MOORE
Daniel Moore left two of his hairs in the crime scene. They were compared
microscopically and were found to be consistent (based on appearance under a
microscope) with Daniel Moore. One was found in a washcloth covered by Karen's
blood, in the torture bed. That hair, thought to be Moore's pubic hair, had been forcibly
removed, and had a skin tag attached. Genomic DNA study of that skin tag showed two
persons' DNA present in a mixture. So the hair was washed, and a mitochondrial DNA
study was done on it, in effect, to separate the two DNA profiles in the mixture.
The mitochondrial DNA of this hair was matched to Daniel Wade Moore with a
certainty of 99.8 percent. The mitochondrial DNA of the second hair, without skin
tag attached, also matched Daniel Wade Moore with a certainty of 99.8 percent.
The genomic DNA mixture was found to contain Karen Tipton's DNA (her blood
washed off Moore's hair) with a certainty level of 2 billion--that's 2,000,000,000--to
one certainty. And the same mixture matched Moore's genomic DNA
"contribution" with a certainty level of 7.5 million--that's 7,500,000--to one.
microscopically and were found to be consistent (based on appearance under a
microscope) with Daniel Moore. One was found in a washcloth covered by Karen's
blood, in the torture bed. That hair, thought to be Moore's pubic hair, had been forcibly
removed, and had a skin tag attached. Genomic DNA study of that skin tag showed two
persons' DNA present in a mixture. So the hair was washed, and a mitochondrial DNA
study was done on it, in effect, to separate the two DNA profiles in the mixture.
The mitochondrial DNA of this hair was matched to Daniel Wade Moore with a
certainty of 99.8 percent. The mitochondrial DNA of the second hair, without skin
tag attached, also matched Daniel Wade Moore with a certainty of 99.8 percent.
The genomic DNA mixture was found to contain Karen Tipton's DNA (her blood
washed off Moore's hair) with a certainty level of 2 billion--that's 2,000,000,000--to
one certainty. And the same mixture matched Moore's genomic DNA
"contribution" with a certainty level of 7.5 million--that's 7,500,000--to one.
Sheryl Marsh, in her coverage of the trial, never mentioned these large numbers.
Instead, her headline was that three different laboratories had three different results on
the hair, implying there was some conflict in the data between the three independent
laboratories. The three labs and their results were:
Microscopic Evaluation: hair sample consistent with Moore's pubic hair.
Genomic DNA: DNA mixture consistent with DWM plus Karen Tipton, with 2 billion
to one certainty it was Karen's DNA, and 7.5 million to one certainty it was Moore's
DNA composing the mixture.
Mitochondrial DNA from the washed hair: mDNA consistent with DWM, with 500 to
one certainty.
Sheryl Marsh also reported during trial, November 13, 2002, that "results from the
private lab in New Orleans concluded Dr. David Tipton could not be excluded as a
DNA donor on the hair." As a matter of fact, exactly the opposite was true. I was
ruled out with 100% certainty as a donor on the bloody hair--it was not my blood,
and it was not my hair, and it was proven with 100 percent certainty. The expert
testified that my DNA profile was unique--there were no matches to my DNA in the
control group data bank. In other words, my DNA didn't match the blood, didn't
match the hair, and didn't match any other known DNA sample. This led to one of
Halbrooks" best lines from the trial: "Does this mean Dr. Tipton doesn't exist?' It
shows her deep understanding of DNA and statistical analysis. Why did the Daily print
such an obvious lie? Because Catherine Halbrooks and Sherman Powell told
them to. It's that simple. Halbrooks told the same lie again later, and got it printed
again, along with the daily male visitor lie, and many, many more.
Instead, her headline was that three different laboratories had three different results on
the hair, implying there was some conflict in the data between the three independent
laboratories. The three labs and their results were:
Microscopic Evaluation: hair sample consistent with Moore's pubic hair.
Genomic DNA: DNA mixture consistent with DWM plus Karen Tipton, with 2 billion
to one certainty it was Karen's DNA, and 7.5 million to one certainty it was Moore's
DNA composing the mixture.
Mitochondrial DNA from the washed hair: mDNA consistent with DWM, with 500 to
one certainty.
Sheryl Marsh also reported during trial, November 13, 2002, that "results from the
private lab in New Orleans concluded Dr. David Tipton could not be excluded as a
DNA donor on the hair." As a matter of fact, exactly the opposite was true. I was
ruled out with 100% certainty as a donor on the bloody hair--it was not my blood,
and it was not my hair, and it was proven with 100 percent certainty. The expert
testified that my DNA profile was unique--there were no matches to my DNA in the
control group data bank. In other words, my DNA didn't match the blood, didn't
match the hair, and didn't match any other known DNA sample. This led to one of
Halbrooks" best lines from the trial: "Does this mean Dr. Tipton doesn't exist?' It
shows her deep understanding of DNA and statistical analysis. Why did the Daily print
such an obvious lie? Because Catherine Halbrooks and Sherman Powell told
them to. It's that simple. Halbrooks told the same lie again later, and got it printed
again, along with the daily male visitor lie, and many, many more.
There is a reason the defense, and the Daily, don't give you the truth on this matter of
public record--it's because if you understand these DNA results, it means Moore is the
guiltiest murderer in history. It's simple. There can be no more credible, conclusive
evidence of a rapist torturer murderer's guilt than his own pubic hair left in the
crime scene, covered in the victim's blood. It's better than a dozen fingerprints, a
confession, an eyewitness, and a videotape.
Any defense of Daniel Moore has to be centered on the DNA. Anything else is a
side show.
public record--it's because if you understand these DNA results, it means Moore is the
guiltiest murderer in history. It's simple. There can be no more credible, conclusive
evidence of a rapist torturer murderer's guilt than his own pubic hair left in the
crime scene, covered in the victim's blood. It's better than a dozen fingerprints, a
confession, an eyewitness, and a videotape.
Any defense of Daniel Moore has to be centered on the DNA. Anything else is a
side show.
DNA