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 URLs.
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. Rickenbac..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 Ive 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 states 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 states 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 states numbered 2 Clerk: 138 3 Ashton: Did you also, during the break, take a look at states 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 states exhibit IN, for identification. 8 Perry: What.? 9 Baez: No objections 10 Perry: It will be received into evidence as states exhibit numbered. 11 Clerk: 139 12 Ashton: May I have.may I show you states 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 states exhibit IL. 18 Baez: (inaudible). No objections 19 Perry: Will be received into evidence as states numbered.. 20 Clerk: 140 21 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 5:00 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 22 Ashton: Im gonna show you states 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 states 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: States exhibit number 141 31 Ashton: Next Ill show you states 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 Im 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 states exhibits HS and IK. 38 Baez: No objections. 39 Perry: They will be received into evidence as states numbered.. 40 Clerk: HS (inaudible) number 142, and IK will be states 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: Lets take them (cough) one at a ti....one at a time. Lets 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, Im 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, well 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 states exhibit number? 18 Ashton: The exhibits 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) states exhibit. Umm, what was the results of your examination of 35 that item? 36 Rickenbach: That, uh, residues of chloroform were identified on that specon that specimen. 37 Ashton: (inaudible)..discuss states exhibit 141, which is..lets see what..Im 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 states exhibit in evidence 142. Ill 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 examinationsame 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. States 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. Im 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. Im not sure, umm. Its hard to, umm, right on this material, but I believe its, its 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: Its 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 reinreinforce each other, and therefore, were confident, Im confident to say that chloroform was identified. In the case where its 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: Thats correct. 2 Ashton: And lastly, uh, youre Q25our 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, thewere 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 furno 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: Itdepends, but if, uhifif, 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 ofout of the matrix of water, yes. 26 Baez. And any type ofitit basically bearbreaks 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 Im 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 aa different, um, detector to 35 identifyor detect thethe 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, II 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, theyretheyre 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 its not liquid, its really in very, 45 very small amounts. Page 5

1 Itsits residues of chloroform on these materials. 2 Baez: So, they were found in very, very small amounts. 3 Rickenbach: Yes, thats correct. 4 Baez: Okay, and you can find chloroform in any number of household items, correct? 5 Rickenbach: It has been detected in..in houhousehold 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: Atit depends on the drinking water, yes, but if..if its presentininin an amount the 10 instrument can detect, yes, you canyou can detect it. 11 Baez: And there are a num...thereyou can also find it, uhhh, in chlorine from a swimming pool, can you 12 not? 13 Rickenbach: I have no firsthand knowledgeIveIve never analyzed chloruhhchlorchlorinated 14 products like water from swimswimming pools for chloroform, so I dont 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 thedo you know what other products chloroform could be found in, like soda? 21 Rickenbach. II have no fI have heard no firsthand knowledge that chloroform is in soda products. 22 Baez: Do you havehave you everhave you any knowledge in other items, other than cleaning items, 23 that chloroform could be found? 24 Rickenbach: Thefrom my personal experienceitusually its a cleaning product that we find that that I 25 have found chloroform, uh, uh, in, but II mean there may be other items that have chloroform 26 that I havent 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: Theuhitems that had consistentlythat 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 courts 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 ifif a chemical is present or not, or 38 something thats coming off of the instrument, chemicals that are separated, uh, if its detected, itll 39 go up in intensitythethe plot will go up, and on the x axis as it goes across the time thatthat its 40 taking for the chemicals to come oto come off the column the time that its 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, whuhdoes 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 theres a difference between what is called a quantitative analysis and a qualitative 6 analysis, isnt 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 youre just trying to identify, or detect, the 10 substance that youre analyzing, in this case, just chloroform, youre 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 nunumeric amount which would be a 14 quantitative. 15 Baez: So to break it down, qualitative tells you its thereyes? 16 Rickenbach: Yes, thats correct. 17 Baez: And qualitative tells you.and quantitative tells you how much. 18 Rickenbach: Thatthats correct. 19 Baez: Now you cant just look at a graph and tell what the quantity is, correct? 20 Rickenbach: You cant tell an exact quantity, um, you can get some information, um, based on relative 21 amounts, but, uh, based on a qualitative analysis, you wouldyou really wouldnt give a number. 22 Baez: Okay. And in fact, looking at it that way without running whats called a standard is not a very 23 good way ofor a scientific way of doing this, correct? Of finding out aa, uh, quantitative amount. 24 Rickenbach: If you were going to report out an actual amount, just dodoing an analysis without aa 25 standard or without the appropriate, uh, technique for quantitative analysis would not be a good 26 way. 27 Baez. Correct. Now thewhen you analyzed these samples, you had an internal standard. Is that correct? 28 Rickenbach: I reI re I analyzed the samples, uh, in doin 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 thats 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, its appropriate to run whats called a negative control and a positive 38 control. Um, a negative control would be no sample, um, just so your instrument doesnt have the 39 compound of interest somewhere in its system. So, you make sure that itat the enthe results 40 should be negative. And then at the end of, uh, the analysis, you run whats called a positive 41 control to make sure that the instrument is working properly, so that you can detect the substance 42 that youre 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 specimenthe 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 wasnt overwhelming amount of chloroform, was it? Rickenbach: Imon 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 wasnt the most chloroform youd ever seen in 20 years, was it? Rickenbach: It was not the most chloroform Ive seen in 20 years, no. Baez: And its not what you would call shockingly high levels of chloroform, would it? Rickenbach: No, its not. Baez: Now, I know with the Qs 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 amandand what you...and what you what you ended up getting. The Q22 is the left trunk liner, right? Rickenbach: Its 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 were 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: II think its the entire, Im not sure about the whole tire cover, but its that item right there. Baez: Its just a secondyou, uhh, ran a test on another area of the spare tire cover. Rickenbach: Of a area of the cover, yes. Baez: Okay. Rickenbach: Its not the entire cover. Baez: (inaudible) Uhh, and this was also significantly lower than your positive control at low levels. Rickenbach: Thats correct. Baez: Now, whats thewhat 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, lets start off with Q24. Waswhat 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: Thats correct. Baez: And that would still be at these low levels, is that correct? Rickenbach: Thats correct. Baez: And the second method didnt even pick it up. Rickenbach: Thats correct. Baez: So its one out of two tests, and thats when you say, Its consistent with. Rickenbach: Thats 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 thats because you have the one test that was at very low levels and the second test didnt 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: Andwhat waswhat were the results of that? 11 Rickenbach: That chloroform, uh, residues of chloroform were identwas 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, IIm not sure whatI tested other items, but Im not sure what theif 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 evevidence that I analyzed. 24 Baez: Did you testifydid 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 havethat have 32 been used for cleaning products, yes. 33 Baez: Thank you sir. 34 Perry: Redirect. 35 Ashton: Did you finddid you find any other substances that were consistent with cleaning products in 36 your evaluations? 37 Rickenbach: InIm sorry, ininin evaluation ofof 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 didnt do an analysis 41 forfor cleaning products on these items. 42 Ashton: Alright, so lets talkyou talked to counsel about words like low, very low residue. ThThose 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: Theyretheyre subjective terms, yes. Page 9

1 Ashton: Umm, have you ever been called upon in your career to test aa solid dry object for chloroform? 2 Rickenbach: Before this, II cant 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 productproduct tampering kind of investigations? 8 Rickenbach: Yes, thats the type of case. Either product tampering or just general unknown analysis where they 9 dont know what the substance is. 10 Ashton: Soso 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, youd want to do some control studies and, and you know, spiking carpet samples 15 with chloroform ororor whatever youre looking for and..and doing a validation kind of study. 16 Ashton: Now with reference to states exhibit 139 in evidence, thethespare tiretire cover, how did that 17 come to you? 18 Rickenbach: It came to the chemistry unit in athrough 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: Im sorry, thatsthats on Q23? 26 Ashton: Yeah, the trunk liner. How was it packaged? 27 Rickenbach: That was packfound inside a box. 28 Ashton: Alright, inside a cardboard box like the one we have in front of us here. 29 Rickenbach: Thats 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: Basedbased on the properties of chloroform, it would allow chloroform to leak out. Its 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 isis a relativisis a 42 volatile substance, and it doesnt stay around very oftvery long under normal conditions 43 thatthat I use. Ummmhaving aaan object come in, uh, likethats packaged like that to 44 detect for chloroform, I wasI was very surprised to even get anaa result, um, for chloroform. 45 Ashton: Is that because you would have expected the chloroform to have volatilized? Page 10

1 Rickenbach: Yes, volatilized andandand 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 thatthatthat on the graph whenwhen 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 itsyou 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: Ininin 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 dont use it to determine how much there is. I just used it asso I donI wouldnt put too much 26 onor I wouldnt put too muchtoo little in the instrument, its just an amount thatthat I use to 27 detect the qualitative, uh, positive control. 28 Ashton: And when youre referring to getting some general of the quantity by comparing the known to the 29 control. Thats what youre talking about, this 100 PPM? 30 Rickenbach: Yes, initially, it wasthis 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: Thats 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 inin a can, airtight can. 38 Ashton: What does it being sealed in a can, why is thatis that a better way ofof keeping something than 39 putting it in a box? 40 Rickenbach: For this type of analysis, when youre trying to analyze for vola volatile substance in a very small 41 amount, in residue amounts, keepsubmitting 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, Im more comfortable with just saying that its Page 11

1 sigcompared 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 cancan I give some idea ofof percentages, its not 5 the appropriate way to do it ininin forensic science, but I did give a percentage. 6 Ashton: What is the general range of the percentage, ahh, of the standardQ22 to the standard? 7 Rickenbach: III gave you that information. I dont 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, thisthis information has not been peer-reviewed or tech-reviewed its just a conversation 11 that hehe wanted, umm, its 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. II cant say for certainty what thethethe actual amount is. 17 Ashton: How about Q23? 18 Rickenbach: Itsits 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: Lets go on to those. Umm, Im 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 didnt detect. 27 Ashton: The trunk liners, okay, well skip over those. How about Q44? Is that also carpet sampa 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, youyou have to take into account that theamthe amount that I sampled, that I 38 actually cut out, was not the same. I didnt make sure that each amount of sample that I cut 39 between the different specimens was exactly the same. So, youre gonna have.if I took a bigger 40 cutting onon 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, Im gonna find more in the sample. So, itsitsits a very, uh, its not the mothe 44 best way, uh, toto, 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: Itits 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 chloroforthis 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 beforebefore the car was aired out? Baez: Objection, judge, its 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 its a very volatile chemical, um, if it was ininto an open atmosphere, I would expect less to remain on the items than if it was in a closed container. Ashton: So would you exI think weve 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 its accurate? Rickenbach: Yes. Ashton: Alright, now, other than testing for chloroform in liquids, do youhave 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 haveI have no firsthand knowledge ofof analysis of air samples. Ashton: So yourethe context in which you answered the question about high, low, shocking thats in the context of your evaluation of liquid samples containing chlchloroform. Rickenbach: Or in this case, residual samples, notnotnon liquid. Ashton: I mean prior to this one, there would have been liquid samples. Baez: Judge, Im gonna object, this is clearly outside the scope and highly misleading. Perry: Overruled. Ashton: I dont 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, toto 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 thats because you dont want to attempt to give anything that would mislead a jury. 2 Ashton: Objection, counsels commentary. May we approach? 3 Perry: No. Overruled. You can answer the question if you can. 4 Rickenbach: No, II would not want to give, uh, an impression of amounts, specific amounts, within these 5 samples because its 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, thats true. 9 Baez: Especially when testifying in a court of law. 10 Rickenbach: Yes. 11 Beaz: Now, 12 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 55:00 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 13 theyou testified that you dont have any experience in collecting chloroform from a solid, I guess, 14 aa piece of carpet or any other solid object. 15 Rickenbach: Other than what I did in this case before that, Ive 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 isis 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, onon packaging, I have firsthand knowledge, andand based on my experience withwith 23 chemistry, uhh, you know, thethe way the evidence is packaged, uhh, I do have knowledge about 24 that andand how it should appropriately packaged. 25 Baez: WellIImaybe I misII posed the question poorly. But to give a qualitative, Im 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: III want to understand. Ifif no legitimate information can be obtained about the quantity of 32 chloroform, how is it possible to answer defense counsels question that its similar to whats in 33 cleaning products? 34 Baez: Judge, thats outside the scope of my recross. 35 Perry: Overruled. 36 Rickenbach: II think I can answer the question not based on quantitative but onon qualitative analysis. 37 Ashton: Okay, go ahead. 38 Rickenbach: That if I, you know, ifif you can detect chloroform inin cleaning products, umm, its, you know, 39 you can detect it inin these items, and its just the amounts are...are compared to ththe 40 positive control. 41 Ashton: Okay, so when you said that its similar to the amounts in cleaning products, you simply meant by 42 that, Its detectable? 43 Rickenbach: Thatsthats correct 44 Ashton: So when you answered counsels question, thats 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