JLM Charged in 2005 Farifax Rape Case

[SolverGameChanger]

I believe the use of the term "foreign object" is applied to meet the minimal standard to the accusation of rape. If DNA is found and there is other evidence of attempted "rape" then carnal knowledge does not necessarily need to be proved for the case.

 

[hambirg]

I'm not sure if this has already been posted. Apologies if it has.

Victim’s neighbor speaks out as Jesse Matthew pleads not guilty to rape charges

“It was a horrible experience for all of us,” said Carmen Reyes, RG’s former neighbor. “We were all very concerned and it was very difficult for us to live here in this neighborhood knowing that somebody is outside doing those things.”

Nearly a decade has passed, but the fear from that September night is still fresh for Reyes, who was pregnant and the same age as her neighbor RG at that time.

“It’s a good thing that things are being solved now and we can be more at peace and especially for the victims they can find justice” she said.

The prosecution said the victim, a mother of her own now, is prepared to travel back to this country to face and testify against her alleged rapist in an eight-day trial scheduled to begin March 9, 2015.


http://wtvr.com/2014/11/14/jesse-matthew-pleads-not-guilty/

 

[MJPeony]

I'm not sure if this has already been posted. Apologies if it has.

Victim’s neighbor speaks out as Jesse Matthew pleads not guilty to rape charges

“It was a horrible experience for all of us,” said Carmen Reyes, RG’s former neighbor. “We were all very concerned and it was very difficult for us to live here in this neighborhood knowing that somebody is outside doing those things.”

Nearly a decade has passed, but the fear from that September night is still fresh for Reyes, who was pregnant and the same age as her neighbor RG at that time.

“It’s a good thing that things are being solved now and we can be more at peace and especially for the victims they can find justice” she said.

The prosecution said the victim, a mother of her own now, is prepared to travel back to this country to face and testify against her alleged rapist in an eight-day trial scheduled to begin March 9, 2015.


http://wtvr.com/2014/11/14/jesse-matthew-pleads-not-guilty/

BBM.

God bless her. What a service to the other women and to justice.

 

[travelbug]

RAW: Jesse Matthew pleads not guilty to charges in 2005 Fairfax rape case

http://www.nbc12.com/clip/10850451/...t-guilty-to-charges-in-2005-fairfax-rape-case

...notice how all the deputies are keeping their eyes on him. He can't even say not guilty without blinking his eyes.

I noticed that and near the end of the tape he does something, can't tell what, they don't like and they both reach for their weapons.

 

[hambirg]

BBM.

God bless her. What a service to the other women and to justice.

IKR? I feel like she deserves a hero's welcome. . .like a ticker tape parade. If I lived in VA I would be outside the courthouse with a big neon sign! THANK YOU, RG! :cheer:

 

[Conductor71]

Like most everyone else, it was surprising to me to hear the "not guilty" plea from JM today! Primarily because of the DNA; but, honestly, over the years I have heard some really bad stories about what turned out to be "false positives". Anyway, I saw this today and I think it would possibly give a shred of hope to someone who would want to fight the type of charges he is facing:

http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/c...cle_a96357c4-6626-11e4-977a-0017a43b2370.html

November 6, 2014 9:45 pm
"A state forensic analysis conducted last month concludes the chances of the DNA profile matching someone other than Jesse Leroy Matthew Jr. are “1 in greater than 7.2 billion,” the latter figure equivalent to the entire world population.

While the forensic analysis does not explicitly match Matthew’s DNA with that of the 2005 attacker, the probability of any other match is “pretty darn remote,” according to UCLA law professor Jennifer Mnookin, an expert in forensic science and DNA profiling.

“It is standard practice in some labs never to say [DNA] absolutely came from any one person,” Mnookin said. “Because fundamentally, it’s probabilistic evidence — they’re being more scientifically accurate.”

The link leaves Matthew’s defense with few options, including either challenging the collection and storage of the DNA evidence or the expertise of the analyst who uncovered the link, said local defense attorney Scott Goodman, who is not working the case.

“The defense may get their own expert to see if there is a different conclusion,” Goodman said. “That’s the only shot you have.”

I wonder how close DNA profiles are among family members? With the odds of anyone else matching being so high, it would seem that a familial DNA connection could totally ruled out, but....it is not an exact science, so who knows?

I am not defending JM, but I am a supporter of our constitutional rights. If we look beyond the out of context, misleading 1 in 72 billion probability, I think there are plenty of ways his counsel may mount a defense. I am no expert on DNA but know enough that JM's results do not meet the required FBI minimum match of DNA stranding which are required for a CODIS "match". According to FBI standards, DNA matching in CODIS requires that an arrestee DNA sample meet at least 10 of 13 unique chromosomal loci strand identifiers of a convicted offender. CODIS is meant for seeing if cold cases might be resolved by linking forensic evidence from unsolved crimes to the DNA of those already convicted.

A search between forensic samples is what we have here (the Fairfax DNA does not come from a convicted offender), and there is only a weak partial match of loci. This is known as a "hit" from CODIS database trawling. In some states, this sort of "evidence" is not even admissible in court. Why? It is known that two unrelated individuals can match at 9 of 13 loci and not even be of the same race, so how a 7 in 13 loci match will hold up in an attempted capital murder trial is beyond me? They have a very tenuous forensic link between JM and the Fairfax case, IMO.

How reliable is DNA in identifying suspects?

See the following link for JM's matching loci (after signature page):

Appendix 1 of JM's DNA analysis

 

[Conductor71]

“The defense may get their own expert to see if there is a different conclusion,” Goodman said. “That’s the only shot you have.”[/I]

I wonder how close DNA profiles are among family members? With the odds of anyone else matching being so high, it would seem that a familial DNA connection could totally ruled out, but....it is not an exact science, so who knows?

The official FBI site on familial searching. I think VA is one of few states passing legislation supporting its use.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/biometric-analysis/codis/familial-searching

 

[Evie Ivy Over]

I am not defending JM, but I am a supporter of our constitutional rights. If we look beyond the out of context, misleading 1 in 72 billion probability, I think there are plenty of ways his counsel may mount a defense. I am no expert on DNA but know enough that JM's results do not meet the required FBI minimum match of DNA stranding which are required for a CODIS "match". According to FBI standards, DNA matching in CODIS requires that an arrestee DNA sample meet at least 10 of 13 unique chromosomal loci strand identifiers of a convicted offender. CODIS is meant for seeing if cold cases might be resolved by linking forensic evidence from unsolved crimes to the DNA of those already convicted.

A search between forensic samples is what we have here (the Fairfax DNA does not come from a convicted offender), and there is only a weak partial match of loci. This is known as a "hit" from CODIS database trawling. In some states, this sort of "evidence" is not even admissible in court. Why? It is known that two unrelated individuals can match at 9 of 13 loci and not even be of the same race, so how a 7 in 13 loci match will hold up in an attempted capital murder trial is beyond me? They have a very tenuous forensic link between JM and the Fairfax case, IMO.

How reliable is DNA in identifying suspects?

See the following link for JM's matching loci (after signature page):

Appendix 1 of JM's DNA analysis

Thanks for the information, Conductor.

After reading the attachment again, I answered my own question about DNA comparisons of related individuals. They have based their probability calculation on "unrelated individuals", and I'm taking "unrelated" to mean non-family.

 

[Ralph]

I am not defending JM, but I am a supporter of our constitutional rights. If we look beyond the out of context, misleading 1 in 72 billion probability, I think there are plenty of ways his counsel may mount a defense. I am no expert on DNA but know enough that JM's results do not meet the required FBI minimum match of DNA stranding which are required for a CODIS "match". According to FBI standards, DNA matching in CODIS requires that an arrestee DNA sample meet at least 10 of 13 unique chromosomal loci strand identifiers of a convicted offender. CODIS is meant for seeing if cold cases might be resolved by linking forensic evidence from unsolved crimes to the DNA of those already convicted.

A search between forensic samples is what we have here (the Fairfax DNA does not come from a convicted offender), and there is only a weak partial match of loci. This is known as a "hit" from CODIS database trawling. In some states, this sort of "evidence" is not even admissible in court. Why? It is known that two unrelated individuals can match at 9 of 13 loci and not even be of the same race, so how a 7 in 13 loci match will hold up in an attempted capital murder trial is beyond me? They have a very tenuous forensic link between JM and the Fairfax case, IMO.

How reliable is DNA in identifying suspects?

See the following link for JM's matching loci (after signature page):

Appendix 1 of JM's DNA analysis

I'm sorry but you are completely misunderstanding all of this.

The initial link was made between the Fairfax case and the MH case through CODIS. That is the only use of CODIS in this case. Once JM was arrested, his known DNA standard was collected (Item 120 - buccal swabs in the Certificate of Analysis you attached).

That Certificate of Analysis reports the direct comparison of JM's known DNA standard to the evidence in the Fairfax case which is a foreign DNA profile from a fingernail scraper. This has nothing to do with CODIS. It means they took one profile and compared it to the other. And if you want to see exactly what those DNA profiles look like, go to page 3 of the report (Appendix 1). The DNA profiles of JM and the fingernail scraper are listed there in the chart (along with a cigarette butt that doesn't match JM).

You'll notice one region of the DNA (D7S820) is listed as inconclusive for the fingernail scraper - this is not uncommon and doesn't take away from the fact that the results match at all regions of the DNA. There are 16 DNA regions (called loci) in that chart and JM matches all of them except the one that is inconclusive. I'm not sure where you are getting 7 out of 13.

Read the report carefully, the statistic states "...1 in greater than 7.2 billion..." which means the number is actually probably much, much higher (probably in in the quintillions or higher). The state of VA caps the number at the world's population to make it clearer for juries - numbers like quintillion, sextillion, septillion, etc are beyond what the average person can comprehend.

 

[Conductor71]

I'm sorry but you are completely misunderstanding all of this.

The initial link was made between the Fairfax case and the MH case through CODIS. That is the only use of CODIS in this case. Once JM was arrested, his known DNA standard was collected (Item 120 - buccal swabs in the Certificate of Analysis you attached).

That Certificate of Analysis reports the direct comparison of JM's known DNA standard to the evidence in the Fairfax case which is a foreign DNA profile from a fingernail scraper. This has nothing to do with CODIS. It means they took one profile and compared it to the other. And if you want to see exactly what those DNA profiles look like, go to page 3 of the report (Appendix 1). The DNA profiles of JM and the fingernail scraper are listed there in the chart (along with a cigarette butt that doesn't match JM).

You'll notice one region of the DNA (D7S820) is listed as inconclusive for the fingernail scraper - this is not uncommon and doesn't take away from the fact that the results match at all regions of the DNA. There are 16 DNA regions (called loci) in that chart and JM matches all of them except the one that is inconclusive. I'm not sure where you are getting 7 out of 13.

Read the report carefully, the statistic states "...1 in greater than 7.2 billion..." which means the number is actually probably much, much higher (probably in in the quintillions or higher). The state of VA caps the number at the world's population to make it clearer for juries - numbers like quintillion, sextillion, septillion, etc are beyond what the average person can comprehend.

Yep, I have looked at the results that is why I have attached it. They have made a match between 7 of 13 loci which statistically is very dubious given that matches from 9 of 13 cannot even scientifically establish a person's race. If you read the linked article, it is all explained.

I appreciate what you are saying, but I am referring to "moderate stringency" searching in CODIS that would have yielded a hit to follow up in the first place for direct comparison between the two samples, so no I do not misunderstand. I may not have clearly explained the difference though. The DNA loci matching of course took place through a direct comparison of forensic lab analyses; from my understanding CODIS would; however, have provided a forensic lead by showing a partial match that LE could pursue.

The forensic link between JM and MH was made public on or around September 29th, yet this analysis was made on October 21st. If not through CODIS, how was JM forensically linked prior to the results we have here? There is a difference of at least a month.

As for the billions and trillions, mathematicians laugh at the absurdity of those claims comparing their admission in criminal trials to that of "alchemy" or "astrology". Google Devlin and DNA for an analysis of these probability claims.

 

[ILOKAL]

I'm sorry but you are completely misunderstanding all of this.

The initial link was made between the Fairfax case and the MH case through CODIS. That is the only use of CODIS in this case. Once JM was arrested, his known DNA standard was collected (Item 120 - buccal swabs in the Certificate of Analysis you attached).

That Certificate of Analysis reports the direct comparison of JM's known DNA standard to the evidence in the Fairfax case which is a foreign DNA profile from a fingernail scraper. This has nothing to do with CODIS. It means they took one profile and compared it to the other. And if you want to see exactly what those DNA profiles look like, go to page 3 of the report (Appendix 1). The DNA profiles of JM and the fingernail scraper are listed there in the chart (along with a cigarette butt that doesn't match JM).

You'll notice one region of the DNA (D7S820) is listed as inconclusive for the fingernail scraper - this is not uncommon and doesn't take away from the fact that the results match at all regions of the DNA. There are 16 DNA regions (called loci) in that chart and JM matches all of them except the one that is inconclusive. I'm not sure where you are getting 7 out of 13.

Read the report carefully, the statistic states "...1 in greater than 7.2 billion..." which means the number is actually probably much, much higher (probably in in the quintillions or higher). The state of VA caps the number at the world's population to make it clearer for juries - numbers like quintillion, sextillion, septillion, etc are beyond what the average person can comprehend.

Ralph, do the results match at ALL regions (16/16) or is one region inconclusive (15/16)? I may be reading your post wrong, but it sounds a bit ambiguous. Just need you to clarify on that point. TIA

 

[observation]

Aside from the DNA argument... they have a live witness, witnesses to her state by neighbors- To me, this is also huge and very incriminating for JLM. She can look straight across from him in court and point right to him as the man who's face she scratched at while being dragged, strangled unconscious and beaten.

 

[observation]

Ralph, do the results match at ALL regions (16/16) or is one region inconclusive (15/16)? I may be reading your post wrong, but it sounds a bit ambiguous. Just need you to clarify on that point. TIA

ILOCAL-
In reading the chart it is a match for 15/16 loci. There are two numbers in each column and if you look at -
nail scraping and (120) JLM- they match. * Note- you need to disregard the top number listed as cigarette butt.
I'm no DNA expert- just reading the chart.

 

[Ralph]

Ralph, do the results match at ALL regions (16/16) or is one region inconclusive (15/16)? I may be reading your post wrong, but it sounds a bit ambiguous. Just need you to clarify on that point. TIA

One region is inconclusive for the fingernail scraper - it's difficult to know why this region was inconclusive...it could have been a failure of a control sample at that region or the results at the region didn't meet the requirements to report out. The other 15 regions all match.

The way in works in forensic DNA is that if that inconclusive region had not been "consistent" with JM's known DNA, it would have resulted in a elimination.

So please don't read that "INC" on the chart as being JM is excluded from the profile. He is not. The requirements to report an inclusion (as in this case) are VERY stringent and must be met before it can be reported out.

 

[Ralph]

Yep, I have looked at the results that is why I have attached it. They have made a match between 7 of 13 loci which statistically is very dubious given that matches from 9 of 13 cannot even scientifically establish a person's race. If you read the linked article, it is all explained.

I appreciate what you are saying, but I am referring to "moderate stringency" searching in CODIS that would have yielded a hit to follow up in the first place for direct comparison between the two samples, so no I do not misunderstand. I may not have clearly explained the difference though. The DNA loci matching of course took place through a direct comparison of forensic lab analyses; from my understanding CODIS would; however, have provided a forensic lead by showing a partial match that LE could pursue.

The forensic link between JM and MH was made public on or around September 29th, yet this analysis was made on October 21st. If not through CODIS, how was JM forensically linked prior to the results we have here? There is a difference of at least a month.

As for the billions and trillions, mathematicians laugh at the absurdity of those claims comparing their admission in criminal trials to that of "alchemy" or "astrology". Google Devlin and DNA for an analysis of these probability claims.

I'm still not sure exactly what you are referring to.

The appendix contains results for 16 regions of the DNA - not 13. JM matches at 15 of these 16 regions, the only one (D7S820) he doesn't match at has inconclusive results. That is not an elimination.

The article you linked to is strictly concerned with matches that are made in CODIS and is from 2008 which in DNA technology terms is a fairly long time ago. What they don't tell you in this article is that while some profiles may match at 7, 8, or 9 regions, the other regions do NOT match and would thus result in eliminations. If I have an evidence profile and it matches my suspect at 9 of the 13 regions I test but at the remaining 4 regions it does not match - that is an elimination and forensic DNA testing has done it's job. It has eliminated someone who didn't leave the DNA. But if he matches at all of the 13 (or 16 regions like VA tests), then he is not eliminated.

This report has nothing to do with CODIS matches. Yes, a CODIS search may have lead to the connection but I can guarantee you that the CODIS search resulted in a match at ALL the regions (not 7 of 13 or whatever) before it was called a match and a lead to give to LE. Otherwise, the forensic scientist would have not have called it a CODIS match. It is a direct comparison between buccal swabs collected from the mouth of JM and the DNA profile developed from the evidence back in 2005. The numbers and claims in that article have nothing to do with what was reported in this Certificate of Analysis.

JM was linked in this report because his known buccal swabs (Item 120 submitted by Michael Boone on 10/21/2014 - mid way down page 1) were submitted to the lab and DNA typed.

 

[FindHG]

Victim’s neighbor speaks out as Jesse Matthew pleads not guilty
Laura French reports, CNN Wire Nov, 9:47am
http://wtvr.com/2014/11/14/jesse-matthew-pleads-not-guilty/

sorry if this a repeat, I had missed it before.

 

[ILOKAL]

ILOCAL-
In reading the chart it is a match for 15/16 loci. There are two numbers in each column and if you look at -
nail scraping and (120) JLM- they match. * Note- you need to disregard the top number listed as cigarette butt.
I'm no DNA expert- just reading the chart.

Thanks. While you were reading the chart, I was reading Ralph's post. I should have paid closer attention to BOTH,

 

[joijoi12]

I live near the area where this occurred...do we know why he was in the area at that time? Although close to George Mason University, that specific area is not exactly where one hangs out or even pinpoints to visit. It's not far off from Rt. 29 and a major interstate, a mall and a couple of hotels, but that's about it. Perhaps we'll find out when the trial starts in March...

 

[CoolJ]

I would like to know:
1) who this "passerby" was and will they be a witness?
2) how the FBI knew about the passerby?
3) why was the FBI involved in such a case?

If this "passerby" does not testify, IMO it could be tough to convict JM on the attempted Capital Murder charge.

 

[ILOKAL]

I would like to know:
1) who this "passerby" was and will they be a witness?
2) how the FBI knew about the passerby?
3) why was the FBI involved in such a case?

If this "passerby" does not testify, IMO it could be tough to convict JM on the attempted Capital Murder charge.

I thought I had read that the "passerby" lived in a nearby apartment. He heard some commotion and opened the door but saw nothing. A bit later he heard the scream, went back out and saw what was happening and JLM took off. Don't know where I read it so I can't provide a link. If he was a neighbor I don't know why he's being referred to as a "passerby".

ETA: I think the injuries she sustained will indicate attempted murder. There's also the people who helped her and saw the injuries.