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

[oceanblueeyes]

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?

I cant believe at least one hasn't jumped ship yet.

My experience as a juror most of the jurors are pretty much inline on how the trial is processing.

They will see the eye rolls of their fellow jurors or hear the sighs or grunts or even see some become very restless during some testimonies. So it's easy to know if they are all on the same page or not.

So it's easy to pick up on if most are of the same opinion about certain aspects of particular testimony.

It's not a good sign though if they are really wanting to know what is taking the defense so long. I think many are thinking the same thing, inside, and out of the courtroom.

It's the longest downtime gaps I've ever witnessed for any defense putting on a case.

What it is doing is sending a message to the jury that the defense has no compassion or thoughts about the jury or the time its taking out of their normal scheduled lives, while being held in limbo for the defense to get around to putting on their case.

Cricket mentioned very early on when attending court when the jury was being held outside of court again, they were already looking frustrated by the delays.

It's been so much worse since then when the defense started that I cant even imagine their level of frustration by now.

I'm an extremely patient person, but if I was on this jury I would be pulling my hair out by now.

Imo, I do think they are most likely zoning most of the last two witnesses out to some extent.

Imo, when juries hear the word 'degraded' or 'bacteria' they tend to give the testimony far less weight. IMO

They know about DNA degraded samples from simply watching a fictional or nonfiction crime show.

Imo

 

[oceanblueeyes]

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.

Thank you, both for the helpful info, and for not throwing a shoe at me! Lol

I really don't want to be a pain to anyone, but to learn, I need to ask questions. Ha

Thanks again.

Jmo

 

[oceanblueeyes]

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?"

They are sure sending a clear message they want the defense to get on with it, and get through with their case.

The defense would be wise to take them seriously.

It also sounds like they were not all that impressed with Ryan's testimony either. They were probably thinking after Ryan testified. ' We waited all this time for that testimony???'

Imo, the defense over promised in their dramatic OS, and the jury is very disappointed thus far.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

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

Unbelievable. Well maybe not. This is CA after all. Ha

Imo

 

[Mony Mony]

Interesting questions from the judge at the conclusion of Perlin's testimony, Day 39. He was asking how the testing was run in relation to the number of contributors assumed in the samples.


Judge: So all of them were run for two and three contributors except for the right cup which was run for 2, 3,and 4 contributors. ….

…..And if I understand your testimony correctly, you did not run an analysis (such as): Ok, there is a major contributor-here is the DNA profile of the major contributor; there is a minor contributor-here is the DNA profile of the minor contributor; and there were 1 or two trace contributors and here is the DNA profile of the trace contributors…you did not do that?

Perlin: No, we have a computer assume 2, 3 or 4 contributors, look at the data, and then tell us what each of those contributors genotype was up to probability, separating them all simultaneously.

Judge: and for the individual LOCI where you got results on each of those items, you did not get a particular genotype where you had actual pairs?

Perlin: No we have a listing of all hundred possible pairs and with that list was associated probabilities that added up to 1.

 

[missy1974]

They are sure sending a clear message they want the defense to get on with it, and get through with their case.

The defense would be wise to take them seriously.

It also sounds like they were not all that impressed with Ryan's testimony either. They were probably thinking after Ryan testified. ' We waited all this time for that testimony???'

Imo, the defense over promised in their dramatic OS, and the jury is very disappointed thus far.

I would disagree with this. I can see them being bored with the testimony and they just want the bottom line, like most of us do, but unfortunately, they have to go through all the tedious stuff to get there, which also includes questions about their previous jobs, how long they worked there, their awards, associations, how much someone is making, how many tv shows they have been on, if they have done interviews for the documentary, etc. <<< those questions would annoy me as a juror, I don't think it happens often that anyone testifies or is an expert for free, even State witnesses since they are paid to their job, don't do it for free lol I bet Ryan Smith isn't sitting in the courtroom for no pay.

I never assume what a jury is thinking, I don't think anyone should...... Casey Anthony trial is the best example of this. IMO

 

[citygirl]

I would disagree with this. I can see them being bored with the testimony and they just want the bottom line, like most of us do, but unfortunately, they have to go through all the tedious stuff to get there, which also includes questions about their previous jobs, how long they worked there, their awards, associations, how much someone is making, how many tv shows they have been on, if they have done interviews for the documentary, etc. <<< those questions would annoy me as a juror, I don't think it happens often that anyone testifies or is an expert for free, even State witnesses since they are paid to their job, don't do it for free lol I bet Ryan Smith isn't sitting in the courtroom for no pay.

I never assume what a jury is thinking, I don't think anyone should...... Casey Anthony trial is the best example of this. IMO

Very true, Missy. I am thinking as a juror may think and could be way off base. Too long, too many days off, not enough tangible witnesses like family members, inundated with expert witnesses. Cellphone pings, cellphone records, DNA .......and then even deeper DNA.

 

[Frankie Hellis]

As I understand it, and that may not be saying much, this TrueAllele business is only a probability process and not a matching process. The whole thing is about attempting to state x amount of people could have been the contributor to the dna located on a particular item. A lightbulb went off when he was asked if they fed in the data of an epg where there was no identifiable result, would TruAllele produce a result. Perin replied yes, it would be one in 7 billion, or whatever the earth’s population is. (The testimony was along these lines. I had tears of boredom streaming down my face at the time so I am definitely paraphrasing here).

Moreover, TruAllele is not without some controversy. Since it is proprietary, the code is not available for inspection, so no one can prove it works or it doesn’t work. There have been court cases regarding this exact problem. In People v. Chubbs, the court determined Chubbs had the right to access the source code, but this was overturned on appeal.
Defense lawyers want to peek behind the curtain of probabilistic genotyping

It surely seems to me this was a Hail Mary from the defense, but will the jury see it that way?

On a different note, did anyone else pick up on the unbelievable condescension from Perin on cross? I wanted to fly out there (like in that Southwest “You’re Fired” commercial) and slap the taste out of his mouth. He was incredibly rude, IMO.

 

[missy1974]

Very true, Missy. I am thinking as a juror may think and could be way off base. Too long, too many days off, not enough tangible witnesses like family members, inundated with expert witnesses. Cellphone pings, cellphone records, DNA .......and then even deeper DNA.

I have just gone back and listened to what the judge said...

Before we call our next witness the jurors have some questions about our admonishments about not discussing the case or anything about the case. So let me go over that a little bit. You wanted some clarifications about what you can and cannot talk about, for instance, can you talk about how long the trial has lasted, or when you think the or expect the defense to finish, why we take so many days off, who's in the audience, which people might be family or reporters or witnesses, how interesting or tedious certain testimony is, what the judge or lawyers are doing during testimony, or discussing at sidebar.

It came up during their time off I think that the jury was only qualified until mid-April or the end of April, there may be a juror or 2 that is concerned the defense case could take as long as the prosecutions case, which took what? 2 months? Listening to it again... I recall hearing sometime this week where McGee was TICKED that the prosecution was talking loud enough that he could hear them, (I don't recall if it was before or after that testimony though), which would mean the jury could hear them, I wish I had noted when that was so I could go back and listen again to see if I could hear them LOL I am also curious about who has been in the courtroom now too...

These questions actually came after Kathy Sanchez's and Ryan Smith's testimony, about the futon cover, after the lunch break on Day 37, Part 3. And there was at least one sidebar after the State objected to questions in regards to what Susan's demeanour and what she said was. So that is curious to me as well.

 

[Frankie Hellis]

I wouldn’t read too much into it. You figure the jury’s been at this long enough they are getting familiar with each other now. I’m sure they are talking to each other more now than they were for the first couple of months when they were complete strangers. What do they have in common to talk about? Their situation as jurors. They know they can’t talk about the trial, so they are probably skirting the issue and talking about the situations around the trial. They just wanted clarification as to how much of their particular circumstances they can discuss, which appears to be none.

 

[Niner]

So - to keep my notes straight - Dr. Perlin was the ONLY witness Thursday, 4/11 for the defense? And was the pros finished cross-examining him? And if so, defense will have a new witness on Monday?

TIA!

 

[missy1974]

So - to keep my notes straight - Dr. Perlin was the ONLY witness Thursday, 4/11 for the defense? And was the pros finished cross-examining him? And if so, defense will have a new witness on Monday?

TIA!

I believe this is correct Niner Pro's done with him, and they were dark for the afternoon on Thursday (who knows why this time lol) Back on Monday morning.

 

[mrjitty]

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.

BIB

Yes this is the point of decision support Algos / AIs - I used to work with a US AI company that did this stuff.

The problem is

garbage in ----> [objective process] ----> garbage out

The X seemed to directly raise the issue of whether the potential non-human DNA was used to build the results. Can the TrueAllele model recognise this DNA and exclude it?

IMO this section of X is fatal to this evidence unless the defence repaired it

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

....

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.
​

 

[mrjitty]

As I understand it, and that may not be saying much, this TrueAllele business is only a probability process and not a matching process. The whole thing is about attempting to state x amount of people could have been the contributor to the dna located on a particular item. A lightbulb went off when he was asked if they fed in the data of an epg where there was no identifiable result, would TruAllele produce a result. Perin replied yes, it would be one in 7 billion, or whatever the earth’s population is. (The testimony was along these lines. I had tears of boredom streaming down my face at the time so I am definitely paraphrasing here).

Moreover, TruAllele is not without some controversy. Since it is proprietary, the code is not available for inspection, so no one can prove it works or it doesn’t work. There have been court cases regarding this exact problem. In People v. Chubbs, the court determined Chubbs had the right to access the source code, but this was overturned on appeal.
Defense lawyers want to peek behind the curtain of probabilistic genotyping

It surely seems to me this was a Hail Mary from the defense, but will the jury see it that way?

On a different note, did anyone else pick up on the unbelievable condescension from Perin on cross? I wanted to fly out there (like in that Southwest “You’re Fired” commercial) and slap the taste out of his mouth. He was incredibly rude, IMO.

Reading their website, I can see how there is a strong case for this where you have two mixed samples and you want to untangle it - and from that process you can essentially find the needle in the haystack which matches a known profile you were looking for.

This is also something you can obviously scientifically validate via trialling (if we trust Perlin's internal validation)

What I am far less sure about is where we have heavily degraded DNA including possibly non human DNA as the starting data. The computer is going to come out with results based on the starting assumptions (2, 3, 4 humans) no matter what the input.

So if I understand what they have done here, they didn't find the profiles of 2, 3 or 4 humans. They told the computer to assume that and the computer then creates results based on those assumptions.

But it seems actually some DNA was likely not even human??

 

[Tortoise]

I've only just scraped the surface going through the DNA testimony but I have listened to the part where Dr Perlin is cross-examined about the absence of Joey's DNA/presence of unknown touch-DNA on the electrical cord.

Day 38 Part 4

DrP: What I don’t know is from what part of the cord that the DNA that was sampled - that we analysed - was actually obtained.

SD: What if I represent to you it was the entire cord?

DrP: Then what was ever, if the cord had no knots, if it had no crevices, if there was nothing in it uh, well we know there’s DNA from there so I actually have a bit of a quandary as to how we saw informative DNA from somewhere, sampled from a cord if there was um, that was highly degraded, if there was no place the DNA could have been, um like in a tied up, in a knot or inside some region.

SD: It’s weird right?

DrP: No it’s not weird…

SD: It’s an anomaly?

DrP: No I don’t know that I have full information about whether there was any other, whether this was a totally smooth surface or if it was tied or untied. I don’t know.

SD: Ok.

DrP: There needn’t be any anomaly if there were parts of the cord that were bound up in such a way that they were never exposed to these enzymes and they weren’t cut up.

SD: So that would be a good place to look, if you were going to look at a cord that had a knot in it you would look at places where the DNA might be protected from the elements, from those bacteria and other things that [x]?

DrP: That’s correct.

SD: So that would be the good place to analyse that particular cord for DNA. But if you just took a swab if you unknotted any knots that were in it and just took a swab of all of it what’s your opinion about that?

DrP: Well you would get the DNA that was protected from the knot along with nothing from the areas that weren’t protected.

Day 39

SD: I just have a few more questions Dr. You indicated yesterday that the exclusionary match statistic that you found for Joseph McStay Sr.’s DNA on the white cord was a quandary, do you recall that testimony yesterday?

DrP: Er you said was a?

SD: Was a quandary.

DrP: Was a quandary? Ok, I don’t recall saying it was a quandary.

SD: Ok, you don’t recall what you testified to yesterday?

DrP: I don’t recall the word quandary.

SD: Other than an unprotected surface do you have any explanation as to why a full-grown adult who’s decomposing on top of an item would have an exclusionary match statistic whereas an unknown potential touch-DNA item does have a match statistic?

DrP: I [love?] the explanation about how the uh, his DNA may have been erased through enzymes I understand um there could be other explanations.

SD: And those same enzymes would also erase touch DNA?

DrP: Um if it was ex, if um the DNA was exposed to those um enzymes if there’s DNA digested, digestion enzymes yes.

SD: And those come again from both the body and the environment?

DrP: From the soil, yeah.


There were knots in the electrical cord but if we talk about the half bra in the grave results, there were no protected areas. His own testimony means touch DNA on the bra would have been erased.

This is the most expensive shopping spree for SMOKE that I think I've ever seen. Based on what he said above not one result can be trusted - if his software can generate unknown matches/results on unprotected items in the grave where there would be no DNA why should it be trusted on any item at all, in or out of the grave?

Suzanna Ryan and Beatriz Pujlls seemed to me to be like sales people on shopping channels selling M-vac and TrueAllele.

IMO the wonderful M-vac probably vacuumed up bacteria.

@oceanblueeyes my conclusion - Donald Jones (state's expert) prevails!

Cybergenetics costs (excludes Suzanna Ryan and Bode's costs):

Dr Perlin $800 per hour.
Beatriz $350 per hour.
1st report (as at 11th January 2019) $50,000

MOO

 

[Frankie Hellis]

I've only just scraped the surface going through the DNA testimony but I have listened to the part where Dr Perlin is cross-examined about the absence of Joey's DNA/presence of unknown touch-DNA on the electrical cord.

Day 38 Part 4

DrP: What I don’t know is from what part of the cord that the DNA that was sampled - that we analysed - was actually obtained.

SD: What if I represent to you it was the entire cord?

DrP: Then what was ever, if the cord had no knots, if it had no crevices, if there was nothing in it uh, well we know there’s DNA from there so I actually have a bit of a quandary as to how we saw informative DNA from somewhere, sampled from a cord if there was um, that was highly degraded, if there was no place the DNA could have been, um like in a tied up, in a knot or inside some region.

SD: It’s weird right?

DrP: No it’s not weird…

SD: It’s an anomaly?

DrP: No I don’t know that I have full information about whether there was any other, whether this was a totally smooth surface or if it was tied or untied. I don’t know.

SD: Ok.

DrP: There needn’t be any anomaly if there were parts of the cord that were bound up in such a way that they were never exposed to these enzymes and they weren’t cut up.

SD: So that would be a good place to look, if you were going to look at a cord that had a knot in it you would look at places where the DNA might be protected from the elements, from those bacteria and other things that [x]?

DrP: That’s correct.

SD: So that would be the good place to analyse that particular cord for DNA. But if you just took a swab if you unknotted any knots that were in it and just took a swab of all of it what’s your opinion about that?

DrP: Well you would get the DNA that was protected from the knot along with nothing from the areas that weren’t protected.

Day 39

SD: I just have a few more questions Dr. You indicated yesterday that the exclusionary match statistic that you found for Joseph McStay Sr.’s DNA on the white cord was a quandary, do you recall that testimony yesterday?

DrP: Er you said was a?

SD: Was a quandary.

DrP: Was a quandary? Ok, I don’t recall saying it was a quandary.

SD: Ok, you don’t recall what you testified to yesterday?

DrP: I don’t recall the word quandary.

SD: Other than an unprotected surface do you have any explanation as to why a full-grown adult who’s decomposing on top of an item would have an exclusionary match statistic whereas an unknown potential touch-DNA item does have a match statistic?

DrP: I [love?] the explanation about how the uh, his DNA may have been erased through enzymes I understand um there could be other explanations.

SD: And those same enzymes would also erase touch DNA?

DrP: Um if it was ex, if um the DNA was exposed to those um enzymes if there’s DNA digested, digestion enzymes yes.

SD: And those come again from both the body and the environment?

DrP: From the soil, yeah.


There were knots in the electrical cord but if we talk about the half bra in the grave results, there were no protected areas. His own testimony means touch DNA on the bra would have been erased.

This is the most expensive shopping spree for SMOKE that I think I've ever seen. Based on what he said above not one result can be trusted - if his software can generate unknown matches/results on unprotected items in the grave where there would be no DNA why should it be trusted on any item at all, in or out of the grave?

Suzanna Ryan and Beatriz Pujlls seemed to me to be like sales people on shopping channels selling M-vac and TrueAllele.

IMO the wonderful M-vac probably vacuumed up bacteria.

@oceanblueeyes my conclusion - Donald Jones (state's expert) prevails!

Cybergenetics costs (excludes Suzanna Ryan and Bode's costs):

Dr Perlin $800 per hour.
Beatriz $350 per hour.
1st report (as at 11th January 2019) $50,000

MOO

Sorry to quote the whole thing; it is difficult to snip on this iPad.
I wholeheartedly agree with you about all of this, really, but particularly the part about it being a shopping spree, complete with the “Price is Right” models selling Mvac and TruAllele. I actually believe the jurors must have picked up on this, despite the mind-numbing testimony. I think Perlin’s attitude on cross helped the prosecution. Ha.

 

[Frankie Hellis]

Reading their website, I can see how there is a strong case for this where you have two mixed samples and you want to untangle it - and from that process you can essentially find the needle in the haystack which matches a known profile you were looking for.

This is also something you can obviously scientifically validate via trialling (if we trust Perlin's internal validation)

What I am far less sure about is where we have heavily degraded DNA including possibly non human DNA as the starting data. The computer is going to come out with results based on the starting assumptions (2, 3, 4 humans) no matter what the input.

So if I understand what they have done here, they didn't find the profiles of 2, 3 or 4 humans. They told the computer to assume that and the computer then creates results based on those assumptions.

But it seems actually some DNA was likely not even human??

Perhaps it might be useful to untangle multiple contributors as you suggest, however it is still nothing more than probability assessed by an algorithm no one has access to and no one can validate except those who developed said algorithm. There are assumptions made throughout the process. It was mentioned previously the process is less subjective without human intervention , yet these decisions are not non-existent, they are just built into the software.

 

[Tortoise]

Perhaps it might be useful to untangle multiple contributors as you suggest, however it is still nothing more than probability assessed by an algorithm no one has access to and no one can validate except those who developed said algorithm. There are assumptions made throughout the process. It was mentioned previously the process is less subjective without human intervention , yet these decisions are not non-existent, they are just built into the software.

Exactly.

Dear oh dear. IMO the doctor has a good nose for money, and again IMO, in this instance he is a hired gun. I notice he has offered his services apparently free of charge to the McCann "investigation", which would get him a lot of publicity if the UK Met police accepted his offer.

MOO

 

[Karinna]

Exactly.

Dear oh dear. IMO the doctor has a good nose for money, and again IMO, in this instance he is a hired gun. I notice he has offered his services apparently free of charge to the McCann "investigation", which would get him a lot of publicity if the UK Met police accepted his offer.

MOO

I doubt somehow they would take up the offer, it would go against their script, IMO.
Does any evidence even exist in the McCann case after all this time? Maybe Cuddle Cat?

 

[Frankie Hellis]

Exactly.

Dear oh dear. IMO the doctor has a good nose for money, and again IMO, in this instance he is a hired gun. I notice he has offered his services apparently free of charge to the McCann "investigation", which would get him a lot of publicity if the UK Met police accepted his offer.

MOO

Yeah, money and being “the” expert. Narcissism at its peak, IMO.

(Can you tell I didn’t get a warm-and-fuzzy feeling from him? Lol.)