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

[insearchoflight]

it doesn't make sense to me at all, and it is to get an arrest - and a search warrant - and WA courts are much pickier, but some of us are going to believe that and some aren't, and I'll just keep searching for fresh ideas because I'm all out jmo imo

Whatever the reasons for anything, hopefully it will become clear once we have more information. Regardless, they were successful in collecting enough evidence to secure an arrest.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

It shows that her eyewitness testimony correlated with evidence collected

Right, someone was there. We already knew that since 4 people were murdered and the surviving roommates were cleared. I honestly can't think of anything the latent print added, except the direction he was going and presumed exit from the home (and if that's what they were trying to prove, then more prints would have made a stronger case).

MOO.

 

[Montecore1]

Left them out because pca is designed to get an arrest and not to include everything for conviction? Just speculating here but it makes sense to me.

The more evidence in a PCA the more likely an arrest warrant will be issued by the judge. Leaving out key evidence (IF there is any to begin with) doesn't make any sense IMO. Its not like that evidence is going to be kept from the defense. So if mentioning a barely visible latent print because of its direction why not mention collaborating prints to back up the latent one? IF there are any? MOO IMO JMO TWISI

 

[ilovewings]

Right now on Banfield there is a discussion about razing the house: that is the worst idea I have heard in a long time. That house is so important in this case and I hope the prosecutor does not allow the house to be destroyed. It isn't just about evidence left behind because there isn't any. It is about the structure of the house: they can show the jury how they believe BK entered and left the house: they can show floors one thru three and how he went up the stairs and entered the rooms to commit the crime. I know the jury would want to see this house. Hoping they preserve it until after the trial is over.

 

[iamshadow21]

In the PCA? That's what I'm asking about. How is it strong evidence for the PCA when none of that stuff was mentioned, except Vans style shoe. But that still doesn't give PC for arresting BK. Now had they expanded it and said a set of size 13 footprints or something like that, I'd agree. But they didn't. All they did was confirm a single footprint they couldn't even see with the naked eye.

You asked what a single footprint could reveal, and I answered.

You seem to think latent evidence less valid than evidence you can see. Forensics is largely composed of revealing, testing and interpreting invisible evidence. Just because it isn't visible to the naked eye doesn't make it less valid. Most prints, whether you're talking feet, hands, fingers, toes, shoes, or gloves, aren't obvious to the naked eye without something like fingerprint powder, alternate lighting, or chemical staining to make them visible.

MOO

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

Whatever the reasons for anything, hopefully it will become clear once we have more information. Regardless, they were successful in collecting enough evidence to secure an arrest.

Well, of course, I'm here to consider the evidence that we know about and ask the what about? questions. For me, it's a puzzle, and these pieces aren't fitting together without leaps of faith and logic, and I'm not comfortable with either. Particularly in this case with it shut down so tightly, an arrest isn't that much of a consolation imo jmo. I guess we're all here for different reasons imo jmo.

 

[Nila Aella]

IMO It is hard to believe anyone interested in criminal behavior/crimes/forensics would make so many mistakes.

By now, LE and the prosecutor know whether the evidence from the search warrants have bolstered their case against BK, or whether they need to keep searching for answers.

MOO

Would you be so kind as to specify the many mistakes you believe BK made?

Sure: here are a few.

Taking his phone with him.
Turning his phone off.
Driving his own car.
His erratic driving around the house prior to parking.
Parking so close to the house.
Not avoiding the cameras in the neighborhood.
Leaving his sheath.
Leaving his dna on the sheath.
Wearing shoes with a distinquishable, patented sole.
Speeding away from the crime scene.
Coming back to the house the next day.

MOO
edit: added dna on sheath

you make a lot of good points, however there is no evidence BK has " shoes with a distinguishable, patented sole" (so far as I know). To, me the smoking gun is the DNA on the knife sheath. IMO

My original post in this line of posts was that I found it hard to believe that someone with his background would make so many mistakes (frankly anyone with moderate knowledge of forensics and that follows cases). I think wearing a distinguishable patterned, patented shoe sole is a mistake for someone with a criminolgy background/an interest in how crimes are committed/forensics/technology. The list above was only partial. MOO

I totally agree that Van's were not listed in any returns from the search warrants. Van's soles, as pointed out by another poster, are patented, and I do believe the fbi can distinguish between them or another type sole. I suppose they need to consider fakes too? MOO

IMO the dna on the sheath is not a smoking gun. I believe the prosecution needs more. MOO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

You asked what a single footprint could reveal, and I answered.

In the context of the PCA. I know what it can reveal on its own, but the poster was talking about the PCA and that it was supporting PC for arrest, with which I disagree.

You seem to think latent evidence less valid than evidence you can see. Forensics is largely composed of revealing, testing and interpreting invisible evidence. Just because it isn't visible to the naked eye doesn't make it less valid. Most prints, whether you're talking feet, hands, fingers, toes, shoes, or gloves, aren't obvious to the naked eye without something like fingerprint powder, alternate lighting, or chemical staining to make them visible.

MOO

I actually don't think latent evidence is less valid than evidence you can see. But I do think that if your point is to only prove someone was there that night, bloody footprints you can see make for a stronger case. A single footprint seen on second processing introduces other questions.

MOO.

 

[jepop]

One possibility comes to mind, that they first had to establish that the suspect wasn't someone she knew from obvious sources: her ex-boyfriend, someone she worked with, someone she knew from class, etc. Only once they knew their suspect was an apparent stranger to her did they have cause to look at her Tinder account to see if she was connected to him via that option?

Just a guess, MOO.

Could be...Your post speaks to a more general point too I think. I do believe that LE did not simply drop all other lines of enquiry as soon as BK came on the radar. My sense from all these warrants (so far released that is) is that LE were committed to conducting a competent investigation into these murders and to following all credible angles. Also that they were open to being flexible as new information arose. This is a common theme throughout the many transcripted Press Conferences in the media thread here. Also, from what I can remember the investigation was well funded with many resources made available - specialist FBI, ISP and so forth..MOO

edited spelling

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

A single footprint seen on second processing introduces other questions.

MOO.

rsbm

And they put in so much other evidence, this is glaring in how convincing it isn't. If the whole thing had been written with a certain economy, then maybe, but this was just a big red flag waving for me. imo jmo

 

[gliving]

How is a single latent print strong evidence? Besides supporting the fact that someone with a foot was there that night, what else does it reveal?

Officer Payne believes the latent shoe print belongs to Kohberger because he included it in the arrest affidavit he signed.

So many questions
<moo>

 

[katydid23]

If it was on his belt, it would stay on his belt. You can't rip leather off leather like that. Leather is really tough.

However, I think he put the sheath in his Dickies coveralls and it fell out of his front pocket.

that is... if he didn't plant it as evidence.. thinking he had wiped off ALL of his DNA beforehand.

That's still my theory... crazy as it sounds, that he thought he would taunt LE with a knife sheath with no DNA on it.

Yes, it may have been planted. I like what someone posted upstream, about him wanting people to think it was a veteran. [ or maybe a soldier with PTSD.]

 

[Nova]

2:47 a.m. to 4:48 a.m. page 13

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/122922%20Affidavit%20-%20Exhibit%20A%20-%20Statement%20of%20Brett-Payne.pdf

Thanks. You are right. It was off for two hours, including 30 minutes after the murders.

But what will his explanation be for turning his phone off at a quarter to 3 in the morning? Maybe he attended a 3 a.m. performance of CATS...?

 

[Nila Aella]

This is a report pretty early on in the investigation, there are other articles as well. Not sure if LE commented directly or not, Ill dig some more when I have a break

Idaho murders: Slain university students' neighbor says front door left wide open after attacks

A neighbor of four slain University of Idaho students whose shocking stabbing deaths remain unsolved nearly four weeks later claimed they saw the front door wide open hours after the slayings.

www.q13fox.com

DM asked Chief Fry about it: Dec 9

Fry told DailyMail.com he could neither confirm nor deny whether the door was in fact left open: 'I don't even know the answer to that one. If I did, I would probably comment on that but I don't know the answer whether the door was open.'

Chief unaware of report door was open to building where students died

Speaking to DailyMail.com on Thursday at the city's Christmas parade, Police Chief James Fry said the report was news to him.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[10ofRods]

actually, the PCA mentions a Vans like print, diamond-shaped pattern, and those are very distinctive, and of course, almost any shoe can be IDd by the FBI

and to clarify: we don't even know the car is his much less that he drove it, so to assume those things would require that we also assume he was potentially wearing those distinctive-soled shoes. As to what shoes he actually owns, obv IDK and the search warrant receipts don't specify Vans (WA doesn't even list shoes taken) and PA lists multiple boots and New Balance shoes)

A handgun, knives, and a drawing were taken from the Poconos home where the man accused of killing 4 Idaho college students was arrested

Bryan Kohberger is accused of killing University of Idaho students Kaylee Goncalves, Madison Mogen, Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin.

www.inquirer.com

Forensic Databases: Paint, Shoe Prints, and Beyond

A detective working a missing persons case undoubtedly knows how to make the most of databases such as the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) and the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS), but does he or she know how to investigate a paint chip, a tire track, an ink...

nij.ojp.gov

Also, the DNA on the sheath is touch DNA and @BeginnerSleuther has shared links re its fallibility. The WA state search warrant (see page 6 application for search warrant asks that the DNA be excluded as evidence supporting probable cause. so jmo imo not what LE considered the smoking gun, and Imo jmo it will be interesting to see how that plays out in court.

(https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/search warrant for bryan kohberger apartment/ddb059f6cc8e24c1/full.pdf

And I've posted links on how valuable and rarely wrong the simple technique of swabbing touch DNA on a use point is.

So we have links on both sides and I imagine people are tired reading them. Just my opinion.

IMO. When it's single source, I'd like to see links (from juried publications) that question it.

TIA.

 

[katydid23]

If what you are trying to say is that if there is no more evidence than the fact of BK's trip to PA, the prosecution will have a tough burden to persuade a jury that the trip and the midnight dump in his neighbor's trash is an effort to remove the car from the area of the crime, and to remove evidence from it where no one will suspect, I would tend to agree.

But we know that the trip did not occur in isolation from other evidence - in particular LE's call for information about a white Elantra and all the other evidence in the affidavit.

Virtually all cases are built on circumstances that form a mosaic picture. Taken in isolation they may not seem significant, but a jury will deliberate with full knowledge of all the pieces the prosecution has. And they won't need to see all the pieces to get the picture - beyond a reasonable doubt.

Both studies and my own experience show to my satisfaction that jurors in most cases do a good job of holding one another to account in following the instructions and sticking to the evidence. The one instruction they struggle with is an instruction to ignore evidence that is presented then stricken by order of the judge.

All MOO.

" The one instruction they struggle with is an instruction to ignore evidence that is presented then stricken by order of the judge."

That^^ is interesting. I have wondered about that because I don't think I'd be able to totally ignore evidence that had slipped in. Like when a witness drops a bombshell and the judge tells the jury to ignore that---I doubt they can all ignore it if it is relevant.

 

[10ofRods]

Do we actually know that BK turned his phone off rather than put it in airplane mode? Both disable pinging cell towers, which seems to be the data from which they derive this.

But the two are quite different as @schooling explained earlier today. There may have been one other person explaining as well. Post #135 on this thread has part of it - I'll see if I can find the rest tomorrow.

IMO.

 

[WingsOverTX]

Anyone have any idea what the "organizing trash into separate zip loc baggies" means?

Thread #74 discusses the meaning and/or relevance pretty thoroughly. The search feature here can help you find the posts....ziploc, ziplock, baggies.

Basically, nobody knows but we've got THEORIES!

 

[jepop]

Do we actually know that BK turned his phone off rather than put it in airplane mode? Both disable pinging cell towers, which seems to be the data from which they derive this.

But the two are quite different as @schooling explained earlier today. There may have been one other person explaining as well. Post #135 on this thread has part of it - I'll see if I can find the rest tomorrow.

IMO.

I think at the time PCA was written, LE probably didn't know for sure. PCA is careful to point out what the diff options might be for why phone may have stopped connecting with network. MOO. It is suggested, though, when affiant is speaking in support of PC and citing his expertise and that of others, that he could have turned it off because he was intending to or contemplating committing the crime (MOO). LE have had BK phone since arrest in PA. I think by now investigators, having forensic downloads from BK's phone (as per Moscow PD forensic lab warrant), probably know which out of turned off;airplane mode or network drop out (this last being unlikely only IMO). MOO

 

[Helechawagirl]

Anyone have any idea what the "organizing trash into separate zip loc baggies" means?

Apparently, it causes dna to degrade faster.