GUILTY ID - 4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #105

[jepop]

Lots of parties, bloody nose, rough housing on the stairs.

Yes, a no brainer imo. Pretty sure this is the approach that the state will take if this sample comes into evidence which it should. Plus other stuff to do with lab priorities etc. Jmo

 

[StarryStarryNight]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed due to opinion stated as fact and no links to support>

It was evidence at the crime scene, which is why it was collected.
That does not make it evidence in this crime.
I’m sure there were plenty of other things collected at the crime scene that were determined later not to be relevant.

 

[wendy44]

You might be right that the judge is wrong--but he likely knows more about the evidence than either of us do. Your opinion that there were lots of bloody prints found in the house is valid as an opinion but it IS only an opinion.

I do know what latent means. My point is if the scene was so bloody, I wouldn't think "special techniques" would be needed to make a bloody shoe print visible. And while you are right one print near the witness's door (BF? I thought it was DM) helps to support her statement, a path of prints passing her door (or even a second print) would be super-supportive. And as you say, the person whose print it was didn't fly there so why weren't there more prints found in that location (per the defense and per the judge.)
MOO

I think there may be prints in other places, but it does seem odd that there would be none before or after the one referenced in the PCA. Someone here a while ago speculated he may have stopped by DM's door and leaned in to listen for someone there and that makes a lot of sense to me. If he heard someone (XK) while he was on the third floor, he may have stopped in front of DM's door on the way down and leaned in to listen, putting extra weight on that one foot to leave a print. The defense pointed out that the print was closer to the door than DM reported him to be and that it was not positioned toward the sliding glass door. The speculation about him stopping there and leaning in would explain that as well.
JMO

 

[SteveP]

Yes, moo it's a no brainer. Of course BK's defence will insinuate over it for all it's worth on cross and maybe via their own expert during their case in chief. Whatever approach the defense take, the State imo have this case locked down and I have no doubt they will have good rebuttal experts. Moo the jury should have no problem understanding that the unknown DNA extracted from this blood (which at present we know nothing about in terms of amount, age and so forth) is irrelevant to the crime. Jmo

Hopefully voir dire will at least do something to exclude potential jurors who have a tendency to either make up evidence or facts pertaining to trial evidence which are not established. Jmo.

The defense has known about this blood spot since at least late January of this year, as it was addressed in a hearing with Det Payne. If the defense really thought it may have been connected to the murders, they could have petitioned the court to be allowed to have the sample tested, themselves. They would have had six months to get it tested. But they likely know, as almost all of us do, that it has nothing at all to do with the crime, but hope to benefit from telling the jury there was blood there that was unidentified, that could have belonged to the real killer. JMO

 

[MassGuy]

I disagree with the BBM portion

Nobody is certain what is relevant evidence and what is not at a crime scene. CSI doesn't make the determination of what is relevant or not. Samples, photos, prints, etc. are all taken from the general crime vicinity and only later, when the rest of the evidence is gathered and reviewed, do investigators begin to determine what is relevant to the crime and what is not. CSI gathers anything that MAY be relevant. Some will turn out to be very relevant, some only marginally, and most completely irrelevant. JMO

Exactly. The rule of thumb is that it’s better to take more evidence than you need, than not enough - you only get one chance to get it right.

If you see a potential blood spot, you are absolutely swabbing it.

The bar wouldn’t be “absolutely certain,” rather, it would be “potentially relevant.”

 

[NCWatcher]

I think there may be prints in other places, but it does seem odd that there would be none before or after the one referenced in the PCA. Someone here a while ago speculated he may have stopped by DM's door and leaned in to listen for someone there and that makes a lot of sense to me. If he heard someone (XK) while he was on the third floor, he may have stopped in front of DM's door on the way down and leaned in to listen, putting extra weight on that one foot to leave a print. The defense pointed out that the print was closer to the door than DM reported him to be and that it was not positioned toward the sliding glass door. The speculation about him stopping there and leaning in would explain that as well.
JMO

Hmm. Not sure how that could work.

According to everything I've read (example link below) DM opened her door and saw the unknown black-clad man walking towards her. He then walked past her and towards the slider. When could he have "leaned in" to listen at her door if she saw him approaching the door and then saw him approaching the exit? He'd have to have turned around after she closed her door and walked back and then turned around again before leaning in so the footprint would be facing the right way (towards the exit) And with all that walking, there were no other footprints in the area?

Bryan Kohberger Murder Case: Eyewitness Thought Suspect and Victims Were Partying, Yelled About Noise - Report

A source who had spoken to the eyewitness told NewsNation host Ashleigh Banfield that the eyewitness, who was one of the two surviving roommates living in the home, even yelled at her roommates to keep the noise down.

www.insideedition.com

MOO

 

[russoca]

He stepped in blood. There must have been multiple footprints.

Maybe it was the only usable footprint because it's the only one from which they could lift a usable tread pattern.

JMO

It was the print that put the killer in front of DMs door. That is why that print was mentioned. There very well could have been other prints that were of poor quality. The PCA mentions this print because of location.

MOO. . .

 

[Balthazar]

It was the print that put the killer in front of DMs door. That is why that print was mentioned. There very well could have been other prints that were of poor quality. The PCA mentions this print because of location.

MOO. . .

AT said it was one single footprint and no others.

 

[iamshadow21]

Hmm. Not sure how that could work.

According to everything I've read (example link below) DM opened her door and saw the unknown black-clad man walking towards her. He then walked past her and towards the slider. When could he have "leaned in" to listen at her door if she saw him approaching the door and then saw him approaching the exit? He'd have to have turned around after she closed her door and walked back and then turned around again before leaning in so the footprint would be facing the right way (towards the exit) And with all that walking, there were no other footprints in the area?

Bryan Kohberger Murder Case: Eyewitness Thought Suspect and Victims Were Partying, Yelled About Noise - Report

A source who had spoken to the eyewitness told NewsNation host Ashleigh Banfield that the eyewitness, who was one of the two surviving roommates living in the home, even yelled at her roommates to keep the noise down.

www.insideedition.com

MOO

The way that could work, if it was positioned that way, is if he didn't leave it when DM saw him, but when he came down the stairs from killing MM and KG. That point in the home is something of a nexus; he would have had to cross through it a minimum of three times.

Pass one: after entering, likely from the kitchen slider, no blood on his shoes, turning to the right up the stairs
Pass two: coming downstairs, possible blood on his shoes, moving forward up the single step into the front half of the middle floor
Pass three: back down the single step, past DM standing behind her cracked open door, likely blood on his shoes, likely dazzled by the neon combined with his VSS, turning back to the right to go through the kitchen and out the slider to exit.

MOO

 

[Megnut]

You have completely misunderstood my post. I was pointing out that it is absurd to even consider that police would be bleeding all over the crime scene. The people that we know of who were in 1122 King Rd that morning were:

DM
BF
HJ
EA
Police

The 4 students exited the house once XK and EC were discovered. LE entered, and discovered all of the victims. From that point on, no one was allowed to enter until CSI got there. The paramedics were turned away. Idaho CSI got there around 3pm and were setting up to go into the scene at 4pm.

There is zero evidence that the blood on the handrail was old or degraded. CSI would not have taken it, if it was. That the sample was taken tells us that CSI considered it part of the crime scene inside 1122 King Rd.

Where is there evidence that that blood was deposited on 11/13?

It's far more likely it wasn't.

DM, BF, HJ and EA weren't bleeding.

What would a suspect and/or accomplice be doing on the staircase, resulting in one drop of blood on the rail?

Let's say it was left there by some college guy, during a party, playing darts without a board. Let's say the drop isn't degraded and a full profile is developed. But there's no good way to connect it to the crime except that it was found at/within the crime scene. Should LE enter that DNA into CODIS or run it through IGG just for curiosity's sake? I can imagine the debate that would spark! That person has a reasonable right to privacy, no?

I'll be shocked if the handrail blood makes it to trial. Connecting it TO the crime is a greater stretch than accepting it occurred incidentally, prior.

JMO

 

[NCWatcher]

The way that could work, if it was positioned that way, is if he didn't leave it when DM saw him, but when he came down the stairs from killing MM and KG. That point in the home is something of a nexus; he would have had to cross through it a minimum of three times.

Pass one: after entering, likely from the kitchen slider, no blood on his shoes, turning to the right up the stairs
Pass two: coming downstairs, possible blood on his shoes, moving forward up the single step into the front half of the middle floor
Pass three: back down the single step, past DM standing behind her cracked open door, likely blood on his shoes, likely dazzled by the neon combined with his VSS, turning back to the right to go through the kitchen and out the slider to exit.

MOO

Maybe. It's not clear to me when you are saying he stopped and leaned into DM's closed door to listen & leave the print. Pass 2? But it was only "possible" he had blood on his shoes at that time?

Regardless, I'm not sure that fits with DM's descriptions of noises she heard the previous two times she opened her door. Plus, if he repeatedly passed her door, it does seem there would be multiple prints from passes 2 & 3. Unless there was blood only on pass 3 & that doesn't work with what DM said he did when she saw him on what must have been pass 3.
MOO

 

[fcavanaugh]

So we know CSI did their due diligence and collected the bannister/handrail blood sample and B. Thompson confirmed it did not meet CODIS eligibility criteria, therefore imo can be reasonably inferred that it wasn’t fresh blood, had been there awhile, and likely degraded. Not unusual in a party house with lots of people/college kids coming and going etc. but CSI still collected it because they obviously had no idea who the perpetrator of the massacre was at that point, did their due diligence, and found out it didn’t meet eligibility criteria for upload to CODIS.

IMO, the blood on the handrail was ruled out/determined not to be related to the case just like alot of DNA specimens found in proximity to and collected around crime scene areas and why in most cases as their investigation progresses, investigators will usually look for other, corroborating evidence to back up DNA to rule people in/out and home in on a suspect.

In this case, they not only have BK’s DNA which we know was NOT found in a random place in the house that the killer did not go. That his DNA was found on the knife sheath which housed the likely murder weapon/knife (which is still missing/unaccounted for), and said knife sheath was found in the literal bed of one of the victims located in her bedroom where two of the murders actually occured aka one of 2 murder scenes in the house, the other murder scene being Xana’s bedroom. They also have other corroborating evidence to his DNA found in a murder victim’s bed in spades:
a car similar to his on video circling the house several times prior to and speeding away from the house after the massacre; eyewitness testimony which does not exclude him; his phone off for the entirety of the murder window; Amazon purchase of knife and sheath 8 months prior to the massacre; later activity on Amazon looking to delete said purchases and possibly shopping for another/replacement knife and sheath; close to two dozen previous trips to the area in the few months leading up to the massacre during 10pm-4am hours; has no valid/verifiable/corroborated alibi for the time in question. (That’s just what we the public know so far, I’m sure the state has some more to be revealed at trial).

So someone has to believe BK’s DNA plus all the other corroborating and extremely incriminating evidence known to date which points directly at and strongly implicates BK as the perpetrator of the massacre, or believe that all those things are just coincidences and poor BK is the unluckiest man on planet earth being framed by the ‘real killer’ and three agencies of LE and the state of Idaho are all in on conspiracy.
Using reason, logical inferences and deduction, and common sense, I personally believe the former as imo the chance that all those things are just coincidences and BK is some unlucky patsy being framed by the real killer, all LE involved and the state of Idaho is not just patently absurd/extremely unlikely, it is astronomically improbable.

Some think the state has a strong case going into trial and some don’t which is common in alot of cases. I think some could be shown clear video of a perp committing a crime and still not believe/would argue it was not them that did it.
At any rate, at the end of the day it really doesn’t matter what any of us or Joe Q. Public think or believe. It will all come down to what all is ruled as admissible evidence for trial (which currently the D is losing based on Judge H’s recent Denials on most D motions to exclude), and what/who the jury believes after hearing and evaluating all the evidence presented at trial.

It’s impossible to know what any given Jury is going to do. We can speculate and guess based on what we know about the evidence and how we think each side did/presented during the trial but can’t say for sure with certainty how a Jury will vote until the verdict is read in court.
Having said that, I believe most juries take their responsibility/oath seriously and in most cases render the correct verdict based on all the evidence presented at trial and whether they as a group believe the state met their burden of proof of guilt BARD, or not.

Based on what we know about the evidence released to date, I think the state will be able to meet their burden at trial and secure a conviction against BK, just my own speculation/opinion.

IMHOO

 

[MassGuy]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

From what I can gather, a fresh blood drop can appear"old" in less than an hour. At the time, they had no idea how this crime went down, and any blood within that house would be of interest. This logic tracks on no level.

 

[iamshadow21]

Maybe. It's not clear to me when you are saying he stopped and leaned into DM's closed door to listen & leave the print. Pass 2? But it was only "possible" he had blood on his shoes at that time?

Regardless, I'm not sure that fits with DM's descriptions of noises she heard the previous two times she opened her door. Plus, if he repeatedly passed her door, it does seem there would be multiple prints from passes 2 & 3. Unless there was blood only on pass 3 & that doesn't work with what DM said he did when she saw him on what must have been pass 3.
MOO

The reason I say 'possible' for pass two is that if blood from killing the first two girls was contained to the bed and bedding, and if he remained standing rather than climbing into the bed to attack them, his shoes may not have come into contact with their blood.

Unlike with XK, who was found on the floor, and possibly EC too, depending on what source you read (I've read both bed and floor, I don't know which is accurate). Attacking XK at a minimum while she was standing or struggling against him presents the opportunity for blood to fall on his shoes, or onto the floor to be stepped on. In my opinion, it's highly likely he stepped in XK's blood, and that's what was found by crime scene technicians.

But it's not out of the realms of possibility that the blood was from any of the victims, or was a mixture of blood from some or all of them. It would have been an incredibly messy scene.

MOO

 

[mrjitty]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

The question with any piece of circumstantial evidence is what inference can be drawn from it. In this case the answer will be nothing. So it's not relevant.

 

[wendy44]

Hmm. Not sure how that could work.

According to everything I've read (example link below) DM opened her door and saw the unknown black-clad man walking towards her. He then walked past her and towards the slider. When could he have "leaned in" to listen at her door if she saw him approaching the door and then saw him approaching the exit? He'd have to have turned around after she closed her door and walked back and then turned around again before leaning in so the footprint would be facing the right way (towards the exit) And with all that walking, there were no other footprints in the area?

Bryan Kohberger Murder Case: Eyewitness Thought Suspect and Victims Were Partying, Yelled About Noise - Report

A source who had spoken to the eyewitness told NewsNation host Ashleigh Banfield that the eyewitness, who was one of the two surviving roommates living in the home, even yelled at her roommates to keep the noise down.

www.insideedition.com

MOO

I'm thinking maybe when he walked down the stairs after killing MM and KG. He heard something, maybe XK saying someone was there. He comes down the stairs, turns to the right towards DM's door, leans in to listen for someone in that room. He puts weight down on one foot and that's why it shows up, and why the print is closer to the door than DM reported seeing him and why the print is not positioned toward the slider and the exit. He doesn't hear anything, so proceeds to XK's room.
JMO

 

[NCWatcher]

The reason I say 'possible' for pass two is that if blood from killing the first two girls was contained to the bed and bedding, and if he remained standing rather than climbing into the bed to attack them, his shoes may not have come into contact with their blood.

Unlike with XK, who was found on the floor, and possibly EC too, depending on what source you read (I've read both bed and floor, I don't know which is accurate). Attacking XK at a minimum while she was standing or struggling against him presents the opportunity for blood to fall on his shoes, or onto the floor to be stepped on. In my opinion, it's highly likely he stepped in XK's blood, and that's what was found by crime scene technicians.

But it's not out of the realms of possibility that the blood was from any of the victims, or was a mixture of blood from some or all of them. It would have been an incredibly messy scene.

MOO

Ok. But if I'm understanding your "3 passes" the latent shoeprint must have been left on pass #2. Right? So the blood had to be more than possible. It couldn't have been left on pass #1-- nobody was dead yet. And pass #3 is problematic for the proposed "leaning in to her door to listen" if we believe DM about what she saw the person doing (coming towards her and then leaving) It's not clear to me how pass #2 works in terms of the direction of the footprint, but I may be misunderstanding your description of pass #2.
MOO

 

[iamshadow21]

Ok. But if I'm understanding your "3 passes" the latent shoeprint must have been left on pass #2. Right? So the blood had to be more than possible. It couldn't have been left on pass #1-- nobody was dead yet. And pass #3 is problematic for the proposed "leaning in to her door to listen" if we believe DM about what she saw the person doing (coming towards her and then leaving) It's not clear to me how pass #2 works in terms of the direction of the footprint, but I may be misunderstanding your description of pass #2.
MOO

Pass two, he would be coming down the stairs, passing in front of DM's door, towards the step up to the front half of the middle floor. He would have passed DM's door with the door on his right and the kitchen on his left. Blood on his shoes, if any, would have been from MM, KG, or both girls. This would not have been when DM saw him.

DM would have seen him on pass three. He would have been facing the back of the house, coming down the single step. Both the neon light on the living room wall and DM's cracked door would have been on his left, the kitchen on his right. Blood on his shoes would have, in my opinion, had XK as a major contributor.

DM could have only seen him the way she describes on pass three. The direction her door opened (hinge side oriented to the front of the house, doorknob to the back) determines it.

The only way she could have seen the intruder on pass two coming towards her would have been to open her door wide enough to stick her head and torso out enough to look back towards the stairs to the upper floor as he descended them, and we know she didn't do that because, well, she's alive.

MOO

 

[fcavanaugh]

100% agree @SteveP. AT knows she could’ve requested their own testing on the handrail blood but didn’t want to spend the money and resources knowing it would go nowhere/not lead to the ‘real killer’ as I believe she likely knows the real killer is sitting next to her in court, well lately he’s been sitting a seat or two away from her lol.

At any rate yes I agree, she wants to be able to mention it at trial that it could’ve been left by the ‘real killer’ for reasonable doubt purposes. Defense strategy 101. She can try but I’m sure the state will explain and make clear that the blood on the handrail was collected, investigated and ruled out as having any connection to the crime.

IMHOO

 

[DizzyB]

100% agree @SteveP. AT knows she could’ve requested their own testing on the handrail blood but didn’t want to spend the money and resources knowing it would go nowhere/not lead to the ‘real killer’ as I believe she likely knows the real killer is sitting next to her in court, well lately he’s been sitting a seat or two away from her lol.

At any rate yes I agree, she wants to be able to mention it at trial that it could’ve been left by the ‘real killer’ for reasonable doubt purposes. Defense strategy 101. She can try but I’m sure the state will explain and make clear that the blood on the handrail was collected, investigated and ruled out as having any connection to the crime.

IMHOO

Agree, if it was tested by the defense and ruled out, there would be no “mistake” to point out in the courtroom. It’s a tactic.