Commonwealth v. Read — Trial ArchiveAndre Porto - Direct
341 linesJUDGE CANNONE: Your next witness, Mr. Lally?
MR. LALLY: Yes. I'd like to call Mr. Andre Porto to the stand.
COURT OFFICER: Okay, thank you. Look right this way. Watch your step.
JUDGE CANNONE: [unintelligible] Whenever you're ready, Mr. Lally.
MR. LALLY: Thank you. Good afternoon, sir.
MR. PORTO: Afternoon.
MR. LALLY: First let me just say that, just for clarification, that microphone in front of you is adjustable — you can move it up and down. Good afternoon, sir. Could you please state your name and spell your last name for the jury?
MR. PORTO: Yeah, my name is Andre Porto. Last name spelled P-O-R-T-O.
MR. LALLY: And what do you do for work?
MR. PORTO: I'm a forensic scientist two at the Massachusetts State Police crime lab in the DNA unit.
MR. LALLY: And sir, if I could ask you just a few questions about your educational background. Starting with your undergraduate work, where did you go to school and what if any degrees did you receive from that?
MR. PORTO: I received a Bachelor of Science in microbiology at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst.
MR. LALLY: And then — yeah, sorry — and where did you go from there?
MR. PORTO: I went to the Boston University School of Medicine and I got a Master of Science in forensic biomedical forensic sciences.
MR. LALLY: And about what year was that that you received that master's?
MR. PORTO: I graduated 2019.
MR. LALLY: And then following receipt of your master's, where did you go from there?
MR. PORTO: I went to the DNA unit in the Massachusetts State Police crime lab.
MR. LALLY: And when you joined the Massachusetts State Police crime lab initially, what was your title and sort of what were your duties and responsibilities with relation to that topic?
MR. PORTO: So I joined as a forensic scientist one, and that's a training position where I underwent a training program that consisted of a bibliography with multiple journal articles and textbooks, as well as conducting the lab processing on training samples.
MR. LALLY: And that's sort of the initial work that you did as referred to as an FS1, is that correct?
MR. PORTO: Yes.
MR. LALLY: In that initial work that you did as an FS1, how long did you do that before you became a forensic scientist two?
MR. PORTO: Approximately — the training itself was approximately six to eight months, and then within a year I was promoted to an FS2.
MR. LALLY: And when you were promoted to work as an FS2, what if any specific unit were you assigned to within the lab?
MR. PORTO: The DNA unit.
MR. LALLY: And have you essentially been with the DNA unit since that assignment initially occurred?
MR. PORTO: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Now just a few questions about the lab. At the state police crime laboratory, is that lab accredited by anybody?
MR. PORTO: Yes, we are accredited by ANAB.
MR. LALLY: And that stands for ANSI National Accreditation Board, and the ANSI stands for American National Standards Institute?
MR. PORTO: Affirms.
MR. LALLY: And with reference to that accreditation, can you describe to the jury just a little bit about generally in terms of what goes into an accreditation of a lab?
MR. PORTO: Yeah. So this organization, ANAB, they came into our lab and they reviewed all of our protocols ranging from facility security to the protocols that we do in the lab, to staff education and training, and to make sure that we're meeting all the standards that we are being accredited to.
MR. LALLY: And the lab at the MSP crime lab — its accreditation — is it up to date at this point?
MR. PORTO: Yes.
MR. LALLY: With reference to yourself personally, sir, in regard to your casework, in regard to your training, are you familiar with the term proficiency testing?
MR. PORTO: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And can you explain to the jury what that is, and sort of how often and what consists of the proficiency testing that you undergo?
MR. PORTO: Yeah. So a proficiency test is given on a semiannual basis — so twice a year — by an outside agency. And we don't know what the results are, and we treat it as a regular case, so we take it through the regular DNA processing, and we have to pass that proficiency test to show that we maintain our competency in whatever work that we are doing in casework.
MR. LALLY: And sir, as far as the proficiency testing that you've undergone, what have been the results of your proficiency testing?
MR. PORTO: I've passed all of mine.
MR. LALLY: Now sir, it may be a term that's pretty well understood, but if you could explain to the jury at least based on your training experience, what your understanding is of a couple of different terms. And the first one I'm going to start with is DNA itself. What is DNA?
MR. PORTO: Yeah. So DNA stands for deoxyribonucleic acid, and that is basically the genetic blueprint that makes us who we are. And we each have two copies of it — we inherit it one from our mom and one from our dad — and that combination makes us unique. And with the exception of identical twins, everybody has a different DNA.
MR. LALLY: And is DNA the same in every cell of a person's body?
MR. PORTO: Yes, barring any rare mutations, DNA is the same. So if you take a blood sample and a saliva sample from the same person, the DNA should be the same.
MR. LALLY: And what I'm going to ask you now is just a little bit about the process of DNA and how it's tested within your lab. Am I correct in saying that there's essentially four steps, is that correct?
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And approaching sort of chronologically, one of the steps is called extraction, correct?
MR. PORTO: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Can you explain to the jury how it is specifically that DNA is extracted by yourself in general terms when you're testing it?
MR. PORTO: Yes. So for the extraction step, I receive the samples — they're in like small tubes that are closed. I will add a set of reagents to it, apply heat to that sample, and that will actually burst open the cells to make the DNA available for use.
MR. LALLY: When you are extracting from a sample, is there a way to sort of measure how much DNA you're extracting from a sample?
MR. PORTO: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And can you explain sort of how it is that you know that?
MR. PORTO: Yeah, so that's the second step that we call quantitation, and we take a small portion of that DNA that we extracted and we'll apply a different set of reagents and run it through an instrument that heats and cools down the sample, goes through a cycle, and allows us to estimate how much DNA is extracted.
MR. LALLY: Now sir, what is PCR?
MR. PORTO: PCR stands for polymerase chain reaction, and it's basically known as molecular xeroxing, where it's making millions of copies of specific areas that you can target of the DNA.
MR. LALLY: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to step over — sorry. Isn't that the third step?
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Now, what is an STR?
MR. PORTO: It stands for short tandem repeat, and these are locations in the DNA that change in each person, so it's comprised of small little repeats, and however many repeats you have at that location is sort of what will show up in your DNA profile.
MR. LALLY: How is it, with your work in the lab, that you identify DNA fragments?
MR. PORTO: It's the fourth step, which we call detection, where after we amplified the specific areas that we are looking at in the DNA, we'll run it through an instrument that will separate them out and generate the DNA profile.
MR. LALLY: Now within your work in the lab, are you familiar with terminology as far as a known item versus a questioned item?
MR. PORTO: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And can you explain what each of those mean in reference to your field and your work, and sort of what is the difference between the two?
MR. PORTO: Yeah, so a known item is an item that's collected directly from an individual and it's to be used for comparison purposes, whereas a questioned item is collected from, let's say, a crime scene where we don't know the source.
MR. LALLY: Now as far as your lab or your unit within the lab, does the DNA unit itself follow standardized policies and protocols?
MR. PORTO: Yes, we do.
MR. LALLY: And who approves of those particular policies and protocols and procedures?
MR. PORTO: Our technical leader.
MR. LALLY: Now could you explain the process used to analyze the evidence in this case?
MR. PORTO: Yeah, so the evidence in this case underwent that four-step process that I just described, which was extraction to quantitation to amplification, detection, and then interpretation of the profile that was generated.
MR. LALLY: Now what are some of the controls, or what do you use during the course of your testing?
MR. PORTO: Yeah, so there are two types of controls: positive and negative controls. A positive control is a sample with a known DNA profile that we use to show that each step in the process worked as expected, and a negative control is a sample that has no DNA in it and that only receives the reagents that we are using, and that is to show that there's no inherent contamination of the reagents that we used.
MR. LALLY: Let me ask you sir, if you know, what are some of the ways to prevent sort of DNA transfer from yourself or from someone else working on the case, or from other samples that you may be working on with other cases?
MR. PORTO: Yeah, so there are many ways. One way is to clean the workspace before we start working and after, just to make sure that it's constantly being cleaned. Another way is to wear PPE — personal protective equipment — like lab coats, face masks, and hair nets. And another one is to make sure that we only have one tube open at a time so that we don't have any cross-contamination between samples.
MR. LALLY: Now your work specifically, sir, does it undergo some sort of review process?
MR. PORTO: It does.
MR. LALLY: And specifically your work in this case, did it undergo that same sort of general review process pursuant to the policies and procedures you were speaking about before?
MR. PORTO: Yes, it did.
MR. LALLY: Now when a case ID comes into the Mass State Police crime lab, it's assigned a specific case number, correct?
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And in this instance, I'm referring to a case number entitled 22-02184. Are you familiar with that case?
MR. PORTO: I am.
MR. LALLY: And you tested a number of different items within that case, correct?
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Now as far as the items are concerned, similar to how items from a specific investigation or case are assigned a case number, are those different items assigned different item numbers as well?
MR. PORTO: Yes, they are.
MR. LALLY: And if there is something that is taken, swabbed, or cut or something from a specific item, how is that labeled in relation to the item that it was taken from?
MR. PORTO: So basically, let's say we have a parent item that's number 2-1, and then if we take a cutting of that item, it will be called — if it's the first cutting — it would be called 2-1.1.
MR. LALLY: Now in this case sir, was a known standard processed?
MR. PORTO: Yes, it was.
MR. LALLY: And can you explain to the jury sort of how that process occurs in regard to processing the known standard?
MR. PORTO: Yeah, so the lab processing is the same where it undergoes the same four-step process, and a qualified analyst then looked at the DNA profile that was generated to make sure that it was a single-source profile, meaning at each location that we looked at there were only one or two peaks. And after that it underwent the technical and administrative review process before it was closed out and ready for use for comparison.
MR. LALLY: Do you know whose known DNA standard was processed in this case?
MR. PORTO: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And who was that?
MR. PORTO: A known blood standard from John O'Keefe.
MR. LALLY: Now as far as your involvement in this case, what was your involvement in this case?
MR. PORTO: I performed the testing of the questioned items.
MR. LALLY: And did you have occasion to perform DNA analysis on certain items submitted to your lab in connection with this case?
MR. PORTO: Yes, I did.
MR. LALLY: Let me ask you about some specific items. Were you asked to perform some analysis on an item labeled 3-1.1?
MR. PORTO: Yes, I was.
MR. LALLY: And if you know, what was that a sample from?
MR. PORTO: Would I be able to refer to my notes?
MR. LALLY: Thank you.
MR. PORTO: So that was a sample from the passenger side tail light.
MR. LALLY: And with respect to that, there was a DNA profile that was generated from that swab from the tail light, correct?
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And what, if anything, were the findings — what was the result of the analysis of the profile from the swab taken from the tail light?
MR. PORTO: The DNA profile was interpreted as a three-person mixture including male DNA.
MR. LALLY: And to be more specific — when an item comes in it's assigned an item number, there's also a description that's provided along with sort of where the item came from, correct?
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And so specifically, item 3-1.1 is a sample from the passenger side tail light, and it gives a specific Massachusetts registration plate of 3GC684, correct?
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Sir, and so from the analysis of the swab — or the profile obtained from the swab from the tail light — what, if anything, was that compared to? John O'Keefe's standard, the sample from Mr. O'Keefe, correct?
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And with regard to that, is that a comparative analysis that you conducted yourself?
MR. PORTO: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And what, if any, opinions or conclusions come from the comparative analysis between the swab from the tail light from that vehicle and the profile from Mr. O'Keefe?
MR. PORTO: The DNA profile from this item is at least 510 nonillion times more likely if it originated from J. O'Keefe and two unknown individuals than if it originated from three unknown unrelated individuals, and this provides support for an inclusion.
MR. LALLY: Now sir, with reference to that item and that comparative analysis, you said 510 nonillion times, is that correct?
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And nonillion — just for clarification purposes — do you know how many zeros that is?
MR. PORTO: It's a one followed by 27 zeros.
MR. LALLY: And with regard to that item, the profile containing the comparative analysis consistent with the DNA profile of Mr. O'Keefe — there are also two unknown contributors, is that correct?
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Now with regard to that, are you familiar with that item or the profile from that item being submitted along with some other samples to an outside vendor called Bode Technology?
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Now with reference to another item contained within that, are you familiar with item 3-6?
MR. PORTO: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And what is item 3-6?
MR. PORTO: That is the root end of a hair from the exterior passenger side rear panel.
MR. LALLY: Now sir, as far as hair is concerned — let me tell the jury a little bit about sort of DNA and how that works. Let me ask you this: there's essentially, when it comes to a hair sample, there's typically going to be a root end and a shaft end, correct?
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And where — from DNA, as your lab is concerned — where are you able to sort of test from, or where would you be looking to extract a sample from in order to perform testing?
MR. PORTO: Yes, so our testing for hairs, the DNA will be coming from any tissue that might be attached to the root end of the hair.
MR. LALLY: And so you're looking for specifically sort of follicular tissue, is that correct?
MR. PORTO: Tissues attached to the hair, yes.
MR. LALLY: Now, are you familiar with the terms autosomal DNA versus mitochondrial DNA?
MR. PORTO: Yes, I am.
MR. LALLY: And can you explain for the jury briefly sort of what your understanding is of each of those two terms and what, if any, differences there are between the two?
MR. PORTO: Yeah, so autosomal DNA is present in the nucleus of the cell. That is, we inherited — one copy from our dad, one copy from our mom. Mitochondrial DNA is present within the mitochondria, and that is inherited via ...the mother.
MR. LALLY: Now, your lab at the Massachusetts State Police Crime Laboratory — is the lab equipped, or does your lab do mitochondrial DNA testing?
MR. PORTO: We're not equipped to do mitochondrial testing.
MR. LALLY: And so when you say that the lab is not equipped to do the testing, what exactly does that mean?
MR. PORTO: So we don't have the instruments or the facilities to do that testing, and we don't get that testing requested very often, so it makes more sense to send it out to an approved vendor to do that testing.
MR. LALLY: And one of those approved vendors would be the Bode Technology lab in Lorton, Virginia, that you were discussing previously? Correct?
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And as far as your understanding, Bode Technology is equipped and does do mitochondrial DNA testing? Correct?
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Now with respect to your testing, you did some testing with regard to item 3-6 of the hair, is that correct?
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And can you explain to the jury sort of what that testing was and what, if any, opinions or conclusions you were able to draw from the testing that you were able to do?
MR. PORTO: Yes. So that testing began the same way as the four-step process. I extracted the hair and then went to quantitation, and after quantitation I determined that there was no human DNA detected. So then testing was halted at that step.
MR. LALLY: And so what, if anything, was the result of that testing that you conducted with regard to that?
MR. PORTO: That no human DNA was detected, so STR analysis was not performed.
MR. LALLY: Now that phraseology there — as far as "no human DNA detected" — what does that mean?
MR. PORTO: So quantitation is looking specifically for human DNA, and we couldn't detect that with our instruments. It's not speaking to the hair itself; it's just that we could not detect any human DNA.
MR. LALLY: That's not so much to say that there is no DNA on the hair, just that it is below the level of detection that you're qualified to report — is that fair to say?
MR. PORTO: That's correct.
MR. LALLY: Now with regard to the tail light sample, if I could step back to that for a second — the 510 nonillion times — what, if any, relationship does that have to sort of the overall world human population?
MR. PORTO: So the world population I think currently is about 8 billion, which is an eight followed by nine zeros, and 510 nonillion has — excuse me — 30 zeros in it, so it's significantly larger.
MR. LALLY: Significantly larger, sir?
MR. PORTO: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Now, sir, if I could turn your attention to some other items that you tested in relation to this case. Just to be clear, sir, you conducted or issued about six different DNA reports in regard to the testing that you conducted in this case, is that correct?
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. LALLY: So if I can direct your attention now to DNA testing report number six, that involved an item called 3-3.1, is that correct?
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And what is the description of that item?
MR. PORTO: I'm sorry, got the wrong report. That is a sample from apparent glass on rear bumper.
MR. LALLY: And with the same Massachusetts registration plate as the tail light, is that correct?
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And what, if any, conclusions or opinions were you able to draw from your analysis of testing on that particular item?
MR. PORTO: So at the quantitation step for this item, insufficient human DNA was detected and STR analysis was not performed.
MR. LALLY: And again, just as far as that statement is concerned, can you explain a little bit to the jury what that means — as far as what you're seeing in regard to "insufficient human DNA detected and STR analysis not performed"?
MR. PORTO: Yes. So at the quantitation step we do have a cutoff — a certain value where if we detect human DNA that's below this cutoff, we've validated that it's most likely not going to provide a profile that can be used, so we halted testing at that step.
MR. LALLY: Now, sir, if I could direct your attention to the fifth report that you issued in this case — DNA testing report number five. And does that sort of contain the totality of the items that you analyzed in this particular case?
MR. PORTO: It does.
MR. LALLY: Now, sir, if I could direct your attention to an item labeled as number 3-21.1. And what is the description for that particular item, sir?
MR. PORTO: That is a sample from exterior of broken drinking glass.
MR. LALLY: And with reference, were you able to generate a DNA profile from the swab or the sampling from that item?
MR. PORTO: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And what, if any, comparison were you able to do in regard to the DNA profile of Mr. O'Keefe?
MR. PORTO: Yes. So the sample was interpreted as a mixture of three contributors, and the DNA profile for this item is at least 530 nonillion times more likely if it originated from John O'Keefe and two unknown individuals than if it originated from three unknown unrelated individuals, and this provides support for an inclusion.
MR. LALLY: And so the sample from the exterior of broken drinking glass is at least 530 nonillion times more likely it originated from John O'Keefe? Correct?
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Now if I could turn your attention to item 7-1.2.1. And what is the description associated with that item?
MR. PORTO: That is a sample from stain A on upper right leg of jeans.
MR. LALLY: And were you able to generate a DNA profile from the sample from — what's labeled as stain A on the upper right leg of Mr. O'Keefe's jeans?
MR. PORTO: I was.
MR. LALLY: And what, if any, comparison were you able to do with relation to that profile from that sample to Mr. O'Keefe's DNA profile?
MR. PORTO: Yes. So the DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture of three contributors including male DNA. Contributor one was suitable for comparison, and due to limited information, contributors two and three were not suitable for comparisons. And the DNA profile from this item is at least 570 nonillion times more likely if it originated from John O'Keefe and two unknown individuals than if it originated from three unknown individuals, and this provides support for an inclusion.
MR. LALLY: So when you say — as far as "due to limited information, contributors two and three are not suitable for comparison" — what does that mean?
MR. PORTO: So that just means that those contributors are very low, and that any comparisons that would be done to them could not be reliable based on our protocols and validations.
MR. LALLY: And so from your comparative analysis, you came to the opinion or conclusion that the sample from the upper right leg of Mr. O'Keefe's jeans was 570 nonillion times more likely than it originated from three unknown unrelated individuals? Correct?
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Could you rephrase that? With respect to your comparative analysis of the profile from the sample from stain A on the upper right leg of Mr. O'Keefe's jeans — your opinion is that it was at least 570 nonillion times more likely that it originated from John O'Keefe — and then, what was your conclusion as it came to item 7-1.2?
MR. PORTO: So the DNA profile from this item is at least 570 nonillion times more likely if it originated from John O'Keefe and two unknown individuals than if it originated from three unknown unrelated individuals, and this provides support for an inclusion.
MR. LALLY: Sir, let me break from this for a second and I just want to ask you a little bit about transfer DNA. Are you familiar with that term?
MR. PORTO: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And can you explain to the jury what you understand by that term?
MR. PORTO: So transferred DNA just means DNA that transfers based on some activity that can happen — like if somebody touches a water bottle, they might transfer some DNA onto that water bottle.
MR. LALLY: Now, from the fact that DNA is on something or on an item and it matches a profile from an individual, is there anything from that that you can infer or conclude as to how that DNA was deposited or when?
MR. PORTO: No, it cannot.
MR. LALLY: Now, with reference to factors that may cause a degradation of a DNA sample or a touch DNA sample — what, if any, are some of the factors that may affect that, as far as causing degradation of a sample or causing an inability for you to be able to generate a DNA profile from a sample?
MR. PORTO: Some factors include being exposed to heat for a prolonged time, and ultraviolet rays from the sun, as well as just time — it might eventually lead to some degradation.
MR. LALLY: Now, as far as items that are outside — you indicated that being hot or warm temperatures might have some effect on it — what, if any, impact with cold temperatures?
MR. PORTO: So we store our DNA extracts in a cold room, so cold temperatures could be very good to help preserve any DNA that's on there.
MR. LALLY: Now, if I could turn your attention back to your report number five, and ask you with reference to item 7-1.3.1 — what is the description for that item, sir?
MR. PORTO: That is a sample from stain B on upper right leg of jeans.
MR. LALLY: And again, those would be the jeans of Mr. O'Keefe, is that right?
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And you were able to generate a DNA profile from that sample as well? Correct?
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And what, if any, comparison were you able to do between the profiles from that DNA on the upper right leg of Mr. O'Keefe's jeans and Mr. O'Keefe?
MR. PORTO: Yeah. So the DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture of three contributors including male DNA, and the DNA profile from this item is at least 660 nonillion times more likely if it originated from John O'Keefe and two unknown individuals than if it originated from three unknown unrelated individuals, and this provides support for an inclusion.
MR. LALLY: Now next, if I could turn your attention to item 7-1.4.1. And what is that — what is that item or sample from?
MR. PORTO: That is a sample from stain C on upper right leg of jeans.
MR. LALLY: And those jeans would be Mr. O'Keefe's jeans as well? Correct?
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And were you able to then generate a DNA profile from that?
MR. PORTO: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And what, if any, comparison or what, if any, conclusions or opinions did you draw from a comparative analysis of the DNA profile from that sample from the upper right leg of Mr. O'Keefe's jeans and Mr. O'Keefe's DNA profile?
MR. PORTO: So the DNA profile is a mixture of at least two contributors including male DNA. Contributor one is suitable for comparison, and due to limited information, contributor two is not suitable for comparison. The DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture of two contributors, and the DNA profile of this item is at least 830 nonillion times more likely if it originated from John O'Keefe and an unknown individual than if it originated from two unknown unrelated individuals, and this provides support for an inclusion.
MR. LALLY: Now, sir, if I could turn your attention to item 7-1.5.1 — and what — where did that come from?
MR. PORTO: That is a sample from stain D on upper right leg of jeans, and again —
MR. LALLY: Were you able to generate a DNA profile for that sample?
MR. PORTO: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And what if anything were your findings in relation to comparative analysis between the DNA profile from that sample and the DNA profile from O'Keefe?
MR. PORTO: The DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture of three contributors including male DNA, and the DNA profile from this item is at least 670 nonillion times more likely if it originated from John O'Keefe and two unknown individuals than if it originated from three unknown unrelated individuals, and this provides support for an inclusion.
MR. LALLY: Sir, if I can turn your attention to item 7-1.6.1, and what is the description for — — that item?
MR. PORTO: That is a sample from stain E on upper right leg of jeans.
MR. LALLY: Were you able to also generate a DNA profile from that sample?
MR. PORTO: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And did you then conduct a comparative analysis between the DNA profile from that sample and the DNA profile from Mr. O'Keefe?
MR. PORTO: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And what if any conclusions or opinions or findings did you have in regard to that comparative analysis?
MR. PORTO: The DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture of two contributors including male DNA. Contributor one is suitable for comparison, and due to limited information, contributor two is not suitable for comparison. The DNA profile from this item is at least one decillion times more likely if it originated from — — John O'Keefe and an unknown individual than if it originated from two unknown unrelated individuals, and this provides support for an inclusion.
MR. LALLY: Now, as far as that decillion — again, similar to the nonillion — how many zeros are we talking about?
MR. PORTO: That's a one followed by 33 zeros.
MR. LALLY: Now, if I could turn your attention to item 7-1.7.1 — you're familiar with that item, sir?
MR. PORTO: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And what is the description for that item?
MR. PORTO: That is a sample from unstained areas of exterior of jeans.
MR. LALLY: And were you able to generate a DNA profile from that sample?
MR. PORTO: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And similarly, were you able to then do a comparative analysis between the DNA profile from that sample — — and the DNA profile?
MR. PORTO: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And what if anything were your findings in regard to that comparative analysis?
MR. PORTO: The DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture of four contributors including male DNA. The DNA profile from this item is at least 553 septillion times more likely if it originated from John O'Keefe and three unknown individuals than if it originated from four unknown unrelated individuals. This provides support for an inclusion.
MR. LALLY: And similarly, sir, with regard to that number — septillion — how many zeros is that?
MR. PORTO: That is a one followed by 24 zeros.
MR. LALLY: I'm going to ask some questions about a number of different items from 7-17 — these are samples taken from — — an orange T-shirt as well as a gray long sleeve shirt; is that correct?
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And if you could — essentially, you did testing on those items as well as some fingernail clippings belonging to Mr. O'Keefe; correct? Or samples from the fingers?
MR. PORTO: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Now, with regard to those items, swabbings were taken from the stains from various areas of the orange T-shirt, and just in general, where were those areas on the T-shirt — the orange T-shirt — to start with?
MR. PORTO: The swabbings were taken from the front top, front left of the orange shirt, and front bottom right of the shirt, as well as the back left shoulder of the orange shirt.
MR. LALLY: Now, with regard to the — — gray long sleeve shirt, where on the shirt were those swabbings taken from?
MR. PORTO: The right sleeve, the center front, the back left, the back right, and the back bottom right.
MR. LALLY: And were you able to generate DNA profiles from each of those items?
MR. PORTO: I was.
MR. LALLY: And were you then able to do a comparative analysis between the DNA profile from each of those items with relation to the DNA profile from Mr. O'Keefe?
MR. PORTO: I was.
MR. LALLY: And what if any conclusions were you able to draw from that comparative analysis?
MR. PORTO: The male DNA profile was interpreted as originating from a single contributor, and the DNA profile from these items is — — at least 490 octillion times more likely if it originated from John O'Keefe than if it originated from an unknown unrelated individual. This provides support for an inclusion.
MR. LALLY: As far as that number is concerned — octillion — how many zeros are in octillion?
MR. PORTO: That's a one followed by 27 zeros.
MR. LALLY: And with regard to each of those items from the orange T-shirt, the gray long sleeve T-shirt, and fingernail clippings — they were taken from both the right and left hands of Mr. O'Keefe; is that correct?
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. LALLY: So that 490 octillion — that would be from a single contributor?
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Now, sir, if I could turn your attention to item — — 7-1.18.4.1 — are you familiar with that item?
MR. PORTO: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And what is the description associated with that item?
MR. PORTO: A sample from stain C on top front gray long sleeve shirt.
MR. LALLY: And were you able to generate a DNA profile with respect to that item?
MR. PORTO: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And were you able to then do a comparative analysis between the DNA profile from that item and the DNA profile of Mr. O'Keefe?
MR. PORTO: Yes, I was.
MR. LALLY: And what if any conclusions did you come to with regard to that?
MR. PORTO: The male DNA profile was interpreted as originating from a single contributor. The DNA profile from this item is at least 58 octillion times more likely if it originated from John O'Keefe than if it originated from an — — unknown unrelated individual. This provides support for an inclusion.
MR. LALLY: And with regard to that stain from the gray long sleeve T-shirt — again, that was determined by you through your testing to be DNA from a single contributor, a match to John O'Keefe?
MR. PORTO: It was determined to be from a single contributor. Yes.
MR. LALLY: Now, sir, if I could turn your attention to item 7-1.18.14.1 — you're familiar with that item?
MR. PORTO: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And what is the description associated with that item, sir?
MR. PORTO: A sample from stain L on back bottom right of gray long sleeve shirt.
MR. LALLY: And were you able to generate a DNA profile from that sample — from that item — as well?
MR. PORTO: Yes, I was.
MR. LALLY: Were you able to then do a — — comparative analysis between the DNA profile from that sample versus the DNA profile from Mr. O'Keefe?
MR. PORTO: Yes, I was.
MR. LALLY: And what if anything were your findings in relation?
MR. PORTO: The DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture of two contributors including male DNA. The DNA profile from this item is at least one decillion times more likely if it originated from John O'Keefe and an unknown individual than if it originated from two unknown unrelated individuals. This provides support for an inclusion.
MR. LALLY: And, sir, I'm going to draw your attention to item 7-1.18.17.1 — you're familiar with that item?
MR. PORTO: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And what is the description associated with the sample from that item?
MR. PORTO: Sample — — from unstained areas of exterior of gray long sleeve shirt.
MR. LALLY: And were you able to also generate a DNA profile from that sample?
MR. PORTO: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And were you able to then do a comparative analysis between the DNA profile from that sample and the DNA profile from Mr. O'Keefe?
MR. PORTO: I was.
MR. LALLY: And what conclusions did you come to with reference to that comparative analysis?
MR. PORTO: The DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture of two contributors including male DNA. Contributor one is suitable for comparison, and due to limited information, contributor two is not suitable for comparison. The DNA profile from this item is at least 960 nonillion times more likely if it originated from John O'Keefe and an — — unknown individual than if it originated from two unknown unrelated individuals. This provides support for an inclusion.
MR. LALLY: Sir, there are some other items from which you conducted testing but were not able to generate a profile from; correct?
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And specifically I'm going to ask about item 7-3.1 — that's a sample from the right instep of Mr. O'Keefe's sneaker; is that correct?
MR. PORTO: Could you repeat that number again, please?
MR. LALLY: Sir, if I can direct your attention within your DNA report number five, I'm talking about item number [unintelligible] — and so, sir, with reference to that, what if any — there's an indication as far as the mixture not being suitable for — — comparison due to the quality of the profile; correct?
MR. PORTO: Correct. It was a mixture of at least five contributors.
MR. LALLY: And so from that — as far as not suitable for comparison — can you explain to the jury what that means?
MR. PORTO: Yes. So during our validations, we've only validated mixtures up to four contributors, because we've determined that once you get more than four — like at least five contributors — into a mixture, it becomes too complex to be able to make any reliable comparisons to that mixture.
MR. LALLY: Sir, if I can direct you to item number 7-1.18.3.1 within your report.
MR. PORTO: All right. Yep.
MR. LALLY: And that's a stain from the gray long sleeve T-shirt, top front; is that correct?
MR. PORTO: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Now, that is indicated as not suitable for comparison due to the quality of the profile; correct?
MR. PORTO: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And can you explain to the jury what that means — as far as not being suitable due to the quality of the profile?
MR. PORTO: Yes. So during our — bringing it back to our third step of amplification, where we're making millions of copies of specific locations — sometimes there might not be a lot of DNA there, and that amplification step might not amplify all the information that could be present, and the profile that's generated won't have all the information to be able to reliably make a comparison. So the — information that we are able to look at is very limited, so we just do not do any comparisons because they would not be reliable.
MR. LALLY: And with that, same — as far as not suitable for comparison due to the quality — the profile, was that the same for two other areas that you tested, in regard to a sample from the front of the gray long sleeve shirt and a sample from the back left sleeve of the gray long sleeve shirt?
MR. PORTO: Yes.
MR. LALLY: May I have a moment?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yeah.
MR. LALLY: Let me ask you just briefly — are you familiar with the term called STRmix?
MR. PORTO: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And can you explain to the jury what that is and how it's implicated within your testing?
MR. PORTO: Yeah, so — STRmix is a tool that we use to basically break down complex mixtures into its individual contributors and into a way that it would best describe that mixture. And once it does that, it'll then make comparisons and calculate a likelihood ratio, which is a statistical weight to that comparison.
MR. LALLY: And how does that relate to the testing that you did in this?
MR. PORTO: I use STRmix on all the samples I had comparisons done to.
MR. LALLY: Thank you, sir. I have no further questions.
MS. LITTLE: No questions. Thank you.
JUDGE CANNONE: Thank you. All right, Mr. Porto, you are all — thank you. Can I see counsel regarding scheduling, please?
MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE CANNONE: So we're actually going to send you home today because we're on schedule. It's a beautiful — [unintelligible] — rather than start with the witness that we'll start with tomorrow morning, it makes sense. I'm going to go talk to the lawyers for a few minutes, so we'll send you home. Do not discuss this case with anyone, and just so that I'm clear, that means each other — that means any aspect of this case, observations, anything at all. Do not do any independent research or investigation into this case. If you happen to see, hear, or read anything about this case, please disregard it. We expect a full day tomorrow. All right.
COURT OFFICER: Please follow me, please.
JUDGE CANNONE: So I'm just going to — I'm going to talk about that now. Thank you. Please be seated. Court is in session. All right, so I'll see counsel at sidebar about a couple of issues.