Using a Scanning Electron Microscope
Analysis of Animal Hair
Using a Scanning Electron Microscope
Vincent L. Reich
Scanning Electron Microscopy
Final Project
November 14, 2000
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this project was to take the information we have learned about the S.E.M. and its operation, and apply it in the analyzation of some subject. For the purposes of this experiment, several samples of animal hair were placed in the S.E.M. for high magnification analysis. The types of hair used in the experiment were cat, dog, rat, rabbit, and human hair. The results showed a very similar pattern for all the different hair types; however, each sample had some characteristic that set it apart from the other types. All observations, results, and conclusions will be discussed in greater detail in the appropriate sections of this report.
INTRODUCTION / OBJECTIVES
Hair is something that most of us don’t think too much about, but is still very important and serves many purposes. In mammals, hair serves as an insulator, camouflage, sensory organs (like whiskers), and so on. In criminal law, hair found at a crime scene is often taken as evidence for identification (although this a very broad identification). By analyzing several samples of hair with the S.E.M., it is hoped that each sample has some characteristic that sets it apart from the others, so that identification of the species is possible. It is probable that all types of hair will look very much alike as they are all made up of mostly keratin and proteins. However, the structure of the samples will be examined so that insight into the make-up of animal hair is possible. Specifically, the hair samples will be examined on the basis of average size or thickness, surface texture, patterning, and others. It is hoped that these observations are consistent with the environment in which the animal lives, and the specific purpose(s) that the hair serves in each case. .......
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question was for this link was because Scott got a hair cut Dec 23rd? and hair cut questions came up. ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peterson Trial: A Day Of Backroom Haggling
Peterson Trial: A Day Of Backroom Haggling
POSTED: 4:53 pm PST February 19, 2004
REDWOOD CITY, Calif. -- After spending a day behind closed doors, the key players in Scott Peterson's double-murder trial appeared in open court Thursday just long enough for a judge to adjourn for the day.
Video
Video On Demand: Ted Rowlands On Thursday's Closed Door Discussions
Judge Alfred Delucchi said testimony would resume Monday.
Peterson, his defense team and Delucchi began meeting in private Wednesday to discuss evidence investigators gained by bugging Peterson's phones.
Mark Geragos said Wednesday he wanted to hear 76 recorded conversations Peterson had with Kirk McAllister, his first lawyer in the case.
Geragos has asked the judge to throw out all wiretap-related evidence in the case, alleging investigators violated Peterson's right to attorney-client privilege when they listened to snippets of his conversations with McAllister.
On Wednesday, prosecutors called investigator Steven Jacobson to testify that he and others followed federal guidelines when they briefly monitored those calls.
Authorities tapped Peterson's phones from Jan. 10 until Feb. 4, 2003, Jacobson said, and bugged his cell phone again briefly from April 15-18.
It was during the latter span that the investigators' case rapidly developed -- the bodies of Laci Peterson and the couple's unborn son washed onto a San Francisco Bay shore and days later, police arrested Scott Peterson near San Diego.
If convicted, Peterson could face the death penalty. .....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Documents reveal more Peterson trips to bay
Documents reveal more Peterson trips to bay
Scott Peterson attends a court session in Stanislaus County last month. THE BEE
By JOHN COTÉ
BEE STAFF WRITER
Last Updated: February 19, 2004, 08:22:09 PM PST
REDWOOD CITY - Scott Peterson returned to the Berkeley Marina area at least five times after his wife was reported missing Christmas Eve 2002, according to testimony and new documents entered as evidence in his trial. The documents revealed two previously undisclosed trips to the Berkeley shoreline and raise questions about the defense explanation for the treks.
They might also provide insight into the prosecution’s push to have evidence from satellite tracking devices admitted at trial.
During one of the newly revealed trips, Peterson drove along a frontage road just north of the marina on Jan. 27, then circled back before going to San Francisco International Airport about six hours later, according to the documents.
Peterson taped an interview with “Good Morning America” co-host Diane Sawyer that evening in Los Angeles in which he said he had “absolutely nothing” to do with his wife’s disappearance.
Peterson told police he launched his boat from the marina for a solo fishing trip the day his pregnant wife was reported missing.
He was arrested in April and charged with murdering her and their unborn son, Conner, shortly after their remains were found along the bay’s eastern shoreline. Both bodies were less than two miles from the spot where Peterson said he fished.
A detective testified at Peterson’s preliminary hearing in November that police tailed the Modesto man to the marina three times: Jan. 5, 6 and 9, 2003. On those occasions, Peterson stopped briefly and looked out at the water, Detective Al Brocchini said.
Satellite tracking devices police covertly installed on at least three vehicles Peterson drove indicate he also went to the marina Jan. 26 and 27, 2003, using different vehicles for each of those trips, according to documents filed in San Mateo County Superior Court.
Defense attorney Mark Geragos suggested during the 31-year-old Peterson’s preliminary hearing that the first three trips were prompted by Bee articles that ran on or near those days indicating police would be searching the bay waters for Peterson’s missing wife, Laci.
“Were you aware that on the morning of Jan. 5, before Mr. Peterson went to the San Francisco Bay, that there was an article in The Modesto Bee saying, ‘Dogs and divers go to work in the San Francisco Bay?’” Geragos asked Brocchini.
Brocchini said he wasn’t sure about the date.
“If there was that article, it certainly wouldn’t look that suspicious, would it?” Geragos said. He later pointed to a similar article that ran Jan. 9.
But there were no Bee articles Jan. 26 or 27 referencing bay search efforts. Geragos could not be reached for comment Thursday.
John Goold, a prosecution spokesman, declined to comment, citing a gag order in the case that forbids discussing evidence.
“For me to drawn any conclusions, I’d be commenting on the evidence,” Goold said.
Goold also declined to say if the two trips in late January were part of the prosecution’s reasoning for seeking to use global positioning system evidence at trial. The defense opposed the move, arguing that the evidence was unreliable.
Judge Alfred Delucchi ruled Tuesday the evidence could be used at trial........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No decision on whether bugged calls allowed
No decision on whether bugged calls allowed
By GARTH STAPLEY and JOHN COTÉ
BEE STAFF WRITERS
Last Updated: February 19, 2004, 11:55:36 AM PST
REDWOOD CITY -- Wiretap testimony in Scott Peterson's trial Wednesday focused on nuts and bolts of how phone bugs work, except for one spirited exchange when defense attorney Mark Geragos threatened to call a prosecutor to the witness stand.
Judge Alfred Delucchi, however, twice shot down the idea.
Seeking to have an opposing attorney testify is unusual, legal observers said.
"There is a reluctance, a reticence, to call the actual attorneys in a case," Los Angeles defense attorney Bradley Brunon said. "I would have been real surprised if the judge granted that."
Geragos wanted to ask prosecutor Rick Distaso -- under oath -- about meetings involving officers who monitored Peterson's phone calls, Distaso and Stanislaus County Superior Court Judge Wray Ladine, who approved the bugging.
Geragos already has subpoenaed Ladine because no stenographer was present to record the meetings.
Ruth Jones, a professor at McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento and former New York City prosecutor, said investigator Steven Jacobson's testimony regarding the meetings should be sufficient.
Geragos' desire to put Distaso on the stand could be a tactic to keep his opponent off balance, Brunon said.
"There's probably some gamesmanship going on," Brunon said.
"Mark doesn't want to make their job any easier than it is," Jones said. "He's going to make a lot of motions, and he's going to lose many of them. But that's his job, to make motions."
Wednesday, Delucchi called a recess at 11:02 a.m. to listen to some recordings of calls challenged by Geragos. The judge also invited Jacobson, Peterson and his attorneys into his chambers.
They didn't emerge until after lunch, when attorneys on both sides met first with the judge behind closed doors, then privately with each other and again with the judge before he announced at 3:52 p.m. that the session would not reconvene until this morning.
All participants are bound by a court-imposed gag order from revealing what was discussed in the meetings.
Jacobson was the only witness called Wednesday, and he spent most of his time explaining phone bugging.
Peterson's two cell phones were tapped from Jan. 10 through Feb. 4, Jacobson said, and again from April 13 until his arrest April 18. Jacobson said he called off the first tap because it wasn't producing evidence........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------