4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #83

[Cool Cats]

It's not at all a strawman argument. Not one bit. If it were, then LE wouldn't have even bothered with a warrant for those places. People wouldn't have been on pins and needles waiting for the inventory list to come out. People wouldn't debate for weeks on end whether or not he had 10 curls stashed away in a box. It's a legitimate point. But it does seem to me that the goal posts are constantly being moved when we find out more information about this case.

MOO.

So what that no victim DNA was found in his car.

I just gave an example of 3 men killing 4 people walking all over in blood and no victim DNA was found in their 2 murder vehicles. No DNA was found matching them at the 4 crime scenes.

Murderers get convicted every day without any DNA ties.

Even the defense can't say that having no victim DNA in his car minimizes his own DNA being at the scene underneath a victim. His own DNA was under a victim in bed (likely asleep) and part of her comforter.

If the jury believes this beyond a reasonable doubt it will matter zero that LE didn't find victim's DNA in his car.

2 Cents

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

There were reports of parties happening that very week. Certainly had been get togethers way closer to November than June. Some neighbours had said there were people there that same night, before the victims all went out, didn't they?


Why would we expect everyone to come forward and put themself in that house, if they thought their DNA might be there? Pretty risky if they don't have a solid alibi for the murder night.

Why would they do it? Because if they didn't and someone else places them there, they're immediately under suspicion.

MOO.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

What? No one came to the house in the weeks before the murders?

What does 6 months have to do with it? Those 6 probably didn't even live there in May 2022.

Obviously, the unknown DNA was left in the time frame allotted to it being preserved. Could be that weekend could be weeks before.

If you follow the thread of what was said in that conversation, my response will make more sense. I was saying that the DNA found had to have been recent as DNA would not survive many months in a party house. Another poster then posted about how they can find ancient DNA in burial some 500 years later. I'm saying that's irrelevant to this case.

 

[Cool Cats]

I never said LE did that nor that they had the right to do that, but LE quite often DOES do that. They get DNA from anyone associated, including anyone who had contact with the victim/victims. Associates are free to decline, but it isn't crazy to think LE would have gone down that route.
<modsnip>

JMO.

<modsnip - quoted post was snipped>

I know all about LE collecting DNA and they ask for it from people directly involved. They ask for it of witnesses who discover crime scenes, of family members, and close associates who were in the house that day.

They do not try to get it from the general public as you had said.

Your quote:

IMO, LE would have interviewed and/or put out a call for the entire student body who's been in that house in the last few months to come forward if they really wanted to rule out the 3 unknown males.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

So what that no victim DNA was found in his car.

I just gave an example of 3 men killing 4 people walking all over in blood and no victim DNA was found in their 2 murder vehicles. No DNA was found matching them at the 4 crime scenes.

Murderers get convicted every day without any DNA ties.

Even the defense can't say that having no victim DNA in his car minimizes his own DNA being at the scene underneath a victim. His own DNA was under a victim in bed (likely asleep) and part of her comforter.

If the jury believes this beyond a reasonable doubt it will matter zero that LE didn't find victim's DNA in his car.

2 Cents

So the jury needs to understand that at first, LE thought they were looking for a Sentra. Then they thought they were looking for a 2011-2013 Elantra. Then they finally settled on a 2015 Elantra, the same the suspect drives. LE then searched his car, apartment, parent's home, and office and there was no victim DNA found, but that's also ok because there's an explanation. LE then found 3 other mysterious male DNA profiles, still unidentified, but again no worries. His car was disassembled by the FBI and not one bit of victim DNA was found in the nooks and crannies that experts said would be so hard - almost impossible - to clean, but still no problem. All because there was touch DNA on a button to a knife sheath they think was the murder weapon, coupled by cell phone pings in the neighborhood.

We can keep moving the goal posts, but at some point, the posts are going to fall over the cliff.

MOO

 

[Cool Cats]

If you follow the thread of what was said in that conversation, my response will make more sense. I was saying that the DNA found had to have been recent as DNA would not survive many months in a party house. Another poster then posted about how they can find ancient DNA in burial some 500 years later. I'm saying that's irrelevant to this case.

I follow the thread I am the OP who mentioned the 6 months that is being taken out of context.

I don't understand the 6 month hyper focus. I used 6 months as a loose example of people leaving DNA in the house - that many people left DNA. If not from 6 months earlier then from X amount of months or weeks earlier.

 

[MyBelle]

<modsnip - quoted post was snipped>

I know all about LE collecting DNA and they ask for it from people directly involved. They ask for it of witnesses who discover crime scenes, of family members, and close associates who were in the house that day.

They do not try to get it from the general public as you had said.

Your quote:

IMO, LE would have interviewed and/or put out a call for the entire student body who's been in that house in the last few months to come forward if they really wanted to rule out the 3 unknown males.

ITA.

LE was not trying to "rule out" the 3 unknown males. LE's job is to determine whether there is evidence to rule a suspect "in" and lead to conviction.

JMO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

I follow the thread I am the OP who mention the 6 months that is being taken out of context.

I don't understand the 6 month hyper focus. I used 6 months as a loose example of people leaving DNA in the house - that many people left DNA. If not from 6 months earlier then from X amount of months or weeks earlier.

And I'm saying that DNA left in the house that was still able to be tested must have been recent, and IMO, LE should have interviewed and cleared anyone in the house recently.

You said: "A friend invites me to go with her to a party where 6 people live and others have lived there before. I don't know the people in the house and I leave my DNA. Several months later there are 4 people killed in the house and I freak out because I was in that house etc..."

"IMO, that isn't the type of thing that is likely to happen with 3 separate individuals. First of all, DNA doesn't remain forever. So if someone was in that house for a party in June, the likelihood of his DNA being there in November is about nil. "

Another poster posted a link about DNA extracted from dead birds. I'm saying that has nothing to do with what you and I were talking about. IT isn't being hyperfocused on 6 months. Say 2 months if you want. The point is, it's irrelevant to the dead birds.

MOO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

ITA.

LE was not trying to "rule out" the 3 unknown males. LE's job is to determine whether there is evidence to rule a suspect "in" and lead to conviction.

JMO

Actually, no IMO. LE's job is to rule out suspects until they find evidence to rule one in. They're not supposed to just stop if there's other evidence. That's exactly how criminals get away with crimes and how innocent people end up in prison for decades, IMO.

 

[MyBelle]

So the jury needs to understand that at first, LE thought they were looking for a Sentra. Then they thought they were looking for a 2011-2013 Elantra. Then they finally settled on a 2015 Elantra, the same the suspect drives. LE then searched his car, apartment, parent's home, and office and there was no victim DNA found, but that's also ok because there's an explanation. LE then found 3 other mysterious male DNA profiles, still unidentified, but again no worries. His car was disassembled by the FBI and not one bit of victim DNA was found in the nooks and crannies that experts said would be so hard - almost impossible - to clean, but still no problem. All because there was touch DNA on a button to a knife sheath they think was the murder weapon, coupled by cell phone pings in the neighborhood.

We can keep moving the goal posts, but at some point, the posts are going to fall over the cliff.

MOO

I'm confident the grand jury had a good understanding of the evidence when they indicted BK on 4 counts of 1st degree murder and 1 count of burglary.

I'm confident the ME was able to conclude the knife that fit into the sheath was the murder weapon.

I'm confident that LE and, now, the DA knows when and where BK purchased the knife sheath.

No DNA in BK's car, apartment, etc., is irrelevant because they collected BK's DNA evidence next to two victims' bodies.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

Actually, no IMO. LE's job is to rule out suspects until they find evidence to rule one in. They're not supposed to just stop if there's other evidence. That's exactly how criminals get away with crimes and how innocent people end up in prison for decades, IMO.

LE DID find evidence to "rule in" BK. On the knife sheath, in the bed next to two of the murder victims.

He is in jail, awaiting trial. Right where he should be.

JMO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

I'm confident the grand jury had a good understanding of the evidence when they indicted BK on 4 counts of 1st degree murder and 1 count of burglary.

Well, I mean, a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich as the saying goes.

I'm confident the ME was able to conclude the knife that fit into the sheath was the murder weapon.

Do we have confirmation of that? I thought that was the theory, but I wasn't aware the ME confirmed that. Regardless, I think you're probably right that that was the murder weapon. I just don't know that the ME has or can confirm it.

I'm confident that LE and, now, the DA knows when and where BK purchased the knife sheath.

No DNA in BK's car, apartment, etc., is irrelevant because they collected BK's DNA evidence next to two victims' bodies.

JMO

Actually, they collected touch DNA, which is not at all foolproof and that's the problem.

MOO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

LE DID find evidence to "rule in" BK. On the knife sheath, in the bed next to two of the murder victims.

He is in jail, awaiting trial. Right where he should be.

JMO

The next part of my sentence says "They're not supposed to just stop if there's other evidence."

LE doesn't determine guilt or innocence. They determine reason to suspect someone of committing a crime and present probable cause for an arrest. Their job is to continue the investigation if other evidence exists.

 

[Cool Cats]

So the jury needs to understand that at first, LE thought they were looking for a Sentra. Then they thought they were looking for a 2011-2013 Elantra. Then they finally settled on a 2015 Elantra, the same the suspect drives. LE then searched his car, apartment, parent's home, and office and there was no victim DNA found, but that's also ok because there's an explanation. LE then found 3 other mysterious male DNA profiles, still unidentified, but again no worries. His car was disassembled by the FBI and not one bit of victim DNA was found in the nooks and crannies that experts said would be so hard - almost impossible - to clean, but still no problem. All because there was touch DNA on a button to a knife sheath they think was the murder weapon, coupled by cell phone pings in the neighborhood.

We can keep moving the goal posts, but at some point, the posts are going to fall over the cliff.

MOO

None of what you say will matter to the jury because they will see the evidence, presented to them by an expert LE professional, up on a huge screen, that specifically shows the car and everywhere the car was located that night.

They will see photos of BK's own car compared to the video photos and see for themselves they are exactly alike. See for themselves that BK's car matches the car from the murder night. This is called real evidence.

Then up on the big screen the jury will be shown by an expert how BK's cell phone matches the trajectory of the white car. Piece by piece the jury will see the phone evidence confirming the car evidence.

If BK is innocent then when the defense cross examines this expert the defense will explain in detail what BK was really doing. How he was just out doing this or just out doing that and lots of cars look like his.....

There is no defense for this or he would be out on bond or at least the defense would have had a bond hearing.

The DNA is such strong evidence that they don't need to find any victim DNA in his car. BK's own DNA trumps any lack of DNA.

Defense:

"But this can't be Mr Kohberger's DNA found under this victim and her comforter because her DNA isn't in his car."

<modsnip: rude>

2 Cents

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

None of what you say will matter to the jury because they will see the evidence, presented to them by an expert LE professional, up on a huge screen, that specifically shows the car and everywhere the car was located that night.

Well, IMO, nothing you say will matter to the jury, because they will recognize the ginormous holes the state has to fill.

They will absolutely see photos of the car. Then they'll hear an auto expert talk about how it's ludicrous for so-called experts to mistake an Elantra for a Sentra. They'll hear how it's a rookie mistake for them not to see that it was a 2015 Elantra. They'll hear that the 2015 Elantra became "the car" after BK came on the radar.

They'll see that BK's cell phone pinged in the neighborhood in a town that is 6 square miles. They'll have phone experts explain how using cell resources that provide coverage to the house doesn't mean he was necessarily AT the house.

They'll learn what touch DNA is and how it's framed innocent people in the past. They'll learn what a bloody crime scene it was, the worst LE had seen, per their own words, and wonder how he didn't get blood in his car, how he cleaned up so quickly after a brutal quadruple homicide in 15 minutes. They'll hear how the FBI disassembled the car. The brake pedals. The seatbelt button. All those little crevices, none of which contained any evidence. They'll hear how no victim blood or DNA was found in his apartment. They'll hear that LE initially didn't even see that "latent" print and that, (as far as we know), a pair of Vans were never taken from BK.

It's unrealistically optimistic to think this case is BARD based on what we know.

MOO.

 

[kittythehare]

And I'm saying that DNA left in the house that was still able to be tested must have been recent, and IMO, LE should have interviewed and cleared anyone in the house recently.

You said: "A friend invites me to go with her to a party where 6 people live and others have lived there before. I don't know the people in the house and I leave my DNA. Several months later there are 4 people killed in the house and I freak out because I was in that house etc..."

"IMO, that isn't the type of thing that is likely to happen with 3 separate individuals. First of all, DNA doesn't remain forever. So if someone was in that house for a party in June, the likelihood of his DNA being there in November is about nil. "

Another poster posted a link about DNA extracted from dead birds. I'm saying that has nothing to do with what you and I were talking about. IT isn't being hyperfocused on 6 months. Say 2 months if you want. The point is, it's irrelevant to the dead birds.

MOO

dead birds?
I provided you with several links actually regarding duration of DNA.

Here's another fYI, bearing in mind we do not know source of the three DNA samples.

Indoor scenarios​

For an exposure period of up to 9 months, nearly all blood and saliva samples stored in the dark resulted in complete profiles as expected (Fig. 1), since especially blood samples collected on paper or cloth are routinely stored for much longer time frames. Rather surprisingly, only 50% of blood samples and 75% of saliva samples demonstrated all alleles of the responsible individual after an exposure of 12 months. This can possibly be explained by the use of plastic as supporting material as well as the rather low amount of 20 µl blood in some samples, since these samples showed the most allele losses. Moreover, we often observed a flaking of blood samples thus reducing the amount further. Regarding epithelial abrasions, the results are quite different (Fig. 1). After 3 months, only half of samples demonstrated a complete profile, after 12 months none, not even those in the dark. Here, not UV radiation as expected but another factor seems to be relevant. Possibly the different composition of the bacterial fauna on the skin compared to, for example, the bacterial fauna in saliva could have an influence [34].

About the influence of environmental factors on the persistence of DNA — a long-term study - International Journal of Legal Medicine

DNA persistence and DNA transfer are important features in the assessment of a crime scene. The question how long DNA may persist at a certain location is similarly important as the one how the DNA has been transferred to this location. Depending on the source of the DNA as well as the...

link.springer.com

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

dead birds?
I provided you with several links actually regarding duration of DNA.

Here's another fYI, bearing in mind we do not know source of the three DNA samples.

Indoor scenarios​

For an exposure period of up to 9 months, nearly all blood and saliva samples stored in the dark resulted in complete profiles as expected (Fig. 1), since especially blood samples collected on paper or cloth are routinely stored for much longer time frames. Rather surprisingly, only 50% of blood samples and 75% of saliva samples demonstrated all alleles of the responsible individual after an exposure of 12 months. This can possibly be explained by the use of plastic as supporting material as well as the rather low amount of 20 µl blood in some samples, since these samples showed the most allele losses. Moreover, we often observed a flaking of blood samples thus reducing the amount further. Regarding epithelial abrasions, the results are quite different (Fig. 1). After 3 months, only half of samples demonstrated a complete profile, after 12 months none, not even those in the dark. Here, not UV radiation as expected but another factor seems to be relevant. Possibly the different composition of the bacterial fauna on the skin compared to, for example, the bacterial fauna in saliva could have an influence [34].

About the influence of environmental factors on the persistence of DNA — a long-term study - International Journal of Legal Medicine

DNA persistence and DNA transfer are important features in the assessment of a crime scene. The question how long DNA may persist at a certain location is similarly important as the one how the DNA has been transferred to this location. Depending on the source of the DNA as well as the...

link.springer.com

Your article says exactly what I'm saying. UNDISTURBED DNA (i.e. DNA left alone "in the dark" and "stored" can last. But most DNA that is disturbed by environmental factors will not survive a long time. In this house, as it was a party house with 5 full-time occupants, the DNA was almost definitely impacted by environmental factors, which is why it would not last, IMO.

 

[Balthazar]

I'm well aware of that, thanks.

Read BK's lawyer Jay Weston Logsdon's latest motion, he makes some pretty bold accusations and insinuations against the State that he has no evidence of, it's his opinion.

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/062323 Objection to States Motion for Protective Order.pdf

MOO

I would say the lack of certain evidence being proffered to the defense by the prosecution IS evidence of Mr. Logsdon's conclusions.

The Defense is entitled to ALL discovery regardless of if it supports their clients guilt or innocence. A man's life is on the line. I don't like how this looks and I hope it is remedied on Tuesday.

 

[kittythehare]

Your article says exactly what I'm saying. UNDISTURBED DNA (i.e. DNA left alone "in the dark" and "stored" can last. But most DNA that is disturbed by environmental factors will not survive a long time. In this house, as it was a party house with 5 full-time occupants, the DNA was almost definitely impacted by environmental factors, which is why it would not last, IMO.

But you don't know where the found samples were located.
They could have been anywhere from any body fluid.
'Party House' is not necessarily relevant to the location of the samples or the integrity of the bonds.
Party house just means that probably a lot of people visited the building, they didn't necessarily access the locations of the samples.

 

[Nila Aella]

Well then, hopefully, their reasoning for saying it's unrelated is part of discovery.

Yes, absolutely agree.
The car on the bodycam during the alcohol offense actually lines up with the Taylor car captured at 2:45-3:15 range (not sure if that is what you initially meant - if so Thank you! I never put the two together) Looking at a map, Band field is on Taylor. Now wondering if this looks like a Sentra? Have to go look again. MOO