2.Scott Fairgrieve — Direct (Part 1)
313 linesCOURT CLERK: Please remain standing and raise your right hand.
DR. SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE, called as a witness herein, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
COURT CLERK: Please be seated.
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Thank you.
COURT CLERK: Please state your name and spell your last name for the record.
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Yes, my name is Dr. Scott Fairgrieve, F-a-i-r-g-r-i-e-v-e.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY ATTORNEY STRANG:
MR. STRANG: Are we good on volume? Maybe just pull the mike down just a little bit?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Is that better?
MR. STRANG: Yes. Probably so, yes. Good afternoon. I wonder if we could start, Dr. Fairgrieve, with explaining to our jury why it is that we brought you down from Laurentian University in Ontario, Canada.
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: I was requested by the defense counsel in this particular case to review the reports and circumstances surrounding the investigation of the Avery property and, specifically, with respect to cremated remains in this case and the forensic anthropologist report.
MR. STRANG: And how -- how, in general, are you employed?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: I am currently employed as the chair of the Department of Forensic Science at Laurentian University in Sudbury, Ontario, Canada. And I am also a forensic anthropology consultant to the Office of the Chief Coroner for Ontario.
MR. STRANG: Okay. Let me show you your curriculum vitae, which I have marked -- had marked as Exhibit 501. And we'll give the people a little bit of an overview of who you are without -- I promise you -- and without going through all 18 pages of this.
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Okay.
MR. STRANG: You have a bachelor's degree?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Yes, I have a bachelor of science in biological anthropology from the University of Toronto.
MR. STRANG: Where did you take your education after that?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: I then proceeded on to do my master's level degree at Cambridge University in England, also in biological anthropology.
MR. STRANG: What is biological anthropology?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: It's the examination, and my specific speciality, of the human skeleton. We also refer to it as human osteology. And I'm an expert -- or received education in the area of the analysis of the skeleton in a variety of contexts, both archaeological and modern.
MR. STRANG: Did you attain, what is it, a master's in philosophy in biological anthropology from Cambridge University?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: That's correct. It's referred to as an M.Phil. Degree.
MR. STRANG: All right. You come back from Great Britain, obviously, at some point, back to Canada, and where do you -- where do you go with your education from there?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: From there, I attended the University of Toronto for my doctoral degree, a Ph.D. in human skeletal biology within the Anthropology Department.
MR. STRANG: When did you obtain the Ph.D.?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: In 1993.
MR. STRANG: What have you done in general, big picture, what have you done with your professional life since you completed the doctorate?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: In general, I have, obviously, as a forensic scientist, I belong to several associations, but in my actual work, I am employed, since 1991, at Laurentian University as a forensic anthropologist and have undertaken teaching courses at the undergraduate level.
MR. STRANG: Where is Laurentian University, specifically?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: It's about -- It's in the town of Sudbury, Ontario, which is a very well-known mining community. It is located approximately four hour drive north of Toronto.
MR. STRANG: What -- Give us a run down, if you would, on a little bit more about the faculty position you hold as Chair of the Department of Forensic Sciences at Laurentian?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Well, I oversee the operation and administration of the department; however, I'm also a teacher, if you like, a university professor. So I instruct students in various different courses, including forensic biology, introducing -- introduction of forensic science, forensic anatomy of the human skeleton, as well as forensic analysis of the human skeleton.
MR. STRANG: Outside of an undergraduate or graduate student classroom, do you do any training or teaching of law enforcement?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Yes, I have. I have -- actually, was invited, back in, I believe it was 2002, to form the very first course in recovery of human remains from crime scenes, for police officers; what we refer to in Canada as forensic identification officers, here they would be crime scene technicians, and that went until 2005.
MR. STRANG: Do you -- Are you involved in research as well as the practical work you described?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Yes, sir. I am very active in research.
MR. STRANG: What is your primary area of research interest?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: My primary area is in the study and interpretation of cremated human remains. So any human tissues that are subjected to fire in a variety of circumstances, but more commonly in the forensic circumstances.
MR. STRANG: Have you written anything about this?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: I am published in the area of forensic cremains through journal articles as well as book chapters and conference presentations. And I have an upcoming book coming out through a publisher in the U.S. on the forensic cremation analysis and interpretation.
MR. STRANG: And we can look for that at amazon.com soon?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: I'm hopeful.
MR. STRANG: All right. Now, again, the jurors, I think, will probably have your resumé, so I don't want to go through everything, but give me a sense, give the jury a sense of the professional associations to which you gravitated or that you found, you know, to enrich your work?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Professional associations are very important to a scientist, in growth for both peer review of your own work, but also further training and, basically, communicating with other members of your field.
I'm known as a fellow in the American Academy of Forensic Sciences within the Physical Anthropology Section. I'm a member of the American College of Forensic Examiners International and I'm also on the Editorial Advisory Board for their publication known as the Forensic Examiner.
MR. STRANG: Actually, I'm going to stop you right there.
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Yes.
MR. STRANG: We have heard talk about peer reviewing articles; is that exactly what somebody on the Editorial Advisory Board does?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Well, in my case, from the editor of a specific journal, I would receive the actual article in question and they ask me to examine it for the science behind the article, in order to make sure that the procedures followed, and the way that the article is written, conforms to scientific standards.
MR. STRANG: You are describing peer review, is that what peer review is?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: That's exactly what it is, literally a review by your colleagues.
MR. STRANG: Okay. Are any of the professional associations to which you belong tilted towards law enforcement or defense in the criminal justice system?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Forensic science, as we deal with it, is meant to be an unbiased profession. We are to undertake analysis of evidence and present our findings of that evidence in courts of law via either reports, or through reports and testimony, such as here.
MR. STRANG: Have you testified in court before today?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Never in American court; however, in Canadian courts, yes.
MR. STRANG: And I'm -- I'm -- I'm actually curious, who -- who has called you as a witness in the past, which side?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: I have only testified for the Crown in Canada, which is -- the equivalent here would be prosecution, so the State.
MR. STRANG: Okay. This is the first time both in an American court and being called by the defense?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: That's correct.
MR. STRANG: Okay. And I want to get now into the more -- the more practical or field work that you do. And I'm curious, is there a tie between the research interest in cremated human remains, or cremains, and the practical field work that you do?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Yes. Well, my interest in cremains came out of the fact that I was being called in order to, not only recover in the field, cremated remains, from crime scenes, but also to interpret those remains. And so my research has very much centered on the problems and the challenges that one encounters with remains that are in such a degraded state.
MR. STRANG: Do you find yourself still called to consult at crime scenes?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Yes, I am. I'm currently a consultant for the Office of Chief Coroner in northern Ontario.
MR. STRANG: Which covers how big an area?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Approximately western Europe. Land area, very wide, from Sudbury on up through northern Ontario, right up to Hudson Bay.
MR. STRANG: Okay. So just part of the province.
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Yes.
MR. STRANG: But a large land area.
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Yes.
MR. STRANG: And who calls you in to crime scenes?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: The -- Usually the procedure is I'm sometimes contacted by police to tell me that there is a scene that they will suspect they will want me to attend; however, as per our protocol, I am called to the scene and to attend by the Regional Supervising Coroner and so I represent the Regional Coroner as far as --
MR. STRANG: Okay.
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: -- activity is concerned.
MR. STRANG: So you may be working shoulder to shoulder with police officers, but you are there under auspices of the coroner -- auspices of the coroner, if I understand?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: That is correct, yes.
MR. STRANG: Okay. When -- when you have a case, you are called to the field, crime scene, or suspected crime scene, and you have got human -- cremated human remains?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Yes.
MR. STRANG: What's -- What are the tasks for a forensic anthropologist like yourself in that role?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Well, initially, what we do is, I will certainly meet first with the law enforcement officials who are responsible for the investigation as well as the forensic officers. And we will -- I will get background information from them, prior to even attending the scene.
And, then, upon attending the scene we will examine the general area in order to -- how to approach. I usually check to see if there is a path of contamination that has been initiated. And we, essentially, work from the outside of the scene to the inside. So I'm very much there working shoulder to shoulder with the forensic identification officers at the scene and --
MR. STRANG: And --
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: -- and offering advice on how to do the recovery.
MR. STRANG: Okay. And that's what we're talking about --
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Yes.
MR. STRANG: -- we're still at a point where we're trying to recover --
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Oh, yes.
MR. STRANG: -- remains --
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Oh, yes.
MR. STRANG: -- when it was at the site?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: And documenting those remains at the scene.
MR. STRANG: Okay. So contamination path and I think you just said you work in --
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Yes.
MR. STRANG: -- from the edges?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Yeah.
MR. STRANG: What are you trying to do?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Well, we're first of all trying to preserve the context of the evidence as best as possible, and to do as little contamination as possible to the actual scene. So by having a path of contamination, this is a pathway, if you like, that the police officers will have established saying, well, this is the way we got on to the scene originally, so we're just going to keep walking on this path and not possibly contaminate outside of that pathway.
MR. STRANG: Okay. So, in addition to preservation, then, what would be the next task?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Well, as with anything, as items are identified and, typically, because we're dealing with cremains, I'm the one to identify, okay, this is a cremain and that's a cremain. I would actually be indicating those and we would flag them, for example; in other words, mark them, without touching them, their location, so that we know where they are.
And we start from the outside, as I said before, from the areas of lowest concentration, so that we can clear other areas around the scene and then work into where we suspect the highest concentration of the remains may be.
MR. STRANG: As you are working in, what are you -- what are you doing, if anything, to document what you are finding as you work your way in?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: As -- As I work with the ident officers, we -- everything that's found, in order, is given an evidence number. And that is controlled by the forensic ident officers. So I will indicate an item, for example, and -- which is items, that is, within my area of expertise, in this case cremated remains.
And they will keep an evidence record log and they will say, what description should we give this. And I may say bone fragment, or something of that ilk, and it would be photographed and the flag would be remaining there and subsequently mapped into place.
MR. STRANG: By the time you are getting around to photographing the things that you found, has anything yet been touched, physically?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: No. Nothing is touched until the photography is done and -- but the mapping may be done a little later, because we leave the flags in place.
MR. STRANG: What goes around comes around, I think this jury has heard about the system of mapping that you have --
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Sure.
MR. STRANG: -- now days. Tell us just a little bit about that?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Well, there's a few different ways to do it. I mean, one -- one way is to superimpose a sort of grid over the scene, which basically looks like a bunch of squares. And then you approach the scene such that you are taking care of the squares around the scene first, clearing those and then going in towards those areas of higher concentration. And that, generally, is done in order to control the method by which you are processing the scene.
There are instances, however, where we'll do a combination of this with an electronic means of documenting a scene. And that's using something known as a Total Station Unit, which is basically a surveyors -- computerized surveyors unit. And that helps us to generate a computerized map of the scene.
MR. STRANG: When I say what goes around comes around, we have heard about the Total Station Unit already in this trial. But you -- you folks are using that as well.
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Oh, yes.
MR. STRANG: And what -- what are you -- what specifically are you mapping with that when you use it?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: We're mapping sometimes individual fragments, perhaps fragments that are clustered together in a tight grouping, in a context. It could be long bones that we would see, or other elements of the skeleton. And those are getting numbered as we go along and their position is being noted. This way we get a distribution.
MR. STRANG: Why note the position of every single fragment that you find?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Well, documentation, it is required for us, first and foremost, for court purposes, in order to document where everything comes from in its original found location. Secondly, by documenting this, this can tell us all sorts of different things about the circumstances surrounding this find.
So what we would look for would be bones that happen to be in their relative position to one another, such as the bones of the lower arm being next to one another, and being close to or joined up with the bones of the upper arm.
We're interested in the position of the body, if that can be ascertained. We're interested in whether the remains have been purposely manipulated, moved, redistributed, crushed actively, mixed up or comingled. All those things can be ascertained through proper excavation and recovery technique.
MR. STRANG: So with that background, I guess, let's -- let's get specifically to this case and your role in this case. Are you familiar with a Dr. Leslie Eisenberg?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Yes, I am.
MR. STRANG: How -- How do you know her, or how have you become familiar with her?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: I have known Leslie for, must be over 10 years now, as colleagues through the American Academy Forensic Science, the Physical Anthropology Section.
MR. STRANG: Have you had a chance to review her report in this case?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Yes, I have.
MR. STRANG: And some photographs?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Yes.
MR. STRANG: What -- What can you tell us about the common ground you share with Dr. Eisenberg, the points on which you agree with her work, based on the work you have done here?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Oh, I agree with many points of Dr. Eisenberg's research or study on, in this case, and her report. I certainly have no reason to question the parts of her analysis that deal with the fact that the remains are representative of a single individual, an individual who is female, as well as a mature individual, that is, not a pubescent if you like, or somebody who is post-pubescent.
MR. STRANG: Do you have any reason to disagree with Dr. Eisenberg's assessment of the rough age range?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: She did note in her report that there was a lack of arthritic changes to the skeleton. And as I recall, to the best of my ability, she was indicating an age, an upper age limit of 30 to 35 years. That can be problematic. I agree that there was no lipping, however there are --
MR. STRANG: Stop. Time out. That was a technical word.
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Pardon me, sorry. There were no arthritic changes. And I certainly agree from what the photos were I saw, I certainly didn't see any. However, she's using that as a basis to say 30 to 35 and I know of no empirical studies to support that. That would be purely speculation.
MR. STRANG: But -- But you have no reason to doubt it either, I mean, you are not -- I take it you don't --
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Not one way or another.
MR. STRANG: -- (inaudible) over that.
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: No. No.
MR. STRANG: What else do you find yourself in agreement with?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Specifically, her analysis of the trauma to the head, I am certainly in agreement with. She indicated two gunshot wounds and I'm in agreement with that.
MR. STRANG: When you say you are in agreement with two gun shot wounds, as a forensic anthropologist, are you qualified to say, yeah, I look at that defect in a bone and in my professional judgment it's an entrance wound from a bullet?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: What we do is, we describe the actual characteristics of a specific lesion or discontinuity, if you like, an opening. And we look at the various signatures of that. And, in fact, in this case, certainly, they do conform with a high velocity projectile, meaning a bullet.
MR. STRANG: Do you think, as a forensic anthropologist, that you also, though, could take the next step from gunshot wound to assigning a manner of death or a cause of death.
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: The problem with that is that with wounds such as this, in my profession, we will tend to report that something such as this is perimortem, literally meaning around the time of death. We cannot prove that that was actually the cause of death. We can't prove that it happened shortly after death, or it was a wound that was shortly before death and the person survived for a few minutes and may have been killed through some other means.
Because we are dealing with skeletal remains, I do not have the soft tissue that a pathologist does in order to make some of these other determinations; hence, we usually are stuck with the term perimortem.
MR. STRANG: Okay. And here, in specific, after your review of the occipital bone fragment and the parietal bone fragment --
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Yes.
MR. STRANG: -- and the unnatural opening or defect, you are calling it a lesion --
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Yeah.
MR. STRANG: -- discontinuity, the bullet hole?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Yeah.
MR. STRANG: Okay.
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Trauma.
MR. STRANG: Are you able to offer an opinion, as a forensic anthropologist, on whether those gunshot wounds occurred after the person was dead or before the person was dead?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: No, I cannot.
MR. STRANG: Why not?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Well, the problem is that I just don't know what actually did cause the death. I'm a reasonable person in that, yes, I recognize that gunshot wounds to the head are not conducive of long life, however --
MR. FALLON: Your Honor, I'm going to interpose an objection at this point, and it may be cleared up with a few more questions from counsel, but I don't think there's been any foundation for this gentleman to render an opinion, vis-a-vis, cause of death. Such was not rendered by Dr. Eisenberg either, I might add.
MR. STRANG: (By Attorney Strang)~ Well, actually, I think we'll step back. I mean --
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Sure.
MR. STRANG: -- if I wasn't clear about this, I want to be. As a forensic anthropologist, are you professionally qualified to render an opinion on cause of death?
MR. STRANG: As a forensic anthropologist are you professionally qualified to render an opinion on manner of death?
MR. STRANG: Okay. And I guess, if I understand you, what you are saying here is, you cannot assign a manner of death within your profession or calling?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: No, we cannot. And, certainly, in my jurisdiction as well, what -- how we proceed is that I will evaluate trauma and then this goes to the forensic pathologist, as well as the coroner or medical examiner, as the case may be, and they make that final determination.
MR. STRANG: Now, as a forensic anthropologist, and one who's got a strong interest in cremated human remains --
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Yes.
MR. STRANG: -- can you offer us an opinion on whether the -- a gunshot wound to the head, for example, the two here, were before or after burning of the bones; is that something you can do?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Yes. Yes, that is something I can do.
MR. STRANG: And do you agree or disagree with Dr. Eisenberg's conclusion that the gunshot wounds here were before burning of the bones?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Yes, I do agree with that.
MR. STRANG: Okay. But whether the gunshot wounds were before or after the death of the person on that --
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: I cannot say.
MR. STRANG: Okay. Within the field of forensic anthropology you cannot say that?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: That's correct.
MR. STRANG: Okay. Any other points of agreement with Dr. Eisenberg's work here?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: I agree that she -- I agree with her opinion that she was not able to determine the ancestry of the individual, or the stature of the individual.
MR. STRANG: Height.
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Yes.
MR. STRANG: Okay. What -- What did the -- You just looked at photographs, not actual bone fragments, correct?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: That's correct.
MR. STRANG: Okay. What did -- What did you see in the condition, the exterior condition of the bone fragments that -- that you saw in photographs?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Well, certainly subjected to an intense heating event, a fire. The types of fractures that I saw there were very consistent with those caused by heat, so you have what we generally refer to as heat induced fractures. And there's a variety of these.
MR. STRANG: Tell -- Tell us about those, a little bit about heat induced fractures.
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Sure. Heat induced fractures are actually caused during the burning process, to any sort of tissue, specifically bone in this case. Because, when you have a fire, it's actually leaching the water out. So you actually are losing water content. And as a result of that, you get a shrinkage of the bone that's occurring and then you get a fracturing that occurs as well.
MR. STRANG: And does it happen in the heating phase, or in the cooling phase, or just throughout?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Initially, what happens is, as it's being consumed the bone will heat up, and with anything that does heat up, it expands. It's been found through experimentation that the actual -- a lot of the fracturing does really get undertaken at the cooling stage. So as the bone cools, if you -- particularly if it's been in a fire, let's say like a house fire, or something like that, and fire personnel come along and put water on it to cool it fast, that will actually cause it to fracture even more.
However, with fires that are attended by a perpetrator, you do get the fracturing taking place naturally; however, the bone will remain in its same location as where it was put with the rest of the body at the time.
MR. STRANG: We heard -- We heard testimony from Dr. Eisenberg to the effect that the recovery process here of the human bone fragments she described was well done. I'm not quoting her exactly, but she -- she offered some testimony to that affect. Is that a view with which you can agree?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: I'm afraid I have to differ with that opinion.
MR. STRANG: Why?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Well, from the photographs that I received, first of all, the documentation with the photography was fairly poor. It was very difficult to tell anything as far as in situ, or the original location.
MR. STRANG: In situ meaning the original site --
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Yes.
MR. STRANG: -- as found?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: As found, would probably be a better way to put it. So the photography was very poor from that perspective. The accounts that I understand occurred as far as the excavation procedures, there was no systematic approach to the collection of the evidence at first processing, from what I saw. I know there was no grid imposed at that time, during the initial excavation.
I was informed that shovels were used in order to do that and it wasn't, shall we say, a more forensic archaeological approach and that, essentially, Dr. Eisenberg received the materials directly from the police services involved, without her having been in the field.
MR. STRANG: Okay. So other than nitpicking, why does this matter. Why does it matter?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Well, it matters as far as what I mentioned about the documentation and being able to tell things about the circumstances surrounding the burning of the body. One of things the context can tell you, if it's well done, is to approach the question of where the body was burned. Was it moved? Was this the actual location or not?
MR. STRANG: How do you approach drawing a conclusion about where the original burn site, or where the body was burned; how do you approach that through a proper recovery?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Well, within the recovery and, certainly, in recoveries I have been involved with, what is done is, as you proceed through the careful excavation, removing soil, soil is removed from a particular square, for example, that you have identified as being of interest within your grid. And you proceed, vertically, from the highest point of that square, down to a level until you start finding material.
When you find that material, you clear it off very carefully. You actually switch from, shall we say, a trowel type implement, to actually wooden implements, because they have the same approximate density as bone and even cremated bones, so you have less risk of actually causing damage, shall we say, extra damage to the remains.
MR. STRANG: Why is that a concern, by the way, with burnt bone?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Well, burnt bone is extremely fragile. You -- We tend to have a little axiom that we refer to in teaching cremation studies to students, and that is, if you take a cremated bone and you pick up one bone, you end up putting down 10. What that means is, that it's very fragile and it can, quite often, when moved, unless it's been, shall we say, fixed together in some fashion, using a glue or something of that ilk, you are actually going to pick it up and you are going to cause some damage.
MR. STRANG: Now, is that -- is that breakage, or that fragility, universally true through all the stages of from, you know, light charring to a complete calcination of the bone?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: No, it's -- because a body burns what we call differentially, in other words, it doesn't burn evenly, you actually have some areas of the skeleton that are going to burn, or the body, that will burn more quickly.
If you think about it, areas where there's not a lot of skin coverage, such as the ends of fingers, the top of the head, these sorts of areas will burn more quickly. So we'll actually see them go through the various different color changes and stages of the fire process ahead of other areas, such as the torso. More meat on the torso, certainly mine. And that's going to take longer to actually be consumed, as opposed to say the limbs or the head and face and such.
MR. STRANG: So when -- But I'm curious, I mean, does the actual fragility, if you will, of the bone --
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Yes, it's going to vary as a result of that. So the earlier on, where you have the dark blackened, if you like, charring of the bone, is not as fragile as the bone that has gone to sort of a gray-blue stage and approaching what we call a calcined stage.
The actual end stage, if you like, the ultimate extreme of burning bone is where we have the white calcined stage. And, in fact, the molecules of the minerals in the bone actually reorient themselves into a structure that is more akin to porcelain, so it actually becomes quite strong at that point.
MR. STRANG: Okay. So it's going through sort of a curve where it's becoming more and more fragile. And at the final stage, you are saying it's actually -- regain --
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: It can be.
MR. STRANG: -- some strength.
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: It's very much dependent upon the actual density of the bone.
MR. STRANG: Okay. All right. And you were -- you were explaining how this, you know, this sort of layered excavation and identifying pieces in place --
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Yes.
MR. STRANG: -- helps -- helps get you to being able to draw a conclusion about whether the body was burned there, or moved, or, you know, otherwise disturbed, and I want to go back to that.
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Sure. The actual -- When we actually do an excavation like this, and let's say we come across, as I have, I will describe an actual scene I have been involved with, the lower end of the upper arm bone. And upon excavation, by excavating it carefully, one can see the actual lines of the fracture from the heat and see that, yes, this bone is in a location; however, if we move this bone, it is going to fall apart. That tells us that this is the original context of where that was burned, because if we moved it, we would already find it in the smaller pieces.
MR. STRANG: Okay. All right.
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Quite logically, you know, if you have got something that's -- if you -- it's akin to taking a piece of glass and putting it on the floor and stepping on it; well, you can see the outline of the glass and the size of the piece of glass, but you will also see all the cracks. So if you move it, you are not going to be able to see that outline any more in it's original form.
MR. STRANG: Okay. Do you -- Do you agree here with Dr. Eisenberg that it's clear in this case that bones were moved?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: I agree that bones were moved.
MR. STRANG: In the human -- When I say bones, I'm talking about human --
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Human remains.
MR. STRANG: -- human remains.
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Yes.
MR. STRANG: Okay. You -- you -- you do agree with that?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: I do.
MR. STRANG: Okay. And based on the recovery method that was used here, are you able to offer an opinion, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, about where these human remains were burned?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: No, I'm not.
MR. STRANG: Why not?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Well, the fact is, that because I don't have any records from which to examine that would actually indicate to me that there are bones in the original location, where they were burned, I can't offer an opinion on that.
MR. STRANG: You know, when -- if you -- if you go to a site and you have the opportunity to recover a burnt human remains, are you able to identify the, you know, the specific bones by name and location in the body when you are looking at them in place?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Yes.
MR. STRANG: How is that?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Well, there are anatomical landmarks on the various different bones. And if they are in their original location where they were burned, we'll even see them on what we call relative anatomical position. So that if you burn remains in a specific location and no other force acts upon them except the actual burning process, then the materials that make up the head will be at the head end of the body and then you will have the neck, the thorax, and then the legs and then the arms off to the side. So that's -- that makes logical sense.
MR. STRANG: How -- How about when these things are fractured, because I get -- I gather from what you said a few minutes ago, some breakage and fracturing will occur just because of the heating and initial contraction as the bone dries?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Yeah, the heat actually will definitely cause fracturing and you see all sorts of different types of fractures within the bone itself.
MR. STRANG: And -- But you're -- But you're still able, if the bones are in place, to identify the type of bone you are looking at?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Oh, yes.
MR. STRANG: And that's something a forensic anthropologist can do with training?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Oh, yes, absolutely.
MR. STRANG: Back to the moving of bones now, when you say you agree that human remains were moved here, are you talking about moved a little bit within one site, or moved from point A to point B, or both?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Given that there are three locations, from my understanding, where we have bone having been documented to have come from, then we are talking point A to B or to C, as the case may be.
MR. STRANG: Okay. Now, we have been calling these the area behind Steven Avery's garage, or sometimes called it the burn area?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Yes.
MR. STRANG: The Janda burn barrel, is that --
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Yes.
MR. STRANG: -- the second. And then there's what I call, at least, the quarry pile or quarry site.
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Yes.
MR. STRANG: On that, Dr. Eisenberg testified, as I recall, that she only suspected that she was seeing human bone fragments, maybe two from the pelvis, one from the iliac crest and that there were other bones that she initially suspected to be human, some of which she later determined were animal --
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Yes.
MR. STRANG: -- bone, and some of which remain undetermined, still possibly human and possibly not?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Yes, that's my understanding.
MR. STRANG: Do you have any reason to disagree with that?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: No, I do not.
MR. STRANG: Okay. So -- But -- But as I understand it, in your opinion, human bone fragments were found in the Janda burn barrel?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Yes, that's my understanding from the report.
MR. STRANG: And human bone fragments behind Mr. Avery's garage?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Yes, that's correct.
MR. STRANG: Okay. So, at least those two sites, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, in your opinion, you got human bone?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Yes, I take Dr. Eisenberg at her word.
MR. STRANG: Okay. And, again, I think we touched on this, but do you see any evidence, in your independent review, that we have the remains of more than one person?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: No, it is consistent, from the inventory that she provides in her report, it's consistent with one individual.
MR. STRANG: Are you able to say anything about whether bone fragments in the area behind the garage were or were not moved, disturbed, or the verb was you used, in that general area behind Mr. Avery's garage?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Based on the recovery techniques, I have no evidence or any documentation to be able to make any determination.
MR. STRANG: Well, can you agree with Dr. Eisenberg's opinion, as I recall it, that probably the area behind Mr. Avery's garage was the original burn site for the bone fragments, wherever found?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: I cannot agree with that at this point.
MR. STRANG: Why not?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Well, because, firstly, the documentation. The documentation itself did not lend itself to that interpretation, so I can make no inference whatsoever from that.
MR. STRANG: Okay. Well, let's -- let's go to the reasons that Dr. Eisenberg gave in support of her -- her view. She -- she -- she told us that the greater amount -- the greatest amount, by far, of human bone or human remains, was found behind the garage, with much less found in the Janda burn barrel, and still much less, if it was human at all, at the quarry site?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Yes, that's what I understand.
MR. STRANG: Does that, in your professional opinion, support the view that, therefore, the Avery garage was the most likely burn site?
MR. STRANG: Why not?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: I have been involved in cases where human cremains have been burned in one location and moved to another location. And in those cases, in fact, the actual location where the bones have been moved to, in other words, their ultimate location of where they have been buried, or placed in another context, tends to be the location where most of the remains are. And in those -- in that instance, for example, I have recovered elements or parts of the skeleton from all areas of the body.
MR. STRANG: Okay. Wait a minute, I want to stop you.
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Sure.
MR. STRANG: Are you saying that in your experience, when -- when burnt bones are moved, you tend to find the majority of them away from the place in which they were burned; in other words, find them in the place to which they were moved, not from which they were moved?
MR. FALLON: Objection, leading.
MR. STRANG: I want to make sure I understood your testimony.
THE COURT: I'm going to allow it.
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: I understand that, from your question, the answer is, yes, in the cases I have dealt with where human cremains have been moved, the majority of them have been from the body and making up the largest portion of the body, from the ultimate final place where they were actually moved to.
MR. STRANG: When you had those situations, how have you been able to determine that?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: As far as the numbers, or --
MR. STRANG: No, the -- you know, that the bones were moved to this place.
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Well, we have found small fragments in some in situ, or shall we say the original location of the burn, determined by the excavation techniques I have told you about where items have been missed. And then other -- all the other items have been taken and moved.
MR. STRANG: Well, and this brings me back to Dr. Eisenberg, because it's -- as I recall, the second point she made in support of the conclusion that the area behind the garage was the probable burn site, is that that's where she found the smaller, more delicate bones, facial bones, dental structures, that kind of thing. Does finding the smaller and more delicate bone fragments support the conclusion, in your experience, that this must be the place where the original burn occurred?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: No, it does not.
MR. STRANG: Why not?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Well, we have actually been able to recover fragmentary teeth, facial bones, very small bones from the body, including even we found bones from the middle ear, which are about a millimeter in size, in one of these locations where the bones have been moved to.
MR. STRANG: In other words, they have survived -- some of these small bones have survived moving?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Yes, they have.
MR. STRANG: And then identifiable in another place?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Yes, that's correct.
MR. STRANG: Say the bones in the middle ear?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Yes.
MR. STRANG: How many of these bones are there?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Three in each middle ear.
MR. STRANG: One millimeter each?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Approximately, yeah.
MR. STRANG: Okay. Well, and I think the third thing, as I recall Dr. Eisenberg's testimony, which she cited in support of her opinion, that the area behind the garage was the probable burn site, is that it looked like there had been only one burn event; you know, that there had been only one fire. Do you follow what I'm saying, everything had been burned in one place?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Yes.
MR. STRANG: Does that support the opinion that the Avery garage was the probable site?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Not necessarily, as a result -- one cannot tell how many burns actually took place in that location. From my own experience, I have actually dealt with cremation cases where somebody has actually used a traditional burn area in there own yard for the location of a burn itself. So if there's a fire pit that's at hand, then that's where it's been.
MR. STRANG: Well, but I guess I'm talking about cases in which we're agreed that bones have been moved --
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Yes.
MR. STRANG: -- after burning.
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Yes, that is, in fact, the case, yes. We do have instances where there can be even re-burning going on and certainly burns going on before that. So you can't tell how many burn events took place, that's the bottom line.
MR. STRANG: Okay. Can you -- Can you give us an opinion about where the original burn site was for the human remains, eventually given to Dr. Eisenberg?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: No, I cannot, not from the evidence that I have reviewed.
MR. STRANG: Is -- Is -- Can you rule out the area behind the Avery garage?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: The way I would phrase it is, I fail to exclude it.
MR. STRANG: So, in other words, it's a possible place?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Certainly.
MR. STRANG: Okay.
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Certainly.
MR. STRANG: Based on the information you have, were there other possible burn sites, let's say, on the larger Avery property?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Oh, certainly, yes.
MR. STRANG: Such as?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: The barrel for one; I -- I can't rule that out. My understanding, from the scene of the actual overall property, that there is a wood type of furnace, I understand, on the property. And there's even, as I recall, an aluminum smelter on the property.
MR. STRANG: Okay. Now, you personally haven't looked at any of these?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: I have not examined any of these. I have never been to the Avery property.
MR. STRANG: All right. Yet alone in November of 2005?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Not at all.
MR. STRANG: Okay. And what -- what can you say about other unknown possible burn sites here?
SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE: Well, I can't exclude any other location as being impossible, because simply I have no evidence to that affect.
MR. STRANG: Well, let's -- let's go back --