4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #90

[maskedwoman]

Howard Blum has stated many incorrect things about the DNA, including claiming that the ISP lab couldn't find any DNA and that the private Texas lab had to find it. That claim is disproven by the fact that both the prosecution AND the defense state as fact in court filings that ISP found the DNA and created the STR. I post links to the documents and quote them in this post:

4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #90

That video at Albertson's is one of the most damning pieces of evidence against BK. It ties the cellular and video evidence from the night before together in a nice bow and leaves little doubt. But no one ever talks about. Can you expand on this? It's an interesting idea. How would this be...

www.websleuths.com

That is very true. The first article seemed decent, but had a few items I questioned. The second, had more questionable statements but I gave him the benefit of the doubt. I even wondered if he had an inside seat, the way Joe McGinnis got for Jeffrey MacDonald's trial. From the third article on, they were so full of inaccurate statements, or assumptions or rumor presented as fact, that I stopped reading them at all. I haven't checked, but I did wonder if the quality of his articles dropped when the gag order went into effect. Either way, one uses the pretrial writings of Howard Blum as the foundation of an argument at their peril.

 

[jepop]

@Balthazar, you raise some interesting questions, and I think they're worthy of discussion and shouldn't be laughed at. A lot of people have raised these issues. But in spite of my doubts and worries, I am not ready to discard my impression that BK did it. I'm still at around 75% it's him.
Mainly because:
1) the presence of BK's DNA on the sheath. IMO, to consider that this was "planted" or got on it accidentally, would require a fantastic coincidence for the other parameters to also coincide: BK happening to also drive a white Elantra and his phone being off at the time of the crimes. BK would have to be the unluckiest guy in the world.
2) The involvement of the FBI. Yes, crooked cops do exist. But the FBI isn't affected by UofI's financial interests, or any of the sort of things that might hypothetically cause small town police corruption. If the FBI had discovered anything came from foul play, it would have been flagged. If the FBI had uncovered any truly exculpatory evidence, I am sure they would have alerted the prosecution that they have the wrong guy. The FBI doesn't have any vested interest in seeing the wrong person convicted in this case. If they had found any indication that someone else did it, they would be after that person.
On another note, you brought up the Brady/Giglio material. AFAIK (please correct me if I am wrong), Gary Tolleson was only peripherally involved in the investigation, and was not the one who interrogated BK (I believe that was Payne), or had any role in finding or processing the knife sheath (Payne again). I can't find any official mention of Tolleson's involvement other than being present at the autopsies (mentioned by the defense in their 2nd motion to compel). I would think Tolleson would have been mostly kept away from the core of the investigation in order to prevent precisely the kind of suspicions his involvement might create. At least I would HOPE so!

That being said, the more time passes and the more I get the feeling the prosecution (and media) has made it seem like this is an easy win, when it might not be. I have also been less than impressed with their little game of hide the ball in discovery matters, and I find Bill Thompson has come across as a little disingenuous saying "we can hand over something that doesn't exist" regarding the IGG material, only to end up having to hand it over months later, because it does exist.

MOO.

Good points re the fbi and lack of vested interests.Moo

Just wanted to make comment on your last paragraph
"I get the feeling the prosecution (and media) has made it seem like this is an easy win..."

Members of the prosecution themselves have been tight lipped and are highly invested in BK receiving a fair trial.Moo. I can't think of any time BT and Co. have implied that they have an easy win. And Imo it would be pretty unproffessional for any attorney, prosecution or defender, to imply such a thing about a current case they are involved in. The Ps filings in support of the non-dissemination order tell the story 'Moo.

EBM spelling

 

[arielilane]

University of Idaho vigil for Kaylee, Xana, Maddie, and Ethan. Very dark out here but there are thousands of people.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1724246373367939110

 

[arielilane]

Full unedited interview with Kaylee Goncalves’ parents — this hour plus conversation with no edits shows the scope of what they are going through at the one year mark of the Idaho murders.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1724407286930784479

 

[NyxNY]

He looks that way in every hearing, IMO. He smirks, and looks very smug, like he is sure he will beat this.

Someone who was innocent and falsely accused of a quadruple murder, would not look so smug and pleased with himself, IMO. I think he'd be very worried and anxious, not arrogant and calm, cool and collected. JMO

Trial for Idaho college killings suspect Bryan Kohberger delayed indefinitely - ABC News​

Total Bundy attitude in this shot.

 

[Balthazar]

A very interesting question about machine language/s. Don't know anything but never thought about it, either.

It is extremely important. Data can be impacted in unexpected ways, sometimes in ways that are not easily detectable or obvious.

 

[iamnotagolem]

It is extremely important. Data can be impacted in unexpected ways, sometimes in ways that are not easily detectable or obvious.

I just wanted to let you know how much I enjoy reading your posts and what you bring to the discussion. While I lean towards BK being guilty and hope the prosecution has a lot more evidence that directly implicates him, I still have a lot doubts. Your posts clearly convey a lot of what I've been thinking. So thank you!

 

[Boxer]

I agree Blum has gotten some facts wrong. However, he has also gotten some facts right. So we don't know for sure either way. If Blum is right about the DNA only being comprised of 20 cells, then it is unlikely they ever had a complete DNA profile, IMO.

That is inorrect. 20 cells is more than sufficient for a full DNA profile.

I feel much the same as you, but Thompson's behavior regarding the DNA is making me completely and totally doubt the veracity of the DNA, especially in regards to the chain of custody. There should be no reason not to share the chain of custody document and complete documentation of the processing of the DNA and how the IGG was done with the defense. In fact, of all the evidence in this case, this DNA evidence, because it is based on verifiable scientific processes done in labs, in a controlled environment, should be the evidence the prosecution is the least concerned about sharing with the defense - unless the prosecutor knows something is wrong with it. To me, it looks like Thompson is absolutely desperate to hide this DNA information from the defense and is having to be dragged kicking and screaming through the court process in order to surrender it to the defense. He even claimed the documentation of the IGG process doesn't exist in court and in front of a judge and then it has turned out that was not true. Which begs the question why??? Why is he behaving like this???

We don't have access to any of the reports or discovery, so we can only go on what is in the media so far.

We see Howard Blum wrote that they only found 20 skin cells or less when at least 80 are usually needed to get an STR. We also know some cells will be destroyed during the testing - 20% to 80% of the cells are destroyed.

"Currently, the optimum DNA input to the PCR for STR profiling is around 500 pg [[1], [2], [3]], which equates to approximately 80 diploid cells (∼6 pg/cell [4]). If the potential of DNA loss through workflow processing is not considered, any item from which 80 cells are collected should generate a full DNA profile. Due to inefficient collection of the DNA template present by swabbing or tapelifting techniques and the loss of DNA through standard extraction methods, reported to range between 20 %–80 % [5,6], far more than 80 diploid cells would need to be collected to ensure a full profile downstream given the optimum template stated [[1], [2], [3]]."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1872497320302258#:~:text=Currently%2C%20the%20optimum%20DNA%20input,generate%20a%20full%20DNA%20profile.

Even if the newest STR process was used that can be done on 5 cells, if the sample was 20 cells and then 80% of those cells were destroyed that leaves only 2 cells.

Was Blum right about the 20 cells or less? That begs the question, was the DNA STR profile from the Idaho crime lab partial? Is it possible that the Texas lab couldn't run the IGG because the sample was partial so the FBI lab took over? Could this be why the Texas lab's datafile is much smaller than that of the FBI? And even more concerning, is this why the prosecutor has been fighting against the defense seeing the DNA evidence?

We don't know the answers to any of the above questions, but they are reasonable to ask given that the prosecutor has been trying to do all he can to keep the DNA evidence and DNA evidence chain of custody from the defense.

All JMO, IMOO.

And the BK cheek swab matched the single.male profile on the sheath snap.
This is all scrambling and attempt to and possibly to find constitutional grounds to dismiss evidence and has nothing whatsoever to do with guilt or innocence.

 

[GOBliaison]

May I beg your pardon for reiterating @Kemug 's and my long-ago posts, [Th75 #584 of 20MAR23 refers],
specifically and to wit:

But wasn't Kaylee the one who wasn't expected to be at the house that night? Who had just come back to show her friends her new car? So how could BK have known for sure that Kaylee would be there, if she was indeed his target?

Why is it that Kaylee's return, above, triggers a glimmer of a very, VERY early notion that I had??

- - - that BK had decided to follow Kaylee on her drive back to her hometown, entertaining the fantasy of a "chance" social interaction but in a fresh setting, i.e. away from her clutch of wise-cracking campus cohorts;
- - - that he did just that;
- - - and she skewered him;
- - - possibly in front of family or former high school friends;
- - - so, of course he knew Kaylee was at #1122 on the fateful night, because he never let her out of his sight from this humiliation onward;
- - - BK simply stalked her show-off-my-new-car-to-my-roomies return trip;
- - - his ideations kaleidoscoping with every roll of the odometer;
- - - as to how he was going to make her pay for being who she was;
- - - because it was now more than ever perfectly clear, and just, that Kaylee must pay.
_________________________________________________________________________________________

Has there been any discussion addressing @Kemug's critical question?

Did I not just view, (CourtTV), a retrospective by dad about his daughter's spur-of-the-moment return home, and her joyous see-my-new-car-which-I-bought-myself show & tell with her hometown dear friends?

Well...I guess I would just like to satisfy myself that some LE entity had asked some of the participants in that happy event, "...if anyone might have wondered about some creepy older dude with bushy eyebrows milling about the neighborhood driving some boring, uncool white whatever.

My learned cohorts: Have there been any further hypotheses offered as to how Kaylee's murderer knew his target was upstairs @ 1122 that fatal night??

MTIA

 

[Megnut]

May I beg your pardon for reiterating @Kemug 's and my long-ago posts, [Th75 #584 of 20MAR23 refers],
specifically and to wit:



Why is it that Kaylee's return, above, triggers a glimmer of a very, VERY early notion that I had??

- - - that BK had decided to follow Kaylee on her drive back to her hometown, entertaining the fantasy of a "chance" social interaction but in a fresh setting, i.e. away from her clutch of wise-cracking campus cohorts;
- - - that he did just that;
- - - and she skewered him;
- - - possibly in front of family or former high school friends;
- - - so, of course he knew Kaylee was at #1122 on the fateful night, because he never let her out of his sight from this humiliation onward;
- - - BK simply stalked her show-off-my-new-car-to-my-roomies return trip;
- - - his ideations kaleidoscoping with every roll of the odometer;
- - - as to how he was going to make her pay for being who she was;
- - - because it was now more than ever perfectly clear, and just, that Kaylee must pay.
_________________________________________________________________________________________

Has there been any discussion addressing @Kemug's critical question?

Did I not just view, (CourtTV), a retrospective by dad about his daughter's spur-of-the-moment return home, and her joyous see-my-new-car-which-I-bought-myself show & tell with her hometown dear friends?

Well...I guess I would just like to satisfy myself that some LE entity had asked some of the participants in that happy event, "...if anyone might have wondered about some creepy older dude with bushy eyebrows milling about the neighborhood driving some boring, uncool white whatever.

My learned cohorts: Have there been any further hypotheses offered as to how Kaylee's murderer knew his target was upstairs @ 1122 that fatal night??

MTIA

It's my personal theory that M was the target and that K was a surprise to BK, resulting in even more extensive injuries, because she was IMO awakened, attempting to retreat (farther into the bed) and required more positioning for him.

However, your post is compelling. Well considered.

Possible he was tracking her and attacked that house that night because he knew she'd be there.

Still, I can't shake the other facts that E and K were the least likely to be there, leaving both M and X in theory alone in their rooms....

And further, it seems only a series of unfortunate events that put X in extra harm's way -- that she was awake, that she was moving around in the common areas -- and I fear she was killed -- and E after -- only because she was awake.

And D, D is alive IMO only because he didn't see her. Tunnel vision due to lighting, visual disturbance, limited peripheral vision. Whatever it was, it saved her life.

IMO he had a singular mission that night and was seeking to kill anyone who prevented his access to it, egress from it or the completion of it.

JMO

 

[maskedwoman]

May I beg your pardon for reiterating @Kemug 's and my long-ago posts, [Th75 #584 of 20MAR23 refers],
specifically and to wit:



Why is it that Kaylee's return, above, triggers a glimmer of a very, VERY early notion that I had??

- - - that BK had decided to follow Kaylee on her drive back to her hometown, entertaining the fantasy of a "chance" social interaction but in a fresh setting, i.e. away from her clutch of wise-cracking campus cohorts;
- - - that he did just that;
- - - and she skewered him;
- - - possibly in front of family or former high school friends;
- - - so, of course he knew Kaylee was at #1122 on the fateful night, because he never let her out of his sight from this humiliation onward;
- - - BK simply stalked her show-off-my-new-car-to-my-roomies return trip;
- - - his ideations kaleidoscoping with every roll of the odometer;
- - - as to how he was going to make her pay for being who she was;
- - - because it was now more than ever perfectly clear, and just, that Kaylee must pay.
_________________________________________________________________________________________

Has there been any discussion addressing @Kemug's critical question?

Did I not just view, (CourtTV), a retrospective by dad about his daughter's spur-of-the-moment return home, and her joyous see-my-new-car-which-I-bought-myself show & tell with her hometown dear friends?

Well...I guess I would just like to satisfy myself that some LE entity had asked some of the participants in that happy event, "...if anyone might have wondered about some creepy older dude with bushy eyebrows milling about the neighborhood driving some boring, uncool white whatever.

My learned cohorts: Have there been any further hypotheses offered as to how Kaylee's murderer knew his target was upstairs @ 1122 that fatal night??

MTIA

We have seen statements that LE was looking for any prior connection between BK and the victims. SG mentioned BK reaching out via social media, but that wasn't officially confirmed by LE. The gag order was in place so early that this is one of the many, many things we won't know until trial. I am extremely confident that LE would ask everyone possible if they knew BK, knew of any issues between BK and any of the victims, or had even seen BK hanging around in the victims' orbits, etc. It is a foundational block in putting a case together.

 

[10ofRods]

I feel much the same as you, but Thompson's behavior regarding the DNA is making me completely and totally doubt the veracity of the DNA, especially in regards to the chain of custody. There should be no reason not to share the chain of custody document and complete documentation of the processing of the DNA and how the IGG was done with the defense. In fact, of all the evidence in this case, this DNA evidence, because it is based on verifiable scientific processes done in labs, in a controlled environment, should be the evidence the prosecution is the least concerned about sharing with the defense - unless the prosecutor knows something is wrong with it. To me, it looks like Thompson is absolutely desperate to hide this DNA information from the defense and is having to be dragged kicking and screaming through the court process in order to surrender it to the defense. He even claimed the documentation of the IGG process doesn't exist in court and in front of a judge and then it has turned out that was not true. Which begs the question why??? Why is he behaving like this???

We don't have access to any of the reports or discovery, so we can only go on what is in the media so far.

We see Howard Blum wrote that they only found 20 skin cells or less when at least 80 are usually needed to get an STR. We also know some cells will be destroyed during the testing - 20% to 80% of the cells are destroyed.

"Currently, the optimum DNA input to the PCR for STR profiling is around 500 pg [[1], [2], [3]], which equates to approximately 80 diploid cells (∼6 pg/cell [4]). If the potential of DNA loss through workflow processing is not considered, any item from which 80 cells are collected should generate a full DNA profile. Due to inefficient collection of the DNA template present by swabbing or tapelifting techniques and the loss of DNA through standard extraction methods, reported to range between 20 %–80 % [5,6], far more than 80 diploid cells would need to be collected to ensure a full profile downstream given the optimum template stated [[1], [2], [3]]."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1872497320302258#:~:text=Currently%2C%20the%20optimum%20DNA%20input,generate%20a%20full%20DNA%20profile.

Even if the newest STR process was used that can be done on 5 cells, if the sample was 20 cells and then 80% of those cells were destroyed that leaves only 2 cells.

Was Blum right about the 20 cells or less? That begs the question, was the DNA STR profile from the Idaho crime lab partial? Is it possible that the Texas lab couldn't run the IGG because the sample was partial so the FBI lab took over? Could this be why the Texas lab's datafile is much smaller than that of the FBI? And even more concerning, is this why the prosecutor has been fighting against the defense seeing the DNA evidence?

We don't know the answers to any of the above questions, but they are reasonable to ask given that the prosecutor has been trying to do all he can to keep the DNA evidence and DNA evidence chain of custody from the defense.

All JMO, IMOO.

I don't trust Blum very much, but if it was 20 cells, that's plenty. You're quoting research using just one (slightly outdated) technology (and it was designed to be portable). In a case like this, you don't use the technology mentioned in the article you linked. The person who is the lead author on your article is someone who designs and tests technology in Australia, apparently with a view towards portable and not super-expensive. This is not equipment that would be standard in a state lab in Idaho, I assume they have a stationary sequencer.

Any good forensic lab (like ISL or the ones in Washington) would NOT use this flourescent technique, it's far too likely to use up cells and not be conclusive on all of them. But flourescent techniques have their uses - out in the field.

If it was a partial profile, then LE and ISL lied in the PCA, IMO. Their words have a standard meaning in science (as I keep saying). Are you claiming that ISL lied? Or are they just super-incompetent in your view?

Still waiting to hear why you believe any part of the sheath (including swabs) were sent outside of Idaho. I find that very hard to believe and again, if you have a link on that, that's astonishing new news (to this group, anyway). You are asserting as fact something that to my knowledge has never been reported in MSM or by LE.

They used Othram and the FBI for genetic genealogy, not to examine the sheath or the swabs. They sent a digital file to those places, not the sheath. Indeed, the Defense would be howling about this, had they - instead, the Defense is all worked up about a small DIGITAL file, a matter of formatting - not chain of custody at all. They sent what was basically a document to Othram and the FBI. Othram, by the way, is state of the art and *does* have a wet lab - it just wasn't used in this case (and isn't often used by LE, especially when there is already an STR profile done in a standard lab method.

IMO.

 

[Swansee]

I just watched the CourtTV documentary. Total waste of 45 minutes. I should have known.
I wish they had given more airtime to the DNA expert.

 

[Balthazar]

That is inorrect. 20 cells is more than sufficient for a full DNA profile.

The number of cells depends on the equipment used. I doubt the Idaho Crime Lab has the latest equipment. New Hampshire only just got theirs in May 2023 and they are the first in the nation to get it. So we know Idaho would not have had this new equipment before May 2023 when the DNA was run.

And the BK cheek swab matched the single.male profile on the sheath snap.
This is all scrambling and attempt to and possibly to find constitutional grounds to dismiss evidence and has nothing whatsoever to do with guilt or innocence.

I think we need to wait on passing judgement on this. I can think of reasons that the defense may think something is wrong. They have actually stated some interesting things.

 

[Balthazar]

I just wanted to let you know how much I enjoy reading your posts and what you bring to the discussion. While I lean towards BK being guilty and hope the prosecution has a lot more evidence that directly implicates him, I still have a lot doubts. Your posts clearly convey a lot of what I've been thinking. So thank you!

Thank you. I'm 50/50 on guilt/innocence at this point. Some days I slip a little over the line one way or another, but I am trying to remain impartial while paying close attention to both sides.

 

[Balthazar]

Still waiting to hear why you believe any part of the sheath (including swabs) were sent outside of Idaho. I find that very hard to believe and again, if you have a link on that, that's astonishing new news (to this group, anyway). You are asserting as fact something that to my knowledge has never been reported in MSM or by LE.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I have never said the sheath or any part of the sheath or swabs were sent out of Idaho and can't think of any reason it would be? I assume the sheath went to the Idaho Crime Lab and then was sent back to evidence storage - all in Idaho. I'm talking about STR DNA data moving from the Idaho Crime lab to Texas and then the FBI, not any kind of physical evidence. All I can think is that you are confusing me with someone else.

 

[jepop]

The number of cells depends on the equipment used. I doubt the Idaho Crime Lab has the latest equipment. New Hampshire only just got theirs in May 2023 and they are the first in the nation to get it. So we know Idaho would not have had this new equipment before May 2023 when the DNA was run.

I think we need to wait on passing judgement on this. I can think of reasons that the defense may think something is wrong. They have actually stated some interesting things.

BBM. Link please

 

[Sundog]

And they are going to be grilled and possibly vilified by the DT during the trial. JMO

I don't think that the defense team will vilify the surviving roommates, but I am sure they will be questioned extensively by the defense, as one would expect.

 

[Balthazar]

Did anyone here actually watch the vigil last night? Some very interesting information was revealed by
Zanna, one of the speakers. Highly recommend watching the vigil, would be interested in people's reactions to what Zanna said at 20:20 approximately.

University of Idaho honors 4 students with vigil one year after murders

One year following their tragic deaths, University of Idaho students honored their four classmates who were killed in their off-campus home.

www.krem.com

 

[Balthazar]

BBM. Link please

I'm not exactly sure what you are looking for but this talks about New Hampshire getting the latest and greatest, which clearly ID would not have yet as this is so new, first in the nation and not expected to be up and running until the end of the year:

New Hampshire lab to feature world-class DNA technology for solving crimes

The technology is capable of getting results from degraded DNA samples – a game-changer for crimefighters.

www.wmur.com