http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/BrothersTrial/7182 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&rsquo; left hand and right hand, swabbings from Marques&rsquo; fingers. All of these items were found at the crime scene. She got results from everything. Earnestine&rsquo;s hands and the JCPenney&rsquo;s card was from the same source. Earnestine Harper could not be eliminated as a contributor, meaning she was probably the contributor. On Lyndsey&rsquo;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. 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&rsquo; left hand and right hand, swabbings from Marques&rsquo; fingers. All of these items were found at the crime scene. She got results from everything. Earnestine&rsquo;s hands and the JCPenney&rsquo;s card was from the same source. Earnestine Harper could not be eliminated as a contributor, meaning she was probably the contributor. On Lyndsey&rsquo;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. en-us <p>Sooo . . . . What are you trying to say?   This information is suppose to impress me because . . . ?</p> <p> </p> <p>I am OH SO TIRED of seeing twice-daily updates on this case.</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/BrothersTrial/7182/#c_71467 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/BrothersTrial/7182/#c_71467 <p>Sooo . . . . What are you trying to say?   This information is suppose to impress me because . . . ?</p> <p> </p> <p>I am OH SO TIRED of seeing twice-daily updates on this case.</p> 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.  http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/BrothersTrial/7182/#c_71503 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/BrothersTrial/7182/#c_71503 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.  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. http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/BrothersTrial/7182/#c_71513 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/BrothersTrial/7182/#c_71513 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. dusty 1215, you're in denial.&nbsp; Circumstantial?&nbsp; The man drove to Bakersfield and killed his family, period.&nbsp; And by the way, you can always be an observer.&nbsp; The trial is open to the public.&nbsp; Try sitting in just one day, I did.&nbsp; You only hear portions of what is in this posting.&nbsp; The man killed his family.&nbsp; Just like OJ Simpson.&nbsp; http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/BrothersTrial/7182/#c_71569 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/BrothersTrial/7182/#c_71569 dusty 1215, you're in denial.&nbsp; Circumstantial?&nbsp; The man drove to Bakersfield and killed his family, period.&nbsp; And by the way, you can always be an observer.&nbsp; The trial is open to the public.&nbsp; Try sitting in just one day, I did.&nbsp; You only hear portions of what is in this posting.&nbsp; The man killed his family.&nbsp; Just like OJ Simpson.&nbsp; <p>I love the updates, and I appreciate them &quot;in the raw.&quot;&nbsp; Other than in-court cameras, this seems to be the most expeditious way to receive the most accurate information.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/BrothersTrial/7182/#c_71574 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/BrothersTrial/7182/#c_71574 <p>I love the updates, and I appreciate them &quot;in the raw.&quot;&nbsp; Other than in-court cameras, this seems to be the most expeditious way to receive the most accurate information.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> Anny, nobody *SAW* him do it so the evidence *IS* &quot;circumstantial&quot;.&nbsp; That doesn't make it wrong, just not direct.&nbsp; No, the crime wasn't &quot;just like OJ Simpson.&quot;&nbsp; It was worse.&nbsp; I hope that the prosecution proves its case, but if they do not, the jury must acquit, however much others may not like it.&nbsp; In that, it *IS* like the Simpson case. http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/BrothersTrial/7182/#c_71588 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/BrothersTrial/7182/#c_71588 Anny, nobody *SAW* him do it so the evidence *IS* &quot;circumstantial&quot;.&nbsp; That doesn't make it wrong, just not direct.&nbsp; No, the crime wasn't &quot;just like OJ Simpson.&quot;&nbsp; It was worse.&nbsp; I hope that the prosecution proves its case, but if they do not, the jury must acquit, however much others may not like it.&nbsp; In that, it *IS* like the Simpson case. 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. http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/BrothersTrial/7182/#c_71592 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/BrothersTrial/7182/#c_71592 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. &quot;If the insects don't fit, you must aquit!&quot; http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/BrothersTrial/7182/#c_71593 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/BrothersTrial/7182/#c_71593 &quot;If the insects don't fit, you must aquit!&quot; Maybe he is guilty like Robert Blake. Not necessarily OJ http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/BrothersTrial/7182/#c_71597 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/BrothersTrial/7182/#c_71597 Maybe he is guilty like Robert Blake. Not necessarily OJ <p><font size="2">Also, the&nbsp;case thus far has been primarily circumstancial in that the physical evidence e.g., DNA, hair,&nbsp;fingerprints have not been compelling.</font></p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/BrothersTrial/7182/#c_71639 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/BrothersTrial/7182/#c_71639 <p><font size="2">Also, the&nbsp;case thus far has been primarily circumstancial in that the physical evidence e.g., DNA, hair,&nbsp;fingerprints have not been compelling.</font></p> If you paid attention, DDA Green said in her opening statement that this was going to&nbsp;largely be&nbsp;a circumstancial case. So get over it, and lets see what happens... http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/BrothersTrial/7182/#c_71642 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/BrothersTrial/7182/#c_71642 If you paid attention, DDA Green said in her opening statement that this was going to&nbsp;largely be&nbsp;a circumstancial case. So get over it, and lets see what happens...