papertrail
Former Member
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2015
- Messages
- 2,573
- Reaction score
- 2,618
Firstly, good post. This is the first time that someone has offered some logical reasoning behind why they think there is DNA. I have made many comments regarding this, offered up reasons why I slightly lean towards there no being DNA, and not one person until now has offered up a reason or wanted to delve deeper into the issue. Just silence until a later point when they pipe in with "but they have DNA".
1. This suggests they took samples but at the time were unable to get a profile. They would have taken samples from the scenes and felt that maybe later they'd be able to get something.
aside: I think in a Green River Killer doco I watched it took a long time to wait for technology advancements to catch up and get a DNA profile. I believe they had a sample and every time they tested it it would degenerate meaning every time they did a test they were risking losing what they had. I wonder how many times Macro have been to the well?
2.I've read this article a few times but don't have it handy. Are you able to post a link? BC stated that they discovered a DNA link in 2008. Why LCN 7 years later? Maybe they discovered something in 2008 but couldn't get much of a profile and only since LCN have they been able to get one?
To get a match to Karra you'd think they'd need a reasonably full profile. If there's other forensic links then maybe not so much. But if there's no other forensic link then you'd have to think they'd have a profile to narrow it down considerably.
There's still too many inconsistencies for me and I think there's just as much chance Macro are running an operation.
As for software - I'd assume they have a reasonably efficient algorithm and gnarly CPU with a tonne of RAM. I'm a complete novice on DNA but I'd assume very quickly they be able to say "out of all the people on our DNA database, one group of people can be ruled out, where as another group of people can't be ruled out".
A wiki article states that LCN has been in use since 1999. In the UK use of LCN was apparently suspended for a short time whilst the DPP checked the veracity of the testing. The wiki article (link below) has many resource references if you're interested. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_copy_number
Whittaker was used in the prosecution of Bradley Murdoch re the murder of Falconio (trial 2005). I have viewed a recent documentary (can't recall name of such) that suggested Whittaker's techniques were bought into contention by Murdoch's defense counsel. http://www.theage.com.au/news/natio...n-falconio-case/2007/12/23/1198344884102.html