Gateway murder trial

We will return to court Monday at 9 am.

The trial is supposed to be done by midweek next week (at least that’s the judge’s latest estimate)

See you then!

[She is the woman who says Fred Cooper asked for the gate code to Cypress Pointe in Gateway in December 2005.]

She was a WCI sales agent for Gateway in December 2005. The office was on Gateway Boulevard. (Gateway sales and information center).

December 23rd – a Friday – she was working at the sales center. They were having a small inter-office party.

On that day, sometime between 9 and 11:30 a.m.,  someone came in to the office wanting a gate code to Cypress Pointe.

Said he was renting a room from someone in Cypress Pointe and needed a gate code for the community. She shook his hand.

She says he was taller than her, had a goatee and a mustache and he was “a good size gentleman”

She didn’t have the code to give him, but wouldn’t have given it to him anyways.

She walked him to the porch and told him goodbye…she walked him outside. He left on a motorcycle.

He had on jeans, tshirt and a jacket. Nothing particular about the jacket. She doesn’t remember the color of the motorcycle.

She identified Fred Cooper as the person who came to her office.

She didn’t give the incident another thought.

Everyone in Gateway was talking about the murders.

There was a time when she thought about the incident again. She and her husband were watching TV and saw Fred Cooper on TV.

She says the hair on the back of my neck stood up and said it was the guy looking for the code to Cypress Pointe.

At work the next day, she told her sales manager about it. He contacted police.

She didn’t contact police because “they had already arrested him” She did end up meeting with Det Ryan.

She was shown a photo lineup (exhibit 77) the detective showed her that day. It is the original.

Defense objected to the photo lineup but the judge overruled.

The lineup was entered into evidence.

She picked someone out of the lineup – and it was Fred Cooper. She says she took her time with the photos.

She wrote “it looks like #3.”

Cross examination by defense

They’re asking how long the man was in the office (5 to ten minutes) and also asked if he walked the man out – she did walk outside the door but didn’t leave the porch.

She doesn’t remember the color of the motorcycle

He’s asking about her statement when she made the ID. The defense is questioning the difference between “similar” and “looks like.” Defense keeps asking her if she said somthing and then showing her th estaement she made and asking about the identification. (she wrote on the paper, it looks like #3 but I can’t be positive)

Defense is asking about her deposition on October 31, 2006.

Prosecution redirect

There is no doubt in her mind the man in the courtroom is the man who came into the sales center.

Defense redirect

You were 8 on a scale of 1 to 10 in your certainty when doing the photo lineup. (yes that’s true)

Witness excused

Still going over DNA results on a graphic I can’t see.

You can see all the results on our special website: http://www.nbc-2.com/gatewaytrial/

State redirecting

Each lab sets its own threshhold standards.

Now the defense is objecting to introducing information about the standards the DDC lab had at the time. (It appears they had stricter standards when processing this evidence than they do now)

The judge sustained the objection. Question not asked.

It’s only a possibility there was a third man’s DNA in one location on the outside of the nightgown. (there are three loci where there are foreign alleles)

Defense redirect

Again, we’re going over the DNA on the outside of the nightgown.

She’s excused, no more questions.

Now the prosecution is approaching the bench…probably trying to decide whether we should adjourn for the weekend or continue now that it’s just before 5 pm.

The defense is now cross examining the witness.

The fingernails were packaged by hand. All of the left hand fingernails were in one envelope. All of the right hand fingernails were in another envelope.

We’re going over the DNA evidence found under the fingernails.

One of the alleles is “foreign” it isn’t Steven or Fred. Expert says there is no presence of three males, there are two male donors and that one allele there is contamination.

Defense says the presence of that allele can exclude Fred. The expert said that’s not true.

Now we’re looking at results of the outside of the nightgown. It’s a partial mix profile. Steven and Fred cannot be excluded. Steven and Fred have identical alleles at four loci – defense wants to know where there are loci where it’s only Fred’s DNA.

They’re pointing at a graphic that most of us in the courtroom cannot see…so it’s hard to explain what is going on. It appears the results on the outside of the nightgown could be a mixture of three people. Steve is the major contributor, Fred is called a minor contributor.

She is from the private DNA lab,  DNA Diagnostics Center (DDC), that processed much of the evidence. (previous witness was from there as well)

She did the YSTR analysis (17 markers on Y chromosome). Y profile passed down from father to son.

Statistics are figured out a little differently. They use a database to determine frequency.

DDC started doing YSTR testing in July 2005.

State’s exhibit 39 – Steven’s blood sample/standard

Buccal swab of Fred Cooper for DNA sample/standard

States exhibit 38 – Michelle’s nightgown. It was YSTR tested.

One spot, Steven could not be excluded
Another spot couldn’t be tested, insufficient amount of DNA

They swabbed the inside and outside of the nightgown for YSTR analysis.
Fingernails were also tested using YSTR analysis.

Power Point presentation going to be presented to help in the understanding of the evidence. She’s explaining the 16 markers or loci used in the YSTR testing. Each is called an allele.

One of the slides shows Steven’s YSTR DNA. Another shows the DNA profile of Fred Cooper. They have five of the same alleles.

Swab of the inside of the nightgown, on spot 28B, Steven Andrews could not be excluded and Fred Cooper could not be excluded.

Swab of the outside of the nightgown. Both Steven and Fred could not be excluded.

06A swab from the right hand fingernails of Michelle Andrews.  Both Steven and Fred cannot be excluded.

***There were no profiles inconsistent with Fred or steven.

Colors are scientifically incorrect and misleading. The presentation was done by someone at the State Attorney’s Office.

Gives impression Fred and Steve contributed 50/50 to a particular piece of DNA

The color coded slides are not going to be used.

She also worked at DDC  – now there’s a discussion as to whether or not a power point presentation can be used to aid her testimony.

She is now looking at the camo jacket. she tested seven areas with the hema stick and they were negative for blood.

There were several areas of the jacket consistent with staining/cleaning.

Michelle’s fingernails were all packaged in one envelope.  Dr. Julie Heinig did the swabbing of the fingernails. (to test for blood and DNA)

The gloves - presumptive came back negative – but had Cooper’s DNA.

She used one swab for the inside of the nightgown and one swab for the outside of the nightgown (when swabbing for DNA testing)

State’s exhibit 59 – the pink rag – The rag is not a complete rectangle. There’s a seam right down the middle. This was positive for a male’s DNA but it wasn’t Fred or Steven.

Redirect by state

Lab does hundreds of samples a day. Majority are paternity, but there’s no difference – other than chain of custody. Science and techniques are all the same. The standards are a l ittle different. there are more rules than for forensic cases than paternity cases.

Bleach and UV light destroys DNA

Defense redirect

asked about whether LCSO sent aerosol cans for testing.

She works for DNA diagnostics center. They processed many pieces of evidence in this case.

She tested many of the motorcycle parts, vaginal swabs from Michelle, camo jacket, pink rag, fingernail clippings, rings.

All of the items were positive for blood in the presumptive testing. Some were confirmatory tested, others weren’t

Steven’s back – positive for blood
Right elbow – positive
Fingernails – positive
Rings – positive
Wedding band – Michelle positive – negative confirmatory for blood
Rag – positive
Foot peg from motorcycle – positive (for blood) – negative confirmatory for blood

Negative for blood:
Left fot peg of motorcycle – negative
Black key fob – negative
Gear shift assembly and brake lever assembly – neg
Motorcycle gloves – neg
Camo jacket and liner – neg
Vaginal swab tested for semen – positive.

Wedding band – no DNA
Foot pegs – no DNA from either
Gear shift – no DNA
Brake lever – no DNA
Passenger seat – no DNA
Gas tank – no DNA
Driver’s seat – no DNA
Handlebars – no DNA

For full DNA results – go to http://www.nbc-2.com/gatewaytrial/

Key fob matched Cooper’s DNA. The motorcycle gloves matched Cooper’s DNA. (No DNA from Michelle)

DNA from Semen in vaginal swab matched Steven Andrews. Michelle’s DNA was also found.

Engagement ring – DNA matched Michelle Andrews

DNA from under Michelle’s fingernails were tested. They included Michelle Andrews’ DNA.

Masking – a sample that’s rich in one person’sDNA, it may mask out another person’s DNA. Another test can be run which can overcome masking. If the victim is a woman, you can do YSTR DNA testing, which only tests the MALE DNA. It focuses on the Y chromosome.

Michelle’s nails were tested for male DNA through YSTR.

The camo jacket and mesh liner – neither had any stains that appeared to be blood stains. there were also many discolored areas. She knew it had been cleaned but didn’t know with what. She didn’t feel it would be possible to get DNA from the jacket or the lining.

Exhibit 38 – the nightgown. She was looking for DNA, swabbed both the inside and the outside.

Defense is cross examining the witness

At the time the DDC lab mainly does paternity testing. A small minority of their cases are forensic.

Defense  exhibits 37 (right foot peg) and 39 (key fob) – no blood or DNA on the foot pegs.

DNA from the black key fob was Fred’s.

None of the motorcycle parts had DNA extracted.

The black mesh liner (exhibit 66) – she didn’t swab the lining of the jacket. She did the “hema stick” test for blood on the camoflouge jacket’s mesh lining. She tested 11 places with a hema stick for blood.

State’s exhibit 91 – the black adidas tennis shoes (from Fred’s home) Seized December 29th, 2005.

They are done with her…