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

[wendy44]

Whether they use the IGG at trial or not, they still owe the defense the complete documentation showing how they arrived at BK as a suspect and that WAS through the IGG process. What if a mistake was made somewhere along the process? What if there was a software error of some type? The entire DNA process should be replicable by the defense. IF not, it should be thrown out as evidence.

The defense can do their own independent testing of BK's dna against the dna on the sheath.

They can load BK's dna on GEDmatch and do their own IGG (it being his own dna, he can give consent and they can run it against everyone, even those who have opted out of law enforcement, on the private side of GEDmatch).

IF they haven't done either of these things--I'm honestly asking--please give some feasible reasons why they haven't.

 

[maskedwoman]

How do you know if it relevant or not? Has an unbiased outside source run the same type of match on the DNA evidence? The answer is: No. So you do not know and there is no way for you to know if the results are accurate unless and until the DNA results and IGG results are rerun by an unbiased outside source and proven to be be either accurate or inaccurate or at the very least, the complete documentation of the process is given to the defense. This is not a wild goose chase. This is a very reasonable question to pursue. And yes, Anne Taylor should be given the documentation of the complete process and if there is any DNA sample left, she should be given that as well to have run by an unbiased outside source. A man's life is at stake.

This is no difference than a patient getting a second opinion. If your life was at stake wouldn't you get a second opinion? I certainly hope you would. And when you get a second opinion, your doctor will usually give you a copy of your complete labs and diagnosis to take to the doctor who will give the second opinion. This is normal and usual. Your doctor doesn't try to hold onto your labs and diagnosis and hide it from the doctor who will give the second opinion. They give you complete information of how you were diagnosed with whatever. Then the doctor who gives the second opinion reads your labs and diagnosis and decides if more information is needed and may or may not run additional labs depending on what he/she sees and will render his/her opinion on your diagnosis.

If the prosecution is certain of their results, they should not mind giving this information and even a sample of the DNA to the defense if any is left.

What would be this utopian outside, unbiased source? No one is going to just test DNA out of purity of heart. They are either going to be paid, which allegedly makes them biased, or they are going to do it because they are an organization that tries to clear people accused of crimes. I'm not saying that's a bad thing on its face, but it doesn't make them unbiased.

 

[maskedwoman]

Whether they use the IGG at trial or not, they still owe the defense the complete documentation showing how they arrived at BK as a suspect and that WAS through the IGG process. What if a mistake was made somewhere along the process? What if there was a software error of some type? The entire DNA process should be replicable by the defense. IF not, it should be thrown out as evidence.

There is absolutely nothing stopping the defense from testing LE's process. Their expert knows how it works according to her testimony. So if LE did something wrong, why hasn't their expert proven it and blown the whistle on them? All they would have to do is show that LE's results can't be obtained any other way but by cheating, stand back and watch LE go down in flames. Instead she testified that it COULD be done by getting around the system, not that LE did that. Many things COULD be done to break rules. That doesn't mean those things are done. MOOooo

 

[Chloegirl]

As a person studying crime, which had only one ultimate goal, lessening crime, that he didnt go to the police when they asked for the Elantra is damning behavior.

Not every person studying crime appears to be wanting to lessen it, and maybe comprehend it for their own purposes. Boy, that's awful. This seems to me why investigative measures, though I would prefer they were completely transparent, likely cannot be. JMOO

 

[NextSprint]

There is absolutely nothing stopping the defense from testing LE's process. Their expert knows how it works according to her testimony. So if LE did something wrong, why hasn't their expert proven it and blown the whistle on them? All they would have to do is show that LE's results can't be obtained any other way but by cheating, stand back and watch LE go down in flames. Instead she testified that it COULD be done by getting around the system, not that LE did that. Many things COULD be done to break rules. That doesn't mean those things are done. MOOooo

They need to disclose exactly which FGGS/IGG services were used, and the steps they took, before they can do that. Hopefully soon.

 

[10ofRods]

The defense can do their own independent testing of BK's dna against the dna on the sheath.

They can load BK's dna on GEDmatch and do their own IGG (it being his own dna, he can give consent and they can run it against everyone, even those who have opted out of law enforcement, on the private side of GEDmatch).

IF they haven't done either of these things--I'm honestly asking--please give some feasible reasons why they haven't.

Because all it will do is prove, once again, that it's Kohberger's DNA on the sheath.

IMO.

 

[10ofRods]

Not every person studying crime appears to be wanting to lessen it, and maybe comprehend it for their own purposes. Boy, that's awful. This seems to me why investigative measures, though I would prefer they were completely transparent, likely cannot be. JMOO

I think some of us are referring to Criminology, as a discipline. It does have the goal of preventing crime. While (obviously) some people with the opposite view can be admitted to the discipline, any such person is at odds with the stated goals, outcomes and ethics of Criminology.

Most Criminology students, further, already have degrees in Criminal Justice - the study of bringing criminals to justice.

Criminology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

All juried publications in Criminology are peer reviewed with a rubric that has to do with preventing crime. All learning outcomes in classes are geared to understanding and preventing crime.

If someone tries to be in this profession while having the opposite goal, it strikes me as like being an anthropologist who hates other cultures (it's against our ethics to judge cultures and we also have plenty of other rules - unique to our discipilne). It would be like a doctor who wants their patients to remain sick. Sure, it happens (cf. Dr. Death) but when it does, it is strikingly out of balance with the intentions of the community.

However, those of us who do study crime know that there are higher incidents of certain crimes amongst various parts of the crime-prevention community. Police, for example, are more likely to commit certain crimes than the non-police community. And now we have a really public example of a criminologist apparently using professional knowledge to try and commit "the perfect crime." The notion of a "criminal mastermind" who is also a professor is enshrined in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Moriarity. My own work has involved finding law-breaking LEO's (hired by LE to conduct participant-observation research inside local police stations).

Without further ado, here is the Code of Ethics for American Criminologists (and the one for Criminal Justice is perhaps even more strict):

https://asc41.org/wp-content/uploads/ASC_Code_of_Ethics.pdf

And here's the statement for Criminal Justice:

https://www.acjs.org/page/Code_Of_Ethics

Both emphasize transparency and never using one's field of study to manipulate or coerce or even confuse other people.

 

[katydid23]

How do you know if it relevant or not? Has an unbiased outside source run the same type of match on the DNA evidence? The answer is: No. So you do not know and there is no way for you to know if the results are accurate unless and until the DNA results and IGG results are rerun by an unbiased outside source and proven to be be either accurate or inaccurate or at the very least, the complete documentation of the process is given to the defense. This is not a wild goose chase. This is a very reasonable question to pursue. And yes, Anne Taylor should be given the documentation of the complete process and if there is any DNA sample left, she should be given that as well to have run by an unbiased outside source. A man's life is at stake.

This is no difference than a patient getting a second opinion. If your life was at stake wouldn't you get a second opinion? I certainly hope you would. And when you get a second opinion, your doctor will usually give you a copy of your complete labs and diagnosis to take to the doctor who will give the second opinion. This is normal and usual. Your doctor doesn't try to hold onto your labs and diagnosis and hide it from the doctor who will give the second opinion. They give you complete information of how you were diagnosed with whatever. Then the doctor who gives the second opinion reads your labs and diagnosis and decides if more information is needed and may or may not run additional labs depending on what he/she sees and will render his/her opinion on your diagnosis.

If the prosecution is certain of their results, they should not mind giving this information and even a sample of the DNA to the defense if any is left.

The defense team had a stable of DNA and IGG experts at the last hearing. They are fully capable of running BK's DNA themselves against the DNA found on the sheath. And fully capable of doing their own IGG to see if it comes back to BK's family. If they are so worried the results are incorrect, they can check them to be sure.

They have enough data from the prosecution in discovery to check this out. They have already been given what they need. They are just whining and screaming to create a scene and impact public opinion, so they can be seen as victims here.

 

[10ofRods]

The Defense can use the same data that LE used (it's been given to them) and get their own second opinion. Instead, they get self-proclaimed "genetic genealogists" to come to court and say "sometimes and in some places, LE has been unethical regarding evidence handling and DNA." They bring up no facts relating to malfeasance in this particular case, but want records that don't exist.

They definitely can get a second opinion - even from another DNA lab, if they wish. I assume that if Judge Judge allowed consumptive testing on the sheath, both sides could find even more Kohberger DNA on it. I will not be surprised if at some point, the Defense wants to do this, despite the downsides (because it will allow for more delays). Some days I feel as if the Defense has a goal of wearing Prosecutor Thompson down to a nubbin (sorry if I misremembered his name) .

The consumptive testing would likely show bovine DNA and possibly DNA from humans involved in the tanning process (and then, I suppose the State would have to show that these tanners live outside the U.S. and were not driving around in Latah County last November).

I do think that almost any juror would be annoyed by such a wild goose chase, when (as someone said) there is plenty of other evidence upon which to form a verdict.

Over the next couple of years, I look for Defense strategy to gradually move away from the DNA issue and into other issues of discovery, as this slowly moves toward trial. The phone data, data from his internet purchases and searches, etc, etc.

IMO.

 

[Boxer]

IIRC, there was some concern about the DNA testing by LE in Pullman, Washington when they submitted their probable cause for a search warrant to the court for a search of BK's apartment. In addition to their probable cause request for a search warrant for BK's apartment, they included a "Supplemental Disclosure re: DNA Test", noting that if the court at some point finds that the DNA test results are inadmissable, then they ask the court that it not impact the probable cause for their search warrant on BK's apartment.

So apparently Pullman LE were aware that the DNA testing at that time was potentially inadmissable.

MOO sounds boilerplate to me as law enforcement and prosecutors are aware that defense attorneys as a whole are mounting an anti-DNA defenses.

 

[Jurisprudence]

I would have imagined that from the minute he realised the sheath was missing, he knew the gig was up one way or another and that from there on in every action he took was evasive or preventative or suchlike.

If it's true that he created the social media profiles on FB and 4chan then clearly he was in a highly activated state. We know he cleaned his car, was wearing gloves, and sorting trash... I'd say that would be the more obvious signs that he was in tailspin. JMO

Maybe not. Because that sheath was wiped clean except for that one spot on the inside of the snap. He might have been nervous but "confident" they'd find nothing on it. He was wrong.

jmo

ETA: wiped clean is moo and just a phrase. I think he was confident he did whatever he needed to do to ensure it was free of his dna. Being free of all dna is suspect in and of itself imo. You'd think he would have have tried to put someone else's dna on it

All jmo

 

[Boxer]

They need to disclose exactly which FGGS/IGG services were used, and the steps they took, before they can do that. Hopefully soon.

Orthram.

 

[Boxer]

Looks like the Moscow PD and supporting agencies followed the DOJ policy for DNA found at a CS and suspected to be the perpetrator.

So this DNA noise by AT is a snare for those who don't read the procedure, and the same kind of constitutional challenge as her challenge to the Grand Jury.
A twofer: lots of uniformed rumoring in the court of public opinion and a layaway for appeal.

 

[Jurisprudence]

So you do not know and there is no way for you to know if the results are accurate unless and until the DNA results and IGG results are rerun by an unbiased outside source and proven to be be either accurate or inaccurate

If the prosecution is certain of their results, they should not mind giving this information and even a sample of the DNA to the defense if any is left.

[snipped/BBM]

So why aren't they (the defense) doing this then? I'll venture my guess for whatever it's worth.

MOO They fear if they test it will be confirmed and they don't want to confirm the DNA of their client. So, they want to insist on papers instead. Papers that don't exist in hopes of instilling doubt or fashioning an argument that it was defective based on the paper trail (or lack thereof).

[BBM 2]

Moo The last thing they are interested in doing is testing this - because imo, they know the results.

jmo

 

[10ofRods]

Whether they use the IGG at trial or not, they still owe the defense the complete documentation showing how they arrived at BK as a suspect and that WAS through the IGG process. What if a mistake was made somewhere along the process? What if there was a software error of some type? The entire DNA process should be replicable by the defense. IF not, it should be thrown out as evidence.

State has turned over what they have. The only "mistakes" that could have been made would be in the initial set-up of the database(s). I don't think that issue is within the purview of the court nor can a Judge (or even a federal authority) order a private database company to turn their entire system over in a case like this one.

I guess my point about doing it manually didn't register. There's no way to make a "mistake" unless a person cannot tell the difference between an A and a T or a C and a G. We do not usually use courts to try and fix people's spelling - and fixes to spelling are not usually recorded in any paperwork, are they?

The only type of mistake that could be made would be the equivalent of a typo. Which is why, if the Defense is so concerned, they can 1) get another buccal swab from Kohberger (notice that they aren't challenging that or attempting to that at all) and run the results on their own; or 2) get the initial results from ISL (but if they don't trust the forensic lab - then go back to 1) and run the results through IGG databases until the cows come home - heck - take it everywhere! To ALL the forensic databases, including Parabon. There are good reasons the Defense won't do that.

Why aren't they doing that? There's no more to turn over. No discernible mistakes were made, mistakes are easily checked (by a computer that does not have a mind, fingers or take notes). It's objective as all get out. Computers don't even know whose DNA they are checking.

No human made this match. No human took notes. No human turned out the list of ATCG's, etc. A piece of tubing with electricity running through a special grid "wrote down" the ACGT sequences - with the help of...a computer.

Blood type analysis is the same. Fingerprint analysis has similarities. Facial recognition (eyewitnesses included) are less accurate - and run on much more subjective principles.

IMO.

 

[10ofRods]

Maybe not. Because that sheath was wiped clean except for that one spot on the inside of the snap. He might have been nervous but "confident" they'd find nothing on it. He was wrong.

jmo

That bit about it being "wiped clean" is your opinion (I disagree and do not believe it's actually possible to completely remove DNA from a sheath).

Forensic manuals tell us to go to the use point (the snap) before destroying any part of a tool or object. So that's what they did and there was DNA there. Doesn't mean there wasn't DNA elsewhere on the sheath or that the sheath was cleaned - at all. The sheath was handled very carefully and not taken out of its plastic bag except to reveal the tiny part that is the snap. It's how we do it in archaeology as well. This is a known science. We don't want to destroy artifacts, so we test them in the most likely places - and in this case, it worked well.

There's certainly other DNA on the sheath - but the forensic literature on the issues of DNA on leather objects is quite large - it would definitely be the kind of procedure where a Judge would order both sides get their own expert to do consumptive testing (and all the experts be present at the same time, to verify procedures). Notice that the Defense hasn't asked for that either. They know it will not help their client.

The part about procedure above is not personal opinion.

 

[NextSprint]

[snipped/BBM]

So why aren't they (the defense) doing this then? I'll venture my guess for whatever it's worth.

MOO They fear if they test it will be confirmed and they don't want to confirm the DNA of their client. So, they want to insist on papers instead. Papers that don't exist in hopes of instilling doubt or fashioning an argument that it was defective based on the paper trail (or lack thereof).

[BBM 2]

Moo The last thing they are interested in doing is testing this - because imo, they know the results.

jmo

If papers don't exist it means the FBI didn't follow their own rules, which means abuse of process.

 

[NextSprint]

State has turned over what they have. The only "mistakes" that could have been made would be in the initial set-up of the database(s). I don't think that issue is within the purview of the court nor can a Judge (or even a federal authority) order a private database company to turn their entire system over in a case like this one.

I guess my point about doing it manually didn't register. There's no way to make a "mistake" unless a person cannot tell the difference between an A and a T or a C and a G. We do not usually use courts to try and fix people's spelling - and fixes to spelling are not usually recorded in any paperwork, are they?

The only type of mistake that could be made would be the equivalent of a typo. Which is why, if the Defense is so concerned, they can 1) get another buccal swab from Kohberger (notice that they aren't challenging that or attempting to that at all) and run the results on their own; or 2) get the initial results from ISL (but if they don't trust the forensic lab - then go back to 1) and run the results through IGG databases until the cows come home - heck - take it everywhere! To ALL the forensic databases, including Parabon. There are good reasons the Defense won't do that.

Why aren't they doing that? There's no more to turn over. No discernible mistakes were made, mistakes are easily checked (by a computer that does not have a mind, fingers or take notes). It's objective as all get out. Computers don't even know whose DNA they are checking.

No human made this match. No human took notes. No human turned out the list of ATCG's, etc. A piece of tubing with electricity running through a special grid "wrote down" the ACGT sequences - with the help of...a computer.

Blood type analysis is the same. Fingerprint analysis has similarities. Facial recognition (eyewitnesses included) are less accurate - and run on much more subjective principles.

IMO.

I'm sorry but you're conflating "DNA testing" (computers) with "FGGS/IGG research" (manual + computer). Both of which legally require a paper trail, which is designed to enable a fair trial in any case in which the product of those processes are used.

I.e. There must be a paper trail of which FBI agent used which database, at what time, how they accessed it, what they put into it, what trails they followed, where the ended up and how. Etc. This is a mandatory requirement by the DOJ, and the defense have a right to that paper trail. If it doesn't exist, something has gone wrong.

 

[Jurisprudence]

IIRC, there was some concern about the DNA testing by LE in Pullman, Washington when they submitted their probable cause for a search warrant to the court for a search of BK's apartment. In addition to their probable cause request for a search warrant for BK's apartment, they included a "Supplemental Disclosure re: DNA Test", noting that if the court at some point finds that the DNA test results are inadmissable, then they ask the court that it not impact the probable cause for their search warrant on BK's apartment.

So apparently Pullman LE were aware that the DNA testing at that time was potentially inadmissable.

Imoo I think this was a matter of formality and covering all bases only. This was a warrant sought in the state of Washington. A different jurisdiction with different laws including requiring a warrant in some instances to take another's trash and test it for dna.

The officer swearing out the warrant was telling the court "Full disclosure, judge. Some of this started at the Kohberger trash can which might be inadmissible in your state. I'm telling you this in the interest of full disclosure in case it would be found that the dna is not admissible because of this. So, that said, I'm also asking you to ignore the dna evidence when you assess whether or not we have met the pc standard and find instead that when weighing all the evidence EXCEPT this DNA evidence, that we have still met the burden so that the fruits of our search of his Washington apartment will not be in jeopardy of being tossed out."

This is all I think this means. Nothing more. But it is all

jmo

Washington State Application for Search Warrant/Supplemental Disclosure (pages 14-15/5-6)

State of Washington v Bass (2021)

 

[Jurisprudence]

That bit about it being "wiped clean" is your opinion (I disagree and do not believe it's actually possible to completely remove DNA from a sheath).

Forensic manuals tell us to go to the use point (the snap) before destroying any part of a tool or object. So that's what they did and there was DNA there. Doesn't mean there wasn't DNA elsewhere on the sheath or that the sheath was cleaned - at all. The sheath was handled very carefully and not taken out of its plastic bag except to reveal the tiny part that is the snap. It's how we do it in archaeology as well. This is a known science. We don't want to destroy artifacts, so we test them in the most likely places - and in this case, it worked well.

There's certainly other DNA on the sheath - but the forensic literature on the issues of DNA on leather objects is quite large - it would definitely be the kind of procedure where a Judge would order both sides get their own expert to do consumptive testing (and all the experts be present at the same time, to verify procedures). Notice that the Defense hasn't asked for that either. They know it will not help their client.

The part about procedure above is not personal opinion.

Well correct those were my words. It was all my opinion ('jmo"), even the part that is confirmable in the pca but I'll go back and edit. According to the PCA there was no other dna on it. So he thought he did whatever he needed to in order to leave it clean

Moo