Click any timestamp to jump to that moment on YouTube.
[00:00:24] UNKNOWN:
Thank you. Thank you. So yeah, that's a lot of work. I know it's not great at all. . . Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I just wanted to take a quick break. Okay. Thank you very much. . . Be sure to subscribe to the channel. Right, so. . . Thank you very much. I'm a fan of her in general. I love her, she's one of my favorites. I'm just so in love with her. And the idea is that you're doing the first two things. . . . . . . . . . . . . Thank you. . . Thank you. . . th th . .
[00:34:02] Speaker 04:
Your court indictment two thousand twenty three zero zero nine one continuation of jury trial. Council starting with the Commonwealth. Can they identify yourselves to the court in the record.
[00:34:10] Speaker 15:
Good morning Your Honor. Greg Conniff the Commonwealth.
[00:34:12] Speaker 04:
Good morning.
[00:34:13] Speaker 03:
Good morning Your Honor. Anne Yaz for the Commonwealth. Good morning Your Honor. Tracy Cusick for the Commonwealth. Good morning.
[00:34:17] Speaker 31:
Good morning Your Honor. Good morning everyone. Kelly Ford is on behalf of Mr. Wolf.
[00:34:21] Speaker 11:
Good morning. Good morning. Good morning Your Honor. Larry Tipton for Mr. Wolf.
[00:34:25] Speaker 10:
Good morning. Somebody needed to see me. We needed to see you. Okay.
[00:35:12] UNKNOWN:
. . . . Thank you. Thank you.
[00:38:25] Speaker 22:
Thank you.
[00:38:57] UNKNOWN:
Thank you. Thank you. you
[00:40:53] Speaker 22:
Thank you.
[00:41:30] UNKNOWN:
Thank you. . . Thank you. . . You are unmuted. Thank you. . . you you you you Thank you. . . you you I'm sorry? All right. All right, that's nice. Thank you. . . Thank you.
[01:00:31] Speaker 22:
Thank you. Thank you.
[01:01:54] Speaker 21:
And I think that's something I can add.
[01:02:09] UNKNOWN:
And I'm sure we can make it happen. Thank you. So thank you. I'll just sit back and let you know. Thank you.
[01:04:21] Speaker 22:
.
[01:04:31] UNKNOWN:
. . . Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. . . you Thank you.
[01:13:16] Speaker 22:
Thank you.
[01:13:45] Speaker 13:
All right, I'll see you back up here.
[01:15:08] UNKNOWN:
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. you Thank you. . . Thank you. you
[01:22:42] Speaker 10:
Yes, we are. Thank you.
[01:22:44] Speaker 05:
Can I get a new one? Mr. Tifton, you want this back?
[01:22:56] Speaker 22:
Yes, please.
[01:23:05] Speaker 13:
Mm-hmm.
[01:23:13] Speaker 28:
That's good
[01:23:56] Speaker 10:
Madam Clerk, do you have the list?
[01:24:02] UNKNOWN:
The jury is entering.
[01:24:33] Speaker 14:
Here he, here he, here he, all persons of Induc, the Honorable Justice Diane Fernand, Justice of the Honorable District Court, Ron Ann, give your testimony later. Let's have a call to Massachusetts and his Honorable
[01:24:53] Speaker 10:
Good morning jurors, welcome back. Happy Tuesday. We will start today as we do every day with the questions. Are you able to comply jurors with my order that you not speak to anyone about this case? Are you able to comply with my order that you not do any research about this case? be able to comply with my order that you not access any social media or go on and take in any news media. And you still all have open minds. Thank you all jurors for the record, all jurors answering in the affirmative to all four questions. We can have the witness back on the stand.
[01:26:13] Speaker 08:
Sir, you understand your cylinder oath?
[01:26:15] Speaker 20:
Yes.
[01:26:16] Speaker 08:
You may proceed, Attorney Tipton.
[01:26:17] Speaker 11:
Thank you very much. Good morning, sir.
[01:26:25] Speaker 19:
Good morning.
[01:26:28] Speaker 11:
I'm going to return to the home in a minute, but I want to ask you some very specific questions about some of the specific evidence that you testified to yesterday. Yesterday you were asked about exhibit 248 that you described as white powder residue on the portion of the rug that was labeled 16-7. Do you recall that testimony? Yes. This white powder residue, that has nothing to do with what we were talking about on cross-examination about this white coloring or discoloration up in the second floor bedroom, correct? That's completely different.
[01:27:13] Speaker 19:
Yes, completely different.
[01:27:14] Speaker 11:
And I think I heard you say, on direct examination, that the white powder residue on Exhibit 248 had been sent out to another unit? Yes. For examination?
[01:27:26] Speaker 18:
Correct.
[01:27:27] Speaker 11:
And was that the arson unit? Yes. And right now, as you sit here, do you know what that white powder was?
[01:27:37] Speaker 19:
Yes.
[01:27:38] Speaker 11:
And what was it?
[01:27:39] Speaker 19:
From what I recall from the report, it was baking powder.
[01:27:42] Speaker 11:
OK, it's baking powder. And Mr. Sheehan, you've seen photographs of the rub that was found in PV in the dumpster area. And you've seen photographs where there are additional clumps. of what appears to be baking soda or some other substance, correct? Correct. And if you know, on those other portions of the rug where you see those clumps, is it your assessment that that's also baking soda?
[01:28:28] Speaker 19:
I don't know. It was not tested.
[01:28:31] Speaker 11:
You would agree, wouldn't you, Mr. Sheehan, that throughout the home that was searched in Cohasset, that not only was there certain items seized that may have been opened, for instance, bottles or containers found in the basement, but there was also items that appeared to be never opened or ever used, correct?
[01:28:58] Speaker 19:
in regards to the wet bottles. What bottles are you talking about?
[01:29:05] Speaker 11:
Well, I'm actually talking about some of the cleaning items that were located in the basement, the mops, brooms, buckets, pails, some of those having the label of Lowe's. They didn't appear to have been used for any reason. Correct. If you recall, you testified yesterday about a cabinet that was up above the refrigerator in the kitchen, and you said that in that cabinet there was a knife and also a bottle of hydrogen peroxide, correct?
[01:29:39] Speaker 18:
Correct.
[01:29:40] Speaker 11:
And was that hydrogen peroxide that was found in that cabinet up in the kitchen above the refrigerator, had that been open?
[01:29:48] Speaker 19:
Not that I recall.
[01:29:49] Speaker 11:
OK. So it's fair to say, without going down an exhaustive list, that there were numerous items found in COHS that had apparently never been used for any purpose. They were still, in the lack of a better phrase, brand new, unused conditions.
[01:30:08] Speaker 19:
From what I recall, but I didn't specifically look at each and every item.
[01:30:11] Speaker 11:
OK. It's fair to say, isn't it, that in an investigation like this, you're looking for red-brown stains because you told us on direct examination that you were looking for blood, correct?
[01:30:26] Speaker 20:
Yes.
[01:30:27] Speaker 11:
And it's fair to say that in no report that you wrote did you ever use the phrase blood spatter or anything similar to blood splatter, correct? Correct. And so it's fair to say that you did not determine that what you saw Anywhere in the house was indicative of blood spatter evidence, right?
[01:30:51] Speaker 19:
That is correct.
[01:30:52] Speaker 11:
And if you can, sir, can you tell the jury briefly, or in your own words, what you consider to be, as a forensic specialist, blood spatter evidence?
[01:31:02] Speaker 19:
Blood spatter in general is blood in flight.
[01:31:08] Speaker 11:
And it results from somebody, perhaps, stabs on the knife and in the movement of the knife, light evidence flies off the knife and stabs onto a surface, correct?
[01:31:22] Speaker 20:
Yes.
[01:31:23] Speaker 11:
And then when you see blood spatter, then you would analyze it and you would look for directionality and things like that to determine the directionality of the blood flowing from an instrument, correct?
[01:31:35] Speaker 19:
I wouldn't be doing that. It would be a assigned blood stain analyst. It would be done in the lab, however, just not by me.
[01:31:41] Speaker 11:
All right. And I apologize. I really wasn't implying that you would do it. in describing what blood spatter is, you would agree that that's what some analysts that may examine myocardial evidence down to the C, that they would analyze it in that way, work with directionality and things like that.
[01:32:00] Speaker 20:
Yes.
[01:32:00] Speaker 11:
And there was nothing in this poem that you're aware of that could be described as blood spatter evidence. That is correct. You also asked a question yesterday on direct examination about luminol toward the very end of the direct examination, correct?
[01:32:17] Speaker 20:
Yes.
[01:32:18] Speaker 11:
And you gave a brief definition for the jurors of what luminol is, correct? Correct. You saw no evidence of any container that had contained anything like luminol in the cohasinol, did you?
[01:32:29] Speaker 18:
Correct.
[01:32:30] Speaker 11:
And in fact, you have no evidence that luminol was ever used in the home in Cohasset by anyone, correct?
[01:32:40] Speaker 18:
Correct.
[01:32:45] Speaker 11:
I want to ask you something a little bit about this testing, the instrument that you used for testing. Yesterday you referred to SWAB K in exhibit 216, photograph 1066. If I could have, if you don't mind, exhibit 216, Ms. Gilman? And those are the swabs that you would then use that you collected from some of the basement floor stains, the A through G, correct? Yes. And could I now have exhibit 217, photograph 1067? What we saw yesterday is that is a Saratek instrument, so to speak, that the Mass State Police uses to then analyze something like the stain you find on the floor, like you did in the basement, to determine if it was plug-in, correct? Correct. When you talk about screening tests and confirmatory tests, was that a screening test or a confirmatory test?
[01:34:00] Speaker 19:
This is the confirmatory test.
[01:34:03] Speaker 11:
Now, there are certain protocols that you, as a forensic analyst, have to use to use the Saratec product, right? Yes. And without going into it, I think it's fair to say, and you tell me if I'm wrong, whenever you used that instrument, you used it correctly, didn't you? Yes. And you don't have any reason to believe that the results that you relied on in testing the biological evidence in this case, that the evidence that flowed from this Ceratec instrument was erroneous, correct? Correct. You would agree when you that these instruments are very sensitive, correct? Yes. And the protocol actually suggests, in using this instrument, that you shouldn't use a liquid that is undiluted because it may overwhelm the instrument. So you dilute it, correct?
[01:35:04] Speaker 18:
Correct.
[01:35:05] Speaker 11:
In fact, the sensitivity of the serotech HEM instrument that you used, by the way, HEM, H-E-M, does that stand for hemoglobin?
[01:35:15] Speaker 19:
It is a, I believe so. I'm not sure if it stands for hemoglobin or not.
[01:35:20] Speaker 11:
Well, let me ask you this. That is the substance of the blood that this testing instrument is testable, right?
[01:35:27] Speaker 20:
Yes.
[01:35:28] Speaker 11:
And it's sensitive to the point that it can determine the presence of hemoglobin at the quantity of 20 nanograms per node. That's what it says in the protocols, right?
[01:35:42] Speaker 19:
That sounds correct. I would have to review the protocol.
[01:35:50] Speaker 11:
And just as I'm going to look for that, I'll just ask you this. 20 nanograms per milliliter. I'm correct, aren't I, that a nanogram is 1 billionth of a gram?
[01:36:03] Speaker 20:
Yes.
[01:36:05] Speaker 11:
So 20 nanograms is simply 20 billionths of a gram, correct?
[01:36:08] UNKNOWN:
Correct. That is, and I'm not a scientist like you, but that's a pretty small
[01:36:26] Speaker 11:
checking this home for blood evidence that you were using an instrument that if you swabbed an area of the home, you could detect the presence of hemoglobin if it only was there in the amount of 20 nanograms per million, correct?
[01:36:48] Speaker 18:
Correct.
[01:36:49] Speaker 11:
And it only puts, in this poem in Cohasset, that you found anything of blood evidence, of significance, where those...
[01:37:28] Speaker 20:
May I approach her?
[01:37:39] Speaker 10:
You may.
[01:37:40] Speaker 11:
You mentioned the protocols and that it sounded right when I said 20 nanograms per milliliter. I'm just going to show you page two of the protocols. Just ask you to read it to yourself. And after having done that, if you could just look up and tell me you read it. You ready? Yes. So having reviewed that document, do you recognize that document as protocols applicable to the blood testing instrument you've been talking about?
[01:38:14] Speaker 19:
That is the protocol that comes with the serocheck card itself. We also have internal lab protocols that we follow for the specific testing.
[01:38:23] Speaker 11:
You will agree that the protocol that I just showed you, though, does specifically state that the sensitivity of this instrument is at 20 nanograms per millimeter, correct? Yes. When you collect biological evidence at the scene, you're not trying to quantify what it is you're finding, correct?
[01:38:52] Speaker 20:
Correct.
[01:38:52] Speaker 11:
So it can be a very tiny amount, correct?
[01:38:55] Speaker 20:
Yes.
[01:38:56] Speaker 11:
And that tiny amount, and we're talking about something of 20 nanograms per milliliter, you didn't find anything even in the amount of 20 nanograms per milliliter in that upstairs bedroom we talked about yesterday, correct? Correct. And as fair to say, as we move through the house, you'll find anything, a miniscule amount of biological evidence of hemoglobin on the stairway, correct?
[01:39:19] Speaker 18:
Correct.
[01:39:20] Speaker 11:
Nor did you find it in the living room area that you examined, correct? Yes. Yes. No, you did not find it. Correct. That's fine. It's my fault. And you did not find it anywhere in the kitchen area, correct?
[01:39:34] Speaker 18:
Correct.
[01:39:42] Speaker 11:
So somebody can try to clean a floor, and somebody can try to clean a bathroom area. But if they leave something as small as 20 nanograms per milliliter of biological evidence, this instrument that you rely on could detect it, correct?
[01:40:01] Speaker 19:
Theoretically, yes.
[01:40:10] Speaker 11:
Could I have a Exhibit number 97, please. You see the rug in exhibit 97?
[01:40:34] Speaker 20:
Yes.
[01:40:35] Speaker 11:
Is it your opinion that that rug is the rug that you testified to yesterday?
[01:40:40] Speaker 19:
It looks similar, but I can't confirm if it is or not.
[01:40:42] Speaker 11:
And do you recognize the room that that rug is in with the fireplace?
[01:40:48] Speaker 19:
Yes, this looks like the first floor living room.
[01:40:50] Speaker 11:
OK, and that's the room that you examined, correct?
[01:40:52] Speaker 19:
I did not do a full examination. It was one of those areas that I did a brief visual exam as I was walking through to the second floor and first floor.
[01:41:01] Speaker 11:
If you can take down a ticket 97. Thank you, Mr. Gilbertson. In any event, when you went into that living room where you made a cursory inspection and no one told you you could only spend a little bit of time in the living room. That's curious of you, right? Correct. You could spend as long as you needed to find whatever it was you were looking for, and that was blood, right?
[01:41:21] Speaker 20:
Yes.
[01:41:22] Speaker 11:
And you could have torn up the floor in the living room, like they did up in the second floor room, if you had any reason to believe that there was blood or biological evidence in that living room, correct? Correct. And you could look for what we just talked about, plus better evidence on the fireplace that you see in exhibit 97. You could do all those things. But what happened was, when you went through the living room, you saw nothing that gave you pause to look at that room for biological evidence other than walking through it, looking, and then moving on to another area, correct?
[01:41:54] Speaker 18:
Correct.
[01:41:56] Speaker 11:
And that rug that is seen in exhibit 97 lying on the floor simply no evidence on the floor area in front of the fireplace that there was any biological evidence of any significance. And when you were examining that area, and was that on January 9th or January 8th?
[01:42:26] Speaker 19:
January 8th.
[01:42:27] Speaker 11:
So when you were examining that area on January 8th, that rug wasn't there, was it?
[01:42:31] Speaker 20:
Correct.
[01:42:32] Speaker 11:
So that entire floor was in plain view, was it?
[01:42:34] Speaker 20:
Yes.
[01:42:35] Speaker 11:
And it'd be pretty easy, wouldn't it? or any one of your colleagues examined that particular area of the floor to see if there was any biological evidence on the floor where that was at. And you testified yesterday, extensively, on direct examination, that there are numerous parts of pieces of rub you examined. And you told the jury about the red ground stains you saw on that rub and those pieces, correct?
[01:43:08] Speaker 20:
Yes.
[01:43:09] Speaker 11:
Did you ever, as one of the forensic scientists involved in this case, did you ever piece together the fragments of the rub that testified to you yesterday?
[01:43:21] Speaker 19:
I did not. That would not be my unit if it was requested for analysis.
[01:43:25] Speaker 11:
Do you know of anybody in the domestic police crime?
[01:43:29] Speaker 19:
Not that I'm aware of.
[01:43:40] Speaker 11:
I want to turn to your attention now briefly to the knife that you testified to yesterday that was found in the cabinet above the refrigerator, okay? And if we can have exhibit 201, please, Ms. Gilman. Once again, that's the cabinet, correct?
[01:44:04] Speaker 20:
Yes.
[01:44:05] Speaker 11:
And inside that cabinet you found a knife, correct?
[01:44:07] Speaker 20:
Correct.
[01:44:08] Speaker 11:
And inside that cabinet we see various items including boxes of what appears to be bottles of hydrogen peroxide.
[01:44:15] Speaker 20:
Yes.
[01:44:16] Speaker 11:
And we also see, can you tell the jury what they see in the right side of exhibit 201, another container with a label, red label, and white lid on it?
[01:44:27] Speaker 19:
That is hydrogen peroxide wipes.
[01:44:29] Speaker 11:
Okay. And were those wipes also in apparent brand new condition? They hadn't been opened?
[01:44:37] Speaker 19:
Don't recall.
[01:44:38] Speaker 11:
Okay. Could we have exhibit 202, Ms. Gilman? And if I may, do you know, Mr. Sheehan, if then when someone was taking this photograph, if that is the exact condition of how the knife was found? uh... yes it is that was after someone removed and i say someone like one of your colleagues they remove though that bottle of hydrogen peroxide in those whites you told us yesterday that there was a screening test conducted on that correct yes but there was no confirmatory test correct correct it's fair to say then that uh... you as you sit here today you can't tell us whether screening test results as possible blood, you don't know if it's blood or not.
[01:45:33] Speaker 18:
That is correct.
[01:45:35] Speaker 11:
And since you didn't do a confirmatory test, you certainly can't tell us that it was blood, correct?
[01:45:40] Speaker 18:
Correct.
[01:45:41] Speaker 11:
And you told us that on item number 1-8, which is the knife, exhibit 215, that you otherwise didn't see any visible stains, correct?
[01:45:54] Speaker 18:
Correct.
[01:45:55] Speaker 11:
So is it fair to say, if I understand your testimony from yesterday, that on this knife that was found above the refrigerator, you neither saw any visible stains, red blood stains, and you don't know what it was on the preliminary screening test, whether it was blood or not, correct?
[01:46:12] Speaker 19:
Correct. It was only a screening test positive.
[01:46:14] Speaker 11:
And if you know, Mr. Sheating, that sample that you collected from that knife was never subjected to any further testing.
[01:46:25] Speaker 18:
Correct.
[01:46:27] Speaker 11:
So there is no evidence whatsoever that that knife had any biological substance on it like blood at all, right?
[01:46:36] Speaker 19:
Aside from the positive screening test, no.
[01:46:39] Speaker 11:
But the screen test doesn't tell us it's blood.
[01:46:41] Speaker 19:
That is correct.
[01:46:48] Speaker 11:
If I could have Ms. Gilman exhibit 208. Yesterday, you see that photograph, Mr. Sheehan?
[01:46:58] Speaker 20:
Yes.
[01:46:59] Speaker 11:
And you described that as the bottom basement step in the Cohasset home, correct? Correct. Do you know how that step came to become broken or however you want to characterize it?
[01:47:13] Speaker 19:
I was notified that someone, when they were doing a preliminary search around the house, had stepped on it and it broke.
[01:47:19] Speaker 11:
OK. And so you don't know if it was cracked Before, that person you just described actually then completely broke the stair, didn't he?
[01:47:32] UNKNOWN:
I don't.
[01:47:33] Speaker 11:
You have no idea, as you said here today, what condition that stair was in when it then thereafter was reported as being broken by, I'm just going to say, one of your colleagues or one of the Mass State police people?
[01:47:46] Speaker 18:
Correct.
[01:47:48] Speaker 11:
But you did say that there was a blood stain that's indicated there on the bottom piece of wood lying on the concrete floor.
[01:47:56] Speaker 19:
It was a red-brown stain. I did not do confirmatory testing in the lab on this one.
[01:48:01] Speaker 11:
OK. So we don't know if that stain is indicative of blood or not.
[01:48:05] Speaker 19:
It is indicative of blood. So it had screened positive, but no confirmatory testing was done.
[01:48:12] Speaker 11:
OK. But it could be blood, though. Yes.
[01:48:16] UNKNOWN:
OK.
[01:48:34] Speaker 11:
Can you tell us, Mr. Sheehan, who specifically from the Mass State Police Crime Lab, other criminalists, were there examining the home on January 8th and January 9th?
[01:48:49] Speaker 19:
On January 9th, briefly, Davis Gould was there before he had went to do the Volvo and to do the examination at the trash collection site.
[01:49:01] Speaker 11:
And also, do you know a trooper named Stephanie Devlin?
[01:49:06] Speaker 19:
Yes.
[01:49:06] Speaker 11:
And she was there, correct?
[01:49:07] Speaker 19:
Correct. She's assigned to the crime scene services section. She's the one that took the majority of the photos.
[01:49:12] Speaker 11:
All right. And she was involved in also not only taking the photos, but was she also involved in conducting and assisting in conducting latent print examination?
[01:49:23] Speaker 19:
Yes.
[01:49:24] Speaker 11:
And who else was there?
[01:49:26] Speaker 19:
I would have to refer to my notes. There was a large amount of people there from both the crime scene services section and the detective unit.
[01:49:33] Speaker 11:
Do you know of anyone named Sullivan?
[01:49:37] Speaker 19:
Heather Sullivan?
[01:49:38] Speaker 11:
Well, there's two, I guess. Heather Sullivan. Tell us about Heather Sullivan.
[01:49:42] Speaker 19:
She was assigned to the crime scene services section. And I believe she was the one who took photos of everything at the trash collection site.
[01:49:49] Speaker 11:
OK. Are you familiar with any other Sullivan who was a trooper that was at the scene examining the home of Cohasset?
[01:49:59] Speaker 19:
Not off the top of my head.
[01:50:00] Speaker 11:
All right. And could you just estimate, as the best you can, people from the Masked Police were there examining the home. Let's start on January.
[01:50:14] Speaker 19:
I would approximate about 10.
[01:50:17] Speaker 11:
And how about January? Once again, we understand it's an approximation.
[01:50:20] Speaker 19:
I'd say about 15.
[01:50:21] Speaker 11:
And it's fair to say that both on January 8th and January 9th that those people were there for all day doing their work, correct?
[01:50:33] Speaker 18:
Correct.
[01:50:34] Speaker 11:
And their work included looking for any evidence and examining every single room in that house for it, correct?
[01:50:42] Speaker 18:
Correct.
[01:50:43] Speaker 11:
When you differentiate between the crime lab and crime scene services, can you just briefly once again tell the jury the difference between the two units?
[01:50:52] Speaker 19:
So the crime scene services section is essentially the sworn division of criminalistics. They do all of the testing for fingerprints and a type of impression evidence as well as documentation with both photo and video. We are both criminalistics and crime scene services are under the umbrella of the crime lab.
[01:51:17] Speaker 11:
So they're trained professionals with combined years of experience looking for any and everything that could be significant in the investigation of the case, correct? Is that fair to say?
[01:51:29] Speaker 20:
Yes.
[01:51:30] Speaker 11:
And when you're working with groups like that, number of people, five, ten, is it fair to say that when you get together at a crime scene or where you think the crime was committed, you collaborate, you talk with each other about what you saw or what you might not And is there to say that in the course of an investigation like this, you would then review perhaps your colleagues' reports or their notes so you have a better idea of the entire scope of the investigation? Correct. And you rely on those reports, don't you, to be accurate and to reflect what was found at a scene, correct? Yes. And so there's something called field notes that you and your colleagues fill out, correct?
[01:52:27] Speaker 20:
Yes.
[01:52:27] Speaker 11:
You know, field notes are handwritten, correct?
[01:52:30] Speaker 20:
Yes.
[01:52:30] Speaker 11:
And what you do is you fill out specific things in handwriting as you are making observations or shortly thereafter. And then later on, you take those handwritten notes and you put them into a typewriter, correct?
[01:52:47] Speaker 18:
Correct.
[01:52:48] Speaker 11:
And those field notes are included in the file and the case-related file, the criminalist file, the CSS file, regarding a particular case like this one, correct?
[01:53:00] Speaker 18:
Correct.
[01:53:01] Speaker 11:
Now, yesterday, I asked you if you were aware of that, that in one or more rooms, it basically Facebook had been removed to examine a particular room, correct?
[01:53:23] UNKNOWN:
Correct. And I apologize. I implied that it was one of you who removed it.
[01:53:29] Speaker 11:
You said I don't remember that.
[01:53:31] Speaker 19:
I believe so.
[01:53:32] Speaker 11:
But it's fair to say that based on your review of your colleagues' notes of examining this coacinone. In fact, the notes, field notes, and the reports do indicate, at least in some instances, that baseboards of certain rooms were removed as you and your colleagues were searching for any evidence of biological evidence.
[01:53:55] Speaker 22:
Objection.
[01:53:57] Speaker 10:
I'll see you at the side of the bench.
[01:54:48] UNKNOWN:
you you
[01:56:43] Speaker 11:
Just before I ask this next question, I think maybe I can decide.
[01:56:49] Speaker 10:
Yes, you may.
[01:58:17] UNKNOWN:
you Thank you. you
[02:00:30] Speaker 11:
Mr. Sheehan, you told us a moment ago that you do collaborate with your fellow colleagues at a scene like this.
[02:00:35] Speaker 20:
Yes.
[02:00:36] Speaker 11:
And that you do review their reports and their notes so you get a better picture of the entire scope of the investigation, correct? Correct. And you said you acknowledge that you know who Trooper Devlin is, correct?
[02:00:49] Speaker 18:
Correct.
[02:00:50] Speaker 11:
And did you in fact review her reports in conjunction with all your other colleagues' reports, reports specific to the examination of the homicohasset? Yes. It would be pretty important, wouldn't it, Mr. Sheehan, for you to look at something in this particular home, Fohasset Home, on January 9th. And it would be important to you to know that that something like discoloration on the floor that you observed on January 9th had not been observed there. On January 8th, would that be important to you in assessing the scope of the evidence that has been looked at?
[02:01:34] Speaker 19:
In regards to my examination, I don't believe so.
[02:01:40] Speaker 11:
Do you recall reviewing Trooper Devlin's notes regarding whether the discoloration on the second floor veteran
[02:01:52] Speaker 19:
I would have to review her notes again. I definitely reviewed her report, but in terms of her actual field notes, I did not review.
[02:02:08] Speaker 10:
I'll see you at the side of the bench.
[02:02:38] UNKNOWN:
. .
[02:03:27] Speaker 22:
You may.
[02:04:01] Speaker 11:
Yes. Mr. Sheehan, I'm showing you a two-page report. Can you just tell us if that report indicates whose report it was?
[02:04:15] Speaker 19:
Yes, it does.
[02:04:17] Speaker 11:
And whose report is it?
[02:04:18] Speaker 19:
Trooper Stephanie Devlin.
[02:04:20] Speaker 11:
And that would be one of the reports that you just told the jury? That would be one of the reports you'd review in the context of the investigation?
[02:04:26] Speaker 20:
Yes.
[02:04:27] Speaker 11:
And I would ask you, if you would sir, to read to yourself this second numbered paragraph. Just read it to yourself and then look up and tell us when you're done. Does Trooper Devlin's report indicate that the discoloration that was observed on January 9th was not observed on January 8th up in the second bedroom?
[02:05:22] Speaker 10:
As to that form sustained.
[02:05:24] Speaker 11:
Does the content of that second paragraph of Trooper Devlin's report refresh your recollection about whether the discoloration in the second floor bedroom upstairs was not seen on January 8th but was seen on January 9th?
[02:05:40] Speaker 19:
In terms of her report, I did not visualize the bedroom on the first day, so I can't say for certain if it was there or not. I would have to go by her report.
[02:05:49] Speaker 11:
So her report does not refresh your record?
[02:05:52] Speaker 18:
Correct.
[02:06:07] Speaker 11:
I want to focus now your attention on what was described yesterday as dark gray slippers, item number 9-27. If I could have Ms. Gilman exhibit 230. You recognize that, don't you, Mr. Sheen?
[02:06:34] Speaker 20:
Yes.
[02:06:35] Speaker 11:
And that is an item that has been marked as 9-27?
[02:06:41] Speaker 18:
That is correct.
[02:06:42] Speaker 11:
And you described for the jury yesterday that there was red brown stains on both sides, correct?
[02:06:50] Speaker 20:
Correct.
[02:06:50] Speaker 11:
Top and bottom, correct? Yes. You went into some detail on direct examination describing how you took pains to try to collect samples from the interior of exhibit 230, item 927, to try to find, quote, skin cells. Do you remember that?
[02:07:19] Speaker 20:
Yes.
[02:07:21] Speaker 11:
And you were purposefully trying to avoid collecting red blood cells or collect samples from what you perceive to be red blood cells. I'm sorry, red blood stains.
[02:07:37] Speaker 20:
Yes.
[02:07:39] Speaker 11:
You actually used the word control. Do you remember that?
[02:07:43] Speaker 19:
I don't.
[02:07:44] Speaker 11:
Okay. You did use the phrase to avoid, quote, cross-contamination, correct?
[02:07:50] Speaker 19:
Yes.
[02:07:51] Speaker 11:
What did you mean by cross-contamination?
[02:07:54] Speaker 19:
During a sample collection, if there are visible red-brown stains in an area, I would try to avoid that when collecting for potential recovery of skin cells. Knowing that these red-brown stains could be potentially blood, I wanted to avoid combining a skin cell collection with a blood collection.
[02:08:11] Speaker 11:
And what was the purpose then of trying to collect, quote, skin cells, epithelial scales?
[02:08:16] Speaker 19:
The skin cells themselves would help identify a person who would have been using the item or wearing them how they would normally be worn.
[02:08:30] Speaker 11:
You have no direct knowledge of who these slippers are, do you? I don't. And you have no direct knowledge how any of the red-brown staining came to be onto this exhibit 230, do you?
[02:08:45] Speaker 19:
I don't.
[02:08:46] Speaker 11:
And do you, in fact, know, Mr. Sheehan, exactly where these dark gray slippers were found?
[02:08:55] Speaker 19:
I don't recall which trash bag, but they were recovered from the trash collection site.
[02:09:01] Speaker 11:
And so do you know what specific bag these slippers were found in?
[02:09:10] Speaker 19:
No, I don't.
[02:09:10] Speaker 11:
And I'll just ask this. We understand you then can't tell the jury what other items were found in the same bag that these slippers were found in, correct?
[02:09:24] Speaker 19:
Correct. I would have to review the case file.
[02:09:26] Speaker 11:
You are aware of the fact that a number of black bags were found at a dumpster site in Peabody, correct?
[02:09:34] Speaker 19:
Yes.
[02:09:34] Speaker 11:
Did you ever go to that dump site?
[02:09:36] Speaker 19:
I did not.
[02:09:36] Speaker 11:
And you are aware of the fact that there was a compactor. Aside from the dumpster, there was a compactor that was also searched that resulted in are different than just a dumpster bin. It's a compactor that pushes items and condenses them into a smaller physical size so it can collect more trash or garbage or debris, correct?
[02:10:05] Speaker 18:
Correct.
[02:10:05] Speaker 11:
So it's fair to say that when you're concerned for cross-contamination, and you were taking pains, as a forensic analyst would, to try to avoid cross-contamination, It's fair to say that when things are put into a bag and compressed by a compactor, they are pressed together with whatever else is in that same bag, correct? Objection.
[02:10:28] Speaker 18:
Overruled.
[02:10:29] UNKNOWN:
Correct.
[02:10:30] Speaker 11:
And so when they are pressed together in a compactor, they are pushed together and they can then be cross-contaminated, correct?
[02:10:39] Speaker 10:
You can answer it.
[02:10:40] Speaker 11:
Correct. So when you look at these items as a forensic analyst, and you did so, when you see something like hair that may have been attached to an item like the slippers, you have no idea that hair was on the slipper when it was put into the bag or if it came to be on the slipper because of the compression that resulted from being compressed by compact duty.
[02:11:17] Speaker 18:
That is correct.
[02:11:19] Speaker 11:
So I guess the question, the next question is this. When we look at these photographs of various pieces of evidence, like these gray slippers, the dark gray slippers, and other pieces of evidence that you look at, the photographs are not represented of how that item may have appeared before it was placed in the back, correct?
[02:11:46] Speaker 10:
Correct. As to that form sustained.
[02:11:49] Speaker 11:
The photographs do not depict how an item... The photographs that have been placed in the evidence of certain items may not depict the condition that a particular item was in prior to being deposited in the black bag.
[02:12:13] Speaker 18:
Correct.
[02:12:28] Speaker 11:
Could you take that down, Ms. Gilman? Thank you very much. And yesterday you testified to some hair that you examined, correct?
[02:12:38] Speaker 18:
Correct.
[02:12:39] Speaker 11:
And with regard to exhibit 232, you examined two of the hair fibers that you found, correct?
[02:13:08] Speaker 19:
Yes, from IDA number, I believe it was 9-18. Sorry, 9-28.
[02:13:15] Speaker 11:
9-28, yes. One of the two hairs that you examined, you determined was consistent with human hair, correct?
[02:13:32] Speaker 20:
Yes.
[02:13:32] Speaker 11:
And then the other hair you examined was consistent with animal hair, correct?
[02:13:36] Speaker 20:
Yes.
[02:13:37] Speaker 11:
And are you aware, Mr. Sheehan, that, you know, I've been calling you Mr. Sheehan. You're not a trooper, are you?
[02:13:49] Speaker 18:
Correct.
[02:13:50] Speaker 11:
OK, so I've been right.
[02:13:52] Speaker 18:
Yes.
[02:13:52] Speaker 11:
OK, thank you. Are you aware of the fact that there was an animal that also resided at the Cohasset home during this period of time?
[02:14:03] Speaker 20:
Yes.
[02:14:04] Speaker 11:
And are you aware of where this hair that you were examining, exhibit 232, was found in the Cohasset home?
[02:14:20] Speaker 19:
From what I recall, it was found from the trash area.
[02:14:23] Speaker 11:
Okay. The trash area of Peabody?
[02:14:26] Speaker 19:
Yes, the trash collection site. Okay.
[02:14:30] Speaker 11:
And you also told the jurors yesterday about another exhibit of hair, exhibit 250, correct?
[02:14:42] Speaker 19:
Which exhibit is that?
[02:14:43] Speaker 11:
That's the hair clump?
[02:14:45] Speaker 19:
The number was 16-12.
[02:14:48] Speaker 11:
Okay, could we have exhibit 250? Is that the item 16-12?
[02:15:01] Speaker 20:
Yes.
[02:15:02] Speaker 11:
And that would be exhibit 250?
[02:15:06] Speaker 20:
Yes.
[02:15:06] Speaker 11:
And the hair found in this exhibit, what is that substance that we see in the photograph?
[02:15:17] Speaker 19:
I do not know.
[02:15:18] Speaker 11:
So it was never examined?
[02:15:20] Speaker 19:
No.
[02:15:20] Speaker 11:
And of course, it'd be very important to determine if that substance that we see in this exhibit
[02:15:34] Speaker 19:
Visually, it did not have any visual similarities to skin tissue.
[02:15:39] Speaker 11:
So there's no question in your mind, as a forensic analyst, that that has anything to do with someone's skin tissue. But as you sit here today, you don't even know what it is.
[02:15:49] Speaker 18:
Correct.
[02:15:56] Speaker 11:
And the fact that we saw an exhibit and it's exhibit 233. Could we have exhibit 233, please? This exhibit was Indicative of exhibit 232, and it's the hair that you described as consistent with human hair, correct?
[02:16:25] Speaker 20:
Correct.
[02:16:26] Speaker 11:
And it's the root section, correct?
[02:16:29] Speaker 20:
Yes.
[02:16:29] Speaker 11:
And you would agree, wouldn't you, that a hair that contains the root, that hair falls out naturally, correct?
[02:16:38] Speaker 19:
Yes, it does.
[02:16:39] Speaker 11:
And there's nothing to indicate nefarious about the fact that there is a root attached to this hair?
[02:16:46] Speaker 18:
Correct.
[02:16:48] Speaker 11:
It's just the fact that when you examine this, you examined it with the protocols that you use, and you made a determination based on its structure, as the term you used, that it was consistent with human hair, correct?
[02:17:01] Speaker 20:
Yes.
[02:17:01] Speaker 11:
When you use that phrase, consistent with human hair, or consistent with animal hair, what you're saying is, you can't say positively it's human hair, but it's consistent, correct?
[02:17:12] Speaker 19:
With this root, you can confirm it's a human hair. If it did not have a root, it would have to be consistent with.
[02:17:18] Speaker 14:
OK. With regards now to these various items and tools that you testified to yesterday, and I'm talking about the hacksaw and the hammer and things like that, right?
[02:17:39] Speaker 20:
Yes.
[02:17:40] Speaker 14:
All of what they told this jury.
[02:17:47] Speaker 11:
It's fair to say that you're unaware of exactly where those tools were found, other than they were found in that compactor dumpster area that he was in, correct?
[02:17:56] Speaker 18:
Correct.
[02:17:57] Speaker 11:
And as you sit here today, you're not sure what particular bags those tools were found in, correct? Correct. And so even though you detected the presence of red brown stains and determined that some of those stains had hemoglobin in them, you can't tell the jury how that biological evidence came to be on each and every one of those tools. We just can tell us there was biological evidence in those tools, correct? That is correct. And once again, the biological evidence that you detected on those tools could have been on any one tool or more, could have been deposited as a result of transfer, correct, or as you called it, cross-contamination, correct?
[02:18:43] Speaker 19:
That is correct.
[02:18:55] Speaker 11:
Let me just ask you a couple of questions about the testimony regarding a hatchet. I think you testified to that yesterday, right?
[02:19:06] Speaker 20:
Yes.
[02:19:09] Speaker 11:
You did detect something that you described as greasy or oily film or something on that hatchet, correct?
[02:19:19] Speaker 20:
Yes.
[02:19:19] Speaker 11:
You never did examine what that greasy or oily film was, correct? Correct. inverted testing of anything on the surface of that hatchet with regard to the greasy or oily residue that you saw to determine if, in fact, it was an oily residue that was deposited on a tool to prevent it from rusting, things like that.
[02:19:43] Speaker 19:
The testing that I did was the screening test for blood, and it was in the same area as the hatchet head.
[02:19:49] Speaker 11:
But other than that, other than trying to determine if there was a presence of biological evidence, You did not specifically try to determine what the greasy, oily residue was. Is that fair to say?
[02:19:59] Speaker 20:
Yes.
[02:20:02] Speaker 11:
And you certainly didn't, well, I shouldn't put it that way. You didn't take any effort to try to go to a particular store, find the exact same tool, and see if that tool contained a greasy, oily residue, did you?
[02:20:14] Speaker 19:
I did not.
[02:20:23] Speaker 11:
Thank you, sir. Thank you.
[02:20:26] Speaker 09:
Redirect.
[02:20:27] Speaker 11:
Briefly.
[02:20:36] Speaker 03:
Mr. Sheehan, do you test all areas of a potential scene?
[02:20:40] Speaker 19:
I do not.
[02:20:42] Speaker 03:
Did you test all areas of 516 Chief Justice Cushing Highway?
[02:20:47] Speaker 19:
No.
[02:20:47] Speaker 03:
Why not?
[02:20:49] Speaker 19:
I try to identify the most forensically relevant areas and move from there.
[02:20:56] Speaker 03:
And what are reasonable, what are the reasons that testing could be negative?
[02:21:08] Speaker 19:
It's possible that a particular biological substance was not present, and it's also possible that it was present at some point, was cleaned off, or it is present and to the point where it is not detectable by the tests.
[02:21:20] Speaker 03:
So how does cleaning a house impact your ability to find blood or trace materials?
[02:21:26] Speaker 19:
If it was thoroughly cleaned, I would imagine the test results would be negative.
[02:21:32] Speaker 03:
Does washing the walls impact your ability to find blood?
[02:21:37] Speaker 19:
Yes, it does.
[02:21:39] Speaker 03:
What type of cleaning materials would impact your ability to find blood or trace materials?
[02:21:45] Speaker 19:
Virtually any type of cleaning material, bleach, alcohol, ammonia, anything, even water if it dilutes the sample to an extensive amount.
[02:21:57] Speaker 03:
Would hydrogen peroxide impact your ability to find blood or trace materials?
[02:22:02] Speaker 20:
Yes.
[02:22:05] Speaker 03:
Are there other ways that blood can be destroyed or diluted?
[02:22:10] Speaker 19:
Really, any type of cleaning materials as well as environmental factors such as extreme heat.
[02:22:20] Speaker 03:
Did you test? Actually, if I could have published for the jury, Your Honor, Exhibit 21. Well, that's not the right exhibit. One moment.
[02:22:59] Speaker 02:
Skim and we're looking for 7236. Photo 7236. Thank you.
[02:23:18] Speaker 03:
Do you recognize that room?
[02:23:21] Speaker 19:
Yes, this is the living room.
[02:23:23] Speaker 03:
And this is the living room from when you were there during the search warrant, is that correct?
[02:23:30] Speaker 20:
Yes.
[02:23:31] Speaker 03:
And what do you recognize in front of the fireplace?
[02:23:36] Speaker 19:
There is a repair work around the brick as well as a carpet.
[02:23:45] Speaker 03:
So there was a carpet there when you were there over the hardwood floor on January 8th and 9th of 2023, is that correct?
[02:23:56] Speaker 20:
Yes.
[02:23:58] Speaker 03:
And that is not the carpet that you tested in the lab, is that correct?
[02:24:03] Speaker 19:
That is correct.
[02:24:08] Speaker 03:
Do you know what the objects looked like before they went into the bags that you talked about on cross-examination?
[02:24:17] Speaker 19:
I don't.
[02:24:19] Speaker 03:
And do you know what the objects looked like if they went into the compactor at all?
[02:24:26] Speaker 19:
I don't.
[02:24:29] Speaker 03:
So do you know where those bags went?
[02:24:33] Speaker 19:
The bags were, as far as I know, the bags were recovered from the trash site. I'm not sure where exactly they were recovered from from before that.
[02:24:41] Speaker 03:
I might have one moment.
[02:24:47] Speaker 10:
You may.
[02:24:54] Speaker 31:
Thank you very much.
[02:24:55] Speaker 11:
Any re-cross? Just a couple of questions. When you looked at Exhibit 21 just now, you said you described that
[02:25:03] Speaker 14:
Yes. I do not.
[02:25:07] Speaker 19:
Yes.
[02:25:12] Speaker 11:
The witness may step down.
[02:25:39] Speaker 10:
In light of our late start today, I'm going to keep on. Everybody good? Thumbs up.
[02:25:46] Speaker 03:
You may call your next witness.
[02:26:19] Speaker 05:
Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you'll give and the cause now in hearing will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? I do.
[02:26:26] Speaker 02:
Thank you, sir.
[02:26:36] Speaker 10:
You may proceed.
[02:26:39] Speaker 31:
Thank you very much, Your Honor.
[02:26:43] Speaker 03:
Good morning.
[02:26:44] Speaker 27:
Good morning.
[02:26:45] Speaker 03:
Could you please state your name for the record and spell your last name?
[02:26:48] Speaker 27:
Bryce Raymond, R-A-Y-M-O-N-D. Could you please tell? Bryce.
[02:26:57] Speaker 03:
B-R-Y-C-E. Could you please tell us your educational background?
[02:27:04] Speaker 27:
I have a bachelor's of science in forensic science from Penn State University and a master's of science in biology from Tufts University.
[02:27:13] Speaker 03:
And what is your occupation, sir?
[02:27:15] Speaker 27:
I'm currently a forensic scientist 2 in the DNA unit at the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab.
[02:27:21] Speaker 03:
And how long have you been employed at the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab?
[02:27:25] Speaker 27:
Since June of 2019.
[02:27:26] Speaker 03:
And can you please tell the jury your present duties in the DNA unit and the nature of the work that you do?
[02:27:35] Speaker 27:
Yes, as a forensic scientist too, I am in charge with processing evidentiary items through our DNA lab processing, as well as interpreting and making any conclusions to known standards.
[02:27:47] Speaker 03:
Do you have any specialized training to be a DNA analyst?
[02:27:51] Speaker 27:
Yes, I received at least six months of specialized training in which I read all the protocols and procedures at the lab. I attended lectures and took quizzes, as well as worked on mock evidentiary items through the lab processing. And at the end of testing, I take a competency test.
[02:28:10] Speaker 03:
And did you pass that competency test?
[02:28:12] Speaker 27:
Yes, I did.
[02:28:13] Speaker 03:
So does your testing and training stop after that initial six-month period?
[02:28:18] Speaker 27:
No, every year we have to do at least eight hours of continuing education in order to stay knowledgeable in the field.
[02:28:26] Speaker 03:
And do you continue to be tested at the lab?
[02:28:29] Speaker 27:
Yes, we do.
[02:28:30] Speaker 03:
And what kind of testing is that called?
[02:28:32] Speaker 27:
That's called a proficiency test.
[02:28:35] Speaker 03:
And how does proficiency testing work at the lab?
[02:28:38] Speaker 27:
Yes, so twice a year we have to take a proficiency test to continuously show that we have the skills and knowledge in order to perform DNA analysis. This is given by an outside accrediting body and when we complete our work we send in the results to that accrediting body for them to grade.
[02:28:57] Speaker 03:
And what are the results of your proficiency testing?
[02:29:00] Speaker 27:
I have passed every one I have taken.
[02:29:03] Speaker 03:
So approximately how many samples have you had the opportunity to analyze for DNA testing?
[02:29:12] Speaker 27:
Approximately 2,000.
[02:29:13] Speaker 03:
And have you testified before in Massachusetts about DNA?
[02:29:18] Speaker 27:
Yes, I have.
[02:29:21] Speaker 03:
Does the Massachusetts DNA unit at your lab follow standardized protocols and procedures?
[02:29:27] Speaker 27:
Yes, we do.
[02:29:28] Speaker 03:
And who sets those protocols and procedures?
[02:29:31] Speaker 27:
They are based on some accrediting bodies, such as the FBI, as well as validations that are done at the lab.
[02:29:41] Speaker 03:
Well, you anticipated my next question, which is, is your lab, the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab, accredited?
[02:29:48] Speaker 27:
Yes, we are. We are accredited by ANAB, which is the ANSI National Accreditation Board, as well as the FBI Quality Assurance Standards for DNA laboratories.
[02:29:57] Speaker 03:
And what does accredited actually mean?
[02:29:59] Speaker 27:
That means we are following specific set of standards to make sure that the scientific work that we are performing is accurate and reliable.
[02:30:10] Speaker 03:
And is that a national accreditation?
[02:30:12] Speaker 27:
Yes, it is.
[02:30:14] Speaker 03:
And does your work undergo any kind of review process?
[02:30:19] Speaker 27:
Yes, all work goes under two different types of review processes, a technical review and an administrative review.
[02:30:26] Speaker 03:
And is that review process required under the accreditation standard?
[02:30:31] Speaker 27:
Yes, it is.
[02:30:33] Speaker 03:
And so if you could just explain technical and administrative review, please.
[02:30:37] Speaker 27:
Yes, a technical review is one that is done by a qualified analyst that takes a look at your work to make sure that you followed all the proper protocols and procedures and made sure that any conclusions you made are scientifically sound. An administrative review looks over the file to make sure there's no spelling mistakes, no grammar mistakes, all the pages are numbered and initialed and other administrative things such as that. And why is that all important? That's important to make sure that we provide the best quality work that we can.
[02:31:07] Speaker 03:
And now I want to talk about DNA. What is DNA?
[02:31:14] Speaker 27:
DNA stands for deoxyribonucleic acid. It's the genetic blueprint of life and what makes you, you. You inherit your DNA from your parents, so you get half of your DNA from your mom and half of your DNA from your dad. And no two individuals have the same DNA profile except for identical twins.
[02:31:33] Speaker 03:
Is DNA the same in every cell of a person's body?
[02:31:39] Speaker 27:
Yes. So whether we test blood, saliva, hair, skin, we should expect the same DNA profile if they came from the same person.
[02:31:47] Speaker 03:
So what type of biological material can DNA be found in?
[02:31:54] Speaker 27:
So that can be blood, saliva, skin, hair, sweat, urine, anything biological.
[02:32:01] Speaker 03:
So can you explain generally the process that is used for forensic DNA analysis? Yes.
[02:32:10] Speaker 27:
At the lab, we have a four-step process. The first step is extraction. This is when we break open the cells and collect the DNA. The second step is quantitation or quantification. This is when we can get an estimate of how much human DNA is present as well as how much male DNA is present. And that's so we can target an appropriate amount for the third step. And that third step is amplification. This is when we make millions and millions of copies of specific areas on the DNA and are fluorescently tagged. And then the fourth step is separation and detection, also known as capillary electrophoresis. This is when we put the DNA on an instrument that separates out the DNA by size and has a camera to detect those fluorescently tags. And that produces raw data.
[02:33:02] Speaker 03:
And what is the goal of that raw data?
[02:33:05] Speaker 27:
The goal of that raw data is to then be read by an interpreting analyst in order to interpret the DNA profile.
[02:33:12] Speaker 03:
And what is a DNA profile?
[02:33:15] Speaker 27:
A DNA profile, so the specific areas that we are copying during amplification is called STRs or short tandem repeats. That is just areas on the DNA that repeat different lengths for a person. So one person could have five repeats, another person could have six. And it's the combination of all those numbers is what makes up a DNA profile.
[02:33:39] Speaker 03:
So how many locations are you testing?
[02:33:43] Speaker 27:
We test 26 locations as well as a sex determining location.
[02:33:49] Speaker 03:
And what is batch testing?
[02:33:52] Speaker 27:
Batch testing is what we do at the lab and is a common practice in forensic science in which if many items need to be processed for the same lab step, one analyst will process all those items at once on the same instrument.
[02:34:09] Speaker 02:
So why do you use batch testing?
[02:34:11] Speaker 27:
We do that for efficiency, as it is better for one analyst to process, say, 50 items at one time on one instrument than 50 analysts trying to process one item each on the same instrument one after each other.
[02:34:28] Speaker 03:
Is there a protocol that you follow prior to retrieving any evidence to prepare your lab area to avoid contamination?
[02:34:37] Speaker 27:
Yes.
[02:34:38] Speaker 03:
So how do you avoid contamination?
[02:34:40] Speaker 27:
To avoid contamination, I first put on protective personal equipment, and that can include a lab coat, a mask, a hair net, and for me a beard net. When I go to my lab bench, I also put on gloves, and I spray the lab bench with bleach, clean that off, and lay down lab bench paper before I proceed with any testing.
[02:35:02] Speaker 03:
So why do you use bleach?
[02:35:04] Speaker 27:
the bleaches to destroy any DNA that may be present on the lab bench.
[02:35:12] Speaker 03:
And why do you use bench paper?
[02:35:14] Speaker 27:
We use bench paper to prevent any contamination from items that I may be testing to be deposited onto the lab bench for the next person.
[02:35:22] Speaker 03:
And why are you wearing PPE?
[02:35:24] Speaker 27:
The PPE is also to prevent any DNA that I may touch to go over to another lab bench or any of my DNA to be deposited on the items.
[02:35:36] Speaker 03:
And once your area is prepared, can you please tell us what you first did and what you first do with items that you're going to sample?
[02:35:48] Speaker 27:
Yes, so for sample preparation, I get a list of items that have been selected for DNA analysis. I get those items out of storage in our secured walk-in room. I take that container of evidence back to the lab bench. I scan it into my custody and take a photocopy. I then open up the container, grab the items that I need, and put those aside ready for testing. I seal up the container with my initials and date and put the container away.
[02:36:19] Speaker 03:
And did you work on Lab Case 23-00596? Yes, I did. And what did you initially do to prepare the samples for DNA analysis?
[02:36:32] Speaker 27:
I did sample preparations on some items.
[02:36:35] Speaker 03:
OK, so I'm going to ask you specifically about samples. Did you prepare samples 5-1.1 sample from swabs of red-brown stained cave on basement floor, 7-10.3.1 sample from the stained area C on the blade of the hacksaw, 7-10.4.1 sample from the handle of the hacksaw, 9-22.1.1 sample from stain A on white towel number 1 with red brown stains. 9-28.1.1 sample from stained area A on apparent hairs. 9-31.1 sample from cutting of red brown stain from piece of rug from bag number 5 from 304th Street. Did you prepare samples from those?
[02:37:35] Speaker 27:
Yes, I did.
[02:37:36] Speaker 03:
So after preparing the samples, what did you next do?
[02:37:41] Speaker 27:
After preparing the samples, I then did the first lab step of extraction.
[02:37:46] Speaker 03:
And how did you do the extraction step?
[02:37:49] Speaker 27:
Yes, to each of the tubes along with the controls I added chemicals to the tubes and put them in an oven and that is done to break open the cells in order to free up the DNA. I then take those tubes and put them on an instrument that separates out the DNA and puts them in a separate tube in liquid form and that tube is called an extract.
[02:38:13] Speaker 03:
Did you use equipment?
[02:38:16] Speaker 27:
Yes, I did. What equipment did you use? I used an oven and the instrument was an EZ-1 robot.
[02:38:23] Speaker 03:
And how did you use the equipment?
[02:38:26] Speaker 27:
For the oven, I just placed the samples in and took them out. For the EZ-1 robot, I put the samples on the robot and then programmed the robot with the proper protocol to use for the extraction and collection and then got the tubes off of the robot when the process was done.
[02:38:45] Speaker 03:
And I think you said that that is now called, what is that now called?
[02:38:49] Speaker 27:
That is now called an extract.
[02:38:52] Speaker 03:
And then what did you do next?
[02:38:55] Speaker 27:
Next, I took a small portion of the extract, known as an aliquot, and put that into a separate tube and prepared that for the second step of quantification.
[02:39:07] Speaker 03:
So now we're on step number two?
[02:39:09] Speaker 27:
Yes.
[02:39:09] Speaker 03:
OK. And what items did you do quantification for?
[02:39:14] Speaker 27:
the same items that were previously mentioned.
[02:39:18] Speaker 03:
And how did you perform the quantification step?
[02:39:21] Speaker 27:
Yes, so for each of the aliquots, I put a portion onto a 96-well plate along with other chemicals. I then placed that 96-well plate onto an instrument, and that instrument does a series of heating and cooling, and that produces the data that gives us the estimation of DNA.
[02:39:44] Speaker 03:
So I believe you just named the equipment that you used.
[02:39:49] Speaker 27:
Yes, it is a real-time PCR system.
[02:39:53] Speaker 03:
Okay. And so how did you use that equipment?
[02:39:58] Speaker 27:
So I put the 96-well plate onto the instrument. I then used the computer program associated with it to say that to start the quantification process. And then after it was done, I collected the data off of the equipment and then put it on our computer drive.
[02:40:20] Speaker 03:
And then what did you do next?
[02:40:23] Speaker 27:
After that, I discussed the quantitation results with the interpreting analyst of this case, who is Salim.
[02:40:31] Speaker 03:
And then what did you do?
[02:40:33] Speaker 27:
Then we came up with how to do amplification strategies for each of the items. And then once that was decided, I went forward with the third step of amplification.
[02:40:44] Speaker 03:
So step number three is amplification. Correct. And what items did you perform amplification for?
[02:40:51] Speaker 27:
Those same six items.
[02:40:54] Speaker 03:
That we previously named.
[02:40:56] Speaker 27:
Correct.
[02:40:56] Speaker 03:
Okay. And how did you perform the amplification step?
[02:41:01] Speaker 27:
For each of those items, I got the extracts and I either used all of the extract or a portion of the extract to target an appropriate amount of DNA for testing.
[02:41:13] Speaker 03:
Let me just stop you for a second. What's extract?
[02:41:15] Speaker 27:
Extract was the product from the first step of extraction.
[02:41:19] Speaker 03:
Okay. And now finish your answer. I'm sorry to interrupt you.
[02:41:23] Speaker 27:
Yes. So for those samples, I added chemicals and put them into an instrument known as a thermocycler. And that also does a series of heating and cooling, which makes the copies of the DNA that are fluorescently tagged. And at the end of that process, the tube is now known as an amplicon.
[02:41:46] Speaker 03:
And then, what did you do next?
[02:41:51] Speaker 27:
Next, after the amplicons were done, I then proceeded on to the fourth step of separation and detection.
[02:41:59] Speaker 03:
And which items did you do the fourth step for?
[02:42:03] Speaker 27:
The same six items that were mentioned.
[02:42:06] Speaker 03:
So you did all the steps of DNA for those six items?
[02:42:11] Speaker 27:
That's correct.
[02:42:12] Speaker 03:
And how did you perform the detection step? Yes.
[02:42:18] Speaker 27:
Of the amplicons, I took a small portion of each amplicon and put it on a 96-well plate, added chemicals to the plate. I then put that plate onto an instrument known as a 3500 genetic analyzer. I then programmed the genetic analyzer to perform the separation and detection. And then the instrument separated out the DNA fragments by size and, with the camera, detected those fluorescent tags.
[02:42:48] Speaker 03:
And then what happens next?
[02:42:51] Speaker 27:
After that data is generated, I take the data off of the instrument and put it on our computer drive.
[02:42:59] Speaker 03:
And then what happens?
[02:43:01] Speaker 27:
After I'm done, I let the interpreting analyst know that data has been collected, and I hand over any worksheets that I generated to them.
[02:43:09] Speaker 03:
And who does the interpretation?
[02:43:13] Speaker 27:
In this case, it was Saman Saleem.
[02:43:15] Speaker 03:
So you did not do the interpretation here?
[02:43:18] Speaker 27:
I did not.
[02:43:19] Speaker 03:
I might have one moment, Your Honor.
[02:43:24] Speaker 31:
Nothing further, Your Honor.
[02:43:34] Speaker 10:
Cross examination.
[02:43:38] Speaker 14:
Just a few questions. Mr. Rigg.
[02:43:41] Speaker 27:
Good morning. Good morning.
[02:43:51] Speaker 28:
Yes.
[02:43:51] Speaker 11:
And you're running these machines, the analyzer and everything else, and you're running them consistent with the protocols that are required to be followed to run them accurately, correct?
[02:44:02] Speaker 28:
That's correct.
[02:44:03] Speaker 11:
And what you do is you depend on the fact that the samples that you get for testing are samples that will result in reliable results, correct?
[02:44:13] Speaker 28:
Correct.
[02:44:14] Speaker 11:
But as, what is your title?
[02:44:19] Speaker 27:
I am a forensic scientist two.
[02:44:22] Speaker 11:
OK. And are there forensic scientists three and stuff like that, forensic scientists one?
[02:44:27] Speaker 27:
Yes.
[02:44:28] Speaker 11:
OK. But you're a two, correct? Correct. And with your knowledge and experience, it's fair to say, isn't it, that you have no idea where the samples that you subjected to DNA testing came from, correct?
[02:44:44] Speaker 28:
That's correct.
[02:44:45] Speaker 11:
And in fact, you have no idea how they were collected wherever they were collected from, correct?
[02:44:51] Speaker 28:
That's correct.
[02:44:52] Speaker 11:
And in fact, you can tell the jury that at times when you conduct testing, like you just described, the results will indicate that there are mixtures of different DNA in a particular sample, correct?
[02:45:04] Speaker 28:
That's correct.
[02:45:05] Speaker 11:
And whenever you get the results that result in a mixture, you can't determine, as in forensic scientist two, for that matter, forensic scientist three, you can't tell how those two different substances came into contact with each other, resulting in a mixture, correct?
[02:45:24] Speaker 27:
Our testing does not determine how DNA got onto an item.
[02:45:28] Speaker 11:
And hopefully it's a simple question. Your DNA results do not tell you anything about what happened at a, let's just call it a crime scene, what happened at a particular scene or where they were collected, correct?
[02:45:44] Speaker 28:
Correct.
[02:45:48] Speaker 10:
Any redirect? No, Your Honor. The witness may step down.
[02:45:52] Speaker 27:
Thank you.
[02:46:01] Speaker 10:
So jurors, with that little extra bit, we'll take our morning break. We'll be back in 20 to 30 minutes.
[02:46:06] Speaker 14:
All rise to the court, please. Jurors, close your notebooks. Follow me.
[02:46:53] Speaker 15:
Does anyone need anything?
[02:47:12] Speaker 10:
From the lunch recess or from this recess?
[02:47:16] Speaker 15:
Well, I don't even know if he's physically here right now.
[02:47:18] Speaker 10:
All right. I just want to make sure I heard you correctly.
[02:47:19] Speaker 15:
Yes, but I thought the lunch recess, I thought that he was going to be here either by 11 or 1. I just want to make sure he's in the building.
[02:47:24] Speaker 10:
All right. Speaking of that, I'd like to talk to you about scheduling. Why don't I talk to you at the side of the bench?
[02:47:28] Speaker 15:
That's wrong.
[02:47:51] UNKNOWN:
you
[02:49:10] Speaker 22:
Thank you.
[02:49:39] UNKNOWN:
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[02:59:10] Speaker 22:
you
[03:01:15] UNKNOWN:
Thank you. So I'm going to go ahead and go ahead and start the presentation. Thank you. . . You know, I mean, first of all, it's going to be a little bit of a surprise, but I think it's going to be a great success. It's going to be a great success. It's going to be a great success. It's going to be a great success. It's going to be a great success. It's going to be a great success. It's going to be a great success. It's going to be a great success. It's going to be a great success. It's going to be a great success. It's going to be a great success. Thank you. . . you . . . .
[03:09:28] Speaker 21:
Thank you very much.
[03:10:02] UNKNOWN:
Thank you. Thank you. Okay.
[03:12:32] Speaker 10:
You have a non-Mootleau witness ready?
[03:12:35] Speaker 15:
Yes, your honor.
[03:12:35] Speaker 10:
Call that witness. I'll have the jury back in.
[03:12:40] Speaker 15:
I'm sorry?
[03:12:40] Speaker 10:
I'll have the jury back in.
[03:12:42] Speaker 15:
My apologies. Did we have Mr. Mootleau?
[03:12:48] Speaker 10:
No, you didn't hear me.
[03:12:50] Speaker 15:
I'm sorry.
[03:12:50] Speaker 10:
I asked you, do we have, maybe I shouldn't be so abbreviated with my Do you have a non-Mr. Mootlue witness ready? Yes. Let's call that witness and get the jury back in here. Yes, Your Honor. We've had a little lumpy morning and I want to continue keeping the flow.
[03:13:11] Speaker 15:
Yes, Your Honor.
[03:13:13] Speaker 03:
I just want to make sure they're still sitting out on the bench. I'm not sure that they are. Could I have one second to check?
[03:13:18] Speaker 10:
Sure. Great. Let's get the jury back in. We'll do Mr. Mootlue over the break. Yes, Your Honor. And over that, I mean over the lunch break.
[03:13:49] Speaker 15:
Yes, Your Honor.
[03:14:25] Speaker 14:
Would you like me? All rise for the court, please. Jurors entering. We're back in session A and C. The Commonwealth may call its next witness.
[03:15:28] Speaker 31:
Thank you very much, Your Honor. The Commonwealth would call Brianna Kiesel.
[03:15:50] Speaker 05:
you may proceed thank you very much honor
[03:16:12] Speaker 10:
Good morning.
[03:16:13] Speaker 03:
Can you please state your name for the court and spell your first and last name?
[03:16:18] Speaker 25:
Sure. My name is Brianna Kiesel, B-R-I-A-N-N-A, last name Kiesel, K-I-E-S-E-L. And what is your educational background, ma'am? I have a bachelor's in biology from Arcadia University and a master's in forensic science from Towson University. And what is your occupation? Currently I'm a forensic scientist too with the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab. And what unit are you assigned to? The DNA unit.
[03:16:47] Speaker 03:
And how long have you been employed at the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab? Six years. And what are your responsibilities as a forensic scientist too?
[03:16:58] Speaker 25:
I am authorized in processing, interpreting, and reporting samples that were collected from crime scenes as well as standards collected directly from an individual. I can also technically review other analysts' work when it concerns batch files, which we call files that have standards collected directly from an individual.
[03:17:20] Speaker 03:
And do you have training for this position?
[03:17:22] Speaker 25:
Yes, I do.
[03:17:23] Speaker 03:
Can you tell me about your training?
[03:17:25] Speaker 25:
Sure. Our training is a minimum of six months, and during that time we have lectures, quizzes, and this all culminates into a final written exam. We also have a practical component in the laboratory where we take several steps. sample sets forward. And that all culminates into a final written exam, as I mentioned, and a final lab practical.
[03:17:51] Speaker 03:
And did you pass that written exam?
[03:17:54] Speaker 25:
Yes, I did.
[03:17:55] Speaker 03:
And that's called a competency evaluation?
[03:17:59] Speaker 25:
Yes. Yes, that is a competency, the lab portion of it.
[03:18:03] Speaker 03:
And do you also have to take proficiency testing?
[03:18:06] Speaker 25:
Yes, we do.
[03:18:07] Speaker 03:
And can you explain that to the jury?
[03:18:10] Speaker 25:
A proficiency test is an ongoing competency test where we have to take samples forward twice a year to prove that we are continuous, excuse me, that we are knowledgeable and still performing that skill or method according to laboratory standard operating procedures.
[03:18:27] Speaker 03:
And have you passed your proficiency testing?
[03:18:29] Speaker 25:
I have, yes.
[03:18:30] Speaker 03:
And have you testified in court about DNA? I have. So I want to now talk to you about this case, 23-00596. Prior to retrieving any evidence in 23-00596, how did you prepare to process the evidence?
[03:18:54] Speaker 25:
So once I was assigned the samples, I cleaned my bench base with bleach and wiped everything down, every instrument that I was using. And once that was done, I laid down a piece of fresh bench paper.
[03:19:09] Speaker 03:
And directing you now to lab number 23-00596, did you work on items 9-27.2.1, the sample from the interior of the dark gray slippers from bag 4 of 304th Street, and item 9-27.3.1, stain A of the exterior left gray slipper?
[03:19:35] Speaker 25:
Yes, I did process those samples.
[03:19:38] Speaker 03:
And what work did you do on those two items for sample prep?
[03:19:44] Speaker 25:
For sample prep, they were already prepared by our criminalistics unit, so I just went into a secure freezer area to retrieve the packaging. I removed the tubes from the packaging and just visually examined the items within the tube.
[03:20:01] Speaker 03:
Did you also work on item 9-32.1.1, the sample from the interior sleeve cuff of the Tyvek suit, 9-32.2.1, the sample from stain A on the exterior left pant leg of the Tyvek suit, and sample from stain D on the interior right sleeve of the Tyvek suit? I did, yes. And what work did you do for that?
[03:20:35] Speaker 25:
Those samples I performed, just like I previously mentioned, where I went to the secure freezer area, retrieved the packaging, removed the tubes from the packaging, and just observed the samples within the tube.
[03:20:50] Speaker 03:
So you also just did the sample prep for that? Yes. Did you also work on item 16-13.1, the unknown tissue recovered from the Swampscott dumpster?
[03:21:06] Speaker 25:
Yes, I did. And what work did you do on this item? So in this case, this item was still in a specimen jar. So I retrieved the packaging just like I previously mentioned, made sure the seal was secure as I did with the other samples. And then after that, I opened up the jar and sampled a few a few items from the jar and placed it into a tube for processing.
[03:21:37] Speaker 03:
So you actually had to make a sample for this? I did, yes. Okay. And how many samples did you make?
[03:21:46] Speaker 25:
So this was 16-13.1. There were two tubes we referred to as 16-1, or excuse me, 16-13.1A and 16-13.1B.
[03:21:59] Speaker 03:
And did you do any further work?
[03:22:03] Speaker 25:
No, that is where my work ended.
[03:22:04] Speaker 03:
Okay.
[03:22:05] Speaker 25:
And where did the samples then go? I then passed the samples off to Madison Frank for extraction.
[03:22:19] Speaker 10:
Cross exam. The witness may step down.
[03:22:23] Speaker 25:
Thank you.
[03:22:30] Speaker 10:
Commonwealth may call its next witness.
[03:22:32] Speaker 03:
The Commonwealth would call Madison Frank.
[03:23:01] Speaker 05:
You may proceed.
[03:23:19] Speaker 31:
Thank you very much, Your Honor.
[03:23:21] Speaker 30:
Can you please state your name for the court, spelling your name? My name is Madison Frank. That is M-A-D-I-S-O-N-F-R-A-N-K. And what is your educational background, ma'am? I have a bachelor's of science degree in forensic and investigative sciences from West Virginia University. And what is your occupation? I'm a forensic scientist too in the DNA unit of the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab. And how long have you been employed at the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab? I've been employed there since October of 2019. And what are your responsibilities? As a forensic scientist too, I will perform DNA analysis on either known or evidentiary biological samples, interpret those results, and report out my results in a case file. And have you had training for this position? Yes, I have.
[03:24:14] Speaker 03:
And have you passed your proficiency testing? Yes, I have. And have you passed the competency testing that was part of your training? Yes, I have. And have you testified in court about DNA? Yes I have. Directing your attention to lab number 23-00596, did you do work on this case? Yes I did. I want to ask you now about items 9-27.2.1, the sample from the interior of the dark gray slippers from Bag 4 of 304th Street. 9-27.3.1, the stain A on the exterior left gray slipper. 9-32.1.1, the sample from the interior sleeve cuff of the tie-back suit. 9-32.2.1, the sample from stain A on the exterior left's pant leg of the tie-back suit. 9-32.5.1, sample from stain D on the interior right sleeve of the tie-back suit. And 16.13.1, the unknown tissue recovered from the Swampscott dumpster. I believe I just gave you six of those Samples, did I mention 9-32.2.1, the sample from stain A on the exterior leg pant of the Tyvek suit? So those would be the six.
[03:25:43] Speaker 30:
What work did you do on those? DNA analysis is a four-step process, so I performed steps one and three of that process on those samples. Okay. And what are one and three? Step one is extraction and step three is amplification. Okay, and how did you do step one, the extraction step? For extraction, I received the samples and I added chemicals to the samples and the controls and then put them in an oven so that we can break open the cells to obtain the DNA. Then those samples will go on an instrument that helps to clean up the sample so that we're only dealing with the DNA and no other cell parts. Then after the extracts come off of the instrument, then I will take a small portion of that sample and I will put it in a new tube to be used for the second step.
[03:26:40] Speaker 03:
And which instrument did you use or equipment?
[03:26:44] Speaker 30:
An EZ-1 robotic instrument. And how do you use that instrument? The samples will go onto the instrument in tubes and then there will be new tubes where the samples will go through processing in the instrument to put out just the liquid and DNA portions of the sample.
[03:27:10] Speaker 03:
And then what is that biological material then referred to?
[03:27:14] Speaker 30:
An extract.
[03:27:16] Speaker 03:
And what is that extract then ready for?
[03:27:18] Speaker 30:
The extract is then ready to be quantified in the second step.
[03:27:22] Speaker 03:
So did you do that second step quantification?
[03:27:26] Speaker 30:
No, I did not.
[03:27:27] Speaker 03:
Who did that second step for those six items?
[03:27:30] Speaker 30:
Troy Adams did the second step of quantification. And why is that? We use a batching process when we are processing our samples so that it is a more efficient and streamlined processing.
[03:27:46] Speaker 03:
And are you qualified to do all of the steps of DNA, the four steps that you described?
[03:27:51] Speaker 30:
Yes, I am.
[03:27:52] Speaker 03:
And then, did you do more work on this case with the six samples?
[03:27:58] Speaker 30:
Yes, I also did the third step of amplification.
[03:28:00] Speaker 03:
On all six of those samples? Yes. And that being 9-27.2.1, 9-27.3.1, 9-32.1.1, 9-32.2.1, 9-32.5.1, and 16-13.1. Did I get that right? Yes, that is correct. So you did the third step and how did you do the amplification step?
[03:28:28] Speaker 30:
So I took the extracts that were generated from the first step and I took portions of those samples and added chemicals to the tubes with these samples and then I put them onto an instrument called a thermocycler and this will go we'll have the samples go through periods of heating and cooling. And this is to make millions of copies of the specific DNA that we are looking for to be able to visualize it further down in our processing.
[03:29:01] Speaker 03:
And which equipment did you use for that? A thermocycler. Okay. And then how do you use that equipment?
[03:29:08] Speaker 30:
These samples just go on, they are in small tubes and they will go on into small holes in the thermocycler and then it is a metal plate that they are in and it will go through different steps of heating and cooling. And what happens next to the DNA process? So the next step will be those tubes that just went through the heating and cooling. Those tubes will be used for the fourth step of separation. And who did that step? Troy Adams.
[03:29:44] Speaker 03:
So you did not do that step?
[03:29:45] Speaker 30:
No, I did not.
[03:29:46] Speaker 03:
And did that end your work on this case?
[03:29:49] Speaker 30:
Yes, it did.
[03:29:57] Speaker 10:
Any cross-examination? The witness may step down. Thank you.
[03:30:01] Speaker 08:
The Commonwealth may call its next witness.
[03:30:13] Speaker 03:
The Commonwealth would call Troy Adams.
[03:30:28] Speaker 05:
Can you state your name for the court, spelling your first and last name?
[03:30:58] Speaker 06:
My name is Troy Adams, T-R-O-Y-A-D-A-M-S.
[03:31:03] Speaker 03:
Thank you. And what is your educational background, sir?
[03:31:07] Speaker 06:
I have a bachelor's degree from Pennsylvania State University in forensic science.
[03:31:12] Speaker 03:
And what is your current occupation?
[03:31:15] Speaker 06:
So I currently work as an investigator for the Lehigh County coroner's office in Pennsylvania.
[03:31:21] Speaker 03:
And how long have you been in Pennsylvania?
[03:31:24] Speaker 06:
I've been in Pennsylvania for approximately three years now, two years working in my current job.
[03:31:30] Speaker 03:
So prior to moving to Pennsylvania, did you work in a different field? No. Did you work for Forensic Sciences in Massachusetts?
[03:31:40] Speaker 07:
Yes.
[03:31:41] Speaker 03:
And can you detail your working history as it pertains to forensic sciences?
[03:31:47] UNKNOWN:
Yes.
[03:31:47] Speaker 06:
So out of college, I joined the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab there as a DNA analyst. I completed all my training protocols and was tested for competency. And then I began performing casework on samples.
[03:32:05] Speaker 03:
And then did you work for a different company in Pennsylvania as well doing forensic sciences?
[03:32:15] Speaker 06:
Yes. After I left the Massachusetts State Police, I joined Quest Diagnostics as a forensic scientist in their toxicology division.
[03:32:23] Speaker 10:
And just keep your voice up so everyone can hear you.
[03:32:27] Speaker 03:
And have you had training for your position at the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab and also for your position at Quest?
[03:32:36] Speaker 07:
Yes.
[03:32:38] Speaker 03:
And have you had ongoing training as well?
[03:32:41] Speaker 07:
Yes.
[03:32:42] Speaker 03:
And have you taken proficiency tests? And what were the results of your proficiency tests?
[03:32:49] Speaker 06:
I passed every proficiency test.
[03:32:52] Speaker 03:
And do you have any certifications in your current job?
[03:32:56] Speaker 06:
Yes.
[03:32:57] Speaker 03:
And where are those from?
[03:32:59] Speaker 06:
So I am certified as a national medical legal death investigator.
[03:33:06] Speaker 03:
And how did you receive that?
[03:33:07] Speaker 06:
So I had to receive, I received that after a certain amount of training at my current job and then going through and taking a certification test.
[03:33:18] Speaker 03:
I want to direct you now to when you were working in Massachusetts. Did you do work on lab number 23-00596? May I refer to my file? You may.
[03:33:32] Speaker 06:
Yes.
[03:33:33] Speaker 03:
And did you do work on items 9-27.2.1, a sample from interior of a dark gray slipper, 9-27.3.1, stain A on the exterior left gray slipper, 9-32.1.1, the sample from the interior sleeve cup of a Tyvek suit, 9-32.2.1, the sample from stain A on the exterior left pant leg of Tyvek suit, 9-32.5.1, the sample from stain D on the interior right sleeve of the Tyvek suit, and 16-13.1, the unknown tissue recovered from the Swampscot dumpster.
[03:34:18] Speaker 06:
Yes, I did.
[03:34:19] Speaker 03:
And what work did you do on those six samples?
[03:34:24] Speaker 06:
So I performed the second and fourth step of the DNA analysis process, quantification and detection.
[03:34:31] Speaker 03:
And can you tell us how you did the quantification step?
[03:34:36] Speaker 06:
So I was given samples from the extraction step, and then I added a mix of chemicals and went through repeated processes of heating and cooling, which quantified the DNA.
[03:34:53] Speaker 03:
The process was then next ready for the third step, is that correct?
[03:34:58] Speaker 06:
Yes, it was ready for amplification.
[03:35:01] Speaker 03:
And who did the amplification step?
[03:35:05] Speaker 06:
I believe that was Madison Frank.
[03:35:07] Speaker 03:
Okay. And after Madison Frank did the amplification step, what did you next do?
[03:35:13] Speaker 06:
I took the products of the amplification step and performed detection.
[03:35:20] Speaker 03:
And did you do the detection on those same six items that we just discussed?
[03:35:25] Speaker 06:
Yes.
[03:35:26] Speaker 03:
And how did you do the fourth step, that detection?
[03:35:30] Speaker 06:
I added a mix of chemicals and placed the samples on the detection analyzer.
[03:35:37] Speaker 03:
And then what happened?
[03:35:39] Speaker 06:
And then electrophoregrams were generated, which were then interpreted by the interpreting analyst.
[03:35:46] Speaker 03:
And where did that data go?
[03:35:49] Speaker 06:
That data was transferred to one of our servers at the State Police Crime Lab.
[03:35:55] Speaker 03:
And did you do the interpreting or did someone else do it?
[03:35:58] Speaker 06:
Someone else performed the interpretation.
[03:36:00] Speaker 03:
Did you do any other work on this case?
[03:36:03] Speaker 06:
Not that I'm aware of, no.
[03:36:08] Speaker 10:
I have no further questions. Any cross-examination of this witness? The witness may step down. Thank you, sir.
[03:36:15] Speaker 16:
Thank you.
[03:36:26] Speaker 10:
The Commonwealth may call its next witness.
[03:36:52] Speaker 05:
You may proceed.
[03:37:10] Speaker 10:
Thank you.
[03:37:14] Speaker 03:
Good afternoon. Could you please state your name for the court? My name is Emily Oliver. And can you tell us your educational background?
[03:37:24] Speaker 23:
I received a bachelor's of science in forensic science from the University of New Haven in 2019. And what is your occupation, ma'am? I'm a Forensic Scientist II at the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab in the DNA unit. And how long have you been employed there? Since December 2019. And can you please tell us your responsibilities? So at the lab I perform DNA testing on samples as well as DNA profile interpretation and I write lab reports. And what training have you had for this position? So when I was first hired, I did an in-house training program that lasted over six months that involved testing mock casework samples as well as lectures and exams.
[03:38:16] Speaker 03:
And you also have ongoing training? Yes. And have you taken competency tests and proficiency tests as well? Yes. And have you passed those? Yes. Prior to doing any work, how do you prepare your work area?
[03:38:34] Speaker 23:
So first I clean the area and all the tools I'm going to use with bleach and then I lay down clean bench paper.
[03:38:42] Speaker 03:
And how are you dressed before you work?
[03:38:46] Speaker 23:
I have a lab coat, gloves, a face mask, and a hair net.
[03:38:52] Speaker 03:
And why do you take those precautions?
[03:38:55] Speaker 23:
To prevent any contamination from myself onto the samples.
[03:39:00] Speaker 03:
I want to direct your attention now to Lab case number 23-00596 and ask if you worked on items 7-13.1, sample from area A on the head of the hatchet, item 7-13.2.1, sample from the handle of the hatchet, and item 9-20.1, the sample from stain A on tape with apparent gauze, with red-brown stain. Did you do work on those items?
[03:39:34] Speaker 23:
I did. And what did you do? So for 7-13.1, the head of the hatchet sample, I did the first three steps of our four-step DNA analysis process, which is extraction, quantification, and amplification. And on the other two samples, I did the first two steps of our four-step process in the lab.
[03:39:55] Speaker 03:
Okay. I also want to ask you if you did any sample prep.
[03:39:59] Speaker 23:
So I did. In the sample, it was more so just making sure I pulled the correct tube with the correct case number and item number from our cold storage room. It was previously prepared by someone else. Thank you.
[03:40:15] Speaker 03:
Can you tell us what you did for the first step for the items that you did the first step for?
[03:40:24] Speaker 23:
So extraction is the step where we add chemicals and heat to the sample to release the DNA from inside of the cells in the sample. Okay.
[03:40:34] Speaker 03:
And which items did you do that for?
[03:40:36] Speaker 23:
For 7-13.1, 7-13.2.1, and I believe it was 9-20.1. Okay.
[03:40:47] Speaker 03:
So for all three of those you did that. Yes.
[03:40:49] UNKNOWN:
Okay.
[03:40:50] Speaker 03:
And did you use equipment for the extraction step?
[03:40:54] Speaker 23:
Yes.
[03:40:55] Speaker 03:
And what equipment did you use?
[03:40:56] Speaker 23:
It's called an EZ1 extraction robot.
[03:41:00] Speaker 03:
And what is the biological material now referred to?
[03:41:05] Speaker 23:
A DNA extract.
[03:41:07] Speaker 03:
And what is it now ready for? The second step, which is quantification. And how did you perform the quantification?
[03:41:15] Speaker 23:
So I took a small droplet from the extract tubes and put them into a new tube. And then I add different chemicals to that new tube and put it through an instrument that estimates the amount of DNA in the sample. And was that for all three of those items? Yes.
[03:41:32] Speaker 03:
Okay. And did you use equipment?
[03:41:35] Speaker 23:
Yes, it's called a 7500 real-time PCR instrument. OK. And then what happened in the DNA process? And after that, the samples go to the third step if they have enough DNA, which is amplification.
[03:41:51] Speaker 03:
OK. And for which items did you do the amplification process? Did you just do that for 7-13.1? Yes. Okay. Why did you not do amplification for 9-20.1 and 7-13.2.1?
[03:42:10] Speaker 23:
Just due to scheduling reasons that was worked best for me.
[03:42:14] Speaker 03:
Okay. So who performed the amplification process for 9-20.1 and 7-13.2.1?
[03:42:24] Speaker 23:
My coworker, Mary Nagel.
[03:42:26] Speaker 03:
Okay. So talking now about what you did do amplification for, item 7-13.1, the sample from area A on the head of the hatchet. Can you tell the jury how did you perform the amplification process on that item?
[03:42:41] Speaker 23:
Sure, so I add, again, different chemicals to the extract tubes and put it onto an instrument that creates millions of copies of these specific locations on the DNA that we're looking at. And did you use equipment? Yes, it's called a thermocycler. And what happens next in the DNA process? The last step is the separation and detection step. And after that last step, we have the DNA profile. And did you do that fourth step, the detection step? I did not.
[03:43:18] Speaker 03:
And who did that last step for 7-13.1?
[03:43:24] Speaker 23:
My coworker, Yoli Bregu.
[03:43:29] Speaker 03:
I have no further questions, Your Honor.
[03:43:33] Speaker 11:
Go right ahead.
[03:43:39] Speaker 23:
Oh, Emily Oliver.
[03:43:40] Speaker 14:
You can just call me Miss Oliver if you'd like.
[03:44:00] Speaker 23:
Sure. So different materials in the environment can kind of limit the reaction, which could affect the DNA profile that we get in the end.
[03:44:16] Speaker 11:
And can you just tell the jurors what are some of the known inhibitors of DNA amplification?
[03:44:23] Speaker 23:
So dye, like dye from blue genes, can be an inhibitor. I don't recall any others off the top of my head.
[03:44:33] Speaker 11:
All right. The fact of the matter is that the DNA molecule is a pretty robust molecule, correct? Correct. And it's fair to say that things as common as oil and things like grease, they don't inhibit the amplification of the DNA molecule in this testing, do they? I'm not sure. What about the quantities that you're dealing with? Is it fair to say that the quantity that you're amplifying can be measured in nanograms?
[03:45:03] Speaker 23:
Yes.
[03:45:04] Speaker 11:
And what's a nanogram?
[03:45:06] Speaker 23:
So it's just a very small number. I believe it's 1 times 10 to the negative 12.
[03:45:13] Speaker 11:
So is it fair to say that it's about 1 billionth of a gram? I'm not sure. OK. And what about a picogram? Can you define a picogram for the jurors?
[03:45:26] Speaker 23:
a slightly larger number, but still a very small quantity.
[03:45:33] Speaker 11:
In the amplification process that you just told the jurors about, what happens is that you take a You separate the alleles from the molecule, the DNA molecule, and then you amplify those alleles, and then they reunite into a molecule, a DNA molecule, and then your machine and apparatus that you use, it's able to process it and give a result, correct?
[03:46:06] Speaker 23:
Correct. And that's mostly referring to the fact that DNA is a double helix, kind of looks like a ladder that's twisted, and it becomes single-stranded during part of the process and then comes back together again.
[03:46:20] Speaker 11:
All right. And finally, you're familiar with the term electrophoregram, correct? Yes. And can you just describe to the jury what an electrophoregram is?
[03:46:34] Speaker 23:
So it's just a graphical representation of the DNA profile, kind of like an EKG. There's a bunch of different peaks that correspond to the DNA. That's a printout that we get and that we look at at the end of our testing.
[03:46:49] Speaker 11:
In the State Police Crime Lab, when you look at the electrophoregram, does the analyst interpret the peaks to determine the results of the DNA testing, or is it another piece of apparatus that does the analysis of the electrophoregram peaks?
[03:47:13] Speaker 23:
So we put our electrophotogram through a program called GeneMapper that does help the interpretation, but a person is still looking over the profile.
[03:47:25] Speaker 11:
All right. So is it fair to say that in the state police crime lab, that the final call, so to speak, the final determination of what is or isn't interpreted as DNA, that's done by the analysts, not by the machine?
[03:47:41] Speaker 23:
Correct.
[03:47:46] Speaker 11:
Thank you, Ms. Oliver.
[03:47:47] Speaker 23:
Thank you.
[03:47:49] Speaker 10:
Any redirect? The witness may step down. The Commonwealth may call its next witness.
[03:48:03] Speaker 03:
The Commonwealth will call Mary Nagle.
[03:48:29] Speaker 05:
You may proceed.
[03:48:49] Speaker 03:
Thank you very much, Your Honor. Can you state your name for the record and just spell your last name? My name is Mary Nagel, N-A-G-L-E.
[03:48:58] Speaker 24:
And what's your educational background, ma'am? I have a bachelor's of science in biochemistry, cell and molecular biology from Drake University, as well as a master of science in biomedical forensic sciences from Boston University.
[03:49:12] Speaker 03:
Can you just pull that microphone a little bit closer? Thank you. And what is your occupation?
[03:49:19] Speaker 24:
I am a forensic scientist, too, in the DNA unit at the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab.
[03:49:24] Speaker 03:
And how long have you been doing that?
[03:49:26] Speaker 24:
Just over three years.
[03:49:28] Speaker 03:
Can you tell us your responsibilities?
[03:49:30] Speaker 24:
Yep, I am capable of performing all of the lab work as well as reporting and interpreting single source profiles and writing up other reports as well.
[03:49:41] Speaker 03:
What training have you had for this position?
[03:49:44] Speaker 24:
I underwent a six month training program that included lectures, exams, and about 50 mock samples for lab practice.
[03:49:56] Speaker 03:
And did you pass the exams during your training period?
[03:50:01] Speaker 24:
Yes, I did.
[03:50:02] Speaker 03:
And do you also have ongoing training?
[03:50:04] Speaker 24:
Yes, I do.
[03:50:05] Speaker 03:
And as part of your ongoing training, do you have to take proficiency tests?
[03:50:09] Speaker 24:
Yes, we take two proficiency tests a year.
[03:50:12] Speaker 03:
And have you passed those tests?
[03:50:13] Speaker 24:
Yes, I have.
[03:50:15] Speaker 03:
Directing your attention to lab case number 23-00596. Did you do work on item 7-13.2.1, the sample from the handle of the hatchet, and item 9-20.1, the sample from stain A on tape with apparent gauze with red-brown stains?
[03:50:36] Speaker 24:
Yes, I did.
[03:50:38] Speaker 03:
And what did you do on those items?
[03:50:42] Speaker 24:
I performed the third and fourth step of the DNA analysis, which is the amplification and detection process.
[03:50:48] Speaker 03:
And how did you do the amplification step?
[03:50:51] Speaker 24:
For amplification, I was made aware of which samples to process from Emily Oliver. From there, the samples were set aside in a tube and I took whatever amount was needed specific to that sample item and added chemicals to that. The samples and the chemicals were then put on an instrument that went through a series of heating and cooling and this process makes millions of copies of that DNA.
[03:51:23] Speaker 03:
And did you use equipment?
[03:51:25] Speaker 24:
Yes, for that it is mostly just the heating and cooling instrument that is used and then the pipettes and tubes and instruments like that as well.
[03:51:37] Speaker 03:
And then you said you did the four-step detection?
[03:51:39] Speaker 24:
Yes, I did.
[03:51:40] Speaker 03:
And did you do the detection for both of those items that we previously discussed?
[03:51:47] Speaker 24:
Yes, I did.
[03:51:48] Speaker 03:
And how did you do that?
[03:51:50] Speaker 24:
So after the third step amplification, the samples are in smaller tubes and a small portion of that sample is then loaded onto a plate with another set of chemicals. That plate is loaded into an instrument to run and that instrument then detects the DNA and produces a profile for interpretation.
[03:52:13] Speaker 03:
And did you do the interpretation?
[03:52:15] Speaker 24:
No, I did not.
[03:52:16] Speaker 03:
Who did the interpretation?
[03:52:17] Speaker 24:
That was Salman Saleem.
[03:52:22] Speaker 10:
I don't have any further questions, Your Honor. Any questions of this witness? You may step down. Thank you.
[03:52:28] Speaker 11:
Thank you.
[03:52:29] Speaker 10:
Oh, I'm sorry.
[03:52:31] Speaker 11:
I need to speak up. Ms. Nagel? Yes. I just have a few questions for you. Once again, there are certain known inhibitors that affect the ability to amplify the DNA molecule, correct? There are, yes. But there's not very many. Because it's a robust molecule, correct? Right. One of the inhibitors is, interestingly enough, the blue dye that we see in things like Levi's, correct? It can be, yes. OK. But it's not something like oil or grease or things like that. The molecule doesn't get broken down by oil and grease and things like that, correct? Correct. And if bleach is used on an item, then that It will still be amplified, but parts of that DNA will probably drop out at the end of it, but there is still usually DNA at the front of that profile. after the molecule was broken down, the shorter alleles will amplify, but the longer alleles won't, because they were broken down by the bleach. Correct. And when you look at the results of your identification, a trained analyst can see that the longer alleles get amplified by the bleach. And they may conclude that something like that particular sample might have been affected by bleach.
[03:54:13] Speaker 24:
We do not look into what could possibly affect the degradation, but we are capable of seeing the fact that the DNA profile will begin to slowly drop in what is present.
[03:54:25] Speaker 11:
Okay. Thank you. One other question. Am I correct in saying that a nanogram is one billionth of a gram?
[03:54:33] Speaker 24:
Yes, I believe so.
[03:54:34] Speaker 11:
Okay. Am I correct in saying that a picogram is one thousandth of a nanogram?
[03:54:40] Speaker 24:
A picogram would be one millionth.
[03:54:43] Speaker 11:
And when you're using the quantities that you're using to get the results that you complete in the lab, we are talking about the quantities in there?
[03:54:55] Speaker 24:
Yes.
[03:54:56] Speaker 11:
Tiny, tiny amounts, correct? Yes. Thank you.
[03:54:59] Speaker 10:
Thank you very much. Any redirect of this witness?
[03:55:05] Speaker 31:
No, Your Honor.
[03:55:07] Speaker 10:
The witness may step down. The Commonwealth may call its next witness.
[03:55:26] Speaker 03:
The Commonwealth would call Yoli Bregu.
[03:55:52] Speaker 05:
If you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're giving, the cards now in the hearing will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God.
[03:56:00] Speaker 26:
Thank you.
[03:56:02] Speaker 08:
Council, can you hold up for a second?
[03:56:34] Speaker 31:
You may proceed. Thank you, Your Honor.
[03:56:38] Speaker 03:
Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Could you please state your name and spell your entire name for the record?
[03:56:44] Speaker 01:
My name is Yoli Bregu, J-O-L-I, B-R-E-G-U. And what is your educational background? I have a Bachelor of Science in Biology from Boston University and a Master of Science in Biomedical Forensic Sciences, also from Boston University.
[03:57:03] Speaker 03:
And what is your occupation, ma'am?
[03:57:06] Speaker 01:
I'm a forensic scientist, too, with the Massachusetts State Police Crime Laboratory in the DNA unit. And how long have you been there? Since June 2019.
[03:57:18] Speaker 03:
Can you tell us your responsibilities as a forensic scientist too? Sure.
[03:57:22] Speaker 01:
I perform forensic DNA analysis on evidence samples submitted to the lab. So my typical work day consists on processing those samples in the lab, doing the data interpretation, making comparisons with the reference samples, writing reports, testifying in court as needed. I also do administrative and technical reviews.
[03:57:44] Speaker 03:
And what training have you had for this position?
[03:57:48] Speaker 01:
So in addition to my education during my master's degree, I followed a forensic biology and forensic DNA analysis track. And then when I got hired, I was trained at the Massachusetts State Police, specifically in the DNA unit, in forensic DNA analysis. The training consisted on lectures, reading of relevant literature, laboratory experience with practice samples, data interpretation, written and oral exams, followed by competency tests.
[03:58:17] Speaker 03:
And did you pass those competency tests?
[03:58:19] Speaker 01:
Yes.
[03:58:20] Speaker 03:
And do you have ongoing training as well?
[03:58:22] Speaker 01:
Yes, we have ongoing training. Every year we are required to take at least eight hours of continuing education, which is offered in forms of seminars, webinars, workshops. We usually take more because there's more offered through the year. We're also required to read at least one scientific journal article relevant to our field.
[03:58:42] Speaker 03:
And you have to take testing as well?
[03:58:44] Speaker 01:
Yes, we have to take proficiency testing every year. They are taken twice a year.
[03:58:50] Speaker 03:
And have you passed that proficiency testing?
[03:58:53] Speaker 01:
Yes, I have passed the proficiency testing required throughout my employment. The last one is still in the grading process.
[03:59:00] Speaker 03:
And have you testified in court about DNA?
[03:59:03] Speaker 01:
Yes, I have.
[03:59:04] Speaker 03:
Directing your attention to lab number 23-00596, did you do work on item 7-13.1, the sample from area A on the head of the hatchet?
[03:59:17] Speaker 01:
Yes, I did.
[03:59:18] Speaker 03:
And what work did you do on this item?
[03:59:21] Speaker 01:
I performed the fourth step that is used in forensic DNA analysis, which is detection.
[03:59:27] Speaker 03:
And how did you do the detection step of the DNA process?
[03:59:31] Speaker 01:
So I took the samples from the analyst who had done previous work, Emily Oliver. I prepared those samples, mixing them with the required reagents. Then I loaded them in our instrument that does the detection, known as genetic analyzer, and I started the run. And that's where my role ended. After the run is done, the data is saved automatically in the computer and can be imported by the interpreting analyst for data interpretation.
[04:00:00] Speaker 03:
Did you do the interpretation here?
[04:00:03] Speaker 01:
No, I did not.
[04:00:04] Speaker 03:
Who did the interpretation?
[04:00:06] Speaker 01:
Salman Saleem.
[04:00:09] Speaker 10:
I have no further questions, Your Honor. Any cross-examination of this witness? Go right ahead.
[04:00:21] Speaker 01:
Yes.
[04:00:22] Speaker 11:
Yes, you did.
[04:00:30] Speaker 01:
Correct, yes. The allele is a variant of a DNA fragment that is amplified during our third step. So a person has two alleles, one they inherited from the mother and one from the father.
[04:00:49] Speaker 11:
And the allele then is the section of the DNA molecule that is then looked at once you've separated the molecule and it's the part of the molecule that then gets amplified, correct? And so if you have an allele that repeats at a certain locus on the DNA molecule, then you may be a particular type at that particular location on the molecule, depending on how many repeating alleles you have.
[04:01:19] Speaker 01:
It's how many repeats are within the allele. So the allele itself is the entire fragment and within that allele there are short, we call them short tandem repeats, there are repeats, they repeat themselves different numbers for different individuals and that's what it's assigned to an allele. How many times the fragment repeats itself within the allele?
[04:01:43] Speaker 11:
Yes, correct.
[04:01:59] Speaker 01:
Yes, the loci is the location of that particular allele in the DNA molecule.
[04:02:04] Speaker 11:
In the testing that was done in this case, you're using 26 different locations plus the sex area.
[04:02:11] Speaker 01:
Correct, yes.
[04:02:12] Speaker 11:
That's an eligible.
[04:02:13] Speaker 10:
Correct, yes. Thank you. Any redirect of this witness? No, ma'am. The witness may step down.
[04:02:22] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.
[04:02:23] UNKNOWN:
Thank you.
[04:02:45] Speaker 10:
Days ago, I told you, and I think I read you another stipulation, but I'll remind you a stipulation is just an agreement between the parties. I'm going to read you now an agreement that the parties have made. This is a stipulation regarding DNA samples of Onowalk and Brian Walsh. It reads as follows. On May 9, 2018, FBI Special Agent Tyler Delorme obtained a DNA sample from Brian Walsh. Special Agent Delorme brought the sample to the FBI headquarters in Boston, where it was placed into evidence storage. Also on May the 9th, 2018, FBI Special Agent Matthew Ripartella obtained a DNA sample from Anna Walsh. Special Agent Ripartella brought the sample to the FBI headquarters in Boston, where it was also placed into evidence storage. On January 10th, 2023, Special Agent Kristen Koch took the sample of Anna Walsh and the sample of Brian Walsh from evidence storage at the FBI headquarters in Boston and brought both samples to the Massachusetts State Police crime lab. The samples did not leave the custody of the FBI until Special Agent Koch submitted them to the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab for testing. That's Exhibit E for identification. The Commonwealth may call its next witness.
[04:05:04] Speaker 31:
The Commonwealth would call Karen Jacobson.
[04:05:26] Speaker 05:
You may proceed.
[04:05:44] Speaker 03:
Thank you very much, Your Honor. Good afternoon. Could you please give us your name and spell your name for the record?
[04:05:54] Speaker 29:
My name is Karen Jacobson. That's K-A-R-I-N-J-A-C-O-B-S-E-N. And if I could just ask you to pull that microphone a little closer to you.
[04:06:08] Speaker 03:
Thank you.
[04:06:09] Speaker 29:
Sure. What is your occupation, ma'am? I'm currently employed as a forensic scientist too within the DNA unit at the Massachusetts State Police Crime Laboratory. And how long have you been there? Since August of 2021. And what are your duties? I'm responsible for receiving items of evidence associated with known individuals, taking them through the four-step DNA process, and making those DNA profiles available for use in comparisons. And what is your educational background? I have both a bachelor's of science in forensic science and a master's of science in forensic science from Bowling Green State University.
[04:06:48] Speaker 03:
And do you have specialized training to be a DNA analyst? Yes, I do.
[04:06:53] Speaker 29:
And can you tell us about that training? The training program within the DNA unit is at least six months long. It consists of lectures covering all of our protocols, literature readings covering current and historic methodologies, laboratory processing of at least 50 mock samples, and all of this is wrapped up with a competency test.
[04:07:13] Speaker 03:
And did you pass your competency test?
[04:07:15] Speaker 29:
Yes, I did.
[04:07:17] Speaker 03:
And have you also had ongoing training? Yes, I have. And as part of your ongoing training, do you have proficiency testing? Yes, I do. And have you passed your proficiency training? Yes, I have. I want to ask you about lab number 23-00596. Did you do work on this case? Yes, I did.
[04:07:47] Speaker 29:
What work did you do on this case? The DNA testing process is four steps long. I performed the second step and the fourth step for two items. And what were those items? These were items 13-1.1 and 13-2.1. And what were those? These were the DNA saliva collection kits for Anna Walsh and Brian Walsh respectively.
[04:08:16] Speaker 03:
So how did you do the step two, that being quantification step?
[04:08:22] Speaker 29:
Yes. OK. Tell us about that, please. In the second step, quantification, I received a portion of the extract created in the first step. I applied a set of chemicals to it and put it on an instrument that goes through cycles of heating, cooling, and this produces an estimate of the amount of human and male DNA present within each sample. And did you use equipment? Yes, I did. And what was that? This is a 7500 real-time PCR machine. And who had done the previous step? The previous step was performed by Katarina Stashin. And why didn't you do that step? We batch our samples in the laboratory processing for the sake of efficiency. Okay. And then when did you become involved again in this process for these samples? I then performed the fourth step, separation and detection. Okay. And can you please tell this jury how you did that fourth step? So the same person, Katerina Sashin, performed the third step. I received the product produced in the third step from her. I applied another set of chemicals to it and put it on an instrument that separates each of the copies of the DNA by size. And then with the help of some special software, it turns it into a visual representation of the DNA profile. And did you use any equipment? Yes, I did. And what equipment did you use? This was a 3500 genetic analyzer. Okay. And then what is the data next ready for in the process? After the data is reviewed, it's ready for use in comparisons. Okay. And who did the interpretation and comparison here? In this case, it was Katerina Sachin as well. And did you do any other work on these samples? No, I did not.
[04:10:20] Speaker 10:
I have no further questions. Cross-exam? The witness may step down. Thank you. Commonwealth may call its next witness. The Commonwealth would call Katerina Stashin.
[04:11:06] Speaker 05:
Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you'll give in the cause now in hearing? Have you the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So help you God.
[04:11:12] Speaker 20:
Thank you. Right this way. Just watch your step for me. Thank you.
[04:11:16] Speaker 11:
A little bit further.
[04:11:20] Speaker 03:
There you go. You may proceed. Thank you very much, Your Honor. Good afternoon. Can you please state your name and spell your whole name for the record?
[04:11:31] Speaker 26:
Good afternoon. My name is Katerina Stashian. First name is spelled K-A-T-A-R-I-N-A. Last name is spelled S-T-A-S-H-Y-N. What is your current occupation, ma'am? I'm currently a criminalist in the biology section at the Washoe County Sheriff's Office crime lab located in Reno, Nevada.
[04:11:58] Speaker 03:
And can you please detail your work history as it applies to forensic sciences?
[04:12:05] Speaker 26:
I was previously a forensic scientist in the DNA unit at the Massachusetts State Police Crime Laboratory for about three and a half years from 2021 to earlier this year, 2025 when I got the opportunity to move back to Nevada to be closer to family and pursue a job still as a DNA analyst. And what is your educational background? I have a bachelor's and master's degree in biotechnology from the University of Nevada, Reno. And do you have any specialized training to be a DNA analyst? Yes, I received training at both the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab and at my current job in Washoe County. In Massachusetts, I completed an approximately one year long training program that consisted of reading scientific protocols, scientific literature, textbooks, all on the topics of forensic DNA analysis. I also took written exams and oral exams on those topics. I also practiced sets in the lab, both for laboratory processing and for DNA interpretation, put together practice case files, wrote reports, did comparisons, and all of that training completed with a competency test, of which I passed. And then at Washoe County, I completed an approximately six month long training course due to my experience, where I also did review of scientific literature, textbooks, protocols, practice sets, writing or practice reports, performing comparisons or interpretation, et cetera. And that also completed with a competency test of which I passed.
[04:13:48] Speaker 03:
And have you also had proficiency testing?
[04:13:52] Speaker 26:
Yes, I have also completed proficiency testing. And have you passed those tests as well? Yes, I have passed all competency and proficiency testing that I've taken so far. And have you testified in Massachusetts about DNA? Yes, I have.
[04:14:08] Speaker 03:
So what is a single source DNA profile?
[04:14:12] Speaker 26:
A single source DNA profile is a profile that originates from one person or one contributor. And you can identify this in a profile. Just by looking at the profile, you can see how many people are in there. And what is a known standard? A known standard is a sample that's taken directly from an individual. For example, a sample from somebody's mouth, a saliva swab, or a blood sample. It's taken directly from a person to be used for comparison purposes.
[04:14:45] Speaker 03:
And how is a known standard developed into a DNA profile?
[04:14:51] Speaker 26:
A known standard will go through the four-step laboratory process to result in a DNA profile that can then be used for comparisons.
[04:15:00] Speaker 03:
And the four-step process is what?
[04:15:05] Speaker 26:
The four-step laboratory process for DNA analysis is extraction, quantification, amplification, and detection.
[04:15:14] Speaker 03:
So prior to doing any work, how do you prepare your work area?
[04:15:20] Speaker 26:
So when you first get into the lab to do any of those steps, you're gonna clean your lab bench. So that involves using a bleach spray to wipe down your area. You're gonna clean all of the equipment, utensils, your pens, pipettes, any equipment that you're using. And then me as a person or any lab analyst, you'll be wearing a lab coat, a face mask, a hair net. You're in full PPE, wearing gloves, changing gloves frequently. Why do you clean your area and wear PPE? We do this just to keep everything perfectly clean or the cleanest that we can, just to help the integrity of the evidence and help produce the best possible profile.
[04:16:06] Speaker 03:
Now I'm going to direct your attention to Massachusetts Case Lab 23-00596. Did you do work on this case? Yes, I did. And what did you do on the known standards in this case?
[04:16:24] Speaker 26:
I performed the sample prep, the extraction, and the amplification on the known standards in this case.
[04:16:30] Speaker 03:
And did you also do interpretation on this case?
[04:16:33] Speaker 26:
Yes. I also reviewed the profiles that were obtained from that process and made sure they were able to be used for comparison purposes.
[04:16:43] Speaker 03:
So I want to ask you about each of the things that you just told us about. So were you working on 13-1 and 13-2? Is that correct? Correct.
[04:16:57] Speaker 26:
And what were those? Those were the known saliva standards for both Anna Walsh and Brian Walsh. And so what was 13-1? 13-1 was the known saliva standard for Anna Walsh. And what was 13-2? 13-2 was the known saliva standard for Brian Walsh. And how did you do the sample prep for 13-1? So both of these samples were known saliva samples, so a swab from the mouth, and I just cut up the swab and placed the cotton part of the swab into a tube, a labeled tube with those item numbers that I said.
[04:17:36] Speaker 03:
Okay, so that's what you did for 13-1, and then did you give it another number?
[04:17:41] Speaker 26:
So once I cut that swab off, it then became 13-1.1. And so did you do the same thing for 13-2? Yes, so then the cotton that got cut off of the whole swab became 13-2.1. And then after you did that sample prep, what did you next do? Then those samples went through the extraction step of the process. And how did you do the extraction step? So extraction consists of adding chemicals to the samples and going through heat variation to help break open the cells present in the sample and release the DNA that is present and then that DNA is isolated.
[04:18:25] Speaker 03:
And did you use equipment for that?
[04:18:27] Speaker 26:
Yes. What equipment? An incubator was used for that heat variation that I mentioned, and an EZ1 robot was used for the extraction part, meaning that after it sat in the incubator with the chemicals to break open the cells, a robot is used to isolate that DNA from the rest of the cellular debris left behind.
[04:18:49] Speaker 03:
You told us about sample prep and step one. Did you do the next step, step two?
[04:18:55] Speaker 26:
No. Why not? It's just based on scheduling at the lab who was assigned to do what step that day. And who did that next step? The second step of quantification was performed by Karen Jacobson.
[04:19:11] Speaker 03:
Are you, were you qualified to do all of the steps?
[04:19:15] Speaker 26:
Yes.
[04:19:16] Speaker 03:
And so what did you next do?
[04:19:19] Speaker 26:
I next did the amplification step, that third step I mentioned. And how did you perform the amplification step? So amplification is the third step. And this is when we make millions and millions of copies of certain fragments of DNA. So this is done by, again, adding certain chemicals and going through heat cycles to make these many millions of copies of DNA. Because we're usually working with a smaller amount of DNA, you need to make a lot of copies to make it visual and able to be detected.
[04:19:51] Speaker 03:
Did you use equipment?
[04:19:53] Speaker 26:
Yes. What equipment? We used what is called a thermal cycler, and this is the instrument that performs those heat cycles needed to make the copies.
[04:20:04] Speaker 03:
So did you do the next step, the fourth step?
[04:20:07] Speaker 26:
No. Who did that? Karen Jacobson also performed the fourth step of detection. So then what did you do next? So after that full laboratory process was completed, I looked at the data that was produced from those four steps, and both items resulted with DNA profiles that I reviewed and made sure were acceptable to be used for DNA comparisons. And could you visualize a single source?
[04:20:36] Speaker 03:
Yes. And did you generate a DNA profile for Anna Walsh? Yes. And did you generate a DNA profile for Brian Walsh? Yes. And were profile sources developed that were appropriate for comparison?
[04:20:55] Speaker 26:
Yes, the profiles developed were acceptable to be used for comparisons.
[04:20:59] Speaker 03:
And they were both single sources? Yes.
[04:21:02] Speaker 26:
What does appropriate for comparison mean? When I'm saying appropriate for comparison, I mean that the profile is full, as in data is obtained at every location that was tested, and that it is single source. And what do you do with the profiles? That profile is then made into a text file that is made available for the analyst that's going to be doing the comparisons.
[04:21:28] Speaker 03:
And were the profiles assigned a number to identify them?
[04:21:32] Speaker 26:
Yes. So the numbers for the profiles are the same as their item number. So the text file profile for Anna Walsh also had the number of 13-1.1. And the text file profile for Brian Walsh was 13-2.1.
[04:21:46] Speaker 03:
I might have one second, Your Honor. You may.
[04:21:55] Speaker 02:
Nothing further.
[04:21:56] Speaker 10:
Cross exam. The witness may step down. Thank you.
[04:22:00] Speaker 14:
Thank you all.
[04:22:57] Speaker 10:
Does anyone need anything? Anything from the fence? All set? Very good.
[04:23:38] UNKNOWN:
I got this right now. Thank you. . . . .
[04:29:11] Speaker 22:
Thanks for watching.
[04:30:19] UNKNOWN:
Thank you. Thank you. . . . .
[04:32:04] Speaker 21:
Is there a space I can work with you for that?
[04:33:37] UNKNOWN:
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . .
[04:55:02] Speaker 21:
.
[04:55:17] UNKNOWN:
. . . . . Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. you I don't know what you're talking about, Billy. I know you work for us, so here's my line of work. Excuse me, but you're calling my name. Yeah, I was just asking if you could just be a little bit of fun. I mean, I do any work, if you want to know this one, Billy. Yeah. Because I don't know what you're talking about. I'm sorry. I don't know what you're talking about. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. I think it's time to go.
[05:15:57] Speaker 21:
I think that's a good point.
[05:16:24] UNKNOWN:
I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. you Um, I think it was short. Um, but she's going to have a very, very special day. Okay. you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. Okay, we're going to take that, we're going to get up and then we're going to turn around. . . Thank you. Thank you.
[05:30:07] Speaker 00:
You are unmuted.
[05:30:42] Speaker 08:
All right, where are we, Council?
[05:30:44] Speaker 15:
Your Honor, we can either do the laudier of Mr. Mootlue, or we could go continue on with DNA and do some in Salem.
[05:30:52] Speaker 10:
Well, if we go back, if we stay on DNA, which I'm happy to do, is that going to end the day, or are we going to hit Mr. Mootlue at some point today? Is he going to hit the stand at some point today?
[05:31:06] Speaker 15:
I think DNA is going to go about another hour to 90 minutes. It could go two hours.
[05:31:10] Speaker 10:
So I'm going to take it from that that the answer is no.
[05:31:14] Speaker 15:
It's possible. I guess it's my answer. I know we don't like to hedge bets, but I'm going to hedge my bet on this one, because I don't want to be shy a witness when we can still do work.
[05:31:24] Speaker 10:
Well, in light of what you've told me about the schedule, I will be happy to let the jury go at 3.30 today, if that happens. And we are still on the same schedule.
[05:31:35] Speaker 15:
Yes, Your Honor. Yes, we are.
[05:31:48] Speaker 10:
All right. Well, we'll talk about that again at the end of the day.
[05:31:51] Speaker 15:
Yes, Your Honor.
[05:31:54] Speaker 10:
So what I'll say with regard to that is you're in a better position to evaluate how long a voir dire would take. I don't need the jury in the building while we're doing a voir dire. So I guess it would be my mild preference to just continue on. where we are today, talking about DNA, and then tell the jury that they can come back later in the day, tomorrow, instead of a 9 a.m. start. Maybe we'll do a 10 a.m. start for them and do the voir dire of Mr. Mootlue in that time while the jury's on their own time and not on our time. How does that all sound?
[05:32:32] Speaker 15:
That sounds like a very good idea, Your Honor. And I can tell you I have the Keeper of Records from Home Goods here just in case. And that would take about 20 minutes if we did end below that.
[05:32:42] Speaker 10:
All right. And how long, I won't hold you to it, but Mr. Mutlu's voir dire, as I understand it, and frankly, I had to remind myself through the pleadings what exactly it is we were voir daring him on. Now that I have reminded myself of what we're voir daring him on, how long do you anticipate, and I'll go to your brother in a second, but how long do you anticipate it will take you to present that evidence?
[05:33:13] Speaker 13:
I think about five minutes, ten minutes at the outside.
[05:33:17] Speaker 10:
All right. I was thinking it was relatively short and more. I was checking to make sure that there wasn't a big disconnect between my expectations and what you're thinking. Do you agree, Attorney Tipton? Do you agree, Attorney Porges? I do. So there's other matters we could handle in the morning tomorrow as well. Be prepared for those, including what I said to you at the side of the bench the other day with regard to the first two or three pages that I was looking for from you. Do you understand?
[05:33:54] Speaker 13:
We do, Your Honor.
[05:33:56] Speaker 10:
Bernie Tipton? Excellent. All right, we can bring the jury in. Hold them up for a minute. Not you, them. I just don't want the comma if not at their desk. You're all set now. Thank you.
[05:35:16] Speaker 15:
It doesn't work. It doesn't agree with that.
[05:35:34] Speaker 22:
That's the way you should have it.
[05:35:35] UNKNOWN:
Sorry.
[05:36:38] Speaker 14:
All rise for the court please, jurors entering.
[05:37:15] Speaker 10:
Commonwealth may call its next witness.
[05:37:18] Speaker 31:
The Commonwealth would call Salman Saleem.
[05:37:38] Speaker 05:
You may proceed.
[05:38:02] Speaker 03:
Good afternoon. Could you please introduce yourself to the jury by stating your full name and spelling your name?
[05:38:10] Speaker 12:
My name is Saman Saleem, S-A-M-A-N. Last name is S-A-L-E-E-M. And could you please tell us your educational background? I have a bachelor's degree from Boston College in biochemistry and a master's of science in forensic science from Boston University. And what is your occupation, ma'am? I currently work as a forensic scientist three at the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab within the DNA unit. And what is a forensic scientist three? A forensic scientist three is a supervisory position within the DNA unit where I manage other analysts, forensic scientists one and two, that work within the DNA unit.
[05:38:53] Speaker 03:
So how many people do you supervise?
[05:38:56] Speaker 12:
I supervise six people currently.
[05:38:58] Speaker 03:
And what are your responsibilities in supervising those people?
[05:39:03] Speaker 12:
As a supervisor, I manage their caseload by assigning them cases to work on in the laboratory, as well as for interpretation of DNA profiles for evidence items that are submitted to the DNA unit. I also train them in the methodologies for DNA testing. For example, if there's any new hires in our laboratory, I would be part of their training program where I would teach them about the laboratory work that's conducted as well as give them presentations on the theoretical background of DNA testing. In addition to that, I also work on my own cases, so where I'm assigned cases by my manager and I do the interpretation of DNA testing on those cases and review the cases of other people and what they've worked on.
[05:39:43] Speaker 03:
And how long have you been employed at the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab?
[05:39:47] Speaker 12:
I've been there approximately 10 years.
[05:39:52] Speaker 03:
Do you have any specialized training to be a DNA analyst?
[05:39:55] Speaker 12:
When I first began at the DNA unit 10 years ago, I went through an eight month long training program where I learned about the theoretical discipline of forensic DNA testing as well as the practical application of it. I tested mock evidence samples in the laboratory to determine what those DNA profiles were and learned about how to do that testing. Additionally, since that training, every year we go through continuing education where we learn about new methodologies that we're adopting in the laboratory and also any kind of changes that are happening in the field of forensic DNA analysis.
[05:40:27] Speaker 03:
So you said that you've had testing, is that correct?
[05:40:31] Speaker 12:
I'm sorry, yes.
[05:40:31] Speaker 03:
Have you had testing?
[05:40:32] Speaker 12:
Yes.
[05:40:33] Speaker 03:
What kind of testing have you had?
[05:40:35] Speaker 12:
So every time there's a new technology adopted or there's new training that I go through, at the end of that training we do a competency test where we are tested on if we have understood that methodology by taking a written exam or oral exam as well as a practical exam in the laboratory. In addition to that, twice a year we go through proficiency testing.
[05:40:55] Speaker 03:
So have you passed the competency testing that you've taken?
[05:40:58] Speaker 12:
Yes, I have.
[05:40:59] Speaker 03:
And you said that twice a year you have proficiency testing. Who monitors that or provides that proficiency testing?
[05:41:06] Speaker 12:
So the proficiency test samples are provided by an external agency and those samples are tested in our laboratory as we would process any casework samples as well. And then the answers for those items of evidence, the DNA profiles we obtained are submitted back to that external agency who will then grade us to ensure that we obtain the correct DNA profiles.
[05:41:26] Speaker 03:
And have you passed that proficiency testing?
[05:41:29] Speaker 12:
Yes, I've passed all the ones I've taken over the 10 years.
[05:41:32] Speaker 03:
Thank you. Are you familiar with Lab Case 23-00596? Yes, I am. And what type of DNA testing was conducted in this case?
[05:41:50] Speaker 12:
In this case, we conducted a type of testing known as STR DNA testing, which follows a four-step process in the laboratory, at the end of which we obtain a DNA profile.
[05:42:01] Speaker 03:
So just generally, can you discuss that four-step process?
[05:42:06] Speaker 12:
Generally, that four-step process starts with extraction in the first step, where we break open the cells in which the DNA is found. This is similar to cracking open an egg, where the DNA is found within the yolk of it, and we extract that DNA. We use heat and chemicals to do this. The second step is known as quantitation, where we determine how much DNA is present in that sample so that we can proceed with the next step. The next step is known as amplification. In that third step, we make millions and millions of copies of the DNA that is found there, targeting certain locations within the DNA. In this case, we target 26 locations that are found throughout the chromosome as well as a sex determining locus as well. And then the last step is capillary electrophoresis. During that step, we analyze those copies of DNA to generate a DNA profile, which can then be interpreted for comparison purposes.
[05:43:03] Speaker 03:
And then once the raw data is generated, you said that you're able to make some comparison here? Yes. And how is that done, generally?
[05:43:15] Speaker 12:
So generally, the first thing we would do is interpret the DNA profile, which means that we would observe the DNA profile to see what is in that DNA profile. So what are the different characteristics of the DNA that we're observing at these 26 locations that we have tested? We will determine how many individuals are in this mixture, so the number of people that make up this DNA profile. Is it coming from one person or multiple individuals? And then that profile, once we've determined what it is, we can compare it to a known standard or somebody whose DNA profile we know to see if they would be included in that sample or excluded from it.
[05:43:52] Speaker 03:
And in this case, 23-00596, there were many items that were tested by multiple people in the lab for DNA testing. Is that correct? That's correct. And all of those people did the four-step process. Is that correct? That's correct.
[05:44:10] Speaker 12:
And what was your role here? At the end of that four-step process, data is generated on a computer. At the end of that process, my role comes in at that point where I look at that data. So it comes off in a form that we have to interpret using a software program. So that's where my role starts, where I interpret that data.
[05:44:31] Speaker 03:
So now I'm going to start to ask you about what you did here and about each individual piece of data that you looked at with each individual item that you looked at. Is that okay? That's okay. So let's start with the first round of testing and the first items that you looked at. I want to ask you about item 9-27.2.1. What is that item, ma'am?
[05:45:02] Speaker 12:
Do you mind if I look at my notes?
[05:45:04] Speaker 03:
You may look at your notes.
[05:45:10] Speaker 12:
Thank you. That is a sample of an interior of dark gray slippers found in bag number four at 300 Forest Street.
[05:45:18] Speaker 03:
And what was the DNA profile result for this item?
[05:45:23] Speaker 12:
This DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture of three contributors, including male DNA.
[05:45:30] Speaker 03:
And were you able to come to a conclusion about the comparison to the known profile of Anna Walsh?
[05:45:39] Speaker 12:
Yes. The DNA profile from this item is at least 270 million times more likely if it originated from Anna Walsh and two unknown individuals than if it originated from three unknown, unrelated individuals. This provides support for an inclusion of Anna Walsh to this profile. So what does that mean? So the statistic we report is known as a likelihood ratio. The first part of this is determining what the DNA profile is. In this case, the DNA profile is a mixture of three contributors, meaning that the profile that was observed in this item came from three individuals. In this profile, when we do a comparison, we compare the characteristics at each of these 26 locations to see if the profile that is Anna Walsh's profile matches those or is consistent with the ones that are observed in the DNA profile. Through the statistical analysis, what we learned is that it is at least 270 million times more likely to observe this DNA profile if it originated from Anna Walsh than if it did not originate from two other individuals than if it originated from three unknown, unrelated individuals. The likelihood ratio is a statistical calculation that shows us how likely it is to observe a DNA profile given two propositions, one that the person would be included in the DNA profile or the other that the person is excluded or not included in the DNA profile. And the value of that likelihood ratio can tell us which of these propositions is more likely to observe this DNA profile given either of these propositions.
[05:47:20] Speaker 03:
So how do you calculate the likelihood ratio?
[05:47:24] Speaker 12:
That is calculated using a software known as STRMix or STARMix. And in that software, we use calculations that we derive from the general population of how common or rare certain characteristics are at these 26 locations observed. And we use that in the general population in the US. And we use that information to calculate the likelihood ratio.
[05:47:48] Speaker 03:
Can you explain when you said this was a mixture of three contributors?
[05:47:54] Speaker 12:
So that just means that the DNA profile that we observed at these 26 locations, what I observed is that I would see DNA from multiple people, in this case three individuals. We receive half our DNA from our mother and half from our father, so we would expect to see for a single source profile or something coming from one person would either have one characteristic or two characteristics at each of these locations. In some of these locations, I saw five or six characteristics, which means that there's at least three people here in this mixture.
[05:48:28] Speaker 03:
Were you able to come to a conclusion about the comparison to the known profile of Brian Walsh?
[05:48:35] Speaker 12:
Yes. The DNA profile from this item is at least 12 quintillion times more likely if it originated from Brian Walsh and two unknown individuals than if it originated from three unknown unrelated individuals. And this provides support for an inclusion. What is a quintillion? A quintillion is one followed by 18 zeros. Can you tell when the DNA was contributed? I cannot, through the testing that we do, we cannot determine when or how the DNA was deposited on an evidence item.
[05:49:12] Speaker 03:
Does DNA have to be contributed at the same time? No, it does not. Moving to item 9-27.3.1, can you tell me what that item is?
[05:49:31] Speaker 12:
That was a sample from stain A on the exterior top left of the gray slipper, bag number 4 at 304th Street.
[05:49:40] Speaker 03:
And can you tell me what's the DNA profile result for this item?
[05:49:45] Speaker 12:
This DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture of two contributors, including male DNA.
[05:49:51] Speaker 03:
Were you able to come to a conclusion about the comparison to the known profile of Anna Walsh?
[05:49:59] Speaker 12:
Yes. The DNA profile from this item is at least 16 nanillion times more likely if it originated from Anna Walsh and an unknown individual than if it originated from two unknown, unrelated individuals. And this provides support for an inclusion of Anna Walsh to this profile.
[05:50:17] Speaker 03:
Were you able to come to a conclusion about the comparison to the known profile of Brian Walsh?
[05:50:24] Speaker 12:
The DNA profile from this item is at least 77 times more likely if it originated from Brian Walsh and an unknown individual than if it originated from two unknown individuals, unknown unrelated individuals. This provides limited support for an inclusion. Our DNA unit validation studies have shown that there is an inclusion of non-contributors in this range, likelihood ratio range of about two to a thousand, and advantageous support could be attributed to this conclusion.
[05:50:56] Speaker 03:
So what does that mean?
[05:50:58] Speaker 12:
So when we do these calculations for the likelihood ratio, we're relying on the DNA profile that we observed in that evidence item. The more data we have there, that means the more of these 26 locations where we observed this DNA profile, the higher the statistic will be for an inclusion, and that's because there's more support and more data observed. When there is limited support for an inclusion, it means that the data for that contributor in that mixture, so it doesn't mean everyone in that mixture had less DNA, just that one or more contributors had less DNA available there for comparison, so the statistic is lower because of it. In our validation studies, what we did see, because all humans do share some DNA with each other, that we would see some non-contributors, meaning that people who really shouldn't, we made mixtures where we knew who was in those mixtures, and so we see we would have some non-contributors get a likelihood ratio that's inclusionary, show that they're included when they really shouldn't be included. And it's because they happen to have some alleles that are common with what was observed in the DNA profile. So in this case, for the statistic, even though there is support for an inclusion, that support is limited, meaning that there is less data available.
[05:52:16] Speaker 03:
What is an aniline?
[05:52:18] Speaker 12:
An aniline is one followed by 30 zeros.
[05:52:24] Speaker 03:
What type of cells is DNA found in?
[05:52:27] Speaker 12:
It is found in all kinds of biological cells that we have, such as our blood cells, our white blood cells, our hair cells, skin cells, saliva, anything we could have in our body that has a nucleus. Any cell that has a nucleus would have DNA in it.
[05:52:43] Speaker 03:
And one of those is potentially found in a shoe.
[05:52:48] Speaker 12:
From a shoe, it could be if there's a biological process that's deposited on there, that biological fluid could contribute DNA, or more typically for clothing and shoes, it would be from skin cells that are from wearing that shoe multiple times.
[05:53:05] Speaker 03:
Do your results tell you what type of cells these came from?
[05:53:10] Speaker 12:
No, they do not.
[05:53:13] Speaker 03:
And do the individuals have to contribute the same type of cells?
[05:53:18] Speaker 12:
No, they do not. One of the things that could cause a mixture of DNA profiles is if there's different types of cells from different individuals that are contributing to the same evidence item.
[05:53:31] Speaker 03:
What is item 9-32.1.1?
[05:53:33] Speaker 12:
That is a sample of an interior sleeve cuff of a Tyvek suit that was found in bag number 6 at 304th Street.
[05:53:46] Speaker 03:
And what was the DNA profile result for this item?
[05:53:50] Speaker 12:
The DNA profile for this item was interpreted as a mixture of three contributors, including male DNA.
[05:53:58] Speaker 03:
Were you able to come to a conclusion about the comparison to the known profile of Anna Walsh?
[05:54:05] Speaker 12:
The DNA profile from this item is at least 4.8 in a million times more likely if it originated from Anna Walsh and two unknown individuals than if it originated from three unknown unrelated individuals and this provides support for an inclusion.
[05:54:25] Speaker 03:
And were you able to come to a conclusion about the comparison to the known profile of Brian Walsh?
[05:54:32] Speaker 12:
Yes. The DNA profile from this item is at least 100 trillion times more likely if it originated from Brian Walsh and two unknown individuals than if it originated from three unknown unrelated individuals. And this provides support for an inclusion.
[05:54:52] Speaker 03:
So when you say things like this supply provides support for an inclusion, is that standard language that you're using? Yes.
[05:55:03] Speaker 12:
And standard language for whom? Standard language for forensic DNA analysis in general, and then at our laboratory we've adopted this language as part of it. Many laboratories would use very similar language.
[05:55:19] Speaker 03:
What is item 9-32.2.1?
[05:55:25] Speaker 12:
Sample from stain A of the exterior left pant leg of the Tyvek suit from bag number 6 at 304th Street.
[05:55:35] Speaker 03:
And is this the same Tyvek suit that we just discussed previously in 9-32.1.1? Yes. And what was the DNA profile result for this item?
[05:55:48] Speaker 12:
For this item, the DNA profile was a female DNA profile originating from a single contributor.
[05:55:55] Speaker 03:
And were you able to come to a conclusion about the comparison to the known profile of Anna Walsh?
[05:56:02] Speaker 12:
Yes, the DNA profile is at least 30 nonillion times more likely if it originated from Anna Walsh than if it originated from an unknown, unrelated individual, and this provides support for an inclusion.
[05:56:15] Speaker 03:
Were you able to come to a conclusion about the comparison to the known profile of Brian Walsh?
[05:56:22] Speaker 12:
Brian Walsh is excluded from the single source female DNA profile. What does that mean? So the single source DNA profile is probably the easiest ones for us to do a comparison because we should be able to see if the single source profile we have from the evidence matches the one profile we have from our known standard or the reference we have. So when I say somebody's excluded, it means that the two profiles don't match each other.
[05:56:50] Speaker 03:
What is item 9-32.5.1?
[05:56:53] Speaker 12:
And that is a sample from stain D on the interior right sleeve of the Tyvek suit.
[05:57:03] Speaker 03:
And is this the same Tyvek suit as discussed with items three and four that we previously discussed? Yes. But is this a different stain? Yes. And what was the DNA profile result for this item?
[05:57:18] Speaker 12:
The DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture of two contributors, including male DNA.
[05:57:24] Speaker 03:
And were you able to come to a conclusion about the comparison to the known profile of Anna Walsh?
[05:57:30] Speaker 12:
The DNA profile from this item is at least 110 sextillion times more likely if it originated from Anna Walsh and an unknown individual than if it originated from two unknown, unrelated individuals, and this provides support for an inclusion. And what is sextillion? A sextillion is one followed by 21 zeros. I'm sorry. 21 zeros. Thank you.
[05:57:55] Speaker 03:
Were you able to come to a conclusion about the comparison to the known profile of Brian Walsh?
[05:58:03] Speaker 12:
Yes, the DNA profile from this item is estimated to be six times more likely if it originated from two unknown individuals, unrelated individuals, than if it originated from Brian Walsh and an unknown individual. This provides limited support for an exclusion. Similar to before, the MSPCL DNA unit validation studies have shown that exclusions for the inverse likelihood ratio range of 2 to 1,000 have shown known contributors could be excluded and advantageous support could be attributed to this conclusion.
[05:58:41] Speaker 03:
So what is limited support for exclusion?
[05:58:43] Speaker 12:
So it's very similar to the inclusion one I described in our validation studies. We also looked at profiles where we knew, since we knew who those mixtures were made of, those individuals, we would compare this to those individuals and then there's limited data available again for comparison for one or more of the contributors in a mixture profile. the statistic would be lower, but it's on the exclusion side. And when it is a lower statistic on the exclusion side, we would like to report it as a number just so we can be clear that there's a possibility that somebody who is truly meant to be in this mixture would be actually excluded from it because of there being limited data for support. So in this case, there is support for an exclusion, but there is only six times more likely for that support. The likelihood ratio is in that range of 2 to 1,000 again.
[05:59:34] Speaker 03:
What is item 16-13.1?
[05:59:37] Speaker 12:
This was an unknown tissue that recovered from the swamp scot dumpster.
[05:59:44] Speaker 03:
And what was the DNA profile result for this item?
[05:59:48] Speaker 12:
This was a female DNA profile originating from a single contributor.
[05:59:53] Speaker 03:
And were you able to come to a conclusion about the comparison to the known profile of Anna Walsh?
[05:59:59] Speaker 12:
The DNA profile from this item is at least 39 million times more likely if it originated from Anna Walsh than if it originated from an unknown, unrelated individual, and this provides support for an inclusion.
[06:00:12] Speaker 03:
Were you able to come to a conclusion about the comparison to the known profile of Brian Walsh?
[06:00:18] Speaker 12:
Brian Walsh is excluded from this DNA profile.
[06:00:27] Speaker 03:
So I want to move on now to the next round of DNA testing. What is item 5-1.1?
[06:00:38] Speaker 12:
This is a sample from swabs of red-brown stain K on a basement floor in 516 Chief Justice Cushing Highway.
[06:00:50] Speaker 03:
And what was the DNA profile result for this item?
[06:00:54] Speaker 12:
This DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture of two contributors, including male DNA.
[06:00:59] Speaker 03:
Were you able to come to a conclusion about the comparison to the known profile of Anna Walsh?
[06:01:06] Speaker 12:
The DNA profile from this item is at least 15 nonillion times more likely if it originated from Anna Walsh and an unknown individual than if it originated from two unrelated individuals. And again, this provides support for inclusion of Anna Walsh to this DNA profile.
[06:01:24] Speaker 03:
Were you able to come to a conclusion about the comparison to the known profile of Brian Walsh? Brian Walsh is excluded from this DNA profile. What is item 7-10.3.1?
[06:01:37] Speaker 12:
This was a sample of stained area C on the blade of a hacksaw placard number 8, 300 Forest Street.
[06:01:51] Speaker 03:
And what was the DNA profile result for this item?
[06:01:55] Speaker 12:
For this item, a female DNA profile was obtained originating from a single contributor.
[06:02:03] Speaker 03:
And were you able to come to a conclusion about the comparison to the known profile of Anna Walsh?
[06:02:11] Speaker 12:
The DNA profile from this item is at least 30 nonillion times more likely if it originated from Anna Walsh than if it originated from an unknown, unrelated individual. And this provides support for inclusion of Anna Walsh to this DNA profile.
[06:02:25] Speaker 03:
Were you able to come to a conclusion about the comparison to the known profile of Brian Walsh? Brian Walsh is excluded from this DNA profile. What is item 7-10.4.1?
[06:02:43] Speaker 12:
That is a sample of the handle of the hacksaw, placard number 8 at 304th Street.
[06:02:54] Speaker 03:
And what was the DNA profile result for this item?
[06:02:58] Speaker 12:
The female DNA profile was obtained originating from a single contributor.
[06:03:04] Speaker 03:
And were you able to come to a conclusion about the comparison to the known profile of Anna Walsh?
[06:03:11] Speaker 12:
The DNA profile from this item is at least 39 million times more likely if it originated from Anna Walsh than from an unknown, unrelated individual. And this provides support that Anna Walsh is included in this DNA profile.
[06:03:25] Speaker 03:
Were you able to come to a conclusion about the comparison to the known profile of Brian Walsh?
[06:03:32] Speaker 12:
Brian Walsh is excluded from this DNA profile.
[06:04:03] Speaker 03:
I may have one moment your honor. You may. What is item 9-22.1.1?
[06:04:43] Speaker 12:
That is sample from stain A on a white towel number one with red brown stains on it that was found in bag number two at 304th Street. And what was the DNA profile result for this item? There was a female DNA profile observed originating from a single contributor. And were you able to come to a conclusion about the comparison to the known profile of Anna Walsh? The DNA profile from this item is at least 39 million times more likely if it originated from Anna Walsh than from an unknown, unrelated individual. This provides support for inclusion of Anna Walsh to this DNA profile.
[06:05:22] Speaker 03:
And were you able to come to a conclusion about the comparison to the known profile of Brian Walsh?
[06:05:27] Speaker 12:
Brian Walsh is excluded from this DNA profile.
[06:05:32] Speaker 03:
What is item 9-28.1.1?
[06:05:34] Speaker 12:
This was a sample of stained area A on apparent hairs found in bag number 4 at 304th Street.
[06:05:44] Speaker 03:
What was the DNA profile result for this item?
[06:05:47] Speaker 12:
There was a female DNA profile observed on this item originating from a single contributor.
[06:05:53] Speaker 03:
Were you able to come to a conclusion about the comparison to the known profile of Anna Walsh?
[06:05:59] Speaker 12:
The DNA profile is at least 30 non-alien times more likely if it originated from Anna Walsh than if it originated from an unknown, unrelated individual. This provides support for inclusion of Anna Walsh to this DNA profile.
[06:06:13] Speaker 03:
Were you able to come to a conclusion about the comparison to the known profile of Brian Walsh?
[06:06:18] Speaker 12:
Brian Walsh is excluded from this DNA profile.
[06:06:24] Speaker 03:
What is item 9-31.1?
[06:06:28] Speaker 12:
That is a sample from cutting a red-brown stain on a piece of rug from bag number 5 at 304th Street. And what was the DNA profile result for this item? There was a female DNA profile observed originating from a single contributor.
[06:06:47] Speaker 03:
Were you able to come to a conclusion about the comparison to the known profile of Anna Walsh?
[06:06:52] Speaker 12:
The DNA profile from this item is at least 39 million times more likely if it originated from Anna Walsh than if it originated from an unknown, unrelated individual. This provides support for inclusion of Anna Walsh to this DNA profile.
[06:07:07] Speaker 03:
And were you able to come to a conclusion about the comparison to the known profile of Brian Walsh?
[06:07:13] Speaker 12:
Brian Walsh is excluded from this DNA profile.
[06:07:17] Speaker 03:
Moving on to the third round of DNA testing. What is item 7-13.1?
[06:07:27] Speaker 12:
It is a sample from area A on the head of a hatchet, a placard number 8 at 304th Street.
[06:07:36] Speaker 03:
And what was the DNA profile result from this item?
[06:07:40] Speaker 12:
There was a female DNA profile observed originating from a single contributor.
[06:07:45] Speaker 03:
Were you able to come to a conclusion about the comparison to the known profile of Anna Walsh?
[06:07:51] Speaker 12:
The DNA profile from this item is at least 33 nonillion times more likely if it originated from Anna Walsh than if it originated from an unknown, unrelated individual. And this provides support for an inclusion of Anna Walsh to this DNA profile.
[06:08:06] Speaker 03:
Were you able to come to a conclusion about the comparison to the known profile of Brian Walsh?
[06:08:12] Speaker 12:
Brian Walsh is excluded from this DNA profile.
[06:08:18] Speaker 03:
What is item 7-13.2.1?
[06:08:20] Speaker 12:
That is the sample from the handle of the hatchet, placard number 8 at 300 Forest Street.
[06:08:31] Speaker 03:
And what was the DNA profile result for this item?
[06:08:34] Speaker 12:
The DNA profile from this item was interpreted as a mixture of two contributors. Due to limited information available, contributor two was deemed not suitable for comparison purposes.
[06:08:48] Speaker 03:
Were you able to come to a conclusion about the comparison to the known profile of Anna Walsh?
[06:08:54] Speaker 12:
Yes, the DNA profile from this item is at least 2.6 octillion times more likely if it originated from Anna Walsh and an unknown individual than if it originated from two unrelated individuals and this provides support for an inclusion of Anna Walsh to this profile.
[06:09:13] Speaker 03:
And what does it mean due to limited information contributor two is not suitable for comparison?
[06:09:21] Speaker 12:
It just means that in this mixture DNA profile, the data that is observed for one of these two contributors is so low level that we would not be able to make a comparison to any known reference standards. So we test 26 locations. We require in our DNA processing that data must be observed at a minimum of three locations for us to be able to do any comparisons to it. In this case, data was observed at less than three locations for the second contributor.
[06:09:50] Speaker 03:
And what is an octillion?
[06:09:55] Speaker 12:
An octillion is one followed by 27 zeros.
[06:10:00] Speaker 03:
And you said that you were able to provide support for Anna Walsh, but were you able to come to a conclusion about the comparison to the known profile of Brian Walsh?
[06:10:11] Speaker 12:
Brian Walsh is excluded from the first contributor that's suitable for comparison in this DNA profile.
[06:10:17] Speaker 03:
So what does that mean?
[06:10:19] Speaker 12:
So since it's a mixture of two contributors and I can only compare one of the two, That one contributor, the DNA profile shows that it's, the likelihood ratio shows support for inclusion of Anna Walsh to this profile, but Brian Walsh is excluded from that suitable for comparison first contributor in this profile.
[06:10:39] Speaker 03:
What was item 9-20.1?
[06:10:43] Speaker 12:
That was sample from stain A on tape with apparent gauze with red brown stains on it found in bag number 2 at 300 Forest Street.
[06:10:53] Speaker 03:
And what was the DNA profile result for this item?
[06:10:57] Speaker 12:
There was a male DNA profile obtained on this item originating from a single contributor.
[06:11:02] Speaker 03:
And were you able to come to a conclusion about the comparison to the known profile of Anna Walsh?
[06:11:09] Speaker 12:
Anna Walsh was excluded from this DNA profile.
[06:11:13] Speaker 03:
And were you able to come to a conclusion about the comparison to the known profile of Brian Walsh?
[06:11:20] Speaker 12:
The DNA profile is at least 23 octillion times more likely if it originated from Brian Walsh than if it originated from an unknown, unrelated individual. And this provides support that Brian Walsh is included as a contributor to this DNA profile. And what is an octillion? An octillion is one followed by 27 zeros.
[06:11:42] Speaker 03:
I might have one moment, Your Honor. Yes.
[06:12:10] Speaker 10:
Cross.
[06:12:17] Speaker 05:
Good afternoon.
[06:12:32] Speaker 11:
I think you said it in some of your answers in regards to the first round of testing that you testified to. And was that testing, was the report issued on January 13th of 2023? Yes, that's correct. And in the context of some of your answers to the testing results that you told this jury about, for instance, sample 9-27 point two point one at paragraph one on page two. You indicate that it was interpreted as a mixture of three contributors.
[06:13:31] Speaker 12:
That's correct.
[06:13:32] Speaker 11:
Now, as you were explaining that and some of the other conclusions and the results of testing, you used the phrase at least three people, correct? That's correct. So when you write this report and you include the phrase, the DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture of three contributors. It's more accurate to say, the DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture of at least three contributors.
[06:14:06] Speaker 12:
No, when we are doing our testing, we are using the information that we have in our profile. And in order to do any comparison analysis or any kind of interpretation on it, we have to determine the number of contributors. So in this case, the data that I observed showed that there was three individuals in this. There could be more, but it's not in the data that I observed.
[06:14:29] Speaker 11:
There could be more, though.
[06:14:30] Speaker 12:
Yes. Obviously, the instrumentation we use, there could be contributors that are there that are not detected. But the ones that I observed, the profile showed a mixture of three contributors, which is how I interpreted this profile.
[06:14:44] Speaker 11:
And when you interpret the number of mixtures, like you've just explained to the jury, am I right in saying that since we each inherit one allele from our father, at a particular locus and one allele from her mother, then we typically have two different alleles at that one particular locus. Is that fair to say?
[06:15:07] Speaker 12:
We could have one or two alleles at a locus, depends on if you inherit the same characteristic from both the mother and the father or you inherit two different characteristics from the mother and the father.
[06:15:18] Speaker 11:
And when you inherit the same allele, If your father gives you the same allele as your mother, that would be a homozygote. That would be another way to frame that.
[06:15:28] Speaker 12:
That's correct. That's a scientific term for that.
[06:15:31] Speaker 11:
As opposed to two different alleles, your mother gave you one allele, your father gave you a different allele, then you'd be considered a heterozygote at that locus.
[06:15:39] Speaker 12:
That's correct.
[06:15:40] Speaker 11:
So what you're doing is, and please correct me if I'm wrong, what you're doing is you're looking at all the alleles that you have in front of you on a particular sample. And you're trying to determine how many, and once again, correct me if I'm wrong, you're trying to determine how many peaks you have at a particular locus. And for instance, if you had, for instance, two heterozygotes combined in a two-part mixture, you would probably expect to see four different alleles there?
[06:16:12] Speaker 12:
If we were looking at a mixture of two contributors, we would expect to see three or four characteristics at the location. When we are looking at the DNA profile, he mentioned the word peaks. They kind of look like an EKG. If you can imagine peaks and valleys on an EKG, that's what our data looks like. And so when we're looking at that, we are trying to just not only look at how many of those peaks are present, but what the level of each of those peaks is, because that can also tell us if it's coming from different individuals. So you would expect that if the same individual is contributing DNA to it at all of these 26 locations, they would contribute similar amounts of DNA at all the 26 locations. And so if we see some high peaks in one location and low peaks and a different one that could also tell us that there is a mixture present as well. So not only looking at the number of peaks that are present, but also the level of these peaks.
[06:17:03] Speaker 11:
And so there are some assumptions being made about the way you interpret the data.
[06:17:11] Speaker 12:
The assumptions we're making is based in science that we inherit half our DNA from our mother and half our DNA from our father. So we expect to see one or two alleles or peaks at each of these locations. So we're using that information to then assess the profile to see how many contributors are in this profile.
[06:17:32] Speaker 11:
Without complicating this too much, and I don't intend to do that, but there is observed in DNA testing data, not just at a particular allele, one allele if it's a homozygote or two alleles if it's a heterozygote, but there's actually times when there's a triallelic allele, all right? That's correct. And so, that's all I meant about the assumptions, and I understand they're scientifically based, but there are assumptions being made, correct?
[06:18:04] Speaker 12:
So if there is something like a triallelic pattern, there is a pattern to him, and we do know what those patterns look like. And what triallelic is, is that during the cell formation that happens, there's a mutation that occurs in the DNA that causes an extra copy to be present, either the allele from your mother or allele from your father, or a form of that allele. And that would cause, instead of seeing one or two peaks, we would see three peaks present for that person. But those usually have a pattern to them, and we can look at that, especially in single source profiles, and determine that. I did not observe any such things in the profiles that I saw in this testing that we did.
[06:18:48] Speaker 11:
It's very clear, isn't it, that you have in a lot of these samples, if not most of these samples, you have concluded that a profile that was associated with Anna Walsh from a known sample, you could see the same profile in many of these samples, correct?
[06:19:11] Speaker 12:
For any of the ones that were single source contributors, meaning there's only one person, that's where I can make that exact matching from the reference. And then the ones that are mixtures? The ones that are mixtures, those we would have to compare the whole profile as a whole. So it wouldn't always just be a matching of the two different peaks that we see. It would be a matching of looking at that plus the information we have on the levels of that contribution to see how likely it is to observe that profile if they were included in this mixture versus not included in this mixture.
[06:19:42] Speaker 11:
Thank you. We appreciate your very clear answers. And what I would like to ask you now is something that you said early on direct examination. Your DNA testing and your results that you're reporting to this jury, it does not inform you of how a particular biological substance or a nuclear cell that resulted in the DNA profile, how it was deposited on that particular object that appears here in the reports, correct?
[06:20:15] Speaker 12:
That's correct. We cannot determine how the DNA was deposited.
[06:20:18] Speaker 11:
And if I were to tell you and suggest to you that for many of these items that were tested, if they were found combined with other items in a bag, and those other items came into contact with each other. You would agree with me that you can't tell this jury if the biological substance that was tested on one object might not have been transferred simply from another object that it came into contact with in that bag, correct?
[06:20:53] Speaker 12:
Yes. Overruled. That's correct. It could be transferred from one item to another item in a bag.
[06:20:59] Speaker 11:
And would that transfer also occur if two items or more were placed in a single bag and then that bag was actually compressed by a compactor that compressed that bag very tightly to reduce its size. Would it be even more likely that there would be a, quote, transfer between those two objects of biological material?
[06:21:27] Speaker 05:
Objection to the hypotheticals?
[06:21:30] Speaker 10:
Rephrase your question.
[06:21:33] Speaker 11:
Would transfer be more likely if two or more objects were placed in a bag placed after that into a compactor and compressed together where the items within that bag were compressed together.
[06:21:50] Speaker 10:
Objection. Same question. Same result.
[06:21:57] Speaker 11:
If two items come into contact with each other, there's a possibility of transfer of biologic material on those two items, correct? That's correct. And does the prospect, the possibility of transfer between two items, would it increase if those items are pressed together tightly for a period of time?
[06:22:22] Speaker 12:
I'm not sure if the chances would increase or decrease if they're pressed together, but if two items were to come in contact with each other, there would be a likely transfer of DNA.
[06:22:32] Speaker 11:
So based on all of your observations of the data and the results here, once again, you can't say how any of the biological material was deposited on any of these items, correct? That's correct. And you cannot tell the jury, and it's the limitation of the DNA testing, you can't tell when it was deposited, correct? That's correct. And for instance, if there is a particular object like a tool, let's say a hatchet, You cannot tell from your DNA testing if that hatchet actually ever came into contact with the biological material. Objection. I didn't finish, but maybe I'll start over again. Let me start over again. The DNA testing on a particular object does not tell you that that object was ever used against a person whose DNA profile appears on that object. Well, you have told us that the biological substance that was tested does not tell you anything about how that biological substance got on that item. Correct?
[06:24:22] Speaker 12:
That's correct. The DNA testing that we do cannot tell us how or when the DNA was deposited on an item.
[06:24:35] Speaker 11:
And I think you told us this on direct, but I just want to make sure I understood it completely. The DNA testing that you conducted here on the biological samples, that can result, the DNA profile can result from any nucleated cell, correct? That's correct. And so we heard you refer to skin cells, correct?
[06:24:58] Speaker 12:
That's correct.
[06:24:59] Speaker 11:
And we heard you refer to blood cells, correct?
[06:25:03] Speaker 12:
Yes, except for red blood cells, all other types of blood cells do have nucleases.
[06:25:08] Speaker 11:
OK. And so when you are given samples to test, you do not determine in your laboratory, and you can't determine based on your DNA results, whether your DNA results are the result of a profile coming from a skin cell or a blood cell or some other nucleated cell, correct?
[06:25:32] Speaker 12:
That's correct. We would not be able to determine the cell type from which that DNA profile was obtained.
[06:25:38] Speaker 11:
And even though sometimes you might get a sample that's identified as a red-brown stain on an item, especially an item of clothing, Even if you got a full profile from that particular stain, you still don't know if the profile you got came from epithelial cells or skin cells versus blood cells, correct?
[06:26:03] Speaker 12:
That's correct. We would not know if it came from any blood cells that were present on that item or skin cells that might have been present on that item as well.
[06:26:32] Speaker 11:
And on sample 7-13.2.1, I think that's the sample that you explained to the jury that it was a mixture of two contributors, correct?
[06:27:02] Speaker 12:
That's correct.
[06:27:03] Speaker 11:
And even though you concluded that it was a mixture of two contributors, you said that due to the limited information, the contributor two, and you put in You actually refer to it as contributors and you put the S at the end of contributor in parentheses. Contributors two is not suitable for comparison, correct?
[06:27:31] Speaker 12:
So contributor is just one contributor. Contributor two is not suitable. The reason there's a parentheses S there is because we use similar conclusions when we have multiple contributors that may not be suitable for comparison. The wording that we use, like I said, it's from our protocols that is designed to sort of kind of cover all different types of DNA profiles that we can see. So in similar conclusions can be written where we would say contributors two and three would not be suitable for comparison, which is why there is a parenthesis S there. In this case, the only contributor that I'm talking about that is not suitable for comparison is contributor two.
[06:28:10] Speaker 11:
That's all I have. Thank you very much.
[06:28:17] Speaker 09:
redirect nothing thank you may step down thank you see at the side of the bench
[06:29:09] UNKNOWN:
you Thank you.
[06:32:05] Speaker 10:
The Commonwealth may call its next witness.
[06:32:20] Speaker 15:
Thank you, Your Honor. The Commonwealth would call Michael Roddy.
[06:32:46] Speaker 05:
Good afternoon, sir.
[06:33:05] Speaker 15:
Good afternoon. Could you please state your name and spell your last name for the record? Sure, it's Michael Roddy, R-O-D-D-Y. And where do you work, sir? I work for Home Goods. And what do you do for Home Goods? I'm a district loss prevention manager. And can you tell us what is Home Goods?
[06:33:24] Speaker 16:
It's the place you go when you want to buy stuff for your home.
[06:33:27] Speaker 15:
Okay. So I take it by buying stuff for your home, it's a retail store?
[06:33:32] Speaker 16:
It is.
[06:33:33] Speaker 15:
Okay. Now, HomeGoods, is it part of a larger corporation or umbrella of stores?
[06:33:39] Speaker 16:
Yes, it falls under TJX, which also has TJ Maxx, Marshalls, HomeSense, and Sierra. And how long have you been with HomeGoods, sir? HomeGoods itself, nine years, TJX 19. And can you tell us about your responsibilities for HomeGoods? Sure. At the core, it's really protecting the assets of the company and the business.
[06:33:58] Speaker 15:
And so, do you have a geographic region that you're responsible for? I do. I cover 11 locations. And of those 11 locations, are you familiar with a location in Norwell? I am. What location does Home Goods have in Norwell?
[06:34:14] Speaker 16:
It's store number 122 in Norwell. I believe it's on Washington Street.
[06:34:21] Speaker 15:
And that store in Norwell, are there any other TGX properties in that same plaza?
[06:34:28] Speaker 16:
There's TJ Maxx right next to it. Same plaza.
[06:34:31] Speaker 15:
Now, sir, are you familiar with surveillance videos that were turned over by home goods in this matter? I am. And have you had the chance to review them prior to coming to court today? I have. Have they been altered in any way? They have not. Now, sir, home goods, does it maintain its surveillance videos in good faith? It does. And does it do so in the normal course of business? It does. And when it's surveillance videos, I take it they're recorded digitally, correct?
[06:35:04] Speaker 17:
They are.
[06:35:04] Speaker 15:
So when they're recorded, they're going to a server? They do. And who has access to the server of surveillance videos?
[06:35:11] Speaker 16:
Myself, direct reports of mine, and home office loss prevention.
[06:35:21] Speaker 10:
Ron may approach. You may.
[06:35:26] Speaker 15:
Mr. Rodney, do you recognize this thumb drive I'm showing you? I do. Did you have the opportunity to review the videos from this thumb drive?
[06:35:35] Speaker 17:
I did.
[06:35:35] Speaker 15:
And they have videos from the Norwell home goods store for January 2nd and January 4th.
[06:35:41] Speaker 17:
Yes, they do.
[06:35:43] Speaker 14:
The Commonwealth would seek to have this drive for the home goods
[06:35:51] Speaker 10:
Any objection to that? I believe we're at 2.51, is that correct, Madam Court Reporter? That thumb drive will be now, is now admitted into evidence, the home goods nor well. Thumb drive.
[06:36:08] Speaker 13:
Thank you, Your Honor.
[06:36:10] Speaker 15:
Your Honor, with the Court's permission, could the Commonwealth publish videos from the drive?
[06:36:15] Speaker 10:
Yes, you may.
[06:36:17] Speaker 15:
So, Ms. Gilman, could we have the first video for January 2nd of entrance? And if you could pause right there, Ms. Gilman. Mr. Roddy, what is it that we're looking at here?
[06:36:34] Speaker 16:
This is the camera. It's a public view monitor. When you walk into the building, this is the one you can see yourself on.
[06:36:40] Speaker 15:
Now, Mr. Roddy, the date and time at the bottom for home goods, are those accurate or are they off in any way? No, those are accurate. Ms. Gilman, if you could press play. Ms. Gilman, could we have the second video register home?
[06:37:19] Speaker 16:
And Mr. Roddy, where is this in the store in Norwell? So that is the front in our queue line. It's another public view monitor as you're walking towards the registers.
[06:37:29] Speaker 15:
And when you say queue line, so are there items for sale in this line?
[06:37:32] Speaker 17:
There are, yes.
[06:38:32] Speaker 15:
And Ms. Gilman, if you could stop for the record, we're stopping at one minute and 16 seconds on the media player. And Ms. Gilman, could you go to the third video, Purchase Home?
[06:38:49] Speaker 16:
Mr. Roddy, where is this in the store? That is the register. I believe that's register number eight. And it's a camera right above the registers behind them.
[06:42:12] Speaker 15:
Ms. Gilman, if you could close out of that video and bring us to the fourth one. And pause if you could. Mr. Roddy, where is this in the Norwell store?
[06:42:25] Speaker 16:
So that is an exit mullion. It's in the vestibule between both sets of doors to go outside.
[06:42:31] Speaker 15:
Ms. Gilman, if you could press play, please. And Mr. Roddy, what is the time upon exit? If you need to see it again, we can just bring it back up.
[06:42:46] Speaker 17:
Yes, please.
[06:42:47] Speaker 15:
Please get one if you could. What is the time upon exit for the record? 9.48 and two seconds. And it's January 2nd. January 2nd. Your Honor, may the Commonwealth approach?
[06:43:05] Speaker 10:
You may.
[06:43:12] Speaker 15:
Mr. Riley, you recognize this document I'm handing to you?
[06:43:15] Speaker 16:
I do.
[06:43:16] Speaker 15:
What is this?
[06:43:17] Speaker 16:
This is a receipt for a purchase on January 2nd.
[06:43:21] Speaker 15:
Does Home Goods maintain its receipts in good faith? It does. The normal course of business? Yes. And I take it it's generated the point that the sale is cursed?
[06:43:30] Speaker 16:
Correct. Once it's completed.
[06:43:31] Speaker 15:
And this was also turned over to law enforcement in January of 2023.
[06:43:35] Speaker 16:
It was.
[06:43:35] Speaker 15:
The Commonwealth would seek to have the receipt from January 2nd at Home Goods as the next exhibit, Your Honor.
[06:43:45] Speaker 10:
Any objection? The Home Goods receipt from January the 2nd is now in evidences 252.
[06:43:50] Speaker 14:
Your Honor, may the Commonwealth publish 252?
[06:43:57] Speaker 10:
You may.
[06:43:58] Speaker 14:
Thank you.
[06:44:01] Speaker 15:
Mr. Roddy, I have some questions about 252, exhibit 252. At the top it says TGX. Is that generated internally or is that what's given to the customer? That is internally. And so the customer would get a home goods at the top? It would say home goods, correct. In store 280122, is that the Norwell store we're talking about? Yes, that's the normal location. And now, sir, what does position, what does POS8 mean? P-O-S-8. That is register number eight, point of sale. And then cashier, the number, and then there's a name underneath it. What is the significance of that?
[06:44:43] Speaker 16:
The cashier number is the identifier to the associate who's ringing the register.
[06:44:48] Speaker 15:
And sir, are you familiar with the codes with the S underneath them next to the items?
[06:44:55] Speaker 16:
Yes, those are the department numbers.
[06:44:58] Speaker 15:
What is the 35 significant of? S35?
[06:45:03] Speaker 16:
Department 35 is our candle department.
[06:45:06] Speaker 15:
And going further down, What is S75 significant of? Those are rolled rugs. What was the total for the sale, sir? Total is $245.35. And how was it transacted? Was it cash or charge? It looks like two store value cards were used. What are store value cards? I'm sorry, I was interrupting you.
[06:45:37] Speaker 16:
Those are just, they're cards that work just like a gift card would work, same thing.
[06:45:42] Speaker 15:
And if we could scroll all the way down to the bottom, there's a date and time.
[06:45:48] Speaker 16:
Yes, January 2nd, 2023, 944 and 36 seconds in the AM.
[06:45:55] Speaker 15:
So keeping this up on the redemption area, you had mentioned there are store value cards? Yes. So with these store value card numbers, were you able to track down when these cards were issued and where? Yes, we were. Mr. Roddy, I'm showing you a document. Do you recognize that?
[06:46:28] Speaker 16:
Yes, it's another receipt.
[06:46:30] Speaker 15:
It's another receipt, but is it from Home Goods in Norwell?
[06:46:33] Speaker 16:
It is not. It's from Marshall's.
[06:46:35] Speaker 15:
And this Marshall's receipt, what does it have to do with the store value cards?
[06:46:43] Speaker 16:
So this looks like a return without a receipt. Adam Marshall's in Maryland. So when a return is done without a receipt, the customer receives a store value card, a store credit.
[06:46:52] Speaker 15:
And on this receipt, does it denote the last four digits of the store value card?
[06:46:56] Speaker 16:
It does.
[06:46:59] Speaker 15:
So sir, understanding that, do they bear any similarity to the redemption cards used on this receipt that was done on January 2nd?
[06:47:09] Speaker 16:
Yes, it does. On here it shows the last 40256, which matched the purchase receipt.
[06:47:14] Speaker 15:
And as a result of being a member of the TGX umbrella, are you able to get access to the Marshall's receipts to find out which card was issued in corresponding to the redemption that was done on January 2nd?
[06:47:27] Speaker 16:
Yes, we can see each brand.
[06:47:29] Speaker 15:
And this is the card that was issued, that was one of the two cards that was issued to do that redemption?
[06:47:33] Speaker 16:
Correct.
[06:47:34] Speaker 15:
The Commonwealth would seek to have this receipt from Marshall's as the next exhibit, Your Honor.
[06:47:41] Speaker 10:
Any objection? The Marshall's receipt... Is there a date on that so I can identify it for the record?
[06:47:50] Speaker 15:
Yes, Your Honor. I apologize. The Marshall's receipt, sir, before I get the date wrong, can you just...
[06:47:57] Speaker 16:
It is December 28th, 2022. Okay.
[06:48:01] Speaker 10:
Marshall's receipt from December 28th, 2022 is now in evidence as Exhibit 253.
[06:48:07] Speaker 15:
Your Honor, may I publish Exhibit 253, the Marshal's receipt from its labeled Baltimore receipt?
[06:48:18] Speaker 10:
You may. Thank you.
[06:48:24] Speaker 15:
Mr. Roddy, what's been marked as 253, where is the location of the Marshal's? It shows it's in Baltimore, Maryland. And this is the type of receipt a customer would receive, right? Because it doesn't have the TGX brand at the top? Correct. And what is the name of the customer? Anna Walsh. And could we scroll all the way down to the bottom? Pause. I'm sorry. So in there, there's issue of merchandise credit. Is that the card that you were speaking of? It is. Okay. And could we go all the way down to the bottom? And sir, can you tell us what you see as far as a date and time for the receipt?
[06:49:06] Speaker 16:
Yes, it's December 28th, 2022, and the time is 4.30 PM.
[06:49:13] Speaker 15:
So sir, that was for one of the two cards ending in 0256. Were you able to find an additional receipt that corresponded to the second card?
[06:49:22] Speaker 17:
Yes.
[06:49:25] Speaker 15:
And before I go any further, did that card end in 4563? It did.
[06:49:33] Speaker 10:
Your Honor, may I approach? Yes.
[06:49:40] Speaker 15:
Sir, do you see this document? I do. Is this a TGX receipt that corresponds to the issuance of the card we were just talking about as far as the second redemption card?
[06:49:52] Speaker 17:
It does.
[06:49:54] Speaker 15:
And again, these are kept in the normal course of business and in good faith? Yes, they are. This one is TJX.
[06:50:17] Speaker 16:
That one I couldn't be positive about.
[06:50:19] Speaker 15:
You can just tell me it's a TJX store but you can't tell me the brand. But could I remark this is the TGX Washington, D.C. receipt, Your Honor.
[06:50:25] Speaker 10:
Is there a date on that one?
[06:50:30] Speaker 15:
Mr. Roddy, can you tell us if there's a date on this one?
[06:50:32] Speaker 16:
There is. Also, it's December 28, 2022.
[06:50:34] Speaker 10:
Any objection? The Washington, D.C. TGX receipt 122822 is in evidences 254.
[06:50:50] Speaker 15:
You may. Thank you. Mr. Roddy, where is the location of this store that issued the card? It is Washington DC. And if we could scroll down, Ms. Gilman. How much was issued as far as a card? $216.44. And what are the last four digits of the card? 4563. And if we could continue to scroll down, where it says returned refund, is there a date as far as what is the December 2 date that we're looking at opposed to a December 28 date?
[06:51:39] Speaker 16:
the December 2nd date would be the date of the original purchase of the merchandise being refunded.
[06:51:45] Speaker 15:
And so the date at the bottom, December 28th, is when the refund was actually issued? Correct. Take that down, Ms. Gilman. Now, sir, you also had the opportunity to review videos from January 4th, is that correct? Correct. And that is also what's already been marked into evidence. And at this point in time, Your Honor, I would seek to publish videos from January 4th, Norwell Home Goods Store.
[06:52:12] Speaker 10:
Is that on the same thumb drive?
[06:52:14] Speaker 15:
Same thumb drive, Your Honor.
[06:52:15] Speaker 10:
251? Yes, Your Honor. You may publish it.
[06:52:18] Speaker 15:
Thank you, Your Honor. Ms. Gilman, can we have the first video for January 4th? And pause, Ms. Gilman. Sir, Mr. Roddy, where is this in the store?
[06:53:09] Speaker 16:
That is the public view monitor again at the entrance.
[06:53:12] Speaker 15:
And looking at the bottom of the image, can you see a date and time?
[06:53:15] Speaker 16:
I can. Can you tell us what the date and time is? It is 9 57 a.m. on January 4th, 2023.
[06:53:22] Speaker 15:
Ms. Gilman, could we have the second video?
[06:53:30] Speaker 16:
Mr. Roddy, what view are we looking at here, sir? This is another register review right behind the registers.
[06:56:00] Speaker 15:
Thank you, Ms. Gilman. Can we go to the third video in that file? Mr. Roddy, what part of this tour is this?
[06:56:08] Speaker 16:
That is the exit mullion again and the vestibule between the two doors.
[06:56:12] Speaker 15:
And if you could pause, Ms. Gilman, what is the date and time on the video? And for the record, we're at seven seconds on the media player.
[06:56:22] Speaker 16:
It is 10.07 AM on January 4th, 2023.
[06:56:25] Speaker 15:
If you could press play, Ms. Gilman. Thank you, Ms. Gilman. Mr. Roddy, were you able to produce a receipt for this transaction? Yes.
[06:56:38] Speaker 13:
Do I may approach? You may.
[06:56:39] Speaker 15:
Thank you. Mr. Roddy, does this receipt also maintain the same way that the other Norwell home goods receipt is maintained?
[06:56:51] Speaker 17:
Yes.
[06:56:52] Speaker 15:
And does this receipt correspond to the transaction for that video?
[06:56:56] Speaker 16:
It does.
[06:56:57] Speaker 15:
And what is the date on this receipt?
[06:56:59] Speaker 16:
January 4th, 2023.
[06:57:00] Speaker 15:
And at the top, this says TZX. So is that an internally produced receipt opposed to what a customer would see? It is. The Commonwealth would seek to have this as the next exhibit, Your Honor. January 4th receipt from Norwell Home Goods.
[06:57:14] Speaker 10:
Any objection? The receipt from 1-4-23 from the Norwell Home Goods is now in evidence as 2-55.
[06:57:29] Speaker 14:
Your Honor, if I may publish 255, the January 4th receipt.
[06:57:41] Speaker 15:
You may. Thank you. Mr. Roddy, I have similar questions. Going down the receipt to the body of the goods purchased, what is the significance of 36? 36 is our towel department. And what is the significance of 68?
[06:57:56] Speaker 16:
68 is our bath mats or bath rugs.
[06:58:01] Speaker 15:
And going down to the bottom of the receipt, sir, how is this transaction negotiated?
[06:58:09] Speaker 16:
It looks like there was two SVCs, two credits used.
[06:58:13] Speaker 15:
And was one of them the 4563 that you previously testified about? It is. And going down to the bottom of the
[06:58:22] Speaker 16:
Is there a date and time on the receipt?
[06:58:25] Speaker 15:
There is January 4th, 2023 at 10.05 a.m. And you said there was a second SVC card. Were you able to find the receipt or the transaction for that in the TGX systems that issued that second card ending in 4481?
[06:58:42] Speaker 17:
Yes.
[06:58:47] Speaker 10:
Your honor may approach. You may.
[06:58:58] Speaker 15:
Is this from a Marshall store? It is. And does this receipt show the issuance of the card that you just mentioned, the second card used to transact the sale?
[06:59:09] Speaker 17:
Yes, it does.
[06:59:10] Speaker 15:
And what was the date that this transaction occurred that issued the card?
[06:59:14] Speaker 16:
It was December 8th, 2022.
[06:59:17] Speaker 15:
And where was the store, where was the Marshalls located?
[06:59:20] Speaker 16:
Hingham, Mass.
[06:59:21] Speaker 15:
The Commonwealth would seek to have the Hingham Marshalls December, what was the date again, sir?
[06:59:26] Speaker 10:
12-8-22. Any objection? The 12822 Marshal's receipt is in evidence as 256. You may.
[06:59:49] Speaker 15:
Sir, looking at this, what is the address for the Marshals?
[06:59:53] Speaker 16:
400 Lincoln Street in Hingham, Massachusetts. And the initial transaction date is what, sir? The original was December 2nd, 2022.
[07:00:02] Speaker 15:
And going down, sir, is it, what is the first, understanding this is not your store, so you don't know 23s, next to the item, what is the description of the item that was purchased? Men's Best Brand. And then the second item that was purchased? Children's toys. Now, sir, going down, if we could. Amount due to customer is what, sir? $155.91. And there is a merchandise credit number ending in what, sir? 4481. And going down, sir, going down this gentleman all the way to the bottom, the date for it is what, sir?
[07:00:47] Speaker 16:
December 8th, 2022.
[07:00:49] Speaker 15:
Okay, December 8th. I'm sorry, I might have heard you as December 28th, my bad. Now, sir, on this receipt, is there a name for the customer?
[07:01:00] Speaker 16:
If we go... So on this one, it is a return with receipt where we don't need ID to process those.
[07:01:14] Speaker 15:
So there's no customer name at the top, like there was in the prior ones?
[07:01:17] Speaker 16:
There is not.
[07:01:19] Speaker 15:
Your Honor, I have no further questions.
[07:01:25] Speaker 10:
Any cross?
[07:01:26] Speaker 11:
Yes. Thank you, Judge.
[07:01:27] Speaker 10:
Right ahead.
[07:01:28] Speaker 11:
Any questions? Regarding these cards, the last couple of cards you just told the jury about, so am I right to just say that, or to suggest that there was some purchases made in or around the Maryland, DC area? at some point in December?
[07:01:51] Speaker 16:
Yes, I'd have to see it again. I'm not sure if it was a purchase or a return.
[07:01:53] Speaker 11:
OK, purchase or return. There was a transaction.
[07:01:56] Speaker 16:
Yes.
[07:01:57] Speaker 11:
And then whoever transacted that transaction, that's not a very good way to put it, whoever did that, they eventually got some store credit that was applied to that card, right? Correct. And then they walk out to the store with that card, right? Correct. And then that card, of course, finds its way down to Massachusetts. And that card is eventually used in Massachusetts sometime around January of 2023, correct? Correct. Nothing unusual about that if a family is trading cards back and forth, correct? Correct. Did the Commonwealth, the state of Massachusetts here, Did they ever ask you to try to get video of those transactions that occurred in December, for instance, from those Washington area?
[07:02:52] Speaker 16:
From myself, it wasn't home goods, so not from myself, if it was from a Marshall's or TJ's, District Lost Pension Manager, I'm unsure.
[07:03:02] Speaker 11:
That's all I have. Thank you very much.
[07:03:04] Speaker 10:
Thank you. Any redirect? Go, Your Honor. The witness may step down. Thank you. We're going to suspend there for today, and thank you for your work today, and bring you some updates with regards to the schedule. Tomorrow I'm going to have you return to the courtroom an hour later, because I don't want you waiting around for me. I need to attend to other matters that don't require your attention. And so I don't want you waiting around for me to be cleared. So you get a little extra time for yourself tomorrow morning. Be here for a 10 a.m. start. I expect, although I don't really know for sure, but based on what I now know, I expect that we may finish the evidence tomorrow early. And so you may have a shortened day. I just tell you these things to keep you as best informed so things don't come as a surprise to you. They happen that way. Right? So that's the update on the schedule for tomorrow. I wish for you all a good night. And while you're having a good night, I remind you of your responsibilities, those orders. If you do any research about this case, speak to anyone about the case. Don't go on any social media or any news media of any kind. And continue to have open minds as you listen to the evidence in this case. Have a good night. See you back here at 10.
[07:05:01] Speaker 13:
All right, to the court, please.
[07:05:03] Speaker 14:
Here is both notebooks. Follow me.
[07:05:43] Speaker 10:
I don't have anything other than what we've discussed previously about your responsibilities of getting things to me. Other than that, I have nothing on my radar for tonight, anyway, before we suspend tonight. Does anyone need to discuss anything else?
[07:06:25] Speaker 13:
Not from the Commonwealth, Your Honor.
[07:06:29] Speaker 10:
Not at this time. All right. Well, all of you have a good night.
[07:06:31] Speaker 11:
Thank you, Your Honor.
[07:06:38] Speaker 00:
Goodbye.