The Eikelenbooms and Touch DNA

[butterfly1978]

How funny that I had just posted in #177 about this exact issue and a mere hour and 20 minutes later it is an article in the OS.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-synthetic-marijuana-legal-pot-20101001,0,4149309.story

BTW.....I am in no way affiliated with the OS......so either this is an epic coincidence or they read here.......

OR........I wasn't far off in my thought process. Hmmmmmmmmmm


Perhaps if the RK bus stalls they will try to drive one into TL's path. When will the collateral damage end????





Additionally........I just found this...http://www.nmslabs.com/tests/Synthetic-Cannabinoids-Identification--Solid/7472SL

Synthetic Cannabinoids Identification, Solid Test (7472SL)

Method(s)

Gas Chromatography/Mass SPectrometry (GC/MS), Thin Layer Chromatography (TLC)

Gas chromatography as in the "junk science" air tests that showed chloroform.

Intresting theory but I just dont see Baez or any of the "dream team" coming up with something like that. Besides it would be hard to convince a jury that Caylee either smoked it or died from someone else smoking it, especially considering they are sticking to the SODDI theory.

 

[nums24]

I can't help but laugh. The 1st footnote in the order regarding the DNA testing states...

"The defense states that his CV is attached to the motion as Exhibit A, but there are no attachments to the Motion scanned by the clerk of court."

http://www.ninthcircuit.org/news/High-Profile-Cases/Anthony/Downloads/Order%20Granting%20in%20Part%20and%20Denying%20in%20Part%20Motion%20to%20Test%20For%20DNA%20Evidence.pdf

There are no words!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can see why Mr. Ashton is so skeptical. The following is a link to the RVA accreditation cited in JB's motion. It's quite laughable in my opinion:

http://www.euroalma.bam.de/2nd_deraad.pdf ~The last sentence of the brochure :banghead: ~

ETA: Here is there Request for Quote Form: http://www.isacert.com/beeldenbank/File/ISACert Company information sheet 01.05.2009.pdf

Here is the site in English: http://www.rva.nl/home/

 

[Just Jayla]

So sorry if anyone noted this already, and maybe it belongs in the JAC thread...WTH are the people of Florida picking up the tab for additional DNA experts, here or abroad, when Dr. Henry "Found More Hair" Lee is quite capable of performing touch DNA tests?

Doesn't he work for oranges? Hell's Bells, they have a ba-zillion oranges in Florida....

 

[sleutherontheside]

I found an interesting facebook page. I think it is OK to link BECAUSE it is entitled Touch DNA.

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=55751917473&topic=10321

On the page it references a case that the Eikelenboom's worked on where the victims body had been in standing water for three days, was covered in algae, and hosed off.

It states that they were still able to obtain a profile even after mishandling of the crime scene.

 

[shotgun09]

Thanks for that article, SOS. This touch DNA sounds very interesting indeed. I also think that the only DNA they might be able to recover on those precious little shorts after 6 MONTHS in the water will be Casey's and maybe Cindy's. And, maybe the manufacturing person who handled them. No way will Kronk's be on there. The bag, however will prove interesting. Along with any member of the Anthony's DNA on the bag, if Kronk's shows up ( or D Casey's) thats another issue.

 

[nums24]

I found an interesting facebook page. I think it is OK to link BECAUSE it is entitled Touch DNA.

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=55751917473&topic=10321

On the page it references a case that the Eikelenboom's worked on where the victims body had been in standing water for three days, was covered in algae, and hosed off.

It states that they were still able to obtain a profile even after mishandling of the crime scene.

Great find! It also states this:

One drawback of Touch DNA is that the forensic scientists will sometimes use a method of DNA testing that is not yet admissible in U.S. courts. They do not need to use this method in all cases, but it seems when there are very small samples to work with, they can run an alternative test to get a few alleles. They did not go into detail as to why it was not permissible in U.S. courts.


I wonder which method the E's and JB had in mind...:waitasec:

 

[nums24]

I've been doing some research, but I am scientifically challenged and don't understand what this means, it is the document from the RVA of what the E's lab is accredited for:

http://www.rva.nl/uri/?uri=AMGATE_10218_1_TICH_R10076259494919

Here is how the "arrangement" works, meaning the affiliations between ILAC & RVA:

http://www.ilac.org/ilacarrangement.html#How arrangement works

 

[Dear Prudence]

Great find! It also states this:

One drawback of Touch DNA is that the forensic scientists will sometimes use a method of DNA testing that is not yet admissible in U.S. courts. They do not need to use this method in all cases, but it seems when there are very small samples to work with, they can run an alternative test to get a few alleles. They did not go into detail as to why it was not permissible in U.S. courts.


I wonder which method the E's and JB had in mind...:waitasec:

I'll bet the author of the article is referring to LCN DNA method of testing.

And it is the one JB mentioned in the hearing that is the expertise of RE.

Earlier this year however it passed a Frye hearing in New York Supreme Court and was ruled admissible. This may open the door for it being admissible in courts across the U.S.

Here's a news article: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_...l_dna_test_gets_judges_nod.html#ixzz0fLbq2EZH

Here's the actual court opinion that I posted earlier in this thread. It's very interesting and informative: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/REPORTER/3dseries/2010/2010_20037.htm

 

[nums24]

I'll bet the author of the article is referring to LCN DNA method of testing.

And it is the one JB mentioned in the hearing that is the expertise of RE.

Earlier this year however it passed a Frye hearing in New York Supreme Court and was ruled admissible. This may open the door for it being admissible in courts across the U.S.

Here's a news article: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_...l_dna_test_gets_judges_nod.html#ixzz0fLbq2EZH

Here's the actual court opinion that I posted earlier in this thread. It's very interesting and informative: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/REPORTER/3dseries/2010/2010_20037.htm

Thank you, yes I read this when it was posted upthread. Here is the order from the case referenced in your link: http://www.denverda.org/DNA_Documents/Megnath.pdf

I found this site from the Denver DA's website, it's a listing of court cases involving LCN:

http://www.denverda.org/dna/Low Copy DNA Profiling Cases.htm


Here are some other interesting articles:

http://www.promega.com/profiles/1301/1301_03.html

http://www.personal.psu.edu/dhk3/bl...with-really-small-samples-confuses-court.html

 

[nums24]

I'll bet the author of the article is referring to LCN DNA method of testing.

And it is the one JB mentioned in the hearing that is the expertise of RE.

Earlier this year however it passed a Frye hearing in New York Supreme Court and was ruled admissible. This may open the door for it being admissible in courts across the U.S.

Here's a news article: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_...l_dna_test_gets_judges_nod.html#ixzz0fLbq2EZH

Here's the actual court opinion that I posted earlier in this thread. It's very interesting and informative: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/REPORTER/3dseries/2010/2010_20037.htm

I interpreted the testing to be allowed because they were able to reproduced and were accurate on 100% of the items tested. I would imagine before any lcn dna could be admitted, the tests would have to be able to be recreated.

 

[Intermezzo]

:bump:
Now that we have to :waiting: and hopefully not ullhair: because the Defense has been given an extension :noooo: :anguish: in submitting the reports for the TouchDNA testing

 

[Intermezzo]

While we are still:waiting: I'm hoping joypath or faefrost may know the answer to...
How long does it take a Lab to get ASCLAD certified?

http://www.uis.edu/InnocenceProject...nts/Nov62006testimonyofRichardEikelenboom.pdf TESTIMONY

http://www.uis.edu/InnocenceProject...ments/RichardEikelenboomtestimonyabstract.pdf

In the above Abstract transcript from Richard E testimony on November 6, 2006 about the Masters Case he tells the Judge that he is in the process of getting ASCLAD accreditation for his Lab in Holland and he expected to have it within 6 months..

That was in 2006...now fast forward to 2010 Baez says in court the E's are going to set up a Lab in Colorado in about 1 month...??

As of Feb 2011 it does not look like either of those has happened?
How difficult is the process to become accredited in the US?

Just wondering

In 2006,(link above) Richard E states in the testimony he is a forensic scientist with expertise in DNA analysis and trace recovery and Bloodstain pattern analysis..(isn't Dr Lee the same?)

In 2006 his lab in Holland had not yet received accreditation ...but that has since changed..according to their website "IFS is a new young innovative iso 17025 accredited laboratory"
http://www.forensic-services.nl/

 

[ziggy]

I'll bet the author of the article is referring to LCN DNA method of testing.

And it is the one JB mentioned in the hearing that is the expertise of RE.

Earlier this year however it passed a Frye hearing in New York Supreme Court and was ruled admissible. This may open the door for it being admissible in courts across the U.S.

Here's a news article: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_...l_dna_test_gets_judges_nod.html#ixzz0fLbq2EZH

Here's the actual court opinion that I posted earlier in this thread. It's very interesting and informative: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/REPORTER/3dseries/2010/2010_20037.htm

Thank you - interesting read. The opinion states that this is not really considered a novel scientific technique given the DNA reliability/history with the courts.

I sent these links to my evidence professor as we are discussing Kelly/Frye now. Students in the class seem to be confused as to what criteria the judge must use in order to allow the evidence to be admitted. This opinion is a great example.

 

[joypath]

While we are still:waiting: I'm hoping joypath or faefrost may know the answer to...
How long does it take a Lab to get ASCLAD certified?

:twocents: SORRY,No simple answer! BUT be sure that it take MONTHS to achieve the accreditation in EACH TESTING AREA, usually going after a one year certificate THEN the full 5 year program after demonstrable proficiency tests records and ANOTHER site visit. OH yeah, one darn well better be meeting the state & federal regulations at the same time! :banghead:

http://www.uis.edu/InnocenceProject...nts/Nov62006testimonyofRichardEikelenboom.pdf TESTIMONY

http://www.uis.edu/InnocenceProject...ments/RichardEikelenboomtestimonyabstract.pdf

In the above Abstract transcript from Richard E testimony on November 6, 2006 about the Masters Case he tells the Judge that he is in the process of getting ASCLAD accreditation for his Lab in Holland and he expected to have it within 6 months..

That was in 2006...now fast forward to 2010 Baez says in court the E's are going to set up a Lab in Colorado in about 1 month...??

As of Feb 2011 it does not look like either of those has happened?
How difficult is the process to become accredited in the US?

:twocents:Well, you have to do more than drive up in a RV and hang a shingle "Tests R US" :floorlaugh:!
:great: Get a building, hire staff, purchase instruments, set up procedure manuals, MEET STATE & FEDERAL LICENSE/PERSONNEL regulations:crazy:, submit a request to accreditation agency, complete "self-study" :crazyUGH!), correct :rocker: deficiencies the self study identified, wait for an on- site inspection :sick: (time spent depends upon the # of testing modalities but usually 2-5 days of inspection, hear the inspectors' evaluations :waitasec: , get HOPEFULLY provisional accreditation, correct deficiencies :rocker:, be fully accredited for 5 years, repeat many cycle steps at least 9 months BEFORE the 5 expiration deadline!:banghead:

Just wondering

In 2006,(link above) Richard E states in the testimony he is a forensic scientist with expertise in DNA analysis and trace recovery and Bloodstain pattern analysis..(isn't Dr Lee the same?)

:twocents: :truce: YEP, BUT with a Ph. D! and a "few" more years of experience!!!!:seeya:

In 2006 his lab in Holland had not yet received accreditation ...but that has since changed..according to their website "IFS is a new young innovative iso 17025 accredited laboratory"
http://www.forensic-services.nl/

:seeya: Hope this "helps" 'cause this is a subject I could elaborate upon and give you ALL nightmares! :banghead:

 

[NoNameLeft]

:twocents: :truce: YEP, BUT with a Ph. D! and a "few" more years of experience!!! :seeya:

And less eager to work for free

But Joypath, is it even possible to get ASCLAD certified for a lab outside of the USA? Things like on- site inspection, that sounds complicated if these labs are all over the world.

And about Richard Eikelenboom's testimony, Mason vaguely addressed it in his Motion For Reconsideration (about the sanctions against Baez). It says something about him being present at the evidence inspection and photographing evidence. And there's this:

Further, it is possible that Mr. Eikelenboom may be required to offer testimony, either rebuttal or direct, as to issues of degradation of DNA, depending on the exact trial testimony of the State's experts on that subject. Mr. Eikelenboom, along with the other witnesses, is available for deposition by Skype or WebEx,as are so many of the other witnesses being questioned by the State and/or have been questioned by the defense.

So perhaps his report has something to say about degraded DNA.

 

[Amil]

Could it be during the trial that the jury comes to despise the defense attorneys smarmy attitudes and childishness that they disregard their experts' opinions?

 

[joypath]

And less eager to work for free

But Joypath, is it even possible to get ASCLAD certified for a lab outside of the USA? Things like on- site inspection, that sounds complicated if these labs are all over the world.

And about Richard Eikelenboom's testimony, Mason vaguely addressed it in his Motion For Reconsideration (about the sanctions against Baez). It says something about him being present at the evidence inspection and photographing evidence. And there's this:

Further, it is possible that Mr. Eikelenboom may be required to offer testimony, either rebuttal or direct, as to issues of degradation of DNA, depending on the exact trial testimony of the State's experts on that subject. Mr. Eikelenboom, along with the other witnesses, is available for deposition by Skype or WebEx,as are so many of the other witnesses being questioned by the State and/or have been questioned by the defense.

So perhaps his report has something to say about degraded DNA.

:twocents: The society " Offering Programs of Accreditation To Maintain the Quality of Forensic Crime Laboratory Services", like many professional societies, provides the "on-site" inspectors from a list of trained volunteers who have undergone the accreditation process themselves:sick:. There is a formal training program (this year in Va) and "students" come from world-wide which then provides a world-wide list. (not to say that somebody couldn't opt to spend a super fantastic vacation in BORA BORA performing an "tax deductible" ASCLD inspection/vacation :seeya And yes, if you had a "beef" with the person (s) assigned to your inspection team, a change can be made! :truce:

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

Waiting for this report...JMHO

Is this being covered in the March 2-3rd pretrial hearing or will it be in the March 23-25th, pretrial hearings...doesn't this need to stand the tests of a Frye Hearing?

I get so frustrated with Baez loosely using the term, "junk science", yet he wants this "touch" DNA submitted in evidence (fairly new scientific method)...I wonder if this comes back to show ICA's DNA (for she was last with Caylee), will the defense then concede? Will they push harder for ICA to change her plea to guilty??? JMHO




Justice for Caylee

 

[kaRN]

Great find! It also states this:

One drawback of Touch DNA is that the forensic scientists will sometimes use a method of DNA testing that is not yet admissible in U.S. courts. They do not need to use this method in all cases, but it seems when there are very small samples to work with, they can run an alternative test to get a few alleles. They did not go into detail as to why it was not permissible in U.S. courts.


I wonder which method the E's and JB had in mind...:waitasec:

Re BBM in red -IMO, because they can only obtain a few alleles and I don't believe they can generate a complete DNA profile from a few alleles.
IMO they had the method that might add the most confusion and reasonable doubt into the mix in mind.

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

DNA Caylee shorts and laundry bag
http://www.wesh.com/pdf/27161916/detail.html



No conlusions can be drawn.....

Justice for Caylee