Commonwealth Biotechnologies

Dear [redacted] [redacted] *** has filed a number of complaints to the following individuals and agencies regarding the DNA analysis conducted at our laboratories (Fairfax Identity Laboratories (FIL) and Mitotyping Technologies (**): *** [redacted] [redacted] In response to the complaint received by the Better BusinessBureau (ID # [redacted] ) I am writing this letter to provide clarification regarding the testing conducted at our laboratoriesIn March of 2014, [redacted] contacted our laboratory requesting DNA testing of a year old urine sample to attempt to show that the urine was his On April 9, we received a vial of urine labeled as collected on 12/22/from [redacted] ***Our chain of custody documentation was initiated with the receipt record,accessioning and sample processing of the urine specimen (FIL Item 01)An extraction was performed to attempt to obtain DNA from the urine sampleA low quantitation value was obtained designating this sample as containing a low quantity of DNA [redacted] was notified of the low quantitation valueDue to time constraints (upcoming trial) and financial constraints a number of options were provided for [redacted] in order to assist with the DNA identificationThis information was submitted in a lengthy email on May 09, The pros and cons of each technology (STR and Mitochondrial DNA Analysis) were provided to [redacted] *** [redacted] chose to have **DNA analysis performed on his samples due to his court imposed deadline, his financial situation and the low quantitation value [redacted] , [redacted] [redacted] , agreed to give [redacted] a reduced price of $over her list price of $forthe **DNA on the urine extract, the price for STR analysis is $660.00/sample*** *** was quoted a fee of $for the extraction performed at FIL on the urine, and $for the **DNA analysis of the reference at [redacted] (**)A copy of the Mitotyping case file was provided for an additional fee of $The total cost for analysis, reports and case files is $Once the testing was complete [redacted] was notified that the sequence obtained from the urine matched the sequence obtained from the buccal swab and that his profile was rare, there were no observations this type in an overall database of 30,The final, original report indicated that in Northern America, there were no observations of his type within 11,individualsAs in all mitochondrial DNA testing, the result of the statistical analysis shows the percent of the population that would be expected to have the type in questionIn this case, with 95% confidence, no more than in 10,individuals would be expected to have this typeThe fact that **DNA was not a unique identifier was explained to [redacted] at the time he selected the testOnce the analysis was complete, a copy of the case file from [redacted] and their report was sent to the attorney for this case as well as [redacted] *** [redacted] spoke with another expert (a forensic linguist) and was informed that **DNA was not "useful" and became unhappy with the report submitted by **He informed me that he did not want to pay for the serviceI informed him that this expert is not withinthe field of DNA and does not understand the utility of **DNA analysis as a forensic tool We have an email with approval to charge his credit card half in the month of May and the second half in JuneAccounting had already charged for half of the testing at that pointI mentioned to him that we would not be able to issue the report or the case file from FIL until payment was received in fullTo date, Fairfax Identity Laboratories has not yet sent our case file or report to you or a copy to *** ***We have asked for payment for the testing prior to providing this material Regarding [redacted] ***'s complaint about chain of custody, the buccal swab was collected by a person not affiliated with Fairfax Identity Labs or with [redacted] The documentation that she initiated at the time of the collection is located within the package containing the buccal swabThis package was received at FIL and shipped unopened to **Once testing was complete by **, the package and all original documents were shipped back to [redacted] *** [redacted] was also given a copy of this paperwork at the time the collection was taken by [redacted] So to summarize, [redacted] *** has the original documentation at the time of the buccal swab collection and a copy of those documents provided by the collector at the time the sample was taken These documents are not chain of custody documents, they are collection documentsThese documents referred to by [redacted] as "chain of custody" are the documents requesting that the buccal swab be collected and compared to the urine sample, quite simply it is a TEST REQUEST FORMThe chain of custody documentation for Fairfax Identity Labs includes the submission of the urine specimen and a separate submission of the buccal swabsIt was requested by [redacted] that we ship the urine specimen to [redacted] for further analysisThe extract for the urine, its associated reagent blank and the buccal swabs were shipped to ** The chain of custody documentation for [redacted] [redacted] includes the submission of the reagent blank, urine extract and buccal swabs [the latter coming directly from [redacted] by way of (intermediate stop at) FIL]All dates, shipping identifiers, names, and initials were complete and documentedAll seals were intactA photo of [redacted] ***, taken by [redacted] , and provided by [redacted] ***, was in the package and is now in the case fileNeither chain of custody (FIL or **) includes any documentation from [redacted] (with the exception of signed shipping labels) because her role was simply to be able to attest to the collection of the original buccal swab sample from [redacted] ***His collection was provided and paid for by [redacted] independent of any testing performed by ourlaboratories [redacted] from our Sales Division provided a person for him to get in touch with and have the collection perfonnedBoth [redacted] and Fairfax Identity Laboratories have followed our procedures and all guidelines set forth by the Quality Assurance Standards for Forensic DNA Testing Laboratories Our laboratories stand behind the science and reports that have been issued for the analysis conducted on the specimens submitted to our laboratoriesOnce the bill is satisfied in full we agree to provide the report and case file from Fairfax Identity Laboratories to his attorney [redacted] Our Laboratories take pride in their high level of customer service and responsiveness to the needs of our clientsWe are known for our attention to detail and understand well the need for providing high quality, high accuracy and true attention to detailOur approach has always been quality investment over quantity, customer service over throughput, and accuracy in place of short cutsWe adhere to standards higher than those required by our accrediting bodies and have done so since our inceptionWe hold ourselves accountable to provide the most accurate, highest quality, and best value in the marketFeel free to contact me if any further information is needed in order to close the complaint Sincerely [redacted]

The customer contacted our office to provided another bill that was sent to him with a past due balance for the complaint he filed with the Revdex.com

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]
Regards,
*** ***
The customer reached out to the Revdex.com stating that a past due bill have been sent to him for $1,It is due for having to write a letter to the Revdex.com in response to the original complaint detailsHe would like the bill removed

Please see the balance for [redacted]. I had our controller write on the account paid in full so there would be no misunderstanding.

The customer contacted our office to provided another bill that was sent to him with a past due balance for the complaint he filed with the Revdex.com.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID[redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]
Regards,
[redacted]
To whom it may concern:
ON May 24, 2014 I filed a 7 page complaint with 34 pages of
exhibits against [redacted] whom I believe acted
in concert to issue a DNA test that would be rendered useless in an upcoming
trial. I sent that complaint to 17 agencies including both Attorney General’s offices
in in [redacted] and [redacted] as well as both [redacted] headquarters in both ** and **.
Additional I forwarded the complaint to the RevDex.com and several  other agencies
totaling 17 in all. On June 9, 2014 the Revdex.com emailed me a (7) page response by
[redacted] of [redacted] which I believe does not satisfy my complaint and
in fact compounds the problem sought to be remedied.

Dear [redacted] 
[redacted] has filed a number of complaints to the following individuals and agencies regarding the DNA analysis conducted at our laboratories (Fairfax Identity Laboratories (FIL) and Mitotyping Technologies (**):
[redacted]...

[redacted]  
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
In response to the complaint received by the Better BusinessBureau (ID #[redacted]) I am writing this letter to provide clarification regarding the testing conducted at our laboratories. In March of 2014, [redacted] contacted our laboratory requesting DNA testing of a 4 year old urine sample to attempt to show that the urine was his.
On April 9, 2014 we received a vial of urine labeled as collected on 12/22/09 from [redacted]. Our chain of custody documentation was initiated with the receipt record,accessioning and sample processing of the urine specimen (FIL Item 01). An extraction was performed to attempt to obtain DNA from the urine sample. A low quantitation value was obtained designating this sample as containing a low quantity of DNA. [redacted] was notified of the low quantitation value. Due to time constraints (upcoming trial) and financial constraints a number of options were provided for [redacted] in order to assist with the DNA identification. This information was submitted in a lengthy email on May 09, 2014. The pros and cons of each technology (STR and Mitochondrial DNA Analysis) were provided to [redacted]. [redacted] chose to have **DNA analysis performed on his samples due to his court imposed deadline, his financial situation and the low quantitation value. [redacted], [redacted], agreed to give [redacted] a reduced price of $800 over her list price of $2800 forthe **DNA on the urine extract, the price for STR analysis is $660.00/sample. [redacted] was quoted a fee of $250 for the extraction performed at FIL on the urine, and $1500 for the **DNA analysis of the reference at [redacted] (**). A copy of the Mitotyping case file was provided for an additional fee of $200.00. The total cost for analysis, reports and case files is $2750.00. Once the testing was complete [redacted] was notified that the sequence obtained from the urine matched the sequence obtained from the buccal swab and that his profile was rare, there were no observations this type in an overall database of 30,000. The final, original report indicated that in Northern America, there were no observations of his type within 11,180 individuals. As in all mitochondrial DNA testing, the result of the statistical analysis shows the percent of the population that would be expected to have the type in question. In this case, with 95% confidence, no more than 3 in 10,000 individuals would be expected to have this type. The fact that **DNA was not a unique identifier was explained to [redacted] at the time he selected the test. Once the analysis was complete, a copy of the case file from ** and their report was sent to the attorney for this case as well as [redacted]. [redacted] spoke with another expert (a forensic linguist) and was informed that **DNA was not "useful" and became unhappy with the report submitted by **. He informed me that he did not want to pay for the service. I informed him that this expert is not withinthe field of DNA and does not understand the utility of **DNA analysis as a forensic tool.
We have an email with approval to charge his credit card half in the month of May and the second half in June. Accounting had already charged for
half of the testing at that point. I mentioned to him that we would not be able to issue the report or the case file from FIL until payment was received in full. To date, Fairfax Identity Laboratories has not yet sent our case file or report to you or a copy to [redacted]. We have asked for payment for the testing prior to providing this material.
Regarding [redacted]'s complaint about chain of custody, the buccal swab was collected by a person not affiliated with Fairfax Identity Labs or with
[redacted] The documentation that she initiated at the time of the collection is located within the package containing the buccal swab. This package was received at FIL and shipped unopened to **. Once testing was complete by **, the package and all original documents were shipped back to [redacted]. [redacted] was also given a copy of this paperwork at the time the collection was taken by [redacted]. So to summarize, [redacted] has the original documentation at the time of the buccal swab collection and a copy of those documents provided by the collector at the time the sample was taken.
These documents are not chain of custody documents, they are collection documents. These documents referred to by [redacted] as "chain of custody" are the documents requesting that the buccal swab be collected and compared to the urine sample, quite simply it is a TEST REQUEST FORM. The chain of custody documentation for Fairfax Identity Labs includes the submission of the urine specimen and a separate submission of the buccal swabs. It was requested by
[redacted] that we ship the urine specimen to [redacted] for further analysis. The extract for the urine, its associated reagent blank and the buccal swabs were shipped to **.
The chain of custody documentation for [redacted] includes the submission of the reagent blank, urine extract and buccal swabs [the latter coming directly from [redacted] by way of (intermediate stop at) FIL]. All dates, shipping identifiers, names, and initials were complete and documented. All seals were intact. A photo of [redacted], taken by [redacted], and provided by [redacted], was in the package and is now in the case file. Neither chain of custody (FIL or **) includes any documentation from [redacted] (with the exception of signed shipping labels) because her role was simply to be able to attest to the collection of the original buccal swab sample from [redacted]. His collection was provided and paid for by [redacted] independent of any testing performed by ourlaboratories. [redacted] from our Sales Division provided a person for him to get in touch with and have the collection perfonned. Both [redacted] and Fairfax Identity Laboratories have followed our procedures and all guidelines set forth by the Quality Assurance Standards for Forensic DNA Testing Laboratories.
Our laboratories stand behind the science and reports that have been issued for the analysis conducted on the specimens submitted to our laboratories. Once the bill is satisfied in full we agree to provide the report and case file from Fairfax Identity Laboratories to his attorney [redacted]. Our Laboratories take pride in their high level of customer service and responsiveness to the needs of our clients. We are known for our attention to detail and understand well the need for providing high quality, high accuracy and true attention to detail. Our approach has always been quality investment over quantity, customer service over throughput, and accuracy in place of short cuts. We adhere to standards higher than those required by our  accrediting bodies and have done so since our inception. We hold ourselves accountable to provide the most accurate, highest quality, and best value in the market. Feel free to contact me if any further information is needed in order to close the complaint.
Sincerely
[redacted]

Review: On 3/20/14 I contacted Fairfax identity labs to conduct an STR DNA test on a Urine sample to match to a Buccal Swab sample for identification purposes. The lab told me they were unable to get an STR DNA from my urine and that Mini STR was no guarantee either and suggested I try [redacted] at more than twice the price of STR. Not understanding the legal difference in Nuclear STR DNA vs. [redacted] I went ahead and while they got a 99.97 % match the corresponding paperwork regarding the Chain of Custody for the Buccal Swab was actually labeled Urine instead. Additional errors were cited in an E-mail from the [redacted] lab indicating Missing & Omitted documents from the full file production. The need to have this test done in the first place was to address a Chain of Custody question not a question of science and therefore the Science in this test is not the bigger issue but the glaring errors in the Chain of Custody which clearly are. An e-mail from Fairfax indicated that if I still wanted to try for an STR DNA that I could send back the remaining pellet as they only used half and they would try to get an STR DNA again. If they couldnt get it from the first half of the sample why would they even offer to try again from the second half unless it was possible that they could have gotten it off the first half but didnt. I would therefore like the Quantification Counts they are now with holding for payment and I do not believe I should have to pay for a report with enough errors in the Chain of Custody to be a serious problem in court regardless of the claimed validity of their Science. My time has value as well.Desired Settlement: I would like the Quantification Counts and the Extraction Method data as well as the full case file that they are now with holding for payment and I do not believe I should have to pay for a report with enough errors in the Chain of Custody to be a serious problem in court regardless of the claimed validity of their Science. My time has value as well.

Business

Response:

Dear [redacted] has filed a number of complaints to the following individuals and agencies regarding the DNA analysis conducted at our laboratories (Fairfax Identity Laboratories (FIL) and Mitotyping Technologies (**):

In response to the complaint received by the Better BusinessBureau (ID #[redacted]) I am writing this letter to provide clarification regarding the testing conducted at our laboratories. In March of 2014, [redacted] contacted our laboratory requesting DNA testing of a 4 year old urine sample to attempt to show that the urine was his.

On April 9, 2014 we received a vial of urine labeled as collected on 12/22/09 from [redacted]. Our chain of custody documentation was initiated with the receipt record,accessioning and sample processing of the urine specimen (FIL Item 01). An extraction was performed to attempt to obtain DNA from the urine sample. A low quantitation value was obtained designating this sample as containing a low quantity of DNA. [redacted] was notified of the low quantitation value. Due to time constraints (upcoming trial) and financial constraints a number of options were provided for [redacted] in order to assist with the DNA identification. This information was submitted in a lengthy email on May 09, 2014. The pros and cons of each technology (STR and Mitochondrial DNA Analysis) were provided to [redacted] chose to have **DNA analysis performed on his samples due to his court imposed deadline, his financial situation and the low quantitation value. [redacted], agreed to give [redacted] a reduced price of $800 over her list price of $2800 forthe **DNA on the urine extract, the price for STR analysis is $660.00/sample. [redacted] was quoted a fee of $250 for the extraction performed at FIL on the urine, and $1500 for the **DNA analysis of the reference at [redacted] (**). A copy of the Mitotyping case file was provided for an additional fee of $200.00. The total cost for analysis, reports and case files is $2750.00. Once the testing was complete [redacted] was notified that the sequence obtained from the urine matched the sequence obtained from the buccal swab and that his profile was rare, there were no observations this type in an overall database of 30,000. The final, original report indicated that in Northern America, there were no observations of his type within 11,180 individuals. As in all mitochondrial DNA testing, the result of the statistical analysis shows the percent of the population that would be expected to have the type in question. In this case, with 95% confidence, no more than 3 in 10,000 individuals would be expected to have this type. The fact that **DNA was not a unique identifier was explained to [redacted] at the time he selected the test. Once the analysis was complete, a copy of the case file from ** and their report was sent to the attorney for this case as well as [redacted] spoke with another expert (a forensic linguist) and was informed that **DNA was not "useful" and became unhappy with the report submitted by **. He informed me that he did not want to pay for the service. I informed him that this expert is not withinthe field of DNA and does not understand the utility of **DNA analysis as a forensic tool.

We have an email with approval to charge his credit card half in the month of May and the second half in June. Accounting had already charged for

half of the testing at that point. I mentioned to him that we would not be able to issue the report or the case file from FIL until payment was received in full. To date, Fairfax Identity Laboratories has not yet sent our case file or report to you or a copy to [redacted]. We have asked for payment for the testing prior to providing this material.

Regarding [redacted]'s complaint about chain of custody, the buccal swab was collected by a person not affiliated with Fairfax Identity Labs or with

[redacted] The documentation that she initiated at the time of the collection is located within the package containing the buccal swab. This package was received at FIL and shipped unopened to **. Once testing was complete by **, the package and all original documents were shipped back to [redacted] was also given a copy of this paperwork at the time the collection was taken by [redacted]. So to summarize, [redacted] has the original documentation at the time of the buccal swab collection and a copy of those documents provided by the collector at the time the sample was taken.

These documents are not chain of custody documents, they are collection documents. These documents referred to by [redacted] as "chain of custody" are the documents requesting that the buccal swab be collected and compared to the urine sample, quite simply it is a TEST REQUEST FORM. The chain of custody documentation for Fairfax Identity Labs includes the submission of the urine specimen and a separate submission of the buccal swabs. It was requested by

[redacted] that we ship the urine specimen to [redacted] for further analysis. The extract for the urine, its associated reagent blank and the buccal swabs were shipped to **.

The chain of custody documentation for [redacted] includes the submission of the reagent blank, urine extract and buccal swabs [the latter coming directly from [redacted] by way of (intermediate stop at) FIL]. All dates, shipping identifiers, names, and initials were complete and documented. All seals were intact. A photo of [redacted], taken by [redacted], and provided by [redacted], was in the package and is now in the case file. Neither chain of custody (FIL or **) includes any documentation from [redacted] (with the exception of signed shipping labels) because her role was simply to be able to attest to the collection of the original buccal swab sample from [redacted]. His collection was provided and paid for by [redacted] independent of any testing performed by ourlaboratories. [redacted] from our Sales Division provided a person for him to get in touch with and have the collection perfonned. Both [redacted] and Fairfax Identity Laboratories have followed our procedures and all guidelines set forth by the Quality Assurance Standards for Forensic DNA Testing Laboratories.

Our laboratories stand behind the science and reports that have been issued for the analysis conducted on the specimens submitted to our laboratories. Once the bill is satisfied in full we agree to provide the report and case file from Fairfax Identity Laboratories to his attorney [redacted]. Our Laboratories take pride in their high level of customer service and responsiveness to the needs of our clients. We are known for our attention to detail and understand well the need for providing high quality, high accuracy and true attention to detail. Our approach has always been quality investment over quantity, customer service over throughput, and accuracy in place of short cuts. We adhere to standards higher than those required by our accrediting bodies and have done so since our inception. We hold ourselves accountable to provide the most accurate, highest quality, and best value in the market. Feel free to contact me if any further information is needed in order to close the complaint.

Sincerely

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID[redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]

Regards,

To whom it may concern:

ON May 24, 2014 I filed a 7 page complaint with 34 pages of

exhibits against [redacted] whom I believe acted

in concert to issue a DNA test that would be rendered useless in an upcoming

trial. I sent that complaint to 17 agencies including both Attorney General’s offices

in in [redacted] and [redacted] as well as both [redacted] headquarters in both ** and **.

Additional I forwarded the complaint to the RevDex.com and several other agencies

totaling 17 in all. On June 9, 2014 the Revdex.com emailed me a (7) page response by

[redacted] of [redacted] which I believe does not satisfy my complaint and

in fact compounds the problem sought to be remedied.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID[redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]

Regards,

The customer reached out to the Revdex.com stating that a past due bill have been sent to him for $1,000. It is due for having to write a letter to the Revdex.com in response to the original complaint details. He would like the bill removed.

Business

Response:

Please see the balance for [redacted]. I had our controller write on the account paid in full so there would be no misunderstanding.

Consumer

Response:

The customer contacted our office to provided another bill that was sent to him with a past due balance for the complaint he filed with the Revdex.com.