4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #84

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
It’s fascinating to me how much the Defense is pushing getting training materials related to 3 officers who made “critical decisions” in the case.

The State fighting giving that over makes me wonder why. If it’s really “not related” then why fight it? It seems to be that the defense may have uncovered/found something within other discovery, as it is very specific to three officers who they’ve cited as being at very critical decision-making points in the process of all this. Does the State have a concern that any of those officers may have not acted in some way following their training & standard operating procedures?

IMOO I don’t think the Defense is going on a fishing expedition- especially if they’re going to challenge the indictment. It sounds like there is a potential concern that either training wasn’t followed and they want to verify that. If the State doesn’t have any concern of any that, or anything else, why would they fight it so much?

Very interested to see how Judge ultimately rules.
 
Cool Cats said:
Anne Taylor wants 3 things:

1.) Documents pertaining to Kohberger’s cellphone location data.

2.) Determinations a forensic analyst made about the make and model of the suspect’s vehicle.

3.) Training schedules for three Idaho State Police officers involved in the investigation.

www.yahoo.com

Kohberger defense wants evidence records state is withholding in Idaho homicide case

Records the defense is seeking include those pertaining to Kohberger’s cellphone location data.
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com
Click to expand...

IMO AT is looking for Prosecution faults. I wish they'd push her for bk's Alibi and Mitigating issues and her actual defense of her client. It makes me ill she's trying to get a quadruple murder off on technicalities; I know it is her job but, oof.

I don't post much but have been following from the beginning, my oldest goes to college in the Fall and this case has been haunting me. Especially the insanity on Facebook and such, thank you all for the clarity here.
 
It’s fascinating to me how much the Defense is pushing getting training materials related to 3 officers who made “critical decisions” in the case.

The State fighting giving that over makes me wonder why. If it’s really “not related” then why fight it? It seems to be that the defense may have uncovered/found something within other discovery, as it is very specific to three officers who they’ve cited as being at very critical decision-making points in the process of all this. Does the State have a concern that any of those officers may have not acted in some way following their training & standard operating procedures?

IMOO I don’t think the Defense is going on a fishing expedition- especially if they’re going to challenge the indictment. It sounds like there is a potential concern that either training wasn’t followed and they want to verify that. If the State doesn’t have any concern of any that, or anything else, why would they fight it so much?

Very interested to see how Judge ultimately rules.
 
MTW2011 said:
...
The State fighting giving that over makes me wonder why. If it’s really “not related” then why fight it?

....
Click to expand...
Besides the added burden it puts on the DA's office....For the same reasons you wouldn't let officers turn over your entire house without a warrant. Even if you had 'nothing to hide'. Or ask to look into your emails or work history if you 'have nothing to hide'

Or to more closely align with this scenario... how eager would you be, as a LE officer, to help on a case if you knew that you were likely to be put on trial? Lab technician who handled the sample? Courier who drove the sample to the lab? Person who opened the sample and initially handled it?

It seems like prosecutors agree that there are 3 LE personnel that they need to retrieve the trainings for. They just want to be cautious and make sure the defense doesn't overstretch and set new norms. Particularly when its clear that they are buying time.
 
10ofRods said:
DNA is DNA. Touch DNA simply means that it didn't come from a cheek swab or taking blood or any similar method.

There is no difference in the reliability of the DNA or its analysis. There is only one way for a sequence of DNA to be made and that's by the living organism, of which it was once a part.

Further, use point DNA is not classified as "touch DNA" (whatever that is). We breathe out DNA. Our clothing is imbued with our DNA. But this was not "airborne" DNA nor was it on a random piece of bedding.

Every reasonable person knows why sheaths exist. I believe this extends to the function (use) of a snap mechanism. When DNA is found on the part of a tool/object that must be touched in order for the tool to be used (the sheath must be unsnapped to remove the knife), it is there for a reason. The person leaving it used their fingers to unclasp and clasp the snap. If enough analysis were permitted we could likely say approximately how many times the person had snapped and unsnapped that sheath.

I don't know what you might mean by "touch DNA" is not complete. Why would it not be complete? Complete sequences are gained from "touch DNA" (use point DNA in this case) all the time.

Use point DNA is OFTEN complete. That's why LE and forensic investigators are taught to look for it first. Steering wheels. Sunglasses. Car handles. Tools. Silverware. ETC. DNA is fairly indestructible. Touching a sheath snap just ONE time likely left a complete profile; opening and closing the snap several times would leave thousands of epithelial cells in the little grooves within the snap mechanism and especially along the sides where the snap was forced into the leather and left a larger, deeper groove.

IMO.
Click to expand...
Thank you so much for the answer. Just one question that is still unclear to me.

Here it says that 99.6% of DNA for all people on Earth is identical (National Institute of General Medical Sciences.)

So if they had a full DNA profile from the sheath why were investigators building the family tree to start with?

Because if you have someone's full DNA you just take his father's DNA and with 100% certainty you can say if that person is your father or not.

This is my question, will be so grateful if you can clarify it for me.
 
robotwithhumanhair said:
Is anyone here not 100 percent “guilty” on Bryan Kohburger? Or everyone thinks it was him for sure? JMO. Edited to add: genuinely asking not trying to berate anyone for their opinions
Click to expand...

BARD goes to trial level but to me he looks very guilty.

So much evidence against him that all his defense can do is try to get evidence thrown out on technicalities.

Example

1.) An officer didn't follow protocol so his evidence is tainted.

2.) Some error occurred in police identifying the vehicle, thus erroneously focusing on BK.

3.) Faulty cell phone data.

2 Cents
 
Kaylison said:
IMO AT is looking for Prosecution faults. I wish they'd push her for bk's Alibi and Mitigating issues and her actual defense of her client. It makes me ill she's trying to get a quadruple murder off on technicalities; I know it is her job but, oof.

I don't post much but have been following from the beginning, my oldest goes to college in the Fall and this case has been haunting me. Especially the insanity on Facebook and such, thank you all for the clarity here.
Click to expand...
But the burden of proof is always on the state so competent defense attorneys always look for holes in the state's case. As you say, that's their job. Providing a vigorous defense doesn't shift the burden of proof to the defense. AT doesn't have to prove her client not guilty. She doesn't have to provide an alibi for the defendant or identify mitigating issues at this time. So I don't really see how anyone can push her to defend her client by doing those things. IF the defense can poke enough holes in the state's case (and maybe AT can, maybe she can't), IMO that's not a matter of getting the defendant off on technicalities. That's the way things are supposed to work in defense work.
JMO
 
Cool Cats said:
BARD goes to trial level but to me he looks very guilty.

So much evidence against him that all his defense can do is try to get evidence thrown out on technicalities.

Example

1.) An officer didn't follow protocol so his evidence is tainted.

2.) Some error occurred in police identifying the vehicle, thus erroneously focusing on BK.

3.) Faulty cell phone data.

2 Cents
Click to expand...
This ^^^^ plus it's obvious he either hasn't shared the full side of his story with his defense team yet (are they afraid to ask? attorneys can you chime in?). And if he has...they are hesitant to offer it up as an official alibi (yes, I know the burden is not on him). Why? Because they probably can't find one iota of evidence to support it.
 
OnaZgSleuth said:
So if they had a full DNA profile from the sheath why were investigators building the family tree to start with?

Because if you have someone's full DNA you just take his father's DNA and with 100% certainty you can say if that person is your father or not.
Click to expand...
The building of the family tree has nothing to do with the profile being full or not.

They had the unknown persons DNA from the sheath. To say who it belongs to, they have to compare it to other DNA-s, that they know the owner of. They probably started with the criminals DNA database, but the DNA was not there. They needed something else to compare it to. As they did not have Bryans DNA for comparison, they used the public DNA databases. These databases, for example, provided the information, that the unknown DNA on the sheath was related to his maternal grandmothers relatives and his maternal grandfathers relatives and to his paternal grandmothers relatives and to his paternal grandfathers relatives. Looking into all of the details, they concluded, that the DNA is very likely to belong to Bryan, unless he has a secret sibling no-one knows about. Based on that and other information, the police got the right to move forward and eventually get Bryans DNA sample upon arrest and compare it directly to his own DNA - and sure enough, it was a match.

Oversimplification, of course, but that's the general idea. MOO.
 
OnaZgSleuth said:
Thank you so much for the answer. Just one question that is still unclear to me.

Here it says that 99.6% of DNA for all people on Earth is identical (National Institute of General Medical Sciences.)

So if they had a full DNA profile from the sheath why were investigators building the family tree to start with?

Because if you have someone's full DNA you just take his father's DNA and with 100% certainty you can say if that person is your father or not.

This is my question, will be so grateful if you can clarify it for me.
Click to expand...
They had a dna profile from the sheath, but no match to it in CODIS, so no name to pair with that dna profile. In the past, that would be a dead end with investigators hoping that at some future point a match would pop up.

With genetic genealogy they don't have to wait. They can load that profile on a public site, GEDmatch, and even if there is no exact match, there will be familial matches. You take those matches and use public sites like ancestry, social media, obituaries, etc, to create a family tree. You work backwards to the most recent common ancestors of those matches, then work forwards to their descendants. And you look for possibilities. A genetic genealogist looking at this family tree is going to say hmmm...this family is primarily in the northeast but we do have one family member who lives within miles of this crime. Let's look at him further. They knew his father through the family tree and were able to collect his dna (apparently the the laws make it easier to do it in PA than in WA).
 
schooling said:
Besides the added burden it puts on the DA's office....For the same reasons you wouldn't let officers turn over your entire house without a warrant. Even if you had 'nothing to hide'. Or ask to look into your emails or work history if you 'have nothing to hide'

Or to more closely align with this scenario... how eager would you be, as a LE officer, to help on a case if you knew that you were likely to be put on trial? Lab technician who handled the sample? Courier who drove the sample to the lab? Person who opened the sample and initially handled it?

It seems like prosecutors agree that there are 3 LE personnel that they need to retrieve the trainings for. They just want to be cautious and make sure the defense doesn't overstretch and set new norms. Particularly when its clear that they are buying time.
Click to expand...
Right.
More like getting the DAs office top do their research for them free gratis.

Now I'm all for civil liberties but 4 dead- slaughtered, butchered kids had civil liberties too.
They're my priority when I'm on this site.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 130 more.
Total: 3,160 (members: 131, guests: 3,029)

Online statistics

Members online
131
Guests online
3,029
Total visitors
3,160
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
602,272
Messages
18,138,045
Members
231,286
Latest member
angelicamcolon
Back
Top