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

[Ghostwheel]

Just so I understand what the conversation is, everyone understands that if Defense can get the DNA thrown out on a technicality, it wont matter if the DNA matches or not, correct? And that anything based on the DNA, even if it matches, will be null and void if it gets thrown out on a technicality.

So no one disputes it matches, but the dispute is if it was obtained in a legal manner. Which means even if the relative opted in and a single person who did not opt in got run, it might be able to be thrown out on a technicality.Depends on the situation, the judge and what else might be in evidence, imo.

This all seems like the spaghetti at the wall approach on the part of the defense. Throw it all and see if anything will stick. That is what desperate people do.

 

[steeltowngirl]

Just so I understand what the conversation is, everyone understands that if Defense can get the DNA thrown out on a technicality, it wont matter if the DNA matches or not, correct? And that anything based on the DNA, even if it matches, will be null and void if it gets thrown out on a technicality.

So no one disputes it matches, but the dispute is if it was obtained in a legal manner. Which means even if the relative opted in and a single person who did not opt in got run, it might be able to be thrown out on a technicality.Depends on the situation, the judge and what else might be in evidence, imo.

This all seems like the spaghetti at the wall approach on the part of the defense. Throw it all and see if anything will stick. That is what desperate people do.

Yeah, it kind of seems like they are throwing spaghetti at the wall.
Guess we will just have to wait and see.

In the meantime, sometimes I just go and look at Murphy’s Instagram and know that he’s waiting for justice along with us too.

Login • Instagram

Welcome back to Instagram. Sign in to check out what your friends, family & interests have been capturing & sharing around the world.

www.instagram.com

 

[ilovewings]

I wish they wouldn't have said it though because imoo, it will be used against them.

jmo

I think it can be explained--- I have faith in the prosecution

 

[ilovewings]

Just so I understand what the conversation is, everyone understands that if Defense can get the DNA thrown out on a technicality, it wont matter if the DNA matches or not, correct? And that anything based on the DNA, even if it matches, will be null and void if it gets thrown out on a technicality.

So no one disputes it matches, but the dispute is if it was obtained in a legal manner. Which means even if the relative opted in and a single person who did not opt in got run, it might be able to be thrown out on a technicality.Depends on the situation, the judge and what else might be in evidence, imo.

This all seems like the spaghetti at the wall approach on the part of the defense. Throw it all and see if anything will stick. That is what desperate people do.

This is how criminal defense attorneys operate: it is criminal defense 101- throw all of it the wall and see what sticks or SODDI (some other dude did it)----

 

[twall]

Court TV on this DNA, very interesting. The sheath was found under her leg, did we know this ?

Are you referring to Joseph Scott Morgan on Vinnie Politan's CourtTV show tonight? I just got done watching and he stated "immediately adjacent, mind you, to the leg of one", not under.

Approximately 33:30

Experts Weigh Status of Bryan Kohberger Case in Idaho Student Murders

Alleged killer Bryan Kohberger has filed multiple motions alleging impropriety in the investigation into the Idaho student murders.

www.courttv.com

 

[schooling]

Just so I understand what the conversation is, everyone understands that if Defense can get the DNA thrown out on a technicality, it wont matter if the DNA matches or not, correct? And that anything based on the DNA, even if it matches, will be null and void if it gets thrown out on a technicality.

So no one disputes it matches, but the dispute is if it was obtained in a legal manner. Which means even if the relative opted in and a single person who did not opt in got run, it might be able to be thrown out on a technicality.Depends on the situation, the judge and what else might be in evidence, imo.

This all seems like the spaghetti at the wall approach on the part of the defense. Throw it all and see if anything will stick. That is what desperate people do.

Depends.

There’s a clear chain of evidence from the crime scene to the local lab dna (where it’s pulled off the sheath and stored digitally) into CODIS (for no hit), and eventually matching BKs cheek.

How does what happened to the sheath after it left the lab affect the sample they just pulled? Does it alter the 1s and 0s representation of BKs SUPER unique DNA stored inside of a computer suddenly when ortham receives it?

The sample that matched BK has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Ortham labs sample nor the subsequent process(es).

If a judge tossed out the local dna because there was something funky about the genealogy process…travesty of justice IMO. Which is exactly what the defense wants.

“he did it. but you caught him with a non-illegal shortcut. not guilty” - the defense…?

 

[10ofRods]

Can you even imagine? How voluminous that would be? His DNA was compared to every single person who submitted DNA! Computer near-instaneously eliminating the most remote matches, eliminating more and more, like a shrinking set of concentric circles, spiraling inward until it reached the closest matches! Even there, it would have spiraled around 3rd and 4th and 5th degree cousins! No need to include all those names when there was a 1st generation end product!

None of those cousins touched the sheath. Only BK did. And even then, the way DNA testing works, it's a mathematical ratio. It's always a comparison! Just like the genealogy process!

AT knows all this.

If she had something better to argue, she would.

JMO

I'm sure everything would go better if every time criminal DNA was run through a database like Othram, it turned up 1000 or more people - all of whom are then investigated further. Instead of the criminal being the focus, all their distant relatives (bewildered, as most of them have never heard of the defendant) are publicly named.

We are all cousins of someone undesirable. IMO and IMPE. But then, I'm into genealogy as a professional concern, as I know of no other discipline who does graduate level kinship studies (or academic genetic genealogy or archaeological genetic genealogy, etc).

I do have sympathy for AT and her task of defending a person whom I see as decidedly difficult...as a client.

 

[schooling]

I'm sure everything would go better if every time criminal DNA was run through a database like Othram, it turned up 1000 or more people - all of whom are then investigated further. Instead of the criminal being the focus, all their distant relatives (bewildered, as most of them have never heard of the defendant) are publicly named.

We are all cousins of someone undesirable. IMO and IMPE. But then, I'm into genealogy as a professional concern, as I know of no other discipline who does graduate level kinship studies (or academic genetic genealogy or archaeological genetic genealogy, etc).

I do have sympathy for AT and her task of defending a person whom I see as decidedly difficult...as a client.

That first sentence is not a bad idea at all.

 

[Cool Cats]

I think (and @10ofRods and/or @Boxer can probably speak to this better) the opt-in might be to upload it to GED Match to find even more familial connections and LE has access to GED Match.

Moo

Then everyone has opted in, the only DNA in the GED Match system is legal to run. So the defense is not going to get the only thing that would help them.

 

[Chloegirl]

Then everyone has opted in, the only DNA in the GED Match system is legal to run. So the defense is not going to get the only thing that would help them.

Right! So why are some folks here determined to poke holes in the science, protocols and computer software? IDK. JMOO

I do follow what they're saying and take it into consideration, and I could see how it could apply to another case just not this one. It seems only to be diversion from the know facts. It takes us all back and away to hypotheticals.

 

[Cool Cats]

Right! So why are some folks here determined to poke holes in the science, protocols and computer software? IDK. JMOO

Report those posts. They are deliberately misleading and off topic which goes against getting justice for the families of 4 college kids stabbed to death by a remorseless killer who is pampered by a bloated defense team.

Anne C. Taylor - Chief Public Defender
Jay W. Logsdon - Chief Deputy of Litigation
Elisa G. Massoth - Criminal Defense Attorney - Represented two clients to exoneration after wrongful convictions.
Jeff Nye - Deputy attorney general -- Criminal law division
Ingrid Batey - Deputy attorney general - Criminal law division
Bicka Barlow - DNA consultant
Stephen B Mercer - DNA consultant
Matthew Noedel - Crime scene investigator featured in a documentary reconstruction of rapper Tupac Shakur's death.

​

 

[sassyblue]

For those that keep misspelling it...
sorry...pet peeve of mine. Not talking to you @10ofRods

It's Othram labs.

othram.com

My dna is there along with several other family members. We have some distant family members we would like to see where they belong...behind bars...if you know what I mean.

We all started at Ancestry and FTDNA and opted in for LE purposes by uploading to Othram Labs.

 

[katydid23]

That would be the entire database. If Judge Judge rules she's entitled to an entire database, given how often various databases are used in criminal cases, this will go all the way to the Supreme Court, I'd wager - with attention give to the fact that CODIS is also a database - but even with CODIS, the "hits" are matches - not the entire database.

Can you imagine if every single person who is in CODIS has their personal identifying information and this large chunk of medical history given out to LE any time they make a request? ALL felons in the US? What use would that be? I mean, clearly the FBI isn't going to change its rules just because of this, but the ask could be made in another court. Yikes. Obviously, *everyone* (Defense, Prosecution; Court) will get this information - so many people will have a complete database of felons (which they can use as they wish, once they have it).

Then - a jury (with no expertise) is supposed to know what to make of this large group of "potential matches"? How is the jury supposed to know what a match is?

What a mess. IMO. AT appears not to know that there is no way NOT to opt in, with Othram. It's the whole point of that database that it's for LE to use - and their terms of service are very very clear.

I hope the judge understands all of this. It concerns me a bit, after he couldn't pronounce the victim's names at the start of this case. Just hoping he is doing more homework for this trial these days...

 

[katydid23]

Report those posts. They are deliberately misleading and off topic which goes against getting justice for the families of 4 college kids stabbed to death by a remorseless killer who is pampered by a bloated defense team.

Anne C. Taylor - Chief Public Defender
Jay W. Logsdon - Chief Deputy of Litigation
Elisa G. Massoth - Criminal Defense Attorney - Represented two clients to exoneration after wrongful convictions.
Jeff Nye - Deputy attorney general -- Criminal law division
Ingrid Batey - Deputy attorney general - Criminal law division
Bicka Barlow - DNA consultant
Stephen B Mercer - DNA consultant
Matthew Noedel - Crime scene investigator featured in a documentary reconstruction of rapper Tupac Shakur's death.

​

How does one defendant get the state to pay for EIGHT high profile defenders for his case? Do all murder defendants get a team like this?

 

[steeltowngirl]

It may have been mentioned earlier, but noting that the verified owner of Othram is a member and poster here on WS.

Othram - General Discussion - #2

Well done, y'all! Justice for Terence Paquette! VERDICT: An Orange County Jury has found Kenneth Stough Jr. guilty of murder and he has been sentenced to life in prison. In February 1996, Terence Paquette was stabbed more than 70 times and found in the bathroom of the Lil' Champ convenience...

www.websleuths.com

 

[Cool Cats]

I believe the jury when shown the DOJ policy, and the fact the Ortham Labs is a 100% opt-in database will see what the ruse is.

The defense cannot use the defense that the DNA is inadmissible. The jury is only presented with evidence that is admissible.

The judge decides if the DNA can be admitted before the jury. Once the judge allows the DNA evidence into trial the only way for the defense to discredit it is to find a lab that runs the knife sheath DNA and gets a different result.

The defense cannot tell the jury that the DNA should have been ruled inadmissible by the judge.

 

[Cool Cats]

How does one defendant get the state to pay for EIGHT high profile defenders for his case? Do all murder defendants get a team like this?

No, not all indigent DP defendants get this many high profile defenders for their case.

They all get 2 attorneys with at least one who is death qualified and they get to have experts testify and the attorneys have their own staff in their law practice to assist them. PI's and psychology consultants are also paid for by the State.

The State of Idaho is making sure BK gets the best defense so there is no possible way his guilty verdict can be overturned on appeal.

The defense team is making sure the State of Idaho plays by all the legal rules.

Once BK realizes his padded defense team cannot get his DNA dismissed from trial he may consider pleading guilty to avoid the DP. This is what I think is going on. His defense team has to continually show him that they are doing everything they can to get his DNA thrown out.

2 Cents

 

[twall]

DBM, wrong thread, I need sleep!

 

[Boxer]

The defense cannot use the defense that the DNA is inadmissible. The jury is only presented with evidence that is admissible.

The judge decides if the DNA can be admitted before the jury. Once the judge allows the DNA evidence into trial the only way for the defense to discredit it is to find a lab that runs the knife sheath DNA and gets a different result.

The defense cannot tell the jury that the DNA should have been ruled inadmissible by the judge.

AT can get experts to bloviate on the complexities till they achieve confusion.

Here is the policy:

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

Except

" 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."

 

[Cool Cats]

AT can get experts to bloviate on the complexities till they achieve confusion.

Here is the policy:

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

Except

" 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."

I do not believe that the judge will allow any bloviating from the defense team. At trial what is presented before the jury has to be backed up by evidence that must be presented.

Once the DNA goes before the jury it speaks for itself.