Planting DNA

[Chris_Halkides]

Tarnish on the Gold Standard

I would figure that your knowledge (of the case?) is too limited for you to make an accurate assessment of competence of his defence.

McHrozni

McHrozni,

You seem to have professional experience in this area. May I ask what it is? I should have been more specific in one of my earlier comments. Leiterman's defense raised contamination during his trial, but his web site suggests that the defense attorney did not fully explore the topic with his expert witness. In any case it would seem that the jury was not convinced of contamination. Dr. Dan Krane (Leiterman's first expert consultant) and Dr. Theodore Kessis (his consultant for his appeal) did not see eye-to-eye, or so I am given to understand. Some of this may stem from a common defense tactic during the appeal process, which is to claim ineffective assistance of counsel. In my perusal of Mr. Leiterman's web site, I learned that he did not want Dr. Krane to testify. Dr. Krane is a coauthor on a number of articles on DNA profiling, so I have no doubt about his competence. He would be at or near the top of my list if I were ever a defendant in a case involving DNA evidence.

To me it is obvious that contamination occurred in this case. However the jury still convicted him. Why they did is less than obvious.Dr. Krane's forensic consulting company has a treasure trove of information on DNA profiling, including the article "Tarnish on the Gold Standard," which mentions this case, IIRC. It makes for sobering reading. Please let me know if I did not answer your question.

 

[McHrozni]

McHrozni,

You seem to have professional experience in this area. May I ask what it is?

I do have, but only a tiny bit. I worked in it for just under a year.

I should have been more specific in one of my earlier comments. Leiterman's defense raised contamination during his trial, but his web site suggests that the defense attorney did not fully explore the topic with his expert witness.

See? Incompetent defense. The sample was obviously contaminated by that other guy who was 4 at the time of the murder. Touch clues, as probably these are, are very weak and could easily decay in the time before collection, which isn't the case if it was due to contamination at much later date. The victim was found in a cemetery in Michingan in march, which implies the body was exposed to moisture for a while. A cigarette butt left outside overnight becomes a poor DNA source, let alone skin cells on panties. No expert witness will be able to deny any of this with anything other than opinion. The reputation may still win the case in court, which is where the competence of the defense comes in once more.

There is, however, a fact more evidence, albeit not exactly overwhelming, was presented by the prosecution. I can't judge on it's veracity, but he wasn't convicted on DNA alone.

McHrozni

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I do have, but only a tiny bit. I worked in it for just under a year.



See? Incompetent defense. The sample was obviously contaminated by that other guy who was 4 at the time of the murder. Touch clues are very weak and could easily decay in the time before collection, which isn't the case if it was due to contamination. No expert witness will be able to deny any of this with anything other than opinion.

There is, however, a fact more evidence, albeit not exactly overwhelming, was presented by the prosecution. I can't judge on it's veracity, but he wasn't convicted on DNA alone.

McHrozni

McHrozni,

We may have different views of this case. Mixer's murderer was originally thought to be someone who committed multiple murders in Michigan from 1967-1969 (one John Normal Collins). Leiterman became a suspect when his DNA was found on items of evidence along with Ruelas's DNA more than thirty years after the crime. Ruelas was only four and lived in another city. William C. Thompson wrote, "That did not deter Washtenaw County Assistant Prosecutor Steven Hiller who charged Leiterman with the murder. Hiller “created a scenario placing a young Ruelas at the [murder] scene as a chronic nose-bleeder whose blood dropped on Mixer." However, both Ruelas and Leiterman's samples were tested at about the same time in the Michigan State crime laboratory as the items from the Mixer murder. That is why I believe that contamination occurred, and this is also Professor Thompson's view. Note: I am not making the claim of evidence tampering.

An "expert" claimed to see similarities between Leiterman's handwriting and a sample believed to be from the murderer, but the sample of Leiterman's writing was actually his wife's. Leiterman had a skeleton or two in his closet, and some do not believe that the Mixer murder was Collins' work.

 

[McHrozni]

McHrozni,

We may have different views of this case. Mixer's murderer was originally thought to be someone who committed multiple murders in Michigan from 1967-1969 (one John Normal Collins). Leiterman became a suspect when his DNA was found on items of evidence along with Ruelas's DNA more than thirty years after the crime. Ruelas was only four and lived in another city. William C. Thompson wrote, "That did not deter Washtenaw County Assistant Prosecutor Steven Hiller who charged Leiterman with the murder. Hiller “created a scenario placing a young Ruelas at the [murder] scene as a chronic nose-bleeder whose blood dropped on Mixer." However, both Ruelas and Leiterman's samples were tested at about the same time in the Michigan State crime laboratory as the items from the Mixer murder. That is why I believe that contamination occurred, and this is also Professor Thompson's view. Note: I am not making the claim of evidence tampering.

An "expert" claimed to see similarities between Leiterman's handwriting and a sample believed to be from the murderer, but the sample of Leiterman's writing was actually his wife's. Leiterman had a skeleton or two in his closet, and some do not believe that the Mixer murder was Collins' work.

No, we have quite similar views of the case. An unintentional laboratory contamination seems to be the most likely explanation for his DNA. God knows how many other cases this compromised, which is why they will defend their reputation to the last.

McHrozni

 

[TsarBomba]

In the OJ trial, the defense, with nigh infinite amounts of resources and desire, tracked and belabored every piece of evidence and every stage of its possession and tracking through police possession, and made big points about this or that weakness here or there.

True, but the DNA used in the OJ trial was not PCR-STR, but was RFLP analysis, which does not have nearly the same accuracy and cannot generate the same type of statistics as PCR-STR. If they had PCR-STR at the time there is a good possibility that there would have been a different outcome.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

True, but the DNA used in the OJ trial was not PCR-STR, but was RFLP analysis, which does not have nearly the same accuracy and cannot generate the same type of statistics as PCR-STR. If they had PCR-STR at the time there is a good possibility that there would have been a different outcome.

TsarBomba,

From a first reading a textbook on forensic DNA profiling, I obtained the impression that Simpson's rebuttal of the DNA evidence were claims of contamination and evidence-tampering. He might have offered the same defense either way.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Not just a hypothetical any longer

How about when your evil twin does the deed? http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-6231634-504083.html

Ranb

Thanks. I used to think that this situation was pretty much just a hypothetical.

 

[Ove]

Interesting debate i started apparently.

Just to clear things up. The convicted's DNA was found on several of the crimescenes, the crimes took part over a period of 11 years *(and included two murders and a triple rape). His footprint was found on one crimescene and his handprint on another. He was eventually caught when the police found a condom used in the last rape and asked for DNA samples from a number of men.

You can say he confessed indirectly at last because the police found letters at his son sent from prison where he instructed him (the son) on how he should assault a woman and plant the sperm smuggled out from prison.

 

[lane99]

...Has there ever been another case similar to this?

There was a POS doctor in Canada who, having raped a patient while she was under anesthesia, used a brazen and diabolical method to defraud DNA tests that would have pointed towards his guilt.

Fortunately his luck eventually ran out and he got a bit of what was coming to him. Primarily because of the dogged determination of his victim, who refused to abandon her fight for justice.

p.s. as for Gary Leiterman (who I think stands a reasonable chance of being guilty), a not guilty verdict imo was called for since the prosecution's insistence that the DNA was not contaminated raises serious doubts about their judgment and/or credibility in general.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

negative controls are just electropherograms

There was a POS doctor in Canada who, having raped a patient while she was under anesthesia, used a brazen and diabolical method to defraud DNA tests that would have pointed towards his guilt.

Fortunately his luck eventually ran out and he got a bit of what was coming to him. Primarily because of the dogged determination of his victim, who refused to abandon her fight for justice.

p.s. as for Gary Leiterman (who I think stands a reasonable chance of being guilty), a not guilty verdict imo was called for since the prosecution's insistence that the DNA was not contaminated raises serious doubts about their judgment and/or credibility in general.

lane99,

With respect to the Leiterman case, the results are even shakier than I had remembered them to be. Dr. Theodore Kessis wrote, "Review of the electropherograms associated with this negative control sample (NEG 041902) reveals that it was contaminated, a fact that cannot be disputed since Dr. Milligan himself labeled it with a note indicating as much (Appendix 8 - Electropherogram sample NEG 041902).

Remarkably, Dr. Milligan stated in his 7/15/02 testimony that no contamination events had occurred during the course of his testing and that if any had, he would have documented them in his reports (pg. 141-21 and 142-4). Equally difficult to rectify here is the fact that when asked if he had ever committed an error, Dr. Milligan's replied he could never recall making one. (pg. 162, lines 1-5)." When a negative control shows DNA, one sometimes throws out the possibly contaminated reagents and tries again.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Evidence tampering

Interesting debate i started apparently.

Just to clear things up. The convicted's DNA was found on several of the crimescenes, the crimes took part over a period of 11 years *(and included two murders and a triple rape). His footprint was found on one crimescene and his handprint on another. He was eventually caught when the police found a condom used in the last rape and asked for DNA samples from a number of men.

You can say he confessed indirectly at last because the police found letters at his son sent from prison where he instructed him (the son) on how he should assault a woman and plant the sperm smuggled out from prison.

Ove,

I realize that we have covered a good bit of ground in this thread, and I hope that you are not displeased. I think that the number of criminals who plant DNA evidence is probably small. However, heaven help the defendant when a forensic technician wants to make him or her guilty. If something like this happened, it would be difficult to prove. Whether this happens frequently or not is difficult to ascertain.

 

[Robrob]

I don't know about real life, but I think that's been used once or twice on CSI.

Presumed Innocent

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

There has just been a much publicised case in Denmark involving a serial rapist who also killed two of his victims. He was convicted largely based on DNA evidence but there were other evidences like foot and handprints. He has during the whole trial maintained his innocense and when faced with the DNA evedence claimed that there must be another man "out there" with identical DNA. He has been found guilty and is awaiting the sentence which probably will be life.

Now the case gets interesting because recently he was caught smuggling DNA material (sperm) out of prison with the purpose of getting someone to commit a new rape (his son egad...) and plant the rapists DNA on the victim thus prooving his case. Fortunately this was discovered (his Daughter in Law found the letter, left her husband and told the police) and the son is now under charge too.

http://jp.dk/uknews/article2642834.ece


Has there ever been another case similar to this?

As a matter of fact there is one... Kenneth Bianchi. He was one of two guys known as the Hillside Stranglers, serial killers in LA. Bianchi fled to Bellingham WA, where he was arrested after raping and killing two more women. While he was in jail, he formed a relationship with a woman named Veronica Compton. He smuggled her a condom containing his semen, with the plan that she was to lure a woman to a motel room, kill her, and leave the semen at the crime scene, so police would think they had the wrong guy in jail. Compton went through with the plot but failed to overpower the victim, who escaped.

The caveat is that this was in 1980, before DNA testing. Bianchi and Compton were counting on a similar MO to mislead the cops.

 

[Ove]

Ove,

I realize that we have covered a good bit of ground in this thread, and I hope that you are not displeased. I think that the number of criminals who plant DNA evidence is probably small. However, heaven help the defendant when a forensic technician wants to make him or her guilty. If something like this happened, it would be difficult to prove. Whether this happens frequently or not is difficult to ascertain.

Not at all, i am very pleased since my aim was to find out if anything simmilar had ever happened and to start a good debate.

Charlie: Sounds like they had the same idea but could you back then match sperm without DNA?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Not at all, i am very pleased since my aim was to find out if anything simmilar had ever happened and to start a good debate.

Charlie: Sounds like they had the same idea but could you back then match sperm without DNA?

No, back then the best they could do was divide the population into secretors, whose blood type could be discerned from their semen, and non-secretors, whose blood type could not be discerned. I don't remember which Bianchi was. But they could have determined that the semen was consistent with his, and he coached Compton on how to stage to crime to look precisely like those he had committed.

 

[zooterkin]

How exactly does DNA evidence get reviewed at trial? Suppose you're arrested for a crime, and the police claim at trial that they recovered your DNA at the crime scene. What are your options for refuting that? Does the defense get to perform their own independent analysis of the samples?

I don't know the detailed answers to those questions, but the DNA evidence, and whether there has been any cross-contamination between samples gathered from the suspects and the victim, has been one of the points of argument in the Stephen Lawrence murder trial currently taking place in the UK.