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

[GRT]

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."

Right, but the STR test didn't turn anything up. They had to arrange for the IGG test after that. And we know from your link that LE noticed a white sedan they identified as a Nissan Sentra as being the potential car of the killer on Nov 18th. That was 2 days before the STR test. They didn't allude to the car being an Elantra until Nov 25.

I don't see a date when the IGG test was run but that seems to be one of the reasons the defense is asking for the State to turn over its IGG investigation procedure.

 

[wendy44]

Right, but the STR test didn't turn anything up. They had to arrange for the IGG test after that. And we know from your link that LE noticed a white sedan they identified as a Nissan Sentra as being the potential car of the killer on Nov 18th. That was 2 days before the STR test. They didn't allude to the car being an Elantra until Nov 25.

I don't see a date when the IGG test was run but that seems to be one of the reasons the defense is asking for the State to turn over its IGG investigation procedure.

I don't think we've seen court documents that say they initially identified a Sentra, but I may have missed it. I completely understand where the defense was going with this--did the investigators change their facts to fit BK once IGG identified him (i.e., their experts said it was a Sentra, then they get BK's name, and suddenly their experts say it was an Elantra) or did the facts they had fit the match on the sheath (the experts determined it was an Elantra before they had the name).

So they were seeking the timeline of when the IGG spit out the name, but also the details of how that tree was put together and were any "loopholes" in the databases accessed that violated terms of service.

But haven't they had the information for a while at this point? Wasn't it all turned over last winter? Wouldn't we have heard about it by now if the defense found anything they thought they could exploit? It seems like we would. IMO

 

[katydid23]

Right, but the STR test didn't turn anything up. They had to arrange for the IGG test after that. And we know from your link that LE noticed a white sedan they identified as a Nissan Sentra as being the potential car of the killer on Nov 18th. That was 2 days before the STR test. They didn't allude to the car being an Elantra until Nov 25.

I don't see a date when the IGG test was run but that seems to be one of the reasons the defense is asking for the State to turn over its IGG investigation procedure.

I think what you wrote above is even stronger proof it wasn't a frame job with planted DNA. They sent it to the crime lab almost immediately---probably before they learned about the bushy eyebrows or the white Nissan. Certainly before they had a chance to single out BK as a potential patsy. If they identified the white sedan around Nov 18th, then that was AFTER the DNA had already been sent out to the State Lab.

I am confident that the DA will be able to show the jurors that there was no way for LE to plant the DNA.

 

[MeadowMuffin]

Another thing that might be of concern is that a university police officer identified BK through their database of cars that park on campus, it was a white elantra and the university police officer looked up the owner's information and photo ID and decided that BK had "bushy eyebrows." This seemed to begin the focus on BK as the suspect and led to their interest in him, genealogy search, etc.

I have a problem with this statement. One WSU officer noted the Elantra and reported it to his boss who then went to the apartments and found it. Not sure who looked up the DL photo, but the eyebrows made him excited. Which led to local LE looking him up in their files; finding his phone number which BK gave during an earlier traffic stop, and requesting phone records, etc. Finding the "12 pings" near the King Rd residence, driving there on the 13th afternoon, all the traveling he did. Requesting video from where he pinged, including the footage of him getting out of the Elantra and shopping at the distant Albertson's store. This started in late November.

But it was the FBI who had the IGG info and they held it close to the vest while BK was driving home. Because he was stopped twice in Indiana, FBI was nervous that their oneupsmanship would be discovered and so finally let LE know who matched, and that was soon before the arrest was made. And wasn't it the FBI who made the defense wait for any IGG investigation discovery, not the prosecution? All IMO.

 

[al66pine]

Magazine Cover/ Poster by Saul Steinberg:
"A New Yorker's View of the World from 9th Avenue" ?

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

@Arkay
Thanks for offering a mea culpa for confusing Indiana w Idaho in linking LE procedures but not needed.
Those of us hailing from places other than NYC are accustomed to mix-ups about flyover zone states. A while back, not on WS, I made a booboo
discombobulating one borough for another. facepalm emoji. LOL.

Seriously, info linked in your earlier post was standard procedure, imo, and your link to ID. statute leaves no room for doubt re mutually RECIPROCAL NOTIFICATIONS required btwn LE & Coroner.

 

[jepop]

View attachment 535374

View attachment 535371

Re Bicka Barlow and the selected and out of context paragraph; your misleading and incorrect reading has been pointed out many times in this thread and previous. IMO

Modifying my response to you about 20 pages back below:

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

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... "

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

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. Additionally, section 4.2 has nothing to do with the sheathe DNA.

Please stop taking this section of B.Barlow's declaration out of context. Imo to do so borders on misinformation and this has already been pointed out to you a few times prior.
Moo

ETA link to full B.Barlow declaration

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/062323+Notice+of+Filing+Declaration+of+Bicka+Barlow+in+Support+of+Def+Third+Motion+to+Compel.pdf

 

[wendy44]

But it was the FBI who had the IGG info and they held it close to the vest while BK was driving home. Because he was stopped twice in Indiana, FBI was nervous that their oneupsmanship would be discovered and so finally let LE know who matched, and that was soon before the arrest was made. And wasn't it the FBI who made the defense wait for any IGG investigation discovery, not the prosecution? All IMO.

Snipped by me--I think I did read this in Blum's book, but not sure I've read it elsewhere. His book was interesting because it seems clear he had a source who was close to, or close to someone who was close to, BK's family, particularly his dad. It was interesting to read some of their supposed actions and thoughts as it was happening. For example, I think we talked endlessly here about the route they took from Washington back to Pennsylvania at Christmas. That it didn't really make sense. And the book reports that BK and his dad had mapped out a different route, the one that made sense, and BK changed it at the last minute as they were leaving to the longer route. His dad pushed back and there was a blow up.

I'll be honest and say I enjoyed those portions of the book but took it as whole with a grain of salt based on another book I read by him about the codebreakers who hunted the Rosenbergs. I liked that book a lot, but I knew just as a local to some of the settings and even having worked at one of the places heavily featured, he got details wrong. Just even silly stuff like the name of a town, which is so easily fact-checked. I didn't really agree with some of his conclusions and it made me more cautious about what I read in the Idaho book.

 

[GRT]

I don't think we've seen court documents that say they initially identified a Sentra, but I may have missed it. I completely understand where the defense was going with this--did the investigators change their facts to fit BK once IGG identified him (i.e., their experts said it was a Sentra, then they get BK's name, and suddenly their experts say it was an Elantra) or did the facts they had fit the match on the sheath (the experts determined it was an Elantra before they had the name).

So they were seeking the timeline of when the IGG spit out the name, but also the details of how that tree was put together and were any "loopholes" in the databases accessed that violated terms of service.

But haven't they had the information for a while at this point? Wasn't it all turned over last winter? Wouldn't we have heard about it by now if the defense found anything they thought they could exploit? It seems like we would. IMO

I haven't seen any court documents that mentioned the Nissan either. As far as I know, that's just what they were looking for. According to the NYT, there are records that back that up.

A week after the killings, records show, investigators were on the lookout for a certain type of vehicle: Nissan Sentras from the model years 2019 to 2023. Quietly, they ran down details on thousands of such vehicles, including the owners’ addresses, license plate numbers and the color of each sedan.

As far as the IGG, I don't think they got the timeline and pattern they were asking for. They got something, I think back in May, but the State protested anything more being released, if memory serves.

The question, as I understand it, that the Defense wants answered is whether LE went from the car to the IGG or from the IGG to the car.

They seem to be insinuating (just my take) that someone might have planted or manipulated the DNA. It's hard to know, specifically, thanks to the gag order.

 

[GRT]

I think what you wrote above is even stronger proof it wasn't a frame job with planted DNA. They sent it to the crime lab almost immediately---probably before they learned about the bushy eyebrows or the white Nissan. Certainly before they had a chance to single out BK as a potential patsy. If they identified the white sedan around Nov 18th, then that was AFTER the DNA had already been sent out to the State Lab.

I am confident that the DA will be able to show the jurors that there was no way for LE to plant the DNA.

Odds are -- LE didn't plant the DNA. Odds are -- BK is a killer.

But, looking at an ABC timeline, and I think the Defense will probably use this, Kohberger's name first popped up because a WSU officer spotted a white Elantra and discovered it was BK's.

Nov. 29, 2022

Moscow police had asked the authorities to look out for white Elantras. On Nov. 29, a Washington State University police officer searched cars that matched that description at the university and found one registered to Kohberger, the affidavit said.

Nearly a month later, LE said they'd found DNA on the knife sheath. It could be they found it sooner but keep it to themselves, but if so, why did it take so long to arrest BK? He wasn't arrested until Dec 30.

Dec. 27, 2022

Authorities said DNA from the suspect was recovered on a knife sheath left on a victim's bed, according to the documents. On Dec. 27, police recovered trash from Kohberger's parents' house in Pennsylvania, and a lab determined the DNA from the trash was the father of the person who left DNA on the knife sheath, the affidavit said.

The other interesting thing is that the State says they're not going to use the IGG DNA evidence in court. I wonder why not? I mean, they say the IGG was what led them to BK.

And they won't release the records that show how the IGG traced the sheath DNA to BK.

If they'd had the IGG evidence sooner, I would think they would have Pennsylvania officers going through BK's family's trash sooner to look for a familial match.

So, to me, MOO, it looks like the IGG DNA came after the car. That doesn't mean BK is innocent. I think he's guilty. But, the optics are odd, indeed.

 

[Tnowlin]

It makes no sense for LE to frame BK. This was not a case where LE "knew" who did it from the beginning but was looking for evidence to arrest and convict. At first there were no suspects. It was a good while before we had reports of the white car that eventually lead to the identification of BK. He wasn't arrested and his DNA taken until after familial DNA was used to locate him.

The only case I can imagine of BK being framed would be if there were a cunning psychopath at WSU who developed a dislike of BK, bought a knife and sheath. Some how obtained his DNA and planted it on the sheath. Convinced in some way BK to travel to the vicinity of the house. Owned or hired a similar white car to take to the crime scene, and somehow knew that there was enough familial DNA information available to make a connection. This might make a great Hollywood movie, but is not likely at all in real life.

Hypothetically someone BK knew could have stole the knife. Then in turn contacted him hey I’ve got your knife if you want it back I’ll be @ 1122. Also BK turn your phone off after we talk or forget about coming and getting your knife. BK arrives and realizes he’s been set up. I do not believe this is what happened I do believe BK is guilty. Hopefully when trial starts things become a little more understandable.

 

[wendy44]

Odds are -- LE didn't plant the DNA. Odds are -- BK is a killer.

But, looking at an ABC timeline, and I think the Defense will probably use this, Kohberger's name first popped up because a WSU officer spotted a white Elantra and discovered it was BK's.



Nearly a month later, LE said they'd found DNA on the knife sheath. It could be they found it sooner but keep it to themselves, but if so, why did it take so long to arrest BK? He wasn't arrested until Dec 30.

The way they word the timeline in that article can give the impression that they said DNA was found on the sheath December 27th, but that's not the case. They recovered trash from the Kohberger residence December 27th, but already had the DNA from the sheath shortly after the murders. They didn't arrest him immediately because it didn't produce a hit in CODIS. So they pursued other leads like the white car, which led to the cell phone records, etc., while the FBI was pursuing the IGG.

The other interesting thing is that the State says they're not going to use the IGG DNA evidence in court. I wonder why not? I mean, they say the IGG was what led them to BK.

And they won't release the records that show how the IGG traced the sheath DNA to BK.

Both the state and the defense have said they don't intend to use the IGG. The state doesn't consider it to be evidence. They consider it to be a tip or a lead. IGG is still being tested in courts and they're not going to open the door to that if they don't have to. I don't believe they've said in any court documents that IGG led them to BK and they didn't include it in the PCA.

The defense said during the IGG hearings last summer they will likely not use it either--if they can't get it thrown out on a technicality it doesn't benefit them to introduce it.

If they'd had the IGG evidence sooner, I would think they would have Pennsylvania officers going through BK's family's trash sooner to look for a familial match.

So, to me, MOO, it looks like the IGG DNA came after the car. That doesn't mean BK is innocent. I think he's guilty. But, the optics are odd, indeed.

There's not really IGG DNA in and of itself that's evidence. The DNA on the sheath is the evidence and they use it to create a profile. Investigative Genetic Genealogy is a technique that takes that profile and uses genealogy--genetic matches, historical records, public records, social media, newspapers, etc.--to figure out who that profile is. Anyone with access to the profile can do this. It's similar to matching a fingerprint--the fingerprint left at the scene is the evidence. The process of going through fingerprints in a database to find a match is an investigative technique.

IMO

 

[jepop]

The way they word the timeline in that article can give the impression that they said DNA was found on the sheath December 27th, but that's not the case. They recovered trash from the Kohberger residence December 27th, but already had the DNA from the sheath shortly after the murders. They

Respectfully snipped.Pretty important point you make here. Jmo it's better to read court docs than rely on media reporting. It's too easy to misinterpret and make unfounded assumptions otherwise. Great summarising post as always! Moo

 

[jepop]

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.

Agree. There's no reason to assume the sheathe wasn't tested/analysed ASAP and in line with whatever evidence processing profiles were in place. Haven't seen anything particular filed in this case to suggest otherwise as far as I can remember. Don't get the deal with speculation to the contrary if that's been happening. Weird. Moo

 

[jepop]

From: https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/...061623+States+Motion+for+Protective+Order.pdf

View attachment 535379

IMO, he (Payne) wrote the PCA, and he only stated in the PCA what HE saw. He didn't give a list of who else saw it. And he said "I later noticed" because it wasn't fully visible due to being under Maddie and a comforter, where BK dropped it, with his SINGLE SOURCE MALE DNA, IMO, JMO

Yep and I'm pretty confident the crime scene forensics team would have fully documented the scene in detail, including the position of the sheathe. Imo we'll hear all about that at trial. That's the important evidence re the sheathe and obviously not included in the PCA! Jmo

 

[LinasK]

The way they word the timeline in that article can give the impression that they said DNA was found on the sheath December 27th, but that's not the case. They recovered trash from the Kohberger residence December 27th, but already had the DNA from the sheath shortly after the murders. They didn't arrest him immediately because it didn't produce a hit in CODIS. So they pursued other leads like the white car, which led to the cell phone records, etc., while the FBI was pursuing the IGG.

Both the state and the defense have said they don't intend to use the IGG. The state doesn't consider it to be evidence. They consider it to be a tip or a lead. IGG is still being tested in courts and they're not going to open the door to that if they don't have to. I don't believe they've said in any court documents that IGG led them to BK and they didn't include it in the PCA.

The defense said during the IGG hearings last summer they will likely not use it either--if they can't get it thrown out on a technicality it doesn't benefit them to introduce it.

There's not really IGG DNA in and of itself that's evidence. The DNA on the sheath is the evidence and they use it to create a profile. Investigative Genetic Genealogy is a technique that takes that profile and uses genealogy--genetic matches, historical records, public records, social media, newspapers, etc.--to figure out who that profile is. Anyone with access to the profile can do this. It's similar to matching a fingerprint--the fingerprint left at the scene is the evidence. The process of going through fingerprints in a database to find a match is an investigative technique.

IMO

And just to re-iterate, any matches made through Genetic Genealogy are verified with a fresh match- either through DNA left on a cigarette butt or eating/drinking utensil or a cheek swab.

 

[schooling]

Right, but the STR test didn't turn anything up. They had to arrange for the IGG test after that. And we know from your link that LE noticed a white sedan they identified as a Nissan Sentra as being the potential car of the killer on Nov 18th. That was 2 days before the STR test. They didn't allude to the car being an Elantra until Nov 25.

I don't see a date when the IGG test was run but that seems to be one of the reasons the defense is asking for the State to turn over its IGG investigation procedure.

IMO What you seem to be implying is “parallel construction”. I’ve been saying for over a year now that this would be the defenses approach. And this is why they were so interested in IGG in relation to the car last summer. And they’ll accuse LE of getting tunnel vision. And taking shortcuts. Etc etc.

I’m not sure what you mean by the STR “didnt turn up anything”. It “turned up” a complete profile. If you’re referring to CODIS then you’re admitting that a full profile was successfully pulled locally and the IGG is largely of no consequence (as it relates to chain of custody). That original profile now matches an inmate by the name of Bryan Kohlberger. JMO

Lastly, IMO if they wanted to set up Kohlberger they could have planted evidence at his apartment, at his family’s house, inside of his car etc. To go through some elaborate conspiracy involving multiple state and federal agencies with hundreds of people and pin it all on a tiny speck of blood (MOO) on a sheath seems super silly. That’s JMO.

MOO

 

[GRT]

IMO What you seem to be implying is “parallel construction”. I’ve been saying for over a year now that this would be the defenses approach. And this is why they were so interested in IGG in relation to the car last summer. And they’ll accuse LE of getting tunnel vision. And taking shortcuts. Etc etc.

Perhaps "parallel construction" is the proper term. I'm unfamiliar with it, but it sounds plausible. It seems they're trying to insinuate that LE became interested in BK when the WSU officer found his white car and then pings on BK's phone, putting him in the vicinity of the murder house that night.

I’m not sure what you mean by the STR “didnt turn up anything”. It “turned up” a complete profile. If you’re referring to CODIS then you’re admitting that a full profile was successfully pulled locally and the IGG is largely of no consequence (as it relates to chain of custody). That original profile now matches an inmate by the name of Bryan Kohlberger. JMO

I'm not "admitting" anything because I'm not arguing one side or the other. I'm trying to discuss what might underlie the Defense's insinuation that DNA evidence might have been planted. But, yes, I meant CODIS didn't find a match.

Lastly, IMO if they wanted to set up Kohlberger they could have planted evidence at his apartment, at his family’s house, inside of his car etc. To go through some elaborate conspiracy involving multiple state and federal agencies with hundreds of people and pin it all on a tiny speck of blood (MOO) on a sheath seems super silly. That’s JMO

I could be wrong, but from what I've read, the DNA sample wasn't blood but rather a few skin cells. I think they called it "touch DNA."

AT seems like a pretty bright gal. We don't know for sure what theory she will put forth -- but I doubt it will be silly. It may be farfetched, but probably not silly. MOO

Your scenario is creative and I enjoyed reading it, but I doubt a dirty cop/investigator/agent/lab tech would think along those lines. Not in reality. That's kind of a hindsight scenario. MOO

I really have no clue what AT will present, I'm just second-guessing, like everyone else here.

 

[wendy44]

Perhaps "parallel construction" is the proper term. I'm unfamiliar with it, but it sounds plausible. It seems they're trying to insinuate that LE became interested in BK when the WSU officer found his white car and then pings on BK's phone, putting him in the vicinity of the murder house that night.

Snipped by me--this is exactly the case the prosecution is making. They're not trying to insinuate that at all. They want IGG left out of it completely because it's a legal issue that's a case of first impression in Idaho. They don't want this case to be the test case if it doesn't need to be. They want to try him on the evidence that was produced with standard investigative techniques like the video and cell evidence. They will likely present car>cell>dna collected from trash>any supporting evidence from those warrants we haven't seen yet.
IMO

 

[russoca]

Snipped by me--this is exactly the case the prosecution is making. They're not trying to insinuate that at all. They want IGG left out of it completely because it's a legal issue that's a case of first impression in Idaho. They don't want this case to be the test case if it doesn't need to be. They want to try him on the evidence that was produced with standard investigative techniques like the video and cell evidence. They will likely present car>cell>dna collected from trash>any supporting evidence from those warrants we haven't seen yet.
IMO

Bingo Wendy!!

I've been thinking about the prosecution saying the IGG won't be used at trial.
Hmmm...how to get from the DNA on the sheath (which IS single source and BKs) to Brian?
The test the sheath and get a hit on the snap. Unknown male DNA.
Well, they find out from WSU about a guy that drives a car similar (if not exact) to the one in the videos. (BTW, the Nissan Sentra was in a news article, never reported by LE).
LE pulls up his DL...hmm looks pretty similar to the description from the roommate. Enough so, they look into him more and see on his WSU applications/forms/whatever that he's from PA. Looking into his phone records, he was in the area "at least a dozen times". Wow, let's look further....
So, call up PA LE and/or FBI (they were on the case at this point) and they surveil the Kohberger home. Trash can goes to curb (once there it's legal to get trash) they get a sample of dad's DNA and you know what? It's a relative of the sheath DNA! That is (along with all the other stuff they have at this point) to have probable cause enough to arrest him, get his DNA with a warrant and?? Yep. it's a match.

This is pretty basic and is just MOO.

 

[maskedwoman]

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 came from a defense consultant's testimony at a hearing. That doesn't make it true. MOO