If you have read through this blog, then you know that there was a large pool of Amy's blood (about 1-2ft square) that was cleaned up outside the bedroom.
In my Brady discussion, I mentioned that when the BCA tested that area of blood, they initially did a presumptive test, which showed that it could be blood, then they used a Hematrace test to ensure that it was human blood, and finally they did the DNA test to make sure it was Amy's blood. However, when it came to the washcloth that they claimed I used to clean that spot, the BCA did the presumptive test and it was positive, and then they did the DNA test which did not have any single source DNA of Amy's, but she could not be excluded from the mixture of 4 or more contributors. I've already discussed how it is completely illogical that so much of her blood could be cleaned up by a light blue washcloth and leave no visual evidence of blood staining and no single source DNA of hers. Today, I would like to focus on the change of procedure and the fact that they 'skipped' the Hematrace test on the washcloth.
When the washcloth was brought to my attention I acknowledged that there could be trace blood on it because we used it to clean cuts and scrapes on the dogs (it was immediately adjacent to the dog kennels).
I've also argued from the beginning that clearly using Hematrace to test if the blood is human blood is part of their process and I questioned why didn't they do that on the washcloth.
My Brady argument was that if they did do a Hematrace test on the washcloth then where are the results, because it would've come back negative and that would prove that the washcloth wasn't used to cleanup Amy's blood.
Recently, I was able to review a document entitled "BCA - Report Writing Guidelines - Serology and Nuclear DNA Analysis
Document # FSS-P-BI-0115". In section 3 (Serology Reports) and subsection A (Blood), it says that it is indeed their POLICY to do a Hematrace. So either they violated policy or they failed to document those results. The BCA guidelines also said that if "blood was indicated but Hematrace and/or Quantifier results are negative" (which it would have been on the washcloth) then they are to report that as "presumptive testing indicated the presence of blood on # areas of Item #; however, it COULD NOT BE CONFIRMED to be of human origin".
This was not how they reported the findings to the jury. They implied to the jury that since it was presumptively positive for blood and her DNA couldn't be excluded that it must have been used for the cleanup. This violated BCA protocols.
Maybe the washcloth sample size was too small to test (unlikely if a spot that big was cleaned up), but the BCA had policies to cover that too, if "Hematrace cannot be performed because of small sample size" then they are report it as, "presumptive testing indicated the presence of blood on # areas of Item #; however, sample size PRECLUDED FURTHER SEROLOGY TESTING on this item".
None of this was done in my case, or if it was I was never given the report that could've proved my innocence. This was the crux of my Brady argument, and this document supports the claim.
That document also provides the BCA's definition of 'presumptive test': "Presumptive test is a screening test that indicates that a biological fluid of interest may be present on an item of evidence but THE RESULT DOESN'T CONSTITUTE THE IDENTIFICATION OF THAT BIOLOGICAL FLUID", and yet the prosecution presented the presumptive test as if it PROVED that blood was on the washcloth. That was a lie to the jury.
This document provides even more evidence that the washcloth, which was a keystone of the State's case, wasn't used to clean the scene and the prosecution covered it up to make their story sound plausible.
NOTE: To read more about the washcloth click here.
No comments:
Post a Comment