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

[ilovewings]

[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

I think you nailed it!!!

 

[10ofRods]

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

No other dna OBTAINED or FOUND - big difference. They only looked one place. That's actually recommended procedure (for many reasons). They can look more, but it requires consumptive testing. I know of no jurisdiction where that's allowed without a Judge's permission.

(Skip to the last part if this is too long)

The fact that they found DNA on the place most likely to contain DNA ended their search. It's like looking for anything else. Once you find it, you don't take up precious lab time and resources in testing more - unless asked or ordered to do so. That's not what the Defense is seeking, though.

Of course there's other DNA in leather. Bovine DNA for one - which of course, the Defense could say means a cow was involved in the murders. There's almost certainly DNA from some of the tanners (I won't go into the process, but there is very like either human or animal DNA besides bovine). No good forensic DNA is going to go immediately to a clearly mixed sample (the leather) when they have found an unmixed sample on the use point.

Testing the leather itself has indeed led to some silly arguments in some trials - just more to explain to the jury. But why doesn't the Defense want that? Because they already know that *breathing* deposits DNA on objects, and while BK was masked, he likely wasn't masked at every single moment that he handled that sheath. Even so, DNA is small. Very small. Wearing a mask diminishes but does not eliminate either COVID nor DNA from passing outside the mask.

So, I await their testing of the sheath, per judge's order - but it may never come. Because the Defense worries that it will just be more Kohberger DNA (and that the human DNA will be traced - by genetic genealogy aka ancestry study - to the locale where the sheath was made. As I understand it, that's in Mexico (where most of North America's leather tanning takes place). The profile from the workers would likely reveal that (just as in the JonBenet case, the "stranger DNA" fits with a Chinese male in a province where certain of JB's clothing items were manufactured). Dead end.

But complicates things. Why do that, if you're the State? And why risk showing the Jury that Kohberger touched more than just the sheath? Asking for *more* DNA on a criminal defendant is not good standard practice, IMO.

This is all just my opinion, too but there are reasons for these standards and I do not believe they ever tested the sheath in general. As I keep mentioning, that would require consumptive testing (taking a small amount of the top layer of the leather at the very least - it would mark/mar/change the evidence - that's against all forensic procedure). Merely swabbing it with something will not work because leather, unlike the snap, is porous and very unlikely to reveal results without a little scrape of the leather. Or at least, wet swabbing (which could be argued later removed valuable evidence - such as the color of the sheath). There's no evidence at all that LE or ISL went before a Judge to get permission. I do not believe any lab would do that without permission (and it's possible it was secretly given - in which case, it either turned up nothing, or the Defense knows that BK's DNA was found elsewhere on that sheath).

At some point in time, whoever handled that sheath got their finger oils into the leather - and that's not easy to clean. It's not a matter of wiping the sheath, the pores of the leather would need to be cleaned with a fluid - and I think such cleaning would be obvious, leave traces and simply point further to guilt. There's no evidence Kohberger did this. Surely he was paying attention in his classes when his profs told him that leather does not easily transfer DNA - as it absorbs it into its own DNA-bearing structure.

TL;DR Things that are made from DNA (leather) pose different problems in DNA analysis.

IMO.

 

[Boxer]

No other dna OBTAINED or FOUND - big difference. They only looked one place. That's actually recommended procedure (for many reasons). They can look more, but it requires consumptive testing. I know of no jurisdiction where that's allowed without a Judge's permission.

(Skip to the last part if this is too long)

The fact that they found DNA on the place most likely to contain DNA ended their search. It's like looking for anything else. Once you find it, you don't take up precious lab time and resources in testing more - unless asked or ordered to do so. That's not what the Defense is seeking, though.

Of course there's other DNA in leather. Bovine DNA for one - which of course, the Defense could say means a cow was involved in the murders. There's almost certainly DNA from some of the tanners (I won't go into the process, but there is very like either human or animal DNA besides bovine). No good forensic DNA is going to go immediately to a clearly mixed sample (the leather) when they have found an unmixed sample on the use point.

Testing the leather itself has indeed led to some silly arguments in some trials - just more to explain to the jury. But why doesn't the Defense want that? Because they already know that *breathing* deposits DNA on objects, and while BK was masked, he likely wasn't masked at every single moment that he handled that sheath. Even so, DNA is small. Very small. Wearing a mask diminishes but does not eliminate either COVID nor DNA from passing outside the mask.

So, I await their testing of the sheath, per judge's order - but it may never come. Because the Defense worries that it will just be more Kohberger DNA (and that the human DNA will be traced - by genetic genealogy aka ancestry study - to the locale where the sheath was made. As I understand it, that's in Mexico (where most of North America's leather tanning takes place). The profile from the workers would likely reveal that (just as in the JonBenet case, the "stranger DNA" fits with a Chinese male in a province where certain of JB's clothing items were manufactured). Dead end.

But complicates things. Why do that, if you're the State? And why risk showing the Jury that Kohberger touched more than just the sheath? Asking for *more* DNA on a criminal defendant is not good standard practice, IMO.

This is all just my opinion, too but there are reasons for these standards and I do not believe they ever tested the sheath in general. As I keep mentioning, that would require consumptive testing (taking a small amount of the top layer of the leather at the very least - it would mark/mar/change the evidence - that's against all forensic procedure). Merely swabbing it with something will not work because leather, unlike the snap, is porous and very unlikely to reveal results without a little scrape of the leather. Or at least, wet swabbing (which could be argued later removed valuable evidence - such as the color of the sheath). There's no evidence at all that LE or ISL went before a Judge to get permission. I do not believe any lab would do that without permission (and it's possible it was secretly given - in which case, it either turned up nothing, or the Defense knows that BK's DNA was found elsewhere on that sheath).

At some point in time, whoever handled that sheath got their finger oils into the leather - and that's not easy to clean. It's not a matter of wiping the sheath, the pores of the leather would need to be cleaned with a fluid - and I think such cleaning would be obvious, leave traces and simply point further to guilt. There's no evidence Kohberger did this. Surely he was paying attention in his classes when his profs told him that leather does not easily transfer DNA - as it absorbs it into its own DNA-bearing structure.

TL;DR Things that are made from DNA (leather) pose different problems in DNA analysis.

IMO.

AT: Obviously Bossy done it.

 

[jepop]

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

Totally, that was a safeguard, the pca stood without that specific paternal test to show it was BK's dna on the snap button- absolutely not related to IGG in any way. Since that point the buccal swab confirmed to whatever octillion probability the dna on sheath button is BK's. That safeguard was added and notably the judge agreed it in no way meant the dna evidence was exculpatory, just incase the defense choose to question the paternal testing method -using paternal trash sample (which so far they have not) used at that time - because LE were unable to surreptitiously obtain a sample from BK prior to his arrest. Moo

 

[jepop]

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

IMO.

Defense can't take the risk of consumptive testing of the sheath leather - what if there is more BK dna on it? And if P had done consumptive testing prior to arrest and destroyed part of sheath in the process, D would be all over them for "destroying evidence". But now there is nothing stopping the D from stipulating with P to do consumptive testing but will they? No, as you say too risky for them Imo. All Moo

 

[10ofRods]

Totally, that was a safeguard, the pca stood without that specific paternal test to show it was BK's dna on the snap button- absolutely not related to IGG in any way. Since that point the buccal swab confirmed to whatever octillion probability the dna on sheath button is BK's. That safeguard was added and notably the judge agreed it in no way meant the dna evidence was exculpatory, just incase the defense choose to question the paternal testing method -using paternal trash sample (which so far they have not) used at that time - because LE were unable to surreptitiously obtain a sample from BK prior to his arrest. Moo

Excellent point and I bet there's a story there. I believe that owners of White Elantras (any year) were looked at by campus police (both campuses). One person stood out when police went further and tried to inquire of teachers (etc) about said car owners. Anyone who is tagged as a possible criminal by any process AND who is a cadet, a policeman, a lawyer, a criminal justice student, etc. is memorable to an investigator. That's why there was so much messaging by Chief Frye around the "please come forward, we only want to talk to you, don't worry if you have minor infractions, etc." (Did BK have minor infractions? Inquiring minds, etc).

At any rate, he was up on their radar in something more than a vague way. The phone pings and the 11 times or so he'd been in the area (for example). Things his profs may have said about him.

He was also guarding his person and his DNA, IMO. He likely wore gloves all the time when he was driving (after the murders) so as to avoid DeAngelo's fate. Police got to thinking, "If ONLY we could arrest him, we can show it's his DNA!) (And they did just that).

He was (IMO) guarding his trash in Pullman, as well. This only made LE more suspicious. They needed a tie between the sheath DNA and a *name.*

They got it. And that was enough for probable cause. I will also say that the bar for probable cause gets higher all the time - and if people like their world like that, it will continue. Just because one is arrested doesn't mean one is guilty. Often, people have really good alibis (we await one in this case). But, upon arrest, one's DNA can be taken and every Judge and LEO in the nation knows that - so for that early part of the process, getting to an arrest is key.

I'm glad they did the IGG to make it clear that the DNA belonged to a Kohberger and I'm glad they got his dad's DNA from the family trash in order to show WHICH Kohberger it was. If we're going to have an ever higher bar for conviction, the least we an do (with our vast unsolved homicide and missing persons rates in the US) is to allow investigators to use scientific evidence.

IMO. But, I fear that what's really going to happen (after this) is that cases with less evidence will languish in the courts. I sure hope not and depend on the Idaho Courts to do their thing.

 

[10ofRods]

Defense can't take the risk of consumptive testing of the sheath leather - what if there is more BK dna on it? And if P had done consumptive testing prior to arrest and destroyed part of sheath in the process, D would be all over them for "destroying evidence". But now there is nothing stopping the D from stipulating with P to do consumptive testing but will they? No, as you say too risky for them Imo. All Moo

Exactly.

Exactly that. And I would bet a lot of lunch money that this is exactly what would happen if they did consumptive testing of that sheath. Kohberger DNA, bovine DNA - and the DNA of a couple of hapless workers in Mexico.

IMO.

 

[Jurisprudence]

If you're referring to the supplemental disclosure on the search warrant for his apartment, that wasn't boiler plate imo. It was specific and intentional, done to address the court in the interest of full disclosure of the fact that Kohberger's father's DNA (retrieved from the trash) while lawful in PA, would not have been lawful in Washington without a warrant, so please weigh whether we meet our burden of pc for a warrant without considering this. They covered themselves very well imo. It was quite smart.

jmo

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

State v Boland, 115 Wn.2d 571 (1990)

https://law.justia.com/cases/washington/supreme-court/1990/56666-6-1.html

 

[jepop]

Excellent point and I bet there's a story there. I believe that owners of White Elantras (any year) were looked at by campus police (both campuses). One person stood out when police went further and tried to inquire of teachers (etc) about said car owners. Anyone who is tagged as a possible criminal by any process AND who is a cadet, a policeman, a lawyer, a criminal justice student, etc. is memorable to an investigator. That's why there was so much messaging by Chief Frye around the "please come forward, we only want to talk to you, don't worry if you have minor infractions, etc." (Did BK have minor infractions? Inquiring minds, etc).

At any rate, he was up on their radar in something more than a vague way. The phone pings and the 11 times or so he'd been in the area (for example). Things his profs may have said about him.

He was also guarding his person and his DNA, IMO. He likely wore gloves all the time when he was driving (after the murders) so as to avoid DeAngelo's fate. Police got to thinking, "If ONLY we could arrest him, we can show it's his DNA!) (And they did just that).

He was (IMO) guarding his trash in Pullman, as well. This only made LE more suspicious. They needed a tie between the sheath DNA and a *name.*

They got it. And that was enough for probable cause. I will also say that the bar for probable cause gets higher all the time - and if people like their world like that, it will continue. Just because one is arrested doesn't mean one is guilty. Often, people have really good alibis (we await one in this case). But, upon arrest, one's DNA can be taken and every Judge and LEO in the nation knows that - so for that early part of the process, getting to an arrest is key.

I'm glad they did the IGG to make it clear that the DNA belonged to a Kohberger and I'm glad they got his dad's DNA from the family trash in order to show WHICH Kohberger it was. If we're going to have an ever higher bar for conviction, the least we an do (with our vast unsolved homicide and missing persons rates in the US) is to allow investigators to use scientific evidence.

IMO. But, I fear that what's really going to happen (after this) is that cases with less evidence will languish in the courts. I sure hope not and depend on the Idaho Courts to do their thing.

Good points. I also believe that LE had likely tried back in Pullman to get a surreptitious sample to compare with the forensic sample from sheath and failed to do so. If they were infact finding no trash with BK's dna on it and had perhaps observed him wearing gloves alot (by way of e.g) I can see that making them more suspicious Moo. I think BK was being very careful, especially after the public elantra announcement. Moo

At the time the Search warrants came out, I made some long posts on the supplemental disclosure re the paternal dna test ( the supplemental disclosure begins and ends specifically with the paternal test from the trash in relation to to PC for the WA search warrant), which in the case of the WA warrant and by way of ommission in the case of the PA warrant, both Judges found there was probable cause sans that very specific paternal test to prove it was BK's dna on the sheath button. The PCA in the WA search warrant case was completely transparent about why - that the judge was being asked to find for PC in the event that this specific dna test was later found to be inadmissable. So infact that supplemental disclosure was to do with safeguarding PC for the search warrants. Moo

 

[jepop]

If you're referring to the supplemental disclosure on the search warrant for his apartment, that wasn't boiler plate imo. It was specific and intentional, done to address the court in the interest of full disclosure of the fact that Kohberger's father's DNA (retrieved from the trash) while lawful in PA, would not have been lawful in Washington without a warrant, so please weigh whether we meet our burden of pc for a warrant without considering this. They covered themselves very well imo. It was quite smart.

jmo

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

State v Boland, 115 Wn.2d 571 (1990)

https://law.justia.com/cases/washington/supreme-court/1990/56666-6-1.html

Exactly this. Moo

 

[Jurisprudence]

Exactly this. Moo

I think it's a good thing they remembered to include this. If they had forgotten to disclose this I think the defense for sure would have tried to throw it all out and the state wouldn't be able to prove that they met the threshold for the warrant to issue without consideration of the DNA evidence. But by putting it all out there in black and white, that the court shouldn't consider it, the defense cannot now attack this, if this makes sense. And, whatever is found on those computers they seized could be important. We don't know yet.

jmo

 

[Cool Cats]

The end game for the defense is to get the judge to rule the DNA inadmissible.

Once the DNA is starkly presented to the jury the DNA speaks for itself. The defense won't be allowed to say the DNA was wrongly obtained because if wrongly obtained it would have been ruled inadmissible.

I do believe the defense would be allowed to have their own DNA Lab experts test the DNA themselves and then explain their results to the jury. Specifically the sequence of flaws they find showing why this DNA is not 5.37 Octillion times likely to be BK's DNA.

Maybe they could get it lowered down to one of these instead?

5.37 Septillion
Or
5.37 Sextillion
Or
5.37 Quintillion
Or
5.37 Quadrillion
Or
5.37 Trillion
Or
5.37 Billion
Or
5.37 Million
Or
5.37 Thousand

https://aminoapps.com/c/out-of-reality/page/blog/random-fact-13/2oJD_q0CNuMMrNeWGrvGERpd8gM0X2Jpj5

2 Cents

 

[DeDee]

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.

If the DNA test results are not admissible and Judge Judge concurs the search warrant for BK's apt is valid w/o the DNA, then the disposable black glove, receipts from Walmart and Marshalls, a dust container vacuum, possible hair strands, one "Fire TV" stick, one possible animal hair strand, one computer tower, an item with a dark red spot, two pieces of an uncased pillow with a "reddish/brown" stain and mattress covers found inside his apt remain admissible at trial. Do I have that right?

Of what benefit might the Firestick be to LEO?
Firestick stores all downloaded files on its internal storage. If you go and check it from settings, you will find all your downloaded files there.

Where does Firestick store downloads? - brainyhousing​

I don't mind AT's Team providing a vigorous defense. If BK is the one and only killer of the Idaho Four and gets off on a technicality, then it would be a great travesty and expense. If the charges are dismissed, without prejudice, he can be held for trial in the future.

< PSBBMFF >

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

No. That's spooky. Maybe I'm being sensitive. Shall we flip this statement to read: You'd think the killer tried to put BKs DNA on it?

JMOs

 

[girlhasnoname]

Kohberger warrant

www.documentcloud.org

The "Supplemental Disclosure re: DNA Test" section of the application for a search warrant for BK's apartment by LE in Pullman, WA is on page 14 of this cloud document that several OPs posted earlier on this forum.

The Supplemental Disclosure states that the Idaho State Crime Lab obtained a male DNA (Suspect Profile) from a sheath recovered at the murder site on November 13, 2022. Then, on December 27, 2022, LE in PA recovered trash from the Kohberger family residence and it was sent to the Idaho Crime Lab for testing. On December 28, 2022, the Idaho State Crime Lab reported that a DNA profile was obtained from the trash; it was compared to the Suspect DNA profile. Lab Personnel concluded that the source of the trash DNA profile was male and was not being excluded as the biological father of the source of the Suspect Profile.

Thanks for that, I looked for it myself and couldn't find it.

I don't believe it's anything ominous in and of itself, I believe they are stating the ruling should be made on the totality of probable cause of all the evidence of the PCA, not the inclusion (or exclusion if it should apply in the future) of DNA test results from ISP lab comparing DNA recovered from the trash against DNA recovered from the knife sheath stating it was not being excluded to be the biological father of suspect profile. I believe they were being cautious until they had a direct sample from BK.

The PCA resulted in the arrest of BK at which time they took a direct buccal swab to compare to the DNA from the knife sheath which resulted in an STR comparison showing it 5+ octillion times belonging to him verses any other person.

JMO

 

[Montecore1]

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.

Well there is this...

The Trash Pick-up/Policies as per the Indian Mountain Lake Deed Restrictions of his parents subdivision where BK was allegedly sealing trash in bags prior to his arrest:

"Trash, garbage and or other waste must be kept in sealed bags which are to be placed in sealed containers with lids. No loose bags are permitted. All trash containers/receptacles must be properly secured and maintained in good repair. There is a 5 can limit for garbage collection."

Indian Mountain Lake - Enumerate Engage -

Enumerate Engage is the industry

engage.goenumerate.com

 

[girlhasnoname]

Well there is this...

The Trash Pick-up/Policies as per the Indian Mountain Lake Deed Restrictions of his parents subdivision where BK was allegedly sealing trash in bags prior to his arrest:

"Trash, garbage and or other waste must be kept in sealed bags which are to be placed in sealed containers with lids. No loose bags are permitted. All trash containers/receptacles must be properly secured and maintained in good repair. There is a 5 can limit for garbage collection."

Indian Mountain Lake - Enumerate Engage -

Enumerate Engage is the industry

engage.goenumerate.com

The obvious would be sealed garbage bags, not individual Ziplock baggies IMO. But that still doesn't explain why BK would be sealing his stuff up and placing in a neighbors can at 3-4 am in the morning instead of his own can right outside his door.

He did not want LE to be able to collect his DNA seems the most logical conclusion to me.

Just MOO

 

[Chloegirl]

Well there is this...

The Trash Pick-up/Policies as per the Indian Mountain Lake Deed Restrictions of his parents subdivision where BK was allegedly sealing trash in bags prior to his arrest:

"Trash, garbage and or other waste must be kept in sealed bags which are to be placed in sealed containers with lids. No loose bags are permitted. All trash containers/receptacles must be properly secured and maintained in good repair. There is a 5 can limit for garbage collection."

Indian Mountain Lake - Enumerate Engage -

Enumerate Engage is the industry

engage.goenumerate.com

I'm confused on this. I read what the original poster wrote and here I see you're defending his 3am activities with code? This behavior even for a night owl is off. I think it is pretty obvious that he was concealing things not just taking out the trash.

A lot of people don't feel safe going outside of their house in the middle of the night in the dark, especially if you are a woman and you just had a mass murder of four in your town. I'm just offering a different perspective. JMOO

 

[Balthazar]

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.

How do you know the defense haven't done their own DNA and IGG? And if defense has done it, what IF they got a completely different result? IF that has happened, it explains why AT really wants to see the prosecution's DNA process. She has described the prosecution's IGG result as the result of a "bizarre experiment." AT may well know something important the prosecution doesn't know.

It is clear that whatever the problem AT has detected with the DNA, they are considering that the result may have come from an intermittent software error or contamination:

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/050323+Defendants+3rd+Supplemental+Request+for+Discovery.pdf

All JMO.

 

[wendy44]

How do you know the defense haven't done their own DNA and IGG? And if defense has done it, what IF they got a completely different result? IF that has happened, it explains why AT really wants to see the prosecution's DNA process. She has described the prosecution's IGG result as the result of a "bizarre experiment." AT may well know something important the prosecution doesn't know.

It is clear that whatever the problem AT has detected with the DNA, they are considering that the result may have come from an intermittent software error or contamination:
View attachment 444741

All JMO.

I don't know that. But if they've done their own testing and got a completely different result, they wouldn't be fighting so hard to have the dna evidence thrown out. They'd want it in so they could present their own experts with the conflicting results.

What is actually clear is that they've detected no problem with the results.

 

[Gemmie]

Well there is this...

The Trash Pick-up/Policies as per the Indian Mountain Lake Deed Restrictions of his parents subdivision where BK was allegedly sealing trash in bags prior to his arrest:

"Trash, garbage and or other waste must be kept in sealed bags which are to be placed in sealed containers with lids. No loose bags are permitted. All trash containers/receptacles must be properly secured and maintained in good repair. There is a 5 can limit for garbage collection."

Indian Mountain Lake - Enumerate Engage -

Enumerate Engage is the industry

engage.goenumerate.com

There is NO way, IMO, that their policy means that each separate trash item needs to be sealed in individual zip lock bags. That would be ridiculous, expensive, and EXTREMELY wasteful.