SHOULD DYNEL LANE BE CHARGED WITH MURDER? -- THE ASSAULT OF MICHELLE WILKINS

[HairOfTheDog]

"unconventional handling of blood evidence?" Morons jacked up the blood work.

Wow, what a clusterfuck

I hadn't followed the first trial back in 2011 and just researched a little about the blood evidence, guys.


^ Jorgensen at 2011 trial

Jurors in the first case struggled to figure out from inconsistent scientific evidence if Jorgensen was impaired when she drifted into the lane and struck and killed the Kellys. I can understand why.

A small blood sample taken by doctors an hour after the crash at Stony Brook University Hospital initially tested negative for alcohol and positive for anti-anxiety Clonazepam.

Later, Suffolk forensic scientists added other blood to test it further and found a .06 percent blood-alcohol content, but Jorgensen and her lawyers said handling and testing of that sample was improper.

Jorgensen's newborn daughter (delivered by C-section after the crash) tested positive for alcohol in her urine. The baby also had small amounts of marijuana in her system, but Judge Condon ruled that inadmissible at trial (so the jury didn't hear about it).

After 40 hours of deliberation, the first jury hung. They were split 7/5. The jurors explained that since the blood test results were inconsistent and the officers didn't smell alcohol on her breath at the scene of the accident, several jurors had reasonable doubt that she was impaired.

At her retrial, the second jury acquitted her of manslaughter against the couple she killed, but found her guilty of it against the baby (which was just overturned on appeal).

Complicated.

Gunnar, based on your experience with blood work, would the inconsistency between the first and second blood test necessarily mean the blood was mishandled, or could it be that the first sample simply wasn't large enough to test? I don't have an opinion; don't know how that works.