A conviction in a 29 year old murder case in Calgary.

J

jimintoronto

Senior Member
Once again, ancestor DNA has been used to solve and gain a murder case conviction in Canada. This one took place 29 years ago in Calgary, Alberta. Two men were shot and killed during a home break in. The Calgary Police cold case unit was able to get a definitive hit using ancestor DNA files. The accused was found guilty of two counts of first degree murder recently in Alberta. This is the wave of the future for solving cold cases that were once considered "a lost cause ".

Link.https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/guilty-verdict-in-29-year-old-calgary-homicide/ar-AA1kuhgX?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=7a6a57b1574a44bdac4f28b823777349&ei=26

AS the lead investigator said after the conviction.......WE never give up, we are going to find you. Jimb.
 

This method of solving cold crimes fascinates me. Jim, are you following the Idaho murder case where the suspect Brian Kohberger was located this way?
 
Myrtle said:
This method of solving cold crimes fascinates me. Jim, are you following the Idaho murder case where the suspect Brian Kohberger was located this way?
Click to expand...
I took the time to do some reading about that case before answering you. First, that isn't a "cold case " as it dates back just 2 years. Second, DNA traces were found on the sheath of the knife used, but the knife its self has not been found, yet. The subject's cell phone records and it's GPS locations were much more important evidence that put him at the scene repeatedly over a period of months, long before the actual killings took place. So, the most damning evidence is the cell phone records and cell tower location hits. DNA didn't play a big part in pointing at Brian Kohberger, it was his actions and what he did after the deaths, that resulted in him being arrested and charged.

Using DNA in cold cases is based on the concept of having viable forensic evidence that was properly preserved at the time of the crime, that can now be retested using modern techniques. The decision to go forward with a cold case is based on having scientific evidence to work with, today. In other words, no viable current scientific evidence, no sense working the case. JimB.
 

We call that Familial DNA. It’s when a relative of the suspect’s blood is used to match DNA.

DNA is the best crime solving method since the days of fingerprinting were founded.
 
Last edited:
There was a case about 2005 when a couple bought a home that was for sale and a murder was committed inside that house. The case went cold after almost 5 years of getting nowhere. The couple that bought the house decided to have the flooring in the kitchen replaced. When the carpenter took up the old flooring, he spotted some old dried blood.

Remembering that there was a murder committed in that house, he called the police which came out to the house and collected a sample. The sample was sent to the lab and two different DNA’s were found. One turned out to be the victim’s and the second DNA, which was ran through CODIS, turned out to be their suspect.

After completing their investigation, the uncle of the prior owner confessed to the crime. His DNA was put into CODIS just a year earlier after he was arrested for petty larceny.
 
911 said:
There was a case about 2005 when a couple bought a home that was for sale and a murder was committed inside that house. The case went cold after almost 5 years of getting nowhere. The couple that bought the house decided to have the flooring in the kitchen replaced. When the carpenter took up the old flooring, he spotted some old dried blood.

Remembering that there was a murder committed in that house, he called the police which came out to the house and collected a sample. The sample was sent to the lab and two different DNA’s were found. One turned out to be the victim’s and the second DNA, which was ran through CODIS, turned out to be their suspect.

After completing their investigation, the uncle of the prior owner confessed to the crime. His DNA was put into CODIS just a year earlier after he was arrested for petty larceny.
Click to expand...
Would you like to comment about any cases you know of where Luminol was used ? Or the use of "crazy glue misting " to find prints on objects ? JimB.
 
jimintoronto said:
Would you like to comment about any cases you know of where Luminol was used ? Or the use of "crazy glue misting " to find prints on objects ? JimB.
Click to expand...
I have used Luminol, but only the lab guys use the crazy glue fuming process to collect fingerprints off of objects that before using this treatment were impossible to collect, like latex gloves.
 
ohioboy said:
911, have you ever heard of Alphonse Bertillon?
Click to expand...
I heard of him when I was in college taking Criminal Justice. Af first, I thought he was the man that founded criminal profiling, but I don’t think that’s correct. Did he have something to do with something like that?
 
ohioboy said:
The Bertillon system of suspect identification, before fingerprints.

Alphonse Bertillon - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
In a more recent development, a Swedish crime scene tech was able to use an "ear print " to prove that a specific break and enter suspect had left the imprint of his left ear on the glass of a sliding door at the scene of one of his break in's. The suspect had pressed his head to the glass to try to hear if anyone was in the house he was going to break into. Court accepted the evidence. JImB.
 
jimintoronto said:
In a more recent development, a Swedish crime scene tech was able to use an "ear print " to prove that a specific break and enter suspect had left the imprint of his left ear on the glass of a sliding door at the scene of one of his break in's. The suspect had pressed his head to the glass to try to hear if anyone was in the house he was going to break into. Court accepted the evidence. JImB.
Click to expand...
I doubt if ear print evidence would be accepted here in the U.S. the same way as a fingerprint. I think the prosecutor could claim that the ear print is “most likely” a match, but the jury may have a problem accepting it. IOW, the judge may allow it to be introduced into evidence, but getting a conviction based on ear print evidence is a low probability. JMO.
 


Back
Top