IMO he didn't leave it open.Also in the article, this comment by an Idaho defense attorney on the change of venue decision -
One thing that came as a surprise to Neal and Meickle is the fact that Judge John Judge, the justice who has overseen this case, mentioned there might be a different judge at trial. "Usually, the District Judge will stay with that case," Meickle says, "But he left open the idea. He didn't say he would keep it so it's up to the Supreme Court the make that decision."
Yeah, you posted suggesting Barlow was talking about the sheathe DNA on page 13 of the affidavit you linked. The point I was making is that is incorrect.IMO
2 cents
The main point is that the prosecution has not turned over the work from either lab on the how they came to the conclusion that it is BK's DNA.
For some reason the prosecution doesn't want the defense looking closely at any piece of the IGG process. Maybe because aspects of that are subjective and open to attack by the defense -- and if they look at how the SNP profile was developed, that opens the door to looking at what they (and the FBI, apparently) did with that profile.
Which, if you listen to the prosecution, doesn't matter, because they ended up comparing STR profiles in the end anyway. But it could maybe reveal clues that the FBI had blinders on in their investigation, in general. Or indirectly/accidentally reveal more about the original STR profile development that puts that in doubt.
5.37 octillion <——This number cannot be obtained by the CODIS 20 Loci DNA STR Analytical (the test they are supposed to feed CODIS with). It has an outer limit of 9.35 x 10-24 (septillions) for the whole of humanity and 7.32 x 10-23 for generic white males like him. What they’ve pinned to him is a result that has never been obtained from that test and never will be.
All MOO
Snipped by me--I don't think this is accurate. @Balthazar agrees the defense has not contested the actual match of the dna on the sheath to BK's dna. To my knowledge, the defense has never said the dna on the sheath is not BK's. It's his. There are no known issues with the retrieval, processing, matching, etc. of the dna on the sheath. The defense has likely done their own testing and if it didn't match, we'd surely know. To keep saying there's a problem with the match is inaccurate.Link to the Court Document
All MOO
I believe he's referring to on page 15 it says that the profile is ambiguous and partial. If this was a partial DNA profile from the knife sheath…. Then how did they match it to his DNA thru his dads DNA? How did the grand jury move forward with an indictment with a partial profile? This is what the defense wants to know. The defense wants the prosecution to show the labs work from what I understand.
Okay--which scientific processes do you think the prosecution received and the defense didn't?EVERY scientific process. IMO, defense AND prosecution should receive identical materials from ALL scientific processes performed in the case. This should be the standard for any case, not just this one.
And the smart/safe work-around, iiuc, is to use only databases where contributors freely, wholly and knowingly opted in.Snipped by me--I don't think this is accurate. @Balthazar agrees the defense has not contested the actual match of the dna on the sheath to BK's dna. To my knowledge, the defense has never said the dna on the sheath is not BK's. It's his. There are no known issues with the retrieval, processing, matching, etc. of the dna on the sheath. The defense has likely done their own testing and if it didn't match, we'd surely know. To keep saying there's a problem with the match is inaccurate.
The filing you're citing is in regards to the Investigative Genetic Genealogy, the IGG. The defense is not really disputing any scientific process. They want to see the paperwork done by the FBI (and it's the FBI who had not turned over what the defense was asking for, not the prosecution) and the FBI was resisting, saying it wasn't material to the preparation of the defense and not subject to discovery.
The defense spends a lot of time in this motion arguing that they want to see the work product because it could be wrong. They argue that the IGG could produce a pool of suspects rather than just one and they want access to the tree created by the FBI. This argument is kind of disingenuous though. The IGG is easily replicated. There's no scientific process involved once you have the dna profile (which the defense doesn't dispute). They admit they've done their own IGG and created their own family tree. They already have the pool of suspects the FBI has and could (and likely have) investigated them on their own. In the cases they cite, the pool of suspects were tested and ultimately matches were found. For example, in the Angie Dodge case, they initially narrowed it down to one suspect, he was tested, and didn't match. It was a tip that didn't pan out. They went back to the tree and looked for other suspects to test. This is why the FBI calls this an investigative technique--IGG generates tips, places to look, but ultimately the match must be made.
If the IGG in this case was "wrong"--if it was done incorrectly, if there wasn't enough to provide matches, if the matches really point to someone else--the dna on the sheath would not match BK. And the defense doesn't dispute that it's a match. The IGG was right. So why were they fighting it so hard? The real reason is in this portion of the filing you cited:
"In addition, there has been a history of misuse of these IGG databases by law enforcement. Abuses by law enforcement of the GEDMatch resulted in users opting out of the use of their DNA data by law enforcement. The abuses and protests by users led GEDMatch to change their database so that users had to opt in for law enforcement use."
The defense wanted to see the work product of the FBI because they wanted to see if they violated any terms of service of these public databases when generating the matches and creating the family tree. This was their only hope of somehow getting the dna thrown out. Because it's his and they know it.
IMO
And they allegedly used Othram, which is 100% opt-in for law enforcement.And the smart/safe work-around, iiuc, is to use only databases where contributors freely, wholly and knowingly opted in.
JMO
I agree, I think the defense will not argue the actual match, but instead will try to cast doubt about how that DNA ended up in the sample LE took, in other words, how that sheath was handled or who it even belongs to.There are no known issues with the retrieval, processing, matching, etc. of the dna on the sheath
Yes. The way that I took it when I was buried in the defenses motions and filing last summer was (all MOO):Snipped by me--I don't think this is accurate. @Balthazar agrees the defense has not contested the actual match of the dna on the sheath to BK's dna. To my knowledge, the defense has never said the dna on the sheath is not BK's. It's his. There are no known issues with the retrieval, processing, matching, etc. of the dna on the sheath. The defense has likely done their own testing and if it didn't match, we'd surely know. To keep saying there's a problem with the match is inaccurate.
The filing you're citing is in regards to the Investigative Genetic Genealogy, the IGG. The defense is not really disputing any scientific process. They want to see the paperwork done by the FBI (and it's the FBI who had not turned over what the defense was asking for, not the prosecution) and the FBI was resisting, saying it wasn't material to the preparation of the defense and not subject to discovery.
The defense spends a lot of time in this motion arguing that they want to see the work product because it could be wrong. They argue that the IGG could produce a pool of suspects rather than just one and they want access to the tree created by the FBI. This argument is kind of disingenuous though. The IGG is easily replicated. There's no scientific process involved once you have the dna profile (which the defense doesn't dispute). They admit they've done their own IGG and created their own family tree. They already have the pool of suspects the FBI has and could (and likely have) investigated them on their own. In the cases they cite, the pool of suspects were tested and ultimately matches were found. For example, in the Angie Dodge case, they initially narrowed it down to one suspect, he was tested, and didn't match. It was a tip that didn't pan out. They went back to the tree and looked for other suspects to test. This is why the FBI calls this an investigative technique--IGG generates tips, places to look, but ultimately the match must be made.
If the IGG in this case was "wrong"--if it was done incorrectly, if there wasn't enough to provide matches, if the matches really point to someone else--the dna on the sheath would not match BK. And the defense doesn't dispute that it's a match. The IGG was right. So why were they fighting it so hard? The real reason is in this portion of the filing you cited:
"In addition, there has been a history of misuse of these IGG databases by law enforcement. Abuses by law enforcement of the GEDMatch resulted in users opting out of the use of their DNA data by law enforcement. The abuses and protests by users led GEDMatch to change their database so that users had to opt in for law enforcement use."
The defense wanted to see the work product of the FBI because they wanted to see if they violated any terms of service of these public databases when generating the matches and creating the family tree. This was their only hope of somehow getting the dna thrown out. Because it's his and they know it.
IMO
And, IMO, it all falls under the textbook heading Pound the Evidence. Which falls firmly between Pound the Investigation and Pound the Table.And they allegedly used Othram, which is 100% opt-in for law enforcement.
The witnesses brought in by the defense had no knowledge of what the FBI actually did during its investigation, just expert testimony about what was possible in an effort to convince the judge it was important for them to see the work product.
IMO
The document that you linked to that is the Judge's order on IGG was from 10/25/2023 not Jan 2024. I agree that it's a good read and very good summary of what went down with the IGG in this case. I've skimmed it here and there. I'll read it tonight.Judge's long order re IGG info from Jan this year. A good read and very good summary of what went down re IGG in this case.
Just in regard to the SNP profile page 8 ETA think judge is referring to State response titled "In support of Motion for Protective Order". Not sure what the date is on that one but recall it from Idaho Court Cases of Interest page.
"The state has represented that it has already disclosed the suspect SNP profile to the defense. Reply in Supp of Mot for Protective Order at 2"
I already answered this in what is currently post 45.Okay--which scientific processes do you think the prosecution received and the defense didn't?
IMO
And, IMO, it all falls under the textbook heading Pound the Evidence. Which falls firmly between Pound the Investigation and Pound the Table.
Serving to raise the spectre of wrong-doing (where none there is).
She's doing her job.
She's loud, she's imposing, but the evidence is louder and more imposing.
I'll give her this -- her recent argument about the calculation of DNA "matches" to a degree or as a percentage -- reminds me how astronomical those numbers are, but I know and she knows that, when his DNA from two sources (sheath and cheek) were compared, at the points exclusive to humans, bing bing bing in popular parlance a match. In scientific language, 1 in 5.something octobazillion.
She wouldn't be doing her job if she didn't try to tackle, mystify, reduce, erase what she can.
JMO
SBM for focus......
What's the point of scientific progress if we can't use it, maybe that is just me.