4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #90

[girlhasnoname]

I have no clue about the legal questions. But I do not think they were looking for BK DNA in MK's trash. Instead, they figured that the match they had from Othram showed it was this branch of the Kohberger family, whose genealogy is actually mostly online. They knew BK wasn't living there at the time and wasn't throwing anything in the trash (yet). But since the match must have been 50%, they knew they'd filled their BINGO card and that MK was the father of the POI.

Since MK only had one son (and I've seen internet conspiracy theories about some unknown twin of BK who is managing to go through life still attached closely to BK - but is invisible to society?) it was clear who the POI was. I do believe they used that fact in the Idaho PCA. Not sure.

So the Court decided to issue an arrest warrant for this POI, which included gathering his own, actual DNA. Which of course matched the STR results from ISL (which were the basis of the Othram study) 100%. They had their guy.

And I do not expect that in the long run, such matches and such a powerful forensic tool will be eliminated by our court system. It might take years of arguing and the passage of new laws, but DNA analysis is here to stay and is only going to get more potent (especially in regard to finding tiny amounts of it and being able to analyze it - using SNP's).

So agree, GG is to LE today what DNA was back in the mid 90's and 2000. It will only improve over time as all LE, from the top down, become more educated.

Also, we as laymen who might be called to serve on a jury will become more educated on it as a whole, maybe not the minutia, but the general concept and knowledge. Genetic genealogy is here to stay IMO.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Compliments, 10: for the comprehensivity, clarity and the patience. Won't re-quote here cause there is a limit to these servers LOL.
And I did review GINA Title 1 and other related that deal with discrimination in underwriting and similar. It would be interesting to contrast how the "cradle to grave" countries have handled that same topic but I anticipate I will not live long enough to assemble that dissertation. I do recall there were some interesting contrasts in immediate declarations and responses when cloning mammals pressed some hot topic buttons back in the 90's.

I may have lost track of some of the dates: but I was always operating under the impression that when the surveillance team pulled a sample of trash in PA they were actually targeting BK's DNA but the results came up "father" to a 99%-plus affirmation. Is there possibility that this represented a Fourth Amendment legal issue and that is where AT is headed overall? That should a surveillance not actually observe the discard of a specific object by a specific party the resultant DNA sample would not sustain evidentiary continuity? Is MK an uninformed "informant" according to the criterion employed by WT?

Inquiring minds and IANAL....JMO

The Fourth Amendment doesn’t specify privacy in trash cans, but in 1988, the Supreme Court case, California v. Greenwood, decided that an individual does not hold a reasonable expectation of privacy in their garbage. Thus, the Fourth Amendment does not prevent law enforcement officers from searching and seizing an individual’s garbage.

It doesn't matter if they were looking for BK's and got MK's (BK was secretly disposing of his). Once the garbage can is left for pickup, it's searchable.

MOO

 

[Swansee]

Been reading the discussion on these last few pages and it's very instructive, THANK YOU all for these highly informative posts.
Perhaps this is a silly question, but why did they need to go out all the way out to PA for the dad's garbage when they could have directly gotten BK's garbage right there in Pullman? Or, you know, get a warrant to swab the door handle to his Elantra or the doorknob to his apartment?

 

[iamshadow21]

Been reading the discussion on these last few pages and it's very instructive, THANK YOU all for these highly informative posts.
Perhaps this is a silly question, but why did they need to go out all the way out to PA for the dad's garbage when they could have directly gotten BK's garbage right there in Pullman? Or, you know, get a warrant to swab the door handle to his Elantra or the doorknob to his apartment?

I could be wrong, but I think the apartments had a communal dumpster.

Also, I don't know the timeline of when they were sure he was probably their guy. It may have been after he left for PA.

MOO

 

[10ofRods]

Been reading the discussion on these last few pages and it's very instructive, THANK YOU all for these highly informative posts.
Perhaps this is a silly question, but why did they need to go out all the way out to PA for the dad's garbage when they could have directly gotten BK's garbage right there in Pullman? Or, you know, get a warrant to swab the door handle to his Elantra or the doorknob to his apartment?

While I believe BK was on their radar already, when they went to Othram, I could be wrong. He might not have been on their radar until they ran the DNA through Othram. Othram (IMO) did not just provide them with ONE relative, but with a set of increasingly distant relatives on both the paternal and maternal sides.

They do have communal dumpsters at the Steptoe Apartments, but I don't think that's the primary reason they went to MK's PA house and got his DNA from the trash.

The Othram "hit" on a relative probably showed a cousin, uncle, aunt or sibling of MK. Within a very short time, it was probably clear that the PA Kohbergers had a son in Pullman, WA - a son with a white Elantra. But police don't want to screw up the process by doing a search on Steptoe trash without a warrant - it's a tricky legal area. However, courts have ruled it can be done.

More important, they do not want to alert Kohberger as to their suspicions (he's a dangerous person; potentially armed; mass murderers often end up as suicide-by-police - sometimes taking others out with themselves; that's one of the big problems of mass murders: when they harm complete strangers, one has a very disturbed individual on their hands, capable of anything - that has to be LE reasoning at the time, it has to be at the forefront).

The fact that only Kohberger DNA should be in the PA Kohberger trash is the final part of the puzzle. Even if BK's mom's DNA was also there, it would be simple to separate it from MK's. So they ran MK's DNA and found a 50% match to the POI's DNA - and that was enough to know it was Bryan Kohberger, of Pullman, WA, with a white Elantra, a troubled background in criminology, and...the DNA that was on the sheath. Pretty traditional reason for an arrest at that point. Probable cause.

IMO.

 

[Balthazar]

There’s a “FARO Focus Max” joke somewhere in here.

Not going to lie. Before i saw the link your post was reading like satire. Thanks for sharing. Interesting.

I'm guessing that the reason they did this new scan with the updated technology is to print out a 3D model of the house for use at the trial.

 

[iamshadow21]

I'm guessing that the reason they did this new scan with the updated technology is to print out a 3D model of the house for use at the trial.

Digital modelling is a big part of crime scene reconstruction at trial. I think it's going to be especially important in this one, because of the pattern of movement the prosecution need to demonstrate the killer took, though a house several on the threads have found confusing to navigate.

MOO

 

[Balthazar]

But what difference does that^^ make in this trial? How does it affect any of the DNA evidence in any way?

We have to ask ourselves, why is the DNA so important to the defense?

After all, it is only touch DNA and many experiments have proven that you don't have to touch an object ever for your touch DNA to be on it:

New study shows that touch DNA may implicate the innocent

Although DNA evidence has been a legitimate method used by law enforcement officials for many years, questions are beginning to loom as to its reliability and accuracy.

campbelllawobserver.com

<modsnip: not an approved source>

There is a plethora of credible information on the problems with touch DNA which the defense can use to cast doubt on the validity of touch DNA before the jury.

But the defense is apparently attempting to chase down precisely how the Kohberger family was identified through GG. The real question here, IMO, is why?

All JMO.

 

[Swansee]

@Balthazar my guess would be they are hoping there is some kind of flaw in the chain of custody or some other aspect of the GG search, that they can use to sow doubt on such a complex topic.
I believe this was invited by the search warrant statement by Dawn Daniels, where she floats the possibility that the results may be held inadmissible, or even exculpatory. I think the defense saw a potential weakness there, hence the extra digging.
Screenshot of the relevant part of DD's statement:

 

[jepop]

@Balthazar my guess would be they are hoping there is some kind of flaw in the chain of custody or some other aspect of the GG search, that they can use to sow doubt on such a complex topic.
I believe this was invited by the search warrant statement by Dawn Daniels, where she floats the possibility that the results may be held inadmissible, or even exculpatory. I think the defense saw a potential weakness there, hence the extra digging.
Screenshot of the relevant part of DD's statement:
View attachment 458674

IMO that supplemental disclosure only applies to PC for the WA search warrant of BK's appartment.It concerns the dna test done on the trash - - that str analysis of the trash dna identified BK as the donor of the suspect sample on sheath through the patenal sample extracted from the trash in the Idaho State Lab on 27th Dec.. Bk's subsequent post-arrest buccal swab confirmed directly the single source male dna on the snap button of the sheath as his. Moo - but see PCA for details. See Court docs for results of str dna tests.

The IGG process being probed by the D is a completely separate process and unlinked to above. See Ps motion for protective order of IGG info and additional response. So far the D has not challenged the str analyses of the sheath dna.

Idaho Judicial Cases of Interest (court docs re dna tests and IGG - scroll down - somewhere beginning in June).

Imo a challenge of the IGG cannot have any impact on the actual dna sample extracted from the sheath and matched to BK first via paternal str testing in the ISL and then directly to BK via buccal swab. Moo.

 

[wendy44]

We have to ask ourselves, why is the DNA so important to the defense?

After all, it is only touch DNA and many experiments have proven that you don't have to touch an object ever for your touch DNA to be on it:

New study shows that touch DNA may implicate the innocent

Although DNA evidence has been a legitimate method used by law enforcement officials for many years, questions are beginning to loom as to its reliability and accuracy.

campbelllawobserver.com

And a Federal Court found touch DNA is mostly guesswork and can't be used as evidence:

Federal Court Says 'Touch DNA' Analysis Is Mostly Guesswork That Can't Be Used As Evidence

Dna Junk (PDF) Dna Junk (Text)

www.techdirt.com

There is a plethora of credible information on the problems with touch DNA which the defense can use to cast doubt on the validity of touch DNA before the jury.

But the defense is apparently attempting to chase down precisely how the Kohberger family was identified through GG. The real question here, IMO, is why?

All JMO.

I think it's really pretty clear why. The dna on the sheath is a match to BK. They don't dispute this. They need a reasonable explanation for how the dna got there. They probably do not have one. They will likely ask the experts some hypothetical alternate scenarios for how the dna could have gotten there. But will those scenarios sound reasonable to the jury? I personally can't think of a reasonable alternate scenario but I'm curious to see what they will present.

They're looking for way to get the dna thrown out, but not because it doesn't match and not because it's touch dna. The hearing with the genetic genealogists laid it all out--attack the investigative methods. They're doing their jobs and I'm glad they are but the why here is pretty clear and it doesn't have anything to do with the validity of the match.

JMO

 

[10ofRods]

In amateur genetic genealogy, a second to third cousin (sharing great grandparents or great great grandparents and about 3% dna) is considered "close family". Sharing 1% is still in the "extended family" range and considered a "good match". If you had a match in the extended family range on each side of the family, it would not be difficult at all to build out that tree and narrow down your unidentified profile. If Othram is 100% opt-in for law enforcement I'm really curious to see what the defense will do with the info once they have it.

Exactly.

We have to ask ourselves, why is the DNA so important to the defense?

After all, it is only touch DNA and many experiments have proven that you don't have to touch an object ever for your touch DNA to be on it:

New study shows that touch DNA may implicate the innocent

Although DNA evidence has been a legitimate method used by law enforcement officials for many years, questions are beginning to loom as to its reliability and accuracy.

campbelllawobserver.com

<modsnip: not an approved source>

There is a plethora of credible information on the problems with touch DNA which the defense can use to cast doubt on the validity of touch DNA before the jury.

But the defense is apparently attempting to chase down precisely how the Kohberger family was identified through GG. The real question here, IMO, is why?

All JMO.

You have several misconceptions/statements.

Touch DNA isn't just one thing. It can be a mixture of different people's cells - but WAS NOT in this case. It's in the first part of ISL's report. SINGLE SOURCE.

So it's not touch DNA like you'd get from a public telephone or doorknob.

Second, we divided touch DNA into categories. When we have a tool or part of a tool (such as a sheath) and we KNOW that the tool was made to be used in a certain way by humans, we do not (for example) look for DNA deep inside the tip of the sheath - because only the knife touches that and the knife could have touched many things.

In short anyone writing about "touch DNA" in general doesn't know what science has to say about DNA of various types.

But typically a usepoint on a PERSONAL ITEM such as a sheath is used by only 1-2 people. In this case, JUST ONE PERSON. BK.

That's single source usepoint DNA - not the vague media-driven, unscientific category of "touch DNA." We also have DNA flowing out when we breathe (and it blankets everything around us in a radiating circle from where we are exhaling - I'm sitting in my office, have been in this office for 15 years, I breathe in it all the time, there's a lot of my lung epithelial DNA in my office. The media thinks that's "touch DNA" but it is distinctly different.

OTOH, I went into a restroom today where I've never been in my life. I breathed in there, too. But someone sampling all over that restroom would find my (scant) DNA along with the DNA of others who use that restroom more frequently - but it would be a mixture.

<modsnip: quoted post was snipped>

IMO.

 

[10ofRods]

I'm guessing that the reason they did this new scan with the updated technology is to print out a 3D model of the house for use at the trial.

What size do you predict it will be?

 

[Balthazar]

What size do you predict it will be?

It depends on entirely on what the prosecution intends to use the model for. I've seen everything from doll house size to a complete life-size, walk through mock up of an entire house and everything in between. To me, it is very unusual that they want to tear the house down - that's actually unheard of here.

 

[Balthazar]

Exactly.


You have several misconceptions/statements.

Touch DNA isn't just one thing. It can be a mixture of different people's cells - but WAS NOT in this case. It's in the first part of ISL's report. SINGLE SOURCE.

So it's not touch DNA like you'd get from a public telephone or doorknob.

Second, we divided touch DNA into categories. When we have a tool or part of a tool (such as a sheath) and we KNOW that the tool was made to be used in a certain way by humans, we do not (for example) look for DNA deep inside the tip of the sheath - because only the knife touches that and the knife could have touched many things.

In short anyone writing about "touch DNA" in general doesn't know what science has to say about DNA of various types.

But typically a usepoint on a PERSONAL ITEM such as a sheath is used by only 1-2 people. In this case, JUST ONE PERSON. BK.

That's single source usepoint DNA - not the vague media-driven, unscientific category of "touch DNA." We also have DNA flowing out when we breathe (and it blankets everything around us in a radiating circle from where we are exhaling - I'm sitting in my office, have been in this office for 15 years, I breathe in it all the time, there's a lot of my lung epithelial DNA in my office. The media thinks that's "touch DNA" but it is distinctly different.

OTOH, I went into a restroom today where I've never been in my life. I breathed in there, too. But someone sampling all over that restroom would find my (scant) DNA along with the DNA of others who use that restroom more frequently - but it would be a mixture.

<modsnip: quoted post was snipped>

IMO.

Do you have any scientific studies that prove that touch DNA (in BK's case, I believe it was a few skin cells) requires the person to actually touch the object the touch DNA is on?

 

[Balthazar]

I think it's really pretty clear why. The dna on the sheath is a match to BK. They don't dispute this. They need a reasonable explanation for how the dna got there. They probably do not have one. They will likely ask the experts some hypothetical alternate scenarios for how the dna could have gotten there. But will those scenarios sound reasonable to the jury? I personally can't think of a reasonable alternate scenario but I'm curious to see what they will present.

They're looking for way to get the dna thrown out, but not because it doesn't match and not because it's touch dna. The hearing with the genetic genealogists laid it all out--attack the investigative methods. They're doing their jobs and I'm glad they are but the why here is pretty clear and it doesn't have anything to do with the validity of the match.

JMO

I think there is something else wrong with the DNA in this case. I've noticed a multi-dimensional subtext from the defense which is interesting, to say the least. JMO.

 

[10ofRods]

It depends on entirely on what the prosecution intends to use the model for. I've seen everything from doll house size to a complete life-size, walk through mock up of an entire house and everything in between. To me, it is very unusual that they want to tear the house down - that's actually unheard of here.

I don't know where "here" is for you, but where I live (California) and in many US communities, a house where a mass murder occurred is often either torn down or heavily revised for another purpose. In this case, the people who own that house/land apparently decided to donate it to the University of Idaho, in order to make a memory garden for the victims.

So the "they" are the owners (first, the landlord and now the U of I). From reading local community forums, I'd say the community wants something hopeful and beautiful in place of the "house that leaked blood."

In England, when churches get torn down, sometimes they convert the area to a park (and I think it's San Pancras Garden where they built a new church, but made artful displays of the graves that had been displaced over the years - as a way of keeping memories alive).

Moscow, ID will never forget - but I think the overall idea of a lovely meditation garden is an excellent substitute for the murder house.

IMO.

 

[10ofRods]

Do you have any scientific studies that prove that touch DNA (in BK's case, I believe it was a few skin cells) requires the person to actually touch the object the touch DNA is on?

There are thousands. If epithelial (skin) DNA is found on the use point of an object, it will exceed the amount on the rest of the object (which can be both epithelial from the skin - or the nasal passages including the sinuses, but it can also be epithelial from the lungs).

In order for there to be this statistical finding (more skin dna on the snap) the snap had to be touched more often than the rest of the object, which is apparently the finding here. But you can go to scholar.google.com and type in "measurements of epithelial cells on various objects" or "forensic use of DNA on objects).

For it to get into the grooves of the snap (which is where they found this particular DNA), yes, it would have to be touched - by fingers (no one operates a snap with their nose or forehead; maybe some people can use their toes - still epithelial cells).

For there to be enough for a collection of swabs, that area had to be purposefully touched several or many times. To know anything about the particular stats of the sheath, the defense would need to ask for further testing of the sheath - which they don't want to do, because it's likely more BK DNA will be found (along with cattle DNA), but it will still be the SNAP (use point, way of opening the sheath) that has the most, showing that it was not from breathing - it was from touch.

The sheath could not travel, btw, without someone touching it. So there's likely more DNA on it.

IMO.

 

[Boxer]

There are thousands. If epithelial (skin) DNA is found on the use point of an object, it will exceed the amount on the rest of the object (which can be both epithelial from the skin - or the nasal passages including the sinuses, but it can also be epithelial from the lungs).

In order for there to be this statistical finding (more skin dna on the snap) the snap had to be touched more often than the rest of the object, which is apparently the finding here. But you can go to scholar.google.com and type in "measurements of epithelial cells on various objects" or "forensic use of DNA on objects).

For it to get into the grooves of the snap (which is where they found this particular DNA), yes, it would have to be touched - by fingers (no one operates a snap with their nose or forehead; maybe some people can use their toes - still epithelial cells).

For there to be enough for a collection of swabs, that area had to be purposefully touched several or many times. To know anything about the particular stats of the sheath, the defense would need to ask for further testing of the sheath - which they don't want to do, because it's likely more BK DNA will be found (along with cattle DNA), but it will still be the SNAP (use point, way of opening the sheath) that has the most, showing that it was not from breathing - it was from touch.

The sheath could not travel, btw, without someone touching it. So there's likely more DNA on it.

IMO.

MOO DNA was removed by the killer cleaning the sheath.
They found skin cells within the snapping mechanism, on or ground into the crevices of cap, socket, stud or post.
Those recovered skin cells were tested and provided DNA.

 

[Boxer]

I think there is something else wrong with the DNA in this case. I've noticed a multi-dimensional subtext from the defense which is interesting, to say the least. JMO.

Please provide the multi-dimensional subtext you are referring to.