Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing Transcript (Day 4 Part 18) (10/20/26)

Transcript

Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing Transcript (Day 4 Part 18) (10/20/26) · The Epstein Chronicles

• 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 dive right back into the
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: Tyler Robinson transcript from day number four. We're picking up
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: with the defense questioning Samantha Karner. Question. All right, so
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: go to the photo at the bottom of that page.
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: This is the first of several comparisons between the test
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: fire on the left and the 6A on the right, correct? Answer, yes. Question. Question.
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: And what does the writing on the top mean? Blue
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: index GIMP? Answer, so that will be the first number.
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: There is the case number, the laboratory case number. The
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: next 1.11b is going to refer to the specific test
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: fire that's on the picture and then V versus 6A.
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: So that's the evidence that's also pictured. GIMP stands for
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: groove impressions. So I'm looking at a groove impression in
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: this photo. Blue index means that I'm specifically looking at
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: the groove impression that I have put a blue indexing
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: mark on so that I know where I am during
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: the comparison process. 30 times refers to the magnification that
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: the photo was taken at. And then ink refers to,
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: in conclusive, the final inclusion. Question, so I'm interested in
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: the areas of disagreement. Are there areas of disagreement between
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: the known and the unknown here that you could point
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: us to? Answer, so for the photo, to me, I
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: see areas of agreement in the top. And then on
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: the way down from 6a, right after you see those
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: two highlighted lines near the top, there's a lot of
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: damage that is observed. And almost no microscopic marks of
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: value can be observed at all. So again, that lends
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: to the lack of quality and quantity of marks, even
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: to do a comparison. It's almost like missing data points. Question, okay.
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: Missing is not the same thing as dissimilar though, right? Answer,
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: it just means there's nothing there to call agreement or disagreement. Question,
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: so do you see areas of disagreement here or no? Answer,
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: on the striations that are available to me on this
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: groove impression, I see areas of agreement and specifically talking
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: about those two highlighted lines at the top on the right. Question, okay.
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: Go to the next page, please. Top photo on the
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: next page. It's 38. Do you see areas of disagreement
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: in this photo? Answer, so this is the same photograph
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: that we looked at before, just a different magnification. It
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: zoomed in a little bit more, from 30 to 40 times.
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: So again, I'm looking at those two highlighted lines near
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: the top. And then if you look down, you can
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: almost see the damage a little bit better. And there's
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: none of those striated lines that you see on the
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: test fire, which you would expect to see in a
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: land or groove impression on the right at all. So again,
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: no microscopic marks of value to compare whatsoever. Question all right,
• 2:47
  Speaker 1: how about the bottom photo? And again, the question, areas
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: of disagreement. Answer, the possibility of an area of disagreement
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: maybe in the middle there on the 6a is a
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: line that does not look like it carries over, but
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: just from this snapshot. I can't say if I had
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: moved the photo a little bit different or the specimens
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: together that the area would be agreement. In this photo,
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: it does not look like it does though. Question okay.
• 3:11
  Speaker 1: And could you go to the next photo, please? Same
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: question here. Areas of disagreement. Answer. The way this photo
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: was taken is highlighting more of the lack of microscopic
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: marks of value. If I had pulled the specimen that's
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: on the left, The test fire over. There might be
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: some agreement that could be observed, but the way the
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: photograph is now, you don't see the line on the
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: right going all the way over, but again, this is
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: just a snapshot of one particular area. Question. Doesn't show
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: areas of agreement or disagreement? Answer. There's an area of
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: agreement at the very bottom of the photo. Question. Okay.
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: Next photo, please. How about this one? Answer. This is
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: another zoomed in on the previous photo focusing... in on
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: the bottom area of agreement. So we went from 30
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: times to 40 times and just highlighting one specific area
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: and this is showing your agreement. Prosecution, next photo. Answer,
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: so again, the area that's highlighted, the bottom portion that's
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: in focus is showing an area of agreement. As you
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: go up, the lines are a little bit blurred on
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: the 6A bullet jacket fragment. So it's hard to say
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: if that area was an agreement or a disagreement. That's
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: not what my photos were focusing on. Question, alright, next one. Answer,
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: so again, this is going to show you part of
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: the groove impression at the white index. On the top
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: you can see some strided lines, or excuse me, more
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: of the middle of the photo. The top of the
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: groove impression from the 6A, you see some lines did
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: not appear to be on the right side either, but
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: this photo is also trying to show the lack of
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: microscopic marks at all towards the bottom of that groove impression. Question,
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: but there are in these photos some Areas of disagreement
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: as well as areas of agreement, correct? Answer. In the
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: photo that we just looked at, it could be possible
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: areas of disagreement. Again, it's just one area that I'm
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: looking at. It's hard to tell when you can't look
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: at the entirety of the land in the moment. Question. Sure,
• 5:07
  Speaker 1: you can take that down, please. Do you keep up
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: with the scientific literature relevant to your field? Answer. I do, yes. Question.
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: And you're aware of certain criticisms that have been leveled
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: against this AFT theory of identification? Answer. Yeah. I've heard
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: recommendations on how to improve the AFT theory of identification. Yes. Question. Well,
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: the criticisms have gone beyond that, right? Answer. Specifically, what
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: are you referring to? Answer. Well, you know, you're aware
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: that the National Resource, you know, the National Resource Council,
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: National Academy of Science? Answer. Yeah. Question. Is that a
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: pretty preeminent scientific organization in the country? Answer, yes. Question,
• 5:47
  Speaker 1: did they conclude in 2009 that a fundamental problem with
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: tool mark and firearm analysis is a lack of precisely
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: defined process? As noted above, AFTE has adopted a theory
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: of identification, but it does not provide a specific protocol.
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: It says that an examiner may offer an opinion that
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: a specific tool or firearm was a source of a
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: specific set of tool marks or a bullet striation pattern.
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: when sufficient agreement exists in the pattern of two set marks.
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: It defines agreement as significant when it exceeds the best
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: agreement demonstrated between tool marks known to have been produced
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: by different tools and is consistent with the agreement demonstrated
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: by tool marks known to have been produced by the
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: same tool. The meaning of exceeds the best agreement and
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: consistent with or not specified and the examiner is expected
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: to draw on his or her experience. This AFTE document
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: which is the best guideline available for the field of
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: toolmark identification, does not even consider, let alone address, questions
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: regarding variability, reliability, repeatability, or the number of correlations needed
• 6:54
  Speaker 1: to achieve a given degree of confidence. Answer, I do remember.
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: To that, there is an objection by the prosecution. Objection.
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: We're now firmly into 702 territory. I object on grounds
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: of relevance to the probable cause hearing. and beyond the
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: scope of the PC hearings as I previously objected. Judge Graf,
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: if you would, so again, I'm trying to keep us
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: on the probable cause standard. This is going a bit
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: deep in regards to it. This is citing to 2009,
• 7:23
  Speaker 1: and so we're in 2026. And again, I don't want
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: to have a deep dive into areas trying to determine
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: because I feel that we're exiting the orbit of probable cause.
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: If I'm having to make that analysis and trying to
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: see how this is relevant, How does this apply? How
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: does this go right to probable cause? So if you
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: wish to ask this question and then move on, we
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: certainly could do that. Defense? Sure. The only thing I
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: wanted to do was establish that this was the foundation
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: criticism in 2009. And I know that we had raised
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: some issue with respect to one of the other experts.
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: The comeback was, oh, well, this was in 2009. And
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: the PCAS report was in 2016. In this particular field,
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: these criticisms have started in 2009, but they have continued
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: up to the present day and have gotten more strident.
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: So I think that's the take home here, is that
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: it's not some past criticism that's been set aside. This
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: is a criticism that this expert is aware of and
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: that has continued in the literature up to the present time.
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: Judge Graff, but I don't have the second portion of
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: what you just said in front of me, so I
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: can't agree with you because I don't have that in
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: front of me. Defense, right? Judge, I can't go searching
• 8:37
  Speaker 1: myself as a magistrate for probable cause. I have to
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: take what you say as it is. And if I
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: have to start searching, I've left the universe of probable cause. Defense,
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: I agree. And I was offering that to the court
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: as to proffer in terms of where the line of
• 8:53
  Speaker 1: questioning is going so the court can understand the context.
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: It isn't just an isolated criticism, and I'll establish with
• 9:00
  Speaker 1: a couple of questions that it's continued up to the
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: present time. Judge Graff, so? I'll overrule the objection, but
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: I'll limit you to this question. We're going to more
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: and more? I see your point. You're looking at whether
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: this science is challenged or not. The point's been received,
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: but anything further goes outside a probable cause, so we
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: have to get back on the path. Defense, got it.
• 9:21
  Speaker 1: Judge Graff, thank you. Defense, you're aware of that criticism, right? Answer,
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: by Ms. Karner, yes I am. Question, and you're aware
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: of the criticism leveled in 2016. Judge Graff? Counsel, I
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: just said that we're focused solely on, I've accepted what
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: you've said. But I said it's limited to the question
• 9:40
  Speaker 1: and we're moving on, because anything further is going outside
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: of probable cause. Defense, I misunderstood. I apologize to the court.
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: Judge Graff, I apologize if I wasn't clear on that,
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: so maybe it was my error not communicating. I've accepted
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: that coming in. I've overruled the objection, but I said
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: we're going to leave that where it stands. and then
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: move forward. Question, and that's where I'm unclear. When the
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: court says move forward, no more questions about any further
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: criticisms beyond that one? Answer, on this line of question,
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: that is correct. Defense, okay, Judge Graff, thank you. Defense,
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: thank you. And I think I've made the proffer in
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: terms of relevancy of it. Judge Graff, I'll accept that. Defense,
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: thank you. Judge Graff, so thank you, Mr. Burke. Question,
• 10:27
  Speaker 1: all right. Then the last area is in the years
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: that you've been doing this testing, is it true that
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: you've only taken one proficiency test that involves bullet comparisons? Answer, yes.
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: I've only had the opportunity to take one bullet proficiency
• 10:41
  Speaker 1: test so far. Question, and is it true that was
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: in 2023? Answer, yes. I don't remember the exact year,
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: but that sounds correct. Yes. Question. All right. And is
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: it true that proficiency test involved the test where you
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: had question bullets and then you had two sets of bullets,
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: one that was fired from a gun, not the suspect gun,
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: and then a second gun that was fired from another gun? Answer.
• 11:04
  Speaker 1: I don't remember the exact final ground truth answers that
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: were there. No, I'm sorry. I don't remember. Question. I
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: think when you and I talked about this, you said
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: you were aware of a controversy about that particular test, correct? Answer,
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: I'm aware, yes. Of the results of the proficiency test, yes. Question,
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: that there was very high error rate in that particular
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: proficiency test, right? Answer, there was a higher error rate, yes. However,
• 11:29
  Speaker 1: my answers were satisfactory along with the five other examiners
• 11:32
  Speaker 1: at my specific laboratory that took it as well. Question,
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: your conclusion in that case, as in this case, was
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: that it was inconclusive, correct? Answer, correct. Question, Even though
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: the correct answer was the bullets did not come from
• 11:46
  Speaker 1: the question, the two did not match, that known in
• 11:49
  Speaker 1: question should have been an elimination? Answer. The ground truth
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: answer was yes, they were excluded. However, an inconclusive result
• 11:57
  Speaker 1: in this comparison was extremely appropriate. The lack of quality
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: and quantity of those individual characteristics never reached sufficient agreement,
• 12:05
  Speaker 1: nor did it ever reach sufficient disagreement. So, saying anything
• 12:09
  Speaker 1: but inconclusive was not appropriate. Question I see. And can
• 12:13
  Speaker 1: you have bullets fired from different weapons that have individualized
• 12:16
  Speaker 1: characteristics that look pretty similar? Answer, there is occasion, yes.
• 12:21
  Speaker 1: The tool marks are made by two separate tools are similar, yes.
• 12:26
  Speaker 1: All right, folks, we're going to wrap up right here.
• 12:27
  Speaker 1: And in the next episode, dealing with the topic, we're
• 12:30
  Speaker 1: going to pick up where we left off. All the
• 12:33
  Speaker 1: information that goes with this episode can be found in
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: the description box.