<< Back to the Story

Monday, July 2, 2007

No DNA match from blood samples

Happy Monday morning. Can you believe it's July already? This morning we heard from two witnesses. Now, the jurors are not here. They will return at 2. Caldwell County Det. Shelly Hartley and SBI agent Jenny Elwell testified this morning about blood testing. Hartley did testing to see if blood was any where around the tractor. Based on chemical test, she had a positive match for blood from the floor of the cab of the tractor. There were no positive hits of blood in the bucket, but there was some type of reaction, Hartley said. Elwell confirmed Hartley's results. Elwell test for DNA. In that sample of blood from the tractor, Elwell said she was not able to produce a DNA profile. Elwell also tested a sample from a floor mat inside the tractor cab. While there was more activity, Elwell did not have enough to get a DNA profile from the floor mat either. And, something I've been waiting for was the results of test of the soil taken from around the tree were the dogs hit. But that wasn't tested Elwell said. She wasn't sure why other than they were asked to check the boots for soil. Well, that's a bummer. Wouldn't that test be important? Wouldn't it be helpful to know if there was blood in soil in a wooded area behind the Anderson dairy where witnesses testified Jerry and Emily went and Jerry came out and Emily didn't? Maybe, someone else tested the soil? I don't know, though. She said the soil and the dirt from Emily's boots weren't tested. Oh well. I gotta get back. We'll hear soon what the judge is going to allow to be testified to regarding the SBI testing for blood and DNA.

9 Comments:

Blogger julius said...

After all the anxious waiting and assuming that any investigator worth his or her weight in donuts would have taken a soil sample for the purposes of DNA testing we are disappointed to learn that no such testing was even attempted???? Is it possible that the SBI testing of the blood on the tractor produced no human DNA profile because it was not human blood? The only piece of factual evidence that has been offered to date is that of the pathologist - Emily was dead 2-4 days prior to her body being found in the toolbox. The rest of the evidence is circumstantial. The state should not be allowed to charge a man with murder in any degree with circumstantial evidence. I predict a dismissal at the end of the state's evidence for failing to meet their burden of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt.

July 2, 2007 at 11:55 AM  
Blogger ret-investigator said...

Is this another screw up--No soil test done or is someone else going to testify they did the soil test. I cannot see the judege allowing any testimony other than the blood they actual found and made no DNA match. I cannot see him allowing any of Hartley's statement about or others about "activity". However this judge has allowed a lot of testimony I have never seen allowed so I would not be surprised if he does. If this is all the state has to offer for evidence and the jury has some smarts about them then this man is going to walk out of this courtroom. That is my opinion only. No murder weapon,no hard evidence up to this point, lots of hearsay testimony, poor expert witness testimony (dog handler), beer drinking dogs, the list goes on.

July 2, 2007 at 11:57 AM  
Blogger ret-investigator said...

I go back to an earlier comment I made on this blog. How in the hell did they get a "true bill of indictment" from the grand jury in this case to start with. I would have loved to hear the officers testifying in front of them to see what they said that would have warranted the grand jury finding for a true bill.

July 2, 2007 at 12:03 PM  
Blogger ret-investigator said...

JM--You left us hanging from Friday--I thought Maj. Stafford was going to be back on the stand this morning--Is he coming back this afternnon when the jury comes back? He left during some potential good testimony. Let us know. You are doing a great job.

July 2, 2007 at 12:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree Mr. Anderson should be allowed to walk out of that courtroom ASAP. But I think it shouldn't stop there. As I said once before, the people responsible for this investigation are the people we trust to keep this community safe. I feel they have failed miserably at their jobs and should be removed from their positions.

On top of which, who did kill Emily? Maybe it is not too late to open up a real investigation? Maybe start with a DNA test of the rape kit?

These are our families, our friends at risk while a murderer walks among us. We should demand a change and demand new resources be put into solving this crime.

July 2, 2007 at 12:28 PM  
Blogger julius said...

Assuming that the Caldwell County Sheriff's Dept has not lost the rape kit or otherwise compromised the integrity of the sample, I agree - we need to know who killed Emily Anderson. All this time it seems like we have been chasing rabbits. One more question, Jennifer, has the elected DA, Mr. Gaither, been involved or in the courtroom at all? I know how much he enjoys TV cameras and I have noticed that he has not been seen on local TV stations' daily recaps. Hmmm, wonder why?

July 2, 2007 at 12:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I’m sitting here scratching my head. How could they have not tested that soil for Emily’s blood? In theory her body with 4 bullet holes was laying there for a while. If they found her blood where the dogs indicated, it would have sealed the case against Mr. Anderson. That soil test was everything to the prosecution. Why did they not do it?

It is not enough to have the investigators simply say the test was not done. They need to explain why it was not done.

Something doesn’t smell right here. I think this case should be re-opened without any involvement from local law enforcement.

I think something funny is going on here.

July 2, 2007 at 12:56 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

I have followed this case, and am perplexed by what was posted. , concerning the paint chips.

It seemed as if no chips were found by the retired agent, but in the article in the Hickory Daily Record it was reported that the agent tested chips that were found on the sweatshirt while in the possession of the SBI.

Which is correct? Ms. Mienster was the author of both .

It left the impression that the chips were sent later.

July 2, 2007 at 3:45 PM  
Blogger Justwatchin said...

The paint chips were not originally found on Emily's sweatshirt.. Mr. Gaither's office sent the chips to the SBI 6 months later... smells like a rat to me.

July 2, 2007 at 3:47 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home