Forensic Scientist Miranda Comsa testifies at Samantha Woll murder trial

please my name is Miranda kamsa m i r a n d a c o MSA thank your honor uh ma'am could you please tell the jury you do for a living sure I'm a forensic scientist with the Michigan State Police currently at the Metro Detroit forensic laboratory and do you have a specific area or field of focus uh in your work as a forensic scientist yes I work in the biology unit doing body fluid identification testing and um how long have you been uh doing body fluid identification testing a little over 9 years and what sort of training uh or experience do you have in that specific field I have a bachelor's degree in biology from Oakland University and then once I was employed as a forensic scientist in the biology unit I went through a training program uh which lasted approximately 6 months and during that training program I learned how to handle evidence uh collect swabs from evidence and the various tests that we use um to test for various body fluids and have you ever testified as an expert uh previously in the field of body fluid identification yes I have um and how many times would you say you testified as an expert in that field over 40 times uh your honor if there are no questions I me to admit the witness as a or I'm sorry to qualify the witness as an expert in the field of body food identification no OB okay this witness's testimony will accepted as anert field to this case thank you your honor and ma'am in connection um with the homicide of Samantha wool did you do some body fluid identification analysis yes I worked under evidence that was submitted to our laboratory and ultimately authored two reports um for the laboratory number associated with this case okay and I want to talk about both reports um I'm holding what's been marked uh as people's proposed exhibit 35 may I approach uh 11 11 um does uh proposed exhibit 35 appear to be uh one of the reports that you authored in this case yes this is my report under the laboratory number md23 3317 record number 11 okay and what evidence um did you analyze in connection with with that report I received two pieces of evidence which were collected from a vehicle one of them was a blue gift bag and the other was a gray dog leash slh harness and I want to show you um a couple of photos of have already been admitted as part of people's exhibit 33 um and looking at um page 122 of exhibit 33 um does this item look familiar to you uh this is not an image I took but it does look uh consistent with the blue gift bag that I received okay and um looking at um page 136 of exhibit 33 how about this item again this is not a photograph that I took but it does appear consistent with the item that I received okay and what you're holding that's been marked as proposed exhibit 35 does that document your findings with respect to body fluid identification analysis of these two specific items yes it is and does that report that's marked as proposed exhibit 35 fairly inaccurately depict uh your findings in connection with the work that you did yes it does um your honor i' move to admit uh proposing of at 35 No objection 35 will be admitted and uh may I publish um now what sort of methods did you use to um analyze the two items that we just discussed I did a few different um blood tests on the items that I received um if I may explain how I received the items sure um both items I received I was notified that they um had staining present that tested positive with a test called hemis during the vehicle processing that was done at our Grand Rapids forensic laboratory so for both of the um items that I received I did some follow-up testing on the specific staining that was previously tested I did a test called hematrace and that test is specific for human blood um I also did um some additional presumptive testing with both hemis stics as well as a chemical presumptive test called phenol phine which works very similarly to to um hemis stics um so I did all three of those tests on these items okay and starting with the blue gift bag when you used um hematrace to determine whether there was human blood what was the finding I tested uh the one of the red brown stains that was indicated as the one that had been previously tested as hemis stics positive I took a sample from that staining and tested it with hematrace and I got a negative result so there was no indication of human blood on in that particular standing and um using the hemis stics test did you test the same area that was already tested or did you test a different area of the blue gift bag no I did not test the same area that was already tested I tested three different areas of standing that looked like they could be consistent with blood and I got a negative result with the Hema sticks so there was no indication of um blood on any of the additional staining that I tested and um you also mentioned pheny phine did you test the blue gift bag with phenol no I did not okay um and moving to the um the dog leash um did you test the dog leash with hematrace yes so similarly I located the area that was marked and indicated as having been hemo sticks positive during the vehicle processing I did the follow-up testing with hematrace on that particular area and I got a negative result so there was no indication of human blood in that staining after after that I then searched the item for additional areas that looked um consistent with possible blood I tested two stains with the phen phing test which again is a chemical presumptive test um and got positive results for two additional areas and then on a third area I got a negative result with the phenol phine and does the um does phenol phine does that test distinguish between human and animal blood no it does not so both husti and fenal phum work very similarly they're both chemical presumptive tests um and they work based on a color change reaction so if I get a positive hematic or A positive phenol phing test that's an indication that possible blood is present but it is not not specific for human blood and um other than I guess hematrace is there any other method that you could have utilized to distinguish between possible nonhuman blood and human blood the only test available for me in the laboratory to make that determination is the hematrace test and the hematrace test results here were all what when it came to the possible presence of human blood negative on both items and if I could clarify um that I also did do the hematrace tests on the two additional areas that I tested on the dog leash um and both of those were also hematrace negative okay um did you also um do some analysis um of some other items that were uh received by the laboratory in this case yes I did and when it came to those other items did you uh create a separate report yes I did um and I'm holding what's been marked as proposed exhibit 34 uh may I approach your honor um with respect to the other items that you analyzed um did does um the report that's been marked as proposed exhibit 34 uh document your your findings with respect to your analysis yes exhibit 34 is a copy of my laboratory uh report record number seven which is four pages in length with my signature on the last page and it outlines the testing that I did um on these pieces of evidence and does that report uh that's been marked as proposed exhibit 34 fairly inaccurately uh reflect the the analysis that you did in connection with those items yes it does uh your honor i' move to admit uh proposing exibit 34 no people 34 will also Beed and um just briefly I want to I want to run through the evidence um received uh section of your report um and can you can we just run through this list starting with the first item that was received what was the first item the first item was container number 18 which contained a green bait pen and what was the next item the next item container number 19 contains two sets of of swabs which I itemized as 19a and 19B 19a were the uh right hand swabs from Samantha wool and 19B with the left hand swabs from Samantha and what was the uh next item received container number 20 which I did not open but was identified as containing a lroy can or I'm sorry swabs from a lroy can and um what was the next item the next item is container number 21 which contains swabs from an upstairs drawer handle and um how about the next item the next item I container number 22 again I did not open uh but was reportedly containing swabs of another Lor can and the next item after that container number 23 which was again I did not open but was identified as containing swabs from an interior passenger door of a Chevy and the next item container number 29 which contains item number 29 which was a folding knife and uh the next item container number 33 which contained a black lanyard and the next item container number 34 which contained a pair of black boots and uh moving to the next page what were the uh remaining items container number 35 contained a folding knife with a black handle and container number 36 contained a folding knife with a blue handle and in terms of the items that you um you didn't open was there any reason why in connection with your specific type of analysis you didn't open those items um I we had a phone call conversation with the submitting agency to go through the remaining evidence on this case as there was a lot of pieces of evidence and at that point the items that I did open were the pieces of evidence that were prioritized and uh we were advised that um at the time we did not need to open or I did not need to open the items or like the containers that weren't opened lqu hands and the swabs from the interior passenger door and um your analysis here documented on this report what was the sort of primary um objective of your analysis um most of the items I was searching for possible blood okay and starting with the the green vape pen did you test that item for the presence of possible blood yes I did and um what was the result of that I tested one of the red brown stains present on the vape pen with the fenal phine test and got a positive postive result indicating the possible presence of blood for that item um I swabbed some of the possible blood staining to preserve but did not send that for DNA testing uh with this item I actually swabbed the what looked like the mouthpiece of the vape pen as well as the button on the vape pen for possible skin cells or saliva that might have been left behind by someone using the item those swabs were then sent forward for DNA testing and um how about the um the the hand swabs um of the victim did you test those items for possible blood yes I did both the right hand and the left hand swabs had staining that looked consistent with blood so I took a small cutting so I simply took a scalpel and took a small portion of the cotton material stained with the possible blood staining and tested that with phal phine for both sets of swabs I received a positive result indicating the possible presence of blood I then cut the entire remaining material um to scent for DNA testing okay and how about the upstairs drawer handle swabs did you do anything with with that particular item with that item there was no staining that appeared consistent with blood so I simply cut all of the cotton portion off of the swabs and placed it into a tube for DNA testing and um the the next item indicated on the bottom of page two was a uh was described as a folding knife did you examine that for the possible presence of blood I did I examined the folding knife under a bright magnifying light and identified multiple areas to test with the pheny phing test and all of the areas that I tested were negative so that item did not indicate the possible presence of blood and um how about the black lanyard um indicated as the next item yes that item I also removed and examined under a bright magnifying light as well as under a stereo microscope and identified areas of interest to test with the fenal failing test all of the areas that I tested were negative so so there was no indication of blood on that item and um I just want to move down to the final two items um the item described is a folding knife with a black handle um did you examine that for the possible presence of blood yes I did and um what was the results of your examination all of the areas that I tested were negative so there was no indication of blood on that item okay and just for the record that specific item um is that um indicated with a uh by the agency number of uh 113 if I may review yes yeah yes that one was listed as agency item number 113 and I itemized as our laboratory item number 35 okay and how about the blue folding knife what was is the agency number associated with that that was listed listed as agency item number 117 okay and I'm holding what's been marked as uh al already admitted as uh exhibit 29 um May I approach your honor um do you see an agency number on that item yes I do and what is the agency number on that it is on the Detroit Police Department tag at the top of the container and it is listed as 117 okay and um that number would be consistent with the blue holding knife that you analyzed yes and it is also um listed with our Michigan State Police laboratory container number 36 um and also has my initials and seal on the envelope and um did you um looking at uh the bottom of page three on your report did you uh analyze the blue folding knife for the possible presence of blood yes I did and what were the results of that analysis all of the areas that I found to test with the fenal fing test were negative so there was not any indication of what on that item thank you nothing [Applause] further well I mean if it's not going to be long I'd like to get done and not back I know I know she's off Thursday if it's possible to squeeze and but I don't want to hold good afternoon good afternoon now we can look at record number seven item 36 where it says apparent hairs and or firers collected was not examined um additional parent hairs were not collected or examined so to be clear there were some um apparent hairs that were found in this particular night yes um on the item when I removed it I noticed that there were a couple of possible hairs or fibers um and some of them which were a little looser on the item I collected on a sticky note for preservation and then there were also additional possible hairs or fibers um that were very small um throughout the surface around the interior of the fing component so those um hairs or fibers I did not collect or and the hair that you did collect do you know whether or not those were sent out for analysis uh I did not send them for any further analysis and I did not analyze them at the time okay um but you do have the capability to analyze suspected hair to see whether or not if it's compatible with a known DNA profile great our typical process for screening hairs so what I would do is to look at those possible hairs fibers I can determine one if it is a hair if it is a human hair or non-human hair and if it's a human hair at that point I would look to see if there is a root presence if there was a root presence I could at that point um send the root forward for DNA testing okay and you and your report doesn't reflect whether or not you were able to ascertain if in fact this was a hair or not correct correct I simply collected the possible hairs or fibers I did not look at them further okay and do you have total discretion on whether or not you collect suspected hair and then set it off of processing uh yes that would be my decision when I'm processing an item if I look at the hairs further um or if I send any hairs forward for DNA testing okay if you generate a report where it indicates it's app parent hair that collected and you send that to the requesting agency could they in return request that you sent that apparent hair all for analysis yes that is why I list on my report anytime that there were apparent hairs or fibers observed whether they were collected or not um and even for when I'm testing for body fluids I will note if there is additional staining that was not tested so that it's very clear on the report that no examination was done on um in this instance the hairs are f okay so to be fair to say that the requesting agency never requested you to send the apparent hairs off for additional analysis correct no I never got that request Now record 7 and record 11 um they both pertain to a particular suspect correct record 11 I know I had evidence that was collected from a specific person's Vehicle Record number seven I know I received evidence that was collected from I believe the crime scene um again the hand swabs collected from um Samantha wool okay um and some other items as well okay would it be fair to say that both reports have a victim name on it cor yes correct and they the victim name is Samantha W right correct and both reports have a suspect name on there correct yes they do and that name is Jeff hman correct yes that name is listed on Al Hearts now did you do any type of analysis on any clothes that were potentially collected from a Jeet Harman no I did not um from your standpoint what was the thinking behind not sending the potential hairs or fibers along for further analysis when I received the evidence the specific request for all most of the items that I received under record number seven was to do a blood search um so because I didn't find any areas of possible blood on any of the items I did not see the need to go further and to do analysis of the possible hairs or fibers on the items if if hypothetically in in a knife had had blood washed off of it would you still expect to see the types of fibers left behind that you observed on the these items um if a knife were recently washed I wouldn't necessarily expect to see many hairs or fibers still remaining on the item as well um if the washing were thorough enough to wash away any blood it would likely also wash away any hairs or fibers okay thank you nothing further and you stated that you wouldn't suspect to see many different hair fibers if knife was washed so it's possible that the knife could be washed and there still be some hair uh samples remain correct it's hard to say again if it would depend on how thorough the washing is with a folding knife there are a lot of creases and crevices so if a hair were to be wedged in some of those areas it's possible that um some of those would remain um if the blade area alone were wiped off but the handle area weren't submerged then it could also be possible to see some hairs and fibers still within that handle component okay were you aware that this particular crime involv the victim being stabbed in the head uh I was not aware of particularly where the victim was stepped if you had that additional information that a potential knife could have been used in the head of the victim would you have then sent those apparent hair samples off for analysis no it wouldn't have necessarily changed the way that I went about my analysis again my primary goal was to search for areas of possible blood and considering that I did not find any I did not see the need to analyze any possible hairs or fibers that were found on the items okay and that request was generated by the requesting uh agency of on how you I guess constructed your scope of your analysis correct as far as looking for the blood corre yes to the best of my memory when the items were submitted to the laboratory they were listed um the as the requesting to search for possible one okay and had the request been to search for potential hair then you may have expanded the scope of your analysis if if there were a specific request to process the hairs on the um knives then yes at that point I would have considered doing analysis on the hairs okay thank you Billy R welcome to the jury thank you m step down uh sorry for

Channel: WXYZ-TV Detroit | Channel 7

Views: 948

Keywords: 7 Action News, 7 News Detroit, Detroit, WXYZ-TV, metro Detroit

Id: 8U4tlQCd0c4

Length: 23min 49sec (1429 seconds)

Published: Tue Jun 18 2024