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

[jepop]

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."

Yes agreeing, the ISP and.the state of Idaho are not one and the same. The ISP provide guidelines on evidence collection and processing and the IDAHO COURTS imo get to decide what will be admissible as trial evidence on a case by case basis.

Imo plenty of room within the Idaho State Police guidelines for the ISL to legitimately swab and analyse the sheath including the snap button use point. @Alpine's posts up thread explicate this clearly. Moo. As we know, from State's Motion for Protective Order, it was the ISl which performed the extraction, analysis and developed the Codis eligible str profile, so clearly LE officers collecting the evidence ( ie sheathe) at the scene followed whatever procedures were necessary to allow for the DNA testing. We know nothing to the contrary at any rate. Imo 'What if' scenarios can wait until we learn on what various grounds defense may claim in future Motions to suppress. There is no basis to speculate that procedures were not followed imo. Personally I don't really see these ISP guidelines playing a role but jmo.

Adding and unrelated to your post: MOO speculation and/or innuendo that the DNA was somehow manipulated, manufactured or planted on the snap button by LE including the ISP and)or the ÍSL appears to me to be based off of no known facts in this case. Moo

 

[wendy44]

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?

Is this true though? This keeps getting repeated as fact and then taken and quoted as fact.

The poster said: 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.

Is this true? Isn't this poster talking about the match of the DNA on the sheath to the BK? Can anyone provide a link where the defense has said the prosecution won't turn over discovery concerning the exact steps it took to retrieve and compare DNA samples? Genuinely asking--there have been so many motions I may have missed it.

 

[wendy44]

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.

It's actually completely normal and usual for law enforcement to say we have our guy after they've made an arrest. The arrest shouldn't be made unless law enforcement believes this 100%. When has law enforcement ever stood before the public after an arrest and said, "We think we have the right person?"
IMO

 

[RANCH]

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

My K-Bar sheath has a painted snap. I don't think that would destroy DNA.

 

[GRT]

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.

James Fry resigned.

Now, he's running for Sheriff. He said the Moscow Murders were part of the reason he resigned--it sounds as though he was highly criticized. But that's the thing about being a public servant--you're in the public eye and everything you do is scrutinized.

It struck me as slightly odd that he resigned before his case-of-a-lifetime went to trial. That leaves me wondering- is he as sure as he once said?

I still tend to think BK is the killer, but I'm not real impressed with the local LE at this point. And, maybe some of that is due to the gag order, because we can't get the full story or the straight story.

I guess we'll just have to wait for the trial.

Is it going to be televised, do we know?

 

[jepop]

Is this true though? This keeps getting repeated as fact and then taken and quoted as fact.

The poster said: 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.

Is this true? Isn't this poster talking about the match of the DNA on the sheath to the BK? Can anyone provide a link where the defense has said the prosecution won't turn over discovery concerning the exact steps it took to retrieve and compare DNA samples? Genuinely asking--there have been so many motions I may have missed it.

It's not fact, it's opinion or interpretation but yes has been stated as if it is fact sans links in several recent posts on the thread. IMO

 

[gremlin444]

View attachment 529412
My K-Bar sheath has a painted snap. I don't think that would destroy DNA.

Exactly. And in many applications where brass snaps are used (especially those that will be getting exposed to the elements or liquids/fluids), they have a protective coating applied to them--whether that is a clear coating or colored one. Both to prevent corrosion and in the case of brass, turning green (verdigris).

 

[CKS]

Is this true though? This keeps getting repeated as fact and then taken and quoted as fact.

The poster said: 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.

Is this true? Isn't this poster talking about the match of the DNA on the sheath to the BK? Can anyone provide a link where the defense has said the prosecution won't turn over discovery concerning the exact steps it took to retrieve and compare DNA samples? Genuinely asking--there have been so many motions I may have missed it.

Yes it's true along with several other key pieces of evidence from the prosecution.

View attachment 529412
My K-Bar sheath has a painted snap. I don't think that would destroy DNA.

If the sample was found on that part of the button where the enamel is then the DNA reaction with the brass may not matter I agree.

It's been really hard finding information about how the enameled coating would react to transfer DNA.

Enameled coatings are often used to avoid bacteria to spread. So if the purpose is to remove bacteria, that also means it's 'might' be a DNA killer, hence would have no impact on DNA recovery being greater than just placed on the pure brass. Them finding a full sample seven days after finding the sheath is still questionable, in my opinion.


Recent Advances in Metal-Based Antimicrobial Coatings for High-Touch Surfaces

Porcelain Enamel Coatings

Also, I will admit that the DNA could easily not be affected by the enamel. I would say you might be right but you shouldn't just assume so b/c you want it to be true.




All MOO

 

[PinkParis2052]

It's actually completely normal and usual for law enforcement to say we have our guy after they've made an arrest. The arrest shouldn't be made unless law enforcement believes this 100%. When has law enforcement ever stood before the public after an arrest and said, "We think we have the right person?"

I'm not saying that they should state that "we think we have the right person?" the same question of asked of the LE that arrested BK in PA and they said that's for a jury to decide and nothing more.

or Jame Fry could have said that we alleged that he is the right person. Fry isn't lawyer.

 

[CKS]

It's not fact, it's opinion or interpretation but yes has been stated as if it is fact sans links in several recent posts on the thread. IMO

IMO


Here's a list of things the prosecution still has not shared with the defense. I'd refer to page 2 but check out all three please.


Motion to Compel Discovery


What's the defense up to now? 16 or 17 requests?

I just don't understand why the prosecution won't turn over the info to the defense?


Try this link

 

[CKS]

IMO


Here's a list of things the prosecution still has not shared with the defense. I'd refer to page 2 but check out all three please.


Motion to Compel Discovery


What's the defense up to now? 16 or 17 requests?

I just don't understand why the prosecution won't turn over the info to the defense?


Try this link

Not sure why but I tried linking two different times and it's being blocked?

Trying it again.

Motion to Compel Discovery

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

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?

SBMFF.

The problem is, what you have above is open to much interpretation with exception of DNA on the sheath. The description that doesn't exclude him or his car doesn't exclude a large percentage of the population either. Motivational questions posed by a criminology student? This is probably the least suspicious thing as far as I'm concerned. Did he turn off his cell? I don't believe we know that to be a fact versus out of range.

So the only evidence I see that shows anything is the DNA on the sheath.

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

Again, going just by the facts, we have no evidence he was in the house. All we have is his touch DNA on a snap of a sheath we think was the murder weapon and that sheath was in the house. We actually have zero evidence proving his presence in the house. Even the survivor's identification didn't rule him out, but also ruled in many other men in that community.

I also think it's too strong a statement to say he had no reason to be anywhere in that house when talking about a known party house in which people came and went all the time, according to early reports.

The prosecution will need a lot more than this to convince a jury BARD, however we define it.

MOO

 

[PinkParis2052]

James Fry resigned.

Now, he's running for Sheriff. He said the Moscow Murders were part of the reason he resigned--it sounds as though he was highly criticized. But that's the thing about being a public servant--you're in the public eye and everything you do is scrutinized.

It struck me as slightly odd that he resigned before his case-of-a-lifetime went to trial. That leaves me wondering- is he as sure as he once said?

I still tend to think BK is the killer, but I'm not real impressed with the local LE at this point. And, maybe some of that is due to the gag order, because we can't get the full story or the straight story.

I guess we'll just have to wait for the trial.

Is it going to be televised, do we know?

oh yes I know that James Fry resigned and that he Is now running for Sheriff. Yeah I did see where he said that the murders was part of why he resigned.

I though that the trial was going to be streamed on JJJ's YouTube channel back when he ruled to banned media cameras from the court room just that he wanted more control over them.,but he did list if and when he made end the live stream of court proceedings. Remember like during the change of venue hearing, he kept the hearing going but you couldn't see what was being display on the overhead. There was a meeting in chambers and the court started again and there was no streaming of the first 30 minutes and only the people in the courtroom could hear what was being talked about. Then JJJ started live streaming again. So that could happen during the trial too.

ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION TO INTERVENE AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO REMOVE MEDIA CAMERAS FROM THE COURTROOM

 

[PinkParis2052]

Not sure why but I tried linking two different times and it's being blocked?

Trying it again.

Motion to Compel Discovery

there is some mention of a chrome extension for some reason.

Sorry to jump in but here's the most recent link
DEFENDANT'S 17th SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY filed on 8/26/2024

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

I do not understand <modsnip>. Evidence is evidence.

The jury looks at all the evidence and then is smart enough not to let a discusting horrible killer loose on the public to kill our mothers, fathers, sons, friends, daughters, grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc...

2 Cents

If that were true, then no criminal would ever be found not guilty.

MOO

 

[CKS]

there is some mention of a chrome extension for some reason.

Sorry to jump in but here's the most recent link
DEFENDANT'S 17th SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY filed on 8/26/2024

And here's the link with everything the defense is asking for. Which is A LOT.



List of items the defense has asked for

 

[SpiderFalcon]

IMO


Here's a list of things the prosecution still has not shared with the defense. I'd refer to page 2 but check out all three please.


Motion to Compel Discovery


What's the defense up to now? 16 or 17 requests?

I just don't understand why the prosecution won't turn over the info to the defense?


Try this link

on written request by the defendant:

I.C.R. 16. Discovery and Inspection | Supreme Court

isc.idaho.gov

This is the link to the Idaho Criminal Rule 16. Discovery and Inspection

Every thing that the defense has asked for, in court docs, is because defense HAS to make a written request.

And every time they make a written request, via a court doc, the Prosecution answers, via a court doc. So far.

 

[jepop]

Not sure why but I tried linking two different times and it's being blocked?

Trying it again.

Motion to Compel Discovery

Sorry but cherry picking and inking defense MTCs minus the p responses, outcomes of hearings and resultant orders which resolved individual items doesn't establish a thing. The d contended at various points that the p was deliberately withholding some items of discovery. The p disagreed on various grounds and points of contention were resolved by the court. Judge has never ruled that p was deliberately or inadvertently withholding discovery. Simply put any assertions to the contrary are opinion not fact and certainly not established truth.

Moo

ETA adding that as has just been posted, basic discovery procedure requires requests and responses in writing under ICR 16. A request for discovery by the d does not prove that the p is withholding anything.

ETA I'm not inclined to pursue this point further with you and end up in circular argument so I'm agreeing to disagree and moving on

 

[CKS]

It's actually completely normal and usual for law enforcement to say we have our guy after they've made an arrest. The arrest shouldn't be made unless law enforcement believes this 100%. When has law enforcement ever stood before the public after an arrest and said, "We think we have the right person?"
IMO

IMO

I disagree.

The statement made by Chief Fry in the interview where he declares, "we have our guy the one that committed these murders," appears to go against the fundamental principle of the criminal justice system, which is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Law enforcement officials in most jurisdictions, including Idaho, are prohibited from making statements that suggest a suspect is guilty before they have been convicted in a court of law. Additionally, prosecutors are required to refrain from making extrajudicial comments that could potentially impact the suspect's right to a fair trial. Therefore, Chief Fry's statement raises questions about his adherence to these ethical and legal guidelines.

If law enforcement officials publicly state that "we have our guy" before a suspect has been convicted in a court of law, they may be violating several legal and ethical rules, including:

The principle of presumption of innocence: in Idaho, every person charged with a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Any statement by law enforcement officials that suggests otherwise could prejudice the case and potentially impact the suspect's right to a fair trial.

Idaho Rule of Professional Conduct 3.6: This rule applies to attorneys, including prosecutors, and prohibits them from making extrajudicial statements that have a substantial likelihood of prejudicing a criminal proceeding. If law enforcement officials make statements that suggest a suspect is guilty, they could be violating this rule.

Idaho Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8: This rule also applies to attorneys, including prosecutors, and requires them to "refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused." If law enforcement officials make statements that suggest a suspect is guilty, they could be violating this rule as well.

2 cents and just my opinion

 

[Balthazar]

View attachment 529412
My K-Bar sheath has a painted snap. I don't think that would destroy DNA.

If your sheath is really a KBar brand sheath, the snap is untreated brass which has turned brown AKA tarnished. Brass is usually not painted but lacquered to prevent oxidation so it remains bright gold. But, more importantly, due to the friction of snapping and unsnapping the sheath, the inside of the snap where the DNA was found would not have had paint or lacquer on it.

All JMO.