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

[JudgeJudi]

She tells Combrink to take all the samples and test it. Put them on different batches and see what result you get, an exasperated Otto insists.

This will clear up all the issues of SOPs that we are not following, or that we are not accredited. Take it, she tells Combrink.

Combrink says staff transgressed their SOPs. Combrink says staff transgressed their SOPs. Otto says he has been repeating himself.

Looking at samples of the family. Otto says they are all related. Combrink asks if they are then compared in the mixture samples.
Unknown DNA is reported as unknown DNA, Otto explains

I am an objective witness, Otto says.I

I am not here to try and link anybody to any crime, that is not my job, says Otto.

It's possible that its only three people, or only two. I don't know how DNA ended up there. Look at mixture and compare it to the references. It's possible that its only two people, also that it's three.

Is there a distinction between the 3 people?
No. But the reference samples can be read into it. The children share their DNA with their mother.

Everywhere there is mixture between Henri, Rudi and Teresa, could very well be a mixture of Henri and Rudi, Combrink says.
Otto says it could be.

Otto says she doesn't know how the DNA got there. "I must compare and relay."

Very technical evidence in DNA.
Otto says that children share 50% of their mothers DNA, which complicates profiles.

She can only include someone in mixture result if looks at whole profile.

Court breaks for lunch.

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

 

[JudgeJudi]

We have adjourned for lunch, sounds like the defense is nearing the end, back at 14h00

ETA: Found the term I needed earlier - Otto referred to "homozygous locus"

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

 

[Interested Bystander]

Otto has been been very tough to throw off track. So it seems Otto is saying if C doesn't believe she and her lab are competent the sample testing could be repeated elsewhere. I am sure that would not elicit anything but confirmation. I don't see C opting for that. He must know it is an argument he will not win.

We know HvB needs a good defence but C and PB are obnoxious, arrogant and rude.

 

[JudgeJudi]

We are back after lunch, Combrink hands up some more paper work

Otto is considering the document reflecting DNA profile one is zoomed in Combrink indicates

Combrink referring to profiles relating to particular exhibits and peak highs on the profile

Combrink refers to 124 locus, a black line to the left of that? Otto: clarifies page

Combrink going through the peaks and *stutters* *sounds like

Otto explaining her view of this profile. We wouldnt really bother with that peak. Low level mix used

C: would your system color it?
O: it wasnt labelled may be picked up by G map

C: if its above 50? O: it would have been called by Gmap software and star gazer

Combrink taking instructions from his expert sitting next to him in court

O: If we look at our version, no indication. Look at zoomed in the stutters much higher, raised base line could be an artefact

C: if its not an artefact its an allele? Possible says Otto

Otto: I cant confirm if its an allele or artefact, I wont interpret this.

Otto: if it had been labelled we would have known

C: so there is not an 8th allele at that locus in the family

Otto: I am not certain it is an allele?

C: : if its a true allele? Otto: I am not going to say its a true allele

Otto: defence teams scrutinise this all the time. Its not labelled, I am not going to call it an allele, that is my final answer

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

 

[JudgeJudi]

Desai why not labelled? O: it could be a number of reasons

C: refers to the fingernail swapping [? swabbing] of Martin

C: Referring to top block of profile again zoomed in

Combrink: The SSR comment on that 8th allele was that it was not an artefact

It is possible it is a true allele but again it hasnt been labelled. I am not going to comment

Desai: if its important why was it not labelled?

O: its a single profile but on base line may be some small peaks and I cant say its unknown DNA not labelled

[I feel like I'm sinking into an abyss at the moment]

Combrink points out what he says is a 22 allele.
Otto points out uncertainty as being the reason peaks were not labelled

O: if it had been seen by G mapper as true allele it would be indicated as a possible allele

O: those peaks have not been marked and they are two low to be marked

C: so it could be either allele or?

Otto: it could be allele could be artefact or a peak too low and we not allowed to interpret it

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

 

[JudgeJudi]

We cant randomly decide that this may be an allele. We work on a set of rules to interpret

C: we asked for all the data,
Otto: we dont have the data, you will need to call the G-Mapper system

Or call the analyst that works with the G mapper he will be able to explain

Combrink: Refers to a 12, as you know is an allele in the family.
O: it could be but it did not conform to the allele designation

O: we have the 20% filter thats applied and we look at the peaks per notice and the ratio of the peaks

O: the point is that peak did not comply to our rules

Combrink: showing peaks in the 13th position. O: might be but again its not labelled.
C: its evidently higher than 50

O: yes but peak height ratio plays a role in mixture interpretations

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

 

[JudgeJudi]

Combrink: refers to an allele of Martin.

C: would u say this is possibly a partial profile of Martin


Otto: I am not going to. We are not allowed to, I am not allowed to interpret a partial profile only a full profile in 10 mixtures

Combrink moving on, says he is almost done

Combrink needs another 10 minutes

Combrink: one last example of this kind handed up

C: refers to FG locus, stutter, we say there is a 22 allele.

22 allele is one that is not within the family

Otto: where was sample?
C: a bench, is it inside outside, how many people sat on that bench

Otto: it is foreign but that is why I asked where the swab was taken from?

Combrink: Wooden bench on the passage top floor.

Combrink: you said it could possibly be an allele and if it is, it is 22 and thats not in the family

[What, so the attacker took a rest and sat on the bench in the upstairs passage?]

Otto: I dont have dna of anyone else in that house, I can only interpret the alleles that are labelled

Combrink: refers to another point were allele's 22 are shown.

Otto: I am not going to interpret alleles which are not recognised by our system

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

 

[JudgeJudi]

Otto: I am not going to tell the court that it is an allele 22 if our system didnt pick it up

Combrink: you made a big thing about not finding any foreign DNA of being somewhere and not leaving a trace

Now you mention that other people have gone through the house and left DNA

Otto: Again, I cannot interpret or speculate on this DNA if its hasnt been labelled by our system

Combrink: to take photos a witness told us he had to stretch over and he may have left DNA

Combrink: We know that James left finger prints on the car, we dont know if he left DNA

So what do you comment on leaving without a trace?

Otto: I conceded that if the person was covered then they may leave without a trace

Desai: but the situation with Kleyhans is different- would you expect someone who was involved in an attack to leave DNA

Otto: if he is wearing gloves or balaclava then may still leave without trace

Otto: If the person was wearing gloves and a balaclava and normal clothes I would not expect them to leave DNA

Otto: the hands and the face are the areas that shed DNA the most

Combrink: did you inform Captain Joubert that it could be either profiles? Henri or Rudi?
Otto- No I wouldnt have

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

 

[Interested Bystander]

What I find odd is that it would be good for C if Otto had found contamination because it could lend weight to a further person being involved in the murder. Surely he knows his argument is specious

 

[JudgeJudi]

Combrink finishes

Galloway: I asked this in your evidence in chief- wrt questions of expecting DNA of intruder being involved in scuffle

Otto: you said you wouldnt expect. Applying Lockard what would you expect of the intruder?

Otto: If I am wearing PPE, I may not transfer my DNA to that person but he will transfer DNA onto me

Galloway: Extracts from Joubert's statement, the photo of 2 persons not properly dressed u said you would pick up her DNA profile

Otto: Should she as an analyst have contaminated the matter we would have been able to pick up her profile

Galloway: You have said you cant report on allele's not labelled, why not?

Otto: it is dangerous to interpret because it is so low, you start losing your objectivity

Galloway finalises and Desai has some questions

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

 

[JudgeJudi]

Desai: you explained that quality was more relevant than quantity on input DNA

Did you find sufficient Allele’s for each locusto generate a full and valid reliable str profile where the concentration was below

Yes in every sample says Otto

Desai wants to clarify, asks Otto for a further report where she reports on DNA profiles that can be distinguished from one another

Otto: in this case it wont be possible, she could note in cases where she mentioned 3 profiles she could say possibly only 2

Desai says so it cant be done, thats fine no further questions dismisses Otto

We are adjourned for the day, a relieved Otto leaves the witness box we will return on Monday 14 August at 10h00

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

 

[JudgeJudi]

We are back in court after lunch. Judge Desai will be attending the Omar funeral at 15:30 so the session will conclude in the next hour.

Desai asks Combrink how long he is still expected to take.
At most 10 minutes, it appears.

Alleles being looked at. Otto refuses to call or entertain it. "I am not going to call it. I am not going to make a statement on it."

She insists she will not speculate.

Combrink asks if Sergeant Kleynhans' (who took photos at scene) DNA wasn't picked up.

No, she says.

Combrink says it is quite possible that if someone was there they didn't leave a trace.

Otto says an intruder wearing a balaclava and gloves and is involved in a struggle would not leave a lot of DNA . Face and head area are huge shedders of DNA.

Combrink concludes cross examination.

Galloway now asks of Locard principle - Otto says the principle tells you that every touch leaves a trace. If dressed in PPE and she is involved in a struggle, she wont transfer onto him, but he will transfer onto her.

Could be left behind as you make your way through a door as blood on clothes means there will be secondary transfer.

Jude Desai now asking his own questions

Court is adjourned. We will back back at 10am on Monday!

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

 

[Interested Bystander]

Thank you for the updates.

I cannot imagine what Otto is thinking about the last three days. Maybe she would like to put an axe through C's skull! I think I would.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Thank you JJ for tweets.

 

[Tortoise]

I didn't see the purpose of Galloway's re-exam - re-visiting locard and balaclava/gloves. What did that achieve in the State's favour?

 

[ApplesInMyBra]

Tortoise, I too was a bit perplexed as to why Galloway would bring up that a person wearing gloves and balaclava won't leave any DNA :thinking:

 

[Interested Bystander]

I didn't see the purpose of Galloway's re-exam - re-visiting locard and balaclava/gloves. What did that achieve in the State's favour?

Not too sure. I will have to look at the video again but the sound was really bad. I am never sure the tweets are totally accurate. Were you listening in or reading the tweets?

 

[chinacat67]

I didn't see the purpose of Galloway's re-exam - re-visiting locard and balaclava/gloves. What did that achieve in the State's favour?

I can't remember...did Henri's description of the "attacker" mention ski mask or gloves or the like? If not, then that could be what Galloway was tacitly pointing out?

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[Interested Bystander]

This is what Galloway said:-

“I did ask you this in Evidence in Chief but an objection was raised and since it has now been raised again in cross examination, I would like to (ask), with regards to the questions of whether you would expect DNA of an intruder being Involved in a scuffle on the scene, and you said that you don’t if he is wearing ppe or a balaclava and gloves and the works. Adding to that, and now I have got to pronounce it correct, the Locard Principle, what would you expect would happen to the intruder on a scene such as this”.

I cannot see in any way asking this would help her case but maybe it will become clearer later. She obviously wanted to ask it in Evidence in Chief but an objection was raised so I guess there must be a reason. If the DT objected that too indicates there must be a reason which I cannot fathom. Surely it would be advantageous for them to have the intruder dressed so that no DNA was left. I am confused!

I have been struggling with why C has made such an issue of the DNA; firstly thinking he wanted to prove the lab was rubbish and get all the results thrown out but now I am beginning to think he has other reasons.

 

[Tortoise]

This is what he said in his first statement -

"he had a dark jeans, black jumbo jersey, black cloves (gloves), homemade dark grey mask on. I only saw his eyes..."

I'll have a look for his plea statement to see what he said there.