In a recent episode of the popular podcast "Hidden Killers," host Tony Brueski sat down with Joseph Scott Morgan, a Forensic Scientist and Distinguished Scholar of Applied Forensics at Jacksonville State University, to delve into the genealogical DNA evidence linking Brian Kohberger to a recent crime. The conversation peeled back the layers on the reliability of this cutting-edge forensic tool, challenging common beliefs while addressing some of the most pressing questions.
 
As Brueski puts it, the use of genealogical DNA in criminal investigations has many heralding it as "golden" evidence. "Some people say this is super solid. You can't really argue it," he noted. Yet, the actual value and validity of this technique is being contested, especially in legal arenas. As attorneys begin to challenge the method, the question arises: just how valuable is this type of evidence?
 
Morgan, taking a scientific stance, was keen to distinguish between the reliability of the science itself and the procedures around collecting samples. "It's proven science," he asserted, "The science itself is pretty rock solid when compared to some other practices within forensic science." His emphasis lies in the belief that while questions may arise regarding the provenance of samples, the genealogical DNA science stands unassailable.
 
The strength of genealogical DNA as evidence becomes even more evident when one considers its implications. As Morgan describes it, "it is almost as if distant cousins are pointing at you accusingly." The interconnectedness of lineage reveals relationships, hinting at culpability in ways that other forensic techniques can't.
 
However, Morgan acknowledges the possibility of errors, but downplays their likelihood. He explained that even if there were another match, "it would have to be someone else within [Kohberger's] familial line." The astronomical odds stacked against finding a match outside the familial connection makes this type of evidence compelling in the eyes of the court. He went on to highlight that this isn't a fragile forensic practice like bite mark evidence, which has lost credibility over time. With genealogical DNA, the defense faces an uphill battle.
 
The discussion then veered into a perplexing angle of Kohberger's case: his unexpected move from Pennsylvania to Washington State University (WSU) for his studies. Despite residing in a state boasting multiple prestigious Ph.D. programs in criminology, Kohberger chose WSU. Morgan, drawing from his academic background, explained that PhD aspirants typically select institutions based on specific faculty members whose interests align with their own. In Kohberger's case, it was Katherine Sland, a renowned scholar who penned a book on the BTK killer.
 
Though Brueski hinted at a possible correlation between Kohberger's interests and Sland's expertise, Morgan veered the conversation back to the victims. He stressed the importance of understanding any potential connection between Kohberger and the individuals from the crime scene. Was it a chance encounter, or was there a deeper, possibly sinister reason behind Kohberger's choice of location and university?
 
The podcast episode illuminated the intricate web of factors that investigators and prosecutors consider when building a case. It also underscored the increasing importance of genealogical DNA as a forensic tool. While questions remain in Kohberger's case, one thing is clear: as science advances, so does the criminal justice system's ability to unveil the truth.
Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj

Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com
The latest on Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbu