Commonwealth v. Read — Trial ArchiveNicholas Bradford - Direct
186 linesMR. LALLY: The Commonwealth call Mr. Nicholas Bradford to the stand.
MR. LALLY: [oath administered — partially unintelligible] ...do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
MR. BRADFORD: I do.
MR. LALLY: Good afternoon, sir.
MR. BRADFORD: Good afternoon.
MR. LALLY: Could you please state your name and spell your last name for the jury?
MR. BRADFORD: Yep. It's Nicholas Bradford — B-R-A-D-F-O-R-D.
MR. LALLY: And so that microphone before you is adjustable; you can place it anywhere that's comfortable for yourself.
MR. BRADFORD: Okay.
MR. LALLY: And what is it that you do for work, sir?
MR. BRADFORD: I'm a DNA analyst for Bode Technology in Lorton, Virginia.
MR. LALLY: Okay, you're definitely going to have to keep your voice up, sir.
MR. BRADFORD: Sorry about that. It's Bode Technology in Lorton, Virginia.
MR. LALLY: And for the record, "Bode" is spelled B-O-D-E, is that correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Now, sir, if I could just ask you some questions about your educational background, starting with your undergraduate — where did you go for your undergraduate and what, if any, degree did you receive from there?
MR. BRADFORD: I have a Bachelor of Science in forensic biology from Mercyhurst College in Erie, Pennsylvania.
MR. LALLY: And then following your graduation with that degree, where did you go from there?
MR. BRADFORD: I have a Master of Forensic Science in forensic molecular biology from the George Washington University in Washington, D.C.
MR. LALLY: And when about was it that you received that master's?
MR. BRADFORD: It was around about 2011.
MR. LALLY: And with relation to your graduate work and your work at Bode, when did your work at Bode begin in relation to your graduate work?
MR. BRADFORD: I started at Bode at about 2009, so during the course of my graduate school.
MR. LALLY: And when you started with the Bode lab, what was the sort of position — what did you start doing when you began?
MR. BRADFORD: I was a DNA technician. We assisted the analysts with their case files and we primarily operated the different robotics and the different processes in the lab.
MR. LALLY: And at some point over the course of your work there you then became an analyst, is that correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And about how much time elapsed — how much time did you spend as a — excuse me — as a technician prior to becoming an analyst?
MR. BRADFORD: I was a technician for about a year, maybe two, and then I was in the data banking section as an analyst, and since then I've worked in the high-throughput casework group and the customized casework group.
MR. LALLY: Now, as far as your work within this particular field, have you had occasion to work at any other sorts of labs or facilities?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. For about three years I worked at the Pennsylvania State Police DNA lab.
MR. LALLY: Now, Bode Technology — as far as that lab is concerned, can you describe for the jury sort of what kind of lab that is? And let me ask you first: about how many analysts work at Bode Technology?
MR. BRADFORD: Somewhere in the neighborhood of maybe a hundred analysts, give or take. We're a small private lab in Lorton, Virginia, and we do DNA work contracted through different police agencies throughout the country.
MR. LALLY: Now, in addition to police agencies, are there other types of entities that would send submissions for DNA casework?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes, we do some international work with human identification and that sort of thing as well.
MR. LALLY: Now, as far as the lab of Bode Technologies is concerned, is that lab accredited?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes, we are accredited through the ANAB.
MR. LALLY: And can you speak a little bit about that sort of accreditation process and what it means to be an accredited lab?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes, so ANAB has a set of criteria for DNA labs doing forensic work, and we are audited against those criteria every year — sometimes internal audits and sometimes external audits.
MR. LALLY: Is that accreditation at the lab current as of now?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Now, with reference to your work as a DNA analyst, can you describe just in general terms for the jury what it is that you do — what is it that you do in reference to your work as a DNA analyst?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So we take in evidence that's submitted to us; we process it through the DNA processing. So there are four basic steps to DNA. There's extraction — that's where we separate out the DNA. And then there's quantification, and that is basically just us determining how much DNA we have to work with. The next step is amplification, so depending on the case and the different processes that we're going to use, we're targeting a number of different locations in the genome and we're going to make millions of copies of each of those locations. And in each one of those copies there's a little fluorescent tag that we can then detect in the detection step — and that's the fourth step. And then from there we have the DNA profile for that sample.
MR. LALLY: Now, with reference to the lab — as far as training is concerned, you mentioned that you spent at least a year or two as a technician prior to becoming an analyst. What are some of the specialized training in this area that you underwent as an employee at this lab?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So the training program involves a lot of scientific literature reading. There's a practical aspect to it where we're given known samples that we're to treat as if they were casework samples, so we process those as if they were casework. We have written and verbal exams, and we have a moot court exam at the end.
MR. LALLY: And you successfully completed each of those training portions over your course of work with the lab?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Are you familiar with a term known as a proficiency test?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And can you explain to the jury what that is and how it relates to your work as a DNA analyst?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So part of our accreditation is we have to do proficiency testing twice a year, and that is when an outside company sends us known samples and we process them again as if they were casework, and then those results are sent to that outside company and then we get the results back to see if we are proficient in those technologies or not.
MR. LALLY: And with respect to yourself, as far as the proficiency testing that you've undergone, what if any issues have you had with proficiency testing?
MR. BRADFORD: I've passed all my proficiency tests.
MR. LALLY: Now, what is DNA?
MR. BRADFORD: So DNA is essentially the blueprint for a living thing. It's in most of our cells, and it's unique to an individual with the exception of identical twins.
MR. LALLY: Now, at some point in January of 2024, did you receive a particular assignment in regard to DNA analysis from a number of items that you received from Massachusetts?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And specifically, can you describe the process as far as when an item comes into the lab at Bode Technology — how it's processed, or how, from the time of receipt to the time that the item gets to you — can you explain a little bit about that process?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So the item is generally sent via UPS or FedEx. It arrives in our secure evidence room. That room has limited access to only certain individuals. And from that point on, when it's received, a chain of custody is started for that shipment, and anytime anyone touches or uses that item we need to check it out from the secure evidence room, and then that's all logged on the chain of custody.
MR. LALLY: Now, when something comes in, is it assigned a sample name, a case number, or an ID number in some way, shape, or form?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And is it also identified by sort of the corresponding numbers from the external vendor where it came from?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Now, in reference to Bode case number CCA 2416-2381-84 — is that correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And that would have been from the outside vendor — at least one of them — as far as the Massachusetts State Police crime lab?
MR. BRADFORD: Correct.
MR. LALLY: So there were a number of items that you received. If you could identify them for the jury — what you received and specifically sort of what you looked at?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So we received an apparent hair; we received an extract from a tail light from a vehicle; and we received two reference samples from two troopers from the Massachusetts State Police.
MR. LALLY: And in addition, was there a sample ID as far as a known standard?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So Bode gives it our own case — our own item number. So in this case the two reference samples were CCA 2416-0023-R3 and the same number R4 for the two reference samples.
MR. LALLY: Now, if I could just ask you to further expound upon the CCA 2416-023, which is E1 — there was an agency sample ID, is that correct, that was attached to that?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And what was that?
MR. BRADFORD: So that was 3-61.
MR. LALLY: Is there a description that comes from the external vendor as well as to sort of what that item is?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. In this case the sample was a shaft end of hair from exterior passenger side rear panel.
MR. LALLY: There's a specific Massachusetts registration plate that's associated with that item as well, is that correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And that was 3GC-684, is that correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Now, with reference to the R3 and R4 — those were buccal samples, is that correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And R3 specifically — ...as far as the agency description, what if anything was provided for R3?
MR. BRADFORD: That was the buccal swab from Yuri Bukhenik, and as far as R4, that was the buccal swab from Michael Proctor.
MR. LALLY: Now with reference to the extract portion, that was E02, was that correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And when we say "extract," can you explain to the jury what you understand that term to mean, or what is an extract as far as what you looked at?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So when I described the four-step process earlier, the extraction was already done prior to us receiving the item. So essentially the extract comes to us in a tube and it's a liquid, and provided with that would be the negative control that was associated with it. So from that point we have the quantification information from the lab that did the extraction, so then we would amplify and then detect the profile from there.
MR. LALLY: And just to be clear, as far as the E02 that you were talking about, the extract that you had received — what was the agency description on that extract?
MR. BRADFORD: That was the sample from the passenger side tail light with the same registration number, and that was labeled as an extract.
MR. LALLY: Now in addition to that, there was a known blood standard which you indicated was — or agency sample ID -11.1, yes?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And what was the agency description on the known blood standard?
MR. BRADFORD: That would be — excuse me, sorry — that was the sample from John O'Keefe, the profile, I should say.
MR. LALLY: And so when you say "the profile," what do you mean by that?
MR. BRADFORD: So the profile was generated by the Massachusetts State Police lab, and then that profile was given to us to do a comparison.
MR. LALLY: Now as far as the file that was provided, as far as your observations of that, what if any issues did you observe in your observations of the profile that was provided by the State Police crime lab in Massachusetts?
MR. BRADFORD: It looked like a standard single source profile.
MR. LALLY: Now starting with — there was STR processing that was conducted, correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: What does STR stand for?
MR. BRADFORD: STR stands for short tandem repeats. Essentially what we're doing with that is the DNA process that we use in forensic testing, where the areas that we're amplifying are short repeats of the genetic sequence that repeat multiple times, and we're just measuring the number of times that sequence repeats. Those numbers together are the profile.
MR. LALLY: Now as far as the profile from the extract that you received — E02, excuse me — from the passenger side tail light of the vehicle, what if anything were you able to determine based on your analysis and STR processing?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So we determined that it was consistent with a mixture of three individuals, including at least one male contributor.
MR. LALLY: And if you could just walk the jury through the process — what is it that you're actually doing in the lab, what are you looking at, and how are you making a comparison?
MR. BRADFORD: So once we have the DNA profile, like I said we're measuring the number of times the sequence repeats at a given location. So we have a series of those, and then we compare that to the reference profile that we were provided, or that we generated for the two reference samples that we actually processed. And then we determine if it's possible that the individual whose reference profile it is could be a possible contributor to that mixture profile that we got from the evidence. And then we need to do a statistical calculation to determine the strength of that possibility of an inclusion.
MR. LALLY: Let me ask you a little bit about that statistical calculation. How was that done, or where did that come from?
MR. BRADFORD: So in this case we did what's called a likelihood ratio. Essentially what we're doing is comparing two explanations for the DNA profile that we observed. So if we have, say, person A, one explanation would be that the DNA profile is a mixture of person A and two unknown individuals, and then the other explanation would be that it's simply three unknown individuals and it's not person A. So then we compare those two explanations of the profile and determine which one is more likely.
MR. LALLY: Now as far as the reference samples that you have — you have the DNA profile of John O'Keefe, correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And I'm sorry — for starters, you had the extract with DNA profile with multiple contributors from the tail light, yes?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: So then you have the known blood standards for the DNA profile from John O'Keefe, correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Then you have the buccal samples from Yuri Bukhenik and Michael Proctor, correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And so with reference to those specifically, as far as the reference samples, is that what you're generating the DNA profiles from?
MR. BRADFORD: So we're comparing those references to the mixture that we obtained from the tail light.
MR. LALLY: And so in your comparison, let me start with the known one — as far as John O'Keefe, what if anything could be found from your comparison of the John O'Keefe DNA profile to the DNA profile from the tail light?
MR. BRADFORD: So in this case, when comparing the John O'Keefe profile, assuming a mixture of three individuals, it is at least 740 nonillion times more likely to be observed if it originated from John O'Keefe and two unknown unrelated individuals than if from three unknown unrelated individuals. And we provide a verbal qualifier to that because most people probably don't have a lot of experience with nonillion. So in this case that would be very strong support for inclusion.
MR. LALLY: If you know nonillion — how many zeros are we talking?
MR. BRADFORD: That would be the number with 30 zeros.
MR. LALLY: And so that would be strong support for inclusion, correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Now with regard to your comparison — with regard to your work as a DNA analyst, is there any kind of software that you use in the course of your analysis with regard to STRmix?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. When there's a mixture profile, we often use what's called STRmix. It's essentially a computer program that we input the DNA profile into, and it allows us to use a series of mathematical equations to help us interpret that mixture.
MR. LALLY: Was that done in this case as well?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes, and then we use that same program to run the statistics.
MR. LALLY: Now with regard to the vehicle sample attributed to Yuri Bukhenik, did you run that for a comparison as well?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And what if anything were your findings in relation to your analysis of that?
MR. BRADFORD: So in that case, assuming a mixture of three individuals, the DNA profile obtained is at least 46 million times more likely to be observed if it originated from three unknown unrelated individuals than if from Yuri Bukhenik and two unknown unrelated individuals. So that sounds confusing given what I just said. So the verbal qualifier for that would be very strong support for exclusion.
MR. LALLY: I'm sorry — very strong support for exclusion, is that correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And then similarly, as you were testifying, what if anything did you find from your analysis comparison of the buccal sample or DNA profile for Michael Proctor?
MR. BRADFORD: So in that case, assuming again a mixture of three individuals, it is at least 76,000 times more likely to be observed from three unknown unrelated individuals than if from Michael Proctor and two unknown unrelated individuals. So that would be strong support for exclusion.
MR. LALLY: So correct me if I'm wrong, but your findings with regard to three samples — is very strong support for inclusion of John O'Keefe, is that correct?
MR. BRADFORD: It'd be very strong support for inclusion.
MR. LALLY: And strong support for exclusion of both Bukhenik and Michael Proctor, correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Now, sir, in addition to that, you mentioned that there was an E01 sample that was a shaft end of a hair from the exterior passenger side rear panel of that same vehicle with the same Massachusetts license, correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Now with regard to DNA as it pertains to hair samples, can you describe for the jury that process? What is it that you're looking at when you receive a hair sample as far as an extraction is concerned — how does that process work, or what are you getting, that extract?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So when we have a hair, generally we'll take a look at it and a forensic biologist will give their opinion on if it's likely that we'll obtain a profile from that hair, because hairs can be a little tricky. So in this case the forensic biologist determined that the hair would likely not provide a great profile from STR testing, but we went ahead with it anyway, just because sometimes it does work. But in this case we extracted it, and that involves dissolving the hair and forming an extract like the other samples. And then we quantified the hair in this case, and the quantification that I used targets what is called autosomal DNA, or nuclear DNA.
MR. BRADFORD: And in that case the results were below the limit of detection, so we did not process that sample forward for STRs because we would not have obtained a useful DNA profile from it.
MR. LALLY: Sir, if I could just take it back a little bit — earlier in your statement, you indicated that hair samples, or DNA from hair, can be a little tricky. Can you expound on that and explain to the jury what you mean by that?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. A lot of times hairs — unless they have a root attached — they're not a great sample for nuclear STR testing. They
MR. LALLY: ...can be, but it's sometimes hit or miss. As far as what's actually being tested as far as STR — when it comes to hair, it's not the actual hair. Is that correct?
MR. BRADFORD: I'm not sure I follow.
MR. LALLY: Can you — let me ask you if you're familiar with the term "follicular tissue."
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Can you explain to the jury what that means in relation to a hair sample and DNA test?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So when there's a follicle attached, that's generally where you will get the nuclear DNA from, not the hair itself.
MR. LALLY: And a follicle would necessarily be attached to the root end and not to the shaft?
MR. BRADFORD: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Correct. Now, as far as autosomal DNA, can you explain what autosomal DNA is and sort of where does that come from within DNA testing?
MR. BRADFORD: Yeah, so you can think about that more as a nuclear DNA, so that would be DNA that's in the nucleus of the cell. So that's what most people think of when they think of DNA. But there are other — there's other forms of DNA, so like for example mitochondrial DNA that exists outside the nucleus.
MR. LALLY: And as far as the testing that you performed in regard to this hair sample, that was STR testing. Is that correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And I'm sorry, what were the findings again with relation to the STR?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes, so like I said, we quantified the hair and it was below the limit of detection, so we did not process that hair forward for STR.
MR. LALLY: Now, as far as that terminology "below the limit of detection," can you explain a little bit to the jury sort of what that means as it applies to the testing?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes, so the instrumentation has a limit of detection, so there could be potentially small amounts of DNA there, but it's below the limit that we are confident to say that there is DNA present, so we would normally not process those samples forward.
MR. LALLY: Now that hair sample — as far as the one that you tested — you mentioned that it was not initially advisable, I guess, for STR testing and you just went ahead and did it anyway because sometimes it works. Is that correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes, it's usually worth a try.
MR. LALLY: And then beyond that, that hair sample within your lab at Bode Technology — was that given to a different analyst for a different type of testing?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes, we decided it was worth a try to do mitochondrial DNA testing on the hair.
PARENTHETICAL: [sidebar]
JUDGE CANNONE: All right, we're all set. So we'll see everybody in 40 minutes.
MR. LALLY: And do you — is that a type of testing that you yourself perform?
MR. BRADFORD: No, that would not be me.
MR. LALLY: And why would it not be?
MR. BRADFORD: I was not trained in mitochondrial testing. That's sort of a specialized subset as far as different training and different type of testing that occurs.
MR. LALLY: Yes. Just in general terms, if you know, could you explain to the jury sort of the difference between what you've termed as nuclear or autosomal DNA versus mitochondrial DNA?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes, so very basically, the nuclear DNA is the DNA that exists in the nucleus. The mitochondrial DNA is the DNA that exists outside the nucleus in the mitochondria. And the mitochondrial DNA is inherited directly from the mother, so if you were to test maternally related individuals, they would have the same mitochondrial profile.
MR. LALLY: And that other analyst that conducted the mitochondrial DNA — are you familiar with who that person is?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes, that was Tess Chart.
MR. LALLY: One moment. C-H-A-R-T?
MR. BRADFORD: Sure.
MR. LALLY: Thank you very much, sir. I have no further questions.
MR. YANNETTI: We have no questions.
JUDGE CANNONE: Great, so you are all set, Mr. Bradford. Thank you very much. Okay, so jurors, we will take our lunch break and we'll have more witnesses here this afternoon. So let's say 40 minutes —
COURT OFFICER: All rise from the court, please. [recess]
JUDGE CANNONE: May we approach? [unintelligible]: Sure.
COURT OFFICER: All rise.