KY - Gabriella Doolin, 7, Allen County, 14 Nov 2015 #1 *Arrest*

[strawberry]

Whether or not Mom thought about child being taped during interview, TV station should have had the decency & ethics to edit her out of the shot.

It's irresponsible & reprehensible of the outlet IMO

Very true; but, aside from being taped, how about protecting your child from details of the situation? Being strong for your kid? They need to know basically what is going on but they need to feel that the adult in their life will take care of them and be there for them, not falling apart next to them and talking about this kind of stuff

 

[Madeleine74]

When that happens, as it does, then they have a suspect (from the cold hit) upon which to build their case. I would like to see the case where the ONLY evidence is DNA and yet the person was without a doubt not even in the country when the crime took place.

In a case such as thing one - perp & victim do not live together, there is evidence of rape, you can conclude there is no innocent reason for his DNA (likely semen) to be anywhere near this girl, let alone on or in her. There is no accidental way his DNA got on the victim. Zero. His DNA (again, likely semen) was either 'planted' on/in the victim or he was in direct contact with the victim to deposit it there.

If you look at a cohabiting couple, as a different example, you would expect to find DNA of each of them all over their domicile and it's possible for either of them to come into contact with the other person's DNA. Skin cells, saliva, touch... all have DNA to them. Not unexpected.

So, it comes down to context, the nature of the crime, the victim involved, and other factors.

 

[ILOKAL]

A murder absolutely can be proved with just a DNA match. How many murders have eye witnesses or the perp confesses or there's a video of the crime? Very few. Most murders are "circumstantial only" cases, and DNA is counted as circumstantial evidence. It's probably the most compelling circumstantial evidence there is. It's not needed to be able to prove a murder, but when it's there and it can point to the perp, it's something almost no one can dismiss. And, it also has the power to exclude a perp and is used for that purpose too which is how wrongful convictions get overturned.

It's not whether a murder "could" or "couldn't" be proven with just a DNA match. I know of NO DA who would take a case to trial without corroborating evidence.

 

[ILOKAL]

Just to clarify for my own understanding... He has said he was there and saw her shortly before she went missing and police documents indicate his DNA was found at autopsy. How could that NOT lead to conviction? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm sincerely wondering. Is it that he could argue it down to "just" rape and or sodomy, not murder?

Some don't realize how difficult the threshold "beyond a reasonable doubt" is. Of course, DNA is often the piece of evidence that turns a case into a prosecution, but it doesn't stand alone. I don't take your post as argumentative.

 

[ILOKAL]

There are some cases where someone was convicted and DNA was the only evidence. Some are mentioned in the article I linked to, and you can find others through google.

Although that was the defense, that DNA was the only evidence against the defendant, it really wasn't. There was other circumstantial evidence.

 

[ptandj]

Some don't realize how difficult the threshold "beyond a reasonable doubt" is. Of course, DNA is often the piece of evidence that turns a case into a prosecution, but it doesn't stand alone. I don't take your post as argumentative.

I'm trying to remember what I've learned about reasonable doubt and failing. I guess I don't see how an unrelated adult male's DNA on a murdered child's body could be anything but beyond a reasonable doubt...

ETA also I think you're right and I believe that there is likely other circumstantial evidence in this case not just DNA

 

[Rayemonde]

It's not whether a murder "could" or "couldn't" be proven with just a DNA match. I know of NO DA who would take a case to trial without corroborating evidence.

They are cases that have been taken to trial on only DNA evidence, and people have been convicted on only DNA evidence. The link I posted earlier discusses a few cases. Here is some information about one other case:
http://www.greghillassociates.com/conviction-reversed-for-commercial-burglary-despite-evidence.html

 

[bluesneakers]

There are some cases where someone was convicted and DNA was the only evidence. Some are mentioned in the article I linked to, and you can find others through google.

What search terms did you use? So far all the results I get are about convictions overturned with DNA evidence.

 

[ILOKAL]

In a case such as thing one - perp & victim do not live together, there is evidence of rape, you can conclude there is no innocent reason for his DNA (likely semen) to be anywhere near this girl, let alone on or in her. There is no accidental way his DNA got on the victim. Zero. His DNA (again, likely semen) was either 'planted' on/in the victim or he was in direct contact with the victim to deposit it there.

If you look at a cohabiting couple, as a different example, you would expect to find DNA of each of them all over their domicile and it's possible for either of them to come into contact with the other person's DNA. Skin cells, saliva, touch... all have DNA to them. Not unexpected.

So, it comes down to context, the nature of the crime, the victim involved, and other factors.

Please understand, there is no argument about what you have said. Fortunately, a case won't be prosecuted against a defendant if DNA is the absolute ONLY evidence they have. Keep in mind I'm NOT using the word "only" to somehow negate the strength of a DNA match because it is absolutely powerful evidence. It just doesn't stand alone.

 

[LaborDayRN]

I'm trying to remember what I've learned about reasonable doubt and failing. I guess I don't see how an unrelated adult male's DNA on a murdered child's body could be anything but beyond a reasonable doubt...

ETA also there is other circumstantial evidence in this case just from his own statements.

We also have to remember his comments about having blood on his clothing. He had opportunity. If it turns out they were able to find evidence of pond water on his clothing and shoes coupled with the DNA, I'd say that's a pretty strong case.

 

[Rayemonde]

What search terms did you use? So far all the results I get are about convictions overturned with DNA evidence.

I googled:

is dna evidence alone enough to press charges

You can also try:

"pure cold hit" dna prosecutions

 

[ms_x_to_the_m]

I feel the same. And I don't know why. Its not cause he is screaming he is innocent either. I want to believe it was him but idk maybe it's just cause how fast it all unfolded and how fast the DNA was matched up. If he didn't do it how would his DNA be on her? Or maybe its not that I think he didn't do it as much as I think someone els was involved as well. Idk I'll just wait... Follow along...and see what unfolds.

Its all super tragic not only did a family forever lose there little girl, sister, and so much more. But the killers kids lost a father and are the ones left to face society. The very same small society that their father wronged in a big way. How do you ever get passed that? If I was his wife I'd leave his butt in the dust and get my kids out of that area.

I'm glad I'm not alone. I can't explain it. It's like it's too neat. I don't know.

 

[bluesneakers]

Please understand, there is no argument about what you have said. Fortunately, a case won't be prosecuted against a defendant if DNA is the absolute ONLY evidence they have. Keep in mind I'm NOT using the word "only" to somehow negate the strength of a DNA match because it is absolutely powerful evidence. It just doesn't stand alone.

And if it is the only evidence they have, what happens then? Will they let him go?

 

[ptandj]

We also have to remember his comments about having blood on his clothing. He had opportunity. If it turns out they were able to find evidence of pond water on his clothing and shoes coupled with the DNA, I'd say that's a pretty strong case.

Yes I agree with you. I edited my reply only because we don't have 100% evidence of the other evidence but I feel pretty confident that the police have it.

 

[DexterMorgan]

They are cases that have been taken to trial on only DNA evidence, and people have been convicted on only DNA evidence. The link I posted earlier discusses a few cases. Here is some information about one other case:
http://www.greghillassociates.com/conviction-reversed-for-commercial-burglary-despite-evidence.html

Enrique Arochi is about to witness thus in the Christina Morris abduction case. Jmo

 

[ILOKAL]

They are cases that have been taken to trial on only DNA evidence, and people have been convicted on only DNA evidence. The link I posted earlier discusses a few cases. Here is some information about one other case:
http://www.greghillassociates.com/conviction-reversed-for-commercial-burglary-despite-evidence.html

Last time, then I shall politely bow out. The defense tried to say that DNA (from a cold hit) was the only evidence against their client when actually there was also other evidence against their client.

 

[bluesneakers]

I googled:

is dna evidence alone enough to press charges

Thank you! You just saved me an hour.

 

[Rayemonde]

Last time, then I shall politely bow out. The defense tried to say that DNA (from a cold hit) was the only evidence against their client when actually there was also other evidence against their client.

What was the other evidence?

 

[ILOKAL]

And if it is the only evidence they have, what happens then? Will they let him go?

I doubt that is the only evidence they have now or will have after they build their case. Whatever evidence they have will need to be shared with the defense. If the defense doesn't think it's enough for a strong case against his client, a speedy trial might be in order, but that's risky too, because it usually takes a good amount of time to build an equally strong defense.

 

[Rayemonde]

And if it is the only evidence they have, what happens then? Will they let him go?

*If* they have (sorry to be graphic) found his semen in the child, he's not going anywhere. He will be found guilty at least of rape from that, IMO.