Karen Lowe, Hair Banding, Trace Evidence Investigator , Quantico

George and Cindy Anthony are in court. Casey Anthony is in the courtroom. Chief Judge Belvin Perry is explaining that there doesn't need to be a "mini-Frye" hearing to Baez.  Frye hearings determine whether scientific evidence is within the accepted norms of a particular scientific field. Judge rules for prosecution. Judge: If memory serves me correct you (Baez) didn't have any objections at the Frye hearing.

FBI results , hair.   http://www.docstoc.com/docs/2053190/FBI-Lab-Results-(Casey-Anthony)-Searchable-Doc

FBI results, Hair banding  http://www.docstoc.com/docs/5186287/Casey-Anthony-FBI-DNA-results-hair

First witness of the day called.Karen Lowe, trace evidance examiner at Quatntico. Ashton is questioning They are reviewing her education and training. She is trained by the FBI. She has testified 44 times in the past.  she is her to teetify on hair banding. She is entered as qualifed witness.She is expected to testify regarding post-mortem hair banding or a marking on the root of hair that indicates human decomposition.

She is expected to say that a single hair found in the trunk of Casey Anthony's car had such a discoloration on it.

Baez is now questioning the witness. He greets her then there is a sidebar.

Baez reviews type. She is expected to say that a single hair found in the trunk of Casey Anthony's car had such a discoloration on it.e of training in length. She testified as she has attended classes and she has been tested by boards. She is accepted as expert witness. She is testifying to the methodology Lowe is now explaining microscopic forensic science for hair examination to the jury.  

She is testifying on how hairbanding testing works. She states it is assumed wiith 3 hairs have the same characteristics, are from the same source.Lowe is explaining that hair can identify race, disease and how it was removed from the body.  She is quoting articles in scientific articles on the use of hair banding in court cases.  She is discussing on scientific research on hair banding. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1556-4029
Ashton displays a a board of various pics of hairs with noted post mortem banding. Sidebar . Defense tried to get testimony dismissed but is overruled.
She is showing the hairs and discussing how to note if hair was pulled or naturally shed from head. 
She explains how the keratin is hardened post mortem and pigmentation.  
The banding starts post postem and the keration forms a band wit.  She is testifying as to late post mortem decomposition. 
FYI, PR OSECUTOR ASHTON WAS THE FIRST TO INTRODUCE THE USE OF DNA IN CASES
Karen Lowe is testifying to the use of microscopes in the examination of hair banding. Expert says it's all a visual assessment to determine if a hair has a "death band"h pigmentation involved.Lowe explains that it is a visual assessment to determine if a hair has a death band. Lowe explains that she has worked 2,000 cases in her 13 years.This is the only case where Lowe has found a hair where they didn't already know the person was dead.  She was provided with hairs from the Casey Anthony car. 
She is identfying evidence in manila envelopes as evidence. Ashton is having Lowe identify all of samples she studied for this case The envelopes are closed and she identifying it from the labels. She is testifying she was provided a hair brush by Cindy Anthony.
She found 11 hairs, one hair had evidendence of  decomposition. She us.ed microscope to identify characteristics of hairs. The hair that was "banded" was 9 inches ad light brown. She compared samples from CAsey and Caylee. She identified the hair as coming from Caylee not Casey. She identified the hair (banded) from the trunk to hairs on the brush.  Karen Lowe, FBI expert, says she identified hair with signs of decomposition that matched Caylee's hair from a brush. She is shownthe hair and states that they were sent for mitochondrial DNA. The hair is entered in.to evidence.
Baez to cross examine witness. She testifies that the hair banding examination has been around for 1930's in the FBI. She is testifying that instrumentation has improved. Baez is leading her through a commission study that was done by the US government .And we are approaching the bench! Baez does not like this science. State doesn't like his questioning.
 Recap: Speaking to jurors, Lowe cited literature and research documenting the phenomenon of post mortem root banding.Lowe also said she has seen this banding many times during her career amend hairs from individuals known to be deceased.  Judge looks irritated.She said a single hair identified for this case was similar to one pulled from Caylee's brush & wasn't similar to a hair of Casey Anthony's.




Recess.
 The jury is not present. The defense is arguing the validity of Lowe's findings in relation to a report from the National Academy of Sciences. Judge to Baez: You don't pull something out and start reading it . Baez asks her if she has seen report.LOWE> Yes.  The NAS is a recognized as an authorative source.  She is aware of critisim in relation to microscopic hair analysis. It is related to the discipline. ID can not be done without hair analysis. DNA analysis should be done alongside of identification of characteristics. The jury is not present.  Lowe explains that not all of the authors in the article that Baez is referencing are scientist. Baez is siting a Gates case in which the conviction was overturned with the assistance of th INNOCENSE PROJECT. She starts to say what she knows but Judge Perry states he is not going to allow her to be questioned on the the Gates case. She can only testify as to methodology. 
Judge Perry to Baez: "don't even go there"
Judge to Baez: We are not going to try another case in this courtroom.
She is testifying to a study on the comparision of identification of characteristics by microscope to mitochondrial DNA
Lowe> Microscopic identification characteristics of hair are not limited to one person. Mitocondrial DNA is done to obtain as much information as possible.
Ashton> Objection to having the witness testify to the relevance of other articles. 
Judge Perry is going to allow some testimony. Baez interrupts and Ashton yells "IF I COULD FINISH!
They are discussing what can be presented in the presence of the jury.Judge will let defense bring the  past case in with limitation. Jury is brought in.
The are discussing the NAS report. She states the article is authoritative as to its limitiations of the science and its recmmendations to improve the science. She states that hair examination  cannot be done without the NUCLEAR DNA examination. Nuclear DNA( unique to indiviual) is more specific  than to mitochondrial (specific to maternal line) DNA
.Baez> That is why you will not testify to the hair is specific to one indiviual. They study addressed how to this examination will be utilized in court.
LOWE> Yes,
She testifies that she is an expert on microscopic hair characteristics. Baez is making note to her 6 month training, her education on hair examination and articles read . She testifies that hair banding takes place as early as 8 hours. Not everyone deceased has hair banding. Baez is trying to get her to states that hair banding is not always present or the percentage of deceased that have hairbanding
Baez is questioned her training and experience with hair banding.    She is testifying that hair banding has not been shown to be present on other than decease. Lowe has said several times that hair evidence is not a means of positive identification & should be confirmed with DNA .This is the first case that hairbanding was found on a sample where the person was not known to be deceased. There are forensic counselors i court today for this testimony.  She asked for more hair samples because she wanted to know if their were  more hair samples with banding. She obtained more hair samples later obtained from trunk.  On the August 1st, report, she found no other hairs found with "banding." 
The August 6th report she testifies to samples from trunk like trunk liner., no hairs found with banding. Aug 13, report she was given clothes and no hair samples found with banding. 
October 13, she was given other items and vacuum sweepings, the report is that none of the hair had "banding." 
October 15 she was given single item. No hair with characteristics of decomp  found.
October 21, she was given a single item. No hair with characteristics of decomp  found.
November 6, she was given more items, No hair with characteristics of decomp  found.
November 6 she was given items from trashbag. No hair with characteristics of decomp  found.
June 25, 2009   she was given items from car. No hair with characterisic of decomp  found.
There are other items not from the car., (4) four tiems,  that were examined. No hair with characterisic of decomp  found. Baez is emphasizing that no other PMRB was found on other collected hairs. Baez is questioning the standard of investigation and error rates.
July31 she did a known sample from Casey Anthony. 
Baez is questioning that the hair sample of banding is above the root.He is questioning why it was not shown to jury. Sidebar.She is testifying that the banding is in the beginniing of the root end. She denies that she did not show it because of placement of root banding but because she a did not prepare and exhibit. 
Baez is stating and emphasizing Ms Lowe flunked her first proficiency test. Sidebar.
Judge Perry >Are you  familiar with the STeven Shaw case. Is any of your testimony based on the Shaw case? Lowe> NO. Perry>  Objection sustained as to beyond the scope of practice, in direct examination. Recess while jury out. 5 minutes.


Jury is returned. Baez continues. Lowe is testifying to hair samples and evidence.
 She testifies the Mitochondrial DNA is specific to maternal line. She testifies that people lose 100 hairs per day. She states their are two transfers and can not be definative. There  is primary and secondary transfer.She testifies that more hair improves identification.Because there is only one hair she can testify  to the consistency of transfer. , Primary or secondary.  Lowe never sent hair for nucleur testing bc there was no tissue on hair follicle. DNA analyst never id hair.There was no tissue on the root of the hair to conduct a nuclear DNA test.
Ashton redirects. Hair examples are not proven in identification. Mdna is needed. This is not an atigen hair,(forcibly pulled). The hair was still in the growth stage that is why the keratin is softer. 
Baez: Finding hairs in the trunk of a vehicle is not uncommon? Lowe: That is correct. Excused.