Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing Transcripts (Day 2 Part 16) (9/28/26)

Transcript

Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing Transcripts (Day 2 Part 16) (9/28/26) · 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 gonna pick up where we left off
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: with Tyler Robinson in day number two of the prelim
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: hearing transcript. And we're picking up with the defense questioning
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: Agent Baker. Question, okay, is it true what I just
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: told the court that you pointed this particular page out
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: as illustrating why you originally thought we had three contributors? Answer, yeah,
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: that's true. Question, so explain to the court, is this
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: an electro-verogram? Answer, yeah. This is an electropherogram. Each of
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: those rectangles at the top, for example, DS2, 441, and
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: that small segment of DNA that I referred to earlier,
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: and each of those peaks has a corresponding number, that
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: is an allele. So that corresponds to the number of
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: repeats that an individual inherited. Question, and this is why
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: you ultimately, you get this electropherogram, not through running it
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: through STR mix. There's a different device that you use
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: to produce these electropherograms, right? Answer correct, yes. During the
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: DNA process, this is the last stop of that process.
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: So what it's doing is the DNA is found in
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: the cells of our body. We're taking those cells, we're
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: breaking them open with chemicals to release the DNA from
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: those cells. We're making photocopies of these pieces of DNA
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: so that we can essentially see them. And then the
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: last step is to separate those pieces by size. And
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: the ultimate output is the electropharogram. Question, okay, and is
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: it true that you set the parameters for what the
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: machine will pop up in terms of numbering the alleles? Answer, personally,
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: I don't set that up. That was done during our
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: validation of the chemicals and the software and the instrument
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: that we utilize. But there are parameters. So the output
• 1:45
  Speaker 1: of the DNA lets me know, for example, the different
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: types of alleles. But that's not a parameter I set. Question,
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: I want to make sure you answered that. You set
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: your lab sets. what the machine does in terms of
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: labeling a particular allele, correct? Answer, yes. That's part of
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: the whole process and the validation, yes. Question, so you
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: could tell the machine, give me the peaks at whatever
• 2:08
  Speaker 1: level and label them at whatever the alleles are. Answer,
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: I see, so yes. So during our validation, we determine
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: our thresholds, our analytical threshold and that stochastic threshold that
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: I mentioned before. The analytical threshold is a threshold that
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: was determined during validation that we input into the software
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: that utilize, that says, for example, our analytical threshold is 150.
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: Any peak that's 150 or greater, the software system will
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: give me the allele call or that number for that peak.
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: Any peak that's below 150, the software system will not
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: give me an allele call for it. Question, even though
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: it might be a true allele? Answer, correct, yes. Question,
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: so you could say, and you refer to a measurement,
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: you refer to that as RFUs, right? Answer, yes, that's
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: in the unit. Question, what does that mean? Answer, it
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: stands for relative fluorescent unit. Question, so in your lab,
• 3:03
  Speaker 1: you tell a machine, only label peaks that come above
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: 150 RFU. Answer, the software that utilizes the information from
• 3:11
  Speaker 1: that machine, yes. Question, however it's true, is it not,
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: that in determining the number of contributors, you look below
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: that 150 RFU level? Answer, and that is true, yes. Question,
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: all right. Now on this, this is only showing one, two, three,
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: four different locations, right? Answer, correct, yes. Question, and you
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: see a number of peaks at each of these locations.
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: Some of them are labeled, some of them are not. Answer, correct, yes. Question,
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: so tell us how you originally looked at this and
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: said there's not two contributors, there's three. Question, sure, so
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: first what I do is I count how many labels
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: that I see. So how many of those little squares
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: under each of those locations? So for example, at DS2441,
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: there are three squares. Knowing that one piece of information
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: comes from mom and one comes from dad, if it's
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: a single source profile from one individual, I expect to
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: see no more than two squares. Because I see three,
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: that gives me an indication that there's at least two individuals.
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: Same thing for the next D19S433. And as well as FGA.
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: there were three peaks that were called. So I knew
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: this had to be at least two individuals. Then what
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: I do is I take a look at the peaks
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: that are not called and determine, could there potentially be
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: a third person included? So for example, at D2, the
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: location farthest to the left, I'm asking myself that 12
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: in that bottom box, is it the same contributor as,
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: for example, the 22 under FGA all the way to
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: the right? Because I see peaks that are not labeled.
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: It could be that the 12 belongs to one individual
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: and those two peaks that are not called belong to
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: a second or third individual. And that at FGA, I
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: could be seeing the 22 from the third person, but
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: the second person is dropped out, because I'm able to
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: use information below the threshold and see peaks. That gives
• 5:07
  Speaker 1: me an indication that I can increase my number of
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: contributors to three, which I did in this case. Question okay,
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: and when did you reach that conclusion time-wise? Answer, if
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: I recall, it was somewhere around September 12th. Question, and
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: when did you change your conclusion? Answer, that I would
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: have to refer to. Goes to her notes. I changed
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: my conclusion on September 13th, 2025. Question and explain to
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: the court why you changed your conclusion. Answer, I was
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: submitted an elimination sample from Mr. Twiggs. And an elimination
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: sample is a sample in which it's from a known individual.
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: Then there's an expectation that the individual's DNA might be
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: present in receiving that sample. and talking to the investigators.
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: It was decided that Mr. Twiggs should be used as
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: an elimination. When I compared his sample to all the DNA,
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: unlike that major contributor, matched to Mr. Twiggs. So because
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: of that, I determined that there's actually only two individuals
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: because of those small peaks. There was nothing left for
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: a third individual to be compared to. Question, you use
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: a phrase elimination sample. That's typically used, is it not,
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: in a situation where you're testing a sample that has
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: more than one contributor? Answer, not necessarily. An elimination is
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: just simply an individual that we're expecting their DNA to
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: be there. So for example, if we have a stolen vehicle,
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: I will request an elimination sample from the known driver
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: of the vehicle so I can subtract out their DNA
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: to see what I have left over. It doesn't necessarily
• 6:41
  Speaker 1: have to be more than one individual. There certainly has
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: been times where I only detect that known expected individual. Question,
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: And you said you had a conversation with the investigator
• 6:51
  Speaker 1: as to whether twigs should be included as or as
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: you talked to them about whether you should get elimination samples. Answer,
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: I talked to them with regards to if I should
• 7:02
  Speaker 1: utilize Mr. Twigs as an elimination versus comparing them and
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: offering a statistic. Question, okay, but in your report you concluded,
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: did you not, that one of the contributors to both
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: samples was twigs? Answer, that is correct, yes. Question, right
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: You didn't just assume that. You reached the determination that
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: he was the source of both those samples. One of
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: the sources, right? Answer, I don't want to use the
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: word source, but knowing that there was an expectation that
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: his DNA could be present when I compared him to
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: DNA samples, I did see his DNA type present. So
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: using the word assumed, that verbiage that we use when
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: we calculate our statistical calculation, I'm letting the software know
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: I know the individual is there. I'm assuming that they're there.
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: Based on my comparisons, I did see evidence that the
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: person was there. Question, but I guess what I'm confused
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: about is we talked about how your language should never
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: imply absolute identification. But in the body of your report,
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: you say that one of the contributors is Twiggs. You
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: don't say he's a possible contributor. Like you do for Mr. Robinson,
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: you say he's a contributor, do you not? Answer, I do.
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: And with elimination samples, that's slightly different. So for example,
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: let's say I have a sexual assault case and I
• 8:21
  Speaker 1: have a vaginal swab from a female. She has a
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: consensual partner. I can request an elimination sample from that
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: consensual partner. If I see that they're present, I can
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: say they're present and say the DNA foreign to that
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: victim and that consensual partner is one person, for example.
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: So it's different than comparing known individual if they're an
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: elimination sample. I can say that I expect their DNA
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: to be there and based on my interpretation, and reviewing
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: that data, they are present. Question, and based either on
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: your conversation with the agent or other people, why did
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: you think that Twiggs was someone whose DNA you would
• 8:58
  Speaker 1: expect in those samples? Answer, so from what I recall
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: in speaking with investigators, Mr. Twiggs was a roommate of Mr. Robinson,
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: and it was thought that those items came from potentially Mr.
• 9:10
  Speaker 1: Robinson's home, and I don't recall exactly if it was
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: a situation where a particular towel was known to have
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: been in the house. I don't remember that exactly. But
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: in talking to the investigators, based on their investigation, it
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: was important to assume potentially Mr. Twiggs was present. Question,
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: all right. Did any investigator ever tell you that the
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: towel did not come from Mr. Robinson's home, but was
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: found in a bush out at the university? Answer, I
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: was aware of that, yes. Question, so you knew that
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: the towel was not found in a place where you
• 9:41
  Speaker 1: would inspect Mr. Twiggs. DNA to be present? Answer, that
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: is correct. It was found outside of the home, but again,
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: based on speaking with the investigators, they had information to
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: suspect that the towel came from Mr. Robinson's home and
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: that I should utilize Mr. Twiggs as an elimination. Question
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: all right, Nick. you didn't assume that you actually concluded
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: it based on the match, right? Answer, based on reviewing Mr.
• 10:06
  Speaker 1: Twiggs' DNA profile to what I developed from these items,
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: I used him as an elimination sample. Question, now you
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: did various STR mix, what I'll call runs, correct? Answer,
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: that is correct. Question, and the way this works is
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: you input the number of contributors. You determine that, and
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: they also have something called HD and HP, right? Answer, correct, yes. Question,
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: can you tell the court what that is? Answer, so
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: those are different propositions. So in calculating the likelihood ratio,
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: likelihood ratio compares the probabilities of seeing a DNA profile
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: given one of two different scenarios or explanations or hypothesis.
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: One is that a particular person of interest is a contributor,
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: and the other is that an unknown unrelated individual is
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: a contributor. So depending on the question being asked, is
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: how I set up the STR mix number of contributors?
• 11:04
  Speaker 1: For example, if I'm utilizing someone as a known elimination sample,
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: I still apply their DNA profile both to HP and HD. Question,
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: and the theory of this HP is a prosecution hypothesis, right? Answer, correct. Yes. Answer.
• 11:20
  Speaker 1: An HD is the defense hypothesis. Answer. Correct. Yes. Question.
• 11:26
  Speaker 1: And these are the things you plug in based on
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: your understanding of what the prosecution and the defense are contending? Answer. Yes. Question.
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: So how do you plug in the HD in a
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: case where you don't have a defense postulating what their
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: theory is? Answer. So HD or defense hypothesis is simply
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: the DNA profile. The probability of the DNA profile is
• 11:48
  Speaker 1: given that it's another unknown unrelated person to the prosecution's
• 11:52
  Speaker 1: potential person of interest. Judge Graff jumps in. I don't
• 11:57
  Speaker 1: want to interrupt your line of questions, but we've been
• 11:59
  Speaker 1: going for just shy of two hours. Would right now
• 12:02
  Speaker 1: be a good time to take 15? Defense. It'll be
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: a great time, Your Honor. Thank you. Judge. All right,
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: let's take a 15 minute break. All right, folks, we're
• 12:12
  Speaker 1: going to wrap up right here too. And in the
• 12:14
  Speaker 1: next episode, we're going to pick up where we left off.
• 12:17
  Speaker 1: And that's with Miss Baker being questioned by the defense.
• 12:23
  Speaker 1: All the information that goes with this episode can be
• 12:25
  Speaker 1: found in the description box.