4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered - Bryan Kohberger Arrested - Moscow # 75

[Nichevo]

Well I agree with you line of thought, at this time none of the details of the autopsies have been released. I believe you are referring to statements made by the coroner. MOO

Sorry, while not well. I tried to post too quickly

 

[schooling]

I mostly see people describing him as smart. Who is making him out as stupid?

I do imagine they found at least a little more DNA in the house. And IMO, there cannot be just one latent footprint, because that means he had blood on the bottom of his shoe, which had disappeared as he made 10-15 long strides from where ever he got it.

Arguing about what we don't know (yet) over and over...I guess is our fate until June.

We can see investigators doing analysis on the slider (even with a glove, he would have left something on the door, I figure). It probably isn't as dramatic as the footprint. And again, no PCA is going to list that, because then both the whackadoos and the real killer can make up stories about what route the killer took through the house. DM doesn't actually say she saw him go through the slider.

We have no forensic evidence that he ever exited the house and yet, just a couple of minutes after DM sees him, his car (and it is his car) is seen leaving. That's evidence as well. It doesn't all have to be DNA. Having his car caught on camera immediately after DM sees a man in black leave the house is pretty damning, IMO. Then, about 30 minutes later, he is heading south out of Moscow (even though Pullman is to the West) and takes a long route back to Pullman, pulling off the main road and turning on his phone so that most of that trip is tracked as well.

But you're saying that the "only evidence" is one footprint. And not leaving DNA is not a thing only in crime novels - in crime novels, DNA is much more important than it is presumed to be in real life. Now, having said that, DNA retrieval techniques are improving by leaps and bounds (those forensic vacuum cleaners they used may have dragged some up).

A man wearing a mask isn't breathing out much DNA (this is like saying that an operating room would be filled with medical personnel's DNA after each procedure - but they wear hats, gloves, masks, etc., and staff DNA is almost never found in studies of OR's. It turns out that pre-op prep (where people have their cell phones) does leave bio-traces of the staff behind, but when people leave behind their cell phones (which have lots of DNA on them) and are wearing masks, hats, new gowns and booties while prepping the room, the individual bio-matter of the staff (including bacteria gained from swabbing their noses that is unique to each individual). In Europe (where this study was done), OR people are being urged to gown up twice - and to leave their cell phones out of the OR. They're not concerned about DNA contamination, but bacterial contamination - but where there is bacteria from someone's body in a place, there's DNA as well.

So it is likely hard to find lots of BK DNA at 1122 King Road. But I believe he touched the slider (there are evidence markers there) both going in and going out (it's possible he left the door open though - if he were really smart, he might have done so, even just a crack would have meant he wouldn't have gotten victim blood and his own handprint (gloved) on the door. Naturally, the defense will argue that's not evidence he did it, because no DNA - but juries are not persuaded merely by DNA and in fact, in the Murdaugh case, the jury took less than 3 hours to deliberate the circumstantial evidence (jurors say it was only 45 minutes from first vote to last). The details of why the jurors decided what they did are in recent MSM (and in the Media thread over there).

I'm not sure why we are discussing DNA apart from the other evidence (his drive toward Moscow on that very night; his car seen circling the neighborhood; his car seen doing a 3 point turn to get to an invisible-to-the-camera parking spot; his car seen leaving at goodly rate of speed on camera - from the parking spot next to 1122, as either method of exit would have caught him on camera; his circuitous route home; his return to the scene of the crime the next morning; his use of the same circuitous route home (he would have had more evidence to dispose of after going home and showering).

LE and DA are not going to give the poseur whackadoos (present in every major case I've ever known about) and the real killer the information about what they know BK bought in Albertson's. I think the legal reasoning and the practical reasoning behind that is very clear. But they know what he bought and they caught him on camera doing it. They would have wanted a warrant for Albertson's cash register records, I reckon - just going in and asking staff if they remembered BK would have been prejudicial and really bad investigation. They need to see the digital trail.


ALL IMO. And while he's not an unintelligent person, it was unwise for him to turn his phone back on a mere 20 minutes or so after leaving 1122. BTW, the affiant for the PCA who wrote it from the point of view of being an affiant who visited the crime scene could not have attested to the Albertson's evidence, as that was collected by the FBI. But the DA could open their mouth and speak to the judge and say, "There is also this other evidence; here's the FBI phone number of the guy handling that."

It's not a trial, it's a probable cause affidavit. Probable cause is not based only on one affidavit, but can be based on words said out loud to the judge by the DA, an officer of the court, or by LE in person, as the case may be. The way I read Idaho laws on warrants, a DA can issue an arrest warrant without going before a judge (but generally wants a victim statement in hand, not possible in this case) but if the arrest is out of state it must go before a judge. The minimum requirement for what's in the PCA is way less than what's in this one.

DA and LE are simply not going to play their full hand for an arrest warrant when it isn't needed. IMO and in the opinion of every DA, LEO and Judge I've ever observed or interviewed.

But my main point is that there's way more evidence in this case mentioned in the PCA, and the argument over whether there's more DNA or not is both immaterial and unnecessary in Idaho - they don't need anything more to arrest him and we're not trying him here on WS.

It's tedious looking at each individual piece of evidence in a vacuum, I believe the only productive way to look at what might happen next (or whether BK did it) is to consider the sum of what is known (including public statements by various people who observed him before and after Oct 13).

I am very interested in the receipts and financial transactions; but I'd really like to know if they used the special forensic cameras on his body when when they booked him in Moscow. These cameras can capture evidence of scratches or wounds that are a couple of months old - even older, even if the scratches are not visible to the naked eye or barely so. BK is fair-skinned as well, and even with a regular magnifying glass, one can usually still see remnants of a moderate scratch a couple of months later.

I suppose if LE has found a receipt for purchase of a Ka-Bar knife and a black coverall amongst BK's things that will overshadow the DNA entirely at the preliminary. And, with any luck, they may still recover the knife. Something tells me that he did not take it with him on the way to PA - he got rid of it in Idaho. Unfortunately, the most likely place was in the Snake River, which is unlucky for the prosecution.

IMO.

This was so cathartic to read. Thanks for laying this all out in a thorough and thoughtful way. I've long warned folks here to stop looking at individual pieces of evidence in a vacuum. It's the total sum of said evidence that is damning. With each piece corroborating and compounding the next.

LE's case is so strong that IMO that they could likely get a conviction without the DNA . As the evidence puts him outside of that house in the dead of night when he has no business being there.

The DNA seals the deal.

 

[Boxer]

Snipped for focus.

To me it's semantics. IMO he's been labeled as intelligent. You can be extremely intelligent with degrees up the ying yang, but still not very smart, which to me is more about common sense, street smarts, etc. I worked with very intelligent people (engineers with patents and degrees up the wazoo), but man o man some of them sure didn't have a lick of common sense!

One asked where office supplies were (in a drawer in the cabinet right outside her cubicle). I said In the office supply drawer. She asked... How do you open it? I said... Uh... you pull on it (demonstrating with my hand in the air while we walked).

True story!

All MOO

Agree. MOO losing a tool cover is simply a lack of real world work experience, not really unintelligent per se.
Experienced work people know everything pops out of pockets when working in conditions that require exertion in unusual bending positions, that is why there is a belt loop and thigh strap on the sheath.

 

[jjleroche]

I mostly see people describing him as smart. Who is making him out as stupid?

I do imagine they found at least a little more DNA in the house. And IMO, there cannot be just one latent footprint, because that means he had blood on the bottom of his shoe, which had disappeared as he made 10-15 long strides from where ever he got it.

Arguing about what we don't know (yet) over and over...I guess is our fate until June.

We can see investigators doing analysis on the slider (even with a glove, he would have left something on the door, I figure). It probably isn't as dramatic as the footprint. And again, no PCA is going to list that, because then both the whackadoos and the real killer can make up stories about what route the killer took through the house. DM doesn't actually say she saw him go through the slider.

We have no forensic evidence that he ever exited the house and yet, just a couple of minutes after DM sees him, his car (and it is his car) is seen leaving. That's evidence as well. It doesn't all have to be DNA. Having his car caught on camera immediately after DM sees a man in black leave the house is pretty damning, IMO. Then, about 30 minutes later, he is heading south out of Moscow (even though Pullman is to the West) and takes a long route back to Pullman, pulling off the main road and turning on his phone so that most of that trip is tracked as well.

But you're saying that the "only evidence" is one footprint. And not leaving DNA is not a thing only in crime novels - in crime novels, DNA is much more important than it is presumed to be in real life. Now, having said that, DNA retrieval techniques are improving by leaps and bounds (those forensic vacuum cleaners they used may have dragged some up).

A man wearing a mask isn't breathing out much DNA (this is like saying that an operating room would be filled with medical personnel's DNA after each procedure - but they wear hats, gloves, masks, etc., and staff DNA is almost never found in studies of OR's. It turns out that pre-op prep (where people have their cell phones) does leave bio-traces of the staff behind, but when people leave behind their cell phones (which have lots of DNA on them) and are wearing masks, hats, new gowns and booties while prepping the room, the individual bio-matter of the staff (including bacteria gained from swabbing their noses that is unique to each individual). In Europe (where this study was done), OR people are being urged to gown up twice - and to leave their cell phones out of the OR. They're not concerned about DNA contamination, but bacterial contamination - but where there is bacteria from someone's body in a place, there's DNA as well.

So it is likely hard to find lots of BK DNA at 1122 King Road. But I believe he touched the slider (there are evidence markers there) both going in and going out (it's possible he left the door open though - if he were really smart, he might have done so, even just a crack would have meant he wouldn't have gotten victim blood and his own handprint (gloved) on the door. Naturally, the defense will argue that's not evidence he did it, because no DNA - but juries are not persuaded merely by DNA and in fact, in the Murdaugh case, the jury took less than 3 hours to deliberate the circumstantial evidence (jurors say it was only 45 minutes from first vote to last). The details of why the jurors decided what they did are in recent MSM (and in the Media thread over there).

I'm not sure why we are discussing DNA apart from the other evidence (his drive toward Moscow on that very night; his car seen circling the neighborhood; his car seen doing a 3 point turn to get to an invisible-to-the-camera parking spot; his car seen leaving at goodly rate of speed on camera - from the parking spot next to 1122, as either method of exit would have caught him on camera; his circuitous route home; his return to the scene of the crime the next morning; his use of the same circuitous route home (he would have had more evidence to dispose of after going home and showering).

LE and DA are not going to give the poseur whackadoos (present in every major case I've ever known about) and the real killer the information about what they know BK bought in Albertson's. I think the legal reasoning and the practical reasoning behind that is very clear. But they know what he bought and they caught him on camera doing it. They would have wanted a warrant for Albertson's cash register records, I reckon - just going in and asking staff if they remembered BK would have been prejudicial and really bad investigation. They need to see the digital trail.


ALL IMO. And while he's not an unintelligent person, it was unwise for him to turn his phone back on a mere 20 minutes or so after leaving 1122. BTW, the affiant for the PCA who wrote it from the point of view of being an affiant who visited the crime scene could not have attested to the Albertson's evidence, as that was collected by the FBI. But the DA could open their mouth and speak to the judge and say, "There is also this other evidence; here's the FBI phone number of the guy handling that."

It's not a trial, it's a probable cause affidavit. Probable cause is not based only on one affidavit, but can be based on words said out loud to the judge by the DA, an officer of the court, or by LE in person, as the case may be. The way I read Idaho laws on warrants, a DA can issue an arrest warrant without going before a judge (but generally wants a victim statement in hand, not possible in this case) but if the arrest is out of state it must go before a judge. The minimum requirement for what's in the PCA is way less than what's in this one.

DA and LE are simply not going to play their full hand for an arrest warrant when it isn't needed. IMO and in the opinion of every DA, LEO and Judge I've ever observed or interviewed.

But my main point is that there's way more evidence in this case mentioned in the PCA, and the argument over whether there's more DNA or not is both immaterial and unnecessary in Idaho - they don't need anything more to arrest him and we're not trying him here on WS.

It's tedious looking at each individual piece of evidence in a vacuum, I believe the only productive way to look at what might happen next (or whether BK did it) is to consider the sum of what is known (including public statements by various people who observed him before and after Oct 13).

I am very interested in the receipts and financial transactions; but I'd really like to know if they used the special forensic cameras on his body when when they booked him in Moscow. These cameras can capture evidence of scratches or wounds that are a couple of months old - even older, even if the scratches are not visible to the naked eye or barely so. BK is fair-skinned as well, and even with a regular magnifying glass, one can usually still see remnants of a moderate scratch a couple of months later.

I suppose if LE has found a receipt for purchase of a Ka-Bar knife and a black coverall amongst BK's things that will overshadow the DNA entirely at the preliminary. And, with any luck, they may still recover the knife. Something tells me that he did not take it with him on the way to PA - he got rid of it in Idaho. Unfortunately, the most likely place was in the Snake River, which is unlucky for the prosecution.

IMO.

10 of Rods, I always appreciate your posts. Your obvious expert knowledge regarding both forensic matters, and human behaviour make for fascinating reading, and provide insight into the complexities of this case for a lay person such as I. Thank you

 

[PrairieWind]

I actually think it is more damning to find BK's DNA on something associated with the weapon as opposed to on a door knob. On a door knob the defense could say he came to a party X amount of time ago, but to be associated with this brutal knife causing horrific multiple stab wounds is very hard to overcome.

The defense has 3 ways to go.

1.) It is BK's DNA but other killers stole or found his knife sheath, used heir own knife even, and left the sheath at the scene.

2.) Say that this is not BK's DNA and put up expert witnesses to cast doubt on the DNA evidence.

3.) File Motions to get the DNA evidence tossed out, which would require the defense to call witnesses at the June preliminary hearing to explain how the DNA wasn't collected or processed correctly, or the amount of DNA is too small for adequate analysis, or the DNA was destroyed during testing and now the defense cannot use it to conduct their own tests, etc...

The jury will need an alternate suspect, other possibilities of who else could have done it. Perhaps pointing out (trying to convince the jury) that it is more realistic that 2 other perpetrators committed this, that it is unrealistic for one person alone to have stabbed 4 people multiple times in such a short time span.

The defense could argue that this is only Touch DNA and that the DNA would be stronger if it came from actual bodily fluids, blood, sweat, saliva, piece of skin, hair, or if it came from under the victim's fingernails.

How Reliable is DNA Evidence? Problems and Defense Options | Will & Will

How reliable is DNA evidence? Let’s discuss the problems and defense options for people who have been accused of a crime based on DNA traces. You’ve seen this on TV before. A forensic analyst marches into a room where colleagues are discussing a case. The analyst then tosses a tiny evidence bag...

willdefendwa.com

Just one note, the Defense would not have to bring a challenge to the DNA evidence at preliminary hearing. They can do that later.

 

[DizzyB]

Agree. MOO losing a tool cover is simply a lack of real world work experience, not really unintelligent per se.
Experenced work people know everything pops out of pockets when working in conditions that require exertion in unusual bending positions, that is why there is a belt loop and thigh strap on the sheath.

It does bother me that he left the sheath. Did he walk out of the house with knife in hand? Was he startled and interrupted by Xana, coming quickly down the stairs to silence her? I am curious to know how the prosecution believes this unfolded.

As far as lousy pockets, I am very disappointed in a Carhartt jacket I recently bought. For a workwear apparel company, I was shocked at how short the pockets were. I cannot keep my keys in them because they constantly fall out. Maybe BK was in new clothing and expected the sheath to stay put.

 

[al66pine]

Convictions, Despite "Reasonable Doubt?"
(Deleted my earlier post, edited to clarify)

....cases where there was reasonable doubt but conviction still came.

snipped for focus @SMK777
Yes, criminal convictions have occurred in cases where SOME PPL believe there was reasonable doubt about whether the def't was guilty of the crime(s) charged.

"Some ppl" could be ppl who did not attend or watch the ENTIRE trial, watch and listen to all the witnesses & testimony, see all the exhibits, recordings, etc. Sooo that would likely be who? Most everyone imo.
Ppl not attending an entire trial and watching only MSM news clips, or reading MSM articles, and/or SM blogs, etc. may have reasonable doubts precisely because they have not seen and heard ALL the evd.

Presumably the juries at these trials ending in wrongful convictions did not have reasonable doubt about the def't's guilt.

imo.

Convicted persons can (generally) APPEAL their convictions.
On what grounds?
"Potential grounds for appeal in a criminal case include legal error, juror misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel. Legal errors may result from improperly admitted evidence, incorrect jury instructions, or lack of sufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict."

Criminal Appeals

When and why may a criminal defendant appeal a conviction, and what is the process for doing so?

www.justia.com

 

[PrairieWind]

It does bother me that he left the sheath. Did he walk out of the house with knife in hand? Was he startled and interrupted by Xana, coming quickly down the stairs to silence her? I am curious to know how the prosecution believes this unfolded.

As far as lousy pockets, I am very disappointed in a Carhartt jacket I recently bought. For a workwear apparel company, I was shocked at how short the pockets were. I cannot keep my keys in them because they constantly fall out. Maybe BK was in new clothing and expected the sheath to stay put.

I am guessing the police and Prosecution have an idea of how the attack played out. The house would have been full of evidence/clues to tell the story. We will hear it eventually. I think most of us assume the girls upstairs were attacked first, but who knows. I wouldn't doubt that there could still be some bomb-shells to drop.

 

[al66pine]

"Coroner Report" Link?

Per the coroner report you're citing, he stabbed all of them multiple times. It said that one wound was fatal, but that doesn't mean they only had one wound. That's my interpretation anyway. MOO.

@BeginnerSleuther
Altho I've seen vid clips of interview w Latah County Coroner and MSM articles quoting her, I do not recall having seen a document designated as a Coroner's Report in the case.
IDT there's been a release of any Autopsy Reports issued by the Pathologist in WA. who conducted the PM's.

@BeginnerSleuther Link pls to this Report, pls? TiA

 

[al66pine]

dbm

 

[U.N. Known]

My fear, looking theoretically and abstractly at the case, is that IF by some chance he really is not guilty (I believe he is guilty, but you never know) rather than that “one juror” who finds reasonable doubt and holds out, there will be a going along with presumptions.

There have been quite a few cases where there was reasonable doubt but conviction still came.

It takes a strong sense of personal conviction to stand up to the bully pulpit or worse, to the person who is just tired and/or not interested!

 

[U.N. Known]

You don't have to convince me, I do not think that some other killer found or stole BK's knife sheath, then used it, then left it behind either accidentally or to frame him. Odds are against that. Common sense and Occam's Razor.

Posts keep coming up where someone says:

"Just because BK's DNA is on the knife sheath doesn't mean he was there."

But I pointed out that if the defense wants to go this route then they need to give the jury an alternative suspect. They would also need to give the jury some credible answers as to when, where, why, how this could have happened. Like when did BK acquire the sheath, where did he keep it, did he lose it somewhere or was it stolen out of his car or apartment or car? When did he last see it? Who was he with when he last saw it? ETC......

Snipped:
Since I believe that I am the last person who posted the note in bold, I'll add:

Regardless of how the defense has to spin it, the reality is--
"Just because BK's DNA is on the knife sheath doesn't mean he was there." Period. It matters. LE, as posted upthread, he DNA was not used to procure probable cause, so even they left room for it to be excluded.

We're talking about this in a vacuum, but within that vacuum, it only takes one member of the jury to feel the same to derail the case for the prosecution. So yes, that distinction --is important. If the prosecution presented only what we know of now, and the defense had a reasonable explanation, I'd hesitate to put someone in jail for the rest of his life.

 

[al66pine]

Jury Instructions re BARD in Idaho.
See the third paragraph starting "Second" and "Comment" below.

"ICJI 103 REASONABLE DOUBT
"PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE-REASONABLE DOUBT
"INSTRUCTION NO.
"Under our law and system of justice, the defendant is presumed to be innocent. The presumption of innocence means two things.

"First, the state has the burden of proving the defendant guilty. The state has that burden throughout the trial. The defendant is never required to prove [his] [her] innocence, nor does the defendant ever have to produce any evidence at all.

"Second, the state must prove the alleged crime beyond a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible or imaginary doubt. It is a doubt based on reason and common sense. It may arise from a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or from lack of evidence. If after considering all the evidence you have a reasonable doubt about the defendant's guilt, you must find the defendant not guilty."

And ^^^ is followed by this:

"Comment"
"The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that the jury be instructed on the presumption of innocence. Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478 (1977). Although technically not a "presumption", the presumption of innocence is a way of describing the prosecution's duty both to produce evidence of guilt and to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

“The beyond a reasonable doubt standard is a requirement of due process, but the Constitution neither prohibits trial courts from defining reasonable doubt nor requires them to do so as a matter of course. Indeed, so long as the court instructs the jury on the necessity that the defendant’s guilt be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the Constitution does not require that any particular form of words be used in advising the jury of the government’s burden of proof. Rather, ‘taken as a whole, the instructions [must] correctly conve[y] the concept of reasonable doubt to the jury.’” Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1, 5 (1994) (citations omitted).

"The above instruction reflects the view that it is preferable to instruct the jury on the meaning of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This instruction defines that term concisely while avoiding the pitfalls arising from some other attempts to define this concept.



________________________________________
* Criminal Jury Instructions | Supreme Court
In the listing under "100. PRE-PROOF INSTRUCTIONS"

 

[Cool Cats]

1.) Tall guy with bushy brows dressed in black? That likely describes at least 30% of the UI male student population, IMO.
2.) A white Elantra of the wrong year
3.) This is the only thing that would start to make a case for PC, but could they even get those records without more? And even if they did, could that on its own be cause for arrest? IANAL, but I'd be shocked if so.

MOO.

Many people scoff and brush off this description because a good percentage of the population have bushy eyebrows and tons of men fit the description of a tall athletic built male etc...

But let's be clear, this witness description is important and contributed to the probable cause in getting the judge to sign off on Warrants against BK.

The witness description is not meant to prove that this is in fact BK, it's to prove that the witness description cannot rule BK OUT.

Descriptions can help rule suspects in or out. This description rules BK IN.

If the suspect was described as fat, African American or another race, short, a female, thin eyebrows, 6' 5" or any number of other descriptions, then this rules BK OUT. Out as far as BK being that particular person she saw in her home that night.

The other LE consideration is that BK was not known as a suspect when the witness gave her statement. The witness did not know of BK. She gives a description of a suspect before knowing who the suspect is, then later when the suspect is arrested, he just happens to fit her description enough to not be ruled out.

 

[Cool Cats]

Snipped:
Since I believe that I am the last person who posted the note in bold, I'll add:

Regardless of how the defense has to spin it, the reality is--
"Just because BK's DNA is on the knife sheath doesn't mean he was there." Period. It matters. LE, as posted upthread, he DNA was not used to procure probable cause, so even they left room for it to be excluded.

We're talking about this in a vacuum, but within that vacuum, it only takes one member of the jury to feel the same to derail the case for the prosecution. So yes, that distinction --is important. If the prosecution presented only what we know of now, and the defense had a reasonable explanation, I'd hesitate to put someone in jail for the rest of his life.

BK's DNA being on a knife sheath (on the snap for taking out a knife) at a murder scene where the victims were stabbed points squarely to BK and does not point to another suspect.

But good point, there was enough evidence to arrest BK without the DNA. This is significant because if you - on top of this evidence - add in BK's DNA without reasonable evidence it was anyone else, then the prosecution has a strong case for conviction it looks like. Beyond reasonable doubt? Up to jury.

But there is no defense to help prove or at least explain that it was anyone else.

What is the defense going to say?

Yes we agree this is our client's DNA, rest assured it looks like he was there that night, but don't believe it because really some other mysterious killer out there stole or found BK's sheath and took it to a quadruple murder then left it for some reason, we have no idea how this happened, but it could have happened.

And would the prosecution confirm their own client even owned that sheath? Tell the jury that yes BK owned that sheath and yes it is BK's DNA on it and yes it was left in a murder victim's bed. What kind of a defense is that? It makes the prosecution's case 10 times stronger. Totally confirms the prosecution's evidence.

The defense needs to distance BK from both the sheath and the DNA.

2 Cents

 

[PrairieWind]

But there is no defense for this.

What is the defense going to say?

Yes we agree this is our client's DNA, rest assured it looks like he was there that night, but don't believe it because really some other mysterious killer out there stole or found BK's sheath and took it to a quadruple murder then left it for some reason, we have no idea how this happened, but it could have happened.

And would the prosecution confirm their own client even owned that sheath? Tell the jury that yes BK owned that sheath and yes it is BK's DNA on it and yes it was left in a murder victim's bed. What kind of a defense is that? It makes the prosecution's case 10 times stronger.

The defense needs to distance BK from both the sheath and the DNA.

I think it depends. If this is the only DNA of BK in the house (extremely unlikely) than the Defense could come up with a lot of great theories. If BK's DNA is all over the house..... yeah that is gonna be pretty tough to get around.

 

[Boxer]

Snipped:
Since I believe that I am the last person who posted the note in bold, I'll add:

Regardless of how the defense has to spin it, the reality is--
"Just because BK's DNA is on the knife sheath doesn't mean he was there." Period. It matters. LE, as posted upthread, he DNA was not used to procure probable cause, so even they left room for it to be excluded.

We're talking about this in a vacuum, but within that vacuum, it only takes one member of the jury to feel the same to derail the case for the prosecution. So yes, that distinction --is important. If the prosecution presented only what we know of now, and the defense had a reasonable explanation, I'd hesitate to put someone in jail for the rest of his life.

That sounds like a jury who is not prepared to bote for justice. Hopefully all will be open minded and willing to form their opinions based on the testimony and evidence.

MOO defenses include:

There is SODDI.
There is some other form of killing, self defense, manslaughter etc.
There are mitigating circumstance, such as being provoked.

Agree as is, without the DNA the case may have a juror hold out. Even though the likelihood of it not being the stalker who was there at the time are next to nil.

But there is DNA, collected lawfully.

 

[Dotta]

"New theory on how 'stalker' Bryan Kohberger's 'meticulous' plan to murder just ONE of the Idaho students went awry."​

Theory on how Bryan Kohberger's 'failed plan' led to Idaho bloodbath

VIDEO: An analysis of the evidence against suspected quadruple murderer, Bryan Kohberger, suggests that he likely had just one victim in mind on the night of the gruesome slayings.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[10ofRods]

You don't have to convince me, I do not think that some other killer found or stole BK's knife sheath, then used it, then left it behind either accidentally or to frame him. Odds are against that. Common sense and Occam's Razor.

Posts keep coming up where someone says:

"Just because BK's DNA is on the knife sheath doesn't mean he was there."

But I pointed out that if the defense wants to go this route then they need to give the jury an alternative suspect. They would also need to give the jury some credible answers as to when, where, why, how this could have happened. Like when did BK acquire the sheath, where did he keep it, did he lose it somewhere or was it stolen out of his car or apartment or car? When did he last see it? Who was he with when he last saw it? ETC......

I don't think this is a realistic defense, also it is a dangerous defense. Why dangerous?

Because this defense requires the defense to admit in open court that yes this is BK's DNA.

There is nothing a jury likes more than for the defense to confirm that their client left behind his DNA. This erases reasonable doubt and I believe would lead to a slam dunk conviction. Jurys want to be confident in the DNA results. Jurys love DNA, it helps them feel confident that they are not condemning an innocent man.

No, I think the defense will take both other routes with the DNA:

1.) File a Motion to get the DNA thrown out. This would include a hearing where the defense argues for their Motion to exclude the DNA evidence and the prosecution argues for their Opposition Motion, their Motion to keep the DNA evidence in. This can also include presenting evidence and calling witnesses.

2.) If the defense's Motion to exclude the DNA evidence is denied and the prosecution's Motion is granted, then the defense would have to try to cast as much doubt as possible on the DNA results.This would include expert witness testimony to cast doubt on the testing results, and possibly trying to prove the DNA was compromised in some way even before being tested.

2 Cents

I am with you the whole way - right down to your option 2) which is how I think it will be resolved. There will be a motion to throw out the DNA; Judge will deny; Defense will ask for its own expert to examine the sheath. Judge will say yes, expert will be hired and perhaps asked to do the examination with another expert present as well as someone representing the State (who has chain of custody).

They will do the snap first. If the analysis shows that the DNA is identical to BK's (now in evidence with a warrant) the Judge will allow it in, IMO. In the end is computed by a computer after a series of minor chemical procedures.

The only way the sequence of nucleotides present on the sheath can give an identical match BK's DNAs unless it is BK's DNA on the sheath. The defense will then have the unenviable position of trying to explain that away.

Defense could also make it more complicated by insisting on testing other parts of the sheath (but they risk being disappointed).

IMO.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

MOO evidence suppression, or mitigation will be almost the sole fighting focus of the defense, as MOO the facts cannot be argued away.

MOO To follow up on a possible win by the defense of suppressing evidence, or of evidence being successfully mitigated by a defense expert's testimony, AT will present at least one alternative theory.

I think you accidentally quoted the wrong person. I was talking about posters' ideas being valid.