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

In the matter of the 'Kevin Brown Betrayal':

The previous post is contradictory. On the one hand, "...I would expect this to be something women working there would just not be aware of" employees contributing semen standards. On the other hand, "...perhaps some women, would talk freely about it among themselves...".

At the least, it seems old fashioned to say that female crime lab employees will not be in the loop and that such matters need to be kept secret from them. A couple hundred years ago, there were indeed standards about what was lady-like, and such matters would not have been discussed in front of women in polite society. Today, this could be considered a sexist comment. Consider who is involved here. Female crime lab analysts use science to fight for justice for the victims of crimes. Do you really want to tell them, like Jack Nicholson, "You can't handle the truth!"?

Anyway, it has already been pointed out in this thread in Post #66 (Reference #3) that the spouses of female crime lab employees can donate semen standards:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Fowler, who manages Georgia’s DNA database, testified supervisors at the lab, which has employees or their husbands donate semen for quality-control samples, became alarmed last year when the same control sample twice tainted crime-scene evidence, once in a 2011 Atlanta case unrelated to the stranglings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


At NASA in 1962, there seemed to be some doubt that women could contribute on an equal basis with men. A black female mathematician was not initially invited to a NASA mission briefing. Below is her response to that.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-hidden-figures-nasa-20170107-story.html
'Hidden Figures' may feature NASA's history, but it resonates in the present
Amina Khan Contact Reporter
January 6, 2017

When NASA mathematician Katherine Johnson asks to join a high-level briefing in the run-up to astronaut John Glenn’s historic 1962 flight in the film “Hidden Figures,” an engineer rushes to shut the idea down.

“
There’s no protocol for women attending,” he replies — an excuse that Johnson quickly bats aside.

“
There’s no protocol for a man circling the Earth either, sir,” she says.

That conversation sketches the two-front battle fought by NASA’s black female mathematicians and engineers as they worked toward a Cold War victory: beating the Soviet Union at the space race and overcoming the many layers of prejudice in the Jim Crow South.
...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
In the matter of the 'Kevin Brown Betrayal':

There is a newspaper report, by Radley Balko of the Washington Post, of activity in the courts on this case (1). There were rulings (that allow the case to proceed) on motions, posted on Google Scholar (which Balko refers to), for summary judgements on several issues by the plaintiffs and the defense (2).

Balko faults the lab director: "in this case, the crime lab director couldn’t bring herself to admit to problems that existed decades ago". Presumably this refers to what detective Lambert said that lab director Jennifer Shen said:
-----------------------------------------------------
Rather than raising the possibility that the vaginal swab may have been contaminated in the Lab by Brown's semen sample, Lambert stated Jennifer Shen, then the manager of the Lab, stated, "BROWN had no access to the evidence in the HOUGH murder" and "that cross contamination is not possible." (2)
-----------------------------------------------------

Balko may have missed this in the Google Scholar material that he himself referenced:
-----------------------------------------------------
In the affidavit, Lambert stated that SDPD Lab Manager Jennifer Shen informed him "that cross DNA contamination is not possible." (Defs.' Mot., Ex. C at 17) (emphasis in original). Defendants assert this was not a misrepresentation, but the evidence raises a factual dispute on that issue. First, Shen testified she did not use "those words[,]" i.e., say that cross contamination was not possible. (Pls.' Opp'n to Defs.' Mot., Ex. 22 at 136.) Second, outside of this case, Plaintiffs presented evidence of several instances of cross contamination documented by the Crime Lab. Third, Plaintiffs also presented evidence of a significant discrepancy in the number of sperm cells found in the combined sperm fractions that resulted in the identification of Kevin Brown. (2)
-----------------------------------------------------

So, who are you going to believe? What Lambert said that Jennifer Shen said, or what Jennifer Shen says that she said? Jennifer Shen may not have found out that this supposed quote from her in the search warrant until after Kevin Brown was dead. It is likely that she was then ordered not to comment on the case. Even the criminalist who originally worked on the Claire Hough case admitted that contamination was possible:
-----------------------------------------------------
Simms tested some of the evidence from Claire's case shortly after the murder. At his deposition in this case, Simms testified he told Defendant Lambert there was a possibility he "could have done" something while "working on the evidence that might have resulted in possible contamination" of the evidence with Brown's semen sample, "that there was a possibility." (Pls.' Opp'n to Defs.' Mot., Ex. 14 at 76.) (See also id. at 87 (stating Simms told Lambert he had "concerns about a breach of protocol that [he] may have committed that might have led to possible contamination.")) (2)
-----------------------------------------------------

The small amount of sperm found was consistent with contamination that happened in the crime lab:
-----------------------------------------------------
Third, Plaintiffs also presented evidence of a significant discrepancy in the number of sperm cells found in the combined sperm fractions that resulted in the identification of Kevin Brown. According to Plaintiffs' expert, those fractions "would be roughly equivalent to 158 sperm cells, assuming that all of the DNA was from sperm cells and not from any residual epithelial cells. The average number of sperm cells in a typical ejaculate, for comparison purposes, ranges from 200,000,000-600,000,000." (2)
-----------------------------------------------------

The defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on the search warrant, and the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on this claim:
-----------------------------------------------------
A reasonable fact-finder could conclude that when executing the warrant, defendants went beyond their scope and seized materials that had not been enumerated, which a reasonable officer would not have seized.")
...
Given that there are questions of fact about whether Lambert made misrepresentations and omissions in the affidavit, however, he is not entitled to qualified immunity on the claim that the warrant was overbroad.
...
Thus, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity from Plaintiffs' wrongful death claim. (2)
-----------------------------------------------------

(1)
A crime lab analyst killed himself after contamination wrongly made him a suspect in a 30-year-old murder
By Radley Balko June 5 at 11:07 AM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...y-made-him-a-suspect-in-a-30-year-old-murder/

(2)
THE ESTATE OF KEVIN BROWN by its successor in interest Rebecca Brown, and REBECCA BROWN, an individual, Plaintiffs,
v.
MICHAEL LAMBERT, an individual, MAURA MEKENAS-PARGA, an individual, and DOES 2-50, Defendants.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...ualified+immunity"&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=6,33
 
I've tried, but not yet finished, all posts.

As a former lab worker in a major hospital in the Deep South, I will weigh in on Mr Brian's innocence based on my experience as a lab technician. Not, however, a criminalist. Just your basic specimen receiving section tech.

Back in the South, at least, before 1986 when the lab was completely revamped, when couples came in for yearly check-ups, the labels generated by those ancient computers would read:
Mr. John Smith
Mrs. John Smith
So very easy for a tech to confuse specimens based on the letter 's.'

After I spun a blood sample in the centrifuge & pulled it out to separate the serum, a co-worker tripped against me & I got serum all over my face. First time I ever pulled down the ceiling shower. We used no guards, seldom wore gloves, & had to manually prepare slides with coverings. Cross-contamination was a reality. It still exists.

As my husband, a physician, learned through med school, internship, residency & fellowship, always double and triple-check lab results. We are all human and make mistakes. Deliberate ones, when they happen, can end a person's life. My pathology supervisor was strict in her admonishments. You serve the patient. Be very, very careful.
Just my humble opinion.
 
Thanks for bringing up that news story, CastlesBurning. You are new to this thread? I have previously posted my opinion on this case, that it should be glaringly obvious to an intelligent and well informed person that the theory of the case against Kevin Brown was bogus. His widow has won in civil court. She may not collect much though. The former detective claims he has a net worth of about $10,000, even though police officers in California are highly paid, and earn a good retirement which is probably underfunded by the taxpayers.

If you read the previous posts on this thread, you will see that I called it.

I am now two for two on calling innocent people innocent. The other case involved a man accused of shootings on freeways in Arizona.

------------------------------
------------------------------
QUOTE
"The lawsuit alleged that [San Diego Police Department detective] Lambert recklessly disregarded a likely explanation for the test results: accidental contamination in the police lab."

REFERENCE:
Jury awards $6 million to widow of criminalist who committed suicide during murder investigation

Jury awards $6 million to widow of criminalist who committed suicide during murder investigation
By JOHN WILKENS
FEB. 14, 20205:32 PM
------------------------------
------------------------------
 
A cold case. A DNA hit. And finally justice. Or was it? - The San Diego Union-Tribune (sandiegouniontribune.com)
BY JOHN WILKENS
FEB. 6, 2022
''Claire Hough was nearing her 15th birthday when she traveled from Rhode Island to San Diego to visit her grandparents. She never got to blow out any candles. Somebody killed her first.

Her murder in August of 1984 became one of the county’s most troubling unsolved homicides, brutal in its details and frightening in its location: scenic Torrey Pines State Beach, visited by thousands of people annually.

As the years went by, San Diego police cold-case detectives revisited the slaying from time to time, looking through the files for missed clues and asking criminalists if there was some new way to extract DNA from the evidence.''

''It turned out there was.
What happened next is the stuff of Hollywood movies, mystery novels and true-crime podcasts — at long last an answer to the question of what happened to Claire Hough. A triumph, it seemed, of tenacity and technology.
But the DNA results became more complicated than that, and more tragic''
 
The case of Kevin Brown and that of Gary Leiterman ( worth a Google) raise the issue of the possibility of contamination in DNA cases where minute amounts of DNA are found, amplified through the PCR process and then used as forensic evidence.

I both cases, there was a known “innocent” presence of those men’s DNA in the Lab at the time the contamination is alleged to have occurred but no “innocent” explanation for why it would be found on the body of the victim. In addition, the DNA of two other men were found on the bodies of the victims that have never been fully explained. In both situations, the alleged contamination occurred before the development of PCR permitted the identification of such small amounts of DNA but testing protocols at the time, if properly followed, should have prevented that contamination.

In both the Brown and the Leiterman case, there is no real evidence except the DNA. Is the possibility of contamination enough to justify “reasonable doubt”? I am inclined to agree.

In the Brown case, it never went to a jury but it looks the investigators believed he was guilty. They violated their internal policies about releasing information about a suspect in hopes of pressuring him into a confession (his widow successfully sued over this but it really doesn’t prove his innocence).

Leiterman was convicted. As far I can tell, the jury was willing to accept that the other DNA was a result of contamination but not Leiterman’s. (The other DNA belong to a 2 year old with no ties to Leiterman or the victim, nobody believed he was involved in the crime).

The upshot of the whole thing is Contamination is potentially a problem when minute amounts of DNA are found and must be considered.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
53
Guests online
3,676
Total visitors
3,729

Forum statistics

Threads
592,548
Messages
17,970,843
Members
228,807
Latest member
Buffalosleuther
Back
Top