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

[Arkay]

https://www.in.gov/ctb/files/section301.pdf

A lengthy but highly informative document from the Indiana government website, delineating the duties of law enforcement vs. the duties of the coroner when at a death scene.
Highly specific as to a crime scene rather than what appears to be a natural death, and which agency is responsible for which duties in each circumstance.

IMO I don’t really feel concerned as to which law officer saw the sheath first.
It was there, it was found, it had identifiable single source DNA located in a hidden spot.

I’m speculating that LE, upon arrival at the scene and noticing (as posted above) two deceased women in one bed with visible stab wounds, are going to first take notice of that horror and all the blood that must have been soaking them and the bed, and see the sheath “later.”

There must have been a lot to observe by LE and those were just two of the four victims. Personally I’m unbothered if the sheath was noticed at once, five minutes later, ten minutes later.

Again it was found, it’s objective physical evidence, it produced incontrovertible evidence that is admissible in court.

JMO with respect for the opinions of others.

ETA: screenshot of the Table of Contents from the link above, in case anyone who is interested in perusing the document does not want to wade through all of the pages.

 

[GRT]

That doesn't relate to the profile found on the sheath. That was a full profile from a single source, not a mixture.

And the second relates to other DNA found in and around the home that doesn't reach the threshold for CODIS. Nonstarter.

MOO

Unless I'm reading it wrong, I believe it does relate to the DNA on the sheath.

According to Bicklow the defense also wanted information about the other three unidentified male sources of DNA left in the house but I don't think they ever got it.

I could be wrong.

 

[iamshadow21]

Unless I'm reading it wrong, I believe it does relate to the DNA on the sheath.

According to Bicklow the defense also wanted information about the other three unidentified male sources of DNA left in the house but I don't think they ever got it.

I could be wrong.

But that whole section of the document is talking about mixed profiles with multiple subjects who can or cannot be excluded, and variations on conclusions between analysts. It's not relevant at all, because the sheath didn't have a mixed source of profiles. It had one single profile, which at a factor many times the total population of earth matched one person.

MOO

 

[Justice101]

But that whole section of the document is talking about mixed profiles with multiple subjects who can or cannot be excluded, and variations on conclusions between analysts. It's not relevant at all, because the sheath didn't have a mixed source of profiles. It had one single profile, which at a factor many times the total population of earth matched one person.

MOO

They are grasping for straws.. just to say, "we have proof that there were multiple males in that house that left DNA." Did you run genealogical DNA on those unknown individuals?"

Of course not, it was a college house so there is going to be male DNA there.. but none of that was on the knife sheath... which was believed to be from the murderer.

Again, defense has VERY LITTLE to use as a defense. this one is over

 

[wendy44]

On page 15 it says that the profile is ambiguous and partial.

The declaration also mentions the other DNA found at the crime scene on page 13.

For some reason I cannot get the link to work. Google Barlow Affidavit 06/23/23

That paragraph references the case being discussed on the previous page--People v. Hernandez--not the Kohberger case. The quoted paragraph references and is making a point about multiple candidates/matches in the system and, from what we know, there were no matches in the system to the dna on the sheath. So this paragraph, while it could be confusing if taken in isolation, could not be referring to the Kohberger case.

 

[Nila Aella]

I agree. From the PCA we know it wasn't underneath MM's body. Payne says 'next to Mogen's right side.'

As I entered this bedroom, I could see two females in the single bed in the room. Both Goncalves and Mogen were deceased with visible stab wounds. I also later noticed what appeared to be a tan leather knife sheath laying on the bed next to Mogen's right side (when viewed from the door).

This is what BT described in the Motion for PO:

Law enforcement found a Ka-Bar knife sheath on a bed next to the bodies of Madison and Kaylee. The sheath was face down and partially under both Madison’s body and the comforter on the bed.

Page 2:

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

 

[katydid23]

To be sure, if anyone suggested a frame job that wild, it would be laughed out of court. I don't think AT is that silly.

I think they're more likely to claim something along the lines of BK being "identified" by someone who knew he drove a white sedan and thought he was creepy. It's not an Elantra because that wasn't the make of the car first identified by LE. But similar. Maybe LE took a look at him, saw he had bushy eyebrows, and they got more interested. Maybe then they found his cell phone pings put him in the vicinity of the murder house on the fateful night. But maybe that wasn't enough. Maybe they needed to wrangle a bit of DNA from BK and plant it on a piece of evidence that would be considered crucial to the case. The Defense may then say the lack of any more of BK's DNA in the house backs up that theory. And then they may also point to a lack of victim DNA in his car and apartment, etc. To top it off, they've got a cellphone expert who usually testifies for the prosecution, testifies for the defense and says the evidence he's seen to date is exculpatory.

Now, I don't think he was framed, but the defense isn't going to make up a silly story. They're going to try an connect the dots in a way that makes it look as though the DNA was a plant. MOO.

I don't think AT will go down a rabbit hole...

Problem with the above scenario is that the sheath was located pretty quickly and sent to the forensics lab WAY before LE would have been able to take a look around for people with bushy eyebrows and white Nissans.

So my original scenario is more realistic than the one above, IMO.

 

[Arkay]

Ah, mea culpa, my mistake above for inserting the law of Indiana rather than of Idaho. (Thinking of Abby and Libby, I suppose).

I’ll leave that post there though because IMO it seems to be standard procedure, regardless, concerning the duties of the coroner and law enforcement at a murder scene.

Here is a very short and simple one from an Idaho government site.

Essentially both LE and coroner must be notified by whichever department is first at the scene.

Section 19-4301A – Idaho State Legislature

legislature.idaho.gov

 

[wendy44]

All MOO

I think the whole sheath discovery is confusing b/c from the PCA it appears that Payne was the one who first saw it but if I remember correctly he didn't arrive to the scene until 4 hours after other LE. Yet somehow no other LE agents saw it?

Keep in mind the purpose of this document--it's a probable cause affadavit. It's pretty standard to summarize the circumstances from the viewpoint of the officer writing it.

Also, it doesn't necessarily have to be the case that someone had a sample of BK's DNA and planted it on there. It could just be that it's not even a match to begin with. There's a reason why the prosecution is so desperate to keep all of their DNA/IGG work secret.

It's been stated in court documents that the profile is "partial and ambiguous"... well, ambiguous means "open to more than one interpretation", which really tells you all you need to know.

Since it was a partial profile, they had to use a statistics-based computer program to fill in the rest. It's possible that if an outside expert was allowed to compare the alleged sheath sample to the swab taken from BK, they would not be a match.

(Bolded by Me)--As far as we know, the defense does not even dispute the match. They have full access to it. I'm sure they've run their own reports. They've never tried to get it thrown out saying it's not a match. That is what actually tells us all we need to know. IMO

The entirety of the case against Bryan will come down to one self identified eyewitness, with a dubious story. For example, DM somehow hearing someone say 'I'm here to help' but doesn't hear four humans being murdered while at least one of them fought back. Not too mention possibly never calling 911 since we don't know who did call 911 8 hours allegedly after it all happened.

We don't really know what she heard. We haven't seen any text messages that were exchanged that night between the surviving roommates or from them to the victims.

Bryan has no connection to any victim, their friends, their family or co -workers. He never worked with them, traveled with them, dated them or partied with them. He has no prior arrests, no history of violence, threats, stalking, intimidation of the victims or those in their orbit. He is without a motive.

I think he does actually have a prior arrest for stealing his sister's phone. If he had no known connection to them, it certainly makes it more difficult to find him and it may make it more difficult to convict him, if not for the dna. But I don't think a jury would have any problem with motive--there are people out there compelled to commit these crimes. Most people understand that. IMO

There are no eyewitnesses, earwitnesses, fingerprints, footprints, or video of him coming or leaving the house at 1122. There is no DNA of any victims in his car, house, office or apt. He appeared at a doctors office for a physical 3 days after the bloody, brutal stabbing murder of the 4 victims, and had no cuts, bruises, scratches or injuries.

The indictment of Bryan appears to have been built around speculations, rather than investigators following leads of those persons of interest, who had motive, had anger issues with the victims, had means and opportunity.

Of course, one of the biggest head scratchers imo is that it appears that BK engaged in close physical combat with at least two of the victims (X and K) yet somehow did not leave any of his DNA anywhere in the house other than a spec on the button of the sheath. Also, since he was at the doctor three days later we know he had no cuts/wounds which again is hard to believe if he did it.

There was also not one spec of DNA/blood anywhere in BK's apt, car, office, etc which is a miracle imo. The odds of this are borderline impossible.


All MOO and remember I'm not saying he's innocent but I am not ready to say he's guilty either.

Keep in mind, we don't really know any of this. Everything has been under seal. We don't know that any of this exists or doesn't exist--it's incorrect to say as fact that none of this exists.
IMO

 

[GRT]

Problem with the above scenario is that the sheath was located pretty quickly and sent to the forensics lab WAY before LE would have been able to take a look around for people with bushy eyebrows and white Nissans.

So my original scenario is more realistic than the one above, IMO.

Do we know the date the sheath was sent for testing?

 

[GRT]

But that whole section of the document is talking about mixed profiles with multiple subjects who can or cannot be excluded, and variations on conclusions between analysts. It's not relevant at all, because the sheath didn't have a mixed source of profiles. It had one single profile, which at a factor many times the total population of earth matched one person.

MOO

You may well be right. It's not super clear. I just focused on the wording, "And in this case, in which the profile at issue is ambiguous and partial, other suspects are an important area of investigation." to mean BK's was the "profile at issue" because she then differentiates to "other suspects" being an important area of investigation.

But, as I said, it's not crystal clear so you could be right.

 

[Justice101]

Fascinating reads on the attachments, thanks folks

 

[schooling]

On page 15 it says that the profile is ambiguous and partial.

The declaration also mentions the other DNA found at the crime scene on page 13.

For some reason I cannot get the link to work. Google Barlow Affidavit 06/23/23

5 octillion to 1 is not ambiguous.

MOo

 

[katydid23]

Unless I'm reading it wrong, I believe it does relate to the DNA on the sheath.

According to Bicklow the defense also wanted information about the other three unidentified male sources of DNA left in the house but I don't think they ever got it.

I could be wrong.

I do not believe that BK's DNA had a hit from CODIS---which this link says happened to the DNA they are discussing.

IF BK's DNA had been recognised by CODIS, there would not have been any Genetic Profiling issues.

 

[schooling]

You may well be right. It's not super clear. I just focused on the wording, "And in this case, in which the profile at issue is ambiguous and partial, other suspects are an important area of investigation." to mean BK's was the "profile at issue" because she then differentiates to "other suspects" being an important area of investigation.

But, as I said, it's not crystal clear so you could be right.

Even if we were to accept your interpretation IMO the defenses job is always to characterizing/mischaracterizing evidence against the defendant as not meeting some real or imaginary baseline or mark.

IMO in this case it’s just echoing the internet’s complete misunderstanding of touch/transfer DNA and also the belief that they always produce incomplete profiles.

As usual, muddying the waters. Confusing the issues. In hopes that they can pre influence the public and therefore the jury pool. JMO of course.

All MOO

 

[katydid23]

Do we know the date the sheath was sent for testing?

Since they were urgently searching for an intruder who stabbed 4 students to death, I am pretty sure they sent that sheath off as quickly as possible, and probably asked for it to be expedited. I am sure we will hear about exact dates at trial.

 

[GRT]

I do not believe that BK's DNA had a hit from CODIS---which this link says happened to the DNA they are discussing.

IF BK's DNA had been recognised by CODIS, there would not have been any Genetic Profiling issues.

You could be right!

 

[GRT]

Since they were urgently searching for an intruder who stabbed 4 students to death, I am pretty sure they sent that sheath off as quickly as possible, and probably asked for it to be expedited. I am sure we will hear about exact dates at trial.

Yes, that's probably when we'll hear the dates.

 

[gremlin444]

Do we know the date the sheath was sent for testing?

This defense motion says the DNA on the sheath was found on Nov 20, 2022 at the ISP crime lab.

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/062323+Objection+to+States+Motion+for+Protective+Order.pdf

"On November 20, 2022, the ldaho State Police Lab in Meridian, Idaho located DNA on the button of the sheath and performed STR analysis that led nowhere when ran through CODIS (Combined DNA IndexSystem), other than to show the provider was male."

 

[katydid23]

This defense motion says the DNA on the sheath was found on Nov 20, 2022 at the ISP crime lab.

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/062323+Objection+to+States+Motion+for+Protective+Order.pdf

"On November 20, 2022, the ldaho State Police Lab in Meridian, Idaho located DNA on the button of the sheath and performed STR analysis that led nowhere when ran through CODIS (Combined DNA IndexSystem), other than to show the provider was male."

That's when DNA was found on the sheath---the question remains, WHEN did LE send the sheath to the lab?

If LE or someone planted the evidence, they'd have to do so before it was sent to the State Lab.

The murders happened on the 13th of nov. So it was only 7 days later that the State Lab located DNA on the sheath?

So that must have been sent out very quickly in order to be processed that soon. IMO