Release Of Forensic Dna Results For Sierra Kills Sample

[Guest Tyler H]

Tyler, I'm fairly new here. Who are you? Why are you involved in this? Not to threaten or challenge, just understand. You seem a reasonable fellow.

To your point:

"Once you eliminate the most implausible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, is likely the truth"

What remains? Bear. So while you view him lying, passing a poly, whatever other evidence as improbable, I view them as implausable.

What remains is truth. There is near 0 chance of finding bear flesh near that spot, so while improbable, what remains is probably the truth: this is a hoax.

Look, you obviously are much closer to this than I am. I grant you that, but please grant my scepticism some weight! Its pretty unlikely what he's saying is true. It just doesn't make sense he'd walk away from a dead BF like that. And now we can't substantitate it. You WANT to believe him, I can relate, but ask yourself.... should you?

I was the second investigator to contact Justin over 2 years ago, after Derek Randles.

K, I just ask that people read the stuff that I spent hours out of my life preparing for you all. I don't expect that of people that aren't interested in this topic, and I don't expect that of people who don't ask questions. But if you ask questions, you have enough interest in this topic to want to read up on it. If you don't want to read stuff, and just want to be spoon-fed, I'm sorry, but I have much more pressing things in my life. Please read the article that I have linked several times now. It was linked in the statements you copied into your post - here is the full link. http://www.google.ca...355534169,d.cGE

In it, I clearly delineate why believing Justin is not a matter of faith. I clearly delinieate why I chose to pursue evidence in what seems be the most probable of 5 unlikely scenarios.

[Guest Scout1959]

I understand frustration at repeating oneself but honestly the tone from both parties come off let's just say 'poorly'.

You don't do yourself any favors and in the end likely attract more attacks. Just an observation.

[Guest VioletX]

Thanks for your reply Tyler.

Did anyone read Justin's recent comments or am I the only one,lol?

[Guest Tyler H]

As for why the boots have not been tested:

Personally, I actually would not say that cost is the main reason. It factors in, but I'm sure we could raise the funds if we set our minds to it.

To me, the more important, and truthfully, more difficult task has been trying to find THE right lab to do it. I have reached out to several.

Trent University Forensic DNA lab has a stellar record of accomplishments. The director has published papers on both human and mammalian genomes. They get contracted internationally to work on extremely tough cases where people put a lot of effort into hiding illegal activity - murders, international illegal animal trade, etc, etc. They are very sophisticated. The director got involved personally – In short, we were sure we had found our lab to pursue the boots after the tissue.

Bart had basically verbally agreed to send me the boots. It was all but a done deal. Then we started hitting hiccups with Trent's efforts... In my view, it was a mis-step that they initially tested the first sample in its entirety rather than sub-sampling it. Then, once they seemed to get a fair bit of evidence that it was just bear that we were working with, things started to take on a different feel. By the time the report was finished, and I asked if they would want to take on the boots, they declined. At that point we weren't sure that they were the ones we would want to take it on anyways. We need communication that we can rely on, for the long hall. It becomes an arduous undertaking and a difficult relationship when timelines and expectations are not met. I know I have learned a lot for the next round.

We need a forensic lab, and we need a lab that can deal with degradation and contamination. And we need a lab that is open to some communication so that we can save it some trouble. Since we are likely to only get one shot at the boots, we need to nail it the first time, and the lab has to have impeccable credentials.

We are still trying to source that lab.

Edited December 27, 2012 by Tyler H

[Guest reelback]

I was the second investigator to contact Justin over 2 years ago, after Derek Randles.

K, I just ask that people read the stuff that I spent hours out of my life preparing for you all. I don't expect that of people that aren't interested in this topic, and I don't expect that of people who don't ask questions. But if you ask questions, you have enough interest in this topic to want to read up on it. If you don't want to read stuff, and just want to be spoon-fed, I'm sorry, but I have much more pressing things in my life. Please read the article that I have linked several times now. It was linked in the statements you copied into your post - here is the full link. http://www.google.ca...355534169,d.cGE

In it, I clearly delineate why believing Justin is not a matter of faith. I clearly delinieate why I chose to pursue evidence in what seems be the most probable of 5 unlikely scenarios.

Thank you Tyler. I have read your conclusions in great detail.

From my perspective, there is almost nothing there that is fact based. Your best argument is that his story, actions, and behavior seemed consistent with someone telling the truth. I've no doubt you're observant, smart and well intentioned.

What I see missing here are facts. He seems like someone telling the truth to you, but I've never met the guy, so when I read your assessment I've got nothing to base your findings on other than to take them at their word, which I do.

BUT, taking your assessments at their word still garner no proof. And having these samples come back bear are pretty hard to swallow.

Look, I really do believe you're sincere and your honesty presenting this evidence is without pale. Just suggesting you consider alternatives to your assessments in that post. I know its compelling but I read the implausable/improbable differently than you do at this point.

Also, can you provide an explanation about the boots? - Edit: sorry you just did

Edited December 27, 2012 by reelback

[Guest crabshack]

Thanks for your reply Tyler.

Did anyone read Justin's recent comments or am I the only one,lol?

I did, very interesting. He seems to maybe have something.

[Guest VioletX]

I did, very interesting. He seems to maybe have something.

sigh...everyone is always so darned mysterious.

edit to say: It is a bloody soap opera here ; )

Edited December 27, 2012 by VioletX

[Guest Tyler H]

Thank you Tyler. I have read your conclusions in great detail.

From my perspective, there is almost nothing there that is fact based. Your best argument is that his story, actions, and behavior seemed consistent with someone telling the truth. I've no doubt you're observant, smart and well intentioned.

What I see missing here are facts. He seems like someone telling the truth to you, but I've never met the guy, so when I read your assessment I've got nothing to base your findings on other than to take them at their word, which I do.

BUT, taking your assessments at their word still garner no proof. And having these samples come back bear are pretty hard to swallow.

Look, I really do believe you're sincere and your honesty presenting this evidence is without pale. Just suggesting you consider alternatives to your assessments in that post. I know its compelling but I read the implausable/improbable differently than you do at this point.

Thanks for reading that - and I appreciate the sincere question.

OK, let's flip it around - give me what you think is the most probable scenario. (I've shown you my stance, so show me yours. I feel confident that I can show you why it makes less sense to me. And yes, I will admit - some of it comes down to dealing with Justin - I mean character counts for something in murder trials - why not in this?)

[bigbear]

Figure A9 in lab report, No band in huggins 2, when screen is done with primers specific for human. but it does not list info on dilution or if it is stock sample, Shouldn't matter though, there is clearly DNA as seen in the figure A8 huggins 2 shows bands when using the bear specific primers.

So this proves huggins 1 is human contamination?

(not that we already didn't know that, but this would seem to provide proof, no?)

Is huggins 1 and 2 from the same piece of tissue, just different parts?

On side note, how long was this going on, to get back some basic pcr screens, and a little sequencing?

probably didn't even have to design your own primers, just order some in and run the screen, i feel like this was over suspenseful and took months but then again i wasn't exactly following it. So i'm guessing that Nature publication is out of the question now?

Edited December 27, 2012 by bigbear

[Guest]

grayjays - keep posting questions all you like - you are dead to me, mr. 11 yr old hall monitor who already had his question answered. You are done.

Actually it hasn't been answered and no permits have been provided, it's easy to redact personal information to keep things confidential.

Neither have you addressed proper shipping requirements to address the integrity of the sample. These are simple and common questions. In fact they are so simple your obfuscation without answering is curious.

Edited December 27, 2012 by grayjay

[Guest Tyler H]

As I see it, these were the Potential conclusions back when I wrote this article, and still cover most of the bases today.

1. Smeja and friend did not go on the trip, and none of this happened. Pros – None. I don’t think anyone really thinks this, and any espousing of this stance is easily overturned. Counter-points – too many pieces of physical evidence that readily prove they made this trip.
   
2. Smeja and a friend did in fact go on a hunting trip, and may have indeed shot something, but it was something other than a bipedal animal. Pros –More believable to most people, than having shot a bipedal animal. Addresses why receipts and such can prove that the trip happened. E.g.: “Maybe they shot a deformed bearâ€. That would be consistent with many aspects of the story. Counter-points – If what they shot was only a recognized mammal (deformed or otherwise), why return several times to the site (as proven by receipts) at great wasted effort and expense when they could not afford either? Why submit tissue samples to labs that could easily throw doubt on the claim? How did he pass the polygraph exam? Why do wife and family members support the fact that Smeja’s story has stayed consistent? Why is the account corroborated so well by the other person who was present at the time of the shooting?
   
3. Smeja and a friend did in fact go on a hunting trip, and may have indeed shot something, but it was a human. Pros – Accounts for most aspects of the story, other than the claimed lack of clothes and overabundance of hair. Would explain why they did not keep the body. Counter-points – Why keep proof of something that sounds like a homicide? Why submit it to labs? Why call attention to your alleged crime? Why do the tissue samples look so non-human? Why pull the trigger on something that you believe to be a human?
   
4. Smeja and friend both shared the same delusion. Pros – Doesn’t stretch anyone’s credulity or imagination. No one has to acknowledge that an unknown primate may exist in North America. Answers how polygraph tests have been passed, and why Smeja seems so believable. Counter-points – How do two people have the exact same delusion?
   
5. The encounter was supernatural, or an apparition. Pros – Addresses why this alleged animal has been so elusive over the years. Many of the facets of the story could be accounted for in this scenario. Counter-points – The alleged injuries that resulted from the alleged shootings would not be consistent with what most people would expect from a supernatural being. Testing of physical evidence may eventually be able to completely disprove this hypothesis.
   
6. Smeja and friend are telling the truth. Pros – Answers all challenges not met by any of the other possible conclusions. Can hopefully be conclusively supported by testing of physical evidence, eventually. Counter-points – Stretches the imagination of many people to believe that we have a primate in North America that is not recognized by the majority of the scientific community, or general population. Describes some behavioral and physical anomalies not normally attributed to this animal (or virtually any animal.)
   

To me, an examination of the facts left me with the impression that the possibility that these witnesses telling the truth was greater than the possibility for the other conclusions. That was before I ever saw or came to be in possession of any physical evidence (either circumstantial or direct.) My hope is that our ongoing examination of the physical evidence will eventually completely negate the need to try to decide whether Justin is telling the truth or not. But in the meantime, I feel quite strongly that the preponderance of information supports the credibility of his claims.

[Guest RayG]

Donning my Captain Obvious uniform here, but wouldn't hacking off a toe or finger have avoided the whole ~is this slab of flesh bear or bigfoot?~

Bears don't have fingers and toes like bigfoot supposedly does, so why not cut off one of those? Especially if one is going to make numerous trips back and forth that one can ill afford.

At the very least this is a good example of how poor collection and storage methods can render the results next to useless.

RayG

[Guest Tyler H]

big bear:

"Is huggins 1 and 2 from the same piece of tissue, just different parts?"

Yes

On side note, how long was this going on, to get back some basic pcr screens, and a little sequencing?"

As the release statement says, it was basically April to November.

[Guest reelback]

Thanks for reading that - and I appreciate the sincere question.

OK, let's flip it around - give me what you think is the most probable scenario. (I've shown you my stance, so show me yours. I feel confident that I can show you why it makes less sense to me. And yes, I will admit - some of it comes down to dealing with Justin - I mean character counts for something in murder trials - why not in this?)

Yes, character counts. But when the guy convinces you he's telling the truth and then his skin DNA comes back under the murdered girls fingernails? Hard to swallow.

What is my best scenario? That's a hard question. You've got 90% more info than me, but I'll take a punt.

He shot a bear/nothing. He's had a passing interest in BF, maybe even the FB show. The idea crosses his mind to perpetrate a hoax. He puts out a feeler. Finds a willing community. Gets taken with some fame. The story grows past his original intentions and he needs to provide proof, instead of just letting it go, he decides to fake proof.

This reminds me of a shopping mall I worked at once. A guy was caught stealing in another store. Takes off running with security guards chasing him. Drops the stolen merchandise in some panic belief they will stop chasing if he gives them their stuff back. Reactionary, that doesn't have a sense of direction except to understand people make odd choices when being confronted by their peers.

I can come up with 11 similar scenarios that have an equal chance of being true. But for me, having that evidence come back bear reduced the chances of this being real to almost 0. You said it yourself: finding bear in the same location has almost a 0 chance of being possible.

The most compelling snippet for me is not taking any sample of the BF at the actual event. I don't thing anyone with any form of panic wouldn't think to capture a shread of evidence of the most elusive animal on the planet.

The least compelling is the lie detector.

[Guest]

Is this why Melba is so smug...she figured out how to isolate bf dna while other labs will continue to fail?

Looking over everything it isn't so far fetched to me. Something VERY odd is happening concerning bf and we just can't seem to put a finger on it.

Myself and others at this site have seen this bf thing with our own two so we know they exist. WHY is there so many layers to documenting them? They are nearly as slippery as ufo's!

Something which relates in my thinkings...There was on the am news a story about a murder plot being foiled. It was foiled because the person looking to hire a murder-for-pay guy hired a Federal agent! Thing is, this wasn't a high profile attempt, these were regular neighborhood people. What are the chances? Just how...watched are citizens? We still have tragedies but, A LOT of them are stopped because "they were actually talking to undercover agents".

Back on topic, how closely were the samples guarded or watched?

Also, what if bf are smart and wishing to avoid confirmation? Could the bf who recovered the bodies have deliberately left a bear there? Hard to consider if you only think of them as large chimps. But what if they are "human" smart?

Now what did stink is why would we think the bodies would still be there a week later any way? Ask some of the folks in the HABITUATING thread if they shot a bf the others would leave the body. From what I've gathered its obvious they wouldn't.

Perhaps most likely, of course the rest of the clan found the dead bf and removed the bodies. Question is would they be smart and deceptive enough to leave a bear?