so there is no DNA evidence that ties the WM3.....

[Ausgirl]

One allele isn't much is it.. Enough to exclude, though.

Could you possibly link me to some info on docs regarding that, at all? I will look for it tomorrow, if not.. (which is fine ofc, just having a mad busy day and hoping to save some time).

What I want to know is if it was really found on more than one victim, if so who and precisely where, and it'd be nice to have that info handy.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

Okay - something bothering me (and on the topic of DNA) -- were there or were there not bits of 'unidentified' DNA found on the genitals of some of the victims?

Would they be able to get DNA from genitals if the bodies were submerged for hours? I believe one of the victim's genitals were missing and not recovered.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Would they be able to get DNA from genitals if the bodies were submerged for hours? I believe one of the victim's genitals were missing and not recovered.

I'll have to look it up (since I don't want to be perceived as not reasonably familiar with the facts in the case), but, off the top of my head, I believe that the allele in question was on Michael's penis. As to why it wasn't washed away, that's a good question! My guess would be that there was possibly something (debris?) holding it in place. The sad part is that I don't think we'll ever be able to get a full genetic profile on the "donor" of the allele.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

One allele isn't much is it.. Enough to exclude, though.

Could you possibly link me to some info on docs regarding that, at all? I will look for it tomorrow, if not.. (which is fine ofc, just having a mad busy day and hoping to save some time).

What I want to know is if it was really found on more than one victim, if so who and precisely where, and it'd be nice to have that info handy.

I'll try to find links for the newer testing. I don't have the marvelous research abilities that some do, but I'll look. IIRC, it's somewhere on Callahan's or maybe jivepuppi.

 

[Cappuccino]

I think that stray allele on Steven Branch's penis was most likely from someone handling the body after the murder. I've seen at least one photograph of Lisa Sakevicius handling Stevie's body with no gloves on, and while I know the allele is male so it can't be hers, if she was touching them with no gloves other people could have been too.

Or she could have transferred a male allele on her own hands.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I think that stray allele on Steven Branch's penis was most likely from someone handling the body after the murder. I've seen at least one photograph of Lisa Sakevicius handling Stevie's body with no gloves on, and while I know the allele is male so it can't be hers, if she was touching them with no gloves other people could have been too.

Or she could have transferred a male allele on her own hands.

Sometimes I almost go blind trying to read those Bode reports! OK, the stray allele was on Steven's penis, but wasn't some unknown DNA on Michael, too? Maybe not on his penis, but somewhere on him? And, IIRC, there was some "unidentified DNA" on someone's shoes. Was that on Christopher's shoes? It's simply infuriating how sloppy the police work was in this case!

Sometimes I wonder if any of the "unidentified" biological samples (all of which have been determined to be from someone other than the victims or the falsely-convicted) were from classmates and/or adults with whom the boys interacted at school on May 5th. If this is the case, I doubt we'll ever be able to identify the source of those samples. Again, a proper investigation would have identified those with whom the boys interacted that day, and an excellent investigation would have attempted to rule out those with whom the boys interacted. However, we didn't have an excellent investigation in this case - we didn't even have a proper one!

 

[Ausgirl]

Frustrating, isn't it, CR? This is the issue that drove me mad in the Keddie (Cabin 28) murders, another example of a multiple homicide where the BASIC level of acceptable police procedure in every aspect of the case was not met.

When my daughter was about five, she went outside to play 'police' with her friends -- and took a pair of rubber gloves, because I taped over Blues Clues with CSI and she accidentally watched a bit of an episode (my bad.. whoops!).

From watching a little bit of CSI on the telly, my FIVE YEAR OLD knew to wear a pair of gloves at a crime scene.

Go figure.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Frustrating, isn't it, CR? This is the issue that drove me mad in the Keddie (Cabin 28) murders, another example of a multiple homicide where the BASIC level of acceptable police procedure in every aspect of the case was not met.

When my daughter was about five, she went outside to play 'police' with her friends -- and took a pair of rubber gloves, because I taped over Blues Clues with CSI and she accidentally watched a bit of an episode (my bad.. whoops!).

From watching a little bit of CSI on the telly, my FIVE YEAR OLD knew to wear a pair of gloves at a crime scene.

Go figure.

It gets more frustrating with every revelation - and I fear that there are many more to come!

 

[kyleb]

Frustrating, isn't it, CR?

It's disappointing that things weren't handled better, but there's no point in crying over spilled milk, and certainly no reason to get worked up over unevidenced claims of "Lisa Sakevicius handling Stevie's body with no gloves on" and such.

 

[Ausgirl]

but there's no point in crying over spilled milk

...........seriously?

 

[kyleb]

Yeah, it's not like we can go back in time to insure the bodies were handled properly or such, regardless of how nice it would be if we could.

 

[Ausgirl]

Of course not. BUT it IS extremely relevant to the evidence of guilt as presented in court, isn't it? I think it really is, kyle.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

I'd love to go back in time to the crime scene with the kind of technology we have today for testing DNA myself, in the early 90's it was a relatively new science in law enforcement.

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1905706,00.html

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I'd love to go back in time to the crime scene with the kind of technology we have today for testing DNA myself, in the early 90's it was a relatively new science in law enforcement.

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1905706,00.html

This is precisely why the post-trial testing led to so much more information than was available at the time - and why it infuriates me so much when people simply refuse to look at the information obtained from post-trial testing and give it the credence it deserves! I know that some family members have simply refused to look at this information because it came from the defense and they assume it to be tainted. The prosecution had no reason to continue testing after the guilty verdicts, so the testing was done by the defense. Why this makes it suspicious is beyond me!

We recently had a murder conviction overturned in my area of the country based on the "touch DNA" technology made available by the Eikenblooms (sp.?). This trial was featured on the 48 Hours episode that aired on Saturday, November 30, 2013. It's not available online yet, but when it is, I recommend it to anyone unfamiliar with touch DNA. It's the newest development in the DNA testing area.

 

[kyleb]

Of course not. BUT it IS extremely relevant to the evidence of guilt as presented in court, isn't it? I think it really is, kyle.

And by "it" you are referring to what exactly?

 

[kyleb]

This is precisely why the post-trial testing led to so much more information than was available at the time - and why it infuriates me so much when people simply refuse to look at the information obtained from post-trial testing and give it the credence it deserves!

The issue isn't with the DNA testing results themselves which I've studied in detail, but rather with all the misinformation going around about what they prove.

 

[reedus23]

The issue isn't with the DNA testing results themselves which I've studied in detail, but rather with all the misinformation going around about what they prove.

What do they prove?

 

[Ausgirl]

And by "it" you are referring to what exactly?

That thing you were talking about, kyle.

 

[kyleb]

I was talking about crying over spilled milk.

 

[Ausgirl]

Ah, I thought you were -actually- talking about how the case was mishandled, and how that's not important because it's in the past.