I believe that a DNA swab (or buccal swab) generally refers to a sample of the fluid on the inside cheek of a person that is obtained by an actual Q-Tip like swab. It is a relatively non-invasive method of taking a sample from a person for the purpose of testing that persons DNA. It is also true that bodily fluids at a crime scene may be collected through the use of such a swab.
You are certainly correct in realizing that in a criminal forensics situation, a DNA sample from an alleged suspect must be obtained as a reference sample in order to compare that persons DNA with the DNA that was found in the fluids left behind by the perpetrator at the scene of the crime. Although a large nationwide DNA database did not exist in 1989, the necessary DNA sample from a known suspect could be obtained voluntarily or pursuant to court order. In this case, Heinrich voluntarily gave LE a sample of his hair in, I believe, early 1990. It is my understanding thatHeinrichs hair sample was sufficient enough so that it could be tested forHeinrichs DNA.
My point is that LE should have obtained Heinrichs DNA reference sample voluntarily or by court order in January 1989 and submitted that sample, along with Jareds sweatshirt, to a DNA lab for DNA testing. Even if the report that came back from the DNA lab was that the sample on Jareds sweatshirt was insufficient to test for DNA, perhaps the blood type of Jareds abductor could have been obtained through an ABO blood type test of the sweatshirt. If the blood type of Jareds abductor as determined from the testing of Jareds sweatshirt matched Heinrichs blood type, LE could have arrested Heinrich in 1989 instead of 1990. Moreover, LE would have had evidence sufficient to charge Heinrich with Jareds abduction and assault and wouldnt have had to let him go.
You seemed to be referencing touch DNA testing results versus bodily fluid DNA testing. It was my understanding that Jareds sweatshirt sleeve contained bodily fluid DNA that was placed there when Jared wiped his mouth on his sleeve after
the sexual assault upon him. If I am wrong in that regard, I apologize.
It isinteresting to note that in 1989 the Minnesota Legislature enacted a law that mandated the acceptance of DNA test analysis in Minnesota courts, both civil and criminal, without the necessity of prior expert witness foundational testimony.The law was signed by the Governor of Minnesota on June 1, 1989, and the laws effective date was August 1, 1989 thus AFTER Jareds assault but BEFORE Jacobs abduction. That law was codified in Minnesota Statutes Section 634.25, which currently states as follows:
634.25 ADMISSIBILITY OF RESULTS OF DNA ANALYSIS.
In a civil or criminal trial or hearing, the results of DNA analysis, as defined in section 299C.155, are admissible in evidence without antecedent expert testimony that DNA analysis provides a trustworthy and reliable method of identifying characteristics in an individual's genetic material upon a showing that the offered testimony meets the standards for admissibility set forth in the Rules of Evidence.
It is also interesting to note that in 1989, in the same legislative bill which contained the above-referenced language regarding DNA testing, the Minnesota Legislature also took care of the population frequency problem in the Schwartz case I referred to in my earlier post (Post #590, above) by authorizing the use of statistical probability frequency evidence in connection with DNA or blood-type genetic marker testing. That part of the legislative bill was codified in Minnesota Statutes Section 634.26, which currently states as follows:
634.26 STATISTICAL PROBABILITY EVIDENCE.
1989 was not the Dark Ages, as some people would have us believe. DNA testing and analysis was alive and well and widely accepted. Undoubtedly, DNA testing has advanced in the years since 1989, but to excuse LE from even submitting Jareds sweatshirt for DNA testing or for blood type testing on the basis that such testing was impossible back then is incorrect and, in my opinion, is unwarranted.
