First DNA link possible in lacrosse case

Durham Herald Sun ^ | 5/11/2006 | John Stevenson

[OakOak]

By John Stevenson : The Herald-Sun jstevenson@heraldsun.com May 11, 2006 : 12:20 am ET

DURHAM -- Tissue found under the fingernail of an exotic dancer who claimed she was raped at a Duke University lacrosse party may match a player who was there, several well-placed sources said Wednesday.

Analyzing the tissue, scientists concluded it came from the same genetic pool and was "consistent" with the bodily makeup of one of 46 lacrosse players who gave DNA samples for testing, the sources said.

At the same time, scientists ruled out a possible match with any of the other 45 students, according to the sources.

If accurate, the fingernail tissue match would offer the first DNA evidence potentially linking the dancer and an alleged attacker.

But because a complete DNA pattern was not obtained from the tissue, it was not possible to match it with the nearly 100 percent certainty that DNA results usually offer, the sources added.

The dancer told police she clawed at three attackers as they raped and sodomized her for 30 minutes during the March 13-14 lacrosse house party at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd.

[Law is not justice but process]

Not to be obtuse, but how did they know the pubic hair was male without DNA? I know of no morphological characteristics that differentiate between male and female pubic hairs other than the presence or absence of a Y chromosome (I am not suggesting she was raped by a woman, but there are many ways a female pubic hair could get on the victim, including public toilets, wearing borrowed or used clothing, etc.).

[Law is not justice but process]

"It would make sense that she'd remember faces that she had the most contact with. If this guy met her at the door, caught her as she went to fall (she grabbed him as she fell) OR
if this guy tried to get the money back from crystal and she grabbed his arm or hand?

Since the first lab didn't pick it up, I'm guessing it was trace amounts that can passed with casual contact like hand shaking."

That is the defense response. I suspect the defense would also argue that this DNA result is not a match at all, but only consistent. If it was 11 of 13 markers, the SBI would have called it a match. I suspect it is 4 or fewer loci, which would make the statistics rather weak. However, even if it were a full fledged match, trace amounts of DNA under one discarded fingernail means little. Self-defense during an attack should have left the attackers with multiple scratches on arms and face and lots of flesh under the victim's fingernails. A trace amount could get there many ways, including a scratch at someone trying to grab his money back from a stripper who would not perform as contracted.

I have stated several times that I believe the identification was tainted and will not be held admissible if the pool of photos came only from the Lacrosse team. Without that, the DNA evidence is the only link to an individual identity. This gets the prosecution past directed verdict, but it is still a long way to proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Something else bothers me. They say the nail came from a trash can. Even a bunch of drunk frat boys would know something like a broken nail is evidence and would eventually be found by police. If they were covering up a crime, they would have thrown it in a dumpster behind a 7-11 in Raleigh, not in their own trash can. If the accuser put it there, she would not have done so after the rape (if she was that traumatized). If she put it in there before the rape, it is evidence of nothing. It would have been much better for the prosecution if it had been found behind the toilet or on the accuser.

[Law is not justice but process]

"This also explains why the SBI didn't find any matches.."

If the NC SBI is anything like my state's equivalent, they always will make the most conservative determinations. With fewer than 6 (if I recall correctly) loci, they will not run statistics at all. Similarly, they will not calculate probabilities on paternity tests, because, conservatively, they can only say it does or does not exclude the suspect as the parent. If I want a paternity number, I have to send the results to LabCor to have the numbers run (they only do the calculation, they do not rerun the samples). A partial profile would explain why the prosecutor sent the samples to a private lab. The SBI took the conservative line of not declaring a match, whereas LabCor will calculate a probability.

The reason the SBI and other state forensic labs are conservative is that it heps their credibility when they testify. In essence they say "I gave all the benefits of all the doubts to the defendant and the sample still matches." That forecloses reasonable doubts about iffy assumptions. Private labs do not have to do that, as they do not work exclusively for the prosecution. The prosecutor leaves himself open to more lanes of attack when using the broader assumptions needed to find a match in this case.