Forensic scientist testifies at trial of Samantha Woll's alleged Detroit killer

my name is Miranda kamsa m i r a n d a c o Ms a thank your honor uh ma'am could you please tell the jury what 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 nine 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 six 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 um to test for various body fluids and have you ever testified as an expert 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 to ad the witness Sor qualify the witness as an expert deidentification 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 may approach 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 EV which were collected from a vehicle one of them was a blue gift bag and the other was a gray dog leash harness and I want to show you um a couple of photos that 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 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 propos 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 proposing of at 35 35 will be ad and 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 sticks as well as a chemical presumptive test called phenol phine which works very similarly to pH 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 hemati positive I took a sample from that staining and tested it with hematrace and I got a negative results so there was no indication of human blood on in that particular staining and um using the hemis stics test did you test the same area that was already tested or did you test a different area that we give 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 sticks so there was no indication of um blood on any of the additional staining that I tested and um you also mentioned pheny thaline did you test the blue gift bag with pheny phine 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 that I then searched the item for additional areas that looked um consistent with possible blood I tested two stains with the phenol 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 fenal theine and does the um does pheny phine does that test distinguish between human and animal blood no it does not so both hemis stics and fenal Phalen 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 hemis stics or a positive phenol phalan 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 that you could have utilized to distinguish between possible non-human 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 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 have approach Runner 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 your honor i' move to admit proposing it a 34 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 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 contained two sets of swabs which I itemized as 19a and 19B 19a were the rightand swabs from Samantha wo and 19B were the left hand swabs from Samantha wo and what was the uh next item received container number 20 which I did not open but was identified as containing a lroy can sorry swabs from a lco c and um what was the next item the next item is container number 21 which contain 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 U but was reported the 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 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 contain 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 evid 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 the lco cans 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 the presence of possible blood yes I did and um what was the result of that I tested one of the red ground stains present on the bit pen with the pheny Phalen test and got a positive 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 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 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 send 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 the B P 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 fenal failing 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 indicated as the next item yes that item I also removed andam under a bright magnifying light as well as under a stereo microscope and identified areas of interest to test with the fenal phing test all of the areas that I tested were negative 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 as a folding knife with a black handle um did you examine that for the possible presence of blood yes I did and what was the results of your examination all of the areas that I tested were negative 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 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 exhibit 29 um May I approach your on it um do you see an agency number on that item yes I do and is the 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 folding 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 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 faling tests were negative so there was not an indication of what on that item thank you nothing I I know she's off there say if it's possible to squeeze and I don't want to hold good afternoon good afternoon it particular yes um on the item when I removed it I noticed that there were 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 folding component so those um hairs or fibers I did not collect or analis uh I did not send them for any further analysis and I did not analyze them at the time but you do have the capability to analyze suspected hair to whether or not it's comp with a known DNA profile 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 nonhuman hair and if it's a human hair at that point I would look to see if there is a root present if there was a root present I could at that point um send the route forward for DNA testing okay and your and your report doesn't reflect whether or not you were able to assertain 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 and do you have total discretion on whether or not youed hair and then it off of processing uh yes that would be my decision when I'm processing 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 apparent hair that was collected and you send that to the requesting agency could they in return request that you s that apparent ha off 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 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 or fibers okay so to be fair to say that the requesting agency never requested you to send these apparent cares off for additional analysis correct no I never got that request Now record 11 um they both pertain to a particular suspect corre 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 um and some other items as well okay would it be fair to say that both reports have a victim yes correct and the name Samantha correct and both reports have a suspect name on corre yes they do and that name is Jeff corre yes that name is listed on both of parts now did you do any type of analysis on any clothes that were potentially collected from a Jeff no I did not thank 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 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 that you wouldn't suspect to see many different hair fibers if the knife was washed so it's possible that the knife could be washed and there still be some hair samples remaining corre it it's hard to say again 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 are were wiped off but the handle area wen'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 involved the victim being stabbed in the head uh I was not aware of particularly where the victim was sted if you had that additional information that a potential knife could have been used in the head of the victim would you have S those samples off for nysis 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 and that request was generated by the requesting Agency on how you I guess constructed your scope of your analysis correct as far as looking for the blood correct yes to the best of my memory when the items were to the laboratory they were listed um as the requesting to search for possible wood okay and had the request then to search foral 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 okay

Channel: Click On Detroit | Local 4 | WDIV

Views: 389

Keywords: Detroit, Detroit News, Detroit Trial, First-Degree Murder, Home Invasion, Metro Detroit, Metro Detroit News, Michael Jackson-Bolanos Trial, Michigan, Murder Trial, Samantha Woll, Samantha Woll Murder, Wayne County

Id: BHHDs_N4ENo

Length: 23min 29sec (1409 seconds)

Published: Thu Jun 20 2024