4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #100

[schooling]

Imo, LE has sufficient probable cause at this moment in time to reapply for a warrant from AT& T for BK's csl data for the 24 hours surrounding the murders. If, and only if, the judge finds the return on AT&T first warrant should be suppressed following potential Frank's hearing, is there anything preventing LE from re applying for this warrant at this stage of proceedings? Genuine question to those familiar with ICRs. Can prosecution introduce what would technically be 'new' evidence at this point? This question is based on speculation about an outcome of a potential Franks hearing negative to the prosecution. Jmo

I'd love to hear this argument too because I've been asking "what stops LE from just reissuing every warrant including DNA?" and if the answer is"they can't" then we're essentially giving Kohberger lifetime immunity. Which is what I assume the defense ultimately wants MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

I'm still not worried. In my post in the last thread I mentioned I didn't think there would be a Franks, but that you can never be 100% sure. Judge Hippler could be erring on the side of extreme caution because of the high profile DP case. This is AT basically engaging a PTH since BK was indicted by the secret GJ.

AT & Co have no reasonable defense of their client, so she's pouring her guts and soul into the MTS the DNA and ATT records. Not surprising, but I don't think it will affect the outcome regardless. The State has more than enough to convict BK, every day and twice on Sunday.

I can't help but think she and the D Team didn't somehow help propagate all the recent salacious media coverage of 'other unknown, bloody DNA at the scene'. Whaah, Whaah, Whaah...All I can hear is the teacher in Charlie Brown's class.

This same hype came from the Defense Teams in recent cases like Murdaugh and Delphi where many people thought they wouldn't be found guilty. How'd that work out for them? I am sticking with my gut instincts that a Jury, the genuine Trier of Facts, will be able to see through it here also.

#Justice4KayleeMaddieXana&Ethan

MOO

 

[jepop]

Well lots of people's minds went there (mine included), and it wasn't baseless.

I think these probably do have to do with those hearings, and this is a prelude to that transcript being released. It's about that time.

Good thinking @wendy44, I think you nailed it.

Yes, a prelude to release of closed 23 January transcript certainly makes sense. Though, you're right. It isn't baseless, since no ruling yet and the timing. Think I was also apologising to myself for getting into a flurry of omgs, not being able to sit on it, and posting to try and foresee potential outcomes to calm myself!

 

[wendy44]

Actually that's a point. It's possible these are old subpoenas for Jan 23/24 hearings? Just now uploaded to COI summary page and yet to be uploaded to COI page. IIRC there was more than one witness giving evidence during the open portions of Jan 23/24 hearings. And who knows how many giving evidence at the closed hearings. The timing is unfortunate if this is just a case of these old subpoenas being uploaded to the COI summary page now.

I apologise for speculating re Franks where perhaps it is entirely ungrounded. It would be really good if the clerk would update the actual docs on COI page so we can see the dates the subpoenas were issued. Jmo

No, I think it's still good speculation. If the judge has granted a Franks, this could be a new subpoena issued to the same party to appear/produce documents for the Franks.
JMO

 

[jepop]

No, I think it's still good speculation. If the judge has granted a Franks, this could be a new subpoena issued to the same party to appear/produce documents for the Franks.
JMO

Yeah, one's as good as the other. I guess we shall see.

 

[mrjitty]

Thanks for the cite @wendy44 !

I will trawl over them. It does seem at first glance that the FBI does not in fact have to provide the search related stuff, which I assume is what AT wants so she can generate some alts ....

MOO

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Explosive new DNA evidence that could see Bryan Kohberger walk free

Murder suspect Bryan Kohberger's defense attorneys made a stunning claim in court that threatens to upend the prosecution against him for the murders of four students.

www.dailymail.co.uk

An article in today's Daily Mail online.

 

[mrjitty]

I'd love to hear this argument too because I've been asking "what stops LE from just reissuing every warrant including DNA?" and if the answer is"they can't" then we're essentially giving Kohberger lifetime immunity. Which is what I assume the defense ultimately wants MOO

I have no idea of the specific state law on this, but the policy idea of binning evidence for illegal search is to punish the state at a general level so they don't get tempted to do it regularly.

So yes - that can have the result of letting a guilty perp walk.

Whether you can reup if you have fresh PC - i don't know in this instance and I'd also be interested if it has happened with digital evidence previously?

For one thing, when they charged, did they then go and expand their digital requests anyway?

MOO

 

[DizzyB]

Last night’s talking head on Banfield predicted the Franks, because of the dp case and the court wants to get this right the first time. Leave nothing for an appeal. It was also explained how CODIS works-it is against the law to put DNA samples into CODIS if they cannot be connected to a crime. There are rules that must be followed, and he felt strongly that the 2 other samples did not fit the criteria requirements.

 

[mmeynstyn]

Moo, if the subpoenas are for Franks, and I think they have to be, then obviously there have been private communications between court and parties to set a date. As Hippler seems to file Notices of Hearings around at least five days in advance, the earliest time for this hearing would be Wednesday/Thursday next week, if a Notice of Hearing is filed on Thursday (tomorrow Idaho time) this week. Jmo

Moo a Franks has to be concerned with the Court hearing testimony under direct examination of police officers who submitted search warrants for the case. It's not going to be related to IGG MTS on 4th Amendment basis. As far as that goes jmo that motion will be ruled against.

It's important people don't mix up these separate things. Jmo

Moo, a Franks will centre around AT & T first warrant. Payne and Mowery are probably the subjects of the X 2 subpoenas. The ducas in septum (sp?) subpoenas am not sure. Could be for statements from FBI re IGG result, when it was completed. Perhaps others can make educated guesses.

Ultimately, if Franks is successful on AT & T first warrant, imo the result will be suppression of that particular warrant's return at trial but it will not in any way mean that that the arrest was invalid.

Without that information in the arrest warrant, the defense imo cannot mount an argument that the judge would never have issued an arrest warrant. Ie paternal DNA test linking BK to sheathe, late night car video and the rest remain. Defense cannot argue exclusion of IGG result in arrest affidavit is exculpatory. If IGG had been included in arrest warrant that simply supports the PC and twice on Sundays off hand assessment of Judge Hippler. It is inculpatory. INAL and these are just my opinions and conjectures.

Lastly, the outcome of a Franks Hearing, if this is what this is, could just as well be negative for the defense with Hippler finding there was no malicious intent to deceive the judge for ATT &T first warrant. Imo IGG omission argument is dead in the water. IGG result is inculpatory. Jmo

---

If this is about a Franks, then Hippler must have found from 23/24 Jan there was sufficient evidence for a preliminary showing. That is all. The Franks can only be in relation to search warrants, and imo it will be narrowly focused on AT& T first warrant. Conjecture.

What was it about the first AT&T warrant that led you to think it might be associated with a possible Franks hearing (IF these subpoenas are for a Franks hearing)? I admit I got lost in all the warrants and don't know what would make this one different than others.

 

[jepop]

What was it about the first AT&T warrant that led you to think it might be associated with a possible Franks hearing (IF these subpoenas are for a Franks hearing)? I admit I got lost in all the warrants and don't know what would make this one different than others.

23rd December 2022. Pre arrest, so pre DNA direct match to the sheathe. AT has been concentrating on this one for a while. All other warrants are post arrest and hence post PC of BK's single source DNA being on that use point on the sheathe. It will be a travesty if the DNA gets suppressed but moo it won't. Worst case scenario would be AT&T x1 getting suppressed but even then we have no idea imo what AT's detailed arguments are for that.jmo.

Waiting for more clarity in coming days. Jmo

 

[Nila Aella]

No, I think it's still good speculation. If the judge has granted a Franks, this could be a new subpoena issued to the same party to appear/produce documents for the Franks.
JMO

Agree.
Hearing 2/26/25 IMO.

JMO

 

[SpiderFalcon]

23rd December 2022. Pre arrest, so pre DNA direct match to the sheathe. AT has been concentrating on this one for a while. All other warrants are post arrest and hence post PC of BK's single source DNA being on that use point on the sheathe. It will be a travesty if the DNA gets suppressed but moo it won't. Worst case scenario would be AT&T x1 getting suppressed but even then we have no idea imo what AT's detailed arguments are for that.jmo.

Waiting for more clarity in coming days. Jmo

I am thinking about the appearance of: https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/CR01-24-31665/2025/020425-Notice-Intent-IRE404b-Evidence.pdf because IIRC, his phone number was given to LE to put on the citation he received, right? So, his phone would have been associated with his car, which have both been associated with HIS CRIME. Maybe this is how LE/Prosecution can get a new warrant, if they even need to. Pure speculation.....waiting impatiently.

 

[jepop]

I am thinking about the appearance of: https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/CR01-24-31665/2025/020425-Notice-Intent-IRE404b-Evidence.pdf because IIRC, his phone number was given to LE to put on the citation he received, right? So, his phone would have been associated with his car, which have both been associated with HIS CRIME. Maybe this is how LE/Prosecution can get a new warrant, if they even need to. Pure speculation.....waiting impatiently.

They could use the IGG result which is inculpatory. Moo assuming, which I am, that the IGG 4th amendment argument is meritless. Pure speculation also and also waiting impatiently!

 

[mrjitty]

Thanks for the cite @wendy44 !

I will trawl over them. It does seem at first glance that the FBI does not in fact have to provide the search related stuff, which I assume is what AT wants so she can generate some alts ....

MOO

So Green is indeed right on point. The core of the holding is that FGG/IGG is an investigatory technique that can suggest potential suspects for investigation, but of itself does not generate any evidence against the accused, nor exculpatory evidence. The defence claims that other potential suspects shown up are in effect exculpatory evidence that has to be discovered. The analogy is that police are also not required to rule out of every tip or even hit on Codis - which is also not evidence. (see discussion page 10)

The evidence is the final comparison of the suspects DNA vs the crime scene sample.

I guess the policy reason for this decision is that otherwise, LE would have to run to ground every potential suspect from such databases - despite there being no evidence to indicate those people are guilty - and thus no actual exculpatory value.

MOO

 

[mrjitty]

I guess the TLDR version of the argument is AT wants to go on a fishing expedition in the search results, whenever a database gets used.

On the one hand if you did a bad murder, I am sure the constitutional right to do so would jump out at you!

For a citizen, I don't find the argument that compelling, mostly because as you do searches and refine them, all that stuff would then become discoverable. Despite it being evidence of nothing.

MOO

 

[Nila Aella]

23rd December 2022. Pre arrest, so pre DNA direct match to the sheathe. AT has been concentrating on this one for a while. All other warrants are post arrest and hence post PC of BK's single source DNA being on that use point on the sheathe. It will be a travesty if the DNA gets suppressed but moo it won't. Worst case scenario would be AT&T x1 getting suppressed

Why just ATT1?

Why not:
ATT2
Apple
Arrest
Car
Home
Apartment

JMO

but even then we have no idea imo what AT's detailed arguments are for that.jmo.

Waiting for more clarity in coming days. Jmo

 

[mrjitty]

The other way the Court in Green looked at it, is what is incriminating is the final match of the defendants sample vs the crime scene sample.

Nothing in IGG can be exculpatory to that, even if by some chance, there is another hit

 

[Nila Aella]

The other way the Court in Green looked at it, is what is incriminating is the final match of the defendants sample vs the crime scene sample.

Nothing in IGG can be exculpatory to that, even if by some chance, there is another hit

Since Green (2020) and are there any differences in the arguments between the two cases.

From MTC 3
AT declaration

A new collaborative, National Technology Validation and Implementation Collaborative was established in 2022. Its purpose is to collaborate and formulate methods and policy for labs and law enforcement to establish Forensic Investigative Genetic Genealogy programs. This collaborative contributed to a forensic science journal. The publication includes contributors from Idaho; Rylene Nowlin Idaho State Police Forensic Services and Alana Minton Office of the Attorney General, State of Idaho. This publication includes reference to the aforementioned U.S. Department of Justice Interim Policy. Of particular note is the policy of release of information in accordance with rules of discovery.

MTC 3
AT declaration

This process leads to a pool of individuals rather than one specific individual. The possibility of other relatives who might be similar to Mr. Kohberger is extremely important to the Defense in this case. The processes used in this method of identification may be extremely important to Mr. Kohberger’s defense. The timing and steps utilized are extremely important to Mr. Kohberger’s case investigation and defense.

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/CR29-22-2805/062323+Defendants+Third+Motion+to+Compel+Discovery.pdf

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/CR29-22-2805/062323+Declaration+of+Anne+C+Taylor+in+Support+of+Defendants+Third+Motion+to+Compel.pdf

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/CR29-22-2805/062323+Notice+of+Filing+Declaration+of+Bicka+Barlow+in+Support+of+Def+Third+Motion+to+Compel.pdf

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/CR29-22-2805/062323+Notice+of+Filing+Declaration+of+Stephen+B+Mercer+in+Support+of+Def+Third+Motion+to+Compel.pdf

There was a hearing too with testimony from experts
And an Exparte hearing where JJJ reviewed the materials

JJJ ordered information to be discovered twice and according to JNye more than in other cases.

Another difference from Green


In Green, there was a direct match before an arrest.

JMO

 

[Sundog]

Since Green (2020) and are there any differences in the arguments between the two cases.

From MTC 3
AT declaration

A new collaborative, National Technology Validation and Implementation Collaborative was established in 2022. Its purpose is to collaborate and formulate methods and policy for labs and law enforcement to establish Forensic Investigative Genetic Genealogy programs. This collaborative contributed to a forensic science journal. The publication includes contributors from Idaho; Rylene Nowlin Idaho State Police Forensic Services and Alana Minton Office of the Attorney General, State of Idaho. This publication includes reference to the aforementioned U.S. Department of Justice Interim Policy. Of particular note is the policy of release of information in accordance with rules of discovery.

MTC 3
AT declaration

This process leads to a pool of individuals rather than one specific individual. The possibility of other relatives who might be similar to Mr. Kohberger is extremely important to the Defense in this case. The processes used in this method of identification may be extremely important to Mr. Kohberger’s defense. The timing and steps utilized are extremely important to Mr. Kohberger’s case investigation and defense.

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/CR29-22-2805/062323+Defendants+Third+Motion+to+Compel+Discovery.pdf

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/CR29-22-2805/062323+Declaration+of+Anne+C+Taylor+in+Support+of+Defendants+Third+Motion+to+Compel.pdf

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/CR29-22-2805/062323+Notice+of+Filing+Declaration+of+Bicka+Barlow+in+Support+of+Def+Third+Motion+to+Compel.pdf

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/CR29-22-2805/062323+Notice+of+Filing+Declaration+of+Stephen+B+Mercer+in+Support+of+Def+Third+Motion+to+Compel.pdf

There was a hearing too with testimony from experts
And an Exparte hearing where JJJ reviewed the materials

JJJ ordered information to be discovered twice and according to JNye more than in other cases.

Another difference from Green
View attachment 564254

In Green, there was a direct match before an arrest.

JMO

So in Green, there was a direct match before an arrest. In the case of BK, there was a match with his father before the arrest, and then a direct match with BK once he was arrested. How significant is this difference?