GUILTY ID - 4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #98

[Balthazar]

Who's the alternative suspect- the SODDI?

LE has told us from the start this was an "isolated, targeted attack." That only means one thing and the SODDI would have to come from that world. I don't know what "signature" LE saw at the crime scene that told them that, but, from the beginning of the case, LE seemed very confident of what they were dealing with, IMO, so I feel reasonably certain such a "signature" was present and we will learn what it was at trial. JMO.

If you read Howard Blum's book, "When the Night Comes Falling," Blum apparently spent time with the defense investigators and Chapters 30 -32 indicate the SODDI(s) will be people from "the drug world." Will the defense name them? IDK. Could they name them? I think so. Can the prosecution prove BK was involved with them, working for them, even? IDK. BK was investigated extensively by the long-standing Federal Grand Jury. I wonder what, if anything they found? If they found involvement on BK's part, why didn't it result in a Federal indictment? I have many questions in regards to all of this that I hope will be answered eventually, one way or another. JMO.

In regards to BK's alibi, we now know (States Objection to Defendants Motion to Compel I.C.R. 16(b)(7) Material and for Sanctions) S.A. Imel did not believe that was BK's car in Moscow because he was certain the date range was 2011 -2013 - apparently it was Payne who decided to expand the years but Imel, with decades of experience in car identification, was not comfortable with the change according to his email. This can only mean one thing: it is much more likely the white Elantra in Moscow was a 2011- 2013 than a 2014 - 2016. It is always a problem when your own expert disagrees with findings. If the prosecution can't place BK's Elantra in Moscow with absolute certainty during the murders what will that mean for the case against BK? And whose white Elantra was that 2011 - 2013 model? JMO.

In theory and not specific to this case alone, if a defence were to heavily argue SODDI, would they simultaneously be also working on sleuthing the other suspect and handing over all findings to LE real time?

I would be hard to imagine anyone could be truly convinced 'the real killer' is walking free and parking that idea until a court hearing down the line.

A valid reason the defense would not turn in these people they found during their investigation could be if the SODDI's are currently in jail or prison awaiting trial on other charges. JMO.

All JMO.

 

[Justice101]

If you look at the Delphi, Indiana murder case (Abbey & Libby) as a recent example, there were many more somewhat "iffy" things in that trial that were circumstantial and Richard Allen was still convicted (and rightfully so I believe). The thing they still didn't need in that one was DNA.

This one they have DNA on the sheath of the murder weapon. That is the GOLD STANDARD for evidence. Way above eye witness, video, electronic and practically everything else...including confessions.

The picture the P is going to be able to paint is going to be inescapable for BK. Most of us think BK is going down.

 

[Balthazar]

“Two unknown male DNA found” inside the house that has been described as hosting frequent parties crowded with drinking students freely walking in and out of the house.
Compare that to the known DNA of BK that was found on the knife sheath found underneath one of the victims.
The sheath DNA renders the “two unknown male DNA” of absolutely no consequence at all in my opinion. I don’t care where in the house it was collected from.


Opinion

The two unknown male DNA found were in proximity to the victims, which is very different than male DNA found somewhere random in the house.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

The two unknown male DNA found were in proximity to the victims, which is very different than male DNA found somewhere random in the house.

Does not change a thing in my view.
College students had free rein of that house during these open house parties.
The two unknown male DNA was in the house. Crickets.
BK’s DNA on the knife sheath that was brought into the house carrying the weapon used to kill four innocent people. That….wins the game, every time.

My opinion

 

[PinkParis2052]

Indeed!
If one actually reads the "alibi", the Defense actually never claims BK was out stargazing during the crime. They say he likes to do that, but not that he was actually doing that.
They say he likes to run as well. And to drive around . They also say that during his time in Moscow, his running decreased while his driving increased.
I get that this doesn't sound like a proper alibi.
But I agree, the media twisted it into "haha the defense says he was stargazing", when that was never the actual claim.

Bryan lived in Pullman, WA not Moscow, Yeah I've noticed that the media twists his "alibi" into stargazing.

The two unknown male DNA found were in proximity to the victims, which is very different than male DNA found

somewhere random in the house.

and two additional males' DNA within the house where the deceased were located and the prosecution has never pushed back either.


All my imo.

 

[MassGuy]

The two unknown male DNA found were in proximity to the victims, which is very different than male DNA found somewhere random in the house.

I’m a bit surprised there was only two profiles found, as I’d expect many more, even in close proximity to the victims.

In any event, there is nothing unusual there, and it is of very little help to the defense.

 

[MassGuy]

Does not change a thing in my view.
College students had free rein of that house during these open house parties.
The two unknown male DNA was in the house. Crickets.
BK’s DNA on the knife sheath that was brought into the house carrying the weapon used to kill four innocent people. That….wins the game, every time.

My opinion

Lol, indeed. You have his DNA on the sheath used to house the murder weapon, but let’s ignore that and point to unidentified touch DNA samples that you’d totally expect to find.

It’s so silly.

 

[Tapeartree]

There was 2 unknown male DNA found inside the house.
Evidence collected would be evidence the forensic technician believes is a significant sample at the crime scene. They do not collect samples from everywhere.
Where it was found does matter.
jmo

It still doesn't compare to the DNA on the knife sheath. Is it possible that the DNA in the house may have been found on the victims themselves? Is that what would make it significant for collection? It still wouldn't be very significant, IMO, as everyone was returning from a party or bar where they may have briefly been in contact with others. Could someone had hugged them or touched their hands?

The two unknown male DNA found inside or even on the deceased themselves doesn't compare to the DNA on the knife sheath.

 

[Nila Aella]

It still doesn't compare to the DNA on the knife sheath.

Two unknown male DNA:
On the sheath
Inside a bloody glove
Mixed with victim blood
On a victim
would compare IMO.

Is it possible that the DNA in the house may have been found on the victims themselves?

Possible

Is that what would make it significant for collection? It still wouldn't be very significant, IMO, as everyone was returning from a party or bar where they may have briefly been in contact with others. Could someone had hugged them or touched their hands?

Depends where the DNA was found.

The two unknown male DNA found inside or even on the deceased themselves doesn't compare to the DNA on the knife sheath.

Two unknown male DNA should not be ignored.

jmo

 

[MassGuy]

Two unknown male DNA:
On the sheath
Inside a bloody glove
Mixed with victim blood
On a victim
would compare IMO.

Possible

Depends where the DNA was found.

Two unknown male DNA should not be ignored.

jmo

They would have run those samples against CODIS, come up with nothing, and that would be the end of it. I've followed several cases that involved unidentified DNA samples; it's just the reality with DNA testing being so sensitive now.

It's not like you're going to chase those down those samples through genetic genealogy.

You have a complete profile on an item that we know for a fact was touched by the killer here. That should not be ignored.

 

[MassGuy]

Bryan lived in Pullman, WA not Moscow, Yeah I've noticed that the media twists his "alibi" into stargazing.
View attachment 557580




and two additional males' DNA within the house where the deceased were located and the prosecution has never pushed back either.
View attachment 557581

All my imo.

How much do you want to bet that glove found outside the house is going to be a winter glove, and the defense is misrepresenting it?

 

[jepop]

Bryan lived in Pullman, WA not Moscow, Yeah I've noticed that the media twists his "alibi" into stargazing.
View attachment 557580




and two additional males' DNA within the house where the deceased were located and the prosecution has never pushed back either.
View attachment 557581

All my imo.

When you post a screen shot, would you mind linking the source please. I know this is a defense filing but from some way back. Thank you!

Just regarding your post; I don't like arguing semantics, but "...DNA within the home where the deceased were located..." means exactly that imo; the DNA was in the home (somewhere/not specified) where the deceased were found. "Where the deceased were located" was in the home and the DNA was found within in that same home. Jmo

It's just speculation or assumption and nothing more, to state or imply that these two unknown samples were found in the actual rooms/specific locations where the victims were found. And my own guess is that if this was actually the case, AT would have said so in plain language rather than in some cryptic form. Whilst this last is my personal conjecture only, it is a fact that we have no idea where in the house these trace samples, IIRC, were found.

We know from August 18th 2023 MTC x3 hearing, that the profiles developed didn't qualify for codis entry but afaik no filing by either D or P has ever specified their location. One of the OPs you quoted posted as if a fact, that they were found within "the proximity" of the bodies but that is incorrect.

Jmo there are many potential locations for swabbing in the house ( ie door handles, windows, the sliding door in kitchen, possibly light switches?) in addition to those in the proximity of the victims or the specific locations where the victims were found.

 

[Balthazar]

Does not change a thing in my view.
College students had free rein of that house during these open house parties.
The two unknown male DNA was in the house. Crickets.
BK’s DNA on the knife sheath that was brought into the house carrying the weapon used to kill four innocent people. That….wins the game, every time.

My opinion

We DO NOT yet know if the murder weapon fits in that sheath so it is premature to decide that it does at this time. All we know is that at least one edged weapon was used and that the wounds of MM and KG were described differently from those of EC and XK. Without the scientific measurements of the wounds, there is no way of knowing much of anything about the means of murder for all 4 victims at this point.

The DNA on the sheath is problematic because it is such a miniscule sample of touch DNA of 20 skin cells or less which is not considered scientifically valid proof that the person whose DNA it is ever actually touched the object or was ever in the same room with it. With only 20 or less skin cells it is far more likely that this was a secondary transfer of DNA to the sheath by someone else. Secondary DNA transfers are typically very small numbers of skin cells, whereas a full on primary transfer should have deposited hundreds of skin cells - even thousands if the person is a good shedder. A secondary DNA transfer could have come from literally any public place. JMO.

I’m a bit surprised there was only two profiles found, as I’d expect many more, even in close proximity to the victims.

In any event, there is nothing unusual there, and it is of very little help to the defense.

I'm surprised by that as well. I would have expected LE to find profiles of MM and KG's boyfriends at the very least and also EC's profile, secondarily transferred into the top floor rooms since he was staying there and also profiles of female friends who visited their house. Perhaps they found these and ruled them out? It is hard to guess what all is in the discovery. Hopefully all of this will be clarified during the trial. JMO.

 

[MassGuy]

We DO NOT yet know if the murder weapon fits in that sheath so it is premature to decide that it does at this time. All we know is that at least one edged weapon was used and that the wounds of MM and KG were described differently from those of EC and XK. Without the scientific measurements of the wounds, there is no way of knowing much of anything about the means of murder for all 4 victims at this point.

The DNA on the sheath is problematic because it is such a miniscule sample of touch DNA of 20 skin cells or less which is not considered scientifically valid proof that the person whose DNA it is ever actually touched the object or was ever in the same room with it. With only 20 or less skin cells it is far more likely that this was a secondary transfer of DNA to the sheath by someone else. Secondary DNA transfers are typically very small numbers of skin cells, whereas a full on primary transfer should have deposited hundreds of skin cells - even thousands if the person is a good shedder. A secondary DNA transfer could have come from literally any public place. JMO.

I'm surprised by that as well. I would have expected LE to find profiles of MM and KG's boyfriends at the very least and also EC's profile, secondarily transferred into the top floor rooms since he was staying there and also profiles of female friends who visited their house. Perhaps they found these and ruled them out? It is hard to guess what all is in the discovery. Hopefully all of this will be clarified during the trial. JMO.

They would have almost certainly taken samples from all the victims and all the roommates (DNA and fingerprints), so they could compare those to any samples they recovered. That's when they would have come up with unidentified DNA, which is the only thing relevant here (which is why control samples wouldn't have been mentioned in any filings).

The DNA on the sheath would be problematic if he didn't drive a similar car, his phone activity was normal, he didn't resemble the person the roommate saw, he hadn't driven in the vicinity of the area on multiple occasions, he didn't act like a fricken weirdo with the gloves and trash at his parents house, and didn't fit the profile of an organized killer in every single way.

There's going to be much more evidence than we know thus far though, I'd bet the farm on it.

 

[Nila Aella]

They would have run those samples against CODIS, come up with nothing, and that would be the end of it.

Per the P, they did NOT run it.

I've followed several cases that involved unidentified DNA samples; it's just the reality with DNA testing being so sensitive now.

Some would say too sensitive.

It's not like you're going to chase those down those samples through genetic genealogy.

Why not?

You have a complete profile on an item that we know for a fact was touched by the killer here.

Debatable.
Waiting for more details on the collection, processing, analyzing, and statistical analysis.

That should not be ignored.

It wasn't ignored.

jmo

 

[jepop]

Yeh, but everyone in the world knows that is not an alibi. An alibi is specific information that is verifiable.

Unless the D has some other bomb shell hard evidence of an alibi, then they are just shooting blanks

RBSBM. "Yeh, but everyone in the world knows that is not an alibi."

I'm with you. The defense, as far as we know, haven't yet submitted an alibi that complies with ICRs imo. The last submission made no specific reference to where BK supposedly was between, say 4 and 4.20am. All references either directly or by implication were to late on Nov 12th or earlier hours of Nov 13th. It's a completely ambiguous word salad imo, written as such to avoid and delay compliance at that time. Jmo

 

[jepop]

The two unknown male DNA found were in proximity to the victims,

RSBM. Clarifying that this is your opinion and speculation. You assert the unknown DNA was found proximate to the victims as if fact. The fact is we have no idea where in the house they were swabbed. The D filings say nothing about proximity to the victims at all, imo. @PinkParis2052 posted a relevant screenshot from D filing just up thread.

 

[Gemmie]

I’m a bit surprised there was only two profiles found, as I’d expect many more, even in close proximity to the victims.

In any event, there is nothing unusual there, and it is of very little help to the defense.

I'm with you. It was a party house and I'd have expected male (and female) DNA to be everywhere, including places I couldn't even imagine DNA to be found. lol Yet only 2 unknown? Could it be that they tested everyone that ever partied there and excluded them? Hench only 2 unknown? It's a bit puzzling for a party house IMO.

 

[jepop]

Indeed!
If one actually reads the "alibi", the Defense actually never claims BK was out stargazing during the crime. They say he likes to do that, but not that he was actually doing that.
They say he likes to run as well. And to drive around . They also say that during his time in Moscow, his running decreased while his driving increased.
I get that this doesn't sound like a proper alibi.
But I agree, the media twisted it into "haha the defense says he was stargazing", when that was never the actual claim.

Yes, in their notice of alibi defense says a lot that has nothing to do with an alibi. The ambiguity is frustrating and it is deliberate imo. In this instance the defense can hardly complain if the press generalises it to star gazing, given the lack of specifics and how ambiguous and word salady the thing actually is. Jmo.

 

[PinkParis2052]

When you post a screen shot, would you mind linking the source please. I know this is a defense filing but from some way back. Thank you!

Just regarding your post; I don't like arguing semantics, but "...DNA within the home where the deceased were located..." means exactly that imo; the DNA was in the home (somewhere/not specified) where the deceased were found. "Where the deceased were located" was in the home and the DNA was found within in that same home. Jmo

It's just speculation or assumption and nothing more, to state or imply that these two unknown samples were found in the actual rooms/specific locations where the victims were found. And my own guess is that if this was actually the case, AT would have said so in plain language rather than in some cryptic form. Whilst this last is my personal conjecture only, it is a fact that we have no idea where in the house these trace samples, IIRC, were found.

We know from August 18th 2023 MTC x3 hearing, that the profiles developed didn't qualify for codis entry but afaik no filing by either D or P has ever specified their location. One of the OPs you quoted posted as if a fact, that they were found within "the proximity" of the bodies but that is incorrect.

Jmo there are many potential locations for swabbing in the house ( ie door handles, windows, the sliding door in kitchen, possibly light switches?) in addition to those in the proximity of the victims or the specific locations where the victims were found.

source
OBJECTION TO STATE’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER filed by the defense on 6/22/2023