It certainly seems that way, but there is a big caveat. That seems to be true only for what we know so far. Always the possibility there is something that hasn't been released yet. Hopefully not.
TSJ Thread
- Status
Interesting to have someone like you chime in. How likely is it that a sample wouldn't contain even trace amounts of TSJ's dna in the event he even made some contact with her?
Last edited:
I confess I wondered the same thing. DNA tests were taken, and while they do not prove TSJ innocent, the KBI report strikes me as being quite honest in admitting that the results were totally inconclusive.
And while "slut-shaming" is absolutely forbidden at trial, if the report does come in to evidence and it shows that it was at least possible that there were as many as three men in and around her pants in the prior 72 hours or so (I think 72 hours is about as long as DNA can be taken on these facts, but I have not looked it up), a deliberating jury could very well engage in some "slut-shaming" as part of their deliberation. And that could very well lead them to conclude that reasonable doubt was present. Of course, the jury instructions could warn them not to engage in "slut-shaming" but it seems to me that doing that just calls even more attention to the problem.
I am a retired lawyer, and I did not do much criminal work when I was active, so don't put too much weight on my opinion. When the TSJ thread was active previously, at least a couple of lawyers who appeared to know their stuff chimed in. I hope they will return. NickSmith4three may prove the forum's most valuable resource of all in making sense of all this.
I do not think that is what the KBI report said. It said there were six groups of tests. Two contained no DNA at all. Two contained DNA, but no male haplotyte. And two tests contained DNA, but the amounts found were so small that they proved nothing at all. To me, that does not constitute any evidence of guilt, but neither does it constitute any evidence of innocence.
People shed skin cells and DNA differently. Some more than others. Sweat contains DNA. Some surfaces that are touched can pick up DNA more than others. There are tons of variables. And we always go back to, just because someone's DNA wasn't there didn't mean something didn't happen.
That'd said, I believe the accusation was 5 seconds or something right? It's not a huge surprise that if that happened that his DNA was not detected. But it could be possible from 5 seconds too.
These ystrs are so sensitive who really knows what it's picking up and how the DNA got there. Did she shake someone's hand and transfer someone's DNA to a different part of her body. We gotta be careful to not jump to conclusions too about her having maybe 5 males detected on her.
Appreciate you pointing this out. Let me look at it. I must have missed that in the thread.
Chuck Nuggets
Dip your nuggets in my staff source sauce.
We cannot continue destroying lives based on allegations with zero corroborating evidence.
I think this overstates the case for TSJ's innocence. The state has the testimony of the alleged victim. There is also the testimony of the friend who was with her that night. She says her friend burst into tears just as soon as they left the bar and said that she was assaulted.
Video cameras did not cover the entire bar, and they were both off camera at times, so video proves neither guilt nor innocence. Witness testimony that they did not see any bad acts committed is not proof of no bad acts. It is merely proof that they did not see the alleged bad acts.
To my mind, this leaves us with little more than "he said, she said". I am a retired lawyer who never tried a criminal jury trial. The closest I got was a rape suspect who was never charged. IOW, I AM NOT AN EXPERT on this.
My decidedly non-expert opinion is that he said, she said, without more, is enough to get the case to a jury. And if a Kansas jury has to choose between a woman who says she was sexually assaulted, and a very large black man from far out of town, there is a very real risk that the jury could find him guilty. I'd like to think that won't happen. But these DNA reports do not mean that TSJ is out of the woods. He is far better off than he would be if the reports had proved positive, but he is not out of the woods yet.
First thing, this is not the Kansas lab report. This is a hired expert from the defense, I assume, who reviewed the report. Ok...back to me reading it.
Last edited:
To be clear, the report attached to Defendants motion is the defense experts report based on the KBIs findings. It is not the state experts report.
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
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
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
Yeah the motion is specifically trying to prevent the state from mentioning that male DNA was found on the underwear swabs, on the basis that the amount found falls below the threshold of reliability for the test.
That seems correct, but it seems plausible that the state may also be able exclude the fact that TSJ was excluded as a match on the DNA found on the buttocks swabs. It's all such miniscule amounts there can't and shouldn't be any conclusions drawn.
But the fact that TSJ's DNA was not found on the victim will definitely be in evidence.
Just a reminder of the police report, I just re-read to refresh my memory:
Anyone who knows college bars immediately understands the milieu here. People smushed up against each other, loud, dark, hot, wouldn't surprise me if there was a smoke machine, after midnight the night of a big football win.
They have Shannon and the accuser on the scene together in the proper timeframe, but the incident is not in the frame of the security cameras.
It's hard to have a good witness in that environment. The accuser's friend didn't see it. Is someone Shannon was with testifying against him?
Just to be clear, this is my best guess od the KBI report since I haven't seen it. Just working backwards from the defense expert report.
I completely buy in to the idea that defense experts miss a lot of stuff, either intentionally or by mistake.
My reading of TSJ's motion says the KBI does not have any protocols on ng/uL limits for testing. The 0.005 limit is a suggestion by the manufacturer.
So, samples 1.1 and 1.2 were zero, and excluded from further testing for that reason. Samples 1.6 and 1.7 were so small that no tests were attempted. There was no sample 1.5. That left samples 1.3 and 1.4. Both fell short of the manufacturer's suggested limit for ng/uL, but they were tested anyway. My impression from reading the TSJ motion is that the KBI report says that male DNA may (or may not) be present, and that what was present was insufficient to rule out the possibility that the DNA that might be present belonged to TSJ.
TSJ wants this report thrown completely out because such low quality tests do not meet the Daubert standards for expert testimony.
I think we need to see either the KBI reports or the State's upcoming reply to the TSJ motion. This is not as cut and dry as we would all like it to be.
Oh one more thing. I am officially requesting DNA insider status on illinoisloyalty.com. 
If the DNA report is completely excluded, per TSJ's request, how does that "fact" come into evidence?
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
That isn't TSJ's request. His motion only seeks to exclude the specific finding of a tiny below-threshold amount of un-linked male DNA from the underwear swabs.
You can understand why. The state could make the implication of "hey, we found SOMETHING, maybe it does belong to the defendant".
But the rape kit and DNA analysis not finding anything will definitely be a major part of TSJ's defense. If the state doesn't call the KBI investigator, TSJ will.
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.
Oh one more thing. I am officially requesting DNA insider status on illinoisloyalty.com.
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.
I'll have to up my posting game with Denzel gifs.
This is what stuck out to me as well. How reasonable is it to believe that DNA evidence should show up there if indeed the assault took place, given the time between the alleged assault and when the DNA test was performed? Is it uncommon in that timeframe for nothing to show up in the specific area where the accuser says she was assaulted, or is this more common than one might think?
Oh, btw…. IANAL, BIHPOOTV (but I have played one on TV)
foby
- Bonnaroo Land
Nothing screams BOOM quite like DNA.
This is what stuck out to me as well. How reasonable is it to believe that DNA evidence should show up there if indeed the assault took place, given the time between the alleged assault and when the DNA test was performed? Is it uncommon in that timeframe for nothing to show up in the specific area where the accuser says she was assaulted, or is this more common than one might think?
Oh, btw…. IANAL, BIHPOOTV (but I have played one on TV)
I dont know the 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 wiped 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.
Last edited:
- Status