Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing Transcript (Day 5 Part 6) (10/24/26)

Transcript

Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing Transcript (Day 5 Part 6) (10/24/26) · 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 pick up where we left
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: off with day number five of the prelim hearing for
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: Tyler Robinson. Question, okay, now sequencing analysis is different than
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: what you did in this case, correct? Answer, correct. Question,
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: and how so? Answer, as I said, sequencing is looking
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: at the individual sequence, the individual bases that make up
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: your DNA, as opposed to the testing that I'm performing.
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: which is looking at length variations. So STR testing, which
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: is the testing I perform, looks at areas of the
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: DNA that are known to be highly variable between individuals.
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: There are areas that the DNA sequence repeats itself over
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: and over again. And depending on who you are as
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: an individual, you may have different number of repeats present
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: at that location. So the testing we're performing is looking
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: at those length variations. There's a distinction between say, if
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: you have 10 repeats versus 12 repeats? Question, but you're
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: not looking within those lengths to see what the sequence
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: of the DNA is? Answer, correct. Question, and that's what
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: this new technology is designed to look at? Answer, correct. Question,
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: and the reason it's designed to look at this is
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: because it has been found that there are DNA areas
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: that are different in sequence, even though they're the same length.
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: Is that true? Answer, I think the reason for developing
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: NGS software is to add another tool to a forensic
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: biologist's tool belt. Question, okay. Now, could you go to 154, please,
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: for the witness only? You're familiar with this chart. Answer, yes. Question, okay.
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: This lists all the alleles that you found for all
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: the testing in your three analysis, correct? Answer, no. It
• 1:45
  Speaker 1: looks like inaudible. Question, no. You were right, 154. You're
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: familiar with this chart, right? Answer, I've reviewed the first
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: page of this chart. Question, sure. Answer, I have not
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: reviewed it in the entirety. Question, go to the first page.
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: This lists the alleles that you found, correct? Answer, for
• 2:08
  Speaker 1: the known samples, yeah. Question, okay. Now, go to the
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: second page. And is it true that for the alleles
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: of interest, in this case, one of the alleles of
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: interest is at the D3 location, allele 17? Answer, one
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: of the locations that we look at on the DNA
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: strand is called D3, that's a location, yes. Question right.
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: And in this case, the 17 allele is important because Mr.
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: Robinson had a 17 allele, correct? Answer, correct. Question, and
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: some of the evidence had a 17 allele at that location? Answer, correct. Question,
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: so as I understand the way you do this, you
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: look and compare whether those are the same number, basically? Answer,
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: I wouldn't say that's how we do our comparison. So
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: it's not just number matching. We're using the STR mix
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: software in order to perform an analysis of the software
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: that looks at the possibilities for a DNA profile and
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: make comparisons to the knowns that way. We aren't using
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: a chart that's just doing number matching. Question, yeah, and
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: I wasn't suggesting you did, but you're looking at the
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: alleles and measuring the peaks and it's a fairly sophisticated process, correct? Answer, correct. Question,
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: but the bottom line is you're comparing alleles one against another. Answer, correct. Question,
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: so if a person is a 1717 and the evidence
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: sample is a 1717, you're looking at that comparison? Answer, correct. Question,
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: and again, measuring only length? Answer, correct. Question, but it's true,
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: is it not, that researchers have found at the particular allele,
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: the D3-17 allele, that there are actually three different 17s, 17A, 17B,
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: and 17C. Answer, yeah. So there's something known as isoalleles.
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: What that is, is you may have, in this case,
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: a 17 allele, but the sequence within that 17 allele
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: is different. So two people may have a 17, but
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: they may have a different sequence within their 17 allele. Question.
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: And it has been found that there is a 17A,
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: a 17B, and a 17C, correct? To this, there's an
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: objection by the prosecution. Objection. relevance to the probable cause hearing.
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: At this point, I think we've, once again, gone beyond
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: probable cause. And based on the argument, I would invoke
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: his argument here, and the case law that he referenced,
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: and I object to the question. Defense, let me withdraw
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: the question, reframe it, and move beyond it. Judge Graff,
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: all right, I'll sustain the objection. It'll be reframed, and
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: we'll go from there. Question, it's true, is it not,
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: that at least one, two, three, five of the locations
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: of interest In this case, researchers have found that the
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: alleles that you are looking at, these isoalleles, have different sequences,
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: but the same length. Once again, another objection. Objection to relevance.
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: The witnesses testified she does not do sequencing analysis here,
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: and that's what the question is asking, is about sequencing analysis.
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: Judge Graff, counsel, defends. The point, though, is that her
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: testing cannot distinguish between these isoalleles, and therefore it goes
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: to the weight of the comparisons. Judge Graff, but if
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: she didn't do that? He trails off and the defense
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: picks up. Yeah, that's the point, is that she didn't
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: do it, and therefore she's not in a position to
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: draw conclusions. Judge Graff, prosecution? Prosecution, the proffer is inaccurate,
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: and she's not able to draw conclusions because she did
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: not do the NGS or the sequencing analysis. She's testified
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: that her lab and the analysis she did here is
• 5:52
  Speaker 1: not sequencing analysis. It's something different. Whether or not she
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: could do sequencing analysis is irrelevant to the analysis that
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: she did do. If the defense wants to call an
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: expert to say sequencing analysis is better or something like that,
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: that's fine. But this expert does not do sequencing analysis. Therefore,
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: the line of questioning that goes into sequencing analysis is
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: irrelevant to her testimony. Defense let me see if I
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: could lay further foundation. Judge Graff, alright, so I'm going
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: to sustain the objection, and the question may be re-asked
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: if counsel chooses. Defense, when you do your analysis using
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: length only, do you go by the rule that if
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: any STR locus fails to match when comparing the genotypes
• 6:37
  Speaker 1: between two or more samples, then the comparison of profiles
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: between the question and the reference sample is usually declared
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: a non-match, regardless of how many other loci match? Answer, no.
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: It's not quite that simple. What you're speaking of is
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: an exclusion. Is that correct? Answer, yeah. Or question, yeah, right. Answer,
• 6:58
  Speaker 1: so it's possible for DNA evidence to, we spoke about
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: it's possible that DNA evidence be degraded. In a case
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: like that, there may be potential that some of the
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: profiles has what we call dropped out, so it's not present.
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: In that case, we wouldn't expect necessarily to have an
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: inclusion or exclusion at the location because there's no information
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: present there. So it's not quite as simple as, is
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: every allele in this chart present in the evidence? There's
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: more to it than that. Question, if you had a
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: difference in sequence between a known and a question across
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: many loci, would you exclude the person? Answer, it depends on.
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: Prosecution once again jumps in. Once again, objection, Your Honor.
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: We're going back into sequencing, which is not the analysis
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: that was done in the case. Judge Graff, defense. Defense again,
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: Your Honor. If there could be an exclusion... based on this,
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: and the testing was not done, I think that's relevant.
• 7:53
  Speaker 1: Judge Graff, but as it relates to the witness and
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: her first hand knowledge, I'm not seeing that tie in
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: as it relates to her. Defense, all right, I'll move
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: on then. Judge Graff, so I'll sustain the objection. Back
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: to the defense. Now, you said that all samples you
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: looked at in that one report were mixtures, correct? Answer, correct. Question,
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: and the number you get And the likelihood ratio depends
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: on how many contributors you estimate, right? The number is
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: going to vary if you say, I think it's a
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: mixture of two people versus I think it's a mixture
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: of five people. Answer, it's not necessarily the number of contributors,
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: the likelihood ratio to the weight of the evidence. So
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: it's comparing known individuals to the unknown sample. It could
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: be a low number and a single source sample. It
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: could be a high number and a four person mixture.
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: It's not necessarily directed or correlated with the number of contributors? Question.
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: Let me ask you if you agree with this. This
• 8:53
  Speaker 1: is from the NIS Mixture Study. A likelihood ratio numeric
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: value is not a measurement of the physical quantity. Do
• 9:00
  Speaker 1: you agree with that? Answer. Correct. Question. Rather, it's a
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: ratio of probabilities in the opinion of the expert assessing
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: the likelihood ratio and is dependent on the specific propositions
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: used to formulate it and also on the individual making
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: the assessment. Answer. Yeah, I agree. Question. And does the
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: final likelihood ratio depend on the number of contributors you assume? Answer. No,
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: it does not. Question. It has no effect whatsoever. Answer.
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: It can have an effect. It's possible. It's possible multiple
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: other factors could contribute to the likelihood ratio. Question. Is
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: it somehow difficult to figure out how many contributors there
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: are in a sample? Answer. No. I guess I would
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: say I use my training, education, and experience in order
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: to determine the number of contributors present in a profile. Question,
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: but I noticed throughout your report you used the phrase,
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: for instance, with regard to the 1.2 sample, the profile
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: is consistent with at least five contributors, at least one
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: of which is male. And for 1.1, you say the
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: profile is consistent with at least four contributors. I assume
• 10:06
  Speaker 1: by the word, at least, you're signaling that it could
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: be more. Answer, correct. Question, and as the number of
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: people to a mixture increases, the difficulty in sorting out
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: that mixture increases as well, correct? Answer, correct. Question. I
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: noticed in your standard operating procedure, there's some guidance on
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: interpreting three-person mixtures. Familiar with that, right? Answer. Yes. Question.
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: And it says, and correct me if I'm wrong, approximately
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: 70% of four-person mixtures present as two or present as
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: two or three-person mixtures based solely on a number of
• 10:41
  Speaker 1: alleles present. Answer. It's possible for them to be present. Yes. Question. Well,
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: It doesn't say it's possible. It says, for example, in
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: all cases, assuming a mixture is a result of the
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: combination of three people must be done with caution. For example,
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: approximately 70% of four-person mixtures present as two or three-person
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: mixtures based solely on the number of alleles present. Answer,
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: you said you're referencing my SOP? Question, yes. Answer, is
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: it possible for me to take a look at it? Answer, sure.
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: All right, folks, we're going to wrap up right here
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: And in the next episode dealing with the topic we're
• 11:20
  Speaker 1: going to pick up where we left off. All the
• 11:23
  Speaker 1: information that goes with this episode can be found in
• 11:26
  Speaker 1: the description box.