E-mail Response from LT. Perry to Carson dated 01/05/2006

“They both worry me too Mr. Carson, but there is not currently enough to charge either one of them. They continue to be viable suspects along with 2-3 others. We have taken DNA samples from 60 people but I can’t comment on specific individuals (pls read between those lines!). “

Thoughts from Justice for Shellie:

Lt. Perry acknowledges that both CT and MH are viable suspects, but currently they don’t have enough evidence to charge them. He then relates that DNA samples from 60 people were taken, but he can’t comment on specific individuals (CT or MH) (pls read between those lines). When I read between the lines, I read that they police do not have DNA samples back from the laboratory.

This entry was posted in "4 Guys in a Car" Scenario. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to E-mail Response from LT. Perry to Carson dated 01/05/2006

  1. McSpy says:

    It is my understanding that convicted felons in many states have their DNA taken. Since CT was an ex-con, wouldn’t they already have his DNA? Does Virginia take felons’ DNA?

    I’m not sure what you mean that they don’t have DNA from the lab. If there is a DNA match from Shellie’s crime scene, then why can’t they use that to convict, at least, one of these guys? What other evidence do they need? I’m a little confused on this.

    • Miranda says:

      Virginia only automatically takes DNA from people who are convicted of violent felonies. In Virginia, you have to reach the point of permanent disfigurement or injury to hit the malicious wounding mark for a violent felony. Assault and Battery is a class 1 misdemeanor.

      • McSpy says:

        Thanks. Maybe, one or both of these guys were resistant about giving their DNA, so LE doesn’t have it. As soon as one of the POIs meets the requirements for the state to take their DNA, I’m sure LE will jump on it to test against Shellie’s crime scene DNA.

  2. McSpy says:

    I’ve read these emails again and it looks like they lied to Bill? They said results were back from the lab and they had about 60 individual’s DNA samples and yet, CT, MH and 2 or 3 others are still viable suspects. Does this mean they didn’t get a chance to match the samples or nothing matched the DNA from the crime scene? Am I correct to say that the DNA wasn’t tested yet and these emails happened almost a year after the murder? Suggesting the case was dragging along unnecessarily. Let me know if I have this totally wrong. 🙂

    • Miranda says:

      They cannot tell us if they have gotten their DNA to test at all. All they can say is that there are 60 samples that were taken. They cannot say who those samples belonged to.

      • McSpy says:

        If the DNA didn’t match the DNA at the crime scene, could that be the problem? I would think if there was a match, it would be a slam dunk. Are they looking for more evidence or trying to get them all? Maybe there is one guy in the group not identified yet and it is his DNA at the crime scene?

      • McSpy says:

        Okay, I think I got it. They may not have their DNA or someone in their group hasn’t had a sample taken yet or he hasn’t been identified yet.

        • Todd says:

          It is my understanding that cvoeictnd felons in many states have their DNA taken. Since CT was an ex-con, wouldn’t they already have his DNA? Does Virginia take felons’ DNA?I’m not sure what you mean that they don’t have DNA from the lab. If there is a DNA match from Shellie’s crime scene, then why can’t they use that to convict, at least, one of these guys? What other evidence do they need? I’m a little confused on this.

    • This e-mail was dates 1/5/06. The police did not get results until 3/2006,therefore it was unavailable .Lt H. stated D.N.A.samples were not back from the lab.

  3. McSpy says:

    Okay one more time . . . Since there were 60 samples of DNA to test against the crime scene DNA, maybe it was taking a long time, because of the volume of testing (60). If this was an issue, then why not prioritize the DNA? In other words, choose the DNA samples of the most viable suspects to test first. If this wasn’t an issue, then ignore this comment. 🙂

  4. Miranda says:

    While the DNA had not come back from the lab, if these guys did not volunteer their DNA then they would not have had it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *