4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #102

[girlhasnoname]

ID Rule of Evidence 404(b)

@arielilane Thx for the update.

Has there been recent discussion here about what the state's Rule 404(b) evidence might be? State says it's gonna comply.

The story of BK stealing sister's phone comes to mind as one possibility.
What else? Anyone?

___________________________________________
"(b) Crimes, Wrongs, or Other Acts.
"(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.
"(2) Permitted Uses; Notice in a Criminal Case. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident. In a criminal case, the prosecutor must:
"(A) file and serve reasonable notice of the general nature of any such evidence that the prosecutor intends to offer at trial; and
"(B) do so reasonably in advance of trial – or during trial if the court, for good cause shown, excuses lack of pretrial notice."

I.R.E. 404. Character Evidence not Admissible to Prove Conduct; Exceptions; Other Crimes. | Supreme Court

isc.idaho.gov

BK's previous disciplinary actions in High School causing him to be removed from one elective to another (HVAC) with only male students is one.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Live 5P ET#BryanKohberger’s defense is doing everything they can to prevent their client from a conviction during this summer’s trial of the #Idaho4…But will they be effective?!#BestGuests: 2X reporter of the year @kfixler
of @IdahoStatesman
+ Criminal Defense Attorney and former prosecutors Greg Skordas + Tara MalekWATCH+SUB+SHARE: https://youtube.com/live/uqXnm3aY0jQ?si=KHmpv4Al1h2T7Xi5

https://twitter.com/x/status/1900267768869789854

This is not surprising to me. Maddie and Kaylee had been at the bar and then the food truck. Maddie might have hugged someone or touched them in way that left DNA. In the Food Truck video Maddie seems a little more intoxicated than Kaylee IMO.

I remember seeing them walking with a male up to the food truck, who was investigated and ruled out. (hoodie guy) Maddie also runs up to someone and gives them a hug IIRC.

JMO

 

[Megnut]

This is not surprising to me. Maddie and Kaylee had been at the bar and then the food truck. Maddie might have hugged someone or touched them in way that left DNA. In the Food Truck video Maddie seems a little more intoxicated than Kaylee IMO.

I remember seeing them walking with a male up to the food truck, who was investigated and ruled out. (hoodie guy) Maddie also runs up to someone and gives them a hug IIRC.

JMO

If there's ANY male DNA under her nails, it's likely Murphy's.

JMO

 

[jepop]

Johnson, ID....I've often wondered about that trip. Johnson, ID appears to be very rural (from Google Maps). Wonder what he was doing out there? Seems risky to wait that long to dispose of his clothes, etc. but it did cross my mind.

Oh, I think the Johnson ID reference in this section of the PCA is a mistake. When read in context, affiant is talking about BK going back to an area where his Elantra was earlier in the am when returning to Pullman after 4.48am ping hwy 95 near Blaine. Moo

You can see BK travelled in the vicinity of Johnson WA during that trip. I believe when he switches off his phone at about 5.30pm on 13 Nov 2022, he is in the Johnson WA area, where he travelled in dark hours of the early am.

If it comes up, this mistake can be cleared up for the jury at trial. Moo it's an auto correct typo.

State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/CR29-22-2805/122922+Affidavit+-+Exhibit+A+-+Statement+of+Brett-Payne.pdf

P18.
" ...records for the 8458 Phone indicated that between approximately
5:32 p.m. and 5:36 p.m., the 8458 Phone utilized cellular resources that provide coverage to Johnson, ID. The 8458 Phone then stops reporting to the network from approximately 5:36 p.m.to 8:30 p.m. That is consistent with the 8458 Phone being the area that the 8458 Phone traveled in
the hours immediately following the suspected time the homicides occurred."

(my emphasis).

Ebm to fix link

 

[iamshadow21]

If there's ANY male DNA under her nails, it's likely Murphy's.

JMO

Nonhuman DNA would not be of any significance and would clearly be recorded as such.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

If there's ANY male DNA under her nails, it's likely Murphy's.

JMO

Are you talking about the dog Murphy? I don't think they would consider canine DNA as a legitimate source.

MOO

 

[Megnut]

Color me confused.

Admittedly I lost sight of the fact there were  three contributors.

I still don't see where there's any evidence of a male contributor. Except what's implied.

In any event, according to the article, the State did show that it was exculpatory for BK for the Grand Jury.ccBy virtue of being inconclusive IMO.

And AT wants it excluded from the trial, even though they've apparently tested it and excluded BK as a contributor, on the grounds it might confuse the jury.

The Defense wants to exclude exculpatory findings?????

Strange, no?

If the judge rules in their favor, it will be one of those things the jury simply doesn't hear about.

Which IMO is fine. There's no indication that MM was able to fight back so the DNA under her nails is incidental, unrelated to the crime against her.

It's just surprising to me that it's the Defense who wants it suppressed.

Reading further, they talk about a likelihood ratio... Inconclusive. That makes more sense. No five octillions to one, it must be the nature of what's testable. Not excluded but just a really low likelihood ratio that it compares to BK. Maybe not enough markers.

To sum, it would seem that BK can't be ruled entirely out. Or in. Inconclusive. AT doesn't want that 'maybe' left open.

JMO

https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/05/us/three-person-mixture-of-unknown-dna-found-under-fingernails-of-victim-in-idaho-student-killings-case-filing-shows/?dicbo=v2-NAa8Did&hptm=ob_25tp

 

[Boxer]

Color me confused.

Admittedly I lost sight of the fact there were  three contributors.

I still don't see where there's any evidence of a male contributor. Except what's implied.

In any event, according to the article, the State did show that it was exculpatory for BK for the Grand Jury.ccBy virtue of being inconclusive IMO.

And AT wants it excluded from the trial, even though they've apparently tested it and excluded BK as a contributor, on the grounds it might confuse the jury.

The Defense wants to exclude exculpatory findings?????

Strange, no?

If the judge rules in their favor, it will be one of those things the jury simply doesn't hear about.

Which IMO is fine. There's no indication that MM was able to fight back so the DNA under her nails is incidental, unrelated to the crime against her.

It's just surprising to me that it's the Defense who wants it suppressed.

Reading further, they talk about a likelihood ratio... Inconclusive. That makes more sense. No five octillions to one, it must be the nature of what's testable. Not excluded but just a really low likelihood ratio that it compares to BK. Maybe not enough markers.

To sum, it would seem that BK can't be ruled entirely out. Or in. Inconclusive. AT doesn't want that 'maybe' left open.

JMO

https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/05/us/three-person-mixture-of-unknown-dna-found-under-fingernails-of-victim-in-idaho-student-killings-case-filing-shows/?dicbo=v2-NAa8Did&hptm=ob_25tp

So, male DNA under fingernails that does not exclude BK? There you go, that is why.

 

[Maat99]

And AT wants it excluded from the trial, even though they've apparently tested it and excluded BK as a contributor, on the grounds it might confuse the jury.

The Defense wants to exclude exculpatory findings?????

Strange, no?

This is a very good point.

 

[SteveP]

Color me confused.

Admittedly I lost sight of the fact there were  three contributors.

I still don't see where there's any evidence of a male contributor. Except what's implied.

In any event, according to the article, the State did show that it was exculpatory for BK for the Grand Jury.ccBy virtue of being inconclusive IMO.

And AT wants it excluded from the trial, even though they've apparently tested it and excluded BK as a contributor, on the grounds it might confuse the jury.

The Defense wants to exclude exculpatory findings?????

Strange, no?

If the judge rules in their favor, it will be one of those things the jury simply doesn't hear about.

Which IMO is fine. There's no indication that MM was able to fight back so the DNA under her nails is incidental, unrelated to the crime against her.

It's just surprising to me that it's the Defense who wants it suppressed.

Reading further, they talk about a likelihood ratio... Inconclusive. That makes more sense. No five octillions to one, it must be the nature of what's testable. Not excluded but just a really low likelihood ratio that it compares to BK. Maybe not enough markers.

To sum, it would seem that BK can't be ruled entirely out. Or in. Inconclusive. AT doesn't want that 'maybe' left open.

JMO

https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/05/us/three-person-mixture-of-unknown-dna-found-under-fingernails-of-victim-in-idaho-student-killings-case-filing-shows/?dicbo=v2-NAa8Did&hptm=ob_25tp

While the apparently three contributors to the DNA under MM's fingernails are unknown, as testing came back inconclusive, I am frankly surprised that it is the defense who wants the evidence suppressed also, as they claim that their testing excluded BK. I think it is very reasonable to suspect that two of the contributors of the DNA under MM's nails are surely MM herself, and very likely KG, who she was sharing a bed with. The other unknown could have been almost anyone that she came in contact with earlier in the evening, at the Corner Bar, or at the food truck, where we know that she had contact with the person taking her order, and also hugged at least one male. From video we saw at the food truck, and on the walk with KG and yet another male to the food truck, it seems obvious that MM was intoxicated, or at least well on the way, so it is also likely, imo, that she interacted with more people than just KG at the bar, and most likely hugged or at least reached out and touched other people during the course of the evening. Any such interactions could have resulted in getting a bit of another's DNA under her nails. Her walk seemed unsteady in the video that we saw, so it is very possible that she inadvertently brushed against other people as well, and perhaps put her arm and hand out to steady herself. DNA under nails can last up to 48 hours, from what I have read, but begins to seriously degrade after only 6, which is likely why the tested DNA remains unidentified. Btw, I have seen nothing factually stating that at least one of the contributors was male.

I believe the only reason that we even are now being told that MM's nails contained an unknown mixture of three person's DNA is because that would be sure to grab headlines, and possibly taint any future jurors. JMO

 

[jepop]

Question for those with medical knowledge. (I’ll Google, too, but . . .)

Does a “mixed blood sample” always mean a male/female mix?

Or can it mean a mix of blood types, like there’s blood type A+ and a type B?
Or two or more females?

I ask, because I haven’t read where the “mixed blood” on the sheath has been stated as male/female. Has it been clarified or is it inferred?

[Off topic, sort of, but is @10ofRods okay? S/he posted often on the DNA information, which I very much appreciated.]

Not clarified. But jmo the most logical and reasonable inference, given the D never made a fuss about testing the blood on the sheathe (other than to confirm not BK's and make sure to get that out to the public), and given sheathe was found near/under one brutally stabbed victim who was lying close to a second brutally stabbed victim, is that the mixture consists of those victims' blood. Jmo

We just have the D's motions and Jan 23rd IGG hearing transcripts. So moo in none of these docs do we see anything about the state's case. That is expected and normal imo. It's simply not the time for state to broadcast the testing results because it will be trial evidence imo.

There are lab reports referred to in the hearings and motions, and early discovery requests make clear there are numerous ISL reports. I can't see why there would not be one pertaining to the testing of the blood on the sheathe.

I would guess that both the state and defense have known the results for a long time; the upstairs victims as one would expect. Speculative strictly speaking, but to me it's a no brainer. Jmo.

 

[jepop]

I agree he likely had pre-dug a hole somewhere to dispose/bury the murder weapon (KBar) and other items he likely wore during the massacre (coveralls, mask, booties etc.) versus dumping them in a waterway.

Iirc, someone please correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t his phone offline the same evening of the murders (11/13/22) from about 5-5:30pm until 8:00pm. I’ve often wondered if this timeframe is when he was disposing of some? all? of the rest of incriminating evidence.

Crazy to think about him driving by the scene at 9:00am that morning with a bag full of all the other incriminating evidence (minus the knife sheath of course) in his trunk to dispose/bury later that evening (5-8pm) under the cover of darkness.

***Found link, snipped and BBM:
Additional analysis of records for the 8458 Phone indicated that between approximately 5:32 p.m. and 5:36 p.m., the 8458 Phone utilized cellular resources that provide coverage to Johnson, ID. The 8458 Phone then stops reporting to the network from approximately 5:36 p.m.to 8:30 p.m. That is consistent with the 8458 Phone being the area that the 8458 Phone traveled in the hours immediately following the suspected time the homicides occurred.

https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2023/01/122922-Affidavit-Exhibit-A-Statement-of-Brett-Payne.pdf

IMHOO

ETA-link and snipped paragraph from link

Agree he was up to something in those three hours. In November it's pretty much dark by 5.30pm. I've speculated he may also have been doing some car cleaning away from prying eyes under torch light out there in the sticks.

It's possible he did a quick disposal on trip home in the Johnston WA area after 4.48am and then, after feeling safer the next day given that the cops were not on the scene until much later than he anticipated, he returned after 5.30pm to complete the job thoroughly and take his time. Jmo.

 

[jepop]

I’ve been following this case but there is so much info. Have the details of the texts between SM and BF been disclosed? Also, what is the suspect video? Thanks in advance.

You probably sussed it out. I'm on some sort of weird typo detecting run at present! In this instance " suspect video" appears to be a typo in the OP's post for "suspect vehicle". Jmo from the context. Also often abbreviated in posts to SV1 ( suspect vehicle 1 per the probable cause affidavit aka PCA).

 

[jepop]

IIRC there was quite some misunderstanding here about what items were removed and where they were located and there was no glove in the car. There was a list of items, written quite hastily it appeared, removed from the 'glove' ie the glove compartment, ie the little storage hatch in front of the seat area of a passenger car, not an actual glove.

JMO MOO

Yes, I recall this well. The item was from the PA residence, not the Elantra. From memory ' IDs in glove inside box' or similar. There was deciphering going on in the thread at the time because the handwriting on the return of items, especially from the PA house, was pretty appalling!

I believe from memory it was News Nation who consistently misreported that the item came from the glove box of the Elantra, even though it was clearly listed on the return from the house. More AI and no editing I guess!! I can't access the PA search warrant docs. I'm blocked, probably because of my location. So moo, but I know I'm remembering correctly.

 

[Megnut]

Came across this old clip, posting it because they make a good point. Adding to our list of circumstantial coincidences, BK also happened NOT to come forward.

Surely if he were innocent and driving only way across town, he'd come forward and get his Elantra cleared. Welp.

 

[schooling]

Agree he was up to something in those three hours. In November it's pretty much dark by 5.30pm. I've speculated he may also have been doing some car cleaning away from prying eyes under torch light out there in the sticks.

It's possible he did a quick disposal on trip home in the Johnston WA area after 4.48am and then, after feeling safer the next day given that the cops were not on the scene until much later than he anticipated, he returned after 5.30pm to complete the job thoroughly and take his time. Jmo.

I've always suspected that his missing shower curtain was an indicator that things didn't go as planned and paranoia likely kicked in at some point.

Meaning he took a shower(s), and couldn't be sure that he didn't get victim *anything* on the curtain so he pulled it at some point. Likely before he left for the East Coast. IMO

Same behavior that extended into his kitchen and the text message that the DailyMail reported on purporting to say that BK was grocery shopping with gloves on. MOO

So him going on a complete cleaning spree the evening after makes complete sense.

Wasn't there something about a storage space he was leasing too? Or at least some speculation?

Everything above MOO

 

[jepop]

I've always suspected that his missing shower curtain was an indicator that things didn't go as planned and paranoia likely kicked in at some point.

Meaning he took a shower(s), and couldn't be sure that he didn't get victim *anything* on the curtain so he pulled it at some point. Likely before he left for the East Coast. IMO

Same behavior that extended into his kitchen and the text message that the DailyMail reported on purporting to say that BK was grocery shopping with gloves on. MOO

So him going on a complete cleaning spree the evening after makes complete sense.

Wasn't there something about a storage space he was leasing too? Or at least some speculation?

Everything above MOO

Good points. Yeah, I can't see him heading off back to Moscow at 9am and then back to Pullman then out again to Lewiston for the afternoon without taking a shower. No way hozay! Jmo

Re storage space, I don't believe there is anything out there about him leasing one. During the search of WA apartment, officers got an over the phone warrant to search his unit allotted storage space, as it wasn't included in the existing warrant. This came up a thread or two back and I recall links showing that the space was empty and appeared to be unused. Moo

 

[Megnut]

Item 35... from the house.... from inside a glove inside a box.... 10 somethings or ID... legibility struggle

Knife, gun and ammunition seized from Bryan Kohberger's home

The full list of items seized by Pennsylvania police from Bryan Kohberger's parents' house was revealed on Thursday and includes a knife, gun, ammunition and a 'criminal psychology book'.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[jepop]

Item 35... from the house.... from inside a glove inside a box.... 10 somethings or ID... legibility struggle

Knife, gun and ammunition seized from Bryan Kohberger's home

The full list of items seized by Pennsylvania police from Bryan Kohberger's parents' house was revealed on Thursday and includes a knife, gun, ammunition and a 'criminal psychology book'.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Good one! I remember that there was some kind of consensus.

"IDs... inside glove inside box"? But I've forgotten what was made of the word after IDs. It was something...

News Nation was reporting it as
'10 curls' at some point! Blast from the past. There's seriously page upon page of analysis devoted to this item!! I might go check it out later.

 

[Megnut]

Good one! I remember that there was some kind of consensus.

"IDs... inside glove inside box"? But I've forgotten what was made of the word after IDs. It was something...

News Nation was reporting it as
'10 curls' at some point! Blast from the past. There's seriously page upon page of analysis devoted to this item!! I might go check it out later.

I think consensus was "( )". I don't know that there was ever consensus on what was within the parentheses.