CA CA - Claire Hough, 14, La Jolla, 23 August 1984

New Posts

Here are quotes from Rebecca Brown's civil lawsuit (a link is in a reference in Post #35) against the San Diego police department in the matter of the investigation of retired San Diego Police Crime Lab criminalist Kevin Brown for the murder of Claire Hough on Aug. 24, 1984.

Note all crime labs have audits summarizing DNA contamination incidents and the resulting changes in procedures to help prevent this. San Diego police do not want to release any such audits. Note that although the San Diego police have fiercely claimed that DNA contamination in the San Diego Police Crime Lab is "not possible", there is an incident listed below where the DNA from the son an SDPD analyst who had not been in the lab for a year was found in a reagent blank sample.

Note also that in J) below, detective Lambert goes outside of his area of expertise in making claims about how semen could or could not get onto clothing.

QUOTES FROM CIVIL LAWSUIT
-----------------------------------
[San Diego police detective Michael] LAMBERT’S ASSERTIONS IN THE AFFIDAVIT

In the affidavit for the search warrant Lambert engaged in a series of deceptive and false statements.

Lambert subtly used some phrases which were literally true, but designed to mislead the judge reviewing the affidavit.

Lambert asserted “Hough had been strangled to death, sexually assaulted, and mutilated.”

Claire Hough had been sexually assaulted - but the autopsy showed that the sexual assault was not sexual intercourse, but violent genital mutilation with a sharp-edged instrument.1

REFERENCE (1)
1 Men who sexually violate women by force have commonly mutilated their victims, either because they were unable to maintain an erection, or because violent misogyny, not sexual release, was their true motivation.

There was no evidence of semen or sperm found in 1984.

Lambert then asserted that in November, 2012, a DNA analysis showed Kevin Brown’s sperm on “vaginal swabs” collected from Hough at autopsy.

Lambert portrayed Kevin Brown as a sexual pervert, albeit with no fact that differentiated Kevin Brown from many young single men in their thirties:

Kevin Brown went to strip clubs, photographed models in lingerie, made an offcolor remark to a female criminalist, and may have shown a pornographic movie. DNA analyst, Annette Peer, viewed him as “creepy.”

Lambert stated that he sought evidence to show that Mr. Brown and Tatro knew each other, killed Claire Hough in concert, and may have kept in contact with each other.

Lambert stated that he believed Kevin Brown might be keeping sexual assault reports, reports relating to the Hough investigation and that he was following the progress of DNA techniques and the Hough and Nantais investigations.

Lambert stated that he sought these items to find evidence of Kevin Brown’s involvement in the 1984 murder of Claire Hough, Mr. Brown’s knowledge of Ronald Tatro’s involvement in such, and any evidence demonstrating that Kevin Brown was “following” the cases of Claire Hough or Barbara Nantais.

The warrant was “an attempt to obtain information to link Brown and Tatro as the perpetrators acting in concert, in the commission of the sexual assault, mutilation and murder of Claire Hough”.

MATERIAL OMISSIONS

Lambert’s affidavit omitted material facts, the inclusion of which would have negated the existence of probable cause.

Lambert failed to provide relevant and critical information, with intent to deceive the judge who reviewed the affidavit, and with knowledge of its materiality.

These facts included:

A) In 1984, the Coroner’s office conducted a microscopic examination of the smears from the swabs taken from Claire Hough’s vagina. The examination was for motile or non-motile sperm. The examination revealed no sperm. This fact was noted in the report of M.A. Clark, M.D. pathologist for the Coroner who conducted the autopsy of Ms. Hough. Lambert, with intent to deceive, did not disclose this result to the judge reviewing the warrant application.

B) The results of the forensic test for acid phosphatase showed 37 m.I.U. of acid phosphatase on the vaginal swab taken by the Coroner. This result is consistent with endogenous vaginal acid phosphatase – that is, the amount of acid phosphatase present in vaginal secretions of a woman who has not had sexual intercourse with semen deposited within 48 hours before death. This acid phosphatase result is consistent with the forensic rule of thumb that less than 50 m I.U. of acid phosphatase is not presumptive for the presence of semen. Lambert did not disclose to the judge that the acid phosphatase level was consistent with the absence of semen.

C) A test for P30, for the presence of prostate specific antigen, could have established whether semen was present in Ms. Hough or on the vaginal swab. No test for P30 was conducted.

D) The autopsy report for Claire Hough did not find that Claire Hough had been raped or had engaged in sexual intercourse before her death. It found that there had been a deep laceration from a sharp cutting wound to her genitalia, but no other forensic findings consistent with rape. The cutting of her genitals was certainly a “sexual assault” but it was not the same kind of assault as a rape involving sexual intercourse. Lambert cleverly used the phrase “sexual assault” to suggest the latter, even though it was contrary to the autopsy findings.

E) There was no physical finding at autopsy that sexual intercourse had taken place. All the autopsy findings were to the opposite effect - no sperm, no elevated levels of acid phosphatase, no other physical evidence of sexual intercourse. While the brutal laceration of the vagina was a “sexual assault” of the most vicious kind, Lambert’s use of the term is designed to mislead the court into believing that Ms. Hough was subjected to sexual intercourse with seminal ejaculation, when all the evidence from the autopsy - physical findings, microscopic examination and chemical testing showed the absence of semen, absence of sperm and no evidence of penile penetration.

F) The mutilation of Ms. Hough’s body reflects vicious misogyny. Lambert’s previous interviews of witnesses never showed Kevin Brown to be a violent or misogynistic person. To the contrary, witnesses described him as a shy, gentle and awkward person, whose character was incapable of such viciousness.

G) There had been multiple documented instances of contamination of forensic samples in the SDPD crime lab. In the year before the DNA results in this matter, the SDPD lab found an “unexpected DNA result” in which DNA found in a reagent blank sample belonged to the son of an SDPD analyst who had not been in the lab for a year. This clearly demonstrated DNA contamination in the SDPD lab. The fact of this and numerous other incidences of DNA contamination in the S.D.P.D. lab were deliberately omitted from the affidavit.

H) Mr. Brown’s semen, like that of other male technicians, in the 1980s, was generally present in the general area in the S.D.P.D. lab where the vaginal swab was dried and tested. The DNA result was almost certainly the product of lab contamination, not proof of criminal rape and homicide. Lambert deliberately omitted from the affidavit the standard practices of the lab technicians in the years before DNA analysis was used: that lab technicians, including Kevin Brown, used their own semen in the lab to validate the accuracy of chemical reagents; the layout of the testing areas; the drying technique in which the swab was exposed in open air; and the fact that the analyst’s own semen samples were regularly kept in the lab area and were used there to test reagents.

I) Lambert quoted Dr. Wagner, the current medical examiner, as opining that the low level of acid phosphatase on the vaginal swab collected by the coroner (37 m.I.U.) could be from “pre-ejaculation or an incomplete ejaculation” or from a full ejaculation with the acid phosphatase number “still low at the time of collection.” In an attempt to cover himself, Lambert notes that Dr. Wagner stated that “acid phosphatase markers lower than 50 m.I.U. is (sic) unreliable.” The information that a minute amount of DNA of Kevin Brown was on a swab is consistent with cross-contamination of the single swab which was tested. Lambert deliberately omitted the critical information that the level of 37 m.I.U. is consistent with the endogenous acid phosphatase level of a woman who has no semen within the vaginal vault, and that the average level of endogenous acid phosphatase in women is 38 m.I.U. Lambert misrepresented that acid phosphatase levels of less than 50 m.I.U. are “unreliable.” These levels are reliable to demonstrate the absence of semen within the last 48 hours before Claire Hough’s death.

J) Lambert stated an opinion that because no DNA from Kevin Brown was found on Claire Hough’s panty liner, and the only DNA on the panty liner was Claire Hough’s, Claire Hough did not become vertical “after the sexual intercourse with Brown because, if she did, there would most likely be spillage from the seminal fluid from her vagina onto the panty liner.” Lambert omitted to state that leakage of semen, if it in fact were present in the vagina, could have easily occurred without Claire Hough becoming “vertical.” Lambert omitted that Claire Hough was found lying partially on her right side with both legs flexed at the knee, in a posture which would have, because of gravity, caused leakage of semen, were it present, onto the panty liner. The absence of Kevin Brown’s DNA on Claire Hough’s panty liner is confirmative both that she had not engaged in intercourse immediately before her death, and that Kevin Brown’s semen was not in her vagina. Lambert’s deliberate omission of these facts was to mislead the Court.
-----------------------------------
 
Here are quotes from Rebecca Brown's civil lawsuit (a link is in a reference in Post #35) against the San Diego police department in the matter of the investigation of retired San Diego Police Crime Lab criminalist Kevin Brown for the murder of Claire Hough on Aug. 24, 1984.

Note that detective Lambert repeatedly refers to Kevin Brown's DNA being found on multiple "swabs" when it was only found on one. There were two swabs, one tested at the crime lab, and the other kept in the coroner's possession. Was that swab ever tested? That would help to indicate contamination if Kevin Brown's DNA was not found on it.

Note that the San Diego police claim that the result in which Kevin Brown's DNA was found on a swab came from a "sperm fraction". There is a way to extract DNA from a sample that enhances the level of DNA from sperm. Note that in a rape case, some reduced amount of DNA from a female victim could still appear. It seems that if DNA contamination levels were high enough, DNA contamination could still show up in a "sperm fraction". Thus it is plausible that Kevin Brown's DNA could be due to contamination. The fact that the DNA is supposedly from a sperm fraction is not enough to convince me that he had any association with the victim, especially when there is no other real evidence to speak of, and because he worked at the lab, and DNA CONTAMINATION IS POSSIBLE. Perhaps the DNA analyst saw only epithelial (skin) cells and mistook those for sperm cells. Only a few sperm cells were seen, but none were found by the medical examiner in 1984.

QUOTES FROM CIVIL LAWSUIT
-----------------------------------
FALSE OR MISLEADING STATEMENTS IN LAMBERT’S AFFIDAVIT

Lambert included false statements in the affidavit for the search warrant, with knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard for their truth or falsity.

A) Lambert stated in his affidavit that Kevin Brown’s DNA, found on “swabs” taken from Claire Hough’s vagina was found in the form of sperm. Lambert stated that this indicates that Kevin Brown had sexual intercourse with 14 year old Claire Hough. Lambert’s statement that this “indicates that Kevin Brown had sexual intercourse with Claire Hough” was false, or made with reckless disregard given Lambert’s decision to conceal from the Court the practice of S.D.P.D. criminalists including Kevin Brown, to use their own blood and semen as known samples for use in verifying the accuracy of the reagent chemical reactions in the S.D.P.D. lab where the Hough swab was present.

B) Lambert recited that the San Diego Police Department Lab Manager, Jennifer Shen, stated that Mr. Brown had no access to the evidence in the Hough murder and that “cross DNA contamination (sic) is not possible.” These statements are false. Kevin Brown was working in the same lab area as Mr. Gibson, who had retrieved an oral, an anal, and a vaginal swab taken from Claire Hough from the Coroner’s office in August, 1984. Kevin Brown worked in the same room and was in close proximity to the work area of Gibson, and worked in the area where the swabs were typically dried.

C) Lambert’s claim that “cross DNA contamination is not possible” is false. As a general matter, DNA cross-contamination is not only possible - it is a forensic fact of life. If the claim is that cross-DNA contamination is not possible in the case of Claire Hough, that too is manifestly false. Cross-contamination, even in today’s labs, with careful execution of detailed protocols, is possible. In the SDPD lab of 1984, when personnel acted without awareness of DNA, and without protocols in place to avoid DNA contamination, cross-contamination was inevitable. Neither Ms. Shen, nor any competent lab manager could or would say that “cross DNA contamination is not possible”. The statement is false; the attribution of the statement to Jennifer Shen is false.

D) According to the affidavit, San Diego Police Crime Lab Technician Randy E. Gibson was present at the autopsy on August 24, 1984, at 10:15 a.m. While at the autopsy, Gibson took custody, inter alia, of one vaginal swab. Lambert states that DNA technician Cornacchia reported that he developed an unknown male profile from the sperm fractions “collected from the swabs” which was found to match the profile of Kevin Brown. Throughout the affidavit, Lambert refers to Kevin Brown’s sperm/semen being found on “swabs”. This statement is false, and designed to mislead by suggesting multiple swabs contained Kevin Brown’s DNA. Kevin Brown’s DNA was found on one, and only one, swab.

E) There were at least two vaginal swabs taken during the autopsy. Only one had DNA associated with Kevin Brown. The false claim that Kevin Brown’s DNA was found on “swabs” was deliberately made to suggest that the DNA was found not only on the swab stored at SDPD with which Kevin Brown would have been in proximity, and which had been in the lab where Kevin Brown’s semen samples were located, but also on the swab(s) from the Coroner’s autopsy, with which he could not have been in contact. Were Kevin Brown’s DNA on the swab in the Coroner’s possession, the likelihood of contact between Kevin Brown and Claire Hough could be established. If sperm were the source of DNA on the swab from the Coroner’s office, then the claim that Kevin Brown had sexual relations with Claire Hough would be forcefully supported. Lambert’s repeated use of the plural “swabs”, made in multiple false statements, was designed to mislead the judge into believing that Mr. Brown musthave had sexual relations with 14 year old Claire Hough. The single swab from the S.D.P.D. lab is metamorphosed in Lambert’s affidavit into multiple “swabs”: 1) Lambert states “During the autopsy swabs were taken from Hough’s vagina. Kevin Brown’s DNA was found on those swabs.” 2) “Kevin Brown’s sperm was found on vaginal swabs collected from Hough at autopsy” p. 4; 3) “He [Detective Rydalch] requested the San Diego Police Crime Laboratory to examine the following items collected and impounded during the initial investigation in this case for DNA belonging to someone other than Claire Hough: Vaginal Swabs...”; 4)According to David Cornacchia’s report dated November 30, 2012, he identified (3) unknown male DNA profiles on the following four items of evidence: Sperm fraction: Claire Hough’s vaginal swabs...; 5) According to Cornacchia, the number of sperm cells present on the swabs was low...; 6) “During the autopsy swabs were taken from Hough’s vagina. Kevin Brown’s DNA was found on those swabs.” Each of these assertions that Kevin Brown’s DNA was found on swabs is false, and made with intent to mislead. (emphasis added)

F) Lambert stated that he had probable cause to search the Browns’ home and cars for evidence pertaining to the 1978 murder of Barbara Nantais and the beating of her boyfriend James Alt. This was a false statement. Lambert had no evidence of any kind that Kevin Brown was in any way connected to the murder of Barbara Nantais or the beating of James Alt. The absolute lack of any evidence justifying the search of the Browns’ home and cars on this basis made the execution of the warrant illegal, and any reliance on the warrant by Lambert entirely unreasonable.
-----------------------------------

Note on the DNA from the son of a SDPD crime lab employee being found as contamination in a reagent blank:

This could have been carried into the lab by the employee. Note also that some labs have open house type tours, or take your kid to work kind of tours, where the child could have been in the lab. Note the the DNA of the children of the lab staff is not kept in the employee database to check for contamination. But there will be a 'familial resemblance'. It may take more than a routine investigation to track down the source of such contamination.
 
Here are quotes from Rebecca Brown's civil lawsuit (a link is in a reference in Post #35) against the San Diego police department in the matter of the investigation of retired San Diego Police Crime Lab criminalist Kevin Brown for the murder of Claire Hough on Aug. 24, 1984.

These quotes refer to the DNA.

QUOTES FROM CIVIL LAWSUIT
-----------------------------
"The leading cause of false DNA database matches is cross-contamination of samples."

"The San Diego Police Department has resisted the transparency displayed by many other crime labs, which have disclosed the results of audits and investigations of lab errors. S.D.P.D. has evinced a fierce resistance to admit to human error and the existence of cross-contamination in its lab.

"The phenomenal improvement of the power of DNA analysis ironically has greatly increased the risk of obtaining a result that is based on cross-contamination which occurs in the laboratory itself."

"This is because DNA analysis can now obtain profiles from as little as a billionth of a gram of genetic material."

"DNA results, while precise and accurate, can therefore be misleading, because an infinitesimal quantity of genetic material left by a brush, an inadvertent touch, a sneeze or even a technician speaking in the area of a sample can result in contamination and a test result showing the DNA profile of the lab worker who accidentally and unintentionally deposited a microscopic residue onto the questioned sample."

"The most common problems are cross-contamination by microscopic traces of unrelated evidence and forensic scientists accidentally mixing their own DNA with the sample being tested."

"That can happen, for example, when the analyst talks while handling a sample, leaving an invisible deposit of saliva."

"At the S.D.P.D. lab, after it began to do DNA testing in 1992, Kevin Brown and the other analysts provided DNA for uploading of their profiles into the CODIS database. The purpose for this was explicitly to allow for determination of whether a DNA test result was the product of lab cross-contamination."

The Coroner’s pathologist analyzed oral, anal and vaginal smears taken from Claire Hough’s body.

Microscopic analysis of these smears showed no spermatozoa.

In addition to the microscopic analysis which showed no sperm, the Coroner’s Office conducted a test on vaginal, oral and rectal samples for the presence and level of acid phosphatase.

The results of these tests were consistent with no semen being present.

The physical and scientific evidence showed no evidence of sexual intercourse or semen.

The specific test the Coroner’s Office performed on the vaginal, rectal, and oral smears was the acid phosphatase test.

Acid phosphatase is an enzyme found throughout the body in both men and women. It is, however, most highly concentrated in the prostate gland.

The prostate gland has more acid phosphatase than any other body tissue.

The acid phosphatase test was used in 1984 to determine whether semen was presumptively present, since the content of acid phosphatase in semen is much higher than in any other bodily fluid.

Acid phosphatase can be detected in other biological fluids, including vaginal secretions.

The acid phosphatase test is a presumptive, not a definitive, test for the presence of semen.

To confirm definitively that semen is present, visual detection of sperm cells is required. However, a high acid phosphatase level is strong evidence of the likely presence of semen.

The acid phosphatase result in Claire Hough’s case from the analysis of the vaginal swab done by the Coroner’s office was consistent with a result from endogenous vaginal secretions, and was below the cut off level required for a presumptive finding that semen was present.

Oral, anal and vaginal swabs from the body of Claire Hough were taken by the Coroner’s Office personnel and one set was given to an S.D.P.D. criminalist. At least one other set of swabs was retained by the Coroner’s Office. The criminalist, Mr. Gibson, transported these swabs to the S.D.P.D. lab. He then air dried the swabs at a work station. Lab employees were in the area and could walk or stand by the work station where the swabs were drying. The swabs were then stored in the property room, and were removed for testing at a later time.

DNA EXTRACTION TECHNIQUE AND THE NECESSITY FOR MICROSCOPIC VERIFICATION OF SPERM.

The DNA analysis conducted by the DNA technician named Cornacchia involves extraction of DNA from cells by “lysing” (using strong chemical detergents), to release DNA from these cells.

The mix is then placed in a centrifuge and spun. The spinning creates a pellet at the base of the centrifuge, which is referred to as containing the “sperm fraction.”

In order to ensure that the DNA from the sperm fraction is in fact from sperm cells, however, the analyst must, as part of the test protocol, first verify by a microscopic analysis that he sees sperm cells in the substance to be subjected to lysing and centrifugal spinning.

Lambert’s affidavit claims Cornacchia stated that the number of sperm cells present on the swab was low.

If Cornacchia in fact verified by microscopic visualization the presence of a low number of sperm cells (as opposed to erroneously identifying epithelial cells as sperm cells) on the S.D.P.D. swab, his finding clearly shows that contamination of the swab was due to lab contact with an item or area where Kevin Brown’s semen had been used to test the effectiveness of lab reagents.

This is so because the Coroner’s microscopic examination of the vaginal swab of Claire Hough in 1984 showed no sperm cells.'

The Coroner’s acid phosphatase result showed no presumptive presence of semen.

The vaginal swab Cornacchia examined, which had been turned over to Gibson, the S.D.P.D. lab technician, was air dried and processed in the same lab and in the same area where other S.D.P.D. lab techs, including Kevin Brown, tested their own semen as known samples before using the reagents to do other forensic tests.

If Cornacchia’s statements were true - if there were a low number of sperm cells on the Claire Hough vaginal swab from the S.D.P.D. lab - then the fact that the vaginal swab in the Coroner’s office showed no sperm on its vaginal swab strongly confirms that Cornacchia’s finding was the result of the S.D.P.D. swab’s contact with an area or item in the lab that had touched Kevin Brown’s semen.

These facts - the results of the Coroner’s microscopic analysis (no sperm) and the Coroner’s acid phosphatase result (no presumptive presence of semen) are critical to understand the true meaning of Cornacchia’s finding (if accurate) of a very low number of sperm cells on the S.D.P.D. swab.

Those facts show the cause of the DNA result not as sexual intercourse by Kevin Brown with the underage homicide victim, but a minor and fleeting contact with a lab surface or implement which caused the presence of a few sperm cells on the swab.

Absent the disclosure of these known facts, the recitation of the sole fact that DNA was from Kevin Brown’s sperm fraction leads to an erroneous and devastating conclusion - that Kevin must have had sex with the dead girl.

Defendant Michael Lambert wrote the search warrant affidavit for the warrant that was used for the search that occurred at the Browns’ home on January 9, 2014.

Lambert signed this affidavit under oath on January 3, 2014, at 8:45 a.m.
-----------------------------

The information from the civil lawsuit has already shed light on this case. A jury trial will do even more along the same lines. The San Diego police do not want me on the jury. If they are smart (seems questionable in light of their cold case investigation in this matter) they will settle with Rebecca Brown.
 
Here is a question that has not been answered in the news stories or the court filing of Rebecca Brown's civil suit.

Have the thousands of items seized by San Diego police from her house in Chula Vista been returned to her, or any items seized from the couple's vacation home in Julian, which the police took the opportunity offered by the demise of Kevin Brown to write another of their famous warrants and search (never let a good crisis go to waste)?

There is another news story today that summarizes things, below.

Note that the reporter for the Courthouse News Service reports that "Tatro was a known sex offender with an extensive criminal resume, including rape, attempted rape and the murder of area prostitute Carol DeFliece". Note that the court filing only listed Tatro as a suspect:

"Tatro was a suspect in the 1984 murder of a San Diego prostitute, Carol DeFliece."

Doubt has been expressed that Tatro was involved in the murder of Claire Hough (Post #32). At that time the information that Tatro was a suspect in the murder of Carol DeFliece was not available. Does anyone have any more on this case? Search turns up nothing. Maybe the name is spelled wrong, maybe Defelice. One can speculate that Tatro was not modifying his M.O. from "just" rape or kidnapping. But remember that rape or kidnapping were favorite activities of one Ted Bundy.

It has been suggested by San Diego police that Tatro and Kevin Brown together were involved in the murder of Claire Hough. Specifically, San Diego police detective Michael Lambert stated an opinion that Claire Hough did not become vertical after the sexual intercourse with Brown (Post #41). In other words she never had a chance to get up because she was dead. This is sheer speculation made of a house of cards, built on the foundation of detective Lambert's ignorance. Note that the medical examiner in 1984 could not find any semen on clothing or on vaginal swabs or smears galore, and yet detective Lambert feels that he can step in 28 years later and speculate authoritatively about the semen that the medical examiner could not find. And this kind of speculation is the basis for the innuendo and slander slung at a dead man who can no longer defend himself. Note also that in all of the known cases where Tatro was a suspect, or convicted of a similar crime such as rape or kidnapping, he worked alone. He was never known to have teamed up with a police officer, FBI agent, or forensic scientist as he worked on his 'projects', to use a BTK term (of Dennis Rader fame). Indeed, it is bizarre to suggest this! He never teamed up with anyone else either. He worked alone.

Thirty years later that medical examiner is not around to dispute a mere detective's speculations. What are detective Lambert's qualifications anyway? Does he have the requisite scientific or medical degrees and knowledge required to edit the medical examiner's report 30 years after it was written?

Here are quotes about two kidnappings Tatro did time for. No mention of another suspect in these crimes. Remember one more thing. These are just the KNOWN crimes of Tatro.

QUOTES FROM NEWS STORY
------------------------------
Were teens mutilated by same killer?
New DNA evidence questions whether 1978, 1984 murders are linked
By Kristina Davis | 2:15 p.m. Oct. 25, 2014

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com...-tatro-hough-nantais-dna-murder-beach-police/

He was serving prison time in 1978 for a kidnapping in Arkansas. He had snatched a young woman from a liquor store, stuffed her in the trunk of his car, and raped her. He was sentenced to 40 years in prison, but for unknown reasons, only served eight, Guaderrama said. He was out before Claire’s killing. A year later he kidnapped a La Mesa teen. He was sentenced to another three years in prison.
------------------------------

QUOTES FROM NEWS STORY
------------------------------
Courthouse News Service
Monday, July 20, 2015Last Update: 7:07 PM PT

SD Cops Drove Criminologist to Suicide
By REBEKAH KEARN
http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/07/20/sd-cops-drove-criminologist-to-suicide.htm

Tatro was a known sex offender with an extensive criminal resume, including rape, attempted rape and the murder of area prostitute Carol DeFliece.

Among other things, Rebecca Brown says Lambert "interviewed witnesses in a misleading and suggestive manner;" left mitigating testimony about Kevin Brown's gentle nature out of the search warrant application; illegally seized thousands of items not included in the already overbroad search warrant, including photos of Rebecca's siblings, her childhood memorabilia, and vintage newspapers from the 1950s; refused to return these items because Lambert knew Kevin Brown's mental well-being hinged on their return; and told Brown that Lambert intended to arrest him for the murder of Claire Hough while knowing full well that Brown was a suicide risk, according to the complaint.

Rebecca claims Kevin's anxiety and fear skyrocketed because, though innocent, he believed he would be abused in jail due to his former profession.

His mental state deteriorated and he became so terrified of being falsely accused of the crime that he committed suicide on Oct. 20, 2014, by hanging himself from a tree at Cuyamaca State Park, the complaint says.

The day after his death, defendant Oplinger submitted a search warrant application for the couple's vacation home in Julian that was as riddled with lies, omissions and misleading statements as Lambert's previous search warrant, according to the complaint.

Making matters worse, Rebecca says the police department soon afterward issued a press release stating that they had been on the cusp of arresting Brown when he died and that his suicide solved the case, though this was not true.
------------------------------
 
The attorney for criminalist Kevin Brown's widow Rebecca has filed a civil lawsuit in federal court suing the San Diego police department.

Testing of DNA has been called "a mighty tool" (1,2), helping law enforcement to convict felons, and setting the wrongly convicted free. And don't forget, it can help keep the innocent from being convicted in the first place. But a tool is only as good as the skill with which it is used and the results interpreted.

Crime labs do not report that a person's DNA is 'identified' on an item. Crime lab scientists do not testify that DNA from evidence is from a suspect. It can be put in terms of the odds that one in a billion or trillion or quadrillion etc people would have the DNA profile. If the number is much greater than the number of people on the earth, then the chance that the DNA from the evidence is not from DNA from a particular person of interest is low. But it is not certain, and crime labs do not report DNA 'identifications'. That is because there is always a level of uncertainty, no matter how small. There is always a chance of human error or contamination, and there is always a chance that two people could have the same DNA profile.

This topic of uncertainty applies not just to crime labs, but to scientists is general.

Carlo Rovelli (Theoretical Physicist) said (3):
"Every knowledge, even the most solid, carries a margin of uncertainty."
"Knowledge itself is probabilistic in nature..."

Ashley Montagu:
"The scientist believes in proof without certainty, the bigot in certainty without proof." (4)

A crime lab scientist would not be caught dead being quoted saying "cross-DNA contamination was not possible". San Diego police quoted an unnamed lab manager. If SDPD Crime Lab Director Jennifer Shen knew that she was being misquoted, then why did she not speak up to correct this? It may be that if she speaks to the media without permission she would be demoted or fired. Remember, the crime lab is under the police department. Now the matter is under litigation and any questions will probably be referred to the San Diego city attorney.

There is no other known case such as the one in San Diego where a crime lab employee stands accused of a crime based on low levels of his or her DNA showing up in evidence. There is a reason why this is so rare that it has never happened before. The reason is that it is a standard procedure to compare DNA elimination profiles of crime lab personnel and to assume that it is due to contamination if a match is found. This can also apply to police officers from the crime scene.

Police love to have large databases of DNA for searching crime scene samples for possible DNA matches. In some countries, a person only has to be arrested, not convicted, in order for their DNA to go into such a database. Such practices have been disputed (5).

In some countries, the police officers object having there DNA taken and put in such databases (6, 7, 8). An objection given is that it could be used for paternity testing, but they are not concerned about being accused of the crime. That is because even the police understand that the purpose of such testing is to check for DNA contamination, and not to consider them as suspects.

San Diego police officers were quick to investigate and name Kevin Brown as a suspect. Are San Diego police officers now eager to have their own DNA profiles taken so that it can be compared with samples from crime scenes? And what about San Diego police crime scene investigators? Is this being done? The reporting on this case has not covered this issue. In view of how Kevin Brown was treated, would San Diego police officers feel confident in donating DNA to such a database? Perhaps San Diego Police Chief Shelley Zimmerman should volunteer to go first. Better yet, she should resign. She took over (9) a scandal plagued department (10) after the persecution of Kevin Brown had begun. What is her responsibility as a new chief in getting a handle on things and quickly stopping a cold case squad which has run amok? She did nothing. She idly stood by as the cold case squad forced one of her own to walk the plank and still insists to this day that they done good (11). That is as cold as the most hardened pirate. The 'Jolly Roger' skull and crossbones should be added to the San Diego police shoulder patches and to the decals on their squad cars.

REFERENCES
(1)
http://www.criminaljusticedegreehq.com/forensic-science-beyond-identification/
"DNA provides law enforcement with a mighty tool for convicting felons and setting the wrongly convicted free."

(2)
http://scroll.in/article/743049/the...ttention-heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-it
"DNA is a mighty tool, especially in criminal forensics..."

(3)
https://edge.org/response-detail/10314
Better understanding of the meaning of probability, and especially realizing that we never have, nor need, 'scientifically proven' facts, but only a sufficiently high degree of probability, in order to take decisions and act, would improve everybody' conceptual toolkit."

(4)
http://todayinsci.com/M/Montagu_Ashley/MontaguAshley-ProofQuote800px.htm
Ashley Montagu; British anthropologist

(5)
https://www.aclu.org/blog/its-your-dna-or-it
It’s Your DNA — Or Is it?
By Michael Risher, Staff Attorney, ACLU of Northern California
JULY 19, 2010 | 3:27 PM
"Forcing people to provide a DNA sample without any judicial oversight, just because a single police officer has arrested them, violates the Constitution. That’s why California’s law mandating that DNA samples be taken from all felony arrestees is facing a legal challenge from the ACLU of Northern California (ACLU-NC)."

(6)
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_8adfcf0a-2469-52d9-adad-d20f3805a883.html
St. Louis police riled over collection of their DNA

"In Los Angeles, the police union and top brass are clashing over requiring officers involved in shootings and other use-of-force incidents to submit DNA samples."

"Concerns are generally the same: Beyond the civil liberties issue, officers worry that their DNA could be used in paternity disputes, as well as that management could use it to screen for diseases and predict future health problems."

"For them to keep a database of officers' DNA on file somewhere creates a Pandora's box of future litigation issues," he said. "DNA is a wonderful tool, especially for catching criminals and solving cold cases, but it should not come at the expense of a police officer's civil rights."

(7)
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44921590/...ice-cite-privacy-concerns-over-their-own-dna/

"In Chicago, police officers rebelled with a work slowdown in 2008 because of resentment toward their new chief over several issues, including a new policy to collect DNA from officers working at crime scenes."

"Today's tests pick up a high amount of samples," said Hurst, whose firm lobbies for the DNA industry and advises governments on DNA legislation. "They need to make sure that this unknown (DNA) profile isn't from a detective or patrol guy who accidentally sneezed while walking through the room."

(8)
http://work.chron.com/jobs-require-dna-samples-29694.html
And in New York and Las Vegas, crime scene investigators are required to submit DNA samples in order to rule out evidence contamination. Although the practice is hotly debated in the United States, the UK and Australia require all police officers to submit DNA in order to be employed.

(9)
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Who-is-New-SDPD-Chief-Shelley-Zimmerman-247396281.html
Who Is New SDPD Chief Shelley Zimmerman?
SDPD Asst. Chief Shelley Zimmerman was named the new SDPD chief on Feb. 26, as Chief William Lansdowne announced his retirement
By Monica Garske
Updated at 6:28 AM PDT on Thursday, Feb 27, 2014

(10)
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Trouble-Behind-the-Badge.html
NBC 7 San Diego
TROUBLE BEHIND THE BADGE
IS THE "THIN BLUE LINE" ERODING IN AMERICA'S FINEST CITY?

(11)
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/jul/17/police-criminalist-lawsuit-hough-kevin-brown/
SDPD sued in teen’s 1985 murder probe
Detectives accused of driving former criminalist to suicide with investigation
By Kristina Davis | 10:59 a.m. July 17, 2015
QUOTE FROM SAN DIEGO POLICE CHIEF SHELLEY ZIMMERMAN
"It was based on these findings and a thorough investigation by our Homicide Unit, that we solved this murder naming Kevin Brown and Ronald Tatro as the suspects.”
 
Checkyourself,
Excellent research. The widow's lawsuit raises a few troubling issues about SDPD tactics and clarifies some issues but the matter is hardly settled. The obvious problem with the Lawsuit is that the issue is not the guilt or innocence of Kevin Brown but only the use of illegal tactics by the SDPD and the extent that they resulted in a Wrongful Death. The possible use of false information to obtain the search warrants would be the smoking gun.

The significant "new" information is that the DNA linked to Brown was from Sperm. Contamination from epidural cells seems reasonable but Sperm cells from a Lab Employee is a little harder to explain. The suggestion that Brown used his own sperm to validate some of his results seems a little far fetched but maybe not. I wonder if there is any independent verification that this was a routine practice in law enforcement labs in the mid 1980's.

This lack of identifiable sperm during the initial autopsy and the acid phosphatase results is strong evidence that there was no ejaculation and there was no evidence of penetration noticed. Rapist do sometimes have problems sustaining an erection, but would there be any release of sperm if this were to occur?

I find it hard to believe that Brown and Tatro would have worked together on a mutilation murder but it isn't absolutely impossible so it can't be ruled out.

The possibility that Tatro faked his own death is interesting. If Law Enforcement has any reason to believe the victim has a cause to fake his death, there are ways to verify that the body is who they think it is with a high degree on certainty. If there were no reason to doubt the identity of the body, they might be lackadaisical.

At this point I really don't know what to make of it. If it turns out that Lab Techs really did use their own sperm in 1984 to verify results, I think that would be the most likely explanation. If not, it is possible Brown was guilty. Or, there was some sort of "extracurricular" source of the Sperm that resulted in contamination.
 
CheckYourProof said:
First point.

The posted title for this thread is incorrect (Criminologist should be Criminalist):

CA - Claire Hough, 14, 1984 - Suicide of Criminologist Suspect

I will try to correct with this post.

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/ is one of the news sites that got it wrong in the story:
"Dead Men Easy to Convict": Atty. Defends Lab Tech
"Brown was a criminologist working in the police lab that processed that evidence."

http://www.kpbs.org/ also has it wrong in the title of their story, but then uses the term "criminalist" in the text of the story. Couldn't make up their minds.
"Ex-SDPD Criminologist Linked To Teen Girl’s Killing 30 Years Ago"

A criminalist is often also known as a forensic scientist and the terms can be interchangeable. A famous forensic scientist was Bartholomew Henry "Barry" Allen, who worked for the Central City police department. Speedy Barry was also known as The Flash, and entire comic books have been written about his life. Criminologists study criminal behavior.

Next point.

This is a sleuthing forum. Some of the posts here include links to news stories with quotes. Many of the posts provide no indication of what opinion the sleuth may have about the case. Web sleuths here are not privy to all of the facts of confidential investigations. Some information on the investigation, such as the crime lab reports and notes, are not available. The search warrant and affidavits have been provided to reporters but only select quotes and selected information has been included in news reports. Sleuths are left to ponder the available reported facts, if the facts are indeed ALL facts, and not misinformation or opinion based on bias or ignorance. Do you believe everything that has been reported (including quotes from police detectives) about this case? In spite of the limitations of incomplete reporting on confidential information about a crime from so long ago, to some sleuths it will be worthwhile to make the attempt to separate fact from fiction, and to formulate an opinion based on the known facts, with facts backed up with references. We all know that one crime happened and it seems virtually certain that one killer (Tatro) has been exposed. But a new question comes up. Was Kevin Brown's name defamed and his reputation smeared with false accusations by the San Diego Police Department?

------------------------------------
EXCERPTS:
"He was also defamed after his death, [attorney Gretchen] von Helms said."
FROM:
"Attorney: Cross-contamination led to claims lab worker murdered teen"
POSTED 3:24 PM, DECEMBER 18, 2014, BY JASON SLOSS, UPDATED AT 06:09PM, DECEMBER 18, 2014
http://fox5sandiego.com/2014/12/18/...ation-led-to-claims-lab-worker-murdered-teen/
------------------------------------

Based on the recent news stories where two suspects were named by the San Diego Police Department, here are some of the possible opinions a sleuth could have.

A) Brown and Tatro are guilty of the murder
B) Brown is guilty of the murder and Tatro is innocent with no connection with the crime
C) Tatro is guilty of the murder and Brown is innocent with no connection with the crime
D) Neither Brown and Tatro are guilty of the murder
E) Brown had involvement with the victim earlier in the day, and Tatro murdered the victim later, with no connection between the two events
F) Undecided

This is a case of a heinous crime that took place over 30 years ago. But Yesterday's standards were in force when the crime took place, when the evidence was collected, and when the evidence was processed in the San Diego Police Department Crime Lab. What issues could come up in applying Today's technology to Yesterday's crime?

This thread is in the forum:
Forum: Resolved Cold Cases

If the cold case is resolved and solved, then presumably we know who did it, or at least have an opinion.

I am in Camp C. What Camp are you in?

Tatro is likely the criminal who is responsible. There has been no suggestion that the San Diego Police Department Crime Lab made any mistake or had any issues with contamination in testing the evidence in 2012. There were no reports that Tatro's DNA had ever been in the lab before. Tatro was a known criminal with a record including kidnapping and a conviction for rape. Modern procedures were presumably in place in 2012. 1984 is another matter.

Brown is quite likely innocent. It is plausible that the DNA evidence against him can be explained by contamination. Brown worked at the crime lab at a time when precautions against contamination were not taken. It has been reported in the news that his work table was adjacent to the work area where the evidence from the Claire Hough murder was processed, and Brown was at work at the time, presumable placing him at his work table within spitting distance of the evidence. Coughing, sneezing or even talking near the evidence without a mask could contaminate the evidence. In 1984 masks and gloves were not worn in crime labs or at crime scenes and Kevin Brown would not have known not to talk, cough or sneeze near the evidence.

KEVIN BROWN WORKED RIGHT NEXT TO THE CLAIRE HOUGH EVIDENCE

------------------------------------
EXCERPTS:
“His lab table was side-by-side with that of the analyst who was working on Claire Hough’s case, and the fact is that it’s highly likely that the result on the single swab of a tiny amount of Kevin Brown’s DNA was not the result of it having been deposited on the body of Claire Hough at the time of her death, but as a result of cross-contamination,” [attorney Eugene] Iredale said.
FROM:
Attorney: Cross-Contamination Led Police to Suspect Retired Lab Worker in 1984 Murder
Posted by Alexander Nguyen on December 18, 2014 in Crime
http://timesofsandiego.com/crime/20...olice-suspect-retired-lab-worker-1984-murder/
------------------------------------

------------------------------------
EXCERPTS:
“Brown worked in the police lab from 1982 until his retirement in 2002. He was not assigned to the Hough investigation, but attorney Eugene Iredale said Brown had been working while samples from the teen’s body were in the lab.”
FROM:
"Attorney: Cross-contamination led to claims lab worker murdered teen"
POSTED 3:24 PM, DECEMBER 18, 2014, BY JASON SLOSS, UPDATED AT 06:09PM, DECEMBER 18, 2014
http://fox5sandiego.com/2014/12/18/...ation-led-to-claims-lab-worker-murdered-teen/
------------------------------------

If Brown's DNA contaminated the evidence, and if Tatro were being tried for the crime, then contamination would undoubtedly be an issue at his trial, with Tatro's attorneys claiming that the results are invalid. This was a cold hit on Tatro. If his DNA were in the lab at the same time on another case, then that would raise the issue of contamination and cast doubt on the match. There have been cases where this has happended, and the results are usually thrown out (see reference below on cross-contamination between cases). But not always. There was a case in Michigan where the match was not thrown out, and the person was convicted of murder and is still in prison (Gary Leiterman).

------------------------------------
EXCERPTS:
The records show, for instance, that between 2003 and 2007, the Santa Clara County district attorney’s crime laboratory caught 14 instances in which evidence samples were contaminated with staff members’ DNA, three in which samples were contaminated by an unknown person and six in which DNA from one case contaminated samples from another.
FROM:
The peril of DNA: It’s not perfect
December 26, 2008|Maura Dolan and Jason Felch
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/26/local/me-dna26
------------------------------------

Here is another example where charges were dropped after it was discovered that DNA cross-contamination from one case to another could have happened.

------------------------------------
EXCERPTS:
“Homicide Squad detectives last month charged 43-year-old Victorian prisoner Russell Gesah over the deaths of Margaret Tapp, 35, and her nine-year-old daughter Seana. Their bodies were discovered in their Ferntree Gully home on August 8, 1984.”
“Victoria Police said today that forensic officers had identified a possible contamination of the biological evidence after a laboratory review.”
“The contamination occured in 1999 when clothing containing the DNA of Gesah – from an unrelated offence – was examined on the same day that clothing from the Tapp murder case was examined.”
“Police have apologised to Gesah and to the Tapp family.”
FROM:
"Murder charges dropped after DNA blunder"
Date August 6, 2008
by Adrian Lowe
http://www.theage.com.au/national/murder-charges-dropped-after-dna-blunder-20080806-3quq.html
------------------------------------

All that was required to invalidate the DNA match was that the DNA from the suspect was in the lab on the same day. Kevin Brown's DNA was in the lab in San Diego because he was in the lab.

Here is a reference with a recommendation to wear masks and avoid talking over evidence.

------------------------------------
EXCERPTS:
"Limit access to the crime scene or evidence"
"Do not talk over the evidence"
"PPE, including masks"
"Change gloves frequently after handling evidence"
FROM:
Touch DNA: From the Crime Scene to the Crime Laboratory
Fri, 04/12/2013 - 6:27am
Joe Minor
http://www.forensicmag.com/articles/2013/04/touch-dna-crime-scene-crime-laboratory
------------------------------------
Click to expand...

Reading your opinion was interesting but perhaps we all do not reach the same conclusions. And while I may have an opinion, I am not required to post it. Mods here do a great job in general and have cases filed in the forum that most closely resembles the situation. As a WSer, I am used to reading articles with mistakes and typos and sorting out as best I can fact from fiction, bias, and other outside forces in play in many cases. All cases have similar problems, some more than others. IMO, it was rather mind-blowing that I read his lawyer and one other involved person basically say the polygraph showed him to be innocent and that he would be proven innocent. There is no way that I am aware of to do this.
 
​wendybtn:

wendybtn quote from post #47
"Mods here do a great job in general and have cases filed in the forum that most closely resembles the situation."

I have already brought up the most similar cases that I know of where a person in a trusted position as police officer of crime scene investigator was accused of a heinous crime: John Orr (1), David Camm (2), Stephanie Lazarus (3). If you have others those may be of interest here. What or who are they?

wendybtn quote from post #47
"IMO, it was rather mind-blowing that I read his lawyer and one other involved person basically say the polygraph showed him to be innocent and that he would be proven innocent. There is no way that I am aware of to do this."

wendybtn has not posted an exact quote, or the reference that it came from. It is well known that polygraph results do not stand up in court. But Kevin Brown's attorney Gretchen von Helms may have touted a result in her clients favor. Why wouldn't she? Her client Kevin Brown was literally and figuratively outgunned and outnumbered. Police and prosecutors have so much of the power. Do you really begrudge them this? If you are accused of murder and you go to the trouble to take a polygraph test and the result supports your position that you are innocent you are probably going to advertise the fact. Some may consider it evidence but not proof.

I have not listed the polygraph result as evidence of Kevin Brown's innocence. Rebecca Brown's attorneys do not mention it in the court filing of the civil suit. If I were innocent and in his position I would not take the test. It does not prove anything. Even though Kevin Brown passed the test, police still looked for a way to use it against him. Thus the claim that he muttered something incriminating after the test. Or the trick question from Detective Lori Adams while sitting after the polygraph test about whether he knew Claire Hough's age. He did not -- true answer if he did not know her or if he did know her.

But let's look carefully at what Gretchen von Helms actually said. Here is a quote (4):
-----------------------
Von Helms said Brown passed an independent polygraph test given by a retired San Diego Police Department polygrapher.
“That's very powerful evidence that someone has spoken the truth when someone says I didn't do it,” she said.
-----------------------

This is the only quote I found, that is actually in quotes, where von Helms says what the polygraph test shows. Note that she states that it is "powerful evidence" but not absolute proof of innocence.

There is another quote (5):
-----------------------
On Friday, von Helms revealed Brown had taken an independent polygraph test by a retired SDPD employee, and the results showed he was innocent, according to his attorney.
-----------------------

Here the reporter may have paraphrased what von Helms said. What the reporter said that von Helms said is that the results showed he was innocent. Note that she does not state that it is absolute proof of innocence. To say the polygraph result showed something could imply it is considered evidence but not proof. It is not clear to me why this statement would get someone's goat to the point that it is "mind-blowing".

Here are more excerpts from a news story (4):

-----------------------
The attorney for a former crime lab technician accused in in the brutal murder of a teenage girl says her client was innocent.
...
Noted San Diego attorney Gretchen Von Helm said despite what police say, they were not about to arrest her client and had she been given the chance, she has no doubt Kevin Brown would have been proven innocent at trial.
-----------------------

Note that von Helms is not quoted as saying that it is the polygraph that proves Kevin Brown to be innocent. Proving someone innocent may be difficult in some cases, but is it always impossible? If someone can be proven guilty, is it not also possible to prove innocence? How about someone with an iron-clad alibi? In this case Kevin Brown would have had difficulty remembering or proving exactly where he was on the night of the murder. Who is going to remember after 28 years? Or it might also be difficult to prove that DNA contamination did happen. But the presumption is that it could have.

In the United States of America there is a presumption of innocence. The legal requirement is to prove someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If you were falsely accused of a crime, would you object to your attorney stating that you are innocent, or could be proven innocent? It may be that von Helms meant that it would be shown that there is no evidence of guilt. The legal result (of a jury trial) would be the same. Gretchen von Helms as a criminal defense attorney should be given a little slack and allowed to use a little rhetoric. Overruled.

wendybtn quote from post #47
"IMO, it was rather mind-blowing that I read his lawyer and one other involved person basically say the polygraph showed him to be innocent and that he would be proven innocent. There is no way that I am aware of to do this."

One other thing. Who is the mysterious "one other involved person"?
As wendybtn said herself that "...sorting out as best I can fact from fiction, bias, and other outside forces in play in many cases", it will be easier to verify things if facts or exact quotes and the pertinent references are posted to back up your opinion.

(1):
John Orr
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Leonard_Orr

(2):
David Camm
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-18705.html

(3):
Stefanie Lazarus
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...arus-charged-in-86-murder-of-Sherri-Rasmussen

(4):
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Dead-Men-Easy-to-Convict-Atty-Defends-Lab-Tech-280414242.html
"Dead Men Easy to Convict": Atty. Defends Lab Tech
Oct 25, 2014 By Dave Summers

(5):
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/DNA-Cross-Contamination-Not-Problem-in-Claire-Hough-Case-PD-Ronald-Tatro-Kevin-Brown-280600942.html
DNA Cross-Contamination Not Problem in Claire Hough Case: PD
By Omari Fleming and Andie Adams
Oct 27, 2014
 
CheckYourProof said:
​wendybtn:

wendybtn quote from post #47
"Mods here do a great job in general and have cases filed in the forum that most closely resembles the situation."

I have already brought up the most similar cases that I know of where a person in a trusted position as police officer of crime scene investigator was accused of a heinous crime: John Orr (1), David Camm (2), Stephanie Lazarus (3). If you have others those may be of interest here. What or who are they?

wendybtn quote from post #47
"IMO, it was rather mind-blowing that I read his lawyer and one other involved person basically say the polygraph showed him to be innocent and that he would be proven innocent. There is no way that I am aware of to do this."

wendybtn has not posted an exact quote, or the reference that it came from. It is well known that polygraph results do not stand up in court. But Kevin Brown's attorney Gretchen von Helms may have touted a result in her clients favor. Why wouldn't she? Her client Kevin Brown was literally and figuratively outgunned and outnumbered. Police and prosecutors have so much of the power. Do you really begrudge them this? If you are accused of murder and you go to the trouble to take a polygraph test and the result supports your position that you are innocent you are probably going to advertise the fact. Some may consider it evidence but not proof.

I have not listed the polygraph result as evidence of Kevin Brown's innocence. Rebecca Brown's attorneys do not mention it in the court filing of the civil suit. If I were innocent and in his position I would not take the test. It does not prove anything. Even though Kevin Brown passed the test, police still looked for a way to use it against him. Thus the claim that he muttered something incriminating after the test. Or the trick question from Detective Lori Adams while sitting after the polygraph test about whether he knew Claire Hough's age. He did not -- true answer if he did not know her or if he did know her.

But let's look carefully at what Gretchen von Helms actually said. Here is a quote (4):
-----------------------
Von Helms said Brown passed an independent polygraph test given by a retired San Diego Police Department polygrapher.
“That's very powerful evidence that someone has spoken the truth when someone says I didn't do it,” she said.
-----------------------

This is the only quote I found, that is actually in quotes, where von Helms says what the polygraph test shows. Note that she states that it is "powerful evidence" but not absolute proof of innocence.

There is another quote (5):
-----------------------
On Friday, von Helms revealed Brown had taken an independent polygraph test by a retired SDPD employee, and the results showed he was innocent, according to his attorney.
-----------------------

Here the reporter may have paraphrased what von Helms said. What the reporter said that von Helms said is that the results showed he was innocent. Note that she does not state that it is absolute proof of innocence. To say the polygraph result showed something could imply it is considered evidence but not proof. It is not clear to me why this statement would get someone's goat to the point that it is "mind-blowing".

Here are more excerpts from a news story (4):

-----------------------
The attorney for a former crime lab technician accused in in the brutal murder of a teenage girl says her client was innocent.
...
Noted San Diego attorney Gretchen Von Helm said despite what police say, they were not about to arrest her client and had she been given the chance, she has no doubt Kevin Brown would have been proven innocent at trial.
-----------------------

Note that von Helms is not quoted as saying that it is the polygraph that proves Kevin Brown to be innocent. Proving someone innocent may be difficult in some cases, but is it always impossible? If someone can be proven guilty, is it not also possible to prove innocence? How about someone with an iron-clad alibi? In this case Kevin Brown would have had difficulty remembering or proving exactly where he was on the night of the murder. Who is going to remember after 28 years? Or it might also be difficult to prove that DNA contamination did happen. But the presumption is that it could have.

In the United States of America there is a presumption of innocence. The legal requirement is to prove someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If you were falsely accused of a crime, would you object to your attorney stating that you are innocent, or could be proven innocent? It may be that von Helms meant that it would be shown that there is no evidence of guilt. The legal result (of a jury trial) would be the same. Gretchen von Helms as a criminal defense attorney should be given a little slack and allowed to use a little rhetoric. Overruled.

wendybtn quote from post #47
"IMO, it was rather mind-blowing that I read his lawyer and one other involved person basically say the polygraph showed him to be innocent and that he would be proven innocent. There is no way that I am aware of to do this."

One other thing. Who is the mysterious "one other involved person"?
As wendybtn said herself that "...sorting out as best I can fact from fiction, bias, and other outside forces in play in many cases", it will be easier to verify things if facts or exact quotes and the pertinent references are posted to back up your opinion.

(1):
John Orr
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Leonard_Orr

(2):
David Camm
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-18705.html

(3):
Stefanie Lazarus
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...arus-charged-in-86-murder-of-Sherri-Rasmussen

(4):
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Dead-Men-Easy-to-Convict-Atty-Defends-Lab-Tech-280414242.html
"Dead Men Easy to Convict": Atty. Defends Lab Tech
Oct 25, 2014 By Dave Summers

(5):
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/DNA-Cross-Contamination-Not-Problem-in-Claire-Hough-Case-PD-Ronald-Tatro-Kevin-Brown-280600942.html
DNA Cross-Contamination Not Problem in Claire Hough Case: PD
By Omari Fleming and Andie Adams
Oct 27, 2014
Click to expand...
This guys father lived in Vista so he has ties to this area. http://zodiackiller.fr.yuku.com/reply/146089/The-San-Diego-Honeymoon-Murders#reply-146089
 
I came to this thread to see what regular, rational discussion was going on. I see this thread dominated by one poster, who has only posted on this thread, who is posting comments that clearly only look through one lens.

(modsnip)

We all read media articles and know to take them with a grain of salt. Some may be offended by them if they criticise Brown; some may not. There are pros and cons to any case. (modsnip)

One thing we can all agree on, is moving forward to find the culprit(s) who snuffed out the life of a young teenage girl. My thoughts are with Claire's loved ones.
 
According to the warrants, Tatro and Brown stayed in touch, so they obviously knew each other, whether it was through strip clubs or not. I wonder why and for how long they kept in touch, and when was their last contact.

According to published reports, Brown was known to frequent strip clubs, which is where police believe he and Tatro’s paths crossed.
Click to expand...

While the murder case is now effectively closed, the warrants reportedly indicate that the two men stayed in touch. Hammonds said it would be interesting to know whether they had any conversations immediately prior to Tatro’s death.
Click to expand...

BBM
http://www.therogersvillereview.com/news/article_d9b4eb48-69de-11e4-bda9-f783403336fb.html?mode=jqm
 
On the other hand, in this article about the warrants police don't indicate that they actually found evidence that Brown and Tatro were known to keep in touch. Apparently, the warrants were for the purpose of looking for that evidence (among other things).

It’s unclear if police ever found a link between the two men, and investigators would not say. In their searches of Brown’s Chula Vista house, the affidavits show, they hoped to find correspondence between the men, or newspaper clippings of the killing. What they did seize was lots of computers, hard drives, disks, photos, cameras and the like.
Click to expand...

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2014/oct/31/warrant-brown-hough-murder-dna-photo/
 
As to my opinion, no matter how many posts there are here that read like legal briefs, I don't think I have enough information to form a solid opinion one way or another about Brown's involvement in Claire's murder.

I understand why his wife is trying to clear his name. His involvement does seem far-fetched on the surface. But I also understand why the SDPD could not just write off the DNA from Brown as cross-contamination. They are under obligation to conduct a full investigation. If they just said "Tatro did it" without following up on Brown, they would be derelict in their duty and would probably be accused of covering for "one of their own." Surely Brown knew that.

The investigation had to take place, but he was under no obligation to undergo a polygraph. Since they prove nothing, what is the advantage to him of doing so? I can understand his fear of being jailed and possibly harmed by prisoners who were convicted because of his work. I'm sure he was depressed and distressed. But is SDPD supposed to call off their investigation because of these factors?

If SDPD is convinced that Brown was involved with Claire's murder, I hope they let this lawsuit go to trial so that the evidence can be heard. If they settle out of court, Claire's family will never know what happened for sure.

JMO, MOO, etc.
 
A comment criticizes (post #50 "only look through one lens") while another praised posts for including "excellent research" (kemo post #46). There is much to criticize in the police department position. If there is something to criticize in the position argued here that Kevin Brown is innocent and the DNA result was due to contamination then you are welcome to put forth your opinion here and the points and counterpoints can be debated. Although anyone is free to argue the point, there has been very little argument here for the police department position and investigation. Perhaps that is because it is a weak case that is unsupportable. These posts which "dominated" the thread (post #50) are not just opinion but also facts which are supported by references. This research took time and will bring up many points that have a bearing on this case and which were previously unknown to some of the posters or readers of this thread. Many websleuths here may not have the knowledge or experience of crime lab procedures, and may not take the trouble to find out. If your knowledge is solely from CSI shows then you are poorly informed. While some may not appreciate my research, others do.

There was also criticism from Snoopster (post #50) that I "only posted on this thread". Snoopster, I have now posted on some other threads. Happy? I do not believe that forum rules require a forum member to post on a minimum or maximum number of threads.

In matters of forensic science, the police can demonstrate that they do not know what they are talking about, for example when stating that DNA contamination is not possible. Police do not have to be truthful or accurate. San Diego police thought that the two cases (Claire Hough and Barbara Nantais) were linked (1), until they didn't (2). Police can claim that they were about to make an arrest when they were not. Police can claim that someone muttered something incriminating under their breath when they didn't. Police can claim that they found several items of evidence from the search of Kevin and Rebecca Brown's house in Chula Vista (2) when they did not. If they had found evidence, then why did they wait 2 years, until after Kevin Brown's death, to search the couple's vacation home in Julian (3)? What was the justification for that warrant? Why did the reporters not ask this and why did the reporters not ask about what evidence was not found in that search? Why did the reporters not go to the original source and talk to SDPD Crime Lab director Jennifer Shen about whether DNA contamination is possible instead of lazily reporting what the police said that she said? She's right there in town. Was she muzzled?

The reporters have only to report that the police believe something and then it is considered to be true. An example is the error in post #51 which the poster corrected in post #52 (4). This same story also reports that according to the search warrant for Kevin Brown's house, Brown and Tatro stayed in touch after the murder. This is false and also sloppy reporting.

SDPD Homicide captain Guaderrama also spoke about safeguards that were in place for DNA testing (5). But these safeguards were not in place in 1984, as DNA testing had not been invented yet. DNA testing was not done in 1984 and there was no database for comparing the DNA profiles of crime lab employees. The first criminal case was in 1987 for a girl murdered in Great Britain in 1983 (6). Or the first case may have been, also in a 1987 case in England, Robert Melias was convicted based on DNA evidence (7). The first case in the United States was in 1987 (7, 8). The San Diego County Sheriff's Department Crime Lab began DNA testing of evidence in 1999 (9). I do not currently have a reference for when the SDPD Crime Lab began DNA testing.

There is one more vote to be counted for undecided from Lilibet (post #53), who also pointed out that the posts that include clearly labeled quotes from a legal brief read, surprise!, like a legal brief "posts there are here that read like legal briefs".

Vote count is now 1 C (Brown innocent) and 3 F (undecided).
see post #18 for explanation

Another comment on the theory that Tatro may have faked his death, last commented on by kemo in post #46. An internet search turned up no cases of this where a person disappeared in water and also arranged to have someone's body placed in the water. This has been done where the substitute body was burned beyond recognition in a fire. Of course if the attempt succeeded then we might never hear about it. But some attempts would fail due to identification of the body. The person would not know how long the body would be decomposing in the water, how thorough attempts to ID the body would be, and would know that there was a risk of the deception being detected, and then there could be a homicide charge. The person would also have to find someone who looked like him, and if the person was alive, would have to kill him, while still making it appear that the cause of death was drowning or otherwise consistent, like a heart attack where the victim fell in the water. Although some at the time thought things looked suspicious (4) (there was plenty of gas in the tank in the boat) there seems to be no indication that the body was not Tatro's. Also the body was found only a couple miles away and probably was not in the water long enough to hinder identification. If Tatro is alive, it is a rare trick that he pulled off.

(1)
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/loc...aire-Hough-Torrey-Pines-Murder-280306312.html
Cold Case Suspect’s Widow: SDPD “Pushed Him Over the Edge”
By Dave Summers
Published Friday, Oct 24, 2014 • Updated at 8:25 AM PST

“Even though San Diego Police have told [Jim] Alt [the surviving boyfriend of murdered Barbara Nantais] and the media a number of times over the years that the two crimes are connected, Thursday’s announcement did not mention the Nantais case.”
“After some prying the lead investigator on the Hough case tells NBC7 they have no evidence connecting these murders but would not elaborate.”

(2)
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2014/oct/23/sdpd-murder-criminalist-brown-hough-tatro/
Ex-crime lab tech dies before cops close in
Retired criminalist facing arrest in '84 case died Tuesday in presumed suicide
By Kristina Davis and Lyndsay Winkley | 1:47 p.m. Oct. 23, 2014 | Updated, 9 p.m.

Investigators have speculated the two deaths may be related, but Guaderrama said no evidence they collected during their investigation connects Brown or Tatro to Barbara’s killing.

The homicide captain [Guaderrama] wouldn’t discuss any other search warrants that were executed, but did say several pieces of evidence were found.

(3)
http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/07/20/sd-cops-drove-criminologist-to-suicide.htm

Courthouse News Service
Monday, July 20, 2015 Last Update: 8:29 PM PT
SD Cops Drove Criminologist to Suicide
By REBEKAH KEARN

The day after his death, defendant Oplinger submitted a search warrant application for the couple's vacation home in Julian that was as riddled with lies, omissions and misleading statements as Lambert's previous search warrant, according to the complaint.

(4)
http://www.therogersvillereview.com/news/article_d9b4eb48-69de-11e4-bda9-f783403336fb.html
DNA LINKS LOCAL MAN TO 1984 MURDER
Posted: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 1:00 am
TOMMY CAMPBELL Editor/Publisher

FALSE
According to published reports, Brown was known to frequent strip clubs, which is where police believe he and Tatro’s paths crossed.

FALSE
While the murder case is now effectively closed, the warrants reportedly indicate that the two men stayed in touch. Hammonds said it would be interesting to know whether they had any conversations immediately prior to Tatro’s death.

(5)
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/DNA-Cross-Contamination-Not-Problem-in-Claire-Hough-Case-PD-Ronald-Tatro-Kevin-Brown-280600942.html

DNA Cross-Contamination Not Problem in Claire Hough Case: PD
By Omari Fleming and Andie Adams
Updated at 10:17 PM PDT on Monday, Oct 27, 2014

"There are several safeguards that are actually put in place in regard to cross-contamination and we do not believe that was an issue in this case at all,” said [SDPD homicide captain] Guaderrama.
Those safeguards include tracking each and every lab technician that works on a case and requiring lab personnel to submit DNA samples before they are hired.

(6)
http://www.dnaforensics.com/DNAFingerprinting.aspx
The Discovery of DNA Fingerprinting

In 1987, Pitchfork became the first person in the world to be identified, captured and successfully prosecuted as a result of DNA evidence.

(7)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/case/revolution/wars.html
The DNA "Wars" are over
FRONTLINE PBS

In a 1987 case in England, Robert Melias became the first person convicted of a crime (rape) on the basis of DNA evidence

In one of the first uses of DNA in a criminal case in the United States, in November 1987, the Circuit Court in Orange County, Florida, convicted Tommy Lee Andrews of rape after DNA tests matched his DNA from a blood sample with that of semen traces found in a rape victim.

(8)
http://www.forensicmag.com/articles...rime-solving-judicial-and-legislative-history

Evolution of DNA Evidence for Crime Solving - A Judicial and Legislative History

It first made its way into the courts in 1986, when police in England asked molecular biologist Alec Jeffreys, who had begun investigating the use of DNA for forensics, to use DNA to verify the confession of a 17 year-old boy in two rape-murders in the English Midlands. The tests proved the teenager was in fact not the perpetrator and the actual attacker was eventually caught, also using DNA testing.

The first DNA-based conviction in the United States occurred shortly after in 1987 when the Circuit Court in Orange County, Florida, convicted Tommy Lee Andrews of rape after DNA tests matched his DNA from a blood sample with that of semen traces found in a rape victim.

(9)
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topi...dence-piles-up-sheriff-expands-his-crime-lab/
As DNA Evidence Piles Up, Sheriff Expands His Crime Lab
By WILL CARLESS Voice Staff Writer | October 2, 2007

The sheriff’s crime lab, which also serves all the other police departments in San Diego apart from the San Diego Police Department, first started analyzing evidence and crime scenes for traces of DNA in 1999. Today there are 12 analysts working on DNA at the crime lab.
 
Quoting CheckYourProof:

There is one more vote to be counted for undecided from Lilibet (post #53), who also pointed out that the posts that include clearly labeled quotes from a legal brief read, surprise!, like a legal brief "posts there are here that read like legal briefs".
Click to expand...

No, I didn't mean these posts read like legal briefs because "surprise!" they "quote from" a legal brief. I meant that they read like legal briefs because they are lengthily arguing a point of view as if before a court, rather than having a conversation with WS members.

See the full definition of legal brief, but this sentence makes my case. :)
Ironically, although the term was originally intended to mean a brief or summary argument (shorter than an oral presentation), legal briefs are quite often notoriously long.
Read more: http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=100#ixzz3jhTThX2l
Click to expand...

When someone tries to present their point of view here, another lengthy argument is posted, refuting it. It comes across as a legal brief or a condescending lecture by a professor, rather than a conversation IMO. It's clear from the first paragraph of post #54 that a debate and argument is desired. Speaking for myself, I have many cases I am following, and I am not interesting in digging deeply into this one, debating or arguing or even having my "vote counted."

But I am quite interested to note that the points I made in post #53 were not refuted in the reply. One can argue until the cows come home about the value of DNA evidence and whether Brown may have murdered Claire. But the irrefutable fact is that he had to be investigated by SDPD for the reasons I stated, and apparently we agree on that.

If Brown's wife's lawsuit has merit, that will be decided in court, not here. Perhaps the extensive research should be shared with her. :) JMO
 
Consider forensic scientists working on evidence in a lab. In the photo below a face mask is used by the person on the far left (1). The mask and gloves and pipettes and trays appear consistent with testing of biological evidence. According to the label on the site this is the FBI Crime Lab (date unknown).

attachment.php


Full face shields can also be used as in the photo below from a private lab that does DNA testing in a May 27, 2010 photo where two people from Nigeria are in training (2). One person also has a face mask under the full face shield.

attachment.php


Now imagine a bunch of forensic scientists crowded around tables jam-packed with evidence and a semen standard in the mix. No gloves, masks, and the people working there have never even heard of a sensitive technique called DNA testing. WHAT COULD GO WRONG?

(1)
http://www.abeldanger.net/2013/05/1517-marine-links-quantico-governor.html
Inside the FBI's Crime Lab


(2)
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...heir-heads-at-TV-CSI-counterparts.html?pg=all
Real forensic scientists shake their heads at TV 'CSI' counterparts
By Pat Reavy, Deseret News
Published: Wednesday, Nov. 30 2011 4:00 p.m. MST
 

Attachments

  • Photo1.jpg
    Photo1.jpg
    76.4 KB · Views: 131
  • Photo2.jpg
    Photo2.jpg
    43.9 KB · Views: 130
A key point in this case is that it is alleged that the match is to DNA from a sperm fraction, or from sperm cells. None of the cases of DNA contamination with references posted here involved a sperm fraction. So it appears that DNA contamination due to sperm cells is rare. It appears that due to this fact, that the DNA match was to a sperm fraction, combined with the habits of a cold-case squad to look under every rock, that the idea crystallized in the minds of San Diego police to start an investigation.

Consider this. If the crime lab standard for testing reagents is composed of epithelial (skin) cells that have been donated from a crime lab employee, and testing of evidence in a case shows a match to that employee's DNA profile in the Employee DNA Contamination Database, would it be assumed that DNA contamination had occurred? Yes. It is routine to assume that DNA contamination has occurred when there is a DNA match to a crime lab employee. Testing is repeated with greater care taken to avoid contamination, and anti-contamination procedures may also be improved.

Now consider this. There is actually a semen standard that has been contributed by a (male) volunteer employee who works at the crime lab. This standard is used to test reagents daily. Some crime labs post manuals on the internet and these can be found to verify this. The tests can be chemical tests, such as acid phosphatase. The test can be a microscopic test, where a slide is made up from a sample from the semen standard and it is verified that sperm cells can be seen under the microscope. Staining of the sperm cells with a chemical stain may be required first.

Now consider this. Consider that the semen standard, which is a standard that has been deposited on cloth, is used in the same part of the lab, in the same room, where the evidence from cases is. Consider that the nature of the semen standard is such that tiny pieces of the dried standard can break of and fly around, in the same way that tiny blood flakes can break off of a dried blood stain. Then it is possible for a piece of the semen standard to fall onto an evidence slide, or onto evidence or an evidence swab. There may be myriad ways that this could happen. An insect crawling or flying around could carry it. Some of it could stick to gloves and be transferred. Or a cough or sneeze could propel it through the air.

The point is that whether the standard used in the lab is from epithelial cells or sperm cells, contamination can be assumed if the cells turn up in evidence.

Consider that if it is possible for DNA contamination to occur in such a manner, and if an innocent crime lab employee was subject to an investigation and search warrants as a result, that this can only happen to a male employee. There may be rights that are violated in such a case, as listed in the civil court filing. In a sense this also seems like a kind of sex discrimination, since this cannot happen to a female employee. This is the first mention that I know of this aspect of the case.

Can anyone say that it is not possible for a semen standard to contaminate evidence, especially in the working conditions of 1984, when nobody had heard of DNA testing? These semen standards are in use today, and have been in use for decades. In 1984, it was a common practice to handle evidence without gloves or masks. It was also common practice to run bare hands over cloth evidence such as clothing or blankets, to detect semen stains by touch, since these may not be readily visible to the naked eye. Also it would be more likely that a semen standard could contaminate evidence if the working conditions are cramped, with six criminalists working in a crowded room at six small tables (3 by 6 feet; small by today's standards) that abutted each other, according to the civil lawsuit document. Also according to the civil lawsuit, Kevin Brown was one of the donors of a semen standard.

-----------------------------------------
FROM CIVIL LAWSUIT
In the central area of the lab were tables that were approximately six feet long and three feet wide. These tables, called examination tables, abutted each other.
When criminalists examined evidence, they would place white butcher paper on the tables and examine the evidence, which would be placed on the paper.
Up to six criminalists would conduct evidence examinations at the same time.
In 1984, male lab technicians, including Kevin Brown, at both the S.D.P.D. and the S.D.S.O. labs would commonly use their own semen to test the reagents.
-----------------------------------------

There have been comments that it is unlikely that Brown and Tatro would have committed a crime together. There is a recent comment (post #53 by Lilibet):

"His [Brown's] involvement does seem far-fetched on the surface."

kemo has brought up a key point (post #46), that of the two theories, that either Kevin Brown was involved somehow in a crime against the victim with Tatro, or that DNA contamination happened, one of the theories in more likely than the other. Applying a technique of Sherlock Holmes, if one of these is extremely unlikely, then the other is more likely. kemo, Lilibet, and I have opined that DNA contamination is more likely. I would rank sabotage, where someone else in the lab deliberately transferred a sample from the semen standard to the evidence, somewhere between these two theories, but also very unlikely.

There is a mathematical method that is being used more in DNA testing, of comparing a theory or hypothesis from the prosecution and from the defense. The probability of these two hypotheses is compared by taking the ratio. This is called a likelihood ratio.

A likelihood ratio can be used to compare other theories or propositions. It appears that such a ratio appeared on screen in the film "The Imitation Game" about code breaking (Ultra project), of the Nazi Enigma encryption system, by Alan Turing in WWII. The ratio was a likelihood that the Nazis would suspect that their code had been broken, if the Allies used the information from decoded dispatches to take some military action to their advantage.

I have maintained from the beginning that it is extremely unlikely that Kevin Brown and Tatro met up and worked together to commit crimes. On the other hand, it is plausible that DNA contamination happened, even before hearing any details about the case. Statistics can be used to estimate probabilities that support the above. Upon hearing more details about the case, it appears even more likely that contamination occurred.

The case was processed in a crime lab without procedures to prevent DNA contamination, such as gloves and mask.
The work area was cramped and crowded.
Kevin Brown worked in that area.
Kevin Brown was at work that day.
Kevin Brown donated a semen standard used in the lab.
The DNA match was to one swab only.
The DNA match was to a swab that had low levels of DNA or sperm cells.
There was no semen or sperm found in 1984 by the medical examiner, which is consistent with this being added to the evidence at the crime lab.
If the Kevin Brown's DNA levels are low, this appears more consistent with contamination, and the levels are low or very low, according to the court filing.
But, suppose that the level of Kevin Brown's DNA and sperm cells found were high. If that were the case, then why was semen or sperm not found by the medical examiner? Thus, whether the DNA levels were low or high, the theory of DNA contamination is supported.

Kevin Brown, to all appearances, did his job up to the standards of the day, and volunteered in good faith to contribute a semen standard. It appears that Rebecca Brown's attorneys have been careful only to include facts which they can prove in court. There should be a record or testimony that can be presented in court about who contributed semen standards, and which ones were used.

The database, which is composed of the DNA profiles of the crime lab employees, is often called something like a "DNA Employee Elimination Database". The employee is told and assumes that the purpose of this is to detect contamination.

To respond to Lilibet's comment in post #56.
"But the irrefutable fact is that he had to be investigated by SDPD for the reasons I stated, and apparently we agree on that."

Based on the above arguments, I maintain that DNA contamination should have been assumed, according to the stated purpose of the comparison with the crime lab employee. No investigation of Kevin Brown should have been allowed to even begin, much less progress as it did without turning up any evidence. There was an unwritten contract that Kevin Brown thought he had that was violated. Because DNA contamination should have been assumed, there was no more reason to investigate Kevin Brown then if he had been a person randomly selected off the street for investigation. Police cannot legally randomly select someone for such harassment.

Further, the ignorant police who violated Kevin Brown's rights have set a precedent and damaged the cause of forensic science. Anyone who works at a crime lab can now point to this case and demand that their profile either not be placed in the elimination database, or that it be removed, and take legal action if needed.

This has damaged the cause of forensic science because such elimination databases can be helpful in detecting a contamination problem. Otherwise a DNA profile can show up in a case and be taken for a suspect's. And detection of contamination allows for lab procedures to be improved to prevent it.

And the San Diego police do not even know what they have done. This brings to mind a quote:
Forgive them Lord for they know not what they do

Response to a point by Lilibet (post #56):
You point out with a comment both critical and complementary that my detailed posts are "condescending" but also perhaps also good enough to present in court as is. I have been trying to write clearly here. One reason is that points can be taken two different ways. An example was your comment about "legal briefs". I could indeed see that that could be meant two different ways, but which? By making detailed arguments, my goal is indeed to argue at such a high level that it is good enough for court, and thus at times you would think that I am making the closing statement for Rebecca. This also seems like a good way to make progress and thus avoid arguing "until the cows come home". These arguments have not been exhausted. It has occurred that my arguments may be helpful to Rebecca, but her team will have no trouble finding a forensic scientist who can make some of the same arguments. It is likely that they already have employed consultants. They may already be following this thread.

On to your points that you say were not addressed in your post #53.

"I don't think I have enough information to form a solid opinion one way or
another..."
Almost every aspect that has been reported about this case has been discussed in this thread, but as you have seen there can be new aspects that come up, and there can be a vast amount of supporting material for supporting arguments, and I don't think I am done, so you may have to follow this here.

"They are under obligation to conduct a full investigation."
Do not agree. The police had no right to investigate Kevin Brown the way that they did.

"Since they [polygraphs] prove nothing, what is the advantage to him of doing so?"
There can be an advantage for an innocent person to do a polygraph test. Absolute proof is not possible. Everything, even a polygraph test, is evidence.

"I'm sure he was depressed and distressed. But is SDPD supposed to call off their investigation because of these factors?"
There should have been no investigation to call off.

"If SDPD is convinced that Brown was involved with Claire's murder, I hope they let this lawsuit go to trial so that the evidence can be heard."
If they are smart at SDPD, there should be a growing concern about this going to trial. SDPD's treatment of Kevin Brown does not indicate that they are smart.

So you say that you are not interested in a debate, rather conversation. I have found that the forum members here are generally much better informed than some of those who have posted ignorant comments about this case on some newspaper websites. You were at least able to quickly catch your own mistake, which was not immediately evident from the bogus information in the news story.
 
CheckyoutProof,

Do you have some reference to substantiate your claim that it was the practice in the San Diego PD forensic lab to obtain semen standards from male lab employees in the 1980's? (The idea that a lab employee would be given a Playboy Magazine and a Test Tube and be sent to the rest room to obtain a "sample" is comical but certainly plausible; how else would they get one?)

If this can be established, I would be satisfied that this is the most likely explanation and Brown is, in fact, innocent.

While"I" would be satisfied, the issue would never be completely settled. Brown and Tatro (presumably) are dead so we will never know. If Brown's widow wins her law suite (or settles out of court) it will be because laws were broken or unethical acts were committed during the investigation; not because Brown was really innocent.

I suspect this case is another example of what can happen when the Reid Method of interrogation is used.

The Reid Method is an interrogation method that was designed to extract confessions from perpetrators when the interrogator KNOWS he is guilty. (Thereby getting a guilty plea and avoiding a trial)

The method is essentially to First: convince the suspect that the evidence against him is overwhelming and his situation is hopeless. In addition, undermine any support network he may have by making public some or all of this evidence. Of course, it is permissible that some of this evidence be false. The idea is to generate desperation.

Secondly: offer relief from this desperation if the suspect would only confess so that the "understanding" detectives can "help" him and become his support network
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 81 more.
Total: 4,398 (members: 82, guests: 4,316)

Online statistics

Members online
82
Guests online
4,316
Total visitors
4,398
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,555
Messages
17,970,920
Members
228,807
Latest member
Buffalosleuther
Back
Top