 |
| Dr Richard Eikelenboom |
JP questions witness.Dr.Eikelenboom was notified July 2010. He was NOT informed that he was required to produce a report on your opinion on the case. JP reads the court order to him. 1 Qualification of expert 2<Field of expertise 3> Specific topics of offered opinon. 4>Opinion 5> Summary. No he was not made know.
He predominated lived in Netherlands. He now lives in the United States.He communicated with defense, via email, Skype and phone.His primary contact with Defense. Witness, Mr Baez and Michelle.
JP> From May 2011 to present were you asked to produce outline of report as the court stipulated.
He was asked on Saturday and he wrote one Saturday. Witness testifies he was readily available to defense team. He did not disappear. Eikelenboom says he was never asked to provide CV, a report, and never saw judge's order.
Baez> Is this the first time you had to write a report with these parameters. Witness> No, he has been told how to prepare report in othe cases. Baez spoke to wife at times and messages were given to him Ashton,>objection. Witness already testified he was not told to narrow report. JP>Overruled
He was never told to narrow report by wife or Ms Medina(co worker) He does not recall being told by wife either about the narrowing of report. His PowerPoint given to Ashton on Saturday was touch DNA. When he went to Ashtons office to be make a deposition on Saturday , Ashton was rude.
TOUCH DNA> So what’s touch DNA?
The touch DNA method—named for the fact that it analyzes skin cells left behind when assailants touch victims, weapons or something else at a crime scene.
Ashton> Was there anything different you could offer , prior to Satuday. Witness> NO
Baez gave Eikenbloom FBI reports that he did not previously have in the past. This perks Ashton ears and he asks what reports. He states he saw reports before. Witness says he didn't follow case. New information came up within last week. started asking for more info after being subpoena.
JP> is citing McDuffy vs State, 2007 decision, . 1> discoverable violation On Dec 10, 2010, the court entered the order. States order for clarification..addition Discovery. At a subsequent meeting there was a dispute over the intent and language. The defendent shall provide a list of experts and subject matter and area of expertise for eoach expert. The debate was over the words "subject matter" rather "matter." In order to clarify, the court order, where the expert does not have tests, the attorneys are to present the outline. H. e is going over all the motions that were filed in regard to the court order for the expert testimony outline. They had December 23, 2010 as the final deadline. It is the responsibility of the attorney to notify experts. JP rules this is not an inadvertant. The discovery violation was intentional. Was it trivial or substantial? The court finds it was substantial. Next, what is its effect. The court has held up testimony. The court had to provide time to depose witness. Do I exclude opinion. It is a testimony on DNA. Exclusion of testimony is rare and used to extreme circumstances. The witness will not be allowed to testify on DNA and the fluid in the car at this particular time. The court will give the attorneys till next week, Saturday to file motions for FRYE hearing. The following Wednesday, after a one hour break, we will conduct FRYE hearing. If there is even a FRYE hearing.
Frye >The Frye standard, Frye test, or general acceptance test is a test to determine the admissibility of scientific evidence. It provides that expert opinion based on a scientific technique is admissible only where the technique is generally accepted as reliable in the relevant scientific community.
Frye >The Frye standard, Frye test, or general acceptance test is a test to determine the admissibility of scientific evidence. It provides that expert opinion based on a scientific technique is admissible only where the technique is generally accepted as reliable in the relevant scientific community.
Baez has an issue to bring to the court. We were handed two compact discs,....We will handle this at lunch. Ashton wants anything in regard to DNA removed from the PowerPoint display.
The jury is brought into the court. JP reads the stipulation that the Prosecution was not given court ordered report. They may consider this in judging the reliability
Eikelenboom is testifyiing to his education and background. Richard is a forensic scientist specializing in trace evidence recovery and bloodstain pattern analysis.He has testified in the Jon Bonet Ramsey case and has worked in the Innocence Project.
Ashton> Is questioning education. He did study in bio chemistry. Ashton has some general questions. His degree is a "engineer's degree" which in U.S.- somewhere between bachelor and master's. There is molecular studied involved. In his training, he was a coordinator of DNA results. His emphasis was trace recovery, Ashton refutes that he is an expert in DNA processing.He is not certified.
Baez> The Eikelenboom lab is certified. He has gone through profenciency training.RE says his business is also inspected (audited) ever year compared to twice a year in United State. His lab does work for law enforcement. The lab has been utilized over a hundred times by LE. He has testified over 70 times. He first came to the US when he testified in the RAmsey case. Objection. Can not mention court cases. Baez keeps trying to ask a question of how he came to testify in US courts by keeps meeting objections that are sustained. Sidebar.
What is trace Evidence>Trace evidence comes in many forms; paint, hairs, fibers, ropes, glass, soil, tape and light bulbs are the most common type of evidence that are submitted to the Forensic Laboratory. Each of these types of evidence can be used to indicate transfer from one source to another, and therefore indicate contact between individuals or objects.
Touch DNA>The touch DNA method—named for the fact that it analyzes skin cells left behind when assailants touch victims, weapons or something else at a crime scene.
What is Touch DNA?
Touch DNA is not Low Copy Number (LCN) DNA. LCN DNA profiling allows a very small amount of DNA to be analyzed, from as little as 5 to 20 cells. Because of the small amount of starting DNA in LCN samples, many more cycles of amplification are necessary.
Touch DNA samples at Bode are processed/amplified exactly the same way as blood, semen, saliva etc, and are therefore admissible in court.
Humans shed tens of thousands of skin cells each day, and these cells are transferred to every surface our skin contacts. When a crime is committed, if the perpetrator deposits a sufficient number of skin cells on an item at the scene, and that item is collected as possible evidence, touch DNA analysis may be able to link the perpetrator to the crime scene. Touch DNA has been successfully sampled from countless items including gun grips, steering wheels, eating utensils, and luggage handles, just to name a few.
However, since Touch DNA is usually deposited in smaller amounts than the DNA found in bloodstains or other body fluids, it is more difficult to obtain DNA profiles from touch DNA samples. The key to obtaining successful Touch DNA results depends on recognizing items which may be suitable for Touch DNA analysis and using the sampling technique that will recover the highest number of skin cells.
Many labs test for Touch DNA using either the swabbing or cutting method. In the “swabbing method”, the surface of the item is rubbed with a cotton swab to collect possible cells. This method is preferred for hard items such as glass or plastic. The “cutting method” may be used for soft items, such as clothing, in which fabric from areas of interest is cut to collect possible cells. These two approaches can be successful on many items of evidence and both are used by Bode Technology; however they both have the limitation of placing unnecessary substrate (the cotton swab itself or the fabric cuttings) into the small DNA processing tube. There is a limited amount of substrate that can be placed in a tube, and the substrate itself may “trap” some cells during processing, which would decrease the likelihood of obtaining results.
In addition to the commonly used swabbing and cutting methods, Bode has recently started using the “Scraping” and “Tape Lift” methods, in which the surface of soft items (such as clothing) are either scraped with a blade, or sampled with a small piece of tape, to collect possible cells. Due to the lack of unnecessary substrate generated by these methods (scraping produces a small “pile” of fiber, cells, and debris that can easily be placed in the DNA processing tube), a larger surface area can be sampled. An increase in surface area increases the number of possible cells recovered; therefore, increasing the chances of obtaining a DNA profile.
The scraping/tape lift methods are ideal in situations where the scientist can locate areas on the item which are most likely to contain the perpetrator’s skin cells. If clothing were left at the crime scene by the perpetrator, pressure points on the clothing such as the interior neck of a shirt or the band inside a hat, are excellent candidates for these sampling methods. In addition, in a sexual assault case in which the victim’s clothing had been removed by the perpetrator, areas such as the waistband may contain sufficient cells belonging to the perpetrator to produce a profile.
Through improvements in sampling methods corresponding to increasingly sensitive DNA testing methods, and through continual education of the criminal justice community regarding the testing possibilities, Touch DNA is enabling forensic scientists to provide information in cases which were once unsolvable.
Witness has Powerpoint display and is showing epithelial cells.(skin cells). He is explaining Touch DNA.s
For epithelial cells there is no test to test for presence of cells. He explains using a light source for identifying cells. He is explaining obtaining DNA from different types of crimes.
The process is to work up a hypthesis (guess) on the and where to obtain evidence in relation to specifics of crime.
Some people "shed" more DNA than others.They are called "good shedders." The longer the contact the better the chance to get DNA but in bad conditions DNA could break down.
Baez> If a person were to cut DNA would you get DNA? What kind of pressure would be needed to cut duct tape.? Ashton> Objection. Have you ever had to recover DNA from duct tape?> RE: Yes. Given the hypothesis that duct tape was placed on face what would you expect to find? RE> Per other crimes you would expect to find DNA. Eikelenboom says you should collect more DNA on duct tape because one side is sticky. RE is explaining the process of evaluating DNA.The get fragments of DNA and amplify them. He states one cell is enough to get DNA
.)
Baez> Baez are you aware there were 2 partial profiles on duct tape evidence number Q63. , one on sticky side and one on non sticky side. Witness does not answer
Witness> The sample could be contaminated. Baez asks about contamination. RE says if large amount of DNA overtakes small amount it would contaminate (duct tape)
Baez is asking specifically about the DNA found.
Cross by Ashton> RE does not have PHD. He is in school now. RE and wife started company in Netherlands. The examine Touch DNA> There DNA is in a converted barn. There lab is accredited. In 2008, they decided to expand to US due to more work in the US. Ashton attempts to ger RE to admit that the notariety of the case would benefit them. RE states NO. They have alot of work and they are trying to "downscale" amount of work. Ashton attempts to have RE admit they need to monies to build lab in US. RE>NO. in fact,they do Pro Bono work. The field is growing. There is Bode labs and a lab in Denver. Ashton keeps referring to their lab in the Netherlands as a barn. RE states that the lab in Netherlands has been workingn since 1999.
(At the time of the Ramsey case, Touch DNA evaluation had been in existance for 5 years.)
AShton is discussin low copy DNA. (limited )
Low Copy Number (LCN) is a DNA profiling technique developed by the Forensic Science Service (FSS) and in use in some countries since 1999 LCN is an extension of Second Generation Multiplex Plus (SGM Plus) profiling technique. It is a more sensitive technique because it involves a greater amount of copying from a smaller amount of starting material, meaning that a profile can be obtained from only a few cells, which may be as small as a millionth the size of a grain of salt, and amount to a just few cells of skin or sweat left from a fingerprint. LCN evidence has allowed convictions to be made in several cold cases. For example, Mark Henson was convicted of rape in 2005, 10 years after the crime was committed, from re-analysis of a microscope slide. o far the technique is only used in several countries:the UK, the Netherlands and New Zealand. (Wikipedia)
RE> the problem has been in cases, is to find the DNA. Ashton is refuting his method and need for service. Ashton asks him about finding DNA in insects, Baez has asked earlier. RE states he has never had oppurtunity to find DNA in Fruit Flies. He worked in a case. He looked for DNA in pupa.
 |
| DNA CHAIN |
 |
| PUPA |
RE testifies it depends when Pupa died and the ability to find DNA in pupa.
Ashton asks what is the most destructive to DNA. RE>Moisture and tempurature is the most destructive. AShton.>Along with bacteria RE> Yes. Ashton>Duct tape placed on a human being and then placed in a wet , hot trash dump and sits there for 6 months.. and decomposes and skelatanizes,.. the abiltiy to find DNA are remote. RE> The conditions you describe are detrimental to DNA.It depends on the conditions. There may be some cells to test. Eikelenboom does say it would be harder to trace DNA.
 |
| DUCT TAPE EVIDENCE |
 |
| DUCT TAPE EVIDENCE |
You can not tell from results given. He states this sample would have been a good sample for the Low Copy DNA Analysis process. They are discussing DNA peaks are graph. Anything on 50
RFU's is not a good result and discarded. In this case the tape had results of 50 RFU's.
RE did not ask to retest tape. Ashton> You do not kow if any items were retested per request of Defense. RE>NO
Baez> You were asked about your lab in a barn. Your barn is internationally known. RE> Yes. Baez is attempting to ask about his notarity and reputation.Objection and sidebar.
Baez is questioning RE on the Masters case. RE worked the case Pro Bono.
Touch DNA and the Masters case
In the Masters case, Selma and Richard were successful in the recovery of full DNA profiles in three areas of the victim, Peggy Hettrick's clothing. All three profiles matched an individual who was on the short list of suspects in the original investigation. In January of 2008, prosecutors agreed to vacate the conviction of Masters after the results of the DNA testing came back. Masters was set free.LINK TO ARTICLE ON MASTERS CASE
 |
| ABI 310, GENETIC ANALYZEr RE is testifying to the tools and machines he uses to evaluate DNA |
RE has found DNA profiles in wet , hot locales. He shows PowerPoint slide to jury. It shows 3 examples RE said he found DNA on prior cases. (pantyhose, a hand, a Jean jacket) . He shows pantyhose., 20years old. There is blood on the pantyhose. RE states usually there is alot of DNA from victim.
, He shows a jean jacket that was in water for 3-4 days and they found DNA of suspect. The enviromental conditions make it difficult but it does not preclude them from finding evidence. Baez questions RE> You were ready willing and able to retest but the prosecutor was unwilling.......Objection and sidebar.
Recess. Jury is dismissed
JP> Previous objectin is sustained. The State made an objection and the judge states he will need to study it.
It is not a easy legal issue to decipher. Some things are best left unsaid.
Baez You would have to have all 13 elia's markers for a DNA profile. RE> You. have to compare samples
Ashton goes through the progress in DNA testing. As progress grows in the field , contamination becomes a greater concern. With low copy DNA, it is more prone to contamination. In testing, we compare all profiles from suspects and lab workers. . None of the 3 cases, the hand, the jacket and the pantyhose where associated with skeletalonized remains. RE> NO
RE> the skeletal remains bears no reference in finding DNA. The duct tape could have not been on Caylee. In the beginning if it was on Caylee, there would have been DNA.
Ashton> RE if the body was decomposing then the DNA would decompose on the tape. If the tape was away from the body the chance for degradation are smaller. Of course, the enviromental conditions are a factor. Witness Excused. Sidebar.
JP calls him Doctor and Ashton quickly points out he is not a doctor. JP> said whatever he is..
, He shows a jean jacket that was in water for 3-4 days and they found DNA of suspect. The enviromental conditions make it difficult but it does not preclude them from finding evidence. Baez questions RE> You were ready willing and able to retest but the prosecutor was unwilling.......Objection and sidebar.
Recess. Jury is dismissed
JP> Previous objectin is sustained. The State made an objection and the judge states he will need to study it.
It is not a easy legal issue to decipher. Some things are best left unsaid.
Baez You would have to have all 13 elia's markers for a DNA profile. RE> You. have to compare samples
Ashton goes through the progress in DNA testing. As progress grows in the field , contamination becomes a greater concern. With low copy DNA, it is more prone to contamination. In testing, we compare all profiles from suspects and lab workers. . None of the 3 cases, the hand, the jacket and the pantyhose where associated with skeletalonized remains. RE> NO
RE> the skeletal remains bears no reference in finding DNA. The duct tape could have not been on Caylee. In the beginning if it was on Caylee, there would have been DNA.
Ashton> RE if the body was decomposing then the DNA would decompose on the tape. If the tape was away from the body the chance for degradation are smaller. Of course, the enviromental conditions are a factor. Witness Excused. Sidebar.
JP calls him Doctor and Ashton quickly points out he is not a doctor. JP> said whatever he is..
No comments:
Post a Comment