Help me understand.... Blood on Pendant

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[112885]

112885 Posts in 8614 Topics by 4618 Members
Latest Member: garrymoore

[taylorjaysmommy]

This is for supporters and nons.  Can we talk about the blood on the pendant?
I talked to a person that was an expert witness for the trials yesterday and considering this persons position and knowledge, I don't quite understand why this pendant is not considered the smoking gun of the case.  I should have asked questions instead of just listening, however I just planned to come here and ask you guys. 

The DNA stuff gets so far over my head in this case.  I have always had the opinion that when DNA was done, whatever it determined, that was it.  And DNA was done and it matched Damien, Jason and Stevie Branch. 

Anyway, I will research it more myself this weekend and if that doesn't ease my mind, I will go back to the person that I was talking to and just plainly tell them that I need lots more details.    

I am hoping that someone from here supporter or non can at least help me get my thoughts together on it though.

Thanks,
TJM

[sunshinekitty1]

Here is a good thread from back in the day that might help. 

http://wm3hoax.downonthefarm.org/board/index.php/topic,233.0.html

Rudder made this statement:

Rudder
Zuni Fetish Doll
*****
Posts: 1799


I bent my Wookie.


View Profile Personal Message (Offline)
   
   
Re: The necklace
« Reply #32 on: November 15, 2007, 05:21:58 PM »
   Reply with quote
If I understand this correctly, the necklace would implicate that Echols was involved. Because Echols and Baldwin were tried together, it would also be used against Baldwin. Like with Misskelly (and his confession), this would give Baldwin's lawyer an excuse to ask to sever Baldwin's trial from Echols, which would have resulted in a mistrial for both. Rather than have to start over on two brand new trials, the state decided not to admit the necklace and rely on the case that had been presented.

I could be wrong, that's how I've interpreted it.

My question is, if there is a new trial, would the necklace now be admissible? According to the document on the previous page, the necklace was sent for DNA testing. I sure wouldn't mind seeing what the results were.

[sunshinekitty1]

I know the necklace wasn't introduced. So if I'm understanding what Rudder said, if it had been introduced it would have caused a mistrial.

[MachaSidhe]

That's right. They didn't discover/ get the results of the necklace until late in the trial and Judge Burnett made statements that he would probably grant a mistrial if it were introduced at that time because of the implications of it. Antagonist defense I think was considered a factor.

Here is the States Response to Baldwin's Motion for a trial that invovles the necklace.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/motions/jb_response_motion_new_trial.html

Macha

[DogIsYourName]

Yes, it would have been grounds for a mistrial.  Someone will correct me if I'm wrong (going by memory), but I think the DNA results were consistant with blood coming from either Jason or Steve Branch.  I do not think Damien's profile matched any of the blood tested on the pendant.

Jason's attorneys were looking for any possible reason to sever the case, and probably would argue that it prejudices them since it is strong physical evidence against only Damien.  Damien, on the other hand, would want to argue that it was Jason's blood on the necklace and/or that Jason was the one who was wearing the necklace around 5/5/93.  As a result, the trails would've likely been severed.  The State would not want that, because it would dramatically decrease their chances of convicting Jason.

[DogIsYourName]

The representatives of Genetic Design informed the State that they could conduct an additional test to try to determine which person the blood came from.

Was this additional test ever done?

[taylorjaysmommy]

Thanks you guys.  I will still go back and look at things for myself later (probably after the hubby and boys are asleep, so I can concentrate ).  I appreciate ya'll giving me somewhere to start to cut to the meat of it at least.  Please keep adding to it though, as it will all help me to understand better.
I got very confused with it yesterday though when the person that I was speaking to talked about it in such a damning way.  He gave me the impression that it was something that came to light AFTER the trial began, however that it was very very damning for Damien and Jason.  Pretty much like it sealed the deal for their fate.  No more questions to ask in his eyes anyway.    So, do you guys know what happened with it during the trial?  Was it talked about behind closed doors, out in the open, or exactly where?  The person that told me definately knew, but I don't know if he heard it behind closed doors or in front of jurors, or just what.   

Thanks ya'll !

TJM

[MachaSidhe]

Dog,

As far as I can remember additional tests were never done and I think you are right that the blood was only consistant with Baldwin and Stevie. I think the debate was who owned the necklace. I think it was stated Echols actually owned it but Baldwin was known to wear it as well.

When I first started reading stuff , I mistakenly assumed after reading the blood was consumed during testing at the time that the necklace was totally inconslusive forever however after reading they retested the "Byers" knife which the test before also consumed the samples I don't think they have any good excuse not to retest the necklace if a viable sample were attainable or if they have one in storage.

TJM,

The in- closed meetings were out of the jury's ears and as far as I know the jury never knew about it because it was not evidence used.

Macha

[chitown_alex]

Yes, it would have been grounds for a mistrial.  Someone will correct me if I'm wrong (going by memory), but I think the DNA results were consistant with blood coming from either Jason or Steve Branch.  I do not think Damien's profile matched any of the blood tested on the pendant.

Jason's attorneys were looking for any possible reason to sever the case, and probably would argue that it prejudices them since it is strong physical evidence against only Damien.  Damien, on the other hand, would want to argue that it was Jason's blood on the necklace and/or that Jason was the one who was wearing the necklace around 5/5/93.  As a result, the trails would've likely been severed.  The State would not want that, because it would dramatically decrease their chances of convicting Jason.

Correct.  The probative value of the necklace against Jason would have been prejudicial to Damien.  Furthermore, since the necklace was not stipulated to during pretrial motions, it would have been inadmissible.  I'm actually making an educated guess in the last sentence because I'm assuming the rules of evidence in Arkansas are the same as the federal rules.  However, if the necklace was sent for DNA testing, and the test yielded a possibility of a match with Jason, then by all means the State should use it as a rebuttal to the Defense's claim of no DNA evidence matches.

[taylorjaysmommy]

This paragraph sounds like three spots implicating 3 different sources:
The argument is based on the following facts. During Baldwin's defense, the prosecutor informed the trial court that he found a necklace that Echols was wearing when arrested, noticed some red spots on it, and sent it to the crime laboratory for testing, which confirmed that the spots were blood. After the state's rebuttal, the prosecutor stated that he wanted to reserve the right to reopen the next day if the testing was complete. The court reconvened two days later, on a Thursday, and the prosecutor reported that the laboratory had found that one spot of blood was consistent with the blood of Echols, one was consistent with Baldwin, and one was consistent with Steve Branch.

And this paragraph sounds like two spots, one implicating Damien and one both Jason and Stevie:
Nothing more determinable than common blood types were found due to the minute quantities of genetic material present. One spot on the pendant was consistent with the blood type of Damien, and a second spot was consistent with the blood type shared by both Jason and Steven Branch -- as well as 11% of the rest of the Caucasian population. (67)



Were there three spots of blood?  One consistent with D, one Jason, and one Stevie?
Or were there two spots?  One consistent with D, and one consistent with both Jason AND Stevie? 


This stuff confuses me.

TJM

 

[taylorjaysmommy]

Well, now I found this.  It's from the Commercial Appeal..........I have two votes for only two spots of blood now.

[taylorjaysmommy]

I have found out why the state has not retested the blood on the pendant.  It is because they got their conviction.  Period.  They have nothing else to prove at this time.  Period.  And, they are very confident that they will never have a reason to retest.  Period.   
'IF' there by some tiny chance there  were to be another trial..............(and this was after me repeatedly saying 'well, what if?') then, they would retest the pendant. 
It was not even mentioned that there was not enough specimen left to retest, but that it would definately be retested.


TJM   

[cewatson]

The blood types may have matched, but further testing would be needed to determine if the actual blood matched. It's too late now for them to retest the blood, as it was destroyed. But I imagine the results are similar to the results of the blood on the knife that could have belonged to either JMB or his Christopher.

[taylorjaysmommy]

It hasn't been destroyed.  There isn't much of it left, but they don't need as much now as they did back in '93-'94.  When you said that it is too late for 'them' to retest it.....................your referring to the defense, I assume.  The prosecution has nothing to prove, and no need to retest.  The defense certainly does not want that pendant retested.  I assure you of that. 

[cewatson]

It hasn't been destroyed.  There isn't much of it left, but they don't need as much now as they did back in '93-'94.  When you said that it is too late for 'them' to retest it.....................your referring to the defense, I assume.  The prosecution has nothing to prove, and no need to retest.  The defense certainly does not want that pendant retested.  I assure you of that. 

Then it shouldn't matter to you if it's the smoking gun. Apparently they didn't need it.