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.

 

Lunch Wagon Homicide and Red Truck

Prosecutors Cohen and Stevens argued that a red pickup was seen near the lunch wagon the day of the homicides. PPD went to great pains to retain tire marks so the tire treads could be tracked back to the killer. Of course, that never happened. This testimony went on for a bit - I’ll spare you the useless details.

The double homicides were committed February 20, 2006, early in the day. Never mind the description of the truck seen is that of a newer, bigger model, than what Mark owned, that it was also seen later in the day - waaaaaay after the two bodies were discovered, not prior to the murders. If it’s not already bad enough, what’s really interesting here, and I’m using the word “interesting” loosely, is that, yes indeed, Mark did own a small red pickup, unlike the one described by a passerby. But Mark did not own the truck at the time of the murders. It was nearly a month after the homicides that Mark purchased a truck.

So was Mark driving the truck he didn’t own or have access to at the time of this crime??? I know that’s a crazy thing to ask, but how ridiculous and insane is it for prosecutors Cohen and Stevens to completely ignore the fact that Mark didn’t even own a red truck at that time? A simple title check is all it took. Not only can the state not prove that Mark owned a truck, Mark’s attorney’s proved he did not! It was not a hard thing to do.

Let me say it again. Prosecutors spent good time at trial going over tire mark forensics and testimony that a red truck was seen at the scene knowing full well that Mark did not own a truck at the time. 

I seriously think Cohen and Stevens are mentally insane. How else can this illogic be explained?? Scary, unstable people whose perception is based on what they think they can just utter in court despite complete lack of evidence, reality, and actual facts. These are dangerous people who will say and do anything to try to secure a conviction, regardless of how wrong and contrary the evidence.

Trial Update 9.9.11

The trial update is there really is no update.  Court was held Wed and 1/2 day Thursday.   Victims and witnesses who can’t ID their attacker. A slew of State DNA  analyst who had excluded Mark’s DNA. 

Yoshi double homicide, the previous week, was done in two days.  Two days! Things move quickly when there isn't a single piece of evidence.

It's as if the State thinks the absence of evidence, is evidence. We’re still wondering how this has come this far. 

Demoted Dic Schoville Takes the Stand 6/29

In an effort to minimize Sue Schoville’s immense screw up in her part of the Baseline investigation, she misstates on the stand that it was her decision to go from detective back to patrol. The truth is Schoville was probably demoted as a result of her unbalanced zeal in investigating and then indicting James Mullins, a Kentucky inmate who falsely confessed to the George Thompason murder after seeing it on a day time TV show. Based on nothing more than his false confession and with interview statements that didn’t add up, Schoville had Mullins indicted and transported to Phoenix, where he sat in jail for nearly a year until someone finally rained Schoville in.

Her ineptness is described by Mullins himself in Phoenix New Times article I Dunnit. "She was very eager," the inmate recalls. "It was like holding a carrot in front of a mule and leading it around. If she would have just looked into what I was saying . . . the shit I was putting out was obviously bullshit."

The article doesn’t discuss Schoville’s demotion, but really Sue, what detective decides to return to patrol? Who voluntarily takes a 50% salary cut? Are you sure this wasn’t a demotion as a result of your egregious work in the Baseline investigation?

Schoville weeped on the stand as she admitted to jurors of her screw ups in the Baseline investigation.
This sloppiness and over eagerness held tight throughout the entire Baseline investigation, even permeating the Phoenix Police Dept, winding up with a rush to charge Mark after bad information from DNA analyst, Lorraine Heath, and absolutely NOTHING that pointed to him as a suspect. Thus leaving detectives Alex Femenia and Mike Mieshlish with having to do damage control a month after Mark’s arrest with no evidence - enter the so-called DNA evidence and a ring after multiple searches of our small home - a ring out in the open, void of any DNA - neither the victim’s nor Mark’s, missed by seasoned detectives time and time again.

Schoville’s screw up with the Baseline investigation was just the beginning of many.