4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #90

[Boxer]

BK went to a neighboring towns university in Pullman, he does not know/interact with the housemates personally to our knowledge, and he had zero business near this house and property. That must be considered as well. Nothing should explain his presence there. JMOO

I have no idea why you posted this to me.

You posted this to the wrong poster. I think you mean wendy44.

I have no idea why you posted this to me.

You posted this to the wrong poster. I think you mean wendy44.

Actualky I am replying to you, I am addressing your opinions.

The reality is touch DNA is good evidence, especially in this case.
It will be used by the prosecution in combination with his lack of alibi, car video, turning his phone off and anything else turned up by investigators.
AT is doing her best to get rid of it on procedural grounds because it is good evidnefe.
Your opinion seemed to me to be that it in not good evidence.

 

[schooling]

Exactly!

I watched a murder case unfold and the lead special agent listed evidence of murder kit items that were purchased and the defendants could not account for where any of the items went because they sunk the metal items in a pond and burned the ones that were flammable. It will be circumstantial evidence against BK if he can't produce his murder kit purchases - if LE finds a digital trail.

You have mentioned the Van shoes many times, I think you will find this true story interesting:

In the same murder case the mother and father and their 2 grown sons murdered 8 members of another family. There were 4 murder scenes and 2 different sized bloody shoe prints were found at 2 of the crime scenes.

In a search of the suspects' property LE found a Walmart shoe receipt showing a purchase of 2 pairs of shoes. The tread and size of these purchased shoes matched the tread and size of the bloody shoe prints that were found. LE searched every Walmart in a 50 mile radius of the suspects' house and found the Walmart where the shoes were purchased and found camera footage of the mother buying the shoes in that Walmart that day.

Agents blindsided the 4 defendants and separated them and confronted them over the shoes. Confronted with the evidence the mother admitted to buying the shoes. LE asked her what she did with the shoes and she said she bought them for her 2 sons but they hated the shoes so she threw them out. The 2 sons denied ever seeing the shoes.

Obviously not being able to produce the shoes looks bad but there are some other interesting details.

The forensic shoe expert noted that the shoe prints showed no tread wear - the tread looked brand new.
The shoe receipt shows the shoes were bought only 3 weeks before the murders. This is more evidence showing the shoes were only purchased for that one night.

Also, during a confession, the younger son pointed out that not only did his mother buy the shoes for him and his brother to wear on the night they committed the 8 homicides, but she deliberately bought the shoes in sizes they did not wear and in a style they never wore.

Thus, I would not see these 2 things as being exculpatory for BK regarding the bloody Van shoe print that was found by DM's door.....

1.) The prosecution shows evidence that BK has never worn Van shoes - doesn't like Van shoes.
2.) The Van shoe print is not the size that BK wears.

And if the Van shoe print shows no tread wear and appears to be like new that just makes it seem, to me, that the Vans were bought to be used for just that one night.

Note that in the searches there were shoes seized but they are not Van shoes and they might not match the size found at the crime scene but that doesn't show exculpatory evidence to me.

2 Cents

This is not 100% related to your post. But the PCA states "Vans type shoe sole". Which seems like they are unsure. Van's diamond soles are practically a trademark and are present on the majority of their shoes. So it makes sense that it would be the brand to draw comparison to.

But it's important to remember that LE was not definitive and that they left themselves enough room in the PCA (a sworn affidavit) to not cause themselves any problems down the road. Probably hoped that one of the executed search warrants would fully answer their question. Did they find a shoe? Do they know now?

Who knows...

But but they also did not release other information that they likely already know. Like how large the print is, how much of it was captured, what part of the sneaker/foot it came from, where in the stride the person was etc. So it's quite possible that the diamonds are only part of a partial and not necessarily the entire sole. I had an entire list (Nike Diamond Varisty, Converse Allstars, etc etc) but I deleted it so I can get to the point quicker....

IMO and MOO

It seems like BK liked New Balance sneakers. I'm pretty sure I counted at least 3 different pairs on him in pictures that were taken prior to the murders. I mean, this makes sense. BK was a runner and New Balance's are runner shoes.

IMO LE should look at the New Balance 990v4 running sneaker (amongst others). Released in 2016. Diamond pattern right where one would plant their foot.

MOO

Sidenote: I'm from a major northeast city. they are not tennis shoes. they are not gym shoes. not basketball shoes. and not athletic shoes. they are not simply shoes. they are 'sneakers'. Which is why Nike christened their app "SNKRS". i think the only thing that ill meet in the middle on is "Running Shoes" which deserves its own distinction.

 

[katydid23]

That's an interesting thought - 4th amendment issue. I don't think getting the DNA thrown out is necessary to win this case. Touch DNA is not going to fly unless DM can definitely identify BK as the person she saw in the house that night. We do not know if LE showed her a photo lineup before BK was arrested to see if she recognized him or not.

I'm not sure why you are convinced that the touch DNA will not fly with the jury?

I heard people saying similar things about the defendant Chase Merritt in the McStay Family murder trial. Chase was on trial for the murder of 4 people. The McStay family car was found abandoned at the San Diego/Tijuana border, making it look like the missing family had walked into Mexico.

After a forensics search of their car, touch DNA belonging to Chase was found on the gear shift and the driver door handle. Chase swore under oath that he had never driven that car before.

His defense attorneys spent a full afternoon trying to explain the many other ways that the DNA might have been there.

Since Chase was admittedly the last person to see Joseph McStay when they had lunch. right before the family went missing, the defense did a whole scenario of how it happened. Chase and Joseph shook hands and maybe hugged after lunch, and then Joseph opened his car door and used the gear shift to reverse out of the parking space. Voila----that's how that touch DNA got there.

Problem was, almost every thing else in the car was wiped clean. That made it seem odd that the touch DNA from much earlier in the day was there in 2 places, but no DNA from Joseph or his wife was in the front seat area. Why would it be wiped clean?

There'd be no reason for Joseph to wipe the car clean of prints because everyone knew that was his car. Why try and hide that?

My long winded point is that the jury did not buy that touch DNA scenario from the defense. Chase is currently incarcerated for Life. So some juries do believe in DNA, even touch DNA, if the circumstances are right. JMO

 

[Balthazar]

Actualky I am replying to you, I am addressing your opinions.

The reality is touch DNA is good evidence, especially in this case.
It will be used by the prosecution in combination with his lack of alibi, car video, turning his phone off and anything else turned up by investigators.
AT is doing her best to get rid of it on procedural grounds because it is good evidnefe.
Your opinion seemed to me to be that it in not good evidence.

We have to wait to see what the entirety of the evidence says when the case goes to trial but touch DNA evidence alone is not sufficient to convict BK of a crime and unless there is other evidence showing BK was present in that house (and there may be, I don't know), the touch DNA will not play well to the jury regardless of anything any expert says. Here is a scientific study which shows how touch DNA alone cannot be trusted. It is particularly appropriate here as the results indicated an "only contributor" in 1/5th of the cases and it was on a knife - a metal surface, like the snap on the sheath:

Study raises questions about DNA evidence

Secondary transfer of human DNA through intermediary contact is far more common than previously thought, a finding that could have serious repercussions for medical science and the criminal justice system, report investigators.

www.sciencedaily.com

"In 85 percent of the cases, DNA from the person who did not directly touch the knife was transferred in sufficient quantity to produce a profile. In one-fifth of the samples, that person was identified as the main or only contributor of DNA to the potential weapon, despite never having touched it."

You may think I'm pro-BK is innocent. If that is what you think, you are completely and totally wrong. I am only interested in predicting how this case will play out in court.

The idea about the 4th amendment is 100% wendy44 - not me. I just said it was an interesting idea, not that I agreed. I have not decided yet if I agree or not.

 

[Cool Cats]

This is not 100% related to your post. But the PCA states "Vans type shoe sole". Which seems like they are unsure. Van's diamond soles are practically a trademark and are present on the majority of their shoes. So it makes sense that it would be the brand to draw comparison to.

But it's important to remember that LE was not definitive and that they left themselves enough room in the PCA (a sworn affidavit) to not cause themselves any problems down the road. Do they know now? Who knows...

They also did not release other information that they likely already know. Like how large the print is, how much of it was captured, what part of the sneaker/foot it came from, where in the stride the person was etc. So it's quite possible that the diamonds are only part of a partial and not necessarily the entire sole. I had an entire list (Nike Diamond Varisty, Converse Allstars, etc etc) but I deleted it so I can get to the point quicker....

IMO and MOO

It seems like BK liked New Balance sneakers. I'm pretty sure I counted at least 3 different pairs on him in pictures that were taken prior to the murders. I mean, this makes sense. BK was a runner and New Balance's are runner shoes.

IMO LE should look at the New Balance 990v4 running sneaker (amongst others). Released in 2016. Diamond pattern right where one would plant their foot.

MOO

Sidenote: I'm from a major northeast city. they are not tennis shoes. they are not gym shoes. not basketball shoes. and not athletic shoes. they are not simply shoes. they are 'sneakers'. Which is why Nike christened their app "SNKRS". i think the only thing that ill meet in the middle on is "Running Shoes" which deserves its own distinction.

Thanks for your information.

If the shoes are not Vans then they are something else - "X shoes." If BK wore these X shoes I bet they are not of the style he ever wears unless he has to wear them in jail.
There are jail photos of him in slip-on shoes that I think are Vans.

Tennis shoes and dress shoes and slip-on shoes are what we say here.
If shoes become crucial for the prosecution I expect a shoe expert will testify to the details you mention.

Like this:

‘A Ha!’ Moment at Walmart Linked Wagner Family to Pike County Massacre, Trace Evidence Examiner Testifies

An evidence examiner said she found shoes at a Walmart store in an "a ha!" moment — shoes that had the same pattern as the impressions left at the crime scenes.

lawandcrime.com

Suzanne Elliott was a trace evidence examiner for Ohio’s Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI) in 2016 when the shoe impressions were collected from the (murder scenes) Rhoden homes. Elliott told the jurors Tuesday that it’s best to cut out a piece of flooring where an impression is left in order to analyze it.
<modsnip: copying more than 10% of an article is a copyright violation>

 

[jepop]

If there are thousands of scientific studies proving that touch DNA always indicates that the person actually touched the object, could you please link a few here? I'd like to read them and share them with my discussion group as they are all of the opinion that touch DNA without other evidence the person was actually in that location such as a witness identification or video or fingerprints, etc., is junk science.

Understand that each case using dna evidence is unique to the individual circumstances of the case. Imo it's not rocket science.

It is *single source* male dna on/in the use point of the sheath. It is BK's dna and is not under question by the D.

Imo when this goes to court, P experts will be able to prove the extreme likelihood that BK left that dna there when he was manipulating the sheath with his own hands and the extreme unlikelihood that it was transferred there by some random from BKs gym (by way of example only). Ofcourse the D will try to question the evidence but Imo they will only be able to produce speculations from their experts based on unlikely possibilities - with no evidence or a name of another random person who is supposed to be the 'real killer' and 'transferer" of BK's dna to the use point of the sheath whilst simultaneously leaving *nothing* of their own dna on that use point lol.

Everything the D is doing now, Imo has the ultimate objective of getting this strong dna evidence suppressed. It will not work Imo. Moo

 

[wary]

If there are thousands of scientific studies proving that touch DNA always indicates that the person actually touched the object, could you please link a few here?

<snipped for focus>

How did that word ‘always’ slip into the discussion? I believe that people have made the point, over and over, that each case is different.

In this case, however, single-person DNA, on the snap of the sheath, indicates that the person did actually touch the snap of the sheath. (Compare it to the situation where I shake someone’s hand vigorously, and a few minutes later I open a door. Logically, there might be DNA on the door handle that is a mixture of my DNA and the person with whom I shook hands.

Different circumstances, different evidence.

MOO

 

[Swansee]

BK went to a neighboring towns university in Pullman, he does not know/interact with the housemates personally to our knowledge, and he had zero business near this house and property. That must be considered as well. Nothing should explain his presence there. JMOO

This is such an interesting point.
On the one hand, it looks very incriminating, since he would have had no other valid reason to be there other than murder. On the other, it also poses a problem: The utter brutality of the act, <modsnip>, is hard for me to understand in the absence of a very passionate motive.
. <modsnip - unnecessary>. This is why from the get-go, LE told us this was a targeted attack.
Perhaps a connection will be unearthed through the digital warrants, otherwise it will be hard for me to understand why BK would have been filled with so much rage towards random complete strangers in another town. As I've said before, if the rage was against pretty sorority girls in general, there were plenty at WSU I'm sure. No need to go out to a DP state to find some.
I also hope that the phone data from the digital warrants will show precise location information.
We still don't know if BK's phone was truly off or on airplane mode, or placed in some kind of faraday sleeve (I had no idea, but learned recently that these things exist). If it was only airplane mode, GPS location data would still work.
If they have GPS+DNA BK's goose is cooked.
All MOO of course.

 

[Cool Cats]

This is such an interesting point.
On the one hand, it looks very incriminating, since he would have had no other valid reason to be there other than murder. On the other, it also poses a problem: The utter brutality of the act,<modsnip - rumor>, is hard for me to understand in the absence of a very passionate motive.
<modsnip - unnecessary> This is why from the get-go, LE told us this was a targeted attack.
Perhaps a connection will be unearthed through the digital warrants, otherwise it will be hard for me to understand why BK would have been filled with so much rage towards random complete strangers in another town. As I've said before, if the rage was against pretty sorority girls in general, there were plenty at WSU I'm sure. No need to go out to a DP state to find some.
I also hope that the phone data from the digital warrants will show precise location information.
We still don't know if BK's phone was truly off or on airplane mode, or placed in some kind of faraday sleeve (I had no idea, but learned recently that these things exist). If it was only airplane mode, GPS location data would still work.
If they have GPS+DNA BK's goose is cooked.
All MOO of course.

Of course BK had a strong motive. Just because we can't read his mind doesn't mean he did it for zero reason. He had his evil vengeful hate filled reasons that we will never know. Do we know all killers motives? No. The victims could represent anything to him, any number of frustrations, any number of fantasies. Going out of state away from where he lived makes more sense than planning it in his own "back yard."
<modsnip - quoted post was snipped>

 

[katydid23]

This is such an interesting point.
On the one hand, it looks very incriminating, since he would have had no other valid reason to be there other than murder. On the other, it also poses a problem: The utter brutality of the act, <modsnip - rumor>, is hard for me to understand in the absence of a very passionate motive.

Ted Bundy walked into a Florida sorority house in the middle of the night---didn't know any of the girls---and beat them mercilessly for no apparent reason, other than he wanted to. He brutally attacked 5 young women, killing 2, severely injuring 3. He had no motive.

<modsnip - unnecessary> This is why from the get-go, LE told us this was a targeted attack.

If someone has a lot of inner rage there doesn't need to be any rational explanation for the violence.

Perhaps a connection will be unearthed through the digital warrants, otherwise it will be hard for me to understand why BK would have been filled with so much rage towards random complete strangers in another town. As I've said before, if the rage was against pretty sorority girls in general, there were plenty at WSU I'm sure. No need to go out to a DP state to find some.

Maybe he didn't want to do the home invasion in his own university area for fear of being recognised somehow?

I also hope that the phone data from the digital warrants will show precise location information.
We still don't know if BK's phone was truly off or on airplane mode, or placed in some kind of faraday sleeve (I had no idea, but learned recently that these things exist). If it was only airplane mode, GPS location data would still work.
If they have GPS+DNA BK's goose is cooked.
All MOO of course.

True. I really want to know how much cell data they have now.

 

[ChatteringBirds]

touch DNA evidence alone is not sufficient to convict BK of a crime and unless there is other evidence showing BK was present in that house (and there may be, I don't know), the touch DNA will not play well to the jury

I disagree and think -hopefully and JMO - this DNA evidence will be very meaningful to the jury.

Juries understand that other types of DNA (such as a hair or actual blood) may simply not have been found. (ETA: If it wasn't. As you said, we don't know yet.) They will use all facts as valuable pieces of the puzzle.

Also consider that the sheath is directly related to the murder weapon, was largely wiped clean prior to the crime - which means the murderer suspected their DNA to be on it - and lo-and-behold DNA was found on an area difficult to clean.

 

[Justice101]

<snipped for focus>

How did that word ‘always’ slip into the discussion? I believe that people have made the point, over and over, that each case is different.

In this case, however, single-person DNA, on the snap of the sheath, indicates that the person did actually touch the snap of the sheath. (Compare it to the situation where I shake someone’s hand vigorously, and a few minutes later I open a door. Logically, there might be DNA on the door handle that is a mixture of my DNA and the person with whom I shook hands.

Different circumstances, different evidence.

MOO

IMO, Touch DNA is not new science. The question will not be if it is BK's DNA.. but the defense will have to come up with a way that his DNA got on there.... which there might be plausible answers... let say he says he picked it up to look at the knife at Wal-Mart, I had one and sold it at a yard sale, etc.

 

[Valen2]

The thing that makes the DNA so impactful is where it was found. No one gets their DNA down in the crack of a snap if they barely touch it or touch someone else who then touches it. The location of the DNA is very important. That's why they are trying to get it thrown out. There is no reasonable explanation for his DNA being that far down in the crack of the snap other than it was his knife and he touched the snap repeatedly. The single source portion of it is important too. If it had been transferred there by someone who touched it and then touched the snap, that other person's DNA would be there too. But it's not. His DNA is the only one on the snap and the rest of the knife is wiped clean.

JMO

 

[Valen2]

The point about Ted Bundy is what, I think, makes people so uncomfortable with this case. It seems completely random, and the idea that four college kids can be chosen at random to die a violent, horrific death for no apparent reason is terrifying. We all want to see some sort of connection between the killer and the victims so that it makes sense to us and we can feel some sort of control over preventing this from happening to us or someone we love. However, sometimes there is no reason. It is random, or due to some part of the killer's psychology that cannot be understood, and that's horrifying.

 

[10ofRods]

The point about Ted Bundy is what, I think, makes people so uncomfortable with this case. It seems completely random, and the idea that four college kids can be chosen at random to die a violent, horrific death for no apparent reason is terrifying. We all want to see some sort of connection between the killer and the victims so that it makes sense to us and we can feel some sort of control over preventing this from happening to us or someone we love. However, sometimes there is no reason. It is random, or due to some part of the killer's psychology that cannot be understood, and that's horrifying.

I don't think that Ted Bundy's victim choice was random, at all. There's quite a bit written about it. He had overall plans, ideas, goals and specific types/choices of victims.

Same with Bryan Kohberger. That's just my view. I see lots of psychological and social connections between BK and the victims. He targeted a specific house.

The one thing I've learned in years of working with LE is that there almost always is a reason for the choice of victim - it's just not one that a rational person would be able to comprehend or think up themselves.

I find the fact that most mass murderers have targets to be horrifying. "Due to...killer's psychology" already brought in a NON-random set of facts. Human psychology is at the root of all human behavior - and BK's attack on 1122 King Road is definitely related to BK's mind and psychology, IMO. BK himself was attempting to understand and apply academic models to such behavior. Human psychology may not be perfectly understood, but it is not a black hole where we know nothing. There are patterns in BK's psychology, IMO.

 

[wary]

The thing that makes the DNA so impactful is where it was found. No one gets their DNA down in the crack of a snap if they barely touch it or touch someone else who then touches it. The location of the DNA is very important. That's why they are trying to get it thrown out. There is no reasonable explanation for his DNA being that far down in the crack of the snap other than it was his knife and he touched the snap repeatedly. The single source portion of it is important too. If it had been transferred there by someone who touched it and then touched the snap, that other person's DNA would be there too. But it's not. His DNA is the only one on the snap and the rest of the knife is wiped clean.

JMO

Right. In my opinion, the defense is not trying to get it thrown out because the sheath evidence is bad evidence. They are desperately trying to get it thrown out, because it is such good evidence.

MOO

 

[Balthazar]

<snipped for focus>

In this case, however, single-person DNA, on the snap of the sheath, indicates that the person did actually touch the snap of the sheath. (Compare it to the situation where I shake someone’s hand vigorously, and a few minutes later I open a door. Logically, there might be DNA on the door handle that is a mixture of my DNA and the person with whom I shook hands.

MOO

No it does not. Please see the study I linked above where pairs people were asked to shake hands and then one person of each pair was asked to handle a knife with the hand they shook hands with.
"In 85 percent of the cases, DNA from the person who did not directly touch the knife was transferred in sufficient quantity to produce a profile. In one-fifth of the samples, that person was identified as the main or only contributor of DNA to the potential weapon, despite never having touched it."
This is why touch DNA alone cannot be trusted in this or any other case. Touch DNA is becoming more and more controversial because too many innocent people have been convicted based on touch DNA, not just in the USA but overseas as well and I believe in the not so distant future, there will be new rules in courtrooms on touch DNA evidence which may require that touch DNA only be considered IF there is other evidence which proves the suspect was actually in the location.

 

[10ofRods]

This is such an interesting point.
On the one hand, it looks very incriminating, since he would have had no other valid reason to be there other than murder. On the other, it also poses a problem: The utter brutality of the act, <modsnip - rumor> is hard for me to understand in the absence of a very passionate motive.
. <modsnip - unnecessary>. This is why from the get-go, LE told us this was a targeted attack.
Perhaps a connection will be unearthed through the digital warrants, otherwise it will be hard for me to understand why BK would have been filled with so much rage towards random complete strangers in another town. As I've said before, if the rage was against pretty sorority girls in general, there were plenty at WSU I'm sure. No need to go out to a DP state to find some.
I also hope that the phone data from the digital warrants will show precise location information.
We still don't know if BK's phone was truly off or on airplane mode, or placed in some kind of faraday sleeve (I had no idea, but learned recently that these things exist). If it was only airplane mode, GPS location data would still work.
If they have GPS+DNA BK's goose is cooked.
All MOO of course.

I think the connection will be much more direct (of BK to that neighborhood). And the GPS will help establish that - but I predict a surprise witness, as well. GPS will prove a kind of bombshell evidence in this case.

Just a guess based on everything I can pull together about this case. And there might be a connection between BK's instagram account and at least one of the victims, IMO.

We shall see! Someday!

IMO.

 

[wendy44]

Unless I missed something in the last week it seems like the CODIS "John Doe" DNA was pulled by a local lab before IGG the IGG process started.

It is wholly distinct.

So trying to get the local sample tossed because of IGG is like throwing away your plate of fresh scrambled eggs because you dropped the carton on the way back to the fridge.

I think that's correct and there's no issue with the sample pulled and that it actually matches BK. But there was no match in CODIS. So how did they come to test the family trash to find the match--that's where the defense is going. The investigative process. Was it through IGG where they see some wiggle room because it's new and mostly untested in the courts? Or was it through standard investigative techniques, like narrowing down a list of Elantra owners and comparing to cell data, etc.?

 

[wendy44]

We have to wait to see what the entirety of the evidence says when the case goes to trial but touch DNA evidence alone is not sufficient to convict BK of a crime and unless there is other evidence showing BK was present in that house (and there may be, I don't know), the touch DNA will not play well to the jury regardless of anything any expert says.

Snipped by me--

The thing is, it is sufficient if the jury decides it's sufficient.