Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

SIAP.  Trial judge just tossed most of the DNA evidence. Circumstantial case still seems pretty strong though.  

  Quote

State district Judge David Wahlberg has excluded most of the DNA evidence that prosecutors planned to present to a jury to link defendant Meechaiel Criner to the April 2016 attack of University of Texas student Haruka Weiser.

In announcing his decision Wednesday morning, Wahlberg said evidence shows the forensic analyst who worked with DNA found on Weiser’s right thigh used an improper technique. The analysis found that it’s 192,000 times more likely that the DNA sample belongs to Weiser and Criner than to Weiser and anyone else, according to testimony Tuesday.

Wahlberg also excluded a DNA sample taken from Weiser’s glasses.

The decision is a blow to the prosecution, which now must piece together a circumstantial case against Criner for the July 9 trial.

Expand  

https://www.statesman.com/news/crime--law/judge-tosses-out-dna-evidence-death-student-haruka-weiser/nJskrIBzJwUlmflUzw3ZVO/

Posted

I understand murder DNA gets tossed.  I understand rape DNA gets tossed.  

Hard to see how you can toss both.  This has to be incredibly difficult for her family to sit through.  Even a verdict never brings closure, but these continuations have to be excruciating to sit through.  

Posted

"Well I wasn't there, so I think he didn't do it". These are the types of morons that are seated on these juries. Direct quote from a fellow juror on an assault case. So yes, it must be horribly stressful for her family when evidence is tossed.

  • Like 2
Posted
  Quote

Police made the link to Criner after the Austin Fire Department alerted them to a trash fire they were called to on Monday, April 4 at 2900 Medical Arts Street, which is just off-campus. When firefighters arrived, they found Criner who had a woman's bicycle in his possession as well as a small blue duffel bag that resembles the one that Haruka had. Among the items in the ashes Criner burned, was a Doc Martin shoe, notebook, and black jacket. Haruka's roommate said she was last seen wearing Doc Martin shoes, a black shirt and black pants.

Expand  

Wish we had the DNA at trial.  Seems to me there is plenty of evidence remaining that points to Criner, no?  Not an attorney, don't know shit.

Posted

I think it is somewhat hazardous from a spiritual and mental health perspective to rely on the criminal justice system for closure or solace or other comfort in the face of the loss of a loved one.

 

And I think this is even more true now that we have an accumulating body of evidence of regular police and prosecutorial misconduct leading to wrongful and suspicious convictions.

 

So, I hope that her family has found some comfort in something other than this trial and the conduct or outcome of same.

  • Like 1
Posted

The was the out is state freshman girl that was murdered in the creek by the homeless mentally ill kid right?  That seemed like a pretty open and shut case at the time.  

Posted (edited)
  On 6/20/2018 at 5:39 PM, DaggerHorns said:

Yeah, this guy seems like he has the same resources as OJ. Just replace the bronco with the bike and it’s nearly identical.

Expand  

Looks like the public defender is putting the state through the wringer.  Good for them.

 

I should clarify, as with most counties in Texas, there is no public defender as in an office or organization of salaried attorneys whose job it is to defend indigents (as in the case of the Federal Public Defender).  There is a private, non-profit Capital Area Defender Service, which helps oversee and supervise private attorneys appointed to defend the indigent.  So the attorney in this case is a private criminal defense attorney.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Like 2
Posted
  On 6/20/2018 at 5:39 PM, DaggerHorns said:

Yeah, this guy seems like he has the same resources as OJ. Just replace the bronco with the bike and it’s nearly identical.

Expand  

To be fair, he has two of the top attorneys in town.

 

One of them walked a guy on a murder a couple of months back.

 

The other one pissed off a Shaggy poster (can't remember his name) when she defended the guy who stuck a gun in his pregnant wife's face, and the jury did not find him guilty of aggravated robbery.

  • Like 1
Posted
  On 6/20/2018 at 9:01 PM, woohorn said:

Stupid q, I know: lab used incorrect testing method. Why can't they retest it?

Expand  

I assume the body is cremated or buried and decomposed, and I don't believe that the FD saved the trash fire stuff?

Posted
  On 6/20/2018 at 9:01 PM, woohorn said:

Stupid q, I know: lab used incorrect testing method. Why can't they retest it?

Expand  

My guess is it was partial or mixture "touch DNA" sample based upon the relatively high probability levels (192,000 times more likely vs 1 and billion you normally see), and thus there is a good chance whatever sample they had was consumed by the 1st test they did.   

Posted
  On 6/20/2018 at 8:38 PM, scottsins said:

So, is the defense that he found her dead, stole her shit, then set her on fire?

Expand  

I think he set her stuff on fire, not her, correct?

In any event, the old "I just found a dead body lying there" defense is probably not going to fly with a jury.  

 

Posted

Sometimes DNA evidence gets tossed in a murder case, but usually it doesn’t. Sometimes DNA gets tossed in a rape case, but usually it doesn’t. So, to have both types of evidence tossed in a single case is improbable. They are two distinct types of samples, and you’d expect at least one of them to prove admissible.

Posted

Did you read the article? They used a new type of test that was not yet approved. Had they used the old test it would have shown not a match. That’s why it was tossed. 

Posted

So they broke protocol and used new testing software because the old software wouldn't have given them a match.  I'm no lawyer but that seems pretty reasonable basis to toss the DNA.  When stuff like this goes down are they just hoping the defense doesn't notice?

Posted
  On 6/21/2018 at 1:52 PM, Gene Parmesan said:

So they broke protocol and used new testing software because the old software wouldn't have given them a match.  I'm no lawyer but that seems pretty reasonable basis to toss the DNA.  When stuff like this goes down are they just hoping the defense doesn't notice?

Expand  

To a certain extent, the state is dependent on whatever the crime labs do.  That is, if the state crime lab has picked an analysis method or tool that hasn't received scientific acceptance or has come under fire, they're kind of at the mercy of the technology.

 

Also, a judge has two options, basically.  Exclude the testimony or evidence entirely because it is "junk," or let it in and subject the witness (there's always a witness "sponsoring" the evidence) to cross examination on the technology and to permit expert testimony from another witness as to how junky it is.  The junkier the science, the more likely it is to be excluded entirely.

Posted
  On 6/21/2018 at 12:05 PM, hornbri said:
Did you read the article? They used a new type of test that was not yet approved. Had they used the old test it would have shown not a match. That’s why it was tossed. 


I was responding to the post above mine.
Posted

Why would the state crime lab ever pick an analysis method or tool that hasn't received scientific acceptance?

 

To set this guy up? I hate to think that there is a murderous rapist still on the UT campus.

 

 

Posted
  On 6/21/2018 at 4:01 AM, SquishMitten said:

Sometimes DNA evidence gets tossed in a murder case, but usually it doesn’t. Sometimes DNA gets tossed in a rape case, but usually it doesn’t. So, to have both types of evidence tossed in a single case is improbable. They are two distinct types of samples, and you’d expect at least one of them to prove admissible.

Expand  

What he said.

Posted
  On 6/21/2018 at 7:30 PM, woohorn said:

Why would the state crime lab ever pick an analysis method or tool that hasn't received scientific acceptance?

 

Expand  

yeah I’m not a lawyer nor have I seen one episode of law and order.  but if a certain test is inadmissible in court the decision to even consider using it doesn’t seem to make any sense at all.  what the fuck is wrong with people. 

Posted
  On 6/21/2018 at 4:01 AM, SquishMitten said:
Sometimes DNA evidence gets tossed in a murder case, but usually it doesn’t. Sometimes DNA gets tossed in a rape case, but usually it doesn’t. So, to have both types of evidence tossed in a single case is improbable. They are two distinct types of samples, and you’d expect at least one of them to prove admissible.


But the problem was the testing so the “types of evidence” are the same in this instance.
Posted
  On 6/21/2018 at 7:30 PM, woohorn said:
Why would the state crime lab ever pick an analysis method or tool that hasn't received scientific acceptance?
 
To set this guy up? I hate to think that there is a murderous rapist still on the UT campus.
 
 


All forensic science is novel and potentially inadmissible at the outset. Someone has to be the canary in the coal mine.

In this instance, nothing was actually lost by using this method because the more established method didn’t help the state’s case.
Posted

My recollection is they have him on video within a couple dozen yards of where her body was found near the time of death and also found him in possession of her backpack at the time of the arrest. If that’s accurate, absent a crazy twist of events, that’s the guy.

Posted
  On 6/22/2018 at 1:34 AM, Hanrahan said:

My recollection is they have him on video within a couple dozen yards of where her body was found near the time of death and also found him in possession of her backpack at the time of the arrest. If that’s accurate, absent a crazy twist of events, that’s the guy.

Expand  

Yes, I remember the police showing the clips in a press conference as the suspect they were looking for and offering a reward. He was caught later burning her papers, notebooks, and (IIRC) her laptop inside the backpack at the time.

Posted

Given his proximity to her before/after and the burning of the personal effects, wouldn't it have occurred to the defense to curry favor with the judge to ask him about what/who he might have seen that night?  If he didn't do it, but given his locale and timing, maybe he saw who did do it.  Now that the evidence is being dismissed, it's too late to ask him since that was almost two years ago.  If your guy didn't do it, what does it hurt to ask him about what he saw since everybody can put him near her that night.  

Posted

wait a minute-  the non-approved DNA test matches his DNA to the samples found at the crime scene.  how do they know using the old process it wouldn't have matched?  did they test it that way?  if i'm the defense i'm submitting that as evidence.

Posted
  On 6/22/2018 at 3:28 PM, Lobo said:

Given his proximity to her before/after and the burning of the personal effects, wouldn't it have occurred to the defense to curry favor with the judge to ask him about what/who he might have seen that night?  If he didn't do it, but given his locale and timing, maybe he saw who did do it.  Now that the evidence is being dismissed, it's too late to ask him since that was almost two years ago.  If your guy didn't do it, what does it hurt to ask him about what he saw since everybody can put him near her that night.  

Expand  

Don’t think it’s a good defense strategy to put your client near the scene if you don’t have to. They may argue that it’s impossible to tell if it’s really him there from the video.

Posted

All the defense needs is reasonable doubt.  The jury is probably going to be shielded from the fact that the DNA stuff even happened and probably suspicious why the prosecutors aren't talking about DNA at all.

Defense just has to say "yeah he was there, and yeah he had her stuff afterward, but maybe he just found a dead body that was already there and took her stuff because that's what crazy homeless people do"

What was the medical cause of death?  Was she strangled?  

 

 

Posted (edited)
  On 6/22/2018 at 6:43 PM, chainsaw said:

All the defense needs is reasonable doubt.  The jury is probably going to be shielded from the fact that the DNA stuff even happened and probably suspicious why the prosecutors aren't talking about DNA at all.

Defense just has to say "yeah he was there, and yeah he had her stuff afterward, but maybe he just found a dead body that was already there and took her stuff because that's what crazy homeless people do"

 

 

Expand  

Is that "reasonable" doubt to you?  "Some other dude strangled and assaulted her right before I got there and took her shit."   When I eventually murder a left lane cruiser, I hope you're on my jury.  

Edited by bschoolprof
  • Haha 1
Posted
  On 6/22/2018 at 6:55 PM, bschoolprof said:

Is that "reasonable" doubt to you?  "Some other dude strangled and assaulted her right before I got there and took her shit.   When I eventually murder a left lane cruiser, I hope you're on my jury.  

Expand  

If you didn't know about the DNA or the semen, the only thing linking him to the crime scene was that he was found with some of her belongings.  Possession may be 9/10 of the law, but that 1/10 leaves 10% doubt.

Posted
  On 6/22/2018 at 6:55 PM, bschoolprof said:
Is that "reasonable" doubt to you?  "Some other dude strangled and assaulted her right before I got there and took her shit."   When I eventually murder a left lane cruiser, I hope you're on my jury.  


Depending on the other evidence and particularly what the various surveillance videos show about where she was, where he was, and what other people were in the area, yes.
Posted (edited)

A suspect matching his physical description is seen on video on a woman's bike riding around the area, then following her to the trail.  He then emerges with a duffel bag (hers).  Criner is later found with the same bike and duffel bag and her possessions.  So it's not just "I happened to stumble across a dead body."  It's "I was in the area following this chick and then someone else came and murdered her and then I immediately stole her stuff. " 

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/arrest-made-killing-university-texas-student-haruka-weiser-n552991

http://www.kxan.com/news/crime/suspect-in-ut-homicide-arrested/1049660185

Edited by bschoolprof
Posted
  On 6/22/2018 at 7:10 PM, bschoolprof said:

A suspect matching his physical description is seen on video on a woman's bike riding around the area, then following her to the trail.  He then emerges with a duffel bag (hers).  Criner is later found with the same bike and duffel bag and her possessions.  So it's not just "I happened to stumble across a dead body."  It's "I was in the area following this chick and then someone else came and murdered her and then I immediately stole her stuff. " 

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/arrest-made-killing-university-texas-student-haruka-weiser-n552991

http://www.kxan.com/news/crime/suspect-in-ut-homicide-arrested/1049660185

Expand  

Comes across more as a keen entrepreneur, not a killer. [/defense argument]

  • Haha 1
Posted
  On 6/22/2018 at 7:44 PM, chainsaw said:

I only saw that he was riding around the area.  Is there video of him actively following her?

Expand  

From the links:

On the night Weiser disappeared after leaving the drama building, a suspect was seen walking around the area at about 10 p.m. and again after 11 p.m. while steering around a red or pink women's bike, police said Thursday. Authorities described him as a 6-foot-tall black male.

 

The man who police believe was Criner is seen on surveillance video following Weiser after she passed him, and pulling a "shiny rigid object" from the back of his pants, according to an arrest warrant affidavit. When the suspect returns into view he is carrying a duffel bag and walking with a limp and an apparent injury to his leg, police said.

Posted
  On 6/22/2018 at 8:06 PM, bschoolprof said:

From the links:

On the night Weiser disappeared after leaving the drama building, a suspect was seen walking around the area at about 10 p.m. and again after 11 p.m. while steering around a red or pink women's bike, police said Thursday. Authorities described him as a 6-foot-tall black male.

 

The man who police believe was Criner is seen on surveillance video following Weiser after she passed him, and pulling a "shiny rigid object" from the back of his pants, according to an arrest warrant affidavit. When the suspect returns into view he is carrying a duffel bag and walking with a limp and an apparent injury to his leg, police said.

Expand  

that would be more evidence than him just being in the area and ending up with her stuff.

Posted

Still pretty circumstantial.  Doesn't rule out a drifter having laid in wait along waller creek and having killed her.  If the DNA of his semen was available, I think it would rule out the drifter.  But without the DNA, the jury will have to guess.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...