About BrothersTrial


Member Since:
February 13, 2007
Last Signed In:
September 27, 2007
Profile Views:
4200
Blog Views:
82030
View Profile
Send a Message
Send To A Friend
Sign Guestbook
Add as a Friend

Previous Posts
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
Archives
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
Subscribe!
RSS 2.0 feed RSS 2.0
Add to My Yahoo
Add to My Google
Add to Bloglines
Add to My AOL
BrothersTrial - > The People vs. Vincent Brothers -> A criminalist testified she tested many items from the house where family was killed
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.
Posted in these Groups:
Topics:
posted by BrothersTrial on Thursday, March 29, 2007 at 02:18 PM
Report a Violation
Viewed 441 times
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
I think the evidence is mostly circumstantial..I think they have a very weak case so far. Sleeping around isn't a good enough reason to kill your entire family.
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
Anny, nobody *SAW* him do it so the evidence *IS* "circumstantial".  That doesn't make it wrong, just not direct.  No, the crime wasn't "just like OJ Simpson."  It was worse.  I hope that the prosecution proves its case, but if they do not, the jury must acquit, however much others may not like it.  In that, it *IS* like the Simpson case.
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

Leave a Comment
Ground Rules for posting comments:
  • No profanity or personal attacks.
  • Please comment on the subject of the post itself.
If you do not follow these rules we will remove your comment. Please keep it civil.

To protect users from spam, please enter the text from the image on the left.