In a recent episode of the podcast "Hidden Killers," Tony Brueski engaged in an enlightening discussion with Detective Jason Howe about a new term that has been thrown into the world of DNA matching: "Phantom matches." This term has been introduced by the Bryan Kohberger Defense Team and has stirred controversy in the legal world.
 
 Leah Larkin, a DNA expert and a witness hired by the defense, introduced the term "phantom matches" in an attempt to sow doubt in the legitimacy of DNA testing associated with the Kohberger case. The fundamental question being raised is: could there be something within the DNA testing process that falsely connected Kohberger to the crimes in question?
 
 Detective Howe was quick to address the term, with Brueski describing it as "a fancy word" that might confuse those not well-versed in DNA science. Brueski highlighted that the STR profile in question is "at least 5.7 octillion times more likely to be Kohberger than an individual randomly selected from the general population." He expressed skepticism about the term's introduction, asking, "What are they talking about? Where do you get this expert that's just coming up with these sort of things?"
 
 Interestingly, Detective Howe proposed that the defense might have a better chance arguing administrative errors rather than introducing unproven concepts. Drawing a parallel from his expertise in latent fingerprints, Howe noted that while errors in fingerprint identification do happen, their occurrence is extremely rare. In fact, he believes the odds of such a DNA error are even lower. "You continue to do additional tests; it's going to be the same result. It looks like it's his DNA, and I truly believe that it is," said Howe.
 
 To illustrate the point further, both Howe and Brueski utilized the analogy of a key. Brueski posited that even if a key (representing the DNA) drops in a bucket of mud and is cleaned up, it would still open the door. The ridges on the key (like the DNA pattern) remain unchanged. The focus, Brueski emphasized, should be on the result of a DNA match being just that, irrespective of handling procedures.
 
 Detective Howe agreed, mentioning the "confrontation clause" of the Constitution. He emphasized that while one could argue about policy adherence or potential improvements in handling processes, if one were to entertain the notion of "phantom matches," they could easily conduct another test. If the results remained consistent, what would the defense's argument be then? Would they suggest the possibility of two phantom matches? Howe stated, "I just think it's a method to create doubt."
 
 The introduction of "phantom matches" by the Kohberger Defense Team adds a new layer of complexity to DNA evidence discussions in legal settings. As the case progresses, it will be intriguing to see how the courts and juries respond to this term and the doubts it's intended to cast. One thing remains clear from the podcast discussion: While new terminology might introduce uncertainty, the fundamental science behind DNA matching remains robust and widely accepted within the forensic community.
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 Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com