Heather Seubert (FBI Lab - supervisor forensic DNA examiner)

DIRECT EXAMINATION OF HEATHER SEUBERT BY JB:

She is the unit chief of the fire arms tool marks unit at the FBI lab. In 2008 she was one of the supervisors in the DNA analysis unit.

Three units - mitochondrial DNA unit (hairs, bones, teeth); nuclear DNA (looking for blood and semen), Federal - National DNA database.

12 years with FBI, prior to that with the Michigan State police. BS in forensic science. Currently enrolled in graduate program at UF.

Started as a biologist in the mitochondrial DNA unit. Promoted to forensic DNA examiner. Then spent time in Federal database DNA unit.

Serology is the science involved in identifying biological fluids. She was a serologist at the Michigan State Police. She received additional serology training at the FBI.

Fellow of American Academy of Forensic Scientists. One of the reviewers for the laboratory Accreditation Board. Past chair of the Scientific Group for DNA Analysis - a multi-disciplinary group.

Testified 18 times while at the FBI in DNA and serology. Fed - DC, NM, OK, KY, LA, MI.

JB moved to have her qualified as an expert in DNA analysis and serology. JA agreed. Witness accepted by JJHJP.

While a forensic analyst at the FBI she became involved with this case.

She had her 10/8/08 report.

Q = specimen not known to a person. K = known sample.

On July 28, 2008 In this case she was given

OBJECTION BY JA - to items not in evidence.

SIDEBAR #!

more to come.....

DIRECT EXAMINATION OF HEATHER SEUBERT BY JB - continued

(ICA moves over one chair again - sitting in JB's chair?)

Q-13 and Q-14 were identified as swabs from spare tire cover.

Above items marked as EXHIBITS 15 and 16 with no objection by JA.

Phenolphthalein test is first test to identify blood - negative for both swabs.

Regarding Q-23 (S-138), another piece of spare tire cover - had brownish stains. They were swabbed and all were negative for the presence of blood.

Next item was Q-24 (S-139), left side of spare tire cover - had brown and yellow areas which were swabbed and negative for blood.

Q-25 (S-140) right side of spare tire cover - all negative for blood.

OBJECTION BY JA - asked and answered - OVERRULED.

These swabs are not retained by the lab after the chemical test is performed.

Q-22, 23, 24 and 25 were swabbed and DNA typed. Results were no DNA profile generated.

Why did you do the tests?

OBJECTION BY JA - leading - SUSTAINED

Tests are done for stains that could not be observed.

DNA is done on any cell with a nucleus - any cell but red blood cells.

Q-33-43 (State and Defense have stipulation on these clothing items)

JA states these are the items collected by CSI Bloise.

Q-33 - dark grey pants - visually examined for biological stains. None observed and no chemical testing done.
Q-34 - light blue pants - faint brown yellowish brown spots - tested negative for the presence of blood.
Q-35 - blue jeans - visual exam showed no biological stains and no chemical testing was done.
Q-36 - light grey skirt with faint yellow stains - tested negative for blood.
Q-37 - light yellow skirt - faint red spots throughout - negative for blood.
Q-38 - light beige skirt - faint yellow areas - negative for blood.
Q-39 - light blue long sleeved shirt - faint discoloration on pocket - negative for blood.
Q-40 - light beige short - faint areas of discoloration - negative for blood.
Q-41 - bright pink shirt - no stains observed and no testing done.
Q-42 - light pink shirt - no stains observed and no testing done.
Q-43 - green shirt - no stains observed and no testing done.

No blood on any of these items. She did not receive any other clothing from the home.

Q-44 (S-323) - piece of spare tire cover - spot tested for blood - negative
Q-45 (S-142) - another piece of spare tire cover - spot tested for blood - negative.

Both items were then swabbed of the entire item and they were processed for DNA. There were no DNA typing results obtained.

10/9/08 report - Items examined - Q-46 (shovel), Q-46.1 (label from shovel blade).

JA - these are items testified to by the neighbor earlier.

The shovel was examined for the presence of blood. Some areas were tested - negative for the presence of blood. DNA was also performed and a DNA profile was not generated. A sex typing test did not satisfy lab criteria.

Can you explain how DNA is left.
OBJECTION BY JA - leading and compound - SUSTAINED

Touch DNA?

OBJECTION BY JA - OVERRULED

Touch DNA cannot always be typed - depends on how much is there.

(JB HAS HIS WHITE PAPER AND EASEL OUT)

RFU's?

OBJECTION BY JA - relevance -

SIDEBAR #2

More to come.....

DIRECT EXAMINATION OF HEATHER SEUBERT BY JA - continued

OBJECTION OVERRULED

(ICA sitting next to CM - JB getting the lavaller mike)

Low Copy Number - type of DNA process used when there is limited amount of DNA. They can do a procedure to enhance the process. It adds on some of the molecular xeroxing to enhance the end result DNA profile.

Touch DNA - expected limited amounts - no low copy number enhancing done.

DNA process - swab taken, put into tube, chemicals added, DNA extracted, PCR done (molecular xeroxing of 13 locations of DNA), DNA is then put in capillary column and viewed with a laser. Signal then sent to a computer and is interpreted into a DNA profile (similar to EKG results). Peaks represent DNA profile (electropherograms).

To actually report a DNA type, her lab's threshold is at 200 RFU's - match interpretation threshold - anything above that she could use to make a match.

Other labs can actually report lower levels?

OBJECTION - relevance - OVERRULED

That is the RFU # the FBI used at the time she did the test.

Other labs - lower thresholds?

OBJECTION - leading - OVERRULED

Other labs have lower thresholds.

Anything lower than the 200 RFU's can be used to exclude.

50 RFU threshold is peak amplitude threshold. Other labs may use a lower threshold.

FBI threshold of 200 is relatively conservative. 50 RFU is a scientific one.

In sex typing - info can be used if less than 50.

When she says she cannot give results, is it because it does not reach the FBI lab's threshold?

OBJECTION by JA -

SIDEBAR #3

DIRECT EXAMINATION OF HEATHER SEUBERT BY JB - Continued

One of the markers on the shovel reached above the 50 RFU level, did not reach 200 level and did not have sufficient markers.

Is there something there?

OBJECTION - leading - SUSTAINED

At the locations, a result was not obtained at the 13 locations.

For the sex typing, there is an indication present of DNA at that location, but does not meet her reporting criteria.

3/19/09 report -

SIDEBAR #4

DIRECT EXAMINATION OF HEATHER SEUBERT BY JB - continued

3/19/09 report - Q62-64 (S-302) - duct tape items received from the ME

Tape was examined - 3 pieces. First exam was done on top (silver non-adhesive) side of tape, cotton swab was swabbed to collect possible biological material.

Any distinctive markings on top? Henkel logo was on top.

Swab of top side of tape - DNA typing was performed and a DNA profile was generated but was below the interpretation threshold of the FBI lab. DNA typing result was obtained at 6 of the 9 locations tested.

2 amplification kits are used to come up with the 13.

JB wants her to write on easel - she did not feel she needed to - JB wanted jury to raise hands if they wanted her to - Judge said NO.

Witness now writing on paper -

13 locations on the DNA - they are selected because they are very different in different individual. 46 chromosomes - 23 from mother, 23 from father. One kit has 9 locations. She listed the 9 locations on the paper in the Profiler Plus ID kit. In her analysis she looks at the peaks in these locations. She would then populate the table which would give the profile.

If your parents have the same STR type - then you will have only one peak.

If there is enough DNA for a result - there would be 2 peaks at each result.

You can have a DNA profile at just one location - you don't need all 13.

Second test has another series of targeted locations.

Regarding the duct tape - the non-sticky side revealed that there was an STR typing result obtained, but it fell below her reporting threshold. She then wrote out the profile, noting it was below the threshold.

To exclude someone, it could take just one marker. In what she obtained, she could exclude ICA. Caylee was also excluded.


After the DNA profile was obtained she compared it to all of the known samples submitted - CA, LA, GA, ICA, Caylee. All of those individuals were excluded from the profile.

Based on the profile, and exclusion of known samples, the next step was to compare it with the DNA unit staff samples. She did not find anyone there that matched.

She then determined what other units had contact with the evidence. Knowing it was female, she checked them. The profile matched Lori Goddis (sp) questionable document unit examiner.

Can contaminated DNA overwrite existing DNA? Depends on quantity of contaminant - a large amount could shadow or hide. However, on this sample, if there had been an underlying DNA sample, she would have expected to find a mix.

Could this still have contaminated...

OBJECTION BY JA - assumes hypotheticals not in evidence - SUSTAINED.

She still would have accepted a mix.

OBJECTION BY JA - hypothetical based on facts not in evidence - SUSTAINED.

Can contaminating DNA override...

OBJECTION BY JA - asked and answered - OVERRULED.

If there is a very large volume of contaminant over a very small underlying sample, it is possible to override.

Her unit was the last unit to receive the DNA. Getting it earlier would not have altered how she processed it. Any time an item is handled by fewer people, there is less a chance for contamination.

Exam plan is developed by the evidence control unit. This item had several types of analysis- trace, chemistry, latent print, questioned document unit then her unit.

She was aware that the duct tape had been outside and had water in it at times.

Elements can degrade DNA?

OBJECTION - leading - OVERRULED.

Sunlight, humidity can effect amount of DNA.

Why do the test? It was her thought that they should be swabbed to determine if there was any DNA present.

Can you get DNA from items under water?

OBJECTIONS - leading - OVERRULED.

It is possible, but there were different factors involved - length of time, biological fluid (blood, semen).

DNA profiles from burn victims?

OBJECTION BY JA - SUSTAINED

You can get DNA profiles from burn victims.

Never know variables?

OBJECTION BY JA - leading - SUSTAINED

She does not have all the knowledge of an item prior to receiving it.

If it is a blood looking stain, she expects a profile. If it is a swab - she doesn't know if she is going to generate a DNA profile.

Regarding duct tape - where would you expect to get a profile?

OBJECTION - hypothetical based on facts not in evidence (environmental) - OVERRULED

SIDEBAR #5

DIRECT EXAMINATION OF HEATHER SEUBERT BY JB - continued

The underside of duct tape would have a greater likelyhood of giving DNA results. Just the contact of the tape being placed on a person's face would have biologicals.

She tested the adhesive side. The information generated was inconclusive. There was a peak detected at the D-3. It was 17. Caylee is a 14-15 at D-3. ICA is a 14-15 at the D-3 location also. One marker that does not match excludes that person as a contributor.

In addition to family members, she was given DNA profiles of .....

OBJECTION BY JA as to items not in evidence - JB withdrew the question.


7/24/09 report - first item received was Q-80 (S-269) - pair of shorts from the ME. The shorts were tested for blood and semen and were negative for both.

Q-81 - items of clothing - elastic portion of shirt and letters of a child's shirt. Chemical test for blood was positive, but insufficient to confirm. DNA typing was done and no DNA results were obtained.

Q-82 - blanket. Chemical test for possible presence for blood was positive, but insufficient to confirm. No DNA was obtained. Blanket was also looked at for semen, but was negative.

Q-84 - laundry bag. Chemical test for presence for blood was positive, but insufficient to confirm. DNA typing was attempted, but no results obtained.

Q-103 - blanket. Chemical testing for presence for blood and semen. Positive for blood, negative for semen.

JB asked for moment to confer with JA.

JB - blanket just described is not in evidence and wants to move to strike this on his own and has nothing to do with this. Completely his error.

HHJBP instructs Jury to disregard testimony regarding last blanket.


Q-244 (S-HR) - doll coming from the pontiac sunfire. (Photo on screen of the doll in the crate taken from the Pontiac Sunfire). JB heard asking if they could stipulate it was from the Sunfire. Stipulated that the doll came from the car seat in the back seat passenger side of the car. The item was generally swabbed for blood - negative.

12/16/08 report - (HHJBP asking if it is a long report - it's 11:57, JB saying no). She was given the buchal samples of CA, GA and LA .

Paternity test?

OBJECTION BY JA -

SIDEBAR #6

JURY SENT OUT

JA - FBI lab does not perform paternity test - they were never asked to do so.

HHJBP - JB what is your good faith reason for asking this questions.

JB - it was tested and he did ask the FBI that they don't normally do it, but they can and did. Objections raised by JA not true.

JA to witness - were you ever asked to do a paternity test to determine if LA was the father of CA.

Witness - On 9/12/08 she spoke to Nick Savage and told him they could run the test for statistical analysis and then send out to another lab. this does not mention LA.

JA - That is his objection - LA and GA could be potentially ruled out. Can't ask if LE specifically asked to have this test run - and it's hearsay.

JB to witness - who did you understand they wanted you to compare the paternity test for. 10/8/08 - additional conversation with Savage - He would like them to submit the brother's results if possible parentage is suggested to the outside lab.

Based on STR typing result, Caylee could not be a biological offspring of LA.

JA - relevance? Questions JB's implication. VERY ANGRY.

HHJBP - doesn't know what was in JB or JA's mind. JB - you are not to ask questions that may lead to inference. You could call Savage. That would be a proper question. I would not speculate on your motivation. Delmonte Banana Company case - READ IT. Talks about good faith reason for asking questions. Brokson (sp) v State - PLEASE READ. THAT'S ALL I'M GOING TO SAY.

In recess to 1:30

JA - Motion to Strike the question when the Jury comes back.

HHJBP - I don't have a hearing problem and the amplification of questions and objections, I don't need. I can hear in normal voices.

He'll review last question.

HHJBP to JB - do we know what your next question will be?

Question was: Were you asked to conduct a paternity test for LA, as to Caylee, potential father?

OBJECTION BY JA - not relevant as to whether anyone asked.

JB - I can rephrase the question. Did you conduct a paternity test.

JURY RETURNED

DIRECT EXAMINATION OF HEATHER SEUBERT BY JB - continued

JB - I wanted to ask you, did you conduct a paternity test to determine if LA was the biological father of Caylee?

Witness - Referring to her 12/16/08 report, page 3, this report does not address this question. She then looked at JB's copy of the report and read:

Based on the STR typing results, the DNA obtained from Q-18.1 could not have originated from a biological offspring of K-9, LA.

Tests not done very often?

OBJECTION - relevance - SUSTAINED.

Q-47 (photo of car seat) (Stipulation to discuss without objection) It was examined for blood - chemical testing was negative. No further testing done.
Q-48 (steering wheel cover) Visually examined - none observed, so no chemical testing was done.
Q-55 (debris from spare tire wheel well)
Q-56 (swap from spare tire wheel well)

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY JB

CROSS EXAMINATION BY JA:

Ex. 15 - swabs from spare tire cover - presumptive test for blood.

Phenolphthalein test reacts to the heen(?) portion of the blood. As a body decomposes, the hemoglobin portion also decomposes and would not react.

The stain had been identified as decomp fluid

OBJECTION BY JB =- facts not in evidence - OVERRULED

OBJECTION BY JB - misstates facts - OVERRULED

She could not say if there was decomp fluid there. All she could say that it did not react to blood.

OBJECTION BY JB - misstates witness testimony - SUSTAINED

Based on her testing results - negative - she can't testify to anything other than it was negative to the presence of blood. She did not detect any other fluid.

Could the stain still be decomp fluid?

OBJECTION BY JB - OVERRULED.

It is possible. All she could say it was blood.

When cells decompose, the DNA will start to degrade. In order for her testing to work, the DNA strands need to be in tact - sometimes portions will work.

OBJECTION BY JB - asked and answered - SUSTAINED.

Generally, with decomposing cells, you don't expect to find DNA? Right.

Regarding the chart she did on JB's easel, the result of 55 RFU - 50 is the peak amplitude threshold for a reliable peak result. The peak at 55 - depending on where it was detected - in this case at amelogenin - she determined it was inconclusive. The amelogenin is the sex chromosome. It is consistent with male or female - there is only X - no Y. Low copy number technique could not have been done at the time and she does not know what that would have resulted in.

Regarding single result on the sticky side of the tape - Locus D-3, 17 allele - well below the threshold.

Was there someone tested in the lab... Witness - yes ....

OBJECTION BY JB - May I approach?

SIDEBAR #7

CROSS EXAMINATION OF HEATHER SEUBERT BY JA - Continued

HHJBP, JA and JB are at the court reporter's computer looking back on the prior testimony

Now back at Sidebar

WFTV claiming 60,000 all time record of 60,000 people on their blog

SIDEBAR #7 over

SIDEBAR #8 or maybe SIDEBAR 7.1

JB asking witness regarding the 17 allele at the D-3 marker on the sticky side of the tape, when she saw that, she attempted to eliminate others - she would have compared it to all of the lab personnel samples and known samples. There was only one marker. On the top side there were 6. On the other side there was only 1. She looked at the 5 known family samples, known lab personnel samples and 5 others in lab she did samples of. She did not draw any conclusions - her report indicated inconclusive.

Was there another individual who had a 17 at the D-3 marker. They had a 16-17. Was there a 16 on the duct tape?

OBJECTION BY JA - beyond - OVERRULED.

She thinks there was just a 17 on the tape at the level to create a peak.

This could be 2 things? A person could have 1 peak or 2 peaks. The lab person had 2 peaks. Only 1 peak was detected on the tape. This was inconclusive for reporting purposes based on the FBI lab thressholds.

CONTINUED CROSS EXAMINATION BY JA:

The results for this were inconclusive. At those low thresholds you can drop alleles out. That's why the scientific responsible response is that it is inconclusive. At that location, GA did not have a 17.

Caylee at D-3 is a 14-15 and ICA is a 15-19. This is a correction of her prior testimony.

She tests for blood.

OBJECTION BY JB - OVERRULED.

She tests for blood but can't testify as to why it would be there. Absence of blood does not....

OBJECTION BY JB - outside witness's expertise - OVERRULED.

She agreed the absence of blood does not speak to whether a crime happened or not.

Regarding the duct tape - she was not involved in the order of examination of the tape. The possible area she would expect to find DNA on the tape would be on the sticky side. For DNA to survive in swampy area.......

OBJECTION BY JB - SUSTAINED

SIDEBAR #9

CONTINUED CROSS EXAMINATION BY JA:

She was told the tape was found in an area that would have water coming into it and like a swampy type area.

If water was coming in and receding out and drying, it is possible that the DNA would start to degrade over time. The same answer would apply to the other items she was asked to examine from the scene.

FBI does not actually do paternity tests. In examining the family DNA samples, Caylee's bone marrow....

OBJECTION BY JB - OVERRULED

Paternity test - she generated the DNA type from LA. Then took ICA's type and compared to determine that LA could not be Caylee's father.

Stain in trunk is not blood. Can't tell anything else.

Only DNA on anything from the scene is explainable by DNA from lab personnel.

OBJECTION BY JB - OVERRULED.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY JB:

Regarding decomp in the trunk, as cells break down, DNA diminishes. She can't say as to what point during decomp she would not be able to get DNA? She stated it depends what you are trying to achieve. Blood, tissues and fluids will start to degrade. Bones will last longer. Does this happen at the latter part?

OBJECTION - leading - SUSTAINED.

Does that happen at the latter part?

OBJECTION - leading - OVERRULED.

She stated that there are environmental factors at play. She cannot say where the period of time is that she could no longer give a result. She could say that she did not get DNA or blood from the trunk of the car.

At the early stages of decomp, the possibility of blood leaking out would exist.

Possible to leak onto the trunk liner?

OBJECTION - OVERRULED.

If a body is placed in a trunk, the fluids will start to dissipate onto the liner if not contained in a protective material. If it was in a bag, it is possible that fluids could leak out of where the bag is tied up.

Regarding items collected from the scene, contaminated parts?

OBJECTION - leading - SUSTAINED.

Testifying regarding protocols?

OBJECTION - leading - SUSTAINED.

When answering as to what was found at the scene, that was based on her FBI report which is based on the SOP's of the lab.

The 17 allele was taken into consideration in her report - but as it related to it being inconclusive.

Regarding outside elements and the potential to find DNA, is there an expectation that if duct tape was placed around someone's mouth...

OBJECTION - leading - SUSTAINED.

She would expect that if there was DNA recovered, it would be more likely to be on the sticky side.

RECROSS BY JA:

When fluids leave the body, they continue to decompose.

WITNESS IS EXCUSED.

RECESS UNTIL 3:05