Gary Dunn

[upallnight]

I think the prosecution is going to have to lay out the course of their investigation very carefully, but once they do, maybe everything will become clear. And maybe the jury won't feel like there is the possibility that their own civil rights might be at risk if the actions of Robbins and Steffy are deemed licit and acceptable by the court. (Meaning what seems to have occurred at this point.)

But believe me when I tell you that I'm not the only person who thinks it's very possible that KJ watched Nona, suspected that there was a relationship between her and Dunn and planted that wrapper in plain view at the time of the murder or discovery. The type of Nona's DNA on the wrapper is important too.

We all want justice for Nona, but I have a lot of anguish that this new trial could be as poorly carried out as the first one.

So well said and Amen to that L, I so hope for the truth.

[upallnight]

Still thinking out loud. . . motive for planting evidence after trial. . . pending civil trial??? :shrug:

Personally, I don't believe the dna was planted. We'll see what the jury thinks in September.

After reading the Bona Dea account, I can't say that I feel bad that Dunn is in the pokey as we type. . .

Oh my, I had not thought of that, pending civil trial. Ugggh, Well I don't know just what to think about the dna. Just trying to sort out so much and we don't even know yet what all exactly the evidence they have on Gary is. The X wife factor, how will that come into play and so much more. As of now, Nona & Gary's DNA was found. KJ's print in Nona's blood. September can not come soon enough and hopefully it will all get sorted out. As of now I guess it is all just speculation but our hearts are in the right place. It's just been so long and it is so frustrating and heart breaking. That Dona Dea attack just sends chills up my spine. To close for comfort so yes, him being locked up is not a bad thing and I hope he stays that way if he is guilty.

[lorettalockhorn]

Upall, at this point it looks like Dunn got off very easy with his light sentence for the Bona Dea attack, and you can't help but think that if Nona's new jury was to know about it, they might be at least tempted to stick him back in the pokey based on that alone, especially since the attack on Nona seems to possibly be similar.

As for the DNA being planted, I don't know of anyone who thinks Dunn's was, but people do think that the wrapper was more likely on the scene and was planted in plain sight of LE. Nona's DNA could have been planted on the wrapper, or maybe it came to be there by touching it herself.

Was thinking earlier about Kevin's claim that he and Nona had sex the night before the murder, but was that proven? Didn't the only semen sample from Kevin contain the days old, non-motile sperm cells from earlier in the week? Is this yet another lie that he told investigators? Or have I forgotten something?

[upallnight]

Upall, at this point it looks like Dunn got off very easy with his light sentence for the Bona Dea attack, and you can't help but think that if Nona's new jury was to know about it, they might be at least tempted to stick him back in the pokey based on that alone, especially since the attack on Nona seems to possibly be similar.

As for the DNA being planted, I don't know of anyone who thinks Dunn's was, but people do think that the wrapper was more likely on the scene and was planted in plain sight of LE. Nona's DNA could have been planted on the wrapper, or maybe it came to be there by touching it herself.

Was thinking earlier about Kevin's claim that he and Nona had sex the night before the murder, but was that proven? Didn't the only semen sample from Kevin contain the days old, non-motile sperm cells from earlier in the week? Is this yet another lie that he told investigators? Or have I forgotten something?

I agree and from what I remember KJ was the one who advised he and Nona had sex the night before her murder. I think the semen was found on her panties as a discharge possibility and was said could have with stood a light washing. As for the lies, anything is possible and it keeps my mind wondering also.
I don't really think the dna of Dunn was planted, just thinking out loud given the Robbins factor. One thing is for sure, Robbins has been a key player in trying to clear KJ's name. If Nona was seeing Dunn then the wrapper could have a valid reason for being in the apartment. Just don't understand why Gary would not admitt to it and that bothers me because it sure does make him look suspect, even with Robbins hands and mouth in the mix of things. Could the wrapper have been placed on the counter by KJ in an attempt to set up Dunn? That is a possibility. Nona may have touched the wrapper but if so was she made to or for other reasons. The problem is, how much evidence was over looked and is it possible to get what is needed for the truth to ever be known?
I wonder about the torn fingernail and the unidentified prints found on the lamp. Do you think maybe they have an id on them?
Gary's ex wife may have much more to say than we could even imagine. I do hope they let her testify. Did Gary abuse her, did she wittness him watching Nona or saying things about Nona. Lord, so many things it could be.
I have even thought of will Gary change his plea? Is there reason for him to do so? He said he did not know Nona, will that change? The dna sure puts him at her apartment, why was he there and why was Nona's dna on the wrapper?
That Bona Dea attack sure put up a red flag to me. I guess it all comes down to September, the evidence and yes, the jury. Just so hard to wait and I agree with FD, glad he is locked up.

[lorettalockhorn]

I guess there are no telling how many possibilities with the wrapper: 1) Dunn and Nona had sex and both their DNA was on the wrapper, a) the wrapper was left behind either in plain sight or moved to the kitchen by a killer other than Dunn or b) the wrapper was brought back into the apartment and planted, 2) Dunn and Nona had sex and the wrapper was removed from the apartment but brought back in to frame Dunn and the killer either placed Nona's DNA on the wrapper or it was there to begin with.

It could be just dumb luck that Dunn's DNA was on the wrapper. If Kevin is the true killer, he might have known that there was a relationship between Dunn and Nona and the wrapper was put in plain sight simply as a red herring given that he and Nona didn't use condoms.

We don't know what if any other evidence the prosecution has to implicate Dunn; maybe we only know about the DNA because of Robbins' big mouth. There may be plenty and I truly hope so. If Dunn gave his wife any ammunition for The State then I suppose he is dumb enough to have left the wrapper behind. I just pray that it will all make sense at trial.

FD asked earlier if I had ever heard of a condom/wrapper being used to frame someone in the real world, and if so I don't know about it, but a used condom was used in Presumed Innocent by the wife to frame the husband for murder. Great movie.

[Lodi]

One problem for the prosecution is that the DNA found on the wrapper was not a complete match to Dunn. There was only enough sample on the wrapper to get a Y-chromosome profile. The profile matched Dunn's Y-Chromosome but it also matches most of his male relatives with the last name of Dunn. It is good circumstantial evidence but I hope they have more.

[SaraSidle]

I agree and from what I remember KJ was the one who advised he and Nona had sex the night before her murder. I think the semen was found on her panties as a discharge possibility and was said could have with stood a light washing. As for the lies, anything is possible and it keeps my mind wondering also.
I don't really think the dna of Dunn was planted, just thinking out loud given the Robbins factor. One thing is for sure, Robbins has been a key player in trying to clear KJ's name. If Nona was seeing Dunn then the wrapper could have a valid reason for being in the apartment. Just don't understand why Gary would not admitt to it and that bothers me because it sure does make him look suspect, even with Robbins hands and mouth in the mix of things. Could the wrapper have been placed on the counter by KJ in an attempt to set up Dunn? That is a possibility. Nona may have touched the wrapper but if so was she made to or for other reasons. The problem is, how much evidence was over looked and is it possible to get what is needed for the truth to ever be known?
I wonder about the torn fingernail and the unidentified prints found on the lamp. Do you think maybe they have an id on them?
Gary's ex wife may have much more to say than we could even imagine. I do hope they let her testify. Did Gary abuse her, did she wittness him watching Nona or saying things about Nona. Lord, so many things it could be.
I have even thought of will Gary change his plea? Is there reason for him to do so? He said he did not know Nona, will that change? The dna sure puts him at her apartment, why was he there and why was Nona's dna on the wrapper?
That Bona Dea attack sure put up a red flag to me. I guess it all comes down to September, the evidence and yes, the jury. Just so hard to wait and I agree with FD, glad he is locked up.

wonderful posts upallnight and Lorretta

[lorettalockhorn]

One problem for the prosecution is that the DNA found on the wrapper was not a complete match to Dunn. There was only enough sample on the wrapper to get a Y-chromosome profile. The profile matched Dunn's Y-Chromosome but it also matches most of his male relatives with the last name of Dunn. It is good circumstantial evidence but I hope they have more.

I'll assume that the prosecution is going to court with nuclear DNA evidence. How Robbins became interested in Dunn as a suspect will be interesting. If it's because of his record it will be even more interesting to see how that's presented in court since the Bona Dea attack can't be brought up unless first alluded to by the defense. So. Did RPD give Robbins a list of suspects that he investigated? Did he investigate all of Nona's neighbors? How many people did Robbins actually collect DNA from and have tested?

[TJEddie]

One problem for the prosecution is that the DNA found on the wrapper was not a complete match to Dunn. There was only enough sample on the wrapper to get a Y-chromosome profile. The profile matched Dunn's Y-Chromosome but it also matches most of his male relatives with the last name of Dunn. It is good circumstantial evidence but I hope they have more.

You bring up an excellent point, Lodi. At this point, all we know about the condom wrapper dna match is that it was apparently sufficient for David Gibbons to request a special prosecutor and a new investigation. We don't know if McQuary intends to use it as trial evidence or not......after his 7+ month investigation into the case, he may not need it.

[TJEddie]

Was thinking earlier about Kevin's claim that he and Nona had sex the night before the murder, but was that proven? Didn't the only semen sample from Kevin contain the days old, non-motile sperm cells from earlier in the week? Is this yet another lie that he told investigators? Or have I forgotten something?

My recollection is that Kevin claimed they had sex a couple of nights prior to the murder, but did not have sex the night before the murder. There was quite a bit of discussion about that on the main thread as I recall.

[Lodi]

You bring up an excellent point, Lodi. At this point, all we know about the condom wrapper dna match is that it was apparently sufficient for David Gibbons to request a special prosecutor and a new investigation. We don't know if McQuary intends to use it as trial evidence or not......after his 7+ month investigation into the case, he may not need it.

You are right I'm sure. I brought it up only because it was said that Kevin's Y-str profile didn't match that from the wrapper so I assumed that was all they had. It also seemed to be the reason the profile wasn't compared to DNA databanks because they normally only contain full DNA profiles which would be of no help.

[upallnight]

One problem for the prosecution is that the DNA found on the wrapper was not a complete match to Dunn. There was only enough sample on the wrapper to get a Y-chromosome profile. The profile matched Dunn's Y-Chromosome but it also matches most of his male relatives with the last name of Dunn. It is good circumstantial evidence but I hope they have more.
I may be wrong and need to look it up but Gary and his brother I think was dna tested by the dover police department. If that is true then they must be going more on alibi in Gary's case and the dna. Seems Gary's alibi changed and due to his mothers chemo treatments she seemed to have problems remembering. Which I can totally understand if she did not remember. Chemo is some wicked med. I do remember talk even when KJ was in jail and on trial that a sex offender lived near her. That I know of he has never been charged with a sex offense. Due to what he did to the girl at the Bona Dea, I think some spoke of it as a sex offense and I know some was speaking about Gary. Some was very close to KJ so they knew of Gary living there and knew some of his past, at least enough to cast suspicion his way in their eyes. I am sure this could be partly why Robbins keyed in on Dunn.

[lorettalockhorn]

You bring up an excellent point, Lodi. At this point, all we know about the condom wrapper dna match is that it was apparently sufficient for David Gibbons to request a special prosecutor and a new investigation. We don't know if McQuary intends to use it as trial evidence or not......after his 7+ month investigation into the case, he may not need it.

Good point. But it looks to me that the case will somehow be predicated on whatever led the prosecution to looking at Dunn and somehow the DNA evidence will have to brought in. Maybe it's just hard for me to get past it since I know about it.

My recollection is that Kevin claimed they had sex a couple of nights prior to the murder, but did not have sex the night before the murder. There was quite a bit of discussion about that on the main thread as I recall.

Thanks, Eddie I couldn't remember and hadn't been back to search the main thread.

[lorettalockhorn]

I may be wrong and need to look it up but Gary and his brother I think was dna tested by the dover police department. If that is true then they must be going more on alibi in Gary's case and the dna. Seems Gary's alibi changed and due to his mothers chemo treatments she seemed to have problems remembering. Which I can totally understand if she did not remember. Chemo is some wicked med. I do remember talk even when KJ was in jail and on trial that a sex offender lived near her. That I know of he has never been charged with a sex offense. Due to what he did to the girl at the Bona Dea, I think some spoke of it as a sex offense and I know some was speaking about Gary. Some was very close to KJ so they knew of Gary living there and knew some of his past, at least enough to cast suspicion his way in their eyes. I am sure this could be partly why Robbins keyed in on Dunn.

I remember the sex offender talk coming up on the board too. That could have been because since Nona was found nude that people automatically assumed this was a sex crime. I did search when Nona's murder first hit the news and didn't find an offender near her. Maybe since Dunn threatened to kill the Bona Dea victim rather than rape her, he wasn't considered a risk?

[upallnight]

I remember the sex offender talk coming up on the board too. That could have been because since Nona was found nude that people automatically assumed this was a sex crime. I did search when Nona's murder first hit the news and didn't find an offender near her. Maybe since Dunn threatened to kill the Bona Dea victim rather than rape her, he wasn't considered a risk?

If there are any Dad's on this board, Happy Fathers Day! A little late I know, but better late than never :seeya:.
I guess you are right, he must not have been viewed as a risk. It will be a hard thing to swallow if he did kill Nona and it is proven so. I agree with TJ Eddie, it was a few nights before Nona was murdered that they had sex per KJ. I knew that, just to old to get my hands to type what my mind is thinking :shrug:. I second the thanks TJ. :beer:

[TJEddie]

Here's something for you, Loretta.....statements from Robbins about who was dna tested, when, how, etc.....

" Russellville lawyer Michael Robbins, who represented Jones, told the AP defense investigators began gathering DNA samples before Jones' trial from everyone who could have had contact with Dirksmeyer. Robbins said investigators knew Dunn, who lived at the same off-campus apartment complex as Dirksmeyer, was on parole from prison at the time of her death.

Dunn was convicted of battery after attacking a woman on a Russellville jogging trail in 2003, Robbins said.


"We knew about him, but we didn't have anything to hang our hat on," Robbins said. That changed when lawyers obtained a DNA sample from Dunn and it matched a sample found on a condom wrapper discovered near Dirksmeyer's body, the lawyer said.

Robbins declined to say how defense investigators obtained Dunn's DNA, saying it was an element of the special prosecutor's case. However, Robbins acknowledged investigators gathered some samples from uncooperative suspects without their knowledge.

"The DNA hit was random," Robbins said. "We didn't have anything more than just him being somebody who was a violent, convicted felon who was living there at the time.

"When the DNA matched, you've got to look at him. There's no other reason for his DNA to be on a condom wrapper within 4 feet of her body."

http://www.nwaonline.net/articles/2008/08/22/news/082308arstudentkilled.txt

[lorettalockhorn]

Thanks, Eddie. No sure if I've read that before or not. (Or forgot!) So that really makes you wonder how many DNA samples were collected. Ten? One Hundred? Students have so much contact, you know. Doesn't really say who was tested, and it doesn't really matter if Dunn was the only match. But it does say this was begun before KJ's trial. Guess it might have spared a lot of expense if the results had come back sooner. Until this, I thought this was all post-trial.

At any rate, this sounds like it could be McQuary's intro into how the investigation was conducted.

[TJEddie]

"Robbins said the Russellville Police Department made “an incredible blunder,” an “unbelievable” one, in not arresting Dunn instead of Jones. “They jumped to a conclusion, and when some evidence didn’t fit their case against Kevin, they ignored it,” he said."

http://www.nwanews.com/adg/News/235043/

I'm wondering how much evidence implicating Dunn might have actually come from the first investigation. Robbins makes it sound like there was enough there to justify an arrest.

[lorettalockhorn]

>>"Robbins said the Russellville Police Department made “an incredible blunder,” an “unbelievable” one, in not arresting Dunn instead of Jones. “They jumped to a conclusion, and when some evidence didn’t fit their case against Kevin, they ignored it,” he said."

Sorry, but I hae a tendency to think that Kevin's behavior at the scene and his lies/inconsistencies/misunderstandings coupled with his print on the bulb had much to do with his arrest. I mean that print virtually on the murder weapon is a prosecutors dream come true.

[FDInLaw]

"Robbins said the Russellville Police Department made “an incredible blunder,” an “unbelievable” one, in not arresting Dunn instead of Jones. “They jumped to a conclusion, and when some evidence didn’t fit their case against Kevin, they ignored it,” he said."

http://www.nwanews.com/adg/News/235043/

I'm wondering how much evidence implicating Dunn might have actually come from the first investigation. Robbins makes it sound like there was enough there to justify an arrest. From Robbins’ own statement, I wonder if there really was much more to implicate Dunn (I'm thinking of physical evidence mainly) in the beginning. We can reason from what we know, that Dunn’s alibi should have been checked closer. Other than that, what did the RPD ignore??? According to the following statement (as you posted earlier), the defense had nothing on Dunn;

'We knew about him, but we didn't have anything to hang our hat on," Robbins said. That changed when lawyers obtained a DNA sample from Dunn and it matched a sample found on a condom wrapper discovered near Dirksmeyer's body, the lawyer said.

Keep in mind, the defense went after a number of people, Martin, York. . . why didn't they bring up Dunn??? The "incredible blunder" statement is over the top IMO. Hopefully we will know one way or the other after the trial.

[TJEddie]

FD, I don't know how much investigative info Kevin's defense team got from RPD when they were preparing for trial. Was RPD required to give them all that they had, or just that which was deemed relevant? (I'm thinking there are some limits on rules of discovery, but I'd have to do some more research.) Anyway, I'm wondering if there was some info on the first investigation that didn't come to light until later on. Some statements have been made that lead me to think that might be the case. I'm not sure that the trial will answer all of our questions, but I have a feeling the full story will find its voice eventually. We'll see.

[TJEddie]

>>"Robbins said the Russellville Police Department made “an incredible blunder,” an “unbelievable” one, in not arresting Dunn instead of Jones. “They jumped to a conclusion, and when some evidence didn’t fit their case against Kevin, they ignored it,” he said."

Sorry, but I hae a tendency to think that Kevin's behavior at the scene and his lies/inconsistencies/misunderstandings coupled with his print on the bulb had much to do with his arrest. I mean that print virtually on the murder weapon is a prosecutors dream come true.

Yes, I think that's the conclusion Robbins is referring to.

[FDInLaw]

FD, I don't know how much investigative info Kevin's defense team got from RPD when they were preparing for trial. Was RPD required to give them all that they had, or just that which was deemed relevant? (I'm thinking there are some limits on rules of discovery, but I'd have to do some more research.) Anyway, I'm wondering if there was some info on the first investigation that didn't come to light until later on. Some statements have been made that lead me to think that might be the case. I'm not sure that the trial will answer all of our questions, but I have a feeling the full story will find its voice eventually. We'll see.

You are right, I'm sure Gibbons was only required to turn over evidence pertaining to Jones. I just doubt there is much more because Robbins has a history of blabbing. . . we would have heard about it by now. Also, Robbins has a knack for making incriminating comments, such as in Jeremy Martin’s case. He made some strong statements there which were not substantiated. I do hope you are right, and there is more. I sure would like to see the State present a strong case that ends all this whodunit carp.

:seeya:

[jeremiads]

FD, I don't know how much investigative info Kevin's defense team got from RPD when they were preparing for trial. Was RPD required to give them all that they had, or just that which was deemed relevant?The RPD didn't give the defense team anything on me, which gave me a chuckle when Robbins, on the phone, griped about me being a shady person that the RPD was withholding information on that his defense team needed.

Of course, that was directly after I wasn't playing games with his nice guy, "we know you didn't have anything to do with it" routine on the phone.

Anything out of this guy's mouth needs to be taken with a pile of salt big enough to swim in.

[lorettalockhorn]

Yes, I think that's the conclusion Robbins is referring to.

Not sure how that can be considered a blunder. Especially with what little we know about the case against Dunn. And from what I can tell the evidence that would clear KJ isn't any less shaky than what we've seen/heard tell of that will convict GD.

And I guess to this day I have to wonder why Kevin told so many lies. Just pathological?

ETA: Can we assume that the prosecution gave the defense at least enough information to know exactly whose DNA to test? I mean, Nona had to have come into contact with lots of folks. That's a lot of swabbing.

[TJEddie]

The RPD didn't give the defense team anything on me, which gave me a chuckle when Robbins, on the phone, griped about me being a shady person that the RPD was withholding information on that his defense team needed.

Thanks, jeremiads. So if the defense team wasn't given info on you, maybe it's safe to assume they weren't given info on Dunn either. And you're saying that Kevin's defense team was seeking info on other suspects directly from RPD rather than going through Gibbons via the discovery process? Did Gibbons not have the info? I'm still wondering about that quote from McQuary saying that Gibbons “was not given information that we have been able to uncover." I wonder what all is supposed to be included in a case file when it's turned over to the prosecutor.

[TJEddie]

Not sure how that can be considered a blunder. Especially with what little we know about the case against Dunn. And from what I can tell the evidence that would clear KJ isn't any less shaky than what we've seen/heard tell of that will convict GD.

And I guess to this day I have to wonder why Kevin told so many lies. Just pathological?

ETA: Can we assume that the prosecution gave the defense at least enough information to know exactly whose DNA to test? I mean, Nona had to have come into contact with lots of folks. That's a lot of swabbing.

"Robbins said the Russellville Police Department made “an incredible blunder,” an “unbelievable” one, in not arresting Dunn instead of Jones. “They jumped to a conclusion, and when some evidence didn’t fit their case against Kevin, they ignored it,” he said."

I think the bolded part is what Robbins considered to be the "incredible blunder."

Back to that quote I referred to in my post to jeremiads......McQuary goes on to say, "....But if I had only had the information that David Gibbons had... Kevin Jones would have been a suspect in my opinion, as well.” So even McQuary upholds the notion that Kevin was a viable suspect if one only looked at part of the evidence......but I'm still wondering why Gibbons apparently didn't have all of the evidence.

Source for McQuary quote: http://www.nwabusinessink.com/adg/News/235428/

[lorettalockhorn]

Gee y'all. This is all a bit circuitous. Hope the case is more concrete when presented to a jury!

Robbins didn't have much to hang his hat on but he and McQuary got information somewhere. Countless people were DNA tested against the results of the condom wrapper but apparently not in time to save The State and the Joneses the expense of a court case. Even though Dunn was a valid suspect, his results gathered by a two-headed and/or two hat wearing officer seemingly weren't compared to Dunn's DNA results on file with the prison system. Or something else just as confusing. And somehow the new prosecutor has to present Dunn as a viable suspect due to his (at least once) violent nature without cluing the jury in on his prior conviction. Or have I misunderstood that that's a big part of what put Robbins onto Dunn to begin with?

Three more months to speculate.

[Lodi]

"Robbins said the Russellville Police Department made “an incredible blunder,” an “unbelievable” one, in not arresting Dunn instead of Jones. “They jumped to a conclusion, and when some evidence didn’t fit their case against Kevin, they ignored it,” he said."

I think the bolded part is what Robbins considered to be the "incredible blunder."

Back to that quote I referred to in my post to jeremiads......McQuary goes on to say, "....But if I had only had the information that David Gibbons had... Kevin Jones would have been a suspect in my opinion, as well.” So even McQuary upholds the notion that Kevin was a viable suspect if one only looked at part of the evidence......but I'm still wondering why Gibbons apparently didn't have all of the evidence.

Source for McQuary quote: http://www.nwabusinessink.com/adg/News/235428/


I have a question concerning the bolded sentence ... when some evidence didn’t fit their case against Kevin, they ignored it

What evidence was Robbins referring to in the sentence? Was it the fact that the DNA on the wrapper didn't match Kevins?

[TJEddie]

I have a question concerning the bolded sentence ... when some evidence didn’t fit their case against Kevin, they ignored it

What evidence was Robbins referring to in the sentence? Was it the fact that the DNA on the wrapper didn't match Kevins?

RPD didn't test for dna on the condom wrapper. I don't know what the evidence is that Robbins is referring to.

[Lodi]

RPD didn't test for dna on the condom wrapper. I don't know what the evidence is that Robbins is referring to.

Thank you, I guess the key words must be RPD didn't test for dna on the condom wrapper. I was thinking of RPD as being part of the prosecution.
Someone had tested the dna on the wrapper and found that it didn't match Kevins.

~Snip~ During Jones’ trial, prosecutors argued the condom wrapper — on which experts previously found Y-chromosome DNA exclusive of Jones[/B] — may have been a “trigger,” sending Jones — who told police he and Dirksmeyer did not use condoms — into a fit of rage.

https://www.couriernews.com/archived_story.php?ID=17620&Search=mcquary

[TJEddie]

Thank you, I guess the key words must be RPD didn't test for dna on the condom wrapper. I was thinking of RPD as being part of the prosecution.
Someone had tested the dna on the wrapper and found that it didn't match Kevins.

~Snip~ During Jones’ trial, prosecutors argued the condom wrapper — on which experts previously found Y-chromosome DNA exclusive of Jones[/B] — may have been a “trigger,” sending Jones — who told police he and Dirksmeyer did not use condoms — into a fit of rage.

https://www.couriernews.com/archived_story.php?ID=17620&Search=mcquary

Kevin's defense team had the condom wrapper tested at a private lab.

[The R]

Gee y'all. This is all a bit circuitous. Hope the case is more concrete when presented to a jury!Robbins didn't have much to hang his hat on but he and McQuary got information somewhere. Countless people were DNA tested against the results of the condom wrapper but apparently not in time to save The State and the Joneses the expense of a court case. Even though Dunn was a valid suspect, his results gathered by a two-headed and/or two hat wearing officer seemingly weren't compared to Dunn's DNA results on file with the prison system. Or something else just as confusing. And somehow the new prosecutor has to present Dunn as a viable suspect due to his (at least once) violent nature without cluing the jury in on his prior conviction. Or have I misunderstood that that's a big part of what put Robbins onto Dunn to begin with?

Three more months to speculate.

I agree. I'm not so sure that the condom wrapper is gonna fly as evidence at trial from all I've read here. Maybe there's a lot more to it? :shrug:

As to you comment about countless people being tested, wasn't it thought that the prosecution REALLY drug their feet to start with anyway? Just wondering how it could've hurt to wait a little more if the DNA was that important.

[SaraSidle]

I agree. I'm not so sure that the condom wrapper is gonna fly as evidence at trial from all I've read here. Maybe there's a lot more to it? :shrug:

As to you comment about countless people being tested, wasn't it thought that the prosecution REALLY drug their feet to start with anyway? Just wondering how it could've hurt to wait a little more if the DNA was that important.

ITA IMO sara

[Amy]

FD, I don't know how much investigative info Kevin's defense team got from RPD when they were preparing for trial. Was RPD required to give them all that they had, or just that which was deemed relevant? (I'm thinking there are some limits on rules of discovery, but I'd have to do some more research.) Anyway, I'm wondering if there was some info on the first investigation that didn't come to light until later on. Some statements have been made that lead me to think that might be the case. I'm not sure that the trial will answer all of our questions, but I have a feeling the full story will find its voice eventually. We'll see.

I don't have any link, or someone to quote, but it seems to me in some cases I have read about, or seen on forensic shows, that the prosecution is supposed to submit exculpatory (sp) evidence to the defense in discovery. That the defense is supposed to be able to follow up on leads that prosecution abandoned pointing to someone else. I'm thinking those would be leads LE DID follow up on and determined to be not relevant, or those they did not bother to follow up on.

In the cases I had seen, they were mostly about people who were falsely accused, tried, and sometimes convicted. The way these cases were presented for the program, one would get the idea that this type of evidence is SUPPOSED to be given in discovery, but I don't particularly recall the lawyers or narrator citing a particular law.

[lorettalockhorn]

Amy, good points. Since exculpatory evidence refers to the defendant who is actually on trial, it looks like anything that pointed to Dunn or anyone else would have had to be presented to the defense to help exonerate Kevin. So I guess that leaves us at square one;that Dunn had an alibi (or whatever) that couldn't be broken until all this time later. Or that the lack of an alibi in conjunction with the condom wrapper and whatever else we don't know is the prosecution's silver bullet.

[TJEddie]

When I dropped in earlier today, it showed 80+ people were visiting this forum. Just a glitch in the system or is something going on?

[FDInLaw]

When I dropped in earlier today, it showed 80+ people were visiting this forum. Just a glitch in the system or is something going on?

Really? :eek: WOW! That's a lot! I wonder???

[TJEddie]

Yeah, it was strange. Guest numbers stayed in the high 80s for maybe 45 minutes or so.....but if there was any breaking news surely we would have heard something by now.

[SaraSidle]

Yeah, it was strange. Guest numbers stayed in the high 80s for maybe 45 minutes or so.....but if there was any breaking news surely we would have heard something by now.

I like to check in to see if there is anything new or changed a lot now that I am back and I did before. Tara and Nona are so very frustrating cases IMO sara :shrug:but I am only one of 80

[TJEddie]

A little after 5 pm and I'm showing 46 guests on this forum......anything up?

[FDInLaw]

A little after 5 pm and I'm showing 46 guests on this forum......anything up?
Not that I know of. :shrug:

[upallnight]

Not that I know of. :shrug:

Thinking of Nona and praying for Carol and family. :rose:

[lorettalockhorn]

Defense: DNA tests invalid for Dunn trial

LITTLE ROCK — A judge should exclude all of the state’s DNA-testing evidence in the case against the Dover man accused of murdering Arkansas Tech University student Nona Dirksmeyer, in part due to delays in obtaining evidence, defense attorneys said.

Attorneys for Gary Dunn, 30, also said the state’s claim that Dunn is not excluded from DNA on a condom wrapper found in Dirksmeyer’s apartment “is based upon such minimal amounts of DNA that the testing ... does not meet the criteria of reliability” established on the state and federal levels.

The attorneys further questioned the handling of the DNA evidence and suggested a possible conflict of interest by a law-enforcement officer involved in the case.

In a motion to exclude all of the state’s DNA-testing evidence, the defense attorneys wrote, “Because of delays in obtaining all of the evidence and documents, largely because of the uncooperativeness of the State’s laboratory, Dunn is still in the process of formulating his positions.”

Dunn is scheduled to go on trial Sept. 28 in Johnson County Circuit Court inClarksville on a capital-murder charge in Dirksmeyer’s Dec. 15, 2005, death. The prosecution has said it will seek the death penalty.

Authorities have said Dirksmeyer, 19, was choked, beaten, stabbed and slashed with a knife in her Russellville apartment. They also believe she may have been sexually assaulted.

Dirksmeyer’s boyfriend, Kevin Jones of Dover, was originally charged with firstdegree murder in her death, but a Franklin County jury acquitted him in July 2007.

Like Jones’ trial, Dunn’s has been moved out of Pope County because of pretrial publicity.

A separate but related motion filed by Dunn defense attorneys Jeff Rosenzweig and William O. James Jr. said the state is relying on DNA Laboratories International in the case.

In that motion, defense attorneys said there has been “some difficulty obtaining the complete file from DNA Laboratories International.”

“The prosecuting attorney apparently was unable to obtain materials from the laboratory because of financial demands made by the laboratory, and the items provided by him until August 17, 2009 were a partial file obtained from previous defense counsel for the earlier defendant Kevin Jones,” they wrote.

The defense still needs, among other things, a complete copy of the case file, includingall related laboratory records, more information on how the DNA evidence has been stored and background information on each person involved in reviewing the DNA testing, Dunn’s attorneys said.

Rick Gallagher, assistant director of the State Crime Laboratory in Little Rock, said Monday that he could not comment on the laboratory allegations “because it’s an ongoing case.”

Special prosecutor Jack McQuary has not yet filed a response to the motion, filed Aug. 19. McQuary and all other parties in the case are under a gag order handed down by a circuit judge.

Defense attorneys also contended in the suppression motion that the chain of custody of the DNA evidence is “unreliable.”

“It is unclear where various items associated with the DNA results have been at various times,” they wrote.

“The participation of one Todd Steffey in several places in the chain of custody is particularly troubling since he was simultaneously acting as a law enforcement officer and as a defense investigator for another person suspected of the crime, Kevin Jones. This massive conflict was present both before and after the Jones trial.”

Steffey works for the marshal’s office in Dover.

In August 2008, days after charging Dunn, McQuary said he believed Jones was innocent.

This article was published today at 5:14 a.m.
Arkansas, Pages 9, 16 on 09/01/2009

[SaraSidle]

Defense: DNA tests invalid for Dunn trial

LITTLE ROCK — A judge should exclude all of the state’s DNA-testing evidence in the case against the Dover man accused of murdering Arkansas Tech University student Nona Dirksmeyer, in part due to delays in obtaining evidence, defense attorneys said.

Attorneys for Gary Dunn, 30, also said the state’s claim that Dunn is not excluded from DNA on a condom wrapper found in Dirksmeyer’s apartment “is based upon such minimal amounts of DNA that the testing ... does not meet the criteria of reliability” established on the state and federal levels.

The attorneys further questioned the handling of the DNA evidence and suggested a possible conflict of interest by a law-enforcement officer involved in the case.

In a motion to exclude all of the state’s DNA-testing evidence, the defense attorneys wrote, “Because of delays in obtaining all of the evidence and documents, largely because of the uncooperativeness of the State’s laboratory, Dunn is still in the process of formulating his positions.”

Dunn is scheduled to go on trial Sept. 28 in Johnson County Circuit Court inClarksville on a capital-murder charge in Dirksmeyer’s Dec. 15, 2005, death. The prosecution has said it will seek the death penalty.

Authorities have said Dirksmeyer, 19, was choked, beaten, stabbed and slashed with a knife in her Russellville apartment. They also believe she may have been sexually assaulted.

Dirksmeyer’s boyfriend, Kevin Jones of Dover, was originally charged with firstdegree murder in her death, but a Franklin County jury acquitted him in July 2007.

Like Jones’ trial, Dunn’s has been moved out of Pope County because of pretrial publicity.

A separate but related motion filed by Dunn defense attorneys Jeff Rosenzweig and William O. James Jr. said the state is relying on DNA Laboratories International in the case.

In that motion, defense attorneys said there has been “some difficulty obtaining the complete file from DNA Laboratories International.”

“The prosecuting attorney apparently was unable to obtain materials from the laboratory because of financial demands made by the laboratory, and the items provided by him until August 17, 2009 were a partial file obtained from previous defense counsel for the earlier defendant Kevin Jones,” they wrote.

The defense still needs, among other things, a complete copy of the case file, includingall related laboratory records, more information on how the DNA evidence has been stored and background information on each person involved in reviewing the DNA testing, Dunn’s attorneys said.

Rick Gallagher, assistant director of the State Crime Laboratory in Little Rock, said Monday that he could not comment on the laboratory allegations “because it’s an ongoing case.”

Special prosecutor Jack McQuary has not yet filed a response to the motion, filed Aug. 19. McQuary and all other parties in the case are under a gag order handed down by a circuit judge.

Defense attorneys also contended in the suppression motion that the chain of custody of the DNA evidence is “unreliable.”

“It is unclear where various items associated with the DNA results have been at various times,” they wrote.

“The participation of one Todd Steffey in several places in the chain of custody is particularly troubling since he was simultaneously acting as a law enforcement officer and as a defense investigator for another person suspected of the crime, Kevin Jones. This massive conflict was present both before and after the Jones trial.”

Steffey works for the marshal’s office in Dover.

In August 2008, days after charging Dunn, McQuary said he believed Jones was innocent.

This article was published today at 5:14 a.m.
Arkansas, Pages 9, 16 on 09/01/2009

Very interesting but not real surprising after all this time. IMO sara

[lorettalockhorn]

It seems like time and any contamination of the crime scene would have possibly degraded the DNA samples, but the temperature of Nona's apartment could have served to prevent that to some degree. Small samples can be amplified for PCR testing, and if both Dunn's and Nona's DNA were detected, that must have been done. So the statement about criteria of reliability is interesting. :shrug:

Can't believe that less than three weeks about from the beginning of a capital case, the defense doesn't have a complete file?! WTF?

The whole business with Officer Steffy needs to be very clearly explained IMO. I so want answers and justice for Nona and Carol and all the family, but I smell big effing rats.

[jeremiads]

I wish any of that came as a surprise, but I've been expecting something like this for a while, especially with the trial date coming up. My "faith" in this prosecution isn't exactly strengthened by seeing that their case is so complete they can't give what the defendant is legally entitled for his defense.

So, here we are with major issues on the DNA claims and a screwed up chain of custody. Sigh.

I'd love to know more about this Mr. Conflict-of-Interest Steffey, though.

[FDInLaw]

Thank you for posting the article, Loretta. . . *smooch*



Ugh. . . what a mess. . . *sigh*

:(

[lorettalockhorn]

Thank you for posting the article, Loretta. . . *smooch*



Ugh. . . what a mess. . . *sigh*

:(

Hey you! And everyone else trooping in! :seeya:

We're supposed to have faith in this new investigation and new prosecutor, so what's the hold up with turning over information? MEH

[FDInLaw]

With Dunn's violent past in mind, I'd sure like to see a jury get a shot at this case. I'm afraid the whole case will be thrown out in the dna evidence is.

Prayers for the judge. . . :rose:

[SaraSidle]

With Dunn's violent past in mind, I'd sure like to see a jury get a shot at this case. I'm afraid the whole case will be thrown out in the dna evidence is.

Prayers for the judge. . . :rose:

I am with you on that one FD. IMO sara

[lorettalockhorn]

With Dunn's violent past in mind, I'd sure like to see a jury get a shot at this case. I'm afraid the whole case will be thrown out in the dna evidence is.

Prayers for the judge. . . :rose:

The jury could just as easily see that this is a case where the discovery was shoddily or haphazardly presented to (or kept from, but why?) the defense, and assume that it comes from weakness in the preparation of evidence. And Steffy presents huge problems to me, but maybe won't to a juror. There has to be something or plenty that we don't know that will come out at trial that will answer our questions, and we're getting pretty short here.

Godspeed to all involved.

[TJEddie]

"Attorneys for Gary Dunn, 30, also said the state’s claim that Dunn is not excluded from DNA on a condom wrapper found in Dirksmeyer’s apartment “is based upon such minimal amounts of DNA that the testing ... does not meet the criteria of reliability” established on the state and federal levels."

The term "not excluded" suggests to me that this is indeed just a y-chromosome dna sample. If so, there's no way this is the smoking gun in the prosecutor's case. (IMO, of course.)

As for the reliability comment, it sounds to me like there wasn't enough of a sample to replicate the original test results.

"A separate but related motion filed by Dunn defense attorneys Jeff Rosenzweig and William O. James Jr. said the state is relying on DNA Laboratories International in the case.

In that motion, defense attorneys said there has been “some difficulty obtaining the complete file from DNA Laboratories International.”

“The prosecuting attorney apparently was unable to obtain materials from the laboratory because of financial demands made by the laboratory, and the items provided by him until August 17, 2009 were a partial file obtained from previous defense counsel for the earlier defendant Kevin Jones,” they wrote.

The defense still needs, among other things, a complete copy of the case file, includingall related laboratory records, more information on how the DNA evidence has been stored and background information on each person involved in reviewing the DNA testing, Dunn’s attorneys said."

It sounds to me like the defense is asking for info above and beyond what is usually provided to clients, and the lab is saying that someone will have to pay for that additional info. Apparently it has not been requested by any of the other parties. Background info on each person involved in reviewing the dna testing? Sounds like an unusual request to me. I'm not surprised that there would be additional charges for something like that. I wonder who the defense expects to foot the bill.

[TJEddie]

"The attorneys further questioned the handling of the DNA evidence and suggested a possible conflict of interest by a law-enforcement officer involved in the case.....The participation of one Todd Steffey in several places in the chain of custody is particularly troubling since he was simultaneously acting as a law enforcement officer and as a defense investigator for another person suspected of the crime, Kevin Jones. This massive conflict was present both before and after the Jones trial.”

Sounds to me like this is simply a matter of questioning a law enforcement officer's integrity. We'll see how it flies with the jury (or judge).

Kind of related......does anybody know if Officer Todd Steffy and Reverend Todd Steffy are one and the same?

[lorettalockhorn]

"The attorneys further questioned the handling of the DNA evidence and suggested a possible conflict of interest by a law-enforcement officer involved in the case.....The participation of one Todd Steffey in several places in the chain of custody is particularly troubling since he was simultaneously acting as a law enforcement officer and as a defense investigator for another person suspected of the crime, Kevin Jones. This massive conflict was present both before and after the Jones trial.”

Sounds to me like this is simply a matter of questioning a law enforcement officer's integrity. We'll see how it flies with the jury (or judge).

Kind of related......does anybody know if Officer Todd Steffy and Reverend Todd Steffy are one and the same?

Not sure how it's related, but see Pages 10 - 11:

http://www.clest.org/april_2005.pdf

[lorettalockhorn]

"Attorneys for Gary Dunn, 30, also said the state’s claim that Dunn is not excluded from DNA on a condom wrapper found in Dirksmeyer’s apartment “is based upon such minimal amounts of DNA that the testing ... does not meet the criteria of reliability” established on the state and federal levels."

The term "not excluded" suggests to me that this is indeed just a y-chromosome dna sample. If so, there's no way this is the smoking gun in the prosecutor's case. (IMO, of course.)

As for the reliability comment, it sounds to me like there wasn't enough of a sample to replicate the original test results.

"A separate but related motion filed by Dunn defense attorneys Jeff Rosenzweig and William O. James Jr. said the state is relying on DNA Laboratories International in the case.

In that motion, defense attorneys said there has been “some difficulty obtaining the complete file from DNA Laboratories International.”

“The prosecuting attorney apparently was unable to obtain materials from the laboratory because of financial demands made by the laboratory, and the items provided by him until August 17, 2009 were a partial file obtained from previous defense counsel for the earlier defendant Kevin Jones,” they wrote.

The defense still needs, among other things, a complete copy of the case file, includingall related laboratory records, more information on how the DNA evidence has been stored and background information on each person involved in reviewing the DNA testing, Dunn’s attorneys said."

It sounds to me like the defense is asking for info above and beyond what is usually provided to clients, and the lab is saying that someone will have to pay for that additional info. Apparently it has not been requested by any of the other parties. Background info on each person involved in reviewing the dna testing? Sounds like an unusual request to me. I'm not surprised that there would be additional charges for something like that. I wonder who the defense expects to foot the bill.

Duh me, it took a couple of read throughs to see that you had made comments here. Is the defense asking for background information on people employed outside the lab for instance? Why would the lab be responsible for that? It does seem that any information already provided to the other case or to this particular prosecution team could simply be copied and provided at (relatively) little expense.

[TJEddie]

Duh me, it took a couple of read throughs to see that you had made comments here. Is the defense asking for background information on people employed outside the lab for instance? Why would the lab be responsible for that? It does seem that any information already provided to the other case or to this particular prosecution team could simply be copied and provided at (relatively) little expense.

It's not crystal clear, but my interpretation is that the prosecution has turned over to the defense what they have from the lab, and the defense is calling it a "partial file" because it doesn't include the additional info that they want.

And thanks for the link in your previous post. It answered my question.

[upallnight]

The jury could just as easily see that this is a case where the discovery was shoddily or haphazardly presented to (or kept from, but why?) the defense, and assume that it comes from weakness in the preparation of evidence. And Steffy presents huge problems to me, but maybe won't to a juror. There has to be something or plenty that we don't know that will come out at trial that will answer our questions, and we're getting pretty short here.

Godspeed to all involved.
Hi everyone, as I was driving by Nona's grave today of course I said a prayer. I had not read the newspaper article due to so much family stuff going on and trying to keep up with work. I find myself still hoping for justice and praying for the truth. I can not help but think of Carol, I pray somehow someway she can get some sort of peace from this trial but then have my doubts. Would have been nice to be able to hope they have more, enough for a conviction. Maybe they do I sure don't know, it is just sad to even think Carol may have to go it all and possibly more again and still not know the truth. I sure pray that does not happen. Prayers for Carol and Nona. :rose::rose:

[FDInLaw]

Bar wife’s testimony, Dunn defense urges

"Statements murder defendant Gary Dunn’s wife made about their sexual relationship should not be allowed into evidence when he goes on trial in the death of beauty queen Nona Dirksmeyer, defense attorneys said in filings."




http://www.nwanews.com/news/2009/sep/11/bar-wifes-testimony-dunn-defense-urges-20090911/

[lorettalockhorn]

For any non-subscribers:

Bar wife’s testimony, Dunn defense asks


LITTLE ROCK — Statements murder defendant Gary Dunn’s wife made about their sexual relationship should not be allowed into evidence when he goes on trial in the death of beauty queen Nona Dirksmeyer, defense attorneys said in filings.

Dunn, 30, of Dover is charged with capital murder in the Dec. 15, 2005, death of Dirksmeyer, whose body was found in her Russellville apartment.

His trial is scheduled to start Sept. 28 in Clarksville. Authorities have said that Dirksmeyer, 19, was choked,beaten, stabbed and slashed with a knife and that she may have been sexually assaulted.

Defense attorneys noted in separate but related motions filed Wednesday that they have previously asked Circuit Judge Bill Pearson to exclude all evidence they believe would violate marital privilege.

The prosecution has not yet filed a response to those or other recently filed defense motions and cannot discuss them with news media because of a gag order.

The new motions are far more specific than previous ones about the nature of what Jennifer Dunn might testify about and suggest she has not cooperated with her husband’s attorneys.

“Counsel has attempted to interview the spouse, Jennifer Dunn, but Ms. Dunn has declined to be interviewed,” defense attorneys Jeff Rosenzweig and William O. James Jr. wrote.

They said, however, that the prosecution has advised that Jennifer Dunn’s “proposed testimony” would be similar to what she said in a taped interview with authorities.

“The State apparently wishes Jennifer Dunn to testify about their [the Dunns’] marital sexual life both in terms of statements made and in the actual form of their sexual life. The marital sexual relationship is clearly recognized as private,” the defense attorneys wrote.

“Statements made between spouses as to their sexual lives together are clearly confidential communications,” the attorneys added. “Moreover, the activities of the sexual relationship are expressive conduct. The courts have recognized that expressive conduct is a form of speech or communication.”

Defense attorneys said the prosecution also has sought for Jennifer Dunn to testify “about supposed admissions of drug use” by her husband.

“The State may claim that discussion by Gary Dunn of sexual activity and drug use in his statement [to authorities] of August 14, 2008 constitutes a waiver ... because it deals with a significant portion of the privileged material. It does not,” the defense said.

Dunn’s attorneys also said the Aug. 14 interview includes references “generally by law enforcement officers or solicited by them” to other inadmissible evidence.

They said those matters include references to allegations of drug use on dates other than the homicide date, to Dunn’s prior prison sentence, “to uncharged allegations of stalking” and to a polygraph test.

The motion does not elaborate on the lie-detector test. Attorneys said these references should be redacted from the statement to authorities.

Defense attorneys further argued that the prosecution “apparently wishes to introduce testimony from Jennifer Dunn (and perhaps others) to the effect that Dunn’s behavior changed when he was released from prison.”

Dunn’s lawyers said such testimony might violate marital privilege and “is an improper reference to a prior conviction.”

Dirksmeyer’s boyfriend, Kevin Jones of Dover, was originally charged with first-degree murder in her death, but a Franklin County jury acquitted him in July 2007.

Dunn’s trial will be in Johnson County Circuit Court, where it was moved from Pope County because of pretrial publicity.

Dirksmeyer, a sophomore music major, graduated from Dover High School.

An avid beauty-pageant contestant, she was named Miss Petit Jean Valley in January 2005 and later competed in the Miss Arkansas pageant.

This article was published today at 3:51 a.m.

[TJEddie]

I'm wondering if the prosecution has any evidence that the defense hasn't tried to suppress. The defense has been busy filing motions like gerbils on a treadmill.....meanwhile, the prosecution doesn't appear to even be breaking a sweat. I'm really looking forward to seeing this thing played out. Still wondering if a plea agreement might be in the works.....my personal feeling is that Dunn's goose is cooked and the defense team knows it.

[lorettalockhorn]

I'll assume that we don't see the prosecution filing motions because the defense has already provided pertinent information to them. The defense is duty bound to file motions in a death penalty case like gerbils on a treadmill. Aren't they? Don't quite understand why J Dunn's information isn't part of the discovery process if the successful prosecution of the case hinges on it and why it's being held onto until the eleventh hour.

You would think that if Jennifer Dunn's testimony is what has already been provided to the defense, she would meet with them and verify that.

[TJEddie]

If the defense team is filing motions just because they're duty bound to do so, maybe the content of those motions shouldn't be taken too seriously just yet. The prosecution doesn't seem to be getting very excited about them.....according to the article, the prosecution hasn't even filed responses to a number of them. Maybe I misinterpret. We'll see soon enough......time is growing short.

[lorettalockhorn]

Yes, time is growing awfully short for jacking around. It's a death penalty case for God's sake, do you really want a bad trial? Inefficient attorneys? Appeals?

Looks to me like the prosecution is going to have their hands full with issues of chain of evidence and Officer Steffy's divided attention.

[TJEddie]

I certainly don't want a bad trial, nor do I expect to see one. I don't think attorneys for either side are inefficient......or incompetent or ill prepared. Quite the contrary. As for appeals, aren't they mandatory if the death penalty is handed down? Even with a life w/o parole sentence, I would think appeals are pretty common. It's one of the benefits afforded by our legal system. On the other hand, with a plea agreement, can't it be stipulated that the defendant will not later appeal his sentence? Seems like I read that somewhere recently. Anyone know?

[lorettalockhorn]

Haven't read anything about a plea agreement, maybe I missed something.

Beg pardon, but I really got the impression that you were carping about Dunn's attorneys and the filings and requests for suppressions; those are necessary to prevent unnecessary appeals (for lack of a better way to put it). I do think there are automatic appeals if the DP is handed down, but that's to be expected. Surely no one wants endless appeals due to ineffective counsel and the like, which would be the case if Rosenzweig, et al weren't doing their job.

[TJEddie]

I didn't make myself clear. My reference to what might or might not be included in a plea agreement wasn't pertaining to this case. I was thinking I might have read something about that in another case. I have not seen any discussion of a plea agreement in this case.

My "carping" about Dunn's attorneys had to do with their scattershot approach to filing motions to suppress. Too many motions covering too many areas of evidence lessens the impact of any one motion, IMO. I will grant, however, that Rosenzweig's numerous filings have probably decreased the chance of Dunn complaining about ineffective counsel.

On a side note, I do have to say, loretta, that I think it's a bit sad that it's down to this.....you and me alone here batting thoughts back and forth. Time was, an article like this would have generated pages of commentary and debate. What a difference two years and a new suspect make, huh? I hope to see more of the old faces when the trial starts. Until then, I'm not complaining.....we may disagree, but I've always found you to be good company.

[lorettalockhorn]

Eddie, I went NPO until after 2pm today for a physical, so you could not have made yourself clear to me if you were invisible! :beer: :hat:

I think people are still reading and just waiting until the 28th; Lord knows they're still talking on the street, although I haven't heard as much. The gag order has been effective, for sure. From what I can tell, people are bumfuzzled by how this case was put together, and that could very well be due to the lack of information available. It's also due to the fact that people think Kevin got away with murder. Seems like during Jones' trial there were many unanswered (and unasked!) questions; let's hope that doesn't happen this time around.

Prayers for Nona and to her family. Godspeed judge, jury and attorneys.

[SaraSidle]

I just feel so bad for Carol. I mean this is going to go on for a long time at this point. whatever the reason she does not get closure yet... sara :rose:

[hawgustusgloop]

Put the hankie away, TJEddie. Lorettalockhorn is correct, we're still here, waiting. I'm particularly interested in seeing how the judge will decide all of these pretrial motions.

[SaraSidle]

Put the hankie away, TJEddie. Lorettalockhorn is correct, we're still here, waiting. I'm particularly interested in seeing how the judge will decide all of these pretrial motions.

WOW a blast from the past. It is so nice to see you posting here. sara

[Amy]

Put the hankie away, TJEddie. Lorettalockhorn is correct, we're still here, waiting. I'm particularly interested in seeing how the judge will decide all of these pretrial motions.

Me, too. Just reading as the posts come along. Don't have much to add, so just let you all go on!!! ;)

[lorettalockhorn]

I think there were some of us who questioned the thoroughness of Nona's autopsy; this makes me question Kokes even farther(further? One's an adjective and one's an adverb? :shrug: ). It's bad enough that we're stuck with a coroner who didn't bother (apparently) to get Nona's body temperature, but what are we to think when an ME is lax?

Medical examiner’s action chafes board

LITTLE ROCK — State Crime Laboratory board members made clear Friday that they’re irked by Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Charles Kokes’ decision last summer to let the office’s national accreditation lapse.

“He didn’t do his job,” said Pine Bluff Police Chief John Howell, a board member.

Kokes wasn’t able to attend the meeting because he was testifying in a trial in California. Crime Lab Director Kermit Channell distributed a letter from Kokes on his behalf.

The Crime Lab is a separate entity from the medical examiner’s office, and the lab is accredited by a different association.

Kokes wrote that he expects the medical examiner’s office to regain the prestigious National Association of Medical Examiners, or NAME, accreditation next year. He explained that he decided last year to allow the accreditation to lapse while he updates the office’s policy and procedures manual.

“We practice forensic pathology according to the criteria set forth by NAME,” he wrote.

“We conduct ourselves professionally just as if we were currently accredited, even though we are not.”

The medical examiners group’s accreditation program is voluntary, but achieving it indicates that an office is operating in accordance with the association’s professional standards.

When he returned to Little Rock Friday evening, Kokes said he regrets that his office is no longer accredited.

“I’m serious about the timetable that I outlined in the letter,” he said.

The board, appointed by the governor, is due to conduct Kokes’ annual performance evaluation.

Kokes’ annual salary is $196,351, making him one of the state’s highest-paid employees.

“I’m extremely concerned,” said Benton County Circuit Judge Xollie Duncan, the board’s chairman. “I have to do an evaluation of Dr. Kokes, which gives me pause.”

Board members visibly cringed when Channell told them that he learned of the lapsed accreditation when contacted by a reporter from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.

Kokes said Friday evening that he gave the board periodic updates on his accreditation efforts and was not trying to hide the lapsed accreditation.

“Our office practices good medicine,” he said. “There is nothing wrong in any way with the quality of the casework that’s being performed in our office.”

Kokes said he thought Channell was aware of the lapsed accreditation.

“I feel like I kind of let the board down because I didn’t keep up with this,” Channell told the board at its quarterly meeting Friday at the laboratory in west Little Rock. “I wish it hadn’t have lapsed, but all we can do is move forward.”

Channellassured the board that he’s confident the office will regain accreditation soon.

“It does not affect the quality of their work,” he said.

After the meeting, Channell said he fully supports Kokes and believes him to be an outstanding chief medical examiner.

“He’s very good at what he does,” he said of Kokes. “This is a hurdle. It needs to be corrected. My job is to make sure he has the tools that he needs to accomplish that task.”

Accredited medical examiners are an elite group, Channell said, in part because many offices don’t even try to attain the distinction. Just over 40 medical examiner’s offices, including several individual county offices in other states, are accredited by the association.

The Crime Lab separately secured accreditation from the American Society of Crime Lab Directors Laboratory Accreditation Board in 2004. It is preparing for an inspection team to arrive in a week as it seeks to renew its status.

“We are ready,” Channell told the board.

The state’s chief medical examiner is the only employee hired by the state Crime Laboratory board. As chief, Kokes manages the office and its personnel.

The governor appoints the lab’s director, so the lab and the medical examiner’s morgue are managed separately and their administrators are autonomous.

However, the offices are in the same building and are deeply entwined, with each agency depending on the other for analysis.

The National Association of Medical Examiners accredited the office in 2003, under former Chief Medical Examiner William Q. Sturner. The accreditation expired in July 2008.

Kokes said that during the past two National Association of Medical Examiners inspections, he was bothered by the condition of the office’s policy and procedures manual, although inspectors deemed it acceptable.

Kokes and Channell stressed that allowing accreditation to lapse is different from losing accreditation because of shortcomings.

Kokes said he believes thathe could have secured re-accreditation last year if he had submitted the procedure manual as it was.

“But we would not have been a better office for doingit,” he said. “It makes us better if we don’t simply go through the motions.”

Kokes said he has made regional accreditation officials awarethat the office plans to apply for re-accreditation.

He said he expects to complete a draft of the new manual in November and apply for re-accreditation before the end of the year. He has said that accreditation should be secured in 2010.

The topic of the medical examiner’s accreditation surfaced publicly for the first time at an Aug. 12 homicide trial in which a defense attorney argued that the office’s lack of accreditation, among other things, should bar a state pathologist from testifying.

This article was published today at 6:10 a.m.
Front Section, Pages 1, 5 on 09/12/2009

[TJEddie]

Not OT at all IMO, loretta. It was reported during or after the first trial that Kevin Jones was named as a suspect on the initial autopsy report that was sent to the crime lab. That really bumfuzzled me. Is it common for an ME to perform an autopsy with a specific suspect in mind, rather than being open to all possibilities? I can certainly see how such a practice might lead to overlooked and/or misinterpreted evidence.

It does appear that the prosecution is pursuing the sexual assault angle in their case against Dunn. As I recall, Kokes' autopsy results showed "no signs of forcible rape," and there was no mention of any other physical signs of sexual assault. Did Kokes miss something? If so, was it due to a presumption that the boyfriend did it and that the rape scene was staged? Maybe we'll never know.

[FDInLaw]

Not OT at all IMO, loretta. It was reported during or after the first trial that Kevin Jones was named as a suspect on the initial autopsy report that was sent to the crime lab. That really bumfuzzled me. Is it common for an ME to perform an autopsy with a specific suspect in mind, rather than being open to all possibilities? I can certainly see how such a practice might lead to overlooked and/or misinterpreted evidence.

It does appear that the prosecution is pursuing the sexual assault angle in their case against Dunn. As I recall, Kokes' autopsy results showed "no signs of forcible rape," and there was no mention of any other physical signs of sexual assault. Did Kokes miss something? If so, was it due to a presumption that the boyfriend did it and that the rape scene was staged? Maybe we'll never know.
Isn’t there a notable percentage of sexual assault/homicide cases where actual penetration does not occur for various reasons (premature death of the victim, premature ejaculation, etc.)? There sure are a lot of unanswered questions! :(

Still hear Eddie, been reading but not posting much. ~ FD :seeya:

[TJEddie]

Isn’t there a notable percentage of sexual assault/homicide cases where actual penetration does not occur for various reasons (premature death of the victim, premature ejaculation, etc.)? There sure are a lot of unanswered questions! :(

Still hear Eddie, been reading but not posting much. ~ FD :seeya:

Well now, there's a thought. Maybe Dunn's ex-wife is being called in to testify that he's a premature ejaculator. I guess the death penalty wouldn't seem so bad after that.

[sweetgranny]

I think there were some of us who questioned the thoroughness of Nona's autopsy; this makes me question Kokes even farther(further? One's an adjective and one's an adverb? :shrug: ). It's bad enough that we're stuck with a coroner who didn't bother (apparently) to get Nona's body temperature, but what are we to think when an ME is lax?

Medical examiner’s action chafes board

LITTLE ROCK — State Crime Laboratory board members made clear Friday that they’re irked by Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Charles Kokes’ decision last summer to let the office’s national accreditation lapse.

“He didn’t do his job,” said Pine Bluff Police Chief John Howell, a board member.

Kokes wasn’t able to attend the meeting because he was testifying in a trial in California. Crime Lab Director Kermit Channell distributed a letter from Kokes on his behalf.

The Crime Lab is a separate entity from the medical examiner’s office, and the lab is accredited by a different association.

Kokes wrote that he expects the medical examiner’s office to regain the prestigious National Association of Medical Examiners, or NAME, accreditation next year. He explained that he decided last year to allow the accreditation to lapse while he updates the office’s policy and procedures manual.

“We practice forensic pathology according to the criteria set forth by NAME,” he wrote.

“We conduct ourselves professionally just as if we were currently accredited, even though we are not.”

The medical examiners group’s accreditation program is voluntary, but achieving it indicates that an office is operating in accordance with the association’s professional standards.

When he returned to Little Rock Friday evening, Kokes said he regrets that his office is no longer accredited.

“I’m serious about the timetable that I outlined in the letter,” he said.

The board, appointed by the governor, is due to conduct Kokes’ annual performance evaluation.

Kokes’ annual salary is $196,351, making him one of the state’s highest-paid employees.

“I’m extremely concerned,” said Benton County Circuit Judge Xollie Duncan, the board’s chairman. “I have to do an evaluation of Dr. Kokes, which gives me pause.”

Board members visibly cringed when Channell told them that he learned of the lapsed accreditation when contacted by a reporter from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.

Kokes said Friday evening that he gave the board periodic updates on his accreditation efforts and was not trying to hide the lapsed accreditation.

“Our office practices good medicine,” he said. “There is nothing wrong in any way with the quality of the casework that’s being performed in our office.”

Kokes said he thought Channell was aware of the lapsed accreditation.

“I feel like I kind of let the board down because I didn’t keep up with this,” Channell told the board at its quarterly meeting Friday at the laboratory in west Little Rock. “I wish it hadn’t have lapsed, but all we can do is move forward.”

Channellassured the board that he’s confident the office will regain accreditation soon.

“It does not affect the quality of their work,” he said.

After the meeting, Channell said he fully supports Kokes and believes him to be an outstanding chief medical examiner.

“He’s very good at what he does,” he said of Kokes. “This is a hurdle. It needs to be corrected. My job is to make sure he has the tools that he needs to accomplish that task.”

Accredited medical examiners are an elite group, Channell said, in part because many offices don’t even try to attain the distinction. Just over 40 medical examiner’s offices, including several individual county offices in other states, are accredited by the association.

The Crime Lab separately secured accreditation from the American Society of Crime Lab Directors Laboratory Accreditation Board in 2004. It is preparing for an inspection team to arrive in a week as it seeks to renew its status.

“We are ready,” Channell told the board.

The state’s chief medical examiner is the only employee hired by the state Crime Laboratory board. As chief, Kokes manages the office and its personnel.

The governor appoints the lab’s director, so the lab and the medical examiner’s morgue are managed separately and their administrators are autonomous.

However, the offices are in the same building and are deeply entwined, with each agency depending on the other for analysis.

The National Association of Medical Examiners accredited the office in 2003, under former Chief Medical Examiner William Q. Sturner. The accreditation expired in July 2008.

Kokes said that during the past two National Association of Medical Examiners inspections, he was bothered by the condition of the office’s policy and procedures manual, although inspectors deemed it acceptable.

Kokes and Channell stressed that allowing accreditation to lapse is different from losing accreditation because of shortcomings.

Kokes said he believes thathe could have secured re-accreditation last year if he had submitted the procedure manual as it was.

“But we would not have been a better office for doingit,” he said. “It makes us better if we don’t simply go through the motions.”

Kokes said he has made regional accreditation officials awarethat the office plans to apply for re-accreditation.

He said he expects to complete a draft of the new manual in November and apply for re-accreditation before the end of the year. He has said that accreditation should be secured in 2010.

The topic of the medical examiner’s accreditation surfaced publicly for the first time at an Aug. 12 homicide trial in which a defense attorney argued that the office’s lack of accreditation, among other things, should bar a state pathologist from testifying.

This article was published today at 6:10 a.m.
Front Section, Pages 1, 5 on 09/12/2009


I am still here too. This article is worrisome to me. I also feel that the autopsy should have been performed without ME knowing who the suspect was

[FDInLaw]

Well now, there's a thought. Maybe Dunn's ex-wife is being called in to testify that he's a premature ejaculator. I guess the death penalty wouldn't seem so bad after that.
The significance of Jennifer Dunn’s possible testimony is curious. From the article, we know some detail(s) of their sexual relationship might be revealed. That could be any number of things though.

Laughin’ at your DP comment, Eddie. Glad to see the gang trickling in with their humor intacked.
:seeya:

[upallnight]

:rose:I didn't make myself clear. My reference to what might or might not be included in a plea agreement wasn't pertaining to this case. I was thinking I might have read something about that in another case. I have not seen any discussion of a plea agreement in this case.

My "carping" about Dunn's attorneys had to do with their scattershot approach to filing motions to suppress. Too many motions covering too many areas of evidence lessens the impact of any one motion, IMO. I will grant, however, that Rosenzweig's numerous filings have probably decreased the chance of Dunn complaining about ineffective counsel.

On a side note, I do have to say, loretta, that I think it's a bit sad that it's down to this.....you and me alone here batting thoughts back and forth. Time was, an article like this would have generated pages of commentary and debate. What a difference two years and a new suspect make, huh? I hope to see more of the old faces when the trial starts. Until then, I'm not complaining.....we may disagree, but I've always found you to be good company.

TJ, there is much interest in this case by many, many people. Some of us don't always comment but we are here. I for one need to know the evidence they have in this case, I just am trying to put any rumors aside. I am waiting on the hard evidence they may or may not have to be played out in court. You never know between now and trial date something else could take place and give us yet more to think about.

We will be back with our thoughts I am sure. :read: Yes, the case and up coming trial is on many people's mind and many hearts are still and always will have an empty spot for that wonderful young girl that lost her life-:rose:Nona.:rose:
:seeya: So here is a shout out to you TJ and a big hello.
Hi to all and hugs and prayers for Carol.

[upallnight]

Well now, there's a thought. Maybe Dunn's ex-wife is being called in to testify that he's a premature ejaculator. I guess the death penalty wouldn't seem so bad after that.


:eek:

[SaraSidle]

:eek:

My thoughts too.:chicken::chicken:

[sweetgranny]

I sorta half expected his attorneys to file (with all the other filings) for a continuance.....but I guess it is still o n for the 28th

[sololobo]

IIRC, the defense has motioned to suppress the DNA evidence, statements made to police prior to his arrest, the taped interview of Dunn by RPD during the first investigation, and statements and testimony of his ex-wife. Also they sought funds for psychiatric and psychological testing for Dunn, a motion to exclude the death penalty and a change of venue. Did I miss any?

IIRC, motion to prohibit the death penalty was denied and funds for mental evaluations and change of venue were approved. The other motions were postponed or not ruled on as of yet.

The prosecution is remaining silent, as it should be, but the defense appears to be revealing the prosecution's case one motion at a time.

[TJEddie]

IIRC, the defense has motioned to suppress the DNA evidence, statements made to police prior to his arrest, the taped interview of Dunn by RPD during the first investigation, and statements and testimony of his ex-wife. Also they sought funds for psychiatric and psychological testing for Dunn, a motion to exclude the death penalty and a change of venue. Did I miss any?

IIRC, motion to prohibit the death penalty was denied and funds for mental evaluations and change of venue were approved. The other motions were postponed or not ruled on as of yet.

The prosecution is remaining silent, as it should be, but the defense appears to be revealing the prosecution's case one motion at a time.

solo, the only thing I see missing is that the defense is also wanting to redact chunks of Dunn's interview with LE on August 14, 2008.

You're right, pretty much everything we think we know about the prosecution's case is what's been washed, rinsed, run through the spin cycle and hung out for public view as a motion by the defense. The prosecution's lack of response to a number of these motions is interesting to me. Is that common, or does it indicate that the prosecution doesn't find them worthy of a response? Also wondering how or when the judge will rule, of course.

[lorettalockhorn]

It seems that a lot of what the prosecution has was revealed before (and after) the gag order (thanks in big part to Robbins' big mouth). Knowing what evidence the State has doesn't tell us much about how the case was put together or how that evidence will be used. Even knowing Dunn's background, that's pretty important to me, but maybe the jury will see it differently.

As for the prosecution's lack of answers to motions, is worthiness their prerogative? Curious as to the judge's lack of rulings, we're getting short here.

Two weeks.

[FDInLaw]

For any non-subscribers:

Bar wife’s testimony, Dunn defense asks


LITTLE ROCK — Statements murder defendant Gary Dunn’s wife made about their sexual relationship should not be allowed into evidence when he goes on trial in the death of beauty queen Nona Dirksmeyer, defense attorneys said in filings.

Dunn, 30, of Dover is charged with capital murder in the Dec. 15, 2005, death of Dirksmeyer, whose body was found in her Russellville apartment.

His trial is scheduled to start Sept. 28 in Clarksville. Authorities have said that Dirksmeyer, 19, was choked,beaten, stabbed and slashed with a knife and that she may have been sexually assaulted.

Defense attorneys noted in separate but related motions filed Wednesday that they have previously asked Circuit Judge Bill Pearson to exclude all evidence they believe would violate marital privilege.

The prosecution has not yet filed a response to those or other recently filed defense motions and cannot discuss them with news media because of a gag order.

The new motions are far more specific than previous ones about the nature of what Jennifer Dunn might testify about and suggest she has not cooperated with her husband’s attorneys.

“Counsel has attempted to interview the spouse, Jennifer Dunn, but Ms. Dunn has declined to be interviewed,” defense attorneys Jeff Rosenzweig and William O. James Jr. wrote.

They said, however, that the prosecution has advised that Jennifer Dunn’s “proposed testimony” would be similar to what she said in a taped interview with authorities.

“The State apparently wishes Jennifer Dunn to testify about their [the Dunns’] marital sexual life both in terms of statements made and in the actual form of their sexual life. The marital sexual relationship is clearly recognized as private,” the defense attorneys wrote.

“Statements made between spouses as to their sexual lives together are clearly confidential communications,” the attorneys added. “Moreover, the activities of the sexual relationship are expressive conduct. The courts have recognized that expressive conduct is a form of speech or communication.”

Defense attorneys said the prosecution also has sought for Jennifer Dunn to testify “about supposed admissions of drug use” by her husband.

“The State may claim that discussion by Gary Dunn of sexual activity and drug use in his statement [to authorities] of August 14, 2008 constitutes a waiver ... because it deals with a significant portion of the privileged material. It does not,” the defense said.

Dunn’s attorneys also said the Aug. 14 interview includes references “generally by law enforcement officers or solicited by them” to other inadmissible evidence.

They said those matters include references to allegations of drug use on dates other than the homicide date, to Dunn’s prior prison sentence, “to uncharged allegations of stalking” and to a polygraph test.

The motion does not elaborate on the lie-detector test. Attorneys said these references should be redacted from the statement to authorities.

Defense attorneys further argued that the prosecution “apparently wishes to introduce testimony from Jennifer Dunn (and perhaps others) to the effect that Dunn’s behavior changed when he was released from prison.”

Dunn’s lawyers said such testimony might violate marital privilege and “is an improper reference to a prior conviction.”

>snip<
This article was published today at 3:51 a.m. Hum. . . I wonder who made the stalking accusation???
:read:

[lorettalockhorn]

Hum. . . I wonder who made the stalking accusation???
:read:

Why are the allegations uncharged? Unreported? Unverifiable?

[SaraSidle]

Hum. . . I wonder who made the stalking accusation???
:read:

I have never read anything about a stalking charge. Who would be quite interesting to know. ITA sara

[JustCallMeNora]

I didn't make myself clear. My reference to what might or might not be included in a plea agreement wasn't pertaining to this case. I was thinking I might have read something about that in another case. I have not seen any discussion of a plea agreement in this case.

My "carping" about Dunn's attorneys had to do with their scattershot approach to filing motions to suppress. Too many motions covering too many areas of evidence lessens the impact of any one motion, IMO. I will grant, however, that Rosenzweig's numerous filings have probably decreased the chance of Dunn complaining about ineffective counsel.

On a side note, I do have to say, loretta, that I think it's a bit sad that it's down to this.....you and me alone here batting thoughts back and forth. Time was, an article like this would have generated pages of commentary and debate. What a difference two years and a new suspect make, huh? I hope to see more of the old faces when the trial starts. Until then, I'm not complaining.....we may disagree, but I've always found you to be good company.

Huh..... even I am still here

[FDInLaw]

I have never read anything about a stalking charge. Who would be quite interesting to know. ITA saraThe article stated; “uncharged allegations of stalking.” I'm not sure what they are talking about. :shrug:

[lorettalockhorn]

Let Dunn wife testify, prosecutor filing says

LITTLE ROCK — Testimony that murder suspect Gary Dunn’s wife gives about sexual relations she and her husband had will be in keeping with case law and will not violate marital privilege, a special prosecutor said in a court filing Monday.

Dunn, 30, of Dover is charged with capital murder in the slaying of beauty queen Nona Dirksmeyer, whose body was found in her Russellville apartment Dec. 15, 2005.

Authorities have said the Arkansas Tech University student, 19, was choked, beaten, stabbed and slashed with a knife and that she may have been sexually assaulted.

Dunn’s trial is to begin Sept. 28 in Johnson County Circuit Court in Clarksville, where it was moved because of pretrial publicity.

Dunn is the second person to go on trial in Dirksmeyer’s death. Her boyfriend, Kevin Jones of Dover, was originally charged with first-degree murder, but a jury acquitted him in July 2007.

Citing the Arkansas Rules of Evidence, special prosecutor Jack McQuary wrote in a filing Monday that a communication “is confidential if it is made privately by any person to his or her spouse and is not intended for disclosure to any other person.”

“Any statements made by the defendant in the presence of others that are not made in private with his spouse are not covered by the husband-wife privilege and as such cannot be suppressed,” McQuary added.

The defense contends statements Jennifer Dunn made about her sexual relationship with her husband should be excluded from evidence because of marital privilege.

The defense also says the state may claim that Dunn’s discussion of sexual activity and drug use in an Aug. 14, 2008, interview with authorities “constitutes a waiver ... because it deals with a significant portion of the privileged material.” However, Dunn’s attorneys say that does not constitute a waiver.

But in filings Monday, Mc-Quary said none of Dunn’s statements during that interview are covered by the husband-wife privilege.

Both sides have said Jennifer Dunn has indicated that she does not want to speak with her husband’s attorneys.

“Jennifer Dunn’s testimony will be from what she has disclosed to the State in her taped statement or from any subsequent interviews with the Prosecuting Attorneys preparing for trial,” McQuary wrote.

McQuary argued that defense attorneys are improperly using case law that he said concerns First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution, not husband-wife privilege, in an effort to get the wife’s testimony excluded.

Despite defense concerns, McQuary said in the filings that the state has no intention at this time of presenting any testimony about Dunn’s “drug use or sales of drugs, unless the door is opened to said evidence or testimony.”

In another motion filed Monday, McQuary denied a defense statement that a laboratory the state has used in this case has been uncooperative.

“No lab has been uncooperative in handing over any evidence for retesting or discovery purposes to the defendant,” McQuary wrote.

Attorneys cannot discuss the case with reporters because of a gag order.

Dirksmeyer, a sophomore music major, graduated from Dover High School. She was named Miss Petit Jean Valley in January 2005. She later competed in the Miss Arkansas pageant.

H.G. Foster, another special prosecutor, is working with McQuary on the Dunn case.

This article was published today at 4:06 a.m.
Arkansas, Pages 12 on 09/15/2009

[TJEddie]

The article stated; “uncharged allegations of stalking.” I'm not sure what they are talking about. :shrug:

Good catch, FD. "Uncharged" is an interesting choice of words. It completely sidesteps the question of validity.

[TJEddie]

Thanks for posting the latest article, loretta. Glad to see the prosecution in action.

[TJEddie]

Oh, and a belated thanks to all who responded to the roll call. : )

[upallnight]

Hum. . . I wonder who made the stalking accusation???
:read:

Good question FD, I wonder to.

[upallnight]

Good question FD, I wonder to.

When I first read this article my first thought was: I remember something being said that Nona was stalked but never a name was mentioned to go with the stalker. I wonder if this is one in the same.

[lorettalockhorn]

Allow DNA testimony, murder-trial lawyer asks

LITTLE ROCK — A court should let witnesses in the trial of the man accused of murdering Nona Dirksmeyer testify about the validity of the state’s DNA testing evidence rather than simply exclude it based on a defense statement, a special prosecutor said in a case filing.

Gary Dunn, 30, of Dover is to go on trial Sept. 28 in Johnson County Circuit Court in Clarksville, where the case was moved because of pretrial publicity.

Dunn is charged with capital murder in the Dec. 15, 2005, death of Dirksmeyer, 19. Authorities have said the Arkansas Tech University student was found choked, beaten, stabbed and slashed in her Russellville apartment. They said the beauty queen may have been sexually assaulted.

Special prosecutor Jack McQuary said in a filing Monday that the defense was asking the court to suppress the DNA evidence “by making the conclusory statement that the DNA tests are not reliable, without having the testimony before this Court.”

“The State’s witnesses will inform the Court of the validity of the tests and how it connects Gary Dunn to the murder of Nona Dirksmeyer,” McQuary added.

“The testing techniques will also be testified to informing the Court of the reliability and how these tests, and the testimony concerning them, have been upheld in the Courts.”

The information was contained with other motions filed Monday but was unavailable to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that afternoon because of a faxing problem at the Johnson County Circuit Clerk’s Office.

The defense has previously contended that the state’s DNA evidence should be excluded because it is based upon such small amounts of DNA that the testing does not meet criteria established by case law and the Arkansas Rules of Evidence.

But McQuary countered, “The defendant again makes a conclusory statement that statistics determine whether a sample being tested should determine its reliability. It is up to the trier of fact [the jury] to determine the weight given evidence or testimony and as such, it should be presented to the jury to decide what weight should be given the DNA tests.”

McQuary also said the defense attorneys were “making blanket conclusory statements” before their own “unknown experts evidently” had even reviewed the material at issue.

A gag order prevents attorneys on both sides from discussing the case with reporters.

Dunn, a construction worker, was on parole and living in the same Russellville apartment complex as Dirksmeyer at the time of the crime.

The Pope County prosecuting attorney’s office first charged Dirksmeyer’s boyfriend, Kevin Jones of Dover, in her death. But a Franklin County jury acquitted Jones of first-degree murder in July 2007.

Special prosecutors Mc-Quary and H.G. Foster are now handling the case, and McQuary has said he believes Jones was innocent.

Dirksmeyer, a music major, graduated from Dover High School.

She was named Miss Petit Jean Valley in January 2005 and later competed in the Miss Arkansas pageant.

This article was published today at 5:11 a.m.
Arkansas, Pages 10 on 09/16/2009

[TJEddie]

"Defense attorneys Jeff Rosenzweig and William O. James Jr. also sought to suppress any evidence the prosecution has obtained from Dunn's wife, Jennifer Dunn. The defense cited marital privilege, but special prosecuting attorney Jack McQuary said there were legal exceptions to such privilege.

Pearson said he would wait until the issue comes up at trial to decide that issue. "If marital privilege is invoked, we'd go into recess [away from jurors] and see what that [evidence] is," Pearson said. "I can't rule on it until I know what it is."

(Taken from a NWANews article posted by FD on pg.18.....broken link)

It sounds to me like the judge has already ruled on how he will handle the marital privilege issue, but the defense is still pursuing it. Are they reluctant to go to trial with the threat of her testimony hanging over their heads? Are they trying to force the prosecution to divulge more details about her testimony before going to trial?

[lorettalockhorn]

"Defense attorneys Jeff Rosenzweig and William O. James Jr. also sought to suppress any evidence the prosecution has obtained from Dunn's wife, Jennifer Dunn. The defense cited marital privilege, but special prosecuting attorney Jack McQuary said there were legal exceptions to such privilege.

Pearson said he would wait until the issue comes up at trial to decide that issue. "If marital privilege is invoked, we'd go into recess [away from jurors] and see what that [evidence] is," Pearson said. "I can't rule on it until I know what it is."

(Taken from a NWANews article posted by FD on pg.18.....broken link)

It sounds to me like the judge has already ruled on how he will handle the marital privilege issue, but the defense is still pursuing it. Are they reluctant to go to trial with the threat of her testimony hanging over their heads? Are they trying to force the prosecution to divulge more details about her testimony before going to trial?

My favorite guy>>:shrug:<<

Pearson did make that statement/ruling, but it sounds like the motion(s) filed later are more specific and wonder if the defense cited case law that isn't mentioned in the article.

Also wonder if the defense at any point sought to depose Jennifer Dunn; don't remember anything about that in the past, but it she refused wouldn't the defense have asked Pearson to compel her?

However (whatever) JD testifies to could make her sound disgruntled, uncooperative (I would want this to go away!), but I'm curious as to the nature of their relationship when Dunn was arrested. Wasn't he at her home at the time? Wonder when they were actually divorced.

More questions that answers. Let's hope that McQuary is uber organized and it will all make sense.

[TJEddie]

Loretta, this may all be redundant, but in response to the defense team's initial argument against J Dunn testifying, McQuary responded that the State was under no obligation to divulge to them the substance of her testimony. McQuary has since acknowledged that her testimony will be from information contained in taped statements, which I assume the defense has. It has been noted in a couple of articles that J Dunn has declined to speak with or be interviewed by the defense attorneys. I assume that whatever is going on with her refusal is in keeping with Arkansas law since there have been no defense motions to indicate otherwise. It's all a big ol' mystery to me......but it's pretty obvious that the defense is nervous about what she might say.

I recall it being reported on this forum that Dunn was arrested at his ex-wife's house, but I don't remember ever seeing any official word on that. Have no idea when they were divorced, but I remember the pro-Dunn poster Meow was vague about it when asked.

[lorettalockhorn]

Eddie, I've been spoiled by the Florida Sunshine Laws in following the Caylee Anthony case. It looks to me like the defense would have requested a deposition with J Dunn and gone to the judge for a ruling if she refused to comply. It does look like they would have the interview information through discovery, but they should also have the right to formulate and ask their own questions (right?). If last week they went to court with specific case law to rebut the judge's decision to make en camera decisions point by point as they come up in trial, that makes sense to me, but the article doesn't state that.

I'd be nervous too; she may adopt a posture that is far from the truth with regard to the true nature of her relationship with Dunn. (Whatever the heck that might be.)

So :shrug: for the umpteenth time.

Think it was in The Courier that the arrest took place at her digs. For all I know, she invited him over knowing he would be arrested. You know, just doing LE a favor; somehow they knew to find him there. Or maybe they were still involved. He could have been having an overnight or shacked up there.

[kj juror]

I am new to this forum & hope I don't do anything wrong. I was a juror on the first trial that aquitted Kevin Jones. The defense had all evidence tested at an Alabama lab. The DNA on the condom wrapper (& they also found a torn fingernail about a foot from her head) & the DNA on the fingernail were the same. It was only run against Kevin Jones & it was not his. What I would like to know is if this evidence goes against Gary Dunn? I have never heard anything about it.

[lorettalockhorn]

I am new to this forum & hope I don't do anything wrong. I was a juror on the first trial that aquitted Kevin Jones. The defense had all evidence tested at an Alabama lab. The DNA on the condom wrapper (& they also found a torn fingernail about a foot from her head) & the DNA on the fingernail were the same. It was only run against Kevin Jones & it was not his. What I would like to know is if this evidence goes against Gary Dunn? I have never heard anything about it.

Welcome to our little home away from home! :seeya:

Honestly don't recall any information in the papers that the DNA of the fingernail matches the condom wrapper DNA. Anyone? Don't think there has been any mention of the fingernail in the case against Dunn, but the gag order was set in place early on. Much of what we know and speculate about is thanks to Robbins' blabbing despite the gag order.

Wasn't the fingernail specimen a clipping rather than a torn segment?

[SaraSidle]

Welcome to our little home away from home! :seeya:

Honestly don't recall any information in the papers that the DNA of the fingernail matches the condom wrapper DNA. Anyone? Don't think there has been any mention of the fingernail in the case against Dunn, but the gag order was set in place early on. Much of what we know and speculate about is thanks to Robbins' blabbing despite the gag order.

Wasn't the fingernail specimen a clipping rather than a torn segment?

I do not remember anything about a fingernail but I have missed a lot. imo sara

[TJEddie]

Just ran a quick Google search and DNA Labs International is located in Deerfield Beach, Florida. Also ran a Russellville Courier archive search on the word "fingernail" and none of the trial related articles I found mentioned a condom wrapper/fingernail dna match. All I could find is that both dna samples were exclusive of Kevin Jones.

[TJEddie]

Loretta, this isn't cited as a direct quote, so I don't know if it's to be taken literally, but....

"The defense also claims to have found a torn FINGERNAIL in carpeting removed from the crime scene that is also exclusive of Jones."

http://www.couriernews.com/archived_story.php?ID=15362&Search=fingernail

[lorettalockhorn]

Found this in the crime scene analysis thread:

I Thought the fingernail that was found turned out to be a non-issue, because it was clipped not torn off.
I don't believe the DNA on the Condom wrapper is going to prove out to be of any benefit. It is only going to point to the fact that the DNA didn't come from KJ. It will rule out certain people but it will not point to anyone definite. I believe that the condom wrapper came from Nona's bed room trash or bathroom trash and was placed on the counter for everyone to see, after her death. It's discovery in the trash was what set KJ off. IMO
They began by arguing, then he hit her with the heal of his hand, leaving no marks on his knuckles whatsoever. He showed us how he likes to hit things with the heal of his hand. I also believe if asked the policeman that had told him to quit hitting the wall at Nona's apartment the evening of the murder, he would tell us that this is the way he hit the wall. Also on 48 hours someone mentioned that the evidence showed that Nona was struck with something like the heal of a hand, very hard. This is how he struck the chair in the interrogation room. This is why she didn't put up much of a struggle, she was dazed by this blow. An he had no evidence of hitting anything with his knuckles. If he was hitting the wall with his fist then there would have been some evidence of this on his knuckles, if not then why even look for evidence of him striking Nona with his fist, since she is much softer then a wall. Sorry got running on.

[lorettalockhorn]

Loretta, this isn't cited as a direct quote, so I don't know if it's to be taken literally, but....

"The defense also claims to have found a torn FINGERNAIL in carpeting removed from the crime scene that is also exclusive of Jones."

http://www.couriernews.com/archived_story.php?ID=15362&Search=fingernail

Thanks Eddie, kinda surprised I don't have that article memorized. Guess I would sound sarcastic if I commented that the defense found that torn fingernail after the crime scene had been released, so I won't. It's very possible that the word "clipping(s)" was misused. To me it means that scissors or something like, you know, a nail clipper was used, but to anyone else, it might mean a part of a fingernail. :shrug:

I don't remember it being part of the trial testimony, but if it matches the condom wrapper, looks like it would have been a big deal. I don't find it very likely that many people would have felt comfortable grooming themselves in Nona's apartment whereas it could have been easily torn off during a struggle. Then again, I don't remember Nona having defensive wounds, just that the M.E. thought she was originally found in a defensive position.

[kj juror]

The defense clearly said that the fingernail was torn, not clipped. And yes, it was found in the piece of carpet that she was found on by the Al. lab, not the Ar. lab. Arkansas said that they were told they could only do one of the other on the condom wraper, prints or DNA. There was alot of evidence they did not gather. They took pictures of it, but did not swab for DNA. As for her being hit in the face, I saw her autopsy photos. She was hit with a fist, not the heel of a hand. You could see knuckle marks. She was hit in the temple, the eye, the mouth, the chin. Also, someone else's prints were on the murder weapon that excluded K.J. When the trial started I really thought that he was guilty, why else was he there, but as the trial went along, there was more evidence that K.J. did not do ir than he did. I am really interested in what they are taking Gary Dunn to trial on. I saw all the evidence in the first and would like to see all the evidence in this trial. Why has there been a gag order?

[lorettalockhorn]

The defense clearly said that the fingernail was torn, not clipped. And yes, it was found in the piece of carpet that she was found on by the Al. lab, not the Ar. lab. Arkansas said that they were told they could only do one of the other on the condom wraper, prints or DNA. There was alot of evidence they did not gather. They took pictures of it, but did not swab for DNA. As for her being hit in the face, I saw her autopsy photos. She was hit with a fist, not the heel of a hand. You could see knuckle marks. She was hit in the temple, the eye, the mouth, the chin. Also, someone else's prints were on the murder weapon that excluded K.J. When the trial started I really thought that he was guilty, why else was he there, but as the trial went along, there was more evidence that K.J. did not do ir than he did. I am really interested in what they are taking Gary Dunn to trial on. I saw all the evidence in the first and would like to see all the evidence in this trial. Why has there been a gag order?

Why is there a gag order? Okay. :rolleyes:

There are some posts in the main thread around 7/13/08 that refer to the fingernail, but not much. Seems like a pretty big deal to have been glossed over.

[kj juror]

You are right. It should have been a big deal and I wondered why it was not. All the evidence that they did collect was run against K.J. I just wondered if any of it that excluded him was positive for Gary Dunn. I have not seen what they even had on him to arrest him. They took K. J. to trial bascially on one piece, his partial handprint in her blood on the bulb of the floor lamp. However, there is someone else's prints on the base of the lamp. I truly hope that there will be justice for Nona.

[lorettalockhorn]

You are right. It should have been a big deal and I wondered why it was not. All the evidence that they did collect was run against K.J. I just wondered if any of it that excluded him was positive for Gary Dunn. I have not seen what they even had on him to arrest him. They took K. J. to trial bascially on one piece, his partial handprint in her blood on the bulb of the floor lamp. However, there is someone else's prints on the base of the lamp. I truly hope that there will be justice for Nona.

There is a thread entitled lies and inconsistencies (or something along those lines) in the forum, it outlines what we considered to be just that about Kevin. What more could LE ask for than the blood of the victim to be all over a suspect and his print on a portion of the murder weapon? Add that to the fact that he was at Nona's apartment on a very flimsy excuse, told a couple of whoppers and that his granny's alibi was refuted by someone who had nothing to gain and everything to lose and the reason for his arrest should have been fairly obvious.

Were you absent during any of the trial??

[kj juror]

I will try to find that. I would be interested in what it says about K.J. And No, I did not miss any of the trial. Was there the whole time, took notes & really listened everyday. We based our decision on the physical evidence not alibis given by his family. i know that some people want to think that K.J. lost it over the condom wrapper but the prosecution could not produce one person to ever say that they had seen him be violent. They also could not find anyone that she had been with that used a condom.

[lorettalockhorn]

I will try to find that. I would be interested in what it says about K.J. And No, I did not miss any of the trial. 1. Was there the whole time, took notes & really listened everyday. We based our decision on the physical evidence not alibis given by his family. i know that some people want to think that K.J. lost it over the condom wrapper but the prosecution could not produce one person to ever say that they had seen him be violent. 2. They also could not find anyone that she had been with that used a condom.

1. Good to know.

2. Think I might have to call BS on that one. Let's see if anyone else chimes in. Have you read the information here?

[sololobo]

There is a thread entitled lies and inconsistencies (or something along those lines) in the forum, it outlines what we considered to be just that about Kevin. What more could LE ask for than the blood of the victim to be all over a suspect and his print on a portion of the murder weapon? Add that to the fact that he was at Nona's apartment on a very flimsy excuse, told a couple of whoppers and that his granny's alibi was refuted by someone who had nothing to gain and everything to lose and the reason for his arrest should have been fairly obvious.

Were you absent during any of the trial??

Kevin got the blood on him after discovering the body and is meaningless pertaining to the murder. Bacon, on the night of the murder and who closely supervised this investigation and who was, (in my opinion) in essence the "lead" detective, described the bloody palm print as "tacky".

Kevin had a very good reason for going to Nona's apartment that night. He was worried. I, as would most, would have done the same thing.

What "whoppers" did Kevin tell? I only remember his time-line saying he spoke to Blake Williams around noon and Blake testifying he didn't see him until 2:45. I doubt this was an intentional lie. It would be to easy to disprove. I must chalk this up as a minor, faulty memory on Kevin's or possibly even Blake's part.

Blake did not refute the grandmother's testimony. He merely stated he did not see Kevin until 2:45. Where was Blake between 11:30 and 12:00? Was he in the shop area? Did he leave for lunch or to take a test at Tech during that time period. Was he with or did he see the grandmother at any point during this time? What time did he start work that day? Too many unanswered questions for me to accuse the grandmother of lying.

IMO, this trial was brought to court solely on the "tacky" bloody palm print. The entire case hinged on that.

[sololobo]

Welcome to our little home away from home! :seeya:

Honestly don't recall any information in the papers that the DNA of the fingernail matches the condom wrapper DNA. Anyone? Don't think there has been any mention of the fingernail in the case against Dunn, but the gag order was set in place early on. Much of what we know and speculate about is thanks to Robbins' blabbing despite the gag order.

Wasn't the fingernail specimen a clipping rather than a torn segment?

I only recall the DNA from the fingernail excluded Kevin and trial testimony indicated it was torn, nothing about a match. But I wasn't at the trial. And, IIRC, Robbins' "blabbing" was after the first gag order ended and before the second gag order was imposed. I doubt a second investigation would have been conducted if wasn't for the post-trial work of Kevin's defense team.

[sololobo]

Why is there a gag order? Okay. :rolleyes:

There are some posts in the main thread around 7/13/08 that refer to the fingernail, but not much. Seems like a pretty big deal to have been glossed over.

Yes, that would be a big deal. If true, I'm sure it will come out in the up-coming trial.

[lorettalockhorn]

Kevin got the blood on him after discovering the body and is meaningless pertaining to the murder. Bacon, on the night of the murder and who closely supervised this investigation and who was, (in my opinion) in essence the "lead" detective, described the bloody palm print as "tacky".

Kevin had a very good reason for going to Nona's apartment that night. He was worried. I, as would most, would have done the same thing.

What "whoppers" did Kevin tell? I only remember his time-line saying he spoke to Blake Williams around noon and Blake testifying he didn't see him until 2:45. I doubt this was an intentional lie. It would be to easy to disprove. I must chalk this up as a minor, faulty memory on Kevin's or possibly even Blake's part.

Blake did not refute the grandmother's testimony. He merely stated he did not see Kevin until 2:45. Where was Blake between 11:30 and 12:00? Was he in the shop area? Did he leave for lunch or to take a test at Tech during that time period. Was he with or did he see the grandmother at any point during this time? What time did he start work that day? Too many unanswered questions for me to accuse the grandmother of lying.

IMO, this trial was brought to court solely on the "tacky" bloody palm print. The entire case hinged on that.

As a Jones supporter I understand that you find certain things meaningless. As someone who believes that Kevin murdered Nona I find it pertinent that Kevin acted in a way so as to purposely contaminate himself with Nona's blood and explain away any transfer of evidence.

You don't think Kevin was lying about canceling the date with her little for instance? About planning to propose to her that very night for instance?

Of course you don't. But that's okay.

[lorettalockhorn]

I only recall the DNA from the fingernail excluded Kevin and trial testimony indicated it was torn, nothing about a match. But I wasn't at the trial. And, IIRC, Robbins' "blabbing" was after the first gag order ended and before the second gag order was imposed. I doubt a second investigation would have been conducted if wasn't for the post-trial work of Kevin's defense team.

The fingernail clipping or torn is bombshell if it matches Dunn. I wish The Courier had been more thorough in their coverage of the mention of it. (Although that's no guarantee that I would remember.)

Yes. The Kevin Jones Defense Team and Sycophants should all be canonized. :rolleyes:

[lorettalockhorn]

Dirksmeyer case: Sentiment shifts as Dunn trial nears

Jury selection slated to begin Sept. 8 in Clarksville

The public's feelings toward the 2005 slaying of the Arkansas Tech University student Nona Dirksmeyer seem to be shifting.
While many local residents initially believed the first defendant, Dirksmeyer's on-again, off-again boyfriend Kevin Jones, was guilty of murdering the beauty queen from Dover, they now appear to have sided with the jury that acquitted him in July 2007.
The shift in public sentiment doesn't indicate, however, that the area has forgotten the crime, but rather now has its sights set on current defendant Gary Dunn, 29, who is scheduled to stand trial starting Sept. 28 in Clarksville.
Dunn, arrested for the murder last year, lived in the same South Inglewood Avenue apartment complex as Dirksmeyer.
With a bumper sticker that reads "Justice for Nona" still attached to her car, Betty Baker, 72, of Russellville expressed Friday a desire for someone to be punished for the crime.
"Well, I always thought that Jones was guilty, but I've about decided I might be wong about it," she said. "They need to find out, though. Somebody killed her.
"There were a lot of things about the Jones boy that made him suspicious, but I've about decided there's a good chance Dunn is guilty," she added. "I'm leaning more toward that."
Rep. Robert Dale, who lives in the hometown of the victim and defendant, said Friday he also wanted justice for Dirksmeyer and scknowledged the court's decision that Jones was "evidently the wrong man."
"I do not know this Dunn gentleman," he said. "But, certainly, if he committed that murder, I hope he will be punished for that. I would like to see it come to fruition and whoever the guilty party is be penalized."
Roy Aday, 84, of Russellville also said he knew very little about Dunn, but agreed with Dale that Jones was the wrong man.
"He was cleared, and I think rightfully so," he said. "I don't know about Dunn. I haven't made up my mind about him.
Rather than expressing opinions on either the former or current defendant, state Rep. Andrea Lea of Russellville, who admitted following the Jones trial closely, said Friday her main concern was for Dirksmeyer's family.
"I just have a lot of different mixed feelings about it," she said. "My most overwhelming feeling is I'd love to see closure for the family. I can't imagine losing a child in that manner."
A married couple shopping in Russellville on Friday said they planned to reserve judgment on the case.
"I made a mistake the first time, thinking it was Jones," said the wife, who refused to provide her name. "I didn't understand the whole deal with contaminated evidence. I really didn't."
Russellville alderman Randal Crouch echoed a similar opinion regarding Jones, adding that "nothing is absolute."
"We think it's pointing toward Dunn, but we need to let it play out in the courts and be sure before we really start condemning," he said. "I absolutely will be following the trial."

[lorettalockhorn]

What? Robbins wasn't available for an interview? Has he spoken to the press since Feb? Musta finally figured out the gag order.

[TJEddie]

I'm disappointed that they didn't interview you, loretta. You might have at least added a bit of color to this insipid article.

[FDInLaw]

I'm disappointed that they didn't interview you, loretta. You might have at least added a bit of color to this insipid article.

I'd love to have a post-trial party for the gang here. . . one main reason would be to meet Loretta. She wouldn't show though. *sigh* :hat:

[lorettalockhorn]

I'm disappointed that they didn't interview you, loretta. You might have at least added a bit of color to this insipid article.

I wanted to be interviewed but I was about thirty or forty years shy of the age limit. ;)

Wish we knew how many people constitute "many", because six doesn't really cut it for me. No one that I discuss the case with has changed his/her mind, but there are plenty of people I've never discussed it with. So much for anecdotal evidence. Insipid is a great choice of adjective.

[lorettalockhorn]

I'd love to have a post-trial party for the gang here. . . one main reason would be to meet Loretta. She wouldn't show though. *sigh* :hat:

Well, what are you serving? :seeya:

[FDInLaw]

Well, what are you serving? :seeya:

Chocolate cake, humble pie. . . whatever we want! Not that we will be eating much. It'll be like an Ab Fab party. We'll buy Morrilton out! :biggrin:

I agree with the couple that was interviewed. It's wise to wait for the evidence. It is sobbering to be going through this whole processes a second time. A lot of unanswered questions.

[lorettalockhorn]

Chocolate cake, humble pie. . . whatever we want! Not that we will be eating much. It'll be like an Ab Fab party. We'll buy Morrilton out! :biggrin:

I agree with the couple that was interviewed. It's wise to wait for the evidence. It is sobbering to be going through this whole processes a second time. A lot of unanswered questions.

I'll have a slab of chocolate cake with plenty of Stoli and champers! And maybe a side of crow.

I'm so hoping and praying that all the questions we have will be asked and answered and that the investigation isn't as cheesy as the first one, especially the Steffy/Robbins connection and Mrs. Chenoweth's claim that her property was searched without a warrant.

[TJEddie]

I'd love to have a post-trial party for the gang here. . . one main reason would be to meet Loretta. She wouldn't show though. *sigh* :hat:

I'll come if Michael Robbins will agree to be there as an honored guest and if loretta will agree to present him with a plaque expressing gratitude for his tireless work in pursuit of justice. And she'll have to genuflect.

[FDInLaw]

I'll come if Michael Robbins will agree to be there as an honored guest and if loretta will agree to present him with a plaque expressing gratitude for his tireless work in pursuit of justice. And she'll have to genuflect.
:eek: Wow, those are some stiff demands. Do you realize that it would be a major feat just to get her out of her house???? We would have to promise cartons of cigs and gin to begin with!

[lorettalockhorn]

I'll come if Michael Robbins will agree to be there as an honored guest and if loretta will agree to present him with a plaque expressing gratitude for his tireless work in pursuit of justice. And she'll have to genuflect.

LMAO I wouldn't genuflect* to that case of spotlightis enviousis if he brought us the head of Bin Laden. But it would be interesting to know his true motivation. And I could bring him a pound cake. :tongue:

*I'm Presbyterian. We just don't do that.

[TJEddie]

:eek: Wow, those are some stiff demands. Do you realize that it would be a major feat just to get her out of her house???? We would have to promise cartons of cigs and gin to begin with!

Uh oh. She's not one of those 800 pounders who won't fit through the door anymore, is she? If that's the case, I might be willing to cut her some slack on the genuflecting.

[sololobo]

As a Jones supporter I understand that you find certain things meaningless. As someone who believes that Kevin murdered Nona I find it pertinent that Kevin acted in a way so as to purposely contaminate himself with Nona's blood and explain away any transfer of evidence.

You don't think Kevin was lying about canceling the date with her little for instance? About planning to propose to her that very night for instance?

Of course you don't. But that's okay.

And are you a Dunn supporter? I prefer to be called a Nona supporter and I imagine you do also. Kevin's behavior at the crime scene was consistent with extreme grief. I have no reason to believe he was lying. I don't know exactly what he said or in what context.

As far as Dunn's innocence or guilt, I'll leave to the jury. They will hear all the evidence and render their decision as was done in the Jones' trial.

[lorettalockhorn]

:eek: Wow, those are some stiff demands. Do you realize that it would be a major feat just to get her out of her house???? We would have to promise cartons of cigs and gin to begin with!

Menthol, please. &Vodka! Not gin!

Carry on. :tongue:

[SaraSidle]

:eek: Wow, those are some stiff demands. Do you realize that it would be a major feat just to get her out of her house???? We would have to promise cartons of cigs and gin to begin with!

You will have to scatter them on the ground in a trail leading out the door.

[lorettalockhorn]

And are you a Dunn supporter? I prefer to be called a Nona supporter and I imagine you do also. Kevin's behavior at the crime scene was consistent with extreme grief. I have no reason to believe he was lying. I don't know exactly what he said or in what context.

As far as Dunn's innocence or guilt, I'll leave to the jury. They will hear all the evidence and render their decision as was done in the Jones' trial.

Not a Dunn supporter at all, but I do support a good investigation, and specifically a better investigation than the first time around. Sorry if I offended you by labeling you as a KJ supporter, just something I (possibly erroneously) picked up from your previous posts.

Kevin's behavior seems more bizarre than grief inspired to many (how many is many?) and I find it hard to believe that Nona's Little lied about their dinner date (for instance). For Kevin to be driving by to check on Nona at her apartment when she was expected to be out was contrived. Especially considering he took a route that would avoid the restaurant where she was supposed to be.

[lorettalockhorn]

Uh oh. She's not one of those 800 pounders who won't fit through the door anymore, is she? If that's the case, I might be willing to cut her some slack on the genuflecting.

Not to worry. Well off .4 ton. *God willing and the creek don't rise*

[TJEddie]

Not a Dunn supporter at all, but I do support a good investigation, and specifically a better investigation than the first time around. Sorry if I offended you by labeling you as a KJ supporter, just something I (possibly erroneously) picked up from your previous posts.

Kevin's behavior seems more bizarre than grief inspired to many (how many is many?) and I find it hard to believe that Nona's Little lied about their dinner date (for instance). For Kevin to be driving by to check on Nona at her apartment when she was expected to be out was contrived. Especially considering he took a route that would avoid the restaurant where she was supposed to be.

Come on, lo. If Kevin thought the date was cancelled, he didn't expect Nona to be out and he didn't expect her to be at the restaurant. I never thought the Little Sister was lying at all, but I did notice she said she started calling Nona early in the afternoon to confirm the plans for that evening. Apparently they were not set in stone. Isn't it entirely possible that Nona told Kevin the night before that she was in fact planning to cancel? Just a possibility.

[lorettalockhorn]

Come on, lo. If Kevin thought the date was cancelled, he didn't expect Nona to be out and he didn't expect her to be at the restaurant. I never thought the Little Sister was lying at all, but I did notice she said she started calling Nona early in the afternoon to confirm the plans for that evening. Apparently they were not set in stone. Isn't it entirely possible that Nona told Kevin the night before that she was in fact planning to cancel? Just a possibility.

If Nona was planning to cancel but Kevin couldn't reach her, mighten he think that she had decided not to let the Little down and keep the date? Why not continue up SR 7 and see if her car was at the restaurant? Sure, the Little might well be expected to call to confirm or ask for wardrobe ideas or about any number of picayune details. Hair? Lip gloss? She was likely excited if/since the date hadn't been canceled. :shrug:

[upallnight]

I am new to this forum & hope I don't do anything wrong. I was a juror on the first trial that aquitted Kevin Jones. The defense had all evidence tested at an Alabama lab. The DNA on the condom wrapper (& they also found a torn fingernail about a foot from her head) & the DNA on the fingernail were the same. It was only run against Kevin Jones & it was not his. What I would like to know is if this evidence goes against Gary Dunn? I have never heard anything about it.

Um, I had been told it was a lab in Florida.

[upallnight]

The defense clearly said that the fingernail was torn, not clipped. And yes, it was found in the piece of carpet that she was found on by the Al. lab, not the Ar. lab. Arkansas said that they were told they could only do one of the other on the condom wraper, prints or DNA. There was alot of evidence they did not gather. They took pictures of it, but did not swab for DNA. As for her being hit in the face, I saw her autopsy photos. She was hit with a fist, not the heel of a hand. You could see knuckle marks. She was hit in the temple, the eye, the mouth, the chin. Also, someone else's prints were on the murder weapon that excluded K.J. When the trial started I really thought that he was guilty, why else was he there, but as the trial went along, there was more evidence that K.J. did not do ir than he did. I am really interested in what they are taking Gary Dunn to trial on. I saw all the evidence in the first and would like to see all the evidence in this trial. Why has there been a gag order?

Oh, I see, I guess the Florida lab's involvement came after the trial was over.

[upallnight]

The defense clearly said that the fingernail was torn, not clipped. And yes, it was found in the piece of carpet that she was found on by the Al. lab, not the Ar. lab. Arkansas said that they were told they could only do one of the other on the condom wraper, prints or DNA. There was alot of evidence they did not gather. They took pictures of it, but did not swab for DNA. As for her being hit in the face, I saw her autopsy photos. She was hit with a fist, not the heel of a hand. You could see knuckle marks. She was hit in the temple, the eye, the mouth, the chin. Also, someone else's prints were on the murder weapon that excluded K.J. When the trial started I really thought that he was guilty, why else was he there, but as the trial went along, there was more evidence that K.J. did not do ir than he did. I am really interested in what they are taking Gary Dunn to trial on. I saw all the evidence in the first and would like to see all the evidence in this trial. Why has there been a gag order?

Interesting to say the least. I was not aware of the knuckle marks, thanks for sharing.

[sololobo]

Not a Dunn supporter at all, but I do support a good investigation, and specifically a better investigation than the first time around. Sorry if I offended you by labeling you as a KJ supporter, just something I (possibly erroneously) picked up from your previous posts.

Kevin's behavior seems more bizarre than grief inspired to many (how many is many?) and I find it hard to believe that Nona's Little lied about their dinner date (for instance). For Kevin to be driving by to check on Nona at her apartment when she was expected to be out was contrived. Especially considering he took a route that would avoid the restaurant where she was supposed to be.

No offense taken. I'm sure we are all here for Nona.


Kevin turned toward Nona's apartment after Ryan told him her car was at her apartment and she wasn't answering the door. I see no reason for him to be looking for her car elsewhere.

[lorettalockhorn]

No offense taken. I'm sure we are all here for Nona.


Kevin turned toward Nona's apartment after Ryan told him her car was at her apartment and she wasn't answering the door. I see no reason for him to be looking for her car elsewhere.


I see no reason for him to send RW to check on Nona to begin with.

[sololobo]

What? Robbins wasn't available for an interview? Has he spoken to the press since Feb? Musta finally figured out the gag order.

The first gag order ended July 19, 2007 at the conclusion of the Jones' trial. The new gag order was issued September 17, 2008. Judge Sutterfield ordered the record sealed in February 2008 after the appointment of the special prosecutor. Perhaps that's the reason for Robbins' silence. He did not violate any gag order.

[lorettalockhorn]

The first gag order ended July 19, 2007 at the conclusion of the Jones' trial. The new gag order was issued September 17, 2008. Judge Sutterfield ordered the record sealed in February 2008 after the appointment of the special prosecutor. Perhaps that's the reason for Robbins' silence. He did not violate any gag order.

DUH me. I thought that after the gag order 9/17/08 that Robbins had given his phone interview in Feb '09.

[sololobo]

DUH me. I thought that after the gag order 9/17/08 that Robbins had given his phone interview in Feb '09.

I recall a phone interview of Robbins' in August 2008. Did he give one in February?

[jeremiads]

I wonder if that juror posting is the same one with the link to Whiteside through a daughter or whatever that was. It's been a while.

[hawgustusgloop]

I'd like to know why the men and women of the jury were so interested in "Jared" during the trial. Can you shed some light, "kj juror"?

[TJEddie]

So has there been a concession that Robbins has in fact not violated any gag order? I'm trying to update my scorecard over here.

[lorettalockhorn]

I recall a phone interview of Robbins' in August 2008. Did he give one in February?

I was thinking that he actually spoke about the case at the end of December 08, around New Years maybe? I could be very wrong!

[lorettalockhorn]

I'd like to know why the men and women of the jury were so interested in "Jared" during the trial. Can you shed some light, "kj juror"?

Ooh, good question!

[lorettalockhorn]

So has there been a concession that Robbins has in fact not violated any gag order? I'm trying to update my scorecard over here.

LMAO Concessions?! Popcorn? Funnelcake? Nachos?

[TJEddie]

I was thinking that he actually spoke about the case at the end of December 08, around New Years maybe? I could be very wrong!

Lo, in keeping with the posting standards that you have requested others to meet in the past, why don't you either post a link to back yourself up or admit that you were wrong? Violation of a gag order is not an insignificant accusation.

[jeremiads]

So has there been a concession that Robbins has in fact not violated any gag order? I'm trying to update my scorecard over here.If he's not a party to either sides of the case, I don't see how he could be violating anything.

I mean, trust me, I'd love to say otherwise, but I'm not distorting reality because I think the guy is trash.

[lorettalockhorn]

Lo, in keeping with the posting standards that you have requested others to meet in the past, why don't you either post a link to back yourself up or admit that you were wrong? Violation of a gag order is not an insignificant accusation.

Well, lemme look. (Don't you and Solo have Robbins on speed dial or chat? Can't you just ask?)

And thanks for crediting me with instituting posting standards. :rolleyes:

Seriously, wasn't there an article in one of the papers where Bristow declined to comment but Robbins spoke?

[lorettalockhorn]

Sololobo posted this link, but it's dead:

http://www.couriernews.com/story.php?ID=20268

ETA: FD quoted from the article in post #276, P7:

Bill Bristow of Jonesboro, one of three attorneys who represented Jones, declined comment when asked whether he believed Dunn’s arrest was related to DNA the defense team announced in February it matched to DNA discovered on a condom wrapper found in Dirksmeyer’s apartment the night of her death.
“I’ve just taken the position ever since the special prosecutor was appointed that any comments needed to come through the special prosecutor,” Bristow said.
But Michael Robbins of Dover, another of Jones’ attorneys, told the AP the defense team was aware of Dunn’s connection to Dirksmeyer, but only recently obtained a DNA sample from Dunn.
Robbins declined to specify how the defense team obtained Dunn’s DNA, but acknowledged investigators gathered some samples from uncooperative suspects without their knowledge, the AP reported.

[TJEddie]

Well, lemme look. (Don't you and Solo have Robbins on speed dial or chat? Can't you just ask?)

And thanks for crediting me with instituting posting standards. :rolleyes:

Seriously, wasn't there an article in one of the papers where Bristow declined to comment but Robbins spoke?

Not my job to do your research for you. You're the one who's made the accusation.

[lorettalockhorn]

Not my job to do your research for you. You're the one who's made the accusation.

...BILL BRISTOW of Jonesboro, one of three attorneys who represented Jones, declined comment when asked whether he believed Dunn’s arrest was related to DNA the defense team announced in February it matched to DNA discovered on a condom wrapper found in Dirksmeyer’s apartment the night of her death.
“I’ve just taken the position ever since the special prosecutor was appointed that any comments needed to come through the special prosecutor,” Bristow said.
But Michael Robbins of Dover, another of Jones’ attorneys, told the AP the defense team was aware of Dunn’s connection to Dirksmeyer, but only recently obtained a DNA sample from Dunn.
Robbins declined to specify how the defense team obtained Dunn’s DNA, but acknowledged investigators gathered some samples from uncooperative suspects without their knowledge, the AP reported...

http://www.couriernews.com/archived_story.php?ID=20268&Search=bill%20bristow

Okay. Off to research a panty untwister. :seeya:

[TJEddie]

Sololobo posted this link, but it's dead:



ETA: FD quoted from the article in post #276, P7:

Bill Bristow of Jonesboro, one of three attorneys who represented Jones, declined comment when asked whether he believed Dunn’s arrest was related to DNA the defense team announced in February it matched to DNA discovered on a condom wrapper found in Dirksmeyer’s apartment the night of her death.
“I’ve just taken the position ever since the special prosecutor was appointed that any comments needed to come through the special prosecutor,” Bristow said.
But Michael Robbins of Dover, another of Jones’ attorneys, told the AP the defense team was aware of Dunn’s connection to Dirksmeyer, but only recently obtained a DNA sample from Dunn.
Robbins declined to specify how the defense team obtained Dunn’s DNA, but acknowledged investigators gathered some samples from uncooperative suspects without their knowledge, the AP reported.

The preamble to that article identifies it as a "look back" to August 23, the day of Dunn's arrest. The excerpt you posted above is lifted directly from a Courier article dated August 23, 2008, prior to the gag order. Here's the link to the original article containing the above statements:
http://www.couriernews.com/archivedstory.php?ID=19254

[lorettalockhorn]

The preamble to that article identifies it as a "look back" to August 23, the day of Dunn's arrest. The excerpt you posted above is lifted directly from a Courier article dated August 23, 2008, prior to the gag order. Here's the link to the original article containing the above statements:
http://www.couriernews.com/archivedstory.php?ID=19254

Good to know! Your boy Robbins may very well be obeying this particular gag order to the letter. And as far as I know, he nor any of the prosecution aren't guilty of libel or slander in this case/investigation, so that's a big plus.

[TJEddie]

Good to know! Your boy Robbins may very well be obeying this particular gag order to the letter. And as far as I know, he nor any of the prosecution aren't guilty of libel or slander in this case/investigation, so that's a big plus.

Good girl.

[lorettalockhorn]

Good girl.

I think I meant to say that he and any of the prosecution isn't guilty blah blah blah. Or they aren't. Or something. :eek:

[FDInLaw]

Should we start a thread for Mikey Robbins???? Sure seems there are enough lovers and haters to warrant one (LOL).

Hearing today. Any thoughts on what might go down???

[TJEddie]

http://twitter.com/cecillea

[jeremiads]

http://twitter.com/cecillea
Wow, thanks.

"DNA expert admits there is DNA on wrapper that does not belong to Dunn or Dirksmeyer"

[FDInLaw]

http://twitter.com/cecillea
So, why did KJ Juror get a different idea? :shrug:

Good catch Jeremy. . . if true, no wonder the defense was pushing for more info from the lab.

[jeremiads]

"Expert: Broken fingernail found by Dirksmeyer's body did not belong to Gary Dunn."

Yeah, no wonder at all, indeed.

[hawgustusgloop]

Only 1 in 2100 chance? I'd say it certainly doesn't look good for him there, but I expected it to be like 1 in a million, 1 in a billion, etc.

[jeremiads]

Only 1 in 2100 chance? I'd say it certainly doesn't look good for him there, but I expected it to be like 1 in a million, 1 in a billion, etc.It doesn't look good for him, no, but that extra DNA is going to be a hell of a big deal, I'm betting.

[lorettalockhorn]

Should we start a thread for Mikey Robbins???? Sure seems there are enough lovers and haters to warrant one (LOL).

Hearing today. Any thoughts on what might go down???

He and the lovers would eat that up! Kinda amazed that people don't acknowledge that the guy has a big mouth and what the purpose of defending him is. Wonder if his remarks have been for the purpose of deflection or to protect (for lack of a better word) Kevin. Wonder if Kevin's good name and reputation will ever be restored. Has KJ been keeping his nose clean?

[lorettalockhorn]

http://twitter.com/cecillea

Great link, thanks!

[lorettalockhorn]

Wow, thanks.

"DNA expert admits there is DNA on wrapper that does not belong to Dunn or Dirksmeyer"

If the sample has only been run against 10,000 others, we may never know whose it is. The little guy at the Chinese condom factory? A careless RPD officer?

"Expert: Broken fingernail found by Dirksmeyer's body did not belong to Gary Dunn."

Yeah, no wonder at all, indeed.

Well, how did kjjuror get that wrong?? That's just frightening.

[lorettalockhorn]

It doesn't look good for him, no, but that extra DNA is going to be a hell of a big deal, I'm betting.

For sure. And so many people think that wrapper was planted all along. So can the defense ask that everyone milling around the crime scene submit samples to rule out more investigative blunders? LE has fingerprints on file; what about DNA?

[jeremiads]

Well, how did kjjuror get that wrong?? That's just frightening.No offense to kjjuror, but... you read some of those interviews with the jurors after the initial trial, right? Just saying.

[FDInLaw]

No offense to kjjuror, but... you read some of those interviews with the jurors after the initial trial, right? Just saying.

Hmmm.:read:

[lorettalockhorn]

No offense to kjjuror, but... you read some of those interviews with the jurors after the initial trial, right? Just saying.

Well, I asked her/him if (s)he had been present for the entire trial.

[jeremiads]

From that Twitter:

"Defense expert: Because of dropouts in DNA tested to say there is a match would be inconclusive at best."

"Defense moves to have DNA evidence excluded from trial. Judge indicates decision will not be made until after lunch."

[hawgustusgloop]

From that Twitter:

"Defense expert: Because of dropouts in DNA tested to say there is a match would be inconclusive at best."

"Defense moves to have DNA evidence excluded from trial. Judge indicates decision will not be made until after lunch."

Anybody know what this means? Dropouts?

[TJEddie]

Anybody know what this means? Dropouts?

I did a Google search on 'dna testing dropouts.' It has to do with alleles and it's all way over my head.

[hawgustusgloop]

I did a Google search on 'dna testing dropouts.' It has to do with alleles and it's all way over my head.

I tried that, too. My take (complete guess) on it is that they are arguing that there are not enough alleles present to make a complete enough DNA profile, which I'm guessing might also be the reason for only a 1 in 2100 chance.

[lorettalockhorn]

I tried that, too. My take (complete guess) on it is that they are arguing that there are not enough alleles present to make a complete enough DNA profile, which I'm guessing might also be the reason for only a 1 in 2100 chance.

That makes sense. Wonder if there is some statistical amount that is necessary for such evidence to be used at trial. Didn't the defense bring this up in another motion?

This is interesting under Stochastic Effects:

http://books.google.com/books?id=_izwkwFSSuUC&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&dq=dropouts+dna+testing&source=bl&ots=ggxaHyouGz&sig=nroJuT23veQe4Pz4LruX6NiZek0&hl=en&ei=jg-5SqbeC4HJlAfM5oTKDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7#v=onepage&q=&f=false

If only it wasn't way over my head.

[TJEddie]

Just to keep a record, the latest twitters (oldest to newest) are:

"Judge denies motion to suppress DNA evidence in Dirksmeyer case."

"Gary Dunn's attorneys move to have Dunn's wife testimony about their sex life excluded from upcoming trial."

"Dunn's wife reportedly gave statement to police that Dunn lied to her. Attorney says statement also discusses drug use."

[FDInLaw]

http://www.4029tv.com/news/21065252/detail.html

"At issue in the case in a condom wrapper found at Dirksmeyer's apartment. Prosecutors allege DNA from the wrapper matches Dunn, who lived at the same apartment complex near the campus of Arkansas Tech.

Defense lawyer Jeff Rosenzweig dismissed the DNA find, saying that the sample was too small and degraded to link Dunn to the crime."

[lorettalockhorn]

http://www.4029tv.com/news/21065252/detail.html

"At issue in the case in a condom wrapper found at Dirksmeyer's apartment. Prosecutors allege DNA from the wrapper matches Dunn, who lived at the same apartment complex near the campus of Arkansas Tech.

Defense lawyer Jeff Rosenzweig dismissed the DNA find, saying that the sample was too small and degraded to link Dunn to the crime."

Thanks for the link! Is the owner of the third sample of DNA not also a viable suspect here? I'm still curious as to what types of DNA are on the wrapper, saliva, blood or whatever. Is the third owner male or female?

So many questions.

[FDInLaw]

A Pope County judge has denied a motion by a murder suspect's attorneys to exclude DNA evidence found on a condom wrapper from his trial next week...
DNA experts for both the prosecution and the defense have taken the stand in today's pre-trial hearing in Russellville for Dunn.

The defense expert testified that because of dropouts in the DNA that was tested, to say there is a match would be inconclusive at best.

His remarks came after testimony this morning from a DNA expert for the prosecution. That expert said there is other DNA on a condom wrapper found at the murder scene that does not belong to Dunn or Dirksmeyer. The expert also said DNA found on the wrapper was run through a database with 10-thousand others and only matched Dunn's. He said there's a 1 in 2,100 chance that another person would have the same DNA profile as what was identified as Dunn's.

The expert also testified that a broken fingernail found by Dirksmeyer's body did not belong to Dunn.

The prosecution DNA expert said technology developed only in the last few years is what helped match DNA to a new suspect in the Dirksmeyer case.





http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32969372/ns/local_news-little_rock_ar/

[The R]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32969372/ns/local_news-little_rock_ar/


Thanks for that link.

If there's unidentifiable third party DNA on that wrapper, I can't even imagine it ever being considered viable hard evidence by any level headed juror; unless of course there's all kinds of other supporting evidence. Maybe that's what the prosecution is banking on. Lots of circumstantial with a sprinkling of hard evidence.

On the surface, looks pretty shaky to me.

ALLMO,
R

[TJEddie]

I'm kind of leaning toward hawg's suggestion that the degradation/dropouts are what raised the odds of another match to 1/2100. Not the extreme odds that we're used to seeing on dna matches, but still more than enough to get a jury's attention. And then there's that thing about Dunn being the only match out of a database of 10,000.....another attention getter.

As for the presence of other people's dna on the condom wrapper, that still doesn't get Dunn off the hook for having to explain why his is there. If Dunn's ex-wife is being called to testify that they didn't use condoms, the argument that someone might have snagged the wrapper out of the trash and planted it at the crime scene will be significantly weakened. And if Dunn also denied using condoms while discussing his sexual activity with investigators, that would weaken the argument further.

I guess we'll see how it all plays out.

[upallnight]

I'm kind of leaning toward hawg's suggestion that the degradation/dropouts are what raised the odds of another match to 1/2100. Not the extreme odds that we're used to seeing on dna matches, but still more than enough to get a jury's attention. And then there's that thing about Dunn being the only match out of a database of 10,000.....another attention getter.

As for the presence of other people's dna on the condom wrapper, that still doesn't get Dunn off the hook for having to explain why his is there. If Dunn's ex-wife is being called to testify that they didn't use condoms, the argument that someone might have snagged the wrapper out of the trash and planted it at the crime scene will be significantly weakened. And if Dunn also denied using condoms while discussing his sexual activity with investigators, that would weaken the argument further.

I guess we'll see how it all plays out.

Channel 4 reported Dunn's ex-wife will testify but the judge can stop her at anytime but I wonder how much she may or may not get out (for example about their sex life, drugs) for the jury to hear before she is stopped by the judge if he stops her? I would think not much but guess that is up to the judge and how much will what she has to say will be a factor in the case. That DNA on the wrapper is a hugh piece of evidence to me if it can be proven it belongs to GD. On the other hand it may lead to reasonable doubt. Thinking of Carol and Nona and Praying for Carol.

[upallnight]

Channel 4 reported Dunn's ex-wife will testify but the judge can stop her at anytime but I wonder how much she may or may not get out (for example about their sex life, drugs) for the jury to hear before she is stopped by the judge if he stops her? I would think not much but guess that is up to the judge and how much will what she has to say will be a factor in the case. That DNA on the wrapper is a hugh piece of evidence to me if it can be proven it belongs to GD. On the other hand it may lead to reasonable doubt. Thinking of Carol and Nona and Praying for Carol.

I guess I should have said will be allowed to testify, don't know if his wife will testify or not.

[lorettalockhorn]

I'm kind of leaning toward hawg's suggestion that the degradation/dropouts are what raised the odds of another match to 1/2100. Not the extreme odds that we're used to seeing on dna matches, but still more than enough to get a jury's attention. And then there's that thing about Dunn being the only match out of a database of 10,000.....another attention getter.

As for the presence of other people's dna on the condom wrapper, that still doesn't get Dunn off the hook for having to explain why his is there. If Dunn's ex-wife is being called to testify that they didn't use condoms, the argument that someone might have snagged the wrapper out of the trash and planted it at the crime scene will be significantly weakened. And if Dunn also denied using condoms while discussing his sexual activity with investigators, that would weaken the argument further.

I guess we'll see how it all plays out.

I'm a little confuzzled, but have to wonder if the 10,000 is random, or is it for instance a prison population or members of the Southern Baptist Convention. Does anyone know why only 10,000?

There are plenty of reasons for Dunn's DNA to be on the condom wrapper and also along with Nona's, but again it matters to me what the actual source of the DNA is. I spent the morning and afternoon doing my chores and wondering just where the heck that condom went. I can't get past it being more likely that a wrapper without a condom would be brought into the apartment than it is that a condom without a wrapper would be taken out.

This could boil down to being a battle of the experts like so many cases nowadays are, but that third DNA sample could be reasonable doubt.

Then again, we can always go back to how similar it sounds the Bona Dea attack was to Nona's attack and Dunn's guilt seems (circumstantially) obvious.

[lorettalockhorn]

channel 4 reported dunn's ex-wife will testify but the judge can stop her at anytime but i wonder how much she may or may not get out (for example about their sex life, drugs) for the jury to hear before she is stopped by the judge if he stops her? I would think not much but guess that is up to the judge and how much will what she has to say will be a factor in the case. That dna on the wrapper is a hugh piece of evidence to me if it can be proven it belongs to gd. On the other hand it may lead to reasonable doubt. Thinking of carol and nona and praying for carol.

amen.

[hawgustusgloop]

I'm a little confuzzled, but have to wonder if the 10,000 is random, or is it for instance a prison population or members of the Southern Baptist Convention. Does anyone know why only 10,000?

There are plenty of reasons for Dunn's DNA to be on the condom wrapper and also along with Nona's, but again it matters to me what the actual source of the DNA is. I spent the morning and afternoon doing my chores and wondering just where the heck that condom went. I can't get past it being more likely that a wrapper without a condom would be brought into the apartment than it is that a condom without a wrapper would be taken out.

This could boil down to being a battle of the experts like so many cases nowadays are, but that third DNA sample could be reasonable doubt.

Then again, we can always go back to how similar it sounds the Bona Dea attack was to Nona's attack and Dunn's guilt seems (circumstantially) obvious.

I'm also curious about this random sample of 10,000 people. Is it ten thousand people of all different backgrounds from all parts of the world? Perhaps it's 10,000 people from Arkansas. I don't want to offend anyone, and I am saying this as someone who was born and raised in Arkansas, but maybe the gene pool around there is relatively shallow. Perhaps if the lab ran that sample against every male in Pope County, it might match more than 1 in 2100?

There was so much hype about this "DNA match." That was a tad misleading, if you ask me. It seems to me that the evidence couldn't exclude him, rather than being what I would consider a true match.

[lorettalockhorn]

I'm also curious about this random sample of 10,000 people. Is it ten thousand people of all different backgrounds from all parts of the world? Perhaps it's 10,000 people from Arkansas. I don't want to offend anyone, and I am saying this as someone who was born and raised in Arkansas, but maybe the gene pool around there is relatively shallow. Perhaps if the lab ran that sample against every male in Pope County, it might match more than 1 in 2100?

There was so much hype about this "DNA match." That was a tad misleading, if you ask me. It seems to me that the evidence couldn't exclude him, rather than being what I would consider a true match.

According to the link from "The Litigator's Guide...", the situation of dropout can lead to false inclusions or false exonerations due to the size or length of the alleles and misinterpretation. There is also information contained in the link about databases and populations.

These dueling experts are going to have to do some plain talking to get this information across to the jury, but depending on what the standard is for criminal prosecution and what Rosenzweig discounts as an unacceptable sample, this is pretty darned important. And again, what of the owner of the third sample? Isn't (s)he a suspect? Was (s)he investigated? Put Robbins on it ASAP!

[TJEddie]

From yesterday's ArDemGaz website (subscription):

Judge allows DNA evidence in beauty queen slaying
The Associated Press

RUSSELLVILLE — DNA tests linking a northwest Arkansas man to a condom wrapper found near the body of a slain beauty queen can be used at his upcoming capital murder trial, a judge ruled Tuesday.

Pope County Circuit Judge Bill Pearson’s ruling allows prosecutors to present a crucial piece of evidence in the death penalty trial against Gary William Dunn. Without it, special prosecutors would have had no physical evidence linking Dunn to the 2005 killing of beauty queen and college student Nona Dirksmeyer, a case that already includes a previous jury acquittal against the woman’s boyfriend.

Pearson made the ruling from the bench after half a day of testimony regarding the DNA sample. Police found the sample on an open condom wrapper lying 4 feet from Dirksmeyer’s nude body when police arrived at her apartment near the campus of Arkansas Tech University in Russellville on Dec. 15, 2005.

An Arkansas State Police report claims the wrapper contained DNA from both Dirksmeyer and Dunn. Police arrested Dunn, 30, of Dover, in August 2008. His trial is scheduled to begin Monday in nearby Clarksville.

A prosecution witness from a private laboratory testified Tuesday that the sample was at least a 1-in-2,100 match with Dunn. Dunn’s defense lawyer Jeff Rosenzweig challenged, saying that the method used to determine that match was improper and that the sample was too small and lacked some parts of the DNA sequence. A defense witness also called the test inconclusive.

“It would be an abuse of discretion to include it,” Rosenzweig said.

Special Prosecutor Jack McQuary said a new witness would be able to say the sample “will be in the hundred-million range” by the time the trial starts. McQuary promised to provide a copy of that witness’ report to Rosenzweig when he received it.

McQuary took over the case after a jury in 2007 acquitted Dirksmeyer’s boyfriend Kevin N. Jones of the slaying. Jones, his mother and a friend found Dirksmeyer, 19, dead inside her apartment. Authorities said the sophomore music student had been beaten to death with a floor lamp and her throat had been cut.

Prosecutors had alleged that Jones became enraged over Dirksmeyer’s relationships with other students at the university. Prosecutors said a bloody palm print on a light bulb in the floor lamp tied Jones to the killing, but a defense expert said Jones left it after discovering her body. Police also found a broken fingernail near Dirksmeyer’s body that didn’t match her or Dunn.

Defense lawyer Michael Robbins argued at trial that the Russellville police botched their investigation and failed to collect other fingerprints and DNA evidence. Jones’ attorneys collected their own DNA samples from everyone who could have had contact with Dirksmeyer, including Dunn, who was on parole for a 2003 attack on a woman in Russellville.

During Tuesday’s hearing, Rosenzweig also asked the judge to bar some testimony from Jennifer Dunn, Dunn’s wife at the time. The lawyer claimed prosecutors might ask her to talk about sex with Dunn, the fact he “changed” after being released from prison and that he allegedly lied to her about where he was the day of Dirksmeyer’s death.

Pearson declined to rule on the matter after McQuary suggested Dunn’s wife first be interviewed outside the presence of a jury at his trial.

This article was originally published September 22, 2009 at 2:08 p.m.
Updated September 22, 2009 at 5:46 p.m.

[TJEddie]

From today's ArDemGaz website (subscription):

Judge to allow DNA evidence in murder trial
By Amy Upshaw

RUSSELLVILLE — A judge agreed Tuesday to allow prosecutors to use DNA evidence they say links a Dover man to the 2005 death of Nona Dirksmeyer, but he made no ruling on what the man’s wife will be allowed to tell jurors.

During a hearing, Circuit Judge Bill Pearson denied a request by Gary Dunn’s defense attorneys to suppress DNA found on an open condom wrapper near Dirksmeyer’s nude body.

After hearing from both sides, Pearson said the private lab used by the prosecution had standards and audits to help ensure credibility and that there was no evidence the DNA sample had been contaminated.

A prosecution witness testified that the DNA sample was at least a 1 in 2,100 match to Dunn’s DNA. But Dunn’s attorney, Jeff Rosenzweig, disputed the evidence,calling it inconclusive and echoing a defense witness. Rosenzweig also challenged the statistical conclusions.

“It would be an abuse of discretion to include it,” Rosenzweig argued.

Special prosecutor Jack McQuary told Pearson and Rosenzweig that a new state witness would testify that the DNA sample “will be in the hundred-million range,” but McQuary did not have the witness or his report at Tuesday’s hearing.

He promised to provide Dunn’s defense team with a copy of the report as soon as he received it.

Dunn, 30, is charged with capital murder in the Dec. 15, 2005, death of Dirksmeyer. Her body was found in her Russellville apartment not far from Arkansas Tech, where Dirksmeyer was a sophomore music major.

The avid beauty pageant contestant who became Miss Petit Jean Valley had been choked, beaten, stabbed and slashed with a knife. Authorities believe she may also have been sexually assaulted.

Dunn, who was in the courtroom Tuesday shackled at the ankles and wrists, could face the death penalty.

Jury selection in his case is to begin Monday in Johnson County Circuit Court in Clarksville, where the trial was moved because of pretrial publicity.

Dunn is the second person to go on trial in Dirksmeyer’s death. Her boyfriend, Kevin Jones of Dover, was originally charged with first-degree murder, but a jury acquitted him in July 2007.

Attorneys in the case could not comment on the judge’s decisions Tuesday because of a gag order.

One issue that remains unresolved is how much Pearson will allow Dunn’s wife, Jennifer Dunn, to say on the witness stand because of marital privilege issues.

Pearson said he would reserve his ruling until he could hear the context of the statements the wife will make and the relevance of those statements.

Jennifer Dunn is to testify for the prosecution. Defense attorneys had filed a motion asking Pearson to prevent her from testifying about her and husband’s sex life, as well as allegations that her husband used drugs.

Rosenzweig said the state has led him to believe that Jennifer Dunn’s testimony will touch on these issues.

“We’d talk to her ourselves, but she declined to talk to us,” Rosenzweig told Pearson.

This article was published today at 4:56 a.m.
Arkansas, Pages 11, 14 on 09/23/2009

[FDInLaw]

During Tuesday’s hearing, Rosenzweig also asked the judge to bar some testimony from Jennifer Dunn, Dunn’s wife at the time. The lawyer claimed prosecutors might ask her to talk about sex with Dunn, the fact he “changed” after being released from prison and that he allegedly lied to her about where he was the day of Dirksmeyer’s death.
(From article above)

Hum. . . sounds like Jennifer may be a key alibi witness.

[lorettalockhorn]

(From article above)

Hum. . . sounds like Jennifer may be a key alibi witness.

And didn't we read something early on that his mother had alibied him originally?

[lorettalockhorn]

DNA results admissible in Dunn trial

Defense counsel argues results are unreliable

A judge ruled Tuesday to deny a motion seeking to exclude DNA testing of evidence obtained from a condom wrapper found at the crime scene of the 2005 slaying of Arkansas Tech University student Nona Dirksmeyer.
The motion was filed Aug. 19 by attorneys Jeff Rosenzweig and William O. James Jr. on behalf of defendant Gary W. Dunn, 29, who will face a jury trial Monday in connection with the Dec. 15, 2005, homicide.
After listening to several testimonies and subsequent arguments by both counsels during Tuesday’s hearing, Circuit Judge William M. Pearson said he found DNA Labs International (DLI) — which conducted the testing of the evidence — to have employed credible methods in examining and comparing the DNA and ruled the presentation of its findings probative value outweighed any potential prejudicial effect it might have on the jury.
“They employed methodology and they have standards in place,” he said. “This information will be helpful to the jury in determining important facts and issues in this case.”
Special prosecuting attorney Jack McQuary of Little Rock called Kevin Noppinger, lab director for DLI, as the first witness for Tuesday’s hearing. The director described how the testing of the DNA was handled.
“I took a wet cotton swab and swabbed the entire condom wrapper in hopes of some DNA,” he said. “It was a small sample, but I did obtain a partial profile from the wrapper.”
Despite the limited size of the sample, Noppinger told the court the results, which allegedly matched Dunn, were still accurate. Once those results were finalized, they were checked by a second qualified analyst, he added.
While Noppinger received the first piece of evidence in the Dirksmeyer case Dec. 5, 2006, he testified he did not receive a sample from Dunn until Nov. 22, 2007.
During Rosenzweig’s cross-examination of the witness, Noppinger confirmed he was originally hired by counsel representing previous defendant Kevin Jones — who was acquitted of the murder in 2007 — and has received the majority of his compensation from that team.
Then Rosenzweig asked Noppinger to describe “allelic dropout,” the process by which alleles — forms of genes used to help identify someone through DNA testing — are lost.
“It means for whatever reason you are not able to ascertain ... see an allele,” the witness said. “You didn’t have an immaculate sample; you had a sample that was thought to be mixed.”
Noppinger did not, however, concur with Rosenzweig’s next assertion that the sample was also degraded.
“Not so much degraded, but just a small amount,” the witness said. “Various things can cause depredations such as dirt and bacteria.”
Rosenzweig went on to point out to the court that several alleles noted in Noppinger’s analysis did not match either Dunn or Dirksmeyer, indicating at least a third person — if not a fourth or fifth — had touched the wrapper.
McQuary briefly re-examined his witness to address the issue of degradation, at which time Noppinger reiterated for the court that “the sample was a small amount of DNA, but I could not say it was degraded.”
Following Noppinger’s testimony, Rosenzweig called Jason Gilder — who holds a Ph.D. in computer science and specializes in forensic DNA analysis and interpretation — to testify. The defense attorney asked the witness to provide opinions as to the significance of allelic dropout.
“The main implication is that the strength of that evidence is weakened,” Gilder said of the phenomenon. “We don’t know how many alleles dropped out, and we don’t know which alleles dropped out.”
He said there was no generally accepted method for determining the threshold for a good sample in regards to dropped alleles.
“I would say that saying there’s a match to a mixed sample with allelic dropout ... that the weight of that would be inconclusive at best,” he said.
Also on Tuesday, Rosenzweig reiterated the defense counsel’s reason for filing a Sept. 9 motion seeking to exclude information revealed by Dunn’s wife during police interviews. The defense posited discussions between Gary and Jennifer Dunn is protected by the State’s Rule 504, commonly known as “husband-wife privilege.”
Pearson, however, declined to rule on the motion.

http://couriernews.com/story.php?ID=22668

[TJEddie]

Other tidbits from the above articles:

1) McQuary says he has another witness who will put the dna sample in the hundred-million range.

2) The condom wrapper dna is reportedly the only evidence the state has to physically link Dunn to the crime scene.

Darn. I had high hopes for those prints on the lamp base.

[upallnight]

I'm also curious about this random sample of 10,000 people. Is it ten thousand people of all different backgrounds from all parts of the world? Perhaps it's 10,000 people from Arkansas. I don't want to offend anyone, and I am saying this as someone who was born and raised in Arkansas, but maybe the gene pool around there is relatively shallow. Perhaps if the lab ran that sample against every male in Pope County, it might match more than 1 in 2100?

There was so much hype about this "DNA match." That was a tad misleading, if you ask me. It seems to me that the evidence couldn't exclude him, rather than being what I would consider a true match.

I agree, I hope they have more than this and who does the other DNA on the wrapper belong to and what type of dna is it?

[FDInLaw]

Other tidbits from the above articles:

1) McQuary says he has another witness who will put the dna sample in the hundred-million range.

2) The condom wrapper dna is reportedly the only evidence the state has to physically link Dunn to the crime scene.

Darn. I had high hopes for those prints on the lamp base. Ugh. :(

[lorettalockhorn]

Other tidbits from the above articles:

1) McQuary says he has another witness who will put the dna sample in the hundred-million range.

2) The condom wrapper dna is reportedly the only evidence the state has to physically link Dunn to the crime scene.

Darn. I had high hopes for those prints on the lamp base.

Those are good tidbits, for sure.

1) Battle of the experts ensues!

2) Isn't the jury going to want answers as to the other DNA besides Dunn's and Nona's, that there is another viable suspect?

Amen on the lamp. Still confused about why the defense can't depose J Dunn.

[upallnight]

Other tidbits from the above articles:

1) McQuary says he has another witness who will put the dna sample in the hundred-million range.

2) The condom wrapper dna is reportedly the only evidence the state has to physically link Dunn to the crime scene.

Darn. I had high hopes for those prints on the lamp base.


Oh my goodness, I was hoping for more. Hoping that new state witness has some rabbits in his hat.

[upallnight]

Those are good tidbits, for sure.

1) Battle of the experts ensues!

2) Isn't the jury going to want answers as to the other DNA besides Dunn's and Nona's, that there is another viable suspect?

Amen on the lamp. Still confused about why the defense can't depose J Dunn.

Oh Lordy L, I sure hope they don't end up with less evidence than was shown in the other trial. My heart goes out to Carol, I feel so bad for her having to go it all again and maybe more if they think a sexual attack was involved. I for one don't know so much about DNA but I would want proof that the DNA does in fact belong to Dunn. I would agree the jury would want to know about the other DNA, as it stands to me it is not 100% that the DNA is Dunn's, but who in the heck does the other DNA belong to? That seems major to me. Was there someone else involved? Could someone have handled that wrapper before or after it had been taken into evidence and got their DNA on it? Wonder if the people who was in control of it was tested, who know's someone could have let out a sneeze and their DNA got on the wrapper prior to it ever being opened etc. Just alot of questions, but he major question in my mind is if Dunn's DNA is on that wrapper 100%. If it is and it is proven to be his along with his statement he had never been in her apartment etc., well that's hard evidence that can not be ignored. So, they have DNA possibly matching Gary Dunn on the wrapper. They have KJ's print in Nona's blood. Will that be a factor in this trial? Praying for the truth, hurting for Carol, thinking of Nona-gone to soon.:rose:

[lorettalockhorn]

UpAll, I think you speak for all of us here, this is all for Nona and Carol and the rest of the family, but can justice be served with such nebulous evidence? And why was such effort made to get Dunn, but not the other owner of the DNA? Or was there an effort to identify him or her? Is it because Dunn "fits"? This judge and jury is on my prayer list.

[upallnight]

And didn't we read something early on that his mother had alibied him originally?

I thought his mom had said he was with her Christmas shopping but then said she may not know for sure because of her chemo drugs. Sure would like to know what the x has to say.

[hOTwIREd]

Anybody know what this means? Dropouts?

It is not a term I have encountered in the United Kingdom, but it appears (from a quick browse of the web) to be similar to our term 'Partial Match'

Presentation and evaluation of evidence of partial or incomplete DNA profiles

R v Bates (2006) EWCA Crim 1395 Moore-Bick LJ said:
“We can see no reason why partial profile DNA evidence should not be admissible provided that the jury are made aware of its inherent limitations and are given a sufficient explanation to enable them to evaluate it. There may be cases where the match probability in relation to all the samples tested is so great that the judge would consider its probative value to be minimal and decide to exclude the evidence in the exercise of his discretion, but this gives rise to no new question of principle and can be left for decision on a case by case basis. However, the fact that there exists in the case of all partial profile evidence the possibility that a "missing" allele might exculpate the accused altogether does not provide sufficient grounds for rejecting such evidence. In many there is a possibility (at least in theory) that evidence exists which would assist the accused and perhaps even exculpate him altogether, but that does not provide grounds for excluding relevant evidence that is available and otherwise admissible, though it does make it important to ensure that the jury are given sufficient information to enable them to evaluate that evidence properly”.[13]

Partial matches can exclude a suspect from an investigation - a bit like the old blood grouping figures (boy am I getting old) - if you are looking for a person who is AB (approximately 3% of the population of the United Kingdom/US)in the ABO blood grouping system, and the suspect is A, then they can not have left the sample.

A partial DNA profile can exclude a person if they do not possess the same loci, however, if there are not enough loci represented in the profile to make a complete match, but the suspect has the same loci present in their profile, then they can still be a suspect.

I have had partial matches on two or more people for one sample - one hit being a person in Scotland, and one person living half a mile from the crime scene. I would suspect the local person to be more likely to have left the crime scene sample, but, knowing that only five million people are on the NDNAD (National DNA Database) when there are 61 million people in the United Kingdom, that there would be many more people who could also partially match the sample and would not wish to pursue the matter in court. Sometimes we are able to get the sample reexamined using LCN (Low Copy Number) analysis and get an improved result.

I know that a good barrister or solicitor could run rings around the statistics with a partial if there is no other suppprting evidence.

NDNAD - United Kingdom National DNA Database
The United Kingdom National DNA Database (NDNAD; officially the UK National Criminal Intelligence DNA Database) is a national DNA Database that was set up in 1995. As of the end of 2005, it carried the profiles of around 3.1 million people, over 585,000 of them taken from children aged under 16.[1] At the end of 2006, this figure had risen to more than four million records, making it the world's biggest DNA database at the time.[2] The database, which grows by 30,000 samples each month, is populated by samples recovered from crime scenes and taken from police suspects[3] and (in England and Wales) anyone arrested and detained at a police station, even if they are not subsequently charged with an offence[4].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NDNAD

LCN - Low copy number
Low Copy Number (LCN) is a DNA profiling technique developed by the Forensic Science Service (FSS) and in use in some countries since 1999.

In the United Kingdom the technique was stop from use between 21 December 2007 and 14 January 2008 while the Crown Prosecution Service conducted a review into its use - this suspension has now been lifted.[1]

LCN is an extension of Second Generation Multiplex Plus (SGM Plus) profiling technique. It is a more sensitive technique because it involves a greater amount of copying from a smaller amount of starting material, meaning that a profile can be attained from only a few cells, which may be as small as a millionth the size of a grain of salt, and amount to a just few cells of skin or sweat left from a fingerprint.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_copy_number

BLOOD GROUPING
Blood types have been used in forensic science and in paternity testing, but both of these uses are being replaced by genetic fingerprinting, which provides greater certainty [66].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_type

[FDInLaw]

Welcome back, hOTwIRED!

So, what is your take on the dna evidence in this case??? How much stock should we put in it from what we know so far????

[hOTwIREd]

thank you for the welcome.

01:40 am, Twenty four pages of this thread, with lots of links to articles... I will post back as soon as I get my head around all the information.

From the first two pages, and the last two pages, I am in for a treat!

[FDInLaw]

thank you for the welcome.

01:40 am, Twenty four pages of this thread, with lots of links to articles... I will post back as soon as I get my head around all the information.

From the first two pages, and the last two pages, I am in for a treat!

It's good to have you back! From the looks of things, the dna found on the condom wrapper may be the only physical evidence that links Dunn to this murder. The quality of the match and chain of custody is going to be key IMO. I can’t wait to hear your take on it all!

[lorettalockhorn]

It is not a term I have encountered in the United Kingdom, but it appears (from a quick browse of the web) to be similar to our term 'Partial Match'



Partial matches can exclude a suspect from an investigation - a bit like the old blood grouping figures (boy am I getting old) - if you are looking for a person who is AB (approximately 3% of the population of the United Kingdom/US)in the ABO blood grouping system, and the suspect is A, then they can not have left the sample.

A partial DNA profile can exclude a person if they do not possess the same loci, however, if there are not enough loci represented in the profile to make a complete match, but the suspect has the same loci present in their profile, then they can still be a suspect.

I have had partial matches on two or more people for one sample - one hit being a person in Scotland, and one person living half a mile from the crime scene. I would suspect the local person to be more likely to have left the crime scene sample, but, knowing that only five million people are on the NDNAD (National DNA Database) when there are 61 million people in the United Kingdom, that there would be many more people who could also partially match the sample and would not wish to pursue the matter in court. Sometimes we are able to get the sample reexamined using LCN (Low Copy Number) analysis and get an improved result.

I know that a good barrister or solicitor could run rings around the statistics with a partial if there is no other suppprting evidence.

NDNAD - United Kingdom National DNA Database

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NDNAD

LCN - Low copy number

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_copy_number

BLOOD GROUPING

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_type

Thanks for the look see. :seeya: Love that you've got JR's post for your signature. Where the heck is JR anyway?

[jeremiads]

Catching up on yesterday's news...

I can't say that I feel any better about things. I've always had a sinking feeling that this was just an easy target to get the case closed, and if the only physical evidence they have is that condom wrapper (INCLUDING MYSTERY DNA)... ugh.

If a guy covered in blood and with his prints on the murder weapon can get off from this, but some guy with no murder evidence on him has a chance to go away for this, I don't know exactly how I'm supposed to feel. At least, in ways I feel like typing out publicly right now.

[TJEddie]

I don't think the situation is as dire as some of you seem to think it is. We learned last time around that pre-trial publicity doesn't tell the whole story. Both sides are very well represented in this case. I think the big city lawyers will put on a good show and that Arkansas will do itself proud this time around. JMO

[lorettalockhorn]

Catching up on yesterday's news...

I can't say that I feel any better about things. I've always had a sinking feeling that this was just an easy target to get the case closed, and if the only physical evidence they have is that condom wrapper (INCLUDING MYSTERY DNA)... ugh.

If a guy covered in blood and with his prints on the murder weapon can get off from this, but some guy with no murder evidence on him has a chance to go away for this, I don't know exactly how I'm supposed to feel. At least, in ways I feel like typing out publicly right now.

What I keep coming back to is that justice for Nona can't really be obtained if all the suspects aren't investigated. So the question is, was the identity of the owner of the additional DNA pursued or not? If not, how could (s)he be ruled out? How is that justice? If only Dunn was investigated, doesn't that make McQuary and his team guilty of what the KJ supporters claimed, that Kevin was targeted?

[lorettalockhorn]

I don't think the situation is as dire as some of you seem to think it is. We learned last time around that pre-trial publicity doesn't tell the whole story. Both sides are very well represented in this case. I think the big city lawyers will put on a good show and that Arkansas will do itself proud this time around. JMO

Good point about pre-trial information (and lack thereof in this case). Let's hope there is either more evidence or that what they have can be presented in a logical, concise, understandable way.

[upallnight]

Good point about pre-trial information (and lack thereof in this case). Let's hope there is either more evidence or that what they have can be presented in a logical, concise, understandable way.

More evidence is needed it seems. Does anyone know if Gary Dunn's DNA was already in the database? Just still do not understand who had control of that wrapper when the Dover Marshal was swabbing GD for his DNA and from there forward to the lab. That really bothers me for some reason with everyone that was involved, including people who worked on the Jones case. I agree with FD, the chain of custody will be a hugh factor IMO along with the DNA facts matching Gary Dunn on the wrapper, or not per the experts.

I agree L, hopefully the jury does understand what is being presented to them and not shy to ask questions if they do not.

I sure do wish work would slow down so I could read more information being published. This old granny is slowing down it seems and days turn into nights in the blink of an eye.;)

[lorettalockhorn]

Defense’s DNA review delays trial in ’05 killing

LITTLE ROCK — A judge delayed the trial of Gary Dunn on Thursday so defense attorneys could review new DNA tests showing the odds of DNA other than Dunn’s matching evidence found near Nona Dirksmeyer’s body was 1 in 120 million, sources familiarwith the case confirmed.

Defense attorneys found out about the prosecution’s additional DNA expert who would testify to those numbers during a hearing Tuesday.

“Dunn’s counsel have consulted with the experts and represent to the Court that,without question, more time is needed in which to make beneficial use of this information,” attorneys Jeff Rosenzweig and Bill James wrote in a motion seeking a continuance Wednesday afternoon.

“Dunn’s counsel would, of course, obey a direct order to go to trial, but under the circumstances, cannot and will not announce that they are ready for trial in light of the State’s new assertions.”

The two-week trial was scheduled to begin Monday.

Attorneys in the case could not comment on the judge’s decisions because of a gag order.

Special prosecutors Jack Mc-Quary and H.G. Foster wrote that the state consulted with Dr. Martin Tracey, an expert in population genetics, because they knew the defense expert would challenge another prosecution witness.

That witness, Kevin Noppinger, testified during the hearing Tuesday that a DNA sample found on an open condom wrapper in Dirksmeyer’s apartment was at least a 1 in 2,100 match to Dunn’s DNA.

Noppinger, the attorneys wrote, also testified that “sincethe first test, the database used to determine the statistical numbers for that test has changed, increasing in size, and as such would increase the statistics for that test.”

“It is the position of the State that no continuance should be granted to the defense based upon, there is no “new” information here,” the prosecutors wrote. “The same information has been available to the defense, their ‘experts,’ and the entire scientific fields dealing with DNA analysis and testing.”

Defense attorneys argued that they found out about Tracey for the first time on Tuesday.

When Dunn does go to trial, he could face the death penalty if convicted of capital murder in Dirksmeyer’s Dec. 15, 2005, death. Her body was found in her apartment not far from Arkansas Tech University in Russellville, where she was a sophomore music major.

The avid beauty pageant contestant had been choked, beaten, stabbed and slashed with a knife. Authorities believe she may also have been sexually assaulted.

Dirksmeyer’s boyfriend, Kevin Jones, was arrested in her death, but a jury acquitted him in July 2007.

This article was published today at 3:47 a.m.
Arkansas, Pages 13, 16 on 09/25/2009

[TJEddie]

Ok, let's see a show of hands. Who's surprised? Anyone?

[lorettalockhorn]

*crickets*

[hawgustusgloop]

Noppinger, the attorneys wrote, also testified that “since the first test, the database used to determine the statistical numbers for that test has changed, increasing in size, and as such would increase the statistics for that test.”



Any guesses what this means? Could they be referring to Noppinger's 1 in 2100 probability as it compares to running the sample against a database of 10,000 actual human beings? My brain hurts too much to try to guess what the "first test" thing is about.

[TJEddie]

Hawg, I'm guessing he's saying that the 1/2100 was based upon a smaller database than the one they have now. (You know, the "we're always growing, we're always getting bigger" business line.....especially when someone else waltzes in and says he can do 1/120,000,000.)

[TJEddie]

*crickets*

I'm just glad I haven't bought my snacks and drinks yet.

[hawgustusgloop]

So, let's say hypothetically that after all the DNA testimony, everyone on the jury absolutely believes that one of the DNA samples on that condom wrapper belongs to Gary Dunn. Then what? What about the mystery person's DNA? What about the botched investigation? Surely this would be less complicated if the DNA were found on something attached to Nona or her apartment, like under her nails or on a countertop. It was an extremely violent attack, yet the prosecution supposedly doesn't have any of the defendant's hair, bodily fluids, fingerprints, etc. from the crime scene to present to the jury. Also, there's the whole Kevin thing, the bloody print, the mystery fingernail, etc. I wonder what the circumstantial evidence is here? I'm kind of surprised they are seeking the death penalty if the condom wrapper truly is the only physical evidence tying him to the crime. Surely they have more, right?

[lorettalockhorn]

I'm just glad I haven't bought my snacks and drinks yet.

LMAO

Truly not surprised, but think it's a good thing. Except for what the delay is doing to Nona's family.

[lorettalockhorn]

So, let's say hypothetically that after all the DNA testimony, everyone on the jury absolutely believes that one of the DNA samples on that condom wrapper belongs to Gary Dunn. Then what? What about the mystery person's DNA? What about the botched investigation? Surely this would be less complicated if the DNA were found on something attached to Nona or her apartment, like under her nails or on a countertop. It was an extremely violent attack, yet the prosecution supposedly doesn't have any of the defendant's hair, bodily fluids, fingerprints, etc. from the crime scene to present to the jury. Also, there's the whole Kevin thing, the bloody print, the mystery fingernail, etc. I wonder what the circumstantial evidence is here? I'm kind of surprised they are seeking the death penalty if the condom wrapper truly is the only physical evidence tying him to the crime. Surely they have more, right?

To seek the death penalty seems overly ambitious now, but maybe they have a bombshell. It'll have to be to make us forget about the other DNA. If there was a jury seated right now who heard that the DNA is a one in a billion match to Dunn, surely they would still want to know if the other sample belongs to the true killer or to someone who planted the wrapper. And they'll want to know why the owner of the other DNA wasn't pursued as a suspect. Won't they?

[lorettalockhorn]

Dirksmeyer case continued

CLARKSVILLE — The trial for a Dover man charged in connection with the 2005 slaying of Arkansas Tech University student Nona Dirksmeyer was continued Thursday following a motion filed by defense counsel in response to a DNA expert included on the state’s witness list, circuit court reporter Johna Roedenbeck confirmed at the request of 5th Judicial District Circuit Judge Bill Pearson.
An official order granting the continuance was not immediately available Thursday afternoon.
Gary W. Dunn, 29, was previously scheduled to face a Johnson County jury trial Monday in connection with the Dec. 15, 2005, homicide.
Special prosecuting attorney Jack McQuary of Little Rock provided the defense counsel — attorneys Jeff Rosenzweig and William O. James — with the state’s witness list Tuesday morning prior to a pre-trial hearing. Rosenzweig expressed discontent with the timing amid the hearing due to the inclusion of DNA expert Dr. Martin Tracey on the list.
“We’re going to need to ascertain who they’re planning on calling and what this person is planning on saying,” Rosenzweig said. “I need to know who is going to be saying it and what results they may have.”
Rosenzweig’s comments were in response to McQuary’s claim Tuesday that Tracey’s report might reveal DNA obtained from a condom wrapper found at the crime scene is a more accurate match with Dunn than the initial claim made by Dr. Kevin Noppinger — an expert for the defense of a man formerly accused in the murder — of one in 2,100.
“Clearly we’re going to need this material,” Rosenzweig said. “There are cases after cases that say we’ve got to throw a fit now about it, because we can’t wait until the trial.”
In response to the defense counsel’s complaint, McQuary reminded the judge that the state was unaware Dr. Jason Gilder, a computer scientist who specializes in DNA analysis, would testify for the defense Tuesday until about 7 p.m. the previous day.
The DNA in question — which experts with the state Crime Lab said at a 2007 trial for Kevin Jones, Dirksmeyer’s boyfriend and the first man charged in the case, was able only to exclude, not include, a suspect — was matched to Dunn by Noppinger in early 2008. Noppinger testified Tuesday he was able to make the match after new technology developed that allowed experts to match compromised or minuscule DNA samples to a donor.
No mention of state testing of the sample, aside from the initial tests completed prior to Jones’ trial that excluded him as the donor, have been made in court documents or proceedings.
Roedenbeck was unable to provide details on the motion filed Thursday or to say when the trial would be rescheduled.
Look for additional information on the Dirksmeyer case and the Dunn trial in future editions of The Courier.

http://couriernews.com/story.php?ID=22682

[lorettalockhorn]

Just noticed that the Miss Congeniality Award for the Pope County Fair Queen and the Teen Pope County Fair Queen is named for Nona. It's nice to see her remembered.

[FDInLaw]

Well, it looks like Dunn might end up spending the holidays in the pokey awaiting trial. I wonder how his family is taking the news?

Ugh. . . not surprised at all. I sure hope the next date will stick. :rose:

[lorettalockhorn]

Wondering if Jennifer Dunn ever reported Dunn's supposed drug use to his parole officer. Didn't she have small children that she brought to the marriage? Were they exposed to drugs? Did this information come out after Nona's murder? Or was the drug use after the murder?

If her testimony is that Dunn was using drugs and/or the claim is that Nona's attack and murder were drug fueled, it will seem disingenuous IMO.

[TJEddie]

We have a new challenger for the title of "Worst Reporting in the Dirksmeyer Case." (Bolding mine.)

Trial Postponed For Alleged Arkansas Tech Student Murderer
Reported by:
Monday, Sep 28, 2009 @03:06am


(Fort Smith) -- The trial has been delayed for a 29-year-old man accused of fatally beating Arkansas Tech student Nona Dirksmeyer in her Russellville apartment in 2005.

Gary Dunn pleaded not guilty a year ago to the brutal beating death of Nona Dirksmeyer.

According to autopsy results, the young woman died of multiple blunt force injuries.

Since her death several people, including her boyfriend, were accused, tried and acquitted.

According to prosecutor Jack McQuary, Dunn was named the main suspect after his DNA was found on a condom wrapper in the victim's apartment.

He is being held on a $1-millionr cash only bond and will likely be tried next year.

(Copyright 2009 by VERTEXNews/Newsroom Solutions)

http://ozarksfirst.com/common/printerfriendly.php?cid=190641

[Amy]

We have a new challenger for the title of "Worst Reporting in the Dirksmeyer Case." (Bolding mine.)

Trial Postponed For Alleged Arkansas Tech Student Murderer
Reported by:
Monday, Sep 28, 2009 @03:06am


(Fort Smith) -- The trial has been delayed for a 29-year-old man accused of fatally beating Arkansas Tech student Nona Dirksmeyer in her Russellville apartment in 2005.

Gary Dunn pleaded not guilty a year ago to the brutal beating death of Nona Dirksmeyer.

According to autopsy results, the young woman died of multiple blunt force injuries.

Since her death several people, including her boyfriend, were accused, tried and acquitted.

According to prosecutor Jack McQuary, Dunn was named the main suspect after his DNA was found on a condom wrapper in the victim's apartment.

He is being held on a $1-millionr cash only bond and will likely be tried next year.

(Copyright 2009 by VERTEXNews/Newsroom Solutions)

http://ozarksfirst.com/common/printerfriendly.php?cid=190641

Hope the reporter will fill us in on the "several" people other than KJ who were tried and acquitted!!!! That's about as bad as the shows like NG where the talking heads and sometimes even the host don't have a clue.

[lorettalockhorn]

VERTEX news doesn't recognize the difference between a trial in the court of public opinion and an actual state sanctioned courtroom trial???

[jeremiads]

Face, meet palm.

And really, apply that to whatever you want to out of the past week.

[TJEddie]

VERTEX news doesn't recognize the difference between a trial in the court of public opinion and an actual state sanctioned courtroom trial???

Nah, that can't be it. When has anyone ever been acquitted in the court of public opinion?

[ashleyshapira]

I've been trying to follow this case since it aired on dateline... I've read a lot of things on this message board that I hadn't heard before! Is there a website where I can get all the information and all the details?

[SaraSidle]

I've been trying to follow this case since it aired on dateline... I've read a lot of things on this message board that I hadn't heard before! Is there a website where I can get all the information and all the details?

Ashley there is plenty of information here. very many threads. If you click on the Nona Dirksmeyer name not Gary Nunn you will see many choices. Let me know if this does not work.

[lorettalockhorn]

Good idea, Sara!

For Ashley :seeya: :

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showthread.php?t=250375

[lorettalockhorn]

Stories intertwine in Dirksmeyer case

Dover investigator reveals he was paid by former defense attorney - but what does it mean?

The timeline of events that led to the arrest of the second defendant charged in connection with the 2005 slaying of Arkansas Tech University student Nona Dirksmeyer leaves behind a number of trails that all lead back to Dover.
The significance of their interconnectedness, however, is less than clear.
Approximately two months after Dirksmeyer's on-again, off-again boyfriend Kevin Jones, a Dover native, was acquitted of the crime by a Franklin County jury in July 2007, the current defendant, Gary W. Dunn, 29, of Dover, was brought into the Dover Marshal's Office on Sept. 11, 007, for questioning regarding an alleged burglary, apparently at his own home, where he lived with one of more of his parents.
The suspect's mother, Martha Dunn, said in a 2008 interview that Dover authorities took DNA samples from her son during the questioning.
"Gary told me that's when they took it," she said. "I wasn't allowed to go back there with him. Why they took DNA, you'd have to talk to Gary."
Gary Dunn did not respond to an initial request for a jailhouse interview, and a gag order currently in place prevents parties involved in the case from speaking until after his trial, which was continued last week.
Todd Steffy, an investigative officer with the marshal's office, testified during a June 8 pretrial hearing that he asked Dunn for fingerprints and a DNA sample following the alleged burglary, and the suspect agree.
Steffy also testified - publicly revealing the information for the first time - during the hearing that Dover attorney Michael Robbins, who represented Jones during the first trial, asked him to help with the investigation of Dunn. Steffy confirmed Robbins compensated him for his assistance, but did no reveal how much he was paid, saying he did not recall, nor did he specify during what time period he was employed by Robins.
Dover Marshal Rob Pfeifer said Friday he was aware of the arrangement.
"He's also a minister and a teacher," he said. "I cannot say what he does on his days off. When he works for me, he works for me. This is just like anybody else in a second job."
But others, who declined to speak specifically about Steffy's situation, seemed to diagree.
Mark R. Hayes, general counsel for the Arkansas Municipal League, a service and advisory ody for cities and towns across the state, said the situation pointed to a "series of conflict issues" and was "highly problematic."
"The hiring itself, I think is concerning because of the nature of the roles of the various parties. I don't know how one moves from the investigating authority of the state of Arkansas and the particular city that's hired you to operating that taks into working for somebody whose goal is singularly the opposite of the officer's,"he said, referring to the typically oppositional relationship between criminal defense attorneys and law enforcement.
"I'm sort of at a loss, frankly," he added. "I don't know how those two things could ever balance with each other."
When asked in 2008 if it was standard procedure to procure DNA samples in the investigation of thefts, Pfeifer said the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) at his office determines if and when samples are taken.
"That was up to my CID detectuive, "Todd Steffy," Pfeifer said at the time. "What was in the initial report may have led him to believe he needed to take (a DNA sample)."
Pfeifer said Friday there was no available report on the alleged burglary because no arrest was made and it was an ongoing investigation......

[lorettalockhorn]

...Asked during the same interview if Robbins, who also serves as Dover city attorney, requested the sample, Pfeifer issued an unequivocal denial.
"Seeing that it's a case we're investigating here, I don't know why Michael Robbins would have even asked for it," Pfeifer added.
He said he did not know if Robbins had access to the sample.
Christopher Shields, a law professor at the University of Arkansas, said obtaining a DNA sample following a blurglary was not out of the ordinary, but was less than certain about Steffy's employment by Robbins.
"It is certainly an area a defense attorney could focus on to possibly raise resonable doubt," he said.
Dover Mayor Alan Bradley - also a sergeant with the Russellville Police Department, the body which originally investigated Dirksmeyer's murder - said Friday he was never aware of Steffy's employment by Robbins, but added it did not violate any city policy - yet.
"He's just a part-time officer," Bradley said of Steffy. "He's not full-time; he's not even full-time certified.
"Right now I'm working on a policy and procedure book," he added. "If a full-time officer is going to have another job, you know, I would like them to have them request that employment through the city."
Russellville requires its employees to obtain approval from their superiors prior to accepting outside employment, and stipulates additional work should not be "of a type that may be construed by the public to be an official act of the City"(sic)
Russellville Police Chief Tom McMilloen, while declining to speak specifically about the situation, said although he considered officers' request for outside employment on a "case by case" basis, certain situations would give rise to pause.
"Would I want an officer to work off-duty to investigate another department? No," he said.
"What my officers do that's off-duty that's non-police related, I can't control that."
Fifth Judicial District Prosecuting Attorney David Gibbons - who unsuccessfully tried Jones, facing off against Robbins and Jones' other attorneys, Bill Bristow of Jonesoro and Kenneth Johnson of Monticello - declined comment when asked if he intended any action in light of Steffy's acknowledgment he worked for Robbins.
In February 2008, Robbins announced a new DNA match in the case, and Dunn was arrested Aug. 22, 2008, and charged with the murder. Shortly after Dunn's arrest, Jones responded to the news in an interview with FOX16 of Arkansas.
"I had known for some time - or, I was hoping for some time - that they were working on the case and would find the person who did it," he said in the TV interview. "And I knew about the DNA match...it just seemed like we were waiting and waiting, and then my mom called and told me it happened. I was relieved."
Kevin Noppinger, lab director for DNA Labs International - which conducted the testing of the crime scene evidence that allegedly matched Dunn - testified during a Sept. 22 pretrial hearing. He told the court he received the first piece of evidence from the Dirksmeyer case Dec. 5, 2006, but did not receive a sample from Dunn until Nov 22, 2007 - two weeks after the suspect's arrest for the alleged burglary. Noppinger, who appeared at Jones' trial as an expert witness for the defense, testified at the hearing he was hired by Robbins and received the majority of his compensation from him.
Don Gooch, an advisor of prelaw students at Arkansas Tech University, when asked to weigh in on the situation, indicated it might not matter, saying he did not see the handling of the DNA sample - whatever it may have been - as problematic.
"Even if the police officers used it improperly," Gooch said, not alleging such was the circumstance in Steffy's case, "that should not be relevant to its use in the trial under original circumstances."

Editor's note - Robbins did not respond to repeated requests for interviews for this story, while Steffy returned a single call but, after he was routed to a reporter's voicemail did not leave a callback number. He did not respond to a second attempt to reach him.

[lorettalockhorn]

>>Pfeifer said Friday there was no available report on the alleged burglary because no arrest was made and it was an ongoing investigation.

>>Kevin Noppinger, lab director for DNA Labs International - which conducted the testing of the crime scene evidence that allegedly matched Dunn - testified during a Sept. 22 pretrial hearing. He told the court he received the first piece of evidence from the Dirksmeyer case Dec. 5, 2006, but did not receive a sample from Dunn until Nov 22, 2007 - two weeks after the suspect's arrest for the alleged burglary.

Was Dunn arrested for burglary or not? :confused: So where's the report? Steffy was investigating the burglary for the City of Dover and took a DNA sample from Dunn while presumably on duty for the City of Dover, but was paid by Robbins (out of pocket? From the City Attorney's funds?) for collecting the sample. Hmmm

>>Robbins did not respond to repeated requests for interviews for this story

Good boy! :seeya:

[hawgustusgloop]

Oh, how did I forget about Samplegate? So, Pfeifer denied that Robbins asked Steffy to collect the sample? How could he possibly know that Robbins never asked Steffy to do it?

[lorettalockhorn]

Oh, how did I forget about Samplegate? So, Pfeifer denied that Robbins asked Steffy to collect the sample? How could he possibly know that Robbins never asked Steffy to do it?

Can't Pfeifer simply read the now non-existent police report written in between the beginning of the investigation and when Dunn was non-arrested? Isn't he even slightly curious as to whether Steffy was on the clock and using department time, equipment and supplies while the sample was collected and paid for by Robbins? Sounds like things are a little slack in Dover.

And can someone please explain to me why the condom wrapper sample wasn't tested against Dunn's ADC sample instead of waiting almost a year? I have to be missing something here.

[lorettalockhorn]

Okay, so if Pfeifer is unclear on the concept of whether or not Steffy gathered a sample for Robbins or for the City of Dover, why doesn't he look at the receipts for chain of custody? Where did that sample taken in September go if Noppinger didn't receive it until November? Did it go to Robbins?

And why did Dunn willingly give a DNA sample if he knew or thought he might have left behind DNA from Nona's murder? Wouldn't or shouldn't he have simply let the State ferret out his profile from what was already on record with ADC?

[upallnight]

Okay, so if Pfeifer is unclear on the concept of whether or not Steffy gathered a sample for Robbins or for the City of Dover, why doesn't he look at the receipts for chain of custody? Where did that sample taken in September go if Noppinger didn't receive it until November? Did it go to Robbins?

And why did Dunn willingly give a DNA sample if he knew or thought he might have left behind DNA from Nona's murder? Wouldn't or shouldn't he have simply let the State ferret out his profile from what was already on record with ADC?

So, was the wrapper sent to the lab that found the DNA that (possibly) belongs to Gary Dunn after Steffy gathered the sample from Gary Dunn? I thought I read somewhere they had taken DNA from Gary Dunn and his brother at the Dover office, I may be wrong-it's been awhile. This just all seems shady to me, it may all play out different in court but sure seems Robbins was after Dunn. I would like to think there is solid evidence Gary killed Nona- if he did but at this point how many hands was in the cookie jar? I agree L, why not use the ADC DNA sample if they had it. That is what just does not make sense, or did they run it and it did not hit the first time. The only DNA they got I thought was used to rule out KJ but then they used the private lab to get the DNA and bam-it matched GD after his sample was taken. Since the prosecution did not further investiagte after KJ was found not guilty the only other party seemed to be Robbin's and that would have to be in agreement with the Jones family (would it not) as to going foward in the search of any evidence of the (viable) suspect? So, it only seems to be that they are the ones who would want to get their hands on that wrapper to have it sent to the private lab. Was it after the DNA was found that the special prosecutor was appointed? Still I have got to go back and see if Gary's brother was DNA tested also and if so was it at the same time they got it from Gary. This all just seems so, um-planned for some reason, planned may not be the right word but do you get what I mean? Maybe good reason I don't know but just seems it could be looked at as if the DNA could have been planted, that's just me though but I sure hope they clear that up. Like you said L, maybe they have a bomb to drop but I hate all this speculation, uggggggh, guess we will have to wait for the trial. This does not surpise me at all though.

[lorettalockhorn]

:seeya: Upall! I think the announcement that McQuary had been appointed was in Feb '08, but it was a big damned secret as to when he actually signed on, so we really don't have any indication that he was on board before or after the DNA sampling in September or in November when it was apparently sent to Noppinger.

Like you, I hope this is all made clear in court.

And I hope that between now and then the other DNA is identified. Could belong to LE. Could belong to someone from the DNA lab. Could belong to Nona's killer and/or to someone who would plant Dunn's condom wrapper in Nona's apartment.

[sololobo]

Can't Pfeifer simply read the now non-existent police report written in between the beginning of the investigation and when Dunn was non-arrested? Isn't he even slightly curious as to whether Steffy was on the clock and using department time, equipment and supplies while the sample was collected and paid for by Robbins? Sounds like things are a little slack in Dover.

And can someone please explain to me why the condom wrapper sample wasn't tested against Dunn's ADC sample instead of waiting almost a year? I have to be missing something here.

Robbins did not have access to ADC's DNA database. RPD did but seemed reluctant to pursue the investigation further. Robbins' sample of Dunn's DNA should not be an issue with the jury. I assume the second investigation compared the wrapper DNA with Dunn's ADC sample or one obtained by them, not the one from Robbins. If so, the Steffy-Robbins sample is irrelevant. The defense will use it only to muddy the waters.

[lorettalockhorn]

Robbins did not have access to ADC's DNA database. RPD did but seemed reluctant to pursue the investigation further. Robbins' sample of Dunn's DNA should not be an issue with the jury. I assume the second investigation compared the wrapper DNA with Dunn's ADC sample or one obtained by them, not the one from Robbins. If so, the Steffy-Robbins sample is irrelevant. The defense will use it only to muddy the waters.

The waters are already plenty muddied, so the defense shouldn't have any trouble accomplishing that. Of course McQuary could use the ADC database, that's my point. Why are Steffy/Robbins involved in this cloak and dagger BS? Especially if it's irrelevant?

And who else's DNA is on the wrapper? Why wasn't it pursued with the same zeal as Dunn's?

[iluvmua]

This article states that the trial is set for February 1st, 2010:

www.4029tv.com/news/21158723/detail.html

[lorettalockhorn]

Support for Steffy

This letter is meant as moral support for our pastor, Todd Steffy. Your church stands behind you, and we will diligently pray for God's love and guidance for you and your family. We love you guys very much! Remember, stand still and know that he is God.

Paul and Angie Harris
Clarksville

[lorettalockhorn]

Found this auditor's report re: AR State Crime Lab and was interested in the protocol for DNA in particular; and was amazed that in the time between Nona's murder and the first trial and Dunn's subsequent arrest that Dunn's DNA was never detected since the population of ADC is surely used for comparison. And I guess we can assume that the other DNA sample on the condom wrapper doesn't belong to another convicted offender. Or maybe between now and 1/1/10 we'll find out that it's been identified.

Sample 2: Forensic DNA Section

The Forensic DNA Section processes biologicalevidence submitted by other Sections of the CrimeLab or investigating agencies. The evidence is processed to obtain a DNA profile. This profile is then entered into the CODIS database which is compared against DNA profiles from convicted offenders and crime scene evidence.

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache%3AtYUFA-87Sh8J%3Awww.legaudit.state.ar.us%2FAuditReports%2 FSpecialRep%2F2009%2FPSSR06609.pdf+arkansas+dna+te sting+protocol+criminal+court+auditor's+report&hl=en&gl=us