Alibi ?
The defense will be gifting the prosecution every time they mention (sheath) DNA,BK’s PHONE (turned off during the murders),or BK’s CAR (captured on camera).
The defense is essentially conceding that it's his car on some of the videos but in others it wasn't him. And I bet they will claim that the cell phone information is mostly correct but the technology can't be trusted.
They want to make this case about 1) the tremendous amount of national and local (university) pressure on the police to solve the case 2) the police completely changing their theory and seemingly out of the blue (assuming genetic genealogy evidence isn't introduced) getting tunnel vision focus on BK 3) because of that, they stopped looking at other possible suspects
Will it work? NO LOL. Not IMO anyway. He mind as well confess at this point and achieve the notoriety that he was hoping 'the mysterious and terrifying murderer' persona would have achieved if he hadn't left the sheath behind.
Should citizens be deprived of justice when there is a valid way find their murderers?
The question isn't whether BKs DNA was at the murder scene, it was and there is no explantion offered in his defense.
MOO the idea other people were in the area and that the students used and possibly dealt drugs, after suppressing the DNA, is the game plan.
Should the 4 students be denied their potential for justice so BK usomg an unclear point of DNA tracing procedure can get off and provide settled law for the defense attorneys of America?
I see the DNA in this case a little differently. Nothing about this process should be secret.
I have also seen cases where DNA is given for one purpose and then used for another and that's a violation of the 4th amendment. It seems to me that BK's distant family member gave their DNA to a database for some other reason than identifying a family member for a crime. I even wonder if this situation could open up the family member who gave their DNA for other purposes to liability as well as the company which had the DNA profile should BK be found not guilty. Did the family member actually opt in for LE purposes or not? If not, this opens up a whole can of worms.
For example, a rape victim in San Francisco was identified for a 2016 property offense via her rape kit.
Is this situation a violation of BK's fourth amendment? It probably is.
Then there is the whole question of the technique used to identify BK:
IMO how DNA identifications are made in the future for criminal justice are going to need to be documented step by step with replicable results to be admissible in court. This process should be replicable to remove any question about exactly how the identification was made and if it was done correctly. Without this information, I don't think that the DNA in Kohberger's case should be admissible in court, unfortunately.
I don't understand why the prosecution in this case cannot get and give this information to the defense. It is a straight forward process with a beginning, middle and end. That it is finite tells me it is possible for the information to be documented even now and it should be possible for both the prosecution and the defense to send BK's DNA to another lab AND the same lab the prosecution used as well and get the exact same results from both labs. If the results cannot be replicated, then there is a problem and the DNA testing cannot be trusted. To me this is a simple straightforward question. Was the testing done correctly and can it be replicated? If not, it should not stand as evidence. If the prosecution cannot give the defense information proving the testing was done correctly, then unfortunately, it should not be admissible.
Do we know any further detail about this DNA from 3 unknown males? The only thing I see addressed specifically is DNA on a glove found outside of the house a week after the murders.
I hope the state tested all of this DNA. And, I think it would be in their best interest to turn it over. MOO not turning it over is going to give the jury pause. I think it's important that they take the forward position on this and draw the sting. Be prepared in their opening to tell the jury that the defense will use this to try and sew doubt. Be prepared, even if they do not know who the dna on the glove belongs to, to remind them just how many first responders and LE were on the scene. Plant the seed that this wasn't evidence a week later after they had walked the property thoroughly, but that it was trash - at the curb. I don't know. These are just my immediate thoughts. They would be wise to turn it over and raise it first. If they don't explain it she wins that point imo.
I see the DNA in this case a little differently. Nothing about this process should be secret.
I have also seen cases where DNA is given for one purpose and then used for another and that's a violation of the 4th amendment. It seems to me that BK's distant family member gave their DNA to a database for some other reason than identifying a family member for a crime. I even wonder if this situation could open up the family member who gave their DNA for other purposes to liability as well as the company which had the DNA profile should BK be found not guilty. Did the family member actually opt in for LE purposes or not? If not, this opens up a whole can of worms.
For example, a rape victim in San Francisco was identified for a 2016 property offense via her rape kit.
Is this situation a violation of BK's fourth amendment? It probably is.
Then there is the whole question of the technique used to identify BK:
IMO how DNA identifications are made in the future for criminal justice are going to need to be documented step by step with replicable results to be admissible in court. This process should be replicable to remove any question about exactly how the identification was made and if it was done correctly. Without this information, I don't think that the DNA in Kohberger's case should be admissible in court, unfortunately.
I don't understand why the prosecution in this case cannot get and give this information to the defense. It is a straight forward process with a beginning, middle and end. That it is finite tells me it is possible for the information to be documented even now and it should be possible for both the prosecution and the defense to send BK's DNA to another lab AND the same lab the prosecution used as well and get the exact same results from both labs. If the results cannot be replicated, then there is a problem and the DNA testing cannot be trusted. To me this is a simple straightforward question. Was the testing done correctly and can it be replicated? If not, it should not stand as evidence. If the prosecution cannot give the defense information proving the testing was done correctly, then unfortunately, it should not be admissible.
Oh well, all the P filings in relation to protective order clearly show D has received all discovery re sheath dna chain of custody, dna extraction, str analysis, forensic profile development, codis upload results, forensic sample test matching bk through paternal trash dna, forensic sample test matching BK via buccal swab. All this occurred in the Idaho State Lab. And the D has absolutely every report, scientific test etc that was done there. They also have details re lab personnel IIRCC. Their own experts can scrutinise it to high heaven to see if testing was done correctly. The D isn't asking for all those results to be replicated in another lab. Moo
The defense is essentially conceding that it's his car on some of the videos but in others it wasn't him. And I bet they will claim that the cell phone information is mostly correct but the technology can't be trusted.
They want to make this case about 1) the tremendous amount of national and local (university) pressure on the police to solve the case 2) the police completely changing their theory and seemingly out of the blue (assuming genetic genealogy evidence isn't introduced) getting tunnel vision focus on BK 3) because of that, they stopped looking at other possible suspects
Will it work? NO LOL. Not IMO anyway. He mind as well confess at this point and achieve the notoriety that he was hoping 'the mysterious and terrifying murderer' persona would have achieved if he hadn't left the sheath behind.
The BBM, this is what I think too. I think their theory of the case in a nutshell will be to try to persuade the jury that LE changed their initial investigative assessments to fit the facts that it was BK, as opposed to the initial assessments and evidence leading them to BK. (This is another reason why I think it should be the prosecution who addresses the other foreign DNA)
I expect they will make a lot of hay over the fact that the car was originally thought to be a different model year. But I think it was already addressed and revealed that the body type of these model years were basically the same. I also think it's reasonable that the initial assessment was made having grainy video footage only but that as more footage became available in the coming days it became clear that it could be either/or but in all events was the same vehicle he is seen exiting at Kroger (Albertson's?).
I don't think any of this will work. What they have on that car, the aid of WSU as a result of the BOLO, followed by the search of the vehicle that revealed traffic stops and his cell phone number, the DMV records re-registering the car from PA (no front plate) to WA (2 plates), it's too much imo. In those very early stages before they barely had any labs back we know from the pca that they had already successfully achieved linking the car to BK, the phone to the car, and both to the house from the 12 prior "nighttime drives".
Here is a questionairre (WI DOJ)that police use to detrrmine if DNA is qualified for CODIS.
If the samples are not presumed to be perpetrators, then not qualified.
The answers to these questions will assist the laboratory in determining if a DNA profile developed in a case is eligible for CODIS (Combined DNA Indexing System). A DNA profile becomes CODIS eligible when it is obtained from biological material collected from a crime scene and is attributable to a presumed perpetrator. We ask that a completed CEQ be submitted whenever DNA testing is requested. If a CEQ is not submitted, it may result in a delay in analysis and or CODIS entry.
For All Cases: Please give a brief description of the events that allegedly occurred.
What evidence are you submitting for DNA analysis; and how is that evidence associated with the crime scene, the victim, or the suspect? If it is not immediately obvious (just two examples - a sexual assault kit and blood on a broken window at a burglary), please include why you think a DNA profile will assist in your investigation. If clothing or bedding is being submitted, tell us where it was taken from.
For Sexual Assault Cases
To improve our service, we ask that you tell us the following information:
1. What type of contact allegedly occurred (oral, vaginal, anal penetration, penis, finger, mouth, with or without ejaculation)?
2. Did the victim have consensual sexual relations any time in the five days (120 hours) prior to the incident or any time between the incident and the evidence collection? —
If this answer is yes, an elimination standard from the consensual partner is needed to help us differentiate between DNA profiles which are legitimately present and those of the perpetrator. Only foreign DNA profiles may be uploaded to CODIS (i.e. those profiles not from a victim or a consensual partner).
3. What is the relationship between the victim and the suspect,and did they live together?
For Property Crimes & Other Offenses (e.g. Burglary, Robbery, Felon in Possession, Controlled Substances, etc.)
1. Do the items being submitted belong to the victim or a resident or an owner of the property? —
2. Did the victim, a resident, or an owner handle the evidence at any time? —
If this answer is yes, standard samples from the victims/residents/owners who handled the evidence will be needed for elimination purposes prior to entry of any profiles into CODIS.
3. Can the victim, resident, and owner of the property be eliminated as the source of the item? —
(For example, a cigarette butt from a home where no one smokes. A hat that the homeowner denies owning.)
If yes, please explain what eliminates them as a source.
4. For possession-related crimes, where were the items recovered from? If the item was recovered directly from the suspect’s person or possessions, please be specific.
5. For controlled substance cases, if DNA analysis does not identify the known suspect on any of the submitted items, will the DA charge any other person whose DNA ends up being identified on the items? — "
Do we know any further detail about this DNA from 3 unknown males? The only thing I see addressed specifically is DNA on a glove found outside of the house a week after the murders.
I hope the state tested all of this DNA. And, I think it would be in their best interest to turn it over. MOO not turning it over is going to give the jury pause. I think it's important that they take the forward position on this and draw the sting. Be prepared in their opening to tell the jury that the defense will use this to try and sew doubt. Be prepared, even if they do not know who the dna on the glove belongs to, to remind them just how many first responders and LE were on the scene. Plant the seed that this wasn't evidence a week later after they had walked the property thoroughly, but that it was trash - at the curb. I don't know. These are just my immediate thoughts. They would be wise to turn it over and raise it first. If they don't explain it she wins that point imo.
Just my understanding from today; the three forensic samples didn't qualify for up-loading to codis as stated by P in court. Why is assumedly under seal. D has been persistantly requesting codis results that don't exist. Under seal/not public info as to where found, age and state of samples. Suppose it will be explained at trial as to why the samples didn't qualify for codis upload and analysis. Some speculation earlier on thread that they could've became low priority in comparison to all the other dna testing that was going on from swabbing various regions of the crime scene. Could have been initially swabbed, profiled and stored but then down graded as investigation of scene dictated as to perps movements. Only my flimsy understanding, guesswork and ideas already raised by some others. Moo
Just my understanding from today; the three forensic samples didn't qualify for up-loading to codis as stated by P in court. Why is assumedly under seal. D has been persistantly requesting codis results that don't exist. Under seal/not public info as to where found, age and state of samples. Suppose it will be explained at trial as to why the samples didn't qualify for codis upload and analysis. Some speculation earlier on thread that they could've became low priority in comparison to all the other dna testing that was going on from swabbing various regions of the crime scene. Could have been initially swabbed, profiled and stored but then down graded as investigation of scene dictated as to perps movements. Only my flimsy understanding, guesswork and ideas already raised by some others. Moo
Snipped for focus @Sundog
If your Q is serious....? Briefly, my take:
Possible that judge would order victim's family member to cover the writing on t-shirt (put another shirt or jacket over it) or order wearer be removed from the courtroom.
Why? Because judges may issue rules applicable to their courtrooms generally (sorry no link atm) and may issue an order of courtroom decorum applicable to a specific case.
Example last month, Idaho judge issued order banning "clothing with inappropriate or disruptive messaging." below.*
Possible that judge will do same/similar here.
Personally doubting if judge would allow victim-spectators to give "testimony by t-shirt" or VIS during guilt phase of trial, even if not on the witness stand.
Victim Impact Statements, which may be presented only at sentencing hearing, may "not recommend punishment for the crime in a capital case." *
imo
ETA: Welcoming correction, as ICBW.
=====================================
Not so briefly
* "Fourth Judicial District Judge Nancy Baskin issued a courtroom decorum order, mandating spectators remain silent, refrain from outbursts, do not bring signs or wear clothing with inappropriate or disruptive messaging,among other basic requirements."
By Ruth Brown, Idaho Reports The judge presiding over a civil case involving Ammon Bundy issued a relatively unique order on July 5, prior to the start of the trial. Fourth Judicial District Judge Nancy Baskin issued a courtroom decorum order, mandating spectators remain silent, refrain...
blog.idahoreports.idahoptv.org
** 19-2515. Sentence In Capital Cases -- Special Sentencing
Proceeding...***
"(5) (a) . . . Evidence concerning the victim and the impact that the death of the victim has had on the victim's family is relevant and admissible. Such evidence shall be designed to demonstrate the victim's uniqueness as an individual human being and the resultant loss to the community by the victim's death. Characterizations and opinions about the crime, the defendant and the appropriate sentence shall not be permitted as part of any victim impact evidence..."
In the Courtroom Decorum Order for the 2021 Redwine trial in Colorado the Judge expressly forbid t-shirts or buttons referencing the case, the Defendant or the victims.
Do we know any further detail about this DNA from 3 unknown males? The only thing I see addressed specifically is DNA on a glove found outside of the house a week after the murders.
I hope the state tested all of this DNA. And, I think it would be in their best interest to turn it over. MOO not turning it over is going to give the jury pause. I think it's important that they take the forward position on this and draw the sting. Be prepared in their opening to tell the jury that the defense will use this to try and sew doubt. Be prepared, even if they do not know who the dna on the glove belongs to, to remind them just how many first responders and LE were on the scene. Plant the seed that this wasn't evidence a week later after they had walked the property thoroughly, but that it was trash - at the curb. I don't know. These are just my immediate thoughts. They would be wise to turn it over and raise it first. If they don't explain it she wins that point imo.
I get it, sure, build out that tree on every unidentified snippet of DNA found at the crime scene. Then figure out who in that tree could possibly have left their DNA at King. Go through their garbage, identify them, and bring them in for questioning. I wonder at the expense, manpower, and privacy rights when they have DNA on the sheath of the murder weapon. And his car matches the car they are looking for, he fits the witness description, his phone has pinged in the area, touched the King wifi, puts his trash out in the neighbor’s pails in the middle of the night…
Here is a questionairre (WI DOJ)that police use to detrrmine if DNA is qualified for CODIS.
If the samples are not presumed to be perpetrators, then not qualified.
The answers to these questions will assist the laboratory in determining if a DNA profile developed in a case is eligible for CODIS (Combined DNA Indexing System). A DNA profile becomes CODIS eligible when it is obtained from biological material collected from a crime scene and is attributable to a presumed perpetrator. We ask that a completed CEQ be submitted whenever DNA testing is requested. If a CEQ is not submitted, it may result in a delay in analysis and or CODIS entry.
For All Cases: Please give a brief description of the events that allegedly occurred.
What evidence are you submitting for DNA analysis; and how is that evidence associated with the crime scene, the victim, or the suspect? If it is not immediately obvious (just two examples - a sexual assault kit and blood on a broken window at a burglary), please include why you think a DNA profile will assist in your investigation. If clothing or bedding is being submitted, tell us where it was taken from.
For Sexual Assault Cases
To improve our service, we ask that you tell us the following information:
1. What type of contact allegedly occurred (oral, vaginal, anal penetration, penis, finger, mouth, with or without ejaculation)?
2. Did the victim have consensual sexual relations any time in the five days (120 hours) prior to the incident or any time between the incident and the evidence collection? —
If this answer is yes, an elimination standard from the consensual partner is needed to help us differentiate between DNA profiles which are legitimately present and those of the perpetrator. Only foreign DNA profiles may be uploaded to CODIS (i.e. those profiles not from a victim or a consensual partner).
3. What is the relationship between the victim and the suspect,and did they live together?
For Property Crimes & Other Offenses (e.g. Burglary, Robbery, Felon in Possession, Controlled Substances, etc.)
1. Do the items being submitted belong to the victim or a resident or an owner of the property? —
2. Did the victim, a resident, or an owner handle the evidence at any time? —
If this answer is yes, standard samples from the victims/residents/owners who handled the evidence will be needed for elimination purposes prior to entry of any profiles into CODIS.
3. Can the victim, resident, and owner of the property be eliminated as the source of the item? —
(For example, a cigarette butt from a home where no one smokes. A hat that the homeowner denies owning.)
If yes, please explain what eliminates them as a source.
4. For possession-related crimes, where were the items recovered from? If the item was recovered directly from the suspect’s person or possessions, please be specific.
5. For controlled substance cases, if DNA analysis does not identify the known suspect on any of the submitted items, will the DA charge any other person whose DNA ends up being identified on the items? — "
Just my understanding from today; the three forensic samples didn't qualify for up-loading to codis as stated by P in court. Why is assumedly under seal. D has been persistantly requesting codis results that don't exist. Under seal/not public info as to where found, age and state of samples. Suppose it will be explained at trial as to why the samples didn't qualify for codis upload and analysis. Some speculation earlier on thread that they could've became low priority in comparison to all the other dna testing that was going on from swabbing various regions of the crime scene. Could have been initially swabbed, profiled and stored but then down graded as investigation of scene dictated as to perps movements. Only my flimsy understanding, guesswork and ideas already raised by some others. Moo
If they haven't identified who it belongs to as a presumed perpetrator, it doesn't go in, so that could be a reason.
A DNA profile becomes CODIS eligible when it is obtained from biological material collected from a crime scene and is attributable to a presumed perpetrator.
The witness argument seems really strange to me. Like saying, 'When I drive, sometimes I break the law and speed to get where I'm going faster. Therefore, these other people who drive could have been speeding when driving, too.'
Maybe that's me perceiving it wrongly, but that's how it strikes me. That just because the witness breaks the rules, we should assume others do. That's not how morality works. And it seems a pretty specious argument to try to make to a judge in a court of law.
We are now beginning to hear arguments about #BryanKohberger's alibi: That he was out driving around the night of the murders. State says it will accept the alibi that he was driving around, but he should specify where exactly if he is not going to call anyone else to verify it.
@arielilane Thx for this and your other posts.
When giving notice of intent to use alibi defense, per statute,* def't "shall state the specific places or places" def't claims he was at time of crime. And names & addresses of Wit's re alibi.
Seems providing info to the State's request for "place" would not be extraordinarily burdensome. That is, if BK had been somewhere other than 1122 King.
imo
____________________________
19-519. NOTICE OF DEFENSE OF ALIBI.
* "(1).... Such notice by the defendant shall state the specific place or places at which the defendant claims to have been at the time of the alleged offense and the names and addresses of the witnesses upon whom he intends to rely to establish such alibi."
I get it, sure, build out that tree on every unidentified snippet of DNA found at the crime scene. Then figure out who in that tree could possibly have left their DNA at King. Go through their garbage, identify them, and bring them in for questioning. I wonder at the expense, manpower, and privacy rights when they have DNA on the sheath of the murder weapon. And his car matches the car they are looking for, he fits the witness description, his phone has pinged in the area, touched the King wifi, puts his trash out in the neighbor’s pails in the middle of the night…
I am glad there are rules in place for CODIS. Otherwise literally every citizen will be in CODIS eventually.
I'm talking only about the DNA of 3 unknown males. That is what is at issue and I think they have to address it somehow. I did get some further info from jepop though which was helpful to clarify. Drawing the sting is Mock Trial 101 imo. A first year knows enough to do this (jmo) so my point was since she is telegraphing this far and wide, they know well in advance that she plans to raise it. Accordingly, they should bring it up first and shoot it down.
All jmo.
ETA: All to say only if this line of questioning will be permitted of course.
MOO The prosecution staying inside too narrow of a local murder case frame work.
MOO The prosecution thinking the appeal is where these constitutuonal issues will come up, but no, it's happening now.
He's smiling towards the person with the blonde hair who is probably his attorney, right?
He is obviously affectionate towards her and it cheers him up to see her.
Well obviously he's locked up alone 24 hrs a day alone, so he would rapidly build a firm feeling of affection towards her IMO. Most especially if she's facilitating him to discuss and talk over things that prop up his 'exoneration' theory and 'exculpatory evidence', despite we know these are hardly true and she of all people must know they're completely baseless.
However, there's something really sad about all this, the dysfunction of it all. If he's an 'incel' type like Elliot Rodgers who hated the young white blonde 'Stacey' girls (is that the right word?) and everything they represented to him because he couldn't have one, well now he's got one, he's in deep and intimate contact with her for the duration of this trial and he can show off all his knowledge of the legal system and criminology. The problem is... it's probably not going to end well is it?
I bet if he had an older man representing him, they'd have already fallen out and he'd have sacked him.
I wish lawyers would write accounts of how it was working for their clients in this type of case. Really go deep and tell all.
He is looking straight at the camera over her head. (Whoever that is, looks like it might be AT)
The only thing sad and dysfunctional is what BK did to innocent students. I don't get on the "poor BK" Band Wagon, "poor BK" lonely with Visual Snow. (Not saying you do and I appreciate your post)
People fight chronic illness every single day.
Mr Kohberger had plenty of help and resources for his problems. I remember the days when there was no internet groups to reach out to for any help, no vast internet resources available for information on any health conditions.
BK had internet group help and internet information resources, he had medical care, he had family supporting him every step of the way. He certainly was well enough and sane enough to get a Bachelor Degree in Phychology then a Master's Degree, then get accepted into a Doctorate Degree Program. All these are things the majority of the population haven't done or can't afford to do.
On top of all that he had the rare privilege of teaching at the College level in a University.... no small feat. He was certainly well enough to get to this place in his life only still in his 20's.
His undergraduate professor who studied the BTK killer and wrote published work about him and interviewed him, etc...was very enamoured of Kohberger. She thought he was "Mr Wonderful."
I don't understand why the prosecution in this case cannot get and give this information to the defense. It is a straight forward process with a beginning, middle and end. That it is finite tells me it is possible for the information to be documented even now and it should be possible for both the prosecution and the defense to send BK's DNA to another lab AND the same lab the prosecution used as well and get the exact same results from both labs. If the results cannot be replicated, then there is a problem and the DNA testing cannot be trusted. To me this is a simple straightforward question. Was the testing done correctly and can it be replicated? If not, it should not stand as evidence. If the prosecution cannot give the defense information proving the testing was done correctly, then unfortunately, it should not be admissible.
I don't think this is at all about the testing. The dna is his. I don't think the defense is trying to dispute that.
This is not about the testing, it's about the investigating. Why did they decide to test the father? What investigative techniques led to his name? The PCA lays out a standard investigation, like looking for the owner of the Elantra. The defense suspects it was actually IGG. If they can find improprieties in the IGG investigation, they think they can get the dna thrown out because the IGG led to the dna.
There's no indication the IGG was done improperly, but they need to try. Trying to create doubt with the jury that his dna is on that sheath because he's the one who was there that night and left it there is the biggest hurdle they have right now (that we know of--how many times have we been gobsmacked at what come out at trial). If there were any irregularities with the IGG, that will be sad and frustrating because of how absolutely unnecessary it was.
The 3 unknown DNA samples HAD to have been tested, because you cannot visually ascertain that something is DNA.
DNA is so small that when it was first discovered, it was through biochemistry and could not be resolved under microscope. It is one of the smallest encoded pieces of information, if not the smallest, in the known universe.
You can't say you have "male DNA" without testing it. DNA does not pop up and say, "Hey, I'm a Y chromosome." There's only one way to find out you're even looking at DNA - and that's to do forensic DNA testing in a specialized lab, like ISL (and they do it all the time).
Unless Idaho is out of step with the entire rest of the forensic world, every single first responder already has their DNA on file. And, I do believe I read early on that many friends of the murdered students voluntarily gave DNA samples.
DNA persists for centuries. The unknown male DNA could well be from prior occupants in the house (whose profiles would be easily found, even today, if they used a forensic vacuum - which we saw them carrying into the house during the investigation). This happens all the time (stranger DNA is found at a crime scene).
If required, the State can counter the Defense's claim by showing where, exactly, it was found. I have no idea where they vacuumed. We saw with our own eyes that at least 10-12 males were in and around the house in just that one (noise complaint) party - and there were other parties. I'm sure they also tested door handles and the slider. I figure the only reason the number of unknown profiles is so low is that so many voluntarily gave up DNA samples to LE.
BTW, the Defense is getting dangerously close to trying to impugn young men whose DNA was present AND known. They aren't doing that because the Judge would be very displeased - Idaho law prevents just randomly giving the names of non-suspects as potential criminal defendants in a murder case. They would need something besides just that DNA.
It would amuse me if the State submitted those three unknowns to Othram - and found them. And found they were past occupants of the house, now living far away. OTOH, I am very much against dragging people into a case without just cause. If the sheath DNA did not exist, this case would be quite different.
But it does exist and the Defense can't change that. If they intend to use the same types of experts they just used, I don't think the jury is going to buy the "expertise" - it'll be a lot like the Letecia Stauch trial.
I don't think this is at all about the testing. The dna is his. I don't think the defense is trying to dispute that.
This is not about the testing, it's about the investigating. Why did they decide to test the father? What investigative techniques led to his name? The PCA lays out a standard investigation, like looking for the owner of the Elantra. The defense suspects it was actually IGG. If they can find improprieties in the IGG investigation, they think they can get the dna thrown out because the IGG led to the dna.
There's no indication the IGG was done improperly, but they need to try. Trying to create doubt with the jury that his dna is on that sheath because he's the one who was there that night and left it there is the biggest hurdle they have right now (that we know of--how many times have we been gobsmacked at what come out at trial). If there were any irregularities with the IGG, that will be sad and frustrating because of how absolutely unnecessary it was.
I figure that at trial, the State will bring an actual IGG expert (likely one of the amazing people at Othram, but it would delight me if they also brought in the awesome CEO of 23andme).
To use an analogy, DNA matching is easily done - all scientists had to do was figure out a way to easily get read-out of the 3 billion separate base pairs that make up human DNA. 3 billion is a large number (multiple that by 2 if you want the individual nucleotide number). But the science exists to do this, and to do it accurately, repeatedly, be double-checked, etc.
Matching existing DNA data with something else is just like that card game kids play, where they turn over a card and try to remember where its match is. Except of course, the cards are already turned over. They either match or they don't. I match 47.9% with my half-sister and 49.99 with my daughter. Close matches of that type denote close kinship - because there are 3 BILLION individual components, and at each of those sites, there are up to 1000 different variants. The average number of variants per site is unknown, but a rough estimate would be 100. So 3 billion to the 100th power (big number) and I match almost 50%? That's because my daughter, my sister and I all got our DNA from the same source (our ancestors).
IGG is simply comparing one card to other cards in the deck and finding a percentage of matches that either do or do not denote complete identity, or degree of relationship (there are statistics that govern the average number of alleles we inherit from each grandparent...)
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
