4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #97

[mrjitty]

I'm with you.

The jury is not going to be diving into the nitty gritty details or what if one small segment doesn't match the timeline. That's sort of what we do.. but really doesn't matter that much in the trial.

IMO, this is only of minor significance if one detail doesn't line up perfectly.

The big things are the DNA, eyewitness report of the suspect in the house and cell phone pings versus location and timeline.

Hence delay the trial for years

 

[schooling]

I'm with you.

The jury is not going to be diving into the nitty gritty details or what if one small segment doesn't match the timeline. That's sort of what we do.. but really doesn't matter that much in the trial.

IMO, this is only of minor significance if one detail doesn't line up perfectly.

The big things are the DNA, eyewitness report of the suspect in the house and cell phone pings versus location and timeline.

Not to mention the fact that the defense conceded that he was on the road at 2am. Prosecutors are arguing that they can prove that he was (at the very least) in the general vicinity of the crime scene.

For the folk that push back and say: "he did this regularly, driving at night isn't a crime." I'll remind them that if the crime was committed at 3pm, Kohberger being on the road at 2pm would still be relevant.

 

[Boxer]

It could be argued his DNA was cross transferred or the knife had his DNA from prior the murder scene. Perhaps he gave a lift to the real murderer and is covering for them? I don't believe that but in law they do need to be certain.

Thankfully the standard is 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'

 

[Justice101]

Thankfully the standard is 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'

yes, and we all know that if you put 20 things that the defense says are "coincidences" all 20 in a row, with no real defenses, no reasonable person is going to let that sway them.

I really don't know why I am still following this. I usually only follow if the killer is not found and/or if the evidence is weak. This one is over.. I just want to see if there is a guilty plea or if it goes to trail.

 

[CKS]

There is proof he drove to Moscow. DNA at the murder scene.

MOO

That's the problem. His 'touch DNA' on a moveable object does not prove he was ever in the house. That may be an unpopular statement but it's true if you now how touch DNA works.

Just an opinion.

 

[Boxer]

MOO

That's the problem. His 'touch DNA' on a moveable object does not prove he was ever in the house. That may be an unpopular statement but it's true if you now how touch DNA works.

Just an opinion.

Touch DNA is DNA.
MOO There really is mo reasonable explanation for his DNAs presence touchbor otherwise on the murder weapons carrying case other than BK brought the item with him into the house.

Things like it stolen from his apartment etc. all don't meet reasonable doubt thresholds.

This case is all about the appeal. And the their working to create cell confusion might work during a second trial if the DNA is disallowed.
MOO but that not to be confused with being innocent - suppressing evidence can get murderers off.

 

[schooling]

Touch DNA is DNA.
MOO There really is mo reasonable explanation for his DNAs presence touchbor otherwise on the murder weapons carrying case other than BK brought the item with him into the house.

Things like it stolen from his apartment etc. all don't meet reasonable doubt thresholds.

This case is all about the appeal. And the their working to create cell confusion might work during a second trial if the DNA is disallowed.
MOO but that not to be confused with being innocent - suppressing evidence can get murderers off.

The 'Touch DNA' thing is so frustrating misunderstood IMO. It seems to have a million definitions and is often confused or used interchangeably with 'transfer DNA' and 'trace DNA'. But I think there's another reason why...

Growing up on True Crime in the 90s via the news magazine shows Dateline Tuesdays -> 48 Hours Thursday -> 20/20 Fridays when they still covered a wide range of topics. Then on sick days you might catch a Unsolved Mysteries or Forensic Files. It's a term that you often heard on there.

It was typically associated with incomplete profiles and probabilities in the 200,000s. And this is before the tech got better. Because of that it's been mentioned in many appeals and/or wrongful conviction claims from the late 90s and early 2000s. IRC, MOO. Gaining it's negative connotation.

I don't ever recall 'touch DNA' being an issue when a FULL MALE PROFILE with probabilities in the Quintillions is found at a quadruple murder scene on a literal part of the murder weapon that the killer would have likely touched.

You can 'oops' yourself into matching an incomplete touch DNA profile to a Full Complete Profile if the odds are 1 in 220,00. IMO.

From what I understand from a novice non professional - you can't 'oops' yourself into a full profile. Full stop.

MOO

 

[acutename]

MOO

That's the problem. His 'touch DNA' on a moveable object does not prove he was ever in the house. That may be an unpopular statement but it's true if you now how touch DNA works.

Just an opinion.

If it were on a free pen from a local bank or a library book or a laundry bag, it would look less suspicious to me than on the sheath of the murder weapon right near or under a victim's body. is there proof that he was in a lot of knife shops touching all the stock?

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

If it were on a free pen from a local bank or a library book or a laundry bag, it would look less suspicious to me than on the sheath of the murder weapon right near or under a victim's body. is there proof that he was in a lot of knife shops touching all the stock?

I find this aspect confusing that how come there were not other peoples DNA on the sheath no matter where it came from? I think there was some suggestion that BK (if guilty) had cleansed the sheath to the point where it had nothing of him except a small area to the snap closer - ie 'missed a bit'. I may have misunderstood this?

 

[Swansee]

@Observe_dont_Absorb
Yes that's exactly what we've been hearing. Only one single source of DNA on the sheath. Supposedly because the killer cleaned it meticulously but missed a spot.
It is confusing to me, because I too would think that sheath would have been full of the victims' DNA, either from their blood, or simply from having been stuck under their bodies and on their bedsheets.
But the way they phrase it, the sheath would have been absolutely pristine, in spite of the very DNA-rich context in which it was found, which does sound improbable.

 

[mrjitty]

Scott Reisch discusses the pre trial motions

tldr;

1. If the DNA is in, BK is done - so everything depends on getting it suppressed
2. Did BK confess?

Seems BK might have made a statement pre-miranda that they want to suppress

 

[girlhasnoname]

Scott Reisch discusses the pre trial motions

tldr;

1. If the DNA is in, BK is done - so everything depends on getting it suppressed
2. Did BK confess?

Seems BK might have made a statement pre-miranda that they want to suppress

AT & Company have no other shot than to try and get the GG DNA results thrown out from which everything else flows from. It's a long shot, very unlikely, and more for appellate issues.

The statement BK made was at the PA LE HQ after he had been mirandized is the one they are working hard to get dismissed. It reads "after being fully mirandized BK _________________." The last part was redacted. He very well could have confessed or made an incriminating statement that only the killer would know. (From your link at approx 19:32 mark)

I don't see Judge Hippler granting their Motion to Suppress based on what I've seen so far. I guess we will find out this summer, if things stay on track.

JMO

EBM: 2 many JMO's hah

 

[Nila Aella]

Scott Reisch discusses the pre trial motions

tldr;

1. If the DNA is in, BK is done - so everything depends on getting it suppressed
2. Did BK confess?

Seems BK might have made a statement pre-miranda that they want to suppress

The MTS specifically refers to media reports of what BK said.

This is what it was referring to:
A suspect arrested for murders of four University of Idaho students allegedly asked police if anyone else had been taken into custody.

Idaho murder suspect allegedly asked police if anyone else had been arrested

Bryan Kohlberger is facing extradition from Pennsylvania to Idaho for the slayings of four University of Idaho students

www.independent.co.uk

MTS Lamsden
The conduct of law enforcement with Mr. Kohberger in the house is referred to as “small talk” when he is being recorded during transport. This cannot be verified because no audio or video is produced. The conduct of the officer in the police car during transport cannot be described as “an interrogation”. However, without a video or audio recording of in custody discussions inside the house, the true nature of the statements made in the car are without context. All statements made at the police station were post Miranda.

Information in the media, right after arrest, and attributed to law enforcement, report that Mr. Kohberger -redacted statement. Such a statement is not in a police report or in an audio/video recording that can be found in discovery.

If it is a statement that the state will seek to attribute to him at trial, it should be suppressed as a nonmirandized statement. If the conversation with Mr. Kohberger inside the house was custodial in nature, that context may warrant suppression of the conversation in the police car during transport.

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

 

[jepop]

@Observe_dont_Absorb
Yes that's exactly what we've been hearing. Only one single source of DNA on the sheath. Supposedly because the killer cleaned it meticulously but missed a spot.
It is confusing to me, because I too would think that sheath would have been full of the victims' DNA, either from their blood, or simply from having been stuck under their bodies and on their bedsheets.
But the way they phrase it, the sheath would have been absolutely pristine, in spite of the very DNA-rich context in which it was found, which does sound improbable.

RBBM

What do you mean by "the way they phrase it"? I don't think there is anything we know of to suggest the sheathe did not have victim's/victims' blood on it. As you note, the sheathe was found in a bed with victims, so logically it is likely to have had victim's blood on it don't you think?

Just because the motions and docs we've read don't focus on that aspect, doesn't mean there was no victim blood there imo.

The docs to do with unknown single source male DNA don't mention the state of the sheathe re victims blood because that isn't relevant I would say./Imo.

Anyway, it's not a fact in the case that the sheathe had no victim blood on it. Moo common sense tells.me that is unlikely in the extreme. Moo.

 

[Boxer]

@Observe_dont_Absorb
Yes that's exactly what we've been hearing. Only one single source of DNA on the sheath. Supposedly because the killer cleaned it meticulously but missed a spot.
It is confusing to me, because I too would think that sheath would have been full of the victims' DNA, either from their blood, or simply from having been stuck under their bodies and on their bedsheets.
But the way they phrase it, the sheath would have been absolutely pristine, in spite of the very DNA-rich context in which it was found, which does sound improbable.

MOO dropped on the bed. Not in the direct flow of blood, it just is what it ia. A wioed down sheath with a missed spot.
MOO He is error prone in character and this is consistent with that.

 

[Swansee]

MOO dropped on the bed. Not in the direct flow of blood, it just is what it ia. A wioed down sheath with a missed spot.
MOO He is error prone in character and this is consistent with that.

The sheath was “face down, partially under Madison’s body and the comforter on the bed” according to the State's June 16 2023 Motion for Protective Order.
I guess they just didn't mention it, but IMO there had to be victim DNA all over that sheath, just by it being between MM's body and her beddings, even if it was somehow not in the bloodflow.

 

[mrjitty]

The sheath was “face down, partially under Madison’s body and the comforter on the bed” according to the State's June 16 2023 Motion for Protective Order.
I guess they just didn't mention it, but IMO there had to be victim DNA all over that sheath, just by it being between MM's body and her beddings, even if it was somehow not in the bloodflow.

BIB

why?

 

[Swansee]

BIB

why?

IMO because:
A person's skin, clothes, pajamas, and bedding is typically loaded with their DNA.
If touch DNA can transfer from a simple handshake, then I would imagine that a sheath that's spent 12 hours sandwiched between a body (or their pajamas or whatever they were wearing) and that person's bedding, is definitely going to have a ton of their DNA on it.
JMO

 

[jepop]

Yes - BK had to reverse engineer it around the incriminating evidence. This is where I prefer the UK rules post law reform in that country. In the UK he would have been confronted with the incriminating evidence at an initial interrogation and would have the chance to explain it, but had he not done so, that could lead to adverse direction from the Judge at trial if he later invented a new alibi not disclosed at the time.


I guess my problem with following this case, is his alibi is hopeless even if he does testify, because his DNA is at the crime scene, and inevitably all the rest of the circumstantial evidence will shake out from there

I have some kind of academic interest in the Franks/Suppression motions, but the actual factual attempts to get out from under this seem more speculative than real IMO.

I don't imagine BK will be advised to testify, period .. but I'm interested to see how Hippler will deal with the situation. Imo JJJ put the so called notice of ' alibi' on the back burner over objections of the State in April, where it has been languishing ever since. JJJ was ok with defense trolling discovery to 'find' an alibi imo, although of course this was not the language used by the d. Jmo

Alibi ICRs do allow for judicial discretion, but defense needs to produce their witnesses for alibi ( and for the relevant time period which is really at issue here regarding d submissions to date imo), in a timely manner to allow state to respond with rebuttal witnesses. Moo

I suppose Hippler is going to consider the D's notice of Albi and whether it complies, soon after d's discovery deadline which is next month from memory. If the d doesn't produce witnesses then the only way to introduce an alibi will be via defendant testimony. I really doubt that BK will testify under any circumstances but you never know I guess.

I suppose if d really does follow through with an alibi defense somehow without BK testifying, then they are obviously going to try and argue away the dna. Which I don't think will be successful. All moo.

 

[jepop]

The 'Touch DNA' thing is so frustrating misunderstood IMO. It seems to have a million definitions and is often confused or used interchangeably with 'transfer DNA' and 'trace DNA'. But I think there's another reason why...

Growing up on True Crime in the 90s via the news magazine shows Dateline Tuesdays -> 48 Hours Thursday -> 20/20 Fridays when they still covered a wide range of topics. Then on sick days you might catch a Unsolved Mysteries or Forensic Files. It's a term that you often heard on there.

It was typically associated with incomplete profiles and probabilities in the 200,000s. And this is before the tech got better. Because of that it's been mentioned in many appeals and/or wrongful conviction claims from the late 90s and early 2000s. IRC, MOO. Gaining it's negative connotation.

I don't ever recall 'touch DNA' being an issue when a FULL MALE PROFILE with probabilities in the Quintillions is found at a quadruple murder scene on a literal part of the murder weapon that the killer would have likely touched.

You can 'oops' yourself into matching an incomplete touch DNA profile to a Full Complete Profile if the odds are 1 in 220,00. IMO.

From what I understand from a novice non professional - you can't 'oops' yourself into a full profile. Full stop.

MOO

It is frustrating! Seems to me, there is often a knee jerk reaction whenever the term is used. I sometimes think of it as the touch DNA bogeyman.

If it's not from bodily fluids then it's touch DNA, right?. I prefer the term epithelial cell DNA to keep the bogeyman at bay lol ( thanks to @10ofRods ).

The dna on the sheathe snap is outstanding evidence imo, a male single source sample that produced a full STR profile. As you say, not a partial profile, not trace, not a mixed profile.

Jmo Prosecution expert/s will testify to the extreme unlikelihood that it arrived on the sheathe via secondary transfer. It got there because BK directly manipulated with his hands and fingers the snap button on that sheathe. Moo