|
Brothers' attorneys face contempt hearing Judge: Brothers deserves to die Jury recommends Brothers should receive the death penalty VERDICT IN DEATH PENALTY No Verdict This Week Jury begins deliberations in Brothers penalty phase Defense attorney finishes closing argument Defense continues closing argument Defense attorney begins his closing argument Prosecutor finishes closing argument February 07 March 07 April 07 May 07 June 07 July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08
RSS 2.0![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
|
A criminalist testified she tested many items from the house where family was killed
Criminalist Brenda Smith did further testing.
She retested the DNA from the glove tip to see if she could get a more detailed DNA analysis with a new type of testing. She also tested a JCPenney credit card, a baby monitor, a remote control, a gum wrapper, three paper receipts, a phone base unit and AC adapter, and some paper money and coins, swabbings from Earnestines hands, swabbing from Lyndseys hands, swabbing from Marques’ left hand and right hand, swabbings from Marques’ fingers. All of these items were found at the crime scene. She got results from everything. Earnestine’s hands and the JCPenney’s card was from the same source. Earnestine Harper could not be eliminated as a contributor, meaning she was probably the contributor. On Lyndsey’s hands, she had two contributors, she could not eliminate Lyndsey as a major contributor from her own hands. Marques hands and fingers, Marques could not be eliminated as the contributor, meaning it was his own DNA on his hands. The receipts she swabbed, some coins, are from the same single source. Marques could not be eliminated as the contributor. Paper money at the house, there was a mixture of at least three individuals, a male was a major contributor and Marques could not be eliminated and Lyndsey and Marshall could not be eliminated as a contributor. 11 comments from 9 users
1
posted by
theColorNine
on Mar 29, 2007 at 03:09 PM
Sooo . . . . What are you trying to say? This information is suppose to impress me because . . . ?
I am OH SO TIRED of seeing twice-daily updates on this case. posted by
anonymous
on Mar 29, 2007 at 03:41 PM
Uh, don't read it and don't comment if you don't want to hear about it any longer. It's news and unfortuntely BIG news. There are people who are interested in seeing Mr. Brothers get what he deserves and how he gets it, so if you don't want to hear about it, don't read it.
posted by
dusty1215
on Mar 29, 2007 at 03:50 PM
posted by
anonymous
on Mar 29, 2007 at 04:57 PM
dusty 1215, you're in denial. Circumstantial? The man drove to Bakersfield and killed his family, period. And by the way, you can always be an observer. The trial is open to the public. Try sitting in just one day, I did. You only hear portions of what is in this posting. The man killed his family. Just like OJ Simpson.
posted by
bubbaa
on Mar 29, 2007 at 05:05 PM
I love the updates, and I appreciate them "in the raw." Other than in-court cameras, this seems to be the most expeditious way to receive the most accurate information.
posted by
randomfactor
on Mar 29, 2007 at 05:25 PM
posted by
redkernhero
on Mar 29, 2007 at 05:31 PM
Every time a Black man is suspected of killing someone.....it is like OJ. Well maybe the result too will be like OJ, nah this Red Kern, we hang 'em high even before they come to Court.
posted by
anonymous
on Mar 29, 2007 at 05:32 PM
"If the insects don't fit, you must aquit!"
posted by
feliciauop
on Mar 29, 2007 at 05:38 PM
Maybe he is guilty like Robert Blake. Not necessarily OJ
posted by
anonymous
on Mar 29, 2007 at 08:56 PM
Also, the case thus far has been primarily circumstancial in that the physical evidence e.g., DNA, hair, fingerprints have not been compelling. posted by
OldBlue56
on Mar 29, 2007 at 09:07 PM
If you paid attention, DDA Green said in her opening statement that this was going to largely be a circumstancial case. So get over it, and lets see what happens...
1
|