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

[MassGuy]

I see a lot of objections from the prosecution on cross.

Agreed. Go ahead, use that argument. Don’t get me wrong, it’s odd, but there are lots of variables here, that I don’t care to get into.

Whose Dna was on that sheath?

Whose phone stalked that area for months in advance, and the day following?

Who left the state?

Who cleaned his car methodically?

Who wore gloves to dump trash in his neighbor’s trash cans?

So on and so forth, with lots left to come.

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

The answer I can't come up with is if someone came by, why would they clean up, unless they were the killer?

well, I could probably spin something that would get me thrown off WS forever, so I'll stop here, but if he did come back, and they saw/heard him, it might explain why they didn't call (a quadruple murderer cleaning up a crime scene would probably send me into hiding) and if LE had that information, sure seems like it would shortcut this case and save some money on an expensive proposition. just nothing about any of this makes sense imo jmo, and one idea leads to so many questions. I'm hoping that the legal deities have mercy on us soon with some of the sealed documents set to be unsealed early April. jmo imo

 

[Boxer]

Thank you. So we don't actually know whether he returned to the neighborhood or not. Maybe he did indeed, but maybe he went to somewhere else in Moscow, maybe some store where he could overhear if people were talking about the murders, maybe some overlook point where he could see King Rd. at a distance with binoculars, etc.

I personally don't doubt that he is the guy, but we shouldn't turn "a drive to anywhere on the west side of town" into "he for sure returned to the house." MOO

I will add: if he was only within the service range of that cell tower for 9 minutes, then I don't think he actually stopped anywhere -- the house, Walmart, etc. That's only 4.5 minutes of driving once he enters coverage of that cell tower, before he would have to turn around and drive 4.5 minutes back out of that range. (unless his phone went off/airplane at 9:21, but given how it's worded, it sounds like the phone was on and he was only inside that service area for nine minutes). A fast drive-by, IMO.

The PCA has cell data. MOO there will also be sarellite data.

 

[Cool Cats]

Agreed. Go ahead, use that argument. Don’t get me wrong, it’s odd, but there are lots of variables here, that I don’t care to get into.

Whose Dna was on that sheath?

Whose phone stalked that area for months in advance, and the day following?

Who left the state?

Who cleaned his car methodically?

Who wore gloves to dump trash in his neighbor’s trash cans?

So on and so forth, with lots left to come.

Leaving the State for Christmas break is normal. Leaving the next day - November 14 - would be suspect.

Cleaning the car after a long trip is normal. Cleaning it the day after the murders would be suspect.

Trash with gloves? Normal.

Trash in neighbor's bin? Suspect. But also depends on what he put in it.

 

[GGbankster]

I'd forgotten about the open door. Is it possible that it was neither BK nor a roommate, but someone else entirely jmo imo. IDK who it would be but it seems possible, I guess. IDK. this case has so many loose ends and questions jmo imo



imo jmo they don't have to create alternative scenarios - and that could turn on them if they did. I think they could just approach it by questioning whether there are many other ways the touch dna, what some common ways are, does the person even have to be in the room with the object, how could have landed there, how long it could last, if it could be there from checking out a friend's knife or holding one in a store or setting up other make-believe BK-friendly scenarios without beginning to suggest a specific one involving BK. this is imo jmo


Ditto. esp with a CI in play, this does not have to involve the officer's relationship w a CI, but it certainly could, and it does concern me. that's jmo imo.


I've spent a lot of time on this as well. it seems like an awkward vantage point and she's very lucky he didn't see her imo jmo, but how much could she really have seen of him? and I'd think it must have been relatively dark because otherwise he'd have been more likely to see a crack - and witness -in the door and she'd have been able to see blood potentially imo jmo.


imo jmo if they don't explain it and convincingly, there's so much opportunity there for the defense. As it is, unfortunately, a terrified witness, shaken to the core by what she saw means that what she saw may not be as reliable, but if she wasn't that terrified, then why not call? this is not me accusing or implying anything nefarious here, not at all, but just saying how the argument can be twisted into a kind of name-your-poison scenario imo jmo.

Source: Surviving Idaho roommate thought noise was partying

The source spoke directly with surviving roommate Dylan Mortensen who allegedly thought the noises heard during the killings resulted from partying.

www.newsnationnow.com

The defense's ability to contest the attribution of touch DNA from the defendant to the crime scene is contingent upon the extent of the DNA profile matching. If a complete match is established, the defense may face challenges in arguing for the possibility of alternative sources. Nevertheless, it is widely acknowledged that touch DNA can be transferred through diverse means, including physical contact with objects and surfaces, or even indirect touch. The duration of touch DNA persistence is subject to external factors such as temperature and humidity.

In an attempt to discredit the prosecution's claims, the defense may posit alternative explanations for the presence of their client's DNA at the crime scene, such as accidental transfer by an unrelated party. However, such defenses will be subject to close scrutiny by the prosecution, and the defense must present corroborating evidence. Additionally, the defense must ensure that any alternative explanations do not contradict the defendant's alibi or the crime's chronology.

 

[10ofRods]

Yes, but we need to keep in mind it's *her* perception, her description. Not what we older people consider to be bushy eyebrows, but her interpretation of such. JMO

See my earlier posts today (with pictures!), stating the reasons (and pictures!) showing why I think we have to go by what the young woman said and meant (and mentioning my own experience in teaching observation to college age students. This is respectfully not aimed at you, it's just that...that was my point. I think I'll be said to belabor the point if I say much more.

For example, I have shown Simon and Garfunkel clips to class, and some young women say that (aside from height), it's Art's "bushy eyebrows" and "blondness" that distinguish him from Paul. Art does not have bushy eyebrows - but his brow bone runs stronger in between his actual eyebrows.

I have given some evidence in favor of my point (which is that young women today use the word in a specific way, which has little to do with the number of hairs on the brow).

I won't belabor it further, as I've said enough (on this thread, in my last several posts).

IMO.

 

[10ofRods]

The defense's ability to contest the attribution of touch DNA from the defendant to the crime scene is contingent upon the extent of the DNA profile matching. If a complete match is established, the defense may face challenges in arguing for the possibility of alternative sources. Nevertheless, it is widely acknowledged that touch DNA can be transferred through diverse means, including physical contact with objects and surfaces, or even indirect touch. The duration of touch DNA persistence is subject to external factors such as temperature and humidity.

In an attempt to discredit the prosecution's claims, the defense may posit alternative explanations for the presence of their client's DNA at the crime scene, such as accidental transfer by an unrelated party. However, such defenses will be subject to close scrutiny by the prosecution, and the defense must present corroborating evidence. Additionally, the defense must ensure that any alternative explanations do not contradict the defendant's alibi or the crime's chronology.

Touch DNA is determined in large part by being multi-source and not single source. If there's more than one single source DNA sample from BK at the crime scene, the chances of it being so-called touch (really "transfer") DNA are very small. But rather than argue this at trial, I think the prosecution should stick to things that the average person can understand (phone records; GPS - which we do not know yet; footprints; video of Elantra at the crime scene; time that BK left home and returned home; his retracing of the same circuit later the same day; etc).

Plus hopefully receipts or a witness establishing the Van's. And more DNA from the sheath. Defense can posit all it wants, but if 1 out of 12 jurors (or more) buy their explanation, then our whole system of justice is screwed. I guess right now the entire desire (as I'm beginning to understand it, even here on WS) is that a lot of people lean hard toward evidence being read a certain way.

The duration of touch DNA is also related to how many times the thing was touched. Forensic anthropologists know to take only the top (most recent layer). That one was BK's. And when they drill down, I predict it will be BK all the way - even with the defense standing there watching. Because I believe that any forensic anthropologist would take a shallow, medium and deep sample

A sample that shows the same person using that snap over time. Not someone transferring laundry DNA (which MUST be more than one person's DNA if taken from a commercial laundry setting).

Nuff said by me.

IMO.

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

If a complete match is established, the defense may face challenges in arguing for the possibility of alternative sources.

Imo jmo I'm not talking alternative sources. Here's some add'l info:

Framed By Your Own Cells: How DNA Evidence Imprisons The Innocent

Tiny amounts of touch-transferred DNA have placed people at locations they had never visited and implicated people for crimes they did not commit.

www.forbes.com

Is "Touch DNA" Precisely the Opposite? | Ohio State Bar Association

In even routine criminal cases, prosecutors are now using “touch DNA” as powerful evidence. The science and technology behind the “touch DNA” phenomenon deserve careful examination. In less than a decade and despite countless prosecutions which relied in whole or in part on “touch DNA,” the...

www.ohiobar.org

While less than 10 years ago, technicians believed that the DNA evidence was present because the depositor handled the evidence, studies have now shown that to be incorrect. For instance, even merely talking near an item is enough to leave DNA evidence. Meakin and Jamieson explain:

DNA-bearing cellular material can come to be present on a surface by either direct or indirect transfer. Direct, or primary, transfer includes contact, but also includes activities within the vicinity of an item that may result in the transfer of DNA directly from an individual without any contact, such as speaking, coughing, and sneezing. Due to the known presence of DNA in saliva and nasal mucous, it is believed that these activities result in the transfer of DNA, although very little research has been published on the subject.

In an attempt to discredit the prosecution's claims, the defense may posit alternative explanations for the presence of their client's DNA at the crime scene, such as accidental transfer by an unrelated party. However, such defenses will be subject to close scrutiny by the prosecution, and the defense must present corroborating evidence. Additionally, the defense must ensure that any alternative explanations do not contradict the defendant's alibi or the crime's chronology.

And imo jmo it's exactly because of the problems with alternative explanations that I do't think the defense will go that way -- unless there is a truly plausible explanation with the needed support.

And so much of the crime's chronology is unknown potentially (hello 8 hours from crime to 911 call) and we'll probably never hear the alibi, so there's wiggle room for raising doubt. imo jmo a skilled defense attorney can do it, and apparently, AT is pretty good, but ICBW, have been wrong before, and this is all jmo imo.

editing to add: I think there are many ways to set up 'what if' scenarios that wisely do not require a specific scenario to be presented but instead offer myriad ways the DNA could be present, and the more ways the better. one other thing that's important to know imo jmo is if any other DNA was found on the sheath, any at all. We don't have that info but I think it's another way around just BK's, and a skilled defense attorney could weave that narrative without accusing any of the other innocent parties whose DNA was found there. jmo imo.

 

[MassGuy]

Dbm

 

[Cool Cats]

The defense's ability to contest the attribution of touch DNA from the defendant to the crime scene is contingent upon the extent of the DNA profile matching. If a complete match is established, the defense may face challenges in arguing for the possibility of alternative sources. Nevertheless, it is widely acknowledged that touch DNA can be transferred through diverse means, including physical contact with objects and surfaces, or even indirect touch. The duration of touch DNA persistence is subject to external factors such as temperature and humidity.

In an attempt to discredit the prosecution's claims, the defense may posit alternative explanations for the presence of their client's DNA at the crime scene, such as accidental transfer by an unrelated party. However, such defenses will be subject to close scrutiny by the prosecution, and the defense must present corroborating evidence. Additionally, the defense must ensure that any alternative explanations do not contradict the defendant's alibi or the crime's chronology.

Judge throws out DNA evidence in UT murder suspect’s case

Meechaiel Criner's defense has been arguing this week that a new software the Department of Public Safety used to analyze DNA evidence is not reliable.

www.kxan.com

The judge has to allow the DNA into the trial.

The defense will file motions to get it excluded. There could be a Daubert hearing contesting the prosecution's expert DNA witness or witnesses.

I saw a Daubert hearing last year, defense was trying to get shoe print expert testimony excluded.

So if DNA testimony gets before the jury then both sides will have experts to explain the DNA evidence. Prosecutors will want their expert(s) to convince the jury that Kohberger's DNA is on the sheath and he - Kohberger - put it there.

Defense will want jury to believe that there is reasonable doubt that this is even Kohberger's DNA.

Juries convict more often when they believe in the DNA evidence.

2 Cents

 

[10ofRods]

Imo jmo I'm not talking alternative sources. Here's some add'l info:

Framed By Your Own Cells: How DNA Evidence Imprisons The Innocent

Tiny amounts of touch-transferred DNA have placed people at locations they had never visited and implicated people for crimes they did not commit.

www.forbes.com

Is "Touch DNA" Precisely the Opposite? | Ohio State Bar Association

In even routine criminal cases, prosecutors are now using “touch DNA” as powerful evidence. The science and technology behind the “touch DNA” phenomenon deserve careful examination. In less than a decade and despite countless prosecutions which relied in whole or in part on “touch DNA,” the...

www.ohiobar.org

While less than 10 years ago, technicians believed that the DNA evidence was present because the depositor handled the evidence, studies have now shown that to be incorrect. For instance, even merely talking near an item is enough to leave DNA evidence. Meakin and Jamieson explain:

DNA-bearing cellular material can come to be present on a surface by either direct or indirect transfer. Direct, or primary, transfer includes contact, but also includes activities within the vicinity of an item that may result in the transfer of DNA directly from an individual without any contact, such as speaking, coughing, and sneezing. Due to the known presence of DNA in saliva and nasal mucous, it is believed that these activities result in the transfer of DNA, although very little research has been published on the subject.

The entire issue is completely avoidable with state of the art techniques like, oh, I dunno, Othram. Or many others.

This article admits it is based on errors made around 9-10 years ago. The number of studies and algorithms to correct for these errors has cost a fortune and is vast.

But single source DNA is still a thing. Transfer DNA is not single source. By definition. The so-called "junk DNA" (which is not selected for at the level the Hardy-Weinberg equation OR within the precepts of Darwin) turns out to help us.

Dual-source DNA is an entirely different matter, but since people seem to really want to discuss multiple source (transfer) DNA on this thread, although we have no reason to think it's relevant (per the PCA), have at it. The whole point about "talking near an item" has me feeling my input on this thread is unnecessary and superfluous, as truly, people do not know the literature or the research and ought not to be basing their views on how all this happens on news reporting.

Just my opinion. I'm willing to wait for the jury (representing common sense and reason) to meet up with experts on this topic.

And yes, you are talking about "alternate sources" (MSM and similar). You aren't citing juried publications, as I have tried to do. And that's okay. Do with it as you will. But I cannot agree that you are using science. You're using news articles and legal publications. Lawyers are the last people to consult about the science of the human body - and they know that too. They want "experts" to agree with them. I want actual science. Would love to see some on this topic.

IMO.

 

[MassGuy]

Leaving the State for Christmas break is normal. Leaving the next day - November 14 - would be suspect.

Cleaning the car after a long trip is normal. Cleaning it the day after the murders would be suspect.

Trash with gloves? Normal.

Trash in neighbor's bin? Suspect. But also depends on what he put in it.

It’s all suspect as far as I’m concerned. And one day we will hear of the dna results inside that car. The sheath is devastating, any DNA from a victim buries him not 6 feet under but a fricken million. Sucks to suck.

 

[Cool Cats]

It’s all suspect as far as I’m concerned. And one day we will hear of the dna results inside that car. The sheath is devastating, any DNA from a victim buries him not 6 feet indeed but a fricken million. Sucks to suck.

Cut off some. Fixing

If the DNA evidence gets before the jury and the jury believes that this is indeed BK's DNA, then acquittal is very low.

I expect the car evidence to come out in the preliminary hearing.

 

[MassGuy]

If the DNA evidence gets before the jury and the jury believes that this is indeed BK's DNA, then acquittal is very low.

I expect the car evidence to come out in the preliminary hearing.

It will almost certainly be back by then. Ball game.

 

[Cool Cats]

It will almost certainly be back by then. Ball game.

Yes it will be.

The defense is specifically delaying the preliminary hearing so they can go over the copious amounts of evidence.

According to court documents, Latah County prosecutors gave up hundreds of papers to Idaho student murder defendant Bryan Kohberger’s defence this week.

The discovery disclosures consist of nearly 1,000 pages of documents, nearly twice as many images, and a video.

Idaho murders suspect Bryan Kohberger's defense receives hundreds of documents from prosecutors | North Eastern Post

Idaho student murders prosecutors have handed over hundreds of discovery documents to Bryan Kohberger's defense team

northeasternpost.com

 

[Caylee Advocate]

In reference to the "Dickie's tag/Walmart receipt" that was taken from BK's apartment, it made me consider a set of Dickie's black scrubs which Walmart sells.

I remember it was said that DM stated she heard a voice possibly saying to Xana "don't worry, I'm here to help". Just an idea... no proof!! Someone dressed in scrubs wouldn't be as intimidating as coveralls IMO and especially if someone is injured and terrified. All JMO.

 

[Bogbacal2]

Being that BK was a PhD student in Criminology and a TA, curious to know if he would have access to any local, (county) or state LE computer data? Pulling individual data, license and car reg info, body cam footage from previous calls….

 

[I'm Nobody]

Re: Open door mystery: The times are off by 30-45 minutes between what the neighbor who saw the door open at 8:30 a.m.told Fox News and the PCA account of BK's phone that awful morning. Open door is not mentioned in the unsealed PCA but puts BK's phone is in King Rd residence area for 9 minutes. BK could have gone in the already open door. He didn't leave Pullman until 9 a.m. according to PCA. So if neighbor's time is correct who opened the door is a mystery?

Fox News report: A neighbor said the front door was wide open around 8:30 a.m. When asked about the state of the front door when police arrived, a spokesperson told Fox News on Thursday "that type of information is part of the investigation and not released."
Unsealed PCA [pg 14]: "the 8458 Phone leaving the area ofthe Kohberger Residence at approximalely 9:00 a.m. and traveling to Moscow, ID. Specifically, the 8458 Phone utilized cellular resources that would provide coverage to the King Road Residence between 9:12 a.m. and 9:21 a.m."

JMO
edit time clarity

 

[Kemug]

I think the print will reveal a match for BK's shoe size; the presence of Xana's blood; the speed at which he was walking; his typical gait pattern; the length of each of his toes; the shape of his arch; and the size of his heel bone. If these things do not match BK's actual shoe wear from other shoes, then yeah, the prosecution has a problem.

And I'll eat my hat.

 

[Kemug]

DBM