Katanga case: Row erupts over DNA deposits on trigger

Assistant DPP Samali Wakooli: May it please you my lord, appearance is as before. The matter is coming up for further cross-examination.

Judge: Okay.

Wakooli: All the accused are in court with A1 (Molly Katanga) appearing virtually.

The witness (Andrew Kizimula Mubiru) walks into the witness dock.

Judge: Remember you are still on oath, you may proceed.

Defence counsel Elison Karuhanga: For the record, I'm Elison Karuhanga. Mr Mubiru, we ended yesterday when we went through two single-sourced profiles. You can confirm that a mixture profile is different from a single source profile.

Witness: Yes my lord, you can tell the difference.

Karuhanga: Would I be correct to say a mixed DNA profile means more than one person has contributed to the DNA sample?

Witness: Yes my lord.

Karuhanga: You also testified that a single source profile has a maximum of two allies at a location.

Witness: Yes my lord, with the exception of trisomy.

Karuhanga: You confirm that in this case, no single sample of DNA was a trisomy.

Witness: We did not observe that my lord.

Karuhanga: So it's fair to say at a location a single source profile will either be one or two alleles (DNA got from both parents).

Witness: That is correct ,my lord.

Karuhanga: Would I be correct to say that for a sample that has contributors that means it has three or four allies?

Witness: For at least two contributors, you can still have two alleles. 

Karuhanga: Would I be correct to say that for a sample, there should be at least four contributors.

Witness: Yes, on the face of it, there have to be two people.

Karuhanga: If you see five of six alleles (DNA got from both parents), that would speak to a mixture of at least three people.

Witness: Yes my lord.

Karuhanga: Would you agree that DNA analysis gets more complicated the more contributors.

Witness: Yes, the more contributors, the more complex the mixed profile.

Karuhanga: It even gets more complicated when some of those people are relatives.

Witness: Yes my lord, it's still complex.

Karuhanga: I just want you to go to page 24 of your report. The first paragraph says that a mixed DNA profile of at least two donor contributors from an exhibit labelled 6, a bed sheet recovered from Molly Katanga, was examined using a …set of hypotheses and you have HD, the suspect, Molly Katanga, and one untested individual from the Ugandan population and two, HD untested individuals from the Ugandan population who are unrelated to the suspect, are donor contributors. Would I be fair to say that according to this statement, the DNA profile on that particular recovered from Molly Katanga, was a mixed profile sample?

Witness: That is it, a mixed DNA sample.

Karuhanga: Mr Mubiru you then concluded that like one billion more times likely and one untested individual from the Ugandan population, the major contributor was Molly Katanga and one untested individual from the Ugandan population. 

Witness: Yes.

Karuhanga: Can we go to the coloured table? It’s still in that report. I want you to go to D1S1656. We are going to sample 007. Read those allies.

Witness: They are 12, 13, 15, 16.3, and 17.3.

Karuhanga: Can you confirm that those are five numbers and would be right to say that is a three-person mixture as opposed to a two-person mixture?

Witness: That is from the qualitative perspective.

Karuhanga: So the answer is from a qualitative perspective?

Witness: Yes my lord.

Karuhanga: Would it be correct in this particular scenario to infer that the electoral pyelogram is not edited?

Witness: All the electoral pyelograms are reviewed by me.

Karuhanga: Did you remove anything from this? 

Witness: Yes.

Karuhanga: So all the elect-rephrogram and allele (DNA got from parents) in this case were reducted?

Witness: All pyelograms are reviewed by the examiner analyst and viewer and appear.

Karuhanga: And my other question is are all the electoral pyelograms reviewed and deducted.

Karuhanga: I want you to go to the same page, electoral pyelogram, and look at the same line that states with tentative, Mr Mubiru, can you just confirm the allele that are there? 

Witness: I see a 6, 8 9, 9.3, and 12.

Karuhanga: I'm right to say there are five arises.

Witness: Yes.

Karuhanga: I'm right to say that these five arises are telling us this is a 3-DNA mixture?

Witness: Yes, my lord.

Karuhanga: You can confirm a 9.3 was left out.

Witness: It was left out on a qualitative perspective.

Karuhanga: A final question on that particular point, that sample S682Y232007, a bedsheet recovered from Molly Katanga, a three-person mixture?

Judge: Where is this?

Karuhanga: This is the very sample we are talking about.

Witness: My lord, the analysis we undertook, was …

Karuhanga: And that contradicts the evidence.

Witness: It doesn’t.

Karuhanga: And you can confirm that it has more than four allies.

Witness: Yes, at least two donor contributors.

Karuhanga: It could be three?

Witness: From at least two donor contributors.

Karuhanga: Could they be three.

Witness: From at least two donor contributors.

Karuhanga: Can you confirm that there are a number of other samples that contain those errors?

Judge: Is it so?

Witness: I have not seen them.

Karuhanga: Mr Mubiru, you will agree with me that one of the biggest risks in DNA testing is contamination in the lab.

Witness: My lord, yes, we have got pollution risks.

Karuhanga: Thank you.

Judge: So it's pollution, in the labs or elsewhere?

Karuhanga: In the lab.

Witness: My lord, contamination can happen across.

Karuhanga: Would I be correct to say that to prevent using polluted machinery, you conduct controls within that laboratory?

Witness: Yes.

Karuhanga: Would I be correct to suggest that these controls are intended to establish the reliability of the results?

Witness: That is not true.

Judge: What is not true?

Karuhanga: It's not true that the controls are intended to establish the reliability of the results.

Witness: Controls are there to ascertain the reliability of the results.

Karuhanga: So would I be right to suggest that the chemicals, equipment, and procedures that have been used, are working properly?

Witness: Yes.

Karuhanga: Would I be right to suggest that if we found any problem with the way they are working, that would suggest an event of contamination or pollution? 

Witness:This means ….

Karuhanga: If it's not working well, that will have to be investigated and documented.

Witness: Yes my lord.

Karuhanga: You can confirm that we asked you for records of contamination events and you declined to provide them on grounds of national security….

Witness: My lord, I'm going to provide that.

Karuhanga: We asked and you declined to provide it.

Witness: I'm going to provide that.

Karuhanga: Would I be right to suggest that there is no evidence before this court that there were no events leading to pollution?

Witness: My lord, we run …..we cannot provide contamination events and for pollution, we have pollution remember us asking you to provide certain information and you declined on grounds of national security.

Witness: I can provide the information.

Karuhanga: Can you give the events of contamination?

Witness: We can't provide that information.

Karuhanga: Would I be right to suggest that a negative test checks for pollution?

Witness: Yes, it's one of the indicators of a possible pollution event.

Karuhanga: In a negative test, it means you are testing nothing.

Witness: Ideally you should get nothing.

Karuhanga: I want you to look at page 52. Go to negative control for the first batch of samples.

Witness: Yes.

Karuhanga: He was testing air and his air is full of DNA, everyone who looks at it can see picks all over.

Witness: The negative control has no template DNA.

Karuhanga: Since there is no DNA, can you confirm on-site here, I see picks at literally every box.

Witness: That is picks from background noise.

Karuhanga: Turn with us to page 50. I want to suggest to you that there is clear contamination. Mr Mubiru, I want to suggest to you that you have a very contaminated lab.

Witness: I disagree, my lord.