A lot of speculation. Without the KBI report and without the KBI protocols, I cannot speculate on the motion.
If I understand it correctly, TSJ’s lawyers are using their expert’s interpretation of the DNA evidence to argue that the state’s interpretation of the DNA evidence (which may or may not be different) should not be admitted as evidence because the sample sizes available fall well below the threshold of acceptable conclusions.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?
That is my question is well. I remember some early rumors where he admitted meeting her, but do any of the police reports contain such an alleged admission by TSJ?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.
I don't think that is right, but it is certainly a plausible reading of what we have to date.If I understand it correctly, TSJ’s lawyers are using their expert’s interpretation of the DNA evidence to argue that the state’s interpretation of the DNA evidence (which may or may not be different) should not be admitted as evidence because the sample sizes available fall well below the threshold of acceptable conclusions.
I know that people slough off cells at different rates but could it be possible that someone could penetrate with a finger and not slough off enough cells to be picked up by that test?Ok I don't need to read the whole thing.
So assuming the defense expert read and interpreted the Kansas report correctly, which in my experience is a big assumption. DNA defense experts misinterpret and miss stuff in my reports routinely.
No male DNA detected in her vagina or external vagina is significant to me. If she was penatrated, no trace of male DNA was left.
The KBI protocols would not even allow them to interpret the DNA mixtures they developed. They did not exclude TSJ it appears, they just said we cannot make conclusions from these. The 1.3 and 1.4. It was already stated that the quantity of male present in these samples was below their cut off for typically pushing forward to amplify the DNA to produce a profile. So they pushed through a low quantity sample and got low quality results that they would not make comparisons to. This is totally normal and seems totally fine. It appears that the defense expert took that data, took away various thresholds that the lab institutes and then made a comparison to exclude TSJ.
Then the last two samples were trace male and they didn't Amp them.
That is my take on the defense experts DNA report
They have Shannon on camera at the scene as well (which I don't think TSJ denies, he was there), and the circumstances of the ID are pretty strong and generally supportive of the broad outline of the accuser's story.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.
Yes, anything is possible and any good DNA analyst would say that on the stand.I know that people slough off cells at different rates but could it be possible that someone could penetrate with a finger and not slough off enough cells to be picked up by that test?
Then I wonder why the state didn't take any fingernail scrapings from him at the time they took the cheek swab. I would think that there would be a better chance of her DNA under/around his fingernails if there was penetration, even if he washed his hands (knowing how people wash their hands)...Yes, anything is possible and any good DNA analyst would say that on the stand.
They took the cheek swab in CU, long after the night in the bar.Then I wonder why the state didn't take any fingernail scrapings from him at the time they took the cheek swab. I would think that there would be a better chance of her DNA under/around his fingernails if there was penetration, even if he washed his hands (knowing how people wash their hands)...
Anyway, thanks for the insight, it's quite interesting.
Ah thanks, ok. I thought he submitted a DNA sample the next day.They took the cheek swab in CU, long after the night in the bar.
We don't actually know -- or have evidence documenting -- whether the accuser and the accused interacted, at least based on what has been made public so far. We have the accuser's story and then we have evidence that the two individuals were in the same general part of a bar at the same time, but that's not evidence of an interaction. Most of us go to bars all the time and stand/sit within a handful of feet from random people and never say anything to those people, touch them, etc.They have Shannon on camera at the scene as well (which I don't think TSJ denies, he was there), and the circumstances of the ID are pretty strong and generally supportive of the broad outline of the accuser's story.
They interacted after midnight in a crowded sweaty bar, very briefly, with her not knowing who he was, and she didn't like it. A long, long way to go to a rape conviction from there and they have zero physical evidence.
Her searching for the legal definition of sexual assault before she gave her story to police is another fact that to me both supports the notion that the interaction happened while also really being challenging for the prosecution given how the minute subtleties involved are incredibly legally important and they have no physical evidence to parse those subtleties. She knew the magic words to make the accusation stick.
It doesn't.If the DNA report is completely excluded, per TSJ's request, how does that "fact" come into evidence?
From my understanding, that is not an agreed upon fact and only the accusers side of the story. If I recall correctly, TSJ after being shown a picture of the accuser claimed he did not know who she was and that they did not have contact. And while yes, it can be proved the TSJ and the accuser were in the same room of the bar when the alleged event occurred, as of yet there has been no release of a statement by anyone corroborating that they actually had contact. Her friend is the closest released so far, but she just stated she saw her friend moving in that general direction before she herself left the room.They have Shannon on camera at the scene as well (which I don't think TSJ denies, he was there), and the circumstances of the ID are pretty strong and generally supportive of the broad outline of the accuser's story.
They interacted after midnight in a crowded sweaty bar, very briefly, with her not knowing who he was, and she didn't like it. A long, long way to go to a rape conviction from there and they have zero physical evidence.
Her searching for the legal definition of sexual assault before she gave her story to police is another fact that to me both supports the notion that the interaction happened while also really being challenging for the prosecution given how the minute subtleties involved are incredibly legally important and they have no physical evidence to parse those subtleties. She knew the magic words to make the accusation stick.
Is it possible that this motion by TSJ's lawyers is partly/mostly an attempt to force the prosecution to show its cards a bit?A lot of speculation. Without the KBI report and without the KBI protocols, I cannot speculate on the motion.
Well we are talking about two different things right? The exclusion is made by TSJ's hired DNA expert in their report. They will be a defense witness. They are trying not allow at least parts of the KBI report.It doesn't.
Totally, and that is one doubt among many in this case, which have the cumulative effect of making the state's case weaker and weaker.We don't actually know -- or have evidence documenting -- whether the accuser and the accused interacted, at least based on what has been made public so far. We have the accuser's story and then we have evidence that the two individuals were in the same general part of a bar at the same time, but that's not evidence of an interaction.
Which casts doubt on whether it happened, though it also casts doubt on whether this apparently wordless encounter of less than a minute was remarkable enough to be remembered.If I recall correctly, TSJ after being shown a picture of the accuser claimed he did not know who she was and that they did not have contact.
Right. There's just nothing concrete about any part of it. TSJ's DNA on her genitals would have changed everything, but it isn't there.This case absolutely reeks of reasonable doubt though.
Yes.Is it possible that this motion by TSJ's lawyers is partly/mostly an attempt to force the prosecution to show its cards a bit?
She was 18 at the time, so it would be doubtful that anybody would be open to discussing her alcohol consumption, especially a bar employee.I know the accuser has said she didn't have much to drink, but it'll be interesting to see if this is verified or contridicted by others (bartender, other students, etc). Most people, when asked, will say they didn't have much to drink, but that is often a great exaggeration. I would think her sobriety level would be key in determing whether she was fully aware of what was happening and who she identified.
That certainly complicates matters.She was 18 at the time, so it would be doubtful that anybody would be open to discussing her alcohol consumption, especially a bar employee.
at age 18, she has no legal business being in a bar , or the bar area of a restaurant.She was 18 at the time, so it would be doubtful that anybody would be open to discussing her alcohol consumption, especially a bar employee.