Speaker 1: What's up everyone, and welcome back to the program. In
Speaker 1: this episode, we're spinning back up to Moscow and we're
Speaker 1: going to dive right back into the transcripts from the
Speaker 1: IgG hearing. The court. You can call your next witness,
Speaker 1: Miss Taylor, Matthew Gamet the clerk. Do you solemnly swear
Speaker 1: or affirm that the testimony you're about to give now
Speaker 1: before the court will be the truth, the whole truth,
Speaker 1: and nothing but the truth. Gamet? I do, Matthew Gamet,
Speaker 1: having been duly sworn testified as follows direct examination, and
Speaker 1: once again it's Ann Taylor asking the questions which will
Speaker 1: be questioned, and the answer will be given by Matthew Gamet,
Speaker 1: and that'll be when I say answer. Question, good morning, answer,
Speaker 1: good morning. Question. Will you please state your name? Answer? Yes,
Speaker 1: my name is Matthew Gamet. Question how are you employed? Answer?
Speaker 1: I'm employed with the Idaho State Police Forensic Services and
Speaker 1: I'm a laboratory system director. Question what what does that
Speaker 1: mean to be the laboratory system director? Answer? I oversee
Speaker 1: operations of the laboratory system. I oversee anything from purchasing, procurement, contracts,
Speaker 1: human resources type issues, and hiring terminations. I also oversee
Speaker 1: things like just how the laboratory operates day to day.
Speaker 1: Question how long have you held that role? Answer? I've
Speaker 1: been with the Idaho State Police Forensic Service for just
Speaker 1: about sixteen years, and I believe I've held this current
Speaker 1: role for about ten. Question do you have prior experience
Speaker 1: in a similar line of work? Answer? I do. Prior
Speaker 1: to working for Idaho State Police, I work for Washington
Speaker 1: State Patrol as a DNA analysis and also a crime
Speaker 1: scene responder. Question how are you educated? Answer? I have
Speaker 1: a bachelor's degree from Bring Them Young University. I also
Speaker 1: have a master's degree from Bring Them Young University, and
Speaker 1: then I have a continuing certificate from both West Virginia
Speaker 1: University and UC Davis. Question are you involved in the
Speaker 1: collaborative group NTIC? Answer? I am? Question what is that group? Answer?
Speaker 1: So that's the National Technology Implementation Collaborative. So currently my
Speaker 1: role there is to share the group. Question as it
Speaker 1: relates to forensic investigative genetic genealogy. What's the group's role
Speaker 1: with that field? Answer? So currently we're working on we
Speaker 1: have several different subcommittees in our Forensic Investigative Genetic Genealogy Group.
Speaker 1: What that group is focused on, is anything from policies, procedures, contracts,
Speaker 1: things of that nature, looking at the implementation of that
Speaker 1: technology into public forensic science laboratories. Question why is that important? Answer?
Speaker 1: Why is the work of the group important? Question? Let
Speaker 1: me ask the question better, why is it important to
Speaker 1: have policies and procedures? Answer? In any public forensic science laboratory,
Speaker 1: we want to make sure we implement technology well, that
Speaker 1: we implement it in a robust way, that it can
Speaker 1: be relied upon for things such as courts, and so
Speaker 1: we always want to make sure that when we're implementing
Speaker 1: a technology that we take a look at how that
Speaker 1: technology is being used and that we apply it well
Speaker 1: in public laboratory space. Question is that important for public trust? Answer?
Speaker 1: I believe so. Yes. Question are there other organizations that
Speaker 1: you're involved in in the course of your work? Answer yes,
Speaker 1: I'm involved with several other forensic science organizations. Question how
Speaker 1: about ASCLD? Answer yes? Question what is that one? Answer
Speaker 1: ASCLD the American Society of Crime Lab Directors. Question what's
Speaker 1: the purpose of that group? Answer? So that's the group
Speaker 1: of laboratory directors. It could be laboratory managers, quality managers,
Speaker 1: laboratory leaders in essence are members of that organization. Question
Speaker 1: what is your role with that group? Answer? Currently I am.
Speaker 1: I report to the Board of Directors as the CFSO,
Speaker 1: the Consortium of Forensic Science Organizations liaison for the organization
Speaker 1: for as CLD. Question did you have a role in
Speaker 1: deciding that Authrum Labs should contract with Idaho State Police
Speaker 1: Forensic Labs. Answer I did have a role, yes. Question
Speaker 1: what was your role? Answer? My role would have been
Speaker 1: as Laboratory Systems director making a decision on contracts that
Speaker 1: would be awarded. Question did you decide that Authorum should
Speaker 1: receive the contract? Answer? I did not. Question did you
Speaker 1: work on the contract with Authorum? Answer? I need to
Speaker 1: answer that question in a little bit different way than
Speaker 1: you asked it, if you'll give me some leeway. Question sure, Answer,
Speaker 1: I did not work specifically on the contract with Authrum. However,
Speaker 1: I worked on the specifications that led to a contract
Speaker 1: being awarded to Authorm. Question the specifications you worked on?
Speaker 1: Did those end up becoming part of the contract with Authorum? Answer? Yes?
Speaker 1: Question what were those specifications? Answer? So, there were a
Speaker 1: lot of specifications within the scope of work that we
Speaker 1: developed to send out for the general bid process. As
Speaker 1: we bid as a state agency. As we bid for
Speaker 1: a contract, we send out specifications that anyone has to
Speaker 1: comply with. As they give us their documents and responses
Speaker 1: back on those things, then we have the ability to
Speaker 1: look at and make sure that they are compliant with
Speaker 1: those specifications that we sent out. Question what were the
Speaker 1: specifications for authroom? Answer? There were a lot of specifications
Speaker 1: sent out on the request for proposals intend to bid.
Speaker 1: There was a lot of different specifications that were sent out. Again,
Speaker 1: I have recollection of some of them. I don't have
Speaker 1: a full memory of all of them. Question will you
Speaker 1: share with us what you do recall? Answer? So things
Speaker 1: in that contract would specify that they use the interim policy.
Speaker 1: We also would put things in there about them following
Speaker 1: environmental protection type provisions the federal government requires us to abide. Buy.
Speaker 1: It would also have other things like reporting requirements back
Speaker 1: to US building procedures. A lot of different conditions we
Speaker 1: put in that to specify how they are going to
Speaker 1: work with us. Question when you say interim policy, are
Speaker 1: you referring to the Department of Justice interim policy? Answer? Yes.
Speaker 1: Question did you care if there were an accredited lab.
Speaker 1: Answer so, at this time, as we're looking for a
Speaker 1: forensic investigative, genetic genealogy vendor or a company to provide
Speaker 1: these types of services for us, we were not aware
Speaker 1: of any companies at that time that were accredited. Question
Speaker 1: Since that time, though, are you aware that companies do
Speaker 1: become accredited? Answer? Absolutely, Currently, there are definitely companies that
Speaker 1: are accredited in these services. At the time that this
Speaker 1: contract was bid, there were none to my knowledge. Question
Speaker 1: did you look at the procedures and protocols of AUTHRM
Speaker 1: before you decided? Yo? Look, just interject real quick. AUTHORAM
Speaker 1: is like the standard when it comes to DNA. This
Speaker 1: right here should show you and tell you everything you
Speaker 1: need to know about Brian Colberger's defense. Answer, so, I
Speaker 1: don't recall specifically myself reviewing those criteria. I know that
Speaker 1: there were a manual protocols that were provided back to
Speaker 1: us as part of the bid. Generally, I would provide
Speaker 1: those to others within our laboratory that were more qualified
Speaker 1: than I was looking at the specific technology, and I'm
Speaker 1: not qualified in fig analysis. Question do you recall if
Speaker 1: their instruments were validated? Answer? I do not recall. Question
Speaker 1: would that be important? To have their instruments validated. Answer.
Speaker 1: Validation is up to each laboratory and how they accomplish that.
Speaker 1: I can't speak to the working practices of authroom laboratories.
Speaker 1: Question does Idaho State Police Forensic Lab validate their equipment? Answer? Yes,
Speaker 1: we do. Question is that important to you? Answer to
Speaker 1: us as an accredited laboratory, Yes, that is an important part.
Speaker 1: Question How about retention of data or the ability to
Speaker 1: go back and rebuild the work or look at the
Speaker 1: work that was done. Answer, so we retain in our cases,
Speaker 1: we retain our electronic data. We retain any other notes
Speaker 1: and things that we make as part of our case records,
Speaker 1: part of our case file. We provide those to the
Speaker 1: investigators and to the court as normal business practice. Question
Speaker 1: did authorm do that? Answer in this case, I believe
Speaker 1: they gave us a report or what was identified as
Speaker 1: a preliminary report. The contract specifies that they would keep
Speaker 1: any data or other things associated with that for our purposes.
Speaker 1: We were most concerned that the data or anything else
Speaker 1: not be released to any other parties. So our concern
Speaker 1: was more about data security, data privacy, and so in
Speaker 1: this case, I don't know if they have other data
Speaker 1: or other records that they have kept that they have retained.
Speaker 1: We had asked them, as part of the termination in
Speaker 1: this case of our work, that they would preserve those
Speaker 1: things or they would communicate with both Prosecutor's Office and
Speaker 1: with Moscow Police Department if any of that information was
Speaker 1: to be disposed or whatnot? Question, Okay, keep it or
Speaker 1: tell somebody before you get rid of it. Am I
Speaker 1: understanding that answer? Our specification was that it stopped our
Speaker 1: process with them, that we were no longer in a
Speaker 1: contractual obligation with them on this case. Essentially, we were
Speaker 1: transferring ownership of anything on this case between them and
Speaker 1: Moscow Police Department and the Prosecutor's Office. Question the report
Speaker 1: that you ended up receiving from them, are you aware
Speaker 1: that that report doesn't provide details of how they did
Speaker 1: their work? Answer? I have seen the report. Yes, I
Speaker 1: seen what was in the report. Question would you agree
Speaker 1: that what's in the report is far different from what
Speaker 1: the Idaho State Police Forensic Lab produces by way of
Speaker 1: notes and photographs in connection with its work. Answer? We
Speaker 1: were not provided with analytical notes, We were not provided
Speaker 1: with data. To my knowledge, we were provided with what
Speaker 1: was identified to me as a preliminary report, which contained
Speaker 1: some of their genealogical work on the case and other
Speaker 1: things such as potential nationalities. Question is that different than
Speaker 1: what you produce when you produce a report at your lab.
Speaker 1: Answer It's hard for me to answer that question because
Speaker 1: it's a different report, it's a different type of analysis,
Speaker 1: and so I can't make a qualification there. I can
Speaker 1: tell you in our DNA reports, we release the report,
Speaker 1: we release the analyst notes. As a general practice, we
Speaker 1: have the electronic data and other things available for disclosure,
Speaker 1: but that's our general practice. I can't speak to the
Speaker 1: practice or process as authroom labs and what they disclose,
Speaker 1: nor can I speak to what is normal for release
Speaker 1: in a big case. Question are you familiar with how
Speaker 1: you come up with a SNP with that process where
Speaker 1: you get from a DNA sample to SNP? Answer in general, yes,
Speaker 1: but I'm not qualified in fig analysis. Question Okay, I
Speaker 1: won't go too far with that. Are you familiar with
Speaker 1: how you get from a DNA sample to an STR
Speaker 1: sample for the lab's purposes? Answer yes. Question are there
Speaker 1: similarities between the two process from getting places or pieces
Speaker 1: of DNA to an end result profile that you can
Speaker 1: use answer similarities in process as far as extraction and
Speaker 1: quantitation of DNA, but as far as instrumentation, used methods
Speaker 1: and those kinds of things very different process. Question. So
Speaker 1: some of the documents that Idaho State Police Forensic Lab
Speaker 1: produce that show us those results, those would be similar
Speaker 1: to what you would expect to see with an SNP answer.
Speaker 1: I would assume again, I'm not qualified in fig analysis,
Speaker 1: so I can't speak to what documents they may or
Speaker 1: may not produce. Question. Let's move from there. Thank you
Speaker 1: for that, and let's talk about authoram being involved in
Speaker 1: the case. That winds up being why we're here today.
Speaker 1: What communication did you have with AUTHRUM on the early
Speaker 1: end of that process? Answer? So, to my recollection, our
Speaker 1: early communication on this case was providing them with DNA
Speaker 1: that they would be able to help develop, hopefully and
Speaker 1: investigative lead for us on the case after that sample,
Speaker 1: to my knowledge, had been that we had followed our
Speaker 1: process through and that we had put a sample into CODIS,
Speaker 1: that we had not received any hits off of COTIS,
Speaker 1: and then we would proceed with the next step of testing.
Speaker 1: We did have a contractual relationship with them since early
Speaker 1: in I believe twenty twenty one, and so we did
Speaker 1: have a contract with them in place. Question was this
Speaker 1: the first case that Authorum work pursuant to that contract?
Speaker 1: Answer no, I don't believe so. Question how did they
Speaker 1: get the DNA? Answer the DNA sample itself. That DNA
Speaker 1: sample was delivered by Moscow Police Department in person to
Speaker 1: them at Authorum Labs. Question did you have any role
Speaker 1: in that part? Answer? I did? Question what did you do?
Speaker 1: I accompanied the officer from Boise down to Houston and
Speaker 1: down to the Authoram laboratory. I didn't have possession of
Speaker 1: the sample, but I was with the investigator that did.
Speaker 1: Question after that sample was delivered, did you have communication
Speaker 1: with Authorm further answer yes, Question what were those Answer?
Speaker 1: So I had communications to my memory with them about
Speaker 1: what type of analysis we were asking them to do,
Speaker 1: Also what type of searching. I remember they asked specifically
Speaker 1: for consent to do certain types of searching, we have
Speaker 1: to authorize things through memos and whatnot of them doing
Speaker 1: certain searching. Specifically, I believe it was family tree DNA
Speaker 1: that they needed an authorization for. I remember having significant
Speaker 1: discussions with them about why str testing and if or
Speaker 1: how that could be accomplished. All right, folks, we're gonna
Speaker 1: wrap up this episode here and in the next episode
Speaker 1: we're gonna pick up where we left off, and that
Speaker 1: is question, why did you want authorm to do? Why
Speaker 1: str testing? If you like to contact me, you can
Speaker 1: do that at Bobby Kopuchi at ProtonMail dot com. That's
Speaker 1: Bobby c apu Cci at ProtonMail dot com, or if
Speaker 1: you prefer, you can find me over on x at
Speaker 1: Bobby Underscore c ap Ucci. All of the links that
Speaker 1: go with this episode can be found in the description box.