Falsifying, Tampering with, Planting on and Manipulation of DNA Evidence
I know that it is not easy for the average citizen to accept the painful and uncomfortable reality that there are bad and unethical police officers and/or law enforcement personnel infiltrated in our Justice Department. However, this reality does not stop in any way, shape or form the other inevitable reality which is seeing the obvious growing number of cases involving police and/or law enforcement misconduct being publicly exposed in recent years.
Unfortunately, at the time of my trial and the presentation of my hypothesis of Innocence to the jury–in the year 2,000, there were not too many cases of police officers/law enforcement personnel’s misconduct yet exposed. That of course, was a great disadvantage for my trial defense strategy. In other words, it was difficult for a jury to consider and freely accept this type of defense, in which it is specifically alleged that the police and/or law enforcement personnel is in fact the corrupted party. Unfortunately for me, it was inevitable not to lose at trial, where there were so many questions unanswered and so little explanations given to the jury about my theory of defense.
However, at this point in time, I am able to explain the facts, and answer the questions that appeared then to be impossible to be explained and/or answered. Thus, below, I will concentrate myself on answering five main questions that can help us to better understand this case:
Why falsification, tampering with, planting on and manipulation of evidence occurred in my case?
Simply, because without such misconduct, it would have been impossible for the lead Detective to have me placed at the crime scene. In other words, there is no direct evidence that could have placed me at the crime scene period. Therefore, creating strong circumstantial evidence was the only way I could have been arrested, prosecuted, taken to trial and ultimately found guilty. In fact, without the sole manipulated circumstantial evidence presented in this case–the green fitted sheet, there would not have been a case against me.
Who falsified, tampered with, planted on and manipulated the evidence in my case?
Although, there was obvious pressure over the BSO Crime Laboratory and its DNA Unit coming from the Plantation Police Department–as they were trying to solve the City’s unsolved crime. There was, without doubt, an even stronger pressure over the DNA technician Donna Marchese. This pressure was coming directly from Det. Steven Geller. The face of the record is replete with such evidence. (See: Donna Marchese’s under oath trial testimony available in this website within the page titled Ernesto’s Legal Documents under option Trial Transcripts).
However, the record unambiguously establishes that only DNA technician Donna Marchese would have had a personal interest in scientifically matching and solving these cases. Both of these cases were assigned to her and both were unsolved cases. Additionally, she conveniently had the necessary free access and control over the evidence that was coming in and out of the Crime Laboratory in this case, and most importantly of all, the capability of scientifically manipulating the evidence under her supervision. Nobody else had such access and control over the evidence and/or capability to manipulate such sensitive evidence. Therefore, there is absolutely no doubt that Ms. Marchese was the DNA technician who falsified, tampered with, planted on and manipulated the DNA evidence in this case.
Furthermore, even though I have been denied access to the Crime Lab’s Evidence Vault Logging Records, obtaining these Logs would be the most accurate way to prove that it was in fact DNA technician Marchese who manipulated the DNA evidence in this specific case.
More to the point, a simple chronological review of these Logs would inevitably reveal that she was the DNA technician assigned to my case and that she was the DNA technician who requested the evidence and took it in and out of the Evidence Vault on multiple occasions.
When the falsification, tampering with, planting on and manipulation of the evidence happened in my case?
It is obvious that the process of tainting the evidence in this case took more than one occasion to be accomplished. In other words, a careful review of the sole inculpatory evidence’s chain of custody receipts clearly demonstrates the specific times when this manipulation of the evidence took place.
More to the point, the face of the record unambiguously establishes that in two separate occasions this sole inculpatory evidence [the green fitted sheet] was unaccounted for the following terms:
from June 30, 1995 to October 8, 1995
from February 1, 2000 to June 29, 2000.
Both times in excess of 100 days. Contrary to the Crime Lab’s Protocols. Therefore, it should be concluded that it was more likely than not, that during this unaccounted period of time is when the evidence was tampered with.
Where the falsification, tampering with, planting on and manipulation of the evidence took place in my case?
There is absolutely no doubt that this process of tainting and manipulating the DNA evidence took place right at the BSO Crime Laboratory and within the DNA Unit. It was the only place where DNA technician Marchese could have gained full access to the DNA material, in both cases, and of course, the very own Laboratory’s Logging Records in and out of the Freezer/Vault will confirm it.
It was only the BSO Crime Laboratory and the DNA technician Marchese who made any kind of hit or match with my DNA. Both cases where she allegedly found a match, were both her unsolved cases. In fact, neither Miami Crime Lab nor West Palm Beach Crime Lab or any other Crime Lab in this Country, for that matter, has ever connected me with a crime scene by way of DNA testing. In fact, my DNA profile has been in the FBI’s database for the last 25 years, without any matching results.
How was the falsification, tampering with, planting on and manipulation of the evidence done in my case?
It was relatively easy for DNA technician Marchese to accomplish such a task, once she had under her control the evidence that contained my DNA material. In other words, the fact is that DNA technician Marchese was the very same technician who performed all DNA related testing on victim case #2, as stated in the Probable Cause Affidavit. In that case, my DNA was willingly and consensually left behind, and later on collected by law enforcement officers in the form of seminal fluid, which was stored and preserved within the BSO Crime Laboratory’s Freezer. However, we must keep in mind, that the case of victim #2 took place on October 21, 1993, while the case of victim #3 happened on May 12, 1995. This of course, is an important chronological fact to keep in mind, in order to better be able to identify How? This tainting procedure took place.
Interestingly enough, DNA technician Marchese became the very same DNA technician appointed onto the instant case, victim #3. As it has been explained in a different page, there is clear evidence showing different brakes in the chain of custody of the only inculpatory evidence of this case–the victim’s green fitted sheet.
Thus, as already stated earlier, if the Crime Laboratory’s Freezer/Vault Logs are review and analyze, it would reveal, without doubt, that DNA technician Marchese while testing and working on the case of victim #3 in 1995 also had access to the evidence containing my DNA on the case of victim #2. This of course, in itself, answers the mystery of how could my seminal fluid, perfectly non-degraded and non-contaminated appeared on the victim’s green fitted sheet, and of course, arriving at a perfect DNA match between the two cases, as alleged in the Probable Cause Affidavit to Arrest me. Otherwise, as explained in several other pages of this website and within the legal documents brought in front of the courts, there was absolutely no other evidence that could have placed me inside of the victim’s house.
Stated clearly, there was absolutely no reason for DNA technician Marchese to have access to the DNA material in the case of victim #2 while working in the case of victim #3, almost two years later. Unless, she wanted to transfer, as she did, the inculpatory DNA evidence in this case. Furthermore, the scientific procedure of transferring DNA material between different pieces of evidence is relatively easy. In fact, all she needed to accomplish such a task was distilled water and a Q-tip, nothing else.
Unfortunately for DNA technician Marchese, she did not take into consideration the fact that other collateral factors of this case would not make any sense. For example, the fact that the victim’s DNA left behind on her sheet was so degraded and contaminated, that not even her own DNA profile could be detected, even though she testified under oath that she slept nude on the sheets for approximately two weeks. Thus, it does not make any sense that the perfectly and uncorrupted DNA from my seminal fluid could have been detected on that sheet, but not the victim’s own DNA, unless it was freshly and laboratory planted on it.
On the other hand, it becomes self explanatory why the rest of the evidence of this case pointed to someone else, as the perpetrator of the crime. The fingerprints and palm prints collected from the point of entry and exit did not match my prints nor did the shoe casting; the victim’s identification of the assailant does not match my features. Even though the prosecutor tried to downplay this important feature of mine during the trial–me not being circumcised. Where the whole case here it is based on the victim’s complaining of being orally penetrated by her assailant’s circumcised penis; the ironclad alibi’s testimony placed me in a total different place on the day and time of this crime; and of course, the uncontradicted testimony of the Physician who operated me four days before this crime was committed clarifying the fact that I was not in physical conditions to have committed this crime.
In sum, the sole inculpatory evidence, the green fitted sheet, was the only evidence that was unaccounted for long periods of time from the Crime Lab Evidence Vault. Only BSO Crime Lab DNA Technician Donna Marchese was in charge of that evidence. Her trial testimony does not align with the Evidence Chain of Custody Receipts produced by BSO Crime Lab.
Thank you.
Ernesto.
DNA MANIPULATED CONVICTION 