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

[NCWatcher]

I will take a court’s jury instruction definition over yours every day of the week & twice on Sunday.

3.5 REASONABLE DOUBT—DEFINED ​

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced the defendant is guilty. It is not required that the government prove guilt beyond all possible doubt.

A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense and is not based purely on speculation. It may arise from a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or from lack of evidence.

3.5 Reasonable Doubt—Defined | Model Jury Instructions

www.ce9.uscourts.gov

That's interesting. I don't believe I've been given that exact instruction when serving as a juror. The footnote in the link also notes the alternate wording "you must be firmly convinced of the defendant 's guilt..." can be used per the Ninth Circuit. I do remember being given that one.

Whenever people are told to use "common sense" to make a decision though, that seems to suggest subjective and experiential factors can and should be involved (as in opinions.) Common sense may lead to false conclusions as well. The Problem With Common Sense.
MOO

 

[Charlot123]

We know what they did here from details shared at these hearings, and from court filings. They started in, and then they worked out. They looked at people the victims knew, people they interacted with, and even people in other states. They had that sheath DNA, but at the time, had no idea who it belonged to. We even heard that they collected a discarded cigarette to compare to the sample they had.

They seem to have done what they should have done with the other DNA that they found, but it was apparently not of the quality that would allow for a CODIS upload.

They also communicated with nearby law enforcement agencies that they were looking for a white Hyundai, and scoured surveillance footage in an effort to trace its movements. They obtained geofence data to locate any cellphones in the vicinity of the crime scene around the time of the murders.

That's exactly what they should have done.

Simultaneously, they sent a DNA sample to Othram, in an effort to perform genetic genealogy, a step we rarely see at that stage of an investigation. This was no ordinary case though, as they were dealing with an almost unprecedented crime, and a very dangerous quadruple murderer who was on the loose.

Finally, they got a tip from the FBI based on their genetic research, and had a name to work with. I've said this before, but there's never been an easier time in history to prove or disprove an alibi. Once they obtained phone records, and surveillance footage, they were more confident than ever that Kohberger's DNA would match what was on the knife sheath.

It did, and the rest is history.

No investigation is perfect, but all indications to me are that this was off the charts solid.

Every case is different, and you've got people looking at other high profile investigations where mistakes were made, and now view every single one through the same lens.

That's not how it works.

True,

But for one DNA, the feds went as far as a private database. For two more, male, one in blood on a bannister and another, in a glove, they didn’t do the same amount of work, right? I can see the defense’s logic.

That creates a problem of potential inequality in the treatment of a man who is not local, is socially isolated and has “certain” issues. As opposed to some males who … I can’t assume who they are because I don’t know. But, at least one was in the house. Blood on bannister. Vs an object that has a dab of touch DNA. I view it as a reasonable doubt because, a few years ago, in another high-power case, we, the public were explained that touch DNA means nothing, that it may come from random contact, such as two coats hanging next to one another. Then and there, LE refused to work with touch DNA. Now, the whole case is based on touch DNA and the Elantra that was defined as “2013-14”, not the year the suspect was driving. That is where the problem lies, IMO.

See, you said

The standard has changed from reasonable doubt, to no doubt. It's wild, because based on what some of these people expect, virtually no murder case is prosecutable.

Sorry, RSBM.

I would say that recently, you yourself have demonstrated the reason why it happens. You used AI to look for CODIS profiles. Great. Other people use AI and learn, too; to add, many have some prior knowledge about IGG because of own interests. Humans are consulting own medical geneticists. Maybe we are in the phase when we are less apt to accept “DNA matched” from LE as a blanket statement. I know it doesn’t make anyone’s job easy but this is how humankind learns.

Honestly? I’d rather they ran three profiles through the same database, and said that the other two had no matches. This is what would make me think, why? Give or take, BK got a match. Meaning, BK, allegedly super educated in criminology, did not think of warning relatives not to engage in genetic studies, or didn’t ask them to pull their DNA out of these bases, or even opt out of comparison.

But if I heard that they ran all three profiles and the other two had zero matches, that would raise a lot of questions and maybe help get to another prolific criminal. JMO.

 

[MassGuy]

True,

But for one DNA, the feds went as far as a private database. For two more, male, one in blood on a bannister and another, in a glove, they didn’t do the same amount of work, right? I can see the defense’s logic.

That creates a problem of potential inequality in the treatment of a man who is not local, is socially isolated and has “certain” issues. As opposed to some males who … I can’t assume who they are because I don’t know. But, at least one was in the house. Blood on bannister. Vs an object that has a dab of touch DNA. I view it as a reasonable doubt because, a few years ago, in another high-power case, we, the public were explained that touch DNA means nothing, that it may come from random contact, such as two coats hanging next to one another. Then and there, LE refused to work with touch DNA. Now, the whole case is based on touch DNA and the Elantra that was defined as “2013-14”, not the year the suspect was driving. That is where the problem lies, IMO.

See, you said Sorry, RSBM.

I would say that recently, you yourself have demonstrated the reason why it happens. You used AI to look for CODIS profiles. Great. Other people use AI and learn, too; to add, many have some prior knowledge about IGG because of own interests. Humans are consulting own medical geneticists. Maybe we are in the phase when we are less apt to accept “DNA matched” from LE as a blanket statement. I know it doesn’t make anyone’s job easy but this is how humankind learns.

Honestly? I’d rather they ran three profiles through the same database, and said that the other two had no matches. This is what would make me think, why? Give or take, BK got a match. Meaning, BK, allegedly super educated in criminology, did not think of warning relatives not to engage in genetic studies, or didn’t ask them to pull their DNA out of these bases, or even opt out of comparison.

But if I heard that they ran all three profiles and the other two had zero matches, that would raise a lot of questions and maybe help get to another prolific criminal. JMO.

Focusing on this: "But for one DNA, the feds went as far as a private database. For two more, male, one in blood on a bannister and another, in a glove, they didn’t do the same amount of work, right? I can see the defense’s logic."

They did the same thing with those other samples, collecting them and sending them to a lab. They apparently were only able to develop partial profiles from those samples, and they were unable to be uploaded to CODIS (unlike the sheath DNA).

So what you are asking is impossible. You cannot ever take a partial DNA profile, and positively match it to a specific person.

The only complete profile we know about, was found on the sheath to the murder weapon.

 

[iamshadow21]

True,

But for one DNA, the feds went as far as a private database. For two more, male, one in blood on a bannister and another, in a glove, they didn’t do the same amount of work, right? I can see the defense’s logic.

That creates a problem of potential inequality in the treatment of a man who is not local, is socially isolated and has “certain” issues. As opposed to some males who … I can’t assume who they are because I don’t know. But, at least one was in the house. Blood on bannister. Vs an object that has a dab of touch DNA. I view it as a reasonable doubt because, a few years ago, in another high-power case, we, the public were explained that touch DNA means nothing, that it may come from random contact, such as two coats hanging next to one another. Then and there, LE refused to work with touch DNA. Now, the whole case is based on touch DNA and the Elantra that was defined as “2013-14”, not the year the suspect was driving. That is where the problem lies, IMO.

See, you said Sorry, RSBM.

I would say that recently, you yourself have demonstrated the reason why it happens. You used AI to look for CODIS profiles. Great. Other people use AI and learn, too; to add, many have some prior knowledge about IGG because of own interests. Humans are consulting own medical geneticists. Maybe we are in the phase when we are less apt to accept “DNA matched” from LE as a blanket statement. I know it doesn’t make anyone’s job easy but this is how humankind learns.

Honestly? I’d rather they ran three profiles through the same database, and said that the other two had no matches. This is what would make me think, why? Give or take, BK got a match. Meaning, BK, allegedly super educated in criminology, did not think of warning relatives not to engage in genetic studies, or didn’t ask them to pull their DNA out of these bases, or even opt out of comparison.

But if I heard that they ran all three profiles and the other two had zero matches, that would raise a lot of questions and maybe help get to another prolific criminal. JMO.

A partial profile isn't going to get zero matches, it's going to get hundreds, possibly thousands of matches. That's why there is a minimum amount of loci required for CODIS.

It's like only getting two numbers from a suspect's phone number and then labelling every single person with those two numbers in their phone number as suspects. And you don't even know if your suspect is in that pool. Their number might be unlisted.

MOO

 

[INfisherman]

That's interesting. I don't believe I've been given that exact instruction when serving as a juror. The footnote in the link also notes the alternate wording "you must be firmly convinced of the defendant 's guilt..." can be used per the Ninth Circuit. I do remember being given that one.

Whenever people are told to use "common sense" to make a decision though, that seems to suggest subjective and experiential factors can and should be involved (as in opinions.) Common sense may lead to false conclusions as well. The Problem With Common Sense.
MOO

I am only addressing what I said earlier, which was reasonable doubt is not all possible doubt. If it were, the words would be different to reflect as such.

The thinking (common sense) used to arrive at the decision of reasonable doubt (or not) has nothing to do with the definition. Those are 2 separate conversations & would be best kept as such. But of course there comes the opinion into the equation & there is where things will start to predictably divide.

<modsnip>

 

[CKS]

Focusing on this: "But for one DNA, the feds went as far as a private database. For two more, male, one in blood on a bannister and another, in a glove, they didn’t do the same amount of work, right? I can see the defense’s logic."

They did the same thing with those other samples, collecting them and sending them to a lab. They apparently were only able to develop partial profiles from those samples, and they were unable to be uploaded to CODIS (unlike the sheath DNA).

So what you are asking is impossible. You cannot ever take a partial DNA profile, and positively match it to a specific person.

The only complete profile we know about, was found on the sheath to the murder weapon.

All MOO


That is all allegedly. We don't really know b/c the FBI refuses to show any of their work.

Lots of questions with the DNA. For example, how did the DNA profile of BK somehow double in it's journey from Othram to the FBI? Is that normal?

 

[MassGuy]

All MOO


That is all allegedly. We don't really know b/c the FBI refuses to show any of their work.

Lots of questions with the DNA. For example, how did the DNA profile of BK somehow double in it's journey from Othram to the FBI? Is that normal?

What? No.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the IGG on the sheath, which is what the dispute is about.

Again, there are two samples of the same DNA. DNA was collected from the sheath, and analyzed by the crime lab. It produced a full profile, which was run in CODIS. They did not get a hit, because BK wasn't in CODIS.

In an effort to identify who the DNA belonged to, the FBI requested Othram do their own testing. They are given a separate sample of that DNA, which they then use for IGG purposes. So regardless of if their process doubles the genetic data available, it DOES NOT AFFECT the crime lab sample, which was what was used to match Kohberger to the sheath.

So explain to me why it matters if Othram's process doubles, triples, quadruples, or does anything to the DNA sample they had. Whatever it was they did, and the FBI did, it got them to the right man.

You're making it sound like the DNA was altered, and then compared directly to KB.

 

[iamshadow21]

I think it's not understood by some users that amplifying raw DNA samples to produce enough volume for testing is absolutely nothing new, it's been done for decades, and it is accepted and reliable and does not change the DNA sequence.

MOO

 

[Charlot123]

A partial profile isn't going to get zero matches, it's going to get hundreds, possibly thousands of matches. That's why there is a minimum amount of loci required for CODIS.

It's like only getting two numbers from a suspect's phone number and then labelling every single person with those two numbers in their phone number as suspects. And you don't even know if your suspect is in that pool. Their number might be unlisted.

MOO

Do we have an official statement that it is a partial profile? Is there a link? It is slightly unusual as blood has tons of leukocytes and usually is a much better source of DNA than a touch DNA from, say, a fingerprint. Logically, you get DNA from nucleated cells. Where else but in blood?

Anyhow, I have missed the “partial” statement. I would like to know what “partial” means, how many kb? They know it is a “male”, meaning, they have a Y? No law can prevent them from running it through FTDNA. Not for comparison, for typing. A rare Y subclade in itself is a gem, tbh.

I worked with partial profiles while playing with Lazarus…at the time when Gedmatch was free and fun. Depends on the size of the partial DNA, I’d say. You still can get family matches. Depends on the size and the side of the family. Mitochondrial DNA is usually available, too. And, Gedmatch is not off-limits, far from it. And, mainly, I need to read somewhere that it was partial. Usually, blood is a great source of DNA.

 

[Charlot123]

All MOO


That is all allegedly. We don't really know b/c the FBI refuses to show any of their work.

Lots of questions with the DNA. For example, how did the DNA profile of BK somehow double in it's journey from Othram to the FBI? Is that normal?

If they mean, “they had a tiny amount of DNA and got more in the lab”, yes, it is expected. PCR (polymerase chain reaction) is the way to produce “same” DNA in more amounts. This is how they extract enough DNA from a dab. Likewise, they can amplify partial DNA and work with “whatever part” they got. (From Anne Taylor, I understood that LE, is sitting on two unknown males “Y”s. Usually any cell has lots of mitochondria, so getting maternal DNA is not a problem. Even if it is of a common type, one private mutation can make it unique.)

However: if by “grew in size”, Anne Taylor means, “they lifted partial DNA, only 1 GB in length, from that sheath” (1/3 of the size of human genome, I am using arbitrary number here), “but somehow, by the time of processing, they ended up with DNA of 3GB in length”, that would mean that they turned a “partial DNA” into “whole”. This would raise questions, but in itself is not necessary suspicious.

IRL, it is being done in genetics, too. The technology is called “gene imputation” and widely used, not only in IGG, but mostly, in other areas of genetics. But, you can use it, if you, for example, extract DNA from old used stamps. Question is, “what length of DNA on the sheath did ID LE have, to start with?” In principle, partial DNA is usable, JMO. IANG (I am no geneticist. I understand that no one works with whole genomes in criminology; I used it to illustrate what could “double in size” potentially stand for. I do not know what Anne Taylor meant. It was not a precise way to express oneself but Anne Taylor addressed the judge, so he must know what she was implying.)

 

[iamshadow21]

Do we have an official statement that it is a partial profile? Is there a link? It is slightly unusual as blood has tons of leukocytes and usually is a much better source of DNA than a touch DNA from, say, a fingerprint. Logically, you get DNA from nucleated cells. Where else but in blood?

Anyhow, I have missed the “partial” statement. I would like to know what “partial” means, how many kb? They know it is a “male”, meaning, they have a Y? No law can prevent them from running it through FTDNA. Not for comparison, for typing. A rare Y subclade in itself is a gem, tbh.

I worked with partial profiles while playing with Lazarus…at the time when Gedmatch was free and fun. Depends on the size of the partial DNA, I’d say. You still can get family matches. Depends on the size and the side of the family. Mitochondrial DNA is usually available, too. And, Gedmatch is not off-limits, far from it. And, mainly, I need to read somewhere that it was partial. Usually, blood is a great source of DNA.

One of the most likely reasons that the sample indoors on the hand rail was not eligible is that it was old, degraded and partial.

A partial profile is incomplete. It doesn't have enough information to put into a system like CODIS and be specific enough to identify or eliminate a suspect with the degree of certainty required.

MOO

 

[NCWatcher]

I am only addressing what I said earlier, which was reasonable doubt is not all possible doubt. If it were, the words would be different to reflect as such.

The thinking (common sense) used to arrive at the decision of reasonable doubt (or not) has nothing to do with the definition. Those are 2 separate conversations & would be best kept as such. But of course there comes the opinion into the equation & there is where things will start to predictably divide.

<modsnip>

Common sense was a term used in the jury instructions you posted. The instructions explicitly said jurors should use common sense when deciding if the defendant is guilty. So that concept is most definitely related & doesn't have to be and probably shouldn't be a separate conversation. Finally your post was reacting to and quoted @BeginnerSleuther's post suggesting reasonable doubt lies in the opinion of the beholder. So how a person thinks as a juror is definitely relevant to the conversation, at least IMO.
MOO

 

[Arkay]

While taking his possessions with him when he moved to WA would be normal, how would anyone know that he took the knife? I guess his sister could have been constantly snooping through his stuff at the parents' house...

Clearly his sister knows him and we do not.

Given that, I would not say “constantly snooping.” I would actually call it “doing due diligence.”

I would never feel a need to snoop through my sibling’s belongings because I would never ever think her to be capable of murder.

That his sister had some suspicion of him, and was apparently on high alert, is very telling, IMO.

It reminds me somewhat of the Unabomber’s brother. When he saw the manifesto he not only recognized Ted’s style, but notified LE because it was, in fact, something he realized his brother was capable of doing.

It seems to me his sister also believed Bryan was at least capable of committing murder.

JMO

 

[gremlin444]

Honestly? I’d rather they ran three profiles through the same database, and said that the other two had no matches. This is what would make me think, why? Give or take, BK got a match. Meaning, BK, allegedly super educated in criminology, did not think of warning relatives not to engage in genetic studies, or didn’t ask them to pull their DNA out of these bases, or even opt out of comparison.

1) Given that it appears that the only genetic evidence left by the killer is in the snap of a knife sheath (and that sheath appears to have been accidentally left behind), I think it's a safe assumption that the killer planned to not leave ANY genetic evidence behind and therefore wouldn't need to worry about relative's usage of DNA databases.

2) So...let's say I'm BK's aunt (just picking a family member). My nephew who is a criminology student, out of the blue, calls/texts/visits me one day and makes a strong request for me to remove my DNA profile from databases. Or, without prompting gives me a big speech one day about how those DNA databases can't be trusted, it's an invasion of personal privacy, etc. And then 3, 6, or 9 months later, there is a horrifying quadruple murder not that far from where he is going to college....and a few month later he is arrested for it. And it becomes public knowledge that his DNA was found on an object under two of the victims.

You better bet that at that point, I'm linking BK's odd request or rant about DNA databases to the circumstances and evidence related to these murders. And I'm contacting the police.

And TBH, I personally would be wondering and feeling weird about things even before he arrested and the knowledge about the knife sheath becomes public. My nephew, who 1) I know to be a pretty odd duck, 2) who studies criminology and knows about forensic evidence, 3) who lives fairly close to these murders--he recently had this weird request or discussion about my usage of DNA genealogy sites. Maybe I didn't give it much thought when we talked, but at this point, my hinky-meter is going off. And I'm going to start asking questions and/or contacting LE.

If BK had made such a request in his planning stages, it would act as a big red flag after the murders occurred. It draws attention and makes the recipient wonder what is going on.

EDITED TO ADD:

And if he made that request of me after the murders took place, I'd be ten times more suspicious than in the scenarios I described above.

 

[NCWatcher]

Clearly his sister knows him and we do not.

Given that, I would not say “constantly snooping.” I would actually call it “doing due diligence.”

I would never feel a need to snoop through my sibling’s belongings because I would never ever think her to be capable of murder.

That his sister had some suspicion of him, and was apparently on high alert, is very telling, IMO.

I'm not sure I'd call it "due diligence" to search an adult sibling's room at my parents' house before and after he moved out for grad school. It may be telling or it may suggest longstanding sibling conflicts. But are you suggesting the sister was an anonymous source for Dateline? Obviously BK didn't tell Dateline he took a knife bought on Amazon to WA (assuming it's even true he bought an Amazon knife.) So who else could have that information?

Overall I did not find the Dateline report very credible. And info in the report doesn't jibe with warrant dates and warrant info reported elsewhere. So I'm not sure where most of their info came from. I suppose Amazon could have a leaker?
MOO

 

[Arkay]

But are you suggesting the sister was an anonymous source for Dateline? Obviously BK didn't tell Dateline he took a knife bought on Amazon to WA (assuming it's even true he bought an Amazon knife.) So who else could have that information?

Um, no. I suggested no such thing. I’ve never mentioned Amazon in any of my posts.

I merely pointed out that his sister did not consider it unbelievable that Bryan could have done this, which I infer from her searching for the knife.

 

[Sillybilly]

ADMIN NOTE:

For members who missed Tricia's earlier post, please read the following and click on the post to read its entire content:

Post in thread '4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #84'

Dec 14, 2022

IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT ABOUT CHRIS MCDONOUGH AND THE INTERVIEW ROOM

Nothing that Chris M says is allowed on this forum unless it is backed up by law enforcement. ​

Chris has personally lied to me. He accused an innocent man of being Brian Laundry. He lied about being removed from the Crow lawsuit. He was removed but then put back in the lawsuit and lost. Chris told me he was removed from the lawsuit and was not sued. He never told me he was added back into the lawsuit and lost. Chris was sued for getting a false confession in the murder of Stephanie...

• Tricia

• 
• 

 

[NCWatcher]

Um, no. I suggested no such thing. I’ve never mentioned Amazon in any of my posts.

I merely pointed out that his sister did not consider it unbelievable that Bryan could have done this, which I infer from her searching for the knife.

OK. The main question in the post of mine you quoted concerned who could be the Dateline source who said he took the knife bought on Amazon to WA. Not even he allegedly took it or he probably took it but he took it. So I was confused about what you were saying about the sister's actions.
MOO

 

[gremlin444]

People who have weapons for self protection rarely tell others of their existence unless it is a husband or wife. It is highly unlikely that BF or DM would know if any of their roommates had such a weapon in their room.

While BF or DM might not know or even parents, there are other people who would have much greater and reliable knowledge:

1) Kaylee's ex--they had dated since high school, had only broken up fairly recently and were still friends (as well as sharing Murphy). He would know. And if she acquired a big old knife in the time since they broke up in order to have it for her move to Texas, she certainly wouldn't have brought to the house for an overnight visit and put it near where she could grab it in/from Maddie's bed.

2) Maddie's boyfriend--they had been dating for over a year. Current intimate knowledge.

I don't see how it could belong to Xana--if he had come across her first, and she had run back to her room to get the knife....he might wrest it from her and use it to kill her and Ethan...but he's not going to then pick up the knife sheath and take it upstairs with him while he kills Maddie and Kaylee.

If the knife sheath belonged to someone in the house, you would expect there to be their DNA in the snap and their fingerprints on the sheath. No one in that house would have regularly handled their own knife and sheath wearing gloves all the time. Or we have to believe that after killing everyone, BK wiped down the sheath and tried to clean out the snap...managing to get all their DNA out of the snap but not his own.

 

[Arkay]

OK. The main question in the post of mine you quoted concerned who could be the Dateline source who said he took the knife bought on Amazon to WA. Not even he allegedly took it or he probably took it but he took it. So I was confused about what you were saying about the sister's actions.
MOO

Yes, I understand, and that’s why I snipped for focus just the part about the sister “snooping,” as is common practice here.