PAGE FOUR ,..?????.DNA

Appeals update #4 The questionable DNA Frank Harris DL-0556

On page 750, the jacket is sent to be analyzed for DNA, dated November 6, 1996. On November 8, 1996 Debra Calhoun reports to police the jacket has blood on it consistent with the victim. See page 601f. I am assuming at this point she has cut a section from the jacket to test for DNA? On page 695, dated December 19, 1996, (received by police Jan. 1997) Debra Calhoun says in report (on page 696) "stains" on jacket were found to be same blood type as victim, the "Isonenzymes"listed on EsD result. This is the first time the word "stains" is used when referring to the jacket. I again assume at this point she has cut out the stains, to remove them from the jacket. If she did not cut them out the only other way to get a sample is to swab the stain. Which would make it "less" concentrated as a result of swabbing the area for a sample. She notes on page 697 of that report that bloodstain samples were sent to be analyzed for DNA at that time. On page 699, Deb Calhoun sends yet another report to the police about the test she conducted. She says she sent the shoe to be tested for DNA . on page 735 the DNA lab tech. Beth Giles reports that she has tested "cutting from hooded sweatshirt" (the jacket in question) and she was UNABLE to find any DNA!! See item #5 page 736. On page 733, police det. Savage, in charge of the investigation as well as the evidence locker custodian and the guy who was side by side with the DA, in the courtroom during both trials, spoke to D. Calhoun and she told him there was no DNA match.

The cop asked her why she said there was "consistent" blood evidence on the jacket earlier, she explained that is just a blood "type" test. There is no mention of any other "stains" here. The very next day, on page 734, the same cop is speaking to Calhoun again, this time Deb is telling him she felt there should have been a match. She called Beth Giles and she was told that there was not enough blood for a DNA test. She told Beth that she would send "another sample" but was told that they do not do testing that way. Deb would go over her head and talk to Capt.. Sauers to get more testing done. Det. Geesy would also call the lab and speak to his "contact" Bob Riegle. Save was told that Bob and Deb would both approach the Capt. Now on page 746, Deb Calhoun calls the police and tells them to send the jacket back so she can prepare new "samples" to be tested. At this point the jacket and the blood vials are in the police evidence room and the custodian of that room, PETER SAVAGE! Page 749, dated march 7, 1997, jacket is on its way back to Calhoun to get new samples off it!

Is this against the policy that Beth Giles told them of earlier, when informing them there would be no new testing done? Why could she not use the old "samples" what was wrong with them? On page 755, dated march 25, 1997, Beth Giles now finds a DNA match on the jacket. This time she is testing "four cuttings" from the jacket. I believe the new blood was put there by the police in an effort to "tighten" up the case, and if so there should be a presence of E.D.T.A. from the blood used out of the sample vials. If you go to page 866, it is dated July 1997, but it makes no sense for this to be happening this late. Here you see a report of the pathologist Wayne Ross examining items that were found within the first few days of the investigation. (One or two days) He is examining the victims shirt, pants, and shoes, he is also looking at the knife, and jacket we talked about. These are items the police had in possession early on. He does not have the shoes they say belonged to the defendant at this time because I believe this report was filed BEFORE they questioned Kim Kistler. Then why change the date on the report? He examines the jacket in question and found

NO EVIDENCE OF BLOOD SPLATTER!! They did not want this to have a date on it BEFORE the DNA testing, since it would show those NEW stains were not on the jacket when Ross examined it. Why would he be examining this evidence this late in the investigation? They have all the testing done at this point they are ready for trial!! All of a sudden he wants to look at these items? And only the items they had BEFORE they talked to Kim?? This report was done a lot earlier then the date suggest. On page 867 of the same report he also reports that the knife had base on the sharp side which he noted would cause the "skin tags" on the injury. This was once again an opinion he would have BEFORE he talked to Kistler because after she gave statement they wanted the injury to take a lot more time to cause so they could say a woman could not do it! This again tells me this report was actually written way before the DNA testing was done and before they got a statement from Kistler. I need to get the doctors copy of this incident since I believe it was the police who changed this date not the doctor and I believe his file may have the right date in it. This will show two things, one the "new stains" were not on the jacket after the murder, and two the knife was the reason that there were skin tags on the wound, NOT because it was several cuts made as asserted at trial. There was NO testing done on the hairs, all the testimony given was on the microscopic examination of the hairs. I want mitochondrial testing done on the hairs I do not believe they are the victims, in fact I believe them to belong to Kistler herself, or her children!