• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

Scientist tests DNA on husband's underwear to check for cheating!?! EDIT: FIRED...

Analog

Lifer
Jan 7, 2002
12,755
3
0
EDIT: She was fired....

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/s...=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

LANSING, Mich. (AP) -- A state forensics scientist who said she tested her husband's underwear for DNA to find out if he was having sex with another woman is being investigated to determine if she violated policies banning the use of state equipment for personal reasons.

Ann Chamberlain-Gordon of Okemos testified in a March 7 divorce hearing that she ran the test last September on the underwear of Charles Gordon Jr. Asked by his attorney what she found, she answered, "Another female. It wasn't me."

She also said during a May 25 hearing in Ingham County Family Court that she ran the test on her own time with expired chemicals that were set to be thrown away.

The Michigan State Police, which oversees the Lansing forensics laboratory where Chamberlain-Gordon works, is conducting an internal investigation. It expects to decide by next week if disciplinary action should be taken.

"We don't know exactly what was or wasn't done," state police spokeswoman Shanon Akans said Tuesday. "We haven't completed our investigation."

A request for comment was left Tuesday with Chamberlain-Gordon. She has not had her duties restricted during the investigation, Akans said.

The DNA test came to light after Charles Gordon's Lansing attorney, Michael Maddaloni, sent a letter to the state police and some media outlets questioning how many times DNA tests have been improperly run.

Maddaloni said Tuesday that Gordon - who court records show was a former Canadian Football League player - disputed his wife's testimony that he acknowledged a sexual encounter with another woman after she found the female DNA on his underwear.

Gordon, a defensive back, played with the CFL from the early 1990s through 1997.

Chamberlain-Gordon received the inaugural award for Outstanding Contribution to the Michigan State Police Biological Services in 2006 for her research and method development in embryonic/fetal DNA recovery, according to Forensic Science Consultants Inc., which lists her among the forensic scientists it employs.

According to information on the Williamston company's Web site, Chamberlain-Gordon has worked for the state police as a forensic scientist since 1999 and was interim supervisor of the biology unit in 2005. She has given expert witness testimony in more than 50 cases, including in last year's trial involving the death of 7-year-old Ricky Holland.

State police policies dealing with the care and use of property state that "department supplies, materials or equipment shall not be used for any non-duty or non-department purpose."
 

crt1530

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2001
3,194
0
0
She should have bluffed and got the husband to confess without running the test if she was that suspicious.
 

Wheezer

Diamond Member
Nov 2, 1999
6,731
1
81
not only that, but she violated the other womans right to privacy.....she just set the state up for a major lawsuit.
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
Originally posted by: Wheezer
not only that, but she violated the other womans right to privacy.....she just set the state up for a major lawsuit.

The other woman could be anybody. How did she violate her right to privacy?
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
Originally posted by: Narmer
The other woman could be anybody. How did she violate her right to privacy?
That woman could be anybody. But, I don't think there is a reasonable expectation of privacy when your vaginal juice is all over someone's underwear, crotch, etc. Is there DNA in vaginal juice anyway?
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
Originally posted by: her209
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Narmer
The other woman could be anybody. How did she violate her right to privacy?</end quote></div>That woman could be anybody. But, I don't think there is a reasonable expectation of privacy when your vaginal juice is all over someone's underwear, crotch, etc. Is there DNA in vaginal juice anyway?

Yes, there is.
 

superHARD

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2003
7,828
1
0
Originally posted by: Narmer
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Wheezer
not only that, but she violated the other womans right to privacy.....she just set the state up for a major lawsuit.</end quote></div>

The other woman could be anybody. How did she violate her right to privacy?

 

sixone

Lifer
May 3, 2004
25,030
5
61
Originally posted by: Wheezer
not only that, but she violated the other womans right to privacy.....she just set the state up for a major lawsuit.

Not if the other woman was never named, and the article doesn't indicate that she was.
 

sao123

Lifer
May 27, 2002
12,653
205
106
Originally posted by: Wheezer
not only that, but she violated the other womans right to privacy.....she just set the state up for a major lawsuit.

the right to privacy is flawed...it has been taken out of context soo many times that people dont even know why it was originally written or who it protects from whom.
 

SpiderWiz

Senior member
Nov 24, 2004
897
3
81
Maybe I just feel sorry for her, but I don't think she should have been fired. Maybe a few days off and payback the state.
 

PottedMeat

Lifer
Apr 17, 2002
12,363
475
126
She was an idiot for running the test unoffically and then testifying at the divorce hearing.

/watched too much Law & Order mode

Would her using the DNA testing equipment for personal reasons let defense attorneys in the cases she testified on reopen their cases?

/off

 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
she deserved to be fired.


why would her using the Equipment for personal reasons let any defense attorney use it? the damn equipment is used every day. for other cases it should not matter.

 

ATLien247

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2000
4,597
0
0
They're both idiots. The husband for thinking he can hide physical evidence of infidelity from a forensic scientist. The wife for providing testimony admitting that she ran an unauthorized DNA test.

I'm not faulting her for the DNA test, but she should have just used it as confirmation of her suspicions and then hired a private investigator to collect evidence that could be used in divorce court.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
81
Originally posted by: Wheezer
not only that, but she violated the other womans right to privacy.....she just set the state up for a major lawsuit.

Umm you need to brush up on how DNA works; you don't get the owners name and address...

I do feel bad for the woman, at least her divorce will go well. She did violate the policy, but I'd just suspend her w/o pay for some time. Firing her is a bit on the extreme side.
 

PottedMeat

Lifer
Apr 17, 2002
12,363
475
126
Originally posted by: waggy

why would her using the Equipment for personal reasons let any defense attorney use it? the damn equipment is used every day. for other cases it should not matter.

If the equipment used led to any convictions, can't the defense just say 'Who knows what else the test equipment was used for, maybe unauthorized use damaged it?' Isn't the use of these machines tracked/calibrated just so things like this don't happen?

 
Aug 23, 2000
15,509
1
81
And how do we know that she was impartial in her finding? Being a forensic scientist, she could easily plant some random persons DNA in the sample, so she can divorce her husband and get his money.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Originally posted by: PottedMeat
Originally posted by: waggy

why would her using the Equipment for personal reasons let any defense attorney use it? the damn equipment is used every day. for other cases it should not matter.

If the equipment used led to any convictions, can't the defense just say 'Who knows what else the test equipment was used for, maybe unauthorized use damaged it?' Isn't the use of these machines tracked/calibrated just so things like this don't happen?

well sure they can. they can also say the sun was oddly closer to the earth so the results were screwed up bye solar flares. will it work? nope.
 

Cogman

Lifer
Sep 19, 2000
10,286
145
106
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: Wheezer
not only that, but she violated the other womans right to privacy.....she just set the state up for a major lawsuit.

Umm you need to brush up on how DNA works; you don't get the owners name and address...

I do feel bad for the woman, at least her divorce will go well. She did violate the policy, but I'd just suspend her w/o pay for some time. Firing her is a bit on the extreme side.

Yep, in every murder instance they always get the name and address of every persons piece of DNA they pick up at a crime scene...

Oh, wait, they don't know whos DNA is who's until they actually compare it with a donated sample. Idiot. DNA tests tell nothing of the person who they belong to, all they tell you is if it is the same or not in comparison with someone elses.

All this chick did was take the sample and compare it with her own, It didn't match. She has no way of knowing whos DNA it is other then getting the name and address of each SUSPECT. The only time the police worry about names and addresses is when they are approaching the suspects to get their dna for comparison, not when they initially find the dna at the crime scene.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
How does she know that the DNA wasn't epithelials from the inspector at the underwear manufacturer? (*watched too much CSI crap*)