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

[maconrich]

It might be just a little bit different when you live here, or depending upon the mood of things. Tomorrow is the start of classes locally and we had to deal with BK all Friday long, awful smoke from wildfires, all with optimisc students filling the area. Mind you, the courthouse is just blocks away in such a small town. It has been a lot to process.

It may be self-serving to need a break from all of this or to wish it would go to a different county. I also listened to quite a few experts out of Boise who thought that it would and maybe that is why I am disappointed. IDK.

Moscow just hasn't reached the year mark and the trial is going to run into that quickly. I think I could become a little bit more objective with him elsewhere. I haven't shared this thought before but that's how I feel.

Not exactly an opinion but JMOO for the heck of it.

I've seen cases where the judge waits to see if an impartial jury can be assembled in the county where the crime was committed before agreeing to a change of venue. -- As in they go thru the process of attempting to select jurors. IMO

Looking at ID law (see below), it seems like a request could be made prior to that point? MOO

(a) Motion for Change of Venue. A judge may change venue only upon motion by any party.

(1) Discretionary. A judge may grant a change of venue or change the place of trial to another county as provided by statute or when it appears by affidavit or other satisfactory proof that:

(A) there is reason to believe that an impartial trial cannot be had in the county in which the action is filed, or
(B) the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change.

I.R.C.P. 40.1. Change of Venue | Supreme Court

isc.idaho.gov

 

[schooling]

I'll never be able to put myself inside of a mind like BK's in order to rationalize his decisions....

BUT

Any confidence he had in beating this case likely took a major hit yesterday. Full expect to him to stop the charades and waive the speedy trial to regroup.

He had 7 months to come up with an alibi and 'just driving around but forget' is the best he could come up with. Most of the defenses fringe theories were summarily dismissed yesterday.

1 year, 4 years, Year 2030, 2050. It doesn't even matter at this point. The guy is toast.

MOO

 

[katydid23]

I see the DNA in this case a little differently. Nothing about this process should be secret.

I have also seen cases where DNA is given for one purpose and then used for another and that's a violation of the 4th amendment. It seems to me that BK's distant family member gave their DNA to a database for some other reason than identifying a family member for a crime. I even wonder if this situation could open up the family member who gave their DNA for other purposes to liability as well as the company which had the DNA profile should BK be found not guilty. Did the family member actually opt in for LE purposes or not? If not, this opens up a whole can of worms.

For example, a rape victim in San Francisco was identified for a 2016 property offense via her rape kit.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/San-Francisco-police-linked-a-woman-to-a-crime-16918673.php

This was later found to be a violation of the 4th amendment.

https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/APPLYING-THE-FOURTH-AMENDMENT-WHEN-DNA-COLLECTED-FOR-ONE-PURPOSE.pdf

Is this situation a violation of BK's fourth amendment? It probably is.

Then there is the whole question of the technique used to identify BK:

IMO how DNA identifications are made in the future for criminal justice are going to need to be documented step by step with replicable results to be admissible in court. This process should be replicable to remove any question about exactly how the identification was made and if it was done correctly. Without this information, I don't think that the DNA in Kohberger's case should be admissible in court, unfortunately.

I don't understand why the prosecution in this case cannot get and give this information to the defense. It is a straight forward process with a beginning, middle and end. That it is finite tells me it is possible for the information to be documented even now and it should be possible for both the prosecution and the defense to send BK's DNA to another lab AND the same lab the prosecution used as well and get the exact same results from both labs. If the results cannot be replicated, then there is a problem and the DNA testing cannot be trusted. To me this is a simple straightforward question. Was the testing done correctly and can it be replicated? If not, it should not stand as evidence. If the prosecution cannot give the defense information proving the testing was done correctly, then unfortunately, it should not be admissible.

I disagree. You are basically saying YES, BK is guilty and that was his DNA he left behind when he viciously stabbed 4 innocent students to death. But it violates his right to privacy for the detectives to identify him using a public database---so we should let him go free to do whatever he desires...

That makes no sense and greatly endangers all of us. If you leave DNA behind on the knife sheath after a mass killing, you should expect LE to do whatever they can to identify that DNA. If your great uncle submitted his DNA to a public database to work on the family tree, so be it.

 

[jepop]

A critical decision tree led to the police's exclusion of the other unidentified male DNA samples, focusing exclusively on BK. However, it's incorrect for the prosecution to claim they lack results for those three samples, as if that were the case they wouldn't know their gender.

This raises several pressing questions:

Did the investigators conduct any genealogical testing on these three suspects, considering their inclusion in the crime lab analysis, a departure from DOJ guidelines reserving DNA testing for primary crime scene samples? If so, what findings cleared these three individuals as potential suspects?

Are there any established connections between these men and BK, even distant ones, suggesting a possibility that one of them might have known BK without a close relationship, a convenient scenario for a setup?

Conversely, if post-crime lab genealogical testing was not performed on these samples, what was the rationale behind this decision? Somebody made that decision, for a reason.

BBM The prosecution did not say they lacked results for the three samples. They said they had given everything they had that is discoverable to the defense. This was quite clear in the hearing (I have now watched all of it). The three unidentified dna samples were extracted in lab. However those three did not qualify for entry into CODIS,which is the first investigative step with dna samples that qualify as suspect. These samples did not qualify. Some information regarding the rules around qualification for CODIS entry are posted upthread. Moo

AS you would know from reading the DOJ guidelines on use of IGG, other methods of identifying a suspect but unidentified forensic sample must be conducted first before use of IGG. That includes uploading profiles to CODIS. As the three samples in question did not qualify for codis they most certainly did not qualify for IGG. Moo

It's a complete and uninformed misrepresentation to refer to the three samples in question as "suspects" Imo.

ETA: And the lab will also process dna samples from the scene for the purpose of elimination. It's another misrepresentation to state that the lab is limited to processing primary crime scene samples, whatever that means. It takes investigative work to establish the crime scene and in this case also the movements of the perp upon entry and exit and within the house (door knobs, lightswitches switches for eg). Many swabs were probably taken in the initial days. Moo



Moo

 

[NextSprint]

BBM The prosecution did not say they lacked results for the three samples. They said they had given everything they had that is discoverable to the defense. This was quite clear in the hearing (I have now watched all of it). The three unidentified dna samples were extracted in lab. However those three did not qualify for entry into CODIS,which is the first investigative step with dna samples that qualify as suspect. These samples did not qualify. Some information regarding the rules around qualification for CODIS entry are posted upthread. Moo

AS you would know from reading the DOJ guidelines on use of IGG, other methods of identifying a suspect but unidentified forensic sample must be conducted first before use of IGG. That includes uploading profiles to CODIS. As the three samples in question did not qualify for codis they most certainly did not qualify for IGG. Moo

It's a complete and uninformed misrepresentation to refer to the three samples in question as "suspects" Imo.



Moo

This is an honest question, not being facetious. Do you know why they'd run samples at the ISP lab but then not through CODIS? What would come out of the crime lab test that would then disqualify them for a CODIS check?

 

[katydid23]

Genealogical DNA evidence is like a reverse dragnet.

The FBI gets to go out into this massive pool of DNA held by private companies, and apparently override the opt-out that people select when providing their DNA.

This provides them with a massive dragnet that they can test non-CODIS-matching DNA against.

It's like taking the DNA of every person in America if there were a murder investigation. That wouldn't be constitutional, and it wouldn't sit well with the public. It is forbidden by the DOJ.

Genealogical databases without regulation have opened a massive can of worms... Regardless whether they've heralded "good" results up to now. I think the window is rapidly closing on how the FBI use them without any oversight or regulation.

Principles of Forensic DNA for Officers of the Court | DNA Dragnets

Learn more about the principles of forensic DNA, with an emphasis on collection of DNA Evidence from suspects and arrestees, specifically DNA dragnets.

nij.ojp.gov

I don't see how it's unconstitutional if the people submit their DNA willingly into a public database.

Do I feel bad for BK if his uncle submitted DNA online and years later BK got caught for mass murder because of it?

How is it any different from LE looking at local ring cameras or searching cctv or looking at flight passenger lists on certain airlines to find their suspect?

No one is asking for the DNA from every citizen in the country. That is hyperbole.

 

[katydid23]

This is an honest question, not being facetious. Do you know why they'd run samples at the ISP lab but then not through CODIS? What would come out of the crime lab test that would then disqualify them for a CODIS check?

Apparently, one can only submit DNA that is considered to be from an alleged suspect.

 

[maskedwoman]

Apparently, one can only submit DNA that is considered to be from an alleged suspect.

Which makes sense to me. Otherwise, thousands (if not millions) of law abiding citizens would end up with their DNA in CODIS.

 

[katydid23]

There isn't a knife though. As far as we know it was never found.

There was a knife at the crime scene because 4 people were stabbed with it. And so the knife sheath is a part of that missing knife.

 

[NextSprint]

I was able to find an Idaho reference to use of CODIS and what makes a sample “unqualified”. It can be one of:

- Sample matches a known partner of a victim (unlikely in this case as there was a long list of rule-out samples taken, and the deceased wouldn’t be able to say if a sample not on that list was in fact a partner for this purpose);

- Sample doesn’t mean quality standards, I.e not enough loci in the DNA;

- Sample was extracted by a lab that wasn’t accredited by the FBI.

Which one was the disqualified for the outstanding three male DNA samples found at the murder scene?

https://isp.idaho.gov/forensics/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/documents/archivedAMs/since//BiologyDNA/CODIS%20Methods%20rev1.pdf

 

[NextSprint]

Apparently, one can only submit DNA that is considered to be from an alleged suspect.

I’ve heard rumbles of that but reading the qualification criteria I can’t see it. I’d happily change my view if there’s a decent source as to this.

 

[maskedwoman]

I was able to find an Idaho reference to use of CODIS and what makes a sample “unqualified”. It can be one of:

- Sample matches a known partner of a victim (unlikely in this case as there was a long list of rule-out samples taken, and the deceased wouldn’t be able to say if a sample not on that list was in fact a partner for this purpose);

- Sample doesn’t mean quality standards, I.e not enough loci in the DNA;

- Sample was extracted by a lab that wasn’t accredited by the FBI.

Which one was the disqualified for the outstanding three male DNA samples found at the murder scene?

https://isp.idaho.gov/forensics/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/documents/archivedAMs/since//BiologyDNA/CODIS%20Methods%20rev1.pdf

I think the answer to your question is actually in section 1.1 and what I would take to be the 4th paragraph. It describes the sources for samples that are qualified to be uploaded, rather than what quality standards. It's the line that starts "DNA profiles". So, my guess is that those 3 samples didn't fall under any of the catagories mentioned there.

 

[schooling]

I’ve heard rumbles of that but reading the qualification criteria I can’t see it. I’d happily change my view if there’s a decent source as to this.

If you can't change your view...why are you asking then? Not being facetious. Serious question.

 

[10ofRods]

I've seen cases where the judge waits to see if an impartial jury can be assembled in the county where the crime was committed before agreeing to a change of venue. -- As in they go thru the process of attempting to select jurors. IMO

Looking at ID law (see below), it seems like a request could be made prior to that point? MOO

(a) Motion for Change of Venue. A judge may change venue only upon motion by any party.

(1) Discretionary. A judge may grant a change of venue or change the place of trial to another county as provided by statute or when it appears by affidavit or other satisfactory proof that:

(A) there is reason to believe that an impartial trial cannot be had in the county in which the action is filed, or
(B) the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change.

I.R.C.P. 40.1. Change of Venue | Supreme Court

isc.idaho.gov

I doubt the Defense will file a change of venue motion, at least not any time soon. Latah County is the most liberal county in Idaho, IMO, and has more people who are thoughtful about the death penalty. No one is going to be asked point blank, "Hey, are you pro-DP?" Instead, they'll likely be asked, "If instructed by the court to consider the death penalty, will you have an open mind and be willing to consider using the death penalty?"

And to that, someone like me would say "Yes, of course." And I would be. But my view on the threshold for that penalty might be different to other people's. I've thought about it a lot. I used to be very anti-DP, but now, if I were on a jury in a trial like this one, I'd listen intently to the views and concerns of others. If it was 11-1, I would definitely consider the points of view of the (large) majority. I would shift the burden from my own conscience to that of the jury as a whole (and if I lived to regret it, I think I could forgive myself).

The penalty phase of the trial would make a huge difference.

But moving this case to Boise may harm, not help, BK (I'm sure AT has the stats and studies on this). And no way can it be in CdA.

JMO.

 

[schooling]

I doubt the Defense will file a change of venue motion, at least not any time soon. Latah County is the most liberal county in Idaho, IMO, and has more people who are thoughtful about the death penalty. No one is going to be asked point blank, "Hey, are you pro-DP?" Instead, they'll likely be asked, "If instructed by the court to consider the death penalty, will you have an open mind and be willing to consider using the death penalty?"

And to that, someone like me would say "Yes, of course." And I would be. But my view on the threshold for that penalty might be different to other people's. I've thought about it a lot. I used to be very anti-DP, but now, if I were on a jury in a trial like this one, I'd listen intently to the views and concerns of others. If it was 11-1, I would definitely consider the points of view of the (large) majority. I would shift the burden from my own conscience to that of the jury as a whole (and if I lived to regret it, I think I could forgive myself).

The penalty phase of the trial would make a huge difference.

But moving this case to Boise may harm, not help, BK (I'm sure AT has the stats and studies on this). And no way can it be in CdA.

JMO.

Ya this is a national news story and one of the most fascinating cases in a time where True Crime interest is at an all time high. Anything less than moving the case to Mars isn't going to help. And choices are extremely limited in Idaho.

 

[10ofRods]

I was able to find an Idaho reference to use of CODIS and what makes a sample “unqualified”. It can be one of:

- Sample matches a known partner of a victim (unlikely in this case as there was a long list of rule-out samples taken, and the deceased wouldn’t be able to say if a sample not on that list was in fact a partner for this purpose);

- Sample doesn’t mean quality standards, I.e not enough loci in the DNA;

- Sample was extracted by a lab that wasn’t accredited by the FBI.

Which one was the disqualified for the outstanding three male DNA samples found at the murder scene?

https://isp.idaho.gov/forensics/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/documents/archivedAMs/since//BiologyDNA/CODIS%20Methods%20rev1.pdf

The rules aren't local - they are the FBI's rules and the documentation on it (which will take a while to read) are on their site. And then there's a vast secondary technical literature just for genetic lab types. The FBI has tons of citations on this. It took me a couple of months to make my first sweep of it - and I still have to use references, because it 1) changes frequently and 2) is very complex material.

Your list of disqualifications is partial (there are other categories besides the forensic use category).

They didn't submit those three others to CODIS, in my view. I thought you've been arguing that they should have (but under the rules, they can't submit unless the sample is from something...like an element of the crime...like a blood sample or semen...or knife sheath).

And, if you had numbered your list, your #2 would be a likely reason (and my guess). There's no way for me to explain why in this space - but not enough loci is a big reason (for CODIS - Othram is quite different). That's why you have to read the whole history of the loci (CODIS uses VERY few) and I've already posted a lot about this issue. So if the DNA samples were already known to have imperfect or imputed base pairs in the loci used by the FBI - it's a no go. It's my understanding that ISL was able (with technical finesse) to get a full profile off the sheath.

You can easily know a sample is male and not have a complete profile. Further, NONE of the FBI loci are on the Y chromosome, AFAIK. So the Y chromosome cannot be submitted by itself (I don't think the 23rd X is useful either - but not absolutely sure).

If anyone wants to wade through the FBI documents, that would be awesome.

IMO.

 

[NextSprint]

If you can't change your view...why are you asking then? Not being facetious. Serious question.

I said I’d happily change my view, I’m just being rigorous with what I read. If I find something that proves my understanding wrong I will change my view (which is a rational behaviour I feel!).

 

[NextSprint]

The rules aren't local - they are the FBI's rules and the documentation on it (which will take a while to read) are on their site. And then there's a vast secondary technical literature just for genetic lab types. The FBI has tons of citations on this. It took me a couple of months to make my first sweep of it - and I still have to use references, because it 1) changes frequently and 2) is very complex material.

Your list of disqualifications is partial (there are other categories besides the forensic use category).

They didn't submit those three others to CODIS, in my view. I thought you've been arguing that they should have (but under the rules, they can't submit unless the sample is from something...like an element of the crime...like a blood sample or semen...or knife sheath).

And, if you had numbered your list, your #2 would be a likely reason (and my guess). There's no way for me to explain why in this space - but not enough loci is a big reason (for CODIS - Othram is quite different). That's why you have to read the whole history of the loci (CODIS uses VERY few) and I've already posted a lot about this issue. So if the DNA samples were already known to have imperfect or imputed base pairs in the loci used by the FBI - it's a no go. It's my understanding that ISL was able (with technical finesse) to get a full profile off the sheath.

You can easily know a sample is male and not have a complete profile. Further, NONE of the FBI loci are on the Y chromosome, AFAIK. So the Y chromosome cannot be submitted by itself (I don't think the 23rd X is useful either - but not absolutely sure).

If anyone wants to wade through the FBI documents, that would be awesome.

IMO.

I agree with you that it’s likely number 2. Even if we might disagree in substance I’m very happy to agree with you on that, and I appreciate the rigorous conversation

 

[Balthazar]

I disagree. You are basically saying YES, BK is guilty and that was his DNA he left behind when he viciously stabbed 4 innocent students to death. But it violates his right to privacy for the detectives to identify him using a public database---so we should let him go free to do whatever he desires...

That makes no sense and greatly endangers all of us. If you leave DNA behind on the knife sheath after a mass killing, you should expect LE to do whatever they can to identify that DNA. If your great uncle submitted his DNA to a public database to work on the family tree, so be it.

Nonsense. We don't know if BK is innocent or guilty yet because we have not seen any discovery.

The Defense has the right to know how BK was identified as a suspect. That information about his DNA testing must be given to the Defense. But IF there was anything done illegally in identifying BK, then light must be shed upon it, people must be fired and held legally accountable for their actions.

There should be plenty of other evidence to tell us if BK is guilty or not.

 

[U.N. Known]

During Friday's proceedings, CourtTV put up a graphic that BK followed three of the victims on Instagram. I know that initially, there was not a Meta warrant for BK, but I no longer remember if that changed.

Where can I find links to all of the warrants? I thought they were on the ID Court site, but I did not see them.
TIA