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

[Boxer]

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

At no time is any jury trial is a slam dunk. They always carry risk for both sides.

 

[Boxer]

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

The DNA is a match. That it is the science of it. All else is legal wrangling.

 

[ilovewings]

Too often today, I feel as though murderers are labeled "mentally ill," and that's supposed to explain why they did the unthinkable.

But, as you say -- there are many who suffer yet do not turn to murder.

Maybe I can understand cases of post-partum depression where a woman's hormones are out of whack and causing her to fall into a deep depression, whereby she can't make logical decisions.

But, to violently take the lives of four young people at random? I can't go there. Obviously, there is something wrong in the head of anyone who could do something like that, but I don't think "mental illness" should be a consideration in sentencing crimes of that nature.

I agree these days many people almost assume if someone murdered another, they must be mentally ill. I have heard people actually say something like "only a crazy person would do that" or something to that effect. Personally, I believe most killers are not mentally ill- there of course are some people who murder who are mentally ill --- I think that many people just cannot imagine a so called "normal" person committing murder so they must be mentally ill.

 

[Betty P]

My guess? Because BK wants a trial. I don't think he much cares about incarceration, LWOP or the DP.

A trial gives him something interesting to do.

He is not moved by what moves other people.

JMO

So only the defense team is concerned about mitigation in sentencing? Or BK is a narcissist who want to have his cake and eat it, too, by gambling on a trial, then getting a reduced sentence because of Visual Snow. Clever, not. Billy Wagner probably stands a better chance of getting acquitted, and he helped kill 8 people. Billy was smart enough not to leave any DNA behind. He was a high school drop out, too.

 

[Gemmie]

It's neurological.

My partner meets the criteria. She also has had continuous migraine visual aura symptoms for over twenty years. The two conditions can overlap, but VSS can also present in people who don't experience migraines. It's not really understood why or how it develops, though there are theories. Most people have it for life once it begins.

Visual snow syndrome - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

MOO

Also, those with continuous migraine visual aura symptoms (AKA scintillating scotoma) don't have to experience migraines. I know because I'm one of them. I only get the light show. Sorry to hear that your partner experiences the migraine part of the scotoma.

 

[Curiousobserver]

I’ve yet to see a reasonable alternative theory. I’ve seen a lot of people implying things with no evidence.

IMO if the jury can not think of a reasonable alternative to BK leaving the DNA on the murder sheath himself…it’s a guilty verdict.

This has to be the focus of the defense. They are going to use the 3rd party culprit strategy.

Defense attorney madlib here ( ): its not his DNA because ( ), it got there because ( ); stolen, examined at a store, belongs to friend...

 

[Betty P]

This has to be the focus of the defense. They are going to use the 3rd party culprit strategy.

Defense attorney madlib here ( ): its not his DNA because ( ), it got there because ( ); stolen, examined at a store, belongs to friend...

I was going to suggest he'll say:
he never owned a knife.
That knife was not the murder weapon used to kill those victims
That sheath belonged to another knife, origins unknown, planted there by someone who was framing him
There was no DNA on that sheath

The defense doesn't really have to explain every alternative argument, they have to make the prosecution explain why its wrong.

 

[Cool Cats]

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

I cannot find anything in your post that is factual about this case. Your link takes me to a search engine site and is trying to get me to sign up.

I do not know how to discuss this when I cannot see where your information is coming from. I would be happy to compare your information with what I have found if you could provide links.

Thank You

 

[iamshadow21]

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

What do you mean not accredited?

Othram Achieves ISO/IEC 17025:2017 Accreditation Through ANAB for Massively Parallel Sequencing

Othram’s forensic DNA testing laboratory has been accredited by the ANSI National Accreditation Board to the ISO/IEC 17025:2017 standards for Forensic Testing and Calibration Laboratories.

othram.com

 

[CKS]

What do you mean not accredited?

Othram Achieves ISO/IEC 17025:2017 Accreditation Through ANAB for Massively Parallel Sequencing

Othram’s forensic DNA testing laboratory has been accredited by the ANSI National Accreditation Board to the ISO/IEC 17025:2017 standards for Forensic Testing and Calibration Laboratories.

othram.com

Looks like they were just recently approved as of about a month ago so I stand corrected. At the time LE had them test it they were not.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

It sounds like you are saying, rather than narrowing down, to the best they can, what they are looking for when they ask for help, they should say, “Please help us if you have seen a white vehicle.” Because LE shouldn’t later modify what they are looking for?

I guess we’d better agree to disagree on this one. And that’s okay.

That isn't at all what I'm saying. Just as you're confused about what I'm saying, I'm confused about why it doesn't make sense that the defense's only job is to put doubt in the minds of the jury and that ANY law enforcement mistake will be used to do that. That's what it comes down to. LE made a mistake. We can argue all kinds of excuses for that mistake to have been made, but the bottom line is that it was a mea culpa. Unless we're going to say that out of the goodness of their hearts, the defense will just let it go, I think we have to be prepared for AT to bring this up and use it against the case.

MOO

 

[gremlin444]

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.

1) Do you have a link for a source other than Howard Blum or NewsNation (they are literally quoting Howard Blum) saying that the ISP lab was not able to initially get DNA at all from the sheath and had to send it out of house to get a STR that they could run through CODIS? I searched and searched and came up with nothing.
2) I do not recall, in any hearing or court filing in the last year, the defense team saying that the DNA on the sheath was in dispute in terms of using it for a direct match to his buccal swab. The one thing they have focused on is wanting to know precise details of how and when the SNP that was produced led to BK and how that SNP & IGG path led to BK.

 

[mmeynstyn]

That isn't at all what I'm saying. Just as you're confused about what I'm saying, I'm confused about why it doesn't make sense that the defense's only job is to put doubt in the minds of the jury and that ANY law enforcement mistake will be used to do that. That's what it comes down to. LE made a mistake. We can argue all kinds of excuses for that mistake to have been made, but the bottom line is that it was a mea culpa. Unless we're going to say that out of the goodness of their hearts, the defense will just let it go, I think we have to be prepared for AT to bring this up and use it against the case.

MOO

Yep, IMO the Defense will certainly go after any and all investigative and/or communication mistakes they can find in an attempt to show the prosecution did not do their job thoroughly or correctly.

I just finished bingeing the Netflix Docuseries on Scott Peterson (Murder of wife and unborn child). During trial, the defense came out of the gate attacking the prosecution's credibility. The prosecution had some rather disappointing days during that trial. In the end - Guilty, sentenced to Death (in a circumstantial evidence case). So, like others have said, it is expected (especially when there is no alibi).

 

[windrower]

That isn't at all what I'm saying. Just as you're confused about what I'm saying, I'm confused about why it doesn't make sense that the defense's only job is to put doubt in the minds of the jury and that ANY law enforcement mistake will be used to do that. That's what it comes down to. LE made a mistake. We can argue all kinds of excuses for that mistake to have been made, but the bottom line is that it was a mea culpa. Unless we're going to say that out of the goodness of their hearts, the defense will just let it go, I think we have to be prepared for AT to bring this up and use it against the case.

MOO

You might be correct that I’m confused about what you are saying.

However, I do not agree LE made a mistake that was illegal or that will harm their case. They used information they had at the time to follow leads, and when they had better information, they used the new information to follow better leads.

Isn’t that how investigations proceed?

As always, IMO, and I could be wrong.

 

[Nila Aella]

• 08/23/2024 Notice on States Objection to Defendants Motion for Change of Venue

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjig6jM3pOIAxX5EFkFHdzyKE4QFnoECBIQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcoi.isc.idaho.gov%2F&usg=AOvVaw3QpkN0NQPCGFbgfzIE_S1f&opi=89978449

 

[al66pine]

Possible Defense Approaches. Knife?

I was going to suggest he'll say:
he never owned a knife.
That knife was not the murder weapon used to kill those victims
That sheath belonged to another knife, origins unknown, planted there by someone who was framing him
There was no DNA on that sheath

The defense doesn't really have to explain every alternative argument, they have to make the prosecution explain why its wrong.

@Betty P Yep, AT & the crew may come up w some doozies.

The catch w first idea --- "he'll say he never owned a knife" ---
is that it would require BK to take the stand imo and be would be subject to prosecutor's cross-exam, unless I'm overlooking another way to get that stmt into evidence.

IIRC one of the search warrants (his apt, his car, or at parents' house?) turned up a knife but I do not recall further description, like fixed blade, etc. imo

Anyone recall or have a link to the list w knife, as seized w search warrant?

 

[GRT]

• 08/23/2024 Notice on States Objection to Defendants Motion for Change of Venue

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjig6jM3pOIAxX5EFkFHdzyKE4QFnoECBIQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcoi.isc.idaho.gov%2F&usg=AOvVaw3QpkN0NQPCGFbgfzIE_S1f&opi=89978449

I'm not surprised to see this but I think the State is tone deaf. It doesn't take much research to find that the "Kirkers" in Moscow and LE are in a war of sorts. I'm not choosing sides there, but with 2,000 parishioners up in arms, I would hope they would opt for a change of venue--or at least bringing in an outside jury.

This is an iffy case, and at the beginning when some suggested BK planned the whole thing to see if he could beat the rap, I was pretty sure that wasn't the case. But, given just 20 cells of touch DNA and a cell expert saying the evidence he's seeing is exculpatory, I'm questioning my former opinion.

I don't want to see BK walk but the stars are seemingly aligning in that direction. At this point, I think egos need to take a back seat to logic. BK has (potentially) the best attorney he could ask for, and between the two of them, they're making some big waves.

Why take a chance that you'll get someone on the jury who is sympathetic to the Kirkers? It's simply not worth it I don't like the way this feels.

All MOO

 

[Megnut]

Solution: bring jurors in from a nearby town. Relocate the jurors not all the others.

JMO

 

[schooling]

I was going to suggest he'll say:
he never owned a knife.
That knife was not the murder weapon used to kill those victims
That sheath belonged to another knife, origins unknown, planted there by someone who was framing him
There was no DNA on that sheath

The defense doesn't really have to explain every alternative argument, they have to make the prosecution explain why its wrong.

Are you saying that he's going to get on the stand and say that stuff (he obviously won't)?

Otherwise, how is the defense going to get those theories and that narrative into the trial? The opening and closing is not evidence.

I suppose they can introduce tiny bits and pieces of it through cross examination or direct via their expert witnesses. But it's not going to be that straight forward. It's going to be fragmented and left up to the jury to piece together.

They have a tough hill to climb.

 

[schooling]

That isn't at all what I'm saying. Just as you're confused about what I'm saying, I'm confused about why it doesn't make sense that the defense's only job is to put doubt in the minds of the jury and that ANY law enforcement mistake will be used to do that. That's what it comes down to. LE made a mistake. We can argue all kinds of excuses for that mistake to have been made, but the bottom line is that it was a mea culpa. Unless we're going to say that out of the goodness of their hearts, the defense will just let it go, I think we have to be prepared for AT to bring this up and use it against the case.

MOO

Chasing down leads, hitting a wall, and pivoting using that learning is a part of every investigation.

IMO think the misidentification of the car's manufacturing date is only an issue on the internet.

In the DC sniper case they thought it was a white box truck and then they thought it was a white van. It ended up being a blue Chevy Caprice which couldn't be further from either a white box or a white van. Same with the Polly Klaas case, also a white truck, Richard Allen Davis drove a dark (from what i remember) Pinto. Chandry Levy's case focused on a dark colored car seen around her neighborhood which only amplified the speculation around Condit who drove a Jaguar. They ended up arresting someone else a decade or more (can't remember off the top of my head) later. MOO

In all of those cases early investigative leads focused on the wrong vehicles. And if I recall correctly ( I may be wrong about 1 of them) all 3 defenses attempted to use those misidentifications to argue their innocence. All of those cases saw convictions. With the latter two leaning HEAVILY on DNA. JMO

And those cases are from times when our streets weren't covered with cameras. I think a jury is going to be able to see with their own eyes that Kohlbergers vehicle is EXTREMELY similar to the vehicle authorities identified as the killer's car. Live on video. A luxury that those other cases didn't have.

MOO