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

[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.

 

[wendy44]

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.

Bolded by me--which process are you referring to?

 

[RANCH]

I wonder where in Idaho media coverage of this case has been light.

 

[RANCH]

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.

I can see problems when the state withholds exculpatory evidence from the defense.

I'm not so sure that everything collected and analyzed in a criminal investigation is relevant and needs to be shared with the defense.

In a case like this there will be appeals no matter what.

JMO.

 

[Sleuth2010]

It is really quite sad for the families, waiting a year, perhaps unnecessarily, could the change have happened earlier?

Regardless... Chief Fry and the entire team, know they have their killer. Good work and thank you. No matter where the location of the court is, justice will prevail.

jmo omo moo

 

[jepop]

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'm a little concerned about delays too though that didn't cross my mind earlier, think because I assumed triple J would move with the trial. Given the way he wrote the order seems he won't be. That's fine by me. I think non-local judge isn't necessarily a bad thing for this case. Moo
----------------------------------------------------------
Haven't read order except excerpts posted here so apologies if order covers points below.

Am presuming scheduling order for pre trial and trial remains as is although jury selection will obviously happen... wherever and involve the new judge. ?

Assuming triple J will continue until BK is moved and enforce D discovery deadlines and oversee any related motions? I might be wrong but imo this doesn't amount to a reset technically at least?

My guess is JJJ carries on until next June, though I would guess court would share with new judge well before that date and hopefully the new appointment is not left until the last minute. If the ISC sit on this or there are delays in appointing a new judge or no judge in new location available next June that would be a very great shame. Jmo

 

[CKS]

Bolded by me--which process are you referring to?

Link to the Court Document

All MOO


I believe he's referring to on page 15 it says that the profile is ambiguous and partial. If this was a partial DNA profile from the knife sheath…. Then how did they match it to his DNA thru his dads DNA? How did the grand jury move forward with an indictment with a partial profile? This is what the defense wants to know. The defense wants the prosecution to show the labs work from what I understand.



A notable part of the Barlow affidavit, imo, is in footnote 7:

"In its Motion, the government misstates the statistical rarity of the comparison to the DNA from the sheath (at pg 6) “the STR profile is at least 5.37 octillion times more likely to be seen if Defendant is the source than if an unrelated individual randomly selected from the general population is the source.” This reported statistic for this comparison is a Likelihood Ratio, similar to a RMP, which compares two competing hypotheses. The government’s statement is extremely misleading and is essentially the “Prosecutor’s Fallacy.” “The fallacy is to say that [the probability] is also the probability that the DNA at the crime scene came from someone other than the defendant. . . . It does not say that the odds that the suspect contributed the evidence are 1,000: l .” National Research Council, THE EVALUATION OF FORENSIC DNA EVIDENCE, I996, at pg 133."


2 Cents

 

[Balthazar]

Bolded by me--which process are you referring to?

EVERY scientific process. IMO, defense AND prosecution should receive identical materials from ALL scientific processes performed in the case. This should be the standard for any case, not just this one.

 

[jepop]

Link to the Court Document

All MOO


I believe he's referring to on page 15 it says that the profile is ambiguous and partial. If this was a partial DNA profile from the knife sheath…. Then how did they match it to his DNA thru his dads DNA? How did the grand jury move forward with an indictment with a partial profile? This is what the defense wants to know. The defense wants the prosecution to show the labs work from what I understand

Snipped for focus. Your link is to the declaration by Bicka Barlow which Defense filed for the 18th August hearing 2023 re Igg.

You are referencing page 13 of that affidavit as far as I can tell

The mention of a partial profile is found in the concluding sentence of section 4.2 pp11-13 titled
"Match Details Reports and long Form Candidate Match Reports for the hits including partial hits... " (snipped because I cannot cut and paste from doc. Someone could screen shot section 4.2 pp 11-13 to give the proper context if they felt inclined.).

The opening sentence of section 4.2 makes clear that Barlow is NOT writing about the single source male DNA sample extracted from the knife sheathe.

P 11 "From the discovery in this case it appears that at least three...profiles were uploaded to the CODIS data base prior to Mr Kohberger being charged. Mr Kohberger requested the discovery...and results to these unknown male profiles...". ( my emphasis).

She goes on to provide egs re partial profile upload to data bases.

Two minor points; a) this is about a particular item of Discovery defense believed they had not received by 18 Aug 2023. 2) Barlow states appeared...to be uploaded to CoDis.

But the main point is Barlow NOT talking about the sheathe DNA sample.

Just in the last thread links were uploaded to the 18 August 2O23 hearing where court was resolving this item of discovery, that is the two unknown male DNA samples collected from the house and one from outside the house.

As was linked there prosecution explained that those samples were ineligible for codis and the court was told that defense had already been informed of this by lab. Judge asked pros to double check this with lab. Imo Barlow was not aware that the three unknown profiles identified from the house were deemed as ineligible for CODIS at the time she prepared her declaration for the hearing. She was careful with her language anyway (ie appeared to). Moo

Just adding another minor point, when the ref to partial profile on page 13 is read in context of the preceding paragraphs Barlow is clearly referring to the examples she has just cited. Not that it matters much, as section 4.2 has nothing to do with the sheathe DNA. If I could I would screen shot the entirety of section 4.2 pp 11 to 13 so context is clear.
Moo

 

[al66pine]

New Nez Perce Courthouse?

I'm guessing it may be moved to the brand new courthouse being built in Nez Perce if it's completed in time.
A courthouse for the next century.

@CKS An interesting possibility.

From above linked story: ".... new Nez Perce County Courthouse that is expected to be ready by spring 2025."

Jan. 17, 2024 update.
".... Commissioner Havens says the spring 2025 completion estimate is still accurate.
""And that will be a time when we're in the courthouse, so the old one for a time will still be standing next to the new one," Havens said."

Edit. I first posted county name as Nez "Purse" by mistake. Sorry, I was thinking Nez "Perce" County, but my fingers went rogue & typed phonetically. LOL

 

[CKS]

Snipped for focus. Your link is to the declaration by Bicka Barlow which Defense filed for the 18th August hearing 2023 re Igg.

You are referencing page 13 of that affidavit as far as I can tell

The mention of a partial profile is found in the concluding sentence of section 4.2 pp11-13 titled
"Match Details Reports and long Form Candidate Match Reports for the hits including partial hits... " (snipped because I cannot cut and paste from doc. Someone could screen shot section 4.2 pp 11-13 to give the proper context if they felt inclined.).

The opening sentence of section 4.2 makes clear that Barlow is NOT writing about the single source male DNA sample extracted from the knife sheathe.

P 11 "From the discovery in this case it appears that at least three...profiles were uploaded to the CODIS data base prior to Mr Kohberger being charged. Mr Kohberger requested the discovery...and results to these unknown male profiles...". ( my emphasis).

She goes on to provide egs re partial profile upload to data bases.

Two minor points; a) this is about a particular item of Discovery defense believed they had not received by 18 Aug 2023. 2) Barlow states appeared...to be uploaded to CoDis.

But the main point is Barlow NOT talking about the sheathe DNA sample.

Just in the last thread links were uploaded to the 18 August 2O23 hearing where court was resolving this item of discovery, that is the two unknown male DNA samples collected from the house and one from outside the house.

As was linked there prosecution explained that those samples were ineligible for codis and the court was told that defense had already been informed of this by lab. Judge asked pros to double check this with lab. Imo Barlow was not aware that the three unknown profiles identified from the house were deemed as ineligible for CODIS at the time she prepared her declaration for the hearing. She was careful with her language anyway (ie appeared to). Moo

Just adding another minor point, when the ref to partial profile on page 13 is read in context of the preceding paragraphs Barlow is clearly referring to the examples she has just cited. Not that it matters much, as section 4.2 has nothing to do with the sheathe DNA. If I could I would screen shot the entirety of section 4.2 pp 11 to 13 so context is clear.
Moo

IMO
2 cents

The main point is that the prosecution has not turned over the work from either lab on the how they came to the conclusion that it is BK's DNA.

For some reason the prosecution doesn't want the defense looking closely at any piece of the IGG process. Maybe because aspects of that are subjective and open to attack by the defense -- and if they look at how the SNP profile was developed, that opens the door to looking at what they (and the FBI, apparently) did with that profile.

Which, if you listen to the prosecution, doesn't matter, because they ended up comparing STR profiles in the end anyway. But it could maybe reveal clues that the FBI had blinders on in their investigation, in general. Or indirectly/accidentally reveal more about the original STR profile development that puts that in doubt.

5.37 octillion <——This number cannot be obtained by the CODIS 20 Loci DNA STR Analytical (the test they are supposed to feed CODIS with). It has an outer limit of 9.35 x 10-24 (septillions) for the whole of humanity and 7.32 x 10-23 for generic white males like him. What they’ve pinned to him is a result that has never been obtained from that test and never will be.

All MOO

 

[CKS]

New Nez Purse Courthouse?

@CKS An interesting possibility.

From above linked story: ".... new Nez Perce County Courthouse that is expected to be ready by spring 2025."

Jan. 17, 2024 update.
".... Commissioner Havens says the spring 2025 completion estimate is still accurate.
""And that will be a time when we're in the courthouse, so the old one for a time will still be standing next to the new one," Havens said."

I think I was wrong and that courthouse would be ineligible. If had to bet I'd say it's going to be in Boise, ID

 

[arielilane]

Not much news, but a little something. moo

BONNEVILLE COUNTY, Idaho (KIFI) – After a Latah County Judge approved a change of venue for Bryan Kohberger's case, questions are swirling as to where he will be tried.

...

Kohberger case likely won't move to eastern Idaho - Local News 8

After a Latah County Judge approved a change of venue for Bryan Kohberger's case, questions are swirling as to where he will be tried.

localnews8.com

September 10, 2024 10:34 AM

 

[al66pine]

dbm

 

[Sundog]

Not much news, but a little something. moo

BONNEVILLE COUNTY, Idaho (KIFI) – After a Latah County Judge approved a change of venue for Bryan Kohberger's case, questions are swirling as to where he will be tried.

...

Kohberger case likely won't move to eastern Idaho - Local News 8

After a Latah County Judge approved a change of venue for Bryan Kohberger's case, questions are swirling as to where he will be tried.

localnews8.com

September 10, 2024 10:34 AM

Also in the article, this comment by an Idaho defense attorney on the change of venue decision -

One thing that came as a surprise to Neal and Meickle is the fact that Judge John Judge, the justice who has overseen this case, mentioned there might be a different judge at trial. "Usually, the District Judge will stay with that case," Meickle says, "But he left open the idea. He didn't say he would keep it so it's up to the Supreme Court the make that decision."

 

[Nila Aella]

Link to the Court Document

All MOO


I believe he's referring to on page 15 it says that the profile is ambiguous and partial. If this was a partial DNA profile from the knife sheath…. Then how did they match it to his DNA thru his dads DNA? How did the grand jury move forward with an indictment with a partial profile? This is what the defense wants to know. The defense wants the prosecution to show the labs work from what I understand.



A notable part of the Barlow affidavit, imo, is in footnote 7:

"In its Motion, the government misstates the statistical rarity of the comparison to the DNA from the sheath (at pg 6) “the STR profile is at least 5.37 octillion times more likely to be seen if Defendant is the source than if an unrelated individual randomly selected from the general population is the source.” This reported statistic for this comparison is a Likelihood Ratio, similar to a RMP, which compares two competing hypotheses. The government’s statement is extremely misleading and is essentially the “Prosecutor’s Fallacy.” “The fallacy is to say that [the probability] is also the probability that the DNA at the crime scene came from someone other than the defendant. . . . It does not say that the odds that the suspect contributed the evidence are 1,000: l .” National Research Council, THE EVALUATION OF FORENSIC DNA EVIDENCE, I996, at pg 133."

Agree.
Footnote: no likelihood ratio was reported to the public. Probability and likelihood ratios assume that no error occurred in the determination of the dna profile. MOO

Statistical Issues - The Evaluation of Forensic DNA Evidence - NCBI Bookshelf

IMO
2 cents

The main point is that the prosecution has not turned over the work from either lab on the how they came to the conclusion that it is BK's DNA.

For some reason the prosecution doesn't want the defense looking closely at any piece of the IGG process. Maybe because aspects of that are subjective and open to attack by the defense -- and if they look at how the SNP profile was developed, that opens the door to looking at what they (and the FBI, apparently) did with that profile.

Which, if you listen to the prosecution, doesn't matter, because they ended up comparing STR profiles in the end anyway. But it could maybe reveal clues that the FBI had blinders on in their investigation, in general. Or indirectly/accidentally reveal more about the original STR profile development that puts that in doubt.

5.37 octillion <——This number cannot be obtained by the CODIS 20 Loci DNA STR Analytical (the test they are supposed to feed CODIS with). It has an outer limit of 9.35 x 10-24 (septillions) for the whole of humanity and 7.32 x 10-23 for generic white males like him. What they’ve pinned to him is a result that has never been obtained from that test and never will be.

All MOO

BBM

Exactly.
The D was investigating the entire DNA evidence, from collection to result from the IGG. MOO

Both Mercer and Larkin testified to different potions of the DNA evidence: 5/23/24

39:00
Talks about needing the IGG details so that an expert can compare the SNP developed to the STR markers and determine reliability of the STR. Mentions a few examples of what the comparison can tell about the reliability of the STR.

Just recalling that there were 2 SNP profiles. MOO

Larkin at the bottom of her affidavit listing what discovery is requested:

b. how a DNA sample was handled from the time of collection through its forensic genetic genealogy testing;

The P wanted the following + etc. protected: 6/16/2023

o 0 The raw data related to the SNP profile and the underlying laboratory documentation related to the development of the profile, such as chain of custody forms, laboratory standard operating procedures, analyst notes, etc.

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/061623+States+Motion+for+Protective+Order.pdf

IMO it appears that the D was still investigating both the STR and IGG, at least at the time of this hearing (May).

JMO

Attachments area

Preview YouTube video Bryan Kohberger’s Defense Team Calls Lawyer with DNA Expertise to the Stand


Bryan Kohberger’s Defense Team Calls Lawyer with DNA Expertise to the Stand

 

[jepop]

Judge's long order re IGG info from Jan this year. A good read and very good summary of what went down re IGG in this case.

Just in regard to the SNP profile page 8 ETA think judge is referring to State response titled "In support of Motion for Protective Order". Not sure what the date is on that one but recall it from Idaho Court Cases of Interest page.

"The state has represented that it has already disclosed the suspect SNP profile to the defense. Reply in Supp of Mot for Protective Order at 2"