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

[gremlin444]

I can give an educated guess--Othram's database didn't have enough close matches to build a tree. They're new and don't have the large number of kits that other databases have. There's no set "usual" time--it's completely dependent on the matches.
JMO

I'd add another reason to that--the FBI has way more manpower to dedicate to building out the IGG than Othram does. That definitely speeds up the process.

 

[Cool Cats]

I am familiar with the reasons for CODIS ineligibility.
Degradation isn't the only reason.
It might be the case here, but it has not been stated why the samples were ineligible.

JMO

So a killer breaks into my home and the FBI would probably find a thousand DNA samples in it but all they need is one intact one - the killler's DNA.

That King Rd party house probably had thousands of DNA samples in it and all they need is one intact sample of the killer's DNA.

Not on a glass, not on a cigarette, not on a door handle, not on a lost glove outside....

But on an actual knife sheath under a stabbed to death victim.

The most important evidence to a juror is DNA evidence.

2 Cents

 

[Nila Aella]

SBM


No, she did not allege this. It was said in court that the FBI did not access any database with BK's profile in it.

Do you have a time stamp for this?
As I recall, the D did not answer this. The State said they were not aware whether he did or not. That as far as they knew he wasn't alleging this.
The FBI has not provided anything on what they did.
JMO

This is not true. It's completely dependent on matches. If I loaded BK's profile into ancestry and had even a handful of paternal and maternal 3rd and 4th cousins, I could build his tree in under an hour.

And there is proof. The name spit out by the IGG was a match to the dna on the sheath. That's the proof.

There is no way AT believes this or even WANTS this to be true. IGG is her one chance at getting the warrants thrown out based on 4th Amendment. Incorrect or non-existent IGG would completely derail her only avenue. It would be a nightmare for her if it turned out there was no IGG.

JMO

 

[wendy44]

I'd add another reason to that--the FBI has way more manpower to dedicate to building out the IGG than Othram does. That definitely speeds up the process.

Good point. Once you've separated paternal matches from maternal matches, you can have one person/group building back paternal side and one person/group building back maternal side until you get to the common set of ancestors (most recent common ancestors) and then can start building forward again. And then multiple people building out the various branches of the tree going forward until you have the entire list of descendants of those common ancestors.
JMO

 

[Nila Aella]

Degradation is the overwhelmingly likely reason. It happens all the time. Can you give me one other plausible reason why that DNA was not eligible?

It also makes the most sense. They didn't know what they were dealing with at the time, so it would have been plausible that multiple offenders were involved, or that a lone offender left his DNA in multiple locations. So they'd want to test everything they could.

Except they couldn’t get very far…

This has the information regarding eligibility in it.
The main list, but also the information regarding additional requirements for casework/crime scene evidence.

https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help...-expungement-policy/codis-and-ndis-fact-sheet

jmo

 

[Arkay]

It was complete or it wouldn't be 5.37 octillion times more likely to be BK's DNA and AT wouldn't be so scared of it bending over backwards to get it thrown out.

Instead she would write Motion after Motion and depose witness after witness trying to prove the DNA is not reliable or contaminated or planted or only partial or not collected properly or not stored properly or the Idaho States Lab is incompetent and made numerous errors.

2 cents

Exactly this.

Many of us have been stating this for quite awhile. It’s just common sense that if the defense is desperate to get the DNA thrown out, that is the sign that the results point to their client.

DNA is as useful a tool for exonerating persons of interest as it is a tool for indisputable proof when a suspect is in fact guilty.

I hold this truth to be self-evident (with apologies to the Declaration of Independence).

I just see this as so blatantly obvious. What possible other reason could there be for the defense’s insistence on the DNA results being withheld? As @Cool Cats stated, if the results did NOT land on BK then the defense would be pounding the table to get those results in.

As an aside, I remember crying for Michelle McNamara after I read her book on the Golden State Killer. (I’ll Be Gone in the Dark). She’d devoted the latter part of her life to identifying him, and yet she died with her book only 2/3rds finished. She didn’t live long enough to know that IGG was used to identify Joseph DeAngelo, and that saddened and frustrated me so much.

I think IGG is a benefit to humankind.

DNA itself has no brain nor emotion and doesn’t root for or against anyone.

The chips fall where they may. You’re guilty or you’re innocent. Case closed.

IMO

 

[wendy44]

Do you have a time stamp for this?
As I recall, the D did not answer this. The State said they were not aware whether he did or not. That as far as they knew he wasn't alleging this.
The FBI has not provided anything on what they did.
JMO

I don't think I do--I'll try to find it. They were talking about the FBI violating terms of service and I think the judge or prosecution pointed out that BK didn't have standing in that regard because he wasn't one of the users of those databases. It might have been revealed at the morning hearing. I'll look!
JMO

 

[Nila Aella]

I don't think I do--I'll try to find it. They were talking about the FBI violating terms of service and I think the judge or prosecution pointed out that BK didn't have standing in that regard because he wasn't one of the users of those databases. It might have been revealed at the morning hearing. I'll look!
JMO

Thanks!
I recall that Nye talked about it.
AT was asked by the Judge but she didn't answer.

 

[MassGuy]

Thanks!
I recall that Nye talked about it.
AT was asked by the Judge but she didn't answer.

That's what I recall. The judge directly asked her if she was asserting that Kohberger's DNA upload in one of those databases was used, and then she gave a word-salad answer that never came remotely close to answering the question.

So it's clear the defense doesn't believe the Feds made a DNA comparison to BK's own DNA upload, in which case she might have an argument in regards to him having standing.

If she's making the weaker argument, that the IGG stuff was illegal, then there's a reason for it. She knows they didn't use his direct upload, and did this the way they always do.

By building a family tree.

 

[Rolypolyoly]

This is simply not true. We know for a fact this was a complete profile, from a single source (not mixed). It does not get much better than 5.37 octillion to one. Please stop saying it's partial, it is not in dispute.

The only degraded DNA found at the scene is the samples the defense is pointing to as being from some alternate suspect. They could not even be loaded into CODIS as a result, and could never be matched to a specific person if they could.

We know the sample was complete. We know IGG was used. We know IGG led them to Kohberger. We know that Kohberger was a perfect match to the sheath DNA.

Say someone is suspicious about the IGG for some reason. Cool.

One thing matters: BK is an indisputable match to the sheath DNA.

Right? Even the defence aren't disputing that it's his DNA!

 

[Nila Aella]

So a killer breaks into my home and the FBI would probably find a thousand DNA samples in it but all they need is one intact one - the killler's DNA.

That King Rd party house probably had thousands of DNA samples in it and all they need is one intact sample of the killer's DNA.

Not on a glass, not on a cigarette, not on a door handle, not on a lost glove outside....

But on an actual knife sheath under a stabbed to death victim.

The most important evidence to a juror is DNA evidence.

2 Cents

CSI only collects samples from places they feel a result is likely.
The main thing that bothers me is the fact it is touch (Lukis A)
Blood on a glove just outside a crime scene.
I agree about DNA evidence being important to a juror.
Lukis even thought he might have done it when he was told they had his touch DNA on a fingernail of the victim.

jmo

 

[Cool Cats]

This article is extremely detailed - I have never read one more detailed - on the potential concerns of using BK's DNA.

How a DNA technique to pin Bryan Kohberger as Idaho murder suspect could shape case law

Read more at: https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/crime/article285786386.html#storylink=cpy

https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/crime/article285786386.html

 

[Nila Aella]

That's what I recall. The judge directly asked her if she was asserting that Kohberger's DNA upload in one of those databases was used, and then she gave a word-salad answer that never came remotely close to answering the question.

So it's clear the defense doesn't believe the Feds made a DNA comparison to BK's own DNA upload, in which case she might have an argument in regards to him having standing.

IMO this isn't clear
I did wonder why she didn't answer. Your explanation is possible but is there another explanation?

If she's making the weaker argument, that the IGG stuff was illegal, then there's a reason for it. She knows they didn't use his direct upload, and did this the way they always do.

Nobody knows what was done, when it was done, nor who did the work because the FBI haven't produced anything in discovery.

By building a family tree.

ETA JMO

 

[Nila Aella]

This article is extremely detailed - I have never read one more detailed - on the potential concerns of using BK's DNA.

https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/crime

Link? Seems to be a different story, but I'd like to read the one you refer to.
jmo

 

[Nila Aella]

What about that latent shoe print? Just wondering if that could have been one of the other DNA samples, such as C?

I was thinking they were all unknown samples.
The shoe print would presumably be a victim and known.
jmo

 

[Cool Cats]

Link? Seems to be a different story, but I'd like to read the one you refer to.
jmo

How a DNA technique to pin Bryan Kohberger as Idaho murder suspect could shape case law

Read more at: https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/crime/article285786386.html#storylink=cpy

https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/crime/article285786386.html

 

[Cool Cats]

CSI only collects samples from places they feel a result is likely.
The main thing that bothers me is the fact it is touch (Lukis A)
Blood on a glove just outside a crime scene.
I agree about DNA evidence being important to a juror.
Lukis even thought he might have done it when he was told they had his touch DNA on a fingernail of the victim.

jmo

What is touch DNA?

The technology that cleared JonBenet Ramsey's family of her murder can detect the slightest bit of genetic material. Husband and wife forensic experts Max and Lucy Houck explain:

www.scientificamerican.com

What is touch DNA?​

The technique has dramatically increased the number of items of evidence that can be used for DNA detection. In the 1980s, in order to perform DNA analysis on a crime scene or victim, forensic investigators needed a blood or semen stain about the size of a quarter. The sample size fell in the 1990s to the size of a dime and then became: “If you can see it, you can analyze it.”

Touch DNA doesn’t require you to see anything, or any blood or semen at all. It only requires seven or eight cells from the outermost layer of our skin.

Here’s how it works: Investigators recover cells from the scene, then use a process called polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to make lots of copies of the genes. Next, scientists mix in fluorescent compounds that attach themselves to 13 specific locations on the DNA and give a highly specific genetic portrait of that person. The whole process takes a few days, and forensic labs are often backed up analyzing data from other cases.

 

[schooling]

If it's not his DNA how does he have standing for the 4th Amendment challenge?
JMO

Good ol' Catch 22.

 

[Nila Aella]

What is touch DNA?

The technology that cleared JonBenet Ramsey's family of her murder can detect the slightest bit of genetic material. Husband and wife forensic experts Max and Lucy Houck explain:

www.scientificamerican.com

What is touch DNA?​

The technique has dramatically increased the number of items of evidence that can be used for DNA detection. In the 1980s, in order to perform DNA analysis on a crime scene or victim, forensic investigators needed a blood or semen stain about the size of a quarter. The sample size fell in the 1990s to the size of a dime and then became: “If you can see it, you can analyze it.”

Touch DNA doesn’t require you to see anything, or any blood or semen at all. It only requires seven or eight cells from the outermost layer of our skin.

Here’s how it works: Investigators recover cells from the scene, then use a process called polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to make lots of copies of the genes. Next, scientists mix in fluorescent compounds that attach themselves to 13 specific locations on the DNA and give a highly specific genetic portrait of that person. The whole process takes a few days, and forensic labs are often backed up analyzing data from other cases.

My concern is that touch dna is everywhere and transferable.
jmo

 

[Cool Cats]

My concern is that touch dna is everywhere and transferable.
jmo

But for DNA to "be all over" there has to be people around.

I do not believe that BK had his sheath snap out around anyone. I also do not believe he let anyone "play" with the snap.

And the snap DNA is described as being SINGLE SOURCE DNA.

And we have not heard of any DNA being all over the sheath, just on the snap.

So yes, DNA is all over the darn place but it is in places frequented by humans who touch common things, etc... I do not see it as realistic that BK had his sheath out in public and I believe he hid it very carefully from people.

If the judge allows the DNA in front of the jury I believe prosecution expert DNA witnesses will have diagrams enlarged to help explain the results. Probably have cheek swab DNA and snap DNA and trash profile DNA from BK's dad.

I think it will be clear it is BK's DNA on the snap.

The defense will have their own DNA expert but this is what jury's do, they decide if a witness is credible or how credible. If the prosecution's DNA expert witness convinces the jury - beyond a reasonable doubt -
that BK's DNA is the only DNA on the snap, then this will go a very long ways towards convicting him, I am sure.

2 Cents