October 6, 2023 • 51 mins
Send us a text and let us know what you think about the episode!
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.
Source Material: Source Material: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sVB1DmrEQ3YfRy52Ot0BS-5mQ4RasuRWzhxXaBxViYc/edit?usp=sharing
Thanks for being a loyal Crime Connoisseur! Enjoy your free 30-Day Audible Trial Membership
Discover your dog's DNA with a simple cheek swab for their genetic testing.
BoxDog and BoxCat are premium customizable subscription boxes for dogs and cats.
Your cat deserves better. Have fresh, human-grade meals for your cat straight to your door each month.
Free 30-Day Audible Trial MembershipThanks for being a loyal Crime Connoisseur! Enjoy your free 30-Day Audible Trial Membership
Smalls
Your cat deserve better. Have fresh, human-grade meals for your cat straight to your door each month
Wisdom Panel
Discover your dog's DNA with a simple cheek swab for their genetic testing.
BoxDog
BoxDog and BoxCat are premium customizable subscription box for dogs and cats.
Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.
https://www.buymeacoffee.com/crimeconnoisseurs
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome back crime connoisseurs.
I'm your host, grace D, andtoday we're picking up right
where we left off last week.
But before we get started, Ijust want to say that Renee's
sister, crystal, had reached outto me via Instagram to let me
know that in the latest episodethat we just did, I was
(00:21):
mispronouncing Kevin's last name.
I was saying Gallic and it'sGaelic, and also I accidentally
called their mother Tracy.
Her name is Terry.
So I just want to make thosecorrections.
Now I am going to go backthrough and rerecord that
episode with the correctpronunciation and, you know,
(00:42):
with Terry's name being saidinstead of Tracy.
I just want to get that rightoff the bat, because getting the
information accurate isextremely important for me, for
you guys, as you know, like asI've said this to me isn't done
for entertainment purposes,because these are real people
and lives that are being ruinedfrom monsters.
(01:03):
So it's not entertainment.
I want to help bring justice tothe victims.
I want to call out themishandlings which today's case.
That is what we are going tocover.
We're going to be talking aboutthe mishandlings that have
happened with Renee's case thatare just so absolutely mind
blowing.
So if you still need to listento part one.
(01:26):
Stop and go get a little listen.
To recap, an 11 year old girlnamed Tracy Renee Conrad, who
goes by Renee, goes missingafter heading to a friend's
house to play.
After nearly a month Renee'sbody is found in a kiln on the
property where she went to play.
The father of the sons that shewas friends with was
subsequently arrested, tried andconvicted for her murder.
(01:49):
Kevin Gaelic has continuouslyproclaimed his innocence.
Now let's jump right back in.
Let's get going.
(02:31):
In an official release onDecember 1, 1997, the Commission
on Judicial Performancepublicly chastised Judge Ronald
Maciel of the Kings CountyMunicipal Court, lee Moore
Division.
The commission was composed ofsix public members, three judges
and two lawyers.
The chairperson was Robert CBonner Esquire of Los Angeles,
(02:55):
california.
On March 28, 1996, judge Macielpresided over the arraignment
of defendant Kevin Gaelic in theCapital Murder Case of People v
Gaelic, case number L965205.
Judge Maciel appointed contractattorney Mary Ann Brock to
(03:18):
represent Kevin and continuedthe arraignment to May 17, 1996.
Following the March 28 hearing,judge Maciel assigned the
Gaelic case to municipal courtjudge John O'Rourke.
On April 1, judge Macielinitiated a telephone
conversation with Mary Ann Brock.
(03:38):
Judge Maciel advised Brock thathe had assigned the Gaelic case
to Judge O'Rourke and discussedwith her the option of filing a
peremptory challenge againstJudge O'Rourke.
In this conversation JudgeMaciel also suggested that Brock
prepare an order forinvestigator funds and consider
(03:58):
a polygraph test.
During the discussion of theperemptory challenge Judge
Maciel mistakenly told Brockthat the statutory period for
filing the challenge was 30 days.
On April 2, judge Macielattempted to reach Brock again
by telephone after he realizedthat he had incorrectly advised
(04:18):
her concerning the statutoryperiod.
He couldn't contact Brockdirectly and left the court's
telephone number on her pager.
He instructed a clerk that whenBrock called to tell her quote,
it's 10 days, not 30, end quote.
So when Brock returned the pagethat day the clerk advised her
(04:40):
of this message.
On April 4, judge Macielinitiated another telephone
conversation with Brock.
He engaged Brock in adiscussion concerning a hearing
in the Gaelic case that she hadon the calendar for the next day
, april 5.
Judge Maciel also asked her ifshe had applied for an
(05:01):
investigator expenses and madesuggestions to her relating to
the defense strategies.
He did not disclose any of thecommunications with Brock to the
district attorney's office.
On April 5, 1996, the Gaeliccase was reassigned to Judge
Maciel after Judge Eau Rourkewas disqualified.
(05:21):
Under a peremptory challengefiled by Brock On May 6, 1996,
the district attorney's officefiled a code of civil procedure
Section 170.1, motion todisqualify Judge Maciel for
cause.
After learning of theundisclosed ex-parte
(05:42):
communications with Brock, onMay 9, judge Maciel filed a
response to the motion in whichhe consented to the case being
assigned to another judge.
Afterward, the Gaelic case wassubsequently transferred to
another judge.
In 2001, kevin filed a petitionfor a writ of habeas corpus in
(06:04):
the King's County Superior Court.
The petition raised numerousclaims of alleged ineffective
assistance of counsel and jurymisconduct.
The lower court conducted anevidentiary hearing in 2001 and
denied the petition in January2002.
In September of 2002, theCalifornia Supreme Court denied
(06:28):
Kevin's original writ of habeascorpus petition.
This petition raised the sameissues that were raised in the
lower court.
In 2006, the United StatesDistrict Court for the Eastern
District of California deniedKevin's writ of habeas corpus.
The petition, which had beenfiled in 2003, had raised
(06:49):
numerous claims of allegedineffective assistance of
counsel and jury misconductsimilar to the allegations
raised in the Superior Court andCalifornia Supreme Court
petitions.
In 2012, the Superior Courtjointly appointed the Northern
California Innocence Project andCIPP and the California DNA
(07:10):
Project to represent Kevin aspost-conviction DNA counsel
under Section 1405.
At same year, nsip and theKing's County District
Attorney's Office agreed to testspecific items of evidence in
this case.
In June 2012, nine itemspreviously held by the Superior
(07:33):
Court were transferred to BodeTechnology in Virginia for
testing.
In November 2012, bode receivedfour swabs collected from
Renee's vaginal vault around thetime of her autopsy.
In addition, a second rate kitwas opened and four more swabs
were inserted into the vaginalvault simultaneously and
(07:56):
inserted about five to sixcentimeters into the vaginal
vault.
Two dried slides were made fromone of these vaginal swabs.
In 2014, kevin filed his secondpetition for a writ of habeas
corpus in a King's CountySuperior Court.
Kevin's team argued that Bodehad discovered a partial
(08:18):
single-source male DNA profilecollected from the opening of
Renee's vagina and Kevin wasexcluded as a contributor to
that profile.
The petition also alleged thata mixed sample of DNA had been
collected from the duct taperecovered from Renee's mouth and
that Kevin had been excluded asa significant contributor to
(08:39):
that profile as well.
It was further claimed that,although Kevin could not be
conclusively excluded as a minorcontributor to the DNA on the
duct tape, there was strongsupport for the proposition that
Kevin was excluded as acontributor to the biological
material collected from thatpiece of evidence.
They argued these resultsrepresented new evidence that
(09:03):
demonstrated his innocence.
In September 2014, the SuperiorCourt issued an order to show
cause.
In the return filed in Decemberof 2014, it was disclosed that
for the first time that the DOJlab in Fresno had determined
that contamination wasresponsible for the major male
(09:26):
DNA profile that Bode haddiscovered on the duct tape.
In 1996, a latent fingerprintanalyst for the Fresno DOJ
handled that evidence and he wasmatched as the contributor to
the major male profile.
They argued that Kevin couldnot be excluded or included as a
(09:47):
possible minor contributor tothis DNA mix.
In the denial filed in April of2015, Kevin acknowledged that
the DNA results from the ducttape were no longer evidence of
his innocence.
He asserted that the DOJ'sdiscovery of unknown male DNA on
Renee's left labia majora,consistent with the DNA profile
(10:08):
from the swab taken from thevaginal opening, continued to
support his claim of innocence.
In 2016, nms Labs conductedadditional DNA testing on this
matter.
In its August 2016 report, anNMS biologist explained that two
(10:29):
items of evidence Renee'sunderwear and a towel contained
male DNA.
The underwear had aninconclusive short tandem repeat
STR on the Y chromosome, knownas YSTR DNA test result.
The towel had a partial YSTRDNA profile consistent with an
(10:54):
unknown male.
In October 2016, kevin'sforensic DNA consultant, nora
Rudin, reviewed the electronicdata produced by NMS.
She concluded that the twoalleles collected from the towel
are inconsistent with Kevin'sYSTR profile and the redundant
(11:17):
partial profile previouslydiscovered on the swabs
collected from Renee's leftlabia majora and vagina.
Rudin stated that the NMS testresults provided no additional
information as to the identityof the perpetrator of this crime
.
In November of 2017, theSuperior Court conducted a
(11:40):
two-day evidentiary hearingregarding the petition for a
writ of habeas corpus.
Kevin asserted that he wasinnocent because an unknown
male's redundant partial DNAprofile was discovered on the
swabs associated with Renee'svaginal opening and the left
labia majora.
Kevin claimed at least onejuror would have had reasonable
(12:02):
doubt about his guilt.
In contrast, the DistrictAttorney's Office focused on how
inconclusive the DNA resultswere and emphasized the
possibility of contamination.
In August 2012, bode receivedfour pairs of pantyhose, a bed
sheet that Renee was wrapped inher eyeglasses, a sock removed
(12:27):
from her mouth, another pair ofpantyhose, a bloodstained
t-shirt and pieces of duct taperemoved from her face.
In November 2012, bode receivedthe vaginal swabs from the SART
examination.
One of Bode's analysts, sarahShields, conducted YSTR DNA
(12:49):
testing In or about 2013,.
Shields conducted testing onthe vaginal swabs that were in
the SART kit.
The SART kit had four boxes,but one box was empty when
Shields removed the swabsBecause one was missing.
Shields could only test threeof the four vaginal swabs.
(13:11):
She initially tested a portionof each of those three swabs,
but it did not produce enoughmale DNA to upload anything into
the combined offender DNA indexsystem, codis.
There was insufficient male DNAfor the STR testing but Shields
noted quote male DNA wasdetected in our inconclusive
(13:35):
range of the test.
End quote.
She then combined the threeswabs and performed YSTR testing
on the combined extracts.
In addition to the three vaginalswabs, shields also received
swabs from the other locationsof Renee's genitalia.
With YSTR testing, shieldsdetected a partial male profile
(14:00):
which was not a mixture.
There were about 75 to 80 malecells, which is considered a low
amount.
Shields could not testify howthe DNA was transferred to the
vaginal swabs.
Kevin was excluded as apossible donor.
No sperm was detected on thevaginal samples.
(14:21):
Because YSTR testing was used,shields could not search CODIS
to match the partial maleprofile she detected YSTR
profiles are not CODIS eligible.
Shields confirmed that the DNAfrom the vaginal swabs was a low
level.
She described TouchDNA as a lowamount of DNA that is
(14:45):
transferred to an object, notthrough a body fluid.
Touchdna does not contain asmuch DNA as body fluid does.
Shields also conducted YSTR DNAtesting on the duct tape, which
generated a partial DNA profileconsistent with a mixture of at
least two individuals.
Kevin was excluded as apossible contributor to the
(15:09):
major component of that profile.
According to Shields, kevincannot be included or excluded
as a contributor to the minorcomponent.
The amount of male DNA on theduct tape was more than was on
the vaginal swabs.
Shields confirmed thatcontamination was possible for
(15:30):
the male DNA revealed by hertesting.
Based on its implementedprecautions, she believed no
contamination could haveoriginated from Bode.
She stated that any possiblecontamination would have derived
from the manufacturer of theevidence, but she acknowledged
that such contamination is rare.
(15:51):
Shields said that the vaginalswabs might have contained the
same biological material from1996.
However, it was possible thatthe vaginal swabs were or were
not contaminated and it waspossible that they were or were
not associated with this crime.
Delia Frosto-Hiradia is the labdirector for the DOJ in Fresno
(16:19):
In 1996, the latent print andthe DNA biology units occupied
the same building, separated bya door.
At that time masks were notrequired and the standards were
not as stringent as they are nowto ensure latent print analysts
did not contaminate items ofevidence.
Hiradia agreed it was possiblecontamination may have occurred
(16:44):
in 1996.
However, she also agreed it waspossible contamination had not
occurred.
Mindy Crow was a seniorcriminalist at the DOJ in Fresno
.
During the hearing the partystipulated that she is an expert
witness in the DNA analysis.
Crow explained that the FresnoDOJ began using YSTR DNA testing
(17:09):
around 2008.
She reviewed Bode's reportsabout an unknown male major
profile in the duct tape.
She agreed Kevin is excluded asa possible contributor to that
major profile.
Instead, a DOJ employee was thecontributor to that profile.
According to Crow, the ducttape in question had been
(17:30):
submitted to the Fresno DOJ labseparately from the vaginal and
labia swabs taken from Renee.
No records indicated thatlatent print analysis had
handled the swabs or otherwisecontaminated any other item.
In this case Crow testifiedthat the major component on the
(17:51):
duct tape did not match the YSTRprofile on the vaginal swabs.
If there was contamination, itwas not the same contaminant.
Crow agreed with Bode'sassessment that Kevin was
eliminated as a possiblecontributor to the YSTR profile
found on the vaginal swabs.
(18:11):
Based on Bode's information, asingle source profile appeared
on the vaginal swabs.
Crowe tested the various labiaswabs.
She obtained various amounts ofmale DNA on various swabs that
she had examined.
On the swab from the left labiamajora, crowe detected a
(18:32):
partial YSTR profile of a fewalleles consistent with Bode's
results.
From the vaginal swabs thepartial profile from the left
labia majora appeared to be asingle source profile.
There was no evidence it wasfrom more than one person.
Crowe testified that the leftlabia majora swab had low level
(18:55):
results.
In response to a questionregarding the weight that should
be given to the redundantprofile detected on the vaginal
and left labia majora swabs,crowe stated it was quote
situationally dependent.
The consistency in this case isagain very partial, so it means
less to me, for example, thantwo full profiles that are
(19:17):
consistent.
End quote.
Crowe tested other swabs but didnot obtain profiles that she
was willing to interpret, otherthan to note partial or a
mixture.
She did not compare thoseresults to any submitted
reference samples in this casebecause in her opinion the
(19:37):
profiles from the other swabswere not suitable for
interpretation.
Crowe was provided withprofiles of 23 males who may
have contributed to the DNAprofiles.
To rule out possiblecontamination, all 23 males were
eliminated as potentialcontributors to the unknown male
(19:58):
profile on the vaginal swabs.
Kevin's half-brother, michaelGalick, was also excluded as a
possible donor.
Crowe explained that when shereceived the swab boxes in 2014
from Bode, one box had both avaginal canal swab and a right
(20:19):
labia majora swab.
Another box for the vaginalswab was empty.
She indicated it was possiblethat those two swabs could have
contaminated each other.
Crowe tested a total of eightswabs.
No sperm was detected.
She found indications of atleast three males on the right
(20:40):
labia majora.
However, those results couldinvolve more or less than three
males because stutter waspossible.
She didn't know how thoseprofiles got onto the swab.
Crowe's testing discovereddifferent alleles than Bode's
results had uncovered from thevaginal canal.
(21:01):
The clitoral hood swab had lessDNA only two alleles.
This was from a separate malethan what Bode had found.
The midline pubic mound hadvery low level DNA.
The right pubic mound hadindications that two or three
(21:21):
males left DNA.
One was different than whatBode had found.
In light of the contamination onthe duct tape, crowe agreed
that low level DNA might haveresulted from contamination.
This contamination could haveoccurred in 1996.
She could not be absolutelysure that this DNA was
(21:43):
associated with the crime.
However, she didn't know if thevaginal or left labia majora
swabs were contaminated.
She noted that if huge numbersexisted, associated with a
single source profile, thatwould have provided good
assurance that the personcontaminated something.
But that wasn't the case inthis situation.
(22:05):
Crowe explained that sometimestouch DNA is at a low level.
The contamination of the ducttape did not necessarily mean
other evidence was contaminated.
The former Chief Deputy Coronerfor Kings County, billy Allen
Willard, was present when lawenforcement recovered Renee's
(22:27):
body from the kiln.
Protective clothing was wornwhen her body was removed.
Willard attended her autopsy onor about March 22, 1996.
An SART exam was performedaround the conclusion of the
autopsy.
The autopsy and SART exam wererecorded on video, as noted in
(22:53):
the SART report.
Renee's body was in a state ofdecomposition.
There were no face or necktissues and her skull was
exposed.
The area around her genitalshad evidence of decomposition,
but this area was betterpreserved than the rest of her
body.
A pathologist, armin Dahlinger,performed the autopsy.
(23:17):
An evidence technician from theHanford Police Department,
thomas Scheringa was present.
Other unidentified people werein the autopsy room at various
times.
Willard explained thatprocedures during this autopsy
were less stringent than theyare now.
Before the autopsy started,willard spoke on a telephone
(23:40):
which he had held with hisgloved hand.
He then assisted in the autopsy.
He and Dahlinger removedRenee's pants and, according to
Willard, he most likely touchedRenee's pants with the same
gloves that he wore whilespeaking on the telephone.
The verified RIP petitionasserts in a footnote that
(24:01):
before the evidentiary hearingthe parties entered into several
stipulations regardingWillard's collection of the 1996
procedures of the King's CountyCoroner's Office.
Kevin's defense team citedExhibit 37 on page 13 to support
these stipulations.
However, that exhibit filed inthe court does not have 13 pages
(24:26):
nor contain any purportedstipulations.
According to Kevin'srepresentations in his writ, the
coroner's office used soap andwater to scrub the autopsy table
.
Willard did not scrub the wallsbetween autopsies or clean the
tables.
Immediately preceding the nextautopsy the floor was mopped,
(24:50):
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 wasnot closed or sealed allowing
anyone access to it.
Dolinger and Scheringa assistedthe SAR teeners by holding the
(25:11):
vagina open so she couldvisualize the labia minora,
clitoral hood and hymenal tissue.
Although protective bunny suitswere worn during this autopsy,
they were unzipped, which wascommon in 1996.
Dolinger wore a hood during theautopsy.
However, other people in theroom, including Willard, did not
(25:34):
wear a hood.
According to the supplementalSART assessment form, the nurse
also wore a face mask during herparticipation in the SART exam.
Willard testified that he hadconducted over 1,000 autopsies
with Dolinger.
According to Willard, dolingerdid not use disposable gloves
(26:00):
but used a pair of moreexpensive, more heavy duty
gloves.
During autopsies Dolinger wouldreuse these gloves after
washing them with soap and water.
During this autopsy, dolingertouched paper towels and a metal
dispenser which was notsanitized.
Willard admitted it waspossible multiple people could
(26:22):
have handled that dispenser.
He confirmed that no specificcleaning procedure existed for
the X-ray machine used duringthis autopsy.
Willard touched portions of theX-ray machine with his gloved
hands.
Before the SART examination,dahlinger examined Renee's
genitalia.
During the SART examination,dahlinger held open her
(26:47):
genitalia so that the SART nursecould collect swabs.
According to Willard'srecollection, only the nurse and
Dahlinger opened Renee'sgenitalia.
According to the supplementalSART assessment form, both
Dahlinger and Scheringa assistedin holding the vagina open so
that the nurse could visualizethe labia minora, clitoral hood
(27:10):
and hymenal tissue.
Willard agreed that neitherRenee's genitalia nor the swabs
came into contact with the wallsin the autopsy room, the paper
towel dispenser, the x-raymachine or the telephone.
In a declaration signed on March31, 2015, nora Rudin stated
(27:33):
that at least two explanationsexisted for the presence of male
DNA in the non-sperm fraction.
Either it originated fromnon-sperm cells or sperm cells
that lost coherence due to timeand environmental conditions,
allowing the DNA to partitioninto the non-sperm fraction
(27:54):
during DNA extraction.
Rudin agreed with the DOJ'sdetermination that a partial
profile recovered from thenon-sperm fraction of the left
labia minora is the same as thepartial male profile recovered
from the vaginal swabs.
However, rudin also stated thata trace additional male could
(28:18):
be present on the left labiaminora swab, but that could also
be artificial, as it was a fewapparent peaks below the
analytical threshold.
She also agreed that the FresnoDOJ correctly reported that at
least three males are detectedin the non-sperm fraction of the
(28:38):
right labia minora swabs.
Rudin stated quote onereasonable explanation for the
presence of the foreign male DNAdetected on the external
genitalia swabs there are threemale profiles detected on the
non-sperm fraction of the rightlabia minora swab as well as the
(29:00):
possible additional maleprofile detected in the
non-sperm fraction of the leftlabia minora swab, and that is
contamination introduced fromthe exterior surfaces of the
gloves used to hold open theexterior genital region during
the collection of the vaginalswabs.
(29:21):
Elizabeth Ann Johnson is aconsultant in forensic biology.
She's a DNA expert who reviewedthe evidence in this matter.
Johnson expressed concernsabout Dahlinger reusing gloves
during autopsies.
She noted his gloves may nothave been cleaned well enough or
decontaminated.
An SART examination wouldtypically use disposable gloves.
(29:45):
Johnson stated that the problemwith Dahlinger reusing the
gloves is that they wouldn'tnecessarily be cleansed well
enough or decontaminated wellenough for cells, cellular
material from one case toanother or from handling a piece
of equipment to a body.
Dna testing now is verysensitive and can detect DNA
(30:08):
from less than 10 cells and caneven detect something from a
cell.
Johnson explained it is quoteabsolutely imperative that the
utmost care and caution be takenthat exogenous cellular
material is not introducedeither to the object that is
being examined or to at a latertime the swabs, for example,
(30:31):
that were collected, that noexogenous cellular material can
get introduced during thatprocess that it ends up as a DNA
result.
End quote.
Johnson testified that touch DNAis an inaccurate name because
it implies that you have totouch something when it is
(30:52):
possible for a person to touchsomething and not leave any of
their detectable DNA behind.
She defined touch DNA as ausually low level DNA and that
physiological source or bodyfluid source is not identified.
Most of the time it is notpossible to determine how or
(31:12):
from where touch DNA originated.
A physiological origin meansfrom blood or semen or saliva
that you know the body fluidsource of the cell.
Johnson explained that touchDNA does not establish that a
person actually touched thatobject or had direct contact
with it.
(31:33):
A primary transfer occurs whenyou leave something from direct
contact.
Secondary transfer occurs whensomething you have on, let's say
, your own DNA on your own body,gets picked up by an
intermediary and thentransferred to something else.
(31:53):
Johnson called it an apparentmistake when two genital swabs
in this matter had been placedinto the same SART box.
That should not have happened,because the swabs are intended
to be collected and keptseparate from one another.
Johnson confirmed that thismatter involved DNA profiles
that were not searchable.
(32:13):
Nobody had been identified.
According to Johnson,contamination was possible in
this case stemming from uncleangloves or cellular material from
prior autopsies.
No elimination had occurred forprior autopsies or prior cases.
It was also possible that theswabs had been contaminated.
(32:35):
She emphasized how easy it isto transfer DNA onto a swab Just
because the profile on thevaginal swabs was inconsistent
with the 23 male profiles.
That did not prove that thevaginal swabs had not been
contaminated.
Johnson noted that alleles hadbeen found on the other genital
(32:57):
area swabs that wereinconsistent with those found in
the Bode profile from thevaginal swab.
At least three male donors wererepresented.
Different male sources wereresponsible for the alleles on
the right labia majora than thealleles detected by Bode on the
vaginal swab.
(33:18):
Johnson was aware of an articleco-authored by DNA expert Nora
Rudin which characterized as aterrifying trilogy for those
cases involving contact DNA thathad one low levels, two often
multiple contributors and threeDNA profiles for which the
physiological source is bothunknown and unknowable.
(33:41):
Johnson agreed with thatcharacterization.
However, she added a fourthcomponent when the donor of the
profile is not known, johnsonagreed with Rudin's article that
stated quote when knowledge ofthe physiological origin of the
DNA is lacking, then simplypostulating an individual source
(34:04):
for the DNA loses significance.
End quote.
Johnson noted that when theterrifying trilogy is present
quote there's more significanceto put onto that piece of
evidence than there should beregarding relevance to the crime
.
And so in a fourth level ofthat component, when you don't
(34:24):
know who that profile is from,you don't even know if it is
relevant to the crime.
End quote.
Johnson agreed that Rudin'sterm, terrifying trilogy,
absolutely applied in this case.
In addition, nobody knew thesource of the multiple profiles.
(34:44):
Johnson could not conclusivelysay the male DNA located on
Renee's vaginal swabs was fromcontamination or related to the
crime scene quote.
It's not possible to know untilthe profile is traced to the
source.
End quote.
She could not conclusively saythat the DNA on those vaginal
(35:05):
swabs did not belong to Renee'sattacker.
A lot of factors existed thatmade these results indecisive.
No source person had beenlocated and whether these
results were relevant to thecrime was unclear.
However, it was conclusive thatKevin was not the source of
that DNA.
(35:26):
Johnson agreed that low levelDNA results are commonly
introduced, accepted and used toobtain convictions in current
cases.
However, she also cautionedthat many times low level DNA
profiles are rejected asevidence.
She agreed that the value ofthe DNA located on the vaginal
(35:48):
swabs should be cautiouslyweighed.
The fact that a redundant DNAprofile was found on the outer
vagina did not add significantweight to the value of the
profile detected on the vaginalswabs because it came from the
same area of Renee's body, asopposed to an outer piece of
(36:08):
clothing, underwear or someplaceother than an SART exam swab.
However, counsel noted thatDollinger never placed his
fingers inside Renee's vagina.
Kevin's counsel asserted someoneelse contaminated this crime
and that it was unfathomable forthe prosecution to contend that
(36:28):
the newly discovered DNAevidence resulted from
contamination.
Kevin's counsel urged the courtto reverse Kevin's conviction.
In an argument, the prosecutorstated quote there are a Madrid
of ways as to how these evidencesamples could be contaminated.
End quote.
(36:49):
The prosecutor argued that thenew evidence was not decisive,
as required under the statute,but indecisive.
The prosecutor recounted thecircumstantial evidence that
pointed to Kevin's guilt.
The prosecutor contended thatif the court considered the
mountain of evidence from thetrial against the evidence from
(37:11):
this hearing, it should concludethat the new evidence was
indecisive and the petitionshould be denied.
The court took the matter undersubmission.
On January 22, 2018, the courtissued a written ruling denying
the petition.
The court noted that a mixedpartial DNA profile had been
(37:34):
found on the duct tape.
A YSTR profile attained by Bodehad excluded Kevin as a
possible major contributor tothat profile.
Still, kevin could not beexcluded as a minor contributor
to the duct tape DNA mixture.
The court stated contaminationhad occurred and that the major
(37:55):
contributor to the duct tape DNAmixture was a DOJ employee.
In the latent print section,the court wrote that proof of
contamination undermined anycredibility the duct tape mixed
DNA sample may have once held.
Regarding Kevin's guilt orinnocence, the court noted a
finding of guilt was stillsupported because Kevin could
(38:18):
not be excluded as a minorcontributor to the duct tape
profile.
The court determined that thevaginal and labia swabs lacked a
decisive force and valuenecessary to obtain relief under
section 1473.
The court expressed concern.
That quote when viewed closely,it appears that a significant
(38:42):
amount of the source resultsobtained by Ms Crowe in her
testing differ from that foundin testing performed by both
technologies and or pointed tomore than one contributor.
End quote.
According to the court, asignificant amount of
circumstantial evidenceregarding Kevin's guilt had been
(39:03):
presented to the jury.
That evidence included Kevin'sfailure to inform law
enforcement honestly about hislocation on the day of Renee's
disappearance, kevin's reactionto being informed about the
location of the body at theGaelic property.
Renee had been wrapped insheets with a pattern identical
(39:24):
to that found in the Gaelic home.
Renee was found with her headwrapped in a men's white, extra,
extra large size 5052 t-shirtof the same type found in the
bedroom closet shared by Kevinand his two sons.
Renee was found with her anklesand wrist found with nylon
pantyhose of the same type foundstrewn about the floor of the
(39:47):
hallway leading to the northwestbedroom and along with a pair
of women's shorts on one of thetwo beds in the bedroom shared
by Kevin and his sons.
Renee was found blindfoldedwith a towel bearing the same
seashell design as the towel inthe Gaelic home's dryer.
Renee was found with anathletic sock in her mouth of
(40:08):
the same type, found in thedrawers shared by Kevin and his
younger son.
The duct tape used to securethe sock in Renee's mouth was of
the same type, used by Kevin towrap a telephone line that he
had installed from the Gaelichome to the trailer parked in
its driveway.
The court noted that no disputeexisted between the parties.
(40:30):
Kevin was eliminated as apossible source of male DNA
recovered from the swab used totest 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 beviewed cautiously in light of
(40:53):
one, the potential for transferand secondary transfers of DNA,
amid multiple credible scenarioswhere the same could have
reasonably occurred.
Two, the lack of any knowledgeas to the physiological origin
of the quote new evidence DNA atits issue herein.
And three, the low level of DNAin this case, combined with the
(41:19):
inconsistencies across the manygenital swabs collected and
tested.
End quote.
The court cited Rudin'stestimony that, while the
partial profile in this caseshould not be disregarded as
insignificant, its relevance wasunknown due to the lack of
significant information as toits origin.
(41:41):
Contamination versus perpetrator.
The court noted that, regardingthe right labia majora sample,
all three factors of theterrifying trilogy apply.
Quote.
As to the vaginal and leftlabia majora DNA samples, two of
the three factors are clearlypresent.
Such weaknesses in the DNAresults obtained in this case
(42:06):
undermine both the credibilityand significance of such
evidence to an extent which, inthe opinion of this court,
renders the same unlikely tohave changed the outcome.
End quote.
In the murder trial, the courtdenied Kevin's request for
habeas corpus relief.
Following the superior court'sdenial, kevin filed the petition
(42:30):
for habeas relief in June of2018.
In December of 2018, kevin'sdefense team issued an order to
show cause why the relief wouldnot be granted.
The DA's office filed a returnand Kevin's team filed a reply.
Kevin claims he is innocentbecause another male's partial
(42:52):
DNA profile was discovered onthe swabs associated with the
vaginal opening and the leftlabia majora.
He noted that these are theareas where Renee had physical
injuries stemming from a sexualassault.
He argues contamination has notbeen established associated
with the partial redundantprofile and he maintains this
(43:14):
evidence does not losesignificance despite the other
uninterpretable DNA discoveredon the remaining genital swabs.
He contends it is not hisburden to eliminate all
possibility of contamination,which is impossible.
He notes that the DOJ was ableto locate a contaminated source
for the male DNA detected on theduct tape.
(43:36):
Still, it was unable to do sofor the redundant profile
obtained from the vaginal andleft labia majora swabs.
The Northern CaliforniaInnocent Project argued that
quote there is no innocentexplanation that could exist for
the presence of male DNA to bepresent on Renee's genitalia,
(43:57):
despite the contamination by astate employee.
Of one item of evidence.
There is no proof that theseparticular samples were
contaminated.
There was only speculation.
End quote.
As of June 17th 2021, an appealfor habeas corpus has been
filed with the californiacircuit of appeals fifth
(44:18):
district and at this time,that's all we know regarding
kevin's appeals process.
What the conreds went throughwith Renee.
It's a shame that 27 yearssince their daughter's horrific
murder, they continuously haveto relive this tragedy.
If Kevin is innocent, then theperson responsible is still out
(44:42):
there.
Things like that do happen.
That's why there are programslike the Innocence Project.
However, if Kevin is trulyguilty, like he was convicted of
being, this is an evil thing.
To keep putting Renee's familythrough Kevin's timeline events.
They don't make sense.
His own testimony hecontradicted himself and he
(45:05):
admitted to lying and admittedto telling his son to lie for
him.
My heart goes out to the conredfamily.
I hope that this process willall be over soon for you and
that you can finally be at peace.
When more information becomesavailable, I'll let you guys
(45:25):
know.
Be sure to follow on instagramat crime connoisseurs and
subscribe wherever you get yourpodcasts.
In the meantime, keep it classy, connoisseurs, and I'll catch
you on the next case.
Welcome back crime connoisseurs.
I'm your host, grace D, andtoday we're picking up right
where we left off last week.
But before we get started, Ijust want to say that Renee's
sister, crystal, had reached outto me via Instagram to let me
know that in the latest episodethat we just did, I was
(00:21):
mispronouncing Kevin's last name.
I was saying Gallic and it'sGaelic, and also I accidentally
called their mother Tracy.
Her name is Terry.
So I just want to make thosecorrections.
Now I am going to go backthrough and rerecord that
episode with the correctpronunciation and, you know,
(00:42):
with Terry's name being saidinstead of Tracy.
I just want to get that rightoff the bat, because getting the
information accurate isextremely important for me, for
you guys, as you know, like asI've said this to me isn't done
for entertainment purposes,because these are real people
and lives that are being ruinedfrom monsters.
(01:03):
So it's not entertainment.
I want to help bring justice tothe victims.
I want to call out themishandlings which today's case.
That is what we are going tocover.
We're going to be talking aboutthe mishandlings that have
happened with Renee's case thatare just so absolutely mind
blowing.
So if you still need to listento part one.
(01:26):
Stop and go get a little listen.
To recap, an 11 year old girlnamed Tracy Renee Conrad, who
goes by Renee, goes missingafter heading to a friend's
house to play.
After nearly a month Renee'sbody is found in a kiln on the
property where she went to play.
The father of the sons that shewas friends with was
subsequently arrested, tried andconvicted for her murder.
(01:49):
Kevin Gaelic has continuouslyproclaimed his innocence.
Now let's jump right back in.
Let's get going.
(02:31):
In an official release onDecember 1, 1997, the Commission
on Judicial Performancepublicly chastised Judge Ronald
Maciel of the Kings CountyMunicipal Court, lee Moore
Division.
The commission was composed ofsix public members, three judges
and two lawyers.
The chairperson was Robert CBonner Esquire of Los Angeles,
(02:55):
california.
On March 28, 1996, judge Macielpresided over the arraignment
of defendant Kevin Gaelic in theCapital Murder Case of People v
Gaelic, case number L965205.
Judge Maciel appointed contractattorney Mary Ann Brock to
(03:18):
represent Kevin and continuedthe arraignment to May 17, 1996.
Following the March 28 hearing,judge Maciel assigned the
Gaelic case to municipal courtjudge John O'Rourke.
On April 1, judge Macielinitiated a telephone
conversation with Mary Ann Brock.
(03:38):
Judge Maciel advised Brock thathe had assigned the Gaelic case
to Judge O'Rourke and discussedwith her the option of filing a
peremptory challenge againstJudge O'Rourke.
In this conversation JudgeMaciel also suggested that Brock
prepare an order forinvestigator funds and consider
(03:58):
a polygraph test.
During the discussion of theperemptory challenge Judge
Maciel mistakenly told Brockthat the statutory period for
filing the challenge was 30 days.
On April 2, judge Macielattempted to reach Brock again
by telephone after he realizedthat he had incorrectly advised
(04:18):
her concerning the statutoryperiod.
He couldn't contact Brockdirectly and left the court's
telephone number on her pager.
He instructed a clerk that whenBrock called to tell her quote,
it's 10 days, not 30, end quote.
So when Brock returned the pagethat day the clerk advised her
(04:40):
of this message.
On April 4, judge Macielinitiated another telephone
conversation with Brock.
He engaged Brock in adiscussion concerning a hearing
in the Gaelic case that she hadon the calendar for the next day
, april 5.
Judge Maciel also asked her ifshe had applied for an
(05:01):
investigator expenses and madesuggestions to her relating to
the defense strategies.
He did not disclose any of thecommunications with Brock to the
district attorney's office.
On April 5, 1996, the Gaeliccase was reassigned to Judge
Maciel after Judge Eau Rourkewas disqualified.
(05:21):
Under a peremptory challengefiled by Brock On May 6, 1996,
the district attorney's officefiled a code of civil procedure
Section 170.1, motion todisqualify Judge Maciel for
cause.
After learning of theundisclosed ex-parte
(05:42):
communications with Brock, onMay 9, judge Maciel filed a
response to the motion in whichhe consented to the case being
assigned to another judge.
Afterward, the Gaelic case wassubsequently transferred to
another judge.
In 2001, kevin filed a petitionfor a writ of habeas corpus in
(06:04):
the King's County Superior Court.
The petition raised numerousclaims of alleged ineffective
assistance of counsel and jurymisconduct.
The lower court conducted anevidentiary hearing in 2001 and
denied the petition in January2002.
In September of 2002, theCalifornia Supreme Court denied
(06:28):
Kevin's original writ of habeascorpus petition.
This petition raised the sameissues that were raised in the
lower court.
In 2006, the United StatesDistrict Court for the Eastern
District of California deniedKevin's writ of habeas corpus.
The petition, which had beenfiled in 2003, had raised
(06:49):
numerous claims of allegedineffective assistance of
counsel and jury misconductsimilar to the allegations
raised in the Superior Court andCalifornia Supreme Court
petitions.
In 2012, the Superior Courtjointly appointed the Northern
California Innocence Project andCIPP and the California DNA
(07:10):
Project to represent Kevin aspost-conviction DNA counsel
under Section 1405.
At same year, nsip and theKing's County District
Attorney's Office agreed to testspecific items of evidence in
this case.
In June 2012, nine itemspreviously held by the Superior
(07:33):
Court were transferred to BodeTechnology in Virginia for
testing.
In November 2012, bode receivedfour swabs collected from
Renee's vaginal vault around thetime of her autopsy.
In addition, a second rate kitwas opened and four more swabs
were inserted into the vaginalvault simultaneously and
(07:56):
inserted about five to sixcentimeters into the vaginal
vault.
Two dried slides were made fromone of these vaginal swabs.
In 2014, kevin filed his secondpetition for a writ of habeas
corpus in a King's CountySuperior Court.
Kevin's team argued that Bodehad discovered a partial
(08:18):
single-source male DNA profilecollected from the opening of
Renee's vagina and Kevin wasexcluded as a contributor to
that profile.
The petition also alleged thata mixed sample of DNA had been
collected from the duct taperecovered from Renee's mouth and
that Kevin had been excluded asa significant contributor to
(08:39):
that profile as well.
It was further claimed that,although Kevin could not be
conclusively excluded as a minorcontributor to the DNA on the
duct tape, there was strongsupport for the proposition that
Kevin was excluded as acontributor to the biological
material collected from thatpiece of evidence.
They argued these resultsrepresented new evidence that
(09:03):
demonstrated his innocence.
In September 2014, the SuperiorCourt issued an order to show
cause.
In the return filed in Decemberof 2014, it was disclosed that
for the first time that the DOJlab in Fresno had determined
that contamination wasresponsible for the major male
(09:26):
DNA profile that Bode haddiscovered on the duct tape.
In 1996, a latent fingerprintanalyst for the Fresno DOJ
handled that evidence and he wasmatched as the contributor to
the major male profile.
They argued that Kevin couldnot be excluded or included as a
(09:47):
possible minor contributor tothis DNA mix.
In the denial filed in April of2015, Kevin acknowledged that
the DNA results from the ducttape were no longer evidence of
his innocence.
He asserted that the DOJ'sdiscovery of unknown male DNA on
Renee's left labia majora,consistent with the DNA profile
(10:08):
from the swab taken from thevaginal opening, continued to
support his claim of innocence.
In 2016, nms Labs conductedadditional DNA testing on this
matter.
In its August 2016 report, anNMS biologist explained that two
(10:29):
items of evidence Renee'sunderwear and a towel contained
male DNA.
The underwear had aninconclusive short tandem repeat
STR on the Y chromosome, knownas YSTR DNA test result.
The towel had a partial YSTRDNA profile consistent with an
(10:54):
unknown male.
In October 2016, kevin'sforensic DNA consultant, nora
Rudin, reviewed the electronicdata produced by NMS.
She concluded that the twoalleles collected from the towel
are inconsistent with Kevin'sYSTR profile and the redundant
(11:17):
partial profile previouslydiscovered on the swabs
collected from Renee's leftlabia majora and vagina.
Rudin stated that the NMS testresults provided no additional
information as to the identityof the perpetrator of this crime
.
In November of 2017, theSuperior Court conducted a
(11:40):
two-day evidentiary hearingregarding the petition for a
writ of habeas corpus.
Kevin asserted that he wasinnocent because an unknown
male's redundant partial DNAprofile was discovered on the
swabs associated with Renee'svaginal opening and the left
labia majora.
Kevin claimed at least onejuror would have had reasonable
(12:02):
doubt about his guilt.
In contrast, the DistrictAttorney's Office focused on how
inconclusive the DNA resultswere and emphasized the
possibility of contamination.
In August 2012, bode receivedfour pairs of pantyhose, a bed
sheet that Renee was wrapped inher eyeglasses, a sock removed
(12:27):
from her mouth, another pair ofpantyhose, a bloodstained
t-shirt and pieces of duct taperemoved from her face.
In November 2012, bode receivedthe vaginal swabs from the SART
examination.
One of Bode's analysts, sarahShields, conducted YSTR DNA
(12:49):
testing In or about 2013,.
Shields conducted testing onthe vaginal swabs that were in
the SART kit.
The SART kit had four boxes,but one box was empty when
Shields removed the swabsBecause one was missing.
Shields could only test threeof the four vaginal swabs.
(13:11):
She initially tested a portionof each of those three swabs,
but it did not produce enoughmale DNA to upload anything into
the combined offender DNA indexsystem, codis.
There was insufficient male DNAfor the STR testing but Shields
noted quote male DNA wasdetected in our inconclusive
(13:35):
range of the test.
End quote.
She then combined the threeswabs and performed YSTR testing
on the combined extracts.
In addition to the three vaginalswabs, shields also received
swabs from the other locationsof Renee's genitalia.
With YSTR testing, shieldsdetected a partial male profile
(14:00):
which was not a mixture.
There were about 75 to 80 malecells, which is considered a low
amount.
Shields could not testify howthe DNA was transferred to the
vaginal swabs.
Kevin was excluded as apossible donor.
No sperm was detected on thevaginal samples.
(14:21):
Because YSTR testing was used,shields could not search CODIS
to match the partial maleprofile she detected YSTR
profiles are not CODIS eligible.
Shields confirmed that the DNAfrom the vaginal swabs was a low
level.
She described TouchDNA as a lowamount of DNA that is
(14:45):
transferred to an object, notthrough a body fluid.
Touchdna does not contain asmuch DNA as body fluid does.
Shields also conducted YSTR DNAtesting on the duct tape, which
generated a partial DNA profileconsistent with a mixture of at
least two individuals.
Kevin was excluded as apossible contributor to the
(15:09):
major component of that profile.
According to Shields, kevincannot be included or excluded
as a contributor to the minorcomponent.
The amount of male DNA on theduct tape was more than was on
the vaginal swabs.
Shields confirmed thatcontamination was possible for
(15:30):
the male DNA revealed by hertesting.
Based on its implementedprecautions, she believed no
contamination could haveoriginated from Bode.
She stated that any possiblecontamination would have derived
from the manufacturer of theevidence, but she acknowledged
that such contamination is rare.
(15:51):
Shields said that the vaginalswabs might have contained the
same biological material from1996.
However, it was possible thatthe vaginal swabs were or were
not contaminated and it waspossible that they were or were
not associated with this crime.
Delia Frosto-Hiradia is the labdirector for the DOJ in Fresno
(16:19):
In 1996, the latent print andthe DNA biology units occupied
the same building, separated bya door.
At that time masks were notrequired and the standards were
not as stringent as they are nowto ensure latent print analysts
did not contaminate items ofevidence.
Hiradia agreed it was possiblecontamination may have occurred
(16:44):
in 1996.
However, she also agreed it waspossible contamination had not
occurred.
Mindy Crow was a seniorcriminalist at the DOJ in Fresno
.
During the hearing the partystipulated that she is an expert
witness in the DNA analysis.
Crow explained that the FresnoDOJ began using YSTR DNA testing
(17:09):
around 2008.
She reviewed Bode's reportsabout an unknown male major
profile in the duct tape.
She agreed Kevin is excluded asa possible contributor to that
major profile.
Instead, a DOJ employee was thecontributor to that profile.
According to Crow, the ducttape in question had been
(17:30):
submitted to the Fresno DOJ labseparately from the vaginal and
labia swabs taken from Renee.
No records indicated thatlatent print analysis had
handled the swabs or otherwisecontaminated any other item.
In this case Crow testifiedthat the major component on the
(17:51):
duct tape did not match the YSTRprofile on the vaginal swabs.
If there was contamination, itwas not the same contaminant.
Crow agreed with Bode'sassessment that Kevin was
eliminated as a possiblecontributor to the YSTR profile
found on the vaginal swabs.
(18:11):
Based on Bode's information, asingle source profile appeared
on the vaginal swabs.
Crowe tested the various labiaswabs.
She obtained various amounts ofmale DNA on various swabs that
she had examined.
On the swab from the left labiamajora, crowe detected a
(18:32):
partial YSTR profile of a fewalleles consistent with Bode's
results.
From the vaginal swabs thepartial profile from the left
labia majora appeared to be asingle source profile.
There was no evidence it wasfrom more than one person.
Crowe testified that the leftlabia majora swab had low level
(18:55):
results.
In response to a questionregarding the weight that should
be given to the redundantprofile detected on the vaginal
and left labia majora swabs,crowe stated it was quote
situationally dependent.
The consistency in this case isagain very partial, so it means
less to me, for example, thantwo full profiles that are
(19:17):
consistent.
End quote.
Crowe tested other swabs but didnot obtain profiles that she
was willing to interpret, otherthan to note partial or a
mixture.
She did not compare thoseresults to any submitted
reference samples in this casebecause in her opinion the
(19:37):
profiles from the other swabswere not suitable for
interpretation.
Crowe was provided withprofiles of 23 males who may
have contributed to the DNAprofiles.
To rule out possiblecontamination, all 23 males were
eliminated as potentialcontributors to the unknown male
(19:58):
profile on the vaginal swabs.
Kevin's half-brother, michaelGalick, was also excluded as a
possible donor.
Crowe explained that when shereceived the swab boxes in 2014
from Bode, one box had both avaginal canal swab and a right
(20:19):
labia majora swab.
Another box for the vaginalswab was empty.
She indicated it was possiblethat those two swabs could have
contaminated each other.
Crowe tested a total of eightswabs.
No sperm was detected.
She found indications of atleast three males on the right
(20:40):
labia majora.
However, those results couldinvolve more or less than three
males because stutter waspossible.
She didn't know how thoseprofiles got onto the swab.
Crowe's testing discovereddifferent alleles than Bode's
results had uncovered from thevaginal canal.
(21:01):
The clitoral hood swab had lessDNA only two alleles.
This was from a separate malethan what Bode had found.
The midline pubic mound hadvery low level DNA.
The right pubic mound hadindications that two or three
(21:21):
males left DNA.
One was different than whatBode had found.
In light of the contamination onthe duct tape, crowe agreed
that low level DNA might haveresulted from contamination.
This contamination could haveoccurred in 1996.
She could not be absolutelysure that this DNA was
(21:43):
associated with the crime.
However, she didn't know if thevaginal or left labia majora
swabs were contaminated.
She noted that if huge numbersexisted, associated with a
single source profile, thatwould have provided good
assurance that the personcontaminated something.
But that wasn't the case inthis situation.
(22:05):
Crowe explained that sometimestouch DNA is at a low level.
The contamination of the ducttape did not necessarily mean
other evidence was contaminated.
The former Chief Deputy Coronerfor Kings County, billy Allen
Willard, was present when lawenforcement recovered Renee's
(22:27):
body from the kiln.
Protective clothing was wornwhen her body was removed.
Willard attended her autopsy onor about March 22, 1996.
An SART exam was performedaround the conclusion of the
autopsy.
The autopsy and SART exam wererecorded on video, as noted in
(22:53):
the SART report.
Renee's body was in a state ofdecomposition.
There were no face or necktissues and her skull was
exposed.
The area around her genitalshad evidence of decomposition,
but this area was betterpreserved than the rest of her
body.
A pathologist, armin Dahlinger,performed the autopsy.
(23:17):
An evidence technician from theHanford Police Department,
thomas Scheringa was present.
Other unidentified people werein the autopsy room at various
times.
Willard explained thatprocedures during this autopsy
were less stringent than theyare now.
Before the autopsy started,willard spoke on a telephone
(23:40):
which he had held with hisgloved hand.
He then assisted in the autopsy.
He and Dahlinger removedRenee's pants and, according to
Willard, he most likely touchedRenee's pants with the same
gloves that he wore whilespeaking on the telephone.
The verified RIP petitionasserts in a footnote that
(24:01):
before the evidentiary hearingthe parties entered into several
stipulations regardingWillard's collection of the 1996
procedures of the King's CountyCoroner's Office.
Kevin's defense team citedExhibit 37 on page 13 to support
these stipulations.
However, that exhibit filed inthe court does not have 13 pages
(24:26):
nor contain any purportedstipulations.
According to Kevin'srepresentations in his writ, the
coroner's office used soap andwater to scrub the autopsy table
.
Willard did not scrub the wallsbetween autopsies or clean the
tables.
Immediately preceding the nextautopsy the floor was mopped,
(24:50):
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 wasnot closed or sealed allowing
anyone access to it.
Dolinger and Scheringa assistedthe SAR teeners by holding the
(25:11):
vagina open so she couldvisualize the labia minora,
clitoral hood and hymenal tissue.
Although protective bunny suitswere worn during this autopsy,
they were unzipped, which wascommon in 1996.
Dolinger wore a hood during theautopsy.
However, other people in theroom, including Willard, did not
(25:34):
wear a hood.
According to the supplementalSART assessment form, the nurse
also wore a face mask during herparticipation in the SART exam.
Willard testified that he hadconducted over 1,000 autopsies
with Dolinger.
According to Willard, dolingerdid not use disposable gloves
(26:00):
but used a pair of moreexpensive, more heavy duty
gloves.
During autopsies Dolinger wouldreuse these gloves after
washing them with soap and water.
During this autopsy, dolingertouched paper towels and a metal
dispenser which was notsanitized.
Willard admitted it waspossible multiple people could
(26:22):
have handled that dispenser.
He confirmed that no specificcleaning procedure existed for
the X-ray machine used duringthis autopsy.
Willard touched portions of theX-ray machine with his gloved
hands.
Before the SART examination,dahlinger examined Renee's
genitalia.
During the SART examination,dahlinger held open her
(26:47):
genitalia so that the SART nursecould collect swabs.
According to Willard'srecollection, only the nurse and
Dahlinger opened Renee'sgenitalia.
According to the supplementalSART assessment form, both
Dahlinger and Scheringa assistedin holding the vagina open so
that the nurse could visualizethe labia minora, clitoral hood
(27:10):
and hymenal tissue.
Willard agreed that neitherRenee's genitalia nor the swabs
came into contact with the wallsin the autopsy room, the paper
towel dispenser, the x-raymachine or the telephone.
In a declaration signed on March31, 2015, nora Rudin stated
(27:33):
that at least two explanationsexisted for the presence of male
DNA in the non-sperm fraction.
Either it originated fromnon-sperm cells or sperm cells
that lost coherence due to timeand environmental conditions,
allowing the DNA to partitioninto the non-sperm fraction
(27:54):
during DNA extraction.
Rudin agreed with the DOJ'sdetermination that a partial
profile recovered from thenon-sperm fraction of the left
labia minora is the same as thepartial male profile recovered
from the vaginal swabs.
However, rudin also stated thata trace additional male could
(28:18):
be present on the left labiaminora swab, but that could also
be artificial, as it was a fewapparent peaks below the
analytical threshold.
She also agreed that the FresnoDOJ correctly reported that at
least three males are detectedin the non-sperm fraction of the
(28:38):
right labia minora swabs.
Rudin stated quote onereasonable explanation for the
presence of the foreign male DNAdetected on the external
genitalia swabs there are threemale profiles detected on the
non-sperm fraction of the rightlabia minora swab as well as the
(29:00):
possible additional maleprofile detected in the
non-sperm fraction of the leftlabia minora swab, and that is
contamination introduced fromthe exterior surfaces of the
gloves used to hold open theexterior genital region during
the collection of the vaginalswabs.
(29:21):
Elizabeth Ann Johnson is aconsultant in forensic biology.
She's a DNA expert who reviewedthe evidence in this matter.
Johnson expressed concernsabout Dahlinger reusing gloves
during autopsies.
She noted his gloves may nothave been cleaned well enough or
decontaminated.
An SART examination wouldtypically use disposable gloves.
(29:45):
Johnson stated that the problemwith Dahlinger reusing the
gloves is that they wouldn'tnecessarily be cleansed well
enough or decontaminated wellenough for cells, cellular
material from one case toanother or from handling a piece
of equipment to a body.
Dna testing now is verysensitive and can detect DNA
(30:08):
from less than 10 cells and caneven detect something from a
cell.
Johnson explained it is quoteabsolutely imperative that the
utmost care and caution be takenthat exogenous cellular
material is not introducedeither to the object that is
being examined or to at a latertime the swabs, for example,
(30:31):
that were collected, that noexogenous cellular material can
get introduced during thatprocess that it ends up as a DNA
result.
End quote.
Johnson testified that touch DNAis an inaccurate name because
it implies that you have totouch something when it is
(30:52):
possible for a person to touchsomething and not leave any of
their detectable DNA behind.
She defined touch DNA as ausually low level DNA and that
physiological source or bodyfluid source is not identified.
Most of the time it is notpossible to determine how or
(31:12):
from where touch DNA originated.
A physiological origin meansfrom blood or semen or saliva
that you know the body fluidsource of the cell.
Johnson explained that touchDNA does not establish that a
person actually touched thatobject or had direct contact
with it.
(31:33):
A primary transfer occurs whenyou leave something from direct
contact.
Secondary transfer occurs whensomething you have on, let's say
, your own DNA on your own body,gets picked up by an
intermediary and thentransferred to something else.
(31:53):
Johnson called it an apparentmistake when two genital swabs
in this matter had been placedinto the same SART box.
That should not have happened,because the swabs are intended
to be collected and keptseparate from one another.
Johnson confirmed that thismatter involved DNA profiles
that were not searchable.
(32:13):
Nobody had been identified.
According to Johnson,contamination was possible in
this case stemming from uncleangloves or cellular material from
prior autopsies.
No elimination had occurred forprior autopsies or prior cases.
It was also possible that theswabs had been contaminated.
(32:35):
She emphasized how easy it isto transfer DNA onto a swab Just
because the profile on thevaginal swabs was inconsistent
with the 23 male profiles.
That did not prove that thevaginal swabs had not been
contaminated.
Johnson noted that alleles hadbeen found on the other genital
(32:57):
area swabs that wereinconsistent with those found in
the Bode profile from thevaginal swab.
At least three male donors wererepresented.
Different male sources wereresponsible for the alleles on
the right labia majora than thealleles detected by Bode on the
vaginal swab.
(33:18):
Johnson was aware of an articleco-authored by DNA expert Nora
Rudin which characterized as aterrifying trilogy for those
cases involving contact DNA thathad one low levels, two often
multiple contributors and threeDNA profiles for which the
physiological source is bothunknown and unknowable.
(33:41):
Johnson agreed with thatcharacterization.
However, she added a fourthcomponent when the donor of the
profile is not known, johnsonagreed with Rudin's article that
stated quote when knowledge ofthe physiological origin of the
DNA is lacking, then simplypostulating an individual source
(34:04):
for the DNA loses significance.
End quote.
Johnson noted that when theterrifying trilogy is present
quote there's more significanceto put onto that piece of
evidence than there should beregarding relevance to the crime
.
And so in a fourth level ofthat component, when you don't
(34:24):
know who that profile is from,you don't even know if it is
relevant to the crime.
End quote.
Johnson agreed that Rudin'sterm, terrifying trilogy,
absolutely applied in this case.
In addition, nobody knew thesource of the multiple profiles.
(34:44):
Johnson could not conclusivelysay the male DNA located on
Renee's vaginal swabs was fromcontamination or related to the
crime scene quote.
It's not possible to know untilthe profile is traced to the
source.
End quote.
She could not conclusively saythat the DNA on those vaginal
(35:05):
swabs did not belong to Renee'sattacker.
A lot of factors existed thatmade these results indecisive.
No source person had beenlocated and whether these
results were relevant to thecrime was unclear.
However, it was conclusive thatKevin was not the source of
that DNA.
(35:26):
Johnson agreed that low levelDNA results are commonly
introduced, accepted and used toobtain convictions in current
cases.
However, she also cautionedthat many times low level DNA
profiles are rejected asevidence.
She agreed that the value ofthe DNA located on the vaginal
(35:48):
swabs should be cautiouslyweighed.
The fact that a redundant DNAprofile was found on the outer
vagina did not add significantweight to the value of the
profile detected on the vaginalswabs because it came from the
same area of Renee's body, asopposed to an outer piece of
(36:08):
clothing, underwear or someplaceother than an SART exam swab.
However, counsel noted thatDollinger never placed his
fingers inside Renee's vagina.
Kevin's counsel asserted someoneelse contaminated this crime
and that it was unfathomable forthe prosecution to contend that
(36:28):
the newly discovered DNAevidence resulted from
contamination.
Kevin's counsel urged the courtto reverse Kevin's conviction.
In an argument, the prosecutorstated quote there are a Madrid
of ways as to how these evidencesamples could be contaminated.
End quote.
(36:49):
The prosecutor argued that thenew evidence was not decisive,
as required under the statute,but indecisive.
The prosecutor recounted thecircumstantial evidence that
pointed to Kevin's guilt.
The prosecutor contended thatif the court considered the
mountain of evidence from thetrial against the evidence from
(37:11):
this hearing, it should concludethat the new evidence was
indecisive and the petitionshould be denied.
The court took the matter undersubmission.
On January 22, 2018, the courtissued a written ruling denying
the petition.
The court noted that a mixedpartial DNA profile had been
(37:34):
found on the duct tape.
A YSTR profile attained by Bodehad excluded Kevin as a
possible major contributor tothat profile.
Still, kevin could not beexcluded as a minor contributor
to the duct tape DNA mixture.
The court stated contaminationhad occurred and that the major
(37:55):
contributor to the duct tape DNAmixture was a DOJ employee.
In the latent print section,the court wrote that proof of
contamination undermined anycredibility the duct tape mixed
DNA sample may have once held.
Regarding Kevin's guilt orinnocence, the court noted a
finding of guilt was stillsupported because Kevin could
(38:18):
not be excluded as a minorcontributor to the duct tape
profile.
The court determined that thevaginal and labia swabs lacked a
decisive force and valuenecessary to obtain relief under
section 1473.
The court expressed concern.
That quote when viewed closely,it appears that a significant
(38:42):
amount of the source resultsobtained by Ms Crowe in her
testing differ from that foundin testing performed by both
technologies and or pointed tomore than one contributor.
End quote.
According to the court, asignificant amount of
circumstantial evidenceregarding Kevin's guilt had been
(39:03):
presented to the jury.
That evidence included Kevin'sfailure to inform law
enforcement honestly about hislocation on the day of Renee's
disappearance, kevin's reactionto being informed about the
location of the body at theGaelic property.
Renee had been wrapped insheets with a pattern identical
(39:24):
to that found in the Gaelic home.
Renee was found with her headwrapped in a men's white, extra,
extra large size 5052 t-shirtof the same type found in the
bedroom closet shared by Kevinand his two sons.
Renee was found with her anklesand wrist found with nylon
pantyhose of the same type foundstrewn about the floor of the
(39:47):
hallway leading to the northwestbedroom and along with a pair
of women's shorts on one of thetwo beds in the bedroom shared
by Kevin and his sons.
Renee was found blindfoldedwith a towel bearing the same
seashell design as the towel inthe Gaelic home's dryer.
Renee was found with anathletic sock in her mouth of
(40:08):
the same type, found in thedrawers shared by Kevin and his
younger son.
The duct tape used to securethe sock in Renee's mouth was of
the same type, used by Kevin towrap a telephone line that he
had installed from the Gaelichome to the trailer parked in
its driveway.
The court noted that no disputeexisted between the parties.
(40:30):
Kevin was eliminated as apossible source of male DNA
recovered from the swab used totest 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 beviewed cautiously in light of
(40:53):
one, the potential for transferand secondary transfers of DNA,
amid multiple credible scenarioswhere the same could have
reasonably occurred.
Two, the lack of any knowledgeas to the physiological origin
of the quote new evidence DNA atits issue herein.
And three, the low level of DNAin this case, combined with the
(41:19):
inconsistencies across the manygenital swabs collected and
tested.
End quote.
The court cited Rudin'stestimony that, while the
partial profile in this caseshould not be disregarded as
insignificant, its relevance wasunknown due to the lack of
significant information as toits origin.
(41:41):
Contamination versus perpetrator.
The court noted that, regardingthe right labia majora sample,
all three factors of theterrifying trilogy apply.
Quote.
As to the vaginal and leftlabia majora DNA samples, two of
the three factors are clearlypresent.
Such weaknesses in the DNAresults obtained in this case
(42:06):
undermine both the credibilityand significance of such
evidence to an extent which, inthe opinion of this court,
renders the same unlikely tohave changed the outcome.
End quote.
In the murder trial, the courtdenied Kevin's request for
habeas corpus relief.
Following the superior court'sdenial, kevin filed the petition
(42:30):
for habeas relief in June of2018.
In December of 2018, kevin'sdefense team issued an order to
show cause why the relief wouldnot be granted.
The DA's office filed a returnand Kevin's team filed a reply.
Kevin claims he is innocentbecause another male's partial
(42:52):
DNA profile was discovered onthe swabs associated with the
vaginal opening and the leftlabia majora.
He noted that these are theareas where Renee had physical
injuries stemming from a sexualassault.
He argues contamination has notbeen established associated
with the partial redundantprofile and he maintains this
(43:14):
evidence does not losesignificance despite the other
uninterpretable DNA discoveredon the remaining genital swabs.
He contends it is not hisburden to eliminate all
possibility of contamination,which is impossible.
He notes that the DOJ was ableto locate a contaminated source
for the male DNA detected on theduct tape.
(43:36):
Still, it was unable to do sofor the redundant profile
obtained from the vaginal andleft labia majora swabs.
The Northern CaliforniaInnocent Project argued that
quote there is no innocentexplanation that could exist for
the presence of male DNA to bepresent on Renee's genitalia,
(43:57):
despite the contamination by astate employee.
Of one item of evidence.
There is no proof that theseparticular samples were
contaminated.
There was only speculation.
End quote.
As of June 17th 2021, an appealfor habeas corpus has been
filed with the californiacircuit of appeals fifth
(44:18):
district and at this time,that's all we know regarding
kevin's appeals process.
What the conreds went throughwith Renee.
It's a shame that 27 yearssince their daughter's horrific
murder, they continuously haveto relive this tragedy.
If Kevin is innocent, then theperson responsible is still out
(44:42):
there.
Things like that do happen.
That's why there are programslike the Innocence Project.
However, if Kevin is trulyguilty, like he was convicted of
being, this is an evil thing.
To keep putting Renee's familythrough Kevin's timeline events.
They don't make sense.
His own testimony hecontradicted himself and he
(45:05):
admitted to lying and admittedto telling his son to lie for
him.
My heart goes out to the conredfamily.
I hope that this process willall be over soon for you and
that you can finally be at peace.
When more information becomesavailable, I'll let you guys
(45:25):
know.
Be sure to follow on instagramat crime connoisseurs and
subscribe wherever you get yourpodcasts.
In the meantime, keep it classy, connoisseurs, and I'll catch
you on the next case.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.