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

[Balthazar]

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.

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/CR01-24-31665/2025/022125-Transcript-Redacted-hearing-held-Jan23-2025.pdf

That is not what that means at all. It means that Othram was following a family tree that could have led and come to BK AND his 97,000 male cousins. Then the correct cousin would have to be narrowed down to the most likely suspects. Apparently BK had cousins in Idaho because ISP asked one of them (from a group of 4 brothers) for a DNA sample, which he refused to give. It seems BK's DNA was closer to that on the sheath than the group of 4 brothers, but not necessarily the exact match DNA on the sheath per the FBI:

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/CR01-24-31665/2025/022125-Transcript-Redacted-hearing-held-Jan23-2025.pdf

JMO.

 

[NCWatcher]

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

That's all true. And as I said in my original post, many different things could have set him off including issues with his assistantship. But expulsion was quite unlikely to be on that list. And the material you provided strongly argues against expulsion being the catalyst. As the material you provided said, he wasn't "fired" until after the semester ended in December. That couldn't have happened if he'd been "expelled" 6 weeks before. And while the material presented from the New York Times emphasized problematic interactions with women based on anonymous sources (material reproduced in the New York Post article), the Times (behind a paywall) reported the university actually found no basis for those anonymous accusations.

Here's another article lifted from the Times article that says that. Bryan Kohberger's behavior toward women investigated weeks before arrest

Even with his assistantship removed, that doesn't mean he was expelled. Not being offered funding in grad school isn't equivalent to being expelled. Some people won't/can't continue their studies without funding, others can and do. It appears though he may have been expelled AFTER his arrest. Because even arrested students have rights under FERPA, the University wouldn't provide details but said he was no longer enrolled. (link above)
MOO

 

[Megnut]

Today's clip is brought to you by Dr. Seuss, Thing 2 and Thing 1.

1:38.40

AT: I think probable cause isn't one thing. I hope it's not one thing. I hope there has to be a little bit more than one thing especially when you have another thing that's the same as the one thing.

My head is spinning.

JMO

 

[Balthazar]

<modsnip: posting information as fact without including 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.

The FBI only found that BK's DNA was closer to what they received than the 4 brothers who are distant cousins of BK that Othram was investigating and apparently at least one of those cousins lives in Idaho, we know that because the ISP asked him for a DNA sample and he said no. So that leads to the question, what other cousins did BK have in Idaho or nearby and did any of these people have a criminal history? But MPD didn't look into that. Instead they rushed to arrest someone who has no criminal history, no connection to the victims, and found no evidence in his car, apartment, office or parents home. They have conducted all kinds of computer searches for the purchase of the weapon used in the murders and have apparently come up empty handed and were down to looking at BK's online shopping clicks. IMO, if they had found ANYTHING, it would have been leaked by now. JMO.

Further, there is evidence the killer or one of the killers did cut himself because there was blood INSIDE a pair of gloves found outside the house by CSI on Nov. 20, 2022 and blood on the bannister inside the house which was mixed with female DNA. But they didn't find out whose DNA either of these were. JMO.

Fundamentally in any investigation, the investigator should look at the complete evidence and allow the preponderance of all investigative points to lead to a conclusion. The investigator should never look at only one piece of evidence, especially when it is transfer DNA, and decide that is the answer. IMO, this case has not been completely investigated and that's a horrible shame for the victims and their families. At the very least, they deserve justice. There can be no justice until all pertinent evidence is examined and the truth comes to light. JMO.

All JMOO.

 

[fcavanaugh]

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: View attachment 565760

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.

BBM
I respectfully disagree. This was a known party house and who knows how long the other DNA was there or how degraded it was. They likely knew it wasn’t fresh blood iow, the killer didn’t cut himself. Further, prior to his arrest, besides his possible DNA on the knife sheath found under/next to a victim, LE had other corroborating evidence to narrow down in on BK as the prime suspect, his white Elantra and knew that he had left/fled the state.
IMO, there is no way LE were going to let a likely/probable quadruple murderer on the loose allowing further time/opportunity to either murder again (god forbid), nor the time/opportunity to possibly dispose of further probable evidence tying him to the crime.

IMO, no way could LE risk allowing their prime suspect in a brutal, heinous quadruple murder loose in society and had enough probable cause to arrest him when they did. A Judge agreed and signed the warrant for BK’s arrest.

IMHOO

ETA-fixed a word

 

[MassGuy]

The FBI only found that BK's DNA was closer to what they received than the 4 brothers who are distant cousins of BK that Othram was investigating and apparently at least one of those cousins lives in Idaho, we know that because the ISP asked him for a DNA sample and he said no. So that leads to the question, what other cousins did BK have in Idaho or nearby and did any of these people have a criminal history? But MPD didn't look into that. Instead they rushed to arrest someone who has no criminal history, no connection to the victims, and found no evidence in his car, apartment, office or parents home. They have conducted all kinds of computer searches for the purchase of the weapon used in the murders and have apparently come up empty handed and were down to looking at BK's online shopping clicks. IMO, if they had found ANYTHING, it would have been leaked by now. JMO.

Further, there is evidence the killer or one of the killers did cut himself because there was blood INSIDE a pair of gloves found outside the house by CSI on Nov. 20, 2022 and blood on the bannister inside the house which was mixed with female DNA. But they didn't find out whose DNA either of these were. JMO.

Fundamentally in any investigation, the investigator should look at the complete evidence and allow the preponderance of all investigative points to lead to a conclusion. The investigator should never look at only one piece of evidence, especially when it is transfer DNA, and decide that is the answer. IMO, this case has not been completely investigated and that's a horrible shame for the victims and their families. At the very least, they deserve justice. There can be no justice until all pertinent evidence is examined and the truth comes to light. JMO.

All JMOO.

<modsnip: personalizing>

The FBI gave them a specific name to work with. They took this name and investigated it, ultimately conducting a trash pull, a DNA test, a paternity test, an arrest, and then a confirmation test. We know the IGG got it right, because the DNA testing confirms it.

Just throw the IGG thing out, all that matters is the DNA on the sheath matches BK.

A guy who just so happened to drive a white Hyundai.
A guy who just so happened to go on a late night drive inside the murder window.
A guy who returned home outside the murder widow.
A guy whose phone went dark during that murder window.
A guy who couldn't possibly profile more perfectly as someone who would do something like this.

And we do have leaks regarding the purchase of the murder weapon. Sources close to the investigation told Dateline that BK purchased the knife on Amazon. Based on all those warrants, and the defense's desperate efforts to keep them out, I think this is very likely true.

And there's going to be more.

As for that foreign blood, again, that would have been investigated at some point. Yes, it's highly unlikely to be connected, but they wouldn't take that chance. They also know the defense will try to point to that as being from the killer, so they'll close that door if they can.

That banister blood and the glove blood appear to be from different contributors. So a killer cuts himself on the knife, leaving blood on the banister, and another killer cuts himself and leaves it on the glove?

And another killer leaves touch DNA on part of an item the killer had to touch?

<modsnip>

 

[MassGuy]

<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.

Including source link because this is really important in refuting the argument that the FBI should have said that BK's DNA was on the sheath, which they NEVER would say. No IGG service would say that either, as that is way beyond their purview. They are taking a sample of DNA and winnowing it down to a person or persons that may be a contributor. They are not performing confirmation testing between the identified person and the DNA sample they are in possession of.

They merely provide a name of the person who the DNA probably belongs to, and it's up to law enforcement to investigate and confirm the match vs the original sample. They literally said this information should be treated as "a tip," which is what it is. No arrest can be made based on IGG alone.

https://www.justice.gov/olp/page/file/1204386/dl?inline=

 

[gremlin444]

I believe they're talking about the DNA from the trash pull here.
JMO

IMO

It's all so confusing--Anne is a master of rapidly switching topics midstream. I've read back through several more times while taking notes and tracking each reference. IMO: The only way that could be from the trash pull would be if they have two DNA profile/items labelled as sample B.

What we do know from things that are specifically labelled in this recent transcript:

Unknown male A: knife sheath
Unknown B: blood spot on handrail between 1st and 2nd
Unknown C:
Unknown D: glove found outside house
Unknown E: Dad's DNA on item from trash pull

On page 18, we have:

AT (to Payne): If I told you the lab report showed Unknown Male B came from a blood spot on the handrail going between the second and the first floor, does that help jog your memory?

AT then goes on shortly after to discuss unknown D male which was on the glove found outside.

on pg 49 it is again mentioned that B is from the house

On pg 61 with the ISP lab manager, AT refers to a trash pull item that is mixed male predominant/female but does NOT address it by its letter label. She talks about that mixed sample for a while and has questions about if you can look at the male profile from that SPECIFIC item and compare it to the knife sheath sample A. That goes on for a bit.

And then she immediately segues back to Unknown B, going off the topic of analyzing mixtures:

Q. I need you to help me understand that a little bit. I'm having that question because I understand there was an Unknown Male B found on Lab Item 30.

Then BACK to the trash pull on pg 64 and 65 and the mixed predom male item that is once again not given a letter label (WHY???? *sigh*)

And now we come to where I feel the distinction is made...still talking about the mixed trash pull item (BBM):

Q. Okay. Did you tell me, though, on that sample, and I'm talking about 95.9.1, that was a male and a female?

A. I believe that -- I don't know if it was designated as that in the laboratory report. To my knowledge it was -- I can't remember what the report said. Again, I didn't generate the report and didn't do the work, so I'm not as familiar with it as if it was my own work.

Q. Okay. Male B was also a mixture, wasn't it?
******

So, she's talking about the mixed trash sample in that first question and establishes that it was mixed male and female. Then in that last line, the key word is ALSO--that also can't be referring to some other characteristic of the trash pull item as it has already been established it is mixed.

That "also" signifies that there was a 2nd mixed sample in the 5 that have been discussed (A-E) that was a mixed m/f sample too in addition to this unlabelled trash pull item.

I hope that this was less confusing in person in court since there would have been visuals put up on the screen, etc.

At this point I feel like I almost need to assign different colors to different topics and then go back through the transcript and use colored highlighting to track the discussion. I'm about two steps away from becoming the meme of the crazed facial expression guy with the stuff tacked up on the wall with red string.

If someone sees where I missed something, LMK.

 

[Ghostwheel]

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.

Thank you so much! The words "right out side the door" or even "right next to the door" does not indicate direction, only proximity. The way the stairs, door, step up to the living room and kitchen are designed, that footprint could be going any direction, including pointing away from the door at 90 degrees or anywhere on the standard 28 " wide a door is. The only thing that could be in question as to the exit ( not the order of the murders) would be it it were pointing 90 degrees towards the door. ( and jmo, I doubt that).

This goes back to another "could be anything" for me. Much obliged!

 

[imstilla.grandma]

Ada County District Judge Steven Hippler said last month: “How does that, even if disclosed, preclude a finding of probable cause when there’s a DNA match between the DNA on the sheath and Mr. Kohberger? Isn’t that probable cause every day and twice on Sunday?

"I mean, that’s the ultimate question that will be before a jury, what does a knife sheath at a scene mean?” Hippler replied: “If you’re killed with a knife, that probably means a lot.”

Student murders suspect 'could walk free' as bombshell DNA evidence emerges

Bryan Kohberger faces four counts of murder and burglary over the killings of University of Idaho students Kaylee Goncalves, Madison Mogen, both 21, and Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin, both 20

www.mirror.co.uk

 

[Ghostwheel]

IMO

It's all so confusing--Anne is a master of rapidly switching topics midstream. I've read back through several more times while taking notes and tracking each reference. IMO: The only way that could be from the trash pull would be if they have two DNA profile/items labelled as sample B.

What we do know from things that are specifically labelled in this recent transcript:

Unknown male A: knife sheath
Unknown B: blood spot on handrail between 1st and 2nd
Unknown C:
Unknown D: glove found outside house
Unknown E: Dad's DNA on item from trash pull

On page 18, we have:

AT (to Payne): If I told you the lab report showed Unknown Male B came from a blood spot on the handrail going between the second and the first floor, does that help jog your memory?

AT then goes on shortly after to discuss unknown D male which was on the glove found outside.

on pg 49 it is again mentioned that B is from the house

On pg 61 with the ISP lab manager, AT refers to a trash pull item that is mixed male predominant/female but does NOT address it by its letter label. She talks about that mixed sample for a while and has questions about if you can look at the male profile from that SPECIFIC item and compare it to the knife sheath sample A. That goes on for a bit.

And then she immediately segues back to Unknown B, going off the topic of analyzing mixtures:

Q. I need you to help me understand that a little bit. I'm having that question because I understand there was an Unknown Male B found on Lab Item 30.

Then BACK to the trash pull on pg 64 and 65 and the mixed predom male item that is once again not given a letter label (WHY???? *sigh*)

And now we come to where I feel the distinction is made...still talking about the mixed trash pull item (BBM):

Q. Okay. Did you tell me, though, on that sample, and I'm talking about 95.9.1, that was a male and a female?

A. I believe that -- I don't know if it was designated as that in the laboratory report. To my knowledge it was -- I can't remember what the report said. Again, I didn't generate the report and didn't do the work, so I'm not as familiar with it as if it was my own work.

Q. Okay. Male B was also a mixture, wasn't it?
******

So, she's talking about the mixed trash sample in that first question and establishes that it was mixed male and female. Then in that last line, the key word is ALSO--that also can't be referring to some other characteristic of the trash pull item as it has already been established it is mixed.

That "also" signifies that there was a 2nd mixed sample in the 5 that have been discussed (A-E) that was a mixed m/f sample too in addition to this unlabelled trash pull item.

I hope that this was less confusing in person in court since there would have been visuals put up on the screen, etc.

At this point I feel like I almost need to assign different colors to different topics and then go back through the transcript and use colored highlighting to track the discussion. I'm about two steps away from becoming the meme of the crazed facial expression guy with the stuff tacked up on the wall with red string.

If someone sees where I missed something, LMK.

"Also a mixed sample" does not indicate male/female mix, just that it was mixed. Could be male/male (or maybe male/dog, male /cat or something if it wasn't specified what the mix was). Jmo of course

 

[katydid23]

That's all true. And as I said in my original post, many different things could have set him off including issues with his assistantship. But expulsion was quite unlikely to be on that list. And the material you provided strongly argues against expulsion being the catalyst. As the material you provided said, he wasn't "fired" until after the semester ended in December. That couldn't have happened if he'd been "expelled" 6 weeks before. And while the material presented from the New York Times emphasized problematic interactions with women based on anonymous sources (material reproduced in the New York Post article), the Times (behind a paywall) reported the university actually found no basis for those anonymous accusations.

Here's another article lifted from the Times article that says that. Bryan Kohberger's behavior toward women investigated weeks before arrest

Even with his assistantship removed, that doesn't mean he was expelled. Not being offered funding in grad school isn't equivalent to being expelled. Some people won't/can't continue their studies without funding, others can and do. It appears though he may have been expelled AFTER his arrest. Because even arrested students have rights under FERPA, the University wouldn't provide details but said he was no longer enrolled. (link above)
MOO

I agree with you that he was not actually expelled before the murders took place.

My point was that he did already know that his job situation was in trouble. He seemed to be going downhill. Like he was in a tailspin because even after his first altercation with his mentor, he did not improve his behaviour. Things continued to spiral.

Maybe this workplace upheaval affected him emotionally or triggered his anger?

 

[MassGuy]

I agree with you that he was not actually spelled before the murders took place.

My point was that he did already know that his job situation was in trouble. He seemed to be going downhill. Like he was in a tailspin because even after his first altercation with his mentor, he did not improve his behaviour. Things continued to spiral.

Maybe this workplace upheaval affected him emotionally or triggered his anger?

If you read about guys who commit crimes like this (serial killers are an apt comparison I think), there’s almost always a precipitating stressor.

Marital problems. Legal problems. Financial problems. Work problems.

His issues with his TA position would have affected him greatly. I can’t imagine that wasn’t his trigger.

 

[wendy44]

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: View attachment 565760

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.

There's no problem here. The FBI conducted the IGG and that led them to believe that BK could be the source of the DNA on the sheath. They could not say it was BK definitely at that point because there had been no trash pull. The FBI just said--whoever left the DNA on that sheath is related to all these other people and based on the family tree we built out, we think it could be BK. It was then up to law enforcement to take that tip and prove or disprove it, which was done and then there was a match.

As far as the other DNA--all we know is at that time it couldn't be loaded into CODIS. They weren't prohibited from developing a profile and comparing it to people and for all we know they did do that. It just couldn't be loaded into CODIS.
JMO

 

[imstilla.grandma]

*possible suspect: intro

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/CR01-24-31665/2025/021925-Order-Defendants-Motion-Suppress-Genetic-Information.pdf

*My understanding is that the FBI concluded that Bryan Kohberger was a possible source of DNA that we should look into

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/CR01-24-31665/2025/022125-Transcript-Redacted-hearing-held-Jan23-2025.pdf

 

[girlhasnoname]

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

Agreed, he absolutely knew he crapped the bed with his TA's job he was just waiting on the official letter, after all that's something the smartest man in any room could reasonably figure out.

JMO

 

[gremlin444]

"Also a mixed sample" does not indicate male/female mix, just that it was mixed. Could be male/male (or maybe male/dog, male /cat or something if it wasn't specified what the mix was). Jmo of course

On page 61, AT establishes the mixed trash pull sample to be male/female
Q. The trash
A. -- the trash pull? I knew there were some mixtures of DNA that were also included
Q. One of the mixtures, did it have a male DNA profile?
A. I believe it did
Q. And wasn't that profile -- the major component of that profile with a minor female?

Her direct comparisons between that sample and sample B imply, IMHO, that it is M/F mix. I suspect if it had been thought to be M/M mix, that would be put forward as evidence of multiple male murderers.

IMO, JMHO, etc.

 

[girlhasnoname]

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

I'm sorry this but this picture of the incredible shrinking BK makes me bust out laughing. Soon enough all you will be able to see is his little pen head and his coiffed eyebrows. Who do they think they are fooling?

AT loves 'word salad' delivered in her special indignant whispery voice. She has had to do some major overhaul with her presentation style to get past Judge Hipss, the man is a beast on details and she has not been used to that from JJJ. (even though I still like him, I'm glad chose to remove himself from the case).

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

If you read about guys who commit crimes like this (serial killers are an apt comparison I think), there’s almost always a precipitating stressor.

Marital problems. Legal problems. Financial problems. Work problems.

His issues with his TA position would have affected him greatly. I can’t imagine that wasn’t his trigger.

Or at least part of it, not forgetting that female students had a list of grievances against BK.

There will be evidence BK knew one or more of those girls, I would put money on it.

JMO

EBM - Added sentence

 

[wendy44]

That is not what that means at all. It means that Othram was following a family tree that could have led and come to BK AND his 97,000 male cousins. Then the correct cousin would have to be narrowed down to the most likely suspects.

This is not true. Othram used two matches who were third cousins to create a family tree, building backwards until the branches each descended from converged. Based on the percentage of DNA shared by those two matches with the profile taken from the sheath, Othram believed the unknown profile descended from a second great grandparent of those two matches.

The next step would be to build out the family tree of that second great grandparent--moving forward in time, filling out all of their descendants. The unknown profile would be somewhere in those descendants. That's not anywhere near 97,000 male cousins. They had started working forward on one of the children of those second great grandparents and would have eventually worked through them all.

Regardless, it's true that AT asked LL if Othram was following a family tree that could have led to BK and LL said yes. The defense and the witness believed Othram was on the right track.

Apparently BK had cousins in Idaho because ISP asked one of them (from a group of 4 brothers) for a DNA sample, which he refused to give.

I'm not sure where this comes from--there's no mention in the transcript that the 4 brothers were in Idaho. Just that they were grandchildren of that common ancestor of the unknown profile and the two matches. They were just part of the tree being built and Othram asked law enforcement to attempt to get their DNA. Every DNA match you have gives you information based on the percentage shared and more profiles entered may have generated more and closer matches. This would have likely continued as they worked on the tree.

It seems BK's DNA was closer to that on the sheath than the group of 4 brothers, but not necessarily the exact match DNA on the sheath per the FBI:

Where does the FBI say BK's DNA is not a match to the DNA on the sheath?

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/CR01-24-31665/2025/022125-Transcript-Redacted-hearing-held-Jan23-2025.pdf

JMO.

JMO