DNA - Dry to Wet | The Switch

Department of Public Safety DNA Analyst, Lorraine Heath, claims her strongest DNA partial profile was from a woman’s breast, who was face down, submerged in a tub filled with water. (Sorry to be so graphic but the details are important.) Although two witnesses testified they dried those swabs, Heath claims the swabs she had were wet and stored differently than all the other swabs in this case, and all the other Baseline cases. These two DNA swabs were not tested until 5 months later. The issues? If these swabs really were stored wet for 5 months before testing, then degradation is a probability making for unreliable to no results given that mold would have developed, and not to mention DNA dissolves in water. It would be nearly impossible for there to be any DNA considering the state the body was found (wet) much less with the issues of it being stored wet.  

Secondly, if two professional already testified, a doctor and detective, that they dried and then stored the swabs in a way to keep them dry, how is it that two swabs are wet once Heath becomes involved? These being only swabs she is able to get any results?

Inanimate things just don't morph into something different! It would be the same as if the State had put a pistol into evidence, but by the time the ballistics expert gets it, it changed to a rifle.

Every single swab and even useless extracts in this case were consumed/destroyed by the State. Not a single fiber that the defense could use for re-testing. Nothing.

Then there is the case of the woman who is murdered at a car wash with the surveillance video of the attacker pushing her into the back seat of her own car, and him getting into the driver’s seat and driving away. Yet the DNA in the “driving area” EXCLUDES Mark. The DNA is that of an “unknown male” better known as the real attacker. 

So how is it Heath is able to get a partial profile in a nearly impossible scenario of degradation from water and the mysterious switching of swabs, yet in a perfect scenario of the attacker’s DNA in the dry driving area – ignition, steering wheel, etc. – Mark is excluded? 

Not only does the DNA in this entire investigation make absolutely no sense and defies science, but every shred of DNA evidence has been entirely consumed/destroyed by the State/Lorraine Heath.

State's Closing

As expected the majority of the State’s closing arguments were hyped with crime scene photos of victims to stir emotions and prejudice the jury. What actual “facts” Patty Stevens tried to use were fabricated, along with only halves of testimony to hide the actual facts which exonerate Mark.  As Channel 15 reported, her closing was finger pointing and name calling. Hype, no real or true facts.

Pete Ochoa 
Steven’s played a video clip of witness Pete Ochoa. Ochoa is the man who lied on the stand in drama queen fashion saying that he will never forget the face of the attacker, saying it was Mark. Steven’s didn’t play, of course, the entire video clip of Ochoa’s testimony where he admitted lying on the stand since he really never saw the face of the attacker. Ochoa told not one but two police officers that the attacker had the hood of his jacket covering his head and not only could he not see his face; he couldn’t even tell the police what race the suspect was. 

Any witness other witness or victim who lied on the stand were effectively impeached by Mark's attorneys. 

Surveillance with white van while / crimes stopped
Stevens argued that the crimes stopped after Mark saw a white van parked in front of our house and realized he was under surveillance. The truth: Not a single office who participated in the surveillance testified that they used a white van, nor parked in front of our house. In fact, the lead surveillance officer testified that the last thing they want to do is let a suspect know they’re under surveillance so they would never be as obvious as Stevens stated. Moreover, he testified he was in a flatbed truck parked down the street and that the surveillance was called off after a few days due to “no suspicious activity.” 

As for the crime’s stopping, that statement is just absurd. As if the police are going to call ongoing Baseline crimes after Mark’s arrest, Baseline crimes. The media, at least most of the reporters such as Michael Keifer of the Arizona Republic, only write what the police tell them. So even if the MO is the same as the Baseline crimes, police aren’t going to say that, nor will the media. Further, there is no way every single crime committed in the Valley since Mark’s arrest over the past 5+ years could be compared to the so-called Baseline crimes. With a backlog of cases in the 1000s Phoenix just does not have the resources to do comparisons of every single crime. As Judge Granville stated, making the statement that the crimes stopped “is a bridge too far.” 

The conversation that never happened
Stevens also said in closing that Mark and I had a phone conversation about him knowing he was under surveillance. Five years of daily recorded conversations, 5 years of regular jail visit recorded conversation, nearly 2000 in all, the State did not produce a single recording, not one. The prosecution never produced a recording of that conversation. Because it never happened. Just more noise from a hissing gas bag.

The DNA 
There are myriads of issues with the State’s so-called DNA evidence. Here are some of those issues as previously blogged: 

• Let’s begin with the matter of the only DNA expert who obtained Mark “cannot be excluded” results, is Lorrain Heath of DPS. And btw “cannot be excluded” is the same as “cannot be included.”
• Every single result the City of Phoenix crime lab had EXCLUDES Mark as a contributor. 
• The only DNA expert who told jurors one set of swabs was wet, in a baggie in a glass tube, was Lorrain Heath. She supposedly got results from these wet swabs. Heath’s testimony is in complete contradiction of the doctor and a detective who had both testified those swabs were dried and packaged in a paper envelope the way every other swab in this case was. But changes once in the hands of Heath. Not only is there the obvious swicheroo going on here, there is also the issue of mold developing and DNA degrading on wet swabs stored for 5 months in that condition. 
• In 2007 there were 300 in the database, with the Goudeau Y as the only one. Now 2 more UNRELATED males in the 1,200 Y-DNA database whose DNA are IDENTICAL to Mark’s paternal Y-DNA. Can you imagine how many more identical Y-DNA profiles there will be as this database grows? If there are now 3 UNRELATED males with IDENTICAL Y-DNA profiles, how many more in say 1 million? 
• DNA is water soluble which means it will dissolve or wash away in water. Only Lorrain Heath said she obtained Y-DNA results from a victim who was found face down in a bathtub full of water where she had been for hours. Heath would have a better chance of getting hit by lightening in her lab than she would getting any DNA results in this situation. 
• That every single raw DNA sample swab was destroyed/consumed by Lorrain Heath leaving absolutely nothing for Mark’s lab to test. 
• That once Alex Femania and Lorrain Heath found out Chromosomal Labs would do testing on Mark’s case for FREE, Heath destroyed every other remaining swabs, even those they already had results, needed no further testing. Even DNA extracts were destroyed. 
• The only DNA expert at the so-called Baseline task team meetings with Alex Femenia was none other than Lorrain Heath. No other DNA experts were allowed although there were many, many other DNA analysts involved in the research and testing. 
• And finally, Heath leaves the country shortly after Mark’s arrest.

These are only some of the issues with the State’s so-called DNA evidence

Closing argument today by Rod Carter and Randy Craig, Mark’s defense team.

 

The Problems with Arizona's DNA Database

FBI resists scrutiny of 'matches'

DNA: GENES AS EVIDENCE A crime lab's findings raise doubts about the reliability of genetic profiles. The bureau pushes back.

State crime lab analyst Kathryn Troyer was running tests on Arizona's DNA database when she stumbled across two felons with remarkably similar genetic profiles. 

The men matched at nine of the 13 locations on chromosomes, or loci, commonly used to distinguish people.

The FBI estimated the odds of unrelated people sharing those genetic markers to be as remote as 1 in 113 billion. But the mug shots of the two felons suggested that they were not related: One was black, the other white.  Read more . .

Terry Wayne Smith Cover Up

For those of you who don’t know about the cover up of Baseline Killer suspect, Terry Wayne Smith, here’s the Reader’s Digest version to get you up to speed.

Prior to Mark’s arrest September 6, 2006, Phoenix police officer Rusty Stuart was nearing the completion of a long, intensive investigation of Terry Wayne Smith. Based on TWS’s sociopathic behavior, his connection to every single Baseline crime scene, blood on his clothing, TWS family members calling TWS the Baseline Killer, and other factors, Rusty is convinced TWS has something to do with the crimes. He compiles his investigation and produces the entire report to the lead dics on the Baseline task force. Rusty first takes his report to the Carmen Miranda crime scene and he is dismissed. He makes several attempts after that to get it to the lead task force dics and continues to be dismissed. Rusty is appalled at lead dic Alex Femenia’s “dereliction of duty.” Rusty, with four other PPD cops and Phoenix Law Enforcement Association members then take the report to the Maricopa County Attorney’s office and present it to Andrew Thomas’s right hand man, Keith Manning. Manning and Thomas continue to hide the evidence and it is never produced to Mark’s defense team.

Until that is, underground forces surface the report first to me and then Mark’s attorneys. When Randy Craig, one of Mark’s attorney’s, starts shaking trees and making calls to find the entire 180 page report, prosecutor Susanne Cohen coughs it up. Yes, the prosecutors knew of this report since 2006, yet they too kept it under wraps. The grand jury which indicted Mark never heard of Terry Wayne Smith. Prosecutors Cohen and Bill Clayton allowed Mark to go to trial while they hid this evidence.

Well now the cat is out of the bag and only because of good cop, Rusty Stuart, and other individuals the TWS report is now in the hands of the defense team. Had covert sources not brought this information forward, prosecutor Cohen, lead dics Alex Femenia, Mike Mieslish, Mike Polombo, Andrew Thomas, and mayor Phil Gordon would still have had it under the rug. The TWS report was hidden for years.

When Rusty Stuart took the TWS information to Alex Femenia, Alex responded “Why would you want to give this NIGGER an alibi?” Rusty is also concerned, and rightly so, about evidence being planted. You can read more from PLEA’s site - http://www.azplea.com/docs/EEO%20Complaint%20Letter%20to%20Arpaio%20Breakout.pdf%20-%20Adobe%20Acrobat%20Standard.pdf

Flash to August 18, 2010: Rusty Stuart, now under protection of an attorney because of retaliation from PPD, has new TWS evidence and composes a letter to interim County Attorney, Richard Romley. You can read Rusty’s letter here – http://bitsy.me/tx.

Although the prosecutors', lead dics and County Attorney Andrew Thomas conduct is shocking, they continue to try to hide evidence.  Now the prosecutors, Susanne Cohen and Patty Stevens, are trying to prevent the cover up of Terry Wayne Smith from being used at trial. Tobe argued in front of Judge Granville Jan 19, 2011.  Let’s hope justice prevails and this corrupt and dishonest behavior and hiding of evidence is stopped.  I dare to even imagine what other exonerating evidence the State is hiding.

DNA's Dirty Little Secrets - 2010 Article

Most of the BK cases don’t have DNA evidence, the only thing supposedly linking Mark to some of the crimes. (Most of the crimes can’t be linked to anyone.) What DNA is available is in miniscule amounts, degraded, and mixtures, which complicates things (enormously) in interpreting results.

I came across this article - DNA’s Dirty Little Secret -and a lot of it could have been written for Mark. Notice this quote from world renowned Dan Krane, "If you show ten colleagues a mixture, you will probably end up with ten different answers." Dan Krane, a molecular biologist at Wright State University and a leading critic of the government’s stance on DNA evidence, agrees. "There is a public perception that DNA profiles are black and white," he told me. "The reality is that easily in half of all cases—namely, those where the samples are mixed or degraded—there is the potential for subjectivity." Read more and learn how DNA evidence is being misused by law enforcement.