Planting DNA

[Ove]

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?

[Madalch]

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

[Roger Ramjets]

Quote:

there must be another man "out there" with identical DNA

It was his identical (secretly adopted) twin brother!

Quote:

and plant the rapists DNA on the victim thus proving his case.

"The defendant claims that he was in prison at the time, however DNA evidence clearly shows...."

[Duffy Moon]

I can't think of anything that really matches that one but it reminds me of a couple of cases with similarities.

A female stalker who tried to frame the object of her attentions for rape by retrieving a used condom from his bin and planting his semen on her underwear.

As I recall, it was this false evidence that also brought her downfall - further examination found the DNA of the man's girlfriend on the underwear too.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ine-years.html

There was also the case of a serial rapist who, in an absolutely ludicrous defence, tried to claim that his ex-wife had collected his semen whilst they were married - in the 1970s - and used it to frame him for dozens of sex attacks in the 90s/00s.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/ma...aulted-elderly

Gary Ridgway, the Green River killer, planted false evidence at his body dumps by leaving cigarette butts and chewing gum at them, although I don't know if anybody was questioned as a result of the police matching their DNA.

[Multivac]

Phil K Dick wrote a short story where a small robot was able to enter someone's home and lay a trail of hair, skin and fibres to implicate the owner in a murder. Can't remember the title, but think it was written in the 60s.

[halides1]

The Phantom of Heilbronn is an interesting example of the strange power of DNA evidence. So is the Gary Leitherman case. I hope that this is not too much of a tangent. My point is that even if he had been successful, the cops might have argued (accidental) contamination, although it would have been an uphill battle.

[Ray Brady]

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?

[Cain]

Someone told me the Unabomber would steal pubes from public restrooms and throw them into his packages.

[Wildy]

Originally Posted by Ray Brady

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?

Basically. The defence can ask for a sample and test it themselves. Because of PCR and superior analytical techniques you can get high quality results with smaller amounts of DNA.

[McHrozni]

Originally Posted by Ray Brady

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?

Your best option is to find a plausible (not just possible, plausible) explanation for your DNA at the crime scene. The chances of a good match belonging to someone other than you are astronomical.

Indenpendant analysis of the artifact that had your DNA on it is rarely possible, since they will usually collect the vast majority of DNA on the sample. You might get a chance of retesting their DNA extract, but there's very little chance they got it wrong from then on, and no reason to bother.

After you've found plausible reason for your DNA being there, you're best served with finding bits of evidence that speak against your commiting the crime. DNA can be the most powerful evidence there is, but it is also completely useless if used alone.

McHrozni

[halides1]

Originally Posted by Ray Brady

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?

Ray Brady,

The first thing to do is to find a DNA consultant. Occasionally just the review of the case files will turn up problems. There was a case in Nevada, where a technician accidentally mislabeled two samples, but the independent analysis caught it. Consultants should always review the raw data (the electronic data files), because problems show up there that would not be detected in any other way. Somewhat surprisingly the most common form of cheating that is detected is faking negative (no DNA) controls. Interpretation of DNA evidence is unambiguous when there is a single donor, and when a full profile is developed. However, either having a partial profile or especially if there is a mixture introduces subjectivity into the analysis. Extremely low levels of DNA, "low template DNA," also introduce some additional problems.

Some of the DNA handling guidelines I have read suggest that one should leave enough sample behind to retest, or when that is not possible, one should seek permission from the defense to perform an experiment to consume the entire sample.

[halides1]

Originally Posted by McHrozni

Your best option is to find a plausible (not just possible, plausible) explanation for your DNA at the crime scene. The chances of a good match belonging to someone other than you are astronomical.

Indenpendant analysis of the artifact that had your DNA on it is rarely possible, since they will usually collect the vast majority of DNA on the sample. You might get a chance of retesting their DNA extract, but there's very little chance they got it wrong from then on, and no reason to bother.

After you've found plausible reason for your DNA being there, you're best served with finding bits of evidence that speak against your commiting the crime. DNA can be the most powerful evidence there is, but it is also completely useless if used alone.

McHrozni

McHrozni,

Gary Leiterman was convicted of the murder of Jane Mixer, a University of Michigan graduate student, on the basis of DNA evidence, despite there being no other evidence tying him to the decades-old crime. Besides his DNA, the DNA profile of John Ruelas was also found there. Ruelas was four years old at the time of the murder and lived in another city. Leiterman's defense was competent, to the best of my limited knowledge. Go figure.

[kerikiwi]

Originally Posted by halides1

Some of the DNA handling guidelines I have read suggest that one should leave enough sample behind to retest, or when that is not possible, one should seek permission from the defense to perform an experiment to consume the entire sample.

There are obvious problems with that when it is the actual testing of DNA which leads to charges being laid.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally Posted by halides1

Gary Leiterman was convicted of the murder of Jane Mixer, a University of Michigan graduate student, on the basis of DNA evidence, despite there being no other evidence tying him to the decades-old crime. Besides his DNA, the DNA profile of John Ruelas was also found there. Ruelas was four years old at the time of the murder and lived in another city. Leiterman's defense was competent, to the best of my limited knowledge. Go figure.

Has this been resolved yet? Is he still in jail?

[halides1]

Originally Posted by Ian Osborne

Has this been resolved yet? Is he still in jail?

Ian Osborne,

He is in prison with a sentence of life without parole, and I don't know whether he has exhausted all appeals. A website (garyisinnocent) associated with his defense implies that the original lawyer was not competent, and my initial remarks should have been stated differently. I think he has had generally good people reviewing the DNA evidence, but perhaps it was not conveyed to the jury in a way that they grasped. I hope this is not considered a derail, because that is not my intention.

[TsarBomba]

Originally Posted by halides1

Some of the DNA handling guidelines I have read suggest that one should leave enough sample behind to retest, or when that is not possible, one should seek permission from the defense to perform an experiment to consume the entire sample.

In actual practice, here is how it works, at least in the USA: the analyst is always supposed to save a sufficient sample for a defense retest. Sometimes they can't. Often this is in a circumstance where the police have a sample and no suspect. At this point there is nobody to notify, and you just go ahead and test the sample. If there is a known defendant or defendants, in some jurisdictions, you just test it, in some you notify the defense of the time and place of the extraction, amplification, and analysis, and allow the defense to have their own expert observe, and in some places you get the judge's permission first. In all of my myriad journeys through forensic DNA-Land, I have never heard of asking the suspect for permission. A guilty suspcect would never rationally agree.

[halides1]

TsarBomba,

I probably should have used a different word from "permission." Section 3.4 of the American Bar Association's standards on DNA evidence reads in part:

"(c) Before approving a test that entirely consumes DNA evidence or the extract from it, the prosecutor should provide any defendant against whom an accusatorial instrument has been filed, or any suspect who has requested prior notice, an opportunity to object and move for an appropriate court order."

In this context it may be helpful to note that many workers in the field of low template number DNA testing test the sample at least twice. When such a sample is consumed in a single test, it raises some thorny questions.

[Ranb]

How about when your evil twin does the deed? http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_1...34-504083.html

Ranb

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by Ray Brady

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?

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.

[McHrozni]

Originally Posted by halides1

McHrozni,

Gary Leiterman was convicted of the murder of Jane Mixer, a University of Michigan graduate student, on the basis of DNA evidence, despite there being no other evidence tying him to the decades-old crime. Besides his DNA, the DNA profile of John Ruelas was also found there. Ruelas was four years old at the time of the murder and lived in another city. Leiterman's defense was competent, to the best of my limited knowledge. Go figure.

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

[halides1]

Originally Posted by McHrozni

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]

Originally Posted by halides1

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.

Quote:

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

[halides1]

Originally Posted by McHrozni

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]

Originally Posted by halides1

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]

Originally Posted by Beerina

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.

[halides1]

Originally Posted by TsarBomba

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.

[halides1]

Originally Posted by Ranb

How about when your evil twin does the deed? http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_1...34-504083.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]

Originally Posted by Ove

...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.

[halides1]

Originally Posted by lane99

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.

[halides1]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Madalch

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

Presumed Innocent

[Charlie Wilkes]

Originally Posted by Ove

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]

Originally Posted by halides1

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]

Originally Posted by Ove

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]

Originally Posted by Ray Brady

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.