Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing Transcript (Day 5 Part 4) (10/23/26)

Transcript

Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing Transcript (Day 5 Part 4) (10/23/26) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

• 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 in to
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: Tyler Robinson's transcript from day number five of that prelim hearing.
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: And we're picking up with the defense speaking with Caitlin Oliver. Question,
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: thank you. Could you read display exhibit 30, please? And again,
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: while he's doing that, that same conclusion where you included
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: the language, go back to that page, please. Five. Use
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: the term. There is evidentiary support and possible contributor. I
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: want to focus your attention on the words evidentiary support.
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: We've had a prior witness testify that from the FBI
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: testified that they use a scale and they characterize the
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: support along the lines of strong. Are you familiar with
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: that type of scale? Answer, yes. Question, does your agency
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: employ that scale? Answer, we can come to five conclusions
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: at our agency. So there can either be exclusion, limited
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: support for exclusion, uninformative, limited support for inclusion, and support
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: for inclusion. Question, and it takes it from what you
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: just said. You don't use these qualifiers strongly. The word
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: strongly includes things of that nature. Answer, yeah, we don't
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: use a verbal scale at our laboratory. Question, is that
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: the scientific phrase when you talk about some instead of
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: saying that there is support for an inclusion, you instead
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: say there is strong support for the conclusion? Answer, so
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: our laboratory doesn't use a verbal scale due to the
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: fact They add subjective words to the front of this
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: word support. It's our stance that the likelihood ratio statistic,
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: the number stands on its own. So we report the
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: likelihood ratio and either support or support for inclusion or
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: support for exclusion. Question, thank you. Would you go to
• 1:45
  Speaker 1: page 8 of the report and highlight the very top
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: of the first two sentences? You included this language in
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: your report, correct? Answer, correct. Question, and in fact... You
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: included this language in all three of your reports referring
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: to the conclusions conform with the relevant Department of Justice
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: policy on uniform language. Answer, that is correct. Question, right.
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: And why do you include that language in all four
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: of your reports, all three of your reports? Answer, it's
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: standard language for our reports. Okay, and could you now
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: go to Exhibit Oliver 4 for the witness only? Not
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: admitted yet. Are you familiar with this document? The Department
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: of Justice Uniform Language for Testimony and Reports for Forensic
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: Autosomal DNA Examination Using Probabilistic Genotyping Systems. Answer, yes I am. Question, right,
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: and would you go to page 4 of that document please?
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: And the court has heard some prior testimony about the
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: Department of Justice Directive. What's your understanding of what the
• 2:47
  Speaker 1: qualifications and limitations are that are required by this policy
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: of the Department of Justice? What are you not supposed
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: to be saying in connection with the reports that you
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: wrote in the case? Answer, there's a few things that
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: the UTLR document states. First, it states if you use
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: a verbal scale, which we do not, then you need
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: to use the one dictated in the document. This is
• 3:11
  Speaker 1: in effort to unify the language coming out of DOJ laboratories.
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: It also says that we cannot state that our evidence
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: is infallible, nor can we state that there is an
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: inconclusive result. Question, shall not state that it's infallible or
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: have a zero error rate, correct? Answer, correct. Question, it
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: also states, does it not, that you shall not assert
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: that a likelihood ratio of any magnitude provides absolute identification
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: or source attribution of an individual to an evidentiary sample? Answer, correct. Question,
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: and are your reports in conformity with that? You're not
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: stating or implying that anything you did here is asserting
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: an absolute identification of someone as a source of any
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: of the evidence that you examine, correct? Answer, correct. With
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: forensic evidence, it's impossible to state with 100% certainty anything.
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: That's why we report a likelihood ratio to speak to
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: that uncertainty with a statistic. Question all right, and I
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: would like to go to the next page of the document.
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: This policy requires that you, not state or use the
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: expression reasonable degree of scientific certainty. Reasonable scientific certainty or
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: similar assertions of reasonable certainty. You didn't do that in
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: any of your reports, correct? Answer, correct. Question, you're not
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: asserting anything with respect to any reasonable degree of scientific certainty. Answer, correct. Question, correct. Now,
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: you can take that down. When did you first receive
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: the assignment in the case? Question, I would have to
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: refer to my case record to know the exact date. Question,
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: do you have those in front of you? Answer, I
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: do not. Question, okay, let me pull up Oliver 3
• 4:56
  Speaker 1: for the witness only and go to the third page.
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: Does that third page help refresh your memory on when
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: you may have received the case? Answer, yeah, on September 12th, 2025. Question, okay,
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: is that when you first started doing work on the case,
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: do you think? Answer, yes, it is. Question. Now, prior
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: to doing work on the case, did you receive permission
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: from someone to consume any samples in the case? Answer. Yes,
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: I did. Question. And could you go to page 15
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: of those case notes, please? Again, for the witness only.
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: Do you recognize this email? Answer. I do. Yes. Question.
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: Can you tell me what the email is and what
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: information it conveyed to you in connection with your examination? Answer. Yeah.
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: So it's standard procedure at our laboratory. that when we
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: receive a case, we request permission to consume from the agent.
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: We request that we reach out to the attorney if
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: one is assigned, and in this case, we will not
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: begin any work on the case until we receive permission
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: to consume, so this email is us receiving permission to
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: consume the samples and move forward with testing. Question, now,
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: does your laboratory have a policy for preserving samples for
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: independent testing by the defense? Answer, where possible. We will
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: not consume samples where it's possible. Question, and that policy
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: is a long-standing one, not only in your lab, but
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: pretty much everywhere in forensic DNA analysis, right? Answer, that's correct. Question,
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: goes back to 1996, does it not, when the National
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: NRC recommended a policy that samples be split wherever possible
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: at the front end of the analysis to allow for
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: independent examination? Answer, where possible, yes, that's correct. Question right,
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: and they did that because it was their conclusion, was
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: it not, that a wrongfully accused person's best insurance against
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: the possibility of being falsely incriminated is the opportunity to
• 6:50
  Speaker 1: have the testing repeated. Such an opportunity should be provided
• 6:54
  Speaker 1: whenever feasible. Answer correct. Question okay. Could you now go
• 6:58
  Speaker 1: to Exhibit 30, page 8? Were certain DNA samples consumed
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: in your analysis? Answer yes, they were. Question and for
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: the record, are those listed on page 8 of your report? Answer,
• 7:09
  Speaker 1: yes they are. Question, which samples were entirely consumed in
• 7:13
  Speaker 1: your analysis? It would be exhibit 1.4, 1.6, 1.9, 1.10, 1.12, 2.1, 3.1, 4.1,
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: and 5.1. Question okay. Then, are there a number of
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: samples listed above there in the report where you say
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: the DNA extracts will be retained? And then you list 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.5, 1.7, 1.8, 1.13, 7.1,
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: And 7.8, answer, correct. Question, does that mean that these,
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: those are all swab samples, correct? Answer, they're swabs, yes. Question,
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: all right. Does your report mean that you consume the swabs,
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: but you have some liquid extract remaining? As to those samples, answer, correct. Question, now,
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: are all of the samples, let's talk about the samples
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: in plaintiff exhibit 30, were all of the samples you
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: looked at, they're mixed samples? Answer, could I refer to
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: my tables in my report? Question, or question, sure, go ahead.
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: Go to page two, please. Answer, and can we go
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: to page three or four? With the exception of the
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: known samples from the known individual, that was a single
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: source sample, but otherwise the evidence samples were all mixtures. Question,
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: and in many cases, they were mixtures of something or
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: sometimes four or five people, correct? Answer, correct. Question, and
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: when you look at a mixture such as the one
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: in the case, you use terms like major and minor contributor, right? Answer, correct. Question,
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: is that the language meant to convey that anything with
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: respect to activity of anybody who might be assigned to
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: that DNA way? In other words, are you saying the
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: person you label as a major contributor was engaged in
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: any sort of activity? Is there any connection between the
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: use of that language and the activity? Answer, none of
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: the testing that I performed could speak to activity or
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: what activity led to the deposition of the DNA. Question,
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: so nothing in your report, if something reads, and they say, oh,
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: this is one, says this person is a major contributor.
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: You're not commenting on anything about the person's activity, correct? Answer, correct. Question,
• 9:21
  Speaker 1: and is it true also that there are also several
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: other limitations concerning the language of your report that it's
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: important for courts and people who are reading the report
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: to understand? Answer, I'm sorry, what was the question? Question,
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: Are there other limitations in addition to the one we
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: just reviewed that's important to understand about the language you
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: use in your report? Answer. Is there something specific? Question. Yeah,
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: there is. Could you go to Baker Exhibit 30, page 1,
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: for the witness only? Are you familiar with this publication? Answer. Yes. Question.
• 9:57
  Speaker 1: This is the publication by the National Institute of Standards
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: and Technology called Forensic DNA Interpretation and Human Factors. Answer, correct. Question,
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: and this is put together as a guidance document for
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: practitioners on what, to simplify essentially, what to say and
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: what not to say. Answer, well, I don't know if
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: I'd call it a guidance document. NIST is not a
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: regulatory body for DNA testing. It was a report that
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: looked into forensic DNA reporting and specific human factors that
• 10:27
  Speaker 1: could affect our testing, so they may have had recommendations.
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: But as far as them being a regulatory body that's
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: issuing guidelines, I wouldn't state that. Question, okay. Could you
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: go to 136, please? Answer, can everyone see? Defense, Baker,
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: this is Baker 30. There we go right there. Wait, 135,
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: I'm sorry. And then scroll down to the next page.
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: So they're making recommendations here as to how the report
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: should be worded, correct? Answer, correct. Question, let me ask
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: you whether you agree with some of these limitations or
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: they call them caveats. They talk about how you describe
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: the number of contributors and they say the true number
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: of contributors of a DNA to an item can never
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: be known. Do you agree with that? Answer, yes. Question, okay.
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: They also say, let me ask one question before I
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: ask this one, which is, do you use something called
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: a reporting cap in all three of your reports? Answer, yes.
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: So for our likelihood ratio statistics, we cap the statistic
• 11:26
  Speaker 1: at 1 trillion. The actual number could be a lot higher.
• 11:29
  Speaker 1: It could be a quintillion, an octillion. We chose trillion
• 11:32
  Speaker 1: because it has meaning to people that can understand what
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: a trillion is. An octillion or quintillion gets a little
• 11:38
  Speaker 1: high at that point, so we cap it at a trillion. Question,
• 11:42
  Speaker 1: and they talk here, do they not, about how they
• 11:45
  Speaker 1: convey the idea of a reporting cap, and they say
• 11:47
  Speaker 1: LR reporting cap was chosen because of the limitation of
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: biostatistical modeling and independent assumptions of STR loci. Do you
• 11:57
  Speaker 1: agree with that's why the cap is chosen? Answer, I
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: believe we chose our cap for the reason I stated. Question,
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: do you disagree with that statement in terms of why
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: the cap is chosen? Answer, I'm not familiar with the
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: paper that's referenced there, so I would have to familiarize
• 12:12
  Speaker 1: myself before I said I agreed or disagreed. Question, fair enough.
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: And then they also suggest that you alert in your
• 12:22
  Speaker 1: report that profile descriptors cannot be applied to activity-level issues.
• 12:26
  Speaker 1: Do you see? Do you agree with that? Answer, yes.
• 12:29
  Speaker 1: So this is what you were stating about calling a
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: major contributor. It doesn't speak to the activity that led
• 12:34
  Speaker 1: to the DNA deposition. Question, right. DNA profiles... may be
• 12:39
  Speaker 1: described as major or minor. However, these descriptors should not
• 12:43
  Speaker 1: be interpreted in the context of a decision regarding the
• 12:46
  Speaker 1: nature or the mechanisms, actions, or timings that led to
• 12:50
  Speaker 1: the deposition of the DNA. You agree with that? Answer, correct, yes.
• 12:56
  Speaker 1: All right, so we're going to wrap up right here.
• 12:58
  Speaker 1: And in the next episode dealing with the topic, we're
• 13:00
  Speaker 1: going to pick back up with Caitlin Oliver getting questioned
• 13:03
  Speaker 1: by the defense. All the information that goes with this
• 13:07
  Speaker 1: episode can be found in the description box.