Court hearing transcript 

Fredericksburg Free-Lance Star publishes transcript of Court hearing transcript from 8/15/05 hearing in Prince William Circuit Court in Manassas where FBI SA Jane Collins and VSP SA Stan Gregg are trying to explain why the Alicia Showalter Reynolds evidence was never tested against Richard Marc Evonitz

Date published: 11/29/2007 


Q It’s correct, I take it, that on May 14th of 2004, you turned over the Reynolds 
evidence to Agent Collins of the FBI?

MR. WILLETT: I think we’ve established that.

MR. CONNELL: Okay. I just want to make sure that we’re all on the same page, Your 
Honor.

BY MR. CONNELL:

Q That’s correct, sir; right?

A These particular items of evidence, --

Q These particular items.

A -- yes.

Q When did you or the Virginia state police receive those items back from the FBI?

A It was about two weeks ago. The first I think was August 2nd of this year.

Q To your knowledge, has the Reynolds evidence as we have defined it, ever been 
compared by a state examiner against known fiber and hair samples of Richard 
Evonitz?

A Not to my knowledge, no

Q So you would agree that this is not a -- the FBI was not doing a re-examination 
which had already been done by the Virginia Division of Forensic Sciences; correct?

A That was not the purpose of our submission of this evidence.

Q What was not the purpose, sir?

A The statement you must made.

Q It was -- so let me just be clear.

It was not the purpose of your submission to have the FBI re-examine evidence which 
had already been examined by the Division of Forensic Sciences; is that correct?

A It was not the purpose of this evidence going to the FBI lab to compare it with 
evidence from the Evonitz case. That was not the purpose of it.

Q It was to compare it, I take it, you mean with the evidence -- well, let me get 
an answer to my first question then we’ll come back to that.

Did you perceive the -- yourself, did you perceive the examination to be performed 
by the FBI to be a duplication of effort which had already been done by the 
Division of Forensic Science?

A Yes.

Q And what examination was that, sir?

A Hairs and fibers.

Q And what examination -- no, excuse me.

What Division of Forensic Science examiner’s efforts did you intend to duplicate?

A The reason for the submission to the FBI lab was to have a fresh set of eyes look 
at the evidence in the Reynolds case. That was the only reason it was re -- it was 
submitted to the FBI lab.

Q Sir, what examination had been done by the Division of Forensic Science that you 
wanted the FBI to duplicate?

A There was not a specific request made for an examination from the FBI lab.

Q I understand that, sir, but my question was what -- you, yourself, when you 
turned over the evidence, to memorialize the turning over of the evidence and the 
memoranda, what efforts by the Division of Forensic Sciences did you intend or 
perceive that the FBI would duplicate?

A Since the evidence was being submitted to Mr. Deedrick and his expertise was in 
hairs and fibers, that’s the type of examination we were expecting him to conduct.

Q Now, you have previously told us that the first paragraph of the first page of 
Defense Exhibit 1, which has a Bates stamp of 328, was true.

It is true then that the evidence would be submitted, and I quote here, “To Douglas 
Deedrick at the FBI lab for a comparison with evidence collected against Richard 
Evonitz in the Lisk-Silva cases,” that’s true?

A That -- that was true when I wrote this up, yes, sir.

Q And you wrote that up shortly after a conversation -- in fact, on the same day as 
the conversation with Mr. Deedrick?

A I believe so, yes.

Q And as a result of that conversation, he sent you a fax telling you what evidence 
he’d like to look at?

A Correct.

Q When did you receive the Reynolds evidence back from the FBI? Excuse me, that -- 
already answered that question.

Was there any time other than between May 14th of 2004 and August 2nd of 2005, that 
the Virginia state police had custody of the Reynolds evidence?

A No.

Q Was it at your direction or the direction of the Virginia state police that the 
evidence was retrieved from the FBI lab on April 22, 2005?

A I’m sorry.

Q I’ll back up and lay a foundation.

Were you aware that the Reynolds evidence was retrieved from the FBI lab on April 
22nd of 2005?

A It was my understanding that it had been moved out of the lab and ready for pick 
up, yes.

Q And it was your understanding that on that date April 22, 2004 [sic], it was 
actually picked up?

A I’m not sure of the date, no.

Q In April of 2005, you knew that the Reynolds evidence was picked up?

MR. WILLETT: Judge, I’m going to object to this line of questions. It’s got to be 
based on some type of hearsay. He doesn’t have firsthand knowledge of this.

MR. CONNELL: I’ll lay the foundation, Your Honor.

THE COURT: He can testify to the extent of his knowledge. I’m a little confused. I 
thought that his testimony was that it was received back in the FBI August 2. Is 
this another receiving back that pre-dated the August 2?

MR. CONNELL: That’s correct, Your Honor. The previous witness testified that there 
were two pick ups. I don’t know what happened to it when it was picked up and 
that’s what I’m trying to establish.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. CONNELL:

Q Were you aware that in April of 2005, Agent Collins or another representative of 
the FBI picked up the Reynolds evidence from the FBI lab?

A I am aware that at some point in time the evidence had been moved from the lab 
to, I believe, their division headquarters in Richmond for pickup. I believe that 
was the case.

MR. WILLETT: Object, he’s testifying to something that was told to him. He is 
unsure about it. It’s very speculative.

THE COURT: Understood. I understand the limitation of his testimony.

BY MR. CONNELL:

Q Sir, was that at your direction or the direction of the Virginia state police 
that it was moved from the lab to an area for pickup?

A No, not at my direction, no.

Q Is what I understand you to be saying that you were not aware that at some time 
around April 2005, the evidence was, in fact, picked up; the Reynolds evidence?

A I was aware that it had been removed from the FBI lab, yes.

Q To an FBI station -- field office?

A Yes.

Q And were you aware that the Reynolds evidence was then re-submitted to the FBI 
lab following -- excuse me -- were you -- following April of 2005?

A I’m aware it had been re-submitted, yes.

Q And was that re-submission at your direction?

A That was based on discussions between myself, the FBI and my supervisors, yes.

Q And what were those discussions?

A To see if we could get a fresh set of eyes to look at it since it had not been 
examined by the FBI at that point in time.

Q And for that matter, it had not -- it had not been examined by the FBI.

And what did you intend, as a result of your discussions with the FBI, to do with 
that evidence?

A Re-submit it to the lab.

Q And what did you intend the lab to do with it once they had it?

A Once again, going back to our discussions with Mr. Deedrick, just to have a fresh 
set of eyes look at it.

Q Certainly, sir, I understand the use of metaphor, I frequently engage in it 
myself.

But you simply -- you don’t actually mean you just wanted someone else to look at 
the evidence, do you? You actually mean to do some forensic comparison.

A There was not a specific request for examinations submitted with that evidence 
when it was submitted.

Q I understand that, sir. But I’m asking you --we’re talking about as a result of 
your discussions what your intentions were. You testified that you would like to 
have a fresh set of eyes.

My question to you, sir, is you do not literally mean that you just want somebody 
to look at it, you wanted some forensic comparison done; correct?

A Correct.

Q And what forensic comparison did you intend?

A Well, there again, it’s difficult for me to answer that question without a 
specific request from the Bureau. A specific request for a specific examination.

Q You didn’t expect the evidence itself to change, did you?

A No.

Q You didn’t expect the DNA profiles of the people who had been submitted to 
change, did you?

A No.

Q You didn’t expect the -- where -- you weren’t saying that the Division of 
Forensic Sciences was wrong?

A No.

MR. WILLETT: Excuse me. I’m going to object to this line of inquiry. I think it’s 
collateral. It has nothing to do with why this witness is on the stand and what 
inquiry the Court is trying to make now which is -- just conducting a civil 
deposition of potential witnesses at this juncture.

MR. CONNELL: Your Honor, we’re doing nothing of the sort. We’re going to the 
central question of why the Virginia state police submitted this evidence to the 
FBI. And my next question -- well, once I get past this question, will tie up this 
line of questioning.

But it is -- the central question we’re trying to deal with whether the -- the 
Commonwealth has offered certain representations as the basis for denying the 
motion to compel. I think that the evidence is severely undermining those 
representations.

Not by any intentional misrepresentation of the Commonwealth, but I think that the 
evidence, once we’re seeing it, is different from what it was believed to be. And 
that’s what this question is intended to establish.

MR. WILLETT: The question is why was it submitted to the FBI lab. That question has 
been asked and answered any number of different ways.

THE COURT: It’s been answered in different ways too which is part of my problem. So 
I’m going to overrule the objection. You may proceed.

MR. CONNELL: Thank you.

BY MR. CONNELL: 

Q The question, sir, is you weren’t saying that the Division of Forensic Sciences 
was wrong in its analysis; correct?

A Correct.

continued
Q Now, at the time that you wanted -- at this time, on May 14th of 2004, the 
Division of Forensic Sciences had never compared the Reynolds evidence against 
known hair and fiber samples from Richard Evonitz;






Division of Forensic Science analysis?

A I may have but I can’t recall specifically giving those items to him.

Q Between December 10, 2003, and May 14, 2004, when did you change your mind about 
Mr. Deedrick’s comparison of the Reynolds evidence against known hair and fiber 
samples from Mr. Evonitz?

A At some point in time, we had received information from the Lisk-Silva task force 
that indicated that on May -- on March 2, 1996, which was the morning of Alicia 
Reynolds going missing, they had accounted for Mr. Evonitz at his place of 
employment in Spotsylvania County.

Q And that was it?

A Yes, sir.

Q So when you say, “had accounted for his whereabouts,” you mean the spreadsheets 
of his time -- of Mr. Evonitz’s time that he prepared?

A I was advised this by the Spotsylvania Lisk-Silva task force. My supervisor were 
[sic] appraised of this. I was told this and that’s how we learned of that, yes, 
sir.

Q Let me make sure that -- I just want to be sure I’m clear.

Who specifically told you, sir?

A I can’t remember who specifically. We had a -- we had a member on the Lisk-Silva 
task force working with the task force and it may have been him. It may have been 
my supervisor that initially gave me that information.

Q All right. And the information that you received is that the spreadsheets, the 
work records -- spreadsheets containing work records, at Walter Grinders showed 
that Mr. Evonitz was at work on March 2nd of 1996?

A That’s the information I received; yes, sir.

Q Did you receive any other information which caused you to change your mind?

A No.

Q So are you telling us, sir, that -- did you ever see those records?

A I believe they’re part of my case file summary; yes, sir.

Q Does that mean that you saw them?

A Yes, sir, I glanced at them; yes, sir.

Q So on the basis of a single statement from an unidentified person and glancing at 
records, you excluded a known serial killer from consideration all together?

A To answer your question, I suppose, yes.

2 MR. CONNELL: I don’t have any further questions, Your Honor.

CROSS EXAMINATION

BY MR. WILLETT:

Q Mr. Gregg, Mr. Evonitz had a completely different method of operation with 
respect to selecting the type of victim than fit the profile of Ms. Reynolds; is 
that correct?

MR. CONNELL: Objection to foundation, Your Honor. I think we need to know what he 
knows about the profile of Mr. Evonitz.

THE COURT: Okay. Fair enough.

BY MR. WILLETT:

Q Do you have any familiarity with the Evonitz method of operation with respect to 
the Lisk-Silva and other crimes that have been laid at his feet?

A Very limited. I was not involved in those investigations.

Q Do you know that they were children?

A Yes, sir.

Q And what time was based -- as lead investigator in the Reynolds case that you 
recall, as best