Re: Brown's Chicken defense dealt a setback
- From: stealingtoiletpaper@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: 21 Apr 2006 17:37:12 -0700
Finding someone's DNA at the scene of a crime is like finding any other
belonging of that person at the crime -- such as a wallet. It could
have been left there earlier, it could have been placed there by
someone else, etc. It is the circumstances that make it more or less
likely to have been left at the scene at the time of the crime.
In this case, the DNA profile was developed months before Luna became a
suspect, so it is highly unlikely there was any police tampering with
the analysis.
Sure, Luna was in the restaurant at earlier times-- after all, he
worked there months earlier. At that time, he could have gone to the
box of trash bags, unrolled them and opened them and spit inside each
one, and then rolled them back up neatly.
OR someone else could have stolen his spit and done the same.
OR someone could have stolen his spit, and put it on the chicken and
put it in the trash. That is what the defense wanted to say. But
since it makes no sense the Judge is not allowing them to say it.
Will this be used as a basis to appeal the verdict later on, if indeed
they are foudn guilty? Possibly.
easygoer wrote:
This is the story, and they're sticking to it: The restaurant was
about to close for the night. It has been cleaned, and the trash had
been emptied and new bags were put in. Someone came in and ordererd
one meal. That shows up on the chas register receipt, with the time.
In the trash, the day after the crime, the police found a chicken box
with several pieces uneaten and one piece eaten. Several days later,
this was retrieved as evidence. An immediate attempt was made to get
fingerprints and DNA from it, but this failed, because there were not
prints on it and the DNA sample on it was too small for tests at the
time. So the chicken was placed in a freezer and kept for a number of
years, awaiting the development of PCR, polymerase chain reaction,
which can give a DNA analysis on a small amount of old or degraded DNA,
using a method of amplification. It is a highly reliable test, but no,
it does not date the DNA.
This will be used to place one suspect at the scene of the crime. But
eating chicken is not a crime, so of course, more will have to be
shown.
The DNA profile was used to rule out several major suspects, so it is
highly unlikely that any tinkering was done with the DNA. In fact, it
was used to rule out a couple people the police would dearly have loved
to indict for the crime.
AFTER the DNA profile was located, a woman came forward and said she
was told of the crimes years earlier by the two who are now suspects.
And she named another woman who also know of the crimes. Both say the
men told them all about the crimes. They say they were told that one
man bought chicken and started to eat it, but that the other one
stopped him for fear that he might leave greasy fingerprints.
At this time in science, there is no way to date the DNA. But the
chicken was in a clean trash bag at the scene of the crime, it does
match the receipt, police did bag it shortly thereafter and they DID
freeze it and save it, SPECIFICALLY in anticipation of the development
of a new test. And all of that is FOR SURE.
.
- References:
- Brown's Chicken defense dealt a setback
- From: Indigo Ace
- Re: Brown's Chicken defense dealt a setback
- From: stealingtoiletpaper
- Re: Brown's Chicken defense dealt a setback
- From: Savant
- Re: Brown's Chicken defense dealt a setback
- From: easygoer
- Brown's Chicken defense dealt a setback
- Prev by Date: Re: Brown's Chicken defense dealt a setback
- Next by Date: Phony doc offers free breast exams, door to door
- Previous by thread: Re: Brown's Chicken defense dealt a setback
- Next by thread: Mexican priest confesses to cutting up his pregnant lover
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
