Found Deceased IN - Abigail (Abby) Williams, 13, & Liberty (Libby) German, 14, The Delphi Murders 13 Feb 2017 #97

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
NickoD said:
The answer is complicated. Some companies (i.e. GEDmatch) require its users to sign a consent form stating that their DNA could be used to help law enforcement efforts while others do not have that. Additionally, some companies use testing that requires a large clean sample of DNA and cannot work with mixed or small samples usually collected from crime scenes.

The answer is less about chain of custody and more about adjudication. Currently the matter rests with the individual laws of each state. California and Virginia are very pro-familial search while Maryland and DC completely banned it. Not sure where Indiana sits on this.

NOTE: I am still waiting to be verified so I guess MOO for the above. My verification is not as a lawyer however so perhaps one of them can jump in here. :)
Click to expand...

I agree it is complicated and varies by state. It is obviously a tool used in other cases.

This was the answer I received when I asked if it was a possibility with THIS case. I was told no. It's a chain of custody issue.
 
wary said:
I don’t understand. The police wouldn’t ‘turn the DNA over’—they’d have it processed by whatever type of lab that they’d use to do DNA work. Then they’d use a copy of that info for the genealogy work. Any suspects that they located through that would eventually have their DNA tested directly against the DNA that the police had obtained from the crime scene.

If I’m not getting the point, someone please let me know.
Click to expand...

This was just the answer I received. I didn't dig in further.
 
Spy Versus Spy said:
Not sure as a source but is ok'd to 'discuss' according to Mod/Trish Notes in Pg1 of Thread. hth
Click to expand...

Thank you. That helps immensely. I've copied the critical section below (in case, anyone else had poor retention - speaking of myself, of course):

*Before discussing podcasts, etc please check with a moderator, an admin or Tricia to see if it is approved to be posted here. (note: the the Podcast Best case Worst Case - a discussion between three former FBI agents is fine to discuss)



 
Jax49 said:
Anyone know if BC/WC has been approved as a source? If it was, I missed it. Even if it was, it is still opinion, imho.

TIA, anyone.
Click to expand...

I agree with you I think the whole thing to do with the podcast has been misleading.

I know a WS contacted them and asked them to clarify but IMO they need to clarify publically exactly what they mean.
 
Jax49 said:
Anyone know if BC/WC has been approved as a source? If it was, I missed it. Even if it was, it is still opinion, imho.

TIA, anyone.
Click to expand...

Not stated as an opinion. Then after a day or two a WS member (sorry forgot who) contacted the podcast to ask whether it was an opinion or a fact and they told her that it was information they received from insiders on the case. This was posted the other night or afternoon (not yesterday) on the threads. So I am not discounting it as just an opinion.
 
Jax49 said:
Anyone know if BC/WC has been approved as a source? If it was, I missed it. Even if it was, it is still opinion, imho.

TIA, anyone.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure, I saw it mentioned that it is ok as a source, but maybe I misunderstood. In any case, I just gave the source for this because somebody asked, so it wouldn't be my opinion, it's their opinion on the podcast. If that makes sense.

I also seem to remember a thread or two ago somebody posted a transcript of this podcast (or a summery - or i just confuse it with the transcript of the HLN special), but it was definitely mentioned many times in the last 1 or 2 threads without problem. And somebody asked them on FB if this was actually what they said and meant to say on the podcast and the answer was "yes".

But anyway, like I said, just wanted to give the source.
 
Miya said:
I'm not sure, I saw it mentioned that it is ok as a source, but maybe I misunderstood. In any case, I just gave the source for this because somebody asked, so it wouldn't be my opinion, it's their opinion on the podcast. If that makes sense.

I also seem to remember a thread or two ago somebody posted a transcript of this podcast (or a summery - or i just confuse it with the transcript of the HLN special), but it was definitely mentioned many times in the last 1 or 2 threads without problem. And somebody asked them on FB if this was actually what they said and meant to say on the podcast and the answer was "yes".

But anyway, like I said, just wanted to give the source.
Click to expand...

Dang, wish there was a transcript...I'm trying to listen, but not thrilled so far.

moo

ETA: I've just started and noticed multiple factual inaccuracies. Such as, they were "to be picked up at 5:30" which is wrong. moo
 
Regardless weather Sketch1 has been identified as a cleared individual

Weather its been ruled by investigators that sketch1 likely doesn't even exist

I'm not sure it has any bearing in the future of this case and how it will be solved

It's been ruled out, BG is not sketch1

In Fact investigators have implored us to forget about it and focus on exclusivly on Sketch2

Mods have begged us to move on from RSO's and anyone that resembles sketch1

The question about why and how Investigators were so focused on sketch1 is one that we absolutely will not get an answer to until sketch2 is found and arrested

Those questions will likely be asked and answered after that time in this case and as they should be

With that said I hope we have many answers soon
 
Jax49 said:
Dang, wish there was a transcript...I'm trying to listen, but not thrilled so far.

moo

ETA: I've just started and noticed multiple factual inaccuracies. Such as, they were "to be picked up at 5:30" which is wrong. moo
Click to expand...

I noticed that, too. While the insight from them regarding perpetrators in general was interesting, they didn't have all the facts straight.
 
moonlessnight said:
The SO recently arrested and cleared in Libby and Abby's murders was at the trail that day, and was seen by a witness. The grainy video looked enough like him that his likeness wasn't questioned. LE assumed he was the killer bc of his history and put his sketch out, but assumably DNA has cleared him and he was not BG.

Once arrested, said SO may have ID'd BG on the trail and given more info towards the new sketch.
Click to expand...
I am confused here. Are you saying that the SO was coincidentally at the bridge on the 13th when Abby and Libby were murdered by a different predator?
 
ab01 said:
Regardless weather Sketch1 has been identified as a cleared individual

Weather its been ruled by investigators that sketch1 likely doesn't even exist

I'm not sure it has any bearing in the future of this case and how it will be solved

It's been ruled out, BG is not sketch1

In Fact investigators have implored us to forget about it and focus on exclusivly on Sketch2

Mods have begged us to move on from RSO's and anyone that resembles sketch1

The question about why and how Investigators were so focused on sketch1 is one that we absolutely will not get an answer to until sketch2 is found and arrested

Those questions will likely be asked and answered after that time in this case and as they should be

With that said I hope we have many answers soon
Click to expand...

I agree it's pretty much irelavant I'm going to stop mentioning sketch 1.

It's so hard to get something out of your mind that you have assumed is correct for so long though.

I feel like I need a partial lobotomy to get that picture out of my mind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 147 more.
Total: 366 (members: 148, guests: 218)

Online statistics

Members online
148
Guests online
218
Total visitors
366
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,929
Messages
18,247,737
Members
234,505
Latest member
sandra.gionest76
Back
Top