Hasn't the DA been disbarred? Maybe the quality of the lawyering in that office leaves a bit to be
Edited by ATL on May 2, 2024, 18:30:13
desired? And having poor college kids as your target smoothes over that for a long while. Previous Message as nefarious strategies go, this one seems like it will easily backfire, unless i'm missing something. Previous Message Not your survey or explanation. Rather, the state’s strategy. How does this evidence materially strengthen the state’s case if the observable was below the test’s threshold? Previous Message https://twitter.com/ReesIsMe/status/1786057147895234833 This is really gross by the state. The State apparently wants to elicit expert testimony that "male DNA" was found in the victim's underwear, from her buttocks, and from her inner thighs. No male DNA was detected from a swab of her genitals. The State disclosed this opinion in discovery. The state, however, did not produce the actual lab report or testing documents. When those were produced, it revealed several things: The results from the swabs of the victim's buttocks and inner thigh show a "mixture" of male DNA. Shannon has been *excluded* from being a source of the male DNA on the victim's buttocks, and the lab concluded that the swab from the inner thigh was not suitable for further testing. As to the testing of the swabs from the victim's panties, the lab reports revealed that the "male DNA" found was below the quantification threshold. Thus, according to the manufacturer of the equipment used for the test, these results may not be reproducible and could be the result of "background noise." In other words, the science that male DNA was found in the victim's underwear is unreliable. Further, due to insufficient DNA levels, the lab did not conduct further testing to attempt to identify the source of the DNA. TL/DR: the state wants an expert to testify that "Male DNA" was located in the victim's panties, but the amount of DNA located was below the threshold to make that conclusion, and there is no positive match to Shannon for the "Male DNA" found on the victim's buttocks.
|
"For the regulated community, a FONSI represents happy days."
Message Thread | This response ↓
Minor update on Terrance Shannon case - OB25 May 2, 2024, 9:35:53
- Daubert motions seek to limit/exclude expert testimony. It’s intended to ensure - bbonb May 2, 2024, 9:51:37
- So, given that DNA from multiple males was found, and apparently none of it - larue33 May 2, 2024, 10:07:40
- The full motion was just posted on Twitter: - GMAW May 2, 2024, 12:52:27
- I’ve read your TL;DR like three times and it still doesn’t make sense. - opossum jenkins May 2, 2024, 18:25:37
- ONE MORE YEAR. ONE MORE YEAR. ONE MORE YEAR* - bbonb May 2, 2024, 13:59:49
- of course. maybe when she loses this, she saves face by saying they could have won, but the court… - LeatherneckIllini May 2, 2024, 13:57:50
- It's wildly irresponsible of you to post this. - Illiniphil May 2, 2024, 13:45:47
- The buttocks contains potassium benzoate* - gvibes May 2, 2024, 13:28:36
- So their high publicity case is crumbling before them? That's what I'm gleaning from this. - uofi1998 May 2, 2024, 13:25:38
- I don’t understand; wouldn’t this all come out on cross? - suburbanmyth May 2, 2024, 13:23:09
- So Illinois* - HamptonSki May 2, 2024, 13:13:01
- It's gross but it's the way police and prosecutors role* - ATL May 2, 2024, 13:08:45
- Can’t tell from these excerpts.* - SurfTheBoneyard May 2, 2024, 10:27:34
- Maybe it’s a medical expert who plans to dispute the relevancy of those findings? - OB25 May 2, 2024, 10:11:10
- Dauber motions seek to limit/exclude lunkheads to assistant coaching positions * - biclops May 2, 2024, 9:56:42
- now that it makes no difference to us, I wouldn't mind never hearing about this case again* - Sammich May 2, 2024, 9:43:34
- Him posting that in the manner he did is wildly irresponsible * - JacobRDaugherty May 2, 2024, 9:41:40
- Buttocks Swab was an early 80s NY punk band* - VIV May 2, 2024, 9:40:05
« Back to index | View thread » |