Mamta Kafle Bhatt Trial: How They Used Mamta's Hairbrush to Read the DNA (Full Testimony Oct 27)

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: All right, Tom Lough, you ready to call your next witness? Yes, ma'am. [00:00:08] Speaker 2: That would be Lori Crew. [00:00:30] Speaker 1: Go ahead, Ms. Tammy. [00:00:54] Speaker 2: Thank you. Good afternoon. [00:00:56] Lori Crew: Good afternoon. [00:00:57] Speaker 2: Can you please state and spell your name? [00:01:00] Lori Crew: My name is Lori Crew, L-O-R-I-P-R-U-G-H. And how are you employed? I'm employed as a forensic scientist at the Virginia Department of Forensic Science at their Northern Laboratory in Manassas, Virginia. [00:01:16] Speaker 2: And what is a forensic scientist? [00:01:18] Lori Crew: A forensic scientist is someone who, excuse me, applies scientific principles or laboratory analysis methods to matters of law. [00:01:27] Speaker 2: And how long have you worked for the Department of Forensic Science? [00:01:30] Lori Crew: I began at Virginia DFS in the summer of 2013 as a laboratory technician. And then I began training to become a forensic scientist the next year. And I have been independently performing case work since May of 2015. [00:01:45] Speaker 2: Can you tell us a little bit about your educational background? [00:01:48] Lori Crew: Yes. I have a Master of Forensic Science concentrating in forensic molecular biology from the George Washington University. A Master of Science in Medical Sciences from the University of Florida. And a Bachelor of Science in Biology from Nickel State University in Louisiana. [00:02:04] Speaker 2: Can you tell us about any other additional courses or seminars you may have taken? [00:02:09] Lori Crew: As part of my employment with the Virginia Department of Forensic Science, I am required to complete eight hours of continuing education every year. And I always exceed this through seminars and meetings. And also as part of my course work for my master's program, this exceeded the, excuse me, exceeded the requirements for being a forensic scientist as well. [00:02:32] Speaker 2: And are you a member of any professional organizations? [00:02:36] Lori Crew: Yes, I am a member of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences as well as the Mid-Atlantic Association of Forensic Scientists. [00:02:44] Speaker 2: Have you previously testified in the area of forensic biology? Yes, I have. Do you know how many times approximately? [00:02:51] Lori Crew: 25 times. 23 of those would be in circuit court in Virginia and twice in U.S. Federal District Court. [00:02:58] Speaker 2: Now, Your Honor, if I may have permission to approach the witness. Nay. I'm handing you what has been marked as how most exhibit 294 for identification purposes. Defense has been provided a copy of this previously. Ms. Pru, do you recognize what I handed you? [00:03:23] Lori Crew: Yes, this is a copy of my Statement of Qualifications, which is what we call our CV or resume at the Department of Forensic Science. [00:03:31] Speaker 2: Is it a true and accurate copy of that? [00:03:33] Lori Crew: Yes, it is. As of June 2025. The only thing that has changed since then is the number of times I have testified. [00:03:39] Speaker 2: Your Honor, at this time I would move to enter that as Commonwealth 294. [00:03:44] Speaker 1: Any objection? All right, without objection. [00:03:47] Speaker 2: And, Your Honor, at this time I would tender Ms. Pru as an expert in forensic biology and DNA and body fluid identification. [00:03:58] Speaker 1: Any objection? All right, she'll be found to be an expert in those fields. [00:04:04] Speaker 2: Ms. Pru, can you start off by telling us what is DNA? [00:04:09] Lori Crew: So DNA stands for deoxyribonucleic acid and it is the material in our bodies that tells our body how it should look and how it should function. So just as the blueprint for a house would show where the doors or windows should go, DNA is the instruction for our bodies for how our cells and different parts of our bodies should look and function. DNA is hereditary, so we receive half of our DNA from each of our biological parents. And then in most of us, DNA is exactly the same because it's what makes us human. So most of our DNA is the same. However, there are differences between each of us and it's these differences that I'm interested in testing for my forensic testing. [00:04:51] Speaker 2: Now for DNA, what parts of the body can you find it in? [00:04:57] Lori Crew: So DNA is found in the nucleus of a cell, so any cells which have a nucleus will contain DNA. So blood, saliva, skin cells, all of these will contain DNA. [00:05:08] Speaker 2: Now for any given individual, is the DNA information in the cells of one body fluid for that individual the same in another body fluid? [00:05:18] Lori Crew: Yes, so for example, if you were to test my DNA from my saliva, it would be the same as the DNA in my blood for the type of testing that I perform. So this is why I'm able to compare DNA profiles developed from different types of body fluids or different types of cells to each other. [00:05:34] Speaker 2: Now is there a difference in the amount of DNA that is able to be analyzed in different body fluids? [00:05:41] Lori Crew: So not so much in different body fluids, but for instance, certain body fluids will contain more DNA than, say, skin cells. So the type of sample where someone might just touch an item and we recover DNA from that item, that is generally less DNA than the amount of DNA that we would find in something like blood or saliva. [00:06:03] Speaker 2: Now can you tell us generally what DNA typing is? [00:06:08] Lori Crew: Yes, so DNA typing refers to the type of testing that I perform at my laboratory. So for DNA typing, we develop DNA profiles from items of evidence and then from known individuals. So you can think of this DNA profile by thinking of DNA as a long chain made up of many, many links, thousands and thousands of links. But if I'm looking at only 24 of those individual links within the chain, that is how the DNA testing is performed. So I'm looking at 24 specific areas of DNA, developing DNA types at those areas, and then across those areas that makes up a DNA profile. So I will develop DNA profiles for known individuals and compare those to any DNA profiles I develop from items of evidence to see if an individual can or cannot be eliminated as a possible contributor of the evidence profile DNA. [00:07:03] Speaker 2: Can you tell us in basic steps how a DNA test is performed? [00:07:09] Lori Crew: Yes. So the first step is to purify or separate the DNA from the item on which it's submitted or recovered. So in a lot of instances, this is in the form of a cotton swab. So if you think of a Q-tip, this is like a cotton swab. It wouldn't stick with a white cotton tip. So using that as an example, the first step is that we want to get the DNA sample off of the swab and purify the DNA. So we call this extraction. The second step is that we're quantifying the amount of DNA in that sample. And so at that step, we're able to quantify the total amount of DNA as well as the amount of male DNA within a sample. And then the final step is to then develop a DNA profile from that purified DNA sample. And then I perform the comparison step that I described earlier. [00:07:59] Speaker 2: And what is PCR? What does that stand for? [00:08:04] Lori Crew: PCR stands for polymerase chain reaction. [00:08:07] Speaker 2: And can you explain how that relates to your work? [00:08:10] Lori Crew: Yes. So both the quantitation step, where we're seeing how much DNA is present in a sample, and the DNA typing step rely on this process, which is close to 40 years old at this point. It's used in a lot of biomedical testing and scientific research. It's a well-established method. Specifically for the DNA typing step, it makes millions of copies of just those 24 areas of the DNA molecule. So if you could think again of an example of a, say, a very large reference dictionary that has tens of thousands of words in it, the PCR method is, for instance, flipping through those pages, finding those 24 individual words, and then making copies of those specific areas to develop that DNA profile. [00:09:00] Speaker 2: And what kinds of safeguards or protocols do you employ while maintaining, while doing the testing to maintain the integrity of the samples? [00:09:10] Lori Crew: Yes. So before I open any items of evidence, I will first clean, excuse me, clean my work area by spraying and cleaning everything with 10% bleach. Bleach can destroy and degrade DNA, and then use alcohol to clean off the bleach from the work surfaces. I use disposable gloves, hair net, face mask, and a disposable lab coat. I change my gloves frequently. As I open items of evidence, I change my gloves in between when I'm touching the outside of the packaging versus when I take that item out in order to prevent transferring DNA from one surface to another on my gloves. I always cut the samples and place them into labeled tubes, which are labeled with the case number, item number, and my initials, in order to never mix up any of these samples. And then items of evidence are always analyzed in a separate area and time from any reference samples. So those known DNA samples from individuals are always done at a separate time and place. [00:10:09] Speaker 2: And is that to prevent cross-contamination? That's correct. For examples? Yes. Now directing your attention specifically to this case at hand, how did you get involved? [00:10:20] Lori Crew: So first a request for laboratory examination is made at the laboratory. That's usually the first step in testing. Sometimes before that, as in this case, investigators reached out to our supervisors of our forensic biology section to request a meeting to help guide them in which items to submit. It's very routine that investigators will collect a very large number of items, which are too many for us to examine at one time or possibly ever to examine for each case. So we have a discussion with them about which would be the most informative items for them to submit and what the capabilities of the laboratory would be as far as either a turnaround time or just, excuse me, testing capabilities. So that request came in for this case and it was requested to be expedited. So I was available and able to do the testing for this case. So I was assigned this case. [00:11:16] Speaker 2: And did you have a separate meeting with investigators in this case as well? [00:11:21] Lori Crew: I spoke with CSI Feldman regarding the items that she was submitting, but she had a previous meeting with a supervisor in our section. [00:11:30] Speaker 2: Now, did you produce a number of certificates of analysis in this case? [00:11:35] Lori Crew: Yes, I did. How many? Three certificates of analysis. [00:11:39] Speaker 2: And what are certificates of analysis? [00:11:41] Lori Crew: So certificates of analysis are summaries of the testing results. So for each item that's submitted to the laboratory, all of my final conclusions and the results of the testing are reported in these. So these can also be called reports, but there are certificates of analysis. [00:12:01] Speaker 2: Now, let's talk about your first certificate of analysis. And I'll refer to it as COA for short. Yes. What dates did you produce that first certificate? [00:12:14] Lori Crew: August of 2024, I believe August 28th. [00:12:17] Speaker 2: Can you tell us what the goal for this particular COA was? [00:12:21] Lori Crew: So the initial request was for a very quick turnaround time that was too quick for us to complete the full DNA analysis. So they requested that I perform the presumptive blood testing on these items to show whether or not blood was indicated on these submitted items. [00:12:40] Speaker 2: And when you say to determine whether blood was indicated, you said a presumptive test. Can you explain that to the jury? Yes. [00:12:50] Lori Crew: So the blood test that we perform at the Virginia Department of Forensic Science first is based on a visual exam of the item. So I will examine an item to see if there's any possible blood staining present. And then we perform a chemical test, which will produce a pink and then blue-green color change if blood is possibly present. So this is not confirmatory, meaning it is not testing for blood to the exclusion of all other possible materials. And it is also not human-specific. But we perform this test because it only requires a small portion of the sample. And then we can preserve the rest of that sample for DNA testing, all of which is human-specific. [00:13:33] Speaker 2: Now, for that first certificate of analysis, did you examine items 103, 104, 105, 106, 120, 136, 139, 140, 171, 174, 175, and 176? [00:13:54] Lori Crew: Yes, I did. [00:13:55] Speaker 2: And how did you receive those items? [00:13:57] Lori Crew: They were submitted to our laboratory -- excuse me -- and then I retrieved them from a secured location within our forensic biology section. We call it our evidence fault, and it's a restricted access -- excuse me -- access session. [00:14:12] Speaker 2: And after you received that evidence, did you perform your presumptive blood testing for that certificate? Yes, I did. Did you put your conclusions into the certificate that you mentioned you produced in August of 2014? Yes, I did. [00:14:28] Lori Crew: I may push the witness. [00:14:29] Speaker 2: You may. And then you what has been marked as Connell's Exhibit 310 for identification purposes. Do you recognize that? [00:14:52] Lori Crew: Yes, this is a copy of the certificate of analysis dated August 28th, 2024. And I recognize it by the unique FS lab number that we assigned to cases as they're submitted. For this case, it is N24-7157. And my signature is at the end of the certificate of analysis. [00:15:09] Speaker 2: Is it a true and accurate copy? [00:15:11] Lori Crew: Yes, it is. [00:15:12] Speaker 2: Your Honor, at this time, I would move to enter this as Connell's 310 and ask for permission to publish. Any objection? [00:15:18] Speaker 1: Any objection? All right. [00:15:20] Speaker ?: Without objection, that will be received and you may publish it. Thank you. [00:15:22] Speaker 2: Once I get this up on the screen, Ms. Crew, I'll just have you take us through the certificate briefly and explain to us what we're looking at. All right. We are looking at page one of that certificate. Can you tell us what we're looking at in terms of evidence submitted and how that relates to what you did in this case? [00:16:18] Lori Crew: Yes, so these were the items submitted for testing on August 26th, 2024, and then August 27th, 2024. These are recorded on the request for laboratory examination and then they're also printed onto the certificate of analysis. So I performed testing on all of these samples. [00:16:36] Speaker 2: All right. Let's get to items 103 through 106. What did you do and what were your conclusions? [00:16:45] Lori Crew: Yes, so these were four knives that were submitted and on each of these knives no blood was indicated. So this means that I attempted to test either possible staining and then on some of them I just swabbed the entire blade to see if there was any potential blood staining and I performed that presumptive blood test and it was negative for all four of these knives. And -- And -- Or no further analysis was conducted on these. [00:17:11] Speaker 2: So testing was concluded for those items? [00:17:14] Lori Crew: Yes, I did not move on to DNA testing for these samples. I mean, excuse me, for these items. [00:17:19] Speaker 2: Moving on to page two, we see items 120, 139, 140, and 176, stained swabs. What did you do and what were your conclusions? [00:17:29] Lori Crew: So for each of these swabs, I took a small cutting to perform the presumptive blood test and blood was indicated in each of these swabs. And then there was a possible hair fiber recovered from one of the stained swabs which was not examined. And then the results of the DNA testing were to be a subject of a separate report for these items. [00:17:48] Speaker 2: And just to make clear, this is just to confirm that further analysis is needed after blood has been indicated? [00:17:56] Lori Crew: Correct. This was just to meet the request that the blood testing be expedited. But all of these samples did go forward for DNA testing, which was in a separate certificate of analysis. [00:18:07] Speaker 2: Item 174, tell us about that. [00:18:14] Lori Crew: Yes. So this was a piece of carpet, which from the underside had apparent staining, reddish-brown staining. And so blood was indicated in that staining. And I took samples forward for DNA testing, which is the subject of a separate report. [00:18:31] Speaker 2: Item 171, listed as a hairbrush belonging to mom to butt. What did you do with that? [00:18:38] Lori Crew: So this item, I reported that no blood was observed on this item, but it was submitted to be used as a what we call alternate known for mom to bot since there was not a buckle sample or other item, excuse me, available to develop a known DNA profile from her. [00:19:00] Speaker 2: And was that a subject of a separate report? [00:19:03] Lori Crew: Yes. [00:19:04] Speaker 2: And items 136 and 175, did there come a time at a later point that you received new buckle swabs for both NEMA and Nareshbat? [00:19:19] Lori Crew: Yes. At the time of the certificate of analysis, I took a sample for DNA testing and the results of that were to be the subject of a separate report. But before that second report was completed, I obtained, excuse me, I received new buckle samples, which I also developed DNA profiles from. [00:19:36] Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. [00:19:38] Speaker ?: Thank you. [00:19:39] Speaker 2: Now let's get to your second certificate of analysis. What date did you produce that on? [00:19:45] Lori Crew: October 2024. I apologize. I don't remember the exact date. [00:19:50] Speaker 2: Would it help? Refresh your recollection, looking at your notes? Yes. [00:19:55] Lori Crew: October 29th, 2024. [00:20:00] Speaker 2: Now, what was the goal of this certificate of analysis? [00:20:05] Lori Crew: So this certificate of analysis contains the DNA results of the items previously reported in the August 2024 certificate, as well as new items that were submitted in between August and October. [00:20:20] Speaker 2: And did you work with CSI Feldman in determining which items to further submit for testing? Yes. [00:20:29] Lori Crew: So any items that are submitted to the laboratory as subsequent submissions for a case usually require consultation with the forensic scientist conducting the testing. This is to both make sure that the resources of our lab are put to good use and we're testing the most informative items within a case, as well as to coordinate a turnaround time if this testing needed to be expedited. But someone wanted to submit 20 more items that might compromise my ability to meet any deadlines. So we had numerous conversations as she wanted to submit additional items if that was going to be possible for me both to complete the testing and to complete it in a timely manner. [00:21:13] Speaker 2: Now, in reference to your second certificate of analysis, in addition to the items that we saw on that first one, did you look at items 200 through 203, item 305, item 302, item 306, 312, 313, 314, 317 through 319, 320, 321, 322 and 323? Yes, I did. If I may approach the witness. You may. I'm approaching you and handing you what has been marked as columns exhibit 311 for identification purposes. Do you recognize that? [00:21:56] Lori Crew: Yes, I recognize it. [00:22:13] Speaker 2: How do you recognize it? [00:22:15] Lori Crew: This is a complete and accurate copy of my certificate of analysis, dated October 29th, 2024. Again, I recognize it by the FFAS lab number, N247157, and my signature is at the end of the certificate of analysis. [00:22:31] Speaker 2: Does that certificate of analysis have your essentially testing methods and your conclusions in it? [00:22:38] Lori Crew: Yes, it does. [00:22:39] Speaker 2: Your Honor, at this time I would move to enter this as columnist 311, ask for permission to publish. [00:22:45] Speaker 1: Any objection? Okay. All right, with objection number received, you may publish it. Thank you. [00:22:50] Speaker 2: Thank you. Now, Ms. Crew, this is a little bit of a longer certificate. We will focus on certain portions of it. Again, page one of this, is that just the items that were submitted to you for testing? [00:23:14] Lori Crew: Yes, this is all of the case information and then every item that was submitted for testing for which there are results in this certificate. [00:23:23] Speaker 2: Now, going on to page two. Item 322 and 323, buckle swabs from Nima and Naresh. Can you tell us what you did with those two swabs? [00:23:45] Lori Crew: Yes, so a buckle swab is a cotton tip swab that is used to swab the inside cheek of someone's mouth. So this serves as a known DNA sample for this individual, so it is used as a standard or a reference sample is what we call it. So it's so that I have a DNA profile from Nima bot and a DNA profile from Naresh bot to compare to any evidence profiles I might develop. [00:24:12] Speaker 2: And why was that significant in this particular case to have those buckle swabs from Nima and Naresh? [00:24:20] Lori Crew: There were a number of items from the household in which these individuals lived. So I wanted to be able to compare any possible profiles to everyone who possibly could have deposited them within the household. [00:24:36] Speaker 2: Moving on to item 171, can you tell us what you did with the hairbrush belonging to Manta and what your conclusions were? [00:24:49] Lori Crew: Yes, so through discussion with CSI Feldman, I knew that there was no available known DNA sample either as a medical specimen or any other source for Manta bot. So they submitted a hairbrush that was thought to belong to her that we could use as what we call an alternate known. So if I could develop a profile from this, I could use that as a known DNA sample for Manta bot in order to be able to compare her DNA profile if it is from her to any, excuse me, profiles from items of evidence. [00:25:25] Speaker 2: And what was your conclusion regarding the major contributor? [00:25:30] Lori Crew: Yes, so I developed a DNA mixture profile, which was mostly from one person, which is why we call it a major contributor. So when I can tell by assessing a DNA profile that there is one major contributor, I can separate that out even though it's a mixture of more than one person. I can look at that major contributor as if it's a single source DNA profile and then assess that there were minor DNA types of no value. So there is some trace DNA from a second contributor, but I am focusing on this major profile, which is indicative of a female contributor. So using this assessment, I can use this profile as an alternate known from Manta bot and to further establish whether or not this is in fact from her. I forwarded this for kinship analysis along with the buckle swabs from Nima bot and the rush bot to see if there is a familial relationship between this profile and the DNA profiles from me Nima and the rush bot. [00:26:32] Speaker 2: And who is that examiner? [00:26:34] Lori Crew: I forwarded that to Catherine Colombo, another scientist in our section. [00:26:42] Speaker 2: And can you tell us was the minor DNA profile suitable for any kind of comparison? [00:26:49] Lori Crew: No. [00:26:50] Speaker 2: And what does that mean? [00:26:52] Lori Crew: It means that there's not enough information. So sometimes a mixture of two individuals, I will be able to separate out an entire profile for the major contributor and then an entire profile for the minor contributor. But quite often most of the DNA is only coming from the major contributor and there are just trace small amounts of DNA from a second contributor. But this is not enough for me to make any conclusions about who this second contributor could possibly be. So I can't perform comparisons. [00:27:20] Speaker 2: Now you said you forwarded this information to Ms. Colombo. Can you tell us exactly what you forwarded? Was it the actual physical item of evidence or how does that work? [00:27:33] Lori Crew: No, I only forwarded her the DNA profile information. So she had the DNA data. So the DNA profile so that she could just perform the kinship comparison between this profile and those buccal samples. It was not the physical buccal swabs or hairbrush. [00:27:52] Speaker 2: Moving on to items 120, 139, 176. Can you tell us what you did with these and what your conclusions were? [00:28:10] Lori Crew: Yes. So if you recall from the first certificate of analysis, blood was indicated in these samples. And so from these samples, the same DNA profile was developed, meaning from item 120, item 139, item 176. It was the same DNA profile from each of them. So I've reported them together because it's the same result. And you'll see this throughout the different certificates of analysis. So from this DNA profile, Naresh and Nemabot are eliminated as contributors of this DNA profile. This means that their DNA profiles are different from this DNA profile from the swabs, meaning they could not possibly have, excuse me, have contributed that DNA. However, if the major DNA profile developed from the hairbrush is from Momtobot, then Momtobot cannot be eliminated as a contributor of the DNA profile developed from the swabs. So this means that her DNA, excuse me, her DNA profile, if it is the DNA profile from the hairbrush, then she has a DNA profile, which is the same as the DNA profile developed from these stain swabs. [00:29:14] Speaker 2: That indicated blood? [00:29:16] Lori Crew: Yes. [00:29:17] Speaker 2: And can you explain what the probability we see on there means? [00:29:22] Lori Crew: Yes. So if I reach a conclusion of not eliminated, meaning that someone could possibly have deposited the DNA on the evidence, I need to calculate how common or rare that profile is from the evidence. So the probability of randomly selecting an under, excuse me, unrelated individual with the DNA profile matching that developed from the swabs at the areas I test, is one in greater than 8.1 billion, which is approximately the world's population in the Caucasian, African American, and Hispanic populations. And what that means is we have population data for these different population groups to show how common or rare different DNA types are within a profile. And we can use that information to calculate how rare a DNA profile is. And so this profile is very rare because I would expect to only see it one time in the world. [00:30:14] Speaker 2: 8.1 being the population of the world. [00:30:17] Lori Crew: Yes. This is the way that we report it for ease of understanding. The actual number that's calculated is much higher than that. [00:30:27] Speaker 2: Item 140. Can you tell us what you did with this and what your conclusions were? [00:30:35] Lori Crew: Yes. For this stain swab, previously blood was indicated on this swab, and I developed a DNA profile. And the results for this are similar, that NareshBot and NimaBot are eliminated as contributors. However, if the major profile from the hairbrush is from MomTobot, the MomTobot cannot be eliminated as a contributor of the DNA profile. Excuse me. Go ahead. The statistic is slightly different because this is not a complete DNA profile. So per our reporting guidelines, I'm just explaining that it was not at all 22 or 20, excuse me, 21 areas of the profile that we calculated statistics. So this is just to be clear that it is not a complete DNA profile. However, even this partial DNA profile is very rare, and I would expect to only see it in one and greater than 8.1 billion within the Caucasian, African American, and Hispanic populations. [00:31:27] Speaker 2: And how does that happen for a DNA profile not to be complete? [00:31:32] Lori Crew: Yes. So this is a common result. Even in samples containing blood, if there's not a lot of DNA, either there was not a lot to begin with, or some has been wiped away or cleaned away, we can still make conclusions regarding contributors, even if it is not a full DNA profile. And I'm still able to assess that this is a DNA profile from one individual. It's just not a complete profile at every area. [00:32:00] Speaker 2: And just to remind us, this is a stain swab that indicated positive for blood. Correct. Correct. Moving on. Item 174. Can you tell us what you did here and what your conclusions were? Yes. [00:32:19] Lori Crew: So for the piece of carpet that was submitted, I attempted two different ways of sampling the carpet. So when I could look at the piece of carpet from the underside where you would see the carpet padding and the plastic covering for that, I could see reddish staining, which is what I collected for the presumptive blood testing. I attempted to collect the staining onto swabs first and tested that. That is what that first bullet sample is. So I developed a DNA mixture profile of no value from that sample of all the staining collected onto swabs. And this DNA mixture profile, meaning a DNA from more than one individual, is what a mixture means. I could not determine the number of contributors because it was likely greater than three contributors, which is beyond our interpretation guidelines. And the complex nature of the mixture profile, it is not suitable for comparison. So it's a mixture of more than three people. And so I was not able to compare it to the buckle samples or the alternate known sample in this case. [00:33:27] Speaker 2: Did you continue your testing? [00:33:29] Lori Crew: Yes. I cut a portion of the carpet from one of the corners that contained the staining onto it. And I developed a DNA mixture profile from which I could not make conclusions because it looked as if it possibly could involve a mixture of related individuals. And so I had to forward that on for probabilistic genotyping with another examiner, Dr. Susan Greenspoon. [00:33:55] Speaker 2: Moving on quickly, you looked at a number of swabs that blood was indicated. What if anything happened with those? [00:34:09] Lori Crew: So item 200 and item 202 were both submitted as swabs from a garbage can. Again, the blood testing was positive, so blood was indicated. However, no DNA typing results were obtained. This means that I didn't -- could not develop a DNA profile from either of these samples. [00:34:33] Speaker 2: What about item 201 and 203 looks like swabs from garbage cans as well? Yes. [00:34:38] Lori Crew: So blood was also indicated in these, and from these I developed some DNA types. So again, a partial DNA profile or just a few DNA types. However, there was not enough information in order for me to be able to make a comparison to the known samples in this case. So they are DNA types of no value due to the limited information. [00:34:59] Speaker 2: All right, skipping forward to item 317. What was that? [00:35:07] Lori Crew: 317 were -- excuse me -- submitted as stain swabs from side A of a reciprocating saw. And those swabs were a stain swab from the saw blade holder, stain swab from the ridge of the interior handle, and a stain swab from the lower vent. [00:35:23] Speaker 2: Does that mean it was three different swabs? [00:35:25] Lori Crew: Yes, and I took them forward as three separate samples. [00:35:28] Speaker 2: Can you tell us what you did with them? Yes. [00:35:31] Lori Crew: So first, no blood was indicated on the stain swab from the saw blade holder, so I did not take that sample forward for DNA testing since no blood was indicated on that sample. And blood was indicated on the stain swab from the ridge of the interior handle, and on the stain swab from the lower vent. And I was able to develop DNA mixture -- excuse me -- DNA profiles from each of those. So first, a DNA mixture profile suitable for comparison was developed from the stain swab from the ridge of the interior handle. And Nuresh and NemaBot are each eliminated as a contributor to this DNA mixture profile. However, this was a complex mixture which would have required another probabilistic genotyping referral, but because there were other DNA profiles with possible common contributors developed from other samples within this same item, I did not forward that on for probabilistic genotyping, but it could always be done in the future. So for now, no conclusions regarding Mom2Bot as a contributor to that DNA mixture profile. [00:36:32] Speaker 2: And what about the stain swab from the lower vent? Yes. [00:36:36] Lori Crew: So for the stain swab from the lower vent, a DNA profile -- excuse me -- indicative of a single source, or as one contributor, was developed from that sample. And Nuresh and NemaBot are eliminated as contributors of that DNA profile. However, if that major DNA profile from the hairbrush is from Mom2Bot, then Mom2Bot cannot be eliminated as a contributor of that DNA profile. And again, the probability of randomly selecting an unrelated individual with a profile matching that DNA profile is one in greater than 8.1 billion in the Caucasian, African-American, and Hispanic populations. [00:37:14] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:37:15] Speaker 2: Moving on to item 318, can you tell us what this was and what you did? [00:37:22] Speaker ?: Yes. [00:37:23] Lori Crew: So this was a second set of swabs that were submitted as stain swabs from side B of a reciprocating saw. And this consisted of a stain swab from the bottom vent and a stain swab from the interior ridge of the handle. And again, these were submitted -- excuse me -- they were packaged as separate swabs, and they took them forward as separate DNA samples. So blood was indicated on both of these swabs. And a DNA profile was developed from the stain swab from the bottom vent. So again, this is a single source DNA profile or DNA from one person. And Nuresh and NemaBot are eliminated as contributors of this DNA profile. However, if the major DNA profile from the hairbrush is from Mom2Bot, then Mom2Bot cannot be eliminated as a contributor of this DNA profile. And again, the probability of randomly selecting an unrelated individual with a DNA profile matching this profile is one and greater than 8.1 billion in that -- excuse me -- in the Caucasian, African-American, and Hispanic populations. [00:38:19] Speaker 2: Moving on to the next swab. [00:38:21] Lori Crew: Yes, so a DNA mixture profile was developed from the stain swab from the interior ridge of the handle. And again, this is similar to when I explained the major and minor contributors previously. There is a major contributor in this mixture profile, meaning most of the DNA within this mixture profile is from one contributor. And so Nuresh and NemaBot are each eliminated as the major contributor in this DNA mixture profile. However, if the major profile from the hairbrush is from Mom2Bot, then Mom2Bot cannot be eliminated as a major contributor to this DNA mixture profile. And again, the probability of randomly selecting an unrelated individual with the DNA profile matching this major profile at the areas that I test, excluding those listed here, is one and greater than 8.1 billion again. So again, this profile, even though it is partial, is very rare, and I would expect to only see it once in the Caucasian, African-American, and Hispanic populations. [00:39:20] Speaker 2: Moving on to item 319, what was that and what were your conclusions? [00:39:25] Lori Crew: This was item 319, swabs and the reciprocating saw. This was submitted as a possible trace or handler sample from the handle of the saw. So it consisted of a swab from site A and a swab from site B. However, after consulting with CSI Feldman, we discussed, excuse me, testing these together rather than separate, because it was two sides of the same handle that someone might have touched if they were handling the saw. [00:39:52] Speaker 2: And just to clear it up, is this the outside of the saw? [00:39:56] Lori Crew: That's my understanding, but I did not watch her sample it, but that was her explanation to me. Understood. So no blood was indicated on either of these swabs. And so I combined them for one DNA sample, and a DNA mixture profile suitable for comparison was developed from this combined sample. And the Russian Nima bot are each eliminated as contributors to this DNA mixture profile. However, if that DNA profile from the hairbrush is from mom to bot, then mom to bot cannot be eliminated as a major contributor to that DNA mixture profile. And so again, the probability of randomly selecting an unrelated individual with a DNA profile matching that major profile, excluding some of the locations that I test, is one in greater than 8.1 billion in the Caucasian, African American, and Hispanic populations. [00:40:46] Speaker 2: Now, you indicated on this certificate that no blood was indicated. However, you were able to say that mom to bot, if she's a contributor to 171, cannot be eliminated as a major contributor. Can you explain how that happens or what we're looking at in terms of her DNA on this? [00:41:10] Lori Crew: So there could be many possibilities. So one possibility could be that it is not from blood. It is her DNA from another source, skin cells, something like that. Another possibility could be that there is blood present at a very low amount where the blood staining itself or the blood component that reacts with the blood test is not present. However, there's still DNA remaining and it could have even been DNA originally from blood, but it has not been wiped or washed away and is still present. [00:41:46] Speaker 2: So does wiping and washing away affect essentially what the type of results we're seeing here? [00:41:53] Lori Crew: Yes, it can affect both the blood testing and it can affect the DNA testing. [00:41:57] Speaker 2: So, for example, if the outside of the saw was clean with bleach or something like that, would we expect to see similar results? Could this be a possibility in what we see here? [00:42:11] Lori Crew: Yes, that can possibly decrease the amount of DNA that's present there or degrade the DNA that is present. [00:42:18] Speaker 2: And finally, items 320 and 321, what did you do with these and why? [00:42:30] Lori Crew: 320 was a set of buckle swabs from Mahesh Koffel, brother of Mamta Koffelbot, and item 321 were buckle swabs from Gita Koffel, the mother of Mamta Koffelbot. And these were submitted with consent forms that were signed by each of these individuals in order for this to be uploaded to the national DNA database as part of a missing persons program. So DNA profiles from relatives are searched against any possible unidentified human remains in the hopes of one day identifying a missing person. So these profiles that are uploaded from family members are only searched against unidentified human remains, which may be uploaded across the country by laboratories that recover unidentified human remains. So these were only used for that purpose and were not compared to any of the other profiles within the case. And these buckle samples are not searched against any other areas of CODIS related to criminal cases. [00:43:33] Speaker 2: Now, in terms of this portion, have you received any notification about any possible hits or anything of that nature? [00:43:41] Lori Crew: No, they have not hit to any samples. [00:43:54] Speaker 2: Did the lab also receive item 316 consisting of hair strands recovered from a reciprocating saw? [00:44:04] Lori Crew: Yes. [00:44:05] Speaker 2: What did you initially do with those items? [00:44:09] Lori Crew: So as part of our testing procedure, when possible hairs are submitted, they are first sent to our trace evidence section. They are trained to identify human hairs versus other types of possible animal hairs and then further to identify any hairs which may be suitable for DNA testing. So we always send that to our trace evidence section first. And if they recover hairs that are suitable for DNA testing, they will send those back to us and then I would conduct the DNA testing. [00:44:43] Speaker 2: Okay. Now, where is that laboratory? Is it in the same place that you do your work in or is it somewhere else? [00:44:52] Lori Crew: So for this case, it was referred to our central laboratory at the time in Richmond, which has since moved to Mechanicsville, Virginia. [00:45:00] Speaker ?: Okay. Okay. [00:45:01] Speaker 2: Your Honor, at this time, I would request that Detective Seiss bring in a number of physical items of evidence. [00:45:14] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:45:15] Speaker 2: If we have gloves and scissors. If you may approach the witness. [00:45:41] Speaker ?: May. [00:45:41] Speaker 2: Thank you. If you could put on the brown. All right, Ms. Pru, this bin, if you could take a look at each of the items briefly and tell us if you recognize each of them. each of them and how you recognize them. May I approach council? You may. [00:46:38] Lori Crew: So starting with these items 103, 104, 105, and 106 were the knives submitted. I recognize each of these by again the unique FS lab number and 247157 I've written the item numbers on each of these as well as my original initials. Is there a special tape on those boxes as well? Yes, so when I am finished with my testing I will affix this Commonwealth of Virginia DFS tape to it and initial over it so that it's in a sealed condition when it's returned to the investigators. And if you [00:47:31] Speaker 2: could, one by one, just open it quickly, take a peek inside, show defense council. Can you all approach first? [00:47:43] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [00:50:04] Speaker 2: This is true. Um, can you open item 105 for us specifically? [00:50:24] Speaker ?: I'm going to open it up. I'm going to open it up. I'm going to open it up. I'm going to open it up. I'm going to open it up. I'm going to open it up. I'm going to open it up. I'm going to open it up. I'm going to open it up. I'm going to open it up. I'm going to open it up. I'm going to open it up. [00:50:49] Speaker 1: Of course, throughout all of this, you're welcome to do that. [00:51:07] Speaker 2: And do you recognize that? Is that the one of the knives that you tested in this case? [00:51:12] Lori Crew: Yes, I do recognize it. I did not mark on the actual item for-- identification due to the testing surfaces. And if there ever was to be a latent prints exam, every surface of this would be better suited for that. However, I did take a picture within my notes. And I do recognize this item. [00:51:32] Speaker 2: Does it seem to be substantially in similar condition as to when you first tested it? [00:51:36] Lori Crew: Yes, it is. [00:51:38] Speaker 2: Your Honor, I would move to enter this as item-- this is item 105, which is Conwell's 358. [00:51:45] Speaker 1: Any objection? No objection. All right, Conwell's 358 will be entered without objection. [00:51:51] Speaker 2: And if we could publish that very quickly, if I can have the witness step down. Sure. Can you just show the jury the specific knife and the branding on that knife? [00:52:07] Speaker ?: And if we could have the witness step down. And if we could have the witness step down. And if we could have the witness step down. And if we could have the witness step down. And if we could have the witness step down. And if we could have the witness step down. And if we could have the witness step down. And if we could have the witness step down. And if we could have the witness step down. And if we could have the witness step down. [00:52:31] Speaker 2: And did you take measurements of that knife? [00:52:45] Lori Crew: Yes, I have it next to a scale within my notes. So I would have to refer to the scale. [00:52:51] Speaker 2: Would it help refresh your recollection? Yes, please go ahead and do that. [00:53:07] Lori Crew: Yes, so the blade is approximately 3 1/2 inches long. The handle is approximately 4 1/2 inches long. The handle is approximately 4 1/2 inches long. [00:53:43] Speaker 2: Thank you. Moving on. If you could retrieve item number 174, which is a piece of carpet. Do you recognize that? [00:54:11] Lori Crew: Yes, again, I recognize it by the unique FS lab number. And 24 7157. And I've written the item number and my initials on it. [00:54:20] Speaker 2: Can you please open that and for the funding council. [00:54:27] Speaker ?: Can you please open that and for the funding council. Thank you. Thank you. Does that appear to be substantially in similar condition as to when you initially tested that item? [00:55:04] Speaker 2: Yes, it is. Your Honor, at this time, I would move to enter this in as column 383. [00:55:21] Speaker 1: Any objection? No, ma'am. All right, without objection, that will be received. [00:55:28] Speaker 2: Moving on to items 317, 318, and 319. If you could look at each of them and tell us if you recognize them, open them, show defense council. [00:56:09] Lori Crew: I will start with item 317, which again, I recognize by the handwritten FS lab number, item number, and my initials. So the swabs were submitted into individual manila envelopes. Would you like me to open these as well to show the swabs or? [00:56:43] Speaker 2: Show defense council and I guess take a look at them to ensure that they don't look different. [00:57:03] Lori Crew: And I'll open item 318, which again, I recognize by the lab number, item number, [00:57:09] Speaker ?: and I'll open item 318, which again, I recognize by the lab number, item number, and I'll open item 318, which again, I recognize by the lab number, item number, and I'll open item 318, which again, I recognize by the lab number, item number, [00:57:25] Lori Crew: and I'll open item 318, which again, I recognize by the lab number, item number, item number, and my initials. And the side B interior ridge of the handle and side B bottom vent. Samples are in here and I can open one of those for you. And then item 319, again, I recognize it by the lab number, item number, and my handwritten initials. The envelopes inside are touch DNA side A, number 315, and touch DNA number 315, side B. [00:58:35] Speaker ?: So, let's go. [00:59:05] Speaker 2: Do those all look substantially similar in condition and appearance as when you first conducted your testing? [00:59:30] Lori Crew: Yes, they do. [00:59:31] Speaker 2: And you did 317, 318 and 319? [00:59:35] Lori Crew: Yes. [00:59:36] Speaker 2: Your Honor, at this time I would move to enter 317 as 412, 318 as 413, and 319 as 414. Any objection? [00:59:47] Speaker 1: No objection. Great. Without objection, those will be received. [00:59:53] Speaker 2: Can you please retrieve item 171, the hairbrush? Please go ahead and tell us if you recognize it, open it, show council. [01:00:12] Lori Crew: Yes, I recognize this again by the item number 171, the laboratory number N247157, as well as my handwritten initials. [01:00:26] Speaker ?: Okay. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. [01:00:31] Speaker 2: Thank you. Is it a similar condition as when you initially tested it? Yes, it does. Your Honor, at this time, I would move the brush in as item 400, or exhibit 400. [01:01:11] Speaker 1: Any objection? No objection. No objection. Without objection, that will be received as commemals 400. [01:01:21] Speaker 2: Thank you. And item 120, 149, 176, and 140, please. I'm sorry, could you say that again? 120, 139, 176, and 140, stained swabs. [01:01:48] Speaker ?: I have item 120, 139, 140, and 176. [01:02:00] Lori Crew: Yes. [01:02:01] Speaker 2: Can you please, as you're opening them, let us know if you recognize each one, and show defense counsel, please. [01:02:13] Lori Crew: So, item 120, I recognize by the FS lab number, and 247157, item 120, as well as my original initials. [01:02:23] Speaker ?: item 139, again, I recognize by the N 247157 number. [01:02:39] Lori Crew: item 139, again, I recognize by the N 247157 number, item number 139, and my handwritten initials on this packaging. item 140, again, I recognize by the FS lab number, and 247157, item number 140, and my handwritten initials. And finally, item 176, again, I recognize that by the unique laboratory number, N 247157, the lab, excuse me, the item number 176, as well as my initials. [01:03:46] Speaker 2: Do all of those appear to be in substantially similar condition as when you tested them? Yes, they are. Your Honor, at this time, I would move to enter 120 in as Commonwealth 369, 139 as Commonwealth 361, 176 as Commonwealth 401, and item 140 as Commonwealth 383. [01:04:25] Speaker 1: Any objection? All right, they're all received. [01:04:29] Speaker 2: And your Honor, at this time, I would ask that Ms. Pru be able to publish the hairbrush and the piece of carpet for the jury. Ms. Pru, if you could step down and retrieve both of those items from the clerk. [01:04:52] Lori Crew: I would ask that Ms. Pru, if you could step down and take the hairbrush first. [01:05:05] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [01:06:15] Lori Crew: I will -- this is a piece of carpet from which I first attempt to swab all the staining. So the deeming mixture profile developed from this planning is one of the analysis on that deeming mixture profile. [01:06:56] Speaker 2: Thank you, Ms. Crue, those are all the questions I had for you right now, we will hear from you again tomorrow. Any cross? [01:07:28] Speaker 1: Council approach. [01:07:34] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Ms. Crue. [01:08:24] Speaker 4: Good afternoon, Ms. Crue. [01:08:34] Lori Crew: Good afternoon. [01:08:36] Speaker 4: All right, we went through your certificates of analysis extensively. I'm going to go through them a little bit more. I want to talk a little bit first about the blood testing that you did on each of the different items. You're doing the same test on each, correct? Correct. Yes. And this is the PTMB test? [01:09:10] Lori Crew: Yes, it is phenylphthalein tetramethylbenzidine. [01:09:13] Speaker 4: And you said on direct examination this is still a presumptive test, right? Correct. So, not a confirmatory test for blood? [01:09:25] Lori Crew: Correct. [01:09:26] Speaker 4: Meaning you can't say with 100% scientific certainty that this is in fact blood on these various items. [01:09:32] Lori Crew: Correct. [01:09:33] Speaker 4: So, confirmatory tests do exist, right? Yes, they do. So, there are tests in the world like the abacard test or the hematrace test that would definitively conclude whether or not something is blood? [01:09:54] Lori Crew: Yes, they would. [01:09:56] Speaker 4: DFS does not use those tests? No, we do not. And so you didn't use them here? [01:10:01] Lori Crew: Correct. [01:10:02] Speaker 4: When you do the test for blood, you are not testing that blood for other substances that may be in it, correct? [01:10:30] Lori Crew: I don't understand your question. [01:10:31] Speaker 4: The PTMB test, it's just testing to see if there's presumptively blood there, right? [01:10:39] Lori Crew: Oh, correct. Not for other body fluids, only possibly for blood or other, excuse me, to clarify. It wouldn't test for other sources of DNA, just whether or not blood may be present. [01:10:52] Speaker 4: And so other sources of DNA doesn't test for saliva, for example? [01:10:56] Lori Crew: Correct. [01:10:57] Speaker 4: It doesn't test for things like food? [01:11:01] Lori Crew: No. There are some food products which can sometimes cause a color change at certain points. There are no foods that look like blood that cause a full positive reaction for both the phenolphthalein and the tetramethylbenzadine, but those can cause color changes as well. But the test is supposed to be to presumptively screen for the presence of blood. Okay. [01:11:25] Speaker 4: So some foods might cause a false positive or cause a color change in the PTMB test? [01:11:31] Lori Crew: Yes, they may cause a color change, yes. [01:11:33] Speaker 4: Some foods might not cause any sort of color change, right? [01:11:36] Lori Crew: Correct. [01:11:37] Speaker 4: If you had blood and food, you wouldn't necessarily know that the food was present, you would just know about the presumptive blood, right? Correct. Same thing for things like chemicals, right? [01:11:49] Lori Crew: I don't understand the question. Causing a reaction? Yes. To the PTMB test? Yes. [01:11:56] Speaker 4: So some chemicals can cause a reaction to the PTMB test? Yes, they can. And some chemicals do not cause a reaction to the PTMB test? Correct. So you might have blood and a chemical and you would get the presumptive reading for blood but not be testing for that chemical? [01:12:13] Lori Crew: Correct. [01:12:14] Speaker 4: And you're not doing any other kind of testing on these swabs apart from this PTMB test and then later on the DNA testing? [01:12:22] Lori Crew: Correct. [01:12:30] Speaker 4: Talk briefly about the hairbrush that you just showed the jury. You have listed in both of these certificates of analysis a sort of descriptor. So you have item 171 and then it says hairbrush belonging to Momtabat, right? Correct. You were not at the house, right? You weren't collecting evidence? Correct. You did not meet Momtabat? No. You don't know yourself if this is her hairbrush? No. Is it fair to say that this is a descriptor to help you identify evidence? [01:13:08] Lori Crew: It's the descriptor provided by the investigator. So if they submit it with their own information that they believe it to be belonging to an individual, we will report it that way. But I don't have first-hand knowledge that that item actually belonged to Momtabat. Okay. [01:13:26] Speaker 4: So you don't have first-hand knowledge and the investigator sort of reported this as potentially being connected to Momtabat. [01:13:33] Lori Crew: Yes. So that's why every time I have a comparison, it says if the major profile developed from the hairbrush is from Momtabat, then Momtabat cannot be eliminated. It never only says -- it never only describes it as if it is truly a DNA profile from her. That's why it's called an alternate known. [01:13:51] Speaker 4: Thank you. That was my next question. So I guess just to sum up, I should not be reading your COA as confirmation from you that this hairbrush belongs to Momtabat. [01:14:02] Lori Crew: No. It is an alternate known, not a known sample as a bloodstained card or a buccal swab might be. [01:14:08] Speaker ?: Okay. [01:14:15] Speaker 4: And you also testified on a direct examination about some extensive conversations you had with CSI Feldman on what items to test, right? [01:14:25] Lori Crew: Yes. [01:14:26] Speaker 4: And there's a lot of information and evidence that she gathered in this case. [01:14:31] Lori Crew: Yes. I believe there were many other additional items that were not submitted. [01:14:35] Speaker 4: And you talked a little bit about how you can't test everything. You've got time constraints. I'm sure you need to sleep, that kind of thing. [01:14:43] Lori Crew: Correct. [01:14:44] Speaker 4: Understanding that there are time constraints, it does still mean that anything that you did not test, you cannot create an opinion about in this case, right? [01:14:57] Lori Crew: Correct. I could only give hypothetical opinions on items that were not tested, but I could never say what a result would or wouldn't be from something that I never tested. [01:15:07] Speaker 4: So if some things were swabbed but not tested, we don't know what those swabs are, right? Correct. Correct. And then you also, you tested a lot of things in this case, including some stuff that didn't have any evidentiary value, right? [01:15:20] Speaker ?: I don't understand the question. Let me clarify a little bit. You tested some knives in this case. Yes. You showed one of those knives to the jury. Yes. There's no blood on that knife that you could find. No blood was indicated. So if there is blood, it's below any kind of detection. But no, all of my testing was negative for that knife. Okay. [01:15:27] Speaker 4: And then you also, you tested a lot of things in this case, including some stuff that didn't have any evidentiary value, right? [01:15:35] Lori Crew: I don't understand the question. [01:15:37] Speaker 4: Let me clarify a little bit. You tested some knives in this case. [01:15:41] Lori Crew: Yes. [01:15:42] Speaker 4: You showed one of those knives to the jury. [01:15:44] Lori Crew: Yes. [01:15:45] Speaker 4: There's no blood on that knife that you could find. [01:15:47] Lori Crew: No blood was indicated. So if there is blood, it's below any kind of detection. But no, all of my testing was negative for that knife. [01:15:54] Speaker 4: Okay. And you didn't send it off for any DNA testing either? [01:15:59] Lori Crew: No. [01:16:00] Speaker 4: So we don't know if there was blood on that knife? [01:16:04] Lori Crew: If there is, it's below the level of the presumptive test. [01:16:08] Speaker 4: And you don't know if there was any DNA or whose it would belong to? [01:16:12] Lori Crew: Correct. I never performed DNA testing on it. [01:16:24] Speaker 4: I want to talk a little bit about the carpet piece that you also showed the jury. And in your certificate of analysis for October 29th of 2024, you did some testing, some DNA testing on that piece of carpet, right? Yes. And you got a mixture profile of no value from the staining on the underside. Am I reading the report correctly? Correct. [01:16:59] Lori Crew: That was the sample that I collected onto a wet swab. I attempted to swab the staining from the underside and that sample produced a mixture profile of no value. [01:17:09] Speaker 4: So is it correct to say that you then move over to the edge of the carpet and from there you're able to get a sample that you can get DNA from? [01:17:20] Lori Crew: I attempted a cutting instead of swabbing. I thought that maybe the staining had soaked into the carpet pad. So I attempted to take a cutting instead of just swabbing the surface of it or attempting to collect the staining because the staining was not coming up very well onto the swab. [01:17:38] Speaker 4: Okay. So the DNA swab specifically, you're getting an unknown number of contributors in this. You're not able to make any conclusions from that, right? [01:17:48] Lori Crew: Yes. [01:17:49] Speaker 4: So you have to switch to a different tactic? Yes. [01:17:53] Lori Crew: A different sampling approach, yes. [01:17:55] Speaker 4: Does that mean that the first swab that you did, when you say unknown number of contributors, that it's possible that -- I think you said it was more than three DNA profiles from that swab? [01:18:12] Lori Crew: So not for this sample. For this sample, it's an unknown number of contributors. I can't tell that it's more than three. For this mixture profile specifically, it actually is missing a lot of information. There's no DNA typing results at many of the locations. But I can tell that it's a mixture profile. But because I can't even tell if it's two or three people and there's a lot of information missing, I can't make comparisons to individuals for that sample. Okay. [01:18:36] Speaker 4: You also did not -- so you tested the bottom part of the carpet. You did not test the top side, right? Correct. So you didn't do any kind of swabbing on top of the carpet? [01:18:50] Lori Crew: No, because the staining was apparent on the underside, so I did not take a sample from the top side. [01:18:56] Speaker 4: You also -- there were no examinations for hairs for nuclear DNA analysis from the top side of the carpet either? Correct. And the Commonwealth went through some of the results that you got that were positive for -- or indicated blood and indicated a DNA profile. But there were other items that you received that indicated no blood, correct? [01:19:36] Lori Crew: Correct. [01:19:37] Speaker 4: And indicated a DNA that you could not get information from, correct? [01:19:42] Lori Crew: If you mean not suitable for comparison or eliminations, yes, I did. [01:19:48] Speaker 4: So, for example, you tested item 200 and 202? Yes. So there were swabs from a garbage can? Yes. And you got no DNA typing results from those swabs, correct? [01:20:17] Lori Crew: Correct. [01:20:18] Speaker 4: Same for items 201 and 203, I guess -- not same, but for items 201 and 203, there were DNA types of no value developed from those samples, correct? [01:20:37] Lori Crew: Correct. [01:20:38] Speaker 4: Items 302, 312, 313, 314, these are all stained swabs? [01:20:46] Lori Crew: Yes. [01:20:47] Speaker 4: And there was no blood indicated on those swabs? [01:20:50] Lori Crew: Correct. [01:20:51] Speaker 4: So you tested all of those, those are all collected in the course of this investigation, you tested them and there was no blood indicated, right? Correct. [01:20:58] Lori Crew: So then I did not perform DNA testing on them. [01:21:01] Speaker 4: Thank you. Item 305, a bath mat, you tested that as well? [01:21:07] Lori Crew: Yes, I did. [01:21:08] Speaker 4: Okay. And there was no blood indicated on one -- on side A of that bath mat? Correct. [01:21:17] Lori Crew: So I designated them side A and side B and no blood was indicated on side A. [01:21:21] Speaker 4: And there was no blood indicated in additional stains on side B, correct? Yes. There was some blood indicated on a different part of side B, but you didn't receive any DNA information from that, correct? [01:21:37] Lori Crew: I developed a mixture profile of no value, again, because I could not determine the number of contributors and it was too complex from one area of the bath mat that I sampled. And from another area, I developed a DNA mixture profile. However, Naresh bot, Nima bot, and Mamta bot, if using the DNA profile from the hairbrush, are eliminated from that DNA mixture profile. [01:22:01] Speaker 4: So there was blood indicated in a stained area on the side of the bath mat, correct? Yes. From this blood sample, you pulled a DNA mixture profile? [01:22:13] Speaker 2: Yes. [01:22:14] Speaker 4: You were able to compare that profile, correct? [01:22:17] Speaker 2: Yes. [01:22:18] Speaker 4: And Mamta was eliminated as a contributor? [01:22:22] Speaker 2: Yes. [01:22:23] Speaker 4: Naresh was eliminated as a contributor? Yes. And Nima was eliminated as a contributor? [01:22:27] Speaker 2: Yes. [01:22:28] Speaker 4: And then finally, just going back through the rest of this report, item 306, this was -- it's not just one item, right? It's -- it's a bath mat, a toilet mat, a toilet seat cover, a shower curtain, a bag, and hangers? Yes. And there are no -- there's no blood indicated on any of these items, correct? [01:22:51] Lori Crew: Through consultation with CSI Feldman, she said that the shower curtain, home goods bag, and hangers with the packaging were not to be examined, and only the bath mat, toilet mat, and toilet mat cover were what they intended to submit. So those were what I screened for the presence of blood, and no blood was indicated on those items. Okay. [01:23:12] Speaker 4: So you were asked not to examine some of those items? Yes. [01:23:15] Lori Crew: Those shower curtain, home goods bag, and the hangers. [01:23:17] Speaker 4: And then what you did, you found no indication of blood? [01:23:20] Lori Crew: Yes. On the other items. Okay. [01:23:23] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [01:23:53] Speaker 4: You talked a lot about the process that you take when you start to examine an item. And you talked about cleaning your work area with bleach, right? Correct. You wear gloves when you take out evidence. Yes. You switch those gloves after you open the evidence, right? Yes. And so you open a bag, for example, and then before you reach in, do you switch out your gloves then? Yes. And tell me again, why do you do that? [01:24:36] Lori Crew: Because there can be DNA present on other surfaces, especially in outer packaging, which a lot of people have probably handled with no gloves on. I don't want to transfer that DNA onto the evidence within that packaging. [01:24:49] Speaker 4: So you're trying to avoid cross-contamination? Correct. And is it the case that if I were to -- if someone's DNA was on this podium and I were to rub this podium, my DNA might get intermixed with the other person's? That's correct. And is that essentially cross-contamination and bringing my DNA over into the presence of other DNA? [01:25:16] Lori Crew: It's transferring DNA in the same way that that could result in cross-contamination when you think of it as transferring onto evidence items. Yes. [01:25:24] Speaker 4: What are some other ways that cross-contamination might occur? [01:25:28] Lori Crew: I don't understand. On to an item of evidence? [01:25:31] Speaker 4: Yes. [01:25:32] Lori Crew: So if items of evidence were to touch each other, you can transfer DNA from one surface to another. If someone wasn't changing out their gloves, like I said before, you could transfer DNA from one surface to another surface. If you could give me some specific hypotheticals, I might be able to explain it better. [01:25:50] Speaker 4: If I were to walk on a carpet and there was DNA on that carpet and I didn't have any sort of protective equipment on, could I transfer that DNA that I stepped on to another part of the room? [01:26:06] Lori Crew: Yes, that's possible. [01:26:08] Speaker 4: If I touched furniture in a room without gloves on and there was DNA on the furniture that I touched and then I went and I touched something else without gloves on, could I move that DNA over to another part of the room? [01:26:22] Lori Crew: Yes, that's possible. [01:26:24] Speaker ?: Thank you. [01:26:54] Speaker 4: For item 319 that you tested, you indicated that was touch DNA from the reciprocating saw? [01:27:11] Lori Crew: That was the intention with which it was collected, and then no blood was indicated in that sample. So the DNA profile that I developed is consistent with being from a lower amount of DNA than I would expect for something from blood or from heavy blood staining. But I can't say that it is from someone touching it, to clarify. [01:27:35] Speaker 4: Do you know, was that the outside part of the handle or the inside part of the handle? [01:27:40] Lori Crew: My understanding that it was the outside as someone would hold the saw, but I was not present for the sampling, and I am only going off of what the packaging said from CSI Feldman. [01:27:51] Speaker 4: Okay, outside, so holding on to the saw, that's your understanding of 319? [01:27:56] Lori Crew: That was my understanding. [01:27:57] Speaker 4: And to be clear, Naresh bot was eliminated as a contributor to the DNA profile for 319? [01:28:05] Lori Crew: Correct. [01:28:06] Speaker 4: A broader question for you, Ms. Pru. This information that you're able to give us, that blood was indicated in places, that DNA was indicated in places, this doesn't tell you anything about how that DNA or blood got to where it was, correct? It was, correct? [01:28:32] Lori Crew: Correct. [01:28:33] Speaker 4: You don't know when, let's take blood for example, you don't know when the blood would have been deposited? [01:28:42] Lori Crew: No, I cannot tell that from this testing. [01:28:44] Speaker 4: You don't know when the DNA would have been deposited? [01:28:46] Lori Crew: No, I can't know that from this testing. [01:28:49] Speaker 4: And like I said, you don't know how the blood would have been deposited? Correct. Or how the DNA would have been deposited? Correct. No further questions, Judge. [01:29:12] Speaker 1: Any redirect, Ms. Sammy. Briefly. [01:29:15] Speaker 2: I may approach the witness. Of course. Ms. Pru, you see me handling this can, energy drink, Aulani Pink's Plush. I just placed it in front of you. Would you absolutely find my DNA on that particular item if you did the testing that you did in this case? [01:29:46] Lori Crew: Not necessarily. Some people do not deposit enough DNA in order for the testing to be able to detect it. We know from the literature that people have different what we call shedder status. How many skin cells or how much DNA you shed when you touch an item can vary from person to person. So one person might touch that can, put it down, I take a swab, collect it, and I develop a robust single source profile. And then some people might touch it, put it down, and I either develop no DNA typing results or only a few DNA types, or a mixture of no value because it has people who previously touched the can. All of those would not be surprising results from an item like that. [01:30:31] Speaker 2: Let's say I was wearing gloves and transporting that item. What would you expect to see there? [01:30:37] Lori Crew: Gloves would, obviously, inhibit the amount of DNA that you're using, excuse me, that you're able to deposit onto an item. However, for instance, if you touch the outside of the gloves first and then touch the item, you can always transfer DNA in that way. But yes, gloves are a physical barrier to prevent the deposit of DNA. [01:30:58] Speaker 2: Let's say I use bleach to clean that item. What would you expect to see there? [01:31:04] Lori Crew: Bleach does degrade DNA, and so if an item is cleaned with bleach, it will degrade the DNA that is present and either destroy all of the DNA or degrade it in a way that makes the DNA profile or the DNA results from that item less than they would have been if they had not been cleaned. [01:31:24] Speaker 2: What about other cleaning supplies? Could those degrade DNA as well? [01:31:28] Lori Crew: Yes. Other cleaning supplies, even if they don't contain bleach, can also degrade or destroy DNA. [01:31:34] Speaker 2: And does that -- can that be an explanation for why you did not find any blood indicated on the outside of the swabs from the outside of the saw versus you did find certain profile to be able to analyze or look at? [01:31:55] Lori Crew: That's one possibility, yes. [01:31:58] Speaker 2: Ms. Pru, does food produce a DNA profile? [01:32:04] Lori Crew: Only if there is human DNA present on it. But let's just say a piece of corn in a field. [01:32:15] Speaker 2: No, the DNA -- [01:32:16] Lori Crew: It's never been touched, never -- it's just there. So that has DNA. However, the DNA testing we do is human DNA specific. So the testing that we perform will only produce profiles for human DNA. [01:32:30] Speaker 2: Now, just circling back one more question for you. Now, with that can that we used as an example, if you do the testing, you just saw me handle it, bring it over, set it in front of you. So you perform testing and you do not find my DNA on it. Does that mean I didn't touch it? [01:32:58] Lori Crew: I would never be able to say that. [01:33:00] Speaker 2: Could it be possible that I had touched it and you were not able to develop a profile to test? [01:33:06] Lori Crew: That's one possibility, yes. There are other questions I have. [01:33:10] Speaker 2: If I may retrieve the can. [01:33:12] Speaker 1: All right, let's take our 10-minute break.