Several experts testify in Roe trial
At left, Jason Roe enters court on the first day of his trial for the homicide of Cordele Patterson. At right, Lana Roe steps off the elevator prior to entering the courtroom for day one of the trial against her and her husband, Jason, for the death by homicide of Cordele Patterson of Grindstone.
Lana Roe steps off the elevator prior to entering the courtroom for day one of the trial against her and her husband, Jason, for the death by homicide of Cordele Patterson of Grindstone.
Jason Roe enters court on the first day of his trial for the homicide of Cordele Patterson.
WAYNESBURG – Testimony Friday in the homicide trial of Jason and Lana Roe for the shooting death of Cordele Edward Patterson Aug. 14, 2012 focused on the scientific analysis of crime evidence.
Experts in the fields of serology, DNA, firearm and tool marks and latent fingerprint analysis gave detailed explanations of tests and findings on evidence collected in the case.
Sarah Kinneer, a forensic scientist who is supervisor for the serology section of the state police laboratory in Greensburg, tested firearms and the clothing worn by the Roes for blood, DNA and possible other identifying evidence such as hair and saliva.
Kinneer found blood on several items. She submitted her findings, along with a dried blood sample from Patterson and DNA swabs from the Roes for testing to Angela Difiore, forensic DNA scientist.
Difiore testified she received 10 items from Kinneer for DNA testing. She compared test results from the items to the three DNA reference samples extracted from dried blood belonging to Patterson and mouth swabs taken from the Roes. Difiore excluded Patterson’s DNA from all of the 10 items she received.
She determined there was a mixture of the Roes’ DNA present on the strap of a Mossburg 500 shotgun that was presented as evidence and its pump action grip. The strap had a third person’s DNA present but Difiore said it was an insufficient quantity to determine who that person might be.
There was a mix of three persons’ DNA on the pistol grip of the Mossburg that included Jason Roe’s DNA but “no further interpretation could be made” of who the other DNA came from, Difiore said. However, she was able to exclude Lana Roe. Both of the Roes’ DNA was found on the slide of a Glock 17 pistol, also submitted as evidence, along with a third unidentifiable DNA source that was “less intense” and considered “minor,” Difiore said.
Lana Roe’s DNA solely was found on the bottom grip of the magazine for the Glock 17.
Tests of a .38-caliber revolver revealed Jason Roe’s DNA on the grip along with those of two other unknown individuals. His DNA was also found on the trigger, release and hammer of the revolver with another unidentified DNA source.
Defense Attorney Harry Cancelmi, representing Jason Roe, spent a great amount of time questioning Difiore on the science involved in her analysis and the three sets of tests she performed to reach her conclusions. Difiore had retested the samples when she concluded there was some type of inhibitor present in the samples, she said. She explained too much iron in blood or dirt in a sample could be an inhibitor.
To retest the samples she diluted the chemicals used in the process to overcome the inhibitor and for a clearer DNA profile. Difiore told the court diluting the chemicals does not do anything to the DNA sample itself to deteriorate it in any way.
Firearms and tool mark expert Cpl. Mark Garrett also took the stand. He told the jury that the markings on a fired shell casing are “unique and individual to the firearm (shooting it) and cannot be duplicated.”
Garrett tested the shotgun and the Glock 17 along with the recovered fired shotgun shells and 9 mm cartridges. His conclusion was that all but one of the fired shotgun shells came from the Mossburg shotgun and all of the fired cartridges were from the Glock 17.
Fingerprint analysis completed by Cpl. Andrew Pannelle of the latent fingerprint section at the Greensburg laboratory did not find any prints on the firearms. Pannelle told the jury there are several reasons why this would happen, especially in the case of rough surfaces like the rugged hand grip of a gun where the surface would impede a finger print from being left. Pannelle said prints could also be wiped off or not transfer to the surface if dust, gloves or other barriers existed. He tested the Mossburg, Glock 17 and the Colt .38 Special revolver.
The trial will resume at 9:15 a.m. Tuesday.