Daniel Rochat, left, is on trial in the killing of Barbara Vernieri in 2012.(Photo: TARIQ ZEHAWI\/NorthJersey.com file photo) <\/p>\n
HACKENSACK DNA was once again the focus in the trial of Daniel Rochat, the Wood-Ridge man accused of beating and lighting East Rutherford real estate agent Barbara Verniei on fire in September 2012. <\/p>\n
The defense called DNA expert Heather Coyle, an associate professor at the University of New Haven in Connecticut.She criticized the methods of the Bergen County Prosecutor's Office detectives used to determine the presence of blood in Vernieri's home and the Van Winkle Street condoin East Rutherford. <\/p>\n
According to Coyle, the test to determine the presence of blood was inconclusive.She saidthe leuco crystal violet [LCV] should not have been used to determine if blood was present and that a Kastle Meyers test should have been performed first. Coyle's argument was that a Kastle Meyes test confirms the presence of human blood while LCV can fluoresce at the presence of hemoglobin, plant material, animal blood or heavy metals. <\/p>\n
\"They did not test in the proper order,\" Coyle said, noting that was potentially the reasons for a negative Kastle Meyers test. <\/p>\n
Assistant Prosecutor Danielle Grootenboer asked Coyle if the \"absence of evidence was not the evidence of absence\" and Coyle said it was possible but reiterated that she believed the tests were performed incorrectly. <\/p>\n
Coyle also testified about the reproducibility and reliability of low copy number [LCN] DNA testing, a technique that brought some controversy to the case. Defense attorney Richard Potter argued that LCN testing is unreliable and not widely accepted by the scientific community. The Office of Chief Medical Examiners [OCME] in New York City was the only lab in the country that utilized LCN testing and results are currently not allowed to be entered into the FBIs DNA database. <\/p>\n
From left, Daniel Rochat, accused in the killing of Barbara Vernieri in 2012, with his attorneys Jim Doyle and Richard Potter, before Superior Court Judge Margaret M. Foti.(Photo: Tariq Zehawi\/NorthJersey.com) <\/p>\n
According to Coyle, LCN testing is unreliable because it allows for more contamination of samples. Coyle said it is difficult to reproduce the results of the LCN test because trace amounts of DNA were being tested and several tests conducted on evidence found at Vernieris home and the condo on Van Winkle Street failed to detect Rochats DNA profile. <\/p>\n
Potter focused on the fingernail clippings taken from Vernieri, where small amounts of DNA were found. A YSDR test was performed on the clippings, which is used in specific cases where there is a mix of male and female DNA and specifically targets male DNA. Coyle examined a summary chart of the YSDR tests and said that there were gaps in the data because of the small amounts of DNA found underneath Vernieris fingernails. <\/p>\n
The test revealed that, statistically Rochat or any of his paternal relatives could be a match for the DNA, but it was a relatively low match and that one in 333 people would have the exact same result. When Coyle did her own testing, she said her results were one in 379 due her testing being done at a later date, therefore the database was updated. <\/p>\n
Coyle testified that the potential for Rochat's DNA to be under Vernieri's fingernails could have been from skin cells or sweat that was transferred due to touch or shedding of skin cells. <\/p>\n
Following Coyle's testimony, Rochat's former fiance Brooke Karwowski testified briefly about her relationship with him and how she met Vernieri. Karwowski said Vernieri set her up with Rochat and they dated for four years before getting engaged in 2009. The engagement broke off after Kaworwski decided to move back to Philadelphia. She said she was informed of Vernieri's death by receiving a phone call from detectives. <\/p>\n
The final witness called was Manford Schenk, who was sworn in as an expert in historical cell site analysis and radio frequency with some objection by the prosecution. Schenk was called to testify to dispute the testimony of Special Agent Ajit David, an expert in historical cell site analysis and a member of the FBI'sCellular Analysis Survey Team. David testified last week that Rochat's phone was found to be in the area around Vernieri's apartment the day of the murder, despite him telling police he was asleep in his apartment over mile away. David said he used data provided by Verizon Wireless in order to make that determination. <\/p>\n
Schenk argued that it is \"preposterous\" to determine the location of a person's cell by using only one source to find them. Schenk believes that the use of GPS and triangulation is more reliable source of locating a cellphone. <\/p>\n
On Tuesday, Rochats father testified that Vernieri loved his son and a neighbor of Vernieri testified that she called the police on a man who appeared to be posing as a PSE&G employee while a coworker testified to Vernieris prowess as a real estate agent. <\/p>\n
Read or Share this story: https:\/\/njersy.co\/2s5DlIY<\/a> <\/p>\n <\/p>\n See the original post here: Daniel Rochat, left, is on trial in the killing of Barbara Vernieri in 2012.(Photo: TARIQ ZEHAWI\/NorthJersey.com file photo) HACKENSACK DNA was once again the focus in the trial of Daniel Rochat, the Wood-Ridge man accused of beating and lighting East Rutherford real estate agent Barbara Verniei on fire in September 2012. The defense called DNA expert Heather Coyle, an associate professor at the University of New Haven in Connecticut.She criticized the methods of the Bergen County Prosecutor's Office detectives used to determine the presence of blood in Vernieri's home and the Van Winkle Street condoin East Rutherford Continue reading
\nRochat defense expert criticizes DNA testing by prosecutor's office - NorthJersey.com<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"