Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing Transcript (Day 5 Part 5) (10/25/26)

Transcript

Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing Transcript (Day 5 Part 5) (10/25/26) · 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 dive right back in to
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: day number five transcript from the Tyler Robinson prelim hearing.
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: And we have the defense questioning Caitlin Oliver. Question, all right.
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: And then the other sort of limitation convey that the
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: DNA results cannot be interpreted as the analyst providing an
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: opinion regarding who the source of the DNA is. Answer, yeah,
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: so This is, once again, we don't make source attribution statements.
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: We will say they're support for inclusion, and then we
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: back that up with a statistic. Question, so, from a
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: scientific standpoint, you couldn't read the paragraph that sets out
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: the likelihood ratio in your report, whatever the number, and
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: then blast a headline in the media? Mr. Robinson's DNA
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: is found on this item. That's a source attribution, is
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: it not? Answer, correct. Question, and that would not be
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: scientifically defensible, would it? Answer, correct. Question, okay. Another limitation
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: they talk about, on likelihood ratios on the next page,
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: please 137. Likelihood ratios cannot speak to the likelihood of
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: a proposition only to the probability of the results given
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: a pair of propositions. Do you agree with that? Answer, yes. Question,
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: explain that because there's a little above my pay grade
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: in terms of understanding. Answer, so a likelihood ratio of
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: statistic compares the probability of of the DNA profile of
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: the evidence given to competing hypothesis or competing scenarios. Typically,
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: the first is that the person of interest is included,
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: and then, the exclusionary hypothesis would be that the person
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: of interest is excluded, so there's a random, unknown, unrelated
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: individual contributing. Question, and when they're elaborating on that point,
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: they say, a likelihood ratio indicates if, and to what
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: extent the DNA analysis results support one proposition over another.
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: Is it not possible on this basis alone to determine
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: which is the most probable proposition? Do you agree with that?
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: Answer yes. Question okay. And then the next limitation they
• 2:08
  Speaker 1: suggest you convey is that convey the DNA statistics cannot
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: imply uniqueness with a population. Do you agree with that?
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: That it's a legitimate limitation? Answer yes. Question and explain
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: what that means. Does that go back to the issue
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: of source? You can't assign a source. To a DNA sample? Answer, correct. Question, okay.
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: It says you should delineate the meaning of verbal qualifier,
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: but you didn't use one in this case, right? Answer, correct. Question, okay.
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: Now you mentioned that your testing cannot, and correct me
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: if I'm wrong, I don't want to mischaracterize it. None
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: of the testing in any of the three reports can
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: answer the question of how and when DNA got deposited.
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: Is that true? Answer, that is true. DNA cannot speak
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: to the activity that led to the deposition of the DNA. Question,
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: and the report says, with regard to that issue, with
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: the increased sensitivity of DNA techniques and sophisticated software, a
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: DNA profile may be developed when the contributor of the
• 3:09
  Speaker 1: DNA never touched the item or area that was swabbed. Alternatively,
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: a person's DNA may be present when they were not
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: involved in the crime. Do you agree with that? Answer, Yes.
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: Once again, I cannot speak to the activity. Question. Can
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: you explain how it's possible that a DNA profile may
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: be developed even when the contributor of that DNA never
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: touched the item or area that was swabbed? Answer. So
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: it's possible if, say, the pen that you're sitting there
• 3:37
  Speaker 1: using for the week, you say, hand it off to
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: the judge and the judge then touches it for a
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: period of time and then I swab it. It doesn't
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: speak to who handled it last. I could test that.
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: I could test both your profiles. I wouldn't know which
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: person was the last person to handle the item. Question.
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: All right. And similarly, if you had a lot of
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: DNA on your hand, we shook hands. I then went
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: to pick up an exhibit, a gun. I touched the
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: trigger of it. Your DNA could be on that trigger, right? Answer.
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: It's possible. Yes. Question. Okay. Even though you've never touched
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: the gun. Answer. Yes. Question. And that's why, because of
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: those possibilities, you can't make any assessment. of how or
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: when DNA got deposited, correct? Answer, correct. Question, how long
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: can DNA persist on an item? Answer, well, DNA is
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: quite stable over time. It can be broken down due
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: to environmental insults. So things like heat and humidity are
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: known to break down DNA over time. But I couldn't
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: give you an exact number. Question, were certain of the
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: samples that you tested in this case degraded samples? Answer,
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: there was degradation present in some of the samples. Question.
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: And what can cause degradation? Answer. Like I said, there's
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: environmental insults, heat, humidity. Question. Now, the second report that
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: you wrote had to do with the Dremel item that
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: was taken from Mr. Robinson's home. Answer. Correct. Question. Did
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: you request certain, what are called, elimination samples in regard
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: to items that were recovered from his home? Answer. Yes. Question.
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: Tell the court what an elimination sample is, as opposed
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: to a sample that relates to what's called a POI,
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: a person of interest. Answer. So, an elimination sample is
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: a sample taken from a known individual that it may
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: be assumed that they could have come into contact with it.
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: If I were to say, swab your vehicle, then I
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: want your DNA sample as an elimination to eliminate you
• 5:37
  Speaker 1: in order to look for any additional DNA that may
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: be there. Question. And you say they're assumed contributors because
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: depending upon the location, for instance, somebody's house, you would
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: expect if there were multiple people in that house, that
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: perhaps everybody in the house could contribute to certain DNA results. Answer,
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: it's possible. Question, so you'd want samples from all those
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: folks to see if they contributed to an item that
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: would be associated with a place where they congregated. Answer, correct. Question,
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: and I noticed from your case file that you also requested,
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: but I don't think you received, elimination samples from agents
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: who are involved in the case. Answer, correct. Question, why
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: do you request those samples? Answer, the type of testing
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: we perform is quite sensitive. So it's standard practice that
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: we request elimination samples from any investigators involved in order
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: to potentially eliminate them in case they could have contaminated
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: the evidence. Question, okay. Now in report 157, if you
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: could bring that up, please. Oliver 157, which has been admitted.
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: The elimination samples that you requested in connection with items
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: seized from Mr. Robinson's apartment were from Amber Robinson, Matthew Robinson,
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: and Lance Twiggs, correct? Answer, correct. Question, and that's because
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: you had information that those people were associated with the house? Answer, correct. Question,
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: and when you tested or compared, first of all, you
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: determined their DNA types, right? Answer, correct. Question, And then
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: you compare their types to what you'd found on the evidence. Answer, correct. Question.
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: And for a certain number of those samples, you found
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: the presence of DNA in your elimination samples, not because
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: they were suspects, but because they were associated with the premises, right? Answer.
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: There was support for inclusion of some of these individuals, yes. Question, okay.
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: And if you could scroll down to page four, which
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: is the table. I just want to review briefly with you,
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: for instance, item number 1.4. which was a swab from
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: the rifle. You used the elimination sample of Mr. Robinson's
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: father and you found his DNA on that particular swab, correct? Answer,
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: I would say there was support for inclusion of Matthew
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: Robinson on the sample obtained from the swabs of the
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: bolts of the rifle. Question, I'm glad you pointed that out.
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: That's again consistent with your testimony. You're talking again about
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: support for inclusion as a possible contributor. Answer, correct. And
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: there would have been a likelihood ratio statistic calculated to
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: go along with that. Question okay. Could you go to
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: the next page? Similarly, with respect to 1.6, you found
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: again Matthew Robinson on swab 1.6 or a profile that
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: indicated he was a possible contributor. Answer their support for
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: inclusion of Matthew Robinson. Question okay. And next page. Actually
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: go two pages to page seven. you found support for
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: inclusion of Lance Twiggs on swabs of buttons of a
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: Dremel tool, correct? Answer, correct. Question, and going back to
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: what we were talking about before, if a person named
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: Lance Twiggs lived in that residence, came into contact with
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: Tyler Robinson, and even touched a button on a Dremel tool,
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: you'd expect Mr. Robinson and Mr. Twiggs' DNA to be
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: on there, right? Or you could. Answer, it's reasonable to
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: assume that anyone living in the household could have contributed
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: to DNA. on an object found in that household. Question,
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: and similarly, you found profiles to suggest support for inclusion
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: of Mr. Twigs on other areas of the Dremel tool, correct? Answer, correct. Question, okay. Now,
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: the last area I want to ask you about is,
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: are you familiar with something called NGS? Answer, yes. Question,
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: what is NGS? Answer, NGS stands for Next Generation Sequencing.
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: It's a DNA technique that sequences your DNA, so it
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: looks at the individual sequence of your DNA. Question, and
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: is it true in your field, that whole area of
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: NGS is something that's at the forefront of everybody's attention?
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: For instance, when you go to seminars and you look
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: at the presentations, there's a lot of talk about NGS, right? Answer,
• 9:57
  Speaker 1: that's correct. Yes, it's a newer technique. Question, and it's
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: being developed by ATF as a technique that's going to
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: be used or has been used. Answer, not at this time, no. Question,
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: and there are plans to do that. Answer, not at
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: this time, no. Question, okay, do you know of other
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: labs that have implemented it? Answer, I believe there may
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: be some laboratories in the US that have it in use,
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: but I wouldn't have direct knowledge of it. Question, now
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: you used a program in this case called STR-MIX, correct? Answer, correct. Question,
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: and that's sold by a company in New Zealand, that software. Answer, correct. Question,
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: have they developed another program called STR-MIX NGS? Answer, I'm
• 10:41
  Speaker 1: not aware of an NGS software. Question, could you go
• 10:45
  Speaker 1: to 156, Oliver 156? Let me know when you're there.
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: Are you aware that the developers are selling a product
• 10:52
  Speaker 1: called STR Mix NGS? Answer, I was not aware, no.
• 10:56
  Speaker 1: All right, folks, we're going to wrap up right here.
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: And in the next episode, we're going to pick up
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: where we left off. All the information that goes with
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: this episode can be found in the description box.