On March 10, 2017, the State provided me with five (5) pages of DNA related documents which were never before disclosed to me or my attorneys before the trial was conducted. These documents unambiguously revealed to me the amazing fact that the victim’s own DNA profile was not found in the sole allegedly inculpatory evidence, the green fitted sheet. I was sincerely surprised by this new and unknown information. It is unimaginable for the victim’s fitted sheet not to have contained her own DNA material. Especially after sleeping nude on that sheet for a period of at least two weeks.
In other words, had degradation and/or contamination occurred to the point where the victim’s own DNA profile was not present on her bed sheet, no other person’s DNA profile would have been found either. Stated in a different way, degradation and/or contamination would not only have affected the victim’s DNA profile but not all DNA profiles allegedly found on the bed sheet–the victim’s as well as the suspected assailant’s. Therefore, the question of how my perfectly non degraded and/or contaminated DNA profile could have been extracted from such degraded and contaminated pieces of evidence, still remains a mystery in this case?
On the other hand, the black and white dress used by the victim to wipe off seminal fluid from her leg, which was collected as evidence by law enforcement officers at the crime scene, is the best evidence to link a perpetrator to this crime, though it was never tested. This dress still exists and has never been tested for DNA. Nevertheless, the scientific basis for testing this dress is that the technology is much more robust and discriminating. Modern STR testing examines 24 loci instead of the 5 that were done in 1995. Furthermore, at the time of testing in this case RFLP was relatively new and history has shown us it was prone to error and subjectivity. Therefore, the question of why was not this dress tested for DNA, with the more advanced DNA testing procedure at the time this trial took place, is another mystery unsolved in this case?
Last, the same principle of utilizing more modern, adequate and updated scientific procedures while trying to solve criminal cases, should have been applied also to the inculpatory fingerprints, palm prints and shoe castings collected in this case. More to the point, 11 fingerprints, 5 palm prints and 2 shoe castings were collected from the point of entry and exit–the victim’s kitchen window. Nevertheless, the multiple prints have never been run into the FBI’s Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) computer program since the day of the trial, 22 years ago.
However, there have been a lot of advances within this field of technology, to directly identify the individual who could match those different prints. There is no doubt that the identification of these collected prints would help in identifying the true perpetrator of this crime. Therefore, the question of why have not these prints been run into the FBI’s AFIS computer program for the last 22 years, is yet another mystery within this case?
In sum, the availability now of the relevant evidence discussed herein, can without doubt, make a significant difference in this case, if this evidence is properly retested and corroborated, as it has been requested.
Thank you,
Ernesto.
DNA MANIPULATED CONVICTION 