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

[katydid23]

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.

No, it was not a month later that they 'found' DNA on the sheath----It was a month later that they IDENTIFIED the DNA on the sheath.
They found DNA on the sheath , unknownDNA at the time, just 7 days after the murders. But it took a month to identify the DNA as BK.

But the most important date is the day they SENT the DNA to the State Lab, imo. Because it had to be within a day or two of the killings, which means they didn't know about the bushy eyebrows or the Nissan yet, IMO.

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 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.

I don't think that is bad optics. Doing IGG takes a long time. The most important thing is that DNA matching BK was at the crime scene---and that DNA was sent to the crime lab within a day or two after the murders. So they did not have enough time to look for a viable patsy to stitch up for the charges. IMO

They could not know about the bushy eyebrows and White Nissan before the DNA sample was sent to the State Lab.

 

[katydid23]

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.

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.

But it would have to have been planted before November 14th or 15th, because that's when LE sent it out to the State Lab. So it doesn't matter if they went to car first or IGG first, because either way, the DNA sample had already been sent off to the State Lab. No way they could plant it or manipulate it after it was sent out. IMO

 

[jepop]

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

OP's ref has nothing to do with the sheathe DNA. It's taken from defense's witness Bicka Barlow's affidavit responding to item 3.2 (mistakenly written as item 4.2 by Barlow,) of defense's 3rd Motion to Compel. Both dated 22nd June 2023.

Just bouncing off your post to add the following:

I finally looked up 3rd MOT to put this matter to rest. Imo it confirms beyond all doubt that Barlow is addressing the three unknown male profiles when she discusses examples from other cases on pp 11 -13 of her affidavit (* note, there is NO page 15 in her affidavit ). As an aside, these profiles were ineligible for entry to CODIS according to BT at Aug 28 2023 hearing on 3rd MOT. Moo

Section 3.2 of 3rd MOT (mistakenly referred to as Section 4.2 in Barlow's Declaration) is as follows:

"3.2 For each hit, please provide Match Detail Reports and long-form
Candidate Match Reports
for the hit(s) including partial hits and hits that are dispositioned to be non matching (even if the laboratory has dispositioned profile as hit). "

And at the bottom of section 3 of 3rd MOT, the defense asserts the following:

"The State has provided information related to this request for the DNA on the snap of the Knife sheath only. The Defense has requested all DNA profiles including additional profiles developed during the course of
law enforcement investigation. See Declarations of counsel for Mr. Kohberger, Bicka Barlow and Steve Mercer filed...".

In other words, Imo there is no way Barlow is referring to the sheathe DNA when she talks about this very item 3.2 (which she calls 4.2) on pp 12-13 ( *not p15 which doesn't exist) of her declaration/affidavit in support of 3rd MOT.

Dated 22 June 2023

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/062323+Defendants+Third+Motion+to+Compel+Discovery.pdf

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