The article does seem to say the swab was on him. I agree it may be the reporter's incorrect assumption and incorrect reporting. There's a lot of that in this case as there often is in any case. But when there is a named source that is quoted in the article, it does imply that info about what BK had on him per the warrant came from him or the idea was reinforced during the interview.
Yes, but LE would no longer need DNA from trash bc they knew they could get an actual swab via warrant.
He probably did- but driving that time of year messes up your car so fast- esp. on the interstate with trucks spraying you with slush and rainwater. I keep a VERY clean car- but my cross-country trip (Seattle to Indianapolis) with my daughter a few years back you would have thought I lived in it full-time by the time we got back after just three days on the road.
This article you mention sounds like yet another example of a reporter wording something incorrectly.
The article is accompanied by a video of the prosecutor saying what he is quoted as saying in the article. When showing the video, even the news announcer (whom I believe is the same person whose name appears on the article, Nicole Walters) says, "the warrant shows he had on him at the time.. " and then goes on to list the items BK was wearing at the time, then finishes by saying, "and they took one cheek swab." (right around 1:30 in the video: Monroe County Officials Share New Details About Idaho Murder Suspect's Arrest)
Yes, I can imagine.. but just going on memory, IIRC, it was pretty grimy on/around the exterior door handle(s), which wouldn't have been caused by that type of dirt. imo. That is the first thing I thought when I saw the video of his vehicle being stopped.
Thanks for the info. But IMO it shouldn't be necessary to spend time watching a video to correct what appeared in the text of the article accompanying the video. Maybe that's just me!
I don't find the hiding DNA angle particularly sensical. Unless the FBI was sloppy with its surveillance, BK had no reason to feel obliged to conceal his DNA. They found used water bottles in his car; he wasn't hiding those. If he knew they were watching him, he'd also know that putting trash in the neighbor's bin would be noticed.
LE would be looking at car washes and laundry mats. Washing the car in the apartment parking lot might draw attention. Do nothing to stand out. Don't take car where security cameras might be watching. Where could he go to vacuum it without being seen?
My question is what was he doing with his trash in WA? Most apartment residents have designated bins or maybe a dumpster for trash. BK was a POI by late November. Still going to class, still a TA, still at his apartment. If campus police or other LE saw him dispose of trash, wouldn't they have taken it sooner?
This is a great question! We don't know if surveillance included LE checking in to the hotels (doubtful, IMO). Even so, they would not be able to search the rooms without a warrant, MOO. If the K's ate in the car, all their trash could remain in the car until back in PA, where BK is said to have cleaned the car meticulously.
He will soon have TWO death penalty qualified public defenders? With all the hoopla around possible recusal of AT (now moot) due to paucity of PDs so qualified in ID, I'm very curious why he needs another one, potentially doubling his cost of representation.
I believe JL is already co counsel and a death penalty qualified co-counsel.
www.eastidahonews.com
