4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #87

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
jepop said:
After reading the State's court docs re Protective Order I agree that the snp profile was developed at a private lab, not the ISL, and that development of the snp profile required an actual sample of the dna from sheath button.

"The Idaho State Police utilized a private laboratory to develop a SNP profile from the DNA on the KaBar knife sheath. The private laboratory started using genetic genealogy to develop a family tree, but after law enforcement decided the FBI
would take over, the private laboratory ceased its efforts and sent the SNP profile
to the FBI."

So the FBI used this SNP profile in its IGG work,Imo. The private lab sent the snp profile to the FBI. Assuming this profile is in computerised form. But the private lab required the dna sample to first develop the snp profile is my reading.Moo

Regarding what the Protective Order seeks to protect,in addition to the fbi's work stemming from the snp profile there is this:

" The raw data related to the SNP profile and the underlying laboratory
documentation related to the development of the profile, such as chain of
custody forms, laboratory standard operating procedures, analyst notes,
etc..."

However, further on:

"There were two types of scientific tests conducted with respect to DNA that fall
within the purview of Rule l6(b)(5). "

"First, law enforcement used STR DNA analyses to compare the DNA on the
KaBar knife sheath to Defendant’s father and then to Defendant. As required by Rule l6(b)(5), the State has provided the reports from those scientific tests.The
State also provided other information related to the STR DNA analyses because
the State plans on using that information at trial. See, e.g., I.C.R. l6(b)(4). "

"Second, the private laboratory developed the SNP profile from the DNA on
the KaBar knife sheath. As requiredby Rule l6(b)(5), the State will
produce the report that documents that DNA test. Rule l6(b)(5) does not
require the State to disclose how the SNP profile was used..."

So the State is saying, Imo, that the report documenting the dna test performed to produce the snp sample is discoverable, however the revelation/naming of the lab where the snp profile was devloped is not, Imo.

Above excerpts all from

Affidavit by Rylene Nowlin confirms that the ISL does not do snp analysis from dna samples:

"8. I affirm the ISPFS laboratory does not perform single nucleotide polymorphism
(SNP) analysis. SNPs are single sequence variations in the DNA at specific
points.SNPs are not as highly variable between individuals as STRs and can be
used in ancestry studies.

9. I affirm STR data and SNP data cannot be directly compared."

Click to expand...

I'm still not following. Which part of this states that authorities in Idaho had to send actual organic material (DNA) to Texas (as opposed to the usual Othram method of running SNP profiles off of DNA results in digital files?)

There's no way to do SNP analysis without the exceptionally long (600-800,000 SNP's) file in a computer. The organic matter only needs to be run once (although typically, crime labs run 5-10 samples from a use point such as a sheath snap). We have heard nothing about whether any other part of the sheath was tested.

If the Defense were asking to have the sheath re-tested, I would get that. But that's not what I understand their objection to be. I believe they want to challenge the entire idea of using SNP profiles to establish identity of a specific human (which would overturn thousands of convictions across the US, all by itself).

IMO.
 
10ofRods said:
I'm still not following. Which part of this states that authorities in Idaho had to send actual organic material (DNA) to Texas (as opposed to the usual Othram method of running SNP profiles off of DNA results in digital files?)

There's no way to do SNP analysis without the exceptionally long (600-800,000 SNP's) file in a computer. The organic matter only needs to be run once (although typically, crime labs run 5-10 samples from a use point such as a sheath snap). We have heard nothing about whether any other part of the sheath was tested.

If the Defense were asking to have the sheath re-tested, I would get that. But that's not what I understand their objection to be. I believe they want to challenge the entire idea of using SNP profiles to establish identity of a specific human (which would overturn thousands of convictions across the US, all by itself).

IMO.
Click to expand...
Idk, I may be misreading those statements I quoted above from the State's motions. The state says that the Idaho State Police used a private lab (No opinion on whether this is Othram or not) to develop the snp profile off of the dna from the knife sheath. After that profile was developed, the IGG could commence (snp profile loaded digitally etc into Generic Genealogy services etc). I'm completely open to me reading the State's explanation wrongly. I have no back ground at all in these processes so am reading from a lay person's perspective. OTOH - the State's language (as quoted above)in the motions does appear quite clear and readable so honestly I really don't know. Moo

The main point, as I understand it, is that the single source male dna suspect profile was pulled by the ISL from the sheath, then the str analysis was done by the ISL and that was subsequently used to identify first BK's dad (through the trash) and then matched directly with BK himself through the buccal swab taken at arrest. The affidavit the state filed in support (I posted earlier) from RYlene Nowlin states that ISL doesn't do snp analysis, develop snp profiles from dna, just STR profiles.

The snp profile and the subsequent IGG is irrelevant to BK's guilt and so forth. It was an investigative procedure. It's not going to be used as evidence at trial and was not used as PC for arrest. Moo
 
10ofRods said:
Exactly.

I don't think the Defense is claiming there were errors in ISL's processing of the DNA.

They are objecting to using Othram's database of random people who submitted both their family trees AND their DNA results to Othram. While it would be impossible for a Kohberger to match Bryan Kohberger by purely random means (so the Defense, I think, has a weak argument), it is certainly possible to claim that the Defense has a right to know who this random person is (I disagree that they have the right to someone's medical files without that person's consent to send the files directly to the Defense and I think the Judge will agree with me).

I hope. It's a moot point at this time, and to me, no different than using a phone book to look up every person named Hilaria Houseman (or whatever) after finding a business card at a crime scene. Surely it's okay for LE to use ordinary resources in their investigations?

The Defense would do better to claim that it, too, wants to submit the same sample to Othram and thereby get the name of this hapless person who is related to Kohberger - but I believe the Judge should block them from that intrusive and pointless activity.

Indeed, since by now, the Defense has the read-out of Kohberger's DNA, they could indeed just submit to Othram themselves - BUT, they likely won't because - the same result will occur. It will lead directly back to Bryan Kohberger, whose buccal swab has already settled the issue.

To me, this is an attack on basic LE investigative techniques (such as dialing phone numbers, doing internet searches, submitting known DNA to a DNA registry, etc).

IMO. But it's a strong opinion.
Click to expand...
Yes.
MOO The defense is intentionally using a trick of English to represent their motions as "there is a problem with the DNA."

MOO when the judge has a chance he should clarify in my opinion.
 
jepop said:
Idk, I may be misreading those statements I quoted above from the State's motions. The state says that the Idaho State Police used a private lab (No opinion on whether this is Othram or not) to develop the snp profile off of the dna from the knife sheath. After that profile was developed, the IGG could commence (snp profile loaded digitally etc into Generic Genealogy services etc). I'm completely open to me reading the State's explanation wrongly. I have no back ground at all in these processes so am reading from a lay person's perspective. OTOH - the State's language (as quoted above)in the motions does appear quite clear and readable so honestly I really don't know. Moo

The main point, as I understand it, is that the single source male dna suspect profile was pulled by the ISL from the sheath, then the str analysis was done by the ISL and that was subsequently used to identify first BK's dad (through the trash) and then matched directly with BK himself through the buccal swab taken at arrest. The affidavit the state filed in support (I posted earlier) from RYlene Nowlin states that ISL doesn't do snp analysis, develop snp profiles from dna, just STR profiles.

The snp profile and the subsequent IGG is irrelevant to BK's guilt and so forth. It was an investigative procedure. It's not going to be used as evidence at trial and was not used as PC for arrest. Moo
Click to expand...
We're not disagreeing.

They used a private lab (please don't picture test tubes or anything like that - picture a computer terminal) to do SNP profiling.

That's not the same thing as the original profile (which is way more than SNP's - the lab would have run the bio samples for the most info they could get - not just the 600,000 SNPs that Othram uses in its algorithm). So they took their results and asked Othram to use its own algorithm (derived from Othram's own database, just as 23 and Ancestry do - but it's a different algorithm and designed for public use in North America). So they asked Othram to use that algorithm AND its database.

Sure, the original profile came from the knife sheath. But neither the knife sheath nor the biological material from it traveled to Texas, unless that is explicitly stated (and would, IMO, be a violation of standard forensic procedure).

I don't know what "generic genealogy" services might mean, I've never heard of it. I read what the State said in light of having participated in over 100 genetic genealogy cases. I was surprised to learn that Othram actually does assist LE with lab services - so it is possible they did, but boy, is that ever against what the Bar Association and Trial Lawyers (both defense and prosecution) say is best practice. That's why I don't think Idaho took that risk.

They sent the digital files to Othram; I believe they shared bio samples with the FBI; the FBI also has algorithms and SNP analysis. But, they still wanted the Othram analysis BECAUSE they knew Othram comes packaged with a very large database of living (or recently living) North Americans, and the chance of getting a hit is greater. The FBI has mostly criminal profiles but does use other kinds of data in their SNP analysis - some of it controversial but certainly could have happened in this case - we have no idea what the FBI found, do we?

At least a bunch of us agree that it's irrelevant anyway at this point in time - and I think the Judge will agree as well. And with that, I'm going to go silent on this fascinating topic.

IMO.
 
jepop said:
So the State is saying, Imo, that the report documenting the dna test performed to produce the snp sample is discoverable, however the revelation/naming of the lab where the snp profile was devloped is not, Imo.
Click to expand...
<quote snipped by me but you should absolutely check out the entirety of jepop’s awesome post>

I love analogies. And this is not my best one…

But in a way, overall, the prosecution is saying:

“you’re entitled to know what we found when we got there and what we did with it. BUT you’re NOT entitled to know how we got there, what car we drove, how fast, who was in the car…”

etc etc. MOO
 
10ofRods said:
It's not "evil" but it IS consumptive testing. IIRC, we have learned that there wasn't a ton of DNA on that sheath. SO, I do believe that in most criminal matters, the Defense is allowed to do its own testing (unless the State used up the entire sample - which they ought not to do unless a Judge allows it). This can sometime mean that the Defense sends experts to a lab process where both sides attend.

This would involve taking the actual bio-sample from the sheath and putting it through the DNA sequencer, which would then spit out a digital record of the subject's genome as shown by that sample or those samples. It's rare to run only one sample - but it's also rare and usually against criminal procedure to use up all the sample without the Defense getting to at least watch.

I don't know exactly what the Defense is claiming about this "chain of custody" issue, so while I have LexisNexis, I wouldn't know where to begin to look this up.

There are plenty of legal challenges when the Defense doesn't get to do its own testing on evidence.

American Bar Association's overall take on this matter.

IMO.
Click to expand...

I thought they did cell cloning to up the amount of sample?
 
Justice101 said:
I thought they did cell cloning to up the amount of sample?
Click to expand...

I haven't read that, but yeah, that would be the typical thing to do at that stage in the investigation.

The only sample that should matter at this point is his own buccal sample, which of course could be amplified/cloned if need be (but the Defense wouldn't care about that since they know that down that path lies a great possibility of conviction).

This is all about sending messages to the future jury pool and trying to confuse issues around DNA. If it works, I'll be very sad - it'll be tragic. Genetic genealogy isn't going to go away, in any case. And I doubt that higher courts in Idaho are going to hold that using an index of known DNA samples is illegal - that's like saying using an atlas of foot anatomy should be illegal in analyzing a footprint - it's a reference. DNA databases are reference systems.

SNP analysis is a reference system. Deep inside, I wish the State would submit the profile to Parabon.

The jury would probably be more persuaded by Parabon (even though the science behind it could be critiqued - it would definitely be a curve ball for the Defense).

IMO.
 
I think this is exactly right. The way the PCA is written, it was standard investigative techniques that led to the testing of the father's dna. The defense is trying to find evidence that it was the IGG that led to testing the father's dna. IGG is new and vulnerable to challenge. The dna is everything in this case (that we're aware of right now) so they need to get it thrown out. They're trying to do that by finding proof IGG led to the dna, not the standard techniques like investigating Elantra owners.

Edit--meant to quote Boxer:

There is no error in the DNA, its BKs.
They are looking for error in procedure.

Completely different thing.
 
And this is no (bbm) surprise to y'all. moo ;)

www.ktvb.com

Idaho murder suspect Bryan Kohberger due in court Friday

The judge will consider two motions from Kohberger's defense that could delay the start of the trial for the murders of four University of Idaho students.
www.ktvb.com www.ktvb.com

Updated: 3:04 PM MDT August 17, 2023


The results of the motions hearing could decide if there will be a delay in his upcoming trial.
 
SortaSleuthy said:
It seems that his best option is to endorse the DNA results and say:
“Of course it matches my DNA! The knife is mine, I took it to class and someone stole it from my desk. Start interviewing my students if you want to find the killer.”
Click to expand...

How does he explain that no one else's DNA is on the sheath, then?

Grad school doesn't have desks for individuals, usually - people sit at seminar tables. And it's illegal to take a fixed blade knife to a school in Washington, so he'd be admitting criminal involvement.

At that point, of course, everyone in his classes at WSU would line up to tell what they do know about him - and I bet it's plenty.

The fact that he did NOT use this defense is quite telling - as it would have been outright perjury and would not have gone well for him, IMO.

That alibi would get him in a lot of trouble, IMO.
 
Who is Gabriella Vargas? THIRD MOTION TO COMPEL. GABRIELLA VARGAS.
"I founded DNA-ID and have run the business since the spring of 2020." [3rd Motion pg 1]
OpenGov lists the DNA-ID as a "entity" (person?). Registration was for System for Award Management (SAM).
GV may not be applying for any awards now. That could be why dna-id is expired/not re-registered or maybe SAM changed registration requirements.
  • SBA Registration for DNA-ID . Expired. according to HigherGov Awardee website
  • https://www.dnaid.org Looks like this domain isn't connected to a website yet.
  • at OPENGOVUS lists dna-id Record Status Expired/Expiration Date January 29, 2022
  • Vargas is "self-taught" genetic genealogist since 2018. from WNDU below
GV got a lot of publicity by cracking a 35-year-old cold case in 4 days. Roxanne Wood cold case:
Genetic genealogist helps solve a case that had "a gnat's eyebrow of DNA" left from the crime scene. "She also happens to be one of the most talented investigative genetic genealogists in the world, according to the investigators she worked with." CBS 48 hours UPDATED ON: AUGUST 13, 2023

Vargas says she has only been practicing genealogy for four years, is self taught, and has not got a case wrong since she began in 2018. 2022 WNDU.

GV: LE using using genealogy sites: “I think this is something that people are going to be learning that may be available to law enforcement in the future. The information that they’re providing to 23&me, Ancestry.com is probably being utilized in the manner that they expected by those companies however, their alternative use by law enforcement that people didn’t expect and now need to understand that it could implicate them, or could implicate their family members potentially.” How Your DNA Could Be Used to Help Solve Cold Cases Maine(WAGM)June/2022

wendy44 said:
I think this is exactly right. The way the PCA is written, it was standard investigative techniques that led to the testing of the father's dna. The defense is trying to find evidence that it was the IGG that led to testing the father's dna. IGG is new and vulnerable to challenge. The dna is everything in this case (that we're aware of right now) so they need to get it thrown out. They're trying to do that by finding proof IGG led to the dna, not the standard techniques like investigating Elantra owners.

Edit--meant to quote Boxer:

There is no error in the DNA, its BKs.
They are looking for error in procedure.

Completely different thing.
Click to expand...
Agree @wendy44 and @Boxer Thanks. Get the IGG thrown out. It would not produce a different result. I think SG said something like he wants the truth. This is becoming more about how the truth was found & AT & team wanting to establish new rules. JMO

Growing the D-team: Now eight (8) known members on BK's team, 4 list as DNA experts of some sort.
Anne C. Taylor - Chief Public Defender
Jay W. Logsdon - Chief Deputy of Litigation
Elisa G. Massoth - Criminal Defense Attorney (Fame discredit witnesses)
Matthew Noedel - Forensic Consult/Crime Scene Expert
Bicka Barlow - DNA Consult
Stephen B Mercer - DNA Consult
LEAH LARKIN - DNA Consult (Botanist)
GABRIELLA VARGAS - DNA-ID Consult/Genetic Genealogist

JMO parts bbm
 
North_Idaho_Nony said:
LOL — and I read it as The A Team Shot Heard Around the State. It’s a magnificent master class, MOO.
Click to expand...
Well, this objection to Motion to Dismiss goes to prove the motion is still out there. That knocks off one option as to why the D dropped it from tomorrow's motion hearing- it hasn't already been dealt with via a non-public hearing. Moo
 
Chloegirl said:
71 pages for the objection yowza. I have decided they don't want any more of our comments and this was done to keep us busy.
Click to expand...
Just skimmed but seems there's not much new in D's motion to dismiss on the grounds of incorrect instructions given to GJ re standard of proof (BaRD vs probable cause). Been there done that several times says the State in the majority of those 71 pages. Moo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 133 more.
Total: 2,007 (members: 134, guests: 1,873)

Online statistics

Members online
134
Guests online
1,873
Total visitors
2,007
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
601,763
Messages
18,129,448
Members
231,138
Latest member
mjF7nx
Back
Top