4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #83

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
maconrich said:
It seems to me that they're trying to find out if the three unknown male dna samples were run thru CODIS and/or submitted for genealogical "testing." They know those samples weren't BK's, and I'm reading it that they weren't from those who submitted their DNA to LE. If that is true, why weren't the unknown male samples checked to determine who they belonged to?

Edited to add: Sorry, seeing they were run thru CODIS, but was that it?
Click to expand...
This was a known party house. How many male students had been there for recent parties, who would not be in CODIS? Probably a lot of them.
 
gremlin444 said:
I think a crucial bit of information that would also be used to evaluate and weigh the significance of the two unidentified male DNA samples inside the house (and the glove outside) is their location and amount. If found on the sliding door/handle or Maddie's door knob--then the significance is pretty big and pursuing through genetic genealogy would have have been important and highly likely, right? But if they were found in locations that were less significant--touch DNA from a lamp base in the living room (a publicly accessible location during parties and an item not likely cleaned frequently by the college student occupants), should they be expected to devote the resources to do genetic genealogy on them? A relatively unweathered looking glove dropped right outside the exits to the house is going to get all the attention, but should a weathered glove found half buried in the dirt and leaves off in the tree line be submitted to genetic genealogy?

Those 3 male profiles _were_ tested in so far as standard profiles were created and they were then checked for matches against known people/samples in the case and CODIS. In the very next paragraph in the Defense's motion, they even acknowledge that at that time many other suspects and their DNA were being investigated.

When there is as comprehensive of a gag order as this, motions are a way for either side to get information out in the public eye to influence opinion. "Three other unidentified male profiles" sounds pretty damning to the public when it is given without specifics. IMHO, I'm awfully sure that if those samples inside the house WERE found somewhere like Maddie's doorknob, AT would be have been sure to state that in no uncertain terms and would have been allowed to do so.
Click to expand...
I agree, the location of the unknown DNA is significant. Was it in DM or BF's room, for instance, or on MM's comforter, right where it was covering the sheath? Was the glove a long lost winter glove laying in the ditch for months, or a nitrile glove covered in victim's blood? IMO, it matters a lot, and since we don't know the specifics, it's extremely hard to say how threatening it is to reasonable doubt. Jmo.
 
gremlin444 said:
I think a crucial bit of information that would also be used to evaluate and weigh the significance of the two unidentified male DNA samples inside the house (and the glove outside) is their location and amount. If found on the sliding door/handle or Maddie's door knob--then the significance is pretty big and pursuing through genetic genealogy would have have been important and highly likely, right? But if they were found in locations that were less significant--touch DNA from a lamp base in the living room (a publicly accessible location during parties and an item not likely cleaned frequently by the college student occupants), should they be expected to devote the resources to do genetic genealogy on them? A relatively unweathered looking glove dropped right outside the exits to the house is going to get all the attention, but should a weathered glove found half buried in the dirt and leaves off in the tree line be submitted to genetic genealogy?

Those 3 male profiles _were_ tested in so far as standard profiles were created and they were then checked for matches against known people/samples in the case and CODIS. In the very next paragraph in the Defense's motion, they even acknowledge that at that time many other suspects and their DNA were being investigated.

When there is as comprehensive of a gag order as this, motions are a way for either side to get information out in the public eye to influence opinion. "Three other unidentified male profiles" sounds pretty damning to the public when it is given without specifics. IMHO, I'm awfully sure that if those samples inside the house WERE found somewhere like Maddie's doorknob, AT would be have been sure to state that in no uncertain terms and would have been allowed to do so.
Click to expand...
100% about the locations of the three unknown male DNA recoveries. The objection does mention the glove found outside the residence. Any glove in the area IMO would be important to follow up on. It is important to know where the two other samples were located. Under a fingernail? on a bedroom doorknob? Mixed with blood? On the sheath? On the stair rail? Light switch? DD bag? JL does make the point that they do not know if there was any additional testing beyond CODIS. IMO that should be discoverable whether it was a family tree (the point of his objection) or any other kind of testing, or if there was no furthur investigation and why. MOO

IMO the swabs for DNA were not taken from random places in the house. The forensic team would have been focusing on areas they thought would be productive in finding DNA that was linked to the crime.

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case...ion to States Motion for Protective Order.pdf
 
Chloegirl said:
Anyone ever say when/what timeframe the GJ was gathered?
Click to expand...
I'd take a guess at second week of April at the latest. That gives approx four weeks from the initial forming of the GJ - from potential juror questioning then selection, through to hearing of evidence (perhaps including expert witnesses?) to consideration of evidence and finally indictment. It could have been earlier than mid April, but not later Imo. Six weeks from decision and commencement of juror selection to indictment might be a more cautious guess - in that case beginning April.

MOO
 
katydid23 said:
Exact same thing happened in Mollie Tibbetts trial. Unknown male DNA found in trunk of the car, same trunk her body had been hidden in before she was dumped. I think two different unknown DNA samples were found. Nothing ever came from it, and suspect was found Guilty.
Click to expand...
Thankfully, I do not think AT will tell the type of tales told by the defense in that case. The defendants and attorneys are night and day here (also thankfully). But I'll admit, the unidentified DNA is more concerning to me here, depending on the specifics, of course.

In the MT trial, vehicle footage from surveillance cameras was also key to the investigation (as were phone pings), but when LE located the vehicle, the victim's blood was in the trunk. Here, there's nothing. He obviously didn't transport the victims, but it's still a bit surprising to me there was no victim DNA at all.

There are things we don't know, as well. What if there was a Murphy hair tucked within the car seat, for example? What we don't know might be more important than what we do, at this point.
 
North_Idaho_Nony said:
I was grateful for finally getting official confirmation that Investigative Genetic Genealogy was, in fact, used.

From the same link:
View attachment 430196
Click to expand...
Although it (the genetic genealogy testing) won't be used in court and will not form part of the State's evidence at trial.

"First, the IGG information is not material to the preparation of the defense. Defendant is charged with killing four people, not with being related to a particular person. The mere fact that uploading the completed SNP profile into a publicly available genetic genealogy service led law enforcement to relatives of Defendant does not affect the strength of the evidence against him. The strength of the evidence against Defendant in terms of DNA evidence depends upon the confirmatory result from the STR DNA analysis between Defendant’s DNA profile and the DNA recovered from the KaBar knife sheath. As explained further below, the State intends to introduce the STR DNA analysis at trial, and does not intend to enter any evidence pertaining to the development of a
SNP profile or the tree building process for inculpatory purposes. The State has disclosed or will disclose the information it has related to the STR DNA analyses conducted in connection with this case." (my emphasis).

pp10-11
 
jepop said:
Although it (the genetic genealogy testing) won't be used in court and will not form part of the State's evidence at trial.

"First, the IGG information is not material to the preparation of the defense. Defendant is charged with killing four people, not with being related to a particular person. The mere fact that uploading the completed SNP profile into a publicly available genetic genealogy service led law enforcement to relatives of Defendant does not affect the strength of the evidence against him. The strength of the evidence against Defendant in terms of DNA evidence depends upon the confirmatory result from the STR DNA analysis between Defendant’s DNA profile and the DNA recovered from the KaBar knife sheath. As explained further below, the State intends to introduce the STR DNA analysis at trial, and does not intend to enter any evidence pertaining to the development of a
SNP profile or the tree building process for inculpatory purposes. The State has disclosed or will disclose the information it has related to the STR DNA analyses conducted in connection with this case." (my emphasis).

pp10-11
Click to expand...
This was JWLs response to that prosecution argument:

To begin with, the State apparently only wants to prevent Mr. Kohberger from seeing how the IGG profile was created and how many other people the FBI chose to ignore during their investigation. In essence, the State argues that if the later STR testing is accurate then there is no reason to concern ourselves with how the State came to investigate Mr. Kohberger. State’s brief at 9. What the State’s argument asks this Court and Mr. Kohberger to assume is that the DNA on the sheath was placed there by Mr. Kohberger, and not someone else during an investigation that spans hundreds of members of law enforcement and apparently at least one lab the State refuses to name.

Mr. Kohberger has reasons to be extremely suspicious of the IGG used in this case. Rather than seeing it as some sort of complex tree building that led to him, it appears far more like lineup where the government was already aware of who they wanted to target. Rather than have the investigation done by someone blind to that fact, the FBI chose to do it themselves. This is akin to the police pulling in Mr. Kohberger and five of his cousins off the street and then pointing at him.

Mr. Kohberger finds himself in similar position as Mr. Arteaga. massive investigation came to focus on him and him alone. The State appears to be trying to hide its original domino such that he cannot discover why. Mr. Kohberger has right to discover and question the investigation that led to him. This Court should so find.

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case...ion to States Motion for Protective Order.pdf

note: Mr Arteaga is a case cited by JWL that involves facial recognition
 
Cool Cats said:
I am surprised there isn't dozens of unidentified male DNA found because dozens of people were in and out of the King Rd house. To be expected.

And it is to be expected that there is no victim DNA in Pennsylvania house, office or apartment.

It is the car where it was likely that victim's blood would be found and blood is a main source for extracting DNA. So if any DNA were to be found I figured the car.

So why not in the car?

He had the interior covered in plastic and had 6 weeks to clean it.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
He did plan this, after all.
He was educated in the manner and means of cleaning DNA, probably wore clothes coverings, and had all the time in the world, as you say.

Is it reasonable to assume he carried the weapon in a sheath?

And the single source DNA is no mean thing.

www.nbcnews.com

DNA left on knife sheath used to link Bryan Kohberger with Idaho slayings, affidavit shows

Kohberger, 28, was extradited from Pennsylvania to face charges of four counts of first-degree murder and burglary in connection with the Nov. 13 killings.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com
 
jepop said:
I'd take a guess at second week of April at the latest. That gives approx four weeks from the initial forming of the GJ - from potential juror questioning then selection, through to hearing of evidence (perhaps including expert witnesses?) to consideration of evidence and finally indictment. It could have been earlier than mid April, but not later Imo. Six weeks from decision and commencement of juror selection to indictment might be a more cautious guess - in that case beginning April.

MOO
Click to expand...
Not sure if it was an indication of what was happening in Idaho, but there was a mention of a GJ (has commenced or is about to commence) in the argument portion of BFs motion to quash 4/21/23.


1687601403492.png


MOO
 
The discussions on BK's DNA on a knife sheath found next to one of the victims, and how it led LE to him keeps taking me back to a discussion he supposedly had with his neighbor about submitting his DNA for genealogical testing:

Tracking Kohberger: Idaho Murder Suspect Told Neighbor About Taking an Ancestral DNA Test

Kohberger told neighbor of prior DNA test, raising questions about how police found him - East Idaho News

Idaho suspect Bryan Kohberger sent DNA for genetic testing to explore ancestry: neighbor

It doesn't really make sense on the face of it since LE apparently didn't find a DNA match to him in 'available databases'.

Maybe he said this under false pretenses to add to the distraction and noise of DNA evidence and databases, as in the guy told me his DNA "was out there" !

So if his DNA wasn't found in the house then he couldn't be a suspect?

Or he sent it to a company that will not share DNA with LE?

Or sent someone else’s DNA in under an assumed name whose DNA is an unidentified male whose DNA would be found at the house?

It's a bit mind bending, but hey, lesser criminals have come up with all kinds of “don’t look over here” tactics, and he was a criminology student after all so should know a thing or two about DNA.

This has always been a real head scratcher for me because the DNA aspect of this case seems complicated enough as it is.

I could be wrong about this not making sense, if he did say this to his neighbor, but if it does make sense it seems like he was planting this info re his DNA with his unsuspecting neighbor to "add to the churn" and possibly goes to a SODDI/TODDI defense.

Which as I've wondered often about before, now sounds like it could be surfacing up from out of all the possibilities (SODDI/TODDI).

MOO
 

State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger​

Latah County CR29-22-2805

Case Summary (Updated 06/23/23)


 
TL4S said:
Thankfully, I do not think AT will tell the type of tales told by the defense in that case. The defendants and attorneys are night and day here (also thankfully). But I'll admit, the unidentified DNA is more concerning to me here, depending on the specifics, of course.

In the MT trial, vehicle footage from surveillance cameras was also key to the investigation (as were phone pings), but when LE located the vehicle, the victim's blood was in the trunk. Here, there's nothing. He obviously didn't transport the victims, but it's still a bit surprising to me there was no victim DNA at all.

There are things we don't know, as well. What if there was a Murphy hair tucked within the car seat, for example? What we don't know might be more important than what we do, at this point.
Click to expand...

I agree. It is so easy to speculate that things are X. It is sort of like when you have a puzzle and some of the edges are filled in. That's not enough to form an entire picture. I do feel some momentum and that is helpful. We may know a lot more after Tuesday. Or not. IMO.
 
schooling said:
Everyone is putting so much stock into every move his defense team makes. But I haven’t seen anything that I havent seen before.
Click to expand...

That there was no evidence found in his car, apartment, or office is something we didn't know before, as is the statement about 3 unidentified male DNA profiles at the scene.


schooling said:
99% of the people in prison are innocent. Just like BK.

Also, cars are misidentified by make, model, color, year, all the time in cases. Because LE thought it was a Nissan Sentra for a week doesn’t automatically dismiss the Elantra on video doing a 3 point turn at the murder scene.

Investigations are iterative. You go down different paths. Adjust. Eventually you get it right. That’s the point.

MOO
Click to expand...

IMO, mistaking an Elantra for a Sentra is a HUUUUUUGE mistake. Could it have been on different video? Sure, that might explain it. But if they were looking at the same video when they changed from Sentra to Elantra, that stinks to high heaven and will be a crucial, even infamous, mistake on the part of the investigators. IMO, it's naïve to think that kind of mistake won't have a significant impact on the case.

MOO
 
Cool Cats said:
A friend invites me to go with her to a party where 6 people live and others have lived there before. I don't know the people in the house and I leave my DNA.

Several months later there are 4 people killed in the house and I freak out because I was in that house etc...

LE never interviews me. I never hear from LE.

Meanwhile, my unidentified DNA has been found.
I have no way to know my DNA is sitting around in some evidence locker.

It doesn't even occur to me to call LE and ask them if they found any unidentified DNA because maybe it could be mine, not realistic.

Too many people were in and out of that house for LE to be able to identify every single piece of DNA. Plus, students left for 2 breaks, Thanksgiving and Christmas.
Click to expand...

IMO, that isn't the type of thing that is likely to happen with 3 separate individuals. First of all, DNA doesn't remain forever. So if someone was in that house for a party in June, the likelihood of his DNA being there in November is about nil. Second, IMO, LE would have interviewed and/or put out a call for the entire student body who's been in that house in the last few months to come forward if they really wanted to rule out the 3 unknown males. How do they know those 3 men didn't play a role in this? Even if they're 100% sold on BK being the killer, how can they definitively rule out an accomplice without at least trying to figure out who those 3 men were to clear them? Seems to me LE was happy to get their guy. I would be too, but I still believe if he's guilty, he didn't act alone.

MOO.
 
schooling said:
Reasonable doubt is not a zero sum game.

An unknown profile might create doubt but it can easily be wiped away by a preponderance of other evidence when all is considered in a jury room.

BK doesn’t get away with a quadruple murder because prosecutors didn’t answer every single question. Reasonable works both ways.

If I’m sitting in the jury room and I can’t find a reasonable alternative for his 3am drive towards the crime scene, past the house, speeding away and leaving his dna at the scene I’m throwing the unknown profile out the window and voting guilty.
Click to expand...

And I'm exactly the opposite. I'm saying I can't be sure he's guilty and I'm voting not guilty. It takes one juror. And for the record, I think there are many people just like me, just as there are many people just like you.

MOO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 131 more.
Total: 2,281 (members: 132, guests: 2,149)

Online statistics

Members online
132
Guests online
2,149
Total visitors
2,281
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
605,300
Messages
18,185,484
Members
233,308
Latest member
Callie679
Back
Top