TexasCHLforum.com

The University of Texas' idea of personal safety, more policies:

The homicide led to more policies intended to keep students safe. The Department of Theater and Dance, which Weiser was a student of, required students to tell stage managers about their transportation plans if rehearsals run late into the night.

The university also installed additional lighting and new security systems while increasing the size of its police force

None of these policies will rescue a person being attacked or increase personal security or safety. They just tell police where to look for the body.

Sorry, I’m confused. UT is a public university. Is it gun free? Or is LCC allowed?

I am going to have to start checking the date of the original posts. This is the third time I got suckered into responding on an out dated thread. LOL

philip964 wrote: Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:59 pm Sorry, I’m confused. UT is a public university. Is it gun free? Or is LCC allowed?

Origin of this thread precedes campus carry

JustSomeOldGuy wrote: Mon Jul 09, 2018 10:38 pm

philip964 wrote: Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:59 pm Sorry, I’m confused. UT is a public university. Is it gun free? Or is LCC allowed?

Origin of this thread precedes campus carry

I am going to have to start checking the date of the original posts. This is the third time I got suckered into responding on an out dated thread. LOL

03Lightningrocks wrote: Mon Jul 09, 2018 10:53 pm

JustSomeOldGuy wrote: Mon Jul 09, 2018 10:38 pm

philip964 wrote: Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:59 pm Sorry, I’m confused. UT is a public university. Is it gun free? Or is LCC allowed?

Origin of this thread precedes campus carry

I am going to have to start checking the date of the original posts. This is the third time I got suckered into responding on an out dated thread. LOL

Ok that explains it. Thanks.

ELB wrote: Mon Jul 09, 2018 7:17 pm

Last month, presiding Judge David Wahlberg dismissed the majority of the DNA evidence in the case because of what he ruled were flawed analysis techniques used by a Texas Department of Public Safety forensic scientist. Prosecutors had planned to use this DNA to connect Criner to Weiser’s death.

http://www.dailytexanonline.com/2018/07 ... iner-trial

Somebody messed up.

ETA:

That analyst, Jody Koehler, testified Tuesday that she did not follow the DPS’ multistep standard operating procedure when she changed her conclusion after running DNA samples through the software.

It was not clear exactly how Koehler erred, but it came out in her testimony that under the previous testing method, Criner would not have been found to match the DNA authorities found on Weiser’s right thigh. A radically different outcome resulted when she used the new software, which determined that it’s 192,000 times more likely that DNA found on Weiser’s thigh belonged to Weiser and Criner than to Weiser and anyone else.

https://www.mystatesman.com/news/crime- ... IbsdHamgI/

Thanks ELB. I hope the Department of Public Safety can get its act together on DNA testing. I noticed that particular lab analyst is no longer with the DPS... Wonder what the difference was between the old software and the newer "STRMix" that was used to get a match. DNA testing been around for years and used in hundreds of criminal trials---something just does not smell right here.

Golly. If I was innocent, I would want to allow the DNA evidence to show it was somebody else who raped and killed her. Maybe I just found her stuff where she dropped it when she was attacked by that other guy who left the DNA.

BBYC wrote: Tue Jul 10, 2018 9:02 am Golly. If I was innocent, I would want to allow the DNA evidence to show it was somebody else who raped and killed her. Maybe I just found her stuff where she dropped it when she was attacked by that other guy who left the DNA.

The problem is the DNA showed that it wasn't him AND that it was him, depending on which software program was used to analyze it. So which answer do you admit into evidence?

ELB wrote: Tue Jul 10, 2018 9:31 am

BBYC wrote: Tue Jul 10, 2018 9:02 am Golly. If I was innocent, I would want to allow the DNA evidence to show it was somebody else who raped and killed her. Maybe I just found her stuff where she dropped it when she was attacked by that other guy who left the DNA.

The problem is the DNA showed that it wasn't him AND that it was him, depending on which software program was used to analyze it. So which answer do you admit into evidence?

Well that's really scary for the wrongly accused....? (And I'm not talking about him, but the wrongly accused in general... :/ )

03Lightningrocks wrote: Mon Jul 09, 2018 10:53 pm ...
I am going to have to start checking the date of the original posts. This is the third time I got suckered into responding on an out dated thread. LOL

I am tricky that way. I often go back to older threads like this one and then search to see what "the rest of the story" is. In this case, I saw the latest news article about the trial and remembered that we had started a thread on the original crime.

ELB wrote: Thu Jul 12, 2018 5:23 pm

03Lightningrocks wrote: Mon Jul 09, 2018 10:53 pm ...
I am going to have to start checking the date of the original posts. This is the third time I got suckered into responding on an out dated thread. LOL

I am tricky that way. I often go back to older threads like this one and then search to see what "the rest of the story" is. In this case, I saw the latest news article about the trial and remembered that we had started a thread on the original crime.

That makes sense.

Defendant found guilty, sentenced to life, eligible for parole in 40 years.

https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local ... 092106.php

Is this the case that had a problem with the DNA evidence?

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: Sat Jul 21, 2018 12:53 pm Is this the case that had a problem with the DNA evidence?

Chas.

I think so.

The judge threw out the DNA evidence. From what I read in the paper the lab technician ran the DNA through "old software" and did not get a match. They ran it a second time through "new software" and got a match. The lab technician admitted "proper procedures" were not followed. Whatever happened, the trial judge had doubts about the scientific reliability of the testing so threw the results out. Don't see that very often.

jury decided there was other sufficient physical evidence to convict the defendant so a guilty verdict was returned.

This is all based on what I read in the newspaper as I was not there.