4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #87

[Boxer]

They concern me too. It makes me uncomfortable at how easily folks dismiss these three unidentified DNA samples. LE might have a very simple explanation as to why they were not processed, and the samples might be wholly unrelated to the murders, but we know absolutely nothing about them at this point to make those assumptions. Jmo.

Why are they in important?
BK became a POI for multiple reasons, long before DNA.
The DNA was for confirmation.

 

[kittythehare]

Not caught up.
Saw something fly by on the live, that he followed all three women on Instagram. Can anyone tell me where did that come up?

I heard something about it very early on but I don't recall it ever being nailed down, think posssibly source at the time was an interview with Mr Gonzales.

 

[Balthazar]

Well, that's not true. A person can speak all they want and not everyone even decides to use an attorney, especially for misdemeanors.

But I am firmly in the camp of "I am going to speak if I am innocent," even if my attorney says otherwise. I make a terrible client for an attorney, btw. And I've seen attorneys do the same thing I just said I'd do. And judges. And Sheriffs and Sheriff Deputies and other LEO's.

IOW, many of us who are more familiar with the system DO go ahead and talk. Indeed, we also people later found guilty out there announcing their innocence (with and without their attorney's oversight). I'd fire any attorney who wouldn't let me do it and actually have an attorney who agrees with me (I've not needed him for a criminal case, thankfully). But I know someone who did use an attorney who had her stand in front of mic's and proclaim her innocence and explain what happened.

You stated this as if it's universal in the US or part of the law that the defendant "doesn't speak. Yes, they do sometimes, they can, they are not prohibited, and not all attorneys tell their clients to remain silent on every point.

IMO. IME. I am writing for the benefit of our non-US citizens who may take what you said as being part of the legal system, when it is in fact an opinion. I am also stating my opinion. If you can find a law that says a criminal defendant no longer has freedom of speech, that would be helpful. Is there a state that has tried it? I am unaware.

IMO.

While we have freedom speech here and the person can speak if they are physically capable of it, all Americans know that if they are being accused of a crime, they should not speak to LE without an attorney present. We are taught that in school. Remaining silent has zero impact on your innocence or guilt and is a right. I don't know of any murder suspect headed into a death penalty trial who has gone to the press announcing their innocence. Do you?

 

[jepop]

Not caught up.
Saw something fly by on the live, that he followed all three women on Instagram. Can anyone tell me where did that come up?

I stopped watching but will review later.

 

[Balthazar]

In your opinion I think, because that isn't enshrined in law as far as I'm aware, so the accused can speak to others if they choose. Moo

Where did I say it was a law. I said in the US you don't speak to LE if accused of a crime. The Miranda warning explains it clearly.

 

[TL4S]

Why are they in important?
BK became a for multiple reasons, long before DNA.

I agree he was a suspect for other reasons, for sure. I don't know why or if the other DNA samples are important, because I don't know anything about them. We can speculate on scenarios where they might be important, just like we speculate on why they are not, but it's all guessing because we don't have the facts. I'll just feel better once we know more.

 

[I'm Nobody]

Hearing delayed live: East Idaho News Part 1

 

[maskedwoman]

IMO it is a massive problem because CSI was only testing where they found evidence. They didn't test the entire house for DNA. What we don't know is where exactly CSI found these 3 DNA samples in relation to the victims. We know that none of them apparently matched any of the people who gave DNA samples to LE during the investigation. And I think LE asked for DNA samples from every guy these girls socialized with and worked with and had classes with. So, why wasn't this DNA further tested and GG run on it?

We know that one was found outside the house because one of the witnesses said it today. I believe it was on a glove near the road. It could have belonged to anyone.

As for your last question, do we know that? Every guy they had classes with? That's a lot of guys. And EVERY guy they socialized with? I have not heard that before. We definitely know that people crashed their parties because an older guy who lived across the street told reporters that he did. So I don't think it's at all outside the realm of possibility that someone they didn't know attended their parties and was in the house, possibly leaving DNA behind.

There are a lot of ways for DNA to get into a house. If my house became a crime scene, there might be unidentified DNA from a plumber, furniture delivery people, and someone who repaired my ice maker. That's just for starters. Unless someone else knew those people had been in my house, it would remain unidentified DNA. MOOooo

 

[MTW2011]

I’ve consider this as well … did a novice conduct the research. I have several friends that research old war sites, unidentified, as volunteers. All are professionals from a major university, working with DNA, genetics in one form or another. I’ve not heard any conversation on certification or licenses required.


Does the law require a certification/license? What requirements must law enforcement follow?

Also what if they used a private /commercial lab?

Thanks

It is a long read but in the Defense Motion from back in June, part of the filing mentions the Idaho State Police Forensic Services Laboratory (lSPFS) new grant that was going to be used for molecular genealogy. Followed by that is the Department of Justice Interim Policy on “FORENSIC GENETIC GENEALOGICAL DNA ANALYSIS AND SEARCHING” and includes details on collaboration btwn agencies and private labs, “cautions” when doing this work, “limitations” of the policy and its scope, among other things.

The filing can be found here (the parts I mention begin on page 6) - https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/...port+of+Defendants+Third+Motion+to+Compel.pdf

Possibly of note, in the State’s response to the 2nd Motion when defense requested these specifics, the State included some previous Idaho cases for parts of their argument. In one of the cases they cited, that case mentions “
Law enforcement in the present case obtained a mixed contributor DNA sample from the nightgown of the victim, which included DNA from the victim and DNA from an unidentified male. A private forensic laboratory separated the unidentified male DNA and created a DNA profile of the unidentified male suspect
(the “DVA profile”). Law enforcement then submitted the DNA profile to GEDmatch and obtained information about people who share DNA with the unidentified suspect.”

What I found interesting about them including that in their arguments is that it is a case where unidentified DNA was found, and the private lab involved went thru testing all of that. If we are to believe the defense’s representation - combined with the State saying today they “don’t have” more reports on this from the Lab - of missing information on those 3 unidentified males, it would seem like the State has recognized in other cases the importance of testing unidentified samples and using those results to rule in or rule out suspect(s). I am still struggling to understand why it appears currently that those 3 may not have even been tested yet. I don’t think the State is saying they “don’t have them” just to say so; they’d probably be in hot(ter) water if they did have reports from those and just were saying otherwise. Now if they weren’t actually tested yet, for some reason, that could be really interesting…. JMOO

Oh, and the State’s response I referred to can be found here - page 23 - https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/...ndants+Amended+Motion+to+Stay+Proceedings.pdf

 

[maskedwoman]

They concern me too. It makes me uncomfortable at how easily folks dismiss these three unidentified DNA samples. LE might have a very simple explanation as to why they were not processed, and the samples might be wholly unrelated to the murders, but we know absolutely nothing about them at this point to make those assumptions. Jmo.

Do we know they weren't processed? Or maybe the results just weren't back before the arrest. They were obviously processed at some point or LE couldn't say they were unidentified. Or am I missing something?

 

[TL4S]

Do we know they weren't processed? Or maybe the results just weren't back before the arrest. They were obviously processed at some point or LE couldn't say they were unidentified. Or am I missing something?

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that this is what the court is asking the prosecution to check with the lab about?

 

[jepop]

Why are they in important?
BK became a POI for multiple reasons, long before DNA.
The DNA was for confirmation.

Good point. It's hardly reasonable to assume that LE didn't take and test multiple dna samples from the house, besides the knife sheath. This may be being blown out of all proportion because a) we are not hearing about the multipe samples that they did take and test to get some perspective and b) we have yet to hear the P's reasons and arguments. The D's filings are not made in a vacuum. Being loud doesn't have to mean being right. Moo.

 

[10ofRods]

I’m very curious to hear this in its entirety whenever the media can stream it (after it is over today).

I wonder if the State is almost saying that they “don’t have” any more info from lab regarding the 3 unidentified male DNA referenced by the Defense? Judge is asking them to ask the lab again to check. It’s strange to me how much the State has been fighting handing some of this stuff over, and if their case was so strong why do they seem concerned about handing some of this stuff over? Would it introduce more reasonable doubt? Their arguments about what is “relevant” are disappointing to me, I don’t believe the process is supposed to work in a way where prosecution decides what is “relevant” to the defense & can simply say it’s not relevant as their reasoning for not disclosing it.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1692596040942379076

I don't know, but if I were the State I'd be taking the high ground vis-a-vis how many other men had been in the bedrooms of the victims.

Random male DNA not linked specifically to the murder weapon should not be dragged into this - nor should the victims have their possible friendships/bedmates/overnight guests become part of the case. SODDI is great - but the Defense has to do that with what's available.

If the Judge wants to drag those three men in, then he can order that (unlikely, because in order to try and point at SOD, the Defense has to have their own evidence).

If the Judge permits those three men to be identified via their DNA, then the Defense will ask to have the rest of the house put under the same scrutiny (I'm guessing the forensic vacuum cleaner picked up dozens of DNA profiles - both men and women).

It would be a mess and that's why the Defense has to state who they think did it.

IMO.

 

[Boxer]

Where did I say it was a law. I said in the US you don't speak to LE if accused of a crime. The Miranda warning explains it clearly.

People definitely speak to the police. You have the right to remain silent or to speak.

Miranda warning is a duty put on police to remind citizens of their rights upon arrest.
The Miranda warning informs a person being arrested of their rights and that the police can use the content of speaking to them in court.

 

[maskedwoman]

They had plenty of time to get BK's DNA tested and processed and GG done BEFORE they arrested him. Why were these 3 samples treated differently? All 4 DNA samples should have gone through the process at the same time.

I think it depends on where the DNA was found.

 

[NyxNY]

While we have freedom speech here and the person can speak if they are physically capable of it, all Americans know that if they are being accused of a crime, they should not speak to LE without an attorney present. We are taught that in school. Remaining silent has zero impact on your innocence or guilt and is a right. I don't know of any murder suspect headed into a death penalty trial who has gone to the press announcing their innocence. Do you?

Bundy

 

[Cindizzi]

https://x.com/jordansmithkxly/status/1692627650454634643?s=61&t=Vp-AZ81ShrhzLNqqCFHAgA

 

[Luna20]

Not true. In the US, you don't speak to anyone but your attorney about your case when accused of a crime.

Of course. I’m referring to his demeanor only. No visual signs of anxiety, no identifiable movements in body language.

 

[DizzyB]

I don't know, but if I were the State I'd be taking the high ground vis-a-vis how many other men had been in the bedrooms of the victims.

Random male DNA not linked specifically to the murder weapon should not be dragged into this - nor should the victims have their possible friendships/bedmates/overnight guests become part of the case. SODDI is great - but the Defense has to do that with what's available.

If the Judge wants to drag those three men in, then he can order that (unlikely, because in order to try and point at SOD, the Defense has to have their own evidence).

If the Judge permits those three men to be identified via their DNA, then the Defense will ask to have the rest of the house put under the same scrutiny (I'm guessing the forensic vacuum cleaner picked up dozens of DNA profiles - both men and women).

It would be a mess and that's why the Defense has to state who they think did it.

IMO.

Picturing a future where everyone is in a database that is accessed and available for all sorts of reasons. Big brother here we come. There has to be a line.

 

[Balthazar]

We know that one was found outside the house because one of the witnesses said it today. I believe it was on a glove near the road. It could have belonged to anyone.

As for your last question, do we know that? Every guy they had classes with? That's a lot of guys. And EVERY guy they socialized with? I have not heard that before. We definitely know that people crashed their parties because an older guy who lived across the street told reporters that he did. So I don't think it's at all outside the realm of possibility that someone they didn't know attended their parties and was in the house, possibly leaving DNA behind.

There are a lot of ways for DNA to get into a house. If my house became a crime scene, there might be unidentified DNA from a plumber, furniture delivery people, and someone who repaired my ice maker. That's just for starters. Unless someone else knew those people had been in my house, it would remain unidentified DNA. MOOooo

When DNA is found within a crime scene which CSI is testing and they take it into evidence, the DNA should be completely tested. What is the point of CSI collecting it otherwise? These other 3 samples should not have been treated any differently than the BK sample.