4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #96

[wendy44]

I have never said that the defense says the DNA on the sheath doesn't match BK so I have no clue where your question is coming from.

You quoted my post that 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.

And replied with:

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.

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/...rkin-Support-Defendants-3rd-Motion-Compel.pdf

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.

And I replied with:

That hearing was about the IGG. The post you quoted was not referring to the IGG. If you have a link showing the defense says the dna on the sheath is not a match to BK, please post it. There are so many motions and filings, I may have missed it.

I asked for a link showing the defense has challenged the actual dna match on the sheath to BK. You replied with links regarding the challenge to the IGG. So I asked if you had a link to what was being discussed in that exchange--did the defense challenge the actual dna match to BK. This issue keeps popping up in these threads because of the challenge to the IGG, which is completely separate. And then it's quoted and repeated and accepted as fact that there's a problem with the match. It's really important to keep distinguishing between the two.

So I guess we agree that, to our knowledge, the defense has not challenged the dna match on the sheath to BK.
IMO

 

[mmeynstyn]

• 09/06/2024 Order Granting Defendants Motion to Change Venue

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjfhebJsbaIAxW_KlkFHbCQB-MQFnoECAwQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcoi.isc.idaho.gov%2F&usg=AOvVaw3QpkN0NQPCGFbgfzIE_S1f&opi=89978449

Edit: added link to cases page

I suppose, IMO, the change of venue is a good thing. When all is said and done, I would rather not hand them a reason for appeal. With the Nationwide coverage, I really don't think it is going to help the defenses case much.

WRT a new Judge, would this delay the trial date again? I am not really familiar with how much of the details leading up to a trial a Judge would need.

 

[GRT]

I suppose, IMO, the change of venue is a good thing. When all is said and done, I would rather not hand them a reason for appeal. With the Nationwide coverage, I really don't think it is going to help the defenses case much.

WRT a new Judge, would this delay the trial date again? I am not really familiar with how much of the details leading up to a trial a Judge would need.

I was wondering about a potential delay, too. A new judge is going to have to get up to speed with a lot of complex evidence and motions. Is it standard in venue changes to push back trial dates?

 

[Seattle1]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1833171562783965200

 

[Balthazar]

Snipped by me:

So I guess we agree that, to our knowledge, the defense has not challenged the dna match on the sheath to BK.
IMO

Yes. We agree. I've never suggested the defense thinks that the DNA is not BK's and I've never suggested that I think that either.

I was replying to the fact that not all of the information about the DNA evidence has been or will be provided to the defense as per JJJ's ruling. That is troubling to me. This is a scientific process. Either the process was done right or it was not. IMO, ALL scientific evidence gathered by LE SHOULD always be equally shared by the prosecution and defense without prejudice regardless of if it is going to be used in trial or not. IMO, that should be THE standard in American court rooms. I believe, if this were the case, it would drastically cut down on post-conviction appeals.