The Eikelenbooms and Touch DNA

[Dear Prudence]

I have no idea how they have progressed, but when I watched the television show a few years ago, the lab was in their home, and did not look like a state lab at all. Been trying to find a video of it, but cannot remember what show it was.

I couldn't find a video of it but it was a 48 Hours show about Tim Masters being wrongly convicted.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008...30559_page6.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

It states this in the story: The only problem for the defense was that they had to travel thousands of miles to the Netherlands, to a tiny lab in a quaint farmhouse some 60 miles from Amsterdam. The Eikelenbooms jokingly call it the "crime farm."

 

[strawberry]

bbm

I am not saying the Eikelenbooms would falsify their testing at all, but from reading all the articles linked here and from their website, they are very pro-defense. They state they only take high-profile murder cases where they feel a great injustice is being done. I think Jose wants them for that very reason.

I agree; the website even has a class on defense stuff. They are all into the innocence project. The one article says the Mrs. likes to fight for clients she feels has been treated unfairly. Wonder how JB slanted this to her? Considering the other lady didn't know who NG is and can't work a TV...

 

[essies]

I couldn't find a video of it but it was a 48 Hours show about Tim Masters being wrongly convicted.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008...30559_page6.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

It states this in the story: The only problem for the defense was that they had to travel thousands of miles to the Netherlands, to a tiny lab in a quaint farmhouse some 60 miles from Amsterdam. The Eikelenbooms jokingly call it the "crime farm."

Fast forward to about the 5;00 min. mark-
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxTHw-3qau8[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_n34aHkz-I[/ame]

 

[Intermezzo]

Here's another interesting article. A cold case that the victim's mother wants the Eikelenbooms to do the testing but the health dept won't release the evidence to the Eikelenbooms because they don't have the certification required by state rules. "'At this time we are still awaiting their application,' department spokesperson Jeffery Hammond said. Another New York laboratory, Bode Technology Group, is certified to do the work, he said." (This was written Aug 13, 2009. BBM)

http://www.startribune.com/local/53083902.html

So what it comes down to with the Eikelenbooms is "certification in the US"..they don't have it..

So what's wrong with Baez using Bode Technology? OR National Medical Services which the Defense and Prosecutors both agree on?
Both of these labs have the proper accreditation's

I agree with Judge Perry's concern over court jurisdiction..
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...dna-tests-casey-anthony-case-dna-laboratories
"My concern is sending something beyond the jurisdiction of this court," Perry said. "I will not be authorizing evidence to be shipped outside the United States."

 

[Starfish]

OK, so let me get this straight.....JB calls testing from the FBI body farm "junk science" but touch DNA does not fall into this catagory????

And what makes him think they're going to find any touch DNA on the bag and\or the shorts when the elements erased any sign of regular DNA????

If its possible to extract touch DNA from these items it'll come right back to ICA & I can already hear JB's explaination for that......of course these items contain DNA from my client, she was the victims mother and has been in contact with these items numerous times! OK, I'll give you that JB but can you then explain why there is no other person's DNA on these items if, as you claim, Caylee was killed by someone other than you client.....hmmmm???

This could be a good thing......for the prosecution. Will the defense have to provide the findings of these tests if they're allowed?

 

[NSS]

I wish the old Madeleine McCann area was still here, a lightbulb went off when I heard of this couple and their lab.

I'm going to call it just a feeling, because I can't source the info or put my finger on exactly what it was they did.

Sorry --- going back to sit in the corner and try to recall the linkage, then hit google for a while.

 

[Snaz]

Here's another interesting article. A cold case that the victim's mother wants the Eikelenbooms to do the testing but the health dept won't release the evidence to the Eikelenbooms because they don't have the certification required by state rules. "'At this time we are still awaiting their application,' department spokesperson Jeffery Hammond said. Another New York laboratory, Bode Technology Group, is certified to do the work, he said." (This was written Aug 13, 2009. BBM)

http://www.startribune.com/local/53083902.html

Here is an article written in August of this year about this case. Bold is mine.

~ Snipped ~

Rare DNA test next for cold case

New York police are hoping the technology and perhaps a $10,000 reward will solve the 25-year-old murder of a Burnsville woman.

Last update: August 13, 2010 - 8:57 PM

http://www.startribune.com/local/south/100666274.html?elr=KArks:DCiUtEia_nDaycUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU

 

[Intermezzo]

OK, so let me get this straight.....JB calls testing from the FBI body farm "junk science" but touch DNA does not fall into this catagory????

And what makes him think they're going to find any touch DNA on the bag and\or the shorts when the elements erased any sign of regular DNA????

If its possible to extract touch DNA from these items it'll come right back to ICA & I can already hear JB's explaination for that......of course these items contain DNA from my client, she was the victims mother and has been in contact with these items numerous times! OK, I'll give you that JB but can you then explain why there is no other person's DNA on these items if, as you claim, Caylee was killed by someone other than you client.....hmmmm???

This could be a good thing......for the prosecution. Will the defense have to provide the findings of these tests if they're allowed?

BBM 1
Go figure..
Both sides can object to testing...Baez can and has objected to Forensic anthropologist Dr Arpad Vass Phd Decomposition odor analysis and the SAO can object to touch DNA by forensic scientists Mr and Mrs Eikelenbloom.

BBM 2
Yes, If they ever get around to following the rules of reciprocal discovery and the agreement Casey signed in October of 2008 before Judge Perry orders them to do it..

 

[Solace]

OK, so let me get this straight.....JB calls testing from the FBI body farm "junk science" but touch DNA does not fall into this catagory????

And what makes him think they're going to find any touch DNA on the bag and\or the shorts when the elements erased any sign of regular DNA????

If its possible to extract touch DNA from these items it'll come right back to ICA & I can already hear JB's explaination for that......of course these items contain DNA from my client, she was the victims mother and has been in contact with these items numerous times! OK, I'll give you that JB but can you then explain why there is no other person's DNA on these items if, as you claim, Caylee was killed by someone other than you client.....hmmmm???

This could be a good thing......for the prosecution. Will the defense have to provide the findings of these tests if they're allowed?

Good points Starfish.

 

[RubyB]

I do not understand why there must be so much drama about every item the defense brings up. :banghead: If KC's law team honestly believe that there is a chance that 'touch' DNA testing could help their client, then send the items to an accredited lab and have them tested, for Pete's sake.

bolded & snipped.

I actually agree wholeheartedly with this statement. The key word being "accredited". But I'd still predict that testing for touch DNA would yield nothing and it will have been a huge waste of time & money.

Now, if after KC is convicted, the Innocence Project wants to champion her cause (as if...) and ask M/M E. look things over, I think that would be swell of them to offer their services. If indeed they feel strongly about it.

 

[Solace]

Here are R. Hornsby's thoughts on Touch DNA:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMkDTl_Ndok&feature=player_embedded

Oh please Hornsby, give me a NEW YORK break. It is NOT a huge issue - it is a "let me try anything issue because my client is guilty as sin and everyone knows it". These lawyers will say anything to get their face on TV. Rigggggggght. we also have a print on the tape that no one can identify and that is another HUGE issue for the prosecution.

31 days to call
Defendant seen partying while daughter was missing
Called only after mother's insistence
Hair consistent with Caylees with black ring found in the trunk
Insects Consistent with Purging fluids found in the trunk
FBI believes there is outline of child in the trunk (from purging)
Defendant lied to detectives about everything and confronted on it

This is just what we know. Prosecutors probably have other things to add to it. Such as the nonstop lying and the using of stories that happened to others to apply to herself. I can't tell you how many I have read about.

Does Hornsby get paid for these ridiculous interviews.


Defendant's father believes the trunk smelled like a dead body and said so
Defendant's father testified against her to grand jury
Defendant's father was in law enforcement for years
Defendant's brother and mother both lied to Morgan lawyers about KC and I cannot wait to see them confronted with their lies

So

 

[LambChop]

Not sure of this but the shorts, I believe, were found in the bottom of the bag, black bag or laundry bag is what I am not sure of. It is not like Caylee walked off without her mother's knowledge with a stranger and was attacked and killed. KC knows what happened and refuses to talk because she needs to have information on where her defense is going so she can fabricate the story. (how I see it, sorry) If someone were to have molested Caylee, killed her and placed her body there why would they have bothered to put a diaper on her. Makes no sense. And, why if that is what they are going for aren't they testing the diaper remains? Is it because they know there would not no chance of any DNA on the diaper? Let's not forget, too, that laundry bag was purchased by CA from another family in the neighborhood. There could be DNA from others on the bag but that would have nothing to do with what happened to Caylee. jmo

 

[Solace]

Not sure of this but the shorts, I believe, were found in the bottom of the bag, black bag or laundry bag is what I am not sure of. It is not like Caylee walked off without her mother's knowledge with a stranger and was attacked and killed. KC knows what happened and refuses to talk because she needs to have information on where her defense is going so she can fabricate the story. (how I see it, sorry) If someone were to have molested Caylee, killed her and placed her body there why would they have bothered to put a diaper on her. Makes no sense. And, why if that is what they are going for aren't they testing the diaper remains? Is it because they know there would not no chance of any DNA on the diaper? Let's not forget, too, that laundry bag was purchased by CA from another family in the neighborhood. There could be DNA from others on the bag but that would have nothing to do with what happened to Caylee. jmo

Exactly, why don't we just charge the neighbors who sold the bag to the Anthonys.

Not sure what you mean by diaper? The only remains were the skull and bones, am I wrong?

 

[Valhall]

Val thinks this is the method Richard Eikelenboom will use if he examines the evidence and says Jose even mentioned it in the hearing yesterday. (I'm going to watch again so I can hear it and will post when I find it)

Now, according to Bode Technology's website "Touch DNA" does not necessarily mean LCN is used. From their website http://www.bodetech.com/technologies/touch-dna/touch-dna-overview:
"Touch DNA is not Low Copy Number (LCN) DNA. LCN DNA profiling allows a very small amount of DNA to be analyzed, from as little as 5 to 20 cells. Because of the small amount of starting DNA in LCN samples, many more cycles of amplification are necessary.

Touch DNA samples at Bode are processed/amplified exactly the same way as blood, semen, saliva etc, and are therefore admissible in court."

So, if Eikelenboom uses LCN profiling and finds something, would it even be admitted in court? If not, we're back to it being a waste, a huge waste like you say. :waitasec:

It's not that I THINK he will, it is that he STATES he DOES use LCN DNA typing. The statement that Bode makes is that THEY are not using LCN DNA typing in their touch DNA testing. AND, if a sample from an item affords enough cells that are viable, then LCN DNA is not NECESSARILY required for touch DNA testing when Eikelenboom is doing it. But he has definitively stated he uses LCN DNA profiling in his testing.

Now, as to the admissibility. Eikelenboom's work has already been admitted in cases. The primary work he does in his own country is for prosecutors, but it has already been admitted here in the U.S. - the Masters case.

 

[njustice]

OK, so let me get this straight.....JB calls testing from the FBI body farm "junk science" but touch DNA does not fall into this catagory????

THANK YOU!!!! I've been waiting for someone to say this. Not only would touch DNA fall under Baez's coined term junk science, that's probably the main reason why they want it tested outside the country!!

 

[Dear Prudence]

It's not that I THINK he will, it is that he STATES he DOES use LCN DNA typing. The statement that Bode makes is that THEY are not using LCN DNA typing in their touch DNA testing. AND, if a sample from an item affords enough cells that are viable, then LCN DNA is not NECESSARILY required for touch DNA testing when Eikelenboom is doing it. But he has definitively stated he uses LCN DNA profiling in his testing.

Now, as to the admissibility. Eikelenboom's work has already been admitted in cases. The primary work he does in his own country is for prosecutors, but it has already been admitted here in the U.S. - the Masters case.

Yes thanks for input, you're correct. I watched yesterday's hearing again regarding this and Baez does imply that RE will use LCN DNA typing. By the way, thanks for your article, it's very informative and I love the way you write.

I think some people are confused regarding touch DNA and LCN thinking it's the same thing when it is not.

http://www.wftv.com/video/25182998/index.html In this video of the hearing at the 8:00 mark Ashton says touch DNA is just short for DNA obtained from skin cells and getting a DNA profile from skin cells is nothing new. It's been used in LE for years.

At around the 11:00 mark Baez states that Low Copy Number DNA typing is not common. The FBI does not use it and has different requirements, but the NY State Police labs do use it and this is the area that Mr. E specializes in, but he never actually states he will be using it in this case (it is implied).

Ashton then replies that if the defense is requesting anything other than generally accepted technologies being used, that's not included in this motion and we're not ruling on that at this time.

To me that implies that Ashton would object to the admissibility of LCN DNA typing in this case.

 

[LambChop]

Exactly, why don't we just charge the neighbors who sold the bag to the Anthonys.

Not sure what you mean by diaper? The only remains were the skull and bones, am I wrong?

The collar from a T-shirt, letters that spelled out Big Trouble Comes in Small Packages and pieces from a diaper. The shorts were in one of the bags. The diaper pieces I think were scattered on the ground near some of the bones. Not sure about that but I know they are listed in discovery. jmo

 

[strawberry]

Have we actually seen this motion yet? I would like to read it but can't find it.

 

[Solace]

The collar from a T-shirt, letters that spelled out Big Trouble Comes in Small Packages and pieces from a diaper. The shorts were in one of the bags. The diaper pieces I think were scattered on the ground near some of the bones. Not sure about that but I know they are listed in discovery. jmo

Oh God. This is unmitigated hate for her mother. Because she could have easily left this baby with Cindy, but she did not want her to have her and she wanted to hurt her mother. Jesus, no wonder Cindy is swearing she is innocent. Who could admit this - my daughter killed my grandchild to get at me. I don't know about living with that.

 

[logicalgirl]

Have we actually seen this motion yet? I would like to read it but can't find it.

Apparently JB filed it the morning of the hearing. The SA had a copy but HHJP hadn't seen the motion before the hearing yesterday. Typical "swift" JB move.:banghead::banghead: