Was it dark in the background behind BK as well or do we know? If it was dark, & he’s clad in black, that might also cause things to not be seen as clearly as in a lit area or play tricks with perception.
There would have been some soft backlight because of the neon sign in the living room, but it would not have been direct because it was on the same wall/plane as the doorway/step he was coming down. So it likely blinded his night vision for a moment, but wouldn't have blinded the roommate because it was completely behind the wall that made up one side of her bedroom. Does that make sense?
There would have been some soft backlight because of the neon sign in the living room, but it would not have been direct because it was on the same wall/plane as the doorway/step he was coming down. So it likely blinded his night vision for a moment, but wouldn't have blinded the roommate because it was completely behind the wall that made up one side of her bedroom. Does that make sense?
There's where the academic discussion could come in on this thread. How do you defend a guilty defendant? You try to create doubt. In whatever way you can. You challenge the investigators, the investigation, the evidence, the witnesses, and the table.
Touch DNA is used in military criminal investigations, but its evidentiary value can be complex due to the potential for contamination and innocent transfer. The use of touch DNA usually serves to exclude suspects rather than build a case against them, given these complexities. Forensic experts follow strict procedures (DoD Instruction 5505.14) to minimize contamination.
Touch DNA is used in military criminal investigations, but its evidentiary value can be complex due to the potential for contamination and innocent transfer. The use of touch DNA usually serves to exclude suspects rather than build a case against them, given these complexities. Forensic experts follow strict procedures (DoD Instruction 5505.14) to minimize contamination.
Where is this from, and what year was it written? It makes absolutely no sense that touch DNA is good enough to exclude someone, yet not good enough to incriminate someone.
Because the first part talks about the possibility of innocent transfer, which would mean that you couldn't use it to exclude a person, as it has the possibility of being relevant.
If you're merely talking about exclusion, then you're talking about quality. There's no question about that here, as it's a ridiculously strong match. Stronger even than what we used to see with blood samples not that long ago.
These were NOT the defenses claims almost ALL of this was stated by the prosecution - specifically Ashley Jennings, Deputy Prosecutor. You may not believe AJ, but AJ was reading DM's description of the man DM saw from a piece of paper. I would expect that AJ has the correct information about DM's description. And AJ told us that DM did not recognizBK from his photo either.
Putting aside your opinion and your *interpretation (or reading of the tea leaves jmo) claiming AJ was reading directly from a statement made by DM ( and I don't know how to put this otherwise but your link to hearing shows AJ reading from nothing at this juncture), AT in this hearing never once, and I mean ,*never *once, put forward any specific argument claiming that DM's generic description of the masked stranger was false /coached/ incorrect and so forth as written in the PCA.
As @wendy44 has made completely clear in her posts, AT was arguing for *omission of details she believes the judge should have known. Period. Jmo
When arguing for a Franks hearing, this Jan 23/24 hearing IMO would have been the time for the defense to make claims that statements about the masked stranger attributed to DM in the PCA, are demonstrably false statements or as you opine in your posts "a lie". The defense/AT did not do so. That they did not do so is fact not an opinion.
What I'm saying is that sure, you might hold an opinion that DM's generic description as written in the PCA is a lie or false from the way you interpret what was said at the hearing. But AT herself did not make this argument and imo we have every reason to believe that the defense, for the purposes of Frank's hearing, is not including such a claim. Jmo
Also, I want to talk about this portion: I also have to wonder why only the sheath's DNA had IGG done on it when there was blood on the bannister and blood on a glove outside 1122. IMO DNA from bodily fluids is much stronger evidence than transfer, trace or touch DNA.
If you're suggesting they perform IGG on random other samples, as opposed to something the killer absolutely had to touch, then I don't know what to say.
What we do know from court filings, is that the other DNA that was collected only resulted in partial profiles. So even if we were dealing with the Keystone cops, who test everything but the most obvious item, they couldn't have performed IGG anyway.
Exactly. Jmo, if samples are not eligible for codis (as was the case here) then highly unlikely they are going to qualify resource wise or guideline wise for IGG. Once a suspect is identified via IGG, imo LE are required to match that suspect's DNA ( in this case via the paternal test until having BK's DNA via buccal swab) with the forensic sample which has already been uploaded to CODIS. Jmo
I kind of agree with your direction of travel here.
Reading the tea leaves of counsel's arguments pretrial is very hit and miss without the exhibits and getting to hear from the actual experts
For me, ATs arguments are the stuff of trial evidence, or pre-trial evidential hearings. Getting in to technical stuff about which way a car was moving feels out of scope in a probable cause phase.
It seems to me there is quite a lot of suspicion about the BKs movements and digital footprint. If the D can explain it away at trial well then that is good work by them.
But the idea this stuff is not at least suspicious in the PCA phase ... well of course AT will say that. But it feels to me like circumstantial evidence that you will want to include.
Respectfully bolded. Hah, every time I attempt a reading of the free floating tea leaves I end up confusing myself with supposition and conjecture. Still have relapses despite resolving to not go there. This is the last time I will... etc..
Exactly. Jmo, if samples are not eligible for codis (as was the case here) then highly unlikely they are going to qualify resource wise or guideline wise for IGG. Once a suspect is identified via IGG, imo LE are required to match that suspect's DNA ( in this case via the paternal test until having BK's DNA via buccal swab) with the forensic sample which has already been uploaded to CODIS. Jmo
I'd like to make one other point here, which goes against True Crime CW
In this case, in practice, a jury will infer the sheath was brought to the crime scene by the killer with the murder weapon. Every time.
Therefore the State need only really prove that BK was the man who brought the sheath to the crime scene, as demonstrated inter alia, by the DNA match.
The State do not need to disprove or exclude every other speculative person, including anyone who once left blood in the house. Such "Alternatives" only raise reasonable doubt if there is a real possibility they are the killer. Mere speculation is not reasonable doubt.
There is simply no evidence linking those degraded blood samples to the crime, and they do not raise reasonable doubt IMO.
Unknown DNA is not circumstantial evidence which goes to prove someone is the killer, unless it can somehow be linked to the crime - e.g it is on the murder weapon.
I'd like to make one other point here, which goes against True Crime CW
In this case, in practice, a jury will infer the sheath was brought to the crime scene by the killer with the murder weapon. Every time.
Therefore the State need only really prove that BK was the man who brought the sheath to the crime scene, as demonstrated inter alia, by the DNA match.
The State do not need to disprove or exclude every other speculative person, including anyone who once left blood in the house. Such "Alternatives" only raise reasonable doubt if there is a real possibility they are the killer. Mere speculation is not reasonable doubt.
There is simply no evidence linking those degraded blood samples to the crime, and they do not raise reasonable doubt IMO.
Unknown DNA is not circumstantial evidence which goes to prove someone is the killer, unless it can somehow be linked to the crime - e.g it is on the murder weapon.
I replied to you in an earlier post that I believe we will have to agree to disagree.
I’ll respond just to these two quotes and that’ll be that, because it’s fruitless, I think, for us to keep retreading the same issues.
Neither you nor I nor any of us here were in that house or knew any of the people within. Nor do we know Murphy.
My take on Murphy’s behavior is that he heard his humans screaming, sniffed blood, knew that something was way out of order, and therefore was traumatized.
Just my take because I wasn’t there.
In the same way, neither you nor I nor any of us know DM, and it is the court that will have her explicate in more detail exactly what she remembers from that agonizing night.
Not knowing her, I have no way of knowing if by “or taller,” DM was indicating that the person she saw was only slightly taller than her. She said “5’ 8” or taller.” That suggests to me he may have hovered well above her.
The testimony in the courtroom will be the lodestone for the jury to follow. Until then, nothing we say ultimately matters.
D.M. stated she opened her door for the third time after she heard the crying and saw a figure clad in black clothing and a mask that covered the person's mouth and nose walking towards her. D.M. described the figure as 5'10" or taller, male, not very muscular, but athletically built with bushy eyebrows.
I know from personal experience you can be athletically built without being muscular. Boxing and running does that to a person. It did to me. Look at BK's arrest photo and first court appearances. Tall, lean, athletically built with bushy eyebrows
until he got a glow up...coiffed eyebrows and suits/ties.
Looks like everything that was in the original PCA except the mention of bushy eyebrows. Taller than 5 8' and taller than 5 10' sounds like BK's height to me.
It's like people saying DM said she was drunk. Not so, she said she had been drinking earlier in the evening. Most College drunks I knew, would come in and pass out, an earthquake wouldn't budge them. DM was awake and aware enough to have gotten up and gone to her door 3 times.
D.M. stated she opened her door for the third time after she heard the crying and saw a figure clad in black clothing and a mask that covered the person's mouth and nose walking towards her. D.M. described the figure as 5'10" or taller, male, not very muscular, but athletically built with bushy eyebrows.
I know from personal experience you can be athletically built without being muscular. Boxing and running does that to a person. It did to me. Look at BK's arrest photo and first court appearances. Tall, lean, athletically built with bushy eyebrows until he got a glow up...coiffed eyebrows and suits/ties.
"The Idaho state lab later located a single source of male DNA (suspect Profile) left on the button snap of the knife sheath."
Single source does not mean complete DNA profile. These are two completely different things. A single source could be complete or partial. At this point, all we know is that ISL found somewhere between 11 and 20 skin cells, of which a least some contained DNA, but we do not know what condition the skin cells were in and we do not know if a complete DNA profile could be or ever was generated from these cells. Usually it takes a minimum of 80 skin cells to get a complete DNA profile. And really more like 200 skin cells to start are needed in order to have 80 good skin cells with which to get the profile because the process destroys a lot of cells. There is new technology which is said to be able to get a profile from less than 10 cells but I have not been able to tell that ISL has it and I'm frankly worried about what may have happened to it at ISL - it should have been sent directly to Othram which has this technology. So, whether the DNA was degraded or there just simply was not enough of it to get a complete profile or even worse, the ISL messed up the DNA profile, IMO, it is unlikely to be a complete profile which is why Othram couldn't do anything with the DNA and the FBI took it after only 1 week and who knows what the FBI did, but, it probably wasn't IGG in one week especially without a report or name of the person who did IGG. And btw, Othram has state of the art technology to work with problematic DNA cases. So that's very telling that Othram couldn't do anything with the DNA. IMO, if Othram couldn't get anything from the DNA, no one could.
Touch DNA in Forensic Investigation: Present Scenario
www.savvyforensic.com
TOUCH DNA IN FORENSIC INVESTIGATION: PRESENT SCENARIO
Touch DNA refers to the minute traces of DNA left behind when a person touches an object or surface. It typically consists of skin cells and other biological material transferred through physical contact. The development of highly sensitive DNA extraction and amplification techniques has enabled the collection and analysis of such low-template DNA, making Touch DNA an indispensable tool in modern forensic investigations.
Current Use in Forensic Investigations
1. Crime Scene Analysis:
o Touch DNA is used to identify potential suspects by analyzing items they might have handled, such as weapons, tools, or surfaces like door handles and countertops.
o It is especially useful in cases where no visible biological evidence, such as blood or saliva, is present.
2. Cold Cases:
o Advances in DNA analysis have enabled forensic teams to revisit old cases where Touch DNA could now provide new leads.
3. Violent Crimes:
o In homicides and assaults, investigators can recover Touch DNA from weapons, victim’s clothing, or ligatures, potentially linking suspects to the crime.
4. Property Crimes:
o In burglaries or thefts, objects like stolen goods, broken windows, or entry points are swabbed for Touch DNA to identify the perpetrator.
5. Interpersonal Crimes:
o In domestic violence or sexual assault cases, Touch DNA is used to establish physical contact between individuals.
Touch DNA: Collection, Analysis, and Procedures
Procedure for Collecting Touch DNA at a Crime Scene
Touch DNA collection requires meticulous techniques to preserve the integrity of evidence and prevent contamination. Below are the key steps involved:
1. Crime Scene Assessment:
o Investigators first identify objects or surfaces likely to contain Touch DNA. These include frequently touched areas such as door handles, weapons, tools, or clothing.
2. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE):
o To prevent contamination, investigators wear gloves, masks, and coveralls. Gloves are changed between samples.
3. Documentation:
o Photograph the evidence in situ and document its location and condition before collection.
4. Sample Collection Techniques:
o Swabbing: The most common method, where sterile cotton swabs moistened with distilled water or buffer solution are gently rubbed over the surface.
o Tape Lifting: Adhesive tapes are pressed onto surfaces to collect microscopic particles, including DNA.
Standard methods of mixture analysis involve subjecting a dried crime scene sample to a “bulk” DNA extraction method such that the resulting isolate compromises a homogenized DNA mixture from the individual donors. If, however, instead of bulk DNA ...
The ability to obtain DNA profiles from trace biological evidence is routinely demonstrated with so-called 'touch DNA evidence', which is generally perceived to be the result of DNA obtained from shed skin cells transferred from a donor's hands to an object or person during direct physical...
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.
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
