STATEMENT OF FACTS - University of Illinois Springfield

through K-1-G – concrete at Miracle Motors. (Vol. LXI, R. 2108; 2112-13) Q-1
had a different source than Q-2 because it had a smooth surface. (Vol. LXI, R.
2110)
In comparing the concrete, Munroe employed a process called x-ray
diffraction. This process involves scraping pieces of concrete to obtain cement
samples. Then, an x-ray beam is shot through the particles while on a glass slide.
The x-ray beam is moved in a 180 degree arc so that you get a reflection and
refraction of the x-ray energy off the particles. (Vol. LXI, R. 1979-80)
Munroe concluded that the cement used to make Q-2 and K-1-C was the
same. (Vol. LXI, R. 2113-15) This was based on the fact that during his x-ray
diffraction examination there were two blips of the screen at 18 degrees and 34
degrees where the component parts of the cement were the same. (Vol. XLVI, R.
2114) Munroe also found similar weatehring patterns. (Vol. LXI, R. 2127-31) In
Munroe’s opinion, Exhibit K-1-E was also made from the same batch of cement
as K-1-C and Q-2. (Vol. LXI, R. 2116-17) The same was true for Exhibit K-1-G.
(Vol. LXI, R. 2117-19; 2139-41)
Munroe testified that he found both consistencies and inconsistencies in the
concrete samples. (Vol. LXII, R. 2184; 2188) All the concrete tested was Portland
cement and because of this there were going to be consistencies. (Vol. LXII, R.
2187) The mineralogy and component parts of Q-1 were the same as the samples
and the degree of difference in the aggregates used in the samples were not great.
(Vol. LXII, R. 2192) However, because the x-ray diffraction was inconclusive on
the samples it is impossible to say that there was a “match.” (Vol. LXII, R. 2195)
In other words, the consistencies that were found do not lead to a positive
identification. (Vol. LXII, R. 2246)
Defense Concrete Evidence
In contrast to cinders, concrete is very good earth material evidence because
every batch of concrete is unique. (Vol. LXIX, R. 22-23) After examining the
-80