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.
The
Balthazar said:
This is interesting because LE apparently did not run DNA on the 3 other unknown male DNA samples BEFORE making an arrest. I would think that running those tests and trying to identify who they were is investigation 101 basic kind of stuff. Those samples definitely should have been run to aid in making a determination as to exactly what happened in that house and/or rule them out as evidence in this case. That there is no proof they were even tested and no results is a problem, IMO.
Click to expand...
Depends on where DNA found.
They have a knife sheath with male DNA, that is who they are looking for.
 
DizzyB said:
Are we talking male DNA on the sheath that was untested, unidentified DNA at the crime scene, or in the house after all other male DNA was identified? It would make a difference if I was a juror.
Click to expand...
There were 3 additional male DNA profiles that were found by CSI. 2 were found in the house wherever CSI was doing their testing and one was found outside.
 
Balthazar said:
Not true. In the US, you don't speak to anyone but your attorney about your case when accused of a crime.
Click to expand...

Well, that's not true. A person can speak all they want and not everyone even decides to use an attorney, especially for misdemeanors.

But I am firmly in the camp of "I am going to speak if I am innocent," even if my attorney says otherwise. I make a terrible client for an attorney, btw. And I've seen attorneys do the same thing I just said I'd do. And judges. And Sheriffs and Sheriff Deputies and other LEO's.

IOW, many of us who are more familiar with the system DO go ahead and talk. Indeed, we also people later found guilty out there announcing their innocence (with and without their attorney's oversight). I'd fire any attorney who wouldn't let me do it and actually have an attorney who agrees with me (I've not needed him for a criminal case, thankfully). But I know someone who did use an attorney who had her stand in front of mic's and proclaim her innocence and explain what happened.

You stated this as if it's universal in the US or part of the law that the defendant "doesn't speak. Yes, they do sometimes, they can, they are not prohibited, and not all attorneys tell their clients to remain silent on every point.

IMO. IME. I am writing for the benefit of our non-US citizens who may take what you said as being part of the legal system, when it is in fact an opinion. I am also stating my opinion. If you can find a law that says a criminal defendant no longer has freedom of speech, that would be helpful. Is there a state that has tried it? I am unaware.

IMO.
 
DizzyB said:
Are we talking male DNA on the sheath that was untested, unidentified DNA at the crime scene, or in the house after all other male DNA was identified? It would make a difference if I was a juror.
Click to expand...
They are referring to other male DNA found at the house (a college party house). Only a single source was found on the sheath.
 
Balthazar said:
This is interesting because LE apparently did not run DNA on the 3 other unknown male DNA samples BEFORE making an arrest. I would think that running those tests and trying to identify who they were is investigation 101 basic kind of stuff. Those samples definitely should have been run to aid in making a determination as to exactly what happened in that house and/or rule them out as evidence in this case. That there is no proof they were even tested and no results is a problem, IMO.
Click to expand...
We don't know from where it was collected. Could've been a refrigerator handle or the hood of a car. LE does have to make judgment calls, balancing budget constraints, etc. In another case, DNA was collected from a vehicle that wasn't even a tangential part of the case.

LE can't test everything.

In the other case, the defense attorney made the same assertion -- that that DNA was exculpatory, as if LE had overlooked potential suspects, when data proved it was irrelevant. But that's what defense attorneys do, exploit whatever angle they can in order to give their clients the best representation possible.

Today underscores it for me. Surprise witnesses.

Because, of course, they know that judges will favor the defense to ward off appeals.

I'm not worried.

Jmo
 
Last edited:
Balthazar said:
This is interesting because LE apparently did not run DNA on the 3 other unknown male DNA samples BEFORE making an arrest. I would think that running those tests and trying to identify who they were is investigation 101 basic kind of stuff. Those samples definitely should have been run to aid in making a determination as to exactly what happened in that house and/or rule them out as evidence in this case. That there is no proof they were even tested and no results is a problem, IMO.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's a problem. I think it would be foolish for LE to leave an identified alleged killer on the streets while they wait for other DNA to be processed. Better to arrest an identified suspect, and not worry about him fleeing or hurting someone else. You can always arrest any other suspects as they are identified.
 
NyxNY said:
Is it a problem though? I couldn't imagine how much unknown DNA was in that house. Parties by the then current tenants, tenants and acquaintances before them, and so on and so on. It made sense that they tested DNA found on the sheath of a knife found under two fatally stabbed victims. MOO
Click to expand...
IMO it is a massive problem because CSI was only testing where they found evidence. They didn't test the entire house for DNA. What we don't know is where exactly CSI found these 3 DNA samples in relation to the victims. We know that none of them apparently matched any of the people who gave DNA samples to LE during the investigation. And I think LE asked for DNA samples from every guy these girls socialized with and worked with and had classes with. So, why wasn't this DNA further tested and GG run on it?
 
maskedwoman said:
I don't think it's a problem. I think it would be foolish for LE to leave an identified alleged killer on the streets while they wait for other DNA to be processed. Better to arrest an identified suspect, and not worry about him fleeing or hurting someone else. You can always arrest any other suspects as they are identified.
Click to expand...
They had plenty of time to get BK's DNA tested and processed and GG done BEFORE they arrested him. Why were these 3 samples treated differently? All 4 DNA samples should have gone through the process at the same time.
 
Simply Southern said:
I’ve consider this as well … did a novice conduct the research. I have several friends that research old war sites, unidentified, as volunteers. All are professionals from a major university, working with DNA, genetics in one form or another. I’ve not heard any conversation on certification or licenses required.


Does the law require a certification/license? What requirements must law enforcement follow?

Also what if they used a private /commercial lab?

Thanks
Click to expand...

There is absolutely no certification process of which I am aware. A doctorate in genetics would, to me, be the gold standard. When I was in school, no universities had yet awarded such a degree and the lone geneticist was setting up shop as a researcher with an appointment as full professor in the medical school. It was the right place for him. Three years later, they admitted the first set of grad students to a doctoral program in genetics. Now, most larger nations have at least one graduate program in genetics. Not every single one of the 50 U.S. states has such a program - although I should add that a medical doctor who specializes in genetic issues would certainly count as an expert to me. Most such M.D.'s though would not offer themselves as a "general genetics" expert or a "genetic genealogy" expert. They do genetic genealogy, of course. But for a different reason.

What we found in the 20th century, through archaeological excavation and genetic sampling (once it became available) of ancient cemeteries is that historians, who had been using headstone inscriptions where available to judge who was relaetd to whom, needed to revise a little. It's more common than people think that humans have adoptions, fosters, children with someone not-their-spouse, etc., and raise the child as if they are biologically part of the same family. I am not related to anyone in my actual family (the people I would give someone as next of kin, the people who raised me, the people I grew up calling family).

It's important information for medical researchers too (if they're taking a genealogy from a patient, and the patient is (without being aware) including people who are not actually genetic relatives in the tree, then it's hard to calculate the odds of a particular rare condition being genetic (and one would want to try and solve the problem by taking samples of people who are not genetic relatives of the patient for this purpose).

At any rate, it's fascinating to me that even though everyone should know by now that inheritance comes as genes to all of us, using genes to trace people is somehow considered controversial (when using fingerprints, footprints, hair, ethnicity, hair form, nose shape, height, weight are all okay to speak about and introduce into court). I just can't quite wrap my mind around why some people would think that the very specific method of using genes is any different.

Most criminologists believe that once DNA identification began to be used (I believe the first case was in the UK circa 1984 or thereabouts and the first US case was in 1986) criminals have slowed their rolls on certain kinds of crime. Cameras everywhere and DNA have helped make violent crime decrease. Fingerprinting had the same effect (but of course, criminals just picked up some gloves - and if they are the readily available nitrile/latex type, there are no fibers to use to trace them).

It's so weird to think that criminals used to try and remove their own fingerprints (with acid, with a razor, etc) if they thought they were going to be caught and hadn't been careful enough.

IMO.
 
Balthazar said:
IMO it is a massive problem because CSI was only testing where they found evidence. They didn't test the entire house for DNA. What we don't know is where exactly CSI found these 3 DNA samples in relation to the victims. We know that none of them apparently matched any of the people who gave DNA samples to LE during the investigation. And I think LE asked for DNA samples from every guy these girls socialized with and worked with and had classes with. So, why wasn't this DNA further tested and GG run on it?
Click to expand...
They concern me too. It makes me uncomfortable at how easily folks dismiss these three unidentified DNA samples. LE might have a very simple explanation as to why they were not processed, and the samples might be wholly unrelated to the murders, but we know absolutely nothing about them at this point to make those assumptions. Jmo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 189 more.
Total: 455 (members: 190, guests: 265)

Online statistics

Members online
190
Guests online
265
Total visitors
455
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,479
Messages
18,240,186
Members
234,385
Latest member
johnwich
Back
Top