number one tonight we are GNA get back into the
drama but not really because we don't really talk about drama here this whole topic I just feel
like has been a whole bunch of drama and because everyone wants to say they said it first right and
you know what's weird is uh I was I'm not going to put anyone on blast I I won't put anyone I just
won't do that I won't do that ever for anybody uh it's just not the motto of thought WR podcast but
I was uh talking with somebody and uh you know I I h
ad made some comments that this information
had been sent to me like a long time ago and uh I I don't think people involved in this drama
liked the fact that I said that uh and you know it it ended up getting removed and some things
like that that that's my assumption I'm coming to but I gotta be honest here I don't I'll give
whoever wants to take credit go right ahead I'm not I'm not interested in credit I I will happily
never say that I saw it six months ago ever again because it just doe
sn't matter to me um what
matters to me personally is just like progressing the knowledge and science behind it um there's
a reason we never claim credit for anything no I also don't race for things and I'm not trying
to fly my flag of how great am I you know what I mean it's just not the goals of the podcast not
because NOP not because there's something wrong with content creators out there that do want
to come out with it first that's great um but science is not quick a lot of times and I
I want
to lean on science as much as possible here so um we just made it a goal right from the beginning
that we're not going to we're not going to join that race when the info comes to us and we look
into it then we're going to look into it you know and I'm going to do it as thorough as possible and
another interesting thing here is everyone that's talked about this which you guys will probably
know what we're talking about already but every single one of those people are probably going t
o
hate me at the end of this video that's a strong statement yeah obviously I am uh I'm exaggerating
a little bit I think but okay I'm going to start it off with the bang statement here all right
um this whole experiment needs to be thrown out the window all of it thing the whole experiment
that everyone's leaning on that has to do with the brass button and the sheath it's flawed the
whole thing okay we made a comment and I want to clarify some things before we actually get
into the scienc
e of it what's going on thought writers so I realized during editing I did not
make a smooth transition into talking about what this science experiment actually is so I'm hopping
in your video here to explain what it is for our podcast viewers that aren't on the True Crime
talk show with us the science experiment we're talking about is uh titled trace DNA and its p
assistance on various surfaces a long-term study investigating the influence of surface type
and environmental conditions part
one Metals essentially what it's going through is uh how
DNA uh breaks down on different metal types and uh it it it it does a very long-term study uh of
I think it's like 10 7 8 10 something different metal types uh but uh the most important one
we're talking about here is going to be brass right because uh brass is what was involved
in the Idaho 4 crime so back to your show we started talking about this last night you're uh
last night on the True Crime talk show and I want to give credit
where credits due the person
that's been researching this and I think that they're on to something I truly truly truly TR do
but this experiment that everyone's talking about is not going to be the supporting evidence we're
going to have to find a different way because I think it is good evidence to create a a hypothesis
statement like a hypothesis goal to dig in further but this CA this science experiment doesn't have
it and I will walk everyone through it so last night when we were talkin
g about it I shouted
out CL peny and K peny has been talking about this for a long time they're actually the one who
uh let told us about it like a long time ago so um you know I can only speak on my experience and
then last night when we were talking about get a clue I know some people in our chat were like hey
you need a shout out get a clue and uh I want to clarify that too here that look we love g a clue
I feel like we have a great working relationship with g a clue where he feels comfo
rtable watching
our stuff and being like hey I don't agree with you guys you guys are wrong uh and this is why
and we're comfortable watching his content being like hey we don't agree with g a clue this is why
you know what I mean and it's done scientifically it's done objectively and it's done respectfully
and I think that is the uh really important Point here right so I have watched g a clu's video
now I think it's really good I think he takes us through all the important parts of it um I
don't know about G A Clues background I have no idea so obviously this experiment is not get
Clues right so I I don't feel like me attacking this experiment is attacking anything get a clue
has to say no I think he will appreciate anything that's objective um yeah you know that's what
he cares about like I know on the true come talk show when we brought this up I started talking
about the um the button being painted and I was concerned that could affect um the ionization
of the metal that
causes the DNA to degrade um rapidly and I wondered if that could affect it
and I have been digging into that as hard as I can there is very little information so I've
actually reached out to some people on it um some people who are in forensics hoping they
will get back to me on that but um because I'm curious if there is any study out there that has
anything to do with that um like literally brass being coated yeah I I've already reached out to
the the scientist so there's three names on
this science experiment but you got to remember the
science experiment is from' 09 so a long time ago 15 years ago oh wow I didn't realize that
yeah SC science usually doesn't get published for a long time after the experiments but um and
the general public knowing information is even further behind after that you guys literally it
is uh it's wild how far behind we are on things um but true so um okay I want to dig into this so
shout out to get a clue for covering this topic uh shout out t
o everyone else that had been
covering this Mega shout out to CL Penney for uh digging into all of this and finding all this
all right and I think she she confirmed the kar the button on the sheaths are made of brass yeah
yeah absolutely which is a mixture of copper and zinc and copper is the worst for DNA apparently
yeah they actually test brass in here though they do because brass is a different mixture so it's
alkaloid base and like those things that have to do with the the degradation o
f a DNA sample uh
that comes into play with it um so going into the actual experiment here and I've already seen
a whole bunch of people questioning the validity of this experiment through ways I don't agree
with so far like one of them was talking about uh how this uh experiment said that there was
identifiable DNA still at the end of all of these tests and that is actually not true it says very
clear in here that the test time stopped as soon as there was not any essentially legible DNA o
nce
their testing instruments could no longer identify that it was DNA legibly then uh that test time
stopped there okay um some of these went on for a very very long time but I haven't seen anyone
talk about this yet and and g a clue briefly went over it there's a couple things I want to
highlight here right because the whole goal of everyone covering this is that try I want this to
be true why I want this to be true is because I feel like like there are big issues with the DNA
sample the
re's something to it with the way they include Au the fact that it is a leading Ed Edge
technology science and we're being told there are no notes there is no tracking there is no data
uh that is uncommon that is so institutionally uncommon are the institutions that focus on this
use computer uh as their work and data source so that would be in the computers so being told that
there's no work product is a red flag to me can I mention something real quick also within the
interim policy from
the doj on fgg which is forensic genetic genealogy it literally says you
don't destroy all of this information until like it's not needed anymore or until there's
a conviction they're not supposed to they are supposed to destroy it but there's certain
criteria to destroying it like they destroyed it too quickly if they destroyed all of it I'm
questioning if it was destroyed because what did they give over to an then yeah yeah yeah I wonder
if that was a lie or like you know Bill Thompson di
dn't know yeah he was told that but it wasn't
true kind of thing look I'm right there with you and and for okay so the rundown on the science
experiment before I start pulling out my red flags here right and I want if anyone's an expert
in this I am not an expert in this topic okay so call me out on it please you know I I'm not ever
promising to be right uh I'm promising to research science and science is ever evolving so I'm going
to be wrong more than I'm right here um but what this exper
iment did is they took uh essentially
I'm going to keep it as vague as possible they took trace DNA samples they put those trace DNA
samples onto metal to see how quickly uh or how how pronged uh the metal surface would degrade
the DNA sample yeah many different types of metal right many different types of metal we can get
into the details of it but we're highlighting one specific type of metal right because uh
we've been told through the investigation in the Idaho 4 that there was a knife
sheath left on
the scene of the crime and that knife sheath Was A Kar knife sheath the kar knife sheath has a brass
button that brass Button had uh DNA in or around it of Brian cob Bergers right well uh clo Penney
had has been talking about this for a very very very very very long time saying hey something's
not right here look into this you guys and she contacted kbar and confirmed that all their knife
sheets are made with brass buttons yep contacted Kar and and got all that done and every
thing um
and then found this science experiment which um I think CL Penney had been frust frustrated that no
one picked up the story but uh science goes a long way to back a statement right and and I'm guilty
of that too where I was just talking about this a minute ago that the way that I look at things is
I take everything that said from people as false until proven true right um so the study is what
the study makes you interested exactly and you know what's really strange is I is when she
posted
I started looking into it but like literally at the same time that all the drama started happening
because I didn't even see any content I was just like oh this is amazing I totally remember hearing
about this I know because you brought it up before that video was ever made and it was you said on
Reddit yep and I was like and then I saw that video the next day and I was like oh y so this is
a big conversation going around it is it is it is all right so um they tested all of these dn
as um
in the uh in different settings they did it in a dark setting they did it in a light setting and
they put uh DNA on these metal surfaces to check how long they lasted now brass came up with a very
very interesting outcome uh it it lasted no longer than a 24-hour period um I thought it was 12
hours no when you when you look at it we can pull it up real quick here um so experimental time
points and then what does that mean uh minimum was 14.85% 412 to2 uh that is the cellular
mixture u
h table five is time after which DNA became undetectable and what's
interesting when you go down here hang on the persistence data for brass is presented
in figure 10 from time 0 to 24 hours on a linear scale the DNA did not persist in any
form for longer than 24 hours on this metal okay but is in any form for longer than 24
hours on this metal as you can see here uh it says uh when a solution containing only cfdna
which for those of you cfdna is cellfree DNA uh and it's found in like biofl
uid or it's free of
biofluids and its cellular Origins um so when when a solution containing only cfdna was deposited
on brass after 1 hour sample stored in the dark produced a DNA recovery of 84% in contrast when
cfdna stample samples were stored under normal or human humid conditions the ability of the DNA to
persist after 1 hour was reduced and Recovery fell below 16% the ability to recover DNA deposit
deposited alone decreased rapidly and after 4 hours be became completely undetectable
when stored in any environmental condition unsurprisingly samples stored in the dark and
normal environments persisted longer at higher amounts than those stored in humid conditions so
why I'm not digging into like the nitty-gritty here I understand people have focused on that 4our
Mark but I'm going back to what I was saying this whole test is flawed everything about about it is
flawed and now I'll get to that point but so we're we're on a consensus here right that none of the
tests La la
sted longer than a 24-hour period right okay so going back to what I was originally
saying the uh the sample DNA this is really important really really important I think a lot of
people missed this okay so the cellfree component use cellfree component used for this study came
from rainbow trout which were donated by a local fisherman the Trout's livers were removed and the
DNA was extracted and then using a standard pheny uh chloroform protocol uh and a machine I forget
what that machine's
called I think it's Electro fores foris uh the extracted DNA was stored and
Frozen until required they stored it in a liquid uh and and extracted the DNA sonicated for 30
minutes in order to reduce the molecular weight making it more representative of CF DNA okay
so we got that coming from trout DNA they are manipulating that the DNA that they're using to
make it more like cfdna coming from a a bio liver from the trout got it okay okay um so then we're
going to look at the mouse embryonic f
ibro blasts were donated to this project uh by the school of
Life Sciences at the University of dunde calls cells were removed from the tissue Culture flas
by uh tripson and it tripin isation uh and washed three times with phosphate buffered saline um cell
concentrated was determined by staining with 46 Di diam medino uh I'm not even going to try uh
I'm I'm just going to hack that all up cells were then resuspended at a concentration of uh 1
by 106 uh 20% glycerol phosphate buffered saline
okay so everyone got that right I guess okay
so you got it enough to understand that they had to make adjustments to the DNA at a cellular
level in order to make it more representative of the testing samples that they wanted to conduct
right okay so next they used synthetic fingerprint solution synthetic fingerprint solution okay uh
and remember I want this test to be valid and be able to be argued in court you guys the synthetic
fingerprint solution was created following a procedure descri
bed by Cisco Ed with some
alterations as highlighted with some alterations as highlighted a synthetic uh e e whatever
solution and a synthetic sebum solution were made sep that's your skin oil yeah uh solution were
made separately and mixed to create a synthetic Emulsion which was subsequently diluted to create
a synthetic fingerprint solution then it goes in here to break down exactly what that fingerprint
solution was it gives you the five inorganic salts amino acids other uh components a
nd then it tells
you what they did by running it through a filter vacuum filtration unit to reduce the serum change
the composition and uh be able to make it be able to make it bind with the fatty acids needed okay
so everyone understands here that this test is being used as a representation to uh uh say that
human trace DNA is not usable and can't hold up in a court of law because this testing says so H
that that's the argument right that the DNA cannot hold up in a court of law specifical
ly this Cas
because of the metal because therefore it can't withhold within you know 4H hour to 24hour period
however every single sample they're using in this testing is not human or fake it's man-made so when
you're looking at it from the point of view of a court system a court will not accept this there
is no uh evidence that can be gained from this testing that will relate to a human trace DNA now
g a clue went over this and he went over the the salmon portion or whatever and was like t
hat's
not a big deal DNA is DNA it's not unfortunately so in here it talks about the pH balance of the
solution and the DNA that they're running okay so they're running it at a standard 5.5 pH balance
do you know what a human is what a human is 7.5 or depending on uh the upper body versus the lower
body it could be as high as eight which totally changes the the the composition and uh acidic
nature of what you're using as a test sample the pH balance is going to react differently
on each of
these Metals dealing with an alkaloid so I go back to trying to understand
how this is evidence that this can't be true I think this is an awesome starting point like
great starting point this will never ever ever get brought up in court never never there is no
scientist that would be able to come into court and say for sure Court I can tell you without a
doubt that the trace DNA that was left on that brass button that was human DNA that was Brian
cober's DNA couldn't have last long longer
than four hours on that brass button because let me
show you how relatable it is to uh trout DNA with fake solution using and recreating recreating
a fingerprint uh solution that is inorganic completely man-made it's just not going to happen
it is is not going to happen right and and one of the things I was worried about bringing this up
right because uh again like I said so many people talked about this and I think this is a great
starting point but we're not being true to oursel at thoug
ht rot podcast if we're not scrutinizing
everything scrutinizing everything okay we are completely unbiased would I love this to be the
the reason why the DNA is so shoty in this case would I love to be able to prove that without a
doubt there was no human DNA left on there I would love it because I think something's wrong here but
this does not tell us that so so what this I think this study tells us is that there absolutely is an
issue with brass and DNA so if it's as they said and it was
found on this button there are major
questions there but we need we need a study using human DNA we need a study using human DNA to see
what the actual viability times are like at what point not just that but also because court has a
very high relatability factor okay and a lot of people that a lot of experts lose that in court
where your argument you can have an argument that's less true than another expert if you're
relatable in that argument then your argument is going to have a bigger
impact on that case
unfortunately I think if you put this in front of any skilled attorney they're going to rip it apart
they're going to make it sound like so how can you tell me Mr expert with confidence that uh you can
take trout DNA and and and it's going to do the same exact thing as uh human DNA fingerprint DNA
with all the oils with all the other things that are involved uh on a fingerprint right um and
not only that but include it into your man-made solution that is supposed to repl
icate finger oils
uh to be thrown on this test and then effectively prove that uh that the human sample would degrade
I it's not going to happen it is not going to happen and and let me let me talk on this part
too because this is really important so as you guys so I don't most of you probably know by now
that I have a Bachelor of Science so not science like this I was never in a lab doing like testing
on biology or chemistry or anything like that but uh uh science science uh discussions ma
terials
hypotheses uh tests and the conclusion of those all write up the same they all write up exactly
the same all right and at the end of any test there's always a either General considerations in
this situation or like honor honorable mentions honorary mentions for the test itself so these
are variables that should be Tak into account and and the reader needs to understand that
these variables could have you know it could have a variation on the outcome of the testing
here okay so 4.2
in this work we have attempted to evaluate the effect of metal surfaces on the
Persistence of cellular and DNA exposed to three different environmental conditions however it is
important that to highlight that the altering that altering the variables used within the experiment
could influence the observed results for example changing the DNA collection method in this
work we used a single cotton swab moistened with EB buffer to collect all DNA samples in
practice there are many swab types a
vailable in conjunction with different swabbing techniques
uh any combination of which may influence recovery efficiency additionally alternative to
swabbing tape lifting is also commonly used for DNA collection and can be assumed to influence
recovery efficiency in a different way had it been employed in this study another variable that
would likely influence the observed results is is if changed would be altering the method of DNA
uh deposition it can be assumed that changing the mode of
the D DNA uh deposition from gentle
pipeting to smearing spraying or dry dropping from a varied height in conjection with the
varying the volume or total DNA of deposits would also have an effect on the results and would be
worthwhile area to investigate in a recent paper by Hughes uh attention was drawn to the effect
texture of a non-porous surface could have on the recovery of biological samples in addition to
the adherence of such samples on a Surface they highlight that surface tension
and hydrophobicity
of a deposit can drive the adhesion of deposits to a surface along with the surface roughness
thus indicating the changing the deposit volume or sample makeup could influence the sample's
interaction with the metal surface and influence persistence additionally this probably has
some relevance where the deposited material has a corrosive effect remember that pH you guys
the the pH balance used here was manipulated to a 5.5 whereas a humans is 7.5 and could be as
high as
eight okay however given the size of the current persistence project and the number of
samples involved in this study using the defined experimental procedure it was Impractical to
test or monitor changing the variables and it even goes so far in here to uh to say that the
reason why we did the DNA in this way because in order for us to use human DNA we would
have had to get swab kits those swab kits would have been wildly ineffective in price and
we wouldn't have been able to run this test
using those yeah so we need to start a GoFundMe to
have our own study done yeah so w w wamp on this test at least there is nothing here and
I wish there was I don't agree that there's nothing here I think it it proves that this
deserves a further look into seeing uh how long a human's DNA could survive in that
environment yeah yeah yeah I just mean that this this made no progress in the starting
point from a uh criminal investigative uh point of view from a criminal uh from a
criminal inv
estigative angle this doesn't add value to anything that you would find in
a crime scene I reached out to the scientist involved and like I said this test was 15
years ago um and I put a whole bunch of questions together asking them what what was the
monetary difference in using the human testing versus this testing here because in my opinion
uh I would think that creating uh a man-made solution renders your argument like ineligible
in this case because they're talking specifically about tr
ace DNA and one of the people involved
here is actually part of a police force um in a different area in the world uh but this this test
can't be used like it cannot effectively be used because the amount of changing variables in this
test it put adds too much separation from human DNA whether you're talking about the pH which is
a massive deal I don't know why they used 5.5 the only reason that I could think is because a pH
of 5.5 is known for being the REM most the most reliable and easy
to handle yeah it's it's like
the base level right in the middle it yeah yeah it's absolutely right in the middle correct so
so it's not too alkaloid or too acidic but if that's but that changes everything test yeah
if you're looking at human DNA like clear that is acidic that clearly matters using human DNA
I just want to be clear here using T human DNA in a test like this like in the increased pH it
could cause quicker deterioration the correct pH yeah oh could interesting I mean theoreti
cally
right and where we need to look at this from is this is all theoretical this is all theoretical
okay the whole thing is theoretical in uh when you're looking at it from a human DNA point
of view so yeah I would love a scientist to uh to use human examples you know we we saw
trace DNA science tests that were done and maybe the 15 years has made it cheaper but they
did the test on the transfer of trace DNA on um a knife handle you know what I mean h so yeah
the yeah yeah we saw that on
e we talked about it right that's the one we did talk about with
transferring and like how some people had like more of the other person's DNA than their own like
when they touched it yep yeah all that stuff that was a really interesting study super interesting
it was and it makes you seriously question the validity of touch DNA it it it just has to remain
circumstantial evidence like while it's a big deal to find touch DNA at a crime scene and it can
be a huge lead for investigators you ju
st don't know how it got there I and that matters that
matters yep totally but I'm questioning I'm qu in the cber case Idaho 4 case I'm questioning
the validity of that knife sheath and what they collected from it um and I think a lot of people
are because it seems so strange yeah yeah I I personally think look if you're going to do a
test like this and and you're going to connect it uh with criminal investigations in some way
um why wouldn't you use live Human samples yeah I just don't get
it ask a human being to touch
that metal surface and then uh now that we have the the testing that we have at at at such a uh
microscopic level you know like literally where we're pulling DNA out of the air now um I would
think that this test is outdated and old and we should be able to increase the effectiveness
of these tests now and it should be even cheaper yeah I agree I think there's ways to
make do this and it be cheaper yep but let me know what you guys think I think I probably wen
t
uh a little bit longer there than I planned but it's interesting and I think these topics are
really important and uh I just want to give another shout out to CL peny this is an awesome
awesome awesome fun and I hope that you know me just being critical right and and scrutinizing
every single thing that we touch uh is uh you know not looked at as a negative thing because science
just need to go find a better study yeah the best scientists are the ones that scrutinize everything
right don
't accept nothing be a uh contrarian to you know as deeply as you can be in any topic
that you can be beg all the questions of why how who you know yeah so but anyways interesting for
sure let us know let us know what what you think okay
Comments