FBI Agents's Full Testimony

LEGAL ARGUMENT 3175
2 particular case. Are we ready to proceed with
3 Investigator Allen?
4 MR. DODD: The people are ready, Judge.
5 THE COURT: Have the jury come in.
6 [At 4:12 p.m., the jury entered the
7 courtroom]
8 THE COURT: I guess we’re ready. Perhaps,

9 Mr. Fahey, you wish to call a witness?
10 MR. FAHEY: Yes. I call Special Agent

11 Christopher Allen.
12 CHRISTOPHER ALLEN, havingbeencalledasa
13 witness in behalf of the defendant, being first duly
14 sworn, testified as follows:
15 MR. FAHEY: Good afternoon, ladies and

16 gentlemen.
17 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. FAHEY:
18 Q. Agent Allen, can you tell us how you are
19 employed?
20 A. I’m employed as a special agent with the Federal
21 Bureau of Investigation, the FBI, and I’m currently assigned
22 to the forensic laboratory in Washington DC.
23 Q. How long have you been employed in that capacity?
24 A. I’ve been an agent for over eight years and I’ve
25 been in the lab for five years now.

C. ALLEN, for the defendant - Direct 3176
2 Q. Have you received certain training in connection
3 with the forensic laboratory duties?
4 A. Yes, I have.
5 Q. Can you tell us about those.
6 A. Once I was assigned to the hairs and fibers unit
7 at which I work, I received approximately a year of
8 comprehensive training which was under the direct supervision
9 of the unit chief and the training coordinator and this
10 involved some formal classroom training at the FBI’S academy
11 in Quantico, Virginia as well as a short course at North
12 Carolina State University. Additionally, the bulk of my
13 training was actually at headquarters in the lab in which I
14 literally looked at thousands and thousands of reference
15 samples of both hairs and fibers that we collected over many

C,
16 years so that I’d become proficient in identifying hairs and
17 fibers and also in comparing them to known samples.
18 Additionally, I read literature in the area as well as
19 successfully completing a series of oral certification boards
20 and at that point I was certified as a forensic inicroscopist.
21 Q. Can you tell us about your educational
22 background?
23 A. Yes. I have a bachelors in biology as well as a
24 Doctor of Dental Surgery, I’m a dentist, from the University

25 of Detroit, Detroit, Michigan.
2 Q. Did there come a time when you were assigned as a
3 supervisory agent in the case involving a woman by the name
4 of Heidi Allen?
5 A. I received evidence in the case, yes.
6 Q. And as a result of that, have you made certain

7 reports in connection with the evidence you received?
8 A. Yes, sir.
9 Q. And were you requested by the Oswego County
10 sheriffs department to perform certain tests on materials
11 submitted to you?
12 A. Yes, I was. Yes.

13 Q. Can you tell us whether or not you received
14 certain materials from the Oswego County sheriffs department
15 on or about the 19th day of April 1994?

0,
16 A. Yes, I did.
17 Q. Can you tell us what you received?
18 A. In that particular submission, which was the
19 first submission to the FBI lab which actually was sent under
20 FBI letterhead, we received items of evidence from the van —-
21 a van, particularly vacuum sweepings and debris that was
22 removed from it as well as some known samples from one of the
23 defendants in this case and two hairbrushes that were
24 identified to me as having belonged to the victim.
25 Q. Now, with respect to the items that were taken

C. ALLEN, for the defendant Direct 3178
2 from the van, were they assigned a certain number?
3 A. Yes, sir, they were.
4 Q. What were they assigned?
5 A. Typically when items of evidence from a crime
6 scene come into a laboratory, they are assigned either a Q or
7 a K designation, Q standing for questioned item meaning that
B if debris is removed from this particular item, let’s say a
9 shirt or a piece of clothing, we’re not certain who the hair
10 or the fibers belong to. So I received approximately
11 fourteen Q items and several K items.
12 Q. Can you identify for us what the Q items were?
13 A. I’d have to refer to my notes specifically to do
14 that. [Indicating]
15 THE COURT: Yes, you may.

C’,
16 A. Still referring to the 4/19 submission, is that
17 correct?
18 Q. Yes.
19 A. Qi through 9 were vacuum sweepings from the van;
20 Q10 through 12 were debris also removed from the van; Q13 and
21 Q14 were identified to me as hairbrushes which the victim,
22 Miss Allen, used; and then there were six K samples.
23 Q. Can you identify what the K samples were for us?
24 A. Yes, sir. Ki through K3 were samples of carpet
25 from the van; K4 was a head hair sample from the defendant
2 named Richard Thibodeau, I believe.
3 Q. Yes.
4 A. K5 was a pubic hair sample from the same
5 individual and K6 was also a blood sample from the same
6 individual.
7 Q. Were there also two other submissions that caine
8 that day?
9 A. Yes, there were. There were some what I will
10 term also submitted items. If we don’t give a Q or a K
11 designation, we call that an also submitted item. That’s

12 usually going to an item that goes to latent fingerprints.
13 Q. Now, with respect to the items you identified as
14 Q items and the items that were identified as K items, were

15 certain comparisons requested?
C”
16 A. Certain comparisons were requested, yes.

C
17 Q. Can you tell us what you were requested to do?
18 A. Actually, typically I’m asked to compare
19 questioned debris hairs and fibers to known hairs or fibers.
20 However, in this particular situation I didn’t have what
21 would be termed a known hair so I used the Q13 and Q14 which
22 were the hairbrushes from the victim as my known
23 representative since they were identified to me as having
24 been used by her. Then rationally I could use those as her
25 known standard. So I was asked to compare the items from the

2 van, namely the vacuumings and the debris, to the hairs that
3 were removed from the victim’s hairlirushes.
4 Q. And how did you make that comparison?
5 A. The comparison is basically a microscopic
6 comparison. Hairs have certain —- with respect to hairs,
7 they have certain characteristics to them that only can be
8 seen with the use of microscope and we use what’s called a
9 comparison microscope and basically it’s simply two
10 microscopes that are side by side and they have an optical
11 bridge over the top of them so as you look into the
12 binoculars, you can see both specimens on the left microscope
13 and both specimens on the right microscope, very similar to a
14 television where they split the screen during a sporting
15 event or when two people are talking on a telephone. So the

C,
16 comparison is to put the questioned specimen on one side and
17 the known specimen on the other side and compare them side by
18 side in the seine field of view from root to tip to determine
19 if they exhibit the seine microscopic characteristics.
20 Q. And which items were compared to which?
21 A. The questioned items 1 through 12 which were
22 identified to me as being debris and vacuumings from the van
23 which was owned by -- identified to me, I believe, by one of

24 the Thibodeaus. I’m not sure right at the moment. Compare
25 any hairs that I found in those vacuumings or the debris from
2 the van to the hairs that were removed from the hairbrush
3 which purportedly would be Miss Allen’s.
4 Q. And what was the result of your examination?
5 A. In comparing any of the hairs that I found in the
6 vacuuiuings or in the debris from the van, I did not find any
7 hairs -- head hairs that is, that matched the victim’s,
8 Miss Allen.
9 Q. Now, turning your attention to May 5, 1994, did

10 you receive additional materials from the Oswego County
11 sheriffs department?
12 A. Yes, sir.
13 MR. FAHEY: If I may have just a moment?
14 THE COURT: Uli-huh.
15 Q. Special Agent Allen, I’m going to show you what

C,
16 has been previously marked as Defendant’s Exhibits CCC, DDD,

17 FEE, and FFF, Defendant’s Exhibit GGG, and Defendant’s
18 Exhibit HHH, ask you if those are items that were previously
19 received by the FBI laboratory?
20 A. [Indicatingj Yes, they were.
21 Q. And were they assigned a certain Q number?
22 A. Yes. Each item was assigned a specific Q number.
23 Q. And what Q numbers were they assigned?
24 A. Q numbers 15 through 19 were assigned to clothing

25 and certain items from a Ms. Searles’ residence and Q20 and
2 Q21, which would be State’s Exhibit GGG and HHH, were
3 assigned to a shirt and some residue taken from a car wash.
4 Q. I will show you what has been previously marked
5 as Defendant’s Exhibit TTT, ask you if you can identify what
6 that is?
7 A. Yes. I recognize this as my specimen K7, a known
8 sample. There are none now, they have all been used. They
9 were represented to me as being a hair sample from the
10 victim’s sister’s dog.
11 MR. FAHEY: May I have a moment, your Honor?
12 MR. DODD: What exhibit number was that?
13 A. TTTT.
14 THE COURT: TTT. Triple or quadruple?
15 A. It says four. Four Ts.

C’)
16 THE COURT: Sorry about that.
17 Q. I will also show you what has been previously
18 marked as Defendant’s WWWW, ask you if you can identify that
19 for me.
20 A. State’s Exhibit WWWW, my specimen number Kb.
21 That’s a known carpet sample identified to me as having come
22 from a relative’s residence, presumably the one that the
23 victim, Miss Heidi Allen, resided in.
24 Q. And did you perform any type of a comparison with
25 respect to those items?

C. ALLEN, for the defendant — Direct 3183
2 A. Yes, sir, I did.
3 Q. Is that the same type that you just described
4 before microscopically?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. What did you compare, which items with which
7 items?
B A. The items from the Searles residence - I believe
9 that’s the victim’s grandmother, is that correct?
10 Q. Yes.
11 A. I was asked to look through those items for any
12 debris that could be associated from the previous items that
13 were sent in. In other words, if there was a carpet fiber or
14 a washcloth that may have transferred to the victim and then
15 subsequently or secondarily transferred to the van, could I

C,
16 find that association. Additionally, those items, the Q
17 items, the questioned items from the victim’s grandmother
18 also to be used for further hair samples as well as the
19 hairbrushes. So that was the examination on those items.
20 The items from the car wash which is represented by
21 a shirt and some residue from a van, the same type of
22 examination: Did I find any hairs in those two items, the
23 residue from the car wash and a shirt that matched
24 microscopically the hairs that were from the hairbrush used
25 by the victim.
2 Q. What were the results of your tests?
3 A. Again, I found no head hairs microscopically
4 matching the head hairs from the victim’s hairbrushes on the
5 shirt or the residue from the car wash and I found no
6 exchange of fibers from the grandmother’s residence and those
7 items to the vacuumings from the van.
8 Q. I’m going to turn your attention to the date of
9 June 15, 1994 and ask you if you received additional items
10 from the Oswego County sheriffs department?
11 A. Yes, sir.
13 as Defendant’s Exhibit III and also Defendant’s Exhibits 53,
14 5C, 5D, and 5E and ask you if you have ever seen those items
15 before?
16 A. Yes, I do recognize them.
17 Q. Can you identify them for us?
18 A. State’s Exhibits EEE is my Q designation Q22 and
19 these are scrapings of tire tread marks at the convenience
20 store and the other four items, SB, C, D, and E, are known
21 tire or rubber samples from the van.
22 Q. Was a comparison requested by the Oswego County
23 sheriffs department of the FBI lab?
24 A. Yes, sir, it was.
25 Q. Was a comparison test performed?

C. MLEN, for the defendant - Direct 3185
2 A. Yes, sir.
3 Q. Can you tell us what the results of that were?
4 A. The scrapings of the tire marks of I the
5 convenience store did not match or did not have the same
6 characteristics as the rubber from the tires of the van.
8 as Defendant’s Exhibit 5A, Defendant’s XXXX, YYYY, and ZZZZ
9 and ask you if you have ever seen those before?
10 A. Yes, sir, I have.
11 Q. Can you identify them for us?
12 A. State’s Exhibit 5A and XXXX, YYYY, and ZZZZ
13 represent what I refer to as Ku or known exhibit 11. It was
14 identified to me as being an identical type of sweatshirt
15 that was worn by Miss Allen at the time that she was abducted
16 or missing. The pillboxes are actually cuttings from it that
17 were used for the known samples for comparisons.
18 Q. Was a request made of you to compare those with
19 other items?
20 A. Yes, sir.
21 Q. And what items did you compare those with?

rL
22 A. The known fibers from the sweatshirt, we were
23 requested to compare those to the previous vacuumings that
24 were sent on this first submission from the van, the
25 vacuumings and the debris.

2 Q. And was that comparison made?
3 A. Yes, sir.
4 Q. And can you tell us what the results of that
5 comparison was?
6 A. I did not find any fibers that matched the
7 sweatshirt in the van.
8 Q. Did there come a time when you received
9 additional specimens from the Oswego County sheriffs
10 department on July 1, 1994 and July 6, 1994?
11 A. Yes, sir.
12 Q. I’ll show you what has been marked as Defendant’s
13 Exhibits JJJ, LLL, and MMM.
14 MR. FAHEY: May I have just a moment, your
15 Honor?
16 THE COURT: Uh-huh.
17 Q. -- KKK, 000, Pp?1 and QQQ, ask you if you can
18 identify those for us?
19 A. Yes, sir, I can.
20 Q. And what are they?
21 A. I have designated these questioned or Q items 23
22 through 27. They represent debris, soot, charred remains
23 that were removed from the defendant Gary Thibodeau’s
24 residence.
25 Q. How were they removed?

C. ALLEN, for the defendant Direct 3187
2 A. I’m sorry?
3 Q. In what way were they removed from soot piles in
4 that residence?
5 A. I don’t know. I wasn’t there.
6 Q. They were sent to you?
7 A. Yes, sir.
8 Q. I also show you -- well, with respect to those
9 exhibits, was a request made for a comparison by the Oswego
10 County sheriffs department?
11 A. Yes, sir.
12 Q. And do you know what test was requested?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. What was that?
15 A. The requested test was to examine these
16 remains —- these charred debris for any human bones.
17 Q. Now, the items that you testified about, Q23, 24
18 and 25, these caine from soot piles at the Gary Thibodeau
19 residence?
20 A. Yes, sir.
21 Q. And 26 and 27 were debris taken from a furnace on
22 that property?
23 A. Yeah, that’s correct.
24 Q. And what did you do with those items in order to
25 perform that comparison?

2 A. I had them taken to the Smithsonian Institute,
3 which is right across the street from FBI headquarters, and
4 they were examined by renown anthropologist, Douglas
5 Ubelaker.
6 Q. And did he submit a report to you in connection
7 with that examination?
8 A. Yes, sir, he did.
9 Q. And what were the results of that test?
10 A. He was able to find bones that he was able to
11 identify as animal bones and smaller bone fragments which he
12 wasn’t able to make either an animal or a human
13 identification on. So he wasn’t able to identify human bones
14 per se in these specimens although he didn’t discount the
15 fact that there may be, they just couldn’t be identified.
16 Q. Let me show you what has been marked as
17 Defendant’s Exhibits RRR, SSS, TTT, UUU, ‘2W, WWW, XXX, YYY,
18 and ZZZ. I would ask you if you can identify those items for
19 me.
20 A. Those State’s exhibits that you just mentioned
21 are my designation Q28 through Q30 and they represent debris
22 that were vacuumed off of carpet samples that were submitted.
23 Q. I’m going to show you some additional exhibits in
24 that regard: AAAA, BBBB, CCCC, DDDD, and IEEE, 1111, JJJJ,
25 KKKK, LLLL, NNNN, 0000, QQQQ and ask you if you can
2 also identify those for me.
3 A. Yes. Again, these are vacumued debris that we
4 removed at the laboratory from the carpet samples that were
5 sent in. This item, specifically 28, is one of the carpets
6 that were sent in from the Thibodeau van.
7 Q. And showing you FFFF, GGGG, HHHH. Have you ever
8 seen these before?
9 A. Yes, sir.
10 Q. Can you tell us what they are?
11 A. These are the specimens Q28 through Q31 which
12 were identified to me as carpeting from the Thibodeaus’ van.
13 Q. Now, you had mentioned that some of those items
14 were vacuumings from the carpeting?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. And the last three exhibits I put before you,
17 GGGG, FFFF, and Huff!, is that the carpeting they were
18 vacuumed from?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And that particular vacuuming was done at the FBI
21 lab?
Ui
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Can you tell us whether or not you performed any

U-
24 microscopic examinations with respect to those exhibits?
25 A. With respect to exhibit 31 I did. The other

2 exhibits seemed to contain primarily just animal hairs on
3 them so there were no microscopic examinations conducted on
4 28 through 30. A microscopic examination on carpet Q31 was
5 conducted, yes.
6 Q. And what did you compare that to?
7 A. I used any hairs that I found from that to
8 compare to the hairs from the hairbrush from the victim,
9 Miss Alien.
10 Q. And what was the result of that comparison?
11 A. I found five Caucasian head hairs ranging in
12 length from two to three inches and these did not
13 microscopically match the victim, Miss Allen.
14 Q. Did you also -- did the laboratory also conduct
15 an examination of items 28 through 31 to determine the

C.,
16 presence of blood?
17 A. That was a primary reason that these items were
18 sent in, yes.
19 Q. What were the results of that examination?
20 A. There was neither blood nor semen found on any of
21 the carpet samples.
22 Q. Now, did there come a time on November the 3rd,
23 1994 when you received additional items?
24 A. Yes, sir.
25 Q. Before we get to those, let me show you what has

2 been previously marked as Defendant’s Exhibit RRRR. Did that
3 also constitute a portion of the microscopic examination that
4 you just testified to?
5 A. Yes. This is a pilibox in which debris removed
6 from that Q31 carpeting contains.
7 Q. Now, directing your attention back to November 3,
8 1994, did you also receive certain other specimens from the
9 Oswego County sheriffs department?
10 A. Yes, sir.
11 Q. And I will show you what has previously been
12 marked as Exhibits GA and 6B and ask if you can identify that
13 also for us.
14 A. Yes. State’s Exhibits GA and GB are specimens
15 Q34 and Q35 which I designated and they were identified to me
16 as debris from an ash pile from the defendant Gary
17 Thibodeau’s residence.
18 Q. And what did you do in connection with those
19 items?
A. Again, I had these -- this debris examined by

20
21 Douglas Ubelaker, the anthropologist at the Smithsonian
22 Institute.
23 Q. As a result of that, did he submit to you a
24 report of his examination?
25 A. Yes, sir.
C. ALLEN, I or the defendant - Direct 3192
2 Q. And can you tell us what the results of that
3 examination were?
4 A. No bones of human origin were discovered or
5 recognized.
6 Q. Thank you, Agent Allen.
7 MR. FAHEY: That’s all I have.
8 THE COURT: Cross-examination, Mr. Dodd.
9 MR. DODD: Very briefly, Judge. If I can
10 take a moment just to organize my documents?
11 THE COURT: All right.
12 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DODD:
13 Q. Agent Allen, my name is Donald Dodd. I’m an
14 assistant district attorney here in Oswego County. I’m going
15 to ask you some questions. If I ask a question that you
16 don’t understand, will you tell me, sir?
17 A. Yes, sir.
18 Q. Thank you. Now, Agent Allen, you have testified
19 in response to Mr. Fahey’s questions about your
20 specialization area and you have indicated that you presently
21 are designated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation as a
22 forensic microscopist, is that correct?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. Would it be a fair statement that you’re an
25 expert in the area of hairs and fibers analysis? Would that

C. ALLEN, for the defendant - Cross 3193
2 be a fair statement?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And that your specialization training has been,
5 in part, in that particular area, is that true, sir?
6 A. Yes, sir.
7 Q. And can you explain and tell this jury the
8 approximate number of cases that you have worked on in that
9 capacity as an expert when you’ve been called upon to examine
10 evidence items that have been submitted to you for your
11 analysis during the period of time you worked in the lab?
12 A. I have worked on approximately a thousand to
13 twelve hundred cases.
14 Q. And those thousand to twelve hundred cases would,
15 in part, sir, require you to compare known specimens with
16 questioned specimens, is that correct?
17 A. Most of them, yes.
18 Q. And you’re looking for some possible comparison
19 that might result in a transfer of evidence, is that a fair
20 statement?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. Now, you have done this for about how many years,
23 Agent Allen?
24 A. I’ve been assigned to the unit for five years.
25 Q. And of those one thousand to twelve hundred cases

2 that you have worked on, can you tell this jury the
3 percentage of time in all of those cases that you have found
4 something by way of a control and a questioned item that have
5 matched?
6 A. Approximately ten to fifteen percent of the time.
7 Q. So approximately ten to fifteen percent of those
8 one thousand to twelve hundred cases you have found something
9 by way of a control versus a questioned item that matched, is
10 that your testimony?
11 A. That’s correct.
12 Q. And you’re the expert, right?
13 A. I like to think so.
14 Q. That’s why you were flown in. Let me ask you a
15 question, sir: I’m going to ask you about the particular
cv 16 analysis that you have gone through here in response to
0
17 Mr. Fahey’s questioning and I’m going to try and be very
U
18 brief, if I can. You have testified initially that you had

uJ
19 done a comparison of certain vacuumed sweepings from a van
w 20 that you have designated as Q items Ql through Q12, is that

0
w
21 correct?
w
-J
22 A. Correct.
U 23 Q. And I believe that you didn’t have a known

0
Li-
24 specimen from the victim in this case, Heidi Allen, but that
25 you used hair from a hairbrush and designated that to be your

2 known?
3 A. Indirectly, yes.
4 Q. Now, you didn’t have the benefit of having hair
5 directly from her head, did you, sir?
6 A. No, sir.
7 Q. And would that have been a preferred way for you
8 to do an analysis?
9 A. Absolutely.
10 Q. Sir, in all of those vacuumed sweepings that you
11 obtained from the van on April 9th or 10th, can you tell the
12 ladies and gentlemen of the jury here what that crunched down
13 to? How many hairs did you find?
14 A. I found approximately six to ten hairs.
15 Q. So six to ten hairs were found in all of the
16 items that were submitted to you from the vacuuming of that
17 van on April 9th or 10th, is that your testimony?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. And you then did a comparison of those six to ten
20 hairs against what you believed to be Heidi Allen’s hair, is
21 that correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And your testimony is it didn’t match, is that

U-
24 correct?
25 A. Correct.
2 Q. Now, those six to ten hairs that you found, sir,
3 were they of varying lengths?
4 A. One was twelve inches, the other were five inches
5 or less. They were hairs without roots; in other words, they
6 were broken off.
7 Q. And it would be true then that in all of the
8 items that were submitted to you, all you had to work with
9 were how many items of hair?
10 A. Six to ten.
11 Q. I believe that Mr. Fahey then asked you, sir,
12 about a comparison of items from a car wash which I believe
13 you have testified were identified as your Q items Q20 and
14 Q21, a shirt and debris from a car wash. Do you recall that
15 series of questions that was asked of you, sir?

0)
16 A. Yes, sir.
17 Q. Now, let me ask you, Agent, do you know who
18 gathered those items from that car wash?
19 A. No, I don’t.
20 Q. Do you know if the items that were gathered from
21 the cash wash were a year old?
22 A. I would have no way of knowing that.
Q. Two years old?
25 Q. Three years old?

C. MJLEN, for the defendant - Cross 3197
2 A. No, sir.
3 Q. You did your best to do an analysis of the items
4 that were submitted to you, is that a fair statement, sir?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And I believe it is your testimony that you did
7 an analysis and there were no head hairs that you found on
8 that shirt that you have designated as being item Q20, is
9 that correct?
10 A. Repeat that. There were head hairs, yes.
11 Q. On that particular shirt?
12 A. Yes. Two.
13 Q. Two?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And did you compare those to the known -- or what
16 you believed to be the known specimens from our victim, Heidi
17 Allen?
18 A. Yes, sir, I did.
19 Q. Did they match?
20 A. No, they did not.
21 Q. Sir, did you know whose shirt that was?
22 A. I had no idea.
23 Q. Now, Mr. Fahey asked you also, sir, about a
24 comparison of certain items that you have identified as
25 having been obtained from Heidi’s grandparents’ -- the

2 Searles residence, in the form of fibers. I believe you have
3 identified them as a washcloth, a headband, and those
4 particular items. Do you recall that series of questions,
5 sir?
6 A. Yes, sir.
7 Q. And did you do some comparison of those cloth
8 items with the vacuumed sweepings from the van conducted on
9 April 9th and/or 10th?
10 A. Yes. An attempt was made to compare any fibers
11 from those items from the Searles residence to fibers, debris
12 from the van.
13 Q. Sir, did you find any fibers in the vacuumed
14 sweepings that were sent to you from that particular van?
15 A. I found fibers in the sweepings, yes.
16 Q. Can you approximate for this jury what quantity
17 that would be, sir, if you can?
18 A. Thousands.
19 Q. And the items that were sent to you from the
20 Searles residence designated as a washcloth -- is that
21 correct?
w
22 A. There was.
23 Q. In part?
25 Q. Is that a fairly common item, Agent?

C. ALLE1, for the defendant - Cross 3199
2 A. A washcloth?
3 Q. Yes.
4 A. Yes, sir, it is.
5 Q. Would it be a fair statement that probably
6 thousands of wash cloths are sold every day in the United
7 States? Is that a fair statement?
8 A. Yes, sir.
9 Q. And it would also be true, sir, that that
10 comparison didn’t result in anything that matched from that
11 which was submitted to you from the Searles residence against
12 the fibers that you found in that van, is that correct?
14 Q. Mr. Fahey then asked you questions about a
15 comparison that was done relative to items that were marked
16 as III and also 5B, 5C, 5D, and 5E which I believe you
17 testified took the form of known specimens from Richard
18 Thibodeau’s tires of his van and also a submission that was
19 sent to you in the form of a transfer of rubber?
21 Q. Did you in person do that analysis, sir?
22 A. No, I did not.
23 Q. But someone else did it who worked for the FBI,
24 is that correct?
25 A. Correct, and I’m just reiterating his statement.

2 Q. Sir, would you have any idea as to when it is
3 that that transfer of rubber to the pavement at the D & W
4 Convenience store occurred?
5 A. No, sir. I have no idea.
6 Q. Now, Mr. Fahey asked you questions about items
7 that you designated as JUl which I believe you identified as
8 a sweatshirt that someone indicated to you was believed to be
9 similar to the sweatshirt being worn by the victim, Heidi
10 Allen. Do you recall that place in the testimony, sir?
11 A. Yes, sir.
12 Q. And I believe that you testified that there were
13 certain cuttings that you took from that particular exhibit
14 that you designated as particular numbers. Now, sir, you
15 examined that particular sweatshirt, is that correct?

C”
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And were the fibers in that particular sweatshirt
18 of any forensic utility for the purposes of your analysis?
19 A. The fibers that comprised the sweatshirt were
20 made up of cotton and polyester and they are a white to a
21 real light gray cotton polyester. Those particular fibers do
22 not lend themseif really significantly to forensic cases
23 because the question is asked, how common is a light colored
24 cotton or a polyester, and that is a very common fiber in our
25 environment as opposed to, let’s say, a green and blue rayon

C. ALLEN, for the defendant — Cross 3201
2 or something that has more characteristic to it. So in this
3 sense, that sweater would not really lend itself
4 significantly to a forensic comparison.
5 Q. Sir, you did make an attempt, however, to utilize
6 fibers from that common cloth sweatshirt, is that correct?
7 A. I tried to concentrate on the letter itself and
8 the printed die that was on that to see if there were any
9 transfers.
10 Q. And it is your testimony to this jury that you
11 found nothing by way of the vacuumed sweepings submitted to
12 you that indicated to you some match relative to that which
13 was submitted to you having to do with the sweatshirt, is
14 that correct?
C,
16 Q. Mr. Fahey then asked you a series of questions
17 about an analysis of soot piles that I believe you indicated
18 had been received by the FBI laboratory on or about July 6th
19 and July 1, 1994 and you indicated they were items Q23
20 through Q27. Your testimony was that you did not in person
21 conduct an analysis of the contents of those submissions, is
22 that correct?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. And I believe your testimony is that you took it
25 to a Dr. -- how do you pronounce his last nane?

2 A. Ubelaker.
3 Q. And Dr. Ubelaker made some analysis at your
4 request, is that correct?
6 Q. And you read from his report in part?
7 A. Sununarized it, yes.
8 Q. Sir, I believe that you indicated that the
9 doctor, Dr. Ubelaker, wasn’t able to identify any human bones
10 per se, is that correct?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. But didn’t he also indicate that he wasn’t able
13 to exclude the possibility of human bones, sir?
14 A. Yes. His last sentence in his report indicated
15 that.
0
16 Q. Now, again, you did not conduct that examination,
17 is that correct?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. Now, Mr. Fahey then asked you questions about an
20 analysis of a carpet that was sent to the FBI laboratory, and
21 it’s here at my feet, and you have already identified it by
22 way of a number of different particular exhibit numbers. I

23 believe that you said that it was Q number 28 through 31.
24 Sir, your testimony is that you did an analysis of certain
25 vacuumed sweepings from that rug that was submitted, is that

2 correct?
3 A. Yes. That wasn’t my primary objective. The
4 objective was to remove the debris so that it could be tested
5 serologically but, in doing so, I noticed that there were
6 many hairs in those vacuumings but they were primarily animal
7 hairs.
8 Q. Sir, did you know that that rug had been outside
9 of a residence when it was obtained on 6/22/1994 by the
10 sheriffs department?
11 A. No. I had no idea.
12 Q. And did you know that that rug was outside of a
13 residence for approximately at least a month to a month and a
14 half? Did you know that?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Sir, do you know if anybody could have added
17 contents to that rug before it is that you did your
18 examination?
19 A. It’s possible.
20 Q. Or taken something from the rug prior to your
21 analysis, is that correct?
22 A. Yes, sir.
23 Q. I believe you testified that there was an
24 examination conducted of the rug for the presence of blood
25 and/or semen, is that correct?

2 A. Of the carpet samples, yes.
3 Q. Yes, sir. Did you personally do that?
4 A. No, I did not.
5 Q. And the test results, I believe you said, were
6 that there was no blood and no semen, is that correct?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. Now, sir, have you ever done forensic
9 examinations in cases where you believed that there would be
10 some form of transfer evidence?
11 A. Oh, numerous times, yes.
12 Q. Where you have some basis to believe that a
13 victim was at, in fact, a particular place, have you had that
14 type of analysis?
15 A. In cases of admitted contact or consensual
16 contact, yes.
17 Q. And in those types of cases, can you help this
18 jury understand what percentage of the time you would, in
19 fact, find some transfer of physical evidence by way of
20 question or known? Could you help them understand?
21 A. Well, the dynamics of physically transferring
22 either hairs or fibers from one person or their clothing to
23 another object depends on a number of things. It depends

24 primarily on time; it depends on the amount of contact;
25 depends on the items themselves, whether they are a coarse

2 item such as a wool sweater as opposed to like a nylon
3 jacket. There are a lot of different dynamics that are
4 involved. Perhaps the most important is time, the time
5 factor.
6 Q. Sir, you testified that in addition to that
7 examination that was conducted for blood and semen, that
8 additionally relative to one of the items, I believe it was
9 Q31, you did a further analysis of item Q31?
10 A. Yes, noticing that there were what appeared to be
11 head hairs in the vacuum sweepings.
12 Q. And your testimony I believe was that you did not
13 do a further analysis of the vacuuinings from Q28 through 30,
14 is that correct?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. Mid relative to Q31, did you find any hairs, if
17 you can recall, in that particular item that you examined
18 again?
19 A. Yes. I believe I stated two head hairs.
20 Q. So you found two more head hairs that time, is
21 that correct?
22 A. [Indicating) I have to restate that. Five head
23 hairs.
24 Q. We’re not talking a lot of hair here, are we,
25 Special Agent?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Five head hairs, is that correct?
4 A. Not from that type of item, that’s correct.
5 Q. And it is certainly true that you did your
6 analysis and there was nothing that compared to what you
7 believed to be our victim’s head hair, is that correct?
9 Q. Now, Mr. Fahey then additionally asked you
10 questions about an additional submission of items from an ash
11 pile by way of your receipt of these items on or about
12 November 3, 1994 and a report dated January 20, 1995. I

13 believe you indicated that, as to those items, you again took
14 a portion of those items to --
15 A. Dr. Ubelaker.
16 Q. Thank you very much. And were you there when

0
17 Dr. Ubelaker performed his analysis?
18 A. No. I didn’t stay for the analysis.
19 Q. And again, sir, I believe your testimony was that
20 he could not say that whatever bone fragments were there in
21 that soot pile were of human origin, is that correct?
22 A. He could not identify bone fragments of human
23 origin, that’s correct.
24 Q. But also I believe you testified that he could
25 not exclude the possibility of human bone fragments from

2 those specimens, is that correct?
3 A. He submitted two, two reports so let me —- if I
4 can just refer to it.
5 Q. Sure. Refresh your memory, sir.
6 A. Yes. He stated that human origin of some of the
7 very smallest fragments could not be entirely ruled out.
8 Q. Agent Allen, you have already told this jury that
9 based upon your experience and your training and the cases
10 that you have worked on for the Federal Bureau of
11 Investigation, that approximately ten to fifteen percent of
12 the time in the one thousand to twelve hundred cases that you
13 have worked on you have found some transfer of items from
14 questioned to known, is that correct?
15 A. Yes. That’s speaking specifically towards

C.,
16 hair —— head or hair transfers.

0
d 17 Q. Agent Allen, I thank you very much, sir.
18 MR. DODD: I have no further questions.
19 THE COURT: Mr. Fahey.
20 MR. FAHEY: I have a couple for redirect,
21 Judge.
22 THE COURT: All right.
23 REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. FAMEY:
24 Q. Agent Allen, on the last examination done by
25 Dr. Ubelaker, you told us that he founc -- he couldn’t rule

C. ALLEN, for the defendant - Redirect 3208
2 out the possibility on the very smallest fragments of being
3 human, is that right?
4 A. Those are his words, yes.
5 Q. Did he alsoreport that they’re more consistent
6 in coloration and appearance with the larger nonhuman
7 fragments?
8 A. Yes. That was the end of that sentence, yes.
9 Q. Now, with respect to the issue of a transfer of
10 material from one substance or one person to another, would
11 you agree that there is a greater likelihood that there will
12 be a transfer if two people are involved in a struggle than
13 if they are not?
14 A. Absolutely. If there’s a struggle involved, it’s
15 more likely that there would be some sort of transfer.
16 Q. And with respect to the hair comparisons you did,

6
17 Mr. Dodd asked you whether or not you would have preferred to
18 have hair from the head of Heidi Allen. That would have been
19 preferable to you, would it not?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. But the fact that you had two hairbrushes that
22 were submitted to you and were represented to you as being
23 her hairbruslies, you could perform an analysis from that,
24 couldn’t you?
25 A. I could use those as hair samples. I would have

2 preferred having had hair samples directly from the
3 individual. I don’t know how long it was since she had used
4 those hairbrushes, I didn’t know -- I don’t know if she
5 treated her hair or had done something to it that would make
6 it different from the hairs on the hairbrush, but I was able
7 to use those hairs.
8 Q. You were able to use those for comparisons?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Mr. Dodd asked you whether or not you did the
11 comparison between the tire samples and the tire scraping.
12 Do you recall that?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. You didn’t actually perform that test, did you?
15 A. No, I didn’t.
16 Q. But you were confident that the person in the
17 laboratory that performed it knew what they were doing?
18 MR. DODD: Objection.
19 THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection.
20 Q. All of the items that were submitted to you were
21 submitted to you by the Oswego County sheriffs department,
22 were they not?
23 A. Two items -- two submissions were by the FBI in
24 Albany and the remainder, I believe seven, were sent by
25 Oswego County.
2 Q. And the origin of all of the items submitted to
3 you was represented to you by those two law enforcement
4 agencies, were they not?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. And I assume that the items that were submitted
7 to you from the Searles residence, if they were represented
8 to you as being items which belonged or were utilized by
9 Heidi Allen, you accepted that representation, didn’t you?
10 A. Yes. Logically I would accept that.
11 And in all of the scientific testing that you
12 performed and have testified about today, you found no
13 forensic link between the victim and any of the other items
14 submitted, did you?
15 A. I found nothing that would associate it, no.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 MR. DODD: Very briefly, sir.
18 RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DODD:
19 Q. You indicated, sir, that you had to make an
20 assumption that the hair that was on the hairbrushes that
21 were given to you were the victim’s hair, is that correct?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. And I believe you testified that you didn’t know
24 whether or not her hair had changed from when it is that you
25 obtained those hairbrushes and the hair that was on the

C. ALLEN, for the defendant Recross 3211
2 hairbrushes to how her hair was on the day she was abducted,
3 is that correct?
4 A. I would have no way of knowing.
5 Q. To the extent that her hair had been treated, I
6 believe you used that term, would that affect in some manner,
7 Agent Allen, how the hair would look?
8 A. If the hair had been treated subsequent to having
9 used or purportedly using the hairbrushes, it would make the
10 hairs different in appearance, yes.
11 Q. If they appeared to be different in appearance,
12 that would be one of the factors that you would utilize as
13 part of your comparison, is that correct?
14 A. That would be a new or a different characteristic
15 that I would use, yes.

C’,
16 Q. Now, Mr. Fahey asked you about if persons were
17 struggling, would that dynamic lend itself to a greater
18 likelihood of a transfer of hair. Do you recall that?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. During that one thousand to twelve hundred cases
21 you worked on, did you work on any rape cases?
22 A. Many.
23 Q. Did you work on assault cases?
24 A. Many.
25 Q. And your testimony as the expert is that in all

C. ALLEN, for the defendant - Recross 3212
2 of the cases you have worked on, ten to fifteen percent of
3 the time you found a transfer?
4 A. In ten to fifteen percent, yes.
5 Q. Nothing further, sir. Thank you very much.
6 THE COURT: Mr. Fahey.
7 RE-REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. FABEY:
S Q. Does the probability of a transfer in your
9 professional opinion go up where the evidence underlying the
10 case is that struggling between two people?
11 A. Probability of a transfer would increase if there
12 was a struggle involved, yes.
13 Q. Thank you.
14 MR. FAHEY: That’s all I have.
15 THE COURT: Anything further?
16 MR. DODD: Nothing for the people, Judge.
17 Thank you, sir.
18 MR. FAHEY: Thank you, sir.
19 THE COURT: Thank you, Agent Allen. Thank

20 you very much for coning. Sorry about the bumpy
21 trip. Hope the trip back is a lot more smooth.
22 May I see counsel at the bench, please.
23 [Mr. Dodd and Mr. Fahey approached the bench)
24 THE COURT: Folks, a rather unusual day I’m
25 sure you’ll admit. Sorry about the break in the

C. ALLEN, for the defendant - Re-redirect 3213
2 middle. It was certainly not Investigator Allen’s
3 desire to get on an airplane that blew a couple of
4 tires I’ve been told, those things happen, but
5 he’s here safely and, hopefully, he will be back
6 safely.
7 We’re going to resume in the morning at
8 9:30. Counsel, hopefully all the witnesses will
9 be here and will be ready to roll.
10 So in the meanwhile, please do not talk
11 about this case among yourselves or with anyone
12 else. Please do not read or listen to any news
13 accounts of this case in the event it’s reported.
14 Do not visit or frequent the interior of the
15 D & W. If anyone attempts to improperly influence

C,
16 you as members of this jury, let me know that
17 tomorrow morning. Thanks very much for your
18 patience today. Sorry about the delays but we’ll
19 get going tomorrow morning at 9:30.
20 [At 5:12 p.m. on Wednesday, June 14, 1995,
21 the trial was recessed for the eveningJ

FBI Agents&#39;s Full Testimony

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

FBI Agents&#39;s Full Testimony

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

LEGAL ARGUMENT 3175

2 particular case. Are we ready to proceed with

4 MR. DODD: The people are ready, Judge.

5 THE COURT: Have the jury come in.

6 [At 4:12 p.m., the jury entered the

8 THE COURT: I guess we’re ready. Perhaps,

10 MR. FAHEY: Yes. I call Special Agent

12 CHRISTOPHER ALLEN, havingbeencalledasa

13 witness in behalf of the defendant, being first duly

14 sworn, testified as follows:

15 MR. FAHEY: Good afternoon, ladies and

17 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. FAHEY:

18 Q. Agent Allen, can you tell us how you are

20 A. I’m employed as a special agent with the Federal

21 Bureau of Investigation, the FBI, and I’m currently assigned

22 to the forensic laboratory in Washington DC.

23 Q. How long have you been employed in that capacity?

24 A. I’ve been an agent for over eight years and I’ve

25 been in the lab for five years now.

2 Q. Have you received certain training in connection

3 with the forensic laboratory duties?

5 Q. Can you tell us about those.

6 A. Once I was assigned to the hairs and fibers unit

7 at which I work, I received approximately a year of

8 comprehensive training which was under the direct supervision

9 of the unit chief and the training coordinator and this

10 involved some formal classroom training at the FBI’S academy

11 in Quantico, Virginia as well as a short course at North

12 Carolina State University. Additionally, the bulk of my

13 training was actually at headquarters in the lab in which I

14 literally looked at thousands and thousands of reference

15 samples of both hairs and fibers that we collected over many

16 years so that I’d become proficient in identifying hairs and

17 fibers and also in comparing them to known samples.

18 Additionally, I read literature in the area as well as

19 successfully completing a series of oral certification boards

20 and at that point I was certified as a forensic inicroscopist.

21 Q. Can you tell us about your educational

23 A. Yes. I have a bachelors in biology as well as a

24 Doctor of Dental Surgery, I’m a dentist, from the University

2 Q. Did there come a time when you were assigned as a

3 supervisory agent in the case involving a woman by the name

5 A. I received evidence in the case, yes.

6 Q. And as a result of that, have you made certain

9 Q. And were you requested by the Oswego County

10 sheriffs department to perform certain tests on materials

12 A. Yes, I was. Yes.

14 certain materials from the Oswego County sheriffs department

15 on or about the 19th day of April 1994?

17 Q. Can you tell us what you received?

18 A. In that particular submission, which was the

20 FBI letterhead, we received items of evidence from the van —-

21 a van, particularly vacuum sweepings and debris that was

22 removed from it as well as some known samples from one of the

23 defendants in this case and two hairbrushes that were

24 identified to me as having belonged to the victim.

25 Q. Now, with respect to the items that were taken

2 from the van, were they assigned a certain number?

3 A. Yes, sir, they were.

4 Q. What were they assigned?

5 A. Typically when items of evidence from a crime

6 scene come into a laboratory, they are assigned either a Q or

7 a K designation, Q standing for questioned item meaning that

B if debris is removed from this particular item, let’s say a

FBI Agents's Full Testimony

FBI Agents's Full Testimony