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

[Cool Cats]

Right, it proves that someone didnt put BK's DNA on their own knife probably.

But the D can still try and claim that BK bought a knife and it was stolen from him and then planted.

Nit that it sounds believable, but....

This would backfire spectacularly.

It would be the defense admitting the murders were committed by their own client's knife. Client's knife, not somebody else buying the knife, this is the personal property of BK.

If this mysterious John Doe went on a murder spree it is a reasonable assumption that he acquired his own knife and would not need to steal BK's knife - he would use his own weapon.

Plus, the jury would have to hear some evidence not just speculation. The specific circumstances of when was it stolen? Where did he keep it? Did he report it stolen? Why not? Did he tell anyone about it?


2 Cents

 

[Warwick7]

Right, it proves that someone didnt put BK's DNA on their own knife probably.

But the D can still try and claim that BK bought a knife and it was stolen from him and then planted.

Nit that it sounds believable, but....

True...they can still try and claim that BK bought a knife and it was stolen from him and then planted.
BUT on the flip side it was BK's cellphone data that shows he had been near the students' home at least 23 times prior to the murders.
And....it was BK who looks like he was attempting to delete his order/click history on Amazon.

 

[MeadowMuffin]

We don't know that for a fact. We seem to have a circumstantial case where not all of the circumstances were taken into consideration:

Unknown male blood on the bannister
Unknown male DNA under MM's fingernail
Unknown male blood on the glove just outside the house

Why is the unknown male blood less important than a miniscule amount of touch DNA on the sheath?

To put to rest the notion that there was a miniscule amount of touch DNA or 10 cells or whatever on the knife sheath. From the recent motion regarding Rylene Nowlin and DNA on the knife sheath:

mil

Ill. FACTS
A knife sheath was recovered from the crime scene in this matter and swabbed for DNA. A sample of DNA, identified as Q1.1, was extracted from the swab by the Idaho State Police Forensics Lab ("ISP Lab"). The DNA concentration was 0.168 mg/uL. It was subsequently tested using standard DNA STR (Short Tandem Repeat) methods. The STR profile developed revealed that the DNA came from a single source male profile.

Per ChatGPT:

A concentration of 0.168 mg/µL is not considered a small amount of DNA. It's actually quite a high concentration.

To break it down:

• 0.168 mg/µL is equivalent to 168 µg/mL (since 1 mg = 1000 µg, and 1 µL = 1/1000 mL).
• This means you have 168 micrograms of DNA for every milliliter of solution.

Context:​

• In forensic DNA analysis, concentrations can vary widely depending on the source and quality of the sample. For example, typical concentrations from human blood or semen can range from 10 µg/mL to several hundred µg/mL.
• This means 168 µg/mL is on the higher end of the spectrum, which is plenty of DNA for techniques like PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction), which amplifies DNA for further analysis.
• In summary, a DNA concentration of 168 µg/mL is considered ample and well above the threshold needed for effective forensic DNA analysis.

 

[Warwick7]

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

Judge Hippler ruled denying all of the motions to suppress and the Franks Hearing, saying in part, "Defendant has not shown either prejudice or deliberate disregard of ICR-41(d). Further, as noted, the places to be searched are reasonably described so as to avoid any chance that a mistaken premises might be searched instead. Consequently, suppression is not warranted due to alleged problems with the search commands."

 

[Warwick7]

"To see if one person could have committed four killings in roughly 13 minutes, investigators conducted time runs at the house, the prosecution wrote in a filing last week. Gilbertson will testify that the time runs done by investigators confirmed one person could have carried out the homicides alone."

https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/crime/article302871174.html#storylink=cpy

 

[SteveP]

To put to rest the notion that there was a miniscule amount of touch DNA or 10 cells or whatever on the knife sheath. From the recent motion regarding Rylene Nowlin and DNA on the knife sheath:

mil

Ill. FACTS
A knife sheath was recovered from the crime scene in this matter and swabbed for DNA. A sample of DNA, identified as Q1.1, was extracted from the swab by the Idaho State Police Forensics Lab ("ISP Lab"). The DNA concentration was 0.168 mg/uL. It was subsequently tested using standard DNA STR (Short Tandem Repeat) methods. The STR profile developed revealed that the DNA came from a single source male profile.

Per ChatGPT:

A concentration of 0.168 mg/µL is not considered a small amount of DNA. It's actually quite a high concentration.

To break it down:

• 0.168 mg/µL is equivalent to 168 µg/mL (since 1 mg = 1000 µg, and 1 µL = 1/1000 mL).
• This means you have 168 micrograms of DNA for every milliliter of solution.

Context:​

• In forensic DNA analysis, concentrations can vary widely depending on the source and quality of the sample. For example, typical concentrations from human blood or semen can range from 10 µg/mL to several hundred µg/mL.
• This means 168 µg/mL is on the higher end of the spectrum, which is plenty of DNA for techniques like PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction), which amplifies DNA for further analysis.
• In summary, a DNA concentration of 168 µg/mL is considered ample and well above the threshold needed for effective forensic DNA analysis.

I promise you, if the same amount of DNA, that was found on that sheath, belonged to someone else and not BK, some who want to downplay the amount and significance of it, would suddenly argue that it is a huge amount of DNA. JMO

 

[Warwick7]

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

My understanding is no, he did not grant full franks on the IGG. Judge Hippler denied BK's motions to suppress evidence, including a franks hearing on the IGG.

 

[Nila Aella]

To put to rest the notion that there was a miniscule amount of touch DNA or 10 cells or whatever on the knife sheath. From the recent motion regarding Rylene Nowlin and DNA on the knife sheath:

mil

Ill. FACTS
A knife sheath was recovered from the crime scene in this matter and swabbed for DNA. A sample of DNA, identified as Q1.1, was extracted from the swab by the Idaho State Police Forensics Lab ("ISP Lab"). The DNA concentration was 0.168 mg/uL. It was subsequently tested using standard DNA STR (Short Tandem Repeat) methods. The STR profile developed revealed that the DNA came from a single source male profile.

Per ChatGPT:

A concentration of 0.168 mg/µL is not considered a small amount of DNA. It's actually quite a high concentration.

To break it down:

• 0.168 mg/µL is equivalent to 168 µg/mL (since 1 mg = 1000 µg, and 1 µL = 1/1000 mL).
• This means you have 168 micrograms of DNA for every milliliter of solution.

Context:​

• In forensic DNA analysis, concentrations can vary widely depending on the source and quality of the sample. For example, typical concentrations from human blood or semen can range from 10 µg/mL to several hundred µg/mL.
• This means 168 µg/mL is on the higher end of the spectrum, which is plenty of DNA for techniques like PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction), which amplifies DNA for further analysis.
• In summary, a DNA concentration of 168 µg/mL is considered ample and well above the threshold needed for effective forensic DNA analysis.

0.168ng/ul

“the quantity of DNA detected on M2022-4843 Item 1.1 (0.168ng/μl)”

State:
page 6

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/CR01-24-31665/2025/031725-States-Response-Defendants-MiL-6-RE-Reference-Touch-Contact-DNA.pdf

Order you posted
Under facts = typo changed ng to mg.
Read a little further for the testimony of RN.
page 2
The final paragraph of her rebuttal disclosure states: Many complicated factors can influence the likelihood oftransfer ofDNA and the persistence ofthe transferred DNA after deposition. Current DNA technology cannot conclusively answer the question ofwhen DNA was deposited on an item or by what mechanism (i.e. direct or indirect transfer). It is possible the DNA detected on M2022-4843 Item 1.1 resulted from secondary transfer; however, based on Nowlin's training and experience it is her opinion given the quantity of DNA detected on M2022-4843 Item 1.1 (0.168ng/ul) and given the DNA profile obtained is single source it is more likely the result ofa direct transfer.

Defense MIL
Many complicated factors can influence the likelihood of transfer of DNA and the persistence of the transferred DNA after deposition. Current DNA technology cannot conclusively answer the question of when DNA was deposited on an item or by what mechanism (i.e. direct or indirect transfer). It is possible the DNA detected on M2022-4843 Item 1.1 resulted from secondary transfer; however, based on Nowlin’s training and experience it is her opinion given the quantity of DNA detected on M2022-4843 Item 1.1 (0.168ng/μl) and given the DNA profile obtained is single source it is more likely the result of a direct transfer.
pg 3

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

0.168ng = 0.000168ug

JMO

 

[wendy44]

My understanding is no, he did not grant full franks on the IGG. Judge Hippler denied BK's motions to suppress evidence, including a franks hearing on the IGG.

It wasn't really clear while it was happening because we couldn't watch that part of the hearing, but it appears that the judge allowed a full Franks hearing to coincide with testimony on the Motion to Suppress the Genetic Information in the interests of efficiency. It was a lot of information and testimony so I can see why he would do that. He refers to a few times in the Franks order.

Page 2:

A hearing on Defendant's motion was held on January 23, 2025. In the interests of evidentiary efficiency, the Court permitted full Franks hearing on the motion only insofar as it pertained to the alleged omission of information regarding Defendant's identification through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG).* On the remaining challenges, the Court permitted argument on Defendant's proffer as to whether Defendant had satisfied his burden to warrant a subsequent Franks hearing.' The Court then took the matters under advisement.

The Court concludes that the search warrants are not invalid based on the omission of Defendant's identification through IGG because that information would have only bolstered probable cause for the searches. As to the remaining challenges, the Court finds Defendant has failed to carry his preliminary burden under Franks and, therefore, DENIES his motion for Franks hearing.

Page 4:

As mentioned, for convenience sake, the Court granted an evidentiary hearing on the IGG issue. This evidence will be considered under the preponderance of evidence standard, while the proffer on the remaining issues will be considered under the "substantial preliminary showing" standard.

The Court was informed that the evidence of this issue substantially overlapped with evidence that was to be presented on Defendant's Motion to Suppressre: Genetic Information. Given that, the Court concluded it would be most efficient to have full Franks hearing on the IGG issue since it was slated to largely be presented anyway.

Page 34:

As mentioned, the Court permitted full Franks hearing on this issue.

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

JMO

 

[INfisherman]

0.168ng/ul

“the quantity of DNA detected on M2022-4843 Item 1.1 (0.168ng/μl)”

State:
page 6

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/CR01-24-31665/2025/031725-States-Response-Defendants-MiL-6-RE-Reference-Touch-Contact-DNA.pdf

Order you posted
Under facts = typo changed ng to mg.
Read a little further for the testimony of RN.
page 2
The final paragraph of her rebuttal disclosure states: Many complicated factors can influence the likelihood oftransfer ofDNA and the persistence ofthe transferred DNA after deposition. Current DNA technology cannot conclusively answer the question ofwhen DNA was deposited on an item or by what mechanism (i.e. direct or indirect transfer). It is possible the DNA detected on M2022-4843 Item 1.1 resulted from secondary transfer; however, based on Nowlin's training and experience it is her opinion given the quantity of DNA detected on M2022-4843 Item 1.1 (0.168ng/ul) and given the DNA profile obtained is single source it is more likely the result ofa direct transfer.

Defense MIL
Many complicated factors can influence the likelihood of transfer of DNA and the persistence of the transferred DNA after deposition. Current DNA technology cannot conclusively answer the question of when DNA was deposited on an item or by what mechanism (i.e. direct or indirect transfer). It is possible the DNA detected on M2022-4843 Item 1.1 resulted from secondary transfer; however, based on Nowlin’s training and experience it is her opinion given the quantity of DNA detected on M2022-4843 Item 1.1 (0.168ng/μl) and given the DNA profile obtained is single source it is more likely the result of a direct transfer.
pg 3

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

0.168ng = 0.000168ug

JMO

Under the FACTS section on page 2 of the order, it states 0.168mg/μL was swabbed from the sheath (see screenshot, in red box below, taken from your link to the order above):



Further down page 2 of the same order, it states Nowlin tested a sample which was 0.168ng/μl, as shown below in the blue box, same source link you provided:


Unsure why the amounts differ. Maybe they only tested a small amount & saved the remainder of the original swab?

I think the more important piece to derive from this is that the defense didn’t want Nowlin to testify as to how she thought the DNA was transferred & the judge didn’t agree & felt she was qualified to give her expert opinion (which is within the larger red box, near the end) that since the DNA was single source, the DNA was more likely the result of a direct transfer.

That I can tell, the only thing the defense was successful at obtaining on this order was coming to a common ground on how to refer to the DNA, as the defense claims it might sway the jury into thinking "touch" is worse than "contact" DNA, when those terms are used fairly commonly among the experts.

Feel free to correct me if I’m mistaken.

There’s more down the order but I believe this was what was initially focused upon by the OP.

Kind of MOO but right there in the order.

ETA Paragraphs between images - unsure why amounts differ.

 

[Nila Aella]

Under the FACTS section on page 2 of the order, it states 0.168mg/μL was swabbed from the sheath (see screenshot, in red box below, taken from your link to the order above):
View attachment 581272


Further down page 2 of the same order, it states Nowlin tested a sample which was 0.168ng/μl, as shown below in the blue box, same source link you provided:
View attachment 581274

Unsure why the amounts differ. Maybe they only tested a small amount & saved the remainder of the original swab?
I think the more important piece to derive from this is that the defense didn’t want Nowlin to testify as to how she thought the DNA was transferred & the judge didn’t agree & felt she was qualified to give her expert opinion (which is within the larger red box, near the end) that since the DNA was single source, the DNA was more likely the result of a direct transfer.

That I can tell, the only thing the defense was successful at obtaining on this order was coming to a common ground on how to refer to the DNA, as the defense claims it might sway the jury into thinking "touch" is worse than "contact" DNA, when those terms are used fairly commonly among the experts.

Feel free to correct me if I’m mistaken.

There’s more down the order but I believe this was what was initially focused upon by the OP.
Kind of MOO but right there in the order.

ETA Paragraphs between images - unsure why amounts differ.

I responded to a post that focused on the amount of DNA.

Rylene N's rebuttal disclosure ng/ul
The final paragraph of her rebuttal disclosure states: Many complicated factors can influence the likelihood oftransfer ofDNA and the persistence ofthe transferred DNA after deposition. Current DNA technology cannot conclusively answer the question ofwhen DNA was deposited on an item or by what mechanism (i.e. direct or indirect transfer). It is possible the DNA detected on M2022-4843 Item 1.1 resulted from secondary transfer; however, based on Nowlin's training and experience it is her opinion given the quantity of DNA detected on M2022-4843 Item 1.1 (0.168ng/ul) and given the DNA profile obtained is single source it is more likely the result ofa direct transfer.

Both the D and P court submissions report it as ng/ul.
The Judge wrote mg/ul.
There is a huge difference between ng/ul and mg/ul.
JMO

Judges order:
Terms:
That said, the Court asks that counsel avoid the use ofthe terms as much as possible so that any potential confusion can be bypassed. To this end, the parties are instructed to submit a mutually agreeable instruction to provide to the jury in case the terms are inadvertently used. If a witness uses the term, opposing counsel can examine the witness about the broader meaning of the term within the forensic community, and the instruction may be given at that time

footnote
This limitation includes the terms "touch DNA" and "contact DNA," as was requested in the motion. In addition, based on Ms. Nowlin's concern over the term "trace DNA," the Court will advise against its use as well

Testimony/rebuttal
Given Dr. Ballad's anticipated testimony, Ms. Nowlin's rebuttal is proper. She will discuss the process of primary and secondary transfer, the variables affecting transfer and persistence and why she is of the opinion that the DNA on the knife sheath was more likely the result of a direct transfer. Of course, if Dr. Ballard limits her testimony on the stand, the Court can reconsider the scope of Ms. Nowlin's rebuttal. However, based on Dr. Ballard's report, Ms. Nowlin's anticipated rebuttal is appropriate.

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/CR01-24-31665/2025/041825+Order+on+Defendants+Motion+in+Limine+RE+Rylene+Nowlin+and+Touch+and+Contact+DNA.pdf

JMO

 

[arielilane]

I cleared my schedule, made sure I was caught up on all my other threads, poured myself an adult beverage (Diet Coke), popped an anticipatory ibuprofen, and readied myself to read today's document dump late into the evening.

One minute later, I'm done.

That wasn't at all satisfying.

I was looking forward to a fresh discussion.

I guess I'll review the Defense motions Judge Hippler DENIED. And take up Origami.

I so agree, but as you know some docs are noted for the record/for information purposes only.

Will try to give a heads up to indicate nothing of importance when applicable.

If it’s any consolation your post (as always) are enjoyable to read and hope that the rest of your night was enjoyable too.

 

[Warwick7]

It was during the Frank’s hearing, I believe. I could very well be mistaken, as I am going from memory. It was what prompted JH to say his every day & twice on Sunday. Apologies if that was an incorrect link made by me.

ETA - I checked to make sure. D wanted DNA thrown out because they felt it was unconstitutional to use it to track him down via IGG without a warrant. I believe AT argued LE lacked PC to do so. JH stated when there’s a match as in this case, it’s PC every day & twice on Sunday. Hope that make sense. Had nothing to do with the PCA, per se. Link below.

Judge denies Bryan Kohberger motions to exclude key DNA evidence from trial

Kohberger, who is charged in the November 2022 murders of four students at an off-campus residence near the University of Idaho, has his trial is set for Aug. 11

www.nbcnews.com

BBM
Help me out. I understood the judge denied AT a franks hearing. Yet, as I read your post there was a hearing? I'm a bit lost on this.

 

[Justice101]

To put to rest the notion that there was a miniscule amount of touch DNA or 10 cells or whatever on the knife sheath. From the recent motion regarding Rylene Nowlin and DNA on the knife sheath:

mil

Ill. FACTS
A knife sheath was recovered from the crime scene in this matter and swabbed for DNA. A sample of DNA, identified as Q1.1, was extracted from the swab by the Idaho State Police Forensics Lab ("ISP Lab"). The DNA concentration was 0.168 mg/uL. It was subsequently tested using standard DNA STR (Short Tandem Repeat) methods. The STR profile developed revealed that the DNA came from a single source male profile.

Per ChatGPT:

A concentration of 0.168 mg/µL is not considered a small amount of DNA. It's actually quite a high concentration.

To break it down:

• 0.168 mg/µL is equivalent to 168 µg/mL (since 1 mg = 1000 µg, and 1 µL = 1/1000 mL).
• This means you have 168 micrograms of DNA for every milliliter of solution.

Context:​

• In forensic DNA analysis, concentrations can vary widely depending on the source and quality of the sample. For example, typical concentrations from human blood or semen can range from 10 µg/mL to several hundred µg/mL.
• This means 168 µg/mL is on the higher end of the spectrum, which is plenty of DNA for techniques like PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction), which amplifies DNA for further analysis.
• In summary, a DNA concentration of 168 µg/mL is considered ample and well above the threshold needed for effective forensic DNA analysis.

Thank you! I used to deal in some laboratory numbers like that. Makes sense.

 

[Warwick7]

"To see if one person could have committed four killings in roughly 13 minutes, investigators conducted time runs at the house, the prosecution wrote in a filing last week. Gilbertson will testify that the time runs done by investigators confirmed one person could have carried out the homicides alone."

https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/crime/article302871174.html#storylink=cpy

Yet I think he entered at 4:10 and the thud was 4:17. And he passed DM at 4:18. That is way less than 13 minutes.

 

[iamshadow21]

Yet I think he entered at 4:10 and the thud was 4:17. And he passed DM at 4:18. That is way less than 13 minutes.

Why do you think he entered at ten past, if you don't mind me asking? My own timeline had him entering at least five minutes earlier.

MOZi

 

[Megnut]

I so agree, but as you know some docs are noted for the record/for information purposes only.

Will try to give a heads up to indicate nothing of importance when applicable.

If it’s any consolation your post (as always) are enjoyable to read and hope that the rest of your night was enjoyable too.

I don't shoot the messenger! Grateful you keep us up to date on filings and responses!

Hoping for a fresh batch from the judge soon.

 

[Megnut]

Why do you think he entered at ten past, if you don't mind me asking? My own timeline had him entering at least five minutes earlier.

MOZi

He entered the neighborhood at 4:04... wasn't parking until 4:08-09....

GHI does a good job syncing up the PCA details.

JMO

12 minute video, 4th approach at about 8m in the video

 

[Megnut]

BBM
Help me out. I understood the judge denied AT a franks hearing. Yet, as I read your post there was a hearing? I'm a bit lost on this.

Court held a hearing to determine whether a Frank's hearing was warranted. It wasn't.

JMO

 

[Warwick7]

I am quoting one of our members:

AT absolutely needs an alibi. If he doesn’t produce a rock solid one, then he’s done.

Why? Because the prosecution can more than meet their burden with his DNA on the sheath, the purchase of the same knife (now missing), his ownership of the same type of car, his movements that night (consistent with him being the killer), his 23 trips to the vicinity of the scene between 10pm and 4am, and the fact that he powered down his phone for the entire murder window.

We are not gullible enough to buy all of those coincidences, which are not only astronomical, but approach being mathematically impossible.

And there will be more…

Of course he cannot prove his alibi, which the defense already concedes.