All That is Hidden True Crime
All That is Hidden True Crime presents new and classic cases narrated by Kristen Roberts. Each episode explores solved and unsolved murders, deception, and con games that will leave you breathless.
All That is Hidden True Crime
Ira Yarmolenko- Part 2: Framed by Your Own Cells
Mark Carver spent eleven years in prison after being convicted of Ira Yarmolenko's murder based primarily on touch DNA evidence that was later proven unreliable and possibly contaminated. His case exposes the dangers of touch DNA in criminal proceedings, where innocent people can be convicted through primary, secondary, or tertiary DNA transfer that places their genetic material at crime scenes they never visited.
If Carver and Cassada didn't kill Ira, then who did?
Join the All That is Hidden Facebook Sleuth Group for photos, videos, content and additional discussion: https://www.facebook.com/share/g/1BPE7TdxVy/
Sources used to collect this information include various public news sites, interviews, court documents, Social Media groups dedicated to the case, and non-profit innocence organization sites. Although, data is primarily from news sources, when quoting statements made by others, they are strictly alleged until confirmed otherwise. Please remember these podcasts are an independent opinion and to always do your own research.
••••••••••••••••••
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are personal and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any other agency, organization, employer, or company. Assumptions made in the analysis are not reflective of the position of any entity other than the creator(s). These views are subject to change, revision, and rethinking at any time and are not to be held in perpetuity. We make no representations as to the accuracy, completeness, correctness, suitability, or validity of any information on this podcast and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use. All information is provided on an as-is basis. It is the reader’s responsibility to verify their own facts.
Welcome to part two of the Ira Yarmolenko case. If you recall, the primary evidence for Mark Carver's conviction was a mixed DNA sample. In order to understand why the North Carolina Center of Actual Innocence took on Mark's case, when they only take on 2% of convictions, lies in the unreliability of touch DNA. There are several instances of transfer and wrongful convictions. The irony is, on the Innocence Project website that was updated this year, in 2025, findings show 614 people have been exonerated based on DNA testing in the US and 38 of those individuals were on death row. And 38 of those individuals were on death row. We know that there are new types of testing available now through ancestry sites and, let's face it, that is probably why 23andMe is going bust. Who wants their DNA being used to convict a family member, let alone their future self? And what's really wild is attackers leave behind DNA evidence and less than 10% of murders. So DNA is a double-edged sword and a double-edged helix. Okay, so that joke was.
Speaker 2:For any of you who like to geek out on science, back to TouchDNA, I'm going to read an article published in Criminal Legal News in January of this year. I wanted to look at something that was up to date, published by JD Schmidt. I read a lot of information but this article had the most shocking examples and I think it will stir an emotion in you that comes close to the irrational fear you may have when you pass a cop car. I think a Forbes article title I saw said it best framed by your own cells. From the article Criminal Legal News. Let's define touch DNA and think about it. From the DNA that was found at Ira's crime scene. This will be posted in bonus content in our Facebook group where we can also discuss the case. You'll find the link below this episode in the footnotes, and if you join the group, you'll also be able to see crime scene photos and additional content.
Speaker 2:So touch DNA refers to DNA, most often from skin cells. This is transferred directly and left behind when a person touches an object. This type of DNA deposit is known as a primary transfer, along with DNA from bodily fluids and hair, touch of a primary transfer DNA is a crucial form of evidence that authorities can use to indicate the presence of an individual at a crime scene. This is especially true when other types of evidence are scarce or unavailable. At the same time, touch DNA evidence carries serious risk. This includes the possibility of crime scene and post-collection contamination, as well as the difficulty of distinguishing between primary and secondary sources of DNA.
Speaker 2:Scientists and technicians use the term secondary transfer to refer to situations in which DNA left behind by the touch of someone Sort is transferred from one surface to another. To another, a handshake can lead to a primary transfer. Touching a bottle, cup, doorknob or a car door afterwards can lead to a secondary transfer, as one person's DNA is transferred from a second individual's hand to the next surface they touch. Secondary transfer can potentially hinder or even negate the interpretation of DNA evidence, leading to confusion or even wildly inaccurate indications as to who was actually present at the crime scene or involved in the commission of a crime. Tertiary transfer is yet another method in which DNA is moved through multiple vectors. When someone touches a surface that has previously been touched by another person, in the process picking up the first person's DNA in the form of skin cells, saliva, sweat or other bodily fluids, the secondary transfer can become tertiary or, as an October 26, 2015 article in the New Republic described, tertiary helps signify that the DNA ended up in a place three steps removed from the initial contact with its owner, while alleged to be statistically far less common or at least less detectable. Tertiary transfer has been known to occur in scientific testing and is theorized to have been responsible for some of the most seemingly bizarre results returned by crime seed DNA analysis.
Speaker 2:It should be clear by now that the problem with focusing on the mere presence of touch transfer DNA at a crime scene or on an incriminating item of evidence found elsewhere is that it's nearly impossible to determine whether it's the result of primary, secondary or tertiary transfer. However, the method of transfer is of enormous importance, and it's often the difference between accurately identifying the guilty party and falsely suspecting a completely innocent person. Modern criminal investigations, especially cold homicide cases, often rely on what is known as touch transfer DNA to identify the perpetrator, but in recent years, developments in DNA research have shown that there is an increased risk of falsely linking an individual to a crime scene through its use its use. For the last four decades, forensic investigators have utilized increasingly sophisticated techniques to build a record of DNA profiling as investigators' ultimate tool for providing seemingly unassailable identification of the individual human beings whose bodies these types of tissue and fluid samples once belonged to. Yet against this record stands the problem of proving how and when the samples in question ended up in the place discovered. This is really crazy, as the article continues and will blow your mind. Christopher Zuckas provided a stark example of this problem in September 28 in an issue of CLN in which he wrote In 2008, keep in mind that's the same year of Ira's death European authorities were hot on the trail of a highly prolific serial killer and a burglar the Phantom of Heel Braun, the Phantom of Heilbronn.
Speaker 2:They robbed jewelers, burglarized caravans and murdered multiple people, including a law enforcement officer. The Phantom left forensic evidence all over the continent. His DNA was found at 40 crime scenes in Germany, france and Austria. Police offered a large reward for his capture and spent an estimated 16,000 hours working the case. But there was one small problem he was a she and she wasn't a criminal mastermind. The Phantom of Hilbron was an elderly Polish factory worker who unwittingly contaminated the forensic swabs she manufactured While she worked. She transferred her DNA onto the swabs. Investigators later transferred her DNA to the scene of a slew of unrelated crimes. The Phantom of Heilbronn debacle is a good example of the dangers of DNA contamination Inside the Cell.
Speaker 2:Author Aaron Murphy draws a distinction between DNA contamination and DNA transfer. Contamination, murphy argues, can be avoided or limited by employing best practices. Dna transfer, however, is a much more insidious problem because it is utterly unavoidable. In two minutes, murphy says, the average person sheds enough skin cells to cover a football field. So let's think back though. How could transfer DNA have been avoided in Mark Carver's conviction case? Well, we know that the cops that were processing the car were seen not wearing gloves. So if, in fact, that cop that shook his hand, took his fishing license, went back and touched that car, it is absolutely possible that touch DNA was transferred there. And it is well known as I read a little bit more about it, that anytime it's a more reliable object, like steel, the DNA lasts longer. Keep in mind that it wasn't processed for a couple of months for fingerprints, so that had been in the Belmont station for quite a while stored, and when he pulled the car out to process it, that DNA sample was probably still there, because it was on the hood of the car, on the side of the car, in places where the DNA could hold up.
Speaker 2:If you aren't just a little bit freaked out about being falsely accused of a murder through touch DNA, let's talk about September 2009. Yale graduate student, annie Lee, was murdered in a secure laboratory facility on the university's campus. Her body was found stuffed into a mechanical chase base behind a laboratory wall. Dna samples from her body and the scene inside the wall yielded two different profiles. One was that of a lab worker who was eventually tried and found convicted of her murder. The other profile, drawn from samples taken both inside the chase and on the victim's body, included the waistband of her underwear, yielding a hit in criminal databases as a local convicted felon. Unsurprisingly, investigators looked at the convicted felon first. That turned out to be a literal dead end. The man had died two years before the murder, and this last example has actually been used in conversation about the Mark Carver case.
Speaker 2:The plight of Lucas Anderson, and it serves as one of the most compelling cautionary touch DNA cases ever In 2012,. Anderson, 25 at the time, was living on the streets of San Jose, california, struggling with alcoholism. He was familiar to many in law enforcement and healthcare in the area, known as a frequent flyer at local hospitals due to his habit of public intoxication. When a wealthy local tech investor was murdered in an apparent home invasion just 10 miles away, investigators found the DNA of three people at the crime scene. Anderson's DNA was on the victim's fingernails.
Speaker 2:As Forbes reported, law enforcement crafted a theory of the case based on the evidence and Anderson's lengthy criminal history, dangling the death penalty over Anderson's head. Anderson, who was so intoxicated on the night in question that he struggled to remember where he'd been or what he had done, began to doubt his own innocence, telling his public defender maybe I did do it. However, the public defender his own investigator was able to determine that Anderson had spent the night in a local hospital being treated for intoxication at the time of the murder. The lead investigator on the case, who was determined to understand how the DNA evidence could possibly have pointed to a man who simply could not have been there, dug further into how it happened. He discovered that the two paramedics who responded to the scene of the murder were the same ones who had picked Anderson up and brought him to the hospital earlier that night. Dna from Anderson was suspected to have been transferred to the victim's hand via a pulse oximeter or possibly via the paramedic's uniforms.
Speaker 2:Undoubtedly, many detectives are not as open-minded and flexible in their thinking. Had one of those detectives led the investigation in Anderson's case, it could have very well had a very tragic ending and if we think of that in the term of Mark Carver, mark actually had some items on his record too. He wasn't convicted, but he did have a couple of run-ins with the law and I think when they looked at his record he became a viable suspect. So now that you understand TouchDNA and I mean on the nth level, let's step back and talk about how the Innocence Project used this to try to free Mark.
Speaker 2:In 2019, after Mark Carver had been in jail for eight years, chris Mama was ready to take all of her new evidence and questions that she had to the Supreme Court. Mama questioned the validity of the touch DNA, the primary evidence used for his conviction in 2011. And the judge, after looking at all the evidence all of the witnesses agreed and said that he had concerns over the little information regarding touch DNA. In the Ratchford's case file, bragg said Carver's current defense presented evidence that the lab charged with testing the DNA was not using national best practices at the time. After both sides presented, judge Christopher Bragg ruled Carver received ineffective counsel and said there are issues with the touch DNA evidence used as the linchpin of Carver's first-degree murder conviction. Judge Bragg told Mama that he couldn't clear Carver of the conviction, but he could release him for a new trial. Mark Carver went free in 2019 after an exonerated individual posted his $100,000 bail, but he wasn't truly free because he had to wear an ankle monitor and he continued to wear that for three more years With the help of Mama. Carver continued to submit motions to the court to drop charges and on August 12, 2022, 11 years after his conviction a newly posted district attorney dropped the charges against Carver. He had the ankle monitor removed and he truly was a free man, although he still has not had a pardon which would pay him $50,000 for every year he served time.
Speaker 2:I think it also helped that this conviction and the question of Mark Carver's innocence was very much in the media and everyone was aware of the details in the story, including new evidence. You know what they say hindsight is 20-20. Well, it is when 20-20 conducts an investigation, which they did in 2016. They went to the fishing spot and the scene of the accident and they could not hear one another unless they were loudly screaming, so so much for the police betrayal that you could hear everything 100 yards away. It begs the question when did they conduct the test? Because it is almost May here in Charlotte and it's lush with greenery. You can even see it in the crime scene photos. Heavy brush shrubbery and a full tree line can limit sight and sound.
Speaker 2:Additionally, 2020 showed the original judge the video of the detective interrogating Carver and essentially coaching him about Ira's height. Judge Timothy Kincaid, who sent it's 10 to life, said the testimony from the detective was the turning point in the trial for him. After hearing the detective state that Carver knew and described Yarmulinko's height, kincaid said the first thing I thought was they got you. But just like the jury, kincaid had never seen the actual interrogation. When 2020 showed it to him, he admitted it put a whole new light on the detective's testimony. There is even a video of one juror who was very upset that they were not provided all the evidence. In fact, he was the only juror who stuck to not guilty until he felt pressured to go with the other jurors' opinions. Can you imagine we're called for jury duty and then we're responsible for someone's life without receiving all of the evidence and then, as a juror, you just have to live with that decision? However, on the other hand, there are still those who think Mark Carver did do it. His own attorney testified in 2011 that he does believe he touched the car, even if to steal something.
Speaker 2:Additional facts that came out during a re-examination are that she also did stop by a coffee shop where she resigned because she was moving Jackson's Java, so she did see people that she had worked with before. She was dropping off a gift for a friend. The YMCA did appear to be her last stop. There was another DNA sample found on the ligatures that were male, but never identified. Two additional witnesses were not called, as they saw suspicious activity around that time. One testified that she saw a white male driving a car that looked like Iris and that later she saw him walking along the roadside. Another testified they saw a young male who looked wet walking along the side of the road holding a laptop. Nothing was identified as missing from Ira's car, however. A black ski mask was also located near the crime but was never tested. Hearsay that I cannot confirm and I will always call it hearsay if it's on Reddit is that another witness came forward years later claiming they saw Ira fighting with a woman in the Wendy's parking lot.
Speaker 2:So what do you think happened to Ira? I mean, the three cords are odd Bungee blue cord from her handbag, the string from her hoodie? Why didn't someone just use their bare hands? Evidence Not strong enough. There are online sleuths that claim she committed suicide, but this seems far-fetched to me, because the medical examiner did state that she would pass out before she could fully pass away. I also have to point out that one hand was gripping a vine and I find it hard to believe she could strangle her own self to death using one hand. Not to mention there was no opposing force. Most people who tend to do that will use a rafter ceiling fan, something that can help place force around the neck. So highly doubtful with one hand on the vine, in my opinion.
Speaker 2:I look at how the crime scene was laid out and think it's possible she was attacked at the top of the hill, as the investigators think. But if you're a true crime avid listener as I am, you know it takes up to two minutes to cut off someone's oxygen to their brain and murder them with asphyxiation. It is possible that she passed out and then the perpetrator buckled her in if she wasn't already buckled in and then pushed her down the ravine so that it would plunge into the water, wipe away all evidence and it would also make sure that she was dead. But when the tree hit the stump it could have woken her. She began to climb out of the car and the murderer ran down the hill and began to choke her again, which caused them to flail around in the water and that's how she became wet.
Speaker 2:The jet skiers, as eyewitnesses when they first found her body, did state there was trampled grass around her body, indicating a struggle. They do think the blue ribbon was cut from her bag by the car keys, so that explains why the keys were laying next to her body. So it also makes sense that the back door of the car was open, because that's where the bag was located. So they possibly cut the ribbon and used that. And then, who knows in what order, the drawstring from around her hoodie was also used. This is strange because typically in crime scenes I've seen the male always uses his hands to choke the victim, but in this case it seems like they weren't strong enough. Maybe they used so many different objects and if it was someone she knew, it probably was related to her moving away. She was making rounds and saying goodbye to those she had spent time with. A young person can be very passionate when they are rejected, left or feeling unloved. So that too is possible. What do you think happened to Ira? It is such a bizarre ending for a promising young person and to honor her life, I will now read quotes from her legacy obituary page.
Speaker 2:From her brother, pavel, a graduate student in biomedical engineering at Duke University. He described her as a dedicated student who loved to travel and learn about cultures. She played piano and tennis. Quote she was incredible. There's nothing bad about her. Her brother said she's always talked about thinking to help make their lives better or easier. Quote everything that she's ever done was to help people. Othar Jackson, vice Chancellor for Student Affairs at UNCC, quote it hit us hard. It's like losing a family member. She was connected to a lot of organizations on and off campus. Her friend, tyler Robinson, a sophomore at UNCC, said quote the most beautiful person I've ever met, inside and out. She was completely selfless. Her brother, pavelvel, said he hopes this tragedy will prompt people to think about all students who died too young. Quote Don't forget to tell your loved ones that you love them. I didn't get a chance to and I can tell you I wish I had. Thank you for listening to this story and join me next time as we discover all that is hidden in true crime.
