DNA testing in the Hank Skinner case in Texas

[crimresearch]

There are expert witnesses who seem to make a career of fraud. I am thinking of Louise Robbins and Joyce Gilchrist, among others. I seem to recall that the fire marshall who testified against Todd Willingham had investigated 1200 fires, all of which were arson, according to him.

A somewhat related problem is that of forensic personnel who tell law enforcement what they want to hear, not what the truth is. The North Carolina SBI laboratory has gone through a major overhaul after the Gregory Taylor case and a subsequent audit. It is possible t consider Duane Deaver to be a rogue agent who misreported the results of blood tests, among other things. But having read what others in the lab have had to say, I put the blame on the supervision of the lab. My solutions are to split forensic laboratories away from law enforcement and to provide indigent defendants with a forensic counsel.

And of course there is this guy's body of 'work'...

http://www.memphispolice.org/medical examiner.htm

And here's the rest of the story...

http://www.memphisflyer.com/memphis/oc-smith-indicted/Content?oid=1120711

 

[Segnosaur]

When DNA as evidence came online, "common sense" said people on death row would call for it left and right. In fact, very very few did, because the vast majority of cases were solid and it would just seal their fate even more.

So when someone on death row calls for it, they should get it, because they must know they are innocent. If they know they are guilty, evidence shows they will not ask for it.

I can't really speak to the Skinner case; however, I can think of a couple of hypothetical cases where someone might ask for DNA tests even if they were guilty...

- They may want to use it as a tactic to delay an execution. ("Oh, I'm scheduled for the electric chair tomorrow... if I ask for a DNA test that will give me at least a few more months.")

- They may be hoping for a "hail mary".... that the lab might report foreign DNA on some evidence either through accident (Oops... technician sneezed on the murder weapon...) or other reasons ("Ok, I bought the gun and shot the person... but maybe I'll be lucky and the guy who sold me the gun might have left some DNA behind.")

Again, I want to stress that I'm not saying Skinner wasn't the victim of bad police work, just that automatically assuming that a request for DNA examination isn't necessarily indicative that the convicted person is innocent.

 

[zeggman]

So when someone on death row calls for it, they should get it, because they must know they are innocent. If they know they are guilty, evidence shows they will not ask for it.

Why wouldn't they? What do they have to lose? Are they required to pay for it themselves, or get their right to appeal cut in half if it's their DNA, or have their date moved up?

If I was on death row and didn't want to die, I expect I'd be acting out in all kinds of ways, including making the people who were keen to kill me jump through hoops just because I could.

I agree that anyone (on death row or not) who would like possibly exculpatory evidence tested should get it tested. It should have been tested as a matter of course before trial, and the results should already be known, so making the state examine the strength of its case post-conviction doesn't seem unreasonably burdensome.

I just disagree that asking for an evidence test is something only innocent people will do. My question remains, why wouldn't EVERYBODY do it?

 

[Beerina]

Why wouldn't they? What do they have to lose? Are they required to pay for it themselves, or get their right to appeal cut in half if it's their DNA, or have their date moved up?

If I was on death row and didn't want to die, I expect I'd be acting out in all kinds of ways, including making the people who were keen to kill me jump through hoops just because I could.

I agree that anyone (on death row or not) who would like possibly exculpatory evidence tested should get it tested. It should have been tested as a matter of course before trial, and the results should already be known, so making the state examine the strength of its case post-conviction doesn't seem unreasonably burdensome.

I just disagree that asking for an evidence test is something only innocent people will do. My question remains, why wouldn't EVERYBODY do it?

This is based not on a rationalization, but rather on actual results. Very few people on death row actually ask for it when it becomes available.

Of course, it's just another theory as to why, but it suggests that, contrary to the "common sense" notion there are a good percentage of wrongful convictions, that in fact almost every single conviction is a good one. The prisoner does not want DNA testing since they know they did it, and they know their DNA will (probably) show up on the weapon or whatever.

And at that point, judges will (probably) be even less likely to grant further delays.



If you did it, and were already convicted and sitting on death row (remember: you know if you did it or not), would you want another giant nail in your coffin? Evidence suggests that, no, you wouldn't.

 

[zeggman]

If you did it, and were already convicted and sitting on death row (remember: you know if you did it or not), would you want another giant nail in your coffin? Evidence suggests that, no, you wouldn't.

I'm pretty certain that it's not going to matter to me whether I'm lowered into the ground in a box that's secured by twelve nails or twelve thousand.

I remain doubtful that requesting a test implies innocence, or that choosing not to request one implies guilt. Maybe I'm more rational than the average denizen on death row, but from where I sit there's no downside, and even if the only upside is "something to talk about" I'm thinking it would be worth it.

 

[fuelair]

When DNA as evidence came online, "common sense" said people on death row would call for it left and right. In fact, very very few did, because the vast majority of cases were solid and it would just seal their fate even more.

So when someone on death row calls for it, they should get it, because they must know they are innocent. If they know they are guilty, evidence shows they will not ask for it.


This is why prosecutors and states are asses possible murderers for getting in the way of DNA requests.

Agreed !!!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

strange case

And of course there is this guy's body of 'work'...

http://www.memphispolice.org/medical examiner.htm

And here's the rest of the story...

http://www.memphisflyer.com/memphis/oc-smith-indicted/Content?oid=1120711

I am not sure I understand. Was he trying to cover up substandard work by fake threats?

 

[crimresearch]

I am not sure I understand. Was he trying to cover up substandard work by fake threats?

No, the self inflicted terrorism was a pretty strong indication of some sort of mental issues, and with his stature, he had influenced many cases based on basically his word.

Not the ones with duelling forensic experts, but all the others where 'the medical examiner states' was accepted without challenge. And I doubt if we'll ever know how much of his work was affected.

The point is the uncertainty of accepting what appears to be pretty reliable science, when people are involved.

 

[lane99]

Well, it was worth a try...but...

New DNA Testing Confirms Skinner's Guilt, AG's Office Says

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

New DNA Testing Confirms Skinner's Guilt, AG's Office Says

No way!!! I refuse to accept that. We were all convinced he is innocent.

 

[Strawberry]

I don't get it, why is it such a big whoop for the prosecution that his DNA was in the house? He already admitted he was in the house that night. What about the unidentified DNA and the missing jacket?

Not saying he's innocent, I don't know enough about the case, but I don't get why the AG thinks these results prove guilt.

 

[Wildy]

No way!!! I refuse to accept that. We were all convinced he is innocent.

He did cartwheels and everything.

 

[Aepervius]

Guy did you read the article ? I don't care if that guy is innocent or guilty, but if you read it fully it does sound as "case closed" as you seem to say. Just sayin' you might be jumping to conclusion here.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

overstatement

Guy did you read the article ? I don't care if that guy is innocent or guilty, but if you read it fully it does sound as "case closed" as you seem to say. Just sayin' you might be jumping to conclusion here.

I agree. I read through the prosecution's position, and they are overstating their case. I'll try to write more when I have more time this evening. This reply is a good place to start.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The missing jacket raises questions.

I don't get it, why is it such a big whoop for the prosecution that his DNA was in the house? He already admitted he was in the house that night. What about the unidentified DNA and the missing jacket?

Not saying he's innocent, I don't know enough about the case, but I don't get why the AG thinks these results prove guilt.

The missing jacket is beyond shameful. A lawyer suggested that when a piece of evidence in the hands of the prosecution goes missing, the court should be obliged to take the defense's interpretation of the evidence. This approach may have its drawbacks, but few items of evidence would get lost.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

preliminary concerns with the advisory

I hope to have more time to do this topic full justice soon. However, I note a few preliminary concerns that I have with the prosecution's advisory. There are profiles that belong to unknown individuals. The vaginal testing appears to be autosomal DNA, and one has to wonder why in blue blazes they did not do YSTR testing as well. There is no reference profile of Robert Donnell, an alternate suspect. One of the samples was probably contaminated with some DNA from a laboratory worker. This kind of event actually happens not that infrequently in DNA profiling, but it does mean that the defense really needs to scrutinize the negative controls and machine logs to look for other evidence of contamination.

The evidence with respect to the knife appears inculpatory at first glance but needs to be considered in the light of the fact that the mere presence of DNA gives no indication of the time or manner in which it was deposited. It is undisputed that Skinner was bleeding that night. It is very possible that his apparent contribution to the knife DNA profile arose from his blood, and one obvious possibility is that he cut himself while committing the murders. The defense should raise two alternate hypotheses. There exists a small chance that his profile arose from casual use of this knife around the house prior to the murder. However, Skinner was incoherent according to one witness; therefore, it is also that his DNA was deposited by his possibly handling of the knife at some point after the murder when he was allegedly stumbling around the house. It is undisputed that he was in close proximity to two of the victims that night; therefore, positing that he handled the knife, although conjecture, is not wholly unreasonable.

In the document to which I previously linked, the prosecution summarized the testimony of a witness who later recanted without noting this fact. They failed to mention anything about two bloody handprints and bloody bootprints that have been discussed in one report on this case. "The State tested the bloody handprints against those of Hank Skinner. Hank was good for the three handprints near the back of the house. The handprint on the trash bag, and presumably the handprint on the front storm door, belonged to someone else." There is also decade-old DNA evidence that points to someone else, that the advisory did not discuss. The existence of the lost jacket, the handprints that apparently do not match, and the bloody bootprints that are not his size are serious objections to the prosecution's case. MOO.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

fresh drops of blood that were not Skinner's

The Skeptical Juror wrote, "Fresh blood drops were found on the sidewalk, near the front door of the house where the murders took place. Those drops were tested. The DNA from those drops belonged not to Hank Skinner, but to an unidentified male." I wonder whether this profile was similar to or different from the ones turned up in the most recent round of testing. The most recent DNA profiling also did not test the gauze, even though it may have been used to wipe the knife, which is odd.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Skinner is interviewed in this documentary...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAqRCXm5npc

He anticipated that his DNA would be on the knife, because it was a knife from the victim's kitchen and he used it regularly.

The jacket is the critical piece of evidence, and of course, it has been "lost."

They also need to come up with a reference profile for the other suspect, who is now deceased. Dig him up!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

How tall was Robert Donnell?

I have heard various accounts of how big Robert Donnell was; one description of him is large and another is that he was 5' 0' (I never heard that he was a midget before).

The claim that he was 5' 0'' comes from Wikipedia, and it is incorrect. I obtained information on his arrest record from the state of Oklahoma, and he was listed as 5' 8" and 191 lbs. He had quite a rap sheet, by the way.

 

[Rolfe]

The easy thing to do with errors in Wikipedia is just to fix them. Some months ago I noticed an error creep into several newspaper articles. I checked on Wiki to see if I was right, and blow me, the Wiki article was the same as the newspaper articles. I checked more authoritative sources, and I was indeed right.

So I changed the page. Never seen the error again. Scary, but the journalists must have looked up the Wiki page and copied the error.

Rolfe.