4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #88

[NextSprint]

[BBM]

This is exactly what they did. Follow protocol. BK was arrested and charged and the profile was removed as required.

P. 6

"[In line w DOJ policy] [O]nce Defendant was in custody, the FBI removed the SNP profile … and no longer has access to view much of the information it used to create the family tree and cannot view it again without resubmitting the SNP profile to the genetic genealogy service(s)."




It is stated they did

Page 6

"To the State’s knowledge, the only records that reflect the FBl’s efforts to create Defendant’s family tree is the family tree itself, notes jotted down by FBI agents as they constructed the family tree, and any records created to document the removal of the SNP profile from the genetic genealogy service(s) pursuant to the DOJ Policy. The State has not seen—nor does the State possess—these records or copies of these records."

Insofar as account information, it has been stated they did not download it so therefore, they had nothing to retain except:

1. The Defendant's family tree
2. Notes jotted down by FBI agents as they constructed the family tree
3. Records created to document the removal of the SNP profile from the genetic genealogy service(s) pursuant to the DOJ Policy.


Page 4

"The FBI built the family tree using the same tools and methods used by members of the public who wish to learn more about their ancestors. For example, the FBI consulted social media, viewed vital records such as birth and death certificates, and viewed other information already contained in the user portal for the genetic genealogy service, including unverified information submitted by other users of the genetic genealogy service."

I read this as (MOO) "The defense is asking for things that do not exist. In order to "make" them exist you'd have to order the FBI to do the work all over again. Issue warrants (if they were required), input the profile again, and do the work all over again - just to "take notes" for the defense. (Page 6 " ... the FBI ... cannot view it again without resubmitting the SNP profile to the genetic genealogy service(s)." We don't think they're entitled to it under the rules but if you find they are let's have a private meeting where you could look at the information and see if it's sufficient to meet the demand, and if it must be handed over, that it be handed over under a protective order." ["In the alternative, if the defense can establish that IGG information is relevant, the State asked the Court to conduct an in camera hearing so the State can present information related to the IGG information and enter a protective order pursuant to I.C.R. 16(1)." https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/...fendants+Third+Motion+to+Compel+Discovery.pdf]

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/061623+States+Motion+for+Protective+Order.pdf

jmo

Would you like to address my actual quote about the DOJ requirement to keep and maintain records during IGG processes?

 

[Boxer]

Would you like to address my actual quote about the DOJ requirement to keep and maintain records during IGG processes?

What doc are you using?

This one?

https://www.justice.gov/olp/page/file/1204386/download

 

[Jurisprudence]

What the defense is talking about is their hope the police used a profile from someone that opted out to build the DNA family tree from the DNA profile on the sheath.

However, ...

"The FBI built the family tree using the same tools and methods used by members of the public who wish to learn more about their ancestors. For example, the FBI consulted social media, viewed vital records such as birth and death certificates, and viewed other information already contained in the user portal for the genetic genealogy service, including unverified information submitted by other users of the genetic genealogy service."

Imoo, the very nature of this public facing information would lead one to believe that a warrant wouldn't even be required for most if not all of this information. The info on the service from which they leaped off from may require consent though so I see what you're saying

imo/jmo

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/...061623+States+Motion+for+Protective+Order.pdf

 

[Jurisprudence]

Would you like to address my actual quote about the DOJ requirement to keep and maintain records during IGG processes?

I did. You and I read this differently.

They are required to retain the notes they take and they have (done this). Just because they didn't download consumer accounts (which I'm not even sure they can legally do - esp wo a warrant) or take as much information as the defense might have "liked" doesn't mean they breached policy.

Tomatoe/tomato Potato/potato

jmo

ETA: Why can't the defense do their own family tree? (That's rhetorical) Why should they not be compelled to do their own work and if they come out with a connection who did not provide consent, or if they come out with a "family" on either maternal/paternal side that leads to a family other than Bryan Kohberger, then attack it? Playing devil's advocate and they find another family, does this change the direct match obtained via the buccal swab? Because it sounds like you're going to suppression and imo I don't see this getting tossed as fruit of the poisonous tree. I could be wrong. It's speculation only, but I just don't see that as the end result here. jmo

Moo

 

[NextSprint]

I did. You and I read this differently.

They are required to retain the notes they take and they have (done this). Just because they didn't download consumer accounts (which I'm not even sure they can legally do - esp wo a warrant) or take as much information as the defense might have "liked" doesn't mean they breached policy.

Tomatoe/tomato Potato/potato

jmo

ETA: Why can't the defense do their own family tree? (That's rhetorical) Why should they not be compelled to do their own work and if they come out with a connection who did not provide consent, or if they come out with a "family" on either maternal/paternal side that leads to a family other than Bryan Kohberger, then attack it? Playing devil's advocate and they find another family, does this change the direct match obtained via the buccal swab? Because it sounds like you're going to suppression and imo I don't see this getting tossed as fruit of the poisonous tree. I could be wrong. It's speculation only, but I just don't see that as the end result here. jmo

Moo

The DOJ stuff is pretty clear; agents must keep records and documentation in case of a trial. Those notes haven't been thrown in yet (unless AT has already got them via a request to the relevant US Attorney). We'll see I guess, and yes tomato/tomato indeed. Have a great Labor Day Weekend!

 

[NextSprint]

What doc are you using?

This one?

https://www.justice.gov/olp/page/file/1204386/download

That's the one, this passage in particular:

"All FGG profiles, account information, and data shall be retained by the investigative agency for potential use during prosecution and subsequent judicial proceedings."

 

[Jurisprudence]

That's the one, this passage in particular:

"All FGG profiles, account information, and data shall be retained by the investigative agency for potential use during prosecution and subsequent judicial proceedings."

They did. They kept notes as they were looking thru publicly available databases and as they built the tree, and of their removal of the profile, as stated. https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/...061623+States+Motion+for+Protective+Order.pdf

The federal agents did not have secret files that they have since destroyed imo. This is not some grand conspiracy by LE across 3 states (WA, ID, PA) and the federal government, plus the state police in 2 of those states to frame some no-name grad student from across the border imo. The state has repeatedly said in their filings (linked in those posts) that this is not discoverable under Idaho state law but if the judge orders it, they'll provide it - but that they can't provide what doesn't exist. This is a state case. Whether the FBI would do a different type of investigation and/or keep downloaded records in a federal prosecution we don't know. You can only speculate. I think it's best to make this my last post on this.

jmo

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

I am personally flummoxed as to why, in this investigation, IGG or FGG (and who understands the difference between the two?) should be an issue to research at all.

The PCA was brought to life and accepted by the judge - even begging the disallowance of the DNA by the prosecution. The IGG, whenever it was accomplished is even a more minor factor than the DNA. So the PCA should certainly not be questioned, IMO.

I am also confused as to why, in this investigation, the training records of the LE team who participated in the investigation should have their training records scrutinized.

In my opinion, suspicion should well be brought if there is a probable cause. For instance, if an investigator was seen or heard attempting to 'lead' a witness, or emotionally or physically overbearing in their interviewing a witness. Or moving, adding, or changing anything at the scene of the crime.

I have not seen, have any of you, any accusation by the defense that any of the LE team investigators have done something illegal? It makes me upset that the AC is putting them on notice without giving any reason or proof their of wrongdoing.

I am uncomfortable in that AC and her team are trying to become the prosecutors and the state has to submit to playing the role of the defense. All in spite of basic facts (as we are allowed to know them considering the gag order [which, IMO, is certainly working in favor of BK]). I am left thinking this is more a game of word smithing, distraction, and manipulation.

. . . and very far from really trying to discover if Bk murdered four innocent, unsuspecting, vibrant young lives. Obligatory MOO.

 

[Boxer]

That's the one, this passage in particular:

"All FGG profiles, account information, and data shall be retained by the investigative agency for potential use during prosecution and subsequent judicial proceedings."

The DOJ policy makes clear that the search is automated from approved sources. And that no detail is supplied other than the profiles generated.

DOJ interim Policy

"Approved: 09.02.2019 1 Effective: 11.01.2019

II. Application
This interim policy applies to: 1) all criminal investigations in which an investigative agency in the Department of Justice (‘investigative agency’)3 has exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction of the crime under investigation and the agency has lawful custody, control, or authority to use a forensic sample for FGG/FGGS; or 2) any criminal investigation in which the Department provides funding to a federal, state, local, or tribal agency to conduct FGG/FGGS; or 3) any criminal investigation in which Department employees or contractors conduct genealogical research on leads generated through the use of FGGS; or 4) any federal agency or any unit of state, local, or tribal government that receives grant award funding from the Department that is used to conduct FGG/FGGS.4
III. Background
a. STR DNA Typing and CODIS
Forensic DNA typing has historically been used to compare 13-20 STR DNA markers
5 between a forensic sample
6 and one or more reference samples. 7 When a suspect’s identity is unknown, a participating crime laboratory may upload a forensic profile 8 into the FBI’s Combined DNA Index System (CODIS). CODIS is a law enforcement database that compares DNA profiles derived from forensic samples to those of known offenders.
CODIS was created by the DNA Identification Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-322 (1994), codified at 34 U.S.C. § 12592. This legislation authorized the FBI to create and maintain a national database comprised of designated DNA indices that are routinely searched against one another. If a CODIS search results in a confirmed match between a forensic profile and a known offender, a law enforcement lead is generated and the name of the matching offender is released. If the search does not result in a confirmed match, no lead is generated.
3 As used in this interim policy, the term ‘investigative agency’ includes any federal, state, local, or tribal law enforcement agency that receives funding from the Department of Justice to conduct FGG/FGGS.
4 The Department will implement this policy under its federal grant programs (as applicable) through the inclusion of a specific condition(s) in federal awards.
5 STR DNA typing is a widely-used forensic DNA technology that examines 13-20 (or more) genetic locations on the non-sex chromosomes that contain 2 to 6 base-paired segments known as nucleotides, which tandemly repeat at each location. A ‘marker’ is a genetic locus, or location.
6 A ‘forensic sample’ is biological material reasonably believed by investigators to have been deposited by a putative perpetrator and that was collected from a crime scene, a person, an item, or a location connected to the criminal event. For purposes of this interim policy, the term ‘forensic sample’ also includes the unidentified human remains of a suspected homicide victim.
7 A ‘reference sample’ is biological material from a known source.
8 As used in this interim policy, ‘forensic profile’ means an STR DNA typing result, and an STR and/or mitochondrial DNA typing result for unidentified human remains, derived from a forensic sample.
Approved: 09.02.2019 2 Effective: 11.01.2019

b. Forensic Genetic Genealogical DNA Analysis and Searching
Forensic genealogy is law enforcement’s use of DNA analysis combined with traditional genealogy research to generate investigative leads for unsolved violent crimes. Forensic genetic genealogical DNA analysis (‘FGG’) differs from STR DNA typing in both the type of technology employed and the nature of the databases utilized.
FGG examines more than half a million single nucleotide polymorphisms9 (‘SNPs’), which replace the STR DNA markers analyzed in traditional forensic DNA typing. These SNPs span the entirety of the human genome. This allows scientists to identify shared blocks of DNA between a forensic sample and the sample donor’s potential relatives. Recombination or reshuffling of the genome is expected as DNA from each generation is passed down, resulting in larger shared blocks of identical DNA between closer relatives and shorter blocks between more distant relatives. Due to predicted levels of recombination between generations, it is possible to analyze these blocks of genetic information and make inferences regarding potential familial relationships.
Department laboratories currently do not analyze SNPs during forensic DNA casework. Thus, in appropriate cases, it is necessary to outsource biological material to vendor laboratories that perform FGG.10 After a forensic or reference sample is genotyped by a vendor laboratory, the resulting FGG profile11 is entered into one or more publicly-available open-data personal genomics DNA databases or direct-to-consumer genetic genealogy services (‘DTC service(s)’)12 (collectively referred to herein as ‘GG service(s)’). The FGG profile is then compared by automation against the genetic profiles of individuals who have voluntarily submitted their biological samples or entered their genetic profiles into these GG services (‘service users’). A computer algorithm is used to evaluate potential familial relationships between the (forensic or reference) sample donor and service users.
It is important to note that personal genetic information is not transferred, retrieved, downloaded, or retained by GG service users — including law enforcement — during the automated search and comparison process. In addition, the investigative use of FGGS involves different DNA technologies, genetic markers, algorithms, and databases from those used by
9 ‘Single nucleotide polymorphisms’ are DNA sequence variations that occur when a single nucleotide (A, T, G, or C) in a genomic sequence is altered. These variations may be used to distinguish people for purposes of biological relationship testing.
10 Contracts with vendor laboratories for FGG services should be reviewed by legal counsel to ensure that they contain appropriate language requiring maintenance of privacy and security controls for handling biological samples, FGG profiles, and other information and data both submitted to, and generated by, those vendor laboratories.
11 The term ‘FGG profile’ means the SNP-based genetic profile generated from a forensic or reference sample by a vendor laboratory for the purpose of conducting FGGS.
12 Direct-to-consumer genetic genealogy services are companies that offer a variety of DNA genomics tests and/or genetic genealogy services directly to the public (rather than through clinical health care providers), typically via customer access to secure online websites.
Approved: 09.02.2019 3 Effective: 11.01.2019

CODIS. Information and data derived from FGGS is not, and cannot be, uploaded, searched, or retained in any CODIS DNA Index.
IV. Limitations
If the search of an FGG profile results in one or more genetic associations,13 the GG service typically generates and provides the service user with a list of genetically associated service usernames along with an estimated relationship and (in some cases) the amount of DNA shared by those individuals. A genetic association means that the donor of the (forensic or reference) sample may be related to a service user. However, information derived from genetic associations is used by law enforcement only as an investigative lead. Traditional genealogy research and other investigative work is needed to determine the true nature of any genetic association.
A suspect shall not be arrested based solely on a genetic association generated by a GG service. If a suspect is identified after a genetic association has occurred, STR DNA typing must be performed, and the suspect’s STR DNA profile must be directly compared to the forensic profile previously uploaded to CODIS.14 This comparison is necessary to confirm that the forensic sample could have originated from the suspect."

https://www.justice.gov/olp/page/file/1204386/download

 

[schooling]

Folks responding to this IGG/FGG stuff mind as well go straight to the source where people are grabbing their arguments. The well respected Electronic Frontier Foundation. It's comprehensive. Mind as well be a playbook for what we are seeing here and what we are seeing in the court room.

Forensic Genetic Genealogy Searches: What Defense Attorneys & Policy Makers Need to Know

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, has worked on several cases where law enforcement used FGG, and this article is based on that work. This article will discuss how genetic genealogy works, law enforcement’s use of FGG, and how FGG can both misidentify suspects and, in rare cases, help to clear...

www.eff.org

 

[Odeto BJ]

Folks responding to this IGG/FGG stuff mind as well go straight to the source where people are grabbing their arguments. The well respected Electronic Frontier Foundation. It's comprehensive. Mind as well be a playbook for what we are seeing here and what we are seeing in the court room.

Snipped by me.

Comprehensive it certainly is. Very good stuff.

And just like automatic firearms, I don't think the founding fathers had any appreciation for data sorting at the level of more than half a million determinants for each person; or that a database representing the exact identifiers for only 2% of the population would effectively permit prediction of the key content for 80%.....

The 4th amendment made a man's home his castle but probably never foresaw the authorities going dumpster-diving. Curb side or otherwise.

MOO and with levity

 

[Jurisprudence]

I’m also not sure how true the assertion is that it was only touch DNA. The defense is the only one that has claimed this. It seems like the state was able to develop quite a genetic profile, something I wouldn’t expect from a tiny amount of touch DNA. If it was something beyond touch DNA, like BK’s blood actually being present, that would be pretty substantial.

MOO

This is true!

Moo

 

[Boxer]

Snipped by me.

Comprehensive it certainly is. Very good stuff.

And just like automatic firearms, I don't think the founding fathers had any appreciation for data sorting at the level of more than half a million determinants for each person; or that a database representing the exact identifiers for only 2% of the population would effectively permit prediction of the key content for 80%.....

The 4th amendment made a man's home his castle but probably never foresaw the authorities going dumpster-diving. Curb side or otherwise.

MOO and with levity

BK would have been arrested in Colonial America for being seen on a horse on the way to and back from a murder scene, if he had been seen lurking in many times, and a witness described him.

 

[Boxer]

Would you like to address my actual quote about the DOJ requirement to keep and maintain records during IGG processes?

Do you think required records were not kept? What do you think is missing? I don't see any missing information per the DOJ policy.

 

[Boxer]

https://www.justice.gov/olp/page/file/1204386/download

" The FGG profile is then compared by automation against the genetic profiles of individuals who have voluntarily submitted their biological samples or entered their genetic profiles into these GG services (‘service users’). A computer algorithm is used to evaluate potential familial relationships between the (forensic or reference) sample donor and service users.
It is important to note that personal genetic information is not transferred, retrieved, downloaded, or retained by GG service users — including law enforcement — during the automated search and comparison process."

 

[jepop]

<snipped for focus>

Wondering where you would place the FBI's IGG search on this list. Was it before the retrieval of Kohberger's father's DNA from the trash? And, if so, would that be significant in some way to the defense's strategy?

FBi's taking over IGG happened sometime after Snp profile developed in private lab as per Protective order docs..

Imo, it was after the damning phone warrants that aligned the suspect white elantra in Pullman with BK, and LE were able to affirm BK's where-abouts, that fbi began surveiling the house in PA. They waited for an opportunity to grab some trash for testing. I've conjectured that LE probably tried unscuccesfully to get BK's dna prior to Dec 12th/13th (when he left for PA) off of his own curb trash. If so, Imo this would have occurred prior to the fbi tip resulting from the IGG. I hold this opinion because it's been said in defense docs that LE at one time collected a ciggie butt in respect of another POI to dna test, so it seems that attempting to get dna from other POIs surreptitiously may have occurred as a matter of procedure. Jmo.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Snipped by me.

Comprehensive it certainly is. Very good stuff.

And just like automatic firearms, I don't think the founding fathers had any appreciation for data sorting at the level of more than half a million determinants for each person; or that a database representing the exact identifiers for only 2% of the population would effectively permit prediction of the key content for 80%.....

The 4th amendment made a man's home his castle but probably never foresaw the authorities going dumpster-diving. Curb side or otherwise.

MOO and with levity

Levity always appreciated.

There is no expectation of privacy to one's discarded DNA at a crime, nor is there one for discarded trash. I have no problem with LE searching either of those locations to find a killer/criminal.

That's why our boy BK was sealing up anything he touched and discarding it in zip lock bags in his neighbors trashcans stealthily at 3 am... far from normal behavior.

He knew LE was on to him before he left WSU, and I also think he knew he wouldn't be going back.

Just MOO

 

[TL4S]

Levity always appreciated.

There is no expectation of privacy to one's discarded DNA at a crime, nor is there one for discarded trash. I have no problem with LE searching either of those locations to find a killer/criminal.

That's why our boy BK was sealing up anything he touched and discarding it in zip lock bags in his neighbors trashcans stealthily at 3 am... far from normal behavior.

He knew LE was on to him before he left WSU, and I also think he knew he wouldn't be going back.

Just MOO

That's something I've never really thought about. Could BK have suspected LE was on to him before he left WSU? If so, why? Did he know it was only a matter of time once he realized he'd left behind the sheath? Or had he figured he'd been careful enough? It's interesting to think about. JMO.

 

[jepop]

That's something I've never really thought about. Could BK have suspected LE was on to him before he left WSU? If so, why? Did he know it was only a matter of time once he realized he'd left behind the sheath? Or had he figured he'd been careful enough? It's interesting to think about. JMO.

Think he would have been most nervous post public white elantra announcement. Moo

 

[girlhasnoname]

That's something I've never really thought about. Could BK have suspected LE was on to him before he left WSU? If so, why? Did he know it was only a matter of time once he realized he'd left behind the sheath? Or had he figured he'd been careful enough? It's interesting to think about. JMO.

It was reported that the storage unit he had in his building was empty. We know he took all (most) of his computers, hard drives, and a good bit of his personal clothing, etc.