4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #101

[Justice101]

I totally agree. An unknown male blood source on that sheath is, to be honest, exculpatory in a sense. Or at least implies someone else was in the house and handled that knife (if this is a recent enough sample). AT would've been fighting this from the jump if that was the case. Moo

But was she given this information in discovery back months ago?

 

[Boxer]

Logically this is probably the 3rd unknown male DNA AT has talked about since early in the case. She never said where unknown male C was in the Jan. 23-24 2025 hearings or any hearing prior other than that it was inside the house. We know B was on the bannister and we know D was in the gloves found outside on Jan. 20, 2022 by CSI. So, the sheath would make sense as source C.

The defense has the resources to test these samples if they wish.

The glove was found by a youtuber and has MOO no value as evidence.

 

[Odeto BJ]

They did a DNA test on it which shows if it is XY or XX. Why would they test it against BK IF it was female DNA? That wouldn't make sense. So obviously its must have been XY and it's not BK and I'm going to say I don't think it could be EC because they would have done a DNA test on him for exclusionary purposes and well as on all female victims for exclusionary purposes. This is a mixture that includes male DNA in blood on the sheath that does not match BK.

AT is quite the wordsmith. We already know the Court had to extend the minimum volume for a motion submittal, and in the same sentence, extended it to 20 pages...apparently to ensure there was a predetermined limit before the freewheeling novel got submitted. JMO
We will not know what actual comparisons were made until we see the lab reports. The exclusion of BK as contributor to the mixture can be a result of either: there is no XY; or the DNA data was exclusionary of BK.
I would believe that if there were an alternate male DNA sample mixed with blood of the victims and it was NOT either BK or EC, AT would be pursuing the Court to direct it to be run through CODIS and IGG...very vigorously. As in, screaming and ranting. Instead the paragraph concludes that the State needs to establish the "when and how" of the skin DNA from the snap. All thats an opinion only because the language of the submittal leaves it indeterminant, I would opine that was by design.
That, plus the thoroughly discussed content of the PCA (singular male profile...) convinces me that the stain on the sheath either contains EC's biomaterial or no male biomaterial. Should it be EC, it is indicative of the order of the attack and not much more. If there's no male DNA and considering where the sheath was found, the only significance I perceive is that the specific character of the biomaterial itself could contravene those theorists that suggest the sheath was planted by LE. All JMO.

 

[jepop]

Logically this is probably the 3rd unknown male DNA AT has talked about since early in the case. She never said where unknown male C was in the Jan. 23-24 2025 hearings or any hearing prior other than that it was inside the house. We know B was on the bannister and we know D was in the gloves found outside on Jan. 20, 2022 by CSI. So, the sheath would make sense as source C.

I disagree. I think that is highly illogical and actually not possible; because it would have formed part of defense's arguments at Franks. We know from the hearings, the 23rd Jan transcript and Judge Hippler's order that this was not the case. IMO this will prove to be a mixture of the victim's blood. That makes the most sense and is the most reasonable explanation. Jmo

 

[mrjitty]

View attachment 568637
It WAS DNA tested so they know it is male and they know it is not BK.

1. Nowhere does it say the sample includes a male
2. Nowhere does it say the mixed contributors are not identified.
3. Nowhere does it say it was tested against BK

All it says is BK was excluded as a contributor.

IMO

 

[mrjitty]

I disagree. I think that is highly illogical and actually not possible; because it would have formed part of defense's arguments at Franks. We know from the hearings, the 23rd Jan transcript and Judge Hippler's order that this was not the case. IMO this will prove to be a mixture of the victim's blood. That makes the most sense and is the most reasonable explanation. Jmo

Agreed. This is not possible, in my opinion. I bet the contributors are also known. AT does not say they are unknown, for a reason, if we have to get into finely dicing her words.

 

[Megnut]

1. Nowhere does it say the sample includes a male
2. Nowhere does it say the mixed contributors are not identified.
3. Nowhere does it say it was tested against BK

All it says is BK was excluded as a contributor.

IMO

Exactly.

And as it necessarily would be if it's a mixture of female blood.

No need to compare it to BK's DNA. It can't match.

JMO

 

[Swansee]

Because there is touch DNA from BK on the sheath that was lying under a victim?

My bad, I guess I phrased it wrong.
The recent Defense motion is to exclude any reference to the words "touch DNA" or "transfer DNA" when discussing the DNA on the knife sheath. In this motion they're not arguing against the use of the sheath DNA itself, just to the term "touch" or "transfer" to qualify it.
I find this really odd since IMO this is something I would expect from the State, not the Defense, and I really wonder how the Defense think it would benefit them. IMO qualifying the DNA as "only" touch was something that would be advantageous to the Defense, as it opened the door for many ways BK's DNA could have ended up in the sample, as has been discussed in these threads a thousand times.
So for them to now want to exclude that terminology is very weird to me.

 

[jepop]

Agreed. This is not possible, in my opinion. I bet the contributors are also known. AT does not say they are unknown, for a reason, if we have to get into finely dicing her words.

Yes, I agree the contributors to the sheathe blood are likely already known by all parties. Imo the standard ISL reports (unrelated to IGG) were discovered in 2023. Motions to Compel 3 and 5 were IGG related from memory (MTC x3 also covered unknown male samples in the house (NOT on the sheathe)). MTC 4 was related to cell and video data imo.

And you are dead right, AT does not say the contributors of the blood on the sheathe are unknown.

Other than correcting unfounded assumptions, I'm so not into this slicing and dicing of AT's words and then picking up the pieces to create what reads as a factual narrative but is in reality a story choco block full of holes and assumptions, IMO.

 

[MassGuy]

Logically this is probably the 3rd unknown male DNA AT has talked about since early in the case. She never said where unknown male C was in the Jan. 23-24 2025 hearings or any hearing prior other than that it was inside the house. We know B was on the bannister and we know D was in the gloves found outside on Jan. 20, 2022 by CSI. So, the sheath would make sense as source C.

There's absolutely zero chance of that.

If they had unknown male DNA on the sheath, she's not talking about a random blood drop on a railing the killer wouldn't have passed. She's not talking about blood in some glove found outside.

She's not just talking about unidentified male blood DNA on the sheath, she's screaming about it. She's repeating it in every filing and making sure the world knows about it.

This is her single best piece of exculpatory evidence to obtain a Frank's hearing, and she leaves it out?!

Please explain to me how that is in anyway logical.

 

[wendy44]

I agree Wendy

I've noted over recent weeks that you can't imply the existence of evidence based on something counsel doesn't say but supposedly implies. Remember when AT supposedly exposed the deception of the car expert in the deposition when she never actually put such a contention to the witness, then we discovered she knew the truth of it all along?

If she had an email showing how law enforcement had colluded with the FBI car expert she would have put it to the witness in the depo. That is the whole point of doing the depo.

I'd counsel against such fine slicing of words in oral argument. I can't recall a time where such an approach actually predicted the existence of evidence the D was hiding up it's sleeve.

IMO counsel simply does not do this if she has the actual evidence. As you say it would be in her motions if potentially exculpatory DNA evidence of someone else was on the murder weapon sheath.

MOO

One of the latest filings has another example of this.

The State's Motion In Limine RE: AT&T Timing Advance Records asks the court to prohibit the defense from making any reference to the absence of AT&T Timing Advance Records.

The State brings this motion based on defense counsels’ repeated references to the alleged existence of AT&T Timing Advance Records related to Defendant’s cell phone.

The State has been advised, and will offer documentation and/or testimony, that AT&T records are produced by their Global Legal Demand Center (GLDC). AT&T GLDC did not begin producing timing advance records until May 2023. All records for Defendant’s phone were obtained from GLDC in December 2022.

Any statements or inferences by defense counsel or their witnesses that there is additional evidence that could have been provided, or was not provided, is a mischaracterization of the evidence and should not be allowed. Under I.R.E. 403 any probative value of such evidence is outweighed by the danger of misleading the jury, undue delay, and waste of time.

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/CR01-24-31665/2025/022425-States-Motion-inLimine-RE-ATT-Timing-Advance-Records.pdf

I continue to be puzzled by any idea this defense team hasn't investigated every single shred of evidence--there is no unknown DNA sitting out there they're just wishing the prosecution had looked into, but, oh well, no big deal, hope that wasn't exculpatory. This is a team that did their own DNA testing on the trash pull so they could establish standing to contest the trash pull.

We've seen no testimony or report that male DNA other than BK was found on the sheath, much less male blood, so this shouldn't be stated as fact.
JMO

 

[Odeto BJ]

I disagree. I think that is highly illogical and actually not possible; because it would have formed part of defense's arguments at Franks. We know from the hearings, the 23rd Jan transcript and Judge Hippler's order that this was not the case. IMO this will prove to be a mixture of the victim's blood. That makes the most sense and is the most reasonable explanation. Jmo

Yep!

1. Nowhere does it say the sample includes a male
2. Nowhere does it say the mixed contributors are not identified.
3. Nowhere does it say it was tested against BK

All it says is BK was excluded as a contributor.

IMO

Exactly.

And it heads from there to "establish the pedigree of the sample" that has proven to be BK. How and when the sample got under the snap...
The judge has made it clear: in terms of relevance, there is nothing to debate about how the sheath got to be, where it was found.

JMO

 

[Ghostwheel]

The blood sample was DNA tested.
It does raise questions about order.
JMO

The D has brought up A (sheath), B (railing), and D (gloves).
JMO

It doesn't belong to BK because he was excluded.
JMO



The above mixture in your post is referring to the trash pull mixture (BKs DNA).

The sheath:
An area identified as Q1.4, “swabs of stains on back” of the sheath, tested presumptively positive for blood and was DNA tested. Mr. Kohberger was excluded from this particular sample which was identified as a mixture (ISP Lab Report M2022-4843, #4).

Page 10

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/CR01-24-31665/2025/022425-Defense-Motion-inLimine-6-RE-Rylene-Nowlin-Reference-Touch-Contact-DNA.pdf

There was blood on the back of the sheath.
It was DNA tested.
It was a mixture.
BK was excluded.

RN IGG transcript pg 76

So on this item I believe there was also blood, so they would have been targeting that separate and then also trying to determine who may have handled that, so they would have specifically honed in on an area that whoever handled it would have had to have touched and maybe touched repeatedly.

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

JMO

OK, confirmed, it does not say specifically that there is any male DNA in the mixture from the sheath. I will wait patiently to see what the facts are for that one.

 

[wendy44]

My bad, I guess I phrased it wrong.
The recent Defense motion is to exclude any reference to the words "touch DNA" or "transfer DNA" when discussing the DNA on the knife sheath. In this motion they're not arguing against the use of the sheath DNA itself, just to the term "touch" or "transfer" to qualify it.
I find this really odd since IMO this is something I would expect from the State, not the Defense, and I really wonder how the Defense think it would benefit them. IMO qualifying the DNA as "only" touch was something that would be advantageous to the Defense, as it opened the door for many ways BK's DNA could have ended up in the sample, as has been discussed in these threads a thousand times.
So for them to now want to exclude that terminology is very weird to me.

My reading of this filing is that the defense believes using the terms "touch" or "contact" is misleading because it implies that the DNA must have been deposited there by direct touch or contact rather than other ways that don't require the direct touch or contact of the defendant on the snap.
JMO

 

[ag513]

The mixture would be self excluding if it's female, so this does not mean they know it's male. Remember, this is a defense filing, and they've done nothing but mislead.

If it is male DNA though, it can only be Ethan's.

@Megnut beat me to it.

It seems like you're making a lot of assumptions to say it could only be Ethan's. If it's male DNA, could it be the blood of an accomplice that we don't know about? Could it be blood that was left on the sheath before these murders were committed - i.e., did BK kill someone else with that knife before these murders? I can see several possibilities other than it being Ethan's DNA. Again, this is all assuming it was male DNA. JMO

 

[MassGuy]

It seems like you're making a lot of assumptions to say it could only be Ethan's. If it's male DNA, could it be the blood of an accomplice that we don't know about? Could it be blood that was left on the sheath before these murders were committed - i.e., did BK kill someone else with that knife before these murders? I can see several possibilities other than it being Ethan's DNA. Again, this is all assuming it was male DNA. JMO

Not assumptions, rock solid logic.

We know it cannot be from an unidentified male, because it would be the defense's biggest piece of evidence. They would have used this in countless arguments, to include their Frank's motion. There is no universe where unidentified male blood was found alongside that touch DNA on the sheath, and it's not mentioned.

So the only possibilities are that there is NO male blood on that sheath, or it's Ethan's

And if it's Ethan's, it changes the way the killings went down, and almost certainly the order.

My belief is that there is no male DNA on that sheath though.

 

[Balthazar]

The defense has the resources to test these samples if they wish.

The glove was found by a youtuber and has MOO no value as evidence.

AT is talking about a glove which was found on Nov. 20, 2022 by CSI, NOT the glove found by the YouTuber on Nov. 28, 2022. Totally different glove or gloves - at the last hearing, they were described as "gloves." I've provided links to this information previously.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

I suspect y'all have already discussed these; however I am way behind w/reading and sorting through docs.
Needed to bring it up! Were these filed because he's a psychopath, sociopath, murderer w/bushy eyebrows and a certain murder weapon... just saying... moo
I dont recall such frivolous filings; and Im sure there are more to be had.

2/24/2025

Motion seeks to bar the use of the terms “psychopath” and "sociopath.”

Prohibiting use of the words “murder,” “murderer,” “murdered,” “murder weapon,” and similar forms of the word “murder” applied to BK during the trial of this matter.

Excluding any evidence referencing “bushy eyebrows."

• Defense Motion in Limine #3 RE Use of the Term Murder
• Defense Motion in Limine #4 RE Using the Terms Psychopath or Sociopath
• Defense Motion in Limine #7 RE Witness Identification by Bushy Eyebrows

State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger

Well, these motions are a bit laughable.
It is after all, a murder trial! What does the defense team suggest they use instead?
The fact that they are filing these silly things just makes BK look more guilty in my mistake.

 

[fcavanaugh]

Oh, that makes very good sense. Had never thought of mixed blood sample.. .which is entirely possible/probable. Liquids coalesce into one. Great logic and what might jsut be the D's legalese and doublespeak.

Looks like the D is just trying to manipulate / confuse future potential jurors?

RBBM above. Yes agree, imo AKA D’s word salad used to confuse, misrepresent, misdirect, send up smoke and mirrors etc. An all too common D strategy in defense of an indefensible client.

To further elaborate/jump off your post, in this case the D has a client whose DNA is on a portion of a knife sheath which imo reasonably and logically held the murder weapon used to slaughter these precious 4 victims and which was found next to victim MM in her literal bed; car that looks just like his on video surveillance circling/looping just prior to the massacre and speeding away after; phone off during murder window; witness description that doesn’t exclude their client; digital data showing client made 11-12 trips to area of murder house for several months leading up to the murders; and digital data which shows client drove back to said area later on the morning of the massacre; and last but not least, client has no valid/verifiable alibi for the murder window in question.
And imo the state has more ‘goods’ aka evidence against AT’s client that we don’t even know about yet.

And here’s the D’s AT with her garbled word salad droning on about imo nothingburger DNA found elsewhere in the house i.e., staircase railing that has no reasonable, logical, connecting/corroborating evidence leading to any alternate suspect(s).

IMO the D could have had the other DNA tested if they so chose but something tells me they didn’t/don’t want to open that can of worms so to speak imo because if unknowns are identified, they open themselves up to possibly being sued for accusing innocent/alibied people in a brutal, gruesome massacre of 4 individuals.

This D strategy is no different than many cases I’ve followed when D takes on representation of indefensible client. IMO this D tactic/strategy is becoming a far too often occurrence i.e., when there is nothing/no valid evidence that exculpates/exonerates your client, attack LE/investigation, the prosecution, insinuate SODDI based on zero evidence and/or random DNA found elsewhere around crime scene that turns out to be nothingburger/not related to the crime, etc.
Unfortunately the more it’s repeated and regurgitated by the D a large number of the public tends to fall for it/gullible. Hopefully they don’t end up selected for potential future Jury.

IMHOO

ETA-clarity

 

[Sweeper2000]

can anyone give me a summary of what this new evidence presents? does it change anything? he dna under mm's finger nails is interesting but there doesn't seem to be much detail about it, ie was it dna from blood or other material? was it found under just one nail? was it in copious amounts?

I'm wondering if they should do a roundup of people the guys were known to be in contact with immediately preceding the murders in an effort to rule out people. its been done before now, they just dispose of the sample after.