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

[North_Idaho_Nony]

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.

MOO, the location of that single source male DNA proven to be from BK seals the deal.

 

[Cool Cats]

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.

What matters to juries is that it is enough DNA to get a person's DNA profile. Juries like DNA, they don't want to send an innocent defendant to death row.

This DNA sample is enough to point to a specific person having left his specific DNA on this specific knife sheath under a victim who was stabbed.

The DNA matches a person who admits he was driving around the murder area that night and can't give an alibi to account for his whereabouts at 4 to 5AM. His car and phone match evidence collected.

The best his attorneys can do is keep him off death row....2 Cents

 

[Boxer]

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?

Just to be clear on how much DNA information a single cell contains, it has 6ft of DNA.

 

[katydid23]

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

Pretty obvious really---his DNA was found on the weapon's sheath, underneath one of the stabbing victims.

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

It's not quite that simple.
We could say for argument's sake that he left some DNA in the gym, and someone touched it, and then transferred it onto the sheath left at the crime scene.

Ok, but if that randomly happened, wouldn't we expect that the person who left their DNA in the gym, would have no connection to the crime scene? They'd be somewhere else, have an alibi from a spouse or roommate, be at work on a night shift?

Yet in this case, there were other bits of circumstantial evidence which connects him to the crime scene. Those things by themselves would not be enough to convict him, just because he was parked on that street at the same time, and his phone was traveling from his home to there and back---However if you look at the touch DNA, that places him at the crime scene right before the upstairs victims went down AND there is other corroborating circumstantial evidence it looks like he is the guy.

That's the thing with circumstantial evidence----you can bat each one away, one by one, by giving an explanation for some other way it got there. But when you pile them all up, brick by brick, you can't bat the entire wall down.

His touch DNA would not have gotten there some random way and then simultaneously the other circumstances fall into line as well.

<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.

They can try and I hope they do. But the silly way they are going at it now makes them look less credible. There is no reason to attack Othram and IGG in order to try and dismiss the sheath DNA. That makes them look petty and dishonest, IMO. There is nothing wrong with using IGG to try and find a dangerous killer.

But the defense is apparently attempting to chase down precisely how the Kohberger family was identified through GG.

Why though? They already know how it was done---through IGG, just like all the other recent cases of serial killers and UIDS have been identified. There is nothing wrong with that method and AT knows that. This is a Hail Mary and a distraction.

The real question here, IMO, is why?

All JMO.

Why what? Why they used IGG?

 

[Chloegirl]

What matters to juries is that it is enough DNA to get a person's DNA profile. Juries like DNA, they don't want to send an innocent defendant to death row.

This DNA sample is enough to point to a specific person having left his specific DNA on this specific knife sheath under a victim who was stabbed.

The DNA matches a person who admits he was driving around the murder area that night and can't give an alibi to account for his whereabouts at 4 to 5AM. His car and phone match evidence collected.

The best his attorneys can do is keep him off death row....2 Cents

BK went to a neighboring towns university in Pullman, he does not know/interact with the housemates personally to our knowledge, and he had zero business near this house and property. That must be considered as well. Nothing should explain his presence there. JMOO

 

[wendy44]

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.

I really believe the goal of the defense is to make this a 4th amendment issue. They want to know exactly when the potential name was produced from the unidentified dna profile and how that fits in with testing the trash at the family residence. While IGG has been used in cold cases, using it in an active investigation is new and it's bound to be tested in courts. Even if a person has never given their dna to a database or left their dna in the trash for law enforcement to collect, law enforcement essentially has their dna via the dna of their relatives.

I think their approach is two-pronged here--get the dna thrown out because of methods used in the IGG (alleged loopholes brought forward in the previous hearing) or get the dna thrown out on constitutional issues (long, drawn-out, so the former was definitely preferred). It could turn out that the IGG did not lead to the trash collection and they'll be shut off from those avenues of trying to get it thrown out. Either way, IMO, they know it matches and they have to get it thrown out if they have a chance in this case.

JMO

 

[Cool Cats]

BK went to a neighboring towns university in Pullman, he does not know/interact with the housemates personally to our knowledge, and he had zero business near this house and property. That must be considered as well. Nothing should explain his presence there. JMOO

We may see a smoking gun. A digital footprint showing a BK/victim connection and another smoking gun, a knife purchase that could be his direct purchase of the murder weapon unless he can prove he bought it for normal use or as a gift etc... But if there is any murder kit purchases found you can bet your bottom dollar that BK won't be able to give them to his defense team because he burned or buried or threw them in the Paradise Creek along State Route 270.... 2 Cents

mapquest moscow idaho.

 

[Balthazar]

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.

I am originally from Los Angeles, CA. I've never seen houses torn down right away even in California - in fact so many of them remain so many years later: For example, from the Manson Murders, the Tate house was not torn down until 1994 to make room for huge mansion and the LaBianca house is still standing (just recently sold.) Lana Turner (Johnny Stopanato murder) house is still standing. Menendez house is still standing. Nicole Simpson's condo is still standing. Greystone Mansion, Jack Parson's house, Los Feliz Murder House, Wonderland Murders House, Mary Mile Minter house, Phil Spector's house and these are only homes from REALLY infamous murders. The list goes on and on.

Where I live currently (also in the US), I know of at least 20 murder houses from well-known local and even national cases - and they all still exist, with the exception of one mansion which was torn down this year because the land it was on was worth more subdivided than the mansion and land combined. I know of one home where the MBR was moved but the rest are reportedly the same configuration as they were when the murders happened, just redecorated - new flooring, new paint - that sort of thing.

 

[Balthazar]

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.

If there are thousands of scientific studies proving that touch DNA always indicates that the person actually touched the object, could you please link a few here? I'd like to read them and share them with my discussion group as they are all of the opinion that touch DNA without other evidence the person was actually in that location such as a witness identification or video or fingerprints, etc., is junk science.

 

[duckcat]

BK went to a neighboring towns university in Pullman, he does not know/interact with the housemates personally to our knowledge, and he had zero business near this house and property. That must be considered as well. Nothing should explain his presence there. JMOO

I’m not sure how this would be explained legally and to a jury, but where the DNA is specifically found is highly convincing. It’s not touch DNA that possibly got transferred to a jacket, or even the entirety of the smooth surface of the sheath. It’s cells that got trapped underneath the snap, the area where his fingers would be in contact frequently to open and close it. DNA being found only there and not on the rest of the sheath shows an effort to clean and conceal it and that he made a mistake. DNA was left behind in the one part of the sheath that has separation in materials and allows for an area that might be overlooked or difficult to clean properly.

 

[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. And all of that shows up on these services.

great post.

 

[Balthazar]

I really believe the goal of the defense is to make this a 4th amendment issue. They want to know exactly when the potential name was produced from the unidentified dna profile and how that fits in with testing the trash at the family residence. While IGG has been used in cold cases, using it in an active investigation is new and it's bound to be tested in courts. Even if a person has never given their dna to a database or left their dna in the trash for law enforcement to collect, law enforcement essentially has their dna via the dna of their relatives.

I think their approach is two-pronged here--get the dna thrown out because of methods used in the IGG (alleged loopholes brought forward in the previous hearing) or get the dna thrown out on constitutional issues (long, drawn-out, so the former was definitely preferred). It could turn out that the IGG did not lead to the trash collection and they'll be shut off from those avenues of trying to get it thrown out. Either way, IMO, they know it matches and they have to get it thrown out if they have a chance in this case.

JMO

That's an interesting thought - 4th amendment issue. I don't think getting the DNA thrown out is necessary to win this case. Touch DNA is not going to fly unless DM can definitely identify BK as the person she saw in the house that night. We do not know if LE showed her a photo lineup before BK was arrested to see if she recognized him or not.

 

[wendy44]

That's an interesting thought - 4th amendment issue. I don't think getting the DNA thrown out is necessary to win this case. Touch DNA is not going to fly unless DM can definitely identify BK as the person she saw in the house that night. We do not know if LE showed her a photo lineup before BK was arrested to see if she recognized him or not.

It would fly with me. I consider eyewitness testimony/identification to be among the least reliable/convincing forms of evidence. With or without DM's ID, it would fly with me if I was on the jury.

JMO

 

[10ofRods]

We may see a smoking gun. A digital footprint showing a BK/victim connection and another smoking gun, a knife purchase that could be his direct purchase of the murder weapon unless he can prove he bought it for normal use or as a gift etc... But if there is any murder kit purchases found you can bet your bottom dollar that BK won't be able to give them to his defense team because he burned or buried or threw them in the Paradise Creek along State Route 270.... 2 Cents

mapquest moscow idaho.

Definitely a smoking gun, in the old sense.

Good point about how any fairly intelligent criminal would, in fact, hide evidence. And not leave any evidence.

His goal, IMO, was to commit the "perfect crime." As so many have done, before him.

He, like most criminals, thinks that getting rid of ALL evidence is good - they don't know what might be exonerating.

IMO.

 

[Boxer]

That's an interesting thought - 4th amendment issue. I don't think getting the DNA thrown out is necessary to win this case. Touch DNA is not going to fly unless DM can definitely identify BK as the person she saw in the house that night. We do not know if LE showed her a photo lineup before BK was arrested to see if she recognized him or not.

Touch DNA is good evidence.
What 4th amendment issue are you speaking to?

 

[10ofRods]

Just to be clear on how much DNA information a single cell contains, it has 6ft of DNA.

Or as many as one billion data points.

 

[Balthazar]

Just to be clear on how much DNA information a single cell contains, it has 6ft of DNA.

I have no idea why you posted this to me.

Touch DNA is good evidence.
What 4th amendment issue are you speaking to?

You posted this to the wrong poster. I think you mean wendy44.

 

[katydid23]

MOO, the location of that single source male DNA proven to be from BK seals the deal.

Absolutely. Being partially underneath her body seals the deal, IMO. It certainly wasn't there when she laid down to go to sleep. That ended up there during the deadly struggle.

 

[Cool Cats]

Definitely a smoking gun, in the old sense.

Good point about how any fairly intelligent criminal would, in fact, hide evidence. And not leave any evidence.

His goal, IMO, was to commit the "perfect crime." As so many have done, before him.

He, like most criminals, thinks that getting rid of ALL evidence is good - they don't know what might be exonerating.

IMO.

Exactly!

I watched a murder case unfold and the lead special agent listed evidence of murder kit items that were purchased and the defendants could not account for where any of the items went because they sunk the metal items in a pond and burned the ones that were flammable. It will be circumstantial evidence against BK if he can't produce his murder kit purchases - if LE finds a digital trail.

You have mentioned the Van shoes many times, I think you will find this true story interesting:

In the same murder case the mother and father and their 2 grown sons murdered 8 members of another family. There were 4 murder scenes and 2 different sized bloody shoe prints were found at 2 of the crime scenes.

In a search of the suspects' property LE found a Walmart shoe receipt showing a purchase of 2 pairs of shoes. The tread and size of these purchased shoes matched the tread and size of the bloody shoe prints that were found. LE searched every Walmart in a 50 mile radius of the suspects' house and found the Walmart where the shoes were purchased and found camera footage of the mother buying the shoes in that Walmart that day.

Agents blindsided the 4 defendants and separated them and confronted them over the shoes. Confronted with the evidence the mother admitted to buying the shoes. LE asked her what she did with the shoes and she said she bought them for her 2 sons but they hated the shoes so she threw them out. The 2 sons denied ever seeing the shoes.

Obviously not being able to produce the shoes looks bad but there are some other interesting details.

The forensic shoe expert noted that the shoe prints showed no tread wear - the tread looked brand new.
The shoe receipt shows the shoes were bought only 3 weeks before the murders. This is more evidence showing the shoes were only purchased for that one night.

Also, during a confession, the younger son pointed out that not only did his mother buy the shoes for him and his brother to wear on the night they committed the 8 homicides, but she deliberately bought the shoes in sizes they did not wear and in a style they never wore.

Thus, I would not see these 2 things as being exculpatory for BK regarding the bloody Van shoe print that was found by DM's door.....

1.) The prosecution shows evidence that BK has never worn Van shoes - doesn't like Van shoes.
2.) The Van shoe print is not the size that BK wears.

And if the Van shoe print shows no tread wear and appears to be like new that just makes it seem, to me, that the Vans were bought to be used for just that one night.

Note that in the searches there were shoes seized but they are not Van shoes and they might not match the size found at the crime scene but that doesn't show exculpatory evidence to me.

2 Cents

 

[schooling]

I really believe the goal of the defense is to make this a 4th amendment issue. They want to know exactly when the potential name was produced from the unidentified dna profile and how that fits in with testing the trash at the family residence. While IGG has been used in cold cases, using it in an active investigation is new and it's bound to be tested in courts. Even if a person has never given their dna to a database or left their dna in the trash for law enforcement to collect, law enforcement essentially has their dna via the dna of their relatives.

I think their approach is two-pronged here--get the dna thrown out because of methods used in the IGG (alleged loopholes brought forward in the previous hearing) or get the dna thrown out on constitutional issues (long, drawn-out, so the former was definitely preferred). It could turn out that the IGG did not lead to the trash collection and they'll be shut off from those avenues of trying to get it thrown out. Either way, IMO, they know it matches and they have to get it thrown out if they have a chance in this case.

JMO

Unless I missed something in the last week it seems like the CODIS "John Doe" DNA was pulled by a local lab before IGG the IGG process started.

It is wholly distinct.

So trying to get the local sample tossed because of IGG is like throwing away your plate of fresh scrambled eggs because you dropped the carton on the way back to the fridge.