4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered - Bryan Kohberger Arrested - Moscow # 76

[BeginnerSleuther]

Me too. I also can see a judge potentially questioning that line of questioining - to what purpose and of what relevance? MOO

Her frame of mind is definitely relevant, IMO. I think it's as important, if not more so, than her seeing a shadowy figure. MOO.

 

[PrairieWind]

The defense's ability to contest the attribution of touch DNA from the defendant to the crime scene is contingent upon the extent of the DNA profile matching. If a complete match is established, the defense may face challenges in arguing for the possibility of alternative sources. Nevertheless, it is widely acknowledged that touch DNA can be transferred through diverse means, including physical contact with objects and surfaces, or even indirect touch. The duration of touch DNA persistence is subject to external factors such as temperature and humidity.

In an attempt to discredit the prosecution's claims, the defense may posit alternative explanations for the presence of their client's DNA at the crime scene, such as accidental transfer by an unrelated party. However, such defenses will be subject to close scrutiny by the prosecution, and the defense must present corroborating evidence. Additionally, the defense must ensure that any alternative explanations do not contradict the defendant's alibi or the crime's chronology.

This is not a correct statement of how DNA evidence is presented. There is no presumption that DNA, let alone the concept of touch DNA, is accepted into evidence.

 

[PrairieWind]

I want to clear up any confusion, I did not insinuate anything about the evidence that the prosecutor has. I understand that the question of DNA evidence will likely be a focus of the defense, and we will know more information about the DNA after the trial or during the trial.

Furthermore, I cannot commend the investigators enough. Their thoroughness cannot be ignored. I was genuinely impressed by their ability to apprehend the suspect. The triangulation of his cell phone's GPS signal, identification of his car via CCTV footage, and their knowledge of neighborhood traffic during nighttime hours (including the suspect's car) all contributed to finding the suspect even though he was halfway across the country at the time of his arrest. Additionally, his DNA was obtained through the acquisition of his father's genetic material. Although the defense team may be skilled, there is a wealth of circumstantial evidence that clearly implies the suspect's involvement. This evidence will be difficult for them to disregard.

I think you are not understanding the legal aspect of DNA in a trial like this. The father's DNA, and how it was obtained, it totally irrelevant. How was the DNA at the crime scene obtained, analyzed and identified? That is the question. Digging in the trash for Dad's DNA is of no importance.

 

[jepop]

If the defense starts trying to grill the witness as to why 911 wasn't called sooner and gets off topic away from her description. Defense trying to open doors to what went on with other people in the house that morning. Defense has to stick to a specific line of questioning on cross examination, can't just introduce a new line of questioning or lead the witness down a "yellow brick road."

When a judge rules the objection is "sustained" it means the judge agrees the question was improper under the rules of evidence.

Some common reasons for objections include:

• Irrelevant - the testimony given after a question asked or the particular item of evidence is not relevant to the case
• Violation of the hearsay rule
• Asked and answered
• Speculative - the question calls for the witness to speculate about something
• Violation of the best evidence rule
• Leading

objection

www.law.cornell.edu

Yes, to what purpose and relevance would that line of questioning serve? The timing of the 911 calll isn't on trial. MOO

 

[CSIDreamer]

The Defense can simply call her as their own witness in their case in chief and ask her whatever they want. The Prosecution can object all they want, but it wont stop the questions.

I have a question.

This is all a dreamed up scenario because I'm wondering about her being questioned.

Can DM testify to what she saw any acquaintances DO in the house prior to the call and *also* what they said? How far can that go?

I obviously don't know who all was there, who did what, etc.

 

[Montecore1]

Well, there's this:

“I’m not even sure where that came from, to be quite honest,” Fry told the Daily Mail on Thursday, adding that it was the first time he had heard anything about an open door.

Chief Fry also stated that both BF and DM were asleep on the first floor...

yes, but that was a false statement to protect the potential witnesses.

It was later mentioned in the PCA about DM seeing the intruder

^^^ Yes, that's my point for what ever reason Fry had it was still a "false statement" that he publicly stated. He could have also been lying about not knowing the door was open as well for whatever reason he may have deemed it important to the investigation.

 

[PrairieWind]

Yes, to what purpose and relevance would that line of questioning serve? The timing of the 911 calll isn't on trial. MOO

You don't think that will be relevant?

 

[WingsOverTX]

I have no doubt that DM will be questioned by the defense on why she didn't call 911 when she saw the masked person in the house, especially since she told LE that she was in some kind of frozen/fear state. But then she went to bed and fell asleep? I am sure the jury will want to know as well, and I am sure the judge would allow this kind of questioning as it calls into question was she really in a frozen/fear state if she didn't call 911 and just went to bed/fell asleep.

edited to clean up post formatting

RBBM
Someone wearing a mask would have raised more suspicions pre-Covid.

As a victim, DM's behavior, however benign or egregious someone may view it when more is known, is unrelated to the crime as far as we know. She is not charged with anything.

The PCA says she was frozen in a fear state. I accept that as accurate. Would I like to know more about her response? Sure. But I would mainly like to see justice for the victims, including DM.

I just don't see how nailing down exactly why & what she did after closing her door for the third time is relevant to the crime. If it becomes relevant at some point, so be it.
YMMV
JMO

 

[GGbankster]

I think you are not understanding the legal aspect of DNA in a trial like this. The father's DNA, and how it was obtained, it totally irrelevant. How was the DNA at the crime scene obtained, analyzed and identified? That is the question. Digging in the trash for Dad's DNA is of no importance.

I have to admit, I'm a bit lost on what you're trying to convey. However, I'm genuinely interested in understanding your perspective. Are you well-versed in the legalities surrounding DNA collection in this case, or is it just speculation like the rest of us? I may not know everything, but I am capable of comprehending and navigating reality.

I'm simply proposing that the DNA evidence and how it was obtained (i.e. from the knife sheath) may not be the most significant factor. There are likely other pieces of evidence that hold more weight in this case. Moo

 

[jepop]

I guess I'm not understanding why the defense can't ask what DM did and who she called before calling 911 IF the state asks her about calling 911. If the state only asks her about seeing a guy with bushy eyebrows that's one thing. But if the state asks her other stuff, why can't the defense question her on those other topics too? (While not being too "heavy-handed") I'm not suggesting the defense would ask her about what other people said to each other. But it would seem the defense ought to be able to ask who, if anyone, DM called and when that happened and when others arrived at the house, who those others who arrived were, and what she observed them doing. They may not choose to ask all of that but I don't see why that would not be allowed if the state asked about calling 911.
JMO

I thought what was originally implied here was more about the admissability of questioning the timing of the 911 call as a way of discrediting/in connection with DM's testimony re her response to what she saw and heard at the time of the crime. I think that would draw objections. MOO I may have a misunderstood!

I see no issue with a simple line of questioning in order to establish the time line after DM and BF woke up and called their friends and so as to show how crime scene contamination has been accounted for. MOO

 

[formerlyme]

In reference to the "Dickie's tag/Walmart receipt" that was taken from BK's apartment, it made me consider a set of Dickie's black scrubs which Walmart sells.

I remember it was said that DM stated she heard a voice possibly saying to Xana "don't worry, I'm here to help". Just an idea... no proof!! Someone dressed in scrubs wouldn't be as intimidating as coveralls IMO and especially if someone is injured and terrified. All JMO.

Oh lord that just made me more ill than I thought possible.

 

[maskedwoman]

Again, I didn't say the wind couldn't have opened the door. My disbelief is in the door opening the door, THEN closing the door within minutes. The door very well could have been opened by wind if it was windy. The door very well could have been closed by wind if it was windy. I find it far-fetched to suggest that at, say 8:25, the wind opened the door and at 8:35, the wind closed the door, just long enough for the neighbor to see an open door. That's far-fetched, IMO.

MOO.

I agree that it's unlikely the door would have both opened and closed on its own with almost no wind. I've had one of our doors "sucked" shut by someone opening one of the other doors. But only when there is at least a good breeze. And it's always loud.

There are mechanical things that can cause the door to move "on its own". A poorly hung door, an open window, etc. But my experience has generally been with the door being shut, not both opened and shut. If this crime were a movie, I couldn't believe both the door issue and BK not encountering the DD driver. After that, it starts to remind me of that scene from The Secret of My Success, where everyone is creeping from one bedroom to another in the middle of the night and, miraculously, never running into each other.

I thought of a dog pushing their way in, perhaps drawn by poor Murphy barking. But that doesn't explain it not being open later, and I feel a dog would have ruined the crime scene. Since we've heard of no such issue, that also seems unlikely to me.

 

[jepop]

It seems to me that that is exactly what the reports are saying. The neighbor says the door was open at 8:30 in the morning. The DD guy arrives and leaves around 4 a.m.. The call for help doesn't come until 11 something. The house was wide open for 7 hours or so.

All I was saying is that despite whatever headlines the report and re-reporting of the report (!) may have inspired, the actual content of what was reported is about one and a half lines. I posted links above. The substance is that a neighbour said that at 8.30 am they noticed the door was open (ie not shut). End of report, IMO. MOO

 

[Cool Cats]

^^^ Yes, that's my point for what ever reason Fry had it was still a "false statement" that he publicly stated. He could have also been lying about not knowing the door was open as well for whatever reason he may have deemed it important to the investigation.

Where does it come from that Fry said he didn't know the door was open?

Here is all that is said about it:

When asked about the state of the front door when police arrived, a spokesperson told Fox News on Thursday:

"that type of information is part of the investigation and not released."

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

I thought what was originally implied here was more about the admissability of questioning the timing of the 911 call as a way of discrediting/in connection with DM's testimony re her response to what she saw and heard at the time of the crime. I think that would draw objections. MOO I may have a misunderstood!

I see no issue with a simple line of questioning in order to establish the time line after DM and BF woke up and called their friends and so as to show how crime scene contamination has been accounted for. MOO

IMO, it all goes hand-in-hand. Disclaimer -- I am not blaming DM. I'm just imagining this in court. The line of questioning would be something along the lines of, if what she saw was that out of the ordinary or scary, why did she go to sleep --> maybe what she saw wasn't exactly as she remembered it 7 hours later and/or maybe who she saw wasn't a stranger and that's why she wasn't scared enough to call 911. I think that's fair game for the defense.

MOO

 

[GGbankster]

This is not a correct statement of how DNA evidence is presented. There is no presumption that DNA, let alone the concept of touch DNA, is accepted into evidence.

Thank you for your response. I apologize if my previous statement was misunderstood, and I appreciate the opportunity to further clarify my position. I understand that DNA evidence is not simply accepted solely due to its very nature or the concept of touch DNA, but rather it must meet several specific requirements to be admissible, including meeting evidentiary standards, being properly collected and preserved, and being analyzed and presented correctly in court.

Thus, my question is, how does the legal system determine whether DNA evidence is admissible, especially in cases where touch DNA is involved? And why is the correctness of DNA evidence identification, collection, and presentation so critical to legal trials?

Do you specialize in any particular area of law, such as criminal defense or civil litigation?

Moo

“FYI, touch DNA has no role to play in this case. All the discussions related to DNA are mere speculation that have been raised. It's important to note that we have limited information on this case. Therefore, any DNA-related discussions should be taken with a grain of salt.”

 

[Montecore1]

Where does it come from that Fry said he didn't know the door was open?

Here is all that is said about it:

When asked about the state of the front door when police arrived, a spokesperson told Fox News on Thursday:

"that type of information is part of the investigation and not released."

Quote from the article below from Chief Fry:

“I’m not even sure where that came from, to be quite honest,” Fry told the Daily Mail on Thursday, adding that it was the first time he had heard anything about an open door.

CSI Dreamer posted this link earlier:

Police chief didn’t know door where University of Idaho students were killed was open: report

Moscow Police Chief James Fry appeared taken back when asked about an unnamed neighbor’s claim that the door wasn’t shut on the morning of the murders.

nypost.com

 

[jepop]

You don't think that will be relevant?

No. When 911 was caledl does not have anything to do with when, why, how and who murdered the victims. At least not that I know of. DM, BF and the friends and Ethan's brother who arrived later that morning are all victims of these crimes. MOO

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

maybe what she saw wasn't exactly as she remembered it 7 hours later and/or maybe who she saw wasn't a stranger and that's why she wasn't scared enough to call 911. I think that's fair game for the defense.

I think it's more than fair game; it's an essential part of the case that must be evaluated. if I were 10 minutes or even an hour, waiting to make sure he was gone, that's one thing. But this was over 7 hours and anyone could have entered during that time and many things could have been done during that time. To present a competent defense is AT's job, and ignoring the 7+ hours between murders an 911 would imo be negligent on both sides. Defense side for failing to provide the best possible defense, and prosecution's side for leaving an obvious appeal on the table. Someone has to explain. I imagine both sides will have a go. imo jmo.

 

[GGbankster]

Could you please explain more about the cell phone's GPS signal? Thanks @GGbankster

Read the affidavit on how investigators identified the Idaho killings suspect | CNN

Idaho officials have publicly released court documents -- including a probably cause affidavit -- in prosecutors' case against Bryan Kohberger, who faces four counts of first-degree murder and one count of burglary in the killings of four University of Idaho undergraduate students.

www.cnn.com

At approximately 2:47 a.m. the 8458 Phone stops reporting to the network, which is consistent with either the phone being in an area without cellular coverage, the connection to the network is disabled (such as putting the phone in airplane mode), or that the phone is turned off The 8458 Phone does not report to the network again until approximately 4:48 a.m. at which time it utilized cellular resources that provide coverage to ID state highway 95 south of Moscow, ID near Blaine, ID (north of Genesee)

How Bryan Kohberger's cellphone records could be used against him

Kohberger, 28, is accused of breaking into a home in Moscow, Idaho, and fatally stabbing four students.

www.newsweek.com

It is curious that although the phone stopped communicating with the network at 2:47 a.m., it was detected using cellular resources near Blaine, ID at 4:48 a.m. This raises questions about the individuals activities in the area. However, the police are not solely relying on this one piece of evidence to build their case. They likely have additional information that sheds light on BK’s movements. It is astounding how technology has evolved to the point where tracking cellphone locations and data can play a vital role in investigations. The prosecution will need to demonstrate Kohberger's movements before, during, and after the murders to prove their case. According to McAuliffe, triangulating signals between cellphones and towers can provide insight into an individual's whereabouts. Since most people carry their phones with them, it is easier to link them to a particular person. The defense may argue that the phone's travel path and pings from Kohberger's home do not prove he was stalking the victims. However, the prosecution can point to the timestamps of the cell site pings, which correspond with recorded vehicle videos.

My opinion only