4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #98

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I try never to say slam dunk in any case as not to jinx it <rogue or fellow 'misfit juror>, but I find it more than highly probable that the P has BK dead to rights and the jury will be able to see that from the totality of the evidence against him. We'll have a much better idea of things after the upcoming hearings next week. IMO

BK needs to prepare for prison life and practice for his role as the go to inmate prison lawyer. He would get the much wanted attention he so desperately seeks, and could talk about how smart he is all day and night long.

MOO

Bolded by me

That's what happened with Sarah Boone - seemingly she was 'helping' inmates (read being a classic malignant Narcissist) and snaring vulnerable women from her captive audience of shared jail dorm bunks to help them with spiritual guidance and letter writing etc.

The thing for BK is that although he could assist inmates with legal issues, if he's found guilty and convicted, he'll be in a prison where the others have already been convicted and have the legal right to representation for their Appeals. It would be very unwise to mess around in the legal affairs of a man serving life with no parole or looking at the DP.

JMO MOO

 

[schooling]

Right

The defences are constitutional ones.

1. Should the prosecution have had to disclose IGG in the probable cause process?
2. Should IGG be allowed at all?

Question 1 will be determined pretrial.

I expect question 2 to be kicked for touch and will eventually make it's way to the Supreme Court in some case some day.

The thing is, the IGG challenge implicitly accepts that it is his DNA. it rules out any contamination idea.

As for transfer ideas - good luck. Maybe you'd have a shot if the DNA had matched a little old lady with a tight alibi. But not 'stargazer"

I just don't feel the constitutional heat there. This was good police work.

I do agree maybe IGG should be disclosed in the probable cause phase - simply because it increases the suspicion.

MOO

This is all MOO only as I’m not an expert nor do I pretend to be one…..but IMO ”touch” dna has the reputation it has with the public for one reason.

Besides it being not being a well defined classification, IMO (since there’s a struggle to find one agreed upon definition). In true crime coverage from the early 2000s it was frequently associated with incomplete profile “matches”. With odds in the 1 in 300,000+ range. That would occasionally lead to wrongful convictions in weaker cases where there was little to no supporting evidence. JMO

BKs 5 quintillion to 1 match is not even in the same universe.

MOO

 

[Balthazar]

The Idaho crime lab DID NOT find BK's DNA on the sheath when it was originally tested.

"Journalist Howard Blum, who is working on a book about the murders, first revealed on The Megyn Kelly Show podcast:

“They sent it (the sheath) first to the lab in Idaho, and the lab in Idaho couldn’t find anything. So they thought this might be a dead end.”"

"...will the defense be able to exploit the fact that the first lab wasn’t able to make the match? Celeb attorney (and former federal prosecutor) Neama Rahmani told Newsweek on Thursday it’s the likely the latter":

“It’s a problem for the prosecution if the reports are accurate and the first lab did not match the DNA to Kohberger. Even though familial DNA matches are new, the state is going to have to explain why the first lab drew a different conclusion.”

Bryan Kohberger defense gets boost over knife sheath DNA—...

Journalist Howard Blum says Idaho investigators sent a knife sheath left at the murder scene to be tested by a startup in Texas.

www.newsweek.com

This information was also presented on Law and Crime:

"Now, according to an affadavit, the knife sheath was sent to a lab in Texas since initial testing at a lab in Idaho could not connect Bryan Kohberger to the crime scene."

IMO, this will be an issue for the Prosecution.

 

[Balthazar]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed>
Humans and bovines share 80% of our DNA.

Scientists Sequence Cow Genome

The domesticated cow has become the first livestock mammal to have its genetic blueprint sequenced and analyzed. This major milestone in animal genetics provides new information not only about cattle biology but also about mammalian evolution.

www.nih.gov

Since there was a dog in the house, humans and dogs share 84% of our DNA.

Humans and Dogs Share More Than Just DNA

Humans and dogs share a special bond that goes back thousands of years. Using science, we explore how we share our lives with dogs today.

embarkvet.com

 

[Balthazar]

Unless BK had a stint as a worker in a sheath factory his goose is cooked.

It is unusual, unlikely, illogical, contrary to science to imagine a single secondary transfer of DNA deep in the snap of a obviously well wiped by the perp knife sheath next to a victim killed by: a knife. The DNA of the accused; no surprise.

Thank goodness for the thorough tech professionals for their help in bringing justice for the 4.

All imo

Do you have a link showing that the DNA was found "deep in the snap?" What I have seen documented is that the DNA was "on the knife sheath" or "on the button of the snap."

Incidentally, you cannot "wipe" DNA off an object using a lint free cloth. Removing DNA requires the use of solvents.

"Moreover, fresh bleach, stored bleach, Trigene®, and sodium hypochlorite were very efficient in removing DNA, with recoveries from 0.0 to 0.3% from all surfaces. These five decontamination strategies (EtOH+UV, fresh bleach, stored bleach, Trigene®, and sodium hypochlorite) resulted in less than 1% of the DNA recovered from the surface."

Evaluation of Different Cleaning Strategies for Removal of Contaminating DNA Molecules - PMC

Decontamination strategies and their efficiencies are crucial when performing routine forensic analysis, and many factors influence the choice of agent to use. In this study, the effects of ten different cleaning strategies were evaluated to compare ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

There was no detection of any solvent being used on the sheath. BK had the background to know he should use a solvent to clean DNA off of objects. The fact there was no solvent used on the sheath tells me, it was likely not him. BK would have known better and used bleach to clean anything he had touched. Also, the DNA would have been on the sheath for many hours - at least 12 hours within the house and probably much longer. IF and I mean ONLY IF the DNA was located on the sheath snap, IF it is a real KBar Sheath, the snap is made of untreated brass and untreated brass degrades DNA, usually within an hour of contact. That means the 20 skin cell sample is not only miniscule it is likely to have been degraded.

 

[jepop]

The Idaho crime lab DID NOT find BK's on the sheath when it was originally tested.

"Journalist Howard Blum, who is working on a book about the murders, first revealed on The Megyn Kelly Show podcast:

“They sent it (the sheath) first to the lab in Idaho, and the lab in Idaho couldn’t find anything. So they thought this might be a dead end.”"

"...will the defense be able to exploit the fact that the first lab wasn’t able to make the match? Celeb attorney (and former federal prosecutor) Neama Rahmani told Newsweek on Thursday it’s the likely the latter":

Bryan Kohberger defense gets boost over knife sheath DNA—...

Journalist Howard Blum says Idaho investigators sent a knife sheath left at the murder scene to be tested by a startup in Texas.

www.newsweek.com

This information was also presented on Law and Crime:

"Now, according to an affadavit, the knife sheath was sent to a lab in Texas since initial testing at a lab in Idaho could not connect Bryan Kohberger to the crime scene."

IMO, this will be an issue for the Prosecution.

Blum's assertions contradict both prosecution and defense statements in pre,-trial motions re Protective Order for the IGG. His assertions are also in direct conflict with the PCA. Even the defense states it was the Idaho State lab that extracted the DNA and then developed the str profile from the single source male profile.

IMO Blum can't be relied upon as a factual source. In this instance he happens to be peddling misinformation, unless you want to believe him over the actual court filings?

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

P2 Arrest Affidavit, 29th Dec 2022

"..entered this bedroom, I could see two females in the single bed in the room. Both Goncalves and Mogen were deceased with visible stab wounds. I also later noticed what
appeared to be a tan leather knife sheath laying on the bed next to Mogen's right side (when viewed from the door). The sheath was later processed and had "Ka-Bar" 'USMC" and the United States Marine Corps eagle globe and anchor insignia stamped on the outside of it. The Idaho state lab later located a single source of male DNA (suspect Profile) left on the button snap of the knife sheath."
(my emphasis).

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/061623+States+Motion+for+Protective+Order.pdf

P2 Motion For Protective Order, 16th June 2023.

"BACKGROUND
On November 13, 2022, law enforcement found the bodies of Madison Mogen, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kemodle, and Ethan Chapin at 1122 King Road in Moscow, Idaho.
All four victims died from apparent knife wounds. Law enforcement found a Ka-Bar knife sheath on the bed next to the bodies of Madison and Kaylee. The sheath was face down and partially under both Madison’s body and the comforter on the bed. Law enforcement seized
the Ka-Bar knife sheath pursuant
to search warrant. The Idaho State Police Lab in Meridian, Idaho, located DNA on the Ka-Bar knife sheath. The ISP laboratory determined the DNA came from single source and that the source was male."

(my emphasis).

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/062323+Objection+to+States+Motion+for+Protective+Order.pdf

P2 Defense Objection to Protective Order, 22nd June 2023.

"BACKGROUND
On November 13, 2022, law enforcement, responding to 911 call found Madison Mogen, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kenodle, and Ethan Chapin deceased. Law enforcement later found Ka-Bar knife sheath placed next to Ms. Mogen on her bed. The sheath was placed
button side down and partially under Ms. Mogen and the comforter. On November 20, 2022, the ldaho State Police Lab in Meridian, Idaho located DNA on the button of the sheath and
performed STR analysis"

(my emphasis)

 

[iamshadow21]

There was no detection of any solvent being used on the sheath. BK had the background to know he should use a solvent to clean DNA off of objects. The fact there was no solvent used on the sheath tells me, it was likely not him. BK would have known better and used bleach to clean anything he had touched.

I think that says more about your perception of his competency than what he actually might have done.

Highly intelligent people with degrees make the absolute most boneheaded choices and steps when they commit murder every single day. There's the dentist who googled untraceable poisons, then decided to just order arsenic and cyanide off the internet to poison his wife with, for example. People can have all the IQ points and degrees covering their walls and just assume, I'm too smart to be caught. So they shop for supplies at Walmart and ask google how to do crime like the average meathead with a double digit IQ who they go on to share a cell with. They can plan coveralls and chlorox wipes for cleanup, but drop a sheath at the scene and not worry about it, thinking that that moment when they handled it without gloves isn't going to matter.

MOO

 

[mrjitty]

Blum's assertions contradict both prosecution and defense statements in pre,-trial motions re Protective Order for the IGG. His assertions are also in direct conflict with the PCA. Even the defense states it was the Idaho State lab that extracted the DNA and then developed the str profile from the single source male profile.

IMO Blum can't be relied upon as a factual source. In this instance he happens to be peddling misinformation, unless you want to believe him over the actual court filings?

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

P2 Arrest Affidavit, 29th Dec 2022

"..entered this bedroom, I could see two females in the single bed in the room. Both Goncalves and Mogen were deceased with visible stab wounds. I also later noticed what
appeared to be a tan leather knife sheath laying on the bed next to Mogen's right side (when viewed from the door). The sheath was later processed and had "Ka-Bar" 'USMC" and the United States Marine Corps eagle globe and anchor insignia stamped on the outside of it. The Idaho state lab later located a single source of male DNA (suspect Profile) left on the button snap of the knife sheath."
(my emphasis).

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/061623+States+Motion+for+Protective+Order.pdf

P2 Motion For Protective Order, 16th June 2023.

"BACKGROUND
On November 13, 2022, law enforcement found the bodies of Madison Mogen, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kemodle, and Ethan Chapin at 1122 King Road in Moscow, Idaho.
All four victims died from apparent knife wounds. Law enforcement found a Ka-Bar knife sheath on the bed next to the bodies of Madison and Kaylee. The sheath was face down and partially under both Madison’s body and the comforter on the bed. Law enforcement seized
the Ka-Bar knife sheath pursuant
to search warrant. The Idaho State Police Lab in Meridian, Idaho, located DNA on the Ka-Bar knife sheath. The ISP laboratory determined the DNA came from single source and that the source was male."

(my emphasis).

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/062323+Objection+to+States+Motion+for+Protective+Order.pdf

P2 Defense Objection to Protective Order, 22nd June 2023.

"BACKGROUND
On November 13, 2022, law enforcement, responding to 911 call found Madison Mogen, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kenodle, and Ethan Chapin deceased. Law enforcement later found Ka-Bar knife sheath placed next to Ms. Mogen on her bed. The sheath was placed
button side down and partially under Ms. Mogen and the comforter. On November 20, 2022, the ldaho State Police Lab in Meridian, Idaho located DNA on the button of the sheath and
performed STR analysis"

(my emphasis)

Thanks for this.

 

[gremlin444]

Blum's assertions contradict both prosecution and defense statements in pre,-trial motions re Protective Order for the IGG. His assertions are also in direct conflict with the PCA. Even the defense states it was the Idaho State lab that extracted the DNA and then developed the str profile from the single source male profile.

IMO Blum can't be relied upon as a factual source. In this instance he happens to be peddling misinformation, unless you want to believe him over the actual court filings?

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/061623+States+Motion+for+Protective+Order.pdf

P2 Motion For Protective Order, 16th June 2023.

"BACKGROUND
On November 13, 2022, law enforcement found the bodies of Madison Mogen, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kemodle, and Ethan Chapin at 1122 King Road in Moscow, Idaho.
All four victims died from apparent knife wounds. Law enforcement found a Ka-Bar knife sheath on the bed next to the bodies of Madison and Kaylee. The sheath was face down and partially under both Madison’s body and the comforter on the bed. Law enforcement seized
the Ka-Bar knife sheath pursuant
to search warrant. The Idaho State Police Lab in Meridian, Idaho, located DNA on the Ka-Bar knife sheath. The ISP laboratory determined the DNA came from single source and that the source was male."

And another quote from the same document & page:

"Law enforcement submitted the STR DNA profile obtained from the Ka-Bar knife sheath to the Combined DNA Index System (“CODIS”), database of STR DNA profiles from convicted offenders, arrestees, and crime scene evidence, to identify the source of the DNA. No match was found."

The NewsNation quote and Blum are pretty deceptive. Not being able to find a match in CODIS from the knife STR is NOT the same as not finding DNA on the sheath. Not finding a match in CODIS to the knife sheath sample DOESN'T MEAN the sheath DNA isn't BK's or is faulty--it just means BK's DNA wasn't already in CODIS. Mine isn't in CODIS--I could go and kill someone right now, leave my DNA all over the place, and they still wouldn't be able to find me in CODIS. Doesn't mean that DNA isn't mine.

 

[wendy44]

The Idaho crime lab DID NOT find BK's DNA on the sheath when it was originally tested.

"Journalist Howard Blum, who is working on a book about the murders, first revealed on The Megyn Kelly Show podcast:

“They sent it (the sheath) first to the lab in Idaho, and the lab in Idaho couldn’t find anything. So they thought this might be a dead end.”"

"...will the defense be able to exploit the fact that the first lab wasn’t able to make the match? Celeb attorney (and former federal prosecutor) Neama Rahmani told Newsweek on Thursday it’s the likely the latter":

Bryan Kohberger defense gets boost over knife sheath DNA—...

Journalist Howard Blum says Idaho investigators sent a knife sheath left at the murder scene to be tested by a startup in Texas.

www.newsweek.com

This information was also presented on Law and Crime:

"Now, according to an affadavit, the knife sheath was sent to a lab in Texas since initial testing at a lab in Idaho could not connect Bryan Kohberger to the crime scene."

IMO, this will be an issue for the Prosecution.

I think you're misreading this article. It wasn't that the lab in Idaho wasn't able to pull the dna, it was that they weren't able to make a match. So it was sent to Othram in TX to conduct the IGG.

From the article, you can see that Blum is referring to the IGG:

The lab in Texas "specialized in proprietary devices that made what is called kinship DNA," Blum said. "You could figure out a relative of the DNA that you already had, and this lab was set up to investigate unsolved murders."

And:

"It's a problem for the prosecution if the reports are accurate and the first lab did not match the DNA to Kohberger," Neama Rahmani, an attorney and former federal prosecutor, told Newsweek.

You can't fail to match the dna on the sheath to BK (or anyone else) if you never had the dna profile to begin with. In order to fail to make the match, you must have been able to pull the profile from the sheath.

JMO

 

[Nila Aella]

This is all MOO only as I’m not an expert nor do I pretend to be one…..but IMO ”touch” dna has the reputation it has with the public for one reason.

Besides it being not being a well defined classification, IMO (since there’s a struggle to find one agreed upon definition). In true crime coverage from the early 2000s it was frequently associated with incomplete profile “matches”. With odds in the 1 in 300,000+ range. That would occasionally lead to wrongful convictions in weaker cases where there was little to no supporting evidence. JMO

BKs 5 quintillion to 1 match is not even in the same universe.

MOO

It depends on the method used to report the number.
What population model did they use?
What database?
jmo

Bicka B declaration:

7 In its Motion, the government misstates the statistical rarity ofthe comparison to the DNA from the sheath (at pg 6) “the STR profile is at least 5.37 octillion times more likely to be seen if Defendant is the source than if an unrelated individual randomly selected from the general population is the source.” This reported statistic for this comparison is a Likelihood Ratio, similar to a RMP, which compares two competing hypotheses. The govemment’s statement is extremely misleading and is essentially the “Prosecutor’s Fallacy.” “The fallacy is to say that [the probability] is also the probability that the DNA at the crime scene came from someone other than the defendant. . . . It does not say that the odds that the suspect contributed the evidence are 1,000: l .” National Research Council, THE EVALUATION OF FORENSIC DNA EVIDENCE, I996, at pg 133.

Page 11

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

The "prosecutor's fallacy"—also called the fallacy of the transposed conditional—is to confuse two conditional probabilities. Let P equal the probability of a match, given the evidence genotype. The fallacy is to say that P is also the probability that the DNA at the crime scene came from someone other than the defendant. An LR of 1,000 says that the match is 1,000 times as probable if the evidence and the suspect samples that share the same profile are from the same person as it is if the samples are from different persons. It does not say that the odds that the suspect contributed the evidence DNA are 1,000:1. To obtain such a probability requires using Bayes's theorem and a prior probability that is assumed or estimated on the basis of non-DNA evidence. As stated earlier, only if that prior probability is 1/2 will the posterior odds equal the LR.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi0iK_S4oKLAxWAD1kFHULCH3UQFnoECBoQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fbooks%2FNBK232610%2F&usg=AOvVaw2XO2j7E0hwfson878ETfPM&opi=89978449

 

[wendy44]

The Idaho crime lab DID NOT find BK's DNA on the sheath when it was originally tested.

"Journalist Howard Blum, who is working on a book about the murders, first revealed on The Megyn Kelly Show podcast:

“They sent it (the sheath) first to the lab in Idaho, and the lab in Idaho couldn’t find anything. So they thought this might be a dead end.”"

"...will the defense be able to exploit the fact that the first lab wasn’t able to make the match? Celeb attorney (and former federal prosecutor) Neama Rahmani told Newsweek on Thursday it’s the likely the latter":

Bryan Kohberger defense gets boost over knife sheath DNA—...

Journalist Howard Blum says Idaho investigators sent a knife sheath left at the murder scene to be tested by a startup in Texas.

www.newsweek.com

This information was also presented on Law and Crime:

"Now, according to an affadavit, the knife sheath was sent to a lab in Texas since initial testing at a lab in Idaho could not connect Bryan Kohberger to the crime scene."

IMO, this will be an issue for the Prosecution.

I just watched the video and, again, they are talking about sending it to TX to make the match, not extract the profile. Unless you have some other link, it's inaccurate to say that the Idaho crime lab did not find BK's dna on the sheath when it was originally tested.

 

[wendy44]

There’s only one way to introduce that evidence. Which means we’ll never hear it and it would be left up to the jury to conjure that up.

If I’m a juror, I can think of a lot more reasonable of an explanation:

He drove down there and did it. Murdered 4 innocent people and got the sheath ripped off of him. And he was too busy to notice. MOO

Because after his two victims stopped struggling upstairs he heard concerned voices downstairs. So without trying to put his knife away he rushed downstairs to do more murdering. MOO

And by the time he was done with that and noticed his sheath was gone. He knew trying to retrace his steps to find it was pushing his luck. Is it next to wear he fought Ethan? On the bed? Does he turn on the lights? Is it in the hallway? The stairs? Upstairs? He had no clue where it fell off. MOO

Time’s ticking. barking dog. Screams. Struggling People Fighting him for their lives. Thumps. Blood. Adrenaline. Lost in Chaos. Someone SURELY must have called the police in his mind. So he abandoned it and hoped that the meticulous cleaning prior was enough. MOO

That’s much more reasonable than you know…a multi agency coordinated conspiracy involving dozens of law enforcement agencies and fabricated and planted evidence for some odd ball (MOO) grad student nobody from the Poconos.

MOO

Hard agree.

Go Ravens!‍

Hard disagree. Go Commies!

 

[LinasK]

I try never to say slam dunk in any case as not to jinx it <rogue or fellow 'misfit juror>, but I find it more than highly probable that the P has BK dead to rights and the jury will be able to see that from the totality of the evidence against him. We'll have a much better idea of things after the upcoming hearings next week. IMO

BK needs to prepare for prison life and practice for his role as the go to inmate prison lawyer. He would get the much wanted attention he so desperately seeks, and could talk about how smart he is all day and night long.

MOO

Oooh, he could even consult with famed attorney Lori Vallow Daybell! I hear she has an excellent record of getting motions approved.

 

[schooling]

Do you have a link showing that the DNA was found "deep in the snap?" What I have seen documented is that the DNA was "on the knife sheath" or "on the button of the snap."

Incidentally, you cannot "wipe" DNA off an object using a lint free cloth. Removing DNA requires the use of solvents.

"Moreover, fresh bleach, stored bleach, Trigene®, and sodium hypochlorite were very efficient in removing DNA, with recoveries from 0.0 to 0.3% from all surfaces. These five decontamination strategies (EtOH+UV, fresh bleach, stored bleach, Trigene®, and sodium hypochlorite) resulted in less than 1% of the DNA recovered from the surface."

Evaluation of Different Cleaning Strategies for Removal of Contaminating DNA Molecules - PMC

Decontamination strategies and their efficiencies are crucial when performing routine forensic analysis, and many factors influence the choice of agent to use. In this study, the effects of ten different cleaning strategies were evaluated to compare ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

There was no detection of any solvent being used on the sheath. BK had the background to know he should use a solvent to clean DNA off of objects. The fact there was no solvent used on the sheath tells me, it was likely not him. BK would have known better and used bleach to clean anything he had touched. Also, the DNA would have been on the sheath for many hours - at least 12 hours within the house and probably much longer. IF and I mean ONLY IF the DNA was located on the sheath snap, IF it is a real KBar Sheath, the snap is made of untreated brass and untreated brass degrades DNA, usually within an hour of contact. That means the 20 skin cell sample is not only miniscule it is likely to have been degraded.

Is this the "he should have known better" defense?

 

[Boxer]

Its the "they only caught me because I made a mistake" but I can lawyer my way out of a conviction defense.

 

[mrjitty]

We know it’s his DNA on there. Otherwise they wouldn’t have ended up settling on him via the IGG

I presume the point of this inquiry is to try to suggest his DNA was transferred there by the lab tech. But that seems vanishingly unlikely …

It’s obviously overwhelmingly more likely he is the killer.

 

[Nila Aella]

I was going to ask this as well after the many pages of discussion about the untested samples. The defense can file a motion to the court requesting they be tested. I don't recall that they've done that--does anyone remember?

They will likely do what is their jobs to do--ask law enforcement in court if other dna was found and tested and if not why not because they want to create reasonable doubt. I don't think they actually want it tested though because it would lead nowhere and then they couldn't use it to create reasonable doubt. If they believed it was actually exculpatory they would request it be tested and then conduct their own IGG to track down the owners of it. JMO

AJ told the court that the P facilitated the testing of additional trace per the D request.

3:12

jmo

As for the prosecution withholding the work product of the IGG (not directed to you, gliving, just a general comment) remember it was the FBI, not the prosecution. The FBI considered it an investigative tool and not subject to discovery.

work product​

Work product is material prepared in anticipation of litigation . Generally, work product is privileged, meaning it is exempt from discovery . However, there are exceptions. Work product is divided into two categories: ordinary and opinion.

Ordinary work product is the result of gathering basic facts or conducting interviews with witnesses , and is discoverable if there is a showing of substantial need, like a witness that becomes unavailable.

Opinion work product is the record of an attorney’s mental impressions, ideas or strategies, and is almost never subject to discovery.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj2rZWb24GLAxV6FVkFHVFuEisQFnoECBoQAw&url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/work_product#:~:text=Work%20product%20is%20material%20prepared,two%20categories%3A%20ordinary%20and%20opinion.&usg=AOvVaw2PU13rAxkWUH9SuplzhuOW&opi=89978449

(g) Prosecution Information Not Subject to Disclosure.

(1) Work Product. Disclosure must not be required of:

(A) legal research or of records,
(B) correspondence, or
(C) reports or memoranda to the extent that they contain the opinions, theories or conclusions of the prosecuting attorney or members of the prosecuting attorney's legal staff.

(2) Informants. Disclosure must not be required of an informant's identity unless the informant is to be produced as a witness at a hearing or trial, subject to any protective order under subsection (l) of this rule or a disclosure order under subsection (b)(6) of this rule

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwit9c2O24GLAxWcFFkFHaQdNAMQFnoECAsQAQ&url=https://isc.idaho.gov/icr16&usg=AOvVaw1hP5u11pI4ds817oq8yDuo&opi=89978449

DOJ policy on FGG
If a suspect is arrested and charged with a criminal offense after an FGG profile has been entered into one or more DTC services, the investigative agency shall make a prompt formal request that all FGG profiles and associated account information and data held by any such service be removed from its records and provided directly to the investigative agency.27 The investigative agency shall document its request and compliance by the DTC service(s). All FGG profiles, account information, and data shall be retained by the investigative agency for potential use during prosecution and subsequent judicial proceedings.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiX8f3Y3YOLAxVjD1kFHZKtK8MQFnoECBgQAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.justice.gov%2Folp%2Fpage%2Ffile%2F1204386%2Fdl%23%3A~%3Atext%3DA%2520suspect%2520shall%2520not%2520be%2Cprofile%2520previously%2520uploaded%2520to%2520CODIS.&usg=AOvVaw3R2xn9gR19SoiKz0CcBuyl&opi=89978449

IGG is not a tip
Evidence from a crime scene being tested is not a tip
The results of a test on evidence from a crime scene - not a tip.
The fbi, an active participant in the investigation of this case, is not a tipster.
The lab testing evidence from a crime scene and reporting results is not a confidential informant.
The tip/fbi did it (O did it too) and neither will hand it over/confidential informant/investigative tool/work product excuses are the P trying to avoid discovery.

ALL JMO

 

[mrjitty]

It depends on the method used to report the number.
What population model did they use?
What database?
jmo

Bicka B declaration:

7 In its Motion, the government misstates the statistical rarity ofthe comparison to the DNA from the sheath (at pg 6) “the STR profile is at least 5.37 octillion times more likely to be seen if Defendant is the source than if an unrelated individual randomly selected from the general population is the source.” This reported statistic for this comparison is a Likelihood Ratio, similar to a RMP, which compares two competing hypotheses. The govemment’s statement is extremely misleading and is essentially the “Prosecutor’s Fallacy.” “The fallacy is to say that [the probability] is also the probability that the DNA at the crime scene came from someone other than the defendant. . . . It does not say that the odds that the suspect contributed the evidence are 1,000: l .” National Research Council, THE EVALUATION OF FORENSIC DNA EVIDENCE, I996, at pg 133.

Page 11

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

The "prosecutor's fallacy"—also called the fallacy of the transposed conditional—is to confuse two conditional probabilities. Let P equal the probability of a match, given the evidence genotype. The fallacy is to say that P is also the probability that the DNA at the crime scene came from someone other than the defendant. An LR of 1,000 says that the match is 1,000 times as probable if the evidence and the suspect samples that share the same profile are from the same person as it is if the samples are from different persons. It does not say that the odds that the suspect contributed the evidence DNA are 1,000:1. To obtain such a probability requires using Bayes's theorem and a prior probability that is assumed or estimated on the basis of non-DNA evidence. As stated earlier, only if that prior probability is 1/2 will the posterior odds equal the LR.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi0iK_S4oKLAxWAD1kFHULCH3UQFnoECBoQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fbooks%2FNBK232610%2F&usg=AOvVaw2XO2j7E0hwfson878ETfPM&opi=89978449

I have as much anorak hankering for stats as the next man (having studied it) but I feel like there is a bunch of whataboutism in this filing. Labs have been matching DNA between suspects and DNA recovered from crime scenes for decades. Are we really going to start suggesting they don't know what a water tight match is? Suddenly in this case?

Barlow is arguing in that filing as to whether the details of the IGG need to be disclosed. But the evidence against him is not the IGG. It is the direct match obtained betweeh his DNA and that found at the crime scene.

So i understand the constitutional IGG argument - ultimately the highest appeal courts in the land will decide - but as a factual question, I am not seeing any fallacy here. We know its a stone cold match.

 

[mrjitty]

AJ told the court that the P facilitated the testing of additional trace per the D request.

3:12

jmo

work product​

Work product is material prepared in anticipation of litigation . Generally, work product is privileged, meaning it is exempt from discovery . However, there are exceptions. Work product is divided into two categories: ordinary and opinion.

Ordinary work product is the result of gathering basic facts or conducting interviews with witnesses , and is discoverable if there is a showing of substantial need, like a witness that becomes unavailable.

Opinion work product is the record of an attorney’s mental impressions, ideas or strategies, and is almost never subject to discovery.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj2rZWb24GLAxV6FVkFHVFuEisQFnoECBoQAw&url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/work_product#:~:text=Work%20product%20is%20material%20prepared,two%20categories%3A%20ordinary%20and%20opinion.&usg=AOvVaw2PU13rAxkWUH9SuplzhuOW&opi=89978449

(g) Prosecution Information Not Subject to Disclosure.

(1) Work Product. Disclosure must not be required of:

(A) legal research or of records,
(B) correspondence, or
(C) reports or memoranda to the extent that they contain the opinions, theories or conclusions of the prosecuting attorney or members of the prosecuting attorney's legal staff.

(2) Informants. Disclosure must not be required of an informant's identity unless the informant is to be produced as a witness at a hearing or trial, subject to any protective order under subsection (l) of this rule or a disclosure order under subsection (b)(6) of this rule

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwit9c2O24GLAxWcFFkFHaQdNAMQFnoECAsQAQ&url=https://isc.idaho.gov/icr16&usg=AOvVaw1hP5u11pI4ds817oq8yDuo&opi=89978449

DOJ policy on FGG
If a suspect is arrested and charged with a criminal offense after an FGG profile has been entered into one or more DTC services, the investigative agency shall make a prompt formal request that all FGG profiles and associated account information and data held by any such service be removed from its records and provided directly to the investigative agency.27 The investigative agency shall document its request and compliance by the DTC service(s). All FGG profiles, account information, and data shall be retained by the investigative agency for potential use during prosecution and subsequent judicial proceedings.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiX8f3Y3YOLAxVjD1kFHZKtK8MQFnoECBgQAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.justice.gov%2Folp%2Fpage%2Ffile%2F1204386%2Fdl%23%3A~%3Atext%3DA%2520suspect%2520shall%2520not%2520be%2Cprofile%2520previously%2520uploaded%2520to%2520CODIS.&usg=AOvVaw3R2xn9gR19SoiKz0CcBuyl&opi=89978449

IGG is not a tip
Evidence from a crime scene being tested is not a tip
The results of a test on evidence from a crime scene - not a tip.
The fbi, an active participant in the investigation of this case, is not a tipster.
The lab testing evidence from a crime scene and reporting results is not a confidential informant.
The tip/fbi did it (O did it too) and neither will hand it over/confidential informant/investigative tool/work product excuses are the P trying to avoid discovery.

ALL JMO

I have some sympathy for this argument.

Though again, ultimately I am not sure how it helps the defence unless you really believe other suspects were revealed and somehow one of them is the real killer whose DNA will also be a direct match?

Like where does this inquiry take you? What dark secrets are concealed? Why would the FBI have decided not to bother about alt suspects?