Juliet Seeks DNA Answers – Justice Responds with Autopsy Info

Written by Clarke Kent

In a post entitled “DNA Alibi At Least 3 Known POI – Presents a Quandary” dated Aug 23, 2016 in which I stated “there is something to do with the DNA which makes it ineffective in this investigation” Juliet was the only person who followed up in the DNA Quandary with 4 separate comments. In her third comment she inquires “Maybe the DNA that they need to match was dna that can’t be explained. Such as blood or skin unDer shellies fingernails or something to that effect.. maybe this is the dna that needs to be matched, not other dna just found on her person that could be explained by any poi. Does autopsy report say whether she had any blood or skin under her nails or any bite marks anywhere on her person?”

Justice addresses her request with the following response “Your comment addresses interest in the autopst report especially with a analyzes of blood and tissue in or around the fingernails. Because of your interest I will review the autopsy report and write a Post that will introduce some answers. As you are aware I must be very prudent what I report.”

With that I will quote from the official autopsy report what I think is helpful. Under General External Examination…There is an abraded letter “B” on the skin of the left forearm, consistent with a history of self-infliction. The fingernails are short to medium length and have no chips or tears. There is blood smear across the hands and beneath the fingernails and adherent to the blood smear are numerous hairs and fibers. Hair and fiber are also found at several other locations across the body. There is clotted blood beneath the fingernails, but no visible fragments of flesh. The lower extremities have no pitting edema or atrophic changes. The toenails show red polish.

With regard to abrasion and contusion, the report states on the facce, bilateral periorbital hemorrhedge and a hemorrhage across the bridge of the nose, outlining the shape of a pair of glasses…

In the history part of the autopsy it states “Found moribund on the back in a grassy area…

In the Summary and Comments

This 18 year old woman was caught on a video at a 7-Eleven at an early hour of the morning…thereafter a passerby saw her bicycling down the road. Not long after that another passerby saw her lying on her back in a grassy area next to the road…she died while rescue was en route.

With regard Disposition of Evidence states “numerous hairs, fibers and trace evidence collected at alternate light exam, clothing and personal effect to Forensic Technician Aiken (VBPD) DNA card swabs to Det Seabold 8/18/2005.

For obvious personal reasons I only included a small portion of the autopsy report. However much to ponder on what’s stated.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Juliet Seeks DNA Answers – Justice Responds with Autopsy Info

  1. Juliet says:

    Ok so there was blood under her nails, and in fact, some of it had clotted. Now if this is shellies own blood, ot those hairs belonged to shellie, that’s one thing. But maybe those hairs and/or blood under her fingernails belonged to the killer. The dna from that blood under the nails is what they need to match. There is no reason for someone else’s blood to be under her nails without them having killed her. If this wasn’t her blood, it belonged to the killer. And this being the case would make me doubt the possibility of every single poi we discuss on this blog because I feel fairly certain that police got all poi dna one way or another. Even if it wasn’t legally, I would bet they got it somehow.
    On another note, regarding dna that is voluntarily given, as ct has stated he has done, does not necessarily go into the database. It is only required to be entered into the database when mandated by the courts. It is possible for someone to voluntarily give their dna, have it tested against the dna in the crime they are suspect in, and if there is a no match, it is not uncommon for that sample to be thrown out. I learned this from speaking with a lisenced, practicing forensic psychologist who works for the city of Virginia Beach and human services as well as vbpd. I met him and had the oppurtunity to ask him some questions when he came to speak in my forensic psychology class yesterday. He did know of the Mary carson case but was not familiar with it. Anyway, my point is, it is possible that ct did voluntarily give his dna as he said. After learning this new informstion, I do not think he was lying about that.

  2. Juliet says:

    Oh and not to mention, there is a whole boat load of mandated dna samples that haven’t even been out into the database yet. So it is possible that whoever committed this crime has been convicted of a felony but their dna is in a back log somewhere sitting on a shelf just waiting to be entered into the system. This is why the dna that is given voluntarily is either put at the very bottom of that list, or just thrown out all together.

Leave a Reply

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