District Attorney Sauk County District Attorney?s Office 515 Oak Street Baraboo, WI 53913 RE: FBI File Number: Contributor Number: 915432 Subject(s): Fandrich, Larry William (DOB: 08/ 1 1/ 1969) Victim(s): Crime: Rape/AssaultfRobbery Docket Number: Unknown Dear Sir/Madam: The United States Department of Justice comparison analysis testimony and reports provi Laboratory before December 31, 1999, when mit science underlying microscopic hair comparison 1 some cases prior to 1999, FBI laboratory examiners excee the conclusions that may appropriately be drawn from a po hair and a known hair sample. This is in contrast to cases 1 examiner testimony presented conclusions that may appr US. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation Washington, on, 20535?0001 June 27, 2013 2 a 2013 BY .SAUK coumv DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE (D01) is engaged in a review of microscopic hair ded by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) ochondrial DNA testing became routine. The not the subject of this review. However, in ded the limits of science by overstating sitive association between evidentiary which the FBI laboratory report and opriately be drawn from a positive asso_ciation. Thus, the purpose of this review is to ensure that FBI laboratory reports and examiner testimony regarding micro scepic hair oompari identify any case in which they did not. FBI records indicate that your office prosecuted son analysis met accepted scienti?c standards and to the above referenced case and that the FBI may have provided testimony or a lab report in that prosecution. If so, it is necessary for the FBI to review any such information to determine whether it devrated from accepted scienti?c standards so that further action may be identified, as appropriate. In order to facilitate this review, we are questionnaire with the following information This document may contain certain personally identifyin directly related to a law enforcement function. It may not consent of the FBI. asking your agency to return the attached ithin 30 calendar days of the date of this letter: information. It is provided to your agency only as it is be further released or disseminated without the express District Attorney 1. Did an FBI examiner testify at trial or any other hearing concerning microscopic hair analysis? (If yes, please indicate what type of hearing.) 2. What was the lead charge in this case? 3. Was the defendant convicted after a trial? (If no, please indicate whether the defendant - was acquitted, pled guilty, or if your office did not proceed to trial for other reasons.) 4. Was there a stipulation related to the FBI Lab report on hair evidence? 5. Was this a capital case where a death sentence was imposed? 6. Is the defendant still incarcerated based on a conviction (whether by trial or guilty plea) in this case? 7. What was the name and contact information for the last known defense counsel of record? 8. What is the current location of the defendant if incarcerated or, if no longer incarcerated, the last known address and status of the defendant? If the defendant was convicted at trial, please provide a trariscript(s) of any microscopic hair analysis testimony provided by FBI examiner(s) in this case, including testimony from any trial (including re?trial), grand jury, or other hearing, and including both the direct and the cross-examination. If the transcript(s) are not readily available in such that this would delay your response, we would appreciate it if your office would provide all other information requested as soon as possible, and then assist us in obtaining any transcript(s) in the most ef?cient manner. Also, please advise of the date when you anticipate any transcript(s) might be provided. Please provide the requested information and any transcript(s) to: FBI Laboratory Division, Trace Evidence Unit, attn: Cherise Dreyfus, 2501 Investigation Parkway, Quantico, Virginia 22135. It is our intention to conduct a thorough assessment of the FBI examiner?s testimony,,if any, and to provide the results of that assessment to your office as soon as possible. In our efforts to ensure that FBI examiners? reports and testimony appropriately re?ected the scientific limits of microscopic hair examination and identify cases in which they may have exceeded those limits, the FBI will seek the assistance of the Innocence Project (IF) and the National Association for Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL). As such, the FBI may share with the IP and NACDL, at an appropriate time, information from our files, including a cepy of the FBI expert?s trial testimony in this case and our assessment of that testimony. As the review progresses, may contact defense counsel and or the defendant(s) regarding this review as well. We recommend your of?ce advise appellate specialists and victim advocates in your jurisdiction to determine your discovery and victim noti?cation obligations, if any, with respect to this review. This document may contain certain personally identifying information. It is provided to your agency only as it is directly related to a law enforcement function. It may not be further released or disseminated without the express consent of the FBI. District Attorney our case or the general issue of microscopic hair analysis Cherise Dreyfus, Unit Chief of the Trace Evidence Unit, Zanzucchi, Assistant General Counsel, Of?ce of the Further questions about examinations may be addressed to FBICaseReyiew@ic.fbi.goy or Raernarie General Counsel, FBICaseReview2?icfbigov. We very much appreciate your full and prompt cooperation with this review. Sincerely, Andrew Weissmann General Counsel aim/L; Sherry E. Sabol Section Chief Science and Technology Law Of?ce cc: Executive Of?ce of United States Attorneys Department of Justice information. It is provided to your agency only as it is This document may contain certain personally identifying be further released or disseminated without the express directly related to a law enforcement function. It may not consent of the FBI. Fax Response Sheet Please send completed form within 30 calendar days to: Cherise Dreyfus Unit Chief Trace Evidence Unit FBI Laboratory 2501 Investigation Parkway Quantico, VA 22135 Fax:' 703-632-7714 Email: fbicasereview?ic.fbi.gov Email Rev-1?11 Calla 11s @n?a 11/190011 Phone/Fax: Q0 08%? 3 38 0 Address: ?11,115. Referenced FBI Case Number f5 14' {jQ? 5730 Name of Court where Prosecution Occurred: '32??de OW 5/ - Court DocketNumber: OF 1? ?7 1/ From: Organization: Subject(s)/ Defendant(s): i 1- 1 Victim(s): - . . If. .- Name, Address and Phone Number of Prosecutor: 1 Ab(/ . 5627/ Name Address and Phone Number of Defense Attorney of record: ?47] 09 ?ri a011, 1?1 '70 5501,. 1- I at 5390197 We awe/111,10 1. Did an FBI exarnlher provide testimeony concerning microscopic hair analysis at trial 01 any other raring? No 1)th 815%Wm Wen hmra/fbaeds. 1 1 2. What type of hearing was th1 3. What was the lead charge in this case? 4. Did the case result 1n a conviction after trial? Yes No (If please indicate whether the defendant was acquitted pled guilty, if there was a stipulation regarding the hair evidence testimony at a plea or trial or if your of?ce did not proceed to trial fo1 other rgPi! I, a I. I Hind/L11} (37k - capital case ere a death sentence was imposed? 6. .Is the defendant still inca erated based on a conviction (whether by trial or guilty plea) in this case? Yes No 7. If yes, where is the defendant currently incarcerated? LAB boll 8. If no, what is the last known address, contact information and status of the defendant? 9. Can you provide a transcript of the microscopic hair analysis testimony provided by the FBI Laboratory Examiner? Yes No e? ?it/M 10. If provision of a transcript will delay your response, please provide all other information to the FBI with the anticipated date of when a transcript will be provided. ll. If no, provide the name, address, email address, and telephone number of the of?ce and person from whom these transcripts may be obtained. Remarks: Questions regarding this matter may be addressed to Cherise Dreyfus, Unit Chief, Trace Evidence Unit, at fpicasereview?licfbiggy or Raemarie Zanzucchi, Of?ce of the General Counsel, at Urgent Delivery Requested A A a a I A gag I35 4TH STREET . A BARABUD, muggy-g NDVEMRER 15TH, 1991 43 Tu: DIREETDR, C;gi FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION - - NABHINETUN, 29535 v, \9 THIS EXAMINATION IE BEINE MADE ON BEHALF OF Hmw?mw THE PULIEE IN DNBDINE INVESTIGATIONS INTD A SERIES OF ARMED RUBBERIEE, RIDNARINE, SEXUAL AERAULTE, BATTERIES, AND ARMED BURRLARIEE REVERIRR A RADAR RERIUD BF JANUARY ?91 THRRURH DCTBEER 1991. RE: REQUEQT FUR EXAMINATION or EVIDENCE NE HAVE BEEN ABLE TD IDENTIFY A SUSPEET IN ONE EASE. IN THAT THE SUSPECT HAS BEEN CHIMINALLY EHAHEED, AND IS ANAITING COURT NE ED NUT HAVE ANY BBHEDULED DATE, ESTIMATED SPRING 1993. . EBPR I Specs Betached HDNEVEH BALANBE OF THE RELATED BASES, EHAREES BAN NOT BE MADE WITHOUT THE EVIDENEEI FURTHER WE HAVE ATTEMPTED PRDEEBB THRDUEH STATE CRIME AND HAVE BEEN UNBUCEESBFUL THIS IS PARTIALLY BAUBED BY THEIR HEAVY BAGHLBE 0F CASES, RESENT LUBE BF EXAMINEHB, THEIR LAEK DF AND A CURRENT FDLIEY DF NDT PHDBEBSINE EASEB WITHOUT A COURT DATE. AS YOU WILL FIND IN THE DDSUHENTSI CASE SUMMARIES TESTING REQUESTS, THERE IS VERY 800D REASON TO BELIEVE THE SUSPECT IN THE EASE, IS THE FERSDN THAT UGHHITTED ONE OR MORE OF THE DTHEHS. HOWEVER, WITHOUT THE EVIDENCE BEING PHDEEBBED, HE GAN ONLY BPEDULATE. THE PHDAEBBING OF THE EVIDENCE HILL BURELY EITHER CLEAR THIS SUSPEGT, DR MAKE A PDSITIVE LINK TD THE ERIHEE. I A . (925M ma A/wu/ . IT IS NBTED, FOR YOUR AEVIEN, THAT IN THE REPORTED EABEE THE DFFENDER IS BECOMING MORE BOLD AND VIOLENT. THIS SHALL ADHHUNITY OF 9060 PEOPLE, HA5 BECOME VERY ALARMED .DVER THE SERIES OF AND SINCE THE ARREST UF-THE SUSPECT IN ONE BASE, IT HAS BEEN PUT ON NUTIEE THAT THIS 0R MAY BE THE BUBJEET IN THE UTHERB. SINCE ABOUT THE THIRD EASE, WE HAVE Vyj?g?m?i NITH THE: LOCAL FBI OFFICE (MADISON, I RTELLI. THERE WE HAVE BEEN ATTEMPTINE TO BUILD A BF THE DFFENDER. IN OUR DEALINBB WITH THAT AND THE EAAHLDE OF THE LOCAL SHINE YDUA FACILITIES HAVE BEEN BUEBEBTED. 80-681LSHANI "i1 anm axmmaa WSW - A??nj?3~ an ?aauw ?r 33119d so JHIHH unawawa HEHLIE asea?d aaHiHna EDA Qaam an awe Amw aavH H?ijv H??ljd? SIHL Di GENEHLEH EH N63 ESNEGIAE 716 . BHL a; ?33N3azna 40 awnIWav WUHGIAIGNI H363 HWIM ENIBH 336 BLBEDEEH ?idI?EdS an AHDLBIH 3863 anm an HEHWIH a; EHL ND EH gnu? LHHL AHHSBEHEN i2 1333 EM "smoawaa GELHLB EHL and ?31315804 86 BU HAIR EH HELLWH LHHL H56 GWHUM EM w- 3336 SNILHIA ?M/Mr"HaIaqy A :31 EHL . 'Lsanmaa SIHL Di BI ENIEH SHWSILHH EHL AU 1 ~xaar HHEHEADN an MD EHEHL aaxaavm anH EH Bi SENEGIAE 3H1 and"?w1 ISA HUGH EAHH 3M BEDAEHEHL NI EEG EM EHBHM ENIGNELBHEQNH HELLER SIHL EAIE i1 BHL AD 8831GHHBEH ENIL idHUHd EHL NI i838 BHL ENIHE BQNEGEAE 3D NOILHNIHHXB HHUA iHHi ij?? AWHHEWZ SI iI Ail? EHO GNH ?H?ldd? I83 16307 HIEHL NI SI 3853 END 16301 HHL ?36? BHIHB BHL ASIHLBIG 76387 EHL AD BEIHIHGNI EGUH BENIS EAUH 3M GNW 83863 EHL H61 AEUWDHES I?d EHL HLIM i??iND? NI UML 386d EIBEQ ?Bnavawa .. mama Q81 . . . . . z/g/ BARABOO POLICE DEPARTMENT 135 FOURTH - -. a WISBQ 3 56893554721 THOMAS J. Loss a Baraboo c?s??5145432 IE . J: . FBI - Direc?or 4-3 ?7 Washington, DC [$105 ?g?L?i . ATTN: Wayne Oakes-? FBI Lab (Jggi;?? . 3 RE: FBI File \004180. FBI Lab #1111807 Suspect: Larry ?Fandrich, w/m, 03-05-62 Mum- Per your request, here are the Specimens you requested from the suspect ESSER. Specimens submitted within: 1 head hairs pubic hairs - Whole- blood (2 tubes) 1 1 Hospital Sexual Assault Report form If there are any questions, or concerns, please contact his Officer. . Dennis uge I News US. Department of Justice 950 Avenue, W, Room 2261 Washington, DC 20530 August 12, 2015 . c: 1 vs Kevin R. Callrins AUG 1 2015 District Attorney Of?ce of the Sauk County District Attorney BY SAUK NTY Di ST Sauk County Courthouse .. .. .. ATTORNEY OFHFF RICT 515 Oak Street Baraboo, WI 53913 Re: State of Wisconsin v. Larry William Fandrich, Case No. 1993CF 171 Dear Mr. Calkins: We write to advise you of the results of a review by the United States Department of Justice (the ?Department?) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation and collectively with the Department of laboratory reports and testimony by FBI Laboratory examiners in cases involving microscopic hair comparison analysis. Through this review, we have determined that a report or testimony regarding microscopic hair comparison analysis containing erroneous statements was used in this case. This error and the process through which it was identi?ed are explained in more detail below. We ask that you determine the actions your of?ce should take in light of this error. I. Background DOI has been engaged in a review of microscopic hair comparison reports and testimony presented by the FBI Laboratory before December 31, 1999, after which mitochondrial DNA testing became routine. The science underlying microscopic hair comparison is not the subject of this review. However, in some cases, FBI Laboratory examiners exceeded the limits of science by overstating the conclusions that may appropriately be drawn ?om a positive association between evidentiary hair and a known hair sample. This is in contrast to cases in which the FBI Laboratory report and examiner testimony presented conclusions that may appropriately be drawn from a positive association. Thus, the purpose of this review is to ensure that FBI Laboratory reports and examiner testimony regarding microscopic hair comparison analysis met accepted scientific standards and to identify those cases in which those standards were not met so that any appropriate remedial action may be taken. II. Error Identi?ed in this Matter We have determined that the microscopic hair comparison analysis testimony or laboratory report presented in this case included statements that exceeded the limits of science in one or more of the following ways and were, therefore, invalid: (1) the examiner stated or . implied that the evidentiary hair could be associated with a speci?c individual to the exclusion of all others this type of testimony exceeded the limits of the science; (2) the examiner assigned to the positive association a statistical weight or probability or provided a likelihood that the questioned hair originated from a particular source, or an opinion as to the likelihood or rareness of the positive association that could lead the jury to believe that valid statistical weight can be assigned to a microscopic hair association - this type of testimony exceeded the limits of the science; or (3) the examiner cites the number of cases or hair analyses worked in the laboratory and the number of samples from different individuals that could not be distinguished from one another as a predictive value to bolster the conclusion that a hair belongs to a speci?c individual - this type of testimony exceeded the limits of the science. (A copy of the documents upon which-our determination is based, specifying which of the three error types were identi?ed, is enclosed.) We take no position regarding the materiality of the error in this case. 111. Potential Victim Noti?cation We recommend that you advise the appropriate victim advocate in your of?ce of this error, so that he! she may determine how and when to inform the victim or the victim?s family that this matter may be the subject of further litigation and that they may be contacted by the defense. IV. Potential DNA Testing In the event that your of?ce determines that further testing is appropriate or necessary or the court orders such testing, the FBI is available to provide mitochondrial DNA testing of the relevant hair evidence or STR testing of related biological evidence if testing of hair evidence is no longer possible, if (1) the evidence to be tested is in the government?s possession or control, and (2) the chain of custody for the evidence can be established. V. Potential Waiver of Procedural Defenses In the event that the defendant seeks post?conviction relief based on the Department?s disclosure that microscopic hair comparison laboratory reports or testimony used in this case contained statements that exceeded the limits of science, we provide the following information to make you aware of how we are handling such situations in federal cases. In such cases under 28 U.S.C. 2255, in the interest of justice, the United States is waiving reliance on the statute of limitations under Section 2255(f) and any procedural-default defense in order to permit the resolution of legal claims arising from the erroneous presentation of microscopic hair examination laboratory reports or testimony. VL- Report of Action Taken To assist us in monitoring the status of cases involving microscopic hair analysis comparisons, we ask that you please advise us by September 22, 2015, if you intend to take any action based on the information that we are providing to you. Please send this information to USAEO.HairReview@usdoj. gov, and let us know if we can be of any assistance. VII. Additional Notifications You should be aware that we are also notifying the defense, as well as the Innocence Project and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of the error. These organizations have expressed an interest in determining whether improper reports or testimony affected any convictions and, if so, to ensure appropriate remedial actions are taken. To assist them in their evaluation, we will provide them with information from our ?les, including copies of FBI Laboratory examiners? reports and testimony, as well as our assessment of those reports and testimony. If you have any questions regarding this matter please contact us at the email address provided above. Sincerely, Norman Wong Special Counsel Enclosures 07/10/2015 Response Sheet Please send campietedform within 14 days to: FBI POC FBI Laboratory Quantico, VA 22135 Fax: 703-632-7714 Email: FBICaseReviengQichi.gov (please inciude in the subject line and NACDL response" and the name of the defendant) Referenced FBI Case Number: 95A-HQ-1004180 Court Docket Number: 1993 CF 171 Subj ect(s)fDefendant(s): Larry William Fandrich Independent Findings of the Innocence Project (IP) and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL): The IP and NACDL concur with the conclusion reached by the FBI Microscopic Hair Comparison Analysis Review that the materials reviewed contain no instances of Error 1, Error 2, or Error 3. The IP and NACDL concur with the conclusion reached by the FBI Microscopic Hair Comparison Analysis Review that the materials reviewed contain the following Error Types: Error 1 Error 2 -- iab report Error 3 The IP and NACDL disagree with the conclusion reached by the FBI Microscopic Hair Comparison Analysis Review because, contrary to that conclusion, the IP and NACDL have found that the materials reviewed contain the following error types: Error I Error 2 Error 3 Comments: __The IF and NACDL would like to meet with the FBI (in person or by phone) to discuss the differing opinions regarding the appropriateness of FBI testimony and/or lab reports. This document Is the property of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Do not dissemlnate further withoutthe prior written authorization of the FBI Of?ce of the Genera! Counsei. 03/26/13 US. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of investigation Washington, D.C., 20535?0001 MICROSCOPIC HAIR COMPARISON ANALYSIS RESULT OF REVIEW Date: June 24, 2015 To: innocence Project Microscopic Hair Comparison Analysis Review Team From; Federal Bureau of Investigation Microscopic Hair Comparison Analysis Review Team FBI Fiie Number: Criminal Docket Number: 1993 CF 171 Defendant: Fandrich, Larry William Victim: Contributor: Barahoo Police Department 135 Fourth Street Baraboo, Wi 53913 Trial Plea Stipulation Transcript enciosed Lab Report enclosed Pursuant to the Letter of Agreement between our organizations, this ietter serves to provide your office with the results from the Federal Bureau of investigation (FBI) Microscopic Hair Comparison Analysis Review regarding the anaiysis of testimony and lab reports provided in the above?referenced case. Piease notify the FBI, within 14 days of receipt of this letter, as to whether or not the innocence Project (IP) agrees with the FBi?s conclusions. The FBI?has conducted its review of the report issued in this case and found it to contain: Appropriate Statements inappropriate Statements The FBI has conducted its review of the FBI testimony transcript and/or stipuiation in accordance with the November 9, 2012 agreed upon scienti?c standards between the iP and FBI with the following results: Error Type 1: The examiner stated or implied that the evidentiary hair could be associated with a specific individual to the exclusion of all others. This type of testimony exceeds the limits of the science. Error Type 2: The examiner assigned to the positive association a statistical weight or probability or provided a likelihood that the questioned hair originated from a particular source, or an opinion as to the likeiihood or rareness of the positive association that could lead the Jury to believe that valid statistical weight can be assigned to a microscopic hair association. This type of testimony exceeds the limits of the science. Error Type 3: The examiner cites the number of cases or hair analyses worked in the lab and the number of sampies from different individuals that could not be distinguished from one'another as a predictive value to bolster the conclusion that a hair beiongs to a specific individual. This type of testimony exceeds the limits of the science. - Appropriate This document may contain information protected by tho-Privacy Act of 1974 and is provided by the FBI to your agency solely for authorized law purposes. The information contained herein may not be further disclosed or disseminated without the express consent of the FBI. Response Sheet Please send completed form within 14 days to: Cherise B. Dreyfus FBI Laboratory 2501 Forensic Way Quantico, VA 22135 Fax: 703- 632-7714 Email: FBICaseReview2@ic tbi gov (please include in the subject line response? ?and the name of the defendant) Referenced FBI Case Number: Court Docket Number: 1993 CF 171 Subject(s)/ Defenddn?s): Larry Wiiliam Findings of the Innocence Project The concurs with the conclusion reached by the FBI Microscopic Hair Comparison Analysis Review, or The disagrees with the conclusion reached by the FBI Microscopic Hair Comparison Analysis Review for the following reasons: Error 1 Error 2 Error 3 Appropriate The IP would like?to meet with the FBI (in person or by phone) to discuss the differing opinions regarding the appropriateness of FBI testimony andfor lab reports. This document may. contain information protected by the Privacy Act of l9?4 and is provided by the FBI to your agency solely For authorized law enforcement purposes. The information contained herein may not be further disclosed or disseminated without the express consent of the FBI. version 6/3/2013 FBI Microscopic Hair Comparison Analysis Review Evaluation Form Case Information: Case Number: 95A-HQ-1004180 Defendant(s): Larry William Fandrich Date of Review: 06/10/2015 Standard Applied: Standards dated 11/9/2012 Review of Laboratory Report(s): Date of Laboratory Report: 03/24/1992 Examiner Issuing Report: Oakes Lab Report Results (mark as appropriate): Positive Association: Yes i] No Inappropriate Statements Yes No Limitations Language Included in Report? '3 Yes (page 2 NO If Laboratory report contained an inappropriate Statement, cite statement by Error type(s) and page number(s) (quote if necessary): Page 2 ?consistent with having originated from . . (Error 2) Approved By: a? a Date: Page I of 1 06/10/2015 74uhv221m) (i x6 [,le L?g? .. an 7 nr__L_ - 1 Mr. Cakes FEDE BUREAU OF INVESTIGATI WASHINGTON, D. C. 20535 March 24, 1993 or Lieutenant Dennis K. Kluge Investigator Baraboo Police Department 135 4th Street Baraboo, Wisconsin 53913 11118079 8 WK UF 20115075 WK UF 20121096 8 WK UF . . 20212049 8 WE Ih?mmo Communloatlons dated November 16, 1991, January 10, 1992, January 15, 1992 and February 5, 1992 $mr?m 91-5432 (9 . Rm LARRY WILLIAM FANDRICH 9? 2 as Spauimens yufrcwud: NQVenlber 18 1991 Specimens received January 15, 1992, under cover of communication dated January 10, 1992 (20115075 8 WK UF): Q2 Pants Q3 Shirt . ?103%:ng Specimens received January 21, 1992, under cover of communication dated January 15, 1992 (20121096 5 WK UF): K1 Head hair sample from? K2 Pubic hair sample from K3 Blood sample from ?peoimone received February 12, 1992, under cover of communication dated February 5, 1992 (20212049 8 WK): Q4 Vacuum sweepings from front seat and floor Q5 Vacuum sweepings from trunk area {335 ft a Jewgbf?? gig-Fem x; - raver) new I.) 0:r1(4) Tow-W MA 3* ROOM [3 This Report Is Ji?m'njshed For Of?cial Use Only . .. . - . a Q6 Vacuum sweepings from rear seat and floor 111mg: K4 Carpet sample from interior of vehicle K5 Carpet sample from trunk of vehicle Result of examination: This report supplements the previous report dated January 6, 1992.' For a listing of the items submitted under Laboratory number 1l118079 WK UF, please refer to the ,January 6 report. As indicated in the January 6, 1992, report, several, pubic hairs.were foun? in the debris from the Q1 panties from victim . One of-the pubic hairs found in the Q1 debris exhibits the same microscopic characteristics as the pubic hairs in the known pubic hair sample from LARRY W. FANDRICH (Specimen K4, FBI Laboratory number 11118083 8 WK UF MW TD) and, accordingly, is consistent with originating from FANDRICH . It is pointed out that hair comparisons do not. constitute a basis for absolute personal identification. No hairs like those in the known samples from victim ESSER were found in the Q4 through Q6 vacuum sweepinqs from the suspect?s vehicle. Present in the debris from the Q2 pants from the victim was a single gray trilobal carpet fibers. This fiber exhibits the same microscopic characteristics and optical ?properties as the fibers composing the K4 carpet sample from the?suspect?s vehicle and is oonsistenthith originating from this source. Also present in the Q2 debris was one white trilobal carpet type fiber which exhibits the same microscopic characteristics as the white fibers in the composition of the K5 carpet sample from the trunk of the suepect?s vehicle. Accordingly, the fiber$.on Q2 is consistent with originating from this source. . The K3 blood sample was grouped as Hp 2, Go 2~lS.? No blood was found on specimen Q2 or Q3. Page 2 (over) 3 WK . Semen was identified on specimen 92. NO semen was identified on specimen Q3. You will be advised of the results of the remaining examinations and the disposition of the items by a subsequent report. Page 3 11118079 8 WK . u?h?w ?a