Have you ever questioned the integrity of the justice system? Brace yourself as we take you through the mystifying account of Rene's case and the bewildering mishaps that ensued. We explore the harsh public backlash against the questionable actions of Judge Ronald Maciel alongside defense attorney MariAnne Brock, and the ripple effect these missteps may have caused in Kevin Galik's case. Absorb the details of Kevin's relentless pursuit for justice through his numerous petitions for a writ of habeas corpus and the critical role played by Bode Technology in Virginia.
As we plunge deeper into the intricacies of Rene's case, prepare to be riveted by the findings of the two-day evidentiary hearing in November 2017, centered on Kevin's habeas corpus petition. Uncover the enigma surrounding the inconclusive DNA results obtained from the swabs of Rene's genitalia, and the potential contamination risks involved. The mystery thickens with the YSTR DNA testing on the vaginal swabs and the partial DNA profile from the duct tape. Journey with us as we sift through the profiles of 23 males who were ruled out as contributors to the unknown male profile, and delve into the stringent measures taken to avoid contamination during evidence collection.
In the final act of this suspenseful narrative, we dissect the techniques deployed during Rene's autopsy and the potential flaws of the SART exam. We scrutinize Kevin's trial, spotlighting his failure to disclose his precise whereabouts on the day of Rene's disappearance, and the circumstantial evidence unearthed at the Galik property. As the narrative unfolds, ponder on the potential implications of the inconclusive DNA results and Kevin's appeal for habeas corpus relief, leaving you with the haunting question - what does this mean for the Conrad family? Tune in for an episode that challenges your perspective on the justice system.
Have you ever questioned the integrity of the justice system? Brace yourself as we take you through the mystifying account of Rene's case and the bewildering mishaps that ensued. We explore the harsh public backlash against the questionable actions of Judge Ronald Maciel alongside defense attorney MariAnne Brock, and the ripple effect these missteps may have caused in Kevin Galik's case. Absorb the details of Kevin's relentless pursuit for justice through his numerous petitions for a writ of habeas corpus and the critical role played by Bode Technology in Virginia.
As we plunge deeper into the intricacies of Rene's case, prepare to be riveted by the findings of the two-day evidentiary hearing in November 2017, centered on Kevin's habeas corpus petition. Uncover the enigma surrounding the inconclusive DNA results obtained from the swabs of Rene's genitalia, and the potential contamination risks involved. The mystery thickens with the YSTR DNA testing on the vaginal swabs and the partial DNA profile from the duct tape. Journey with us as we sift through the profiles of 23 males who were ruled out as contributors to the unknown male profile, and delve into the stringent measures taken to avoid contamination during evidence collection.
In the final act of this suspenseful narrative, we dissect the techniques deployed during Rene's autopsy and the potential flaws of the SART exam. We scrutinize Kevin's trial, spotlighting his failure to disclose his precise whereabouts on the day of Rene's disappearance, and the circumstantial evidence unearthed at the Galik property. As the narrative unfolds, ponder on the potential implications of the inconclusive DNA results and Kevin's appeal for habeas corpus relief, leaving you with the haunting question - what does this mean for the Conrad family? Tune in for an episode that challenges your perspective on the justice system.
Welcome back crime connoisseurs. I'm your host, grace D, and today we're picking up right where we left off last week. But before we get started, I just want to say that Renee's sister, crystal, had reached out to me via Instagram to let me know that in the latest episode that we just did, I was mispronouncing Kevin's last name. I was saying Gallic and it's Gaelic, and also I accidentally called their mother Tracy. Her name is Terry. So I just want to make those corrections. Now I am going to go back through and rerecord that episode with the correct pronunciation and, you know, with Terry's name being said instead of Tracy. I just want to get that right off the bat, because getting the information accurate is extremely important for me, for you guys, as you know, like as I've said this to me isn't done for entertainment purposes, because these are real people and lives that are being ruined from monsters. So it's not entertainment. I want to help bring justice to the victims. I want to call out the mishandlings which today's case. That is what we are going to cover. We're going to be talking about the mishandlings that have happened with Renee's case that are just so absolutely mind blowing. So if you still need to listen to part one. Stop and go get a little listen. To recap, an 11 year old girl named Tracy Renee Conrad, who goes by Renee, goes missing after heading to a friend's house to play. After nearly a month Renee's body is found in a kiln on the property where she went to play. The father of the sons that she was friends with was subsequently arrested, tried and convicted for her murder. Kevin Gaelic has continuously proclaimed his innocence. Now let's jump right back in. Let's get going.
Speaker 1:
In an official release on December 1, 1997, the Commission on Judicial Performance publicly chastised Judge Ronald Maciel of the Kings County Municipal Court, lee Moore Division. The commission was composed of six public members, three judges and two lawyers. The chairperson was Robert C Bonner Esquire of Los Angeles, california. On March 28, 1996, judge Maciel presided over the arraignment of defendant Kevin Gaelic in the Capital Murder Case of People v Gaelic, case number L965205. Judge Maciel appointed contract attorney Mary Ann Brock to represent Kevin and continued the arraignment to May 17, 1996. Following the March 28 hearing, judge Maciel assigned the Gaelic case to municipal court judge John O'Rourke.
Speaker 1:
On April 1, judge Maciel initiated a telephone conversation with Mary Ann Brock. Judge Maciel advised Brock that he had assigned the Gaelic case to Judge O'Rourke and discussed with her the option of filing a peremptory challenge against Judge O'Rourke. In this conversation Judge Maciel also suggested that Brock prepare an order for investigator funds and consider a polygraph test. During the discussion of the peremptory challenge Judge Maciel mistakenly told Brock that the statutory period for filing the challenge was 30 days. On April 2, judge Maciel attempted to reach Brock again by telephone after he realized that he had incorrectly advised her concerning the statutory period. He couldn't contact Brock directly and left the court's telephone number on her pager. He instructed a clerk that when Brock called to tell her quote, it's 10 days, not 30, end quote. So when Brock returned the page that day the clerk advised her of this message.
Speaker 1:
On April 4, judge Maciel initiated another telephone conversation with Brock. He engaged Brock in a discussion concerning a hearing in the Gaelic case that she had on the calendar for the next day, april 5. Judge Maciel also asked her if she had applied for an investigator expenses and made suggestions to her relating to the defense strategies. He did not disclose any of the communications with Brock to the district attorney's office. On April 5, 1996, the Gaelic case was reassigned to Judge Maciel after Judge Eau Rourke was disqualified. Under a peremptory challenge filed by Brock On May 6, 1996, the district attorney's office filed a code of civil procedure Section 170.1, motion to disqualify Judge Maciel for cause. After learning of the undisclosed ex-parte communications with Brock, on May 9, judge Maciel filed a response to the motion in which he consented to the case being assigned to another judge. Afterward, the Gaelic case was subsequently transferred to another judge.
Speaker 1:
In 2001, kevin filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the King's County Superior Court. The petition raised numerous claims of alleged ineffective assistance of counsel and jury misconduct. The lower court conducted an evidentiary hearing in 2001 and denied the petition in January 2002. In September of 2002, the California Supreme Court denied Kevin's original writ of habeas corpus petition. This petition raised the same issues that were raised in the lower court. In 2006, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied Kevin's writ of habeas corpus. The petition, which had been filed in 2003, had raised numerous claims of alleged ineffective assistance of counsel and jury misconduct similar to the allegations raised in the Superior Court and California Supreme Court petitions.
Speaker 1:
In 2012, the Superior Court jointly appointed the Northern California Innocence Project and CIPP and the California DNA Project to represent Kevin as post-conviction DNA counsel under Section 1405. At same year, nsip and the King's County District Attorney's Office agreed to test specific items of evidence in this case. In June 2012, nine items previously held by the Superior Court were transferred to Bode Technology in Virginia for testing. In November 2012, bode received four swabs collected from Renee's vaginal vault around the time of her autopsy. In addition, a second rate kit was opened and four more swabs were inserted into the vaginal vault simultaneously and inserted about five to six centimeters into the vaginal vault. Two dried slides were made from one of these vaginal swabs.
Speaker 1:
In 2014, kevin filed his second petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a King's County Superior Court. Kevin's team argued that Bode had discovered a partial single-source male DNA profile collected from the opening of Renee's vagina and Kevin was excluded as a contributor to that profile. The petition also alleged that a mixed sample of DNA had been collected from the duct tape recovered from Renee's mouth and that Kevin had been excluded as a significant contributor to that profile as well. It was further claimed that, although Kevin could not be conclusively excluded as a minor contributor to the DNA on the duct tape, there was strong support for the proposition that Kevin was excluded as a contributor to the biological material collected from that piece of evidence. They argued these results represented new evidence that demonstrated his innocence. In September 2014, the Superior Court issued an order to show cause. In the return filed in December of 2014, it was disclosed that for the first time that the DOJ lab in Fresno had determined that contamination was responsible for the major male DNA profile that Bode had discovered on the duct tape. In 1996, a latent fingerprint analyst for the Fresno DOJ handled that evidence and he was matched as the contributor to the major male profile. They argued that Kevin could not be excluded or included as a possible minor contributor to this DNA mix.
Speaker 1:
In the denial filed in April of 2015, Kevin acknowledged that the DNA results from the duct tape were no longer evidence of his innocence. He asserted that the DOJ's discovery of unknown male DNA on Renee's left labia majora, consistent with the DNA profile from the swab taken from the vaginal opening, continued to support his claim of innocence. In 2016, nms Labs conducted additional DNA testing on this matter. In its August 2016 report, an NMS biologist explained that two items of evidence Renee's underwear and a towel contained male DNA. The underwear had an inconclusive short tandem repeat STR on the Y chromosome, known as YSTR DNA test result. The towel had a partial YSTR DNA profile consistent with an unknown male. In October 2016, kevin's forensic DNA consultant, nora Rudin, reviewed the electronic data produced by NMS. She concluded that the two alleles collected from the towel are inconsistent with Kevin's YSTR profile and the redundant partial profile previously discovered on the swabs collected from Renee's left labia majora and vagina. Rudin stated that the NMS test results provided no additional information as to the identity of the perpetrator of this crime.
Speaker 1:
In November of 2017, the Superior Court conducted a two-day evidentiary hearing regarding the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Kevin asserted that he was innocent because an unknown male's redundant partial DNA profile was discovered on the swabs associated with Renee's vaginal opening and the left labia majora. Kevin claimed at least one juror would have had reasonable doubt about his guilt. In contrast, the District Attorney's Office focused on how inconclusive the DNA results were and emphasized the possibility of contamination. In August 2012, bode received four pairs of pantyhose, a bed sheet that Renee was wrapped in her eyeglasses, a sock removed from her mouth, another pair of pantyhose, a bloodstained t-shirt and pieces of duct tape removed from her face. In November 2012, bode received the vaginal swabs from the SART examination.
Speaker 1:
One of Bode's analysts, sarah Shields, conducted YSTR DNA testing In or about 2013,. Shields conducted testing on the vaginal swabs that were in the SART kit. The SART kit had four boxes, but one box was empty when Shields removed the swabs Because one was missing. Shields could only test three of the four vaginal swabs. She initially tested a portion of each of those three swabs, but it did not produce enough male DNA to upload anything into the combined offender DNA index system, codis. There was insufficient male DNA for the STR testing but Shields noted quote male DNA was detected in our inconclusive range of the test. End quote. She then combined the three swabs and performed YSTR testing on the combined extracts.
Speaker 1:
In addition to the three vaginal swabs, shields also received swabs from the other locations of Renee's genitalia. With YSTR testing, shields detected a partial male profile which was not a mixture. There were about 75 to 80 male cells, which is considered a low amount. Shields could not testify how the DNA was transferred to the vaginal swabs. Kevin was excluded as a possible donor. No sperm was detected on the vaginal samples. Because YSTR testing was used, shields could not search CODIS to match the partial male profile she detected YSTR profiles are not CODIS eligible.
Speaker 1:
Shields confirmed that the DNA from the vaginal swabs was a low level. She described TouchDNA as a low amount of DNA that is transferred to an object, not through a body fluid. Touchdna does not contain as much DNA as body fluid does. Shields also conducted YSTR DNA testing on the duct tape, which generated a partial DNA profile consistent with a mixture of at least two individuals. Kevin was excluded as a possible contributor to the major component of that profile. According to Shields, kevin cannot be included or excluded as a contributor to the minor component. The amount of male DNA on the duct tape was more than was on the vaginal swabs.
Speaker 1:
Shields confirmed that contamination was possible for the male DNA revealed by her testing. Based on its implemented precautions, she believed no contamination could have originated from Bode. She stated that any possible contamination would have derived from the manufacturer of the evidence, but she acknowledged that such contamination is rare. Shields said that the vaginal swabs might have contained the same biological material from 1996. However, it was possible that the vaginal swabs were or were not contaminated and it was possible that they were or were not associated with this crime. Delia Frosto-Hiradia is the lab director for the DOJ in Fresno In 1996, the latent print and the DNA biology units occupied the same building, separated by a door. At that time masks were not required and the standards were not as stringent as they are now to ensure latent print analysts did not contaminate items of evidence. Hiradia agreed it was possible contamination may have occurred in 1996. However, she also agreed it was possible contamination had not occurred.
Speaker 1:
Mindy Crow was a senior criminalist at the DOJ in Fresno. During the hearing the party stipulated that she is an expert witness in the DNA analysis. Crow explained that the Fresno DOJ began using YSTR DNA testing around 2008. She reviewed Bode's reports about an unknown male major profile in the duct tape. She agreed Kevin is excluded as a possible contributor to that major profile. Instead, a DOJ employee was the contributor to that profile. According to Crow, the duct tape in question had been submitted to the Fresno DOJ lab separately from the vaginal and labia swabs taken from Renee. No records indicated that latent print analysis had handled the swabs or otherwise contaminated any other item. In this case Crow testified that the major component on the duct tape did not match the YSTR profile on the vaginal swabs. If there was contamination, it was not the same contaminant. Crow agreed with Bode's assessment that Kevin was eliminated as a possible contributor to the YSTR profile found on the vaginal swabs.
Speaker 1:
Based on Bode's information, a single source profile appeared on the vaginal swabs. Crowe tested the various labia swabs. She obtained various amounts of male DNA on various swabs that she had examined. On the swab from the left labia majora, crowe detected a partial YSTR profile of a few alleles consistent with Bode's results. From the vaginal swabs the partial profile from the left labia majora appeared to be a single source profile. There was no evidence it was from more than one person. Crowe testified that the left labia majora swab had low level results. In response to a question regarding the weight that should be given to the redundant profile detected on the vaginal and left labia majora swabs, crowe stated it was quote situationally dependent. The consistency in this case is again very partial, so it means less to me, for example, than two full profiles that are consistent. End quote.
Speaker 1:
Crowe tested other swabs but did not obtain profiles that she was willing to interpret, other than to note partial or a mixture. She did not compare those results to any submitted reference samples in this case because in her opinion the profiles from the other swabs were not suitable for interpretation. Crowe was provided with profiles of 23 males who may have contributed to the DNA profiles. To rule out possible contamination, all 23 males were eliminated as potential contributors to the unknown male profile on the vaginal swabs. Kevin's half-brother, michael Galick, was also excluded as a possible donor.
Speaker 1:
Crowe explained that when she received the swab boxes in 2014 from Bode, one box had both a vaginal canal swab and a right labia majora swab. Another box for the vaginal swab was empty. She indicated it was possible that those two swabs could have contaminated each other. Crowe tested a total of eight swabs. No sperm was detected. She found indications of at least three males on the right labia majora. However, those results could involve more or less than three males because stutter was possible. She didn't know how those profiles got onto the swab.
Speaker 1:
Crowe's testing discovered different alleles than Bode's results had uncovered from the vaginal canal. The clitoral hood swab had less DNA only two alleles. This was from a separate male than what Bode had found. The midline pubic mound had very low level DNA. The right pubic mound had indications that two or three males left DNA. One was different than what Bode had found.
Speaker 1:
In light of the contamination on the duct tape, crowe agreed that low level DNA might have resulted from contamination. This contamination could have occurred in 1996. She could not be absolutely sure that this DNA was associated with the crime. However, she didn't know if the vaginal or left labia majora swabs were contaminated. She noted that if huge numbers existed, associated with a single source profile, that would have provided good assurance that the person contaminated something. But that wasn't the case in this situation. Crowe explained that sometimes touch DNA is at a low level. The contamination of the duct tape did not necessarily mean other evidence was contaminated.
Speaker 1:
The former Chief Deputy Coroner for Kings County, billy Allen Willard, was present when law enforcement recovered Renee's body from the kiln. Protective clothing was worn when her body was removed. Willard attended her autopsy on or about March 22, 1996. An SART exam was performed around the conclusion of the autopsy. The autopsy and SART exam were recorded on video, as noted in the SART report. Renee's body was in a state of decomposition. There were no face or neck tissues and her skull was exposed. The area around her genitals had evidence of decomposition, but this area was better preserved than the rest of her body. A pathologist, armin Dahlinger, performed the autopsy. An evidence technician from the Hanford Police Department, thomas Scheringa was present. Other unidentified people were in the autopsy room at various times. Willard explained that procedures during this autopsy were less stringent than they are now. Before the autopsy started, willard spoke on a telephone which he had held with his gloved hand. He then assisted in the autopsy. He and Dahlinger removed Renee's pants and, according to Willard, he most likely touched Renee's pants with the same gloves that he wore while speaking on the telephone.
Speaker 1:
The verified RIP petition asserts in a footnote that before the evidentiary hearing the parties entered into several stipulations regarding Willard's collection of the 1996 procedures of the King's County Coroner's Office. Kevin's defense team cited Exhibit 37 on page 13 to support these stipulations. However, that exhibit filed in the court does not have 13 pages nor contain any purported stipulations. According to Kevin's representations in his writ, the coroner's office used soap and water to scrub the autopsy table. Willard did not scrub the walls between autopsies or clean the tables. Immediately preceding the next autopsy the floor was mopped, but not with a set procedure. At the time of Renee's autopsy, a box of 100 gloves was available for use by personnel. Once the box was open, it was not closed or sealed allowing anyone access to it.
Speaker 1:
Dolinger and Scheringa assisted the SAR teeners by holding the vagina open so she could visualize the labia minora, clitoral hood and hymenal tissue. Although protective bunny suits were worn during this autopsy, they were unzipped, which was common in 1996. Dolinger wore a hood during the autopsy. However, other people in the room, including Willard, did not wear a hood. According to the supplemental SART assessment form, the nurse also wore a face mask during her participation in the SART exam. Willard testified that he had conducted over 1,000 autopsies with Dolinger. According to Willard, dolinger did not use disposable gloves but used a pair of more expensive, more heavy duty gloves. During autopsies Dolinger would reuse these gloves after washing them with soap and water. During this autopsy, dolinger touched paper towels and a metal dispenser which was not sanitized. Willard admitted it was possible multiple people could have handled that dispenser. He confirmed that no specific cleaning procedure existed for the X-ray machine used during this autopsy. Willard touched portions of the X-ray machine with his gloved hands. Before the SART examination, dahlinger examined Renee's genitalia. During the SART examination, dahlinger held open her genitalia so that the SART nurse could collect swabs. According to Willard's recollection, only the nurse and Dahlinger opened Renee's genitalia. According to the supplemental SART assessment form, both Dahlinger and Scheringa assisted in holding the vagina open so that the nurse could visualize the labia minora, clitoral hood and hymenal tissue. Willard agreed that neither Renee's genitalia nor the swabs came into contact with the walls in the autopsy room, the paper towel dispenser, the x-ray machine or the telephone.
Speaker 1:
In a declaration signed on March 31, 2015, nora Rudin stated that at least two explanations existed for the presence of male DNA in the non-sperm fraction. Either it originated from non-sperm cells or sperm cells that lost coherence due to time and environmental conditions, allowing the DNA to partition into the non-sperm fraction during DNA extraction. Rudin agreed with the DOJ's determination that a partial profile recovered from the non-sperm fraction of the left labia minora is the same as the partial male profile recovered from the vaginal swabs. However, rudin also stated that a trace additional male could be present on the left labia minora swab, but that could also be artificial, as it was a few apparent peaks below the analytical threshold. She also agreed that the Fresno DOJ correctly reported that at least three males are detected in the non-sperm fraction of the right labia minora swabs. Rudin stated quote one reasonable explanation for the presence of the foreign male DNA detected on the external genitalia swabs there are three male profiles detected on the non-sperm fraction of the right labia minora swab as well as the possible additional male profile detected in the non-sperm fraction of the left labia minora swab, and that is contamination introduced from the exterior surfaces of the gloves used to hold open the exterior genital region during the collection of the vaginal swabs.
Speaker 1:
Elizabeth Ann Johnson is a consultant in forensic biology. She's a DNA expert who reviewed the evidence in this matter. Johnson expressed concerns about Dahlinger reusing gloves during autopsies. She noted his gloves may not have been cleaned well enough or decontaminated. An SART examination would typically use disposable gloves. Johnson stated that the problem with Dahlinger reusing the gloves is that they wouldn't necessarily be cleansed well enough or decontaminated well enough for cells, cellular material from one case to another or from handling a piece of equipment to a body. Dna testing now is very sensitive and can detect DNA from less than 10 cells and can even detect something from a cell. Johnson explained it is quote absolutely imperative that the utmost care and caution be taken that exogenous cellular material is not introduced either to the object that is being examined or to at a later time the swabs, for example, that were collected, that no exogenous cellular material can get introduced during that process that it ends up as a DNA result. End quote.
Speaker 1:
Johnson testified that touch DNA is an inaccurate name because it implies that you have to touch something when it is possible for a person to touch something and not leave any of their detectable DNA behind. She defined touch DNA as a usually low level DNA and that physiological source or body fluid source is not identified. Most of the time it is not possible to determine how or from where touch DNA originated. A physiological origin means from blood or semen or saliva that you know the body fluid source of the cell. Johnson explained that touch DNA does not establish that a person actually touched that object or had direct contact with it. A primary transfer occurs when you leave something from direct contact. Secondary transfer occurs when something you have on, let's say, your own DNA on your own body, gets picked up by an intermediary and then transferred to something else.
Speaker 1:
Johnson called it an apparent mistake when two genital swabs in this matter had been placed into the same SART box. That should not have happened, because the swabs are intended to be collected and kept separate from one another. Johnson confirmed that this matter involved DNA profiles that were not searchable. Nobody had been identified. According to Johnson, contamination was possible in this case stemming from unclean gloves or cellular material from prior autopsies. No elimination had occurred for prior autopsies or prior cases. It was also possible that the swabs had been contaminated. She emphasized how easy it is to transfer DNA onto a swab Just because the profile on the vaginal swabs was inconsistent with the 23 male profiles. That did not prove that the vaginal swabs had not been contaminated. Johnson noted that alleles had been found on the other genital area swabs that were inconsistent with those found in the Bode profile from the vaginal swab. At least three male donors were represented. Different male sources were responsible for the alleles on the right labia majora than the alleles detected by Bode on the vaginal swab.
Speaker 1:
Johnson was aware of an article co-authored by DNA expert Nora Rudin which characterized as a terrifying trilogy for those cases involving contact DNA that had one low levels, two often multiple contributors and three DNA profiles for which the physiological source is both unknown and unknowable. Johnson agreed with that characterization. However, she added a fourth component when the donor of the profile is not known, johnson agreed with Rudin's article that stated quote when knowledge of the physiological origin of the DNA is lacking, then simply postulating an individual source for the DNA loses significance. End quote. Johnson noted that when the terrifying trilogy is present quote there's more significance to put onto that piece of evidence than there should be regarding relevance to the crime. And so in a fourth level of that component, when you don't know who that profile is from, you don't even know if it is relevant to the crime. End quote. Johnson agreed that Rudin's term, terrifying trilogy, absolutely applied in this case. In addition, nobody knew the source of the multiple profiles.
Speaker 1:
Johnson could not conclusively say the male DNA located on Renee's vaginal swabs was from contamination or related to the crime scene quote. It's not possible to know until the profile is traced to the source. End quote. She could not conclusively say that the DNA on those vaginal swabs did not belong to Renee's attacker. A lot of factors existed that made these results indecisive. No source person had been located and whether these results were relevant to the crime was unclear. However, it was conclusive that Kevin was not the source of that DNA. Johnson agreed that low level DNA results are commonly introduced, accepted and used to obtain convictions in current cases. However, she also cautioned that many times low level DNA profiles are rejected as evidence. She agreed that the value of the DNA located on the vaginal swabs should be cautiously weighed. The fact that a redundant DNA profile was found on the outer vagina did not add significant weight to the value of the profile detected on the vaginal swabs because it came from the same area of Renee's body, as opposed to an outer piece of clothing, underwear or someplace other than an SART exam swab. However, counsel noted that Dollinger never placed his fingers inside Renee's vagina.
Speaker 1:
Kevin's counsel asserted someone else contaminated this crime and that it was unfathomable for the prosecution to contend that the newly discovered DNA evidence resulted from contamination. Kevin's counsel urged the court to reverse Kevin's conviction. In an argument, the prosecutor stated quote there are a Madrid of ways as to how these evidence samples could be contaminated. End quote. The prosecutor argued that the new evidence was not decisive, as required under the statute, but indecisive. The prosecutor recounted the circumstantial evidence that pointed to Kevin's guilt. The prosecutor contended that if the court considered the mountain of evidence from the trial against the evidence from this hearing, it should conclude that the new evidence was indecisive and the petition should be denied. The court took the matter under submission.
Speaker 1:
On January 22, 2018, the court issued a written ruling denying the petition. The court noted that a mixed partial DNA profile had been found on the duct tape. A YSTR profile attained by Bode had excluded Kevin as a possible major contributor to that profile. Still, kevin could not be excluded as a minor contributor to the duct tape DNA mixture. The court stated contamination had occurred and that the major contributor to the duct tape DNA mixture was a DOJ employee. In the latent print section, the court wrote that proof of contamination undermined any credibility the duct tape mixed DNA sample may have once held. Regarding Kevin's guilt or innocence, the court noted a finding of guilt was still supported because Kevin could not be excluded as a minor contributor to the duct tape profile. The court determined that the vaginal and labia swabs lacked a decisive force and value necessary to obtain relief under section 1473. The court expressed concern. That quote when viewed closely, it appears that a significant amount of the source results obtained by Ms Crowe in her testing differ from that found in testing performed by both technologies and or pointed to more than one contributor. End quote.
Speaker 1:
According to the court, a significant amount of circumstantial evidence regarding Kevin's guilt had been presented to the jury. That evidence included Kevin's failure to inform law enforcement honestly about his location on the day of Renee's disappearance, kevin's reaction to being informed about the location of the body at the Gaelic property. Renee had been wrapped in sheets with a pattern identical to that found in the Gaelic home. Renee was found with her head wrapped in a men's white, extra, extra large size 5052 t-shirt of the same type found in the bedroom closet shared by Kevin and his two sons. Renee was found with her ankles and wrist found with nylon pantyhose of the same type found strewn about the floor of the hallway leading to the northwest bedroom and along with a pair of women's shorts on one of the two beds in the bedroom shared by Kevin and his sons. Renee was found blindfolded with a towel bearing the same seashell design as the towel in the Gaelic home's dryer. Renee was found with an athletic sock in her mouth of the same type, found in the drawers shared by Kevin and his younger son. The duct tape used to secure the sock in Renee's mouth was of the same type, used by Kevin to wrap a telephone line that he had installed from the Gaelic home to the trailer parked in its driveway.
Speaker 1:
The court noted that no dispute existed between the parties. Kevin was eliminated as a possible source of male DNA recovered from the swab used to test Renee's vagina and left labia majora. According to the court, however, the probative value of such evidence could not be assumed. Quote. Rather, such evidence must be viewed cautiously in light of one, the potential for transfer and secondary transfers of DNA, amid multiple credible scenarios where the same could have reasonably occurred. Two, the lack of any knowledge as to the physiological origin of the quote new evidence DNA at its issue herein. And three, the low level of DNA in this case, combined with the inconsistencies across the many genital swabs collected and tested. End quote. The court cited Rudin's testimony that, while the partial profile in this case should not be disregarded as insignificant, its relevance was unknown due to the lack of significant information as to its origin.
Speaker 1:
Contamination versus perpetrator. The court noted that, regarding the right labia majora sample, all three factors of the terrifying trilogy apply. Quote. As to the vaginal and left labia majora DNA samples, two of the three factors are clearly present. Such weaknesses in the DNA results obtained in this case undermine both the credibility and significance of such evidence to an extent which, in the opinion of this court, renders the same unlikely to have changed the outcome. End quote.
Speaker 1:
In the murder trial, the court denied Kevin's request for habeas corpus relief. Following the superior court's denial, kevin filed the petition for habeas relief in June of 2018. In December of 2018, kevin's defense team issued an order to show cause why the relief would not be granted. The DA's office filed a return and Kevin's team filed a reply. Kevin claims he is innocent because another male's partial DNA profile was discovered on the swabs associated with the vaginal opening and the left labia majora. He noted that these are the areas where Renee had physical injuries stemming from a sexual assault. He argues contamination has not been established associated with the partial redundant profile and he maintains this evidence does not lose significance despite the other uninterpretable DNA discovered on the remaining genital swabs. He contends it is not his burden to eliminate all possibility of contamination, which is impossible. He notes that the DOJ was able to locate a contaminated source for the male DNA detected on the duct tape. Still, it was unable to do so for the redundant profile obtained from the vaginal and left labia majora swabs. The Northern California Innocent Project argued that quote there is no innocent explanation that could exist for the presence of male DNA to be present on Renee's genitalia, despite the contamination by a state employee. Of one item of evidence. There is no proof that these particular samples were contaminated. There was only speculation. End quote. As of June 17th 2021, an appeal for habeas corpus has been filed with the california circuit of appeals fifth district and at this time, that's all we know regarding kevin's appeals process.
Speaker 1:
What the conreds went through with Renee. It's a shame that 27 years since their daughter's horrific murder, they continuously have to relive this tragedy. If Kevin is innocent, then the person responsible is still out there. Things like that do happen. That's why there are programs like the Innocence Project. However, if Kevin is truly guilty, like he was convicted of being, this is an evil thing. To keep putting Renee's family through Kevin's timeline events. They don't make sense. His own testimony he contradicted himself and he admitted to lying and admitted to telling his son to lie for him. My heart goes out to the conred family. I hope that this process will all be over soon for you and that you can finally be at peace. When more information becomes available, I'll let you guys know. Be sure to follow on instagram at crime connoisseurs and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. In the meantime, keep it classy, connoisseurs, and I'll catch you on the next case.