Search results for query: single source dna

...thief left no dna, isn't it? I mean, DNA is microscopic and hard to remove. The rest of the knife was (apparently) clean. It was single source DNA. So the thief never used the snap, the one part that is hard to clean of microscopic evidence. Why did he not report it the "next day"? If it's...

...DNA from one person transferred by another is going to have both person's DNA in the mix. Every time we breathe, we exhale our own DNA. So unless someone wants to claim that one of the best forensic labs in the nation doesn't know what they're doing, it's single source DNA (not transfer). IMO.

What's interesting to me is that the forensic report says they had to reach down into the groove around the snap, where they found enough DNA for perhaps 15 swab samples to test positive for DNA (I can't remember the exact number). Touch DNA cannot just float down inside a groove. It has to be...

Yes - but the possibility that the second person leaves no DNA is vanishingly small. That's why the initial report says "single source" DNA (as opposed to, say, the glove box DNA in the Morphew case - which contained partial profiles of two or more different people). That's why the SNP's are...

Notice that the KREM reporter has no clue that ALL cells are EQUALLY sources of DNA. That minimizing and meaningless (in science) word "just" is just plain silly. This is like saying "We found fingerprints matching the suspect, but it was JUST fingerprnts, so well, what to think? what to do?"...

You raise some interesting questions, and unfortunately, the answers are complex and lengthy. TL;DR: the word "profile" is not precise or scientific; it is a tool - like alphabetization or use of letters to denote sounds. The very word "profile" is the problem. Human DNA is 99.5% the same as...

And none of that helps her immediate supervisor (or the person who supervised both HGR and the props department). AD was himself in a supervisory position (but HGR was not his direct report). He should have called HGR in and called her supervisor. Because one of his roles as AD is set safety...

...Defense is well aware that it's likely BK's DNA could be found elsewhere on the sheath. The State knows that this testing might also make for another of those "befuddle the jury about DNA" suggestions. Best for the State to use the incontrovertibe single source DNA from the use point of the...

The sisters would match at about 25% - which is not the forensic standard for complete positive identification. The father's DNA would be more useful - but he might not want to give it up and doesn't have to, unless under subpoena for being involved somehow in a crime. No judge is going to...

...evidence that he was at the crime scene. Further, there are no cases in Australia or any other place on Planet Earth where single source DNA is not considered valuable evidence - far from the madding crowd of door knob evidence (or gates, or even steering wheels). This was murder weapon...

Which is why, IMO, this type of experiment is for purely academic purposes. It was not a forensic study. Nor even an applied study. No one shakes hands for 15 minutes. Further, of course, such friction on the palms is guaranteed to produce more epithelial cells from which DNA can be analyzed...

My view is that all of the calls for white Elantra owners to contact police were aimed at an increasingly smaller pool of white Elantra owners in the area. I believe that many did come forward (and probably without regard to year - as one worry a person would have would be that friends and...

Exactly. You have several misconceptions/statements. Touch DNA isn't just one thing. It can be a mixture of different people's cells - but WAS NOT in this case. It's in the first part of ISL's report. SINGLE SOURCE. So it's not touch DNA like you'd get from a public telephone or doorknob...

No. They are not. And now I have canned text and a link which states it very well: That's from: https://daily.jstor.org/forensic-dna-evidence-can-lead-wrongful-convictions/#:~:text=Put%20simply%2C%20if%20a%20DNA,people%20than%20a%20full%20profile. (an academic source) And also: From...

Which is why it's SO great that on the sheath...it's SINGLE source (NOT mixed) DNA. Mixed DNA has yet to enter the room, here. IMO. (And I don't think it will unless they do consumptive testing of the sheath - in which case they will find bovine DNA - which in my opinion, is easily...

Correct. And again, there is surely non-human DNA involved if the sheath is leather. Forensic anthropologists as well as archaeologists sample the "use point" of the tool first. Many reasons, including "most likely place to find DNA of the user." And most tanned leather will reveal the DNA of...

You can find it on the MSM thread. And here is one of the many, many articles saying it's single source male: https://abcnews.go.com/US/bryan-kohbergers-dna-matches-evidence-found-idaho-murder/story?id=100274541 That's the first of thousands of results. Single source, once again, means "only...

Yes. It's in the PCA. Single source. That means only ONE profile.

We're not disagreeing. They used a private lab (please don't picture test tubes or anything like that - picture a computer terminal) to do SNP profiling. That's not the same thing as the original profile (which is way more than SNP's - the lab would have run the bio samples for the most info...

In my world. "single source male profile" means a complete profile (which is likely given the source of the DNA - I am assuming it was ample, as it usually is with touch points on tools). This typically means that the number of SNP's found in the sample puts the sample beyond statistical doubt...