44 – Day 12- June 24th 2002 – Transcript criminal trial David Westerfield

TRIAL DAY 12 – PART 1 – morning 1
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, MONDAY, JUNE 24, 2002, 9:00 A.M. (morning 1)


WITNESSES:
David Cornacchia (criminalist forensic unit, examined Danielle’s pajamas, teeshirt, bean bag chair. Examined Westerfield’s bedding)
Tanya Dulaney (criminalist in the trace evidence section, testified about hairs and fibers)


–O0O–
(THE FOLLOWING OCCURRED OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:
(PROCEEDINGS NOT PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD.)
(PROCEEDINGS NOT PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD.)
(PROCEEDINGS NOT PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD.)

(PROCEEDINGS NOT PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD.)
(PROCEEDINGS NOT PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD.)

(PROCEEDINGS NOT PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD.)

(PROCEEDINGS NOT PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD.)

(END OF PROCEEDINGS OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY.)
THE COURT: GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, AND WELCOME BACK. WE HOPE YOU GOT A LOT OF REST AND RELAXATION OVER THE LAST THREE DAYS. CERTAINLY THE PADRE HITTERS GOT A LOT OF REST AND RELAXATION; THEY WEREN’T VERY PRODUCTIVE. BUT IT WAS EXCITING TO SEE SOME TEAMS IN TOWN WE DON’T NORMALLY SEE. NOW BARRY BONDS IS COMING TO TOWN, SO WE BETTER REALLY HOLD ONTO OUR HATS.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE YOU A HEADS UP. THE PROSECUTION HAS ADVISED ME THAT WE ARE IN THE CLOSING PHASES OF THEIR CASE IN CHIEF, WHICH IS THEIR INITIAL PRESENTATION OF THE EVIDENCE. WHENEVER WE GET TO THAT POINT, WE CAN’T PREDICT EXACTLY HOW LONG IT’S GOING TO TAKE, SO I CAN TELL YOU THAT THIS WEEK THERE MAY BE AN EXTRA DAY OFF. THERE MAY BE AN AFTERNOON OFF. IT REALLY ALL DEPENDS ON HOW THE EVIDENCE AT THE CONCLUDING PHASE COMES IN.
I HAVE AUTHORIZED A VISIT TO THE MOTOR HOME WHICH WE ARE PREDICTING WILL BE AN AFTERNOON, PROBABLY EITHER WEDNESDAY OR THURSDAY. IT WILL BE AT THE END OF THE DAY SO WE’LL VISIT THE MOTOR HOME, YOU WILL BE ABLE TO SEE IT. THERE WILL BE NO TESTIMONY TAKEN. IT WILL SIMPLY BE SO THAT YOU CAN SEE HOW THE ACTUAL MOTOR HOME LOOKS ON THE INSIDE. AND THEN YOU’LL BE GOING HOME FOR THE DAY.
I CAN TELL YOU RIGHT NOW THAT I’M GOING TO HAVE TO CONDUCT A HEARING BEFORE THE DEFENSE ACTUALLY BEGINS, AND I HAVE SET MONDAY FOR THAT HEARING. AND THAT’S GOING TO TAKE ALL DAY. SO NEXT MONDAY WE WILL NOT BE IN SESSION. SO YOU CAN LET YOUR EMPLOYERS KNOW THAT SO YOU CAN GO TO WORK ON NEXT MONDAY. BUT HOPEFULLY I’LL HAVE ENOUGH HEADS UP THAT I WILL BE ABLE TO KEEP YOU ADVISED OF ANY DISRUPTIONS IN OUR NORMAL DAY.
ALL RIGHT. MR. CLARKE.
MR. CLARKE: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
DAVID CORNACCHIA.

DAVID CORNACCHIA,
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: FIRST NAME IS DAVID, D-A-V-I-D. LAST NAME IS CORNACCHIA, SPELLED C-O-R-N-A-C-C-H-I-A.

DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. CLARKE:
Q: GOOD MORNING, MR. CORNACCHIA.
A: GOOD MORNING.
Q: WHO ARE YOU EMPLOYED BY?
A: I’M EMPLOYED BY THE SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT.
Q: IN WHAT PARTICULAR POSITION?
A: I’M A CRIMINALIST IN THE CRIME LAB.
Q: ARE YOU ASSIGNED TO ANY PARTICULAR DIVISION OR UNIT OF THE CRIME LABORATORY?
A: YES. I’M EMPLOYED IN THE FORENSIC BIOLOGY UNIT.
Q: DOES THAT INCLUDE D.N.A. TESTING?
A: YES, IT DOES.
Q: DOES THAT ALSO INCLUDE THE TESTING OR EXAMINATION OF VARIOUS TYPES OF EVIDENCE FOR THE PRESENCE OF BIOLOGICAL FLUIDS SUCH AS BLOOD?
A: YES, IT DOES.
Q: COULD YOU DESCRIBE FOR US, PLEASE, YOUR EDUCATION, TRAINING, AND EXPERIENCE THAT LED TO YOUR POSITION AS A CRIMINALIST IN THE FORENSIC BIOLOGY SECTION.
A: YES. I HAVE A BACHELOR OF SCIENCE DEGREE IN FORENSIC SCIENCE FROM MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY. I HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED BY THE OKLAHOMA STATE BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION IN OKLAHOMA CITY. I WAS EMPLOYED THERE FOR APPROXIMATELY FOUR AND A HALF YEARS. AND WHILE EMPLOYED THERE, I RECEIVED MOST OF MY ON-THE-JOB TRAINING.
PRIOR TO LEAVING THE OKLAHOMA STATE BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, I WENT TO WORK FOR THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT HERE IN SAN DIEGO, AND I WAS EMPLOYED THERE FOR APPROXIMATELY TWO YEARS, BEFORE LEAVING THAT POSITION TO GO WORK FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
Q: ALL RIGHT.
COULD YOU DESCRIBE FOR US, PLEASE, THE TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE YOU’VE RECEIVED. FIRST OF ALL, IN IDENTIFYING SAMPLES FOR THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD.
A: UPON GOING TO WORK FOR THE OKLAHOMA STATE BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, I RECEIVED EXTENSIVE ON-THE-JOB TRAINING FOR THE — IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD AND OTHER BIOLOGICAL FLUIDS ON ITEMS OF EVIDENCE.
Q: DID THIS EXAMINATION FOR THE PRESENCE OF, AND LET’S USE THE SPECIFIC EXAMPLE OF BLOOD, CONTINUE IN YOUR POSITIONS AFTER YOU WERE WITH THE OKLAHOMA AGENCY?

A: YES, IT DID.
Q: CAN YOU DESCRIBE THAT, PLEASE.
A: I’M NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN.
Q: SURE.
AS FAR AS THE METHODS THAT YOU USED TO TEST FOR THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD, DID YOU CONTINUE TO PERFORM THAT TYPE OF WORK BOTH IN THE SAN DIEGO SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT AS WELL AS AT THE SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT?
A: YES. ONCE TRAINED IN OKLAHOMA, I’VE BEEN WORKING CONTINUOUSLY IN THE SAME CAPACITY IN ORDER TO IDENTIFY BLOOD AND OTHER BODY FLUIDS.
Q: NOW I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DESCRIBE, IF YOU WOULD, THE PARTICULAR TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE YOU’VE RECEIVED AS FAR AS D.N.A. TESTING IS CONCERNED.
A: I BEGAN MY TRAINING IN ORDER TO DO D.N.A. ANALYSIS WHILE EMPLOYED IN OKLAHOMA, AND WHILE THERE, I ALSO BEGAN DOING D.N.A. CASE WORK.
I THEN WENT TO WORK FOR THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT IN SAN DIEGO, WHERE I DID EXTENSIVE LABORATORY VALIDATION AND ALSO DID D.N.A. CASE WORK WHILE EMPLOYED THERE. AND SINCE WORKING FOR THE SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT, I’VE BEEN EMPLOYED ALMOST FULL TIME IN ORDER TO DO D.N.A. ANALYSIS.
Q: SO FOR ABOUT HOW MANY YEARS HAVE YOU ACTUALLY BEEN TESTING D.N.A. IN VARIOUS TYPES OF EVIDENCE?
A: APPROXIMATELY FIVE YEARS.
Q: ALL RIGHT.
I WOULD LIKE TO TURN YOUR ATTENTION TO THE DATE OF FEBRUARY 27TH OF THIS YEAR AND ASK IF YOU WERE REQUESTED TO GO TO A PARTICULAR SCENE OUT ON DEHESA ROAD.
A: YES, I WAS.
Q: FOR WHAT REASON?
A: I WAS CALLED OUT TO THE SCENE BECAUSE I WAS TOLD THAT THERE WAS A BODY OF A YOUNG CHILD THAT WAS DISCOVERED OUT THERE.
Q: DID YOU IN FACT GO TO THAT SCENE?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: WHAT WAS YOUR ROLE THERE?
A: I WAS WHAT THEY CALL THE CRIMINALIST ON CALL, WHICH MEANS FOR THAT ONE-WEEK PERIOD WHENEVER THERE WAS A CALLOUT, I WOULD GO OUT TO THE SCENE IN ORDER TO PROVIDE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE IN ORDER TO PROVIDE INSIGHT INTO THE CAPABILITIES WE HAVE IN THE LABORATORY.
Q: AS PART OF THAT ROLE DID YOU ENGAGE IN ANY TYPES OF SEARCHES FOR EVIDENCE IN OR AROUND THE BODY? ON OR AROUND THE BODY, I’M SORRY.
A: YES, I DID.
Q: HOW CLOSE DID YOU COME TO THE BODY?
A: I WALKED UP TO THE BODY. I NEVER STRADDLED IT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. I JUST WALKED UP TO IT.
Q: AND DID YOU SEARCH AT ALL WITH YOUR EYES THROUGH THE AREA IMMEDIATELY AROUND THE BODY?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: IN THAT EXAMINATION DID YOU FIND ANY TEETH OUTSIDE THE BODY; THAT IS, I’M SORRY, TEETH THAT WERE NOT INSIDE THE MOUTH OF THAT PARTICULAR BODY?
A: NO, I DIDN’T.
Q: WAS THAT QUESTION CLEAR?
A: YES.
Q: ALL RIGHT.
WERE YOU EVER INSIDE THE RESIDENCE OF THE VAN DAMS?
A: NO, I WAS NOT.
Q: WERE YOU EVER INSIDE A RESIDENCE IDENTIFIED AS BELONGING TO DAVID WESTERFIELD?
A: NO, I WAS NOT.
Q: LASTLY, WERE YOU EVER INSIDE A MOTOR HOME IDENTIFIED AS BELONGING TO MR. WESTERFIELD?
A: NO, I WAS NOT.
Q: ALL RIGHT.
I WOULD LIKE TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION INITIALLY TO CLOTHING THAT WAS IDENTIFIED AS COMING FROM THE BEDROOM OF DANIELLE VAN DAM AND ASK IF YOU WERE REQUESTED TO EXAMINE ANY OF THAT CLOTHING.
A: YES, I WAS.
Q: IN PARTICULAR WERE YOU ASKED TO EXAMINE A PAIR OF BLUE/WHITE, BLUE-AND-WHITE PAJAMAS IDENTIFIED AS ITEM NUMBER 2?
A: YES, I WAS.
Q: IN THE COURSE OF THAT EXAMINATION, DID YOU LOOK FOR THE PRESENCE OF ANY BLOODSTAINS?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: WHAT DID YOU FIND?
A: I FOUND A — WHAT I WOULD DESCRIBE AS A BLOOD-LIKE STAIN ON THE CUFF OF THE LEFT SLEEVE OF THE PAJAMA TOP.
Q: DID YOU TAKE ANY ACTIONS WITH REGARD TO THAT STAIN?
A: YES. I RAN A CHEMICAL PRESUMPTIVE TEST FOR BLOOD.
Q: WITH WHAT RESULTS?
A: I GOT A POSITIVE RESULT ON THAT TEST.
Q: WHAT DID YOU DO AS FAR AS THAT STAIN WAS CONCERNED AFTER THE POSITIVE TEST?
A: I CUT THAT STAIN OUT, AND I ALSO CUT OUT AN UNSTAINED CONTROL AREA.
Q: AND DID WHAT WITH THOSE TWO PARTICULAR CUTTINGS?
A: THOSE TWO PARTICULAR CUTTINGS WERE SEPARATELY PLACED INTO MANILLA ENVELOPES WHICH WERE EVENTUALLY SEALED.
Q: AND LABELED WITH THE ITEM NUMBER TO IN SOME FASHION —
A: THEY WERE ACTUALLY LABELED — THE STAIN ITSELF WAS DESIGNATED 2-1. THE CONTROL AREA WAS DESIGNATED 2-2.
Q: WERE YOU ALSO ASKED TO EXAMINE A PURPLE-AND-BLUE, LONG-SLEEVE SHIRT IDENTIFIED AS ITEM NUMBER 3?
A: YES, I WAS.
Q: FOR THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD?
A: YES.
Q: WITH WHAT RESULTS?
A: ALSO ON THE CUFF OF THE LEFT SLEEVE THERE WAS A SMALL AREA OF REALLY JUST DISCOLORATION. IT WAS ALMOST TOO LIGHT TO EVEN CALL IT A STAIN. BUT I NOTICED THAT THERE WAS A DISCOLORATION THERE. SO I ALSO RAN A CHEMICAL PRESUMPTIVE TEST ON THAT AREA.
Q: WITH WHAT RESULTS?
A: I GOT A POSITIVE PRESUMPTIVE TEST FOR BLOOD.
Q: AND WHAT ACTIONS DID YOU TAKE WITH REGARD TO THAT PARTICULAR STAIN?
A: SIMILAR TO THE PAJAMAS. I CUT THAT STAIN AREA OUT, AND I ALSO CUT OUT AN UNSTAINED CONTROL AREA. THE STAIN I DESIGNATED 3A-1. THE CONTROL AREA I DESIGNATED 3A-2.
Q: AND DID YOU PRESERVE THOSE PARTICULAR CUTTINGS FOR LATER TESTING?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: ALL RIGHT.
I WOULD LIKE NOW TO TURN YOUR ATTENTION, IF I COULD, TO D.N.A. TESTING AND ASK IF YOU PERFORMED ANY SUCH D.N.A. TESTING IN THIS CASE.
A: YES, I DID.
Q: IF I COULD CALL YOUR ATTENTION FIRST OF ALL TO A BEAN BAG CHAIR, CUTTINGS IDENTIFIED AS COMING FROM A BEAN BAG CHAIR, ITEM NUMBER 8. DID YOU TEST ANY OF THOSE PARTICULAR SAMPLES?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: THIS JURY HAS PREVIOUSLY HEARD TESTIMONY ABOUT S.T.R.’S AND IN PARTICULAR THIRTEEN DIFFERENT AREAS OF OUR D.N.A. THAT ARE CALLED S.T.R.’S. DID YOU USE THOSE PARTICULAR TESTS?
A: I USED THAT PARTICULAR TEST. I DID NOT USE ALL THIRTEEN.
Q: ALL RIGHT.
A: IN AREAS OF THE D.N.A. MOLECULE.
Q: HOW MANY OF THEM DID YOU USE?
A: I USED NINE.
Q: HOW MANY STAINS WERE THERE FROM THE BEAN BAG CHAIR THAT YOU WERE ASKED TO PERFORM D.N.A. TESTING ON?
A: THERE WERE SEVEN STAINS AND ONE CONTROL AREA.
Q: AND DID YOU IN FACT PERFORM D.N.A. TESTING ON THOSE SEVEN STAINS AND THE CONTROL AREA?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: DID YOU OBTAIN RESULTS FROM AT LEAST SOME OF THOSE SAMPLES?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: DID YOU ALSO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONDUCT ANY KNOWN D.N.A. TESTING OR DID YOU RELY ON EARLIER TESTING OF KNOWN SAMPLES IN THIS CASE?
A: ACTUALLY BOTH. I RELIED ON TESTING THAT WAS PERFORMED BY CRIMINALIST ANNETTE PEER PREVIOUSLY IN TERMS OF THE REFERENCE SAMPLES SHE HAS RUN. IN ADDITION TO THAT I RAN TWO REFERENCE SAMPLES OF MY OWN.
Q: WHAT WERE THE TWO REFERENCE OR KNOWN SAMPLES THAT YOU TESTED?
A: I RAN A REFERENCE SAMPLE FROM A DEREK VAN DAM AND A DYLAN VAN DAM.
Q: AND YOU OBTAINED RESULTS FROM THOSE KNOWN SAMPLES?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: WERE YOU ABLE TO COMPARE THEIR KNOWN D.N.A. TYPES NOT ONLY TO THE EVIDENCE BUT ALSO TO KNOWN TYPES OF DAMON VAN DAM?
A: YES.
Q: BRENDA VAN DAM?
A: YES.
Q: DANIELLE VAN DAM?
A: YES.
Q: AND DAVID WESTERFIELD?
A: YES.
Q: LET’S START WITH DYLAN VAN DAM. DOES HE HAVE THE SAME D.N.A. TYPES AT THE GENETIC MARKERS THAT YOU LOOKED AT OR DIFFERENT TYPES THAN DANIELLE?
A: HE HAS DIFFERENT TYPES.
Q: WHAT ABOUT HIS PARENTS, BRENDA AND DAMON VAN DAM, WERE DEREK’S TYPES THE SAME OR DIFFERENT FROM THEM?
A: DIFFERENT.
Q: ALL RIGHT.
LET’S TALK ABOUT DYLAN VAN DAM. CAN YOU ANSWER THOSE SAME QUESTIONS AS FAR AS HIS GENETIC TYPES ARE CONCERNED.
A: DYLAN IN RELATION TO DEREK?
Q: CORRECT.
A: YES. THEY WERE DIFFERENT.
Q: AND WHAT ABOUT DYLAN IN RELATION TO BRENDA AND DAMON VAN DAM?
A: THEY WERE DIFFERENT.
Q: AND DANIELLE?
A: DIFFERENT.
Q: WERE EACH OF THESE SAMPLES FROM THE VAN DAM FAMILY ALSO DIFFERENT FROM DAVID WESTERFIELD?
A: YES, THEY WERE.
Q: NOW, IN PARTICULAR DID YOU OBTAIN ANY RESULTS FROM ANY OF THE SEVEN STAINS THAT YOU TESTED FROM THE BEAN BAG CHAIR?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: ON WHAT PARTICULAR SAMPLES?
A: MAY I REFER TO MY NOTES TO REFRESH MY RECOLLECTION?
Q: PLEASE. AND IF YOU WOULD, ONCE YOU OBTAIN THOSE NOTES, DESCRIBE FOR US IF YOU’RE READING FROM A PARTICULAR REPORT, NOTE PAGE NUMBER OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE.
A: OKAY.
I’M REFERRING TO REPORT THAT’S DATED APRIL 22ND, 2002.
Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHAT PAGE NUMBER? THAT WILL HELP US.
A: SPECIFICALLY I’M GOING TO BE REFERRING TO PAGE 3 OF THAT REPORT.
Q: ALL RIGHT.
NOW, CAN YOU USE THAT AND DESCRIBE THE RESULTS THAT YOU OBTAINED FROM THE SEVEN STAINS THAT YOU TESTED?
A: YES. ON THE STAIN THAT’S BEEN — THAT WAS DESIGNATED 8-3, I DETERMINED THAT DEREK VAN DAM WAS VERY LIKELY THE SOURCE OF THE D.N.A. RECOVERED FROM THAT STAIN.
Q: WHAT ABOUT ALL THE OTHER KNOWN SAMPLES; COULD ANY OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS HAVE LEFT THAT STAIN 8-3?
A: ALL OTHER INDIVIDUALS WERE EXCLUDED.
Q: THIS JURY HAS ALSO HEARD ESTIMATES OF PROBABILITIES OR STATISTICS. DID YOU CALCULATE ANY SUCH STATISTICS ON THE LIKELIHOOD OF THAT MATCH BETWEEN DEREK VAN DAM AND STAIN 8-3?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: CAN YOU DESCRIBE THOSE FOR US, PLEASE.
A: CERTAINLY.
THE PROBABILITIES OF SELECTING AN INDIVIDUAL AT RANDOM THAT MATCHED THE GENETIC PROFILE OBTAINED FROM THE SAMPLE IS APPROXIMATELY ONE IN 5.8 TRILLION FOR CAUCASIANS, ONE IN 2.5 QUADRILLION FOR AFRICAN-AMERICANS, AND ONE IN 2 TRILLION FOR HISPANICS.
Q: I BELIEVE YOU SAID THAT YOU ONLY TESTED NINE OF THE THIRTEEN MARKERS ON THESE VARIOUS SAMPLES. IS THAT RIGHT?
A: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q: WHY NOT ALL THIRTEEN?
A: ONCE I OBTAINED A MATCH WITH THE DEREK VAN DAM PROFILE, THERE WAS NO ADDED OR MORE USEFUL INFORMATION I COULD HAVE OBTAINED BY ADDING THE ADDITIONAL GENETIC MARKERS IN THE CASE.
Q: IS THAT BECAUSE THIS WAS AN ITEM OF EVIDENCE TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE THAT WAS ACTUALLY FOUND INSIDE THE VAN DAM HOME?
A: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q: ALL RIGHT.
COULD YOU GO TO THE NEXT STAIN THAT YOU TESTED AND OBTAINED RESULTS FROM.
A: IN A STAIN THAT WAS DESIGNATED AS 8-2, I GOT A MIXTURE OF D.N.A. FROM MORE THAN ONE INDIVIDUAL. DEREK VAN DAM IS LIKELY THE MAJOR OR PREDOMINANT CONTRIBUTOR TO THAT MIXTURE.
Q: I’M GOING TO STOP YOU FOR A MOMENT.
CAN YOU DESCRIBE WHAT YOU MEAN BY MIXTURE, FIRST OF ALL.
A: CERTAINLY. A MIXTURE IT APPEARS AS THOUGH THERE IS MORE THAN ONE D.N.A. DONOR TO A GIVEN SAMPLE.
Q: HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?
A: BASED ON THE NUMBER OF PEAKS IN THE CASE OF S.T.R.’S THAT WE GET. ORDINARILY IF IT WAS A SINGLE-SOURCE SAMPLE AT ANY GIVEN GENETIC MARKER, I WOULD EXPECT TO SEE AT MOST TWO PEAKS.
Q: IS THAT — I’M SORRY. IS THAT BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL HAS AT MOST TWO PARTICULAR TYPES AT A GIVEN LOCATION OF OUR D.N.A.?
A: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q: SO YOU SAW IN TERMS OF A MIXTURE MORE THAN TWO, IS THAT RIGHT?
A: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q: ALL RIGHT. I THINK I INTERRUPTED YOU. I APOLOGIZE.
A: OH. SO BASED ON THE PRESENCE OF MORE THAN TWO TYPES AT A GIVEN GENETIC MARKER, THAT’S AN INDICATION TO ME THAT THERE IS MORE THAN ONE DONOR OF D.N.A. TO THAT INDIVIDUAL GENETIC MARKER.
Q: I THINK YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT DEREK AS APPEARING TO BE THE MAJOR CONTRIBUTOR TO THAT MIXTURE. IS THAT RIGHT?
A: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q: TELL US WHAT YOU MEAN BY MAJOR CONTRIBUTOR.
A: OFTEN — WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO DETERMINE JUST HOW MUCH D.N.A. IS PRESENT AT A PARTICULAR AREA THAT WE’RE TESTING. SO IF I GET A STRONG PROFILE AND THEN A VERY, VERY WEAK PROFILE AT ONE, AGAIN, ONE PARTICULAR GENETIC MARKER, THAT INDICATES TO ME THAT THERE IS A PREDOMINANT DONOR OR THAT MOST OF THE D.N.A. THAT I’M PICKING UP IS FROM THAT INDIVIDUAL. AND THEN THE WEAK TYPES I’M GETTING TELLS ME THAT I’M PICKING UP KIND OF A SECONDARY, WEAKER D.N.A. PROFILE.
Q: IN THIS PARTICULAR SAMPLE, — AND, I’M SORRY, WHAT WAS THE NUMBER DESIGNATION OF IT AGAIN?
A: THAT WAS AT 8-2.
Q: — YOU DETERMINED THAT DEREK WAS THE LIKELY PERSON THAT LEFT MOST OF THAT D.N.A.?
A: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q: NOW, DOES THAT MEAN THAT THERE’S ALSO A MINOR CONTRIBUTOR?
A: YES, IT DOES.
Q: ALL RIGHT.
CAN YOU TELL US WHAT, IF ANYTHING, YOU WERE ABLE TO DETERMINE FROM THE TYPES FROM THE MINOR CONTRIBUTOR AND THE KNOWN SAMPLES IN THIS CASE?
A: I DETERMINED THAT DYLAN VAN DAM, DANIELLE VAN DAM, DAMON VAN DAM, BRENDA VAN DAM, AND DAVID WESTERFIELD ARE ALL ELIMINATED AS BEING A POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTOR OF THE MINOR COMPONENT OF THE MIXTURE.
Q: NOW, IN THIS PARTICULAR STAIN MOST OF THE D.N.A. WAS FROM DEREK, IS THAT RIGHT?
A: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q: AND SOMEONE LEFT THE SMALLER PART OF D.N.A. ON THAT STAIN.
A: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q: COULD THAT HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED AT ANY TIME IN RELATION TO, FOR EXAMPLE, THE STAIN OR PORTION OF THE STAIN DONATED BY DEREK? DOES THAT QUESTION MAKE SENSE?
A: YES.
I WOULD HAVE NO WAY OF DETERMINING HOW LONG THE D.N.A.’S BEEN ON THE ITEM.
Q: DOES THE OTHER PERSON’S D.N.A. EVEN HAVE TO BE BLOOD WHEN YOU FIND A MIXTURE CONTAINING BLOOD?
A: IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE, NO.
Q: WHAT ELSE CAN IT BE?
A: D.N.A. COULD BE LEFT THERE FROM SALIVA AND PERSPIRATION, THAT SORT OF THING. IT COULD ALSO, SOMEONE’S D.N.A. COULD BE LEFT BEHIND FROM THAT TYPE OF DEPOSITION.
Q: COULD IT BE FROM A CHILD?
A: I HAVE NO WAY OF DETERMINING CHILD VERSUS ADULT.
Q: NOW, WAS THERE ANOTHER OR AT LEAST ONE OR MORE STAINS YOU ALSO OBTAINED RESULTS ON?
A: YES. ON THE STAIN DESIGNATED 8-4. THAT WAS ALSO A D.N.A. MIXTURE. I HAVE THAT DEREK VAN DAM CANNOT BE EXCLUDED AS BEING THE MAJOR CONTRIBUTOR TO THE MIXTURE, AND THAT DANIELLE VAN DAM, DYLAN VAN DAM, AND BRENDA VAN DAM CANNOT BE EXCLUDED AS BEING THE MINOR CONTRIBUTOR TO THAT MIXTURE.
Q: ALL RIGHT.
JUST SO WE ARE CLEAR WITH RESPECT TO THIS STAIN, 8-4, THE MAJOR D.N.A. TYPES OR AT LEAST MORE THAN HALF OF THE D.N.A. — IS THAT A SAFE WAY OF PUTTING IT, AS FAR AS THE MAJOR PORTION?
A: THAT’S CORRECT. MORE THAN HALF.
Q: — COULD HAVE COME FROM DEREK?
A: COULD HAVE COME FROM DEREK VAN DAM, YES.
Q: AND THE SMALLER PORTION COULD HAVE COME FROM DANIELLE, DYLAN, OR BRENDA, IS THAT CORRECT?
A: NONE OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS COULD BE EXCLUDED AS BEING A POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTOR TO THE MINOR D.N.A. COMPONENT.
Q: BUT MR. WESTERFIELD WAS EXCLUDED.
A: MR. WESTERFIELD WAS EXCLUDED.
Q: NOW, THAT’S THREE OF THE STAINS. TELL US ABOUT THE REMAINING FOUR.
A: ON THE STAINS THAT ARE DESIGNATED 8-1, 8-5, AND 8-7, THE D.N.A. RECOVERED FROM THOSE THREE AREAS WAS AT A LEVEL BELOW WHICH MEANINGFUL CONCLUSIONS COULD BE DRAWN.
Q: SO THERE WASN’T ENOUGH D.N.A. FOR YOU TO GIVE US RESULTS.
A: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q: DOES THAT LEAVE ONE MORE STAIN I THINK?
A: THAT LEAVES 8-6 AND ALSO THE CONTROL. AND I GOT NO D.N.A. TYPES OFF THOSE STAINS.
Q: NOW I WOULD LIKE TO SHIFT YOUR ATTENTION TO OTHER EVIDENCE. IN PARTICULAR, WERE YOU ASKED TO EXAMINE ANY EVIDENCE IDENTIFIED AS COMING FROM MR. WESTERFIELD’S RESIDENCE AND MOTOR HOME?
A: YES, I WAS.
Q: WERE YOU ASKED TO EXAMINE AN ITEM IDENTIFIED AS NUMBER 5, BEDDING FROM THE DEFENDANT’S WASHING MACHINE?
A: YES, I WAS.
Q: WHAT WERE YOU ASKED TO DO AS FAR AS THAT EXAMINATION WAS CONCERNED?
A: I WAS ASKED TO SCREEN THROUGH THE EVIDENCE, WHICH MEANS VISUALLY EXAMINE IT, TO SEE IF I SEE ANYTHING THAT WOULD LEAD ME TO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A BLOODSTAIN ON IT THAT WOULD REQUIRE FURTHER TESTING.
Q: WHEN YOU EXAMINE ITEMS FOR BLOODSTAINS, AND LET’S USE THE SAMPLE OF CLOTHING OR BEDDING IN THIS INSTANCE, ARE BLOODSTAINS THE ONLY THING YOU WERE LOOKING FOR?
A: THAT’S KIND OF — IS ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS. IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE I WAS FOCUSED ON SEARCHING FOR BLOODSTAINS.
Q: WHAT IF IN EXAMINING THIS PARTICULAR — THIS SET OF ITEMS YOU CAME UPON OTHER EVIDENCE; DO YOU IGNORE IT, MAKE NOTE OF IT, OR WHAT?
A: IF I ENCOUNTER TRACE EVIDENCE, — WHEN I SAY TRACE EVIDENCE, I’M MERELY REFERRING TO HAIRS AND FIBERS. IF I SEE HAIRS AND FIBERS ON A PARTICULAR ITEM, WHAT I WILL DO IS I WILL ISOLATE THOSE IN WHAT I CALL A FOLDED PAPER BINDLE. I DO THAT IN ORDER SO THAT WHILE I’M MANIPULATING A PARTICULAR ITEM LOOKING FOR MY BLOODSTAINS, I DON’T END UP LOSING THAT EVIDENCE. SO IN ORDER TO PRESERVE IT SO THAT IT’S SECURE, I REMOVE IT WITH TWEEZERS. I PLACE IT INTO A BINDLE. AND THAT WAY I KNOW THAT THAT PARTICULAR EVIDENCE IS SECURE AND DOESN’T — WE DON’T RUN THE POTENTIAL OF IT GETTING LOST OR MISPLACED.
Q: WITH REGARD TO ITEM NUMBER 5, THE BEDDING FROM THE WASHING MACHINE, DID YOU FIND ANY TRACE EVIDENCE IN YOUR EXAMINATION OF THAT MATERIAL?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: WHAT?
A: I FOUND A NUMBER OF HAIRS ON A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT ITEMS, ALL OF WHICH, ONE BY ONE, I PICKED OFF WITH TWEEZERS AND PUT INTO A FOLDED PAPER BINDLE.
Q: AND DID YOU PRESERVE THEM ACCORDINGLY?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: IS THERE ANY WAY A LATER ANALYST CAN TELL THEY CAME FROM AS TO WHICH ITEM NUMBER BY THE WAY YOU LABELED IT?
A: YES. I LABELED ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE BINDLE THAT IT WAS TRACE EVIDENCE COLLECTED OFF ITEM NUMBER 5. AND THEN THIS BINDLE WAS REPACKAGED ALONG WITH ITEM NUMBER 5. SO THAT WAY A LATER ANALYST COULD ALWAYS GO BACK TO THAT ITEM, TAKE MY BINDLE OUT, AND ALSO GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL ITEM ITSELF FOR ANALYSIS.
Q: WERE YOU ALSO ASKED TO LOOK AT CLOTHING IDENTIFIED AS COMING FROM THE TOP OF A DRYER, ITEM NUMBER 6?
A: YES, I WAS.
Q: IN THE COURSE OF THAT EXAMINATION, DID YOU DISCOVER ANY TRACE-TYPE EVIDENCE AS YOU HAVE USED THAT TERM?
A: YES. SIMILAR TO ITEM NUMBER 5, WHENEVER I WOULD EXAMINE AN ITEM AND I WOULD SEE HAIRS OR FIBERS ADHERING TO THAT, I WOULD JUST GO THROUGH WITH MY — AND COLLECT THEM ALL INTO A PAPER BINDLE, SO THAT WAY AN ANALYST IN A DIFFERENT DISCIPLINE, FOR INSTANCE, TRACE EVIDENCE, COULD ALWAYS TAKE MY BINDLE AND DO THEIR PARTICULAR TYPE OF ANALYSIS ON THAT.
Q: DID YOU LABEL THOSE HAIRS ACCORDINGLY AS COMING FROM ITEM NUMBER 6?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: IF I COULD GO BACK A MOMENT TO THE BEAN BAG CHAIR, ITEM NUMBER 8, YOU RECEIVED CUTTINGS, IS THAT RIGHT?
A: I ACTUALLY RECEIVED SWABS.
Q: SWABS. EXCUSE ME. VERY GOOD.
AND THAT’S WHAT YOU USED TO CONDUCT YOUR TESTING?
A: THAT’S CORRECT.
MR. CLARKE: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
I DON’T HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
CROSS-EXAMINATION.

CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. FELDMAN
Q: JUST TO CARRY IT — GOOD MORNING, SIR.
JUST TO FOLLOW UP —
A: GOOD MORNING.
Q: — WHAT MR. CLARKE MENTIONED, WHAT WAS THE SIZE OF THE STAIN ON THE BEAN BAG CHAIR?
A: I NEVER ACTUALLY SAW THE STAIN ITSELF. ALL I GOT WAS A SWAB. A SWABBING OF THE STAIN. SO I NEVER SAW THE STAIN.
Q: WELL, YOU TALKED ABOUT MAJOR AND MINOR CONTRIBUTORS OF D.N.A. IS IT THE CASE THAT IF THE SWAB HYPOTHETICALLY, I’M SORRY, IF THERE WAS A STAIN THAT WAS SIX INCHES WE’LL SAY AND THERE WAS AN UNEQUAL DISTRIBUTION OF BLOOD, D.N.A., WHATEVER, IF THE PERSON THAT GENERATED THE SWAB PLACED THE SWAB IN A PARTICULAR LOCATION, IS THERE A POSSIBILITY THAT YOUR RESULTS MIGHT NOT ACCURATELY REFLECT WHO WAS THE PREDOMINANT CONTRIBUTOR OF THE ENTIRE STAIN AS OPPOSED TO JUST THAT SECTION OF THE STAIN THAT WAS SWABBED? DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I’M ASKING YOU?
A: YES. AND I’M NOT SURE IF IN FACT THE ENTIRE STAIN WAS SWABBED OR HOW MUCH OF THE STAIN WAS SWABBED. I THINK IN SOME INSTANCES, BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE STAIN, THE ENTIRE STAIN GETS SWABBED ONTO THE COTTON.
Q: SPECIFICALLY DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE BEAN BAG CHAIR, YOU NEVER SAW THAT STAIN, CORRECT?
A: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q: SO YOU DON’T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT YOUR CONCLUSIONS ARE BASED UPON PERHAPS AN ABERRATION BASED UPON WHERE THE PERSON SWABBED FROM.
MR. CLARKE: OBJECTION. I THINK THAT CALLS FOR SPECULATION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
YOU NEED NOT ANSWER.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q: LET’S REPHRASE IT THIS WAY: —
MR. FELDMAN: I KNOW THAT THE COURT HAD PAPERS THAT WE COULD STICK UP.
THE COURT: THAT’S A GOOD QUESTION. MIKE, DO YOU KNOW WHERE THE —
THE BAILIFF: SHOULD BE OVER THERE.
THE COURT: — BUTCHER PAPER PAD WENT?
THE BAILIFF: UP FRONT.
MR. FELDMAN: SORRY. THANK YOU.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THIS WILL BE LABELED 125 FOR IDENTIFICATION.
MR. FELDMAN: THANK YOU.
(DRAWING MARKED TRIAL EXHIBIT NUMBER 125 FOR
IDENTIFICATION.)
MR. FELDMAN: I’M PLACING IT IN THE LOWER RIGHT CORNER OF THE EXHIBIT.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q: I HAVE JUST DRAWN A CIRCLE ON WHAT’S BEEN MARKED 125. THAT’S A CORRECT STATEMENT, ISN’T IT?
A: YES.
Q: LET’S ASSUME HYPOTHETICALLY THIS CIRCLE IS A BEAN BAG CHAIR. OKAY?
A: OKAY.
Q: I’M GOING TO PUT JUST SO A RECTANGLE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CHAIR, IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CIRCLE. OKAY?
A: YES.
Q: I WANT YOU TO ASSUME THE RECTANGLE IS A BLOODSTAIN. IN FACT, THE SPECIFIC BLOODSTAINS YOU MAY BE HYPOTHETICALLY DISCUSSING OR THAT YOU ACTUALLY CONCLUDED ON DIRECT. OKAY?
A: OKAY.
Q: IF THE PREDOMINANT MAJORITY OF THE BLOOD OR D.N.A. IS IN THE CENTER OF THE STAIN, THERE ARE PORTIONS OF D.N.A. THROUGHOUT THE STAIN, AND THE EVIDENCE TECH. HYPOTHETICALLY ONLY DREW A STAIN FROM THE CIRCLE THAT I JUST DREW ON THE LEFT, MIGHT THAT, YOUR CONCLUSIONS, BE BASED AGAIN SOLELY UPON WHERE THE ANALYST SWABBED?
A: YES. IF YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT A BLOODSTAIN THAT’S THAT LARGE, YES. POTENTIALLY IF THERE WAS BLOOD FROM ONE CONTRIBUTOR ONLY DEPOSITED IN ONE AREA OF A LARGER STAIN, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT YOU WOULDN’T GET TO SEE A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE OF THE MIXTURE.
Q: AND WITHOUT — AND SINCE YOU NEVER — I’M SORRY. I’M ABOUT TO PUT ANOTHER CHART UP ON THE BOARD.
DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO WHAT’S BEEN PREVIOUSLY MARKED 23, MORE SPECIFICALLY DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO PHOTOGRAPHS J, H, AND I, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO ASSUME IN 23 H, I, J THAT’S THE BEAN BAG CHAIR FROM WHICH YOU GOT THE SWAB.
A: OKAY.
Q: DO YOU SEE THE STAIN?
A: DO I SEE ANY STAINS ON THERE?
Q: YES.
A: NOT FROM A QUICK GLANCE OF IT, NO.
Q: HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THESE PHOTOS BEFORE?
A: I HAVE NOT.
Q: DID ANYBODY GIVE YOU A POLAROID TO SHOW YOU WHAT THE STAIN LOOKED LIKE BEFORE YOU DID YOUR ANALYSIS?
A: I DON’T RECALL EVER SEEING A POLAROID OR A PHOTOGRAPHIC REPRESENTATION OF THE STAINS PRIOR TO MY ANALYSIS.
Q: IT’S FAIR TO SAY AT LEAST WITH REGARD TO YOUR CONCLUSION REGARDING MAJOR OR MINOR DONORS THAT CONCLUSION IS DEPENDENT UPON WHETHER OR NOT THE ANALYST SWABBED THE AREA WHERE THERE WAS THE PREDOMINANT AMOUNT OF D.N.A.
A: THE ONLY THING I CAN DO IS TEST WHAT’S ON THE SWAB.
Q: SO IT’S CONCEIVABLE THAT THERE’S A GREATER QUANTITY OF D.N.A. IN A STAIN THAN THAT WHICH YOU TESTED IN THIS CASE. CORRECT?
A: I’M SORRY. COULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION?
Q: IT’S CONCEIVABLE THAT YOU TESTED AN AREA THAT DID NOT ACCURATELY DEPICT THE ENTIRE QUANTITY OF D.N.A. THAT WAS ACTUALLY ON THAT BEAN BAG CHAIR.
MR. CLARKE: OBJECTION. I THINK THAT CALLS FOR SPECULATION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
YOU NEED NOT ANSWER.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q: WITH REGARD TO MAJOR AND MINOR CONTRIBUTORS, DO YOU QUANTIFY, IS THERE SOME STANDARD THAT SAYS A MAJOR CONTRIBUTOR IS SOMEONE WHO GIVES NINETY-EIGHT PER CENT OF THE STAIN AND A MINOR CONTRIBUTOR IS SOMEONE THAT GIVES TWO PER CENT OR LESS OF A STAIN?
A: THERE IS SOME QUANTIFICATION THAT’S DONE IN TERMS OF BASED ON THE INTENSITY OF THE SIGNAL WE’RE GETTING WHICH GIVES US AN INDICATION OF THE QUANTITY OF D.N.A. SO WE WOULD COMPARE THE QUANTITY OF THE D.N.A. FROM THE MAJOR CONTRIBUTOR AND THE MINOR CONTRIBUTOR IN ORDER TO MAKE A DETERMINATION THAT SOMEONE IS A MINOR CONTRIBUTOR.
Q: AND SPECIFICALLY DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE STAIN THAT MR. CLARKE WAS ASKING YOU ABOUT, THE ONE THAT YOU COULD NOT RULE OUT DANIELLE VAN DAM AS A CONTRIBUTOR TO, YOU CAN’T TELL ME WHAT THE SOURCE OF THAT D.N.A. WAS.
MR. CLARKE: OBJECTION. VAGUE.
THE COURT: DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION?
THE WITNESS: I’M NOT SURE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
REPEAT IT.
MR. FELDMAN: THANK YOU.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q: SPECIFICALLY DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE AREA OF THE BEAN BAG CHAIR FROM WHICH THE STAIN SOURCED, YOU CANNOT TELL ME WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS DANIELLE VAN DAM’S BLOOD.
A: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q: YOU CAN’T RULE IT OUT, CORRECT?
A: I COULD NOT RULE IT OUT.
Q: SO YOUR CONCLUSION IS THAT AT LEAST THE EXISTENCE OF THAT STAIN IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPOSITION THAT AT SOME POINT DANIELLE VAN DAM BLED IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA, CORRECT?
A: THAT’S NOT CORRECT.
Q: YOU RULE IT OUT?
A: I COULDN’T ACTUALLY RULE IT OUT. ALL I CAN SAY IS THAT DANIELLE VAN DAM IS CONSISTENT WITH BEING A MINOR CONTRIBUTOR TO THE MIXTURE. THAT COULD BE FROM SALIVA, THAT COULD BE FROM PERSPIRATION, IT COULD BE FROM BLOOD.
Q: SALIVA IS SPECULATION TO A CERTAIN EXTENT, ISN’T IT, BECAUSE YOU DON’T KNOW?
A: ABSOLUTELY.
Q: PERSPIRATION IS SPECULATION AGAIN.
A: YES.
Q: AND BLOOD IS SPECULATION, CORRECT?
A: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q: EACH OF THOSE THREE, THOUGH, ARE EQUALLY AS REASONABLE BASED UPON YOUR CONCLUSIONS, ISN’T THAT CORRECT?
A: I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT, YES.
Q: SO, THEREFORE, DANIELLE VAN DAM COULD HAVE BEEN A CONTRIBUTOR OF BLOOD TO THE PARTICULAR STAIN THAT YOU EVALUATED.
A: AND SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN A MINOR CONTRIBUTOR.
Q: WELL, YOU’RE SAYING MINOR. YOU TOLD US YOU COULDN’T TELL US WHEN THE STAIN WAS PLACED THERE, CORRECT?
A: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q: HYPOTHETICALLY THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN EXISTING STAIN FROM I THINK DYLAN VAN DAM OR ANOTHER ONE OF THE CHILDREN VAN DAMS, IS THAT CORRECT?
A: YES. SPECIFICALLY DEREK.
Q: OKAY. DEREK.
THAT CONSTITUTED THE MAJORITY OR WHAT YOU’RE CALLING THE MAJOR CONTRIBUTION, IS THAT RIGHT?
A: THAT IS RIGHT.
Q: THAT COULD BE SITTING THERE, LET’S SEE, HYPOTHETICALLY, FOR SIX WEEKS. THAT’S A REASONABLE THING TO SAY, ISN’T IT?
A: YES, IT IS.
Q: AND THEN FIFTEEN MINUTES LATER — STRIKE THAT.
ON FEBRUARY 1ST, HYPOTHETICALLY, DANIELLE VAN DAM COULD HAVE DEPOSITED SOME BLOOD ON THAT PARTICULAR BLOODSTAIN THAT YOU EVALUATED, IS THAT CORRECT?
A: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q: AND YOUR CONCLUSIONS DO NOT RULE OUT THAT AS A POSSIBILITY, CORRECT?
A: I COULD NOT RULE THAT OUT. ONLY THAT SHE WOULD BE THE MINOR CONTRIBUTOR.
Q: SO, IN OTHER WORDS, SHE MIGHT HAVE BLED LESS THAN AN EXISTING STAIN, CORRECT?
A: DEPOSITED LESS D.N.A., YES.
Q: MR. CLARKE ASKED YOU ABOUT THIRTEEN AREAS OF D.N.A. MOLECULES. AREN’T THERE MORE THAN THIRTEEN AREAS OF D.N.A. MOLECULE?
A: IN THE D.N.A. MOLECULE ARE THERE MORE THAN THIRTEEN AREAS? YES, THERE ARE.
Q: HOW MANY MORE?
A: MANY MORE.
Q: WHAT’S MANY?
A: I COULDN’T PROBABLY GIVE YOU AN EXACT NUMBER.
Q: AN APPROXIMATE NUMBER BASED ON YOUR TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE, SIR.
A: AGAIN, I WOULD JUST BE SPECULATING. I DON’T HAVE A GOOD WAY TO QUANTIFY THAT FOR YOU.
Q: WELL, YOU WERE SPECIFICALLY ASKED ON DIRECT EXAMINATION ABOUT THE THIRTEEN AREAS OF D.N.A. MOLECULES, AND WE’VE SEEN THESE CHARTS THAT ARTICULATE THIRTEEN AREAS. THERE’S REALLY A GREATER, A SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER NUMBER THAN THIRTEEN IN THE D.N.A. MOLECULE, ISN’T THAT RIGHT?
MR. CLARKE: OBJECTION. ASKED AND ANSWERED.
THE COURT: YOU CAN ANSWER THAT. OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I THINK IF I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU’RE ASKING ABOUT, WE EXAMINE UP TO THIRTEEN DIFFERENT AREAS BECAUSE WHAT WE’RE LOOKING FOR IS AREAS ON THE D.N.A. MOLECULE WHERE INDIVIDUALS VARY. AND THERE ARE GOING TO BE MORE AREAS IN THE D.N.A. MOLECULE THAN THIRTEEN WHERE INDIVIDUALS ARE GOING TO VARY.
MR. FELDMAN: ALL RIGHT.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q: AND IF HYPOTHETICALLY THERE’S FOURTEEN OR FIFTEEN OR TWENTY AREAS WHERE INDIVIDUALS VARY AND YOU ONLY TEST THIRTEEN, THEY COULD EXCLUDE, CORRECT, OR BE EXCLUDED IN FOURTEEN THROUGH TWENTY, ISN’T THAT RIGHT, BECAUSE A NON-MATCH IN ANY AREA CONSTITUTES AN EXCLUSION, ISN’T THAT RIGHT?
A: WITHOUT TESTING THOSE, I COULDN’T EVEN COMMENT.
Q: WELL, ISN’T IT THE CASE THAT A NON-MATCH IN ANY OF THE PARTICULAR GENETIC AREAS, THE THIRTEEN AREAS, WOULD CONSTITUTE AN EXCLUSION?
A: IF IN FACT YOU ARE ABLE TO COME UP WITH A FOURTEENTH OR FIFTEENTH AREA WHERE THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A STAIN AND AN INDIVIDUAL, THEN IT WOULD BE AN EXCLUSION, YES.
Q: BUT EVEN WITHIN THE THIRTEEN IF THERE IS A VARIATION, THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE AN EXCLUSION, IS THAT RIGHT?
A: THAT IS RIGHT.
Q: WERE YOU ASKED TO EXAMINE A PAIR OF PAJAMAS?
A: YES, I WAS.
Q: WHAT KIND OF PAJAMAS WERE THEY?
A: ARE YOU LOOKING FOR JUST A GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE COLOR AND — OR — I GUESS I’M WONDERING WHEN YOU SAY WHAT KIND OF PAJAMAS, WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING FOR IN TERMS OF COLOR, SIZE?
Q: CAN YOU TELL ME, PLEASE, GIVE US THE BEST DESCRIPTION YOU POSSIBLY CAN, AS, YOU KNOW, COMPLETE AS YOU CAN, THE PAJAMAS THAT YOU WERE ASKED TO EXAMINE.
A: I REMEMBER THAT THEY WERE BLUE-AND-WHITE IN COLOR, AND THEY HAD THE CARTOON CHARACTER POWER PUFF GIRLS ON THEM.
Q: SO YOU UNDERSTOOD THEM TO BE A PAIR OF DANIELLE VAN DAM’S PAJAMAS, ISN’T THAT RIGHT?
A: I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY CAME FROM THE FLOOR OF HER BEDROOM.
Q: ALL RIGHT.
AND DID YOU INSPECT THAT PAIR OF PAJAMAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF LOCATING POSSIBLE BLOOD?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: AND DID YOU PERFORM PRESUMPTIVE TESTS ON THAT PAIR OF PAJAMAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF IDENTIFYING THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF PRESUMPTIVE BLOOD?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: AND IN FACT YOU LOCATED A RED-BROWN STAIN ON THE PAJAMA TOP, ISN’T THAT RIGHT?
A: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q: YOU IDENTIFIED IT AS ITEM 2 OR 2-1, ISN’T THAT CORRECT?
A: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q: YOU ALSO CONDUCTED A PRESUMPTIVE TEST FOR BLOOD ON A SHIRT WHICH WAS LATER IDENTIFIED AS ITEM 3A ON THE EVIDENCE LIST, IS THAT CORRECT, SIR?
A: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q: LET ME ASK YOU WITH REGARD TO THE PAJAMA, DID YOU DO D.N.A. ON THE PAJAMAS?
A: I PERSONALLY DID NOT, NO.
Q: DO YOU KNOW IF ANYBODY DID?
A: MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT WAS SENT TO A PRIVATE LABORATORY.
Q: SO WE DON’T KNOW — ALL RIGHT.
SO YOU DON’T HAVE ANY INFORMATION AS TO WHAT THE OUTCOME OF THE D.N.A. TESTING ON THIS PARTICULAR CLOTHING ITEM IS, IS THAT CORRECT?
A: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q: YOU TOLD US THAT — I’M SWITCHING SUBJECTS. SORRY.
YOU TOLD US THAT YOU WENT TO THE RECOVERY SCENE.
A: YES, I DID.
Q: MR. CLARKE ASKED YOU WHETHER OR NOT YOU FOUND ANY TEETH. DID YOU LOOK INSIDE DANIELLE VAN DAM’S MOUTH?
A: I DID NOT LOOK INSIDE HER MOUTH, NO.
Q: YOU SAID THAT YOU GOT CLOSE ENOUGH TO THE BODY TO SEE. IS THAT CORRECT?
A: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q: COULD YOU SEE ANY TEETH?
A: I DON’T RECALL AT THIS POINT IF I COULD SPECIFICALLY SEE TEETH OR NOT.
Q: WAS ONE OF YOUR PURPOSES, WERE YOU ASSIGNED A SPECIFIC TASK OF LOCATING TEETH AT THE SCENE?
A: YES. FOLLOWING ACTUALLY THE REMOVAL OF THE BODY IT WAS INDICATED TO ME THAT THERE WAS AN IMPORTANCE PLACED ON SEEING IF WE COULD LOCATE ANY OTHER TEETH.
Q: I’M SORRY. ANY OTHER TEETH? YOU MEAN SOME TEETH HAD APPARENTLY BEEN RECOVERED?
A: NO. I DIDN’T MEAN TO IMPLY THAT. ANY TEETH.
Q: AND THAT WORD CAME TO YOU AFTER THE BODY WAS REMOVED, IS THAT CORRECT?
A: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q: DID YOU SEE THE BODY REMOVED?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: CAN YOU DESCRIBE THAT PROCESS, PLEASE.
A: THE MEDICAL EXAMINER ARRIVED, AND UNDER HIS SUPERVISION THE BODY WAS PLACED ONTO A WHITE SHEET, WRAPPED IN THAT WHITE SHEET, AND THEN PLACED INTO A BODY BAG. AND IT WAS REMOVED IN THE BODY BAG.
Q: WELL, WHEN YOU SAY THE MEDICAL EXAMINER ARRIVED, YOU MEAN DR. BLACKBOURNE ARRIVED, IS THAT RIGHT?
A: AS MEMORY SERVES, YES.
Q: WELL, HE’S A DOCTOR WITH A BEARD, RIGHT?
A: YES.
Q: AND WHEN YOU SAID AT HIS DIRECTION, YOU MEAN MEMBERS OF HIS STAFF WERE DIRECTED BY HIM TO PLACE THE BODY ON A SHEET, IS THAT CORRECT?
A: HE ARRIVED. HE DOES HIS EXAMINATION AT THE SCENE. AND THEN WHEN HE’S DONE WITH HIS EXAMINATION, HE DIRECTS OTHER INDIVIDUALS THAT IT IS OKAY NOW TO REMOVE THE BODY.
Q: THOSE OTHER INDIVIDUALS, DO YOU KNOW WHO THEY WERE?
A: NO, I DO NOT.
Q: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE MEDICAL EXAMINER’S STAFF?
A: NO. NOT FOR SURE, NO.
Q: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE LAW ENFORCEMENT STAFF?
MR. CLARKE: OBJECTION. I THINK WE’RE GETTING BEYOND THE SCOPE, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: SUBSTANTIALLY. SUSTAINED.
NEXT AREA, PLEASE.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q: WHEN YOU WERE INSPECTING THE BODY, SIR, WERE YOU WEARING PROTECTIVE CLOTHING?
A: I BELIEVE I HAD A PAIR OF PROTECTIVE GLOVES ON.
Q: BUT NOT A UNIFORM, FOR INSTANCE, OR A JUMPSUIT OF ANY KIND.
A: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q: AND HOW CLOSE DID YOU COME TO THE BODY, SIR?
A: I WOULD SAY I WALKED UP TO IT, BUT I DIDN’T — ACTUALLY AT ONE POINT I DID HANDLE THE BODY IN ORDER TO ASSIST ANOTHER CRIMINALIST.
Q: WHO WAS THAT?
A: THAT WOULD BE ANNETTE PEER.
Q: DID YOU FIND ANY HAIR ON THE BODY?
MR. CLARKE: OBJECTION. VAGUE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
REPHRASE.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q: SPECIFICALLY DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO ONE OF THE ARMPITS OF DANIELLE VAN DAM. DO YOU RECALL SEEING A HAIR THERE?
A: I DO NOT, NO.
Q: WHEN YOU SAY YOU DO NOT, NO, ARE YOU USING THE WORD
N-O OR K-N-O-W?
A: I MEAN N-O.
Q: HOW WERE YOU DRESSED OTHER THAN GLOVES; WHAT SORT OF CLOTHING WERE YOU WEARING, SIR?
A: I WAS JUST WEARING STANDARD SLACKS AND A SWEATSHIRT.
Q: SO, IN OTHER WORDS, YOU DIDN’T PUT ANY PARTICULAR CLOTHES ON OTHER THAN THE GLOVES.
A: ARE YOU REFERRING TO PROTECTIVE CLOTHING?
Q: YES.
A: IT WOULD JUST BE THE GLOVES, YES.
Q: DID YOU COLLECT ANY HAIR FROM THE BODY?
A: I DID NOT, NO. LET ME REPHRASE THAT. THAT IS CORRECT. I DID NOT COLLECT ANY HAIR FROM THE BODY.
Q: DID YOU OBSERVE HAIRS BEING COLLECTED FROM THE BODY?
A: I OBSERVED HAIRS BEING COLLECTED THAT WERE NEXT TO THE BODY.
Q: DID YOU ALSO, SIR, GO INTO THE S.U.V.
MR. CLARKE: OBJECTION. BEYOND THE SCOPE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED. HE’S TESTIFIED AS TO THE MOTOR HOME.
YOU MAY ANSWER THAT.
MR. CLARKE: I THINK THIS IS A DIFFERENT QUESTION, YOUR HONOR, OR DIFFERENT VEHICLE.
MR. FELDMAN: I CONCEDE, YOUR HONOR. I’M REFERRING TO THE 4RUNNER, THE S.U.V., AS OPPOSED TO THE MOTOR HOME.
THE COURT: WELL, HE CAN ANSWER THAT YES OR NO.
THE WITNESS: I DID NOT DO ANYTHING TO THE MOTOR HOME. I’M SORRY. I DID NOT DO ANYTHING TO THE S.U.V.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q: DID ANYBODY PRESENT TO YOU FLOORMATS FROM THE S.U.V.
MR. CLARKE: SAME OBJECTION.
THE COURT: DULY NOTED. OVERRULED.
YOU MAY ANSWER.
THE WITNESS: YES, THEY DID.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q: DID YOU OBSERVE THE FLOORMATS FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING TRACE EVIDENCE
A: NO, I DID NOT.
Q: SIR, YOU PREPARED A SERIES OF REPORTS IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR ACTIVITIES IN THE CASE, IS THAT RIGHT?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY REPORTS DID YOU PREPARE?
A: I BELIEVE SIX.
Q: SPECIFICALLY DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION, SIR, TO YOUR REPORT DATED 5/3/02, BUT I’M NOT SURE WHICH NUMBER IN SEQUENCE THAT IS, I’M SORRY.
A: THAT’S OKAY. I WILL FIND IT.
MR. FELDMAN: COUNSEL, IT’S PAGE 6,274.
THE WITNESS: YES. I FOUND THAT REPORT.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q: YOU ARTICULATED IN YOUR REPORT ITEMS 28 AND ITEMS 29, IS THAT RIGHT?
A: YES. THAT IS CORRECT.
Q: THEY REFLECT A FLOORMAT, DO THEY NOT? 28 REFLECTS A FLOORMAT, 29 REFLECTS A FLOORMAT, IS THAT CORRECT?
A: THAT IS CORRECT.
MR. CLARKE: OBJECTION. BEYOND THE SCOPE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
I’LL HEAR YOU AT SIDEBAR, HOWEVER, MR. FELDMAN.
MR. FELDMAN: YES, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: BOB.
(SIDEBAR DISCUSSION, OUT OF THE HEARING OF THE
JURY, AS FOLLOWS:

(PROCEEDINGS NOT PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD.)

(END OF SIDEBAR DISCUSSION.)
THE COURT: (TO JUROR NUMBER 9) TIME FOR A BREAK?
JUROR NUMBER 9: NO. I DON’T UNDERSTAND WHAT BEYOND THE SCOPE MEANS.
THE COURT: OKAY. THAT JUST MEANS MR. CLARKE DIDN’T RAISE THE ISSUE AND MR. FELDMAN IS GOING INTO A DIFFERENT ISSUE. AND OVER AT SIDEBAR I SAID MR. FELDMAN CAN GO INTO THE ISSUE. SO NOW YOU ARE UP TO SPEED.
JUROR NUMBER 9: YES.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q: SIR, I WOULD LIKE TO SPECIFICALLY DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO ITEMS 28, 29, 30, AND 31. THESE WERE ITEMS THAT WERE REPRESENTED TO YOU TO HAVE BEEN SOURCED FROM THE S.U.V., A 4RUNNER, ISN’T THAT CORRECT?
A: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q: AND YOU EVALUATED THESE FOR WHAT, JUST BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE AND NOT TRACE?
A: YES. MY PRIMARY DUTY WAS LOOKING FOR BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE.
Q: DID YOU FIND ANY BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE ON ANY OF THAT, ANY OF THOSE ITEMS?
A: NO, I DID NOT.
Q: SO BASED ON THAT CONCLUSION THAT YOU DIDN’T FIND ANY BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE, AT LEAST INSOFAR AS YOU’RE CONCERNED, WE CAN EXCLUDE DANIELLE VAN DAM FROM BEING IN THE S.U.V., ISN’T THAT TRUE?
MR. CLARKE: OBJECTION. ARGUMENTATIVE. LACK OF FOUNDATION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q: YOU CANNOT, BASED ON YOUR FINDINGS, INCLUDE DANIELLE VAN DAM AS EVER HAVING BEEN IN THE S.U.V., IS THAT RIGHT?
MR. CLARKE: SAME OBJECTION.
THE COURT: DULY NOTED. SUSTAINED.
(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD AMONG THE DEFENSE.)
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q: SIR, DID YOU SAY THAT YOU TESTED ITEMS THAT WERE IN THE FIVE SERIES OF EXHIBITS?
A: I’M SORRY. I DON’T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU MEAN.
Q: MR. CLARKE WAS ASKING YOU QUESTIONS ABOUT SOME OF THE TESTS THAT YOU DID. AND I THOUGHT THAT YOU HAD MENTIONED YOU MAY HAVE LOOKED AT TOWELS OR MATTERS THAT WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE SOURCED FROM THE WESTERFIELD RESIDENCE.
A: THAT IS CORRECT, YES.
Q: THOSE ITEMS THAT YOU EXAMINED, CAN YOU TELL US WHAT THEY WERE, PLEASE.
A: ITEM NUMBER — WHAT WAS IDENTIFIED TO ME AS ITEM NUMBER 5 WERE THE CONTENTS OF THE WASHING MACHINE IN MR. WESTERFIELD’ RESIDENCE.
Q: WITH REGARD TO THE CONTENTS, WERE THEY ALL PUT TOGETHER?
A: ALL THE CONTENTS WERE IN ONE PAPER BAG.
Q: TOGETHER?
A: TOGETHER.
Q: NOT SEPARATELY PACKAGED?
A: THEY WERE NOT SEPARATELY PACKAGED.
Q: DID YOU ALSO OBSERVE ITEMS THAT WERE REPRESENTED TO YOU TO HAVE COME FROM THE TOP OF THE DRYER?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: WERE THEY ALL IN A — SIMILARLY PACKAGED?
A: THEY WERE SIMILARLY PACKAGED, YES.
Q: MEANING THEY WERE ALL PLACED IN A SINGLE BAG, IS THAT CORRECT?
A: YES.
Q: THERE WAS NO SEPARATION BETWEEN THE ITEMS?
A: THAT’S CORRECT.
(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN MR. FELDMAN
AND MR. BOYCE.)
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q: IN ADDITION TO THE EVIDENCE YOU’VE NOW DISCUSSED, DID YOU ALSO HAVE OCCASION TO TEST A LAUNDRY BAG CONTAINING A WAD OF PAPER TOWELS AND A BATH TOWEL?
A: ACTUALLY I BELIEVE I LOOKED AT TWO DIFFERENT LAUNDRY BAGS AT DIFFERENT TIMES.
Q: OKAY.
I’M NOW SPECIFICALLY REFERRING TO YOUR REPORT, SIR, OF FEBRUARY 21, 2002. DISCOVERY 6,096.
A: YES.
Q: GOT IT?
A: YES.
Q: SO NOW I’M SPECIFICALLY DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION, SIR, TO ITEMS THAT COME OFF OF PROPERTY TAG 850125. AND YOU NOTE ITEM 21 IS A LAUNDRY BAG CONTAINING A WAD OF PAPER TOWELS, IS THAT CORRECT?
A: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q: AND YOU NOTED A TEAL JACKET AS ITEM NUMBER 22 FROM THE FLOOR AREA, I’M SORRY, A TEAL JACKET FROM FLOOR OF CARGO AREA, IS THAT CORRECT?
A: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q: YOU LOOKED AT BOTH THE LAUNDRY BAG AND SOME OF ITS CONTENTS AS WELL AS THE JACKET FOR THE PURPOSE OF IDENTIFYING BIOLOGICAL FLUIDS, IS THAT RIGHT?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: INCLUDED WITHIN THE CONCEPT OF BIOLOGICAL FLUIDS WOULD BE SEMEN, IS THAT RIGHT?
A: THAT IS RIGHT.
Q: BASED UPON YOUR ANALYSIS, YOU DID THAT TESTING THAT YOU’RE TRAINED TO DO, IS THAT CORRECT?
A: YES.
Q: AND YOU CONCLUDED, DID YOU NOT, THAT THERE WERE NO BLOOD OR SEMEN STAINS DETECTED ON THE LAUNDRY BAG OR ITS CONTENTS.
A: CORRECT.
Q: AND THE CONTENTS INCLUDED PAPER TOWELS, A BATH TOWEL WHICH WAS IDENTIFIED AS ITEM 21, THE JACKET THAT WAS IDENTIFIED AS ITEM 22, AND A ROLL OF PLASTIC TRASH BAGS THAT WERE ITEM — IDENTIFIED AS ITEM 51 AND 64, IS THAT CORRECT, SIR?
A: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q: IN ADDITION YOU LOOKED AT SHOES AND BOOTS THAT WERE REPRESENTED TO HAVE BEEN SEIZED FROM THE WESTERFIELD RESIDENCE, IS THAT CORRECT?
A: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q: THOSE WERE IDENTIFIED AS ITEMS I GUESS ITEM 146 AND 147, IS THAT RIGHT, SIR?
A: THAT IS RIGHT.
Q: WITH REGARD TO YOUR EVALUATION OF 146 AND 147, YOU CONCLUDED THERE WAS NO BLOOD ON THE SHOES OR THE BOOTS, CORRECT?
A: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q: I’M SORRY. I WANT TO REDIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THE CRIME SCENE. I’M SORRY. THE RECOVERY SCENE.
SIR, YOU SPECIFICALLY LOOKED AT THE RECOVERY SCENE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF DRAG MARKS, IS THAT CORRECT?
A: I MADE THAT OBSERVATION WHILE I WAS THERE, YES.
Q: IT’S CORRECT THERE WERE NO DRAG MARKS ASSOCIATED, IS THAT RIGHT, SIR?
A: THAT IS RIGHT.
Q: YOU ALSO EVALUATED THE AREA OF THE RECOVERY SCENE TO A CERTAIN EXTENT, ISN’T THAT RIGHT?
A: THAT IS RIGHT.
Q: AND YOU CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS A LARGE QUANTITY OF TRASH THAT LITTERED THE AREA.
A: YES.
Q: YOU ALSO COLLECTED WHAT APPEARED TO BE HAIRS FROM THE GROUND BESIDE THE RIGHT LEG AND FOOT OF THE BODY, ISN’T THAT RIGHT?
A: SPECIFICALLY CRIMINALIST ANNETTE PEER DID THAT, YES.
Q: AND YOU CONCLUDED, DID YOU NOT, THAT WHETHER PARKED ON THE DIRT ROAD OR ON THE SIDE OF DEHESA ROAD, IT APPEARED TO YOU THAT THE PERPETRATOR WOULD HAVE HAD TO ENTER THE GROUPING OF THE TREES FROM THE NORTH SIDE?
A: CORRECT.
MR. FELDMAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
NO FURTHER.
THE COURT: ANYTHING FURTHER, MR. CLARKE?
MR. CLARKE: YES. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. CLARKE:
Q: MR. CORNACCHIA, I THINK IT WAS ITEM 2-1, THE PAJAMA TOP, WHERE YOU LOCATED THE BLOODSTAIN. CORRECT?
A: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q: CAN YOU TELL US WHERE IT WAS LOCATED ON THAT PAJAMA TOP?
A: ON THE CUFF OF THE LEFT SLEEVE.
Q: NOW, WAS THAT THE PAJAMA TOP OR THE SHIRT THAT WAS ITEM 3, DO YOU RECALL?
A: THAT WAS ON THE CUFF OF THE LEFT SLEEVE.
Q: LET’S TALK ABOUT THE PAJAMA TOP. I’M SORRY. YOU LOCATED THAT STAIN — I BELIEVE THAT WAS ITEM 2-1. IS THAT CORRECT?
A: YES.
Q: — ON THE CUFF, IS THAT CORRECT?
A: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q: WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER ITEM, ITEM NUMBER 3, THE OTHER PIECE OF CLOTHING, THE SHIRT?
A: THE DISCOLORED AREA THAT GAVE ME A POSITIVE PRESUMPTIVE TEST WAS ALSO ON THE CUFF OF THE LEFT SLEEVE.
Q: SO IT WASN’T ON THE BACK AREA OF EITHER OF THOSE ITEMS; THAT IS, THE BACK OF THE BODY OF THE SHIRT?
A: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q: NOW, THIS TEST THAT YOU USE, THIS D.N.A. TEST, IT’S A VERY SENSITIVE TEST, IS THAT CORRECT?
A: YES, IT IS.
Q: IN OTHER WORDS, CAN IT OBTAIN RESULTS FROM EVEN FAIRLY SMALL SAMPLES OF D.N.A.?
A: YES, IT CAN.
Q: AS FAR AS THAT BEAN BAG CHAIR IS CONCERNED, FIRST OF ALL, — LET ME REPHRASE IT.
IS THE TEST SUFFICIENTLY SENSITIVE IT CAN EVEN PICK UP D.N.A. FROM A PERSON BY RUBBING AGAINST SOMETHING AND NOT EVEN BLEEDING, SPITTING, OR LEAVING A FLUID?
MR. FELDMAN: SPECULATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
YOU CAN ANSWER.
THE WITNESS: AS A GENERAL RULE, NO. I WOULDN’T EXPECT TO SEE A D.N.A. TRANSFER BY JUST SPECIFICALLY RUBBING IN THE ABSENCE OF BODY FLUID.
BY MR. CLARKE:
Q: DO YOU EVER OBTAIN D.N.A. RESULTS FROM A PIECE OF CLOTHING WITH NO APPARENT STAINING?
A: SOMETIMES WE’RE ASKED TO FIND THE HABITUAL WEARER OF CLOTHING. WHEN WE DO THAT, WE FOCUS ON THE UNDERARM AREAS AND ALSO THE COLLAR AREAS SINCE THOSE AREAS ADHERE MOST CLOSELY TO THE SKIN. AND ALSO WHEN PEOPLE SWEAT, THOSE ARE AREAS THAT TYPICALLY GATHER A LOT OF PERSPIRATION IN THEM.
Q: SO, FOR EXAMPLE, REPEATED RUBBING OF THE SKIN AGAINST A SURFACE CAN IN FACT LEAVE ENOUGH D.N.A. FOR YOU AS AN EXPERT TO OBTAIN RESULTS ON OCCASION?
MR. FELDMAN: RELEVANCE. OBJECTION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
YOU CAN ANSWER THAT.
THE WITNESS: IT’S POSSIBLE. ALTHOUGH I STILL SAY THAT IT WOULD REQUIRE PERSPIRATION IN ORDER TO PROBABLY GET A SUFFICIENT QUANTITY OF D.N.A. IN ORDER TO GET A PROFILE AFTER YOU HAVE IT.
BY MR. CLARKE:
Q: SO IF A PERSON WERE TO PERSPIRE ON A SUBSTANCE, YOU CAN OBTAIN SUFFICIENT D.N.A. AT LEAST IN THE COURSE OF TESTING SOMETIMES?
MR. FELDMAN: ASKED AND ANSWERED.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
YOU CAN ANSWER AGAIN.
THE WITNESS: IN MY EXPERIENCE, YES.
BY MR. CLARKE:
Q: WHEN WE TALK ABOUT A MIXTURE, — AND YOU OBTAINED RESULTS SHOWING A MIXTURE I THINK ON TWO DIFFERENT STAINS, IS THAT CORRECT, FROM THE BEAN BAG CHAIR?
A: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q: — THOSE MIXTURES DON’T HAVE TO BE BLOOD ON TOP OF BLOOD, DO THEY?
A: THEY DO NOT.
Q: AND FROM YOUR RESULTS CAN YOU EVEN TELL US NECESSARILY WHETHER DANIELLE EVER EVEN BLED ONTO THAT CHAIR DESPITE THE RESULTS SHOWING THAT SOMETHING COULD HAVE COME FROM HER?
A: I CANNOT MAKE THE STATEMENT THAT SHE’S EVER BLED OR NOT BLED.
Q: NOW, IN DEALING WITH THESE, — AND I THINK YOU GAVE US ONE STATISTICAL ESTIMATE, ACTUALLY FOR ONE STAIN THAT WAS CONSISTENT WITH DEREK. IS THAT RIGHT?
A: YES, IT IS.
Q: AND THAT WAS THE STAIN WHERE THERE WAS NO INDICATION THAT THAT WAS A MIXTURE, CORRECT?
A: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q: AND I THINK YOU GAVE US WAS IT THE CHANCES OF SOMEONE OTHER THAN DEREK HAVING LEFT THAT STAIN WERE IN THE TRILLIONS OR RARER, IS THAT CORRECT?
A: TRILLIONS OR RARER, YES.
Q: IS THERE MUCH REASON TO TEST ANY FURTHER MARKERS TO MAKE THAT NUMBER EVEN RARER?
A: NO. I SEE NO NEED TO DO ADDITIONAL TESTING ON THAT STAIN.
Q: LASTLY, WITH REGARD TO THE WASHING MACHINE ITEMS AND I THINK YOU SAID THAT THE ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN ITEM NUMBER 5 AS COMING FROM THE WASHING MACHINE WERE PACKAGED TOGETHER. IS THAT CORRECT?
A: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q: IS THERE ANYTHING SIGNIFICANT ABOUT PACKAGING THOSE ITEMS TOGETHER AS OPPOSED TO SEPARATELY BASED ON WHAT THEY WERE TAKEN FROM?
A: NO. BASED ON THE FACT THAT THEY WERE ALL TOGETHER IN THE WASHING MACHINE IN ORDER TO SEPARATELY PACKAGE EACH ITEM AT THAT POINT DOESN’T NEGATE THE FACT THAT THEY WERE ALL AGAIN TOGETHER IN ONE WASHING MACHINE. SO, FOR INSTANCE, A PIECE OF TRACE EVIDENCE THAT WAS ON A SOCK COULD HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED TO A TOWEL IN THE WASHING MACHINE JUST AS EASILY AS THEY COULD HAVE IN THE BAG THEY WERE PACKAGED IN.
Q: DOES THE SAME HOLD TRUE TO ITEMS IN THE DRYER AFTER THE DRYER HAS BEEN USED?
A: YES, IT DOES.
MR. CLARKE: THANK YOU.
NOTHING FURTHER, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. FELDMAN, ANYTHING FURTHER?

RECROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q: SO WHAT YOU JUST MENTIONED WAS THIS NOTION OF TRANSFER OF TRACE EVIDENCE, IS THAT RIGHT?
A: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q: SO WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THE STATEMENT THAT MERELY BECAUSE HAIR MIGHT HAVE BEEN FOUND ON A PARTICULAR PIECE OF TRACE EVIDENCE COMING OUT OF THE WASHING MACHINE, THAT DOESN’T MEAN IT SOURCED FROM THE WASHING MACHINE OR FROM THE ITEM ON THE WASHING MACHINE, CORRECT?
MR. CLARKE: OBJECTION. THAT’S VAGUE.
THE COURT: DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? SUSTAINED. REPHRASE IT.
MR. FELDMAN: I’LL TRY IT AGAIN.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q: YOU HEARD OF THE LOWCARD EXCHANGE PRINCIPLE, SIR?
A: YES, I HAVE.
Q: WHAT’S THAT?
A: LOWCARD EXCHANGE PRINCIPLE STATES THAT WHEN ANY TWO OBJECTS COME INTO CONTACT WITH ONE ANOTHER, THEY LEAVE EVIDENCE OF THAT CONTACT ON EACH OTHER.
Q: SO HYPOTHETICALLY IF I SIT AGAINST A CHAIR, I MIGHT LEAVE SOME HAIR THERE, IS THAT RIGHT?
A: THAT IS RIGHT.
Q: IS THAT A PRIMARY — IS THAT CALLED A PRIMARY TRANSFER? IS THAT CALLED A SECONDARY TRANSFER?
A: I BELIEVE THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A PRIMARY TRANSFER.
Q: AND THEN HYPOTHETICALLY MR. CLARKE SITS IN THE CHAIR AND MY HAIR HITS HIS JACKET. THAT A PRIMARY OR SECONDARY TRANSFER?
A: THAT WOULD BE A SECONDARY TRANSFER.
Q: AND THEN MR. CLARKE’S JACKET GOES INTO A WASHING MACHINE AND GETS WASHED AND ENDS UP ON A TOWEL, IS THAT CALLED A TERTIARY TRANSFER?
A: I BELIEVE SO, YES.
Q: TERTIARY MEANING THIRD?
A: YES.
Q: AND THEN THE TOWEL GETS MOVED INTO A DIFFERENT ROOM, THAT’S YET ANOTHER TRANSFER, IS THAT CORRECT?
A: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q: AND THIS IS ALL WHAT I’M ARTICULATING OR THESE QUESTIONS THAT I’M ASKING YOU ABOUT, THESE ARE ALL BASED UPON WITH YOUR TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE I SAID AS THE LOWCARD TRANSFER PRINCIPLE, IS THAT RIGHT?
A: THAT IS RIGHT.
Q: SO JUST BECAUSE A HAIR MIGHT END UP AT MY COUNSEL TABLE DOESN’T MEAN IT STARTED UP AT MY COUNSEL TABLE, IT COULD HAVE STARTED UP AT MY HOUSE, ISN’T THAT RIGHT?
A: THAT’S CORRECT.
MR. FELDMAN: NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
THE COURT: ANYTHING FURTHER?
MR. CLARKE: NO. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
IS THIS WITNESS TO BE EXCUSED?
MR. CLARKE: NO OBJECTION.
MR. FELDMAN: YES, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR, FOR COMING IN. YOU ARE FREE TO LEAVE THESE PROCEEDINGS.
REMEMBER YOU’RE UNDER AN ADMONITION NOT TO DISCUSS THE CASE WITH ANYONE UNTIL THE MATTER IS CONCLUDED, BUT OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN PERFORM YOUR PROFESSIONAL DUTIES. ALL RIGHT.
THE WITNESS: THANK YOU.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
(THE WITNESS WAS EXCUSED.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. CLARKE.
MR. CLARKE: TANYA DULANEY, PLEASE, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

TANYA DULANEY,
CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE PLAINTIFF, HAVING BEEN DULY SWORN, TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
THE CLERK: MA’AM, WOULD YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND SPELL IT FOR THE RECORD.
THE WITNESS: MY NAME IS TANYA DULANEY. T-A-N-Y-A
D-U CAPITAL L-A-N-E-Y.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. CLARKE:
Q: GOOD MORNING, MISS DULANEY. HOW ARE YOU?
A: GOOD MORNING. I’M FINE.
Q: HOW ARE YOU EMPLOYED?
A: I’M EMPLOYED BY THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT CRIME LABORATORY.
Q: IN WHAT PARTICULAR POSITION?
A: I’M A CRIMINALIST IN THE TRACE EVIDENCE SECTION.
Q: WE’VE HEARD THE TERM TRACE EVIDENCE. CAN YOU TELL US WHAT TRACE EVIDENCE IS.
A: TRACE EVIDENCE GENERALLY REFERS TO SMALL PARTICLES OF MATERIAL THAT CAN BE EASILY TRANSFERRED.
Q: ALL RIGHT.
COULD YOU DESCRIBE FOR US, PLEASE, — AND, FIRST OF ALL, I THINK YOUR ASSIGNMENT YOU SAID IS AS A TRACE ANALYST. IS THAT RIGHT?
A: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q: DOES THAT MEAN THAT THAT’S WHAT YOU DO FULL TIME IN THE LABORATORY?
A: YES, IT IS.
Q: COULD YOU DESCRIBE FOR US, PLEASE, FIRST OF ALL, YOUR FORMAL EDUCATION.
A: I HAVE A BACHELOR OF SCIENCE DEGREE IN BIOLOGY WITH A MINOR IN CHEMISTRY FROM SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY.
Q: WHO WERE YOU FIRST EMPLOYED BY FOLLOWING YOUR EDUCATION?
A: I WORKED FOR APPROXIMATELY SIX YEARS WITH THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO IN THEIR WASTEWATER LABORATORY.
Q: ALL RIGHT.
DOING WHAT?
A: I WAS ANALYZING WASTEWATER SAMPLES PRIMARILY FOR INORGANIC COMPONENTS.
Q: DID YOU THEN TAKE A DIFFERENT POSITION?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: WHERE WAS THAT?
A: I MOVED OVER TO THE SHERIFF’S CRIME LAB., AND I WORKED IN NARCOTICS WITH BLOOD ALCOHOL AND ALSO TRACE EVIDENCE.
Q: ABOUT HOW LONG DID YOU WORK IN THE AREA OF TRACE EVIDENCE AT THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT?
A: ABOUT TWO YEARS.
Q: WHAT POSITIONS, IF ANY, DID YOU TAKE AFTER THAT?
A: FOLLOWING THE SHERIFF’S LAB., I MOVED OVER TO THE SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT CRIME LAB.
Q: WHEN WOULD THAT HAVE BEEN?
A: I BELIEVE THAT WAS 1995.
Q: IN WHAT PARTICULAR AREAS WERE YOU ASSIGNED AT THE CRIME LABORATORY WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT?
A: I’VE ALWAYS BEEN ASSIGNED TO THE TRACE EVIDENCE SECTION.
Q: SINCE, I’M SORRY, ’95 OR SO, 1995?
A: YES.
Q: ALL RIGHT.
COULD YOU DESCRIBE FOR THE JURY, PLEASE, YOUR, OTHER THAN YOUR FORMAL EDUCATION THAT YOU ALREADY HAVE DESCRIBED, YOUR TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE THAT LED TO YOUR POSITION AS A TRACE ANALYST.
A: UPON MY EMPLOYMENT WITH THE SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT, I RECEIVED IN-HOUSE TRAINING IN HAIRS AND FIBER ANALYSIS. IN ADDITION TO THAT, I’VE ATTENDED A NUMBER OF CLASSES WITH THE SACRAMENTO DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. THEY HAVE A TRAINING INSTITUTE CALLED THE CALIFORNIA CRIMINALISTICS INSTITUTE. AND THERE I TOOK A NUMBER OF CLASSES COVERING DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF TRACE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS. SOME OF THOSE INCLUDE ANALYSIS OF HAIR EVIDENCE, FIBER ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON, WRITING INSTRUMENTAL TECHNIQUES, PAINT ANALYSIS, SHOE AND TIRE COMPARISON, AND A NUMBER OF CRIME SCENE CLASSES.
IN ADDITION TO THAT I’VE ALSO ATTENDED A TWO-WEEK COURSE AT THE F. B. I. ACADEMY THAT COVERED HAIR AND FIBER ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON.
Q: IS THERE ANY WAY FOR YOU TO ESTIMATE APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY CASES INVOLVING TRACE EVIDENCE YOU’VE WORKED ON WHETHER AT THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT OR AT THE SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT?
A: I GUESS AN ESTIMATE MIGHT BE ABOUT A HUNDRED AND FIFTY OR SO.
Q: DID THOSE CASES INVOLVE HAIRS?
A: MANY OF THEM.
Q: WHAT ABOUT FIBERS?
A: THE SAME. MANY OF THEM.
Q: IS YOUR LABORATORY ACCREDITED BY ANY AGENCY?
A: YES, IT IS.
Q: ALL RIGHT.
WE’VE HEARD PREVIOUS TESTIMONY ABOUT THE ACCREDITATION OF THE LABORATORY. DOES THAT ACCREDITATION INCLUDE THE TRACE UNIT WHERE YOU WORK?
A: YES, IT DOES.
Q: WHAT ABOUT ANY TRAINING YOU’VE RECEIVED IN THE AREA OF EVIDENCE COLLECTION?
A: AT THE CALIFORNIA CRIMINALISTICS INSTITUTE I’VE ALSO ATTENDED A NUMBER OF CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION CLASSES. AND THEY DO COVER EVIDENCE COLLECTION AND PACKAGING FOR LATER ANALYSIS.
Q: I WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO YOU, FIRST OF ALL, A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HAIRS. IS THERE AN APPROXIMATE GROWTH RATE OF THE HUMAN HAIR, REFERRING TO HEAD HAIR?
A: YES. IT’S APPROXIMATELY ABOUT HALF AN INCH A MONTH.
Q: CAN YOU ALSO TELL US APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY HUMAN HEAD HAIRS ARE SHED BY AN INDIVIDUAL PERSON BY THE DAY?
A: IT VARIES, YOU KNOW, DEPENDING ON THE PERSON. BUT ABOUT FIFTY TO A HUNDRED PER DAY.
Q: NOW, WERE YOU ASKED TO EXAMINE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE INVOLVING THE DISAPPEARANCE OF DANIELLE VAN DAM?
A: YES, I WAS.
Q: DID THAT INCLUDE THE EXAMINATION OF EVIDENCE FOR THE PRESENCE OF ANY TRACE EVIDENCE?
A: YES, IT DID.
Q: OKAY.
LET’S TALK — FIRST OF ALL, WERE YOU EVER INSIDE THE HOME OF DAVID WESTERFIELD ON MOUNTAIN PASS ROAD?
A: YES, I WAS.
Q: COULD YOU TELL US WHEN THAT WAS?
A: MAY I REFER TO MY NOTES, PLEASE?
Q: SURE.
A: IT WOULD BE FEBRUARY 13TH OF THIS YEAR.
MR. FELDMAN: EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR. JUST FOR THE RECORD COULD SHE INDICATE WHICH REPORT?
THE COURT: LET US KNOW WHAT REPORT YOU’RE REFERRING TO AND WHAT PAGE NUMBER, PLEASE.
THE WITNESS: YES. THIS IS MY REPORT ON — IT’S DATED FEBRUARY 15TH. IT WAS CO-SIGNED BY ANOTHER ANALYST. AND IT HAS TO DO WITH THE SHOES.
MR. FELDMAN: THANK YOU.
MR. CLARKE: ALL RIGHT.
BY MR. CLARKE:
Q: I’M SORRY. WHAT DATE WAS THAT AGAIN?
A: FEBRUARY 13TH.
Q: WERE YOU INSIDE THAT RESIDENCE ON ANY OTHER OCCASION?
A: NO, I WAS NOT.
Q: WERE YOU EVER INSIDE A MOTOR HOME IDENTIFIED AS BELONGING TO DAVID WESTERFIELD?
A: YES, I WAS.
Q: CAN YOU TELL US ON WHAT DATE OR DATES THAT WAS THE CASE?
A: THAT WOULD BE FEBRUARY 6TH.
Q: SO YOU WERE IN THE MOTOR HOME ON FEBRUARY 6TH?
A: YES.
Q: ON ANY OTHER OCCASION INSIDE THE MOTOR HOME?
A: NO.
Q: YOU WERE IN MR. WESTERFIELD’S RESIDENCE ON FEBRUARY 13TH.
A: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q: ANY OTHER OCCASION?
A: NO.
Q: WERE YOU EVER INSIDE THE HOME OF THE VAN DAMS?
A: NO, I WAS NOT.
Q: NOW I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU A SERIES OF QUESTIONS ABOUT SPECIFIC EVIDENCE ITEMS. DO YOU HAVE REPORTS THAT DEAL WITH YOUR EXAMINATION OF EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE?
A: YES, I DO.
Q: I WOULD LIKE TO FOCUS YOUR ATTENTION INITIALLY ON ITEM NUMBER 5, DESCRIBED AS CLOTHING FROM THE WASHING MACHINE OF DAVID WESTERFIELD. DO YOU HAVE THAT REPORT BEFORE YOU?
A: YES.
Q: DID YOU IN FACT EXAMINE THAT PARTICULAR CLOTHING INSIDE THE WASHING MACHINE?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: FOR THE PRESENCE OF TRACE EVIDENCE?
A: YES.
Q: WOULD THAT INCLUDE HAIRS?
A: YES.
Q: WOULD THAT INCLUDE FIBERS?
A: YES.
Q: WITH RESPECT TO AN ITEM LIKE THAT, A SERIES OF CLOTHING, WHAT METHOD DO YOU USE TO OBTAIN TRACE EVIDENCE?
A: WHEN LOOKING AT CLOTHING, I TYPICALLY USE A TAPE LIFT TO COLLECT ANYTHING THAT MIGHT BE ADHERING TO THE OUTER SURFACE. AND I ALSO USE BRIGHT LIGHTS SO THAT I CAN SEE THOSE, SEE THE SURFACE, AND I MAY USE FORCEPS TO COLLECT ANY LOOSE FIBERS THAT I SEE ON THEM.
Q: AS FAR AS THESE TAPE LIFTS ARE CONCERNED, AND THE JURY HAS PREVIOUSLY HEARD EVIDENCE ABOUT HOW TAPE LIFTS ARE TAKEN, DO YOU THEN EXAMINE THOSE TAPE LIFTS AS OPPOSED TO JUST COLLECTING THEM YOURSELF?
A: YES, I DO.
Q: SO YOU TAKE TAPE LIFTS AS PART OF THE COLLECTION PROCESS.
A: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q: AND YOU ALSO EXAMINE THEM WHEN ASKED FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING TYPES OR THE PRESENCE OF TRACE EVIDENCE, CORRECT?
A: YES. IT’S ACTUALLY PART OF THE EXAMINATION. I DON’T WAIT TO BE ASKED. I COLLECT THE TAPE LIFTS AS A TOOL TO HELP ME EXAMINE WHAT WAS ON THE ITEM.
Q: IN PARTICULAR WITH REGARD TO THE CLOTHING FROM THE WASHING MACHINE, ITEM 5, YOU TOOK TAPE LIFTS FROM THOSE.
A: YES, I DID.
Q: DID YOU ALSO IN THIS INITIAL EXAMINATION OBSERVE ANY HAIRS?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: DID YOU OBSERVE ANY FIBERS?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: WITH REGARD TO THE FIBERS, TELL US ABOUT THEM; WHAT DID THEY LOOK LIKE?
A: THERE WAS A NUMBER OF ORANGE AND BLUE FIBERS ON THE MAJORITY OF THE TAPE LIFTS THAT I LOOKED AT.
Q: NOW, WHEN YOU SAY ORANGE AND BLUE, DOES THAT MEAN A FIBER HAD BOTH COLORS OR ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT DIFFERENT FIBERS COLORED DIFFERENT?
A: THEY WERE SEPARATE ORANGE FIBERS AND SEPARATE BLUE FIBERS.
Q: AS FAR AS THESE TAPE LIFTS ARE CONCERNED, DID YOU THEN PRESERVE THEM AND LABEL THEM?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: FOR WHAT REASON?
A: WHEN I INITIALLY EXAMINED THEM, I WAS LOOKING FOR PARTICULAR TYPES OF FIBER EVIDENCE. BUT YOU NEVER KNOW WHEN YOU MIGHT NEED TO RE-EVALUATE THOSE TAPE LIFTS WHEN AS A CASE PROGRESSES ALONG YOU MAY GET INFORMATION THAT MAY CAUSE YOU TO WANT TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THOSE AGAIN TO SEE IF THERE’S ANY ADDITIONAL FIBER EVIDENCE OR EVEN OTHER PARTICULATE MATERIAL THAT MAY BE ON THE TAPE LIFTS STILL.
Q: YOU SAID YOU WERE LOOKING FOR PARTICULAR FIBERS. TELL US WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT.
A: DURING THIS EVALUATION I WAS LOOKING FOR HAIRS THAT DIDN’T BELONG IN MR. WESTERFIELD’S ENVIRONMENT, SPECIFICALLY THAT COULD BELONG TO DANIELLE VAN DAM. I WAS ALSO LOOKING FOR OTHER ITEMS THAT COULD BE FROM DANIELLE VAN DAM’S ENVIRONMENT, SUCH AS CARPET FIBERS FROM HER ENVIRONMENT OR ANY PET HAIRS THAT MAY BE FROM HER ENVIRONMENT.
Q: AS PART OF THIS TAPE LIFT PROCESS, THEN, I GATHER YOU LOOK AT THEM AND THEN LATER YOU EXAMINE THEM MORE CAREFULLY, IS THAT CORRECT?
A: RIGHT. IF I — WHILE I’M EXAMINING THEM UNDER LOW-POWER MAGNIFICATION, IF I FIND SOMETHING THAT LOOKS INTERESTING, IF I FIND A CARPET FIBER THAT I DON’T THINK BELONGS IN MR. WESTERFIELD’S HOME OR A HAIR THAT I THINK IS SIMILAR TO DANIELLE VAN DAM’S OR ANY ANIMAL HAIRS THAT I THINK ARE INTERESTING, I WILL REMOVE THOSE FROM THE TAPE LIFT AND PUT THEM ON A MICROSCOPE SLIDE FOR LATER EXAMINATION.
Q: AND DID YOU DO THAT IN THIS CASE?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: ALL RIGHT.
I WOULD LIKE TO TURN YOUR ATTENTION — I’M SORRY. WITH REGARD TO THE TAPE LIFTS FROM ITEM 5, THE WASHING MACHINE CLOTHING, DID YOU LABEL THEM APPROPRIATELY SO IT COULD BE LATER DETERMINED WHERE THOSE TAPE LIFTS CAME FROM?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: AS WELL AS THE SLIDES?
A: YES.
Q: I WOULD LIKE TO TURN YOUR ATTENTION TO AN ITEM LABELED NUMBER 6, CLOTHING FROM THE TOP OF A DRYER, AND ASK IF YOU EXAMINED THOSE MATERIALS AS WELL?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: DID YOU TAKE TAPE LIFTS FROM THOSE MATERIALS?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: IN YOUR INITIAL EXAMINATION OF THIS CLOTHING DID YOU NOTE ANY ANIMAL HAIRS?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: DESCRIBE THAT, PLEASE.
A: I NOTED ONE DOG, WHAT APPEARED TO BE A DOG HAIR ON THE WHITE TOWEL WHICH WAS LABELED 6B.
Q: B AS IN BOY?
A: B AS IN BOY. THAT WAS ONE OF THE ITEMS IN THAT LAUNDRY.
Q: DID YOU LABEL AND PRESERVE THAT HAIR?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: DID YOU ALSO NOTE ANY FIBERS IN YOUR TAKING, THAT IS, TAKING OF TAPE LIFTS AND INITIAL EXAMINATION OF THOSE ITEMS?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: DESCRIBE THEM.
A: I FOUND SIMILAR-COLORED ORANGE AND BLUE FIBERS THAT I HAD SEEN IN THE ITEMS LABELED ITEM 5.
Q: AND JUST SO WE’RE CLEAR, YOU SAW SOME ORANGE FIBERS, IS THAT RIGHT?
A: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q: SOME BLUE FIBERS?
A: YES.
Q: BUT NOT A FIBER THAT HAD BOTH COLORS.
A: THAT’S RIGHT.
Q: DID YOU LABEL AND PRESERVE THESE TAPE LIFTS AS WELL?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: TURNING YOUR ATTENTION TO AN ITEM LABELED NUMBER 7, CLOTHING INSIDE THE DRYER, DID YOU EXAMINE THOSE ITEMS ALSO?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: DID YOU TAKE TAPE LIFTS FROM THOSE ITEMS?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: DID YOU NOTE THE PRESENCE OF ANY FIBERS ON THESE ITEMS IN YOUR INITIAL EXAMINATION?
A: YES.
Q: DESCRIBE THEM.
A: THE SAME TYPES, SIMILAR COLORS OF THE ORANGE FIBERS AND THE SEPARATE BLUE FIBERS.
Q: I WOULD LIKE TO NOW TURN — AND DID YOU LABEL AND PRESERVE THOSE TAPE LIFTS?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: WITH THE CORRECT IDENTIFYING INFORMATION?
A: YES.
Q: NOW I WOULD LIKE TO SHIFT YOUR ATTENTION, IF I COULD, TO A SERIES OF ITEMS LABELED NUMBER 9, IDENTIFIED AS ITEMS FROM THE BED OF MR. WESTERFIELD IN HIS MASTER BEDROOM. DID YOU EXAMINE THOSE ITEMS?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: DID YOU TAKE TAPE LIFTS FROM THEM?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: IN PARTICULAR DID YOU EXAMINE AN ITEM NUMBER 9A DESCRIBED AS COMING FROM OR, RATHER, BEING PILLOWCASES FROM THE MASTER BEDROOM?
A: YES.
Q: AND YOU TOOK TAPE LIFTS FROM THOSE?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: DID YOU NOTE THE PRESENCE OF ANY FIBERS ON THOSE PILLOWCASES?
A: YES.
Q: WHAT?
A: THERE WERE SIMILAR ORANGE FIBERS TO THE — THAT WERE IN THE LAUNDRY, THE SAME COLOR. AND SIMILAR BLUE FIBERS. OH, I’M SORRY. THERE WERE NO BLUE FIBERS. THERE WERE ONLY THE ORANGE FIBERS.
Q: SO ON ITEM NUMBER 9A, THE PILLOWCASES, YOU NOTED ORANGE FIBERS BUT NO BLUE FIBERS?
A: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q: DID YOU LABEL ADN PRESERVE THOSE TAPE LIFTS AS WELL?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: TURNING YOUR ATTENTION TO AN ITEM LABELED 9C, A FITTED SHEET FROM THE MASTER BEDROOM BED OF MR. WESTERFIELD. DID YOU TAKE TAPE LIFTS OF THAT ITEM?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: DID YOU OBSERVE ANY HAIRS?
A: YES.
Q: WHAT?
A: I OBSERVED ONE HUMAN HAIR THAT WAS SIMILAR TO DANIELLE’S FROM ONE OF THE TAPE LIFTS.
Q: NOW, AT THIS POINT WHEN YOU SAY SIMILAR, ARE YOU LOOKING AT THESE ITEMS, FOR INSTANCE, HAIRS, UNDER A MICROSCOPE? HOW ARE YOU DOING THAT AT THIS PHASE?
A: AT THIS PHASE NO, I’M JUST LOOKING FOR BLOND HAIRS.
Q: AND YOU FOUND ONE?
A: YES.
Q: DID YOU LABEL AND PRESERVE THAT PARTICULAR HAIR?
A: YES.
Q: WHAT DID YOU LABEL THAT AS?
A: THAT WAS LABELED, THAT PARTICULAR HAIR WAS LABELED
9C-3.1.
(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN MR. CLARKE
AND MR. DUSEK.)
BY MR. CLARKE:
Q: ALSO DID YOU EXAMINE A FLAT SHEET IDENTIFIED AS ITEM NUMBER 9D AS IN DAVID AS ALSO HAVING COME FROM THE MASTER BEDROOM BED OF MR. WESTERFIELD?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: WHAT DID YOU NOTE AT THIS INITIAL EXAMINATION WITH RESPECT TO THAT PARTICULAR ITEM?
A: I NOTED TWO HUMAN HAIRS, BLOND HAIRS.
Q: DID THEY APPEAR TO BE SIMILAR OR DIFFERENT AGAIN AT THIS PHASE FROM THE HAIR THAT YOU OBTAINED FROM THE FITTED SHEET, ITEM 9C?
A: SIMILAR.
Q: DID YOU IN FACT LABEL AND PRESERVE THOSE HAIRS, THOSE TWO HAIRS?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: WHAT DID YOU LABEL THEM AS?
A: THE SEPARATE HAIRS, ONE WAS LABELED 9D-2 AND THE OTHER WAS LABELED 9D-4.
Q: NOW I WOULD LIKE TO TURN YOUR ATTENTION, IF I COULD, TO AN ITEM NUMBER 13A, IDENTIFIED AS COMING FROM A GARAGE TRASH CAN OF MR. WESTERFIELD. DID YOU EXAMINE ANY ITEMS COMING FROM THAT TRASH CAN?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: WHAT?
A: I EXAMINED SOME LINT THAT WAS DRYER LINT THAT WAS FOUND IN THE TRASH CAN.
Q: NOW, WHEN YOU SAY DRYER LINT, WHAT DO YOU MEAN?
A: WHEN YOU CLEAN, AFTER YOU DRY A LOAD OF CLOTHES IN YOUR DRYER, IT HAS A — TYPICALLY HAS A LITTLE COMPARTMENT TO TAKE THE LINT OUT. SO THAT’S WHAT IT WAS. IT WAS LINT THAT HAD BEEN REMOVED FROM THE LINT TRAP COMPARTMENT OF THE DRYER.
THE COURT: COUNSEL, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE THE MORNING BREAK.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, PLEASE REMEMBER THE ADMONITION OF THE COURT NOT TO DISCUSS ANY OF THE EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY AMONG YOURSELVES NOR FORM OR EXPRESS ANY OPINIONS ON THE MATTER UNTIL IT IS SUBMITTED TO YOU FOR DECISION.
PLEASE BE OUTSIDE THE DOOR AT A QUARTER TO 11:00. THAT WILL BE 10:45, PLEASE.
(RECESS, 10:30 O’CLOCK, A.M., TO 10:45 O’CLOCK, A.M.)
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /

45 - Day 12- June 24th 2002 - Transcript criminal trial David Westerfield
43 - Day 11- June 20th 2002 - Transcript criminal trial David Westerfield