4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #96

[GRT]

So what makes BK different? What intervention, program, redirection could modeled him differently. You're right, there are lots of being bearing countless diagnoses, disorders, unique-orders who might remain on the periphery but would never even think of hurting anyone else. I feel for his parents, who must have thought he finally launched, a PhD program, a job as a TA, living on his own. But he was brooding. Plotting. Planning.

And now four young adults are dead.

Sad really, that that's what he picked to aspire to.

Why, just why?

JMO

Sometimes, I don't think there's really much that can be done differently when someone is wired that way. When I listened to BK's dad during the traffic stop -- I got the clear impression that he was trying to talk-up his son because he feared the reaction his son would have after they drove off. Like he had to moderate the discussion to keep BK from going dark. MOO

But, for sure, his parents probably thought (or hoped) that he'd finally found his niche and that he would finally outgrow his demons. I feel sorry for his family and for the families of the victims.

 

[Sleuth2010]

Law enforcement a thousand times thank you!!
An incredible job well done! All the way to PA.

We thank you for the victims who can not.
We seek JUSTICE, because the victims can not.
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
This case did not go cold. Thanksgiving 4 that.

jmo

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

So what makes BK different? What intervention, program, redirection could have modeled him differently. You're right, there are lots of being bearing countless diagnoses, disorders, unique-orders who might remain on the periphery but would never even think of hurting anyone else. I feel for his parents, who must have thought he finally launched, a PhD program, a job as a TA, living on his own. But he was brooding. Plotting. Planning.

And now four young adults are dead.

Sad really, that that's what he picked to aspire to.

Why, just why?

JMO

Well that's a big question!

IMO it may take a little bit of advancement in brain scanning and studying neural pathways (or perhaps the tech is already long since out there) to establish whether some people have the empathy bits of their brain wiring entirely missing, seemingly known as 'Empathy Deficit Disorder' and probably what separates real human beings from the inhumane human beings.

Notable that many people with various types of neurodiversity are not as easily able / willing to express empathy but they do absolutely have it and some experience deeper than average feelings in fact. There's differences between cognitive empathy and emotional empathy in people.

However, it is generally considered that sociopaths and extreme NPD narcissists are missing any empathy except knowing they're 'supposed to look like they care' or people will suspect they're a bit different but in reality they're not feeling anything, except maybe smug, superior, gloating, triumphant etc, when another person is being harmed (by them). It has been proven that giving Death Row prisoners cats to care for has helped them apparently.

Does someone seeming to be a sociopath lack empathy in all areas I wonder? And are they usually low - average - high intelligence or across the board? Can their limited empathy be built on to stop them getting worse and maybe make them better? Is there another issue at play over and above lack of empathy?

JMO MOO

 

[Kemug]

I do wonder if he would have already committed other murders by now, if not caught. I feel sure that was his plan. And he had quite likely already chosen his victim/s, scouted them out, and made plans. If not for the really quite recent discovery and utilisation of DNA, he may never have been caught and stopped. Terrifying to think of.

 

[Megnut]

I do wonder if he would have already committed other murders by now, if not caught. I feel sure that was his plan. And he had quite likely already chosen his victim/s, scouted them out, and made plans. If not for the really quite recent discovery and utilisation of DNA, he may never have been caught and stopped. Terrifying to think of.

Or who may have been in his sights earlier, who doesn't even know.

JMO

 

[LinasK]

Well we do know that he drove by the house, IIRC 12 times, in the wee hours, in the months before the murders. That sounds like the same type surveillance he did the night of the murders. I also believe he tracked MM on SM. But he had a fixation on that house, IMO.

That fits the definition of stalking in my mind, whether he contacted them or not.

 

[LinasK]

I agree.
GG may have led LE in BK’s direction but that was all it did. It was his buccal swab that identified his DNA on the knife sheath.
Crime investigation is pretty much just narrowing things down until you have a suspect. GG just helped narrow it down


opinion

Exactly. Genetic Genealogy helps them locate the suspect, then LE confirms it with a fresh DNA match from a buccal swab or other eating/drinking utensil.

 

[wendy44]

If all the DNA in the test pool is voluntarily submitted, where's the Constitutional issue?

Snipped by me--but not HIS dna. He didn't voluntarily submit his dna to the test pool. But through genetic genealogy they have it anyway. If you have a relative's dna, through IGG you essentially have his dna--without his permission, without him entering it into a commercial database, without it being entered legally into CODIS, without it being left on a discarded cigarette butt, etc.--all these other ways that have already been court-tested and/or legislated.

The courts are going to have to decide if, given the current technology available through IGG, and, given the fact that he left his dna at the crime scene (confirmed by the match of the dna on the sheath to BK) did BK have a reasonable expectation of privacy. We knew this was coming.

 

[sunshineray]

Snipped by me--but not HIS dna. He didn't voluntarily submit his dna to the test pool. But through genetic genealogy they have it anyway. If you have a relative's dna, through IGG you essentially have his dna--without his permission, without him entering it into a commercial database, without it being entered legally into CODIS, without it being left on a discarded cigarette butt, etc.--all these other ways that have already been court-tested and/or legislated.

The courts are going to have to decide if, given the current technology available through IGG, and, given the fact that he left his dna at the crime scene (confirmed by the match of the dna on the sheath to BK) did BK have a reasonable expectation of privacy. We knew this was coming.

They tracked it back through legal means included snagging his DNA from discarded garbage. Would you have killers go free who have previously been required to submit their DNA from another unrelated brush with the law and entered into CODIS? DNA is no different than fingerprints, collected for years by the government if you wanted a job with them. I applied for employment at UPS years ago. If I ever murder someone and leave a fingerprint, I'm more than likely caught, and rightly so for society's sake, IMO. As long as people in the genealogy arena agree to submit to a searchable database, LE using it is perfectly legal. AJMO
Edit to include: Is it logical to give, after the fact of murder, a right to privacy? If it proves culpability?

 

[wendy44]

They tracked it back through legal means included snagging his DNA from discarded garbage. Would you have killers go free who have previously been required to submit their DNA from another unrelated brush with the law and entered into CODIS?

Matching dna from a crime scene to dna entered into CODIS is a different legal issue though. The dna in CODIS must match the dna from the scene, no familial matching. There have already been court cases and legislation establishing when the dna can be collected and entered. For example, can it be collected and entered upon arrest or upon conviction. It's been established by the courts that the suspect has no expectation of privacy with law enforcement using the dna in CODIS to compare. Your rights aren't being violated if your dna is legally in CODIS.

It varies by state, but it's generally legal for law enforcement to gather dna that's been discarded by the suspect. This has also worked its way through the courts. But in order to know what dna to gather, you need a suspect. Generally you have a suspect through standard investigative techniques like cell and digital data, witnesses, etc. We don't have a timeline, but I'm guessing the defense is going to say that they had a suspect based on IGG. And the general argument will probably be that they wouldn't have landed on BK as a suspect because they didn't have his dna by means that have been tested in court to be legal, such as CODIS. They had it because he is related to someone else who voluntarily loaded it onto a commercial site. And they'll argue this violates his 4th amendment. And they'll argue anything that came after and because of having that familial match should be thrown out. And they'll likely argue a lot of other stuff too--they MUST get that dna match thrown out.

DNA is no different than fingerprints, collected for years by the government if you wanted a job with them. I applied for employment at UPS years ago. If I ever murder someone and leave a fingerprint, I'm more than likely caught, and rightly so for society's sake, IMO.

I think dna is no different than fingerprints when it comes to evidence--it's established science that matches the dna/fingerprint left behind to the suspect. But there were court challenges to get there and establish that. And it's not possible to match a fingerprint left at a crime scene to a suspect by matching it to a suspect's family member. So the 4th amendment issue doesn't come into play. Law enforcement can only match the fingerprint to the suspect if they have the suspect's fingerprint legally--prior criminal record, warrant, etc.

As long as people in the genealogy arena agree to submit to a searchable database, LE using it is perfectly legal. AJMO
Edit to include: Is it logical to give, after the fact of murder, a right to privacy? If it proves culpability?

It's legal for law enforcement to use it. It's already been used in court and states and feds have been drawing up guidelines and passing laws to try to get ahead of it. But it was really inevitable that there would be a constitutional challenge. It's new and it's a complete game changer--if you have dna, you can find almost anyone and find them very quickly. The courts generally do take into consideration the advancements in technology and the public's awareness of them and what the public considers reasonable. The court here will have to decide if BK had a reasonable expectation of privacy when he left his dna at a crime scene and there are technological advancements like IGG that use familial matching to zero in on suspects.

The other interesting thing in the motion--the defense says the state must show the evidence would have been discovered anyway and the state cannot show this. I'm not so sure about that. Howard Blum claims in his book the FBI was running a parallel investigation and keeping Moscow police out of the loop. The defense says the only connection he had to the case was his mode of transportation and the shape of his eyebrows, two identifications of little to no value. But that lack of front license plate on the car would have been extremely valuable in narrowing down the white Elantras they needed to look at. Hopefully the state can show they were making progress outside of the FBI investigation.

JMO

 

[sunshineray]

Matching dna from a crime scene to dna entered into CODIS is a different legal issue though. The dna in CODIS must match the dna from the scene, no familial matching. There have already been court cases and legislation establishing when the dna can be collected and entered. For example, can it be collected and entered upon arrest or upon conviction. It's been established by the courts that the suspect has no expectation of privacy with law enforcement using the dna in CODIS to compare. Your rights aren't being violated if your dna is legally in CODIS.

It varies by state, but it's generally legal for law enforcement to gather dna that's been discarded by the suspect. This has also worked its way through the courts. But in order to know what dna to gather, you need a suspect. Generally you have a suspect through standard investigative techniques like cell and digital data, witnesses, etc. We don't have a timeline, but I'm guessing the defense is going to say that they had a suspect based on IGG. And the general argument will probably be that they wouldn't have landed on BK as a suspect because they didn't have his dna by means that have been tested in court to be legal, such as CODIS. They had it because he is related to someone else who voluntarily loaded it onto a commercial site. And they'll argue this violates his 4th amendment. And they'll argue anything that came after and because of having that familial match should be thrown out. And they'll likely argue a lot of other stuff too--they MUST get that dna match thrown out.

I think dna is no different than fingerprints when it comes to evidence--it's established science that matches the dna/fingerprint left behind to the suspect. But there were court challenges to get there and establish that. And it's not possible to match a fingerprint left at a crime scene to a suspect by matching it to a suspect's family member. So the 4th amendment issue doesn't come into play. Law enforcement can only match the fingerprint to the suspect if they have the suspect's fingerprint legally--prior criminal record, warrant, etc.

It's legal for law enforcement to use it. It's already been used in court and states and feds have been drawing up guidelines and passing laws to try to get ahead of it. But it was really inevitable that there would be a constitutional challenge. It's new and it's a complete game changer--if you have dna, you can find almost anyone and find them very quickly. The courts generally do take into consideration the advancements in technology and the public's awareness of them and what the public considers reasonable. The court here will have to decide if BK had a reasonable expectation of privacy when he left his dna at a crime scene and there are technological advancements like IGG that use familial matching to zero in on suspects.

The other interesting thing in the motion--the defense says the state must show the evidence would have been discovered anyway and the state cannot show this. I'm not so sure about that. Howard Blum claims in his book the FBI was running a parallel investigation and keeping Moscow police out of the loop. The defense says the only connection he had to the case was his mode of transportation and the shape of his eyebrows, two identifications of little to no value. But that lack of front license plate on the car would have been extremely valuable in narrowing down the white Elantras they needed to look at. Hopefully the state can show they were making progress outside of the FBI investigation.

JMO

I confused as to what you mean here...BBM

"The other interesting thing in the motion--the defense says the state must show the evidence would have been discovered anyway and the state cannot show this."

As far as the FBI investigating how the FBI investigates, along side the local LE investigating on their end simultaneously...what does that matter? They're all LE looking for a killer. Why would the state have to prove they were making their own progress outside of the FBI? It's all information to catch a killer.

 

[Nila Aella]

I confused as to what you mean here...BBM

"The other interesting thing in the motion--the defense says the state must show the evidence would have been discovered anyway and the state cannot show this."

As far as the FBI investigating how the FBI investigates, along side the local LE investigating on their end simultaneously...what does that matter? They're all LE looking for a killer. Why the the state have to prove they were making their own progress outside of the FBI? It's all information to catch a killer.

The full statement is:

As the Idaho Supreme Court has explained, while the initial burden in showing a factual nexus between the illegality and the evidence, the State must show it would have been discovered anyway. State v. Maahs, 171

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR01-24-31665/2024/111424-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-Arrest-Warrant.pdf

The FB i and local LE were not investigating seperately - MPD was lead with the FB i assisting according to Chief F.

Chief Fry sat down with KLEW News to talk about the investigation, telling us that calling in other agencies to assist is standard practice.

"We always call in the Idaho State Police, and a lot of times we call in the FBI or ATF depending on what we, what resources we need,” Chief Fry said.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjgkKWjvuiJAxV0FVkFHWU3MUwQFnoECBcQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fklewtv.com%2Fnews%2Flocal%2Fchief-james-fry-on-the-search-for-evidence-the-elantra-supports-his-command-staff&usg=AOvVaw0Iw2lavvzudSQiov9C_jzN&opi=89978449

 

[arielilane]

I dont always follow this thread and also I have not read each recent docket released, however, I am curious if the zip-tied info is correct. Sometimes courttv gets info wrong. I recall when LE arrived at the residence in PA, felt sad for BK's family, but so glad they caught up w/BK.

jmo. Anyone read this info in a recently released document? thank you in advance


The documents allege Kohberger was zip-tied after a no-knock warrant was served at his parents’ home in Pennsylvania, and was then surrounded by police at gunpoint.

“Law enforcement did not mirandize him immediately. Instead, they waited until after he was transported in a police car, handcuffed, with at least two officers in the car,” the defense argued.

Bryan Kohberger's defense argues evidence was 'illegally gathered'

The documents allege Bryan Kohberger was zip-tied after a no-knock warrant was served at his parents' home in Pennsylvania.

www.courttv.com

11/19/2024

The state has until Dec. 6 to respond to Kohberger’s motions, then the defense has until Dec. 20 to respond. A hearing on the discovery motions is scheduled for Jan. 23, 2025, in Ada County.

 

[CKS]

I confused as to what you mean here...BBM

"The other interesting thing in the motion--the defense says the state must show the evidence would have been discovered anyway and the state cannot show this."

As far as the FBI investigating how the FBI investigates, along side the local LE investigating on their end simultaneously...what does that matter? They're all LE looking for a killer. Why would the state have to prove they were making their own progress outside of the FBI? It's all information to catch a killer.

My question is why wouldn't the state have to prove or show their work when a human beings life is on the line?

 

[Nila Aella]

I dont always follow this thread and also I have not read each recent docket released, however, I am curious if the zip-tied info is correct. Sometimes courttv gets info wrong. I recall when LE arrived at the residence in PA, felt sad for BK's family, but so glad they caught up w/BK.

jmo. Anyone read this info in a recently released document? thank you in advance


The documents allege Kohberger was zip-tied after a no-knock warrant was served at his parents’ home in Pennsylvania, and was then surrounded by police at gunpoint.

“Law enforcement did not mirandize him immediately. Instead, they waited until after he was transported in a police car, handcuffed, with at least two officers in the car,” the defense argued.

Bryan Kohberger's defense argues evidence was 'illegally gathered'

The documents allege Bryan Kohberger was zip-tied after a no-knock warrant was served at his parents' home in Pennsylvania.

www.courttv.com

11/19/2024

The state has until Dec. 6 to respond to Kohberger’s motions, then the defense has until Dec. 20 to respond. A hearing on the discovery motions is scheduled for Jan. 23, 2025, in Ada County.

Yes.

page 15

Mr. Kohberger was zip tied after a no knock warrant was served. He was zip tied at his hands and surrounded by police at gun point. Law enforcement did not mirandize him immediately. Instead, they waited until after he was transported in a police car, hand cuffed, with at least two officers in the car. One was seated next to him in the back seat. See Frank, 133 Idaho at 369-70, 986 P.2d at 1035-36 (defendant was in custody for purposes of Miranda when he was questioned while handcuffed and restricted to the area of the patrol car). A reasonable person in Mr. Kohberger’s position would have understood himself to be in custody.

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR01-24-31665/2024/111424-REDACTED-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-Lamsden-Statements.pdf

 

[sunshineray]

The full statement is:

As the Idaho Supreme Court has explained, while the initial burden in showing a factual nexus between the illegality and the evidence, the State must show it would have been discovered anyway. State v. Maahs, 171

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR01-24-31665/2024/111424-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-Arrest-Warrant.pdf

The FB i and local LE were not investigating seperately - MPD was lead with the FB i assisting according to Chief F.

Chief Fry sat down with KLEW News to talk about the investigation, telling us that calling in other agencies to assist is standard practice.

"We always call in the Idaho State Police, and a lot of times we call in the FBI or ATF depending on what we, what resources we need,” Chief Fry said.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjgkKWjvuiJAxV0FVkFHWU3MUwQFnoECBcQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fklewtv.com%2Fnews%2Flocal%2Fchief-james-fry-on-the-search-for-evidence-the-elantra-supports-his-command-staff&usg=AOvVaw0Iw2lavvzudSQiov9C_jzN&opi=89978449

What evidence are the talking about, the whole search warrant, Idaho or Pennsylvania? A connection to illegality HAS to be shown by the State to it's own evidence or is the defense just saying there is one/some?

Now small communities are hindered in Idaho if they ask for investigative help from the State police or FBI? If they don't find the evidence themselves it's somehow in danger of being labeled illegal acquired? Am I understand that correctly?

I cannot download pdf's onto my phone to read your link.

 

[sunshineray]

My question is why wouldn't the state have to prove or show their work when a human beings life is on the line?

That's not my question...this is

"As the Idaho Supreme Court has explained, while the initial burden in showing a factual nexus between the illegality and the evidence, the State must show it would have been discovered anyway"

The State has to show a cconnection to illegality and it's evidence? I'm not understanding what that means is being required of the State? And all because other LE helped them in their investigations?

 

[Nila Aella]

Exactly. Genetic Genealogy helps them locate the suspect, then LE confirms it with a fresh DNA match from a buccal swab or other eating/drinking utensil.

DOJ policy

A suspect shall not be arrested based solely on a genetic association generated by a GG service. If a suspect is identified after a genetic association has occurred, STR DNA typing must be performed, and the suspect’s STR DNA profile must be directly compared to the forensic profile previously uploaded to CODIS.14 This comparison is necessary to confirm that the forensic sample could have originated from the suspect.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjghdyr1-iJAxWOJNAFHedqNgoQFnoECBcQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.justice.gov%2Folp%2Fpage%2Ffile%2F1204386%2Fdl&usg=AOvVaw3R2xn9gR19SoiKz0CcBuyl&opi=89978449

LE tried to obtain his DNA from the trash for confirmation STR, but failed.
LE used genetic information from his father, which is essentially more IGG investigation (included in the PCA).

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/122922+Affidavit+-+Exhibit+A+-+Statement+of+Brett-Payne.pdf

The confirmation STR was performed after his arrest.
JMO

What evidence are the talking about, the whole search warrant, Idaho or Pennsylvania? A connection to illegality HAS to be shown by the State to it's own evidence or is the defense just saying there is one/some?

Now small communities are hindered in Idaho if they ask for investigative help from the State police or FBI? If they don't find the evidence themselves it's somehow in danger of being labeled illegal acquired? Am I understand that correctly?

I cannot download pdf's onto my phone to read your link.

No.

MOS the arrest warrant which was Idaho. They make multiple arguments about the arrest warrant, one is relating to the IGG. It helps to read all the MOS's as many relate to each other.

Relating to the IGG

a. All information in the affidavit was gathered because of law enforcement’s unconstitutional use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), and thus nothing in the warrant should remain.

Mr. Kohberger has argued in a separate Motion that the genetic genealogy investigation in this matter was done in violation of the constitution. Additionally, he has argued there would be no investigation into him without that original constitutional violation. It is not that the results of the IGG sped up the investigation. Instead, they focused the investigation on Mr. Kohberger, a person whose only connection to the case was his mode of transportation and the shape of his eyebrows, two identifications of little to no value, as previously argued. As the Idaho Supreme Court has explained, while the initial burden in showing a factual nexus between the illegality and the evidence, the State must show it would have been discovered anyway. State v. Maahs, 171 Idaho 738, 752 (2022). The State cannot make this showing. Without IGG, there is no case, no request for his phone records, surveillance of his parents’ home, no DNA taken from the garbage

The D is saying there is an illegality (violation regarding IGG).
And the State cannot show they would have discovered the information (BKs name) without that constitutional violation.

JMO

 

[windrower]

Matching dna from a crime scene to dna entered into CODIS is a different legal issue though. The dna in CODIS must match the dna from the scene, no familial matching. There have already been court cases and legislation establishing when the dna can be collected and entered. For example, can it be collected and entered upon arrest or upon conviction. It's been established by the courts that the suspect has no expectation of privacy with law enforcement using the dna in CODIS to compare. Your rights aren't being violated if your dna is legally in CODIS.

It varies by state, but it's generally legal for law enforcement to gather dna that's been discarded by the suspect. This has also worked its way through the courts. But in order to know what dna to gather, you need a suspect. Generally you have a suspect through standard investigative techniques like cell and digital data, witnesses, etc. We don't have a timeline, but I'm guessing the defense is going to say that they had a suspect based on IGG. And the general argument will probably be that they wouldn't have landed on BK as a suspect because they didn't have his dna by means that have been tested in court to be legal, such as CODIS. They had it because he is related to someone else who voluntarily loaded it onto a commercial site. And they'll argue this violates his 4th amendment. And they'll argue anything that came after and because of having that familial match should be thrown out. And they'll likely argue a lot of other stuff too--they MUST get that dna match thrown out.

I think dna is no different than fingerprints when it comes to evidence--it's established science that matches the dna/fingerprint left behind to the suspect. But there were court challenges to get there and establish that. And it's not possible to match a fingerprint left at a crime scene to a suspect by matching it to a suspect's family member. So the 4th amendment issue doesn't come into play. Law enforcement can only match the fingerprint to the suspect if they have the suspect's fingerprint legally--prior criminal record, warrant, etc.

It's legal for law enforcement to use it. It's already been used in court and states and feds have been drawing up guidelines and passing laws to try to get ahead of it. But it was really inevitable that there would be a constitutional challenge. It's new and it's a complete game changer--if you have dna, you can find almost anyone and find them very quickly. The courts generally do take into consideration the advancements in technology and the public's awareness of them and what the public considers reasonable. The court here will have to decide if BK had a reasonable expectation of privacy when he left his dna at a crime scene and there are technological advancements like IGG that use familial matching to zero in on suspects.

The other interesting thing in the motion--the defense says the state must show the evidence would have been discovered anyway and the state cannot show this. I'm not so sure about that. Howard Blum claims in his book the FBI was running a parallel investigation and keeping Moscow police out of the loop. The defense says the only connection he had to the case was his mode of transportation and the shape of his eyebrows, two identifications of little to no value. But that lack of front license plate on the car would have been extremely valuable in narrowing down the white Elantras they needed to look at. Hopefully the state can show they were making progress outside of the FBI investigation.

JMO

DOJ policy

A suspect shall not be arrested based solely on a genetic association generated by a GG service. If a suspect is identified after a genetic association has occurred, STR DNA typing must be performed, and the suspect’s STR DNA profile must be directly compared to the forensic profile previously uploaded to CODIS.14 This comparison is necessary to confirm that the forensic sample could have originated from the suspect.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjghdyr1-iJAxWOJNAFHedqNgoQFnoECBcQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.justice.gov%2Folp%2Fpage%2Ffile%2F1204386%2Fdl&usg=AOvVaw3R2xn9gR19SoiKz0CcBuyl&opi=89978449

LE tried to obtain his DNA from the trash for confirmation STR, but failed.
LE used genetic information from his father, which is essentially more IGG investigation (included in the PCA).

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/122922+Affidavit+-+Exhibit+A+-+Statement+of+Brett-Payne.pdf

The confirmation STR was performed after his arrest.
JMO


No.

MOS the arrest warrant which was Idaho. They make multiple arguments about the arrest warrant, one is relating to the IGG. It helps to read all the MOS's as many relate to each other.

Relating to the IGG

a. All information in the affidavit was gathered because of law enforcement’s unconstitutional use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), and thus nothing in the warrant should remain.

Mr. Kohberger has argued in a separate Motion that the genetic genealogy investigation in this matter was done in violation of the constitution. Additionally, he has argued there would be no investigation into him without that original constitutional violation. It is not that the results of the IGG sped up the investigation. Instead, they focused the investigation on Mr. Kohberger, a person whose only connection to the case was his mode of transportation and the shape of his eyebrows, two identifications of little to no value, as previously argued. As the Idaho Supreme Court has explained, while the initial burden in showing a factual nexus between the illegality and the evidence, the State must show it would have been discovered anyway. State v. Maahs, 171 Idaho 738, 752 (2022). The State cannot make this showing. Without IGG, there is no case, no request for his phone records, surveillance of his parents’ home, no DNA taken from the garbage

The D is saying there is an illegality (violation regarding IGG).
And the State cannot show they would have discovered the information (BKs name) without that constitutional violation.

JMO

Bbm

It seems to me that the car and bushy eyebrows were of more than “a little to no value.”

Identification is made from getting a name from the car license plate, then finding the car belongs to someone with bushy eyebrows.

Are you saying LE should be penalized because a sharp-eyed LEO spotted a white four-door sedan in the broader area of four brutal murders?

I’m thinking they looked at A LOT of white four-door sedans and owners without bushy eyebrows.

The next thing would be getting some trash or something with his DNA, to determine if he needed further investigation, since LE has DNA from the crime scene.

But this step is problematic, because BK doesn’t toss anything, odd and suspicious in itself. A red flag, if you will.

So while they wait on a way to do the DNA matching, LE investigates all the other avenues they can, as any investigative entity would—BK background, phone records, social media, school records, criminal records and complaints, surveillance cameras, etc.—all the things.

They find more and more evidence that keeps them on BK’s trail.

The familial line being found with IGG was by a BK relative LEGALLY uploading his/her DNA in a database and opting in for LE use. Does the database need to have permission from everyone in the up and down line of that person who uploaded his/her DNA?

Is that part of the question?

Maybe BK is at fault for not demanding that ALL his family members—past, present, future—refrain from using genealogy websites and databases.

IMO. And if I have the timeline wrong, please help me clear that up.

 

[Megnut]

Bbm

It seems to me that the car and bushy eyebrows were of more than “a little to no value.”

Identification is made from getting a name from the car license plate, then finding the car belongs to someone with bushy eyebrows.

Are you saying LE should be penalized because a sharp-eyed LEO spotted a white four-door sedan in the broader area of four brutal murders?

I’m thinking they looked at A LOT of white four-door sedans and owners without bushy eyebrows.

The next thing would be getting some trash or something with his DNA, to determine if he needed further investigation, since LE has DNA from the crime scene.

But this step is problematic, because BK doesn’t toss anything, odd and suspicious in itself. A red flag, if you will.

So while they wait on a way to do the DNA matching, LE investigates all the other avenues they can, as any investigative entity would—BK background, phone records, social media, school records, criminal records and complaints, surveillance cameras, etc.—all the things.

They find more and more evidence that keeps them on BK’s trail.

The familial line being found with IGG was by a BK relative LEGALLY uploading his/her DNA in a database and opting in for LE use. Does the database need to have permission from everyone in the up and down line of that person who uploaded his/her DNA?

Is that part of the question?

Maybe BK is at fault for not demanding that ALL his family members—past, present, future—refrain from using genealogy websites and databases.

IMO. And if I have the timeline wrong, please help me clear that up.

Rbbm

I wonder why LE didn't wait until they could surreptitiously recover BK's DNA. Stake out the neighborhood and collect just his baggied trash. I wonder if something about that night dictated the action. I think the LISK was arrested ahead of LE schedule because they feared he was setting up his next crime. I'm guessing LE had eyes on BK, even as they were positioning for the no-knock entry. Peculiar thing to be doing in the middle of the night, in boxers (iirc) at the kitchen table and sorting trash.

I wonder if BK was very careful with his movements. Was he leaving the house (except to dump his trash into other people's bins)? Was he going anywhere, where LE could orchestrate a traffic stop?

Why didn't they wait a few more days? Outcome is the same, just a curiosity, I suppose.

JMO