Harri LaFata Direct

Please state your name for the record

Dr. Harri Lafata

Could you tell me about your post-secondary education?

I received a Bachelor’s Degree in Criminal Justice and Behavioral Studies from the University of Empirion in 1997 and a Master’s Degree in Investigative Sciences, with a concentration in evidentiary reasoning and case reconstruction, from the Allred School at the University of Cincinnati in 2004.

Do you have any higher education?

I went on to complete doctoral work at Bellarmine University in Louisville, KY, where I earned my Ph.D. in Forensic Science in 2009.

Can you describe your work experience in forensic analysis? 

Early in my career, I handled fraud, kidnapping, and public corruption at Sleuth, Inc. under Dr. Hank Tilis, before transitioning into private consulting and founding Empirion Consulting in 2014.

How long have you been in this field of work?

I’ve been working in the field of forensic consultation for over 20 years!

And what methods did you use to formulate your opinions on this case?

In this case, I reviewed exhibits 1 through 30 using my analytical framework that I use in all of my consulting matters.

Just for transparency sake, could you clarify your compensation for your testimony?

Defense counsel is paying me $46,500 for my review and report in this case, for testimony, my rate is $1,200 an hour.

Dr. Lafatta, can you explain your relation to today’s case?

I was retained in August 2025 to review the forensic and investigative materials in this case. Basically I look at the evidence, explain its limitations, and see whether it supports an exclusive conclusion.

And what exactly did you review?

I reviewed all the evidence available in this case and am familiar with the facts.

And in regards to your expertise, is there any method you use when reviewing documents?

Yes, I used a framework I developed called SCOPE.

Could you elaborate on what SCOPE is?

of course! It stands for and looks at five things in evidence: Source, Context, Objectivity, Pathways traveled, and Explanations ruled out. 

And you used this while reviewing exhibit 19, the Cell Site Information Location report?

Yes I did.

And what is this document about?

This is the CSLI report, the cell phone location data of the defendant and victim on the date in question.

Dr LaFata, can you walk me through what this data actually shows?

of course, CSLI report tells you which cell tower sector a phone is connected to at a given time. Sectors cover multiple buildings and are not accurate enough to tell you which room, or even building a person is in.

So, does this data indicate certainly that the victim and defendant were together?

No, it tells us their phones were near the same tower- which at a hotel hosting a multi-day event both are attending, is very normal

How far do these cell towers tend to span?

Well, they can span entire blocks, so two pins near each other on the map really means those two people could be in entirely different buildings on that block, let alone the same room.

 And what about the gaps where there's no location at all?

 Those mean nothing to be honest, it could mean the phone was shut off, battery died, no cell service or was connected to a wifi network, there's really no way to determine anything from those gaps

Based on this evidence, can it place the defendant in the victims room during the time in question?

No. It cannot.

Did you also use the same SCOPE method when reviewing Exhibit 21, the bandana dna report?

Yes I did.

Could you tell us a bit about this document?

Yes. This is the DNA profile of the bandana. The victim was identified as the major contributor and the defendant was identified as a minor contributor.

And what do those terms mean?

Fabrics pick up DNA easily, most profiles are made up primarily of the person wearing it aka the “major profile” , and minor contributors are people who had some incidental contact. 

And what constitutes “incidental contact?”

Everything really! Shaking hands, half hugs, brushing past someone in a crowded room, or even indirect contact like both people touching the same item or area and DNA being transferred without both people being present at the same moment.

Can this report offer us any answers as to what happened?

No, DNA doesn’t come with a timestamp or a backstory of how it got there.

How does the context of the case play into your conclusions of the material you reviewed?

This case being centered in a hotel hosting a multi day event with hundreds of people makes for a chaotic environment where none of the evidence holds much significance.