4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #87

[Cindizzi]

https://x.com/kfixler/status/1692627885478273482?s=61&t=Vp-AZ81ShrhzLNqqCFHAgA

 

[maskedwoman]

Where did I say it was a law. I said in the US you don't speak to LE if accused of a crime. The Miranda warning explains it clearly.

The Miranda doesn't tell people not to talk to LE. It is a statement of their legal rights and reminds them what could happen if they do. People are asked to affirm that they understand their rights to minimize the number of people that try to get charges thrown out by claiming they didn't know their rights. Plenty of suspects agree to be interviewed. That's how LE get confessions.

 

[Balthazar]

Bundy

And that worked out so well for him, didn't it? Bundy is a perfect example of why you don't talk to LE if you are a suspect or have been arrested.

 

[Sundog]

I wonder if a victim's family member would be allowed to wear a t-shirt with a message promoting Idaho's death penalty by firing squad during the actual jury trial when it begins. Just curious about rules of courtroom decorum, etc.


edited to remove other posts

 

[maskedwoman]

When DNA is found within a crime scene which CSI is testing and they take it into evidence, the DNA should be completely tested. What is the point of CSI collecting it otherwise? These other 3 samples should not have been treated any differently than the BK sample.

It sounds to me like they did test it. How else would they know it's unidentified after allegedly getting samples from all their classmates, friends and lovers? I would say the smart way to investigate and spend tax payer dollars is to start by testing samples closest to the victims and work their way out. A sample on the grill lid outside, or on the fridge door handle downstairs would be tested less urgently than the one on the knife sheath under the victim's body.

 

[maskedwoman]

duplicate

 

[jepop]

The Miranda doesn't tell people not to talk to LE. It is a statement of their legal rights and reminds them what could happen if they do. People are asked to affirm that they understand their rights to minimize the number of people that try to get charges thrown out by claiming they didn't know their rights. Plenty of suspects agree to be interviewed. That's how LE get confessions.

It tells the accused they have te right to remain silent etc Imo. Not a statement of shoulds and should nots. Moo

 

[NextSprint]

When DNA is found within a crime scene which CSI is testing and they take it into evidence, the DNA should be completely tested. What is the point of CSI collecting it otherwise? These other 3 samples should not have been treated any differently than the BK sample.

100%. And the case could very much hinge on this, IMO.

No juror is going to hear "So, you identified other males' DNA presence at the scene. CSI decided it was interesting enough to swab. And you didn't test them. So why is this defendant any more guilty than the other men whose DNA was at the scene?" and not think twice.

In my opinion.

 

[Balthazar]

I wonder if a victim's family member would be allowed to wear a t-shirt with a message promoting Idaho's death by firing squad during the actual jury trial when it begins. Just curious about rules of courtroom decorum, etc.


edited to remove other posts

Most courts have a dress code. I can't imagine a t-shirt like that would be allowed. People could wear it outside, but I don't think any judge would be OK with something like that in the courtroom.

 

[jepop]

Currently playing pre-lunch session from start to finish.

 

[Megnut]

Wait for it. The defense didn't get its stage with a preliminary so we'll see muscle flexing now. Next up, attack the investigators (their training and their certification), attack the investigation (mystery DNA), soon we'll hear about all the places from which DNA wasn’t taken -- the microwave, the basement, everybody's shoes, etc -- there are always limitations to investigations, and defense attorneys will always expose, exaggerate, exploit them, in a bid to secure reasonable doubt.

It'll be up to the Prosecution to pull it all together at trial, to meet BARD.

JMO

 

[gremlin444]

So, we literally can't assume where the police were searching for/collecting DNA samples from. It's a 3 story house, with the crimes occurring in 2 bedrooms. You have two internal stairwells that could have been potentially used. You have a multitude of potential entry points--door (normal and patio) and windows. When the police begin their evidence collection, they are going to have to cast a broad net because they don't yet have any firm ideas as to the path the killer used in the house. They might not even yet had a good idea of what was the entry and exit point(s). So, they are going to look for evidence both inside and outside on all the doors , all the window frames (except some obvious ones like Xana's window externally), all the door knobs, potential walking paths on the floor throughout the house, both stairwell railings and stairs, etc.

But after a few days, they start to get some ideas of potential entry/exit point(s). They begin to formulate an idea after the preliminary autopsy reports as to potential order of victims, which influences their ideas of what paths the killer took inside the house. DNA collected from areas that are now deemed to be non relevant based on what the evidence is telling them becomes lower priority. Obviously the DNA on the knife sheath, once found, becomes priority one, as does any DNA on what they are predicting to be paths and entry/exit.

For example--we saw them swabbing and examining the kitchen window in the very first days. Does anything still think that was an entry/exit point--I know I don't, not after DM's testimony. Pretty sure she would have heard an intruder clambering out the kitchen window since she was now wide awake and scared. And why would he need to when he was literally feet away at that point from a perfectly good sliding glass door for his exit? So now, any potential DNA on the kitchen window drops quite low on the significance/priority list. But it was initially validly inside rational search areas.

The police go and match all the other samples, which takes time. Finally LE is left with 3 unknown samples from areas that are no longer deemed important due to being ruled out as entrance/exit/path. But by now they have a lot of things leading to Kohberger.

Do you, as LE, then insist at that point that you must identify those 3 unknown samples from now irrelevant locations in the house no matter how long it takes and refuse to arrest Kohberger until they are? For how long?

 

[Balthazar]

It sounds to me like they did test it. How else would they know it's unidentified after allegedly getting samples from all their classmates, friends and lovers? I would say the smart way to investigate and spend tax payer dollars is to start by testing samples closest to the victims and work their way out. A sample on the grill lid outside, or on the fridge door handle downstairs would be tested less urgently than the one on the knife sheath under the victim's body.

They have no test results to give to the defense and apparently didn't do GG on it or they would have test results. While the donors of the 3 unknown DNA might remain a mystery, there should be lab results showing that this testing was done and no match was found.

 

[MTW2011]

Do we know they weren't processed? Or maybe the results just weren't back before the arrest. They were obviously processed at some point or LE couldn't say they were unidentified. Or am I missing something?

It sounds to me like they did test it. How else would they know it's unidentified after allegedly getting samples from all their classmates, friends and lovers? I would say the smart way to investigate and spend tax payer dollars is to start by testing samples closest to the victims and work their way out. A sample on the grill lid outside, or on the fridge door handle downstairs would be tested less urgently than the one on the knife sheath under the victim's body.

I’m not sure if they did test it, but I’m looking forwarding to listening to the videos later today.

From this reporter’s tweet, it sounds like the State said they tuned over all that they have regarding this. Defense previously said in the Motions that they dont have any reports or info about these 3 unidentified male dna.

If their State says they gave all that they had already, and defense says they don’t have any reports, then maybe it hasn’t been tested?

IMOO I don’t think the State would say they handed it all over IF they had any reports from any testing of these 3. I also don’t believe the Defense would claim they didn’t have it, IF the State had already turned it over. Personally, until I can hear more, I’m leaning towards that these may not have been tested. The State saying some of it is “not relevant” but yet “we handed everything we had over” makes me think even more that it may not have been tested yet. The reason for that, IF that was the case, I truly don’t know (yet).

 

[acutename]

We know that one was found outside the house because one of the witnesses said it today. I believe it was on a glove near the road. It could have belonged to anyone.

As for your last question, do we know that? Every guy they had classes with? That's a lot of guys. And EVERY guy they socialized with? I have not heard that before. We definitely know that people crashed their parties because an older guy who lived across the street told reporters that he did. So I don't think it's at all outside the realm of possibility that someone they didn't know attended their parties and was in the house, possibly leaving DNA behind.

There are a lot of ways for DNA to get into a house. If my house became a crime scene, there might be unidentified DNA from a plumber, furniture delivery people, and someone who repaired my ice maker. That's just for starters. Unless someone else knew those people had been in my house, it would remain unidentified DNA. MOOooo

could be from former residents or from a previous Jack in the Box delivery bag IMO
a lot of possibilities

 

[NextSprint]

So, we literally can't assume where the police were searching for/collecting DNA samples from. It's a 3 story house, with the crimes occurring in 2 bedrooms. You have two internal stairwells that could have been potentially used. You have a multitude of potential entry points--door (normal and patio) and windows. When the police begin their evidence collection, they are going to have to cast a broad net because they don't yet have any firm ideas as to the path the killer used in the house. They might not even yet had a good idea of what was the entry and exit point(s). So, they are going to look for evidence both inside and outside on all the doors , all the window frames (except some obvious ones like Xana's window externally), all the door knobs, potential walking paths on the floor throughout the house, both stairwell railings and stairs, etc.

But after a few days, they start to get some ideas of potential entry/exit point(s). They begin to formulate an idea after the preliminary autopsy reports as to potential order of victims, which influences their ideas of what paths the killer took inside the house. DNA collected from areas that are now deemed to be non relevant based on what the evidence is telling them, becomes lower priority. Obviously the DNA on the knife sheath, once found, becomes priority one, as does any DNA on what they are predicting to be paths and entry/exit.

For example--we saw them swabbing and examining the kitchen window in the very first days. Does anything still think that was an entry/exit point--I know I don't, not after DM's testimony. Pretty sure she would have heard an intruder clambering out the kitchen window since she was now wide awake and scared. And why would he need to when he was literally feet away at that point from a perfectly good sliding glass door for his exit? So now, any potential DNA on the kitchen window drops quite low on the significance/priority list. But it was initially validly inside rational search areas.

The police go and match all the other samples, which takes time. Finally LE is left with 3 unknown samples from areas that are no longer deemed important due to being ruled out as entrance/exit/path. But by now they have a lot of things leading to Kohberger.

Do you, as LE, then insist at that point that you must identify those 3 unknown samples from now irrelevant locations in the house no matter how long it takes and refuse to arrest Kohberger until they are? For how long?

Depends where they were and what rationale they used I guess; which will come out in testimony.

 

[Cool Cats]

I wonder if a victim's family member would be allowed to wear a t-shirt with a message promoting Idaho's death by firing squad during the actual jury trial when it begins. Just curious about rules of courtroom decorum, etc.


edited to remove other posts

No.

A Courtroom Decorum Motion will be filed and no t-shirts of this type will be allowed.

2 Cents

 

[maskedwoman]

It tells the accused they have te right to remain silent etc Imo. Not a statement of shoulds and should nots. Moo

Exactly. "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have a right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning." And I believe most states require they ask if you understand your rights.

 

[MassGuy]

100%. And the case could very much hinge on this, IMO.

No juror is going to hear "So, you identified other males' DNA presence at the scene. CSI decided it was interesting enough to swab. And you didn't test them. So why is this defendant any more guilty than the other men whose DNA was at the scene?" and not think twice.

In my opinion.

The only thing that matters is the dna on the sheath. You could swab that house and find dozens of male samples, we know this from all the cases we’ve followed.

Just wait until the car results come back. We already know he’s a sick creep from his behavior at his school, but this will confirm just how evil he is.

He bought the exact knife. It is indisputable that he has an issue with women.

His phone shows him being somewhere where he had no business being, including the morning of the killings.

Dumping trash in the neighbor’s yard. Wearing latex gloves.

I’m stunned that anyone thinks this is remotely complicated.

 

[maskedwoman]

Most courts have a dress code. I can't imagine a t-shirt like that would be allowed. People could wear it outside, but I don't think any judge would be OK with something like that in the courtroom.

I saw one moron show up to court wearing a tshirt that said sex, drugs and rock&roll for a DUI hearing. The judge was not amused but didn't make him change.