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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
GRT said:
I think they're pretty clear -- but they aren't "rules." The site says they're "guidelines." And, they offer exceptions in specific cases.

Does this case qualify for an exception? Maybe. I'm sure AT looked into that early on. MOO
Click to expand...
That's what I thought. They are not rules of evidence on what can be introduced in court. JMO.
 
al66pine said:
ISP Touch DNA Analysis. Again.

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.
www.websleuths.com

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

I have been engrossed in another case and only check in here occasionally. Do we know for a fact that it is only touch DNA? Thank you to anyone that can share. MOO Yes it was only touch DNA. Detectives found “touch DNA” on a combat-style knife sheath located on the bed of one of the four...
www.websleuths.com www.websleuths.com
Click to expand...
Besides that, isn't a knife sheath basically the same thing as a gun holster? Why would you test only the murder weapon and not it's casing? And why rely only on the weapon when people are killed by other means- strangulation, punching, drowning, poisoning, etc...
 
Arkay said:
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.
Click to expand...
Just to play devil's advocate because this isn't something I believe. This is just a story that bucks the "impossible" ship.

Suppose BK was eating at his little veggie cafe and a busboy (who was wearing gloves as busboys should do) picked up BK's glass and flatware after he left and BK's touch DNA was on his gloves. What if the busboy pulled the knife (in its sheath) out of his pocket and opened the sheath to look longingly at the knife. Before the busboy does his dirty deeds on that fateful night, he carefully wipes the sheath down to remove any of his DNA but he didn't get the underside of the snap all that well. Who's DNA might be found under the snap?
 
LinasK said:
Besides that, isn't a knife sheath basically the same thing as a gun holster? Why would you test only the murder weapon and not it's casing? And why rely only on the weapon when people are killed by other means- strangulation, punching, drowning, poisoning, etc...
Click to expand...
Probably, but you'd have to know it was the holster that held the murder gun.
 
NCWatcher said:
That's fine. But it seems the "totality of the evidence" argument has often used here on WS in discussions of potentially iffy evidence. The general position doesn't seem to be what you've described above. Rather, the general position I'm disagreeing with seems to be that even normally questionable evidence should be seen as "good unquestioned evidence" as long as there's other evidence (a totality) to combine it with. So what if X is not very good or maybe not valid at all? Combined with Y & Z the totality is great. So that seems to mean if there's other evidence, flawed/iffy evidence needs to be accepted as unflawed. I don't agree. Other evidence doesn't automatically transform iffy evidence.
MOO
Click to expand...

I do not understand <modsnip>. Evidence is evidence.

The jury looks at all the evidence and then is smart enough not to let a discusting horrible killer loose on the public to kill our mothers, fathers, sons, friends, daughters, grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc...

2 Cents
 
Last edited by a moderator:
PinkParis2052 said:
When did AT pretty much acknowledged that this is BK's DNA?

Anne started asking for discovery of the STR and SNP in May 2023, there was a hearing in Aug 2023 about why they needed discovery of the IGG information. In Oct 2023, the Judge agreed that they should get some discovery of the IGG but he needed an in-camera review. There was on hearing about the IGG on Nov 2, 2023, the judge set a Dec. 1, 2023 deadline, it was submitted by the state by the deadline and the judge in the review.

The defense team just were turned over some of the IGG information in Jan 11, 2024. On 2/1/2024, the defense team asked the judge for their three dna experts and their investigators to have access to the IGG information. On 2/29/2024, the judge agreed to let the three dna experts to have access to the IGG but not the investigators. On May 30, 2024, in a closed hearing for the 4th and 5th motion to compel discovery, the defense team and their three dna experts made agreements about why their investigators should have access to the IGG. On 6/7/2024, the judge filed a second amended order for disclosure of IGG information and the protective order to include the investigators for the defense team.
Click to expand...
BK's dna match to the match on the sheath, and the IGG are two very separate and distinct things.

To my knowledge, the defense has never contested that BK is a match to the dna on the sheath. They will likely try to convince the jury it got there some other way, but so far they haven't tried to say it's not his.

All the legal maneuvering you're citing is about the IGG and the methods of that investigative tool. Purely procedural.
IMO
 
CKS said:
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?
Click to expand...
Snipped by me--correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're referring to the motions and hearings regarding the IGG and the defense pushing for the methodology of producing BK's name from the unknown dna (done by the FBI). This is not at all the same thing as contesting that the dna on the sheath is a match to BK. I don't think the defense has ever said they question the match or that any manipulation happened with the dna that could cause anyone to question the match. They've always been free to run their own tests and they may have done that. They don't dispute the match.
IMO
 
CKS said:
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
Click to expand...
I think there's likely a huge difference between what we've seen and what they have. It's all been under seal since the pca so we just don't know how much evidence they do or don't have.
IMO
 
 
Look, I'm not a death penalty proponent at this point in my life anymore. I'm totally fine with LWOP.

But seriously? "Idaho’s death penalty procedure violates the provisions of international treaties and thefundamental precepts of international human rights. Because international treaties ratified by the United States are binding on state courts, the imposition of the death penalty is unlawful."
Motion to Strike Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty (International Law)

Sometime when I'm not so tired, I should look and see if these kinds of arguments and filings are standard for AT in other death penalty cases she has worked on and she's been fighting the good fight against the Idaho constitution and laws for years now or if something about BK and his case is inspiring her to think outside the box.
 
CKS said:
MOO

According to court documents in regards to the DNA the comparison showed a statistical match specifically, the STR profile is at least 5.37 octillion times more likely to be seen if the defendant is the source than if an unrelated individual randomly selected from the general population is the source.

Part of the problem is the fact that the prosecution filed a motion to prevent the disclosure of the IGG information to the defense. The defense opposes the motion and filed a motion to compel requesting discovery of everything pertaining to the IGG investigation, including the family tree built by the FBI.

The prosecution expects the defense to just take their word that BK's DNA is a match but the defense wants to see how they came to this conclusion. For some reason the prosecution doesn't want to show their work which makes no sense whatsoever imo.


Two other problems with the touch DNA it was reported that Idaho lab did not initially obtain a viable DNA sample. DNA extraction and purification before PCR amplification by STANDARD methods like swabs and sticky tape being used for extraction before removal of contaminants (which could be something like bacteria which is also DNA) - causes an average loss of about 70% of the sample. I don't think Idaho lab even has a new micro vacuum process that's been invented.

This is a huge problem for low copy number touch DNA. Because Othram is not accredited, they employ a method of extraction called DIRECT extraction which also skips doing purification. It sounds like this method applies amplification methods directly to the object with surface DNA. DIRECT extraction is not permitted to be used by accredited labs, and is not legally permissible as evidence of a crime. Putting the development of an SNP profile for IGG done by Othram aside - did Idaho have Othram extract the STR sample they used for both CODIS and comparison to the Kohbergers?

The other problem is using a covertly obtained DNA sample from his father as a basis for arrest in order to obtain a buccal swab from him. Although it is not an actual law enacted by congress, both FBI and Federal forensic guidelines have strong wording against covertly obtaining and using DNA from a suspect's relative . It is a violation of the relative's rights against search and seizure without probable cause. His father was not a suspect. It is legal for them to collect trash searching for a suspect's DNA. Therefore when they were testing trash samples it was only permissible for them to to do straight match comparisons just like CODIS software does. It's either a 100% match or it's no match.

Any analysis beyond that is a violation against the person whom the DNA belonged to who was not a suspect under investigation. STR match is common for doing paternity tests between a male and his male offspring although it is preferable to have a sample from the mother of the child in order to make a 100% determination. I don't think you'll find any instance in which a low copy number touch DNA sample was used for a paternity test comparison, or any accredited lab that would be willing to do that even for purposes not involving a criminal case.

https://accounts.google.com/ServiceLogin?service=youtube&uilel=3&passive=true&continue=https://www.youtube.com/signin?action_handle_signin=true&app=desktop&hl=en&next=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DqmytVEHU3Uw&hl=en
Again for the record I'm not saying or do I think BK is innocent. I just don't think the prosecution's case is a slam dunk from what we know. The only evidence that we have that BK has anything to do with the crime is the touch DNA and that evidence is highly questionable in itself when you break it down.


All MOO
Click to expand...
It is exceedingly troublesome that the prosecution won't turn over the discovery concerning the exact steps it took to retrieve and compare DNA samples.
 
GoBuckeyes said:
It is exceedingly troublesome that the prosecution won't turn over the discovery concerning the exact steps it took to retrieve and compare DNA samples.
Click to expand...
I haven't followed this case closely for awhile. I did a search and found a source for issues with discovery back in May.

Has that been resolved or is it still a current problem?

www.columbian.com

Key evidence focus of hearings in Idaho slayings; prosecutor denies defense claim state withholding records

BOISE, Idaho — Consequential pieces of evidence that may weigh heavily into the prosecution and defense of Bryan Kohberger are the focus of a pair of closed-door hearings this week as his high-profile
www.columbian.com www.columbian.com
 
RANCH said:
I haven't followed this case closely for awhile. I did a search and found a source for issues with discovery back in May.

Has that been resolved or is it still a current problem?

www.columbian.com

Key evidence focus of hearings in Idaho slayings; prosecutor denies defense claim state withholding records

BOISE, Idaho — Consequential pieces of evidence that may weigh heavily into the prosecution and defense of Bryan Kohberger are the focus of a pair of closed-door hearings this week as his high-profile
www.columbian.com www.columbian.com
Click to expand...
DEFENDANT'S 17111 SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY it was filed on Aug 26th by the defense, so they are still looking

STATE'S RESPONSE AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT'S REQUESTS FOR DISCOVERY filed by the state on Sept 4, 2024. Time will time if they have turned everything over to the defense.
 
RANCH said:
I haven't followed this case closely for awhile. I did a search and found a source for issues with discovery back in May.

Has that been resolved or is it still a current problem?

www.columbian.com

Key evidence focus of hearings in Idaho slayings; prosecutor denies defense claim state withholding records

BOISE, Idaho — Consequential pieces of evidence that may weigh heavily into the prosecution and defense of Bryan Kohberger are the focus of a pair of closed-door hearings this week as his high-profile
www.columbian.com www.columbian.com
Click to expand...
Hearings were held end.of May or early June.. Personally unable to link to court docs ATM. From the open portion of hearing on 4tth MTC, quite clear jmo matters were being resolved and judge has not found that anyone has deliberately been withholding discovery. There are or were Toohey related issues in obtaining certain Federal investigative subpeonas from FBI whatever that means and imo the recent in camera hearing is likely to be related to that . The fed subpoenas were issued to companies during the investigation is what I gather from that hearing. D has returns on all 71 but wanted documentation on when each one was individually issued some.of which they didn't have. The way forward was resolved as p was to see if they could get a list of issue dates from FBI. As I said I suspect the in camera hearing notice may be related. Jmo

AT and co. have claimed deliberate withholding at various points and that is all. You would have to listen to the relevant hearings peppered throughout the last 18 months and read the d; discovery requests and p responses to get the flavour of the he said/ she said vibe in SOME of them.

The point to be noted imo is that JJJ has not made any findings re deliberate discovery violations after hearing the various motions to compel. I believe the deadline for state disovery is pending. The sheer amount of discovery can't be under emphasised in this case and both sides have openly recognised that. The case is under strict gag order so anytime there is an open hearing JJJ and counsel have to skip around points to keep potential trial evidence from reaching the public. Moo
 
jepop said:
Hearings were held end.of May or early June.. Personally unable to link to court docs ATM. From the open portion of hearing on 4tth MTC, quite clear jmo matters were being resolved and judge has not found that anyone has deliberately been withholding discovery. There are or were Toohey related issues in obtaining certain Federal investigative subpeonas from FBI whatever that means and imo the recent in camera hearing is likely to be related to that . The fed subpoenas were issued to companies during the investigation is what I gather from that hearing. D has returns on all 71 but wanted documentation on when each one was individually issued some.of which they didn't have. The way forward was resolved as p was to see if they could get a list of issue dates from FBI. As I said I suspect the in camera hearing notice may be related. Jmo

AT and co. have claimed deliberate withholding at various points and that is all. You would have to listen to the relevant hearings peppered throughout the last 18 months and read the d; discovery requests and p responses to get the flavour of the he said/ she said vibe in SOME of them.

The point to be noted imo is that JJJ has not made any findings re deliberate discovery violations after hearing the various motions to compel. I believe the deadline for state disovery is pending. The sheer amount of discovery can't be under emphasised in this case and both sides have openly recognised that. The case is under strict gag order so anytime there is an open hearing JJJ and counsel have to skip around points to keep potential trial evidence from reaching the public. Moo
Click to expand...
Thank you for your response.

It will be interesting to someday see all of the huge amount of evidence that exists in this case. JMO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 242 more.
Total: 573 (members: 243, guests: 330)

Online statistics

Members online
243
Guests online
330
Total visitors
573
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,111
Messages
18,249,672
Members
234,537
Latest member
helena714
Back
Top