South Africa - Martin, 55, Theresa, 54, Rudi van Breda, 22, murdered, 26 Jan 2015 #3

[Interested Bystander]

JJ,is sorry I cannot help with tweeting, I have an appointment to keep and am just about to leave. I will be back at around 1pm but I see the court is finishing early. I could, if you like, write up later all of the tweets from a preferred tweeter. Would that be of any help?

 

[LouP1209]

Morning all, this has all flown over my head a bit, they seem to be going round in circles !!

Thanks for the updates everyone :cheers:

 

[JudgeJudi]

Otto says average forensic sample is not your optimal sample. But she says one can still work with samples of a lower quality.

Yes, 39 samples loaded, but according to our SOP and PCR, the results obtained are valid, reliable.

With DNA, you cant see it. Its a solution. The only time I will know that I am working with degraded DNA is at the end of the process.

Our systems allow us to take that sample further. Should it be degraded to an extent we wont get a full result.

Don't confuse the court with all sorts of calculations, its not important, Otto tells Combrink.

Comrink says getting the result is not important. Following the SOPs is.

Otto says in this case, there was a family of five victims attacked in their family home. Allegedly an axe was used. You expect to find blood on the scene. Blood was found on the scene.

As there were five victims, all of them were attacked. You would expect to find family DNA in this house. Nobody before me even knows what they are dealing with. They cant change it. The DNA is already in there.

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/live-van-breda-axe-murder-trial-day-31-20170811

 

[JudgeJudi]

JJ,is sorry I cannot help with tweeting, I have an appointment to keep and am just about to leave. I will be back at around 1pm but I see the court is finishing early. I could, if you like, write up later all of the tweets from a preferred tweeter. Would that be of any help?

No worries IB. I think I can probably do all of them.

 

[JudgeJudi]

There seems to be a bit of a lull. I hope Otto is putting on some boxing gloves.

Morning tea time.

I haven't been watching or listening. I'll watch later.

 

[Tortoise]

5 minute adjournment

 

[Tortoise]

I think they're back

[video=youtube;LgD-xIVC8xs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgD-xIVC8xs[/video]

 

[JudgeJudi]

Combrink: Referring to another SOP

C: PPE- the system shall provide for personnel to at all times wear the following PPE

O: agrees that indicates what must be worn

C: Safety glasses, disposable masks etc- Not necessary for lab but in evidence recovery? Otto yes they wear it

Combrink reads out the reason why, protect the chain of custody

Combrink hands up hand out defence compiled from documents given by the state

Combrink: shows snapshot of SOP's and photographs

Is it correct that the people in the background are not following that SOP

Otto: No- I dont see this making provision for VIC

Otto: this is an ER

Otto: she is wearing an open shoe but she isnt contaminating because we didnt pick up her DNA

Combrink: I used 2 examples, I am a technician I forget in my pocket a tube and take it home and bring it back

https://twitter.com/traceyams?lang=en

 

[JudgeJudi]

C: although you would get a brilliant result that SOP would be broken and so would the chain of custody

O: reluctantly agrees and tries to continue

C: U said that the sample would be thrown out if you found a video of someone doing that
O:yes not wearing safety shoes but person might just be assisting with taking a picture

O: I agree full PPE must be worn by adults working with the subject matter

O: when handling evidence and analysts dealing with exhibits I dont know who those people are

Combrink: I referred you to an SOP, is it important that this person wear the appropriate shoes

Desai: The answer was that it depends on the circumstances, if someone is in area must they wear shoes?

Otto: if I go into a lab and speak to an analyst I dont wear PPE I am not working with the subject matter

Combrink: I am content that this is in contravention of the SOP

https://twitter.com/traceyams?lang=en

 

[JudgeJudi]

Otto: If she had to wear it then fine but if she didnt have to then she didnt have too I cant say anymore

Combrink: Admin issue to be resolved. You said u would be able to locate the data of the duplicates?
O: I wont have time to complete

Otto: all material to be reviewed must be sent to Pretoria and returned it will take at least a month

Otto: Our SOP only requires us to provide one sample and not duplicates

Combrink: we thought there was no duplication now you say there was, we didnt know there was dupl. how must we know to ask for it?

Combrink: you have it and we would like to have it. Otto: it will take at least a month

Otto has the other documents Combrink has requested, with her, and she is getting him a copy from her file

Combrink: when did the SOP change that you dont need duplicates?

Otto: These were done by the manuals and thats why there are duplicates

https://twitter.com/traceyams?lang=en

 

[JudgeJudi]

Otto: at the time that we worked with this SOP's required duplicates

Combrink has a list of documentary evidence requests

Galloway: we are in trial, they requested further particulars extensively prior to the trial now we are in the trial

The witness is under cross examination and he is asking for paper trails

Judge Desai, I have to give Combrink the right to cross-examine even though it can be questionable at times

Pretoria has all the paper trail and they only provide an original one, why does the defence need the duplicate

Otto: I wouldnt say that a duplicate was done, under oath, if it had not been, I need the request in writing it will take a month

Combrink: please turn to SOP bundle pg 259 (he is moving on)

https://twitter.com/traceyams?lang=en

 

[JudgeJudi]

C: dealing with lab numbers on samples as set out in SOP's

Otto: This SOP is dated August 2012.

Desai: In this instance in the samples did you pick up any contamination?

Otto: No we did not. It was mostly single profiles once again there was a lot of samples

Take the duvet for example- two stains on one duvet they are separate, I know they were together but the analysts don't

Combrink: the reason for that SOP is to prevent contamination of exhibits by personnel with their own DNA

C: and cross contamination

C: Question is what SOP has been followed. We say it hasnt been followed in various instances and I will take you through them

Otto: I am a reporting officer I dont control that process I compile the report I dont check if those sample were next to one another, and whether that must have changed the result?

Otto: Each sample along the way must comply with the process. Does it invalidate the sample? I am telling the court no

Combrink: but you testified that it did invalidate it.
Desai- we have been through that, leave it for argument

Combrink hands up a list of occasions they do not believe they met the SOP's

https://twitter.com/traceyams?lang=en

 

[JudgeJudi]

Galloway: It appears to be drafted by their expert, its a long list of numerical terms, unfair to ask the witness to go through now

[This is just brutal. I've never heard XX like this before ... ever]

Otto: I said what I could regarding this, this is not my process. I do not work here. If it is insolation rather call that analyst

C:if you as reporting officer were told about these, would you ask for resubmission?
Otto: No I would accept it

Otto: We were under pressure to get this report out, we had to process these

Otto: Look at the 1st one, Henri and Marli, one male and one female

O:remember all the samples of duvet were submitted at the same time

O: Now we are looking at this SOP dated 2012

Otto: all of these samples are still available so the analysis can be re-done

Judge Desai- asked that question about re-doing analysis if need be

Adv Combrink "so you want to have another bite of the cherry?"

Otto: I suggest, another lab re do analysis as it would clear up all the issues of the SOP's, accreditation etc

Judge Desai: if any doubt of conclusion found then it can be re-done?

Combrink: Ok what is the point of this SOP?
Otto: to prevent contamination

We have SOP's in place to get a reliable result but we have this one to ensure quality measures are put in place

https://twitter.com/traceyams?lang=en

 

[JudgeJudi]

Combrink: these exhibits - axe head, corner of shower - they are at risk of cross contamination

Otto: You work with one tube open at a time you dont work with everything open at once all over the scene people are trained

Otto: contamination has not been picked up in this case

Combrink: it can be avoided but having a space between these tubes so one cases tubes dont follow the next

Otto: I have explained there was no contamination but I am not part of this process I have explained I agree with you

Combrink: we will argue in the end that this aspect was very crucial. This SOP was very obvious and clear and transgressed

[I can imagine someone back in Combrink's chambers is already drafting up grounds of appeal]

https://twitter.com/traceyams?lang=en

 

[JudgeJudi]

Combrink: next point, Mixtures, which you have dealt with. C hands up another exhibit

C: we have set out extractions that you read into the record, we have reference samples clearly set out and the profiles

C: You would agree the DNA profiles from Rudi and Henri look like that?

Galloway objects- I see at least 10 samples, 3 of rudi and henri, which one does he refer to?

C: reads out more detail from DNA in the table he has handed up

Otto: M'lord I understand completely and the answer is that these people are all related

the bottom 2 samples namely rudi and henri, it also gives us the same mixtures the reason, both share Teresas dna as she is mother

Otto: If I have a mixture result I compare it to all the references that I have, if I can read all three of them in I must say

C: when you do this exercise you take the profile and compare it with mixtures and profiles of mixtures and then u read them in

O: if I can read them in I will

Desai: what happens to Unknown DNA?
Otto: Unknown DNA must be reported request additional samples etc

Galloway objects to questioning and Combrink giving evidence she asks him to point out the mothers column

C: both mixtures would indicate XY- Otto: yes

C: You said you also would have looked at EPG's? Otto: Yes

C: why didnt you say it is a mixture of Rudi, Teresa and Henri? Why just Rudi and Henri?

Otto: I would go an include the people that I can include and thats my interpretation

C: this profile can be read into this mixture Teresa, henri and rudi? When you could just say Henri and Rudi? why not state in report

O: We only mention the inclusions and the probability

O: when I do an interpretation I have to optimally report on what I read in the rest is my interpretation

O: I am an objective witness, if you want to argue that point thats fine I am objective

Combrink: that statement in itself is utterly bias

Judge and Assessor are going to look at the report as you read those profiles in

https://twitter.com/traceyams?lang=en

 

[JudgeJudi]

Lets use the shower floor- you said it is the DNA of Henri, Rudi and Teresa when it could be only Rudi and Henri?

Otto: I am just at the end looking at the mixture comparing the references, I am not being biased.

Otto: It is possible that it was only two people- Rudi and Henri but its also possible that its 3 people Teresa Rudi and Henri

Otto: if you have a mixture with 3 people, mother with 2 children

Desai: look at sample in shower, is there a distinction between the 3 people?
Otto: No- only I can say that 3 profiles can be read into the shower sample

Otto: Where there is a mixture of siblings the parents dna could be referenced

Combrink: I suggest you write into report everywhere there could be an alternative DNA read in that it be noted

In certain mixtures depending who they are, for example Marli has a 13 there, she for instance wouldnt be read into that mixture

C: mere fact that she is her mothers child will make certain aspects the same O: true

C: if you look at that profile again specifically at D13, entire family its 12/12 right? O: yes

C: so that locus is uninformative?

She agrees -its a *homizidis locus*

C: so there are only 8 comparisons? No 9 says otto

https://twitter.com/traceyams?lang=en

 

[Tortoise]

I would say Combrink is wrong about the shower mixture, because Martin's DNA wasn't found in the mixture results and paternal DNA should be covered by the same principle as maternal DNA, if it isn't distinguishable as a separate result from Henri's and Rudi's blood.

Also Rudi's blood shouldn't be in the shower at all.

 

[JudgeJudi]

C: in a case of 3 (twins) If I had to compare this then the process would not work

C: So I am saying where it is the same for everyone its uninformative.
Otto: says fine but I would still consider it

C: reads out a number of international standards used on tests and asks if Otto used that kit on 15

Otto: at that time deals with kits she used. It would not have changed anything

C: thats not true, if you had more loci then you would have more to compare

Otto: no its just family

Combrink says he wont be much longer some has fallen at the wayside because of concessions

[We live in hope]

https://twitter.com/traceyams?lang=en

Adjourned for lunch

 

[Tortoise]

In fact I'll revise that - no blood should be in the shower, not even Henri's.

Whatever happened about the blood on the towel? I don't recall hearing any results on that.

 

[JudgeJudi]

One of the SOPs being analysed. Personnel's PPEs being looked at.

Combrink shows a photo which shows staff not wearing full gear. Otto says one isn't wearing open shoes, and the other is wearing safety boots.

She isn't contaminating because we didn't pick up DNA, Otto says.

Otto says she doesn't know who is standing in the pics. Yes, person not wearing safety shoes, but that person may just be assisting with taking photos.

Full PPC must be worn. When you are the analyst dealing with the exhibits, these people may have been walking past the lab.

One needs to know the circumstances, Otto says

Judge Desai says the photos are not a complete picture.

Combrink says the person is wearing some of the PPE.

Shoe has open skin and no shoe covers, Combrink says.

Otto concedes that she is not wearing the full kit.

But that's out of my control," she adds.


Combrink has a list of documentary evidence requests.

Galloway counters: We are in trial, they requested further particulars extensively prior to the trial, now we are in the trial.

Judge says there are other cases that need to be heard in the court and Combrink needs to get on with it.


SOP related to contamination being referred to. Otto says no contamination picked up from any analyst.

Results obtained was mostly single full profiles. Samples contains the DNA of five family members.

If we have 216 samples, it is possible that two samples may end up on the same shortlist.

Combrink says its not been followed. Otto says she doesn't have control over how the work lists are generated. When she does analysis, she doesn't check if samples are next to each other to make her analysis.

Good lab practice must prevail she says. Does it invalidate the sample? No.

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/live-van-breda-axe-murder-trial-day-31-20170811