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

[Balthazar]

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.

Yes Unknown Male B from inside of 1122 King Rd was a mixture of male and female DNA in blood on a banister in a house where 4 people were murdered, as we all know 3 of the victims were female. Given the situation, you would think that Unknown Male B DNA would be a high priority to determine what female DNA was included (is it one of the murder victims, a known or an unknown female?) and who Unknown Male B was. JMO.

If Unknown Male B DNA sample contains female DNA from one of the victims, then that puts the Unknown Male B DNA sample in direct contact with one of the murder victims. Instead, it appears that no IGG was done on Unknown Male B DNA sample or the female DNA sample that it was mixed with. Neither appear to have been identified. This is incredibly concerning. Blood DNA evidence is much more reliable evidence than touch/transfer DNA. JMO.

From the beginning of the case, LE has said that this was an "isolated, targeted attack" which usually indicates some kind of OC. IMO, it looks like LE jumped the gun and went for a lone wolf killer solution to this case when that does not appear to be where the evidence was leading them at all. JMO.

And it does not appear that anything was done to remedy this situation, such as doing IGG on Unknown Male B DNA sample or finding out if it was mixed with a victim's DNA. At least no one, not the manager of the lab nor the "lead detective" have said anything about that being done thus far. JMO.

It did come out that unknown Male DNA sample D which was found by CSI on January 20, 2022 were "gloves" not just "glove." JMO.

All MOO.

 

[LinasK]

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.

And that's why IGG is only an investigative tool. When you narrow in on your suspect you always get a fresh DNA swab or sample to corroborate the findings.

 

[wendy44]

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.

I'm not sure what this means. The FBI didn't have BK's DNA so they didn't know if he was closer than the 4 brothers to the DNA on the sheath or not. Is there somewhere in the transcript that says one of the brothers lived in Idaho? It's 175 pages so I admit I could have missed that.

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?

I'm not sure he has any cousins in Idaho--has that been reported somewhere?

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.

They arrested someone whose DNA is a match to the sheath left at the scene of the crime. And we don't know what any of the search warrants have revealed since they're under seal. If they came up empty handed, why so much effort to get it all thrown out?

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.

I don't think the blood on the handrail was mixed. It was called Unknown Male B. There's no indication it was mixed. There was evidence from the trash pull that contained a mix of male and female DNA.

And we don't know what they did with it, just that it wasn't entered into CODIS during that timeframe.

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.

I just don't know how this can be concluded when we've seen so little of the evidence and the investigation after the arrest but that's JMO.

JMO

 

[LinasK]

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.

As we've previously discussed, the blood on the rail and the glove is NOT evidence of a killer. Not at all! And you don't know what isn't leaked, what is held close to the vest about the knife purchases. Investigations are held open up to the point of trial and even during I recently heard someone in LE say.

 

[Arkay]

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.

In all this time since the murders, I’ve personally never found this problematic in the slightest degree.

If you’re a college kid in a house with six of you, and you hear footsteps in the late hours of the night, your first thought is going to be that one of your roommates is running around. You’re not going to automatically assume a mass murderer is on his way up or down the stairs to kill your friends and then escape the house.

Naturally once DM knew what had happened, she would mentally recalibrate what she must have heard.

I feel the same way about Murphy being a non-starter.

He, like the moon and stars, is not going to be able to take the witness stand to describe what he saw. To my mind, he heard his owners screaming, likely smelled copious amounts of blood with his sensitive dog nose when he normally did not smell blood in that house, and was traumatized. He knew something awful was happening and he stayed put in the room.

Maybe a different dog would have gone to explore or defend, but we can never know.

It’s just AT with her non-sticky spaghetti again.

JMO

 

[Balthazar]

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.

Yes Unknown Male B from inside of 1122 King Rd was a mixture of male and female DNA in blood on a banister in a house where 4 people were murdered, as we all know 3 of the victims were female. Given the situation, you would think that Unknown Male B DNA would be a high priority to determine what female DNA was included (is it one of the murder victims, a known or an unknown female?) and who Unknown Male B was. JMO.

If Unknown Male B DNA sample contains female DNA from one of the victims, then that puts the Unknown Male B DNA sample in direct contact with one of the murder victims. Instead, it appears that no IGG was done on Unknown Male B DNA sample or the female DNA sample that it was mixed with. Neither appear to have been identified. This is incredibly concerning. Blood DNA evidence is much more reliable evidence than touch/transfer DNA. JMO.

From the beginning of the case, LE has said that this was an "isolated, targeted attack" which usually indicates some kind of OC. IMO, it looks like LE jumped the gun and went for a lone wolf killer solution to this case when that does not appear to be where the evidence was leading them at all. JMO.

And it does not appear that anything was done to remedy this situation, such as doing IGG on Unknown Male B DNA sample or finding out if it was mixed with a victim's DNA. At least no one, not the manager of the lab nor the "lead detective" have said anything about that being done thus far. JMO.

It did come out that unknown Male DNA sample D which was found by CSI on January 20, 2022 were "gloves" not just "glove." JMO.

All MOO.

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.

But they could still be wrong about what branch.

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.

Every American has an average of 97,000 first through 6th male cousins. JMO.

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.

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.

ISP called one of the brothers to ask for a DNA sample. ISP does not have jurisdiction to do that in another state, only Idaho. So, from that, we can easily conclude that at least one of the brothers lives in Idaho. JMO.

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

JMO

They never said he was a direct match, only that he was someone for BP to look into. Here is AT's question and BP's answer from the hearing:

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

 

[iamshadow21]

I wasn't aware it was stated exactly what source they used to lift (or develop) the latent shoe print. Thanks for the info.

Page five of the PCA.

You're welcome.

 

[wendy44]

Yes Unknown Male B from inside of 1122 King Rd was a mixture of male and female DNA in blood on a banister in a house where 4 people were murdered, as we all know 3 of the victims were female. Given the situation, you would think that Unknown Male B DNA would be a high priority to determine what female DNA was included (is it one of the murder victims, a known or an unknown female?) and who Unknown Male B was. JMO.

If Unknown Male B DNA sample contains female DNA from one of the victims, then that puts the Unknown Male B DNA sample in direct contact with one of the murder victims. Instead, it appears that no IGG was done on Unknown Male B DNA sample or the female DNA sample that it was mixed with. Neither appear to have been identified. This is incredibly concerning. Blood DNA evidence is much more reliable evidence than touch/transfer DNA. JMO.

From the beginning of the case, LE has said that this was an "isolated, targeted attack" which usually indicates some kind of OC. IMO, it looks like LE jumped the gun and went for a lone wolf killer solution to this case when that does not appear to be where the evidence was leading them at all. JMO.

And it does not appear that anything was done to remedy this situation, such as doing IGG on Unknown Male B DNA sample or finding out if it was mixed with a victim's DNA. At least no one, not the manager of the lab nor the "lead detective" have said anything about that being done thus far. JMO.

It did come out that unknown Male DNA sample D which was found by CSI on January 20, 2022 were "gloves" not just "glove." JMO.

All MOO.

The transcript is confusing but it appears to me in that part of the hearing they're referring to Unknown Male B found on lab item 30, possibly a cigarette butt, not to the Unknown Male B blood from the handrail. I think it's not established here that the blood on the handrail was male blood mixed with female blood so we probably shouldn't run with that.
JMO

But they could still be wrong about what branch.

The point was that the witness testified they saw the work and Othram was on the right track and would have been led to BK's name. This clears up any other theories that the defense thought the IGG was very very wrong.
JMO

Every American has an average of 97,000 first through 6th male cousins. JMO.

As the transcript says, they believed the unknown DNA was a second great grandchild of the top of the tree they were building out. You said Othram was following a tree that could have led to BK and his 97,000 cousins. This is far from true.
JMO

ISP called one of the brothers to ask for a DNA sample. ISP does not have jurisdiction to do that in another state, only Idaho. So, from that, we can easily conclude that at least one of the brothers lives in Idaho. JMO.

I don't think that can be concluded. It's actually common for people to seek information in genealogy facebook groups about this--they've supposedly been contacted by law enforcement somewhere in the country that they might be related to someone who committed a crime or is an unidentified victim. They want to know if this is a scam or not. They want to help but they're reluctant because they don't know if it's legit.
JMO

They never said he was a direct match, only that he was someone for BP to look into. Here is AT's question and BP's answer from the hearing:View attachment 565797

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

You said:

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:

They didn't have BK's DNA so, to my knowledge, they never said anything about BK being a closer match than the brothers or that he wasn't an exact match.

JMO

 

[Boxer]

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:

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

Q = AT
A = BP
View attachment 565738
View attachment 565739
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.

Sounds like they made a good choice. Blood DNA was on a bannister between 1st and 2nd floor. Glad they pursued their best lead.

 

[Boxer]

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

That the thing. When a car like yours is all over the areas cameras and you leave your dna on the Mirder weapon's case they focus on you.

 

[Balthazar]

Sounds like they made a good choice. Blood DNA was on a bannister between 1st and 2nd floor. Glad they pursued their best lead.

In any crime scene, blood or bodily fluid DNA is always prioritized over touch/transfer DNA. They clearly did not pursue their best lead and even worse, they ignored what may be the most important leads - blood DNA on the bannister with mixed male and female DNA - that should have been their #1 priority before anything else was done with the gloves just outside the house #2, then the touch/transfer DNA #3. That would have resulted in a much more complete investigation and better picture of what may have happened. And I don't buy BP's excuse for not checking Unknown male DNA 2. CODIS can definitely handle DNA in crimes where there is more than one suspect. JMO.

The victims and families of the victims of this horrid crime deserve justice. That means a full and complete investigation and as far as I can tell, with what has been made public so far, that still has not occurred. That is unacceptable. JMO.

All in IMOO.

 

[MassGuy]

In any crime scene, blood or bodily fluid DNA is always prioritized over touch/transfer DNA. They clearly did not pursue their best lead and even worse, they ignored what may be the most important leads - blood DNA on the bannister with mixed male and female DNA - that should have been their #1 priority before anything else was done with the gloves just outside the house #2, then the touch/transfer DNA #3. That would have resulted in a much more complete investigation and better picture of what may have happened. And I don't buy BP's excuse for not checking Unknown male DNA 2. CODIS can definitely handle DNA in crimes where there is more than one suspect. JMO.

The victims and families of the victims of this horrid crime deserve justice. That means a full and complete investigation and as far as I can tell, with what has been made public so far, that still has not occurred. That is unacceptable. JMO.

All in IMOO.

I'm flabbergasted by this: "They clearly did not pursue their best lead and even worse, they ignored what may be the most important leads."

How can anyone say that with a straight face? That lead led them to BK, a man who owned a white car, who happened to leave his apartment very late at night to go on a drive (just prior to the murders). Who powered down his phone during that drive, and returned after the murders.

Instead of testing the item that the killer absolutely had to touch, you genuinely believe they should have focused their IGG efforts on a spot of blood, that in all likelihood wasn't even related? There was no evidence this killer cut himself, like we've seen at countless crimes on here. No blood mixed with victims, no blood droplets on the floor, nothing.

And focusing on this line: "In any crime scene, blood or bodily fluid DNA is always prioritized over touch/transfer DNA."

What?

Law enforcement focuses on their best evidence, no matter what form that evidence may take. Here it was the sheath, and it's always going to be the sheath (unless the Keystone cops are running the show).

Focusing on the blood over something as relevant as the sheath to the murder weapon, is illogical.

 

[LinasK]

In any crime scene, blood or bodily fluid DNA is always prioritized over touch/transfer DNA. They clearly did not pursue their best lead and even worse, they ignored what may be the most important leads - blood DNA on the bannister with mixed male and female DNA - that should have been their #1 priority before anything else was done with the gloves just outside the house #2, then the touch/transfer DNA #3. That would have resulted in a much more complete investigation and better picture of what may have happened. And I don't buy BP's excuse for not checking Unknown male DNA 2. CODIS can definitely handle DNA in crimes where there is more than one suspect. JMO.

The victims and families of the victims of this horrid crime deserve justice. That means a full and complete investigation and as far as I can tell, with what has been made public so far, that still has not occurred. That is unacceptable. JMO.

All in IMOO.

You don't know what you don 't know regarding their investigation. And the blood on the banister was degraded enough that they couldn't get a full profile. Meaning that it's likely unrelated. Who says that blood evidence carries more weight than fingerprints/touch DNA??? Before DNA was discovered fingerprints solved many crimes. The AFIS system is the equivalent of CODIS for DNA. None of what you posted is exculpatory for Kohlberger. At best, it means he had an accomplice, but that's highly unlikely.

 

[fcavanaugh]

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

RBBM
When there is no meat and potatoes to your argument,
confuse and distract with: word salad.

Just jumping off your post Meg,
Come on now AT, I believe you know exactly what probable cause is and also know LE had more than “one thing”, aka evidence, connecting your client to the crime/scene meeting the bar/standard of probable cause.

IMO AT and company have been/are steering toward LE incompetence/prosecution conspiracy defense which imo is a common defense tactic/strategy when they have nothing substantive/no evidence that helps in the defense of their client aka- defense defending an indefensible client.
Try and say that 3 times fast lol.

There is no evidence of LE incompetence or conspiracy in this case. With all LE agencies involved in the investigation, tips/leads followed up on, a special Grand Jury convened to review evidence and returned indictment, the amount of mega evidence files turned over to the defense, shows LE did their due diligence followed the evidence/corroborating evidence which led to BK.

And we don’t know what else they potentially have on him either as some things remain sealed and investigations are ongoing post arrest, and some things won’t even be revealed until trial. Speaking of which, barring a plea, which I don’t think BK will do/accept,
I expect to be stunned at trial by the totality of evidence LE/the State has amassed against the accused/defendant BK.
Stay tuned.

IMHOO

 

[Boxer]

In any crime scene, blood or bodily fluid DNA is always prioritized over touch/transfer DNA. They clearly did not pursue their best lead and even worse, they ignored what may be the most important leads - blood DNA on the bannister with mixed male and female DNA - that should have been their #1 priority before anything else was done with the gloves just outside the house #2, then the touch/transfer DNA #3. That would have resulted in a much more complete investigation and better picture of what may have happened. And I don't buy BP's excuse for not checking Unknown male DNA 2. CODIS can definitely handle DNA in crimes where there is more than one suspect. JMO.

The victims and families of the victims of this horrid crime deserve justice. That means a full and complete investigation and as far as I can tell, with what has been made public so far, that still has not occurred. That is unacceptable. JMO.

All in IMOO.

The snap of the knife sheath is a very specific place on the carrying case of the murder weapon, it's the place one needs to touch to get the knife out. The sheath was found beneath/by the upstairs victims, at the crime scene.

The bannister is a high touch common area in the party house, and open to every visitor.

 

[gremlin444]

The transcript is confusing but it appears to me in that part of the hearing they're referring to Unknown Male B found on lab item 30, possibly a cigarette butt, not to the Unknown Male B blood from the handrail. I think it's not established here that the blood on the handrail was male blood mixed with female blood so we probably shouldn't run with that.
JMO

Definitely confusing!

A cigarette butt is only mentioned in one place in the transcript, when they are talking about probative comparisons when looking at DNA from a sample that is known to be from a specific person (the cigarette butt that I understand from the last sentences of AT to have been retrieved after someone saw that person smoke and toss it, presumably LE because I don't think they could take a citizen's word as to the source of a tossed cigarette).

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. Do you know what I'm talking about?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Well, I also understand that there was a cigarette butt taken from somebody in connection with the case investigation. Are you familiar with that?
A. I am familiar with that.
Q. And that was compared to the DNA on the knife sheath; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And that was found to be excludable; am I using that word right?
A. It was an exclusion, correct.
Q. So you compared something that was taken from somebody to an item of evidence; is that right?
A. Something that was a secondary reference, as in someone identified it as they saw that person using that item, they saw that person dispose of that item. That item was collected and used as a reference sample from that person because there was someone who said that is from that person.

It sounds like you feel like there are separate profile Bs--one from the railing in Moscow and one from the trash pull.

Dad's DNA profile from the trash pull is labelled E. If the lettering starts over for each location (Moscow house vs PA house vs BK's WA apt etc) and B is naming the mixed trash pull item's profile, then we have to assume there are also profile's A, C, and D from the trash pull. But they are never mentioned.

 

[wendy44]

Definitely confusing!

A cigarette butt is only mentioned in one place in the transcript, when they are talking about probative comparisons when looking at DNA from a sample that is known to be from a specific person (the cigarette butt that I understand from the last sentences of AT to have been retrieved after someone saw that person smoke and toss it, presumably LE because I don't think they could take a citizen's word as to the source of a tossed cigarette).

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. Do you know what I'm talking about?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Well, I also understand that there was a cigarette butt taken from somebody in connection with the case investigation. Are you familiar with that?
A. I am familiar with that.
Q. And that was compared to the DNA on the knife sheath; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And that was found to be excludable; am I using that word right?
A. It was an exclusion, correct.
Q. So you compared something that was taken from somebody to an item of evidence; is that right?
A. Something that was a secondary reference, as in someone identified it as they saw that person using that item, they saw that person dispose of that item. That item was collected and used as a reference sample from that person because there was someone who said that is from that person.

It sounds like you feel like there are separate profile Bs--one from the railing in Moscow and one from the trash pull.

Dad's DNA profile from the trash pull is labelled E. If the lettering starts over for each location (Moscow house vs PA house vs BK's WA apt etc) and B is naming the mixed trash pull item's profile, then we have to assume there are also profile's A, C, and D from the trash pull. But they are never mentioned.

I'm not really sure because it would make more sense to remain consistent and not have a profile B at the scene and a profile B at the trash pull, etc.-- so I think you're probably right here. Sometimes when someone doesn't remember something the way she described it, she would describe it a different way. For example she asked Brett Payne about profile B and he didn't know what that was so she described it as the blood spot from the handrail. It's not clear to me in the above exchange if she was moving on from Male B found on Lab Item 30 or more fully describing what this was to the witness. She said, "I also understand" but sometimes she does that when she's trying to ask a question a different way. But I think you're right and she was probably moving on.

It may be that the profile pulled from the handrail was mixed, but we don't know for sure unless there's some other evidence because the witness from the lab testified that she didn't know if Male B was a mixture.

I think the only reason AT cared whether something was a mixture was because the mixed sample from the trash pull wasn't tested for reasons outlined by the witness--and she needed BK's DNA to show up in that trash pull so he had standing to challenge. If she was asking about the profile B being a mixture, it was to demonstrate that there was something else that was a mixture and was tested, why not the sample from the trash probe.
JMO

 

[Megnut]

Iiuc mixed samples don't always yield profiles.

Without a full profile, there's nothing TO submit to a database.

Do we even know if the handrail and glove yielded workable DNA?

JMO

 

[jepop]

I wonder what the new D conspiracies will be now that the whole IGG stuff got shot down. It was all based on the idea BK was fitted up via the IGG.

what now?

MOO

You would hope haha...but, well I think there will be a picking over and some poetic licence type interpretations/readings of the redacted transcript. Some of this imo will fuel some conspiracy theories anew! My opinion only.

I'm completely happy at this point to stick to furthering my understanding of Judge Hippler's reasoning as regards the IGG and the DNA in general. Based on reason and logic and comprehensive understanding of law, he found the investigation/evidence legitimate. Jmo

No suppression, no Franks hearing. No evidence of deception, no evidence that there was not an abundance of legitimate probable cause for BK''s arrest. And all the warrants obtained in the investigation of him. Good.

To me personally, the rest is noise until the evidentiary hearings and then trial. Jmo

ETA some general thoughts.

I've always thought this was a superb investigation from the get go. Before and after BK was identified. Defense will not have much scope imo for arguing tunnel vision. To me the multiplicity of both pre and post BK warrants alone, show that MPD, FBI and ISP were pursuing all possible leads.

And I feel like repeating; DM did so well to remember what she did and consistently state as such in interviews!. I feel like Judge Hippler confirmed this when he so effectively shot down defense's challenges to her evidence. Good.

 

[Charlot123]

Exactly, and I've thought about this recently because I have this random desire to touch items when I'm shopping in a brick-and-mortar store. Now if that item is ever shoplifted or used in a crime, I'm implicated simply because I touched it?

I think that the item would have others’ DNAs on it. However, the fact that only BK’s DNA was lifted from the sheath and it was touch DNA is a little bit suspicious. Think of the opposite situation, like leaving your pen at the crime scene. It would contain your DNA, but potentially, these of the people in your household, your work, your bank.

Now, just one spot of touch DNA, and only yours, at the place where the pen is usually held, would be suspicious. It is as if someone bothered to remove other potential sources before lifting yours. Or more likely, cleared all and transferred yours on one spot. It is not difficult to do. When did BK buy the knife on Amazon?

Someone can buy exactly the same later.
Technically, handling of such purchase would assume, the sellers’/packagers’ DNA on the sheath.

Then all DNA is removed, period. Isopropyl alcohol, acetone, any strong solvent.

Any of BK’s things he routinely uses (the collar of his clothes, etc) can be a source of DNA.