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

[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.

 

[RANCH]

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

That's what I thought. They are not rules of evidence on what can be introduced in court. JMO.

 

[Chloegirl]

When do we think we'll hear on the change of venue decision? Today has been what a week. Huuummm.

 

[LinasK]

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

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...

www.websleuths.com

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...

 

[GRT]

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.

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?

 

[GRT]

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...

Probably, but you'd have to know it was the holster that held the murder gun.