4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #86

[jepop]

Yes. I think this will be their argument. I don't think it will get suppressed. And, I suspect they will bring in a DNA expert to make this point and force the state's expert on the stand during cross to admit this point. I think like many posters here, it will fail in face of other evidence they have if all other evidence they have gets in. Because again, you're not proving beyond any hypothetical possibility or doubt whatsoever. Rather, the doubt must be "reasonable".

jmo

In that hypothetical scenario, wouldn't the transferer (person who transfered BK's dna to the snap button of the sheath with his hand for e.g) also leave their dna on that snap button. I understood that the dna found on the snap button is single source which I thought meant that there is no-one else's dna on that snap button. I wonder about the reasonableness of arguing that a second person could have transferred BK's dna to snap button accidentally but left none of their own. Moo

 

[girlhasnoname]

Agree. But unfortunately, people lie. And, IMO, that's where the jury consultant actually earns his or her fee. By looking for evidence online or otherwise that the person is actually against it. Example, MK (his mother), 2008:

mother-bryan-kohberger-death-penalty-murder-unearthed-letters

jmo

Fair point.

 

[Nila Aella]

Coroner comments about wounds:

Nov 17

It would have been early in the morning, sometime after 2 a.m., but still during the night," Mabbutt said, adding that there wasn't a medical way to determine who was attacked first, but investigators are "trying to put timelines together with other text messages and other technology."

Mabbutt couldn't say how many times each victim was stabbed but said it was safe to say each of them had multiple wounds. She declined to say where on the body they were stabbed and later clarified that the victims were stabbed in different places and a different amount of times.

Coroner offers new details about fatal slaying of 4 U of Idaho students after preliminary autopsies

The four students were found stabbed to death inside a home in Moscow, Idaho, on Nov. 13.

www.today.com

 

[Jurisprudence]

In that hypothetical scenario, wouldn't the transferer (person who transfered BK's dna to the snap button of the sheath with his hand for e.g) also leave their dna on that snap button. I understood that the dna found on the snap button is single source which I thought meant that there is no-one else's dna on that snap button. I wonder about the reasonableness of arguing that a second person could have transferred BK's dna to snap button accidentally but left none of their own. Moo

I agree. I think it'll be a loser argument but I still think it will be the argument. A battle of the experts "This is reliable" vs "This is not reliable." And, IIRC you are correct, single source.
jmo

 

[Nila Aella]

In that hypothetical scenario, wouldn't the transferer (person who transfered BK's dna to the snap button of the sheath with his hand for e.g) also leave their dna on that snap button. I understood that the dna found on the snap button is single source which I thought meant that there is no-one else's dna on that snap button. I wonder about the reasonableness of arguing that a second person could have transferred BK's dna to snap button accidentally but left none of their own. Moo

2015 Article

We asked pairs of people to shake hands for two minutes and then each individual handled a separate knife. In 85% of cases, the DNA of the other person was transferred to the knife and profiled. In one-fifth of the samples, the DNA analysis identified this other person as the main or only contributor of DNA to the 'weapon' (C.M.Caleetal.J.ForensicSci.http://doi.org/8j2;2015).

BBM


In 2015:

Cynthia M. Cale is a human-biology graduate student at the University of Indianapolis, Indiana, and lead forensic DNA analyst III at Strand Diagnostics.,
Cynthia M. Cale

DNA profiles: Single-source vs. mixtures

As I promised let's start with my series on forensic DNA profiles. I hope those who are reading this article know/saw/generated something, which is called a DNA profile worldwide.

www.linkedin.com

 

[Jurisprudence]

2015 Article

We asked pairs of people to shake hands for two minutes and then each individual handled a separate knife. In 85% of cases, the DNA of the other person was transferred to the knife and profiled. In one-fifth of the samples, the DNA analysis identified this other person as the main or only contributor of DNA to the 'weapon' (C.M.Caleetal.J.ForensicSci.http://doi.org/8j2;2015).

BBM


In 2015:

Cynthia M. Cale is a human-biology graduate student at the University of Indianapolis, Indiana, and lead forensic DNA analyst III at Strand Diagnostics.,
Cynthia M. Cale

DNA profiles: Single-source vs. mixtures

As I promised let's start with my series on forensic DNA profiles. I hope those who are reading this article know/saw/generated something, which is called a DNA profile worldwide.

www.linkedin.com

This is precisely along the lines of what I envision the counter to be. Makes sense imo

 

[Sundog]

2015 Article

We asked pairs of people to shake hands for two minutes and then each individual handled a separate knife. In 85% of cases, the DNA of the other person was transferred to the knife and profiled. In one-fifth of the samples, the DNA analysis identified this other person as the main or only contributor of DNA to the 'weapon' (C.M.Caleetal.J.ForensicSci.http://doi.org/8j2;2015).

BBM


In 2015:

Cynthia M. Cale is a human-biology graduate student at the University of Indianapolis, Indiana, and lead forensic DNA analyst III at Strand Diagnostics.,
Cynthia M. Cale

DNA profiles: Single-source vs. mixtures

As I promised let's start with my series on forensic DNA profiles. I hope those who are reading this article know/saw/generated something, which is called a DNA profile worldwide.

www.linkedin.com

Sounds like this article is saying that even single source DNA can be the result of transfer/touch DNA. Interesting.

 

[RANCH]

Looks like the consensus is that BK didn't use a gun because he would have been instantly caught by police. JMO.

 

[10ofRods]

Sounds like this article is saying that even single source DNA can be the result of transfer/touch DNA. Interesting.

Yes. Because "touch DNA" is a kind of "transfer DNA" and that's how DNA works when it's on an object. Knife sheaths do not make their own DNA (although, if they do destructive testing of the sheath, they're sure to find DNA from both cattle and possibly from the plants or animals used in the tanning process).

Single source means that only ONE person touched that point. Everyone who touched that snap would have left their DNA. Only one person did.

DNA from blood or other body cells is not touch or transfer. For this to be transfer/touch, someone had to get Kohberger's DNA, handle it very carefully, and somehow put it on the sheath snap.

Has there ever been a single case of that? Kohberger's DNA comes from his own body and no where else. The most reasonable explanation for how it got onto the sheath is that he touched it. SOMEONE touched it, as someone used the knife within to kill four people.

The single source touch DNA is Kohberger's.

<modsnip>


IMO.

 

[jepop]

2015 Article

We asked pairs of people to shake hands for two minutes and then each individual handled a separate knife. In 85% of cases, the DNA of the other person was transferred to the knife and profiled. In one-fifth of the samples, the DNA analysis identified this other person as the main or only contributor of DNA to the 'weapon' (C.M.Caleetal.J.ForensicSci.http://doi.org/8j2;2015).

BBM


In 2015:

Cynthia M. Cale is a human-biology graduate student at the University of Indianapolis, Indiana, and lead forensic DNA analyst III at Strand Diagnostics.,
Cynthia M. Cale

DNA profiles: Single-source vs. mixtures

As I promised let's start with my series on forensic DNA profiles. I hope those who are reading this article know/saw/generated something, which is called a DNA profile worldwide.

www.linkedin.com

That's interesting. Thanks for posting. Seems like in terms of likelihood and reasonableness this experiment suggests that 8o% of the time there will be both people's dna transferred to the object touched after shaking hands for 2 minutes. But I guess the knife was touched immediately after shaking hands in the experiment - it could be difficult to use/cite this experiment for real world situations where other factors, including time elapsed and people washing their hands etc, would need to be taken into account. I think the experimental situ is a little different from a scenario where a person may have touched a door knob or something then the killer hypothetically opens the door at a later time before later touching the snap button of the knife and transferring only the person's dna from the door. Moo

 

[10ofRods]

This is precisely along the lines of what I envision the counter to be. Makes sense imo

Of course they'll try to use that. But it still begs the question of WHO set Kohberger up, WHO drove his car, WHO used his phone - in order to frame him. Let's say that person was an Evil Scientist who knew how to keep their own DNA off the sheath.

In this study, btw, they shook hands for two minutes and I'm guessing that it was a firm handshake. In these days of awareness about diseases, I find it really hard to believe that anyone (at any time) would shake hands for two minutes with someone. I need a different method than a handshake for those stats to work (and they did the transfer immediately after the handshake - which is pretty problematic for me).

This unknown person had to get DNA from Kohberger. If one shakes hands with someone, it's a huge risk to then try and set someone up by using your hand to touch the use point of a sheath. The study you cite is about direct analysis of hand-shaking. It doesn't at all mention how I might shake hands with you and then place your DNA on my knife sheath. The study looked at DNA transfer immediately after handshaking in an experimental situation. In a regular handshake, the real culprit's DNA would be higher than 20%. There are other, more realistic studies. For example, if I give my laptop to my husband right now and he types on it, he will get some transfer DNA from me. Not as much as with a handshake, but I use my keyboard a lot - if he typed a lot on my keyboard, he'd have a goodly amount. Then, he would need to immediately transfer it to another object. This happens all the time within a household - it doesn't happen in world where 2 minute handshakes are really not a thing.

In real life, you'd have to shake hands (for 2 minutes) with Kohberger, not touch anyone else, and rapidly go to the sheath and touch the snap (with at least a 20% risk of leaving your own DNA - this study is not the only study; the rate of transfer of your own DNA in this situation could be as high as 80%, depending on many variables - one of which is time). If the handshake was more normal (15-20 seconds), it would a much higher ratio of the other person's DNA. I have to say that if someone shook my hand for 2 minutes, I would never forget that (and wouldn't allow it, of course).

So, someone touched Kohberger. Got some of his DNA on them (hands work better, so let's say it was a handshake). Then they ran to the knife sheath and transferred the DNA. Then, later, they decide to take his car and phone and murder 4 college students.

That's the most elaborate (and risky) set-up I've ever heard of. Kohberger didn't even know that many people in the area. If the DNA had come from saliva (say, a kiss) that would be known.

I find it really hard to consider that everyone who ever touched Kohberger could be considered a suspect - by anyone. But the most likely person would be someone within his household, frankly.

 

[Jurisprudence]

Sounds like this article is saying that even single source DNA can be the result of transfer/touch DNA. Interesting.

Again I think it's going to come down to the totality of the circumstances and evidence, and whether any contrary argument put forward while possible, is actually probable enough to be "reasonable".

jmo

 

[jepop]

I agree. I think it'll be a loser argument but I still think it will be the argument. A battle of the experts "This is reliable" vs "This is not reliable." And, IIRC you are correct, single source.
jmo

I wouldn't want to guess at this point, but maybe they will! From the little that was insinuated in objection to Protective Order, the D took a swipe at LE, Imo, and seemed to suggest that somehow the defendant's dna may have been transferred to the snap button by someone in LE or even by lab personnell. I think posts here have already seriously questioned how that would have been possible when it was the sample that actually helped investigators identify defendant in the first place. It's hard to get any substance from the way D worded that objection, so I've taken it with a grain of salt. In relative terms only, Imo it would definately be more reasonable for D to take the transferred by touch approach but even then without a reasonable scenario to back that up I'm not sure how far that might take them. No expert, just what I've taken away from reading and other posters with far more knowledge of how dna transfer works in the real world. Moo

 

[Jurisprudence]

Looks like the consensus is that BK didn't use a gun because he would have been instantly caught by police. JMO.

Not for me but that's just MOO. I think while a knife is silent and a gun is not, that did not factor into his decision. I think the knife was the weapon of choice because it's what he needed to satisfy his impulse and urges. I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist so this all jmo but I also think that particular knife somehow had special meaning to him. Maybe bc he wanted to be in the military or LE? Don't know it's just a hunch. We also don't know if 1 or 2 knives were actually used. This is also a possibility. It's very conceivable to me that a perp would not go into a planned attack without having a backup in case something happened to his first weapon. But as far as we know, LE only put out a plea for assistance on one knife. The Ka Bar style knife.

jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

[snipped by me] DNA from blood or other body cells is not touch or transfer. For this to be transfer/touch, someone had to get Kohberger's DNA, handle it very carefully, and somehow put it on the sheath snap.

I agree 1000%. You have to suspend disbelief. You have to invest in the theory that they were not only able to identify this invisible evidence, but that they then somehow had the skill to transfer the invisible evidence to the button snap, while wiping clean all traces of any other evidence.

jmo

 

[gremlin444]

<snipped for focus>

So the issue with transferred-touch DNA, would be that BK may have never touched the sheath. He may have touched a door knob to open a door, and the person who next went through the door (let's call him person X) and touched the same door knob could have BK's DNA on his hand. Then if person X touched his knife sheath, person X could transfer BK's DNA onto the sheath.

BK would never have needed to touch the sheath himself for his DNA to get there. This is what these experts are saying, although not using BK's case as an example, but other cases with similar examples. They are saying that if a DNA sample is small enough, it could place a person in a place where he never went, and have his DNA on an object that he never touched.

Good article to explain transfer-touch DNA.

In the above scenario, unless the person who touched the doorknob after BK had gloves on when he touched the knob and then the knife sheath, his/her touch DNA would be on the knife sheath along with the transfer of BK's, no?

 

[Megnut]

We don't know what other evidence the sheath may contain, whether it was found covered in blood or somehow pristine...

But I suspect two things: one, it wasn't covered in the suspect's DNA... because he went to great lengths to clean it. And two, the trace DNA was not collected from the top of the snap itself, the dome, as if he touched it with his full thumb to snap it. Had he done that, we might be talking instead about a partial thumbprint.

Now, it's possible that, when BK purchased the knife and stealth, likely online, he had his crime already scripted and knew not to touch any part of it....

But it's also possible he couldn't help but to adore, stroke, fantasize and sleep with it.

He might've been astute enough to glove up, but IMO whether with a gloved hand that wiped a sweat brow tried to unsnap a brand new unyielding snap or his own bare hands touched it lovingly, what he failed to clean is the well surrounding the snap, the crevice where skin cells would huddle. He swabbed the ear, didn't hit the ear canal.

He left the sheath for the murder weapon at the crime scene. He left his DNA on it.

Guessing that's covered in What NOT to do to Commit the Perfect Crime 101. Fail.

I wonder who he's angry at and blaming for that.

I wonder which moment he realized he'd left it behind.

I wonder which moment he feared/learned he"d left his DNA on it.

On whom did he want to take out his rage then? Someone? Everyone?

He strikes me as someone who seems cool on the outside but, on the inside, always high simmer.

A menace.

JMO

 

[wary]

Sounds like this article is saying that even single source DNA can be the result of transfer/touch DNA. Interesting.

That was eight years ago. What are the chances that the same study, done now, would pick up multiple sources of DNA?

 

[katydid23]

You'd have to be pretty precise in where you stabbed though. Even slicing a throat leaves a person alive and able to move, and make noise. A stab to the heart usually gives a person a few seconds at least before death. Movement and noise can still be made. I'm sure this will be answered during trial but I'm curious.

It's been said by many crime victims that they were unable to scream, out of fear, feeling frozen----shut down. Waking up as a masked man with a huge knife, is suddenly stabbing you? No surprise to me if no one was able to actually scream. JMO

 

[10ofRods]

My speculation is that Kohberger had a long and fairly intricate checklist of things he needed to do (in his mind) to avoid detection.

He was caught up in doing whatever he had planned to prevent blood evidence transferring to his car (and his person).

Another of his rubrics was to get out of there and speed away. He obviously had thought about (but likely not visited) possible places to dispose of evidence. So he was thinking about that, too.

My speculation is that he realized the sheath was missing when he was filling up his duffle or whatever bag he had chosen for evidence disposal. I don't think it could have been a trash bag because it simply wouldn't work as well as something with a zipper. Also, he would have noticed at that point that he was putting an unsheathed knife into a mere trash bag.

OTOH, he could have wrapped the knife up in something, temporarily. He must surely have wanted to speed out of there rather than return to look for the sheath (his risk of more blood contamination would have increased, had he gone back in at that point).

The question I have is whether his return trip to Moscow the next morning was an attempt to recover the sheath. Probably not, but I guess it's a possibility. He must have been rather anxious at that point (kicking himself for forgetting it). Maybe the neighbor was slightly mistaken on the exact time when she observed the open door on the first floor.

He would have revisited the crime scene rooms, if he did that. He might even have closed and locked Xana's door. But he surely knew that he took the knife out of the sheath on the third floor - but it was under MM's body and what a risk it would have been to touch or move her (having already disposed of his kill gear and probably not wanting to look like a crazy murderer in broad daylight).

Speculation. Trying to pull a few clues together in some way that makes sense to me.