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

maconrich · Aug 20, 2023

4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered - Bryan Kohberger Arrested - Moscow # 74

This is LONG, so please delete if necessary. For every doc in today's doc dump, I added context for quick reference about what the doc covers. I filled in a ton of info that was missing in my initial list but I'm unable to edit my OG post or the one I made in the media thread. Can't delete...

www.websleuths.com

maconrich · Aug 20, 2023

NextSprint said:
Very odd that the PDF file itself has just been removed from the web server hosting it.

Got it from google - it's the one for Maddie's facebook

PDFfiller

www.pdffiller.com

or here (using the Idaho Cases link)

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/030723+Order+to+Seal++Redact+-+Meta+Platforms+Inc+1.pdf

DFWNF · Aug 20, 2023

Sozo said:
It's obvious from these warrants he didn't have a facebook account nor an instagram one.
It is probably just one of the many unsubstantiated lies/rumors in this case.

Thanks, the comments everywhere online that BK was following the victims that seemed to me to be a rumor I was hoping to have clarified with a link. I have not seen any proof. Thanks again.

Balthazar · Aug 20, 2023

katydid23 said:
We have seen some damning evidence which explains clearly why he is going to trial.

I am the type of person who examines a crime from all sides. In this case, I would love to see some damning evidencebut have not seen any thus far. Because, frankly, the PCA has fatal flaws and is full of assumptions that don't make sense.

I'm hoping the prosecution has some evidence to tie BK to these murders, but so far, we know of literally nothing except this DNA which was identified under mysterious circumstances which the prosecution refuses to explain and provide documentation for to the defense. Because of this, I don't know if BK is guilty or not so I'm waiting for trial, hoping that there will be evidence that proves BK did this. Because if there is not, the murderer or murderers is/are still out there.

katydid23 said:
And they have been told how he was identified. They used a very commonly used method to identify his DNA by finding his relatives and tracking him from there. The Golden State Killer was famously caught in the same fashion.

The defense should be able to replicate the testing that was done to identify BK by DNA, but the prosecution is refusing to give that information to the defense. To me this is a straight forward process and there should be no reason not to give this to the defense. Why are the prosecutors trying to hide how it was done? It makes no sense. If something unlawful happened, that needs to be brought into the light, investigated and the correct persons be fired and tried for whatever they may have done that is unlawful. If, as you claim, there is damning evidence, then it won't matter if the DNA evidence is ruled out.

katydid23 said:
State Genetic Privacy Statutes: Good Intentions, Unintended Consequences? - Bill of Health

Investigative genetic genealogy is a new and complex law enforcement technique that should not be regulated by accident or as an afterthought.

blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu

Known as investigative genetic genealogy (IGG), this technique was used in 2018 to identify the Golden State Killer, whose crime spree terrorized California residents for decades. IGG has since helped close over 800 cases around the country—and counting. Many of these cases had long gone cold and could not be solved in any other way.

In addition to solving violent crimes, IGG has helped to exonerate at least two individuals who were convicted of crimes they did not commit. It also has provided closure to those with missing loved ones whose remains could not, until now, be identified.

According to the state, that relevant info has been handed over already.

The prosecution have not given the defense documentation of the exact process that was used or when it was done. This throws everything about what was done into question. The way BK was identified should be something that can be replicated, yet the prosecution is attempting to deny the defense the opportunity to be able to do that. Why?

katydid23 said:
Why is the defense team assuming as much and accusing the FBI of doing anything illegal? It seems to be quite a leap they are taking.

I didn't see them accuse anyone of anything. They are asking a very appropriate question. If there is nothing wrong with how BK was identified, why hide how he was identified? The prosecutor seems to think his evidence is above being questioned, but it is not and should not be.

katydid23 said:
What is the big issue with IGG? People willingly submit their DNA.

The defense has to determine that BK's rights were not violated. They also have to determine that this identification was made in a lawful manner. They also have to determine the the right person was identified based on the evidence the prosecutor is supposed to give them as to how BK was identified. That the prosecutor is refusing to share with the defense how this was done looks very questionable. If this is not handled now, this becomes a matter for appeal should BK be convicted and that costs a huge amount of taxpayer money. This issue must be settled now. The defense is supposed to get this information and the prosecutor is withholding it. That's what the big issue is.

wendy44 · Aug 20, 2023

Megnut said:
Stepping way outside my lane... admittedly I know nothing about these genealogy sites but I was thinking

Let's say 3 people independently and voluntarily submit their DNA to a site. And they happen to be related.

Relative A and C opt in. Relative B opts out.

The site does its magic, generates the family tree, provides this info to the 3 people....

Along comes LE with a 4th DNA and it's a match to this family thread, because of the connections made by A and C. B is bridged.

So there's linkage established without technically breaching B's opt out. Or in. Or out. In, out. I can't recall which is which but I think my concept stands. Especially when you multiply the number of submissions. Patterns emerge without violating the privacy of those who sought it.

In fact, it could show up as blocked but still be grayed as a placeholder.

And if I've completely misunderstood the process, I'll see myself out.

Jmo

So yes, if A, B and C share dna and A and C give law enforcement access to their dna, law enforcement essentially has access to B's dna. Which should only be an issue if law enforcement is trying to gain access specifically to B's dna. Through matches they have it without B's permission. Granted, that's a big issue, especially for B, and why we know this is bound to be playing out in court at some point.

With IGG, it shouldn't be an issue as long as law enforcement follows terms of service. They would generate a list of matches to their unknown dna and that list would not include B or involve B. GEDmatch doesn't generate trees, this is done manually. The genealogist would take the list of matches and sort them into paternal/Smiths and maternal/Joneses matches to the unknown dna. The Smiths and Joneses are related to the unknown, but not to each other. Working those matches backwards, they would find the point where the Smiths and Jones connect--where a Smith married a Jones. Now you've got your unknown's direct ancestors. You then start working forward to fill out all of their descendants. Like a jigsaw puzzle, you can use the percentage of shared dna to figure out about where your unknown is going to fit. Then you look at all those family members with good potential and start figuring out the best possibilities. With BK having no known brothers and the majority of his family on the east coast, it would not have taken long to zero in on him, especially when they discovered he lived in Pullman and drove a white Elantra.

Somewhere in that tree that was built manually, you'd likely see B, but not because you had B's dna. You work backwards to the common ancestors and forwards to the potential unknown using publicly available records, obituaries and social media.

10ofRods · Aug 20, 2023

schooling said:
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.

Exactly. It's in the best place (from Kohberger's view) in all respects. AT knows this.

Of course, she can use that card further down the line. Probably has a timeline of best usage of motions (I have a little one, but a trial attorney would probably have one entire assistant updating the timeline).

But she knows not to ask for things that would harm him (unless she's going for the Ultimate Appeal of Incompetent Council, which tanks her career forever - so, yeah, she's not doing that).

IMO.

maconrich said:
Idaho Judicial Cases of Interest

Edited to add: I don't remember seeing anything that confirms BK followed any of the victims on social media, so I'm at a loss with that part.

MSM.

I believe these sources are on the media thread; open to correction.

Accused killer Bryan Kohberger had photos of Idaho victim on his phone: source

Bryan Kohberger was arrested on Dec. 30.

nypost.com

Bryan Kohberger had photos of one victim on his phone: Report

“He had more than one picture of her,” a source told People. “It was clear that he was paying attention to her.”

www.newsnationnow.com

Bryan Kohberger had pictures of one of the victims on his cell phone and was clearly 'paying attention to her,' a source told People

"He had more than one picture of her," a source told People in a report published on Wednesday. "It was clear that he was paying attention to her."

www.insider.com

The first two are approved sources here. The third is also approved, but I'm not completely certain.

And these regular sources from regional outlets are, I hope, approved sources:

Report: Idaho murder suspect Bryan Kohberger DM'd victim on Instagram weeks before slaying

It's not clear which student he specifically reached out to, but his account did follow all three female victims on Instagram.

missoulian.com

I think there are others - and some papers are simply repeating what other papers have said.

IMO. I believe these to be approved sources here - for sure, some of them are.

wendy44 · Aug 20, 2023

Balthazar said:
The defense should be able to replicate the testing that was done to identify BK by DNA, but the prosecution is refusing to give that information to the defense. To me this is a straight forward process and there should be no reason not to give this to the defense. Why are the prosecutors trying to hide how it was done? It makes no sense. If something unlawful happened, that needs to be brought into the light, investigated and the correct persons be fired and tried for whatever they may have done that is unlawful. If, as you claim, there is damning evidence, then it won't matter if the DNA evidence is ruled out.

The prosecution have not given the defense documentation of the exact process that was used or when it was done. This throws everything about what was done into question. The way BK was identified should be something that can be replicated, yet the prosecution is attempting to deny the defense the opportunity to be able to do that. Why?

The defense likely has his dna profile--I can't imagine they didn't do their own testing--and can replicate the IGG any time they want. Anyone with any amount of experience doing genealogy can replicate it. The experts they put on the stand Friday could replicate it.

There's no evidence there was anything unlawful. The only testimony was that the experts have heard of times that genealogists used a loophole to access additional matches. The defense is sniffing around trying to find out if there was a terms of service violation as a hail mary to get the dna thrown out. They're doing their jobs and I don't blame them. I hope this serves as a warning for future IGG use in law enforcement--the process needs to be according to TOS. But at the end of the day, it doesn't change the fact that it's his dna. There's nothing in the IGG process that calls that into question.

maconrich · Aug 20, 2023

These are the statements that truly disturbed me from the hearing. First of all, the crime was committed in Idaho, and the FBI was assisting with the investigation, so IMO the FBI needs to hand over the information to the state and defense. Thompson said the FBI has it.

And, IMO, it does matter if the FBI violated the terms of service - both the state and defense need that information before the trial starts. I was stunned to hear that the state doesn't care either way.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1692664203906343070

and

https://twitter.com/x/status/1692667043835961594

jepop · Aug 21, 2023

wendy44 said:
The defense likely has his dna profile--I can't imagine they didn't do their own testing--and can replicate the IGG any time they want. Anyone with any amount of experience doing genealogy can replicate it. The experts they put on the stand Friday could replicate it.

There's no evidence there was anything unlawful. The only testimony was that the experts have heard of times that genealogists used a loophole to access additional matches. The defense is sniffing around trying to find out if there was a terms of service violation as a hail mary to get the dna thrown out. They're doing their jobs and I don't blame them. I hope this serves as a warning for future IGG use in law enforcement--the process needs to be according to TOS. But at the end of the day, it doesn't change the fact that it's his dna. There's nothing in the IGG process that calls that into question.

RBBM:

Interesting point, why couldn't the D replicate the IGG procedure/search if they want.

The defense has all tests and reports generated from the extraction of sheath button dna; the dna forensic sample extracted; the str profile developed by ISL, put into codis and subsequently matched first against dad's trash dna and then BK's own dna collected via Buccal swab. So, surely they have all info re BK's own dna profile.Moo

According to argument in Friday's hearing and the State's related briefs, the defense is also entitled to and has/will recieve the report on the scientific test/s done to generate the snp profile which was used initially by the private lab that generated it (from the same dna forensic sample extracted from the sheath) and then subsequently by fbi when they took over the IGG process. Moo

Technically there's no reason why they couldn't replicate an IGG search using the snp profile perhaps with the permission of their client. Moo

Sundog · Aug 21, 2023

maconrich said:
These are the statements that truly disturbed me from the hearing. First of all, the crime was committed in Idaho, and the FBI was assisting with the investigation, so IMO the FBI needs to hand over the information to the state and defense. Thompson said the FBI has it.

And, IMO, it does matter if the FBI violated the terms of service - both the state and defense need that information before the trial starts. I was stunned to hear that the state doesn't care either way.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1692664203906343070

and

https://twitter.com/x/status/1692667043835961594

Not directed at you, @macronrich, just bouncing my thoughts off of your post.

So if the prosecution is saying that they don't have the information but the FBI has it, and if they have asked the FBI already to provide them with the information to no avail, and if the judge is, again, asking them to check with the FBI to see if they have it, then instead of going around in circles for the second or third time, can't the FBI be ordered to turn over the information? Can the judge order this information be turned over to the state, or does the defense have to wait until the trial when the FBI is subpoenaed to take the stand and provide this information? It seems that the court is going around and round in a circle here.

jepop · Aug 21, 2023

NextSprint said:
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?

There's some good general info posted up-thread by @Boxer. A small discussion was underway earlier. The particular details in this case are not public information at this point Imo. I'd take a guess that it will be raised at trial, probably by the P, during evidence related to dna analysis. Moo

mcmaffy · Aug 21, 2023

Sundog said:
Not directed at you, @macronrich, just bouncing my thoughts off of your post.

So if the prosecution is saying that they don't have the information but the FBI has it, and if they have asked the FBI already to provide them with the information to no avail, and if the judge is, again, asking them to check with the FBI to see if they have it, then instead of going around in circles for the second or third time, can't the FBI be ordered to turn over the information? Can the judge order this information be turned over to the state, or does the defense have to wait until the trial when the FBI is subpoenaed to take the stand and provide this information? It seems that the court is going around and round in a circle here.

If the FBI don't have documents & records because they deleted them all once the process was completed then yes the only way to get this evidence is to put relevant FBI people on the stand under oath.

I found it odd that although IGG seems to have played a crucial role in the investigation which lead to BK's identification, there's no mention of it at all in the PCA. That may be perfectly legitimate but it does seem misleading?<modsnip: discussing info without approved source link>

jepop · Aug 21, 2023

Just a general comment on conflating IGG as investigative tool to find a lead, with information re dna testing.

Info regarding scientific tests is discoverable and Imo it's clear that BK's defense has access to all tests conducted on the dna extracted from the sheath button - both str analysis that was loaded to codis and later used to identify the dna on the sheath button as BK's (paternal match then buccal swab of Defendent), and the test conducted (by private lab) on the forensic sample extracted from the sheath button (the same dna) that resulted in the snp profile (used subsequently in the IGG).

No question - all that material has been made available to the Defense Imo.
The filings listed on COI page regarding Motion for Protective Order confirm this, in addition to Mr Nye's argument presented in Court on Friday last Imo. Repetitive but again downloading motion for protective order

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/061623+States+Motion+for+Protective+Order.pdf

IGG used as an investigatory tool simply uses the snp profile developed from the forensic sample by uploading to IGG services and building a family tree. Imo it's important to be clear on that distinction from the get go.

MOO the D should investigate the dna tests etc that lead to the forensiuc sample on the sheath being identified as BK's. They should be looking for flaws with any of that testing. Perhaps they are. Or perhaps they have and have found nothing amiss. We don't know. So far the D hasn't made any filings disputing the scientific tests conducted on the dna extracted from the sheath in this case AFAIA.

Imo the Judge now has to decide whether the IGG information falls within what is discoverable under ICR 16.

I hope the Judge rules on the IGG by holding an in camera hearing as proposed by the State. This will allow the State to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Court and the defense that the IGG information contains no exculpatory information and is not relevant to the question of defendants guilt. Moo

Sozo · Aug 21, 2023

The prosecution doesn't want to give informations about what Othram did also not just what the FBI did once it got its hands on the SNP profile. And there are still missing emails about the STR profile/testing between the ISP lab, LE and the FBI.
They still didn't tell the defense explicitely when how and which lab did the SNP profile, including the chain of custody information. As Elisa Massoth said at the hearing they don't even know the sequence of the events in the investigation, they don't know how the prosecution got to naming Bryan as the suspect because they don't have all the information out there.
After 8 month and they still don't know these things, which is crazy. They shouldn't have to guess what when happened from newspaper articles. The defense stated in one of their filing they feel as though some journalist know more about the IGG and the SNP than they do. From the defense's third motion to compel:
The NY Times sources have more information than the State has disclosed to the Defense.
What's their excuse for that?

NextSprint · Aug 21, 2023

maconrich said:
Got it from google - it's the one for Maddie's facebook

PDFfiller

www.pdffiller.com

or here (using the Idaho Cases link)

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/030723+Order+to+Seal++Redact+-+Meta+Platforms+Inc+1.pdf

Well done! I admit my sleuthing skills had slowed to a trickle at 2am this morning when I was trying to find that

NextSprint · Aug 21, 2023

DFWNF said:
Thanks, the comments everywhere online that BK was following the victims that seemed to me to be a rumor I was hoping to have clarified with a link. I have not seen any proof. Thanks again.

It's weird right, because that Facebook account that was attributed to him has a profile picture that looks like him. I remember a LOT of energy at the time focussing on those accounts that could be his.

Boxer · Aug 21, 2023

Sozo said:
The prosecution doesn't want to give informations about what Othram did also not just what the FBI did once it got its hands on the SNP profile. And there are still missing emails about the STR profile/testing between the ISP lab, LE and the FBI.
They still didn't tell the defense explicitely when how and which lab did the SNP profile, including the chain of custody information. As Elisa Massoth said at the hearing they don't even know the sequence of the events in the investigation, they don't know how the prosecution got to naming Bryan as the suspect because they don't have all the information out there.
After 8 month and they still don't know these things, which is crazy. They shouldn't have to guess what when happened from newspaper articles. The defense stated in one of their filing they feel as though some journalist know more about the IGG and the SNP than they do. From the defense's third motion to compel:
The NY Times sources have more information than the State has disclosed to the Defense.
What's their excuse for that?

Defense posturing.
They will say or do anything about process to get that DNA suppressed because the sheath DNA is indisputably BKs.

Jepop above explains.
Orthram Lab is great, has as solved many cases.

So far BKs defense is an attempt at "you can't catch me like that."

maconrich · Aug 21, 2023

NextSprint said:
Well done! I admit my sleuthing skills had slowed to a trickle at 2am this morning when I was trying to find that

Thanks

They seem to have changed the links to the documents. None of the ones from the nicely organized list that Isabella made work either. She did put things in order though, so her list is still helpful, but now have to go to the Idaho page to find the correct link(s) to the docs. Strange thing for them to do considering how many people are following this case, but I guess they had their reasons.

girlhasnoname · Aug 21, 2023

I will be forever grateful when the State is able to rebut the Defense 'experts' on IGG/DNA. That will be a hearing coming up soon, Sept 1st IIRC? They obtained a legal, legitimate sample of BK's DNA at the scene he left on the knife sheath.

The State already had BK in their sights when the IGG was being performed by Othram/FBI by his car being identified by WSU patrol officer who noticed in the parking lot of his apartments. They ran a query on the tag (also no front plate as noted in the video surveillance), pulled up his picture which matched the description by DM. Noticed a previous stop in the area of the home where the murders were committed, etc.

The IGG was not necessary to secure an arrest as evidenced by the PCA. They could have followed BK and gotten his DNA surreptitiously, but they were running out of time, not knowing what he might do (possibly committing another murder or destroying evidence, which we know he did) and fearing he might flee the area, which he did. I personally don't think BK ever intended to return to WSU.

ALL MOO

NyxNY · Aug 21, 2023

iamshadow21 said:
So their approach is 'all the LE who worked on this are corrupt or incompetent', between that and the digging into the background of the officers...

Also a bit of narcissism from the defendant creeping in there, I think. 'There's no way they could have identified me from what was in the PCA, therefore, they must have cheated.'

MOO

Unfortunately it worked for OJ

Now I'm just waiting for what key phrase the D will come up with to replace "if the glove don't fit..."

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

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Verified Anthropologist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Mother of Dragons

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics