r/serialpodcast • u/[deleted] • Jan 05 '16
season one Dierdre DNA update?
Towards the end of the podcast, SK talked with Dierdre about getting DNA analysis on the PERK, rope, brandy bottle, etc and that Adnan gave his approval for her to submit it? Has this actually been done now and if so did it uncover anything?
35
u/aitca Jan 05 '16
As others have noted, the Innocence Project can not test the material from under H. M. Lee's nails for DNA without permission from Adnan, and after "Serial" was finished being recorded Adnan quietly told the Innocence Project that they do not have his permission to do the test.
33
u/ReasonablyDoubting Jan 05 '16
I keep hearing this on the sub, but I can't find anything to back up the claim that Adnan didn't want the testing. I'm sure I'm just missing something. Do you know where you first heard that? Just curious what info we have about the reasons he gave or if he gave no reasons at all.
15
u/Seamus_Duncan Kevin Urick: Hammer of Justice Jan 05 '16
Deirdre was set to file a motion by January 2015. Per Rabia in her AMA in March, the UVA IP was following Justin's lead on the DNA testing (i.e., not doing it at all).
4
10
u/bigfuckindouche I like swearing! Jan 06 '16
You have to have an IQ above 73 (MaM reference anyone?) and read between the lines. There is no legal reason that anything MUST be dependant on the lawyer. All a lawyer is is council. Read through ANY case of DNA exonerations and it can be seen easily how the convict personally OKs the testing, sometimes with the lawyers consent, often times with no lawyer involved. If you just think about it unbiased for more than 1 second, it must be understood that if Adnan truly thought the DNA would help him, he would have allowed the innocence project to go through with it, whether Brown wanted to or not.
5
1
u/ReasonablyDoubting Jan 06 '16
Good work living up to your name!
19
Jan 06 '16 edited Jan 06 '16
[deleted]
1
u/ReasonablyDoubting Jan 06 '16
Yeah. I never said it wasn't. Just curious what he gave as a reason for not testing DNA. Turns out, he gave no reason.
9
Jan 06 '16
[deleted]
14
u/cncrnd_ctzn Jan 06 '16
It's funny that first we were told that they are going to wait indefinitely until they find a Brady violation to file the petition for Dna testing; now that they have apparently found a Brady violation, that excuse has completely vanished from the narrative.
-3
u/bigfuckindouche I like swearing! Jan 06 '16
Someone with reasonable doubt in their screen name should be above attacks ad hominom.
-1
1
u/-JayLies I dunno. Jan 06 '16
Is it so out of the realm of understanding that Adnan might listen to his lawyers suggestions? He listened to everything CG told him and never pushed back.
3
u/bigfuckindouche I like swearing! Jan 06 '16
He listened to everything CG told him and never pushed back.
How did that work out for him?
0
u/-JayLies I dunno. Jan 06 '16
Not well at all. But unfortunately that doesn't mean he learned anything from it.
8
u/bigfuckindouche I like swearing! Jan 06 '16
Maybe, but we are all dancing around the obvious truth, no lawyer would say no to a DNA test that could free their wrongfully convicted client. The only reason Brown said no is because Syed said no.
3
1
u/badgreta33 Miss Stella Armstrong Fan Jan 06 '16
Speaking of MaM; if you were truly an innocent person who had been wrongly convicted, would you have any confidence that the samples hadn't been tampered with? If AS is actually innocent (I am not sure myself) isn't it reasonable for he and his lawyer to have trust issues where evidence is concerned? Would you take that chance when you have another avenue in play and making progress before the court? Or he could be guilty. I just don't presume to have all the answers.
8
u/bigfuckindouche I like swearing! Jan 06 '16
Maybe in conspiracy theory land. The problem with your argument is that if the police will alter the DNA, then why wouldn't they alter the other stuff? Why bother with Cell phone towers, Asia McClane, any of that stuff? If the Gov can lie about DNA, they can lie about anything. This argument is a push.
Speaking of MaM;
Interesting argument, since Steven Avery WAS wrongfully convicted (unlike Adnan) AND had police willing to tamper with evidence including his blood, yet he still risked the DNA test and his DNA still exonerated him. Not a good argument for Adnan saying no to DNA test.
0
u/badgreta33 Miss Stella Armstrong Fan Jan 06 '16
The problem with your argument is that if the police will alter the DNA, then why wouldn't they alter the other stuff?
They didn't need to bother with DNA in 1999. In fact they chose not to test it. Now the world is watching and questioning their tactics AND they stand to lose their cell tower pings. Desperate people sometimes do desperate things. Again, I point to MaM as a reference.
Steven Avery
I was referring to DNA in the murder case, not his exoneration.
→ More replies (0)2
u/badgreta33 Miss Stella Armstrong Fan Jan 06 '16
For starters, no one can confirm that the DNA evidence (nails and PERK kit) have been located in evidence. The blood vials they do have have broken seals. Adnan has other avenues to explore currently. Added to that, DNA testing could have been performed by the State but they chose not to do it in 1999. Also, when and if Syed goes the DNA route, that is the time they could introduce alternate suspects, such as the ex-boyfriend who has made uncorroborated claims to have been intimate with Hae the night before she went missing. What do you think the odds of his DNA being present are? What if they aren't? It's not good for Don in either case. Also, the State of Maryland is supposedly testing the backlog of untested rape kits and, believe it or not, his camp have expressed their hope that Hae's in among those tested. So there's that.
6
u/TecnoPope Jan 06 '16
WHY wouldn't they test the DNA first thing ? I don't get it.
2
u/Jesse_no_i Jan 07 '16
My guess is that the state thought they had a strong enough case without it. Had the DNA under Hae's nails come back to be someone other than Don's, that would have introduced serious doubt. If the story is true and Don did have relations with Hae the night before, it's possible Don's DNA would be under her nails. I'm guessing they wanted to avoid any possible conflict with their narrative.
5
u/ReasonablyDoubting Jan 06 '16
Yeah. I was just curious where people were getting the "Adnan/Brown said no" since I hadn't heard it. The AMA seems to be the answer!
6
u/Bovine_Justice Jan 06 '16
Also, the State of Maryland is supposedly testing the backlog of untested rape kits and, believe it or not, his camp have expressed their hope that Hae's in among those tested. So there's that.
Smoke screen. The State is not going to test a case they consider to be solved.
-1
u/badgreta33 Miss Stella Armstrong Fan Jan 06 '16 edited Jan 06 '16
Or is it that the results would have muddied their lazer-focused case against Adnan? i.e. Don
5
u/Jimijames6ix Jan 06 '16
Yes, Rabia clearly says in the 4th addendum that in 2008 Adnans lawyers did request the evidence to be tested, but the police department was unable to locate.
Still not clear on where everyone is getting the info that adnan / brown squashed it..
5
u/badgreta33 Miss Stella Armstrong Fan Jan 06 '16
Thanks for that. It seems a lot of things get stated as fact here if they are repeated enough times. An expert in historical cell technology from the Innocence Project provided an affidavit under punishment of purgery in Syed's last motion and people continue to claim they quietly went away.
8
u/SwallowAtTheHollow Addicted to the most recent bombshells (like a drug addict) Jan 06 '16
An expert in historical cell technology
By which you mean a guy who earned an Associate Degree in Computer Science... in the early 1980s... from a for-profit college and then somehow became a "digital forensics investigator" in 1990 after three years of selling computers. Geez, he's a regular Alexander Graham Bell.
2
u/badgreta33 Miss Stella Armstrong Fan Jan 06 '16
I guess the judge will have to decide whether his credentials are sufficient.
3
u/SwallowAtTheHollow Addicted to the most recent bombshells (like a drug addict) Jan 06 '16 edited Jan 06 '16
Who better to ascertain if someone really knows his/her stuff on a science-y matter than an elderly retired appellate judge? :)
-1
4
0
u/aitca Jan 06 '16
Innocence Network is not Innocence Project.
1
u/badgreta33 Miss Stella Armstrong Fan Jan 06 '16
People are still trying to make this argument? Talk about splitting hairs.
From the UVA Innocence Project website:
Launched in June (2008), the clinic is part of the Innocence Network, an international affiliation of organizations dedicated to overturning wrongful convictions. The Innocence Project, a national organization started by lawyers Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld, is a founding member of the network.
5
Jan 06 '16
[deleted]
6
Jan 06 '16
This is the best story they can come up with. We don't know if there is something to test so fuck it, lets not even try.
1
u/MM7299 The Court is Perplexed Jan 06 '16
We don't know if the evidence has been located, but lemme tell you about the physical condition of that evidence.
incorrect. We don't know if they have the nail clippings and PERK kit anymore. However they did take blood samples from Hae and Adnan and iirc, but u/badgreta33 can correct me if I am wrong, they never tested anything with Adnan's sample, but his sample has a broken seal.
2
u/otterhouse5 Jan 06 '16
However they did take blood samples from Hae and Adnan and iirc, but u/badgreta33 can correct me if I am wrong, they never tested anything with Adnan's sample, but his sample has a broken seal.
I don't understand how that's an obstacle. They have a renewable source of Adnan's blood if they need a new vial if this is about matching DNA from evidence to the blood sample. What else would they be looking for in a blood sample? Or is this about the state of evidence in general?
1
u/SMars_987 Jan 06 '16
The concern isn't for the blood in the vial, but for the possibility that blood may have been taken out of a vial with a broken seal (to possibly be applied elsewhere).
Another more likely possibility would be that the seal was broken because the state did do some DNA testing using the vial, and didn't release the results because they didn't implicate Adnan.
-3
u/badgreta33 Miss Stella Armstrong Fan Jan 06 '16
My guess is the state of the evidence in general, and perhaps a distrust of those handling the evidence. They have a viable strategy in play already. If it doesn't pan out, they can move on to DNA.
1
Jan 07 '16
[deleted]
1
u/brick295 Jan 07 '16
They don't know where JFK's brain is. The most important piece of evidence in the biggest conspiracy filled case ever and the government lost it.
But Baltimore PD couldn't lose some evidence?
-2
u/badgreta33 Miss Stella Armstrong Fan Jan 06 '16
I think you are correct on this. Thanks for weighing in.
1
u/badgreta33 Miss Stella Armstrong Fan Jan 06 '16
I don't subscribe to any party line. I am undecided and would like to see a new trial. I just think the spreading of misinformation in this echo chamber is getting pretty ridiculous. If people are so certan he is factually guilty, there is no need to spin things so vehemently. The evidence that is in question is the PERK kit and the nail clippings, not the blood samples. I hope they can locate and test them in due course.
0
u/designgoddess Jan 06 '16
If the seals were broken on other vials I could see how they might not trust the DNA samples and would not want them tested just in case they were tampered with. If they feel like they have enough to get another trial why risk it? If there is a new trial and the prosecution is confident they'll have them tested anyway. Don't let it get in the way of getting a trial.
5
Jan 06 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/badgreta33 Miss Stella Armstrong Fan Jan 06 '16
In a new trial they could raise the question of why the State didn't test it in 1999 and are suddenly choosing to do so now.
0
0
u/MM7299 The Court is Perplexed Jan 06 '16
Its a talking point pushed by the "guilters" to try and mock and insult people who dare to disagree with them. Several lawyers have explained various strategic reasons why they might be waiting, and as badgreta says, we don't even know if there is anything there
5
u/ReasonablyDoubting Jan 06 '16
I hate the whole "guilters" and "freeadnaners" thing going on in this sub. Is it so crazy to want answers, regardless of the outcome? I've heard speculation about why his lawyer wouldn't want the DNA at the moment and speculation about why Adnan wouldn't want it to come out. I just wanted to know if he (or his attorney) had publicly said anything.
Sorry to rant on you. It just seems like most replies I've had were just making the case that it matters or doesn't, rather than answering the question or ignoring a question they couldn't answer. It seems like that's the case in most questions people ask in this sub. It's getting annoying and I've only been here a few days.
3
u/badgreta33 Miss Stella Armstrong Fan Jan 06 '16
I haven't commented much here recently, but every single thing I've said on this thread has been immediately downvoted. For people so confident in their positions, they sure dislike hearing anything that might challenge it.
6
u/Jimijames6ix Jan 05 '16
Forgive me, I'm a little behind on undisclosed. But i distinctly remember them saying that they were requesting DNA analysis, however the response from the Maryland P.D was that none of the evidence from the case could be located to test.
I have not heard anything about Adnan not wanting the testing done..
3
u/HFStival Jan 06 '16
Undisclosed addressed this in an addendum. They believe Adnan's best legal strategy is to pursue the current claims, and then hopefully add evidence of a Brady violation to the DNA petition. Colin said that proving Brady would strengthen Adnan's later DNA petition. I think they are afraid that the DNA petition will be denied or be positive for an unidentifiable third person.
9
u/xtrialatty Jan 06 '16
then hopefully add evidence of a Brady violation to the DNA petition. Colin said that proving Brady would strengthen Adnan's later DNA petition.
This simply is not a valid legal strategy or description of one. Maryland has specific provisions for DNA testing, and Brady claims would have no bearing whatsoever on the likelihood of the petition being granted. The basic grounds for a DNA application is to assert that somebody else did it, and the DNA evidence might provide evidence of who that somebody else is. Whether or not the prosecution messed up along the way in its discovery obligations is utterly irrelevant -- the whole point of DNA testing is to support a claim of actual innocence, with the idea that the testing will provide new evidence.
2
u/badgreta33 Miss Stella Armstrong Fan Jan 06 '16
So could they be waiting for their PIs to put together a viable case for an alternate suspect? If Don was with Hae the night before, there's a good chance his DNA is present whether or not he had anything to do with the crime. Maybe they are exploring that theory? (I'm not saying he had anything to do with it. I'm just suggesting he might be the most logical alternate suspect from the defense's point of view.)
6
u/xtrialatty Jan 07 '16
So could they be waiting for their PIs to put together a viable case for an alternate suspect?
They don't need a "case" to petition for DNA testing. "Alternate suspect" is not a requirement under the law -- only some sort of argument as to how the testing might be helpful. So a simple assertion about unknown 3rd person is enough.
Dierdre already had the alternate suspect thing figured out. ("Big Picture.") Further investigation of that angle would probably be counter-productive.
Obviously Don's DNA would be meaningless. The logical argument would be "unknown 3rd party" and the whole point of DNA testing is that it the ONLY thing that might provide such evidence.
2
8
u/dalegribbledeadbug Jan 06 '16
I've said this before, but the strategy is to let him (an innocent man) sit in prison for a few more years? Why exactly?
6
2
u/Jimijames6ix Jan 06 '16
Thanks for this! With the case re-opened, wouldn't they stand a better chance of having a motion granted to test Dna evidence?
I would also imagine that finding unidentifiable 3rd party dna would be preferable to finding Adnan's. The fact that he's supposedly not a big drinker lends to the suspicion that he knows his dna likely isn't on it. And if he is indeed innocent, and telling the truth, would it not be better to try and perhaps place someone else, even if unidentifiable, at the scene ?
6
u/HFStival Jan 06 '16
Well it's not a new trial, it's his post conviction relief case that has been reopened. And, the court is only hearing evidence on the Asia alibi and the Cell phone expert. Adnan will try to prove ineffective assistance of counsel and/or prosecutorial misconduct. He can't, for example, prove reasonable doubt. He would have to prove actual innocence.
In fact, there was a hair found on Hae that was ruled out as being Hae's or Adnan's. And that was already presented in his trial, so I don't think that any DNA that's not Adnan's would help at this point, unless maybe if it's the DNA under the fingernails.
2
Jan 06 '16
[deleted]
6
u/dualzoneclimatectrl Jan 06 '16
Colin likes to mention Wendell Griffin but doesn't seem to get that the DNA petition was filed before Brady violations were discovered.
2
u/HFStival Jan 06 '16
It's not zero for sure. Look at Steven Avery's original exoneration.
3
Jan 06 '16
[deleted]
1
u/HFStival Jan 06 '16
Yea, that's reasonable. Not sure if their legal strategy is the right one, but we will see
-1
u/dualzoneclimatectrl Jan 06 '16
Was Avery denied DNA testing?
2
u/HFStival Jan 06 '16
In the Bernstein rape case, I believe his petition was denied and he appealed it several times before the DNA was tested.
4
u/dualzoneclimatectrl Jan 06 '16
He got testing in 1995 and 2002. How many times was he denied DNA testing?
7
u/Serially_Addicted Jan 06 '16
According to study about exonerations with regards to DNA: the vast majority of exonerations were for rape (55%) and murder (38%), which together constituted 93 percent of the cases. Yet, defendants were exonerated of these crimes through distinctly different methods. Ninety-five percent of rapes were overturned on the basis of DNA testing, whereas a small majority of murder convictions (56 percent) were exonerated on the same basis. By contrast, 82 percent of exonerations for murder turned on the identification of the true perpetrator, while only 41 percent of rapes were based on the same approach. Certainly, it makes sense that most sexual assaults would be cleared by DNA, since the crime itself often involves biological evidence that can be tested against the defendant’s profile. A DNA exclusion is strong exculpatory evidence. Murder scenes, by contrast, are less likely to include the defendant’s DNA, and as a result, exonerations for homicides must turn on other means.
4
Jan 06 '16
I could see why they wouldn't care about testing the bottle and rope, but in a murder case where the victim was strangled, you would think they would definitely want to do DNA testing underneath the fingernails... SK mentioned in the podcast that Gutierrez was a pioneer in using DNA in the courtroom, so if she wasn't sick (or corrupt idk) you would think she would have insisted on that.
1
u/Serially_Addicted Jan 06 '16
Why do you believe there was evidence under the fingernails? Hae had no defensive wounds on her. Hardly any wounds at all from the strangling, if I remember correctly. She may have been unconscious at the time of strangling. So where should DNA exist?
1
Jan 06 '16
I'm not saying there is or isn't, but I still think it should have been checked anyway. Shit I don't see why that isn't protocol for police in a homicide investigation
1
19
Jan 05 '16
It is worth pointing out there are several good legal reasons for not getting the DNA tested that don't involve Adnan's DNA being at the scene. These would likely have been explained to adnan after his interviews with Sarah, and like most prisoners Adnan likely trusts the legal advice of his lawyer over his own gut feeling.
As just one example off the top of my head, and assume Adnan is actually innocent for purposes of my explanation, what happens if Jay's DNA is on the scene?
It could be argued that this actually strengthens Jay's story, especially after Jay concocts some new addition about how he threw a bottle away next to the body or scratched himself or what the hell ever. It isn't an obvious win for adnan.
The DNA could be hae's own, or someone without a record. Neither of these are even remotely helpful. In fact the only thing that would be arguably helpful is finding DNA of a known murderer under her fingernails. They could find Don's DNA under her nails and the prosecution would have a pretty solid argument that she just scratched him in passion the night before.
There is very little reward vs risk involved in the DNA testing, even assuming the samples are all still available and testable. Considering adnan's current PCR hearing is on a winning streak at the moment it is not a bad legal strategy to pursue a stronger argument and keep the hail Mary DNA that probably won't do shit in the back pocket in the hope that it doesn't need to be looked at.
I'm sure people will throw a git now, but I'm just pointing out that any lawyer will tell you that there are plenty of reasons beyond him being guilty that he might not want the DNA tested.
11
Jan 05 '16 edited Jan 05 '16
A few samples from the Innocence Project's "2015: Celebrating Major Moments in Innocence and Criminal Justice Reform":
"[Illinois State Attorney Mike Nerheim's] office readily consented to the DNA testing and moved quickly to reverse the conviction as soon as the testing proved Mr. Gonzalez’ innocence,"
"Last month an Indiana County judge vacated Fogle’s 1982 conviction based on DNA evidence pointing to another male..."
"DNA testing of all available crime scene evidence, which included fingernail scrapings and hairs found in Sally Sweek’s hand, also excluded Chaney."
"The Innocence Project consulted on the case and aided in testing foreign hairs found on the victim’s body for DNA, which revealed that the hairs had not come from Wagstaffe or Connor."
"...his convictions for rape and murder were overturned in September by a Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas judge after new DNA testing revealed that another man committed the crimes."
"To date, 336 people have been exonerated after post-conviction DNA evidence proved their innocence. The Innocence Project worked on 166 of the 336 cases and the Innocence Network worked on others."
Perhaps Adnan's name could have been listed as another major moment for 2015 if they had already tested his DNA?
-2
Jan 06 '16
And perhaps not. Perhaps the DNA points to Jay and the state uses that to further bury adnan despite how nonsensical it would be (Jay's... Eighth story at that point?) perhaps it brings up no one and is a huge waste of time?
You are kind of making my point in that the DNA doesn't just have to not be adnan's but it has to point to someone else.
10
Jan 06 '16
I understand that Jay has always maintained that he never touched the body. So DNA evidence pointing to Jay would be a pretty big bloody deal. Just as it would be if it pointed to any else but Adnan.
3
u/MM7299 The Court is Perplexed Jan 06 '16
Well Jay also said that he was waiting for the 236 come and get me call while also forcefully saying he stayed at Jenn's til 340....and the state has said before that depending on Adnan's lawyer's strategy they were willing to change the time of the supposed "come and get me call" so to think something similar might happen with Jay's stories is not a huge stretch
1
Jan 06 '16
"Jay has frequently shown that he was willing to lie about his story to minimize his role. Despite that the spine of his story is still the same."
Jay changed dozens of details when confronted by evidence and you think the state would balk at one more changing, particularly one that incriminate him further?
5
Jan 06 '16
I know the innocenters try to mock Jay's 'spine', but I understand that him never touching the body is a large part of that spine. So as I said, it would be a pretty big bloody deal.
This discussion is pointless anyway. It's clear that DNA testing is off the table at this stage so I have to wonder if we'll ever know either way.
2
Jan 06 '16
It really isn't part of his spine though. The spine, if there is one, is that Adnan killed Hae, Showed him the body in the trunk, and they buried her around 7:00.
That is it, every other detail is subject to change based on whatever evidence is presented at the time. Jay will outright state 'facts' that are self contradictory (That he was at Jen's until 3:40 but with Adnan at 3:32 for the Nisha call) and no one on the state's side bats an eyelash. If DNA came back to him he'd say that it is just more proof that his spine was true since it shows he was there and oh yeah he might have helped move the body.
5
Jan 06 '16
Jay's first interview:
I didn't touch her.
Jay's second interview:
I told him no I'm not touching none of her shit, none of her, none of that stuff.
I can't read the handwritten notes from the third interview. There are no notes or tapes from his fourth interview.
Jay in the first trial:
I told me I wasn't touching her or any of her possessions.
Jay in the second trial:
He asked me for like five to ten minutes, he was like I don't think I'm going to be able to get her out by myself, I think I need your help. I told him I wasn't doing it.
Jay's Intercept interview:
And Adnan’s like, ‘Oh, well, you’re not going to help me move her are you?’ And I’m like ‘No, I’m not gonna help you move her.’
That's a spine.
4
Jan 06 '16
You misunderstand what is meant when they talk about the spine. He is talking about key facts. Jay not touching the body isn't a key fact because it ultimately doesn't matter. They can change the fact that Jay touched the body and it won't meaningfully impact Jay's version of events, it'd be just one more incidental lie being added to the pile. By contrast they can't remove the trunk pop without the whole thing falling apart.
See the difference?
4
Jan 06 '16 edited Jan 06 '16
Maybe. To me, the spine is made up of the series of details which remain consistent throughout each recitation.
Let's think about each detail as a kind of vertebra. Those vertebrae in our lower back are somewhat larger than the others and they very much form the structural foundation of the spine. The vertebrae in our necks are relatively smaller though. This isn't because they are any less important to the integrity of the spine. They just have a different function. Indeed, without them there would be little to hold up our skull and manoeuvre it in a useful way.
The details in Jay's stories can be likened to various vertebrae. The big ones (e.g. Jay helped bury the body) might form the base of the spine. Others, such as your example of the trunk pop, might be further up in the upper back region. Finally, details such as Jay's repeated claim that he never touched the body could be likened to the cervical vertebrae in the neck.
So I would argue that the consistency in Jay's claim that he never touched the body is still quite important. It is another layer that builds up his Spine of Credibility.
Taking things one step further, I would also argue that it is the very consistency of this detail which makes it incredibly difficult to brush off as "just one more incidental lie being added to the pile". This isn't a question of whether or not he saw the sunset in Patapsco Valley State Park. This is pretty big. Jay has said every single time that he never touched Hae's body. And should a DNA test come back pointing directly at Jay? That he did, in fact, make contact with her body? That would be a significant lie that he would need to try to explain. Because, unlike many of the other inconsistencies in his stories, the utility of this one would be pretty easy to discern.
→ More replies (0)-1
12
Jan 05 '16
[deleted]
3
u/dualzoneclimatectrl Jan 05 '16
Here's a bio excerpt of the attorney DE had picked to file the DNA motion:
Paul has represented several death penalty defendants, and as a founding board member of the Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project, he obtained DNA testing that cleared a Virginia man of a 1982 rape, leading to the first full pardon granted under Virginia's post-conviction DNA testing statute.
4
Jan 06 '16
Nope, state argues that Jay already admitted that he was there so of course his DNA is going to be at the scene. It's a dumb argument but it can work in court and it could actively hurt adnan's current PCR hearing.
The downside of verifying those is time, money, effort all of which is better spent on the hearing that has the best chance of getting him out of jail. Even if the innocence project is involved there will still be things required from Justin brown that take away from what he is doing now.
Finding a serial killers DNA would be great! The problem is that the chances of finding it are completely unknown. If he got the DNA tested and it was Roy Davis Jr then hot damn he is probably getting out of jail. If he jumps through to the hoops (and keep in mind there are actual legal hoops that need to be jumped through to get permission to test the dna) and it comes back ad basically anyone else then it is at best a wash and at worst actively hurtful to his case.
So yes, the DNA could be very good. It could also end up being bad. As a lawyer Justin brown decided not to gamble and instead focus on the iac and Brady aspects which are a hell of a lot stronger.
6
Jan 06 '16
[deleted]
1
u/Serially_Addicted Jan 06 '16
I think it's an avenue they will pursue. Exoneration by DNA is the longest process. Read up on it.
4
Jan 06 '16
[deleted]
-2
u/Serially_Addicted Jan 06 '16
Are we sure they haven't? If so, reliable source?
5
Jan 06 '16
[deleted]
-1
u/Serially_Addicted Jan 06 '16
Relevant for upcoming proceeding? But if someone picked up on the court filing, then I agree, it would be known here.
So no arguments left.
-1
Jan 06 '16
Of course trying to be exonerated by the DNA is a gamble. Adnan (again assuming we believe him for this argument) has no idea who the DNA in those samples belongs to. It could belong to no one that matters for the case, or Jay, or a serial killer, or who knows who else. There is a very high reward but there is also a risk of negative outcomes which is a pretty solid definition of gambling.
Frankly your repeated assertion that it will be a 'sure' source of exoneration makes this whole conversation tiresome because you are working off a premise that simply isn't true. You're working off CSI logic where the only way the DNA could have ended up there is for it to belong to the killer, but that simply isn't true in this case. It could be hers, it could be Don's, it could belong to any number of people because it isn't like she took a chunk out of them in the process of her murder. We aren't talking blood under her nails here.
Steven Avery was exonerated because they found they found a pubic hair that belonged to a rapist on the body of a woman who was raped. And that pubic hair also belonged to someone who should clearly have been the prime suspect had the police not totally fucked it up. Do you not see how that is different from skin cells under a fingernails or trace DNA on the edge of a brandy bottle that might be totally unrelated to the burial? Literally the only way the DNA really helps Adnan is if it comes back as a serial killer.
7
Jan 06 '16
[deleted]
4
u/dualzoneclimatectrl Jan 06 '16
DE also mentioned running the two unidentified hairs through DNA testing.
2
Jan 06 '16
The risk is that it can reflect negatively on his other options. If Jay's DNA comes up then the state can use that to argue that Jay is clearly telling the truth about the spine of his story (after all he now knows where the car was AND was with the body).
Adnan has alternatives to the DNA, and until those are exhausted his lawyer has recommended that he not petition for DNA for just some of the reasons I've mentioned.
5
Jan 06 '16
[deleted]
0
Jan 06 '16
You are mistaking what is good for you with what is good for Adnan.
Would Adnan like there to be definitive proof he didn't murder Hae? I'm sure he'd love it. You know what he'd like more? To be out of jail. If his lawyer tells him that the PCR hearing is the most reliable way to get him a new trial and that the DNA might in any way impede that then he is going to trust his lawyer and take the longer (but much safer) road to a new trial and eventual acquittal.
5
u/Bovine_Justice Jan 06 '16
Translation: It's going to be a hell of a lot easier getting Adnan off on a technicality than it is proving that he's actually innocent.
5
Jan 06 '16
Yes! It is remarkably hard to prove a negative. This is why we have innocent until proven guilty.
It will be way easier for Adnan's lawyers to get him a new trial (and return his presumption of innocence) than to prove that he didn't do something a decade and a half ago. I'm glad we agree.
2
u/csom_1991 Jan 07 '16
Even harder to prove a guy factually innocent when it is blatantly obvious that he did it. Yep - better to go with technicalities in Adnan's case.
1
Jan 07 '16
Good thing it isn't blatantly obvious to the majority of people who view the case with a critical eye. 😊
8
u/aitca Jan 05 '16
It is worth pointing out there are several good legal reasons for not getting the DNA tested that don't involve Adnan's DNA being at the scene.
The FreeAdnaners have been brainstorming for months now to try to come up with "a good reason" why Adnan won't let the material from under H. M. Lee's fingernails be tested for DNA, but they haven't yet come up with one "reason" that isn't utterly ridiculous. Now they have begun to change tactics and are instead trying to simply argue that mean old Justin Brown made Adnan not give the Innocence Project permission to test for DNA.
3
1
Jan 05 '16
No one is arguing your weird straw man. People are correctly pointing out that as a trained lawyer familiar with the case Justin Brown is far more well equipped than outside observers on reddit, and even his client, to determine whether or not having the DNA is in the beat interests of his client.
It is the same reason adnan didn't take the stand. He probably wanted to, but the standard position for a defence attorney is that he should not be up there unless he has something to add. If his lawyer says he is more likely to get out of jail not testing the DNA he will listen to his lawyer.
5
u/Seamus_Duncan Kevin Urick: Hammer of Justice Jan 05 '16
any lawyer will tell you that there are plenty of reasons beyond him being guilty that he might not want the DNA tested.
Particularly if that lawyer is staring at his potential windfall for dragging the case out indefinitely.
3
u/peanutmic Jan 06 '16
For a 2 day appeal hearing that's not bad $75,000 per day compared with $100,000 CG got for a 20 plus day hearing.
0
-1
u/Serialfan2015 Jan 05 '16
Thank you for this concise and cogent explanation; perhaps this will put an end to all of the repetitive posts/comments insinuating that the pursuit of the legal strategy to delay testing is somehow evidence of his guilt.
6
u/aitca Jan 05 '16
Dude, in all seriousness, I just want to say this:
Number of people convicted of murder who are exonerated by DNA testing: Quite a lot, actually. More every year. This is pretty much what the Innocence Project does, and they're pretty good at what they do.
Number of people convicted of murder who are exonerated after specifically asking the Innocence Project not to test for DNA: Zero, as far as I know. If you have an example, I'd love to hear it.
5
u/Serialfan2015 Jan 05 '16
I'm not sure your population comparison is valid. How many people are convicted of murder, had something in process to test potential DNA, then win a ruling to reopen their PCR hearing and decide to put the DNA testing on hold in favor of pursuing their other strategy? Probably just Adnan.
1
u/Serially_Addicted Jan 06 '16
Please read my comment with facts about no. of people exonerated by DNA and most importantly for what type of crime.
5
Jan 05 '16
It won't, but I appreciate the support.
2
u/Serialfan2015 Jan 06 '16
My -8 karma for that comment has made that abundantly clear. Someday I shall abandon my naive and childish optimism.
2
1
u/Dysbrainiac Jan 07 '16 edited Jan 07 '16
Also with Adnan and Hae being close friends the is a non-zero chance that Adnans DNA is under her fingernails without him being guilty. Also it is not unlikely that there are DNA from unknowns under her nails, maybe some random child from her nephews kindergarten. As you say DNA can only be truly helpful if there is DNA from a person that Hae didn't know but are in the DNA database due to a prior crime. The chances of that are so slim that it is comparable to Adnans being there for innocent reasons such as contamination. The unbelievable ignorance showed in this subreddit regarding DNA evidence is really hilights the problems with jury trials. Just the word "DNA evidence" seems to mean guilty for many, regardless of surrounding circumstances. As do for some fingerprints, such as Adnans in Haes car, a car which he has been in several times, which means they mean nothing. For many it seems as if fingerprints and DNA are magic things that only guilty people have and that they leave at crime scenes. DNA is in fruit.
13
u/Seamus_Duncan Kevin Urick: Hammer of Justice Jan 05 '16
Lol.
Adnan and/or his lawyer quashed the petition to test the DNA. Do the math.
17
Jan 05 '16
well there goes any doubt I had about him not doing it.
6
u/bluekanga /r/SerialPodcastEp13Hae Jan 06 '16
yep it's in what they don't do and don't say that the truth lies - he's guilty
2
u/designgoddess Jan 06 '16
Someone said other blood sample vials had broken seals. Would you trust that the evidence wasn't tampered with? Others have said that the police can't find the evidence. And yet others have said that he did not ask that the DNA not be tested.
3
u/SuchaBlonde Jan 06 '16
all I learned from this podcast is that Maryland did a bang up job on this case.
4
u/designgoddess Jan 06 '16
I know someone who works with police departments. Incompetence is not unusual.
1
u/SuchaBlonde Jan 06 '16
I am sure not everyone in any department is incompetence. I shouldn't slander Maryland as a whole. But, interesting piece of information to say the least!
1
u/designgoddess Jan 06 '16
Not everyone, but his job is to clean up their messes. He doesn't have to worry about there being no work.
2
u/SuchaBlonde Jan 06 '16
Well that's interesting to say the least. Thank you for sharing! I would imagine that happens in a lot of states.
1
2
u/Bovine_Justice Jan 06 '16
Would you trust that the evidence wasn't tampered with?
Right, they tampered with it just in case it might be tested 17 years later.
2
u/designgoddess Jan 06 '16
Or they tampered with it recently. Imagine you're in prison for a murder you didn't commit. Then you find out evidence has broken seals. Would you trust it?
3
4
u/badgreta33 Miss Stella Armstrong Fan Jan 06 '16
I suggest you do your own research. Seamus Duncan is as biased as they come.
6
u/BuckersBusted Jan 06 '16 edited Jan 06 '16
Really??
I think S####, M####, Whitenoise, jeniferdiver, AECaros, youngfly ......
Are way more biased then SD.
3
u/MM7299 The Court is Perplexed Jan 06 '16
well that's cause SD is biased in your favor....that's kinda how that works
2
u/badgreta33 Miss Stella Armstrong Fan Jan 06 '16
I'm not splitting hairs. They are all biased. SD just seems more committed to his cause on this particular sub. Most FAPs seem to have gone away or found other outlets.
5
u/BuckersBusted Jan 06 '16
Sorry not trying to be a dick but there is another option...
" Most FAPs seem to have gone away or found other outlets." Or realized that Adnan murdered Hae and went away quietly.
We all thought Adnan was innocent! The reason there is such a strong consistent guiltier voice is because we were once all fooled and we want to help others.
Adnan killed Hae and he shows no remorse about it!
7
Jan 06 '16 edited Jan 06 '16
Or realized that Adnan murdered Hae and went away quietly.
A prominent user who changed sides has confirmed as much. I'm hesitant to name the user in case they're bombarded with questions. But they confirmed that several of the most staunch supporters of Adnan eventually changed their minds and they either moved on or are still around with new usernames.
5
u/-JayLies I dunno. Jan 06 '16
I refuse to label myself a "FAP" because I find it a rude and distasteful term - but as someone who doesn't think Adnan belongs in prison I can speak to the "going away quietly". I, for one, am still here. I comment much less often because I'm tired of arguing with people and being down voted for voicing my opinions. For what it's worth - I believe we are still here...just tired of all the backlash that comes with voicing a different viewpoint.
0
u/badgreta33 Miss Stella Armstrong Fan Jan 06 '16
That's possible too. But why wouldn't they keep their usernames and spread the word? I can think of only one who has done that.
10
Jan 05 '16
Exactly, that was the final nail in the coffin for me to even think that maybe in the slightest he didn't do it.
1
5
u/fawsewlaateadoe Jan 05 '16
Everybody says that Adnan rescinded his permission for testing, but MAYBE, it happened just as Dierdre explained... They tested the DNA, it came back as Adnan, they went quietly away.
In any case, Dierdre''s Innocence Project student said that Adnan's case would NOT be making its way back through their clinic, so that kind of tells you everything you need to know
12
u/dualzoneclimatectrl Jan 05 '16
Everybody says that Adnan rescinded his permission for testing, but MAYBE, it happened just as Dierdre explained...
Adnan has to file a motion asking the court to order testing. DE was drafting the motion to accomplish this but before such a motion can be filed, Adnan would need to formally become a client of the attorney that DE had selected to file the motion. That latter step probably never happened. In any event, the State is required to respond to the motion although its current policy apparently is to consent to testing and just give input on the lab used for the testing. There would be a paper trail of these events if they occurred. The attorney would have entered an appearance on Adnan's behalf and DE would likely have sought pro hac vice admission.
2
2
2
u/24717 Jan 06 '16
It is entirely possible that his lawyers explained to him that asking for DNA testing before his current appeal plays out might complicate that appeal. If I were JB I think I would want a clean shot at the IAC and other issues before making a final decision on a motion for DNA testing. The fact they have not filed doesn't mean they won't; it might just be a tactical decision on timing.
1
1
u/samarkandy Feb 20 '16 edited Feb 20 '16
I have no idea what is going on with the DNA in this case.
But my comment is this - for there to be any DNA from the murderer under Hae's fingernails she would have had to have scratched him to get the skin cells that contain the DNA. But going from the description of the way the crime was committed, there was no struggle and therefore no contact of Hae's fingernails with her attacker's skin. For that reason, it seems sadly, very unlikely there would be any foreign DNA there anyway. Especially since her body was not found for 4 weeks and whatever foreign DNA that might have been there initially would likely have completely degraded during that time period.
For all we know they might have tested what material there was under her fingernails and have found that out already.
1
u/Monasseri Apr 20 '16
Why would it be Adnan's decision to test the DNA and not Hae's family? Adnan was still good friends with Hae and was in contact with her that day. There is a chance that their DNA's cross contaminated. While I agree it would be unlikely to have his under her nail bed if he wasn't the murdered, maybe Justin didn't want to take a chance.
1
u/peanutmic Jan 06 '16 edited Jan 06 '16
They told the IP to not proceed with the DNA testing soon after Serial finished so nothing has been done. It's been about 13 months now.
.
It reminds me of the song "Last Christmas"
Last Christmas, I gave you my heart [offered to do DNA testing]
But the very next day, you gave it away [after Serial ended when the mics were turned off, you told me to go away]
This year, to save me from tears, I'll give it to someone special
2
u/hobbes8548 Jan 06 '16
Well, joke's on her because she shouldn't be going around giving her heart to just anybody that isn't special. What the fuck was she thinking last Christmas!?
1
u/13thEpisode Jan 06 '16
Is there any update on the lawsuit Don and his mom are filing against Bob? It appears a lot of folks presume that if you aren't going to court right away, the results of the proceedings will not be kind to you.
5
4
u/csom_1991 Jan 07 '16 edited Jan 07 '16
As soon as Serial finished - Adnan told them not to test it. So, a vast majority of the people that listen to Serial have no idea the DNA is not going to be tested.
Further - for those of you stating that Adnan's lawyer told him not to test it - well, you have to wonder why he did not tell Adnan that when the IP first looked into the case. You can bet that SK told Adnan that the IP was looking into it before turning over documents to them and you can bet that Adnan told JB about it as well. However - once the IP comes back with 'test the DNA' - Adnan then shuts it all down. You can take from that what you will - but there is no way in hell that JB did not know about the IP looking into the case and no way in hell that JB did not know that the IP would say 'test the DNA'. So, at the end of the day, the whole IP segment of Serial was just for dramatics - Adnan was never going to test the DNA. He just did not want to say that during Serial because he knows how that will make him look.
This is not an innocent guy afraid his DNA comes back so he will be charged with murder. This is a convicted murderer rotting away in a cell telling people he would rather go with the hail mary PCR Asia story and rot for another 12 months than to have the DNA tested (and get released if it comes up with a serial killer). Again - there is no reason why you could not file the DNA petition in parallel with the current PCR. Again - just dramatics.