Crimeatorium - The State of Florida vs. Laurie Shaver | The Murder of Michael Shaver | Part 2

Episode Date: September 20, 2026

In November 2015, Michael Shaver, a Disney World employee and father of two, seemingly vanished from his Florida home. His wife, Laurie, told friends and family that he had abandoned them and started a new life. But as the years passed without anyone seeing or speaking to Michael, questions began to mount.When a concerned friend finally contacted authorities, investigators turned their attention to the Shaver property, where a disturbing discovery would transform a missing-person investigation into a murder case.What followed was an extraordinary trial involving conflicting accounts, accusations of deception, and testimony that would leave jurors with difficult questions about what really happened to Michael Shaver.In this eight-part condensed courtroom series, Crimeatorium takes you inside the trial of Laurie Shaver through carefully selected testimony, evidence, and courtroom proceedings. Follow the prosecution and defense as they present their cases..New episodes of this series will be released every Thursday and Sunday. Look for Part 3 this Thursday, September 24.If you’d like to support Crimeatorium and help fund its research and production, visit crimeatorium.com/support.Music:CO.AG Music https://www.youtube.com/@co.agmusic1823If you have a case suggestion for Crimeatorium, please send it to [e-mail] this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/crimeatorium4542/donations

to true crime stories with crime atro ron my name's uh robert mercato you know michael shenho yes how mean you know michael we first met at work uh in our apprenticeship mechanical apprenticeship and uh from there on we hit it off when you talk about your apprenticeship at work where did i had uh Walt Disney World and were you guys going through the apprenticeship at the same time we ended up at the same location he was a year ahead of me How long is that a practice? It's a four-year apprenticeship. Through Michael Schaeber, did you ever meet his wife, Mori Schaeer?

Yes. And did you ever go over to their house to visit or socialize? Yes, multiple times. In November of 2015, what kind of vehicle did you have? I had a gray explorer. In November of 2015, did you ever go pick Michael Schaver up from his home and take him anywhere so he can leave his family? No. Did you ever take him to Georgia and drop him off anywhere up there? No.

Going back to November 2015, did you have any upcoming plans with Vital Schaever for later in the month? Yes, we were planning on having Thanksgiving together. When was the last time that he physically saw or spoke in person to Michael Schiff? It was at least a month before we were making plans for Thanksgiving. Did you ever receive any contact about those Thanksgiving plans, either canceling it or doing anything with those plans? Yes, I messaged him multiple times a couple weeks before just to solidify the event. And after that, he just typed him back saying that he wasn't, we were canceling it. Was there anything unusual about your correspondence with him about that event after November 10th of 2015?

Yeah, he kind of just stopped talking to me and said he wanted to be left alone. Was that out of character for sure? Absolutely. Nothing further. Mr. Wiggs? Yes. Mr. McCudder, then did you ever go over there? Transport Mr. Shaver to her from the residence?

Yes. Okay. What was that regarding? Depends, really. in which time you're Was there more than one time? Yeah, I used to go over there all the time. Was there any time that you transported,

removed any goods of his, any items of clothing with him? Leaving the residence. The one time I picked him up from court and took him to his residence. Obtained some things? Yeah, to pick up his... Okay. And were you there at any time

when there was any violence between Mr. Schaever and Ms. Schaeber? Yes. Okay. So you witnessed that? Yes. And there was a 911 call, correct? Not at that time, no. Okay.

Did you have to get between Mr. Shaver? I had to get between both of them. Okay. When Mr. Shaver left the residence, do you know where he resided? I took him home with me that night, and then the following day, he stayed at the Warbirds Museum hangar for roughly better part of the year after that. Okay. Did you witness any homicide at this case? No, sir.

You know what Mr. Schaever was doing? 24 hours before his death? No, sir. You know who was it? Mr. Schaeber? No. Four hours before his death? No, I did not.

Well, Norman, please catch. Yes, sir. Some of his stuff so he can leave the residence. And while he was doing that, I started to hear arguments, and they started fighting just arguments. And at that time, when I walked in

I noticed that she had a gun in her hand and she was waving it around and saying she was going to hurt herself so I separated them removed the weapon from the area consoled her and tried to calm her down while he got the rest of his stuff and then we left so when you're referring to

some violence that you've observed between that you never saw Michael Schaber touch or strike the shaver in any way no he would never The only thing that you saw was Mr. Schaever brandishing a weapon and making firms. Yes. Nothing further. Mr. Wigg was my one-one call?

Not that I'm aware of that time, no. Okay. Did you see anything happened to Mr. Shaver? Not that night. Okay. Mr. Schaever was acting aggressive on that night, correct? They both were. They both were.

Okay. And Mr. Schaever's the one that left the resident. correct? Yes, I took him with me. Out of his necessity because of his act of violence, correct? It was for the betterment of both of them that he left. He left by law, correct? Not that night, no. Not that night. It was a different night?

It was the previous night. I see. Okay. And you came to retrieve his belongings with him, correct? Yes. And he was acting violent at that time? No, he was not. Okay. You just stated you got in between the two of them.

Yes. Because they were acting violent, correct? While he was trying to retrieve his stuff, yes. Okay. Thank you. My name is Brian Douglas Schaver. I was the brother of Michael, Douglas Schaver. And are you his older brother or younger brother? I'm the oldest.

How much on her? I'm actually 13 years older than Michael was. Were you still living in the home when he was born? Yes, I was. Was there a period of time where you grew up together? No, my parents got divorced when I was about 15 years old. So Michael was only a couple years old. Now, we spent a lot of summers and Christmas breaks and stuff like that together,

but not really under the same roof. So after the time frame that Michael, they stayed with one or the other? Yes, I went with my father, and he stayed with my mother. And during holidays and summers, half of that, except when you're talking about. That is correct. And do you know Lori Shaker?

Yes. And you met her through Michael? Yes, through Michael. About when did you first meet? That was after they got married. They had moved to Florida. They had moved to Florida on two different occasions. It was the first time that I had actually met her.

Prior to as Deb, how often would you talk for Steve? They actually came to my house in Georgia, two or three. Fourth of July's, we'd have a cookout and kind of a family to get together. And then we'd talk occasionally through telephone call or text. In 2015, were you living in Georgia then? Yes, I was. And with July 2015, the last time that they came and visited you for one of those more than July's? No, it should have been. It was probably around 2012.

2011 or 12, I'm not sure exactly the year. During the sign frame after that 2012 visit, up until the sign frame where the search chamber disappeared, how would you community enable them? I know I had a couple phone calls with them, primarily text or Facebook message. And was there a time frame where you just were not able to get in tough? Yes. Probably started in late 2014. And was there a period of time where you started to worry about his wear files? Yes, when there was no contact.

My mother had gotten sick, was in the hospital. We couldn't get a hold of him to let him know about her sickness. How was the family reaching out to let him know about his father's statement? We called text, Facebook message, Facebook. you know, the on the wall, whatever you want to call it, and tried to call, like say, and left voicemails, but there was no, ever no return.

And when, what period of time was that? I really don't recall on that. Probably, probably close to six months. What year are we talking about? Oh, oh. I believe it was 2015, but I'm not 100% sure on that. And so when you respond to Eddie of that?

No. And have you seen or spoken to Michael? Sheavers. Well, I received some text messages or, no, let me rephrase that, I received some Facebook messages from what I believed was Michael. But, you know, at the time, we didn't know he was missing and, you know, I assumed that it was him. Anything about the message that caught here? He's sort of concerned. No, not at the time.

All right, sidebar, please. anything else to tone or tenor of those responsibly any of those approaches? No, there was one particular one that I assumed that it was him because there was nothing evident at the time that he had asked for my mother's phone number,

our mother's phone number, and said that he had tried to get a hold of her. It was much after she was sick and asked me if it had changed and I texted back and said no to it hadn't changed and gave the phone number again just to make sure that he had the correct one. I think that was the last communication I had.

Is it fair to say that your contact with your father over the years was not frequent? No, I'd say it was more occasional than frequent. And the various occasional responses that you and other family members may have received in 2015-2016 through Facebook or other sources such as that, did that alleviate initial concerns that something was wrong with my? not to me because I felt that there was communication even though it was very limited but that kind of took you know the worry that he was you know something was wrong nothing further tough mr. Wigg mr. Schaver have you ever been to you a brother's house no sir I have not

never even been there nope so when we're talking about communications we're not talking about many communications are I mean telephone and I mean a visit Did you call Lori Schaeber? No. No. Never thought to pick up a button call home? No. You stated this surfaced around 2014?

I believe so. Okay. And how long did this go on before you thought something may be up? I mean, when the communications stopped, we began to really worry that what happened to him, where did he go? Did he disappear? Did something bad happen to him? How long? What was that period of time that you said, hey, maybe we need to do something? Probably a year. A year. Okay. So was it in 2016?

I don't recall. You don't recall. Okay. And so you never pick up a phone and call Lori? No, I didn't even have her telephone number. Okay. That's how close y'all were, correct? I was not close with Lori, no. Okay. You're not present sitting here telling the jury you witnessed any kind of homicide, correct? No, I did not.

Okay. You didn't, you don't know who we was with the last 24 hours, correct? No, I do not. You don't know how about any altercation that transpired, correct? I know of a previous one, yes. Okay. You know of a previous one. Okay.

Did you witness this previous? I did not. Okay. So you don't see any kind of? of altercation, you just say, hey, we heard from Michael the last around 2014, correct? Correct? And sometime thereafter, I don't know, we became a little concerned, correct? Correct.

And yet we never call Lori, correct? I did not myself personally. Right. Thank you. Please introduce you yourself here. My name is Douglas Schaber. And did you know Lake Shaver? Yes, he's my son.

And how many children did you have? I have four. And where is Michael? Michael would see he would have been next to the youngest. At some point while he was a child, did you and his mother divorce? Yes, we did. What type of contact would you have with Michael Schumer after that? I would have him during the summer months.

I'd have him flown down, and then I'd usually have him at Christmas time. What kind of contact would you have with him once he became an adult? it was limited did there come a period of its high in 2014 where Michael was not living with his wife born I really don't know and was Michael ever in the military no after November of 2015

did there come at time where the family started being concerned about Michael Schaeber's wearouts yes and can you describe of the things that the family started to do once they became concerned. I'm not much into texting, and basically what I was told from other family members that were texting back and forth.

Objection. Judge Gierstay. My question specifically was, what types of things was the family doing once the thing, not why you all were concerned, but what types of things were done once the concern began? Then they just started searching and contacted the sheriff department. Were you able to have any sort of contact either talking to Mr. Schaeber on the phone or speaking to him in person after November of 2050? No.

And once the body was discovered in the backyard of the Schaeber residence, did law enforcement contact you about that discovery? I was down there. And were you present? and then you submit a DNA sample to law enforcement for future comparisons? I did. Nothing further, Judge. Mr. Wiggs? Mr. Shaver, you were relatively estranged from your son.

Were you not? For a period of time. During the time, when did you guys have this re-finification? Pardon me. When was there ever a reunification between you? I really don't understand the question. When did you guys get back together? Oh, okay. In approximately September of 2014.

14. Did you have been to the Shaver residents? I've never been there, except the day that, when they discovered his body. Okay. And you live where? You live where? I live in Georgia. Okay.

So you're up in Georgia. You have some reunification. You never went to the Shaver residence, correct? That's correct. Okay. I'm going to ask you an obvious question. And obviously, he never occurred on the wrong side in this case, correct? That's correct.

You don't know how Michael died, to die from day of his death, didn't know? Do I not know how he died? You did not observe it. Oh, no, no. You don't know who was present. That's correct. Okay, you know who was involved in any event to the demise of your son, correct? That's correct.

All right. I have no further the questions, she I have. All right, redirect. Let me go ahead. Please introduce yourself to the term. Hi, I am Desirey Regals. Did you know Michael Scher? Yes. He was my uncle.

Did you know Lori Schenker? Yes. And you ever met her? Yes. And prior to Michael's death, how often would you communicate with him? Never. Or, sorry, with him. Yes.

when I was able to. Did you communicate with him at all about the sign frame where you were getting married? I don't remember, honestly. Did you send an invitation? I don't believe so, but I don't remember. You had communications with him after me you were married? Yes. And he was aware of the marriage?

Yes. And therefore aware that your name had changed from Snyder. Judge, leading judge. Oh, will please proceed. So he was a human being aware of that? Yes. In 2015, where were you living? I was living in Lawrence at the time.

I'm sorry, where? In Lawrence, New York. Was there a period of time in 2018, where you reached out, I'm sorry, 2016, where you reached out to Michael Schaver and, essentially, to communicate with him? Yes. And how did you do that? Facebook Messenger. When that communication occurred, would that have been after the wedding?

Yes. And after your name change? Yes. And when you sent that message, was that through your profile? Yes. And so it would have reflected your name of Desiree Russell. I had gotten a new Facebook, so it might have been from my previous. I've got to show what the previous.

Mr. Martin Stake's a bit why. I'll show that to the defense. I'm showing you communication why you recognize this communication for that between yourself and the Facebook account of Michael Scherke. Yes, I do. And had you reached out to Mr. Schaeber in 2016 and is that reflected there and those messages? Yes.

have an accurate documentation of the messages that you've said to have received from the Michael Jaber baseball. Yes. Now, I've got to go ahead and start you with the message, which message that was sent here on August 15, 2016, was that message from you? Yes. And what was the content of that message? I was just saying hello to my uncle. Go ahead, and read it and just a right on. It says, hey, Uncle Michael. And above that is the response that you received? Yes. And what was that response?

Who are you? And did you respond to that? Yes. And what was your response? I'm your niece. Did Michael's Facebook account respond to you when you said that you are the deceased? Yes. And what was that response?

I don't have any family anymore. I have no clue who you are. No stop messaging me. And that message that appears to have been set on September 20th, 2016? Yes. No further questions, Judge. My name is you, Wiggs?

Yes, may I please support. Yes, sir. And the last time you saw Michael Schaeber was, what, 2001? That era of time? Around there. Around there, okay? He was relatively estranged from his father, correct? I don't know.

You don't know, okay? You made no trips to Florida, correct? No. You never went to the Shaver residence, correct? No. Michael Shaver was pretty much on his own outside the family. Was he not? No.

There were no visits, no homecomings, correct? When he would visit. Last time you saw him, about 2001, correct? Yeah. Okay. In your email thread that's moved into evidence at this stage, do you know the physical address it went to? His Facebook profile. Could it not be somebody at Starbucks using his account?

Could have been? Could it? Reasonable? Yeah. Right. Could have been somebody in Michael Schaever's house, other than Michael Schaeve, correct? I mean, I guess. Yeah.

Could have been Michael Schaever himself, correct? Yes. Thank you. State called Scott in about 60-0. Did you know Michael Schaefer? Yes. How did you know what kind? We were best friends.

And we did you first meet Mike. It's about second grade. Where were you all living in this? In a small town, Lawrence, New York. and what about Mori Shaver? When did you first meet her? We had all known each other since about kindergarten. We all went to the same K through 12th school.

I didn't really start to hang out with her until they started to date. When did Michael and Lori first her? It was about eighth grade. Specifically, were you present when they first got together? Yes, he asked her out in my bedroom. Did he make any special requests to you at that back? Yeah, he had me play boys to me. in the background.

Did you maintain a relationship with them after everyone graduated high school? I did. Did you stay in New York after hospital? Yes, there was periods of time where I moved to Florida, moved back to New York, moved back to Florida. What about Michael and Lori, did they maintain their relationship after hospital? Yes. Did you maintain your friendship with both of them? Yes.

Did they stay in New York? What did they do? We all tended to kind of follow each other around. It's just how it worked out. So I would live in New York, and they happen to be in New York. I moved to Florida. Eventually they would move to Florida. It just happened to work out that way.

Eventually, we all settled down in Florida. When they were living in Claremont, Florida, where were you living? Gainesville, Florida, for most of that time, and then I had moved to St. Petersburg, Florida, toward the end. Now, at some point, did you start dating a woman by the name of Katina Vastings? I did. Wait at that relation? That started about 2000 and, it's been so long, 2006, 2007 that time frame.

Where did that relationship be in? New York. And at some point, were you and Katina engaged? Yes. And did she come with you and move down to Florida? and one of these time frames where you were living down here, might well worry about living down here. Yes.

And when they came down, did Katina and Lori become friends with each other? They did. They became close friends. Now, I want to move to March of 2015. Were you still dating Katina at that? March 2015, no. After you and Katina ended your relationship, did she maintain a friendship with Lori Scher?

She did. Going back to that March of 2015, was there a time frame that Michael Schinger came to visit you at your home after the breakup with Katrina? Yes, if I recall, that was November of 2014. Okay. When was the status of the relationship between Mike and Lori at that time? He didn't really talk too much about how their relationship, was, I could tell there was some tension and they were on and off. I don't believe they were dating at that time.

I did it. Do you like that speculation as to emotional feelings and mental processes of another individual? Sustained. Did you see him in July of that year? I did. July 2015. Where was that? At his house. And was this the last time you ever saw him in person? It is. After November, it was 15. Did you speak to him by phone or have a thing? me teaching with them. No. Did you attempt to reach out to him between November of 2015 and 2008? A few texts, and then that's it.

Did he have a response to any of your texts? In 2018, did you have a conversation with Katina that she had about a visit at the Christmas in November of 2015? Yeah, that conversation was actually toward the end of 2017, maybe early, 2018. It was right after my then relationship had ended. That's how I can pinpoint that. Did the information that you got give you further concern about Michael Schaeber and the safe? Absolutely. Once you got that information, what did you do?

I messaged Mike's sister on Facebook, told her what I had found out. I told her I'm going to file a missing person report based on that information. It was disturbing. I then called the sheriff's office. And had you talked with Michael Schaeber's family about their inability to get into contact with Mr. Schaeber during this period as well? I did. I have no further questions. Mr. Wicks, yes.

Do you know about any injunctions that have been imposed against Michael Schaeber? I knew it won. Okay. What was that? 2014, 2015, somewhere around that. I don't know the specific details of that. A direct examination, we heard you recall dates pretty quickly, correct? Pretty specifically, correct?

Yes. You remember an injunction, but you think it may be 14, maybe 15, correct? Correct. But you know there was an injunction. Correct. Right. So Michael was not in the house for a certain period of time you were aware of, correct? Correct.

Do you know where any messages came from? I had never received any messages from my own. Okay. What was the last day you received a message if you know where it came from? It would have been that around that time that I had last seen him at his house, and I had never heard from him after that. Did he went to some homo son, his case? Yeah. Do you know where by twice the last 24 hours of his life? Yeah.

You know what life was still in the last 24 hours of his life? Yeah. Do you know any altercation anybody that was involved with fine? Yeah. Thanks. My name is Corey Anderson, and I'm employed with Lake County Sheriff's Office. How long have you worked for the Sheriff's Office? Since 2005?

Back in 2018, what was... I was a corporal on Role Patrol. February... Were you taxed with a well-being general and worrying Michael Schenker. Yes, sir. The report of that, where did you go? So I went to the Sandy Pines Road in Claremont? Was that in Lake County?

Yes, sir. And was that the last of the residence of Michael Schaeff? Correct. And who all was there that you made contact with at that time? So myself and Deputy Kyle Morrison. Who do you make contact with at the same person? Oh, I'm sorry. I made contact with Ms. Lori Shaver.

And do you see her and recognize her in court today? Yes, sir, I do. And when you got there, did you tell her law? I did. And did you ask about where? I did, sir. What did she tell him? She said that she hasn't seen him since I think October 2014, and that he kind of just absconded the family.

Okay. And did she mention to you if she had any full or text contact with him since that? She did mention that he had not reached out to him. the children or her in some time. Did you have to be it was okay to look in the backyard? Yes, sir, I did. Why were you interested in the backyard? Part of the information that we received on the well-being check was that there was a new

cement slab. This is here, sir. Come on up for a sidebar, thank you. Did you go in the backyard? Yes, sir, I did. I observed a cement slab in the backyard where there was, it looked to be like brick rock structure that created the fire pit. In the course of your law enforcement career, have you responded to scenes that involved bodies, burying, and challenges? Yes, sir, I have. And approximately how many times

have you made those types of options? I've been on those scenes, probably between five and 10 scenes similar to that? Yes, sir. And was there anything that you saw about the cemented slab in self that gave you some concerns. Yes, sir. And what was that? So as I approached the cement slab, you could clearly see a depression that was approximately between six feet and three feet in dimension and about eight inches depressed. It had the shape of what could be a normal sized adult body.

So you take photographs of that cement slough at that time? Yes, sir, I did with my cell phone. Yes, sir. I'm showing witness when it's produced to the barc's at Z. You recognize those photographs. Yes, sir. I took these photographs with my phone.

And is that a fair and accurate affection of the cement slats you saw it the day that you were out there with? Yes, sir. Now, Corporal Anderson, is this the first photograph that's in state's number 14? You got to make sure a lot? Yes, sir, it is. Yes. Now, can you step down and just demonstrate to the jury

the area that gave you falls in concern when you're out? Okay, so obviously I took this picture so I'm really standing right here looking at the sentence lab for the legal mischamber was on my left and Deputy Morrison was across from me as I approached with permission being on the property I just sent a few shots with my cell phone so that I could really portray what I'm actually seeing to supervisors to the Commonwealth Investigation Bureau for for group's investigation. I hope so the second photograph is this The other photograph that you talk. Correct. Yes, sir.

Now, can you show the jury the area of that depression that you previously described? This darking area is the depression. It was about 6 feet in length and about 3 feet in width. And it appears to be like a manned cement slab where it would be a sit and couldn't have a depression if it was a shallow grave there. And what we're talking about the depression, are you saying that would not flat? lack of frost. Correct. So you could actually see where that darkening area is where it was depressed and water would settle there which is brought the dirt that stays in the area. And just to make sure everyone's clear, he just points an area on that slide that shows this.

This is the defression here. Thank you. Now, after these observations were made by you, did the sheriff's office and came to search for it to further search for that area and the backyard of the shaper? residents. Yes, sir. Were you involved in the actual excavation of that area? I was not actually involved in an excavation, but I was on scene for scene security. So I'm basically keeping the radio within the Schaver residents just so that we think maintained. The time frame, you made those operations. Did the sheriff's office maintain security with this scene until it was searched? Yes, certainly, then. And when we talk about maintaining that scene or securing it,

What does that appeal? So it was 24-hour security where a deputy sheriff sat up in front of the property, and it was 12-hour shifts. So we had 24-hour coverage on the property until we secured that support. And during that time frame, we're able to maintain visual set on this area in the cement slot. Not you personally, but they would be in position to observe it and make sure the property had not been changed. Correct, yes, sir. Nothing further, Judge. All right, Mr. Wiggs?

Yes, thank you, Judge. Correct. Yes, sir? Okay. Now, so you know what this ground looked like prior to this concrete being? I don't say. Okay.

Do you know if this would have been dug out and it created a natural inclination for the concrete to be placed? Did you remember Mr. Schaehber saying that prior to Mr. Schaefer leaving, they would need to create some type of duct room. But they didn't. You have a little more experience that you've

been in destinations than a lot of people, correct? Some, okay, something, some, something. Okay, invited to this dinosaur corporal. Correct, listen, okay. In this dark spot, led you to believe they might be up there, correct? A shallow grave, sure, but not necessarily a body. You see a garden spawn over there?

Correct, I didn't listen to . Was there there? Not in that facility. I see the Gary Mr. We see shading back in here. Was there any evidence of the crime there? I did see you. Okay.

You see shadow areas throughout this, around these posted stuff. Was there any evidence of the crime or in our body under any of those locations? Yes, sir. Okay. So when y'all were out there doing the excavate, the shade would remain there at the residence,

correct? for most of the time, she was free to leave. Yeah, did she'd leave? Did she do? Didn't she try to take flight any matter about return to the property? No, sir. Okay. Let me introduce yourself to the jury.

Hi, I'm Jessica Wade. Where do you work? I work with the Lake County Sheriff's Office. What do you do for them? I am currently a crime scene investigator. I'm a direct your attention to March 9th of 2018. Does you respond to 9-850, Sandy Pines Road in Claremont? one. Yes. Is that in the league county? Yes. When you arrived there, tell the jury a picture of what you saw and what was

going on. The scene was a large piece of property that was completely fenced off with multiple other fenced off paddocks for animals. The residence was a manufactured home, and it was closest to the road on that piece of property, and then there were multiple marked and unmarked law enforcement vehicles. have you search warrant been obtained that allowed you and other crime scene investigators, law enforcement officers, and the light, to go to that scene to search for evidence? Yes. Is that search warrant signed by a judge? Yes. What's that search warrant was obtained and you all went out there to the scene?

Did you begin to process that scene? Not immediately. At some point, did you? Yes. Generally, what is the term processing a seat aim? Again, it's where we go and observe what we have and then to locate and document the items that are there. During that process, were photographs taken?

Yes. You mentioned photographs were taken? Yes. Showing you must have marked the stations in the L. I mean, for you say that's show him to get the capsule. Can you say to look into that item and tell me you recognize the contents? Yes. Yes.

We're going to go to them individually, but generally what are those photographs show? Those are of the scene. throughout the process. Showing you photo one of Saints 15. What are we looking at here? That is a bird's eye view of most of the property. Was there a dirt mound located about 400 feet away from the residence? Yes.

Showing you photograph 10 of States 15. Is that what you're referring to? Yes. Was ground penetrating radar brought into the scene to assist in looking around? Yes. Who brought that at you? Dr. Sutton with the University of Florida. Was the ground pending of penetrating radar run over this section?

Yes. And generally, without going to real great detail, what did it show? Dr. Sutton advises that she visualized an anomaly on her role on the screen, which shows basically that there's a disturbance within the dirt. So what was done in this area that was about 400 feet away from the main residence? As far as. Was it estimated a little bit? Oh, yes.

Explain how what was done and how that happened. We start out and we do, it has to be done layers at a time, usually a few inches. And each time we get to a certain point, we stop and document with photography, anything that's there. So the lack or the presence of any items. And if there's nothing there, then we document the ducts and then we can continue on into the next step. And ultimately after that process in this area on the property, were any human remains found there? No. About how deep that you guys dig to make that determination?

We ended up for it about 60. Okay. All right. Referring back to the fire pit that you've described in that concrete slab, was there something written in the concrete slab in the concrete? Yes. Well, first of all, can you point where that was located? It's right here on the edge.

Okay, and what was written there? What emblem was there? There's a heart shape with the letters T, the plus sign, and L. Was that kind of like in the concrete before the concrete would have hardened? Yes. All right. Showing you again, photograph eight of States 11. Was there something unusual in that concrete area near the fire fence that drew your attention?

Yes. First of all, the point where that was located. It would be right here on the far side. And kind of describe what was unusual about it. So that area was kind of depressed. It was like sinking in. And then it's also got a lot of discoloration on it. Show me photo 12 of 615.

Where was that depressed area in this photograph? Depression is right here. On the bottom right of photograph? Right. And photograph 13 of 615. Is that another angle of it? Yes. Was brown penetrating radar also brought into this area

and run over top this depressed area? Yes. And again, generally we're not going in for a detail. What was about? Dr. Simmons, again, reported an anomaly on the screen. So what was the? decided to be done in this area regarding that anomaly. At this point, we decided it would be beneficial

to do an excavation at this site as well. Showing your photograph 14 of states 15. Can you describe the jury how it was that you went about excavating this, the initial stages? First, we had to document everything as it was, and then we had to remove the concrete so that we could start doing the excavation process. And what was done with the pieces of

concrete that were broken up. They were set aside. Showing you photo 15 of States 15. What is this show? Just shows that they're continuing to remove the concrete. And photograph 16. What do we see here? It's the continuation. That's it. Freaking removed and it cleaned out. Photograph 17. What is this show? At this point, we're removing the the papers that are around the actual fire pit and then going through the fire pit itself. Was the fire pit basically demolished in this process?

Yes. Okay. Can you describe for the jury the process that you go through when you're performing an exclamation like digging in the sifting process? So once we, like I said before, we have the layers of dirt that we pull out. Once we pull the dirt out, they go into these buckets and then they get taken into sifting stations and we take turns sifting through, and it's a fine mesh material,

so the smaller items are not able to fall through, and in case we don't see them in the dirt, we're able to find them in a sifting tray. Is this a process that takes a half an hour or can it take a long time, sometimes days? It sometimes can go up to days, depending on what we're doing. Photograph 18. What do we see here? This is where the 80, a good portion of the dirt has been removed. Photograph 19 of States 15.

What is this show? It shows a bone for a hospital bone sticking out of this. You point in the photograph where that is? It will be right here towards the center. Photograph 20 of States 15. What do we see here? That is the phone that was removed from the term. What was done eventually with this boat? This bone and anything else that we found,

phone related, was then transported with the medical examiner's office, factor the animal zoom out. Photograph 21 of States 15. What is this show? And this shows approximately the depth at which we found that bone. And about how deep was that bone located? About 20 inches.

Once you found that humorous bone, about what time was it in the day? It would be about 1705 or 505 p.m. Now considering it was probably going to be getting dark relatively soon, and you still had more work to do, What decision was made about continuing or stopping? At that point, we decided that it would be more beneficial to hold the scene for the evening and then return the following morning.

What do you mean by hold the sea? To secure it, cover it with tarps, and make sure that nothing else can get in, and then had deputies that closed it on scene overnight to ensure that nobody had access to the area. So when was the next time you came back to the scene? The following morning at around 7 a.m. And did investigators from the medical examiners office also come to assess? Yes. Is that common for medical examiners, investigators to come to the scene and be involved in this process?

Yes. You mentioned it was an investigator. The actual medical examiner, the doctor, the autopsy wasn't there, was the med examiner investigators? Correct. That morning were additional photographs taken at the scene? Yes. Showing you photograph 22 of states 15.

What do we see here? This is how we left the scene. scene before we left. We secured the tarp over the opening and then placed canopies over. So that canopy there was placed by law enforcement? Yes. And we see several different blue tarps. Are those law enforcement's blue tarts? Yes. And why are there some of those blue tarps that have dirt on them? Those tarps were set up from the sifting station, so once it's sifted, it stays on that tarp. Did you and your team continue this digging and sifting the excavating, process. Yes. What is this show? Photograph 23 of

States 15. Right here towards the center, it shows the edge of a blue tarp. This is not a blue tarp, the law enforcement policy, correct? Correct. When you come across things like this, like a blue tarp, how do you make sure you don't damage the tarp or the item in the whole digging process? Are you using big old shovels or what do you do it? Initially we are using larger shovels once we come across any items that are deemed to be of evidentiary value. We then switch to smaller like hand tools and brushes so that nothing else does get destroyed or damaged. Showing you

photograph 24 of states 15. What do we see here? Again here in the center it's more of the tarp that's been exposed and where all those buckets around? Those are four the the dirt that's being removed as we're taking it out. And those buckets then go to the Sifting stations? Yes. Photograph 25 of States 15. What is this show? Right here we have the tarp and then we found another ball. Photograph 26 of States 15. What do we see there? Yeah, it's a close-up of those. It wasn't from the previous photo. And what was done with this phone? It was also eventually transported with the rest of the remains. Photograph 27 of States 15. What else was found? What do we see in this photograph. These are smaller bones presumed to be probably hand from the hand bones and they were

placed in this Tupperware container so they did not get displaced. I'm assuming law enforcement brought this tougherware and you said yes just to store the items yes photograph 28 of states 15 what do we see here right here we have another couple of bones that have been exposed and these photographs are kind of showing the progression of the excavation process yes all right photograph 29 of states 15 what else was located next to that blue tarp or underneath that blue tarp? In the area of the blue tarp you see this green strap is similar to that of like a ratchet strap. Did you locate any part of like an elastic sheet with that strap or near the strap? Yes. Can explain what you found? So the elastic that we found is consistent with what would be from like a fitted sheet from bed and then that

That always for me was to be a last can. I'm showing you if an argument induced into evidence and states that at three I'm not going to ask you fold out and see that pictures. But he's become of this side and something like that nice what's inside.

You want some gloves? There's somewhere over there. Yes. In there we have the strap in the tuckerware container of Gisling. I'll see what should. Photographed 30 of states

15, what does this show? This is more of the bones that were exposed and with the browned strap and the blue tarp. Photograph 31 of States 15. What do we see here? That has most of the tarp exposed and then it shows the green

strap that's kind of tied around the tarp. 32 of States 15? This is a close-up of the strap, the tarp, and then you can start to be eating more bones that are exposed. So what's the top?

the blue tarp both on top of and beneath the bones and the strap? Yes. So is it consistent with the bones and the strap being wrapped in the new tarp? For a time. Photograph 33. What does this show? And this shows the tarp being removed from the site. And was that tarp collected as evidence? Yes. I'm showing you state's exhibit one in evidence already. You're looking at looking from here? Yes, that's the... In the packaging I just showed you, is the blue tarp in different sections?

Yes. Okay, we'll get to explain why that in a few minutes. Photograph 34 of States 15. What do we see here? We're vulnerable and that litig's done after the tarp was removed. Photograph 35, is the chart fully removed? Yes. And was the rest of the skeleton eventually located?

Yes. And what do we see here in photo 36 of States 15? That is part of the rest of the remains that were found, along with the rest of the skeleton. the green strap. Photograph 37. What does this show? This is when we're actually removing the rest of the remains from the site.

The white sheet. Is that a sheet provided by law enforcement or was that in the grave? That is provided by the not of the Alexander's office and that you heard it underneath very carefully and we're able to look out the remainder. Was a skull found?

Yes. Showing you, photographs 38 of states 15. What do we see here? This is the top fours. Were photos taken to show the depth of where the bone were located? Yes. And what does photograph 39 show? This is showing that the bones were located at about 36 inches.

Cut three feet down. Yes. Photograph 40 of States 15. Was any clothing located on any part of the human remains? Yes. What was fat? Remains had a pair of boxers and then a pair of underwear, shorts and also a care of socks. Were those clothing items actually were the bones

contained inside of those clothing items as if they were being worn at the time? Yes. And were those items also collected? Showing you introduced in Devon in states four and five. Do you recognize the assets would be weapon? That will be the sports with the boxers and then also the socks. During the excubation process for any fibers that look like hair collected as well. Yes. And what would have, what would happen with those items during the collection process? Those items we collected and submitted as evidence. During the sifting process, were any additional items located, such as, you know, smaller bones,

nails, things like that. Yes. What was found? Sure, we found a couple of the smaller bones. And then we also found pieces of fingernail and some more hair like fibers. You mentioned that the human remains collectively were transported to the medical examiners office? Yes. Is that customary? Yes. And who would have done that transport?

They have a transport unit with the medical examiner's office that does that process. Once the human remains were removed from that hole, did you and your team members continue to dig further beneath? Yes. Why? We continue to dig just to make sure that nothing is located. below where the remains were found. And then once we reach a part of compact area, we know that we've reached the bottom portion of that site.

Was anything of significance found below where the bones were located? No. Before the fire pit was dismantled by the heavy equipment, was that examined? Yes. I was showing you photograph 41 of States 15. Was a piece of laminated flooring located within that fire pit?

Yes. And was that item? collective. Showing you also already introducing evidence to State 6. Do you like that's that I can decide that day? Yes. What is it? That's the state that's born. Okay.

Switching gears a little bit. Showing you photograph 42 of States 15. What part of the residence do we see here? This is the back door of the residence if the attached porch. Photograph 43 of Sates 15. What is this?

Sliging glass door on the backside of the house. Did you examine? and the sliding glass door that we see here in the photograph. Yes. Why? We just wanted to rule out that there were any bodily fluids that may have been present at some time. Did you use any other type of device to help you look for the presence of bodily fluids? Yes.

What'd you do? At this point, it was a little later in the evening when it was darker, but we used a chemical blue star, and it is a preliminary test to see if there's the presence of blood. There's the presence of blood, and it reacts with the chemologian and the iron in the blood. And when you use that blue star, is it a spray or a liquid, or what is it? They come as tablets, we have to mix them into water. And once they're dissolved, we can spray it using a regular spray bottle. And when you sprayed the area of the track, the sliding glass door, what happened?

There was a reaction. The reaction that it has is a luminescence, so it turns blue. If there is any kind of reaction. Now, does that mean if it turns blue and luminous, does that mean there's definitely blood there? No. Why? Other things can react. Again, since it reacts with iron, if there's any iron in the material that we spray, that could also react, or some cleaning material also can react.

So what did you do as far as documenting that area and collecting evidence from that area of the sliding of the store? The area was photographed and swapped for ultimately collected from the area. Can you explain to the jury how you would go about? collecting a sample using a swap from an area like that. When we swab something, we have to use sterile water. We put one drop-liff sterile water just to hydrate the sterile cotton swab. And then once that takes place, we can kind of go back and forth several times of the area to make sure we get a large enough sample. Did you perform that process and collect swabs from both the inside and outside traps at that sliding last door?

Yes. Showing you what's been marked evidence to say Zs ZIPJ and states K. They're telling you to recognize those packages. Yes. Are they sealed now? Yes. Okay. Because there's incentive right forward by the length of sand. You could open those up, look inside

and tell me to recognize the contents. Yes. You recognize both? Yes. What's inside there? Both of these are swabs. This one is from the interior of the lower door frame and then this one is the swaps from the exterior lower door frame. Are they same or substantially the same condition as when you collected them from those locations? Yes. This time you're on the statement move J and evidence at 16.

Any objection? No objection. Were these two exhibits sent to the foreign department law enforcement for DNA analysis? Yes. As a crime scene investigator, do you have any involvement whatsoever in the actual DNA analysis? No. showing you photograph 42 of states 15 again. Did you also examine an area beneath the depth? Yes.

Generally, where did you look? So we'll be kind of right behind where the stairs are, but underneath where the door is. Okay. Photograph 44 of states 15, what do we see here? This is the underside of the porch and this would do the area. Photograph 45 of states 15. What is this show? That is a close up to the area of the,

the siding and the porch underneath where the slide of the floors are. Okay, let's show you another close up. Photograph 46 of States 15. What is this show? This just shows some unknown stains that were kind of exposed underneath. And you said there are only no saints at this point you didn't know what it was, right? Did you use anything like the Blue Star process you described earlier in this? And what happened when you hit that? Again, there was a small reaction. So that area was eventually squawed.

and again turned in as evidence. Again, just because it reacted doesn't necessarily mean it's blood, right? Correct. But out of an abundance of caution, did you collect the swap? Correct. Does you use the same process you just described?

Yes. Showing what's the mark is evidence of states by for identification. You recognize that? Yes. And how do you recognize it? This has the case number of my initials and the date in the description of the I.

Is it also sealed? Yes. And you know, we're not looking I can recognize the contents. Yes. What's inside? That would be the swabs from the underside of the no. Are they in the same or the same condition as when you collected them that day? Yes. It's time to say that I and evidence the Saints 18. No objection. It was this item as well sent to the four department of law enforcement for further DNA analysis. Yes it was. Again you've had no involvement in that process. No. We directed attention to January 17th,

2019, did you and crime scene investigator Jessica Beard, now Jessica Holcomb, go to the Lake County Sheriff's Office, evidence location, I guess, for lack of a better word, and process an item collected in this case. Yes. What did you process? We processed the TARP. Which TARP? The TARP that was removed from the excavation site. And what was your purpose? What were you looking for in processing the TARC? We were looking for any kind of potential damage to the TARC. and or bottle-y fluids in any turn. Where did you do this examination? Because the chart's pretty big.

We had to use the vehicle processing bay to the sheriff's office. What did you do? I'm assuming you didn't just start the tarp on the floor and start looking. What did you do to ensure that the tarp would maintain a clean area and things like that? We placed a brand new clean tarp that was larger

than this particular tarp underneath so that we could then do it. we needed to do to process it. Showing, you photographed 47 of States 15. What do we see here? That is the tarp that was from the excavation site, opened up and placed on top of the larger tarp. What did you do to examine that tarp or process?

We visually examined it, and then we also used an alternate light source on it. Explain what that is. The alternate light source has several different wavelengths of light that are used, and you can use different colored filters such as orange, red, or yellow, to then enhance the fluorescence that may be given off if there are any fluids exposed. And what were the results of the analysis after you use that alternate light source? They were presumptively positive. Did you, at some point you said

earlier that the tarp was divided up and cut up into sections? Yes. Why was that done? We separated into flaw dress basically so we could further analyze it and know which section we were working with. When you were examining the tarp, did you locate any defects or damage to it? Yes. And how many different places did you find that there was a defect or some kind of damage? There were two locations that we noted. Showing you photograph 48 of states 15. What do we see here?

In this one, in the upper left one here, we have a little bit of a tear. Is your job as a crime scene investigator who's just basically to document what you see in any kind of anomaly? Correct. Okay. Photograph 50 of States 15. What is this show? This one shows that there's a small defect as well right here towards the center of this image. Is that a different defect than the one we just looked at it in the previous startup? Yes.

Okay. Photograph 51. What is this show? That's your show's a close-up of the defect that we found in the other spot. the other spot. I noticed there's a marker there. It says interior. What does that mean? And how did you know that's the interior? So this was labeled as the interior side because this is the side that was ultimately wrapped around the remains. So we're calling that the interior and then the other side from the default exterior. In photograph 52 of states 15. What does this show? That shows the exterior side to the opposite side of the previous image. Did you set? separate this area from the tarp from the rest of it?

Yes. And what was the point? Why would you do that? We did that just so that it could be analyzed if it needed to be without sending the entire tarp. And showing you states that two already out of the evidence, your reference is in there? Yes, that's the piece of tarp.

That same day, did you also examine the piece of lamid flooring that we looked at earlier that was taken from the fire pit? Yes. What did you do to examine it? We also did the alternate light. source law. And what did that show? That showed a possible result as well. Was that item also sent to the four department of the law enforcement to be further examined? Yes. Thank you. No other questions. Your Honor. All right. Thank you Mr. Wiggs. Yes, ma'am, please, of court. Yes, sir.

You can stop that you don't want. Please ma'am. I'm looking at just if it, and I was not a good shift, uh, jeopardy or investigating or? Okay. Thank you. Okay. This was the great site as you proper said. correct yes okay did you take any measurements from the residents to the right side I did not personally that somebody he did yes okay do you have any personal knowledge of the distance before you no sir okay you stuck about number five you saw some initials correct yes what were those initials specifically it's a T with the plus sign and a tail and then right above it is

the shape of a heart feel like Travis plus plus Lori? Presumably. Okay. So somebody had invented their name in this phone. Correct. Fing this concrete, correct? At some point.

Yes. In perpetuity, just fresh to the world, correct? Well, before, about gentification. I would have, yes. Not secret, somebody evident who was trying to keep, correct? Didn't appear so, no, sir. Okay. You've spoken about this area, I believe.

You would run out of ground filtering. of training device on that? Yes. Correct? And you know, the area was weapon, correct? Correct. Okay.

So that was a mess, correct? You would say? It's just part of the process. Okay. The fact that the ground may have an indenture and the dark spot or a lighty spot doesn't necessarily signal that they have gotten or anybody that this is a buyer.

Correct? Not necessarily, no. Okay. So if we heard testimony earlier that there was an indenture and the concrete, that wouldn't necessarily signal the world that there's a bi area. Would you agree? Not necessarily. Okay.

And then there's topical of this sign from a look at the number of left. In fact, we see more than one dark area, correct? Yes. And under those dark areas, there was just one body located, correct? Correct. And would you agree with me? The body was not located in the center of the PADOSL. Sure.

But let's talk about a little bit about the distance, the depth of this screen. You said that it was free feet. Once we were completed, yes. Okay. How tall are you? It's kind of about five foot. You're five to five. So if somebody was digging this area, standing,

and then that site. Okay. And it's three feet. Where's three feet on your body? You're five feet? Yeah, so probably about your waist time. Okay. Five year.

Okay. So the size of the individual would be rowing up to the ease of which that grade could be done. Would you agree? Potentially. Would that sense? Would it not?

It could be. It depends on what they had available. Okay. Let's say, I have a show. I iterate your area. It would be easier for something. You could be tall to take a three foot.

That's somebody that's five feet. Right? Presumably, yes. Correct. Logically. Now, the items are located in the frame. We're looking at number 49. There were some strats, correct?

Yes. And there was a tar. Correct? Yes. And there was I think a stripp large? It's part of that strap. I think it was just one long piece. Okay.

Was it fixed to the strap itself? It's a final call. Okay. Do you know, do you have any personal knowledge, whether or not law enforcement, they took any efforts to look for, do any kind of financial on it, on anybody's account? See, where that made in front of inches? I'm not aware. Okay. But I got to ask somebody else, correct?

Correct. Is that you down in the green stunt down? You know. Okay. That's the, the straps you're talking about, correct? Yes. Okay, you're looking around the Shaper residents. Do you find these same or similar straps located anywhere else on the presidential side?

Not to my knowledge, Jim. Okay. And you wouldn't know that or point that out if otherwise, correct? Yes. Now we see 35, which is correct? It's right. 36. 136.

136. Yes. Right, love it. Okay. And you spoke about collection of, so. Do you name? Correct. Yes.

Yes. Yes. And you don't know any results of the analysis? No, sir. Okay. Do you just invented it in and went to another price, correct? Yes. Making it there, we have the tarp, correct?

Yes. that you recovered and then that you've made certain foundations on this it says drag, what do you mean by the word drag? So with this time it looks more like it could be consistent with the drag mark across a rough surface. Was something? Did you do any testing in this area

that you parked as a drag to see if there's a brass barbs, porthole, and Anything work to educate if that part had been used to grab the by the residents up to the graveside? Yes, sir. Okay. That would have been beneficial, right? I don't know what was done processing wise if it went to the state lab or not. Okay.

And that there was a hole here. That would be that, right? Yes. That is it was a landmark, right? It's just going and then the back side of the same. Okay. So that's with the marks. It's correct?

Okay. Back in you have a seat. The man, in your processing of this site, there was no evidence that was gathered by you or anybody else, indicating there was any DNA in this site associated with what are I shape? I'm not sure that any DNA was recovered, and if so, I'm not aware. Okay. You didn't personally recover any that you recall, correct? No.

Do you know anybody else in the other investors? and the other investigator that processed the scene with you that recovered any DNA? I believe I did most of the DNA swabs for this case. Was there any hair sound in that site? In the site yes. Okay that wasn't mentioned on your correct examination. There were hairs south correct. Yes sir. Do you know if any of the DNA in those hairs one lay capable of Lori Shamer or anybody? I'm not aware. law enforcement do anything with regards aside from the tar to strap wretch not that i'm aware of okay do you know they did any investigation the forensic audit to look at anybody's accounts to see

if anybody had purchased say any strap wretches or straps from a vehicle about i'm not aware no you spoke about lamina and a piece of laminar that was found in the gravesite correct yes sir was liked in any way to the shame of rest of this. Yes, sir. You know what? How full I had in the shame of residence? Previously, no, sir.

Got it for it at any time. At the current time, it was tile and then, like, wood laminar in the bedroom. Was it the same type of lighten? Yes, sir. I have no further, Judge. Thank you. Redirect.

I think I asked you this earlier, but if not, I just wanted to make sure. You also process the Hart from the presence of finger first, right? Yes. Did you find any? No. When you and other officers arrived on the scene the first day of the excavation was Lori Schaeber there? Yes. I'm assuming she wasn't permitted to walk around the house or walk around the property while you guys were doing your processing, right?

Correct. Where was she living? I was told that she was in front of the properties sitting in her vehicle. You remember seeing in one of the aerial photographs? Yes. From her vantage point in that truck, will she be able to see the fire pit in the concrete slab? I believe so, yes. Did she remain on scene for part of the time that you began to process the scene the first day you were there?

Yes. At some point did she leave the area? Yes, she did. Because she was permitted to leave, right? Yes. Do you remember about what time she left? It would be probably around 3 o'clock in the afternoon, 233 o'clock in the afternoon.

At what point in your processing were you, where were you focused when she left? That's about the time that we move from the back pasture area up towards where the fire pit was. Thank you. Just briefly, Jouac's. Man, you saw you saw Lori sitting in their truck, correct? Yes.

Do you know what flammer kid, Jeanette's Sue? I'm unaware. Okay. It would make sense that she's there and the kids come back to school. She may have you to travel outside, correct? Correct. Okay. She never fled and seen trying to evade law enforcement in any time, correct?

No. Thank you. Anything further? You please introduce yourself to the jury. My name is Dr. Kyle Shaw. I currently work as a forensic pathologist in the upstate area of South Carolina, working for several coroner counties in that area. What do you do?

from the coroner county? What do you do on a personal basis? So I'm a forensic pathologist. My role with the coroner offices is to review cases that are presented to me and provide my opinion of cause and manner of death. In the coroner setting, primarily that involves performing

autopsies as part of that process. Where did you work before you moved at the District 5 medical examiners office in Leesburg? What did you do from the District 5 in these office? I was an associate medical examiner, again working as a forensic officer. pathologist with a similar role, except that I was more directly involved in some of the

investigative process and supervising investigators for the office. Let me hear your attention to March 10th of 2018. Did you perform in autopsy on skeletonized remains recovered in the case of Seta Thorner v. Lori Schaefer. Yes. How did those remains get from the scene to your office? They were transported by one of our forensic investigators from the scene. She was present during the excavation process.

And she brought those to the office. You personally were not present to your medical examiner and the best unit was. Correct. Where is the medical examiner's office located here in the fifth circuit? It's in Leesburg, so it's on 809 Pine Street in Leesburg. Is a case number, a medical examiner case number, signed to each and every autopsy you perform?

Yes. Is that number unique to the individual autopsy? Yes. What was the autopsy number associated with this case? 2018-0-428. Is it customary, and it didn't happen in this case, that law enforcement was present during the autopsy? Yes. Were photographs taken during the course of your autopsy?

Yes. Showing you has been marked as states examines test. For identification, see if you take a look at these images only can recognize them. Yes. It's photographs as well as an x-ray images that were taken at the medical examiner's office during the course of this examination, not all in the initial day of autopsy, some are later. Those are inaccurately depict the skeletonized remains as well as some of the evidence that was packaged and things like that? Yes. This is how I'm a stable move. S is in Sam into evidence as 19, Your Honor. Any objection? No objection. How were the remains packaged when

they arrived in your office? They originally arrived in a body transport bag as well as some additional bags basically to help contain the smaller bones. One of those bags obviously sealed with evidence tape, but things like that. Yes. What was the first when you received the skeleton eyes remains? We start taking photographs. So photographs usually precede the examination, and then of course additional photographs are often taken during the course of examination as also part of that process, at least in certain kinds of cases,

x-rays will be performed. In this case, did you lay the various bones I guess bones out in what would be the anatomical position of the human body. Yes. During the course of examination, those bones in a skeletal type of case, they get laid out. Showing you a photograph one of States 19. What do we see here? This is part of the layout of the skeletal remains at the medical examiner's office. So just for orientation, towards the left of the image is the skull, which is on a foam support pad there. and then most of the bones basically going down to about the level of the pelvis. Photograph two.

What is this ship? This is basically working our way down, that same set of remains, just looking at a different area. So this goes a little bit lower and includes the pelvis and more of the lower extremities. And photograph three of stage 19. What do we see here? Here we see the rest of the lower extremities. So over on the far right of the image, we see a number of small bones, and those are the smaller bones of the ankles and Were most of the bones that would normally be contained in the human body recovered?

Yes. Were any bones missing? There were a few small bones predominantly of the hands that were unable to be to be located, but very few. The fact that a couple bones in the hand may not have been provided to you if that your ability to do an autopsy in this case. Not substantially, no. We've heard something about a humorous bone. Where is the humorous bone in the body? The humorous bone is part of the arm or the upper arm.

Basically is from where I'm indicating on myself, from the shoulder to the elbow is the humorous. Did you examine the skull in this case? Yes. What did you do to examine the soul? So as part of that examination, again, x-rays are performed, images are taken, or photographs are taken. And then during the course of that, some cleaning is usually performed in a case like this, where the specimen or the bones may subsequently go for anthropologic examination. I usually do very little other than, again, some general cleaning and general examination.

Why would you do very little if they're going to go to be examined via anthropology lab? So sometimes these bones are very brittle and very delicate, and usually I find that once I'm able to document them, that the anthropologist is more of a specialist specifically, in bones. So it's usually valuable for them to see those bones in as pristine a condition as possible. So I'm usually very delicate with what I do have. You mentioned x-rays were taken. What is photograph for a C's 19 show? So this is an x-ray of the skull. Now the lower part of the jaw is absent. It was disarticulated. It's just not in this x-ray. But what we can see is over towards

the left and bottom. We see the teeth just for orientation and then towards the right of the image. So that red dot was just on the teeth. Now over on the right of the image, there's a bright white spot. That bright white spot is radio-paid material that corresponds to a projectile or bullet. You photograph five of state's length. What do we see here? So here we see an image of the back of the head or the back of the skull. This has been rotated around so that the top of the skull is down and the bottom of the skull is up and right in the middle of that image we can see a round hole which represents a gunshot wound in this case a gunshot wound of entrance you point in your own head generally where that gunshot wound was located it's approximately here as i'm

indicating on the back of my head did you locate a projectile inside of the skull yes and explain how you had that so the x-ray gave but let me me know that it was there. I was then able to carefully, basically reach into the skull. We can't see it in this particular image, but the skull is basically sitting on the top of the spine, and the bottom part of the brain transitions into the spinal cord, and where the brain exits the skull and goes down into the spinal column, there's a hole. And that's called a form and magnum, and it's on the order of approximately an inch or a little bit bigger in size. So it's a decent. It's a decent incised natural hole in the skull. And I was able to reach in there, feel that bullet, which was

loosely adherent, but not firmly adherent. It came loose very easily, and I was able to recover that and retrieve it out of the form in Magnum. Why would the projectile or the bullet actually you have a goodhear to the skull? So when soft tissue decomposes and begins to dry out, materials sometimes will stick to it. That soft tissue as it decomposes forms a little bit of a glue-like substance. So there were just a little bit of residual decomposed tissue that had dried around the edges of that bullet and caused it to basically be loosely stuck there. So it was not rattling around originally, which is why it was first noted on X-ray. Did you observe any kind of an exit wound or damage to the opposite side of the inside of the skull?

Is it the bullet? Enter the skull and hit the opposite side? So although there were some fractures of the skull, there was no impact site that I was able to identify, nor that the anthropology report, anthropologists subsequently reported. There was no exit wound and there was no obvious impact site. Once you recovered a projectile out of the skull, what did you do with it? That was packaged up and turned over to law enforcement. Showing you us the mark as evidence of states, because the M is in van. Look inside. Tell me if you recognize the contents.

So within this envelope is a bullet or projectile. Appears to be substantial the same as the projectile that I recovered in March of 2018. And I'm also showing you photographs to states of 18. Is that a picture that you took up the projectile you removed? Yes. This time state would move states M is enumeried into the state's 20. You said obviously the projectile would have entered through the vat of the skull. Can you, beyond the projectile traveling back to front,

are you able to determine the path of travel and with any other specificity? Not definitively. One thing to kind of keep in mind when we're doing these examinations is that a bullet, A typical bullet has two main profiles. The bullet is a little bit elongated and tends to have a rounded tip, like a little bit of a cone or a rounded cone shape. So when that bullet is facing directly at you, the profile is round. When it is off center or tangential at an angle, so we have perpendicular and we have a little bit of an angle to perpendicular. As it rotates away from perpendicular, it takes on.

more of an oblong or ovoid shape. So when that bullet enters the skin or skull, when we have a round hole that tells us that the deviation is not dramatic from perpendicular, from a right angle, because if it is a fairly dramatic angle, then we have normally an oblong or irregular skull entrance. In this case, the skull entrance is rounded. However, because of the absence of the brain, in other words, I can't see the path of the bullet through the brain because there's no brain left. I can't say that it was perfectly perpendicular when it entered, only that there's no clear evidence that it was at a sharp or distinctly sharp angle away from 90 degrees. During your examination of the skull, did you locate any other projectile in the brain?

Yes. So the x-ray also shows a. few very small pieces or radio opaque fragments, basically fragments, show up the density of metal, which are typical. It's typical for a projectile to break off a little bit or small pieces. So there were additional pieces noted on X-ray. Did you do anything with those additional pieces that were noted? Not at that time. They appeared to be firmly embedded either in the bone or on the inside of the skull.

So my options would have been to either try to open the skull to get at those, which would have deviated that skull from so-called pristine, or at least in the condition that I had it, and I wanted anthropology to look at that first. Would it be common that if the anthropology lab noticed that, when they were finished, removed those items, send them back to you? Yes. Did you locate any finger or toenails in the remains that were provided to you? Yes. Showing you photograph 7 of States 19. What is this show? That is a sampling of fingernails or toenails that were recovered from the body bag, from the materials that were provided.

Photograph 8, the States 19. What does that show? Additional fingernails or toenails that were recovered. And did you package those fingernails and toenails up in the two bags we've seen in the picture? Yes. Showing you must have to make the state's in the foe for identification. Can you open that up? Look inside. Tell me if you recognize the packages. Sure. So within our dry material that appears to be the same or substantially the same fingernail,

toenails in one of them, as well as the second one. This time to state we move states O in the evidence is 21, Your Honor. Any objection? No objections. Now, doctor, in case I asked a bad question earlier, you mentioned that you found the projectile that you recovered as well as some projectile fragments that were embedded in a skull. Yes. You're not saying that those are from two separate projectiles, sorry. Correct.

It's consistent with just being from a single projectile. The projectile that was recovered is partly deformed. And during the course of deformation, it is possible that a portion of that metal broke off during the course of entering the skull or impacting the skull. It's a common for a projectile hits the hard out of this like the stult were through frangening and a break part of it. Yes. You've seen that a lot of times in your career.

Many, many times, yes. You mentioned the anthropology lab a few minutes ago. Were these human remains that were brought to the medical examiner's office packaged up and sent to an anthropology lab? Yes. And how are they packaged up and how are they sent? So originally they were packaged March 22nd of 2018. They were transported up by Investigator Griffith.

Later that day, still on March 22nd, the lab contacted us back and said that a femur was available to be returned to us. Into the femur in a second. Where was this lab located? The lab is associated with the University of Florida, so they're in Gainesville. You mentioned the term pound lab. What is that? So it often just gets called the, quote, pound lab. It is the CA pound human identification laboratory.

So it's sometimes also called Cap Hill, but it is a lab that is associated with the University of Florida. And they do their own analysis. You're not a part of that. That's correct. We provide them information that we have, the investigative information that we have, and we'll discuss the case. But they do their own analysis of the bones themselves. You said a few minutes ago that would be pound-lap people sent you back the field. Yes.

First of all, what's a femur? So a femur is the major bone of the thigh. So between the hip and the knee, that big bone is called a femur. And what was the purpose of you getting the femur back? So the plan at that time was to take that bone, release it to law enforcement. And law enforcement would then send it to a laboratory for DNA analysis for mainly for identification purposes. Excuse me.

Is the Nemer a good source of DNA for some reason? It is a common source. And the longer that a skeleton has been out, the more bone sometimes is needed to do an analysis. Now, I don't perform those analyses, so I can't comment on exactly what they need. But it is common for them to ask for either a piece of bone or the entire bone. And again, they usually have better results if they're able to. to look at the entire bone and not have to go back and forth with us to get more bone later.

So the plan... You guys are going to get the FEMA back and that FEMA is going to send the Florida Department of Law Enforcement in hold for being asked. Correct. 3C18 is the Pound Lab case number for this case. Okay. Did you eventually get a report from the Pound Lab? Yes. Did it have that same case number on it?

Yes. Does the report... Did the report also mention the femur was returned to your office? Yes. Does all that documentation clearly indicate that fiender returned to you was the same femur that you sent to them? Yes. Photograph 15 of States 19. What is this show? So this is that femur outside of the bag.

The bag was open for us to take additional photos. Again, just documenting that it was in the same condition that it was when we had released it the previous, two days earlier. Now, to your knowledge, was this femur sent to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement for analysis? That is my understanding, yes. Was it eventually returned back to your office, the medical examiner's office? Yes. Does that the box look familiar? Yes, it does.

You open it up looking site, because I'm thinking you recognize it about pets. Yes, it appears to be, again, with four areas that have been cut into the purposes of DNA. This is my statement. Mustacian did a P is in Paul and evidence of 22. No objection. So this is the femur, the front part of the femur. the back part of the femur, and we can see an area that's been cut away in the ball or head of the femur, an area here on the proximal shaft of the upper part, an area on the distal shaft down here,

and an area down here basically at the knee. And then those areas were present when you first saw the fever, correct? Correct. Not like those were caused by some type of trauma or gunshot wound or anything. Correct. Okay. Thank you, help. Did the medical examiner's office,

eventually received all of the bones and the human remains back at your office from the pound lab? Yes, we did. You mentioned earlier that during your x-ray, you saw those projectile fragments from that projectile embedded in the skull and you didn't know to me with them. Correct. Were those fragments removed by the anthropology lab and sent that to you? Yes.

During the course of your autopsy, you, you, examine all of the bones that were provided to you. Yes. Except for that single gunshot wound to the back of the skull, did you locate any other trauma to either the skull or if any other bones you examined? Not that would be considered trauma at or around the time of death, what we call perimortem trauma. There was some damage to some of the ribs.

However, that was interpreted as post-mortem trauma. after death? Meaning after death. So did you locate any evidence of a chip or a brain in any of the other bones as a result of trauma, either the struck or another gunshot wound

or something like that? No. You mentioned that there were some fractures in the skull around that gunshot entrance wound. Were those fractures caused by that single gunshot wound entrance? Yes. we see on TV, CSI, that's kind of me from CSI can tell you that these bones were buried on this date, this month, this year.

Is that real? No, unfortunately. Are you able to do that? No. Are you able to determine, and with great generality, when, based on the condition of the bones, they would have been buried? to a very limited extent with very broad, very broad potential ranges. What are those ranges are parameters? Well, again, it depends on the individual case.

So in this particular case, I would have to depend really on the anthropology, examination, because they deal with primarily bones. A better question to ask them? It probably would be a better question to ask them, because they can go into detail as to how they came to that. Fair enough. Did you determine the cause of death in this case? Yes.

What was the cause of death of Michael Schwarz? In my opinion, gunshot wound of head? What did you determine the manner of death to me? My opinion, homicide. Thank you, Dr. Snowman. Question, Charles. Thank you, Mr. Wakes. Yes, may it please court?

Yes, sir. Good afternoon, Dr. Shaw. Afternoon. Pleasure seeing you. You too. You recall me taking your deposition some time ago? I do. Okay, we did that by Zoom, I believe, correct?

Yes. Okay. And at that time, I gained certain information from you. And part of that information I was able to gleaned, was it not that you rely on multiple sources to conduct an investigative autopsy such as this? Sure. As part of the process of coming to an opinion of cause and manner of death, I piece together lots of information from lots of different sources. Part of that is the autopsy, but there are other things.

You use reports such as police reports, incident reports, correct? When those are available, yes, or discussions with law enforcement. Okay. So you usually look to look to law. law enforcement, you have somebody inside doing investigative work, correct? When you say inside, you mean inside the medical examiners? That's correct. So the medical examiners office itself, we have our own investigators that do investigation as well. Okay.

And you rely on other reports generated in other agencies, such as the pound, as you discussed in this case, correct? Sometimes, yes, certainly as it applies to this case. So it's not just your opinion you're relying on. You're relying on the opinions and conclusions of other individuals, correct? I bring together as much information as I possibly can to reach my opinions and my conclusions. Yeah. That's just a yes or no question. You rely on other people's conclusions as well.

I also rely on additional information. It's not always their conclusions, but it's sometimes their interpretations. Okay. You rely on dental examinations, FDLA reports. Correct? For certain parts of the investigation, yes. We know you relied on other documents and reports in this case, correct? Yes, there were additional reports that were generated in this case that, again, add into the totality of the information for the case. Okay. We know it takes you about an hour or so to do one of these investigations, correct?

About an hour or so to do the autopsy or the physical examination of the bones, and it varies a good bit depending on the nature of the case. But for an examination of bones, it might take on the order of an hour, especially if they're already clean and dry. An hour or two, correct? Roughly. Yes. That's a fair statement. Sure. And in this case, when you received the bones that you did this autopsy upon, they were in a skeletal state, correct?

Yes. There was no soft tissue on the body, correct? Correct. The internal organs had deteriorated, correct? Correct. So any injuries to the internal body? organs were not visible, correct? Correct, because those organs were no longer present. They had decomposed. Correct. So you don't know the degree of any combat or any altercation that

occurred by looking at other evidence, correct? Correct, in the sense that there is no soft tissue to examine in the space. Correct. Now, you've spoken about the gunshot entry wound. Where was that located? And approximately the middle of the back of his head. Okay. And as my understanding, from our previous discussions, you were unable to determine whether the person was sitting or standing, correct? Correct. You weren't able to line up and figure out where not anybody had approached the subject, correct? Correct. Those are issues of the circumstances of the death. And there's no anatomic finding that tells me in this case his position. You weren't able to discern the height of the individual that had engaged Mr. Shaver, correct?

Correct. Okay. Was the skeleton in full state were there broken portions of it? It was almost complete, but it was disarticulated. Did you reconstruct the skull? The skull was actually almost completely intact. There were fractures, but it had not come apart at that point. During the examination at the Pound Lab, there was some separation of those fracture lines,

but it was almost complete to my recollection. There may have been some small pieces above the orbits on the inside that were absent, but the majority, certainly the outer part of the cranium, was almost complete. Showing you was in heaven, I think, is 43, correct? Yes. Are those the fragments that you testified to? These are the additional small fragments that were recovered by the pound lab. And those were located in what portion of the body?

In the skull. Okay. Do you know where in the skull? I do not know precisely where the x-rays showed one fragment that was most likely adhered to the inner table. But there was a fragment that was very close to the entrance window. I'd have to refer to their report for exactly where they recovered. that fragment. So the particle of radio opaque material that they ultimately recovered was associated with the entrance defect. So it's basically right at that entrance fracture, basically a portion of the

projectile split off and basically went into the bone as it was entering the skull. There was no soft tissue in the neck, correct? Correct. There was no analysis of any entry potential through the neck region, correct? Not through the soft tissue because there was no soft tissue to examine. The bones, however, were... Were there any meteorological tests done on the metal itself to connect it to the remaining fragment? Not by me. Okay.

Basically, those fragments are turned over to law enforcement for any... Do you know whether or not you received any report data dealing with that subject? I did not receive any report data to my recollection. I have not been presented any such report. However, we normally wouldn't get such a report if such existed. Okay. So when you say that the death was caused by homicide and it was caused by one womb, you're unable to testify with all certainty whether or not there was any other injury to any internal organ or an entrance through a neck or another region through soft tissue.

Correct. So if there was an additional injury or injuries, they were solely through soft tissue and did not involve bone, then I would have no way of knowing about those. Very well. This may sound kind of a silly proposition in one respect, but when you do an autopsy, you don't have particularly absent any brain or other soft tissue in the body. You don't know whether or not this man was suffering from any kind of psychological issues, correct?

So even during a regular autopsy, generally we cannot infer a psychiatric ill. from the autopsy findings alone. That depends on the preceding history, medical history, or other history that would give us most of that information. We can infer some, an element of brain damage, but that's not the same as saying someone has a psychiatric disorder. So really the autopsy is limited to the physical structure. It doesn't entertain any consideration about the circumstances how the individual was shot, correct? There's more than one component here. So the autopsy itself, yes, we're looking at the anatomic or physical findings. And sometimes we can correlate those with history and circumstances or scene findings and those kinds of things.

But the autopsy itself is focused primarily on gathering anatomic physical data that we can then look at and try to correlate with the remainder of the case. And in the report that you constructed in this case, there's a section that deals with death information. And I think it was noted visual, correct? I'm sorry, could you... The date of death. It was just defined really based on information other people had supplied, correct? So there is no specific date of death on the autopsy report. Instead, we have what's called a date found.

So that's a date he was actually located. Now, you may be referring to the investigators report, which may have a date of death present, any such date. In fact, it has the, again, when he was originally, found as the date of death being March 9th, 2018. So that's date found. That's not intended to be the date. It's not an opinion of when he actually died. There were no burn marks on the body or the structure, correct? Not that I identified, no. Indicating it had been in a fire, correct? Correct. Was there any evidence that the body had been moved? The fact that the body was recovered

buried is an indication that the body had been moved at some point. However, it's also true that it's possible that he received his fatal injury while within the grave somehow, but those findings are really based on the totality of the circumstances, not just the anatomic findings. So you can't tell where Mr. Schaber was shot? Correct. I can't tell where he was physically located at the time that he was shot. Okay. Now, was there any, in your report, any indication of any injuries or damage to the teeth of Michael Schaever? To the teeth? Right.

Not to my recollection, but I will look through the odontology report briefly. There was no noted perimortem injury, and there were evidence of restorations or dental work that had been done, and some of the teeth were missing. however, no known perimortem injury. Okay, so there were some teeth missing, correct? Yes. You know, they've been broken, moving the body, post-mortem, pre-mortem. Again, I am referring to the odontology and anthropology reports that also involved the teeth. I would have to review the photographs to say as to which were missing post-mortem.

versus which we're missing antimortem. Basically, the difference there is that if a tooth goes missing or falls out or gets knocked out, say years before death, then the bone tends to heal over and there's no socket left. Whereas if the bone falls out at the time of death or after, then there's an empty socket there. It is very, very common for teeth to fall out in the decomposition or skeletonized stage because there's no soft tissue still holding those teeth in place. So a little bump sometimes can knock those loose.

Could they be loosened or knocked out, transport, and a body? It's possible. Okay. And were there any missing teeth or damaged teeth? Not injured or damaged teeth that I noted that would be considered perimortem injury around the time of death. They're referring to you for the thing is 3.05. No, this is the pound lab report. Okay. Do they indicate or is there any indication there of any damage, any teeth?

I'm just going to read the page that you presented to me. Let me look, direct your attention to your deposition instead. Sure. Okay. Page 45, why do you watch what on line 25? Yes. Okay. Is that a refresherment, like it? So just reading from that, line 25 says, of teeth number one, number 16, number 17, and number 32 due to law slash extraction or

agenesis, meaning just for interpretation, that those were removed or absent well before death. And just looking just above that, I was referencing the anthropology report. So it's in there somewhere. It's okay. So there's some message key, though, correct? Sure. When you use the word post-mortem, you're talking about. After death, correct?

Yes. Okay. Did you assess that issue and reach in any conclusions whether there was any post-mortem damage to the body or injuries? There were some injuries to the ribs that were post-mortem. Again, I depend largely on the anthropology report for that. Tell me what the post-mortem injury to the ribs was. So I'm turning to page 4 of 23 of the Anthropology report. The bottom of that page, there's a section called Postmortem damage.

And within that, they describe post-mortem breakage of multiple ribs. I can read that report if you'd like me to. I have you that position here. Okay. Okay. Like the refresher, red, black, stop page, fully sense. Line 8, 9, and 10. So reading from the highlighted section of 8, 9, and 10,

quote, it says there is post-mortem breakage on multiple nine ribs, comma, okay. Oh, wait, that's your question. That's what your, that was the question from you. My answer was yes. Okay. So there was entry to the ribs after that. Yes. Correct?

Yes. And that post-mortem injury to the ribs, could that be associated with transporting the body from one location to another? So the interpretation or the determination of whether an injury is post-mortem or not. It depends on a few different things. I largely would depend on the anthropology consultant to address those issues. But the most common finding that I see that distinguishes an antimortem or perimortem injury from a clearly post-mortem injury is a difference in coloration of the break. So if an injury occurs around the time of death, then the surface of the broken bones, the broken edge will have basically the same coloration as the rest of the surface of the bone because it's going through the same process. It's being exposed to the same environment.

Whereas a bone that fractures post-mortem or well after that is usually a lighter color because it's cleaner. It hasn't been exposed to the same processes. as it been exposed to the elements the same way or the decomposition process the same way. However, in this particular case, again, I would depend on the anthropologist to distinguish precisely what they meant by the post-mortem breaks. They do describe within their report that the margins of at least some of the breaks are lighter in color than the surrounding bone. So for this to occur during the manipulation phase or the phase of moving a body, it would most likely be well after death. In other words, far enough after death for there to be a difference in the environmental exposure. So probably not hours, but probably a much longer time frame.

Okay. Would it create a difference in the color of the reps? if that post-mortem interval is long enough before that secondary post-mortem break occurs. And there was a, on rib number nine, there was a break mid-shaft, correct? Yes. And this would indicate could occur possibly by movement of the body as well, correct? At some point, yes. Okay.

And there was damage to the sternal ends of the ribs as well. as to 4, 8, 18, and 10, correct? Right ribs, 4, 8, and 10. Yes. Okay. And in examination of the body and the records, you discovered that the body had what are referred to as buckle fractures, correct? During my review of the anthropology report, they described that, yes.

And a buckle fracture is where one side of the rib breaks or fractures and not the other, correct? That's my understanding, yes. Yeah, where the body would be a... the ribs will be of the same tension or tenderness correct throughout. But it basically means that one, there's two sides of a rib and one side buckles or fractures, whereas the other side doesn't show anything. And that usually occurs at the time or about the time of death, correct? Again, although that usually is the case in this particular case is interpreted by the anthropologist.

Again, depending on their report, that because the fracture margins are, a different color, they interpreted that as post-mortem. Does the composition of the soil impact any coloration of the bones? Although I believe it can, I'd have to defer to the anthropologist, and I could have that question. Have you ever seen a body in one soil and it ingrains within it or pulls within the bone itself, the composition of the soil create and the coloration in the bones themselves? I would only speak to coloration, not to composition. What I mean?

But yes, you know, coloration is the surface color of the bone is generally going to be closer to the surface color of the soil that's on it. However, there's a lot of different things that can potentially go into that and alter those things. Okay. Well, you received reports from other agencies, police reports and the pound and FDLA, etc. Did you receive any report from FDLA analyzing any soil compounds? I was not presented with a report when these materials were provided to me later. I received these materials after I moved on from the District 5 Medical Examiner's Office. Okay.

And it was your position that the body may have been dead for months to several years, correct? That I would defer to the anthropologist in that case. However, for an individual to be completely skeletonized and dry, normally that would be at least, several months, if not longer, from my personal experience. Did you ever make a statement contrary to that? Not to my recollection. Okay. Show you page 40.

That's just a bit on line 18. Line 18 is the question, so that's from you. So they, their conclusion was the body has been dead several months to several years, correct? Answer, that's how I interpret that. Yes. So that's my interpretation of how it was. presented in the anthropology report, which I deferred to. So as Mr. Buxman asked you, as you said here, offer your scientific opinions and

statements, you don't know how long the body had been in the ground, correct? Not precisely, no. Okay. And any statement took by law enforcement would be their conjecture on outside evidence, correct? Not scientific evidence. They'd have to address where they're getting that information. Right. If they're being specific.

After your report, did you speak to law enforcement ever again? Yes. Okay. Do you speak with the state? Yes, I'm sure I did at some point. Okay. I prefer you to your deposition, page 52, line 20. Line 20 question, did you speak with Mr. Camutio at all?

Answer, for me about this case question. Yes, sir. Answer, I don't. I don't recall having done so. If I did, I don't recall. I certainly don't recall a lengthy conversation about this case. If I did, it was probably quite a long time ago. That was at the time of deposition.

I did speak with them following deposition. So prior to your deposition, and after a shaver had been arrested, you hadn't spoken to the state again? Not up to that point, not to my recollection now. Okay. Please introduce yourself. Yes, my name is Edgar Perez, and I am currently employed at the Florida Department of Law Enforcement in the Biology and DNA section of the Orlando Regional Operations Center. How long have you worked there?

Approximately 17 years. What do you do with? So currently I am one of the statewide assistant quality managers, particularly over the biology and DNA discipline, but when I worked this case, I was a crime laboratory analyst. We provided some evidence collected in the case of the state of Florida versus. State of Florida versus Lori Schaeber, Lake County Sheriff's Office case, 1-800-254-331. It was. I want to start with some questions pertaining to the identification of the victim in this case. Were you provided a Buckelswa or a known DNA standard from a person named Douglas Schaeber?

Yes, I was. So you wasn't introduced a notice. The state is in the middle eight. Let's analyze that item for the press to see you at that. I did. Were you able to obtain DNA information or DNA profile from the known standards of Douglas Schaeber? Yes, I obtained a complete DNA profile from the sample. So now if you have a complete DNA profile from Douglas Shaver,

are you able to compare that profile to something collected at the scene to see if those profiles match or if, let's say in this case, a femur bone originated from a biological child, of Douglas Schaeber. Yes. Did you in fact receive a femur bone from the Lake County Saras office? Yes, I did. Did you in fact take cuttings from that feeder or take portions of that femur bone to use in your DNA analysis? Yes.

Did you perform DNA analysis on those portions of the femur bone that you removed? I did. What were your results? From the femur bone, I was able to obtain a complete DNA profile that was consistent with originating from a male individual. How do you know it came from a male? As part of the DNA process, there is an area that's called a malogenin, and it's a sex-determine marker. Basically, if you have an X and an X, you're a female. If you have an X and a Y, biologically, you were considered a male.

So did you then compare that male DNA profile that you obtained from the femur to the known DNA standards obtained from Douglas Schaeber? Yes, in this particular situation, that would consist of me doing a parentage type of analysis, I am dealing with a sample that is from an alleged parent to an alleged biological child. So how are you able to then tell whether the femur bone was from a biological child of Douglas Schaver by doing this analysis? When the DNA profile was obtained from the femur bone, it was compared to the profile from Douglas Schaver. And during that comparison, it was determined that it's consistent with being the biological child of Douglas Schaever. and the single parentage index, which is an odds ratio, comparing the probability of the observed profile

that was obtained from Michael Douglas Schaver coming from the biological parent versus some other unrelated random individual in the population. And that probability was 21,000. Now, I also did a single parentage probability of exclusion calculation, which is the chance that a random individual will be correctly excluded as a biological parent, and that is approximately 99.99%. So as it fair to say, the DNA from the femur monis consistent with coming from the biological

child of Vodal Sheple. Yes. You're referring to some other pieces of evidence that you received from the Lake County Sheriff's Office. Did you receive some fingernail and toenails collected from the scene of a grave in which a skeleton is located? Yes, that's correct. was introduced the evidence to say since the 201. Did you analyze those finger and toenails for the presence of DNA? Yes, I did. What were your results? When these samples were submitted through the DNA process,

they went through the process of quantitation to figure out the amount of DNA in the sample. And unfortunately, those samples fail to demonstrate a sufficient amount of DNA to go forward through the complete DNA analysis process. So there was not enough DNA there for you to even do any kind of analysis? That's correct. If we know their finger and toenails, How can that be? Depends on the condition of them.

If we're dealing with a sample that was exposed to environmental conditions, DNA that could be found in the nail bed could be degrading over time, or they may just not be any DNA there present. The DNA degrade over time, even if a body was buried under the ground and not in the direct heat and things like that? Yeah, so there are soil humectants and bacteria that would eventually start degrading the DNA. So is that at all surprised me? you weren't able to find sufficient DNA from those finger and toenails to do any kind of a comparison.

Not at all. We also provided some boxer shorts and some other shorts to analyze for the presence of DNA. I was. Showing you what's been recognized in the state. Is it a four? Do you recognize that item? I do. Did you analyze that item for the presence of DNA?

Yes, for this specific item, I'm describing the boxers, the shorts, the black shorts. I did test for the presence of semen on there, and it failed to give chemical indications for the presence of semen. A sample was also taken from the item for DNA, and it was, again, submitted through the DNA process through quantitation. It failed to demonstrate sufficient amounts of DNA quantitation to go forward with a complete DNA process. Again, considering that those shorts were found buried in the ground, does that surprise you? No, it does not. Did you do any analysis of the underwear, the boxer shorts? There was no examinations performed on the underwear due to the,

condition of the exhibit. What was wrong? What was the way mean by the condition? The exhibit was decomposed and shredded. There's just absolutely no way that I could conceivably swab any portion of it for DNA. Did you analyze a blue tarp for my NTE for the friend? Yes, I did. Show you asked me introduced to take the specific one.

Recognize that item? I do. And how did you analyze that blue tarp from the presence of DNA? The blue tarp would have been swapped with a similar swab as it's used inside of a, to collect the inside of the mouth. It's just a giant Q-tip. I would swab the surface of the item to collect any type of DNA that could have been transferred onto the item, and then subjected it to the DNA analysis process. What were your results when you tried to collect DNA for this heart?

When the samples had sent through the DNA process, it reached the point of quantitation, and when it got there, there wasn't sufficient amounts of DNA to go forward with the DNA process. Again, considering that tar. was buried in the ground. Does that surprise you would all through it was insufficient DNA for you to even analyze? No, it does not. Showing you a green strap with some other debris flit from the gray site.

Did you analyze that item for the presence of DNA? Yes, I did. What were your results? Similar to with the blue tarp, the sample went through up to quantitation and there was insufficient amounts of DNA to go forward with STR DNA analysis. And that was from what item did you essentially strap me in it?

This would have been the green nylon strap, and there's a white elastic strap as well. Did you analyze the items contained in the Tupperware at all? No, the exhibit that was listed as miscellaneous items from the grave site was not examined. Why not? There was no way of me collecting DNA from those items, and the expectation is that I would not obtain DNA profiles

from the condition of them. I'm showing you a swab taken from the exterior trap of the sliding glass door, which is to the 17. Did you analyze that? I have written DNA. Yes, I did. What were your results? There were no STR DNA results obtained from this exhibit.

What does that mean? That means that there was not even a single peak present when it was taken through the entire DNA process. So, no DNA at all in that swell? No. showing you a swab from a stain below the sliding left door and thunder at that porch. States Exhibit 18. You can analyze that item for the presence of DNA? Yes, I did.

And what did you find? So the sample went through the DNA process. It reached the point of quantitation, and it was determined that there was insufficient amounts of DNA to go forward with the DNA analysis process. Considering that this sample was collected on the exterior of the house, does that surprise you? No, it does not. For the same region you previously described? Yes.

Showing you states exhibit 16, a swap taken from the interior of sliding through track from the sliding glass door of the residence. Did you analyze that? I know for the presence of DNA. I did. And what did you find? So this particular sample demonstrated the presence of a mixture consistent with three donors, including at least one male.

What does that mean? When I obtained a mixture, like I was saying, you get half a DNA from your mind. half of your DNA from your mother and half from your father, I'm only expecting two pieces of DNA information at each location that I look at. If I see more than two pieces of information at multiple locations, it gives me an indication that there are multiple donors to that sample or multiple DNA profiles. So it's creating effectively a DNA puzzle. In this case, you indicated that there were three donors? Yes, that's correct. And one of the donors was male? Yes, at least one donor was a male.

And how did you determine that one donor, at least one donor was male? But in the DNA process, you can only see the XX or the XY once. It's not like different males have different Y chromosomes. So if there is a male in a sample, I can only tell that there's at least one because of the presence of the Y chromosome. Are you sometimes able to separate out the DNA profiles contained in a mixture and compare it to known DNA samples? Yes, it's possible. Are you able to tell the source of the DNA that you found on that spot, meaning what's it? saliva, blood, sweat, semen, things like that.

No, I would not be able to tell you the source. Did you compare the known profile of Douglas Shaver to the mixture that you found on the swaps from the interior portion of the sliding glass door? Yes, I did. What were your results? Douglas Shaver was excluded as a contributor to that mixed DNA profile. He was excluded? Yes.

Meaning Douglas Shaver's DNA could not have been part of that mixture. Based on his DNA profile, it's not conceivable that it fits into that mixture, as it's Did you compare the DNA profile from the femur, reportedly the femur of Michael Schaever, to the DNA mixture you found from the swab from the interior of desoliding glass door? I did. And what were your results? The comparison of the profile from Michael Douglas Schaver failed to demonstrate sufficient statistical support for inclusion or exclusion. Therefore, I can't make any determinations as to the presence of Michael Douglas Schaver on this item. The bottom line, you can tell scientifically it might as shaver was a contributor to that mixture, correct?

No, I cannot. Is you compare that the known DNA profile of Lori Shaver to the mixture from that swab and the interior of the sliding glass storm? I did. What were your results? So Lori Shaver was included as a possible contributor to this DNA mixture, and it was approximately 3.1 billion times more likely to occur of the sample originated from Lori Shaver and two unrelated individuals than from three unrelated individuals. Did you also analyze a piece of vinyl laminated flooring recovered from a fire pit? So you're facing to the sixth? Yes, I do. And before we get to the lamina flooring, if this,

referring back to the swab from the interior or slightly glass door, would a profile consistent with Lori Schavers DNA being included in that mixture, would that be surprising considering that this was her house and she would have? Not necessarily. Okay. Referring to the laminate flooring that we just talked about, did you analyze that item for the presence of DNA? This particular item? The presence of blood. Yes, so I did a serological test for the presence of blood. What were the results, that chemical blood test?

So this particular exhibit failed to give chemical indications for the presence of blood. Did you do any further DNA analysis on that item? No, I did not. At that point, if I don't have an indication of the presence of a fluid, then I'm not expecting to get any DNA except for any extrace. type that might be there and given that it's a piece of random material from the environment who knows what you can pick up from it if you swab it. Thank you, sir. I know what you're asking you're right.

All right, Mr. Wiggs. May it please the court? Yes, sir. Mr. Brass, how are you doing, sir? Hey, good yourself? Good, good. Recall, I took your deposition. Yes.

Several years ago. It was. It's been some time. Yeah, it has been a while. I had your rapport, reviewed it, and discussed. it with you at your deposition. And throughout your direct examination, the state talked to you about multiple exhibits, items that were found in the gravesite, correct? That's correct. And you use the terminology degraded versus none, correct? Yes. Okay. Is it not a fact that there could be,

could have that DNA precedent or divided that DNA precedence on? time, but what you were able to do is that it didn't have any. It's a possibility? Okay. So, aside from saying that the evidence was degraded, it may be that it never had any DNA. Yes, there is a possibility that there was not the ANA object. So when the states asked you, does it surprise you, doesn't surprise you, doesn't surprise you, doesn't surprise you? And you've stated, no, not given the condition of the ID, you.

item, it may be the item may never have had any DNA on it, correct? Yes, that is a possibility. Okay. So we're looking at your report. Do you have a copy of your report before you? I do. Okay. Let's go to the door, okay?

And the rear track, were you ever able to determine anybody's DNA in that region of the track? Could you... Yes. determine which report and which exhibit. Let me see. Number 23. Okay. Okay.

What was your conclusion? The only comparison that I was able to provide an inclusion for was for the profile of Lori Shaver. Okay. That makes sure of three donors. Okay. There was three donors, including at least one male contributor. Yes, that's correct. Okay.

Whose known male contributor profiles were you supplied? I was given the DNA profile from Douglas Shaver, and then the profile from the femur, which was also a male individual, which was represented as being Michael Douglas Schaeper. Those were the only profiles that were provided to the attorney's office, correct? Yes. And that was recovered to your understanding on the lower region of the doorway, correct? Based on the description from the item, yes. So on the blue tarp, there was no DNA recovered, correct?

Just to make this clear. there was insufficient amounts of DNA to go forward to the DNA. Insufficient meaning, again, as we've spoken, there may never have been any, correct? So in this particular sample, when I took it through the quantitation process, there was an indication of potentially DNA being present, but if it doesn't hit a specific threshold, the sample doesn't go forward for DNA analysis. Okay, so there was a lack of evidence on that item, correct? Yes.

And every item that was supplied to you dealing with the gravesite, None of those had any profile hits for Lori Shaver, correct? That I am aware of. Okay. The linoleum or the flooring that was supplied, that had no profile or hit of any DNA containing Lori Shaver, correct? For that piece of the floor tile, I only tested it for blood, and I stopped processing after it didn't give chemical indications for the presence of blood.

Okay. Were there any hares found in a gravesite location that were supplied to you? I believe Exhibit 22, there were hairs associated with that exhibit. Okay. And did they yield any kind of profile of any individual? So for the hairs that I examined from the exhibit, which were the swabs from the stain on the sliding, on the siding below the sliding door under the back porch. So there were some apparent hairs that were also submitted with that.

I looked at those hairs under the microscope, and they were not suitable to go forward with the N.A. processing. Okay. Okay. So the hairs couldn't even yield any DNA profile, correct? Based on the analysis that I performed in the lab, those hairs were not suitable to go forward. That's not to say that there are other laboratories that may potentially do other types of testing on hairs, but based on the limitations that I have in the laboratory, I couldn't test those hairs. Were those sent to any other laboratory for further testing? Not to my knowledge?

Did you test any object in the house? house that was supplied to you that contained any DNA from Lori Shaver. There were no exhibits that had any association to Lori Shaver except for that one from the interior lower track of the sliding door, which was Exhibit 23. Right. One moment, please. Yes, sir. No further questions. All right, and redirect?

Very briefly. The Harris, what you talked about, and said, uh, sucold, except if it's like I agree. Yeah, so when I look at it microscopically, I examine the root to see if it's in the correct stage of growth or if it has follicular material, meaning there's skin cells that were pulled off from your scalp onto the hair. And I didn't notice either of these, so the hairs were not sent forward for DNA analysis because of the two characteristics that I look at when I'm taking hairs for DNA. Thank you, sir. No other questions. Mr. Wiggs? No, nothing further.

Thank you, Judge. All right.