CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #15

[Mony Mony]

During the cross, Daugherty asked Perlin about one of the highest loci peaks and said wasn't it true that in Bode's report they stated it was likely bacteria - Perlin said they rarely or never read reports.

I get that they're trying to take human subjectivity out of the equation but it seems at least seeing what the forwarding lab says about their results might be prudent and help to avoid some errors.

Yes! I just did a transcript of this cause I was very surprised by this information. Just like OBE said above, "garbage in garbage out".

 

[MrsPC]

Are you sure that the FBI doesn't use a probablistic genotyping software? TrueAllele is not the only software program out there. I don't know the answer to this question, but I do know that TrueAllele isn't the only software program developed to do the same thing, STRMix is another one that we have heard in the trial.

I'm sure they don't use TrueAllele. I didn't say they don't use a genotyping software.

 

[Mony Mony]

Day 39 at about the 49 minute mark:

Daughtery: He (referring to McGee) asked you at the D3 locus here what the largest piece/paragraph/whatever was, right?

Perlin: What the allele was that corresponded to the tallest peak height.

Daughtery: The tallest peak height here is 590.

Perlin: That is the height, correct

Daughtery: Are you aware that Bode considered that to be bacterial DNA?

Perlin: Uh, no I am not.

(OBJECTION, misstates testimony)

Daughtery: Were you given Bode’s lab notes?

Perlin: We were given reports, but we generally use them for the purpose of knowing what the names of items are so we know what we are looking at. We don’t usually read those reports and we don’t rely on them in any way.

***Daughtery clarifes the item in question is E05 Locus***

Daughty: So that was used to show, “Look! the largest one is 590 and it’s a 16 and there is nobody in the known samples that has a sixteen.”

Perlin: Yes, that is what the lawyer was trying to show.

Daughtrey: Yes, that is what the lawyer was trying to show. What the lawyer didn’t tell you and you were never made aware is that Bode concluded that those were bacterial peeks.

OBJECTION, misstates the testimony your honor. Counsel approaches.

Judge: Alright, the last objection is sustained as to the form of the question. You may continue.

Daughtery: Were you made aware that Bode found what they believed to be bacterial peaks.

Perlin: Not that I know

Daughtery: That 590 is significantly higher than anything else.

Perlin: Yes, which is why at that locus the computer would have concentrated more probability based on that data that it was given.

Daughtery: So the computer is gonna look and concentrate more….it has significantly higher peak than all the other peaks really

Perlin: Certainly at that location, yes.

Daughtery: Did you find any other peaks that were that big?

Perlin: I haven’t looked over the whole profile, so I can’t…... (sounds as if reviewing report)…..No, that was the tallest peak across all of the loci for that item.

Daughtery: And were you made aware that on three items they found what they thought to be bacterial peaks?

Perlin: I don’t know, I know there were three peaks that our analysts removed because they didn’t appear to be real data.

Daughtery: So you don’t know if those were the same peaks, assuming Bode accounted for that.

Perlin: No, I don’t’ know that.

Daugthtery: In any event, the computer is still gonna look at that and give it a lot more weight because it is very high, it is going to give it a lot more probability.

Perlin: Yes, that is what happened at the D3 locus, at E5, though ultimately, it didn’t make any difference in terms of what the match statistic concluded because that difference of factor of a hundred wouldn’t change the results that were exclusionary either way.

 

[Mica]

From the Court Portal..

Yesterday’s (4/11/19) motions were vacated. Jury trial held.

Next scheduled Jury Trial 4/15/19 at 9:30 AM. Nothing further posted on Court calendar.

 

[mrjitty]

Day 39 at about the 49 minute mark:

Daughtery: He (referring to McGee) asked you at the D3 locus here what the largest piece/paragraph/whatever was, right?

Perlin: What the allele was that corresponded to the tallest peak height.

Daughtery: The tallest peak height here is 590.

Perlin: That is the height, correct

Daughtery: Are you aware that Bode considered that to be bacterial DNA?

Perlin: Uh, no I am not.

(OBJECTION, misstates testimony)

Daughtery: Were you given Bode’s lab notes?

Perlin: We were given reports, but we generally use them for the purpose of knowing what the names of items are so we know what we are looking at. We don’t usually read those reports and we don’t rely on them in any way.

***Daughtery clarifes the item in question is E05 Locus***

Daughty: So that was used to show, “Look! the largest one is 590 and it’s a 16 and there is nobody in the known samples that has a sixteen.”

Perlin: Yes, that is what the lawyer was trying to show.

Daughtrey: Yes, that is what the lawyer was trying to show. What the lawyer didn’t tell you and you were never made aware is that Bode concluded that those were bacterial peeks.

OBJECTION, misstates the testimony your honor. Counsel approaches.

Judge: Alright, the last objection is sustained as to the form of the question. You may continue.

Daughtery: Were you made aware that Bode found what they believed to be bacterial peaks.

Perlin: Not that I know

Daughtery: That 590 is significantly higher than anything else.

Perlin: Yes, which is why at that locus the computer would have concentrated more probability based on that data that it was given.

Daughtery: So the computer is gonna look and concentrate more….it has significantly higher peak than all the other peaks really

Perlin: Certainly at that location, yes.

Daughtery: Did you find any other peaks that were that big?

Perlin: I haven’t looked over the whole profile, so I can’t…... (sounds as if reviewing report)…..No, that was the tallest peak across all of the loci for that item.

Daughtery: And were you made aware that on three items they found what they thought to be bacterial peaks?

Perlin: I don’t know, I know there were three peaks that our analysts removed because they didn’t appear to be real data.

Daughtery: So you don’t know if those were the same peaks, assuming Bode accounted for that.

Perlin: No, I don’t’ know that.

Daugthtery: In any event, the computer is still gonna look at that and give it a lot more weight because it is very high, it is going to give it a lot more probability.

Perlin: Yes, that is what happened at the D3 locus, at E5, though ultimately, it didn’t make any difference in terms of what the match statistic concluded because that difference of factor of a hundred wouldn’t change the results that were exclusionary either way.

oh dear

 

[Tortoise]

oh dear

How insensitive mrjitty, they spent a lot of money on that.

 

[Force Ten]

It's not a person introducing deliberate bias, it's like a watch that loses or gains a few seconds per day, so after several months or years, the time stamped on the video footage is no longer correct.

I just tested my older digital camera by taking a photo, it's timestamped 1 hr 10 minutes later than the real time I took the photo.

The devices use algorithms to calculate time, which aren't totally accurate.

Yes and that would explain the later time stamp on the computer. So most likely the camera caught Merritt's truck leaving after 8:05. Maybe even as late as 8:27 when Joseph's phone called Merritt. This would give him around 1:40 to murder and clean up.

 

[mrjitty]

From what I understand, they look at the data... not someone's interpretation of the data, because that interpretation is subjective. They take the electronic data and the computer does it's thing. It takes the subjectivity out of the equation.
JMO

This argument doesn't make sense though - the computer model is built on a human DNA input

If you put other stuff in, the computer has no way to "realise" that

 

[mrjitty]

How insensitive mrjitty, they spent a lot of money on that.

Looks disastrous for them to have run their algo's on DNA that the defence's own lab thought wasn't human

 

[Tortoise]

I just remembered the jurors' questions after Suzanna Ryan finished testifying about the M-vac dna collection, maybe it was just coincidence...maybe not.

Amongst others - "can we talk about when the defense might finish...or how interesting or tedious certain court testimony is?"

 

[missy1974]

This argument doesn't make sense though - the computer model is built on a human DNA input

If you put other stuff in, the computer has no way to "realise" that

The dna is ran through other programs (Identifiler, minifiler, y-filer and I'm sure there are more, these are just one's I recall from testimony) in other labs, like state labs and private labs and that produces electronic data. In a lab that data is interpreted by a technician, at Cybergenetics, it's interpreted by a computer, is my understanding. One is subjective, one is not IMO Cybergenetics didn't take Bode's interpreted reports (by Nash) and put that into the computer, they took the electronic data and put it in.

 

[Mony Mony]

The dna is ran through other programs (Identifiler, minifiler, y-filer and I'm sure there are more, these are just one's I recall from testimony) in other labs, like state labs and private labs and that produces electronic data. In a lab that data is interpreted by a technician, at Cybergenetics, it's interpreted by a computer, is my understanding. One is subjective, one is not IMO Cybergenetics didn't take Bode's interpreted reports (by Nash) and put that into the computer, they took the electronic data and put it in.

Perlin himself said his analyst took out three data points because they felt it didn't appear to be real data. He couldn't confirm if it was the bacteria DNA the analysts removed. So clearly there is human intervention of some kind.

 

[missy1974]

I just remembered the jurors' questions after Suzanna Ryan finished testifying about the M-vac dna collection, maybe it was just coincidence...maybe not.

Amongst others - "can we talk about when the defense might finish...or how interesting or tedious certain court testimony is?"

This DNA stuff is brutal to listen to, it's even harder without the visuals. I wish we could get a read on the jury from unbiased observers lol

Those questions could be interpreted so many ways... and it could be coming from just 1 juror, and who knows... maybe it's an alternate, just no way of knowing (maybe after the trial we will find out?). It could be because the DNA testimony is tedious to that person or it's interesting to that person... it could be because they ask what I consider to be needless questions like how many times were you on HLN, like it matters IMO Or having to go through their jobs and experience.

Can anyone believe that they haven't lost one juror yet?

 

[missy1974]

Perlin himself said his analyst took out three data points because they felt it didn't appear to be real data. He couldn't confirm if it was the bacteria DNA the analysts removed. So clearly there is human intervention of some kind.

So did they or didn't they take out the bacteria DNA? IIRC I thought she did both, and ran the known samples against both.

I have in my notes from Pujols testimony...

look for artificial peaks… she ran with and without the artifact present.

I have to run out for the day so can't go back to her testimony right now.

I appreciate your perspective of the testimony and appreciate that you have listened to it @Mony Mony and the same to @MrsPC .... thanks!

 

[Sillybilly]

Numerous off topic posts have been removed.

Please stay on topic.

Thanks.

 

[citygirl]

I just remembered the jurors' questions after Suzanna Ryan finished testifying about the M-vac dna collection, maybe it was just coincidence...maybe not.

Amongst others - "can we talk about when the defense might finish...or how interesting or tedious certain court testimony is?"

WOW. I missed that last one. Did listen when the judge talked about it. I think his response was NO to everything ?

 

[smr]

Not true.
I was sexually abused by my uncle, who was our after school babysitter, from age 6 to age 9. And I still loved him because he did some very nice things for us as well and I was just a kid who didn't understand it all.

I said P is not proof for Q.

Your reply:
That's not true (i.e. P is a proof for Q)
Your reasoning: There is an instance, viz., your personal example, where both P and Q are true.

This is Logical Fallacy.
Elaboration/explanation upon request.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Perlin himself said his analyst took out three data points because they felt it didn't appear to be real data. He couldn't confirm if it was the bacteria DNA the analysts removed. So clearly there is human intervention of some kind.

The old woman is back to ask another foolish question. Ha.

So if it has bacteria in the sample used it will spike higher than it really is even though it's most like contaminated with bacteria?

How do they make sure the vac system is completely sterile each, and every time?

MM please don't throw a shoe okay? I really am trying to learn this.

Oh, how does the computer recognize any bacteria that may be present?

TIA!

Imo

 

[Tortoise]

WOW. I missed that last one. Did listen when the judge talked about it. I think his response was NO to everything ?

Yes it was no to everything.

 

[Mony Mony]

The old woman is back to ask another foolish question. Ha.

So if it has bacteria in the sample used it will spike higher than it really is even though it's most like contaminated with bacteria?

How do they make sure the vac system is completely sterile each, and every time?

MM please don't throw a shoe okay? I really am trying to learn this.

Oh, how does the computer recognize any bacteria that may be present?

TIA!

Imo

Oh OBE, I would never throw a shoe at you. I have a weak grasp on all this DNA stuff myself.

OK, if the bacteria DNA information was not removed when the probabilistic thingy was run, then yes, the spikes would be higher than if they were removed.

The MVAC uses a single filter/tube etc for each sample area tested. (I don't think bacteria from one sample can get into the MVAC and then be transferred to the next sample). The bacteria is present in the item being tested.

I don't believe the computer can make the distinction of what is human DNA vs bacteria DNA. It would be up to analyst to remove those results from the raw data before uploading for final analysis.