4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #105

[NCWatcher]

They developed one print with Amido black. That does not mean it was the only print in the house, whatever the defense tries to claim.

MOO

No, if the state has evidence of other prints that were identified by substances that find blood, I expect we'll hear about those at the trial. But the defense didn't do the crime scene investigation so defense claims about a lack of prints is a bit different from the state claiming without presenting evidence that there were other prints. So we'll see.
MOO

 

[iamshadow21]

No, if the state has evidence of other prints that were identified by substances that find blood, I expect we'll hear about those at the trial. But the defense didn't do the crime scene investigation so defense claims about a lack of prints is a bit different from the state claiming without presenting evidence that there were other prints. So we'll see.
MOO

Every case I've followed, it's only the bare minimum in the PCA or whatever the charging documents are called in that state or territory. And there's always a bit of 'but that's all they've got!' in the threads until trial. And then we realise that it was only a fraction of the tip of the iceberg, regardless of how the defense had been claiming the prosecution had nothing.

I think, with as bloody a scene as it was, with four victims, the evidence collected is going to be into the thousands of individual items, just from the house alone. And that's not even touching on the digital evidence. Just the blood evidence, I imagine they went through a whole roll of stickers and then some documenting the spatter, like in the case of Gabriel Fernandez.

MOO

 

[NCWatcher]

Every case I've followed, it's only the bare minimum in the PCA or whatever the charging documents are called in that state or territory. And there's always a bit of 'but that's all they've got!' in the threads until trial. And then we realise that it was only a fraction of the tip of the iceberg, regardless of how the defense had been claiming the prosecution had nothing.

I think, with as bloody a scene as it was, with four victims, the evidence collected is going to be into the thousands of individual items, just from the house alone. And that's not even touching on the digital evidence. Just the blood evidence, I imagine they went through a whole roll of stickers and then some documenting the spatter, like in the case of Gabriel Fernandez.

MOO

You may be right. But it's interesting the only print identified so far was a "latent" print. If, as you say, it was a bloody scene, it seems the print would not have been latent. And it seems there would be other nearby prints, like a path of prints. But according to this post, the judge seems to suggest there were no other prints in that spot.

This is what the Judge said in his order:

Further, THE FACT the footprint was located only in one spot and there were not others before and after it does not make Detective Payne's statement false about the path of travel

page 30

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/CR01-24-31665/2025/021925-Order-Defedants-Moton-Franks-Hearing.pdf

MOO

 

[mrjitty]

If I understand it correctly, the judge granted a full Franks on the IGG portion for efficiency and heard arguments for a Franks on everything else. I think it's not totally clear that the judge meant there are no other footprints anywhere else at the scene as opposed to no footprints before or after the one mentioned in the PCA, which was specifically talking about a path of travel. The footprint at the door is meant to corroborate DM's statement that the suspect walked by her door. The defense was specifically referencing that area of the house, the path of travel by her door.

It may be that there are no other footprints anywhere else, but I don't think it's clear from the order because the judge also seemed to be referencing that specific area as well. There was no mention of other footprints in the PCA so this would not have been brought up for the Franks unless somehow the defense believed that omitting their existence or lack of existence would have changed the magistrate's mind. I think it's possible they didn't exist, but also possible they do, but they didn't want to include that information in the PCA unless they had something to compare them to.
JMO

Agreed

Once more the danger of finely slicing statements made for other purposes in pretrial.

 

[Megnut]

He stepped in blood. There must have been multiple footprints.

Maybe it was the only usable footprint because it's the only one from which they could lift a usable tread pattern.

JMO

 

[Warwick7]

They developed one print with Amido black. That does not mean it was the only print in the house, whatever the defense tries to claim.

MOO

I remember in the Patrick Frazee trial the affidavit had listed blood on the toilet and the baby gate, but it wasnt until the trial started that we learned the horror of finding so much blood under the floorboards.

We have learned about one footprint outside of DM's door. During the trial there is going to be so much more revealed...

 

[Warwick7]

Wait, were the banister blood stains FRESH blood stains?? I haven't heard that...do you have a link or in a court doc??

If fresh, could DM have transferred a blood stain when she ran down the stairs to BF's room?

ETA: if a transfer from DM, and if male, could it have been E's blood, assuming the murderer didn't cut himself? I AM NOT AT ALL SAYING DM was involved here, only saying could she have touched blood when she left her room like from a wall or could she have slipped/tripped and got some from the floor, and touched the railing on her way down... I DO NOT at all believe the surviving roommates were involved. I wanted to make that clear

There was no fresh blood on a banister. M00

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

My post was in response to the OP questioning if it could have been different from a targeted one person killing plan. I thought it was an interesting question. We really don't know for a fact at this point where BK started, 3rd vs 2nd floor. He could have encountered Xana upon entering, as we know she was up receiving DD and on TIKTOK, which meant a surprise of Ethan being there.

I mentioned BK may well have been targeting one roommate, but was also prepared to kill whomever became an obstacle. Agree, Kaylee sleeping in Maddie's room would likely have been another surprise, whether he was targeting Maddie or her.

I believe after murdering Maddie, Kaylee, Xana and Ethan, he felt he needed to get out of there ASAP (dog barking, neighborhood noises). I don't think BK saw DM, she said he observed him from a couple of feet away. If they had literally come into direct contact, I believe she would be dead as well.

I did say I changed my mind daily, lol, but it's a good exercise to consider all possibilities. IMO

It's possible he saw her and decided to leave instead?

If he was targeting M and found two people in the one room, that was already one underestimation on his part. If he then had to battled X and then E, again, two people in one room, maybe he'd only first though X was alone, a second underestimation.

By the time he saw D, he could be right to worry she could also not be alone and have a partner or friend in her room too and decided to flee instead.

JMO MOO

 

[iamshadow21]

You may be right. But it's interesting the only print identified so far was a "latent" print. If, as you say, it was a bloody scene, it seems the print would not have been latent. And it seems there would be other nearby prints, like a path of prints. But according to this post, the judge seems to suggest there were no other prints in that spot.


MOO

Latent just means it was developed to be more visible.

As you see from the video below, Amido black enhances detail by attaching to the proteins.

I don't think that in this case the judge can be correct. The print was far from both bloodletting events, and the killer didn't fly there.

I believe they chose that print to develop because it wasn't noticeably smudged or smeared and by its location was supporting of and supported by DM's statement. Not because it was the only print in the home.

MOO

 

[Megnut]

Sadly it was likely XK's blood he stepped in, perhaps with just one foot.

We could guesstimate the distance from her door to DM's. It can't be far. He's 6 ft roughly, a stride of what? We could calculate how many steps he took, each one marking less, then one outside her door, virtually invisible until tested... revealing the most detail.

It's not that mysterious.

It's just eerie, in that it confirms what DM saw and tried to recall.

JMO

 

[NCWatcher]

Latent just means it was developed to be more visible.

As you see from the video below, Amido black enhances detail by attaching to the proteins.

I don't think that in this case the judge can be correct. The print was far from both bloodletting events, and the killer didn't fly there.

I believe they chose that print to develop because it wasn't noticeably smudged or smeared and by its location was supporting of and supported by BF's statement. Not because it was the only print in the home.

MOO

You might be right that the judge is wrong--but he likely knows more about the evidence than either of us do. Your opinion that there were lots of bloody prints found in the house is valid as an opinion but it IS only an opinion.

I do know what latent means. My point is if the scene was so bloody, I wouldn't think "special techniques" would be needed to make a bloody shoe print visible. And while you are right one print near the witness's door (BF? I thought it was DM) helps to support her statement, a path of prints passing her door (or even a second print) would be super-supportive. And as you say, the person whose print it was didn't fly there so why weren't there more prints found in that location (per the defense and per the judge.)
MOO

 

[iamshadow21]

You might be right that the judge is wrong--but he likely knows more about the evidence than either of us do. Your opinion that there were lots of bloody prints found in the house is valid as an opinion but it IS only an opinion.

I do know what latent means. My point is if the scene was so bloody, I wouldn't think "special techniques" would be needed to make a bloody shoe print visible. And while you are right one print near the witness's door (BF? I thought it was DM) helps to support her statement, a path of prints passing her door (or even a second print) would be super-supportive. And as you say, the person whose print it was didn't fly there so why weren't there more prints found in that location (per the defense and per the judge.)
MOO

Yes, absolutely. It's just an opinion, this is a discussion. I'm not expecting anyone to change their mind because of something I've speculated. I think that there must have been more footprints because a) he didn't fly, b) footprints from a source of liquid lead back, inevitably, to the source, and c) the house was floored throughout in modern lino, so, there wasn't something like carpeting between the print and the bloodletting sources which would be more difficult to get a clear print from.

You're right, I mixed up the girls' names, I'll correct it.

MOO

 

[JudyBolton]

You may be right. But it's interesting the only print identified so far was a "latent" print. If, as you say, it was a bloody scene, it seems the print would not have been latent. And it seems there would be other nearby prints, like a path of prints. But according to this post, the judge seems to suggest there were no other prints in that spot.


MOO

I've always assumed BK was wearing gloves at the scene = no other prints. The print on the knife sheath was deposited earlier - when he was preparing for the crime. Maybe cleaning and/or sharpening the knife and then putting it into the sheath. He obviously didn't intent to leave it there so wasn't thinking of wiping it down before hand. Just my thoughts...

 

[Megnut]

I've always assumed BK was wearing gloves at the scene = no other prints. The print on the knife sheath was deposited earlier - when he was preparing for the crime. Maybe cleaning and/or sharpening the knife and then putting it into the sheath. He obviously didn't intent to leave it there so wasn't thinking of wiping it down before hand. Just my thoughts...

Or he did clean it, didn't think to take a toothpick to the snap groove.

 

[NCWatcher]

I've always assumed BK was wearing gloves at the scene = no other prints. The print on the knife sheath was deposited earlier - when he was preparing for the crime. Maybe cleaning and/or sharpening the knife and then putting it into the sheath. He obviously didn't intent to leave it there so wasn't thinking of wiping it down before hand. Just my thoughts...

Yes. But I was talking about shoe prints. I'm not sure qny fingerprints were found that belonged to BK. We don't have evidence the shoe print was his either so far as I know.
MOO

 

[Balthazar]

Why would a police officer be “bleeding all over the crime scene?”

Bryan was gone already. The police were not in a battle for their lives against Bryan’s knife, in which case they’d have shot him anyway.

IMO it is completely far-fetched to even contemplate this scenario. If somehow an officer was hurt and bloody prior to arriving, his superior officer would not, I’m sure, allow him to work the crime scene.

I feel confident that the male officers can be safely eliminated as the source of the blood stain on the handrail. Which I also believe was old and degraded.

JMO

You have completely misunderstood my post. I was pointing out that it is absurd to even consider that police would be bleeding all over the crime scene. The people that we know of who were in 1122 King Rd that morning were:

DM
BF
HJ
EA
Police

The 4 students exited the house once XK and EC were discovered. LE entered, and discovered all of the victims. From that point on, no one was allowed to enter until CSI got there. The paramedics were turned away. Idaho CSI got there around 3pm and were setting up to go into the scene at 4pm.

There is zero evidence that the blood on the handrail was old or degraded. CSI would not have taken it, if it was. That the sample was taken tells us that CSI considered it part of the crime scene inside 1122 King Rd.

 

[Balthazar]

Yes. But I was talking about shoe prints. I'm not sure qny fingerprints were found that belonged to BK. We don't have evidence the shoe print was his either so far as I know.
MOO

There were no fingerprints from BK within the crime scene and no other BK DNA anywhere in 1122. <modsnip: Removed rumor>

 

[Megnut]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed due to opinion stated as fact and no links to support>

LE probably swabbed multiple unrelated surfaces because at the time LE didn't know what would become evidentiary.

Further investigation showed that the suspect spent time on the 2nd and 3rd levels, with no evidence he was on the lower staircase.

What is the theory? The murderer or an accomplice left one spot of blood on the rail? Went up or down the steps but didn't attack BF?

But what of BK's DNA on the sheath in the very middle of the murder scene? He didn't leave it there? What's that theory? That he was framed? Not even the Defense is suggesting that. Who would? Toward what end? And how did this framer get BK to drive around the crime scene neighborhood for an hour, at the exact time of the crime? How did they get BK's sheath away from him? How is that not then a KEY part of his defense, they someone stole his sheath? How did the framer get BK to turn his phone off, again at the exact same range of time during which the crime was occurring?

Unrelated, BK just happened to buy a Kbar and sheath prior? For no particular reason? Just to have? Until someone would steal it? A secret he's not sharing?

I think it's far more likely that AT is exploiting every item or angle of incomplete evidence as an unknown which might magically exonerate BK when, in fact, the truth of it cannot.

Unidentified blood on a handrail is more useful to AT for the fact that she can stir mystery, conspiracy, doubt when the truth of it is rather mundane, with zero evidentiary value.

Whoever it belongs to doesn't help her case. 100% it preceded the crime.

JMO

 

[tlcya]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed due to opinion stated as fact and no links to support>

Nobody is certain what is relevant evidence and what is not at a crime scene. CSI doesn't make the determination of what is relevant or not. Samples, photos, prints, etc. are all taken from the general crime vicinity and only later, when the rest of the evidence is gathered and reviewed, do investigators begin to determine what is relevant to the crime and what is not. CSI gathers anything that MAY be relevant. Some will turn out to be very relevant, some only marginally, and most completely irrelevant. JMO

 

[jepop]

Rbbm

LE probably swabbed multiple unrelated surfaces because at the time LE didn't know what would become evidentiary.

Further investigation showed that the suspect spent time on the 2nd and 3rd levels, with no evidence he was on the lower staircase.

What is the theory? The murderer or an accomplice left one spot of blood on the rail? Went up or down the steps but didn't attack BF?

But what of BK's DNA on the sheath in the very middle of the murder scene? He didn't leave it there? What's that theory? That he was framed? Not even the Defense is suggesting that. Who would? Toward what end? And how did this framer get BK to drive around the crime scene neighborhood for an hour, at the exact time of the crime? How did they get BK's sheath away from him? How is that not then a KEY part of his defense, they someone stole his sheath? How did the framer get BK to turn his phone off, again at the exact same range of time during which the crime was occurring?

Unrelated, BK just happened to buy a Kbar and sheath prior? For no particular reason? Just to have? Until someone would steal it? A secret he's not sharing?

I think it's far more likely that AT is exploiting every item or angle of incomplete evidence as an unknown which might magically exonerate BK when, in fact, the truth of it cannot.

Unidentified blood on a handrail is more useful to AT for the fact that she can stir mystery, conspiracy, doubt when the truth of it is rather mundane, with zero evidentiary value.

Whoever it belongs to doesn't help her case. 100% it preceded the crime.

JMO

Yes, moo it's a no brainer. Of course BK's defence will insinuate over it for all it's worth on cross and maybe via their own expert during their case in chief. Whatever approach the defense take, the State imo have this case locked down and I have no doubt they will have good rebuttal experts. Moo the jury should have no problem understanding that the unknown DNA extracted from this blood (which at present we know nothing about in terms of amount, age and so forth) is irrelevant to the crime. Jmo

Hopefully voir dire will at least do something to exclude potential jurors who have a tendency to either make up evidence or facts pertaining to trial evidence which are not established. Jmo.