Latest / Military Broadcast Radio | MBR Talk / Into the Weeds Podcast - Athena Hogan-Part 11

Transcript

Into the Weeds Podcast - Athena Hogan-Part 11 · Military Broadcast Radio | MBR Talk

0:22
Hello, everybody, and welcome to Into the Weeds podcast here on
0:25
military Broadcast Radio. I'm Amber.
0:28
Thank you for joining me tonight.
0:30
This is going to be part 11 in the Athena Hogan case.
0:36
I did hurt my rib this week, so I have been on the mend.
0:41
I'm feeling much better but but I did have like 3 or 4 days of
0:49
you know feeling pretty crappy so I have been resting all week
0:54
for the most part. I put out a few videos and put
0:57
some in the Google, some audio clips in the Google Drive.
1:01
But for the most part, it's just yeah, so sorry.
1:10
It's been a long week. Hello New Orleans lady, it's
1:14
good to see you. And so I also wanted to address
1:20
something so Javier Leyva, who does the Pretend podcast, has
1:26
released all 5 episodes that he's done so far on Patreon.
1:32
I believe he's done it on Patreon.
1:34
He may not have. I know I definitely heard it on
1:36
the Google Drive. If he hasn't released it on the
1:39
Patreon, I'm giving you a little sneak peek.
1:42
But so I did have something to say about episode 5 that's going
1:53
to air. So I wanted to clarify something
1:58
because all 5 episodes of the pretend series about Gypsy are
2:01
currently available somewhere and after listening to episode
2:06
5I realized I needed to clarify. And I'm reading this guys so
2:11
bear with me. I realized I needed to clarify
2:14
where I stand because I don't want anyone walking away
2:17
thinking I'm denying science or pretending to be a medical
2:21
expert. Our channel generally does not
2:25
cover the medical records. That's never been our focus.
2:28
We primarily deal with our with court documents, FOIA records,
2:33
police and prison records, transcripts, and other primary
2:37
source material. As far as the medical abuse
2:41
allegation goes, based on everything I have personally
2:45
reviewed, I have not seen evidence that convinces me Gypsy
2:49
was medically abused. But that does not mean I can't
2:53
be convinced otherwise. My question is simple, I think.
2:58
Which medical procedure or treatment did Gypsy receive that
3:02
was medically unnecessary? And what evidence establishes
3:06
that it was unnecessary? If that evidence exists, I
3:11
genuinely want to see it. I also think we have to apply
3:15
the same standard to everyone. If we're told we can't rely on
3:19
Dee Dee statements because she lied, then we can't turn around
3:23
and accept Gypsy's account simply because she's saying
3:26
something happened. Gypsy herself has acknowledged
3:29
that she is a good liar, and that doesn't mean everything she
3:33
says is a lie. It means her statements need to
3:36
be corroborated just like anyone else's.
3:40
I'm not a doctor and neither is a Laura, and we're not trying to
3:43
make a scientific argument about this case.
3:47
I'm just asking evidentiary questions.
3:51
If a qualified professional can show me evidence I've missed,
3:55
I'm absolutely opening to changing my position.
3:59
I'm not interested in being right.
4:01
I'm interested in knowing the truth, honestly.
4:04
And I don't care all day long if I'm proven wrong, you know?
4:11
And yeah, so that's what I wanted to say.
4:17
Hey, tempered iron. Good to see you and V now good
4:21
to see you as well. And the Toll podcast, good to
4:24
see you as well. So yeah, that's what I wanted to
4:26
say about all that. I'm not a science denier.
4:30
My problem is, is that I believe the medical professionals need
4:35
to make a clear distinction. What is malingering and what is
4:42
Munchausen? By by proxy or factitious?
4:49
I can't even remember what it is now imposed on another.
4:52
You know what I'm talking about. Anyways, so there needs to be a
4:57
distinction between malingering and Munchausen by proxy, because
5:02
I feel like this whole case is malingering.
5:05
And when I look at malingering, I'm not looking at somebody
5:09
making somebody sick. I'm looking at somebody who
5:11
wants attention and is just over egging the symptoms, you know,
5:19
they're just, you know, pretending to be way sicker than
5:23
they really are. And to me that that's a huge
5:26
distinction. Putting something on somebody
5:31
where where you're saying that they intentionally made somebody
5:34
sick for their own, for their own devices, whatever those may
5:40
be, is dangerous as well. It's.
5:44
Just as dangerous as asking, you know, about all of these
5:49
questions. You know, I don't know.
5:51
It's just there's so much about this.
5:56
And also when we did our interview with Javier, and I've
6:05
written Javier an e-mail so he's going to know all this.
6:09
So hi, Sam. And I saw somebody else come in.
6:14
I thought no, OK, so when we did our first interview, we thought
6:23
that that was just going to be a get to know you session and that
6:28
he was going to come back around and use some audio or collect
6:33
some audio in a real structured interview.
6:38
And so I'm not knocking him for that.
6:40
I'm just saying that's what I thought was going to happen.
6:43
So I didn't realize that he was going to use the audio from this
6:48
exclusively in in the series 'cause I feel like we can we
6:52
have a lot more to talk about audibly instead of through
6:56
e-mail and I and I contact. Him on a regular basis,
7:00
sometimes every day, you know, there's been a few days where we
7:03
haven't talked or whatever, but. So it's not like the stream of
7:08
communication isn't open and I and I'm very open and honest
7:12
with him about my feelings and he's open and honest about his
7:15
as well. So I'm just, I'm curious to see
7:18
where this is going to go 'cause I just feel like there's a lot
7:21
of excuses for Gypsy. And and I don't understand why
7:27
we aren't applying the exact same level of scrutiny to Gypsy
7:33
as we do to DD because as we know, she said she's a very good
7:38
liar. So with all that being said,
7:41
we're going to get into the Athena Hogan case and I don't
7:46
think there was anything else I needed to address.
7:50
Laura is upstairs with the dogs because Flynn was full on our
7:55
table just hanging out, so she put him in the crate and she is
8:03
watching him. Oates is down here with me, so
8:07
that's why she's gone. But yeah, so we're going to get
8:11
into it tonight and I don't know how long I will be able to last
8:17
because I, like I said, my rib is feeling better, but it's not
8:25
completely fine. And so we'll see how this goes.
8:30
So. Here we go.
8:34
Sorry. OK.
8:39
Upon reconvening the following proceedings, oh, actually we
8:43
should get into where we left off last week.
8:47
We left off with Angie Reed coming in.
8:52
But last week we also talked about the footprints on the car
8:57
and the famous footprints that, well, they talked about the
9:01
famous footprints. So I'm hoping.
9:04
That we get more into that in Anne's testimony and we don't
9:09
have many pages left in this part.
9:13
I've got some more that I haven't downloaded yet that I
9:16
will take to the church and get downloaded again.
9:19
But. Yeah.
9:20
So this is where we're starting off.
9:22
Upon reconvening, the following proceedings were had to wit, the
9:26
court. OK Angie Reed, called as a
9:30
witness on behalf of the state having been first duly sworn,
9:33
testified on her oath as follows, to wit, by Mr. Tannery.
9:38
State. Your name and occupation.
9:40
Angie Reed? I'm a forensic criminalist.
9:44
Where do you work? The Oklahoma State Bureau of
9:47
Investigation. Which office?
9:50
Oklahoma City office. And how long have you been
9:53
working there? Oh, over 13 years now.
9:57
Would you explain what your duties are?
10:00
I'm going to put this in. Front of me because I'm having a
10:02
hard time reading it. OK, that's making it weird,
10:11
isn't it? Why is that showing?
10:15
That doesn't make any sense. I don't know who that guy is.
10:22
OK, let's remove that. Sorry guys, I was trying to make
10:30
it easier for me to read but unfortunately it's not going to
10:35
do that. OK?
10:41
How long have you been working there?
10:42
Oh, over 13 years now. Would you explain what your
10:45
duties are? I supervise the serology trace
10:50
section of the laboratory. I do serology work, hairs and
10:55
fibers. And have you had extensive
10:58
training in those areas? Yes, yes.
11:01
Sir, Mr. Zelps, Judge, for the purpose of this.
11:05
Hearing I will stipulate that Miss Reed is highly qualified in
11:09
her areas of expertise and that she's about to testify to might
11:14
move it. Along I mean, I know her
11:16
qualifications. The court.
11:24
Is that all right with you, Mr. Tannery?
11:26
Yes, Mr. Zelps. He's going to qualify her.
11:30
The court. All right.
11:31
The court accepts the stipulations on Miss Reed's
11:33
qualifications. You can continue by Mr. Tannery.
11:38
Would you explain how evidence is received into OSBI?
11:42
Yes, Sir. We receive evidence from
11:44
officers or from our agents. It's brought in a sealed
11:48
condition with a submittal sheet.
11:52
The submittal sheet is stamped in at the time that it is
11:55
received. OK And is there an office here
11:59
in Lawton? Yes, Sir, there is.
12:02
What happens when evidence is taken and logged in in the
12:06
Lawton office? OK.
12:08
The Lawton laboratory has a clock with its little, with its
12:12
title and number or the date and time on it.
12:15
And when evidence is brought in, the submittal sheet is stamped
12:19
with that clock. And then if the evidence is to
12:22
be transported on to Oklahoma City for analysis, the person
12:26
who transported signs and dates when they transport the evidence
12:29
and brings it still in a sealed condition to us in Oklahoma
12:34
City. OK, I'm going to hand you what
12:37
I've marked as state's exhibit #24 can you identify that?
12:42
Yes, Sir, this is a copy of our submittal sheet.
12:47
Where was that evidence on that submittal sheet received?
12:51
It was submitted to the Lawton office, our laboratory on
12:54
October 2nd, 1986. OK, is what is that particular
13:00
record? It's a, it is a submittal sheet
13:04
from our office. Are those kept in every case in
13:08
which evidence is submitted? Yes, Sir, Mr. Zelps.
13:12
Judge, I've got an objection. I first of all lack of personal
13:17
knowledge as to the this item. I don't know if there is any and
13:22
#2 is, well, that's number one. First, I don't know if she's
13:27
just saying what it is or if she's actually.
13:30
Seen that one? That's my objection.
13:33
That was weird. The court.
13:35
Why don't you clarify that then? Sorry, guys, hold on.
13:46
Sorry. Sorry, he's a pain in the neck.
13:52
OK, the court. Why don't you clarify that then
13:55
by Mr. Tannery? I'll rephrase that.
13:58
Question start over. Do you keep some middle sheets
14:01
such as that one every time evidence is submitted?
14:05
Yes, Sir, we do. And what happens to the
14:08
original? The original is kept with the
14:10
evidence until it is logged in our office, in our office and
14:14
then it is placed in the case file in our office.
14:17
OK. The submittal sheet then is
14:21
taken to the lab in Oklahoma City with evidence?
14:24
Yes, Sir, it is. Did you receive that?
14:27
The original copy? The original of that copy, I
14:31
know I was in the office when when it was brought in.
14:34
OK. Whether I took it in my hand, I
14:38
don't know. I can't remember.
14:40
Are those records kept in every case in which evidence is
14:43
submitted to the lab? Yes, Sir, they are.
14:47
And are you the custodian of those types of records in your
14:50
office Of those cases I'm involved in and in my lab?
14:54
Yes, Sir. OK, I'm going to hand you some
14:57
items. First of all, let's see.
15:00
Witness Reed, may I take my jacket off if I can?
15:04
The court. Yes.
15:05
Sure. Witness Reed.
15:06
Thank you. I'm sorry.
15:07
It's hot. Mr. Zelps.
15:09
County commissioners messing up on us.
15:11
Mr. Tannery, we've previously marked states Exhibit 394040.
15:16
This is 39 come out of 4043 and 42.
15:21
OK. OK.
15:23
Can you identify these particular exhibits?
15:25
Yes, Sir, they OK? Yes, Sir.
15:29
They have my initials and the date that I began my analysis on
15:33
each item. OK and where did you get those?
15:37
OK. They were in the evidence vault
15:38
of the OSBI when I removed them for analysis.
15:42
OK. And at the time that you removed
15:44
them for analysis, what condition were they in?
15:47
They were sealed. I broke the seals on them.
15:51
They were all separated. Were they all in?
15:53
One bag or what? Well, each item.
15:55
Was in a a bag and then all of the bags were in one paper bag
16:01
and then there were other items inside of those.
16:04
Yes. OK, Well, what, for example, did
16:08
this number 40 contain? Well, it contained all of the
16:11
clothing when it was brought in, and there was a gag and a paper
16:16
sack at the time. I believe it even contained the
16:20
blood and stuff. And I removed that and put it in
16:24
the refrigerator. That's when I was there.
16:28
That's why I was there when it was brought in.
16:31
OK, turn to these other three items.
16:33
Were they inside of the Exhibit 40?
16:36
Yes, Sir, 40 when you received it?
16:39
Yes, they were. OK.
16:41
And 40 was sealed? Yes.
16:43
And these other three that you got out, were they still sealed?
16:48
Yes, they were all right. You broke the seal yourself?
16:53
Yes, I did. And that's the state exhibits
16:56
#24 that you testified to a moment ago.
16:59
Does it reflect any of these three or four items?
17:03
Yes, Sir, it does. And which ones?
17:07
It reflects the sheet, the shirt and the socks, all three of
17:11
them. OK, Mr. Tannery, Your Honor, at
17:15
this time would move to have introduced into evidence these 4
17:20
exhibits. Mr. Zelps, Your Honor, I still
17:23
have an objection. There is a chain of custody
17:26
problem. We still do not have any
17:28
testimony before the Court as to who possibly could have
17:31
transported transported the items from the Lawton to
17:35
Oklahoma City. These specific items, we don't
17:38
know if they were tampered with or anything.
17:42
Of course she gets the sealed. Condition.
17:44
But we have no evidence from anybody that took them up there
17:48
that said that they didn't open them or throw them out of the
17:51
car or something happened. And I think there's, I think
17:55
it's defective at this time. The court, I don't agree at this
18:00
time, but I'm going to allow you to cross examine her before I
18:03
make my final ruling. Mr. Zelps.
18:06
Yes, Sir. Thank you.
18:08
By Mr. Tannery. I'll back, I'll get back to
18:11
these in a minute. I'm going to hand you now what
18:14
has been previously marked as states Exhibit 50, which
18:17
contains some other exhibits inside which I think are I'll
18:21
read them off for the record in a moment. 5455565765 and 66.
18:29
Can you identify those? Yes, Sir.
18:33
Again, they have my initials and the date that I opened them.
18:37
And how can you identify? These by my initials.
18:41
When did you receive them? If you did?
18:44
I did. I received.
18:45
Them from Donald Belcher on October the 27th, 1986.
18:50
OK, Mr. Tannery, Your honor, at this time I'd.
18:55
Move to have admitted into evidence is item number
18:58
5354555657, 65 and 66. Mr. Zelps, Judge, I have no good
19:08
faith custody argument on that. So I have no objection.
19:12
I think there's chain of custody.
19:14
Don Belcher delivered them to her and we've talked to him.
19:18
So I don't know any objection to those items.
19:21
The court, all right now, those are Mr. Zelps.
19:25
Those are fibers. The court numbers beginning with
19:28
number. Witness Read 50 the court.
19:33
So we have to. So we have them straight #50
19:37
through number. Mr. Tannery?
19:39
Not all of them. Witness Reed No, they skip the
19:43
court. Oh, they're not.
19:45
Mr. Tannery 50 and then they skip.
19:48
All right. Mr. Tannery 5455 The court OK.
19:53
Mr. Tannery 56576566 OK, Is that correct?
19:59
Miss Reed, what you have there? Witness Reed, I'm checking just
20:04
a moment. 54555666 Yes Sir. The court All right then,
20:12
without the. Any objection then those will be
20:16
admitted at this time by Mr. Tannery.
20:19
I'll get back to those in a minute.
20:21
OK, I'm. Going to hand you now what has
20:24
been previously marked as States exhibit #67 and inside you'll
20:28
find States Exhibit 68 and 69. Can you identify each of these
20:33
three exhibits? Yes, Sir, I can.
20:36
They have my initials and the date I opened them.
20:40
OK, And where and when did you receive those, if you did?
20:45
I received these in Lawton, OK, on October 31st from Detective
20:49
Mohammed at the Lawton Police Department.
20:52
OK Mr. Tannery, at this time, Your Honor, I'd move to admit
20:57
those three items into evidence. Mr. Zelps, no objection.
21:01
Purpose of preliminary hearing, Your Honor, the Court.
21:05
All right. And once again, that's 60.
21:07
Witness read 7 Mr. Tannery 68 and 69, the Court, 6768 and 69
21:15
are admitted by Mr. Tannery. I'm going to hand you now
21:20
Exhibit 132, which contains State's Exhibit 133 and 135.
21:25
Can you identify those 3 exhibits?
21:28
Yes, Sir. When they have my initials on
21:30
them? Yes.
21:32
Oh, they have my initials on them?
21:34
Yes. Where and when did you receive?
21:36
Them I received these at the OSBI laboratory from Greg Lord
21:40
on. Let me check the date on that on
21:42
November 5th, Mr. Tannery, at this time, Your Honor, I'd move
21:48
to admit those three items. Mr. Zopps.
21:51
No objection for purposes of preliminary hearing, the court.
21:55
All right. Once again, the numbers are
21:57
witness read one 32133 and 135. The court.
22:02
All right, Those are admitted then for preliminary hearing by
22:07
Mr. Tannery. Now, Miss Reed, in regards to
22:10
all of the items contained in these Manila envelopes and the
22:13
clothing that we've gotten down here.
22:16
What you received other items to, I presume?
22:20
Yes, Sir, I did. OK.
22:21
How many? I think as of this day I have
22:25
something like 149 items. All right now we picked this out
22:30
for what reason? Well, the three over here are
22:34
items from the body where I did the fibers and hairs.
22:39
Mr. Zeltz, my judge, I've already at this time.
22:43
I my objection specifically is I've always thought it was
22:47
improper to testify. About evidence that really
22:50
hadn't been introduced and I on the chain of custody issue on
22:54
the clothing and if I may briefly voidee, however.
22:59
You say that her might, her might resolve that.
23:02
OK, the court. Well, in a in a jury trial, I'd
23:06
be inclined to let you do that, Mister Zelps.
23:09
OK, the court. But I'm familiar with.
23:12
Yes, Sir. With what the law is, Mr. Zelps.
23:17
OK, the court. And if these items are
23:19
subsequently not admitted, then I'm going.
23:22
I'm not going to consider them. Mr. Zelps.
23:25
Yes, Sir. The court.
23:26
Go ahead by Mr. Tannery. Forget the question.
23:31
Well, A. Little bit the court, why did
23:34
you pick out these particular items?
23:36
I think was the gist of the question.
23:39
Witness Reed. Thank you, Your Honor.
23:41
These three items are items on which I found foreign hairs or
23:44
fibers. And these items over here were
23:48
knowns that were submitted to me to compare with these those
23:52
items. Yes, Sir.
23:55
Now, when you found foreign objects on actually you have
24:00
some knowns, You have a sheet, a shirt and socks.
24:04
Yes, Sir. And those are known physical
24:07
things, correct? Yes, Sir.
24:10
But on those did you are you saying that you had some
24:13
unknowns? I had some hairs and fibers that
24:16
were not consistent with the item they were on.
24:19
In other words, UN foreign to those objects.
24:26
All right, how did you determine that?
24:29
Well, basically by looking at them #1 hairs are not consistent
24:33
with the fibers which sheets are made out of.
24:36
The fibers on the shirt and on the socks obviously were a
24:39
different color than the fibers on the shirt.
24:42
The socks were the the socks. There were some red.
24:47
Fibers. But it was very obvious they
24:50
were not the same type of fibers that I was finding on the socks.
24:54
The fibers on the shirt and on the socks are very coarse fibers
24:58
and the fibers in the clothing are rather fine.
25:01
OK, You wanted to find out what those fibers were?
25:05
Yes, Sir. I did what they belong to.
25:08
Yes. What did you request then in
25:11
order to make tests? OK, I looked at the fibers and
25:18
because of their coarseness, determined that they were some,
25:23
that they were from some source such as carpeting, possibly bank
25:28
blankets, maybe even a stuffed animal with coarse fibers.
25:32
Something that would have been very coarse fibers.
25:34
I looked at the colors and saw that I had several different
25:38
colors. I explained to the officers on
25:40
the case that I was looking for or what.
25:43
We could be looking for. I even had some of them come in
25:46
and look through the stereoscope and look at the.
25:50
Colors so that they would know what I was talking about.
25:53
I then set them out to look for them.
25:57
OK. Did you have any hairs that you
26:01
found on there? Yes, I did have some hairs and
26:04
at that point all I could tell them were that they that I had
26:09
some human hairs. I later looked at them and
26:13
eliminated one of them is a head hair, eliminated it from the
26:18
victim and the pubic. Hair.
26:20
Since she had no pubic hair, I didn't need to eliminate it from
26:23
her. OK, so you were looking for
26:26
pubic and head hairs too? Yes, from a known source.
26:32
Now containing in the other 3 Manila envelopes with all those
26:36
other exhibits which have been. Admitted are hairs and fibers
26:39
are they are? They're not.
26:41
Yes, Sir. All right.
26:44
Did you make any test comparisons in regard to any of
26:47
the items in the Manila envelopes and the unknown items
26:51
from the clothing found in the sacks?
26:54
Yes, Sir, I did. OK, I want to take those one at
26:59
a time and start with items 5054555657 in that series.
27:05
OK. OK.
27:07
What did you do with the items contained therein?
27:10
OK, I mounted these on microscope slides and viewed
27:13
them. Microscopically, I also did work
27:17
on a polarizing microscope and also used solubilities.
27:24
I did some solubility tests on them.
27:27
OK, And where did those mostly? Those are all fibers, are they
27:31
not? Yes, Sir, they are all fibers.
27:34
And they all came from five O 4 Woodridge, according to
27:38
information you have. Yes, Sir.
27:41
That's how they were labeled. All right.
27:44
Would you explain what you compared with what in regard to
27:48
the fibers at five O 4 Woodridge?
27:51
Which would be the knowns, would they not?
27:55
Which the unknowns from the clothing.
27:57
OK. I started with the fibers off
28:00
the shirt. I have more of those.
28:02
I looked at them microscopically.
28:05
They are they appeared to to be the same type of fiber that is
28:10
they were. Try lobel fibers and the color
28:16
was very good. The condition was good at that
28:19
point. That's as far as I went.
28:21
Then I went to the poloscope spelled.
28:24
Phonetically, all right, the polarizing microscope.
28:29
Would you explain to the judge what that is and why you went
28:32
there? A polarizing microscope is a
28:35
piece of equipment that polarizes light.
28:38
Light goes out in a number of different planes and what
28:41
they're trying to do is get it, get it into.
28:44
Just one plane coming up from the bottom.
28:48
Then we have a cross pole that is another plane of light.
28:52
It crosses like this. It's kind of like polarized
28:55
lenses in your sunglasses. It works about the same way.
28:59
Now some of your work is done without the top pole in place,
29:03
and some of it is done with it in of course, when it.
29:08
Excuse me, sorry about that. I've got a bad allergy flare.
29:17
It's good to see Lizbeth PCB and Ruth Carroll and Teffy.
29:25
Thank you for coming in. I know this is laborious
29:34
listening to, but I find it very interesting.
29:37
So I thank you guys for sticking with me and and hanging out with
29:42
me, 'cause yeah, it's a lot. Easier to do with an audience.
29:47
So thank you. OK, let's see light.
29:55
Passes through different items at different speeds.
29:57
It slows it down or speeds it up mostly slows it down.
30:01
And when a fiber slows it down, it causes certain optical
30:04
properties. Is that clear, the court?
30:08
Well, I made AD in chemistry, but I think I understand what
30:12
you're saying by Mr. Tannery. What?
30:15
What does that in technical language we can all understand?
30:18
What does that show? That's the problem.
30:22
OK, it gives you the. Optical properties of the
30:24
substance you're looking at. You're talking about
30:30
birefringence. You're talking which is is
30:34
determined by the refractive index at different positions.
30:40
It gives you the color band inference of the fiber.
30:44
It can tell you basically what kind of fiber you're dealing
30:47
with. OK, this, this is what we're.
30:52
Getting at what kind of fibers? OK.
30:56
Where are you finding these were nylon fibers all right.
31:01
Now, nylon is a very broad. Term.
31:03
That's a lot of different forms of nylon, or there's a lot of
31:07
different forms of nylon. In order to get down to what
31:10
form of nylon I had this. Is where I used the
31:13
solubilities. OK, so you first determined that
31:16
these were nylon fibers? Yes, Sir.
31:19
Then you get into solubilities. Yes.
31:22
And then what does that show you?
31:25
OK, this determines whether I'm dealing with Nylon 66 in the
31:29
literature. These are generic names.
31:31
So Tom. So sometimes you will see it
31:34
referred to as. Nylon 6.66, Dash 66, Comma 6.
31:39
We found it all different ways, so I'm going for purposes of my
31:45
use. I'm calling it Nylon 66.
31:48
I also determined that I had some that were Nylon 6, which is
31:53
a little different polymer of nylon.
31:56
You had two types? Yes, Sir.
31:59
OK. And after finding that you had
32:01
two types of fibers, nylon fibers, what did you do?
32:05
OK, well, I found in my known I had one envelope that had nylon
32:10
6 fibers and that is 55. Here it is. 55 was labeled as
32:15
hallway red only in front of bathroom.
32:19
One of the fibers from the shirt was also nylon 6.
32:23
None of the other samples contain nylon six.
32:26
They are all nylon 66. OK, That came from the hallway.
32:32
Yes, Sir. OK.
32:34
The other fibers. OK, After determining that.
32:38
What? All right.
32:39
What? That was What?
32:43
That was a soluble test. Solubilities test.
32:47
What did you OK then what was the next thing you did?
32:51
OK, I went back to the comparison scope and this is.
32:56
Where I started looking for the wear patterns, the difference in
32:59
colors. This is where I looked for the
33:01
amount of soil present, the debris present on the fibers
33:05
and. Started comparing all of these
33:06
things microscopically. OK, the comparison microscope is
33:12
what you use in hair analysis, is it not?
33:15
Yes, Sir, it is. OK.
33:18
And what was the purpose of using it in a fiber analysis?
33:23
Well, it's basically the same purpose as a hair comparison.
33:26
What you're doing is, is you're putting a known on one side and
33:31
you're putting an unknown on the other side and you're looking
33:35
through and looking at both of them at the same time.
33:38
So you can view them and compare their characteristics without
33:42
having to change slides and move them around.
33:45
That's almost impossible to do. You need to be able to see them
33:49
side by side. OK.
33:52
Are there certain characteristics?
33:54
In fibers that you look for, such as in hairs, yes, you're
33:58
looking for, well, you're looking for the shape of the
34:01
fibers. In this case, all of the fibers
34:04
involved that I'm talking about today are Tri lobal.
34:09
That is, they have 3 little lobes on.
34:12
Them you're looking at how coarse the fiber is.
34:17
Now, you're not actually on the pole scope.
34:19
I did do some measurements of that, but basically what you're
34:22
doing is comparing it right there on the microscope.
34:26
You're seeing if they're the same thickness.
34:29
You're seeing if the color is the same, if there's variations
34:33
in the color, the length of the fiber, or whether the fiber is
34:37
all one color. Surprisingly, 2 fibers that may
34:40
look exactly the same color to the naked eye.
34:42
You put it on a comparison scope and you start picking up little
34:47
differences in the color. So things like this are what
34:50
you're looking at. In this case the fibers, the Tri
34:56
lobes were actually splitting apart and as they split apart
35:00
you could see that the dye didn't go to the center of the
35:04
fibers. It was it was the surface.
35:07
It didn't go down into the center.
35:09
Portion of the fiber. Was that true on the knowns and
35:13
unknowns? Yes, Sir, it is in this case.
35:17
Yes, Sir. What was important to you in
35:20
this case? Well, yes it is.
35:24
Hey, Fluffy Stingray, good to see you All the characteristics
35:29
are important. That was very important to me.
35:31
Yes. OK.
35:33
Any other outstanding characteristics that you're
35:36
looking for? Well, the.
35:41
Doula string. You're looking for doula string
35:45
is something that causes the fiber to be less bright.
35:48
It takes some of the brightness of the dye away and you're
35:52
looking for that and you're looking for, we can call them
35:56
striations on the surface. It's actually when the fiber is
36:00
made, there are marks made on the fiber.
36:03
We're looking for texturing whether the fiber is crimped or
36:06
crimped or not. We're just looking at everything
36:09
there. The fibers showed a great deal
36:11
of wear. They were splitting apart.
36:13
The ends of them were frayed. There was considerable debris
36:18
along the fibers. OK, after comparing the unknowns
36:22
on the clothing with the knowns. That you received from five O 4
36:27
Woodridge, both types, Were you able to make an expert opinion
36:32
as to where the knowns on the clothing came from?
36:36
They are consistent in all their characteristics.
36:39
I was able to check. I checked.
36:41
I have a total of so far completed 6 fibers and I was
36:45
able to find matches on the known samples with all six of
36:49
those different fibers of the unknowns.
36:52
Yes, Sir. Now, did you check other
36:55
unknowns other than just the ones that came out of the
36:58
defendant's house? You mean knowns?
37:02
Knowns, I mean yes, yes Sir. I have checked quite a few at
37:05
this point. I'm sure I will have more.
37:08
OK now initially did you tell the Lawton police to look for
37:12
certain types of carpet? Well, I told them the color,
37:16
basically what colors we were looking at.
37:19
OK, that was it and I did tell them that they were worn.
37:23
I didn't think it would be from brand new carpeting, but I get.
37:26
Some fairly new carpeting. OK.
37:28
Did you compare them? Yes, Sir, I did.
37:32
I did. Did you find any of them to be
37:35
anywhere even close to consistent?
37:38
So far I've been able to eliminate any of the other
37:42
knowns they've brought me just on comparison microscope.
37:46
Oh. You didn't even have to get to
37:48
the polarized part. No, some of them.
37:52
Are Tri level but they don't show the same where the same
37:56
dual string or delu string. Or the same striations.
38:01
So what words, if you can, can you say concerning the fibers
38:05
that were submitted to you from clothing and from the knowns at?
38:09
Five O 4 Woodridge excuse. Me guys, I'm having some issues
38:19
with allergies and with some light headedness.
38:24
I don't know what the heck's going on.
38:27
OK, let's see. I don't remember where I was.
38:34
I'm going to object. Oh, Mr. Zelps, I'm going to
38:37
object to that question. I don't, Your Honor, I don't
38:40
know if you. I'd ask Mr. Tannery to repeat
38:43
the question Mr. Tannery asked. Her.
38:46
For her. Opinion.
38:47
Mr. Zelps Know. What words can you say about it?
38:50
What kind? What does that mean?
38:52
The court? Well, maybe, maybe we need Mr.
38:56
Zelps form of the question. Maybe we need to have it read
38:59
back then is there a problem with the question off the
39:02
record? Whereupon the last question was
39:05
read back to the reporter, which back by the reporter, after
39:10
which the following proceeds were had to wit, the court.
39:14
You're really asking for an opinion there, which is what you
39:17
said. OK, I'm having hot flashes or
39:23
something. I don't know what's going on,
39:24
but I am feeling really strange right now.
39:30
Oh, my goodness. Hope everybody's doing well.
39:32
We're going to take a little break, see how I feel, and we
39:35
may get back to it. Or may not, I don't know.
39:41
Oh, it seems like every week I keep having something going on.
39:46
Actually, this is a letter from an inmate.
39:49
Oops. Crap.
39:51
Oh well, this is a letter from an inmate who messaged me.
40:01
Well, I've talked on the phone with her and she is actually in
40:05
prison for murder. She murdered her twin sister's
40:09
husband and she said that it was because she was brainwashed by
40:17
her psychiatrist. I have talked to her sister, her
40:27
twin sister and her twin sister asked me not to engage with her
40:32
about. Like coming on the show and
40:34
stuff like that. So I am not going to do that.
40:38
But yeah, I have some interesting things happen.
40:42
On a regular. Basis.
40:44
I'm all right, fluffy Stingray. I think I'm just having a hot
40:47
flash or something. I I think I'm going through
40:51
menopause or whatever. I don't know.
40:53
I am 47. Yeah, I'm 47.
40:57
I always forget how old I am. Luckily I was born in 79.
41:01
So you know, you just add add one if that makes sense.
41:08
Anyways, yeah, unfortunately I showed my address, so of course
41:20
I did. I've already doxed myself so
41:22
many times. I had my address in the Google
41:25
Drive for I don't know how long. So yeah, it is what it is.
41:31
OK, I'm going to try and read a little bit more.
41:36
We'll see how it goes. Let me take one more drink. 123
41:47
fake street right? Yep, Elm St.
41:53
My street is a nightmare walking up at.
41:55
Holy cow the incline is like that almost.
41:58
Not really but it's probably like that so it really sucks.
42:03
So walking the dog. I'd rather get in the car and
42:08
walk and drive the the car to the lake just down the street
42:13
and walk him around the lake then actually walk him up my
42:17
street 'cause it is just way too much to to walk up that street.
42:22
OK, so Mr. Tannery, well, I can rephrase it.
42:28
And yes, menopause is a blessing when it's over.
42:31
I'm sure it is. Well, I can rephrase it by Mr.
42:38
Tannery. What is your opinion in regard
42:40
to the knowns and unknowns from the clothing and from five O 4
42:44
Woodridge that they are consistent with each other even
42:47
into the wearing patterns and the soil and debris on the
42:50
fibers? On on the with the knowns.
42:54
OK, now let's move to the hairs in 6869 and 1:33 and 1:30.
43:00
Five, you also have hair. You compared those with hairs in
43:04
items 3942 and 43, which are sacs, correct?
43:09
Actually I've only compared them with hairs found on 39 at this
43:14
point. OK.
43:16
And that's that was the sheet. OK, the sheet.
43:20
Again, you have your unknowns from the sheet with your knowns
43:23
from the defendant IN6869133 and 1:35, correct?
43:29
Yes, Sir. OK.
43:31
What kind of test did you run on those?
43:34
OK, on these, I ran the test on the comparison microscope.
43:38
I actually compared the knowns with the unknown samples.
43:42
OK. Did you determine in your, I
43:44
know you have different characteristics that you use up,
43:48
I think there are up to 22 different ones that you look
43:51
for, is that correct? There's a number and it varies
43:55
the length of the hair, right. OK.
43:58
And what did you find in regard to the characteristics?
44:01
Of the knowns and the unknowns in this case.
44:04
Guys, this is really boring to me.
44:10
Oh, my gosh. I'm sorry.
44:12
I'm. I'm going to skip because if you
44:15
guys want me to be engaged, I got to I got to go further.
44:19
OK, So Mr. Tannery Judge, I believe.
44:24
OK, Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
44:29
OK. And those labeled, and those are
44:33
labeled Pubic hair of Harvey Templeton.
44:35
Yes. Yes, Sir, they are and one of
44:38
the hairs from states Exhibit 39 was consistent microscopically
44:42
with hairs from stated Exhibit 68 and 135 and those are head
44:46
hers from the defendant Harvey Templeton.
44:48
Yes Sir, they are. OK, Mr. Tannery Judge, I believe
44:52
that's all the questions I have at this time.
44:54
And if Mr. Zelps want to cross examine, I re urge my motion to
44:59
have the court. All right.
45:01
This question on these paper sacks here, I can't see the
45:05
numbers, but I believe was on the chain of custody.
45:08
Mr. Zelps? Yeah, the court, if you have to
45:11
inquire into that first. Mr. Zelps.
45:14
Sure. The court, then I can go ahead
45:17
and roll on that. Mister Zelps Sure, if I could
45:22
cross examination by Mr. Zelps. Miss Reed, when you said you
45:26
were in the office when States exhibit number, I guess it was.
45:30
Guess it was the big bag States Exhibit 40 that was in.
45:34
It came to your office, right? Yes, Sir.
45:37
Now, in the office. That's a big building up there,
45:40
isn't it? Well, yes, it is.
45:42
You weren't standing there watching it when it came in, did
45:45
you? Were you?
45:47
Well, I saw Goss when he came in.
45:49
I can't swear I saw it in his hand.
45:52
All right, You don't. I can't remember.
45:55
How do you know Goss? How do you know he was the one?
46:00
Is it on your submittal sheet? Is that where his name comes
46:04
from? Yes, it is.
46:06
And he's the only one of our agents?
46:09
Well, no. He's one of the two of our
46:11
agents that have brought me anything on this case.
46:18
OK, now what I'm getting. To is is that you didn't talk to
46:23
you didn't you didn't actually see Goss with the evidence in
46:27
his hands, right? I really can't remember.
46:32
OK. I don't know.
46:34
And you don't know what happened to the evidence between Lawton
46:37
and Oklahoma City to your lab, do you?
46:39
No. Except it was sealed.
46:42
That's right. But you don't know if it got
46:44
opened on the way and then resealed or any numerable
46:48
possibilities. You understand what I'm saying?
46:52
I understand. Everything's possible, right?
46:56
Well, to a scientist, that's for sure.
46:59
That's true. And so you don't know if on the
47:02
way up here, whoever was bringing it decided he wanted to
47:06
do a little examining himself and opened it up to take a look.
47:10
And you don't know that, do you? That's what I'm getting to.
47:15
I don't know. All right?
47:18
He's in trouble if he did. We don't know if these items
47:23
were contaminated between Lawton and Oklahoma City to your lab,
47:26
do we? You understand what I meant by
47:29
contamination? Yes.
47:31
Yes. We don't know that, do we?
47:34
I can't swear what another person did.
47:36
I know what he was trained to do.
47:40
Yes, ma'am. And people get murdered and tell
47:43
us not to do that, too. So, I mean, things happen, don't
47:46
they? Some people don't always do what
47:48
they're told. Yes, ma'am.
47:50
That's what I'm getting, too. Mr. Zelps, I renew my objection.
47:55
Your Honor, there's a key element between Oklahoma City
47:58
and Lawton. It has not been fulfilled.
48:01
We don't know what happened. The court.
48:04
I don't. Agree.
48:05
The evidence is clear that this bag was sealed.
48:07
At the, I believe, the morgue here, and it was sealed when
48:11
Miss Reed got it. And to assume that there was
48:14
some tampering without any evidence of that is not
48:17
something that's going to affect the admissibility, in my
48:21
opinion. Your objection is overruled, Mr.
48:25
Zelps. Thank you, Your Honor.
48:27
The court, Those are now. Wait a minute.
48:30
Those are states, Mr. Zelps. 4342434239 You want your paper
48:36
sack in two, Dick. What the heck?
48:41
The court. It's 40.
48:44
Mr. Tannery. Yeah, I was going to throw it
48:46
in. Mr. Zelps, 40.
48:48
The court. OK, Those are.
48:51
Those are admitted then, along with other exhibits that have
48:54
been previously been admitted. Mr. Zelps.
48:58
OK, I can set these down by Mr. Zelps.
49:01
Miss Reed, several things that I want to cover with you today.
49:06
Cover today with you. First of all, I want to ask you
49:09
if you will continue with your analysis.
49:12
I know that you have scheduled like everybody else.
49:15
And you're busy testifying, but we anticipate this case is going
49:19
to be continued, isn't going to be continued until January 7th.
49:23
And there's some items that have not been able to examine and I
49:27
anticipate there will be some more.
49:30
Will you work on it? So yes, Sir, hopefully if you
49:34
have something, you could be available to come back and tell
49:37
us about it. Yes, Sir.
49:40
OK, now a couple of questions I want to ask.
49:43
You said that the hair was the known and the unknown were
49:48
Caucasian head hair, and they could have the same source.
49:52
Is that what my understanding is?
49:55
Yes, Sir. One of them is a pubic hair.
49:58
There's one head and one pubic. Thank you, Nancy.
50:04
OK, one head and one pubic. Uh huh.
50:08
How many total hairs were found on the sheet?
50:11
The unknowns. Do you know how many unknown
50:14
hairs we have on the sheets? Human.
50:17
I would have to refer to my notes.
50:19
Because I haven't completed all my analysis on that.
50:23
Is that all right? Sure, I could count them.
50:27
Sure. Please do.
50:29
I have 9 hairs at this point. 9. You determined they're human.
50:33
No, one of them is definitely not human.
50:36
It's an animal hair. OK, 88 are human.
50:40
Well, I haven't completed all of my examination, but they appear
50:44
to be there may be some more animals.
50:47
Essentially we have 9 hairs. We have examined and made a
50:51
determination at least that one of the unknown is consistent
50:57
with a known head hair and pubic hair.
51:00
Uh huh. OK now will you tell the court?
51:03
Please let me ask you this. Did you have have you done tests
51:08
on? Were you present at the autopsy?
51:11
No, Sir. Were you present at the crime
51:14
scene? No, Sir.
51:16
And so have you eliminated the individuals who moved or
51:19
transported or investigated the Tina Hogan murder case, Have
51:23
you? You can't eliminate them from
51:25
possibly being hair, can you? I don't have hairs from them at
51:32
this point. No, Sir.
51:34
OK. What I'm getting at is this.
51:36
You can't tell the judge the unknown hair that you have came
51:41
from Mr. Templeton, can you? No, I can say it could.
51:46
It could. Uh huh.
51:47
It could have as well as it could not have.
51:50
Is that correct? Well, what I mean is you're
51:54
getting into probabilities, but all I can say is it's
51:58
consistent. It could have come from him.
52:02
I can't eliminate him as a source.
52:05
That's right. But there are other possible
52:07
sources you would agree with that there are other people's I
52:11
haven't looked at. That's right.
52:14
OK. Now is the is is the science of
52:19
looking at hair? Has it been refined down to a
52:21
position where you can actually find a piece of hair and then
52:26
you can positively say that this came from that person's head?
52:31
No, Sir. I wish it had all right.
52:34
So in other words, it's not developed to an art as a
52:39
fingerprint might be my how things have changed, right?
52:44
No or. OK, now I want to ask you a
52:48
similar. Thing Let's talk about hair.
52:51
Let's talk about hair a second. What type of hair groups are
52:55
there? Categories.
52:57
How many of hair classifications are there?
53:07
Sorry. You mean from a human body?
53:11
Yes, From a human. What type?
53:14
Classifications. OK, you have head hair?
53:17
Pubic hair? No, I'm talking about.
53:19
Caucasian, *** or racial? Racial.
53:23
Yes, ma'am. Tell me that first.
53:26
OK, what are your classifications there?
53:30
Well, you refer to four groups, OK, Caucasian Mongloid, which
53:35
includes Orientals, American Indians and and the Eskimos, ***
53:41
and mixed racial. OK, And those are the four
53:45
groups you have, is that right, boy?
53:47
I took a blast from the past or this is a blast from the past,
53:52
OK. Yes, Sir.
53:55
Now, in each of these groups you have, I don't know if it's you.
54:00
Is it you that's devised the system, the length, the hair you
54:04
can look at for so many things? Well, I didn't.
54:08
Is it your system or is it recognized?
54:11
I didn't devise it. Actually, it was.
54:12
It's been used in England for any number of years.
54:16
The FBI has used it for years and years.
54:19
Sure it's been used. I'm not that good.
54:23
I didn't come up with it. OK, That's not anything
54:27
original. No, that everybody else could
54:29
pick on if I called them right. Everybody else uses basically
54:34
the same system. All right.
54:37
How many characteristics on the head hair known to unknown.
54:41
Did you find there's a there's 24.
54:45
Isn't there a possibility of 22 characteristics?
54:49
Well, we say. What we say is, is that we look
54:54
at some 18 to 22 characteristics.
54:58
OK, now you will hear some variations from.
55:01
People, some people will say 15 to 19, some people will say
55:05
different numbers. OK, you're talking about a
55:08
number of different characteristics.
55:10
You're talking about cuticle. You're talking about its
55:15
thickness, its variation, its scale, protrusion.
55:19
You're talking about pigmentation, how it's
55:21
distributed ovoid bodies, the shape of the hair up and down
55:26
it. You're talking about the
55:28
medulla, how it's presented, whether it's fragmented,
55:32
continuous, whether it's present.
55:35
You're talking about the cortical fusiae.
55:38
There's you're going to have to spell that one cortical,
55:43
CORTICAL. And then fusiae is FUSI.
55:49
What I'm getting to is this, did you determine how many of those
55:53
characteristics matched up between the known and the
55:56
unknown on the head? OK, I don't actually count the
56:00
number. What I do is look and see, I'm
56:03
afraid you're going to and we're going to see you at trial and
56:07
you're going to have a no, I don't do that.
56:10
OK, I don't count numbers. I look at them and I look for
56:14
the same characteristics. It's you're looking at all of
56:18
them when you look through the microscope and you're focusing
56:22
up and down through the hair. It would be almost impossible to
56:25
count every one of them as you do it.
56:28
It's a constant process. Let me ask you this with the
56:33
head hair involved, the known and the unknown, Uh huh.
56:37
Was it a close call by any means, or do you feel, you know,
56:41
it was something that came to you very easily, that you
56:46
thought these were consistent? Well, I thought they were
56:50
consistent. It, it had some rather unusual
56:53
characteristics. Tell us, please.
56:57
OK. It's it had a lot of Ovid
57:00
bodies. Now in human hairs, Ovid bodies
57:04
are they look like a large mass of pigmentation.
57:07
Whether that's what they really are, everybody's still arguing,
57:11
but that's what it looks like. And you see them in a lot of
57:14
animal hairs, but you don't see them that frequently in human
57:18
hairs. I had a lot of those.
57:21
I had some ridging on the hair. Those ovoid bodies were close to
57:25
the cuticle. And that's another interesting
57:28
characteristic. It there were several things
57:32
that, you know, I can't ever say a hair is unique, but there are
57:36
several very unusual characteristics in this hair and
57:41
in the unknowns. OK.
57:44
So the best you could hope to tell us today is what's similar
57:49
or it was similar. But you can't say that the
57:52
unknown came from Harvey Templeton, can you?
57:56
No. It was consistent.
57:58
OK. But you can't say it came from
58:00
him. Not positively.
58:01
No, Sir. Yes, ma'am.
58:03
Circumstantial in nature, is it not?
58:06
Most of what I do is OK. So now let's talk about the
58:11
fibers. I'm pretty familiar with hair
58:13
done a lot. Don't have to ask you as many
58:16
questions. Fibers a different deal.
58:19
I don't want to have to ask the same thing.
58:21
Are you here telling the court today that the unknown fibers
58:25
taken off the body of Tina Hogan came from Harvey Templeton's
58:29
house at five O 4 Woodridge? Are you saying that I can't
58:34
positively say that they could have come from that location and
58:39
no other? OK, I will say that they could
58:42
have come from the other location they could have come
58:46
from would have the two different types of carpeting.
58:51
They would have to have the 2 the same wear patterns and the
58:56
same soil patterns. Yes, ma'am.
59:00
Mr. Zelps, Judge, there's. I'm not going to make that
59:03
argument. I'm sorry.
59:04
By Mr. Zelps. There's some case law about
59:08
probabilities. You know, usually there are.
59:10
Probabilities aren't admissible in court.
59:13
You know that. No.
59:16
And we aren't trying to give a number here.
59:20
OK, I know I'm getting. What I'm getting to is, is that
59:24
you can't tell this judge. He's got to try to make a
59:27
decision. You can't say judge.
59:29
I'm positively sure, without any reasonable doubt in my mind that
59:34
these fibers found on the girl came from Harvey's house.
59:38
There's no way I could say that. In addition, you can't tell the
59:41
judge when they got on the clothes, can you?
59:44
Well, I can't say positively when they got on the clothes.
59:48
I can say that you are constantly shedding hairs and
59:52
fibers. If you pick them up and you
59:54
continue to move them for very long afterwards, they're going.
59:58
You're going to lose them. Just like the fibers you got on
1:00:02
your clothes at home today are probably all gone by now and
1:00:07
you've picked up ones. Here new ones.
1:00:09
Yeah, got new ones. It's a constant process and that
1:00:14
depends on weather conditions and how active you are and just
1:00:18
yes, a lot, yes, almost lots of variables, right?
1:00:23
Yes, there is. That's why I can't be specific.
1:00:26
What I'm getting to is you can't.
1:00:30
We don't know if Tina Hogan picked up those fibers on her
1:00:33
clothes on October 1st or on September 27th or you know, we
1:00:38
don't know. Do we really?
1:00:41
Well, we're carrying it a little far to put it into September
1:00:44
27th. I think they usually, well say
1:00:48
48 hours and they're all gone for sure.
1:00:51
OK, depends on how much you move around though.
1:00:54
You agree with that, don't you? Or if they're washed or how much
1:01:01
you change your clothes. That's right.
1:01:04
And all that if you if the. Clothes had been dirty and
1:01:07
thrown in with some dirty. Clothes that had the fibers on
1:01:10
them. And the fibers might have been
1:01:13
transferred. If the clothes were taken back
1:01:15
without being washed, you might have gotten some.
1:01:19
There were an awful lot. Yeah.
1:01:22
How many fibers have we got? We're talking about now unknown
1:01:26
fibers that I have matched up so far.
1:01:29
We're talking about 6. OK.
1:01:33
I have a total of probably 14 more to look at.
1:01:37
I'm talking about 20 fibers. All right. 20 fibers.
1:01:41
And they're very, very small, are they not?
1:01:45
Well, in big everyday terms, yes.
1:01:48
In the laboratory, I understand you.
1:01:51
You all got, they're pretty coarse to us.
1:01:55
When you all talk about it, it looks like you're cruising down
1:01:58
the road looking at houses. I mean, you blow it up and
1:02:01
you're looking, yes, you look at these things.
1:02:05
Yes, they're big to you because you, that's part of it.
1:02:10
They're small, though, to a human eye and to a layperson,
1:02:14
yes, They're not like we're not talking about a lot.
1:02:18
You said quite a few. I mean 20.
1:02:21
And they're very tiny, very difficult to see without being
1:02:24
trained like you. Well, I will say when I pulled
1:02:29
the items out of the sack and put them on the paper, they were
1:02:32
obvious to me. OK, now, but we can't, you're
1:02:37
not ruling out the possibility that these fibers were on, could
1:02:41
have been on? The clothes for a week or longer
1:02:43
are you? No.
1:02:46
Or not knowing what happened to the close, I can't do that.
1:02:49
OK, OK, not OK, I've covered that.
1:02:52
Let me see. Now what I want to ask you
1:02:54
specifically is this, in this, how many times have you analyzed
1:02:59
fibers to try to determine if they're nylon or not?
1:03:06
That's difficult to say. Just nylon is narrowing it down.
1:03:09
I can recall off the top of my head a couple of other cases
1:03:13
where I had nylon fibers, OK? That's kind of what I'm getting
1:03:17
to. There may have been others.
1:03:20
It's not like hair where you've looked at hair thousands of
1:03:24
times, OK? I'm actually going to stop here
1:03:30
on page 414. I'm sorry, I'm cutting it short.
1:03:33
But I'm getting more lightheaded and just feeling weird.
1:03:37
So I'm going to go lay down. It may just be, you know, a
1:03:41
little bit of shortness of breath from the from my ribs as
1:03:47
well as the menopause. I'm not sure what's going on.
1:03:50
But yeah, I'm going to take this off real quick.
1:03:56
And I also think I'm just getting sick or something.
1:04:01
I don't know if it's just straight allergies because I'm
1:04:04
like really stopped up. So did you guys see my new
1:04:09
Mcgruff Crime Dog? That right here, Mcgruff the
1:04:17
Crime Dog. Laura found it at A at an
1:04:23
antique shop. And so we went back the next day
1:04:26
and found it and bought it. And I love them.
1:04:31
So Mcgruff the Crime Dog was a huge thing in my life back in
1:04:36
the day. I remembered going to Cops for
1:04:38
Kids and then, you know, the DARE program and all that stuff.
1:04:44
So Teddy Ruxpin and Mcgruff and ETI think we got it.
1:04:50
Oh, and we got Alf too. So I think we got a Eighties 90s
1:04:53
theme going. Well, I hope everybody has a
1:04:57
very blessed evening and day whenever you're watching this,
1:05:01
and I hope that you please go out and do something good to
1:05:04
change the world for the better. Bye everybody.
1:05:10
Hi, I'm Beaker with Military Broadcast Radio TV.
1:05:14
We're your virtual MWR bringing veterans radio, podcasts,
1:05:18
gaming, animation, 3D printing and a community that never
1:05:23
leaves you behind. Download our Roku or mobile app
1:05:26
today.