The Deuce

The Deuce
[ The Deuce ]

Minor update on Terrance Shannon case

Posted by OB25 <iframe src='https://mb.boardhost.com/TheDeuce/info/user=OB25' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on May 2, 2024, 9:35:53

I’ve never heard of a “buttocks swab” before but this one apparently had the DNA of at least 3 other males - none of which were Terrance Shannon.

Not sure if the person whose testimony they’re asking to be excluded is the alleged victim or someone else. Maybe the friend?

https://x.com/kedprince4/status/1786036530886185222?s=61&t=obkYTPkbGlNfrGoozxL-mg

When something is happening, young people like to say it’s “lit.”

Daubert motions seek to limit/exclude expert testimony. It’s intended to ensure

Posted by bbonb <iframe src='https://mb.boardhost.com/TheDeuce/info/user=bbonb' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on May 2, 2024, 9:51:37, in reply to "Minor update on Terrance Shannon case"

the evidence is relevant and reliable. Think of it as a guard against “fuzzy” science or sloppy methods

So, given that DNA from multiple males was found, and apparently none of it

Posted by larue33 <iframe src='https://mb.boardhost.com/TheDeuce/info/user=larue33' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on May 2, 2024, 10:07:40, in reply to "Daubert motions seek to limit/exclude expert testimony. It’s intended to ensure"

could be tied to Shannon, why would the defense want to exclude testimony about it? Or would that not be the result of this motion?

The full motion was just posted on Twitter:

Posted by GMAW <iframe src='https://mb.boardhost.com/TheDeuce/info/user=GMAW' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on May 2, 2024, 12:52:27, in reply to "So, given that DNA from multiple males was found, and apparently none of it"

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.

I’ve read your TL;DR like three times and it still doesn’t make sense.

Posted by opossum jenkins <iframe src='https://mb.boardhost.com/TheDeuce/info/user=opossum+jenkins' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on May 2, 2024, 18:25:37, in reply to "The full motion was just posted on Twitter:"

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

they're doing their best to dissuade future victims from reporting

Posted by RVA <iframe src='https://mb.boardhost.com/TheDeuce/info/user=RVA' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on May 2, 2024, 19:36:45, in reply to "I’ve read your TL;DR like three times and it still doesn’t make sense. "

let's take these known inconsistencies at the lower level of testing and present them as if the girl went straight to the bar from a gangbang

don't worry; i'm in the same boat; i don't understand what's going on here.....

Posted by suburbanmyth <iframe src='https://mb.boardhost.com/TheDeuce/info/user=suburbanmyth' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on May 2, 2024, 18:26:37, in reply to "I’ve read your TL;DR like three times and it still doesn’t make sense. "

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

"Joe Biden is a child molester. You think he gives a #### about how his employees are treated?"

--not your father's republican party

Hasn't the DA been disbarred? Maybe the quality of the lawyering in that office leaves a bit to be

Posted by ATL <iframe src='https://mb.boardhost.com/TheDeuce/info/user=ATL' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on May 2, 2024, 18:28:47, in reply to "don't worry; i'm in the same boat; i don't understand what's going on here....."

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

"For the regulated community, a FONSI represents happy days."

Public censure last week. I'm sure she learned her lesson.*

Posted by Chuck Woodaby <iframe src='https://mb.boardhost.com/TheDeuce/info/user=Chuck+Woodaby' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on May 2, 2024, 18:37:04, in reply to "Hasn't the DA been disbarred? Maybe the quality of the lawyering in that office leaves a bit to be "

Previous Message

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

I am reflexively inclined to have more faith in the institution of a state’s attorney’s office.

Posted by opossum jenkins <iframe src='https://mb.boardhost.com/TheDeuce/info/user=opossum+jenkins' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on May 2, 2024, 18:34:41, in reply to "Hasn't the DA been disbarred? Maybe the quality of the lawyering in that office leaves a bit to be "

I hope to God that’s not misguided.

Previous Message

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

(narrator)*

Posted by Chuck Woodaby <iframe src='https://mb.boardhost.com/TheDeuce/info/user=Chuck+Woodaby' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on May 2, 2024, 18:37:36, in reply to "I am reflexively inclined to have more faith in the institution of a state’s attorney’s office. "

Previous Message

I hope to God that’s not misguided.

Previous Message

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

ONE MORE YEAR. ONE MORE YEAR. ONE MORE YEAR*

Posted by bbonb <iframe src='https://mb.boardhost.com/TheDeuce/info/user=bbonb' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on May 2, 2024, 13:59:49, in reply to "The full motion was just posted on Twitter:"

Previous Message

of course. maybe when she loses this, she saves face by saying they could have won, but the court…

Posted by LeatherneckIllini <iframe src='https://mb.boardhost.com/TheDeuce/info/user=LeatherneckIllini' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on May 2, 2024, 13:57:50, in reply to "The full motion was just posted on Twitter:"

wouldn’t let them make their full argument. DA should be ashamed what she’s put this woman through because she couldn’t be honest with her and wanted to make a name for herself

Previous Message

It's wildly irresponsible of you to post this.

Posted by Illiniphil <iframe src='https://mb.boardhost.com/TheDeuce/info/user=Illiniphil' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on May 2, 2024, 13:45:47, in reply to "The full motion was just posted on Twitter:"

Previous Message

The buttocks contains potassium benzoate*

Posted by gvibes <iframe src='https://mb.boardhost.com/TheDeuce/info/user=gvibes' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on May 2, 2024, 13:28:36, in reply to "The full motion was just posted on Twitter:"

Previous Message

that's bad*

Posted by IlliniRunner <iframe src='https://mb.boardhost.com/TheDeuce/info/user=IlliniRunner' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on May 2, 2024, 13:42:03, in reply to "The buttocks contains potassium benzoate*"

Previous Message

So their high publicity case is crumbling before them? That's what I'm gleaning from this.

Posted by uofi1998 <iframe src='https://mb.boardhost.com/TheDeuce/info/user=uofi1998' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on May 2, 2024, 13:25:38, in reply to "The full motion was just posted on Twitter:"

Can a public entity (i.e., a state) be sued for malicious prosecution, or is that a private concept only?

Coleman Hawkins, er, Ty MF Rodgers Stan Account

I don’t understand; wouldn’t this all come out on cross?

Posted by suburbanmyth <iframe src='https://mb.boardhost.com/TheDeuce/info/user=suburbanmyth' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on May 2, 2024, 13:23:09, in reply to "The full motion was just posted on Twitter:"

that said, the decent thing to do here is dismiss this case.

Previous Message

"Joe Biden is a child molester. You think he gives a #### about how his employees are treated?"

--not your father's republican party

Typical litigator. Always trying to get to trial to spend his client's money.

Posted by ATL <iframe src='https://mb.boardhost.com/TheDeuce/info/user=ATL' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on May 2, 2024, 13:43:54, in reply to "I don’t understand; wouldn’t this all come out on cross?"

;-)

Previous Message

that said, the decent thing to do here is dismiss this case.

Previous Message

"For the regulated community, a FONSI represents happy days."

So Illinois*

Posted by HamptonSki <iframe src='https://mb.boardhost.com/TheDeuce/info/user=HamptonSki' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on May 2, 2024, 13:13:01, in reply to "The full motion was just posted on Twitter:"

Previous Message

It's gross but it's the way police and prosecutors role*

Posted by ATL <iframe src='https://mb.boardhost.com/TheDeuce/info/user=ATL' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on May 2, 2024, 13:08:45, in reply to "The full motion was just posted on Twitter:"

Previous Message

"For the regulated community, a FONSI represents happy days."

Can’t tell from these excerpts.*

Posted by SurfTheBoneyard <iframe src='https://mb.boardhost.com/TheDeuce/info/user=SurfTheBoneyard' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on May 2, 2024, 10:27:34, in reply to "So, given that DNA from multiple males was found, and apparently none of it"

Previous Message

could be tied to Shannon, why would the defense want to exclude testimony about it? Or would that not be the result of this motion?

Sky Marshal of the Luftwaffle

Maybe it’s a medical expert who plans to dispute the relevancy of those findings?

Posted by OB25 <iframe src='https://mb.boardhost.com/TheDeuce/info/user=OB25' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on May 2, 2024, 10:11:10, in reply to "So, given that DNA from multiple males was found, and apparently none of it"

Totally making up this number but like a situation where the expert might say there’s only a 50% chance of the swab picking up Shannon’s DNA given the nature of the contact, therefore making it less meaningful that his DNA wasn’t present.

Previous Message

could be tied to Shannon, why would the defense want to exclude testimony about it? Or would that not be the result of this motion?

When something is happening, young people like to say it’s “lit.”

Dauber motions seek to limit/exclude lunkheads to assistant coaching positions *

Posted by biclops <iframe src='https://mb.boardhost.com/TheDeuce/info/user=biclops' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on May 2, 2024, 9:56:42, in reply to "Daubert motions seek to limit/exclude expert testimony. It’s intended to ensure"

Previous Message

the evidence is relevant and reliable. Think of it as a guard against “fuzzy” science or sloppy methods

Hey mister you don't wanna walk on water
Cause you're only gonna walk all over me

Well done*

Posted by OB25 <iframe src='https://mb.boardhost.com/TheDeuce/info/user=OB25' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on May 2, 2024, 17:10:25, in reply to "Dauber motions seek to limit/exclude lunkheads to assistant coaching positions *"

Previous Message

the evidence is relevant and reliable. Think of it as a guard against “fuzzy” science or sloppy methods

When something is happening, young people like to say it’s “lit.”

Ur old*

Posted by Herman Blume <iframe src='https://mb.boardhost.com/TheDeuce/info/user=Herman+Blume' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on May 2, 2024, 16:59:12, in reply to "Dauber motions seek to limit/exclude lunkheads to assistant coaching positions *"

Previous Message

the evidence is relevant and reliable. Think of it as a guard against “fuzzy” science or sloppy methods

now that it makes no difference to us, I wouldn't mind never hearing about this case again*

Posted by Sammich <iframe src='https://mb.boardhost.com/TheDeuce/info/user=Sammich' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on May 2, 2024, 9:43:34, in reply to "Minor update on Terrance Shannon case"

Previous Message

my life is nothing I thought it should be and everything I was worried it would become

I'd like to know. If he's innocent, then would make me feel better about cheering for him *

Posted by ibdoc <iframe src='https://mb.boardhost.com/TheDeuce/info/user=ibdoc' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on May 2, 2024, 13:21:26, in reply to "now that it makes no difference to us, I wouldn't mind never hearing about this case again*"

Previous Message

I would like to see/hope for the kid being vindicated, so I am interested*

Posted by Tooldresser <iframe src='https://mb.boardhost.com/TheDeuce/info/user=Tooldresser' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on May 2, 2024, 11:10:39, in reply to "now that it makes no difference to us, I wouldn't mind never hearing about this case again*"

Previous Message

Co, if he was unjustly accused, that interests me far beyond fandom *

Posted by Jackie <iframe src='https://mb.boardhost.com/TheDeuce/info/user=Jackie' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on May 2, 2024, 16:02:32, in reply to "I would like to see/hope for the kid being vindicated, so I am interested*"

Previous Message

Exactly this*

Posted by MtHoodIllini <iframe src='https://mb.boardhost.com/TheDeuce/info/user=MtHoodIllini' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on May 2, 2024, 18:19:06, in reply to "Co, if he was unjustly accused, that interests me far beyond fandom *"

Him posting that in the manner he did is wildly irresponsible *

Posted by JacobRDaugherty <iframe src='https://mb.boardhost.com/TheDeuce/info/user=JacobRDaugherty' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on May 2, 2024, 9:41:40, in reply to "Minor update on Terrance Shannon case"

Previous Message

White knight reporting for duty* (spellcheck fail fixed)

Posted by JeffFrank <iframe src='https://mb.boardhost.com/TheDeuce/info/user=JeffFrank' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on May 2, 2024, 11:52:41, in reply to "Him posting that in the manner he did is wildly irresponsible *"

Previous Message

Did you mean White Knight? And Weber isn't here any longer, so your white knighting

Posted by GMAW <iframe src='https://mb.boardhost.com/TheDeuce/info/user=GMAW' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on May 2, 2024, 12:24:17, in reply to "White night reporting for duty*"

is unnecessary

The most wildly irresponsible thing is that he didn't post a link to the whole document*

Posted by ATL <iframe src='https://mb.boardhost.com/TheDeuce/info/user=ATL' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on May 2, 2024, 10:35:28, in reply to "Him posting that in the manner he did is wildly irresponsible *"

Previous Message

"For the regulated community, a FONSI represents happy days."

Kedric is a clown but how is this wildly irresponsible?*

Posted by illini21 <iframe src='https://mb.boardhost.com/TheDeuce/info/user=illini21' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on May 2, 2024, 9:47:45, in reply to "Him posting that in the manner he did is wildly irresponsible *"

Previous Message

Posting a public document is wildly irresponsible?

Posted by Illiniphil <iframe src='https://mb.boardhost.com/TheDeuce/info/user=Illiniphil' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on May 2, 2024, 9:46:21, in reply to "Him posting that in the manner he did is wildly irresponsible *"

I'd be interested to hear your rationale for that statement.

Previous Message

The way he did it was, not the posting. The editing choices and commentary was irresponsible *

Posted by JacobRDaugherty <iframe src='https://mb.boardhost.com/TheDeuce/info/user=JacobRDaugherty' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on May 2, 2024, 9:47:25, in reply to "Posting a public document is wildly irresponsible?"

Previous Message

I'd be interested to hear your rationale for that statement.

Previous Message

No idea.

Posted by Illiniphil <iframe src='https://mb.boardhost.com/TheDeuce/info/user=Illiniphil' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on May 2, 2024, 9:54:10, in reply to "The way he did it was, not the posting. The editing choices and commentary was irresponsible *"

He posted 2 screenshots and said "Look at bullet 1.3".

Previous Message

I'd be interested to hear your rationale for that statement.

Previous Message

The one thing I’d say, and also why I hesitated to even share it…

Posted by OB25 <iframe src='https://mb.boardhost.com/TheDeuce/info/user=OB25' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on May 2, 2024, 10:08:32, in reply to "No idea."

is that I have no idea how reliable a “buttocks swab” is or what it really means that other DNA was on it. How long of a period of time would contact still leave traces of DNA, what different things can result in DNA being present, what is the % likelihood of DNA “sticking” in this area due to touching to know how relevant it is that Shannon’s isn’t on it.

When you put this out there, the twitter reaction of Illinois fans will of course be that Shannon is definitely innocent and that the girl is a slut. But I doubt Kedric did the research on the science behind this to know the degree to which this actually holds up.

Previous Message

He posted 2 screenshots and said "Look at bullet 1.3".

Previous Message

I'd be interested to hear your rationale for that statement.

Previous Message

When something is happening, young people like to say it’s “lit.”

My understanding is that testable DNA (swab) lasts up to 96 hours on skin/saliva

Posted by ibdoc <iframe src='https://mb.boardhost.com/TheDeuce/info/user=ibdoc' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on May 2, 2024, 11:20:27, in reply to "The one thing I’d say, and also why I hesitated to even share it…"

Of course, use of cleaning materials (soap, shampoo, etc) will cause it to degrade more rapidly.

Previous Message

He posted 2 screenshots and said "Look at bullet 1.3".

Previous Message

I'd be interested to hear your rationale for that statement.

Previous Message

This from the motion was posted on 247.

Posted by larue33 <iframe src='https://mb.boardhost.com/TheDeuce/info/user=larue33' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on May 2, 2024, 10:15:47, in reply to "The one thing I’d say, and also why I hesitated to even share it…"

"Quantifiler Trio, the quantitation kit used by the Kansas Bureau of Investigation laboratory has a reported dynamic (readable) range down to 0.005 nanograms microliter (ng/uL). Any value below this may not be reproducible. Further, value below 0.005 ng/uL could be from background signal and not indicative of DNA. The manufacturer of the Quantifiler Trio states in the user guide that the 0.005 ng uL is the
lower limit for reproducible quantitation results. The manufacturer warns that results lower than this are highly variable and could be the result of background noise from the instrument or background DNA in the sample. None of the samples analyzed in this case resulted in value above 0.005 ng uL of male DNA."

Meh*

Posted by illini21 <iframe src='https://mb.boardhost.com/TheDeuce/info/user=illini21' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on May 2, 2024, 9:48:45, in reply to "The way he did it was, not the posting. The editing choices and commentary was irresponsible *"

Previous Message

I'd be interested to hear your rationale for that statement.

Previous Message