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

[Nila Aella]

All this DNA talk reminded me of how DNA from three other unidentified males was found at the crime scene, including on a glove found outside. Does anyone else remember hearing that? Any guesses at to why those DNA samples weren't tested? The court hearing I believe on 8/18/2023 Anne Taylor asked for the results and Thompson claimed they never did the test so there was nothing to share with her. Seems odd if you ask me? Especially since they said it was male DNA. How would they know it was male DNA if they didn't test the DNA?

I linked an article but if you google it you can easily find what I am talking about.


Bryan Kohberger's defense claims Idaho murders suspect has 'no connection' with victims

JL Objection to protective order: June 22, 2023
Page 2

By December l7, 2022, lab analysts were aware of two additional males’ DNA within the house where the deceased were located, and another unknown male DNA on a glove found outside the residence on November 20, 2022. To this date, the Defense is unaware of what sort of testing, if any, was conducted on these samples other than the STR DNA profiles. Further, these three separate and distinct male DNA profiles were not identified through CODIS leading to the conclusion that the profiles do not belong to Mr. Kohberger.

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/062323+Objection+to+States+Motion+for+Protective+Order.pdf

I do recall BTs response during a hearing on the IGG saying something about the CODIS test did not exist, that the samples (all three) were not run through codis for eligibility reasons. So it appears LE did a test for male/female, but did not run the samples through CODIS. MOO

FAQ on CODIS and NDIS - Fbi:

18. Are there specific data requirements for the DNA records submitted to NDIS?​

Yes. There are several requirements for the DNA data submitted to NDIS:

1. The DNA data must be generated in accordance with the FBI Director’s Quality Assurance Standards;
2. The DNA data must be generated by a laboratory that is accredited by an approved accrediting agency;
3. The DNA data must be generated by a laboratory that undergoes an external audit every two years to demonstrate compliance with the FBI Director’s Quality Assurance Standards;
4. The DNA data must be one of the categories of data acceptable at NDIS, such as convicted offender, arrestee, detainee, legal, forensic (casework), unidentified human remains, missing person, or a relative of missing person;
5. The DNA data must meet minimum CODIS Core Loci requirements for the specimen category;
6. The DNA PCR data must be generated using PCR accepted kits; and
7. Participating laboratories must have and follow expungement procedures in accordance with federal law.

19. What are the CODIS core loci?​

Effective January 1, 2017, the CODIS Core Loci include the following 20 loci:

• CSF1PO
• FGA
• THO1
• TPOX
• VWA
• D3S1358
• D5S818
• D7S820
• D8S1179
• D13S317
• D16S539
• D18S51
• D21S11
• D1S1656
• D2S441
• D2S1338
• D10S1248
• D12S391
• D19S433
• D22S1045

20. What are the minimum loci requirements for the STR DNA data submitted to NDIS?​

The minimum CODIS Core Loci required for submission of DNA data to NDIS vary by specimen category. Generally, the CODIS Core Loci are required for submission of convicted offender, arrestee, detainee, and legal profiles.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjck5nuw6yHAxWaMlkFHQ7PDiwQFnoECBAQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fbi.gov%2Fhow-we-can-help-you%2Fdna-fingerprint-act-of-2005-expungement-policy%2Fcodis-and-ndis-fact-sheet&usg=AOvVaw0fFj6ASif4k6mujNtskXg8&opi=89978449

During one of the recent hearings (motion to compel), AJ from the state mentioned that the State facilitated testing of additional trace evidence, as requested by the D.

3:12

JMO

 

[Cool Cats]

A defendant always has the right to plead guilty before trial and, I suppose, at any point during a trial.

Generally a plea agreement is brokered, usually the Prosecution and the Defense getting something and giving up something in the process.

IMO the State doesn't have a reason to give up anything, they've got full confidence they can convict on full charges.

Therefore, there's nothing of value (for the State) for BK/the Defense to give.

Now, if it was a shaky case and the State needed, say, the murder weapon, or the name of (if something like this were the case) another, more involved perp, or where the bodies are (huge bargaining chip in cases with missing persons) but the State appears to have everything they need to secure a conviction without any help from BK and his side of the courtroom.

The only possible thing is the DP, whether it's on or off the table.

For whatever reason, however, I don't think AT signed on to negotiate a plea -- probably because IMO BK either isn't talking or said no (I suspect he has said a total of zero words about the crime to his attorneys. BK's rich conversations happen only in his head IMO.). She came to play ball, intent on making the State hit hard. She don't let them convict with ease.

She seems to be borrowing from the new defense manual -- play to the public. Because that's where the future jury sits.

It'll be a fiery trial, no doubt, but IMO the State has the goods.

When they lay it all out, end to end, at trial, BK will be staring at a home video, a reel of every terrible mistake he made that day.

JMO

Trials are for proving a defendant guilty so if the defendant admits they are guilty no trial is necessary.

Would make no sense for BK's defense to say he will plead guilty to LWOP if you drop the death specifications but the prosecution says no, we will put him through a useless trial anyway.

With only the most unusual circumstances, this never happens.

Prosecutors drop the DP and the defendant pleads guilty in open court and at sentencing there are victim impact statements and a LWOP sentence.

Anything is always possible but what the prosecution wants, the whole point, IS TO GET A GUILTY VERDICT.

If BK is willing to do this for them then no way will they not do it .... in my opinion.

2 Cents

 

[Chloegirl]

I'm by no means an expert or even a novice but how would they know it's male DNA without testing it?

I'm assuming there's preliminary testing and then there's DNA analysis. Two separate things? IDK. JMOO

 

[whiterhino]

Not on the glove, but they didn't meet testing guidelines which someone else can speak to since I am not an expert. Apparently, there's a process for what is included and what is not included and if it doesn't meet the guidelines it doesn't get tested. I assume this is not to waste resources ($$$) related to crimes but IDK. JMOO

JL Objection to protective order: June 22, 2023
Page 2

By December l7, 2022, lab analysts were aware of two additional males’ DNA within the house where the deceased were located, and another unknown male DNA on a glove found outside the residence on November 20, 2022. To this date, the Defense is unaware of what sort of testing, if any, was conducted on these samples other than the STR DNA profiles. Further, these three separate and distinct male DNA profiles were not identified through CODIS leading to the conclusion that the profiles do not belong to Mr. Kohberger.

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/062323+Objection+to+States+Motion+for+Protective+Order.pdf

I do recall BTs response during a hearing on the IGG saying something about the CODIS test did not exist, that the samples (all three) were not run through codis for eligibility reasons. So it appears LE did a test for male/female, but did not run the samples through CODIS. MOO

FAQ on CODIS and NDIS - Fbi:

18. Are there specific data requirements for the DNA records submitted to NDIS?​

Yes. There are several requirements for the DNA data submitted to NDIS:

1. The DNA data must be generated in accordance with the FBI Director’s Quality Assurance Standards;
2. The DNA data must be generated by a laboratory that is accredited by an approved accrediting agency;
3. The DNA data must be generated by a laboratory that undergoes an external audit every two years to demonstrate compliance with the FBI Director’s Quality Assurance Standards;
4. The DNA data must be one of the categories of data acceptable at NDIS, such as convicted offender, arrestee, detainee, legal, forensic (casework), unidentified human remains, missing person, or a relative of missing person;
5. The DNA data must meet minimum CODIS Core Loci requirements for the specimen category;
6. The DNA PCR data must be generated using PCR accepted kits; and
7. Participating laboratories must have and follow expungement procedures in accordance with federal law.

19. What are the CODIS core loci?​

Effective January 1, 2017, the CODIS Core Loci include the following 20 loci:

• CSF1PO
• FGA
• THO1
• TPOX
• VWA
• D3S1358
• D5S818
• D7S820
• D8S1179
• D13S317
• D16S539
• D18S51
• D21S11
• D1S1656
• D2S441
• D2S1338
• D10S1248
• D12S391
• D19S433
• D22S1045

20. What are the minimum loci requirements for the STR DNA data submitted to NDIS?​

The minimum CODIS Core Loci required for submission of DNA data to NDIS vary by specimen category. Generally, the CODIS Core Loci are required for submission of convicted offender, arrestee, detainee, and legal profiles.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjck5nuw6yHAxWaMlkFHQ7PDiwQFnoECBAQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fbi.gov%2Fhow-we-can-help-you%2Fdna-fingerprint-act-of-2005-expungement-policy%2Fcodis-and-ndis-fact-sheet&usg=AOvVaw0fFj6ASif4k6mujNtskXg8&opi=89978449

During one of the recent hearings (motion to compel), AJ from the state mentioned that the State facilitated testing of additional trace evidence, as requested by the D.

3:12

JMO

Thank you both so much! Your posts help to more clearly define what I was hinting at regarding epithelial cells versus other forms of DNA. Mainly that there is a criteria for testing, a threshold of sorts. Also that epithelial cells would fall within the guideline but perhaps "touch DNA" would not?

Can't help but wonder then if all it takes is a scratch to implicate someone? FWIW I am not saying who is or is not guilty, just that aside from the sheath it's incredibly circumstantial. IMHO JMO.

 

[10ofRods]

I think all of Idaho wants justice in the deaths of these four young people. The cost is heavy at all levels, but Idaho is a state that actually wants to use the DP option and this is obviously a DP case. It also has no insanity plea.

They are not going to let the defendant plead out, IMO. And I don't think it's possible to plead guilty and ask for the DP - but IANAL (I am not a lawyer).

DNA from one person transferred by another is going to have both person's DNA in the mix. Every time we breathe, we exhale our own DNA. So unless someone wants to claim that one of the best forensic labs in the nation doesn't know what they're doing, it's single source DNA (not transfer).

IMO.

 

[Megnut]

Thank you both so much! Your posts help to more clearly define what I was hinting at regarding epithelial cells versus other forms of DNA. Mainly that there is a criteria for testing, a threshold of sorts. Also that epithelial cells would fall within the guideline but perhaps "touch DNA" would not?

Can't help but wonder then if all it takes is a scratch to implicate someone? FWIW I am not saying who is or is not guilty, just that aside from the sheath it's incredibly circumstantial. IMHO JMO.

Touch DNA is legitimate DNA.

LE sent their samples to be analyzed, determined it to contain a DNA profile identifying it as male DNA. Sounds like it didn't meet the threshold for running a match (through CODIS). Which means they don't know to whom it belongs.

If it comes in at trial, we'll likely learn that it was collected from a remote area, no longer of interest to LE. Like a glove they have no reason to link to the crime (perhaps it appeared after preliminary crime scene photos were taken, for instance) or from a door handle that doesn't include the entry point LE believed the intruder used.

If The Defense says it doesn't match BK, citing CODIS as their validation, does anyone know? Is Idaho a state where DNA is entered into CODIS upon arrest or only upon conviction? It's possible, if BK's DNA has not been entered into CODIS, that those samples ARE a match to him, but the match has never been processed, and the State didn't need it for probable cause, doesn't need it to prosecute. FWIW, I doubt BK left skin cells on surfaces at the house on account of great care and medical-style gloves. The only skin cells left came there with him, tucked tightly in the crevice of the sheath snap.

(My question, however, stands. Has BK's DNA been entered into CODIS?)

The significance of BK's DNA on that clasp, as single source DNA, is absolutely damning. There's no way around that.

JMO

 

[Boxer]

All this DNA talk reminded me of how DNA from three other unidentified males was found at the crime scene, including on a glove found outside. Does anyone else remember hearing that? Any guesses at to why those DNA samples weren't tested? The court hearing I believe on 8/18/2023 Anne Taylor asked for the results and Thompson claimed they never did the test so there was nothing to share with her. Seems odd if you ask me? Especially since they said it was male DNA. How would they know it was male DNA if they didn't test the DNA?

I linked an article but if you google it you can easily find what I am talking about.


Bryan Kohberger's defense claims Idaho murders suspect has 'no connection' with victims

Depends where found. The sheath to murder weapon is obviously the DNA related to the crime.

 

[PinkParis2052]

Depends where found. The sheath to murder weapon is obviously the DNA related to the crime.

But the sheath found at the crime hasn't been confirmed to be the sheath to the murder weapon because in the search warrant for Bryan's apartment LE listed that they were looking for a sheath.

 

[whiterhino]

Touch DNA is legitimate DNA.

LE sent their samples to be analyzed, determined it to contain a DNA profile identifying it as male DNA. Sounds like it didn't meet the threshold for running a match (through CODIS). Which means they don't know to whom it belongs.

If it comes in at trial, we'll likely learn that it was collected from a remote area, no longer of interest to LE. Like a glove they have no reason to link to the crime (perhaps it appeared after preliminary crime scene photos were taken, for instance) or from a door handle that doesn't include the entry point LE believed the intruder used.

If The Defense says it doesn't match BK, citing CODIS as their validation, does anyone know? Is Idaho a state where DNA is entered into CODIS upon arrest or only upon conviction? It's possible, if BK's DNA has not been entered into CODIS, that those samples ARE a match to him, but the match has never been processed, and the State didn't need it for probable cause, doesn't need it to prosecute. FWIW, I doubt BK left skin cells on surfaces at the house on account of great care and medical-style gloves. The only skin cells left came there with him, tucked tightly in the crevice of the sheath snap.

(My question, however, stands. Has BK's DNA been entered into CODIS?)

The significance of BK's DNA on that clasp, as single source DNA, is absolutely damning. There's no way around that.

JMO

The purpose of my other post was mainly to point out how difficult it would be to frame BK for those who have played Devils Advocate in the past.

There was another poster who had suggested that DNA can be transferred and I was trying to explain that it takes more than just touching an object and "transferring" some cells. Like I also said, it would take essentially nicking someone in order to get their cells onto an object such as the sheath. Then to "plant" it there in an attempt to frame someone else. Not to mention everything else that aligns which makes it easy to conclude that BK is the perpetrator.

I thought the people within the housemates immediate circle had volunteered DNA in order to be ruled out early on?