afitzy
Former Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2019
- Messages
- 11,285
- Reaction score
- 126,557
I wanted to close the loop on the issues raised by Horn in his recent batch of motions on the issue of evidence testing. In rewatching the expert testimony again I do wonder how much Horn understands about testing process, procedures and protocols? He did say that he had a DNA and testing advisor even though he didn't present his own witness on the topic.
The reason I'm asking about his level of knowledge on the topic is that on at least 4 occasions rewatching the testimony in cases where he questioned experts he was told that preservation of evidence, particularly in cases of small sample size, is important and that in some cases it was most important to preserve evidence for DNA testing.
In rewatching the testimony of the blood and DNA experts it seemed clear that the State Lab did the very best they could with the evidence provided to them, particularly in cases where the sample size was small (ie. faucet at Welles). Given also that a good portion of the evidence was removed from trash cans (even though it was mostly bagged) also made it quite a miracle that as much confirmatory testing was possible as was seen at trial imo.
I'm just putting this summary table back into the thread from the MT AA that provides the results in an easy to refer to format as the trial testimony makes following the testing path of a particular item of evidence a bit challenging. I do think that Horn played very much on the challenges associated with the jury following the path of testing when he made claims about excessive reliance at trial on presumptive testing with either no confirmatory testing or inconclusive test results and his classic claim of the, "State wasting time on presenting all this evidence with inconclusive test results".
Here is the summary table which I found helpful to try and make the test results clearer:
The other thing that becomes clear and which has been talked about alot here is the fact that the conspirators must have worn gloves and most likely either stacked them or changed them frequently. LE did find the Husky gloves and I believe Kitchen gloves but I do wonder where perhaps other gloves or surgical nitrile or latex gloves might have ended up?
I think it was seeing the MT DNA on the bag opening that convinced me that there is no way that MT did not see what was going into those bags that were tossed on Albany Avenue. I do very much wonder if she held the bags open as FD placed in the items? I do very much wonder what she might have thought seeing the JF bloody bra and shirt as they were placed into the bag? Picturing the process that FD and MT might have had in place to 'bag up' the evidence leads me to believe that the process was well thought out and preplanned as absent few errors that LE found where FD and MT DNA was found, they did protect against DNA transfer effectively imo. So, IDK if they covered themselves up in suits and wore masks or came up with some other protective gear but overall it was fairly effective imo. The idea of MT holding the bags open for FD and then taping them up absolutely imo gives lie to the claim of MT and Horn that she was 'just going with FD for a latte and croissant'. I also now question whether MT being on the phone almost constantly while on the Albany trip wasn't just another ploy to make it appear that she had no idea what FD was doing too?
MOO
The reason I'm asking about his level of knowledge on the topic is that on at least 4 occasions rewatching the testimony in cases where he questioned experts he was told that preservation of evidence, particularly in cases of small sample size, is important and that in some cases it was most important to preserve evidence for DNA testing.
In rewatching the testimony of the blood and DNA experts it seemed clear that the State Lab did the very best they could with the evidence provided to them, particularly in cases where the sample size was small (ie. faucet at Welles). Given also that a good portion of the evidence was removed from trash cans (even though it was mostly bagged) also made it quite a miracle that as much confirmatory testing was possible as was seen at trial imo.
I'm just putting this summary table back into the thread from the MT AA that provides the results in an easy to refer to format as the trial testimony makes following the testing path of a particular item of evidence a bit challenging. I do think that Horn played very much on the challenges associated with the jury following the path of testing when he made claims about excessive reliance at trial on presumptive testing with either no confirmatory testing or inconclusive test results and his classic claim of the, "State wasting time on presenting all this evidence with inconclusive test results".
Here is the summary table which I found helpful to try and make the test results clearer:
The other thing that becomes clear and which has been talked about alot here is the fact that the conspirators must have worn gloves and most likely either stacked them or changed them frequently. LE did find the Husky gloves and I believe Kitchen gloves but I do wonder where perhaps other gloves or surgical nitrile or latex gloves might have ended up?
I think it was seeing the MT DNA on the bag opening that convinced me that there is no way that MT did not see what was going into those bags that were tossed on Albany Avenue. I do very much wonder if she held the bags open as FD placed in the items? I do very much wonder what she might have thought seeing the JF bloody bra and shirt as they were placed into the bag? Picturing the process that FD and MT might have had in place to 'bag up' the evidence leads me to believe that the process was well thought out and preplanned as absent few errors that LE found where FD and MT DNA was found, they did protect against DNA transfer effectively imo. So, IDK if they covered themselves up in suits and wore masks or came up with some other protective gear but overall it was fairly effective imo. The idea of MT holding the bags open for FD and then taping them up absolutely imo gives lie to the claim of MT and Horn that she was 'just going with FD for a latte and croissant'. I also now question whether MT being on the phone almost constantly while on the Albany trip wasn't just another ploy to make it appear that she had no idea what FD was doing too?
MOO
Last edited:
. 
