BACKGROUND: "A trial date for the Colts Neck family murders case is expected to be set in November, Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office spokesman Christopher Swendeman said. Paul Caneiro, 57, of Ocean Township, has been awaiting trial in the case since 2018, and is accused of killing his brother, his brother’s wife, and their children. According to authorities, Caniero’s brother Keith, Keith’s wife, Jennifer, and their two children were found dead at Keith’s home in Colts Neck on Nov. 20, 2018, when a fire broke out at their home. Keith Caneiro had been shot to death, authorities said. That fire was discovered a few hours after two fires were started at Paul Caneiro’s home at 27 Tilton Drive in Ocean Township. Though Caneiro’s home was damaged from the fire, Caneiro, his wife Susan, and his two daughters all escaped uninjured. On Nov. 21, Paul Caneiro was taken into custody by the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office and accused of setting his own home on fire. He would later be charged with four counts of first-degree murder and two counts of first-degree felony murder amongst other charges for the deaths of his brother and his brother’s family. According to Swendeman, Superior Court Judge Marc C. Lemieux intends to set a trial date for Caneiro on Nov. 12, and expects jury selection to begin either in late February or early March. Last week, Lemieux rejected a request from defense attorneys to extend deadlines for experts to submit reports on DNA evidence being challenged by the defense, the Asbury Park Press reported. According to the report, Caneiro’s defense first filed to have a hearing challenging the admissibility of DNA evidence in March 2022. Delays in the hearing taking place have been the only thing standing in the way of Caneiro’s trial, the report said. "This court can't allow experts, whether they are paid or they're doing it on a voluntary basis, to continue to slow down this court's process of getting to a hearing date,'' Lemieux said, according to the report."
-------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "The state Public Defender's office, representing Caneiro, is challenging the reliability of STRmix. In its challenge, the office has pointed out limitations in the software's ability to analyze mixtures of DNA belonging to related persons. It also has asserted that the laboratory that analyzed the Caneiro DNA evidence did so beyond the boundaries for which the STRmix software had been validated as reliable."
-------------------------------------------------------
STORY:"In Caneiro murder case, expert grilled on limitations of software that analyzed DNA,"by Reporter Kathleen Hopkins, published by Asbury Park Press, on November 18, 2024.
GIST: "A co-creator of controversial computer software that analyzed DNA evidence implicating Paul Caneiro in the murders of four family members stood by the technology in court last week, fending off questions for two days about its limitations and errors.
John Buckleton, principal scientist at New Zealand's Institute of Environmental Science and Research, was on the witness stand Nov. 14 and 15, vouching for the computer software known as STRmix at a hearing to determine if the DNA evidence it produced will be admissible at Caneiro's upcoming trial.
Caneiro, 57, of Ocean Township is charged with the murders of his brother Keith, 50; sister-in-law Jennifer, 45; niece Sophia, 8; and nephew Jesse, 11, at Keith Caneiro's Colts Neck mansion, where the victim's bodies were discovered Nov. 21, 2018.
DNA that analysts say is a mixture of Paul and Sophia Caneiro was later found on gloves and a pair of jeans in the basement of the defendant's Ocean Township home.
"Are you satisfied in the fact that STRmix is generally accepted in the scientific community,'' Christopher Decker, deputy first assistant Monmouth County prosecutor, asked Buckleton Nov. 15 at the hearing before Superior Court Judge Marc C. Lemieux, Monmouth County's assignment judge.
"Yes,'' Buckleton responded.
"Is there any doubt in your mind that STRmix is fit for casework?'' Decker asked the witness.
"No," Buckleton answered.
The outcome of the hearing on the admissibility of the evidence will have statewide implications for STRmix because, while the New Jersey State Police recently began using the technology in its DNA lab, the computer software has never before been challenged or deemed reliable in a New Jersey court.
Deputy First Assistant Monmouth County Prosecutor Christopher Decker questions Dr. John Buckleton of New Zealand, co-developer of STRmix and principal scientist at Institute of Environmental Science and Research, during the pretrial hearing for Paul Caneiro.
STRmix deviates from the traditional DNA analysis method of random match probability, which generates a statistic on the probability a match to a DNA profile can be found in the general population.
Instead, the computer software in question uses a method known as probabilistic genotyping, designed to test small amounts of DNA and complicated mixtures that often cannot be analyzed by traditional methods.
Probabilistic genotyping analyzes mixtures to which more than one person has contributed to generate a "likelihood ratio'' that a person of interest can either be included or excluded as a contributor.
The state Public Defender's office, representing Caneiro, is challenging the reliability of STRmix. In its challenge, the office has pointed out limitations in the software's ability to analyze mixtures of DNA belonging to related persons. It also has asserted that the laboratory that analyzed the Caneiro DNA evidence did so beyond the boundaries for which the STRmix software had been validated as reliable.
Buckleton said there were 15 coding errors, all since corrected and publicly posted on STRmix's website. He insisted the errors had minimal impact on criminal cases.
Decker pointed out that one of the defense experts wrote in his report that the errors impacted 60 criminal cases, requiring that the "likelihood ratio'' be adjusted in 24 of the cases.
"It caused a relatively minor difference in the population reference counting,'' Buckleton said.
Buckleton went on to say that the critic erroneously wrote in his report that the error affected thousands of criminal convictions.
"It did not affect thousands of convictions,'' Buckleton testified.
In the 60 cases in question, the likelihood ratios were recalculated, and in many of the cases, the result was the same, he said. Buckleton said all the mistakes were caught pre-trial.
Pressing Buckleton about the errors, Christopher Godin of the Public Defender's Office pointed out that a majority of criminal cases in the United States never go to trial but instead are resolved with guilty pleas.
"In those cases, it's not necessarily likely a person would discover that a miscode affected DNA evidence in that case,'' Godin said.
"Miscodes have not affected DNA evidence,'' Buckleton insisted. "The miscodes that we have detected to date all have a minor effect on the numerical values or on a peripheral functionality.''
Godin questioned Buckleton about the limitations of the software to analyze the DNA of relatives. He pointed out, and Buckleton agreed, that relatives share what is known as alleles, which are sequences of DNA a person inherits from each parent.
"Because of that, family members can sometimes deposit DNA that looks like it came from some other relative?'' Godin asked.
'Yes,'' Buckleton responded.Godin suggested to the witness that the DNA analysis in the Caneiro case may have falsely excluded Keith Caneiro from the DNA profiles in favor of his brother, to Paul Caneiro's detriment.
"There are exclusions that STRmix has made that are very harmful to Mr. (Paul) Caneiro,'' Godin said.
"Absolutely,'' Buckleton said.
Authorities allege Paul Caneiro committed the murders after Keith discovered he was stealing from the businesses they co-owned.
The victim's bodies were discovered by emergency workers responding to a slow burning fire at the Colts Neck mansion. Keith Caneiro had been shot four times in the head and once in the back. Jennifer Caneiro and the two children were repeatedly stabbed and badly burned. Jennifer also was shot in the head.
Authorities allege Paul Caneiro set fire to the mansion to cover up the murders, and then set fire to his own home to mislead investigators into thinking a violent criminal was targeting the entire family.
Caneiro is expected to stand trial in the case early next year.
The hearing on the DNA evidence is expected to continue Monday, Nov. 18."
The entire story can be read at:
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.
- SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
———————————————————————————————
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————-
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;