Nevada County Picayune and Gurdon Times Newspaper Archive

Jury Selection Underway Monday

Before the Joe Louis Dansby murder trial began Monday, a hearing was held to determine the validity of a DNA witness.

Wednesday, April 2, Anjali Ranadive, a molecular biologist with Cellmark Labs of Germantown, Maryland, testified as to her qualifications on being an expert witness and how the DNA testing was done on samples of Dansby's blood as well as samples reportedly taken from murder victim Malissa Clark, 21.

Ranadive informed the court she earned a bachelor's degree in Molecular Biology from John Hopkins University, earning her master's from George Washington University.

For six years, she said, she has been employed with Cellmark. Before being allowed to work on samples for actual cases, Ranadive told the court, employees must undergo strict in-house training and follow the company's operating manual.

The "trainees," she said, have mock samples they must test which are not related to any criminal case. However, they must use the same methodology used for criminal cases, analyzing them as if they were going to be used in court.

The results are then spot-checked against the results which were done beforehand and "graded" by the four at Cellmark who have PhD's.

Ranadive told the court she has been qualified as an expert witness in more than 15 states and federal courts. She said she has testified in about 40 trials for both sides, but primarily for the prosecution.

Under questioning from 8th Judicial District Prosecuting Attorney Brent Haltom, Ranadive explained what DNA is, telling the court everyone gets half of their DNA from each parent.

She said DNA is found in all cells in the body except for red blood cells because they have no nucleus.

Ranadive said there are two major types of DNA testing, one, primarily referred to as genetic fingerprinting, the RLFP test, and the other, the PCR test.

The RLFP test, she said, looks at bands on a piece of film containing the genetic materials, much like a bar coded item in a supermarket.

The PCR test, the court was told, is less discriminating, as it looks for the differences in individuals. Testing under the PCR technique, she said, requires the examiner to look at a series of blue dots on a nylon strip.

According to Ranadive, the RLFP test has more variances than does the PCR test, which was done with the Dansby materials. Matches under the RLFP method, she said, distinguish for more individuals, while the PCR test can tell if a person absolutely is not the donor of the genetic materials, or cannot be excluded as a possible donor.

Both tests, though, look for genetic markers.

Ranadive said DNA testing is used not only in criminal and civil cases, but in other areas as well. Some of these areas, she said, include genetic research, tissue transplants and animal husbandry.

Using the product rule method, Ranadive told the court, the examiners go through their database to help determine the race of a DNA donor. Cellmark, she said, has a database for Caucasians, African Americans and Hispanics.

From these databases, she said, there are a series of tables, which have numbered matches for markers. These numbers are multiplied together, which gives the odds for a possible genetic-type donor, as in the O.J. Simpson case.

Once Ranadive explained the testing methods to the court, she told how the material Cellmark received from the Arkansas State Police was tested for the Dansby case.

She said the lab received evidence May 25, 1995 from Mike Lowe of the ASP. It contained a tube labeled Q1, a portion of a cotton swab. In a separate envelope, there were two swabs (labeled Q1 and Q2). Another piece of evidence labeled Q3, was a rectal swab, reportedly taken from Clark. There was also a swatch of blood-stained cloth, which was labeled K1.

On June 15, 1995, she said, Cellmark received a Federal Express delivery from Kermit Channell, with the Arkansas State Crime Lab with a blood-stained swatch from Dansby.

She told the court dried blood is preferred for testing because it preserves the genetic materials better than liquid blood. She added the samples received were sealed and did not appear to have been tampered with.

In addition, she said, the lab received a portion of a towel on June 16, 1995, with two cuttings labeled Q6.

Ranadive said Channell told her he had detected seminal fluid on the towel, but not sperm, and asked if she could get a DNA sample from it.

She told the court it is not possible to get a DNA sample from seminal fluid alone, sperm must be present. The towel, she said, contained no sperm, so a sample was not available.

However, Ranadive said there were sperm cells on the swabs from Clark, which led to a DNA profile. Additionally, she said, they were able to obtain the genetic material from the sample taken from Dansby.

At this point, Haltom passed the witness to James Pratt, one of Dansby's attorneys.

He questioned her as to who actually testifies in court once DNA tests are done in criminal cases. She responded the client can request the analyst who did the work, or one of those with a PhD. In some cases, she said, both are asked to testify.

Pratt then asked about her qualifications to testify as an expert in Arkansas, or in an Arkansas Federal Court. Ranadive said this will be her first experience testifying in the state, adding the closest state to Arkansas she is qualified as an expert was Iowa.

However, she told Pratt she has never been rejected as an expert witness. She also said, when questioned, she has only testified for the defense in three cases, all other times she has testified for the state.

He then began questioning DNA testing as compared to fingerprinting, saying, as far as anyone knows, no two people have the same fingerprints.

Ranadive said so far as it's known, only identical twins have the same DNA. Everyone else, she continued, has unique genetic markers with the RLFP test.

But, this wasn't the testing method used in the Dansby case, she added. The materials sent to Cellmark underwent the PCR test as requested. This test, she said, is not an absolute test and under it there can be more than one person sharing the same profile.

Under the PCR test, she said, it would be impossible to say Dansby definitely committed the crime.

"We're talking about matches as mathematic probabilities," she said. This, Ranadive explained once again, is done with a combination of genetic material types from suspects in particular populations as compared to the database for a particular race.

Pratt asked about the databases and where these materials came from. Ranadive said Cellmark created its database from 105 samples for blacks and 100 samples for whites. The materials for the database, she said, came from a Detroit blood bank and were identified by race.

Tests were ran on these samples, with the results used to create the database for profiles.

Pratt asked if any of these samples came from blacks in South Arkansas, and was told Ranadive did not know.

She also said she had no knowledge of where the samples Cellmark received in the Dansby case actually came from before coming to the lab. "We just know who sent them," she said. "It's not important for us to know where they were before, just test what we got.

"We document the chain of custody as it arrives at Cellmark."

Pratt then went to the samples themselves, asking about the swabs.

Ranadive said the tube containing a portion of a swab was not tested. The two complete swabs, however, were tested. She explained to Pratt the swabs were pieces of cotton material on sticks, much like Q-Tips, only these were on wooden sticks.

She said there were four pieces of evidence in the envelope marked Q1, two full swabs and two swab sticks.

In her discussion with Channell, she told Pratt, he asked the vaginal swabs be tested first, because sperm had been detected on them on his presumptive tests. She testified Channell requested Cellmark look for DNA from sperm, but did not talk with him about the DNA testing he did himself.

The rectal swab, she said, was left in the envelope and never tested. This, she added, was because no test was asked for from the rectal swab.

Ranadive said sperm cells and sperm fractions were found on the vaginal swabs when tested.

Pratt asked how these tests were performed, and was told the vaginal DNA is separated from sperm cells.

The fractions, she said, can come from sperm cells which rupture earlier in testing than they are supposed to, or from problems with how the sample was stored. Ranadive said if a sample is repeatedly frozen and thawed, the sperm cells weaken and rupture earlier. This, she added, appeared to have happened in this case.

While the primary source of DNA was consistent with the victim in the non-sperm portion, she said, the additional type found was consistent with Dansby's type, and, therefore, he couldn't be excluded as a possible suspect.

In fact, she said, no other types of genetic materials were found which could not be accounted for by Clark or Dansby.

Pratt asked about samples from Jeff Lewis, 24, the other victim in the double murder. Ranadive said Cellmark received no samples from Lewis.

She added in the sperm fractions the same type markers were found as in Dansby's blood, with other faint results as well. These, she told the court, could have came from someone else, but were consistent with the victim.

While the faint types were consistent with Clark, Ranadive said, there could have been types from others as well.

Haltom then took over questioning, asking about the sample amounts and testing. She said the amount from a sample will determine which test is done.

In this case, though, the PCR test was requested. But, she said, the sample sizes required for the two tests are different. Cellmark, she said, did not try the RLFP test, though she was told the FBI did attempt this test.

Based on the DNA from the PCR tests, Ranadive said, there wasn't enough DNA to do the RLFP test. In sexual assault cases, she told the court, 500,000 sperm cells are needed to do an RLFP test, while a PCR test can be done with 200 sperm cells.

When most tests are ran, she said, the lab doesn't know the race of the DNA donor, so a separate test must be ran to determine race. Often, she said, the donor comes from a mixed background and markers from different races show up.

She said in 1995, Cellmark was using its own database for testing, s well as the FBI's database and information from two other molecular labs.

All the databases were lined up, she said, with the most conservative results taken and used.

Other testing done on the materials in this case, she said, did not affect the results Cellmark obtained.

Pratt asked why the FBI came up with a different number than Cellmark. Ranadive said it was because the FBI attempted an RLFP test -- which would be like comparing apples and oranges if the RLFP and PCR tests were compared.

She said the FBI only did two probes, where five are normally performed. This, Ranadive said, was done because the FBI didn't have enough genetic material to work with as a sample, according to the FBI report she read on the case.

"One test has nothing to do with the other because of the databases involved," she said. "The FBI's RLFP database is different than the PCR database."

With questioning over, 8th Judicial Circuit-Chancery Judge Joe Griffin recognized Ranadive as an expert witness in the field in which she will be testifying, and will be allowed to testify according to the report she made.

He said Mike Bigg, with the FBI, will be questioned outside of the presence of the jury to see if the court will allow him to testify in the case later on.

Jury selection in the Dansby case began Monday morning with five death qualified jurors actually seated.

As of Tuesday morning, Dansby's jury consisted of three white women, one black woman and one white man.

Jury selection was expected to be completed by noon Tuesday, with opening remarks slated to begin in the afternoon.