4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #96
- Thread starter ChatteringBirds
- Start date
Nila Aella
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2022
- Messages
- 1,178
- Reaction score
- 9,719
IMO he didn't leave it open.
@SpiderFalcon linked the pertinent criminal rule (TY
)Idaho Criminal Rule 21. Transfer for Trial
A motion for transfer may be made at or before arraignment or at any other time the court or these rules prescribe.
(a) For Prejudice. On motion of either party, the court must transfer the proceeding to another county if the court is satisfied that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in the county where the case is pending.
(b) For Convenience. On motion of the defendant, the court may transfer the proceeding to another county, for the convenience of parties and witnesses, and in the interest of justice.
(c) Proceedings on Transfer.
(1) Transfer Within a Judicial District. If the proceeding is transferred to a court of proper venue within the same judicial district, the judge granting the transfer must:
(A) order the case transferred to a specific court of proper venue within the judicial district; and
(B) continue the assignment over the case, unless the administrative district judge reassigns the case to another judge of the judicial district.
(2) Transfer to a Different Judicial District. If the proceeding is transferred to a court of proper venue in a different judicial district, a new presiding judge is assigned as follows:
(A) If the original judge desires to continue the assignment over the case, the judge may so indicate in the order, suggesting a court of proper venue, and refer to the administrative director of the courts for assignment by the Supreme Court to a court of proper venue and for assignment of a specific judge to preside; or
(B) if the original judge does not desire to continue the assignment over the case, the judge must enter an order transferring the case without specifying the new place of venue, and then refer the case to the administrative director of the courts for assignment by the Supreme Court to a court of proper venue in another judicial district and assignment of a specific judge to preside in the criminal proceeding.
From the COV order:
VI. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Kohberger's Motion to Change Venue is granted pursuant to Idaho Criminal Rule 21(a) and 21(b). Consistent with the language of Idaho Criminal Rule 21(c)(2)(B),
21(a) Prejudice
21(b) Convenience
21(c)(2) Transfer to a different district
21(c)(2)(B) Original Judge does not desire to continue
JMO
Snipped by me--I don't think this is accurate. @Balthazar agrees the defense has not contested the actual match of the dna on the sheath to BK's dna. To my knowledge, the defense has never said the dna on the sheath is not BK's. It's his. There are no known issues with the retrieval, processing, matching, etc. of the dna on the sheath. The defense has likely done their own testing and if it didn't match, we'd surely know. To keep saying there's a problem with the match is inaccurate.
The filing you're citing is in regards to the Investigative Genetic Genealogy, the IGG. The defense is not really disputing any scientific process. They want to see the paperwork done by the FBI (and it's the FBI who had not turned over what the defense was asking for, not the prosecution) and the FBI was resisting, saying it wasn't material to the preparation of the defense and not subject to discovery.
The defense spends a lot of time in this motion arguing that they want to see the work product because it could be wrong. They argue that the IGG could produce a pool of suspects rather than just one and they want access to the tree created by the FBI. This argument is kind of disingenuous though. The IGG is easily replicated. There's no scientific process involved once you have the dna profile (which the defense doesn't dispute). They admit they've done their own IGG and created their own family tree. They already have the pool of suspects the FBI has and could (and likely have) investigated them on their own. In the cases they cite, the pool of suspects were tested and ultimately matches were found. For example, in the Angie Dodge case, they initially narrowed it down to one suspect, he was tested, and didn't match. It was a tip that didn't pan out. They went back to the tree and looked for other suspects to test. This is why the FBI calls this an investigative technique--IGG generates tips, places to look, but ultimately the match must be made.
If the IGG in this case was "wrong"--if it was done incorrectly, if there wasn't enough to provide matches, if the matches really point to someone else--the dna on the sheath would not match BK. And the defense doesn't dispute that it's a match. The IGG was right. So why were they fighting it so hard? The real reason is in this portion of the filing you cited:
"In addition, there has been a history of misuse of these IGG databases by law enforcement. Abuses by law enforcement of the GEDMatch resulted in users opting out of the use of their DNA data by law enforcement. The abuses and protests by users led GEDMatch to change their database so that users had to opt in for law enforcement use."
The defense wanted to see the work product of the FBI because they wanted to see if they violated any terms of service of these public databases when generating the matches and creating the family tree. This was their only hope of somehow getting the dna thrown out. Because it's his and they know it.
IMO
Okay--which scientific processes do you think the prosecution received and the defense didn't?
IMO
Megnut
A piece of peace is peace enough.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2018
- Messages
- 13,126
- Reaction score
- 222,821
And the smart/safe work-around, iiuc, is to use only databases where contributors freely, wholly and knowingly opted in.
JMO
And they allegedly used Othram, which is 100% opt-in for law enforcement.
The witnesses brought in by the defense had no knowledge of what the FBI actually did during its investigation, just expert testimony about what was possible in an effort to convince the judge it was important for them to see the work product.
IMO
I agree, I think the defense will not argue the actual match, but instead will try to cast doubt about how that DNA ended up in the sample LE took, in other words, how that sheath was handled or who it even belongs to.
I apologize because I can't remember which motion it was that AT said this in, but I found a quote in a Newsweek article.
"However, Kohberger's attorneys recently filed their own motion alleging that the DNA found on the knife sheath may have been planted.
"The State's argument asks this Court and Mr Kohberger to assume—is that the DNA on the sheath was placed there by Mr Kohberger, and not someone else during an investigation that spans hundreds of members of law enforcement and apparently at least one lab the State refuses to name," Kohberger's legal team wrote in a motion."
Idaho murder update: Bryan Kohberger offers glimpse of his alibi
Shortly after his arraignment, Latah County prosecutor Bill Thompson announced in a court filing that the state was intending to seek the death penalty.
www.newsweek.com
schooling
I Have Opinions, Too
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,061
- Reaction score
- 12,958
Yes. The way that I took it when I was buried in the defenses motions and filing last summer was (all MOO):
- IMO The defense wants to present BK as the patsy
- IMO The defense wants to imply that law enforcement had plenty of other leads to chase down but instead focused on the patsy
- IMO The defense wants to imply that law enforcement had their eye on Kohlberger , then used that identification to shortcut the IGG process and potentially working their way up the tree back to the sample
- IMO Hence why they are so interested on how they arrived at Kohlberger’s name and like math class, want to see the work.
- IMO The defense wants to imply that if A and B and C are true then the entire investigation and the warrants that hinged on IGG are ill gotten goods or at least questionable because they thought it was him all along.
- Pressure from the university. Pressure on money to the town. Pressure to solve it quickly.
- IMO And all of that added together opens the door to a conspiracy.
I dont think they’ll argue that the sheath dna is not there. Just cast doubt on how it got there. “Is it possible that…” JMO
This is my theory and interpretation of the motions and filings. Not the defenses theory. I am not privy to that. It admittedly hasn’t evolved since last summer. And for the record, if this is their actual strategy, I don’t believe any of what it implies and I don’t believe it will work.
MOO, JMO, All of it. A theory.
Megnut
A piece of peace is peace enough.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2018
- Messages
- 13,126
- Reaction score
- 222,821
And, IMO, it all falls under the textbook heading Pound the Evidence. Which falls firmly between Pound the Investigation and Pound the Table.
Serving to raise the spectre of wrong-doing (where none there is).
She's doing her job.
She's loud, she's imposing, but the evidence is louder and more imposing.
I'll give her this -- her recent argument about the calculation of DNA "matches" to a degree or as a percentage -- reminds me how astronomical those numbers are, but I know and she knows that, when his DNA from two sources (sheath and cheek) were compared, at the points exclusive to humans, bing bing bing in popular parlance a match. In scientific language, 1 in 5.something octobazillion.
She wouldn't be doing her job if she didn't try to tackle, mystify, reduce, erase what she can.
JMO
I wish every defendant had the representation that BK has. The Angie Dodd case cited above is an infuriating example of coerced confession and wrongful conviction. IGG and Angie's own mother were instrumental in finding the true killer over 20 years after the murder.
IMO
IMO
PinkParis2052
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2024
- Messages
- 90
- Reaction score
- 444
The document that you linked to that is the Judge's order on IGG was from 10/25/2023 not Jan 2024. I agree that it's a good read and very good summary of what went down with the IGG in this case. I've skimmed it here and there. I'll read it tonight.
ORDER ADDRESSING IGG DNA AND ORDER FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW Order from the Judge filed on 10/25/2023
I already answered this in what is currently post 45.
schooling
I Have Opinions, Too
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,061
- Reaction score
- 12,958
It’s caused confusion in the past so I’ll just clarity what I meant by “up the tree”.
IMO The defense could say that LE knew Kohlberger was the murderer and immediately started looking at his lineage. And working their way up the tree to his grandparents and relatives.
My intepration(IMO) is that traditionally you start off with a sample and and a question mark on the other end. And in the middle is 7 billion people on planet earth. And as it starts to narrow down you’re left manually digging through records and locating people. JMO
On the other hand if you already know who is on the other end of your search, you could theoretically dramatically reduce the time it takes to find connecting lineage.
Essentially meeting the sample in the middle.
With a name you can quickly identify parents and then grandparents. And before you know it with a little more digging laterally and vertically up you can quickly see if a suspect is in the ballpark of the DNA sample you’ve theoretically been working down on. All without having to do surveillance or spooking the suspect. Again, JMO.
IMO This is why the Defense wants to see the work. And know if and how LE found their way down to Kohlberger. Who did they talk to. Who did they identify. Because they are hoping for gaps that tell them they didn’t start.
This is not the typical use of IGG you hear about. It’s kind of in reverse. The implication being that instead of investigating the evidence and seeing where it led them, they found a person and sought out evidence to match him. I don’t believe that this is how LE found Kohlberger or conducted the IGG but I do believe that this is the path AT is headed down.
MOO
IMO The defense could say that LE knew Kohlberger was the murderer and immediately started looking at his lineage. And working their way up the tree to his grandparents and relatives.
My intepration(IMO) is that traditionally you start off with a sample and and a question mark on the other end. And in the middle is 7 billion people on planet earth. And as it starts to narrow down you’re left manually digging through records and locating people. JMO
On the other hand if you already know who is on the other end of your search, you could theoretically dramatically reduce the time it takes to find connecting lineage.
Essentially meeting the sample in the middle.
With a name you can quickly identify parents and then grandparents. And before you know it with a little more digging laterally and vertically up you can quickly see if a suspect is in the ballpark of the DNA sample you’ve theoretically been working down on. All without having to do surveillance or spooking the suspect. Again, JMO.
IMO This is why the Defense wants to see the work. And know if and how LE found their way down to Kohlberger. Who did they talk to. Who did they identify. Because they are hoping for gaps that tell them they didn’t start.
This is not the typical use of IGG you hear about. It’s kind of in reverse. The implication being that instead of investigating the evidence and seeing where it led them, they found a person and sought out evidence to match him. I don’t believe that this is how LE found Kohlberger or conducted the IGG but I do believe that this is the path AT is headed down.
MOO
Last edited:
If this is how it works, and I assume it is, it's really screwed up that that's the game of cat and mouse that lawyers are willing to play.
The world should be far more fair and we shouldn't let people get off on smoke and mirrors. It's like we're living in the dark ages when we do this type of thing. JMOO
What's the point of scientific progress if we can't use it, maybe that is just me.
Last edited:
GRT
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2020
- Messages
- 3,042
- Reaction score
- 25,452
SBM for focus...
In the best of all worlds, we can use it. But we have to use it ethically. Unfortunately, humans are capable of making errors or, worse--intentionally mishandling evidence (cough, cough, /Joyce Gilchrist).
So, the protocol must be stringently followed. Even if the lab technicians are on the up and up (and they usually are), they can catch innocent people like Raymond Easton and Shirley McKie.
So, we have to hold our law enforcement and prosecutors to a very high standard. The reason those standards are now in place is because evidentiary practices have been taken advantage of at some point in history.
Many, not just a few, have been wrongly convicted. Abiding by high standards protects the integrity of the whole process.
JMOO
The Idaho Supreme Court will decide the location, and the judge. If they see fit that JJJ remain the judge on the case rather than a local Ada county judge, then he might stay on. But for practical reasons, I think it's likely they'll appoint a local judge. JJJ can't simply abandon the other cases he has going on in Moscow to go live in Boise for three months. So IMO not a matter of what he wants, but what they will likely decide.
Thanks for the correction on the date. Yes, Jan 2024 was order filed post in camera hearing whereby judge released IGG material ( that held by the FBI imo) to defense. Sealed with appropriate protections owing to sensitive family tree info. Jmo
According to the way Judge worded his order though (per @SpiderFalcon's posts upthread,), I believe JJJ does want off the case.
I had no idea the Judge had an opt out option, and was surprised this possibility was not raised in COV motions and argument. Still, as long as it doesn't mean a delay I'm personally not concerned.
Not sure practical reasons would be the end all and be all though for triple J's preference. At least to me, three months overseeing trial Moscow, or three months in Boise(?), Judge is going to be occupied pretty much full time with the the trial I would have thought. Yes, Boise would be an inconvenience as it will be to the attorneys and victims' loved ones. Moo