A good performance in court by the defense can, of course, be countered with a good performance by the prosecution.
It will be interesting to see the forensics showdown in the Casey Anthony trial.
DNA Revisited
- Thread starter cynic
- Start date
A good performance in court by the defense can, of course, be countered with a good performance by the prosecution.
It will be interesting to see the forensics showdown in the Casey Anthony trial.
It gets worse for IDI. (On the positive side, this might make Mary Lacy’s head explode.)
How in the world could unidentified DNA, in several matching locations, not be that of the person responsible for the crime?
Unidentified female DNA under Patton's fingernails and on her shorts and underpants, coupled with the ferocity of the attack, suggested motives such as "jealousy, rage, anger and revenge" –– emotions that could be felt only by someone who, unlike McNeill, knew Patton, Garling said.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/time-and-tide-wash-blood-from-the-sand/story-e6freo8c-1111113128516
How in the world could unidentified DNA, in several matching locations, not be that of the person responsible for the crime?
Unidentified female DNA under Patton's fingernails and on her shorts and underpants, coupled with the ferocity of the attack, suggested motives such as "jealousy, rage, anger and revenge" –– emotions that could be felt only by someone who, unlike McNeill, knew Patton, Garling said.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/time-and-tide-wash-blood-from-the-sand/story-e6freo8c-1111113128516
This is a portion of a transcript from a case where a well known expert (Marc Taylor), in DNA transfer studies, testified on behalf of the defense.
While the case bears no real parallel to the JBR case, it does reveal a fair amount of interesting information about secondary transfer.
(The highlighted portion underscores a point brought up many times on this forum. Why wasn’t the most obvious piece of evidence used in the commission of the crime, not tested for touch DNA?)
State of North Dakota, Plaintiff
v.
Moe Maurice Gibbs, Defendant
A. There are highly variable amounts of DNA that you can get from person to person.
Q. Did you do any experiments on hand shakes?
A. More on holding hands. We had a case where there was an issue where a woman held onto a man’s hand, the question was how much DNA could be transferred.
Studies in my lab show that DNA is a quick transfer. We collected samples and went to next step where subjects rubbed their mouth and then touched a hand. In a subsequent study, subjects rubbed their nose, and then touched a hand. Finally, subjects picked their teeth and then grabbed a hand.
What we found in the initial contact of holding a hand, there was 1 nanogram transferred.
Rubbed mouth – greater degree of variability – 5-6 nanogram range.
Rubbed nose - 20 nanograms.
Picking teeth transferred 80 nanograms of DNA.
Q. Have you done any studies on hay fever?
A. We have done a study on running eyes.
Touching the face, mouth, nose, all of these have variable amounts of DNA. If you wash your hands, it will come off; if not then it stays there, and it goes on surfaces you touch.
Q. Explain what a primary transfer is.
A. Each level of transfer – if I take my hand and rub my mouth, I’ve transferred material from my mouth to my hand that’s a primary transfer.
If I then touch the desk and the DNA goes on the desk that’s a secondary transfer.
Q. If someone worked from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. and didn’t shower, do you expect to find more DNA on them than on someone who’s cleaner?
A. It depends on the longer they don’t shower or wash their hands, as well as the amount of contact they have with their face.
Q. Someone with hay fever, is that an example of someone who has a greater amount of DNA to transfer?
A. The more you start out with the more there is to transfer. We don’t know what kind of material there was to transfer, so we’re seeing quantities in the realm what can be transferred.
Part of what we do when we evaluate material is to characterize what body fluid we’re talking about. We can test for saliva, blood, semen; we can look under the microscope to find out the source.
Q If have low volume of DNA is it more critical to find out what it is and where it came from?
A. Yes, it’s important to know whether it’s low or high quantities.
Q I want to talk about laundry baskets, when you pick it up what happens?
A. Simply touching the laundry basket is going to rub some DNA off on it, when touching it, the act of perspiring transfers more material.
Q. What happens if rub your shirt up against the basket, is there transfer?
A. Possibly.
Q. Mr. Gibbs with a big hand like that, would there be a larger potential for giving more of his DNA?
A. The size gives you additional material but not as significant as what that material is.
Q. I want to talk about the device used to strangle Morgenstern that wasn’t tested (belt).
A. Any item that would be handled is a good source of information.
In this case you have a belt with an area that it would be pulled on, one should have looked at it to see if it was pulled on, should look at it to see if foreign DNA of the assailant.
Q. Have you ever seen a crime lab that hasn’t tested a ligature used?
A. Don’t think I’ve ever seen that. Usually they always test it.
Q. If you touch an object once, twice and a third time, can you pick up even more DNA?
A. DNA goes both ways, you can pick up and leave.
Q. And your examination was that there were low quantities of DNA.
A. Yes.
Q. And that could have been primary or secondary DNA?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you aware of DNA being on items purchased at the store?
A. Yes.
Q. You were asked about the low levels of DNA on the Orchid Cellmark results. Were you provided information that had high levels of DNA?
A. I’m not aware of any items having high DNA levels, 11-40 nanograms – that’s an intermediate level.
Q. So in your professional opinion those low levels of DNA could be explained by primary or secondary transfer?
A. Certainly.
Q. Let’s talk about the time of transfer. Does the length of time DNA is transferred impact if DNA is transferred in a secondary way.
A. If material is deposited on surface and an individual comes along and touches that surface 24-48 hours later, they can pick up that DNA because it hasn’t diminished.
Q. If Moe Gibbs carried up laundry basket and Mindy picked it up that would be a secondary transfer?
A. Yes.
Q. And if she then touched her shirt, that could transfer DNA?
A. Yes.
Q. And it wouldn’t matter how many days pass?
A. No.
Q. Is there anything that Mr.Byers said to you that changed your opinion that these are low levels of DNA and could be innocently transferred from Moe Gibbs to Mindy Morgenstern innocently, unrelated to the crime?
A. No I still believe that Mr. Gibbs DNA could’ve been transferred through non criminal activity because there was contact between these individuals.
While the case bears no real parallel to the JBR case, it does reveal a fair amount of interesting information about secondary transfer.
(The highlighted portion underscores a point brought up many times on this forum. Why wasn’t the most obvious piece of evidence used in the commission of the crime, not tested for touch DNA?)
State of North Dakota, Plaintiff
v.
Moe Maurice Gibbs, Defendant
A. There are highly variable amounts of DNA that you can get from person to person.
Q. Did you do any experiments on hand shakes?
A. More on holding hands. We had a case where there was an issue where a woman held onto a man’s hand, the question was how much DNA could be transferred.
Studies in my lab show that DNA is a quick transfer. We collected samples and went to next step where subjects rubbed their mouth and then touched a hand. In a subsequent study, subjects rubbed their nose, and then touched a hand. Finally, subjects picked their teeth and then grabbed a hand.
What we found in the initial contact of holding a hand, there was 1 nanogram transferred.
Rubbed mouth – greater degree of variability – 5-6 nanogram range.
Rubbed nose - 20 nanograms.
Picking teeth transferred 80 nanograms of DNA.
Q. Have you done any studies on hay fever?
A. We have done a study on running eyes.
Touching the face, mouth, nose, all of these have variable amounts of DNA. If you wash your hands, it will come off; if not then it stays there, and it goes on surfaces you touch.
Q. Explain what a primary transfer is.
A. Each level of transfer – if I take my hand and rub my mouth, I’ve transferred material from my mouth to my hand that’s a primary transfer.
If I then touch the desk and the DNA goes on the desk that’s a secondary transfer.
Q. If someone worked from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. and didn’t shower, do you expect to find more DNA on them than on someone who’s cleaner?
A. It depends on the longer they don’t shower or wash their hands, as well as the amount of contact they have with their face.
Q. Someone with hay fever, is that an example of someone who has a greater amount of DNA to transfer?
A. The more you start out with the more there is to transfer. We don’t know what kind of material there was to transfer, so we’re seeing quantities in the realm what can be transferred.
Part of what we do when we evaluate material is to characterize what body fluid we’re talking about. We can test for saliva, blood, semen; we can look under the microscope to find out the source.
Q If have low volume of DNA is it more critical to find out what it is and where it came from?
A. Yes, it’s important to know whether it’s low or high quantities.
Q I want to talk about laundry baskets, when you pick it up what happens?
A. Simply touching the laundry basket is going to rub some DNA off on it, when touching it, the act of perspiring transfers more material.
Q. What happens if rub your shirt up against the basket, is there transfer?
A. Possibly.
Q. Mr. Gibbs with a big hand like that, would there be a larger potential for giving more of his DNA?
A. The size gives you additional material but not as significant as what that material is.
Q. I want to talk about the device used to strangle Morgenstern that wasn’t tested (belt).
A. Any item that would be handled is a good source of information.
In this case you have a belt with an area that it would be pulled on, one should have looked at it to see if it was pulled on, should look at it to see if foreign DNA of the assailant.
Q. Have you ever seen a crime lab that hasn’t tested a ligature used?
A. Don’t think I’ve ever seen that. Usually they always test it.
Q. If you touch an object once, twice and a third time, can you pick up even more DNA?
A. DNA goes both ways, you can pick up and leave.
Q. And your examination was that there were low quantities of DNA.
A. Yes.
Q. And that could have been primary or secondary DNA?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you aware of DNA being on items purchased at the store?
A. Yes.
Q. You were asked about the low levels of DNA on the Orchid Cellmark results. Were you provided information that had high levels of DNA?
A. I’m not aware of any items having high DNA levels, 11-40 nanograms – that’s an intermediate level.
Q. So in your professional opinion those low levels of DNA could be explained by primary or secondary transfer?
A. Certainly.
Q. Let’s talk about the time of transfer. Does the length of time DNA is transferred impact if DNA is transferred in a secondary way.
A. If material is deposited on surface and an individual comes along and touches that surface 24-48 hours later, they can pick up that DNA because it hasn’t diminished.
Q. If Moe Gibbs carried up laundry basket and Mindy picked it up that would be a secondary transfer?
A. Yes.
Q. And if she then touched her shirt, that could transfer DNA?
A. Yes.
Q. And it wouldn’t matter how many days pass?
A. No.
Q. Is there anything that Mr.Byers said to you that changed your opinion that these are low levels of DNA and could be innocently transferred from Moe Gibbs to Mindy Morgenstern innocently, unrelated to the crime?
A. No I still believe that Mr. Gibbs DNA could’ve been transferred through non criminal activity because there was contact between these individuals.
slug
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2009
- Messages
- 187
- Reaction score
- 1
i would have thought that in a case like that of JBR that everything in the room she was found and on the body would have been tested as much as possible.
leaves me with the though WTH was some stuff very heavily tested and other items seem to have been left alone.
Would one detective or investigated make the decision on what was and wasn't tesed?
leaves me with the though WTH was some stuff very heavily tested and other items seem to have been left alone.
Would one detective or investigated make the decision on what was and wasn't tesed?
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 97
Sadly ,in this case,the only person who made decisions re the testing was M.Lacy.No need to say more......
ITA. The only investigation ML was interested in pursuing was the investigation into the best ways to clear the R's.
Not testing the ligature in a strangulation case is the same as not testing a gun in a shooting case. Incredible.
Not only didn't she need to- she didn't WANT to. She didn't want to risk finding Rs touch DNA on the ligature, tape, etc. THAT would be hard to explain away, even with the master liars on the RST.
Strong words.
Strong but SO true.
I would be remiss if I didn’t mention ML’s greatest contribution to the JBR case:
"Lacy did not run for re-election because of term limits."
-Associated Press, 2009
THE CRIMES OF CRIME LABS
J. Herbie DiFonzo
If you put God on the witness stand . . . and God’s testimony conflicted with the DNA evidence, everyone would automatically say, “Why is God lying like this?”
DNA’s reputation for scientific precision is in fact unwarranted. The record is littered with slapdash forensic analyses often performed by untrained, underpaid, overworked forensic technicians operating in crime labs whose workings reflect gross incompetence or rampant corruption.
Why does this matter? It matters because the average jury is not exposed to the track record of forensic science in the courtroom. The jury foreman in the 2005 rape trial expressed the common wisdom:
“Everybody agreed that the DNA evidence was so strong . . . that’s why everybody voted guilty in this case.” The scientific basis of DNA testing can mislead the unsuspecting into believing that the introduction of DNA evidence in court not only ensures procedural regularity, but also washes away the need to examine any corroborating or contradictory evidence. One prime example of the cultural sway is seen in the “CSI Effect,” popularly defined as “the perception of the near-infallibility of forensic science in response to the TV show.” CSI: Crime Scene Investigation and its forensic cousins have led juries to worship forensic testimony. Prosecutors and defense attorneys have begun to voir dire potential jurors on their CSI viewing habits. In the world portrayed on CSI, forensic technicians are always above reproach:
“You never see a case where the sample is degraded or the lab work is faulty or the test results don’t solve the crime.” But how carefully is DNA analyzed and preserved in real labs, in cases not dreamed up by screenwriters? DNA matching is regarded as well-nigh infallible, so long as the sometimes microscopic quantity of DNA is handled with the utmost care in order to achieve its vaunted accuracy in identification. But “DNA samples recovered from crime scenes are often so small and in such disintegrated condition that they are easy to mishandle or manipulate.” In fact, the criminal justice system “does a poor job of distinguishing unassailably powerful DNA evidence from weak, misleading DNA evidence.” A recent Chicago Tribune examination of 200 DNA and death row exoneration cases since 1986 found that more than a quarter involved faulty crime lab work or testimony.
As forensic expert William C. Thompson has concluded:
“The amazing thing is how many screw-ups they have for a technique that they go into court and say is infallible.”
http://www.thejusticeproject.org/wp-content/uploads/crimes-of-crime-labs-hofstra.pdf
J. Herbie DiFonzo
If you put God on the witness stand . . . and God’s testimony conflicted with the DNA evidence, everyone would automatically say, “Why is God lying like this?”
DNA’s reputation for scientific precision is in fact unwarranted. The record is littered with slapdash forensic analyses often performed by untrained, underpaid, overworked forensic technicians operating in crime labs whose workings reflect gross incompetence or rampant corruption.
Why does this matter? It matters because the average jury is not exposed to the track record of forensic science in the courtroom. The jury foreman in the 2005 rape trial expressed the common wisdom:
“Everybody agreed that the DNA evidence was so strong . . . that’s why everybody voted guilty in this case.” The scientific basis of DNA testing can mislead the unsuspecting into believing that the introduction of DNA evidence in court not only ensures procedural regularity, but also washes away the need to examine any corroborating or contradictory evidence. One prime example of the cultural sway is seen in the “CSI Effect,” popularly defined as “the perception of the near-infallibility of forensic science in response to the TV show.” CSI: Crime Scene Investigation and its forensic cousins have led juries to worship forensic testimony. Prosecutors and defense attorneys have begun to voir dire potential jurors on their CSI viewing habits. In the world portrayed on CSI, forensic technicians are always above reproach:
“You never see a case where the sample is degraded or the lab work is faulty or the test results don’t solve the crime.” But how carefully is DNA analyzed and preserved in real labs, in cases not dreamed up by screenwriters? DNA matching is regarded as well-nigh infallible, so long as the sometimes microscopic quantity of DNA is handled with the utmost care in order to achieve its vaunted accuracy in identification. But “DNA samples recovered from crime scenes are often so small and in such disintegrated condition that they are easy to mishandle or manipulate.” In fact, the criminal justice system “does a poor job of distinguishing unassailably powerful DNA evidence from weak, misleading DNA evidence.” A recent Chicago Tribune examination of 200 DNA and death row exoneration cases since 1986 found that more than a quarter involved faulty crime lab work or testimony.
As forensic expert William C. Thompson has concluded:
“The amazing thing is how many screw-ups they have for a technique that they go into court and say is infallible.”
http://www.thejusticeproject.org/wp-content/uploads/crimes-of-crime-labs-hofstra.pdf
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 97
Sorry,this is a bit off topic but interesting.And,sadly,this is what would happen in this case as well if it will ever come to a trial (RDI,IDI,doesn't matter....)
We keep talking about the evidence,fibers,note,DNA but will these EVER matter if it comes to trial,especially since this is such a high profile case and all the "experts" would wanna be part of it?
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/l...__Clash_of_the_celebrity_medical_experts.html
This is a real duel of experts. That's what it's all about," Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Renee Cardwell Hughes told prosecution and defense attorneys yesterday during a contentious two-hour hearing on pretrial motions.
Hughes warned
"We don't need days and days of testimony," Hughes said. "We just need to set the stage for the experts."
The case was further complicated after the city's deputy medical examiner, Ian Hood, ruled Barclay's death a homicide without an autopsy because of "respect for the [victim's] family" and Barclay's decades of documented treatment.
sounds familiar?
We keep talking about the evidence,fibers,note,DNA but will these EVER matter if it comes to trial,especially since this is such a high profile case and all the "experts" would wanna be part of it?
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/l...__Clash_of_the_celebrity_medical_experts.html
This is a real duel of experts. That's what it's all about," Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Renee Cardwell Hughes told prosecution and defense attorneys yesterday during a contentious two-hour hearing on pretrial motions.
Hughes warned
"We don't need days and days of testimony," Hughes said. "We just need to set the stage for the experts."
The case was further complicated after the city's deputy medical examiner, Ian Hood, ruled Barclay's death a homicide without an autopsy because of "respect for the [victim's] family" and Barclay's decades of documented treatment.
sounds familiar?Sorry,this is a bit off topic but interesting.And,sadly,this is what would happen in this case as well if it will ever come to a trial (RDI,IDI,doesn't matter....)
We keep talking about the evidence,fibers,note,DNA but will these EVER matter if it comes to trial,especially since this is such a high profile case and all the "experts" would wanna be part of it?
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/l...__Clash_of_the_celebrity_medical_experts.html
This is a real duel of experts. That's what it's all about," Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Renee Cardwell Hughes told prosecution and defense attorneys yesterday during a contentious two-hour hearing on pretrial motions.
Hughes warned
"We don't need days and days of testimony," Hughes said. "We just need to set the stage for the experts."
The case was further complicated after the city's deputy medical examiner, Ian Hood, ruled Barclay's death a homicide without an autopsy because of "respect for the [victim's] family" and Barclay's decades of documented treatment.
That, in and of itself, is a whole different barrel of apples.
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 97
Maybe but everything I witness these days tells me this case will stay cold forever.Unless IDI and there will be a dna match AND a confession AND you can place him in Boulder I don't see this going to court.Even so....his defence lawyer will create resonable doubt "it was PR who wrote the note and her fibers are all over JB".
LE and the DA office aren't interested in pursuing this because it would mean to admit all the mistakes that were made since day one,won't happen.
It's in EVERYBODY's interest that this case STAYS cold.IMO
LE and the DA office aren't interested in pursuing this because it would mean to admit all the mistakes that were made since day one,won't happen.
It's in EVERYBODY's interest that this case STAYS cold.IMO
Precisely.
Holdontoyourhat
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 5,299
- Reaction score
- 12
How do you know what was or was not tested, for what, and when? Or, what was found?
Are you somehow on the inside of the investigation? If not, then maybe don't believe everything you read, or that ML is telling cynic personally absolutely everything there is to tell.
Nothing suggests that any other item was tested for touch DNA by Bode.
Why would ML not go public with further DNA information that would support her IDI theory?
If unknown matching DNA was found on the ligature, are you trying to tell me that ML would be able to keep that to herself?
She would have probably spent her own money to advertise that little gem.
Holdontoyourhat
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 5,299
- Reaction score
- 12
Don't get me wrong, I believe the garrote should've been checked too.
But...
I believe ML went public only to the extent necessary to exhonerate the R's.
The idea that she is anxious to convince cynic or ST or Jeff Shapiro that she's right is actually, well, only a claim on your part. Further, my guess is that neither you nor I have complete information. It would be somewhat naive to think we did.
Maybe what seems incredible to you is credible to someone else.
I’m sure you and I have little in common with respect to our opinion of ML.
I believe her record in office shows incompetence and bias.
JMK and the exoneration of the Ramseys would be primary examples.
Failure to have the ligature tested for touch DNA would not be out of the ordinary for her.
If it was tested and the results not released, I would suggest it is because DNA was found that matched one or more of the Ramseys.
Similar threads
Online statistics
- Members online
- 126
- Guests online
- 349
- Total visitors
- 475