Letter to Bob Egelko in response to his January 21, 2026 San Francisco Chronicle article.
Dear Mr. Egelko,
One would think that a staff writer with your experience would know that there are two sides to every story. It is apparent that when it comes to my case, you chose to listen to only one side, and that’s the state’s. Though I am legally represented by one of the best law firms in the world, you do not call them to find out anything about our side of the story; rather, you deal with your friends from the state. My attorneys at Orrick, Herrington, & Sutcliffe LLP are right there in San Francisco, not far from where you are. So is David Alexander, my other attorney. You can contact them with the information I am enclosing which includes their FAX numbers, phone numbers, and addresses.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals granted me 10 certificates of appealability (COAs) on all the issues that were denied me in Federal District Court. The state wants the 9th Circuit to take back/remove those COAs so that they can rush to kill me. Included in my appeal is the very real fact that those DNA results that you wrote about in your January 21st article, which the state says confirm my guilt, do not confirm my guilt.
Did your friend Dane Gillette tell you that 5 of the 9 short tandem repeat (STR) markers necessary to obtain a complete DNA profile on that stain could not be resolved? So therefore the DNA confirmed match that you were told about and wrote about did not happen. Based upon the incomplete DNA profile obtained, which consists of gender marker amelogenin and the remaining 4 of 9 STR markers, I, Kevin Cooper, cannot be excluded as a possible contributor to the partial DNA profile for the subject stain.
This stain is a stain of “unknown origin”! No one knows what kind of stain it was that was DNA tested and came back with a partial result that the state says confirms my guilt. Did you know this? Didn’t your friend(s) in the attorney general’s office tell you this?
Did you know that the state’s EDTA expert, Dr. Siuzdak, produced results for the EDTA tests performed on that T-shirt that support our tampering theory? But once he found out that his results helped me and not the state, he, on October 27, 2004, suddenly notified the district court that he was withdrawing his report: “On Monday, October 5th I [Siuzdak] submitted a report on the Cooper samples tested for the presence of EDTA. I now believe that the samples tested were contaminated with EDTA in my laboratory and therefore must retract the report submitted”!
Did the state tell you about this, Mr. Egelko? If not, why not?
All that is currently known about Dr. Siuzdak’s handling of the extracts and other materials upon which he obtained EDTA results favorable to me is that after he was told by the state that his results supported my attorney’s tampering theory, he suddenly determined that his results were somehow contaminated!! Yet, significantly, he does not disavow his methodology into the cause or nature of said contamination, including the internal standard he used. Judge Huff would not allow any investigation either. It’s just his word and the state’s with no proof to back them up!
This is fair, isn’t it Mr. Egelko? Did the state tell you that neither of my experts, EDTA or DNA, was allowed to look at the T-shirt? They weren’t allowed to help select any stain(s) that were to be tested, nor did they have any access to that T-shirt. The judge would not allow them to view that shirt except for a photograph of it. So the state did everything! They looked at the T-shirt, touched it, smelled it, selected stain(s) and tested them, and then they prevented us from proving my blood was planted on it by coming up with that partial DNA result from an unknown stain.
One of my experts, the EDTA expert, was kicked off the case by Judge Huff because he wanted to do things right, like see the shirt before a protocol was made. So he wrote Judge Huff this note: “This is a case that could have ramifications for future cases. It’s important that it be done right. For the reason, I would like to continue to assist. However, unless I have the freedom and the flexibility to design the sampling protocol with a criminalist from the state, I do not wish to continue.” [Dr. Peter DeForest]
By the way, Mr. Egelko, did the state tell you that my blood sample that was taken from me after my arrest in 1983 was also DNA tested and that someone else’s DNA was in my blood? Well it was, and there is no way in hell that anyone else’s DNA is supposed to be in my blood, only mine! My attorneys can tell you all about this and more if you contact them, but you don’t talk to my attorneys. You only talk to the state. All of these things and more are being appealed to the 9th Circuit and maybe they will do what no one else but Justice Browning did. See all the state’s deception for what it is!
So the state tells you that a partial DNA result from a stain of unknown origin confirms my guilt and you believe them?! Not only do you believe them, you write about it. Nonetheless the truth about my case will keep being exposed by other means, including my website. There are many other alternative news sources out there that will tell both sides of the story, even if you won’t.
With Respect,
Kevin Cooper