Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing Transcript (Day 4 Part 17) (10/20/26)

Transcript

Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing Transcript (Day 4 Part 17) (10/20/26) · 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 and
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: pick up with the Tyler Robinson transcript from day number four.
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: Judge Graff to the state. Prosecution, Your Honor, if I
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: may voir dire the witness on this exhibit, I've never
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: seen it before, I don't think. Judge Graff, all right,
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: let's go ahead and do so, Mr. McBride. Prosecution, when
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: was the last time you reviewed this document? Answer. I'm
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: not sure off the top of my head. Question. Can
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: you testify as to its accuracy by looking at it now? Answer.
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: Not verbatim, no. Question. Your Honor, no more questions. My
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: objection is lack of foundation. Judge Graff. Defense. Defense. Does
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: this document accurately state what the theory is? Answer. May
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: I take a moment to read through it? Question. Yeah, sure. Answer.
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: I believe something. I think the first statement is different
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: than what I can recall. But overall, it's what the
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: AFTE theory states. Question okay. And your ATF protocol refers
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: specifically to the AFTE theory of identification, does it not? Answer,
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: it does, yes. Question okay. So is there any difference
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: between what's in 27 and what's in your manual? Answer, again,
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: I don't remember without looking at them side by side.
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: Question okay. Let me get that in front of you.
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: Let's go to Exhibit 12 and go to Theory of
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: Identification and Arrange the Conclusions, page 1 of 3. I
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: don't have a Bates on it. It's towards the end.
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: It's Document FT-10. No, that's not it. May I approach
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: the witness, Your Honor? Judge Graff, you may. Defense, page
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: 1 of 3 of your protocol. Answer, I recognize this
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: is something that comes from our SOPs, yes. Question, okay.
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: And it refers to AFTE theory of identification, right? Answer,
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: it does, yes. Question, same theory that's displayed in 27? Answer, yes. Question, okay. So,
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: I'd renew my offer on 27. To that, the prosecution
• 2:08
  Speaker 1: jumps in. Your Honor, the objection stands. Language matters without
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: knowing what, if this language is identical to what she's
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: trained on. That can make a big difference whether the
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: word sufficient or adequate is used. These are scientific principles,
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: and we need to be precise in the language that's used.
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: The witness cannot authenticate the exhibit that's been offered, so
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: it should not be received into evidence. Judge Graff, defense?
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: Defense goes to weight, not admissibility. You'd be free to
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: question her about any differences, but I think she laid
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: a foundation that the theory is the same. Judge Graff, alright, well?
• 2:47
  Speaker 1: I remind the parties that this is a probable cause finding.
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: And so as it relates to what's been presented, the
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: witness has said it looks familiar. Again, I don't want
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: to quote you. I don't remember the exact phrase, but
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: she recognized portions of it and then was given the
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: opportunity to compare it to her standard operating procedure. I
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: think she said SOP. For those reasons, Karner 27 is
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: admitted and may be published. Defense, thank you. Looking at
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: the language of this, the second part of it, according
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: to AFTE, says currently the interpretation of individualization identification is
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: subjective in nature. Do you agree with that? Karner? Yes. Question,
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: why is it subjective in nature? Answer, the conclusions that
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: I author are of my opinion. Question, of your opinion? Answer, correct. Question,
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: you can take that down, thank you. And no, wait
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: a minute, go back if you would. But while he's
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: going to do that, does your Emmanuel state... What you're
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: looking for under this theory is correspondence of individual characteristics? Answer, yes. Question,
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: that the theory is that if you see a certain
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: level of correspondence, you can make a source identification, but
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: not to the exclusion of all other firearms in the world, correct? Answer, correct. Question, okay.
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: And the standard, at least, as it's articulated here, is
• 4:11
  Speaker 1: the theory as it pertains to the comparison enables opinions
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: of common origin to be made when the unique surface
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: contours of two tool marks are, quote, insufficient agreement? And
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: is the subjective part of that, the quoted part, sufficient agreement? Answer,
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: the subjective part of the conclusion is saying yes. It's
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: my opinion that there is or not sufficient agreement or
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: sufficient disagreement amongst two or more tool marks. Question, and
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: what may constitute sufficient for you may be completely different
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: from the next examiner. Fair? Answer, yes and no. I
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: would expect any trained, competent examiner to come to the
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: same conclusion. So the threshold of sufficient agreement might be
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: different from one examiner, but the conclusion I would expect
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: to be the same. Question, does your manual state, your
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: ATF manual, section 431, state that correspondence or lack thereof,
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: individual characteristics not easily communicated? An observation such as significant
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: agreement can mean different things to each examiner. This does
• 5:15
  Speaker 1: not serve as an interpretable description of what was observed
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: because the individual performing the review will likely have his
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: or her own concept of the phrase based upon their training, experience,
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: and knowledge. To that, the prosecution objects. Objection, Your Honor.
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: This question goes to Wade. Oh, I'm sorry. May I
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: be heard? Judge Graff, if you're objecting, I'll hear the objection. Prosecution,
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: it's a speaking objection. That's why I stopped myself. This
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: goes to Wade. This goes to credibility, and the witness
• 5:47
  Speaker 1: report has already been admitted, as appropriate, under the Utah
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: Constitution Rule 7b and Rule 1102 of the Rules of Evidence.
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: This is beyond the scope of prelim hearing for those reasons.
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: Judge Graff, defense? Defense, number one? That's a general objection,
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: which I think has been waived. The state was privy
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: to the interview with this pre-hearing interview with this witness,
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: where these same questions were asked. We had a scheduled
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: hearing where the court was going to rule on objections.
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: The state indicated in advance of the hearing that it
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: had no objection to the testimony reserving the right to
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: make particular objections. But the objection being made is a
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: global one. And it's relevant because the state offered the
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: evidence I'm offering here is relevant because the state offered
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: through a hearsay declarant the meaning of this report that
• 6:37
  Speaker 1: the examiner authored. And I'm trying to inform the court
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: on what the limitations are of the opinions expressed in
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: the report that the state offered. And it's certainly relevant
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: to the reliability issue to know what the opinion is
• 6:50
  Speaker 1: based on subjective standard that the witness herself admits is subjective.
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: So I think it helps the court understand the weight,
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: if any, to give to this report that the state offers.
• 7:02
  Speaker 1: Judge Graff, prosecution, any final thoughts? Prosecution, that's all fine,
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: but it's inviting the court to weigh the evidence. That's
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: the whole point. And at this point, the inferences are
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: drawn in the state's favor and the court is not
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: to weigh even contrary evidence. Judge Graff, okay, well, in
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: regards to whether objections have been waived or not, the
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: court as a magistrate bears the ultimate responsibility to ensuring
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: that this hearing is a probable cause standard. And so
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: that's a responsibility that as a magistrate, I take seriously.
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: I understand the arguments from the parties. I'm going to
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: overrule the objection. We don't need to go 100 miles
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: down a path where one mile is the probable cause, maybe.
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: And so I invite you to refocus it to the
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: probable cause. I'm not trying to limit what you, your
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: theories are such, but I need you to hold the
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: probable cause. Prosecution, absolutely. And I don't even need a
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: quarter of a mile. This is my last question, and
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: I'm going to move to another topic. Judge Graff, all right,
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: thank you. Defense question. Is that what your manual states? Answer,
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: by Ms. Karner. I don't remember it verbatim, but it
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: sounds accurate. Question, well, could you pull up Exhibit 12?
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: I'll give you two pages. Bottom of the page, highlighted.
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: Do you see? Answer, yes. Question, did I accurately read it? Answer,
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: I believe so, yes. Question, thank you. Can I approach Judge?
• 8:31
  Speaker 1: Judge Graff, you may. Question, thank you. Okay, now. Let's
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: return to the report, the State 32, and if you would,
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: go to the second page, please. You concluded here, did
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: you not, that the Exhibit 6A bullet jacket fragment could
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: not be identified or excluded as having been fired from
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: the Exhibit 1A based on an agreement of all discernible
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: class characteristics and neither sufficient agreement nor a sufficient disagreement
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: of individual characteristics. The result of the comparison was inconclusive. Answer, yes. Question, no.
• 9:05
  Speaker 1: That was your ultimate conclusion, right? Answer, yes. Question. And
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: on the next page, if you could, go to two
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: pages in, you have an appendix, do you not? Where
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: you explain what inconclusive means. Next page, one more. There
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: we go. I want to ask you, because I'm unclear
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: on what an inconclusive mean. You say reasons for an
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: inconclusive include the presence of microscopic similarity that is insufficient
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: to form the conclusion of source identification. A lack of
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: any observed microscopic similarity or a microscopic similarity that is
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: insufficient to form the conclusion of source exclusion. Could you
• 9:41
  Speaker 1: specify which of those possibilities exist in this case? Was
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: this a case where you had microscopic dissimilarity but in
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: your opinion it was insufficient to form a conclusion of
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: source exclusion? No, my conclusion is inconclusive just as it
• 9:57
  Speaker 1: says in the appendix. There's a lack of sufficient agreement
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: and sufficient disagreement. So I'm unable to say one way
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: or the other. Question, okay, but I guess my question is,
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: were there points of dissimilarity between the question and the
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: known bullets? Answer, again, there was not sufficient agreement or
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: sufficient disagreement. So yes, there was at times what I
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: saw agreement in the striations, in the Landon-Groove impressions. I
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: also seeing disagreement, but there was also a lot of
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: lack of microscopic marks of value to see at all.
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: So because of this lack of quality and quantity of
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: marks to be able to see, it never reached the
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: threshold of sufficient agreement or sufficient disagreement. So an identification
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: or exclusion cannot be rendered. Question okay. I think I
• 10:46
  Speaker 1: have met you before today, correct? Answer yes. Question. Where
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: we talked about what the term inconclusive meant, correct? Answer, yes. Question.
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: And I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, but
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: did I read to you from Do You Recall Me
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: Asking You whether you agreed with this statement that an
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: inconclusive conclusion indicates that the microscopic marks in question may
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: or may not have originated from the same or known source? Answer,
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: I do remember you asking, yes. Question. And you agreed?
• 11:17
  Speaker 1: That was a correct definition of what you concluded in
• 11:20
  Speaker 1: the case, correct? Answer, correct. Question, okay, so I want to,
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: if I could, return to 10, Exhibit 10. And in
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: Exhibit 10, not 10, I'm sorry, your case file again,
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: this is 47-page document. There we go. What's the tab? 6. Okay, 6.
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: In your case file, you have produced for us some
• 11:38
  Speaker 1: nice comparison photos of your comparisons, correct? Answer, yes. Question, okay.
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: And if you would go to page 37... Is the
• 11:46
  Speaker 1: top photo depicting one test fire on the left and
• 11:49
  Speaker 1: another test fire on the same gun on the right? Answer,
• 11:52
  Speaker 1: yes it is. Question, do you see areas of agreement
• 11:57
  Speaker 1: and areas of disagreement in those two bullets fired from
• 12:00
  Speaker 1: the same rifle? Answer, I see sufficient agreement amongst the
• 12:03
  Speaker 1: striations that are in the land impression. Question okay and
• 12:08
  Speaker 1: tell us where they are. When you draw that conclusion
• 12:11
  Speaker 1: and using this subjective theory of identification, show us what
• 12:14
  Speaker 1: you're looking at. Answer, is it touchscreen? Defense, probably. So
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: they find out it's not touchscreen, okay? Question, but if
• 12:24
  Speaker 1: you're direct us, we can get there with a pointer. Question, sure.
• 12:28
  Speaker 1: Or answer, sure. So you can see towards maybe the
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: last third of the bullet or the land impression that, yes,
• 12:34
  Speaker 1: right there where your cursor is, below there, that's an
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: area of agreement with the striation. It looks like it's
• 12:39
  Speaker 1: going from the left to the right. So the marks
• 12:41
  Speaker 1: appearing on the test fire on the left and the
• 12:44
  Speaker 1: test fire on the right. Then if you look towards
• 12:46
  Speaker 1: the top of the land impression, there's going to be
• 12:49
  Speaker 1: some more lighter colored striations or lines that are moving
• 12:53
  Speaker 1: from left to right. Those areas are in agreement as well. Question,
• 12:58
  Speaker 1: where is that? Not as far up as where he is, correct? Answer, yes.
• 13:02
  Speaker 1: I believe the PowerPoint that I provided does have some
• 13:05
  Speaker 1: areas and circles of some of these marks, if that
• 13:07
  Speaker 1: would help as well. But if you move your cursor up,
• 13:10
  Speaker 1: continually up, keep going, there you go. You have a
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: line that was right there. And you have several others
• 13:15
  Speaker 1: underneath of that. And it looks like it's going just
• 13:18
  Speaker 1: straight across from left to right. And that shows an
• 13:20
  Speaker 1: observed area of agreement. Question. So that's one he's got
• 13:25
  Speaker 1: circled on the right. I see a line there. Are
• 13:28
  Speaker 1: you saying you see a line on the left that
• 13:29
  Speaker 1: is identical to the one on the right? Answer. I'm
• 13:32
  Speaker 1: saying I see agreement amongst those striations. Yes. Question. Okay.
• 13:37
  Speaker 1: Anything other than those two areas? Answer. You can really
• 13:40
  Speaker 1: go down the entirety almost of the line looking at
• 13:42
  Speaker 1: the striations. So under the top red circle, there's another
• 13:46
  Speaker 1: area there. Yep, if you start right there and you
• 13:48
  Speaker 1: draw your circle over. At the top of the circle,
• 13:51
  Speaker 1: there's a highlighted line on the left that goes all
• 13:53
  Speaker 1: the way to the right. If you go a little
• 13:55
  Speaker 1: bit farther down, maybe still on the top third of
• 13:58
  Speaker 1: that circle, you can see another line going from one
• 14:01
  Speaker 1: side to the other area of agreement as well. And
• 14:04
  Speaker 1: then under the final third circle, in a little darker
• 14:07
  Speaker 1: area down there, there's still some lines, again, insufficient agreement. Question, okay,
• 14:12
  Speaker 1: and again, These are comparisons between test fires. So you
• 14:16
  Speaker 1: know the rifle that you're test firing fired these two bullets, right? Answer, yes.
• 14:23
  Speaker 1: All right, folks, we're going to wrap up right here.
• 14:25
  Speaker 1: And in the next episode, dealing with the topic, we'll
• 14:27
  Speaker 1: pick up where we left off. All the information that
• 14:30
  Speaker 1: goes with this episode can be found in the description box.