4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #99

[MassGuy]

If the DNA source submitted his sample to a database that offers an explicit guarantee that law enforcement cannot source or use said sample for investigative purposes without a judicial order, and they did so anyway, then there is more than one Kohlberger whose rights could've been violated here.

This is not as clear cut as you suggest.

JMO.

No, it is clear cut, hence the skepticism from the judge. I've been worried about evidence being excluded from some of the cases I've followed, but there's nothing remotely concerning to me here. He had zero expectation of privacy, and it's not like his DNA was present on the sites law enforcement used. They simply used a technique that is against those companies' policies, but totally legal.

Taylor said police never sought warrants to analyze the DNA found at the crime scene, nor did they get warrants to analyze the DNA of potential relatives that had been submitted to genealogy databases. Then, she said, the FBI violated its own Investigative Genetic Genealogy interim policy by running the data through a database that wasn’t approved under the policy.

Deputy Attorney General Jeff Nye, one of the prosecutors, said there is nothing unconstitutional about the use of IGG. Kohberger isn’t asserting that he provided his own DNA to a genealogy site and then had it misused, Nye said, and defendants don’t have any right to privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.

The U.S. Department of Justice policy for IGG doesn’t exclude other legal investigative techniques, Nye said. Even if FBI investigators used an online genealogy database that wasn’t included in the policy, at most that might be a violation of the terms of service of the online database — not a violation of Kohberger’s rights.

Bryan Kohberger defense wants most evidence thrown out in Idaho murders trial [Update]

Attorneys for Bryan Kohberger, the Monroe County man charged with the murders of four University of Idaho students, are asking a judge to throw out most of the evidence in the case.

www.citizensvoice.com

 

[NCWatcher]

Rather than speculating, we can do some reading & find out.

I would think state schools would just charge higher tuition fees for non-resident undergrad & graduate students rather than require them to go through the pains of changing residency potentially multiple times a year. Not much of an attraction if one is forced to "settle down" long term for educational purposes while still in their twenties & most with no job.

https://gradschool.wsu.edu/student-finance-page/ (note the cost link doesn’t work)

This shows grad student costs with assistance & is broken down by residency status: https://gradschool.wsu.edu/documents/2024/05/tuition-and-fees_2024-2025_ay.pdf/


ETA - undergrad & graduate


MOO

Charging higher tuition is what state schools often do for out of state residents. Grad students may get a waiver that pays the difference between in and out of state tuition (often thousands of dollars per year as your link shows) but most schools have a limited number of waivers available to award. So the only way for out of state grad students to pay in-state tuition may be to declare residency. As @Sundog's post shows as does yours, BKs grad program tied assignment for waivers to assistantships. After the first year, WSU grad students had to pay the difference themselves if they remained out of state residents.

There's no need for any student to feel forced to change residency "multiple times a year." They are free to pay out of state tuition out of pocket if they wish. But students do need to "settle down" somewhere while in school if they want to easily do things like vote, for example. If they are working while in school, if they don't change residency to the state where they are working, they may have a more complicated tax situation because of withholding in the non-resident state. Since few doctoral students "go home" in the summers, they have essentially moved to the new state.

Certainly publicly available university materials suggest being a WA resident would have been to the advantage of most grad students at WSU. (It isn't as easy for undergrads to become state residents many places.) But owning real estate and registering vehicles are common ways to establish residency.
MOO

 

[INfisherman]

Charging higher tuition is what state schools often do for out of state residents. Grad students may get a waiver that pays the difference between in and out of state tuition (often thousands of dollars per year as your link shows) but most schools have a limited number of waivers available to award. So the only way for out of state grad students to pay in-state tuition may be to declare residency. As @Sundog's post shows as does yours, BKs grad program tied assignment for waivers to assistantships. After the first year, WSU grad students had to pay the difference themselves if they remained out of state residents.

There's no need for any student to feel forced to change residency "multiple times a year." They are free to pay out of state tuition out of pocket if they wish. But students do need to "settle down" somewhere while in school if they want to easily do things like vote, for example. If they are working while in school, if they don't change residency to the state where they are working, they may have a more complicated tax situation because of withholding in the non-resident state. Since few doctoral students "go home" in the summers, they have essentially moved to the new state.

Certainly publicly available university materials suggest being a WA resident would have been to the advantage of most grad students at WSU. (It isn't as easy for undergrads to become state residents many places.) But owning real estate and registering vehicles are common ways to establish residency.
MOO

Sorry, I either misread your post or it was later edited & not noted. It’s a moot point anyway, as we agree resident status isn’t required for a grad student, BUT it is for cheaper tuition, not that it’s a cornerstone to the case either way.

For clarity, the voting portion is partially true. They can vote via absentee ballot (& maybe mail) if not a resident/registered in the state which the college resides - their votes effectively only count back home. If they wish to vote in & for their "adopted" state, then they need to register & follow that state’s voting regulations, as you stated.

Working out of state isn’t a big deal - you file in both states & pay the difference if the amount withheld is lower. My son had a weird situation with his paychecks coming from out of state once & they took out taxes for the employer’s home state. Most tax softwares will walk you through it via questions. Not ideal but certainly not a huge deal at all. Took an extra 5-10 minutes to add the extra state filing.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Even if DM thought she saw a unicorn, it's still BK's DNA on the sheath.

JMO

Very true, but she had an accurate description that did not rule BK out IMO.

 

[NCWatcher]

Sorry, I either misread your post or it was later edited & not noted. It’s a moot point anyway, as we agree resident status isn’t required for a grad student, BUT it is for cheaper tuition, not that it’s a cornerstone to the case either way.

For clarity, the voting portion is partially true. They can vote via absentee ballot (& maybe mail) if not a resident/registered in the state which the college resides - their votes effectively only count back home. If they wish to vote in & for their "adopted" state, then they need to register & follow that state’s voting regulations, as you stated.

Working out of state isn’t a big deal - you file in both states & pay the difference if the amount withheld is lower. My son had a weird situation with his paychecks coming from out of state once & they took out taxes for the employer’s home state. Most tax softwares will walk you through it via questions. Not ideal but certainly not a huge deal at all. Took an extra 5-10 minutes to add the extra state filing.

No, I didn't edit the meaning of my post.

I agree with you a student can file state tax returns in two states if necessary. But that's a "tax complication" I think most people would like to avoid. Heck, some people don't file one return even when they don't owe and may be eligible for a refund! And yes, absentee voting may be possible but that's not as easy as strolling to the polls. (My post said changing residency was needed to easily vote.) In my state, for example, non-military absentee ballots have to be requested no later than two weeks before an election and the completed ballot has to be witnessed by two witnesses. And as you point out, the student won't be able to vote in elections local to his/her "school state."

I don't know that concern over either issue (voting, taxes) applied to BK-- I expect it came down to the cost of tuition as it probably does for most grad students.
MOO

 

[INfisherman]

Nothing on BK? I didn’t realize the state had unloaded all its evidence.

We’re just talking if LE had probable cause to arrest him & if LE lied to establish probable cause up to this point. I think that’s falling in the cracks.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

I heard he put one on at his Nov birthday

Yes his PA tags were set to expire soon after the murders.

JMO

 

[SlimPickens]

If that were the case, the breach belongs to the company for violating its own TOS, and grievance belongs to individuals who have issue with the company. BK has no standing in any of that.

JMO

The FBI knowingly obtaining a non-suspect's DNA sequence under false pretenses, when an expectation of privacy exists both explicitly in the genealogy website's UA and implicitly (DNA is PHI, after all), is not a good look for the FBI at a minimum. I can certainly see a judge throwing all of it out, particularly with the FBI's reputation of late. In my view, this would be akin to the FBI posing as a patient at a doctor's office, covertly downloading all patient health records from said office, and then trying to submit one of them to a court because it had retroactive evidentiary value in a case that was only tangentially germane to it. The only difference in the analogy is a mere technicality; that is, that genealogy sites aren't (yet) considered covered HIPAA entities or partners therein. There will be arguments heard on that in the future I'm sure, and this case could be the catalyst.

JMO.

 

[girlhasnoname]

That's very interesting, I thought that Kristi said that the crate was in Kaylee's car with some of her other stuff in a previous interview. Mmm... IMO.

Who's Kristi?

 

[SlimPickens]

No, it is clear cut, hence the skepticism from the judge. I've been worried about evidence being excluded from some of the cases I've followed, but there's nothing remotely concerning to me here. He had zero expectation of privacy, and it's not like his DNA was present on the sites law enforcement used. They simply used a technique that is against those companies' policies, but totally legal.

Taylor said police never sought warrants to analyze the DNA found at the crime scene, nor did they get warrants to analyze the DNA of potential relatives that had been submitted to genealogy databases. Then, she said, the FBI violated its own Investigative Genetic Genealogy interim policy by running the data through a database that wasn’t approved under the policy.

Deputy Attorney General Jeff Nye, one of the prosecutors, said there is nothing unconstitutional about the use of IGG. Kohberger isn’t asserting that he provided his own DNA to a genealogy site and then had it misused, Nye said, and defendants don’t have any right to privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.

The U.S. Department of Justice policy for IGG doesn’t exclude other legal investigative techniques, Nye said. Even if FBI investigators used an online genealogy database that wasn’t included in the policy, at most that might be a violation of the terms of service of the online database — not a violation of Kohberger’s rights.

Bryan Kohberger defense wants most evidence thrown out in Idaho murders trial [Update]

Attorneys for Bryan Kohberger, the Monroe County man charged with the murders of four University of Idaho students, are asking a judge to throw out most of the evidence in the case.

www.citizensvoice.com

I'm not talking about the defendant's rights per se - I'm talking about the DNA sequence that was used to compare. His father's DNA sequence, purportedly. It's not so clear cut because DNA is PHI, though currently genealogy sites aren't HIPAA covered entities. This is a mere technicality that a judge (or group of appellate judges) could correct with a gavel. With the sites TOS explicitly stating they don't release DNA sequencing to LE without a warrant (in healthcare, it requires a court order), then the expectation of privacy of the submitter (at a minimum) deserves more legal scrutiny.

JMO.

 

[girlhasnoname]

This should say “his cell phone happens to go dark BETWEEN the beginning and end of his trip.

Regardless, we’re playing “the coincidence game” we always play in cases like this.

At some point even the most skeptical person has to realize that these aren’t coincidences.

We’ll get there.

We are there. IMO

 

[jepop]

She did. November 19th interview.

JMO

Could you link the source to Kristi interview please. Kristi is Kayley's sister? I forget when and who did these interviews.

 

[INfisherman]

We are there. IMO

Some of us - others, not even close, I’m afraid.

 

[girlhasnoname]

The DNA could quite possibly be excluded. Allegedly was obtained without a warrant and from a genealogy source that explicitly doesn't permit law enforcement to utilize it. If the DNA is ultimately excluded, then *everything* that stems from it is excluded. "Fruit of the poisonous tree". He will not be convicted without it. JMO.

Appreciate your thinking, I believe the total opposite. The sheath and the DNA are going to come in and BK is going to be spending the rest of his miserable life behind bars where he belongs.

Word salad by AT does not negate the collection and identification of BK nor does it rise to the level of MTS.

JMO

 

[SlimPickens]

Appreciate your thinking, I believe the total opposite. The sheath and the DNA are going to come in and BK is going to be spending the rest of his miserable life behind bars where he belongs.

Word salad by AT does not negate the collection and identification of BK nor does it rise to the level of MTS.

JMO

Definitely not advocating for BK here. I am confident he is the guy. I'm just saying his attorney's argument is not as silly or desperate or obviously wrong as it seems on its face. If the judge rules that the DNA sequence from the site is excluded because A. DNA is implied PHI and B. the FBI obtained it under false pretenses, then the whole case against him is gone. The attorney is at a minimum opening up an appellate challenge (and a pretty good one too, IMO).

JMO.

 

[jepop]

I'm not talking about the defendant's rights per se - I'm talking about the DNA that was used to compare. His father's DNA, purportedly. It's not so clear cut because DNA is PHI, though currently genealogy sites aren't HIPAA covered entities. This is a mere technicality that a judge (or appellate judges) could correct with a gavel.

Re the bolded.

The father DNA test had zero to do with IGG. That's clearly explicated in the PCA. Dad's Dna str profile ( from trash pull on 27 Dec 2022) was compared in the Idaho State Lab with the suspect forensic str profile from the sheathe button. You're conflating this with the IGG undertaken using an snp profile. There is no overlap. Two separate profiles developed from the same suspect forensic sample. ISl conducted all standard str analysis and tests.

Anyway, the paternal DNA test is explained on P18 below.

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/CR29-22-2805/122922+Affidavit+-+Exhibit+A+-+Statement+of+Brett-Payne.pdf

Idaho Judicial Cases of Interest

ETa, idk why but quite a few people get this completely wrong then post as if fact and my concern is only the spread of inadvertent misinformation. It's very clear in the PCA. And other documents re IGG protective order in cJune 2023 ( in link provided) that paternal DNA trash pull has no connection to the IGG.

 

[MassGuy]

Definitely not advocating for BK here. I am confident he is the guy. I'm just saying his attorney's argument is not as silly or desperate or obviously wrong as it seems on its face. If the judge rules that the DNA sequence from the site is excluded because A. DNA is implied PHI and B. the FBI obtained it under false pretenses, then the whole case against him is gone. The attorney is at a minimum opening up an appellate challenge (and a pretty good one too, IMO).

JMO.

The FBI is under no obligation follow the terms of service of the sites they used; those are merely company policies. I've seen multiple defense attorneys opine on this, and they say there's no argument here. Her best bet would have been to show that the FBI accessed his personal DNA upload, and when the judge asked her about that, she ignored the question, going with the weaker argument. This can't become a moot point soon enough.

 

[jepop]

The FBI is under no obligation follow the terms of service of the sites they used; those are merely company policies. I've seen multiple defense attorneys opine on this, and they say there's no argument here. Her best bet would have been to show that the FBI accessed his personal DNA upload, and when the judge asked her about that, she ignored the question, going with the weaker argument. This can't become a moot point soon enough.

So over it and I so agree.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Definitely not advocating for BK here. I am confident he is the guy. I'm just saying his attorney's argument is not as silly or desperate or obviously wrong as it seems on its face. If the judge rules that the DNA sequence from the site is excluded because A. DNA is implied PHI and B. the FBI obtained it under false pretenses, then the whole case against him is gone. The attorney is at a minimum opening up an appellate challenge (and a pretty good one too, IMO).

JMO.

AT is a good defense lawyer and she's making a case, that's her job. I just do not believe her MTS will be granted and I believe the State has much more convincing evidence besides the DNA. The whole case against BK is not just his DNA at the crime scene.

MOO

 

[iamshadow21]

SBMFF BBM

First of all, it's crucial to remember that the individual in question is the accused, not a convicted killer. Innocent until proven guilty, as the saying goes. Second, why exactly are the doubts about the use of Touch DNA considered outdated? What specific advancements since 2012 have magically transformed doubts about Touch DNA evidence into something completely irrelevant for this case? If you can elucidate these points clearly, that would be splendid, preferably without using ducks or other feathered species as analogy. Here are some more recent references that don't seem to differ much from the one in Wikipedia, which was provided as a widely accepted source. However, I'm more than happy to dive into highly technical sources if you prefer. 1 2 3 4 5

Even with all due scrutiny confirming that the DNA on the sheath belongs to BK, the discussion then meanders into the realm of logic and dissipates there due to the absence of a murder weapon. It's like trying to solve a jigsaw puzzle with half the pieces missing—no amount of squinting will make the picture any clearer. JMO

Talking about an item the killer touched isn't violating BK's presumption of innocence. The knife sheath isn't entitled to presumption of innocence, nor is any other item or trace the perpetrator leaves behind.

MOO