Pragma: no-cache
From: charlie
Date: 12 Jul 2000
Time: 08:54:47
Jasper, I don't know what it does or could mean to OJS unless there was a new civil trial. Even then, I have my doubts that he would be given the hair samples (or a few) to have tested---judging how Hodgeman is allowed to hold on to the phone records as personal property.
Yes, I'd like to know about that hair on the glove.
In the trial, the Agent said, "Not Those detectives, no," as the answer to Clark's question if it matched Phillips, Fuhrman, Vannatter or Lange. Then she changed topics without the natural and expected follow up question, "If not those detectives, did it match any Other detective or officer?"
The description of what the hair looked like leads to a possibility of it being Roberts. It closely describes HIS hair.
Just reading the different stories I see in the news available on the Internet, I see that NOW the FBI uses 14 markers instead of the 6 used for the OJS case. I see that they have an even Better DNA test than available then, and I see that the hair can now be tested.
In a case in England, 14 markers were used and it matched but since the guy had what appeared to be an airtight alibi, they tested more markers and discovered it was NOT him. What does that tell you? If the cop in the case had not been a straight up guy and called for more testing, things might be different for that guy. Convicted instead of exonerated!!!
Also Bill Schreck told me of a case in LA in a small town where a young man matched 11 people in town and his maternal grandmother--with the tests that they do now.
It puts me in mind of Cochran saying every time that Clark said the blood matched, that it was OJ or a close relative and she would say, "yes, or of course, of some such affirmative answer".
I discussed this with Schreck once (he did extensive research on it) and he said in a small town where generations of the same families had lived, anybody could get "screwed" over the DNA...esp using a small number of markers like they did in the OJS case.
His quote to me was that you had more chance of being placed at the scene of a crime that you did not commit than you had of winning the lottery.
DNA is NOT the be all and end all solution that it is touted to be. This is especially true in small towns or isolated areas (like Eastern Ky. where it has only been in the last 50 years that the area opened up to outsiders--it was pretty much a closed society).
It is STILL better in excluding people with the first 14 than positively Identifying the perp.
I think it should be --do the first 14 and if the person is excluded fine. Leave it there. But if it matches, they need to go up to 20 or 25 markers in a second test.
charlie