NoSpoonFeeding
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2021
- Messages
- 2,288
- Reaction score
- 11,433
My original post had nothing to do with anything you posted about this case so perhaps you aren't following exactly what I was responding to.I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at, but I think my point stands and fits your post: there may have been another source of DNA. BK's was single source, so not mixed with anyone else's. The officer had no need to mention any of the other DNA on the sheath, if there was any (including the victims') because it was not relevant to getting an arrest warrant for B.K. Undoubtedly, the lab report mentions all of the DNA and prints found, but they have nothing to do with having a judge issue a warrant for BK.
The PCA isn't a write up of everything relating to the case, just those things that pertain to a particular suspect in that case as known at the time of the warrant request.
Others had posted that it was possible that the language used in the affidavit did not mean that there was only one male's DNA on the snap (snap only, no discussion of the sheath).
It's my opinion that the wording means only one (BK) DNA was on the snap because the affidavit/application for a warrant would have been misleading if it failed to disclose important evidence of a 2nd person's DNA. Edit to add You seem to think it doesn't need to be disclosed so we can disagree.
I believe I thoroughly explained the reasons for my opinion previously.
This has nothing to do with the limited information usually available in most warrant applications. I certainly would not want to continue any conversation about my opinion.
Last edited: