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

[kyleb]

Rather, I pointed out the futility of getting frustrated over aspects of the case which were mishandled, and the absurdly of getting worked up over unevidenced claims of mishandling of evidence.

 

[Ausgirl]

I think it's perfectly -reasonable- to get frustrated over aspects of the case that were mishandled. Because.. well, you know, that whole 'justice' thing.

It's really -quite- important. In my opinion. ropeller:

 

[kyleb]

Well I contend that justice requires keeping a level head, while getting flustered only serves to subvert that cause.

 

[Ausgirl]

Ah well, there we differ.

I am glad we can both agree that aspects of the case were mishandled.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

I'd need more than a hair to be convinced that TH is the perp.

For people to say watch the Docs, the Docs, don't prove anything. they did not show everything presented in the trial.

Here is a deleted scene from one of the Docs about the pendant or necklace. It shows the reaction of the attorneys.

Deleted scene from Paradise Lost - Necklace

A deleted scene from the original Paradise Lost documentary. It shows a necklace that belonged to Damien Echols, being discussed between the defense and prosecution. The necklace was found to have Echols blood on it and also blood that was consistent with fellow killer Jason Baldwin and Victim Stevie Branch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKnGYZfuBBQ

 

[reedus23]

Here is a deleted scene from one of the Docs about the pendant or necklace. It shows the reaction of the attorneys.

Deleted scene from Paradise Lost - Necklace

A deleted scene from the original Paradise Lost documentary. It shows a necklace that belonged to Damien Echols, being discussed between the defense and prosecution. The necklace was found to have Echols blood on it and also blood that was consistent with fellow killer Jason Baldwin and Victim Stevie Branch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKnGYZfuBBQ

Refresh my memory. What kind of testing was done to ascertain that. I'm assuming it was more than just blood typing.

 

[Ausgirl]

More non-evidence. The blood type matched Baldwin, who borrowed the necklace and wore it. If Stevie's blood was on it, they wouldn't be out of jail.

Baldwin and Stevie Branch have the same blood type... so why didn't they just do DNA testing from the get-go, if the sample was too tiny for proper tests? It was 1993, not 1975, the tests -were- available... but they chose to use the sample up on blood type testing, instead of the DNA test that would give them something conclusive? Baloney.

But let's trot it out again, though it proves nothing and incriminates no-one.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

This is interesting, it's discussion about a bloody t-shirt which had blood on it that was similar, not to just one of the victims but to JM as well, and they could not use it 'because it also matched Jessie' (pp 000524). is this an example to show how limited DNA testing was at the time or for this country in particular? When it came to the pendant they had a similar issue of only being able to identify blood to 'possibly match' victims / WM3, and the sample was destroyed by the testing itself.

I wonder if the fact that DNA testing for trials was not advanced at the time of the original investigation made DNA less of a weapon for CSI at the time than it would be for investigators today. DNA is not the only kind of evidence, but juries LOVE it. People want a 'smoking gun' and solid DNA evidence really delivers.

 

[Ausgirl]

The problem with blood types is sure, a blood sample might match a victim, as well as a perp .. as well as untold thousands other people, because there's only a handful of blood types to go around. Unless they're dealing with one of the extremely rare blood types, which could narrow things down somewhat.

When the results are worded.. "matches victim's blood type" it looks a little bit more sinister than.. "matches victim's bloodtype and the bloodtype of sixteen possible suspects and hey, probably one fifth of the people in this here county as well.." Which is probably why it's not often worded that way in murder trials.

The science was in infancy in 1993. But even so, it had to be better than using blood typing...

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Surely they could have retested the t-shirt later on, I guess it was Jessie's blood.

 

[Ausgirl]

Okay - just read that again, and now I am mighty confused.. They're saying "DNA" matched one of the victims AND Jessie - how does that happen? I don't know how I didn't pick that up on first read. Had a brain fart, I think, on the whole matches both thing, assuming they meant typing.

Maybe they meant blood type? If the t-shirt was that bloody, there's no lack of material to test.. Hm, now I am curious..

 

[Ausgirl]

Ah, okay - this explains it..

Q85. Blood stain on shirt from Jessie Misskelley (matched his HLA DQalpha type and the type from Michael Moore.)

The first DNA fingerprinting methods using PCR looked at an area of DNA that had been well characterized and was known to vary among different people, the HLA region, which determines tissue compatabilities. The method created was referred to as HLA DQalpha. While it could find DNA from a very small sample of evidence, it had a huge limitation: it only distinguished among six different types of the targeted gene. These gene types were designated 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2, 3 and 4. Individuals would have two of these, one inherited from each parent. Using DHQalpha tests all humans would fall into one of twenty one groups. Extensive studies were made of the frequencies of these gene types. Although HLA DQalpha is legitimately a DNA test, its ability to distinguish among samples could be thought of as being more akin to blood-typing than an unambiguous fingerprint.

http://www.jivepuppi.com/jivepuppi_DNA_part_one.html

But yeah, I'd have to assume the shirt was tested later on too. Mrs. G., it'd be a pretty huge piece of potential evidence.