MS. TURMAN: Well first, I think we would like to probably change the title. Instead of victim advocates, use the term victim service providers. This is really envisioned to go to the wide sort of array of people who are involved with victims, particularly sexual assault victims or families of homicide victims.

It would include medical social workers, sexual assault nurse examiners, folks who work at rape crisis centers, prosecutor and law enforcement based victim service people, public health workers who are dealing with rape victims.

So, we really see this as a tool to really educate all of the different professionals who work with crime victims about DNA evidence, what it can mean, and what they should be able to explain to victims and how they should work victims through the process; I mean from the very beginning of a crime all the way to, you know, people who may be involved in post-conviction issues. So, it is pretty straight-forward, I think, and would just serve as a very useful tool, I think, to begin to educate the field.

We know that there are many sexual assault victims that go to rape crisis centers or who go to hospitals or health clinics, but who don't report to police; and we have found, through working with the same programs, that rape victims who have their exam by a trained sexual assault nurse examiner are much more likely to report the crime to law enforcement and to participate and cooperate with an investigation.

So, we figure that the better informed people are who are working with victims about these issues, the better able they are going to be to help victims make good choices and understand all of the processes that are involved in their case.

MR. SCHECK: Besides the suggestion I gave to you about Jennifer Thompson (phonetic), I had just thought of something else. On page 17, where you talk about things that might be told to victims, I think maybe you might want to add that if the result comes out to confirm that the convicted individual was, in fact, the perpetrator, you know, through the use of the data bank, I mean they might be able to link the person to additional crimes.

Although in theory, the person's DNA profile should be the data bank and linked to additional crimes already, but since there is such a backlog, it may very well be that this is the first time the person's sample is put into the system, so that might be a point you want to make.

MS. TURMAN: Sure.

MR. GAINER: Kathryn, would we attribute this to your office? Whose document is this?

MS. TURMAN: It would be joint from OVC and commission, both, and we would send it out.We have a mailing list and a very extensive resource center. We would also post it on our web site as well.

COMMISSIONER ASPLEN: It will obviously take a different form than this. I mean it will be like a, not necessarily like this, but something of this nature.

MR. GAINER: It is going to come out from the commission?

COMMISSIONER ABRAHAMSON: And.

COMMISSIONER ASPLEN: And OVC.

It will have -- as oftentimes, as you saw with the CD ROM, when you do something to the Department of Justice, depending upon where you do it, there is any number of seals that have to go on in various places. So, this will be something which carries the commission seal.

It will carry OVC's seal, maybe OJP, Office of Justice Programs, and ultimately, the Department of Justice, but primarily it will be commission and OVC generated and published and distributed.

MR. THOMA: Where should we forward any suggestions for a modification?

MS. TURMAN: You can send them to me.

MS. BASHINSKI: Do you have a deadline that you want get them by?

MS. TURMAN: I think we are -- you guys, did you finish all of your comments?

COMMISSIONER ASPLEN: We are pretty close, yes.

Do you want to have them send them to us?

MS. TURMAN: Yes.

COMMISSIONER ASPLEN: We have got the resources. Send them to Robin -- everybody knows that drill -- and we will take it from there.

MR. ADAMS: I will like to forward a new definition for the DNA advisory board. As a designated Federal employee for that board, on page 18, I think the definition there is a little bit misguided.

MS. TURMAN: That is great. That is what we need.

MR. REINSTEIN: Kathryn, when some of us do these presentations -- I know Debbie Smith (phonetic) has given her permission before, but is there permission with the publication of this to use Kelly Green and Jennifer Thompson's name as well on your cases?

MS. TURMAN: Yes; well, I would think so.

They understand. I think everybody whose case in here has been informed that this was a training, educational tool for the most part.

COMMISSIONER ASPLEN: We will confirm that.

MS. TURMAN: We will confirm it, yes.

COMMISSIONER ASPLEN: Actually, I --

MR. REINSTEIN: No; I don't mean with this tool, but I mean that you can use if any of us give presentations about the impact of DNA, post-conviction, solving cases, whatever.

COMMISSIONER ASPLEN: That is the case with Debbie. I have not spoken to Kelly on those particular issues, but that is the case with Debbie Smith.

MS. TURMAN: Usually, when we have victims' information or their story, anything the Department of Justice publishes is in the public domain, so it can be used that way.

MR. GAHN: As I read through this, when you put in experiences, you know, with victims, you know, you are preaching to the choir as to who are going to be the recipients of this. I also found this to be quite cumbersome, just the way it is written and all the information in it.

I do know that in Wisconsin, we provided, you know, the little pamphlet. "What Every Law Enforcement Officer Should Know" was given to all the SANs; given to all of our victim advocates. They think it is absolutely terrific. There are a number of modifications that could be done to that, but I think it is different when you send out that card that opens up and has a picture than something like this. This is like a paper, and someone is going to get a look, but why can't you make a card, a fold out card like we did for "What Every Law Enforcement Officer Should Know"?

MS. TURMAN: Well, I think maybe we could do something in the middle, but I think what we have to do with a lot of victim service providers is make the case for why DNA is important. I mean I think probably in your jurisdiction, you have got folks that are fairly sophisticated about these things. You are used to having SAN programs.

It is not that true, not true around the rest of the country; and I think some of the stories, telling the stories, and the way the bulletin would be done, it would be more readable, I think, than this format; and it really, I think, sort of makes the case for why people need to think a little bit differently about DNA evidence.

MS. BASHINSKI: You might want to, in the very first paragraph where you say DNA is currently present in about one percent of all criminal cases, it is likely to be present in 60 percent to 70 percent of in sexual assault cases. So, you may want to add that piece of information so that it becomes clear how valuable and how omnipresent it is in those kinds of cases.

MS. TURMAN: Maybe we can cut this down so it is not quite so complicated.

COMMISSIONER ABRAHAMSON: Maybe you could do both, have a longer version for those that need it, but also a shorter version.

MR. GAHN: If there is any way, though, to do that card like the one we sent out, that has been so well received throughout this country. Even the nurses love it. It is just terrific. It is nice little handy thing that they can just keep at their work station.

It tells them what to look for, and our advocates use it all the time. When the victims ask them, they go to it. It tells CODIS. It tells everything you really need to know, and it is just a nice, handy, convenient tool; and I really suggest that something be put in that format for the nurses and the advocates. It will make the product better and get the information, I think, out more.

COMMISSIONER ASPLEN: We will just change the title to What Anybody Should Ever Know About DNA Evidence.

MS. BASHINSKI: They are not mutually exclusive, though, are they?

MS. TURMAN: We could do a tear out card.

MS. BASHINSKI: Okay.

MS. TURMAN: We have done that before. We have done sample brochures and things you just pull out.

COMMISSIONER ABRAHAMSON: I am going to terminate the discussion for the moment anyway because we have moved into the slot for public comment, which is scheduled for 4:30 to 5:00, and I do want to leave that time open.

If it is not used, we will come back to this and then conclude. So, I am now opening this up for public comment. Anyone interested in commenting can just step to the microphone. Please state your name for the record and state your comment, question, or what have you.

(No response.)

COMMISSIONER ABRAHAMSON: Right now, I am going to continue on with a discussion on the victims advocates pamphlet, and then we will again call for comment in about five or ten minutes. Anyone who feels they want to comment, please interrupt the discussion and do so.

Is there anything else on the victims advocates working paper?

Do you, then, agree that something more simple, shorter plus a longer piece?

MS. TURMAN: We will just do a tear out card and a reference card.

MS. BALLOU: If I could just ask for clarification?

COMMISSIONER ABRAHAMSON: Please state your name.

MS. BALLOU: Susan Ballou with National Institute of Science Technology.

Chris, did you receive all our -- you had our comments on the subgroup for when we looked at this, I think, two meetings ago; is that correct?

COMMISSIONER ASPLEN: Yes.

MS. BALLOU: Were those incorporated already?

COMMISSIONER ASPLEN: Probably so, but was substantially rewritten since the time that you saw it. So, we did receive those. We probably incorporated them, but quite frankly, we should go back and that again because rather than go back and make a whole lot of individual changes, we went back to the beginning and reworked the scientific part particularly.

So, that is a good point, that we should go back and make sure we have included everything once we kind of started over again just on the science aspect of it.

MS. BALLOU: I understand the interest in basically informing everyone as to what is involved when a victim becomes a victim, and I was talking to Clay about page 2, third paragraph, the last sentence there, basically brings up a sore point, which we all know occurs where agencies that are depleted in time do not have the availability to test evidence when a suspect is not identified.

So, I would hate to see this as a false hope preached to a victim that their case will be entered into a system such as CODIS when some agencies are not going to look at those.

I do not know if you wanted to offer more detail in this avenue or just let it go hoping that additional funding from these other bills that are on the horizon might provide additional support to look at suspect less cases.

COMMISSIONER ASPLEN: You are talking about some of the things we pointed out on the CD ROM, some of the limitations of CODIS for example, where we included backlog and, you know, who is in and who is out and stuff?

MS. BALLOU: Right, exactly.

In addressing this, you basically have to decide how detailed you want this particular paper to be, but I would hate to be a victim thinking that my case is going to be looked at when I could got help in any way of a suspect and then come to find out it has been thrown into a locker room someplace and it is just sitting there.

MR. SCHECK: I think you raise a good point, Susan, but it seems to me that -- I think victims should know that. I think it is an outrage that you don't have the money to type these unsolved cases. I absolutely believe that, that is the number one issue. I mean, look, you know, I am just some defense lawyer.

I mean I cannot understand why law enforcement is not typing these unsolved rape kits that are sitting there where people cannot make IDs and DNA could identify people. I mean if I were victims rights groups, I would be banging on the walls of every state house in this country saying why don't you type these things. I mean it is nutty that I am the guy that is pushing this. It is absurd.

MS. BALLOU: In the question I brought this up, Chris, I think we might have addressed this before, which I don't want to go into a long, detailed discussion on it if you already have these comments.

COMMISSIONER ASPLEN: We will take a look them and see if those were included in those and make sure.

COMMISSIONER ABRAHAMSON: I suggest he look at it and then why don't you scan this again for those that are important to you that re-advise them. I gather this has been significantly changed.

Anything else on the service providers guide from the commission?

(No response.)

COMMISSIONER ABRAHAMSON: Any other comments from the public?

(No response.)

COMMISSIONER ABRAHAMSON: Is there any other business before the house today? We will have more time.

Barry?

MR. SCHECK: I just have one announcement. We had a case last week that I think you might want to know about. It didn't -- I don't know. Richard didn't write about it.

It didn't get an enormous amount of attention, but for our purposes, I think the it actually is a pretty significant case. It is a case out of Kentucky.

A gentleman named William Gregory, who did eight years for a crime he didn't commit; but it is the first case where mitochondrial DNA testing was used to exonerate, the only DNA test that was used to exonerate. Every other case has involved DNA analysis, frankly, of semen.

This is the first case where "mito" was used as the sole basis for exclusion, and it is, the case involved -- Gregory was a 45-year-old man living in a housing complex, the Breckinridge (phonetic) Housing complex in Louisville, Kentucky, and a woman was accosted at night.

The perpetrator had a knife in his hand. He was naked, and he had a mask on, but the mask was actually pantyhose that had been taken from the bathroom of the victim recently washed and put over the head of the perpetrator.

He did not ejaculate or rape her. He did take some objects and fled the apartment complex. She gave a description of a man that was five foot six inches tall, muscular, clean shaven African American, and the victim Caucasian.

Mr. Gregory was one of the few residents, a recent resident in that housing complex who was African American. He was 45 years old, six feet tall, and had a full beard.

Pictures were shown to her. She did not pick him out. His picture was shown to her. She did not pick him out, but subsequently, there was a one-on-one show-up in a police precinct, and he was then identified.

He was put out on bail because of the obvious weaknesses in the identification I think, although I don't want to surmise on why he was bailed, but he was bailed. Then subsequently, another woman in that apartment complex was assaulted in the same way by a man wearing a mask. She could make no identification -- he was wearing a mask -- except to say that his eyes were gray. Gregory's eyes are brown.

Nonetheless, he was identified by her based on the eyes, and both cases were consolidated for trial. He was then incarcerated. Yet, when a third incident occurred with the same MO in that housing project, they did not save, it appears -- although they are still looking -- the biological evidence from that third case that remained uncharged.

He was convicted. Now, he was convicted primarily the jurors have said, and when you look at the videotape because Kentucky, you might be interested in knowing, does not have written transcripts of trials. They videotape everything, so you look at the videotape of the trial.

Based on the testimony of Dawn Katz (phonetic), the hair analyst who testified that there were six Negroid hairs found in that pantyhose that were used as the mask, and they matched at 16 characteristics.

Now, as I am sure some of you know, hair analysts cannot agree whether you need 23 or 16 or however many microscopic characteristics to declare a so-called match or similarity or whatever you want to call it.

Nonetheless, she said there were these matches at 16 characteristics, and there were also the presence of what were called ovoid bodies in the hair, which the analyst went on to say she had never seen before in humans, but only in animals. Yet, remarkably enough, it was in the hair of Mr. Gregory as a reference sample and some of the hairs that were found in the pantyhose, at which point, he was convicted, the jurors have later said, on the hair evidence.

So the mitochondrial DNA testing was done. The only reason he got out of jail -- if this were under the Hatch bill, he never would have made it because it took six years, and there is a statute of limitations of 30 months, I believe, isn't that right, on the current version of the Hatch bill -- there was a reverend who knew an inmate in the Kentucky prison system who kept on telling the reverend, this Reverend Edwards, who is, like, 80 years old, that Mr. Gregory was an innocent man wrongly convicted and needed help.

They went around their church, and they raised money because I think it costs, like, five thousand dollars to do one hair for a mito test, although that price is going down, and they had five and ten dollar contributions. They were able to raise the money because we could not provide it at that time.

It took a long time to persuade and get through the court system and everything else, but after five years, we got that hair tested and then an additional. All the other hairs in the stocking mask, they all matched each other, but they, of course, don't match him. So, it was on that basis that his case was dismissed on Wednesday.

I think it is a good lesson in the future of the technology, where we are going with it, and in addition, the lack of reliability of microscopic hair evidence, which I think you all ought to be on the alert you should not rely upon in any matter of significance without doing a mitochondrial DNA test.

COMMISSIONER ABRAHAMSON: Thank you, Barry.

Any other comments?

(No response.)

COMMISSIONER ABRAHAMSON: Well, we should say a word of congratulations to Dr. Adams, who is now Deputy Assistant Director at the lab.

(Applause.)

COMMISSIONER ABRAHAMSON: Thank you.

With that, we can at least release all of you who wish to be released without any DNA evidence today, and you are welcome back at 8:30 in the morning for coffee, et cetera. The meeting will start at nine, but we will stay for an open, continue the open comment, public comment, if there is any.

COMMISSIONER ASPLEN: Folks, you can leave your stuff here if you would like. Take personal belongings, but the rest of your things can stay.

Can I see a show of hands of folks who want to get together for dinner this evening?

MR. SCHECK: What time?

COMMISSIONER ASPLEN: I would say about 6:30. Thank you, folks.

COMMISSIONER ABRAHAMSON: We will stay, and we will not close this until five p.m.
(Whereupon, at five o'clock p.m., the proceedings were adjourned, to be reconvened the following day, Monday, July 10, 2000, at nine o'clock a.m.)

Previous	Contents	Next
Back to National Commission Main Page