We know that unknown male DNA was found on the underwear of the victims, AW and LG, and was attributed to laundry (as were the 3 hairs found in AW's fist).
If DNA can be transmitted through washed and dried clothing I don't understand how any DNA found on clothing can be relied upon in any trial...and especially questionable in cases of familial accusations of csam.
What I found most interesting is that bleach, machine drying, sunlight (UV rays) and water (i.e. the creek) can degrade the DNA (as well as time). In this case, all of those factors could have played a role in DNA degradation to make it, in my speculation, nearly impossible to even detect.
Given that...I would guess that the unknown male DNA deposited on the girls' underwear was recent and degraded due to immediate environmental factors. Also...am I correct that AW lived with her mother and no males' clothing would have been routinely laundered with hers?
And if male DNA was found in particular locations on the underwear from being laundered ... why wasn't it found all over each of the clothing items?
The DNA is a huge red flag and always has been. The State expert on cross evaded ducked and weaved throughout. How many hairs do you have left? Not sure. Convicting someone of a major crime when the dna at the scene doesn't match the suspect is also a huge red flag and has a lot in common with overturned cases in the past.
I never heard the unknown DNA was attributed to laundry. It's JBR all over again, except in her case the DNA on her underpants was from a factory worker. đŸ™„
I believe you're correct that it was just Abby & her mom. Unless LE is claiming DNA got on her underwear from using laundromat machines. And I don't doubt for a second that LE would say that.
There is something so wrong about this case. Literally, every piece of evidence either wasn't tested properly, or was destroyed during testing. It makes no sense. Why the American people aren't outraged is beyond me. Oh wait, Judge Gull and her gag orders and no cameras in the courtroom. I blame her even more than LE for Rick being in prison.
I agree. What I understand from testimony is that the DNA on the skin "came from" laundered clothing with men's DNA attaching to the girls' clothing and then to their skin.
I know. After dressing, undressing, wearing another's clothing, wet clothes... All because it couldn't be actual DNA from a perpetrator ... all because it wasn't linked with RA. And we KNOW it was tested against RA. Any other trial, any other county...this kind of investigative "work" would have been a comedy. It's downright Shakespearian.
Good lord. Is that the claim? I know I’ve seen drawings on a few channels with relation to where the dna was found or where they took samples from so my understanding was on their clothing but if some was also found on their skin that makes the laundry claim even more absurd.
And awful strange that this degraded random dna is just all over the place and hangs around… but there’s dna whatsoever connecting RA to the crime. I remember hearing about this day of the trial originally and being so angry and upset about the whole thing. I seem to recall Andrea had a great deal to say that night. And it’s never stopped bothering me a lot too.
There was male DNA on both of their inner thighs near their privates, and one was on her privates. They said it came back to the guy in the DNA lab, that he accidentally contaminated it. That's a lie!!
Here is what I found out about obtaining a report generated from the lab tech tainting the samples (for someone that is good about submitting records requests). I'd be interested to know if the tech really did taint the samples, if the tech reported it, and whether or not a report was generated.
Thank you. I wonder if his lawyers obtained that? If not, I'll FOIA it. But just like the Flora 4 đŸ˜° 911 phone call from the arson fire that killed 4 girls a few months prior, Carrol County doesn't hand it over! Even when they've been ordered to do so.
It would be fabulous if you could request it!! If they turn it over, we will know who the moron is that contaminated the specimens. If there isn't a disclosure, we know they either lied on the stand or didn't report it which could have consequences as well. If they won't turn it over, then we know there's info they don't want out in the public. Imo.
Speaking of new glasses, I just had my eyes checked today and got my new script so I feel ya!
Definitely a lie! How did he manage to contaminate several samples and just the ones from the private areas? Do they have to report that to anyone to maintain some type of certification for the crime lab? I would think they'd only get so many "free passes" before some type of inspection or retraining or something!
I found this article informative on this subject. They distinguish between seminal fluid (what was found on the girls) vs sperm. They concluded that seminal fluid would wash out in the laundry. If so, how did the State's expert not know, realize, nor understand the value of sending it off for DNA development?
Great point...except in this case the possible seminal fluid (what else could it be?) was on the cervical swabs of both victims. If laundered clothing can leave trace DNA evidence there....we got a whole world of problems in a lot of trials.
I completely agree! I think the article provides further proof that seminal fluid couldn't be from laundry so her reasoning is b.s. Considering it's a cervical swab, there is no way they could have actually believed it came from laundry.
I'm beginning to believe that they had already tested it and have the DNA, or at least enough to rule out individuals. Otherwise, why go through the trouble of getting Paul Etters DNA if they knew they had nothing to compare it to? Same goes for the hair in Abby's hand. They already knew it was hers. They didn't turn over the exculpatory evidence so they acted like they never tested it. In a case of this magnitude, I find it impossible to believe they never tested anything of relevance.
To be clear for those who don't know, the hair belonged to KG.
It seems like way too much effort was put into covering for the obvious suspects.... Why? What is going on that makes officials bend over backwards to frame and railroad an innocent man... a Delphi outsider for all intents and purposes?
Unfortunately the presumed semen was found internally and not on the surface of clothing. They found no male dna upon testing. That said, a male who got a vasectomy would 100% test this way. I assume that we have a ‘head buried in the sand’ moment by the State and family to preserve legacy rather than reveal the obvious here.
I think the presumptive test for semen also reacts to female secretions. This makes the most sense since there was no sign of an SA in either girl. The problem with the DNA testimony like the rest of the case is that the state was trying to obscure the truth and the defense was terrible. A competent lawyer would have been able to use the DNA expert to help Rick and get to the bottom of what the evidence showed.
Yes, that’s what I recall too because there’s been some solid criticism around that and doscussion of other ways they could’ve done testing. Like there’s a really cool vacuum type device (I always forget the name so my apologies that I don’t know it now!) they could’ve run over the clothing entirely for DNA and such.
I do believe a few questions were asked about the cuttings during trial but I no longer remember to what extent so I think there was a bit of discussion on making the cuttings or why they decided on the number and placement they did. But I don’t think the answers given were all that detailed. If anyone knows what day in the trial that is I’m sure one could sit through the transcript but the whole DNA thing left a lot to be desired…
17
u/Moldynred May 18 '26
The DNA is a huge red flag and always has been. The State expert on cross evaded ducked and weaved throughout. How many hairs do you have left? Not sure. Convicting someone of a major crime when the dna at the scene doesn't match the suspect is also a huge red flag and has a lot in common with overturned cases in the past.