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

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #901
And that they were sleeping on it and there would be the girl's DNA on the snap in my opinion.

Who the heck sleeps on a large military sheath and knife. Not reasonable.

2 Cents
Thanks @Cool Cats and appreciate the thoughts. I wonder if maybe the assailant might have kept the weapon in very close proximity to their person? At least a forensically ‘cleaned’ one? And maybe they slept with the knife in it’s sheath?

Pure speculation only here. And will be most interested to see what evidence and testimony comes forth at trial in this case and by court filings that are not sealed. It is really quite difficult to ascertain much of this BK Idaho case due to the gag order IIUC. MOO
 
  • #902
Well, I am wondering if they were in a rush to compare BK’s profile and now, given the noise related to private database, they can’t use it for the other two, and they don’t get hits in CODIS.

It doesn’t prevent them from exploring these DNAs, partial or full, getting as much information about them as possible. This is totally fine. 1:itself or 1:1 raises no questions.

The question emerges when one hears that there are several different DNA samples and only one was investigated. Touch DNA, yes, but not the one from blood?
You are ignoring the fact that they tried to investigate the blood from the banister and there wasn't enough DNA or it was only a partial match, so it was excluded. Probably from a previous tenant or partygoer and is irrelevant. Doesn't need to carry as much weight. Blood isn't a better indicator of DNA than fingerprints. Back in the '50's and 60's before the discovery of DNA, many cases were solved using the AFIS system, which is the equivalent of CODIS for fingerprints, or they manually ID'd the fingerprints.
 
Last edited:
  • #903
You are entitled to your opinion, I merely like to weigh “pros” and “cons”. If we didn’t do it, and just followed headlines, we’d not learn. (I was doing it in LL’s case, for example. Following it now; very interesting.)

There are some things that are “pro” BK, and some are against. I always think that the sheath could have been intentionally placed. Also, among the reasons for the murders, “obsession” is not on my personal top. But, as i said, who knows. Human behavior is unpredictable.
Underneath the victim?? Who is going to do that? Police out to frame BK? We aren't talking OJ Simpson's trial here. That will not fly with a jury.
 
  • #904
You are entitled to your opinion, I merely like to weigh “pros” and “cons”. If we didn’t do it, and just followed headlines, we’d not learn. (I was doing it in LL’s case, for example. Following it now; very interesting.)
Snipped for focus and bolded.

What headlines do you mean? You're posting about the unknown DNA specimens IIUC. In terms of the unknown dna found on outside glove and bannister, I've followed the hearings and read the available court documents. I've also spent time informing myself of testing procedures used by ISL, and Codis eligibility requirements and discussed it a bit in prior posts.

I don't really read msm pertaining to this case, unless it's simple and direct reporting of court proceedings/filings but I do wonder how many msm reports or headlines have addressed the ISL normal procedure angle? Not many is my guess.

OTOH, I think the more sensationalist headlines (and social media) are probably closer in line with your assumptions at least in regard to the two unknown DNA profiles. ie: more should have been done; why wasn't enough done; blood!; and so forth. Jmo

Certainly, from a brief perusal, I have seen social media replete with all sorts of what I would characterise as uninformed guess work, much of which just assumes the ISL state lab didn't follow normal protocols based on a grand total of zero grounds. Moo
 
  • #905
Oooooo! I didn’t think of that but that easily clears everything up doesn’t it.
Nice.
They could also testify about the dog's behavior, especially if he was in one of their rooms.
 
  • #906

It is not up to the defendant to point to evidence that is potentially exculpatory. All the defense has to do is put enough questions in the minds of the jury about his guilt. Without the DNA, this case has reasonable doubt all over it. With the DNA, it becomes a bit harder, but not impossible.

MOO.

Yes it is up to defendants to point to exculpatory evidence. An alibi can be exculpatory.


How do I get the evidence that helps me?​

You and your attorney should not simply count on the prosecutor to turn over exculpatory evidence. Instead, it is up to you and your lawyer to be proactive about getting any and all favorable evidence.

What does this mean?

Let’s cover the easiest scenario first: helpful evidence that you know exists. Initially, you will be the most knowledgeable person about your case. So, pass that knowledge on to your attorney. For example, there may be helpful documents on that computer that the government seized from you. Or, that key witness for the government may be a well-known crook that no one would ever trust. Tell your lawyer! A skilled white collar defense attorney will know what steps to take in order to get that evidence, and to use that evidence effectively.

But how about a situation where you don’t know what helpful evidence might be out there? This is where it is crucial to have an experienced, creative and thorough lawyer representing you. An effective lawyer will do the following to ensure you get all of the helpful evidence that you are entitled to in your case:

Conduct an independent investigation. This may be hard to believe, but prosecutors and agents are not out there looking for all of the facts and evidence that will help your case and hurt theirs. That is your lawyer’s job, and it will include things like interviewing witnesses, obtaining documents (through subpoena or other means), and hiring experts if necessary. Investigation will often reveal helpful information, or expose weaknesses in the government’s case. Sometimes, it will reveal entire categories of helpful evidence that no one knew existed.

Thoroughly review the evidence (or discovery) provided by the prosecution. Often, the materials turned over by the prosecutors show that other favorable evidence exists. An experienced criminal defense lawyer, looking at the discovery with a critical eye, can often find clues about the existence of helpful information that has not been turned over.

Prepare detailed requests for exculpatory information. It may seem obvious that if you want helpful evidence, then you should ask for it. But this simple rule is overlooked, too often, by attorneys. Requesting exculpatory evidence, in a way that is clear but sufficiently detailed, is very important. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, prosecutors who get a direct request for a specific document or a specific type of evidence are much less likely to brush it off. If the evidence exists and they have it, but fail to turn it over, they are risking more than just the case. Similarly, courts tend to take it a lot more seriously when a piece of evidence that has been specifically requested by the defense is not turned over. This can result in sanctions—some form of penalty during the trial, up to and including a dismissal of the charges. On appeal, it can mean reversal of a conviction.

In sum, there is no substitute for having an experienced and aggressive defense attorney, who will do all that is necessary to make sure you get evidence favorable to your case—whether at trial or at sentencing.

2 Cents







 
  • #907
So good to read you 10ofrods! This had me belly laughing (as usual in an appreciative way!) at certain places. Great points. ( Dry/ wry sense of humour is gold.:D).
IMO - Yep, this is what I meant in my original post….ooops! MOO
 
  • #908
There's no telling if a deal has been offered, but I see no reason not to make that offer. They have the leverage of the death penalty, so why not put a deal of LWOP out there? Even if the prosecution hasn't made an offer, the defense can always go to them and see if they're amenable to it.

I think this is trial all the way though.
I think any talk of plea deal will start in the event that the FRANKS is denied.
Because that's going to be another way to get rid of the DP. JMO
 
  • #909
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.
IMO - Also, ‘common sense’ doesn’t seem as ‘common’ any more, unfortunately. MOO
 
  • #910
Underneath the victim?? Who is going to do that? Police out to frame BK? We aren't talking OJ Simpson's trial here. That will not fly with a jury.

It is the subject of a long post. Mind you, I do not view BK as totally innocent. But a sheath could be forgotten, or placed intentionally by a third party. It is all very strange given that so many people have been through the house before the police came. This is what makes the case so complicated for me.

Any murderer who knew the victims but visited the house more or less regularly, even if his DNA was found in an unusual place (or was fresh) could have secured the alibi by saying, "I came there in the morning." So often, it comes to "whose DNA should not have been there?" This leaves BK, right? But as I have said, I have strong suspicion that BK could have reverted back to older behavior once away from his family, and could have visited Moscow, Idaho, for own reasons. Been to some houses; not this one. So the situation when someone could have gotten hold of an item belonging to BK and placed it in the house is not implausible.

As I have said, if there are additional facts pointing at BK during the trial, I won't be that surprised.

One more reason why I have doubts is that maybe I never handled kbar. Or rather, I never cut anyone.
I can easily leave "whatever wherever", but a thing that is easily replaceable. Eyeglasses, pens. My kid once left an iPhone at McDonald's so now I insure them against loss, just in case. But a thing that I might need and it will be not easily replaceable or need time to replace, hardly likely.

Assuming people often behave the same way...is it expected that someone would leave a sheath in a house (because the knife is bloody)? Or not at all because it is viewed as the "part of the knife"?
 
  • #911
It is the subject of a long post. Mind you, I do not view BK totally innocent. But a sheath could be forgotten, or placed. It is all very strange given that so many people have been through the house before the police came. This is what makes the case so complicated for me.

Any murderer who knew the victims but visited the house more or less regularly, even if his DNA was found in an unusual place (or was fresh) could have secured the alibi by saying, "I came there in the morning." So often, it comes to "whose DNA should not have been there?" This leaves BK, right? But as I have said, I have strong suspicion that BK could have reverted back to older behavior once away from his family, and could have visited Moscow, Idaho, for own reasons. So the situation when someone could have gotten hold of an item belonging to BK and placed it in the house is not implausible.

As I have said, if there are additional facts pointing at BK during the trial, I won't be that surprised.

One more reason why I have doubts is that maybe I never handled kbar. Or rather, I never cut anyone.
I can easily leave "whatever wherever", but a thing that is easily replaceable. Eyeglasses, pens. My kid once left an iPhone at McDonald's so now I insure them against loss, just in case. But a thing that I might need and it will be not easily replaceable or need time to replace, hardly likely.

Assuming people often behave the same way...is it expected that someone would leave a sheath in a house (because the knife is bloody)? Or not at all because it is viewed as the "part of the knife"?
I'm sorry, I'm not following your logic. Who is going to frame Kohlberger? I'm not disputing him possibly having returned to the scene of the crime. I think that he DID accidentally drop the sheath during the murders. People do leave their phones. Matthew Muller left his at the scene of one of his crimes- that's how he was caught. They also leave them at restaurants. I myself have done that. Didn't see it on the colorful tile in the Mexican restaurant. (I've even left my laptop behind at another restaurant because it was on the chair next to me and I was busy talking to someone as I walked out- 45 min later, after they closed I realized it). The sheath is considered part of the murder weapon because it houses it, just like a gun holster. Even IF it belonged to the victim, (for which there is zero evidence), there's no reason for Kohlberger's DNA to be on it.
 
  • #912
Yes. It was my impression though one can only go so far in modifying the instructions about reasonable doubt and burden of proof (vs instructions about the criteria that make up/define a particular crime.)
MOO

I doubt judges even want to go further in modifying those points that they say are standard in all criminal cases.

The Judges write the instructions based on approved templates developed by states, committees or bar associations.


All imo
 
  • #913
Assuming people often behave the same way...is it expected that someone would leave a sheath in a house (because the knife is bloody)? Or not at all because it is viewed as the "part of the knife"?
IMO - It depends on how often the knife was touched, if BK bought both the knife & the sheath & put them away & then this was the very first time he used it, I can easily see it simply being ‘forgotten’ considering what was going on in the house at the time. I also suspect if he did return to the house, it was to think about looking for the sheath rather than seeing if what had happened in the house had been discovered yet. MOO
 
  • #914
. It is all very strange given that so many people have been through the house before the police came. This is what makes the case so complicated for me.
SBBM Where have you gotten that information, that "so many people" have been through the house before the police came?
 
  • #915
Payne in the PCA said that King was a quiet road, not normal for cars to be driving around at 4:00am. There was no 4:00am party, people were going to bed. That car tearing out of there was probably BK desperate to dump his evidence.
Right. Linda Lane video shows the area is quiet. A man gets in his truck. The alarm of a car down at soldier field, a white Elantra circling around the Queen Apartments four times.
 
  • #916
IMO - It depends on how often the knife was touched, if BK bought both the knife & the sheath & put them away & then this was the very first time he used it, I can easily see it simply being ‘forgotten’ considering what was going on in the house at the time. I also suspect if he did return to the house, it was to think about looking for the sheath rather than seeing if what had happened in the house had been discovered yet. MOO
Are you thinking he went to his parking spot from the night before.
 
  • #917
  • #918
Not impossible, I agree. But extremely highly unlikely more like it.

IMHO this one is very clear cut to me from the standpoint of a jury:
1) DNA, DNA, DNA... cannot be explained away. His and only his DNA on the sheath. And on the inside of a snap. Not the outside cow hide as if he brushed up against it somewhere unknown.

The DNA is the best shot they've got, IMO.

2) Circumstantial evidence that when taken in its totality, will lead a reasonable person to only one conclusion: I think it will be that BK did it. Namely: a) white Elantra with only 1 license plate, b) eyewitness description that he cannot be excluded, c) GPS/cell phone data heading in the direction of Moscow then mysteriously showing back up 10 miles south of town in the wee hours before and after the murders, d) BK behaving suspiciously in PA which will be interpreted as hiding evidence.

Was it confirmed they could see ANY license plate on the videos? Last I heard, there was some rumble about that. The eyewitness description is only credible if what the PCA said is 100% true and there's something about that from the defense POV, isn't there? Define "suspiciously" and I say that because it seems BK's always acted at least somewhat weird, not just after the murders. So does his after-murder behavior deviate significantly from pre-murder behavior? I don't think we know.

What are the chances of having an Elantra? (my guess is 3%). And a white Elantra nonetheless (20%) And with only one license plate = let's say 8%.

There were 22,000 white Elantras in Moscow, ID that matched the description LE initially put out.


% of people who turned off their cell phone around the time of the murder maybe 4% (90% of the world is still asleep).

90% of the world is not sleeping at that time. First of all, if you really mean the world, then you have to account for time zones. If you mean Moscow, then you're closer, but you have to still account for shift workers and a college town on a Saturday night. As for the percentage of people who turned off their cell phones, that's fine, but that isn't a prerequisite to murder. If BK isn't the killer, then we have no idea if the killer turned off his cell.

Yeh, I know you can't get % phone turned off data. Bottom line, multiply all those unlikely things together and you get 0.0005% chance that all these coincidences happened randomly to BK.

Yes, I made these stats up but the point is when you string together several highly unlikely events, you get an astronomical low chance that it would be coincidence.

I feel that jurors will be given a nice presentation doubting how can there be a series of coincidences like this just randomly happen?.

JMO... but based on some experience.

We'll see what happens.

MOO.
 
  • #919
Respectfully, 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.



And how does that change what I said? My point is that something that is reasonable to me may not be reasonable to you. The "legal" definition of reasonable doubt doesn't account for the difference in one's interpretation of what is or isn't reasonable.
 
  • #920
Yes it is up to defendants to point to exculpatory evidence. An alibi can be exculpatory.

SBMFF

Until our laws change to state that one is guilty until proven innocent, I maintain that is not up to the defend to point out exculpatory evidence. This doesn't mean they can't do it. But it is not a requirement of reasonable doubt or a not guilty verdict.

MOO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
136
Guests online
2,334
Total visitors
2,470

Forum statistics

Threads
633,252
Messages
18,638,552
Members
243,458
Latest member
Velvetnigh
Back
Top