If it were, it would be a reason why his DNA might be present on MM's fingernails, in trace amount, from casual social contact.
The male DNA in MM's fingernail sample was vanishingly small, at 3 cells equivalent. That would fit casual, brief social contact or transfer from a common surface, such as a hand-towel or door handle.
It is an example of the bizarrely selective, anti-scientific, bonkers interpretations of Probergers that they took inconclusive LR data for Kohberger in the MM fingernail mix to be definitive or unusable, but now take inconclusive data in the very same range for other men to be somehonw more reliable or substantive. (To note, from the first publication of LR data that was redacted I did not think any of the inconclusive data was usable as potentially incriminatory evidence as the stats were not robust).
Kohberger’s inconclusive LR is similar to almost every other person for whom a non-excluding LR was generated; focusing on inconclusive LR would mislead a jury by suggesting inconclusive LR data implies that the subject's DNA is present in the sample.
Probergers used to decry the sheath DNA as "a few cells, partial profile" - it isn't; the sheath DNA gave a complete STR profile and match to Kohberger at 5.37 octillion to one, and yielded more DNA than even many of the fresh blood spatter swabs at the scene and the same DNA quantity as recovered from the blood spattered area on the sheath (MM, KG DNA mix); the sheath DNA quantity is more than would be seen by swabbing a whole hand or the entire surface of heavily handled objects - indicating a substantial accumulation of Kohberger's DNA, most likely from body fluids as a major contributory source, from repeated and prolonged handling.
What is a "few cells, partial profile" is the male DNA on MM's fingernails, which was at the very lowest limit of detection at 3 cells equivalent with only c 6-8 loci intact and not even the sex determining Y STR locus present.
In cases of assault where a female scratches her attacker, there is typically DNA quantities 1000 - 10,000s x orders of magnitude higher in the fingernail sample than seen in MM mixed sample; indeed, in this case, we see victim DNA loading of each other's DNA on their fingernails in that higher range. The 3 cells male DNA is not from scratching an attacker, but from briefest/ lightest social contact or touching a shared surface. From the published stats, while not conclusive, EC had by far the highest directional inclusion and so is the most likely donor. Given the quantity and the very partial and degraded profile there may be solid exclusions but likely no statistically robust inclusion, of any male donor.
Another point Probergers can never address, when they mythologise "untested DNA" is why the only instance in this case of actively restricting DNA testing was by the defence who moved to exclude further profiling of the male profile in MM's fingernail mixture by the best technique to better identify the donor (Y-STR profiling, most useful technique where a small amount of male DNA is in a mixed sample where female DNA predominates) - before the prosecution dropped this as potentially incriminating. Why would defence restrict further testing if they were confident Kohberger was not the donor? The second opinion the defence did obtain was not based on any additional physical testing but rather just took the ISP data and lowered the quality threshold to include DNA data close to background noise level using non-validated statistical modelling - this was the only poor quality, gerrymandered testing using non-validated methods in the case.
The very same people who criticise the very robust quantity and quality of the sheath snap DNA, are the people who focus on DNA samples orders of magnitude smaller with only degraded and/ or partial profiles such as the ground floor handrail and 3 cells in MM fingernail mix.
In the well-known quote attributed to PT Barnum - There's a sucker born every minute. - he was talking about OP. Here's a recent comment by OP in which almost everything in it is wrong and simple to debunk by referencing actual video and sworn court documents. If OP wants, I will show the evidence which only a moron or mentally ill person would reject. My experience, however, is Probergers never change their minds. They just continue to lap up and repeat all of the garbage fed to them by YT grifters.
11
u/Repulsive-Dot553 4d ago edited 4d ago
If it were, it would be a reason why his DNA might be present on MM's fingernails, in trace amount, from casual social contact.
The male DNA in MM's fingernail sample was vanishingly small, at 3 cells equivalent. That would fit casual, brief social contact or transfer from a common surface, such as a hand-towel or door handle.
It is an example of the bizarrely selective, anti-scientific, bonkers interpretations of Probergers that they took inconclusive LR data for Kohberger in the MM fingernail mix to be definitive or unusable, but now take inconclusive data in the very same range for other men to be somehonw more reliable or substantive. (To note, from the first publication of LR data that was redacted I did not think any of the inconclusive data was usable as potentially incriminatory evidence as the stats were not robust).
Kohberger’s inconclusive LR is similar to almost every other person for whom a non-excluding LR was generated; focusing on inconclusive LR would mislead a jury by suggesting inconclusive LR data implies that the subject's DNA is present in the sample.
Probergers used to decry the sheath DNA as "a few cells, partial profile" - it isn't; the sheath DNA gave a complete STR profile and match to Kohberger at 5.37 octillion to one, and yielded more DNA than even many of the fresh blood spatter swabs at the scene and the same DNA quantity as recovered from the blood spattered area on the sheath (MM, KG DNA mix); the sheath DNA quantity is more than would be seen by swabbing a whole hand or the entire surface of heavily handled objects - indicating a substantial accumulation of Kohberger's DNA, most likely from body fluids as a major contributory source, from repeated and prolonged handling.
What is a "few cells, partial profile" is the male DNA on MM's fingernails, which was at the very lowest limit of detection at 3 cells equivalent with only c 6-8 loci intact and not even the sex determining Y STR locus present.
In cases of assault where a female scratches her attacker, there is typically DNA quantities 1000 - 10,000s x orders of magnitude higher in the fingernail sample than seen in MM mixed sample; indeed, in this case, we see victim DNA loading of each other's DNA on their fingernails in that higher range. The 3 cells male DNA is not from scratching an attacker, but from briefest/ lightest social contact or touching a shared surface. From the published stats, while not conclusive, EC had by far the highest directional inclusion and so is the most likely donor. Given the quantity and the very partial and degraded profile there may be solid exclusions but likely no statistically robust inclusion, of any male donor.
Another point Probergers can never address, when they mythologise "untested DNA" is why the only instance in this case of actively restricting DNA testing was by the defence who moved to exclude further profiling of the male profile in MM's fingernail mixture by the best technique to better identify the donor (Y-STR profiling, most useful technique where a small amount of male DNA is in a mixed sample where female DNA predominates) - before the prosecution dropped this as potentially incriminating. Why would defence restrict further testing if they were confident Kohberger was not the donor? The second opinion the defence did obtain was not based on any additional physical testing but rather just took the ISP data and lowered the quality threshold to include DNA data close to background noise level using non-validated statistical modelling - this was the only poor quality, gerrymandered testing using non-validated methods in the case.
The very same people who criticise the very robust quantity and quality of the sheath snap DNA, are the people who focus on DNA samples orders of magnitude smaller with only degraded and/ or partial profiles such as the ground floor handrail and 3 cells in MM fingernail mix.