Chuck Nuggets
Dip your nuggets in my staff source sauce.
Then we have an absolutely disastrous justice system.
TSJ Thread
- Status
My impression is that the rape kit exam was administered roughly 12 hours after the alleged assault. It seems a safe guess that she went to the bathroom and wiped between the assault and the test. If I am reading you correctly, the zero DNA result on the vaginal swabs is to be expected on such facts.
So, don't tests 1.3 and 1.4 show male DNA was present? We may not have any clue concerning the identity of the male or males, but male DNA was present. I realize this is pushing things on the limited available info, but is this a reasonable reading?
Yeah not big surprise on the no DNA in the vaginal area if it was 12 hours later. And we could also kinda assume if she has a consensual partner, they at least use protection because if she has consensual sex prior to this event, we would expect to see that too.
IlliniKat91
- Chicago, IL
That's how I read it. Male DNA was present, but the quantity was too low to get a reliable, reproducible profile.
Absolutely, if profiles were developed from 1.3 and 1.4, no matter how crummy they were, it was from male DNA.
I strongly recommend against being a DNA insider in Florida or TexasOh one more thing. I am officially requesting DNA insider status on illinoisloyalty.com.
Just for background since I'm on a roll, when females are swabbed for these kits, the nurses are obviously picking up a lot of her DNA too. So in cases that are just touch, the overwhelming amount of DNA recovered could just be female. So if we were to go an amplify that sample, the female DNA would overwhelm the little male DNA that was there and it would not typically be suitable for comparison. Using YSTRs, we can target and amplify only the male DNA that is present and it ignores all of the female DNA.
illini55
- The Villages, FL
First, I am a lawyer. Second, I once JUDGED a pie eating contest, so I'm fully qualified to judge. Last, I allow your motion to be considered an insider on the issue of DNA issues, and in fact, I judge you to be THE DNA GUY! Please change your screen name accordingly.Oh one more thing. I am officially requesting DNA insider status on illinoisloyalty.com.
I've been trying to do a lot of reading between the lines here, because the available information isn't very clear. Footnote 1 of the motion and Kedrick's reading of same suggesting the tests showed lots of men were in her pants in the very recent past don't help things. I don't see anything in the evidence to date which supports such a finding.
But tests on samples 3 and 4 turned up more than nothing. They turned up DNA that did not belong to the victim and presumably did not belong to the SANE nurse who administered the test. We may not know so far if that test produced male or female DNA, but it does seem that samples 3 and 4 found human DNA that did not belong to the victim or the SANE nurse.
Sorry I can't give up nicksmith4three. Surely someone else would grab it immediately and i can't let it go.
But according to the defense’s expert opinion, 1.3 (buttocks) showed DNA from three males, none of which were TSJ.
1.4 (inner thigh) showed two male. Those could be two of the males from 1.3, two completely different males or a combination there of. TSJ is not ruled out on this nor is he specifically identified.
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
The point of all the discussion about the level of sensitivity of the test and what the reliable thresholds are is that the low level of what was found does NOT support that presumption. It absolutely could just be random background stuff picked up in the testing process, whereas if you pick up something over the threshold, that's extremely unlikely.
illini55
- The Villages, FL
I was sitting at a Women's game about 30 years ago (the Grentz years) and Nick Smith was a couple of rows in back of us. He was slouching a bit and his legs were draped over the seat in front. His feet just about touched the floor in the row ahead. He was a BIG kid. His posture reminds me of Jeremy in the Zits comics.Sorry I can't give up nicksmith4three. Surely someone else would grab it immediately and i can't let it go.
Most other media outlets online were much more neutral and/or did keep it to basketball conversation if Terrence's name was brought up. But those two were out of line
SIGH, I need to correct myself once again. The penultimate paragraph of the TSJ motion seems to say that the profiles were not developed, and that because they were not developed, we do not know if the "foreign" DNA was male or female. At this point I am not sure I understand the point of the motion at all. TSJ says both that samples containing such low ng/uL amounts cannot be reliably profiled, and that the samples should be excluded from evidence because they failed to conduct that unreliable profile.
What am I missing?
It seems that the only reliable presumption at this point is that samples 3 and 4 do not rule out the presence of male DNA. Meanwhile, samples 1, 2, 6 & 7 do rule out the presence of male DNA.
My own personal DNA compels me to try to find both sides of every argument. At this point, I am not seeing a good argument for either side beyond the fact that we know no more after the DNA tests than we knew before the DNA tests.
In other words, this is still a he said, she said case, and that by itself is probably enough to get the case to a jury. If I was a large black man from out of state, like TSJ, I don't think I'd be happy about leaving this question to a Kansas jury.
IANAL, but I was on the jury of a particulary egregious rape-murcer trial. And by that I mean that as rape-murders go, this was really bad. I don't have any way to describe it. If you want to wallow in the details, look up Kirk Bloodsworth.
That said, I know what instructions the jury was given and how we received it. And one of the outstanding features is that we weren't to establish the accused's innocense, now was that the burden of the defense. The choice is between "guilty" and "not guilty," the latter meaning the the prosecution didn't prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. I know that was imprfessed upon the jury because we discussed it.
We were also told that we were allowed to accept circumstantial evidence, and indeed, we could reach a guilty verdict wholly on circumstantial evidence. And that was the case in this case.
We found the accused guilty. I read in the judge's face that he was surprised(?) in our verdict. But we also learned that we were a jury on a retrial. Another jury prfeviously had found him guilty. So 24 people who had heard all the (permissable) evidence agreed that the accused was guilty.
Flash forward about ten years. A small news item jumped out from page three or four of the newspaper. The first time a convicted person was found not guilty based on DNA evidence--a technique not available at the time of conviction--was the time I was the jury of that person. I admittedly shared whatever responsibility for taking a young man's life from him with 11 other people, but I did it.
I bring this up because although the crime for which TJ is accused is much much much less heinous that rthat of Mr. Bloodsworth, it's still possible that he won't be exonerated in a trial. Mistakes happen. How would the jury react to the DNA evidence in this case? It depends on how well the prosecution could spin "no evidence he did" to "not enough evidence to prove he didn't." Yes, that's not the way it's supposed to work and not what the jury should believe, and one hopes that the defense, which gets to rebut the prosecution's evidence, for better or worse, is able to unravel the prosecution's argument, but there's no guarantee of that. The question is not whether TJ's defense uses DNA as exculpatory evidence but whether the prosecution brings it into evidence to begin with.
I may be wrong is some of this, but what my underlying theme is TJ won't be 100 percent clear until the jury foreman says "not guilty."
That said, I know what instructions the jury was given and how we received it. And one of the outstanding features is that we weren't to establish the accused's innocense, now was that the burden of the defense. The choice is between "guilty" and "not guilty," the latter meaning the the prosecution didn't prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. I know that was imprfessed upon the jury because we discussed it.
We were also told that we were allowed to accept circumstantial evidence, and indeed, we could reach a guilty verdict wholly on circumstantial evidence. And that was the case in this case.
We found the accused guilty. I read in the judge's face that he was surprised(?) in our verdict. But we also learned that we were a jury on a retrial. Another jury prfeviously had found him guilty. So 24 people who had heard all the (permissable) evidence agreed that the accused was guilty.
Flash forward about ten years. A small news item jumped out from page three or four of the newspaper. The first time a convicted person was found not guilty based on DNA evidence--a technique not available at the time of conviction--was the time I was the jury of that person. I admittedly shared whatever responsibility for taking a young man's life from him with 11 other people, but I did it.
I bring this up because although the crime for which TJ is accused is much much much less heinous that rthat of Mr. Bloodsworth, it's still possible that he won't be exonerated in a trial. Mistakes happen. How would the jury react to the DNA evidence in this case? It depends on how well the prosecution could spin "no evidence he did" to "not enough evidence to prove he didn't." Yes, that's not the way it's supposed to work and not what the jury should believe, and one hopes that the defense, which gets to rebut the prosecution's evidence, for better or worse, is able to unravel the prosecution's argument, but there's no guarantee of that. The question is not whether TJ's defense uses DNA as exculpatory evidence but whether the prosecution brings it into evidence to begin with.
I may be wrong is some of this, but what my underlying theme is TJ won't be 100 percent clear until the jury foreman says "not guilty."
The jury can certainly take those factors into account as part of their deliberations. My fear is that this is not enough to take the case out of the hands of the jury.
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
I think the Illinois-side response has been a little too focused on the "this is all a lie and evil conspiracy against our sports team" aspect of it to see the implications clearly here.
The evidence is fairly strong that the purported coming together of these two people did in fact occur and resulted in the accuser immediately reacting negatively to the way TSJ treated her.
But you are asking a jury to convict a man of felony rape over an incident that occurred in a jam-packed late night bar where the accuser in her own words approached TSJ because she found him attractive and in her own words their interaction lasted less than a minute.
Even assuming the facts as alleged are substantially true, even if you went so far as to assume that the (intentionally broad) statutory definition of "any penetration, however slight" was in fact met, the context of the incident was always going to make it very hard to get a jury of normal people to a guilty verdict here. To convict on rape, the jury wants to see a rapist.
You need something to get you past the notion that this was just two dumb kids rubbing up against each other on a dance floor. The total lack of physical evidence, despite full scientific testing in pursuit of that corroboration, just really seems fatal to the prosecution here.
The evidence is fairly strong that the purported coming together of these two people did in fact occur and resulted in the accuser immediately reacting negatively to the way TSJ treated her.
But you are asking a jury to convict a man of felony rape over an incident that occurred in a jam-packed late night bar where the accuser in her own words approached TSJ because she found him attractive and in her own words their interaction lasted less than a minute.
Even assuming the facts as alleged are substantially true, even if you went so far as to assume that the (intentionally broad) statutory definition of "any penetration, however slight" was in fact met, the context of the incident was always going to make it very hard to get a jury of normal people to a guilty verdict here. To convict on rape, the jury wants to see a rapist.
You need something to get you past the notion that this was just two dumb kids rubbing up against each other on a dance floor. The total lack of physical evidence, despite full scientific testing in pursuit of that corroboration, just really seems fatal to the prosecution here.
I wonder that as well. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a very high bar. Probable cause is a low bar. TSJ's NBA Draft hangs in the balance between the two.
The defense wants to say that male DNA detected is below the manufacturer threshold. Am I interpreting it right? The KBI lab has their own validation of the Quant trio based on their samples, their process and their equipment. It is unique to their lab. Their protocols for how they report out male DNA may be different than the manufacturer based on their own validations of the quantification kit. I dont know the KBI protocols.
I think the defense wants to say that it's below the manufacturer threshold so we can't even say it's male DNA let alone whose male DNA it is.
Last edited:
Here are the final three sentences of the penultimate paragraph of the TSJ motion:
+++++
"The failure to do further testing to confirm the presence of "male DNA" should prevent the State from definitively reporting that the same was present in the underwear swabs as that is not a scientifically valid statement. Such a statement in the KBI report or in testimony from their expert would be based on insufficient data and unreliable application of reliable scientific principles. Under Daubert, the report as written and any testimony suggesting the definitive presence of "male DNA" in the underwear swabs should be excluded." (emphasis added)
+++++
I am trying very hard to make all of these pieces fit together...
While I reserve the right to change my mind once again, at this moment it looks like the KBI created profiles from samples 3 and 4, and that those profiles did not rule out the possibility of male DNA being present. TSJ may be arguing: First, that the samples were too small for any definitive result. Second, that with too small samples, there is a substantial risk of "noise" in the samples corrupting the reliability of those results. And third, the KBI should have, but did not, create more than one set of profiles from the samples on the theory that if more than one sample produced more than one result, then we should reject all of profiles as likely resulting from "noise" and not from actual DNA that was present.
Put another way, what the KBI is doing isn't exercising expertise, it is merely guesswork. Daubert does not permit guesswork to masquerade as expert testimony.
BirdDog9048
The Chief Lives
- Chicago, IL
And what evidence would that be? We have her story and video that shows her walking out of frame and then back in frame shortly thereafter. That's it. That's the extent of the evidence in the accuser's favor.
- Status