Fogleman: Call Lisa Sakevicius.


Fogleman: You’re the same Lisa Sakevicius who has previously testified, for the record?

Sakevicius: Yes.

Fogleman: All right. Lisa, at my request, did you run some additional graphs on known fibers?

Sakevicius: Yes, I did.

Fogleman: In other words, fibers that came from the robe, which is exhibit 88?

Sakevicius: Yes, I did.

Fogleman: All right. You did run some additional graphs from known fibers from exhibit 88, the robe?

Sakevicius: Yes, I did.

Fogleman: All right. Now, first of all let me show you State’s Exhibit 93 if you would. And exhibit State’s Exhibit 93. And is that the graph that you previously testified about? Where you indicated that the, uh, was part of the basis of your opinion that the fibers were microscopically similar?

Sakevicius: Yes, this is it.

Fogleman: All right. Think it was yesterday, Uh, Charles Linch testified that in his opinion that was, that that showed that they were dissimilar.

Sakevicius: I disagree.

Fogleman: All right. Now, at my request did you take two known fibers from the robe, a robe, and run a graph?

Sakevicius: Yes, I did.

Fogleman: I wanna show you State’s Exhibit 126 and ask if you can identify that?

Sakevicius: Yes, this is the graph I ran, these are two separate fibers from the same robe. It shows that you can see differences between two known fibers.

Fogleman: All right. And about that, tell us about what differences you would have in the same garment, fibers in the same garment, what types of differences you might have?

Sakevicius: You might have slight color variations, or slight diameter variations, uh, this garment is composed of viscose rayon which is a multilobed or cloud looking cross-section that might vary along the lengths of fibers from, between different fibers. This could all introduce small variations in the spectra.

Fogleman: And is that what you were doing in State’s Exhibit 126, doing two known fibers and showing a similar type pattern as to State’s Exhibit 93?

Sakevicius: That’s correct.

Fogleman: Your Honor, we would offer State’s Exhibit 126.


Fogleman: Just to make sure this is clear. The--when you say on the State’s Exhibit 126, two separate fibers from same standard, we’re talking about two separate fibers from Exhibit 88?

Sakevicius: Correct.

Fogleman: Your Honor, we would offer State’s Exhibit 126 and ask permission to exhibit to the jury.

Ford: No objection.

Price: No objection.

The Court: All right, it may be received without objection, and you may exhibit to the jury.

Fogleman: We wanna also re-exhibit to the jury State’s Exhibit 93.

The Court: All right.

Fogleman: Now, I’d like to show you what is part of State’s Exhibit 125, which is a graph that Mr. Linch did, and ask, at my request did you, how can I phrase this, did I fax you a copy of that graph?

Sakevicius: Yes.

Fogleman: All right. And did you examine it?

Sakevicius: Yes, I did.

Fogleman: And, at my request, did you take another two fibers from State’s Exhibit 88, the robe, and do an additional graph on those two fibers?

Sakevicius: Yes, I did.

Fogleman: All right. Now, if you noticed on Mr. Linch’s graph, which he shows that those two fibers come from a different source. He’s got Xs marked where couple of intersecting points are near the top, do you notice that?

Sakevicius: Yes, I see that.

Fogleman: If you would, if you could take this pink marker on what I’ve marked for identification purposes as State’s Exhibit 127, and if you would mark on the graph, the similar points of intersection on State’s Exhibit 127. All right. And, so this will be clear, it says two separate fibers from the same standard, again we’re talking about two known fibers from State’s Exhibit 88, this robe?

Sakevicius: That’s correct.

Fogleman: All right. Your Honor, we would offer State’s Exhibit 127. (Pause) When did you run those graphs?

Sakevicius: Yesterday.

Fogleman: Now, in -- Your Honor we would offer State’s Exhibit 127.

Price: No objection.

The Court: All right, it may be received without objection.

Fogleman: In running this particular graph what, if anything, did you do to the fibers to try to duplicate the known fiber and the questioned fiber?

Sakevicius: I left one fiber in its original state. The other fiber, I took and I flattened it.

Fogleman: Your Honor, may Ms. Sakevicius step down?

The Court: Yes.

Fogleman: All right, now, Ms. Sakevicius, if you could show this graph, State’s Exhibit 127, I’m gonna show part of State’s Exhibit 125 which is the graph from Mr. Linch, where he said that they were dissimilar. Now the fibers on State’s Exhibit 127, those are from the same, they’re from that robe, both of them, right?

Sakevicius: Yes, they are.

Fogleman: All right. And Mr. Linch ran the known fiber and the questioned fiber.

Sakavicius: That’s correct.

Fogleman: All right. And are the points of intersection approximately the same on both graphs?

Sakevicius: They look that to me.

Fogleman: You can retake the stand.


The Court: You offered it and I received it.

Fogleman: And once again, Ms. Sakevicius, what is your opinion in regard to the, uh, what is your opinion as a result of your comparisons of the questioned fiber found on the black and white shirt, polka-dot shirt, and the fibers from State’s Exhibit 88?

Sakevicius: That they are similar and could have a common source.

Fogleman: Ok. I don’t have any further questions.

Ford: Ms. Sakevicius, you said something about viscose rayon?

Sakevicius: Yes.

Ford: Is there another process to make rayon?

Sakevicius: As far as I know, there are probably several processes.

Ford: Ok. Do you know the two major processes how they make rayon?

Sakevicius: I’m not familiar with both of them.

Ford: Ok. You know about viscose rayon?

Sakevicius: Yes, I do.

Ford: Do you know, do you know about cupronium rayon?

Sakevicius: I’ve read about it, I don’t know that much about it.

Ford: You don’t know that much about it, do you?

Sakevicius: No.

Ford: And, isn’t it true that now it is, the textbooks on fibers and fiber identification say that it is important to distinguish between viscose rayon and cupronium rayon because they are made in different ways?

Sakevicius: As far as I know, this is viscose rayon.

Ford: The robe?

Sakevicius: Yes.

Ford: The robe is viscose rayon, is that right?

Sakevicius: Both fibers are viscose rayon.

Ford. Now, so you’re telling us that they’re both viscose rayon?

Sakevicius: Correct.

Ford. You know that for sure?

Sakevicius: This is what I feel, my opinion.

Ford: Is it your opinion or do you know for sure?

Sakevicius: It’s my opinion.

Ford: Did you run a GC Mass Spec on the questioned fiber?

Sakevicius: No, I did not.

Ford: Isn’t it true that a GC Mass Spec, that’s a test that you run to determine whether or not the rayon is cupronium or viscose? Is that what that process does?

Sakevicius: I don’t know if that would do that or not.

Ford: So you don’t even know that there’s a way, you don’t even know that there’s a test called GC Mass Spec --

Sakevicius: Oh, I’m familiar with it.

Ford: --that you can run to determine whether it’s rayon that is viscose or cupronium?

Sakevicius: I’m familiar with the GC Mass Spec, this is an instrument mainly used by drug analysts, it’s not an instrument that is commonly used in fiber analysis in our field.

Ford: That test, and that machine, whatever you will call it, that process can tell you whether it’s cupronium rayon or viscose rayon, can’t it?

Sakevicius: I don’t know.

Ford: You don’t even know that, ok. The questioned fiber, which I’ve introduced as Baldwin’s Exhibit number 1, I assume you’ve taken that back with you to the lab.

Sakevicius: The questioned fiber?

Ford: Uh-hum.

Sakevicius: No, I haven’t.

Ford: So all these new graphs you ran, they’re not on the questioned fiber, are they?

Sakevicius: No, they’re on the standard.

Ford: Ok. Let me make sure something again. That questioned fiber, is that the whole thing you found?

Sakevicius: Yes.

Ford: That’s the whole thing?

Sakevicius: Yes.

Ford: And you flattened part of it?

Sakevicius: I--it may all be flattened.

Ford: Well did you look at it? Under the microscope after you flattened it?

Sakevicius: Yes, I took a photograph of it after I flattened it.

Ford: Is it all flat? Or partially flat?

Sakevicius: I believe it’s nearly all flat, yes.

Ford: Nearly all flat.

Sakevicius: My photograph doesn’t show the entire fiber, it only shows about half of it.

Ford: Does it show the unflattened end or the flattened end?

Sakevicius: I think it’s the flattened end.

Ford: Ok. So you didn’t take a photograph of the other end, that’s nonflattened?

Sakevicius: It’s hard to get the whole thing in the photograph.

Ford: Well you could move your slide down in the microscope and take a picture of the unflattened end, can’t you?

Sakevicius: I just took one photograph, I was trying to show the color.

Ford: That’s not my question. You can move the slide in your microscope to where you can take a picture of both ends. One is--

Sakevicius: Yes, sir.

Ford: --one is flattned, one is unflattened

Sakevicius: Yes, I could.

Ford: And you didn’t do that though?

Sakevicius: No.

Ford: You just took one of the flattened end.

Sakevicius: No, I didn’t.

Ford: Ok. How did you flatten it?

Sakevicius: I used a scalpel.

Ford: And you just – what was the fiber laying on?

Sakevicius: The glass slide.

Ford: And you pressed with a scalpel, that’s more like, that’s a knife really. Sort of like a precision knife blade.

Sakevicius: Yes, like a surgeon would use.

Ford: Ok. And you just press on part of that fiber, on the glass slide. And then you seal it with some, with a – top, that little liquid that sets up, right?

Sakevicius: Right.

Ford: Ok. And did you push very hard?

Sakevicius: I don’t remember how hard I pushed.

Ford: Or did you just sort of barely push on it?

Sakevicius: I don’t remember how hard I pushed.

Ford: How did you flatten these fibers yesterday?

Sakevicius: The same way.

Ford: The same way. So, you’re able to take fibers off this robe and just press on them with a scalpel and flatten them, and Charles Linch can’t get them to flatten with a hammer. Is that what you’re saying?

Sakevicius: I don’t know what his problem was.

Ford: Ok. If he testified, if he testified that he couldn’t get it to flatten with a hammer, he couldn’t get it to flatten with a scalpel, he couldn’t get it to flatten by pressing two glass slides, that he was only able to flatten it with putting two thousand pounds of pressure on it. What you’re saying is, he’s not as good as you are?

Sakevicius: Yes.


Ford: Ok. You’re saying you’re better than he is?

Sakevicius: I was able to flatten the fibers with a scalpel and I found it a very simple procedure.

Ford: Ok. And, so Charlie is incompetent, is that what you’re tell this jury?

Sakevicius: I’m not going to say that.

Ford: Are you saying he’s incompetent and he doesn’t know what he’s talking about?

Sakevicius: I’ve never met the man.

Ford: Do you have any reason to tell this jury that he’s incompetent and he doesn’t know what he’s talking about?

Sakevicius: I would, uh, suspect somebody who couldn’t flatten a fiber with a scalpel.

Ford: Ok, so you think he’s incompetent?

Sakevicius: I’m not gonna go that far and say that.

Ford: But you’re suggesting that since he can’t flatten the fiber he must not be as qualified as you are, is that what you’re saying?

Sakevicius: I’m not gonna say that either.

Ford: And how long have you been working? Doing this fiber work?

Sakevicius: About three years.

Ford: Tell me, what kind of microspectometer you have?

Sakevicius: Microspectrophotometer?

Ford: Yeah that.

Sakevicius: It’s a Zise QAMS-50

Ford: Ok, and how old is it?

Sakevicius: It’s about two years old.

Ford: Is it important, is it important that when you run graphs for these fibers, that the lines be parallel in order to say that they’re a match?

Sakevicius: They need to follow the same general curves and have the same peak and valleys.

Ford: Have the same peak and valleys and follow -- And so if they intersect, they’re not following the same track with the same peaks and valleys because if they do, they won’t intersect, is that right?

Sakevicius: You can get two fibers from a known source to intersect.

Ford: That’s not my question. When you’re comparing them, if they follow the same parallel course, they’re not gonna intersect, are they?

Sakevicius: They shouldn’t.

Ford: Ok. All of these graphs intersect, don’t they?

Sakevicius: Yes.

Ford: Your graphs, Charlie’s graphs, they all intersect?

Sakevicius: Even the graphs of the known fibers intersect. You have to take into account the entire graph, the end points are not as important.

Ford: Ok. Let me see if you would agree with me on this. That let’s assume Mr. Linch is a qualified, competent fiber analyst. And you’re a qualified, competent fiber analyst. And y’all look at the same things and disagree. Doesn’t that really leave us with the bottom line that these really don’t mean that much at all?

Sakevicius: I can’t place the meaning on this, that’s not my job.

Ford: Thank you. Pass the witness.

Fogleman: I don’t have any further questions.

The Court: Thank you Lisa, you’re free to go.