Commonwealth v. Read — Trial ArchiveNicholas Bradford - Direct/Cross
240 linesCOURT OFFICER: Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye. All persons having business to do before the honorable Cannone, the justice of the superior court, holden within and for the county of Norfolk. Draw near, give your attendance, and you shall be heard. God save the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This court is in session. Please be seated.
COURT CLERK: May I call the case on please? For the record, before the court, it's Commonwealth versus Karen Read, 22 CR 1117. The parties are present. Our 18 jurors are present. The matter is on for trial.
JUDGE CANNONE: Thank you. Good morning, counsel. Good morning, Miss Read. Good morning, journalists. We appreciate you here. Ready, willing, and able to get started early. So we're happy about that. Thank you. I do have to ask you those questions. Were you all able to follow my instructions and refrain from discussing this case with anyone since we left here on Friday? Everyone said yes or nodded affirmatively. Were you also able to follow the instructions and refrain from doing any independent research or investigation into this case? Yes. Everyone said yes or nodded affirmatively. Did anyone happen to see, hear or read anything about this case since we left on? Everyone said no or should— Thank you. Mr. Brennan, your next witness, please. Or Mr. Lally.
COURT CLERK: Call Nicholas Bradford.
COURT OFFICER: Step right up.
COURT CLERK: Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you shall give to the court and the jury in the matter now pending shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
MR. BRADFORD: I do.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right, Mr. Lally, whenever you're ready.
MR. LALLY: Thank you. Morning, sir.
MR. BRADFORD: Good morning.
MR. LALLY: Could you please introduce yourself to the jury, spelling your last name for the court?
MR. BRADFORD: Yep. My name is Nick Bradford. B-R-A-D-F-O-R-D.
MR. LALLY: What do you do for work, sir?
MR. BRADFORD: I'm a DNA expert for Bode Technology.
MR. LALLY: And where is Bode Technology located?
MR. BRADFORD: In Lorton, Virginia.
MR. LALLY: And where did you go to school, sir?
MR. BRADFORD: I went to school at Mercyhurst College in Erie, Pennsylvania, for a bachelor's in forensic biology and a master's in forensic molecular biology from the George Washington University in Washington, DC.
MR. LALLY: And following your education, where did you go to work?
MR. BRADFORD: I started at Bode— in about 2009.
MR. LALLY: And so did you work at Bode prior to your graduation?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And how long have you worked there at Bode?
MR. BRADFORD: Since then. I spent two years at the Pennsylvania State Police at about 2021.
MR. LALLY: And when you joined Bode Technologies, what was your position and title that you were initially hired for?
MR. BRADFORD: I was initially a DNA technician.
MR. LALLY: And when did you become an analyst?
MR. BRADFORD: In 2014.
MR. LALLY: And what is the difference between a technician and an analyst?
MR. BRADFORD: The technicians operate the robotic equipment in the labs and assist with paperwork and various reagent duties and things like that.
MR. LALLY: And what does an analyst do?
MR. BRADFORD: An analyst analyzes the DNA evidence that's submitted from various police agencies from around the country. We come to court to testify and do statistical analysis of any comparisons that we might do.
MR. LALLY: Now, if you could sir, please describe for the jury the training that you underwent initially as a technician.
MR. BRADFORD: As a technician, it was probably a few— maybe two or three months' training process that involved various reading of the manuals for the robotics and various written and verbal exams.
MR. LALLY: Now, is there a continuing educational component at Bode?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. For DNA analysts, we have proficiency testing twice a year, we have to do a certain number of hours of continuing education. So that would be things like conferences, things like that. And we have to do scientific literature reviews. So we have to keep up with the scientific articles four times a year.
MR. LALLY: Now if you could just expound a little as far as what exactly does that continuing educational component consist of, as far as the conferences and scientific literature review? What specific areas are you reviewing and going to conferences on?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So that would be areas specific to forensic DNA testing.
MR. LALLY: Now how many analysts work at Bode?
MR. BRADFORD: Somewhere between 60 and 75, maybe.
MR. LALLY: If you could please describe for the jury what kind of lab Bode is.
MR. BRADFORD: So Bode is a private DNA lab. And we take case work from various police agencies across the country and we also have groups that work on international cases and things like that.
MR. LALLY: Now you mentioned some of your work— bless you— is submitted from law enforcement agencies around the country. Is that the entirety of the work, or where do some of the other pieces come from?
MR. BRADFORD: Yeah, so like I said, some of it is international, and then we also do some research work as well.
MR. LALLY: Now what type of analysis do you currently perform at Bode?
MR. BRADFORD: So I am part of the customized casework group. So we take generally one-off cases or smaller, more complex cases and then we work through those.
MR. LALLY: Now, specifically with reference to DNA analysis, can you explain to the jury first in sort of general terms, how is that analysis performed?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So, for DNA analysis, what we're trying to do is obtain a DNA profile from a piece of evidence and then potentially compare that with a reference sample from a known individual.
MR. LALLY: Now, is the Bode Lab accredited?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And by whom is it accredited?
MR. BRADFORD: Through the National Institute of Standards.
MR. LALLY: Now within the Bode lab, are there certain steps that are taken to prevent against contamination?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So at every step of the testing process we have positive and negative controls. The evidence room is a secure room, so only a handful of people have access to that room, and then everything that we would need to test we would sign out and that would be recorded on the chain of custody. The building itself is secure, so you need to swipe your badge to sign in. We wear protective equipment through all parts of the process. So we have gloves, goggles, lab coat, hair nets, masks, and after we write the reports, all of our results are reviewed prior to being reported.
MR. LALLY: Now to that point, sir, is there a review process that your work and any analyst's work undergoes at the Bode Labs?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So the final step would be a technical and administrative review.
MR. LALLY: Now can you describe that process as far as the technical review and review in general at Bode?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So we submit the case file with the report and all of our conclusions, and then another analyst goes through everything and makes sure that they agree with everything that we submitted.
MR. LALLY: I think you made reference to this a little earlier in your testimony, but as part of the accreditation process, do you undergo proficiency testing?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes, twice a year.
MR. LALLY: And can you explain to the jury that proficiency testing process?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So twice a year we get what's essentially a mock case submitted from an outside vendor that we treat as if it were an actual case. We go through and do all the testing that we would normally do and then submit that back to the vendor, and they compare the results to the known results of what they should be.
MR. LALLY: Now what areas have you specifically undergone proficiency testing in?
MR. BRADFORD: So everything that I am trained and signed off in, and DNA specifically.
MR. LALLY: Is that correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And have you successfully completed each of those proficiency tests that you've taken?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Now you made reference to this a little earlier, but can you explain to the jury what are positive and negative controls?
MR. BRADFORD: Right. So positive controls we use to make sure that the various testing steps that we're performing are working as we expect. So if we have a positive control, we would expect to see the DNA profile that we intend to see in that positive sample. Negative samples we use to make sure that there aren't any sources of contamination along the way — that the chemicals that we're using aren't potentially contaminated, or that maybe samples were switched or something along the way.
MR. LALLY: Now, when you were assigned work within the DNA unit at Bode Technology, where do you retrieve that item, or where do you retrieve those items physically from?
MR. BRADFORD: So those would be delivered to our secure evidence room. And then any testing performed, we would need to sign that out and that would be recorded on the chain of custody.
MR. LALLY: Now, the secure evidence room — is that temperature controlled at all?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes, we have just basic climate control as well as freezers and refrigerators, and the freezers and refrigerators are commonly referred to as cold storage.
MR. LALLY: Is that correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Now why are items of evidence stored in cold storage?
MR. BRADFORD: Certain items of evidence are stored cold because things like heat, UV light, and moisture can cause microbial activity or degrade the DNA. So we would not get the highest quality results that we would want.
MR. LALLY: Now when you retrieve items from the cold storage or from the secured evidence room, how are those items packaged when you receive them for DNA testing?
MR. BRADFORD: So they're usually however they're packed from — for example, the police agency that sends it to us. They'll pack them according to their guidelines and standards, and then they're sent to us and we store them in the freezer, and then when they're signed out on our end we just have a basic container that we put them in to keep the case together.
MR. LALLY: Now sir, what is DNA?
MR. BRADFORD: So DNA is basically the manual for a living organism. Most of the DNA is contained within the nucleus of every cell, or pretty much every cell. And it contains all the information that is needed to make an individual.
MR. LALLY: Now is DNA the same in every cell of a person's body?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And how many steps are included in DNA testing?
MR. BRADFORD: So forensic DNA testing — the testing that we did — there are basically four steps. So there's DNA extraction, quantification, amplification, and profile detection.
MR. LALLY: Now can you describe for the jury what each of those steps are and sort of what they entail?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So DNA extraction — we are basically trying to separate out the DNA from everything else. So all the other parts of the cell, or any other material that might be part of the evidence, so we're left with just the DNA. Next is quantification, and we are trying to figure out how much DNA we have to work with. The steps further down the line are calibrated to a certain amount of DNA input. If we add too much DNA it can cause problems. So we need to know how much we have to work with. And then the next step is amplification. So this is when we take 20 to 25 different locations within the genome that we're interested in looking at, and we make millions and millions of copies of each of those locations. And in each one of those copies there's a fluorescent tag that's embedded into each one.
MR. BRADFORD: So then that leads to the final step of profile detection, where we separate those fragments out by size and that fluorescent tag allows us to identify those particular locations.
MR. LALLY: Now sir, in January of 2024, were you assigned to perform some work on a lab case number — your Bode lab case number CCA2416-0023 — pertaining to this defendant Karen Read?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Now, you received those items for testing from the Massachusetts State Police Crime Laboratory. Correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Now, do you also, when you receive items from an outside agency, do you also receive a corresponding submitting agency case number from that agency?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And in this case, that was the Massachusetts State Police Crime Laboratory, lab number 22-02184. Is that correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Now, what type of work were you assigned to do in this case?
MR. BRADFORD: So, in this case, I was assigned to look at an extract that was submitted from the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab, as well as a hair, and then two reference samples that were also submitted.
MR. LALLY: Now, could you explain to the jury the process that you use to analyze — in general terms — evidence in this case?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So generally we follow that same process, with the exception of the extract that was submitted. Since the extraction process was already completed, we did not need to do that and we could move straight to quantification. And then we did the entire process for the hair as well as the reference samples.
MR. LALLY: Now you made brief reference to it a moment before, but was there a known standard that was done in this case?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And did another analyst test and report the results from the known blood standard of John O'Keefe?
MR. BRADFORD: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And how was that done?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So the entirety of the testing was performed at the state lab and they submitted the final profile to us for comparison.
MR. LALLY: Now what is a DNA profile?
MR. BRADFORD: So a DNA profile is basically just a list of all the variants at those 24 or 25 different locations that we're interested in. And the entirety of those different variations are what makes a DNA profile individual or unique.
MR. LALLY: Now, as far as when you're looking at or analyzing — examining — a DNA profile, can you describe for the jury what does it look like? What are you looking at?
MR. BRADFORD: So when we're looking at a DNA profile, it's essentially a graph with a series of peaks across the horizontal axis, and those correspond to the length of the DNA fragments that we amplified. And those are assigned a number based on the length of that fragment, and those numbers are what we refer to as the alleles, and those numbers are assembled into essentially a chart, and that's the DNA profile.
MR. LALLY: Now, could you please describe to the jury the process of comparison between a known standard and an evidence sample?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So when we have an evidence sample, we need to compare it to a reference sample. And so what we do is we take those two tables that I mentioned, one from the evidence sample and one from the reference sample, and we put them next to each other and do a comparison to see if the reference profile is potentially part of the evidence profile. And then if the two are consistent, then we would need to do a statistical calculation to determine the strength of the match. For example, if one in every three people would be a potential match, then that's not very strong. So we need to have some sort of mathematical weight to describe the potential match.
MR. LALLY: Now if you could again sir explain to the jury, what was your role in the testing in this case?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So my role was to analyze the DNA profiles and then do the comparisons.
MR. LALLY: Now what items specifically did you receive for DNA testing in this case?
MR. BRADFORD: So yes, like I mentioned, we received the hair. We received the two reference samples. We received an extract from a tail light, as well as the negative control that was associated with that. And then we also received a reference profile from the state lab.
MR. LALLY: Now, starting with what your lab has labeled as EO2 — that has a corresponding state police crime lab item number 3-1.1. Is that correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And what was the description of that item?
MR. BRADFORD: EO2, 3-1.1 — so that was the extract of the sample from the passenger side tail light of a vehicle.
MR. LALLY: And was there any further description of that vehicle as far as the plate number?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes, there was a plate number associated with it.
MR. LALLY: Okay. And do you recall what the plate number was?
MR. BRADFORD: So that would be 3GC684.
MR. LALLY: And did you receive two buccal samples identified as RO3 and RO4?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And what was RO3 identified as?
MR. BRADFORD: So that was a buccal swab from Yuri Bukhenik.
MR. LALLY: And what was RO4 identified as?
MR. BRADFORD: So that was a buccal swab from Michael Proctor.
MR. LALLY: And then that extract portion — that was the part that was labeled as EO2. Is that correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And can you please explain to the jury what an extract is?
MR. BRADFORD: So like I mentioned, an extract is essentially a tube with a small amount of liquid in it, and inside that liquid is the DNA that was extracted from the evidence sample.
MR. LALLY: Now the known standard of Mr. John O'Keefe — that had an item number as well. Is that correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And what was that item number, first from the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab?
MR. BRADFORD: So that was 8-1.1.1.
MR. LALLY: And did your lab Bode Technology have a corresponding item number associated with that known standard?
MR. BRADFORD: No, we just used the Massachusetts lab number for that.
MR. LALLY: And that known standard from John O'Keefe, did that appear to be a standard single source profile?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And what is a single source profile?
MR. BRADFORD: So a single source profile is essentially a DNA profile from one individual, as opposed to a DNA profile that could be a mixture of multiple individuals.
MR. LALLY: Now, what does STR stand for?
MR. BRADFORD: Stands for short tandem repeat.
MR. LALLY: And can you please describe that short tandem repeat process for the jury?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So like I mentioned, what we're doing with STR — short tandem repeat — testing is we're amplifying a number of locations in the genome and then we're separating them out by size. Now the reason we do that is because at the sort of at the DNA level, those regions of the genome have a series of base pairs of genetic base pairs that repeats over and over again in sequence. So they're short tandem repeated DNA sequences. And the number of times that that sequence repeats at that location is what we call the allele. So if the sequence repeated five times, we would call that allele five. And the summation of all those alleles is what makes the DNA profile.
MR. LALLY: And what is an STRmix?
MR. BRADFORD: So, if — are you referring to the computer program STRmix?
MR. LALLY: Yes. STRmix, excuse me. Yes. Okay.
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So, when we're dealing with mixture profiles, so that would be DNA evidence profiles where more than one person's DNA is all mixed together, we need to be able to try to separate that out as best we can. We use a computer program called STRmix and that uses various mathematical calculations that allow us to make the best use of that mixture data that we can, and it allows us to run those statistical calculations to reference profiles as well.
MR. LALLY: Now, item EO2 from the passenger side tail light of the vehicle. What did you conclude as to that profile?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So that was a mixture of three individuals, including at least one male.
MR. LALLY: Now, if you could please sort of walk the jury through that process, and in making a profile comparison from the profile from the passenger side tail light of the defendant's vehicle and your other submitted samples.
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So when we're using STRmix and we're doing a comparison, we have the STRmix output, and essentially what that's doing is we input, based on the DNA profile that we observe, the number of contributors that we would expect to be there. So in this case we would say there were three individuals. So the STRmix software will break out those three different components and give probabilities to each different allele combination. So we would take the reference profile and then compare that to the output from the STRmix program to see if there's a potential inclusion.
MR. LALLY: Now you mentioned a little bit about statistical calculations. How are those statistical calculations done?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So once we determine that there's a potential inclusion in the mixture, we will run what's called a likelihood ratio. So essentially what we're doing there — a likelihood ratio is comparing two different explanations for the evidence profile that we obtained. So one of those explanations would be that in this case the DNA profile is a mixture of one of those reference samples that we're comparing and two unknown unrelated individuals. The other explanation would be that it was three unknown unrelated individuals. So we compare those two and we determine the ratio of which one is more likely.
MR. LALLY: And where do those statistical numbers or calculations — where do they come from?
MR. BRADFORD: So they're all based in the fact that we know how common the different alleles at each location are within the population. So we can do a lot of mathematics and figure out how rare or common different alleles might be.
MR. LALLY: Now sir, in your comparison analysis between the tail light sample and the known standard from John O'Keefe, what conclusions did you make from your analysis or comparative analysis between those two?
MR. BRADFORD: Between John O'Keefe and the mixture profile, he could not — John O'Keefe could not be excluded as a potential contributor to that mixture profile.
MR. LALLY: And as far as the statistical analysis, what if anything did you find with reference to that?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So we did — like I mentioned — that likelihood ratio, and in the case of it being a mixture of John O'Keefe and two unknown unrelated individuals, it would be 740 nonillion times more likely that it was a mixture of John O'Keefe and two unrelated individuals versus three unknown unrelated individuals.
MR. LALLY: Now that number that you just referenced, as far as 740 nonillion times more likely — how many zeros are in a nonillion?
MR. BRADFORD: Nonillion is 30 zeros.
MR. LALLY: Now this analysis supported a strong support for inclusion. Correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Now can you explain to the jury what that means as far as a strong support for inclusion?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So we have a chart that, based on the likelihood ratio — so that 749 nonillion number — based on the different numbers that we might get, we assign a verbal qualifier to that just to make it a little bit more user-friendly. So in this case it would technically be very strong support for inclusion.
MR. LALLY: Now in your comparison analysis between the tail light sample and the known standard from Yuri Bukhenik, what conclusions did you make from your analysis of those?
MR. BRADFORD: So he could not be visually excluded based on just comparing the profile to the STRmix output. So we do the likelihood ratio to determine — like I said — that likelihood ratio. So in this case it was 46 million times more likely that it was three unknown unrelated individuals versus Yuri Bukhenik and two unknown unrelated individuals. So that would be very strong support for exclusion.
MR. LALLY: And again, sir, if you could just expound a little — when you say very strong support for exclusion, what does that mean?
MR. BRADFORD: Again, we're just referring back to the verbal scale that we have as part of our reporting guidelines.
MR. LALLY: Now in your comparison analysis between the tail light sample and the known standard from Michael Proctor, what conclusions did you make from your analysis there?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So he could not be visually excluded again based on that initial comparison. So we run the statistic and it was 76,000 times more likely that it was three unknown unrelated individuals versus Michael Proctor and two unknown unrelated individuals, and that would be strong support for exclusion.
MR. LALLY: Okay. So, with reference to the comparative analysis between Trooper Proctor's DNA sample and the tail light sample, that was a strong support for exclusion. Correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Now, turning your attention to what your lab has labeled as EO1. That has a corresponding Massachusetts State Police Crime Laboratory item number of 3-6.1. Is that correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And what was the description that was provided by the external submitting agency as far as that item?
MR. BRADFORD: So that was the shaft end of a hair from the exterior passenger side rear panel of that same plate number.
MR. LALLY: Now as far as that — and I understand that your lab didn't do it, but you're familiar with the process as far as extracting a DNA profile from a hair. Correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Can you explain that process to the jury?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So during the extraction process we dissolve the hair and then we attempt to do our normal DNA processing. Now what is different, if anything, in DNA testing when it comes to hair — so hair generally, if it's the hair shaft only, we would not expect to get great STR results, however it is possible, so we usually attempt that first.
MR. LALLY: Now, are you familiar with the term follicular tissue?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And can you please explain to the jury what that is?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So that would be the hair follicle. And in the hair follicle, we would expect to find a lot of nuclear DNA. So that would be DNA from the nucleus of cells.
MR. LALLY: You mentioned — on any sort of piece of hair, there's a root end and a shaft end. Correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And could you please explain to the jury the difference between the two?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So the root end would be the end that we would expect to find the root or the follicle, and then the shaft end would be just the shaft of the hair itself.
MR. LALLY: Now what is autosomal DNA testing?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So autosomal DNA testing — autosomal DNA is the DNA that from mother and father that's combined in the child. So that would be opposed to DNA that's inherited directly from a single parent. So that would be something like Y chromosome DNA that would be inherited directly from the father. So all the sons of a father would have the same Y profile. Also there's mitochondrial DNA. So the mitochondria exists outside the nucleus of the cell, and that is inherited directly from the mother. So all of a mother's children would have the same mitochondrial profile.
MR. LALLY: Now sir, from your analysis, what were your conclusions for the hair EO1 in your autosomal or STR testing?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So we performed the extraction and then the quantification, and the quantification results were below the limit of detection. So we would not expect to get an STR profile from that hair.
MR. LALLY: And if you could expound just a bit as far as that term "below the limit of detection" — what exactly does that mean?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So during the quantification process, our instruments are calibrated as part of our internal validations to detect a certain amount of DNA, and once we get below that amount of DNA it's determined — we call that undetermined. So that would be below the instrument's limit of detection, and based on those validations we would not expect to get a profile from that.
MR. LALLY: And so what happened with the hair extraction sample in your lab at Bode from there, once you had completed the STR testing?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So like I said, it's not unexpected that the shaft of a hair would not give us STR results. So we often transfer those to the mitochondrial group that does the mitochondrial DNA testing.
MR. LALLY: And why is that transferred from you to another analyst within the lab?
MR. BRADFORD: I'm not personally signed off in mitochondria. We don't do quite enough testing to have everyone signed off in all the different technologies.
MR. LALLY: Thank you very much. I have no further questions.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you, Your Honor. Good morning.
MR. BRADFORD: Good morning.
MR. JACKSON: Thanks for joining us. Couple quick questions. You mentioned, Mr. Bradford, a quantification related to both Yuri Bukhenik and a known sample from former trooper Michael Proctor. Can we go over — I want to ask you about the sample related to Michael Proctor. I think I heard you say one in 76,000. Correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Describe that one more time for the jurors. But when you quantify that profile as it compares to the population of the earth, for instance, what does that mean? What's the significance of one in 76,000?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So you need to be very careful when we're talking about statistics, because if we start to introduce different analogies to try to describe them, they start to go off the rails and we're describing things that are not actually described in the statistic. So it makes a lot of sense to compare that to the population of the earth, for example. However, what we're talking about here are the relative likelihoods of those two different explanations of the evidence profile. So, like I said, in this case, it's 76,000 times more likely that we would observe that evidence profile if it were three unknown unrelated individuals as opposed to Michael Proctor and then two unknown unrelated individuals.
MR. JACKSON: And sometimes, Mr. Bradford, we get numbers that are just sort of mind-boggling. You said nonillion — 30 zeros. What is that number again?
MR. BRADFORD: Nonillion.
MR. JACKSON: Nonillion.
MR. BRADFORD: Nonillion. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Y'all literally in your job like almost have to make up new numbers. Nonillion — none of us have ever heard of that. That's one followed by 30 zeros. Correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Correct. Correct. As opposed to 76,000, which is 76 followed by three zeros.
MR. JACKSON: Much, much, much smaller number, by factors of nearly a million. Correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Correct. Correct.
MR. JACKSON: So when you say that there is strong support for the exclusion of Michael Proctor in that DNA sample, you're not suggesting that he's completely excluded as a potential contributor?
MR. BRADFORD: Well, no. What I'm suggesting is what the numbers state — that it's 76,000 times more likely that it were three unknown unrelated individuals versus Michael Proctor and two unknown unrelated individuals.
MR. JACKSON: Understood. So you're not excluding him. You're simply saying statistically there's strong support for exclusion, but he's not excluded as a contributor. Is that right?
MR. BRADFORD: I am saying that there is strong support for exclusion. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Understood. With regard to that taillight sample, you were asked to compare known samples to that taillight sample — the known samples being state trooper Yuri Bukhenik and former trooper Michael Proctor. Those two known samples. Correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Were you asked to compare a known sample from a person by the name of Brian Higgins?
MR. BRADFORD: No.
MR. JACKSON: Were you asked to compare a known sample from a person by the name of Brian Albert?
MR. BRADFORD: No.
MR. JACKSON: Were you asked to compare a known sample from a person named Kevin Albert?
MR. BRADFORD: No.
MR. JACKSON: Were you asked to compare a known sample from a person by the name of former Chief Kenneth Berkowitz?
MR. BRADFORD: No.
MR. JACKSON: Thanks. Okay. Thank you.
JUDGE CANNONE: Mr. Lally, any redirect?
MR. LALLY: No, you are all set.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Your next witness, please.
MR. LALLY: Yes. [unintelligible]