4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #92

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Justice101 said:
Do judges like this rely on previous precedence in cases on DNA?

I mean, I think it would be hard to rule on such subject being that the judge in this case has probably never seen touch DNA used in a case.
Click to expand...
I don't think the request has anything to do with the fact that it is touch DNA. She wants to challenge his identification as a suspect through the use of genetic genealogy. She mentioned in the last court hearing that she has read through the material many times and is still at a loss as to how he came to be identified as a suspect. I listened to Paul Holes discuss the issue of genetic genealogy being used to narrow down the suspect pool recently. He said it's just a starting point. On the podcast Buried Bones, they discussed a case where they eventually identified the killer using genetic genealogy. It is a starting point. Once they have a relative identified, that is when the work begins to look at what relatives are in the areas, the right age, sex, etc. In that case, three brothers could have been the killer. One was in the Navy at the time, so he was eliminated. Then, they collected DNA from one brother, and he was eliminated. That left the last brother. Still, they did not arrest him because they wanted to collect and compare his DNA before making that step. He died by suicide before that could happen, but, when they did compare his DNA to the DNA at the crime scene, it was a perfect match.

My understanding is that there is no way she is going to be able to challenge the genetic genealogy identification, but she is working hard to do it.

I don't even think the genetic genealogy matters much at this point. The campus police at BK's school also investigated and found that he had a car registered that matched the description of the car they were looking for. That alone would cause him to be looked at closely.
 
Idaho transplant said:
I'm going to disagree. I believe it will stay in North Idaho. As it stands right now, BK is brought to the proceedings from his cell below the court room.

If this trial were moved to Boise, security would become a major issue/expense, to house and transport him. If people in London, England are talking about this case, what is the point of a venue change, even to Boise. The publicity of this case has saturated Idaho, not to mention international interest.

I would not doubt that the judge grants a delay to 2025 for the defense but I really hope the prosecution wins the venue
issue. Needless spending just to ensure he gets a fair trial. Jury selection is going to be interesting. Can they find someone who has lived under a mushroom for the last year, never read a newspaper, never watched the news or interacted with other people? Maybe so, but can they find 12 of the above as well as substitutes?
Click to expand...

Courts don't need to find jurors who don't know about a case, instead they want to know if the pre-trial publicity is affecting the juror's ability to be fair and impartial. Have they formed an opinion about the defendant being guilty or innocent?

2 Cents
 
Valen2 said:
I don't think the request has anything to do with the fact that it is touch DNA. She wants to challenge his identification as a suspect through the use of genetic genealogy. She mentioned in the last court hearing that she has read through the material many times and is still at a loss as to how he came to be identified as a suspect. I listened to Paul Holes discuss the issue of genetic genealogy being used to narrow down the suspect pool recently. He said it's just a starting point. On the podcast Buried Bones, they discussed a case where they eventually identified the killer using genetic genealogy. It is a starting point. Once they have a relative identified, that is when the work begins to look at what relatives are in the areas, the right age, sex, etc. In that case, three brothers could have been the killer. One was in the Navy at the time, so he was eliminated. Then, they collected DNA from one brother, and he was eliminated. That left the last brother. Still, they did not arrest him because they wanted to collect and compare his DNA before making that step. He died by suicide before that could happen, but, when they did compare his DNA to the DNA at the crime scene, it was a perfect match.

My understanding is that there is no way she is going to be able to challenge the genetic genealogy identification, but she is working hard to do it.

I don't even think the genetic genealogy matters much at this point. The campus police at BK's school also investigated and found that he had a car registered that matched the description of the car they were looking for. That alone would cause him to be looked at closely.
Click to expand...

Does it matter legally, how a defendant is identified?

Whether it is: A person that fit the description, a fingerprint in the database, someone's partial DNA, even a lucky guess??

Again, if the defense is challenging how he was initially named to be a suspect, that to me, is a weak weak line of defense and screams that they don't have a defense.

The DNA on the knife sheath matches BK's DNA from his person.

A REAL defense might be that the lab botched the DNA comparison and their client is not guilty. But they can't even try that. The science is too robust, the chain of custody was probably right on track and they can't argue the statistics that this DNA is 99.9999991% his by mathematics.

His goose is cooked. That DNA is better than any eye witness, it is better than a finger print, it is better than a picture of him standing over the body, it is better than someone taking a picture of his license plate, it is even better than a confession.

He can deny it till the cows come home but he legal team is swinging for the fence and whiffing every time.
 
Justice101 said:
Does it matter legally, how a defendant is identified?

Whether it is: A person that fit the description, a fingerprint in the database, someone's partial DNA, even a lucky guess??

Again, if the defense is challenging how he was initially named to be a suspect, that to me, is a weak weak line of defense and screams that they don't have a defense.

The DNA on the knife sheath matches BK's DNA from his person.

A REAL defense might be that the lab botched the DNA comparison and their client is not guilty. But they can't even try that. The science is too robust, the chain of custody was probably right on track and they can't argue the statistics that this DNA is 99.9999991% his by mathematics.

His goose is cooked. That DNA is better than any eye witness, it is better than a finger print, it is better than a picture of him standing over the body, it is better than someone taking a picture of his license plate, it is even better than a confession.

He can deny it till the cows come home but he legal team is swinging for the fence and whiffing every time.
Click to expand...

Mock jurors pick DNA as the most important evidence they could have.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

What Evidence Matters to Jurors? The Prevalence and Importance of Different Homicide Trial Evidence to Mock Jurors

The present research explores how important different trial evidence is to mock jurors’ decisions. Study 1 surveys legal professionals to determine what evidence is common at homicide trials. Study 2 utilizes the list of evidence generated in ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The present research explores how important different trial evidence is to mock jurors’ decisions. Study 1 surveys legal professionals to determine what evidence is common at homicide trials. Study 2 utilizes the list of evidence generated in Study 1 to ask mock jurors to report how important each piece of evidence would be in deciding their verdicts.

The results indicate that DNA is most important to mock jurors, followed by fingerprints, the weapon, video records, crime-scene photos, gunshot residue, bodily secretions, video confession, testimony from a forensic expert, and eyewitness testimony.
 
Justice101 said:
Does it matter legally, how a defendant is identified?

Whether it is: A person that fit the description, a fingerprint in the database, someone's partial DNA, even a lucky guess??

Again, if the defense is challenging how he was initially named to be a suspect, that to me, is a weak weak line of defense and screams that they don't have a defense.

The DNA on the knife sheath matches BK's DNA from his person.

A REAL defense might be that the lab botched the DNA comparison and their client is not guilty. But they can't even try that. The science is too robust, the chain of custody was probably right on track and they can't argue the statistics that this DNA is 99.9999991% his by mathematics.

His goose is cooked. That DNA is better than any eye witness, it is better than a finger print, it is better than a picture of him standing over the body, it is better than someone taking a picture of his license plate, it is even better than a confession.

He can deny it till the cows come home but he legal team is swinging for the fence and whiffing every time.
Click to expand...
Paul Holes says it doesn't matter how the suspect is identified because the investigation after that either clears him or it does not. The genealogy identified him as a suspect, then the investigation took all the steps to identify him as the one that needed to be arrested. (his car, his record as a TA, his phone pings, and the DNA taken from the trash). Another strong point, I believe, is that even without the initial genealogy report, campus police found his car and reported him as a possible suspect. I think you are right. His goose is cooked.
 
Valen2 said:
Paul Holes says it doesn't matter how the suspect is identified because the investigation after that either clears him or it does not. The genealogy identified him as a suspect, then the investigation took all the steps to identify him as the one that needed to be arrested. (his car, his record as a TA, his phone pings, and the DNA taken from the trash). Another strong point, I believe, is that even without the initial genealogy report, campus police found his car and reported him as a possible suspect. I think you are right. His goose is cooked.
Click to expand...

So maybe the fact that this is on the defense's list of things to work on tells us all they have nothing much of importance to work on.

I THOUGHT the Defense might challenge the FBI pronouncement that it was a white Hyundai years 2014-2018 or whatever it was. However, we the public have only seen blurry images from the gas station and some blurry video from the apartments to the south... but law enforcement might have much clearer images and videos that we are not aware of that they have given as discovery to the Defense. Wonder how damning that is?
 
Justice101 said:
Does it matter legally, how a defendant is identified?
Click to expand...
The courts have not really started to work out whether obtaining someone's DNA without a warrant using someone ELSE's DNA is considered an unreasonable search and seizure. If my child provides their DNA to a database that law enforcement can access without warrant, law enforcement effectively has my husband's DNA without warrant even though he hasn't provided access.

Of course, law enforcement was able to obtain BK's father's DNA when it was discarded in the trash and that was legal--but if the only thing leading to that was the IGG and the IGG lead violates the 4th amendment, they will make the argument to get it thrown out altogether. If the IGG lead was obtained by violating terms of service of the DNA databases, they will work to get it thrown out altogether.

If the lead to searching the trash and obtaining BK's dad's discarded DNA came from the Elantra or other things in those sealed search warrants, it should not be an issue.
 
Valen2 said:
I don't think the request has anything to do with the fact that it is touch DNA. She wants to challenge his identification as a suspect through the use of genetic genealogy. She mentioned in the last court hearing that she has read through the material many times and is still at a loss as to how he came to be identified as a suspect. I listened to Paul Holes discuss the issue of genetic genealogy being used to narrow down the suspect pool recently. He said it's just a starting point. On the podcast Buried Bones, they discussed a case where they eventually identified the killer using genetic genealogy. It is a starting point. Once they have a relative identified, that is when the work begins to look at what relatives are in the areas, the right age, sex, etc. In that case, three brothers could have been the killer. One was in the Navy at the time, so he was eliminated. Then, they collected DNA from one brother, and he was eliminated. That left the last brother. Still, they did not arrest him because they wanted to collect and compare his DNA before making that step. He died by suicide before that could happen, but, when they did compare his DNA to the DNA at the crime scene, it was a perfect match.

My understanding is that there is no way she is going to be able to challenge the genetic genealogy identification, but she is working hard to do it.

I don't even think the genetic genealogy matters much at this point. The campus police at BK's school also investigated and found that he had a car registered that matched the description of the car they were looking for. That alone would cause him to be looked at closely.
Click to expand...
I agree. I'm still struggling to understanding what the legal remedy would be to this situation.

Do they want LE to exclude genetic genealogy and pretend like they have amnesia and forget about Kohlberber? Because if so, LE would still have plenty of probable cause (MOO) to seek a warrant for his DNA.

And the result would be the same. The DNA at the crime scene would still match the DNA of Bryan Kohlberger. 1 in 5 Quatillion.
 
schooling said:
I agree. I'm still struggling to understanding what the legal remedy would be to this situation.

Do they want LE to exclude genetic genealogy and pretend like they have amnesia and forget about Kohlberber? Because if so, LE would still have plenty of probable cause (MOO) to seek a warrant for his DNA.

And the result would be the same. The DNA at the crime scene would still match the DNA of Bryan Kohlberger. 1 in 5 Quatillion.
Click to expand...
The prosecution has claimed repeatedly that IGG doesn't matter and that it's not how they got to BK, wasn't used to secure the arrest warrant for him and is irrelevant.
This is, IMO, why AT said at the last hearing that she doesn't understand how they pinpointed him, because IMO she believes that on the contrary IGG was critical to finding BK. Personally, I tend to agree with this. I don't believe an Elantra and some bushy eyebrows was all it took for LE to take a closer look at him.
So it's not the defense, but the prosecution who wants to minimize the role of the IGG. I'm not quite sure why.
Additionally in the PCA, Dawn Daniels requests that the DNA comparison between the sheath and BK's father's NOT be used for probable cause, which has always struck me as being odd.
 
Swansee said:
The prosecution has claimed repeatedly that IGG doesn't matter and that it's not how they got to BK, wasn't used to secure the arrest warrant for him and is irrelevant.
This is, IMO, why AT said at the last hearing that she doesn't understand how they pinpointed him, because IMO she believes that on the contrary IGG was critical to finding BK. Personally, I tend to agree with this. I don't believe an Elantra and some bushy eyebrows was all it took for LE to take a closer look at him.
So it's not the defense, but the prosecution who wants to minimize the role of the IGG. I'm not quite sure why.
Additionally in the PCA, Dawn Daniels requests that the DNA comparison between the sheath and BK's father's NOT be used for probable cause, which has always struck me as being odd.
Click to expand...
I believe LE had eyes on BK as he traveled cross country. I don't believe those two traffic stops were incidental or accidental.

IMO, preliminary DNA testing on items recovered from the family trash was expected to be confirmatory. Matched directly to the sheath and would have been, if not for BK's counter measure, culling his trash and depositing it in the neighbor's receptacle. When it wasn't a 1:1 match, LE used genetic testing to confirm the familial linkage.

But again, it is my opinion that LE already had their man. The hot tip being campus security who supplied the vehicle and a driver, one who loosely matched the witness' description.

Instantly he became POI #1.

JMO
 
Megnut said:
I believe LE had eyes on BK as he traveled cross country. I don't believe those two traffic stops were incidental or accidental.

IMO, preliminary DNA testing on items recovered from the family trash was expected to be confirmatory. Matched directly to the sheath and would have been, if not for BK's counter measure, culling his trash and depositing it in the neighbor's receptacle. When it wasn't a 1:1 match, LE used genetic testing to confirm the familial linkage.

But again, it is my opinion that LE already had their man. The hot tip being campus security who supplied the vehicle and a driver, one who loosely matched the witness' description.

Instantly he became POI #1.

JMO
Click to expand...

I agree that is what the prosecution will say... but in reality, I wonder if they ran his profile thru a genealogy website and a cousin/grandparent, etc. showed up and they instantly stopped using that it just confirmed they had their man.

Does anyone know if there have been any court cases where genealogical testing has been thrown out as a means of narrowing down the suspect pool?

Interesting article....

Forensic Genetic Genealogy Searches: What Defense Attorneys & Policy Makers Need to Know
 
@Megnut ,
I agree they were watching him during the cross country journey and the stops were part of that.
However, IGG was not used on the trash, but on the sheath DNA directly. This is what generated the "tip" that it was a Kohberger. I don't believe it "confirmed they had their man" as @Justice101 says, rather, much earlier in the process, it tipped them off to narrow the search for white Elantras down to people named Kohberger. I personally don't see why this would be a problem, UNLESS they used databases they weren't supposed to use.
This was done well before the cross country journey. It has nothing to do with the Pennsylvania trash testing, which was done in late December 2022. That one was a much simpler and quicker test to determine that BK's dad was the father of the sheath DNA donor, which is not IGG but a simple paternity test.The cheek swab match test was after the arrest, of course.
 
Swansee said:
@Megnut ,
I agree they were watching him during the cross country journey and the stops were part of that.
However, IGG was not used on the trash, but on the sheath DNA directly. This is what generated the "tip" that it was a Kohberger. I don't believe it "confirmed they had their man" as @Justice101 says, rather, much earlier in the process, it tipped them off to narrow the search for white Elantras down to people named Kohberger. I personally don't see why this would be a problem, UNLESS they used databases they weren't supposed to use.
This was done well before the cross country journey. It has nothing to do with the Pennsylvania trash testing, which was done in late December 2022. That one was a much simpler and quicker test to determine that BK's dad was the father of the sheath DNA donor, which is not IGG but a simple paternity test.The cheek swab match test was after the arrest, of course.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected. You are probably dead on.

IGG is an amazing tool that has solved several old crimes. The only difference between IGG and a fingerprint database or CODIS is that the latter ones were involuntary orders by law for arrested/convicted persons.... whereas IGG are people more or less agreeing to share their DNA profiles in a database in order to see their own personal family tree. They are volunteering their genetic signature with other cousins/relatives who also volunteered their DNA.

However, you can add people to your tree that haven't been tested... by name.

It would be extremely interesting to me if the IGG realtive's match to Kohberger (that is, BK's father) was from a DNA test he did online.... or if he was just "written in" the family tree by another relative.
 
Swansee said:
@Megnut ,
I agree they were watching him during the cross country journey and the stops were part of that.
However, IGG was not used on the trash, but on the sheath DNA directly. This is what generated the "tip" that it was a Kohberger. I don't believe it "confirmed they had their man" as @Justice101 says, rather, much earlier in the process, it tipped them off to narrow the search for white Elantras down to people named Kohberger. I personally don't see why this would be a problem, UNLESS they used databases they weren't supposed to use.
This was done well before the cross country journey. It has nothing to do with the Pennsylvania trash testing, which was done in late December 2022. That one was a much simpler and quicker test to determine that BK's dad was the father of the sheath DNA donor, which is not IGG but a simple paternity test.The cheek swab match test was after the arrest, of course.
Click to expand...
According to The Prosecutors Podcast (I listen to a lot of true crime podcasts while walking the dog) he can't claim his rights were violated with genetic genealogy because his DNA was not in the database that was used, and you can't claim a violation on someone else's behalf. The person in the database would have to make that claim, and it would be against the genealogy company, not the police/FBI. If they used a database they weren't supposed to use, that is an issue between law enforcement and IGG and has nothing to do with the trial. It might violate the company policy, but it is not illegal.

They also stressed how incredible genetic genealogy has been in identifying does and solving cold cases. While there may be some room for policy changes, it is incredibly beneficial and not something we would want to be outlawed.
 
I agree with you @Valen2 , it is an amazing tool, and obviously so beneficial in cold cases too.
We really don't know whether or not there are any issues with the way IGG was used in the Idaho case. So far it's a lot of he said she said insinuations, with most of the actual facts under seal. So I'm not going to assume LE used anything wrongly, but I'm not going to die on a hill that they didn't either, until we've seen the facts both sides are referring to.
Keep in mind that BK himself had done some kind of ancestry DNA test. (Found the link, see
here ). We don't know what service he used, or if he opted out of being in an LE database. So to one of your points, it may well be that the IGG led investigators directly to BK's own data, and if he had opted out, he could very well object to that process.
Then there's the statement that GEDmatch put out a few months ago that they had been made aware that some LE were in fact using loopholes to overreach what they legally have access to, and that they were trying to close said loopholes (I posted a screenshot at the time). That happened shortly after Gabriella Vargas' sworn testimony that she was aware of cases where LE did exactly that.
BUT we don't know if any of this is actually relevant in this particular case. My only thought on the matter is that BK would have to be remarkably dumb to upload his DNA into an LE searchable database while planning to commit a quadruple homicide.
 
Swansee said:
I agree with you @Valen2 , it is an amazing tool, and obviously so beneficial in cold cases too.
We really don't know whether or not there are any issues with the way IGG was used in the Idaho case. So far it's a lot of he said she said insinuations, with most of the actual facts under seal. So I'm not going to assume LE used anything wrongly, but I'm not going to die on a hill that they didn't either, until we've seen the facts both sides are referring to.
Keep in mind that BK himself had done some kind of ancestry DNA test. (Found the link, see
here ). We don't know what service he used, or if he opted out of being in an LE database. So to one of your points, it may well be that the IGG led investigators directly to BK's own data, and if he had opted out, he could very well object to that process.
Then there's the statement that GEDmatch put out a few months ago that they had been made aware that some LE were in fact using loopholes to overreach what they legally have access to, and that they were trying to close said loopholes (I posted a screenshot at the time). That happened shortly after Gabriella Vargas' sworn testimony that she was aware of cases where LE did exactly that.
BUT we don't know if any of this is actually relevant in this particular case. My only thought on the matter is that BK would have to be remarkably dumb to upload his DNA into an LE searchable database while planning to commit a quadruple homicide.
Click to expand...
I agree, it would be remarkably dumb, but a lot of the things he's done (like with his phone) seem pretty dumb right now.
 
Swansee said:
I agree with you @Valen2 , it is an amazing tool, and obviously so beneficial in cold cases too.
We really don't know whether or not there are any issues with the way IGG was used in the Idaho case. So far it's a lot of he said she said insinuations, with most of the actual facts under seal. So I'm not going to assume LE used anything wrongly, but I'm not going to die on a hill that they didn't either, until we've seen the facts both sides are referring to.
Keep in mind that BK himself had done some kind of ancestry DNA test. (Found the link, see
here ). We don't know what service he used, or if he opted out of being in an LE database. So to one of your points, it may well be that the IGG led investigators directly to BK's own data, and if he had opted out, he could very well object to that process.
Then there's the statement that GEDmatch put out a few months ago that they had been made aware that some LE were in fact using loopholes to overreach what they legally have access to, and that they were trying to close said loopholes (I posted a screenshot at the time). That happened shortly after Gabriella Vargas' sworn testimony that she was aware of cases where LE did exactly that.
BUT we don't know if any of this is actually relevant in this particular case. My only thought on the matter is that BK would have to be remarkably dumb to upload his DNA into an LE searchable database while planning to commit a quadruple homicide.
Click to expand...
as the comments in your cited article state, he could actually have sent in some one else's DNA... so his "self test" results might not be meaningful... we know that he went in other people's trash! ....or maybe if he did do a self-test (hearsay) he was in another frame of mind at another time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 177 more.
Total: 4,211 (members: 178, guests: 4,033)

Online statistics

Members online
178
Guests online
4,033
Total visitors
4,211
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
593,714
Messages
17,991,317
Members
229,215
Latest member
Scooby_Cluebie_Doo
Back
Top