4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #95

[GRT]

MOO

Okay so show me a better study or source that proves mine wrong please?

Unless you have video of BK touching or holding the sheath you don't have anything showing me he did actually ever touch the sheath.

Has the defense said that it was BK's sheath or that he touched it personally?

Remember all they need is one juror to have reasonable doubt.

2 Cents

I think he touched the sheath. I think he's the killer.

But, I have my doubts if the State is going to prove that with just one minuscule bit of touch DNA that doesn't even prove he touched the sheath.

AT will argue (MOO) that the jury is supposed to believe that BK violently murdered four people -- slashing, stabbing, and struggling with, and not one bit of his DNA was found elsewhere in the house? And none of the victims' DNA was found in his car or apartment?

That's what I think she'll say. Then, she'll prop Sy Ray front and center and he'll say the cellphone data is exculpatory.

I think the lack of DNA and the *issues* with the cell data could very well be from BK's criminal knowledge. Did he purposely leave the tiny spec of touch DNA on the snap? Did he hide his phone elsewhere while he did the murders? Who knows?

But, you're right about touch DNA. I researched that at length a few months ago.

I'm still leaning more toward a conviction, but it could go either way.

 

[GRT]

MOO

Honestly b/c the 'touch DNA' is on the sheath and not the actual murder weapon which was allegedly a Kbar knife it's doubtful it will even be admissible in court. From what I gather touch DNA is only permitted on the actual weapon that was used.


Touch DNA analysis is permitted on weapons in murder and attempted murder cases.

Idaho State Police

I read something along those lines. In fact, I think there are State rules as to whether touch DNA testing can take place.

If nothing else, this is one of the most interesting cases I've seen in a long time.

 

[Nila Aella]

Case summary page

08/30/2024 Notice of In Camera Submission (Sealed)

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/Summary/Case-Summary-Kohberger-09042024.pdf

 

[CKS]

I think he touched the sheath. I think he's the killer.

But, I have my doubts if the State is going to prove that with just one minuscule bit of touch DNA that doesn't even prove he touched the sheath.

AT will argue (MOO) that the jury is supposed to believe that BK violently murdered four people -- slashing, stabbing, and struggling with, and not one bit of his DNA was found elsewhere in the house? And none of the victims' DNA was found in his car or apartment?

That's what I think she'll say. Then, she'll prop Sy Ray front and center and he'll say the cellphone data is exculpatory.

I think the lack of DNA and the *issues* with the cell data could very well be from BK's criminal knowledge. Did he purposely leave the tiny spec of touch DNA on the snap? Did he hide his phone elsewhere while he did the murders? Who knows?

But, you're right about touch DNA. I researched that at length a few months ago.

I'm still leaning more toward a conviction, but it could go either way.

MOO

I agree that BK probably touched the sheath and it appears to be his DNA. But it is questionable and it is from what I can tell the only thing that links him to this crime in my opinion.


I'm not saying in any of my posts that he did not do it. I'm just saying we need more evidence in my opinion to convict him with the death penalty.


All MOO

 

[Megnut]

Linkage. Totality of the evidence.

Foreign object recovered at the crime scene. Probably matched to the murder weapon/autopsy/analysis of injuries.
Single source male DNA recovered from the crime scene, recovered from the sheath, recovered from a sheath that probably corresponds to the murder weapon.
The DNA does not match any known DNA in Codis (if it was run there, I don't recall).
DNA ultimately matched to buccal swap of a single male.
Who lives in the vicinity and certainly had access.
Who cannot be excluded from a living witness' description.
Who made making such a match (collecting his DNA) difficult because he was sorting it and discarding it clandestinely in another state, someone who apparently had cause to be ultra protective of his DNA.
Who happens to have a PhD level of knowledge and interest in forensic criminology.
Who happens to drive a white Elantra, then with only one plate.
Who lives adjacent to the crime scene.
Who has no discernable alibi. (He was, they're going to say, hanging out wherever the CAST report has a gap in dasat,
Whose DNA between sheath and mouth is a statistical match to an nth degree.

Yes, a bird could have flown his DNA on to a sheath he never touched but flights of fantasy defy logic. The Defense may well try to play it up that someone unknown killer harvested BK's DNA from a handshake, but I am confident that the State's witness(es) will be clear, credible, concise and make the case that BK left his own DNA on the sheath, on the touchpoint, directly.

JMO

 

[RANCH]

MOO

Honestly b/c the 'touch DNA' is on the sheath and not the actual murder weapon which was allegedly a Kbar knife it's doubtful it will even be admissible in court. From what I gather touch DNA is only permitted on the actual weapon that was used.


Touch DNA analysis is permitted on weapons in murder and attempted murder cases.

Idaho State Police

So you're saying that only touch DNA recovered from a murder weapon is permitted as circumstantial evidence in Idaho courts?

That seems strange to me. Why would touch DNA recovered from other relevant items like a knife sheath be excluded? I don't get it.

JMO.

 

[jepop]

MOO

Honestly b/c the 'touch DNA' is on the sheath and not the actual murder weapon which was allegedly a Kbar knife it's doubtful it will even be admissible in court. From what I gather touch DNA is only permitted on the actual weapon that was used.


Touch DNA analysis is permitted on weapons in murder and attempted murder cases.

Idaho State Police

Are you saying touch dna is only allowed to be admitted if extracted from murder weopens?? If so please re read your source as imo that is not being said at all. Seriously do you think the state would have used this evidence if what you are claiming is true? You have misinterpreted your source! And " allowed" how exactly? The Idaho State Police Lab extracted the DNA. Are you saying they went against their own policy?? That is not what your source says. Where is this coming from?? Moo

 

[schooling]

MOO

Honestly b/c the 'touch DNA' is on the sheath and not the actual murder weapon which was allegedly a Kbar knife it's doubtful it will even be admissible in court. From what I gather touch DNA is only permitted on the actual weapon that was used.


Touch DNA analysis is permitted on weapons in murder and attempted murder cases.

Idaho State Police

Are you saying that foreign (to the crime scene) and complete 'touch DNA' (whatever that is) profiles that are left on things like door knobs, walls, and other surfaces are not admissible in court?

Can you cite something that shows that? Or a case where such evidence has been thrown out?

I'm not an expert but that doesn't sound right. At all.

MOO

Update: Sorry for the repetitive post...down to the 'are you saying' LOL. I hadn't caught up yet.