• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Planting DNA

Ove

Master Poster
Ove
Joined
Aug 6, 2001
Messages
2,945
There has just been a much publicised case in Denmark involving a serial rapist who also killed two of his victims. He was convicted largely based on DNA evidence but there were other evidences like foot and handprints. He has during the whole trial maintained his innocense and when faced with the DNA evedence claimed that there must be another man "out there" with identical DNA. He has been found guilty and is awaiting the sentence which probably will be life.

Now the case gets interesting because recently he was caught smuggling DNA material (sperm) out of prison with the purpose of getting someone to commit a new rape (his son egad...) and plant the rapists DNA on the victim thus prooving his case. Fortunately this was discovered (his Daughter in Law found the letter, left her husband and told the police) and the son is now under charge too.

http://jp.dk/uknews/article2642834.ece


Has there ever been another case similar to this?
 
I don't know about real life, but I think that's been used once or twice on CSI.
 
I can't think of anything that really matches that one but it reminds me of a couple of cases with similarities.

A female stalker who tried to frame the object of her attentions for rape by retrieving a used condom from his bin and planting his semen on her underwear.

As I recall, it was this false evidence that also brought her downfall - further examination found the DNA of the man's girlfriend on the underwear too.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1540019/Stalker-who-cried-rape-is-jailed-for-nine-years.html

There was also the case of a serial rapist who, in an absolutely ludicrous defence, tried to claim that his ex-wife had collected his semen whilst they were married - in the 1970s - and used it to frame him for dozens of sex attacks in the 90s/00s.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/mar/24/night-stalker-sexually-assaulted-elderly

Gary Ridgway, the Green River killer, planted false evidence at his body dumps by leaving cigarette butts and chewing gum at them, although I don't know if anybody was questioned as a result of the police matching their DNA.
 
Phil K Dick wrote a short story where a small robot was able to enter someone's home and lay a trail of hair, skin and fibres to implicate the owner in a murder. Can't remember the title, but think it was written in the 60s.
 
Phantom of Heilbronn

The Phantom of Heilbronn is an interesting example of the strange power of DNA evidence. So is the Gary Leitherman case. I hope that this is not too much of a tangent. My point is that even if he had been successful, the cops might have argued (accidental) contamination, although it would have been an uphill battle.
 
How exactly does DNA evidence get reviewed at trial? Suppose you're arrested for a crime, and the police claim at trial that they recovered your DNA at the crime scene. What are your options for refuting that? Does the defense get to perform their own independent analysis of the samples?
 
Someone told me the Unabomber would steal pubes from public restrooms and throw them into his packages.
 
Ray Brady said:
How exactly does DNA evidence get reviewed at trial? Suppose you're arrested for a crime, and the police claim at trial that they recovered your DNA at the crime scene. What are your options for refuting that? Does the defense get to perform their own independent analysis of the samples?
Click to expand...

Basically. The defence can ask for a sample and test it themselves. Because of PCR and superior analytical techniques you can get high quality results with smaller amounts of DNA.
 
Ray Brady said:
How exactly does DNA evidence get reviewed at trial? Suppose you're arrested for a crime, and the police claim at trial that they recovered your DNA at the crime scene. What are your options for refuting that? Does the defense get to perform their own independent analysis of the samples?
Click to expand...

Your best option is to find a plausible (not just possible, plausible) explanation for your DNA at the crime scene. The chances of a good match belonging to someone other than you are astronomical.

Indenpendant analysis of the artifact that had your DNA on it is rarely possible, since they will usually collect the vast majority of DNA on the sample. You might get a chance of retesting their DNA extract, but there's very little chance they got it wrong from then on, and no reason to bother.

After you've found plausible reason for your DNA being there, you're best served with finding bits of evidence that speak against your commiting the crime. DNA can be the most powerful evidence there is, but it is also completely useless if used alone.

McHrozni
 
some things to keep in mind when defending against DNA evidence

Ray Brady said:
How exactly does DNA evidence get reviewed at trial? Suppose you're arrested for a crime, and the police claim at trial that they recovered your DNA at the crime scene. What are your options for refuting that? Does the defense get to perform their own independent analysis of the samples?
Click to expand...
Ray Brady,

The first thing to do is to find a DNA consultant. Occasionally just the review of the case files will turn up problems. There was a case in Nevada, where a technician accidentally mislabeled two samples, but the independent analysis caught it. Consultants should always review the raw data (the electronic data files), because problems show up there that would not be detected in any other way. Somewhat surprisingly the most common form of cheating that is detected is faking negative (no DNA) controls. Interpretation of DNA evidence is unambiguous when there is a single donor, and when a full profile is developed. However, either having a partial profile or especially if there is a mixture introduces subjectivity into the analysis. Extremely low levels of DNA, "low template DNA," also introduce some additional problems.

Some of the DNA handling guidelines I have read suggest that one should leave enough sample behind to retest, or when that is not possible, one should seek permission from the defense to perform an experiment to consume the entire sample.
 
McHrozni said:
Your best option is to find a plausible (not just possible, plausible) explanation for your DNA at the crime scene. The chances of a good match belonging to someone other than you are astronomical.

Indenpendant analysis of the artifact that had your DNA on it is rarely possible, since they will usually collect the vast majority of DNA on the sample. You might get a chance of retesting their DNA extract, but there's very little chance they got it wrong from then on, and no reason to bother.

After you've found plausible reason for your DNA being there, you're best served with finding bits of evidence that speak against your commiting the crime. DNA can be the most powerful evidence there is, but it is also completely useless if used alone.

McHrozni
Click to expand...
McHrozni,

Gary Leiterman was convicted of the murder of Jane Mixer, a University of Michigan graduate student, on the basis of DNA evidence, despite there being no other evidence tying him to the decades-old crime. Besides his DNA, the DNA profile of John Ruelas was also found there. Ruelas was four years old at the time of the murder and lived in another city. Leiterman's defense was competent, to the best of my limited knowledge. Go figure.
 
halides1 said:
Some of the DNA handling guidelines I have read suggest that one should leave enough sample behind to retest, or when that is not possible, one should seek permission from the defense to perform an experiment to consume the entire sample.
Click to expand...

There are obvious problems with that when it is the actual testing of DNA which leads to charges being laid.
 
halides1 said:
Gary Leiterman was convicted of the murder of Jane Mixer, a University of Michigan graduate student, on the basis of DNA evidence, despite there being no other evidence tying him to the decades-old crime. Besides his DNA, the DNA profile of John Ruelas was also found there. Ruelas was four years old at the time of the murder and lived in another city. Leiterman's defense was competent, to the best of my limited knowledge. Go figure.
Click to expand...

Has this been resolved yet? Is he still in jail?
 
Leiterman and Mixer

Ian Osborne said:
Has this been resolved yet? Is he still in jail?
Click to expand...
Ian Osborne,

He is in prison with a sentence of life without parole, and I don't know whether he has exhausted all appeals. A website (garyisinnocent) associated with his defense implies that the original lawyer was not competent, and my initial remarks should have been stated differently. I think he has had generally good people reviewing the DNA evidence, but perhaps it was not conveyed to the jury in a way that they grasped. I hope this is not considered a derail, because that is not my intention.
 
halides1 said:
Some of the DNA handling guidelines I have read suggest that one should leave enough sample behind to retest, or when that is not possible, one should seek permission from the defense to perform an experiment to consume the entire sample.
Click to expand...

In actual practice, here is how it works, at least in the USA: the analyst is always supposed to save a sufficient sample for a defense retest. Sometimes they can't. Often this is in a circumstance where the police have a sample and no suspect. At this point there is nobody to notify, and you just go ahead and test the sample. If there is a known defendant or defendants, in some jurisdictions, you just test it, in some you notify the defense of the time and place of the extraction, amplification, and analysis, and allow the defense to have their own expert observe, and in some places you get the judge's permission first. In all of my myriad journeys through forensic DNA-Land, I have never heard of asking the suspect for permission. A guilty suspcect would never rationally agree.
 
ABA standards on DNA evidence

TsarBomba,

I probably should have used a different word from "permission." Section 3.4 of the American Bar Association's standards on DNA evidence reads in part:

"(c) Before approving a test that entirely consumes DNA evidence or the extract from it, the prosecutor should provide any defendant against whom an accusatorial instrument has been filed, or any suspect who has requested prior notice, an opportunity to object and move for an appropriate court order."

In this context it may be helpful to note that many workers in the field of low template number DNA testing test the sample at least twice. When such a sample is consumed in a single test, it raises some thorny questions.
 
Ray Brady said:
How exactly does DNA evidence get reviewed at trial? Suppose you're arrested for a crime, and the police claim at trial that they recovered your DNA at the crime scene. What are your options for refuting that? Does the defense get to perform their own independent analysis of the samples?
Click to expand...

In the OJ trial, the defense, with nigh infinite amounts of resources and desire, tracked and belabored every piece of evidence and every stage of its possession and tracking through police possession, and made big points about this or that weakness here or there.
 
halides1 said:
McHrozni,

Gary Leiterman was convicted of the murder of Jane Mixer, a University of Michigan graduate student, on the basis of DNA evidence, despite there being no other evidence tying him to the decades-old crime. Besides his DNA, the DNA profile of John Ruelas was also found there. Ruelas was four years old at the time of the murder and lived in another city. Leiterman's defense was competent, to the best of my limited knowledge. Go figure.
Click to expand...

I would figure that your knowledge (of the case?) is too limited for you to make an accurate assessment of competence of his defence.

McHrozni
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom