Home PEx News and Tech Local and Foreign Issues
COMMUNITY NOTICE: If you are having trouble in your account access, please do send us a message at [email protected] for assistance.

The DNA test didn't match Hubert et al & one more evidence of their innocence

Ice BurnIce Burn PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
There was a DNA test conducted...which the Judge conveniently dismissed. Apparently it didn't match Hubert and Co.

Also I've seen proof that Hubert was indeed in the States which the Judge dismissed. Did you guys happen to see the video tape submitted by a Filipino tourist. He saw Freddie Webb and Hubert and decided to video tape them. The tape itself has no date but the Disney banner in the background had this title.

Annual Disney March June 1-2, 1991.

Now why would Disney leave a banner like that unless it wasn't occurring? And the Judge also dismissed it...How convenient!

How could they condemn an innocent man to rot in Jail? When will justice be served?


  • if the judge dismissed the DNA testing then its so obvious na that the judge is biased. the video tape in disneyland is enough proof that Hubert was in the states. i dont think the people in disneyland would lie or even invent the date diba!

    Secondly, i dont think justice will ever be served here in the philippines whether the accused is rich or poor if were gona keep having judges like the one in the Vizconde case.
  • Hmmmmm... who conducted the tests etc.???? do you have any indepth info about the tests done...

    The Banner could(I am saying could here ppl) have been for an upcoming event(very possible)....or quite possibly a day or two after the event (di mo naman siguro tatanggalin agad yung banner the exact day na tapos na yung event minsan after 2~3 days andiyan pa yan, I dont believe GANOON kasipag ang mga Americans :) ).They could have gone there immediately after the incident remember in the US there are some STATES that we are ahead 12 Hrs. so their documents would have shown that the Webb's entered the US at that date.....(something to ponder...)

    [This message has been edited by shark (edited 01-17-2000).]
  • Was there really a DNA test conducted? The way the media has blown this case up so much actually confuses me. I originally thought that Hubert did not want to submit to a DNA test. But then again, a very reliable source told me that Hubert was definitely in the US.

    I do agree that Judge Tolentino appeared to be very biased against the Webbs, and a lot of what was thrown out could have been substantial evidence. I, for one, would never listen to Alfaro. For goodness' sake, she said she sniffed coke with those guys before they supposedly murdered the Vizcondes, and for her to clearly remember these details despite her drug-addled perspective is beyond me! I can't even remember what happened to me three days ago.

    Why don't we consider the possibility that Hubert is, in fact, innocent and that it is also entirely possible that his friends may have done it on their own? I don't recall their offering any alibis; they simply rode on Hubert!+
  • Shark: Sa Disneyland, GANUN kasipag ang mga tao. They take out those unneeded banners ASAP... Besides sabihin na nating 2 or 3 days late where's the proof that they were indeed in the Phils ?

    Mister Dean: From what I know, there wasn't any DNA testing. For one thing, the NBI holds the ***** sample(?) and they were the one's na ayaw mag pa DNA... As for the others, I know Tony Boy Lejano had an alibi while the others I think just rode on the strength of Webb's alibi. If you think about it, if you were charged with a crime a year after the act, would you still remember where you were during that time ? I can't even remember where I was a month ago...
  • HEhehehehe opo opo sabi mo eh ano alam ko doon boss kamats :)

    there are enough ppl already defending them the side of carmela needs some more ppl to balance things up :)

  • ice burn: di mo ba alam kung gaano kadali magedit ng videos? Alam mo ba na sa states yung mga effects na ginagamit nila ngayon ay pc based na lang? ibig sabihin nun kahit anong bagay pwede iedit sa modernong technology natin ngayon. Saka for your info lang, kaya po junked ni Judge Tolentino yung alibi na yon kasi po nung nasa witness stand na siya eh pinaulit lang naman sa kanya kung paano gamitin yung video niya eh ni di man lang niya alam gamitin. At nakakapagtaka naman kung bakit walang date coz yung mismong video cam na ginamit may date eh. Saka eto tanong ko sayo kung sayo yung video cam bakit di mo alam gamitin??? nakakapagtaka yun diba.
    About DNA testing, sa stage ngayon la na kwenta yung ***** cells dahil contaminated na , dati sana pwede pa. kaya nga pagmagdodonate ka sa ***** bank sa isolated room ka pinasasalsal eh para paglumabas na yung ***** di siya macontaminate.
    shark: ano to laro? walang kampihan dito kung ano opinion ng tao based on facts at kwentong barbero pwede dito. ginagawa mo naman tong laro eh. hehehe

    [This message has been edited by martian (edited 01-24-2000).]
  • Ice BurnIce Burn PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    I really don't think so. If a filipino tourist who just decided to film Freddie Webb in Disneyland w/ the banner in the background is edited by computer, the seems weird since the video looks realistically homemade and done by an amateur. Besides, it shows the guy's family posing below the banner then Webb's family walks behind them lining up for a ride.

    As for DNA, if you watched Ultrascience lately, they can isolate different strands, kasi iisa lang ang dna ng tao. Kung burnt bits of dried blood, nakuhaan ng dna eh paan pa kaya yun? Di they isolate the different strands for comparative analysis.

    I just can't imagine that Carmela could have a boyfriend at one point then secretly let in a suitor just hours after hanging around w/ her boyfriend.
  • re: the video tape issue. if its been tampered with, madali namang makita yung difference. experts can easily tell if a video tape has been touched up. syempre, to the untrained eye, di yan obvious. so if there was any doubt, they should have verified the authenticity of the video with experts.

    re: contamination of ***** samples. the integrity of ***** samples used for artificial insemination (yung nasa ***** banks) are infinitely more stringent.
    but in cases where the samples are needed just to establish a dna match, i agree with iceburn, all you really need is one single strand. okay lang if 99% nung sample di buo, as long as one can be isolated. even dried samples found in the victim's body is enough to isolate such a strand.
  • hahaha la tayo magagawa titigas ng mga ulo gusto na lang lagi sila ang tama wehehehehehe

    There will always be an IF or WHAT IF sa lahat ng mga arguments natin.
  • shark: ewan ko nga diyan eh halata daw kapag naedit na eh bakit kaya di natin nahahalata ang mga movie effects na nagagawa sa pelikula? siyempre gusto nila tama sila kundi napahiya sila diba. kakatawa pare kuha ba naman kahit isang strand lang ng ***** ewan ko kung nagpapatawa or talagang di kulang sa nalalaman. tapos ***** pinag-uusapan dugo naman ibinibigay na example ang labo talaga!!!

    bluebabe: kung totoo nga na di naedit yung video bakit di niya alam gamitin yung videocam nung pinapademonstrate sa kanya at bakit yung mismong video cam na ginamit may date pero di lumabas sa video di ba nakakapagtaka yun or di mo nabasa yung facts na yun kaya binasura ni Judge tolentino yung evidence na yun?
  • martian:
    "ewan ko nga diyan eh halata daw kapag naedit na eh bakit kaya di natin nahahalata ang mga movie effects na nagagawa sa pelikula?"
    --- uhm, i think i already answered this in my previous post. but if you are tamad na to go back and read it, its just 2 or 3 posts up, i'll just re-type it for you: "syempre, to the untrained eye (TAYO YUN! :) AS OPPOSED TO EXPERTS), di yan obvious. so if
    there was any doubt, they should have verified the authenticity of the video with experts."
    okay? hope this one is clear... next time, please read my posts well ha... ;) kakatamad to explain something already tackled eh...

    "bakit di niya alam gamitin yung videocam nung pinapademonstrate sa kanya at bakit yung mismong video cam na ginamit may date pero di lumabas sa video"
    -- you want the real answer? syempre di ko alam... di ko kilala sila webb eh... ;) BUT, its not impossible. in the last 3 years, i've had 5 different cellphone models. and the last one, i used just 6 months ago. ask me how to use that one, di ko na alam... tagal na eh... lalo na siguro if you used the video cam 9 years ago. AGAIN, i am not defending webb's innocence. i'm just demonstrating the fact that the judge's use of discretion in trashing so many pieces of evidence (the video cam issue is just one among the many) is at best dubitable, at worst, downright unfair.

    "di ba nakakapagtaka yun"
    --- yep, it will raise some doubts talaga... but so do a lot of things re: the vizconde case. like why the judge threw out ALL the defense testimonies, or why DNA testing was denied on a mere PRESUMPTION of contamination without VERIFYING such fact. i'd expect a little more prudence from her. she being a judge and officer of the court, and presumably an expert in law, for that matter. yun din, NAKAPAGTATAKA... ;)

    "di mo nabasa yung facts na yun kaya binasura ni Judge tolentino yung evidence na yun?"
    -- syempre nabasa ko. may newspaper and tv rin naman sa bundok ko eh... :D pero nga lang, unlike you, di ako convinced sa reasons niya...

    easy chief... lets not get personal okay? this is all in the name of a free exchange of ideas. ;)
  • bluebabe: ang weird naman nakapagvideo siya without knowing how to do it malabo!!! Di ba convincing na dapat ibasura yung evidence na yun kahit sino naman tao na nakapagvideo kapag pinademonstrate cguradong alam mo gamitin yun kahit bata nga marunong eh unless never pa talaga siya nakagamit and that means dapat nga ibasura yung evidence na yun pati siya ibasura na rin. Kung normal kang tao once na nagamit mo na yung bagay alam mo pa rin gamitin ulit kahit after ilan yrs na.
    Eh nabasa mo na pala 2 lang possibility eh either di mo maintindihan yung reasons niya or talagang malabo lang talaga di ko alam kung saan ka doon. Saka sa dna testing, ano gagamitin mo pangtest ng dna nila buhok nila? malabo naman kung buhok kasi napakaweird naman kapag nakakuha ka ng buhok ng rapist sa sex organs nung babae pero malay mo may makuha sa loob ng bibig. Ang pwede lang gamitin ***** cells, read more about it para malaman mo kung anong nangyayari kapag nacontaminate na, surf mo sa net

    [This message has been edited by martian (edited 01-26-2000).]
  • dried *****, pwede i-dna. and speaking of hair, pwede rin. pubic hair. pwede rin i-dna. kailangan ko pa ba i-explaim kung bakit magkakaroon ng pubic hair sa private parts ng victim?

    look martian, di kita kinokontra. i'm just expressing my opinion on the case. di mo ba matanggap yun? bakit? ngayon ka lang ba nakaengkwentro ng isang tao who feels as strongly on some matters as you do? di ka na nakakatuwa...

    paki basa lang yung mga prior posts ko. i don't pretend to know everything about the case. i'm just expressing the doubts cast on my mind re: the judge's verdict. is that too hard for you to understand.

    and please don't resort to name calling. i've learned my lesson on picking fights on public forums. maybe you haven't learned yours. kaya... ingat lang..
  • Blue Babe: Stop wasting your time on martian, you know what they say, "Never argue with a fool because they will pull you down to their level and beat you with experience..."
  • martian:

    okay... just to satisfy you thirst for knowledge... try these sites...


    in case sabihin mo na di mo ma-access tong page na to, here are some excerpts:

    "Q: Let's imagine an hypothetical crime scene. When the technical people arrive at the crime scene, what do they do, what are they looking for?

    A: The people at the crime scene look for biological tissues, such as blood stains on the ground and ***** stains on clothing. They may take swabs from the victim's body if ***** is involved."
    -- SWABS FROM THE VICTIM'S BODY if ***** is involved... swak na swak, don't you think?

    "Q: Wouldn't a drop of blood or other specimen at a crime scene be commingled with all kinds of other DNA?"

    A: The methods used in forensic DNA are not so much concerned with excluding extraneous DNA as in identification of human DNA. The probes used are very specific for human DNA."
    --- hmmm... feeling a little more enlightened now?

    "Q: Tell us a bit about the techniques used in forensic DNA testing.. Are the laboratories using PCR to look at allele combinations or RFLP (restriction fragment length polymorphisms) or both? What are the advantages of the different techniques?

    A: The laboratories use both techniques. The RFLP tests were developed first. PCR techniques offer the advantage of requiring only trace amounts of DNA and they can be done overnight."
    -- trace amounts... meaning.. konting konting konti... as in pwede siguro, isang bahid lang...

    you can also try this site... http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/dnaevid.txt

    "That the majority of DNA profiling cases concern sexual assault -- usually ***** -- is not surprising. In few other criminal endeavors is the perpetrator as likely to deposit significant physical evidence. Occasionally, that evidence is hair, blood, or saliva; more often it is *****. Of the 28 cases reported in this study, all but two appear to have involved the analysis of the ***** component of the *****. Sexual assault cases by their very nature normally include evidence rich in DNA profile evidence."
    -- sabi ko sa iyo eh.. pwede buhok... bali wala tuloy yung sarcasm mo...

    "Criminal justice in the United States is a system founded on skepticism. "Innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond reasonable doubt" reflect more than the systematic doubt and deferred judgment that are afforded individuals accused of crime in our society. These maxims help define the incredibly high standards that the system's practitioners must meet before someone can be judged guilty."
    -- oh... meron pa tungkol sa reasonable doubt... you should really read this article...

    "Although the challenges posed by DNA analysis are many, they are outweighed by the enormous possibilities the technology presents. DNA analysis is a powerful and often necessary tool for establishing the presence or absence of someone at a crime scene.'
    -- kung plano mo kumontra on the limitations of dna, inunahan na kita...

    marami rin case studies on this same page. i think this one is worth reproducing, kasi, maraming similarities eh..

    "Prosecutor's evidence at trial. The prosecution based its case on several points:

    o The victim named Bravo(the accused) as the assailant and made an in-court identification.
    blue babe :oh... mismong victim na yan ah.. not a drug addicted, testimony changing witness...

    o Bravo had misrepresented himself in the past on applications and on his business card.
    blue babe: i.e., he lied, therefore, minus points to his credibility

    o Blood tests done on a blanket near the crime scene showed a blood type consistent with Bravo's blood type, which is found in only 3 percent of the population.
    blue babe: oh! solid prosecution case. victim identification PLUS physical evidence. as opposed to our lone eyewitness account WITHOUT any physical evidence.

    o Bravo's alibi defense was not aggressively
    blue babe: defense of alibi... familiar ba? here, the defense was not aggressively pursued. in webb's case, tons of witnesses. di lang pursued yung alibi, aggressively pursued talaga...

    In 1993 a superior court judge granted Bravo's motion to release a blanket, a sheet, and a pair of panties to the defense for DNA
    blue babe: the crime was committed in 1990. three years after, they were still able to find DNA samples on a 3 year old panty and blanket... hmm... sa tingin niyo.. POSSIBLENG may evidence na makuha sa katawan ni carmela diba? POSSIBLE lang naman eh... that's all i'm stressing... possibilities... so why throw the evidence out or deny testing when doing so would limit the possiblities and leave them unexplored? yan ba ang tamang gawin ng husgado? ikaw martian, if YOU were convicted of a crime, wouldn't YOU want all possible avenues to be pursued?

    "In the future we must reduce the likelihood of innocent persons being wrongly convicted, just as we must increase the chances of guilty parties being identified and held responsible for the crimes they commit."
    --- this, martian, is my main point. my contention. di ko kilala si webb et al... as i've said over and over again, i don't know if they're innocent. but before they, or anyone accused of a crim should be convicted, dapat, sure na sure and court. and its verdict should be based on evidence that will dispel any reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused. maybe they did it. maybe they didn't. but MY OPINION is that with the evidence presented... we can't really say for sure... hokay????

    what happened to the bravo case? here...

    "DNA results. Prosecutors received a report from Cellmark Diagnostics on December 24, 1993, stating that none of the tested ***** had DNA that matched Bravo's.

    Conclusion. On January 4, 1994, Bravo's lawyer filed a writ of habeas corpus. A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge ordered Bravo to be released on January 6, 1994. The judge stated that Bravo had not received a fair trial, that the victim had recanted her testimony, that Bravo's alibi was unimpeachable, and that the DNA tests were
    irrefutable. On January 7, 1994, Bravo was released from prison after serving 3 years of his sentence."
    --- hmmm... a case of justice served too late... don't you think... some might say, better late than never. try telling that to the INNOCENT man WRONGLY CONVICTED of *****, who wasted 3 entire years of his life on a WRONG VERDICT... a verdict that had more basis (in my own opinion) than the vizconde trial...

    what do you other guys think? martian?
  • kamatayan:
    can't help it.. ;) pikon talaga ako eh... :o lalo na pag ganyan... my argumentative side shines through... :) hee hee hee ;)
  • Kamats dont name drop kaibigan ko naman yan makulit si martian but never a fool pag tinira mo any of my PEX friends here be sure to hear from me kahit saan ka man nandoon :)

    Tip of the day : Dont butt in too much...

    isn't it ironic...look who's talking hwehehehehhehe

    [This message has been edited by shark (edited 01-26-2000).]
  • shark: hayaan niyang sabihin ako ng fool pero ang alam ko "It takes one to know one" so inamin niya rin na isa siyang FOOL!!! Bravo!!! Miyembro ka rin ng mga Siraulo!!!

    Bluebabe: sige na nga suko na ako nagresearch ka pa ah!!! sana nga tama yung hinala mo pero nakakapagtaka lang naman kung bakit sina webb lang ang nagproduce ng mga evidences pero yung iba.

    [This message has been edited by martian (edited 01-26-2000).]
  • shark:
    please don't fault kamats for coming to my rescue... ;) yang kasing friend mo na si martian... inaaway ako eh!!! :)

    martian: thank you. all i really needed from you is the recognition that like you, i also have a point to make.
  • Ice BurnIce Burn PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    As for contamination of evidence, if you guys care to watch ultrascience, new detectives and that feature on DNA, they say even if the sample was contaminated, it is possible to isolate the identical strands which make up the majority of the sample. Kaya't kahit ma-contaminate yun, they still can identify kung kanino yun, simply by testing to whom the majority of the identical strands it belonged to.

    Also, how the age of the sample doesn't matter. It is still possible to extract DNA even if the sample is already 9 yrs old.

    If they can get DNA from dried blood, (as they did in the new detectives) then i'm sure it's pretty easy to get it from the NBI files of the Vizconde case.

    As for the video, let me inform you that it wasn't Webb's camera but a Filipino tourist's camera. I know abt the demo they made Webb do. But what about the tourist? He was just filming his family then decided to shoot Freddie Webb kasi artista siya! You know abt that sort of mentality right? So I think it's pretty logical for him to shoot Webb because he's an actor.

    [This message has been edited by Ice Burn (edited 02-01-2000).]
This discussion has been closed.