Chuck Nuggets
Dip your nuggets in my staff source sauce.
Then we have an absolutely disastrous justice system.My decidedly non-expert opinion is that he said, she said, without more, is enough to get the case to a jury.
Then we have an absolutely disastrous justice system.My decidedly non-expert opinion is that he said, she said, without more, is enough to get the case to a jury.
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.I dont know they timeframe for when she had the kit exam to when the assualt was alleged. If she bathed, if she went to the bathroom and wiped, all these things could get rid of any dna that might be deposited. 5 seconds of touching isn't not going to leave much DNA. It's tough to really evaluate because of the variables. We can find sperm up to 5 days later. Obviously we aren't talking about sperm here.
We are talking about seconds in an area that is already self cleaning (at least inside) where she probably went to the bathroom and wiper after at some point.
It's really tough in these cases. And even if the DNA is there, then it's a consent case anyway.
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?Again without seeing the KBI report, it's tough to know everything. I agree with pretty much everything you said. The Quant value is pretty much meaningless if the samples, 1.3 and 1.4 where amplified and ystr profiles were developed. As long as the profiles weren't blank, if DNA was amplified to make a ystr profile...male DNA was there. The Amp only targets male DNA.
Just wanted to clarify that part. Plus I feel like we know profiles were generated because they would have to be for the defense expert to feel love they could exclude TSJ.
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.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.
That's how I read it. Male DNA was present, but the quantity was too low to get a reliable, reproducible profile.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?
Absolutely, if profiles were developed from 1.3 and 1.4, no matter how crummy they were, it was from male DNA.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?
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.
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.The right answer here, what the jury SHOULD hear, is that a rape kit was done, and it turned up nothing. That is the correct implication of the design and limitations of this extremely sensitive scientific test, despite it being human nature to try and find some signals in the sub-threshold minutiae.
Sorry I can't give up nicksmith4three. Surely someone else would grab it immediately and i can't let it go.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.
But according to the defense’s expert opinion, 1.3 (buttocks) showed DNA from three males, none of which were TSJ.Absolutely, if profiles were developed from 1.3 and 1.4, no matter how crummy they were, it was from male DNA.
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.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.
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 lineSame here, he was a total A-Hole. On his Top 25 and 1 rankings, he would consistently rank us much lower than the AP or the Coaches. He would never even mention TJ's play no matter how stellar it was. He deliberately snubbed us, and specifically TJ. By the end of the season, I despised him.
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.Absolutely, if profiles were developed from 1.3 and 1.4, no matter how crummy they were, it was from male DNA.
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.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.
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.IANAL, but he said/she said in a secluded location seems like an entirely different premise to me than when surrounded by potential eye witnesses and security cameras.
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 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.
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.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?
Here are the final three sentences of the penultimate paragraph of the TSJ motion: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.
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.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.
...