4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #88

[Odeto BJ]

Edited because I don't have a MSM source to cite, in my description of the origins of the insane Qanon like conspiracy theories emanating from this case.

I can say though the fraternity conspiracy (cited below) emanated from the chans and spread to facebook groups and youtube. Once the PCA was released and the fraternity theory was was proven to be flat out WRONG the same groups moved onto another anonymous source and the latest "BK WAS FRAMED!" theory

The eerie online world of the Idaho murders case

Even now Bryan Kohberger is in police custody, the online rumour mill shows no signs of winding down

www.independent.co.uk

Linking to more of the nonsense. The first few paragraphs should be of particular interest to anyone who's wondering where a lot of the leading seemingly innocuous questions come from

https://www.washingtonpost.com/crime-law/interactive/2023/idaho-student-killings-true-crime/

Well put, schooling.
The WaPo article is dated January 23 and while the overall context hasn't changed, they certainly could find a longer list of transgressions today should they choose to update it.
While this thread is discussing legal issues, subtleties and implications while deriving something resembling fresh information on the case and the suspect from the legal documents and processes, SM exchanges are still being driven by conspiracy theorists and trolls. Of course that is not the only areas of contrast: there is a comprehensive civility to most of the exchanges on WS. FB and similar have plenty of theories being espoused and they can generate only a few minutes of exchange before one participant starts insulting another.

One more kudo to WS and all those restraints formalized under the TOS.

MOO of course

 

[NextSprint]

Well put, schooling.
The WaPo article is dated January 23 and while the overall context hasn't changed, they certainly could find a longer list of transgressions today should they choose to update it.
While this thread is discussing legal issues, subtleties and implications while deriving something resembling fresh information on the case and the suspect from the legal documents and processes, SM exchanges are still being driven by conspiracy theorists and trolls. Of course that is not the only areas of contrast: there is a comprehensive civility to most of the exchanges on WS. FB and similar have plenty of theories being espoused and they can generate only a few minutes of exchange before one participant starts insulting another.

One more kudo to WS and all those restraints formalized under the TOS.

MOO of course

True!

 

[m00c0w]

One of those new documents today, "NOTICE OF INTENT NOT TO CROSS-EXAMINE DEFENSE WITNESSES, DISTRICT COURT DECISION, AND RECORDS TO EXPLAIN WITNESS CONTACT" (https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/...of-Intent-Not-to-Cross-Exam-Def-Witnesses.pdf), the prosecutor is citing a similar ruling recently in another Idaho District Court (not as an appellate authority but I suppose to demonstrate to Judge Judge what other judges have been ruling).

The citation is a case where a defendant is similarly trying to challenge the legality of how IGG led to him becoming a suspect.

In that cited ruling, that judge ruled that the state won't be compelled to make discoverable "the databases themselves that the state doesn't even possess." Fair enough. It's clear in that case - as in this case - that the FBI are the ones possessing that information.

The judge also says "Still, Mr. Dalrymple and his attorneys have a right to know how it was that things were narrowed down to him because it may be that they can use that information to prepare a defense."

There's a bit of a problem here where the FBI is providing the evidence for prosecution but isn't a party to the prosecution, and then the state not having to to turn over important information because it's in the hands of the FBI. Is there not?

The FBI isn't providing evidence, though, are they? They're simplying saying "look in this direction and see where the evidence takes you". It's not as if they're subpoenaing information that is used to swear out warrants and refusing to provide the information, nor are they doing anything remotely similar. They conducted research and analysis and provided a lead. Moscow took the lead and realized they had already encountered the guy and followed up on it. The evidence they had fit him being the guy, and lo and behold they were correct based on a rock solid DNA match. IGG is an investigative technique, not a scientific process used in affidavits or other legal process. Challenging it is ultimately desperate grasping for straws, and I'm not sure such a challenge will be successful anytime soon based on how IGG is currently being used.

JMO

 

[NextSprint]

The FBI isn't providing evidence, though, are they? They're simplying saying "look in this direction and see where the evidence takes you". It's not as if they're subpoenaing information that is used to swear out warrants and refusing to provide the information, nor are they doing anything remotely similar. They conducted research and analysis and provided a lead. Moscow took the lead and realized they had already encountered the guy and followed up on it. The evidence they had fit him being the guy, and lo and behold they were correct based on a rock solid DNA match. IGG is an investigative technique, not a scientific process used in affidavits or other legal process. Challenging it is ultimately desperate grasping for straws, and I'm not sure such a challenge will be successful anytime soon based on how IGG is currently being used.

JMO

-How the state gets evidence- is just as important as -The evidence itself-, that's the Constitution and the principle protects everyone.

The Kohberger case isn't the first or last where someone is going to vehemently push against the legality (or possible illegality) of obtaining leads that turn to convictions based on an unregulated methodology used by an agency that never has to answer in court. IMO.

They would never have asked BK for a swab had they not followed the FBI's questionable product-of-work from the questionable IGG methods, and it is a fair line for a defense to take, as shown in plenty of other cases (including the very case that Latah County just cited in their filing today, in a nearby Idaho county, which I quoted up-thread).

All JMO.

 

[m00c0w]

-How the state gets evidence- is just as important as -The evidence itself-, that's the Constitution and the principle protects everyone.

The Kohberger case isn't the first or last where someone is going to vehemently push against the legality (or possible illegality) of obtaining leads that turn to convictions based on an unregulated methodology used by an agency that never has to answer in court. IMO.

They would never have asked BK for a swab had they not followed the FBI's questionable product-of-work from the questionable IGG methods, and it is a fair line for a defense to take, as shown in plenty of other cases (including the very case that Latah County just cited in their filing today, in a nearby Idaho county, which I quoted up-thread).

All JMO.

The state did not obtain evidence based on IGG. That's the whole thing. The state went out and developed their own probable cause to obtain evidence. It is clear from the timeframes that BK was already present in the investigation. IGG redirected Moscow back to him for a closer look. The evidence they already had, fit. They used this evidence to get more evidence. They used that evidence to get the smoking gun piece of evidence, a rock solid DNA match. The FBI did not provide anything via IGG beyond "look at this guy again".

JMO

 

[Odeto BJ]

An opinion only: collected DNA is indicative of the presence of a person at some point in time. Prior to the late 80's fingerprints were the accepted gold standard as indicator but they were not intriguing any longer once DNA was first applied in forensics. However: fingerprints are exclusive to a person and have nothing to do with his relatives or "natural" ancestry. DNA as evidence has evolved since to include identity via a database that is inclusive rather than binary. Further: as courtroom evidence in the near past, fingerprints had to be analyzed and the results both assembled as report and presented by a certified expert, in a highly visible fashion with a limited number of comparison points required for confirmation. DNA is not visible, involves detailed break down of a huge count of SNP's, requires considerable data to be recorded, and all the expertise has been developed comparatively recently without benefit of a certifying board, etc. A "match" is not visible, its the data on the chain that is being matched element by element and the outcome is a statistical read of the possibility of the select portions of the chain being the same for more than one person.
All that aside: its the genetic characterization properties of DNA that support it being used to identify a family tree and thus a limited range of people who could carry a given chain. That only becomes useful to LE if there is a significant database of DNA sequences; and records that indicate the relationships between people. Those relationship records are largely public information. Its the DNA database that makes IGG work and all the relatives that are identified in the IGG process are incidental to the investigation.

That does not make it any less intrusive....and MOO: the FBI should probably not be castigated for trying to develop some control over the process i.e. the rules on submittals for CODIS comparison. Of course that has legal implications, particularly constitutionally. It appears they need to develop some method of notating IGG and its followup that can be offered as evidence and supported by testimony and not reveal the identity of all those relatives. I have to think that we are better served having something like the FBI involved in that development and procedure and near term, in certification, than something like Ancestry or 23 and Me. Of course that effort will be politicized because of our collective fascination with all things criminal and where the media finds any topic that draws attention, the politicians are close behind.

I think the FBI is playing cozy with their capabilities and highly aware of the constitutional issue and probably have much more vigorous methodology under development than those of the current state of IGG. Near term, any of the deliverables intended as evidence for particular trial will be minimal and all development records and intermediate products will be destroyed. It may not fulfill the needs of a defense attorney but with a crime like this one, the bell is long since rung and the trial is not going to disappear behind the media's typically short attention span. Denying that GG played a role is just not going to cut it and any drilling into its role is inevitably going to be more invasive on the parties that require the protection of laws and procedures.

An interesting dichotomy. MOO and FWIW

 

[jepop]

Random defense lawyer on YT said on the sheath. It's an error and YT not allowed.

Thank you. Now making more sense. Spreads like wild fire.

 

[jepop]

If I had to guess, I’d speculate that BK was on the radar but put to the side initially because of the discrepancy between model years on the Elantra. In my experience, investigators may come across someone that causes a head tilt, but there’s a piece of exclusionary data that causes them to be disregarded. However, that person isn’t totally disregarded - they’re just put to the side because they own a very similar car and match the physical description, for instance. If his name comes up again in something, it then warrants going back and taking a second look as to why they were initially put to the side.

JMO

RBBM: That makes sense. Imo BK became not a suspect but a low level POI on 29th November when he and his vehicle were first identified. One thing that's easy to forget is that LE pulled surveilance footage from various business and street cameras in Pullman for the early am hours of Nov 13th. Analysis of that footage showed a 2014-2016 white hyundai elantra on the move in Pullman at approx 2.45 am and returning to Pullman from approx 5.25am. In the later footage the elantra was captured heading up a main road (NE Stadium Drive) in the direction of BK's residence (all per PCA).

When was this footage gathered and analysed? My speculation is before the fbi tip, which according to Mike Baker in the NYT, occurred around Dec 20th. Collecting surveilance footage was a priority in this case Imo. Stuff gets wiped or recorded over. After Nov 29th,but Imo, very likely even before this, footage was being gathered from more than just the local neighbourhood in Moscow. BK became a POI from late Nov imo. Maybe he was one of many with white elantra sedans in Pullman (and Moscow) LE were attempting to eliminate. Looking for white elantras on the move in the critical hours before and after the crime was surely a priority at this stage.Moo. The immediate usual suspects (ex partners, others in inner circle and outer circle) would have been looked into by this time and LE would have been casting a much wider net. I think the multitude of warrants redacted in the court filings support this theory. For eg, by early Dec LE were casting their net digitally to Tinder contacts from some of the victims' accounts. The investigation was well resourced. We all know that. While the fbi did their stuff with the IGG the rest of those police were not just waiting around. They were following leads and angles generated from tips, the car footage and the warrants. All Moo.

 

[schooling]

I'm bored and playing around with some Python to do some data analysis. I'm taking the known variables of BKs trip and things like gas mileage of his vehicle, distance, etc to get a sense of that trip. (again, bored).

Does anyone know if the time him and his dad departed has ever been reported? Or the time his dad flew in? I believe both of those things happened on 12/12.

We know that they were caught on a camera in Loma Colorado the following day on 12/13. Is there a reported time attached to that?

The first date and time stamp is indiana. is there any information about activities in PA? besides the note in the PCA about albrightsville around 2pm?

Also, besides the comfort inn keys. Is there reporting on if him and his dad actually stayed there? or where and when they stopped and stayed places? there are a lot of hours unaccounted for and im trying to figure some of that out by deducing from our known variables.

thanks!

 

[Boxer]

RBBM: That makes sense. Imo BK became not a suspect but a low level POI on 29th November when he and his vehicle were first identified. One thing that's easy to forget is that LE pulled surveilance footage from various business and street cameras in Pullman for the early am hours of Nov 13th. Analysis of that footage showed a 2014-2016 white hyundai elantra on the move in Pullman at approx 2.45 am and returning to Pullman from approx 5.25am. In the later footage the elantra was captured heading up a main road (NE Stadium Drive) in the direction of BK's residence (all per PCA).

When was this footage gathered and analysed? My speculation is before the fbi tip, which according to Mike Baker in the NYT, occurred around Dec 20th. Collecting surveilance footage was a priority in this case Imo. Stuff gets wiped or recorded over. After Nov 29th,but Imo, very likely even before this, footage was being gathered from more than just the local neighbourhood in Moscow. BK became a POI from late Nov imo. Maybe he was one of many with white elantra sedans in Pullman (and Moscow) LE were attempting to eliminate. Looking for white elantras on the move in the critical hours before and after the crime was surely a priority at this stage.Moo. The immediate usual suspects (ex partners, others in inner circle and outer circle) would have been looked into by this time and LE would have been casting a much wider net. I think the multitude of warrants redacted in the court filings support this theory. For eg, by early Dec LE were casting their net digitally to Tinder contacts from some of the victims' accounts. The investigation was well resourced. We all know that. While the fbi did their stuff with the IGG the rest of those police were not just waiting around. They were following leads and angles generated from tips, the car footage and the warrants. All Moo.

And add the phone pings to the footage. It's the phone number from his Moscow traffic stop + cameras that snapped him into focus.

 

[jepop]

And add the phone pings to the footage. It's the phone number from his Moscow traffic stop + cameras that snapped him into focus.

Yes, totally. Only refrained from adding those because LE got those warrants on 23rd Dec. The footage came first and then the info from AT&T showed without doubt (Imo) that the Pullman Elantra was infact BK's. Moo

 

[katydid23]

Idaho Supreme Court overturns Ellington murder conviction

BOISE — State Supreme Court justices have thrown out the second-degree murder conviction of a North Idaho man, citing prosecutorial misconduct and the likelihood that an Idaho State Police officer committed perjury during the 2006 trial. Jonathan Wade Ellington of Hayden was sentenced to 25...

www.spokesman.com

This is an MSM news account of the Idaho Supreme Court overturning the trial results of a well-known case in Idaho with representation by AT. Idaho Supreme Court vacated the guilty verdict of the trial and ordered a new trial. State Supreme Court judges agreed that there was false testimony provided by LE expert witness and also prosecutorial misconduct.

Edited to add part of the Justices' ruling -

In the 32-page ruling, the justices wrote the Kootenai County prosecutor engaged in misconduct during the trial, in part by engaging in improper questioning meant to turn the jury against Ellington. They also concluded that a veteran Idaho State Police officer, Cpl. Fred Rice, a witness for the prosecution, gave testimony that conflicted with statements on accident reconstruction he’d made in previous court cases and contradicted training materials he had personally prepared. “It is impossible to believe there was any truth to the testimony of Cpl. Rice,” wrote Justice Warren Jones. “It is abhorrent to this court, as it would be to any other court, that a man can be sentenced to twenty-five years for second-degree murder based primarily on the false testimony of a trooper of this state.” Jones wrote that a 1st District Court judge in Kootenai County erred in May 2007 when he refused to give Ellington a new trial, despite being presented with evidence of these problems with the prosecution’s case.

Yes, and then he was retried on the same charges and found Guilty, once again:



A jury in January found he deliberately ran over and killed 41-year-old Vonette Larsen with his Chevrolet Blazer and rammed a car occupied by two of her daughters on New Year’s Day 2006.

Evidence at his trial showed he got tangled up in a road-rage incident with Larsen’s daughters, Joleen and Jovon

The Idaho Supreme Court overturned an initial conviction and allowed a new jury trial, citing perjury by a prosecution witness and prosecutorial misconduct. The previous trial was in 2006.

Ellington sentenced in road-rage case

COEUR d’ALENE — Jonathan W. Ellington might be spending only two more years in prison.

cdapress.com

So if the judge thinks some evidence set forth in the Grand Jury was misleading, the prosecution will likely be given another chance for an indictment. It does not necessarily mean he walks free forever, IMO.

 

[katydid23]

What they "think" doesn't matter. The FBI's work is NOT above being questioned. All that matters is that they have the paper trail to prove their evidence is correct and it appears they don't. Not a good look.

How was their evidence incorrect? It seems clear to me that the unknown DNA was identified correctly as belonging to BK's father. They came to the correct conclusion, so why is it 'not a good look'?

 

[katydid23]

OK, sounds like we are in agreement that there was also unknown DNA on the sheath. Thanks for your reply.

Editing to add— DNA that may not have been disclosed by the prosecutor?! ( not implying any misconduct, it’s all just part of the jousting that goes on in the discovery process, IMO) All IMO.

I don't think there was any other unknown DNA on the sheath. They would have used IGG on any unknown DNA they found, just like they did with the unknown DNA on the button. JMO

 

[NextSprint]

Yes, and then he was retried on the same charges and found Guilty, once again:



A jury in January found he deliberately ran over and killed 41-year-old Vonette Larsen with his Chevrolet Blazer and rammed a car occupied by two of her daughters on New Year’s Day 2006.

Evidence at his trial showed he got tangled up in a road-rage incident with Larsen’s daughters, Joleen and Jovon

The Idaho Supreme Court overturned an initial conviction and allowed a new jury trial, citing perjury by a prosecution witness and prosecutorial misconduct. The previous trial was in 2006.

Ellington sentenced in road-rage case

COEUR d’ALENE — Jonathan W. Ellington might be spending only two more years in prison.

cdapress.com

So if the judge thinks some evidence set forth in the Grand Jury was misleading, the prosecution will likely be given another chance for an indictment. It does not necessarily mean he walks free forever, IMO.

That's interesting. I would have thought that would attach double jeopardy.

 

[NextSprint]

How was their evidence incorrect? It seems clear to me that the unknown DNA was identified correctly as belonging to BK's father. They came to the correct conclusion, so why is it 'not a good look'?

In my opinion it's because the way a suspect is found is quite important constitutionally. If they were found by means that could be deemed illegal, then that might be cause for that evidence to be disregarded for a trial. The FBI appear to be the go-to organisation for IGG when county/state LEAs are carrying out investigations - they have the expertise - but then it becomes a bit murky when that evidence/product-of-work provided by the FBI can't be properly attacked by a defendant because "oh we don't have it, the FBI gave it to us." JMO of course.

 

[katydid23]

Not enough to get a warrant though, otherwise every white male owner of an Elantra within 25 miles would have had their shoulder tapped.

Which is why they were lucky enough to find that single source male DNA on the button of the sheath, under the dead body.

 

[katydid23]

That's interesting. I would have thought that would attach double jeopardy.

No, because the court gave him a retrial, not a get out of jail free card. There were several witnesses that saw him drive over the woman, including the woman's daughter.

So that 'misleading' testimony was not about figuring out the suspect's identity or wondering if he actually ran over the victim. The question was about if it was on purpose or not. 'JMO

 

[katydid23]

In my opinion it's because the way a suspect is found is quite important constitutionally. If they were found by means that could be deemed illegal, then that might be cause for that evidence to be disregarded for a trial. The FBI appear to be the go-to organisation for IGG when county/state LEAs are carrying out investigations - they have the expertise - but then it becomes a bit murky when that evidence/product-of-work provided by the FBI can't be properly attacked by a defendant because "oh we don't have it, the FBI gave it to us." JMO of course.

IGG is not illegal nor unconstitutional.

It is not murky. The public database is seen through a portal, which is like a puzzle which the user solves to try and narrow down the family tree. There is no paper trail because it is not downloaded info.

The end result can be totally verified by using the cheek swab at the end of the journey. The end results are verifiable.

This whole thing is a song and dance by the defense, trying to pretend it was this big illegal, unconstitutional witch hunt.

It makes me nauseous the way they are overreaching.

My father and brother were well respected defense attorneys. I have nothing against attorneys. I just dislike some of the tactics that seek to set free dangerous people by the use of legal technicalities. JMO

 

[NextSprint]

IGG is not illegal nor unconstitutional.

It is not murky. The public database is seen through a portal, which is like a puzzle which the user solves to try and narrow down the family tree. There is no paper trail because it is not downloaded info.

The end result can be totally verified by using the cheek swab at the end of the journey. The end results are verifiable.

This whole thing is a song and dance by the defense, trying to pretend it was this big illegal, unconstitutional witch hunt.

It makes me nauseous the way they are overreaching.

My father and brother were well respected defense attorneys. I have nothing against attorneys. I just dislike some of the tactics that seek to set free dangerous people by the use of legal technicalities. JMO

I think there would be a legitimate issue if e.g. law enforcement uses those databases in a way that violates the opt in/out of the person who submitted their DNA originally. We're already seeing some states legislate to regulate the way it's done, which is a good thing as investigations stemming from IGG that is properly overseen and reviewed won't run into issues like this.

https://www.axios.com/2021/06/01/maryland-montana-laws-restrict-dna-search-practices#