Evidence of Innocence

FC Navigation Console

Pathfinder Board Topic: Justice Denied
Evidence of Innocence:
Blood Underneath the fingernails !!!!!!
Author: Alan [Ivan X], Aug 28 1997 5:38PM
{bold emphasis & enumeration format edited in}

I have just been reading testimony (recently posted on this Board) about the blood under NBS's nails and it was most revealing.
The interaction spoke volumes about the (prosecution) case and tactics.
They have been talking about EAP BA blood degrading to B, which was used to explain the result of the EAP typing of the material under NBS's nails.
Although the press releases sounded good, the data was clear cut. The material under BOTH sets of NBS's nails was clearly B (assuming the samples were labeled correctly, which I know is a major assumption).
The raw data was displayed and the gels were easy to read (I have read 10s of thousands of gels with 15 lanes of data on each gel). The samples from the right and left hand were identical.

Both lanes clearly had 2 B bands.
Standards were shown that had two A bands and 2 B bands.
A "BA" sample would have all fourbands.
An "A" sample would have both "A" bands and a "B" sample would have both "B" bands.

Four papers describing BA to B degradation were introduced.
All four papers indicated the bands would disappear in a prescibed order.

A B1A1 B2A2 sample would go to B1A1 B2
{B1A1 B2} would go to B1A1
{B1A1} would go to B1.

The only time an AB sample would be hard to call would be if it degraded all the way down to B1.
At that level the B1 band could not be distiguished from a "B" sample (B2B1) that degraded to B1.
All other degradation products of "AB" would have at least one of the "A" bands and could be distinguished from a "B" sample.
The material under NBS's nails was B2B1.
There were no "A" bands.
Even though one hand was under NBS and near the pool of blood on the sidewalk, while the other hand was on her body and away from the blood pool.
Both samples were clearly "B".
The differential environmental exposures had no effect on the result. Both samples were identical.
When {Greg Matherson} was confronted with the SCIENTIFIC literature, he admitted that the literature indicated the B2B1 phenotype was B.

He could not cite any references that showed B2B1 originating from "BA" blood.
He admiited that he had called both samples "B".
He was saying the samples may have been BA because of other DNA tests (which were not for the EAP enzyme).

Thus it was clear that B blood was under NBS's nails and the EAP "B" phenotype EXCLUDED OJ, NBS and RG.
HG tried to rehabiltate the testimony with a gel of NBS's degraded blood (from the Bundy sidewalk next to the body). This sample gave a very weak signal. It had been categorized as "inconclusive". With the appropriate contrast, bands could be seen.
However, both A and B bands were present (consistant with an "AB" origin).
HG tried to get GM to "see" the "B" bands and ignore the "A" bands. When he showed GM the lane, GM stated how poor the bands were. HG then tried to get him to identify one of the "B" bands.
RB objected because there were "A" and "B" bands present.
HG then said that GM had much more experience reading gels (even though HG was doing the reading and just trying to get GM to agree with him).
It was extremely sad from the science side.
The gels were clearly visible to all. There was no middle ground. Either the bands were too light so the result was inconclusive or if the "B" band was visible, so was the "A" band.
The scene spoke volumes about the trial.
HG was trying to lead the witness to mislead the jury.
There was no science or data to back up their "BA" to "A" pathway (with both "B" bands present), so they were going to simply lie their way through, with the data sitting on the Elmo!
It was unbelievable.
There were no extenuating circumstances or unknowns. The data was clearly "B" and they want to simple say it was "BA" and ask the jury to believe them.
It is now obvious as to why the witnesses do so poorly on the witness stand. The {prosecution} give then a script, buy no Q cards!
The {prosecution} eventually tried to use their DNA evidence to contradict the EAP results.
The data was clearly interesting.
How the same sample can clearly type as a non-match on EAP and then become a match on DNA is like comparing apples and oranges to me.
Read the testimony of Robin Cotton, she clearly testified that it is quite common for a victim to scratch their assailent and then to get blood underneath the fingernails. Then, when it is tested, you will get the blood type of the assailent, but then the advanced DNA tests will reveal the DNA match of the victim.
And one more point which is more logical:

that a victim is going to scratch herself when she is being attacked?
or for her to scratch her attacker?

Which is more logical?

The testimony isn't as detailed

I have just been reading testimony (recently posted on this Board) about the blood under NBS's nails and it was most revealing. The interaction spoke volumes about the (prosecution) case and tactics. They have been talking about EAP BA blood degrading to B, which was used to explain the result of the EAP typing of the material under NBS's nails. Although the press releases sounded good, the data was clear cut. The material under BOTH sets of NBS's nails was clearly B (assuming the samples were labeled correctly, which I know is a major assumption). The raw data was displayed and the gels were easy to read (I have read 10s of thousands of gels with 15 lanes of data on each gel). The samples from the right and left hand were identical. Both lanes clearly had 2 B bands. Standards were shown that had two A bands and 2 B bands. A "BA" sample would have all fourbands. An "A" sample would have both "A" bands and a "B" sample would have both "B" bands. Four papers describing BA to B degradation were introduced. All four papers indicated the bands would disappear in a prescibed order. A B1A1 B2A2 sample would go to B1A1 B2 {B1A1 B2} would go to B1A1 {B1A1} would go to B1. The only time an AB sample would be hard to call would be if it degraded all the way down to B1. At that level the B1 band could not be distiguished from a "B" sample (B2B1) that degraded to B1. All other degradation products of "AB" would have at least one of the "A" bands and could be distinguished from a "B" sample. The material under NBS's nails was B2B1. There were no "A" bands. Even though one hand was under NBS and near the pool of blood on the sidewalk, while the other hand was on her body and away from the blood pool. Both samples were clearly "B". The differential environmental exposures had no effect on the result. Both samples were identical. When {Greg Matherson} was confronted with the SCIENTIFIC literature, he admitted that the literature indicated the B2B1 phenotype was B. He could not cite any references that showed B2B1 originating from "BA" blood. He admiited that he had called both samples "B". He was saying the samples may have been BA because of other DNA tests (which were not for the EAP enzyme). Thus it was clear that B blood was under NBS's nails and the EAP "B" phenotype EXCLUDED OJ, NBS and RG. HG tried to rehabiltate the testimony with a gel of NBS's degraded blood (from the Bundy sidewalk next to the body). This sample gave a very weak signal. It had been categorized as "inconclusive". With the appropriate contrast, bands could be seen. However, both A and B bands were present (consistant with an "AB" origin). HG tried to get GM to "see" the "B" bands and ignore the "A" bands. When he showed GM the lane, GM stated how poor the bands were. HG then tried to get him to identify one of the "B" bands. RB objected because there were "A" and "B" bands present. HG then said that GM had much more experience reading gels (even though HG was doing the reading and just trying to get GM to agree with him). It was extremely sad from the science side. The gels were clearly visible to all. There was no middle ground. Either the bands were too light so the result was inconclusive or if the "B" band was visible, so was the "A" band. The scene spoke volumes about the trial. HG was trying to lead the witness to mislead the jury. There was no science or data to back up their "BA" to "A" pathway (with both "B" bands present), so they were going to simply lie their way through, with the data sitting on the Elmo! It was unbelievable. There were no extenuating circumstances or unknowns. The data was clearly "B" and they want to simple say it was "BA" and ask the jury to believe them. It is now obvious as to why the witnesses do so poorly on the witness stand. The {prosecution} give then a script, buy no Q cards! The {prosecution} eventually tried to use their DNA evidence to contradict the EAP results. The data was clearly interesting. How the same sample can clearly type as a non-match on EAP and then become a match on DNA is like comparing apples and oranges to me. Read the testimony of Robin Cotton, she clearly testified that it is quite common for a victim to scratch their assailent and then to get blood underneath the fingernails. Then, when it is tested, you will get the blood type of the assailent, but then the advanced DNA tests will reveal the DNA match of the victim. And one more point which is more logical: that a victim is going to scratch herself when she is being attacked? or for her to scratch her attacker? Which is more logical?
The testimony isn't as detailed

Proud Member of BannerSwap

LinkExchange Member

© 1996, 1997  William Schreck   © 1996 Source Interactive Network, LLC. All rights reserved.

Return to front page

web hosting • domain names
web design • online games