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

GRT · 2024-09-05T09:21:20-0400

maskedwoman said:
I don't blame him. It's in the Prosecution's hands. He can still testify, and it's the perfect time for him to change jobs. The Defense cannot hurt his career by trying to blame his small department for anything. I will be very surprised if we don't hear any accusations of them being over their heads and having the wrong guy during the trial.

I don't blame him either, it just surprised me that he left before seeing this to the end.

Fry has taken a lot of grief during his tenure. In addition to the criticism over this case, there was a kerfuffle over the arrests of church members who were singing in public without wearing masks during COVID. Those who were arrested sued the City and the City ended up settling for $300,000.

I think you're right that we'll hear accusations about the PD and about them getting the wrong guy. That's pretty common from defense teams.

jepop · 2024-09-05T09:45:25-0400

CKS said:
All MOO

Reminder I do not think BK is innocent nor do I think he is guilty yet. I'm still on the fence.

Another potential problem LE may have is the brass section is of interest since that’s what the snap of the sheath is made of.

Now we don’t know if it’s cellular DNA or cfDNA or a mix of both found on the sheath, but no DNA could be recovered after 24 hours of it being placed on brass in study.

cfDNA could not be recovered after 4 hours. Cellular DNA could not be recovered after 24 hours and after 4 hours with a recovery rate of only 0.018%.

Trace DNA and its persistence on various surfaces: A long term study investigating the influence of surface type and environmental conditions – Part one,

The ISP recovered a single source full male profile from the sheathe button ( see Motion for protective Order under Kohberger in Idaho Court cases of Interest page. Apologies but unable to link to the that page via my phone only laptop which is out of order ATM but you should be able to access the page if you are in the US imo.). Imoo

Regardless of above, I'm bringing forward an informative post from prior thread when the question of brass and DNA preservation arose * (this not being the first time).

Post in thread '4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #94' 4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #94

Below is just a small quote, but if you read the entire post, the expert poster addressing the issue includes some quality links to the current literature imo.

"To put it plainly, the DNA isn't degraded much or at all UNTIL it goes into solution with zinc. By creating new solutions that prevent zinc from interacting with the target DNA, the problem is solved (unless the brass and the elements have interacted a lot over decades or centuries)."

Moo

CKS · 2024-09-05T09:49:43-0400

RANCH said:
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.

I'm not saying it. The State of Idaho says it.

girlhasnoname · 2024-09-05T10:06:22-0400

Cool Cats said:
Nice post.

I also like to use that word....

Totality of the evidence.

Note that the people who try to find flaws in the evidence to help exhonerate BK, never compare the totality of the evidence. They just take one small thing and try to confuse it and discount it. But jurors must consider all evidence, the totality, and also it has to be evidence, not just "maybe" this "maybe" that.

2 Cents

I use the metaphor of brick by brick of evidence that builds the wall of guilt. This case has the totality in spades.

jepop · 2024-09-05T10:11:44-0400

CKS said:
I'm not saying it. The State of Idaho says it.

Disagree with your interpretation of the Idaho State Police guidelines you listed upthread as your source. Plus the Idaho state lab extracted and processed the DNA from the sheathe button, and developed a full single source male profile. IMO. It makes no sense that they did so against their own policies. IMO they didn't and the ISP guidelines make no reference to the word 'only' when discussing epithelial cell DNA samples, homicide scenes and suspected murder weapons. Finally, it is the Idaho court decision re what evidence is admissible in a trial, not the Idaho State police. Moo

Please link in your source to support your assertion or interpretation that the ISP decide what is admissible in trial.

girlhasnoname · 2024-09-05T10:15:15-0400

GRT said:
Just FYI -- Chief Fry resigned and is running for Sheriff. He's no longer on the case, but I'm sure he'll testify.

Not everyone thought Fry did a great job, but I was surprised he bailed before the biggest case of his career got to court.

From this link: "Moscow Mayor Art Bettge said the harsh criticism Fry and his department received nationally weighed on Fry."

In the end, we'll see if it was good enough to get a conviction.

I think Chief Fry and all of the MPD did an excellent job in their investigation. He was thoughtful and purposeful in his updates before it became too overwhelming for him to do that on a regular basis. He called in the ISP and FBI immediately, he did everything right IMO.

It took about 8-10 weeks to arrest the killer here and I'd say that is damn impressive considering it was a stranger on stranger crime. (most likely)

This Chief or MPD has absolutely nothing to feel ashamed of or criticized for from and this sensationalizing and click baiting SM. Everybody is an armchair detective who could have done better.

MOO

CKS · 2024-09-05T10:18:31-0400

jepop said:
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

MOO

For the record as I have said numerous times I do not think BK is innocent but I also don't see how he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I'm not saying it the State of Idaho says it.

The source is the State of Idaho and it says Touch DNA analysis is permitted on weapons in murder and attempted murder cases. You do realize that the sheath is not the murder weapon and we also do not know for sure if a kbar was the weapon or the only weapon used.

What have I misrepresented? IMO, they know how unreliable touch DNA is so the State of Idaho seems to only allow touch DNA evidence on the murder weapon. Sorry, but that's how I read it and I'm not sure how else it could possibly be interpreted?

Side note: There is a VERY specific reason the defense wants the prosecutions methodology of how it came to be BK's DNA and until all of that is shared I'm still on the fence. There are ways to manipulate the DNA testing with the markers. I'm not saying they did but I also don't know why they wouldn't share that info? I suppose eventually they will but it's just like how LE won't turn over all of the cast data? What's that all about?

CKS · 2024-09-05T10:42:32-0400

jepop said:
Disagree with your interpretation of the Idaho State Police guidelines you listed upthread as your source. Plus the Idaho state lab extracted and processed the DNA from the sheathe button, and developed a full single source male profile. IMO. It makes no sense that they did so against their own policies. IMO they didn't and the ISP guidelines make no reference to the word 'only' when discussing epithelial cell DNA samples, homicide scenes and suspected murder weapons. Finally, it is the Idaho court decision re what evidence is admissible in a trial, not the Idaho State police. Moo

Please link in your source to support your assertion or interpretation that the ISP decide what is admissible in trial.

MOO

I never said it won't be used. I said it may not be admissible but thought it was interesting that the State of Idaho had that on their website. A while back I looked it up if touch DNA is permissible in the Idaho courts b/c I thought a loooong time ago I read that some states don't allow it.

The fact is touch DNA is not exact science and it's not the same as say bodily fluids when we're talking DNA. Don't shoot the messenger. It's just the truth.

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

I'm not going to spend all day proving my point and I linked the first example I found. You don't have to believe me and I'm not saying I'm right.

It is ALL MY OPINION and we can agree to disagree. I think we all just want to see justice so apologies if I've come off the wrong way.

2 Cents

Arkay · 2024-09-05T10:44:31-0400

GRT said:
It's also called "transfer DNA" because skin cells can transfer from a woman to a scarf she wears and then, when she hangs the scarf on a hook next to a man's coat, the cells transfer to his coat, and then later when his friend pats him on the back, they transfer to the friend's glove and then they're finally found on a cup the friend drinks out of.

That said, it's still DNA, and in this case, it points to BK. But, it doesn't mean he touched the sheath--he might have shaken hands with someone who then touched the sheath and transferred the DNA.

That’s impossible in this case because it is SINGLE SOURCE DNA.

Single as in “one.”

If the above scenarios of transfer DNA were in play, the DNA of Scarf Lady and the DNA of Coat Man and the DNA of Pat On the Back Man and the DNA of Glove Friend would ALL be detectable.

But only BK’s DNA was found.

Old news by now.

Just going by evidence already provided by LE.

Curiousobserver · 2024-09-05T10:52:12-0400

CKS said:
MOO

I never said it won't be used. I said it may not be admissible but thought it was interesting that the State of Idaho had that on their website. A while back I looked it up if touch DNA is permissible in the Idaho courts b/c I thought a loooong time ago I read that some states don't allow it.

The fact is touch DNA is not exact science and it's not the same as say bodily fluids when we're talking DNA. Don't shoot the messenger. It's just the truth.

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

I'm not going to spend all day proving my point and I linked the first example I found. You don't have to believe me and I'm not saying I'm right.

It is ALL MY OPINION and we can agree to disagree. I think we all just want to see justice so apologies if I've come off the wrong way.

2 Cents

I think it is fair to say that this is not an unwinnable case for the defense or unlosable for the prosecution depending on your perspective.

Circumstantial cases rely on the weight of there being too many coincidences for all of them to be unrelated.

An untainted jury can be made to doubt that DNA and if they do all the other circumstantial evidence starts to mean less.

jepop · 2024-09-05T11:02:29-0400

CKS said:
MOO

For the record as I have said numerous times I do not think BK is innocent but I also don't see how he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I'm not saying it the State of Idaho says it.

The source is the State of Idaho and it says Touch DNA analysis is permitted on weapons in murder and attempted murder cases. You do realize that the sheath is not the murder weapon and we also do not know for sure if a kbar was the weapon or the only weapon used.

What have I misrepresented? IMO, they know how unreliable touch DNA is so the State of Idaho seems to only allow touch DNA evidence on the murder weapon. Sorry, but that's how I read it and I'm not sure how else it could possibly be interpreted?

Side note: There is a VERY specific reason the defense wants the prosecutions methodology of how it came to be BK's DNA and until all of that is shared I'm still on the fence. There are ways to manipulate the DNA testing with the markers. I'm not saying they did but I also don't know why they wouldn't share that info? I suppose eventually they will but it's just like how LE won't turn over all of the cast data? What's that all about?

The str Dna analysis lab reports etc have been shared in discovery. Alot if not all of igg info has been shared by order of judge. Imo perhaps read up on all the motions approved by the judge. Unfortunately I can't link to all the motions and orders ATM but have done so on numerous occasions on the threads. They are in chronological order in the court docs.

I don't care what you believe re his innocence or guilt. I care about accurate information and speculation that is based on some sort of known fact. Jmo

We will have to agree to disagree on your interpretation of the Idaho State Police guidelines for evidence collection.

When the defense motions to suppress the DNA evidence it won't be based on those guidelines imo. They are looking for procedural errors in how igg was used as an investigative tool in the case. That is moo based on the available court docs ( defense motions) to date. Of course you are entitled to your opinions.

NCWatcher · 2024-09-05T11:07:09-0400

Cool Cats said:
Nice post.

I also like to use that word....

Totality of the evidence.

Note that the people who try to find flaws in the evidence to help exhonerate BK, never compare the totality of the evidence. They just take one small thing and try to confuse it and discount it. But jurors must consider all evidence, the totality, and also it has to be evidence, not just "maybe" this "maybe" that.

2 Cents

IMO there can be issues with only looking at the "totality of the evidence." While each piece of evidence that goes into a totality of evidence doesn't have to (& very likely won't) scream "guilty" by itself, each piece has to meet a minimum threshold to be considered evidence worth considering. That minimum threshold varies across people. Evidence that is not worth considering/non-persuasive (for a variety of reasons-- could be the collection, the handling/processing, chain of command, the scientific basis, whatever) doesn't suddenly become persuasive and valid IMO when mixed with other pieces of evidence. So in a sense, each piece of evidence must stand on its own. Simply because a piece of evidence is admissable & is introduced doesn't mean jurors must believe it or consider it. That caveat is always part of the judge's instructions to jurors.

To me, evidence that's iffy remains iffy. So, for example, if blood evidence in a case was screwed up IMO, I'm not going to count it anyway just because there's other evidence of guilt (not BARD) so the "totality" says guilty (& BARD) but only if the blood is counted.
MOO

al66pine · 2024-09-05T12:04:21-0400

ISP Touch DNA Analysis. Again.

CKS said:
....
I'm not saying it the State of Idaho says it.

The source is the State of Idaho and it says Touch DNA analysis is permitted on weapons in murder and attempted murder cases....

What have I misrepresented? IMO, they know how unreliable touch DNA is so the State of Idaho seems to only allow touch DNA evidence on the murder weapon. Sorry, but that's how I read it and I'm not sure how else it could possibly be interpreted? ....

snipped for focus @CKS
From @CKS earlier post: "Touch DNA analysis is permitted on weapons in murder and attempted murder cases."
From @CKS post above: "I'm not saying it the State of Idaho says it."

Respectfully, neither post quotes ISP policy; both posts re-word ISP policy.
See relevant parts of the ISP POLICY QUOTED VERBATIM just below and in my earlier post.*

First, ISP policy re Touch DNA states in relevant part:
"Touch DNA: This type of testing is generally only offered on homicides..."
Per ^, ISP policy does not specifically limit that testing to weapons ONLY, at least not in that part of ISP policy.
If anyone has read ISP policy which definitively limits that testing by ISP lab to weapons ONLY, I would appreciate a link and quote pls. If I missed (entirely possible) a part of policy limiting ISP lab to testing only weapons, I apologize.

Second, the ISP intro, re submitting evidence for analysis, states:
it is "GENERAL policy" (my CAPS) and
"... DEVIATION from this policy may be necessary." (my CAPS)
Per ^, seems clear imo ISP MAY make exceptions.

Further, even if ISP Touch DNA policy did limit testing to only weapons, seems ISP lab may have made an exception to general policies for a four person homicide case.

Every poster here is free to personally interpret ISP lab's Touch DNA testing policy but not to paraphrase in a manner limiting testing to only weapons and then claim that the "State of Idaho is saying it."

imo
____________________
* My earlier post responding to CKS earlier post.