Post by almagata on Jan 10, 2019 11:30:06 GMT
Interesting developments in Tulare County.
Consider The Source
12-26-75·Wednesday, January 9, 2019
Although we weren’t surprised by yesterday’s announcement by the Tulare DA, we were sad, disappointed, and really, really confused. It would have been nice if the DA at least pretended to do a thorough review of the evidence, and addressed all of suppressed lab results, suppressed alibi witnesses and the results of the 2001 DNA testing. If he had admitted that some of the testimony and evidence at trial was false, and that key alibi and exculpatory physical evidence had been suppressed, we could have at least had some respect for the report. Honestly, we expected a more believable effort that acknowledged the irrefutable mistakes during the trial, but still randomly concluded that the invoice book was still enough to convict Clifton.
12-26-75·Wednesday, January 9, 2019
Although we weren’t surprised by yesterday’s announcement by the Tulare DA, we were sad, disappointed, and really, really confused. It would have been nice if the DA at least pretended to do a thorough review of the evidence, and addressed all of suppressed lab results, suppressed alibi witnesses and the results of the 2001 DNA testing. If he had admitted that some of the testimony and evidence at trial was false, and that key alibi and exculpatory physical evidence had been suppressed, we could have at least had some respect for the report. Honestly, we expected a more believable effort that acknowledged the irrefutable mistakes during the trial, but still randomly concluded that the invoice book was still enough to convict Clifton.
We won’t go over all of the documented, proven falsehoods repeated again in yesterday’s report. We already had those issues summarized in the Evidence document we posted. They were presented in detail in the podcast, and we’ve posted most of the supporting primary evidence on our FB page, and website blog. For example, we had never bothered to do a deep dive into the testimony at trial from the TCSO officers that hear Byrd question Clifton the night of his arrest. It’s clear that Clifton said he was at Bill Rose’s house (which he was) not “with Bill Rose” between 3:00-4:00 pm. Byrd’s false statements were countered by his own officers’ sworn testimony on the witness stand. We mentioned it in the podcast, but we felt that reading the testimony would be boring and unnecessary. Obviously, the DA’s report did not tell the truth, so we’ll put something together on that issue when we have more time.
Most of the report we read over as “blah, blah, copy-paste, copy-paste.” We’ve heard it a hundred times. However, the statements made about the 2011 DNA being a Y-STR profile of the killer’s “semen,” then positively excluding DeAngelo as Donna’s killer left us floored. It appeared that the DA did not know two critical pieces of information about that particular test.
1. The crime lab first stained the hairs on the slide with “Christmas Tree stain,” and then examined them under an electron microscope for the presence of epithelial cells and sperm cells. This is the current gold standard testing method. There were none. That was a 100% scientific finding that the sample is negative for the presence of semen. So, any statement that semen was present on the slide tested in 2011 is either an uninformed mistake, or a knowing lie. Just saying that there was semen on that slide does not make it true: the scientific findings are unequivocal.
2. The hairs themselves were not tested, since they were known samples of Donna’s pubic hair. Nothing on the hairs was removed and tested for DNA. Instead, the lab prepared a wash solution, the hairs were dropped in, spun, and then the wash solution was tested for the presence of a male DNA profile. “Semen” had been already eliminated, but the testing developed numbers at 3 of the 17 locations tested. That is a completely useless result, that could not be used to identify anyone. That’s exactly what the lab said “no interpretation made.” That same 3 of 17 combination is exactly the same in at least 1 out of 9 white males in the U.S. As a point of reference, Clifton matched 10 of the 17 alleles with the random male control that they used in the test.
1. The crime lab first stained the hairs on the slide with “Christmas Tree stain,” and then examined them under an electron microscope for the presence of epithelial cells and sperm cells. This is the current gold standard testing method. There were none. That was a 100% scientific finding that the sample is negative for the presence of semen. So, any statement that semen was present on the slide tested in 2011 is either an uninformed mistake, or a knowing lie. Just saying that there was semen on that slide does not make it true: the scientific findings are unequivocal.
2. The hairs themselves were not tested, since they were known samples of Donna’s pubic hair. Nothing on the hairs was removed and tested for DNA. Instead, the lab prepared a wash solution, the hairs were dropped in, spun, and then the wash solution was tested for the presence of a male DNA profile. “Semen” had been already eliminated, but the testing developed numbers at 3 of the 17 locations tested. That is a completely useless result, that could not be used to identify anyone. That’s exactly what the lab said “no interpretation made.” That same 3 of 17 combination is exactly the same in at least 1 out of 9 white males in the U.S. As a point of reference, Clifton matched 10 of the 17 alleles with the random male control that they used in the test.
In fact, this is exactly how Paul Holes made the mistake with the YSearch database, and got a warrant to take DNA from an innocent man in an Oregon nursing home. On the Yfiler test used on the Richmond slide, there are 17 locations tested. If two men fail to match on one number, there is about a 50% chance that they share a common relative within 17 generations–so, hundreds of years. It should be obvious that a match of anything less than 16 of 17 means that the other person is not a relative in modern times. The Tulare DA is trying to make it sound as if Clifton’s potential match of 3 of 17 is significant - it’s not - it’s totally meaningless. But, even that isn’t the whole story. Such a weak, partial finding is generally the result of random contamination from spittle, skin cells, or tweezers used to touch more than one sample during slide preparation. All of those would be equally likely in 1975-76, when the hairs were collected and mounted. Additionally, at some point over the years, the cover had come off the slide, the hairs were exposed, and then the cover was reattached with scotch tape. Nothing about these hairs or the slide would ever be admissible in court.
That all sounds inconclusive, and muddled, but it was actually much worse than that. Further required control testing on the fluid, mixed up for the washing, found random male DNA. The lab repeated the test, and got the same result. There is no doubt, whatsoever, that the hairs from the slide were washed in fluid that already contained male DNA. At that point, there was no way to take it back. The contaminated wash fluid had been mixed with the hairs, and it was impossible to know which alleles might have been on the hairs prior to washing.
All of this sucked for Clifton. What he needed to get a new trial was a full male profile that identified the real killer. In truth, that was never going to happen since there was no sexual assault, and no semen. For nearly 40 years, even Oscar Clifton believed what he heard at trial, that they found semen on Donna, and the identity of Donna’s killer would be found on that slide. It was all a lie.
So, why would the Tulare DA–in 2019–say that the three alleles were found in a Y-STR test on semen? We have no flipping idea, and we’re honestly still in shock that they put something in writing that is so easy to disprove. This isn’t a difference of opinion, it’s a written laboratory result. There was no semen found or tested. There is only one truth, and the DA’s random opinion doesn’t get to debate the science.
We also can’t understand why they would try to pass off an inadmissible, contaminated lab test as valid evidence against Clifton. Not only do we not know if that male DNA was deposited on the hairs at the time of the murder, we don’t even know if it was present on the hairs before they went in the wash solution in the lab. This is not a small thing, or a technicality–we know the test is wrong. We just don’t know how wrong, or in exactly what way. We can just as easily imagine that, if one of the alleles developed had not matched Clifton, the Tulare DA would make this same argument: that, “the exposed condition of the slide, and the contaminated wash fluid to point out that the test was invalid, and that it could not be grounds for a new trial.”
So, why would the Tulare DA–in 2019–say that the three alleles were found in a Y-STR test on semen? We have no flipping idea, and we’re honestly still in shock that they put something in writing that is so easy to disprove. This isn’t a difference of opinion, it’s a written laboratory result. There was no semen found or tested. There is only one truth, and the DA’s random opinion doesn’t get to debate the science.
We also can’t understand why they would try to pass off an inadmissible, contaminated lab test as valid evidence against Clifton. Not only do we not know if that male DNA was deposited on the hairs at the time of the murder, we don’t even know if it was present on the hairs before they went in the wash solution in the lab. This is not a small thing, or a technicality–we know the test is wrong. We just don’t know how wrong, or in exactly what way. We can just as easily imagine that, if one of the alleles developed had not matched Clifton, the Tulare DA would make this same argument: that, “the exposed condition of the slide, and the contaminated wash fluid to point out that the test was invalid, and that it could not be grounds for a new trial.”
All of this brings us to the part of this that makes us sick, literally sick to our stomaches. In the one instant that it took us to read the DA’s statement that DeAngelo was excluded, we knew the criminal case against him in Richmond was gone, forever. No matter what we do now, or what any future investigation finds, DeAngelo has a “get out of jail free card” handed to him by the Tulare County DA. Even worse, he can use the same card to avoid prosecution for the murder of Jennifer Armour. The DA was so anxious to cover-up Clifton’s wrongful conviction, that he completely, and wrongfully exonerated DeAngelo. He could have simply concluded that Clifton’s conviction was sound, and that the case was closed. This would have left the door open for a later prosecution if new evidence against DeAngelo came to light. Nope, instead he went out of his way to help a serial killer.
Imagine that tomorrow morning, bright and early, a witness comes forward and tells Sacramento investigators where to find all of the souvenirs DeAngelo took from his victims. Or, maybe one of his family members agrees to provide eye witness testimony in exchange for immunity. Now, investigators have a firm connection between DeAngelo, and Donna’s murder. It doesn’t matter, it’s too late. The DA has now stated that there is conclusive physical evidence, left on Donna–by her killer, that does not match DeAngelo. It’s totally untrue, but good luck making that argument to a jury: the Tulare DA would be the first witness called by the defense. Now, throw in TCSO’s public statements that the same person killed Jennifer Armour and Donna Richmond. You can see where this is going - if there is testimony of physical evidence that clears DeAngelo in Donna’s murder, it can be introduced by DeAngelo’s defense in Jennifer’s murder too. TCSO and the Tulare DA don’t get to have it both ways, that’s not how official conclusions by law enforcement and prosecutors work.
We can even imagine this being used by DeAngelo’s defense in the Snelling case. If the DA has proof that DeAngelo didn’t kill Donna, how can anyone know that he attacked Beth? Is it reasonable to believe that more than one man in Tulare County was kidnapping high school girls in the fall of 1975? The Snelling case is totally circumstantial, and the DA has introduced the opening for reasonable doubt. Again, this was completely stupid, and unnecessary. All he had to say was that the invoice book was plenty of evidence against Clifton, and close the case. He has that discretion. Nobody had to like it or agree. Why did he take the extra step of covering up for DeAngelo, and closing the door on any future prosecution? We can’t think of even one good reason.
Let’s be clear. The only way to exclude a suspect conclusively through DNA testing is if you are 100% sure that the sample you are testing was left by the offender. Then you can prove that only one person contributed to the sample. Say you develop 10 of 13 alleles on a piece of evidence handled by two different men. Can you assume that all 10 alleles belong to man #1, all to man #2, or are you left to wonder if some of the alleles belong to each man? We don’t know the source of the male DNA on Donna’s pubic hair slide–we only know that it was not semen. What could it possibly be that would make us certain that it came from the killer, and not random airborne contamination? How about the killer’s blood? Then we would know that Clifton’s “O” is excluded. Only blood type, “A,” was found on Donna that would match DeAngelo. What if all the material that was destroyed in 1977 were available for testing today?
Ultimately, the source of the three alleles in the hair wash fluid remains unknown, and it could easily be a mixture of more than one male. Two of the three alleles do match DeAngelo–did the third one come from a lab worker, a police officer, or even Donna’s boyfriend? We have absolutely no idea, and neither does the Tulare County DA. We can’t figure out if the DA failed to review the actual lab notes from the DNA testing, didn’t understand the findings, or just misstated them to cover for DeAngelo. Nothing about this makes any sense to us.
16
16