Tuesday, December 2, 2014

Likelihood Ratio

Department of Public Safety Lorraine Heath said that the probability of the DNA being anyone else’s DNA other than Mark’s was 1 in 360 trillion.  This calculation, even though a full profile was never obtained.  So I did my own DNA likelihood ratio calculations based on the facts below from the police reports and Heath’s work. My calculations are based on the fact . . .

  •  That every single piece of DNA evidence processed and analyzed by Phoenix Police crime lab EXCLUDES Mark. (Over 100 DNA swabs.)
  • That every single piece of DNA evidence RE- analyzed by PPD crime lab after his arrest EXCLUDES Mark.
  • That not a single piece of DNA evidence analyzed by Heath pointed to Mark until Heath had a private meeting with Dic Mike Meislish, and after receiving his fax which stated process as we discussed.”
  • That EVERY single piece of DNA evidence analyzed by Heath prior to her meeting with detective Mike Meishlish, EXCLUDES Mark.
  • That the few remaining random DNA swabs not tested by PPD, but sent to Heath by Detective Mike Meishlish after private meeting, now result in Mark “cannot be excluded.” (Not tested by PPD since there was only the victim’s DNA or the swabs were too degraded to yield results.)
  • That Heath changed her original analysis on several DNA items from Mark being EXCLUDED, to he “can’t be excluded” – after her private meeting with Mike Meislish.
  • That HEATH continued to analyze DNA of other suspects’ days after Mark’s arrest.
  • That there are two UNRELATED males in the tiny Y DNA (paternal DNA) database that are IDENTICAL to the Goudeau Y. So at least 3 families, UNRELATED, have identical paternal Y DNA. Outside of this database, who knows how many more unrelated males have the same Y DNA?

  • That Heath was able to obtain DNA profiles even after screeners at PPD reported that there was not enough cellular material to obtain a profile. “There was nothing there. Even if I had a 100, there was nothing there.Phoenix Police DNA screener, Jennifer Palmer.
  • That Heath was able to obtain a foreign male DNA on evidence even after PPD DNA crime lab analysis reported only the victim’s DNA was present.
  • That Heath claims she got DNA from a victim who had been found submerged in water even though DNA is water soluble (dissolves in water).  No literature in the entire DNA industry will support her claim.
  • That the only two swabs out of a dozen from one of the homicide cases matched Mark at 9 genetic markers, after changing from dry to wet. Every swab in this case had been dried and dry packaged, yet when Heath got the swabs, there were two that were wet and packaged differently than reported by the autopsy doctor and case agent. This is known as evidence tamporing!
  • That Heath was able to obtain a DNA profile although PPD crime lab had already reported the swabs were too degraded to obtain a profile.
  • ·        That while a homicide victim was captured on video getting attacked, thrown into the back of her car, and driven away by a suspect, the male DNA in the driving area of her car EXCLUDES Mark.
  • That every single shred of DNA evidence has been consumed/destroyed by Heath, leaving absolutely nothing for retesting. This is called ‘covering your tracks.’
  •  That Lorraine Heath fled the US and went back to Canada shortly after Mark’s arrest.

Based on the above documented facts, the likelihood ratio of any of the so-called DNA in the Baseline crimes belongs to Mark - 0 (ZERO)

Based on the above documented facts, the likelihood ratio that Lorraine Heath tampered with DNA evidence to secure a conviction is 360 trillion times likely.