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

[MassGuy]

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

Sure, that's why you look into his alibi.

His phone just so happens to go dark for a two hour period, but prior to that, shows data consistent with the movements of a car very similar to his, as seen on WSU surveillance footage.

It just so happens to be traveling in the direction of Moscow when it ceases communication.

This two hour period fits perfectly into the time window of the murders, accounting for travel time, the crime itself, evidence disposal, and his return to campus.

There has never been an easier time in history to verify an alibi, and for some astronomically unlucky reason, Kohberger's phone happens to be off at the absolute worst time.

Then they kept digging...

IF someone is the victim of DNA transference, and is basically framed by their own DNA, police should quickly run into a problem. Not only did they not run into a problem, but the case just kept getting stronger and stronger.

I can't wait to hear all the additional ways this poor got unlucky. Starting with those Amazon purchases the defense is so desperate to keep out.

 

[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

So the original statement was:
Instead, the FBI apparently got into the private side of the DNA database BK put his DNA into. At least this is what AT is alleging.
I responded:
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.
And I see that while the first sentence is correct (AT never alleges that), the second sentence is not exactly what was said and is not correct.

Here are the exchanges in court:

Starting about 5:39:35

Judge: "That was the point of my question about whether or not Mr. Kohberger's DNA would, was in any of those databases. In other words, did he submit his DNA and said I don't want law enforcement to look at it?"

AT: Long pause..."Your honor, I don't think that that's the way the question should be looked at. The question should be looked at in the way we always look at warrantless searches."

Judge: "There's gotta be a standing." Judge kind of shrugs and there's no answer to that.

Then at about 5:48:55

JN: "Is there even a reasonable expectation of privacy? The fact that no one has a reasonable expectation of privacy in those databases means that even if the FBI violated those terms of service no one has a Fourth Amendment right to complain, and certainly Mr. Kohberger doesn't. He has not asserted factually or through evidence that he was a customer to one of these databases. And maybe that changes the case if he were but he's not, he's not even claiming that, he's not even asserting it."

So it was said in court by JN that BK has never asserted factually or through evidence that he was a customer of those databases. If he's not a customer, the FBI can't access any databases with his profile in it. And it was certainly not alleged that this is what they did by AT. I think it's also important to understand that with the two most popular databases, ancestry and 23&Me, you must use their kits to add your own to their databases. You can't upload a profile that was developed by another service. So if, for example, BK had a profile on ancestry, the FBI could not upload the profile developed by Othram or anyone else to ancestry to compare it to a kit BK might have had. Same with 23&Me.

I don't think we know right now what the FBI has provided. JN said in court around 5:59:20 that the defense in this case had gotten a lot more information than many defendants in other states where there's been an IGG investigation because the majority of courts have found it's just a tip. So it may not be all they want, but it doesn't appear they haven't provided anything.
JMO

 

[Sundog]

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

Excellent article that identifies a number of issues involved regarding the use of IGG in this case, and by a number of experts. It's definitely not a simple issue, and could very well be taken up by the Supreme Court, IMO. I think that is what AT ultimately believes should happen and a lot of prominent defense attorneys appear to agree with her as is clear from this article. There are some grey areas in terms of existing law on this issue, as I understand some of the issues raised in the article.

 

[Sor Juana]

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

Suppose the knife was taken from BK, and somebody else opened the snap while wearing a glove. Can BK's DNA still be present on the snap? One might think that the sheath would only have the owner's DNA on it. This undoubtedly links BK to the crime scene, but can the sheath link BK to the actual murder? The murder weapon and the sheath are two separate items.

 

[Nila Aella]

So the original statement was:
Instead, the FBI apparently got into the private side of the DNA database BK put his DNA into. At least this is what AT is alleging.
I responded:
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.
And I see that while the first sentence is correct (AT never alleges that), the second sentence is not exactly what was said and is not correct.

Here are the exchanges in court:

Starting about 5:39:35

Judge: "That was the point of my question about whether or not Mr. Kohberger's DNA would, was in any of those databases. In other words, did he submit his DNA and said I don't want law enforcement to look at it?"

AT: Long pause..."Your honor, I don't think that that's the way the question should be looked at. The question should be looked at in the way we always look at warrantless searches."

Judge: "There's gotta be a standing." Judge kind of shrugs and there's no answer to that.

Then at about 5:48:55

JN: "Is there even a reasonable expectation of privacy? The fact that no one has a reasonable expectation of privacy in those databases means that even if the FBI violated those terms of service no one has a Fourth Amendment right to complain, and certainly Mr. Kohberger doesn't. He has not asserted factually or through evidence that he was a customer to one of these databases. And maybe that changes the case if he were but he's not, he's not even claiming that, he's not even asserting it."

So it was said in court by JN that BK has never asserted factually or through evidence that he was a customer of those databases. If he's not a customer, the FBI can't access any databases with his profile in it. And it was certainly not alleged that this is what they did by AT. I think it's also important to understand that with the two most popular databases, ancestry and 23&Me, you must use their kits to add your own to their databases. You can't upload a profile that was developed by another service. So if, for example, BK had a profile on ancestry, the FBI could not upload the profile developed by Othram or anyone else to ancestry to compare it to a kit BK might have had. Same with 23&Me.

TY! for locating those exchanges.
Just adding that they mentioned MyHeritage as one of the sites.

I don't think we know right now what the FBI has provided.
JN said in court around 5:59:20 that the defense in this case had gotten a lot more information than many defendants in other states where there's been an IGG investigation because the majority of courts have found it's just a tip.

IMO they got discovery from O. And testimony from O.

So it may not be all they want, but it doesn't appear they haven't provided anything.
JMO

You are right!
They provided the family tree.
And an SNP.
And somehow the D knows they went to two sites against policy - communications maybe? (listed on the exhibits)

Maybe we will learn more once the transcript of the closed hearing is released.
JMO

 

[joe jones]

I wonder how much of the FBI work on case, and admitted mis deeds will be heard at trial, the Judge, nor prosecution have any authority to compel Federal employees to testify in state courts, so unless they choose to testify we won't be hearing from any of them, which means we won't get to hear anything about what there lab did with the DNA and IGG,
I think state may lose one or more of the tech SW, but I highly doubt they will lose the whole based on the probable cause, as the judge pointed out BK has no standing in relation to how the DNA was used that was recovered off the sheath found at crime scene, if he has uploaded a sample to the genealogy website it would have been different
I doubt that there will be any further hearing to rehash the IGG evidence either, I think the judge is done
I do hold the opinion though that the defence should be provided with all the documents relating to the methods used in all the IGG testing, they should have already had it IMO, then the defence may have had a better argument to challenge the PC and everything that came from that

 

[Balthazar]

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.

Yes, AT DID allege this. JMO. Specifically AT said in court that the "In this case there were a lot of search warrants, I'm going to draw the courts attention to those beginning on December 23, that day is important because it was just a few days prior to that for the first time ever BK's name came up in the course of this investigation. Your honor wouldn't know that by reading the Affadavits for probable cause, nobody would know it. That's because that information is omitted from the Affidavit. That information is something that you heard about this morning in testimony that but for the FBI's work going into databases they shouldn't have been going into, violating their own policy and keeping records, and doing this all behind the scenes and in secret, that's the ONLY way a name was produced. Prior to that time the lead detective in the case had never heard the name BK. He had not crossed their radar. That's nowhere in the Affidavit and that's important 'cause that's intentionally withheld from the Affidavit. Because of the work the FBI did, because the FBI went behind the scenes and did things they shouldn't have, because they searched databases that they shouldn't have been doing. We don't know what else they did wrong because everything else is a secret."
Please go back and watch the last hearing starting at 6:20:18.

JMO.

edited by me for focus.

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

IMO, IGG was not actually done. According to AT, FBI breached databases they shouldn't have. Based on what AT has said, the FBI cannot or will not produce an IGG report they are required to have and keep on file per their own code of conduct and cannot or will not produce an FBI agent that worked on the IGG report.

JMO

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

IMO, unless and until the FBI produces an IGG report and/or the person who did the IGG, there is no IGG. It is not real and has never been real. JMOO.

IMO, if it is a partial STR or SNP, then the would explain why Othram couldn't do IGG. So, what if the FBI started to try to do IGG?

"The process of IGG involves uploading a crime scene DNA profile to one or more genetic genealogy databases with the intention of partially matching it to a criminal offender’s genetic relatives and, eventually, locating the offender within their family tree."

Four misconceptions about investigative genetic genealogy

Abstract. Investigative genetic genealogy (IGG) is a new technique for identifying criminal suspects that has sparked controversy. The technique involves u

academic.oup.com

Wendy44, if you were given a partial DNA SNP, how well could you do in creating an IGG? Would you have caught BK or would you have found his family, maybe?

All MOO, JMO.

 

[jepop]

So the original statement was:
Instead, the FBI apparently got into the private side of the DNA database BK put his DNA into. At least this is what AT is alleging.
I responded:
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.
And I see that while the first sentence is correct (AT never alleges that), the second sentence is not exactly what was said and is not correct.

Here are the exchanges in court:

Starting about 5:39:35

Judge: "That was the point of my question about whether or not Mr. Kohberger's DNA would, was in any of those databases. In other words, did he submit his DNA and said I don't want law enforcement to look at it?"

AT: Long pause..."Your honor, I don't think that that's the way the question should be looked at. The question should be looked at in the way we always look at warrantless searches."

Judge: "There's gotta be a standing." Judge kind of shrugs and there's no answer to that.

Then at about 5:48:55

JN: "Is there even a reasonable expectation of privacy? The fact that no one has a reasonable expectation of privacy in those databases means that even if the FBI violated those terms of service no one has a Fourth Amendment right to complain, and certainly Mr. Kohberger doesn't. He has not asserted factually or through evidence that he was a customer to one of these databases. And maybe that changes the case if he were but he's not, he's not even claiming that, he's not even asserting it."

So it was said in court by JN that BK has never asserted factually or through evidence that he was a customer of those databases. If he's not a customer, the FBI can't access any databases with his profile in it. And it was certainly not alleged that this is what they did by AT. I think it's also important to understand that with the two most popular databases, ancestry and 23&Me, you must use their kits to add your own to their databases. You can't upload a profile that was developed by another service. So if, for example, BK had a profile on ancestry, the FBI could not upload the profile developed by Othram or anyone else to ancestry to compare it to a kit BK might have had. Same with 23&Me.

I don't think we know right now what the FBI has provided. JN said in court around 5:59:20 that the defense in this case had gotten a lot more information than many defendants in other states where there's been an IGG investigation because the majority of courts have found it's just a tip. So it may not be all they want, but it doesn't appear they haven't provided anything.
JMO

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/CR29-22-2805/2024/022924-Amended-Order-for-Disclosure-IGG-PO.pdf

Thanks for this and thanks for transcribing where JNye makes clear defense is not arguing BK uploaded his DNA to an IGG data base. And the info on the kits. Thanks for this valuable information.

I agree with your last paragraph. The state/ FBI provided IGG materials and the defense's has things. It's not the case that the defense don't have anything.

See the link where JJJ in amended order for disclosure of IGG gives specific instructions on what can happen and who can see the family tree. The defense was provided with family tree info imo in January 2024. To me, that is unambiguous.

Moo

 

[Cool Cats]

Sure, that's why you look into his alibi.

His phone just so happens to go dark for a two hour period, but prior to that, shows data consistent with the movements of a car very similar to his, as seen on WSU surveillance footage.

It just so happens to be traveling in the direction of Moscow when it ceases communication.

This two hour period fits perfectly into the time window of the murders, accounting for travel time, the crime itself, evidence disposal, and his return to campus.

There has never been an easier time in history to verify an alibi, and for some astronomically unlucky reason, Kohberger's phone happens to be off at the absolute worst time.

Then they kept digging...

IF someone is the victim of DNA transference, and is basically framed by their own DNA, police should quickly run into a problem. Not only did they not run into a problem, but the case just kept getting stronger and stronger.

I can't wait to hear all the additional ways this poor *advertiser censored* got unlucky. Starting with those Amazon purchases the defense is so desperate to keep out.

The defense is trying to keep Amazon purchases out?

I am having a lot of internet problems and my court Motions are not downloading so I must have missed this somehow.

Any info you may have about Amazon purchases I would appreciate. Hard to believe a data guy like BK would leave a digital trail.

Bryan Kohberger applied for police internship before Idaho killings: affidavit

Kohberger reportedly wanted to put his criminology studies to the test and work with officers to “better collect and analyze” data.

nypost.com

Accused quadruple killer Bryan Kohberger applied for an internship with his local Washington state police department in the weeks before the University of Idaho killings, according to a police report.

Kohberger, a PhD student in criminology at Washington State University, wanted to intern with the Pullman Police Department in the Fall 2022 semester, according to the affidavit made public Thursday.

In an essay he submitted with his application, the alleged killer wrote that he wanted to assist “rural law enforcement agencies with how to better collect and analyze technological
data in public safety operations,” the affidavit says.

Kohberger didn’t seem to get the job. One of the officers who interviewed him handed his application records over to Moscow cops investigating the Nov. 13 murders of four college students at their off-campus home.

 

[SpiderFalcon]

@Cool Cats here's some snaps for you (as opposed to SNPs )



This is from: https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/CR01...ts-Motions-Suppress-Motion-Franks-Hearing.pdf

 

[INfisherman]

Excellent article that identifies a number of issues involved regarding the use of IGG in this case, and by a number of experts. It's definitely not a simple issue, and could very well be taken up by the Supreme Court, IMO. I think that is what AT ultimately believes should happen and a lot of prominent defense attorneys appear to agree with her as is clear from this article. There are some grey areas in terms of existing law on this issue, as I understand some of the issues raised in the article.

Seems some states have taken steps towards securing more privacy but warrants appear to be the means to justify it. I don’t dispute whether there are gray areas or issues, I just think the floodgates may be too wide open. Any major changes & already convicted murderers/rapists could potentially walk or at minimum get a retrial.

Tough call to make IMO.

ETA Forgot to link a source:

https://www.ncsl.org/state-legislatures-news/details/lawmakers-cautious-as-genetic-tests-help-in-cracking-cold-cases

 

[Nila Aella]

I wonder how much of the FBI work on case, and admitted mis deeds will be heard at trial, the Judge, nor prosecution have any authority to compel Federal employees to testify in state courts, so unless they choose to testify we won't be hearing from any of them, which means we won't get to hear anything about what there lab did with the DNA and IGG,

100%

I think state may lose one or more of the tech SW,

Which warrants?
IMO Google and Apple will be granted.

but I highly doubt they will lose the whole based on the probable cause, as the judge pointed out BK has no standing in relation to how the DNA was used that was recovered off the sheath found at crime scene, if he has uploaded a sample to the genealogy website it would have been different
I doubt that there will be any further hearing to rehash the IGG evidence either, I think the judge is done

Agree, this will go to a higher court.
AT had to make a record.

I do hold the opinion though that the defence should be provided with all the documents relating to the methods used in all the IGG testing, they should have already had it IMO, then the defence may have had a better argument to challenge the PC and everything that came from that

Do you think a Franks will be granted?

JMO

 

[joe jones]

100%

Which warrants?
IMO Google and Apple will be granted.

Agree, this will go to a higher court.
AT had to make a record.

Do you think a Franks will be granted?

JMO

I doubt the Judge will grant Franks, just because of standing, and the SW the state may lose will possibly be the apple one,

 

[Balthazar]

Kohberger didn’t seem to get the job. One of the officers who interviewed him handed his application records over to Moscow cops investigating the Nov. 13 murders of four college students at their off-campus home.

We still don't know if BK got the job or not.

 

[INfisherman]

We still don't know if BK got the job or not.

He probably won’t now.

JMO

 

[jepop]

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

Of course. If this were true AT would have specified in motions that the snap button sheathe forensic sample was so degraded that only a partial profile could be developed. Of course she would have and she has not. Not once. No court filings or oral argument have ever gone there. IMO.

Noting also, there was sufficient forensic sample on the sheathe button for Othram to develop the SNP profile from some of it, and commence IGG before transferring that SNP profile to the FBI for exploration in other data bases. I'm guessing because no snp profiles related to the sheathe SNP profile were located in Othram 's data base. Or, in other words, it's likely none of BK's relatives, distant or otherwise, had uploaded their DNA to Othram's data base. Speculation but I think that makes sense. Jmo

 

[wendy44]

SBM

Yes, AT DID allege this. JMO. Specifically AT said in court that the "In this case there were a lot of search warrants, I'm going to draw the courts attention to those beginning on December 23, that day is important because it was just a few days prior to that for the first time ever BK's name came up in the course of this investigation. Your honor wouldn't know that by reading the Affadavits for probable cause, nobody would know it. That's because that information is omitted from the Affidavit. That information is something that you heard about this morning in testimony that but for the FBI's work going into databases they shouldn't have been going into, violating their own policy and keeping records, and doing this all behind the scenes and in secret, that's the ONLY way a name was produced. Prior to that time the lead detective in the case had never heard the name BK. He had not crossed their radar. That's nowhere in the Affidavit and that's important 'cause that's intentionally withheld from the Affidavit. Because of the work the FBI did, because the FBI went behind the scenes and did things they shouldn't have, because they searched databases that they shouldn't have been doing. We don't know what else they did wrong because everything else is a secret."
Please go back and watch the last hearing starting at 6:20:18.

You said: Instead, the FBI apparently got into the private side of the DNA database BK put his DNA into. At least this is what AT is alleging.

Where exactly did AT say that the FBI accessed a database where BK loaded his own DNA? It's nowhere in what you quoted and I listened several minutes beyond that and she doesn't say that. When the judge asked her directly if BK's DNA was in any of the databases accessed by the FBI she evaded the question. Later in the hearing, JN stated that there was no evidence or even assertion by BK himself that he was a customer of any of those databases. What evidence do you see that he was?
JMO

IMO, IGG was not actually done. According to AT, FBI breached databases they shouldn't have. Based on what AT has said, the FBI cannot or will not produce an IGG report they are required to have and keep on file per their own code of conduct and cannot or will not produce an FBI agent that worked on the IGG report.

JMO

IMO, unless and until the FBI produces an IGG report and/or the person who did the IGG, there is no IGG. It is not real and has never been real. JMOO.

So if IGG wasn't done, on what basis does BK have a Fourth Amendment challenge? The defense is making the case that the IGG is the illegal search and seizure.
JMO

IMO, if it is a partial STR or SNP, then the would explain why Othram couldn't do IGG. So, what if the FBI started to try to do IGG?

Othram is the one who develops the SNP profile through genome sequencing. They have a full profile to work with.
JMO

Wendy44, if you were given a partial DNA SNP, how well could you do in creating an IGG? Would you have caught BK or would you have found his family, maybe?

All MOO, JMO.

An SNP profile is developed using genome sequencing. A partial DNA SNP is not loaded into the databases for IGG. How quickly I could use his profile to build his tree would depend on the matches generated and if there were both paternal and maternal matches and matches that match BK but not each other. It would help that he has unusual names on both sides of his family and has roots in the mid-Atlantic where there are lots online resources like newspapers with obituaries. But you're not working with a partial profile. You're working with a full DNA profile that was generated using genome sequencing and can only be one person.
JMO

 

[mrjitty]

So the original statement was:
Instead, the FBI apparently got into the private side of the DNA database BK put his DNA into. At least this is what AT is alleging.
I responded:
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.
And I see that while the first sentence is correct (AT never alleges that), the second sentence is not exactly what was said and is not correct.

Here are the exchanges in court:

Starting about 5:39:35

Judge: "That was the point of my question about whether or not Mr. Kohberger's DNA would, was in any of those databases. In other words, did he submit his DNA and said I don't want law enforcement to look at it?"

AT: Long pause..."Your honor, I don't think that that's the way the question should be looked at. The question should be looked at in the way we always look at warrantless searches."

Judge: "There's gotta be a standing." Judge kind of shrugs and there's no answer to that.

Then at about 5:48:55

JN: "Is there even a reasonable expectation of privacy? The fact that no one has a reasonable expectation of privacy in those databases means that even if the FBI violated those terms of service no one has a Fourth Amendment right to complain, and certainly Mr. Kohberger doesn't. He has not asserted factually or through evidence that he was a customer to one of these databases. And maybe that changes the case if he were but he's not, he's not even claiming that, he's not even asserting it."

So it was said in court by JN that BK has never asserted factually or through evidence that he was a customer of those databases. If he's not a customer, the FBI can't access any databases with his profile in it. And it was certainly not alleged that this is what they did by AT. I think it's also important to understand that with the two most popular databases, ancestry and 23&Me, you must use their kits to add your own to their databases. You can't upload a profile that was developed by another service. So if, for example, BK had a profile on ancestry, the FBI could not upload the profile developed by Othram or anyone else to ancestry to compare it to a kit BK might have had. Same with 23&Me.

I don't think we know right now what the FBI has provided. JN said in court around 5:59:20 that the defense in this case had gotten a lot more information than many defendants in other states where there's been an IGG investigation because the majority of courts have found it's just a tip. So it may not be all they want, but it doesn't appear they haven't provided anything.
JMO

IMO AT is answering clearly in the negative. She is directly asked the question by the Judge. You can’t duck out of it but the later say the answer is yes. At least not without the Judge getting big mad. MOO

 

[mrjitty]

SBM

You said: Instead, the FBI apparently got into the private side of the DNA database BK put his DNA into. At least this is what AT is alleging.

Where exactly did AT say that the FBI accessed a database where BK loaded his own DNA? It's nowhere in what you quoted and I listened several minutes beyond that and she doesn't say that. When the judge asked her directly if BK's DNA was in any of the databases accessed by the FBI she evaded the question. Later in the hearing, JN stated that there was no evidence or even assertion by BK himself that he was a customer of any of those databases. What evidence do you see that he was?
JMO

So if IGG wasn't done, on what basis does BK have a Fourth Amendment challenge? The defense is making the case that the IGG is the illegal search and seizure.
JMO

Othram is the one who develops the SNP profile through genome sequencing. They have a full profile to work with.
JMO

An SNP profile is developed using genome sequencing. A partial DNA SNP is not loaded into the databases for IGG. How quickly I could use his profile to build his tree would depend on the matches generated and if there were both paternal and maternal matches and matches that match BK but not each other. It would help that he has unusual names on both sides of his family and has roots in the mid-Atlantic where there are lots online resources like newspapers with obituaries. But you're not working with a partial profile. You're working with a full DNA profile that was generated using genome sequencing and can only be one person.
JMO

agreed. ATs whole case is illegal search. This argument is legally incoherent IMO.

AT can’t play tricksy about whether his DNA was ever uploaded.

 

[jepop]

Sounds to me like it might be another "the defense says it’s this therefore it’s a fact" type of debate…again.

MOO

Except, if you're speaking to recent posts claiming 1) BK uploaded his DNA to data bases accessed by FBI in the course of conducting IGG, and 2) the DNA forensic sample on the sheathe button was degraded/partial/ambiguous etc, then not even the defense has said it. Jmo