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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
You brought up an interesting question. What if BK's dad has an identical twin brother? And what if that twin brother has a son? I've seen TV shows where identical twins marry identical twins, so what if BK's mom has an identical twin sister and she married BK's dad's identical twin brother. Would BK's male cousin have similar DNA to BK or would it be drastically different? I don't think anything like this has happened in this case but I'm just curious about how identical these cousins would be?

For the record I think todays hearing is about the Brady-Giglio matter and possibly the fact that the PCA and Search Warrant seem to contradict each other in terms of how the sheath was found - especially as to who found it.
Then, they would have used maternal DNA.

Because unless Mr Kohberger's (non-existent) twin brother married Mrs. Kohberger's (non-existent) identical twin sister there would different SNP's (indeed, even under this circumstance due to a process that occurs when egg and sperm are made, no two eggs are typically alike and neither are any two sperm (remember how there are billions of possibilities per gamete?) The process is called "random assortment."

I do have double cousins (but not from paired twins). They test out roughly as siblings would do. They have the same grandparents, in other words. It's unusual.

Both local LE and FBI have access to birth records, though, so that would be recorded in the birth records in the first place.

IMO.
 
One says that the detective later saw the sheath on the bed. The other says the crime scene people found it. Then there is the story that it was half under MM and half under a blanket. It's very inconsistent. They might all mean the same thing, but it does create confusion. I'm not sure why they wrote it that way rather than in one consistent accounting across all documents.View attachment 442525

In both Payne's statement (arrest warrant/PCA) and Blaker's (search warrant), it states that "Upon our arrival, the Idaho State Police (lSP) Forensic Team was on scene and was ' preparing to begin processing the scene." Payne and Blaker stated that they were there to assist with the processing of the scene. Neither man states that they saw the knife sheath upon their initial basic observation of the room. Both indicated that knowledge of the presence of the knife sheath was acquired later: Payne through observation, Blaker through being told by ISP investigators.

The bodies would not have been moved before Payne and Blaker arrived there. ISP forensics had not yet begun their work. They would want Payne or Blaker there before they did any direct manipulation of the bodies and the immediate area where their bodies were. After Payne and Blaker got the cursory walkthrough of both crime scene rooms, then ISP forensics would begin its work in conjunction with them--hence the use of the term "later" as in after the initial walkthrough. ISP forensics team would be the one to move the sheets significantly and/or begin to shift the bodies of Maddie and Kaylee with Payne observing. Blaker's statement indicates he was not present in the room when that occurred by saying he was told later by ISP--maybe he's in Xana's room with some of the ISP forensics while this is going on or was elsewhere on the premises directing set up of security (another one of their stated reasons for being there). If Payne is standing there watching ISP move the covers and/or bodies, at that point he is in place to directly observe the sheath becoming visible and register that as information.
 
Who says the IGG was obtained illegally? Just because some random witness from the defense said she sometimes cheats, does that mean the FBI did when doing BK's search, as well?
They can clear this up by providing the defense with the details of their use of forensic genetic genealogy (FGG) search, dates, how they proceeded, which site(s) used, etc.
 
One says that the detective later saw the sheath on the bed. The other says the crime scene people found it. Then there is the story that it was half under MM and half under a blanket. It's very inconsistent. They might all mean the same thing, but it does create confusion. I'm not sure why they wrote it that way rather than in one consistent accounting across all documents.View attachment 442525
"One says that the detective saw the sheath on the bed. The other says the crime scene people found it."

I don't agree with this ^^^characterisation of what was said. We don't know that ISP were the first people to find it or not.

One detective said they 'later noticed it on the bed.'

Another detective said he was advised by ISP they located a sheath on the bed. But we do not know that ISP was FIRST to locate it. Maybe Payne saw it, and then ISP did so as well.

I don't agree with your characterisation that these two statements are inconsistent or problematic. Nor do I agree with your suggestion that they should have given ' one consistent accounting across all documents.' That smacks of creating a manufactured false narrative instead of allowing each detective to give their individual statement of first hand experiences.
 
They can clear this up by providing the defense with the details of their use of forensic genetic genealogy (FGG) search, dates, how they proceeded, which site(s) used, etc.

The point of argument appears to be that the Othram-Kohberger's privacy rights and medical information would be made available to a group of strangers. The Judge has to find that Kohberger's request for the now irrelevant information is more important than a US Citizen's rights under FERPA and other laws.

IMO, if the Judge rules in favor of the Defense, that's basically judicial over-ride of a legally binding contract AND of federal law regarding use of medical information without permission. The donor gave their DNA under a system that protects their identity from everyone - except active LE investigations.

The Defense now has the data that LE uploaded to Othram, but the reason they don't just go to Othram and submit it is that 1) they are not LE and the judge would have to order/permit that option AND 2) the outcome would be exactly the same (Othram Kohberger's results would come up with a surname match - I doubt the Judge is going to approve the Defense using or seeing that other person's results). So then the Defense could hire a PI, I guess, to try and find other DNA in the Kohberger trash (but they won't, because all of that would be futile and silly).

What they are doing has nothing to do with challenging the technical competence of Othram and everything to do with getting access to Othram Kohberger's DNA profile.

I do not believe the Judge will give them that information, but if he were to do that, there would be appeals and lawsuits ensuing - and the case could very well come to a halt while there was some resolution. It would be different if the results from Othram Kohberger were going to be submitted as evidence at trial (too soon to tell, very unlikely) or if Othram Kohberger was going to be a witness (to what? to an invisible product of his body existing?)

IMO.
 
They can clear this up by providing the defense with the details of their use of forensic genetic genealogy (FGG) search, dates, how they proceeded, which site(s) used, etc.

They have already done that, been asked two more times, and each time the State says they have given the Court and the Defense that information.

If the State is lying, the Judge will sanction them. But all the State has to do is point the Judge to the part of the digital files where they included that info. It's obvious to me that the Defense already knows it was Othram, has the profile submitted (sheath DNA), and knows a genetic relative named Kohberger was found.

The Defense wants something that the State itself doesn't have (the actual profile of Othram Kohberger, IMO).

JMO. Did read the documents. Have listened to this request being made and am watching it go round for a third time.
 
They can clear this up by providing the defense with the details of their use of forensic genetic genealogy (FGG) search, dates, how they proceeded, which site(s) used, etc.
I am not clear on how much they have already turned over. The state seems to believe they have already turned over what was legally necessary for discovery purposes. I will wait and see what the court decides.

I think AT is just grasping at straws. If LE finds DNA on the knife sheath, left behind under a dead student, they are going to do whatever it takes to identify the DNA. I am not that concerned whether or not BK's great uncles or second cousins opted in or out when volunteering their DNA to a public database. I'm more concerned with getting a brutal killer to trial.

Especially given that IGG won't even be part of the evidence. The defense is just grabbing whatever technicality they can to try to evade trial. Complaints that there were not enough Grand Jury applicants submitted, so let's dismiss the indictment?
 
I listened to this podcast before it was referenced by an approved source or I would have brought it up. I saw it as a pattern emerging.

There are many issues with the representative for the school speaking, but she does seem to explain some things that have been bothering me. The focus on becoming oh I don't know an Army Ranger justified to kill or an Authority figure with power over others stood out to me as well.

I knew this before but it made me really think about his interests. Wanting to be dominant, unfortunately wanting to use weapons and likely sneak up on unsuspecting victims. Sickening. JMOO

Ps. Nothing against military members, somebody has to be able to do that type of disciplined work. There are those who should not.
Army tries to weed those who are unstable. They do a pretty good job as instability usually comes with social-team work deficits.
 
They can clear this up by providing the defense with the details of their use of forensic genetic genealogy (FGG) search, dates, how they proceeded, which site(s) used, etc.
But the IGG was done by the FBI, who said they do not keep physical records of such searches. Bill Thompson said in the hearing the other day that they can't give what they don't have. It will be interesting to see the ruling here.
 
In both Payne's statement (arrest warrant/PCA) and Blaker's (search warrant), it states that "Upon our arrival, the Idaho State Police (lSP) Forensic Team was on scene and was ' preparing to begin processing the scene." Payne and Blaker stated that they were there to assist with the processing of the scene. Neither man states that they saw the knife sheath upon their initial basic observation of the room. Both indicated that knowledge of the presence of the knife sheath was acquired later: Payne through observation, Blaker through being told by ISP investigators.

The bodies would not have been moved before Payne and Blaker arrived there. ISP forensics had not yet begun their work. They would want Payne or Blaker there before they did any direct manipulation of the bodies and the immediate area where their bodies were. After Payne and Blaker got the cursory walkthrough of both crime scene rooms, then ISP forensics would begin its work in conjunction with them--hence the use of the term "later" as in after the initial walkthrough. ISP forensics team would be the one to move the sheets significantly and/or begin to shift the bodies of Maddie and Kaylee with Payne observing. Blaker's statement indicates he was not present in the room when that occurred by saying he was told later by ISP--maybe he's in Xana's room with some of the ISP forensics while this is going on or was elsewhere on the premises directing set up of security (another one of their stated reasons for being there). If Payne is standing there watching ISP move the covers and/or bodies, at that point he is in place to directly observe the sheath becoming visible and register that as information.
<snipped & BBM from PCA by Payne>

As I entered this bedroom, I could see two females in the single bed in the room. Both Goncalves and Mogen were deceased with visible stab wounds. I also later noticed what appered to be a tan leather knife sheath laying on the bed next to Mogen's right side (when viewed from the door). The sheath was later processed and had "Ka-Bar" 'USMC" and the Unicd State.s Marine Corps eagle globe and anchor insignia stamped on the outside of it. The Idaho state lab later located a single source ofmale DNA (suspect Profile) left on the button snap ofthe knife sheath.
 
Everything makes me nervous. Feeling it will end up in waiving the speedy trial right, but portrayed as necessary due to the prosecution’s handling of the case.
I agree on the waiving the speedy trial possibly, but it has nothing to due with the Prosecution's handling of the case. It's due to the fact that the Defense has spend the last months crafting excessively long winded, unnecessary motions instead of focusing on the real matter at hand....a genuine alibi or defense of BK.

I'm not worried that the State hasn't handled everything by the book.

ALL MOO
 
I agree on the waiving the speedy trial possibly, but it has nothing to due with the Prosecution's handling of the case. It's due to the fact that the Defense has spend the last months crafting excessively long winded, unnecessary motions instead of focusing on the real matter at hand....a genuine alibi or defense of BK.

I'm not worried that the State hasn't handled everything by the book.

ALL MOO
I totally agree-I think that the defense will attempt to say it is due to the prosecution. I do not believe it to be so.
 
I predict some jumping around and clattering of desktops today. Discovery noise. Waiving of the speedy trial IMO will come at the 11th hour. We aren't even at the first hour yet.

This is going to be a long ride IMO.

JMO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
159
Guests online
520
Total visitors
679

Forum statistics

Threads
608,271
Messages
18,237,094
Members
234,327
Latest member
EmilyShaul2
Back
Top