My husband and I just watched this story on Discovery ID as well and we were both appalled to say the least.  We too, cannot say with certainty that Gary is innocent, however, we strongly believe that DNA itself may be perfect but the human beings that handle it, are not. 

I find it very odd that finger prints were located at the scene, yet not those of Gary Leiterman, and the ONLY DNA to be found was that of a 4 year old and Gary's.  I agree that Ruelas may have been possibly present, after all he is a convicted murderer, where did he learn that from?  He very likely could have been present with a family member that murdered Jane Mixer, who knows?  But at best, the fact still remains that there is DOUBT!  No matter which way you look at it.

I am sure that the lab and everyone else that had anything to do with that DNA doesn't want to admit that the DNA may have been contaminated because just think about it, that would raise questions about the integrity of the handling of past DNA that may have possibly put other innocent people in jail.

We must keep in mind that all the evidence in the world can point to someone but it still doesn't make it so and if Gary Leiterman is innocent than we have a lot to fear in this society that relies so heavily on DNA to prove cases and we cannot help to think that it could happen to us or someone we love.

Gary Leiterman is one of three people who committed these murders. The state had strong evidence and DNA is why Gary was convicted but good question about Ruelas as it remains uncontested because the police were careless then and now.

John Ruelas was questioned and he told quite a recantation was is of use to me but unfortunately getting out the truth is a bit tough here. If the truth were to be told it was that Gary, John and one more individual committed these crimes and the 5 other cases to me are going to be resolved legaly one day soon. If it shows the third man set these other two up fine but the fact is Ruelas knows this story as I do and so does Gary until I can speak to them no more will be said I already say to much but this was not good detective work.

he didn't. The Ruelas DNA being "found", along with Leiterman's, in the Mixer sample are most certainly a consequence of contamination of some sort.

Aside from the obvious problem with Ruelas being only four years old at the time Jane Mixer was killed, the thing that really points towards a contaminated sample is this---

In the sample in question, from the Mixer evidence, both the DNA of Leiterman and Ruelas come out as strong, non-degraded...Mixer's DNA is obviously degraded "weak" in samples tested, which would be consistant with a thirty-three year old sample stored in the non-refigerated storage (common back in the sixties). Why would her dna profile come out weak, yet Ruelas's and Lieterman's DNA have no apparent degredation? The obvious reason is a newly-contaminated sample.

Lets not forget that both Ruelas and Leiterman had their DNA processed at the very same lab as the Mixer sample was, either on or about the same day (Ruelas sample was processed the same day in the lab---the sample from Leiterman is not as clear from sources I checked, but it was within the same week anyhow, if not within a day or two, like the Ruelas sample).

So, those who say that Ruelas HAD to had been involved in the murder of Jane Mixer back in 1969---whats more incredible---a coincidence of absolutely astronomical proportions involving Mixer's sample being processed--on the same day--as Ruelas's sample,. some 33 years later??!!   ...and Leiterman's, also the same week....just so happens each was in the lab that week? Please, the much more likely explaination is contamination. I think available samples need to be retested. Why was this not done? Somewhere along the chain, after the Mixer evidence was taken from storage and while being processed in the lab, it was contaminated.

Lab contamination happens more often than many may realize---it's seldom a cronic problem, but it does happen every now and then and the press certainly is not alerted to this each time it does happen. The State must do what is right and retest the evidence, whatever may be left that can be considered reliable. Cases this old are notoriously difficult to solve.

"getting out the truth" can be hard in some cases.  But telling the truth is not hard.  Telling the truth is a walk in the park.  Since when do we have to have permission to tell the truth?  If you love truth you speak it.  Truth needs no defense and is sanctioned by God.  I challenge you to tell the truth IF in fact you know it.

Still, the odds of the cross-contaminated DNA continues to conveniently be not addressed.