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.
I'm Nobody said:
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


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
Click to expand...
One of the state's objections to the D's Motion to dismiss centres around Bicka Barlow's affidavit filed in support:

" Declaration of Bicka Barlow
The Court should disregard Barlow’s declaration as a poorly disguised
legal brief submitted by a lawyer who is not counsel of record in the case. lt is now well established in ldaho that “testimony containing conclusions of law
by an expert witness is generally inadmissible.” Ybarra v. Bed/re, 166 ldaho
902,908, 466P.3d 421, 427 (2020) (striking “legal conclusionscontained“ in an
expert declaration in a matter over which the Idaho Supreme Court exercised original jurisdiction). Barlow’s declaration is indistinguishable from a legal briefShe cites, explains, and argues case law. (Barlow Decl. at pp.8-9.) She accusesthe State of misreading a case. 1d. at 9. And she states as fact conclusions of
law reserved for this Court. For example, Barlow’s declaration states
as fact that the IGG information in this case “clearly is Brady material,”
id. at 7, and that the “IGG search could yield a relevant and admissible statistic,” id. at l0 (emphasis in original)."

BBM

So the State seems to be arguing that these consultants, many as they may now be, are "not counsel of record in the case'. Their opinions are sought to enhance the case of BK's team (counsel of record?) but in the opinion of the State, as outside consultants they aren't permitted to argue in affidavits as if they are actually counsel of record.Moo

 
jepop said:
One of the state's objections to the D's Motion to dismiss centres around Bicka Barlow's affidavit filed in support:

" Declaration of Bicka Barlow
The Court should disregard Barlow’s declaration as a poorly disguised
legal brief submitted by a lawyer who is not counsel of record in the case. lt is now well established in ldaho that “testimony containing conclusions of law
by an expert witness is generally inadmissible.” Ybarra v. Bed/re, 166 ldaho
902,908, 466P.3d 421, 427 (2020) (striking “legal conclusionscontained“ in an
expert declaration in a matter over which the Idaho Supreme Court exercised original jurisdiction). Barlow’s declaration is indistinguishable from a legal briefShe cites, explains, and argues case law. (Barlow Decl. at pp.8-9.) She accusesthe State of misreading a case. 1d. at 9. And she states as fact conclusions of
law reserved for this Court. For example, Barlow’s declaration states
as fact that the IGG information in this case “clearly is Brady material,”
id. at 7, and that the “IGG search could yield a relevant and admissible statistic,” id. at l0 (emphasis in original)."

BBM

So the State seems to be arguing that these consultants, many as they may now be, are "not counsel of record in the case'. Their opinions are sought to enhance the case of BK's team (counsel of record?) but in the opinion of the State, as outside consultants they aren't permitted to argue in affidavits as if they are actually counsel of record.Moo

Click to expand...
Seems like that they are hoping that if they throw enough mud on the IGG process. People will start to see the two separate and distinct DNA processes/samples as one.

They want to try and force the prosecutions hands. No matter what the prosecution chooses to reveal or not reveal its going to be spun as good for BK. So I don’t blame them for not budging and continuing to point to the 5 octallion match.

The courts’ obviously not going to be fooled…is this about the jury pool?
 
schooling said:
Seems like that they are hoping that if they throw enough mud on the IGG process. People will start to see the two separate and distinct DNA processes/samples as one.

They want to try and force the prosecutions hands. No matter what the prosecution chooses to reveal or not reveal its going to be spun as good for BK. So I don’t blame them for not budging and continuing to point to the 5 octallion match.

The courts’ obviously not going to be fooled…is this about the jury pool?
Click to expand...
The jury pool will be fine - or the jurors who are eventually chosen will be fine, Imo. (The State will attempt to ensure that those in the prospective pool who have subscribed to Howard Blum's novella type monthly installments re this case are excluded Moo). But seriously after the usual practices to attempt eliminating potentially bias jurors (not possible I know but counsel have to try), I've got great faith in juror impartiality and that a properly instructed jury witnessing a properly run trial will result in jurors taking their duties very
seriously. Moo

ETA: I just think it's about trying everything, even those angles which might clearly be seen through by the judge. Moo
 
Last edited:
gliving said:
Click to expand...
From the Notice of Filing Declaration it seems to be the Defense's attempt to discredit the DNA testing:

14. These database tools have known loopholes that allow a genealogist to see matches that have explicitly declined to participate in law enforcement matching. This is not a glitch in the programming causing this by accident. It is a standard feature within the tools that essentially tricks the system into displaying all matches as opposed to only those who have consented to law enforcement matching. This is not a loophole nor is it something you will stumble upon. Using the tool this way requires effort and knowledge.
  1. Databases for law enforcement cases require a fee be paid in order to upload the genetic profile, this is not the same for consumers who are not charged. Many in the field have been known to upload to these sites as a regular consumer to avoid paying the associated fees and to bypass having opted out matches. In addition, some databases restrict law enforcement uploading cases; however that has not prevented it from happening.
  2. I am aware that law enforcement has obtained results in ways prohibited by the terms of use and prohibited by their own policies.
 
Two things. Firstly the State's objection that came in yesterday; they're strikingly petty considering they have the upper-hand. I've got that sense from their submissions for a long time now. Just do your job guys, you don't need to show your emotion in your filings.

Secondly, a cross-over from another story. Maryland has just enacted a law regulating the use of genealogical DNA in criminal investigations:

"Maryland’s new legislation requires that this process only be used in investigations with the knowledge and oversight of a judge and establishes a panel of stakeholders to conduct an annual review of its use."

Very interesting that it's going this way! Actually unexpected but a net positive I believe; the more rigour and oversight, the less chance for either law enforcement over-stepping, and flimsy defence based on an extremely fast-emerging area of investigatory technique.

innocenceproject.org

Maryland Just Enacted a Historic Law Preventing the Misuse of Genetic Information - Innocence Project

innocenceproject.org innocenceproject.org
 
gliving said:
Click to expand...
From the Notice of Filing Declaration it seems to be the Defense's attempt to discredit the DNA testing again:

14. These database tools have known loopholes that allow a genealogist to see matches that have explicitly declined to participate in law enforcement matching. This is not a glitch in the programming causing this by accident. It is a standard feature within the tools that essentially tricks the system into displaying all matches as opposed to only those who have consented to law enforcement matching. This is not a loophole nor is it something you will stumble upon. Using the tool this way requires effort and knowledge.
  1. Databases for law enforcement cases require a fee be paid in order to upload the genetic profile, this is not the same for consumers who are not charged. Many in the field have been known to upload to these sites as a regular consumer to avoid paying the associated fees and to bypass having opted out matches. In addition, some databases restrict law enforcement uploading cases; however that has not prevented it from happening.
  2. I am aware that law enforcement has obtained results in ways prohibited by the terms of use and prohibited by their own policies.
 
NextSprint said:
Two things. Firstly the State's objection that came in yesterday; they're strikingly petty considering they have the upper-hand. I've got that sense from their submissions for a long time now. Just do your job guys, you don't need to show your emotion in your filings.

Secondly, a cross-over from another story. Maryland has just enacted a law regulating the use of genealogical DNA in criminal investigations:

"Maryland’s new legislation requires that this process only be used in investigations with the knowledge and oversight of a judge and establishes a panel of stakeholders to conduct an annual review of its use."

Very interesting that it's going this way! Actually unexpected but a net positive I believe; the more rigour and oversight, the less chance for either law enforcement over-stepping, and flimsy defence based on an extremely fast-emerging area of investigatory technique.

innocenceproject.org

Maryland Just Enacted a Historic Law Preventing the Misuse of Genetic Information - Innocence Project

innocenceproject.org innocenceproject.org
Click to expand...
Respectfully, if you want to read petty just look at any of the Defense Motions written by J Logsdon. The State's Motion's are a whole level up from those accusatory, ridiculous ramblings.

MOO
 
NextSprint said:
Two things. Firstly the State's objection that came in yesterday; they're strikingly petty considering they have the upper-hand. I've got that sense from their submissions for a long time now. Just do your job guys, you don't need to show your emotion in your filings.

Secondly, a cross-over from another story. Maryland has just enacted a law regulating the use of genealogical DNA in criminal investigations:

"Maryland’s new legislation requires that this process only be used in investigations with the knowledge and oversight of a judge and establishes a panel of stakeholders to conduct an annual review of its use."

Very interesting that it's going this way! Actually unexpected but a net positive I believe; the more rigour and oversight, the less chance for either law enforcement over-stepping, and flimsy defence based on an extremely fast-emerging area of investigatory technique.

innocenceproject.org

Maryland Just Enacted a Historic Law Preventing the Misuse of Genetic Information - Innocence Project

innocenceproject.org innocenceproject.org
Click to expand...
Opposite opinon here. Imo the prosecution pre-trial filings and motions have been remarkably contained, straight-forward, rational and respectful when compared with some of the hyperbolic personalising and sensationalising evident in a number of the defense's motions and objections. Moo.
 
NextSprint said:
Two things. Firstly the State's objection that came in yesterday; they're strikingly petty considering they have the upper-hand. I've got that sense from their submissions for a long time now. Just do your job guys, you don't need to show your emotion in your filings.

Secondly, a cross-over from another story. Maryland has just enacted a law regulating the use of genealogical DNA in criminal investigations:

"Maryland’s new legislation requires that this process only be used in investigations with the knowledge and oversight of a judge and establishes a panel of stakeholders to conduct an annual review of its use."

Very interesting that it's going this way! Actually unexpected but a net positive I believe; the more rigour and oversight, the less chance for either law enforcement over-stepping, and flimsy defence based on an extremely fast-emerging area of investigatory technique.

innocenceproject.org

Maryland Just Enacted a Historic Law Preventing the Misuse of Genetic Information - Innocence Project

innocenceproject.org innocenceproject.org
Click to expand...
The Maryland case is a move in the right direction.

BK’s (and his Defense) biggest issue is that the IGG specific sample has nothing to do with the one that got them that 5 Octallion number.

I keep seeing people everywhere confound the two and just using “DNA sample” as if they are one and the same. So i guess what they are doing (PR through filings) is kinda working. For now…

If by some miracle the IGG process is successfully challenged what possible relief could be offered the defense?

It’s BKs DNA on the sheath. Pulled first (according to early reporting), locally and independently from the IGG process. It was not used to obtain permission or a warrant for the IGG process as one is not needed. All indications point to a completely different profile being pulled.

So assuming the judge manages to confuse those things (spoiler: he won’t)

- Are we throwing out the original DNA sample too? Even though chain of custody is likely clear and independent.

- are we’re dismissing the indictment?

And then what?

- so is BK forever immune because his family name was obtained from the IGG process?

- are we arguing that his and his family’s existence is the fruit from the poison tree?

- Is BKs DNA now forever excluded from any new prosecution?

- Is LE now forbidden from ever ever seeking a warrant to obtain his DNA?

- Do they have to pretend to forget BK and use evidence to rediscover him and ask for his DNA?

- Or are we imagining that the sheath is now excluded because of what? IGG? That would be weird.

All ridiculous scenarios above. But I’ve yet to see any non-ridiculous outcome. This is going nowhere. Any critical and logical look at it tells me that (IMO).
 
Last edited:
10ofRods said:
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.
Click to expand...
They must have wiped the sheath.
He was an instructor and had a desk.
i‘m sure he would rather take the charge for knife on campus vs. murder x 4.
 
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...
Yowza for real. That is a 71 page steam roller of an objection. I'm only a few pages in, but loving it.

Just what I have read so far has given me a new perspective on the old expression that a good prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich. Since the GJ standard is sufficiency of evidence that is not going to be contradicted, if a prosecutor cannot indict that ham sandwich, he's either got the wrong sandwich or a very weak case. ;)
 
maskedwoman said:
Yowza for real. That is a 71 page steam roller of an objection. I'm only a few pages in, but loving it.

Just what I have read so far has given me a new perspective on the old expression that a good prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich. Since the GJ standard is sufficiency of evidence that is not going to be contradicted, if a prosecutor cannot indict that ham sandwich, he's either got the wrong sandwich or a very weak case. ;)
Click to expand...
Poor ham sandwich; they never do anything wrong!!
 
10ofRods said:
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.
Click to expand...
Can I like this post 1000 times?
 
I love the fact they used genetic genealogy so early. They did the same thing in Massachusetts, when the Google employee, Vanessa Marcotte was killed while jogging. They were able to determine the ethnicity of the suspect, and an alert state trooper eventually nailed him. He got life, so will this evil moron, who is 100% guilty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 124 more.
Total: 2,064 (members: 125, guests: 1,939)

Online statistics

Members online
125
Guests online
1,939
Total visitors
2,064
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
601,763
Messages
18,129,460
Members
231,138
Latest member
mjF7nx
Back
Top