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

[addict]

The topic is blood on the necklace. Trying to force me to give "proof" of what I believe as to guilt/innocence is an obvious attempt to sidetrack the conversation. If TJM knows there's enough left in that sample to test, I'd like to know how she/he knows that. That is not too much to ask.

[Farm]

No really.... I understand.

[kerriew]

"How do we know it wasn't destroyed and there's still some of it left? Is that obvious from the tests they ran, even without knowing the amount of the sample? Or is that documented somewhere and I missed it? Curious..."

It is highly unlikely the entire sample was destroyed but it is possible if it wasn't preserved. And even a dry sample or a sample that was decomposing (yes blood is subject to decomp)  With today's technology the scientist would only need a small sample. Even if the sample did not give the entire chain of DNA. They can fill in the blanks and match up the amino acid chains.

[addict]

Honestly, I don't know if it was destroyed or not, kerriew. From what TJM posted, I thought someone might know something for sure, so I asked. If you want my opinion, I would not be surprised to hear for sure there is more there to be tested - it's also possible there's not, however. I lean toward there probably being some left (though I don't know for sure), and I'd simply be interested to hear if anyone else did know for sure. It just sounded like a "fact" to me - if it was just a guess, then no problem.

[Farm]

Why do you suppose the Defense objected to it's admission during trial?

[kerriew]

I don't know either but if it was only cross typed for blood type then it's safe to say it wasn't destroyed but the entire sample sample could have been contaminated with other blood or maybe not it depends on how much the tester used.  A  sample is needed to add other  blood samples to see if they get a agglutination reaction. If they don't get one from a certain blood type, then that is the blood type. You only need a pin head sample for the test.

[taylorjaysmommy]

Sorry Addict, but trying to convince  you of anything has never been one of my priorities.   

[dollparts]

The topic is blood on the necklace. Trying to force me to give "proof" of what I believe as to guilt/innocence is an obvious attempt to sidetrack the conversation. If TJM knows there's enough left in that sample to test, I'd like to know how she/he knows that. That is not too much to ask.

Addict,

After reading the rule 37 hearing for Damien that KMA so kindly provided I had always thought the necklace did not have enough evidenc to test. This is from that document..


The appellant next contends that counsel was ineffective for failing to have independent DNA tests performed on blood found on several items.  As he notes in his brief, he alleged in his Rule 37 petition that counsel was ineffective for failing “to have blood found on several items, such as [the appellant]’s necklace, independently tested to fully explore [the] possibility that DNA evidence would help [the] defense.”  See App. Br. at 1056.  In its order, the circuit court found that counsel could not have sought independent DNA testing because “no material remained that could be tested a second time and the results at hand were not harmful to petitioner, in fact, were beneficial.”  (Addendum, para. 12)  Although the appellant purports to complain as to DNA testing generally, he developed his claim, and obtained a ruling, only as to testing of the necklace.  For all the reasons explained previously, any general complaint he has about testing is barred, at the very least, because he did not obtain a ruling as to it.  See Beshears, 340 Ark. at 72-73, 8 S.W.3d at 34.
As to the necklace, the appellant has failed to show that the circuit court’s ruling was factually erroneous, and his argument is unavailing.  Indeed, the appellant does not challenge the circuit court’s factual finding that, due to a lack of “material,” counsel could not have conducted independent DNA testing.  This Court has long held that it will not require the performance of vain or useless acts.  E.g., Logan v. State, 299 Ark. 266, 271, 773 S.W.2d 413, 415 (1989) (subsequent history omitted).  Because counsel could not have had independent DNA testing conducted even had he wanted to, he cannot be deemed ineffective for not seeking to have the tests performed. 

If this is not factual, then let me know

Doll

[addict]

I think TJM has a secret source, Doll. Probably much better than the State when it comes to these things...

[taylorjaysmommy]

They didn't need it and still don't.  If that should change someday, which I doubt..............I will wager that there will be enough to retest.  You gotta' let me believe some of my *stuffs* too, it's not like you supporters don't have your secret 'stuffs' that you believe in.   

We can call this TJM's F5 can't we??   

[dollparts]

Uhmm.. Sure? But you better ask Byers if he wants to share that tornado witcha;)

What do you say Addict? Let TJM have her f5?

Wouldn't be the first time the nons state lied about evidence.

Doll

[taylorjaysmommy]

Uhmm.. Sure? But you better ask Byers if he wants to share that tornado witcha;)

What do you say Addict? Let TJM have her f5?

Wouldn't be the first time the nons state lied about evidence.

Doll

well, I deserved that.  I guess if you want to classify all F5's as lies anyway. 

I have been blackballed from wm3 talk amongst people around the actual case long ago, due to my perceived affiliations with 'f'ing supporters', even though that affiliation is against everything about them.   To be honest, they don't want me, you or anyone else (that doesn't really matter) to know anything about what they do and do not have.  My own husband even stopped engaging in conversation, or interpreting anything  about this with me long ago, because I inadvertently have ties to the likes of goofballs like the two of you .

So, I don't really know anything.  Carry on.     

[Farm]

I guess if you want to classify all F5's as lies anyway.

If all lies are "F5's", then Dully would certainly be capable of one hell of a blow-job.

(Not that I'm surprised at all - it's my understanding that she has some pretty vast experience with both)

[dollparts]

HAHAHAHA!

This coming from a guy they call Hurricane Farmacy(he really blows up a storm)

I think Byers misses ya dude@

Doll

[Farm]

This coming from a guy they call Hurricane Farmacy(he really blows up a storm)

Is that like "I know you are but what am I"?

What a stinging retort!