This case is about as clear as water to many of us following for almost two years now, and though I understand that without a thorough understanding gained from expert analysis/explanation of the DNA on SM’s vehicle glovebox leaves reasonable doubt for some, I believe once explained fully by DNA expert witnesses at trial, any critically thinking jury will understand its significance, which for me after doing some research and studying up on it, the random glovebox DNA is a nothingburger.
Random touch DNA can literally be found everywhere, and I believe there’s an innocent explanation for how it came to be on SM’s vehicle glovebox. It is my understanding that it is not the offender’s DNA that was found on the glovebox, but a potential close or distant relative of said offender whose DNA is in CODIS and which the glovebox DNA got a hit on as partial match. The person (close/distant relative of offender in CODIS) could have either worked on SM’s vehicle at some point, was a passenger in that vehicle at some point, worker at the car dealership etc, etc. Having said that as a follower of true crime for decades and someone who does research to gain an understanding and clarity on things that come up in the cases I follow, I realize most jurors probably don’t follow true crime closely and don’t have the scientific knowledge of the full meaning of DNA/DNA types (full profile, partial profile, full match, partial match, transfer DNA, touch DNA etc, etc, etc) nor its implications or weight bearing significance in cases. So from an average juror’s standpoint, I would want this glovebox DNA thoroughly explained to me, absolutely yes. As a juror, I would also take it a step further and would want to know the following: was this same DNA found anywhere else at the scene- inside house, outside on patio/patio furniture, etc? Was this same DNA found on the bike? Was this same DNA found on the helmet? Because to believe some crazed random abductor and/or serial rapist killer ambushed/abducted/killed SM and either left the scene with an alive, struggling Suzanne or if he raped and killed her and left the scene with her dead body and throughout doing all that to include staging a bike and helmet and only managed to get his DNA on her vehicle glovebox and nowhere else, defies credulity and logic. IOW, as a juror, I would want to see other corroborating evidence that the same contributing DNA found on the vehicle glovebox was found in other places at the crime scene as well as on the staged bike and helmet which to my knowledge, the rando glovebox DNA was not found in any other places at the scene nor on the bike or helmet. If it were, you can bet it would’ve been brought up by E&N by now and they’d have already motioned case and all charges dismissed if that same DNA was found in any other locations at the scene as well as on the bike and helmet.
No doubt, E&N are masters at what they do, and they are using this random glovebox DNA to plant reasonable doubt in minds of future jurors. So far, it seems to be working but once explained clearly and thoroughly by experts to jurors at trial, I think most smart, critically thinking jurors will be able to see it’s insignificance/irrelevance and will be able to see/conclude that all roads and totality of the mountain of evidence leads to one conclusion BARD of responsible perpetrator.
I’m not saying it will be easy for the potential jury or that it is a slam dunk, no. It is obviously different to know vs. prove BARD in court, and especially with DC E&N, the prosecution most definitely needs to bring their A-game to trial to help the jury understand the evidence and be able to connect the dots of the mountain of circumstantial evidence against BM, and have one heck of a convincing closing argument that not only speaks to the weight of the totality of all the evidence against BM, that also drives home the point that no one had the motive, means and opportunity nor anything to gain from SM’s murder, except the defendant, her husband, BM.
IMHOO
#FindSuzanne
#BringSuzanneHome
#JusticeForSuzanne
