Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 6 · column 5 of 7 · from the scan, no model involved
he saw the defendant the day of the attack and that he was wearing camouflage clothing.
Major Ed Streapy of the Rappahannock County Sheriffs Department testified that he arrived at the Sheriffs Office at around 8:15 p.m. the evening that the victim had filed a complaint, and met Deputy Compton, the victim, and the victim’s mother. He obtained some hair samples from the victim.
M^jor Streapy said that when the defendant came in to see him at the Sheriffs Office that same evening, at around 9:30, he told him that he had gotten up at 9:30 or 10 a.m. on the morning of Oct. 19. The defendant also told him that he went to his father’s house for breakfast, which is across the street from the local general store. The defendant’s house is behind the store.
Taylor claimed that he bought a cup of coffee in the store at 9:30 a.m., the investigator testified. Major Streapy advised the defendant of his rights, and obtained a search warrant for the defendant’s house and pickup truck. In the house, Major Streapy found a set of camouflage clothing and a pair of brown gloves.
M^jor Streapy claimed that it takes three and one-half minutes to walk at a normal pace from the defendant’s house to the trailer. He said that when he confronted Tommy Taylor about the attack, he said, “What do you think?”
Major Streapy continued, “I took 25 hair samples from the heads of Tommy Taylor, the victim, and her boyfriend and took those samples to the state lab. I wanted those to be compared to those samples found on the sheet.”
Myron Scholberg, who works for the Division of Forensic Science, and whose expertise is the examination of hairs, fibers and fabric separations, testified that he conducted an examination of the hairs found on the victim’s bedsheet, and hairs provided him by Tommy Taylor,' the victim and her boyfriend. He said, “The hair exam is a comparison type. I view the questioned hair and known hair at the same time under a microscope.” He said that the hair of the defendant was microscopically like one found on the sheet. His conclusion was that the hair could have originated from the defendant, but could not be positively identified.
The defendant’s first witness was Eileen Davis, the supervisor in the trace evidence section of the Division of Forensic Science. She testified that she had received for
l •. v V
91.1%