March 23rd, 2005 Trial Analysis: Robert Charles Cooley, Freddy Padilla, Craig Bonner, and Antonio Cantu (Direct Examination), Part 2 of 2
The next prosecution witness was Detective Freddy Padilla, another detective who participated in the Neverland raid. His duty was to package the items of evidence seized by the investigators and deputies at Neverland Ranch, particularly the main house. His direct testimony consisted exclusively of questions about the articles of evidence that he seized at Neverland.
Under cross-examination, Det. Padilla couldn’t remember whether or not he had signed out when he was relieved of duty during the raid, even after he was presented with a copy of the search logs by Mesereau!
24 Q. Okay. Now, you signed in and out at various
25 times that day, correct.
26 A. I was relieved by Lieutenant Klapakis.
27 Q. Okay. So Lieutenant Klapakis became the
28 scribe at times you were not there. 3211
1 A. He didn’t seize any of the items. I just
2 broke for a lunch break, or left out there, or for a
3 rest room break.
4 Q. I’m not going to belabor it, but there is a
5 sign-in and -out sheet that you signed in and out
6 on, right.
7 A. I don’t recall one.
8 Q. Okay. Somebody typed up a sheet with
9 various “in” and “out” times attributed to various
10 people that were there that day, right.
11 A. I don’t recall.
12 Q. Have you seen that sheet.
13 A. No, sir, I haven’t.
14 Q. If I show it to you, would it refresh your
15 recollection about signing in and out.
16 A. It may.
17 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor.
18 THE COURT: Yes.
19 THE WITNESS: I don’t recall ever seeing
21 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: How about the following.
22 A. I don’t recall. I don’t remember.
23 Q. (Indicating).
24 A. I don’t recall ever seeing that.
25 Q. Okay. I showed you what appear to be logs
26 of people on the search team entering in and out,
27 and you say you’ve never seen those sheets before.
28 A. I don’t recall ever seeing them. 3212
1 Q. Do you recall signing in and out.
2 A. That was in two thousand — I don’t recall.
3 I don’t recall.
4 Q. Do you recall if anyone else replaced you as
5 a scribe in Mr. Jackson’s bedroom.
6 A. No one replaced me. I don’t recall that.
7 Q. So you were the scribe that day, right.
8 A. For the main house area, yes, sir.
In a strange twist of irony (or maybe a not so strange twist of irony, when you consider the totality of all of the “mistakes” the police made when handling evidence), Det. Padilla admitted that on many other cases he’s investigated, whenever he was told to hold a particular item for future fingerprint testing, he would make a notation of it, but he didn’t do this in the Jackson case! As a result, he couldn’t remember which items of evidence that he identified under direct examination were to be held for fingerprint testing!
28 Q. Now, was it your understanding as a scribe 3217
1 that you were supposed to package items to protect
2 them from contamination.
3 A. I was assigned to package them, yes, sir.
4 Q. Were you assigned to package them to protect
5 them from contamination.
6 A. Yes, sir.
7 Q. And what contamination were you trying to
8 protect them from.
9 A. Any nonauthorized personnel.
10 Q. Did you have any role in deciding whether or
11 not anything would be fingerprinted.
12 A. No, I wasn’t, specifically. It was just
13 common sense. If an item appeared and if they told
14 me, “Hold for prints,” I would be sure to use care
15 in what packaging to use.
16 Q. And typically who would tell you to hold for
18 A. The investigator.
19 Q. Do you recall being told to hold anything
20 for prints.
21 A. Yes, I recall some of the investigators were
22 real specific the way they held it and when they
23 delivered it to me.
24 Q. And how many items do you think you were
25 told to hold for prints.
26 A. I remember several of the items we tried not
27 to touch as much as possible, but I don’t recall how
28 many or approximately how many specifically were to 3218
1 be held for prints.
2 Q. Now, the items the prosecutor just showed
3 you, were any of them asked to be held for prints;
4 do you know.
5 A. I don’t recall specifically. I don’t
7 Q. Would it refresh your recollection just to
8 take a look.
9 A. No, sir.
10 Q. Why not.
11 A. Because I didn’t note it on there. Just
12 every item that I packaged I tried to use the least
13 amount of handling of the package.
14 Q. Okay. Let me go back a bit.
15 I think you just said at times you were told
16 to hold certain specific items for prints, true.
17 A. Yes, sir.
18 Q. And other times you were not told to hold
19 specific items for prints, right.
20 A. Yes, sir.
21 Q. If you were asked to hold something for
22 prints by an investigator, what did you do.
23 A. I would use the least amount of — I would
24 not touch it as much as possible.
25 Q. Would you note anywhere on the packaging
26 “Hold for prints”.
27 A. No, sir.
28 Q. So “Hold for prints” meant, to you, don’t 3219
1 touch it as much as you might touch it otherwise.
2 A. When they would tell me, yes, sir.
3 Q. If they didn’t tell you, “Hold for prints,”
4 what would you do with it.
5 A. Personally, I would not touch it as much as
7 Q. If they did tell you, “Hold for prints,”
8 what would you do differently.
9 A. Extra care.
10 Q. What does “extra care” mean.
11 A. The least amount possible, without dropping
12 it or contaminating it.
13 Q. But no record’s ever made of “Hold for
15 A. No, sir.
16 Q. “Hold for prints” is just a verbal
17 suggestion that you touch it as little as possible,
19 A. Yes, sir. Yes.
20 Q. And if they don’t tell it to you, you can
21 still touch it a little more. Is that what you’re
23 A. Personally, yes.
24 Q. Okay. And how would you touch it.
25 A. With rubber gloves, and package it in the
26 appropriate bag.
27 Q. If you’re holding for prints, do you put it
28 in a paper bag. 3220
1 A. Depends on the item.
2 Q. And what do you mean.
3 A. There’s plastic packaging, and there’s
5 Q. But if you look at what you wrote on any of
6 the items you just identified, you won’t know
7 whether or not they were held for prints, true.
8 A. No, sir.
9 Q. To your knowledge, as a scribe, are you ever
10 obligated to make a notation anywhere that something
11 is to be held for fingerprinting.
12 A. Personally, I would, but I was never told
14 Q. You were never told to.
15 A. No, sir.
16 Q. Do you recall ever doing that as a scribe in
17 any other case.
18 A. Of caring for items and try to not touch
19 them as much as possible.
20 Q. No, as a scribe in any other case, do you
21 recall actually noting on a document “Hold for
23 A. Yes, sir, on my cases.
24 Q. But you didn’t do it in this case, right.
25 A. No, sir.
26 Q. During the time you were in Mr. Jackson’s
27 bedroom working as a scribe, how many times do you
28 think anyone asked you to hold an item for prints. 3221
1 A. I recall maybe a few times.
2 Q. And you don’t know what those items were,
3 right, as you sit here today.
4 A. No. Not specifically, no, sir.
5 Q. If you held something for prints, was it put
6 in a separate location.
7 A. No, sir.
8 Q. Was it given to anyone special.
9 A. No, sir.
10 Q. So items that were held for prints and items
11 that were not held for prints were given to the same
12 person after you were through with them, right.
13 A. Yes, sir.
14 Q. And who was that person.
15 A. It was Sergeant Cintron who was in charge of
16 the property room.
17 Q. When he got the items, you never saw them
19 A. No, sir.
20 Q. And you filled out no report or document of
21 any kind that said hold an item for prints, right.
22 A. Right.
23 Q. And what about the possibility of DNA
24 testing on any of these items. Did you have any
25 procedure that you used if something was to be
26 tested for DNA.
27 A. I was not specifically instructed on
28 labeling any of the items for DNA evidence. 3222
1 Q. Were you ever verbally instructed to give
2 any special treatment for anything that might be
3 used for DNA testing.
4 A. No, sir. I don’t recall specifically,
5 specifically for DNA.
6 Q. Do you recall being given any instructions
7 of any kind for handling any item that was going to
8 be forensically testing in any particular way.
9 A. Just some of the items when they brought
10 them; you know, try not to touch it as much as
11 possible. Just those items, if you’re referring to
13 Q. Okay. But there’s no record of what they
14 are, right.
15 A. No, sir.
16 MR. MESEREAU: No further questions, Your
18 THE COURT: All right. Anything further.
19 MR. SNEDDON: No. No questions.
20 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. You may
21 step down.
22 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
The next prosecution witness was Detective Craig Bonner, whose duties during the Neverland raid included opening up the items that were seized, documenting the contents and determining if those contents were of specific evidentiary value to the investigation. Det. Bonner’s direct examination consisted entirely of him being asked to identify articles of evidence that he seized at Neverland, mostly adult magazines.
Under cross-examination, Det. Bonner testified that there were no DNA found that matched the Arvizos in the materials that were found within a briefcase, as well as a bottle of wine and Jack Daniels:
4 FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION
5 BY MR. MESEREAU:
6 Q. Regarding the items that you were just shown
7 in the last exhibit, there’s a bottle of Jack
8 Daniels and a bottle of what appears to be red wine,
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. Do you know if those bottles were ever
13 A. I do not know.
14 Q. Did you have any responsibility for
15 determining if they should be chemically tested for
17 A. Not responsibility, but involvement.
18 Q. And what was your involvement.
19 A. We spoke about it amongst all of us that
20 were part of the team at that point in time. And I
21 know that they were sent off for DNA swabbing, or
22 that they were swabbed, and that was sent off to be
23 compared. I do not know whether or not they were
25 Q. But they were DNA swabbed, as far as you
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. Did you ever get any results. 3262
1 A. I believe there were no results.
2 Q. Okay. “No results” meaning what.
3 A. That we did not get any comparable DNA
4 matter off of them.
5 Q. Were you responsible for recommending DNA
6 testing of any of these materials that you’ve talked
7 about today.
8 A. Again, “responsible” probably isn’t the
9 word. “Involved” is probably the more correct word
10 to use.
11 Q. Do you know if any of the materials that
12 you’ve identified today were DNA tested.
13 A. I know that items within 317 were sent off
14 to the Department of Justice laboratory to ascertain
15 if there were materials on the items which could be
16 tested for DNA.
17 Q. And just — just for the record, Item 317 is
19 A. I’m sorry. It’s the briefcase that had
20 these materials in it.
21 Q. Okay. And to your knowledge, there was no
22 DNA found, correct.
23 A. That is correct.
24 Q. And you’re talking about — you’re talking
25 about DNA testing of the briefcase, correct.
26 A. Of the materials within the briefcase.
27 Q. Yes. Are you talking about the briefcase
28 itself, too. 3263
1 A. No.
2 Q. Okay. And what you’re saying is no DNA of
3 Gavin Arvizo, or Star Arvizo, or any Arvizo, were
4 found, correct.
5 A. No DNA at all, including theirs.
Later on in his cross examination, Det. Bonner admitted that the items in the briefcase were not tested until November 2004, almost a full year after the raid at Neverland!
3 Q. Okay. Is it true, based upon what you know,
4 that no fingerprint analysis of Item 470, the black
5 briefcase and its contents, was done till
6 approximately one year after the search at
8 A. That sounds about correct.
9 Q. Okay. Were you involved in the decision to
10 wait that long —
11 A. No.
12 Q. — to test it.
13 In fact, those items in 470, the black
14 briefcase and the contents, were not tested for
15 fingerprints till approximately November of 2004,
17 A. I know it happened after I checked it out.
18 Q. Okay. Okay. Now, you appear to have
19 focused on Item 470 more than you did a lot of the
20 adult magazines you discussed today, correct.
21 A. What do you mean by —
22 Q. Well, you seem to have been handling and
23 repackaging and handling and repackaging 470 —
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. — in a way that you were not with a lot of
26 the adult material that you referred to today,
28 A. Correct. 3277
1 Q. But, are you saying that the question
2 whether or not to forensically test that material
3 all came up for discussion with the group of people
4 you mentioned.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Okay. And typically would the group sit
7 around and look at something and decide where it was
8 found and make a decision whether or not to test it.
9 A. We wouldn’t look at it. Again, we would
10 discuss it. These items were, at the time, in
11 evidence lock-up still, and basically we went
12 through what was found, what was found within it,
13 and how it correlated to the case that we were
14 investigating and prioritized from that.
15 Q. Okay. Okay. With regard to the items
16 you’ve discussed today other than 470, do you
17 recall, after they were initially booked into
18 evidence, your retrieving them for any purpose.
19 A. Again, the first time was when I pulled it
20 out to inventory the contents. I have also pulled
21 it out for you guys to look at, as well as for
22 members of the prosecution to look at, and that’s
23 what I — and then also to bring them to court.
24 Q. Okay.
25 THE COURT: Counsel.
26 MR. MESEREAU: Yes, Your Honor.
27 THE COURT: I want to handle the break a
28 little differently. 3278
1 MR. MESEREAU: Sure.
2 THE COURT: I’d like to have the jury taken
3 out now. We’ll start your break a couple minutes
4 early. That’s a reward.
6 THE COURT: And then we’ll start our break
7 just in a couple of minutes for the people in the
8 courtroom. I just want to address an issue.
9 You can step down, Officer. We’re on our
11 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
After dismissing the jury for an extended courtroom break, Judge Melville gave the defense an unexpected surprise! He granted their motion to have the computer hard drives excluded from evidence because the pornographic photos were not downloaded, but cached, and it would be impossible to know if anyone looked at it or not.
13 (The following proceedings were held in
14 open court outside the presence and hearing of the
17 THE COURT: All right. I was just going to
18 make a ruling. I told you this morning that I had a
19 tentative ruling, which I gave you, and I wanted to
20 look at the materials a little further that were
21 submitted to the Court before I made my ruling.
22 The Court will grant the defense motion not
23 to allow that evidence in. The primary reason is,
24 it does appear to be cached material. There
25 wouldn’t be any way of knowing whether anyone looked
26 at it or not. It doesn’t seem to be material, as it
27 doesn’t relate to the area — the time area that I’m
28 talking about. So that will be the Court’s ruling. 3279
1 We’re in recess.
2 MR. SANGER: Your Honor —
3 THE CLERK: We did not have those exhibits
5 THE COURT: Oh, I need those exhibits marked
6 that you referred to in your opening —
7 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Okay. Yes. That’s fine.
8 THE COURT: — these.
9 (Recess taken.)
Under redirect examination, Det. Bonner stated that the reason the fingerprint testing took so long to commence is because it was “according to the game plan”; this was an obvious attempt by Sneddon to try to reinforce to the jury that the yearlong delay in fingerprint testing wasn’t due to any incompetency by the sheriff’s department:
23 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
24 BY MR. SNEDDON:
25 Q. You were asked by Mr. Mesereau with regard
26 to the time frame for which the contents of 3 —
27 what you call 317, we’re calling 470, the black
28 briefcase, okay. 3280
1 A. Okay.
2 Q. They were sent for fingerprint analysis
3 around November of 2004, correct.
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. All right. Now, with regard to those items
6 inside of that briefcase, were they sent to other
7 forensic evaluation prior to the time that they were
9 A. Yes, they were.
10 Q. Was that according to the game plan that was
11 put together by the group as to how those things
12 should be processed.
13 A. Yes, they were.
14 Q. And the forensic analysis for the same
15 exhibits that were eventually fingerprinted began
16 very early on.
17 A. Yes, it was.
18 MR. SNEDDON: Nothing further.
19 MR. MESEREAU: No further questions, Your
21 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. You may
22 step down.
The next prosecution witness was Dr. Antonio Cantu, the Chief Research Scientist for the Forensic Services Division of the United States Secret Service. He described his background and his areas of expertise in the beginning of his direct examination.
Before I get to his testimony, let’s watch these two videos on the basics of fingerprint analysis:
18 DIRECT EXAMINATION
19 BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS:
20 Q. Good afternoon, Dr. Cantu.
21 A. Good afternoon, sir.
22 Q. Who do you work for, please.
23 A. I work for the United States Secret Service,
24 the Forensic Services Division within the United
25 States Secret Service.
26 Q. And what do you do for the Secret Service.
27 A. I am the chief scientist, research
28 scientist, for the Forensic Services Division. And 3283
1 my many duties includes the chemistry and physics of
2 things having to do with documents. For example,
3 fingerprints, or inks on paper, or any other items
4 that may be found on a document.
5 Q. How long have you worked for the Secret
6 Service in this capacity.
7 A. Well, I’ve been with the Secret Service
8 about 20 years. And I’ve been working in this
9 particular area, among others, for that extended
10 period of time.
11 Q. And tell me about what training you’ve had
12 that qualifies you for your position there. Maybe
13 I’ll back up. First of all, tell me specifically
14 what your title is with the Secret Service.
15 A. I’m a chief forensic scientist.
16 Q. And what qualifies you for that position.
17 What training have you had.
18 A. Well, first of all, I have a degree in
19 chemistry. Chemical physics, actually. And I’ve
20 had some training in — in forensic science. I
21 spent about ten years at the Bureau of Alcohol,
22 Tobacco and Firearms Laboratory, where I developed
23 the expertise particularly in the area of the
24 analysis of documents from a chemical and physical
25 point of view.
26 Q. Have you had — tell me about your
27 experiences with the Secret Service. Have your —
28 in terms of what work you’ve done for them in the 3284
2 A. Most of the work that I have done for the
3 Secret Service falls into two general areas. I
4 spent part of my time over there doing some work in
5 the area called protective research, which has to do
6 with coming up with countermeasures to possible
7 threats that would involve chemical, or biological,
8 or different materials.
9 But the rest of the time has been really the
10 area of forensic science, where my expertise has
11 been mostly in the area of the analysis of documents
12 from a chemical and physical point of view, as I
14 Q. Have you had any published papers in the
15 area of forensic science.
16 A. I’ve already published about 26 papers that
17 I have in the field of forensic science.
18 Q. Any of them in fingerprint analysis, or —
19 A. There are — about seven of those are in
20 fingerprints, and two are pending publication at the
22 Q. How long have you been involved in the
23 chemistry of fingerprints.
24 A. In excess of 20 years.
25 Q. And can you tell me what the International
26 Fingerprint Research Group is.
27 A. That is a group of international experts
28 that, most of which, specialize in the area of 3285
1 coming up with new technology for visualizing
2 fingerprints, for developing fingerprints. And they
3 are — the biggest centers involved in this are
4 Israel, England, Australia, and of course us in the
5 United States.
6 And we started that group at the U.S. Secret
7 Service back in the middle ‘80s. And now we meet
8 every couple of years, different parts of the —
9 Europe and the United States and Canada.
10 Q. Are you involved in developing new
11 techniques in locating latent fingerprints.
12 A. Yes. New techniques particularly in the
13 visualization of fingerprints. We are responsible
14 for developing a new technique for visualizing
15 fingerprints, particularly those that are visualized
16 normally by the use of ninhydrin. And it’s a
17 technique for essentially looking at fingerprints on
18 paper and coming up with better, more sensitive
20 There’s another technique for looking at the
21 fats and oils in fingerprints, and we helped develop
22 new advances in that area, being able to bring them
23 out better, and looking at weaker prints and being
24 able to see them better with this technology.
25 And then thirdly, I’ve been involved in a
26 technique that has to do with the use of ultraviolet
27 light basically in visualizing fingerprints.
28 Q. Tell me, what does the term “latent 3286
1 fingerprint” mean.
2 A. It’s not noticeable. I mean, it’s basically
3 a fingerprint that is not noticeable to the human
4 eye but becomes noticeable by means of either
5 chemical or physical techniques.
6 Q. And can you explain for the jury exactly
7 what it is, from a chemistry point of view, that
8 creates a fingerprint on a surface when a human hand
9 touches it.
10 A. Well, our fingers bear certain chemicals on
11 them. These chemicals are on the surface of the
12 hand. And every time you touch something, there is
13 some transferability of those chemicals onto the
14 surface that you touch.
15 And what we do, in our field, is try to find
16 methods of making those things be visible, either by
17 optical methods or chemical methods or physical
18 methods. And to be able to do that, one has to,
19 first of all, know what is in fingerprint residue,
20 that is, what chemicals, so you know what sort of
21 reagents to use to make them visible. So that’s the
22 general philosophy of — that is used in developing
As Dr. Cantu began to describe the chemical makeup of fingerprints, defense attorney Robert Sanger objected to the fact that a future prosecution witness, Det. Sutcliffe, was sitting in the courtroom listening to Dr. Cantu’s testimony, so Auchincloss asked Det. Sutcliffe to leave the courtroom. The reason that Sanger objected to Det. Sutcliffe’s presence is because, as a detective in the forensics bureau in the Santa Barbara sheriff’s department, Sanger didn’t want his future testimony to be influenced by what he heard Dr. Cantu testifying today. (Det. Sutcliffe testified the next day on March 24th, 2005.) :
17 Q. So if I understand correctly, your hand
18 doesn’t have any oil glands.
19 A. That’s correct.
20 Q. Or fingers.
21 MR. SANGER: I’m sorry, I’m going to
22 interrupt for just a second.
23 I understand Detective Sutcliffe is going to
24 be a witness, and I didn’t object to him just coming
25 in during the preliminaries here and helping to set
26 this up, but I don’t think he should be here during
27 the testimony.
28 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: That’s fine. I will call 3289
1 him back for the demonstration, if that’s
3 MR. SANGER: But all witnesses are excluded
4 on both sides.
5 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I did notify counsel that
6 Detective Sutcliffe was here setting it up when he
7 was doing so.
8 (To Detective Sutcliffe) All right. We’ll
9 call you back in, Detective, as soon as we get to
10 the demonstration. Thank you.
Throughout the remainder of his direct examination, Dr. Cantu described in further detail the process of examining fingerprint evidence from a chemical point of view, and the various testing processes that are involved.
Under cross examination, Dr. Cantu was asked by Sanger to explain his involvement with the prosecution’s case, and he testified that had not reviewed any of the fingerprints that were found on the articles of evidence at Neverland; his main priority was to demonstrate how the scenescope (the instrument used to test the fingerprints) worked. Sanger’s cross examination on this day was very brief because it started late in the day:
16 Q. So you worked with that company to help
17 develop something like this, or something that
18 turned into this eventual machine; is that correct.
19 A. That is correct.
20 Q. All right. Now, in this particular case,
21 you said something about a shiny surface, and it was
22 a little unclear. Were you indicating that you had
23 reviewed fingerprints in this case from shiny
24 surfaces in this case.
25 A. No.
26 Q. Okay. So, in fact, you have not actually
27 reviewed any fingerprints in this particular case;
28 is that correct, sir. 3314
1 A. No, sir.
2 Q. Okay. And I just did one of those things I
3 shouldn’t do. I said, “Is that correct,” and you
4 said, “No.” So let me ask the question.
5 Have you reviewed any fingerprints in this
6 particular case.
7 A. I have not reviewed any fingerprints in this
8 particular case.
9 Q. So you’re brought in basically — you’re
10 asked to come testify basically to how the
11 Scenescope works.
12 A. Yes, sir.
13 Q. All right. You are, nevertheless, familiar
14 with fingerprint evaluation; is that correct.
15 A. In this case.
16 Q. Not in this case in particular, but in
18 A. I am familiar with fingerprint evaluation.
19 Q. Okay. You are not — you are not a latent
20 print examiner.
21 A. No, sir. I’m an expert in this particular
22 area and the chemistry behind the development of
24 Q. And I didn’t mean that in an offensive
25 fashion, but different people do different things.
26 You know what a latent print examiner is.
27 A. Yes, I do.
28 Q. All right. And what you have told us about 3315
1 is part of the process of doing latent print
2 examinations, correct.
3 A. About a part of latent fingerprint
4 examination, yes. I have said that I’ve spoken
5 about the developmental part of the fingerprint.
6 Q. Just so we’re clear — and we’re almost to
7 the end of the day here, so I’ll just try to take a
8 short subject.
9 Latent print examination is, what I’m
10 getting at, is a bigger subject than what you’ve
11 just talked to us about here, correct.
12 A. Yes, sir.
13 Q. Okay. In other words, when you look at
14 fingerprints, you’ve told us, for instance, that you
15 may be able to see fingerprints, they’re called
16 visible prints; is that correct.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And that’s because somebody put their finger
19 in paint or something, and you can just see it,
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. It could be any other substance that allows
23 it to be visible. You might have what are called
24 plastic prints; is that correct.
25 A. I gave you a couple of examples of that.
26 Q. Please.
27 A. No, I said I gave a couple of examples.
28 Q. I thought you said you would give. 3316
1 But, for instance, a plastic print might be
2 somebody who puts their finger in clay, and you can
3 actually — the ridges are actually transferred onto
4 the clay; is that correct.
5 A. I believe I gave that example. That, and
6 putty are the two examples I gave of the so-called
7 plastic or mold fingerprints.
8 Q. And then the next category is the latent
9 print. That’s the print that you cannot see
10 unaided; is that correct.
11 A. That was — yes, sir.
12 Q. And you told us in general about different
13 processes by way — by which you can get the latent
14 prints so that you can make them capable of being
15 examined; is that correct.
16 A. Make them visible, yes.
17 Q. Visible. So that can either be by light
18 sources, for the ultraviolet light sources, or it
19 can be chemical; is that correct.
20 A. And physical.
21 Q. And physical. “Physical” being.
22 A. Like powder techniques.
23 Q. Okay. I see. You wouldn’t call that part
24 of chemical. You’d call that —
25 A. No, it’s adherence. It’s an aspect of
26 chemistry in a way. In fact, cyanoacrylate
27 deposition of the polymerization is a physical
28 chemical type of process. 3317
1 Q. Because it actually not only chemically
2 reacts so that you can see the prints better, but it
3 also actually enhances the structure of whatever is
4 there so that it is more visible; is that correct.
5 A. That’s the super glue fuming, yes.
6 Q. Super glue fuming, yes. All right.
7 Now, ultimately fingerprint examination and
8 comparison, when you go beyond what you’re talking
9 about, which is developing prints so that you can
10 see them, in essence, fingerprint comparison and
11 examination is a subjective enterprise, is it not.
12 A. Fingerprint —
13 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll object as beyond the
14 scope. There’s been no testimony about comparison.
15 THE COURT: Overruled.
16 Q. BY MR. SANGER: It’s subjective, is it not,
18 A. I’m afraid I could not answer that, because
19 it’s not part of my expertise.
20 Q. Okay. You have spoken on the need in recent
21 years to increase the validation studies for the
22 purpose of enhancing fingerprint examination, latent
23 fingerprint examination for court purposes; is that
24 correct, sir.
25 A. No, I have not spoken on that. I’ve been
26 invited to be at meetings where they’re speaking
27 about that.
28 Q. Okay. You participated in conferences. 3318
1 A. Yes.
2 THE COURT: Counsel, it’s the end of the day.
3 MR. SANGER: Very well.
4 THE COURT: See you tomorrow morning.
5 (The proceedings adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)
To be continued: https://michaeljacksonvindication2.wordpress.com/2012/08/21/march-24th-2005-trial-analysis-dr-antonio-cantu-cross-examination-lisa-susan-hemman-charlene-marie-heriberto-martinez-and-timothy-sutcliffe-direct-cross-examination-part-1-of-2/