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

[MassGuy]

The odds of independent probabilities, yes. But the initial assumption that they are independent might be a mistake.

(We are discussing it in another case. SIDS syndrome deaths. People served years because of idiotic trial expert).

If some probabilities are connected, then the odds are much higher.

For example: BK was driving to Moscow occasionally for “his good of choice” because as he said shopping was better there. Maybe he used on the spot or even in the car so when he was sleeping, someone could have stolen his sheath. The murderers placed it intentionally on the bed as they were habitual visitors and their DNA being in the house could be explained. Maybe they lived close by, but it is a university city and a party house, so everything is rather close. Given that BK was a TA, he’d switch off his phone when driving to buy stuff. When he came home, he continued to use, but didn’t want his parents to know so he put his stuff into neighbors’ bins”.

See? If you calculate the chance as 1/n x 1/z x 1/p etc etc it is really super-low.

But that applies only if the probabilities are independent. If they are connected, which could be the case, the chance of these things happening simultaneously is way higher.

If I applied this logic, I'd never call a case right.

 

[Balthazar]

There is no evidence they didn't test DNA under their nail beds. Of course that would be done if it had the possibility of identifying the offender. We also don't know the quality of this DNA, and how mixtures affected it.

Again, you cannot perform IGG on samples that are unlikely to belong to the killer. You can't complain about government overreach by using sites that have policy against law enforcement IGG, and then ask them to do something as egregious as using the IGG process to identify an innocent person, turn them into a murder suspect, ruin their life, and then get yourself sued to oblivion.

I mean you could, but that would be quite silly.

They have not done IGG on Unidentified Male B, C or D and we know two of those are DNA from blood stains - one on a bannister in the house and the other in a pair of gloves found just outside the house. They have not done IGG on DNA which they cannot identify from under MM's fingernails. This despite all the friends of the victim's giving their DNA to LE so it's not like they couldn't match to them, if the DNA was from them.

Instead, the only piece of DNA that LE did IGG on is trace DNA which floats around in the atmosphere and could have come from literally anywhere and have nothing whatsoever to do with this crime. Of note, they didn't even do IGG on the unidentified blood stains on the sheath, only on the trace DNA. There is just no excuse for this as far as I am concerned.

We don't know if that DNA was male. We don't know if it could even be put into a database. IGG is an absolute nonstarter unless there's evidence it's potentially connected to the killer. You're asking for things to be done that have never been done in history, because they violate protocol, and have potential legal repercussions.

You're drawing a firm conclusion based on very limited evidence.

We know that the Unknown Male B, C and D ARE MALES. What is interesting to me is that we've seen nothing that says they are the same male. What if there were 2 or more assailants? When a crime scene is processed, blood DNA evidence usually has first precedence over bodily fluid DNA evidence which has precedence over trace DNA. Instead this crime scene placed first precedence on trace skin cell DNA over BLOOD DNA. This is backwards from the usual precedence.

 

[mickey2942]

I am just going to throw this out there...Idaho is very strict about marijuana possession. They don't even allow Medical Marijuana in Idaho.

Cannabis in Idaho - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This may be a huge deterrent for college kids (they may be adults, but at that age, they really are kids). To calling the police. For something they are not even sure was real. Also, I am not sure of the age of the witnesses, was either one under age 21? Another reason to not call the police.

 

[Charlot123]

Clothes next to each other or borrowing a sweatshirt seem a lot different than finding DNA on a high touch area of a knife sheath.

I found a Mark 2 from WW2 ( Navy's Kabar) in great uncles stuff, he was a Marine. No wonder he had hidden under all the other memorabilia and a lot of stuff.
These knives practically speak their purpose "I was made to kill people."

Borrowing a sweatshirt is not a known fact. It is an explanation of the third party which tbh, sounded like «excessive information” when I first heard about it. (There were a few pieces of almost redundant information in that case narrative that stuck in my head specifically for that reason: unnecessary, repetitive facts.)

About your granduncle’s Kabar: I bet that if we lift DNA from it, it won’t be just that of your granduncle. Specially because it was “in his stuff”.

What is a little bit surprising here is that on someone’s personal knife there is just one bit of touch DNA.

 

[Charlot123]

I am just going to throw this out there...Idaho is very strict about marijuana possession. They don't even allow Medical Marijuana in Idaho.

Cannabis in Idaho - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This may be a huge deterrent for college kids (they may be adults, but at that age, they really are kids). To calling the police.

Oh, yes, for sure. I don’t hold against people being drunk or high. I just wonder if they can be reliable witnesses in such states. That college kids party is unsurprising and can’t be used against them, it is college life.

 

[SortaSleuthy]

If I applied this logic, I'd never call a case right.

We all got the Debbie Collier case wrong. Lol

 

[detectivewannab]

DM didn't say 'terrified', she said she was 'freaked out'. That's a big difference to me. I don't think she had a clue and was genuinely confused. We know she thought Kaylee might have been playing with the dog. Maddie and Kaylee had been texting Kaylee's former boyfriend, maybe she thought he showed up.

When living in my off campus housing during College, there was a basic rule. You don't just call 911 (snitch in the young ones eyes), that's an unwritten code for these life inexperienced young adults and probably still is today I'd imagine, especially if you're not actually seeing a murder or violence being committed.

DM was confused and didn't call 911 IMO 1) Because she didn't know what was truly happening if anything 2) She wouldn't want the police showing up if someone had a late night booty call or something silly and risk her friends getting upset with her. That would have been a logical thing for her to think, just as it would have been if I'd have been in the same situation.

A quadruple murder wasn't on her list of possibilities for the night that's for sure. I'm sure she is emotionally tormented over the whole situation and will be for the rest of her life.

JMO

Exactly what happened.

 

[MassGuy]

They have not done IGG on Unidentified Male B, C or D and we know two of those are DNA from blood stains - one on a bannister in the house and the other in a pair of gloves found just outside the house. They have not done IGG on DNA which they cannot identify from under MM's fingernails. This despite all the friends of the victim's giving their DNA to LE so it's not like they couldn't match to them, if the DNA was from them.

Instead, the only piece of DNA that LE did IGG on is trace DNA which floats around in the atmosphere and could have come from literally anywhere and have nothing whatsoever to do with this crime. Of note, they didn't even do IGG on the unidentified blood stains on the sheath, only on the trace DNA. There is just no excuse for this as far as I am concerned.

We know that the Unknown Male B, C and D ARE MALES. What is interesting to me is that we've seen nothing that says they are the same male. What if there were 2 or more assailants? When a crime scene is processed, blood DNA evidence usually has first precedence over bodily fluid DNA evidence which has precedence over trace DNA. Instead this crime scene placed first precedence on trace skin cell DNA over BLOOD DNA. This is backwards from the usual precedence.

Yes, they have not done IGG on those unidentified samples, because there is no universe where that would be ok to do. That blood would have to be from a suspected offender, and the locations of those samples all but excludes that. Now if that blood corresponded to blood drops at the scene or something, that's a whole different ballgame. Of course they would have done IGG on that! You're acting like these are the Keystone Cops here, and there's zero evidence of that at all.

<modsnip - personalizing>

They were trying to catch a killer, and every bit of evidence shows that they did.

 

[Charlot123]

If I applied this logic, I'd never call a case right.

I am just trying to show you that calculating probabilities (in our case, circumstantial evidence) may be more complex.
How high is the probability of an ex-addict who had been in rehab several times relapsing when out of the parents house?
Would a TA buy it in own town or across the bridge, all the more so that dealers known in two states live there?
Etc, etc.

 

[MassGuy]

They have not done IGG on Unidentified Male B, C or D and we know two of those are DNA from blood stains - one on a bannister in the house and the other in a pair of gloves found just outside the house. They have not done IGG on DNA which they cannot identify from under MM's fingernails. This despite all the friends of the victim's giving their DNA to LE so it's not like they couldn't match to them, if the DNA was from them.

Instead, the only piece of DNA that LE did IGG on is trace DNA which floats around in the atmosphere and could have come from literally anywhere and have nothing whatsoever to do with this crime. Of note, they didn't even do IGG on the unidentified blood stains on the sheath, only on the trace DNA. There is just no excuse for this as far as I am concerned.

We know that the Unknown Male B, C and D ARE MALES. What is interesting to me is that we've seen nothing that says they are the same male. What if there were 2 or more assailants? When a crime scene is processed, blood DNA evidence usually has first precedence over bodily fluid DNA evidence which has precedence over trace DNA. Instead this crime scene placed first precedence on trace skin cell DNA over BLOOD DNA. This is backwards from the usual precedence.

Focusing on this : Of note, they didn't even do IGG on the unidentified blood stains on the sheath, only on the trace DNA. There is just no excuse for this as far as I am concerned.

There is absolutely no evidence there are unidentified blood stains on the sheath. In fact, all evidence points to this not being the case.

The defense would have been all over this from day one, instead of focusing on some blood drop on a railing in a part of the house the killer never entered.

There is no innocent explanation for something like that, and law enforcement would have immediately treated that as offender DNA. It would be far stronger evidence than the touch DNA.

That's what the IGG would have been done on.

 

[MeadowMuffin]

The odds of independent probabilities, yes. But the initial assumption that they are independent might be a mistake.

(We are discussing it in another case. SIDS syndrome deaths. People served years because of idiotic trial expert).

If some probabilities are connected, then the odds are much higher.

For example: BK was driving to Moscow occasionally for “his good of choice” because as he said shopping was better there. Maybe he used on the spot or even in the car so when he was sleeping, someone could have stolen his sheath. The murderers placed it intentionally on the bed as they were habitual visitors and their DNA being in the house could be explained. Maybe they lived close by, but it is a university city and a party house, so everything is rather close. Given that BK was a TA, he’d switch off his phone when driving to buy stuff. When he came home, he continued to use, but didn’t want his parents to know so he put his stuff into neighbors’ bins”.

See? If you calculate the chance as 1/n x 1/z x 1/p etc etc it is really super-low.

But that applies only if the probabilities are independent. If they are connected, which could be the case, the chance of these things happening simultaneously is way higher.

Are you speaking of something other than weed?
Green leafy substance WAS documented as being found in BK's possession on at least one warrant IIRC. But no other drugs, spoons, syringes, needles, tourniquets,foil, etc were ever found.
IMO of course.

 

[INfisherman]

If I applied this logic, I'd never call a case right.

No worries, once all the evidence is out there, the jury will see just as most do.

ETA MOO

 

[Balthazar]

Yes, they have not done IGG on those unidentified samples, because there is no universe where that would be ok to do. That blood would have to be from a suspected offender, and the locations of those samples all but excludes that. Now if that blood corresponded to blood drops at the scene or something, that's a whole different ballgame. Of course they would have done IGG on that! You're acting like these are the Keystone Cops here, and there's zero evidence of that at all.

If you really believe Bryan Kohberger's DNA "floated around in the atmosphere," and found it's way inside a house, and onto the snap of a bloody sheath, then I have a bridge to sell you. There was so much of it that the analyst concluded that it was transferred directly, as opposed to indirect transfer.

You know the killer touched a specific item, and that item was absolutely involved in the murders (held the murder weapon). To suggest that they focus on random blood samples in areas outside the crime scene, would not be negligent on their part, but so insane I don't have words for that.

Ironically, that is something the Keystone Cops would do.

They were trying to catch a killer, and every bit of evidence shows that they did.

The blood is from unknown males located within a bloody quadruple stabbing scene. There is NO universe in which these would not be considered the possible blood DNA of the killer or killers. NONE.

 

[Spacemonkey1975]

I think BF/DM didn't see Xana, HJ is the only one who did and didn't give details to BF/DM. Been thinking about what HJ might have seen or not, and I've changed my mind. He did see...and was not telling the girls, IMHO.

Here's why:

The transcript is hard because there aren't time stamps on each line, and at many points it appears that people are speaking over each other (like other first responders later in the transcript) and some lines seem like they are things that are heard on the 911 tape not because that person is currently speaking on the phone but because they are heard in the background.

According to the transcript and what we glean from reading:
A: answerer female DM or BF
A1: another female answerer, who identified herself as a neighbor
A2: answerer male--HJ

For the first part of the call we've only had the voices of DM/BF and the neighbor both directly speaking on the phone or heard in the background. Then dispatch starts pressing BF or DM on whether or not their roommate is currently passed out/cutting her off before she can explain what happened in the middle of the night.

DM/BF seems to indicate that they are going to physically head back to the house/to the room to check. IMHO, it seems like HJ comes out then, DM/BF sees his face and is asking him what's going on/what he saw. She then puts the phone in HJ's hand after stating Xana's age:

DM/BF: "Yeah, I'll come - come on. Let's - we gotta go check. But we have to. Is she passed out? She's passed out. What's wrong?"
Dispatch: "Dispatching Moscow Law ambulance for..."
DM/BF: "She's not waking up."
Dispatch: "...unconsciousness, 1122 King Road."
(bunch of dispatch two different first responders talking over each other)
HJ: "Yeah. Yeah, it's (Evan)." (IMHO, heard in the background of DM/BF being on the phone. I think he might have said Ethan)
Dispatch: "20 you said?"
DM/BF: "Yes, 20, here do you wanna talk to 'em?"
Dispatch: "Okay."
HJ: "Hello? Hello?"
Dispatch: "Okay. I need someone to stop passing the phone around because I've talked to four different people."
HJ: "Okay. Sorry. They just gave me the phone."
Dispatch: "Is she breathing?"
HJ: "Hello?"
Dispatch: "Is she breathing?"
HJ: "No."
----
HJ: "(Bethany) or (Dylan) I need you to - to talking to them, okay? I can't talk to them. I need you to talk to them."
the phone then goes back to DM or BF for the rest of the call

****

HJ, who was Ethan's friend summoned by the girls to help, is the one who went in the house and to Xana's room. This is all IMHO, MOO:

HJ is not present for the first part of the call. He went up, saw that Xana was dead, calls or texts DM or BF telling them to call 911. He doesn't give them any details AT ALL. Literally just something as short as "Call 911 now!" So when DM or BF call 911, they are only operating on what they knew--they'd been calling and texting Xana, she wasn't responding, maybe drunk and passed out--hopefully?

Actually, note that the neighbor is the one who tells dispatch that Xana had been drinking the night before/passed out/not waking up. Even when dispatch asks DM or BF just a few seconds later if X is passed out, DM or BF answers that they really don't know. I imagine the neighbor isn't really clear at that moment on what BF and DM had told her happened the night before. Drunk and passed out is the neighbor's interpretation.

After HJ has come out mid call and BF/DM senses something is wrong from the look on his face/a response that isn't heard on tape/a headshake, I think BF/DM shoves the phone at HJ--hoping that since he had just gone to check on Xana, he would be able to give dispatch better details than she could.

But HJ, imho, is in shock. But when dispatch asks if Xana is breathing, HJ answers unequivocally "No."

If HJ is saying that, it is because he either got close enough to Xana to see that her chest wasn't moving or he got close enough to see enough details that he knew she was dead and way beyond the help of an ambulance. Does he know how to tell the girls that right then, is he just horrified beyond belief, can he even imagine telling the girls right there standing outside the house that Xana (and probably everyone else) is dead? Does he figure it really doesn't matter if 911 has specific details right now---because from what he saw there is nothing an ambulance can do?

As soon as he can, he tells the girls he can't talk on the phone.

It appears to me that shortly after that, more than one first responder arrives. I think HJ takes one of them away from DM/BF (they are still on the phone and talking to one of the officers who has arrived about a defibrillator) and tells him what he saw. Because just as soon as DM/BF get off the phone with dispatch, an officer tells dispatch that he thinks they have a homicide..and I think that happens too soon after first responders arrive for them to have gotten into the house and gotten to where Xana is.

Great take on the transcript, I was scratching my head at first but this makes sense

 

[MassGuy]

The blood is from unknown males located within a bloody quadruple stabbing scene. There is NO universe in which these would not be considered the possible blood DNA of the killer or killers. NONE.

False. The blood was NOT within a bloody quadruple stabbing scene. One was found on a railing in another part of the house where the killer would not have been, and one was found outside the house altogether.

One DNA sample you KNOW belongs to the killer. There are absolutely no barriers to chasing that down to the fullest extent.

You're treating those blood drops as exculpatory, when at best they indicate accomplices. If any evidence to that effect ever came to light, they could be tested against those people.

Of course everything points away from them being relevant, which is precisely why they can't do IGG.

 

[mickey2942]

Oh, yes, for sure. I don’t hold against people being drunk or high. I just wonder if they can be reliable witnesses in such states. That college kids party is unsurprising and can’t be used against them, it is college life.

Having been both "drunk and high", I would be a pretty good witness on anything that happened during those times. And I would believe testimony from anyone in an altered state. The question is...what about an Idaho jury?

Most people are not "black out drunk". They still remember events, often quite vividly for some reason.

MOO.

 

[LinasK]

The odds of independent probabilities, yes. But the initial assumption that they are independent might be a mistake.

(We are discussing it in another case. SIDS syndrome deaths. People served years because of idiotic trial expert).

If some probabilities are connected, then the odds are much higher.

For example: BK was driving to Moscow occasionally for “his good of choice” because as he said shopping was better there. Maybe he used on the spot or even in the car so when he was sleeping, someone could have stolen his sheath. The murderers placed it intentionally on the bed as they were habitual visitors and their DNA being in the house could be explained. Maybe they lived close by, but it is a university city and a party house, so everything is rather close. Given that BK was a TA, he’d switch off his phone when driving to buy stuff. When he came home, he continued to use, but didn’t want his parents to know so he put his stuff into neighbors’ bins”.

See? If you calculate the chance as 1/n x 1/z x 1/p etc etc it is really super-low.

But that applies only if the probabilities are independent. If they are connected, which could be the case, the chance of these things happening simultaneously is way higher.

It's never been explained to my satisfaction as to why anyone would frame him and plant his sheath and their DNA isn't on it. Besides, we have the witness description of him, plus the car and cell phone evidence. It all adds up to him.

 

[Nila Aella]

January 23 hearing transcript:

Q. Where was it swabbed?
A. The entire leather portion of the strap, both top and bottom, and then the underside of the button.

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

There is no evidence they didn't test DNA under their nail beds. Of course that would be done if it had the possibility of identifying the offender. We also don't know the quality of this DNA, and how mixtures affected it.

The D was able to test it and exclude BK.

MIL inconclusive data
More importantly, Mr. Kohberger has disclosed that through further independent laboratory testing, he is eliminated as a contributor to Item 13.1.

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/CR01-24-31665/2025/022425-Motion-inLimine5-RE-Inconclusive-Data.pdf

JMO

You can't run IGG on items you do not reasonably believe to be connected to the offender.

This was the reason for not entering unknown male blood B into CODIS

BP testimony IGG hearing 1/23/25

Q. 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? A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. Why did you not pursue that person?
A. At that point in time, we had already received Mr. Kohberger's name, and from what my understanding was, entering another DNA profile into CODIS would remove the previous one we had from the knife sheath. So if memory serves, the discussion was we'll hold off, we'll stay with the one from the knife sheath; if we need to, we can address the Unknown Male B at a later time.
Q. I want to make sure I understand your testimony. Were you not aware of Unknown Male B until after December 19th when you knew Bryan Kohberger's name?
A. No, ma'am. I was aware of that before, yes.

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

JMO

They knew the DNA on the sheath almost certainly belonged to the killer, and they went with that. It was unquestionably their best evidence.

We have no idea what was done in regards to testing with those other samples.

Filed 2/24/25
MIL Touch
Footnote4
The other two male profiles, identified in the ISP lab reports as Unknown B and Unknown D, were never run through CODIS or subjected to IGG testing. The defense has never received an explanation as to why these two male profiles were not further investigated.
BBM

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

JMO

 

[wendy44]

You can’t say that the DNA on the sheath almost certainly belongs to the offender and not test DNA under the nail beds. If they find BK’s DNA there, all the better. More proof. If they find DNA of BK and another male, well, maybe it was a combined attack? But not involving IGG there…sorry, I would like to have a better explanation. Why?

Remember we are at the point where people have legit concerns about using My Heritage. It is not a US company, period. The only way it will be “ah, ok” is if it is an airtight case.

They did test the DNA under the nail beds. The defense did as well.
JMO

 

[Ghostwheel]

RSBM.....Maybe he used on the spot or even in the car so when he was sleeping, someone could have stolen his sheath. The murderers placed it intentionally on the bed as they were habitual visitors and their DNA being in the house could be explained. ...RSBM

This is where this theory loses me. They stole the sheath, wiped it completely clean except for one spot on the snap, then planted it that way? To what purpose? Why not leave more DNA OR remove all of it? The sheath stealers study criminology, too? Now you've increased the odds that the stealers(and also killers) would single out BK, steal his sheath, and know to wipe off DNA or just enough DNA....

When you start piling on what it would take for someone to single out a person with the same type of car you plan to use, stealing his sheath, assuming he owns one, from ...somewhere...wiping off just enough DNA and planting it just so that the existing DNA does not get destroyed, it feels like Twister at this point. JMO.

I mean, we can "if this, then this" till the cows come home. Unless there is definitive circumstantial evidence that points to someone else stalking BK?