<modsnip: quoted post was removed> To my understanding, they had a forensic van at the scene and the DNA was tested by Latah County Sheriff's department. I doubt that they exhausted the entire source of DNA, since so little is needed and test results can be achieved in about two hours.
The DNA code itself either matches BK's DNA or it doesn't. They have his DNA now. If it doesn't match, his attorney should be on their way into court to get him out of jail, IMO.
It's routine testing by a forensic team of the Sheriff, but without destroying any part of the sheath (that's why they do a tiny swab on the use point). The method is PCR in nearly 100% of forensic DNA testing (the same way we use tech to analyze DNA samples for genetic research into the history of our species). These techniques have changed only a little (computerization) since the 1980's. The methods have been peer reviewed literally thousands of times. The academic use of these techniques for ongoing health care and research are global.
This process (which is actually very simple - I can have my students isolate DNA from a banana with simple techniques in lab - I just don't have the PCR analysis). This is the same technology we use to find COVID variants. The US has many, many labs that use this same process.
I've never seen any trials where someone had to come in and qualify as a DNA expert in order to get DNA into court - because it's no different, technically, than blood type analysis (ABO) which preceded it. It simply looks at a much more microscopic aspect of a cell. DNA is produced only by living things. Human DNA is 60% the same as a banana's, so we look at the other 40% using a computer that "knows" exactly which locii on the DNA strand to analyze (each gene has a stop code preceding it, the entire system has been known and used worldwide since the 1990's).
I simply can't imagine any court doubting that DNA is unique to individuals (except identical twins). It's like a fingerprint.
The other question, about planting a sheath is sketchy, too. Who would do this? If someone stole BK's knife (using gloves), would he not have reported that to LE early on? If they determine the knife was not a 7", then we have big problems with the sheath. But as I've said, it's very doubtful that there's that inconsistency and his lawyer hasn't already brought to the Judge. Instead, it's likely the autopsy mentions a knife consistent with being a Ka-Bar and if forensic radiology was used, they might also have detected the proprietary coating that Ka-Bar uses in its knives.
I think if all of this is the case, the DNA will come in, in the ordinary way. In the way used to convict Joe DeAngelo and many others who are being convicted all over the US (or, exonerated). There's nothing the least bit controversial about the nature of DNA or its study using amplification and computerized sequencing of the nucleotide bases.
What would be controversial if somehow BK was tricked into touching the knife sheath (but of course, there's still the problem of his car, and his phone). BTW, I assume they found his DNA on his phone and in his car - and that will be used at trial as well. If the only DNA in his car is his and his dad's, that's relevant (no one else drove his car in that case).
IMO.
www.foxnews.com
