4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered - Bryan Kohberger Arrested - Moscow # 76

[BeginnerSleuther]

imo jmo full disclosure, I only know about this based on what I can google to find out, but based on recent US Census data, the median age in the US is 38, but in Moscow it is 26. I'd argue that based on the description from the PCA, the person DM described could be anywhere from 20-30 easily, but that's jmo imo.

Explore Census Data

data.census.gov

I don't know, I didn't read anything in the PCA that would exclude, say, a 40-year-old. With it being dark and based on what was in the PCA alone, I'm not sure DM could accurately give an age, even if she did give one that wasn't released. ICBW though.

MOO

 

[GGbankster]

Posters have done well to remind us that the information available is limited to that which was required to arrest BK - that is, probable cause - and that although we can see clearly that LE had factual grounds to believe BK committed this crime, we should not make a judgment about his guilt or innocence until we know what the jury will know. In particular, we haven't heard BK's perspective on the prosecution's evidence, whether it must in fairness be excluded, and any exculpatory or mitigating evidence he may intend to offer.

Also, we should remind ourselves of the Sheriff's statement after BK's arrest, to the effect that the investigation of BK was "just beginning". We must not make judgments about the eventual strength of the case against BK based upon assumptions and speculations about the PCA or - heaven help us - MSM reporters and "experts".

<modsnip>

There are elements of logic, pragmatism, intuition, and emotion in most of the analyses in this forum, although different posters strike different balances. What I see as the most striking difference is the focus: some of us seem to focus on the details, and some on the overall picture presented by the available evidence. Both approaches have their merits and limitations. Details matter, but so does the big picture. If we focus on details we risk not seeing the forest for the trees. If we focus on the forest, we may miss the disease that will kill it.

I welcome all perspectives and I have learned much from this discussion, even from those with whom I differ.

Thanks much for your contribution @schooling! I hope to read more of it after the next step in the proceedings. I hope the Idaho Supreme Court will decide the media case soon, and that interest in this case will be renewed.

Despite my personal belief, you’re right, it's important to remember that the information available to the public is limited and that we shouldn't make judgments about Bryan Kohberger's guilt or innocence until we know all the facts of the case, including any exculpatory or mitigating evidence that may emerge during the trial.

I also appreciate your comment about the different approaches that people take when analyzing the evidence. It's true that both a focus on details and a focus on the overall picture can be useful in understanding what happened in a case like this. At the same time, as you note, it's important to strike a balance between these two approaches so that we can see both the trees and the forest.

Overall, I agree that this discussion has been informative and I look forward to hearing more about this case as it proceeds through the legal system.

 

[GGbankster]

Just my opinion, but I think it may turn out to be a bit of serendipity that they ultimately matched the DNA from the knife sheath to that of Kohberger’s father and not to him personally. IMO, it heads off completely any rational defense argument that the DNA on the sheath was planted and/or contaminated.

IMMO,

The police may use a family member to match DNA if they do not have a direct sample of BK’s DNA. Using DNA from a close relative can sometimes be the only way to effectively match DNA to a suspect if they have never been arrested, are not in a DNA database such as CODIS.
Once the police apprehend BK, it is reasonable to expect that they would collect a DNA sample from him as standard procedure. IMMO

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

Ever since @10ofRods explained how DNA can remain even after a laundry cycle, I've been a little iffy on the DNA. Assuming BK used a laundromat to wash his clothes, I'm wondering if his DNA could have been in a washer that someone later used.

https://www.floridaforensicscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/DNA-Transfer-During-Laundering-May-Yield-Complete-Genetic-Profiles.pdf

DNA Can Be Innocently Transferred Through a Load of Laundry

DNA testing has come a long way and is now more sensitive than ever. There is a new study showing that DNA can be transferred through laundry. Learn more.

www.bhwlawfirm.com

I guess oxygen-based detergents destroy DNA?

Want to Get Away With Murder? Use a Special Detergent

Gotta get rid of that evidence, you know?

www.discovermagazine.com

 

[whiterhino]

RSBM.

imo jmo your remark re the shoe size prompted me to search again about that print. This is the first time other than a few of us saying it here that I have seen anyone suggest that print may have been wiped up. imo jmo go figure.

https//www.fox29.com/news/bryan-kohberger-case-footprint-found-inside-idaho-crime-scene-could-help-cops-build-case

Paul Mauro, a former NYPD inspector and currently a lawyer, said the print is likely important because of how police found it – by using chemicals that detect the presence of blood.

"First of all, they got the footprint, but also it probably helped them develop his path through the house, because by using the technology that they did, it sounds like what they picked up was a blood footprint," he told Fox News Digital. "He stepped in blood of some sort and left that impression, and apparently it's very vague…very faint, so they had to use this technology – which means he might've wiped it up."

bold and italics mine, edited to change prints to print

RBBM

How could the tread or print ever be seen let alone suggested or speculated to be a "diamond pattern tread" if the print had been wiped up? Since AFAIK there has only ever been mention of one single latent shoe print.

Yes there could still be faint DNA evidence/biological material not seen by the naked eye IMO there wouldn't be much of a print left if someone attempted to wipe it away.

Whenever I search I get a shoe sole with a diamond pattern on the heel and toe of the sole but there is more of a honeycomb pattern on the arch or mid-sole. FWIW as we discuss forensics, shoe size, gait etc.

Did DMs' description include "coveralls"? I feel that if BK were spotted in that area of the house at that point he wouldn't have taken off any sort of covering just yet, had he been wearing one (if so and the print is BK, he was not wearing a shoe covering at that point, hmm).

One last thing I'm struggling with: The fact/possibility that BK was able to dispose of the evidence in a more discreet way than committing the crime itself. If there is a digital trail leading him from Pullman to Moscow the night of the murders, surely there must be some sort of trail leading LE to a weapon or some blood evidence, no??

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

IMMO,

The police may use a family member to match DNA if they do not have a direct sample of BK’s DNA. Using DNA from a close relative can sometimes be the only way to effectively match DNA to a suspect if they have never been arrested, are not in a DNA database such as CODIS.
Once the police apprehend BK, it is reasonable to expect that they would collect a DNA sample from him as standard procedure. IMMO

it's in the receipt for property with the PA documents, swabs on page 4 of 4 on that, #58-61, if I read the handwriting correctly. https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.tow...11ed-a68a-4bba2d612ddd/6400ac39e2a2d.file.pdf

 

[Helechawagirl]

Aside from DM's testimony and video of BK in Clarkston, there is no direct evidence that I know of, in this case.

There usually isn't.

Very few murders are caught on camera and many murderers take care to make sure there are no eyewitnesses. Eyewitness testimony is often very unreliable in any case. So most murder cases are largely (or entirely) circumstantial.

If there is an eyewitness that we don't yet know about (perhaps someone or a camera seeing BK get out of his car or back into his car), that could add a little more direct evidence, but I don't think we're going to get eyewitness or camera footage of the actual murders, ever.

JMO

I sure hope not. That would be beyond horrific.

 

[Helechawagirl]

He had the car for a month and a half, will be lucky if there is still evidence.

Depends. If he covered the seats in plastic beforehand, might only be the gas and brake pedals, ignition, steering wheel, door handles that might hold dna of the victims. His phone might also if there was dna on his hands.

My best guess is that the gas pedal and phone would be the best places, but there could be very little dna inside his car. Maybe if he took his clothes off and stored them in the car, there might be a possibility. If he didn’t use a covering for the seats and didn’t change after the murders, might be dna on driver’s seat.

I’m not knowledgeable on how minute of a sample can be used, but I don’t think absence of victim dna from the car would be all that significant. JMO

 

[Helechawagirl]

RBBM

How could the tread or print ever be seen let alone suggested or speculated to be a "diamond pattern tread" if the print had been wiped up? Since AFAIK there has only ever been mention of one single latent shoe print.

Yes there could still be faint DNA evidence/biological material not seen by the naked eye IMO there wouldn't be much of a print left if someone attempted to wipe it away.

Whenever I search I get a shoe sole with a diamond pattern on the heel and toe of the sole but there is more of a honeycomb pattern on the arch or mid-sole. FWIW as we discuss forensics, shoe size, gait etc.

Did DMs' description include "coveralls"? I feel that if BK were spotted in that area of the house at that point he wouldn't have taken off any sort of covering just yet, had he been wearing one (if so and the print is BK, he was not wearing a shoe covering at that point, hmm).

One last thing I'm struggling with: The fact/possibility that BK was able to dispose of the evidence in a more discreet way than committing the crime itself. If there is a digital trail leading him from Pullman to Moscow the night of the murders, surely there must be some sort of trail leading LE to a weapon or some blood evidence, no??

I wondered about that lengthy trip he took. Of course, he may have been out of range if he was in a rural area. Might be hard to determine where he stopped if coverage was spotty. JMO

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

RBBM

How could the tread or print ever be seen let alone suggested or speculated to be a "diamond pattern tread" if the print had been wiped up? Since AFAIK there has only ever been mention of one single latent shoe print.

Yes there could still be faint DNA evidence/biological material not seen by the naked eye IMO there wouldn't be much of a print left if someone attempted to wipe it away.

Whenever I search I get a shoe sole with a diamond pattern on the heel and toe of the sole but there is more of a honeycomb pattern on the arch or mid-sole. FWIW as we discuss forensics, shoe size, gait etc.

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/122922%20Affidavit%20-%20Exhibit%20A%20-%20Statement%20of%20Brett-Payne.pdf

page 5 explains how they found the pattern. OTOH I've wondered if he cleaned the print, but OTOH murder 4 people and clean the floors in 15 minutes didn't fit either imo jmo. And I don't know how the pattern was faint, I don't know how there was only the one clear one, etc. It just makes no sense. I keep trying to make sense of it, but Idk. I just thought it was an interesting comment. imo jmo. And I know most WSers think there were a lot of prints and this one was in the right place, but imo jmo, that makes no sense to me either and I won't assume it, so it's in my top ten what-the-heck questions.

You are right about the soles, though. they go from diamond to waffle. I have a couple of pair and I inspected the soles. I guess I could put some food coloring on them and see what I could come up with on paper?

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

I sure hope not. That would be beyond horrific.

imo jmo based on the motions and orders and the unsolicited statement by the prosecutor in the state's response for discovery, I do believe there is a CI imo jmo but based on the documents we have seen. I have wondered it if was the CI who potentially provided the dropbox information, and worst case scenario it is something I have considered as possible in the time of pics or it didn't happen. I doubt that is the case, but with a CI who knows jmo imo.

 

[jepop]

RBBM

How could the tread or print ever be seen let alone suggested or speculated to be a "diamond pattern tread" if the print had been wiped up? Since AFAIK there has only ever been mention of one single latent shoe print.

Yes there could still be faint DNA evidence/biological material not seen by the naked eye IMO there wouldn't be much of a print left if someone attempted to wipe it away.

RSBM

In essence, this is simply the opinion (and actually it is more of a speculation IMO) of a former NYPD detective and current lawyer, interviewed by Fox. MOO. I think the quote is somewhat confusing and vague. It could be suggesting that BK may have wiped the print left in front of DM's door. However, if that is the case then that is at odds with what we know from the PCA. The PCA states that the stranger (assuming alleged killer for this post) walked past her and towards the slider in the kitchen so the alleged killer did not stop to wipe the print at that point. Ok, so then it is possible that he returned after DM closed her door and wiped up? IDK but the conjecture seems baseless and out of sync with the tight timeline MOO...Also, what does it mean or what is meant by the word "wiped?" If the alleged killer wiped a cloth or something over the area where he passed by DM's door wouldn't that disturb the outline of a visible (to the alleged killer) print just left in fresh blood? (if the interviewee is suggesting, I guess,that the print was visibly bloody prior to this 'wipe'?). How soft and/or with what kind of fluid would this wiping have to be to leave a latent print which was identified as a shoe print by the expert forensic team processing the crime scene? As you suggest, if it was wiped would the print have been detectable in outline as a shoe print with a distinct diamond pattern as is stated in the PCA? There's been a lot of interesting discussion about this shoe print here in the threads IMO. Sometimes, imo, some may have equated the word 'latent' with 'partial' but in fact the word 'partial' is not used in the PCA when describing this shoe print (Paragraph three, p 5 of PCA).

Quote from fox news article in OP.
"First of all, they got the footprint, but also it probably helped them develop his path through the house, because by using the technology that they did, it sounds like what they picked up was a blood footprint," he told Fox News Digital. "He stepped in blood of some sort and left that impression, and apparently it's very vague…very faint, so they had to use this technology – which means he might've wiped it up."

 

[jepop]

I wondered about that lengthy trip he took. Of course, he may have been out of range if he was in a rural area. Might be hard to determine where he stopped if coverage was spotty. JMO

IMO, there was ample opportunity to dispose of the weopen undetected between the crime and arrest.

 

[katydid23]

Ever since @10ofRods explained how DNA can remain even after a laundry cycle, I've been a little iffy on the DNA. Assuming BK used a laundromat to wash his clothes, I'm wondering if his DNA could have been in a washer that someone later used.

https://www.floridaforensicscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/DNA-Transfer-During-Laundering-May-Yield-Complete-Genetic-Profiles.pdf

DNA Can Be Innocently Transferred Through a Load of Laundry

DNA testing has come a long way and is now more sensitive than ever. There is a new study showing that DNA can be transferred through laundry. Learn more.

www.bhwlawfirm.com

So his DNA got left in a washer and then it randomly ended up on the killer's sheath? The sheath of the killer's knife?

OK, so that random connection between BK washing his clothes, makes it to the killer's knife. And then randomly, BK has the same car that is then seen coming and going from the crime scene during the killing? And randomly he turns his cell off during that same time?

And he coincidentally drives back past the crime scene the next morning, BEFORE it is even reported?

 

[katydid23]

He had the car for a month and a half, will be lucky if there is still evidence.

But I doubt he could have gone into the nooks and crevices that FBI can get to, once they remove seats and carpets, etc etc.

 

[jjleroche]

Depends. If he covered the seats in plastic beforehand, might only be the gas and brake pedals, ignition, steering wheel, door handles that might hold dna of the victims. His phone might also if there was dna on his hands.

My best guess is that the gas pedal and phone would be the best places, but there could be very little dna inside his car. Maybe if he took his clothes off and stored them in the car, there might be a possibility. If he didn’t use a covering for the seats and didn’t change after the murders, might be dna on driver’s seat.

I’m not knowledgeable on how minute of a sample can be used, but I don’t think absence of victim dna from the car would be all that significant. JMO

I read, some threads ago (still hunting for the post) that the car's interior had been dismantled by LE searching for DNA.
Regarding PCA, IMO, if I were handling such an investigation, my priority would be to provide sufficient evidence (plus a little extra to cover my bases), to get the go-ahead for an arrest. I wouldn't be wasting resources on including intricate details which are not necessary at that point. Bottom line - ensuring as much as is possble that the community is safe. I'd be utilising every available resource for that purpose. IMO there are likely many specifics which LE have discovered which may lead them to focus on other aspects of this case, of which we are unaware at this point. IMO

 

[jepop]

So his DNA got left in a washer and then it randomly ended up on the killer's sheath? The sheath of the killer's knife?

OK, so that random connection between BK washing his clothes, makes it to the killer's knife. And then randomly, BK has the same car that is then seen coming and going from the crime scene during the killing? And randomly he turns his cell off during that same time?

And he coincidentally drives back past the crime scene the next morning, BEFORE it is even reported?

I've been doing som emental gymnastics on this one. In this context, the only way I can see dna transfer happenning via a public laundromat washing machine is if the ('real') killer used a machine after BK had used it and (a) either washed the sheath in the machine whereupon some BK dna in the machine was transferred onto the snap button of the sheath (Forgive me, I think this is absolutely not what happenned and makes no sense whatsoever but maybe there is a remote possibility); or (b) the unknown/unarrested potential/speculated killer removed his clothes from a machine BK had previously used and got some BK dna on his hands. Or there was some BK dna on some of his clothes. This person then goes home or wherever and transfers this BK dna to the snap button of the sheath via his hands or via a piece of clothing. I'm no expert and I suppose there is this possibility. I'm not sure how such a scenario would be raised at trial but my guess is that if the defense wanted to argue this they would need the testimony of an expert and proof that BK used a public laundromat at the very least. It's not really provable IMO and the jury would have to consider it within the context of other circumstantial evidence presented. If the prosecution brings a strong circumstantial case with other evidence then I can't see it personally. If the prosecution has little else circumstantially tying the alleged killer to the scene it may be an avenue the defense could touch upon. MOO

 

[whiterhino]

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/122922%20Affidavit%20-%20Exhibit%20A%20-%20Statement%20of%20Brett-Payne.pdf

page 5 explains how they found the pattern. OTOH I've wondered if he cleaned the print, but OTOH murder 4 people and clean the floors in 15 minutes didn't fit either imo jmo. And I don't know how the pattern was faint, I don't know how there was only the one clear one, etc. It just makes no sense. I keep trying to make sense of it, but Idk. I just thought it was an interesting comment. imo jmo. And I know most WSers think there were a lot of prints and this one was in the right place, but imo jmo, that makes no sense to me either and I won't assume it, so it's in my top ten what-the-heck questions.

You are right about the soles, though. they go from diamond to waffle. I have a couple of pair and I inspected the soles. I guess I could put some food coloring on them and see what I could come up with on paper?

It's not necessary for you to paint your shoes and walk across some paper but if you do, please provide a link!

Agree, it's hard to believe there was only one print (that we know of) (seems impossible IMO) and that it just happens to be in the area close to where DM says she witnessed someone. On one hand it stands to reason but on the other, it's a bit strange considering.

If BK had made attempts to erase his steps out of the home, wouldn't there be some kind of trail? I'd hope that forensics would be able to detect something like circular spots on the floors leading to an exit point.

 

[jepop]

I read, some threads ago (still hunting for the post) that the car's interior had been dismantled by LE searching for DNA.
Regarding PCA, IMO, if I were handling such an investigation, my priority would be to provide sufficient evidence (plus a little extra to cover my bases), to get the go-ahead for an arrest. I wouldn't be wasting resources on including intricate details which are not necessary at that point. Bottom line - ensuring as much as is possble that the community is safe. I'd be utilising every available resource for that purpose. IMO there are likely many specifics which LE have discovered which may lead them to focus on other aspects of this case, of which we are unaware at this point. IMO

Re the car's interior being dismantled, you might be thinking of the Return of inventory listed from the PA search warrant for BK's white elantra? It includes, headrests, some pedals and other interior upholstery from memory. MSM reported on it but I've attached a 'Horses Mouth' (thanks @Cool Cats for this phrase) link from PA Court's Cases of Interest Page that shows the full list.

https://www.pacourts.us/Storage/media/pdfs/20230302/150347-dec.29,2022-searchwarrant(b.kohberger),inventory,exhibits.pdf

 

[whiterhino]

In essence, this is simply the opinion (and actually it is more of a speculation IMO) of a former NYPD detective and current lawyer, interviewed by Fox. MOO. I think the quote is somewhat confusing and vague. It could be suggesting that BK may have wiped the print left in front of DM's door. However, if that is the case then that is at odds with what we know from the PCA. The PCA states that the stranger (assuming alleged killer for this post) walked past her and towards the slider in the kitchen so the alleged killer did not stop to wipe the print at that point. Ok, so then it is possible that he returned after DM closed her door and wiped up? IDK but the conjecture seems baseless and out of sync with the tight timeline MOO...Also, what does it mean or what is meant by the word "wiped?" If the alleged killer wiped a cloth or something over the area where he passed by DM's door wouldn't that disturb the outline of a visible (to the alleged killer) print just left in fresh blood? (if the interviewee is suggesting, I guess,that the print was visibly bloody prior to this 'wipe'?). How soft and/or with what kind of fluid would this wiping have to be to leave a latent print which was identified as a shoe print by the expert forensic team processing the crime scene? As you suggest, if it was wiped would the print have been detectable in outline as a shoe print with a distinct diamond pattern as is stated in the PCA? There's been a lot of interesting discussion about this shoe print here in the threads IMO. Sometimes, imo, some may have equated the word 'latent' with 'partial' but in fact the word 'partial' is not used in the PCA when describing this shoe print (Paragraph three, p 5 of PCA).

Quote from fox news article in OP.
"First of all, they got the footprint, but also it probably helped them develop his path through the house, because by using the technology that they did, it sounds like what they picked up was a blood footprint," he told Fox News Digital. "He stepped in blood of some sort and left that impression, and apparently it's very vague…very faint, so they had to use this technology – which means he might've wiped it up."

Good point that this is based off comments made in an interview on Fox lol!

There's no other way to say it: either a thing is wiped up or it isn't. I'm stumped on how a diamond pattern was detected. From the way it's been described and discussed, partial print sounds more accurate but we don't have any way to verify what is what. If BK had attempted to clean up his trail I think it would have been detected. JMO.

JMO also wondering when DM gave her witness statement, did she see the intruder wearing a coverall? Obviously the details of DMs' statement are not available to the public. Just wondering out loud here.