Release Of Forensic Dna Results For Sierra Kills Sample

[Guest wudewasa]

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?

Hmm, this is because bigfoots know all about the current DNA testing that is going on right now, and want to opt out, yes?!

"Hey fellow squatches, let's leave a hunk of random ursine goodness near where cousin Ethel and offspring were killed so that the little hairless scumbags will take it and never come back."

[Guest]

So I suppose the mDNA result of Eastern Europe and the Caucasus from Melba and the two labs Bart and Tyler went to - are just a coincidence?

Also, Tyler says Melba never asked Justin for a sample of his own DNA. When she seen the "Eastern Europe and the Caucasus" result in the mDNA why wouldn't that be the very next thing she did?

Edited December 27, 2012 by Melissa

[georgerm]

• I'm not here to defend him, but I am here to challenge preconceived notions that may not have considered all the facts. I'm just asking questions that seem to be tricky to answer.
  
• My reputation is not at risk with anyone who cares to see what I have actually done. I have laid out the facts, and I am pursuing scientific verification of the evidence -
  

Tyler, is it possible that simple mistaken idenity took place? The bear went up on two legs before they saw the furry beast. In an angry manner, the bear approached the pick-up quickly? All they saw was a tall furry animal. Due to foggy conditions and fright, it was mistaken for a bigfoot which is shot. They shoot a smaller one/BF and speed off totally freaked out. This explains his story, and why Justin submitted tissue from the site. Simple mistaken idenity.

Edited December 27, 2012 by georgerm

[norseman]

• If Justin was motivated by financial reward, why has he turned down many many many chances to make money off of this? (I actually advised him that he should be charging for interviews - it was taking up time where he could have been making income. To his credit, he chose not to.)
  
• If he was motivated by financial reward, that reward was only upon recovery of physical Sasquatch evidence. Why return to that distant site again and again trying to find some vestige of what he shot? If he knew he did not shoot a Sasquatch, then he could have gone in his own freezer, or 100 places closer to home, to get a chunk of bear flesh to submit.
  
• I'm not here to defend him, but I am here to challenge preconceived notions that may not have considered all the facts. I'm just asking questions that seem to be tricky to answer.
  
• My reputation is not at risk with anyone who cares to see what I have actually done. I have laid out the facts, and I am pursuing scientific verification of the evidence - Same as lawyers or police or scientist or any good investigator does. I have examined the potential conclusions and feel that there is enough rationale to make it possible that he is telling the truth. To that end, I have pursued verification of any claimed evidence. How is that NOT encumbant upon any good researcher? If I only wait until the proof is verified before I put out any effort to evaluate his claim, then who will do the initial evaluation? Sure, I may be a fool rushing in where angels fear to tread, but someone has to do the work to suss out this story prior to it being proved - someone has to help prove it before it is proved, or disprove it before it becomes disproved. That's what I have done objectively from the beginning - and to that end, I have refused to take everything Melba Ketchum has claimed, on blind faith. Melba, like it or not, is the only person making claims out of step with the scientific evidence at hand and Melba, nefariously or not, is the ONLY person to who has profited monetarily from this endeavour. Guess she's smarter than all of us.
  

I plussed you, good post. And I want to personally thank you for all of your hard work in investigating this story.

I really have no idea what happened that day, nor can I really wrap my head around why he did what he did after the deed was done.

But as a fellow Bear hunter I know this, either the whole thing is a lie, or his story is true. Because I would never ever mistake a Black Bear for a Squatch nor vice versa. This cannot be a case of mistaken identity. Hunters need to know what species they are looking at when they are sighting down their rifle barrel. In Washington where I live there are seasons when it's ok to harvest white tail deer but not mule deer........or it's legal to shoot a four point buck but illegal to shoot a three point buck. Fish and Game expects hunters to observe and obey small nuances like these. And if you don't you don't keep your hunting privileges for long.

Anyhow so what do we have left? Well it doesn't look good to have Bear DNA when your claiming it should be a Squatch does it. Now granted he got scared or whatever and then went back in and tried to retrieve samples at a much later date. Who in the heck knows what could have transpired there in that time frame. It certainly is plausible that somebody could have harvested a bear in that vicinity. And it's very very plausible that the wood critters could have tore up and drug off any Squatch remains....in fact it's not only plausible but expected.

Boiled down to brass tacks? I don't know Justin. From my perspective the most plausible scenario is that he is lying, because of the Bear DNA. But like I said it's not impossible it happened like he said it happened, but not likely. You do know Justin and so therefore your in a better position to analysis character. Have you interviewed his kinfolk and townspeople? Is he known in the community as honest and trustworthy? That would really be a clincher for me. Coming from a small town like myself, it doesn't take a person long to learn all about someone because people know your business. Heck from the obituaries to the small claims court section a local newspaper is a who's who in a small community.

I do know this, as a pro kill advocate I would have done things much differently than Justin, and I wish I could have been there in his stead if his story is true. It's hard to refute a sample when it's a head, foot or hand of a Squatch........and not just a small piece of tissue.

[georgerm]

...............My possible scenario: he shot a bear but they were both so freaked out by the alienness of their experiences they panicked and ran without gathering evidence. After a while they talked and/or thought about what happened and eventually cobbled together a scenario that seemed to be true and explained (to them) their experience. No lying at all but completely false all the same..................

The mistaken idenity scenario,

[Guest slimwitless]

The mistaken idenity scenario,

How do you mistake the identity of an animal lying dead at your feet? That surely can't be part of any over rationalization.

[Guest Thepattywagon]

I agree, Slim.

Both Justin and 'Driver' said both animals were not bear. This coming from two guys who have hunted and killed bears. Justin was allegedly staring at the large one thru a rifle scope, and there was still plenty of light to make out his target.

If this happened as they say, I highly doubt there was species misidentification at play here. They either knowingly shot a bear, or knowingly shot something they'd never encountered in the woods before.

Edited December 27, 2012 by Thepattywagon

[Guest Scout1959]

Any thoughts on the statement that the larger one went down on all 4's and then back again when making it's escape.

This doesn't sound particularly close to human-like to me, more ape-like. (or even more likely bear-like)

[georgerm]

How do you mistake the identity of an animal lying dead at your feet? That surely can't be part of any over rationalization.

Good question.........................why did you have to ask this. Let's say my scenario fits the sow bear, then you fill in the rest. I don't have a good explanation for the shot young animal....................

How much time passed from seeing the large animal and shooting the animal?

Regardless of how experienced a hunter he is, when suddenly confronted with a large bear on two legs coming at you, one could easily jump to conclusions.

Edited December 27, 2012 by georgerm

[Guest reelback]

How do you mistake the identity of an animal lying dead at your feet? That surely can't be part of any over rationalization.

You don't. Its as simple as that.

[wiiawiwb]

I know squat about how DNA is harvested and how it can be contaminated. Is it possible that a bear could have fed upon the Sasquatch body and it's saliva was absorbed into Sasquatch tissue that was unknowingly provided to Trent Univ.?

Could that cause the bear DNA to show up in their results?

[Guest]

Proof is with the boots.

Common sense dictates that a sample acquired *weeks* after the shooting could yield any number of results since there is no direct link attributing one to the other (meaning, who can say with absolute certainty that the flesh sample originated from Justin's target). So Trent University's lab results doesnt necessarily weaken the veracity of the Sierra Kills incident in my eyes ... at least not just yet.

The boots have direct provenance to the event. Justin's story becomes highly problematic should proper genetic testing on the boots yield 'bear'.

Thank you Tyler and BartloJay for doing the legwork and offering these results to the community - it is appreciated. I sincerely hope you can source a lab capable enough to deal with the degredation and contamination issues.

[bipedalist]

Yes, if the animal was laying dead at his feet and the sketch provided represented such there would be no need for bloody boots in this contest--assuming a pinch of hair was pulled from the subject (lost opportunity or trump card?). Now, they just won't have the easy dna fix that is all.

As an aside, just wondering whether other items of clothing with blood may have been sequestered that would have a better chance of testing than boots?

Edited December 27, 2012 by bipedalist

[Guest]

The second one was killed up close. Once they saw the face - saw what had been killed, they understandably got a little freaked out, and left. People don't behave rationally when they think they may have just killed something human. - I can buy that. And Justin had no real knowledge of Sasquatch at that point.

What I have had the most trouble with, is how the heck did bear flesh turn up right where he thought one of the bipedal animals expired? There should be near zero chance of that.

I think he probably shot a sasquatch (or two). A seasoned hunter, knowledgable about game, and being threatened, takes the shot. Isn't this what half of you here want to do? Be the one to take that shot? What if you didn't know much about sasquatch and when you saw it up close, panicked? I think that's a reasonable action. This part of the story I actually have fewer problems with. It's plausible, because I know sasquatch exist and obviously they can and do scare the crud out of people, and people do want to shoot them. Seeing one - plausible. Shooting at them - plausible.

Now, about the bear remains at the supposed sasquatch expiration location. I am under the impression that the remains came from where the adult was supposedly shot? Not the juvenile? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Why go back and grab remains from where the adult "died" if he was not sure he killed it? Didn't he just hear a crash in the forest and assume it died there? What if it didn't - it recovered enough to leave after Justin left the area, and it walked off. So, no body at all. Or, it did die and the others potentially around carried it off somewhere (I don't think they'd leave it). So, again no body. It would be easy enough to mix up the exact area - which was vague to begin with - with a place where bear remains were found ( - knows how it got there and a dead bear carcass really doesn't matter except that Justin took samples from it instead of from the supposed dead adult squatch. Did he find a dead bear and assume it was in the relative same location and took remains from that, assuming it was the adult sasquatch - plausible. Or maybe he did find sasquatch remains that had been nibbled on by bears... that's also plausible, and therefore the dna was contaminated by bear. And I think it's plausible that Justin's own dna might contaminate any samples.... I am not sure I could get anything (if there were somethign I could get hahaha) and not contaminate it myself accidently, even knowing what I know from reading here. Accidental contamination - plausible.

When you are in a stressful situation, it is extremely difficult to be able to tell exactly where you were and what you were doing. (That's why when things happen, you should write them down immediately and take pix, because after a while, your brain makes up stuff to fill in the blanks and complete the story - I noticed that with my own encounters - thankfully, I DID write them down immediately and extensively, to refer to). Adrenaline and other bodily chemicals can do things to your memory - that's one reason the pain and trauma of childbirth is forgotten, it's why there are families with more than one child, lol. Extremely stressful situations produce extreme body chemical changes that fog the facts. This is why as a doula, I write out birth stories immediately after the event and take notes during birth and labor - because afterwards it is very hard to remember what happened when.

I don't think it was said that the steak (horrible descriptive term btw) was from the little one. Why wasn't tissue and blood taken from that one? If it died in his arms from being shot in the neck, didn't it bleed all over his jacket and pants? Where are those items? If it did, he'd know much more correctly exactly where it died, right? I would think.

What I find implausible is: Not keeping bled on clothing. Not getting samples from where the little one died (unless it was taken by bf family members and carried off). Not keeping the little one's body (unless he was freaked out).

Not sure I see "cover up" here, just incompetence, ignorance of procedure and a lot of fear about shooting something human-like that wasn't what he was permitted to be hunting.

Edited December 27, 2012 by madison5716

[bipedalist]

Any thoughts on the statement that the larger one went down on all 4's and then back again when making it's escape.

This doesn't sound particularly close to human-like to me, more ape-like. (or even more likely bear-like)

You haven't seen a facile human child in coordinated quadruped mode have you? I have.