4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered - Bryan Kohberger Arrested - Moscow # 74

[rsd1200]

This is the PCA on it's own. If you read the applications for search warrrants as I posted previously, you'll see the supplemental disclosure as mentioned for the Idaho search warrant and the modified version of the PCA attached to the PA application for search warrant. Both linked in my previous post. MOO

I know it's the PCA on it's own.

 

[10ofRods]

snipped:

They did get the warrant based on the family match. Actually, though it's included on the PCA, LE asked that the judge issue the warrant without considering the DNA evidence. BK's official DNA capture was part of the arrest warrant (that's what the swabs were for). The only DNA they had of his prior to that was from the knife sheath. The DNA they collected from the trash is his father's.

As for the gloves, he was not wearing gloves during the traffic stops in Indiana.

Thank you - yes, I retracted my statement about the gloves. I guess my other point was either poorly written or poorly thought out.

They knew that Kohberger was the sheath-DNA-owner via his dad's DNA from the Pocono trash, yes. But obviously, LE did not sit on their hands hoping more DNA would fall into them - surely they had access to his parked car at night, in Pullman. But, I figure either he was careful about wiping his car doors sufficiently to make DNA collection difficult OR that LE was just that worried about him knowing they were onto him.

I think it's the second hypothesis, personally, due to all the other signs that LE was trying very hard not to spook BK (and not because they thought he might be innocent; they thought he fit the criteria of possible suicide-by-cop type of person, and I agree).

The whole next step in the case was, rather obviously, obtaining actual DNA from the person of BK. Just as with the Joe DeAngel case, while they had a match from a car door to the DNA from a rape kit in SoCal (victim was murdered, along with her husband), they needed to close the loop and have it be absolutely known that the guy matched the DNA in the rape kit.

LE does not, IMO, go to a judge and ask for an arrest warrant - the DA/Prosecution does that. Do you have a link for LE telling the judge not to consider the DNA? I've never heard that before. It's my view that any competent judge is going to actually read the affidavit and come to their own conclusions - I've never heard of LE telling a judge "Hey, that part about the suspect DNA that's in the affidavit - we don't want you to consider that!" They put it in the affidavit for a reason. The judge did not say that he didn't consider DNA - we don't know what the judge was thinking.

But, respectfully, where did you read that LE asked him not to consider DNA?

IMO.

 

[10ofRods]

This is the PCA on it's own. If you read the applications for search warrrants as I posted previously, you'll see the supplemental disclosure as mentioned for the Idaho search warrant and the modified version of the PCA attached to the PA application for search warrant. Both linked in my previous post. MOO

Oh - okay, I think I see where the issue is. You're speaking of the PA search warrant request. I thought you meant the original arrest warrant - not the search warrant.

I suppose it was not relevant to that PA search warrant. There was already an arrest warrant - that was going to be executed on behalf of the Court in Idaho (and that judge surely read the affidavit). Judge in PA did not need to learn any more about why ID wanted BK in custody, as all 50 states accept arrest warrants from other states (thankfully, I hope it stays that way).

But now I"m not really getting the point you were trying to make. They wanted BK's actual DNA, taken by a warrant, for obvious legal reasons. Even though they had his DNA from the trash.

IMO.

 

[10ofRods]

I don't live in Penn. but in my region of Appalachia, they have short periods of dormancy/hibernation. I saw where they found a bear hibernating under someone's deck, in the Poconos and set up a bearcam to watch her. Black bears will come out of hibernation on warm days even in the winter, to seek out a snack. They've been spotted around us but normally don't come close.

And here in SoCal, they don't really hibernate at all, at least at lower elevations where I live. This time of year, if it had been the usual dry year, they'd be seen crossing freeway overpasses to get to rivers and larger creeks. Bears have been sighted recently on the street where my dad used to live (this winter and nearly every other winter).

They are shy animals and no one has ever been killed by one in SoCal (or even attacked). For that, we have mountain lions. (My data on this topic only go through about 2010 though).

IMO.

 

[jepop]

Oh - okay, I think I see where the issue is. You're speaking of the PA search warrant request. I thought you meant the original arrest warrant - not the search warrant.

I suppose it was not relevant to that PA search warrant. There was already an arrest warrant - that was going to be executed on behalf of the Court in Idaho (and that judge surely read the affidavit). Judge in PA did not need to learn any more about why ID wanted BK in custody, as all 50 states accept arrest warrants from other states (thankfully, I hope it stays that way).

But now I"m not really getting the point you were trying to make. They wanted BK's actual DNA, taken by a warrant, for obvious legal reasons. Even though they had his DNA from the trash.

IMO.

Yes, both search warrants and their applications, which were the topic of discussion, have modified versions of the PCA attached in support IMO. In both cases the dna test result was deemed unnecessary for execution of the warrants. You'll find the links in my longish post to @rsd1200.

 

[rsd1200]

And here in SoCal, they don't really hibernate at all, at least at lower elevations where I live. This time of year, if it had been the usual dry year, they'd be seen crossing freeway overpasses to get to rivers and larger creeks. Bears have been sighted recently on the street where my dad used to live (this winter and nearly every other winter).

They are shy animals and no one has ever been killed by one in SoCal (or even attacked). For that, we have mountain lions. (My data on this topic only go through about 2010 though).

IMO.

We get just cold enough for them to go what is really called "dormant" and not a true hibernation. Black bears have rarely ever harmed anyone that I'm aware of unless they got between Moms and their cubs. That'll get Momma Bear a bit frosty. Now the big Brown Bears, that can be found in CO, I steer clear of them.

 

[U.N. Known]

But, respectfully, where did you read that LE asked him not to consider DNA?

IMO.

I don't remember the source, but a few posts up (or on the previous page) someone else has posted a link to that. I believe the poster mentioned that it was in a supplemental document/request to the original PCA. I have seen it prior to today, but thanks to the other poster, it's linked; I could not remember where I saw it!

As for why they wanted to make sure that probable cause would stand even if the DNA evidence was considered, I believe the term is exculpatory.

Edit: Found the post: it's post #795 from jepop (thank you jepop!).

​

 

[jepop]

Thank you - yes, I retracted my statement about the gloves. I guess my other point was either poorly written or poorly thought out.

They knew that Kohberger was the sheath-DNA-owner via his dad's DNA from the Pocono trash, yes. But obviously, LE did not sit on their hands hoping more DNA would fall into them - surely they had access to his parked car at night, in Pullman. But, I figure either he was careful about wiping his car doors sufficiently to make DNA collection difficult OR that LE was just that worried about him knowing they were onto him.

I think it's the second hypothesis, personally, due to all the other signs that LE was trying very hard not to spook BK (and not because they thought he might be innocent; they thought he fit the criteria of possible suicide-by-cop type of person, and I agree).

The whole next step in the case was, rather obviously, obtaining actual DNA from the person of BK. Just as with the Joe DeAngel case, while they had a match from a car door to the DNA from a rape kit in SoCal (victim was murdered, along with her husband), they needed to close the loop and have it be absolutely known that the guy matched the DNA in the rape kit.

LE does not, IMO, go to a judge and ask for an arrest warrant - the DA/Prosecution does that. Do you have a link for LE telling the judge not to consider the DNA? I've never heard that before. It's my view that any competent judge is going to actually read the affidavit and come to their own conclusions - I've never heard of LE telling a judge "Hey, that part about the suspect DNA that's in the affidavit - we don't want you to consider that!" They put it in the affidavit for a reason. The judge did not say that he didn't consider DNA - we don't know what the judge was thinking.

But, respectfully, where did you read that LE asked him not to consider DNA?

IMO.

@10ofRods. BBM -here's a link. p1 the Idaho search warrant (p6 of the attached doc) and pages 5-6 of the application for search warrant -Suppelmental Disclosure re DNA test (pages 14-15 of the attached doc).

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/search%20warrant%20for%20bryan%20kohberger%20apartment/ddb059f6cc8e24c1/full.pdf

ETA: These are links related to the Idaho Search Warrants, not the arrest warrant, but the judge is asked and agrees that there is enough probable cause for the search warrants sans the particular sheath button test result. Re the PA search warrans, if you are interested, the PCA attached to the search warrant application omits entirely that part of the PCA concerning the sheath button dna test and the judge, obviously, saw fit to grant the warrants. Here is the link for those warrants. See pp 10-27 of the doc

https://www.pacourts.us/Storage/media/pdfs/20230228/185614-dec.29,2022-applicationforsearchwarrantandauthorization.pdf

 

[CSIDreamer]

Oh - okay, I think I see where the issue is. You're speaking of the PA search warrant request. I thought you meant the original arrest warrant - not the search warrant.

I suppose it was not relevant to that PA search warrant. There was already an arrest warrant - that was going to be executed on behalf of the Court in Idaho (and that judge surely read the affidavit). Judge in PA did not need to learn any more about why ID wanted BK in custody, as all 50 states accept arrest warrants from other states (thankfully, I hope it stays that way).

But now I"m not really getting the point you were trying to make. They wanted BK's actual DNA, taken by a warrant, for obvious legal reasons. Even though they had his DNA from the trash.

IMO.

I'm getting lost. Where is it stated they had Kohberger's DNA from the trash? I've reread the PCA twice and all I can find is they had his father's DNA for a familila match. JMO

 

[10ofRods]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed>

Yes, both search warrants and their applications, which were the topic of discussion, have modified versions of the PCA attached in support IMO. In both cases the dna test result was deemed unnecessary for execution of the warrants. You'll find the links in my longish post to @rsd1200.

Not putting information into the application is very different than "LE tells judge DNA should not be considered" or a similar statement. Obviously, whoever did the application (a lawyer from ID, one from PA, and with help of LE - just guessing, btw) might not include the DNA for various reasons, but let's not make it look like LE made a decision to approach a judge and say, "DNA not important here."

Judges like brief court documents that make the case quickly. The preparation of those is the job of the lawyers, in conjunction with LE. Judge had access to the arrest warrant (obviously) and so I assume the case file in the hands of the Judge included the original affidavit - which the Judge could have read. Asking the Judge *not* to read a filed document relevant to a case would be very peculiar.

That's why I was asking the questions. I totally believe that in the search warrant application in PA, the affidavit would be shorter/less inconclusive - but I still find no evidence that LE, in particular, said the DNA was not important. LE knows that Judges know how to read a case file and ask questions. I don't for minute believe that this Judge did not at least glance at the original arrest warrant - he was ordering a No Knock Night Time arrest for a dangerous felon.

Deeming a piece of already-attested to evidence unimportant for the purposes of a search warrant is not the same as "telling the judge that DNA was not important."

Your explanation makes perfect sense (and I also believe the application was done with the help of lawyers, but that's just my personal opinion). The PA lawyers knew what to say to get the search warrant approved in PA, so they did that. I make no inferences about LE telling the judge anything, one way or another, about DNA. I also infer nothing about PA's system of justice and what it wants to see, in general, in such applications.

I will say that in my own experience, what judges do (more often than people think) is simply call the other judge and discuss. Totally within their purview and judges do not usually refuse calls from other judges. What goes on in judge's chambers stays there - including arguments over various things. But judges and prosecutors always know way more than they say in court (Murdaugh case is rife with that - they had witnesses that could have testified that Maggie was talking about a divorce, but chose not to introduce that topic - and we don't know whether that was a Judge decision or a Prosecution decision, at this point in time - and maybe never will). At any rate, PA, ID, WA and the US LE officials all worked together very well in this case. Objective was obtained (arrest + DNA swabs).

IMO.

 

[rsd1200]

I'm getting lost. Where is it stated they had Kohberger's DNA from the trash? I've reread the PCA twice and all I can find is they had his father's DNA for a familila match. JMO

I'm lost too. Totally. I've followed this case since November and am more lost today than I've ever been. No clue.

 

[jepop]

Respectfully, how would OP or anyone know that?

The phone results are under a gag order. None of us knows the answer to that at this time. Anyone opining is not under the gag order and therefore, is in no position to know what the phone (or the laptop or the firestick or the computer tower) has to say on this matter.

But we DO know that it was discussed, in front of him, in his criminal justice class(es). It had to have been the top topic just outside the classroom, as well. In fact, other students say they frequently discussed specific crime cases, and that this one was under discussion, in class, in Fall 2022.

We'd all like to know what his phone shows - but I'm more interested in whether any of his devices/IP addresses are associated with certain posts on reddit and on facebook.

It was not clear to me that you were only interested in what his phone said, but now I get it. And the answer is pretty clear: no one in the public knows; the people who do know are under a gag order.

IMO.



Not putting information into the application is very different than "LE tells judge DNA should not be considered" or a similar statement. Obviously, whoever did the application (a lawyer from ID, one from PA, and with help of LE - just guessing, btw) might not include the DNA for various reasons, but let's not make it look like LE made a decision to approach a judge and say, "DNA not important here."

Judges like brief court documents that make the case quickly. The preparation of those is the job of the lawyers, in conjunction with LE. Judge had access to the arrest warrant (obviously) and so I assume the case file in the hands of the Judge included the original affidavit - which the Judge could have read. Asking the Judge *not* to read a filed document relevant to a case would be very peculiar.

That's why I was asking the questions. I totally believe that in the search warrant application in PA, the affidavit would be shorter/less inconclusive - but I still find no evidence that LE, in particular, said the DNA was not important. LE knows that Judges know how to read a case file and ask questions. I don't for minute believe that this Judge did not at least glance at the original arrest warrant - he was ordering a No Knock Night Time arrest for a dangerous felon.

Deeming a piece of already-attested to evidence unimportant for the purposes of a search warrant is not the same as "telling the judge that DNA was not important."

Your explanation makes perfect sense (and I also believe the application was done with the help of lawyers, but that's just my personal opinion). The PA lawyers knew what to say to get the search warrant approved in PA, so they did that. I make no inferences about LE telling the judge anything, one way or another, about DNA. I also infer nothing about PA's system of justice and what it wants to see, in general, in such applications.

I will say that in my own experience, what judges do (more often than people think) is simply call the other judge and discuss. Totally within their purview and judges do not usually refuse calls from other judges. What goes on in judge's chambers stays there - including arguments over various things. But judges and prosecutors always know way more than they say in court (Murdaugh case is rife with that - they had witnesses that could have testified that Maggie was talking about a divorce, but chose not to introduce that topic - and we don't know whether that was a Judge decision or a Prosecution decision, at this point in time - and maybe never will). At any rate, PA, ID, WA and the US LE officials all worked together very well in this case. Objective was obtained (arrest + DNA swabs).

IMO.

Thank you re the first part of your post and seeing my point! Re the second part, I think it is only the Idaho search warrant application with it's supplemental disclosure that actually requests the judge not to regard the dna test result on the sheath. Yes, the PA warrant doesn't mention the dna test result in the attached PCA used to support it. But I don't think,nor did I say, that the dna test result was not important. Though I can't know why it was offcially omitted from the PA search warrant application, the reasons are clear in the ID application. The affiant states that they want the judge to agree that probable cause to search would still exist if at some future point that particular dna test result is found to be inadmissable as evidence. I see it as investgators just looking for certainty, perhaps owing to testing method, until they can acquire an actual swab from BK at arrest. MOO

ETA: It's also worth noting, IMO, that the ID judge makes clear that in agreeing that the search warrant stands sans that particular dna test result on the sheath button, does not in any way indicate that the dna result is exculpatory.

 

[10ofRods]

@10ofRods. BBM -here's a link. p1 the Idaho search warrant (p6 of the attached doc) and pages 5-6 of the application for search warrant -Suppelmental Disclosure re DNA test (pages 14-15 of the attached doc).

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/search%20warrant%20for%20bryan%20kohberger%20apartment/ddb059f6cc8e24c1/full.pdf

ETA: These are links related to the Idaho Search Warrants, not the arrest warrant, but the judge is asked and agrees that there is enough probable cause for the search warrants sans the particular sheath button test result. Re the PA search warrans, if you are interested, the PCA attached to the search warrant application omits entirely that part of the PCA concerning the sheath button dna test and the judge, obviously, saw fit to grant the warrants. Here is the link for those warrants. See pp 10-27 of the doc

https://www.pacourts.us/Storage/media/pdfs/20230228/185614-dec.29,2022-applicationforsearchwarrantandauthorization.pdf

Thank you so much. So the WA judge definitely had the DNA information and the affiant (LE) makes it clear that there's DNA involved. On the pages you cite, it's clear that there's *more* information about the sheath/DNA and the trash/paternal DNA than there was in the original arrest affidavit. The fact that this is left out on the PA application has no special meaning, other than that the information might have led to places that LE did not want to go.

Anyway, your chronology clarifies my confusion. If people want to assume, based on the omission of mention of the sheath and the trash DNA in the PA documents, that "LE asked the judge not to consider DNA," then that's someone's assumption. LE omitting something from a request is not the same thing as "asking the judge not to consider DNA." It's "prior DNA collection is not the issue at this moment, keep it short."

I also assume that no one in LE wanted to get into a discussion about going through people's trash without a search warrant. That's my take on why that was left out.

IMO.

 

[10ofRods]

I'm getting lost. Where is it stated they had Kohberger's DNA from the trash? I've reread the PCA twice and all I can find is they had his father's DNA for a familila match. JMO

That's what I was referring to (we've been discussing the affidavits for the WA and PA search warrants).

In the WA search warrant, they refer to collecting DNA from the Kohberger family's trash and getting the paternal match. Meaning, that the father of the person who left the DNA on the sheath was Mr Kohberger, with 99.998% certainty.

In the PA search warrant application, they leave that information out (that they took DNA from trash in PA already).

This was construed by at least one WSer to mean that LE told the Judge not to consider the DNA or that LE felt that the DNA was not relevant or important. I think we can all form our own opinions on why Prosecution (from ID) and LE (from various places) believed it unnecessary to include the prior trash diving or even the sheath DNA from the search warrant/no-knock request in PA.

They had "Kohberger DNA" from the neighbors' trash (the elder Mr Kohberger), consistent with the murderer also being a Kohberger or sired by Mr Kohberger at some point in his life.

Good time to point out that if BK had a brother, he too would have been equally implicated by the Kohberger DNA found in the PA trash (and mentioned in the WA search warrant application - but not in the PA search warrant application).

We are all made up of someone else's DNA (a paternal line and a maternal one). 50/50 from parents, but not equally 25/25/25/25 from grandparents (although that's the average amount - it actually varies quite a bit if dealing with grandparental DNA). So they knew it was BK (through the shared Kohberger DNA) but of course wanted the more absolute proof of BK's own DNA - which they got after the search warrant.

Anyway, as we were discussing, several of us were using shorthand and making reference to various documents (one of which - the WA application for search warrant, I had never read - it's the one that spells out the paternal match, which I've been calling Kohberger DNA). Bryan and his father both have it.

Sorry for the confusion.

All MOO.

 

[U.N. Known]

Anyway, your chronology clarifies my confusion. If people want to assume, based on the omission of mention of the sheath and the trash DNA in the PA documents, that "LE asked the judge not to consider DNA," then that's someone's assumption. LE omitting something from a request is not the same thing as "asking the judge not to consider DNA." It's "prior DNA collection is not the issue at this moment, keep it short."

IMO.

I think everyone is talking about the same thing: the police wanted probable cause for the arrest to stand whether or not the DNA was later found inadmissible.

 

[jepop]

I think everyone is talking about the same thing: the police wanted probable cause for the arrest to stand whether or not the DNA was later found inadmissible.

That's exactly it, IMO.

 

[Montecore1]

Hmm. And all this time I've put things in baggies to keep them fresh? Go figure...

Correct, the plastic makes the DNA degrade

 

[kittythehare]

BK (if he is the killer) remained in WA for 4 weeks after the murders, hiding in plain sight, IMO. He continued to live in his apartment, go to class, possibly his office, and possibly drive his car. Yes, his DNA from touch and fingerprints would certainly be found in those places, but LE would need a warrant to enter his apartment, car, or office to collect it. I am pretty sure a warrant would be needed for his classrooms and even the classroom trashcan, MOO. Water bottles in his locked car would be the safest place to keep them, but ultimately, he'd want to remove them discreetly.

IMO, cleaning the interior spaces of the car and apartment would be a priority, not so much to get rid of HIS DNA, which LE would expect to find, but to hopefully remove any victim DNA that may have transferred. Any rags or wipes, vacuum detritus, etc., would need to be carefully disposed of, with no witnesses, and certainly not at the apartment or campus communal trash cans. According to the apartment inventory, only a handful of evidence samples were collected for DNA analysis, suggesting, IMOO, that the apartment had been cleaned pretty well during the 4 weeks after the murders and before the road trip.

The clothing he wore, and perhaps the murder weapon would certainly need disposal, but that is a whole different realm of speculation than the theory of using baggies to transport and dispose of any other DNA related items that could potentially link BK to the crime. MOO.

He knew LE had the sheath and eventually he knew they were trying to identify his car. As other WSers have pointed out, if BK was the killer, he had a motive for handling his trash disposal in a much different way than most people.

I think it was victim DNA that he was concerned about.
IF that was the purpose of the bagging.
ETA they didn't need his DNA, they had family DNA

Police Say DNA, Video Tie Bryan Kohberger to University of Idaho Killings

The man accused of killing four University of Idaho students appeared Thursday in Idaho court.

www.wsj.com

And B could not have got through a class in criminology without a pretty sharp understanding of the properties of DNA and it's applications.

 

[kittythehare]

No, they initially got it from the NEIGHBOR'S rubbish. They'd been watching him go over and put stuff in the neighbor's trash.

FBI watched Idaho 'killer' take out the trash wearing surgical gloves

The officers were tasked with tracking Kohberger so they could arrest him as soon as a warrant was issued as well as trying to get hold of a DNA sample.

www.dailymail.co.uk

If in fact he was putting his bio-material in baggies first (or even just a garbage bag), he made it easier for them to find it. He took the time to remove his trash from his parents' property and relocate it elsewhere, but apparently did not look around to see if there was possible surveillance. Perhaps they were using a night drone. Perhaps there was a good place for a car to park, unseen (but how then does it have a line of sight to the Kohberger's house?)

I figure they probably just watched him leave the house in the wee hours of the morning, carrying something, and coming back without it. Common sense would tell investigators that he could be trying to hide something - my mind goes immediately to trash, since that's what LE looks for when they want DNA.

All those pairs of gloves have DNA in them and for them to be effective in preventing more transfer, they need to be changed often - all of the gloves being a rich source of epithelial DNA on their insides. So he has to throw them away and he doesn't want to put them in his own trash. IIRC, it was more than a few yards to the neighbors' house, so he would have been seen walking up that street to the other house(s). He may have used more than one neighbors' trash, we don't know that.

I assume he cleaned and recleaned both his car and apartment, although the car poses some problems (did he drive it to a self-serve car wash in some place that's not Pullman and not Moscow? Because he had to have been worried about being caught on camera cleaning his car. Maybe he took the car out east of Moscow to clean it on the plains. No one knows, but I assume he did his level best to clean it. DNA is hard to destroy, though.

IMO.

Investigators in December took trash from Mr. Kohberger’s family home in Pennsylvania and sent it to a crime lab in Idaho, which identified a family DNA match, the affidavit said.

Police Say DNA, Video Tie Bryan Kohberger to University of Idaho Killings

The man accused of killing four University of Idaho students appeared Thursday in Idaho court.

www.wsj.com

 

[Nila Aella]

Idaho Capital attorney roster link working again:

Capital Counsel Roster

pdc.idaho.gov

edit:spelling