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

[wendy44]

This is from Bika Barlow's Declaration from June 22, 2023. What does Ms. Barlow mean by the last sentence?

She was taking about the Hernandez case which went through CODIS. But, IMO, in the last sentence, it appears to me that she is talking about BK's case and is stating that the DNA they got from the sheath "is ambiguous and partial."

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/062323+Notice+of+Filing+Declaration+of+Bicka+Barlow+in+Support+of+Def+Third+Motion+to+Compel.pdf

From page 13:

View attachment 461932

This expert states she was brought in "to assist in determining the scope of DNA discovery necessary for defending this case, including any genetic genealogy that was used." She states that she was brought in to identify expert witnesses and legal issues that might arise from use of genetic genealogy.

The rest of that paragraph is referring to the Hernandez case and I believe that last sentence does as well. Primarily because the defense is not disputing the match. The defense is not saying the profile is ambiguous and partial. To my knowledge. If I'm wrong about that, please show where they are saying that. She's using the Hernandez case as an example to argue for discovery on any DNA profiles that were run through CODIS. She's saying she knows of cases where non-matching profiles from CODIS were given to the defense in discovery and were used to impeach the lab. Again--the defense is arguing for a broader scope of discovery materials because they're looking for procedural error. They know the DNA on the sheath is a match to BK.

 

[jepop]

I understand your thoughts, I think.

However, I am of the relatively firm opinion that data was included in the PCA for a reason. I’m relatively confident LE had already ruled out the shoes of first responders & anyone known to have been in the house after the murders by the time the PCA was written, MOO.

If it’s meaningless, why do you think they’d include it?

All MOO, as always.

I agree. Imo LE would not have included that print in PCA if first responders and others in house (roommates, anyone who had entered prior to arrival of police) had not been ruled out as possible sources. We have no basis to assume LE would have deliberately included print in PCA, where it's clear that they believe it was left by the stranger DM saw at c 4.17ish, if they hadn't done what Imo is basic securing of a crime scene and elimination of all other known possible sources for the print. That would be incompetence leaving LE open to defense attacks of being either deliberately or carelessly misleading. Moo. There is nothing to support such a scenario in MSM or anywhere in Court Docs to the best of my knowledge. Moo

 

[Charlot123]

I think the defense is using the word "exculpatory" in its own way (mean "COULD raise reasonable doubt in SOMEONE." Not in its legal sense (a good alibi is exculpatory).

Finding a person's DNA on a knife sheath that matches the knife used for the murders is HIGHLY incriminating. Exculpatory means getting rid of the incriminating evidence. After the DNA, the car video evidence is VERY incriminating (but he admits he was out "driving around'). Next would be the phone data, of which we know only a little but is so far VERY incriminating esp. insofar as it shows he was driving round and round the neighborhood, finally making a 3 point turn to pull into the parking area of 1122. Next would the TIME at which he's observed doing this (correspondings with the time DM gives for seeing a masked man and hearing the noises). VERY incriminating. And of course, the sounds from the neighbor's camera support DM's statements - so VERY incriminating.

Those are the things the Defense must find counter to. IMO. Merely finding some blurry aspects in DM's testimony is NOT, IMO, exculpatory. DM would have to recant her entire prior testimony on the stand, IMO. Most reasonable people know how memory works, what it's like to be scared, etc. At best, getting DM to admit she was (at 4 am) inebriated (which I believe she was NOT), could maybe make one or two jurors disregard her whole testimony. But during deliberation, that one issue is not going to lead the entire panel to "exculpatory." If it hangs the jury, it's only because that person doesn't understand the inevitable jury instructions:

By the PREPONDERANCE of the evidence...

The behavior of BK pre- and post- 4-4:30 am is at issue as well and there will be many more witnesses. And GPS data. The GPS data could be the "bombshell." While there is no video of his car right next to 1122, the GPS data may well place him there, unmoving, for 20 minutes. And there could be more (receipts; statements made; post-crime behavior, etc. etc). IOW, the DNA itself loads up the scales of Justice in one direction - and obviously, DM"s testimony will not touch on that at all - and will add a bit more to that side of the scale. Even if she says she had been drinking 3-4 hours earlier, that doesn't change the fact that a footprint with his characteristics was left outside her door, in blood. That too is incriminating - puts another slight weight on the Guilty side of the scale.

IMO

Everything can be convincing. IMHO, DNA part is the weakest one because it is a smudge of DNA found on one item that could be intentionally placed. I just read about Mo Wilson's case. Kaitlin Armstrong's DNA was found on the handlebars, the seat and the frame of Mo's bike. At the same time, there was neither Colin Strickland nor Cash left their DNAs there. So the question of transfer DNA is immediately closed. (Excellent job and presentation of TX LE, btw. They initially slightly dropped the ball, ending in the murderer's escape to CR, but towards the trial, were exceptionally professional).

If we ever heard, "BK's DNA was found on the shield, as well as in this, this, and this area of the house", it would be more convincing. The shield alone makes me wonder. As to the car and GPS, it is a strong point, if it is proven that BK had zero reason to be in Moscow. But here is the weakest point, the history of BK's addiction. He says, shopping is better in Moscow. And he is an addict who for the first time in his life is away from parental house. And there are places in Moscow where drugs are sold, and the King Road house was a party house. And the whole university area is rather small. If we imagine that BK's dealer lived next door to the victims or across the street, or even in the frat, his trips to Moscow can be easily explained. This is the weakness of the case. Some bridges between BK and the victims probably exist, but they are unseen to the public.

 

[whiterhino]

Everything can be convincing. IMHO, DNA part is the weakest one because it is a smudge of DNA found on one item that could be intentionally placed. I just read about Mo Wilson's case. Kaitlin Armstrong's DNA was found on the handlebars, the seat and the frame of Mo's bike. At the same time, there was neither Colin Strickland nor Cash left their DNAs there. So the question of transfer DNA is immediately closed. (Excellent job and presentation of TX LE, btw. They initially slightly dropped the ball, ending in the murderer's escape to CR, but towards the trial, were exceptionally professional).

If we ever heard, "BK's DNA was found on the shield, as well as in this, this, and this area of the house", it would be more convincing. The shield alone makes me wonder. As to the car and GPS, it is a strong point, if it is proven that BK had zero reason to be in Moscow. But here is the weakest point, the history of BK's addiction. He says, shopping is better in Moscow. And he is an addict who for the first time in his life is away from parental house. And there are places in Moscow where drugs are sold, and the King Road house was a party house. And the whole university area is rather small. If we imagine that BK's dealer lived next door to the victims or across the street, or even in the frat, his trips to Moscow can be easily explained. This is the weakness of the case. Some bridges between BK and the victims probably exist, but they are unseen to the public.

Respectfully, it was more than a smudge of DNA. On a sheath that matches with the murder weapon.

The car and GPS can only place BK so closely to the scene of the crime. They do not place him within the house but the sheath does.

If BK was using drugs and buying them in Moscow, wouldn't he have offered that info by now?

Even if BK bought drugs from a house across the street from 1122, doesn't explain the sheath with his DNA. How did it get there?? How did this "smudge of DNA" get on the sheath? It's not transfer DNA it's actually DNA transfer (there is a big difference). That would indicate that someone set BK up for murder and I cannot understand why anyone would do that.

Also, if anything about BK buying drugs in Moscow were true and lets say he picked up off neighbors of 1122, wouldn't that just incriminate him even more? To me, that would make a lot of sense actually. BK goes next door to score some candy and he sees the girls, he sees M, K, D, B and fixates.

Shopping in Moscow... for victims??? JMO.

 

[Charlot123]

Respectfully, it was more than a smudge of DNA. On a sheath that matches with the murder weapon.

The car and GPS can only place BK so closely to the scene of the crime. They do not place him within the house but the sheath does.

If BK was using drugs and buying them in Moscow, wouldn't he have offered that info by now?

Even if BK bought drugs from a house across the street from 1122, doesn't explain the sheath with his DNA. How did it get there?? How did this "smudge of DNA" get on the sheath? It's not transfer DNA it's actually DNA transfer (there is a big difference). That would indicate that someone set BK up for murder and I cannot understand why anyone would do that.

Also, if anything about BK buying drugs in Moscow were true and lets say he picked up off neighbors of 1122, wouldn't that just incriminate him even more? To me, that would make a lot of sense actually. BK goes next door to score some candy and he sees the girls, he sees M, K, D, B and fixates.

Shopping in Moscow... for victims??? JMO.

Shopping in Moscow for victims is a good explanation. I explained it in a more direct way, drugs are cheaper there, or "better to shop where no one knows me". At this point I am thinking that BK was simply driving to Moscow for drugs and, maybe not to incriminate the dealer, parked across the street or maybe two houses down the street. Of course it is highly possible that he eventually decided to "mix business and pleasure", and, being far away from his parents, first relapsed, and then, moved down the next line on the list of his fantasies. However, I wonder if there was some connection with the tenants of King Road house. Today, without knowing anything, it is equally likely that BK "came prepared" and hence, there was no DNA of his found anywhere but on that sheath, or that there is enough of the real killer's DNA in the house, only it is not incriminating and can be easily explained because of the person's connection with the inhabitants. While BK's the sheath with BK's touch DNA on it could be later placed.

It is too patchworky, this case. Judging by his personality, could BK act on his imaginary world? Highly possible. Is he so odd and klutzy that he, being innocent, managed to incriminate himself in those 4 murders? Less likely, but still not impossible.

 

[whiterhino]

Shopping in Moscow for victims is a good explanation. I explained it in a more direct way, drugs are cheaper there, or "better to shop where no one knows me". At this point I am thinking that BK was simply driving to Moscow for drugs and, maybe not to incriminate the dealer, parked across the street or maybe two houses down the street. Of course it is highly possible that he eventually decided to "mix business and pleasure", and, being far away from his parents, first relapsed, and then, moved down the next line on the list of his fantasies. However, I wonder if there was some connection with the tenants of King Road house. Today, without knowing anything, it is equally likely that BK "came prepared" and hence, there was no DNA of his found anywhere but on that sheath, or that there is enough of the real killer's DNA in the house, only it is not incriminating and can be easily explained because of the person's connection with the inhabitants. While BK's the sheath with BK's touch DNA on it could be later placed.

It is too patchworky, this case. Judging by his personality, could BK act on his imaginary world? Highly possible. Is he so odd and klutzy that he, being innocent, managed to incriminate himself in those 4 murders? Less likely, but still not impossible.

Good point, if BK were buying drugs from someone in Moscow, he might want to stay quiet about who and also yes, parking down the street to remain incognito.

If BK was somehow set-up by someone else, why those 4, why that house? Why so much bloodshed? It's too much IMO. If anyone knew about BKs past drug use they could have easily used that against him and screwed him over for the rest of his life without anyone losing their own life. Killing 4 people just seems a bit over the top for a set up.

I think BK simply thought he had outsmarted LE or that it was a catch-me-if-you-can, with the DNA match game. Living in Washington, being from PA, he probably never thought he'd be found out in Moscow with such a small smudge of DNA.

*editing to add how would one go about getting BKs DNA on the snap of the sheath? One would have to find an excuse and an opportunity to get close enough to BK and his skin to essentially scrape or graze him WITH the sheath. Really?! And not once has BK said anyone approached him with a leather sheath and rubbed it against him. (not rubbed, more scraping imo). JMO. Speculation.

 

[iamshadow21]

Good point, if BK were buying drugs from someone in Moscow, he might want to stay quiet about who and also yes, parking down the street to remain incognito.

If BK was somehow set-up by someone else, why those 4, why that house? Why so much bloodshed? It's too much IMO. If anyone knew about BKs past drug use they could have easily used that against him and screwed him over for the rest of his life without anyone losing their own life. Killing 4 people just seems a bit over the top for a set up.

I think BK simply thought he had outsmarted LE or that it was a catch-me-if-you-can, with the DNA match game. Living in Washington, being from PA, he probably never thought he'd be found out in Moscow with such a small smudge of DNA.

If he was cruising for drugs, he would have said so by now. A conviction for drugs (individual use) is in no way comparable to the crimes he's been arrested for. He's supposed to be a smart guy, and if he couldn't work that out for himself, his lawyers would have explained that to him already.

He hasn't told them that, IMO, because he wasn't cruising for drugs, and therefore, nobody can back him up and give him an alibi.

MOO

 

[whiterhino]

If he was cruising for drugs, he would have said so by now. A conviction for drugs (individual use) is in no way comparable to the crimes he's been arrested for. He's supposed to be a smart guy, and if he couldn't work that out for himself, his lawyers would have explained that to him already.

He hasn't told them that, IMO, because he wasn't cruising for drugs, and therefore, nobody can back him up and give him an alibi.

MOO

Yes, that's what I said (post 803), wouldn't BK have given up that info by now? Unless fear of revealing who his sources were in the event that BK goes to prison where drug dealers have connections.

I do believe that if there was some mystery person who wanted revenge they could have used BKs drug use as a means to set him up without the element of murder. Seems a bit much for someone else to have committed those crimes just for the purpose of harming Bryan Kohberger.

 

[Nila Aella]

I apologize if this has already been resolved, but the call originally went out as an unconscious person because the people calling 911 were too distraught for the operator/dispatcher/whichever to understand the situation. That is apparently the procedure for the area under those circumstances. The first officers to arrive were no doubt shocked by what they found and had to summon detectives, forensics, etc. The detective was almost 2 hours getting there because of that. I believe he was also "out of pocket" as we say in my area.

Re: the 911 call

The call was for an unresponsive female - unresponsive person

https://x.com/ChanleyCourtTV/status/1597704510620962817?s=20

JMO
edited: Removed second floor as He doesn't say second floor, only the X post says that

 

[Nila Aella]

Re: evidence marker 3
Someone was asking for a link to evidence marker 3

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjB6PKft82CAxUXE1kFHU1rAxgQFnoECBwQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fnypost.com%2F2022%2F11%2F18%2Funiversity-of-idaho-victims-were-stabbed-while-in-bed%2F&usg=AOvVaw3LTxLCiWA2rM3EQMgN3MFo&opi=89978449

 

[Nila Aella]

Re: Morning events
This article mentions a neighbor who came to the house

Confusion ensued in the hours before the police were called, said another neighbor, who identified herself as the best friend of one of the surviving roommates and asked not to be named for privacy reasons.

She said she came to the house soon after the crime was discovered and learned from the surviving roommates — Mortensen and Bethany Funke — that someone on the second floor wasn't moving.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjFtrrnksyCAxUZmGoFHajdCbgQFnoECBEQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.insider.com%2Fidaho-murders-unanswered-questions-moscow-chaos-2023-1&usg=AOvVaw25syhRRnbS8rejX4mMl28P&opi=89978449

 

[10ofRods]

@10ofRods , re the idea that the latent print didn't have a more bloody print right before it and a less bloody print after it --

I was trying to envision how this could happen, and pictured something like this: Killer is leaving, holding the bloody knife. Maybe he's trying to use his hand/s to catch any blood dripping from the knife, but for one of many possible reasons a drop or two of blood spills to the carpet without his notice and he steps in it.

Something like this is the only way I could imagine a print with blood when the previous step didn't have any, or not enough to register.

Does that seem possible/probable?

There's no way that a couple of drops of blood managed to get all over the bottom of a shoe, IMO.

Further, if there were really drops of blood (even 1 drop) and the PCA doesn't mention it? I am very skeptical. To me, it's just SOP and would have tightened up the arrest warrant like a square knot.

I don't believe there was a lot of carpet in this house, but that wouldn't make it possible for a shoeprint to be taken.

Even then, what you're saying is that there was enough blood from a couple of drops, at one place (drops would be one stride length apart if dripping from a knife while the killer was moving), and could make a shoe print. I believe the shoeprint shows direction of travel (and much else). One drop would do exactly what it would do in your own carpet or on your own floor - make a small fleck on the bottom of the shoe. I am not sure that anyone could even say that was a shoeprint (and that blood would now be squished into the carpet and likely no way to tell it was a drop any more).

Anyway, the dripping knife (which doesn't exist so far as any of us know) would have cast blood to the side of the walker. And the walker's feet would not be waddling from side to side so as to step in any of it, IMO. There would be more than one or two drops. I imagine he put it into the big pockets of coveralls, he knew blood drips trails and planned for it (probably though he had the sheath in his pocket until he realized he didn't - perhaps right after the second floor murders).

A shoe print that's partial would be said to be partial, IMO. LE did not lie on the PCA, IMO.

A latent shoe print resolved through amido Black is going to be one of the last in a series. Amido Black is a protein enhancer that allows a print barely detectable by luminol to show up. It has to be applied in a specific way to the area where a footprint is. The prior footprints were resolvable with just luminol, IMO.

The definition of "latent print" (shoeprint or fingerprint) is that it is not visible to the naked eye because the amount of blood (or other substance) is now almost gone. I do believe it was probably only one shoe (right or left) that stepped into the blood. I believe there is at least one bloody shoeprint before the latent prints, and that LE would not say they had a shoeprint if it was a partial - they'd say partial. Of course, I also believe if it were 80-90% complete, they'd just say shoeprint and that would be enough for good analysis to take place.

At any rate, there was a shoeprint in blood. I believe it was the blood of a murder victim. I also do not believe there were blood droplets from the knife, but if there are, the spacing of those would also give additional information about the gait and speed of the murderer as he left the house. I believe the shoeprint provided instant information about sex, weight and height of the murderer, which was a big step forward in the investigation (and perhaps the reason why early one, one LEO said the scene was "sloppy."

IMO.

 

[Auntie Cipation]

Re: the 911 call

The call was for an unresponsive female - unresponsive person

https://x.com/ChanleyCourtTV/status/1597704510620962817?s=20

In the recently published book "While Idaho Slept", the author explains that Moscow PD records initial calls for a "person down" as "unconscious person" even if they are obviously deceased, since the person isn't legally known for sure to be deceased until the coroner declares it.

So the call being officially recorded as for an unconscious person doesn't tell us whether the caller knew they were reporting deaths, or saying "so-and-so isn't responding to calls/texts/knocks on door". Or whether, as we speculated in the early days, one of the surviving roommates had fainted and THAT became the note for the initial LE response.

MOO since I can't link to the text of the book. Which was pretty good, by the way, although not great in my opinion. It definitely felt weird to me to have the story published before trial, and with the near certainty that there will be one or more books written after the trial which will essentially repeat the story and likely make this book obsolete.

 

[Auntie Cipation]

There's no way that a couple of drops of blood managed to get all over the bottom of a shoe, IMO.

Further, if there were really drops of blood (even 1 drop) and the PCA doesn't mention it? I am very skeptical. To me, it's just SOP and would have tightened up the arrest warrant like a square knot.

I don't believe there was a lot of carpet in this house, but that wouldn't make it possible for a shoeprint to be taken.

Even then, what you're saying is that there was enough blood from a couple of drops, at one place (drops would be one stride length apart if dripping from a knife while the killer was moving), and could make a shoe print. I believe the shoeprint shows direction of travel (and much else). One drop would do exactly what it would do in your own carpet or on your own floor - make a small fleck on the bottom of the shoe. I am not sure that anyone could even say that was a shoeprint (and that blood would now be squished into the carpet and likely no way to tell it was a drop any more).

Anyway, the dripping knife (which doesn't exist so far as any of us know) would have cast blood to the side of the walker. And the walker's feet would not be waddling from side to side so as to step in any of it, IMO. There would be more than one or two drops. I imagine he put it into the big pockets of coveralls, he knew blood drips trails and planned for it (probably though he had the sheath in his pocket until he realized he didn't - perhaps right after the second floor murders).

A shoe print that's partial would be said to be partial, IMO. LE did not lie on the PCA, IMO.

A latent shoe print resolved through amido Black is going to be one of the last in a series. Amido Black is a protein enhancer that allows a print barely detectable by luminol to show up. It has to be applied in a specific way to the area where a footprint is. The prior footprints were resolvable with just luminol, IMO.

The definition of "latent print" (shoeprint or fingerprint) is that it is not visible to the naked eye because the amount of blood (or other substance) is now almost gone. I do believe it was probably only one shoe (right or left) that stepped into the blood. I believe there is at least one bloody shoeprint before the latent prints, and that LE would not say they had a shoeprint if it was a partial - they'd say partial. Of course, I also believe if it were 80-90% complete, they'd just say shoeprint and that would be enough for good analysis to take place.

At any rate, there was a shoeprint in blood. I believe it was the blood of a murder victim. I also do not believe there were blood droplets from the knife, but if there are, the spacing of those would also give additional information about the gait and speed of the murderer as he left the house. I believe the shoeprint provided instant information about sex, weight and height of the murderer, which was a big step forward in the investigation (and perhaps the reason why early one, one LEO said the scene was "sloppy."

IMO.

Thanks, @10ofRods. Do you think this was the only footprint (of the killer) found in the house? If not, why is it getting so much attention? Maybe LE doesn't want to release info about other footprints or blood?

 

[10ofRods]

Thanks, @10ofRods. Do you think this was the only footprint (of the killer) found in the house? If not, why is it getting so much attention? Maybe LE doesn't want to release info about other footprints or blood?

It's getting all this attention because it's one of the things mentioned in the PCA (which is all we have, really, to go on - aside from deductions from what the Defense is doing). And yes, I strongly believe there can be no latent prints without prior non-latent prints.

I do think the State and LE did not and do not want to tip their hand. I suspect more was shown and said to the Grand Jury. No disputes have been made in Court by the Defense if so. IOW, the Defense accepts that there were shoeprint(s). Really, in the scheme of things, the identifying factors of the shoe print are small, now that the cheek swab is a 100% match for the sheath DNA. But at the time of the arrest warrant, it was really excellent information - and frankly, if LE enter the house of an arrestee/suspect and immediately find that his regular shoes are a totally different size, that's a big problem. Instead, the Judge looks over the facts presented to the Grand Jury, upon Motion to throw out that indictment and rules against the motion, meaning the Judge finds (just as at a PH), that there is enough evidence to bind BK over for trial.

In the olden days, matching the description given by the eyewitness, having one artifact left behind (DNA in this case, fingerprints in olden days, blood type in olden days), and having a foot that matched the size of a bloody footprint would have been enough to go to trial. There was more in this case (the video of the car, the phone records, the return to the scene of the crime). I also believe the Grand Jury heard more about footprints.

Why does the State want to keep it on the down low? Because they prefer not to prejudice the jury pool and create more cause for appeal and they realize that having experts explain is the best route through all of the technical evidence. Having various news outlets create poorly worded headlines (as we sometimes see) isn't in the interests of either side. It's best for the jury to have a strong feeling that they are the true triers of fact - not the public.

IMO.

 

[gremlin444]

This is from Bika Barlow's Declaration from June 22, 2023. What does Ms. Barlow mean by the last sentence?

She was taking about the Hernandez case which went through CODIS. But, IMO, in the last sentence, it appears to me that she is talking about BK's case and is stating that the DNA they got from the sheath "is ambiguous and partial."

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/062323+Notice+of+Filing+Declaration+of+Bicka+Barlow+in+Support+of+Def+Third+Motion+to+Compel.pdf

From page 13:

View attachment 461932

The profiles she is referring to are the ones that referred to at the beginning of the section about this request:

BBM

"Item 4.2: Match Detail Reports and long-form Candidate Match Reports for the hit(s) including partial hits and hits that are dispositioned to be nonmatching (even if the laboratory has dispositioned profile as hit).

From the discovery in this case, it appears that at least three, and possibly four profiles were uploaded to the CODIS database prior to Mr. Kohberger being charged. Mr. Kohberger has requested the discovery of these uploads and any resulting hits or candidate matches to these unknown male profile, even if the lab has dispositioned them as non-candidate matches"

 

[Megnut]

Thanks, @10ofRods. Do you think this was the only footprint (of the killer) found in the house? If not, why is it getting so much attention? Maybe LE doesn't want to release info about other footprints or blood?

It's getting all this attention because it's one of the things mentioned in the PCA (which is all we have, really, to go on - aside from deductions from what the Defense is doing). And yes, I strongly believe there can be no latent prints without prior non-latent prints.

I do think the State and LE did not and do not want to tip their hand. I suspect more was shown and said to the Grand Jury. No disputes have been made in Court by the Defense if so. IOW, the Defense accepts that there were shoeprint(s). Really, in the scheme of things, the identifying factors of the shoe print are small, now that the cheek swab is a 100% match for the sheath DNA. But at the time of the arrest warrant, it was really excellent information - and frankly, if LE enter the house of an arrestee/suspect and immediately find that his regular shoes are a totally different size, that's a big problem. Instead, the Judge looks over the facts presented to the Grand Jury, upon Motion to throw out that indictment and rules against the motion, meaning the Judge finds (just as at a PH), that there is enough evidence to bind BK over for trial.

In the olden days, matching the description given by the eyewitness, having one artifact left behind (DNA in this case, fingerprints in olden days, blood type in olden days), and having a foot that matched the size of a bloody footprint would have been enough to go to trial. There was more in this case (the video of the car, the phone records, the return to the scene of the crime). I also believe the Grand Jury heard more about footprints.

Why does the State want to keep it on the down low? Because they prefer not to prejudice the jury pool and create more cause for appeal and they realize that having experts explain is the best route through all of the technical evidence. Having various news outlets create poorly worded headlines (as we sometimes see) isn't in the interests of either side. It's best for the jury to have a strong feeling that they are the true triers of fact - not the public.

IMO.

Additionally, perhaps we can read into the PCA.

I picture something like this:

The perpetrator has taken measures to minimize leaving DNA at the scene. Coverall, mask, gloves, shoes.

I suspect he also took measures to prevent blood spatter. IMO K may have been killed simply because she was right there, in M's bed (if M was the singilar target, as I think). X and E, victims for having been awake, and I fear that room was especially bloody. Try though he would have not to, I think he did step in blood, but that his footfalls stamped less blood quite quickly, well before D's door.

IMO the additional testing lit up footprints leading to her door and perhaps beyond.

It's the convergence that's most compelling and why IMO that single footprint is included in the PCA. It reinforces D's credibility, and I think we'll come to find that he was walking very stoicly. Even footfalls, perhaps even pausing here or there.

Without that footprint, maybe D did or didn't see anyone. Maybe she saw someone nearer or farther away. Maybe it was at such a distance as to make it more an impression than a sighting.

Except for the footprint.

The footprint places him right outside her door.

Exactly where she said she saw him.

D becomes an ear witness, a time stamper, and an eye witness, describing someone who, not only doesn't exclude BK, it is a striking match up.

Chilling.

JMO

 

[Megnut]

I wish we knew for certain whether K or X said that there was somebody there. K makes sense, as surely Murphy would've alerted to the Door Dash event and the slider event. K may have gotten up... may have kenneled Murphy, may have peered out a window, maybe have seen the Door Dash car or driver or may have seen BK himself, approaching toward the kitchen.

But it also fits with X who was very much awake ... and who may have missed BK by mere seconds as he slipped in through the kitchen and stealthed his way to the upper floor.

She may have found an open slider.... she may have found a second pair of shoes, where a two half-minutes prior there'd been neither...

If it was X who said it, BK would've heard her, giving away her location and alerting him to an audience.

Beyond terrifying.

JMO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Respectfully, it was more than a smudge of DNA. On a sheath that matches with the murder weapon.

We don't have the murder weapon so we don't know if it matches or not. It just matches the type of weapon used. JMO

The car and GPS can only place BK so closely to the scene of the crime. They do not place him within the house but the sheath does.

If BK was using drugs and buying them in Moscow, wouldn't he have offered that info by now?

He might have, but with all the redactions and undisclosed information/files, how would we know?

Even if BK bought drugs from a house across the street from 1122, doesn't explain the sheath with his DNA. How did it get there?? How did this "smudge of DNA" get on the sheath? It's not transfer DNA it's actually DNA transfer (there is a big difference).

Again, I haven't been keeping up as closely these days, but can you please point me to where that distinction was made? Just from a Google search, I can't find it.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Good point, if BK were buying drugs from someone in Moscow, he might want to stay quiet about who and also yes, parking down the street to remain incognito.

If BK was somehow set-up by someone else, why those 4, why that house? Why so much bloodshed? It's too much IMO. If anyone knew about BKs past drug use they could have easily used that against him and screwed him over for the rest of his life without anyone losing their own life. Killing 4 people just seems a bit over the top for a set up.

I think BK simply thought he had outsmarted LE or that it was a catch-me-if-you-can, with the DNA match game. Living in Washington, being from PA, he probably never thought he'd be found out in Moscow with such a small smudge of DNA.

*editing to add how would one go about getting BKs DNA on the snap of the sheath? One would have to find an excuse and an opportunity to get close enough to BK and his skin to essentially scrape or graze him WITH the sheath. Really?! And not once has BK said anyone approached him with a leather sheath and rubbed it against him. (not rubbed, more scraping imo). JMO. Speculation.

For the record, I don't think BK was intentionally set up. But it seems by your post that you're implying if it was a set up, it was all done specifically to make BK look like a killer, which IMO, is not what would have happened even if he was set up. IMO, it would be more of a scenario where someone wanted to those kids dead, but didn't want to take the wrap. They were going to commit the murder anyway. They just set BK up to take the fall. That's why the murder, the bloodshed, etc.

I think this scenario is very unlikely though. JMO