4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #95

[CKS]

I have to admit, I am confused about why BKs DNA found on a piece of the literal murder weapon isn't a big deal...and seems to be easily dismissed by some.

But a random lost glove in a Idaho winter (likely 1 of hundreds of lost gloves) is somehow a sign of reasonable doubt. Can someone please help me make sense out of this?

MOO

A knife sheath is not the murder weapon and we don't even know for sure if a kbar was the actual weapon.

Also, the story about BK purchasing a knife on Amazon is false and was just more misinformation.

 

[Chloegirl]

MOO

First touch DNA is not highly accurate and the suspect does not have to directly touch the object.

DNA–is touch or transfer DNA reliable evidence of guilt

In State v. Terrance Police, 2022 Conn. LEXIS 123 (May 10, 2022), the issue was whether “touch DNA” was good enough for probable cause to get an arrest warrant. Here is the important part of the decision saying it wasn’t.

[T]he DNA evidence used to describe the suspect was not a single source sample known to have come from the perpetrator. Rather, it was “touch DNA,” also known as “trace DNA,” from multiple sources that might or might not have come from the perpetrator—something the police simply had no way of knowing when they applied for the John Doe arrest warrant. Notably, the state has not identified a single case, and our research has failed to uncover one, in which mixed partial DNA profiles from touch DNA provided the description of a suspect in a John Doe arrest warrant. Touch DNA “is a term used to describe DNA that is left behind just by touching an object …. Notwithstanding its name, however, touch DNA does not necessarily indicate a person’s direct contact with the object. Rather, according to [experts], abandoned skin cells, which make up touch DNA, can be left behind through primary transfer, secondary transfer, or aerosolization.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Dawson, 340 Conn. 136, 153, 263 A.3d 779 (2021). Even when a person touches an object, “DNA is not always detectable, meaning that it is possible to have someone touch an object but not leave behind detectable DNA because … some people leave more of their skin cells behind than others, i.e., some people are better ‘shedders’ of their DNA than others. There are also other factors that affect the amount of DNA left on an object, such as the length of contact, the roughness or smoothness of the surface, the type of contact, the existence or nonexistence of fluids, such as sweat, and degradation on the object.” Id., 154.

As a result, touch DNA “poses potential problems that are not present, or are less often present, with DNA obtained from evidence consisting of bodily fluids ….” 7 C. Fishman & A. McKenna, Jones on Evidence (7th Ed. 2019) § 60:9, p. 785. For example, “[t]ouch DNA will often be available in much smaller quantities than DNA extracted from blood, semen, or hair”; id.; and “the presence of touch DNA may often be far less probative of a defendant’s guilt than DNA derived from bodily fluids.” Id., p. 787. Indeed, “trace samples lack the clarity of the more straightforward DNA evidence that can lead to a clear match to a specific individual. An object is found at or near a crime scene. A technician swabs the object to test for that DNA. These trace samples are usually quite small, there is often more than one person’s DNA, and the evidence is of a much poorer quality.” B. Stiffelman, supra, 24 Berkeley J. Crim. L. 115. “When dealing with such small amounts of DNA, there is much greater ambiguity as to how the DNA ended up on the object. For example, the DNA could have been left by someone who touched the object, or even by someone who touched the person who then touched the object. … In short, small amounts of DNA can be easily transferred and [travel]. Because of this, finding someone’s DNA on an object is less significant to a determination of guilt or innocence of a suspect.” (Footnote omitted.) Id., 115-16.

Okay, I will bite. Let's generally say that it was a knife (since they were looking for one and not for another weapon). So, how do you postulate that BK's DNA, as you are suggesting, was inserted into the snaps of the knife sheath? You have to be able to answer that question if you are going to say that BK is innocent.

This implies a conspiracy and possibly holding BK down to obtain his DNA while gloved and placing it in the interior of the snaps without any of your own. How exactly does that work? First, the physical nature of the act and second choosing him from all other people in the region.

I cannot discount this piece of evidence, even if it doesn't answer every question that I have about this case (most of which is under seal and gag order). JMOO.

 

[jepop]

MOO

First touch DNA is not highly accurate and the suspect does not have to directly touch the object.

DNA–is touch or transfer DNA reliable evidence of guilt

In State v. Terrance Police, 2022 Conn. LEXIS 123 (May 10, 2022), the issue was whether “touch DNA” was good enough for probable cause to get an arrest warrant. Here is the important part of the decision saying it wasn’t.

[T]he DNA evidence used to describe the suspect was not a single source sample known to have come from the perpetrator. Rather, it was “touch DNA,” also known as “trace DNA,” from multiple sources that might or might not have come from the perpetrator—something the police simply had no way of knowing when they applied for the John Doe arrest warrant. Notably, the state has not identified a single case, and our research has failed to uncover one, in which mixed partial DNA profiles from touch DNA provided the description of a suspect in a John Doe arrest warrant. Touch DNA “is a term used to describe DNA that is left behind just by touching an object …. Notwithstanding its name, however, touch DNA does not necessarily indicate a person’s direct contact with the object. Rather, according to [experts], abandoned skin cells, which make up touch DNA, can be left behind through primary transfer, secondary transfer, or aerosolization.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Dawson, 340 Conn. 136, 153, 263 A.3d 779 (2021). Even when a person touches an object, “DNA is not always detectable, meaning that it is possible to have someone touch an object but not leave behind detectable DNA because … some people leave more of their skin cells behind than others, i.e., some people are better ‘shedders’ of their DNA than others. There are also other factors that affect the amount of DNA left on an object, such as the length of contact, the roughness or smoothness of the surface, the type of contact, the existence or nonexistence of fluids, such as sweat, and degradation on the object.” Id., 154.

As a result, touch DNA “poses potential problems that are not present, or are less often present, with DNA obtained from evidence consisting of bodily fluids ….” 7 C. Fishman & A. McKenna, Jones on Evidence (7th Ed. 2019) § 60:9, p. 785. For example, “[t]ouch DNA will often be available in much smaller quantities than DNA extracted from blood, semen, or hair”; id.; and “the presence of touch DNA may often be far less probative of a defendant’s guilt than DNA derived from bodily fluids.” Id., p. 787. Indeed, “trace samples lack the clarity of the more straightforward DNA evidence that can lead to a clear match to a specific individual. An object is found at or near a crime scene. A technician swabs the object to test for that DNA. These trace samples are usually quite small, there is often more than one person’s DNA, and the evidence is of a much poorer quality.” B. Stiffelman, supra, 24 Berkeley J. Crim. L. 115. “When dealing with such small amounts of DNA, there is much greater ambiguity as to how the DNA ended up on the object. For example, the DNA could have been left by someone who touched the object, or even by someone who touched the person who then touched the object. … In short, small amounts of DNA can be easily transferred and [travel]. Because of this, finding someone’s DNA on an object is less significant to a determination of guilt or innocence of a suspect.” (Footnote omitted.) Id., 115-16.

Single source epithelial cells extracted from the use point. SINGLE SOURCE. Your eg isn't relevant Imo. This sample came from epithelial cells transferred directly from the suspect. Not mixed traces etc. moo

 

[CKS]

Okay, I will bite. Let's generally say that it was a knife (since they were looking for one and not for another weapon). So, how do you postulate that BK's DNA, as you are suggesting, was inserted into the snaps of the knife sheath? You have to be able to answer that question if you are going to say that BK is innocent.

This implies a conspiracy and possibly holding BK down to obtain his DNA while gloved and placing it in the interior of the snaps without any of your own. How exactly does that work? First, the physical nature of the act and second choosing him from all other people in the region.

I cannot discount this piece of evidence, even if it doesn't answer every question that I have about this case (most of which is under seal and gag order). JMOO.

The fact is with touch DNA you don't have to actually touch the object.

touch DNA does not necessarily indicate a person’s direct contact with the object. Rather, according to [experts], abandoned skin cells, which make up touch DNA, can be left behind through primary transfer, secondary transfer, or aerosolization.”


Listen I don't think BK is innocent but at this point I don't think he's guilty either beyond a reasonable doubt.




MOO

 

[Chloegirl]

@CKS
I think if there were an object that were handled by him at some point in time, the absence of any other DNA is critical. His DNA in the grooves of the knife sheath snap is significant. It implies he opened it and left that residue there with the act of opening the snap. Others would not be able to place that DNA there.

And we could probably argue BARD all day from every angle imaginable. JMOO

 

[jepop]

Okay, I will bite. Let's generally say that it was a knife (since they were looking for one and not for another weapon). So, how do you postulate that BK's DNA, as you are suggesting, was inserted into the snaps of the knife sheath? You have to be

The fact is with touch DNA you don't have to actually touch the object.

touch DNA does not necessarily indicate a person’s direct contact with the object. Rather, according to [experts], abandoned skin cells, which make up touch DNA, can be left behind through primary transfer, secondary transfer, or aerosolization.”


Listen I don't think BK is innocent but at this point I don't think he's guilty either beyond a reasonable doubt.




MOO

Epithelial cells dNA and transfer DNA are not the same thing. Context matters.

 

[Arkay]

Even when a person touches an object, “DNA is not always detectable, meaning that it is possible to have someone touch an object but not leave behind detectable DNA because … some people leave more of their skin cells behind than others, i.e., some people are better ‘shedders’ of their DNA than others. There are also other factors that affect the amount of DNA left on an object, such as the length of contact, the roughness or smoothness of the surface, the type of contact, the existence or nonexistence of fluids, such as sweat, and degradation on the object.” Id.,

But BK’s DNA was in fact detectable.

He had to be somehow present, in some manner, at some time.

If he never entered that house, and instead drove around looking at the stars while the murders were being committed by someone else, how could this happen?

Did his innocent DNA float out of his car, fly into the house and land on a snap that had to be physically touched to open the sheath?

It was a party house. Indubitably there can be fingerprints or DNA from previous tenants or from partygoers at the house who long ago graduated and moved on and so have not been identified.

That does not change that he had to have been present at some time in order for his DNA to surface there. He simply cannot pretend he wasn’t.

IMO

 

[GRT]

But BK’s DNA was in fact detectable.

He had to be somehow present, in some manner, at some time.

SBM for focus

That was my first thought as well when this issue came up a few months ago. But then I spent way too long going down rabbit holes and reading the science, and it turns out—maybe not.

Here's a reputable study that shows why touch DNA isn't a slam dunk.

I still think BK is the killer, and I think the DNA is going to be a convincing bit of evidence, but judges have blocked it before due to some of the problems with it.

I don't think the State's case is nearly as tight as some think it is. But, with a gag order still in place, we're not privy to a lot of the information and the State may have a stronger (or weaker) case than I currently think.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Bryan Kohberger bought Ka-Bar knife from Amazon months before murders

Accused killer to appear in court for arraignment on four counts of first-degree murder and burglary

www.the-independent.com

I see multiple comments wondering if perhaps BK left his touch DNA on the sheath snap because he left it there while perusing it in a store.

I thought it had been established that he bought the knife online? From Amazon? Or rather “a” K-Bar similar at the least to the one used in the murders?

No, this was something said on Dateline that turned out to be debunked, I believe. There is no evidence of BK buying that knife that I'm aware of.

 

[CKS]

SBM for focus

That was my first thought as well when this issue came up a few months ago. But then I spent way too long going down rabbit holes and reading the science, and it turns out—maybe not.

Here's a reputable study that shows why touch DNA isn't a slam dunk.

I still think BK is the killer, and I think the DNA is going to be a convincing bit of evidence, but judges have blocked it before due to some of the problems with it.

I don't think the State's case is nearly as tight as some think it is. But, with a gag order still in place, we're not privy to a lot of the information and the State may have a stronger (or weaker) case than I currently think.

MOO

Reminder I do not think BK is innocent nor do I believe he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt yet. I have not made up my mind.

I just do not believe at this point that the prosecution has enough to convict him from what I gather.

ALL MOO

Shaking hands could transfer your DNA — leaving it on things you never touched

 

[Boxer]

BARD is the basis for signfiicant decisions, but it is not about 100% certainty, which is an unattainable goal.

 

[Cool Cats]

MOO

First touch DNA is not highly accurate and the suspect does not have to directly touch the object.

DNA–is touch or transfer DNA reliable evidence of guilt

In State v. Terrance Police, 2022 Conn. LEXIS 123 (May 10, 2022), the issue was whether “touch DNA” was good enough for probable cause to get an arrest warrant. Here is the important part of the decision saying it wasn’t.

[T]he DNA evidence used to describe the suspect was not a single source sample known to have come from the perpetrator. Rather, it was “touch DNA,” also known as “trace DNA,” from multiple sources that might or might not have come from the perpetrator—something the police simply had no way of knowing when they applied for the John Doe arrest warrant. Notably, the state has not identified a single case, and our research has failed to uncover one, in which mixed partial DNA profiles from touch DNA provided the description of a suspect in a John Doe arrest warrant. Touch DNA “is a term used to describe DNA that is left behind just by touching an object …. Notwithstanding its name, however, touch DNA does not necessarily indicate a person’s direct contact with the object. Rather, according to [experts], abandoned skin cells, which make up touch DNA, can be left behind through primary transfer, secondary transfer, or aerosolization.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Dawson, 340 Conn. 136, 153, 263 A.3d 779 (2021). Even when a person touches an object, “DNA is not always detectable, meaning that it is possible to have someone touch an object but not leave behind detectable DNA because … some people leave more of their skin cells behind than others, i.e., some people are better ‘shedders’ of their DNA than others. There are also other factors that affect the amount of DNA left on an object, such as the length of contact, the roughness or smoothness of the surface, the type of contact, the existence or nonexistence of fluids, such as sweat, and degradation on the object.” Id., 154.

As a result, touch DNA “poses potential problems that are not present, or are less often present, with DNA obtained from evidence consisting of bodily fluids ….” 7 C. Fishman & A. McKenna, Jones on Evidence (7th Ed. 2019) § 60:9, p. 785. For example, “[t]ouch DNA will often be available in much smaller quantities than DNA extracted from blood, semen, or hair”; id.; and “the presence of touch DNA may often be far less probative of a defendant’s guilt than DNA derived from bodily fluids.” Id., p. 787. Indeed, “trace samples lack the clarity of the more straightforward DNA evidence that can lead to a clear match to a specific individual. An object is found at or near a crime scene. A technician swabs the object to test for that DNA. These trace samples are usually quite small, there is often more than one person’s DNA, and the evidence is of a much poorer quality.” B. Stiffelman, supra, 24 Berkeley J. Crim. L. 115. “When dealing with such small amounts of DNA, there is much greater ambiguity as to how the DNA ended up on the object. For example, the DNA could have been left by someone who touched the object, or even by someone who touched the person who then touched the object. … In short, small amounts of DNA can be easily transferred and [travel]. Because of this, finding someone’s DNA on an object is less significant to a determination of guilt or innocence of a suspect.” (Footnote omitted.) Id., 115-16.

This has nothing at all to do with BK's touch DNA. This was not the right kind of DNA and not normal DNA. A military case about making an arrest.

Very misleading and very inaccurate.

 

[CKS]

This has nothing at all to do with BK's touch DNA. This was not the right kind of DNA and not normal DNA. A military case about making an arrest.

Very misleading and very inaccurate.

Apologies. What was misleading? I was just trying to provide a reference to how unreliable touch DNA.

 

[CKS]

All MOO

Reminder I do not think BK is innocent nor do I think he is guilty yet. I'm still on the fence.


Another potential problem LE may have is the brass section is of interest since that’s what the snap of the sheath is made of.

Now we don’t know if it’s cellular DNA or cfDNA or a mix of both found on the sheath, but no DNA could be recovered after 24 hours of it being placed on brass in this study.

cfDNA could not be recovered after 4 hours. Cellular DNA could not be recovered after 24 hours and after 4 hours with a recovery rate of only 0.018%.

Trace DNA and its persistence on various surfaces: A long term study investigating the influence of surface type and environmental conditions – Part one, metals

 

[Cool Cats]

Apologies. What was misleading? I was just trying to provide a reference to how unreliable touch DNA.

Touch DNA is very reliable and used in court all the time. I do not want people to think your linked article has anything to do with the BK case involving DNA.

Touch DNA means BK himself touched the sheath snap and left his skin cells. There is nothing I have found that says the sheath DNA is compromised or unreliable. Or that BK's own DNA cheek sample was compromised in any way.

The defense is not contesting the Idaho State Lab DNA results.

I thought maybe I missed something and you had links to show that BK's touch DNA is compromised or too weak.

Or that the defense is saying that this is not true.....

5.37 octillion times more likely to be Bryan Kohberger's DNA than a random person from the general population.

2 Cents

 

[Megnut]

Reasonable. Not reasonable.

Single source DNA.

Is it reasonable that BK did in fact touch the snap on the sheath recovered from the crime scene and deposited his own DNA?

Is it reasonable that some mystery person collected DNA from BK and transferred it cleanly to the snap of a sheath found at the crime scene?

If someone were to do such a thing, in an attempt I guess to frame BK, why would they hide the DNA? Risk it being missed? Why not spread his DNA over all the crime scene? Why not leave actual items belonging to BK at the crime scene?

Requires a lot of gymnastics to tumble that onto a reasonable mat.

Much more natural and reasonable that BK left his own DNA on the snap when he touched it. That he apparently left no other DNA at the scene (at least that we know of) goes to IMO the great care taken not to.

Missed a spot.

JMO

 

[CKS]

Touch DNA is very reliable and used in court all the time. I do not want people to think your linked article has anything to do with the BK case involving DNA.

Touch DNA means BK himself touched the sheath snap and left his skin cells. There is nothing I have found that says the sheath DNA is compromised or unreliable. Or that BK's own DNA cheek sample was compromised in any way.

The defense is not contesting the Idaho State Lab DNA results.

I thought maybe I missed something and you had links to show that BK's touch DNA is compromised or too weak.

Or that the defense is saying that this is not true.....

5.37 octillion times more likely to be Bryan Kohberger's DNA than a random person from the general population.

2 Cents

Touch DNA does not mean BK touched the sheath.

“In 85 percent of the samples in this particular study we detected DNA on the object from individuals who did not have direct contact with the object. Their DNA was transferred to the object by the person they had direct contact with,” said Latham.


New study says your DNA can show up at a crime scene even if you were never there


2 cents
MOO

 

[Ravenmoon]

Touch DNA does not mean BK touched the sheath.

“In 85 percent of the samples in this particular study we detected DNA on the object from individuals who did not have direct contact with the object. Their DNA was transferred to the object by the person they had direct contact with,” said Latham.


New study says your DNA can show up at a crime scene even if you were never there


2 cents
MOO

I have been engrossed in another case and only check in here occasionally.

Do we know for a fact that it is only touch DNA?

Thank you to anyone that can share.

 

[Curiousobserver]

DBM

 

[Curiousobserver]

Touch DNA does not mean BK touched the sheath.

“In 85 percent of the samples in this particular study we detected DNA on the object from individuals who did not have direct contact with the object. Their DNA was transferred to the object by the person they had direct contact with,” said Latham.


New study says your DNA can show up at a crime scene even if you were never there


2 cents
MOO

This was a surprising study that I had not read yet. The disturbing part was that in a few cases the secondary DNA was the only detectable DNA.