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

[wendy44]

It is exceedingly troublesome that the prosecution won't turn over the discovery concerning the exact steps it took to retrieve and compare DNA samples.

I'm not sure this is the right characterization. The defense was requesting the exact steps the FBI used to come up with a name from the unknown dna left on the sheath using Investigative Genetic Genealogy. The FBI was resisting this discovery request, saying those steps fell under investigative techniques and were not subject to discovery.

This is completely different than the retrieval of the dna from the sheath and the match of that sample to BK. The defense hasn't disputed the dna on the sheath matches BK.
IMO

 

[acutename]

I haven't followed this case closely for awhile. I did a search and found a source for issues with discovery back in May.

Has that been resolved or is it still a current problem?

Key evidence focus of hearings in Idaho slayings; prosecutor denies defense claim state withholding records

BOISE, Idaho — Consequential pieces of evidence that may weigh heavily into the prosecution and defense of Bryan Kohberger are the focus of a pair of closed-door hearings this week as his high-profile

www.columbian.com

is this usual:

" The judge handling the case entered a plea of not guilty for Kohberger when he chose to stay silent at his arraignment last year."

 

[Swansee]

It's too late for me to edit my previous post, so I 'll continue here:
Today, September 6, is the deadline for the State to hand over whatever discovery they haven't yet given. Defense has until January 9 to show theirs.
Meanwhile, the defense will begin filing their motions to suppress. They have until November 14 to do so, and then there will be a back and forth of responses and replies.The hearing on this matter will only take place in February. I really doubt that one will be open to the public, considering the topic is the evidence itself.

• 09/04/2024 States Response and Supplemental Responses to Defendants Requests for Discovery
• 09/05/2024 Expert Witness Disclosure
• 09/05/2024 Motion & Memorandum in Support of Motion to Trifurcate the Proceedings & Apply Rules of Evidence
• 09/05/2024 Motion for Court Order
• 09/05/2024 Motion to Strike Felony Murder Aggravator
• 09/05/2024 Motion to Strike Future Dangerousness Aggravator
• 09/05/2024 Motion to Strike HAC Aggravator
• 09/05/2024 Motion to Strike Multiple Victims Aggravator
• 09/05/2024 Motion to Strike Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty (Failure to Present Aggravators)
• 09/05/2024 Motion to Strike Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty (Vagueness)
• 09/05/2024 Motion to Strike Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty (Contemporary Standards of Decency)
• 09/05/2024 Motion to Strike Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty (International Law)
• 09/05/2024 Motion to Strike State's Notice Pursuant to IC 18-4004A on Grounds of Arbitrariness
• 09/05/2024 Motion to Strike the Death Penalty
• 09/05/2024 Motion to Strike Utter Disregard Aggravator

Aha! There they are...thanks for sharing, @Nila Aella ! That's my weekend reading cut out for me!
It looks like it was mostly Lodsden who wrote these. I find his style tedious. Ugh. I'll power through them anyway in the hopes there's something to learn from them.

 

[GRT]

It is exceedingly troublesome that the prosecution won't turn over the discovery concerning the exact steps it took to retrieve and compare DNA samples.

Isn't this unusual? For some reason, I thought the prosecution and the defense typically turned over their evidence to the opposing team.

I'm not suggesting the prosecution did anything wrong in their steps, but I feel they should be open about it.

I mean, it's not going to change the outcome. Right?

 

[GRT]

It's too late for me to edit my previous post, so I 'll continue here:
Today, September 6, is the deadline for the State to hand over whatever discovery they haven't yet given. Defense has until January 9 to show theirs.

SBM for focus.

So, after today, the Defense should have all the discovery, including the steps taken to obtain and test the DNA?

But with the gag order, we still may not know.

 

[Swansee]

SBM for focus.

So, after today, the Defense should have all the discovery, including the steps taken to obtain and test the DNA?

But with the gag order, we still may not know.

Agreed: We most probably won't know.
In fact, this was one of the Prosecution's points during the last hearing when they were arguing for keeping the trial in Moscow: They will request future hearings regarding discovery and evidence in general to be closed so as to not (further) taint the potential jury pool.

 

[Nila Aella]

It's too late for me to edit my previous post, so I 'll continue here:
Today, September 6, is the deadline for the State to hand over whatever discovery they haven't yet given. Defense has until January 9 to show theirs.
Meanwhile, the defense will begin filing their motions to suppress. They have until November 14 to do so, and then there will be a back and forth of responses and replies.The hearing on this matter will only take place in February. I really doubt that one will be open to the public, considering the topic is the evidence itself.


Aha! There they are...thanks for sharing, @Nila Aella ! That's my weekend reading cut out for me!
It looks like it was mostly Lodsden who wrote these. I find his style tedious. Ugh. I'll power through them anyway in the hopes there's something to learn from them.

YW!

The P did provide exhibits in a supplemental response to defendants supplemental discovery requests on 9/4/24.

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/2024/090424-States-Response-Supplemental-Responses-Defendant-RFD.pdf

COMES NOW the State ofIdaho, by and through the Latah County Prosecuting Attormey, and submits the attached Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, and O in supplemental response to Defendant's Request for Discovery and Defendant's Supplemental Requests 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 16. The State submits the attached Exhibit P in response to Defendant's 17" Supplemental Request for Discovery.

Except on supplemental requests 3 and 15:

The State notes it has previously complied with the Defendant's Discovery Request pursuant to the Court's Order related to Defendant's Supplemental Requests 3 and 15 (IGG related materials).

Request 3

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/050323+Defendants+3rd+Supplemental+Request+for+Discovery.pdf

States response to 3

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/051223+States+Response+to+Defendants+Third+Supplemental+Request+for+Discovery.pdf

Request 15

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/2024/032824_Defendants_15th_Supplemental_Request_for_Discovery.pdf

States response to 15

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/2024/040424-States-Objection-Defendants-15thSRD.pdf

JMO

 

[jepop]

I'm not sure this is the right characterization. The defense was requesting the exact steps the FBI used to come up with a name from the unknown dna left on the sheath using Investigative Genetic Genealogy. The FBI was resisting this discovery request, saying those steps fell under investigative techniques and were not subject to discovery.

This is completely different than the retrieval of the dna from the sheath and the match of that sample to BK. The defense hasn't disputed the dna on the sheath matches BK.
IMO

Reposting above poster's interpretation of what we know and/or might reasonably infer regarding DNA discovery in this case. I share this poster's view based on following the various motions submitted by defense re the IGG, the state motion for protective order and resulting back and forth responses, and judge's order of Jan this year giving defense access to all IGG then in possession of the state ( all supporting docs available on Idaho Courts cases of interest page).

All exhibits are under seal and specific hearings re IGG process undertaken by FBI have been closed to protect sensitive information (family tree developed by FBI for eg). Moo

The characterisation that prosecution has withheld the "exact steps it took to retrieve and compare DNA samples" is the opinion or interpretation of some, but based on what I'm not sure. According to everything in the available court docs the steps taken by ISL to extract the sheathe sample, develop str profile, run that through Codis, employ Othram to develop the snp profile to commence IGG are all in discovery. All scientific reports. Ditto for the whole process of obtaining the trash DNA sample from suspect's' parent's home for comparison with suspect sample from sheathe. Ditto for lab report comparing BK buccal swab with sheathe sample post arrest. All those reports are in discovery according to the docs already mentioned above.

Defense is, or at this point probably was (*see most recent discovery docs posted just now), after details of process FBI undertook using IGG as an investigative tool to develop their tip (BK' s name) for LE back in Dec 2022 imo. All moo.

 

[girlhasnoname]

There are strict guidelines on how GGI is performed and maintained and how information is destroyed at certain points after tests are completed per privacy and agency protocol.

Attached is an interesting read document that explains the process in more detail, it was written in 2019 and I'm sure there have been changes made during the past 5 years.

https://www.justice.gov/olp/page/file/1204386/dl

MOO

 

[PinkParis2052]

There are strict guidelines on how GGI is performed and maintained and how information is destroyed at certain points after tests are completed per privacy and agency protocol.

Attached is an interesting read document that explains the process in more detail, it was written in 2019 and I'm sure there have been changes made during the past 5 years.

https://www.justice.gov/olp/page/file/1204386/dl

MOO

The link to the document that you posted, Anne Taylor included a copy of that in a document that she filed in June 2023 in support of the third motion to compel
DECLARATION OF ANNE C. TAYLOR IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S THIRD MOTION TO COMPEL Filed 6/22/2023

During the IGG hearing in on Nov 2, 2023 when Bill Thompson said to the judge that he doesn't want the defense to looking for things that don't exist, Anne Taylor replied that she was only looking for what was listed in DOJ guidelines document. meaning "UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE INTERIM POLICY FORENSIC GENETIC GENEALOGICAL DNA ANALYSIS AND SEARCHING"

 

[PinkParis2052]

I haven't followed this case closely for awhile. I did a search and found a source for issues with discovery back in May.

Has that been resolved or is it still a current problem?

Key evidence focus of hearings in Idaho slayings; prosecutor denies defense claim state withholding records

BOISE, Idaho — Consequential pieces of evidence that may weigh heavily into the prosecution and defense of Bryan Kohberger are the focus of a pair of closed-door hearings this week as his high-profile

www.columbian.com

Hearings were held end.of May or early June.. Personally unable to link to court docs ATM. From the open portion of hearing on 4tth MTC, quite clear jmo matters were being resolved and judge has not found that anyone has deliberately been withholding discovery. There are or were Toohey related issues in obtaining certain Federal investigative subpeonas from FBI whatever that means and imo the recent in camera hearing is likely to be related to that . The fed subpoenas were issued to companies during the investigation is what I gather from that hearing. D has returns on all 71 but wanted documentation on when each one was individually issued some.of which they didn't have. The way forward was resolved as p was to see if they could get a list of issue dates from FBI. As I said I suspect the in camera hearing notice may be related. Jmo

AT and co. have claimed deliberate withholding at various points and that is all. You would have to listen to the relevant hearings peppered throughout the last 18 months and read the d; discovery requests and p responses to get the flavour of the he said/ she said vibe in SOME of them.

The point to be noted imo is that JJJ has not made any findings re deliberate discovery violations after hearing the various motions to compel. I believe the deadline for state disovery is pending. The sheer amount of discovery can't be under emphasised in this case and both sides have openly recognised that. The case is under strict gag order so anytime there is an open hearing JJJ and counsel have to skip around points to keep potential trial evidence from reaching the public. Moo

These hearings were the 4th and 5th Motion to Compel Discovery hearings that was held on May 23, 2024 and May 30, 2024. There was also a 5th Motion to Compel hearing for the IGG on May 30, 2024 that was closed to the public in the evening due to the protective order over the IGG information so that the investigators for the defense could have access to the IGG information. The 4th and 5th Motion to Compel hearing was originally suppose to happen on May 10, 2024 but there was a lot of discovery that the state turnover to the defense on May 10, 2024 - so 4th and 5th Motion of compel discovery hearing was rescheduled for later date so that the defense could go over that discovery. There was also some discovery given to the defense before the May 23, 2024 hearing too. The hearing on June 27, 2024 was a Scheduling Conference going over the Scheduling Order.



May 23, 2024 hearing - 55 minute long hearing

May 30, 2024 hearing - 3 hrs and like 30 minutes long hearing. Starting - 2 hrs and 5 minutes is the start about that subpoenas issued by an investigative federal grand jury.

Law and Crime did a summary of the 3.5 long hearing it's like 30 minutes long

The judge on June 14, 2024 issued an order on Defendant's 4th and 5th Motions to Compel Discovery there is an Unredacted version, Redacted version, there is no version for a public release.

 

[GRT]

But seriously? "Idaho’s death penalty procedure violates the provisions of international treaties and thefundamental precepts of international human rights. Because international treaties ratified by the United States are binding on state courts, the imposition of the death penalty is unlawful."
Motion to Strike Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty (International Law)

SBM for focus...

The first sentence is probably accurate, but the second sentence appears to be an interpretation.

The very same treaties and international human rights rulings have also recently been applied (in the last few years) to our border control laws.

Those treaties and agreements do exist, but (MOO) they cannot be imposed against the will of the American people or individual states in general.

Can't say I blame AT for trying but this one sounds a little lame.

 

[jepop]

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.

Yes @maskedwoman, good call! So...

Bringing forward one of @10ofRods posts (from thread #93 & 2nd time for me bringing this one forward) discussing 'touch' dna.

This topic is brought up periodically and is nothing new to these threads.
Below is just one of many of their posts putting the dreaded touch dna boogey man into perspective. IMO. Back on thread #94 I looked for another which offered some insights into the interplay of dna science, the media's reporting of it and development of general public misunderstandings and bias concerning the word 'touch' whenever it is used in conjunction with the acronym dna, but couldn't find.Moo

Post in thread '4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #93' 4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #93

 

[CKS]

It is exceedingly troublesome that the prosecution won't turn over the discovery concerning the exact steps it took to retrieve and compare DNA samples.

All MOO

Bingo! They want to give BK the death penalty the least they could do is share the evidence with the defense in my opinion.

 

[CKS]

All MOO


This case has a number of elements that overlap and cause some confusion, not to mention the Prosecutions smoke and mirrors arguments which are largely deflections from explaining why information that was put together beginning on or about December 8th to claim probable cause to arrest Bryan Kohberger can not be produced in discovery nearly two years later.

Think about that, they arrest Bryan Kohberger about two weeks after he is put on their radar by unclear means... that is from an alleged tip, .until his arrest 10 to 12 days later... hardly the amount of time necessary to actually do any of the CASTVIZ, the IGG, and mock up an SNP profile... this is the work that investigators and the prosecution claimed was done in 10 or 12 days... and here we are nearly 700 days later ... Kohberger is still held without bond... the Prosecution is still dragging their feet... nearly 700 days and the Prosecution can't show the alleged evidence that was used by MPD to seek an arrest warrant for Bryan Kohberger.

List of things the prosecution has not turned over..

Cast Report
Drive Test Data
IGG
6 missing surveillance videos

Why doesn't the prosecution just hand it over and stop playing games?




All MOO

2 cents

 

[jepop]

These hearings were the 4th and 5th Motion to Compel Discovery hearings that was held on May 23, 2024 and May 30, 2024. There was also a 5th Motion to Compel hearing for the IGG on May 30, 2024 that was closed to the public in the evening due to the protective order over the IGG information so that the investigators for the defense could have access to the IGG information. The 4th and 5th Motion to Compel hearing was originally suppose to happen on May 10, 2024 but there was a lot of discovery that the state turnover to the defense on May 10, 2024 - so 4th and 5th Motion of compel discovery hearing was rescheduled for later date so that the defense could go over that discovery. There was also some discovery given to the defense before the May 23, 2024 hearing too. The hearing on June 27, 2024 was a Scheduling Conference going over the Scheduling Order.
View attachment 529385
View attachment 529388

May 23, 2024 hearing - 55 minute long hearing

May 30, 2024 hearing - 3 hrs and like 30 minutes long hearing. Starting - 2 hrs and 5 minutes is the start about that subpoenas issued by an investigative federal grand jury.

Law and Crime did a summary of the 3.5 long hearing it's like 30 minutes long

The judge on June 14, 2024 issued an order on Defendant's 4th and 5th Motions to Compel Discovery there is an Unredacted version, Redacted version, there is no version for a public release.
View attachment 529384

Thanks so much for your work. I can't access the COI page atm to post links or refresh on hearing dates. Thanks again

 

[SpiderFalcon]

I'm not saying it. The State of Idaho says it.

That is not true. The document is from the IDAHO STATE POLICE:

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

"Touch DNA: This type of testing is generally only offered on homicides and certain types of sexual assaults. More information regarding accepted evidence is provided in the evidence submission section below. Ineligible items may be swabbed for touch DNA by ISPFS for preservation purposes only. An independent laboratory can then test these samples. This service is only offered by request; approval must be obtained before submission."

 

[PinkParis2052]

That is not true. The document is from the IDAHO STATE POLICE:

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

"Touch DNA: This type of testing is generally only offered on homicides and certain types of sexual assaults. More information regarding accepted evidence is provided in the evidence submission section below. Ineligible items may be swabbed for touch DNA by ISPFS for preservation purposes only. An independent laboratory can then test these samples. This service is only offered by request; approval must be obtained before submission."

that's really interesting

and this part was interesting to me too
Ineligible items may be swabbed for touch DNA by ISPFS for preservation purposes only.

 

[CKS]

That is not true. The document is from the IDAHO STATE POLICE:

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

"Touch DNA: This type of testing is generally only offered on homicides and certain types of sexual assaults. More information regarding accepted evidence is provided in the evidence submission section below. Ineligible items may be swabbed for touch DNA by ISPFS for preservation purposes only. An independent laboratory can then test these samples. This service is only offered by request; approval must be obtained before submission."

All MOO


Maybe. Maybe not?


It says, "More information regarding accepted evidence is provided in the evidence submission section below." The below section it references says murder weapons.

I guess the question is what do they mean by "Ineligible items may be swabbed for touch DNA by ISPFS for preservation purposes only."

I honestly do not know nor am I claiming I am right. The fact is that 'touch/transfer' DNA is not always 100% accurate to say the least and in my opinion that is literally the only thing that possibly links BK to the crime scene. Coupled with the fact that it was supposedly on the snap of the sheath which is brass if I were the defense I would be demanding to see the methodology of how they came to the conclusion it was BK's.

Brass for one destroys DNA and to have been able to find a full profile on the 20th of November sounds like nothing short of a miracle to me. There are multiple studies on this, I'll link two for anyone interested.

Forensic touch DNA recovery from metal surfaces – A review

Analysis of ‘touch’ DNA recovered from metal substrates: an Analysis of ‘touch’ DNA recovered from metal substrates


Again, I do not claim BK is innocent but from what I've seen I have no idea how anyone thinks he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In my opinion. I will admit the longer the prosecution delays turning over all the evidence to the defense the more I wonder if indeed BK is possibly not guilty. I myself originally thought for sure that BK was the guy. I mean Chief Fry literally told the world 'we have our guy' but there's way too many questions that need answers in my opinion before the state puts this man to death.



All MOO


2 Cents

 

[PinkParis2052]

All MOO


Maybe. Maybe not?


It says, "More information regarding accepted evidence is provided in the evidence submission section below." The below section it references says murder weapons.

I guess the question is what do they mean by "Ineligible items may be swabbed for touch DNA by ISPFS for preservation purposes only."

I honestly do not know nor am I claiming I am right. The fact is that 'touch/transfer' DNA is not always 100% accurate to say the least and in my opinion that is literally the only thing that possibly links BK to the crime scene. Coupled with the fact that it was supposedly on the snap of the sheath which is brass if I were the defense I would be demanding to see the methodology of how they came to the conclusion it was BK's.

Brass for one destroys DNA and to have been able to find a full profile on the 20th of November sounds like nothing short of a miracle to me. There are multiple studies on this, I'll link two for anyone interested.

Forensic touch DNA recovery from metal surfaces – A review

Analysis of ‘touch’ DNA recovered from metal substrates: an Analysis of ‘touch’ DNA recovered from metal substrates


Again, I do not claim BK is innocent but from what I've seen I have no idea how anyone thinks he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In my opinion. I will admit the longer the prosecution delays turning over all the evidence to the defense the more I wonder if indeed BK is possibly not guilty. I myself originally thought for sure that BK was the guy. I mean Chief Fry literally told the world 'we have our guy' but there's way too many questions that need answers in my opinion before the state puts this man to death.



All MOO


2 Cents

But that isn't for James Fry to tell the public that is for a jury to decide once the evidence is presented during a trial. When James Fry stated that one lawyer said that's interesting and they didn't look too happy about it either. It's prejudicial to the defendant. IMO.