Found Deceased OK, Veronica Butler 27 & Jilian Kelley 39, Vehicle Abandoned, Texas County, 30 Mar 2024 #6 *Arrests*

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Snipped by me for focus...

Perfunctory court-record wording, but a perfectly powerful reminder of how very, very sad this case is. Am I wrong to feel relieved, somehow, that there were any personal effects left to be recovered from these murdered women? I had my doubts, for sure.

Very true. Generally, it's the Coroner who returns personal effects found on the victim. I only recall reading of JK's purse and clip to her weapon, VB's vehicle and her broken eyeglasses-- recovered during the investigation. Perhaps once the Court rules on the Motion, local media will report from the actual Order.
 
Very true. Generally, it's the Coroner who returns personal effects found on the victim. I only recall reading of JK's purse and clip to her weapon, VB's vehicle and her broken eyeglasses-- recovered during the investigation. Perhaps once the Court rules on the Motion, local media will report from the actual Order.
They didn't mention jewelry they might have been wearing, but I'd think JK was likely wearing a wedding ring and perhaps VB had an engagement ring or something. I hope if they were wearing them that those are among the personal effects that were recovered. Their families have lost so much, they should at least have those special items to hold onto going forward. What a sad case this is.
 
They didn't mention jewelry they might have been wearing, but I'd think JK was likely wearing a wedding ring and perhaps VB had an engagement ring or something. I hope if they were wearing them that those are among the personal effects that were recovered. Their families have lost so much, they should at least have those special items to hold onto going forward. What a sad case this is.

The mystery for me here is that the State Prosecutor filed a Motion for the Court to Order or deny allowing return of "certain personal affects" of the deceased.

Generally, the Coroner takes possession of something like jewelry and this office has the authority to release jewelry along with the victim's body.

Actually, I can't recall a case I've followed where a Motion was filed to release personal affects before -- only when items are collected and inventoried by LE, and later determined to be of no evidentiary value to either party (i.e., such as the items I identified earlier per MSM reports).

I guess we will learn soon enough when the Court rules on the Motion.

ETA: One personal item I know to cause a hardship on families when retained for an extended period of time are vehicles impounded by LE to test for evidence. I do recall a case where the father told the Court he was still responsible for the loan/lease payments on three vehicles confiscated by LE for testing after his son was murdered. MOO

ETA-2: Now I'm really curious given the Defense has filed their opposition to allowing certain personal affects returned!
 
Last edited:
No. CF-2024-00072
STATE OF OKLAHOMA VS. ADAMS, TIFANY MACHEL

08/15/2024 TEXTDEFENSE'S OBJECTION TO STATE'S APPLICATION FOR ORDER ALLOWING CONSUMPTIVE TESTING OF EVIDENCE
Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 39, Document Available at Court Clerk's Office
08/15/2024 TEXTDEFENSE'S OBJECTION TO STATE'S APPLICATION FOR ORDER ALLOWING RETURN OF CERTAIN PERSONAL EFFECTS OF THE DECEASED
Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 39, Document Available at Court Clerk's Office

 
No. CF-2024-00072
STATE OF OKLAHOMA VS. ADAMS, TIFANY MACHEL

08/15/2024TEXTDEFENSE'S OBJECTION TO STATE'S APPLICATION FOR ORDER ALLOWING CONSUMPTIVE TESTING OF EVIDENCE
Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 39, Document Available at Court Clerk's Office
08/15/2024TEXTDEFENSE'S OBJECTION TO STATE'S APPLICATION FOR ORDER ALLOWING RETURN OF CERTAIN PERSONAL EFFECTS OF THE DECEASED
Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 39, Document Available at Court Clerk's Office


I thought it odd the defense in one Motion doesn't want testing of evidence but yet in another Motion the defense doesn't want to give up evidence.

So I have been researching what the term CONSUMPTIVE TESTING OF EVIDENCE means.

Apparently, from various searching I looked into, it is evidence so small that the testing itself can ruin the evidence, thus this evidence cannot be tested again. Also, it often refers to DNA samples that are so small that testing ruins the DNA sample so only one test can be run.

It is possible in this specific case that the defense wants to be in charge of testing CONSUMPTIVE EVIDENCE and get their own results before the evidence is rendered useless for testing.

The Daybell case specifically mentions this subject.


The prosecution in the Chad Daybell and Lori Vallow-Daybell triple murder case filed a motion seeking “consumptive testing of forensic evidence” on Monday.

As the name implies, consumptive testing means testing what remains of DNA and leaving little to none of the original DNA evidence. The original DNA samples are quite small. Once the testing is done, there won’t be any more DNA left to do another test.
 
I thought it odd the defense in one Motion doesn't want testing of evidence but yet in another Motion the defense doesn't want to give up evidence.

So I have been researching what the term CONSUMPTIVE TESTING OF EVIDENCE means.

Apparently, from various searching I looked into, it is evidence so small that the testing itself can ruin the evidence, thus this evidence cannot be tested again. Also, it often refers to DNA samples that are so small that testing ruins the DNA sample so only one test can be run.

It is possible in this specific case that the defense wants to be in charge of testing CONSUMPTIVE EVIDENCE and get their own results before the evidence is rendered useless for testing.

The Daybell case specifically mentions this subject.


The prosecution in the Chad Daybell and Lori Vallow-Daybell triple murder case filed a motion seeking “consumptive testing of forensic evidence” on Monday.

As the name implies, consumptive testing means testing what remains of DNA and leaving little to none of the original DNA evidence. The original DNA samples are quite small. Once the testing is done, there won’t be any more DNA left to do another test.
The Patrick Frazee trial, for the murder of Kelsey Berreth, is another example. In that case, this was resolved by granting the defense an expert of their choosing to observe the testing done in the CBI lab.

As outlined in court, the expert for the defense would be allowed to witness the sample prep, DNA extract and quantification of the evidence. If there is enough evidence to split the piece of evidence in two, guidelines would call for the expert to leave because the defense can then do its own testing of the other portion of the sample.

Frazee’s defense team had motioned to record the testing on video, but they withdrew that request. They did request that if the evidence was split, that they could perform their own testing on the tooth fragment.
 
The Patrick Frazee trial, for the murder of Kelsey Berreth, is another example. In that case, this was resolved by granting the defense an expert of their choosing to observe the testing done in the CBI lab.

As outlined in court, the expert for the defense would be allowed to witness the sample prep, DNA extract and quantification of the evidence. If there is enough evidence to split the piece of evidence in two, guidelines would call for the expert to leave because the defense can then do its own testing of the other portion of the sample.

Frazee’s defense team had motioned to record the testing on video, but they withdrew that request. They did request that if the evidence was split, that they could perform their own testing on the tooth fragment.
The Patrick Frazee trial, for the murder of Kelsey Berreth, is another example. In that case, this was resolved by granting the defense an expert of their choosing to observe the testing done in the CBI lab.

I would think that the court might favor such a resolution in a case like this. Not only does the prosecution have established access to better/more reliable testing through the OSBI, or even FBI, that would meet the highest standards for handling evidence, where as the defense would be selecting a private entity that might or might not meet the same standards from a legal standpoint.

Not to mention that it's entirely possible that one of more of the defendants might disagree about what lab to use which in turn would generate more motions, take more time and likely end up with a compromise not unlike the option of having expert(s) observing the testing.
 
Not finding any news on results of today's hearing.

Only entry on today's docket is Order following July 17 hearing:

07/17/2024 TEXTCM: MINUTE/ORDER
HRG ON OBJECTION TO MTN AND ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPTS AND MTN TO IMMEDIATELY STAY ORDER HELD. ORDERS ENTERED. ATTY HOCH TO PREPARE A JOURNAL ENTRY AND CIRCULATE TO ALL ATTORNEYS INVOLVED.
Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 39, Document Available at Court Clerk's Office

08/21/2024 TEXTORDER REGARDING TRANSCRIPTS AND OTHER DISCOVERY
Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 39, Document Available at Court Clerk's Office

 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
159
Guests online
1,964
Total visitors
2,123

Forum statistics

Threads
602,518
Messages
18,141,818
Members
231,421
Latest member
Bman1986
Back
Top