If I were a juror on this case, I would find it beyond a reasonable doubt that the sheath of a murder weapon secreted beneath the body of a murder victim, that murder weapon being a knife when the victims were knifed to death, does NOT somehow equal the actual weapon used to perpetrate the murders.
If it belonged originally to one of the occupants of the house, why is the only DNA found on the sheath snap Bryan’s and not one of the deceased?
JMO of what makes sense.
It will be an agglomeration of clues.
First, we don’t know the connection between BK and Moscow. I wonder if BK relapsed after departing from home. His phrase, “shopping is better in Moscow” can be straightforward, given that sales state tax in Idaho is less than in WA. He could have been buying gas in Idaho, too, I think it makes sense.
But, if he were buying his “substance of choice” in Moscow, or going to drug houses, we really don’t know if this “DNA-bearing object”, the sheath, could have been left/forgotten/stolen somewhere and later, conveniently placed at the bed. It is an object with a “touch” DNA (otherwise, clean?) that’s concerning.
People steal, people borrow books without asking, some people never respect property. I don’t have knife sheaths, but BK’s case taught me. A lot. I want to ask - has anyone, ever, left a phone on a table in a burger shop and never got it back?
I think that if - if! - BK, say, left the knife sheath with some of his Idaho dealers, or it got stolen, he ought to have immediately posted an ad on local FB or Craigslist asking to return it. An add pre-dating the murders would be his alibi.
We assume that BK was prone to breaking in. What if opposite is true? What if people tended to steal from him?
I think his friends at high school could be character witnesses.
