4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #88

[m00c0w]

I think there would be a legitimate issue if e.g. law enforcement uses those databases in a way that violates the opt in/out of the person who submitted their DNA originally. We're already seeing some states legislate to regulate the way it's done, which is a good thing as investigations stemming from IGG that is properly overseen and reviewed won't run into issues like this.

https://www.axios.com/2021/06/01/maryland-montana-laws-restrict-dna-search-practices#

In my opinion, the problem with this argument is twofold:

1 - the TOS is not a legally binding document. Police can violate terms of service on social media, for instance, to surveil suspects. That particular type of behavior has been upheld plenty of times, even when the covert account was used to befriend a suspect with a private account.

One such example: Police Can Create Fake Instagram Accounts To Investigate Suspects | TechCrunch

It is a hard argument to make that "well, I'm okay with the general public having access to this information, but not police specifically." And even if someone did opt out and that information was used:

2 - the suspect identified based on this information doesn't have standing to complain in the first place. It was not their uploaded material that police accessed "improperly". A similar argument would be if a person takes a photo and uploads it to their private social media account that just happens to catch a great view of a suspect that allows investigators to identify the suspect. The suspect can't complain that someone else did a thing and that maybe the police injured this third party somehow.

If police were breaking into homes to scoop up DNA of everyone in Moscow to compare them against the reference DNA, that would be problematic. This isn't that. People voluntarily uploaded their DNA to a publicly accessible database that was then used to find a killer. And at the end of the day, that information wasn't even used as the basis for any probable cause statement that we know of. Police got a lead, went back and reviewed their case, used their own evidence previously collected, and made a solid case that this dude was the killer. IGG isn't being used to convict him. It wasn't even used to do something as basic as get historical cell site data - there was already enough probable cause present based on the actual evidence police collected.

All my opinion.

 

[wendy44]

In my opinion it's because the way a suspect is found is quite important constitutionally. If they were found by means that could be deemed illegal, then that might be cause for that evidence to be disregarded for a trial. The FBI appear to be the go-to organisation for IGG when county/state LEAs are carrying out investigations - they have the expertise - but then it becomes a bit murky when that evidence/product-of-work provided by the FBI can't be properly attacked by a defendant because "oh we don't have it, the FBI gave it to us." JMO of course.

I agree with this in general, but in this particular case, as @10ofRods pointed out and the Mike Baker NYT article reported, the FBI used Othram, which is 100% opt-in for law enforcement use.

All the testimony and declarations regarding loopholes and violations of TOS of sites like GEDMatch don't really apply here if that's the case. The defense is doing what it can, but if the FBI did use Othram, none of the recent IGG testimony is relevant.

 

[Sundog]

Yes, and then he was retried on the same charges and found Guilty, once again:

<snipped for focus>

Yes, the defendant in this case was given a new trial due to the false evidence provided by LE and prosecutorial conduct according to the Justices of the Idaho Supreme Court.

The defendant was found guilty at the new trial, but at least the verdict was made in a fair trial that the defendant was afforded. Also, the Supreme Court justices held LE and the county prosecutors accountable for fradulent testimony and behavior during the trial. Without that, an initial verdict of guilt would have been a travesty of justice.

 

[NextSprint]

In my opinion, the problem with this argument is twofold:

1 - the TOS is not a legally binding document. Police can violate terms of service on social media, for instance, to surveil suspects. That particular type of behavior has been upheld plenty of times, even when the covert account was used to befriend a suspect with a private account.

One such example: Police Can Create Fake Instagram Accounts To Investigate Suspects | TechCrunch

It is a hard argument to make that "well, I'm okay with the general public having access to this information, but not police specifically." And even if someone did opt out and that information was used:

2 - the suspect identified based on this information doesn't have standing to complain in the first place. It was not their uploaded material that police accessed "improperly". A similar argument would be if a person takes a photo and uploads it to their private social media account that just happens to catch a great view of a suspect that allows investigators to identify the suspect. The suspect can't complain that someone else did a thing and that maybe the police injured this third party somehow.

If police were breaking into homes to scoop up DNA of everyone in Moscow to compare them against the reference DNA, that would be problematic. This isn't that. People voluntarily uploaded their DNA to a publicly accessible database that was then used to find a killer. And at the end of the day, that information wasn't even used as the basis for any probable cause statement that we know of. Police got a lead, went back and reviewed their case, used their own evidence previously collected, and made a solid case that this dude was the killer. IGG isn't being used to convict him. It wasn't even used to do something as basic as get historical cell site data - there was already enough probable cause present based on the actual evidence police collected.

All my opinion.

That social media case is interesting. It surprised me that it would only be legal on platforms where people don't use their real names (i.e. it wouldn't have been legal if it were Facebook, as Facebook's TOS requires you to use your real name). But obviously somewhere people just use random usernames isn't really tantamount to hiding the fact you're a cop I guess.

Police can gather evidence by making fake Instagram accounts, court rules

The Verge is about technology and how it makes us feel. Founded in 2011, we offer our audience everything from breaking news to reviews to award-winning features and investigations, on our site, in video, and in podcasts.

www.theverge.com

 

[Balthazar]

How was their evidence incorrect? It seems clear to me that the unknown DNA was identified correctly as belonging to BK's father. They came to the correct conclusion, so why is it 'not a good look'?

Without a paper trail, it's like a student turning in math homework showing the answers only, not how the student arrived at the answers or a scientist conducting an experiment and showing the results only, not how the experiment was done. DNA and IGG can and should have replicable results. Without the details as to how it was all done, there is no way to check the results. Because of that, this entire situation looks highly questionable by any standard. If everything was done correctly there is no reason at all for the entire process not to be documented in full detail. For me "take our word for it" is simply not enough and not acceptable and I'm certain that there will be more than one juror who questions this type of evidence in the same way I do, if it is not ruled out prior to trial.

 

[Chloegirl]

I agree with this in general, but in this particular case, as @10ofRods pointed out and the Mike Baker NYT article reported, the FBI used Othram, which is 100% opt-in for law enforcement use.

All the testimony and declarations regarding loopholes and violations of TOS of sites like GEDMatch don't really apply here if that's the case. The defense is doing what it can, but if the FBI did use Othram, none of the recent IGG testimony is relevant.

Right. And this is not directed to you, but it appears to me because of IGG and the Defense questioning it (strategy) some are discrediting the entire investigation. This is frustrating because I want to believe that they're doing everything they can in this case to get the right person, document it properly, and pursue the murderer. IGG information would have been used to confirm what they already knew not be a separate data point.

Between waiting for the trial and the gag order, the speculation seems to assume not only that the Defense might be successful but that they are right, and there is not enough evidence to prosecute BK. I believe that there is and a lot of this is just spin.

I don't expect the gag order to go away anytime soon but I would like some transparency to reveal evidence that could counter the Defense. We know so little. JMOO

 

[m00c0w]

Without a paper trail, it's like a student turning in math homework showing the answers only, not how the student arrived at the answers or a scientist conducting an experiment and showing the results only, not how the experiment was done. DNA and IGG can and should have replicable results. Without the details as to how it was all done, there is no way to check the results. Because of that, this entire situation looks highly questionable by any standard. If everything was done correctly there is no reason at all for the entire process not to be documented in full detail. For me "take our word for it" is simply not enough and not acceptable and I'm certain that there will be more than one juror who questions this type of evidence in the same way I do, if it is not ruled out prior to trial.

It’s not like a student turning in math homework with answers only. It’s like a parent walking up while the student is doing their homework, points out that a problem is incorrect, and the student goes back and corrects the problem while still continuing to show and document their work. IGG was directly responsible for literally zero of the evidence that we have so far. It only pointed investigators in a certain direction, where investigators already had evidence and probable cause.

JMO

 

[10ofRods]

It’s not like a student turning in math homework with answers only. It’s like a parent walking up while the student is doing their homework, points out that a problem is incorrect, and the student goes back and corrects the problem while still continuing to show and document their work. IGG was directly responsible for literally zero of the evidence that we have so far. It only pointed investigators in a certain direction, where investigators already had evidence and probable cause.

JMO

It was the real deal, in any case. Nothing like homework. And in the real world, professional mathematicians do not have t' "show their work" except in academic journals, new discoveries and rare situations.

This was standard "use DNA as a phone directory" kind of thing. Nothing is going to stop people from volunteering their DNA to forensic websites like Othram, the forensic side of GedMatch or Parabon (there are surely others).

Indeed, I've talked to people who specifically got their DNA done in order to upload it to a forensic database, hoping that a relative (of whom they were very suspicious) would be caught. I've known LE to suggest to people with certain concerns to do this, as well.

Your analogy is great - the FBI is like the parent/overseer of basic crime resources; the FBI is not like a kid in a classroom.

IMO.

 

[NextSprint]

It’s not like a student turning in math homework with answers only. It’s like a parent walking up while the student is doing their homework, points out that a problem is incorrect, and the student goes back and corrects the problem while still continuing to show and document their work. IGG was directly responsible for literally zero of the evidence that we have so far. It only pointed investigators in a certain direction, where investigators already had evidence and probable cause.

JMO

Could you link to a source that states that the state had probable cause before they had IGG results? I can't find a specific date in the PCA regarding that, or anywhere else.

 

[NextSprint]

It’s not like a student turning in math homework with answers only. It’s like a parent walking up while the student is doing their homework, points out that a problem is incorrect, and the student goes back and corrects the problem while still continuing to show and document their work. IGG was directly responsible for literally zero of the evidence that we have so far. It only pointed investigators in a certain direction, where investigators already had evidence and probable cause.

JMO

I mean even yesterday the Latah County motion cited a similar (wrt IGG anyway) case in another Idaho County. In the case Latah County cited, the judge made the following comment to another DA who was requesting not to be obliged to disclose IGG work (because the FBI, not the DA, were the only ones with that proof-of-work):

"Still, Mr. Dalrymple and his attorneys have a right to know how it was that things were narrowed down to him because it be that they can use that information to prepare a defense."

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/082923-PUBLIC-Notice-of-Intent-Not-to-Cross-Exam-Def-Witnesses.pdf

 

[Cindizzi]

https://x.com/morganromerotv/status/1697359922810528070?s=61&t=Vp-AZ81ShrhzLNqqCFHAgA

 

[m00c0w]

Could you link to a source that states that the state had probable cause before they had IGG results? I can't find a specific date in the PCA regarding that, or anywhere else.

The motion for protective order by the state makes it clear that they did not use IGG to establish probable cause against BK, nor did they introduce it at grand jury, nor did they intend to introduce any of the elements they wish to protect at trial. Probable cause either exists or it doesn’t. The state detailed when they encountered each relevant piece of information regarding BK in their probable cause affidavit for the arrest warrant. Everything prior to the historical cell site search warrant was well before the IGG lead came in. If the state is asserting that they did not use IGG to establish probable cause, then they had to use the information they already had to establish that probable cause. It was there the whole time, they just weren’t aware of it for one reason or another.

The crux of the issue here is that he was not arrested based on IGG. He was arrested based on a mountain of evidence irrespective of IGG and a statistically significant DNA match from a buccal swab. If the IGG returned a person that Moscow had zero evidence on and matched none of the evidence, they would have not been able to establish probable cause to move forward with the investigation of that suspect. They would have disregarded the profile and moved on. IMO, the origin of the lead doesn’t matter so much as long as the lead is not used to establish probable cause itself. A psychic giving up BK’s name would have the same effect if LE goes back and the puzzle pieces start to fit together based on that “reading.”

I mean even yesterday the Latah County motion cited a similar (wrt IGG anyway) case in another Idaho County. In the case Latah County cited, the judge made the following comment to another DA who was requesting not to be obliged to disclose IGG work (because the FBI, not the DA, were the only ones with that proof-of-work):

"Still, Mr. Dalrymple and his attorneys have a right to know how it was that things were narrowed down to him because it be that they can use that information to prepare a defense."

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/082923-PUBLIC-Notice-of-Intent-Not-to-Cross-Exam-Def-Witnesses.pdf

The full context here is that the judge ruled they have a right to the IGG information that the prosecution has. If the prosecution doesn’t have the reports or data, he’s not going to compel them to go out and get it and Rule 16 doesn’t apply.

All JMO.

 

[schooling]

That social media case is interesting. It surprised me that it would only be legal on platforms where people don't use their real names (i.e. it wouldn't have been legal if it were Facebook, as Facebook's TOS requires you to use your real name). But obviously somewhere people just use random usernames isn't really tantamount to hiding the fact you're a cop I guess.

Police can gather evidence by making fake Instagram accounts, court rules

The Verge is about technology and how it makes us feel. Founded in 2011, we offer our audience everything from breaking news to reviews to award-winning features and investigations, on our site, in video, and in podcasts.

www.theverge.com

you misread the article. it doesn't say anything about "only be legal on platforms where people don't use their real names". it simply says that it is against Facebook's TOS....which is not U.S. Law. Nothing the DEA did was illegal. And ultimately the only role Facebook's TOS played in all of this was getting the DEA's impersonation account deleted.

<modsnip - no link>

If you put something out there that anyone in the public can easily register for and discover...the scope of your expectation to privacy (which protects you from illegal search and seizure) is severely limited. And if your friends or family put it out there...your beef should be with them.

Sounds like people need to start having more of these conversations at Thanksgiving and Christmas gatherings

 

[maskedwoman]

you misread the article. it doesn't say anything about "only be legal on platforms where people don't use their real names". it simply says that it is against Facebook's TOS....which is not U.S. Law. Nothing the DEA did was illegal. And ultimately the only role Facebook's TOS played in all of this was getting the DEA's impersonation account deleted.

<modsnip - no link>

If you put something out there that anyone in the public can easily register for and discover...the scope of your expectation to privacy (which protects you from illegal search and seizure) is severely limited. And if your friends or family put it out there...your beef should be with them.

Sounds like people need to start having more of these conversations at Thanksgiving and Christmas gatherings

Or, and I'm just spitballing here.... if people didn't break the law, LE wouldn't be looking for them in the first place. I know. That's too easy.

 

[katydid23]

I think there would be a legitimate issue if e.g. law enforcement uses those databases in a way that violates the opt in/out of the person who submitted their DNA originally. We're already seeing some states legislate to regulate the way it's done, which is a good thing as investigations stemming from IGG that is properly overseen and reviewed won't run into issues like this.

https://www.axios.com/2021/06/01/maryland-montana-laws-restrict-dna-search-practices#

True, and as you say,the various states are working on their regulations.

There is no evidence that anyone broke privacy laws in this specific case. It is a major fishing expedition to try and backtrack to prove an unfounded allegation.

In that spirit, we could also claim that AT 'may have' cheated on her law boards and ,if so, she shouldn't be trying this case. Just to be certain, maybe all of her previous tests should be sent to the prosecution for review before the trial commences. If she is in violation it is important for us to know about it now.

Her past work should be overseen and reviewed in case she skirted some of the necessary credentials and test requirements. We have witnesses who can testify that some lawyers did cheat on past board exams so we can never be too careful. Even though we have no idea if she did so, shouldn't we ask for all of her previous study notes, all of her past exams and quizzes and any papers she passed in previously? Just in case...

 

[katydid23]

Could you link to a source that states that the state had probable cause before they had IGG results? I can't find a specific date in the PCA regarding that, or anywhere else.

They didn't need probable cause to do IGG. The whole purpose of using iGG is to reveal the identity of unknown DNA.

How would they possibly have probable cause against an unknown entity?

 

[schooling]

Or, and I'm just spitballing here.... if people didn't break the law, LE wouldn't be looking for them in the first place. I know. That's too easy.

Amen!

In light of the lack of a link in my post above....Link to article is below and relevant quotes that i pulled from said article ...

Origins of Civil Suit. Other articles stated Facebook took it down as a TOS violation after the suit was filed...

Arquiett learned about the Facebook page from a relative several months after it was set up, her attorney said. The Facebook page was taken offline after the federal lawsuit was filed. Her federal complaint claimed Arquiett was placed "in danger" because the agent's Facebook page created the appearance that she was "willfully cooperating in his investigation of the narcotics trafficking ring."

Prosecutors will be 'mindful' going forward. Masterful legalese below....

"The Department of Justice promised to review the behavior at issue in this incident and today we have found a fair resolution to this case," U.S. Attorney Richard S. Hartunian said in a statement. "This settlement demonstrates that the government is mindful of its obligation to ensure the rights of third parties are not infringed upon in the course of its efforts to bring those who commit federal crimes to justice. It also takes into account emerging personal privacy concerns in the age of social media, and represents a fair resolution of plaintiff's claims."

The Justice Department is reviewing its policies as a result of the case.

"Our review is ongoing, but Department of Justice leadership has already met with law enforcement agencies to make clear the necessity of protecting the privacy and safety of third parties in every aspect of our criminal investigations," said Patrick Rodenbush, a Justice Department spokesman.

But even though the DEA is going to be mindful...her sentence stood....she served it. And by all indications (no updates to this case anywhere in the news) it will live on her background check viewable record for the next 7 years (the Obama law)

In February 2011, Arquiett pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess and distribute more than 50 grams of crack cocaine. In a sentencing memorandum, the U.S. attorney's office characterized Arquiett as a low-level participant in the drug ring and recommended a lenient sentence for the felony. She was sentenced in January 2012 to six months of weekends in jail and six months of home confinement.

Link to Article

https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Feds-pay-134k-to-woman-whose-ID-used-by-DEA-on-6027904.php

 

[Balthazar]

It’s not like a student turning in math homework with answers only. It’s like a parent walking up while the student is doing their homework, points out that a problem is incorrect, and the student goes back and corrects the problem while still continuing to show and document their work. IGG was directly responsible for literally zero of the evidence that we have so far. It only pointed investigators in a certain direction, where investigators already had evidence and probable cause.

JMO

No, it's really not. This entire process should have been completely and totally documented from beginning to end. Without such documentation, the entire process is immediately called into question. I can't imagine any corporation accepting such weak evidence as acceptable proof to bring a product to market or any doctor accepting such testing to prescribe a new medication to a patient and it shouldn't be considered acceptable by anyone for any purpose with any education. Either the paper trail is there or it is not. JMO.

Keep in mind, I'm hoping that the prosecution has other significant evidence proving BK is the right suspect. But, as to how the DNA has been handled, I'm just not impressed at all. This needs to be standardized and regulated in order to be acceptable in court.

 

[katydid23]

No, it's really not. This entire process should have been completely and totally documented from beginning to end. Without such documentation, the entire process is immediately called into question.

No, it's really not necessary to call the entire process into question. That is an excuse, used to try and let the defendant walk free.
The 'documentation' you call for does not exist. I am not sure that you understand how IGG works.

I can't imagine any corporation accepting such weak evidence as acceptable proof to bring a product to market or any doctor accepting such testing to prescribe a new medication to a patient

How can you compare this IGG process to medical tests for new medications? No one is being asked to test new chemical compounds upon legions of vulnerable patients.

and it shouldn't be considered acceptable by anyone for any purpose with any education. Either the paper trail is there or it is not. JMO.

It is not black and white. There is a paper trail, that has been handed over already. But the full step by process does not leave a paper trail. It is done on an app, in a portal, and is not downloadable.
The defense is playing games, screaming about a request they know is not possible. They are very shady and it is annoying.

Keep in mind, I'm hoping that the prosecution has other significant evidence proving BK is the right suspect. But, as to how the DNA has been handled, I'm just not impressed at all.

The DNA has been handled the same way the FBI always does so. They have not done anything wrong.

BK is desperate to have his DNA left on the knife sheath, removed from evidence. By any means necessary, including screaming 'the sky is falling' in order to create chaos.

This needs to be standardized and regulated in order to be acceptable in court.

Yes, it does. But why are you expecting this prosecution team to standardise and create new regulations in the FBI investigative unit?

This defense team is playing games and making false claims in order to affect public opinion about this case, IMO.

 

[m00c0w]

No, it's really not. This entire process should have been completely and totally documented from beginning to end. Without such documentation, the entire process is immediately called into question. I can't imagine any corporation accepting such weak evidence as acceptable proof to bring a product to market or any doctor accepting such testing to prescribe a new medication to a patient and it shouldn't be considered acceptable by anyone for any purpose with any education. Either the paper trail is there or it is not. JMO.

Keep in mind, I'm hoping that the prosecution has other significant evidence proving BK is the right suspect. But, as to how the DNA has been handled, I'm just not impressed at all. This needs to be standardized and regulated in order to be acceptable in court.

What weak evidence? And why are you under the impression that there is no significant evidence proving he is the right suspect? Do you believe it's a massive coincidence that he matches the eyewitness' physical description, a car matching his car was seen on surveillance cameras in the area of the homicide, these sightings were corroborated with his cell phone data showing he was in the same location at the same time as the sequence of videos, his phone traveled towards the homicide scene and mysteriously turned off during the time of the murders and then turned back on as he was leaving the area, and ultimately that his DNA was found on the sheath underneath the body of one of his victims? I'm not sure what is weak about the prosecution's case, when taken as a whole... And none of this was a direct result of the IGG data. Everything was independently obtained and verified based on its own probable cause, as I've cited in previous posts.

I've said it a few times and I'll say it again - BK has to be experiencing Scott Peterson levels of worst-luck-in-the-world in order for all of these events to magically line up and pinpoint him as the killer, if he did not actually do it. The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. It's going to be very hard to explain how you're in the area of the homicide and your DNA winds up underneath a homicide victim who was killed by someone fitting your description.

I guess it's possible that there is some massive conspiracy against BK and a ton of evidence was manufactured for some unknown reason to pin it all on him... but I don't find that probable, personally. And it's certainly not like the prosecution is turning in an incomplete piece of homework instead of a mountain of lawfully-obtained evidence and discovery regarding how they obtained that evidence...

JMO.