OH v. Andrew Griffin Day 5

The trial of Andrew Griffin who faces charges of aggravated murder, aggravated arson, and aggravated burglary, day five. Read the transcript here.

November 2, 2026

Copyright Disclaimer

Under Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.

Judge (00:00):

Are you ready, Kris?

Court Reporter (00:00):

Yes.

Judge (06:59):

All right. We are back on the record in the State of Ohio versus Andrew Griffin. Mr. Griffin is present in the courtroom with his counsel. The State of Ohio is present and the jury is present in the courtroom. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if you had any issues with following my orders, please raise your hand. No one has raised their hand.

(07:19)
I would also advise you, you're getting a lot of evidence that's showing up on the TV and it may be small at times. If there's ever an issue that you can't see something, raise your hand. Now keep in mind when you go back to deliberate, everything that's been shown on the TV, you're going to have a hard copy with you. But again, it's important that you see it when it's presented. So you're not causing a problem if you raise your hand and say, "I can't see that." All right?

(07:49)
With that said, Mr. Vavra, you're still at the state's case in chief. Are you ready to proceed?

Attorney Joseph Vavra (07:55):

Yes, Judge. State-

Judge (07:57):

Go ahead.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (07:58):

State calls Marissa Lacombe.

Judge (07:58):

Marissa Lacombe. Stand on that step, please, and raise your right hand, please. Do you swear the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Marissa Lacombe (08:38):

I do.

Judge (08:38):

Have a seat.

Judge (08:38):

Good morning, ma'am.

Marissa Lacombe (08:38):

Good morning.

Judge (08:45):

Do you object to being filmed?

Marissa Lacombe (08:50):

No.

Judge (08:51):

And whenever the state's ready, Mr. Vavra.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (08:57):

Thank you, Judge. Ma'am, can you tell us your name?

Marissa Lacombe (08:57):

Marissa Lacombe.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (08:58):

Okay. And where are you employed?

Marissa Lacombe (08:59):

I'm an employed at Pure Gold Forensics.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (09:00):

What is Pure Gold Forensics?

Marissa Lacombe (09:02):

Pure Gold Forensics is a private accredited forensic DNA testing laboratory. And so as a private laboratory, we provide testing services on behalf of the prosecution, defense, as well as private parties.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (09:17):

And so you're private, so you're not affiliated with the government or the state or anything like that?

Marissa Lacombe (09:23):

Correct.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (09:24):

Okay. And where is Pure Gold located?

Marissa Lacombe (09:27):

We are located in Southern California.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (09:29):

And you say you are an accredited lab?

Marissa Lacombe (09:31):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (09:31):

What does that mean?

Marissa Lacombe (09:33):

So accreditation is a formal recognition that a laboratory meets or exceeds a list of standards. So at our laboratory, we follow the FBI quality assurance standards, as well as the ISO IEC 170252017 standards, which are international recognized standards for testing and calibration laboratories, as well as R221, which are specific requirements for forensic examination. So essentially it means we hold the same amount of certifications as the FBI laboratory.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (10:07):

Just to caution a little bit, you're speaking pretty quickly.

Marissa Lacombe (10:10):

Oh, sorry.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (10:10):

And the court reporter's, I think, having a little trouble keeping up, so keep that in mind. How long have you been employed with Pure Gold?

Marissa Lacombe (10:20):

Since May of 2022, so approximately four and a half years.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (10:24):

Okay. And you have provided your curriculum vitae, is that correct?

Marissa Lacombe (10:28):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (10:29):

May I approach the witness, Your Honor?

Judge (10:30):

Yes.

(10:30)
Mr. Vavra, do you have a exhibit number attached to that?

Attorney Joseph Vavra (10:39):

Yes, Judge. That would be 141F.

Judge (10:41):

You may proceed.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (10:45):

Do you recognize that document that I've handed you marked as State's Exhibit 141F?

Marissa Lacombe (10:50):

Yes, I do.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (10:51):

What is that?

Marissa Lacombe (10:52):

That is my up-to-date CV.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (10:55):

Okay. And CV short for curriculum vitae?

Marissa Lacombe (10:57):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (10:58):

And you prepared that?

Marissa Lacombe (11:01):

Yes, I did.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (11:02):

Okay. Let's talk about that. That essentially contains your background, fair to say?

Marissa Lacombe (11:07):

Yes. Fair.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (11:08):

Gives a snapshot of it somewhat?

Marissa Lacombe (11:10):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (11:11):

Walk us through your training, education, and history that you have put in your CV.

Marissa Lacombe (11:17):

Okay. So I obtained my bachelor's of science in forensic chemistry with a concentration in criminalistics from California Baptist University in 2022. And then I was hired at Pure Gold Forensics. Upon hire at Pure Gold Forensics, I underwent their training program, which was approximately a year and a half. I first was trained in serology, which is the identification of body fluids in which I underwent an observation period where I watched another qualified analyst perform the testing, and then a practical period where I performed the test on mock samples, and then I completed and passed a written examination, an oral examination, as well as an internal competency test. I was signed off to do independent casework in August of 2022 on serology cases. Subsequently, I was trained in DNA analysis in which I also underwent an observation period, a practical period. I performed my own sensitivity and mixture studies, so that includes testing and interpreting samples of low amounts of DNA to high amounts of DNA, as well as mixtures from one up to five person mixtures.

(12:31)
I also underwent a four-day STRmix training, and I completed and passed internal as well as external competency tests, and as well as I passed two moot courts. I was signed off to do independent casework on DNA analysis in February of 2024.

(12:52)
Let's see. And so as analysts, we're required to complete at least eight hours of continuing education per year. So this can be anything from lectures, webinars, as well as in our lab, we are required to complete monthly reading on scientific articles regarding anything to do with DNA analysis.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (13:26):

How many, I guess, different times have you conducted DNA analysis in your employment?

Marissa Lacombe (13:39):

Between training and casework, I probably analyzed somewhere between 1,500 and 2,000 samples.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (13:45):

Okay. And have you testified before regarding your work?

Marissa Lacombe (13:52):

Yes, I've testified four times before.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (13:56):

Okay. And have you ever been declared an expert at any of those times?

Marissa Lacombe (13:59):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (14:00):

And what have you been declared an expert in?

Marissa Lacombe (14:02):

DNA analysis and forensic biology.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (14:06):

And the four times you testified, was that for the government or for the defense? Do you recall?

Marissa Lacombe (14:11):

Three times were for the government. One time was for the defense.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (14:16):

And you had mentioned you've been qualified as an expert in two different areas?

Marissa Lacombe (14:20):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (14:20):

DNA analysis. What was the second one?

Marissa Lacombe (14:23):

Forensic biology.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (14:24):

Okay. And we're not really talking about forensic biology here, correct?

Marissa Lacombe (14:28):

Correct.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (14:30):

Okay. Judge, at this time, I'd ask that the witness be declared an expert in DNA analysis.

Judge (14:33):

Mr. Shamansky?

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (14:35):

I'd like to question her.

Judge (14:37):

I'll give you that opportunity.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (14:38):

Thank you, Your Honor. Ma'am, very briefly.

Judge (14:40):

[inaudible 00:14:41] approach.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (14:44):

May I proceed, Your Honor?

Judge (15:05):

Yes.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (15:05):

Good morning, ma'am.

Marissa Lacombe (15:06):

Good morning.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (15:07):

Tell me, when did you... You prepared two reports here, right?

Marissa Lacombe (15:10):

Yes.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (15:11):

And you were trained and qualified to analyze DNA in 2024?

Marissa Lacombe (15:19):

Correct.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (15:20):

What month?

Marissa Lacombe (15:21):

February.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (15:22):

Okay. And when did you perform the first report here?

Marissa Lacombe (15:26):

I believe it was January of 2025.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (15:30):

Okay. So about eight months later?

Marissa Lacombe (15:34):

11.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (15:35):

11 months. Okay. Forgive me. And so you've never been qualified as an expert in the state of Ohio, correct?

Marissa Lacombe (15:43):

Correct.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (15:44):

As I understand, was Montana one of the states?

Marissa Lacombe (15:46):

Yes.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (15:46):

What was the other one?

Marissa Lacombe (15:47):

Georgia and Colorado.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (15:50):

And this is the fourth time you've testified in your career?

Marissa Lacombe (15:53):

This will be my fifth time.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (15:54):

Fifth time. That's all I have, Your Honor.

Judge (15:57):

All right. Then Mr. Shamansky, after your questions, what is your position?

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (16:02):

No objection to her being qualified as an expert.

Judge (16:05):

All right. The court's reviewed this witness as an expert in DNA analysis and the jury will take note of that.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (16:30):

Ma'am, in this situation or in this case, Pure Gold was contacted to conduct some DNA testing, fair to say?

Marissa Lacombe (16:37):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (16:38):

Do you recall roughly when that first was?

Marissa Lacombe (16:40):

In 2023.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (16:42):

Okay. And there were a series of reports that were produced, correct?

Marissa Lacombe (16:47):

Correct.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (16:48):

And you did not personally handle the work behind, I think, at least three of them, correct?

Marissa Lacombe (16:53):

Correct.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (16:54):

But you got involved eventually, fair to say?

Marissa Lacombe (16:56):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (16:58):

Okay. Have you looked at those prior reports and familiarized yourself with them, however?

Marissa Lacombe (17:02):

Yes, I have.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (17:03):

And were those reports, were they similar to the reports... I guess I should say, were they similar to the work that you performed to prepare your reports?

Marissa Lacombe (17:13):

Yes. The same process of DNA testing was performed.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (17:16):

It was just a different lab analyst at that time?

Marissa Lacombe (17:18):

Correct.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (17:18):

Okay. Now, tell us how things work at your lab. When you get a request to perform work, typically what do you receive and then what do you do?

Marissa Lacombe (17:29):

So usually a agency or individual will contact our lab, they will request testing, and then they will fill out a case submission form, and then we receive the evidence. So in this case, the evidence was shipped to us, and then once we receive it is assigned a unique case number. So this was assigned PGT-23-006, and then the work is assigned to an analyst at the lab.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (18:01):

Okay. And how does that assignment to an analyst work? Is it just next person up?

Marissa Lacombe (18:07):

Yes. So it's just based on an analyst caseload who has... We have a 30-day turnaround time that we try to keep within the results, so it's just based on an analyst caseload who it is assigned to.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (18:22):

And once the analyst is assigned, what happens?

Marissa Lacombe (18:25):

Then that analyst will review the case submission form, and then when they are ready to test the evidence, they will take it out of evidence storage where they will take it into the evidence examination room. They'll open it, take notes, take photos, and then proceed with DNA analysis.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (18:45):

When you say the evidence, can you kind of tell us, are there different sorts of evidence that you might receive?

Marissa Lacombe (18:49):

Yes. So we can obtain evidence as well as references. So evidence is where the origin of DNA is unknown and a reference is where the origin of DNA is known. So we receive all types of various evidence as well as we can obtain M-VAC filters.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (19:09):

Okay. What is an M-VAC filter?

Marissa Lacombe (19:10):

So the M-VAC is a wet vacuum DNA collection device, and it essentially acts like a carpet cleaner. So there's a sterile sampling head that is placed onto the item of evidence, and then a sterile buffer is sprayed onto the item while simultaneously suctioning. That buffer is then collected into a bottle, and then the buffer is poured onto a filter, and then we will cut out the filter and take that for DNA testing. So sometimes we will perform the M-VAC collection at our laboratory. There's other instances where an agency will perform the M-VAC collection, and if their county or state laboratory does not specifically process M-VAC filters, then they will ship us the M-VAC filter itself, and then we just cut it out and take it for testing.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (20:02):

So there's times where you might conduct your own M-VAC, correct?

Marissa Lacombe (20:07):

Correct.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (20:07):

So that's you working the carpet cleaning device you referenced?

Marissa Lacombe (20:12):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (20:13):

Okay. And there's times that somebody else might have already done that and just provided you with the results from the M-VAC?

Marissa Lacombe (20:20):

Correct.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (20:21):

Okay. All right. And do you know whether Ohio's crime lab handles M-VACs?

Marissa Lacombe (20:28):

I don't specifically know.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (20:35):

Okay. Once you collect the evidence, you begin your data analysis?

Marissa Lacombe (20:42):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (20:42):

Okay. Tell us about that process.

Marissa Lacombe (20:44):

So DNA analysis is essentially four steps. The first step is extraction. So DNA is located within the nucleus of cells. So we combine chemicals along with heat to break apart those cells and isolate the DNA. Once we have our isolated DNA, we take it for quantitation where we get an estimation of how much DNA we have in our sample, the quality of DNA, as well as if there's any possible male DNA present, and it helps us input the right amount for the next step, which is amplification. And this is where we'll make millions of copies of the target areas of DNA we want to look at. And then once we have our amplified DNA, we'll take it for typing where the DNA fragments are separated and detected to obtain a profile and then we will perform interpretation of that profile.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (21:36):

So are you talking about when you receive samples of DNA?

Marissa Lacombe (21:42):

Correct. So once we've taken a sampling of the evidence, so that can be once we perform the M-VAC and we cut out the M-VAC filter, that could be if we take a swabbing or a cutting of an item of evidence and we put it in a tube, then that process starts.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (22:02):

Okay. And you're talking about collecting evidence from the M-VAC?

Marissa Lacombe (22:06):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (22:07):

So an item or something is collected or the M-VAC is ran, and then you conduct that on that?

Marissa Lacombe (22:12):

Correct.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (22:12):

Okay. You mentioned before you might get what's called a DNA standard?

Marissa Lacombe (22:17):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (22:18):

Okay. And what is that?

Marissa Lacombe (22:20):

So that's where the origin of DNA is known. So generally it's a cheek swab from a person of interest. It could be a blood spot card from a victim. So again, we can perform that testing at our lab, or in some cases, another laboratory has already ran that reference profile and they will send the results of the profile to us for comparison.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (22:45):

Okay. So the process you talked about with the M-VAC filter and what is obtained, you do the same thing with the DNA standard if it had not already been done?

Marissa Lacombe (22:56):

Correct.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (22:56):

Okay. You had mentioned making millions of copies and things like that, that is same process for a standard and a piece of evidence?

Marissa Lacombe (23:06):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (23:06):

Okay. Once you do that, what happens?

Marissa Lacombe (23:10):

So then we'll obtain a DNA profile and as analysts, we will look at the profile. We will determine if it's a single source, if it looks like a mixture, as well if there's any artifacts within the profile that we need to remove. And if it is a mixture, we may perform STRmix analysis on it.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (23:33):

You're going to have to educate me. I got a philosophy major. I didn't do any science. What is single source?

Marissa Lacombe (23:44):

So single source, that means the source of DNA is coming from a single individual. So when we look at the graphical representation of the DNA, we will expect to see at most two peaks at a location. So that's assuming that... So each individual inherits half of their DNA from their mother and half from their father. So if a person inherits, let's say, a 9 allele from their father and a 10 allele from their mother, at most we would expect to see two peaks. We could also see a single peak, that would be if someone inherited a 9 allele from mother and a 9 allele from father. But if there's more than two peaks at a location, then we can assume it's a mixture of multiple people.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (24:31):

Okay. And just as best you can in layman's terms, what's an allele?

Marissa Lacombe (24:34):

So an allele is a variant of a gene, and so we perform STR testing at our laboratory that stands for short tandem repeats. These are certain locations on the DNA that have short repeated sequences. However, the amount of repeats varies greatly between individuals. So someone may have 10 repeats, someone may have 13 repeats, and these numbers are what we refer to as the alleles.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (25:06):

And taking a step back, are there times where you might swab an item of evidence and not obtain any DNA?

Marissa Lacombe (25:15):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (25:19):

Once you break it down how you have indicated, what further steps are taken?

Marissa Lacombe (25:26):

So the further steps would be after we interpret the profile, we have possibly ran a statistic on the profile, then we will prepare a report and then submit that report for a review process.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (25:40):

And what's the review process?

Marissa Lacombe (25:42):

Each report goes through a two-step review process. The first step is a technical review. That's where another qualified analyst will review the entire case file, the report, and they will come to their own conclusions. They will also ensure that there's a scientific basis for the findings, and then once it goes through technical review, it'll go through an administrative review, and that's where another qualified employee will look at the case file, the report for overall accuracy, clerical accuracy.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (26:16):

Now, as mentioned here, there was a series of testings and reports conducted by Pure Gold, correct?

Marissa Lacombe (26:21):

Correct.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (26:21):

Okay. Judge, at this time, I would ask permission to display what is marked as State's Exhibit 141.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (26:29):

No objection, Your Honor.

Judge (26:30):

You may proceed.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (26:50):

All right. Do you recognize what we're looking at here as State's Exhibit 141?

Marissa Lacombe (26:53):

Yes, I do.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (26:54):

And what is this?

Marissa Lacombe (26:55):

This is the first report that was prepared by our laboratory.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (26:58):

Okay. And what's the date of this report?

Marissa Lacombe (27:01):

March 8th, 2023.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (27:04):

Okay. And the PGF case, I'm guessing PGF is Pure Gold Forensics?

Marissa Lacombe (27:11):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (27:11):

So that's your case number you assigned to this?

Marissa Lacombe (27:13):

Correct.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (27:14):

Okay. And there's a case number at the bottom of 21 with some digits. Is that your number?

Marissa Lacombe (27:21):

No, that's the agency's case number.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (27:23):

Okay. So this first report, can you kind of just tell us what we're looking at here in the middle and what it means?

Marissa Lacombe (27:31):

Yes. So under reference, that is what items we received. So in this case, we received two items. We received an M-VAC filter from French door interior/exterior, as well as the M-VAC filter from Stove Knobs A, B, C, and D. So in this case, that's when the M-VAC collection was done outside of our lab, and then we were sent the M-VAC filters.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (27:57):

And then where we have DNA analysis, just tell us what that means.

Marissa Lacombe (28:04):

Yes. So that's what we actually took for DNA analysis. Each M-VAC filter we split into two, so that's why you see four items. We do this in hopes that we only have to use half of the extract or half of the filter for testing, and another half can be used later for further testing or something like genealogy.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (28:27):

Okay. So the filter for the door was split in two, the filter for the stove knobs was split in two?

Marissa Lacombe (28:32):

Correct.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (28:33):

Okay. All right. And now we get on to results and conclusions, correct?

Marissa Lacombe (28:37):

Correct.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (28:37):

What are we looking at here?

Marissa Lacombe (28:40):

So for Item 1, which was the M-VAC filter from French door interior/exterior, a partial DNA profile was obtained from this item at 5 of 24 loci. This profile is suitable for comparison to reference samples. So the number 5 of 24, we look at 24 total locations on the DNA, so we received results at 5 of those locations and profiles suitable for comparison. We require results at at least 4 locations of the DNA, so anything over that we can do a comparison on.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (29:15):

Okay. So there was a partial profile from the French door that would've been suitable for comparison?

Marissa Lacombe (29:21):

Correct.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (29:22):

Okay. And four is your threshold?

Marissa Lacombe (29:28):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (29:28):

So we're okay at five?

Marissa Lacombe (29:30):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (29:31):

Is it preferable or better to have more?

Marissa Lacombe (29:33):

Yes. The more information we have, the better and the better we're able to make a comparison.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (29:41):

Item Number 2, the oven knobs.

Marissa Lacombe (29:44):

A partial DNA profile was obtained from this item at 3 of 24 loci. This profile is not suitable for comparison purposes based on laboratory guidelines.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (29:54):

Okay. So your guidelines say, again, four is your threshold, so below that, it's not suitable?

Marissa Lacombe (30:00):

Correct.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (30:02):

Who set that guideline? Do you know? Or what does that follow?

Marissa Lacombe (30:07):

It's based on our laboratory's validation of our instruments and our procedures.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (30:16):

Next line down, Items 1 and 2 were consumed during analysis. What does that mean?

Marissa Lacombe (30:20):

So that means the M-VAC filter is essentially gone once we take it for extraction and we have our isolated DNA, the extract remains, but we discard of the actual M-VAC filter.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (30:34):

And I think there's just some storage information about how your lab stores the kept items?

Marissa Lacombe (30:40):

Correct.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (30:43):

And moving down, I'm not going to have you explain all this, but you mentioned 24 loci?

Marissa Lacombe (30:48):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (30:49):

Okay. And is this an explanation or breakdown of that?

Marissa Lacombe (30:53):

Yes. And then the results we received at those locations.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (30:57):

When you say results, NR would mean what?

Marissa Lacombe (30:59):

No results at that location.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (31:02):

Okay. And if we see a digit or a number there, what would that mean?

Marissa Lacombe (31:04):

That's the alleles that were detected at that locus.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (31:07):

Okay. If we turn to State's Exhibit 141A, do you recognize this report?

Marissa Lacombe (31:16):

Yes, I do.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (31:17):

Okay. And to be fair, you did not perform the work on the last exhibit?

Marissa Lacombe (31:21):

Correct. I did not.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (31:22):

Nor this exhibit?

Marissa Lacombe (31:23):

Correct.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (31:24):

Okay. Do you know who in your lab did?

Marissa Lacombe (31:26):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (31:27):

Who was that?

Marissa Lacombe (31:27):

It was Theron Vines. He's the DNA technical leader and he's also a DNA analyst.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (31:35):

This report, State's Exhibit 141A, what is the date of this?

Marissa Lacombe (31:41):

June 28th, 2023.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (31:43):

And again, same information as far as case number, your case number, the case number submitted below by the agency, correct?

Marissa Lacombe (31:51):

Correct.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (31:53):

And we have a roller@belmontsheriffohio.gov?

Marissa Lacombe (31:57):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (31:57):

Is that who submitted it?

Marissa Lacombe (31:58):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (31:59):

Okay. Now we move down here, we have another description item that was tested, correct?

Marissa Lacombe (32:07):

Correct.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (32:07):

And what is that item?

Marissa Lacombe (32:09):

M-VAC filter from olive oil bottle.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (32:12):

Okay. And the PGF item number there to the right where it says three, what is that?

Marissa Lacombe (32:19):

That is the unique item number that we assign to these items that we receive.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (32:24):

Okay. And what was PGF Item Number 3?

Marissa Lacombe (32:31):

The M-VAC filter from the olive oil bottle.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (32:33):

Okay. And what are the results from the M-VAC testing or the testing of that filter?

Marissa Lacombe (32:40):

A partial DNA profile was obtained from this item at 1 of 24 loci. Results obtained from Item 3 do not meet the laboratory requirements for comparison and are therefore inconclusive.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (32:52):

So again, we're under four, so inconclusive, you can't further test it?

Marissa Lacombe (32:56):

Correct.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (33:02):

And when you say test it, you're not conducting additional testing on that item, correct? Or are you?

Marissa Lacombe (33:08):

On the M-VAC filter?

Attorney Joseph Vavra (33:11):

Right. When you say insufficient for further testing, what would you do if you were more than four typically?

Marissa Lacombe (33:19):

If we received reference profiles or samples, then we would do a comparison or run a statistic against the evidence sample.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (33:27):

So you would compare it against someone's known DNA?

Marissa Lacombe (33:30):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (33:31):

Okay. State's Exhibit 141B. Do you recognize this document?

Marissa Lacombe (33:38):

Yes, I do.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (33:39):

Okay. And this is titled Supplemental Testing Report 2?

Marissa Lacombe (33:42):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (33:42):

And you did not perform this testing?

Marissa Lacombe (33:44):

Correct.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (33:45):

Okay. Date of this report?

Marissa Lacombe (33:48):

October 18th, 2023.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (33:50):

And again, same, your case number, the agency's case number, that's all the same?

Marissa Lacombe (33:56):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (34:00):

Moving down, what items-

Attorney Joseph Vavra (34:00):

Moving down, what items did Pure Gold receive here?

Marissa Lacombe (34:06):

In this case, we received bundle of receipts found in master bedroom near fire location.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (34:12):

And did you receive anything else?

Marissa Lacombe (34:14):

We also received DNA profiles for comparison purposes. So, in this case, we just received the profiles. We did not do the testing. The testing was done elsewhere.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (34:25):

And the indications there, T. Strussion, A. Strussion, correct?

Marissa Lacombe (34:30):

Correct.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (34:32):

Dibacco, Smith, Evans Decker, Evans, and Barr?

Marissa Lacombe (34:34):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (34:35):

So, that's a sample from each of those individuals?

Marissa Lacombe (34:39):

Correct.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (34:42):

Oh, we have more. I'm sorry. Ingram, Davies, and Fijikowski?

Marissa Lacombe (34:46):

Correct.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (34:48):

And DNA analysis, the bundle of receipts from the master bedroom near fire location. Can you tell us the results of that testing?

Marissa Lacombe (34:58):

Yes. So, a mixture of DNA consistent with at least three contributors with at least one male contributor was obtained from item 4A. Results were obtained at 23 of 24 loci.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (35:14):

And was it tested against then our samples that were received?

Marissa Lacombe (35:18):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (35:19):

And were there any matches? Or I shouldn't say match. You don't use that term, right?

Marissa Lacombe (35:24):

Correct.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (35:24):

All right. Was there anybody that was, say, included?

Marissa Lacombe (35:32):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (35:32):

And would that be A. Strussion?

Marissa Lacombe (35:33):

Correct.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (35:36):

And all the males that were a part of that, DiBacco, Smith, Evans, Decker, Evans Barr, Ingram, Davies, Fijikowski, and T. Strussion were excluded?

Marissa Lacombe (35:46):

Correct.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (35:47):

What does excluded mean?

Marissa Lacombe (35:49):

So, this is based on STRmix results and what STRmix is, it's a probabilistic genotyping software. So, it uses statistics in order to interpret and attempt to de-convolute DNA mixtures and then compare reference samples to evidence samples and give weight to that in the form of what's called a likelihood ratio.

(36:11)
So, what a likelihood ratio is it's comparing to the probabilities of two hypothesis. We refer to this as H1 and H2, but you can also think of it as the prosecution hypothesis versus the defense hypothesis.

(36:27)
So, the probability that a person of interest contributed to the DNA versus what's the probability that a person of interest did not contribute to the DNA. And so, the result of these two is how we get our likelihood ratio. And so, a likelihood ratio of one means that the probability or the defense hypothesis and the prosecution hypothesis is the same, and that's what we call uninformative.

(36:58)
And then the further you move away from one in the positive direction becomes increasing support for inclusion of a person of interest on a DNA sample. And then the further you move away from one towards zero is further support for exclusion of a person of interest with zero is the lowest number you can get for an exclusion.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (37:20):

So, all those males that were in that sample were zeros or total exclusion?

Marissa Lacombe (37:25):

Correct.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (37:26):

And A. Strussion was very strong support for inclusion?

Marissa Lacombe (37:29):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (37:33):

141C, you recognize this document?

Marissa Lacombe (37:36):

Yes, I do.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (37:36):

And you were not yet involved?

Marissa Lacombe (37:38):

Correct.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (37:39):

And this was December 20th, 2023?

Marissa Lacombe (37:43):

Correct.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (37:44):

Same information as far as your case number, the agency's case number and emails associated with officers doing these submissions?

Marissa Lacombe (37:53):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (37:54):

Like now Jay Blumling has been added?

Marissa Lacombe (37:56):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (38:00):

Then this is titled Supplemental Testing Report Three?

Marissa Lacombe (38:03):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (38:04):

And what are we looking at here?

Marissa Lacombe (38:06):

So, in this case we received a buckle standard from Andrew Griffin.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (38:11):

And so, is this one you did testing on?

Marissa Lacombe (38:14):

Yes. So, in this case we received a cheek swab, and then the DNA analysis was performed at our laboratory.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (38:25):

And what do you do with that once you conduct the DNA analysis?

Marissa Lacombe (38:30):

We will compare the results of the buccal standard against evidence, whichever evidence we're requested to.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (38:41):

And Mr. Griffin's DNA standard was tested against the receipts found in the bedroom?

Marissa Lacombe (38:48):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (38:48):

And excluded?

Marissa Lacombe (38:49):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (38:54):

Any other testing on this report?

Marissa Lacombe (38:56):

No, that's it.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (38:59):

All right. Now we're looking at supplemental testing report four, State's Exhibit 141D. What's the date of this report?

Marissa Lacombe (39:07):

January 31st, 2025.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (39:10):

So, at this point you are now involved, and did you handle this testing?

Marissa Lacombe (39:15):

Yes, I did.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (39:16):

And again, in the top, we've got the same kind of case information, correct?

Marissa Lacombe (39:19):

Correct.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (39:24):

What items did you receive for your testing here?

Marissa Lacombe (39:30):

We received a motorcycle helmet as well as a DNA standard from Brett Cole.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (39:38):

And did your agency identify or provide any identifiers to the helmet?

Marissa Lacombe (39:45):

Yes. So, this was assigned our item number six.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (39:50):

May I approach the witness, Your Honor?

Judge (39:51):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (39:56):

I'm going to hand you a box. And the box is marked as Exhibit 123. Do you see any identifiers on that from your lab?

Marissa Lacombe (40:12):

I do not.

‍

Attorney Joseph Vavra (40:12):

You might have to flip one of the top ones up.

Marissa Lacombe (40:18):

Yes. I see our item number, our case number, as well as my initials and the date I processed the evidence.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (40:25):

So, did you put that on there?

Marissa Lacombe (40:26):

Yes, I did.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (40:28):

And the item number is six?

Marissa Lacombe (40:29):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (40:30):

And your case number PGT23006?

Marissa Lacombe (40:31):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (40:39):

And if you can just open the box and look inside. I'm not going to ask you to get anything out, but what does it look like to you?

Marissa Lacombe (40:50):

A black helmet.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (40:52):

Approach, Your Honor?

Judge (40:53):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (41:00):

So, you received this helmet from the Sheriff's Department, correct?

Marissa Lacombe (41:03):

Correct.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (41:05):

And this is not an MVAC filter, obviously?

Marissa Lacombe (41:11):

Correct.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (41:11):

So, what did you do when you received the helmet?

Marissa Lacombe (41:14):

So, once I received the helmet, I took it for evidence examination and then performed the MVAC testing on the helmet.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (41:21):

So, you did the testing yourself?

Marissa Lacombe (41:22):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (41:23):

And can you tell us about that process and what the results are?

Marissa Lacombe (41:27):

So, from the MVAC filter from the helmet, a mixture of DNA consistent with at least four contributors with at least one male contributor was obtained from item 6A.1. Results were obtained at all loci tested.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (41:43):

So, we talked for 24 out of 24 would be the most, correct?

Marissa Lacombe (41:48):

Correct.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (41:48):

So, all would be 24 out of 24?

Marissa Lacombe (41:51):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (41:53):

So, based on that, you had sufficient evidence to test against what was found in that motorcycle helmet?

Marissa Lacombe (42:00):

Correct.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (42:02):

Now you already had a number of DNA standards as well as Mr. Griffin's DNA where you performed the testing your lab did?

Marissa Lacombe (42:12):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (42:12):

Did you compare it against all of those?

Marissa Lacombe (42:16):

Yes, I did.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (42:17):

If we move down here, is this the results we're talking about?

Marissa Lacombe (42:19):

Yes, it is.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (42:21):

So, in this report, we have one person at a complete zero, correct?

Marissa Lacombe (42:25):

Correct.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (42:26):

Evans Decker?

Marissa Lacombe (42:27):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (42:27):

We have a number of people at less than 0.001, correct?

Marissa Lacombe (42:31):

Correct.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (42:32):

And you have indicated that as an exclusion?

Marissa Lacombe (42:35):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (42:35):

Tell us about Mr. Griffin's, the testing against his DNA and the sample taken from that helmet.

Marissa Lacombe (42:43):

So, the mixture of DNA obtained from item 6A.1 is 266 times more likely if it originated from four unknown contributors than if it originated from Andrew Griffin and three unknown contributors. So, this is given a level of support of limited support for exclusion.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (43:03):

So, limited support for exclusion is not exclusion?

Marissa Lacombe (43:09):

Correct.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (43:10):

It's not inclusion?

Marissa Lacombe (43:11):

Correct.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (43:11):

And there was one in the middle, right?

Marissa Lacombe (43:14):

Uninformative.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (43:20):

And you had talked before about probabilities and two different theories, correct?

Marissa Lacombe (43:25):

Correct.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (43:26):

So, the two different theories here, is it fair to say would be four unknown individuals?

Marissa Lacombe (43:31):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (43:32):

And then the other one is Mr. Griffin and three unknown individuals?

Marissa Lacombe (43:35):

Correct.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (43:36):

So, when you say it's 266 times more likely it was four unknown, it weighs in that favor?

Marissa Lacombe (43:44):

Correct. So, if you think how I explained the defense hypothesis versus a prosecution hypothesis, it's meaning that the probability of that he did not contribute to this DNA is 266 times more likely than if he did.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (44:01):

All right. And we indicate human DNA, male DNA detected, no further analysis at that time.

Marissa Lacombe (44:12):

Yes, that's on the other half of the MVAC filter.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (44:16):

All right. Did there come a time where this test came under further review?

Marissa Lacombe (44:22):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (44:23):

Tell us about that.

Marissa Lacombe (44:24):

So, it was brought to my attention by another analyst in the lab that another probabilistic genotyping software, TrueAllele, had an inclusion on a person of interest that I had previously reported limited support for exclusion.

(44:38)
So, this led me to go back and take a second look at the profile in which I noticed that during technical review, a note was made by the technical reviewer that the exclusion for Andrew Griffin may not have been intuitive.

(44:52)
And so, what intuitive to us means is the likelihood ratio that's given from STRmix making sense given the DNA profile we're seeing. And so, based on this note, I decided to reinterpret the DNA profile in STRmix and then rerun all likelihood ratios from the references and prepare an amended report.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (45:18):

And you had mentioned something called TrueAllele. Do you know what TrueAllele is?

Marissa Lacombe (45:24):

Yes. So, it's another probabilistic genotyping software like STRmix. However, at our lab, we have what's called an analytical threshold. And this is based, it's a established signal level based on our laboratory's validation of our instruments to distinguish between a potential DNA peak versus possible background noise.

(45:46)
So, any peaks that are above this analytical threshold, they are subject to our interpretation and reporting guidelines. However, if it's below this threshold, we are not able to report it out. So, from my understanding, TrueAllele either has lower or no threshold, so they are able to look at these lower level peaks.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (46:08):

Now, you had given us a lot of information there. So, first of all, how does the STRmix, is that software?

Marissa Lacombe (46:21):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (46:22):

How does that, I guess, work or how does that come into play in your testing?

Marissa Lacombe (46:27):

So, it is using statistical methods. So, if you think at a specific locus, we may have several peaks if it's a mixture, and it can be difficult to determine which contributor is contributing to these allele peaks. So, STRmix will look at the peak heights, the alleles, and try to determine possible contributor profiles.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (46:57):

And you had mentioned also this word intuitive.

Marissa Lacombe (47:01):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (47:01):

Tell us what you mean when you say intuitive.

Marissa Lacombe (47:05):

So, something un-intuitive would be if we are seeing an individual's alleles at every single location on the DNA, however STRmix is excluding them, that would be un-intuitive to us.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (47:23):

So, if you see them there yourself, but STRmix doesn't, that's un-intuitive?

Marissa Lacombe (47:29):

Correct. And the same vice versa. If we see none of their alleles, but STRmix reported an inclusion, that would also be un-intuitive.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (47:38):

So, when you looked at this again, what did you look at to make you think this report we're looking at is un-intuitive?

Marissa Lacombe (47:47):

So, looking at the DNA, Andrew Griffin's alleles were at various locations of the DNA, not all. So, that's why the limited support for exclusion didn't raise any huge red flags.

(48:01)
However, looking further into the STRmix report, I noticed that STRmix was putting too much statistical weight on a specific locus and did not account for potential dropout.

(48:13)
So, what I mean when I say putting too much weight on a locus, you can think of it as if you take 10 tests in a class, and on nine of the tests you received an A. However, on one test you received an F, and then it brings your whole grade down to a B or something. And then for what I say was not taking into account potential dropout. So, the same person can contribute to the profile. However, how I mentioned they can have one peak or two peak, just because they're contributing doesn't mean both peaks will show up above our analytical threshold. This can be due just to low level amount of DNA degradation, so DNA can break up over time. Or their two peaks just did not, during the amplification process, they did not amplify equally.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (49:06):

Once the TrueAllele information was brought to your attention, you said you went back and looked at, is it a STRmix report? Is that what you said?

Marissa Lacombe (49:14):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (49:14):

And is that not something you look at in every test?

Marissa Lacombe (49:20):

It is. There are specific secondary diagnostics that we look at every time to determine if STRmix ran efficiently. If these diagnostics are off, then we will look further into a profile. The diagnostics did not raise any red flags, however, but these STRmix reports can range from a couple hundred to 1,000 pages.

(49:45)
So, this caused me to look further into the report, and that's when I noticed that too much statistical weight was being put on a single locus. So, I decided to ignore all the information from that locus and rerun an interpretation of it.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (50:01):

So, you took out one of the 24?

Marissa Lacombe (50:04):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (50:04):

And we're still looking at 23 out of 24?

Marissa Lacombe (50:06):

So, STRmix looks at 21 in total just because three are sex determining markers for male or female. So, I went from taking into account 21 loci to 20 loci.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (50:22):

And five is enough for you to test, or is four enough for you to test?

Marissa Lacombe (50:25):

Yes, four.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (50:31):

And we're looking at now State's Exhibit 141E. Do you recognize this document?

Marissa Lacombe (50:36):

Yes, I do.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (50:37):

And what is this document dated?

Marissa Lacombe (50:40):

May 18th, 2026.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (50:43):

And you prepared this?

Marissa Lacombe (50:44):

Yes, I did.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (50:46):

And this is amended supplemental testing report number four?

Marissa Lacombe (50:49):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (50:51):

And again, you are referencing the same two items as before, a motorcycle helmet and a DNA standard from Brett Cole?

Marissa Lacombe (50:58):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (50:59):

And then of course, six is our motorcycle helmet. And may I approach, Your Honor?

Judge (51:04):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (51:04):

I just want to show you one other item. I'm going to hand you what is marked as State's Exhibit 123A. Do you recognize that?

Marissa Lacombe (51:13):

Yes, I do.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (51:14):

What is that?

Marissa Lacombe (51:15):

These are the extracts. So, once we have our purified DNA, it's in tubes, and so that is what this is, along with the reagent blanks from that extraction.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (51:25):

That is from the motorcycle helmet?

Marissa Lacombe (51:28):

From the MVAC filter from the motorcycle helmet.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (51:33):

All right. Now, we talked a lot about what you did for this second test. Can you tell us specifically what was different this time than the last time?

Marissa Lacombe (51:47):

So, once I reran the interpretation as well as likelihood ratios, there were several individuals' likelihood ratios that had changed.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (51:58):

And can you tell us, I mean, on the last report, we had one complete zero?

Marissa Lacombe (52:05):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (52:05):

A number of less than 0. 001s?

Marissa Lacombe (52:09):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (52:09):

And then we had Mr. Griffin's, correct?

Marissa Lacombe (52:11):

Correct.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (52:12):

On this report, we have five complete zeros now?

Marissa Lacombe (52:17):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (52:18):

And we have a series of less than 0.000?

Marissa Lacombe (52:22):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (52:22):

So, those are all exclusions?

Marissa Lacombe (52:22):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (52:24):

Tell us about Mr. Griffin's results in this report.

Marissa Lacombe (52:29):

So, Andrew Griffin's likelihood ratio changed from limited support for exclusion to moderate support for inclusion. So, the mixture of DNA obtained from item 6A.1 is 8,700 times more likely if it originated from Andrew Griffin and three unknown contributors than if it originated from four unknown contributors.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (52:51):

And the contributor, there were four contributors identified here?

Marissa Lacombe (52:56):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (52:56):

That's where we're getting four versus Mr. Griffin and three?

Marissa Lacombe (53:00):

Correct.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (53:01):

So, your results in this report, as you indicate, the probability, again, we're looking at, you say defense and prosecution, two different theories. In this situation, 8,700 times more likely that it came from Mr. Griffin and three others than if it came from the four?

Marissa Lacombe (53:20):

Correct.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (53:53):

We're going to hear some testimony in a bit from another agency called Cybergenetics. Are you aware of Cybergenetics?

Marissa Lacombe (54:01):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (54:02):

And did you provide Cybergenetics with information?

Marissa Lacombe (54:06):

Yes, I did.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (54:06):

What did you provide to Cybergenetics?

Marissa Lacombe (54:09):

So, once we perform typing, which is that last step of the DNA process, we get raw data off of an instrument. So, it's just peaks and the time that they were detected on the machine. So, I provided this information to Cybergenetics.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (54:27):

So, you said raw data?

Marissa Lacombe (54:28):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (54:29):

So, do they have any of your reports?

Marissa Lacombe (54:32):

Not that I sent. I believe I provided the information to one of the detectives and then he was going to pass along the data.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (54:43):

But they don't have your reports, they just have the raw data from the instruments?

Marissa Lacombe (54:46):

Correct. As well as our STRmix runs.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (54:57):

Your reports, your determinations here, do you believe they are to a reasonable degree of scientific reliability?

Marissa Lacombe (55:03):

Yes, I do.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (55:09):

I have no other questions, Your Honor.

Judge (55:10):

Mr. Shamansky, any cross-examination?

Mr. Shamansky (55:14):

Yes, Your Honor.

Judge (55:16):

You may proceed.

Mr. Shamansky (55:17):

Ma'am, good morning.

Marissa Lacombe (55:18):

Good morning.

Mr. Shamansky (55:19):

Let's talk first about Pure Gold, okay?

Marissa Lacombe (55:22):

Okay.

Mr. Shamansky (55:23):

That's your laboratory, right?

Marissa Lacombe (55:25):

Yes.

Mr. Shamansky (55:27):

And tell the jury who the founder is.

Marissa Lacombe (55:30):

Theron Vines.

Mr. Shamansky (55:31):

I'm sorry?

Marissa Lacombe (55:32):

Theron Vines.

Mr. Shamansky (55:33):

Right. The third, right?

Marissa Lacombe (55:34):

Yes.

Mr. Shamansky (55:35):

There's three of them. Three Vines. He's the third.

Marissa Lacombe (55:38):

Yes.

Mr. Shamansky (55:38):

And then there's you?

Marissa Lacombe (55:41):

Yes.

Mr. Shamansky (55:41):

Then there's one other person, right?

Marissa Lacombe (55:45):

So, there's five of us total. There's three forensic scientists. There was four at one point. Recently she left the lab.

Mr. Shamansky (55:54):

Right. So, you've got, in terms of forensic scientists, we've got you.

Marissa Lacombe (55:59):

Yes.

Mr. Shamansky (56:00):

We've got a woman named, is it Dugan?

Marissa Lacombe (56:03):

Yes. Drugan.

Mr. Shamansky (56:05):

Drugan and Mr. Vines, right?

Marissa Lacombe (56:07):

Vines.

Mr. Shamansky (56:07):

Vines III.

Marissa Lacombe (56:09):

Yes.

Mr. Shamansky (56:10):

And so, both Drugan and Vines, they have master's degrees, correct?

Marissa Lacombe (56:14):

Correct.

Mr. Shamansky (56:15):

So, they've studied in depth at a master's level forensic science, correct?

Marissa Lacombe (56:23):

Correct.

Mr. Shamansky (56:24):

You have not done that?

Marissa Lacombe (56:26):

Correct.

Mr. Shamansky (56:27):

And to be clear in this case, because I want to make sure there's... You don't want anybody confused, do you?

Marissa Lacombe (56:34):

No.

Mr. Shamansky (56:34):

You said, you told this jury a minute ago that you perform your DNA work, right?

Marissa Lacombe (56:38):

Correct.

Mr. Shamansky (56:39):

And then somebody within your office looks at it and says, "Hey, wait a minute. There's some intuitive or non-intuitive information here." And then you go redo it, right?

Marissa Lacombe (56:49):

Correct.

Mr. Shamansky (56:49):

But the truth of the matter is, and you correct me if I'm wrong, tell the ladies and gentlemen of this jury, when you first did your report, report number one was what date?

Marissa Lacombe (56:59):

I don't remember offhand. January of 2025.

Mr. Shamansky (57:04):

And when did Cybergenetics get involved reviewing your work?

Marissa Lacombe (57:10):

I don't remember when the data was requested from-

Mr. Shamansky (57:13):

It was-

Marissa Lacombe (57:13):

It was sometime after that.

Mr. Shamansky (57:17):

But before you did your review or you completed a second report, right?

Marissa Lacombe (57:23):

Correct.

Mr. Shamansky (57:24):

So, you didn't rework this independent of Cybergenetics. You did your first report, correct?

Marissa Lacombe (57:29):

Correct.

Mr. Shamansky (57:30):

Then the data goes out, correct?

Marissa Lacombe (57:31):

Correct.

Mr. Shamansky (57:32):

And then you have no idea of the communication between Cybergenetics and your boss, do you?

Marissa Lacombe (57:36):

Correct.

Mr. Shamansky (57:37):

And then somebody tells you, "Hey, wait a minute. We need to reexamine your work," right? Right?

Marissa Lacombe (57:43):

No. There's another analyst in the lab. I never saw the Cybergenetics.

Mr. Shamansky (57:47):

I'm not suggesting you did. I'm suggesting the sequence here is important to me. You do a report in January.

Marissa Lacombe (57:55):

Yes.

Mr. Shamansky (57:55):

The information gets transmitted to Cybergenetics at some point, correct?

Marissa Lacombe (57:59):

Correct.

Mr. Shamansky (58:00):

And that is prior to your redo, right?

Marissa Lacombe (58:06):

Correct.

Mr. Shamansky (58:06):

Right?

Marissa Lacombe (58:06):

Yes.

Mr. Shamansky (58:07):

Now, I want to talk about, in a general term, the work that you do as a DNA analyst, okay?

Marissa Lacombe (58:18):

Okay.

Mr. Shamansky (58:19):

Now, let's say, for example, that you swab my cheek and you get a standard, right?

Marissa Lacombe (58:27):

Right.

Mr. Shamansky (58:28):

You then draw my blood. You with me so far?

Marissa Lacombe (58:32):

Yes.

Mr. Shamansky (58:32):

And that's akin to the process that you do when you're digging evidence out of a motorcycle helmet, right? You're going to have a known sample, correct or incorrect?

Marissa Lacombe (58:41):

Are you saying is the process?

Mr. Shamansky (58:43):

No, ma'am. I'm talking about conceptually. Known standard, you swab my cheek, right?

Marissa Lacombe (58:48):

Yes.

Mr. Shamansky (58:49):

So, there's going to be no confusion about the DNA makeup of the swab that you examine in your laboratory, right?

Marissa Lacombe (58:57):

Correct.

Mr. Shamansky (58:59):

Then you're going to have a sample, and you're going to need to compare the two, correct?

Marissa Lacombe (59:04):

Correct.

Mr. Shamansky (59:05):

So, in this case, your sample was something you dug out of a motorcycle helmet, correct?

Marissa Lacombe (59:09):

Correct.

Mr. Shamansky (59:10):

In the example I'm giving you, you take my blood, you draw it, you watch a pathologist draw my blood. You with me?

Marissa Lacombe (59:17):

Yes.

Mr. Shamansky (59:18):

Now, tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what the numbers are going to look like when you compare my cheek sample to my blood draw. Tell them.

Marissa Lacombe (59:28):

If we ran a likelihood ratio on it?

Mr. Shamansky (59:30):

We're going to... That's a very good question. Explain to the jury what a likelihood ratio means, please.

Marissa Lacombe (59:36):

So, a likelihood ratio is comparing two different hypothesis. So, it's taking the likelihood, this is what I kind of mentioned earlier, is taking the likelihood that a person of interest contributed to the DNA versus the likelihood that a person did not contribute to the DNA.

Mr. Shamansky (59:54):

So, what's the likelihood ratio in my example? You got my DNA cells from my cheek and from my blood.

Marissa Lacombe (01:00:02):

If we received a full profile on both, it would be a high number, and I would-

Mr. Shamansky (01:00:09):

What would that number be?

Marissa Lacombe (01:00:11):

I can't give an exact number what STRmix would calculate, but the level of support, I would assume, would be very strong support for inclusion.

Mr. Shamansky (01:00:20):

Very strong support is your term of art, isn't it?

Marissa Lacombe (01:00:23):

No. So, SWGDAM, which stands for Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods, they're a group of forensic scientists and they put out recommendations and guidelines for DNA analysis. And so, they published a table of verbal qualifiers for likelihood ratios to help us communicate the level of support for results. And so, this is the table that we use.

Mr. Shamansky (01:00:50):

Let's be a little more precise, okay, because you're a scientist.

Marissa Lacombe (01:00:53):

Okay.

Mr. Shamansky (01:00:54):

Let's not talk about tables. I want to know numbers, because the way your business works is first you have a statistical database, correct?

Marissa Lacombe (01:01:05):

Correct.

Mr. Shamansky (01:01:05):

And that's based on mathematics, correct?

Marissa Lacombe (01:01:07):

Correct.

Mr. Shamansky (01:01:08):

And it's based on the number of people on the planet, correct?

Marissa Lacombe (01:01:11):

It's based on population databases, yes.

Mr. Shamansky (01:01:15):

Correct. So, how many people are on the face of the Earth?

Marissa Lacombe (01:01:20):

Over eight billion, I believe.

Mr. Shamansky (01:01:22):

Right. And how many individuals are in the database from which you're making comparisons?

Marissa Lacombe (01:01:27):

I don't know the specific number.

Mr. Shamansky (01:01:29):

What's the approximate number?

Marissa Lacombe (01:01:31):

I don't know.

Mr. Shamansky (01:01:33):

You are a forensic scientist, and you don't know the number of your sample?

Marissa Lacombe (01:01:37):

Correct.

Mr. Shamansky (01:01:41):

Is it 100,000?

Marissa Lacombe (01:01:43):

I would assume more than-

Mr. Shamansky (01:01:44):

No, no assumptions. I don't want assumptions. I want scientific knowledge. Let me ask you a question. Explain to the jury what the scientific method is, please.

Marissa Lacombe (01:01:56):

I don't know the specific definition.

Mr. Shamansky (01:02:00):

The scientific method, and you correct me if I'm wrong, is the building block upon which all scientific hypotheses are based, correct or incorrect?

Marissa Lacombe (01:02:09):

Correct. I just don't know that specific definition.

Mr. Shamansky (01:02:14):

And you tell these folks how many individuals are in your computer program upon which you so certainly rely. You don't know that answer, do you?

Marissa Lacombe (01:02:25):

I do not know that answer.

Mr. Shamansky (01:02:26):

So, it could be 10,000 in relation to eight billion, or it could be two billion. You just have no clue, do you?

Marissa Lacombe (01:02:34):

I would assume it's-

Mr. Shamansky (01:02:35):

No assumptions. I don't want assumptions. I want scientific knowledge and facts, please.

Marissa Lacombe (01:02:40):

I do not know the specific number in the databases.

Mr. Shamansky (01:02:44):

Now, I've got a few questions for you, again, overall. In your parlance, very strong support for DNA is one in a million times more likely, right?

Marissa Lacombe (01:03:07):

It's not one in a million times more likely.

Mr. Shamansky (01:03:10):

No?

Marissa Lacombe (01:03:10):

It's if the likelihood ratio is over one million.

Mr. Shamansky (01:03:15):

So, the likelihood ratio is over a million. Tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what the likelihood ratio was in your first report relative to Andrew Griffin and this helmet.

Marissa Lacombe (01:03:27):

So...

Mr. Shamansky (01:03:28):

I want that number, please.

Marissa Lacombe (01:03:31):

It was 266 times more likely.

Mr. Shamansky (01:03:34):

Ma'am, you list a number in your report. Do you need to review your report? Would that help?

Marissa Lacombe (01:03:38):

Yes.

Mr. Shamansky (01:04:02):

Now, may I approach the witness, Your Honor?

Judge (01:04:04):

Yes.

Mr. Shamansky (01:04:04):

So, this is government's Exhibit 141E. And you revised your report May 18th of 2026, right?

Marissa Lacombe (01:04:19):

Correct.

Mr. Shamansky (01:04:23):

Go ahead and help me with this. You understand these numbers now that you're looking at them, right?

Marissa Lacombe (01:04:28):

Yes.

Mr. Shamansky (01:04:29):

So, I'm sorry. The mixture of DNA from 6A1, that's a motorcycle helmet, right?

Marissa Lacombe (01:04:40):

The impact filter from it, yes.

Mr. Shamansky (01:04:41):

Right. Is 8,700 times more likely, right? And that gives you moderate support for inclusion, correct?

Marissa Lacombe (01:04:47):

Correct.

Mr. Shamansky (01:04:48):

Now, if, and I asked you this earlier, if you had my dual DNA samples, right? What would that number look like? Can you tell the jury or no?

Marissa Lacombe (01:05:02):

We've seen numbers something to the 27th degree, so something like 3.0 times 10 to the 27th.

Mr. Shamansky (01:05:12):

Which is vastly higher than this number, correct?

Marissa Lacombe (01:05:14):

That's correct.

Mr. Shamansky (01:05:16):

Now, your 2025 test supported to some extent exclusion of Andrew Griffin, right?

Marissa Lacombe (01:05:29):

That's correct.

Mr. Shamansky (01:05:30):

And then your new report supports moderate inclusion, right?

Marissa Lacombe (01:05:36):

Correct.

Mr. Shamansky (01:05:37):

And what's the range for moderate inclusion?

Marissa Lacombe (01:05:41):

I don't know offhand.

Mr. Shamansky (01:05:44):

Well, how would you find that information out?

Marissa Lacombe (01:05:46):

There is a table listed on the last page of our reports.

Mr. Shamansky (01:05:51):

Do you have the report there in front of you?

Marissa Lacombe (01:05:52):

I do not.

Mr. Shamansky (01:05:54):

Hold on. Let me get you your report so you can check the table for us. To the last page he needs. Hold on, Judge. I'm sorry. I lost my report. Give me a second. I'm sorry. May I approach again, Your Honor?

Judge (01:06:23):

Yes.

Mr. Shamansky (01:06:24):

Ma'am, here's your table. So, let's run through it. Very strong is what?

Marissa Lacombe (01:06:32):

Very strong is over one million.

Mr. Shamansky (01:06:34):

Right. And where were we at? 808,000 or something?

Marissa Lacombe (01:06:38):

8,600 is moderate support, which is 100 to 9,999.

Mr. Shamansky (01:06:45):

Right. So, there's a big difference between 10,000 and a million, right?

Marissa Lacombe (01:06:48):

Correct.

Mr. Shamansky (01:06:48):

Numerically speaking.

Marissa Lacombe (01:06:50):

Yes.

Mr. Shamansky (01:06:52):

Now, so we know moderate inclusion is 100 to 999, right?

Marissa Lacombe (01:07:03):

Yes.

Mr. Shamansky (01:07:04):

And that means that the DNA is 100 to almost 10,000 times more likely to have originated from the sample, right?

Marissa Lacombe (01:07:12):

Could you repeat that?

Mr. Shamansky (01:07:14):

Well, you tell the jury what it means. Forget what I'm saying. Tell them. You're the expert.

Marissa Lacombe (01:07:19):

His specific likelihood ratio?

Mr. Shamansky (01:07:21):

Yes, ma'am.

Marissa Lacombe (01:07:22):

So, it's saying that the DNA that originated from the sample is 8,600 times more likely if it originated from Andrew Griffin and three unknown contributors than if it had originated from four unknown contributors.

Mr. Shamansky (01:07:39):

And again, if it had been my two samples, it'd be a million, right? Or better or greater?

Marissa Lacombe (01:07:45):

Again, I can't... I mean, I would predict it would be a high number, correct.

Mr. Shamansky (01:07:50):

Yeah. So, in your second report, your conclusion is that the DNA is 8,700 times more likely if it originated from Andrew and three others than just four guys off the street, right?

Mr. Shamansky (01:08:00):

... Andrew and three others than just four guys off the street, right?

Marissa Lacombe (01:08:04):

Correct.

Mr. Shamansky (01:08:05):

That's your new comparison you're using, right?

Marissa Lacombe (01:08:07):

Yes.

Mr. Shamansky (01:08:09):

Okay. And this doesn't mean that there's a 1 in 8,700 probability that there's a... You don't like the word match, but I'm going to use it. That doesn't mean that there's a 1 in 8,700 probability that the DNA is the same, does it?

Marissa Lacombe (01:08:23):

No, it does not.

Mr. Shamansky (01:08:24):

So these numbers are really confusing, aren't they, in terms of trying to figure out who's who and how does it match, right?

Marissa Lacombe (01:08:31):

Yeah, it is difficult.

Mr. Shamansky (01:08:32):

It is confusing, right? And help me with this. Physically, you dig some samples out of a helmet, right?

Marissa Lacombe (01:08:47):

Correct.

Mr. Shamansky (01:08:47):

You extract some cells.

Marissa Lacombe (01:08:50):

Yes.

Mr. Shamansky (01:08:50):

You analyze them with chromatography or mass spec or somehow, right?

Marissa Lacombe (01:08:54):

Yes.

Mr. Shamansky (01:08:56):

And then you start to input information into these proprietary computer programs to which you subscribe, right?

Marissa Lacombe (01:09:03):

Yes.

Mr. Shamansky (01:09:06):

And you, of course, have no knowledge about the accuracy of these programs because you didn't create them, you just rely upon them, right?

Marissa Lacombe (01:09:12):

I didn't create them, but they undergo a developmental validation. And then once we implement them in the laboratory, they undergo an internal validation. So we also run hundreds of samples on it to ensure that it operates properly within our lab, also based on our instruments.

Mr. Shamansky (01:09:30):

Now what we know for sure is you run a test in January of 2024, right? Or was it 20-

Marissa Lacombe (01:09:37):

'25.

Mr. Shamansky (01:09:40):

'25. Sure about that?

Marissa Lacombe (01:09:41):

Yes, 2025.

Mr. Shamansky (01:09:42):

Okay. When's your second report?

Marissa Lacombe (01:09:44):

May of, I believe, 2026.

Mr. Shamansky (01:09:51):

Just a few months ago?

Marissa Lacombe (01:09:54):

I believe so. I'm not 100% sure if it was 2025 or 2026.

Mr. Shamansky (01:10:01):

You're not sure what year you ran it?

Marissa Lacombe (01:10:04):

No, not the reinterpretation.

Mr. Shamansky (01:10:09):

I'm starting to get confused. I'm sorry. Help us. In January of 2025, you ran your first report, right?

Marissa Lacombe (01:10:17):

Correct.

Mr. Shamansky (01:10:18):

And then some information goes to cyber, right?

Marissa Lacombe (01:10:20):

Yes.

Mr. Shamansky (01:10:21):

And then people start to re-look at your work, right?

Marissa Lacombe (01:10:23):

In our laboratory?

Mr. Shamansky (01:10:28):

Mm-hmm.

Marissa Lacombe (01:10:29):

No, myself re-looks at the work and then as well as the technical reviewer.

Mr. Shamansky (01:10:33):

Right. That's proven, right?

Marissa Lacombe (01:10:35):

Yes.

Mr. Shamansky (01:10:36):

And then you start to manipulate the numbers, correct?

Marissa Lacombe (01:10:41):

No, the numbers aren't manipulated. So the raw data that came off the instrument, nothing ever changed with that. I just decided to exclude a locus so I'm using less information.

Mr. Shamansky (01:10:55):

Right. Because the result you have isn't making sense, either to people within your organization or people in another organization, right?

Marissa Lacombe (01:11:04):

Correct. Unintuitive.

Mr. Shamansky (01:11:08):

And correct me if I'm wrong, the example you gave is I take a test and nine times I get an A, one time I get an F, right?

Marissa Lacombe (01:11:16):

Correct.

Mr. Shamansky (01:11:17):

And you're automatically assuming that the nine times are correct and the one time I flag is an anomaly, right?

Marissa Lacombe (01:11:25):

Not an anomaly.

Mr. Shamansky (01:11:28):

Say the word then. Not an anomaly, but it is a?

Marissa Lacombe (01:11:32):

It's an outlier.

Mr. Shamansky (01:11:33):

Outlier. Okay. You like that better. And the reality is mathematically speaking, you don't know statistically whether the nine times were the outlier and the one time was correct or the reverse, right?

Marissa Lacombe (01:11:45):

That's not true because I'm looking at the evidence on the DNA profile.

Mr. Shamansky (01:11:50):

Oh, so you're looking at evidence on the DNA profile and then you decide you have to take a loci out, correct?

Marissa Lacombe (01:11:57):

Correct. Based on how STRmix is weighting that locus.

Mr. Shamansky (01:12:02):

Right. So you're doing a numbers analysis in your own laboratory, right?

Marissa Lacombe (01:12:07):

Correct.

Mr. Shamansky (01:12:07):

And you're getting a totally different result, although it's not that much different, is it?

Marissa Lacombe (01:12:15):

I mean, it's not a full exclusion or very strong support for inclusion on either side, correct.

Mr. Shamansky (01:12:22):

So in order for you to get a very... And very strong support is from a scientific perspective, what we look for when we're trying to rely upon DNA results, right?

Marissa Lacombe (01:12:39):

Yeah. So more confidence level off the numbers, yes.

Mr. Shamansky (01:12:42):

Right. So the greater confidence is what we strive for when we're trying to make a scientific determination, correct?

Marissa Lacombe (01:12:49):

Correct.

Mr. Shamansky (01:12:50):

And you were never able to achieve that in this case, correct?

Marissa Lacombe (01:12:54):

It's correct. It's a complex mixture of DNA.

Mr. Shamansky (01:12:58):

Ma'am, whatever the excuse is, whether it was faulty work, faulty interpretation on your part, failure to properly manipulate results, you were never ever, ever able to approach the threshold of strong likelihood, correct or incorrect?

Marissa Lacombe (01:13:12):

That's correct.

Mr. Shamansky (01:13:15):

That's all I have.

Judge (01:13:18):

Any redirect, Mr. Vavra?

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:13:21):

No questions, Judge.

Judge (01:13:22):

All right. May this witness be excused?

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:13:23):

Yes, Judge.

Judge (01:13:25):

Thank you, ma'am.

Marissa Lacombe (01:13:25):

Thank you.

Judge (01:13:39):

Is the state ready to call its next witness?

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:13:45):

Yes, Judge. [inaudible 01:13:46].

(01:13:54)
Approach, Your Honor?

Judge (01:13:55):

Yes. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we're going to take a recess at this time. So Mr. Lawrence will take you back to the jury room, stretch your legs, and hopefully this break will not be long. Mr. Vavra, we're outside the presence of the jury. Does state have any issues it needs to address?

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:15:16):

No, Judge.

Judge (01:15:17):

Mr. Shamansky.

Mr. Shamansky (01:15:17):

We're good, sir. Thank you.

Judge (01:39:16):

Okay. Then the court will be in recess. Thank you.

(01:39:16)
Please everyone be seated. All right, we are back on the record in the State of Ohio versus Andrew Griffin. Mr. Griffin is present in the courtroom with his counsel. The state of Ohio is present and the jury is present in the courtroom. Mr. Vavra, is state ready to proceed?

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:39:30):

Yes, Judge. State calls Jennifer Bracamontes.

Speaker 1 (01:39:57):

Do you swear the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:40:06):

I do.

Speaker 1 (01:40:06):

Have a seat.

Judge (01:40:06):

Good morning.

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:40:06):

Good morning.

Judge (01:40:06):

Do you object to being filmed?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:40:06):

No.

Judge (01:40:11):

All right. Mr. Vavra, when you are ready to proceed.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:40:12):

Thank you, Judge. Tell us your name, ma'am.

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:40:15):

Jennifer Bracamontes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:40:17):

Okay. And ma'am, where do you work?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:40:19):

I am employed as a DNA analyst and casework manager at a company called Cybergenetics.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:40:24):

What is Cybergenetics?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:40:29):

Cybergenetics is a Pittsburgh-based technology company that specializes in developing and using computer software for DNA interpretation.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:40:41):

And are you associated with any governmental agencies or are you independent?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:40:48):

We are a private independent company that sells our software to crime laboratories and then also offers services to police, prosecutors, defense attorneys, innocence groups where they'll send us data and we'll do the interpretation of that data in-house.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:41:07):

So do you yourselves conduct any collection of evidence?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:41:12):

No.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:41:13):

You just look at data?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:41:15):

Correct.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:41:17):

And may I approach, Your Honor?

Judge (01:41:19):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:41:20):

You have provided us with your curriculum vitae, is that correct?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:41:24):

I have, yes.

Judge (01:41:26):

Mr. Vavra-

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:41:27):

Yes.

Judge (01:41:27):

... exhibit number?

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:41:31):

That's State's 144B. Do you recognize State's Exhibit 144B?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:41:40):

I do.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:41:41):

What is that?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:41:43):

It is a copy of my curriculum vitae or my professional resume.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:41:48):

Okay. Can you tell us or walk us through your qualifications, education, certifications, the information that would be contained in that document?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:41:59):

Sure. So my educational background, I have a bachelor-

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:42:01):

My educational background, I have a bachelor of science degree in biology from Duquesne University, which is in Pittsburgh. I also have my Master of Science degree in Forensic Science, also from Duquesne, and then regarding certifications, I am a certified TrueAllele operator and reporting scientist. What TrueAllele is, it's the name of the computer program that my company uses to do that DNA interpretation. I have three certifications for that. They're offered in-house. They basically involved a series of lectures, lessons, and then hands-on experience using the software, answering questions, and then taking exams to pass to get certified.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:42:50):

How long have you been with Cybergenetics?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:42:54):

I've been employed Cybergenetics full-time since September of 2012, and then I was an intern for about a year before that.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:43:05):

Did you have any work experience prior to that?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:43:09):

I worked in college. I did research in the DNA laboratory during my studies, but this would be my first professional job.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:43:17):

You've been with Cybergenetics for 14 years?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:43:20):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:43:20):

Since you got out of college?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:43:22):

Correct.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:43:24):

What all are your job duties?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:43:27):

I'm responsible for analyzing DNA data using the TrueAllele computer program. That's capital T-R-U-E, capital A-L-L-E-L-E, all one word. I put the data through the computer, I review the results, I can summarize them in reports, testify as needed. I'm also responsible for performing different studies of the software to ensure that it's working as expected.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:44:00):

Have you taken any specialized courses in DNA analysis and interpretation?

‍

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:44:05):

I have. Both the ones offered through Cybergenetics and then during my college education, I had courses specific to DNA as well as laboratory components as well.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:44:18):

You talked a little bit about this, but you have been certified through TrueAllele DNA analysis?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:44:25):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:44:26):

Okay. What do you have to do to get that certification?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:44:32):

I was taking a series of lessons where I learned the theory behind the software, how it works, hands-on components, and then taking final exams through those courses in order to get certified.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:44:48):

Have you performed scientific studies?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:44:50):

I have over a dozen different scientific studies.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:44:54):

Okay. Have you ever been published?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:44:56):

Yes. I am co-author on four peer-reviewed validation studies or tests of the TrueAllele system.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:45:06):

These are reports or scientific studies you have authored yourself?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:45:11):

Yes. I've either authored or been a co-author on.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:45:14):

Are you aware whether your studies and reports have ever been relied upon in this field of DNA interpretation?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:45:20):

Yes, they are.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:45:27):

Have you ever provided any presentations or education on DNA analysis?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:45:33):

Yes. I've given over 30 presentations at scientific or legal conferences about TrueAllele and DNA interpretation. I've also taught over 20 courses about TrueAllele specifically to DNA analysts in crime laboratories as well as to college students.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:45:57):

I guess, was this for a specific course, a specific college, or university?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:46:05):

The courses were for DNA lab analysts in public crime laboratories, and some of them were just workshops given to college students whereas part of maybe their DNA courses.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:46:17):

Is TrueAllele utilized by any county, I'm not going to say crime labs, but any county sheriff's departments or law enforcement organizations?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:46:33):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:46:35):

I know that you're utilized by them, but is there a specific agreement or contract with any, if you know?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:46:41):

There are 10 crime laboratories that have actually purchased TrueAllele across the U.S. that use it in-house, including the Cuyahoga County Laboratory up in Cleveland, and then over 600 different agencies have sent data to Cybergenetics for us to analyze with TrueAllele, and there are many different organizations we've contracted with to do reports and testimony.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:47:09):

Have you yourself ever analyzed data in criminal cases?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:47:12):

I have.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:47:12):

Do you recall how many times?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:47:12):

In probably more than 1,000 cases.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:47:28):

Have you testified in court before?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:47:30):

I have.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:47:33):

Okay. Can you tell us, has that been for prosecution, defense?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:47:37):

Sure. It's 79 times total, both for the prosecution and defense. For the prosecution, it's about 65 times. That's been at trials, preliminary hearings, pretrial hearings, and then about 14 times for the defense, and that's been both at trial and in post-conviction proceedings.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:48:00):

What is the nature of your testimony or what does it relate to?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:48:04):

I've been qualified before as an expert in DNA evidence interpretation.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:48:10):

Have you been qualified in Ohio as an expert in DNA evidence interpretation?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:48:15):

I have. I think it's six times.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:48:18):

Judge, at this time, I would ask that she be qualified as an expert in DNA evidence interpretation.

Chris Berhalter (01:48:25):

Mr. Shamansky?

Mr. Shamansky (01:48:25):

I'd like to question her, Your Honor.

Chris Berhalter (01:48:29):

You may proceed.

Mr. Shamansky (01:48:29):

Thank you. Ma'am, to be clear, this is some software you're talking about. True... Pronounce it for me.

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:48:38):

TrueAllele.

Mr. Shamansky (01:48:39):

TrueAllele. That's a software, a computer program, that's owned by your company, right?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:48:46):

Correct.

Mr. Shamansky (01:48:49):

Tell us about the forensic review, peer review, of this software, especially the version that was used here, and tell the judge which version are we talking about.

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:49:03):

The interpretation server or-

Mr. Shamansky (01:49:08):

No, ma'am. You've got a computer program called TrueAllele, right?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:49:12):

Yes. Correct.

Mr. Shamansky (01:49:12):

Tell the judge when it was first put together.

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:49:15):

The TrueAllele was first used for casework in 2009.

Mr. Shamansky (01:49:20):

Hold on. I'm sorry, ma'am. Your company first coded and patented the program in 2009, correct?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:49:30):

It was coded since starting in the year 2000 and developed over about a 10-year span.

Mr. Shamansky (01:49:35):

There's been numerous and various versions of this program, correct?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:49:40):

There have during the development, yes.

Mr. Shamansky (01:49:42):

Right. When was the last time that the computer program was analyzed and revisited and reformed?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:49:51):

The interpretation software, the part that does the heavy lifting, is in version 25, and there haven't been any major updates to that code or that program since about 2010 or so.

Mr. Shamansky (01:50:03):

I'm sorry, you said something about 2025?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:50:04):

2010.

Mr. Shamansky (01:50:07):

2010 was the last time that this program has been revamped, correct?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:50:11):

With any major revisions, yes.

Mr. Shamansky (01:50:12):

What about minor revisions?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:50:14):

There was a couple of changes maybe back in 2015.

Mr. Shamansky (01:50:17):

Okay. Again, tell me, which scientific agencies have reviewed this program to determine if it's scientifically valid and the methodologies that it utilizes are valid?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:50:32):

The methods behind the software, the system itself, has been subject to 40 validation studies or tests. Nine of those have been published in peer-reviewed journals, so reviewed by others in the forensic field, and then the crime laboratories that use the software have each performed their own independent validation or test of the system.

Mr. Shamansky (01:50:55):

But ma'am, please tell the judge what independent scientific agency has independently validated your proprietary software, specifically.

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:51:09):

The Richland County Sheriff's Office in South Carol-

Mr. Shamansky (01:51:11):

Okay, time out. Hold on. I'm very sorry. Let's just go one by one. A sheriff's office is one that you're referencing here?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:51:18):

They have a crime laboratory, yes.

Mr. Shamansky (01:51:19):

Yes, ma'am. The Richland County up in Mansfield, Ohio, is that what you're referencing or somewhere else?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:51:24):

There's one in South Carolina.

Mr. Shamansky (01:51:26):

Oh, in South Carolina. A sheriff's office crime lab reviewed your proprietary software. Is that what you're telling the judge?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:51:34):

They tested the software on data.

Mr. Shamansky (01:51:37):

Yes, ma'am, but I'm asking you about the software itself, your proprietary software, which is the heart of this entire testimony you're about to give. You're telling me that the reason it's scientifically valid is because the Richland County Sheriff's Office in one of the Carolinas, their crime lab says so?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:51:55):

That was just one organization that's done independent tests.

Mr. Shamansky (01:51:59):

When did that take place?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:52:00):

That was back in 2015 or so.

Mr. Shamansky (01:52:03):

Okay. Anybody else?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:52:04):

Yes. There's the Cuyahoga County Regional Forensic Laboratory. They've done validation studies or tests of the software.

Mr. Shamansky (01:52:13):

When was that done?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:52:14):

That one was back in 2016.

Mr. Shamansky (01:52:17):

Okay. Again, we're still talking about law enforcement agencies, right?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:52:23):

These are all public crime laboratories that use TrueAllele in-house.

Mr. Shamansky (01:52:27):

Yes, ma'am. I understand that, but I need you to answer my question, please, because we're focusing now on the scientific and integrity of your software. I'm asking you which agency comprised of scientists and computer scientists and forensic scientists have validated your software? Who?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:52:50):

There are scientists at the various crime laboratories that use TrueAllele, and then the studies that I've been a part of that have been published and peer-reviewed have been anonymously reviewed by at least two independent scientists in the field. The way-

Mr. Shamansky (01:53:06):

Ma'am, I'm very sorry and I don't mean to interrupt you, but I want you to stick with me here. I'm interested in your review of your own software. I'm asking you names and agencies separate and apart from law enforcement personnel who have purchased your software that have independently evaluated its efficacy. Do you have any such name or any such person or any such agency?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:53:29):

I do not know.

Mr. Shamansky (01:53:34):

That's all I have, Your Honor. I would submit that given that testimony, Judge, Dobert and 702 have not been met that this is a accepted scientific methodology because no support has been given by this witness.

Chris Berhalter (01:53:47):

Mr. Vavra?

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:53:48):

Judge, I would like to ask her some additional questions that she didn't get to answer.

Chris Berhalter (01:53:57):

Go for it.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:53:57):

What is TrueAllele software?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:53:57):

TrueAllele is a computer program that looks at DNA data to work to basically separate out different contributors if there's say a mixed sample, so when there's more than one person's DNA present. After it does that, it can compare with known people's standards or references to calculate DNA statistics, which will just give us a sense of did a person contribute their DNA to an item or not. They give some statistical support for that notion.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:54:26):

Has that system undergone any validation studies?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:54:30):

It has.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:54:31):

Can you tell us about that?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:54:32):

Yes. TrueAllele has undergone over 40 validation studies, nine of which have been published in peer-reviewed journals, and what a validation study is it's a way to test a method by running data through it. When you have a system like TrueAllele, you'll run DNA data through the program, it'll do its process, you'll then review the results, summarize them, and then it can establish any error rates, is the system working as expected. That's the way to test computer systems, is to put data through them, not necessarily to review what's called the source code or the underlying instructions for the program. That's been done by myself, others at Cybergenetics, and then crime laboratory analysts who use TrueAllele.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:55:27):

You mentioned peer review. What is peer review?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:55:30):

Peer review is what's done in science. A person or a group will perform a study. They will then summarize that study, write up the results, and submit it to a scientific journal, which is just a collection of a bunch of scientific papers. The journal will then send that work off to at least two independent anonymous reviewers in a similar field. For forensics, maybe similar or others in the forensic science field, they will review the paper, its methods, any support for those results, and then basically deem is it suitable for publication or not. It has an inherence of that independence because the reviewers are anonymous and not involved with the study at all.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:56:14):

Out of the 40 reliability tests, nine have been published in peer-reviewed journals you indicate?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:56:21):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:56:21):

Do you know what those journals are?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:56:23):

The Journal of Forensic Sciences, a journal called PLOS One, that's P-L-O-S O-N-E, Heliyon, H-E-L-I-Y-O-N. I believe there's a couple others as well, but several of them have been in the Journal of Forensic Sciences.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:56:44):

Do TrueAllele publications include error rates?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:56:46):

They do.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:56:47):

Why is that important?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:56:50):

What an error rate is in science is basically what's the chance that a method is getting it wrong, that it's saying that there's a false positive or a false negative, a false exclusion. In these studies, when we run data through TrueAllele, we're able to then establish what's that false positive rate, what's the chance we're going to falsely include a person who has never contributed or never maybe touched an item.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:57:18):

Does TrueAllele follow any scientific guidelines?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:57:23):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:57:24):

Can you tell us about that?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:57:26):

There are guidelines in forensics specifically that deal with validating systems like TrueAllele, and they discuss the different types of tests that should be done, what data to run through, what metrics to look at, and those are offered up by the FBI Quality Assurance Standards. They have a section on validating systems like TrueAllele. The scientific working group on DNA analysis methods, they offer validation guidelines for systems like TrueAllele, and then there's also the ANSI/ASB, the American Standards Board through the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. They offer different standards for validating or testing systems like TrueAllele.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:58:12):

You had mentioned you have testified 79 times?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:58:15):

Correct.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:58:16):

Okay. Have all of that testimony been about TrueAllele or included TrueAllele?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:58:22):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:58:24):

Has it all been in Ohio?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:58:27):

It's not all in Ohio, but it's in 22 states and a wide variety of different types of court proceedings.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:58:35):

Have you testified in federal court?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:58:36):

I have.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:58:36):

In state court?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:58:38):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:58:40):

You said 22 different states, so you've testified about TrueAllele throughout the country?

Jennifer Bracamontes (01:58:46):

I have both at trial, pretrial hearings, such as admissibility hearings, as well as post-conviction proceedings.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (01:58:53):

Approach, Your Honor.

Chris Berhalter (01:58:53):

Yes.

(01:58:53)
... request to this court?

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:00:34):

Judge, yes. At this time, I would ask that this witness be declared an expert in DNA evidence interpretation.

Chris Berhalter (02:00:41):

I am finding that this witness is an expert in DNA evidence interpretation, and the jury will so note that. You may proceed.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:00:49):

Okay. We've talked a lot about the TrueAllele system and that, again, computer software that your company uses in interpreting DNA?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:01:05):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:01:06):

At a certain point, did you become involved in a case state of Ohio versus Andrew Griffin?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:01:12):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:01:13):

How did your agency become involved in that?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:01:17):

Cybergenetics was originally contacted, I believe it was in 2023, to do some analysis of some DNA data generated by Pure Gold Forensics, and then later on sent a second round of data in March of 2025.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:01:33):

Okay. What we're talking about is the March information, March of 2025 information, correct?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:01:38):

Correct.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:01:39):

Okay. Now, you said you received something from Pure Gold. Do you know what Pure Gold is?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:01:46):

Pure Gold Forensics is a private DNA laboratory located in California.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:01:53):

Okay. Have you worked with that agency in the past?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:01:55):

They've sent us data for many different cases in the past.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:02:00):

Okay. What, again, were you sent by Pure Gold?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:02:05):

I was sent the electronic DNA data files, so their computer files for... It was one evidence item, a DNA data from a motorcycle helmet, and then DNA profiles from 11 different references.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:02:22):

What reference samples were you asked to compare to the evidence?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:02:25):

There were 11 of them. I would need to refer to my notes to name all the names.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:02:32):

We're getting there, but you have prepared... Well, you have a report that's generated as the course of your work, correct?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:02:40):

Correct.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:02:40):

You also have prepared a PowerPoint to kind of walk us through your process, fair to say?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:02:46):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:02:46):

Okay. Those names and references are in that information, correct?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:02:51):

They are.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:02:58):

All right. What is this data that you have available to you to conduct the analysis?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:03:04):

The input for TrueAllele is the electronic DNA data files, and these are .hod or.fsa files. They're the raw output from basically the machines or the instruments that the laboratory uses. Pure Gold, in this case, or any DNA laboratory takes the physical evidence or swabs, they extract the DNA, make many copies, and basically generate this data file at the end, which is the starting point for any interpretation.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:03:41):

How does TrueAllele analyze that data?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:03:46):

After I upload that data to TrueAllele, I then review the data to determine the number of contributors in the sample. You can have samples with more than one person's DNA. After that review, I then ask TrueAllele to separate out the different contributor profiles, and it does its process to separate those profiles. Afterwards, I then say, "Okay, compare to these references." From there, it would calculate the DNA statistics, and those numbers or those statistics basically tell us what's the association between the evidence and these people.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:04:25):

Now, is your work and what you do based at all on what Pure Gold does?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:04:32):

It's based on their electronic DNA data that they generated, but their reports or any of their findings have no bearing on my analysis.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:04:42):

They collect the data and get it to you. Do you rely on anything else that they have done?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:04:47):

No. The reports just identify what the item numbers are, but the TrueAllele analysis is just based on that raw electronic data.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:04:55):

Do you review their reports at all?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:04:58):

I may look at them, but they don't have any bearing on my findings or analysis.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:05:06):

You have, again, prepared a report in this matter?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:05:09):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:05:10):

Okay. For the record, I'm not going to display at this time, Judge, but that is marked as State's Exhibit 144. Again, you also prepared a PowerPoint regarding your process through this, correct?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:05:23):

Correct.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:05:25):

Okay. Judge, at this time, I would ask permission to display. This would be State's Exhibit 144A.

Chris Berhalter (02:05:33):

Mr. Shamansky.

Mr. Shamansky (02:05:37):

Your Honor, for the reasons previously expressed, I object, but given the court's ruling no, I'm displaying it.

Chris Berhalter (02:05:44):

All right. You may proceed, Mr. Vavra.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:05:46):

Thank you, Judge. All right. Ma'am, do you recognize this document?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:05:58):

I do.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:05:58):

Okay. Is this your PowerPoint presentation?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:06:02):

It is.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:06:03):

Okay. Again, I know there's no sticker on this, but it's been marked as State's Exhibit 144A. What are we looking at on this very first page?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:06:12):

This is just the title slide that names the case, my name's up there, Cybergenetics, and where it's located in Pittsburgh.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:06:24):

Okay. Tell us about what we're looking at here.

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:06:27):

Just some of the basics of DNA biology. The human body has trillions of cells. Most of those contain a nucleus that has all of our DNA, and that DNA is stored as chromosomes, as you can see in the middle. In forensics, there are some locations of DNA that you see on the right, named as locus, where they're useful for identification, and so scientists can basically extract those locations and look at those DNA letters and numbers there.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:07:01):

Page three.

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:07:03):

Those locations in forensics, they're called short tandem repeats, and what they are are regions of our DNA that essentially there's some sequence of DNA repeated some number of times in a row or in tandem. The beginning and the end of that fragment are the same in everybody, but that number in the middle can differ amongst different people. The number of times that that short sequence repeats is what's called an allele value, or just your DNA number at a location. These alleles, they're variable, so there can be different repeats in different people.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:07:47):

What's a DNA genotype?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:07:49):

Every person doesn't just have one allele at a location. We have two, two alleles or two DNA numbers, because we get half of our DNA from mom and the other half from dad, so you're always going to have one number from mom at a location and one number from dad. Here, maybe there's 10 repeats from mom and 12 repeats from dad. That 10/12, that pair of those numbers is what the DNA genotype is at this one just example location, but it's not 10/12 in everybody. There's about 100 possible pairings at a location. Somebody could be 11/13, 14/15, and testing not just one location, but 20 or so locations. That's what makes a person's genotype unique with the exception of identical twins.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:08:51):

How is DNA evidence interpreted?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:08:55):

What we see here is a very simple explanation of basically DNA evidence interpretation. Let's say we have DNA from one person, like a cheek swab. A laboratory will take that swab, they extract the DNA, they make a lot of copies of it so it can be detected, and their output is the DNA data signals you can see in the middle. They kind of look like the spikes or peaks with numbers, the numbers on top of each of those peaks correspond with that allele or that DNA number. From one person, you're going to have at most two alleles or two numbers at a location, and the data is what drives that interpretation. When you see 10/12 in the data, with one person, it's easy. 10/12 are their numbers because there's no data at any other number. On the next slide, you can compare that evidence genotype from that data to a known person.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:09:52):

We move to slide six. This is what you're talking about?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:09:55):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:09:55):

Can you kind of show us what you're talking about?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:09:58):

Sure. Once you have that evidence genotype, so you look at those peaks, you get those numbers, you can then compare with a known person and say basically with one person, is it a match or not?

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:10:15):

Now, we've already heard a little bit about this testimony today, but what is DNA mixture?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:10:22):

A DNA mixture is basically DNA data or an item sample that has more than one person's DNA. If multiple people touch the same item or same place on a counter, for example, and it's swabbed, their DNA can be mixed together on that swab.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:10:43):

Can you tell us about the numbers as far as the evidence genotype and what those percentages are? What does that mean?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:10:51):

Sure. Let's say in this example, you have DNA from two people on the same swab. The lab does that same process to generate that data you see in the middle, but now there's more than two numbers, more than two peaks, and that's what tells us that there's a mixture. When you see those now three peaks, what numbers pair together? It's a little bit trickier to figure out. Let's say we know one person is a 10/12, say it's a swab from their body, looking at this data, that's the driving point for this interpretation, that second person has to have an 11 because that's what the data are telling us. Pairing that 11 with the other options, so 10/11, 11/11, because you can get the same number from both mom and dad, or 11/12, that list of those numbers or those pairs on the right are then just assigned some probability or just how well do they explain the data if the other person's a 10/12. That list of those allele pairs and their probabilities or those percentages, that's what the evidence genotype is, just for that second person of this just mock makeshift mixture.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:12:08):

Slide eight, we're looking at more mixture information.

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:12:12):

On slide eight, once you have that second contributor from this DNA mixture, you can still compare with a known person's sample to calculate a statistic, and so then you would just focus on the percentages of where that known genotype, where that pairing is, so that 11/12.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:12:36):

What do the computers do with this data?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:12:41):

What TrueAllele is doing with the data is it's using all of the DNA information that is given essentially all the way down to zero. What this slide shows is what actual DNA data looks like. It's at one location, D21S11, from the motorcycle helmet swab in this case. It's one of the locations that was tested from that motorcycle helmet. Along the bottom is just the size of that DNA fragment or how many letters are in it, how long each of those segments are. The number of boxes on top of each of the peaks correspond with those allele numbers or those number of repeats. Going up and down on the left, that measures... It's called relative fluorescent units. It's just giving us a sense of how much of each allele that's present.

(02:13:32)
When you have a taller peak, there's more of that allele. When it's lower, there's less. The DNA data has an overall pattern. Peaks have highs and lows. There's just inherent variation in this data. TrueAllele is using all of that information to work to essentially separate out, which as we'll see in this case, maybe five different contributor profiles that are present in this data.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:13:59):

What we're looking at here, is this an actual read from that locus referenced?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:14:08):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:14:08):

From the helmet?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:14:09):

Yes. It's a screenshot of what the data are at this one location from the motorcycle helmet.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:14:17):

Okay. We heard talk before from a prior witness about 24 locations.

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:14:22):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:14:25):

Tell us what that means, I guess when you're talking about 24 locations.

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:14:31):

In forensics, there are, they're called DNA kits or testing kits. They test, in this case it would be 24 different locations that are tested all at the same time. They basically take the swab cutting, put it in the tube, and the process is basically producing data like this for 24 different locations.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:14:56):

One such location, they're all named separately and differently?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:15:00):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:15:00):

One name is D21S11?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:15:03):

Correct.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:15:09):

Tell us how Cybergenetics and TrueAllele differ from maybe a state crime lab or even Pure Gold.

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:15:18):

Sure. What TrueAllele does is it uses all of the DNA data all the way down to zero. What some laboratories will do or what their software that they may use may do is to require a threshold or some line drawn through the data, like we see here, and they would consider data above that line in their interpretation or in their reporting and they would discard everything below it. They wouldn't be using, in this case, maybe the 28 and that 33 peak, that wouldn't be considered in their reporting or their interpretation. The difference with TrueAllele is that it uses everything all the way down to zero. Move that line, that red line all the way down to zero, TrueAllele is using-

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:16:00):

... that red line all the way down to zero. TrueAllele is using everything it's given.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:16:06):

So is there any threshold for TrueAllele?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:16:09):

No.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:16:15):

All right. So, let's talk about how this system works now and what we're going into with the DNA.

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:16:22):

Sure. So, what TrueAllele is doing is it's going to try to explain the peak patterns that it sees or it's given at every location. But, let's just focus on this one we've been looking at, this D21 location. So, the first step is for a person, an analyst to review the data and determine the number of contributors based on just counting up the peaks at each location. And then, let's say in this case, I ask TrueAllele to solve for five contributors or separate out five different profiles from this data. TrueAllele may propose that one person is a 30/31.2. They have those two allele numbers. On the next slide. Maybe a second person is a 29/30 represented by those orange boxes. On the next slide, maybe a third person is a 27/28 represented by the red boxes. On the next slide, maybe fourth person is a 27/ 29 represented by those green boxes.

(02:17:34)
And on the next slide, maybe a fifth person is a 33/33 represented by those two purple boxes on the right. Because again, the person can get the same numbers from both mom and dad. And so, once TrueAllele proposes this combination of these allele pairs, so those colored boxes, it then compares that proposal to the data underneath and says, " Is this a good fit? Does this combination explain the data well?" Combinations that look like this, where the boxes are in the locations of the peaks, the heights are similar, it kind of looks like the data. This combination is a good explanation and would get a higher likelihood or higher probabilities in the end. But, TrueAllele's not just trying this one possibility, it's trying hundreds of thousands, moving these boxes around, changing the heights, and just saying which ones look like the data, which ones don't, and just trying out a bunch of different possibilities to essentially separate out those profiles.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:18:45):

What different genotype solutions or explanations are you looking at?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:18:56):

So, TrueAllele's trying out hundreds of thousands of possibilities. Some look like the data like we saw, but it may propose something like this where those colored boxes aren't really lining up with the data, right? There's a lot of boxes where there's no peaks at all and then some of the peaks are being left unaccounted for. So this combination, this solution would get a lower probability in the end.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:19:26):

Tell us what an evidence genotype is.

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:19:29):

So, the evidence genotype with TrueAllele is just a list of allele pairs and their probabilities. And so, what we see here is TrueAllele separated out five different profiles, and this is one of those five profiles at that same location we've been looking at, that D21. And these are just the possibilities TrueAllele tried out that got most of the probability when it was trying out those different colored boxes for, let's say, that blue contributor we saw. And so, before TrueAllele ever saw the data, there might be a hundred possible pairings listed here spreading way out. But based on review of the data, the data we're able to constrain it to these few that are listed here. So, how high each of those bars are corresponds to that probability, and that for this one contributor is what the genotype is.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:20:30):

What does DNA match information?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:20:33):

So, once you have a genotype with TrueAllele where we saw those blue bars, that was objectively inferred from the evidence and never saw a person. Well, now to calculate a statistic, you need to basically say, "All right, who do I want to compare with?" Well, now we see we have those same blue bars, that same evidence probabilities for that one person. And now we see we have some brown bars to the right. And those represent just what's the chance a random person off the street would have that 27/29. So, the height of each of those bars correspond with a random person off the street having that allele pair, that pairing of that number. So to calculate a statistic, we now need to introduce a person. Well, let's say we want to compare with somebody who's 27/29 on the left. Well, that evidence probability is higher than that random probability, that brown bar.

(02:21:29)
So, that would give an inclusionary statistic at this one location if somebody were 27/29. Now it's not up there, but imagine one of the brown bars was higher than a blue bar. Well, then that would basically give a statistical or give weight for an exclusion because that chance of that coincidence is higher than that chance of a match or that evidence probability. So, we can compare with anybody wherever their numbers lie.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:21:56):

Are we looking at here actual evidence from the case or is this a hypothetical?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:22:13):

This is the actual evidence from the case. It's one of those five separated contributors from a motorcycle helmet, and this is showing a specific comparison to one of the references in this case.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:22:31):

Okay. And the evidence match you have at 14%, coincidental match 5%. So as you indicated, that's about three times more likely?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:22:41):

Yes, because to calculate a statistic, if we compare with somebody who's that 30/31.2, you just take that 14% divide by 5% and it's roughly three times. 15 divided by five is actually three.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:22:59):

And when we're talking about match information at locations, what are we talking about?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:23:06):

So, TrueAllele is doing that same process at every location tested. In this case, there were 21 autosomal locations. In the kit that was used, there are three male specific locations. They aren't considered in these statistics. So, there were 21 different locations tested. TrueAllele looked at every location, proposed those different colored boxes, came up with those blue evidence probabilities and compared with, in this case it was Mr. Griffin's profile at all 21 locations. And they're just listed on the left was the names given to them. And then, the statistic calculated at each one just is how far that blue bar sticks out. Some are more, some are less. The one we were just looking at, D21, is circled in red. That was about three times. And because these locations are all independent, all of these numbers can be multiplied together to come up with that overall final statistic.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:24:06):

So, what are we talking about here with our match information?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:24:17):

So, this is just the conclusion from the report, so across all 21 of those locations. One of the ways to state the statistic is that a match between the motorcycle helmet and Andrew Griffin is 1.52 million times more probable than a coincidental match to an unrelated person. And this is just basically weighing what's the chance that he's a contributor to this DNA profile versus the chance that it was just somebody else. That is all the statistic is weighing.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:24:47):

So, that's taking all 21 locations and as you would indicate, multiplying them together?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:24:53):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:24:54):

And that's how we get to the 1.52 million times more?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:24:56):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:25:06):

What is your error rate?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:25:08):

So, for every reported statistic, TrueAllele can also calculate an error rate or what's the chance that this is a false positive. So, for that statistic of 1.52 million, only one in 17 million people would match as strongly. And what that means is you'd have to go through 17 million people before you'd find somebody just by chance that would give you that number of about 1.52 million or higher.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:25:36):

And this is the match between Mr. Griffin's DNA and that motorcycle helmet?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:25:41):

It's the statistic calculated between that separated evidence profile from those probabilities from that motorcycle helmet and Mr. Griffin relative to coincidence.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:25:51):

And we talked about match statistics and we talked about some other folks that were compared against the same sample, correct?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:25:58):

Correct.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:25:59):

Okay. And can you just walk us through what we're looking at here?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:26:03):

So, this table just lists the other references that... So, TrueAllele separated those five people from that motorcycle helmet. All five of those profiles were compared with these other 10 references listed here, including Tom... I'm going to say this wrong. Strussion?

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:26:18):

Strussion.

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:26:21):

Strussion. Okay, sorry. Angela Strussion, Anthony Dibacco-

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:26:25):

Miana Smith.

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:26:28):

... Miana Smith, Justin Evans Decker, Jeremy Evans, Wilbur Barr, Steven Ingram, Larry Davies, and Jacob...

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:26:36):

Fijalkowski.

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:26:38):

... Fijalkowski. So these references, they were all statistically excluded from those profiles from the motorcycle helmet.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:26:47):

And that concludes the presentation there?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:26:50):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:26:50):

It shows how you arrived at your conclusions?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:27:00):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:27:00):

Okay. As indicated, you also prepared a report in this matter, correct?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:27:04):

I did, yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:27:06):

Okay. We have them marked as State's 144. Ask permission to display.

Mr. Shamansky (02:27:09):

No objection.

Judge (02:27:09):

What was the number again?

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:27:09):

144.

Judge (02:27:18):

And what is the defendant's position?

Mr. Shamansky (02:27:20):

Your Honor, in light of our... I mean, no objection, but we still, of course, may [inaudible 02:27:24] running objection, so we're good.

Judge (02:27:25):

Understood.

Mr. Shamansky (02:27:25):

Thank you, sir.

Judge (02:27:26):

You may proceed.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:27:28):

All right. Do you recognize this document?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:27:30):

I do.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:27:31):

Okay. And what is it?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:27:33):

It's an electronic copy of the report I prepared in this case.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:27:37):

Okay. And when is it dated?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:27:39):

April 8th, 2025.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:27:42):

And there's some information there, a lab indication, an agency indication. What are those numbers?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:27:51):

The numbers, they're on the right under "Report." They just indicate the name that Cybergenetics gave to this case. This is called Belmont after the county, and then the associated lab number from Pure Gold Forensics, just to identify where the data came from and then what report number maybe the descriptions came from.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:28:10):

Okay. We have evidence items. Is this the evidence you were given?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:28:15):

Yes. So, these numbers and descriptions correspond with the Pure Gold numbers and descriptions, and they correspond to, for the evidence, that electronic data, so those files, and then the references, they were allele tables or just tables of numbers with the profiles.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:28:33):

And I asked a bad question. You didn't receive any of these items, correct?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:28:36):

Correct. I received the electronic data for the evidence, and then basically just the profiles or the numbers for the references.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:28:46):

Okay. As far as methods goes, I think we've already covered that and you won't walk through how you got to your conclusion?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:28:53):

Correct. The methods just list the kit used, the lab that generated the data, and then just basically the background of what was done with TrueAllele. Every item run, the data was run at least twice or more than once just to establish reproducibility.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:29:09):

Okay. And we have your results here. Can you summarize that for us?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:29:13):

Sure. So, there's a paragraph that summarizes the testing done. So in this case, TrueAllele basically looked at the evidence as if it had four or five unknown contributors. So, it tested both assumptions or both contributor numbers. And then, just some other annotating information about the runs that all those separated profiles were compared with all the references at that big list of numbers in parentheses. And then, this is just the match statistic for the comparison between that motorcycle helmet and Mr. Griffin. And then, there's three different ethnic groups listed, just commonly was done in forensics, just compare it with the relevant ethnic groups from a region. So, in the United States, maybe African American, Caucasian, and Hispanic. And then the error rate is listed at the bottom. And when there's no other statement or words, there's a bullet point that says when there's no statistical support for a match, those comparisons aren't listed, so that's where all those 10 other people fall into.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:30:30):

Here, did TrueAllele provide or separate these mixtures into genotypes?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:30:44):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:30:45):

Okay. And is there any way for human error to manipulate that?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:30:50):

So, the inputs for TrueAllele are the number of contributors, how long to run, and whether to account for a degraded DNA. But, once the computer has those initial settings, there's no human influence with what those probabilities in the end are.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:31:06):

Okay. You talked about this, I think, earlier. Were these results what you would call reproducible?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:31:18):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:31:20):

Tell us what that means and why that's important.

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:31:22):

So, for each contributor number run, TrueAllele just didn't run it once. It was run at least in duplicate. And reviewing the results every time the computer was run, similar results were obtained, so a number in the millions. And it just shows it wasn't a one-off or anything like that, but we're getting repeatable results.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:31:47):

All right. And again, was this testing completely independent of any testing done by Pure Gold?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:31:54):

Other than relying on the electronic DNA data, yes, it was independent and their reports, their software they use, anything like that had no influence on these results.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:32:08):

No further questions, Judge.

Judge (02:32:09):

All right. Mr. Shamansky, do you wish to undertake any cross-examination?

Mr. Shamansky (02:32:13):

I do, Your Honor.

Judge (02:32:14):

You may proceed when you are ready.

Mr. Shamansky (02:32:15):

I'm ready, sir. Good morning, ma'am.

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:32:18):

Good morning.

Mr. Shamansky (02:32:19):

Let's just start with some basics. You're paid for your work here, right?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:32:25):

I'm paid my salary, but my company is reimbursed for my time.

Mr. Shamansky (02:32:30):

And what did you bill the government for your analysis in this case?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:32:34):

I don't do the finances, but the report would've been maybe around $6,000, the discovery around 4,000 or so, so at least $10,000 so far.

Mr. Shamansky (02:32:44):

And what's your time to testify?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:32:47):

The hourly rate the company charges for my time is $400 an hour.

Mr. Shamansky (02:32:52):

All right. Now, you're not a computer scientist, right?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:32:56):

I am not, no.

Mr. Shamansky (02:32:58):

But, you understand enough about computer science to utilize it in your analysis, right?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:33:05):

I understand how TrueAllele works based on the papers written about it and testing it, yes.

Mr. Shamansky (02:33:10):

Now... Oh, and by the way, how many forensic analysts in your firm?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:33:19):

There are three main casework analysts and then our chief scientist, Dr. Perlin. We do most of the casework.

Mr. Shamansky (02:33:29):

So, there's four of you?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:33:30):

Yes.

Mr. Shamansky (02:33:31):

Now, and just help me, and you correct me the minute I start to misspeak, but in around 1999, Dr. Perlin, who owns this company...

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:33:43):

Correct.

Mr. Shamansky (02:33:44):

And he's got the PhD, there's a computer program put together, right?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:33:49):

Yes.

Mr. Shamansky (02:33:49):

Called TrueAllele, right?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:33:51):

Correct.

Mr. Shamansky (02:33:52):

And between about '99 and around 2015, there are 25 revisions to that program, correct?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:34:03):

Between 2009 and... Or sorry.

Mr. Shamansky (02:34:05):

1999.

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:34:05):

Sorry. 1999 and 2009, yes.

Mr. Shamansky (02:34:10):

Okay. Now, you're aware, as a scientist, that there are a couple of types of computer program models, right? There's one that's proprietary, right?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:34:30):

Yes.

Mr. Shamansky (02:34:30):

And proprietary means that only your company... In fact, this program, TrueAllele, is a proprietary program, correct or incorrect?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:34:42):

Correct.

Mr. Shamansky (02:34:42):

And what that means is... And by the way, every result upon which you rely is dependent upon the accuracy of the TrueAllele computer program, right?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:35:01):

Yes.

Mr. Shamansky (02:35:02):

And proprietary means that nobody but you and your company get to examine it to make sure it's working properly, correct or incorrect?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:35:13):

That's correct-

Mr. Shamansky (02:35:13):

And... That's the only question I asked.

Speaker 2 (02:35:15):

Judge.

Mr. Shamansky (02:35:17):

And open source code-

Judge (02:35:20):

Mr. Shamansky, there's an objection from the state. Please go ahead.

Mr. Shamansky (02:35:23):

Oh, I'm sorry.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:35:25):

Judge, the objection was simply she was continuing to answer and she didn't get to finish her answer.

Mr. Shamansky (02:35:31):

Your Honor, I asked a very specific question that explanations can be given on redirect. I merely asked if it was a proprietary code upon which she relied.

Judge (02:35:40):

And Mr. Vavra, I'm overruling that objection. You can have her explain further if you feel that she needs to on redirect. Mr. Shamansky may proceed.

Mr. Shamansky (02:35:51):

Thank you, Your Honor. And ma'am, just so this, you've been in court before, right?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:35:54):

Yes.

Mr. Shamansky (02:35:54):

I'll ask you a direct question. You give me a direct answer, okay?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:35:57):

Okay.

Mr. Shamansky (02:35:58):

So, we've established that you relied on this proprietary code, correct?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:36:03):

Yes.

Mr. Shamansky (02:36:03):

Proprietary means that I or anybody else that wants to look at it that's not associated with your company doesn't get to check it for accuracy. Is that a correct statement or an incorrect one?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:36:13):

Incorrect.

Mr. Shamansky (02:36:13):

Okay. So if I wanted to, I could get a copy of your code, you'd bring it to my office, and I could go through it, review it, have my experts look at it. You'd have no problem with that. Is that what you're telling me?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:36:28):

We have a policy in place where outside experts can come and review the code at our office.

Mr. Shamansky (02:36:36):

Ma'am, let's be super clear. So, in order for me or anybody else... And when was that policy put in place?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:36:42):

Around 2023.

Mr. Shamansky (02:36:42):

Oh, 2023. Okay. So 2023, I can come to your office and your office only, right?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:36:52):

As far as my understanding of the terms, yes.

Mr. Shamansky (02:36:55):

Do you have an understanding of the terms or not?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:36:57):

I do. It's posted on our website.

Mr. Shamansky (02:36:59):

Okay. So, your code is not proprietary?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:37:03):

Well, it's proprietary, but can be reviewed under court order and certain terms.

Mr. Shamansky (02:37:09):

I see. Terms that you direct, that your policy directs?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:37:13):

Yes.

Mr. Shamansky (02:37:13):

Okay. So you're proprietary-ish, right?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:37:18):

You can say that.

Mr. Shamansky (02:37:19):

Yes. And as opposed to an open code means anybody can download it, review it, examine it, run it at their leisure, at their office, not under your auspices, but independently, right?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:37:31):

Correct.

Mr. Shamansky (02:37:33):

And that's not how you operate, right?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:37:34):

Correct.

Mr. Shamansky (02:37:35):

Now, let's be super careful here. If I bring a case to you, I say, "Hey, look, I need some DNA questions answered," you'd say, "Okay." And if I brought you, for example, a motorcycle helmet, you and you alone would examine that helmet, the interior, and you would try to find samples, correct?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:38:03):

No. Cybergenetics doesn't handle physical evidence.

Mr. Shamansky (02:38:07):

Exactly. And so, you rely on other examiners and handlers, right? And you have no idea whether or not the data that they have drawn from the sample, right, you have no idea whether that sample was handled properly, mishandled, confused, mixed up. You have no clue, do you?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:38:30):

Correct.

Mr. Shamansky (02:38:31):

Right. And if you wanted to do a truly independent analysis and arrive at independently, scientifically valid conclusions, the scientific method would require you to collect a sample yourself, correct?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:38:47):

It could, yes. Depending on what the testing entails, yes.

Mr. Shamansky (02:38:51):

Right. Because, the most crucial part of any analysis is having valid samples, right?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:39:00):

Yes. Which-

Mr. Shamansky (02:39:00):

And you were trained, you have a master's in forensic science, correct?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:39:03):

I do.

Mr. Shamansky (02:39:04):

So, there is no suggestion from you or anybody else that the most critical foundational stage in any DNA analysis is the integrity of the sample, right?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:39:16):

Yes.

Mr. Shamansky (02:39:17):

And in this case, you can't look these 14 folks in the eye and say whether or not that sample was one of integrity, whether it had been manipulated, doctored, mishandled. You have no idea, do you?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:39:27):

I can't speak to what the laboratory did, but I do know they have policies in place to try to avoid those situations.

Mr. Shamansky (02:39:36):

Hold on. Did you say as you know, they have... As who knows?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:39:39):

I'm aware that crime laboratories have procedures and policies in place that deal with-

Mr. Shamansky (02:39:44):

Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. What policies in place... First of all, what crime laboratory are we talking about here?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:39:49):

Well, this would be Pure Gold Forensics, so maybe not a crime laboratory, but a private DNA laboratory.

Mr. Shamansky (02:39:54):

So, you're aware of their policies?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:39:58):

I'm aware they have policies. I-

Mr. Shamansky (02:40:00):

So, you don't know what the policies are, you're just aware of them?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:40:03):

I've never seen them myself, no.

Mr. Shamansky (02:40:05):

Okay. So, that's a little more accurate. So, you of your... Excuse me. You have zero knowledge about the efficacy, the scientific validity, the accuracy of Pure Gold, do you?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:40:19):

I don't. I've never seen their policies, no.

Mr. Shamansky (02:40:21):

So, the answer is you have no idea how they operate, correct?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:40:25):

Not personally, no.

Mr. Shamansky (02:40:26):

Well, ma'am, I'm only interested in your personal opinion, right, because that's all that matters here. You're the one that's testifying that this man's DNA is a match to a helmet you've never examined, right?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:40:37):

I've never examined the helmet, correct.

Mr. Shamansky (02:40:38):

To a sample you don't even know to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty has been properly obtained, maintained or examined, yes or no? I'm right about that, aren't I?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:40:52):

I wouldn't say without a degree of scientific certainty. I do know they have policies in place. But, you're correct. I've never physically examined or generated that data that they did.

Mr. Shamansky (02:41:04):

Right. And that leaves great room for questions, doesn't it? If you don't know the integrity of the sample, your results cannot be relied upon, correct or incorrect?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:41:17):

It depends on how they handled the sample, but the underlying data are what TrueAllele relies upon.

Mr. Shamansky (02:41:24):

Right. So, the reality is you could have requested the helmet, correct or incorrect?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:41:30):

No, we don't do physical DNA testing.

Mr. Shamansky (02:41:32):

I know you don't. But, let's be super clear here. You handle cases where people's lives are at stake, don't you?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:41:40):

You could say that, yes.

Mr. Shamansky (02:41:43):

Ma'am, it's not what I could say. You've testified how many times in courts, state and federal?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:41:49):

79 times.

Mr. Shamansky (02:41:50):

And in those cases, oftentimes a person's life is at stake, correct or incorrect?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:41:55):

If you're talking specifically death penalty, I can't-

Mr. Shamansky (02:41:58):

How about their freedom at stake?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:42:00):

Yes.

Mr. Shamansky (02:42:00):

Okay. Because, I don't want to mince words and get anything confused here. And so, to be clear, had you saw fit to protect the integrity of your findings, you could have brought the helmet, requested it, correct?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:42:18):

No.

Mr. Shamansky (02:42:19):

Oh, so you were unable to ask for the helmet to have your own independent person whom you trust extract the sample. You couldn't have done that in this case. Is that what you're telling me?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:42:30):

No. Cybergenetics doesn't handle physical evidence. We recommend to people other laboratories that could do it. So, Cybergenetics would never physically receive the helmet. We could recommend other labs that could have tested it.

Mr. Shamansky (02:42:44):

People who you've partnered in the past?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:42:45):

Yes.

‍

Mr. Shamansky (02:42:46):

People whom you trust?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:42:48):

Yes.

Mr. Shamansky (02:42:48):

Who did the Cybernetics work in this case?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:42:51):

I was the one that did the analysis.

Mr. Shamansky (02:42:53):

And who did the Pure Gold analysis of this? Who obtained the sample in Pure Gold?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:42:58):

I don't know off the top of my head.

Mr. Shamansky (02:43:00):

What are their qualifications?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:43:02):

I don't know.

Mr. Shamansky (02:43:03):

How long have they been doing?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:43:05):

I don't know.

Mr. Shamansky (02:43:07):

Those are important questions in a scientific analysis, aren't they? When you're talking about chains of evidence, reliability, custody, certifications, those are important, aren't they?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:43:16):

Yes.

Mr. Shamansky (02:43:17):

But, you don't know any of that information here, correct?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:43:19):

Correct.

Mr. Shamansky (02:43:26):

And you were very adamant to point out you didn't rely on any of the work that Pure Gold did in terms of analysis, right?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:43:37):

Correct. Other than that underlying raw data.

Mr. Shamansky (02:43:42):

And that's the raw data that we've firmly established you don't know if it's reliable or not, correct?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:43:47):

Yes.

Mr. Shamansky (02:43:48):

All right. That's all I have. Thank you. Mr. Vavra, any redirect?

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:43:53):

Yes, Judge. Ma'am, you were asked you testified situations where people's lives are at stake?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:43:59):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:44:00):

You were also asked what Cybergenetics was paid in this situation?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:44:04):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:44:05):

Do you only ever testify on behalf of the state?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:44:07):

No.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:44:10):

And you said there were how many times... Out of the 79 times you've testified, 14 were for defense?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:44:17):

Correct. At trial and also in post-conviction proceedings.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:44:28):

There were questions about your software, the proprietary software, and a question was posed, "If we asked to look at it, would we be able to?" Correct?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:44:38):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:44:39):

And your answer is yes, there's parameters, but that can happen, right?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:44:44):

Yes. Cybergenetics has a code review policy in place where there's a non-disclosure agreement and certain terms that have to be met where outside experts can come in and then review that code.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:44:56):

So, did the defense counsel in this case or anyone on behalf of Andrew Griffin ever reach out to your lab and make that request?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:45:03):

No.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:45:04):

And if they had, could they have looked at the software and reviewed it?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:45:07):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:45:11):

And you've testified 79 times, and how many cases have you actually worked on?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:45:17):

More than a thousand.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:45:19):

Okay. The way the data came to you in this situation, was it any different from the thousands of other data you received?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:45:27):

No.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:45:27):

Okay. Anything about receiving that data that gave you any indication something was wrong?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:45:36):

No.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:45:47):

Based on what was provided to you, you were able to read and interpret it per Cybergenetics standards?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:45:54):

Yes.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:45:58):

Nothing else, Judge.

Mr. Shamansky (02:46:00):

Real quick, Your Honor, may I please?

Judge (02:46:01):

Yes, you may.

Mr. Shamansky (02:46:02):

Ma'am, clarity is important, right?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:46:06):

Yes.

Mr. Shamansky (02:46:07):

And you indicated that there's a policy under which your company would allow me to come to Pittsburgh to get a look-see at your code, right?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:46:18):

I believe it's an expert. I don't know if it's specifically lawyers. It may just have terms for outside experts approved.

Mr. Shamansky (02:46:25):

Let's talk about that. The recipient must be under direct supervision in the room in which the inspection occurs by a representative of the company who will remain present during the full period of the inspection. That sound familiar?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:46:37):

Yes.

Mr. Shamansky (02:46:38):

And if we had wished to inspect your software, we have to do it with your standalone computer supplied by you, correct?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:46:46):

Yes. Those are the terms.

Mr. Shamansky (02:46:47):

Oh, I know. And in addition, I'm not allowed to connect your standalone computer to my own computer to verify the integrity of the software, right? That's a no-no.

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:47:01):

If that's what it says, then correct.

Mr. Shamansky (02:47:03):

Right. So in reality, this gracious look into your proprietary code really means that I get to just look at your code. I don't get to run it against software that looks for errors, correct?

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:47:17):

You can review it, and then we also provide the software for testing as well. If you're talking about a specific other software, correct.

Mr. Shamansky (02:47:24):

Okay. That's all I have.

Judge (02:47:27):

Mr. Vavra?

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:47:30):

Nothing else, Judge.

Judge (02:47:31):

Okay. May this witness be excused?

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:47:32):

Yes, Judge.

Judge (02:47:34):

Thank you, ma'am.

Jennifer Bracamontes (02:47:34):

Thank you.

Mr. Shamansky (02:47:34):

Judge, can we approach one second?

Judge (02:47:34):

Yes.

(02:47:34)
Mr. Vavra, you may call your next witness.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:47:34):

Tim Doolen.

Speaker 3 (02:47:34):

Stand [inaudible 02:48:42] raise your right hand, please. Do you swear the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God?

Timothy F. Doolen (02:47:34):

Yes, sir.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (02:47:34):

Do you need anything? Just [inaudible 02:48:42] will be bad [inaudible 02:48:42].

Judge (02:47:34):

Good morning, sir.

Timothy F. Doolen (02:47:34):

Good morning, Judge.

Judge (02:47:34):

Do you object to being filmed?

Timothy F. Doolen (02:47:34):

I'm okay with anything.

Judge (02:48:42):

Okay. You may proceed.

Speaker 2 (02:49:21):

Thank you, Your Honor. Good morning.

Timothy F. Doolen (02:49:23):

Morning.

Speaker 2 (02:49:25):

Would you please state your name for the record?

Timothy F. Doolen (02:49:27):

My name is Timothy F. Doolen.

Speaker 2 (02:49:30):

And would you spell your last name?

Timothy F. Doolen (02:49:32):

D-O-O-L-E-N.

Speaker 2 (02:49:35):

And what do you do, sir?

Timothy F. Doolen (02:49:37):

Right now, I am retired.

Speaker 2 (02:49:39):

And where do you live?

Timothy F. Doolen (02:49:41):

I live in Athens, Texas.

Speaker 2 (02:49:44):

Okay. And before you retired, what did you do?

Timothy F. Doolen (02:49:47):

My last full-time job, I worked for about two years and nine months at Tracki Incorporated, or it's a GPS tracking device company.

Speaker 2 (02:49:57):

Okay. And what did you do for Tracki?

Timothy F. Doolen (02:50:02):

I started off as a-

Mr. Kinsler (02:50:00):

What did you do for Tracki?

Tim Doolen (02:50:02):

I started off as a customer service representative, what you might consider a call agent, a call center agent. Eventually I was promoted to head of the chat group, so I would respond to people on chat, instead of phone calls.

Mr. Kinsler (02:50:18):

Okay. A lot of your work is customer, was customer service-related?

Tim Doolen (02:50:23):

That was my primary responsibility, but I did other tasks.

Mr. Kinsler (02:50:26):

Okay. Did any of those other tasks include responding to search warrants?

Tim Doolen (02:50:30):

Yes, sir. After about two months of working there, someone had left the company, and there was no one able to fill in responding to legal requests. So we get quite a few legal requests, maybe five a week. And so, it's not a full-time position, but it took up maybe an hour a day or two hours a day.

Mr. Kinsler (02:50:58):

And what would your role be in responding to one of those requests?

Tim Doolen (02:51:04):

So when we get the request, first off, we got to make sure it's a legitimate request. So we only respond to subpoenas or search warrants. They have to be signed by a judge or whatever the official responsible for doing that in that state or country.

(02:51:22)
And that's once we verify that, we would collect the information, which would mean going through databases and running reports and then sending the information off via email to whoever requested the data.

Mr. Kinsler (02:51:39):

Do you recall doing one of these law enforcement search warrant requests or responses for Belmont County Sheriff's Office?

Tim Doolen (02:51:46):

Yes, sir.

Mr. Kinsler (02:51:47):

And I'm going to show you what's been marked as State's Exhibit 148.

Mr. Shamansky (02:51:52):

No objection to any of this, Your Honor. So stipulated.

Mr. Kinsler (02:52:18):

Sir, do you recognize State's Exhibit 148?

Tim Doolen (02:52:21):

Yes, sir. That's an email.

Judge (02:52:22):

[inaudible 02:52:23]

Tim Doolen (02:52:23):

Yeah, I can see. That's an email I sent, apparently, December of 2023.

Mr. Kinsler (02:52:28):

Okay. And who did you send that to?

Tim Doolen (02:52:33):

Again, I'm just looking at the email because again, I sent these every week, so I have to go by that. Jblumling@belmontsheriffohio.gov.

(02:52:44)
So I was never acquainted with the person. I don't think we ever talked, or we might have talked briefly on the phone, but I usually just responded to things via email.

Mr. Kinsler (02:52:55):

I noticed the... What is the email you're sending it from?

Tim Doolen (02:52:59):

So it's tom@ tracki.com. That was my work-based email.

Mr. Kinsler (02:53:03):

Okay. Did you use a different name at work?

Tim Doolen (02:53:07):

Yeah. So for call center agencies, a lot of times when we go through the training, they advise you to take up a nickname or moniker that's not really your real name. That's kind of an added level of protection in case someone tries to look for you online or search you or Google you or something. Mostly it's to protect the women, but they also recommend it for the men as well.

(02:53:31)
So I picked Tim, Tom instead of my real name, Tim. It's just pretty close.

Mr. Kinsler (02:53:35):

So that tom@tracki.com, that was your email address?

Tim Doolen (02:53:39):

That was my work-based email for the entire time I worked there. Yes, sir.

Mr. Kinsler (02:53:42):

Okay. And you were asked... If law enforcement sends you a search warrant, what do they need to, what information they have to need to ask for information on Tracki?

Tim Doolen (02:53:58):

Well, generally speaking, they would send a search warrant, and the thing that, the one thing that we required was the device identification number. So every one of our devices has a equivalent of a serial number. We call it a device ID number, which is... You can think of it metaphorically like a social security number because once we have that number, we can access all the other information.

(02:54:24)
So if they gave me a device ID number, and again, if it's a legitimate search warrant or subpoena, I would give them all information I had related to that record.

Mr. Kinsler (02:54:35):

Okay. Can you look at this and tell me what the device ID number that you were providing information for?

Tim Doolen (02:54:41):

Yes, sir. The device ID number appears to be 562424993.

Mr. Kinsler (02:54:44):

Okay. And you indicated that is a serial number or equivalent to a serial number?

Tim Doolen (02:54:54):

Yes. It's a unique identifying number that's one of a kind for each device. And that's internal company.

Mr. Kinsler (02:55:01):

Okay. So that's something Tracki sets?

Tim Doolen (02:55:03):

That's something that, yeah, when it's manufactured, it's stamped and printed with the device number on it.

Mr. Kinsler (02:55:09):

And does that information, did that device have subscriber information or anything like that associated with it?

Tim Doolen (02:55:19):

Yes, sir. So the way the device works is that they are required to subscribe to a subscription on an app, and that requires an email address. So the email address is required. It looks like it is andrewgriffin690@yahoo.com.

Mr. Shamansky (02:55:38):

And we're happy to stipulate, Your Honor, that Mr. Griffin subscribed to this service.

Mr. Kinsler (02:55:43):

Okay.

Judge (02:55:43):

That stipulation is noted.

Mr. Kinsler (02:55:45):

And if you would look up on the screen there, is that what you're referring to?

Tim Doolen (02:55:49):

Yes, sir. The email/login ID. So that's what they would have to use to log into the account would be andrewgriffin690yahoo.com.

Mr. Kinsler (02:55:58):

So if someone wants to buy a Tracki, where can they get it?

Tim Doolen (02:56:02):

The vast majority of our purchase were made on Amazon. We also do have a website and we sold through eBay and a few other places, but most were Amazon.

Mr. Kinsler (02:56:11):

If I go to Amazon or go to a store and buy a Tracki, what do I need to do to actually use it?

Tim Doolen (02:56:17):

And so, when you get the device, so you buy it and it's shipped to you, you get the device. You can turn it on and do it, but you can't actually get any data from one until you go online to Play Store or Apple iStore and then buy the actual app... or I'm sorry, download the app for free, but then buy the subscription.

(02:56:38)
So the subscription can be monthly, it can be six months, it could be a year, it could be two years.

Mr. Kinsler (02:56:43):

Okay. Is there a name given on this account?

Judge (02:56:50):

You can't see that?

Speaker 4 (02:56:50):

No, I don't.

Judge (02:56:53):

Okay. Can you blow it up?

Mr. Kinsler (02:56:55):

I can zoom in, Your Honor.

Speaker 4 (02:56:59):

That's good. Thank you.

Judge (02:57:01):

Thank you.

Tim Doolen (02:57:05):

Yeah. So the only thing we actually require from the user is an email address and a payment method, obviously. Everything else is more or less voluntary.

(02:57:16)
So in this case, there was no name attached, no specific name attached to the account.

Mr. Kinsler (02:57:23):

Okay. Was there an address and so... And I'm sorry, is that, are you referring up here on name of account?

Tim Doolen (02:57:29):

The name that was associated with the account, there was none.

Mr. Kinsler (02:57:33):

Okay. And what about the phone number associated with the account?

Tim Doolen (02:57:36):

So the phone number likely would've been entered by the user.

Mr. Kinsler (02:57:40):

Okay.

Tim Doolen (02:57:40):

Or gotten at the time that they subscribed.

Mr. Kinsler (02:57:45):

Okay. Is that ever something that Tracki provides, or does that always have to come from the user?

Tim Doolen (02:57:49):

It's provided by the user in some sense, so it's either they type it in or it's taken from the data on their phone-

Mr. Kinsler (02:57:56):

Okay.

Tim Doolen (02:57:56):

... when they download the app.

Mr. Kinsler (02:57:58):

And the phone number in this case, is it 918-3-

Tim Doolen (02:57:59):

918-318-0229.

Mr. Kinsler (02:58:01):

Okay. And then what about the address information here?

Tim Doolen (02:58:06):

Okay. So the address information is a little bit tricky. That's often just the first place that it was activated. So usually people get them and they activate them at home, and then that just attaches that as the primary address.

Mr. Kinsler (02:58:21):

As you sit here today, you can't say whether this was a user-provided address or what you described where it just logged in?

Tim Doolen (02:58:28):

I cannot. I cannot say with 100% certainty, no.

Mr. Kinsler (02:58:30):

Okay. There's also a line here mentioning device Amazon order. What does that mean?

Tim Doolen (02:58:38):

Yeah, we don't know. So a lot of times when the device is ordered, since we have a deal with Amazon, we can hook, we can link the Amazon order ID number to the device. It actually doesn't happen all the time, but sometimes we do. In this case, there was no link between... We couldn't find out like when and where they ordered it.

Mr. Kinsler (02:59:01):

What timeframe... I'm sorry. What timeframe did you work for Tracki?

Tim Doolen (02:59:05):

I started there around September 1st of 2021, and I resigned... My last day was around June 12th or 13th, 2024.

Mr. Kinsler (02:59:15):

Okay. So when you're speaking of Tracki and their procedures, you're speaking to timeframe that you were employed there, correct?

Tim Doolen (02:59:21):

Yes. I'm not familiar with what happened since then.

Mr. Kinsler (02:59:23):

Okay. And there was a nickname associated with this-

Tim Doolen (02:59:29):

Yes, sir.

Mr. Kinsler (02:59:30):

... and what was that?

Tim Doolen (02:59:31):

It says Tom, T-O-M. So that is definitely user-provided. There's no other option. I mean, they would have to... So when you have the device and you're looking on your app, you don't really want to see 56299, whatever the numbers are. So it's nice people just nickname it so they kind of know, especially if people have more than one device, they want to know like, "Is it my Nissan Sentra, or is it my wife's car, or whatever?" So there'll be a lot of nicknames they can use.

Mr. Kinsler (03:00:00):

And if we didn't explore this, the point of the Tracki device is what?

Tim Doolen (03:00:04):

So it's a typical GPS tracking device, not completely unlike what's on your phone, except this is a self-contained device. It's very small, and it's to be put... Most of the time it's put on vehicles. It can be put in like kid's backpack if you want to track a child or whatever.

(03:00:22)
But it gets GPS data or tracking data from the satellites and other methods to be able to track someone or something remotely. So I mean, you could theoretically say buy someone a phone and put it on there, but that's pretty expensive. But these devices are very inexpensive, and the subscription's relatively inexpensive.

Mr. Kinsler (03:00:43):

And is there a method to affix this device to say a car?

Tim Doolen (03:00:48):

There are three types of back plates. The most commonly used one is a magnetic backplate. So when I say backplate, the device has like a place to remove the battery and the back plate that fits on it is you can use a magnetic one. There's also a clip and there's one that has a sticky, like a glue type substance almost.

Mr. Kinsler (03:01:14):

Okay. And can you tell from this document when this tracking was activated?

Tim Doolen (03:01:18):

Yeah. Apparently the first time it was activated to receive data was May 15th, 2021.

Mr. Kinsler (03:01:31):

[inaudible 03:01:26] I'm sorry, what was your response?

Tim Doolen (03:01:32):

The first time that we received data is May 15th, 2021. Now we don't know when it was purchased, but it was paid for. The subscription was paid for, and data was received on May 15th, 2021.

Mr. Kinsler (03:01:46):

All right. And then do you also have information about the payment method?

Tim Doolen (03:01:49):

Yeah, we have partial information of the credit card that was used, yes.

Mr. Kinsler (03:01:52):

Okay. And that credit card number, at least the partial credit card number, would you mind reading that for me?

Tim Doolen (03:01:57):

So the first six digits appear to be 423908, and the last four digits are 8413. For security of the customer, we don't retain the middle digits. That's with PayPal or whatever service we were using.

Mr. Kinsler (03:02:17):

And there are payments associated with this device.

Tim Doolen (03:02:20):

Yes, sir.

Mr. Kinsler (03:02:21):

What are those?

Tim Doolen (03:02:22):

So again, this is a subscription plan. A lot of people do a monthly plan and so it just... Our monthly plan at that time was around 1995.

(03:02:29)
In this case, whoever bought it and subscribed to it signed up for a two-year plan at $239.40. And so, they would basically have connectivity and be able to access data for two full years.

Mr. Kinsler (03:02:50):

And then there's information here about a last GPS update. What does that mean?

Tim Doolen (03:02:54):

So the device obviously has some sort of lifespan, generally speaking, and that was the very last location where it got any kind of reading at all.

Mr. Kinsler (03:03:05):

And that address was the... Would you read it for me?

Tim Doolen (03:03:07):

1950 Lumber Avenue, Wheeling, West Virginia 26003.

Mr. Kinsler (03:03:12):

And that was on June 16th of 2021?

Tim Doolen (03:03:15):

June 16th, yes.

Mr. Kinsler (03:03:17):

And then there's also a last Wi-Fi update. And where is-

Tim Doolen (03:03:22):

It's the same exact address, 1950 Lumber Avenue, Wheeling, West Virginia.

Mr. Kinsler (03:03:25):

Okay. Same address, same date, but a slightly different time.

Tim Doolen (03:03:29):

Yeah. It looks like it was a few hours later, so it stopped getting satellite data, but it continued to get Wi-Fi updates for a few more hours.

Mr. Kinsler (03:03:37):

Explain that to me. Why is the Tracki getting GPS and Wi-Fi?

Tim Doolen (03:03:41):

Okay. So the GPS updates, and I try to make this as quick and simple as possible. So the GPS or the satellites that orbit, few hundred miles, few thousand miles up in the sky. They're constantly sending down data. It's been since the 1970s, and the US government provides that free of cost.

(03:03:59)
And so, there's a triangulation between several satellites to give you an exact location, and it gives you a coordinate on the face of the earth. So it's just latitude and longitude, very long string of numbers, and that's how we locate things. It's accurate to within three to six meters or what is that, like nine to 15 feet or something. So that's the GPS update.

(03:04:24)
Now, Wi-Fi update's a little bit different. So if there are situations where the satellites are not able to get to the device. For example, if you parked your car in a garage, the roof of the garage is likely going to stop, not allow these satellite transmissions to go through.

(03:04:44)
So as another option, we have a Wi-Fi. So what it'll do is it will search for all Wi-Fi routers. It does not connect, but it just looks at what Wi-Fi routers are there, and it finds the one with the strongest signal, which usually means the closest one, not always, but usually the strongest signal is the closest.

(03:05:00)
Just like if you were on your phone and you were looking at like what Wi-Fi routers are available. It doesn't connect. Most Wi-Fi routers are locked, but we'll just see it and then we'll find... It will take that Wi-Fi-

Mr. Kinsler (03:05:12):

Mr. Doolen? Could you-

Tim Doolen (03:05:13):

What's that?

Mr. Kinsler (03:05:14):

Could you slow your pace down just a little bit-

Tim Doolen (03:05:16):

Oh, sorry.

Mr. Kinsler (03:05:16):

... because she's trying to keep up with everything you said?

Tim Doolen (03:05:18):

My apologies.

(03:05:19)
So for the way the Wi-Fi router works is it does the handshake or it does a little, like sees the Wi-Fi routers that are the strongest signal available.

(03:05:28)
Then it goes to a lookup table or where it's provided, the internet service provider will have said, "Well, this router is at this address," and it will look that up, and it will return the address we see.

Mr. Kinsler (03:05:42):

Okay. So that last Wi-Fi update, that address there, that would've been something that the Tracki would've learned, or the Tracki software would've learned, from a service provider?

Tim Doolen (03:05:54):

Well, the address is stored with the internet service providers, and we just do a lookup.

Mr. Kinsler (03:06:00):

Okay.

Tim Doolen (03:06:02):

So yeah. I mean, for example, if you were in your garage at home and you weren't getting a signal, it might get to your neighbor's Wi-Fi router, instead of yours.

(03:06:12)
Or maybe you don't have a Wi-Fi router, so it might ping at your neighbor or the person behind you or the person across the street. It's just whatever the strongest signal is.

Mr. Kinsler (03:06:24):

And when you did this response, this email to Belmont County Sheriff's Office, did you attach anything to that?

Tim Doolen (03:06:31):

Yes, sir. I attached all the relevant tracking data that was available. That was standard procedure.

Mr. Kinsler (03:06:56):

And we're looking at State's Exhibit 148, and this is beginning at page three. Am I correct in saying there's five pages of data there?

Tim Doolen (03:07:10):

Yeah, roughly. I'll take your word for that, but roughly five pages.

Mr. Shamansky (03:07:13):

And we'll stipulate that that's the data that was received based on the tracking usage in this case.

Mr. Kinsler (03:07:20):

Okay.

Judge (03:07:21):

Stipulation is noted.

Mr. Kinsler (03:07:23):

If you would, explain to me what these columns of information mean.

Tim Doolen (03:07:28):

Okay. Well, the first two should be pretty obvious. The date is the date that it was recorded and time.

(03:07:33)
Now, when we run the report... So I think the date is actually stored on like Greenwich Mean Time or something, whatever, Universal Time. But when I run the report, it's based on my computer that I run it on. My computer was set to Pacific Time Zone.

(03:07:49)
So if you're talking about things that happened in Ohio or West Virginia, then it would, you got to take off three hours. So the date is the date, and then the time is the time.

Mr. Kinsler (03:07:58):

And then latitude and longitude are what?

Tim Doolen (03:08:04):

So again, those are the coordinates on the earth. I'm not a geography expert, but if you take the globe, there's a coordinate for basically every square foot on earth, and that's what those are. So if latitude 40, that's like the 40th parallel and longitude is the meridian.

Mr. Kinsler (03:08:24):

And then there's a column marked Type. What does that mean?

Tim Doolen (03:08:27):

So that's whether the GPS hit was from the GP, again, the satellites coming down or from a home or office Wi-Fi router.

Mr. Kinsler (03:08:39):

Okay. And you mentioned the Wi-Fi is less reliable than GPS.

Tim Doolen (03:08:42):

It's not pinpoint-accurate, no. The GPS, I'm pretty confident to within three to five meters. With Wi-Fi, it could be your neighbors. It could be across the street. It could be down the street if someone has a really powerful signal.

Mr. Kinsler (03:08:57):

And there's a column marked Speed. What is that?

Tim Doolen (03:09:01):

I would pretty much disregard that as any usefulness because the speed is just... It's just the distance traveled divided by the time between readings. And so the zeros are pretty accurate probably because that means it's not really moving much at all.

(03:09:19)
But if you get above zero, that it's just... Since we only take readings maybe once a minute or once every few minutes, if you stop at a stoplight or if you're caught up in something else, it's not really going to be very accurate. But that's the speed that the device is traveling, but it's wildly not accurate.

Mr. Kinsler (03:09:40):

I heard you say in your response there, how often it's updated. Updating, what do you mean by that?

Tim Doolen (03:09:45):

So the user has the option to change the settings. Usually the fastest update is once a minute. Your phone probably updates every few seconds, but we only do update because we have a very small device with an extremely small battery. We're trying to preserve battery life. So it only updates once a minute because it has to transmit data over the cell network, which takes a lot of battery power.

(03:10:09)
And so it looks like in this case you can see... Well, sometimes it's updating once a minute, sometimes not that often. And again, it depends on can it get signal? If it's not moving, it usually doesn't update because it's just in the same place, so it doesn't send the data. But yeah, this one, it looks like it was set to update about once every minute, just from looking at the data.

Mr. Kinsler (03:10:34):

And as the user, can the user change that rate at which it updates?

Tim Doolen (03:10:38):

Yes, they can. With inside the app, they can change it from one minute to five minutes to 10 minutes, whatever they want.

Mr. Kinsler (03:10:45):

And if I have one of these, can I change the rate at which it updates regardless of whether I'm in physical possession of the actual device?

Tim Doolen (03:10:55):

Yeah, that's actually completely irrelevant because the device itself doesn't really have any buttons on it. It has a power button, but you control everything through the phone app, just kind of like a lot of things these days.

Mr. Kinsler (03:11:08):

And then there's also a column marked Battery. What does that indicate?

Tim Doolen (03:11:11):

Okay, that's the percentage of battery life. As you see, most of the time, unless it's charging, it will be going down. But yeah, when it's charging, you see it goes up there like at the very beginning, and then after that, you'll see it kind of slowly go down, and it just gives you a reading of how much battery life you have left.

Mr. Kinsler (03:11:32):

I noticed on, I think this is the, what, maybe fifth and sixth entry down, the battery actually appears to be dropping then going back up. Does that mean someone charged it during that time?

Tim Doolen (03:11:47):

Yeah. Well, when it's going up, generally speaking, yes, that means someone is charging it, yes.

Mr. Kinsler (03:11:53):

Okay.

Tim Doolen (03:11:53):

Why it would go down and back up, I don't know. Maybe there's a lot of reasons.

(03:11:57)
One, estimating battery life is not as an exact science as you might think it is, but it's pretty close. It goes to 47, down to 42, then back up to 67.

Mr. Kinsler (03:12:10):

And then the far right column that's marked Link, what is that?

Tim Doolen (03:12:15):

So that's just a link for the... Whoever receives this document, it lets them click on the link and see where it would look like on a map, because most of us don't have coordinates memorized in our head where that would actually be so this lets... The coordinates are good for computers or whatever, but most humans want to see how it looks like on a map and that... I realize it's not clickable in the PDF, but normally if you would click, it would bring up the Google Map specific location.

Mr. Kinsler (03:12:47):

But that Google Map information, is it the same or is it different than the latitude and longitude? Are they going to be taking you to the same place?

Tim Doolen (03:12:54):

Yeah. Well, if you look at the... You can see that the latitude and longitude are actually there in the Google.

Mr. Kinsler (03:13:03):

So the same latitude figure is-

Tim Doolen (03:13:04):

Yeah, the first one's 40.054411 is also the same in both. So it's just telling you, "Hey, this is where it's located."

Mr. Kinsler (03:13:13):

So this State's Exhibit 148, the email that you sent and then this attachment with the data, is that a true and accurate copy of the records that were kept by Tracki in the ordinary course of business?

Tim Doolen (03:13:25):

Yes. Those are all the accurate data that we had available to us.

Mr. Kinsler (03:13:29):

Do you have any idea how long would Tracki keep this sort of information?

Tim Doolen (03:13:33):

So from my recollection when I worked there, and Tracki had only really been in existence for a few years at that time, the version of the company I worked for.

(03:13:45)
I was told by my boss that we basically don't delete records, though if someone asked, we would... If a customer asks, "How long do you retain these?" We would say it's something like three years or five years, just to tell, to give them something. But as far as I know, they never deleted. It was stored on a cloud server somewhere, and it was just not deleted, no.

Mr. Kinsler (03:14:08):

[inaudible 03:14:09] And the device we've been talking about up here is 562424993. Is that right?

Tim Doolen (03:14:28):

Yes, sir.

Mr. Kinsler (03:14:29):

Your Honor, may I approach?

Judge (03:14:30):

Yes.

Mr. Shamansky (03:14:30):

We'll stipulate that that device is contained in the envelope in Chris's hand.

Mr. Kinsler (03:14:35):

That it's the same device as-

Mr. Shamansky (03:14:35):

Same device.

Mr. Kinsler (03:14:36):

... your Honor.

Judge (03:14:37):

Stipulation is noted.

Mr. Kinsler (03:14:42):

All right. Nothing further, Your Honor. Thank you.

Judge (03:14:44):

Mr. Shamansky.

Mr. Shamansky (03:14:47):

Good. Thank you, sir.

Judge (03:14:48):

All right. Mr. Kinsler, may this witness be excused?

Mr. Kinsler (03:14:52):

Yes, Your Honor. Thank you.

Judge (03:14:52):

Thank you, sir.

Tim Doolen (03:14:52):

Thank you, Judge.

Judge (03:14:52):

Mr. Vavra?

Mr. Vavra (03:15:09):

Judge, based on the time, I'd say this is a good time for lunch.

Mr. Shamansky (03:15:13):

Yes, sir.

Judge (03:15:13):

All right. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we're going to recess for lunch. I think the sun's out, but again, you can't see through the blinds. Lunch is coming or should be here for you if you are interested. Again, you're not locked in that jury room. If you want to stretch your legs, go for a walk.

(03:15:33)
Let's resume at 1:15, so try to be back here about 1:10, and remember the orders from this court.

(03:15:42)
With that said, I'll see you after lunch. All right. We're still on the record outside the presence of the jury. Before we recess for lunch, Mr. Vavra, any issues you need to address?

Mr. Vavra (03:16:27):

No, Judge.

Judge (03:16:27):

Mr. Shamansky?

Mr. Shamansky (03:16:28):

Good, sir.

Judge (03:16:29):

All right. The court will be in recess. I'd like to have everybody back by 1:10.

Speaker 5 (03:24:00):

(silence)

Judge (04:30:25):

Please everyone be [inaudible 04:30:26]. All right, we're back on the record in the State of Ohio versus Andrew Griffin. Mr. Griffin is present in the courtroom with his counsel. State of Ohio is present and the jury is present in the courtroom. We are resuming from lunch. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if there was any issue in following my orders, please raise your hand. No one has raised their hand. Mr. Vavra, is the state ready to proceed?

Attorney Joseph Vavra (04:30:58):

Yes, Judge. State calls Justin Monroe.

Judge (04:31:00):

Justin Monroe. Please stand there. Stand on that step facing me, raise your right hand please.

Justin Monroe. (04:31:28):

All right.

Judge (04:31:31):

Do you swear the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Justin Monroe. (04:31:36):

Yes, sir.

Judge (04:31:36):

Have a seat.

Judge (04:31:36):

Good afternoon, sir.

Justin Monroe. (04:31:40):

Good afternoon.

Judge (04:31:42):

Do you object to being filmed?

Justin Monroe. (04:31:44):

Yes.

Judge (04:31:51):

You may proceed.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (04:31:52):

Thank you, Your Honor. Could you state your name for the record?

Justin Monroe. (04:31:55):

Justin Monroe.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (04:31:56):

And would you spell your last name?

Justin Monroe. (04:31:58):

M-O-N-R-O-E.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (04:32:00):

Where do you live, sir?

Justin Monroe. (04:32:01):

McAlester, Oklahoma.

Attorney Joseph Vavra (04:32:02):

Okay.

Mr. Kinsler (04:32:00):

Where do you live, sir?

Mr. Brown (04:32:01):

McAlester, Oklahoma.

Mr. Kinsler (04:32:04):

Okay. Where do you work?

Mr. Brown (04:32:06):

I work for Foundation Energy.

Mr. Kinsler (04:32:08):

And what do you do for Foundation Energy?

Mr. Brown (04:32:10):

I'm a lease operator.

Judge (04:32:11):

I'm going to interrupt you, Mr. Brown, just a little bit louder.

Mr. Brown (04:32:14):

Okay.

Judge (04:32:14):

And the reason for that, we have a court reporter taking everything down.

Mr. Brown (04:32:17):

Gotcha.

Mr. Kinsler (04:32:18):

Would it help if he was closer to the microphone, Your Honor?

Judge (04:32:21):

We can try that.

Mr. Kinsler (04:32:23):

I'm sorry. I think I asked you where you worked.

Mr. Brown (04:32:27):

Yeah. Foundation Energy.

Mr. Kinsler (04:32:28):

And what field are you in?

Mr. Brown (04:32:30):

Oil field.

Mr. Kinsler (04:32:31):

Okay. How long have you been in the oil and gas industry?

Mr. Brown (04:32:35):

13 years.

Mr. Kinsler (04:32:35):

Okay. In your work in the oil and gas industry, did you come to know Andrew Griffin?

Mr. Brown (04:32:41):

Yes.

Mr. Kinsler (04:32:42):

How did you come to know Mr. Griffin?

Mr. Brown (04:32:44):

We worked together on multiple jobs.

Mr. Kinsler (04:32:47):

Okay. Did he work for the same company or a different company?

Mr. Brown (04:32:49):

Different.

Mr. Kinsler (04:32:50):

What sort of work did he do?

Mr. Brown (04:32:54):

Also oil field, but more on the completion side.

Mr. Kinsler (04:32:58):

Okay. And how long have you known Mr. Griffin?

Mr. Brown (04:33:02):

About 13 years.

Mr. Kinsler (04:33:04):

Okay. So fair to say more or less as long as you've been in oil and gas, you've known him?

Mr. Brown (04:33:07):

Yes.

Mr. Kinsler (04:33:08):

Okay. How would you describe your relationship to Mr. Griffin?

Mr. Brown (04:33:12):

Friends, good friends.

Mr. Kinsler (04:33:14):

Even outside of work, would you socialize with him?

Mr. Brown (04:33:17):

Yes.

Mr. Kinsler (04:33:24):

In the course of knowing Mr. Griffin, did he ever talk to you about his business relationship with a Thomas Strussion?

Mr. Brown (04:33:29):

Yes.

Mr. Kinsler (04:33:32):

What did he tell you about his relationship with Thomas Strussion?

Mr. Brown (04:33:37):

That he was just going to start a restaurant business with this guy up here in Ohio that he had met while he was working up here in the oil field.

Mr. Kinsler (04:33:49):

Okay. Did you ever come up to Ohio?

Mr. Brown (04:33:50):

I did.

Mr. Kinsler (04:33:51):

Do you have any idea how many times?

Mr. Brown (04:33:52):

Just once.

Mr. Kinsler (04:33:53):

And where did you stay when you stayed here?

Mr. Brown (04:33:56):

At his house, Andrew's.

Mr. Kinsler (04:33:58):

And where was Andrew's house, if you remember?

Mr. Brown (04:34:02):

A few miles from the restaurant. I couldn't tell you exactly which way.

Mr. Kinsler (04:34:08):

Okay. Did you ever meet Thomas Strussion?

Mr. Brown (04:34:11):

Yes.

Mr. Kinsler (04:34:11):

Did you ever meet Angela Strussion?

Mr. Brown (04:34:12):

Yes.

Mr. Kinsler (04:34:13):

Do you recall where you met those folks?

Mr. Brown (04:34:15):

At their house.

Mr. Kinsler (04:34:17):

Okay. Did you ever go to the restaurant, Salsa Joe's in Elm Grove?

Mr. Brown (04:34:22):

Yes.

Mr. Kinsler (04:34:22):

At any time, did Mr. Griffin tell you that that business relationship had soured?

Mr. Brown (04:34:43):

No, not to my knowledge.

Mr. Kinsler (04:34:45):

Okay. Did he ever tell you that he had concerns about Thomas Strussion?

Mr. Brown (04:34:51):

After a while, he became concerned with certain things Tommy did in his extra time.

Mr. Kinsler (04:35:01):

Okay. Did the defendant ever share with you that Mr. Strussion carried large amounts of cash?

Mr. Brown (04:35:08):

Yes.

Mr. Kinsler (04:35:10):

Do you recall any specifics of that?

Mr. Brown (04:35:15):

No. I think it was... I don't know. It seemed like it was kind of a known thing that the guy just kind of had lots of... Always had cash, it seemed like, just from conversations I've heard.

Mr. Kinsler (04:35:30):

Do you recall when Mr. Griffin returned to Oklahoma and left Ohio?

Mr. Brown (04:35:37):

Yes, but not like a specific date, but yes.

Mr. Kinsler (04:35:40):

Okay. Do you recall there being a time where he sort of left that business?

Mr. Brown (04:35:44):

Yes.

Mr. Kinsler (04:35:45):

What did he tell you about leaving that business?

Mr. Brown (04:35:49):

He just said it just wasn't working out of there and he didn't really know what all was going on with Tommy and that they had talked about him just closing shop and moving to Florida.

Mr. Kinsler (04:36:06):

Him being who?

Mr. Brown (04:36:06):

Tommy.

Mr. Kinsler (04:36:07):

Who was closing shop?

Mr. Brown (04:36:08):

Tommy.

Mr. Kinsler (04:36:08):

I'm sorry.

Mr. Brown (04:36:15):

Tommy.

Mr. Kinsler (04:36:24):

Okay. Did the defendant ever tell you about going to Costa Rica?

Mr. Brown (04:36:29):

Prior to or after?

Mr. Kinsler (04:36:31):

After the fact.

Mr. Brown (04:36:32):

Yes. After he'd done been there, yes.

Mr. Kinsler (04:36:35):

Where did that conversation take place?

Mr. Brown (04:36:38):

The first time that we talked about Costa... Oh, over the phone?

Mr. Kinsler (04:36:41):

Yes.

Mr. Brown (04:36:42):

Yes.

Mr. Kinsler (04:36:43):

Did you say over the phone?

Mr. Brown (04:36:44):

Yeah. Yes.

Mr. Kinsler (04:36:47):

When did you learn that he'd been... How did you learn that he had been to Costa Rica?

Mr. Brown (04:36:51):

He called me.

Mr. Kinsler (04:36:52):

Okay. And what did he tell you about that?

Mr. Brown (04:36:58):

Just that he... Obviously, the phone number was Costa Rican and he just said that that's where he was and he was okay and that he just couldn't handle everything that was going on.

Mr. Kinsler (04:37:16):

Okay. He being Mr. Griffin?

Mr. Brown (04:37:18):

Yes.

Mr. Kinsler (04:37:20):

Okay. Is Mr. Griffin present in the courtroom?

Mr. Brown (04:37:23):

Yes.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (04:37:24):

We stipulate he's identified our client, Your Honor.

Judge (04:37:26):

That stipulation is noted.

Mr. Kinsler (04:37:31):

Did he tell you why he went to Costa Rica?

Mr. Brown (04:37:36):

Yes. Yeah.

Mr. Kinsler (04:37:37):

What did he... Did he specify why he went to Costa Rica?

Mr. Brown (04:37:42):

He told me that he just was having a mental breakdown and just couldn't handle all the things that was going on at home with the business going under, at the restaurant. It was just dragging around, and his marriage was crashing and he was just getting it on all fronts. The real estate was down. His real estate business wasn't doing great. He was trying to flip properties on Poteau Mountain and he just had a lot going on.

Mr. Kinsler (04:38:12):

Okay. He told you that that was-

Mr. Brown (04:38:15):

Yes.

Mr. Kinsler (04:38:15):

... why he went to Costa Rica. Did he ever tell you any other reason he went to Costa Rica?

Mr. Brown (04:38:20):

Yes. He had told me that some guys had shot at him at a four-way somewhere in Texas.

Mr. Kinsler (04:38:29):

Okay. Did you know him to live or work in Texas?

Mr. Brown (04:38:33):

Yes, he did. He was working in Texas.

Mr. Kinsler (04:38:35):

Okay.

Mr. Brown (04:38:36):

At the-

Mr. Kinsler (04:38:36):

Whereabouts?

Mr. Brown (04:38:37):

Midland West.

Mr. Kinsler (04:38:37):

And who was he working for then?

Mr. Brown (04:38:40):

Stellar.

Mr. Kinsler (04:38:42):

Which of those two narratives did he tell you? Which of those two reasons for going to Costa Rica did he tell you first?

Mr. Brown (04:38:50):

The shooting.

Mr. Kinsler (04:38:51):

Okay. And did he subsequently tell you that wasn't true?

Mr. Brown (04:38:55):

Yes.

Mr. Kinsler (04:38:55):

Okay. Is that the same occasion where he told you multiple reasons for why he had a mental breakdown?

Mr. Brown (04:39:02):

Yes.

Mr. Kinsler (04:39:03):

Okay. Do you remember having a conversation with him? Well, let me back up. We've talked about Costa Rica. Was there a time where you didn't know where he was?

Mr. Brown (04:39:13):

Yes.

Mr. Kinsler (04:39:14):

And do you remember roughly when that would've been?

Mr. Brown (04:39:18):

I would say it was late summer, I think. Late summer at home.

Mr. Kinsler (04:39:23):

Do you remember which year?

Mr. Brown (04:39:28):

I think '23, 2023.

Mr. Kinsler (04:39:30):

Do you remember how long that took place?

Mr. Brown (04:39:34):

I think it was a little less than two months he was gone.

Mr. Kinsler (04:39:37):

Okay. And then at some point he contacted you?

Mr. Brown (04:39:41):

Yes. Yeah, he contacted me probably two weeks before he came back.

Mr. Kinsler (04:39:45):

Okay. When he contacted you two weeks before he came back, which conversations did you guys have then? Was it the guy shooting at him or was it the metal breakdown story?

Mr. Brown (04:40:00):

It was the same phone conversation. Just that was the first part of it, was... That what he told me first, was the shooting deal.

Mr. Kinsler (04:40:07):

Okay. Do you recall having a conversation with him before he went to Costa Rica?

Mr. Brown (04:40:14):

About?

‍

Mr. Kinsler (04:40:15):

Do you remember-

Mr. Brown (04:40:15):

About Costa Rica?

Mr. Kinsler (04:40:16):

No.

Mr. Brown (04:40:16):

No.

Mr. Kinsler (04:40:16):

Well, yes. Did you have a conversation?

Mr. Brown (04:40:16):

No.

Mr. Kinsler (04:40:19):

Put it this way. Did you know in advance that he was going anywhere?

Mr. Brown (04:40:22):

No. No, I did not.

Mr. Kinsler (04:40:24):

But knowing now that he left for Costa Rica, do you recall having a conversation with him before he went?

Mr. Brown (04:40:33):

Oh yeah, the same day.

Mr. Kinsler (04:40:35):

Tell me about that. What did he tell you in that conversation?

Mr. Brown (04:40:38):

Oh yeah. I had spoke to him the day that he went missing. We talked on the phone because he was driving back to Midland that day to meet with his boss and I talked to him for probably an hour or so on the phone on his drive down there. It's a 10-hour drive, so...

Mr. Kinsler (04:40:53):

In any of that conversation, did he relate to you that he was heading to Costa Rica?

Mr. Brown (04:40:56):

No. No.

Mr. Kinsler (04:40:59):

Okay. At any time prior to his departure to Costa Rica, did he have a conversation with you where he expressed fear or anxiety?

Mr. Brown (04:41:06):

Oh yeah. I mean, he's been having anxiety. I mean, he had a whole lot going on. The real estate deal wasn't doing great. His marriage was crashing. She had separate things going on in Poteau that she was trying to put on him back then. So it was just a stressful time for him.

Mr. Kinsler (04:41:35):

Did he ever express concerns about law enforcement wanting to talk to him?

Mr. Brown (04:41:40):

On that... Prior to him leaving?

Mr. Kinsler (04:41:43):

Well, law enforcement talking to Stacey. Did he have a conversation with you about that?

Mr. Brown (04:41:48):

Yeah. Yes.

Mr. Kinsler (04:41:49):

And when did that take place?

Mr. Brown (04:41:52):

Several times before leaving.

Mr. Kinsler (04:41:54):

What did he tell you about that?

Mr. Brown (04:41:57):

Just that she had threatened to turn him in for that stuff in Ohio, these murders, I guess.

Mr. Kinsler (04:42:05):

And I want to clarify because you kind of voice dropped away.

Mr. Brown (04:42:07):

Yeah.

Mr. Kinsler (04:42:09):

What did he say Stacey is threatening to turn him in for?

Mr. Brown (04:42:16):

Just that he was a part of that whole ordeal because the cops had been calling and trying to get ahold of him, and so she was nervous about that, but she was also nervous that whoever did do it, she had voiced several times about her safety. Maybe she wasn't... Whoever did do this, she didn't feel safe that he was dragging that stuff home, whatever this danger was up here.

Mr. Kinsler (04:42:41):

Did the defendant articulate to you or did the defendant say to you what exactly Stacey was saying?

Mr. Brown (04:42:51):

I mean, yeah, basically just what I said. Most of the time is she was mad that he is potentially putting her in danger for whatever was going on up here, but then also other times she would threaten to try to get him involved with this up here, with the police because I think they had contacted her.

Mr. Kinsler (04:43:19):

Did he ever say-

Mr. Brown (04:43:19):

He didn't know for sure if she had ever actually contacted them or not though, at those times.

Mr. Kinsler (04:43:27):

Did he ever say that Stacey was talking about a motorcycle to law enforcement?

Mr. Brown (04:43:31):

Yes.

Mr. Kinsler (04:43:32):

Did he offer any other details of what Stacey was supposedly saying to law enforcement?

Mr. Brown (04:43:42):

Just that he had rode a motorcycle up here and that he left his phone with the pedophile guy or whatever that was facing charges. I didn't know his name at the time then.

Mr. Kinsler (04:43:56):

The pedophile guy you're referring to, was that a friend of the defendant's?

Mr. Brown (04:44:00):

Yeah. Yeah, I guess. But like I said, back then I didn't know his name and who... I didn't know the guy back then. I'd never heard his name.

Mr. Kinsler (04:44:20):

I asked you a bit in the beginning what your understanding... Did the defendant ever tell you... Did he invest in the restaurant in West Virginia-

Mr. Brown (04:44:30):

Yes.

Mr. Kinsler (04:44:31):

... the Salsa Joe's, West Virginia?

Mr. Brown (04:44:31):

Yes.

Mr. Kinsler (04:44:32):

Do you recall what he told you about that? Did he give you an amount?

Mr. Brown (04:44:35):

Yeah, he said he was going to invest about 100,000 and Tommy was supposed to do the same and they were going to just split everything 50/50.

Mr. Kinsler (04:44:41):

Okay. Nothing further, Your Honor. I'm sorry. One more. Did the defendant ever have a... So you became aware of the Strussions' murder at some point, correct?

Mr. Brown (04:45:06):

Yes.

Mr. Kinsler (04:45:06):

And do you recall how you became aware?

Mr. Brown (04:45:09):

Yeah, Andrew called me.

Mr. Kinsler (04:45:11):

Okay. And what did he tell you about the murders?

Mr. Brown (04:45:16):

He just... It wasn't nothing specific. He said Lisa had called him and told him that they were murdered in the night.

Mr. Kinsler (04:45:23):

Okay. And did he say anything to you about where he was at that time?

Mr. Brown (04:45:29):

At the time, to my knowledge, he was in between Muse and Poteau Mountain.

Mr. Kinsler (04:45:33):

Okay. And you say to your knowledge, who told you that or how did you-

Mr. Brown (04:45:39):

Andrew.

Mr. Kinsler (04:45:39):

... know that?

Mr. Brown (04:45:40):

Andrew told me he was-

Mr. Kinsler (04:45:41):

As a part of that-

Mr. Brown (04:45:41):

... going to work. Yeah, up on Poteau Mountain.

Mr. Kinsler (04:45:44):

As a part of that phone conversation, he told you that?

Mr. Brown (04:45:45):

Yes.

Mr. Kinsler (04:45:46):

Okay. Where is Poteau Mountain?

Mr. Brown (04:45:49):

Southeast Oklahoma.

Mr. Kinsler (04:45:51):

What's the nearest city?

Mr. Brown (04:45:52):

Fort Smith, Arkansas.

Mr. Kinsler (04:45:57):

Okay. How close is it to Whitesboro?

Mr. Brown (04:45:58):

About 30 minutes, 25, 30 minutes.

Mr. Kinsler (04:45:59):

Do you have any idea how close is it to Hugo?

Mr. Brown (04:46:02):

I would say a good, probably two... hour and a half, probably an hour and a half.

Mr. Kinsler (04:46:13):

No further questions, Your Honor. Thank you.

Judge (04:46:16):

Mr. Shamansky, any cross-examination?

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (04:46:18):

Yes, Your Honor. Thank you. Good afternoon, sir.

Mr. Brown (04:46:20):

Good afternoon.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (04:46:22):

You've known Andrew for 13 or so years, right?

Mr. Brown (04:46:27):

Something like that. Yes, sir.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (04:46:28):

Hardworking oil field guy, right?

Mr. Brown (04:46:30):

Yes, sir.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (04:46:32):

Always there when he needed something, right?

Mr. Brown (04:46:34):

Yes, sir.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (04:46:35):

And as he busted his tails in those oil fields, it's fair to say that he saved up his money, right?

Mr. Brown (04:46:41):

Yes, sir.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (04:46:42):

And in addition to this failed investment that he made in Salsa Joe's, he also owned real property out there, right?

Mr. Brown (04:46:50):

Yes, sir.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (04:46:53):

Now, you were a confidant of Andrew's, correct?

Mr. Brown (04:47:02):

Yes, sir.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (04:47:03):

It's true to say that at no point did he ever tell you that he killed anybody, right?

Mr. Brown (04:47:07):

No, sir.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (04:47:08):

And he was also afraid of the statements that his wife was going to make or might make, right?

Mr. Brown (04:47:18):

Had been making, yes, sir.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (04:47:19):

Yeah. It was your understanding that at this point they're locked in this bitter split up, right?

Mr. Brown (04:47:23):

Yes, sir.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (04:47:26):

And you, of course, know his wife, right?

Mr. Brown (04:47:28):

Yes, sir.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (04:47:29):

You know her reputation in the community for truthfulness?

Mr. Brown (04:47:32):

Yes, sir.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (04:47:32):

What is that reputation?

Mr. Brown (04:47:34):

Not great.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (04:47:36):

That's all I have. Thank you.

Judge (04:47:41):

You need a minute?

Mr. Kinsler (04:47:42):

One moment, Your Honor.

Judge (04:47:54):

Okay.

Mr. Kinsler (04:48:25):

The information you... I'm sorry, Your Honor.

Judge (04:48:27):

No, go ahead. Proceed.

Mr. Kinsler (04:48:29):

The information you provided to us, did you also tell that to investigators in this case?

Mr. Brown (04:48:35):

Yes, sir.

Mr. Kinsler (04:48:36):

Do you recall having a meeting with Detective Oller in August 2023?

Mr. Brown (04:48:40):

Yes, sir.

Mr. Kinsler (04:48:40):

Would you have told him the same things you're telling us now?

Mr. Brown (04:48:44):

Yes, sir.

Mr. Kinsler (04:48:54):

Okay. Did you ever ask him if the things Stacey was saying about his involvement in the murders were true?

Mr. Brown (04:48:59):

No, sir.

Mr. Kinsler (04:48:59):

Okay. Do you recall ever discussing... Do you ever recall him melting down in the car?

Mr. Brown (04:49:07):

Yes, sir.

Mr. Kinsler (04:49:08):

What did you ask him that prompted that reaction?

Mr. Brown (04:49:12):

I didn't. I didn't ask him anything.

Mr. Kinsler (04:49:14):

Okay. What was it in response to?

Mr. Brown (04:49:16):

We were talking about finding out that Stacey really had been talking to the cops.

Mr. Kinsler (04:49:27):

Nothing further, Your Honor. Thank you.

Judge (04:49:29):

Any additional cross?

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (04:49:31):

One second, Your Honor. Nothing further. Thank you, Your Honor.

Judge (04:50:17):

All right. Mr. Kinsler, may this witness be excused?

Mr. Kinsler (04:50:21):

Yes, Your Honor. Thank you.

Judge (04:50:23):

All right. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Brown (04:50:23):

Yes, sir. Thank you.

Judge (04:50:35):

The state may call its next witness.

Mr. Kinsler (04:50:37):

State's going to call Jen Dillion at the stand, Your Honor.

Judge (04:50:38):

I'm sorry, what's the name?

Mr. Kinsler (04:50:38):

Jen Dillon.

Speaker 6 (04:50:41):

Jen Dillon.

(04:50:41)
Put your step right there. Stand on that step, please. Can you raise your right hand, please? Do you swear the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Jennifer Dillion (04:50:41):

Yes, I do.

Speaker 6 (04:50:41):

Yes.

Judge (04:50:41):

Good afternoon.

Jennifer Dillion (04:50:41):

Good afternoon, Your Honor.

Judge (04:50:41):

Do you object to being filmed?

Jennifer Dillion (04:50:41):

No. I do not.

Judge (04:51:27):

State may proceed when it's ready.

Mr. Kinsler (04:51:28):

Thank you, Your Honor. Good afternoon.

Jennifer Dillion (04:51:31):

Good afternoon.

Mr. Kinsler (04:51:33):

Please state your name for the record.

Jennifer Dillion (04:51:34):

Jennifer Dillion.

Mr. Kinsler (04:51:36):

Dillion. Thank you.

Jennifer Dillion (04:51:37):

Yes.

Mr. Kinsler (04:51:38):

Spell your last name.

Jennifer Dillion (04:51:39):

D-I-L-L-I-O-N.

Mr. Kinsler (04:51:43):

And how are you employed?

Jennifer Dillion (04:51:44):

I am a criminal intelligence analyst with the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation, most commonly known as BCI.

Mr. Kinsler (04:51:50):

And what services do you provide at Ohio BCI?

Jennifer Dillion (04:51:56):

There are three divisions of BCI. We have a laboratory that does testing of forensic evidence for law enforcement agencies across the state. We have the identification section that performs all the fingerprint-based background checks for those jobs in Ohio that require background checks. They also maintain the arrest records for Ohio as well.

(04:52:19)
The third division, which I'm a part of, is the investigations' division. We have special agents in that division that do various duties as far as crime scene, processing, collecting that forensic evidence for agencies, as well as narcotics agents, cyber agents that process digital evidence such as phones, laptops, gaming consoles, even those infotainment centers that are in your cars that has digital evidence on it as well.

(04:52:52)
We have agents that do a number of general investigative duties, such as homicides, sexual assaults. Officer involved, a critical incident may occur, and they would investigate that as a third party. I am in the criminal intelligence unit, which is also in that investigation section.

Mr. Kinsler (04:53:13):

What sort of work do you do as a criminal intelligence unit?

Jennifer Dillion (04:53:16):

So as a criminal intelligence analyst, we assist our special agents and local law enforcement with their criminal cases. When we get assigned, typically we kind of follow a three-step process. All cases are different, but we typically do the same thing in this order.

(04:53:34)
What we do is we start collecting information on their subjects of their investigation. So we kind of give them a complete look of who is involved in their cases. So we're collecting information such as addresses, phone numbers, social media accounts, emails. We want to look for registered vehicles, maybe possibly family members, whatever they're looking for. We're kind of giving them a full picture of those subjects of their investigations.

(04:54:04)
Once we identify accounts such as social media or phone numbers, that kind of thing, we will then preserve those records with the service providers. So we'll send that out. That will give time for the investigators to obtain their search warrants and send out for that evidence for us to look at.

(04:54:26)
So the second portion that we do is once those search warrants are sent out, that information comes back. It's a lot of data. So the investigators send that to us and we kind of organize it. We take all that information together, so we're looking at phone records, social media records. We may get a phone, a forensic download of a phone.

(04:54:49)
So if there is a physical phone that is collected as evidence, they will have that forensically examined. So basically we get a copy, a forensic copy of that phone in a digital file. So we'll take everything and then we'll upload it into our software and start analyzing it, taking a look at the relevant information kind of around the incident timeframe and start looking at all that data together. It allows us to combine it and kind of layer it so we can see what's going on on social media, what's going on on the phone, give us a full picture.

(04:55:27)
And then that third step of the process, because there's so much data that we do receive, we start making visuals to help better understand all of that data because it can be quite large data sets that we get. So we start creating timelines, link charts. We'll do phone mapping as well, so just to give a better picture for the investigators in the case, and then we'll also make visuals for trial as well.

Mr. Kinsler (04:55:56):

Were you asked to do some of that work, making visuals for this case?

Jennifer Dillion (04:56:00):

Yes, I was.

Mr. Kinsler (04:56:02):

Okay. And did you prepare a PowerPoint slide to reflect that?

Jennifer Dillion (04:56:06):

Yes.

Mr. Kinsler (04:56:09):

Your Honor, may I publish her PowerPoint slide, which I believe is...

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (04:56:13):

No objection, Your Honor.

Judge (04:56:14):

What's the number?

Mr. Kinsler (04:56:15):

I think this is synonymous with triple F, or excuse me, quadruple F, Your Honor. It's not going to be labeled on this one. 157, quadruple F.

Judge (04:56:35):

You may proceed.

Mr. Kinsler (04:56:36):

Thank you, Your Honor.

Judge (04:56:39):

Here's mark to write with.

Jennifer Dillion (04:56:41):

Yes. Thank you.

Mr. Kinsler (04:56:43):

Should also be a laser pointer by you if you have the-

Jennifer Dillion (04:56:45):

Yes.

Mr. Kinsler (04:56:47):

The first slide, what are we looking at?

Jennifer Dillion (04:56:49):

Okay. So I created this because there's so many locations of interest in this case and that span across several states, and I just put this together so that you can see all the locations of interest that we're going to go over in my slides for my report.

(04:57:08)
So if you look at the bottom of the map, you will see starting on the left, there's a black house icon that identifies Andrew Griffin's home at 3022 River Road in Whitesboro, Oklahoma. Under that, you see a purple house icon that identifies the home of Brett Cole at 111 Hughes Avenue, Hugo, Oklahoma. At the bottom, you see a gray house icon that identifies the home of Stacey Griffin at 1810 Carder Avenue in Mena, Arkansas. In the middle there at the top, you see a gray pinpoint icon identifying the home of Cory White in Mineola, Texas.

(04:57:52)
In the middle, you see a blue pinpoint icon that identifies Walmart at 2802 Outer Drive in Marion, Illinois. The bottom, you see a black pinpoint icon identifying the RiverLink toll bridge from Indiana to Kentucky.

(04:58:10)
On the far right, you'll see a red cell tower icon. That identifies two AT&T cell sites of interest that you'll see in Benton, Arkansas and Jackson, Tennessee. And the last location, the red pinpoint icon identifies the Strussion home, the incident location at 67140 Trails End road in Belmont, Ohio.

Mr. Kinsler (04:58:35):

All right. And what does this slide depict?

Jennifer Dillion (04:58:38):

Okay. Here we're looking at September 2021. Investigators obtained information that Cory White had sold a motorcycle on Facebook Marketplace. These are pictures obtained from Cory White by investigators for that 2006 Kawasaki motorcycle.

Mr. Kinsler (04:59:05):

And the next slide?

Jennifer Dillion (04:59:07):

Next slide is Monday, September 13th, 2021, when that purchase took place at Cory White's home address in Mineola, Texas. Cory White provided these photos to investigators of Brett Cole and Dalton Ray there to purchase that motorcycle.

Mr. Kinsler (04:59:29):

And the next slide, please.

Jennifer Dillion (04:59:31):

This slide here, we're looking at a couple different things. On the left, you'll see the Texas motor vehicle transfer notification that investigators obtained. At the top, the vehicle information is for that Kawasaki motorcycle. So it's got the VIN, the year, the information for the motorcycle. Then in the middle, you'll see the transfer information, which is Cory White. He lists his Mineola, Texas address, his phone number ending in 3030, and an email address as well.

(05:00:03)
At the bottom was the information provided... according to investigators, that Brett Cole provided to Cory White at the bottom for the new owner information. And that lists James Fisher with an address of 3640 Second Street in Flowood, Mississippi, and there's a phone number highlighted at the bottom that was provided, and it is 918- 318-0228, and it should be noted that that is one digit off of Andrew Griffin's personal phone of 0229.

(05:00:40)
On the left, what we're looking at is a subscriber return, so a subscriber record for a prepaid AT&T phone that you'll hear about ending in 4775. So this subscriber information just tells you who is on the account as the subscriber. So it'll include their address, the service date. The activation date was September 19th, 2021. It provides the subscriber name as James Jobe, J-O-B-E, with a user address as 1622 Washington Avenue in Knoxville, Tennessee.

Mr. Kinsler (05:01:23):

And this next slide.

Jennifer Dillion (05:01:25):

Okay. We're on... I kind of want to set up how you're going to see the maps and kind of what you're going to... They're all going to look generally the same, so I kind of want to just go through how they're going to be set up.

(05:01:36)
So at the top, you'll have the date and the activity that's occurring. You'll have the phone number for what phone was mapped on this record. So here, the phone number ending in 0229 will be identified in orange, so that information will be at the top. At the bottom, you'll see the legend. So you'll those locations of interest that we talked about on the main map.

(05:02:04)
So here we've got the home address on River Road for Andrew Griffin, and then we've got the icon identifying Cory White's home address. And then there's some notation at the bottom right for the time zone. So this case crosses two time zones, so we have Central Time and Eastern Time. So there'll be some notations for those times as well.

Mr. Kinsler (05:02:29):

Can you point out to us in the call-out box in the bottom left, the two locations you just described?

Jennifer Dillion (05:02:36):

I'm sorry, could you-

Mr. Kinsler (05:02:37):

Would you use the laser pointer to point out the two locations-

Jennifer Dillion (05:02:39):

Yes.

Mr. Kinsler (05:02:40):

... you just described?

Jennifer Dillion (05:02:40):

So this is the Griffin home address and then Cory White's home address. So what I've done on this slide here is--during that time of the purchase of the motorcycle, investigators obtained information that Brett Cole was contacting Andrew Griffin during that time.

(05:03:02)
So I looked at the records and Andrew Griffin did receive phone calls from Brett Cole during that time. You'll see they're listed here underneath four calls from Brett to Andrew at 3:12 PM for 59 seconds, 3:23 PM for 50 seconds, 3:37 PM for one minute, 26 seconds, and 3:39 PM, one minute, 32 seconds.

(05:03:31)
And all of those calls are registering with this tower here, this cell tower that services the Griffin home address on River Road. Over here at the bottom left of the map, I just gave you kind of an overall view, a reference of that location in Mineola, Texas where they went to purchase the motorcycle and then Andrew Griffin's home, just for reference so you can see the distance.

Mr. Kinsler (05:04:00):

Where are you getting the phone records to make these slides?

Jennifer Dillion (05:04:04):

So the original phone records I received from investigators with the Belmont County Sheriff's Office. They send search warrants out for those records and the carriers. In this case, AT&T responded and sent those records to them and then they in turn give them to me and I start analyzing those.

Mr. Kinsler (05:04:23):

So when you're putting these calls up here, you're deriving that from what kind of records?

Jennifer Dillion (05:04:28):

From the original call detail records. So what they get back are call detail records. Those are everything that basically you're doing on your phone. So you'll have calls, texts, and data. Calls and texts are self-explanatory. Data, you're using data to access the internet, to get on social media, maybe to stream music, that kind of thing. The phone company is recording a record for each of those.

(05:04:56)
So that record will have the date, the time. If it's a call, text or data, it will have the duration. If it's a call, it will tell us if it's incoming or outgoing, if it's a call or text. And then it will also identify a cell tower if a cell tower is used during that communication.

Mr. Kinsler (05:05:19):

I think you addressed this, but here we're in Oklahoma and what time zone are we in there?

Jennifer Dillion (05:05:25):

We're in Central Time. Excuse me.

Mr. Kinsler (05:05:29):

And the next slide, please.

Jennifer Dillion (05:05:31):

The next slide. So we're looking at the top there, Sunday, September 19th, 2021. We're looking at the complete day of records from AT&T for the phone number ending in 0229. So what we're looking at here are a combination of records. So we have cell tower records that we get for those calls, texts, data transactions that are utilizing the cell tower for that communication. We also receive precision location information. So in this case, we have NELOS.

Jennifer Dillion (05:06:00):

... location information. So in this case, we have NELOS records from AT&T that are provided. So what NELOS records are, and those are the circles up there that you see, it's a calculation that the phone carriers do and just in their regular course of business, we don't ever notice when we're using our phones, but they're optimizing their service. They're kind of trying to see how fast their service is. They're locating the phone, that kind of thing. So they're housing that record and we have access to that with a search warrant.

(05:06:33)
So what those are, a NELOS location, it's a calculation that the phone company's doing. They're saying within that circle, that radius, that's our best guess at where that phone actually is. So that's not a cell tower that you'll see with the wedge formation. That is the actual location of the phone according to AT&T. So you'll see both a cell tower with the wedge formation and then that circle radius for those NELOS records for location, precision location.

(05:07:05)
So at the top, you'll see a combination of NELOS records and cell tower data registering in the area of Griffin's home in Whitesboro and some activity near Talihina from 12:06 AM to 3:11 PM. And then the phone begins to move south. You'll see here registering with that cell tower on two different sides. So cell tower typically has three sides and that is registering with two of those sides. So anytime you see a tower or a wedge formation, that's a side of the tower. And you see that half-moon shape, that's going to be that side. So if you just think of it as an arrow pointing out from that half-moon in that wedge formation, that would give you the side and direction that that tower was used.

(05:07:54)
So again, the phone is moving south and registers with two sides of that tower at 3:36 PM and 3:38. Again, moving south, it's a little hard to see just because of the zooming out on the map, but it's registering with a tower there north of Broken Bow at 4:10 PM. And then you can see that the phone arrives in the area of Hugo, Oklahoma and stays there from 4:50 PM to 11:50 PM.

Mr. Kinsler (05:08:31):

You mentioned NELOS and I've heard you talk about tower records. How does this differ from GPS?

Jennifer Dillion (05:08:38):

Okay. So this is different from GPS. GPS is typically stored in your phone. So you have a location point in your phone. Your phone kind of records your locations, whether you're using maps or whatever it may be. It's kind of storing that information. That will give you a specific latitude and longitude. That is a GPS location. These locations, the NELOS, it is not an exact location, but they're saying somewhere within that radius and they'll give us a meter radius somewhere within that radius that phone is. So if I may give an example, let's say this courtroom is a NELOS location. So this is the entire radius. Okay? That would be a NELOS record. A GPS record would be Mr. Kinsler standing right at that podium. That would be the difference. So it would locate him exactly there.

Mr. Kinsler (05:09:33):

So fair to say GPS is definitely more precise?

Jennifer Dillion (05:09:35):

Yes. Correct.

Mr. Kinsler (05:09:36):

But in order to have GPS, you need the phone?

Jennifer Dillion (05:09:39):

Correct.

Mr. Kinsler (05:09:39):

Okay. I'm sorry. Did I cut you off before you finished the slide?

Jennifer Dillion (05:09:45):

No.

Mr. Kinsler (05:09:45):

Next slide, please.

Jennifer Dillion (05:09:46):

Okay. The next slide, Sunday, September 19th, investigators obtained information that Brett Cole made a purchase at the Walmart at Hugo, Oklahoma. And we're looking at Andrew Griffin's personal phone ending in 0229. Utilizing a tower here at the bottom, you'll see the time is 7:20 in the area of Hugo. There's Brett Cole's home address, identified by that purple house icon, and then the Walmart there and Hugo as well.

(05:10:18)
At the top right, investigators obtained First United Bank records for Brett Cole. And you can see that I've highlighted there in the middle. Well, here's Brett Cole. He's the bank account owner. There in the middle, it says POS debit, so point-of-sale debit at 1920, which is 7:20 PM, that's 1920 military time, on 9/19/2021. So it's showing that that phone is utilizing the tower at the same time in that area that services Hugo.

Mr. Kinsler (05:10:54):

And you may have addressed this, but when you display it up here, are you generally displaying local time to wherever that map is going?

Jennifer Dillion (05:11:01):

That's correct. So we're looking at Central Time right now. So this is 7:20, Central Time. And one other thing I will note is, anytime you see these little orange dots, those are other towers in the area, other available towers. The one with the wedge formation is the tower that that communication registered on. So you can see some of the other towers in the area noted on the map, just for reference.

Mr. Kinsler (05:11:30):

Can you say that Andrew Griffin's phone was in that Walmart?

Jennifer Dillion (05:11:34):

I can say it utilized the tower in that location, but I can't say it's in the Walmart, inside the Walmart.

Mr. Kinsler (05:11:40):

It's in the general area of that wedge.

Jennifer Dillion (05:11:42):

General area.

Mr. Kinsler (05:11:43):

Somewhere north, I guess, from our vantage point above that into-

Jennifer Dillion (05:11:47):

Correct. Correct. That side of the tower that you see, again, that half-moon shape, the side of the tower is also referenced as a sector. Okay? So you'll hear it interchangeably. That half-moon shape is the center of the side, which is an azimuth, basically just the center. So if you always think of that half-moon as an arrow pointing out and you see that wedge formation, that is that side. So that covers that area basically.

Mr. Kinsler (05:12:18):

The next slide, please.

Jennifer Dillion (05:12:21):

Okay. Sunday, September 19th, 2021, a prepaid phone was purchased at a Walmart in Marion, Illinois. The phone number is 865-566-4775, and it will be depicted in red. So on this map that you'll see the key at the bottom, you'll have the Griffin home address in Whitesboro, the Walmart in Marion, Illinois, and then we have the incident location at Trails End Road. So this is the cell tower that that phone utilized at that time, and there's the Walmart that's identified in Marion, Illinois.

(05:13:03)
So investigators obtained at the top right, the receipt of the purchase of that phone along with, I believe, it is a battery bank, like a power bank and an activation card. It was a cash purchase in the amount of $93.73. And then at the bottom here that's highlighted, it's just the date and time. So on 9/19, that was purchased at 1705, 14, which is 5:05 PM. So at the bottom, I've just made a notation at 5:05 PM, Central Time, that prepaid phone was purchased. And then at 5:48, the first tower registration started. So that phone started working, started connecting with the cell tower and talking with the network at 5:48.

(05:13:55)
There was some initial texts that were coming in just as it appeared to be setting up that phone and there was a phone call for one minute and one second from Cricket customer service. Again, it appears that that's establishing service, setting up that phone, getting that started. And then in the lower left-hand corner, again, just an overall view of the map, just for your reference to see where we're at. So we have the Griffin home in Whitesboro, Oklahoma. We're here circled in the middle at the Walmart in Marion, Illinois, and then we see the Strussion home in Belmont, Ohio in red.

Mr. Kinsler (05:14:34):

To be clear, that initial call you're talking about, the one minute, one second call, that would've connected through that tower displayed on the map?

Jennifer Dillion (05:14:41):

Correct. It registered there with that tower servicing that Walmart right there.

Mr. Kinsler (05:14:47):

And the next slide, please.

Jennifer Dillion (05:14:48):

Okay. The next slide is just Google directions. I looked up Google directions from Andrew Griffin's home address at 30225 River Road in Whitesboro, Oklahoma to the Walmart in Marion, Illinois on Outer Drive. And Google gives us three options here, which you typically see. It ranges from 7 hours and 55 minutes to 9 hours and 12 minutes.

Mr. Kinsler (05:15:16):

Okay. That 7 hours and 55 minutes, that's the shortest route you could find from the River Road address to that Marion Walmart.

Jennifer Dillion (05:15:25):

Correct.

Mr. Kinsler (05:15:28):

The next slide, please.

Jennifer Dillion (05:15:30):

Okay. Next slide. We're still on Sunday, September 19th. Now we're looking at the two phones together. So we're looking at that prepaid phone ending in 4775 in red, and excuse me, Andrew Griffin's personal phone ending in 0229. So we're looking at the timeframe between 5:00 PM and 11:00 PM. Again, we're in Central Time. So at the bottom left, between that timeframe from 5:00 to 11:00 PM, you see the phone ending in 0229 with NELOS locations, tower records, right in that Hugo, Oklahoma area during that timeframe.

(05:16:09)
Here at the top, you'll see that's the blue icon that identifies that Walmart in Marion, Illinois. So that first tower registration, again, with that phone was at 5:48 PM. And then the phone continues, starts to travel and makes a northeast travel pattern, if you follow along the dotted arrows there, up to the area of Louisville, Kentucky. And that black icon is that RiverLink toll bridge.

Mr. Kinsler (05:16:38):

And then you called out all the towers along the way?

Jennifer Dillion (05:16:42):

Yes.

Mr. Kinsler (05:16:43):

Okay. And what is prompting the phone to communicate with those towers? Do each of those represent a phone call or is it something else?

Jennifer Dillion (05:16:51):

No. It's data. So there are only two phone calls for these records. One incoming from Cricket customer service there at the beginning, will cover the second phone call, but all the other records were data records. So this is all data usage along the way, along the path of travel. And those are the towers that that phone connected to for that data usage.

Mr. Kinsler (05:17:20):

And this next slide.

Jennifer Dillion (05:17:22):

Okay. So this is September 19th into the 20th. So we're just continuing that travel pattern for that prepaid phone ending in 4775. We have again that location of that Walmart. So if we just follow the dotted arrow lines, we can see the travel path. It registers here in Louisville, Kentucky at 10:52 PM. We're now in Eastern Time. So we've moved into the Eastern Time Zone from Central. So we register in Louisville at 10:52, here in Cincinnati at 12:06.

(05:17:57)
Now we're into the 20th. We're in Columbus registering with towers at 2:02 AM. And then we arrive in the area of the incident location on Trails End Road at 3:43 AM on the 20th. At the same time, during this timeframe that we're looking at for the prepaid phone, in the bottom right, you'll see this is the activity on the phone ending in 0229, still staying in that Hugo, Oklahoma area. So we're kind of looking at two at the same time here.

Mr. Kinsler (05:18:29):

And the phone number in red, the phone number ending in 4775, that's an unknown number or unknown user of that phone?

Jennifer Dillion (05:18:39):

That's an unknown user with the subscriber record provided as James Joby.

Mr. Kinsler (05:18:45):

And then the 918-318-0229 number that's displayed in orange, who's the known user of that phone?

Jennifer Dillion (05:18:51):

Andrew Griffin.

Mr. Kinsler (05:18:52):

And so what we're looking at here are tower location data, and then I guess for the 0229 phone, the Griffin phone, NELOS data or precision location data, all for the timeframe of those two days?

Jennifer Dillion (05:19:10):

That's correct. For the number ending in 0229 in the Hugo area, there's also tower locations there as well. So that phone, not only do we have the NELOS locations with those radius circles there that you see, we also have towers. A little hard probably for you guys to see this far away, but there are towers being utilized as well.

Mr. Kinsler (05:19:33):

And you've depicted the course of travel and you've also called out towers along the highway. What are those?

Jennifer Dillion (05:19:41):

Those are towers for records, data records that that prepaid phone is using. So along the way, just to give you some reference of how long it's taking for that phone to move along and register with those different towers, I picked the major cities for you. Again, we're from 10:52 at the Louisville RiverLink bridge location there and to Cincinnati at 12:06, Columbus at 2:02 AM, and then Belmont at 3:43 AM.

Mr. Kinsler (05:20:14):

And this next slide.

Jennifer Dillion (05:20:18):

This slide is, we're still on, we're kind of in that path of travel. So this is Sunday, September 19th when that phone is in Louisville, Kentucky, registering with that tower at 10:52 PM. This is the travel path of the tower usage along the interstate here. You see over here on the left, we have a tower hit at 10:23 PM, Eastern Time. And then as the phone travels and we're crossing the bridge here, that black pinpoint icon identifying that bridge, we're at 10:52 PM, Eastern Time.

(05:21:01)
One notation I would like to provide, you see that each side of the tower is utilized here for that tower for different communication or different data records. The 10:52 PM time is for this side of the tower here that faces that black icon. So then you'll see the phone continue to travel up 71 North, registering in this area at 11: 02 PM into Kentucky.

(05:21:34)
Investigators obtained a photograph of an individual riding a motorcycle and crossing that bridge at 10:52 PM. So if you look at the identifying information on that photograph, you'll see that it's on 9/19/2021 at 2252, Eastern time. So that's just military time for 10:52 PM. So that tower hit for that data record was at the same time that that photograph was captured by the bridge.

Mr. Kinsler (05:22:04):

That black pin by the bridge, is that the closest location or closest you can get the location to where the camera's located?

Jennifer Dillion (05:22:11):

Yes, that's correct.

Mr. Kinsler (05:22:15):

This next slide, please.

Jennifer Dillion (05:22:16):

Okay. We are on Monday, September 20th. This is a map showing the records, the AT&T records for Andrew Griffin's phone ending in 0229 from the time period of 2:00 PM to 3:00 PM. Now we're back in Central Time. So if you'll look at the map, you'll see Brett Cole's home address here and the purple house icon. We also have another location of interest. It's the F&F Feed Mill in Grant, Oklahoma, and that is identified there with a brown pinpoint icon. So investigators obtained information that Brett Cole made a purchase at the F&F Feed store on the 20th and they obtained the receipt. So you'll see that the date I've highlighted here is on the 20th and the time there is at 2:22 PM along with the signed receipt. And I've just given you a zoomed-in version so you can see the photograph of the signature there.

(05:23:22)
So what I did was I took a look at the phone records to see where that phone ending in 0229 was during that timeframe. So at 2:22, the phone received a phone call from a number ending in 6824, was an incoming call that was unanswered and forwarded to voicemail. It registered with this tower down here that would service that location, that area. And then you see we've got the phone traveling north. We have a NELOS location here that's identified as 2:29 PM and then one heading north and a tower location kind of laid under there. Those two times are 2:30, 2:31. So you can see that that phone is moving north. And then we have a tower registration back here in Hugo at 2:50 PM.

Mr. Kinsler (05:24:20):

Sort of the top right, the top right and maybe in some other locations, there are orange dots. What are those?

Jennifer Dillion (05:24:27):

Those are those available cell towers in the area. So you're just going to see if those little dots are... That's not a small NELOS location. That's just an available tower that it didn't register with. That's just another tower in the area.

Mr. Kinsler (05:24:40):

Sorry. And this next slide.

Jennifer Dillion (05:24:45):

Okay. We are back in Eastern Time Zone. So we're taking a look at that prepaid phone ending in 4775 on Monday the 20th. So this is its arrival in the Belmont, Ohio area. So you'll see the travel path and the towers that it registered with and those sides of the towers as it approached. Here on the far left, we have a tower registration at 3:27 AM. You can see it move along here at 3:31 in the middle, and then it arrives there at the tower that services the Strussion home at 3:43 AM and it services that side of the tower, or that side of the tower that services that location area and then stays in that area and utilizes those towers up until 11:53 AM. So this timeframe we're looking at is 3:25 AM to 12:00 noon, PM.

Mr. Kinsler (05:25:45):

And again, I think here they're depicted in red, but the dots on here, what are those? Dots without the wedge?

Jennifer Dillion (05:25:51):

The wedge. Yeah, those are those available cell towers. So other cell towers in the area that this communication I've called out with these times just didn't register with. It registered with those ones that show you that wedge formation to indicate the side of the tower it communicated with.

Mr. Kinsler (05:26:13):

And this next slide.

Jennifer Dillion (05:26:14):

Okay. Same day. We're still on Monday, September the 20th. We're just advancing in time. So we're looking at 12 noon to 7:00 PM. Okay. We're still utilizing towers within the area. We've got three towers in the area of the Strussion home there and then one a little farther east towards St. Clairsville. But you can see the call-out times for those records that utilized those sides of the tower.

Mr. Kinsler (05:26:50):

And you've depicted the top right tower that you depicted are all the activity on that tower. Is it that sector that's facing back toward the south and west?

Jennifer Dillion (05:26:59):

That's correct. It's utilizing that side of the tower facing west right there off of Interstate 70 from 12:23 PM to 4:32 PM. And then this tower right there, that is 5:28 and 5:32 PM. The southern tower here, we have registrations for 2:21 PM, 6:28 PM and 6:32 PM. And then this tower facing east using that eastern side at 2:58 PM.

Mr. Kinsler (05:27:37):

And the next slide.

Jennifer Dillion (05:27:39):

Okay. Again, we're just advancing in time on that same date. We're looking at 7:00 PM to 11:59 PM. So now we're seeing that we're still utilizing towers in the area of the incident location. We have some call-out boxes here with those times, ranging from 7:01 PM up until 11:18 PM. Then you begin to see the phone leave the area as it is utilizing this side of the tower exiting the area at 11:37, heading west on Interstate 70. You have a tower hit here, 11:42 registering with that tower, continuing west, registering with this tower at 11:59 PM.

Mr. Kinsler (05:28:30):

Oh, I'm sorry. At 11: 59, the left side of your map, where is that?

Jennifer Dillion (05:28:36):

It looks like it's at the area where 77 comes up and intersects there, appears with 70 and 77 there.

Mr. Kinsler (05:28:45):

Okay. So the towers that are depicted on the right near the Strussion's home, am I correct in thinking that the last time it strikes on one of those maybe is about 11:37 PM and that's the one to the west of their home?

Jennifer Dillion (05:29:12):

Correct. If you advance to the next slide, it's a closeup view. It might be a little easier for you guys to see. There are those cell towers that are servicing that location. So what we're seeing here is we can see that the last time that it was in the area before it exits at 11:37, it registers with this tower at 11:18. So it tells us over here, it's using this side, exiting the area, and then you saw that progression of time with those other towers.

Mr. Kinsler (05:29:49):

And this next slide.

Jennifer Dillion (05:29:50):

Okay. We're now in Tuesday, September 25th, or 21st, excuse me. So this is travel back. This is leaving the incident location and we're registering. We have towers along this travel path that you can see. So the phone exits the area, registers in Columbus at 12:58 AM, again in Cincinnati at 2:38 AM, then in Louisville at 4:02 AM, continues south, and registers with towers that are north of Nashville, in between Bowling Green, Kentucky and north of Nashville at 4:44 AM. And now we're in Central Time. So we've left that Eastern Time Zone, last registration up here at Louisville, and then down here we're now in Central Time.

Mr. Kinsler (05:30:39):

And we talked about the path toward Belmont went through Louisville, correct?

Jennifer Dillion (05:30:46):

Yes.

Mr. Kinsler (05:30:46):

Is this a different path than what we saw on those slides?

Jennifer Dillion (05:30:50):

Yes, it is.

Mr. Kinsler (05:30:51):

Okay. And here he's going, I think you indicated the phone is headed in the direction of Nashville, Tennessee.

Jennifer Dillion (05:30:56):

Correct.

Mr. Kinsler (05:30:57):

And during this, I guess, September 21st date, are you aware of any tower hit locations that wound up being in Indiana?

Jennifer Dillion (05:31:07):

On this date?

Mr. Kinsler (05:31:08):

On this date specifically.

Jennifer Dillion (05:31:09):

Well, before, on the 20th, the phone crossed through Indiana over that RiverLink bridge. It came in a different... Yes, right there.

Mr. Kinsler (05:31:23):

Okay.

Jennifer Dillion (05:31:25):

So when the phone left the area and continued south, it did not cross that toll bridge. It went south. It continued south.

Mr. Kinsler (05:31:38):

When you say continuing south, you mean Louisville's here on the map, correct?

Jennifer Dillion (05:31:49):

Correct.

Mr. Kinsler (05:31:50):

And then you're talking about these towers down this way?

Jennifer Dillion (05:31:53):

That's correct.

Mr. Kinsler (05:31:55):

Thank you. If you would, what's depicted on this slide?

Jennifer Dillion (05:32:01):

Okay. We're still on the same day, September 21st. Now, on the upper-right-hand corner, you can see now we're in Nashville. So last time we saw was 444 North of Nashville, so now we're in the area of Nashville. So we're registering with towers at 5:15 AM, and then we have a tower hit here in the area of Jackson, Tennessee that is of interest at 7:03 AM. This is the other call. So I said that there were only two calls in these records, and this is the other call.

(05:32:36)
This is the only outgoing call that this phone made, and that was to Brett Cole, utilizing that tower that I called out with an icon so you can see a little better at 7:03 AM for 24 seconds. And then you can see that the travel path continues. We're here in Memphis at 8:27 AM, continuing down here when we get to the Benton, Arkansas area at 10:40 AM, Central Time. That's the last location record in those phone records for that phone registered with a tower in Benton, Arkansas.

Mr. Kinsler (05:33:17):

That 7:03 Central Time, that only outgoing call, what is the closest city to that?

Jennifer Dillion (05:33:25):

It's Jackson, Tennessee, it appears. It's near Jackson.

Mr. Kinsler (05:33:32):

And you mentioned that there's a record of this subject phone ending in 4775 calling Brett Cole at that time, correct?

Jennifer Dillion (05:33:41):

Correct. It's the AT&T records.

Mr. Kinsler (05:33:43):

Did you have Brett Cole's records?

Jennifer Dillion (05:33:46):

Yes, I did. They're UScellular records.

Mr. Kinsler (05:33:49):

Okay. Did they include tower location data?

Jennifer Dillion (05:33:51):

No, they did not. So Brett Cole's records were just billable records. So basically, it just had your information as far as the call, so your date and time, incoming, outgoing, but no tower information. I believe these were obtained after those would've been available. Phone companies only keep those tower records for so long. And at that time that these were obtained, UScellular only had those billable records. So we just see the communication, but not the location.

Mr. Kinsler (05:34:25):

You mentioned also the 10:40 AM, Central Daylight Savings Time, last record near Benton, Arkansas. What does that mean?

Jennifer Dillion (05:34:34):

That is the last record in the overall records for that number ending in 4775 that registered with the tower. After that, there's no location information. It's the last record.

Mr. Kinsler (05:34:52):

So as far as you know, from the records you have, that phone never communicated with the tower after that date?

Jennifer Dillion (05:34:57):

It did not.

Mr. Kinsler (05:34:59):

Okay. And as you sit here, you couldn't say if that phone was ever turned on again or active again at any point?

Jennifer Dillion (05:35:03):

Right. I know that there were calls or texts that were incoming that attempted to contact that phone, but that never recorded a location. There was no location information from AT&T after that time on that date.

Mr. Kinsler (05:35:20):

And this next slide, please.

Jennifer Dillion (05:35:22):

Okay. We're looking at that same call at 7:03, that prepaid phone ending in 4775, utilizing that tower. We're looking at, Brett Cole made a call about an hour later to Dalton Ray. So this information was obtained from Brett Cole's records in the UScellular that at about an hour later at 8:18 AM, when he receives that call from that prepaid number, he contacts Dalton Ray.

Mr. Kinsler (05:35:59):

And this next slide.

Jennifer Dillion (05:36:02):

Next slide is Tuesday, September 21st. So we're just looking at a little different view of it approaching that last tower registration in Benton, Arkansas. So you'll see at the top, you'll see these towers are being utilized along the route of travel. We are in Little Rock at 10:20 AM, Central Time. And then there we are at that last tower registration at 10:40.

Mr. Kinsler (05:36:29):

And this next slide.

Jennifer Dillion (05:36:31):

This is just to kind of give you a visual of where that tower is, that last record of data registered with. So I just did a Google image so you can see. It's up here off of Highway 5 North and Interstate, if I can see here, 30. I believe it's a little hard to see. But yeah, that's the tower location, the actual location, the satellite view, and then just that side of the tower that's depicted on the map.

Mr. Kinsler (05:37:02):

And this slide please.

Jennifer Dillion (05:37:03):

And here, I just again looked up Google directions. I wanted to know how far it was from Benton, Arkansas to the River Road address in Whitesboro, Oklahoma. And Google gives us three options. They're right under three-hour mark. They range from 2 hours, 50 minutes to 2 hours, 55 minutes.

Mr. Kinsler (05:37:29):

And this slide?

Jennifer Dillion (05:37:30):

Here we're looking at September 21st, still on that date. On this slide, we're looking at Amy Chase, her records, her AT&T records for phone number ending in 4885. They're depicted in pink and Andrew Griffin's personal phone ending in 0229 in orange for the timeframe of 8:00 to 8:30 AM. One of the other calls that Brett Cole made in addition to calling Dalton Ray an hour after he received that call from the prepaid phone, he also called Amy Chase. And Amy Chase, her records registered with this tower that services that Hugo, Oklahoma location. And the 0229 phone also utilized that tower as well during this half hour timeframe. So just showing that those two phones were utilizing that same tower during that 30 minutes.

Mr. Kinsler (05:38:29):

I'm sorry if I didn't ask you the directions on the previous slide or the Google Maps depicting two hours. What is the shortest time? Is it 2 hours and 50 minutes?

Jennifer Dillion (05:38:40):

Yes, that's correct.

Mr. Kinsler (05:38:41):

And that is from Benton, Arkansas where the last location, the phone and what address?

Jennifer Dillion (05:38:46):

Andrew Griffin's home address on River Road in Whitesboro, Oklahoma.

Mr. Kinsler (05:38:50):

All right. Thank you. And I'm sorry, were you complete with this slide?

Jennifer Dillion (05:38:55):

Yes.

Mr. Kinsler (05:38:56):

And this next slide please.

Jennifer Dillion (05:38:58):

Okay. This is for that same day. So we're looking at the 0229 number. So we start out, we're looking at the timeframe of midnight to 4:00 PM and it starts down here. So we're in the area of Hugo, Oklahoma. We've got NELOS locations. We've got tower locations spanning from 12:00 AM to 8:30 AM. Then the phone begins to travel north, registering with towers in the Antlers area. And you'll see from 8:40 AM to 8:50 AM continuing on northeast, registering with towers north of Clayton here at 9:26 in the area of Talihina at 9:41, and then back in the area of the Whitesboro home address for Andrew Griffin from 10:00 AM to 3:55 PM.

Mr. Kinsler (05:39:55):

And again, that 0229 number, that's Andrew Griffin's personal phone?

Jennifer Dillion (05:39:59):

That's correct.

Mr. Kinsler (05:40:02):

And this slide.

Jennifer Dillion (05:40:03):

Okay. We're advancing in-

Jennifer Dillion (05:40:00):

Correct.

Mr. Kinsler (05:40:02):

And this slide.

Jennifer Dillion (05:40:03):

Okay. We're advancing in time. Now we're going from 4:0 PM to 8:00 PM. The phone leaves the Whitesboro home address and travels back to Hugo, the area where Brett Cole lives. So, we have tower registrations here, leaving that area at 4:00 PM, moving along down here, registering with these towers from 4:07 PM to 4:25. Continuing travel, registering here at 4:36. Then in that Antler's area at 4:44 PM. And then these locations down here in and around Hugo, we are there from 4:58 PM to 7:59 PM.

Mr. Kinsler (05:40:48):

And this slide.

Jennifer Dillion (05:40:50):

Okay. Advancing in time again. So, now we're looking at 8:00 PM to 11:59 PM that evening. So the phone leaves the Hugo area again, registers with the tower here at 8:01 PM, has NELOS and tower locations here in the Antlers area at 8:03 PM to 8:15 PM. Moves north. You'll see it registers with towers along the way, 8:42, 8:55.

(05:41:17)
And then in this area around Talihina and the Whitesboro home address from 9:00 to 10:02 PM. So, there's tower... These aren't just all-

Mr. Kinsler (05:41:27):

I'm sorry, I just moved you.

Jennifer Dillion (05:41:29):

... NELOS locations. There are some towers underneath there. You just can't see them because there's so many locations layered on top of each other.

(05:41:35)
And then it registers in this area. AT&T is telling us it's here from 10:03 PM to 11:20 PM.

Mr. Kinsler (05:41:44):

And I'm sorry, the location on the far right, the gray house.

Jennifer Dillion (05:41:49):

The gray house, that is the home of Stacey Griffin on Carder Avenue in Mena, Arkansas.

Mr. Kinsler (05:41:58):

And what are we looking at in this slide?

Jennifer Dillion (05:42:00):

So, these are just Google directions from Hugo to Whitesboro to see how long it takes. Again, Google gives us three options like it normally does. It ranges from the shortest distance, an hour and 41 minutes, to the longest distance, two hours and 11 minutes.

Mr. Kinsler (05:42:18):

And this last series of slides involving Griffin's personal phone, basically, is it correct to say it began the day on Tuesday the 21st in Hugo?

Jennifer Dillion (05:42:28):

That's correct.

Mr. Kinsler (05:42:29):

And then traveled to the general direction of Whitesboro, Oklahoma?

Jennifer Dillion (05:42:34):

That's correct.

Mr. Kinsler (05:42:35):

And then returned again to the general area of Hugo?

Jennifer Dillion (05:42:38):

Correct.

Mr. Kinsler (05:42:39):

And then back again... Well, first to the general area of Whitesboro, and then to Mena, Arkansas?

Jennifer Dillion (05:42:45):

Correct. Correct.

Mr. Kinsler (05:42:49):

And what's the significance of this slide?

‍

Jennifer Dillion (05:42:52):

Okay. So, this is the call and text communication records for those movements. So what we saw moving from Hugo back to Whitesboro, we just saw the locations. Now we're looking at the actual call and text communication that took place during that movement.

(05:43:12)
So, here, registering with a tower in the Hugo, Oklahoma area, we start with an outgoing text at 12:24 AM to Stacey Griffin's phone ending in 3904, another outgoing text at 7:05 AM to Stacey's phone, and then an incoming text from Stacey's phone at 7:19 AM.

(05:43:36)
On that same tower, a little bit later, we have an incoming call that went unanswered and was routed to voicemail at 8:06 AM from a Brad Hunter, with a number ending in 0024.

(05:43:49)
Then the phone begins to move and you see it registers with a tower here in Antlers, and we have an incoming call that went unanswered and was routed to voicemail at 8:42 AM from a Diana McFarland, with a phone number ending in 0503.

Mr. Kinsler (05:44:13):

And to be clear, I guess we've returned again to the morning of the 21st? Tuesday, September 21st, correct?

Jennifer Dillion (05:44:19):

That's correct. Yes.

Mr. Kinsler (05:44:20):

The same information... well, similar information to what you showed us before in terms of the travel. Now you're showing it with what the actual transactions were, be they calls, voicemails, or texts?

Jennifer Dillion (05:44:30):

Correct.

Mr. Kinsler (05:44:35):

I'm sorry. This slide, please.

Jennifer Dillion (05:44:37):

So, again, we're just advancing in time. This is when the phone returns to the area of the Whitesboro home address and is utilizing this tower here, two sides of this tower, that services that address. We have this series of calls and text messages.

(05:44:59)
At the top... If you give me one second, please. Sorry. At the top we have an incoming text message at 9:53. Then we have a series of incoming calls that go unanswered and are routed to voicemail. They range from 10:03 AM to 11:24 AM. Then we have a couple of incoming text messages at 11:50 AM and 11:55 AM. My pointer has stopped working.

Mr. Kinsler (05:45:34):

May I approach, Your Honor?

Judge (05:45:35):

Yes.

Jennifer Dillion (05:45:35):

Sorry. Thank you.

(05:45:44)
Then we have an incoming call that went unanswered and was routed to voicemail at 1:21 PM. And at 1:48 PM on the 21st, this is the first outgoing call that that phone has made. And that is a call to Lisa Balog, with a phone number ending in 7377, for 26 minutes and 24 seconds.

(05:46:10)
We have another outgoing call at 2:15 PM to Brett Cole's phone number ending in 3870, for a minute, 28 seconds. And then we have an outgoing call at 2:19 PM to Stacey Griffin that was forwarded to voicemail.

Mr. Kinsler (05:46:32):

And these are hitting off of the tower depicted in the orange tower depicted in the bottom right?

Jennifer Dillion (05:46:40):

That's correct.

Mr. Kinsler (05:46:45):

And this slide, please.

Jennifer Dillion (05:46:47):

Okay. Just continuing in time. Now we're looking at 2:20 PM to 4:00 PM. We have a series of incoming/outgoing communication, calls and text messages, utilizing the two sides of this tower here servicing the home address of River Road, and then a tower up here. All of this communication is utilizing those two towers. So, that communication is ranging from 2:20 PM to 3:49 PM.

Mr. Kinsler (05:47:22):

And this slide?

Jennifer Dillion (05:47:24):

Again, we're advancing in time from 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM. We're seeing that phone leave that Whitesboro, Oklahoma address, and head back down to Hugo.

(05:47:33)
So, here at the top, you'll see this phone call, an incoming call from the number that Brett Cole utilizes, 3870. It is registering with that tower at 4:23 PM for 1 minute, 26 seconds. Then the phone moves and it is utilizing towers here in the Antlers area. We have an incoming call at 4:55 PM from a Donald Ewing, phone number ending in 3260, for 23 minutes and 30 seconds.

Mr. Kinsler (05:48:08):

And at this point, the phone is moving generally from Whitesboro, Oklahoma, to Hugo?

Jennifer Dillion (05:48:14):

Correct.

Mr. Kinsler (05:48:17):

And this slide, please.

Jennifer Dillion (05:48:18):

Okay. Again, we're advancing in time. Now we're looking at 5:00 PM to 8:00 PM. The phone is back in the area in and around Hugo, utilizing these three towers.

(05:48:28)
You see here the tower right there above Brett Cole's home address on Hughes Street. We have that phone 0229 receiving an incoming call from Lisa Balog for 9 minutes and 16 seconds. Then the phone utilizes this tower over here for incoming calls, text messages from 5:53 to 7:13 PM.

(05:48:55)
And then we're utilizing this tower south of Brett Cole's home for an outgoing call to Stacey Griffin at 7:47 PM, lasting two minutes. And then another outgoing call at 7:51 PM to a Luke Sorge, phone number ending in 6568, for three seconds.

Mr. Kinsler (05:49:20):

And then this slide.

Jennifer Dillion (05:49:21):

Okay. This slide, again, we're advancing in time, 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM now. So, we're seeing that phone move back up north, back to that Whitesboro home address.

(05:49:31)
So, registering with a tower in the Antlers area, we have an incoming call at 8:10 PM from a Luke Sorge, phone number ending in 6568, for 31 minutes and 24 seconds. We have two outgoing calls, 9:00 PM and 9:03, utilizing towers in the Talihina area. And then the phone utilizes that tower that services the home address in Whitesboro for an incoming call from Stacey Griffin's phone ending in 3904. That occurs at 9:42 PM for 3 minutes and 13 seconds.

(05:50:09)
There is a notation at the bottom here that I put, that there are no communication records after that call with Stacey Griffin at 9:42. So, there's no more calls or text messages.

Mr. Kinsler (05:50:23):

Is it no more calls or texts that particular day?

Jennifer Dillion (05:50:26):

Correct. That day, yes.

Mr. Kinsler (05:50:31):

And this slide?

Jennifer Dillion (05:50:32):

Okay. This slide, we're looking at September 18th to the 21st. So, we're looking at that span of days. What we have here are calls with duration. Okay. And I just included the location of them, the towers that they registered with.

(05:50:50)
But we start over here with Saturday the 18th. So, we're seeing incoming and outgoing calls with duration. So, that tells us there's some communication happening, there's conversations happening, what you would normally see. Those range in times from 9:13 AM to 12:24, registering with this tower over here. The duration you'll see ranges from 1 minute, 13 seconds, up to 4 minutes and 8 seconds. So, that would tell us that there's conversation happening on these phone calls.

(05:51:19)
Then continuing on Saturday. Over here, we're still on the 18th. Registering with this tower, we have normal conversation occurring from 1:49 to 8:27 PM. We have incoming/outgoing calls. That range in duration, what you would see from normal conversation, 1 minute, 54 seconds, up to 33 minutes and 37 seconds.

(05:51:44)
Between this time, from the end of that on the 18th for the 19th and 20th, we have no outgoing calls, no incoming calls that were answered. There's no conversation for that time period in between. So, there's none of those durations you would typically see with that conversation.

(05:52:03)
And then we pick up on Tuesday, the 21st. That first outgoing call is at 1:48 PM, and we see it's 26 minutes and 24 seconds.

Mr. Kinsler (05:52:21):

That first outgoing call that takes place after, I guess the last call that connects, either outgoing or incoming, is 8:27 on the 18th, correct?

Jennifer Dillion (05:52:32):

Correct.

Mr. Kinsler (05:52:33):

And then there's no outgoing calls until that call at 1:48 on the 21st?

Jennifer Dillion (05:52:38):

That's correct.

Mr. Kinsler (05:52:40):

And do you remember... and I think you may need to direct me to a slide... that 1:48 call, do you remember where the phone was located or what tower it was striking off of?

Jennifer Dillion (05:52:50):

Yeah, you would have to go back. It is... Oh, nope.

Mr. Kinsler (05:52:53):

Too far?

Jennifer Dillion (05:52:54):

Too far. Yep. It's registering with this tower here that services the home address on River Road. And again, it's just notated that it's the first outgoing call.

Mr. Kinsler (05:53:05):

Okay. And that's at 1:48 PM Central Time?

Jennifer Dillion (05:53:09):

Central Time.

Mr. Kinsler (05:53:15):

And is that why this map is significant?

Jennifer Dillion (05:53:17):

That's correct.

Mr. Kinsler (05:53:18):

And why is that?

Jennifer Dillion (05:53:20):

Because the last tower registration for that prepaid phone was in Benton, Arkansas. According to Google, it takes approximately three hours to get from Benton, Arkansas, to the Whitesboro home address on River Road. So, from 10:40, that last tower registration, your first outgoing call begins at 1:48 PM.

Mr. Kinsler (05:53:40):

And I'm sorry, I think this is what you're referencing, the 10:48, the last call on the prepaid phone?

Jennifer Dillion (05:53:44):

Correct.

Mr. Kinsler (05:53:51):

Did you prepare some other visual aids or demonstrative aids for us?

Jennifer Dillion (05:53:54):

Yes.

Mr. Kinsler (05:53:55):

And did one of those pertain to Tracki or Tracki data?

Jennifer Dillion (05:53:58):

Yes.

Mr. Kinsler (05:53:59):

And what did you receive to do that?

Jennifer Dillion (05:54:02):

So, I received from investigators with the Belmont County Sheriff's Office a spreadsheet, a basic spreadsheet, Excel spreadsheet, with locations for a tracking device called Tracki, with subscriber information. But on this spreadsheet, it has the information: date and time, latitude, longitude, location information. Also includes battery-level information for those records. And then it also will have whether it's a GPS location or if it's a Wi-Fi location.

Mr. Kinsler (05:54:38):

And what did you wind up doing with those records?

Jennifer Dillion (05:54:41):

So, I put those in a mapping program that I used called CASTViz. It's an FBI mapping program. All the maps that you saw were in CASTViz. So, CASTViz allows us to upload other types of location data. So, I was able to take that spreadsheet for those Tracki locations, and I pulled out the GPS locations, because those are most reliable, and I was able to upload those to that program and map those along with cell tower information.

Mr. Kinsler (05:55:11):

Your Honor, I'm going to show her what's been marked as State's Exhibit 157I.

Speaker 7 (05:55:30):

No objection, Your Honor.

Judge (05:55:31):

Thank you. You may proceed.

Mr. Kinsler (05:55:32):

Is there a chance that this board would make it work? [inaudible 05:56:45]

Judge (05:57:11):

While he's figuring that out, ladies and gentlemen, do you want to stand for a minute?

Mr. Kinsler (05:57:20):

[inaudible 05:58:46] I don't think I have an issue with... That's just a USB, right?

Speaker 9 (05:57:22):

Is it on?

Mr. Kinsler (05:57:28):

Yeah, it's on this. I can move [inaudible 05:57:30].

Speaker 10 (05:57:29):

Thank you.

Mr. Kinsler (05:57:29):

Do you recognize what we're looking at here as State's 157I?

Jennifer Dillion (05:58:46):

Yes. Those are maps that I created.

Mr. Kinsler (05:58:49):

Okay. And I think you explained you use the same software?

Jennifer Dillion (05:58:53):

Yes. I use the software CASTViz. It's an FBI mapping program for cell phones and location data.

Mr. Kinsler (05:59:01):

Okay. We previously heard testimony from a witness who talked about Tracki data. Who did you receive Tracki data from?

Jennifer Dillion (05:59:08):

From Sergeant Blumling.

Mr. Kinsler (05:59:09):

Okay. And you used that data as well as what other information to make these?

Jennifer Dillion (05:59:16):

As you can see at the top of the map, I used the cell tower information for phone number ending in 0229 for Andrew Griffin, and then Thomas Strussion's phone ending in 7299. Investigators wanted to look at the Tracki device locations in addition to the cell tower locations, and wanted to see those mapped together.

Mr. Kinsler (05:59:39):

We've previously admitted State's Exhibit, I believe it was... I believe it was 148. Could you confirm? [inaudible 05:59:56]. 148. [inaudible 05:59:55]

Judge (06:00:02):

The Tracki report is 148.

Mr. Kinsler (06:00:04):

Thank you, Your Honor.

(06:00:04)
What we saw was a spreadsheet. Is that what you received?

Jennifer Dillion (06:00:13):

Yes.

Mr. Kinsler (06:00:13):

Okay. And-

Speaker 7 (06:00:17):

I'll stipulate that the data that this analyst used to complete 157 was derived from 148, Your Honor.

Mr. Kinsler (06:00:23):

Thank you.

Judge (06:00:23):

Stipulation so noted.

Mr. Kinsler (06:00:24):

And what information are you getting out of that spreadsheet?

Jennifer Dillion (06:00:29):

So, we're getting locations that include a date, a time, a latitude and longitude. It also indicates the battery level of the device, and indicates whether it's a GPS location or a Wi-Fi location.

Mr. Kinsler (06:00:45):

Is that distinction between GPS and Wi-Fi important to you?

Jennifer Dillion (06:00:49):

Yes, it is. GPS locations are more reliable, and Sergeant Blumling verified with the Tracki representative that that is, in fact, true for their device.

Mr. Kinsler (06:01:00):

And in this context, "more reliable," do we mean it's more accurate?

Jennifer Dillion (06:01:03):

Correct.

Mr. Kinsler (06:01:03):

Okay. And what are we looking at in the first page of State's Exhibit 157I?

Jennifer Dillion (06:01:09):

So, what we're looking at here is... on May 14th, you'll see at the top, we're looking at that first Tracki location at 11:57 PM, and it's placed near a home at... sorry, I'm going to have to move my screen here... 11 Oak Drive Circle in Wheeling, West Virginia. It's a little hard to see, but the black dots on here are the Tracki device locations.

Speaker 8 (06:01:40):

[inaudible 06:01:40] extend it?

Judge (06:01:41):

You are unable to see it?

Speaker 8 (06:01:43):

Yeah.

Judge (06:01:53):

All right. You may proceed. Sorry.

Jennifer Dillion (06:01:56):

Sure.

(06:01:57)
So, you can see there, the identifier for that record at 11:57 PM, with a battery level of 100%, there in the area of 11 Oak Drive Circle in Wheeling, West Virginia.

Mr. Kinsler (06:02:12):

And do I understand your testimony correctly that the map coordinates you're given, the latitude and longitude, that's reflected by the black dot?

Jennifer Dillion (06:02:18):

That's correct.

Mr. Kinsler (06:02:19):

And then who puts the little black house there?

Jennifer Dillion (06:02:22):

I enter that address information into CASTViz, and we can put locations of interest like you saw on that initial map. That's all in CASTViz. So, we can put those addresses in, we can put a latitude and longitude in for locations of interest, and then those will be placed on the map so you can see the relation to them and the locations you're looking at, whether it's a cell tower, whether it's a NELOS location, or, in this case, the Tracki device location.

Mr. Kinsler (06:02:55):

There's a little orange dot off to the left there toward the top. What is that?

Jennifer Dillion (06:02:58):

That's an available cell tower. So, when you zoom back out of this picture, you'll see that a cell tower is utilized on that day in that area of the home. That dot up there just indicates an available cell tower in the area. But for this time, at 11:57, there was a cell tower utilized there south of that home address.

Mr. Kinsler (06:03:37):

And this slide?

Jennifer Dillion (06:03:38):

So, this slide is May 15th, and we can see we have Salsa Joe's Elmwood location identified here. We have that Wheeling West Virginia home address identified here. We have the Salsa Joe's in Belmont, and then the Strussion home there with the red indicator.

(06:04:01)
So, we can see that these orange cell towers, identify the phone number ending in 0229, are registering with on May 15th. And the Tracki device traveled to both Salsa Joe's location on this day, and then returned to the Oak Drive Circle address. So, if he's able to zoom in and kind of move along the map, you'll see those black dots for that Tracki device moving along. And this is just an overall view for the day.

(06:04:37)
So, you'll see that they're in the Salsa Joe's in Belmont, two along there, running along 70 here, and then over here in the Wheeling area. And then we have locations out and around the Salsa Joe's in Wheeling.

Mr. Kinsler (06:05:18):

And this slide.

Jennifer Dillion (06:05:19):

Okay. So, we're looking at May 18th now, and we're looking at tower locations on this day for both Tom's phone ending in 7299... Mr. Strussion is identified in green... and then Mr. Griffin's phone ending in 0229 are the orange towers. Some of these towers, both phones are utilizing, and you'll see kind of a combination of colors there that they're utilizing the same tower.

(06:05:49)
So, this is overall all day, May 18th. When I looked at this information, I have a notation here that the Tracki device has locations at the Salsa Joe's in Wheeling, West Virginia, from 1:14 PM to 2:47 PM. During that time, both of those phones were utilizing towers near that location.

(06:06:09)
And then the Tracki device, you can see that it moves west, and I just have a closeup on top of the Strussion home for the Tracki device locations that arrived there. That's the first day it's seen at their home. And the timeframe for those locations that are depicted in that closeup view are from 3:55 PM to 10:02 PM.

Mr. Kinsler (06:06:43):

And am I correct that the 7299 number associated with Thomas Strussion, you depicted that in green, correct?

Jennifer Dillion (06:06:47):

Correct.

Mr. Kinsler (06:06:48):

And specifically, you mean where it's activating on a cell tower or a particular sector of a cell tower, you've depicted it with a green wedge in those two angles?

Jennifer Dillion (06:06:58):

Correct.

Mr. Kinsler (06:06:59):

Am I correct that Andrew Griffin's phone, the orange phone, 0229, that one is depicted in orange?

Jennifer Dillion (06:07:08):

Correct.

Mr. Kinsler (06:07:09):

And it doesn't appear to strike any towers that are, I guess, west of the Elm Grove... or Oak Drive, Wheeling, West Virginia address that you've highlighted?

Jennifer Dillion (06:07:22):

Correct.

Mr. Kinsler (06:07:33):

Okay. And this slide.

Jennifer Dillion (06:07:34):

This is May 19th, 2021. There's a notation that the Tracki device has locations at the Strussion home and both Salsa Joe's location. There is also a notation at the bottom there that, on this date, it is recorded that the battery level is at 30 to 40%.

(06:07:55)
So, you can see that both phones are utilizing towers here between both Salsa Joe's locations and Wheeling, West Virginia. And the Tracki device... a little hard to see... if you zoom in, you can see that there's locations recorded there.

Mr. Kinsler (06:08:30):

I'm sorry, you were saying that there are Tracki locations at Belmont Salsa Joe's?

Jennifer Dillion (06:08:34):

Yep. There's locations there at this Belmont Salsa Joe's. And then if you scroll over, you'll see additional locations at the Elm Grove location.

Mr. Kinsler (06:08:54):

These are also... And when you say the ones for Salsa Joe's Wheeling... I guess I'll zoom in on it for you. Can you point it out?

Jennifer Dillion (06:09:09):

Yes, it is here at this pinpoint. There's also a Tracki location up here north of Martins Ferry, just under the cell tower hit that is in green for Mr. Strussion's phone.

Mr. Kinsler (06:09:25):

So, the Tracki hits that are over here on the left, am I correct that there's some both by Salsa Joe's and by the Strussion home?

Jennifer Dillion (06:09:33):

Yes, correct. There's some at the Strussion home.

Mr. Kinsler (06:09:35):

And the furthest west, you have tower data for the defendant's phone, this phone ending in 0229. Would you point that out for us?

Jennifer Dillion (06:09:43):

Right here, along 70.

Mr. Kinsler (06:10:09):

Okay. And this slide.

Jennifer Dillion (06:10:09):

Okay. We're on May 20th, 2021. And you'll see that this Salsa Joe's in Belmont is depicted here, the incident location here on Trails End Road. That Tracki device has locations at both the incident location and Salsa Joe's in Belmont.

(06:10:29)
Additionally, the only towers that are utilized in that area are for the 7229 number depicted in green. I have a notation on that day that Andrew Griffin's phone, ending in 0229, utilizes towers in the area of his home in Wheeling, West Virginia.

Mr. Kinsler (06:11:01):

And this slide.

Jennifer Dillion (06:11:02):

Okay. On the same day, on May 20th, the phone ending in 7229 traveled to Columbus and utilized these towers you'll see. And there's also a Tracki location recorded there as well, at 1:27 PM.

(06:11:20)
So, Mr. Strussion's phone utilized towers in the area on that same day in Columbus that the Tracki device recorded a location.

Mr. Kinsler (06:11:29):

And nowhere in this do you find tower data on this map for the defendant's phone at that time?

Jennifer Dillion (06:11:36):

That's correct. It did not travel to Columbus on that day, according to the tower records.

Mr. Kinsler (06:11:49):

And this slide.

Jennifer Dillion (06:11:51):

This is just a two-day view, May 21st and 22nd of 2021. You'll see that there's travel between both locations of Salsa Joe's, the incident location and Salsa Joe's over here. Both phones are utilizing towers between all locations here, some down here. So, it appears there's maybe some travel. There's a cell tower here that's being utilized.

(06:12:18)
We have a Tracki device here, one in the area of the incident location. And I believe there might be one if you zoom in over here. It might be hard to see. But this is just an overall view of two days showing that both phones are kind of moving around, and there's a few Tracki devices... or excuse me, correction, few Tracki device locations, not devices.

(06:12:53)
See, it's a little hard to see the way that the map is and how that... but there is a location underneath there, underneath that home icon.

Mr. Kinsler (06:13:04):

Okay. The little circle under Wheeling, is that significant? Is that something you put there?

Jennifer Dillion (06:13:09):

Oh, that's just a pinpoint icon to identify the Salsa Joe's there, in purple.

Mr. Kinsler (06:13:13):

I'm sorry. It's referring to the-

Jennifer Dillion (06:13:15):

I'm sorry.

Mr. Kinsler (06:13:15):

... circle right under the two E's in wheeling. I just wondered if that was related to Tracki.

Jennifer Dillion (06:13:20):

No, that's just in that pinpoint. That's just the circle within that pinpoint icon.

Mr. Kinsler (06:13:37):

And this slide.

Jennifer Dillion (06:13:39):

This is May 23rd, 2021. And I have a notation here that near the incident location, there's a Tracki device location at 11:54. The device is located at the home address on Trails End Road, and has a battery level of 5% on this day. This is the last day that-

Jennifer Dillion (06:14:00):

... on this day. This is the last day that the device was seen at the home on Trails End Road and is the last locations in the records until June 3rd, 2021.

Mr. Kinsler (06:14:17):

And here, the tracking data, I can see the tracking data at Strussion's home. Is there tracking data depicted elsewhere on here?

Jennifer Dillion (06:14:26):

No.

Mr. Kinsler (06:14:28):

Okay. And I can also see the green indicators for tower activity from Mr. Strussion's phone on the left side of the screen, but on the right side of the screen, orange angles for the tower activity for Andrew Griffin's phone ending in 0299 or 0229. That defendant's phone, 0229, never travels west of the Wheeling area.

Jennifer Dillion (06:14:56):

That's correct. It stays in the area of Wheeling utilizing these towers. And Mr. Strussion's phone stays over here on these green towers in the area of Belmont.

Mr. Kinsler (06:15:11):

In this slide?

Jennifer Dillion (06:15:12):

This is the next record that was in from that last date on June 3rd. There's one location recorded, one GPS location recorded on that date on June 3rd, and it is located there at the home on Oak Drive Circle address. And there is a notation that the battery level was at 5%.

Mr. Kinsler (06:15:36):

In this slide?

Jennifer Dillion (06:15:47):

June 4th, the next day, we have the tracking device location in the area of that home on Oak Drive Circle, and the battery level is now registering at 98 and 100%.

Mr. Kinsler (06:16:02):

I can see one, you said there were two?

Jennifer Dillion (06:16:06):

Yes. They're probably layered on top of each other, but there were records that indicated the battery level was at 98%. And then again, it registered with 100% level.

Mr. Kinsler (06:16:26):

And this slide.

Jennifer Dillion (06:16:28):

Okay. This is just the tracking device locations or locations it recorded at those locations of interest. So I just zoomed in on each one. We've got the home on Trails End. We have all of these tracking locations registering there. At the Salsa Joe's in Belmont, you can see they're registering there. Salsa Joe's Wheeling, we have locations here and the Oak Drive Circle home address here.

Mr. Kinsler (06:17:16):

Did you create an additional slide? You had records for Andrew Griffin's phone extending back throughout that year, 2021. Is that correct?

Jennifer Dillion (06:17:27):

That's correct.

Mr. Kinsler (06:17:28):

Did you create another slide comparing a travel date from August of 2021 to the travel of the subscriber phone or the subject phone?

Jennifer Dillion (06:17:38):

Correct.

Mr. Kinsler (06:17:39):

Your Honor, I'm going to show what's been marked as State's Exhibit 157E.

Judge (06:17:44):

Mr. Shamansky, do you have any input?

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (06:17:55):

I do not, sir. No objection.

Judge (06:17:56):

Okay.

Mr. Kinsler (06:18:25):

You recognize 157E?

Jennifer Dillion (06:18:27):

Yes.

Mr. Kinsler (06:18:28):

And what are we looking at?

Jennifer Dillion (06:18:29):

I created these two maps, just placed them on top of each other to show the same travel path basically from Andrew Griffin's phone ending in 0229, the travel path it took in August of 2021 from Belmont, Ohio back to the Whitesboro home address in comparison to the prepaid phone ending in 4775, its travel path from the incident location back to that last Benton, Arkansas address, just showing a similar, the same travel path for those two different phones.

Mr. Kinsler (06:19:08):

In the top half of that slide, the home address you mentioned at the end, is that the defendant's residence in Whitesboro?

Jennifer Dillion (06:19:14):

Correct.

Mr. Kinsler (06:19:17):

Were you also asked to prepare a slide in relation to James Joby?

Jennifer Dillion (06:19:32):

Yes.

Mr. Kinsler (06:19:32):

And what did you do?

Jennifer Dillion (06:19:34):

I took the subscriber information for the prepaid phone that the subscriber name was James Joby. And recently in the investigation, investigators received additional physical phones and those physical phones had Cellebrite extractions done on them. So they had that information forensically downloaded from the phone. And within that one of those phones, there was a Facebook contact saved on that phone and the name was James Joby.

(06:20:10)
So I then took that within that contact that you'll see, it saved it as the user ID. So it has the actual Facebook user ID. So Facebook assigns all of us a unique identifier in the background for your Facebook account. So you can take that unique identifier and just pop it in after www.facebook.com/ and then put that user ID in. And we looked at that page and that is for a James Joby that investigators eventually identified and spoke with.

Mr. Kinsler (06:20:51):

Your Honor, I'd like to show her State's Exhibit 157H.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (06:20:54):

No objection, Your Honor.

Judge (06:20:55):

You may proceed.

Mr. Kinsler (06:21:06):

And do you recognize State's Exhibit 14, excuse me, 157H?

Jennifer Dillion (06:21:11):

Yes, I created this.

Mr. Kinsler (06:21:13):

All right. I think you mentioned the Cricket subscriber record is on the left?

Jennifer Dillion (06:21:18):

Correct.

Mr. Kinsler (06:21:19):

And then what's on the top right?

Jennifer Dillion (06:21:21):

Top right is a screenshot of that contact from that new phone that was received by investigators with James Jobe as the contact saved in that phone. What you'll see here is a Facebook ID number. That's that unique identifier that Facebook has for your account. And then when you put that in the URL for Facebook, it brought back this gentleman's Facebook account. Investigators identified that individual and spoke with him.

Mr. Kinsler (06:22:03):

Did you also prepare a slide or slides for Facebook communications between Cole and Corey White?

Jennifer Dillion (06:22:10):

Yes.

Mr. Kinsler (06:22:10):

And explain for the jurors, what did you do with that?

Jennifer Dillion (06:22:15):

So Facebook records were received for Brett Cole's account. Those come in just a PDF form. So it's all communication records, postings, things like that. And I just took that information, made a visual so it's easy to understand and pulled out that communication that Brett Cole had on the 13th with Corey White about the purchase of that motorcycle.

Mr. Kinsler (06:22:43):

Your Honor, I'd like to display what's been marked as State's 157B.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (06:22:51):

No objection, Your Honor.

Judge (06:22:52):

You may proceed.

Mr. Kinsler (06:22:54):

Thank you, Your Honor.

Judge (06:22:55):

And what was that?

Mr. Kinsler (06:22:56):

157B.

Judge (06:22:59):

Thank you.

Mr. Kinsler (06:22:59):

Do you recognize this?

Jennifer Dillion (06:23:15):

Yes, I created this visual.

Mr. Kinsler (06:23:17):

Okay. And how are you creating it?

Jennifer Dillion (06:23:20):

I am taking the information from that Facebook return and just putting it in a visual form that you typically see when you use your phone and you're communicating so you can follow that communication back and forth. So on the left-hand side, in the blue message bubbles, that represents Brett Cole's side of the conversation. On the right side in the gray message bubbles represents Corey White's side of the conversation in regards to that motorcycle purchase.

Mr. Kinsler (06:23:54):

It indicates at the bottom right the source of this information. What was that?

Jennifer Dillion (06:23:58):

The source was Brett Cole's Facebook account, so the records for his account were used.

Mr. Kinsler (06:24:03):

And it includes the date, or excuse me, includes the date up top, forgive me, the date up top and then the times in the actual, in the screen?

Jennifer Dillion (06:24:30):

Correct. This Facebook communication took place on September 13th, that day of the purchase, and the communication starts on the top left with Brett Cole's message at 9:18 AM Central Time, and then it continues on. There are a few pages to this for that conversation.

Mr. Kinsler (06:24:51):

Am I correct this is a conversation about buying a motorcycle?

Jennifer Dillion (06:24:54):

Correct. Again, you'll see Brett Cole's side of the conversation on the left indicated in the blue message bubbles and Corey White's side of the conversation indicated on the right in the gray message bubbles. And then again, continuing here, and this is the last slide of the conversation, and then Corey White marks the motorcycle as sold at 5:18:50 PM Central Time.

Mr. Kinsler (06:25:29):

When you get these records, what sort of time information are you given?

Jennifer Dillion (06:25:54):

So all of the records typically come in UTC time. That's Coordinated Universal Time. That is the primary standard of time that's used globally to set our time for our time zones. So here in Eastern, we are in Eastern Time Zone, so we are three to four hours, or excuse me, four to five hours behind depending on daylight savings time. So it's just that main standard of time used to set all clocks to for the different time zones. We get those back and then those times, everything that you see has been adjusted to either Eastern Time or Central Time.

(06:26:33)
So this discussion happened in Central Time where they're located in Oklahoma and Texas, and that's what is depicted on the time here.

Mr. Kinsler (06:26:43):

You also get this or some similar information. You get it in military time?

Jennifer Dillion (06:26:47):

Correct.

Mr. Kinsler (06:26:48):

And you have to convert it to conventional time or 12 hour time?

Jennifer Dillion (06:26:51):

Correct.

Mr. Kinsler (06:26:52):

Okay. Was that done in this case on all of your documents?

Jennifer Dillion (06:26:55):

Correct.

Mr. Kinsler (06:26:56):

The slides that we've looked at today, your call detail report, State's Exhibit 157FFF, the tracking report 157I, the comparison of the two travel paths 157E, and the James Joby slide 157H, and this slide, the Facebook communication 157B, are those all true and accurate reflections of the records you looked at and prepared for today?

Jennifer Dillion (06:27:30):

Yes.

Mr. Kinsler (06:27:34):

Okay. I have nothing for this witness. Thank you, Your Honor.

Judge (06:27:38):

All right. Mr. Shamansky, do you wish to undertake cross-examination?

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (06:27:39):

Yes, Judge, briefly. Good afternoon.

Jennifer Dillion (06:27:42):

Good afternoon.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (06:27:43):

So as an analyst, you're of course tasked with a very important, but I don't want to say tedious, but painstaking job of putting things in a format that everybody can understand, right?

Jennifer Dillion (06:27:54):

Yes.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (06:27:54):

So your job is, of course, aid the jury in understanding the relationship of one piece of evidence to another, right?

Jennifer Dillion (06:28:01):

Correct.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (06:28:02):

And in this case, you of course have no knowledge, nor do you purport to have knowledge about who was calling whom. Once in a while you used the term like Brett Cole was doing it. You don't know who was making phone calls, right? That's fair to say.

Jennifer Dillion (06:28:15):

I don't know who was utilizing that phone at that time, but I know from the investigators and their investigation-

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (06:28:21):

No, time out. Hold on. I'm just going to stick with what you know.

Jennifer Dillion (06:28:26):

Okay.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (06:28:26):

So just answer that question.

Jennifer Dillion (06:28:27):

I know that the-

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (06:28:28):

Hold on, ma'am.

Jennifer Dillion (06:28:30):

Oh, I'm sorry.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (06:28:30):

I'm going to repeat this so it's not confusing.

Jennifer Dillion (06:28:33):

Sure.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (06:28:33):

I'm not doing a good job of asking this question. You weren't present when any of these phone calls were made?

Jennifer Dillion (06:28:39):

No.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (06:28:39):

You don't know who was utilizing the device, correct?

Jennifer Dillion (06:28:41):

Correct.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (06:28:42):

The information that you referenced and placed on the slide is subscriber information, correct?

Jennifer Dillion (06:28:47):

Correct.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (06:28:47):

Okay. That's all I'm getting at.

Jennifer Dillion (06:28:49):

Okay.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (06:28:49):

Now, you've been with BCI and I for how long?

Jennifer Dillion (06:28:52):

29 years.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (06:28:53):

And they don't have a division that does DNA, do they?

Jennifer Dillion (06:28:58):

They have a laboratory that processes evidence for criminal cases across the state.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (06:29:03):

But it's no good? It's not accredited? It's not properly staffed?

Jennifer Dillion (06:29:08):

We are an accredited laboratory and agency.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (06:29:12):

And you do DNA cases all over the state, right? You mean-

Mr. Kinsler (06:29:14):

Objection, Your Honor.

Judge (06:29:14):

Approach.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (06:30:40):

Now ma'am, to be clear, you've been there three decades, right?

Jennifer Dillion (06:30:43):

Correct.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (06:30:44):

And you know that Andy Wilson's office oversees BCI and I, right?

Jennifer Dillion (06:30:57):

Correct.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (06:30:58):

And the citizens of Ohio have had a very well accredited and capable DNA group of scientists and analysts for years, right?

Jennifer Dillion (06:31:10):

I'm not an employee of the laboratory.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (06:31:12):

I know that.

Jennifer Dillion (06:31:12):

I'm an employee in the investigation division, so I can't speak to the laboratory specifics for accreditation or processes.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (06:31:21):

I understand that. What you can speak to is that you've testified hundreds and hundreds of times across the state, correct?

Jennifer Dillion (06:31:26):

Not hundreds.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (06:31:27):

No? About?

Jennifer Dillion (06:31:29):

13 times.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (06:31:29):

How many?

Jennifer Dillion (06:31:30):

13 times in the state of Ohio, I've testified.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (06:31:33):

So in 30 years doing this important job, you've only been in a courtroom setting 13 times?

Jennifer Dillion (06:31:37):

I've been an analyst for 15 years.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (06:31:40):

Okay.

Jennifer Dillion (06:31:40):

The last 15, and I've testified 13 times.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (06:31:43):

Okay. And the 13 times that you've capably testified, you've also had colleagues from your office that have testified regarding DNA evidence, correct?

Jennifer Dillion (06:31:51):

Correct.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (06:31:51):

Okay. And so the only thing I'm getting at is your employer has a division that does DNA, right?

Jennifer Dillion (06:31:57):

Correct.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (06:31:57):

And you've had trials where they've been utilized by prosecutors all over the state of Ohio, correct?

Jennifer Dillion (06:32:02):

Correct.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (06:32:02):

Okay. One second. Tell me, you analyzed Brett Cole's cell phone records?

Jennifer Dillion (06:32:09):

I looked at his US Cellular records, correct.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (06:32:11):

I'm sorry?

Jennifer Dillion (06:32:11):

I looked at his US Cellular records, that's correct.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (06:32:14):

Okay. Did you put together any slides or anything like that?

Jennifer Dillion (06:32:17):

Not for his records, specifically.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (06:32:18):

Okay. That's all I have. Thank you, Your Honor.

Judge (06:32:21):

Any redirect?

Mr. Kinsler (06:32:22):

No, Your Honor. Thank you.

Judge (06:32:23):

May this witness be excused?

Mr. Kinsler (06:32:24):

Yes, Your Honor. Thank you.

Judge (06:32:25):

Thank you very much.

Jennifer Dillion (06:32:26):

Thank you, Your Honor.

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (06:32:26):

Approach, Your Honor?

Judge (06:33:07):

Yes.

(06:33:07)
All right, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that's where we're going to stop for today. You're going to leave your notebooks underneath your seat. They're going to be there Monday. And on a positive note, you get to go a couple days without hearing me say these same orders over and over again. Remember, when you leave here, have no discussions with anybody about this case. Do not let anyone have a discussion in front of you about this case. Undertake no investigation on your own about any of the facts of this case. Do not watch any media report, including online, about this case, and certainly do not post anything online about this case.

(06:33:54)
With that said, I want to thank you again for another very intended day. You are released. I need you back here Monday morning, 8:45. Thank you.

(06:34:04)
While they're exiting, will everybody approach? Mr. Vavra, outside the presence of the jury, is there any issues that the state needs to address?

Mr. Kinsler (06:35:20):

No, Judge.

Judge (06:35:21):

Mr. Shamansky?

Attorney Samuel Shamansky (06:35:24):

No, Your Honor.

Judge (06:35:25):

All right. There is an outstanding issue we need to address in chambers. I'd ask the parties to join me there now, then the court will be in recess until Monday. Thank you.

‍

Topics:

No items found.

Keep reading

OH v. Andrew Griffin Day 5

OH v. Andrew Griffin Day 4

CT v. Cooper Ouellette Day 2

CT v. Cooper Ouellette Day 1

Patrick Clancy Wrongful Death Lawsuit

OH v. Andrew Griffin Day 3

OH v. Andrew Griffin Day 5

Keep reading

Subscribe to The Rev Blog