- Joined
- Sep 14, 2017
- Messages
- 11,467
- Reaction score
- 115,673
MOO he has a connection to the victims, his DNA is at the crime scene.
4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #100
- Thread starter ChatteringBirds
- Start date
-
CA CA - San Francisco, WhtMale 25-55, UP5896, 5'9," June'83- Latest: ChatteringBirds
- Status
Description of footprint is at approximately 7:48. It was at the very edge of the door to DM's bedroom and a single footprint not seen anywhere else in the house. We know it was also a latent footprint - so it had to be detected with amino black, it was not visible to the naked eye. JMO.
This could indicate someone listening at DM's door when it was closed or even stepping close to DM for some reason when she opened the door. Or maybe there is some innocent reason for the footprint that is unrelated to the murders. JMO.
The footprint was used to confirm the direction of the murderer's exit of the house in the PCA, but that information could be wrong. No way to know at this point. JMO.
All JMO.
All JMO.
Do you have a link showing he actually purchased the weapon from Amazon? Could you please provide it?
It does not appear that they made the attempt to identify them because lead detective BP said he thought if they ran the DNA on these samples, it would remove the sample from the sheath from CODIS. Testimony about this starts about 1/2 down page 8 here:
Q = AT
A = BP
So, it appears that LE NEVER researched Unknown Male B (and most likely not the other unknown male DNA samples either.) I think this will be a problem at trial. JMOO.
I can't say for sure, not being able to see the brief, but it appears that maybe the prosecution pushed back on the challenge to the trash pull because it wasn't BK's DNA gathered from the evidence, it was his father's. The state lab didn't test the item that had the mixture of male and female DNA for reasons described in the transcript. The defense tested the mixture according to this in the Order on the Defendant's Motion to Suppress: Regarding Genetic Information:
According to Defendant's expert, Gary Shulter, Ph.D, the male DNA from the mixture was consistent with Q1.1 profile.
The Q1.1 profile was the profile taken from the sheath. So the male DNA found in the mixture was a match to the profile from the sheath and, though the defense had still not admitted it, the DNA on the sheath is a match to BK. Thus the prosecution noting that the defense claims standing regarding the DNA on the sheath, but hasn't admitted the DNA on the sheath is BK. And once the defense tested that mixture and it showed the male DNA in the mixture matched the sheath, the prosecution dropped their challenge to the standing, accepting that the DNA found in the mixture was BK's. All just speculation on my part.
JMO
I believe they're talking about the DNA from the trash pull here.
JMO
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2018
- Messages
- 12,092
- Reaction score
- 160,509
I wasn't aware it was stated exactly what source they used to lift (or develop) the latent shoe print. Thanks for the info.
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2023
- Messages
- 87
- Reaction score
- 1,159
You and I must have a different definition of the word "established".
AT: "Well, let's talk about that licence plate for a second because that's not something you can see from the videos. And that was testimony you heard today. You can't see that from the video the cops relied on."
The only testimony relating to the front plate was when AT put it to Detective Payne that it was not possible to determine, from the 1112 camera, if SV1 did or did not have a front licence plate. Payne replied "That sounds correct, yes."
However the PCA never asserts SV1 was missing a front plate, as determined from the bulb cam at 1112. Payne's statement says the finding was made from footage of SV1 captured on Styner Ave.
"A review of camera footage indicated that a white sedan, hereafter Suspect Vehicle 1, was observed traveling westbound in the 700 block of Indian Hills Drive in Moscow at approximately 3:26 a.m and westbound on Styner Avenue at Idaho State Highway 95 in Moscow at approximately 3:28 a.m. On this video, it appeared Suspect Vehicle 1 was not displaying a front license plate."
Other cameras at varying distance and of varying quality than track SV1 to King Road.
AT wants to make vehicle identification all about 1112, a generic Bluelk bulb cam that lacks Highlight Compensation, just as she wants to focus attention on stalking. These are hit points. The evidence of SV1 comes from a wider array of camera footage, and I suspect evidence will emerge that renders any talk of stalking irrelevant. MOO.
Last edited:
The witness does not say they NEVER researched it. It was not done at that time.
MOO
No, I believe what she's saying is that there is no photo or video collected before they had BK's name, not that there is no photo or video at all.
JMO
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2018
- Messages
- 36,961
- Reaction score
- 243,420
But they hadn’t shown that their client had “legitimate expectation of privacy in the item or place searched,” Hippler said. “Any privacy interest he can claim in this DNA was abandoned along with the sheath, to which he claims no ownership or knowledge. Even if no such abandonment occurred, defendant has not demonstrated it is reasonable to recognize a privacy interest in DNA left at a crime scene.”
Hippler had similar rulings for other evidence the defense wanted tossed, including data from Kohberger’s online accounts with Apple, Google and Amazon, material from the Washington State apartment he was living in at the time of the murders, as well as other evidence from his parents’ home in Pennsylvania.
www.nydailynews.com
Hippler had similar rulings for other evidence the defense wanted tossed, including data from Kohberger’s online accounts with Apple, Google and Amazon, material from the Washington State apartment he was living in at the time of the murders, as well as other evidence from his parents’ home in Pennsylvania.
Judge refuses to toss DNA evidence in University of Idaho murders
Defense attorneys for accused University of Idaho quadruple murder suspect Bryan Kohberger lost their bid to exclude DNA evidence.
www.nydailynews.com
Confirmation that the defense believed the IGG being conducted was very, very right (page 151):
[AT] When Othram quit work, were they following a Family Tree that they could have led and come to Bryan Kohberger?
[Leah Larkin] Yes.
[AT] When Othram quit work, were they following a Family Tree that they could have led and come to Bryan Kohberger?
[Leah Larkin] Yes.
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2018
- Messages
- 36,961
- Reaction score
- 243,420
Police are not required to have warrants to shuttle DNA between labs for analysis, despite what the defense argued, Nye said, nor do people have privacy rights to items they leave behind at a crime scene. The DNA in question first went to the Idaho State Police crime lab in Meridian, then to a private lab in Texas called Othram, before moving on to the FBI, which used IGG on four ancestry databases to land on Kohberger and send a “tip” to Idaho police to investigate Kohberger.
thedoorswerelocked.substack.com
I concluded that the FBI took over the IGG process because the FBI was willing to violate the MyHeritage terms and conditions while Othram was not.
When did investigators identify Kohberger as a suspect?
I am less sure that the FBI used the MyHeritage database in the IGG process, but I am increasingly sure that Kohberger was already a suspect before the process started.
thedoorswerelocked.substack.com
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2018
- Messages
- 17,889
- Reaction score
- 297,335
6:20.00 AT talks about DM's statements.
Just like she spins an image LE used to determine make and model into something that it's not, that a different camera doesn't show a lacking front plate. It probably doesn't. It came from a different camera.
So she says DM said a victim ran up and down the steps, LE changed her recollection to "she thought she heard", and AT says it's not true, can't be true, goes to her credibility, etc.
Tangletown of words.
But it's not complicated.
It's just English.
Interview 1: Let's say DM says that (in her thinking that night), she was sure it was a certain roommate.
Interview 2: now that she's knows her roommates were all killed by the masked man, perhaps she has reinterpreted those sounds. I hate thought it was roommate x, I thought it was Murphy. I didn't think there was another person there.
Package that in a sentence. DM thought she heard roommate x.
There is no lie.
LE was not using the PCA to convince the judge that that roommate was on the steps!!! Just because DM originally thought, before she knew there'd been a massacre or that those roommates did or didn't leave their beds, that she heard a roommate, doesn't mean she continued to think that. (We still don't know, she could have in fact heard that roommate on the staircase before getting back in bed or she's wrong, not because she's lying or the PCA is false, just that she didn't maybe have enough information when she reached her conclusion!)
It's nothing but AT belaboring a pointless point.
JMO
Just like she spins an image LE used to determine make and model into something that it's not, that a different camera doesn't show a lacking front plate. It probably doesn't. It came from a different camera.
So she says DM said a victim ran up and down the steps, LE changed her recollection to "she thought she heard", and AT says it's not true, can't be true, goes to her credibility, etc.
Tangletown of words.
But it's not complicated.
It's just English.
Interview 1: Let's say DM says that (in her thinking that night), she was sure it was a certain roommate.
Interview 2: now that she's knows her roommates were all killed by the masked man, perhaps she has reinterpreted those sounds. I hate thought it was roommate x, I thought it was Murphy. I didn't think there was another person there.
Package that in a sentence. DM thought she heard roommate x.
There is no lie.
LE was not using the PCA to convince the judge that that roommate was on the steps!!! Just because DM originally thought, before she knew there'd been a massacre or that those roommates did or didn't leave their beds, that she heard a roommate, doesn't mean she continued to think that. (We still don't know, she could have in fact heard that roommate on the staircase before getting back in bed or she's wrong, not because she's lying or the PCA is false, just that she didn't maybe have enough information when she reached her conclusion!)
It's nothing but AT belaboring a pointless point.
JMO
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2011
- Messages
- 70,212
- Reaction score
- 273,715
There is no evidence I know of BK was expelled from his doctoral program in early Nov. (If anyone saying he was has a link to document a Nov expulsion, please post!) And there's plenty of evidence he wasn't IMO.
Expulsion at the doctoral level very rarely happens and when it does, it's usually for a failure to maintain acceptable grades. (Commonly, earning a second C or a second U will do it. But that can't happen mid-semester the first semester as final grades haven't been assigned.) But if a mid-semester expulsion did happen at the doctoral level, IMO it would have to be for something VERY serious. And IMO if he had engaged in some dangerous actions worthy of an expulsion in early Nov, the school wouldn't have let him continue as a student and as a TA until the end of the semester. And we know he was a TA until the semester ended. We've also seen reference to a letter about his assistantship supposedly sent to him in Dec after he and his father left for PA. He wouldn't have been given such a letter if he'd been expelled in Nov.
"On Dec. 19, the department informed Kohberger that he “had not made progress regarding professionalism” and removed him from his position, the paper reported.
Bryan Kohberger fired as teaching assistant before arrest in student killings
Bryan Kohberger was fired as a teaching assistant at Washington State University after it investigated him for run-ins with a professor and his behavior toward women in the weeks leading up to his …nypost.com
If he did kill the 4 students, I don't know why he chose that weekend to do it. Maybe something related to his studies did set him off, maybe something related to his TA set him off, maybe something related to an interaction with someone on or off-campus set him off, or maybe he'd always planned to do it then. But I'm close to 100% sure he wasn't told he had been expelled before that weekend.
MOO
Kohberger began having troubles about a month into the fall semester, his first at Washington State. He had an “altercation” on Sept. 23 with John Snyder, the W.S.U. professor he was assisting, according to the termination letter, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times.Feb 13, 2023
also:
On Sept. 23, 2022, he had a verbal “altercation” with Professor John Snyder, whom he was assisting, according to the termination letter obtained by the newspaper.
Kohberger met with a university official to “discuss norms of professional behavior,” the Times reported, citing three sources and a letter that informed him he had failed to meet the conditions required to maintain his funding.
On Nov. 2 — 11 days before Kaylee Goncalves, 21, Madison Mogen, 21, Xana Kernodle, 20, and Ethan Chapin, 20, were found dead — department officials reportedly met with Kohberger to discuss an improvement plan.
But on Dec. 9, Kohberger had another “altercation” with Snyder, the Times reported.
In December, professors also were informed that Kohberger had made multiple female students feel uncomfortable, according to the paper.
In one incident, he allegedly followed a woman to her car, two sources familiar with the situation told the Times on condition of anonymity.
Bryan Kohberger reportedly was fired as a teaching assistant at Washington State University after it investigated him for run-ins with a professor and his behavior toward women in the weeks leading up to his arrest in the murders of four University of Idaho students.
Kohberger, 28, who was a PhD student at WSU, met with faculty members to discuss his job performance and disturbing behavior with female students, according to the New York Times.
A professor emailed Kohberger the following month about “the ways in which you had failed to meet your expectations as a T.A. thus far in the semester,” according to the outlet.
University Investigated Idaho Murder Suspect's Behavior ...
https://nypost.com/2023/02/13/bryan-kohberger-fired-as-ta-before-arrest-in-student-murders/
True, that there's no evidence he was actually expelled before the murders. But 11 days prior. he did have a meeting with the department heads in order to work out an 'improvement' plan for him. That is pretty serious.
Ans 2 months prior to that he had a verbal altercation with his mentor/professor, whom he was assisting. So BK probably knew the writing was on the wall for his eventual dismissal. IMO
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2018
- Messages
- 29,587
- Reaction score
- 695,766
They will close this door, if they haven't already. At the time he's referencing, they hadn't done that yet. Investigation continues right up until trial; it's not like once an arrest is made that ends.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2011
- Messages
- 70,212
- Reaction score
- 273,715
Maybe DM did her someone going up and down the stairs? Maybe BK ran back to look for the sheath and gave up when he didnt see it?6:20.00 AT talks about DM's statements.
Just like she spins an image LE used to determine make and model into something that it's not, that a different camera doesn't show a lacking front plate. It probably doesn't. It came from a different camera.
So she says DM said a victim ran up and down the steps, LE changed her recollection to "she thought she heard", and AT says it's not true, can't be true, goes to her credibility, etc.
Tangletown of words.
But it's not complicated.
It's just English.
Interview 1: Let's say DM says that (in her thinking that night), she was sure it was a certain roommate.
Interview 2: now that she's knows her roommates were all killed by the masked man, perhaps she has reinterpreted those sounds. I hate thought it was roommate x, I thought it was Murphy. I didn't think there was another person there.
Package that in a sentence. DM thought she heard roommate x.
There is no lie.
LE was not using the PCA to convince the judge that that roommate was on the steps!!! Just because DM originally thought, before she knew there'd been a massacre or that those roommates did or didn't leave their beds, that she heard a roommate, doesn't mean she continued to think that. (We still don't know, she could have in fact heard that roommate on the staircase before getting back in bed or she's wrong, not because she's lying or the PCA is false, just that she didn't maybe have enough information when she reached her conclusion!)
It's nothing but AT belaboring a pointless point.
17K reactions · 1.3K shares | Sorry Molly, but Nashville was calling… 🤣 #dogmom #travel #nashville #weekendtrip #pets #petsgram | Travelgirlandherdog
Sorry Molly, but Nashville was calling… 🤣 #dogmom #travel #nashville #weekendtrip #pets #petsgram.www.facebook.com
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2018
- Messages
- 17,889
- Reaction score
- 297,335
We could go right down the list.
Murphy didn't leave bloody footprint and wasn't restricted. Maybe Murphy was timid, was told to stay and stayed.
Per a specific view of the Elantra, AT says it doesn't even show no front plate. Maybe that's because that's not the image LE used to determine whether there was a font plate.
Directionailty matters when you're talking about cell towers. OK, sure. BK may have left his apartment by circuitous means, driving around in another area, before turning his phone off. Little relevance, if an hour later, he's somewhere else.
When AT seemed to swallow words, "there's no DNA in the car....", she rounded back to it, this time saying there's no DNA brought out from the crime scene in the car. (1:35.47) Oh? Define c rime scene. Me, I'd say whole house, but it might be in BK's best interest/defense to re-imagine the crime scene as just the two rooms where the victims were murdered; therefore.....is there perchance DNA from KG's bedroom recovered from BK's car? Like say a dog hair?
It is easy to lose sight of what AT isn't saying because she covers it with so many other words!
JMO
Murphy didn't leave bloody footprint and wasn't restricted. Maybe Murphy was timid, was told to stay and stayed.
Per a specific view of the Elantra, AT says it doesn't even show no front plate. Maybe that's because that's not the image LE used to determine whether there was a font plate.
Directionailty matters when you're talking about cell towers. OK, sure. BK may have left his apartment by circuitous means, driving around in another area, before turning his phone off. Little relevance, if an hour later, he's somewhere else.
When AT seemed to swallow words, "there's no DNA in the car....", she rounded back to it, this time saying there's no DNA brought out from the crime scene in the car. (1:35.47) Oh? Define c rime scene. Me, I'd say whole house, but it might be in BK's best interest/defense to re-imagine the crime scene as just the two rooms where the victims were murdered; therefore.....is there perchance DNA from KG's bedroom recovered from BK's car? Like say a dog hair?
It is easy to lose sight of what AT isn't saying because she covers it with so many other words!
JMO
Last edited:
IMO, this should have already been done BEFORE anyone was arrested. FBI told BP that BK was a "possible source" of the DNA on the sheath. Page 17: https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/CR01...anscript-Redacted-hearing-held-Jan23-2025.pdf
BP's answer to AT:
IMO, this is a huge problem with this investigation. They jumped from BK might be a possible source of the DNA per the FBI, not even that the FBI said BK's DNA was definitely on the knife sheath, to a trash pull at the Kohberger house in PA. There was no definitive match whatsoever. JMO.
They did not even pursue DNA from Unknown Male B or Unknown Male D blood evidence. (page 19). JMO.
All JMO.
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2018
- Messages
- 29,587
- Reaction score
- 695,766
<modsnip: posting information as fact without a source link>
We've seen DNA evidence like this come up at hearings in lots of cases on here, and come trial there is almost always an explanation for it. Even if there isn't one, it's not a huge deal here. There is no evidence the killer did in fact cut himself, as there should be blood in other locations if he did. If they did have evidence of that, you can bet they'd have focused on that.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
Online statistics
- Members online
- 64
- Guests online
- 1,217
- Total visitors
- 1,281