I do not often venture onto other websites discussing this case. But I did do today, and I found someone called Jackie saying this;
"1) I'll start with a common refrain among the Groupies: 'If there's no DNA from AK in the "murder room", she's innocent.'
There are a lot of studies out there showing that people often leave no DNA on objects they touch, but I was quite interested when I found this particular study because it involved not just a gentle handling of objects but rough and tumble simulations of bare-fingered strangulation:
Rutty GN. "An investigation into the transference and survivability of human DNA following simulated manual strangulation with consideration of the problem of third party contamination." Int. J. Legal Med. (2002) 116: 170-173
Despite the violence of the simulated struggles, the male "perps" only left their DNA behind in ~ 7 of the 29 strangulations....2) Now, as important as studies of that kind are to understanding the case, I think Dr. Mull's contribution has been the most important. He opened my eyes to the truly surprising proposition that never, not even once, in the history of genetic research, has anyone proven that tertiary transfer of touch DNA occurs"
It is so sad when people misquote papers to support their view In fact the conclusions of the paper say the exact opposite - I apologise for quoting at length.
'Having made these observations and comments, care
must now be expressed in the interpretation of the source
of the DNA on the victim and offender and the time peri-
ods of survival. One control neck test (the 10-day control)
yielded a partial profile of the offender and eight control
finger swabs (up to 5 days) yielded a partial profile of the
victim despite the fact that the offenders control fingers
never came in direct contact with the victim. Finally, par-
tial profiles of one or more third parties were amplified
from both test and both control sites for up to 10 days. In
most cases where this occurred, the unknown profile was
the same. No third party profiles arose from the amplifi-
cation laboratory.
The explanation for these observations is that of sec-
ondary/tertiary transfer. A likely source for both the vic-
tim and third party DNA material were inanimate objects
handled by both individuals within the building. Thus the
finger pads of the offender may not only transfer of-
fender’s DNA onto the skin of their victim and vice versa
but also transfers third party DNA from objects or the
third party themselves, which the offender handled prior
to contact with the skin of the victim. This would explain
the observation of unknown profiles upon the neck of the
victim at the site of contact as well as both hands of the
offender. Thus DNA from an innocent person could be
amplified from the hands of the offender or the site of
contact on the skin of the victim. "
So the very paper (s)he quotes provides evidence of tertiary transfer!
There are lots of papers documenting tertiary transfer e.g.
Evaluation of multiple transfer of DNA using mock case scenarios.
Goray M; Mitchell JR; van Oorschot RA.
Legal Medicine. 14(1):40-6, 2012
one of three simulated crimes
A husband and wife both had nose bleeds and used the same towel to dry their faces prior to walking the dog in the park. While walking, the wife became tired and stayed behind, while the husband continued to walk with the dog. The wife was then strangled and stabbed. Gloves and the knife found at the crime scene revealed both the husband’s and an unknown person’s DNA. The defence postulated that the husband’s DNA was present on the exhibits due to tertiary or further transfer: the husband’s blood (nosebleed) was transferred to the towel, then to the wife’s face and subsequently to the gloves and the knife used by the perpetrator.
The results demonstrated DNA transfer could occur to the gloves and knife.
See also
The transfer of touch DNA from hands to glass, fabric and wood
Original Research Article
Forensic Science International: Genetics, Volume 6, Issue 1, January 2012, Pages 41-46
Dyan J. Daly, Charlotte Murphy, Sean D. McDermott
Where one finding was..
"The phenomenon of secondary transfer was observed when mixed DNA profiles were obtained but the incidence was low at approximately 10% of the total number of samples. DNA profiles corresponding to more than one person were found on objects which had been touched by only one volunteer. "
That’s what led to AK falsely accusing an innocent black guy.
