- Joined
- Jun 27, 2019
- Messages
- 15,939
- Reaction score
- 201,098
Given the the phrase (single source) came either from a forensic pathologist or a forensic anthropologist and given that it has but one meaning in the scientific literature (there was only one source; no need to send for the kind of analysis labs do when there's more than one source), I'd say it means there was (so far) only ONE person's DNA on the snap of the sheath.Both of these posts argue that the officer's statement of a "single source of male DNA (suspect's profile)" does not preclude that there was a mixture and/or more DNA that didn't match the suspect. The affidavit does not include a lab report and it is written in plain English and I think it should be taken at face value. The officer knows the lab report is not going to be kept secret and any misleading language or deliberate failure to disclose other possible suspect DNA in the warrant application, elimination of other possible suspects, etc., could cause great harm to the case with a claim of a rush to judgment. I would think the judge that read the affidavit also thought it meant that only BK's DNA was found on the snap.
"Based on the above information, I am requesting an arrest warrant be issued for Bryan C. Kohberger"
And I also predict they'll have to do the more advanced procedure (of disentangling more than one DNA identity) on the leather is that they will have to remove bovine DNA from the mix. I've posted citations about this before, etc. I think we'll see further testing on the sheath requested either before or at the Prelim.
But no scientist is going to say "single source" when they really meant "multiple sources."
IMO.