Police Reports and Trial Testimony Prove DNA was Planted!

All the DNA in this investigation is Y DNA. (This is with exception to the Lara 2007 sexual assault trial, but that was a match of 3 out of 13 genetic markers; too low to even make an arrest.) Y DNA can only identify male family lineages, as testified to at trial. Also, as testified at trial, unrelated males share identical Y DNA profile (matches). So Y DNA cannot and does not point to a single person; therefore an arrest cannot be made.

The only case in this investigation that had the individual, discriminating STR DNA was in the Sophie Nunez homicide. Lorraine Heath, DPS DNA technician, testified that the partial STR DNA profile swabbed from Nunez’s breast was consistent to 9 of Mark’s genetic markers.

Here’s where it gets interesting. Two State witnesses testified at trial that ALL swabs in the Nunez case were placed in a drying room, and then dry paper packaged, including the 2 breast swabs. Police reports also state these same facts. 

Yet, when Heath took the stand, she testified that the 2 breast swabs were wet and sealed in a baggie in a glass tube. And these are the swabs that have the partial STR profile that match Mark at 9 loci (genetic markers).

I’ll now ask the obvious: How did these 2 swabs which were entered into evidence dry, change to wet? Packaged completely differently?

Whoever switched these swabs knew nothing about the DNA drying process, but did know that Nunez was submerged in a tub of water, so they planted wet swabs.

Tampered, switched, changed, whatever you want to call it, it is yet another indicative statement how this investigation in its entirety was done – with collusion and intimidation and corruption and racism.