Testimony of Dr.

Michael Rickenbach FBI Forensic Chemist
Casey Anthony trial, June 7, 2011

Unofficial transcription by Robert Frank from the video of the trial testimony that can be found at the following URL’s.
http://www.examiner.com/crime-in-national/fbi-expert-dr-michael-rickenbach-testifies-on-june-7-2011-about-chloroform-found-casey-anthony-s-trunk-video http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/060711-michael-rickenbach-testifies

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

Clerk:

Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god? Rickenbach: I do. Rickenbach: Michael Rickenbach. R…i…c…k…e…n…b…a…c..h Perry: You may proceed. Ashton: Sir, how are you employed? Rickenbach: I work for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Ashton: In what capacity? Rickenbach: I am a forensic chemist examiner with the laboratory division in the FBI Ashton: And how long have you been employed by the FBI in that capacity? Rickenbach: I have been employed with the FBI for a little over 15 years, since 1996, and I’ve been a forensic chemist examiner, uhhh, since December of 1999. Ashton: What is your educational background prior to entering the FBI? Rickenbach: I have, uhh, two Bachelor of Science degrees, one in forensic science and one in chemistry. I have a Master of Science degree in chemistry, and I have a PHd in chemistry. Ashton: And have you had continuing education with the FBI? Rickenbach: Yes, I have. Ashton: This time….have you ever been qualified as an expert to testify in the field of forensic chemistry? Rickenbach: Yes, I have. Ashton: And can you tell us, uhh, just a rough approximation of how many times that would have occurred? Rickenbach: Uhh, approximately 12 to 15 times. Ashton: And would that been just federal jurisdictions, state jurisdictions, or a little of both. Rickenbach: Mainly in federal jurisdictions, but I have on occasion testified in state court. Ashton: At this time, your honor, I would submit Dr. Rickenbach as an expert in the area of forensic chemistry. Perry: What sayest the defense? Baez: No objections. Perry: The doctor will be accepted as an expert witness in the area of forensic chemistry. You may proceed. Ashton: Doctor, in (cough) August of 2008, did you receive some items for examination in reference to a victim named Caylee Marie Anthony? Rickenbach: Yes, I did. Ashton: I want to show you a few items and ask you if you recognize them. (inaudible) Now earlier today during the break, did we examine these items of evidence? Rickenbach: Yes, we did, during the break. Ashton: In reference to state’s exhibit IM for identification. Did you examine this, do you recognize it? Rickenbach: Yes, I did. I recognize my initials on the seal over the bag. Ashton: Do you recognize that as an item you examined in this case? Rickenbach: Yes, I do. Ashton: At this time, Your honor, I move into evidence state’s exhibit IM. Perry: What sayest the defense? Baez: (inaudible) Page 1

1 Perry: There will be no objections. It will be received into evidence as state’s numbered… 2 Clerk: 138 3 Ashton: Did you also, during the break, take a look at state’s exhibit, for identification, IN? 4 Rickenbach: Yes, I did. 5 Ashton: And do you recognize that as one of the items that was submitted for your evaluation? 6 Rickenbach: Yes, I do. I recognize my initials on that piece of evidence. 7 Ashton: At this time, your honor, I move into evidence state’s exhibit IN, for identification. 8 Perry: What….? 9 Baez: No objections 10 Perry: It will be received into evidence as state’s exhibit numbered……. 11 Clerk: 139 12 Ashton: May I have…….may I show you state’s exhibit IL, for identification,…this….did you examine this, uh, 13 during the break? 14 Rickenbach: Yes, I did. 15 Ashton: And do you recognize this as one of the items submitted to you for your evaluation? 16 Rickenbach: Yes, I recognize my initials on the , uh, on the tape seal. 17 Ashton: At this time , your honor, state moves into evidence state’s exhibit IL. 18 Baez: (inaudible). No objections 19 Perry: Will be received into evidence as state’s numbered….. 20 Clerk: 140 21 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 5:00 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 22 Ashton: I’m gonna show you state’s exhibit….IO. Did you examine that earlier during the break? 23 Rickenbach: Yes, I did. 24 Ashton: And do you recognize that as one of the items submitted for your evaluation in this case? 25 Rickenbach: Yes, I do. I recognize my initials on the heat seal. 26 Ashton: At this time, your honor, I move into evidence state’s exhibit IO. 27 Perry: What sayest the defense? 28 Baez: No objections, your honor. 29 Perry: It will be received into evidence as….. 30 Clerk: State’s exhibit number 141 31 Ashton: Next I’ll show you state’s exhibit HS for identification and ask you if you recognize….did you look at 32 that during the break, do you recognize that? 33 Rickenbach: Yes, I did. I recognize my initials on the, on the tape seal right on the box. 34 Ashton: Alright, let me just….since I’m here, I might as well show you IK. Did you look at that over the 35 break? Do you recognize that as something submitted to you in this case? 36 Rickenbach: Yes, I do. I recognize my initials over the heat seal. 37 Ashton: At this time , your honor, I move into evidence state’s exhibits HS and IK. 38 Baez: No objections. 39 Perry: They will be received into evidence as state’s numbered….. 40 Clerk: HS (inaudible) number 142, and IK will be state’s exhibit 143. 41 Ashton: Uhh, sir were you asked to inspect these, uh, items to determine whether you could detect the 42 presence of chloroform? 43 Rickenbach: Yes, I was. 44 Ashton: What type….did you use the same type of analysis on each of the items? 45 Rickenbach: Yes, I did. Page 2

1 Ashton. Okay, could you just explain to the jury briefly what type of analysis you did and how you did it. 2 Rickenbach: I, uh, did a visual examination, uhh, after opening each item individually and, uh, noted any, uh 3 characteristics, uh, about the items. I, uh, look at them for any staining, just to kind of find where I 4 should sample from. Umm, I then took samples, placed them into, uh, sealed vials, and did a 5 process called, uh, headspace gas chromatography, uh, on them. 6 Ashton: Let’s take them (cough) one at a ti....one at a time. Let’s start with Q22. What is item 7 Q22….according to your no….and you can refer to your report if you need to 8 Rickenbach: Do you have a copy of my report? 9 Ashton: Oh, I’m sorry. Yes, I do. 10 Perry: And reference the evidence number with the question number. 11 Ashton: (inaudible). Alright, let me just pull it out. Formerly IK. (inaudible). Ahh, there it is. Thank you. 12 Yeah, we’ll start with Q22. Let me approach. (inaudible). What is item Q22? 13 Rickenbach: Q22 was a piece of fabric reported to be a piece of the spare tire cover. 14 Ashton: And did you submit that…. 15 Perry: Mr. Ashton. 16 Ashton: Yes? 17 Perry: What is the state’s exhibit number? 18 Ashton: The exhibit’s evidence number is…..143. 19 Perry: Okay. 20 Ashton. Alright. Now, just take us through what you did with that item as an example of the other, umm, 21 examinations. 22 Rickenbach: I opened the can, uhh, observed the material inside, uhhh, took a, uhh, cutting based on if there 23 were any stains, uhh, present, put it in a, uhh, sealed glass vial, and, uh, submitted it to headspace 24 gas chrotomatography analysis. 25 Ashton: Now when you opened the can, did you detect an odor? 26 Rickenbach: Yes, I did. 27 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 10:00 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 28 Ashton: Umm, how do you describe that odor in your report, or how would you describe that odor? 29 Baez: Objection. (inaudible). May we approach? 30 Perry: You may. 31 (SIDEBAR) 32 Perry: You may proceed. 33 Ashton: Thank you. Uhh, you were telling us about your evaluation of of your Q22 that I previously 34 mentioned to you (inaudible) state’s exhibit. Umm, what was the results of your examination of 35 that item? 36 Rickenbach: That, uh, residues of chloroform were identified on that spec…on that specimen. 37 Ashton: (inaudible)..discuss state’s exhibit 141, which is..let’s see what..I’m trying to find numbers 38 (inaudible) which Is your Q44. And what is that item? 39 Rickenbach: Q44, uh, was a piece of fabric material reported to be a piece of a spare tire cover. 40 Ashton: Did you subject that to the same analysis that you discussed as to the other two? 41 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 15:00 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 42 Rickenbach: Yes, I did. 43 Ashton: And what was the results of that analysis? 44 Rickenbach: That residues of chloroform were identified on the specimen Q44. 45 Ashton: May I have just one moment (inaudible) Page 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

Perry: You may. Ashton: Oh uh, let me show you state’s exhibit in evidence 142. I’ll take that. Rickenbach: Thanks. Ashton: That was your Q45. Is that correct? Rickenbach: Yes, it was. Ashton: And did you subject that to the same, umm, instrumental examination…same instrumental examination that you referred to as the other exhibits? Rickenbach: Yes, I did. Ashton: And what was the result of that examination? Rickenbach: That residues of chloroform were identified on specimens Q....on specimen Q45. Ashton: Alright. State’s exhibit in evidence 139. Would you describe this as a....you described this as the spare tire cover, something to that effect? Rickenbach: Is that specimen Q23 in my…? Ashton. I’m sorry, yes, your Q23, which is our exhibit in evidence 139. Rickenbach: Yes. Ashton: And did you subject that to the same instrumental examination as the others that we discussed? Rickenbach: Yes, I did. Ashton: Umm, can you tell us either from your notes or from recollection what portion of this you tested? Rickenbach: I can...I can look at it. I’m not sure, umm. It’s hard to, umm, right on this material, but I believe it’s, it’s that mat...that fabric portion right here. Ashton: Is it this? Rickenbach: Ye...not the cardboard, but yes. Ashton: Then again, same instrumental examination as the others? Rickenbach: Yes, I did. Ashton: What was the results of that examination? Rickenbach: For specimen Q23, residues of chloroform were identified. Ashton: Now, the last two items (cough), which are your, uh, Q24 and 25, um, Q, lets’ start with our exhibit in evidence 140, which is your Q24, um, what is that item? Rickenbach: Q24 is a piece of fabric material reported to be the left side of the trunk liner. Ashton: Which side of the trunk liner? Rickenbach: It’s reported to be the left side of the trunk liner, specimen Q24. Ashton: The left side of the trunk liner. And did you use the same instrumental examination on that that you did on the other items? Rickenbach: Yes, I did. Ashton: And what was the result of that testing of the liner? Rickenbach: That, uh, a chemical consistent with chloroform was detected on that item. Ashton: What is the difference between a finding of chemicals consistent with chloroform and a finding of the residue of chloroform? Rickenbach: In order to identify that chloroform was present, unless there was a chloroformate present, uh, we use two different techniques, or two two techniques, in order to, um, get positive results, and at that point they rein…reinforce each other, and therefore, we’re confident, I’m confident to say that chloroform was identified. In the case where it’s consistent with, uh, chloroform, only one technique gave a result of chloroform. The other tech… the other technique did not detect chloroform. Ashton: So, consistent with, but not an identification. Page 4

1 Rickenbach: That’s correct. 2 Ashton: And lastly, uh, you’re Q25…our exhibit in evidence 140, did you submit…(inaudible)..did you use 3 the same instrumental examination on that that you did on the others? 4 Rickenbach: Specimen Q25, reported to be the right side of the trunk liner, and yes, I did the same technique. 5 Ashton: And what were the results? 6 Rickenbach: That, uh, (inaudible) chloroform….consistent with chloroform was detected on that item. 7 Ashton: So, basically, the…were the results on the right and left side of the liner the same? That is, 8 consistent with chloroform but not conclusive? 9 Rickenbach: That is..is correct. 10 Ashton: Thank you, sir, no fur…no further questions. 11 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 20:00 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 12 Perry: Cross examination. 13 Baez: May it please the court, Mr. Ashton. Good morning, Dr. Rickenbach. 14 Rickenbach: Good morning. 15 Baez: Nice to meet you, sir. 16 Rickenbach: Nice to meet you. 17 Baez: Uhhhh, I want to talk a little bit about, get a little more in depth, about your examinations. Can you 18 tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury a little bit more about the, uh, GCMS. 19 Rickenbach: Uh, the GCMS, the gas chromatography mass spectrometry instrument, is an instrument that we 20 use, or that is used, uh, for separation of chemicals and for the identification of chemicals. 21 Baez: And how sensitive is this gas chromatograph mass spectrometer? 22 Rickenbach: It…depends, but if, uh…if…if, uh, certain types, the ones, uh, in particular we use, are going to be 23 very, very sensitive. 24 Baez: So, basically, you can pick up chemicals that are in, like, water? 25 Rickenbach: I can detect chemicals out of…out of the matrix of water, yes. 26 Baez. And any type of…it…it basically bear…breaks things down how far, as far as sensitivity is 27 concerned? 28 Rickenbach: It..it can break it down into a..a very, very small amounts of..of chemicals, um, can be detected 29 using the gas chromatograph mass spectrometer system. 30 Baez: And then you did a second test for the, uh, flame ionization, is that...I know I’m butchering that a 31 little bit, the second test that you...that you conducted? 32 Rickenbach: Yes, the second test is very similar to the first test, um, it just uses a different detector system. The 33 first system uses a mass spectrometer to detect. The second system is, again, the headspace gas 34 chromatography, same technique as the first except it uses a…a different, um, detector to 35 identify…or detect the…the chemicals that come off, uh, that are separated out of the gas 36 chromatograph. 37 Baez: Now, you told the ladies and gentlemen of the jury about residues of chloroform found on the 38 Q22 portion. Is that correct? 39 Rickenbach: Yes, I…I did. 40 Baez: Can you tell them what you mean by residues of chloroform? 41 Rickenbach: Chloroform is, uh, usually found in a liquid state, and the items of evidence that I got are, 42 obviously, they’re…they’re solid material, uh, and so there was no liquid on those items, but when 43 subjected to very sensitive techniques, the chloroform that was identified in those items can be 44 driven off and detected by the instrument, and therefore, since it’s not liquid, it’s really in very, 45 very small amounts. Page 5

1 It’s…it’s residues of chloroform on these materials. 2 Baez: So, they were found in very, very small amounts. 3 Rickenbach: Yes, that’s correct. 4 Baez: Okay, and you can find chloroform in any number of household items, correct? 5 Rickenbach: It has been detected in..in hou…household cleaning agents and other items, yes. 6 Baez: Including detergents. 7 Rickenbach: That is correct. 8 Baez: And you can even find chloroform in water, right? Drinking water? 9 Rickenbach: At…it depends on the drinking water, yes, but if..if it’s present…in…in…in an amount the 10 instrument can detect, yes, you can…you can detect it. 11 Baez: And there are a num...there…you can also find it, uhhh, in chlorine from a swimming pool, can you 12 not? 13 Rickenbach: I have no firsthand knowledge…I’ve…I’ve never analyzed chlor…uhh…chlor…chlorinated 14 products like water from swim…swimming pools for chloroform, so I don’t know the answer to 15 that. 16 Baez: Do you know if someone threw a bathing suit after going swimming in the trunk of a car whether 17 that might, uhh, generate chloroform? 18 Ashton: Objection. A hypothetical based on facts not in evidence. 19 Perry: Sustained. 20 Baez. Sir, do you have the…do you know what other products chloroform could be found in, like soda? 21 Rickenbach. I…I have no f…I have heard no firsthand knowledge that chloroform is in soda products. 22 Baez: Do you have…have you ever…have you any knowledge in other items, other than cleaning items, 23 that chloroform could be found? 24 Rickenbach: The…from my personal experience…it…usually it’s a cleaning product that we find that… that I 25 have found chloroform, uh, uh, in, but I…I mean there may be other items that have chloroform 26 that I haven’t personally analyzed. 27 Baez: And those would be found in very, very low amounts, such as what you found in this case. 28 Ashton: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. 29 Perry: Overruled. 30 Rickenbach: The…uh…items that had consistently…that were consistent 31 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 25:00 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 32 with cleaning products that I detect chloroform were in very small amounts, similar to these items, 33 yes. 34 Baez: Okay. Now, ummm, can you explain to the….with the court’s permission, can you explain to the 35 ladies and gentlemen of the jury what a chromatogram looks like. 36 Rickenbach: A chromatogram is a, uh, graphic output from an instrument, uh, a gas chromatograph, that, uh, is 37 a graph of the signal coming from the instrument based on if…if a chemical is present or not, or 38 something that’s coming off of the instrument, chemicals that are separated, uh, if it’s detected, it’ll 39 go up in intensity…the…the plot will go up, and on the x axis as it goes across the time that…that it’s 40 taking for the chemicals to come o…to come off the column the time that it’s taking to be 41 separated. 42 Baez: May the witness stand down, your honor, to demonstrate for the jury? 43 Perry: The witness may stand down. 44 Baez: Dr. Rickenbach, can you give me….show us, uh, a raw example of what a chromatograph might look 45 like. Page 6

1 Baez. Okay, thanks. (to the jury) Can everybody see that over there? 2 Baez: Okay, Dr. Rickenbach, when you do a, uh, run a sample through the GCMS, wh…uh…does the item 3 tell you how much chloroform is present? 4 Rickenbach: In a quantitative amount, telling you exactly how much, no it does not. 5 Baez: Okay. And there’s a difference between what is called a quantitative analysis and a qualitative 6 analysis, isn’t that correct? 7 Rickenbach: Yes, that is correct. 8 Baez: Can you tell the ladies and gentleman of the jury what the difference is? 9 Rickenbach: A qualitative analysis is a type of analysis where you’re just trying to identify, or detect, the 10 substance that you’re analyzing, in this case, just chloroform, you’re not gonna be giving any 11 information in, uh, your final report as to how much is there. If you were going to give, ah…., a 12 report as to how much, uh, of a substance is in a certain sample, that would be both a qualitative 13 identifying the component and then also giving an, uh, a nu…numeric amount which would be a 14 quantitative. 15 Baez: So to break it down, qualitative tells you it’s there…yes? 16 Rickenbach: Yes, that’s correct. 17 Baez: And qualitative tells you….and quantitative tells you how much. 18 Rickenbach: That…that’s correct. 19 Baez: Now you can’t just look at a graph and tell what the quantity is, correct? 20 Rickenbach: You can’t tell an exact quantity, um, you can get some information, um, based on relative 21 amounts, but, uh, based on a qualitative analysis, you would…you really wouldn’t give a number. 22 Baez: Okay. And in fact, looking at it that way without running what’s called a “standard” is not a very 23 good way of…or a scientific way of doing this, correct? Of finding out a…a, uh, quantitative amount. 24 Rickenbach: If you were going to report out an actual amount, just do…doing an analysis without a…a 25 standard or without the appropriate, uh, technique for quantitative analysis would not be a good 26 way. 27 Baez. Correct. Now the…when you analyzed these samples, you had an internal standard. Is that correct? 28 Rickenbach: I re…I re… I analyzed the samples, uh, in do…in dual mode, if you will, uh, I analyzed them twice. I 29 took one cutting that was without an internal standard and then another cutting that had an 30 internal standard and ran them together at the same time. 31 Baez: And that’s how you were able to determine that they were at very, very, very low amounts. 32 Rickenbach: Not with the internal standard, no. 33 Baez: Okay, how exactly were you able to determine that they were at very, very low… 34 Rickenbach: With..with.. 35 Baez: amounts? 36 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 30:00 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 37 Rickenbach: With every analysis, it’s appropriate to run what’s called a “negative control” and a ”positive 38 control.” Um, a negative control would be no sample, um, just so your instrument doesn’t have the 39 compound of interest somewhere in its system. So, you make sure that it…at the en…the results 40 should be negative. And then at the end of, uh, the analysis, you run what’s called a “positive 41 control” to make sure that the instrument is working properly, so that you can detect the substance 42 that you’re looking for, in this case chloroform, um, appropriately. And so at the end of the analysis, 43 I ran a positive control of chloroform, chloroform standard that I made up myself, and based on the 44 response of a known amount of chloroform that I analyzed, the specimen…the chloroform that 45 came out of the specimens was significantly less than the amount that I knew I had put into the Page 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

instrument. Baez: And it wasn’t overwhelming amount of chloroform, was it? Rickenbach: I’m…on the specimens? Baez: Yes. Rickenbach: It was significantly less than the int...sorry, not the internal standard, the positive control that I analyzed. Baez: And it wasn’t the most chloroform you’d ever seen in 20 years, was it? Rickenbach: It was not the most chloroform I’ve seen in 20 years, no. Baez: And it’s not what you would call “shockingly high” levels of chloroform, would it? Rickenbach: No, it’s not. Baez: Now, I know with the Q’s and the identification letters, we get a bit confused. I want to break it down if we can, uh, as to what item you tested and the am…and…and what you...and what you what you ended up getting. The Q22 is the left trunk liner, right? Rickenbach: It’s reported as a piece of the spare tire cover. Baez: Okay, spare tire cover. And this is the one that you found residues of chloroform. Rickenbach: Residues of chloroform were identified on that specimen, yes. Baez: And again, when we say “residues” we’re talking about very low levels Rickenbach: Signif….significantly lower levels of the positive control, yes. Baez: Q23 was what, sir? Rickenbach: Q23 was reported to be the spare tire cover. Baez: So it was another portion of the spare tire cover? Rickenbach: I…I think it’s the entire, I’m not sure about the whole tire cover, but it’s that item right there. Baez: It’s just a second…you, uhh, ran a test on another area of the spare tire cover. Rickenbach: Of a area of the cover, yes. Baez: Okay. Rickenbach: It’s not the entire cover. Baez: (inaudible) Uhh, and this was also significantly lower than your positive control at low levels. Rickenbach: That’s correct. Baez: Now, what’s the…what are the other items from the trunk that you, that you tested? Rickenbach: They were specimen Q24, reported to be the left side of the trunk liner. Q25, reported to be the right side of the trunk liner. Baez: Okay, let’s start off with Q24. Was…what were your results with this? Was this consistent with chloroform? Rickenbach: That chemical consistent with chloroform was detected on that item. Baez: And when you say “consistent with”, you mean one of the tests detected it, is that correct? Rickenbach: That’s correct. Baez: And that would still be at these low levels, is that correct? Rickenbach: That’s correct. Baez: And the second method didn’t even pick it up. Rickenbach: That’s correct. Baez: So it’s one out of two tests, and that’s when you say, “It’s consistent with.” Rickenbach: That’s correct. Baez: That phrase “consistent with” is a pretty tricky phrase, right, like you have to explain it? Rickenbach: Yes. Baez: Okay. Q25 was the right trunk liner? Page 8

1 Rickenbach: Q25 was reported to be the right side of the trunk liner. 2 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 35:00 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 3 Baez: And this was also consistent with, right? 4 Rickenbach: That a chemical consistent with chloroform was detected, yes 5 Baez: And that’s because you have the one test that was at very low levels and the second test didn’t 6 even pick it up. 7 Rickenbach: That is correct. 8 Baez: Now, what other items did you test from the car? 9 Rickenbach: Item Q44 was reported to be a piece of the spare tire cover. 10 Baez: And…what was…what were the results of that? 11 Rickenbach: That chloroform, uh, residues of chloroform were ident…was identified on that item. 12 Baez: At the low levels. 13 Rickenbach: Yes, significantly lower levels than the positive control, yes. 14 Baez: Any other items that you tested from the car? 15 Rickenbach: Specimen Q45 reported to be a piece of the spare tire cover. 16 Baez: And that was the same results as Q44? 17 Rickenbach: Yes, that residues of chloroform were identified. 18 Baez: At significantly lower levels than the positive control. 19 Rickenbach: Yes. 20 Baez: What else did you test from the car? 21 Rickenbach: Umm, I…I’m not sure what…I tested other items, but I’m not sure what the…if they came from the 22 car or where they came from, but on this submission, dispatching of submission, that was the only, 23 those are the only pieces of ev…evidence that I analyzed. 24 Baez: Did you testify…did you, umm, test the steering wheel cover of the car? 25 Ashton: Objection. Exceeds the scope. (inaudible). 26 Perry: You may. 27 (SIDEBAR) 28 Baez: Doctor, I just want to conclude with these levels, uh, I guess, residue levels, of chloroform that 29 were found and tested are equal to what you might find in a common cleaning product, is it not, 30 sir? 31 Rickenbach: Yes, from my experience, those levels have been detected in substances that have…that have 32 been used for cleaning products, yes. 33 Baez: Thank you sir. 34 Perry: Redirect. 35 Ashton: Did you find…did you find any other substances that were consistent with cleaning products in 36 your evaluations? 37 Rickenbach: In…I’m sorry, in…in…in evaluation of…of what exactly? 38 Ashton: Of the samples. Is it...was there anything else about the evaluation that would have indicated that 39 these were cleaning products? 40 Rickenbach: Uh, I was specifically tasked with looking just for chloroform, so I really didn’t do an analysis 41 for…for cleaning products on these items. 42 Ashton: Alright, so let’s talk…you talked to counsel about words like “low”, “very low” residue. Th…Those 43 are all sort of vague comparative terms, correct? I mean low as opposed to high is sort of 44 depending on your perspective, correct? 45 Rickenbach: They’re…they’re subjective terms, yes. Page 9

1 Ashton: Umm, have you ever been called upon in your career to test a…a solid dry object for chloroform? 2 Rickenbach: Before this, I…I can’t recall ever specifically just looking for chloroform, no. 3 Ashton: Your other experiences have always been in looking for chloroform in liquid form. 4 Rickenbach: I have never really had an experience where something was submitted in liquid form just looking 5 for chloroform. However, there have been unknown liquids that I have analyzed using this 6 technique where chloroform was identified. 7 Ashton: Were those like product…product tampering kind of investigations? 8 Rickenbach: Yes, that’s the type of case. Either product tampering or just general unknown analysis where they 9 don’t know what the substance is. 10 Ashton: So…so what might be a high or low amount of chloroform in a carpet sample, 11 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 40:00 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 12 would you really have much of a perspective on that? 13 Rickenbach: I would have nothing really to reference. We have, you know, in order to answer that question 14 appropriately, you’d want to do some control studies and, and you know, spiking carpet samples 15 with chloroform or…or…or whatever you’re looking for and..and doing a validation kind of study. 16 Ashton: Now with reference to state’s exhibit 139 in evidence, the…the…spare tire…tire cover, how did that 17 come to you? 18 Rickenbach: It came to the chemistry unit in a…through the normal operational laboratory through our 19 evidence control unit. 20 Ashton: Let me rephrase (cough). How was it packaged? 21 Rickenbach: It…. 22 Baez: This is outside the scope of direct, I mean cross rather. 23 Perry: Overruled. 24 Ashton: How was it packaged? 25 Rickenbach: I’m sorry, that’s…that’s on Q23? 26 Ashton: Yeah, the trunk liner. How was it packaged? 27 Rickenbach: That was pack…found inside a box. 28 Ashton: Alright, inside a cardboard box like the one we have in front of us here. 29 Rickenbach: That’s correct. 30 Ashton: What effect would that packaging have on the levels of a volatile substance like chloroform on an 31 object like this? 32 Baez: This is outside the scope of cross. 33 Perry: Overruled. 34 Rickenbach: Based…based on the properties of chloroform, it would allow chloroform to leak out. It’s not an 35 airtight container. 36 Ashton: Were you, in fact, surprised that you got any chloroform off of this object. 37 Rickenbach: Yes, I was. 38 Baez: (inaudible) speculation. 39 Perry: Overruled. 40 Ashton: And explain to the jury why you were surprised that you got anything off that. 41 Rickenbach: When I was initially tasked with doing this type of analysis, chloroform is…is a relativ…is…is a 42 volatile substance, and it doesn’t stay around very oft…very long under normal conditions 43 that…that I use. Ummm…having a…a…an object come in, uh, like…that’s packaged like that to 44 detect for chloroform, I was…I was very surprised to even get an…a…a result, um, for chloroform. 45 Ashton: Is that because you would have expected the chloroform to have volatilized? Page 10

1 Rickenbach: Yes, volatilized and…and…and not been detected. 2 Ashton: But yet you were still able to detect chloroform even on that unsealed object? 3 Rickenbach: Yes, I was. 4 Ashton: Now, rather than use high, low, there are actual numbers that we can apply to some of these 5 issues about the amounts of chloroform, general numbers, are there not? 6 Rickenbach: The numbers, uh, that you can u...you can, uh, compare to are the numbers of the intensity of the 7 peak that…that…that on the graph when…when you get a peak. The height or the area of the peak 8 you can compare my positive control with the know amount of chloroform that I added to one 9 sample versus the amount of chloroform that you would have detected on another object. 10 Ashton: And that is basically what you were referring to as not a completely quantitative analysis but 11 towards an idea of how much is there based on that comparison, is that correct? 12 Rickenbach: Yes, it would not be appropriate to say that would be a quantitative analysis, but it’s…you can get 13 an idea, yes. 14 Ashton: Now, the control, umm, I think the internal standard was a positive control that you mixed, you 15 said you mixed a control of chloroform, correct? 16 Rickenbach: The positive control was a known amount of chloroform. 17 Ashton: And you mixed that to a certain, umm, concentration, is that correct? 18 Rickenbach: That is correct. 19 Ashton. And what was that concentration? 20 Rickenbach: In…in…in our percentages, 0.01% in water. 21 Ashton: Umm, can you translate that into parts per million? 22 Rickenbach: That would correlate to approximately 100 parts per million. 23 Ashton: One hundred PPM, parts per million. Right? So that is the standard against which you compare 24 your test results in determining a general idea of how much there is, correct? 25 Rickenbach: I don’t use it to determine how much there is. I just used it as…so I don…I wouldn’t put too much 26 on…or I wouldn’t put too much…too little in the instrument, it’s just an amount that…that I use to 27 detect the qualitative, uh, positive control. 28 Ashton: And when you’re referring to getting some general of the quantity by comparing the known to the 29 control. That’s what you’re talking about, this 100 PPM? 30 Rickenbach: Yes, initially, it was…this is a qualitative analysis, but later on, I was asked to give some kind of 31 indication about quantity, and this is the only really way you can kind of get an idea of the 32 amounts. 33 Ashton: Just to be fair, this is a very rough estimate, correct? 34 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 45:00 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 35 Rickenbach: That’s correct. 36 Ashton: So as to, uhh, your Q22, which is a piece of the spare tire cover that was in a can, is that correct? 37 Rickenbach: Yes, it was in…in a can, airtight can. 38 Ashton: What does it being sealed in a can, why is that…is that a better way of…of keeping something than 39 putting it in a box? 40 Rickenbach: For this type of analysis, when you’re trying to analyze for vol…a volatile substance in a very small 41 amount, in residue amounts, keep…submitting the evidence in a heat sealed container, such as 42 this unlined metal can, is the appropriate way to do it. 43 Ashton: Alright. Now, as to Q22, are you able to do a rough percentage of how much chloroform there was 44 that you found in the sample as compared to the standard control? 45 Rickenbach: I would be hesitant to put a number or percent, um, I’m more comfortable with just saying that it’s Page 11

1 sig…compared the height of the peaks, or the area of the peak, compared to my positive control is 2 significantly less. 3 Ashton: But you did prepare a rough percentage, did you not? 4 Rickenbach: When asked in future conversations about can…can I give some idea of…of percentages, it’s not 5 the appropriate way to do it in…in…in forensic science, but I did give a percentage. 6 Ashton: What is the general range of the percentage, ahh, of the standard…Q22 to the standard? 7 Rickenbach: I…I…I gave you that information. I don’t have the information in front of me. Umm. 8 Ashton: If you need to reference that. 9 Rickenbach: Based on the, uh, the data that I have submitted, and based on the area counts and the height 10 counts, this…this information has not been peer-reviewed or tech-reviewed it’s just a conversation 11 that he…he wanted, umm, it’s 5%, based on the comparison of the positive control. 12 Ashton: And again, this is a very rough, very rough estimate, correct? 13 Rickenbach: Yes. 14 Ashton: So the amount of chloroform was somewhere in the neighborhood of 5% of the control, which was 15 100 parts per million. 16 Rickenbach: The 5% is what I calculated. I…I can’t say for certainty what the…the…the actual amount is. 17 Ashton: How about Q23? 18 Rickenbach: It’s…it’s approximately .1%. 19 Ashton: Point one percent. And Q23 is the actual, unsealed spare tire cover. 20 Rickenbach: Yes, that is correct. 21 Ashton: So would it be fair to say that the sealed container contained a much greater level of chloroform 22 than the unsealed spare tire cover? 23 Rickenbach: For the specimen Q22, it did, but there were other items that were submitted and were sealed. 24 Ashton: Let’s go on to those. Umm, I’m going to skip Q24 and 25 because you said those were just, umm, 25 consistent with chloroform, correct? 26 Rickenbach: Q24 and Q25 were consistent with. It didn’t detect. 27 Ashton: The trunk liners, okay, we’ll skip over those. How about Q44? Is that also carpet samp…a sample in 28 a sealed container? 29 Rickenbach: Yes, it was. 30 Ashton: And again, what is the rough percentage on that? 31 Rickenbach: The rough percentage is approximately 1 percent...(inaudible)…as compared to the positive 32 control. 33 Ashton: As compared to the positive control. Okay. How about Q45? 34 Rickenbach: It was approximately .2% 35 Ashton: So the highest concentration, again, with this rough estimating, is on the Q22 sealed sample in a 36 can? 37 Rickenbach: Yes, however, you…you have to take into account that the…am…the amount that I sampled, that I 38 actually cut out, was not the same. I didn’t make sure that each amount of sample that I cut 39 between the different specimens was exactly the same. So, you’re gonna have….if I took a bigger 40 cutting on…on Q22 and a smaller cutting on Q45, 41 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 50:00 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 42 and they had the same amount of chloroform on them, the...because I cut more out of one 43 specimen, I’m gonna find more in the sample. So, it’s…it’s…it’s a very…, uh, it’s not the mo…the 44 best way, uh, to…to, uh, relate these numbers. 45 Ashton: Whatever the actual amount of chloroform actually is in the sample, would the chloroform in that Page 12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

sample in the cans have evaporated prior to it getting put in the can? Rickenbach: It…it’s possible. Ashton: And if this trunk were left, uh, open for say 6 or 7 hours, um, then sealed and then a few weeks later, this sample of chlorofor…this sample of trunk lining was taken, would you expect the chloroform amount to be the same when the sample was taken as it was two weeks before…before the car was aired out? Baez: Objection, judge, it’s a hypothetical outside cross examination. Perry: Overruled. Ashton: Just basically the properties of chloroform. Rickenbach: Based on the...on the properties of chloroform, being that it’s a very volatile chemical, um, if it was in…into an open atmosphere, I would expect less to remain on the items than if it was in a closed container. Ashton: So would you ex…I think we’ve gone far enough with that. Umm, if, and if, these figures accurately reflect the amount of chloroform in the sample, would that add up to the low parts per million range, if it’s accurate? Rickenbach: Yes. Ashton: Alright, now, other than testing for chloroform in liquids, do you…have you ever experienced, um, testing for chloroform in air samples? Rickenbach: No, I have not. Ashton: Do you have any knowledge about what is significantly high or low in an air sample? Baez: Objection, judge, (inaudible) outside the scope of cross. Perry: Overruled. Rickenbach: No, I have…I have no firsthand knowledge of…of analysis of air samples. Ashton: So you’re…the context in which you answered the question about high, low, shocking that’s in the context of your evaluation of liquid samples containing chl…chloroform. Rickenbach: Or in this case, residual samples, not…not…non liquid. Ashton: I mean prior to this one, there would have been liquid samples. Baez: Judge, I’m gonna object, this is clearly outside the scope and highly misleading. Perry: Overruled. Ashton: I don’t know if (inaudible) court reporter heard the objection. Perry: She did. Ashton: She did not hear it. Baez: Did you? Highly misleading. Perry: Outside the scope and highly misleading. Ashton: Highly misleading? Perry: Overruled. Next question, Mr. Ashton. Ashton: I guess my point is your...in answering the questions from defense counsel from the context of your prior experience mostly testing for chloroform in liquids, correct? Rickenbach: Yes. Ashton: No further questions. Perry: Re, re, recross. Baez: Doctor, you testified that doing an (inaudible) and trying to determine the quantity of chloroform is not appropriate in forensic science, is that correct? Rickenbach: Yes, to…to give a formal amounts of, uh, a compound doing it this way is not the correct way to do It. Page 13

1 Baez: And that’s because you don’t want to attempt to give anything that would mislead a jury. 2 Ashton: Objection, counsel’s commentary. May we approach? 3 Perry: No. Overruled. You can answer the question if you can. 4 Rickenbach: No, I…I would not want to give, uh, an impression of amounts, specific amounts, within these 5 samples because it’s not appropriate to even give specific amounts based on the techniques that I 6 used. 7 Baez: Because as a scientist, you want to be precise. 8 Rickenbach: Yes, that’s true. 9 Baez: Especially when testifying in a court of law. 10 Rickenbach: Yes. 11 Beaz: Now, 12 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 55:00 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 13 the…you testified that you don’t have any experience in collecting chloroform from a solid, I guess, 14 a…a piece of carpet or any other solid object. 15 Rickenbach: Other than what I did in this case before that, I’ve never, uhh, tried to analyze for chloroform in 16 carpet samples, no. 17 Baez: So trying to guess how much chloroform would be there versus not would be nothing more than a 18 guess, would it not? 19 Rickenbach: Trying to determine how much is there is…is not the correct way to do it, the way I...qualitatively. 20 Baez: And qualitatively determining whether something is sent in a box or a can, since you have no 21 experience in this type of, uhh, testing that too would also be speculation. 22 Rickenbach: Well, on…on packaging, I have firsthand knowledge, and…and based on my experience with…with 23 chemistry, uhh, you know, the…the way the evidence is packaged, uhh, I do have knowledge about 24 that and…and how it should appropriately packaged. 25 Baez: Well…I…I…maybe I mis…I…I posed the question poorly. But to give a qualitative, I’m sorry, a 26 quantitative amount, and to estimate quantitatively as to how much, that would be speculation. 27 Rickenbach: Yes. 28 Baez: I have no further questions. Thank you, sir. 29 Ashton: (inaudible) 30 Perry: You may 31 Ashton: I…I…I want to understand. If…if no legitimate information can be obtained about the quantity of 32 chloroform, how is it possible to answer defense counsel’s question that it’s similar to what’s in 33 cleaning products? 34 Baez: Judge, that’s outside the scope of my recross. 35 Perry: Overruled. 36 Rickenbach: I…I think I can answer the question not based on quantitative but on…on qualitative analysis. 37 Ashton: Okay, go ahead. 38 Rickenbach: That if I, you know, if…if you can detect chloroform in…in cleaning products, umm, it’s, you know, 39 you can detect it in…in these items, and it’s just the amounts are...are compared to th…the 40 positive control. 41 Ashton: Okay, so when you said that it’s similar to the amounts in cleaning products, you simply meant by 42 that, “It’s detectable?” 43 Rickenbach: That’s…that’s correct 44 Ashton: So when you answered counsel’s question, that’s all you meant was, simply, that it was detectable. 45 Rickenbach: Yes. Page 14

1 2 3 4 5

Ashton: Okay, thank you. (inaudible) Nothing further. Perry: Alright. Okay, the witness may be excused. Thank you, doctor. Ashton: (inaudible) Baez: Subject to recall, your honor. Perry: Yes.

Page 15

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful