Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing Transcripts (Day 2 Part 19) (10/1/26)

Transcript

Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing Transcripts (Day 2 Part 19) (10/1/26) · Beyond The Horizon

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone and welcome back to the program. In
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: this episode, we're going to pick up where we left
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: off with the Tyler Robinson Day 2 prelim hearing. And
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: it's the defense making their case to the court once again.
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: The point is, there are explanations that are susceptible to
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: different interpretations and arguments, but ultimately we're going to have
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: an expert hearing where all of the literature is going
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: to be before the court. and the court's going to
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: determine if it meets a threshold of reliability for admission
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: at trial. But at this stage, even granting that, there
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: may be some argument that may come from defense counsel's position,
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: the court can't weigh it. This does not go to
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: the probable cause determination, and I don't think it's relevant.
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: And this exhibit in particular is not relevant without the
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: testimony of the witness, and so the exhibit should not
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: be admitted on its face either. But that's why I
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: was trying to lay a foundation that she offered a
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: proof to the court that she would testify that, in fact,
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: there are sequences different at the six different locations relevant
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: to the comparison to Mr. Robinson. And when she says
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: the state says the court cannot weigh in, the court
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: can weigh reliability. The court has ruled that. So we're
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: simply asking the court to take into account the limited
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: nature of these comparisons and the fact that she cannot,
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: based on the testing that she performed, tell the court
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: whether there are differences at these five locations. She can't
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: match Mr. Robinson to the question samples. because she didn't
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: do sequence testing. And she'll go also testify that the
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: FBI is in the process of implementing this kind of testing.
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: Judge Graff, all right, thank you to both sides. I'm
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: going to allow the admission of this evidence, but I'm
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: also going to set a limit of a limited number
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: of questions. And we are now at 440. This is
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: on the cusp of whether it's applicable to the probable
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: cause standard. I want to afford defense its full opportunity,
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: but I still have to rein it in, keeping it
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: to probable cause and not going into full explorations. because
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: that's not the purpose of a prelim hearing. So, I
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: will admit Baker 34, but Mr. Burt, I'm going to
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: limit you. How much time do you need to address this? Answer,
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: I just need about four or five minutes. Judge, okay. Answer,
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: I mean the next chart will be the chart with
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: what are called isolulies displayed for the court so the
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: court can just see what we're talking about and that's it.
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: I'm just going to have her document that, in fact,
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: I've accurately stated what the alleles are and what the
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: sequence difference is. Judge Graff, alright, so? Prosecution? Answer, just
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: on a second matter, which is I need to cross-examine
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: the witness. She's got to leave town today. I would
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: like 20 minutes to cross-examine the witness. Judge Graff, alright, well,
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: I'll go with. I accept the representation to the amount
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: of time, and I'm going to talk less because that's
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: consuming more time, and also allow the state to appropriate
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: time to cross-examination given the nature of the witness having
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: to travel. The defense is at it once again. Question?
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: And this exhibit, the same chart, with what are called
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: the isoalleles indicated? Answer, yes it is. Question, an isoalleles
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: is a term used to refer to these alleles that
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: have different sequence, but the same length. Answer, correct, yes. Question,
• 3:09
  Speaker 1: so across the top, there for allele 17 in D3,
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: there is allele 17A, allele 17B, allele 17C, with the
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: same length, but different sequences for each of those three. Answer, correct, yes. Question,
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: and similarly, at VWA, where you say that Mr. Robinson
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: is an 18, an 1819, in the evidence sample, there
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: is an 18A and an 18B, a 19A and a 19B. Answer, correct, yes. Question,
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: and similarly, for those areas I've indicated, I have accurately
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: stated what the different sequence alleles are, correct? Answer, yes. Question,
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: so I move this exhibit into evidence, Your Honor, and
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: for publication. Judge Graff, and is this Baker 34? Answer, yes.
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: All right, I'll admit it into evidence. Under a previous statement,
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: as it relates to Baker 34, it may be published. Question,
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: and as you look at these five areas, you can't
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: distinguish the evidence samples from Mr. Robinson based on the
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: sequence differences, can you? Answer, correct. I only utilize length differences,
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: STRs in this case. The FBI laboratory does not use
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: sequencing for nuclear DNA testing. nor am I qualified in it. Answer,
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: all right, what is NGS? Answer, NGS stands for next-generation sequencing. Question,
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: and your laboratory is involved in validating next-generation sequencing, correct? Answer,
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: we utilize next-generation sequencing for mitochondrial DNA, which is a
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: different subset of DNA testing, but not for nuclear DNA testing,
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: which is what we're talking about today. Question, all right,
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: but for the people who market SDR mix, Also a
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: marketed sequence platform. Do they not? Answer. I'm not aware
• 4:56
  Speaker 1: if they do or not. Question. Last question. Take a
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: look at. Not that one. There we go. Well, I'll
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: save that for redirect. Thank you. Ms. Baker. Thank you. Judge.
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: All right. So turning to the state. Now the prosecution
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: is doing some cross-examination. Prosecution. I want to start by
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: asking you what your training and experience is. First of all,
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: do you have any education? Answer. Yes, I do. I
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: have a bachelor's of science in biology from Salisbury University. Question,
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: and after your bachelor's in biology degree, what did you
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: do for a career and then further education? Answer, upon
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: graduating from college, I began working at the FBI laboratory
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: as a contractor. I was assigned to the Federal Convicted
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: Offender Program, which was a program under the DNA unit.
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: During that time, I did that for approximately a year
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: and a half. It was my responsibility to open an
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: inventory of and barcode DNA collection kits sent in from
• 5:52
  Speaker 1: federal agencies across the United States. I then became a
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: biologist in the DNA casework unit. I did that for
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: approximately six years. During that time, I did the actual
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: testing of items of evidence, so swabbing, cutting those swabs,
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: producing the DNA profile, and then in 2015, I accepted
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: a position as a forensic examiner, which I am still today. Question,
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: I'm sorry, what year was that? Answer, 2015. Question, so
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: 11 years, you've been doing more or less the same
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: duties you have now, is that right? Answer, correct, yes. Question,
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: I want to ask you about your lab's accreditation. What
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: is accreditation for a laboratory? Answer, accreditation is a formal
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: recognition that our laboratory is following a very strict set
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: of standards. We're accredited by ANAB, the American National Standards
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: Institute National Accreditation Board, and our accreditation is shows that
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: we have to follow standards, such as to have a
• 6:51
  Speaker 1: certain education background, how we process evidence, how we store evidence.
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: Every four years, we're audited to those standards, meaning an
• 6:58
  Speaker 1: outside body comes in to the laboratory looking at my
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: training records, look at our standard operating procedure to ensure
• 7:05
  Speaker 1: that we're following those standards. Question, and you mentioned your training.
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: So what do you have to do as an examiner there,
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: as a scientist there, for your lab to be accredited? Answer,
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: as for my training program, I had to complete a
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: two-year training program. During that time, I learned the science
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: behind DNA testing, and I showed that I understood that
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: science by completing oral board examination and written examinations. I
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: also then had to show that I can relay results,
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: those scientific results, to a jury by completing moot court exercises.
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: And before becoming qualified, I then took something called a
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: competency exam, where it's like a final examination to show
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: that I'm qualified to perform my duties. During that accreditation
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: or the audit process, my training records were reviewed to
• 7:53
  Speaker 1: make sure that I had the proper coursework, the proper
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: college degree, as well as completing successfully that training program. Question,
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: and do you have to keep up with the ongoing
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: education to maintain your certification? Baker, I'm not certified. I'm
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: a qualified as an examiner. Question, to maintain your qualification,
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: do you have to have an ongoing education? Answer, yes,
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: on a yearly basis. I have to complete at least
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: eight hours of continuing education, and this can be done
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: by attending conferences or lectures or reading scientific literature. Question,
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: do you have to also undergo proficiency testing? Answer, yes.
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: And a proficiency test is a test that we receive
• 8:31
  Speaker 1: from an outside vendor. I process that test like I
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: would any other case and submit those answers to determine
• 8:37
  Speaker 1: if I'm satisfactory or unsatisfactory. The test not only for
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: me to see if I'm still proficient in my qualifications,
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: but it also tests the laboratory process to ensure that
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: we're getting accurate and reliable results. Question, now you've discussed
• 8:53
  Speaker 1: your work in the case. You talked about your work
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: needing to be reviewed by another analyst. And is that
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: true of every single case? Answer, yes. In every one
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: of our cases, they have to undergo the technical review
• 9:05
  Speaker 1: in addition to an administrative review. Question, and it sounds
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: like during those technical reviews and administrative reviews, there's discussion
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: between you and other analysts. Is that correct? Answer, yes. Question,
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: and is that an opportunity for training and learning as well? Answer, yes, absolutely. Question,
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: and I assume that training and learning goes both directions.
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: That you're learning and you're also helping others understand your
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: thought process, which might train them as well. Is that accurate? Answer,
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: that's true, yes. Question, the tools that you use, are
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: the tools you use validated? Answer, yes, they are. Question,
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: and what does it mean? to have a tool that
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: you use validated? Answer, so validation is a thorough testing
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: of a process or procedure. So before we subject any
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: evidence to testing, we ensure that those process and procedures
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: will work within our laboratory. Based on the validation, we
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: create something called standard operating procedure, or SOPs. And these
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: are kind of like cookbooks. It gives us step-by-step instruction
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: on how to do our process and procedure. And then
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: both myself and an examiner, as well as the biologist,
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: were all trained at those standard operating procedures and tested
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: to those standard operating procedures. During proficiency tests. Question. Now
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: you've talked about, I think, a couple of the tools
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: that you use. One you call STR Mix. Is that right? Answer. Correct. Yes. Question.
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: And is that tool validated? Answer. Yes. It's validated. Both
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: developmentally and internally. Developmentally, it's validated by the creators of
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: the software. And then we also, we the FBI laboratory,
• 10:45
  Speaker 1: also tested STR-MIX to ensure that we could use it
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: within our laboratory and produce accurate and reliable results. Question now,
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: when you say that it was developmentally validated, is that
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: a peer-reviewed study? Answer, yes it is. Question, and how
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: widely is STR-MIX used throughout the world? Answer, STR-MIX is
• 11:06
  Speaker 1: used approximately in 120 laboratories, both domestically and internationally. Question,
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: I want to go back to some of the questions
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: that you were asked on direct examination. You were asked
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: about an Exhibit 8.4, Baker 8.4, which is the DOJ Ultra,
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: which is the uniform language. What does that stand for? Answer,
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: uniform language for reporting and testimony, I believe. Question, okay,
• 11:29
  Speaker 1: it talks about the language that you should use and
• 11:32
  Speaker 1: language that you shouldn't use as an examiner and a scientist, correct? Answer,
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: that is correct, yes. Question, now I want to ask
• 11:40
  Speaker 1: you a little bit about what you do when you
• 11:42
  Speaker 1: have a conclusion like you did in Exhibit 31. Do
• 11:45
  Speaker 1: you know the directive from the Department of Justice limits
• 11:49
  Speaker 1: the adjectives you can use to describe the evidence and
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: the conclusions that you reach? Is that accurate? Yes it is.
• 11:57
  Speaker 1: And the thinking behind that is to submit to the
• 11:59
  Speaker 1: statistical number and let the others decide. Meaning the reader
• 12:03
  Speaker 1: decide how they want to describe that number. Is that accurate?
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: Yes it is. So for example, We can look at
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: Exhibit 31. And if you don't mind publishing that. Yes,
• 12:13
  Speaker 1: that's been admitted. So if we can put it up
• 12:15
  Speaker 1: on screen. And Kimberly, if you could scroll to page
• 12:18
  Speaker 1: three when that comes up. Thank you. So item seven,
• 12:21
  Speaker 1: sub one is a swabbing from the towel from the rifle.
• 12:25
  Speaker 1: We have the number in a written form in the
• 12:27
  Speaker 1: second paragraph beneath the heading. And then beneath that, you
• 12:30
  Speaker 1: have a table, correct? Answer. That is correct. Yes. Question.
• 12:33
  Speaker 1: And the likelihood ratio gives the number, right? That's the
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: likelihood ratio. and that's stated in sentence form in the
• 12:39
  Speaker 1: paragraph preceding the table, correct? Answer, correct, yes. Question, the
• 12:45
  Speaker 1: only language you can use to describe what the number
• 12:48
  Speaker 1: means from the DOJ directive is very strong support for inclusion, correct? Answer, correct, yes. Question,
• 12:54
  Speaker 1: and the sentence there that says DNA results from item 7.1
• 12:59
  Speaker 1: are 1.7 octillion times more likely if Twiggs and Robinson
• 13:03
  Speaker 1: are contributors than than if twigs and an unknown unrelated
• 13:06
  Speaker 1: person are contributors. The reader can assign whatever value they
• 13:10
  Speaker 1: want to that, correct? Answer, what do you mean? Question
• 13:14
  Speaker 1: meaning adjective to describe what that means. Answer, sure, yes. Question,
• 13:19
  Speaker 1: the adjective you can use is very strong support. Answer,
• 13:22
  Speaker 1: for inclusion, yes. Question, okay, for inclusion, all right. If
• 13:27
  Speaker 1: we go to A1, Kimberly, if you can scroll down
• 13:30
  Speaker 1: to make that a little bit easier to view. Same
• 13:32
  Speaker 1: question there. The results are from 8.1, from 30 quintillion times,
• 13:36
  Speaker 1: more likely if Twiggs and Robinson are contributors than if
• 13:39
  Speaker 1: Twiggs and an unknown, unrelated person are contributors. The adjective
• 13:44
  Speaker 1: that you're allowed to use is very strong support for
• 13:46
  Speaker 1: inclusion again, correct? Answer yes. Question okay. We can take
• 13:50
  Speaker 1: that exhibit down, thank you. You were asked about formal
• 13:53
  Speaker 1: activity level, and you described this as the lab cannot
• 13:56
  Speaker 1: testify about, or you cannot testify, about what action left
• 14:00
  Speaker 1: the DNA on the object. Is that right? Answer, that
• 14:03
  Speaker 1: is correct, yes. Question, does that mean that an individual
• 14:06
  Speaker 1: did not touch? Well, let me ask you this. How
• 14:09
  Speaker 1: can DNA get onto an object? Answer, DNA can get
• 14:13
  Speaker 1: on an object via direct contact, so an individual touching
• 14:17
  Speaker 1: an object. It can also end up on an item
• 14:20
  Speaker 1: via body fluids such as blood or through transfer. So
• 14:23
  Speaker 1: if I were to touch an object and then that
• 14:25
  Speaker 1: object is given to someone else, my DNA could potentially
• 14:29
  Speaker 1: be on that other individual through the transfer of DNA. Question,
• 14:34
  Speaker 1: and you cannot testify as to what precise action left
• 14:37
  Speaker 1: the DNA on the object, correct? Answer, correct, I cannot. Question, okay,
• 14:41
  Speaker 1: same question about time. You can't testify about the exact
• 14:45
  Speaker 1: time that DNA was left on an object, right? Answer, correct. Question,
• 14:50
  Speaker 1: but there are some indicators that may give some information
• 14:52
  Speaker 1: about how long and the conditions under which DNA was
• 14:56
  Speaker 1: placed on an item, like degradation? Answer, yes, degradation or
• 15:01
  Speaker 1: the condition of the item is So again, if a firearm,
• 15:03
  Speaker 1: for example, is in a river, I would expect with
• 15:06
  Speaker 1: a water rushing over that item, I may or may
• 15:08
  Speaker 1: not be able to detect DNA. Also, if there is
• 15:11
  Speaker 1: an item of evidence that's exposed to the elements, something
• 15:15
  Speaker 1: that's been left behind 10 years ago, I don't necessarily
• 15:18
  Speaker 1: expect to recover DNA. But something that may have been
• 15:21
  Speaker 1: left yesterday, I expect to be able to detect DNA. Question,
• 15:25
  Speaker 1: an item that has been left in the dirt or
• 15:28
  Speaker 1: has been rubbed in the dirt, could that affect your
• 15:30
  Speaker 1: ability to recover DNA? Answer, it could, yes. Question, could
• 15:34
  Speaker 1: it also affect degradation? Answer, yes. Question, can UV rays
• 15:39
  Speaker 1: affect degradation? Answer, it can, yes. Question, does degradation keep
• 15:43
  Speaker 1: you from doing your work? Answer, no, it does not. Question,
• 15:47
  Speaker 1: is degradation normal? Answer, yes, it is. Question, does all
• 15:50
  Speaker 1: DNA degrade? Answer, yes, it does. Question, I imagine if
• 15:55
  Speaker 1: it's kept in a pristine environment, it would degrade less
• 15:58
  Speaker 1: than if it's found or out in the open. Is
• 16:00
  Speaker 1: that accurate? Answer, yes. Question, okay, you say with regard
• 16:04
  Speaker 1: to the screwdriver, there is some degradation. Did that affect
• 16:07
  Speaker 1: your ability to reach conclusions in the case? Answer, no,
• 16:10
  Speaker 1: it did not. Question, you said on item seven, the
• 16:13
  Speaker 1: towel or the swab from the towel, there was slight degradation,
• 16:17
  Speaker 1: not as much as exhibit eight. Is that accurate? Answer, yes. Question,
• 16:21
  Speaker 1: did that degradation affect your ability to reach a conclusion here? Answer, no,
• 16:25
  Speaker 1: it did not. Question, so you were asked about PCAST report.
• 16:29
  Speaker 1: You testified that. that gave you guidance on different areas
• 16:32
  Speaker 1: of forensic science. Do you know what year that report
• 16:35
  Speaker 1: was published? Answer, I don't recall the year. Question, do
• 16:38
  Speaker 1: you know if it's been within the last five years? Answer, no,
• 16:41
  Speaker 1: it's not. Question, meaning it's older than that? Answer, yes. Question,
• 16:45
  Speaker 1: do you know if it's been in the last 10 years? Answer,
• 16:48
  Speaker 1: I think it was 2016, but I'm not entirely sure.
• 16:51
  Speaker 1: I would say within the last 10 years. Question, so
• 16:54
  Speaker 1: let me ask you this. Has science in your area,
• 16:57
  Speaker 1: can I refer to it as probabilistic genotyping? Answer, probabilistic
• 17:02
  Speaker 1: genotyping is the math in my area, yes. Question, the
• 17:05
  Speaker 1: science in your area and your field, has it developed
• 17:08
  Speaker 1: over the last 10 years? Answer, yes, it has. Question,
• 17:12
  Speaker 1: and have there been studies that have made suggestions which
• 17:15
  Speaker 1: have been implemented in the field? Answer, yes. Question, you
• 17:19
  Speaker 1: testified about Exhibits 7 and 8, and they both had mixtures.
• 17:22
  Speaker 1: Excuse me, yes, Items 7 and 8. In your testing
• 17:25
  Speaker 1: of these items, that they both had mixtures. And you stated,
• 17:28
  Speaker 1: I want to make sure you understood this, you stated...
• 17:31
  Speaker 1: I believe that the minor contributor was less than 20%,
• 17:34
  Speaker 1: and that it was actually 5%, and the ratio was
• 17:37
  Speaker 1: 5% to 95%. Answer, for one sample, yes. Question, do
• 17:41
  Speaker 1: you remember that? Answer, yes. Question, does that mean that
• 17:44
  Speaker 1: 5% was from Twigs, and 95, that 95 is assumed
• 17:48
  Speaker 1: from the defendant? Answer, when I calculated the statistic, Twigs'
• 17:53
  Speaker 1: DNA profile aligned with 5% contributor, and Mr. Robinson's DNA
• 17:57
  Speaker 1: profile aligned better with 95% contributor. Question, okay, same question
• 18:02
  Speaker 1: with regard to 8. I think you said the ratio
• 18:05
  Speaker 1: was 11% from the minor and 89% from the major.
• 18:09
  Speaker 1: Is that Twiggs being and 11% and Robinson being 89%? Answer, yes.
• 18:15
  Speaker 1: Twiggs better aligned with that 11% contributor and Mr. Robinson
• 18:19
  Speaker 1: better aligned with the 79% contributor. Question, you're asked about
• 18:24
  Speaker 1: Baker 4, an exhibit that was titled Baker 4 365.
• 18:26
  Speaker 1: Do you remember this exhibit by chance? I don't have
• 18:30
  Speaker 1: a copy of it. Well, do you have Baker 4365?
• 18:33
  Speaker 1: Put that up. And item seven is the towel, right? Answer, yes.
• 18:37
  Speaker 1: Question item eight is the screwdriver. Answer, yes. Question, thank you.
• 18:43
  Speaker 1: It's five o'clock. I'm going to wrap up. We can
• 18:45
  Speaker 1: go ahead and take that down. I'm sorry. Thank you
• 18:48
  Speaker 1: for helping out with that. I'm reaching your conclusions. Did
• 18:51
  Speaker 1: you follow the protocols of your accredited lab? Answer, yes,
• 18:54
  Speaker 1: I did. Question, and based on your training and experience
• 18:58
  Speaker 1: in following those protocols, Did you in fact come to
• 19:00
  Speaker 1: the conclusions described in Exhibit 31? Answer, yes, I did. Question,
• 19:06
  Speaker 1: thank you. Judge jumps in. All right. Defense, how much
• 19:10
  Speaker 1: time are you anticipating? Defense, five minutes. Judge, all right. Defense,
• 19:15
  Speaker 1: you referred to cross-examination to your training and experience, right? Answer, yes. Question,
• 19:20
  Speaker 1: do you agree with the statement in the PCA's report?
• 19:24
  Speaker 1: Experience or judgment cannot be used to establish... the scientific
• 19:28
  Speaker 1: validity and reliability of a metrological method such as forensic
• 19:32
  Speaker 1: feature comparison method. Moreover, a forensic examiner's experience from extensive
• 19:37
  Speaker 1: casework is not informative because the right answers are not
• 19:40
  Speaker 1: typically known in casework, and thus examiners cannot accurately know
• 19:45
  Speaker 1: how often they erroneously declare matches and cannot readily hone
• 19:49
  Speaker 1: their accuracy in by learning from their mistakes in the
• 19:51
  Speaker 1: course of casework. Do you agree with that statement? Answer
• 19:55
  Speaker 1: I don't. I think experience they're right in the fact
• 19:58
  Speaker 1: that we never know the true answer. However my experience
• 20:02
  Speaker 1: means that I've seen a lot of different DNA. I've
• 20:04
  Speaker 1: seen a lot of validation data so that does help
• 20:07
  Speaker 1: me come to a conclusion. Question, do you agree with
• 20:09
  Speaker 1: the statement? By that same report, good professional practice, such
• 20:13
  Speaker 1: as the existence of professional societies, certification programs, accreditation programs,
• 20:19
  Speaker 1: peer-reviewed articles, standardized protocol, proficiency testing, and the code of
• 20:24
  Speaker 1: ethics cannot substitute for actual evidence of scientific validity and reliability. Answer,
• 20:30
  Speaker 1: I don't think I agree with that either. The science
• 20:32
  Speaker 1: has been heavily validated and tested to show that's reliable.
• 20:36
  Speaker 1: Following protocols that are based on validation, Again, shows that
• 20:40
  Speaker 1: my results are accurate and reliable, as well as being
• 20:43
  Speaker 1: proficiently tested. Question, by the way, you said that the
• 20:46
  Speaker 1: report was not authored by experts, but the head of
• 20:49
  Speaker 1: that group was Eric Lander, who was one of the
• 20:51
  Speaker 1: most foremost experts in the area of forensic biology, is
• 20:54
  Speaker 1: he not? Answer, the name does not ring a bell.
• 20:57
  Speaker 1: I don't know who the individual is. Question, you don't
• 20:59
  Speaker 1: know who Eric Lander is? Answer, no, I do not. Question, okay,
• 21:03
  Speaker 1: when did you go to school? Answer, 2003 to 2007. Question,
• 21:07
  Speaker 1: you said that STR-MIX was widely used and then it's
• 21:11
  Speaker 1: been validated. The PCAS report said the problem, it's been
• 21:16
  Speaker 1: validated by the people selling the product, right? Answer, developmental validation, yes.
• 21:22
  Speaker 1: Internal validation, no. A laboratory that's going to utilize STR-MIX
• 21:26
  Speaker 1: has to validate their own laboratory. Question, and PCA report
• 21:31
  Speaker 1: says that we need validation data, not by the people
• 21:33
  Speaker 1: selling the product, but by independent scientists. in order to
• 21:37
  Speaker 1: make this reliable, right? Answer, they do, and that's exactly
• 21:40
  Speaker 1: what happened. There was 31 laboratories that came together in
• 21:44
  Speaker 1: response to the PCAS report and gave their validation data
• 21:48
  Speaker 1: on how they internally validated STR mix. Question? And then
• 21:53
  Speaker 1: after the information came forward, the PCAS committee reviewed it
• 21:56
  Speaker 1: and said the PCAS was unpersuaded by those studies. While
• 22:00
  Speaker 1: likelihood ratios are a mathematically sound concept, Their application requires
• 22:04
  Speaker 1: making a set of assumptions about DNA profiles that require
• 22:09
  Speaker 1: empirical testing. Errors in the assumption can lead to errors
• 22:12
  Speaker 1: in the results. To establish validity with a range of
• 22:16
  Speaker 1: parameters is thus important to undertake empirical testing with a
• 22:20
  Speaker 1: variety of samples in the relevant range. And they specifically
• 22:24
  Speaker 1: address the studies you're referring to, did they not? Answer,
• 22:27
  Speaker 1: I believe they did, yes. Question, yeah. And then lastly,
• 22:30
  Speaker 1: you said that STR mix is widely used. But as
• 22:33
  Speaker 1: I understand your testimony, you didn't use it and rely
• 22:36
  Speaker 1: upon it for your conclusion about Mr. Twigs, right? The
• 22:39
  Speaker 1: software told you there was no support there for including
• 22:42
  Speaker 1: them and you ignored it and decided otherwise, correct? Answer,
• 22:46
  Speaker 1: I did not ignore it. Again, given the type of sample,
• 22:49
  Speaker 1: it was an elimination sample. I compared that individual to
• 22:53
  Speaker 1: the DNA profile that I developed and determined that I
• 22:56
  Speaker 1: could conclude and I could utilize them as an elimination sample. Question,
• 23:00
  Speaker 1: you said your laboratory was accredited, correct? Answer, yes. Question,
• 23:04
  Speaker 1: but you're aware that in 2004, the Inspector General did
• 23:08
  Speaker 1: a comprehensive audit of your laboratory and published a report
• 23:11
  Speaker 1: called the FBI DNA Laboratory, a review of protocol and
• 23:14
  Speaker 1: practice vulnerabilities which found a number of errors in the
• 23:17
  Speaker 1: way that your lab does testing, correct? Objection now by prosecution. Objection.
• 23:23
  Speaker 1: The 2004 study is hardly relevant to this proceeding 22
• 23:26
  Speaker 1: years later. Prosecution Responds. It's relevant because he's relying on
• 23:31
  Speaker 1: accreditation to somehow say that these results are valid. This
• 23:34
  Speaker 1: lab was accredited when the study was done. Judge, I'll
• 23:38
  Speaker 1: allow this single question as she may respond. I'm overruling
• 23:41
  Speaker 1: the objection and will continue to move forward. Question, you're
• 23:44
  Speaker 1: aware of that study, right? Answer, no, I'm not. Question, okay,
• 23:48
  Speaker 1: thank you. That's all I have. Judge, anything else for
• 23:52
  Speaker 1: this witness? Prosecution, yes. I think there's one follow-up that
• 23:55
  Speaker 1: needs to be asked. You were asked or you testified
• 23:58
  Speaker 1: that you never know the true answer with fieldwork, correct? Answer, correct. Question,
• 24:03
  Speaker 1: and that's compared to ground truth studies where you do
• 24:06
  Speaker 1: know the true answer and you can compare the conclusions
• 24:09
  Speaker 1: that analysts draw with the true answer, the ground truth
• 24:12
  Speaker 1: answer that is the basis for the study. Is that right? Answer, yes,
• 24:17
  Speaker 1: and that's what our validation is. Question, your validation actually
• 24:20
  Speaker 1: is a ground truth test in essence? Answer, yes. Question, okay,
• 24:24
  Speaker 1: thank you. Judge, anything further for the witness? Defense? No. Judge?
• 24:30
  Speaker 1: May this witness be excused? Yes. All right, folks, we're
• 24:34
  Speaker 1: going to wrap up right here. And then in the
• 24:37
  Speaker 1: next episode, we're going to start taking a look at
• 24:39
  Speaker 1: day number three. All the information that goes with this
• 24:43
  Speaker 1: episode can be found in the description box.