5.Katarina Stashyn — Direct
174 linesMS. SPRAGUE: The Commonwealth would call Katarina Stashyn.
BAILIFF: Good morning, ma'am. Will you stop right there and raise your right hand for the court, please?
COURT CLERK: Good morning. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony and the evidence you shall give to the court and the jury in the matter now pending between the Commonwealth and the defendant but shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
KATARINA STASHYN: Yes.
COURT CLERK: Thank you. You may have a seat, ma'am.
BAILIFF: Watch your step, please.
KATARINA STASHYN: Thank you.
THE COURT: Good morning.
KATARINA STASHYN: Good morning.
THE COURT: All right. Yeah, Attorney Sprague, please.
MS. SPRAGUE: Thank you, Your Honor. Good morning. Can you please state and spell your name for the record?
KATARINA STASHYN: Good morning. My name is Katarina Stashyn. My first name is spelled K-A-T-A-R-I-N-A. Last name is spelled S-T-A-S-H-Y-N.
MS. SPRAGUE: And can you describe for us your educational background?
KATARINA STASHYN: I have a bachelor's and master's degree in biotechnology from the University of Nevada, Reno.
MS. SPRAGUE: And what is your occupation?
KATARINA STASHYN: I'm currently employed by the Washoe County Sheriff's Office Forensic Science Division, which is located in Reno, Nevada. I'm a criminalist in the biology and forensic investigation sections.
MS. SPRAGUE: Back in January of twenty twenty-three, where were you working?
KATARINA STASHYN: I previously worked for the Massachusetts State Police Crime Laboratory as a forensic scientist in the DNA unit, which is functionally the same role that I currently have in the biology section.
MS. SPRAGUE: And—
MR. REDDINGTON: I'm just... I'm sorry. We agreed to the DNA. I'm just letting you know that.
THE COURT: Okay. All right.
MS. SPRAGUE: And I'm just—
THE COURT: Attorney Sprague.
MS. SPRAGUE: ...giving that evidence to the jury.
THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.
MS. SPRAGUE: So, when did you start working for the state police?
KATARINA STASHYN: I worked for the Massachusetts State Police from June twenty twenty-one to February of twenty twenty-five.
MS. SPRAGUE: And...
MS. SPRAGUE: What was the nature of your work for the lab at that time?
KATARINA STASHYN: As a DNA analyst, I processed evidence items obtained either from a crime scene or from an individual associated with a criminal investigation. These items of evidence would be processed through the laboratory. I then would perform interpretations, comparisons as needed, write reports. I also could perform administrative reviews of other analysts' work and provide expert witness testimony as needed.
MS. SPRAGUE: And part of your employment at the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab, did you take competency tests and proficiency tests to guarantee that you were capable and proficient in the areas you were working?
KATARINA STASHYN: Yes. I took both competency tests after my training and proficiency tests throughout my career at Massachusetts and at my current role.
MS. SPRAGUE: And have you passed all of those tests?
KATARINA STASHYN: Yes, I have passed all competency and proficiency tests that I've taken so far in my career.
MS. SPRAGUE: Can you tell us what is DNA?
KATARINA STASHYN: DNA stands for deoxyribonucleic acid, and this is genetic information that is stored in our cells. This is information that makes us who we are, determines how we develop and grow. A person's DNA is inherited approximately half from their mom and half from their dad. DNA is forensically relevant because it is expected that no two individuals will have the same forensic DNA profile.
MS. SPRAGUE: And is DNA the same in every single cell in a person's body?
KATARINA STASHYN: Yes. DNA, the DNA profile obtained from different cells, different cell types, like a blood cell or from a saliva cell or cell in your saliva, would have the same DNA profile barring a mutation.
MS. SPRAGUE: And can you explain generally the process used to analyze evidence, in this case, the testing involving the defendant, Lindsay Clancy?
KATARINA STASHYN: The items tested in this case and in all cases will go through a four-step laboratory process of extraction, quantification, amplification, and detection, and then profiles developed from that laboratory process will be interpreted and compared.
MS. SPRAGUE: Can you just briefly explain what is extraction and how it's done?
KATARINA STASHYN: Extraction is the first step of that laboratory process that involves applying a variation of heat and chemicals to a sample. This breaks open cells that are present and releases the DNA and then isolates that DNA.
MS. SPRAGUE: And was the next step quantification?
KATARINA STASHYN: Yes.
MS. SPRAGUE: And what is that and how do you do that?
KATARINA STASHYN: Quantification is the second step, when we determine a reliable estimate for the amount of DNA in those samples that were extracted, and those values are then used to optimize the rest of the process with the goal to obtain a quality profile for that sample.
MS. SPRAGUE: And the third step, amplification, can you explain that?
KATARINA STASHYN: Amplification is when we make millions and millions of copies of certain areas of DNA to make it able to be detected and visualized.
MS. SPRAGUE: And then detection, what is that?
KATARINA STASHYN: And then the fourth step is separation or detection. This is where we separate out all those millions and millions of copies that we made to make them visual. This produces a DNA profile that an analyst is then able to review and interpret.
MS. SPRAGUE: And when you worked at the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab, were there certain standardized protocols and procedures that you used at that lab?
KATARINA STASHYN: Yes.
MS. SPRAGUE: And were there controls used in your testing?
KATARINA STASHYN: Yes.
MS. SPRAGUE: What does that mean?
KATARINA STASHYN: So there are two different types of controls that were used in our testing. The first is a positive control. This is a sample that contains a known DNA profile, and it is processed alongside evidence samples. So when that known DNA profile is obtained at the end of the process, it confirms that the process is working appropriately. The second type of control is a negative control, and this is a sample that contains no DNA, that is also processed alongside evidence samples, and this is able to monitor any contamination and confirm that clean technique is used during testing.
MS. SPRAGUE: And does your work undergo a review process at the lab, or did it?
KATARINA STASHYN: Yes. All work goes through two stages of review, technical review and administrative review. Technical review is when another qualified analyst reviews all of the work done in the file and in the report. They confirm that all protocols were followed and that correct conclusions were drawn. And then administrative review is when another analyst reviews that file, all of the documentation in the report, for overall clerical accuracy and completeness.
MS. SPRAGUE: And when you worked on lab number 23-01723, evidence involved in the deaths of Cora Clancy, Dawson Clancy, and Callan Clancy, did you follow the standardized protocols and procedures?
KATARINA STASHYN: Yes.
MS. SPRAGUE: Were there any issues with the controls that you, that were present when you did this testing?
KATARINA STASHYN: All controls were acceptable per the laboratory protocols.
MS. SPRAGUE: And did your work undergo and pass that review process you just described?
KATARINA STASHYN: Yes. All work went through both technical and administrative review.
MS. SPRAGUE: And if we could talk specifically about the work that you did in this case. First, I'd like to talk, or I'd like you to talk about your work done on the yellow exercise band and the black exercise band. Now, you didn't actually handle those items, correct?
KATARINA STASHYN: I did a portion of the laboratory work for those samples, but I did not handle the actual bands themselves. I handled swabs of those bands.
MS. SPRAGUE: So at some point in time in the lab, someone took swabs from those bands, and then that was forwarded to the DNA unit, the swabs?
KATARINA STASHYN: Yes.
MS. SPRAGUE: Okay. And specifically, there was item 2-2.1.1, swabs from the ends of the yellow exercise band and item 2-2.2.1, swabs from the middle of the yellow exercise band, correct?
KATARINA STASHYN: Could I refer to my report to confirm that?
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. REDDINGTON: No. Of course not.
KATARINA STASHYN: Thank you.
KATARINA STASHYN: Yes.
MS. SPRAGUE: And when doing your comparison work, did you also use some DNA profiles that had been generated in the lab for Dawson Clancy, Cora Clancy, Callan Clancy, Patrick Clancy, and Lindsay Clancy?
KATARINA STASHYN: Yes, I utilized known standards that were developed from those individuals.
MS. SPRAGUE: And known standards, are those basically the DNA profiles for each of those individuals?
KATARINA STASHYN: Yes, known standards are samples collected directly from a known individual for comparison purposes.
MS. SPRAGUE: And going to item 2-2.1.1, the swabs from the ends of the yellow exercise band, what were your findings?
KATARINA STASHYN: So I'm gonna start with a general statement for this report as a whole. The presence of multiple first degree relatives in a mixed DNA profile can impact overall interpretation, including the determination of the number of contributors and likelihood ratios. Relatedness was considered for the following results. For item 2-2.1.1, sample from ends of yellow exercise band located in basement office, 47 Summer Street. The DNA profile is a mixture, including male DNA. Due to the possible relatedness of low-level contributors to this profile, an alternate number of contributors was considered. First, assuming two contributors, the DNA profile is a mixture of at least two contributors, including male DNA. Contributors one and two are suitable for comparison. The DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture of two contributors. The DNA profile from this item is at least one point seven nonillion times more likely if it originated from Dawson Clancy and an unknown individual than if it originated from two unknown, unrelated individuals.
KATARINA STASHYN: This provides support that Dawson Clancy is included as a contributor to this DNA profile. Cora Clancy, Callan Clancy, Patrick Clancy, and Lindsay Clancy are excluded from this DNA profile. Assuming three contributors, the DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture of three contributors. Contributor one is suitable for comparison. Due to limited information and possible relatedness of contributors, contributors two and three are not suitable for comparison. The DNA profile from this item is at least nine hundred twenty octillion times more likely if it originated from Dawson Clancy and two unknown individuals than if it originated from three unknown, unrelated individuals. This provides support that Dawson Clancy is included to this DNA profile. Cora Clancy, Callan Clancy, Patrick Clancy, and Lindsay Clancy are excluded from contributor one of this DNA profile.
MS. SPRAGUE: Gonna ask you a few questions about what you've just told us. You mentioned the effect of relatedness. What does that mean?
KATARINA STASHYN: So as I mentioned, an individual's DNA is inherited approximately one half from their mom and one half from their dad. So this means that there's a lot of DNA shared between relatives, including between parent and children and between siblings. So this can affect the determination of the number of contributors, so when I review the profile to see how many people are in that profile, because there is so much DNA that is shared. So taking that into account, I did two different interpretations, first assuming two contributors and the second assuming three contributors, again, just due to the complexity of relatedness and its effect on this profile, especially low-level contributors.
MS. SPRAGUE: And would it be correct to state that when there is this level of relatedness, where you have two parents and three siblings, that you can have false exclusions?
KATARINA STASHYN: If there is an under assignment of the number of contributors, meaning that the number of contributors is incorrectly assigned lower than it actually is, which is a possibility with relatedness because you're working with less information because that information is shared, the under assigning could lead to false exclusions of true contributors.
MS. SPRAGUE: Could you also miss some people to include?
KATARINA STASHYN: Due to the effects of relatedness, it could be difficult to determine number of contributors simply because so much information is shared. Therefore, it is more complex when assigning this number.
MS. SPRAGUE: And for item two dash two point one point one, the ends of the yellow exercise band, whether you considered two contributors or three contributors, both of your findings find that Dawson Clancy was a contributor, a potential contributor?
KATARINA STASHYN: Both propositions, either two contributors or three contributors, had high inclusionary stats for Dawson Clancy, correct.
MS. SPRAGUE: What's a nonillion?
KATARINA STASHYN: A nonillion is a very large number.
MS. SPRAGUE: Do you know how many people are on Earth?
KATARINA STASHYN: I know it's-
MR. REDDINGTON: This is typical DNA gobbledygook at this point, Judge. I object to the strategy.
MS. SPRAGUE: Well, I object to his objection.
THE COURT: Yeah, that's—
MS. SPRAGUE: It's ridiculous.
THE COURT: That's overruled.
MR. REDDINGTON: Yeah.
THE COURT: Go ahead. You can ask.
MR. REDDINGTON: They're gonna talk about millions and how many—
THE COURT: Counsel, can I see you at sidebar?
THE COURT: Alright. Attorney Sprague.
MS. SPRAGUE: Thank you, Your Honor. One point seven nonillion, is that more than there are people on the Earth?
KATARINA STASHYN: That is more individuals that are on the Earth, but I would like to clarify that a likelihood ratio is not a random match probability or a rarity of that profile. A likelihood ratio is a ratio that describes the probability of observing the DNA profile if a certain person is included versus the probability of observing that DNA profile if a certain person is excluded or if it is another unknown, unrelated individual.
MS. SPRAGUE: And you said nonillion is a very high number, correct?
KATARINA STASHYN: Yes, that's a very large number in my opinion.
MS. SPRAGUE: So it's a very large probability that Dawson Clancy is a contributor to that mixture?
KATARINA STASHYN: It is a large likelihood ratio that provides support for the inclusion of Dawson Clancy to the profile.
MS. SPRAGUE: And then going to item two dash two point two point one, the swabs from the middle of the exercise band, what were your findings for that?
KATARINA STASHYN: The DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture of two contributors, including male DNA. The DNA profile from this item is at least one point five nonillion times more likely if it originated from Dawson Clancy and an unknown individual than if it originated from two unknown, unrelated individuals. This provides support that Dawson Clancy is included as a contributor to this DNA profile. The DNA profile from this item is at least three point six million times more likely if it originated from Callan Clancy and an unknown individual than if it originated from two unknown, unrelated individuals. This provides support that Callan Clancy is included as a contributor to this profile. The DNA profile from this item is at least one point four billion times more likely if it originated from Patrick Clancy and an unknown individual than if it originated from two unknown, unrelated individuals. This provides support that Patrick Clancy is included as a contributor to this DNA profile. Cora Clancy and Lindsay Clancy are excluded from this DNA profile. The mixture DNA profile from this item is consistent with having originated from two individuals. There are three individuals who have a likelihood ratio that indicates an inclusion. Though there is support for the individual inclusions of Dawson Clancy, Callan Clancy, and Patrick Clancy to the mixture DNA profile, under the stated assumptions, these individuals cannot be present in the mixture together. Assuming: one, two contributors; and two, Dawson Clancy is one of the contributors, Callan Clancy and Patrick Clancy cannot be present in the mixture together.
KATARINA STASHYN: Support for inclusion may be impacted by mixtures which contain relative, especially first-degree relatives. Refer to the independent inclusionary statistics above.
MS. SPRAGUE: So this swab from the middle of the yellow exercise band, you stated was a mixture of two contributors, two people, correct?
KATARINA STASHYN: Yes. I determined using my training and experience that the profile was a mixture of two contributors.
MS. SPRAGUE: And then you had three possible contributors, Dawson, Callan, and Patrick, for the two-person mixture. So is it accurate that that relatedness issue was having an effect on those, on that data or that result?
KATARINA STASHYN: Yes. Relatedness of potential contributors was having an effect on this profile, and that is because so much DNA is shared between potential contributors.
MS. SPRAGUE: And what you stated at the end, that if Dawson Clancy is one of the contributors, then Callan Clancy and Patrick Clancy cannot be present together in that mixture, correct?
KATARINA STASHYN: Correct.
MS. SPRAGUE: And Dawson Clancy was the one who had the one point five nonillion times more likely if it originated from him, correct?
KATARINA STASHYN: Yes. The likelihood ratio for Dawson was one point five nonillion.
MS. SPRAGUE: And...
MS. SPRAGUE: Would it be accurate to state that with male relatives, they share the same Y-STR profile?
KATARINA STASHYN: Yes. Male relatives will share the same Y-STR profile barring rare mutation, but Y-STR analysis was not done in this case.
MS. SPRAGUE: Okay. And does that fact, when you have male relatives, does that affect the relatedness complications of your evaluation?
KATARINA STASHYN: The fact that they're male doesn't necessarily have an effect, but just in general, relatedness has an effect in this case because so much DNA is shared between potential contributors.
MS. SPRAGUE: And then going to item two dash three point one point one, the swabs from the ends of the black exercise band, you found that that sample was a mixture but wasn't suitable for comparison, correct?
KATARINA STASHYN: Correct.
MS. SPRAGUE: And what does it mean to be not suitable for comparison?
KATARINA STASHYN: I'll read the statement in the report, and then I'll clarify as needed. The DNA profile is a mixture including male DNA and is not suitable for comparison due to the complexity of the profile, the possibility of at least five contributors, and the relatedness of potential contributors.
MS. SPRAGUE: So was it not suitable for comparison because there were so many potential contributors, many of them who were related?
KATARINA STASHYN: Yes. There was multiple factors that made this profile not suitable. Relatedness was definitely one of those factors, and per laboratory protocols and validation, if there is any indication of a fifth contributor or more, a profile is not suitable for comparison due to limitations of our technology and software used.
MS. SPRAGUE: Okay. So basically, if you're examining a profile and it looks like there's five or more, your work stops because of the limitations of your equipment?
KATARINA STASHYN: Correct.
MS. SPRAGUE: And then going to item two dash three point two point one, the swabs from the middle of the exercise band, what were your findings there?
KATARINA STASHYN: The DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture of three contributors, including male DNA. The DNA profile from this item is at least eight hundred and seventy trillion times more likely if it originated from Dawson Clancy and two unknown individuals than if it originated from three unknown, unrelated individuals. This provides support that Dawson Clancy is included as a contributor to this DNA profile. The DNA profile from this item is at least one point six nonillion times more likely if it originated from Cora Clancy and two unknown individuals than if it originated from three unknown, unrelated individuals. This provides support that Cora Clancy is included as a contributor to this DNA profile. The DNA profile from this item is at least two thousand six hundred times more likely if it originated from Callan Clancy and two unknown individuals than if it originated from three unknown, unrelated individuals.
This provides support that Callan Clancy is included as a contributor to this DNA profile. The DNA profile from this item is at least two hundred and twenty thousand times more likely if it originated from Patrick Clancy and two unknown individuals than if it originated from three unknown, unrelated individuals. This provides support that Patrick Clancy is included as a contributor to this DNA profile. The DNA profile from this item is at least eleven times more likely if it originated from Lindsay Clancy and two unknown individuals than if it originated from three unknown, unrelated individuals. This provides limited support that Lindsay Clancy is included as a contributor to this DNA profile. The Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab DNA Unit validation studies showed inclusions for known non-contributors in the likelihood ratio range of at least two to one thousand. Adventitious support could be attributed to this conclusion.
KATARINA STASHYN: The mixture DNA profile from this item is consistent with having originated from three individuals. There are five individuals who have a likelihood ratio that indicate an inclusion. Though there is support for the individual inclusions of Dawson Clancy, Cora Clancy, Callan Clancy, Patrick Clancy, and Lindsay Clancy to the mixture DNA profile, under the stated assumptions, these individuals cannot be present in the mixture together. Assuming, one, three contributors, and two, Cora Clancy is one of the contributors, Dawson Clancy, Callan Clancy, Patrick Clancy, and Lindsay Clancy cannot be present in the mixture together. Support for inclusion may be impacted by mixtures which contain relatives, especially first-degree relatives. Refer to the independent inclusionary statistics above.
MS. SPRAGUE: And so again here, you're dealing with the effect of the relatedness of the parties, correct?
KATARINA STASHYN: Correct. Relatedness is having an effect on potential contributors, again, to this profile. I'd just like to say that likelihood ratios are calculated independently for each person. They are not to show a likelihood ratio for more than one person or multiple people together in a profile. And again, because so much DNA is shared between potential contributors, that is why we're seeing some of the things we're seeing in this report.
MS. SPRAGUE: And, for this item, the middle of the black exercise band, the highest number of possible inclusion was the one point six nonillion times more likely if it originated from Cora Clancy and two unknown individuals, correct?
KATARINA STASHYN: Yes. The highest statistic for this item was a likelihood ratio of one point six nonillion for Cora Clancy.
MS. SPRAGUE: And based on your analysis of the data that you had, you determined it was a mixture of three contributors, correct?
KATARINA STASHYN: Correct.
MS. SPRAGUE: And so when you have the three contributors, and Cora Clancy has the highest likelihood of being a contributor, if you include her in the mixture, the other four members of the family are excluded, correct?
KATARINA STASHYN: Assuming, one, three contributors, and two, Cora Clancy is one of the contributors, Dawson Clancy, Callan Clancy, Patrick Clancy, and Lindsay Clancy cannot be present in the mixture together. Again, those statistics are all calculated independently and don't say anything about those people being in the mixture together.
MS. SPRAGUE: Okay. And, moving on to some other work you did in this case, specifically some swabs from the backside of the house, some shingles on 47 Summer Street in Duxbury, items 14-1, 14-2, and 14-3, did you do work on those samples as well and compare them to the known profiles of Dawson Clancy, Cora Clancy, Callan Clancy, Patrick Clancy, and Lindsay Clancy?
KATARINA STASHYN: Your Honor, may I refer to my second report for these items?
THE COURT: Yes.
KATARINA STASHYN: Thank you.
KATARINA STASHYN: Yes, I did work on those items in my second report.
MS. SPRAGUE: And directing your attention to item 14-1, a swab from stain B on the backside of the house, 47 Summer Street, what were your findings regarding that swab?
KATARINA STASHYN: The female DNA profile was interpreted as originating from a single contributor. The DNA profile from this item is at least eighteen octillion times more likely if it originated from Lindsay Clancy than if it originated from an unknown, unrelated individual. This provides support that Lindsay Clancy is included as a contributor to this DNA profile. Dawson Clancy, Cora Clancy, Callan Clancy, and Patrick Clancy are excluded from this DNA profile.
MS. SPRAGUE: And so unlike the samples and profiles we talked about earlier, this sample, 14-1, the swab from stain B, wasn't a mixture, correct? It was just one person's DNA?
KATARINA STASHYN: Correct. This was a single contributor profile.
MS. SPRAGUE: And your findings was that Lindsay Clancy is at least eighteen octillion times more likely if it originated from Lindsay Clancy than an unknown, unrelated individual?
KATARINA STASHYN: The DNA profile from this item is at least eighteen octillion times more likely if it originated from Lindsay Clancy than if it originated from an unknown, unrelated individual. This provides support that Lindsay Clancy is included as a contributor to this DNA profile.
MS. SPRAGUE: And so it's support that she's included as a contributor to this profile of one person, correct?
KATARINA STASHYN: Yes. There is support with a likelihood ratio of eighteen octillion for Lindsay Clancy.
MS. SPRAGUE: And the other members of the family were excluded, correct?
KATARINA STASHYN: Correct.
MS. SPRAGUE: And then item 14-2, the swab from stain C on the backside of the house, 47 Summer Street, that profile was a mixture and not suitable for comparison, correct?
KATARINA STASHYN: Correct. The DNA profile is a mixture and is not suitable for comparison due to the quality of the profile.
MS. SPRAGUE: And what does it mean when something's not suitable due to the quality of the profile?
KATARINA STASHYN: This was a low-level profile with not enough information to be interpreted.
MS. SPRAGUE: Do you have to have a certain level of information in the data to make findings based on your protocols and procedures at the lab?
KATARINA STASHYN: Yes. There are protocols and procedures that determine how we can determine our number of contributors, and therefore, if there's not enough information, a profile's not suitable for interpretation or comparisons.
MS. SPRAGUE: And then item 14-3, the swab from stain D on the back of the home, 47 Summer Street, what were your findings for that swab?
KATARINA STASHYN: The female DNA profile was interpreted as originating from a single contributor. The DNA profile from this item is at least ninety-six trillion times more likely if it originated from Lindsay Clancy than if it originated from an unknown, unrelated individual. This provides support that Lindsay Clancy is included as a contributor to this DNA profile. Dawson Clancy, Cora Clancy, Callan Clancy, and Patrick Clancy are excluded from this DNA profile.
MS. SPRAGUE: And again, this is a single contributor, so the DNA profile of one person was found on the swab, correct?
KATARINA STASHYN: Correct.
MS. SPRAGUE: I have nothing further. Thank you.
THE COURT: Attorney Reddington?
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Ms. Stashyn. Thank you.
KATARINA STASHYN: Thank you.