Speaker 1: Full trial audio everything hurting court no silences to skip.
Speaker 2: Good morning you run America see yes please you want
Speaker 2: to before the court today. We have the matter of
Speaker 2: Commonwealth versus Lindsay Clancy. Miss Clancy is present. She is
Speaker 2: represented by Attorney Kevin Runnington. The Commonwealth is represented by
Speaker 2: Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague and Assistant District Attorney Shannon Buckingham.
Speaker 1: All right, well, good morning council, Good morning, miss Clancy.
Speaker 1: All right, before we bring the jury, could I speak
Speaker 1: to the council.
Speaker 3: Just for a couple of minutes day.
Speaker 4: Hey, hey, before the Honorable William.
Speaker 1: Sullivan just saying.
Speaker 5: Tennis Shelby.
Speaker 4: Your say of Massachusetts is closed session.
Speaker 6: Yes, want to before the court today.
Speaker 2: We have the continuation of the Jerry Trial and the
Speaker 2: matter of Commonwealth versus Lindsay Clancy. Miss Clancy is present.
Speaker 2: She is represented by Attorney Kevin Runnington. The Commonwealth is
Speaker 2: represented by Assistant District Attorney Jennafus Fragg and Assistant District
Speaker 2: Attorney Shannon Buckingham.
Speaker 1: All right, well, good morning again, nice to see everyone,
Speaker 1: Thank you for being here. What we're going to do,
Speaker 1: They're going to ask you those questions again, and then
Speaker 1: we'll go over to the schedule. We forget we are
Speaker 1: not you are not sitting there, okay, and that's not going.
Speaker 7: To change, so you can count on that.
Speaker 1: So let me ask you that at this point, is
Speaker 1: any member of the jury red seat heard or over
Speaker 1: anything from any source about any aspect of this case
Speaker 1: that would affect your ability to be fear and impartial
Speaker 1: as a juror. Next, is there any other serious matter
Speaker 1: of concern bearing on your service as a juror in
Speaker 1: this case anybody needs to bring.
Speaker 7: To my attention?
Speaker 1: Great, thank you again for following those instructions. And what
Speaker 1: we're going to do is we're going to return to
Speaker 1: the car I'm Well's case. Uh and like I said,
Speaker 1: we are not uh gonna be You're not going to
Speaker 1: be sitting this afternoon. The plan, and I'll double check
Speaker 1: who we get to that point, would be to return
Speaker 1: tomorrow at nine o'clock, uh, and pretty much uh, relatively
Speaker 1: full day tomorrow and probably Friday as well. But I'll
Speaker 1: double check as we go through that, all right, uh,
Speaker 1: And I'll let you know as soon as I can.
Speaker 7: If there's any changes to that schedule.
Speaker 1: So with that, I'm going to ask the car well
Speaker 1: to call their next witness.
Speaker 2: Come up.
Speaker 5: The calls eton degree.
Speaker 8: Well, lots of stuff.
Speaker 6: Please see.
Speaker 3: All right, good morning, sir, Good morning, sir.
Speaker 1: I just asked you to speak into that microphone.
Speaker 7: Sure, all right, Bucky, please thank you.
Speaker 6: Good morning, sir, Good morning. Could you please all the
Speaker 6: jersey your first and last name.
Speaker 7: My first name is Aton, last name is Negri.
Speaker 6: Can you spell your first name for the record, E I,
Speaker 6: T A N and your last name.
Speaker 8: N E G R I.
Speaker 6: And what do you do for work?
Speaker 9: I'm a physician associate physician assistant.
Speaker 6: And did you go to school for that yes? Can
Speaker 6: you tell us about your educational background.
Speaker 9: I did my undergraduate at City College in New York
Speaker 9: and I did a post back at Brooklyn College, followed
Speaker 9: by a pay program at Tory University in Manhattan.
Speaker 10: And do you.
Speaker 6: Currently work as a physician's assistant?
Speaker 8: Yes?
Speaker 6: And do you work currently work in the state of Massachusetts?
Speaker 7: No, ma'am.
Speaker 6: Are you licensed in the state of Massachusetts?
Speaker 10: Yes?
Speaker 6: At your licensed in any other states?
Speaker 7: New York state.
Speaker 6: I'm going to go back to January of twenty twenty three.
Speaker 6: Were you working in Massachusetts then?
Speaker 2: Yes?
Speaker 6: And where were you.
Speaker 7: Working Brigham and Women's Hospital.
Speaker 6: And were you in that sam role as a physician's assistant.
Speaker 7: Yes?
Speaker 6: And what were you doing? What were your general duties
Speaker 6: in that role working at Bergham and Women's.
Speaker 9: Generally, you assess a patient, you diagnose, you formulate a
Speaker 9: plan with an attending physician, and you execute that plan
Speaker 9: throughout the day and encompasses various things.
Speaker 6: Were you working in any particular department at Bergham and
Speaker 6: Women's back in January of twenty twenty.
Speaker 7: Three the Trauma Burne Surgical ICU.
Speaker 6: Now, I'm gonna draw your attention to a particular patient
Speaker 6: that came into the Brigham and Women's Hospital on January
Speaker 6: twenty fourth of twenty twenty three. That patient was Lindsay Clancy.
Speaker 6: Do you recall encountering this patient on January twenty fifth
Speaker 6: of twenty twenty three?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 6: And what did you do as it pertained to the
Speaker 6: care and treatment of this patient?
Speaker 9: I received the information from the shift before me, formulated
Speaker 9: a plan, examined her, assessed her staff, that plan with
Speaker 9: the attending physician, and executed that plan throughout the day.
Speaker 6: And fair to say, this particular patient had injuries that
Speaker 6: you were directed to. You observe, review, form that plan
Speaker 6: on correct What were the injuries?
Speaker 9: She had multiple injuries, The most acute were injuries that
Speaker 9: were requiring consultation with other services. And the ones that
Speaker 9: I directly managed were the lacerations to her risks and
Speaker 9: her just to risks.
Speaker 6: Actually, And as far as when you say she had
Speaker 6: other acute injuries, you were not involved in the care
Speaker 6: of her for those, correct.
Speaker 9: I was involved in the care that involved consulting other
Speaker 9: services to manage those.
Speaker 8: Things, yes, okay.
Speaker 6: And as far as any sort of repair work that
Speaker 6: you were doing as a physician's assistant working with the
Speaker 6: trauma surgeons, what repair work were you assigned to do?
Speaker 7: Laceration repair?
Speaker 6: And on this particular patient, where were the injuries or
Speaker 6: lacerations that you were going to repair.
Speaker 9: She had multiple lacerations on both of her wrists. She
Speaker 9: had superficial on her neck which I did not repair.
Speaker 6: And as it pertained to the risks, did you go
Speaker 6: through that process of observing, reviewing, coming up with the plan,
Speaker 6: and then repairing those injuries?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 6: And were you directed to do that by any particular doctor.
Speaker 7: Not necessarily directed.
Speaker 9: A lot of those things fall within my scope, and
Speaker 9: since they were less acute, they kind of filled down
Speaker 9: the chain to me.
Speaker 6: Okay, and you're aware that she was being seen and
Speaker 6: treated by a host of other doctors, nurses, an entire team. Yes,
Speaker 6: as it pertains to the risk injuries, what did you
Speaker 6: do to examine those those areas?
Speaker 7: The first thing I do is assess the location.
Speaker 9: Then I assessed the severity whether it requires intervention by
Speaker 9: someone other than myself. And this is instance it did not,
Speaker 9: so that I proceed with just kind of protocol laceration repair.
Speaker 6: Where when would it be a situation where you'd need
Speaker 6: somebody else to intervene if.
Speaker 9: It required surgical intervention or suture and repair beyond my
Speaker 9: skill set?
Speaker 7: In this instance, it did not, okay.
Speaker 6: And so referring to these particular injuries, when you observe them,
Speaker 6: did you observe any areas of active bleeding?
Speaker 8: No?
Speaker 6: And fair to say they had been treated by nurses
Speaker 6: and other staff prior to you encountering these injuries.
Speaker 9: Correct, Yes, they were dressed and covered before I got there.
Speaker 6: Now, when you assessed them, you noted that they were bilateral. Correct, Yes,
Speaker 6: what does that mean?
Speaker 9: It means on both sides of the body, So both
Speaker 9: risks okay.
Speaker 6: And so referring to the right wrist, what were your
Speaker 6: observations of the injuries to the right wrist?
Speaker 9: The right wrist as far as my reference to the
Speaker 9: note is that she had a few lacerations, one of
Speaker 9: which was severe and deep enough to repair, and fare.
Speaker 6: To say that that right wrist injury was the one
Speaker 6: that you repaired, was three centimeters deep approximately.
Speaker 9: If that's what my note says, then that's that's what it.
Speaker 8: Was, okay.
Speaker 6: And on a wrist or this area of the risk
Speaker 6: where you observe the injuries that depth of three centimeters
Speaker 6: did that require further surgical intervention or were you able
Speaker 6: to suture that area?
Speaker 7: I was able to future that area.
Speaker 9: As far as what happened subsequent to that, I wasn't there,
Speaker 9: so I'm not sure, okay.
Speaker 6: And how many sutures did you use to repair that injury?
Speaker 7: I believe three?
Speaker 6: And in relation to any other cuts or lacerations that
Speaker 6: were on that right wrist, did any other of those
Speaker 6: lacerations require suturing?
Speaker 8: No?
Speaker 6: How did you treat those other injuries.
Speaker 9: Just irrigation meaning cleaning them out and then using the
Speaker 9: type of tape to close them shut.
Speaker 6: And that's generally referred to as a stary strip. Correct.
Speaker 3: Correct.
Speaker 6: They approached thelitness.
Speaker 5: Showing you two photographs.
Speaker 6: Those photographs depict the repairs of the sutures that you
Speaker 6: did on the right wrist, and Lindsay Clancy I've.
Speaker 7: Mentioned may be admitted.
Speaker 6: And I'm just gonna show on the screen which now
Speaker 6: been marked is exhibit to zero one and you should
Speaker 6: be able to see it, sir, on the screen in
Speaker 6: front of you. Can you see that?
Speaker 3: Yes? Okay?
Speaker 5: And so this is the right rist correct?
Speaker 7: Correct?
Speaker 5: And those black lines in the middle of the photograph.
Speaker 6: Are those of the sutures that you did. Correct And
Speaker 6: just showing you QO two Exhibit KO two. These white
Speaker 6: strips that are all around the injury are those the
Speaker 6: starry strips correct. Now on the left wrist, do you
Speaker 6: recall what the observed to be the injuries on that wrist?
Speaker 7: I believe there was a similar.
Speaker 9: Laceration, just shorter in length that required fewer features.
Speaker 6: And fair to say if your notes reflect that the
Speaker 6: left wrist one had one meaning just a singular two
Speaker 6: centimeter deep linear cut, that that would have been what
Speaker 6: your observations were of the injury that you repaired. And
Speaker 6: how many sutures did that injury require? And were there
Speaker 6: other areas that you observed that had some sort of
Speaker 6: laceration I.
Speaker 9: Believe similarly just superficial ones that needed stereous trips.
Speaker 6: And again in treating this particular injury when you came
Speaker 6: upon it was their active bleeding or any concern that
Speaker 6: you needed more intervention other than.
Speaker 7: A suture at that time, no, show.
Speaker 6: That's familiar to you. Yes, And are those the future
Speaker 6: that you did on the left wrist of Lindsay.
Speaker 1: Right be admitted or they may be admitted, thank you.
Speaker 6: And now again just showing what's been now marked is
Speaker 6: exhibit to zero three and you see the injury there
Speaker 6: and on the risk near the ruler in the photograph. Yes,
Speaker 6: And Exhibit two O four, which is just a closer
Speaker 6: upshot of that is that crack? Yes, and again you
Speaker 6: see the white strips. Those are also starry strips that
Speaker 6: were applied.
Speaker 8: Correct.
Speaker 6: Now in relation to any of these ones on the
Speaker 6: right or the left wrist, did you observe the lacerations
Speaker 6: to go any deeper than the subcutaneous tissue.
Speaker 7: On my observation?
Speaker 6: Now, and when we talk sub cutaneous tissue, we're talking
Speaker 6: about that fatty tissue on your underneath your skin? Correct?
Speaker 7: Correct?
Speaker 6: And did you have to return at any point to
Speaker 6: your knowledge to readdress these issues or do any further
Speaker 6: laceration orpair as it pertained to this patient on that shift. No,
Speaker 6: do you recall if you did on any other shift?
Speaker 7: No, have no further questions.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 3: It's is it, mister Negri?
Speaker 7: Agree, yes, sir?
Speaker 3: And you're not a doctor a physician assistant? Is that
Speaker 3: what it is?
Speaker 8: That's correct?
Speaker 3: Okay?
Speaker 4: And how long had you worked for Brigham and Women's
Speaker 4: prior to seeing Lindsay Clancy that on January twenty four,
Speaker 4: twenty three.
Speaker 9: I believe I was in my second year of employment
Speaker 9: with Briga my Women's.
Speaker 3: Okay, And you got to keep your voice up because people.
Speaker 9: Back here have to be able to believe I was
Speaker 9: in my second year of employment and bring them with Women's.
Speaker 4: You're not suggesting for one minute that after you did
Speaker 4: your butterfly stitches, Lindsay could have got up and walked
Speaker 4: out the.
Speaker 3: Door of the hospital, right, no, sir.
Speaker 4: And would you agree with me that, in fact, she
Speaker 4: was critically ill when you saw her, right yes, sir?
Speaker 4: And she certainly wasn't critically ill from COVID or a
Speaker 4: flu or something like that, right, like, good morning, sir,
Speaker 4: thank you.
Speaker 6: Good morning, good morning. Could you please tell the Jersier
Speaker 6: first and last.
Speaker 11: Name, It's Nicholas Roberts And where do you currently work.
Speaker 11: I work for a company called Thermo Fisher.
Speaker 6: What is that?
Speaker 10: What do they do?
Speaker 11: They sell plenty of laboratory based products, including refrigeration, They
Speaker 11: sell solvents, They do instruments as well.
Speaker 6: Prior to working for that company, did you work for
Speaker 6: the Massachusettstate Police Crime Lab?
Speaker 8: I did?
Speaker 6: In What unit did you work for the crime lab?
Speaker 8: I was in the toxicology unit.
Speaker 6: How long did you work for the crime lab?
Speaker 8: For about nine years?
Speaker 6: And in working for the crime lab, what kind of
Speaker 6: training and experience did you have to work in the
Speaker 6: toxicology unit?
Speaker 11: So, prior to being hired, I have both a bachelor's
Speaker 11: and a master's degree in applied forensic science sort of
Speaker 11: concentration in chemistry and toxicology. I also have the masters
Speaker 11: is in forensic toxicology.
Speaker 8: While being hired.
Speaker 11: On the job, they provide training for all the in
Speaker 11: house stuff that we test for, which includes not only
Speaker 11: a theory based training, but also practical stuff so that
Speaker 11: you can analyze and run all the tests that we
Speaker 11: do in house.
Speaker 6: And as far as your work in the toxicology unit,
Speaker 6: for to say, in January of twenty twenty three or
Speaker 6: February of twenty twenty three, you were what's referred to
Speaker 6: as a forensic scientist too, correct. Yes, And throughout your
Speaker 6: time at the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab, did you
Speaker 6: have to undergo competency tests and proficiency tests?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 6: And why is that? Why do you have to do that?
Speaker 8: So mainly it's the.
Speaker 3: I don't get one, Okay, I'm just saying I know
Speaker 3: he's qualified.
Speaker 4: I have no problem with his credentials and his testimony.
Speaker 6: Council, thank you, sir. In working at the State Police
Speaker 6: Crime Lab, did you just work in the toxicology unit
Speaker 6: or did you work in any other units in your
Speaker 6: time there?
Speaker 8: No, only in toxicology.
Speaker 7: Okay.
Speaker 6: Now, as it pertains to the toxicology unit, I'm fair
Speaker 6: to say the State Police Crime Lab has a specific
Speaker 6: set of protocols and procedures that are followed in every case.
Speaker 8: Ah.
Speaker 6: Yes, And at that time, in February of twenty twenty three,
Speaker 6: was the State Police Crime lab using the batch review process. Yes,
Speaker 6: and so when the state police use this process, there
Speaker 6: are a number of different technicians or forensic scientists that
Speaker 6: work on any given case.
Speaker 8: Is that fair to say yes?
Speaker 6: And at the end of it, one analyst is respect
Speaker 6: possible for reviewing all the data and authoring or report.
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 6: And based on your training experience, if you're that person
Speaker 6: reviewing the data and authoring and the report, do you
Speaker 6: have the ability to interpret some of the data in
Speaker 6: the report?
Speaker 8: Yes?
Speaker 6: Or data in the testing, I should say.
Speaker 11: Ah, Yes, we review all the data that is provided
Speaker 11: within the case file.
Speaker 6: And did you, during your time at the crime lab.
Speaker 6: In the toxicology unit stay up to date on various
Speaker 6: types of drugs and quantifications of those drugs and what
Speaker 6: that could mean for levels in a person's blood or urine.
Speaker 11: Yes, they keep us up to date on drugs that
Speaker 11: are commonly used.
Speaker 6: So one of the roles in the toxicology unit is
Speaker 6: for you to report whether substances are detected in blood
Speaker 6: in urine. Is that fair to say?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 6: And at some point are you also called on to
Speaker 6: interpret interpret the levels?
Speaker 11: So we in blood we report values, so we get
Speaker 11: concentrations of the different drugs that we mainly report them
Speaker 11: in blood and as far as.
Speaker 6: The concentration levels themselves, did you have training and experience
Speaker 6: on interpreting those levels?
Speaker 11: We usually get training on the effects of the drugs.
Speaker 8: It's hard to say with some.
Speaker 11: With some drugs as well as some people, what one
Speaker 11: level might mean for one person. It might differ and
Speaker 11: you have different effects on another.
Speaker 6: Okay, I'm fair to say that's a limitation of just
Speaker 6: reviewing blood and not knowing anything else about.
Speaker 8: A case, right that.
Speaker 6: Yes, at the toxicology unit, at the crime level, is
Speaker 6: there a limitation as to how or what types of
Speaker 6: drugs can actually be quantified or given concentration levels? Ah?
Speaker 8: Yes, we only quantify and drugs.
Speaker 6: And what happens if there are other drugs present and
Speaker 6: there's a request for quantification or concentration levels, what does
Speaker 6: your lab do with that?
Speaker 8: Usually there sends out another lab in order for testing.
Speaker 6: And are you familiar with the NMS lab?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 6: Is that or was that at that time a common
Speaker 6: lab that would be sent drugs that you could not
Speaker 6: quantify in your lab.
Speaker 3: Ah?
Speaker 8: Yes, I'm going to.
Speaker 6: Direct your attention to the lab number of twenty three
Speaker 6: DASH zero one excuse me, zero one seven two three.
Speaker 6: It's a case that you were the reporting analyst on
Speaker 6: correct Yes, and fair to say that there were several
Speaker 6: items that were submitted to the toxicology unit as specimens, yes,
Speaker 6: including blood, plasma, and urine.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 6: And did you work with other members of the toxicology
Speaker 6: unit to have that those sub those speciman's screened and
Speaker 6: then further tested?
Speaker 3: Ah?
Speaker 8: Yes, the batch process was followed.
Speaker 6: And as far as any screening test, did you yourself
Speaker 6: do any screening tests on these items?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 6: What screening test?
Speaker 8: Did you do? The screening for the alcohol and was there.
Speaker 6: Any alcohol present? And in this screening for alcohol, does
Speaker 6: it just tell you whether it was detected or not detected? Yes,
Speaker 6: and so when you don't have a result, there's nothing
Speaker 6: further to do. Correct Now. As far as the blood
Speaker 6: that was tested in this case in the urine, you
Speaker 6: were aware that there were tests, screening tests done for
Speaker 6: what's called the elizas screen, benzodiazepines and general unknown screens
Speaker 6: for these samples.
Speaker 3: Correct.
Speaker 8: Yes, that's usually a protocol.
Speaker 6: And in any of the circumstances, were there positive results yes?
Speaker 6: And as it pertained to the positive results, what's your
Speaker 6: understanding of what was positive.
Speaker 11: Uh So, to my knowledge, it was positive for the
Speaker 11: benzodae as a beam panel in Eliza that would have
Speaker 11: gotten further confirmatory testing done on it to see the
Speaker 11: levels as well as the individual types of benzos that
Speaker 11: were present in the blood.
Speaker 8: And the same was for the urine as well.
Speaker 11: We also identified a few substances via our general unknown
Speaker 11: screen which was confirmed in blood and urine.
Speaker 6: As far as is your agreement as to.
Speaker 1: Yes, whose blood is being tested at this point, just
Speaker 1: by the number, yes, it may be easier for everybody
Speaker 1: for the true to follow.
Speaker 6: So would youonna just like you to read the results?
Speaker 7: No, just instead of referring to it by a number. Well,
Speaker 7: let me see it.
Speaker 6: Sid, I tell you that your report was previously enters
Speaker 6: as Exhibit one eighty three. Have you had the opportunity
Speaker 6: to review report before coming today. Yes, And so the
Speaker 6: lab number that we've been referring to, you're aware that
Speaker 6: the person associated with that lab number was actually a
Speaker 6: woman by the name of Lindsay Clancy. Yes, okay, Now,
Speaker 6: as far as the testing that was done, you receive
Speaker 6: results to the positive benzidiazepines in the screen, and then
Speaker 6: it was confirmed correct?
Speaker 3: Correct?
Speaker 6: How many benzodiazepines were present?
Speaker 3: There were.
Speaker 8: At least four or five okay?
Speaker 6: And were you able to get concentration levels from the
Speaker 6: blood samples after that screen and the confirmatory tests?
Speaker 8: Yes?
Speaker 6: And again already in evidence. But the toxicology report for
Speaker 6: item ten dash one zero one on the blood with
Speaker 6: those benzodiazepines, there's diazepam correct, noro diazepam yes, oxazapam, tamasa
Speaker 6: pam yes, and lazy. And as far as your review
Speaker 6: of the testing on those substances and the concentration levels,
Speaker 6: did anything about any of those levels stand out to
Speaker 6: you as far as based on your training and experience, uh?
Speaker 8: Only that they were reportable?
Speaker 6: Okay. Are you familiar whether they're in any sort of
Speaker 6: therapeutic level for any of those drugs?
Speaker 8: I'm not sure Okay.
Speaker 6: You mentioned there were also other substances that were detected
Speaker 6: in the general unknown screen correct, Yes, And that would
Speaker 6: have been martazepine, uh LA, matrogen, catiapine, cathiopine, metabolite, and
Speaker 6: trasidone and words, was your lab able to get concentration
Speaker 6: levels for those?
Speaker 8: No?
Speaker 6: And so what did you do or what was done
Speaker 6: with the samples or the specimens as it pertained to
Speaker 6: those substances.
Speaker 8: To minology of the sense MS labs.
Speaker 6: And you've previously stated that you are trained on effects
Speaker 6: of the of certain types of drugs, but your limitation
Speaker 6: is you don't know how it affects a particular individual. Correct. Correct,
Speaker 6: these particular five benzodiazepines, do you know where they fall
Speaker 6: in the type of drug what the general effects of
Speaker 6: those drugs are?
Speaker 11: So benzos tend to be central nervous system depressence, okay.
Speaker 6: And the ones that were detected, but you don't have
Speaker 6: the levels for mataspine and the list I read what
Speaker 6: category are those drugs?
Speaker 11: Those tend to be also be central nervous system depressence.
Speaker 11: Quotipene in particular, as you usually known that bipolar disorders
Speaker 11: gets aw and as.
Speaker 6: It pertains to the presence of the five dia five
Speaker 6: bens of diazepines, your testing is limited that you don't
Speaker 6: know whether that was from one medication or multiple medications. Correct.
Speaker 11: Correct, Because the nordazepam outside of PAM and timasimam tend
Speaker 11: to be metabolites of diazepam.
Speaker 6: No further questions.
Speaker 3: You raising.
Speaker 8: How you doing that's about it, So.
Speaker 3: All right, just a couple of brief questions.
Speaker 4: First of all, would you this would be a blood
Speaker 4: sample that was taken from Lindsay on a particular like
Speaker 4: one day.
Speaker 3: This is not a panel of a bunch of different samples.
Speaker 11: Right to my knowledge, there would have been a few
Speaker 11: different tests tubes submitted to us. Yes, I'm not familiar
Speaker 11: with these specific ones, like if they were done over
Speaker 11: a Spanish span of time, but usually there.
Speaker 4: Yes, and you'd agree with me that that's a fairly
Speaker 4: large number of drugs and metabolites that are in that
Speaker 4: particular blood sample. Right, I've seen more, I'm sure, but nevertheless,
Speaker 4: that's still a large number of drugs.
Speaker 8: Though, right, Yeah, that's quite a few.
Speaker 4: And you don't know, as a working your job for
Speaker 4: the state police at that time, you don't know how
Speaker 4: many of these drugs are coming from scripts, prescriptions and
Speaker 4: things of that nature.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 4: No, one of the things that you had mentioned metabolites
Speaker 4: And you said that because the district attorney asked you
Speaker 4: about different benza diazepines, this PAM, that PAM, this PAM,
Speaker 4: that PAM, and then you responded and said, yeah, but
Speaker 4: there's a lot of metabolites involved.
Speaker 3: In that, right, What does that mean?
Speaker 11: So a metabolite is just a breakdown of anything, usually
Speaker 11: by the body. So you have what we call a
Speaker 11: parent drug, and the body, if you ingest that body
Speaker 11: would then break it down or put it into a
Speaker 11: more digestible form in order to get rid of it.
Speaker 4: Okay, So when you have a number of metabolites, For example,
Speaker 4: someone may may have a prescription for am atripolene or
Speaker 4: a prescription for zoloft or at a vent or something,
Speaker 4: and they take the pill and it's in the system,
Speaker 4: and then over time it would metabolize and they'd be
Speaker 4: different PAMs or whatever it is that would break down
Speaker 4: into the into the blood.
Speaker 3: Is that right?
Speaker 8: Yes?
Speaker 3: How about.
Speaker 4: Tetrahydrocannabinols THC marijuana?
Speaker 3: What was the level on that?
Speaker 8: To my knowledge, you didn't find any no marijuana? Right? Correct?
Speaker 3: Thank you very much, sir, to.
Speaker 7: Be bucking any redirect. All right, thank you, sir, Sit
Speaker 7: down with me.
Speaker 10: Come you're in our this time.
Speaker 6: Upon agreement, i'd ask to admit as the next exhibit,
Speaker 6: just a chart that the parties have agreed upon that
Speaker 6: lists the brand names of some of the rugs that
Speaker 6: have been spoken about the course of the trial as
Speaker 6: well as what they were also known as for the
Speaker 6: ease of the jurors.
Speaker 1: So by by agreement that may be admitted, the Commonwealth.
Speaker 5: Would call doctor Jonathan Brower as its next fitness.
Speaker 3: Can you stop right here, raise your right after the
Speaker 3: clerk place.
Speaker 8: Good morning, doctor, good morning.
Speaker 1: Ask you to keep your voice up so the jury
Speaker 1: can hear you.
Speaker 10: And with that, council thank you.
Speaker 6: Good morning.
Speaker 10: Sir.
Speaker 6: Can you please tell the jurors your first and last name.
Speaker 7: It's Justin Burrower B R O W E R.
Speaker 6: And what do you do for work?
Speaker 2: Sir?
Speaker 7: I'm a forensic toxicologist for n MS Laboratories.
Speaker 6: And where's that laboratory located.
Speaker 7: The laboratory is located in Horsham, Pennsylvania, just north Philadelphia.
Speaker 6: And what does your laboratory do?
Speaker 7: We are a reference laboratory. We do post mortem work,
Speaker 7: clinical work, and forensic drug work. So primarily my role
Speaker 7: is on the forensic side. I'm a forensic toxicologist.
Speaker 6: And does your lab receive specimens from all across the country.
Speaker 7: We do. We have clients in all fifty states. We
Speaker 7: do approximately half of the post mortem work in the
Speaker 7: United States as well. As a large number of clinical clients.
Speaker 6: And is your lab accredited across several states and across
Speaker 6: the country.
Speaker 7: We are because we deal with, you know, all the
Speaker 7: states in the United States, all the states in the country.
Speaker 7: We are accredited by just about every accrediting body that
Speaker 7: I'm aware of in the clinical and forensic aspects, as
Speaker 7: well as a lot of state certifications. So a lot
Speaker 7: of states have their own requirements. The most notable one
Speaker 7: is like New York States, So it did by again,
Speaker 7: every crediting and body that I'm aware of. And how
Speaker 7: long have you worked for NMS Laboratory Four years as
Speaker 7: of August first. And what's your educational background as a
Speaker 7: forensic toxicology So I have a PhD in organic chemistry.
Speaker 7: Where did you get that from the University of Nevada?
Speaker 6: And do you have any other professional experience in this
Speaker 6: field prior to working for NMS.
Speaker 3: I do.
Speaker 7: Before joining NMS Laboratories, I was a laboratory supervisor and
Speaker 7: then forensic toxicologist for the North Carolina Office of the
Speaker 7: Chief Medical Examiner, which is a statewide system. So we
Speaker 7: did the post mortem toxicology work for all one hundred
Speaker 7: counties of the state of North Carolina.
Speaker 6: And when it comes to your role in the forensic
Speaker 6: area of doing the toxicology testing, what is your role
Speaker 6: in the NMS lab when it comes to cases that
Speaker 6: come to the laboratory for forensic analysis.
Speaker 7: So when a case comes into NMS and is logged
Speaker 7: in and the assigned or the requested tests assigned and
Speaker 7: then run and reviewed multiple times in the laboratory. When
Speaker 7: all that testing is completed, it comes to the toxicology department,
Speaker 7: and my role is to review every aspect of that case.
Speaker 7: So I'm making sure that everything on the toxicology report
Speaker 7: is complete and accurate, such as all the demographic information
Speaker 7: that we have available to us, you know, the name
Speaker 7: of the scedent or the patient date of birth where
Speaker 7: it's from the specimens that we received. And then also
Speaker 7: that all of the everything that is reported is complete
Speaker 7: and accurate, making sure that all the drugs that were
Speaker 7: tested for are reported, that the reported concentrations are correct
Speaker 7: and accurate, and looking at every piece of raw data
Speaker 7: accumulated from the laboratory with that case associated with that case.
Speaker 6: Fair to say, the NMS laboratory uses a batch reviewow.
Speaker 7: That is correct, So we not only run the cases
Speaker 7: in bashes, So we don't run one case at a time.
Speaker 7: That's not very efficient. I don't really know of any
Speaker 7: laboratory that does that anymore. So we will run cases,
Speaker 7: you know, ten, fifteen, you know, thirty or forty at
Speaker 7: a time.
Speaker 6: So as far as running particular tested tests and getting
Speaker 6: the broad data that's usually done by other people in
Speaker 6: the laboratory, correct, that is correct, and then you come
Speaker 6: in at the end and review everything and have the
Speaker 6: ability to interpret the data that is correct. Your training
Speaker 6: and experience as a forensic tex psychologist does that allow
Speaker 6: you to interpret concentration levels of particular types of drugs?
Speaker 8: It does.
Speaker 6: Now. As far as the testing done at NMS laboratories,
Speaker 6: the traditional testing is kind of the drug testing, the
Speaker 6: panels for different common drugs correct, And typically we have.
Speaker 7: A client's request panels to be run where we're looking for,
Speaker 7: you know, multiple drugs and classes of drugs at a time.
Speaker 6: But are there circumstances when outside laboratories or outside individuals
Speaker 6: retain your lab in order to run specific tests.
Speaker 3: Oh?
Speaker 7: Absolutely.
Speaker 6: Now I'm going to draw your attention to this particular case,
Speaker 6: where was your laboratory provided a blood sample from the
Speaker 6: Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab in April of twenty twenty three, I.
Speaker 7: Believe, so, I'd really like to see the toxicology report
Speaker 7: so I can just confirm all of that. Please, sure, sure,
Speaker 7: Thank you so much, Hang on to that.
Speaker 8: It's fine.
Speaker 3: Correct.
Speaker 7: Where we received the specimens on April seventh, twenty twenty.
Speaker 6: Three, and it came from the Massachusettstate Police Crime Lab.
Speaker 7: No, I don't know where they were initially sent from,
Speaker 7: but the clients or the submitting agency is the District
Speaker 7: Attorney's Office of Plymouth.
Speaker 8: Okay.
Speaker 6: Now, as it pertains to the requested testing that was done,
Speaker 6: was it that panel that you described or was it
Speaker 6: more specific testing?
Speaker 7: This is what we call direct testing where they requested
Speaker 7: just four specific drugs to be tested for.
Speaker 6: And what were the four specific tests requested?
Speaker 7: Lamotrogene, mertazapine, katiapene, and trasidone.
Speaker 6: Are you familiar with those substances or those drugs, yes, ma'am,
Speaker 6: And you reviewed all of the data and information done
Speaker 6: at your lab in regards to these tests, correct, yes, ma'am.
Speaker 6: Were they able to identify concentration levels in the sample
Speaker 6: that was submitted for each one.
Speaker 7: Of those four substances, yes, ma'am.
Speaker 6: And for the first can you tell us what the
Speaker 6: result was?
Speaker 7: Would you like me just run down the list? Sure,
Speaker 7: we detected lamotrogene and concentrate of six point one micrograms
Speaker 7: per milli leader, martazapine at a concentration of two hundred
Speaker 7: I'm sorry, two hundred nanograms, Permela Leader, katia pen at
Speaker 7: a concentration of eighteen hundred nanograms Permella Leader, and trazodone
Speaker 7: at a concentration of zero point four four micrograms permili leader.
Speaker 7: And these are all in blood, in blood.
Speaker 6: And so with each each drug that you just listed,
Speaker 6: are you familiar with what the common name is for
Speaker 6: the drugs?
Speaker 7: I'm not always that great with common names, but I
Speaker 7: can wing it okay.
Speaker 6: Well, the lamotrigene and forgive me if I watch the
Speaker 6: that's okay. The pronunciation that's also referred to commonly as
Speaker 6: lamexp it is correct limental. What kind of drug is that?
Speaker 7: It's typically used as an anti seizure medication, so if
Speaker 7: somebody has a seizure disorder, it can be prescribed to
Speaker 7: alleviate seizures, but it's also used for bipolar disorder as well.
Speaker 6: And mertazepine. Fair to say that's commonly referred to as
Speaker 6: rmarn Correct? And what kind of drug is that?
Speaker 7: That isn't typically an antidepressant?
Speaker 6: And catiopine, what's what's that?
Speaker 7: Commontiopene is known as siraquel and for.
Speaker 6: To say that's an antipsychotic as well for esspolar Yes, ma'am.
Speaker 6: Are you familiar with whether that often can be prescribed
Speaker 6: in low doses for sleep?
Speaker 8: It is?
Speaker 7: It can be for insomnia?
Speaker 6: And trazodone. What's the common name for trazodone?
Speaker 7: If you know, I am drawing a blank on the trazodone.
Speaker 6: If I suggest trasamine, is that familiar?
Speaker 7: Not the one I'm most familiar with?
Speaker 6: And I apologize that it's okay, But you're familiar with trasidone?
Speaker 3: Correct?
Speaker 6: And what class of drug is that?
Speaker 7: That's an anti depressant?
Speaker 6: Now, in your review of the levels that were detected
Speaker 6: in these four tests for each of these substances, do
Speaker 6: any of these levels appear to be outside therapeutic concentration levels?
Speaker 7: The only one that's a little elevated would be the tap. Okay,
Speaker 7: So we're gonna take a very short break at this time.
Speaker 1: All right, So this would be a short break and
Speaker 1: we'll come right.
Speaker 10: Back, all right, all right, place, all right, we would be.
Speaker 1: Right, This would be a short break, just for a
Speaker 1: short recess.
Speaker 8: Will come right back.
Speaker 7: Hopefully not.
Speaker 6: Yeah, doctor Brower. Before we broke, we mentioned the term
Speaker 6: therapeutic concentration. You familiar with that term, correct? What does
Speaker 6: that mean?
Speaker 7: It's the typical concentration that one would achieve when they're
Speaker 7: taking the medication or drug as indicated by their prescriber.
Speaker 6: And are you familiar with toxic concentrations or suicidal concentrations
Speaker 6: and what does that mean?
Speaker 7: Those are concentrations that could lead to adverse events and
Speaker 7: potentially death.
Speaker 6: Now, in relation to the four substances that were tested
Speaker 6: at the NMS laboratory, you identified the levels for each
Speaker 6: of the four substances. Were any of those sub levels,
Speaker 6: excuse me, concentration levels considered within therapeutic concentration?
Speaker 7: It would all be in what I would say therapeutic concentration,
Speaker 7: except maybe the katapene, which is slightly elevated.
Speaker 8: Okay.
Speaker 6: And in your experience as a forensic toxicologist, have you
Speaker 6: had the occasion to review cases post mortem cases in
Speaker 6: which suicide was a mechanism of death where the person
Speaker 6: consumed medication.
Speaker 7: Absolutely, yes, And so.
Speaker 10: That level of the.
Speaker 6: Kittiapine at the eight hundred nanogram's permillar leader was would
Speaker 6: that have been in that toxic or suicidal level?
Speaker 7: No, ma'am.
Speaker 6: Would you generally expect to see that a significantly greater
Speaker 6: in a suicide case?
Speaker 7: Typically gittiopenes and suicide cases might be in the you know,
Speaker 7: close to ten thousand nanograms for male leader. Usually people
Speaker 7: take handfuls of pills when they're trying to harm themselves
Speaker 7: and take their own life, and this is not consistent
Speaker 7: with that.
Speaker 6: Now, are you also familiar in your training and experience
Speaker 6: with the class of drugs called benzodiazepines, Yes, ma'am. And
Speaker 6: do you have the occasion to interpret data as it
Speaker 6: pertains to concentration levels for.
Speaker 7: Those every single day?
Speaker 6: And as far as the substances diazepam, nora diazepam, ox oxapam,
Speaker 6: tams apam, laurazapam, you're familiar with those, I am, And
Speaker 6: it's fair to say nora, diazepam, oaspam, temasi pam, those
Speaker 6: are all metabolites of diazepam.
Speaker 7: Typically, yes, ma'am.
Speaker 6: And what's the common name for diazepam valium? If I
Speaker 6: show you what's been marked is exhibit one eight three
Speaker 6: already Can you see that on the screen beside you?
Speaker 7: I can, yes, right there?
Speaker 6: Can you see the levels?
Speaker 7: They're all blurry?
Speaker 12: There you go.
Speaker 7: My sight is not great too, So okay, so that's
Speaker 7: perfect that I can do with the auto focus.
Speaker 13: Don't touch it any anything about the levels that you
Speaker 13: observed here regarding those substances benzodiazepines that tell you that
Speaker 13: they're outside therapeutic concentration levels.
Speaker 7: The diazepam and the nordays of pam, oxyzopam and tamazapam metabolites.
Speaker 7: The diatapam looks to be sub therapeutic, meaning lower than
Speaker 7: what is typically expected from a therapeutic dose. Most therapeutic
Speaker 7: doses of diazepam, which is an which is an angiolytic
Speaker 7: drug or an anti anxiety drug are typically you know,
Speaker 7: two hundred two hundred and fifty thereabouts nanogram permil leader
Speaker 7: the lerazepam, depending upon the dose, could be a therapeutic
Speaker 7: concentration if not maybe a little bit lower than expected.
Speaker 6: Now when you're reviewing these cases, as the reporting forensic toxicologist.
Speaker 6: Are there limitations on what you can say about the
Speaker 6: effects of these types of metal cations.
Speaker 7: We can speak as to the general effects that drugs
Speaker 7: can have on the general population, but we try to
Speaker 7: restrict ourselves from saying with absolute certainty that a drug
Speaker 7: will have this effect on this specific person because we
Speaker 7: just aren't there to witness their behavior.
Speaker 6: Okay, so that was kind of the follow up.
Speaker 7: So I'm sorry.
Speaker 6: What are the things that you are the unknowns for
Speaker 6: you when you're just looking at data we.
Speaker 7: Did when we say that we can't do toxicology in
Speaker 7: a vacuum. You can't know everything about the case just
Speaker 7: by looking at numbers on the toxicology report and drugs
Speaker 7: on toxicology report. You need other information to have an
Speaker 7: informed opinion. In the post mortem world, that would be
Speaker 7: the investigation itself, the history of the case, the scene findings,
Speaker 7: you know, interviews with you know, families and friends of
Speaker 7: the decedents as all, as well as autopsy findings. Well,
Speaker 7: in a case like this where it's not a decedent
Speaker 7: and the person is alive, you still need to know
Speaker 7: some facts of the case, some sort of history of
Speaker 7: the case, like what happened so just numbers on a page,
Speaker 7: you can just make very generalize types of opinions such
Speaker 7: as that looks to be therapeutic, it looks to be high,
Speaker 7: it looks to be low, and then again just the
Speaker 7: general effects on the drugs on people.
Speaker 6: And in this particular instance, you were not provided any
Speaker 6: further information about the case or the investigation in order
Speaker 6: to make any more opinions about effects.
Speaker 7: I knew nothing about this case until we spoke. I
Speaker 7: think it was probably a few weeks ago.
Speaker 6: And as far as the information available to you, you
Speaker 6: only had the data from the specimen that was tested, correct, that.
Speaker 7: Is correct, just these four drugs that were requested to
Speaker 7: be tested for.
Speaker 6: And as far as the drugs of the four drugs
Speaker 6: that were tested by your lab, what are the general
Speaker 6: characteristics of some of those drugs.
Speaker 7: So these are generally antidepressants and antipsychotic medications. So if
Speaker 7: somebody had well the remote gene, if somebody has a
Speaker 7: bipolar disorder like wide wild mood swings, depressive episodes, or
Speaker 7: anti psychotic or psychotic episodes, these drugs could be prescribed.
Speaker 7: They also have depressant effects, so they could make people
Speaker 7: become lethargic, or or sleepy okay.
Speaker 4: And would have known that if somebody had told you that,
Speaker 4: but you don't know it from looking at the numbers
Speaker 4: that we have here right.
Speaker 7: Correct as possible, if they would have given us that information.
Speaker 7: We don't always need to have it though, Can I
Speaker 7: just see it again?
Speaker 6: I think just a perfect.
Speaker 1: We're going to.
Speaker 7: Introduce ye that exhibited this time.
Speaker 4: Thank you, best lab report the same as the one,
Speaker 4: same numbers on the top right, what the square is correct?
Speaker 3: The same numbers? Correct? Thank you, that's what I.
Speaker 8: Right?
Speaker 6: Yeah, calm well, doctor Brower, you in fact, once got
Speaker 6: this case per review, you authored a corrected report in
Speaker 6: regards to this case. Correct.
Speaker 8: Correct.
Speaker 6: At this point I would move to admit the report.
Speaker 7: All right, that may be admitted as well. Thank you,
Speaker 7: all right, thank you, doctor Am I release through also,
Speaker 7: thank you, thank you.
Speaker 14: You're on a Prior to the next witness, the cam
Speaker 14: Wealth would move to submit for stipulations the party parties
Speaker 14: have it entered into, the first being a stipulation regarding
Speaker 14: DNA known standard samples, the second being a stipulation regarding
Speaker 14: DNA evidence for the blue exer size band and the
Speaker 14: red brown stain on the basement floor, the third being
Speaker 14: the stipulation regarding DNA DNA evidence for the yellow exercise
Speaker 14: band and the black exercise band, and the fourth being
Speaker 14: the stipulation regarding DNA comparisons for the blue exercise band
Speaker 14: and the red brown stain in the basement.
Speaker 1: That's right, we don't need to have all right, So
Speaker 1: those stipulations may be entered as exhibits. Council, do you
Speaker 1: want those published or regular? The jury or satisfied that
Speaker 1: they'll have those and the parties can.
Speaker 7: The parties can refer to the contents of the of the.
Speaker 3: Stipulations, the only one.
Speaker 7: I'm sorry, that's on me. I kind of jumped in there.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry.
Speaker 15: Spelled k A t A r i n A. Last
Speaker 15: name is spelled s t A.
Speaker 7: S h y N.
Speaker 14: And can you describe for as your educational background.
Speaker 15: I have a bachelor's and master's degree in biotechnology from
Speaker 15: the University of Nevada Arena.
Speaker 12: And what is your occupation.
Speaker 15: I'm currently employed by the Washoe County Sheriff's Office Forensic
Speaker 15: Science Division, which is located in Reno, Nevada. I'm a
Speaker 15: criminalist in the biology and for ustic forensic investigation sections.
Speaker 14: Back in January of twenty twenty three.
Speaker 15: Where were you working I previously worked for the Massachusetts
Speaker 15: State Police Crime Laboratory as a forensic scientist in the
Speaker 15: DNA unit, which is functionally the same role that I
Speaker 15: currently have in the biology section.
Speaker 3: And I'm sorry, we agree to the DNA I'm just
Speaker 3: letting you know that.
Speaker 12: All right, and I'm just giving that evidence to the very.
Speaker 14: So when did you start working for the State Police.
Speaker 15: I worked for the Massachusetts State Police from June twenty
Speaker 15: twenty one to February of twenty twenty five.
Speaker 12: And what was the nature of your work for the
Speaker 12: lab at that time?
Speaker 15: As a DNA analyst, I processed evidence items obtained either
Speaker 15: from a crime scene or from an individual associated with
Speaker 15: a criminal investigation. These items of evidence would be processed
Speaker 15: through the laboratory. I then would perform interpretations, comparisons as needed,
Speaker 15: write reports. I also could perform administrative reviews of other
Speaker 15: analysts work and provide expert witness testimony as needed.
Speaker 14: And part of your employment at the Massachusetts State Police
Speaker 14: Crime Lab did you take competency tests and proficiency tests
Speaker 14: to guarantee that you were capable and proficient in the
Speaker 14: areas you were working.
Speaker 15: Yes, I took both competency tests after my training and
Speaker 15: proficiency tests throughout my career at Massachusetts and at my
Speaker 15: current role.
Speaker 12: And have you passed all of those tests?
Speaker 15: Yes, I have passed all competency and proficiency tests that
Speaker 15: I've taken so far in my career.
Speaker 12: Can you tell us what is DNA?
Speaker 15: DNA stands for deoxyribonucleic acid and this is genetic information
Speaker 15: that is stored in our cells. This is information that
Speaker 15: makes us who we are, determines how we develop and grow.
Speaker 15: A person's DNA is inherited approximately half from their mom
Speaker 15: and half from their dad. DNA is forensically relevant because
Speaker 15: it is expected that no two individuals will have the
Speaker 15: same forensic DNA profile.
Speaker 14: And is DNA the same in every single cell in
Speaker 14: a person's body.
Speaker 15: Yes, the DNA profile obtained from different cells, different cell types,
Speaker 15: like a blood cell or from a saliva cell or
Speaker 15: selling your saliva would have the same DNA profile barringer mutation.
Speaker 14: And can you explain generally the process used to analyze
Speaker 14: evidence in this case, the testing involving the defendant, Lindsay Clancy.
Speaker 15: The items tested in this case and in all cases,
Speaker 15: will go through a four step laboratory process of extraction, quantification, amplification,
Speaker 15: and detection, and then profiles developed from that laboratory process
Speaker 15: will be interpreted and compared.
Speaker 14: Can you just briefly explain what is extraction and how
Speaker 14: it's done.
Speaker 15: Extraction is the first step of that laboratory process that
Speaker 15: involves applying a variation of heat and chemicals to a sample.
Speaker 15: This breaks open cells that are present and releases the
Speaker 15: DNA and then isolates that DNA.
Speaker 12: And was the next step quantification?
Speaker 8: Yes?
Speaker 12: And what is that and how do you do that?
Speaker 15: Quantification is the second step when we determine a reliable
Speaker 15: estimate for the amount of DNA in those samples that
Speaker 15: were extracted, and those values are then used to optimize
Speaker 15: the rest of the process with the goal to obtain
Speaker 15: a quality profile for that sample.
Speaker 12: And the third step amplification. Can you explain that?
Speaker 15: Amplification is when we make millions and millions of copies
Speaker 15: of certain areas of DNA to make it able to
Speaker 15: be detected and visualized.
Speaker 12: And then detection what is that?
Speaker 15: And then the fourth step is separation or detection. This
Speaker 15: is where we separate out all those millions and millions
Speaker 15: of copies that we made to make them visual. This
Speaker 15: produces a DNA profile that an analyst is then able
Speaker 15: to review and interpret.
Speaker 14: And when you worked at the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab,
Speaker 14: were there certain standardized protocols.
Speaker 12: And procedures that you used at that lab?
Speaker 8: Yes?
Speaker 14: And were there controls used in your testing?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 12: What does that mean?
Speaker 15: So there are two different types of controls that we're
Speaker 15: used in our testing. The first is a positive control.
Speaker 15: This is a sample that contains a known DNA profile
Speaker 15: and it is processed alongside evidence samples. So when that
Speaker 15: known DNA profile is obtained at the end of the process,
Speaker 15: it confirms that the process is working appropriately. The second
Speaker 15: type of control is a negative control, and this is
Speaker 15: a sample that contains no DNA that is also tested
Speaker 15: alongside evidence samples, and this is able to monitor any
Speaker 15: contamination and confirm that clean technique is used during testing.
Speaker 14: And does your work undergo a review process at.
Speaker 12: The lab or did it?
Speaker 6: Yes?
Speaker 15: All work goes through two stages of review, technical review
Speaker 15: and administrative review. Technical review is when another qualified analyst
Speaker 15: reviews all of the work done in the file and
Speaker 15: in the report they confirmed that all protocols were followed
Speaker 15: and that correct conclusions were drawn. And then administrative review
Speaker 15: is when another analyst reviews dot file all of the
Speaker 15: documentation and the report for overall clerical accuracy and completeness.
Speaker 14: And when you worked on Lab number twenty three DASH
Speaker 14: zero one seven two three evidence involved in the deaths
Speaker 14: of Core Clancy, Dawson Clancy, and calend Clancy, did you
Speaker 14: follow the standardized protocols and procedures?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 14: Were there any issues with the controls that you that
Speaker 14: were present when you did this test?
Speaker 15: All controls were acceptable per the laboratory protocols?
Speaker 14: And did your work undergo and pass that review process
Speaker 14: you just described, Yes, all.
Speaker 15: Work went through both technical and administrative review.
Speaker 14: And if we could talk specifically about the work that
Speaker 14: you did in this case, first I'd like to talk
Speaker 14: or I'd like you to talk about your work done
Speaker 14: on the yellow exercise band and the black exercise band.
Speaker 14: Now you didn't actually handle those items.
Speaker 15: Actually low level contributors.
Speaker 14: And would it be correct to state that when there
Speaker 14: is this level of relatedness where you have two parents
Speaker 14: and three siblings, that you can have false exclusions.
Speaker 15: If there is an under assignment of the number of contributors,
Speaker 15: meaning that the number of contributors is incorrectly assigned lower
Speaker 15: than it actually is, which is a possibility with relatedness
Speaker 15: because you're working with less information because that information is shared,
Speaker 15: the under assigning could lead to false exclusions of true contributors.
Speaker 14: Could you also miss some people to include?
Speaker 15: Due to the effects of relatedness, it could be difficult
Speaker 15: to determine number of contributors simply because so much information
Speaker 15: is shared. Therefore, it is more complex when assigning this number.
Speaker 14: And for item two dash two point one point one
Speaker 14: the ends of the yellow exercise band, whether you considered
Speaker 14: two contributors or three contributors, both of your findings find
Speaker 14: that Dawson Clancy was a contributor a potential contributor.
Speaker 15: Both propositions, either to contributors or three contributors, had high
Speaker 15: inclusionary stats for Dawson Clancy correct.
Speaker 12: What's a non n million?
Speaker 15: Non million is a very large number.
Speaker 12: Do you know how many people are on Earth?
Speaker 15: I know it's.
Speaker 14: Gobbledegook At this point, Judge I object to his subgestions.
Speaker 8: And how many councils.
Speaker 12: Treat thank you honor?
Speaker 14: One point seven none million? Is that more than there
Speaker 14: are people on the earth?
Speaker 15: That is more individuals that are on the Earth. But
Speaker 15: I would like to clarify that a likelihood ratio is
Speaker 15: not a random match, probability, or a rarity of that profile.
Speaker 15: A likelihood ratio is a ratio that describes the probability
Speaker 15: of observing the DNA profile if a certain person is included,
Speaker 15: versus the probability of observing that DNA profile if a
Speaker 15: certain person is excluded, or if it is another unknown,
Speaker 15: unrelated individual.
Speaker 12: And you said a million is a very high number.
Speaker 15: Correct, Yes, that's a very large number in my opinion.
Speaker 14: So it's a very large probability that Dawson Clancy is
Speaker 14: a contributor to that mixture.
Speaker 15: It is a large likelihood ratio that provides support for
Speaker 15: the inclusion of Dawson Clancy to the profile.
Speaker 14: And then going to item two dash two point two
Speaker 14: point one the swabs from the middle of the exercise band,
Speaker 14: what were your findings for that.
Speaker 15: The DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture of two contributors,
Speaker 15: including male DNA. The DNA profile from this item is
Speaker 15: at least one point five non million times more likely
Speaker 15: if it originated from Dawson Clancy and an unknown individual
Speaker 15: than than if it originated from two unknown, unrelated individuals.
Speaker 15: This provides support that Dawson Clancy is included as a
Speaker 15: contributor to this DNA profile. The DNA profile from this
Speaker 15: item is at least three point six million times more
Speaker 15: likely if it originated from Callan Clancy and an unknown
Speaker 15: individual than if it originated from two unknown, unrelated individuals.
Speaker 15: This provides support that Callen Clancy is included as a
Speaker 15: contributor to this profile. The DNA profile from this item
Speaker 15: is at least one point four billion times more likely
Speaker 15: if it originated from Patrick Clancy and an unknown individual
Speaker 15: than if it originated from two unknown, unrelated individuals. This
Speaker 15: provides support that Patrick Clancy is included as a contributor
Speaker 15: to this DNA profile. Core Clancy and Lindsay Clancy are
Speaker 15: excluded from this DNA profile. The mixture DNA profile from
Speaker 15: this item is consistent with having originated from two individuals.
Speaker 15: There are three individuals who have a likelihood ratio that
Speaker 15: indicates an inclusion.
Speaker 7: Though there is support for the.
Speaker 15: Individual inclusions of Dawson Clancy, Kllen Clancy, and Patrick Clancy
Speaker 15: to the mixture DNA profile under the stated assumptions, these
Speaker 15: individuals cannot be present in the mixture together. Assuming one
Speaker 15: two contributors and two Dawson Clancy is one of the contributors,
Speaker 15: Kallen Clancy and pack Clancy cannot be present in the
Speaker 15: mixture together. Support for inclusion may be impacted by mixtures
Speaker 15: which contain relative, especially first degree relatives. Refer to the
Speaker 15: independent inclusionary statistics above.
Speaker 14: So this swab from the middle of the yellow exercise
Speaker 14: band you stated was a mixture of two contributors two people.
Speaker 12: Correct.
Speaker 15: Yes, I determined using my training and experience that the
Speaker 15: profile was a mixture of two contributors, and then you.
Speaker 14: Had three possible contributors Dawson, Callen, and Patrick.
Speaker 12: Or the two person mixture.
Speaker 14: So is it accurate that that relatedness issue was having
Speaker 14: an effect on those on that data.
Speaker 12: Or that result.
Speaker 15: Yes, relatedness of potential contributors was having an effect on
Speaker 15: this profile, and that is because so much DNA is
Speaker 15: shared between potential contributors.
Speaker 14: And what you stayed at the end that if Dawson
Speaker 14: Clancy is one of the contributors.
Speaker 3: Then cat she was unable to sleep. Isn't that right?
Speaker 7: Correct?
Speaker 4: I told you that lack of sleep was becoming a
Speaker 4: significant impact.
Speaker 3: On her life and that she had to see doctors
Speaker 3: and was on medication for that right.
Speaker 7: Correct.
Speaker 4: Again, the troopers were questioning you and directing you on
Speaker 4: your on your questions or your answers. And at one point,
Speaker 4: do you recall saying to the trooper, I loved my Lindsay.
Speaker 6: I loved my Lindsay.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 7: I don't recall saying that. Okay, did you do I
Speaker 7: love Lindsay?
Speaker 3: Yeah? I did love Lindsay.
Speaker 8: Yes.
Speaker 3: Now when she when was she sleeping in the basement?
Speaker 3: Do you remember that?
Speaker 10: Do I know when?
Speaker 3: Or why? When? When was she sleeping in the basement?
Speaker 7: I honestly don't remember.
Speaker 4: Okay, do you remember if I suggest to you that
Speaker 4: it was around the end of November mid December that
Speaker 4: she was sleeping in the basement for a period of time.
Speaker 7: If you remember, I don't remember, I'm sorry.
Speaker 3: Did she indicate to you why she was sleeping in
Speaker 3: the basement?
Speaker 6: She I don't think she did.
Speaker 3: Would you agree that she.
Speaker 4: Was forthright with you, as fire as telling you what
Speaker 4: was going on in her life, as fire as her
Speaker 4: concentration and her inability to sleep in things of that nature, Yes, Sustine,
Speaker 4: would she tell you about those problems that she was suffering.
Speaker 4: She shared with me that she had postpartum and that
Speaker 4: she couldn't sleep, and as a result of that, you
Speaker 4: were pretty concerned.
Speaker 3: For her, weren't you.
Speaker 12: I really don't know much about postpartum, but I was.
Speaker 6: I would always ask her how she.
Speaker 10: Was or how she was doing.
Speaker 4: And in fact you noted that, in addition to the
Speaker 4: inability to sleep that she would speak about that she
Speaker 4: was unable to focus. To recall her ever saying she
Speaker 4: had difficulty focusing on things.
Speaker 7: I don't recall her saying that to me.
Speaker 3: How about Finn. Did you notice that she appeared to
Speaker 3: be losing significant weight?
Speaker 7: I did, and I commented to her about.
Speaker 4: That, okay, And you had occasion to see her as
Speaker 4: a mother playing with the children, obviously, right.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 4: Would the two of you stay in touch with each
Speaker 4: other by text even when she was out and you
Speaker 4: were home in their home.
Speaker 8: With the kids, yes?
Speaker 4: Fair to say that you would take many, many videos
Speaker 4: of the kids and send them to Lindsey.
Speaker 10: On her phone, right, I did?
Speaker 3: And fair to say that during that period of time.
Speaker 4: From your involvement as Rossi as a nanny, that you
Speaker 4: sent her videos of the children playing, and as we
Speaker 4: saw the baby taking a bottle and the baby eating and.
Speaker 3: Things of that nature.
Speaker 10: Right.
Speaker 4: Did she ever send you any videos or did she
Speaker 4: ever respond to your emails or videos?
Speaker 6: Yes, she responded to every.
Speaker 12: Most of my text she responded, tod.
Speaker 3: She seemed to be appreciative of your work. Yes, very
Speaker 3: much so, and in fact, she was pretty vocal about that.
Speaker 3: She thought the world. Are you right? Yes, thank you,
Speaker 3: Sally here redirect.
Speaker 6: One question and all that she told you about postpartum
Speaker 6: sleep and all that you observed in the house. Did
Speaker 6: you ever have any conversations with her about intrusive thoughts
Speaker 6: or thoughts of harming yourself?
Speaker 7: No, anything on that I me stipped out. Thank you,
Speaker 7: Thank you, counsel.
Speaker 3: Can I see