Defense expert for Rex A. Heuermann casts doubt on DNA lab

The novel DNA analysis used by a California laboratory to link alleged Gilgo Beach serial killer Rex A. Heuermann to the killings of several women is a "paradigm shift" and "radically different" from established methods, a defense expert testified Thursday at an ongoing hearing to determine the admissibility of the key prosecution evidence.

Dan Krane, a professor of biological sciences at Wright State University in Ohio and the president and CEO of Forensic Bioinformatic Services, said the whole genome sequencing method and probabilistic genotyping to create likelihood ratios employed by California-based Astrea Forensics and its IBDGem software — used to link Heuermann to degraded rootless hair samples found at the Gilgo Beach crime scenes — "is not widely used."

"There's much about what [Astrea's founder] Dr. [Richard] Green is doing with IBDGem that could be construed as being paradigm-shifting," said Krane, testifying from the witness stand in a Riverhead courtroom under direct questioning by Heuermann defense attorney Danielle Coysh.

Lab questions

"It is the new kid on the block," Krane said. "We've had one paper that describes wha  t IBDGem does."

  Krane was the second witness called by Heuermann's defense team in an effort to rebuff the contention from prosecutors that Astrea's methods are widely accepted in the scientific community.

Prosecutors are seeking to have Suffolk Supreme Court Justice Timothy Mazzei allow Astrea's findings before a jury. Prosecutors have argued the nuclear DNA evidence in the case against Heuermann should be admissible, in part because the results were corroborated by a second lab's mitochondrial DNA analysis.

Heuermann, seated at the defense table, appeared to pay close attention to Krane's testimony. He spoke briefly in open court when the judge told him he would not be returning to the courtroom Tuesday, when attorneys are scheduled to hold a brief scheduling conference and the defense is expected to say whether they plan to call another witness.

"Understood," said Heuermann, in response to the judge.

Heuermann, 61, of Massapequa Park, has pleaded not guilty to murder in the killings of Melissa Barthelemy, Maureen Brainard-Barnes, Amber Lynn Costello, Sandra Costilla, Valerie Mack, Jessica Taylor and Megan Waterman. All of the women were sex workers.

During cross-examination, Suffolk County District Attorney Ray Tierney, in an attempt to counter Krane's testimony that Astrea's methods aren't widely used, highlighted a large international forensic DNA laboratory's purchase of whole genome sequencing kits from Astrea.

Tierney questions credibility

Tierney also attempted to call Krane's credibility into question, querying him on his work as an expert assisting a federal judge in another case while his employee Nathaniel Adams — who testified earlier in Heuermann's case — was a defense witness.

"It could be perceived as a conflict of interest," Krane admitted, after a series of questions about the setup, although he said he didn’t think it was.

Krane also admitted he had emailed with defense lawyers about the science in the case, which Tierney contended should have been turned over to the prosecution under the court's discovery rules.

"Our position is it's work product and it's not discoverable," Coysh told the judge.

Mazzei replied: "In this context, it's discoverable."

Krane said his primary critique of Astrea's work is that it uses the 1,000 Genomes Project as an alternative suspect pool in its DNA analysis, a pool he said is typically much larger.

IBDGem's analysis process does a direct comparison between its evidence sample and the 1,000 Genomes Project, an international open-source repository of some 2,500 individual human genomes, Krane said. Its analysis creates a likelihood ratio of 690 million, many factors larger than the standard likelihood ratio of 837, he testified.

"IBDGem really quite consistently overestimates the weight that it puts on test results ... that might be putting it mildly," Krane said.

Combative judge

Mazzei, who is presiding over the case, began shouting from the bench when the defense team arrived back in the courtroom a few minutes late from lunch break.

"What part of 2 o'clock don't you guys understand?" Mazzei shouted at Coysh, whose responses were largely inaudible. "Look at the clock! What time is it? Get him the hell in here! Get the witness in here!"

Mazzei's combativeness continued as Tierney cross-examined the witness. Tierney repeatedly advised Krane to provide yes or no answers to his questions and Mazzei frequently interjected, shouting at the witness and posing his own questions.

"Just answer the question!" Mazzei shouted at Krane, who frequently tried to give more complete answers.

After the hearing, lead Heuermann defense attorney Michael J. Brown, who has derided Astrea's methods as being akin to "magic," dismissed a question about Mazzei's attitude toward the defense and its witness.

"I don't take any personal affect to that," Brown said. "We do our job. Judge Mazzei's a great judge. He listens. He's smart. He's intelligent. He's experienced and I know at the end of the day he'll consider all the evidence."

And Brown dismissed another reporter's question about Heuermann potentially pleading guilty.

"There is nothing but fight in us," Brown said. "He has indicated he is innocent. He has entered a not guilty plea. And we're going forward and pressing toward a trial."

Brown said Tierney's cross-examination didn't hurt their case and said their next potential witness, who is not affiliated with Krane, is "going to reinforce that this is not generally accepted, there's problems with it" if they decide to call the witness.

"Mr. Tierney is a very good trial attorney, I've said that in the past; I respect his abilities," Brown said. "But everything he focused on was nothing about the substance of what Dr. Krane testified about. And the essence of what Dr. Krane testified about is the problem with IBDGem, the fact that it is not generally accepted in the scientific community, the fact that there is literally one paper out there about it and the fact that nobody uses it. That went uncontroverted. And that's, in essence, the issue before the court."

He added: "Hopefully we get this, what we call 'magic,' precluded from the trial."

By Nicole Fuller

nicole.fuller@newsday.com@NicoleFuller

Nicole Fuller is Newsday's senior criminal justice reporter. She began working at Newsday in 2012 and previously covered local government.