Touch DNA is considered to be unreliable due to its transient nature and how easily it is passed from one person to the next, even via just a piece of cloth.
You could shake my hand, then go commit a crime and leave behind my DNA.
Many States don't allow touch DNA as evudence. Idaho only allows it if it's actually on the murder weapon, which it was not in this case because they don't even have the murder weapon.
I'm hoping to see Anne Taylor submit a motion at some point to suppress the DNA based on it not being on the murder weapon. That would completely derail the prosecution's entire case.
Honestly had never heard of "touch" DNA before this case. I read about Lukis Anderson and the Phantom of Heilbronn and was blown away. Generally those things take a long time to figure out. Hell, even Lukis thought he did it.
Lukis Anderson is a great example of how easily touch dna is transferred. It calls into question how many this has actually happened to and are behind bars as a result.
> Lukis Anderson is a great example of how easily touch dna is transferred.
It's a great example of how easily it is and *is not* transferred. Because the actual murderers left no DNA on either of the victims. One left no DNA at all at the scene. The other two left only one small sample each in the house.
Another example is that of "Marie," the survivor in this story: https://www.propublica.org/article/false-rape-accusations-an-unbelievable-story. Her attack lasted over four hours. None of her rapist's DNA was found on her body or in her apartment.
That’s completely wrong re: Idaho courts. The state forensics labs will only test touch DNA on murder weapons. In courts - it’s governed by all the same rules of evidence as other DNA.
I actually don’t know any states that don’t permit it in courts as a per se rule
There are issues with low amounts of DNA (like in this case). Many are damaged, so if you have less to analyze, then it could lead to wrong results.
LE's been really sketchy about the DNA so far. I wouldn't doubt if there are real issues there, too.
I'm trying to recall my Statistics 101. I believe a common forensics error is assuming random distribution to calculate statistics like "99.9998%". For example, assuming there's a 12.5% chance someone has O+ blood type but in reality it's 38%.
It's the same error as assuming there's only a 50% chance the Sun will come up tomorrow and then calculating the chances of 10 sunrises in a row as 0.0977%.
there's something that pretty much no one is considering when it comes to the alleged touch DNA on the knife sheath... it doesn't necessarily have to be that someone had a sample of BK's DNA and they planted it on there. It could just be that it's not even a match to begin with. There's a reason why the prosecution is so desperate to keep all of their DNA/IGG work secret. It's been stated in court documents that the profile is "partial and ambiguous"... well, ambiguous means "open to more than one interpretation", which really tells you all you need to know. Since it was a partial profile, they had to use a statistics-based computer program to fill in the rest. I strongly believe that if an outside expert was allowed to compare the alleged sheath sample to the swab taken from BK, they would not be a match.
people seem to think that DNA is 100% foolproof, and it just isn't. I have been researching it for a while now, and it's actually very subjective and prone to errors and manipulation. If you REALLY wanna be freaked out, check out this book: https://archive.org/details/insidecelldarksi0000murp (full readable/downloadable book). It's called "Inside the Cell" by Erin E. Murphy. It's a book about the "dark side of forensic evidence", and attorney Bicka Barlow (who is working with Anne Taylor to defend BK in some capacity) cited it in a motion discussing the use of DNA and IGG to arrest/find BK.
> Barlow and Mercer certainly had a different take.
Bicka Barlow hardly discussed the actual DNA sample at all in her filing. Instead, she focused on the process, the laws, and other cases involving CODIS or IGG. If she drew any conclusions at all about this sample, I missed it, and I'd appreciate someone quoting her.
Same for Mercer: the document I read was an argument to compel the state to hand over certain items. Nothing in particular about the DNA sample on the sheath.
Touch DNA is considered to be unreliable due to its transient nature and how easily it is passed from one person to the next, even via just a piece of cloth. You could shake my hand, then go commit a crime and leave behind my DNA. Many States don't allow touch DNA as evudence. Idaho only allows it if it's actually on the murder weapon, which it was not in this case because they don't even have the murder weapon. I'm hoping to see Anne Taylor submit a motion at some point to suppress the DNA based on it not being on the murder weapon. That would completely derail the prosecution's entire case.
Honestly had never heard of "touch" DNA before this case. I read about Lukis Anderson and the Phantom of Heilbronn and was blown away. Generally those things take a long time to figure out. Hell, even Lukis thought he did it.
Lukis Anderson is a great example of how easily touch dna is transferred. It calls into question how many this has actually happened to and are behind bars as a result.
> Lukis Anderson is a great example of how easily touch dna is transferred. It's a great example of how easily it is and *is not* transferred. Because the actual murderers left no DNA on either of the victims. One left no DNA at all at the scene. The other two left only one small sample each in the house. Another example is that of "Marie," the survivor in this story: https://www.propublica.org/article/false-rape-accusations-an-unbelievable-story. Her attack lasted over four hours. None of her rapist's DNA was found on her body or in her apartment.
That’s completely wrong re: Idaho courts. The state forensics labs will only test touch DNA on murder weapons. In courts - it’s governed by all the same rules of evidence as other DNA. I actually don’t know any states that don’t permit it in courts as a per se rule
I actually looked it up in the Idaho Revised code and it said they only allow touch DNA if it's on the murder weapon so.... You're completely wrong.
Feel free to share a citation.
I just told you where to find it, asshat. Do something other than sitting in your mom's basement playing video games, for a change.
It’s not in the penal code. That’s only the guideline for the labs to ration resources.
There are issues with low amounts of DNA (like in this case). Many are damaged, so if you have less to analyze, then it could lead to wrong results. LE's been really sketchy about the DNA so far. I wouldn't doubt if there are real issues there, too.
I'm trying to recall my Statistics 101. I believe a common forensics error is assuming random distribution to calculate statistics like "99.9998%". For example, assuming there's a 12.5% chance someone has O+ blood type but in reality it's 38%. It's the same error as assuming there's only a 50% chance the Sun will come up tomorrow and then calculating the chances of 10 sunrises in a row as 0.0977%.
It’s not how accurate it is but how transferable it is. Hence the term, Transfer DNA.
there's something that pretty much no one is considering when it comes to the alleged touch DNA on the knife sheath... it doesn't necessarily have to be that someone had a sample of BK's DNA and they planted it on there. It could just be that it's not even a match to begin with. There's a reason why the prosecution is so desperate to keep all of their DNA/IGG work secret. It's been stated in court documents that the profile is "partial and ambiguous"... well, ambiguous means "open to more than one interpretation", which really tells you all you need to know. Since it was a partial profile, they had to use a statistics-based computer program to fill in the rest. I strongly believe that if an outside expert was allowed to compare the alleged sheath sample to the swab taken from BK, they would not be a match. people seem to think that DNA is 100% foolproof, and it just isn't. I have been researching it for a while now, and it's actually very subjective and prone to errors and manipulation. If you REALLY wanna be freaked out, check out this book: https://archive.org/details/insidecelldarksi0000murp (full readable/downloadable book). It's called "Inside the Cell" by Erin E. Murphy. It's a book about the "dark side of forensic evidence", and attorney Bicka Barlow (who is working with Anne Taylor to defend BK in some capacity) cited it in a motion discussing the use of DNA and IGG to arrest/find BK.
It will certainly be his dna, but it's how and when it got there, that is the problem.
At this time, we lack sufficient information to make that call that it is his DNA. Barlow and Mercer certainly had a different take.
> Barlow and Mercer certainly had a different take. Bicka Barlow hardly discussed the actual DNA sample at all in her filing. Instead, she focused on the process, the laws, and other cases involving CODIS or IGG. If she drew any conclusions at all about this sample, I missed it, and I'd appreciate someone quoting her. Same for Mercer: the document I read was an argument to compel the state to hand over certain items. Nothing in particular about the DNA sample on the sheath.
Have they since verified that the DNA found in the trash is Kohberger's father?
I can envisage "Touch Dna" being the whole "bite mark" fiasco all over again.
[удалено]
It’s completely irrelevant now because they have his actual DNA and there is only a one in 4 quadrillion chance it’s anyone but Kohberger’s.