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

[joe jones]

And they didn't leave any trace except for BK's?

What they wiped it throughly but carefully left BK's hidden where it might be missed?

It's out of the realm, imo.

There's no indication or evidence we know of that another person had access to BK's private space beside BK so stolen, borrowed or found its unlikely, imo.

And think about it wouldn't the defense be yelling BK said he lost it! It was stolen! It was borrowed!

Why would they not be saying that?

Becouse they have no one to pin it on. There is not a second stranger DNA on the sheath.

It dead ends at BK.

all imo

I beg to differ, BK DNÀ is on one thing, a portable item, which in theory could be carried by anybody, I don't know how BK took care of his possessions, so I can't say if he has ever lost or mislaid items, but it is a possibility, the DNÀ in blood on the bannister is a fixed sample, the DNA on the knife sheaf in theory could have been carried into the home by anybody including BK, but all the DNA on the sheaf speaks to at present if the FIGG analysis remains is that at some point BK touches the sheaf, the state then has to walk BK into the home carrying the sheaf to the exclusion of anybody else and IMO leaving unknown untested DNA allows SODDI

 

[MassGuy]

How many motions to compel have you seen succeed, I know I haven't seen many, and I have different opinions in that it is an easy thing for state to do, they have the lab, they have the scientists, it's two simple DNA tests, I think they are choosing for whatever reason not to do the tests, leaving the defence a third party defence with evidence of at least one of not two possible SODDI
And BK is at present innocent so I hope the defence blusters as much as the big bad wolf

Lol. This is the same defense team to tried to have the IGG thrown out, and filed to have a Frank's hearing. There was almost zero chance of either, but they tried. If they wanted this stuff tested, they would have filed something. My guess is they haven't, because it's already been tested. And again, they absolutely don't want to know that answer. That's a door you want open.

 

[joe jones]

Lol. This is the same defense team to tried to have the IGG thrown out, and filed to have a Frank's hearing. There was almost zero chance of either, but they tried. If they wanted this stuff tested, they would have filed something. My guess is they haven't, because it's already been tested. And again, they absolutely don't want to know that answer. That's a door you want open.

It's not been tested which is why they have unknown samples, and I want that door open, as should the state, this is relating to the horrific murder of 4 people I would expect everything that is available to be tested tested, I would hope they would leave nothing to chance,

 

[fcavanaugh]

I have no doubt. I'm getting flashbacks to the lack of a rape kit in the Delphi case. Of course it was done.

Yes absolutely. I’m also getting flashbacks to the rando glovebox DNA in the Morphew case. Remember the BMorphew Defense team blustering on and on during judicial hearings about that nothingburger glovebox DNA in Suzanne’s vehicle only to find out later LE did in fact have the glovebox DNA tested and ruled it out as having nothing to do with the crime/Suzanne's murder.

We’ve followed a lot of cases and this Defense tactic/strategy is nothing new by any means. SMDH.

IMHOO

 

[gremlin444]

If they don't want it tested then they are doing everything within there power to get it tested,
AT brings it up at every opportunity, it would take little effort on behalf of the state to test the glove and blood on bannister, it will look worse for the state of they get to trial and the defence can say whose DNA is this inside home, oh and also whose DNA is outside, takes some of the shine of BK DNA being found on an object that in theory AN other person than BK could have carried into the home, BK DNA is on portable object that anybody could have carried into the crime scene, the blood on the bannister was deposited by someone actively bleeding,

The defense is 100% allowed, per the American Bar Association's info, to request the DNA samples and have them tested themselves.

I know that I haven't seen any motions filed by the defense to do this.

If they are so convinced that the DNA in either of these two samples could prove their client innocent, why didn't they file a motion over a year ago to do this? Why aren't they filing a motion now? It can't be because they are worried that if they file it, they will be immediately turned down--they've had no problems filing things with both judges that were obvious no-gos. If every long shot is what could contain the evidence needed to exonerate their client, then why weren't they filing to be allowed to test those samples themselves over a year ago??

"Upon motion, made with notice to the prosecution, a court should permit the defense to inspect and test DNA evidence in the prosecution’s possession or control."

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/criminal_justice/resources/standards/dna-evidence/

 

[Balthazar]

I diagree that's all. They had the important evidence, the other DNA was to be expected, some random DNA on a high touch area.
And in this case an area peripheral to the crime scene.
If the defense wanted to, they could have/still can engage CC Moore or other to do a genealogocal work up of the sample.

IF they could get evidence from the prosecution, the defense could have it tested, but then the prosecution would claim the tests were wrong/biased. And it is obvious that the prosecution does not want to share any DNA evidence with the defense. What the defense has been able to get, has only been through force via the judges in this case deciding what they can have. JMO.

That entire house was a crime scene with the exception of DM and BF's rooms, perhaps - and we don't even know that for certain, yet. Blood on a bannister is strong evidence because it had to have been deposited in the house and logically was deposited at the time of the crime. Blood on gloves found by CSI just outside the residence is also strong evidence because someone wore those gloves and bled on them. I would expect that the gloves would not only contain the unknown male blood DNA but also touch/trace evidence and even blood possibly of the victims. If both are present, then it is likely the gloves were used in commission of the crimes. JMO.

Touch/trace DNA could have gotten onto that sheath anywhere, anytime and have nothing to do with the crime at all. JMO.

The killer or killers had to enter and leave somehow - either via the back door or the front door or a window. There may have been one point of ingress and a second point of egress or even 2 or more points of ingress and and 2 or more points of egress. We have no real way of knowing where the killer or killers went in 1122. Early in the case LE admitted they didn't know the point of entry or exit. They can only go off of what DM and BF told them but it seems DM isn't sure what happened at all. JMO.

Unknown male DNA B and D could help prove this case against BK IF it turns out that B and D are people BK knew. But we have a complete lack of information about these two critical pieces of evidence. JMO.

I believe it cost around $11,000 to run the IGG on the touch/transfer DNA on the sheath. Financially, another $22,000 to do IGG on these other 2 DNA's is a whole lot cheaper than being sued for millions by the families of the victims and a potentially falsely accused person, if it should come to that. JMO.

JMOO.

 

[gremlin444]

IF they could get evidence from the prosecution, the defense could have it tested, but then the prosecution would claim the tests were wrong/biased. And it is obvious that the prosecution does not want to share any DNA evidence with the defense. What the defense has been able to get, has only been through force via the judges in this case deciding what they can have. JMO.

And the process by which the defense can get those blood samples is by filing a motion to the judge, not by asking the prosecution or asking the public to make the prosecution give it to them. It has nothing to do with what the prosecution wants or doesn't want. If either Judge Judge or Hippler had gotten a motion and approved it, the prosecution would have been ordered to turn it over.

No such motion has been filed. There is nothing listed in the case file that could be that kind of of motion.

 

[Balthazar]

<modsnip: personalizing>

"The case amounts to touch/transfer DNA which has not even been identified as belonging to BK. This is NOT a strong case based upon what we know so far. JMO.

PS: You are forgetting to put JMO after your statements."

When I say my opinion it is clear. When mentioning established fact it is not my opinion. It is a FACT that BK's DNA was identified as being on the sheath, with a probability of 5 plus quadrillion to one.

The FBI did not do that confirmation testing, so they could not possibly say BK's DNA was on that sheath. You are making it sound like the FBI is saying BK's DNA is not on the sheath, which is NOT what they are saying.

I have directly quoted exactly what the lead detective, BP, said the FBI told him in the Jan 23, 2025 hearing: Q = AT, A=BP:



You are saying what I have shown you is false. What is false about it? Are you saying the BP was lying during the hearing?

 

[Kudzuu]

The thing is AT’s defense is, if I may quote, ".... full of sound and fury: signifying nothing."

MO with the help of Shakespeare.

 

[gremlin444]

Oddly enough, the transcript also includes scientific reasoning and definitions from Rylene Nowlin, lab manager for ISP in regards to how you do or don't identify a DNA match. She SPECIFICALLY states why you can't say "yes, that is BK's DNA on the sheath." Probative comparisons--proving something is the source--MUST be issued in the form of a statistic. Period.

pgs 66-67

A: If there is -- so it's not black and white. So if it is a single source and we can look at it and say that that person is excluded, they are not the source of the DNA, then yes, that can be done manual; and by manual, I mean a person looking at it. If it is a probative comparison -- and how we define a probative comparison is if it's saying something about who could be the source of the DNA on an item of evidence that's relevant to the case, then no, we do not do a manual comparison and issue a statement about that because all of our standards, we have to issue a statistic so that the trier of fact has something to gauge how unique that could be, what is the likelihood that that DNA could be from someone else. We provide that statistic; we don't just say it matches. That requires a statistical calculation which we use a probabilistic genotyping software to do.

 

[fcavanaugh]

I beg to differ, BK DNÀ is on one thing, a portable item, which in theory could be carried by anybody, I don't know how BK took care of his possessions, so I can't say if he has ever lost or mislaid items, but it is a possibility, the DNÀ in blood on the bannister is a fixed sample, the DNA on the knife sheaf in theory could have been carried into the home by anybody including BK, but all the DNA on the sheaf speaks to at present if the FIGG analysis remains is that at some point BK touches the sheaf, the state then has to walk BK into the home carrying the sheaf to the exclusion of anybody else and IMO leaving unknown untested DNA allows SODDI

Respectfully, I believe you may be forgetting or perhaps not aware? that there is other corroborating evidence implicating BK besides just his single source 5 octillionzillion DNA on the sheath:
his white Elantra on surveillance circling the home before the murders and quickly exiting the area after the murders occured;
had his phone off during the murder window; returned to/drove by the crime scene later that morning.

Not to mention his laughable alibi that he was driving around stargazing at the time in question while his phone was off and his vehicle is on camera circling the house (before going in for the kill imo) and exiting area right after.
An alibi that falls apart the minute it’s scrutinized aka non-valid/fake alibi, which my guess is why his DT decided not to go with an affirmative alibi defense of BK.

This is how circumstantial cases work, not just focus on one piece of evidence in a vacuum but building blocks of pieces of evidence upon which LE follows their best leads via investigation which either rules out people/poi’s and/or leads them to the prime suspect.

We don’t know the half of what LE and the State have against BK and we won’t know until trial. And like I said in a previous post, I personally am expecting to be stunned by the totality of evidence the state has against the accused defendant BK.

IMHOO

ETA-clarity

 

[Arkay]

Considering this is the first time IGG has been used in a current case that is impossible.

SBM

I’m not following your meaning here.

IGG has been used in multiple cases. Each was current at the time.

One of the earliest and most prominent uses of IGG was in capturing the Golden State Killer.

IMO, IGG is a miracle.

How Genetic Genealogy Helped Catch The Golden State Killer

Joseph DeAngelo murdered 13 people and thought he had gotten away with it — until genetic genealogy was used to identify him as The Golden State Killer.

www.forbes.com

 

[gremlin444]

RE: location of the handrail DNA

Quoting AT again, pg 18

"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 is nothing if not precise in her language. The handrail is the railing that is mounted on the WALL going down the stairs to the first floor, aka BETWEEN the second and first floor. The wood trim on top of the half wall at the top of the stairs is NOT a handrail, not in common parlance and not in construction parlance.

The only significance DNA on that railing would have would be if there was any evidence of exit or entry through the first floor door, short of testimony by DM that she heard something on those those stairs or outside her room. We know from Hippler that the sliding glass door on the 2nd floor was open. If that 1st floor door was found unlocked by the girls when they left the house at noon the next day, you can bet AT would be presenting that as proof that the intruder exited or entered there. From what Hippler seems to state, she has not. And it's a far stretch of the imagination to think that an intruder coming in that way (which would would require Xana to leave it unlocked after picking up DoorDash) would the politely lock the door behind themselves before proceeding to go upstairs.

 

[Charlot123]

It shows BK was aware of one or more of them, plus his 12 drive by trips of the house from August up to the murders made usually late at night. Not just a coincidence, and I don't believe he was just out stargazing in their location.

There will be a connection (stalking IMO) by BK to this house or occupant(s) shown in court. The D can word salad it any way they want pretrial, and the State can keep their information close to the vest. The trial will reveal the whole story.

JMO

I hope one can assume. I strongly suspect that he was probably buying drugs in the neighborhood. I can't shed the phrase said by the police before BK was even identified, "maybe the house was attacked?" I didn't know what to make of it then. In short - I can't discount BK for one reason. When I saw his photo for the first time, I was not surprised. I expected someone like it. (This being said - I bet Pappa Roger is a troll and BK was not involved in discussions). But by posting his questionnaires and seeking criminals online, BK made himself vulnerable. So I feel he joined someone. JMO, of course.

 

[Rolypolyoly]

I have directly quoted exactly what the lead detective, BP, said the FBI told him in the Jan 23, 2025 hearing: Q = AT, A=BP:
View attachment 565984
View attachment 565985

You are saying what I have shown you is false. What is false about it? Are you saying the BP was lying during the hearing?

<modsnip: personalizing>

To be clear, AT is trying to trip up BP, she wanted him to say that the FBI DID say it was BK DNA, because then she could have got the DNA thrown out, because there is no way the FBI could have known and confirmed it was his DNA, because they hadn't tested it! The FBI had no access to BK DNA, at any point. Nobody did until he was arrested and swabbed!.
Now, this next point is very important and I think most of us get it, THE DEFENCE IS NOT DISPUTING THAT IT IS KOHBERGERS DNA ON THE SHEATH. They know it is, they agree it is, the judge even said in open court that it is, and furthermore, if it wasn't his DNA, we wouldn't be here, going round in bloody circles discussing it because there would be no case.

These are known facts, but just to be thorough, also MOO.

As for the glove, wasn't that found over a week later, outside the property? Do we know what kind of glove? Because a woollen glove outside on a snowy day is much less suspicious than a latex one, and as it was found later is much more likely to have been lost by some looky lou creeping about to get a look at the murder house, and the blood could be easily explained by a hang nail snagging on a bit of fabric! I've seen no reference so far to a blood soaked glove that might indicate a cut caused by a knife.
Again, JMO.

 

[jepop]

<modsnip: personalizing>

To be clear, AT is trying to trip up BP, she wanted him to say that the FBI DID say it was BK DNA, because then she could have got the DNA thrown out, because there is no way the FBI could have known and confirmed it was his DNA, because they hadn't tested it.

Respectfully snipped .

Moo. You have it right, that is exactly what AT was doing, trying to trip up BP into saying the FBI knew it was BK's DNA at the time they conducted the IGG. Moo, the OP has misunderstood this part of the hearing in transcript.

Reading the tea leaves and all that.

Jmo

 

[jepop]

How many motions to compel have you seen succeed, I know I haven't seen many, and I have different opinions in that it is an easy thing for state to do, they have conducting IGGthe lab, they have the scientists, it's two simple DNA tests, I think they are choosing for whatever reason not to do the tests, leaving the defence a third party defence with evidence of at least one of not two possible SODDI
And BK is at present innocent so I hope the defence blusters as much as the big bad wolf

Conducting IGG on random samples not likely left by putative perpetrator? And IGG is hardly a simple DNA test. Building out complex family trees of randoms when the state has identified the DNA of a suspect on a knife sheathe found under a murder victim with that victim's blood from their stab wounds having flowed onto the sheathe? Jmo

 

[wendy44]

According to the transcript, the defense did their own independent testing of a sample from the trash pull. So there's no indication that if they requested, they would not be allowed to do their own independent testing if they wanted to. It's clear they had been able to.
JMO

 

[jepop]

According to the transcript, the defense did their own independent testing of a sample from the trash pull. So there's no indication that if they requested, they would not be allowed to do their own independent testing if they wanted to. It's clear they had been able to.
JMO

Yes, as I recall the state helped facilitate that testing. Will look for the order or motion from the triple J days where this is stated. Moo

 

[wendy44]

SBM

The FBI NEVER said its was BK's DNA.

Of course they didn't. They didn't have BK's DNA.