View Full Version : Richard Eikelenboom testimony (DNA scientist)
06-21-2011, 11:27 AM
July 13, 2010 - hired couple days before
ever told you must render a report with an opinion - never other than
HHBP - provide following info...form written plea...expert cv, field of expertise/med speciality, statement of specific subjects will testify and offer opinion, what base opinion, summary of ground and reason for opinion..
Never told this.......that he remembers
living in Netherlands - contacted by phone, email and skype....do not remember put in writing a report....he has been instructed by Mr. Baez and Michelle - 5/2011 to today were you ever asked to reduce your report in written format outlined? last saturday after we went to Dist. Atty's office when we were refused....last Sat. wrote a short report.
between Dec. and May 1, 2011 - how many times communicate with DT? inspect evidence and shortly after talked with them lost contact didn't hear from him anymore....
were you readily available by email, skype or telephone during this time? yes dT could have contacted him....
JB - is this first time anyone ever asked you to write a report on a case? Not A case but ones with perameters like in this case.....based upon things you have done...ie: run samples of dna, inspect something....could be on investigations they have performed or going ovver other reports ....contact with your company back in Jan 2011 done with your wife and Ms. Medina - not directly with you....info got back to you from Ms. Medina to wife to him....object-overrule
Jb what you ended up doing was based upon what wife told you....short affidavidt...fill out all the work you had done up to that point....evidence viewing - went to inspect piece of evidence but denied, then inspected evidence and took photos....were ever told narrow or exclude from your report? No...the report you submitted was what you thought was required of DT - never spoke directly w/Ms Medina about court order - conversation with wife then later spoken to you....remember what your wife told you? no....don't remember conversation @ all...it was very busy transfer from Holland to US....didn't think much about this affidavidt - first broached this on Saturday afternoon discussing case after court session...write report topics talking about....not opinions you held before and we discussed prior to Saturday? correct - on Friday I made a power point presentation - general explain of touch dna and how pcr works - not specific to this case only to explain touch dna...upon conversation on Sat...immediately asked to take depo on new information topics might be allowed to talk during court - appointment w/SA office to do deposition - refused entrance by DA - JA agrees - what did he say? don't recall exact - not going to do deposition....was he polite? sounded kind of rude....JA shakes head and laughs.....instructed by Ms. Medina to do a report and email to JB saturday night.
JA - any opinion ....
Dr. said he got new info from DT on Friday ....FBI reports given to him on Friday - got the whole folder....seen reports before during investigation of evidence....form opinion about case ...during last week he requested more info - all digital info give....realize there were extra reports....
HHBP - reciting law McGuffy vs. State 2007 Fl Supreme court decision - 1) whether discovery violation was willful or inadvertant - on 12/10/2010 court entered order - granting States Motion for clarification for further discovery.....subsequent hearing determined some dispute prior order court enterred and include list of expert, subject matter, area of expertise for each expert.....debate about subject matter rather than substance....list provided by DT doesn't comply with intent of order in 11/29/10 hearing - clarify issue court ordered - where experts have not prepared reports ....both sides required to provide previously outlined ...court thought matter was clear - in Jan court back again to deal with issue again....going to back to 12/10/2010 - specifically provided respect to all other experts provided by 3pm 12/13/2010 different dates for Dr. Fairgrave and Dr. Bock to 12/14, reassessed court order and assess sanctions..l..it is Atty's job to
Frye hearing will be allowed -
06-21-2011, 11:29 AM
10:56 (no jury)
Court will come to order.
Next witness is Richard Eikelenboom.
HHJBP: reviewed instructions proposed by State and Defense. Did Dr. E provide a partial report?
JA: No he provided an affidavit.
HHJBP: I am looking at the affidavit. Is this what he provided?
All expert witnesses were required to provide to the Court complete statement of opinions, basis of opinions, data. These were due prior to trial. This witness report was not provided to the State until Saturday. You may consider this fact in judging the credibility of this witness's testimony.
JB: We maintain our objections.
HHJBP: I need to make an inquiry of the witness before imposing sanction. Bring the witness in.
HHJBP - Doctor, when were you first retained?
RE: First request was on 7/13/10.
HHJBP - were you informed that you were required to produce a report outlining the opinions that you rendered in this case?
RE: Except for the Affidavit, I was not told I was to write another report.
HHJBP - were you ever informed of the following: that he was required to provide his CV, his field of expertise, a statemet of specific subjects of testimony, substance of facts of expected testimony, summary of expert's opinion and grounds. Were you ever informed?
RE: He does not recall this order.
HHJBP - Where do you live?
RE: Prior to February he lived in the Netherlands. He now lives in California (?) They communicated by phone - email and skype.
HHJBP - Were you ever told to write a report in the above format?
RE: No I don't recall that.
HHJBP: Who was your principal defense contact?
RE: Mr. Baez and Michelle.
HHJBP: From 5/11 to today, were you ever asked to reduce your report in the written format I outlined including all of his opinions?
RE: Last Saturday he talked to JB and after they went to SA's office, he was requested to write a report. He wrote one last Saturday night.
HHJBP: 12/10 to 5/11 - how many times did you communicate with the defense?
RE: Lost contact with Defense at some point.
HHJBP: Were you available to the Defense?
HHJBP: You didn't disappear?
JB: Is this the first time anyone has ordered you to write a report on a case that had certain parameters?
RE: Dutch court orders certain reports.
JB: Contact with your company in 1/11, that was done with his wife and Ms. Medina, not directly with him.
RE: Yes. Info came from Ms. Medina to his wife and then to him.
JB: The Affidavit was done based on that information? Yes.
RE: Never told to narrow report or exclude things. Affidavit was based on what he thought was required. He never spoke with Ms. Medina on what the Court had ordered. That info came to him from his wife. He did not recall exactly what his wife told him. They were in the process of moving after that.
The opinions he formed on Saturday were first broached on Saturday. These are not opinions that he held before and had not been previously discussed.
He made the power point presentation on Friday. It was a general explanation of touch DNA - not specific to issues in this case.
RE: When he went to the State's attorney office, Mr. Ashton turned him away. He was kind of rude. He was then immediately instructed to do a report and emailed it to JB Saturday night.
JA: Is there any opinion that you expressed in your Saturday report that you could not have developed 4 months ago in a discussion with JB? If asked, he could have written a report about it. On Saturday, he received new information because he did not follow the case. He received his subpoena two weeks ago. Friday and Saturday he got new information about crime scene photos and FBI reports. He did not have all of them before Friday. He got a whole folder. He had seen reports before. Last week he requested more info after he got the subpoena.
HHJBP: Reference Richardson v State a FSC decision as amplified in McDuffie v State a 2007 decision, the Court will make the following fact - whether the discovery violation was willful or inadvertent, on 12/17/10 - the court entered an order. 12/10/10 motion to clarify. The defendant will also provide to the state that shall include subject matter and area of expertise. Court found Defense's list did not comply with order. To clarify the Court ordered experts to provide info previously outlined. Court thought matter was clear. In January the Court was back again to deal with this issue - going back to 12/10/10 order - info was to be provided by 3pm on 12/23/10. The same problem came up again and the court again specified what information and reaffirmed its prior order and assessed sanctions.
The Court finds this violation is not inadvertent and it should have been clearly communicated to the expert. The discovery violation was willful and not inadvertent.
Trivial or substantial violation? Certain opinions that will be expressed by this witness cannot be viewed as trial when we start talking about analyzing decomp fluid in a trunk. So, the Court finds it is substantial.
Prejudicial effect on opposing counsel? Court has delayed testimony from this witness so State can depose witness. If the witness had authored a report and complied with order, then this court would not have given the state an opportunity take his deposition. The question is whether or not to totally exclude his opinion about the possibility of DNA evidence and Frey issues and the court can not make that determination in this short period of time.
Exclusion of testimony is an extreme remedy to utilize in rare circumstances. At this time the court will not permit the witness to testify on the issue of the possibility of a DNA analysis of decomp fluid in trunk. Court will give defense until next week - by Saturday to file whatever potential motion to lay out for a Frey hearing. On Wednesday or Thursday evening the Court - after a one hour break - a Frey hearing will be conducted.
JB - I have another issue. Today we were handed discovery by the State....
HHJBP - we'll take that up at noon on YOUR lunch hour.
06-21-2011, 11:47 AM
HHBP - return the jury - reads statement no report until 6/18/11
Dr. Eiklenboom - from Netherlands - dna scientist - Dept of Serology...later biology....protein eletrophorensis...dna more involved in trace recovery for biology find all kinds biological for eletrophoresis ....any train on dna? yes ....biochemistry work with dna and try to decipher dna .....how long work dna scientist? 20 years....work for Netherlands Institute - little different than US - 2003 wife started independant forensic services - he joined in 2005....
explain to jury regular dna and low copy dna - object - voir dire...
JB - up highest degree obtained is Engineer degree in Holland - something between Bachelors and Master's ....degree is in bio-chemistry....study of luminol....lights up show where blood is....oxidized metals - used in finding blood stains....didnt specialize in biochemistry ....not true ....training in dna and bio-chemistry...last year @ his work he chose luminol subject.....try to make new solution of luminol which would not degrade dna, working for Netherlands Forensic Institute - din't do dna ....work in biology dept....train to be come coordinator consult on paper - certain investigations dna analysis but not that certified....done some dna analysis but not certified by that lab you did trace recovery and coordinating results - have to know some thing bout results - didn't actually perform, analyze or perform dna? no I coordinated....in 2005 you and wife opened business and you and wife appointed you as Director of DNA.....object as expert in this area...
JB - how many cases work did you recover and process dna in Netherlands prior to opening Indep. Forensic Services - when @ Netherlands Forensic Institute - get results from lab techs...during time @ IFS we did it ourselves....trace recovery all ourselves....trace recovery extraction training? yes of course...during bio-chemistry lessons - @ Netherlands Forensic Institute took 4 ? courses....lab was accreditation similar to ASCLAD here - dna labs accreditation - certain professiency testing....blind sample - use CTS American base company send out reference samples, crime samples....lab perform dna on that and send back results without knowing whether right...couple months later receive results....see how compare to other labs participaing the test....lab contracted by LE over 100 times...
in addition over 70 times as an expert witness in dna analysis - accreditation CTS testing very important - board accrediation in Netherlands yearly come by bring dna expert and they can ask anything of you - audit....first case in US case?
JB just answer my question....case in US - what kind of case? object - sustain rephrase
sought out for your unique expertise object- sustain
sought out for what reason sir? object - sidebar!
06-21-2011, 11:48 AM
Jury coming back in (11:31)
Instructions: All experts were required to provide reports - complete statement of opinions, reasons for opinions, any data or other info considered in forming opinions. These were due at a time prior to this trial. The report of this witness was not provided to the State until 6/18/11. You may consider this fact in judging the credibility of the testimony of this witness.
DIRECT EXAMINATION OF RICHARD EIKELENBOOM BY JB:
He is a DNA scientist from the Netherlands.
Education - worked for National lab in Netherlands in early nineties in the department of serology and then department of biology. During his training he received an education in DNA. He has been working as a DNA scientist for about 20 years. In 2003 his wife developed an independent lab and he joined her.
Regular DNA and low copy DNA?
OBJECTION BY JA
VOIR DIRE BY JA
Highest degree is an engineer's degree in Holland? Somewhere between a BS and MS? Yes. Degree in bio-chemistry and specialization is in luminal. Also worked for Netherlands Institute. He worked in biology department. During training he became coordinator with emphasis on trace recovery - not DNA analysis or extraction. He was not certified by the lab to do DNA analysis.
In 2005 he and his wife opened a business. He and his wife appointed him Director of DNA.
JA - We object to his qualifications in this area.
JA - how many cases did you work where you recovered DNA and processed it prior to his independent lab? As coordinator he worked on a lot of high profile cases where he received results from laboratory techs. At his independent company he did not have lab techs, so he did it. He received training in the items required to run DNA analysis.
His lab is accredited by the Holland accreditation board. The require proficiency testing.
His lab has been contacted by Holland LE over 100 times to conduct DNA analysis.
He has been qualified to testify on DNA over 70 times.
Accreditation includes CTS testing and a yearly site visit, bringing a forensic DNA expert to review reports and ask questions (audits).
He became involved in cases in U.S. - the Picasso case?
OBJECTION BY JA - SUSTAINED
He was contacted on a case in the U.S. What type of case?
OBJECTION BY JA - SUSTAINED
Were you sought out...
OBJECTION BY JA - Relevance -
SIDEBAR #3 (11:47)
06-21-2011, 11:54 AM
Dr. E....testified in US twice by defense and once by LE - setting up a lab in Colorado - Netherlands lab - interpretation and statistics and whole field....actual recovery of evidence thru the court you have received training....accredited training? part of accrediation procedure - experience in dna analysis...reporting officer - you have know all about dna - in Netherlands lab became so big .... you don't have to process....reporting done by officer - lab techs process the evidence....fair to say receive training on all aspects of dna - over 20 years - certified 70 times in Netherlands and 3 times in US - certify dna analysis -
JB proposes expert witness
JA same objection
HHBP - witness will be allowed as an expert in dna analysis
break for lunch
06-21-2011, 11:54 AM
SIDEBAR OVER at 11:49
DIRECT EXAMINATION OF RICHARD EIKELENBOOM BY JB:
He has given testimony in US. State of Colorado - three times, twice by Defense, once by LE
Setting up lab in Colorado
His National Lab at Netherlands Forensic Institute training included DNA.
He has experience in all different aspects of DNA received in his training for reporting officer.
JB submitted expert in DNA analsys. JA objected.
HHJBP - witness is accepted.
Lunch recess (11:53)
06-21-2011, 12:17 PM
On 15th of June, 16th of June and 17th of June what GA, CA, LA and Kc did on those dates...you did have a computer expert...didn't SA expert talk about certain events ...all info came off the hard drive....if hard drive was provided to you...it was left up to you to decide what searches you wanted to do on the hard drive - up to you chose days to look at how is that fault of SA you chose not look @ particular date...you all were given ...
JB - we took your order - all expert must be written ....turned over to defense
HBp - what is your expert going to us ....not all us are computer savvy - they are agoing to bring up on screen what activity happened on that date....whether no not someone has tried to hack or Doctor something....
JB - another point
HHBP -take as much time as you want we will start back @ 1:30....
JB - we have not brought our expert witnesses because expect them to testify ...
HHBP they can look @ it...it is not new evidence= what you chose to do with it when you get it is your business - it is not new evidence
JB - I disagree - we can argue it later time.
HHBP - free to do that -
see you at 1:30
06-21-2011, 12:17 PM
ARGUMENT BY JB
Today they received discovery by the State. In a rough review, it appears many of the documents were items that have just recently come up and certainly beyond the state's control. With the exception of one CD dealing with material from the A's home computer 6/16/08. Report was competed on 4/16/08 (?) after computer experts have already testified. He also noted photos of internet searches of shot girls which may have been viewed on the computer. He found it interesting because during FG he referred to ICA's advice on clothing of shot girls which leads him to believe they had prior knowledge. They had the computer since July 16, 2008 and now he receives the report. JB objects to any presentation relating to these items - computer items - and requests a Richardson hearing.
LDB: The first several items deal with a brief investigation that was conducted at the end of last week. A citizen called the OCSO about an inmate may have had contact with ICA in the jail. That was investigated last week, a report was generated, a phone statement was taken and she received this info yesterday.
Ms. Wayland's son drown, CPR -911 - Ms. Wayland indicates she did not talk to Ms. Anthony at the time. As soon as she received info that Ms. Wayland's son did pass away in the incident, this info was provided to JB.
Next item - filtered copy of data from hard drive that JB has had for years to be used in rebuttal if ICA or another witness were to testify about certain activities on June 16. A lot would rebut JB's OS. If they are going to use a demonstrative aid in rebuttal or ICA's cross examination, she wanted to give this to JB>
HHJB: This is contained in 6/21 notice of additional discovery? Items 1-6 have to do with Ms. April Wayland?
LDB: Yes, provided to her last Thursday, Friday or Saturday and she received the written reports on Saturday.
HHJB: Then delivered to JB?
HHJB: #7 is a demonstrative aid of an item previously given to defense?
LDB: Defendant's expert examined hard drive over 2 years ago. She provided this so as not to suffer consequences.
April Wayland - probably not use her as a witness, but there may be something suitable for rebuttal. They continue to get additional information on a regular basis.
HHJBP: Items #1-6 additional comments JB? JB: No. Court finds this is not a discovery violation.
JB - Item #7. We received copy of hard drive. This is a filtered version. The only expert witness was Sandra Kahn (sp) report regarding times of inactivity. So much data that it now appears that the State has decided to focus in on for their rebuttal for which they had before the trial started. Also, they retain someone to verify the work of the prosecution. If they now decide to go to another area, that is the area they tell their witnesses to focus on. They have withdrawn their computer expert from their witness list.
LDB: The disk contains all of the computer activity on the desk top.
JB: It is scribbly data, some with photos.
LDB: Items created and accessed on the desk top on 6/16/08. Data that was available if JB chose to filter it. JB's OS focused on activity on the morning hours of 6/16. The data negate that timeline.
HHJBP: Was info provided to the defense by the State of Florida on computer activity on 6/16/08?
JB: No sir.
HHJBP: They gave you the hard drive correct? JB: That contains billions of pieces of info.
JB: My OS said the exact hour is unknown.
HHJBP: It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?
JB: Yes, sir.
HHJBP: Didn't the State's expert talk about various events on the 16th?
JB: He did not.
HHJBP: But, all that info came off the hard drive? If the hard drive was provided to you, it was left up to you to decide what searches you wanted to do on that hard drive. You were not denied access. I'm trying to wonder how could it be the state of Florida that you chose not to look at any particular date.
HHJBP: What are the experts going to tell us? All they are going to do is bring it up on the screen. Experts opinions are based on whether someone tried to hide or doctor something.
JB: The issue is the State has rested and we have withdrawn our computer experts. If the Court is even considering this, we want the opportunity for our experts to review the material.
HHJBP: It is not new evidence when it was given to you. What you choose to do with it, is your business.
JB: I disagree. I would like more time.
HHJBP: You are free to do that.
See you at 1:30.
06-21-2011, 01:55 PM
Dr. Eikelenboom w/JB - visual presentation re: touch dna....shows how finger touch top layers do not usually contain dna in nucleus....Epithelial cells often skin cells - difficult to detect these cells - alternate light source - wear orange goggles body fluids fluroesce...semen, blood, urine, but sweat from hands problem - sweat or warm outside...sweat from face or forehead - if does touch it once don't see it....also strive to see if we can see sweat from ALS - not detecting skin cells but trying to find sweat...sweat or could also be skin cells...lots times we don't find that ....working hypothesis...look @ where force applied...ie: rape case where shirt torn apart - where force applied on shirt - possible skin cells there must do the test to find....second problem...blood, saliva and semen in skin cells it is different - per lab 50% would be a high score if in lab........
how go about -
end up develop working hypothesis by looking @ scenario and type of contact....type of contact ....3 types of contacts - wear clothing ....rips in crime scenes and crimes...
wearing clothing rub against skin for a long time....could give profiles -highest chance of obtain profile....if suspect known to ...or in cases where find dna....forcible contact ie: strangle someone, grab them hard, apply force....top layer of skin cells down to cells that contain dna....slight touch ie: doorbell worse type of getting dna profile....some people shed more often than others....some people donate a good sample call a good shedder....sometimes we don't get enough dna cells to obtain a profile....very rough object with force go thru top layer of skin cells and grab material that contain dna....sticky material...ie: tape remove from clothing better than a smooth object.....
JB wants to tie into this case....a piece of duct tape....if a person cuts a piece of duct tape - sticky side and other side with other finger....if rip with bare hands....more than a slight touch....ever recover dna from duct tape? correct....sometimes get dna from non-sticky side? different types of sampling - duct tape if you know location where it was torn off possible - you can see tape is stretched...take sample obtain dna profile.....which side most prone to obtain profile....sticky side together with force applied....duct tape is known very strong adhesive....
sticky side of duct tape apply to someone face what would you expect to find? (object- overrule) robberies duct tape were ? for dna....what kinds of cells for face or mouth what kind of cell material gets on tape? lips, around mouth, epiththelial cells and buccal cells come from mouth area due to good to get dna material....
duct tape applied to this child's face - applied forcefully and sticky....opinion as to whether dna could have been collected (object- overrule)
yeah - tape put on mouth - was removed...about the face very likelyto get a dna profile....object- he respond tearing it off which is not a fact in this case....rephrase..
duct tape laced over person face and mouth - person placed in elements outdoors - expect to find dna? on the face would expect quite a lot of dna...circumstances in bad conditions dna can break down....with pcr techniques - could expect to find dna....
go to that portion of your presentation why you have that opinion...
06-21-2011, 02:06 PM
JB: Humble request? Please advise the Jury why tomorrow will be a short day so that they don't think it is the Defense.
JA: Also, something needs to be said about witness Rodriguez not coming back.
Witness returned to the stand.
Jury coming back (1:33)
(ICA has her sweater tied around her in a very strange way!)
HHJBP: To Jury - short day tomorrow due to his 1:00 p.m. meeting with the State budget committee.
DIRECT EXAMINATION OF MR. EIKELENBOOM BY JB - continued
What is touch DNA? It is transferred through the hands. Factors which will increase or decrease - pressure of touch. He has a Power point demonstration. ID - CI - for demonstrative purposes only.
Skin cells - epithelial cells - top layer doesn't contain nucleus which is necessary to get DNA. Below that, there are cells containing nucleus which contains the DNA necessary for a profile.
In order to get DNA from a skin cell through touch, there has to be a more forceful touch.
With blood, saliva and semen there are presumptive tests.
There is no presumptive DNA test for epithelial cells. You try to find sweat and then there may also be skin cells. An alternative way - using a working hypothesis - you look for locations where force is applied.
Blood, saliva and semen - in more than 95% of cases, you will get a profile. With skin cells - 50% would be a high score.
The type of contact of force is important in obtaining a profile.
You develop a working hypothesis by looking at the crime.
There are 3 types of contact - wearing, forceful grip and touching.
Wearing of clothing is a prolonged time of contact, not forceful.
Forceful contact - strangulate or grabbing someone will give a layer of skin that would contain DNA.
Slide touch is the worst category to get a DNA profile.
Some people shed more DNA - good and bad shedder.
Sticky material will also help to collect DNA.
Duct tape - when a person cuts a piece of duct tape, they would have to grip both the sticky and non-sticky side. What type of pressure -
OBJECTION BY JA - Sustained
He has collected DNA from duct tape before. If they have a working hypothesis of where the DNA is cut, they can take a sample and obtain a DNA profile.
Sticky side, together with the force, is the best side to get a DNA sample.
If the sticky side is applied to someone's face?
OBJECTION - improper hypothetical - OVERRULED
If you cover the mouth, then there would be skin around the mouth. If you cover the lips, there would be epithelial cells there. Also buchal cells.
Tape on the face would very likely result in a DNA profile.
OBJECTION BY JA
If you had duct tape placed over someone's face and mouth and that person was placed in an outdoor area, would you still expect to find DNA on the tape.
At the start, you would expect to find a lot of DNA. However, with the elements it could break down.
They investigate DNA on different chromosomes. They amplify DNA - making millions of copies. They amplify the fragments - normally between the 28 to 35. Theoretically one cell is enough. Under standard conditions 50 to 100 is enough.
Were you made aware that there were 2 partial profiles on the duct tape (Q-63) - one on the sticky side and one on the non-sticky side? If the non-sticky side was contaminated, could the contamination override the DNA that was already there? If there are large amounts, they might not be able to see the peaks or alleles.
Regarding the contamination, 150 was not very high.
Could their be lower DNA masked by that? It is never ruled out. What you see is a disbalance in some of the peaks which means DNA from another person could be present. He would have investigate....
OBJECTION BY JA - SUSTAINED
Regarding the sticky side, there was a 17 allele found at the D3 marker. A 17 allele could be described as a marker location on the chromosome. The alleles are where people differ.
(Witness has a nice Power Point presentation so JB doesn't have to draw on his tablet)
Slide shows different peaks from a computer analysis which shows an X at the amelogenin or sex typing chromosome.
He has extracted DNA from maggots or flies. That is done by examining the maggots' digestive system.
Effect of chloroform on DNA? One method of extracting DNA is with chloroform. It would not effect the ability to extract DNA.
No further questions by JB.
06-21-2011, 02:20 PM
Eikelenboom w/JB discussing how to look for chromosomes in dna....very little dna we amplify fragments normally done by 28-30 cycling - in end if dna present dna is amplified...one cell theorectically enough to obtain profile....cannot see on slide...see cells more than enough to obtain dna....aware 2 partial profiles on this ducttape? Q-63
2 partial profiles one on non-sticky and one on sticky....hypothetical if non-sticky side was contaminated could non-stick contaminate sticky? if you have a lot dna...
contamination around 50 rfu's measurement - amount of dna....not very high.....possible lower dna masked by that or ruled out? never ruled out ....disbalance of some peaks can indicate dna from some other person or low amounts of dna......opinion? he would have investigated it further (object- sustaine)
sticky side - 17 alleal marker - tested for dna - 17 alleal ....you can be described as certain locations on chromosome use....where you and I differ....different memoires? markers?
show how much dna in the 17 alleal- I have it in presentation - bring it up....
looking @ heart monitor?
picture of peaks of number - number of origin sex chromosome.....donor of dna...assing this data....17 is X location....such low amounts limited info - try to obtain as much info as possible....low info much more peaks lower .....much more infor that one or 2 alleals....artifact or human dna? small amount but it is caused by human dna....experience extract dna from maggots or flies....explain how that is done
maggots feed on human material possible to digestive they feed on human blood cell material contain dna.....consume in their system....not completely digested in their system....complete insect or larvae possible to obtain on dna profile...
chloroform degrade dna? one of the methods of dna extract is chloroform ethanol extraction...chloroform never distract dna...but would help? never say never apply a bit a chlroform dna would be ...like cut down with chloride
JA - do you have PhD? No presently student @ U of Denver seeking PhD under supervision of 2 other experts on touch dna....not touch dna.....they are in biology dept...one does forensic dna = mitochondrial dna....under them to earn PhD....you director of in Holland....Mom and Pop ....the two of you the entire company? no there are 3 of us....converted barn ....bought a farm ...converted barn into dna facility accredited as well...in 2008 expand business to US - more work potential in US vs Holland - more homicides here....exposure your company haven't started yet - extremely
helpful to get business...not sure about that....we are not waiting on cases....cases are waiting on us....your lab not even open yet - not in US =do work from Netherlands...when open in US be nice to have a lot of work? already have a lot of work - want to downscale it a bit...more work you and wife get more money that is why
you opened it....some work we have done for free....want do work the way we want to ...problem difficult to scientists dna...
do you do something different than other labs/ strike =how many other labs do what you do? one in NY lab starting to do touch dna....one in denver starting to use what we do...bodey lab is large lab - not a barn...number of labs in US could do what you do? not agree we do more than they do....touch dna in 1997 started in 2000 the UK started on low copy dna...more amplification cycles - in US not used until recently...in 2002 we work on high profile case...could not solve....contact with a victim and perpetrator start looking @ low copy dna...need sensitive .....not US ....they used mainly blood, saliva or semen.....lot of info of low copy dna...did you invent it? no where done? forensic science lab in UK which is closing....use a particular kit or protocol purchase in order to low copy dna....message is only amplifiying ....we use different kits ...last couple of years we buy them more sensitive ....from Applied ... inc... an American Company? correct....the only the additional is run...start again...PCR run normall 26-30 runs 20-30 runs...first run takes 1 intact strand dna 1 becomes 2 then 2 becomes 4 then by 20-25 times you make hundreds of copies....ideally ....unfortunately not like in hospital - debris there - profile from 1 cell - theoretically
what is in process that any lab cannot do? whole process....what happens in 1990's a lot of emphasis on dna - you were first to get dna admitted - scrutiny ...a lot of problems to get it admitted....we have cases where we know contact but not enough semen saliva or blood to extract dna...a lot of contact between perp and victim...had to find dna .....
methods validated in 2002? no that was the Nat. Lab...did in 2000 already...accrediation from that time on used in cold cases... a lot of his cases....only additional step he does is take additional runs of pcr method to make additional copies..
no - point want to make - techniques it is possible to get dna, more to find dna...victim was dragged - don't find the location....at 2000 you had to find it where likely to have touch...in normal methods unable to get profile - swab of clothing is common method...in Europe hardly used....we get specific pin point location of dna...problem there is clothing if you dont know where to sample take thousands of samples.....big problem....have to take right...
question is about running the test itself....for low copy number run additional cycles...
06-21-2011, 02:37 PM
Dr. E w/JA = ever collect dna from small fruit fly type? depends on cocoon digested dna break down small pieces ....if break chain cannot amplify it....if month or more since human food consumed ..most likely not contain anything....if fly consumes and dies then ...if dies in between when digestion could be done....have you ever done research on enviromental factor on dna....most destruction on human dna? combo of moisture and heat...hot wet and presence of bacteria is worst for dna.....
piece of duct tape ...if place it on skin rip it off - likely to bring with it surface cells and sublevel cells...in direct contact with skin..
dead cells up against tape...
duct tape placed on a human placed in a semi-swampy hot FL that is a trash dump and sits there for 6 months as every bit decomposes off the body completely skeletonized likely finding any dna is extremely remote....conditions described are very bad for dna...depend on circumstances if you lose all of it all I need is small amount of cell. ...would you lose all material or still enough cells to amplify for low copy...if you want bone dna you don't swab bone? no cut out piece of bone (object- overrule)
YOU don't expect to find dna on bone - it decomposes (object-overrule)
putting on outside of bone - due to decomp - dna degredating - open bone chance of obtaining dna ...vs. where no good blood anymore and skin come off the bones...still dna in those locations...still possible but way more difficult than from in the bones.
possible but extremely unlikely? very difficult to obtain!
contamination in dna profile and mask existing dna ...only mask in same site..on power point the only thing this 17 alleal would mask is a smaller 17 alleal object- overrule...
not very likely....other profile - put that up
take 15 low side only thing that would mask another 15 low site....only mask it's identical low site...in order for profile to mask profile to match everysingle site....not very likely this profile is full profile...detection already..not so likely full profile covered here...17 alleals is very partial profile could be from other party...no way to mask another profile only mask identical alleals....
this is good profile to enhance low copy dna...maybe good info ...low copy number may have more information....50 rfu - possible to get 60
circles behind ....small above that...a lot of small peaks there...some of that could be noise...low copy get a lot of info....good analysis done by computer mostly...scientist comes and checks all the data and sees if he agreees with it...yep there is info there at least once...could be ....dna....or artifacts....
low copy peaks see here in circles locations where markers are ...not pure speculation
recognize where you could get dna low copy levels....every lab validates limits what will be called....standard 50 rfu's same in his lab...not mention it in his report - he would enhance it...run a couple more runs of dna - if not come out after that not going to mention it....did you ask specifically to retest this piece of tape? to JB? to anyone? we mentioned we could invesetigate this piece of tape...are you aware that items were sent for additional dna testing? yes yesterday during depo...do not quote me....move strike - aside what JA told him yesterday...have no idea that any item was retested @ request of DT NO
06-21-2011, 02:39 PM
Dr. E w/JB -
exposure to US prior to this case? yes - approach
06-21-2011, 02:49 PM
Dr. E w/JB - first case exoneration case - approach by police officer in Netherlands on visit - talk about the case....willing to do dna on Mr. Masters from prison...came over to US talk to DT - no $ @ time....miscarriage of justice in Netherlands ....miscarriage of justice if court allows us to do contact dna in this case...allow dt to go to netherlands....dna, dna profiling and trace....dna profile not mention Masters in jail...by 2008 got a match on dna got release Masters from State of Colorado - received media attention for this ....touch dna from 20 years past....person found outdoors ...clothing testing held for 20 ye ars...able to find something not found before....
subsequent to that other exposure from ther cases worked - yes National media here exposure.... did LE agents travel to Netherlands to assist them in other cases..this is not first high profile case ever worked...no..
running extra cycles...only thing you do...more sensitive tests than standard dna....kits type of what is used to generate profile...chemicals used to order to identify different locations on different chromosome and make a profile....mini-filer made for broken down dna---not just run extra cycles....but injection time....extra techniques use to amplify dna....
comes back to already described trace is very important - in 1990s every one look @ dna....big stain oil/grease/metals in there - still don't get profile...cut out 10x10 cm of stain....cut out exact amounts with least amt of pollution....able to perform as good as a cleaning action as the ?....clean dna with filters....whole process from find stain til end in order to gain successful dna...
another reason generate profiles for other labs (object- sustain)
another thing do different is type of machine used....have a slide for that
06-21-2011, 03:03 PM
CROSS EXAMINATION OF MR. EIKELENBOOM BY JA
No PhD. He is a student at the University of Denver under biologists - not experts in touch DNA.
He and his wife started their independent lab. His wife and a co-worker started in 2003 and he started in 2005. The lab is in a converted barn in order to make it into a DNA lab.
In 2008 they decided to expand their business to the United States.
He is not so sure that this exposure will help him with his business. He stated that he is very busy and is not waiting for business. His U.S. lab is not opened yet. They already have a lot of work and are trying to downscale. They are not always working for the money. They have cases they do for free. They would rather work like they want to and, if they wanted to expand, they could have expanded more than they did. However, it is very difficult to get DNA scientists.
# of other labs in U.S. that do contact DNA? Bodie (sp) and New York Laboratory and the lab in Denver. He doesn't agree they can do exactly what he does. He feels they have more experience than the other labs. They have been doing low copy DNA for a while. He has had a lot of experience with contact DNA.
He did not invent the process of low contact DNA. He thinks it came from the Forensics Sciences Laboratory in the UK.
In principal you can use any DNA kit. The method is only amplifying. They use different kits. New kits have come on the market that are more sensitive. He buys them from Applied Bio-Sciences, an American company.
PCR is the replication - 22 to 25 times. It copies DNA exponentially. The problem is forensic samples sometimes have debris.
The contract DNA is the difference.
Validation in 2002 - from that time on it was used in cold and difficult cases.
With the sensitivity of the techniques, it became more important to find the DNA. In 2000 it became clear that they needed to be able to find the DNA. As in clothing, you need to know where the DNA is or you would have to take thousands of samples to find it.
For low copy numbers, you just run the PCR for more cycles.
Regarding finding DNA in insects - have you ever tested a fruit fly for DNA? No.
He agreed it has something to do with some recency of the ingestion of the body fluid and the testing. The longer, the more it breaks down. If you break the chain, you cannot amplify it.
Have you done any published research studies on environmental effects on DNA - No.
What is the most destructive environmental effect on DNA? A combination of moisture and temperature.
A hot wet environment is the worst? Yes
Also, the presence of bacteria is extremely harmful to DNA? Yes.
If you place a piece of duct tape on a person and then rip it off, you will get surface and sub-surface cells. If the tape is not violently removed, you would only get the dead cells that are up against the tape.
Duct tape placed on a human being who is then placed in a semi-swampy occasionally underwater hot environment in Florida in an area that is an erstwhile trash dump and sits there for six months as every bit of skin cells decomposes off the body extremely remote chance of getting DNA?
You only need a small amount of cells to get a DNA profile. The question is that would you lose all the cells? It is possible to get a small amount of cells and then use low copy DNA.
OBJECTION BY JB - OVERRULED
You don't expect to find any DNA on the outside of a bone?
OBJECTION BY JB - OVERRULED
It is possible, but it is way more difficult. It would be very difficult.
Regarding masking issue - contamination in a DNA profile can mask DNA. It would only mask DNA at exactly the same low side.
The only thing the 17 allele would mask would be a lower 17?
OBJECTION BY JB - OVERRULED
Taking a 15 low side, the only thing it would mask is another 15 low side, not a 14.
The only thing it could mask, is someone with the exact same profile? It would mask locations where you have detection already. It is not so likely that a full profile would have been covered. If you have a very small profile of one person, it could be masked by another profile. Enhancing with low copy DNA might enhance the situation, giving more information.
Behind the 15 is a small peak (after). He marked on the screen. Some of that could be noise, but using the low copy number you could get more information. The small peaks could go above the thresholds and more information could be obtained. The peaks could also be artifacts. It is not pure speculation as to low copy numbers methods working as the peaks are in known marker areas.
RFU's in his lab are the same. In the lower peaks, he would run them again and if it still didn't show anything, they would not mention it in their report.
He mentioned to Defense that they could investigate items. He did mention that they could investigate this piece of tape.
Were you aware items were sent for additional DNA testing by the Defense?
OBJECTION - OVERRULED
You can't go by what I say (JA being a smarty)
OBJECTION - OVERRULED
He doesn't know if the items were subjected to additioanl testing.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY JB:
Is his lab known as the Crime Farm?
OBJECTION - OVERRULED
OBJECTION - OVERRULED
They have been sought out internationally.
OBJECTION - SUSTAINED
OBJECTION BY JA
SIDEBAR #4 (2:39-2:41)
Prior exposure from the U.S.?
OBJECTION - OVERRULED
The first case was the Demasters (sp) case (an exoneration case). They were asked to do touch DNA. The evidence went to the Netherlands and they did the DNA profile which was not matching the person in jail. In 2008 they were able to get a match to a former suspect in the case (20 years ago). It is the first time miscarriage of justice was recognized in the state of Colorado. The victim was found outdoors and the clothing was exposed to the elements and then held for 20 years. He was then able to find DNA.
Because of that case, they got other cases from the U.S. They are currently working on other cases with U.S. law enforcement agencies. This is not the first high profile case he has been subjected to.
There are kits more sensitive to finding DNA. One example would be the mini-filer.
In addition to more runs, they can also lengthen the run time.
Trace recovery is very important. In the 90's every one was looking at DNA. You cold have a lot of DNA and still not get a profile. Cutting the sample at the right location and the type of DNA extraction will determine the results.
Another reason you can get results
OBJECTION - SUSTAINED - MOTION TO STRIKE GRANTED
He uses another machine to get a profile. He had a slide showing two machines. The machine on the right is bigger. The one on the left is the 310 and has a very small tube where the DNA is separated and then a laser detects. The larger machine can do more breakdowns at a time. Larger labs have more cases.
The choosing of the machine is important to get the profile. The machine with 1 capillary is more sensitive than the larger one with 16 capillaries. His lab does one sample at a time.
Regarding DNA degradation, he has a slide showing profiles of DNA obtained from materials subjected to the types of elements in this case. It showed pantyhose and a jeans jacket. The first item was very bloody. He said it was the victim's blood and that did not need to be tested. It is necessary to find the location where the perpetrator's blood was. The jacket was worn by a victim that was lying in the water for thee or four days.
He was willing and able to do DNA testing on this case - yes. You were willing and able to do it pro bono? The only reason you didn't do it in this case was that the prosecution objected to it?
OBJECTION - SIDEBAR #5 (2:56-3:02)
Afternoon recess until 3:20
06-21-2011, 03:06 PM
HHJBP: To JB - the question about did the witness ask to test the tape, also the issue brought up at sidebar of judicial notice and the issue of burden shifting - a delicate and fine line. This is something he doesn't want to have to deal with at the last minute because he will error on the side of being safe and disallow it. This is not a very easy legal issue to decipher.
06-21-2011, 03:41 PM
Dr. E w/JB - ideally you want to have match in all low site..only compare profile with this sample...human dna.... for exclusion to exclude someone....you do need to exclude someone? if someone doesn't have 17 in their profile and that shows up....couldn't have done it because it is not in your profile..
Re-cross - JA
what are challenges?
original dna started with restriction ...length poly morph....needed a substantial amount of blood or semen quarter size amount at aleast....pcr approach is standard in most labs...replicatable...as that happened - contamination is higher - more dna ....if you find a speck doesn't mean it relates to the crime - contamination fear is much greater....in this particular case....JA uses DT white paper - if you tested tape in this case...3 possible results might have achieved ...might have found nothing....not inconsistent with tape being placed on child prior to decomp....that is possible.....other possible result is might have found Caylee dna on tape...strong evidence tape placed over mouth before decomp...unknown profile on the tape absolutely no way to know if unknown dna involved in crime...he was told tape was dna related....if unknown result noone knew anything bout - don't know if related to the crime or some decomtamination...low copy dna makes it more difficult...all crime scene examiners all working on crime scenes working in lab has to have obtain profile - verify - exclude any the co-workers contaminated - more likely in some crime related way....never know if someone had contact with their wife and transferred ....low copy number is more common...type of lab tech had touch from his wife - secondary transfer - won't say not possible - but less likely than direct contact...we work on we regularly find dna from lab techs....never know if contamination or not if low profile copy dna and don't know where came from - possible..
pull up slide with JB and the jacket all that...exhibit by defense #
first object top left - not skeletonized remains....hand not skeletonized....jacket not assoc. with skeletonized remains.....
none of these 3 associated with fully skeletonized remains...
based on what you do...these whether skeletonized remains have no bearing on whether get dna....these panties not testing skeleton you are testing the item...skeletonized have no bearing for the item...the item is more important that skeletonization of the body...
Mr Ashton 3 scenario - leave out a 4th important scenario - # 4 duct tape not wrapped around Caylee mouth - that is correct - you have likely seen some dna based on scenario SA presented...at least in beginning there would be dna....
JA asked bout dna contaminiation - when find perp.s dna you find it match the suspects or perp - you have never gone into court and said "you just cannot ever know" ....
final decision is up to judge and jury....never go farther than hypothesis occurring during the crime or pulling down panties....evidence there or not....match or doesn't match would support hypothessis - dna there or not...
JA up are you telling jury the proximity of tape to rottin flesh that the dna increase decompse as well...dna on tape also could be decomposed...no further questions...sorry thought you were done...
chance of degredation smaller....outside is bad for dna...only need a couple of cells to obtain alleals or profiles...it does make a difference of dna is next to decomposing flesh - it does make a difference - IMO Yes!
06-21-2011, 03:42 PM
Jury coming back.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION OF MR. EIKELENBOOM BY JB - continued
Regarding the 17 allele found at D3, in order to include someone as a match, you have to have all 13 markers, correct? No.
He did believe this was human DNA.
For exclusion, if you don't have the 17 in your profile, then you don't match.
RE-CROSS EXAMINATION BY JA
Initial DNA testing required a significant amount of blood or semen to get a profile. With advances throughout the nineties, the PCR approach became the way to do it. As that has happened, contamination has become greater. The smaller the sample, the harder it is to relate it to the crime.
In this case, if he had tested the tape - there are three possible results. The first being a finding of nothing which would not be inconsistent with the tape being placed on the victim as it could have degraded. The second possibility is that he might have found Caylee's DNA. The third option was that he found a third or unknown profile. You would then compare that to anyone who has had contact with the sample or working on crime scenes. If none of these match, then it becomes more likely that it is then crime related. With low copy number it is more common for decontamination and then you can't know where it really came from.
His demonstrative aide, none of the examples were from skeletonized remains.
No further questions.
RE-RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY JB
Based on what he does, the fact that none of the items were skeletonized had no bearing. The condition of the item is more important than the condition of the body.
Regarding Mr. Ashton's 3 scenarios, there could be a fourth? That the tape was not wrapped around Caylee's mouth? Correct. If the tape was placed on the nose and mouth, at the beginning there would be DNA.
Contamination - regarding his comment "you just can't ever know" - the final decision as to whether it is crime related is between the Judge and the Jury.
RE-RE-RE-CROSS BY JA:
If the tape was on the body and it was decomposing, that would increase the chance that the tape DNA would also be decomposing. If it was away from the body, the chance of degradation would be smaller. However, the environmental conditions would be a factor. It does make a difference if it is in contact with decomposing flesh.
No further questions.
SIDEBAR #6 (3:41-3:42)
Witness is excused.
06-21-2011, 03:43 PM
HHBP ok Dr. you can step down.....
clarify he is not a Doctor....
whatever he is..
(sorry I have been referring to him as Dr. E) I stand corrected
DT calls YM!!!
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.