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

[LinasK]

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.

That's not how IGG works. They aren't testing the actual DNA, they are using family trees to identify a suspect. When they think they have a match, they obtain an actual DNA sample from the suspect to corroborate with the DNA found at the crime scene. It's extremely accurate.

 

[LinasK]

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.

How are you getting that they used his father's DNA?

 

[Megnut]

Look, we found other DNA in places other than the CS.
This "other DNA" looks just like the alibi "looked at stars on other nights" and is supposed to explain somehow where he was during the murders.

And don't forget, AT was quick to say cellphone data "would show" that BK did drive around, yes even in Moscow but he wasn't "over there".... and he "didn't stop"... and I can't help but wonder why she's so noisy about that.

The night of the murders BK looped multiple times.

How close did he come to 1122 each time? Technically, not very. But he sure seems intent on that house, no.others.... hard to believe he just happened upon it that night and the loop was somehow unrelated. House seems targeted at a minimum that night. Drove relatively straight to it, again and again that night ..

Anyway, I'll be really curious to hear at trial (when witnesses, expert and otherwise, will give testimony, testimony that can be both elicited and challenged, direct and cross (unlike in motions and hearings) whether BK had a habit of looping, a habit of turning his phone off (for the last mile), etc, etc.

AT wouldn't hate AT&T so much if there was nothing damning in it.

Bring it.

I suspect BK was indeed too close to 1122 on more than one occasion.

JMO

 

[INfisherman]

Bring it.

RSBM

Oh it’s gonna get brought - by the truckloads & then all this muck will wash downstream to reveal clearer waters & eventually BKs guilt.

MOO

 

[LinasK]

Glove/sleeve may have been separated & wrist brushed against it at some point. Could have been any number of things. Last night on 20/20 a killer wore cotton gloves & his DNA was found inside pockets of the victim, left while taking the victim’s wallet. It was speculated it may have been sweat. How ever it occurred (in ID), I don’t believe the killer was aware of it.

MOO

ETA clarity

He wasn't. He kept saying in the interrogation that his DNA couldn't be there, but he hadn't divulged wearing the gloves at that point. I think he figured that his gloves were as good as wearing latex ones- impermeable. His buddy gave him up.

 

[Gigiky]

He wasn't. He kept saying in the interrogation that his DNA couldn't be there, but he hadn't divulged wearing the gloves at that point. I think he figured that his gloves were as good as wearing latex ones- impermeable. His buddy gave him up.

His buddy did! And pretty fast too! Lol

 

[INfisherman]

He wasn't. He kept saying in the interrogation that his DNA couldn't be there, but he hadn't divulged wearing the gloves at that point. I think he figured that his gloves were as good as wearing latex ones- impermeable. His buddy gave him up.

Apologies - poor ordering of thoughts on my part. That last sentence of mine was implying BK wasn’t aware the snap/button made contact with his skin at some point.

Yes, neither of the 2 involved in that murder on the 20/20 episode were aware they left DNA behind.

JMO

 

[INfisherman]

His buddy did! And pretty fast too! Lol

The car owner/roommate who wasn’t in prison entered an Alford plea & will be eligible for parole at some point. The other dude got life. Someone had a good attorney.

MOO

 

[Megnut]

Blood on the bannister in a house where there were stabbings and the glove with the blood outside. A network actually live streamed most of the CSI yard search. CSI found many things in the yard. There may be a different glove than what the YouTube detective found on Nov. 28, 2022. But we'll have to wait for the trial. IMO, both blood DNA (bannister and glove) are possible evidence, both should have been tested completely including attempting IGG. Since they were not, this will be used as reasonable doubt. All JMO.

The judge was all over this at the hearing4hearing.

He said that those unidentified collections don't exculpate BK. His DNA (statistical match into the universe and beyond) is on the sheath which corresponds to a knife in a home where four victims were killed by a knife (perhaps testifiable to the exact model, one that found under one of slayed body of one of those victims. Plus the car. Plus his background. Plus his general description. Plus his cellphone black out window. Plus, plus, plus.... probably cause today. Every day and twice on Sunday.

Those other samples didn't even yield Single Source Enough TO run it through Codis. Undeveloped leads. Still in evidence. Maybe 30 years from now, DNA testing will be even more sensitive and capable and those profiles can be identified but for now they're dead ends. They aren't going to match the sheath DNA.

At best they belong to accomplices. And if new leads and new technology come to LE, maybe they'll be able to compare that old DNA to new people. It still won't exonerate BK. He left his DNA in a most compromising position... DNA on a banister doesn't change that.

JMO

 

[Megnut]

Apologies - poor ordering of thoughts on my part. That last sentence of mine was implying BK wasn’t aware the snap/button made contact with his skin at some point.

Yes, neither of the 2 involved in that murder on the 20/20 episode were aware they left DNA behind.

JMO

Easily BK could have been wearing gloves when he touched the snap. 50 pairs of gloves in 50 shades of grey. If he touched his face even one time... or his cell phone screen...

Whelp.

JMO

 

[LinasK]

The car owner/roommate who wasn’t in prison entered an Alford plea & will be eligible for parole at some point. The other dude got life. Someone had a good attorney.

MOO

The thing was- they couldn't prove that the buddy was the shooter, or even entered the business.

 

[INfisherman]

Easily BK could have been wearing gloves when he touched the snap. 50 pairs of gloves in 50 shades of grey. If he touched his face even one time... or his cell phone screen...

Whelp.

JMO

Right! Or even if the snap brushed against his own clothing & transferred it. OOOOPS said the woolly worms!

MOO

 

[jepop]

How are you getting that they used his father's DNA?

Think it's likely OP inadvertently conflated the comparison between paternal str profile ( dad's trash DNA) and suspect sheathe str profile, with the IGG process. Not sure, but I responded a bit earlier to the OP suggesting this. That's all I can think of. Jmo

 

[NCWatcher]

Some states automatically send absentee ballots. You don't need to request them.

Yes, state laws vary on lots of things including absentee voting. It is true though that not all states are so free with mail-in ballots. But my point wasn't so much about how to vote absentee or how to deal with income tax withheld in a state where one isn't a resident. My point was simply that there may be lots of reasons for students, particularly graduate students, to declare residency in the state where they are in school. Most doctoral students will not move back to Mom and Dad's house in the summers, for example, nor will they "move back home" once they earn the degree. It's a bit different for undergraduates, particularly if they don't have a job waiting after commencement. Often undergraduates really haven't "left home."

We can't know for sure but In BK's case it seems tuition costs would be a prime reason to declare residency in WA. His grad program pretty much mandated that students declare residency after the first year (based on previously linked university materials. For example, https://crmj.wsu.edu/graduate-studies/funding/) And registering a car is on the list of things that can aid in declaring residency. Further, we saw that the legal "work around" for students to avoid having to register their car in Washington actually requires students to maintain residency in their home state outside of Washington. That's obviously more appropriate for undergrads.
MOO

 

[NCWatcher]

BBM

Well, luckily, criminal cases aren't decided by majority vote.

Actually they are: the majority of the jury.

Actually at the federal and state level jury decisions must be unanimous in criminal trials.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt6-4-4-3/ALDE_00013134/
A majority vote, even 11-1, isn't acceptable. That's a hung jury. And it's why people on both sides worry about that "one juror."
MOO

 

[jepop]

Been thinking about the whole touch DNA boogey man and how touch or epithelial DNA is an umbrella term which casts a wide net. So imo each individual case's DNA evidence will locate somewhere more specific under the umbrella.

From docs in this case we know sheathe button DNA was plentiful enough for lab to develop a full str single source profile. It met the requirements for Codis, no match was found. Then there was enough sample for Othram to develop and then upload the separate snp profile for IGG purposes. The same SNP that was later transfered to FBI for upload to various IGG companies. Moo

So this is just my speculation or question really;

maybe there was more of BK's epithelial cells on that snap button than we tend to imagine? Enough for independent development of x2 separate profiles. I know the tech can do it with very small amounts, but why are some of us assuming there was only a "smidge"? Moo

There's been no LE or court filings saying anything at all about the number of cells. We do have a book by Howard Blum that has asserted twenty cells as posted many times on here ( not "8" or '11"cells Afaik). But imo Blum cannot be relied upon and his assertions can't be taken as fact, at face level. Jmo

The more I think about that number - 20 cells - the more I speculate he probably got this from uninformed, second or even third hand LE sources. Imo there is no way he got it from the lab. Jmo

Here's my question for the dna science informed; IIUC, is the number of alleles ? needed for full codis match comparison, is that number actually twenty (20,)? Is this written in standard DNA lab procedures? Idk, this level of the science is beyond me, but the number twenty (20) and the words 'alleles' and Codis are associated in my mind for some reason. Maybe someone who knows about this level of detail can confirm, or not. Moo

So, is it possible Blum's source, Blum himself or more likely a combination of both, were misinformed. Say Blum's source told him about the 20 allele thingy thinking it meant a cell number. Just an idea.

Anyway, imo there may have been more DNA on that button than is generally assumed. I think BK left it there when he opened and closed it with his ungloved hands sometime, but not long before, the murders. He may have cleaned the sheath and missed that spot, but Imo leaving it behind was not something BK ever imagined could happen. So he may not have been as super careful with opening and closing it as we think. Jmo

 

[MassGuy]

Been thinking about the whole touch DNA boogey man and how touch or epithelial DNA is an umbrella term which casts a wide net. So imo each individual case's DNA evidence will locate somewhere more specific under the umbrella.

From docs in this case we know sheathe button DNA was plentiful enough for lab to develop a full str single source profile. It met the requirements for Codis, no match was found. Then there was enough sample for Othram to develop and then upload the separate snp profile for IGG purposes. The same SNP that was later transfered to FBI for upload to various IGG companies. Moo

So this is just my speculation or question really;

maybe there was more of BK's epithelial cells on that snap button than we tend to imagine? Enough for independent development of x2 separate profiles. I know the tech can do it with very small amounts, but why are some of us assuming there was only a "smidge"? Moo

There's been no LE or court filings saying anything at all about the number of cells. We do have a book by Howard Blum that has asserted twenty cells as posted many times on here ( not "8" or '11"cells Afaik). But imo Blum cannot be relied upon and his assertions can't be taken as fact, at face level. Jmo

The more I think about that number - 20 cells - the more I speculate he probably got this from uninformed, second or even third hand LE sources. Imo there is no way he got it from the lab. Jmo

Here's my question for the dna science informed; IIUC, is the number of alleles ? needed for full codis match comparison, is that number actually twenty (20,)? Is this written in standard DNA lab procedures? Idk, this level of the science is beyond me, but the number twenty (20) and the words 'alleles' and Codis are associated in my mind for some reason. Maybe someone who knows about this level of detail can confirm, or not. Moo

So, is it possible Blum's source, Blum himself or more likely a combination of both, were misinformed. Say Blum's source told him about the 20 allele thingy thinking it meant a cell number. Just an idea.

Anyway, imo there may have been more DNA on that button than is generally assumed. I think BK left it there when he opened and closed it with his ungloved hands sometime, but not long before, the murders. He may have cleaned the sheath and missed that spot, but Imo leaving it behind was not something BK ever imagined could happen. So he may not have been as super careful with opening and closing it as we think. Jmo

This is what ChatGTP has to say:

You're on the right track! The number 20 is indeed associated with the standard set of alleles used for CODIS (Combined DNA Index System) comparisons. CODIS is a national database in the United States used to store DNA profiles, and the FBI uses a specific set of genetic markers, or loci, to ensure the profiles are comparable.

As of now, the CODIS Core Loci consists of 20 specific short tandem repeat (STR) loci that are commonly analyzed for DNA matching. These 20 loci are chosen because they are highly variable among individuals, making them useful for identification and comparison. This set of markers includes the following 13 core loci required by the FBI and 7 additional ones for a higher level of confidence:

1. D3S1358
2. TH01
3. D21S11
4. D18S51
5. Penta E
6. Penta D
7. D16S539
8. CSF1PO
9. DPY19S1
10. D2S1338
11. D19S433
12. vWA
13. TPOX
14. D5S818
15. D13S317
16. D7S820
17. D8S1179
18. FGA
19. D12S391
20. D17S1301

These markers are chosen because they are highly polymorphic (meaning they have many different forms), which makes them effective in distinguishing one person from another. In forensic DNA analysis, a match is made by comparing the alleles (the different forms of each marker) between the suspect’s DNA and a reference sample from the crime scene.

So, to clarify, the number 20 is indeed significant in the context of CODIS, and it is standard in DNA labs to analyze these loci to provide reliable, consistent, and valid DNA profile comparisons. This is written in the FBI’s guidelines and lab procedures for forensic DNA analysis.

 

[schooling]

DNA laws are a budding area. What you call a “website”, IRL is “a major commercial company of international location”.

When registering on such sites, one signs an agreement. All of it was less organized in the past. But even “DNA inheritance” will eventually be regulated. Ownership of information will be entered into wills.

From the standpoint of “genetic genealogy”, there is a term “guardianship of DNA”. So I have no question about swabbing any DNA from that party house. The question is, where these DNA s are legally viewed as “guardianship” by the Feds, and where, not.

Here is an interesting issue. When Anne Taylor asked about two other male DNAs found at the house, she was answered that they were not found in CODIS.

So next question would be, why can’t the relatives be searched for them at the same sites that they used to look for BK’s “DNA relatives”? Otherwise, it puts BK in an unfair situation, doesn’t it?

This is a huge problem. Not the DNA, but the “guardianship” of all swabs ought to have been defined the same, “equal”, way.

The judge at BK’s process has said something along the lines of, customers who make DNA open for relationship comparison, why should they care if someone compares them with the suspect? MOO - the answer can’t be that nonchalant. The judge may have not heard about a recent hack into a major commercial DNA site. After that, the answer is, no, some customers would 100% object, IMHO, to any random comparisons.

The customers pay to a company of choice for regulation of DNA storage, processing and collection of their genetic data. Monthly maintenance of trees is expensive. From time to time, one gets messages from unknown relatives with additional information (this is what one pays for, theoretically, chance of getting new information. ) These “website” as you call it is a paid DNA meetup, where only relatives are invited. Unless someone opts in for other kinds of comparison.

Nowadays it is becoming a huge issue. I foresee that in the future it all will be regulated way more strictly.

IMO You can’t simultaneously champion DNA laws getting stricter to protect one’s privacy and then characterize anything short of a wild familial goose chase as an indictment on LE.

Plus, in order to accept your narrative or your proposal you have to buy what AT is selling. That LE relied solely on the IGG to initially identify Kohlberger. Or that the DNA on some random glove outside (thanks OJ) is just as important as the DNA on the sheath under a victims body.

I’m not buying it.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

I feel like he meticulously cleaned that sheath as part of his process in committing the perfect crime. I am curious as to how that DNA remained under the snap-I wonder if he only handled the sheath with gloved hands, maybe he had a hard time unsnapping gloved. Did a glove rip? Or did he handle it repeatedly and then wipe it clean?

I think Mr. Smartest Man in any Room simply overlooked handling the snap portion of the sheath. He's not as smart as they would have us believe, after all, he is sitting in jail charged as a Defendant in the brutal murders of four college student, he made mistakes.

Many more to come to light I believe. He has a documented history of issues with women and inappropriate conduct going all the way back to High School.

JMO

 

[INfisherman]

IMO You can’t simultaneously champion DNA laws will getting stricter to protect one’s privacy and then back wonder why LE didn’t go on a wild familial DNA goose chase.

Plus, in order to accept your narrative or your proposal you have to buy what AT is selling. That LE relied solely on the IGG to initially identify Kohlberger. Or that the DNA on some random glove outside (thanks OJ) is just as important as the DNA on the sheath under a victims body.

I’m not buying it.

MOO

I don’t believe JH was buying it either.


JMO