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

[10ofRods]

So is the potential theory here that BK stored the knife sheath for someone or someone stored it with him without his knowledge?

So he knows the killer somehow?


BK lived alone in a small place. Wouldn't he notice if someone stashed a large knife and sheath somewhere where he'd handle it occasionally?

True - and he would know that he had handled it occasionally. To exonerate himself, he'd need a story about WHO put the knife in his apartment (with or without his knowledge? He HAS to say WITH his knowledge, because otherwise he looks...super suspicious, perhaps even conspiratorial). OTOH, I guess he could say something weird like "Oh, this knife and sheath just showed up one day in my apartment, so instead of reporting a terrifying break-in where a knife is left behind, I just started messing around with the knife, opening and closing the sheath, mostly."

I've seen people on other forums take this conspiracy ball and run with it. However, BK has NOT said any such thing, it is not part of the alibi he filed with the Court.

He could also name the person who left the knife there (to accumulate his DNA) and then returned (with gloves) to get the knife - or he could say that he was broken into twice, once to leave the strange knife, then to retrieve it after a period of time. Of course, the gloved person retrieving the knife could NOT know that BK's DNA was actually on the snap.

So in a very short time after moving to Pullman, BK has to claim he acquired a burglar/stalker who wanted to frame him for mass murder. He didn't report any of it and has no proof. I don't think any jury would buy that, considering that he also admits driving around Moscow on the night of the murders and there's video of him parking near the murder scene at the time of the murders. He also turns off his phone during the murder period. He also goes on a long round-about way home, stopping several places in the dark of night (turning his phone back on) and then returns to the area of 1122 King the next morning - and makes the same circuit through Idaho and Washington, this time being caught on camera in Albertson's, where he is with his phone AND his car as he makes this journey (so he can't claim that someone also stole his car).

He probably would have tried "someone stole my car and my phone was just in it" if it weren't for that Albertson's video (I suspect there's more video - way more, because of the Defense's submission of the "driving around" alibi).

At any rate, in this case, there's independent evidence that he was at the crime scene. Further, there are no cases in Australia or any other place on Planet Earth where single source DNA is not considered valuable evidence - far from the madding crowd of door knob evidence (or gates, or even steering wheels). This was murder weapon evidence, let's not forget that.

IMO.

 

[jepop]

It would be astronomical for an innocent man, having no involvement with the murders to have all these randomly mistaken connections:


What are the odds that he shook hands with the murderer so his DNA ended up under a dead body ----but he was also unlucky enough to coincidentally drive his car to the crime scene at 4 am and leave quickly, on camera, right after a masked man fitting his general description was seen leaving?

Yes and not forgetting that only his single source dna was found in the use mechanism of the sheath, not ANY trace of a hypothetical second party who supposedly transferred it there. That is unlikely in the extreme from any casual secondary transfer Moo and IMo professional experts well versed in this area will have no problems presenting such to a jury.

 

[katydid23]

Again you need to read that study. <modsnip - link does not support this claim> It might surprise you to know that touch DNA was actually discovered in Australia by Alec Jeffries in 1987. And here the Australians are on the forefront of recognizing Touch DNA is not trustworthy without some other clear evidence that places the person IN the crime scene.

But you seem to be ignoring what I described. I already said, for arguments sake, let's say his sheath DNA was from a random handshake.

But if so, what are the odds that not only is his DNA is under the dead body because of a random handshake, but there are also other corroborating pieces of evidence putting him at the crime scene during the murders?

Usually if the touch DNA was from random incident of transfer, the suspected person is not going to then be connected to the crime scene in other various ways. But in this case his car, his phone and his alibi all place him on the street at the crucial time of the murders.

 

[Balthazar]

So is the potential theory here that BK stored the knife sheath for someone or someone stored it with him without his knowledge?

So he knows the killer somehow?


BK lived alone in a small place. Wouldn't he notice if someone stashed a large knife and sheath somewhere where he'd handle it occasionally?

In the Australian study the person didn't have to handle the knife or the plastic bag for their DNA to be transferred to it and be a sole source. In fact just placing the knife on a table, or kitchen counter, or kitchen drawer or coffee table the person had touched was enough to transfer their DNA to it. We know BK was seen at the UofI Moscow student union sitting at a table. He was probably there for quite some time. He would have shed his DNA there on the table. Hands shed DNA like crazy and I'm sure his hands would be on the table. Then later someone else sits there and touches the table and you have transfer. Or BK could have bought himself a drink at one of the restaurants in the food court there, left the cup on the table, someone else handles the cup and later deposits BK's DNA on the snap of his knife sheath. As easy as that.

 

[iamshadow21]

In the Australian study the person didn't have to handle the knife or the plastic bag for their DNA to be transferred to it and be a sole source. In fact just placing the knife on a table, or kitchen counter, or kitchen drawer or coffee table the person had touched was enough to transfer their DNA to it. We know BK was seen at the UofI Moscow student union sitting at a table. He was probably there for quite some time. He would have shed his DNA there on the table. Hands shed DNA like crazy and I'm sure his hands would be on the table. Then later someone else sits there and touches the table and you have transfer. Or BK could have bought himself a drink at one of the restaurants in the food court there, left the cup on the table, someone else handles the cup and later deposits BK's DNA on the snap of his knife sheath. As easy as that.

Or... And this could be wild, but go with it... He could have handled the sheath. Why is that so difficult? Why is a completely convoluted cafe encounter with multiple transfers of BK's DNA remarkably intact but none of this mysterious third party's DNA transferred at all more plausible?

MOO

 

[katydid23]

In the Australian study the person didn't have to handle the knife or the plastic bag for their DNA to be transferred to it and be a sole source. In fact just placing the knife on a table, or kitchen counter, or kitchen drawer or coffee table the person had touched was enough to transfer their DNA to it. We know BK was seen at the UofI Moscow student union sitting at a table. He was probably there for quite some time. He would have shed his DNA there on the table. Hands shed DNA like crazy and I'm sure his hands would be on the table. Then later someone else sits there and touches the table and you have transfer. Or BK could have bought himself a drink at one of the restaurants in the food court there, left the cup on the table, someone else handles the cup and later deposits BK's DNA on the snap of his knife sheath. As easy as that.

NO. You cannot get single source DNA in the groove on the snap of a knife sheath, by it being placed on a table in the food court. No. That would not transfer single source DNA to that tiny place within that sheath. JMO

The defense is not going to be able to sell that flimsy theory, IMO.

 

[Chloegirl]

In the Australian study the person didn't have to handle the knife or the plastic bag for their DNA to be transferred to it and be a sole source. In fact just placing the knife on a table, or kitchen counter, or kitchen drawer or coffee table the person had touched was enough to transfer their DNA to it. We know BK was seen at the UofI Moscow student union sitting at a table. He was probably there for quite some time. He would have shed his DNA there on the table. Hands shed DNA like crazy and I'm sure his hands would be on the table. Then later someone else sits there and touches the table and you have transfer. Or BK could have bought himself a drink at one of the restaurants in the food court there, left the cup on the table, someone else handles the cup and later deposits BK's DNA on the snap of his knife sheath. As easy as that.

Let's say I totally grasp that. But his touch DNA was on said knife in the snap area meaning he opened up that sheath just to get that knife out. It's not the same as being irrelevant it's VERY relevant. JMOO

If touch DNA is unreliable in Australia I'll grant you that but in America we haven't worked that out yet. More importantly this is one of many pieces to the puzzle not the only one (although we've talked about it at nauseam, repeatedly). If our government wants to throw out IGG fine. But for now it's something to consider as at least a circumstantial / situation fact. It has a knock on effect with everything else we've discussed, so I'm not tossing it.

 

[katydid23]

Or... And this could be wild, but go with it... He could have handled the sheath. Why is that so difficult? Why is a completely convoluted cafe encounter with multiple transfers of BK's DNA remarkably intact but none of this mysterious third party's DNA transferred at all more plausible?

MOO

So this wildly unlucky but innocent guy goes to the campus food court for a soda.He leaves the cup on the table and a random serial killer comes along next and handles BK's empty soda cup. And then reaches into his side pocket and touches the snap of his knife sheath.

And later on at some point this same serial killer does a home invasion and stabs 4 students.

COINCIDENTALLY, this wildly unlucky but innocent guy just happens to go on an all night drive. And it is coincidentally on the same night as the serial killer went to King St.

And also coincidentally, the wildly unlucky guy just happens to drive to that same street where the home invasion is going on---and his phone has been turned off for some reason and he drives around the block a few times and parks AT THE EXACT SAME TIME AS THE RANDOM SERIAL KILLER IS DOING THE HOME INVASION.

Such a random coincidence for sure but it continues. The unlucky guy also ends up on camera speeding away from the crime scene at the same time that the masked serial killer was seen leaving the house.

All that, after the random DNA transfer in the food court?

 

[10ofRods]

So this wildly unlucky but innocent guy goes to the campus food court for a soda.He leaves the cup on the table and a random serial killer comes along next and handles BK's empty soda cup. And then reaches into his side pocket and touches the snap of his knife sheath.

And later on at some point this same serial killer does a home invasion and stabs 4 students.

COINCIDENTALLY, this wildly unlucky but innocent guy just happens to go on an all night drive. And it is coincidentally on the same night as the serial killer went to King St.

And also coincidentally, the wildly unlucky guy just happens to drive to that same street where the home invasion is going on---and his phone has been turned off for some reason and he drives around the block a few times and parks AT THE EXACT SAME TIME AS THE RANDOM SERIAL KILLER IS DOING THE HOME INVASION.

Such a random coincidence for sure but it continues. The unlucky guy also ends up on camera speeding away from the crime scene at the same time that the masked serial killer was seen leaving the house.

All that, after the random DNA transfer in the food court?

You're great at this! If THIS had happened, the Serial Killer would have their DNA all over the rest of the sheath (even if they tried to clean it, leather is porous, and while it's too much to explain here, leather is a great repository of all the DNA of anyone who ever touched it - so that some worker in Mexico who tanned the leather might well have their DNA in the sheath. Forensic geneticists know how to sample leather and use a specific process (think: going down through layers into the porous interior of the leather), so that they can say who the tanner was, but the Serial Killer would have had their own DNA on the snap - and in the pores.

So odd that the Defense doesn't want to test other parts of that knife sheath, if this happened. It would be the FIRST order of events if one's client explained that they had never ever touched a KaBar sheath and that it had to have been planted by Random Serial Killer - more testing would surely show some other person's DNA on the sheath (but of course, the defense knows that the only recent DNA to be found on that sheath will be BK's).

IMO

 

[wendy44]

Not to mention, we don't know yet if the prosecution has evidence BK purchased this type of knife/sheath. If they do, and the defense can't provide that sheath, the hypothetical scenarios of random dna transfers to the same type of sheath found under the victims are less and less reasonable. They can present all sorts of ways that his dna could be on the sheath but they need to make sense and be reasonable to the jury.

JMO

 

[ilovewings]

True - and he would know that he had handled it occasionally. To exonerate himself, he'd need a story about WHO put the knife in his apartment (with or without his knowledge? He HAS to say WITH his knowledge, because otherwise he looks...super suspicious, perhaps even conspiratorial). OTOH, I guess he could say something weird like "Oh, this knife and sheath just showed up one day in my apartment, so instead of reporting a terrifying break-in where a knife is left behind, I just started messing around with the knife, opening and closing the sheath, mostly."

I've seen people on other forums take this conspiracy ball and run with it. However, BK has NOT said any such thing, it is not part of the alibi he filed with the Court.

He could also name the person who left the knife there (to accumulate his DNA) and then returned (with gloves) to get the knife - or he could say that he was broken into twice, once to leave the strange knife, then to retrieve it after a period of time. Of course, the gloved person retrieving the knife could NOT know that BK's DNA was actually on the snap.

So in a very short time after moving to Pullman, BK has to claim he acquired a burglar/stalker who wanted to frame him for mass murder. He didn't report any of it and has no proof. I don't think any jury would buy that, considering that he also admits driving around Moscow on the night of the murders and there's video of him parking near the murder scene at the time of the murders. He also turns off his phone during the murder period. He also goes on a long round-about way home, stopping several places in the dark of night (turning his phone back on) and then returns to the area of 1122 King the next morning - and makes the same circuit through Idaho and Washington, this time being caught on camera in Albertson's, where he is with his phone AND his car as he makes this journey (so he can't claim that someone also stole his car).

He probably would have tried "someone stole my car and my phone was just in it" if it weren't for that Albertson's video (I suspect there's more video - way more, because of the Defense's submission of the "driving around" alibi).

At any rate, in this case, there's independent evidence that he was at the crime scene. Further, there are no cases in Australia or any other place on Planet Earth where single source DNA is not considered valuable evidence - far from the madding crowd of door knob evidence (or gates, or even steering wheels). This was murder weapon evidence, let's not forget that.

IMO.

why bother indulging this kind of nonsensical "theory"- it is too ludicrous to even consider

 

[10ofRods]

So is the potential theory here that BK stored the knife sheath for someone or someone stored it with him without his knowledge?

So he knows the killer somehow?


BK lived alone in a small place. Wouldn't he notice if someone stashed a large knife and sheath somewhere where he'd handle it occasionally?

True - and he would know that he had handled it occasionally. To exonerate himself, he'd need a story about WHO put the knife in his apartment (with or without his knowledge? He HAS to say WITH his knowledge, because otherwise he looks...super suspicious, perhaps even conspiratorial). OTOH, I guess he could say something weird like "Oh, this knife and sheath just showed up one day in my apartment, so instead of reporting a terrifying break-in where a knife is left behind, I just started messing around with the knife, opening and closing the sheath, mostly."

I've seen people on other forums take this conspiracy ball and run with it. However, BK has NOT said any such thing, it is not part of the alibi he filed with the Court.

He could also name the person who left the knife there (to accumulate his DNA) and then returned (with gloves) to get the knife - or he could say that he was broken into twice, once to leave the strange knife, then to retrieve it after a period of time. Of course, the gloved person retrieving the knife could NOT know that BK's DNA was actually on the snap.

So in a very short time after moving to Pullman, BK has to claim he acquired a burglar/stalker who wanted to frame him for mass murder. He didn't report any of it and has no proof. I don't think any jury would buy that, considering that he also admits driving around Moscow on the night of the murders and there's video of him parking near the murder scene at the time of the murders. He also turns off his phone during the murder period. He also goes on a long round-about way home, stopping several places in the dark of night (turning his phone back on) and then returns to the area of 1122 King the next morning - and makes the same circuit through Idaho and Washington, this time being caught on camera in Albertson's, where he is with his phone AND his car as he makes this journey (so he can't claim that someone also stole his car).

He probably would have tried "someone stole my car and my phone was just in it" if it weren't for that Albertson's video (I suspect there's more video - way more, because of the Defense's submission of the "driving around" alibi).

IMO.

 

[10ofRods]

why bother indulging this kind of nonsensical "theory"- it is too ludicrous to even consider

Right as usual, @ilovewings

I guess I get used to doing it and can't stop.

I think it's fascinating to think about all these alternate universe theories, in regards to what could happen with a jury.

IMO

 

[Fred_Scott]

I've been following the case closely, and the theory of BK storing the knife or being unaware of someone else doing so seems far-fetched, given the circumstances. The lack of any reported break-in or disturbance at his residence adds to the skepticism around such a claim. It's also hard to imagine someone inadvertently handling a weapon involved in a crime without noticing—especially a large one like a sheath knife. The details about his actions and the DNA evidence create a tight narrative that's challenging to refute logically. Has there been any indication of BK's behavior post-arrest that could suggest a different line of defense?

 

[maskedwoman]

I'm trying hard to remember if I ever had a 15 minute continuous handshake.

My goodness, I think a 15 minute handshake would set off my fight or flight response. LOL

 

[Boxer]

It would be astronomical for an innocent man, having no involvement with the murders to have all these randomly mistaken connections:


What are the odds that he shook hands with the murderer so his DNA ended up under a dead body ----but he was also unlucky enough to coincidentally drive his car to the crime scene at 4 am and leave quickly, on camera, right after a masked man fitting his general description was seen leaving?

MOO. None.

 

[10ofRods]

I've been following the case closely, and the theory of BK storing the knife or being unaware of someone else doing so seems far-fetched, given the circumstances. The lack of any reported break-in or disturbance at his residence adds to the skepticism around such a claim. It's also hard to imagine someone inadvertently handling a weapon involved in a crime without noticing—especially a large one like a sheath knife. The details about his actions and the DNA evidence create a tight narrative that's challenging to refute logically. Has there been any indication of BK's behavior post-arrest that could suggest a different line of defense?

Welcome to Websleuths!​

New eyes and new perceptions are always needed.

I agree with you that if he did come into contact with the knife, he knew he had done so. I think it would be impossible to inadvertently handle such a knife (unless the person in question was having fugue states - but BK says his mental health is fine).

 

[Cool Cats]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

It is all about reasonable doubt.

It is beyond a reasonable doubt that anyone but BK left DNA cells. This is not alternative guessing.

Investigators found that the DNA was at least 5.37 octillion times more likely to be Kohberger's than a random member of the public, the document states.

This is direct contact DNA or trace cells coming from BK himself and no defense attorneys have even disputed it...2 Cents

 

[susemr26]

Again you need to read that study. Australia has had all sorts of innocent people accused of crimes because their touch DNA was on objects used in crimes only to find out the accused was never at the crime scene.

As someone from Australia I am surprised to hear this. After searching I couldn’t find any ’innocent people accused of crimes because their touch DNA was on objects used in crimes only to find out the accused was never at the crime” directly due to the transfer issues raised in the study. Could you possibly give some links to these cases?

There have been instances in Australia from a few years ago (e.g. 2004, 2008) where forensic labs have bungled DNA testing procedures leading to the wrong conviction/no conviction, but these are not a result of the transfer issues with touch DNA, so don't appear to support the argument that BK may be an innocent victim of these issues.

Hopefully I’ve linked some articles to these ‘bungles’ below. This is my first post so it’s very possible it hasn’t worked

MOO JMO

Innocent man convicted after DNA bungle

The man protested his innocence but was told no one would believe him.

thewest.com.au

Australia police reopen 7,000 cases after DNA error

Australian police will re-examine 7,000 crimes solved through DNA evidence after a mistake forced detectives to free a suspect wrongly accused of murder.

www.reuters.com

 

[Balthazar]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

Please let me know what evidence puts him at the crime scene? I have yet to read of any. It is definitely not in the PCA.

BK's phone went off when he was in Pullman WA at 2:47am and didn't come back on until 4:48am, so his phone doesn't place him at 1122 King Rd at all.

There is no proof whatsoever that was his car in Moscow, either.

As far as the alibi goes, BK said through his attorney that he was out driving that night but was nowhere near 1122 King Rd. His attorney said discovery in regards to his alibi would be provided later and other discovery may come from the prosecution witnesses.

Nothing in the PCA convinces me he was at 1122 King Rd or even in Moscow that night.

BUT

Surely LE has found more evidence than what is in the PCA and we just don't know what yet. What concerns me is that 6 of the Grand Jurors had more questions and probably would not have voted to indict him except that they were told the standard was probable cause. So, that tells me the evidence that was presented to the Grand Jury was not the slam dunk many here are expecting. This does not bode well for the prosecution case at trial, especially in a death penalty case.

So, once this goes to trial, I'm looking for something from the prosecution that will conclusively place BK INSIDE that house - such as a photo lineup with DM where LE showed her a number of men with a mask on and she picked BK out of the photo line up BEFORE he was arrested or anyone had ever heard of him except LE. That would make me believe he was in that house. Some other things would be his fingerprints in the house, if either of the shoe prints were his - even the one outside behind that old sofa on the back patio as BK had absolutely no business being on that property since he doesn't know those women. Anything that could conclusively tie him to that property would be acceptable. Also, if LE has something that showed BK definitely knew these women existed. For now, we don't have any of that. So I remain patiently waiting for the trial to hear and see all of the evidence so I can finally decide if he is guilty or innocent.