4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, 2022 #78

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #901
TY SGH! Some points I found interesting below:



....(There never was a Suspect Vehicle 2, or, for that matter, 3.) Only they had a problem with the quality of the images. They were flickering, recorded in varying light. The pixels had captured a fast-moving white car—but that was about all the local cops could say for sure.

With the click of a few computer keys, the program searches through a staggering inventory of cars until it ultimately, according to the confident government description, “identifies the make and model of the vehicle in a still image.”

And it worked like a charm on the handful of videos the Moscow cops had gathered. Or more precisely, three charms. The F.B.I. forensic examiner first deduced that Suspect Vehicle 1 was a 2011–13 Hyundai Elantra. Then, “upon further review,” to use the chagrined phrase of the candid Idaho authorities, he decided the mysterious Hyundai might very well be a 2011–16 vehicle.

...the analysts still couldn’t come up with a legible shot of the license plate. They couldn’t even offer a guess. They simply had no idea.

Even more vexing, there wasn’t a single legible image of the driver. The bureau wizards tried all sorts of photographic tricks to pull a face from the blur. In the end, however, the best they could decipher was a dark, murky shadow hovering over the steering wheel.

The problem, however, was that the DNA on the knife sheath, authorities would concede on background, was less than one hundred nanograms. A whole lot less. A mere fraction, in fact, of a single nanogram. Nothing more than just a handful of microscopic-sized cells. In total, according to knowledgeable sources, about 20 cells. Maybe, they whispered, even fewer.
MOO only takes cells.
 
  • #902
MOO only takes cells.
I was curious so I did briefly search for how many cells are required for successful dna processing - this one is talking about PCR and STR though: I am not familiar with the process at Othram, perhaps they only need one cell? I think the expert testimony about the process will be interesting in this case. MOO


Full profiles were consistently generated using direct PCR when the template was ≥40 buccal cells collected by either a swab or tapelift. By contrast ≥800 corneocytes collected by swabbing or ≥4,000 corneocytes collected by a tapelift were required to generate same number of STR alleles from touch samples. When samples were processed through a DNA extraction workflow, ≥80 buccal cells were required to generate full profiles from both swab and tapelift, while touch samples required ≥4,000 corneocytes collected by a swab and >8,000 corneocytes collected by a tapelift. The data presented within this study allow for informative sample triage and workflow decisions to be made to optimise STR amplification based on the presence and visual quantification of stained cellular material.
 
  • #903
According to this, PA garbage traveled by Fed Ex to Othram:


Later that same day a special FedEx package deceptively marked “Medical Material” made its way to the Othram lab. The scientists quickly went to work. They extracted promising material from the trash they’d received.
This source appears to be at odds with official and sworn LE affidavits IMO. Are the Supplemental Disclosures re the dna test in the WA Search warrants incorrect? I do question the accuracy and sources Mr Blum uses for his book given the gag order. Who is leaking to him? How accurate are his assertions? How can this be a thoroughly researched piece of work about the investigation given the investigation is still ongoing? His prose is very poetic though. MOO

"Supplemental Disclosure re DNA Test
I have been informed by Detective JR Talbott of the Idaho State Police , that :
1. On November 13 , 2022, a sheath was recovered at the King Road Residenceunder or
next to the body of Madison Mogen . The Idaho State Crime Lab obtained a male
DNA profile (Suspect Profile ) from the sheath . (This is also referred to in Sgt .
Blaker's sworn statement Exhibit A.)
2. On December 27, 2022, law enforcement agents/ officers in Pennsylvania recovered
trash that originated from the Kohberger family residence. That trash was sent to the
Idaho State Crime Lab for testing . On December 28 , 2022 , the Idaho State Lab
reported that a DNA profile was obtained from the trash ; it was compared to the
Suspect DNA Profile;
the Lab personnel concluded that the source of the trash dna
profile was a male and was not being excluded as the biological father of the source
ofthe Suspect Profile. At least 99.9998 % of the male population would be expected
to be excluded from the possibility of being the biological father of the source of the
SuspectProfile.
This information is being provided to the court pursuant to my duty and obligation to be
fully
candid with the court "....


edited spelling
 
Last edited:
  • #904
This source appears to be at odds with official and sworn LE affidavits IMO. Are the Supplemental Disclosures re the dna test in the WA Search warrants incorrect? I do question the accuracy and sources Mr Blum uses for his book given the gag order. Who is leaking to him? How accurate are his assertions? How can this be a thouroughly researched piece of work about the investigation given the investigation is still ongoing? His prose is very poetic though. MOO

"Supplemental Disclosure re DNA Test
I have been informed by Detective JR Talbott of the Idaho State Police , that :
1. On November 13 , 2022, a sheath was recovered at the King Road Residenceunder or
next to the body of Madison Mogen . The Idaho State Crime Lab obtained a male
DNA profile (Suspect Profile ) from the sheath . (This is also referred to in Sgt .
Blaker's sworn statement Exhibit A.)
2. On December 27, 2022, law enforcement agents/ officers in Pennsylvania recovered
trash that originated from the Kohberger family residence. That trash was sent to the
Idaho State Crime Lab for testing . On December 28 , 2022 , the Idaho State Lab
reported that a DNA profile was obtained from the trash ; it was compared to the
Suspect DNA Profile;
the Lab personnel concluded that the source of the trash dna
profile was a male and was not being excluded as the biological father of the source
ofthe Suspect Profile. At least 99.9998 % of the male population would be expected
to be excluded from the possibility of being the biological father of the source of the
SuspectProfile.
This information is being provided to the court pursuant to my duty and obligation to be
fully
candid with the court "....

I was wondering the same thing about the gag order and how he was getting information, that is why I wrote "according to this" at the beginning. MOO

I'm guessing from this PA state trooper: The Blum article has more about him and a previous case he worked with Othram on...I have only copied what it says about BKs case below:


It became known to the wags in Troop N, the state troopers who were running the surveillance op targeting Bryan Kohberger as he spent Christmas with his parents, as the Great Trash Robbery. And the target was the neatly bagged detritus that had been deposited in the bins outside the squat, white two story home with its faded brown shutters where the Kohberger family lived in Albrightsville, Pennsylvania.

In the dead of night, Noll, as if on cat’s feet, tiptoed in and made off with his treasure trove. Later that same day a special FedEx package deceptively marked “Medical Material” made its way to the Othram lab. The scientists quickly went to work. They extracted promising material from the trash they’d received.
 
  • #905
According to this, PA garbage traveled by Fed Ex to Othram:


Later that same day a special FedEx package deceptively marked “Medical Material” made its way to the Othram lab. The scientists quickly went to work. They extracted promising material from the trash they’d received.

That "source" is not MSM, in my opinion. It has no masthead. It is a self-publishing space. Blum is not a famous investigative journalist - but he'd like to be. He uses airmail.news to self-publish, IMO. It describes itself as a "newsletter" and while I trust the editor (to some extent), it isn't newspaper nor an investigative news source (IMO).

Does Blum ever cite any sources? Does he have any background in science? Because he is "reporting" on a lot of topics that require some depth, IMO.

Basically blogging. IMO.
 
  • #906
I was wondering the same thing about the gag order and how he was getting information, that is why I wrote "according to this" at the beginning. MOO

I'm guessing from this PA state trooper: The Blum article has more about him and a previous case he worked with Othram on...I have only copied what it says about BKs case below:


It became known to the wags in Troop N, the state troopers who were running the surveillance op targeting Bryan Kohberger as he spent Christmas with his parents, as the Great Trash Robbery. And the target was the neatly bagged detritus that had been deposited in the bins outside the squat, white two story home with its faded brown shutters where the Kohberger family lived in Albrightsville, Pennsylvania.

In the dead of night, Noll, as if on cat’s feet, tiptoed in and made off with his treasure trove. Later that same day a special FedEx package deceptively marked “Medical Material” made its way to the Othram lab. The scientists quickly went to work. They extracted promising material from the trash they’d received.
Ofcourse, just saying...I'm unable to access Blum without subscribing.Think I'll give it a miss for now.
 
  • #907
That "source" is not MSM, in my opinion. It has no masthead. It is a self-publishing space. Blum is not a famous investigative journalist - but he'd like to be. He uses airmail.news to self-publish, IMO. It describes itself as a "newsletter" and while I trust the editor (to some extent), it isn't newspaper nor an investigative news source (IMO).

Does Blum ever cite any sources? Does he have any background in science? Because he is "reporting" on a lot of topics that require some depth, IMO.

Basically blogging. IMO.
Thats what it seems like to me, more like an opinion piece. MOO
 
  • #908
Thats what it seems like to me, more like an opinion piece. MOO
He does seem to throw in some facts: for example the info about the DNA / TX. But there seems to be a whole lot of creative writing in all his articles. The first one clearly got a few things wrong; the second wasn't worth reading; and I opted against reading the third. I did use an alternate email account so I could read this one. But I sure won't be buying his book when it comes out.
 
  • #909
I was curious so I did briefly search for how many cells are required for successful dna processing - this one is talking about PCR and STR though: I am not familiar with the process at Othram, perhaps they only need one cell? I think the expert testimony about the process will be interesting in this case. MOO


Full profiles were consistently generated using direct PCR when the template was ≥40 buccal cells collected by either a swab or tapelift. By contrast ≥800 corneocytes collected by swabbing or ≥4,000 corneocytes collected by a tapelift were required to generate same number of STR alleles from touch samples. When samples were processed through a DNA extraction workflow, ≥80 buccal cells were required to generate full profiles from both swab and tapelift, while touch samples required ≥4,000 corneocytes collected by a swab and >8,000 corneocytes collected by a tapelift. The data presented within this study allow for informative sample triage and workflow decisions to be made to optimise STR amplification based on the presence and visual quantification of stained cellular material.
Tricia has guests from Orthram Lab on her Youtube broadcast regularly. They are fantastic.
 
  • #910
I was curious so I did briefly search for how many cells are required for successful dna processing - this one is talking about PCR and STR though: I am not familiar with the process at Othram, perhaps they only need one cell? I think the expert testimony about the process will be interesting in this case. MOO


Full profiles were consistently generated using direct PCR when the template was ≥40 buccal cells collected by either a swab or tapelift. By contrast ≥800 corneocytes collected by swabbing or ≥4,000 corneocytes collected by a tapelift were required to generate same number of STR alleles from touch samples. When samples were processed through a DNA extraction workflow, ≥80 buccal cells were required to generate full profiles from both swab and tapelift, while touch samples required ≥4,000 corneocytes collected by a swab and >8,000 corneocytes collected by a tapelift. The data presented within this study allow for informative sample triage and workflow decisions to be made to optimise STR amplification based on the presence and visual quantification of stained cellular material.
It's the touch DNA info that I have found particularly interesting, and maybe that's where the defense will focus? IDK. I still think that if they had a whole lot of his DNA from the house, this sheath would be a bonus, not a Hail Mary IMO (and no disrespect or sacrilege intended - I'm using it as it's used in sports)
 
Last edited:
  • #911
Tricia has guests from Orthram Lab on her Youtube broadcast regularly. They are fantastic.
(Someone at) Othram is a member of WS. Just put an @ in front of that name to tag them, if someone wants to bring them to this thread to ask specific questions. I have no idea if they are allowed or willing to talk about case details. MOO
 
  • #912
IIRC, his profile as a TA was still live until just after the arrest was announced (can anyone confirm or disprove?). Clearly, it does not truly make a difference to me if he was or was not relieved of his TA position; however, if he was, it seems odd that the university would leave BK's information on their site for the twoish weeks between the dated letter out there when he was fired and the PCAs release.

Has anyone compared the verfiable letter from WSU in the latest document release to the other letter posted about BK's firing?
Just addressing the bold bit: his TA profile was active until just after the arrest (as documented in much earlier threads) & was removed along with everyone else's:
"The department also removed its list of graduate students from its website, which included Kohberger. The decision was made "to protect the privacy of our graduate students," according to the department."
(1/1/20203, updated 1/5/2023)
WSU Department of Criminal Justice releases statement on arrest of Moscow murders suspect

Many moons back, I posted the official WSU statements and commented how quickly they moved given it was an extended holiday weekend. I've still not mastered the search function here so can't link to that earlier post, but here are two of the links:
Statement from Washington State University regarding arrest of WSU student - WSU Insider
"Kohberger had completed his first semester as a PhD student in WSU’s criminal justice program earlier this month."

Right side box:
Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology | Washington State University

There was a third "Dear Cougar" statement from around the same time I previously shared, IIRC.

EDIT: ah, found it! Date was 1/9/2023:
Washington State University
 
  • #913
I'm sorry if I misunderstood. You had written "to have visible reddish brown stains on several surfaces that were not blood and the only blood on his bedding (and presumably his), it looks like a ruse to me, set up for appearances sake."

I'm still confused about which parts were supposed to be a ruse and how that ruse would have been set up. The effect of testing a large number of stains and finding blood only on the bedding could have led people to think there's nothing to see-- because there wasn't anything to see. But if it's a ruse, it seems that would have to involve planting of non-blood spots and/or planting of those few likely innocuous blood spots.
JMO
That's okay, maybe it won't make sense to some or be confusing no matter how I put it, but I'll give it one last try.

For context -- on yesterday's thread after the blood testing results were published and posted here and they were being discussed six ways from Sunday -- I was responding to one OP's query whether the stains overall could have been a red herring, and another OP's comment that having left alot of reddish brown stains around his apartment seemed odd.

So my theory in response was that assuming he knew his blood was on the mattress pad and uncased pillow, and he knew the rest of the reddish brown stains were not blood (because that would be obvious, IMO, at least when he stripped the bed before leaving for PA and looked around to see if anything needed cleaning) that he put and/or left the nonblood stains there on purpose.

If he put them there and then left the stains that looked enough like they could be blood, that LE sampled them to see if they were blood, when he knew they were not blood, then that could be a ruse on his part.

Because out of all the samples of reddish brown stains LE collected and tested to see if they were blood, only 2 were blood and they were only on the bed where there would be understandable reasons for its presence (nosebleeds, nicked while shaving, yada yada), and so, IMO:
  • LE look like they were duped into (for lack of a better term) testing all the reddish brown stains elsewhere thinking they could all have been blood from the victims, which if they had been would have been huge evidence tying him to the murders
  • LE went to the time, expense, and trouble of sampling a bunch of stains that looked like blood but weren't, which just added to the "noise" of evidence collection and testing without any evidentiary return
ETD last 2 bullets
MOO
 
Last edited:
  • #914
(Someone at) Othram is a member of WS. Just put an @ in front of that name to tag them, if someone wants to bring them to this thread to ask specific questions. I have no idea if they are allowed or willing to talk about case details. MOO
Agreed, but probably not able to answer case specific questions with a gag order in place.
 
  • #915
That's okay, maybe it won't make sense to some or be confusing no matter how I put it, but I'll give it one last try.

For context -- on yesterday's thread after the blood testing results were published and posted here and they were being discussed six ways from Sunday -- I was responding to one OP's query whether the stains overall could have been a red herring, and another OP's comment that having left alot of reddish brown stains around his apartment seemed odd.

So my theory in response was that assuming he knew his blood was on the mattress pad and uncased pillow, and he knew the rest of the reddish brown stains were not blood (because that would be obvious, IMO, at least when he stripped the bed before leaving for PA and looked around to see if anything needed cleaning) that he put and/or left the nonblood stains there on purpose.

If he put them there and then left the stains that looked enough like they could be blood, that LE sampled them to see if they were blood, when he knew they were not blood, then that could be a ruse on his part.

Because out of all the samples of reddish brown stains LE collected and tested to see if they were blood, only 2 were blood and they were only on the bed where there would be understandable reasons for its presence (nosebleeds, nicked while shaving, yada yada), and so, IMO:
  • LE look like they were duped into (for lack of a better term) testing all the reddish brown stains elsewhere thinking they could all have been blood from the victims, which if they had been would have been huge evidence tying him to the murders
  • LE went to the time, expense, and trouble of sampling a bunch of stains that looked like blood but weren't, which just added to the "noise" of evidence collection and testing without any evidentiary return
  • The results make LE look like they were barking up the wrong tree thinking he might have left the victim's blood on all those surfaces (e.g., light switch, pizza cutter, cleaning product containers) when it was not blood, it was just some, um, reddish brown stains that looked like they could be blood
  • ETA: It all adds up to "there's nothing to see here" and makes LE look bad, IMO
MOO
I'm missing something here.

How does LE being thorough in testing possible evidence make them look like their barking up the wrong tree and make them look bad?
 
  • #916
That's okay, maybe it won't make sense to some or be confusing no matter how I put it, but I'll give it one last try.

For context -- on yesterday's thread after the blood testing results were published and posted here and they were being discussed six ways from Sunday -- I was responding to one OP's query whether the stains overall could have been a red herring, and another OP's comment that having left alot of reddish brown stains around his apartment seemed odd.

So my theory in response was that assuming he knew his blood was on the mattress pad and uncased pillow, and he knew the rest of the reddish brown stains were not blood (because that would be obvious, IMO, at least when he stripped the bed before leaving for PA and looked around to see if anything needed cleaning) that he put and/or left the nonblood stains there on purpose.

If he put them there and then left the stains that looked enough like they could be blood, that LE sampled them to see if they were blood, when he knew they were not blood, then that could be a ruse on his part.

Because out of all the samples of reddish brown stains LE collected and tested to see if they were blood, only 2 were blood and they were only on the bed where there would be understandable reasons for its presence (nosebleeds, nicked while shaving, yada yada), and so, IMO:
  • LE look like they were duped into (for lack of a better term) testing all the reddish brown stains elsewhere thinking they could all have been blood from the victims, which if they had been would have been huge evidence tying him to the murders
  • LE went to the time, expense, and trouble of sampling a bunch of stains that looked like blood but weren't, which just added to the "noise" of evidence collection and testing without any evidentiary return
  • The results make LE look like they were barking up the wrong tree thinking he might have left the victim's blood on all those surfaces (e.g., light switch, pizza cutter, cleaning product containers) when it was not blood, it was just some, um, reddish brown stains that looked like they could be blood
MOO
I get what you're saying TITW, but LE had to test any and all spots that could have been blood or they would have been nailed by the angry 'LE didn't do anything right' crowd. I don't think it's necessarily a cost thing, I think they were gathering and testing anything that looked suspicious, rightly so.

I personally don't think BK is smart enough to set up a ruse about blood spots. I believe he is an angry, disturbed man with an unhealthy attitude towards women who thinks he is the smartest man in any room he is in. He comes up way short as evidenced by him sitting in jail being charged with four first degree murders and a burglary.

Just like the traffic stop with the female officer at school, he couldn't just admit he was wrong and go along his merry way. He had to spew all kinds of unnecessary info and questions. Like when he lived in PA, and what should he have done, blah, blah, blah. It drove me crazy just listening to him, I would have given him a ticket hah.

MOO
 
  • #917
I'm missing something here.

How does LE being thorough in testing possible evidence make them look like their barking up the wrong tree and make them look bad?
Not the being thorough part, the lack of any evidentiary return on all the testing they did, IMO. I edited my post to delete that last part about how it made LE look.
 
  • #918
Not the being thorough part, the lack of any evidentiary return on all the testing they did, IMO. I edited my post to delete that last part about how it made LE look.
Well, if BK did plant the stains I don't see how that helps his case. JMO.
 
  • #919
So it's likely that Det. Payne was in PA when BK was arrested and managed to ask a few questions before BK invoked his right to an attorney? (Guessing so MOO)

Edited to add: and I didn't see yours before I typed this one.
I wouldn't swear to it, but I think Payne was on the ground here (Moscow-Pullman) when BK landed. If anyone has links to those streams (BK being deplaned into LE vehicle and then again at the courthouse/jail), someone might want to rewatch to confirm/disprove.

MOO.
 
  • #920
I wouldn't swear to it, but I think Payne was on the ground here (Moscow-Pullman) when BK landed. If anyone has links to those streams (BK being deplaned into LE vehicle and then again at the courthouse/jail), someone might want to rewatch to confirm/disprove.

MOO.
That would still work out though. if Payne was in PA on 30th DEc and briefly questioned BK before he (BK) invoked his rights, then Payne could easily have returned to Idaho in time to meet BK's plane after his extradition on Jan 3rd. MOO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
159
Guests online
1,319
Total visitors
1,478

Forum statistics

Threads
632,447
Messages
18,626,737
Members
243,155
Latest member
STLCOLDCASE1
Back
Top