Hairs recovered from victims microscopically constant with Baldwin and Echols

A 9/9/93 report from the State Crime Laboratory notes:

E143 a: Known head hair sample from Jason Baldwin

...

Due to the submission of additional standards, a caucasion head hair recovered from the ligatures (FP8 - 5718) was found to be microscopicly similar to hairs in E143a. This hair is consistant with having a common origin with the hair sample E143a.

Click to expand...

The "ligatures (FP8 - 5718)" refers back to a 6/29/93 report from the State Crime Laboratory regarding items recovered from Christopher Byers. Also, a 1/5/94 memorandum from the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences notes:

(p 2)

Q1 One (1) microscope slide bearing one hair. This slide was labeled "93—05717 FP5 QH shaved hair Branch LS 5-20-93"

Q2 and Q3 One (1) microscope slide bearing two hairs. This slide was labeled "93-05717 FP5 QH shaved hair Branch LS 5-20-93"

...

Q10 One (1) microscope slide labeled "93—05718 FP6 QH lower leg vict. LS 5-14-93“ and bearing one hair.

(p 9)

Q1 and Q2 consisted of two hairs with razor cut proximal ends. These hairs exhibit some similarities to both the known hair of Echols (K4) and Dodson (K7) . These hairs could have originated from one of these individuals or another individual whose hair exhibits similar microscopic characteristics.

(p 10)

Q10 consisted of one hair exhibiting microscopic characteristics consistent with the known hair of Echols (K4). This hair could have originated from Mr. Echols or another individual whose hair exhibits similar microscopic characteristics.

Click to expand...

That's three hairs microscopically consistent with Echols found on Stevie Branch, and one hair hairs microscopically consistent with Baldwin found on the shoelaces used to tie Christopher Byers. I've been digging through the various documents regarding DNA testing, but I've yet to find mention of if such testing was ever attempted on those four hairs in particular, let alone if results were obtained. Since many here have attested to reading the Callahan archives in full, I'm curious to know: has anyone found documentation of what if anything has been done specifically with these four hairs?

My understanding is all hairs went to Bode laboratory and none of the dna found matched back to any of the WM3. I am sure there is a list on callahans.

In this pleading: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/motions/de_dna_testing.html, although not listed specifically, it does say "all". The actual manifest of what was sent to Bode Labs is not on callahans, I am not sure where you would find that.

Sorry, I forgot about the list on the order. The hairs you mention were tested.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/motions/de_jb_order_dna_testing.html

Sorry, I forgot about the list on the order. The hairs you mention were tested.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/motions/de_jb_order_dna_testing.html

I'd found those pages you linked, but they are just a motion and order for DNA testing, not results. Also, while the order does include "HFP8 QH 93-05718 Hair from Byers' ligature", it makes no mention of of the hairs microscopically consistent with Echols found on Stevie Branch. There's also a 7/18/11 Supplemental DNA Status Report which notes:

A total of twelve new evidentiary hairs were submitted to Bode Technology (“Bode&#8221 for mitochondrial DNA testing under the authority of this Court’s Order. Three of those hairs were, for a variety of reasons, incapable of being tested.

Click to expand...

Of the ones that they do note getting results from, eight are consistent with Christopher Byers' mDNA, so it's unlikely any of those hairs were among the four microscopically constant with Baldwin or Echols. Then there was one which gave results which aren't consistent with either the victims or the convicted, but that is refereed to as "Evidence Item E-07 (blue jeans and blue wallet)", which excludes it from being any of the four microscopically constant with Baldwin or Echols too. So the questions stands: what DNA testing, if any, has been accomplished specifically on the four hairs which were identified as microscopically constant with Baldwin or Echols?

I made a mistake in my opening post when I said "three hairs microscopically consistent with Echols found on Stevie Branch". In fact, only the two hairs from those labeled "93—05717 FP5 QH shaved hair Branch LS 5-20-93" were found on Branch, while the one hair "93—05718 FP6 QH lower leg vict. LS 5-14-93“ was found on Christopher Byers as noted in this 6/29/93 report from the State Crime Laboratory.

That said, I found this 7/27/07 report from Bode Technology which notes all four hairs and shows HVR1 + HVR2 results for each, along with HVR1 + HVR2 results for all three victims. Based on those results Michel Moore cannot be exuded as the source of the three hairs identified as microscopically consistent with Echols, but all the victims can be excluded as the source of the one hair identified as microscopically consistent with Baldwin.

With those results in hand I went to compare them with the HVR1 + HVR2 testing of the Baldwin and Echols reported in this 1/25/07 report from Bode Technology. Unfortunately, very few positions are reported for the convicted, but what values are reported for both Echols and the three hairs identified as microscopically consistent with Echols are consistent, as are the values for the one hair identified as microscopically consistent with all three convicted. Here is an image to demonstrate as much, using just one of the hairs previously identified as microscopically consistent with Echols, since all positions and values reported for them are the same:



Based on my limited understanding of DNA analysis, it seems such results cannot exclude Echols as the source of the hairs previously identified as microscopically consistent with him, nor can any of the convicted be excluded as the source of the hair previously identified as microscopically consistent with Baldwin. So, now I'm hopping to find someone who has a better understanding of DNA analysis. Does anyone here know much about the subject, or know someone who does?

So glad you started this thread and are questioning.

Go to verified professionals here

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=191851&highlight=verified+professionals

Thank you for the link Fhc. I'd seen mention of the thread but hadn't looked for it yet myself yet, and was just finishing up my previous post when a friend dropped by, so you saved me some time when I got back here. Anyway, I sent of an email off to the one person listed with experience in DNA testing, and am hoping she'll be able to provide some insight. I've also got a friend who is an emergency room nurse, so I suspect she might know someone who knows DNA, and I'll get in touch with her as well to see if that leads anywhere.

http://www.jivepuppi.com/jivepuppi_DNA_part_three.html

Results of the DNA tests

The DNA results have been officially released. In a recent DNA Status Report, the DNA did not match any of those in prison for the crime. Almost all of the DNA from the crime scene matched the victims. Hairs that previously had been found "microscopically similar" to those of Damien Echols and Jason Baldwin did not come from them. The Status Report went on to say, "Although most of the genetic material recovered from the scene was attributable to the victims of the offenses, some of it cannot be attributed to either the victims or the defendants." [DNA Status Report, July 17, 2007] More tests are going to be performed to compare the unknown DNA to additional suspects.

terekaugelt said:

http://www.jivepuppi.com/jivepuppi_DNA_part_three.html

Results of the DNA tests

The DNA results have been officially released. In a recent DNA Status Report, the DNA did not match any of those in prison for the crime. Almost all of the DNA from the crime scene matched the victims. Hairs that previously had been found "microscopically similar" to those of Damien Echols and Jason Baldwin did not come from them. The Status Report went on to say, "Although most of the genetic material recovered from the scene was attributable to the victims of the offenses, some of it cannot be attributed to either the victims or the defendants." [DNA Status Report, July 17, 2007] More tests are going to be performed to compare the unknown DNA to additional suspects.

Click to expand...

What is JivePuppi? Just wondering. TIA

Jivepuppy is a site about the case, the most comprehensive site arguing for innocence I've found. I've read quite a bit from there but had apparently overlooked the page Terekaugelt quoted, and upon further research I'm left with the impression that what she quoted is at least generally correct. A fairly concise explanation of what I'd previously failed to understand can be found here:

Approximately 610 bp of mtDNA are currently sequenced in forensic mtDNA analysis. Recording and comparing mtDNA sequences would be difficult and potentially confusing if all of the bases were listed. Thus, mtDNA sequence information is recorded by listing only the differences with respect to a reference DNA sequence. By convention, human mtDNA sequences are described using the first complete published mtDNA sequence as a reference (Anderson, S. et al., Nature, 1981, 290, 457-465). This sequence is commonly referred to as the Anderson sequence. It is also called the Cambridge reference sequence or the Oxford sequence. Each base pair in this sequence is assigned a number. Deviations from this reference sequence are recorded as the number of the position demonstrating a difference and a letter designation of the different base. For example, a transition from A to G at Position 263 would be recorded as 263 G. If deletions or insertions of bases are present in the mtDNA, these differences are denoted as well.

Click to expand...

So, all the unreported positions are the same, but while many of the reported positions are consistent between the samples as I highlighted above, it seems they also show too many variations between each other for any to be from the same source. That said, I'm still looking into how much variation can potentially be the result of heteroplasmy or inaccuracy of the testing. In particular I'm curious as to how Baldwin can be excluded as the source of either of the two hairs I've listed below his results in the following image (all from this 1/25/07 report from Bode Technology):