Post by ndlp on Jan 14, 2019 5:22:17 GMT
Jan 14, 2019 4:48:08 GMT ndlp said:
Here is the EXACT wording from the report:
"In 2011, a partial Y-STR DNA profile was developed from semen attached to one of Donna’s pubic hairs. Y-STR is specific to the “Y” (male) Chromosome making it particularly informative in sexual assault cases involving female victims of male assailants. This particular test located a specific DNA profile at three of the possible 16 locations. No DNA was identifiable at the remaining 13 location."
Please note the word SEMEN. But the original and the 2011 lab reports state there was NO SEMEN. So then how could they have 3 markers from semen? Do they have other slides that were withheld from the defense? It makes their report very inconclusive in terms of exonerating DeAngelo.
The 12-26-75 podcast clarified that there was a test run prior to the DNA test that checked for semen. That test came back negative for semen.
Then the hair was washed in a solution that was likely contaminated during processing because procedures for handling evidence back in the 1970's were not intended to prevent contamination of material for DNA. Things like shared tweezers used on more than one sample and not wearing a mask during processing could contaminate a test and generate invalid results.
Given that the first test did not find any semen, the finding of Y-STR DNA in the second test makes the result most likely from contamination rather than the evidence itself.
I don't know how the TCSO could use this test to rule out Deangelo or anyone as the offender. There was no semen to test.
Thanks for clarification - the 2003 stated no semen but 2011 had a Y-STR finding. This might be a helpful piece on how easily cross contamination occurs: www.wired.com/story/dna-transfer-framed-murder/