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

[Arkay]

Yup, it's his DNA, both sides agree on that.

Glad that door is officially closed.

Yes, the defense did its job of trying every which way to have the DNA thrown out, but it only delayed the inevitable.

It’s BK’s DNA, as the IGG investigators knew; and therefore the judge knew, the prosecution knew, the defense knew, Bryan always knew, and the jury will know when their time comes.

IMO

 

[Cool Cats]

Between 4.22am and 4.24am on the morning of November 13, 2022, survivors Dylan Mortensen and Bethany Funke exchanged 17 frantic text messages fearing someone was in their house



Published: 08:38 EDT, 7 March 2025 | Updated: 11:59 EDT, 7 March 2025

Family's gut-wrenching reaction to Idaho murders survivors' texts

Panicked texts sent by the surviving roommates moments after the murders and the chaotic 911 call around eight hours later have been revealed for the first time.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Goncalves’s family revealed the pain at seeing these new details in a post on ‘The Goncalves Family’ Facebook page, set up to help gather tips about the case.
‘Reading some of the transcripts/documents that have recently been released, has been exceptionally hard,’ the family wrote.

‘We need this to be over. God help us all.’

 

[Cool Cats]

State's response to MIL 11 --

Defense doesn't intend to challenge that it's BK's DNA on the sheath. They're going from the angle that someone else had possession of it.

P.13.

My question: when the trial rolls over to the DP sentencing phase, will BK remain jailed where he's been?

I hear prison calling.

JMO

Defendants stay jailed until their sentencing. The defendant has the legal right to address the court, often saying they are not guilty. The family gives impact statements then the judge makes remarks then the judge imposes sentence. It is only after the judge pronounces sentence that the defendant is remanded to the State Department of Corrections, never before this.

Sometimes the State Department of Corrections will immediately drive the new State prisoner directly to a State intake facility or maybe straight to the death row facility. Sometimes due to various issues the defendant might go back to jail briefly and then soon be transferred and processed into the prison system.

I have never seen a defendant remanded to prison before he is actually sentenced to prison. Then at prison expect to see a brand new mug shot taken of BK.

2 Cents

 

[al66pine]

New Mug Shot?

Defendants stay jailed until their sentencing....
I have never seen a defendant remanded to prison before he is actually sentenced to prison. Then at prison expect to see a brand new mug shot taken of BK....
2 Cents

snipped for focus. @Cool Cats Thx for your post.

Before penalty phase, I wonder if BK will have a chance to prepare for the camera.*

Several service providers around Boise, ID.** IDK If any of them make house calls.

___________________________________________
* Sunset Blvd, "Mr. DeMille, I'm ready for my closeup." *

Sunset Boulevard (film) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

** https://www.yelp.com/search?cflt=eyebrowservices&find_loc=Boise,+ID
"Top 10 Best Eyebrow Services Near Boise, Idaho - With Real Reviews

• Bang Bang Brows. 4.9 (53 reviews) ...
• The Brow Club. 4.4 (15 reviews) ...
• YOUR BROW GIRL. 4.8 (44 reviews) ...
• Local Lash Lounge. 0.0 (0 reviews) ...
• Bergamot HIll. 4.2 (12 reviews) ...
• The Fox Den. 5.0 (9 reviews) ...
• Face Defined. 5.0 (11 reviews) ...
• Radiant Waxing Boise - Downtown...."

 

[Cool Cats]

New Mug Shot?

snipped for focus. @Cool Cats Thx for your post.

Before penalty phase, I wonder if BK will have a chance to prepare for the camera.*

Several service providers around Boise, ID.** IDK If any of them make house calls.

___________________________________________
* Sunset Blvd, "Mr. DeMille, I'm ready for my closeup." *

Sunset Boulevard (film) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

** https://www.yelp.com/search?cflt=eyebrowservices&find_loc=Boise,+ID
"Top 10 Best Eyebrow Services Near Boise, Idaho - With Real Reviews

• Bang Bang Brows. 4.9 (53 reviews) ...
• The Brow Club. 4.4 (15 reviews) ...
• YOUR BROW GIRL. 4.8 (44 reviews) ...
• Local Lash Lounge. 0.0 (0 reviews) ...
• Bergamot HIll. 4.2 (12 reviews) ...
• The Fox Den. 5.0 (9 reviews) ...
• Face Defined. 5.0 (11 reviews) ...
• Radiant Waxing Boise - Downtown...."

Very funny.

His looks will mean zero. His likely guilty verdict will be a done deal. He can shave his head and walk in bald, no brows, entire body shaved, but it won't matter because all that will matter is his proven behavior from the murder night and aggravating and mitigating factors. It is very normal for jail to change inmate's looks. I have seen this so many times. Older looking, pale, fatter, thinner, weaker, dressed up in suit and tie, etc.... etc....

There are a ton of photos of him and his eyebrows including his mugshot, jail photo, license, stop by cop and various other photos and he can't file down his prominent brow. . His eyebrows don't even matter now. His past photos show how he looked.




Note it is not just bushy eyebrows but his brow is prominent, jutting out slightly which helps make his eyebrows more prominent. You can't change this. He has a large forehead with prominent brow. Photos don't lie.

Bryan Kohberger

Idaho Murder Suspect Bryan Kohberger Spotted For First Time Since Arrest

rehemanuisce.blogspot.com

2 Cents

 

[mrjitty]

And more specifically, that "Instead of challenging the conclusion that the DNA on the knife sheath belonged to Defendant, the defense’s expert disclosures reveal that the defense plans to argue the DNA on the knife sheath does not prove Defendant was ever at the crime scene and the knife sheath itself could have been planted by the real perpetrator."

Yeah good luck with that.

 

[Balthazar]

Yes, the defense did its job of trying every which way to have the DNA thrown out, but it only delayed the inevitable.

It’s BK’s DNA, as the IGG investigators knew; and therefore the judge knew, the prosecution knew, the defense knew, Bryan always knew, and the jury will know when their time comes.

IMO

IGG does not lead to a specific individual. At best, it leads to a family group. We need to be really careful here about committing to BK because he may have other distant family members in the area who committed this crime whom we know nothing about whatsoever.

DM said she "didn't have a clue" if BK was the person she saw after his arrest. Yet she MUST have seen his eyes/eyebrows and being in his presence, saw his gait. She heard his voice, yet we have not yet heard of any tests in regards to this. BK has a unique cadence and PA accent. Does DM recognize his voice? We don't know.

When (DM) learned that an arrest had been made, she found a mugshot of Mr. Kohberger online. When asked if Mr. Kohberger was the person that she saw in the house, she did not know if Mr. Kohberger was the intruder. She knew that the man had looked at her because of the “bushy eyebrow.” (See Motion in Limine 7 - Exhibit 9 Lake interview, p. 96, l. 23-p. 98, l. 5.) All that she remembered is “some bushy eyebrow and all black and some sort of mask.” Id. p. 98, l. 24 – p. 99, l. 14.

Franks D.M. was shown Defendant's mug shot and asked by Detective Lake whether Defendant was the person she saw in her house. D.M. responded: I have no clue. From what I remember, I just remember seeing this figure that was .... more of like the skinnier tone build, and some mask on ... I don't know if it was covering his mouth, his nose, or below his mouth and nose. Ijust remember he was white, but I didn't know how he was white. Ijust knew he was. And ... I knew he looked at me because of the bushy eyebrows.

So DM said "I have no clue" about BK. That's very unsettling. She did not recognize him from a photo. While you could say that was due to his disguise, she saw him moving, i.e. his gait and she heard his voice. Did she recognize either? IDK.

 

[iamshadow21]

IGG does not lead to a specific individual. At best, it leads to a family group.

RSBM

Source, please.

 

[mrjitty]

It's always been obvious the defence would have to accept his DNA is on the murder weapon. This is just long established methodology and they'd never find an expert to dispute it.

The problem with the 'planting' idea is that somehow he had to have come in contact with this knife sheath specifically at some other time. Is he going to suggest he browsed it in the store?

Or will they say it was deliberately transferred there by the real killer?

This feels like fairy tale stuff.

 

[jepop]

It's always been obvious the defence would have to accept his DNA is on the murder weapon. This is just long established methodology and they'd never find an expert to dispute it.

The problem with the 'planting' idea is that somehow he had to have come in contact with this knife sheath specifically at some other time. Is he going to suggest he browsed it in the store?

Or will they say it was deliberately transferred there by the real killer?

This feels like fairy tale stuff.

I'm getting a strange foreboding after reading state's response to defense MIL to exclude all mention of IGG. The state effectively counters the reasoning behind defense's motion for prosecution to be sanctioned but in the end agrees that all mention of IGG should be excluded. Moo

Defense presented their MIL to exclude IGG as an appropriate sanction for the 'misdeeds' of the prosecution. Yet imo defense knew from the get go prosecution never wanted to include IGG in the trial, so the so called sanction they purportedly call for makes no sense.jmo

Additionally, IMO from reading state response, it seems doubtful defense's motion has any chance of being granted from the POV of sanctioning the state. Surely the D must recognise that? Jmo

However D's MIL does serve as a distraction for the prosecution. Judging the from the state's response maybe that is its purpose?

If we have trial where all the state can do is say there was a generic tip that lead to BK becoming the prime suspect, and the defense is presenting that the sheathe was planted/ DNA was deliberately left by the 'real killer', then the fact the state cannot mention this 'secret tip' becomes the space in which defense will attempt to sew some doubt? Jmo

I'm picturing cross exam of Payne, Mowery and so forth.

'So you received this tip but you're not saying where it came from?'

I guess maybe what I'm getting at is that AT may, through cross, be able to create that hole for a jury where she manages to insinuate that this secret, generic tip that no one can talk about is odd. Perhaps some on the jury will begin to wonder if it's a secret because the tipster is the 'real killer' who 'planted' the sheathe and somehow LE 'fell for it'. Conjecture.

I know all of the above is simply speculation. But the IGG is ultimately inculpatory to BK being the perp. And BK is the perp imo. If all mention of IGG is removed (and.this is what the state is now asking for and wants according to their response to defense's MIL) then this favors a defense where the premise is that the sheathe was planted deliberately by the 'real killer'; ie D can insinuate 'could this "tip" be related to the 'real killer, this important tip that no-one is elaborating on?', whilst of course knowing all the time what the real/actual story is. Jmo.

Anyway, I feel like I'm hardly making sense. These ideas have just been in my mind ever since I read the state's response. State's initial MIL calls for strict guidelines around how IGG should be handled at trial, but now in response to defense, State is agreeing that there should be no mention at all of IGG, and just be referred to as a "generic tip", with zero elaboration on the source. This concerns me, very possibly unnecessarily! Would appreciate an opinion if time permits.

1. Original state MIL re IGG; State originally suggests if IGG is to come in, it should be controlled so as to prejudice neither the state or the defendant.

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/CR01-24-31665/2025/022425-States-Motion-in-Limine-RE-Investigative-Genetic-Geneology.pdf

2. Defense MIL where they ask state to be sanctioned by excluding IGG.

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/CR01-24-31665/2025/022425-Defense-Motion-inLimine-11-RE-Exclude-IGG-Evidence.pdf

3. State's response to above where they agree that all mention of IGG should be excluded from trial evidence.

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/CR01-2431665/2025/031025+States+Response+Defendants+Motion+in+Limine+Re+Exclude+IGG+Evidence.pdf

State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger

 

[pseudo_hum]

It's always been obvious the defence would have to accept his DNA is on the murder weapon. This is just long established methodology and they'd never find an expert to dispute it.

The problem with the 'planting' idea is that somehow he had to have come in contact with this knife sheath specifically at some other time. Is he going to suggest he browsed it in the store?

Or will they say it was deliberately transferred there by the real killer?

This feels like fairy tale stuff.

Agreed. IMO, how could the saboteur be certain that the knife sheath snap area contained sufficient amounts of BK dna to be certain he was identified. Why not make it more obvious and certain?

 

[mrjitty]

I'm getting a strange foreboding after reading state's response to defense MIL to exclude all mention of IGG. The state effectively counters the reasoning behind defense's motion for prosecution to be sanctioned but in the end agrees that all mention of IGG should be excluded. Moo

Defense presented their MIL to exclude IGG as an appropriate sanction for the 'misdeeds' of the prosecution. Yet imo defense knew from the get go prosecution never wanted to include IGG in the trial, so the so called sanction they purportedly call for makes no sense.jmo

Additionally, IMO from reading state response, it seems doubtful defense's motion has any chance of being granted from the POV of sanctioning the state. Surely the D must recognise that? Jmo

However D's MIL does serve as a distraction for the prosecution. Judging the from the state's response maybe that is its purpose?

If we have trial where all the state can do is say there was a generic tip that lead to BK becoming the prime suspect, and the defense is presenting that the sheathe was planted/ DNA was deliberately left by the 'real killer', then the fact the state cannot mention this 'secret tip' becomes the space in which defense will attempt to sew some doubt? Jmo

I'm picturing cross exam of Payne, Mowery and so forth.

'So you received this tip but you're not saying where it came from?'

I get your argument, but I think the defence can't ask that question, or they'd open the door to the witness answering the question. IMO there will just be a gentleman's agreement not to go there, and the witness will just say "a tip from the FBI" or similar. So in short, because both sides want to exclude IGG, the defence won't be able to exploit it.

I guess maybe what I'm getting at is that AT may, through cross, be able to create that hole for a jury where she manages to insinuate that this secret, generic tip that no one can talk about is odd. Perhaps some on the jury will begin to wonder if it's a secret because the tipster is the 'real killer' who 'planted' the sheathe and somehow LE 'fell for it'. Conjecture.

In practice I don't think so.

IMO the problem with any idea of 'planting' is how do you get it into evidence? At best its just going to be suggestive questions on cross.

I know all of the above is simply speculation. But the IGG is ultimately inculpatory to BK being the perp. And BK is the perp imo. If all mention of IGG is removed (and.this is what the state is now asking for and wants according to their response to defense's MIL) then this favors a defense where the premise is that the sheathe was planted deliberately by the 'real killer'; ie D can insinuate 'could this "tip" be related to the 'real killer, this important tip that no-one is elaborating on?', whilst of course knowing all the time what the real/actual story is. Jmo.

Anyway, I feel like I'm hardly making sense. These ideas have just been in my mind ever since I read the state's response. State's initial MIL calls for strict guidelines around how IGG should be handled at trial, but now in response to defense, State is agreeing that there should be no mention at all of IGG, and just be referred to as a "generic tip", with zero elaboration on the source. This concerns me, very possibly unnecessarily! Would appreciate an opinion if time permits.

I think your points are good ones! I just think this kind of stuff is common in trials because there really isn't time to rehash all of IGG which at the end of the day, has no relevance to his guilt or innocence so both sides can agree just to short circuit it.

It's my opinion that if AT then tried to exploit the tip - she'd open the door to it coming in. This recently happened in Delphi IIRC.

MOO

 

[Sor Juana]

Source, please.

IGG starts by matching crime scene DNA with genetic databases to find potential relatives. By piecing together family trees, investigators can zoom in on a specific family group or lineage. But it doesn't point to one person right away. They still need to dig through multiple records to uncover the exact match within the family group.

 

[mrjitty]

Agreed. IMO, how could the saboteur be certain that the knife sheath snap area contained sufficient amounts of BK dna to be certain he was identified. Why not make it more obvious and certain?

I often hark back to the Pistorius silk claiming he was framed via duvet positions and curtains.

I agree with you in makes no sense.

Maybe they will say it's inadvertent because DNA is 'everywhere' and the killer transferred some .. feels like very weak sauce. Like maybe only believable if the killer is BKs room mate or friend or similar?

 

[Megnut]

How could a framer get so lucky that BK would be driving around, with his phone off, at the critical hour?

The only SODDI in this story is maybe BK's alter ego.

JMO

 

[Nila Aella]

I'm getting a strange foreboding after reading state's response to defense MIL to exclude all mention of IGG. The state effectively counters the reasoning behind defense's motion for prosecution to be sanctioned but in the end agrees that all mention of IGG should be excluded. Moo

Defense presented their MIL to exclude IGG as an appropriate sanction for the 'misdeeds' of the prosecution. Yet imo defense knew from the get go prosecution never wanted to include IGG in the trial, so the so called sanction they purportedly call for makes no sense.jmo

The State included this in their MPO: 6/16/2023

Page 13
Second, the State did not rely on the IGG information to establish probable cause for Defendant’s arrest, did not present the IGG information to the grand jury, and has no plans to present the IGG information for which a protective order is sought as evidence at trial.6

Footnote
6 If anything, the State would have one of the detectives testify at trial only that they received a tip pointing law enforcement to Defendant. The State reserves the right to present the IGG information at trial if the Court requires the State to disclose the IGG information to the defense.

JMO

Additionally, IMO from reading state response, it seems doubtful defense's motion has any chance of being granted from the POV of sanctioning the state. Surely the D must recognise that? Jmo
However D's MIL does serve as a distraction for the prosecution. Judging the from the state's response maybe that is its purpose?

If we have trial where all the state can do is say there was a generic tip that lead to BK becoming the prime suspect, and the defense is presenting that the sheathe was planted/ DNA was deliberately left by the 'real killer', then the fact the state cannot mention this 'secret tip' becomes the space in which defense will attempt to sew some doubt? Jmo

I'm picturing cross exam of Payne, Mowery and so forth.

'So you received this tip but you're not saying where it came from?'

I guess maybe what I'm getting at is that AT may, through cross, be able to create that hole for a jury where she manages to insinuate that this secret, generic tip that no one can talk about is odd. Perhaps some on the jury will begin to wonder if it's a secret because the tipster is the 'real killer' who 'planted' the sheathe and somehow LE 'fell for it'. Conjecture.

I know all of the above is simply speculation. But the IGG is ultimately inculpatory to BK being the perp. And BK is the perp imo. If all mention of IGG is removed (and.this is what the state is now asking for and wants according to their response to defense's MIL) then this favors a defense where the premise is that the sheathe was planted deliberately by the 'real killer'; ie D can insinuate 'could this "tip" be related to the 'real killer, this important tip that no-one is elaborating on?', whilst of course knowing all the time what the real/actual story is. Jmo.

Anyway, I feel like I'm hardly making sense. These ideas have just been in my mind ever since I read the state's response. State's initial MIL calls for strict guidelines around how IGG should be handled at trial, but now in response to defense, State is agreeing that there should be no mention at all of IGG, and just be referred to as a "generic tip", with zero elaboration on the source. This concerns me, very possibly unnecessarily! Would appreciate an opinion if time permits.

1. Original state MIL re IGG; State originally suggests if IGG is to come in, it should be controlled so as to prejudice neither the state or the defendant.

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/CR01-24-31665/2025/022425-States-Motion-in-Limine-RE-Investigative-Genetic-Geneology.pdf

2. Defense MIL where they ask state to be sanctioned by excluding IGG.

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/CR01-24-31665/2025/022425-Defense-Motion-inLimine-11-RE-Exclude-IGG-Evidence.pdf

3. State's response to above where they agree that all mention of IGG should be excluded from trial evidence.

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/CR01-2431665/2025/031025+States+Response+Defendants+Motion+in+Limine+Re+Exclude+IGG+Evidence.pdf

State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger

 

[Balthazar]

RSBM

Source, please.

"In IGG cases, law enforcement often narrows down the suspect pool to a small group of blood-related individuals, typically siblings or first cousins. Investigators then meticulously examine each suspect until they obtain a direct STR DNA confirmation necessary for an arrest. The initial focus should be on the suspect most likely to have committed the crime based on available evidence. However, the most apparent suspect is not always the perpetrator."

Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG): a guide for prosecutors | Texas District & County Attorneys Association

By Leighton D’Antoni Assistant Criminal District Attorney in Dallas County Forensic investigative genetic genealogy (abbreviated FIGG, IGG, or FGG) is a groundbreaking tool in the field of criminal…

www.tdcaa.com

"IGG involves uploading a genetic profile comprising single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from an unknown person (possibly collected from an item of evidence) to a direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic genealogy database; building the person’s family tree from information about their genetic relatives identified by the database among database participants and public records; and developing leads as to the person’s identity from the family tree and case information [4,5,6]."

Investigative genetic genealogy practices warranting policy attention: Results of a modified policy Delphi - PMC

A technique known as investigative genetic genealogy (IGG) was first introduced to criminal investigations in 2018, and it has since been used by U.S. law enforcement to help identify hundreds of criminal perpetrators and unidentified human remains. ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

"The process of IGG involves uploading a crime scene DNA profile to one or more genetic genealogy databases with the intention of partially matching it to a criminal offender’s genetic relatives and, eventually, locating the offender within their family tree. "

Four misconceptions about investigative genetic genealogy

Abstract. Investigative genetic genealogy (IGG) is a new technique for identifying criminal suspects that has sparked controversy. The technique involves u

academic.oup.com

"IGG relies on a combination of genetic data from consumer genealogy databases and traditional genealogical research to build family trees that point to possible suspects or identify unknown decedents."

Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG) in Practice: Insights from the Trenches - ISHI News

This article was generated with the assistance of artificial intelligence. However, all content has been thoroughly reviewed and curated by a human editor before posting to guarantee accuracy, relevance, and quality. Investigative genetic genealogy (IGG) has become one of the most groundbreaking...

www.ishinews.com

"FGG does not use STR data, nor does it search national DNA databases. Instead, between ~600,000 and ~1 million Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) markers are analyzed in an unknown/questioned sample. The resulting SNP data is uploaded to genetic genealogy databases, which are populated with general members of the public who have voluntarily provided their DNA for SNP analysis or uploaded their SNP DNA data, i.e., GEDmatch, FamilyTreeDNA, and DNASolves. The unknown SNP data uploaded by law enforcement/FGG providers are compared to other users’ SNP data within the database(s) and a list of users who share some DNA with the unknown, and are therefore in some way genetically related, is generated. This list of genetic relatives, more commonly known as DNA matches, can range from close (e.g., sibling, parent–child) to distant (first cousins and beyond) relatives. The amount of DNA shared can then be used to compute probabilities for possible relationships to place DNA matches into predicted positions in the unknown individual’s family tree. "

Bridging Disciplines to Form a New One: The Emergence of Forensic Genetic Genealogy - PMC

Forensic Genetic Genealogy (FGG) has fast become a popular tool in criminal investigations since it first emerged in 2018. FGG is a novel investigatory tool that has been applied to hundreds of unresolved cold cases in the United States to generate ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[SteveP]

IGG does not lead to a specific individual. At best, it leads to a family group. We need to be really careful here about committing to BK because he may have other distant family members in the area who committed this crime whom we know nothing about whatsoever.

DM said she "didn't have a clue" if BK was the person she saw after his arrest. Yet she MUST have seen his eyes/eyebrows and being in his presence, saw his gait. She heard his voice, yet we have not yet heard of any tests in regards to this. BK has a unique cadence and PA accent. Does DM recognize his voice? We don't know.

When (DM) learned that an arrest had been made, she found a mugshot of Mr. Kohberger online. When asked if Mr. Kohberger was the person that she saw in the house, she did not know if Mr. Kohberger was the intruder. She knew that the man had looked at her because of the “bushy eyebrow.” (See Motion in Limine 7 - Exhibit 9 Lake interview, p. 96, l. 23-p. 98, l. 5.) All that she remembered is “some bushy eyebrow and all black and some sort of mask.” Id. p. 98, l. 24 – p. 99, l. 14.

Franks D.M. was shown Defendant's mug shot and asked by Detective Lake whether Defendant was the person she saw in her house. D.M. responded: I have no clue. From what I remember, I just remember seeing this figure that was .... more of like the skinnier tone build, and some mask on ... I don't know if it was covering his mouth, his nose, or below his mouth and nose. Ijust remember he was white, but I didn't know how he was white. Ijust knew he was. And ... I knew he looked at me because of the bushy eyebrows.

So DM said "I have no clue" about BK. That's very unsettling. She did not recognize him from a photo. While you could say that was due to his disguise, she saw him moving, i.e. his gait and she heard his voice. Did she recognize either? IDK.

I see nothing very unsettling about DM being unable to identify BK as the killer, from a photo. Perhaps if in his mugshot, he had been required to put on dark coveralls, a black ski mask type head and face covering, and gloves, he would have looked more familiar to her. Also not sure what she could determine about his gait, or voice, from a photo. She only saw him for a brief moment. He wasn't walking a catwalk, like a runway model, and all of the times we have seen him walking in the past couple years, he has almost certainly had shackles on, which would surely affect any gait. As to hearing him talk, other than hearing him answer "yes" to several questions that the judge asked him about understanding each charge he is facing, in his initial trial, I do not believe that he has uttered a word. Hard to notice cadence or accent in that. Again, as we have discussed over and over these past few days, while she could not absolutely identify him, all of the things that she did describe about the killer that she saw seem to fit BK, and certainly do not exclude him. And finally, if his defense team can accept that it is BK's DNA on the knife sheath, I think that we can too. JMO

 

[MassGuy]

IGG does not lead to a specific individual. At best, it leads to a family group. We need to be really careful here about committing to BK because he may have other distant family members in the area who committed this crime whom we know nothing about whatsoever.

DM said she "didn't have a clue" if BK was the person she saw after his arrest. Yet she MUST have seen his eyes/eyebrows and being in his presence, saw his gait. She heard his voice, yet we have not yet heard of any tests in regards to this. BK has a unique cadence and PA accent. Does DM recognize his voice? We don't know.

When (DM) learned that an arrest had been made, she found a mugshot of Mr. Kohberger online. When asked if Mr. Kohberger was the person that she saw in the house, she did not know if Mr. Kohberger was the intruder. She knew that the man had looked at her because of the “bushy eyebrow.” (See Motion in Limine 7 - Exhibit 9 Lake interview, p. 96, l. 23-p. 98, l. 5.) All that she remembered is “some bushy eyebrow and all black and some sort of mask.” Id. p. 98, l. 24 – p. 99, l. 14.

Franks D.M. was shown Defendant's mug shot and asked by Detective Lake whether Defendant was the person she saw in her house. D.M. responded: I have no clue. From what I remember, I just remember seeing this figure that was .... more of like the skinnier tone build, and some mask on ... I don't know if it was covering his mouth, his nose, or below his mouth and nose. Ijust remember he was white, but I didn't know how he was white. Ijust knew he was. And ... I knew he looked at me because of the bushy eyebrows.

So DM said "I have no clue" about BK. That's very unsettling. She did not recognize him from a photo. While you could say that was due to his disguise, she saw him moving, i.e. his gait and she heard his voice. Did she recognize either? IDK.

"We need to be really careful here about committing to BK because he may have other distant family members in the area who committed this crime whom we know nothing about whatsoever."

What?

A confirmation sample proved that it was his DNA, to the exclusion of 5 octillion other people; it cannot be his father, a cousin, some brother he doesn't know about. It is his DNA, and the defense concedes this.

 

[Arkay]

IGG does not lead to a specific individual. At best, it leads to a family group. We need to be really careful here about committing to BK because he may have other distant family members in the area who committed this crime whom we know nothing about whatsoever.

It seems to me that you are describing some of the first steps in the process, but omitting the final step.

It’s called “investigative” because it’s an ongoing process of winnowing down the family tree until there is only one remaining person who is a perfect match.

Anyone who’s watched any shows like Dateline or countless others has seen experts, like CeCe Moore, describe in detail the process of elimination.

Identifying the common denominator family ancestors and then paring the tree down until only ONE individual is isolated is the essence of this time-consuming but vital procedure.

If BK had an identical twin it would complicate matters to a degree, but he doesn’t, so it’s a moot point.

One person in several octillions is pretty convincing.

Old news anyway as the defense finally had to drop the pretense that it couldn’t be proven it was BK’s DNA on the snap.

IMO, bolstered by well-known and often-linked facts.