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

[Balthazar]

I'm trying to catch up here. Some posts are mentioning the sheath was covered in blood?
Where is this coming from?

I thought there was no mention of anything on the sheath except BK 's touch DNA on the sheath snap.

I expect there to be victim blood on it because it was found under a bloody victim.

There was a massive document drop. There are all manner of surprising revelations. A big one is that the sheath has unknown male blood on it - which does not match BK. DNA under MM's fingernails is other males, BK is excluded. They also updated the court document website - much nicer now:

State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger

 

[Bahshudc]

There was a massive document drop. There are all manner of surprising revelations. A big one is that the sheath has unknown male blood on it - which does not match BK. DNA under MM's fingernails is other males, BK is excluded. They also updated the court document website - much nicer now:

State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger

I totally missed the blood on the knife sheath?? Which document is this specifically please! MOO

 

[Justice101]

I totally missed the blood on the knife sheath?? Which document is this specifically please! MOO

So does this mean that Xana and Ethan were killed first?

There have been many cases where multiple people's DNA was found ....but I am just catching up too. If a man slept in the girl's bed previous few days, would that explain it? Like a boyfriend?

What does this all mean?

 

[Bahshudc]

So does this mean that Xana and Ethan were killed first?

There have been many cases where multiple people's DNA was found ....but I am just catching up too. If a man slept in the girl's bed previous few days, would that explain it? Like a boyfriend?

What does this all mean?

If it is true that there is an unknown male DNA on the knife sheath, blood DNA specifically, then I don't think it could be Ethan's as they most likely would have tested for that. However, I've not seen anything discussing an unknown male blood sample on the sheath so I'm waiting for that information to be verified (and frantically reading through motions in limine to see if I missed it??)

MOO

 

[Balthazar]

I totally missed the blood on the knife sheath?? Which document is this specifically please! MOO

Rylene Nowlin MIL:

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

 

[MassGuy]

If it is true that there is an unknown male DNA on the knife sheath, blood DNA specifically, then I don't think it could be Ethan's as they most likely would have tested for that. However, I've not seen anything discussing an unknown male blood sample on the sheath so I'm waiting for that information to be verified (and frantically reading through motions in limine to see if I missed it??)

MOO

I think it's a misread. The sheath did have blood on it, but I've read nothing to indicate the blood was male.

If it was male, then it can only be Ethan's.

There would be no talking about touch DNA if they had BK's blood, so it can't be him.

If it was an unidentified DNA the defense wouldn't be talking about a drop of blood on a railing, so it can't be unidentified.

The only explanations are that there is no male blood, or that blood is identified. If it's identified, it could only be Ethan's.

 

[Balthazar]

So does this mean that Xana and Ethan were killed first?

There have been many cases where multiple people's DNA was found ....but I am just catching up too. If a man slept in the girl's bed previous few days, would that explain it? Like a boyfriend?

What does this all mean?

It was a bloodstain on the strap of the sheath. So, no, it would not come from MM's boyfriend.

IMO, it is too early to decide what this means. But, the blood is not BK's.

 

[Megnut]

If it is true that there is an unknown male DNA on the knife sheath, blood DNA specifically, then I don't think it could be Ethan's as they most likely would have tested for that. However, I've not seen anything discussing an unknown male blood sample on the sheath so I'm waiting for that information to be verified (and frantically reading through motions in limine to see if I missed it??)

MOO

Hold up.

Iirc there was mixed DNA on the sheath and AT was quick to say there wasn't a match to BK. I think she's playing defense magic. I believe we'll learn it's a mixture of MM and KG's blood and BK is excluded by the very virtue of male DNA. She implies there's been testing and unmatched male DNA. But I think it's hocus pocus. It's a mixture of female blood.

No mystery male DNA at all.

JMO

 

[Balthazar]

I think it's a misread. The sheath did have blood on it, but I've read nothing to indicate the blood was male.

If it was male, then it can only be Ethan's.

There would be no talking about touch DNA if they had BK's blood, so it can't be him.

If it was an unidentified DNA the defense wouldn't be talking about a drop of blood on a railing, so it can't be unidentified.

The only explanations are that there is no male blood, or that blood is identified. If it's identified, it could only be Ethan's.

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

 

[Balthazar]

Hold up.

Iirc there was mixed DNA on the sheath and AT was quick to say there wasn't a match to BK. I think she's playing defense magic. I believe we'll learn it's a mixture of MM and KG's blood and BK is excluded by the very virtue of male DNA. She implies there's been testing and unmatched male DNA. But I think it's hocus pocus. It's a mixture of female blood.

No mystery male DNA at all.

JMO

NO - it was DNA tested. DNA test will tell M or F. It also was not BK.

 

[Bahshudc]

View attachment 568637

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

this doesn't say MALE DNA though - it could be KG or MM?

 

[Balthazar]

View attachment 568637

this doesn't say MALE DNA though - it could be KG or MM?

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.

 

[Justice101]

Hold up.

Iirc there was mixed DNA on the sheath and AT was quick to say there wasn't a match to BK. I think she's playing defense magic. I believe we'll learn it's a mixture of MM and KG's blood and BK is excluded by the very virtue of male DNA. She implies there's been testing and unmatched male DNA. But I think it's hocus pocus. It's a mixture of female blood.

No mystery male DNA at all.

JMO

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?

 

[MassGuy]

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

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.

 

[Bahshudc]

If there was a confirmed unknown male blood DNA source on that knife sheath, which excluded BK, I would think it'd be all over the news. I think it's a little more complex than AT is presenting it. Which makes sense. MOO only.

 

[arielilane]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/university-idaho-murders-bryan-kohberger-legal-motions-autism-sociopath/

University of Idaho murders case documents cite autism and whether "sociopath" can be used during trial​

March 5, 2025



An Idaho judge is warning attorneys to quit filing so many sealed documents in the murder case of a man accused in the stabbing deaths of four University of Idaho students.

Bryan Kohberger's defense attorneys and prosecutors have made secrecy the norm rather than an exception, 4th District Judge Steven Hippler wrote in a court order on Monday.

 

[arielilane]

Morgan explained how investigators would be following the trail of blood throughout the residence.


“Imagine, if you will, as horrible as this is, every individual that was attacked subsequent to the first one, you’ll have what’s referred to as a commingling of blood, transferring from person to person to person,” he said.

“It would be impossible for this individual (the suspect) to have gotten out of there without a copious amount of blood on them.”

And that means, Morgan said, that the suspect would have tracked blood wherever they went — on the floor, the walks, cabinets, counters — “leaving little bits and pieces, breadcrumbs, throughout the house.”


Forensic Expert: Idaho Suspect Couldn’t Have Fled ‘Without a Copious Amount of Blood on Them’

11/20/2022

 

[jepop]

View attachment 568637

this doesn't say MALE DNA though - it could be KG or MM?

Yes, ofcourse.KG and MM is the most highly likely explanation. IMO. Nothing to see here. I don't even think the defense implied it was a mixture including unknown male. And imo it will be shown at trial that the ISL lab identified the blood on the sheathe as the upstairs victims. Jmo in the context of defense questioning, this was not something AT was going to elicit from the witness at the 23rd Jan hearing.

Also, posts just up thread make the point that this would have been an integral submission for defense Franks arguments, if there was unidentified male blood on the sheathe that state had not included in, for e.g, the arrest warrant etc as this would be exculpatory to BK. Jmo this is a complete and utter nothing burger and is not supported by what we know or by any of the docs cited by the OP. In the final analysis it certainly has not been shown to be a known fact as implied by OP's post. Jmo

 

[Bahshudc]

Yes, ofcourse.KG and MM is the most highly likely explanation. IMO. Nothing to see here. I don't even think the defense implied it was a mixture including unknown male. And imo it will be shown at trial that the ISL lab identified the blood on the sheathe as the upstairs victims. Jmo in the context of defense questioning, this was not something AT was going to elicit from the witness at the 23rd Jan hearing.

Also, posts just up thread make the point that this would have been an integral submission for defense Franks arguments, if there was unidentified male blood on the sheathe that state had not included in, for e.g, the arrest warrant etc as this would be exculpatory to BK. Jmo this is a complete and utter nothing burger and is not supported by what we know or by any of the docs cited by the OP. In the final analysis it certainly has not been shown to be a known fact as implied by OP's post. Jmo

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

 

[Balthazar]

Yes, ofcourse.KG and MM is the most highly likely explanation. IMO. Nothing to see here. I don't even think the defense implied it was a mixture including unknown male. And imo it will be shown at trial that the ISL lab identified the blood on the sheathe as the upstairs victims. Jmo in the context of defense questioning, this was not something AT was going to elicit from the witness at the 23rd Jan hearing.

Also, posts just up thread make the point that this would have been an integral submission for defense Franks arguments, if there was unidentified male blood on the sheathe that state had not included in, for e.g, the arrest warrant etc as this would be exculpatory to BK. Jmo this is a complete and utter nothing burger and is not supported by what we know or by any of the docs cited by the OP. In the final analysis it certainly has not been shown to be a known fact as implied by OP's post. Jmo

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.