Celtsleuth suggests that the presumed suicide is evidence of guilt, but not enough to tilt into the guilty Camp A, B, or E.
Vote count is now 1 C and 1 F.
The presumed suicide is not really evidence of guilt or innocence. Ambiguous behavior and events 30 years after the crime is very weak circumstantial evidence. Until statistical arguments can be marshaled to show what percent of guilty people would kill themselves vs what percent of falsely accused innocents, it should be considered a toss-up. If the chances are 50:50 that the suicide is due to guilt, the chance is still 50% that the person is innocent. This is very weak evidence of guilt. Even this weak evidence is torpedoed if there was no original justification for ever considering him to be a suspect. Examples can be cited of suspects who kill themselves, such as the suspect in the recent killing of two NYPD officers in their parked car. A counter example of a criminal who not only did not kill himself, but did not want to get executed, is Ted Bundy. The fact is that innocent people, who have not murdered someone, commit suicide, and they are not considered suspects in unsolved homicides as a result. Perhaps the two most famous examples this year are Robin Williams, and Alan Turing, who died in 1954 but is in the spotlight this year because of the movie The Imitation Game.
Further, since Kevin Brown and his attorney could have made the same arguments I made, why would he assume that the jig was up if he was guilty. He should get off. In reality innocent people can get convicted, and such may have happened in some similar cases of cold DNA matches. That seems very unlikely in this case as the only evidence connecting him to the victim is the DNA match, and there is no evidence of criminal activity on his part. The evidence does not meet the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. It also does not meet the weaker civil standard of preponderance of the evidence. It is also highly doubtful that the DNA evidence even met the standard of reasonable suspicion for starting an investigation.
The argument can also be made that if he were guilty he could have sabotaged the evidence since it could have been easily accessible right there at work, and the match never would have come up.
If the investigation were to push a guilty suspect to kill himself, why would it take two years? Due to depression, which is common, some will give up where others would fight the good fight. That is a fight I would have liked to see.
There have been other examples of former government scientists named in homicide investigations but never charged. One is Steven Hatfill, who was identified by the US Department of Justice as a "person of interest" in the 2001 anthrax attacks. Hatfill sued the government and won millions. An innocent person is such a situation should elicit sympathy.
The only real evidence, forensic or otherwise, is the DNA match. Considering that it is routine at crime labs to include the employee DNA profiles for the purpose of checking for contamination, the San Diego Police Department have made a weak case for considering Kevin Brown to be a suspect in this case. When DNA contamination by an employee is found, that is usually the end of it. The case is made in news reports that the DNA evidence is more incriminating because it is from sperm. But these are all statements by police and quotes from police in the search warrant. Crime lab reports and notes are not yet available for sleuths here to peruse and analyze. Perhaps that will change if the claim by Kevin Brown's widow is denied and it proceeds on to a lawsuit. A crime lab report will state that a person's DNA profile has been found in a sample. It will not state that so and so's sperm has been found in a sample. The police have taken whatever was in the report and translated it into 'cop speak'. For all we know, there was no sperm found, or if there was, it is not from Kevin Brown. It may be that if male DNA is found on a vaginal swab, the police assume that it must be from sperm. If so, then by rewording the results they have made the evidence appear more incriminating.
The fact is that the San Diego police have been caught red handed drawing conclusions about this case that are not only
unsupportable based on the forensic evidence, but also conclusions that have been shown to be
incorrect.
Here is an example of an
UNSUPPORTABLE CONCLUSION:
An unnamed detective states in a search warrant that he 'believes' that the DNA was deposited "
contemporaneous to the murder". No forensic scientist or medical examiner can make such a determination of when DNA was deposited or put such a finding in a report. And yet there it is in the search warrant. The police have taken the facts of the case and molded them to fit certain theories. Was sperm even found? The medical examiner says no. If there was so little sperm or semen at the time of the autopsy that the medical examiner could not find any, then how could a detective draw that conclusion from lab reports based on testing 28 years after the crime? All he can do is state his opinion which is sheer speculation.
------------------------------------
EXCERPTS:
“The detective writing the search warrant explained why he thinks Brown’s sperm could not have gotten into Hough through consensual sex. He said an interview with her best friend revealed Hough was faithful to her boyfriend at the time, was not attracted to older men and would not have had sex with someone she just met.”
“’I believe the sexual intercourse Brown had with Claire Hough was not consensual and
appears to be contemporaneous to the murder,’ the detective wrote in the warrant.”
"A just-released warrant reveals DNA evidence links a San Diego crime lab technician to a 1984 cold case. The warrant says the technician’s sperm was found inside the victim. The suspect’s wife and attorney still maintain his innocence. NBC 7’s Dave Summers reports. (Published Saturday, Nov 1, 2014)"
FROM:
Incriminating DNA Found Inside Cold Case Victim: Warrant
By Andie Adams and Dave Summers
Friday, Oct 31, 2014 • Updated at 10:50 PM PST
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/loc...rrant-Kevin-Brown-Ronald-Tatro-281162272.html
------------------------------------
Below is a reference that states that forensic scientists cannot say when DNA is deposited on an object.
------------------------------------
EXCERPTS:
Mr [Fitzgerald’s instructing solicitor Matthew] Selley said
forensic scientists cannot date when DNA made its way onto an object.
FROM:
Questions raised over DNA evidence to secure murder convictions
By Candice Marcus
Updated 13 Aug 2014, 6:12am
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-13/dna-evidence-not-enough-to-secure-murder-conviction/5669136
------------------------------------
Here are the quotes from news stories to the effect that the medical examiner found no sperm or semen.
NO SPERM FOUND AT AUTOPSY:
------------------------------------
EXCERPTS:
“However, Rebecca’s claim says ‘the medical examiner’s microscopic examination of a fluid sample from the victim’s vaginal vault was negative for the presence of sperm.’”
FROM:
Cold Case Suspect’s Wife Files Wrongful Death Claim Against SDPD
Rebecca Brown hopes to clear the name of her husband, Kevin, who is accused of killing a teenager in 1984
By Andie Adams
Thursday, Dec 18, 2014 • Updated at 5:01 PM PST
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/loc...ngful-Death-Claim-Against-SDPD-286177051.html
------------------------------------
NO SEMEN FOUND AT AUTOPSY:
------------------------------------
EXCERPTS:
“Back in those days, criminalists often used their own blood and semen samples as a ‘standard’ to test evidence against, [Gretchen] von Helms said. Swabs being tested weren’t capped then, she added, increasing chances for contamination. She also questioned why semen wasn’t reported being found in Claire’s body during the autopsy, but was found on swabs at the police lab.”
FROM:
Warrants reveal evidence in 1984 killing
Retired SDPD criminalist’s sperm found on vaginal swab
By Kristina Davis7:27 P.M.OCT. 31, 2014
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/oct/31/warrant-brown-hough-murder-dna-photo/
————————————-
NO SEMEN RECOVERED:
------------------------------------
EXCERPTS:
“Police have not said whether either teen was raped, although both autopsy reports show the girls suffered injuries consistent with sexual assault of some kind. No semen was recovered from their bodies.”
FROM:
Were teens mutilated by same killer?
New DNA evidence questions whether 1978, 1984 murders are linked
By Kristina Davis2:15 P.M.OCT. 25, 2014
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014...tais-dna-murder-beach-police/2/?#article-copy
------------------------------------
Here is an example of San Diego police drawing an
INCORRECT CONCLUSION:
San Diego police told the media on multiple occasions that Claire Hough's murder was connected to a similar crime in the same area from 6 years before.
------------------------------------
“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.”
FROM:
Cold Case Suspect’s Widow: SDPD “Pushed Him Over the Edge”
“He did not do this. He never would hurt anybody,” Rebecca Brown said.
By Dave Summers
Published Friday, Oct 24, 2014 • Updated at 8:25 AM PST
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/loc...aire-Hough-Torrey-Pines-Murder-280306312.html
------------------------------------
Note that San Diego police were convinced that the two crimes were related. Now they have named two suspects in the death of Claire Hough who could not have committed the earlier crime. Ronald Tatro, who was a kidnapper and convicted rapist, was in jail in Arkansas and could not have murdered Barbara Nantais 6 years before Claire Hough was murdered. Criminalist Kevin Brown was working at a crime lab in New Mexico. Since it appears very likely that Ronald Tatro is the killer of Claire Hough, San Diego police have had to drop any speculation that the two murders were related.
It had to be pried out of the lead investigator that there is actually “no evidence connecting these murders”. The investigator did not want to admit that the San Diego Police Department was incorrect about there being a link between the two crimes. This is an example of San Diego police speculating when there is no actual evidence to support their theory.