4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, 2022 #78

[Boxer]

Not the being thorough part, the lack of any evidentiary return on all the testing they did, IMO. I edited my post to delete that last part about how it made LE look.

Not the being thorough part, the lack of any evidentiary return on all the testing they did, IMO. I edited my post to delete that last part about how it made LE look.

Police would be remiss in not testing, how is that it did not result in evidence a problem?

 

[NCWatcher]

That's okay, maybe it won't make sense to some or be confusing no matter how I put it, but I'll give it one last try.

For context -- on yesterday's thread after the blood testing results were published and posted here and they were being discussed six ways from Sunday -- I was responding to one OP's query whether the stains overall could have been a red herring, and another OP's comment that having left alot of reddish brown stains around his apartment seemed odd.

So my theory in response was that assuming he knew his blood was on the mattress pad and uncased pillow, and he knew the rest of the reddish brown stains were not blood (because that would be obvious, IMO, at least when he stripped the bed before leaving for PA and looked around to see if anything needed cleaning) that he put and/or left the nonblood stains there on purpose.

If he put them there and then left the stains that looked enough like they could be blood, that LE sampled them to see if they were blood, when he knew they were not blood, then that could be a ruse on his part.

Because out of all the samples of reddish brown stains LE collected and tested to see if they were blood, only 2 were blood and they were only on the bed where there would be understandable reasons for its presence (nosebleeds, nicked while shaving, yada yada), and so, IMO:

• LE look like they were duped into (for lack of a better term) testing all the reddish brown stains elsewhere thinking they could all have been blood from the victims, which if they had been would have been huge evidence tying him to the murders
• LE went to the time, expense, and trouble of sampling a bunch of stains that looked like blood but weren't, which just added to the "noise" of evidence collection and testing without any evidentiary return

ETD last 2 bullets
MOO

I think I see what you mean. But I'll try one more time too

Unless he put reddish-brown non-blood stains in his apartment (in places like the knob plate of door, on the carpet, & near a curtain rod in shower) or unless he tested pre-existing stains for the presence of blood himself, he couldn't know if those stains were blood. He lived in an apartment, after all. And apartments often have stains from tenants' bodily fluids. Yuck, but true. So he couldn't be confident all stains would test negative for blood.

It's true LE didn't find anything except on the bedding (& they did blind swabbing too of places like drains and came up empty) but it's hard for me to see that testing as a result of a ruse on BK's part. There would have been no way to defend LE not testing....even if there hadn't been stains on the bedding.

I guess we'll find out more as time goes on.
JMO

 

[Helechawagirl]

Police would be remiss in not testing, how is that it did not result in evidence a problem?

It’s a problem of perception; People have speculated that there was copious amounts of blood deposited on the killer; therefore, many people were expecting to see many positive test results from BK’s Apt. Causes some to wonder if they have the right guy, etc.

IMO, other than splatter, most of the blood likely pooled in the mattresses and floors. If he removed his clothes elsewhere, may not be any blood evidence in his apt at all.

And there may not be any in his car at all. He may have been successful in cleaning the car. Hopefully he stepped in blood and forgot to clean the gas and brake pedals.

Car keys, knobs, door handles would be other places to look. If he removed gloves and footwear before getting in the car, may not be much evidence there either.

So prosecutor will want to downplay test results and defense will want to use it to build a case of reasonable doubt.

JMO

 

[Twistinginthewind]

Police would be remiss in not testing, how is that it did not result in evidence a problem?

IMO, it's not a problem, per se, but is potentially a perception issue as @Helechawagirl has just ^^ articulated much better than I had Thanks, Helechawagirl !

 

[Boxer]

It’s a problem of perception; People have speculated that there was copious amounts of blood deposited on the killer; therefore, many people were expecting to see many positive test results from BK’s Apt. Causes some to wonder if they have the right guy, etc.

IMO, other than splatter, most of the blood likely pooled in the mattresses and floors. If he removed his clothes elsewhere, may not be any blood evidence in his apt at all.

And there may not be any in his car at all. He may have been successful in cleaning the car. Hopefully he stepped in blood and forgot to clean the gas and brake pedals.

Car keys, knobs, door handles would be other places to look. If he removed gloves and footwear before getting in the car, may not be much evidence there either.

So prosecutor will want to downplay test results and defense will want to use it to build a case of reasonable doubt.

JMO

MOO I think jurors will understand the police need to test everything and at the same time those tests not resulting in evidence is essentially meaningless.

 

[SpiderFalcon]

So my theory in response was that assuming he knew his blood was on the mattress pad and uncased pillow, and he knew the rest of the reddish brown stains were not blood (because that would be obvious, IMO, at least when he stripped the bed before leaving for PA and looked around to see if anything needed cleaning) that he put and/or left the nonblood stains there on purpose.

I've wondered if those actual blood stains on the mattress pad and pillow could have been his father's?

 

[Twistinginthewind]

I've wondered if those actual blood stains on the mattress pad and pillow could have been his father's?

Good point, @SpiderFalcon

We don't know whose blood was on the bedding.

It seems obvious that blood on BK's bed would be from him, but it could have been from someone else, like his father if he stayed overnight there after flying in to do the road trip back to PA, and BK gave him the bed to sleep in and he was bleeding.

I don't think it would have been from a previous tenant, though, it seems like a pillow and mattress pad would be personal items that would not come with or stay with the place even if "fully furnished". JMO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

MOO I think jurors will understand the police need to test everything and at the same time those tests not resulting in evidence is essentially meaningless.

I feel like there's an awful lot of things we're expecting the jurors to understand.

MOO.

 

[iamshadow21]

I feel like there's an awful lot of things we're expecting the jurors to understand.

MOO.

A big part of the prosecution's (and defense's) job is presenting witnesses and the case in such a way that the jurors can understand it. We've seen this in Gannon's trial over the last month. Huge volumes of digital data, as well as stuff from the crime scene people, lab techs, and MEs. They really did a good job at breaking it down. Nobody is expecting a jury to walk in and know all about how things work. That's why a prosecutor will ask a question like "what is DNA?" first thing when they put an expert on the stand. Most of us have a rough idea that DNA exists and that it can be used to identify people, but they want to lay down a foundation of knowledge before talking about the specific evidence of the case.

MOO

 

[Boxer]

I feel like there's an awful lot of things we're expecting the jurors to understand.

MOO.

MOO do you think not finding victim blood in his apartment is going to be a problem?

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

A big part of the prosecution's (and defense's) jobs is presenting witnesses and the case in such a way that the jurors can understand it. We've seen this in Gannon's trial over the last month. Huge volumes of digital data, as well as stuff from the crime scene people, lab techs, and MEs. They really did a good job at breaking it down. Nobody is expecting a jury to walk in and know all about how things work. That's why a prosecutor will ask a question like "what is DNA?" first thing when they put an expert on the stand. Most of us have a rough idea that DNA exists and that it can be used to identify people, but they want to lay down a foundation of knowledge before talking about the specific evidence of the case.

MOO

No, I understand that. I've seen trials before, even in person, and from time to time, I go to court (though I don't do any expert witness work for criminal trials, to be fair). What I'm saying is that it seems there are a lot of assumptions made -- LE did everything right, they have everything they need and then some, ALL the evidence points to him and only him. And then anytime someone mentions a potential weakness in the case, we're assuming the jury will understand that. Sure, they may, but that doesn't mean they'll see it the same way we want them to. IMO, every one of these cases where we need the jury to understand is one more dent in the case and one more point in favor of the defense.

It's no one's fault that there wasn't more blood in BK's apt. But the fact that there wasn't more blood is to the defense's benefit. Now maybe there isn't enough of a benefit to the defense to justify not guilty, but I think we're being short-sighted if we just assume the jury will understand and convict anyway.

MOO.

 

[Warwick7]

A big part of the prosecution's (and defense's) jobs is presenting witnesses and the case in such a way that the jurors can understand it. We've seen this in Gannon's trial over the last month. Huge volumes of digital data, as well as stuff from the crime scene people, lab techs, and MEs. They really did a good job at breaking it down. Nobody is expecting a jury to walk in and know all about how things work. That's why a prosecutor will ask a question like "what is DNA?" first thing when they put an expert on the stand. Most of us have a rough idea that DNA exists and that it can be used to identify people, but they want to lay down a foundation of knowledge before talking about the specific evidence of the case.

MOO

Excellent post.

I haven't been in this thread in months. I've
been caught up In Gannon's thread.

However, after reading page after page after page I see how it is going to be interesting at trial. The digital data is always the fascinating part for me. The blood spots, fbi losing BK for several hours and the missing shower curtain all add to the confusion/intrigue.

Bryan Kohberger: FBI ‘Lost’ Accused Idaho Killer for Several Hours On His Road Trip Back Home

An FBI surveillance team reportedly lost track of accused Idaho killer, Bryan Kohberger, as he made his way back to his home state following the murders of four University of Idaho students. New York Post reports that the FBI had plans to keep constant eyes on Kohberger as he traveled with his...

www.crimeonline.com

 

[Cool Cats]

MOO I think jurors will understand the police need to test everything and at the same time those tests not resulting in evidence is essentially meaningless.

The prosecution doesn't present the results of everything they test to the jury. Testing is just part of the investigation to find evidence.

If a test finds evidence that can be used to help prove their case, then the jury will see that evidence.

However, I think it is possible that the defense could point out to the jury that significant testing for forensic biological evidence was done in BK's car, apartment, house, office etc....But no evidence was found linking him to the crimes. (We do not know the results yet, evidence could have been found.)

Likewise, the prosecution could say that BK's blood found in his apartment is relevant to the case because he could have been injured in the knife attack and thus left blood stains on his bedding. (We do not know yet if this is BK's blood.)

 

[Warwick7]

MOO do you think not finding victim blood in his apartment is going to be a problem?

Did I understand that some parts of the AA weren't unsealed? It could be we aren't told all the information yet.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

MOO do you think not finding victim blood in his apartment is going to be a problem?

I actually do. Now if that were the only problem, I don't think it would be that big a deal.

But we're expecting the jury to understand about the wrong years on the car, bad enough quality video (presumably) that they couldn't even see a driver or make out a license plate, despite him making a 3-point turn on camera, the lack of victim blood in his apt, no evidence in the storage unit, no Vans sneakers retrieved from his home (that we know of) lack of DNA (that we've heard about) in the crime scene outside of touch DNA on the sheath, no murder weapon yet found.

This guy did not commit the perfect crime, we're in agreement on that. He was actually quite sloppy. So then why is it that anytime something is released it seems to just add more questions than answers? Was his sloppiness restricted to only the moment of the murders and then somehow he was able to hide his tracks that well?

IMO, the jury's opinion will be reflective of the opinions all over social media, including WS. It's not even close to a slam dunk and IMO, it gets further away from one every day.

I get that there's a lot that hasn't been released, but just saying I hope it's better than what HAS been released if BK is the killer. Let's hope the defense isn't right that the car search results could be exculpatory.

MOO.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Likewise, the prosecution could say that BK's blood found in his apartment is relevant to the case because he could have been injured in the knife attack and thus left blood stains on his bedding. (We do not know yet if this is BK's blood.)

To which the defense can counter with any random man on the stand and ask the question "do you shave your face? How often do you get some blood on your pillow?" or "do you get nosebleeds? How often do you get blood on your bed?"

Unless there was a large amount of blood, I don't see that going anywhere.

MOO.

 

[Cool Cats]

To which the defense can counter with any random man on the stand and ask the question "do you shave your face? How often do you get some blood on your pillow?" or "do you get nosebleeds? How often do you get blood on your bed?"

Unless there was a large amount of blood, I don't see that going anywhere.

MOO.

The point is that the prosecution might tell the jury BK's blood was found in his apartment if they think the jury should know this. (We don't know who's blood it is, we assume it is BK's but not necessarily)

Also, the amount of blood could be relevant. Blood soaking a mattress pad or pillow as opposed to a more superficial cut. Blood experts would be able to differentiate this. Think Dexter.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

The point is that the prosecution might tell the jury BK's blood was found in his apartment if they think the jury should know this. (We don't know who's blood it is, we assume it is BK's but not necessarily)

IMO, if it's BK's blood, the prosecution won't even go there. Big waste of time, IMO.

 

[Tricia]

WE GO LIVE EARLY TONIGHT AT 9:30 PM EASTERN
Please join use tonight for our special guest former Secret Service agent Jim Rathmann.
Jim will discuss the new info released about Bryan Kohberger.
Jim Rathmann is also a former homicide detective and brings his vast experience to the discussion. Don't miss this livestream at 9:30 PM EASTERN TONIGHT

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

 

[Boxer]

IMO, if it's BK's blood, the prosecution won't even go there. Big waste of time, IMO.

Agree. And MOO likewise the defense pointing out BK bled in his apartment will be a side track.