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

[Nila Aella]

Reply to States Objection to MTC and sanctions

The lab protocols and evidence collection procedures have not been disclosed.

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR01-24-31665/2025/010725-Reply-States-Objection-DefendantsMtC-ICR16b7-Material-Sanctions.pdf

 

[wendy44]

BBM

The State fought to not turn over the IGG material from the very beginning.
The fbi and every agency that assisted MPD's inquiry are agents of the State.

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

JMO

Yes, this is true. My point was in clarifying that it's the FBI that was refusing to turn over the IGG work product. Not the local prosecution. In my opinion, this is an important distinction because when people say that the prosecution refused to turn over the IGG, it sows distrust with the prosecution. It paints them as shady, as withholding evidence, as possibly corrupt. The local prosecutors couldn't turn over what they didn't have.
JMO

 

[SpiderFalcon]

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR01-24-31665/2025/012225-Order-Denying-Motion-Unseal-IGG-Suppression-Briefing-Hearing.pdf

 

[jepop]

Reply to States Objection to MTC and sanctions

The lab protocols and evidence collection procedures have not been disclosed.

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR01-24-31665/2025/010725-Reply-States-Objection-DefendantsMtC-ICR16b7-Material-Sanctions.pdf

Just bouncing off your post.
………....................................................
For those who won't necessarily read the entire defense reply to the prosecution's objection, there is a context to this statement.

On its own, anyone might just decide to run with the 'headline' so to speak, and make some unjustified or unsupported assumptions there is something wrong or lacking in ISL protocols and procedures.

Here's the context. Footnote no. 2.

"2 The State submitted exhibit S-1 to its objection as an example of discovery that qualifies as an expert report. This exhibit is a list of items collected. If the witness associated with this list is simply a chain of custody witness, an opinion is not
necessary. If the witness will testify that evidence was collected in accordance with her training, proper procedure, and lab protocols, that calls for and qualifies as her opinion. If this witness testifies that others gathered evidence in accordance
with proper procedure and protocols, that also qualifies as an opinion. The lab protocols and evidence collection
procedures have not been disclosed. If the State wishes to elicit her opinion regarding whether or not evidence was collected in accordance with her training and lab protocols, that is an opinion. If the State wishes to elicit any results of the tests and what they mean, that is an opinion. This is a good example of how the State’s disclosures related to DNA are
lacking in this case".

*So the state attached an exhibit (out of X number of exhibits?) which comprised a list of items collected (from where unspecified).

*And imo the D is saying in a fantastically round-about way, that lab protocol did not accompany this list in this specific disclosure? Probably, maybe, all of the above?

Two things which stand out to me regarding the footnote.

1) last sentence is D taking a little time to have a dig at the state with irrelevant general snark.
2) The footnote articulates a series of ifs and uncertainties.

Noting, since this was filed, P has supplemented their expert disclosure filing (see latest case summary page, numerous links up thread.)

MOO What this footnote does not do, is prove or confirm in any way that the P is 'hiding' ISl lab protocol/procedure or that there is 'something wrong' with ISL protocol or procedure. That would be a stretch for sure. Jmo.

 

[wendy44]

Reply to States Objection to MTC and sanctions

The lab protocols and evidence collection procedures have not been disclosed.

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR01-24-31665/2025/010725-Reply-States-Objection-DefendantsMtC-ICR16b7-Material-Sanctions.pdf

This is the whole footnote:

2 The State submitted exhibit S-1 to its objection as an example of discovery that qualifies as an expert report. This exhibit is a list of items collected. If the witness associated with this list is simply a chain of custody witness, an opinion is not necessary. If the witness will testify that evidence was collected in accordance with her training, proper procedure, and lab protocols, that calls for and qualifies as her opinion. If this witness testifies that others gathered evidence in accordance with proper procedure and protocols, that also qualifies as an opinion. The lab protocols and evidence collection procedures have not been disclosed. If the State wishes to elicit her opinion regarding whether or not evidence was collected in accordance with her training and lab protocols, that is an opinion. If the State wishes to elicit any results of the tests and what they mean, that is an opinion. This is a good example of how the State’s disclosures related to DNA are lacking in this case.

This is some back and forth between the prosecution and defense over the expert witness list. The defense is saying the reports submitted by the state's expert witnesses are inadequate. This particular footnote refers to the Toxicology Reports (S-1):

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR01-24-31665/2024/123124-Objection-Defendants-MtC-ICR16b7-Material-Sanctions.pdf

This is about what type of report the expert witness/toxicologist who worked in the lab needs to provide. I'm not sure why they cited toxicology reports as an example that disclosures related to DNA are lacking. The prosecution addressed the dna on page 9:

Exhibits S-15 through S-25 all relate to Idaho State Police Forensic Lab experts. First,the Defendant claims “not a single DNA expert opinion or report was produced.” This is simply not true. In each of these responses the State refers the Defendant to specific lab reports and the corresponding bates numbers. The Defendant’s apparent argument that the State is required to make duplicative disclosures is unsupported. A simple reference to where Defendant can find the report is adequate. Each report provides a basis to determine what the expert’s opinion is through there ferenced Lab Report. As an example, the State is attaching bates 9323-9354 for the Court’s review of how these disclosures comply with the requirements of I.C.R. 16(b)(7). See Exhibit S1 attached. The State follows suit in disclosures S-16 through S-20, and S-22 through S-25. The State’s expert disclosures regarding Lab experts satisfy the requirements of I.C.R. 16(b)(7). For S-21, the State disclosed Rylene Nowlin as an expert. It is anticipated that this witness is actually a rebuttal witness who is prepared to testify regarding secondary transfer if necessary. The State contends the notice provided is sufficient pursuant to Rule 16(b)(7) but reserves the right to amend this disclosure upon review of the Defendant’s guilt phase experts and pending discovery disclosure.

So the defense said not a single DNA expert opinion or report was produced. The state says this is not true and details the exhibits showing this isn't true. And the defense comes back and says that lab protocols and evidence collection procedures weren't disclosed in the reports of the toxicologists and this is an example of how the state's disclosures related to DNA are lacking in this case?
JMO

 

[jepop]

This is the whole footnote:

2 The State submitted exhibit S-1 to its objection as an example of discovery that qualifies as an expert report. This exhibit is a list of items collected. If the witness associated with this list is simply a chain of custody witness, an opinion is not necessary. If the witness will testify that evidence was collected in accordance with her training, proper procedure, and lab protocols, that calls for and qualifies as her opinion. If this witness testifies that others gathered evidence in accordance with proper procedure and protocols, that also qualifies as an opinion. The lab protocols and evidence collection procedures have not been disclosed. If the State wishes to elicit her opinion regarding whether or not evidence was collected in accordance with her training and lab protocols, that is an opinion. If the State wishes to elicit any results of the tests and what they mean, that is an opinion. This is a good example of how the State’s disclosures related to DNA are lacking in this case.

This is some back and forth between the prosecution and defense over the expert witness list. The defense is saying the reports submitted by the state's expert witnesses are inadequate. This particular footnote refers to the Toxicology Reports (S-1):

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR01-24-31665/2024/123124-Objection-Defendants-MtC-ICR16b7-Material-Sanctions.pdf

This is about what type of report the expert witness/toxicologist who worked in the lab needs to provide. I'm not sure why they cited toxicology reports as an example that disclosures related to DNA are lacking. The prosecution addressed the dna on page 9:

Exhibits S-15 through S-25 all relate to Idaho State Police Forensic Lab experts. First,the Defendant claims “not a single DNA expert opinion or report was produced.” This is simply not true. In each of these responses the State refers the Defendant to specific lab reports and the corresponding bates numbers. The Defendant’s apparent argument that the State is required to make duplicative disclosures is unsupported. A simple reference to where Defendant can find the report is adequate. Each report provides a basis to determine what the expert’s opinion is through there ferenced Lab Report. As an example, the State is attaching bates 9323-9354 for the Court’s review of how these disclosures comply with the requirements of I.C.R. 16(b)(7). See Exhibit S1 attached. The State follows suit in disclosures S-16 through S-20, and S-22 through S-25. The State’s expert disclosures regarding Lab experts satisfy the requirements of I.C.R. 16(b)(7). For S-21, the State disclosed Rylene Nowlin as an expert. It is anticipated that this witness is actually a rebuttal witness who is prepared to testify regarding secondary transfer if necessary. The State contends the notice provided is sufficient pursuant to Rule 16(b)(7) but reserves the right to amend this disclosure upon review of the Defendant’s guilt phase experts and pending discovery disclosure.

So the defense said not a single DNA expert opinion or report was produced. The state says this is not true and details the exhibits showing this isn't true. And the defense comes back and says that lab protocols and evidence collection procedures weren't disclosed in the reports of the toxicologists and this is an example of how the state's disclosures related to DNA are lacking in this case?
JMO

Wendy@44, we were having similar thoughts simultaneously it seems. Thanks for providing the extra context. Your ability to see the wider picture and synthesise is awesome.

 

[Nila Aella]

Yes, this is true. My point was in clarifying that it's the FBI that was refusing to turn over the IGG work product.

There were two labs. The private lab and the fbi.
The FBi and the private lab are agents of the State.
The State was refusing.
The Private Lab, the FBI, ISP, WSU, all agents of the State. If they refuse, the State is refusing.
The State refused until an order was issued by the Judge.
Then it was available, as far as we know, because we haven't heard what the MTCs are regarding.

It is not like they didn't talk about the request. They were not working seperately. Did they disagree on producing it? Is that what you are saying? That the prosecution asked but the FBI told the P, No sorry?

Unlikey IMO.

JMO

Not the local prosecution. In my opinion, this is an important distinction because when people say that the prosecution refused to turn over the IGG, it sows distrust with the prosecution. It paints them as shady, as withholding evidence, as possibly corrupt. The local prosecutors couldn't turn over what they didn't have.
JMO

The Judge was very clear that the fbi was an agent of the State.
The State includes the FBI and the private lab and any agency that worked on this investigation.

Rules of discovery:

The prosecuting attorney's obligations under this paragraph extend to material and information in the possession or control of members of the prosecuting attorney's staff and of any others who have participated in the investigation or evaluation of the case who either regularly report, or have reported in that case, to the office of the prosecuting attorney.

(5) Reports of Examinations and Tests. On written request of the defendant, the prosecuting attorney must permit the defendant to inspect and copy any results or reports of physical or mental examinations, and of scientific tests or experiments, made in connection with the particular case, that are in the possession, custody or control of the prosecuting attorney or the existence of which is known or is available to the prosecuting attorney by the exercise of due diligence.

This is what toughy letters are for.
JMO

 

[Balthazar]

Leather is cleaned and treated prior to use. (Not disinfected per se)..

I would think there would be no bovine DNA on the surface.

Bovine DNA exists on all bovine leather because that is 100% what it is made of - skin cells. The nuclear DNA is damaged during the process of tanning, but the mitochondrial DNA still exists. In fact, leather manufacturers use DNA information nowadays to protect their products and help them to get through US Customs (and customs in other countries) by identifying the source. DNA is used by US Customs nowadays to detect counterfeit leather products and prevent the importation of leather from exotic protected species which are not permitted in the US.

There are even companies which specialize in DNA testing of leather to insure complete traceability and tracking from harvest through manufacturing and logistics for the supply chain of the completed leather item protecting intellectual property from fraud, counterfeiting, theft, and diversion. Here is one of them:

Leather Sourcing Gets One Step Closer to Supply Chain Traceability

Brands and retailers sourcing leather for their products are a step closer to being more equipped to trace the raw material through their supply chains.

adnas.com

JMO

 

[Nila Aella]

This is the whole footnote:

2 The State submitted exhibit S-1 to its objection as an example of discovery that qualifies as an expert report. This exhibit is a list of items collected. If the witness associated with this list is simply a chain of custody witness, an opinion is not necessary. If the witness will testify that evidence was collected in accordance with her training, proper procedure, and lab protocols, that calls for and qualifies as her opinion. If this witness testifies that others gathered evidence in accordance with proper procedure and protocols, that also qualifies as an opinion. The lab protocols and evidence collection procedures have not been disclosed. If the State wishes to elicit her opinion regarding whether or not evidence was collected in accordance with her training and lab protocols, that is an opinion. If the State wishes to elicit any results of the tests and what they mean, that is an opinion. This is a good example of how the State’s disclosures related to DNA are lacking in this case.

This is some back and forth between the prosecution and defense over the expert witness list. The defense is saying the reports submitted by the state's expert witnesses are inadequate. This particular footnote refers to the Toxicology Reports (S-1):

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR01-24-31665/2024/123124-Objection-Defendants-MtC-ICR16b7-Material-Sanctions.pdf

This is about what type of report the expert witness/toxicologist who worked in the lab needs to provide. I'm not sure why they cited toxicology reports as an example that disclosures related to DNA are lacking. The prosecution addressed the dna on page 9:

Exhibits S-15 through S-25 all relate to Idaho State Police Forensic Lab experts. First,the Defendant claims “not a single DNA expert opinion or report was produced.” This is simply not true. In each of these responses the State refers the Defendant to specific lab reports and the corresponding bates numbers. The Defendant’s apparent argument that the State is required to make duplicative disclosures is unsupported. A simple reference to where Defendant can find the report is adequate. Each report provides a basis to determine what the expert’s opinion is through the referenced Lab Report. As an example, the State is attaching bates 9323-9354 for the Court’s review of how these disclosures comply with the requirements of I.C.R. 16(b)(7). See Exhibit S1 attached. The State follows suit in disclosures S-16 through S-20, and S-22 through S-25. The State’s expert disclosures regarding Lab experts satisfy the requirements of I.C.R. 16(b)(7). For S-21, the State disclosed Rylene Nowlin as an expert. It is anticipated that this witness is actually a rebuttal witness who is prepared to testify regarding secondary transfer if necessary. The State contends the notice provided is sufficient pursuant to Rule 16(b)(7) but reserves the right to amend this disclosure upon review of the Defendant’s guilt phase experts and pending discovery disclosure.

BBM

Referring the D to a bates number.
The P wants the D to determine what the experts opinion is by reading a lab report.
A lab report has a result which does not equal a summary of an expert opinion.
If the expert is just going to testify that this is the result. ok.
If they are going to give an opinion regarding the result. Need a summary.
JMO


(7) Expert Witnesses. On written request of the defendant, the prosecutor must provide a written summary or report of any testimony that the state intends to introduce at trial or at a hearing pursuant to Rules 702, 703 or 705 of the Idaho Rules of Evidence. The summary provided must describe the witness’s opinions, the facts and data for those opinions, and the witness's qualifications. Disclosure of expert opinions regarding mental health must also comply with the requirements of Idaho Code § 18-207. The prosecution is not required to produce any materials not subject to disclosure under subsection (g) of this Rule. This subsection does not require disclosure of expert witnesses, their opinions, the facts and data for those opinions, or the witness's qualifications, intended only to rebut evidence or theories that have not been disclosed under this Rule prior to trial.
JMO

So the defense said not a single DNA expert opinion or report was produced. The state says this is not true and details the exhibits showing this isn't true. And the defense comes back and says that lab protocols and evidence collection procedures weren't disclosed in the reports of the toxicologists and this is an example of how the state's disclosures related to DNA are lacking in this case?
JMO.

The genetic material information is sealed.

The State itself uses S1 as an example then states that it follows suit with S16-20 and S22-25.

The D replied using the same example.

JMO

 

[jepop]

BBM

The State fought to not turn over the IGG material from the very beginning.
The fbi and every agency that assisted MPD's inquiry are agents of the State.

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

JMO

Yes, the P sought a protective order from the beginning and provided logical reasons imo for that. Yes, filings and arguments were reasonably considered by the judge, resulting in IGG materials deemed appropriate by that judge turned over to the defense via Jan 2024 order.

My point, there was nothing 'wrong' with P's initial attempt to seek a protective order. Was done above board and within the confines of the law. Jmo but pp30 -31 below are a good summary of the situation and judge's findings when he ordered the in-camera review. Noting throughout the entire document he does not reprimand the state once for 'witholding" IGG materials in some underhand manner.

Oct 31 2023.

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/102523-Order-Addressing-IGG-DNA.pdf

 

[Nila Aella]

The State:

Turning to the case at hand, on December 18, 2024, the State disclosed 25 potential2 experts the State intends to call at trial. The Defendant takes issue with 22 of the disclosures claiming they are insufficient. All 25 of the State’s disclosures comply with the Court’s Order and I.C.R. 16(b)(7) and are not the “generic discovery response” as presented in Morin. All 25 disclosures encompass more than a “mere list of topics or general subject matter which an expert witness may testify.” Morin at 626, 1217. Each disclosure informs Defendant of the main opinion to which each expert will testify and the CV which that opinion is based upon as required by Koch. For experts where the State does not have a report, as further held by Koch, “if there is no data, [the State doesn’t] have to produce data.” The State addresses each objection to the proposed disclosures as follows:

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR01-24-31665/2024/123124-Objection-Defendants-MtC-ICR16b7-Material-Sanctions.pdf

(7) Expert Witnesses. On written request of the defendant, the prosecutor must provide a written summary or report of any testimony that the state intends to introduce at trial or at a hearing pursuant to Rules 702, 703 or 705 of the Idaho Rules of Evidence. The summary provided must describe the witness’s opinions, the facts and data for those opinions, and the witness's qualifications.

Giving the witnesses main opinion.
Is that enough?

JMO

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

Bovine DNA exists on all bovine leather because that is 100% what it is made of - skin cells. The nuclear DNA is damaged during the process of tanning, but the mitochondrial DNA still exists. In fact, leather manufacturers use DNA information nowadays to protect their products and help them to get through US Customs (and customs in other countries) by identifying the source. DNA is used by US Customs nowadays to detect counterfeit leather products and prevent the importation of leather from exotic protected species which are not permitted in the US.

There are even companies which specialize in DNA testing of leather to insure complete traceability and tracking from harvest through manufacturing and logistics for the supply chain of the completed leather item protecting intellectual property from fraud, counterfeiting, theft, and diversion. Here is one of them:

Leather Sourcing Gets One Step Closer to Supply Chain Traceability

Brands and retailers sourcing leather for their products are a step closer to being more equipped to trace the raw material through their supply chains.

adnas.com

JMO

There is zero reason to think that an area of the sheath was cut out, and cut into tiny pieces, for extracting DNA. The suspect's DNA would be on the surface of sheath, not inside the leather.
You can't get DNA from dead skin that has been cleaned, treated/tanned, unless it is by extraction and even then it is problematic, just as a dead humans are never simply swabbed on exposed skin to get DNA. DNA degrades, it is not preserved by processing. I would liken it to using extraction on human bone marrow to get a deceased person's DNA.
The process you are linking is before the hides are treated, still likely to be extraction method, not swabbing the live animal before slaughter. Those samples and tags/documentation are attached to the processed hides, I've seen them at the leather/fabric store.

https://aurak.ac.ae/publications/DNA-for-Species-Identification-in-Leather-Fraud-Detection-and-Endangered-Species-Protection.pdf

 

[Arkay]

Bovine DNA exists on all bovine leather because that is 100% what it is made of - skin cells. The nuclear DNA is damaged during the process of tanning, but the mitochondrial DNA still exists. In fact, leather manufacturers use DNA information nowadays to protect their products and help them to get through US Customs (and customs in other countries) by identifying the source. DNA is used by US Customs nowadays to detect counterfeit leather products and prevent the importation of leather from exotic protected species which are not permitted in the US.

There are even companies which specialize in DNA testing of leather to insure complete traceability and tracking from harvest through manufacturing and logistics for the supply chain of the completed leather item protecting intellectual property from fraud, counterfeiting, theft, and diversion. Here is one of them:

Leather Sourcing Gets One Step Closer to Supply Chain Traceability

Brands and retailers sourcing leather for their products are a step closer to being more equipped to trace the raw material through their supply chains.

adnas.com

JMO

I can see the value of pursuing bovine DNA when the goal is to distinguish between counterfeit vs. genuine leather products, and in retaining intellectual property rights.

But clearly this is not the goal for establishing a murder suspect’s identity.

Maybe we can stipulate that bovine DNA may be present in some minute proportion, but that it is irrelevant to a murder investigation and time is not wasted on examining that course any further.

It would be beyond senseless IMO for homicide detectives to spend any time with this at all.

BK’s DNA was found where we know it was found after LE found his father’s DNA. It’s science, it’s not hocus-pocus; the chain of evidence would certainly satisfy me as a juror.

I don’t need proof that the snap was ensconced in leather to prove to me that Brian’s DNA is Brian’s DNA.

Just my opinion.

 

[schooling]

MOO

They want is excluded b/c they have not seen the process on how they came to the conclusion it his DNA from what I understand but definitely could be wrong.

You're misunderstanding.

The sample that hit on CODIS was pulled directly off of the sheath at a local lab. It's chain of custody is 100% removed from the IGG. You can argue how his DNA got on the sheath...but that's his DNA.

What's at contention is whether or not the IGG led prosecutors to Kohberger. And what the process looked. And they are focusing in on Detective Payne and the FBI. IMO opinion Detective Payne is telling the truth. Andt he FBI is just avoiding setting a precedent on one of the most effective cold case clearning tool since DNA itself.

Because of this the defense wants the CODIS thrown out as fruit from a poison tree. They've never argued that it's not his DNA. Besides some weak filing (IMO) where they tried to further muddy the waters (IMO).

The confusion between the IGG/Familial DBs and the Full Profile/CODIS is the point. What the defense is attempting to do is working IMO.

 

[wendy44]

There were two labs. The private lab and the fbi.
The FBi and the private lab are agents of the State.
The State was refusing.
The Private Lab, the FBI, ISP, WSU, all agents of the State. If they refuse, the State is refusing.
The State refused until an order was issued by the Judge.
Then it was available, as far as we know, because we haven't heard what the MTCs are regarding.

It is not like they didn't talk about the request. They were not working seperately. Did they disagree on producing it? Is that what you are saying? That the prosecution asked but the FBI told the P, No sorry?

Unlikey IMO.

Snipped by me--We have no idea what the conversations were between the prosecution and FBI. All we know is that the defense asked for the work product and the prosecution said they could not turn over what they didn't have. The materials were held by the FBI. This is the court record. There is case law supporting the position of the FBI. Trial courts in at least one other jurisdiction have said that IGG work product is not subject to discovery in a very similar case. Ultimately it was at the discretion of Judge Judge. The legal wrangling over this is typical and to be expected. The prosecution could not force the FBI to turn it over. Only the court could.

Howard Blum reported in his book that the FBI had the name from the IGG for some time and were reluctant to turn it over to local law enforcement. I'm not sure how closely they were working together. They were certainly concerned with protecting their investigative method by refusing to turn over the work product. With IGG, you can find anyone if you have their DNA. Sometimes in a matter of 30 minutes. The 4th Amendment challenge is inevitable.

It is true that these are all agents of the state. It is true that the FBI held the work product, not the prosecution. Both can be true. If you want the full picture of this case, I think it's important to understand the nuance of the battle over the IGG work product. You can say, "The state wouldn't turn it over." but you're not really explaining what was actually going on.
JMO

 

[jepop]

I can see the value of pursuing bovine DNA when the goal is to distinguish between counterfeit vs. genuine leather products, and in retaining intellectual property rights.

But clearly this is not the goal for establishing a murder suspect’s identity.

Maybe we can stipulate that bovine DNA may be present in some minute proportion, but that it is irrelevant to a murder investigation and time is not wasted on examining that course any further.

It would be beyond senseless IMO for homicide detectives to spend any time with this at all.

BK’s DNA was found where we know it was found after LE found his father’s DNA. It’s science, it’s not hocus-pocus; the chain of evidence would certainly satisfy me as a juror.

I don’t need proof that the snap was ensconced in leather to prove to me that Brian’s DNA is Brian’s DNA.

Just my opinion.

Yes, this Bovine DNA topic may have moved beyond what is relatable to this case imo.

 

[schooling]

I can see the value of pursuing bovine DNA when the goal is to distinguish between counterfeit vs. genuine leather products, and in retaining intellectual property rights.

But clearly this is not the goal for establishing a murder suspect’s identity.

Maybe we can stipulate that bovine DNA may be present in some minute proportion, but that it is irrelevant to a murder investigation and time is not wasted on examining that course any further.

It would be beyond senseless IMO for homicide detectives to spend any time with this at all.

BK’s DNA was found where we know it was found after LE found his father’s DNA. It’s science, it’s not hocus-pocus; the chain of evidence would certainly satisfy me as a juror.

I don’t need proof that the snap was ensconced in leather to prove to me that Brian’s DNA is Brian’s DNA.

Just my opinion.

Maybe the bovine DNA on the Bruno Magli's and the one bloody glove will finally lead us to the real killers.

 

[Nila Aella]

Yes, the P sought a protective order from the beginning and provided logical reasons imo for that. Yes, filings and arguments were reasonably considered by the judge, resulting in IGG materials deemed appropriate by that judge turned over to the defense via Jan 2024 order.

My point, there was nothing 'wrong' with P's initial attempt to seek a protective order. Was done above board and within the confines of the law.

I agree.

I take issue with trying to blame the fbi (only) for being responsible for holding it back or not wanting to produce it.

The State tried to protect it, some of it was ordered to be produced, and it was produced.

JMO

Jmo but pp30 -31 below are a good summary of the situation and judge's findings when he ordered the in-camera review. Noting throughout the entire document he does not reprimand the state once for 'witholding" IGG materials in some underhand manner.

Oct 31 2023.

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/102523-Order-Addressing-IGG-DNA.pdf

Again I agree.
JMO

 

[jepop]

I agree.

I take issue with trying to blame the fbi (only) for being responsible for holding it back or not wanting to produce it.

The State tried to protect it, some of it was ordered to be produced, and it was produced.

JMO

Again I agree.
JMO

Thanks and appreciate the clarification.

I believe there were certain items or materials related to the IGG that the state had difficulty getting from the FBI at various points. May also be some confusion regarding the federal supeonas issued by FBI via fed investigative grand jury which were referenced in the semi open (constrained) hearing re 4th Motion to compel, end of May 2024 IIRC. There was a closed 5 MTC hearing also at that time ( May 2024) related I believe to IGG materials, imo materials additional to what had already been handed over and this likely would have involved additional IGG materials the FBI may have had or not had (just speculating as we don't know). Moo

Am ready to move back into the present at this point.

 

[INfisherman]

There is zero reason to think that an area of the sheath was cut out, and cut into tiny pieces, for extracting DNA. The suspect's DNA would be on the surface of sheath, not inside the leather.
You can't get DNA from dead skin that has been cleaned, treated/tanned, unless it is by extraction and even then it is problematic, just as a dead humans are never simply swabbed on exposed skin to get DNA. DNA degrades, it is not preserved by processing. I would liken it to using extraction on human bone marrow to get a deceased person's DNA.
The process you are linking is before the hides are treated, still likely to be extraction method, not swabbing the live animal before slaughter. Those samples and tags/documentation are attached to the processed hides, I've seen them at the leather/fabric store.

https://aurak.ac.ae/publications/DNA-for-Species-Identification-in-Leather-Fraud-Detection-and-Endangered-Species-Protection.pdf

Finally! Thank you for spoon feeding us, NoSpoonFeeding

Not to run it into the ground & certainly no disrespect intended towards OP. I was sure about test methods for leather ID being destructive, which would be an issue with preserving evidence but it was a real pain to confirm whether swabbing would grab additional cells. No need to read provided link as it’s quite a ridiculously long read but the important part was they did punch biopsy to gain samples in this case, which was an attempt to determine degradation due to tanning. Now we can discuss matters related to the case until the cows come home.

The Influence of Tanning Chemical Agents on DNA Degradation: A Robust Procedure for the Analysis of Tanned Animal Hide—A Pilot Study - PMC

Illegal wildlife trade is currently on the rise, and it is becoming one of the most lucrative crime sectors. The rarer the species, the higher the demand. Wildlife trade falls under international regulations, such as the CITES convention. Proving ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

MOO