Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing Transcript (Day 5 Part 7) (10/26/26)

Transcript

Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing Transcript (Day 5 Part 7) (10/26/26) · 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 into the
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: Tyler Robinson day number five transcript from the prelim hearing.
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: And once again, it's the defense that's doing the yapping,
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: but the prosecution has something to say about it. Your Honor,
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: I'm going to object at this point. The point that
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: the defense counsel is getting at is made in the
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: last answer, which is that the difficulty of sorting out
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: mixtures increases as as the number of contributors increases. That's
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: all understood. But that has nothing to do with probable
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: cause determination. Even if it's difficult, the inferences and the
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: evidence is weighed in the favor of the state. The
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: court cannot weigh the difficulty in determining this evidence. Is
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: it fair for the trier of fact at jury? Sure
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: it is. But we're now getting into weight issues that
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: are relevant for a jury, but not for this court.
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: Judge Graff. Prosecution. Prosecution. Well, he's implying... It's going to
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: be an extended discussion. I have one question which he
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: wants to look at her manual to make sure it's
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: in there. And then I'm done. Judge, all right, I'll
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: allow this question. Thank you. Judge, so I'll overrule the objection.
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: She may review the material and the question can be rephrased. Question.
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: Exhibit Oliver 148. This is your SOP document, correct? Answer, correct. Question.
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: And then go to page 83, all right? Did I
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: read that correctly? Answer. Yes. Question. And so it's true,
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: is it not, that approximately 70% of four-person mixtures present
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: as two or three-person mixtures? Answer, it's possible. Question, thank you,
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: that's all I have. Judge Graff, thank you. We've been
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: going for a bit, and depending on how much cross,
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: and trying to decide if a break's warranted. Or if
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: your cross is limited, again, not trying to say which
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: way you should go, I'm just trying to weigh whether
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: we should take a break. Prosecution. Oh, excuse me, I'll
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: probably be 20 minutes. Judge Graff, alright, let's just keep going,
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: then at that point we can take a break. Now
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: it's up to the prosecution. Prosecution, good morning. Answer, morning. Question,
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: is your lab accredited? Answer, yes it is. Question, what
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: does that mean? Answer, so our laboratory goes through a
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: voluntary accreditation process where an external third party comes in
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: and audits our laboratory to a set of standards. Specifically,
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: The ATF laboratory is accredited and specifically the DNA section
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: of the ATF laboratory is accredited to two sets of standards.
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: One is an international set of standards called ISO 17025
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: for testing laboratories and additionally a DNA specific set of
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: standards put forth by the FBI. Question. Does the accreditation
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: require that methodologies you use be validated? Answer yes. Question.
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: The methodologies used in this case have been accepted by
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: courts across the country, correct? Answer, correct. Question, does the
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: accreditation require that forensic biologists like yourself satisfy certain qualification standards? Answer, yes.
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: We're required to perform competency testing prior to participating in casework.
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: And additionally, we participate in twice a year proficiency testing. Question,
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: and do you satisfy the competency and qualification standards required
• 3:24
  Speaker 1: by accreditation? Answer, yes. Question, and at the time that
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: you did the testing in this case, did you satisfy
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: those standards? Answer, yes. Question, moving to your opinions. Where
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: on the firearm did you find evidentiary support for inclusion
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: of Tyler Robinson? Answer, there were several locations. I'd have
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: to refer to my report. And a question, okay, would
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: you look at your report? And this is, it looks like,
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: exhibit number 30. If we can pull that up just
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: for the witness. Thank you, Kimberly. We had it for
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: a minute here a minute ago. Okay, if we could
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: go to page number two, please. Will you just list
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: off the areas of that firearm where there was evidentiary
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: support for inclusion of Tyler Robinson? Answer, the swabs of
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: the stock and grips of the rifle and swabs of
• 4:11
  Speaker 1: the butt plate of the rifle, swabs of the trigger
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: and trigger guard of the rifle, and possible ridge detail smudging.
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: The swabs of the bolt of the rifle with possible
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: ridge detail smudging. And the swabs of the forend of
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: the rifle. Question okay. If we go to page three. Answer.
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: Swabs of the barrel of the rifle with possible ridge
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: detail smudging. The swabs of possible ridge detail smudging. On
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: the optical accessory. Question and page four. Answer. The swabs
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: of the protected underside of the receiver of the rifle
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: after disassembly. The swabs of one of the. 30- 06 cartridge cases,
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: the swabs of one of the. 30- 06 cartridge, and swabs
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: of one of the. 30- 06 cartridges. Question, I want to
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: ask you about a couple of those conclusions. Let's look
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: at page 5, please. And calculation number 3, exhibit 1.3.
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: How do you know where the swab was taken from? Answer,
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: I'd have to refer it back to page 2. Question,
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: can we refer to page 2, please? Answer, 1.3 is
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: the swab of the trigger. and trigger guard of the rifle. Question, alright?
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: Going back to page 5, and we've had some testimony
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: from you and some questions for you about the likelihood ratios.
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: What was your conclusion as to the likelihood ratio that
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: you analyzed in this question in calculation number 3? Answer,
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: for the exhibit, the DNA profile was at least 1
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: trillion times more likely if it originated from Tyler Robinson
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: as the major component and three unknown unrelated individuals than
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: if it originated from four unrelated individuals. Question, you say
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: at least one trillion times more likely, so it could
• 5:52
  Speaker 1: be a much higher number than one trillion. Is that accurate? Answer,
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: it's possible. Question, but the protocols in your laboratory say
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: you cap that at a number one trillion. Is that right? Answer, correct.
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: We would not report a number higher than one trillion. Question,
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: and it looks like you also did a probability statistic
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: as well in paragraph E. Is that right? Answer, correct.
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: It's another way of stating the likelihood ratio statistic. Question,
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: and will you state your findings you made here in
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: paragraph E? And that's on page 6. Answer, the probability
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: of an unrelated individual in the population who has not
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: contributed DNA to the sample yielding this level of support
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: is less than 1 in a trillion. Question, and same
• 6:37
  Speaker 1: question there. The trillion number, it could be far less
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: than that, but you stop your calculations or statistics at
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: a trillion. Is that right? Answer, correct. Question, let us
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: move to page 7 with regard to statistical analysis calculation
• 6:54
  Speaker 1: number 7. Now, do you remember what 1.13 and 2.1 are? Answer,
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: I'd have to refer back to page 3, I believe. Question,
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: if you could jump to page 3. Page 4, I'm sorry. Answer,
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: the 1.13 is the swab of the protected underside of
• 7:13
  Speaker 1: the receiver of the rifle after disassembly. And 2.1 is
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: the swab of one of the. 30- 06 cartridge cases. Question,
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: now did you do the swabs themselves? Answer, I did not. Question,
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: and 2.1 is a cartridge case. Is that right? Answer, correct. Question,
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: and what's the difference between a cartridge case and a cartridge? Answer,
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: a cartridge is unfired. Cartridge case has been fired. Question alright,
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: let's jump back to page 7. And what was your
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: conclusion with regard to, well, first of all, why do
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: you group these two together? Exhibit 1.13 and 2.1 in
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: your conclusion here. Answer, they were both mixtures of two individuals,
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: and they both yielded a likelihood ratio of the same magnitude,
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: so they can be grouped together. Question okay, it's not
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: that they were tested together? Answer correct. Question, It's just
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: that the results were of the same magnitude, so they
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: were reported together. Is that right? Answer, correct. Question, all right.
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: What was your conclusion as it relates to both of
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: these as to the likelihood ratio? Answer, the DNA profiles
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: are at least 1 trillion times more likely if they
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: originated from Tyler Robinson as a major contributor and an
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: unknown unrelated individual than if they originated from two unrelated individuals. Question,
• 8:31
  Speaker 1: and did you make a conclusion? hear as well about
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: a probability statistic? Answer, yeah. So the probability of an
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: unrelated individual in the population who has not contributed DNA
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: to these samples yielding this level of support, so meaning
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: yielding this likelihood ratio, is less than 1 in a trillion. Question, okay,
• 8:53
  Speaker 1: nothing else. Judge graph, defense, defense, the 1.3 sample is
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: described as swabs of a trigger and trigger guard, right? Answer, correct. Question,
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: You didn't do the swabs. But am I correct that
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: you have no way of knowing which part was from
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: the trigger and which part was from the trigger guard? Answer, correct.
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: So they were swabbed together. So I wouldn't be able
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: to say where the DNA came from. Question, and that's
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: one of the samples that was degraded, correct? Answer, there
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: were signs of degradation present in that sample, yes. Question,
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: and you said with regard to that sample, that that
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: was a sample consistent with at least four contributors, right? Answer, correct. Question,
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: And did what you termed the major profile have the
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: largest amount of degradation in that sample? Answer, there was, yes. Question,
• 9:41
  Speaker 1: and can you tell us anything about when the DNA
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: was deposited on the trigger guard or the trigger, correct? Answer, correct. Question,
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: and you can tell us anything about whether, when you
• 9:51
  Speaker 1: say it's at least four, it could be five, six,
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: or seven people with DNA on that trigger or trigger guard, correct? Answer, correct.
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: Which is why we have the major contributor that is
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: suitable for comparison and the minor contributor is not suitable
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: for comparison due to that complexity. Question and again, major-minor
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: just has to do with the levels of DNA you
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: are seeing. It has nothing to do with someone being
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: engaged in activity that is a major relation to the
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: minor contributor. Answer, yeah. So the major contributor is the
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: majority of DNA contributed to that sample. Question, okay. And
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: some of these samples, you have major contributors of more
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: than one person, right? Answer, correct. Question, so for sample 1.1,
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: swabs of stock, you have two major profiles, and there
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: are at least four contributors on the sample, right? Answer,
• 10:40
  Speaker 1: can I refer to my report? Question, sure. It's exhibit 30,
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: plaintiff 30. Answer. Yes, it was a mixture of four individuals.
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: There were two major contributors. Question. Okay. And again, with
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: regard to all these samples, no way of knowing when
• 10:56
  Speaker 1: or how the DNA got on those samples, correct? Answer. Correct. Question.
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: You referenced another statistic in your report, which is a
• 11:04
  Speaker 1: statistic related to paragraph V, I guess. Answer. Correct. Question.
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: Is it what's called a random match probability statistic? Or
• 11:14
  Speaker 1: is that something else? Answer. Correct. It's itself is not
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: a random match probability statistic. It's a way to represent
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: the likelihood ratio similar to a random match probability. Question,
• 11:26
  Speaker 1: but it's still a likelihood ratio computation, right? Answer, correct.
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: It's based off the likelihood ratio computation. Question, and it's
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: still subject to the limitations that we've talked about. Answer, correct. Question,
• 11:40
  Speaker 1: can't attribute it to any person. Can't state it's infallible.
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: Can't state their zero error rate. And you can't state
• 11:47
  Speaker 1: that it's a source connected with any one person, correct?
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: Question right. So part of not being able to state
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: source attribution is the reason we report the likelihood ratio statistic.
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: It speaks to the weight of the evidence. And so, yes,
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: we can't do a source attribution and we report that
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: statistic and address an uncertainty that way. Question and address
• 12:09
  Speaker 1: the uncertainty along with the other limitations we talked about.
• 12:12
  Speaker 1: Answer correct. Question. Thank you. That's all I have. Turning
• 12:17
  Speaker 1: to the defense. Anything further? Answer, no. We have no
• 12:23
  Speaker 1: further witnesses, Your Honor. Judge Graff, all right. Returning to prosecution.
• 12:26
  Speaker 1: Anything further? Answer, no, Judge. We have no rebuttal evidence
• 12:30
  Speaker 1: to present at this hearing. The state has no rebuttal
• 12:32
  Speaker 1: evidence to present at the hearing. However, before we break,
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: there's the matter that was discussed yesterday with respect to
• 12:39
  Speaker 1: publishing in the courtroom exhibit 12.1 so that the victim's
• 12:43
  Speaker 1: families can observe that. Judge Graff, thank you. All right.
• 12:46
  Speaker 1: Do the parties wish to be heard as it relates
• 12:48
  Speaker 1: to this briefly, and then the court will issue its ruling. Ms. Visser,
• 12:52
  Speaker 1: Your Honor, I actually want to just make a quick record.
• 12:55
  Speaker 1: We've advised Mr. Robinson of his right to testify at
• 12:58
  Speaker 1: the hearing, and he's choosing to take our advice and
• 13:00
  Speaker 1: not testify. Judge Graff, is that correct, Mr. Robinson? And
• 13:04
  Speaker 1: I note that he's nodding in the affirmative. Thank you, Ms. Visser.
• 13:07
  Speaker 1: All right. In regards to the outstanding issues about the
• 13:10
  Speaker 1: publication of State Exhibit 12.1 to the courtroom, Only to
• 13:14
  Speaker 1: the persons here. Any further input from any of the
• 13:16
  Speaker 1: parties before the court issues a ruling? Now the lawyer
• 13:21
  Speaker 1: for Charlie Kirk's family jumps in. Your Honor, Jeff Neiman,
• 13:26
  Speaker 1: on behalf of the victim. My understanding is you ruled
• 13:28
  Speaker 1: yesterday that you were going to play it, that you
• 13:31
  Speaker 1: did grant our request, so Judge Graff, thank you. Now
• 13:35
  Speaker 1: we have the prosecution. Judge, I might simply add, given
• 13:39
  Speaker 1: the court's ruling this morning, with respect to displaying exhibits...
• 13:43
  Speaker 1: We may want to make a record with the live
• 13:44
  Speaker 1: streaming folks here that it's not going to be published.
• 13:47
  Speaker 1: Judge Graff, thank you. All right. Nothing further from any parties? Okay.
• 13:51
  Speaker 1: Updating some notes. All right. And the court wishes to
• 13:54
  Speaker 1: readdress yesterday's ruling in light of this morning's sanction as
• 13:57
  Speaker 1: it relates to Exhibit 16. The court separately addressed that
• 14:00
  Speaker 1: incident and imposed a sanction on the record. Having considered
• 14:04
  Speaker 1: all applicable public access, fair trial, privacy, and victims' rights interests,
• 14:08
  Speaker 1: the court adheres to its prior ruling. The court finds
• 14:11
  Speaker 1: that temporarily limiting live stream to audio only while Exhibit 12.1
• 14:16
  Speaker 1: is displayed necessary to prevent the inadvertent publication of the
• 14:20
  Speaker 1: exhibit from being transmitted outside of the courtroom and is
• 14:24
  Speaker 1: taking the least restrictive means to accomplish what is being requested. Accordingly,
• 14:29
  Speaker 1: Exhibit 12.1 may be viewed by all persons physically present
• 14:33
  Speaker 1: in the courtroom, including Victim's Rep. Ms. Kirk in her
• 14:37
  Speaker 1: capacity as the Victim Rep., The same court, the same
• 14:41
  Speaker 1: in-court viewing rules apply to all parties and courtroom attendees.
• 14:45
  Speaker 1: And that is the ruling of the court. Let's go
• 14:47
  Speaker 1: ahead and proceed to that, to the state. So could
• 14:49
  Speaker 1: the camera operator let me know when we're switched to
• 14:52
  Speaker 1: an audio only? We are? Okay, all right. And as
• 14:55
  Speaker 1: it's switched to the audio only, to the state, now
• 14:58
  Speaker 1: I'm understanding there's no audio on 12.1. Is that correct?
• 15:01
  Speaker 1: All right. So let's go ahead and play that. And
• 15:03
  Speaker 1: I'm going to rule that this also applies to the
• 15:06
  Speaker 1: still photographer. It cannot be captured. the screen in any way.
• 15:10
  Speaker 1: I noted video recording, but I intend as well as
• 15:14
  Speaker 1: no still capture of any of the monitors during the
• 15:17
  Speaker 1: publication of 12.1. All right. And to the state, just
• 15:20
  Speaker 1: let me know if you're ready. Let's go ahead and
• 15:21
  Speaker 1: play it now. All right. And that concludes the playing
• 15:25
  Speaker 1: of state exhibit 12.1. Video transmission may resume. Just let
• 15:29
  Speaker 1: me know when it's live. All right. Thank you. Does
• 15:32
  Speaker 1: either party need the benefit of the record? The state
• 15:35
  Speaker 1: does not judge. No, your honor. Judge Graff. All right.
• 15:38
  Speaker 1: So this preliminary hearing is continued to September 1st, 10 a.m.
• 15:42
  Speaker 1: for an in-person hearing. The court will allocate up to
• 15:46
  Speaker 1: four hours total for argument. That's encompassing both parties. Does
• 15:50
  Speaker 1: the defense request that Mr. Robinson be physically present for
• 15:53
  Speaker 1: that hearing? Answer, yes, your honor. Judge Graff, all right.
• 15:56
  Speaker 1: We'll make the according. Thank you. The court appreciates the professionalism, civility,
• 16:01
  Speaker 1: and respect shown by counsel, the parties, and all persons
• 16:05
  Speaker 1: in attendance throughout these proceedings. As there are no further
• 16:08
  Speaker 1: matters before the court, this proceeding is adjourned until September
• 16:12
  Speaker 1: 1st at 10 a.m. Good afternoon to you all. All
• 16:16
  Speaker 1: the information that goes with this episode can be found
• 16:19
  Speaker 1: in the description box.