYST HAD ALREADY LOOKED AT THOSE ITEMS AND HAD TAPE-LIFTED THEM. SO WHAT I DID IS I EXAMINED THE TAPE LIFTS, KEEPING IN MIND THE FIBERS THAT I HAD JUST FOUND FROM THE VICTIM AND HER ENVIRONMENT. SO I WOULD EXAMINE THOSE PARTICULAR TAPE LIFTS FOR THOSE PARTICULAR FIBERS.
SO I LOOKED AT ITEM NUMBER 5, WHICH IS THE LAUNDRY FROM THE WASHER. I LOOKED AT ITEM NUMBER 6, WHICH WAS I BELIEVE FOLDED LAUNDRY FROM ON TOP OF THE DRYER. I LOOKED AT ITEM NUMBER 7, WHICH WAS LAUNDRY THAT WAS FROM INSIDE OF THE DRYER. AND THEN I JUST STARTED TO LOOK AT ITEM NUMBER 9 WHICH WAS BEDDING FROM THE DEFENDANT’S BEDROOM. I JUST GOT THROUGH ONE ITEM ON THE BEDDING, AND THEN I HAD TO STOP.
Q: WITH REGARD TO THESE ITEMS, I THINK YOU’VE DESCRIBED ITEMS FROM THE LAUNDRY ROOM AND SOME OF THE MATERIAL FROM THE DEFENDANT’S BEDDING IN HIS HOUSE. DID YOU NOTE ANY FIBERS THAT APPEARED TO BE SIGNIFICANT TO YOU?
A: YES. IT WAS KIND OF INTERESTING. THE FIRST THING I NOTICED AS I STARTED LOOKING AT THESE TAPE LIFTS WAS THESE LONG, BRIGHT ORANGE FIBERS. AND THESE FIBERS WERE FOUND PRETTY MUCH THROUGHOUT ALL OF THE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE COLLECTED FROM 5, 6, AND 7, AND CERTAINLY WERE ALSO ON THE FIRST ITEM THAT I LOOKED AT FROM ITEM 9. SO THEY’RE VERY LONG, VERY BRIGHT ORANGE FIBERS. SO THEY DEFINITELY CAUGHT MY ATTENTION RIGHT AWAY.

Q: WERE THOSE SIGNIFICANT TO YOU FOR ANY REASON?
A: YES. THEY WERE SIGNIFICANT TO ME.
Q: WHY?
A: THEY WERE SIGNIFICANT TO ME BECAUSE I HAD SEEN A BRIGHT ORANGE FIBER SOMEWHERE ELSE, AND THAT TRIGGERED MY MEMORY.
Q: WHERE WAS THAT?
A: WHEN I WAS EXAMINING THE VICTIM’S THINGS TAKEN FROM THE VICTIM, I EXAMINED IN PARTICULAR HER NECKLACE THAT WAS REMOVED FROM HER NECK BY THE MEDICAL EXAMINER. AS I EXAMINED THAT, I NOTED WHEN I EXAMINED IT THAT IN THE NECKLACE, TANGLED IN HAIR THAT WAS TANGLED AROUND THE NECKLACE, WAS A LONG ORANGE FIBER.
Q: DID THAT FIBER AT LEAST FROM YOUR INITIAL EXAMINATION OF THESE VARIOUS ITEMS APPEAR TO BE CONSISTENT OR INCONSISTENT WITH THE ORANGE FIBERS YOU FOUND IN THE DEFENDANT’S HOUSE?
A: WHEN I FIRST — I DID EXAMINE THE FIBER AT THE TIME I EXAMINED THE NECKLACE, SO I DID A CHARACTERIZATION OF THE FIBER AT THAT TIME. SO I KNEW WHAT TYPE OF FIBER IT WAS. AND I CERTAINLY WAS FAMILIAR WITH ITS CHARACTERISTICS. SO WHEN I SAW THE ORANGE FIBERS ON THE TAPE LIFTS TAKEN FROM THE FIRST ITEM THAT I LOOKED AT, I KNEW THAT THOSE FIBERS WERE SIMILAR AND SHOULD BE COMPARED. THEY HAD THE SIMILAR CHARACTERISTICS FROM MY MEMORY OF WHAT I HAD SEEN FROM THE FIBER THAT WAS TAKEN FROM THE NECKLACE.
Q: ALL RIGHT. WE’LL RETURN TO THAT COMPARISON. BUT I WANT TO GO BACK TO AGAIN YOUR EXAMINATION OF THE ITEMS IN THE LAUNDRY ROOM AND THE INITIAL EXAMINATION OF THE BEDDING MATERIAL AND ASK WERE THERE ANY OTHER FIBERS THAT APPEARED SIGNIFICANT TO YOU.
A: YES. THERE WAS ONE OTHER TYPE OF FIBER THAT I NOTED ON THE TAPE LIFTS TAKEN FROM THE LAUNDRY. AND THESE WERE SHORT, STRAIGHT, WITH A SLIGHT CURVE, BLUE/GRAY FIBERS. AND THEY HAVE KIND OF A CHARACTERISTIC SHAPE TO THEM. SO WHEN I SAW THEM, EVEN THOUGH THE TAPE LIFTS WERE COVERED WITH HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF FIBERS, WHEN I SAW THEM, THEY STOOD OUT TO ME AS SOMETHING I HAD SEEN BEFORE. SO I DID MAKE NOTE OF THOSE AS WELL.
Q: WHEN YOU’RE GOING THROUGH THE LAUNDRY ITEMS AND THE BEDDING THAT YOU WERE ABLE TO GO THROUGH AND YOU NOTE THESE EITHER ORANGE OR BLUE FIBERS, WHAT STEPS DO YOU TAKE TO PRESERVE THEM SO THAT YOU CAN CONDUCT A MORE FORMAL COMPARISON LATER?
A: WHEN I COLLECTED, WHEN I FOUND THE FIBERS ON THESE TAPE LIFTS, WHAT I WOULD DO IS COLLECT, COLLECT SOME OF THEM. IN THE CASE OF THE ORANGE FIBERS, I FOUND SO MANY OF THEM THAT I COLLECTED JUST A FEW OF THEM, AND I REMOVED THEM FROM THE TAPE LIFT AND PLACED THEM ON A MICROSCOPE SLIDE AND PUT A COVER SLIP OVER THEM AND TAPED DOWN THE EDGES SO THAT THE FIBERS WERE PRESERVED FOR EXAMINATION AT A LATER TIME.
Q: DOES THAT ALLOW YOU TO LOOK AT THEM LATER UNDER THE MICROSCOPE OR USING OTHER METHODS TO MAKE AGAIN A MORE FORMAL COMPARISON?
A: YES. IN THE CASE OF THE BLUE FIBERS, THERE WERE NOT AS MANY OF THEM, SO I COLLECTED ALL OF THEM AND MOUNTED THEM ON SLIDES.
Q: DID YOU THEN, AFTER THIS EXAMINATION OF THESE MATERIALS FROM MR. WESTERFIELD’S RESIDENCE, THEN BEGIN THE FORMAL COMPARISON PROCESS WITH BOTH THE ORANGE FIBERS AND THE BLUE FIBERS?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT WHAT METHODS YOU USED TO MAKE THAT COMPARISON?
A: YES, I CAN. THE FIRST THING THAT I WILL DO IN THIS TYPE OF COMPARISON, AND THIS REALLY HOLDS TRUE FOR ALL DIFFERENT TYPES OF TRACE EVIDENCE, IS TO LOOK AT THE GROSS OR THE LARGE OR THE MACROSCOPIC CHARACTERISTICS. AND IN THIS CASE I’M TALKING ABOUT THINGS LIKE COLOR AND LENGTH AND CONTOUR OR SHAPE, LOOKING FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF DAMAGE THAT YOU MAY OR MAY NOT SEE ON A FIBER. AND I CHARACTERIZE THOSE BIG THINGS THAT I CAN SEE, AND I DO THAT, I CAN DO THAT WITH MY UNAIDED EYE OR I CAN USE WHAT’S CALLED A STEREOSCOPE. AND I THINK I TOLD YOU ABOUT THAT BEFORE. AND THAT’S JUST A LOW-POWERED MICROSCOPE. YOU CAN PUT THE FIBER UNDER THERE AND MAGNIFY UP TO ABOUT SIXTY TIMES AND SEE ALL THOSE OUTSIDE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FIBER.
AFTER YOU CHARACTERIZE THE MACROSCOPIC CHARACTERISTICS, THEN YOU GO TO THE MICROSCOPIC CHARACTERISTICS. AND IN THIS COMPOUND MICROSCOPE, THIS TYPE OF MICROSCOPE LETS US MAGNIFY THIS ITEM UP TO A THOUSAND TIMES, AND WE PUT IT IN A CERTAIN TYPE OF MOUNTING MEDIA. IT’S KIND OF LIKE A GLUE THAT ALLOWS US TO SEE THE INSIDE DETAILS OF THE FIBER. SO NOW WE CAN LOOK AT ALL THE OUTSIDE DETAILS AND ALL THE INSIDE DETAILS. AND WE CHARACTERIZE ALL OF THOSE.
AND THIS PARTICULAR TYPE OF MICROSCOPE USES LIGHTING TECHNIQUES THAT ALLOW US TO DETERMINE WHAT CLASS OF FIBER IT IS. IS IT A NYLON OR A POLYESTER OR ACRYLIC. SO WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DETERMINE WHAT TYPE, GENERALLY WHAT TYPE OF FIBER THAT IT IS. AFTER THAT TYPE OF ANALYSIS, THE NEXT TYPE OF ANALYSIS WE DO ALSO USES A MICROSCOPE. AND THIS IS GOING TO BE A CHEMICAL ANALYSIS. WE USE A MICROSCOPE TO FOCUS ONTO THE FIBER. AND THEN WE PASS INFRARED LIGHT THROUGH THE FIBER. AND WHEN WE DO THAT, BASED UPON EXACTLY WHAT TYPE OF FIBER THIS IS, NOT GENERALLY, BUT EXACTLY, IT WILL ABSORB CERTAIN WAVE LENGTHS OF LIGHT. AND IT WILL GIVE US BASICALLY A CHEMICAL FINGERPRINT AND TELL US WHAT TYPE OF FIBER EXACTLY THAT WE HAVE. SO IF WE ALREADY KNEW IT WAS A NYLON FIBER, BY DOING THE MICROSCOPY, NOW WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT TYPE OF NYLON FIBER IT IS.
SO ONCE WE’VE DONE ALL THOSE ANALYSES, WE THEN COMPARE OUR KNOWN AND UNKNOWN TO SEE IF THEY ARE SIMILAR IN ALL OF THOSE WAYS.
Q: IS THERE AN ADDITIONAL TEST —
THE COURT: BREAK TIME?
JUROR NUMBER 13: YES.
THE COURT: OKAY.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE’VE GOT A HAND.
PLEASE REMEMBER THE ADMONITION OF THE COURT NOT TO DISCUSS ANY OF THE EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY AMONG YOURSELVES OR WITH OTHERS NOR FORM OR EXPRESS ANY OPINIONS ON THE MATTER UNTIL IT’S SUBMITTED TO YOU.
LET’S BE OUTSIDE THE DOOR AT FIVE MINUTES TO 10:00, PLEASE. 9:55.
(RECESS, 9:40 O’CLOCK, A.M., TO 10:05 O’CLOCK, A.M.)
THE COURT: OKAY. JUROR 13, HOW YOU DOING?
JUROR NUMBER 13: OKAY. THANK YOU.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ARE WE OKAY TO GO?
JUROR NUMBER 13: YES.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. CLARKE.
MR. CLARKE: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
BY MR. CLARKE:
Q: MISS SHEN, I THINK WE HAD LEFT OFF AND YOU HAD DESCRIBED THE INFRARED OR CHEMICAL PROCESS. IS THAT CORRECT?
A: YES.
Q: DO YOU RECALL IF YOU HAD COMPLETED THAT DESCRIPTION?
A: I THINK I HAD.
Q: IS THERE ALSO, FIRST OF ALL, AN INSTRUMENT CALLED A MICROSPECTROPHOTOMETER?
A: YES.
Q: DOES THE SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT HAVE ONE OF THOSE INSTRUMENTS?
A: NO.
Q: ARE THEY EXPENSIVE?
A: YES.
Q: WERE YOU ABLE TO USE THAT MICROSPECTROPHOTOMETER IN THIS CASE WITH REGARD TO ANY OF THESE FIBERS?
A: YES, I WAS.
Q: CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THAT, PLEASE?
A: I WAS ABLE TO MAKE USE OF FAYE SPRINGER, A CRIMINALIST AT THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY CRIME LABORATORY, AND THEY HAVE A MICROSPECTROPHOTOMETER. AND I TRANSPORTED THE FIBERS, THE ORANGE FIBERS, THE ONE COLLECTED FROM THE NECKLACE AND SEVERAL COLLECTED FROM ITEM NUMBER 5, THE LAUNDRY OUT OF THE WASHING MACHINE, TO SACRAMENTO AND USED THE MICROSPECTROPHOTOMETER IN SACRAMENTO.
Q: HOW DID THAT WORK IN TERMS OF YOUR ABILITY TO USE IT IN SACRAMENTO?
A: I WAS INSTRUCTED BY FAYE SPRINGER AND TOGETHER WE ANALYZED THE FIBERS.
Q: WHAT DOES THIS MICROSPECTROPHOTOMETER DO?
A: IT’S ACTUALLY VERY MUCH LIKE THE INFRARED SPECTROPHOTOMETER. WE’RE JUST USING A DIFFERENT RANGE OF LIGHT. AND IT’S A WAY TO QUANTITATE THE ABSORBANCE OF A COLOR THAT A FIBER HAS. SO THERE COULD BE SEVERAL DIFFERENT TYPES OF ORANGE FIBER DYE, BUT THEY WILL ABSORB LIGHT DIFFERENTLY BASED UPON THEIR DIFFERENT COMPONENTS. SO YOU WOULD EXPECT TWO FIBERS THAT WERE DYED THE SAME WAY TO ABSORB THE SAME WAVE LENGTHS OF LIGHT AND TWO FIBERS THAT ARE DYED IN A DIFFERENT WAY TO ABSORB DIFFERENT WAVE LENGTHS OF LIGHT. SO BY RUNNING THE FIBERS THROUGH THIS PARTICULAR INSTRUMENT, WE WERE ABLE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE FIBER FROM THE NECKLACE ABSORBED LIGHT IN THE SAME WAY AS THE FIBERS TAKEN FROM THE LAUNDRY.
Q: JUST SO WE’RE CLEAR, YOU USED BOTH A MACROSCOPIC AND A MICROSCOPIC COMPARISON ON THESE ORANGE FIBERS FOUND IN THE DEFENDANT’S HOME AND IN THE NECKLACE OF DANIELLE VAN DAM, CORRECT?
A: YES.
Q: YOU ALSO PERFORMED THE INFRARED CHEMICAL TEST ON THOSE FIBERS AS WELL, CORRECT?
A: CORRECT.
Q: AND ON AT LEAST THE FIBER FROM THE NECKLACE AND ORANGE FIBERS TAKEN FROM THE LAUNDRY AT WASHER YOU ALSO USED THE MICROSPECTROPHOTOMETER DEVICE, IS THAT CORRECT?
A: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q: WITH WHAT RESULTS?
A: IN EVERY WAY THAT I COULD MEASURE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FIBER TAKEN FROM THE NECKLACE AND EVERY CHARACTERISTIC I COULD LOOK AT, THEY WERE SIMILAR TO THE FIBERS THAT WERE FOUND IN THE LAUNDRY BOTH IN ITEM NUMBER 5, 6, 7, AND 9.
Q: WHAT CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE FIBER FOUND IN DANIELLE’S NECKLACE COULD OR COULDN’T HAVE COME FROM THE SAME SOURCE AS THE FIBERS FOUND IN ITEMS 5, 6, 7 IN THE LAUNDRY ROOM AND THE BEDDING, NUMBER 9?
A: I CAN TELL YOU THAT BASED UPON THE TESTS CONDUCTED THAT THE FIBER TAKEN FROM THE VICTIM’S NECKLACE COULD SHARE A COMMON SOURCE WITH THE FIBERS TAKEN FROM THE LAUNDRY AND THE BEDDING.
MR. CLARKE: YOUR HONOR, I’VE HAD MARKED AS AN EXHIBIT PREVIOUSLY NUMBER 134, WHICH CAN BE DESCRIBED AS A PHOTOBOARD WITH TWO PHOTOS LABELED IN THE UPPER RIGHT-HAND CORNER ITEM NUMBER 120. DID I SAY UPPER LEFT-HAND CORNER IS WHAT I MEAN ITEM 120, IN THE UPPER RIGHT-HAND CORNER ITEM NUMBER 5A.
MR. FELDMAN: THE NUMBER, PLEASE? 134? THANK YOU.
(PHOTOBOARD CONTAINING TWO PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED
TRIAL EXHIBIT NUMBER 134 FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
BY MR. CLARKE:
Q: MISS SHEN, I’M GOING TO SHOW YOU A BOARD THAT I HAVE JUST DESCRIBED AS ITEM NUMBER 134 THAT CONTAINS TWO PHOTOGRAPHS LABELED A AND B. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS?
A: YES, I AM.
Q: HOW IS THAT?
A: I TOOK THEM.
Q: OKAY.
COULD YOU DESCRIBE FOR US WHAT’S SHOWN IN THESE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS A AND B ON EXHIBIT 134.
A: YES, I CAN. THIS IS A PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN ON A COMPARISON MICROSCOPE. AND A COMPARISON MICROSCOPE IS SIMPLY TWO COMPOUND MICROSCOPES STUCK TOGETHER WITH ONE LIGHT BRIDGE SO YOU CAN ACTUALLY LOOK THROUGH ONE EYEPIECE AND YOU CAN SEE THE FIELD OF TWO SEPARATE MICROSCOPES AT THE SAME TIME. SO WHAT WE CAN DO IS PUT AN UNKNOWN FIBER ON ONE MICROSCOPE AND THE KNOWN FIBER ON THE OTHER MICROSCOPE, LOOK THROUGH THE ONE EYEPIECE AND SEE THEM BOTH AT THE SAME TIME, LINE THEM RIGHT UP TO EACH OTHER AND LOOK AT ALL THOSE VISUAL AND OPTICAL CHARACTERISTICS SIDE BY SIDE TO MAKE SURE THAT IN FACT THEY ARE THE SAME. AND THIS IS MUCH MORE EFFICIENT THAN PUTTING ONE FIBER ON A MICROSCOPE THEN TAKING IT OFF AND PUTTING THE NEXT ONE ON BECAUSE YOU CAN’T SEE THEM RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER. SO THESE ARE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN ON A COMPARISON MICROSCOPE.
Q: I THINK THERE’S A POINTER. IF THERE ISN’T, I CAN SEE ONE IN FRONT OF THE WITNESS STAND. IF YOU WOULD GO AHEAD AND TELL US WHAT’S SHOWN IN THESE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS ON EXHIBIT 134 IN TERMS OF THE COMPARISON THAT YOU CONDUCTED.
A: PHOTOGRAPH A IS A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE FIBER TAKEN FROM THE NECKLACE AND THE FIBER TAKEN FROM ITEM 5A, WHICH IS ONE OF THE ITEMS OUT OF THE LAUNDRY FROM THE WASHING MACHINE. AND THIS IS TAKEN AT A 100-TIME MAGNIFICATION.
Q: IS THAT WHAT THE 100X MEANS AT THE BOTTOM OR UNDERNEATH PHOTOGRAPH A?
A: YES.
Q: ALL RIGHT. GO AHEAD.
A: A PHOTOGRAPH DESIGNATED B IS THE SAME TWO FIBERS, ALTHOUGH THIS TIME IT’S TAKEN AT 400 TIMES MAGNIFICATION. AND THEY ARE LINED UP RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER SO THAT YOU CAN SEE THAT THE WIDTH AND THE COLOR AND THE CONTOUR AND THE SHAPE OF THE FIBER ARE ALL SIMILAR.
Q: ALL RIGHT.
IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE DEPICTED HERE IN THESE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS AS FAR AS YOUR COMPARISON AND THE CONCLUSIONS YOU WERE ABLE TO REACH?
A: (PAUSE.)
Q: THAT ISN’T WELL WORDED. LET ME TRY THAT AGAIN.
THE COMPARISON THAT YOU MADE WITH THE ORANGE FIBER TAKEN FROM THE NECKLACE AND THE FIBERS FOUND IN USING THIS EXHIBIT 134, YOU’RE SPECIFICALLY COMPARING THEM TO ONE OF THE FIBERS COLLECTED FROM INSIDE MR. WESTERFIELD’S WASHER, CORRECT?
A: CORRECT.
Q: ALL RIGHT.
TELL US HOW YOU ACTUALLY MADE THAT COMPARISON AND WHAT THESE PHOTOS SHOW THAT LED YOU TO YOUR CONCLUSIONS.
A: WELL, I MADE THE COMPARISON BY MOUNTING THE FIBERS, THE UNKNOWN ON ONE MICROSCOPE AND THE KNOWN ON THE OTHER, LINING THEM UP AND LOOKING AT THEM VISUALLY AT SEVERAL DIFFERENT MAGNIFICATIONS TO SEE IF THEY EXHIBITED THE SAME CHARACTERISTICS AT THOSE MAGNIFICATIONS AND WHEN THEY WERE ACTUALLY LINED UP NEXT TO EACH OTHER. AND AFTER DOING THAT AND PHOTOGRAPHING IT, I WAS ABLE TO DETERMINE THAT, YES, INDEED, THEY ARE SIMILAR MICROSCOPICALLY. THEY DO HAVE THE SAME MICROSCOPIC CHARACTERISTICS.
Q: AND WHAT ARE THOSE CHARACTERISTICS THAT WE CAN SEE ON EXHIBIT 134?
A: WELL, VERY OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN SEE THAT THE COLOR IS ORANGE AND THAT THE COLOR IS SIMILAR. ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT THIS SHOWS IS THAT THE DIAMETER OR THE WIDTH OF THE FIBER IS SIMILAR. YOU CAN ALSO SEE THAT THE CROSS-SECTION OF THE FIBER IS BI-LOBED. THERE’S TWO PARTS TO IT NEXT TO EACH OTHER AND HAS A KIND OF SLIT DOWN THE MIDDLE. SO YOU CAN SEE THAT. THAT IS VISIBLE ON THE KNOWN AND THE UNKNOWN FIBER.
Q: COULD YOU SHOW THAT FOR US, PLEASE.
A: (THE WITNESS COMPLIED.)
THAT SPLIT IS RIGHT ALONG HERE.
MR. CLARKE: AND FOR THE RECORD, YOUR HONOR, THE WITNESS IS POINTING TO AN AREA UNDER PHOTOGRAPH B STARTING IN THE LOWER LEFT-HAND PORTION OF THE LEFT-HAND SIDE TO THE UPPER RIGHT-HAND SIDE WHAT APPEARS TO BE A LIGHTER-COLORED AREA IN BETWEEN THE TWO ORANGE SECTIONS.
BY MR. CLARKE:
Q: IS THAT AN ACCURATE DESCRIPTION, MISS SHEN?
A: YES.
Q: ALL RIGHT. GO AHEAD.
A: AND IN ACTUALITY WHEN WE DO THIS COMPARISON, I WILL BE LOOKING AT THE WHOLE LENGTH OF THE FIBER AND COMPARING THAT TO THE SEVERAL FIBERS THAT WERE COLLECTED FROM THE LAUNDRY. SO THIS IS JUST A SNAPSHOT OF ONE PORTION OF THOSE TWO FIBERS TO SHOW THAT THEY ARE IN FACT SIMILAR. BUT THERE ARE CHARACTERISTICS ALL ALONG THE LENGTH OF THE FIBER THAT WE LOOK AT AND COMPARE TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE SIMILAR.
Q: ARE THERE ANY OTHER CHARACTERISTICS THAT WERE SIMILAR BETWEEN THE FIBERS, AGAIN FROM THE NECKLACE AND FROM THE LAUNDRY, THAT ARE SHOWN ON THIS EXHIBIT 134?
A: NOT PARTICULARLY.
MR. CLARKE: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE HAD AN ADDITIONAL EXHIBIT MARKED AS EXHIBIT 135, A PHOTOBOARD CONTAINING FOUR PHOTOGRAPHS, LABELED AT THE TOP ORANGE FIBER COMPARISON.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
(PHOTOBOARD CONTAINING FOUR PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED
TRIAL EXHIBIT NUMBER 135 FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
BY MR. CLARKE:
Q: MISS SHEN, IF I CAN NOW SHOW YOU EXHIBIT 135 WITH PHOTOGRAPHS A THROUGH D. CAN YOU DESCRIBE, FIRST OF ALL, OVER ALL WHAT’S SHOWN ON THIS PARTICULAR EXHIBIT.
A: THESE ARE ADDITIONAL COMPARISONS THAT I DID. AFTER DOING A FULL COMPARISON BETWEEN THE FIBER THAT WAS COLLECTED FROM THE NECKLACE WHICH IS ITEM NUMBER 120 AND THE FIBERS COLLECTED FROM 5A, WHICH IS ONE PIECE OF THE LAUNDRY FROM THE WASHING MACHINE, I THEN WENT TO THE OTHER ITEMS OF EVIDENCE THAT I HAD LOOKED AT. I TOOK A — MORE FIBERS FROM 5, I TOOK IT THIS TIME FROM 5B, I TOOK SOME FIBERS FROM ITEM 6, FROM ITEM 7, AND FROM ITEM 9, AND I COMPLETED THE SAME TYPE OF ANALYSIS ON THOSE FIBERS. AND HERE IS JUST, AGAIN, A SNAPSHOT OF SOME OF THOSE FIBERS TO SHOW THAT THE MICROSCOPIC AND MACROSCOPIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ORANGE FIBERS FROM THE OTHER ITEMS OF EVIDENCE WERE ALSO SIMILAR TO THE FIBER THAT WAS TAKEN FROM ITEM 120.
Q: ALL RIGHT.
LET’S START WITH PHOTOGRAPH A ON EXHIBIT 135. AND IF THE POINTER WILL HELP, PLEASE USE THAT.
TELL US WHAT’S SHOWN IN THAT PARTICULAR PHOTOGRAPH AND WHAT’S SIGNIFICANT IN TERMS OF THE CONCLUSIONS YOU WERE ABLE TO ULTIMATELY REACH.
A: IN ITEM OR IN THE PHOTOGRAPH DESIGNATED A, IT IS A COMPARISON PHOTOGRAPH OF THE — A PORTION OF THE FIBER TAKEN FROM THE NECKLACE. AND THAT IS COMPARED TO A FIBER TAKEN FROM ITEM B, WHICH IS AN ADDITIONAL PIECE OF LAUNDRY FROM THE WASHING MACHINE. AND HERE AGAIN IT WILL SHOW SOME OF THE SAME CHARACTERISTICS, THE WIDTH IS ABOUT THE SAME, THE COLOR IS THE SAME, THE GROOVING RUNNING DOWN THE FIBER IS SIMILAR. SOME OF THE UNEVEN TEXTURE OF THE FIBER IS SIMILAR. IT’S JUST TO SHOW THAT THE MICROSCOPIC CHARACTERISTICS ARE SIMILAR BETWEEN ONE AND THE OTHER.
Q: NOW, THE TWO ITEMS THAT ARE SHOWN THERE ARE, FIRST OF ALL, THE FIBER TAKEN FROM DANIELLE’S NECKLACE, CORRECT?
A: CORRECT.
Q: AND ON THE RIGHT IS A FIBER FOUND, I’M SORRY, DOES IT SAY ON A TAN BLANKET IN THE WASHING MACHINE?
A: YES. THAT’S CORRECT.
Q: ITEM NUMBER 5B.
A: YES.
Q: ALL RIGHT.
IS THERE A SAME OR A DIFFERENT COMPARISON MADE IN PHOTOGRAPH B?
A: PHOTOGRAPH B IS A DIFFERENT COMPARISON. IT IS AGAIN THE SAME FIBER TAKEN FROM THE NECKLACE, ITEM 120, BUT IT’S COMPARED TO A FIBER REMOVED FROM ITEM 6A WHICH WAS LAUNDRY TAKEN FROM ON TOP OF THE DRYER. AND IN THIS CASE I THINK IT WAS ACTUALLY A YELLOW LAUNDRY BAG.
Q: ALL RIGHT.
WHAT DOES THAT PHOTOGRAPH SHOW US?
A: WELL, AGAIN IT’S SHOWING THE FACT THAT THE WIDTH IS SIMILAR, THE COLOR IS SIMILAR, SOME OF THE GROOVES AND MARKS ALONG THE FIBER ARE SIMILAR. IT HAS A SIMILAR — HAS A SIMILAR TEXTURE TO IT. SO YOU CAN SEE THAT THE FIBERS ARE IN FACT MICROSCOPICALLY SIMILAR.
Q: ALL RIGHT.
LET’S TURN, IF WE CAN, TO PHOTOGRAPH C AND TELL US WHICH FIBERS WERE COMPARED THERE.
A: THIS IS ANOTHER PORTION OF THE FIBER TAKEN FROM THE NECKLACE, SO AS I’M GOING ALONG, YOU CAN SEE IN EACH PICTURE OF THE 120 FIBER IT DOES LOOK A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. AND THERE IS QUITE A LOT OF VARIATION ALONG THE LENGTH OF THIS FIBER. SO IT’S IMPORTANT TO FIND ALL THAT VARIATION WITHIN THE STANDARDS THAT I’M LOOKING AT. SO HERE IS A PICTURE IN ITEM C OF ITEM 120, THE FIBER FROM THE NECKLACE, AND A FIBER TAKEN FROM ITEM NUMBER 7, IN THIS CASE 7C, WHICH WAS A BLUE-GREEN PILLOWCASE FOUND IN THE DRYER VERSUS ON TOP OF THE DRYER.
AND HERE YOU SEE AGAIN THE DIAMETER IS ABOUT THE SAME, COLOR IS VERY SIMILAR. AND IT’S GOT SOME GROOVING ALONG THE FIBER ON THE ONE SIDE THAT YOU CAN SEE IN THE OTHER. AGAIN THAT TEXTURE IS VERY SIMILAR, AND THOSE TWO AREAS ARE MACROSCOPICALLY AND MICROSCOPICALLY SIMILAR.
Q: YOU USED THE TERM GROOVING. WAS THAT IT?
A: FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD.
Q: WHAT IS IT YOU’RE DESCRIBING?
A: YOU CAN SEE ALONG IN HERE THAT THERE’S WHAT LOOK LIKE GROOVES ALONG THE FIBER HERE. THERE’S SOME DAMAGE TO THE FIBER. YOU CAN SEE THAT SIMILAR KIND OF DAMAGE ON THIS FIBER OVER HERE.
MR. CLARKE: YOUR HONOR, FOR THE RECORD, THE WITNESS IS POINTING TO AREAS ON BOTH SIDES, THE LEFT AND THE RIGHT SIDE OF PHOTOGRAPH C.
BY MR. CLARKE:
Q: IT APPEARS IN PHOTOGRAPH C ON THE FIBER FOUND ON DANIELLE’S NECKLACE THERE ARE BLACK SPOTS FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM.
A: YES.
Q: TELL US ABOUT THAT.
A: WELL, THE FIBER THAT WAS REMOVED FROM THE NECKLACE, FIRST OF ALL, IT HAD TO BE UNTANGLED FROM THE HAIR AROUND THE NECKLACE, AND IT WAS COVERED IN DEBRIS AND KIND OF GRIME, DARK DEBRIS, SOME SOIL, AND IT WAS DIRTY. SO WHEN I TOOK THE FIBER OFF, I HAD TO CLEAN IT. AND WHEN I DID THAT, I REMOVED QUITE A BIT OF THE DIRT AND GRIME FROM THE FIBER, BUT THERE IS SOME DIRT AND DEBRIS LEFT ON IT. AND WHAT YOU ARE SEEING IN THAT PICTURE IS SOME OF THE DEBRIS THAT HAS NOT BEEN REMOVED FROM THE FIBER.
Q: SO NOT PART OF THE FIBER ITSELF.
A: CORRECT.
Q: NOW, IF WE CAN TURN TO PHOTOGRAPH D, TELL US WHAT’S SHOWN THERE.
A: PHOTOGRAPH D IS AGAIN A REPRESENTATION OF THE FIBER TAKEN FROM THE NECKLACE, ITEM 120. AND HERE IT’S COMPARED TO A FIBER TAKEN FROM ITEM 9A, WHICH WAS A PILLOWCASE TAKEN FROM THE BEDDING FROM THE DEFENDANT’S BEDROOM.
Q: TELL US WHAT’S SHOWN IN THAT PARTICULAR PHOTOGRAPH AS FAR AS THE COMPARISON YOU MADE AND THE OPINIONS THAT YOU WERE ABLE TO REACH.
A: HERE AGAIN YOU SEE THE COLOR IS SIMILAR, THE DIAMETER IS SIMILAR. SURFACE TEXTURE IS SIMILAR. AND THAT HERE AGAIN THE FIBER FROM THE NECKLACE IS MICROSCOPICALLY SIMILAR TO THE FIBERS TAKEN FROM THE PILLOWCASE FROM THE BEDDING.
Q: ALL RIGHT.
MISS SHEN, WHAT I’M GOING TO ASK YOU TO DO, —
MR. CLARKE: AND, YOUR HONOR, I’M GOING TO ASK THE WITNESS TO TAKE EXHIBIT 86 I BELIEVE IT IS, THE NECKLACE, AND I’M GOING TO ASK HER TO REMOVE THAT FROM ITS PACKAGING.
(THE WITNESS COMPLIED.)
BY MR. CLARKE:
Q: MISS SHEN, HAVE YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REMOVE WHAT APPEARS TO BE A CLEAR PLASTIC BAG FROM INSIDE EXHIBIT NUMBER 86, PAPER BAG?
A: YES.
Q: DOES THAT NECKLACE APPEAR FAMILIAR TO YOU?
A: YES, IT DOES.
Q: WHY?
A: I RECOGNIZE IT.
Q: FROM WHAT?
A: FROM WHEN I ANALYZED THIS PARTICULAR NECKLACE.
Q: I BELIEVE YOU DESCRIBED A FEW MOMENTS AGO THAT WHEN YOU DISCOVERED THIS FIBER, THIS ORANGE FIBER, INSIDE THE NECKLACE THAT IT WAS TANGLED IN SOME HAIR.
A: YES.
Q: IS SOME OF THAT HAIR STILL ON THE NECKLACE IN EXHIBIT 86?
A: YES, IT IS.
Q: BASED ON THE LOCATION OF THAT HAIR ON THE NECKLACE, CAN YOU DESCRIBE FOR THE JURY, PLEASE, OR ARE YOU ABLE TO DESCRIBE FOR THE JURY THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION WHERE THAT ORANGE FIBER WAS LOCATED?
A: VERY APPROXIMATELY.
MR. CLARKE: YOUR HONOR, I’M GOING TO ASK THE COURT’S PERMISSION FOR THE WITNESS TO STEP DOWN IN FRONT OF THE JURY, GOING TO HOLD A WHITE BOARD BEHIND IT SO IT CAN BE OBSERVED MORE EASILY FOR HER TO POINT OUT THAT LOCATION.
THE COURT: SURELY.
YOU MAY STEP DOWN.
MR. CLARKE: PERHAPS YOU COULD STAND HERE, MISS SHEN, IF YOU WOULD. COULD YOU INDICATE FOR THE JURY THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF THAT ORANGE FIBER WHEN YOU FOUND IT.
THE WITNESS: I FOUND THE FIBER TANGLED OR KNOTTED INTO THE HAIR IN THIS AREA ON THE NECKLACE.
THE COURT: CAN YOU FOLKS OVER HERE SEE?
JUROR NUMBER 7: NO.
THE COURT: OKAY.
DO IT ONE SIDE AND THEN THE OTHER.
THE WITNESS: IN THE AREA WHERE THE HAIR IS CONCENTRATED IN A LARGE CLUMP, THAT IS WHERE I FOUND THE ORANGE FIBER. IT WAS TANGLED IN THE HAIR IN THAT AREA.
MR. CLARKE: COULD THE COURT INQUIRE IF EVERYONE HAS BEEN ABLE TO SEE?
THE COURT: HAS EVERYONE HAD A CHANCE TO SEE?
THE JURORS: YES.
THE COURT: OKAY. THANK YOU.
BY MR. CLARKE:
Q: MISS SHEN, WITH REGARD TO THAT FIBER BEING TANGLED IN THE HAIR, IS THERE ANY SIGNIFICANCE TO THAT?
A: WELL, THE SIGNIFICANCE —
MR. FELDMAN: SPECULATION WITHOUT FOUNDATION.
THE COURT: AT THIS POINT IN TIME I HAVEN’T HEARD — APPROACH THE BENCH BECAUSE THERE IS AN ISSUE THAT I WANT TO TAKE UP WITH THE TWO OF YOU.
(SIDEBAR DISCUSSION, OUT OF THE HEARING OF THE JURY,
AS FOLLOWS:

(PROCEEDINGS NOT PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD.)

(END OF SIDEBAR DISCUSSION.)
BY MR. CLARKE:
Q: MISS SHEN, I’LL ASK THE QUESTION AGAIN. AS FAR AS THE LOCATION OF THAT FIBER IN THE HAIR, TANGLED IN THE NECKLACE, IS THERE ANY SIGNIFICANCE TO ITS LOCATION AS OPPOSED TO IT BEING, FOR EXAMPLE, IN ANOTHER LOCATION ON THE NECKLACE?
A: THE SIGNIFICANCE I THINK OF THE FIBER TANGLED IN THE HAIR IS THAT BECAUSE IT WAS KNOTTED IN THE HAIR AND BECAUSE THE HAIR WAS KNOTTED IN THE NECKLACE AND BECAUSE THE FIBER IS COVERED IN DEBRIS AND THE HAIR AND THE NECKLACE ARE COVERED IN A SIMILAR DEBRIS, IT APPEARS THAT THE FIBER AND THE HAIR WERE ON THE BODY FROM THE TIME THAT IT WAS PLACED WHERE IT WAS FOUND VERSUS HAVING BEEN PLACED ON THE BODY AT SOME LATER TIME.
IT ALSO IS REASONABLE I THINK TO CONCLUDE THAT THAT FIBER CAME IN CONTACT WITH THE BODY AND THE NECKLACE AT OR NEAR THE TIME OF HER DEATH.
Q: NOW, AS FAR AS THIS FIBER AND, AGAIN, —
MR. BOYCE: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, UNDER 801. I DON’T BELIEVE THAT LAST PORTION OF THE EXPERT’S OPINION WAS SUBJECT TO EXPERT TESTIMONY.
THE COURT: DULY NOTED. OVERRULED. THE ANSWER STANDS.
NEXT QUESTION.
MR. CLARKE: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
BY MR. CLARKE:
Q: MISS SHEN, BASED ON YOUR COMPARISON OF THE FIBER FROM THE NECKLACE AND THE FIBERS FROM MR. WESTERFIELD’S LAUNDRY ROOM AND HIS BEDDING, DID THEY SHARE THE SAME TYPE OF FIBER?
A: THEY WERE THE SAME FIBER TYPE.
Q: THAT’S WHAT I MEAN. YES.
A: YES.
Q: WHAT WAS THAT TYPE?
A: ACRYLIC FIBER.
Q: DO THEY SHARE THE SAME COLOR?
A: YES.
Q: DO THEY SHARE THE SAME LENGTH?
A: YES.
Q: DO FIBERS BECOME OLD OR IS DECOMPOSE A CORRECT TERM?
A: YES.
Q: WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO HAVE A FIBER DECOMPOSE?
A: THE FIBER IS VERY OLD. YOU CAN START TO SEE JUST BASICALLY WEAR AND TEAR OF THE FIBER. AND THESE PARTICULAR FIBERS SHOWED QUITE A BIT OF WEAR AND TEAR, SPLITTING, DAMAGE TO THE SURFACE OF THE FIBER. AND THAT WAS VERY APPARENT. AND IN THE FIBER FROM THE NECKLACE AS WELL AS THE FIBERS FROM THE LAUNDRY.
MR. CLARKE: YOUR HONOR, I’VE HAD MARKED AN ADDITIONAL CHART, NOT A PHOTOBOARD, AND IT’S BEEN PREVIOUSLY MARKED EXHIBIT 133, TITLED AT THE TOP DAVID WESTERFIELD’S HOME.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
(CHART MARKED TRIAL EXHIBIT NUMBER 133 FOR
IDENTIFICATION.)
BY MR. CLARKE:
Q: MISS SHEN, IF I CAN SHOW YOU AN EXHIBIT MARKED 133, IT APPEARS TO BE A CHART, CAN YOU TELL US WHAT’S SHOWN HERE.
A: YES. THIS IS A CHART THAT OUTLINES THE FIBERS THAT I FOUND AND WHERE I FOUND THEM AND APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY OF THEM I FOUND.
Q: LET’S FOCUS OUR ATTENTION, IF WE CAN, ON ONE PARTICULAR SET OF FIBERS THAT ARE LABELED ON THIS BOARD LARGE — I’M SORRY — LONG ORANGE ACRYLIC FIBERS. DO YOU SEE THAT?
A: YES.
Q: ALL RIGHT.
PERHAPS WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE BOTTOM OF THE CHART FIRST. THERE APPEARS TO BE AT THE VERY BOTTOM AN ITEM NUMBER 120. CORRECT?
A: CORRECT.
Q: NECKLACE REMOVED FROM AROUND THE VICTIM’S NECK.
A: CORRECT.
Q: AND UNDER FIBER TYPE FOUND, WHAT APPEARS TO BE LONG ORANGE ACRYLIC FIBER. CORRECT?
A: CORRECT.
Q: AND OFF TO THE RIGHT UNDER THE NUMBER OF FIBERS IS LISTED THE NUMBER ONE.
A: YES.
Q: DOES THAT REFLECT THE FIBER THAT YOU DISCOVERED AND REMOVED FROM THE NECKLACE, EXHIBIT 86?
A: YES.
Q: ALL RIGHT.
NOW, DOES THIS CHART THEN INDICATE THE APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF SIMILAR-TYPE FIBERS THAT YOU’VE ALREADY DESCRIBED IN YOUR PREVIOUS TESTIMONY FROM MR. WESTERFIELD’S LAUNDRY AND BEDDING?
A: YES.
Q: OKAY.
COULD YOU TELL US IN TERMS OF THAT AGAIN ORANGE ACRYLIC FIBER, USING THIS CHART, THE APPROXIMATE NUMBERS OF THOSE FIBERS YOU FOUND IN MR. WESTERFIELD’S LAUNDRY AND BEDDING THAT WERE SIMILAR AS A RESULT OF YOUR COMPARISON TO THE FIBER FROM THE NECKLACE.
A: YES. ITEM NUMBER 5, THE LAUNDRY REMOVED FROM THE DEFENDANT’S CLOTHES WASHER, I FOUND APPROXIMATELY 20 TO 30 OF THOSE ORANGE FIBERS IN AND AMONGST THAT LAUNDRY.
ITEM NUMBER 6 WAS THE LAUNDRY REMOVED FROM ON TOP OF THE DEFENDANT’S DRYER. AND I FOUND SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 50 AND A HUNDRED OF THOSE ORANGE FIBERS ON THAT PARTICULAR LAUNDRY.
ITEM NUMBER 7, LAUNDRY REMOVED FROM INSIDE THE DEFENDANT’S DRYER, AGAIN APPROXIMATELY 50 TO A HUNDRED OF THOSE ORANGE FIBERS WERE FOUND ON THOSE PIECES OF LAUNDRY.
AND FROM ITEM 9, THE BEDDING REMOVED FROM THE DEFENDANT’S BEDROOM, I LOOKED AT ONLY ONE PIECE OF BEDDING, AND THAT WAS THE PILLOWCASE. AND I FOUND APPROXIMATELY 10 TO 20 OF THOSE ORANGE FIBERS ON THAT PILLOWCASE.
Q: WOULD THIS NUMBER OF LONG ORANGE ACRYLIC FIBERS FOUND IN ITEMS 5, 6, 7, AND 9, IS THAT A FAIRLY LARGE NUMBER OF FIBERS?
MR. FELDMAN: YOUR HONOR, VAGUE IN RELATION TO WHAT.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
MR. FELDMAN: THANK YOU.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
BY MR. CLARKE:
Q: IN TERMS OF YOUR COMPARISON OF FIBERS, IN THIS CASE DOES THAT REPRESENT A RELATIVELY LARGE NUMBER OF FIBERS?
MR. FELDMAN: RELEVANCE AND VAGUE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
YOU CAN ANSWER.
THE WITNESS: YES. THAT WAS A RELATIVELY LARGE NUMBER OF FIBERS AS FAR AS A COMPARISON IS CONCERNED.
BY MR. CLARKE:
Q: NOW I WOULD LIKE TO TURN YOUR ATTENTION, IF I CAN, TO THE PRESENCE OF BLUE FIBERS. AND I BELIEVE YOU GAVE US A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF YOUR HAVING SEEN SUCH FIBERS IN THE WORK THAT YOU HAD CONDUCTED IN THIS CASE. IS THAT RIGHT?
A: YES.
Q: PERHAPS WE CAN UTILIZE THIS BOARD AS WELL AT THIS POINT. TELL US ABOUT WHERE YOU NOTICED THE PRESENCE OF THESE BLUE FIBERS.
A: STARTING WITH THE VICTIM OR WITH —
Q: LET’S — YES, LET’S START WITH THE EARLIEST ITEMS YOU LOOKED AT, ITEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE VICTIM’S BODY.
A: OKAY. THE FIRST PLACE THAT I NOTICED THOSE BLUE FIBERS WAS I BELIEVE IN ITEM 115, AND THAT WAS SOME VEGETATION THAT WAS COLLECTED AT THE AUTOPSY FROM THE LOWER BACK AND PELVIC REGION OF THE VICTIM. AND AS I EXAMINED THAT MICROSCOPICALLY OR MACROSCOPICALLY, USING MY STEREOSCOPE, I SAW THIS BLUE FIBER, SO I COLLECTED IT AND SAVED IT FOR FUTURE EXAMINATION.
THEN AS I EXAMINED THE SHEET THAT WAS WRAPPED AROUND THE VICTIM’S BODY, THAT IS ITEM NUMBER 92, I STARTED TO SEE SEVERAL OF THESE FIBERS. AND BY THE TIME I HAD FINISHED MY EXAMINATION OF THAT SHEET, I HAD FOUND 19 OF THEM. SO AS I SAID BEFORE, ANYTHING WITH AN UNUSUAL NUMBER OR AN UNUSUAL SIZE OR COLOR, THAT’S GOING TO TRIGGER SOMETHING IN ME TO REMEMBER TO LOOK FOR THAT LATER.
SO WHEN I HAD COMPLETED MY EXAMINATION OF THE VICTIM AND HER ENVIRONMENT, I STARTED TO LOOK FOR THESE PARTICULAR FIBERS IN THE LAUNDRY FROM THE DEFENDANT’S HOME. AND I DID FIND THOSE SAME TYPE OF BLUE FIBERS ON ITEMS 5, 6, AND 7. AND I BELIEVE I FOUND A TOTAL OF 10 FIBERS ON THAT LAUNDRY.
Q: ARE THE VARIOUS ITEMS YOU’VE DESCRIBED AS FAR AS THE BLUE FIBERS, ARE THEY NOTED ON EXHIBIT 133, THE CHART, AS WELL?
A: YES.
Q: SO YOU LOCATED THEM ON — AND, I’M SORRY, I THINK YOU MENTIONED 19 FIBERS FROM AROUND THE VICTIM’S BODY ON THE WHITE SHEET, ITEM 92.
A: YES.
Q: ONE FIBER FROM ITEM 115, THE VEGETATION, CORRECT?
A: YES.
Q: AND I’M NOT SURE IF YOU DESCRIBED IT, BUT DID YOU FIND ONE FIBER FROM ITEM 108, HAIR REMOVED FROM THE VICTIM’S HEAD?
A: I DID. BUT WHAT I DID IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE IS AFTER I HAD GONE THROUGH QUITE A BIT OF LAUNDRY AND I HAD FOUND THESE OTHER FIBERS AND FINISHED MY COMPARISON, I WANTED TO SEE NOW THAT I KNEW THAT THIS BLUE FIBER WAS SO PREVALENT IN THE SHEET, I WANTED TO SEE IF I COULD FIND THOSE BLUE FIBERS IN THE VICTIM’S HAIR THAT I HAD EXAMINED.
AND THE HAIR, AS I TOLD YOU BEFORE, THAT THE MEDICAL EXAMINER CUT OFF, THAT WAS ITEM 108. AND I WENT THROUGH A RATHER EXTENSIVE PROCESS TO CLEAN THE HAIR AND EXAMINE IT. AND ONE OF THE THINGS I DID WAS TO WASH THE HAIR AND FILTER IT. AND I COLLECTED ALL THE FILTER PAPERS THAT I USED. AND I EXAMINED THE FILTER PAPERS AT THE TIME.
SO AFTER I HAD FINISHED THIS EXAMINATION OF THE BLUE FIBERS, I WANTED TO KNOW IF I COULD FIND THESE BLUE FIBERS IN HER HAIR, SO I WENT BACK TO THE FILTER PAPERS, PULLED THEM OUT, AND WENT THROUGH A FEW OF THEM UNTIL I FOUND ANOTHER FIBER, ANOTHER BLUE FIBER, AND I COLLECTED IT. AND THAT’S WHAT’S REPRESENTED HERE, ITEM 108.
AND I DID AN EXAMINATION AT THAT TIME TO COMPARE THAT 108 FIBER TO THE 92 FIBERS TO SEE IF THEY WERE IN FACT SIMILAR.
Q: NOW, JUST IN TERMS OF THE BOARD WHILE WE HAVE IT THERE, ARE THE BLUE FIBERS, — AND I THINK YOU DESCRIBED FINDING 10 AMONGST ITEMS IN MR. WESTERFIELD’S LAUNDRY, CORRECT?
A: CORRECT.
Q: — ARE THEY REFLECTED ON THE CHART UNDER ITEM 5, 7 BLUE FIBERS, UNDER ITEM 6, 1, AND UNDER ITEM 7, 2 OF THOSE BLUE FIBERS?
A: YES.
Q: NOW, DID YOU ALSO CONDUCT THIS SAME TYPE OF EXAMINATION AS YOU DESCRIBED EARLIER WITH RESPECT TO THE ORANGE FIBERS WITH REGARD TO THE BLUE FIBERS?
A: I DID UP TO A CERTAIN POINT. I DID THE MACROSCOPIC AND THE MICROSCOPIC COMPARISON THAT I HAVE ALREADY DESCRIBED TO YOU. AND THEN I DID THE CHEMICAL COMPARISON USING THE INFRARED SPECTROSCOPER TO GET AN IDEA OF EXACTLY WHAT TYPE OF FIBER I HAD. AND I DID THE COMPARISON WITH THE COMPARISON SCOPE AND TOOK THE PHOTOGRAPH TO SHOW THEY WERE THE SAME AND CONCLUDED THAT THEY ARE IN FACT SIMILAR. I DID NOT UTILIZE THE SACRAMENTO LAB. TO DO ANY FURTHER TESTING IN THE CASE OF THE BLUE FIBERS.
Q: WHY WAS THAT?
A: THERE WERE A COUPLE OF REASONS. ONE, THERE WASN’T THE LARGE VOLUME OF FIBERS THAT WE SAW WITH THE ORANGE FIBERS. AND NUMBER TWO, I REALLY AT SOME POINT HAD TO DECIDE, PRIORITIZE MY EVIDENCE AND WHAT WAS GOING TO BE MOST IMPORTANT BECAUSE THERE WAS CERTAINLY A TIME LIMITATION FOR MY EVIDENCE EVALUATION.
THE COURT: COUNSEL, I HATE TO DO THIS, BUT WE’RE A LITTLE OFF KILTER THIS MORNING. BUT I HAVE TO CHANGE REPORTERS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, AT SOME POINT, SO WE ARE GOING TO DO IT RIGHT NOW. WE ARE GOING TO TAKE ABOUT A TEN-MINUTE BREAK SO THAT THE TWO OF THEM CAN TRANSFER THEIR EQUIPMENT.
PLEASE REMEMBER THE ADMONITION OF THE COURT NOT TO DISCUSS ANY OF THE EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY AMONG YOURSELVES OR WITH OTHER PERSONS, NOR FORM OR EXPRESS ANY OPINIONS ON THE MATTER UNTIL IT’S SUBMITTED TO YOU.
PLEASE BE OUTSIDE THE DOOR AT A QUARTER TO 11:00. 10:45, PLEASE.
(RECESS, 10:35 O’CLOCK, A.M., TO 10:45 O’CLOCK, A.M.)
/ / /
/ / /