4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #94

[Justice101]

I agree that the DNA evidence should be the most substantial part of the case.

The problem, as I see it, is that we already know it's "touch DNA," and we've already heard how that DNA technology hasn't held up in some cases. Or, it's been the cause for an overturned conviction.

If Sy Ray can show--as he claims he can--that BK's phone was nowhere near the murders, it could convince some jurors that BK, himself, was not there.

Some have said (and I agree) that BK could have turned his phone off and left it elsewhere to keep from being tracked.

But, if Ray can show the phone was moving -- not just in one spot during that time -- it might be a game changer.

All just thinking aloud and MOO...

This touch DNA was a full profile of ONE PERSON. Full, not partial, and one person not mixed.

There is no way the DNA gets thrown out of even questioned by a credible expert. There is no science or court case to my knowledge that successfully refuted touch DNA under these conditions.

 

[GRT]

This touch DNA was a full profile of ONE PERSON. Full, not partial, and one person not mixed.

There is no way the DNA gets thrown out of even questioned by a credible expert. There is no science or court case to my knowledge that successfully refuted touch DNA under these conditions.

Yet, the Defense is going after something similar. I've read a lot for and against touch DNA.

Just to play devil's advocate (because I do think BK is the killer), what would happen if BK looked at the knife in a store and opened the sheath (leaving touch DNA on the snap) and then put it back; then someone else comes along, buys the knife but doesn't open it until he has gloves on and --just to be safe -- wipes down the entire sheath to remove any errant DNA?

That's the sort of scenario I think we'll see the Defense argue.

Keep in mind that convictions based on touch DNA, such as the Amanda Knox case, have been overturned later.

 

[GRT]

I'm not sure why it matters whether the phone was stationary or in motion. Clearly the phone was with him because he turned it on again after the murders. He could have turned it off and left it in the car or stuffed it in the deep pocket of his coveralls. The smart move would have been to leave it at home and on, but we know he left the house with it on. Either way, he had the phone. MOOooo

I think some are proposing he might have left the phone elsewhere to keep from being tracked during the actual killings.

 

[Justice101]

Yet, the Defense is going after something similar. I've read a lot for and against touch DNA.

Just to play devil's advocate (because I do think BK is the killer), what would happen if BK looked at the knife in a store and opened the sheath (leaving touch DNA on the snap) and then put it back; then someone else comes along, buys the knife but doesn't open it until he has gloves on and --just to be safe -- wipes down the entire sheath to remove any errant DNA?

That's the sort of scenario I think we'll see the Defense argue.

Keep in mind that convictions based on touch DNA, such as the Amanda Knox case, have been overturned later.

That would be beyond a reasonable doubt and the jury would still convict.

Everyone COULD invent a scenario to explain away every piece of evidence.. But there has to be proof and 99% of the invalid ones fall short of establishing reasonable doubt. For example, let's say a jury clearly sees a new video of BK walking into the house at the time and place where the students were murdered. His explanation in court: "That's not me! Just someone that looks just like me that drives a car that looks like mine without a license plate on the front."

Almost impossible to prove anything 100.000000000000000000% true. That's why the law says beyond a reasonable doubt. Him touching a sheath and the true killer doing it but him having the car that was identified and no alibi, ewtc. etc. etc etc. makes that unreasonable to think he did not do it.

Just my 2 cents worth

 

[GRT]

That would be beyond a reasonable doubt and the jury would still convict.

Everyone COULD invent a scenario to explain away every piece of evidence.. But there has to be proof and 99% of them fall short of reasonable doubt. For example, a video of BK walking in the house. His explanation: "That's not me just someone that looks like me that drives a car that looks like mine without a license plate on the front."

just my 2 cents worth

I get that, but I'm guessing that's the type of scenario the Defense plans to argue. Now, they've got a cellular data expert who usually testifies for the Prosecution aligning with the Defense. That expert is saying the cellular data in the case is skimpy, and what he's seeing is exculpatory.

I don't know, obviously, but I hope the Prosecution is as good as some think they are.

 

[Cool Cats]

That would be beyond a reasonable doubt and the jury would still convict.

Everyone COULD invent a scenario to explain away every piece of evidence.. But there has to be proof and 99% of them fall short of reasonable doubt. For example, a video of BK walking in the house. His explanation: "That's not me just someone that looks like me that drives a car that looks like mine without a license plate on the front."

just my 2 cents worth

Thank you.

People don't understand how trials work.
Lawyers can't tell the jury theories and guesses and maybes.....

WITHOUT EVIDENCE TO BACK IT UP.

Also,

If BK touched a snap in the store the killer would have also touched the snap and that is not what happened.

BK's DNA is single source DNA.

2 Cents

 

[maskedwoman]

I think some are proposing he might have left the phone elsewhere to keep from being tracked during the actual killings.

Well... there are a very limited number of places someone can leave their phone, besides their home or car, and be confident it will still be there when they return. Leaving it home would be the least risky place to leave it and would make it possibly to argue that he's at home even if he's not using the phone. Yet, we know from the PCA that he took it with him. I would be curious where it is thought he might have left it his phone in the middle of the night. Thanks!

 

[GRT]

If BK touched a snap in the store the killer would have also touched the snap and that is not what happened.

RSBM...

Why? If the killer (just supposing it wasn't BK) knew it was the knife he wanted, might he just buy it without opening it first?

Realistically, BK could have opened the sheath and the killer didn't. At least not with bare hands. We know the sheath was wiped down -- but we don't know who wiped it.

But again, I'm not promoting that scenario. I specifically used it to play devil's advocate because it could explain how BK's single-source DNA got on the sheath snap but not elsewhere on the sheath and there was no other source.

The Defense is already verbalizing these ideas, and experts are already confirming the possibilities.

Then, enter Sy Ray. He claims he can show BK (or his phone) was nowhere near when the murders happened.

Is that enough to get one juror -- a single juror -- to question a guilty verdict?

Juries do odd things at times.

 

[GRT]

Well... there are a very limited number of places someone can leave their phone, besides their home or car, and be confident it will still be there when they return. Leaving it home would be the least risky place to leave it and would make it possibly to argue that he's at home even if he's not using the phone. Yet, we know from the PCA that he took it with him. I would be curious where it is thought he might have left it his phone in the middle of the night. Thanks!

I agree with all you've said here. It's just that Sy Ray claims he can show that BK was nowhere near when the murders occurred due to his phone location data.

That's why some here feel as though BK might have left his phone somewhere--to later provide an alibi for himself.

 

[Cool Cats]

RSBM...

Why? If the killer (just supposing it wasn't BK) knew it was the knife he wanted, might he just buy it without opening it first?

Realistically, BK could have opened the sheath and the killer didn't. At least not with bare hands. We know the sheath was wiped down -- but we don't know who wiped it.

But again, I'm not promoting that scenario. I specifically used it to play devil's advocate because it could explain how BK's single-source DNA got on the sheath snap but not elsewhere on the sheath and there was no other source.

The Defense is already verbalizing these ideas, and experts are already confirming the possibilities.

Then, enter Sy Ray. He claims he can show BK (or his phone) was nowhere near when the murders happened.

Is that enough to get one juror -- a single juror -- to question a guilty verdict?

Juries do odd things at times.

Need evidence, can't just say things. Sy is just talking - no evidence.

Same with touching sheath in store....

Need evidence...you are playing devil's advocate with theories I believe the judge would throw out for lack of evidence.

2 Cents

 

[GRT]

Need evidence, can't just say things. Sy is just talking - no evidence.

Same with touching sheath in store....

Need evidence...you are playing devil's advocate with theories I believe the judge would throw out for lack of evidence.

2 Cents

Let's hope so. But I don't think AT is a pushover. I think she'll defend her client to the best of her ability.

And, things happen. Think OJ. Casey Anthony.

 

[Megnut]

I get that, but I'm guessing that's the type of scenario the Defense plans to argue. Now, they've got a cellular data expert who usually testifies for the Prosecution aligning with the Defense. That expert is saying the cellular data in the case is skimpy, and what he's seeing is exculpatory.

I don't know, obviously, but I hope the Prosecution is as good as some think they are.

Their expert, who has not IMO been cleared for trial, has a product to sell.

He's also very artful in his choices of words.

It's not necessary or even possible for the State to mark BK's entire route. Even with cellular data and Berla to work with, there can be gaps. Mayveca traffic cam glitches or a home security camera dust record or overwrite.

AT and her hired gun are arguing the negative. In the spans where the Elantra isn't on film, those are delicious alibi opportunities. Before AT commits to any such thing, she eats to know what else the State knows. So she doesn't park the Elantra somewhere the State already knows it wasn't.

And of course, if there's relevant evidence or exculpatory  evidence, the State can't sit on that, and they're not going to.
It was AT and her witness who are calling it exculpatory. But listen carefully, she qualifies it, how can I know if they won't give it to me.

And the witness concedes that, if they got what they're asking for (which doesn't exist), it might help the State or the Defense. And since it's an unknown known, the advantage goes to the Defense because they need something, anything exculpatory, and right now, everything they don't have has potential to be exculpatory. That's the ATM she's banking at

Yet we all know what happens to "potential" A LOT. It doesn't get realized. There isn't going to be a railyard switch. Where Elantra A and Elantra B jump tracks and BK circles around Pullman all night and SODDI carries out four murders in Moscow, somehow leaving a sheath behind that only BK touched intimately.

The real value to that fishing expedition was to pound the table loudly, give the impression that there's real eculpatory evidence, not just the scintillating potential for it.

If BK had an actual alibi, she'd be asking for everything the State had for those specific locations.

She knows exactly what she's doing.

JMO

 

[Cool Cats]

Let's hope so. But I don't think AT is a pushover. I think she'll defend her client to the best of her ability.

And, things happen. Think OJ. Casey Anthony.

Think

Lori Vallow
Chad Daybell
Christopher Gregor
Alex Murdaugh
Travis McMichael
Gregory McMichael
William Bryan
Michelle Troconis
George Wagner
Wayne Williams
Charles Manson

Thousands.......BK won't be any different, in fact, I believe there is more evidence against him than against some of the above.

2 Cents

 

[jepop]

Thousands.......BK won't be any different, in fact, I believe there is more evidence against him than against some of the above.

RSBM for focus. RBBM
Yeah Kohberger isn't all that after all. Imo he's just not that special and nor are the defense tactics on display so far (not saying he is not receiving a good defense, imo he clearly is).

Worrying that Kohberger could go the way of OJ doesn't hold much water for me personally. Different era, different crime, different prosecution. Moo

eta Also as above regarding comparisons with Amanda Knox

 

[GRT]

Think

Lori Vallow
Chad Daybell
Christopher Gregor
Alex Murdaugh
Travis McMichael
Gregory McMichael
William Bryan
Michelle Troconis
George Wagner
Wayne Williams
Charles Manson

Thousands.......BK won't be any different, in fact, I believe there is more evidence against him than against some of the above.

2 Cents

I hope you're right.

You are correct that more defendants who go to trial are found guilty than acquitted. However, the majority of cases never go to trial and are settled by plea deals. Something like 94% of state convictions and 97% of federal convictions are the result of plea bargains.

And other numbers factor in, too. Typically, only 55% to 65% of murder cases are ever solved via arrest/deal/conviction. Here on WS, we have many that are still unresolved.

Politics factors in, too—elected prosecutors are loath to bring charges in cases where they might not get a conviction. Yet, when cold cases are finally solved, sometimes decades later, the perp was often a suspect early on.

Statistically, the odds are in favor of BK being the killer. The anomaly in this case (just MOO) is that we're hearing from experts in the mainstream media pointing out some of the state's weaknesses.

Plus, we have experts like Sy Ray, who typically testifies for the prosecution, on the defense's side this time, saying that data is missing, but what he's seen so far is exculpatory.

I'm only mentioning these issues because that's what we do here. We discuss the merits and weaknesses of cases as we see them.

In my opinion, the state has its work cut out for it this time, and it won't be a slam dunk for all the reasons we've discussed. I'm still leaning toward a jury convicting BK, but this is an interesting case, and I think both sides will pack the witness stand with experts from several fields.

All MOO

 

[GRT]

Their expert, who has not IMO been cleared for trial, has a product to sell.

He's also very artful in his choices of words.

It's not necessary or even possible for the State to mark BK's entire route. Even with cellular data and Berla to work with, there can be gaps. Mayveca traffic cam glitches or a home security camera dust record or overwrite.

AT and her hired gun are arguing the negative. In the spans where the Elantra isn't on film, those are delicious alibi opportunities. Before AT commits to any such thing, she eats to know what else the State knows. So she doesn't park the Elantra somewhere the State already knows it wasn't.

And of course, if there's relevant evidence or exculpatory  evidence, the State can't sit on that, and they're not going to.
It was AT and her witness who are calling it exculpatory. But listen carefully, she qualifies it, how can I know if they won't give it to me.

And the witness concedes that, if they got what they're asking for (which doesn't exist), it might help the State or the Defense. And since it's an unknown known, the advantage goes to the Defense because they need something, anything exculpatory, and right now, everything they don't have has potential to be exculpatory. That's the ATM she's banking at

Yet we all know what happens to "potential" A LOT. It doesn't get realized. There isn't going to be a railyard switch. Where Elantra A and Elantra B jump tracks and BK circles around Pullman all night and SODDI carries out four murders in Moscow, somehow leaving a sheath behind that only BK touched intimately.

The real value to that fishing expedition was to pound the table loudly, give the impression that there's real eculpatory evidence, not just the scintillating potential for it.

If BK had an actual alibi, she'd be asking for everything the State had for those specific locations.

She knows exactly what she's doing.

JMO

Those are really good points and analyses!

 

[Auntie Cipation]

RSBM...

Why? If the killer (just supposing it wasn't BK) knew it was the knife he wanted, might he just buy it without opening it first?

I'm uncertain of my memory, but didn't we learn early on that BK ordered the knife from Amazon (or in any case online)?

So in a physical store would have bought only the sheath? (Assuming this isn't the sheath that originally came with this knife)

MOO

 

[Megnut]

I'm uncertain of my memory, but didn't we learn early on that BK ordered the knife from Amazon (or in any case online)?

So in a physical store would have bought only the sheath? (Assuming this isn't the sheath that originally came with this knife)

MOO

I think we only "know" LE subpoenad Amazon for all records of transactions, shopping history, keystrokes and the like. Not sure we've seen the returns on those. Perhaps under seal.

JMO

 

[North_Idaho_Nony]

I think we only "know" LE subpoenad Amazon for all records of transactions, shopping history, keystrokes and the like. Not sure we've seen the returns on those. Perhaps under seal.

JMO

Definitely under seal, just like virtually all other evidence since BK’s arrest.

 

[Megnut]

Definitely under seal, just like virtually all other evidence since BK’s arrest.

And there is A LOT of it.

Which is why AT is hosting public hearings in the hopes of convincing the public (BK has the right for the public to know... NO, HE DOES NOT!!)

that there's a problem with the investigation
that there's a problem with the data
that there's a problem with discovery
that there's a problem with genealogy

The real problem (for her) is it all points to him.

JMO