December28,2015

JohnNeuner
ExecutiveDirector
ASCLD/LABInternational
139TechnologyDr.#J
Garner,NC27529

RE:NotificationofComplaintLetter,dated11/04/2015

DearJohnNeuner:

TheBrowardSheriffsCrimeLaboratoryconductedathoroughinvestigationofthecomplaint,basedonthe
clarificationprovidedonNovember20,2015.ThismemorandumisinresponsetotheissuesraisedbyTiffany
RoyasspecifiedinMelissaSmrzsemaildatedNovember20,2015.

1. SWGDAM3.6.1(page1TiffanyRoysletterprovidedonNovember20,2015):
Thelaboratorymustestablishguidelinestoensurethat,totheextentpossible,DNAtypingresultsfrom
evidentiarysamplesareinterpretedbeforecomparisonwithanyknownsamples,otherthanthoseof
assumedcontributors.
o Thelaboratorydoeshaveestablishedguidelines:SeeDNAUnitManualSection24,page1
(Attachment1).
o ChrisComarstatedinhis8/27/2014deposition(page13,line18page14,line7;andpage25
lines2325)thatthequestionedsamples(Qs)areanalyzed/evaluatedpriortothereference
standards(Ks),inaccordancewithpolicy.

2. SWGDAM3.6.2.1(page2TiffanyRoysletterprovidedonNovember20,2015):
Forpartialprofiles,thedeterminationofwhichalleles/lociaresuitableforcomparisonandstatistical
analysisshouldbemadepriortocomparisontoknownprofiles.
o PerBSOUnitManualSection29,pages12,theBSODNAUnitdoesnotperformstatistical
calculationsonanyquestionsamples(singlesourceormixtures)priortocomparisontoanyknown
orreferencestandards(Attachment2).
o ItshouldbenotedthatthesubsequentSWGDAMguidelines3.6.2.2,3.6.3,and3.6.4areincluded
aspartoftheBSODNAUnitsSOPs,Sections26,28,and29(Attachments3,4,and2respectively)
pertainingtoinclusions,exclusions,andinconclusiveresultsincomparisonofaknownstandardto
aquestionedsample.
o ChrisComarstatedinhis8/27/2014deposition(page25,lines2325)thathemadehis
interpretationoftheDNAtypingresultswithoutreferencetothestandards.

3. SWGDAM4.6.3(page2TiffanyRoysletterprovidedonNovember20,2015):
WhenusingCPE/CPI(withnoassumptionsofnumberofcontributors)tocalculatetheprobabilitythata
randomlyselectedpersonwouldbeexcluded/includedasacontributortothemixture,lociwithalleles
belowthestochasticthresholdmaynotbeusedforstatisticalpurposestosupportaninclusion.In
theseinstances,thepotentialforallelicdropoutraisesthepossibilityofcontributorshavinggenotypes
notencompassedbytheinterpretedalleles.

JohnNeuner
December28,2015
Page2
o

o
o

PerDNAUnitManualSection22,pages34(Attachment5),thereisanalleleinterpretation
thresholdof400RFUsandthehomozygoteinterpretationthresholdof750RFUsforsingleallele
resultsatalocus.Itisnotusedasastochasticthreshold.
Validationofthehomozygotethresholdisavailableuponrequest.
ChrisComarexplainedtheBSOLabpolicyonalleleandhomozygoteinterpretationthresholdsin
the8/27/2014deposition(page26,lines18)
ThelaboratorymeetsthecriteriasetforthbySWGDAM3.2.2whichstatesthatIfastochastic
thresholdbasedonpeakheightisnotusedintheevaluationofDNAtypingresults,thelaboratory
mustestablishalternativecriteria(e.g.,quantitationvaluesoruseofaprobabilisticgenotype
approach)foraddressingpotentialstochasticamplification.Thecriteriamustbesupportedby
empiricaldataandinternalvalidationandmustbedocumentedinthestandardoperating
procedures.

Acutoffstudywasconductedtominimizeanypotentialstochasticamplifications;validation
isavailableuponrequest.

4.

PerDNAUnitManualSection22,page4(Attachment5)Peakheightratiovaluesarenot
usedtoestablishthepresenceorinclusionofapossibledonorinasinglesourceormixture
sample.Peakheightdifferencesmaybeusedasanaidtodetermineifasampleissingle
sourceorapossiblemixture.
o
BSODNAUnitcalculatesCPIsforallinclusionsinmixturesamplesusingfulldonorcontributionas
themainrule(pursuanttoSWGDAM3.6.2.2,3.6.3and3.6.4).Peakheightratiosarenotusedin
CPIcalculations.Thisapproachhasbeenformulatedinconsultationwithandsupportedbyexperts
inthefield.(Attachment6)
o
ItshouldalsobenotedthatstatisticalcalculationswithintheForensicDNAfieldisahighlydebated
issuewithoutacurrentresolution.ThisisacknowledgedbyMs.Royintheinitial(original)
allegationdocument,(secondparagraph)whichstatesIknowthereisadebateonthistopicinthe
filed

FBIdatabase(page3TiffanyRoysletterprovidedonNovember20,2015):
statisticalfrequenciesrelieduponinthecalculationofthiscasewereoutdatedandinaccurate.
o
ChrisComarutilizedtheFBIdatabasethatwasavailableatthetimeofanalysis.
o
ThePublicDefenderandStateAttorneywereinformedinamemorandumdatedJuly6,2015that
theFBIhadamendedtheFBIShortTandemRepeatPopulation(STR)Database(Attachment7).

5.

ThememorandumindicatesthatStatisticalrecalculationsusingtheamendedand
expandedFBIfrequencytableswillbeperformedonoldcasesuponthereceiptofacourt
orderthroughasupplementalreport.

BSOprotocolsDNA30,DNA31andDNA32:
ThespecificareasoftheprotocolImlookingataretheentiretyofprotocol31andonpage3ofDNA32
underPartialorNoMajor/MinorDistinction
o InresponsetoMs.RoysemailcommunicationtoMelissaSmrz,thequotedinformationis
inaccurateandfromanoutdatedversionofDNAUnitManual:Section32StatisticalEvaluationsof
STRresultsinCODISthatwasineffect20130530.TheapplicableversionoftheDNAUnitManual
forthiscaseistheversionidentifiedas20140102wherebySection32becameSection29
(Attachments8and2,respectively).Thecontentsofsection32(version20130530)werealso
updatedwiththisrevision.
o Similarly,Section31wasineffect(version20130530)andwasrevisedtobecomeSection28
referencinginconclusiveresults(version20140102;Attachment4).Thecontentsofsection31
(version20130530)werealsoupdatedwiththisrevision.Itisnotclearwhataspectofthisprotocol
istheissue.
o ChrisComardidnotresolveanymajorprofilesfromthismixture,asspecifiedinboththereport
andhis8/27/2014deposition(page17,lines912;page33line23page34line7).

JohnNeuner
December28,2015
Page3
o

ChrisComarfollowedtheunitsprotocols,Sections:26,pages23;28,page1;and29,page3
(Attachments3,4,and2respectively)tomakeinterpretationsonthismixtureforanyinclusionsor
exclusionsofthecomparedreferencestandardsinthiscase.

Basedonourinvestigationintotheissuesbroughtforthinthisallegation,itisouropinionthattheyare
unfounded.

Ifyourequirefurtherclarification,pleasefeelfreetocontactme.
Sincerely,

ClaudineCarterPereira
CrimeLaboratoryDirector