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

[windrower]

Touch DNA does not mean BK touched the sheath.

“In 85 percent of the samples in this particular study we detected DNA on the object from individuals who did not have direct contact with the object. Their DNA was transferred to the object by the person they had direct contact with,” said Latham.


New study says your DNA can show up at a crime scene even if you were never there

2 cents
MOO

Below is from the second study linked by @CKS. Sorry, I’m not sure which one links above.

Snipped, italicized, and bolded by me.

Previously, she had found that shaking hands for two minutes could transfer one person’s DNA to an object by way of the other person’s hand. But many critics said that two minutes is a very long, awkward handshake.

For her new experiments, she shortened the handshakes to as little as 10 seconds. (That’s still two to five times longer than a typical handshake.) And even that brief contact transfers DNA, her data show.

After people shook hands, one person from each pair picked up a knife. Cale’s team then swabbed the knife handle and tested for DNA. Even after a 10 second handshake, people who never touched the knife were a major source of DNA on the handle some one in every 14 times. Their DNA had been transferred to the knife when the person’s handshaking partner had grasped the handle.

DNA was transferred just once in every 14 times, from a 10-second handshake (longer than a normal handshake), person touched object immediately, and object was then swabbed for DNA immediately.

Interesting, yes, but those are not real world

This is from 9 years ago and involved 2 students conducting an unofficial experiment. DNA is way past a decade old study.

The study was a project by graduate students Cynthia Cale and Madison Earll. It looked at secondary DNA– whether it can be transferred to objects from someone who never touched the smoking gun.

You are not showing me anything that says BK did not touch the sheath and the defense has not filed any motions we know of that says BK did not touch the sheath.

The defense cannot tell the jury BK did not touch the sheath without evidence to back it up. The judge will tell the jury to only consider the evidence they saw at trial.

For the defense to say "maybe" BK did not touch the sheath is not evidence for the jury to consider.

2 Cents

You should search for posts from @10ofRods. Fantastic posts explaining this DNA deposit from a professional's viewpoint. I won't even embarrass myself by trying to recreate them here, except to say the kicker here is WHERE they found the dna. It appears the sheath was carefully cleaned and the DNA was found inside the snap. Not just laying there on the leather, or top of the snap, but inside the snap. Not a place it's would be deposited through incidental contact, or by the sheath being handled after someone shook BK's hand or picked up something he picked up.

Going back to the 9 year old study for a moment. It would be interesting to know how long it was between test subject A touching test subject B, and then depositing only test subject B's dna on something. I can't imagine that test subject A is going to shake hands with test subject B, then go on about their day, working, driving, going to the grocery, etc., and hours later leave test subject B's DNA in that snap. I hope that makes sense. I need more coffee.

Agree with @maskedwoman. @10ofRods’ posts on DNA are well worth finding and reading. S/he explains the scientific in a way even I can understand.

 

[al66pine]

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....

snipped for focus @Curiousobserver Thx for your post. Agreeing.

Some ppl say it's a slam dunk case.
Some for prosecution, some for def't.

IDK & won't guess what evidence now-unknown-to-us may be offered.
And ruled admissible. Or ruled inadmissible.

 

[al66pine]

...

 

[Boxer]

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 victims, Kohberger’s defense said in a court record last week. They argued for access to the IGG records, stating the prosecution “is hiding its entire case.”

DNA profile use in Idaho murder case forms division

MOO

IGG is only about challenging process in the arrest warrant.
The DNA from BKs mouth is a match to the DNA of the crime scene DNA.
Hiding a few epithelial cells in a snap is not a reasonable explanation for their presence, however being left behind after an attempt was made to clean the sheath is a reasonable explanation.

 

[jepop]

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.

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

I think there was some mistaken/inadvertent conflation by OP between the State of Idaho and the Idaho state Police, the latter being an institution of the former. Unfortunately thi leads to confusion. Jmo

Just bouncing of your post here, for what it's worth imo the state of Idaho doesn't say it either. The state would only control categories of evidence admissible to trial via legislation or an ICR court statute. Afaik there is no such law limiting admissibility of touch DNA in murder cases to that found only on the murder weapon. It's up to the sitting court in each individual case to decide on what DNA evidence will be ruled admissible after considering motions and responses by both sides. Jmo

 

[Boxer]

snipped for focus @Curiousobserver Thx for your post. Agreeing.

Some ppl say it's a slam dunk case.
Some for prosecution, some for def't.

IDK & won't guess what evidence now-unknown-to-us may be offered.
And ruled admissible. Or ruled inadmissible.

No jury triañ is ever a slam dunk and no professional on either D or P would ever hazard thst.
Casey Anthony.

 

[Cool Cats]

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

Then discount the evidence that is iffy.

Take the evidence that is reasonable and then put the reasonable evidence together.

Iffy evidence can simply be discounted.

You have 5 pieces of circumstantial evidence that each stand up on their own but then all 5 together can show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

2 Cents

 

[GRT]

I disagree.

You posted this. "From what I gather touch DNA is only permitted on the actual weapon that was used." The ISP link you provided doesn't have the word "only" in it. That was added by you.

According to the totality of the text, I think CKS's interpretation is likely correct.

The State of Idaho suggests DNA testing of various types is limited to the examples, and when it comes to touch DNA those are:

• Touch DNA analysis is permitted on weapons in murder and attempted murder cases.
• Touch DNA testing may be performed on clothing and body swabs in stranger sexual assaults or sexual assaults of children.

However, there's a note further up in the text that reads:

• Ineligible items may be swabbed for touch DNA by ISPFS for preservation purposes only.

One more, "however," which may grant LE the right to use touch DNA even on an ineligible object if the case warrants:

• This policy is intended to serve as a general guideline for evidence submission to the ISPFS Biology Section. This policy provides clarity and ensures consistent processing of cases across all Idaho law enforcement agencies while maximizing ISPFS resources. Case circumstances vary, and sometimes, deviation from this policy may be necessary. These deviations must be approved by ISPFS staff before testing.

There was a lot of publicity surrounding this case from day one so ISPFS may have approved the testing. Whether it will be admissible, though, or used strictly for preservation as the guidelines suggest is yet to be known.

 

[GRT]

No jury triañ is ever a slam dunk and no professional on either D or P would ever hazard thst.
Casey Anthony.

One of the best examples out there.

At this point, I'm leaning toward an 80:20 percentage of getting a conviction. If the gag order is ever lifted and we hear more, that will likely change one direction or the other.

 

[NCWatcher]

Then discount the evidence that is iffy.

Take the evidence that is reasonable and then put the reasonable evidence together.

Iffy evidence can simply be discounted.

You have 5 pieces of circumstantial evidence that each stand up on their own but then all 5 together can show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

2 Cents

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

 

[SouthEnd]

BARD is the basis for signfiicant decisions, but it is not about 100% certainty, which is an unattainable goal.

This. Sorry, catching up on this thread, but it feels like in the current day, BARD has become 'I need to personally travel back in time, be there for the murders and witness the murders happen while the murderer is verbally stating his identity and the reasons behind committing the crimes'.

For me, BARD is a case of, can I believe reasonably that if I was the accused, there could be a scenario where evidence of A, B, C, D exists (in this case touch dna on a sheath, a description that doesn't exclude me or my car, me posting questions re: motivation behind crimes, me turning off my phone for the duration of the murders, etc) while I am still not the person who's done it?

It is probably a weird way of thinking it, but that's how I work things out. In some cases, like JonBenet, I still think 'ah, I don't know'. I mean even Michael Peterson who I never found likeable is a bit of a 'I don't know' for me. With BK, I find any other scenario but the P's case very unlikely - especially because he had no reason to be anywhere in that house. IMO

 

[RANCH]

According to the totality of the text, I think CKS's interpretation is likely correct.

The State of Idaho suggests DNA testing of various types is limited to the examples, and when it comes to touch DNA those are:

• Touch DNA analysis is permitted on weapons in murder and attempted murder cases.
• Touch DNA testing may be performed on clothing and body swabs in stranger sexual assaults or sexual assaults of children.

However, there's a note further up in the text that reads:

• Ineligible items may be swabbed for touch DNA by ISPFS for preservation purposes only.

One more, "however," which may grant LE the right to use touch DNA even on an ineligible object if the case warrants:

• This policy is intended to serve as a general guideline for evidence submission to the ISPFS Biology Section. This policy provides clarity and ensures consistent processing of cases across all Idaho law enforcement agencies while maximizing ISPFS resources. Case circumstances vary, and sometimes, deviation from this policy may be necessary. These deviations must be approved by ISPFS staff before testing.

There was a lot of publicity surrounding this case from day one so ISPFS may have approved the testing. Whether it will be admissible, though, or used strictly for preservation as the guidelines suggest is yet to be known.

Maybe. That link is far from clear on what the rules of evidence are for DNA in Idaho. JMO.

 

[SouthEnd]

Maybe. That link is far from clear on what the rules of evidence are for DNA in Idaho. JMO.

IMO that rule is not there to signify what is accepted as evidence, but rather to optimise resources in the selection of what gets swabbed and send for testing and what isn't. It is more of a 'priority of processing' guideline, IMO.

 

[RANCH]

IMO that rule is not there to signify what is accepted as evidence, but rather to optimise resources in the selection of what gets swabbed and send for testing and what isn't. It is more of a 'priority of processing' guideline, IMO.

That sounds reasonable. Also that link only covers the ISP and not outside resources. Can't the prosecution use outside labs to do DNA testing if they chose?

 

[SouthEnd]

That sounds reasonable. Also that link only covers the ISP and not outside resources. Can't the prosecution use outside labs to do DNA testing if they chose?

I think the guidelines for saving resources fly out of the window the moment we enter quadruple homicide territory - that's why we see millions spent prosecuting such cases. IMO. And yes, in those cases I see prosecution hiring private labs to expedite testing.

 

[CKS]

That sounds reasonable. Also that link only covers the ISP and not outside resources. Can't the prosecution use outside labs to do DNA testing if they chose?

They did. They used Othram.

Exclusive: Bryan Kohberger case soars into millions in public costs ahead of murder trial

Invoice

 

[Swansee]

Per JJJ's scheduling order, today is the last day for the defense to submit a challenge to the DP.

So far I haven't seen any new documents show up on the docket.
Perhaps the motion to challenge the DP was submitted in the 8/30 sealed in camera submission noted by @Nila Aella earlier in this thread?
Or maybe they'll file something later today?

 

[RANCH]

They did. They used Othram.

Exclusive: Bryan Kohberger case soars into millions in public costs ahead of murder trial

Invoice

Doesn't that make the ISP DNA testing guidelines irrelevant? Maybe I'm missing something. JMO.

 

[GRT]

Maybe. That link is far from clear on what the rules of evidence are for DNA in Idaho. JMO.

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

 

[GRT]

Doesn't that make the ISP DNA testing guidelines irrelevant? Maybe I'm missing something. JMO.

That sounds likely. If it's a private company, you'd think they could order any tests they wanted.