4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #92

[North_Idaho_Nony]

Order Setting Hearing filed today: 2/28/2024 at 1 PM PT for those who keep calendars.

 

[Swansee]

If he submitted it to Othram or any other LE-enabled service, he HAD to opt in. If he submitted it only to Ancestry or 23andme, then he could opt out. That's why LE used the voluntarily submitted and opted in samples (also, thanks for the reminder that it was the large database at GEDMatch - every participant there opts into the use of their DNA by LE). At any rate, the relative who came in as a close match had given permission for HIS DNA to be used by LE - just as any of us can do and just like I could give my security camera pictures to LE to identify someone if I wanted to.

So, I don't believe Idaho LE or FBI did anything but use GEDMatch for its approved and voluntarily opted-in services.

RSBM
Just to clarify: GEDmatch is not an automatic opt-in. Since 2019 you are opted out by default and must opt-in for your data to be LE accessible without a warrant.
23AndMe is the opposite, you are opted in by default and have to toggle your settings if you want to opt out.
Ancestry.com has a blanket policy to NOT share any data with LE without a warrant.
Gabriella Vargas explained all of this and more in her statement, which I recommend watching.

 

[SpiderFalcon]

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/2024/021224-Order-Setting-Hearing.pdf

 

[wendy44]

23andMe is similar to Ancestry in that law enforcement can't access the databases without a court order.

 

[schooling]

As long as it continues to be fairly unregulated…these companies can promise you whatever they think is going to assuage your hesitation to buy.

But at the end of the day they can make exceptions and cooperate in whatever manner they see fit. With their reputation and potential suits being the largest risks.

MOO

 

[Valen2]

As long as it continues to be fairly unregulated…these companies can promise you whatever they think is going to assuage your hesitation to buy.

But at the end of the day they can make exceptions and cooperate in whatever manner they see fit. With their reputation and potential suits being the largest risks.

MOO

The Prosecutors explained that if law enforcement used a database that says you can't access it without a court order, or people opted out, or whatever, then that would be a civil case for the person that opted out that matched the DNA at the crime scene. It's not illegal. While it may not be ethically sound to use a database to find criminals when the database says not to, it doesn't invalidate the results of the search. It doesn't violate any of BK's rights because it wasn't his DNA in the database. The only person who could claim any harm is the person who actually submitted to the database, and only if they actually opted out and if they actually wanted to claim some kind of harm.

 

[Thomas 3377]

Which is for all intents and purposes, an exact match. It wasn’t that long ago that we heard about millions to one, now it’s numbers we can’t fathom. The argument cannot be “it’s not his DNA,” rather, it really can only be that it got there some other way.

Good luck with that, especially considering the digital trail, and everything else we know. If during trial this case isn’t the slam dunk to end all slam dunks, I’ll eat my hat, as there’s going to be a lot more where that came from.

All they have is DNA on the alleged sheath. The DNA is presented it as a statistical match. The state is presenting that the SNP DNA profile came before the trash in Pennsylvania. The prosecution used a mathematical equation applying other probabilities to create the statistic. They present it in reverse to the courts, when in fact the probability is 1 in 5:37 Octillion, which is tiny, as opposed to 5:37 Octillion chances of it being BK's DNA which is a much greater probability, but still a small number. It's right there in the PCA. Read it.

One thing for sure, and it is an observation, everything presented in this case works backwards time wise. It's an attempt to connect BK to the beginning of the crime. This is why AT is still confused about the point, the time, the date of when BK first became the prime suspect in the PCA because the events didn't happen in the order the PCA is presented. 12/12/22 is the pivotal date in the investigation, that's when they decided upon BK, but that's before the results of the IGG. Read it.

Did they learn of BK's name from the tip line in relation to his car? Does the description of a suspect come from BK's drivers license? The witness described the suspect as a figure clad in black clothing and a WEARING A MASK. Only the Police know the description of suspect because they looked at his driving license.

 

[SpiderFalcon]

All they have is DNA on the alleged sheath.

Huh? As far as reading the PCA, I'm very sure we've all read it. Perhaps, you should read the entire thread. We're on thread #92, so it's alot. JMO, IMO, IME. And welcome to WS.

 

[Gemmie]

The witness described the suspect as a figure clad in black clothing and a WEARING A MASK. Only the Police know the description of suspect because they looked at his driving license.

Let's not forget his bushy eyebrows. Read it.

 

[Thomas 3377]

Let's not forget his bushy eyebrows. Read it.

I did. The witness described the suspect as a figure clad in black clothing and a WEARING A MASK. Only the Police know the description of suspect ( bushy eyebrows) because they looked at his driving license.

 

[iamshadow21]

I did. The witness described the suspect as a figure clad in black clothing and a WEARING A MASK. Only the Police know the description of suspect ( bushy eyebrows) because they looked at his driving license.

That is untrue. Page four of the PCA has BF's detailed description of the intruder. It includes his eyebrows.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.bostonherald.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/idaho-murders-court-document-unsealed.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj78IOFzaiEAxUFklYBHROnBMMQFnoECCUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2LY756_0oRIj4wrcFH6Cax

 

[Gemmie]

I did. The witness described the suspect as a figure clad in black clothing and a WEARING A MASK. Only the Police know the description of suspect ( bushy eyebrows) because they looked at his driving license.

DM described him as wearing a mask AND HAVING BUSHY EYEBROWS.

 

[Thomas 3377]

Huh? As far as reading the PCA, I'm very sure we've all read it. Perhaps, you should read the entire thread. We're on thread #92, so it's alot. JMO, IMO, IME. And welcome to WS.

Thanks. The defense did say they are still waiting on more discovery to be handed to them. Is the important video AT mentioned the LL video from say 6am that morning till 11:58? If so, why does AT not have that footage in discovery? The PCA presents BK coming to the scene the next morning through phone records. If a white sedan is on the LL video that morning, from say sometime between 6am and 11:58, then it will also be on the King rd video, and it may be possible to see the driver. Is that the footage AT wants to see?

 

[Thomas 3377]

DM described him as wearing a mask AND HAVING BUSHY EYEBROWS.

View attachment 482928

We will see at trial when DM testifies if that is the case.

 

[SpiderFalcon]

Thanks. The defense did say they are still waiting on more discovery to be handed to them. Is the important video AT mentioned the LL video from say 6am that morning till 11:58? If so, why does AT not have that footage in discovery? The PCA presents BK coming to the scene the next morning through phone records. If a white sedan is on the LL video that morning, from say sometime between 6am and 11:58, then it will also be on the King rd video, and it may be possible to see the driver. Is that the footage AT wants to see?

IMO, I don't think AT knows whether she has that footage already, or not. I also don't know the mind of AT, and what she wants to see. How do you know "if" a white sedan is on the LL video that morning, "then" it will also be on the King rd video?

<modsnip>

 

[maskedwoman]

The Prosecutors explained that if law enforcement used a database that says you can't access it without a court order, or people opted out, or whatever, then that would be a civil case for the person that opted out that matched the DNA at the crime scene. It's not illegal. While it may not be ethically sound to use a database to find criminals when the database says not to, it doesn't invalidate the results of the search. It doesn't violate any of BK's rights because it wasn't his DNA in the database. The only person who could claim any harm is the person who actually submitted to the database, and only if they actually opted out and if they actually wanted to claim some kind of harm.

That is very interesting. And it makes sense to me. I wonder if they have attempted to get that relative to claim harm? Hmm....

 

[10ofRods]

RSBM
Just to clarify: GEDmatch is not an automatic opt-in. Since 2019 you are opted out by default and must opt-in for your data to be LE accessible without a warrant.
23AndMe is the opposite, you are opted in by default and have to toggle your settings if you want to opt out.
Ancestry.com has a blanket policy to NOT share any data with LE without a warrant.
Gabriella Vargas explained all of this and more in her statement, which I recommend watching.

You are correct - I was thinking of Parabon.

23andme is most decidedly NOT automatic opt in - of all the online genetic services, it is the one who has most resisted use by law enforcement. 23andme does not even have a way of opting in for use by LE, that I know of. You have to take your results from there and submit them elsewhere.

You may be thinking of 23's opt-in for sharing with relatives. The 23andme Relatives database (which apparently most users DO opt into) allows us to see each other, and to build family trees. I have now 3000 relatives on 23andme (some of them are sixth cousins...)

Guide for Law Enforcement - 23andMe

23andMe is the first and only direct-to-consumer DNA test that includes 55+ health reports that meet FDA requirements.

www.23andme.com

From that link:

23andMe chooses to use all practical legal and administrative resources to resist requests from law enforcement, and we do not share customer data with any public databases, or with entities that may increase the risk of law enforcement access. In certain circumstances, however, 23andMe may be required by law to comply with a valid court order, subpoena, or search warrant for genetic or personal information.
So far as I know, 23andme is the most resistant to any attempts by LE to use their information. Further, here is what they tell LE:

//If 23andMe is required by law to comply with a valid court order, subpoena, or search warrant for genetic or personal information, we will notify the affected individual(s) through the contact information they have provided to us before we disclose this information to law enforcement, unless doing so would violate the law or a court order. We will give them a reasonable period of time to move to quash the subpoena before we answer it.//

IOW, 23andme works with their clientele to quash subpoenas, offers legal advice, etc.

 

[maskedwoman]

All they have is DNA on the alleged sheath. The DNA is presented it as a statistical match. The state is presenting that the SNP DNA profile came before the trash in Pennsylvania. The prosecution used a mathematical equation applying other probabilities to create the statistic. They present it in reverse to the courts, when in fact the probability is 1 in 5:37 Octillion, which is tiny, as opposed to 5:37 Octillion chances of it being BK's DNA which is a much greater probability, but still a small number. It's right there in the PCA. Read it.

One thing for sure, and it is an observation, everything presented in this case works backwards time wise. It's an attempt to connect BK to the beginning of the crime. This is why AT is still confused about the point, the time, the date of when BK first became the prime suspect in the PCA because the events didn't happen in the order the PCA is presented. 12/12/22 is the pivotal date in the investigation, that's when they decided upon BK, but that's before the results of the IGG. Read it.

Did they learn of BK's name from the tip line in relation to his car? Does the description of a suspect come from BK's drivers license? The witness described the suspect as a figure clad in black clothing and a WEARING A MASK. Only the Police know the description of suspect because they looked at his driving license.

Respectfully, you are mistaken to say that it's a 1 in 5.37 Octillion chance that it matches BK's DNA. It's the other way. It's a 1 in 5.37 Octillion chance that it could be anyone else. I searched the PCA for octillion and came up dry but statistically no one else on planet Earth matches the DNA. Only BK. Even if there were dozens of populated planet Earths to add to the calculation, it still would be BK and only BK that matches the sample. The only exception I can think of would be if BK had an identical twin, which he does not.

I don't think the PCA presented items out of order in the way you suggest above. The PCA is not a linear document, like a timeline. It's a presentation of the items LE believes will prove probable cause. They identify each element and how it was developed. As to any confusion declared by AT, I can assure you that very intelligent and accomplished woman is only confused by the evidence if it benefits her to be "officially" confused. She has a plan and she is working that plan.

Some posters here have truly amazing recall of the documents and time lines on cases. I am not blessed that way. I can remember certain critical items easily and have to refer back to the documents on others. In this instance, I do know that the description of the suspect was obtained from one of the witnesses before they had identified any car or person by name. So they could not have reviewed BK's driver's license before his car was reported by the security guard at his apartment complex.

Welcome to WS!

 

[maskedwoman]

We will see at trial when DM testifies if that is the case.

We don't have to wait until trial. Her description of the suspect is in the PCA. From page 4: D.M. described the figure as 5' I 0" or taller, male, not very muscular, but athletically built with bushy eyebrows. I copied and pasted it below from the document.

Bryan Kohberger arrest affidavit in Idaho murders

www.documentcloud.org

 

[Sleuth2010]

DM described him as wearing a mask AND HAVING BUSHY EYEBROWS.

View attachment 482928

Good !
Chief Fry said he is positive they have their killer.

We don't know if a plea bargain has/will be offered, but the death penalty seems to becoming more and more a reality these days.

To avoid continued hardship and heartache, for all those effected by this heinous crime
( including the killer's own family, which they professes to "love") and to avoid a trial, a life-plea, maybe the best result.

Chief Fry has done an awesome and outstanding job, including all the law enforcement team work it has taken ( Godspeed to PA too)

We think about the brave, courageous people involved in solving this and those who are silently working for justice.

As always, heartprints to the families, friends, neighbors, students, coworkers and all those involved...
the wheels of justice grind slowly, but they do grind. Truth and justice will prevail.

jmo moo

/////