Accused murderer’s DNA found on victim’s body, forensic scientist testifies

A forensic scientist told the jury in Nikolas Ibey’s murder trial that his DNA was discovered on an upstairs washroom faucet where Savanna Pikuyak’s blood and DNA were also found.

“Could these results be explained by Mr. Ibey having blood on his hands and making contact with that faucet handle?” Crown prosecutor Sonia Beachamp asked Heather Shacker, a forensic scientist at Toronto’s Centre of Forensic Sciences.

“That is a possible scenario,” Shacker, a Crown witness, testified Wednesday in an Ottawa courtroom.

Ibey, 35, is charged with first-degree murder in the Sept. 11, 2022, death of 22-year-old Savanna Pikuyak, originally from Sanirajak but who moved to Ottawa to study nursing at Algonquin College.

Pikuyak had been in the city for less than a week and was renting a room at Ibey’s house in Ottawa’s Nepean area, about two kilometres from the college.

Ibey has pleaded not guilty. His jury trial is in its second week.

Pikuyak’s blood was also found on a piece of wood that was on her bedroom floor, on her bedroom carpet, and on a light switch.

On Monday, a pathologist testified Pikuyak suffered at least five blows to the head and multiple blows to her body with a rectangular object.

Ibey’s DNA was not located on the light switch or on the wood, but Shacker testified that in certain cases where the source is extremely rich in DNA, such as blood or bodily fluids, a second sample of DNA may not be detected even though it is there.

Ibey’s DNA was identified on Pikuyak’s breasts and the waistband of the pants that were tangled in her feet when her body was found.

A penile swab taken from Ibey after his arrest identified a second person’s DNA, though that person could not be positively identified.

Washing would help remove foreign DNA, Shaker testified.

Pikuyak’s DNA was found on the inside of Ibey’s underwear when he was arrested.

Shacker explained how DNA can be transferred from a person to an object or another person, likening it to someone touching wet paint on a wall.

At its wettest, she said, a lot of DNA can be transferred between an object or person. With each transfer, the amount of transferable DNA is reduced until it cannot be used to identify the owner, though lesser information can sometimes be gleaned, such as the sex of the person or that a second sample of DNA is present.

A wet source of DNA is much more transferable than a dry source, Shacker said.

The defence’s cross-examination of Shacker focused on the transference of DNA.

Defence lawyer Ewan Lyttle asked how likely it was that two people sharing a home would transfer their own DNA.

Shacker agreed that was common.

Lyttle questioned Shacker’s identification of Ibey’s DNA at several locations, including on the victim’s body, suggesting positive identifications could be explained by transference from things in the home or other contact she might have had with Ibey.

Shacker said it was difficult to rule out a transference scenario completely, but factors to consider are whether the source is wet or dry and whether there is enough DNA to transfer in the first place.

The trial continues Thursday.