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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
al66pine said:
Are LEOs in Idaho "prohibited from making statements that suggest a suspect is guilty before they have been convicted in a court of law"?


snipped for focus @CKS
Trying to find a factual basis for the ^ excerpt of the post, the claim that there is a prohibition against LEOs in Idaho "making statements that suggest a suspect is guilty before they have been convicted in a court of law"?

What is the basis for ^ referenced prohibition? ID. statute? Or?
A source w quote & link pls?
Click to expand...
I found something in the rules of professional conduct from the Idaho State Bar.
IRPC Rule 3.8(f) refers to prosecutors and Law enforcement, plus others.
3.6 refers to Prosecutors.

(f) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule.


Same rule from ABA:
 
Book E'm said:
Looks like if this DNA sample makes it into trial with what looks like several bits of circumstantial evidence that this guy will go to prison.

I think most people get convicted with both DnA and a lot of circumstantial evidence together.

Seems slam dunk but from reading here sounds like there is doubt about is this a correct genetic sample or not a full sample?
Click to expand...

BK's DNA is single source touch/transfer DNA. BK touched the snap on the knife sheath and left enough skin cells to get a full STR DNA profile.

The DNA of Bryan Kohberger is a “statistical match” to DNA collected from the sheath of a knife found at the scene, according to court documents filed by prosecutors.

An “STR” DNA comparison was performed on DNA collected specifically from Kohberger's cheek and the DNA taken specifically from the knife sheath snap. The samples showed a “statistical match,” the court documents state.

An “STR” analysis – or short tandem repeat analysis – is a common type of DNA profiling in criminal cases and other types of forensic cases, according to the National Institute of Justice.

“The STR profile is at least 5.37 octillion times more likely to be seen if Kohberger is the source than if an unrelated individual randomly selected from the general population is the source,” prosecutors said in the filing. An octillion is a number equal to a 1 followed by 27 zeros.

 
CKS said:
Okay if I'm wrong I apologize but has the prosecution turned over one thing from that list that the defense as asked for? I am merely asking b/c I do not know. Thanks
Click to expand...

The Prosecution has turned over everything on the list, except for things that it, too, does not have.

Those items are in the hands of the FBI who, themselves, may not actually have the proprietary code used by the IGG company that located a Kohberger after using the crime lab's scheme of the suspect DNA.

IMO.
 
Megnut said:
Given the properties plain or treated brass might have, despite all this, a biological sample was taken, and a full profile was developed. And later matched, beyond all octillprobabillion, to the DNA of the accused. No alloy impeded that. Statistical match.

To date, except maybe on this thread, there's been no question or issue relative to how either sample was taken, codified, analyzed or matched. In 2024, IMO, it's accepted science.

Get it down to brass tacks, it's still BK's DNA. It was not diluted, corrupted, combined, nor incomplete.

BK's DNA.

It is an exercise in fantasy to imagine the many ways his epithelial cells could have floated on to a sheath from the likely murder weapon under a victim stabbed by which but none is very believable. Not believable = not reasonable.

It's very reasonable the the sheath owner had occasion to snap and unsnap that very sheath and the the owner and the owner should leave his and only his epithelial cells on the the clasp mechanism of a sheath he alone used.

JMO
Click to expand...
Great post.

Moo: Suggesting or implying that DNA can't be recovered from brass is a moot point. As an aside, I've read the links offered back thread a bit and also read the opinion and material I posted from WS's resident expert. lmo it's a gross simplification to conclude as 'miraculous' that epithelial DNA was recovered from the use mechanism of sheathe. I don't pretend to understand the science but IMO OP is simplifying complex scientific hypotheses and data. Moo

As you point out, the fact is DNA was recovered, ascertained to be male single source and str analysis was successful. And I agree with you; afaik up until this thread there's been no issue or question relative to how the sample was initially recovered and processed. Moo

Imo to insinuate that it's possible brass could have actually destroyed or prevented recovery of any dna on the use point in this case, is close to insinuating that the ISL somehow manipulated or otherwise placed the DNA there independently.IMO.
There is no basis whatsoever in the known facts here for this sort of insinuation. Moo.
 
jepop said:
Great post.

Moo: Suggesting or implying that DNA can't be recovered from brass is a moot point. As an aside, I've read the links offered back thread a bit and also read the opinion and material I posted from WS's resident expert. lmo it's a gross simplification to conclude as 'miraculous' that epithelial DNA was recovered from the use mechanism of sheathe. I don't pretend to understand the science but IMO OP is simplifying complex scientific hypotheses and data. Moo

As you point out, the fact is DNA was recovered, ascertained to be male single source and str analysis was successful. And I agree with you; afaik up until this thread there's been no issue or question relative to how the sample was initially recovered and processed. Moo

Imo to insinuate that it's possible brass could have actually destroyed or prevented recovery of any dna on the use point in this case, is close to insinuating that the ISL somehow manipulated or otherwise placed the DNA there independently.IMO.
There is no basis whatsoever in the known facts here for this sort of insinuation. Moo.
Click to expand...
what is a WS's resident expert? Never Mind, I just figured this out. Sorry.
 
wendy44 said:
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.
Click to expand...
There was an entire hearing about the DNA and basically, at that time, the prosecution wanted nothing about the DNA turned over to the defense because they claimed it was not used to obtain any warrants and they were not going to use the STR or IGG as evidence. The defense brought in Leah Larkin as their DNA witness and she wrote this affidavit.


What Ms. Larkin had to say in court was very interesting and well worth hearing. You can view video of her testimony on Youtube. After this hearing, JJJ allowed the defense limited access to information about the STR and IGG.

www.newsweek.com

Bryan Kohberger gets boost in DNA battle

Kohberger, 29, is charged with four counts of murder in the 2022 deaths of four University of Idaho students.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com

In response to JJJ, the prosecution has turned over limited DNA evidence as proscribed by JJJ. The defense does not have complete information about the DNA.

All JMO.
 
Balthazar said:
There was an entire hearing about the DNA and basically, at that time, the prosecution wanted nothing about the DNA turned over to the defense because they claimed it was not used to obtain any warrants and they were not going to use the STR or IGG as evidence. The defense brought in Leah Larkin as their DNA witness and she wrote this affidavit.


What Ms. Larkin had to say in court was very interesting and well worth hearing. You can view video of her testimony on Youtube. After this hearing, JJJ allowed the defense limited access to information about the STR and IGG.

www.newsweek.com

Bryan Kohberger gets boost in DNA battle

Kohberger, 29, is charged with four counts of murder in the 2022 deaths of four University of Idaho students.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com

In response to JJJ, the prosecution has turned over limited DNA evidence as proscribed by JJJ. The defense does not have complete information about the DNA.

All JMO.
Click to expand...
Where are y'all getting that the prosecution didn't want the DNA turned over the defense? I only remember that the prosecution didn't want to turn anything over to the defense about the IGG information that lead LE to BK and wanted the court to issue a protective order over it. But the state didn't mind sharing with the defense the STR DNA information.

But the State stated in a document filed in June 2023, that they have given the STR DNA information over to the defense or will disclose the following information to the defense.

Screen Shot 2024-09-08 at 12.46.47 PM.png


The hearing where Leah Larkin testified happened in Aug 2023 and it wasn't until Oct 25, 2023, when JJJ ordered that the defense should be given access to some of the IGG information but he wasn't sure oh much of it should the defense have access too and that he was going to have to look it over and decide how much of it should the defense have access too. There was also three other DNA experts that testified for the defense that day too. Gabriella Vargas, Stephen Mercer and Bicka Barlow were the other three DNA experts that testified for the defense and all three did submit documents to the court in support of the defendant's request for the third motion to compel discovery IGG information.


From JJJ order about the IGG information for the defense filed on 10/25/2023.
Screen Shot 2024-09-08 at 1.00.28 PM.png
 
Last edited:

State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger​

Latah County CR29-22-2805

Case Summary (Updated 09/06/24)

Idaho Judicial Cases of Interest

Judge, JohnLatah, Lewis, Nez Perce, Clearwater, IdahoDistrict2Watch
 
PinkParis2052 said:
Where are y'all getting that the prosecution didn't want the DNA turned over the defense? I only remember that the prosecution didn't want to turn anything over to the defense about the IGG information that lead LE to BK and wanted the court to issue a protective order over it. But the state didn't mind sharing with the defense the STR DNA information.

But the State stated in a document filed in June 2023, that they have given the STR DNA information over to the defense or will disclose the following information to the defense.

View attachment 529893
Click to expand...
This is what the D asked for (3rd supplemental) Standard lab discovery and IGG:
Standard Lab discovery 1-10

The P response to standard lab discovery and IGG:

In regard to the specific requests for “Standard Lab Discovery,” the State has already provided the defense with everything it has received from the FBI lab. The State has also provided the Defense with approximately thirty (30) reports from the Idaho State Police Lab. The State has provided the Idaho State Police lab with a copy of the Defense’s “Standard Lab Discovery” comprised of paragraphs l through 10 and will supplement discovery as appropriate. The State specifically objects to the request for personnel-related information as outside the scope ofI.C.R. l6 unless and to the extent that lab personnel will be offering expert testimony which is discoverable under I.C.R. l6(b)(10)
BBM

Motion for protective order (pertaining to IGG) does mention STR disclosure in one sentence along with what the P is not seeking to protect. MOO

The State has disclosed or will disclose the information it has related to the STR DNA analyses conducted in connection with this case.
BBM

The State does not seek to protect and has or will disclose the following information:
BBM

A Genotype Kit Report from the private lab utilized by the Idaho State Police, which documents that a DNA test was performed.

Information related to the STR DNA analysis conducted using the DNA recovered from the Ka-Bar knife sheath and the DNA recovered from Defendant’s parents’ trash.

Information related to the STR DNA analysis conducted using the DNA recovered from the Ka-Bar knife sheath and the DNA recovered from Defendant via a buccal swab.

The latest discovery disclosure by the State (9/4/24) includes exhibits for all the requests except 3 and 15 (IGG) - the State says they have already complied with JJJs order on the materials.


All the exhibits are sealed. They may or may not contain what the D has been asking for. JMO
 
Nila Aella said:
This is what the D asked for (3rd supplemental) Standard lab discovery and IGG:
Standard Lab discovery 1-10

The P response to standard lab discovery and IGG:

In regard to the specific requests for “Standard Lab Discovery,” the State has already provided the defense with everything it has received from the FBI lab. The State has also provided the Defense with approximately thirty (30) reports from the Idaho State Police Lab. The State has provided the Idaho State Police lab with a copy of the Defense’s “Standard Lab Discovery” comprised of paragraphs l through 10 and will supplement discovery as appropriate. The State specifically objects to the request for personnel-related information as outside the scope ofI.C.R. l6 unless and to the extent that lab personnel will be offering expert testimony which is discoverable under I.C.R. l6(b)(10)
BBM

Motion for protective order (pertaining to IGG) does mention STR disclosure in one sentence along with what the P is not seeking to protect. MOO

The State has disclosed or will disclose the information it has related to the STR DNA analyses conducted in connection with this case.
BBM

The State does not seek to protect and has or will disclose the following information:
BBM

A Genotype Kit Report from the private lab utilized by the Idaho State Police, which documents that a DNA test was performed.

Information related to the STR DNA analysis conducted using the DNA recovered from the Ka-Bar knife sheath and the DNA recovered from Defendant’s parents’ trash.

Information related to the STR DNA analysis conducted using the DNA recovered from the Ka-Bar knife sheath and the DNA recovered from Defendant via a buccal swab.

The latest discovery disclosure by the State (9/4/24) includes exhibits for all the requests except 3 and 15 (IGG) - the State says they have already complied with JJJs order on the materials.


All the exhibits are sealed. They may or may not contain what the D has been asking for. JMO
Click to expand...

Some of what you listed in your response to me quoted below, I included in my post that you replied too but in the form a of screenshot and I agree. Thank you for posting a link to the court document. I appreciate that.

"Motion for protective order (pertaining to IGG) does mention STR disclosure in one sentence along with what the P is not seeking to protect.

The State has disclosed or will disclose the information it has related to the STR DNA analyses conducted in connection with this case.

The State does not seek to protect and has or will disclose the following information:

A Genotype Kit Report from the private lab utilized by the Idaho State Police, which documents that a DNA test was performed.

Information related to the STR DNA analysis conducted using the DNA recovered from the Ka-Bar knife sheath and the DNA recovered from Defendant’s parents’ trash.

Information related to the STR DNA analysis conducted using the DNA recovered from the Ka-Bar knife sheath and the DNA recovered from Defendant via a buccal swab."

Yes I understand that - All the exhibits are sealed. They may or may not contain what the D has been asking for. That Tracks.
 
PinkParis2052 said:
Some of what you listed in your response to me quoted below, I included in my post that you replied too but in the form a of screenshot and I agree. Thank you for posting a link to the court document. I appreciate that.

"Motion for protective order (pertaining to IGG) does mention STR disclosure in one sentence along with what the P is not seeking to protect.

The State has disclosed or will disclose the information it has related to the STR DNA analyses conducted in connection with this case.

The State does not seek to protect and has or will disclose the following information:

A Genotype Kit Report from the private lab utilized by the Idaho State Police, which documents that a DNA test was performed.

Information related to the STR DNA analysis conducted using the DNA recovered from the Ka-Bar knife sheath and the DNA recovered from Defendant’s parents’ trash.

Information related to the STR DNA analysis conducted using the DNA recovered from the Ka-Bar knife sheath and the DNA recovered from Defendant via a buccal swab."

Yes I understand that - All the exhibits are sealed. They may or may not contain what the D has been asking for. That Tracks.
Click to expand...
The exhibits contain something though and I personally believe the state is in good faith. Moo.

Imo you are right in distinguishing the str profile derived from sheathe sample, and the igg research process material held by fbi Moo.

My main concern in current discussion is recent specific assertion on thread as if fact that p is withholding dna sample discovery, as questioned already by @wendy44 (DNA sample discovery being the lab reports et. al. related to sheathe dna, bk dad trash dna, buccal swab dna, STR and snp lab reports, chain of custody of sheathe etc). I think your post shows that docs from way back tell us state had no issues with that material falling within ICR 16. Moo

The early requests for discovery were dealt with earlier jmo (Excluding the FBI igg material which was subject to the process you described already beginning with state request for protective order).. I can't access court docs ATM which is frustrating but recall non igg portion of 3rd MTC was heard by court and afaik resolved. There was a hearing and judge ordered specific items be handed over. There are p and d docs there showing the back and forth, itemised responses iirc Moo

On the latest filings; just personally, my speculation is that the exhibits; that is 1 to 17 with igg portion of no. 3 and no. 15 (igg) excluded for reasons specified; might include catalogues and itemised lists for earlier p responses showing exactly what and when they handed over X, y and z. As this is discovery deadline I believe the state are being thorough. Just my speculation
 
PinkParis2052 said:
Some of what you listed in your response to me quoted below, I included in my post that you replied too but in the form a of screenshot and I agree. Thank you for posting a link to the court document. I appreciate that.

"Motion for protective order (pertaining to IGG) does mention STR disclosure in one sentence along with what the P is not seeking to protect.

The State has disclosed or will disclose the information it has related to the STR DNA analyses conducted in connection with this case.

The State does not seek to protect and has or will disclose the following information:

A Genotype Kit Report from the private lab utilized by the Idaho State Police, which documents that a DNA test was performed.

Information related to the STR DNA analysis conducted using the DNA recovered from the Ka-Bar knife sheath and the DNA recovered from Defendant’s parents’ trash.

Information related to the STR DNA analysis conducted using the DNA recovered from the Ka-Bar knife sheath and the DNA recovered from Defendant via a buccal swab."

Yes I understand that - All the exhibits are sealed. They may or may not contain what the D has been asking for. That Tracks.
Click to expand...
I realize I repeated the information - with added bolding.
You asked where people were getting the idea.

"have or will disclose"
"supplement discovery as appropriate."
Objecting to records of lab personnel
In the Protective Order for IGG: The state not seeking to protect "A report" and "information" related to the STR/Parent/Buccal does not tell what information.
Since then, there have been MTC hearings where requests were itemized as being discovered or not and orders submitted by JJJ (didn't keep close track and not inclined to go back and look for them since IMO what happens next is more important).

Since the latest 2 MTC orders were sealed it is difficult to determine anything relating to the latest hearings. IMO the D and P do not agree about what the IGG order covers. Others may interpret that differently.

The P discovery deadline has passed.
Either they provided everything the D asked for or not.
Will be watching for any new motions/requests by the D.
JMO
jepop said:
The exhibits contain something though and I personally believe the state is in good faith. Moo.

Imo you are right in distinguishing the str profile derived from sheathe sample, and the igg research process material held by fbi Moo.

My main concern in current discussion is recent specific assertion on thread as if fact that p is withholding dna sample discovery, as questioned already by @wendy44 (DNA sample discovery being the lab reports et. al. related to sheathe dna, bk dad trash dna, buccal swab dna, STR and snp lab reports, chain of custody of sheathe etc). I think your post shows that docs from way back tell us state had no issues with that material falling within ICR 16. Moo

The early requests for discovery were dealt with earlier jmo (Excluding the FBI igg material which was subject to the process you described already beginning with state request for protective order).. I can't access court docs ATM which is frustrating but recall non igg portion of 3rd MTC was heard by court and afaik resolved. There was a hearing and judge ordered specific items be handed over. There are p and d docs there showing the back and forth, itemised responses iirc Moo

On the latest filings; just personally, my speculation is that the exhibits; that is 1 to 17 with igg portion of no. 3 and no. 15 (igg) excluded for reasons specified; might include catalogues and itemised lists for earlier p responses showing exactly what and when they handed over X, y and z. As this is discovery deadline I believe the state are being thorough. Just my speculation
Click to expand...
Went back to see if any exhibits were mentioned in the P responses earlier:
# 14 for instance mentioned 2 numbered exhibits in the P response. The latest discovery from the P are all lettered not numbered.
Doesn't mean all of them are that way, I didn't check every one. Many of the P responses do not have exhibits.

JMO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 163 more.
Total: 403 (members: 164, guests: 239)

Online statistics

Members online
164
Guests online
239
Total visitors
403
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,344
Messages
18,252,986
Members
234,637
Latest member
Karma398
Back
Top