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.

 

[Cool Cats]

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

The DNA on the snap shows beyond a resonable doubt - 5.37 octillion times - that BK touched the snap. The snap DNA matches BK's cheek DNA.

If I touch you and get some of your skin cells on my finger then touch a snap, your skin cells and my skin cells would both be on the snap. The Idaho State Lab found that the skin cells that were transferred to the snap - touch DNA is also called transfer DNA - were single source DNA.

There was no sign that anyone's skin cells were on that snap other than BK's skin cells, this is what single source means.

If BK left skin cells on a glass how would the killer transfer BK's skin cells from the glass to the snap?

If I wanted to "plant" a person's DNA at my homicide crime scene why would I decide to do it only on a tiny sheath snap? This is not reasonable. I would take a cup BK touched and leave it at the crime scene.

I believe the jury will find beyond a reasonable doubt that the most reasonable explaination for BK's skin cells to be on the knife sheath snap is because BK touched the snap himself.
2 Cents

 

[browneyes]

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

Thank you! This case will be a very strong circumstantial case, and then add the DNA. What are the odds the DNA led to his father and ultimately Brian. This should be an easy “story” to tell and unless we get a Casey Anthony jury, he’s toast. He even matches the physical description of the roommate. Just too many coincidences.

 

[Cool Cats]

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

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

 

[al66pine]

ISP Lab Analyses. Hold Up A Minute, Please.

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

@CKS
From ^ post: "Touch DNA analysis is permitted on weapons in murder and attempted murder cases."

If that source, the ISP webpage, also specifies that the lab conducts Touch DNA analysis ONLY on WEAPONS --- meaning the lab would NOT test the knife SHEATH found in homicide victim's bedding--- I've missed reading it there (entirely possible). Help pls, anyone?

Imo, ^ post seems to gloss over:
- Part of the intro ¶ of the linked page: "This policy is intended to serve as a general guideline for evidence submission....Case circumstances vary, and sometimes, deviation from this policy may be necessary. These deviations must be approved by ISPFS staff before testing. "
Notice: "GENERAL guideline" and "DEVIATION."(<<< my CAPS)
and
- "Touch DNA: This type of testing is generally only offered on homicides and certain types of sexual assaults."
Again notice: "GENERALLY offered only on homicides..." (<<< my CAPS).

My guess is that the state lab may have made exceptions to GENERAL policies for a four person homicide case.

______________________
* From the ISP source which ^ post cited:
"Biology Case Acceptance Policy"
"Testing Capabilities
"The ISPFS Biology section is capable of examining items of evidence for blood, semen, saliva, urine, feces, wearer DNA, male DNA, and touch DNA (homicides and certain sexual assaults only) and performing both STR and Y-STR DNA analyses...."
and ---
"Touch DNA: This type of testing is generally only offered on homicides and certain types of sexual assaults."

DNA Biology

Examiners in the Forensic Biology specialty routinely examine items of evidence for the presence of blood and seminal fluid. After the proper samples for comparison are obtained, DNA analysis can be conducted on these stains, and conclusions drawn as to whether an individual can be eliminated or...

isp.idaho.gov

 

[stemkb]

Feels like dogpiling at this point, but if you are a homicide detective called to a firehouse in which the murder weapon is an axe, then transferable DNA in this instance is widely accepted to be worthless, as all colleagues or anyone who ever visited the station would fall under suspicion. Similarly, if you are a military policeman called to a homicide in sleeping quarters or barrack used to house military personnel, and the fatal weapon is determined to be a Ka-Bar knife, then the offender could be just about anyone. But when you have an individual who resides nine miles away from the crime scene, who insists has zero connection to the victims or their place of residence (a marker set in stone by his own defense team, for better or worse) then DNA becomes a powerful piece of evidence. And it only gets worse for the defendant, IMO. Only way he walks free is if AT is successful in suppressing multiple strands of evidence—physical and digital. All MOO.

 

[LinasK]

ISP Lab Analyses. Hold Up A Minute, Please.

@CKS
From ^ post: "Touch DNA analysis is permitted on weapons in murder and attempted murder cases."

If that source, the ISP webpage, also specifies that the lab conducts Touch DNA analysis ONLY on WEAPONS --- meaning the lab would NOT test the knife SHEATH found in homicide victim's bedding--- I've missed reading it there (entirely possible). Help pls, anyone?

Imo, ^ post seems to gloss over:
- Part of the intro ¶ of the linked page: "This policy is intended to serve as a general guideline for evidence submission....Case circumstances vary, and sometimes, deviation from this policy may be necessary. These deviations must be approved by ISPFS staff before testing. "
Notice: "GENERAL guideline" and "DEVIATION."(<<< my CAPS)
and
- "Touch DNA: This type of testing is generally only offered on homicides and certain types of sexual assaults."
Again notice: "GENERALLY offered only on homicides..." (<<< my CAPS).

My guess is that the state lab may have made exceptions to GENERAL policies for a four person homicide case.

______________________
* From the ISP source which ^ post cited:
"Biology Case Acceptance Policy"
"Testing Capabilities
"The ISPFS Biology section is capable of examining items of evidence for blood, semen, saliva, urine, feces, wearer DNA, male DNA, and touch DNA (homicides and certain sexual assaults only) and performing both STR and Y-STR DNA analyses...."
and ---
"Touch DNA: This type of testing is generally only offered on homicides and certain types of sexual assaults."

DNA Biology

Examiners in the Forensic Biology specialty routinely examine items of evidence for the presence of blood and seminal fluid. After the proper samples for comparison are obtained, DNA analysis can be conducted on these stains, and conclusions drawn as to whether an individual can be eliminated or...

isp.idaho.gov

If this were true that they only test weapons, Touch DNA wouldn't have been the big factor that it was on the panties in the JonBenet Ramsey case.