4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #95

[Cool Cats]

sorry I dis agree about that. it's a long story.

Links would help and the only links I seem to see from posters supporting the defense are from Blume (spelling?) and he does not give proof, only hearsay sources. There is a gag order so he cannot even get real information, he speculates with mysterious "sources."

2 Cents

 

[Boxer]

sorry I dis agree about that. it's a long story.

The DNA from BKs cheek is a match to the crime scene by science, MOO the defense is fishing for an argument about events leading to the arrest, also know as getting off on a technicality.
A version of "you caught me unfairly."

 

[schooling]

are you talking about the one that was found by that private investigator that has a YouTube channel that was in the area on Nov 25, 2022? because it's a different glove than the one that was found by Idaho State Police or Moscow PD on Nov 20, 2022. View attachment 528839

I have to admit, I am confused about why BKs DNA found on a piece of the literal murder weapon isn't a big deal...and seems to be easily dismissed by some.

But a random lost glove in a Idaho winter (likely 1 of hundreds of lost gloves) is somehow a sign of reasonable doubt. Can someone please help me make sense out of this?

MOO

 

[MoominMama222]

AT has to provide BK with a competent defense. That DOES NOT extend to her telling the judge in court that she believes BK is innocent. Nor does EM need to state the same thing. That they have taken this step is out of the ordinary and beyond the normal scope of a defending a client. The notion that lawyers are allowed to lie for their clients is a total and complete misconception. Professional ethics do not allow that. They have seen the evidence the prosecution has provided and have had their own investigator examine the situation. They are well educated attorneys who are used to dealing with various criminal clients, yet, they are convinced BK is innocent. This is an interesting situation, IMO.

But isn't he "innocent" in the sense of "innocent until proven guilty"--I mean they are acting within the context of a court of law, defending their client who is literally innocent until proven guilty by law--so they can say they believe in his innocence --as a legal state of being--and not be lying, right? That's how I interpret every defense lawyer who says they believe their client is innocent--because they are until the jury finds them guilty.

 

[MoominMama222]

EM said "firmly believe."

AT's exact quote speaking to JJJ during the hearing was:
"Your honor, Bryan is innocent."

There were no qualifiers and no word parsing in AT's statement.

But he is innocent--until proven guilty. It's just a fact. At the present time, in a court of law--he has not been proven guilty--yet.

 

[Cool Cats]

D

 

[PinkParis2052]

Links would help and the only links I seem to see from posters supporting the defense are from Blume (spelling?) and he does not give proof, only hearsay sources. There is a gag order so he cannot even get real information, he speculates with mysterious "sources."

2 Cents

Yes I understand that links would help and I deleted the post because I didn't have time to add to it, what I wanted too. I don't really understand why you are bring up Blum right now because to me you sounds like when you said that the defense is going after the dna from the Bk's 4th amendment rights were violated which is in Blum's latest article on Airmail. I don't like Blum's article about the Idaho 4 case, do I read them yeah. Yeah I understand that there is a gag order, I understand that he can't even get any real information and that he speculates with mysterious "sources" and we all know that his sources are not all that mysterious imo. I understand that that Blum does not give proof and only hearsay sources..I have other post on here with court documents. I didn't have time today to go back and rewatch the hearing from Aug 2023 with the dna experts and look at some more court documents and add them to my post. I'm trying to see what exactly was the defense trying to do with that hearing and the filings of those expects. Also when they did get the SNP profile from the state and when did they get the STR profile from the state.I'm sorry but I'll be back later. I'm really tired today. It's been busy. You take care now.

 

[Cool Cats]

I have to admit, I am confused about why BKs DNA found on a piece of the literal murder weapon isn't a big deal...and seems to be easily dismissed by some.

But a random lost glove in a Idaho winter (likely 1 of hundreds of lost gloves) is somehow a sign of reasonable doubt. Can someone please help me make sense out of this?

MOO

It is a big deal and the prosecution and defense both know it is a big deal because it is reliable touch DNA commonly used to convict killers at trials done correctly through chain of evidence and done correctly through a competent lab analysis.

Yes I understand that links would help and I deleted the post because I didn't have time to add to it, what I wanted too. I don't really understand why you are bring up Blum right now because to me you sounds like when you said that the defense is going after the dna from the Bk's 4th amendment rights were violated which is in Blum's latest article on Airmail. I don't like Blum's article about the Idaho 4 case, do I read them yeah. Yeah I understand that there is a gag order, I understand that he can't even get any real information and that he speculates with mysterious "sources" and we all know that his sources are not all that mysterious imo. I understand that that Blum does not give proof and only hearsay sources..I have other post on here with court documents. I didn't have time today to go back and rewatch the hearing from Aug 2023 with the dna experts and look at some more court documents and add them to my post. I'm trying to see what exactly was the defense trying to do with that hearing and the filings of those expects. Also when they did get the SNP profile from the state and when did they get the STR profile from the state.I'm sorry but I'll be back later. I'm really tired today. It's been busy. You take care now.

I appreciate you wanting to check good reliable links and I need to also do more checking. I just want to have good discussions and compare the links you find compared to the links I find. I think you find some links that are different from mine and maybe links I am not aware of.

I am tired of opinion only posts after going on 2 years and want more links and I include myself in this.

I am just being honest that I do not find Blum credible when he does not quote the names of sources. When it is just a "source" I do not take it seriously and see it as speculation.

I try to be open minded because a juror needs to be open to both sides and I try to see it as a juror.

2 Cents

 

[GRT]

But isn't he "innocent" in the sense of "innocent until proven guilty"--I mean they are acting within the context of a court of law, defending their client who is literally innocent until proven guilty by law--so they can say they believe in his innocence --as a legal state of being--and not be lying, right? That's how I interpret every defense lawyer who says they believe their client is innocent--because they are until the jury finds them guilty.

That's kind of what I think is going on. And, I think that's why so many defense attorneys make the same statement about their clients. I think it's an ethical legal strategy.

 

[girlhasnoname]

All MOO

Criminal defense attorneys are bound by ethical rules that govern their conduct, including rules regarding truthfulness and candor to the court. While defense attorneys have a duty to vigorously advocate for their clients' interests and to present the best possible defense, they are generally not permitted to knowingly make false statements to the court.

A defense attorney can assert that their client is innocent if they genuinely believe that to be the case based on the information available to them. However, if the attorney knows or strongly suspects that their client is guilty, they cannot ethically assert the client's innocence.

If a defense attorney were to knowingly make false statements to the court, such as asserting their client's innocence when they know or strongly suspect otherwise, they could face disciplinary action by the state bar association, which could include sanctions or even revocation of their law license. This is because knowingly making false statements in court would violate the attorney's duty of candor to the tribunal and undermine the integrity of the legal system.

While true that a criminal defense attorney can say their client is innocent, it's a pretty rare occurrence because if it turns out there is solid evidence against the client then the attorney will have lost all credibility going forward & it will also affect their credibility in other cases.

So, while defense attorneys have a duty to zealously advocate for their clients, they must do so within the bounds of ethical rules and cannot knowingly make false statements to the court.


All MOO

Sorry, I'm going to have to disagree. It happens ALL the time, the Defense can get around it by interpreting what they believe to be facts. If every D attorney wouldn't/couldn't represent a defendant they pretty well knew was guilty of the crime they are accused, there would be no trials or a need for them.

It isn't the Defense's job to prove their client innocent, it's the State's job to prove he is guilty beyond a REASONABLE doubt, not every teeny, tiny, possible doubt. I believe the State will do this here in spades.

Once the trial is over BK will be gone and forgotten about in time, except by those whose lives he so viciously took that night and their grieving loved ones, friends, the College and the Community of Moscow. Even BK's own family, they'll be emotionally sentenced right along with him.

Let him sit in his little jail cell and eat his vegan meals because IMO he's not fit to be among the free. Even though ID has the DP I doubt we'll see him executed in our lifetime. I think for BK a life without parole sentence will be worse.

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Apologies I did think that I read or heard from one of the court hearings it was on the sheath. I promise I'm not trying to spread misinformation whatsoever.

“To this date, the Defense is unaware of what sort of testing, if any, was conducted on these samples other than the STR DNA profiles,” according to the filing.

Link again to one of the articles from CNN

Single source BK DNA in the 5 octillion percentage of matching is the gold standard, it doesn't get any better than that.

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

I'm gonna go with these are not the actions of an innocent man:

<snipped & BBM>

"Mr. Kohberger was found awake in the kitchen area dressed in shorts and a shirt a [sic] wearing latex medical type gloves and apparently was taking his personal trash and putting it into a separate Ziploc baggies," Mancuso told BRC13.

Once authorities saw the suspect doing this, Mancuso says, it shed light on a possible reason as to why Kohberger's DNA was not found in the family's trash in the days prior.

At Time of Arrest, Bryan Kohberger Was Wearing Latex Gloves and Putting Trash in Ziploc Bags: Prosecutor

 

[girlhasnoname]

I have to admit, I am confused about why BKs DNA found on a piece of the literal murder weapon isn't a big deal...and seems to be easily dismissed by some.

But a random lost glove in a Idaho winter (likely 1 of hundreds of lost gloves) is somehow a sign of reasonable doubt. Can someone please help me make sense out of this?

MOO

IIRC it was found a couple of days after the murders by the dumpster. There are pictures of the dumpster area taken the morning/afternoon when the bodies were found and it was not there.

A random glove found after the murders in freezing weather with all of the foot traffic by that area is a big fat nothing ko-burger to me.

MOO

 

[Justice101]

Only a 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance it is not his DNA.

 

[CKS]

Contrary to what a few posters have said to me quoting my posts, your post here seems to prove my point that the defense is not contesting the DNA results, they are not saying the DNA strand results are faulty.

They are contesting how it was obtained, not the Idaho State Lab DNA results themselves.

A defense will file motions left and right to get DNA dismissed from trial if the DNA results are faulty and I do not see that.

The defense even said maybe BK's DNA was planted which means they know it is BK's DNA. How can BK's DNA be planted if it is not his DNA?

Defense said the DNA went through multiple LE "hands" which could compromise the DNA but they stopped saying this and it is likely because it is poppycock nonscense.

The prosecution has very strict protocol to get crime scene items to a lab for forensic testing and the defense would have to prove this protocol was breached.

Touch DNA is highly accurate, they do not need a large sample. It comes directly from the suspect directly touching an object.

The defendant needs to touch the object directly, the sample would be compromised if someone else touched BK's DNA then transferred it onto a tiny sheath snap.

Misinformation in my opinion and not reasonable in my opinion.

2 Cents

MOO

First touch DNA is not highly accurate and the suspect does not have to directly touch the object.

DNA–is touch or transfer DNA reliable evidence of guilt

In State v. Terrance Police, 2022 Conn. LEXIS 123 (May 10, 2022), the issue was whether “touch DNA” was good enough for probable cause to get an arrest warrant. Here is the important part of the decision saying it wasn’t.

[T]he DNA evidence used to describe the suspect was not a single source sample known to have come from the perpetrator. Rather, it was “touch DNA,” also known as “trace DNA,” from multiple sources that might or might not have come from the perpetrator—something the police simply had no way of knowing when they applied for the John Doe arrest warrant. Notably, the state has not identified a single case, and our research has failed to uncover one, in which mixed partial DNA profiles from touch DNA provided the description of a suspect in a John Doe arrest warrant. Touch DNA “is a term used to describe DNA that is left behind just by touching an object …. Notwithstanding its name, however, touch DNA does not necessarily indicate a person’s direct contact with the object. Rather, according to [experts], abandoned skin cells, which make up touch DNA, can be left behind through primary transfer, secondary transfer, or aerosolization.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Dawson, 340 Conn. 136, 153, 263 A.3d 779 (2021). Even when a person touches an object, “DNA is not always detectable, meaning that it is possible to have someone touch an object but not leave behind detectable DNA because … some people leave more of their skin cells behind than others, i.e., some people are better ‘shedders’ of their DNA than others. There are also other factors that affect the amount of DNA left on an object, such as the length of contact, the roughness or smoothness of the surface, the type of contact, the existence or nonexistence of fluids, such as sweat, and degradation on the object.” Id., 154.

As a result, touch DNA “poses potential problems that are not present, or are less often present, with DNA obtained from evidence consisting of bodily fluids ….” 7 C. Fishman & A. McKenna, Jones on Evidence (7th Ed. 2019) § 60:9, p. 785. For example, “[t]ouch DNA will often be available in much smaller quantities than DNA extracted from blood, semen, or hair”; id.; and “the presence of touch DNA may often be far less probative of a defendant’s guilt than DNA derived from bodily fluids.” Id., p. 787. Indeed, “trace samples lack the clarity of the more straightforward DNA evidence that can lead to a clear match to a specific individual. An object is found at or near a crime scene. A technician swabs the object to test for that DNA. These trace samples are usually quite small, there is often more than one person’s DNA, and the evidence is of a much poorer quality.” B. Stiffelman, supra, 24 Berkeley J. Crim. L. 115. “When dealing with such small amounts of DNA, there is much greater ambiguity as to how the DNA ended up on the object. For example, the DNA could have been left by someone who touched the object, or even by someone who touched the person who then touched the object. … In short, small amounts of DNA can be easily transferred and [travel]. Because of this, finding someone’s DNA on an object is less significant to a determination of guilt or innocence of a suspect.” (Footnote omitted.) Id., 115-16.

 

[CKS]

I have to admit, I am confused about why BKs DNA found on a piece of the literal murder weapon isn't a big deal...and seems to be easily dismissed by some.

But a random lost glove in a Idaho winter (likely 1 of hundreds of lost gloves) is somehow a sign of reasonable doubt. Can someone please help me make sense out of this?

MOO

A knife sheath is not the murder weapon and we don't even know for sure if a kbar was the actual weapon.

Also, the story about BK purchasing a knife on Amazon is false and was just more misinformation.

 

[Chloegirl]

MOO

First touch DNA is not highly accurate and the suspect does not have to directly touch the object.

DNA–is touch or transfer DNA reliable evidence of guilt

In State v. Terrance Police, 2022 Conn. LEXIS 123 (May 10, 2022), the issue was whether “touch DNA” was good enough for probable cause to get an arrest warrant. Here is the important part of the decision saying it wasn’t.

[T]he DNA evidence used to describe the suspect was not a single source sample known to have come from the perpetrator. Rather, it was “touch DNA,” also known as “trace DNA,” from multiple sources that might or might not have come from the perpetrator—something the police simply had no way of knowing when they applied for the John Doe arrest warrant. Notably, the state has not identified a single case, and our research has failed to uncover one, in which mixed partial DNA profiles from touch DNA provided the description of a suspect in a John Doe arrest warrant. Touch DNA “is a term used to describe DNA that is left behind just by touching an object …. Notwithstanding its name, however, touch DNA does not necessarily indicate a person’s direct contact with the object. Rather, according to [experts], abandoned skin cells, which make up touch DNA, can be left behind through primary transfer, secondary transfer, or aerosolization.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Dawson, 340 Conn. 136, 153, 263 A.3d 779 (2021). Even when a person touches an object, “DNA is not always detectable, meaning that it is possible to have someone touch an object but not leave behind detectable DNA because … some people leave more of their skin cells behind than others, i.e., some people are better ‘shedders’ of their DNA than others. There are also other factors that affect the amount of DNA left on an object, such as the length of contact, the roughness or smoothness of the surface, the type of contact, the existence or nonexistence of fluids, such as sweat, and degradation on the object.” Id., 154.

As a result, touch DNA “poses potential problems that are not present, or are less often present, with DNA obtained from evidence consisting of bodily fluids ….” 7 C. Fishman & A. McKenna, Jones on Evidence (7th Ed. 2019) § 60:9, p. 785. For example, “[t]ouch DNA will often be available in much smaller quantities than DNA extracted from blood, semen, or hair”; id.; and “the presence of touch DNA may often be far less probative of a defendant’s guilt than DNA derived from bodily fluids.” Id., p. 787. Indeed, “trace samples lack the clarity of the more straightforward DNA evidence that can lead to a clear match to a specific individual. An object is found at or near a crime scene. A technician swabs the object to test for that DNA. These trace samples are usually quite small, there is often more than one person’s DNA, and the evidence is of a much poorer quality.” B. Stiffelman, supra, 24 Berkeley J. Crim. L. 115. “When dealing with such small amounts of DNA, there is much greater ambiguity as to how the DNA ended up on the object. For example, the DNA could have been left by someone who touched the object, or even by someone who touched the person who then touched the object. … In short, small amounts of DNA can be easily transferred and [travel]. Because of this, finding someone’s DNA on an object is less significant to a determination of guilt or innocence of a suspect.” (Footnote omitted.) Id., 115-16.

Okay, I will bite. Let's generally say that it was a knife (since they were looking for one and not for another weapon). So, how do you postulate that BK's DNA, as you are suggesting, was inserted into the snaps of the knife sheath? You have to be able to answer that question if you are going to say that BK is innocent.

This implies a conspiracy and possibly holding BK down to obtain his DNA while gloved and placing it in the interior of the snaps without any of your own. How exactly does that work? First, the physical nature of the act and second choosing him from all other people in the region.

I cannot discount this piece of evidence, even if it doesn't answer every question that I have about this case (most of which is under seal and gag order). JMOO.

 

[jepop]

MOO

First touch DNA is not highly accurate and the suspect does not have to directly touch the object.

DNA–is touch or transfer DNA reliable evidence of guilt

In State v. Terrance Police, 2022 Conn. LEXIS 123 (May 10, 2022), the issue was whether “touch DNA” was good enough for probable cause to get an arrest warrant. Here is the important part of the decision saying it wasn’t.

[T]he DNA evidence used to describe the suspect was not a single source sample known to have come from the perpetrator. Rather, it was “touch DNA,” also known as “trace DNA,” from multiple sources that might or might not have come from the perpetrator—something the police simply had no way of knowing when they applied for the John Doe arrest warrant. Notably, the state has not identified a single case, and our research has failed to uncover one, in which mixed partial DNA profiles from touch DNA provided the description of a suspect in a John Doe arrest warrant. Touch DNA “is a term used to describe DNA that is left behind just by touching an object …. Notwithstanding its name, however, touch DNA does not necessarily indicate a person’s direct contact with the object. Rather, according to [experts], abandoned skin cells, which make up touch DNA, can be left behind through primary transfer, secondary transfer, or aerosolization.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Dawson, 340 Conn. 136, 153, 263 A.3d 779 (2021). Even when a person touches an object, “DNA is not always detectable, meaning that it is possible to have someone touch an object but not leave behind detectable DNA because … some people leave more of their skin cells behind than others, i.e., some people are better ‘shedders’ of their DNA than others. There are also other factors that affect the amount of DNA left on an object, such as the length of contact, the roughness or smoothness of the surface, the type of contact, the existence or nonexistence of fluids, such as sweat, and degradation on the object.” Id., 154.

As a result, touch DNA “poses potential problems that are not present, or are less often present, with DNA obtained from evidence consisting of bodily fluids ….” 7 C. Fishman & A. McKenna, Jones on Evidence (7th Ed. 2019) § 60:9, p. 785. For example, “[t]ouch DNA will often be available in much smaller quantities than DNA extracted from blood, semen, or hair”; id.; and “the presence of touch DNA may often be far less probative of a defendant’s guilt than DNA derived from bodily fluids.” Id., p. 787. Indeed, “trace samples lack the clarity of the more straightforward DNA evidence that can lead to a clear match to a specific individual. An object is found at or near a crime scene. A technician swabs the object to test for that DNA. These trace samples are usually quite small, there is often more than one person’s DNA, and the evidence is of a much poorer quality.” B. Stiffelman, supra, 24 Berkeley J. Crim. L. 115. “When dealing with such small amounts of DNA, there is much greater ambiguity as to how the DNA ended up on the object. For example, the DNA could have been left by someone who touched the object, or even by someone who touched the person who then touched the object. … In short, small amounts of DNA can be easily transferred and [travel]. Because of this, finding someone’s DNA on an object is less significant to a determination of guilt or innocence of a suspect.” (Footnote omitted.) Id., 115-16.

Single source epithelial cells extracted from the use point. SINGLE SOURCE. Your eg isn't relevant Imo. This sample came from epithelial cells transferred directly from the suspect. Not mixed traces etc. moo

 

[CKS]

Okay, I will bite. Let's generally say that it was a knife (since they were looking for one and not for another weapon). So, how do you postulate that BK's DNA, as you are suggesting, was inserted into the snaps of the knife sheath? You have to be able to answer that question if you are going to say that BK is innocent.

This implies a conspiracy and possibly holding BK down to obtain his DNA while gloved and placing it in the interior of the snaps without any of your own. How exactly does that work? First, the physical nature of the act and second choosing him from all other people in the region.

I cannot discount this piece of evidence, even if it doesn't answer every question that I have about this case (most of which is under seal and gag order). JMOO.

The fact is with touch DNA you don't have to actually touch the object.

touch DNA does not necessarily indicate a person’s direct contact with the object. Rather, according to [experts], abandoned skin cells, which make up touch DNA, can be left behind through primary transfer, secondary transfer, or aerosolization.”


Listen I don't think BK is innocent but at this point I don't think he's guilty either beyond a reasonable doubt.




MOO

 

[Chloegirl]

@CKS
I think if there were an object that were handled by him at some point in time, the absence of any other DNA is critical. His DNA in the grooves of the knife sheath snap is significant. It implies he opened it and left that residue there with the act of opening the snap. Others would not be able to place that DNA there.

And we could probably argue BARD all day from every angle imaginable. JMOO