4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #87

[Boxer]

I am married to an expert. No disrespect to experts. But if you have a degree in plant botany I don't understand how that makes you a genetic genealogist. So not an expert, no? JMOO

Leah Larkin

Her language is biologist turned genealogist.

Its AT that acquired an expert in the field willng cast doubt on the science and to say they make errors.
None of the errors she cited are remotely the kind of error that would made here, and BK is a match from his buccal swab so it is a DNA match.

The DNA is match is good.
There is mo problem with the DNA. The science is good.

AT is looking for errors in INVESTIGATIVE process and that is what is going on.
Sad tbst professional of geneologiat would get on board with BK's defense.


AT is using the expert to get at the methods used to put together the first geneology dearch of databases from the sheath hoping the process had flaws like a bad search warrant that will allow her to press for suppression of the DNA altogether.

 

[jepop]

Re the genetic genealogy: The motion hearing is this coming Friday already. I know we probably won't hear an outcome on that day, but maybe next week all this will be dealt with and dismissed when Judge upholds the P's motion for protective order or allows the D only limited and stipulated access to certain records. The D has already said they acquired something or other from the fbi via court order (again an aside of sorts in their objection to motion to compel alibi defense which annoyingly has limited if any relevance to the actual matter under motion) and I hope that whatever that was, it didn't produce the evidence of bad practice they were looking for and thus they are still looking.Moo

I get it re technicalities, but at the same time it's terrible to think that a case could be dismissed or evidence suppressed because of one. The law and justice are not always equivalent. Moo

 

[Balthazar]

I understand your thought process. Option 1, although highly unlikely, seems to me the only possible explanation other than BK being the murderer.

I find option 3 hard to swallow because it would mean that the lab made a mistake processing the DNA in such a way that it mistakenly points to one man on the entire planet that also just happens to have been on tape circling the neighborhood the night at the time the murders occurred. I'm sorry, but I can't see any jury buying that.

Option 2 seems unlikely to the point of impossible. I don't see how the "real" murderer is going to accidentally come into physical contact with this loner's invisible DNA, and either accidentally or deliberately transfer it to a heavy touch point area of the sheath while also leaving none of their own behind.

I just feel both 2 and 3 puts us into BK being the unluckiest guy in the universe territory. Being the unluckiest guy on the planet just wouldn't cover those possibilities, IMO.

The only other option I could think of is a variant of option 3, where there is an evidence handling error by someone in the chain of custody, but that raises the question of how/why that person could have encountered BK's DNA in the first place.

Option 1 would include any scenario in which he is guilty and some in which he is not guilty. Somehow, if he did this, BK managed not to get any other shred of his DNA in 1122 King Rd, so the DNA on the snap would logically have gotten there at some time prior to the time of the murders.

Option 2 - is actually very likely and here is a real life example of Option 2 actually happening - so not only is this scenario possible, it has actually happened before AND people have been wrongly convicted. Here is but one example:

Framed for Murder By His Own DNA | FRONTLINE

We leave traces of our genetic material everywhere, even on things we’ve never touched. That got Lukis Anderson charged with a brutal crime he didn’t commit.

www.pbs.org

"We leave traces of our genetic material everywhere, even on things we’ve never touched. That got Lukis Anderson charged with a brutal crime he didn’t commit."

"Back in the 1980s, when DNA forensic analysis was still in its infancy, crime labs needed a speck of bodily fluid — usually blood, semen or spit — to generate a genetic profile.

That changed in 1997, when Australian forensic scientist Roland van Oorschot stunned the criminal justice world with a nine-paragraph paper titled “DNA Fingerprints from Fingerprints.” It revealed that DNA could be detected not just from bodily fluids but from traces left by a touch. Investigators across the globe began scouring crime scenes for anything — a doorknob, a countertop, a knife handle — that a perpetrator may have tainted with incriminating “touch” DNA.

But van Oorschot’s paper also contained a vital observation: Some people’s DNA appeared on things that they had never touched."

Framed for Murder by His Own DNA

We leave traces of our genetic material everywhere, even on things we’ve never touched. That got Lukis Anderson charged with a brutal crime he didn’t commit.

www.themarshallproject.org

Option 3 - where this could come into play is the fact the Idaho crime lab found no DNA on the sheath at all. The DNA on the sheath was not discovered until the sheath was sent to a lab in Texas. So that brings into question the entire chain of custody as well as if it was partial or a complete DNA sequence. Could the lab in Texas have taken a partial DNA sequence, and recombined it to create a genealogical DNA profile that pointed to the wrong family? Well, it seems with partial DNA that is very possible. How Forensic DNA Evidence Can Lead to Wrongful Convictions - JSTOR Daily

"The ABA urged lawyers not to oversell DNA evidence and suggested that courts take the standards of the lab into account when considering DNA evidence. “Telling a jury it is implausible that anyone besides the suspect would have the same DNA test results is seldom, if ever, justified,” the report states."

"Partial profiles will match up with many more people than a full profile. And even full profiles may match with a person other than the culprit. Further complicating matters, a single DNA profile might be mistakenly generated when samples from multiple people are accidentally combined. It’s a messy world."

"At times, DNA evidence has been misused or misunderstood, leading to miscarriages of justice. A man with Parkinson’s disease who was unable to walk more than a few feet without assistance was convicted of a burglary based on a partial DNA profile match. His lawyer insisted on more DNA tests, which exonerated him. In 2011, Adam Scott’s DNA matched with a sperm sample taken from a rape victim in Manchester—a city Scott, who lived more than 200 miles away, had never visited. Non-DNA evidence subsequently cleared Scott. The mixup was due to a careless mistake in the lab, in which a plate used to analyze Scott’s DNA from a minor incident was accidentally reused in the rape case.

Then there’s the uncomfortable and inconvenient truth that any of us could have DNA present at a crime scene—even if we were never there. Moreover, DNA recovered at a crime scene could have been deposited there at a time other than when the crime took place. Someone could have visited beforehand or stumbled upon the scene afterward. Alternatively, their DNA could have arrived via a process called secondary transfer, where their DNA was transferred to someone else, who carried it to the scene."

This case is such an incredibly heinous crime it is imperative, IMO, that we know for certain that the perpetrator has been caught. Otherwise that criminal or those criminals will be free do this again and that is terrifying.

 

[SpiderFalcon]

Option 3 - where this could come into play is the fact the Idaho crime lai found no DNA on the sheath at all. The DNA on the sheath was not discovered until the sheath was sent to a lab in Texas. So that brings into question the entire chain of custody as well as if it was partial or a complete DNA sequence. Could the lab in Texas have taken a partial DNA sequence, and recombined it to create a genealogical DNA profile that pointed to the wrong family? Well, it seems with partial DNA that is very possible. How Forensic DNA Evidence Can Lead to Wrongful Convictions - JSTOR Daily

BBM: The affidavit states that the Idaho State Lab discovered the DNA, not that it was not discovered until the sheath was sent to a lab in Texas. So, do you still think there's chain of custody issues?

 

[Balthazar]

So number 2 happens randomly, and the DNA is sent to the lab for analysis and eventual identification.

And in the mean time, randomly, BK's name also comes up because of his white Elantra being registered at W University?

And coincidentally, he happens to be driving around alone all night, in the area of the crime scene and his car is picked up leaving the scene of the crime? And his phone is turned off at the crucial time?

Are we to believe that his DNA randomly ended up on that knife sheath underneath a murder victim, which would be a one in a trillion chance---but on top of that, there is other incriminating evidence as well? What are the odds of that?

Number 3 is not a real possibility. Those things are double and triple checked. JMO

Could you please show me how you calculated that the DNA randomly ending up on the knife sheath underneath a murder victim is a one in a trillion chance? There are only 65,000 people in the Moscow-Pullman area and the population of the entire US is only 331.9M. Please see my previous post for scientific information on how touch DNA can easily be deposited, even on objects the person has never actually touched.

Also, the defense stated very specifically that BK was NOT at 1122 King Rd that night. The white Elantra in the video does not have a visible license plate nor any identifying marks and you cannot see who is driving it. In addition, the windows appear to be tinted, whereas BK's Elantra windows did not appear to be tinted in the Indiana traffic stop videos. The white Elantra is one of approximately 33,000 2011 - 2015 white Elantra's in the area that LE was researching. There is absolutely nothing that proves it was BK's white Elantra in the videos that has been told to the public thus far. I only wish there was proof because this is such an incredibly heinous crime. I want justice for the victims families and I want to be certain that whoever did this is permanently separated from society because they will do this again if they are not caught.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Re the genetic genealogy: The motion hearing is this coming Friday already. I know we probably won't hear an outcome on that day, but maybe next week all this will be dealt with and dismissed when Judge upholds the P's motion for protective order or allows the D only limited and stipulated access to certain records. The D has already said they acquired something or other from the fbi via court order (again an aside of sorts in their objection to motion to compel alibi defense which annoyingly has limited if any relevance to the actual matter under motion) and I hope that whatever that was, it didn't produce the evidence of bad practice they were looking for and thus they are still looking.Moo

I get it re technicalities, but at the same time it's terrible to think that a case could be dismissed or evidence suppressed because of one. The law and justice are not always equivalent. Moo

It's just AT making a case. I'm not worried, I don't think the State or the FBI haven't anticipated such things.

MOO

 

[10ofRods]

Could you please show me how you calculated that the DNA randomly ending up on the knife sheath underneath a murder victim is a one in a trillion chance? There are only 65,000 people in the Moscow-Pullman area and the population of the entire US is only 331.9M. Please see my previous post for scientific information on how touch DNA can easily be deposited, even on objects the person has never actually touched.

Also, the defense stated very specifically that BK was NOT at 1122 King Rd that night. The white Elantra in the video does not have a visible license plate nor any identifying marks and you cannot see who is driving it. In addition, the windows appear to be tinted, whereas BK's Elantra windows did not appear to be tinted in the Indiana traffic stop videos. The white Elantra is one of approximately 33,000 2011 - 2015 white Elantra's in the area that LE was researching. There is absolutely nothing that proves it was BK's white Elantra in the videos that has been told to the public thus far. I only wish there was proof because this is such an incredibly heinous crime. I want justice for the victims families and I want to be certain that whoever did this is permanently separated from society because they will do this again if they are not caught.

That's based on the total number of combinations within the human DNA system - that's how many unique humans can be created. Most biologists and anthropologists believe that aside from identical twins/triplets etc, no two people are exactly the same in terms of DNA. So far, every bit of collected data says that hypothesis is true.

So there are at least 1 trillion possible combinations for an individual human DNA sample. (see below - it's actually 1 in 70 trillion).

Only one profile was found on the sheath.

It matches Bryan Kohberger and the chances of there being ANOTHER living person with the same DNA are about 1 in a trillion (I think it's an even larger number: 1 in 10 trillion, can't remember - there are some new findings about how genes and epigenetics work that may push the 3 trillion even higher - that "junk DNA" you may have heard about may work as an identifier as well).

Okay, so I went and checked. It's 1 in 70 trillion according to a very reliable source (IMO):

Biological Basis of Heredity: Recombination and Linkage

So there's a 1 in 70 trillion chance that somewhere on the planet, there's another (genetic) Kohberger. Very remote.

And the chances of that person also living near Moscow are, as you point out, very small.

 

[maskedwoman]

At most points in time, the "experts" know more than the populace.

I'm not speaking about paid legal experts, but people who work among their peers and espouse methods known to the expert community. Like neurosurgery - I wouldn't go to a non-expert neurosurgeon and I'm sure that the neurosurgeons of the 1950's would look like hacks compared to the best of them working today. Of course, people *do* sometimes go to non-expert brain surgeons (look up trepanation - still practiced, even in the US, sometimes.)

Take the fact that long ago, it was established (by an expert) that the Earth is not at the center of the Universe, but instead, revolves around the Sun. Copernicus was at the time the only person who knew this or taught it. It took quite some time before even the university-educated got the idea. Knowledge is a series of revolutions and most of us are behind the curve and do not know as much as we could.

So Copernicus thought the "known universe" was just our solar system (he theorized there could be more - but he KNEW we revolve around the Sun). He's an expert that is later proved wrong. The entire Solar System is also moving, etc.

That's how science and expertise work. They are imperfect, but way better than the alternative.

IMO.

Unfortunately, I was not as clear as I might have been. In reality, I recognize the place for experts/specialists in a complicated world. My issue is with people who are presented as "experts" when, in reality, they have been hired to sell a particular viewpoint rather than share their knowledge and expertise without bias or prejudice.

 

[Palinsmom]

I’ve been pondering the question/idea that perhaps the intention was to just kill Murphy. My opinion is that if he wanted to do that why didn’t he do it when everyone was out? Why wait until 6 people were at home?

 

[Palinsmom]

That's based on the total number of combinations within the human DNA system - that's how many unique humans can be created. Most biologists and anthropologists believe that aside from identical twins/triplets etc, no two people are exactly the same in terms of DNA. So far, every bit of collected data says that hypothesis is true.

So there are at least 1 trillion possible combinations for an individual human DNA sample. (see below - it's actually 1 in 70 trillion).

Only one profile was found on the sheath.

It matches Bryan Kohberger and the chances of there being ANOTHER living person with the same DNA are about 1 in a trillion (I think it's an even larger number: 1 in 10 trillion, can't remember - there are some new findings about how genes and epigenetics work that may push the 3 trillion even higher - that "junk DNA" you may have heard about may work as an identifier as well).

Okay, so I went and checked. It's 1 in 70 trillion according to a very reliable source (IMO):

Biological Basis of Heredity: Recombination and Linkage

So there's a 1 in 70 trillion chance that somewhere on the planet, there's another (genetic) Kohberger. Very remote.

And the chances of that person also living near Moscow are, as you point out, very small.

I love your explanation. This Radom 1 in 70 trillion would also have to some similarities with his mom and dad as well I would think. Oh and drive a white Elantra ! Lol

 

[NextSprint]

Option 1 would include any scenario in which he is guilty and some in which he is not guilty. Somehow, if he did this, BK managed not to get any other shred of his DNA in 1122 King Rd, so the DNA on the snap would logically have gotten there at some time prior to the time of the murders.

Option 2 - is actually very likely and here is a real life example of Option 2 actually happening - so not only is this scenario possible, it has actually happened before AND people have been wrongly convicted. Here is but one example:

Framed for Murder By His Own DNA | FRONTLINE

We leave traces of our genetic material everywhere, even on things we’ve never touched. That got Lukis Anderson charged with a brutal crime he didn’t commit.

www.pbs.org

"We leave traces of our genetic material everywhere, even on things we’ve never touched. That got Lukis Anderson charged with a brutal crime he didn’t commit."

"Back in the 1980s, when DNA forensic analysis was still in its infancy, crime labs needed a speck of bodily fluid — usually blood, semen or spit — to generate a genetic profile.

That changed in 1997, when Australian forensic scientist Roland van Oorschot stunned the criminal justice world with a nine-paragraph paper titled “DNA Fingerprints from Fingerprints.” It revealed that DNA could be detected not just from bodily fluids but from traces left by a touch. Investigators across the globe began scouring crime scenes for anything — a doorknob, a countertop, a knife handle — that a perpetrator may have tainted with incriminating “touch” DNA.

But van Oorschot’s paper also contained a vital observation: Some people’s DNA appeared on things that they had never touched."

Framed for Murder by His Own DNA

We leave traces of our genetic material everywhere, even on things we’ve never touched. That got Lukis Anderson charged with a brutal crime he didn’t commit.

www.themarshallproject.org

Option 3 - where this could come into play is the fact the Idaho crime lab found no DNA on the sheath at all. The DNA on the sheath was not discovered until the sheath was sent to a lab in Texas. So that brings into question the entire chain of custody as well as if it was partial or a complete DNA sequence. Could the lab in Texas have taken a partial DNA sequence, and recombined it to create a genealogical DNA profile that pointed to the wrong family? Well, it seems with partial DNA that is very possible. How Forensic DNA Evidence Can Lead to Wrongful Convictions - JSTOR Daily

"The ABA urged lawyers not to oversell DNA evidence and suggested that courts take the standards of the lab into account when considering DNA evidence. “Telling a jury it is implausible that anyone besides the suspect would have the same DNA test results is seldom, if ever, justified,” the report states."

"Partial profiles will match up with many more people than a full profile. And even full profiles may match with a person other than the culprit. Further complicating matters, a single DNA profile might be mistakenly generated when samples from multiple people are accidentally combined. It’s a messy world."

"At times, DNA evidence has been misused or misunderstood, leading to miscarriages of justice. A man with Parkinson’s disease who was unable to walk more than a few feet without assistance was convicted of a burglary based on a partial DNA profile match. His lawyer insisted on more DNA tests, which exonerated him. In 2011, Adam Scott’s DNA matched with a sperm sample taken from a rape victim in Manchester—a city Scott, who lived more than 200 miles away, had never visited. Non-DNA evidence subsequently cleared Scott. The mixup was due to a careless mistake in the lab, in which a plate used to analyze Scott’s DNA from a minor incident was accidentally reused in the rape case.

Then there’s the uncomfortable and inconvenient truth that any of us could have DNA present at a crime scene—even if we were never there. Moreover, DNA recovered at a crime scene could have been deposited there at a time other than when the crime took place. Someone could have visited beforehand or stumbled upon the scene afterward. Alternatively, their DNA could have arrived via a process called secondary transfer, where their DNA was transferred to someone else, who carried it to the scene."

This case is such an incredibly heinous crime it is imperative, IMO, that we know for certain that the perpetrator has been caught. Otherwise that criminal or those criminals will be free do this again and that is terrifying.

100% agree, and it doesn't detract from the seriousness of the crime to ask questions designed to ensure the right person is convicted, whomever that is.

 

[Balthazar]

BBM: The affidavit states that the Idaho State Lab discovered the DNA, not that it was not discovered until the sheath was sent to a lab in Texas. So, do you still think there's chain of custody issues?

View attachment 440880

Yes because we don't know what DNA lab it went to in Texas. Idaho State Lab is LE. If it went to a civilian DNA lab in Texas for GG, then all bets are off as far as chain of custody goes.

 

[maskedwoman]

Option 1 would include any scenario in which he is guilty and some in which he is not guilty. Somehow, if he did this, BK managed not to get any other shred of his DNA in 1122 King Rd, so the DNA on the snap would logically have gotten there at some time prior to the time of the murders.

Technically, we can be certain only that they found his DNA on the sheath by the time they wrote the PCA. DNA tests take time and I'm pretty confident that many were run on this crime scene. We know nothing about the remaining results, but I think it's a mistake to assume that none of the other results included BK's. It's certainly possible that they did not, but we don't yet know.

Option 2 - is actually very likely and here is a real life example of Option 2 actually happening - so not only is this scenario possible, it has actually happened before AND people have been wrongly convicted. Here is but one example:

In the case you mentioned below, there was still a clear trail to how the DNA got there. The EMT who brought Anderson to the hospital was later at the crime scene. As astounding as that is, it makes sense. One in a million things clearly do happen, just not every day. IMHO, the fact that there haven't been a rash of similar cases identified suggests this is an outlier rather than a common problem.

For your Option 3, I believe the Idaho lab would have to already have a sample of BK's DNA in their possession before the sheath was sent to Texas and know that's who it belonged to. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the timing of events allows for that to the case.

 

[10ofRods]

Unfortunately, I was not as clear as I might have been. In reality, I recognize the place for experts/specialists in a complicated world. My issue is with people who are presented as "experts" when, in reality, they have been hired to sell a particular viewpoint rather than share their knowledge and expertise without bias or prejudice.

I think we're on the same page. Experts must, by their nature, consider more than one hypotheses. They also need to be sure they have all relevant data (not just one side, obviously).

And some experts (like, say, DNA or footprint experts - real experts, people who publish in the field) have such intense specializations that they are very likely to agree with each other. I think, for example, that it would be hard to find two equally reputable footprint analysts and have them disagree on what the footprint showed about who the foot owner might be.

Same with the DNA. The mishandling proposed by LL (the defense's botany DNA expert) is not her specialty. Forensics people study the amount of errors made in a field and have something to say about the (remote) chances of DNA being mishandled. A non-forensic person using google/hearsay and opining about "things that go wrong with DNA" is playing for the stands and the general population, not for an expert audience.

IMO.

 

[Baby baby Jane]

Option 1 would include any scenario in which he is guilty and some in which he is not guilty. Somehow, if he did this, BK managed not to get any other shred of his DNA in 1122 King Rd, so the DNA on the snap would logically have gotten there at some time prior to the time of the murders.

Option 2 - is actually very likely and here is a real life example of Option 2 actually happening - so not only is this scenario possible, it has actually happened before AND people have been wrongly convicted. Here is but one example:

Framed for Murder By His Own DNA | FRONTLINE

We leave traces of our genetic material everywhere, even on things we’ve never touched. That got Lukis Anderson charged with a brutal crime he didn’t commit.

www.pbs.org

"We leave traces of our genetic material everywhere, even on things we’ve never touched. That got Lukis Anderson charged with a brutal crime he didn’t commit."

"Back in the 1980s, when DNA forensic analysis was still in its infancy, crime labs needed a speck of bodily fluid — usually blood, semen or spit — to generate a genetic profile.

That changed in 1997, when Australian forensic scientist Roland van Oorschot stunned the criminal justice world with a nine-paragraph paper titled “DNA Fingerprints from Fingerprints.” It revealed that DNA could be detected not just from bodily fluids but from traces left by a touch. Investigators across the globe began scouring crime scenes for anything — a doorknob, a countertop, a knife handle — that a perpetrator may have tainted with incriminating “touch” DNA.

But van Oorschot’s paper also contained a vital observation: Some people’s DNA appeared on things that they had never touched."

Framed for Murder by His Own DNA

We leave traces of our genetic material everywhere, even on things we’ve never touched. That got Lukis Anderson charged with a brutal crime he didn’t commit.

www.themarshallproject.org

Option 3 - where this could come into play is the fact the Idaho crime lab found no DNA on the sheath at all. The DNA on the sheath was not discovered until the sheath was sent to a lab in Texas. So that brings into question the entire chain of custody as well as if it was partial or a complete DNA sequence. Could the lab in Texas have taken a partial DNA sequence, and recombined it to create a genealogical DNA profile that pointed to the wrong family? Well, it seems with partial DNA that is very possible. How Forensic DNA Evidence Can Lead to Wrongful Convictions - JSTOR Daily

"The ABA urged lawyers not to oversell DNA evidence and suggested that courts take the standards of the lab into account when considering DNA evidence. “Telling a jury it is implausible that anyone besides the suspect would have the same DNA test results is seldom, if ever, justified,” the report states."

"Partial profiles will match up with many more people than a full profile. And even full profiles may match with a person other than the culprit. Further complicating matters, a single DNA profile might be mistakenly generated when samples from multiple people are accidentally combined. It’s a messy world."

"At times, DNA evidence has been misused or misunderstood, leading to miscarriages of justice. A man with Parkinson’s disease who was unable to walk more than a few feet without assistance was convicted of a burglary based on a partial DNA profile match. His lawyer insisted on more DNA tests, which exonerated him. In 2011, Adam Scott’s DNA matched with a sperm sample taken from a rape victim in Manchester—a city Scott, who lived more than 200 miles away, had never visited. Non-DNA evidence subsequently cleared Scott. The mixup was due to a careless mistake in the lab, in which a plate used to analyze Scott’s DNA from a minor incident was accidentally reused in the rape case.

Then there’s the uncomfortable and inconvenient truth that any of us could have DNA present at a crime scene—even if we were never there. Moreover, DNA recovered at a crime scene could have been deposited there at a time other than when the crime took place. Someone could have visited beforehand or stumbled upon the scene afterward. Alternatively, their DNA could have arrived via a process called secondary transfer, where their DNA was transferred to someone else, who carried it to the scene."

This case is such an incredibly heinous crime it is imperative, IMO, that we know for certain that the perpetrator has been caught. Otherwise that criminal or those criminals will be free do this again and that is terrifying.

Very good DNA issues raised … and thinking Adam Scott was 200 Miles away from the crime. BK was in the next town …. Or possibly driving around the neighborhood.
America’s a big place … and the DNA partial happens to link to a guy driving around the same neighborhood in Idaho...

 

[10ofRods]

Very good DNA issues raised … and thinking Adam Scott was 200 Miles away from the crime. BK was in the next town …. Or possibly driving around the neighborhood.
America’s a big place … and the DNA partial happens to link to a guy driving around the same neighborhood in Idaho...

It was not a partial match, though. I believe that would have been said by the forensics person.

It was single source DNA, which matched partially to Kohberger's dad (49.99% which is typical of a father to son match).

The sheath DNA has never been called a partial match, that I know of (except to Mr. Kohberger). It's a full match to Bryan Kohberger,

And, the chances of it being anyone else's DNA are virtually zero (incalculably small, really).

 

[jepop]

Yes because we don't know what DNA lab it went to in Texas. Idaho State Lab is LE. If it went to a civilian DNA lab in Texas for GG, then all bets are off as far as chain of custody goes.

The STR profile developed by Idaho State Lab occurred before dna sample was submitted for IGG. No chain of custody issue. Chain of custody from collection of sheathe to ISL to extraction of dna sample and developement of STR profile is available to the Defense already through discovery. Moo

This quote helps explain the process (Moo):

"Prior to the FBl’s IGG efforts, the ISP laboratory developed the traditional STR
DNA profile from the DNA found on the KaBar knife sheath. After identification of
Defendant law enforcement recovered trash from the home of Defendant’s
parents and ISP laboratory did STR DNA analysis of items from the trash for
comparison with the unknown crime scene DNA. That comparison indicated the DNA found on the trash
belonged to the biological father of the individual who left the DNA on the KaBar knife sheath. Pursuant to a search warrant, law enforcement then collected DNA from Defendant via a buccal swab. A traditional STR
DNA comparison was done between the STR profile found on the KaBar
knife sheath and Defendant’s DNA. The comparison showed a statistical match—... Specifically, the STR profile is at least 5.37 octillion times more likely to be seen if
Defendant is the source than if an unrelated individual randomly selected from
the general population is the source"

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/061623+States+Motion+for+Protective+Order.pdf

Below in diagrammatic form differentiating the IGG process from the STR profile which will be used in evidence (Moo):

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/071423+Reply+In+Support+of+Motion+for+Protectiive+Order.pdf

EBM spelling

 

[Baby baby Jane]

It was not a partial match, though. I believe that would have been said by the forensics person.

It was single source DNA, which matched partially to Kohberger's dad (49.99% which is typical of a father to son match).

The sheath DNA has never been called a partial match, that I know of (except to Mr. Kohberger). It's a full match to Bryan Kohberger,

And, the chances of it being anyone else's DNA are virtually zero (incalculably small, really).

 

[Baby baby Jane]

Totally agree. I think in the past jurors could get blinded by the dna science and probability. DNA now more familiar w ancestry, golden gate killer, etc I don’t think defense has any leverage w dna

 

[ArianeEmory]

Yes because we don't know what DNA lab it went to in Texas. Idaho State Lab is LE. If it went to a civilian DNA lab in Texas for GG, then all bets are off as far as chain of custody goes.

It seems unlikely that they would fumble chain of custody in this particular case. JMO