4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered - Bryan Kohberger Arrested - Moscow # 76

[U.N. Known]

I thought it was Ethan as a freshman, Xana a junior.

Idaho murder victims: Who were Ethan Chapin, Xana Kernodle, Kaylee Goncalves, Madison Mogen

The college town of Moscow, Idaho is still reeling from the loss of University of Idaho students Ethan Chapin, Xana Kernodle, Kaylee Goncalves and Madison Mogen.

www.q13fox.com

Either way, it's by credits (aka hours), not by length of time in school. I refer you to Bluto Blutarsky, "Seven years of college down the drain." (<<not snark, but fun... animal house quote that I paraphrase a lot in my life )

Again, me with the assumptions. I probably saw that Ethan was a freshman and assumed she was too. LOL on credits. I'm an adjunct at a university, but my students are younger, so they haven't hit the professional student stage...yet.

 

[al66pine]

Info in a PCA.

Can we not trust the affiant's PCA? If not, what else can we not trust from the PCA?
Pursuant to records provided by a member of the interview panel for Pullman Police Departnent we learned that Kohberger's past education included undergnduate degrees in psychology and cloud-based forensics.

@deugirtni I think I see what you're saying.

The affiant's stmt. above identifies a member of the Pullman PD interview panel as the source of info (re BK's education in whatever field). W'out seeing the doc/image of specific CV that BK provided to the panel for the potential internship, we don't KNOW what representations BK himself made about his degrees/certifications/academic background (or even number of cloud-based forensic COLORING BOOKS he completed wink, j/k).

Seriously, above quoted stmt ---
---Not a rando off the street providing this info to Moscow PD (or whichever LE agency gathered this bit of info), re collection of info for PCA.
---Not an employee of an LE agency exchanging in office water cooler banter w another employee, re info being assembled for a PCA.

IOW, the above quoted stmt in PCA was a LEO's sworn stmt taken from another LEO, which he submitted to a judge, and which he knew would be subject to further scrutiny in court.

Are all representations made in PCA's guaranteed to be 100% accurate or double your money back (lol)? No, but imo they generally merit more credibility than (some) MSM output.

imo jmo moo

 

[North_Idaho_Nony]

<modsnip: quoted post was removed>
Yes . . . and the PCA likely doesn’t include anything close to all the evidence they had at that time.

It’s a process: the PCA probably contains just enough to get an arrest warrant. We’ll likely learn more at the preliminary hearing, but not nearly as much as likely will be presented at trial. And even at trial, only the strongest, not necessarily all, evidence likely will be used by the State. At least that’s MOO as not a lawyer.

Sooo, the evidence presented in the PCA was sufficient for the judge to sign off on the arrest warrant. That doesn’t mean there won’t be more DNA samples linked to BCK in the preliminary hearing and/or at trial, it seems to me. Please correct me if I’ve got that wrong.

We can debate whether the PCA could have, should have presented more/different evidence/facts, which can be fun to do, LOL.

OTOH, the PCA accomplished its purpose (arrest warrant), and barring something really bizarro (always possible!), I don’t see the arrest warrant being successfully challenged in the future. All MOO & YMMV.

June 26 is an auspicious date for me personally & hoping it will be just as auspicious for Xana, Ethan, Maddie, & Kaylee and all of their loved ones!

EBM to add “likely” a few times.

 

[jepop]

I think we are talking passed each other. My understanding was ID lab didn't find anything, and sent the item to this company. If they then located this DNA and provided the results as our suspects, they must show how and use a methodology that is admissible. It must be peer reviewed, tested, failure rates known and understood. If there is no further sample to test, and those criteria are not met, there may be no DNA evidence from the sheath admitted at trial. But my opinions are based just upon a very sketchy news report that probably does not accurately reflect the true facts. But my point is, that just because his DNA is found, doesn't mean that it will be admissible at trial.

IMO, News Nation's reporting of this is so obfustcating and piecemeal that it is impossible to tell what actually happenned (and did it happen at all I might add when in my most cynical mood). Did LE send the actual sheath out to Othram for actual extraction and discovery of the suspect dna sample on the sheath? Or did LE send out the results of the unknown suspect sample extracted in Idaho (police forensic lab) hoping for a genealogy match or however that works?

What is clear from the PCA and pointed out here in several posts is that the match between the suspect sample and the dad's trash dna, the test that identified BK as the extremely likely donor of the suspect sample on the sheath button, was undertaken by Idaho State Lab on 28th DEcember.

Another poster also pointed out that this must be a leak by LE or someone else in the investigation who should not be communicating with MR Blum (or News Nation). It seems MR Blum is the one in possession of this info re the "outsourcing'. He either received this info via a leak or perhaps he is just guessing. MOO

Edited spelling.

ETA: I always feel like I'm in a game of Cluedo every time I write Mr Blum.

 

[WingsOverTX]

A friend of mine is a DD driver. When you get “verified”, you work when you want to. Turn on the DD app, login when want to work. Wonder if maybe BK did that, and he could login, show active but never really picked up orders but just watched the orders coming in…has a map. Could potentially see when 1122 Kings Rd ordered? You accept which orders if any you want to pick up-maybe he tried to just get their orders if no o other dasher claimed it before he did. Throwing out thoughts!

Creepy. DD as a criminal gateway is something that needs more attention. All these "gig economy" jobs have security & safety downsides because there is no employer to accept legal liability for crimes committed by 1099 independent contractors whose ability to con the background check systems or pass & then commit crimes on the job or from knowledge gained while OJT is concerning.

JMO

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

Yes . . . and the PCA doesn’t include anything close to all the evidence they had at that time.

It’s a process: the PCA probably contains just enough to get an arrest warrant. We’ll learn more at the preliminary hearing, but not nearly as much as will be presented at trial. And even at trial, only the strongest, not necessarily all, evidence will be used by the State. At least that’s MOO as not a lawyer.

Here is what I don't understand though, and I'm not arguing and I'm not snarking, just typing and thinking:

jmo imo At the point the PCA was written, LE had already processed the crime scene. IF they had so much more evidence, why not include it? Esp if they had more DNA, then why focus solely on the sheath? Why not just use other DNA from the scene? It makes no sense to me. The defense was going to see it anyway, and if there were something sensitive, it could be redacted (much to my chagrin lol). jmo imo icbw

So the DNA, like the partial footprint, why roll the dice like that with nothing to be gained from it? I don't get it, and I'm not arguing, just sharing my confusion. I also think that if there were bloody footprints everywhere, the Dailymail would have gotten a few long shots of it. We saw nothing out the back door where the killer apparently left covered in blood but didn't drip? this just doesn't make sense to me. jmo imo icbw

There seem to be two camps -- and that's okay, too, we need different perspectives. Some of us can assume that LE has more and make the argument that LE didn't need to share more. Others of us refuse to make that assumption, because that is what it is. We just don't know, and I guess we all deal differently with that liminal space, but until I see more and this makes more sense, I will continue to question this bizarre set of circumstances. jmo imo icbw

On another note entirely, I hope your town is finding some peace after all this. I always like seeing you posting here.

 

[jepop]

In my experience as a dasher on occasion, I do not see the address or name of the person ordering until I accept an order. I see an approximate distance from restaurant to delivery location. Unless it is different in different regions or there is something I am not accessing that I could be, AFAIK you don’t just see all the addresses ordering food and choose who you want to take on. Hope that makes sense.

Yea, I'm fairly certain that's the way it works all over! Drivers cannot just log in and instantly get a map of all addresses wanting deliveries. MOO.

 

[jepop]

Thanks @Nila Aella I'm having a hard time finding the return date for BK's Twitter warrant. Are there several extension dates? Legalese stumps me.

It was returned on February 12th.

I've noticed that with the sealed and redacted warrants many have a page called "Affadavit by Lawrence Mowery". This usually provides a summary of dates for granted, served, returned and inventory submitted to evidence. It's useful for making sense of all the various orders and motions which appear to be listed most recent at top of the page and oldest at bottom.

RE BK Twitter warrant: On Feb 6th the return was extended to what looks like April 6th. This looks like a safeguard date. Just in case (MOO). As it turned out, this warrant was returned on February 12th and the inventory placed in evidence on February15th.

Affadavit of Lawrence Mowery
"...(5)The warrant was served on February 6, 2023, via Twitter Law Enforcement
Portal;
(6) On February12,2023, I received an email directing me to a secure download
for the requested data"
(7)On February 15, 2023, I downloaded the data and an inventory was prepared for all the items received;
(8) A copy of the inventory receipt was emailed to ;...[blank]...and...[blank]...
(9) The information received was placed into evidence at Moscow Police Department...."

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/032423%20Order%20to%20Seal%20and%20Redact%20-%20Twitter.pdf

ETA: The warrant was granted on Jan 25th (see Mowery affdavit and actual warrant) but was not served until Feb 6th, which adds to the complicated paper work I think.MOO

 

[North_Idaho_Nony]

Here is what I don't understand though, and I'm not arguing and I'm not snarking, just typing and thinking:

jmo imo At the point the PCA was written, LE had already processed the crime scene. IF they had so much more evidence, why not include it? Esp if they had more DNA, then why focus solely on the sheath? Why not just use other DNA from the scene? It makes no sense to me. The defense was going to see it anyway, and if there were something sensitive, it could be redacted (much to my chagrin lol). jmo imo icbw

So the DNA, like the partial footprint, why roll the dice like that with nothing to be gained from it? I don't get it, and I'm not arguing, just sharing my confusion. I also think that if there were bloody footprints everywhere, the Dailymail would have gotten a few long shots of it. We saw nothing out the back door where the killer apparently left covered in blood but didn't drip? this just doesn't make sense to me. jmo imo icbw

There seem to be two camps -- and that's okay, too, we need different perspectives. Some of us can assume that LE has more and make the argument that LE didn't need to share more. Others of us refuse to make that assumption, because that is what it is. We just don't know, and I guess we all deal differently with that liminal space, but until I see more and this makes more sense, I will continue to question this bizarre set of circumstances. jmo imo icbw

On another note entirely, I hope your town is finding some peace after all this. I always like seeing you posting here.

No, I get it So much of all of this seems clear as mud! But it’s very intellectually stimulating for me to read what others are thinking & focusing on, and I greatly appreciate everyone sharing their thoughts here. As a Moscow community member, WS is the only online forum that feels safe to me & I’m incredibly grateful to be here. Deep thanks.

I know less than nothing about the technicalities of forensic crime scene processing. But my gut tells me the crime scene was incredibly complex & horrific. As @10ofRods has mentioned several times, they probably took lots of swabs from lots of locations in a house with lots of residents & visitors. I’m personally not convinced all forensic testing was completed at the time the PCA was filed & I don’t recall a LE statement that all testing had been completed. I think the PCA was written 40ish days after the murders — would all testing be completed by then?

But it really doesn’t matter, it seems to me: a judge found the evidence they did choose to present sufficient to issue an arrest warrant. And the DNA from the knife sheath was part of that evidence. The State continues the investigation & continues to build its case after an arrest is made — nothing unusual about that.

My layperson’s understanding from friends is that the strategy for writing a PCA is to present enough evidence to convince a judge to issue an arrest warrant, no more & no less. Hopefully one of our WS lawyers can explain why that’s good strategically, or if I’ve misunderstood explanations over the years, which is a definite possibility!

Thanks for the kind words! As I used to periodically mention, Moscow is no stranger even to the horrific tragedy of mass murder - this is our third (2007, 2015, 2022). Just unbelievable, really. OTOH, we knew from those earlier tragedies that Moscow is a strong community that will heal over time. Moscow Strong, Vandal Strong.

EBM to correct typo

 

[wary]

Here is what I don't understand though, and I'm not arguing and I'm not snarking, just typing and thinking:

jmo imo At the point the PCA was written, LE had already processed the crime scene. IF they had so much more evidence, why not include it? Esp if they had more DNA, then why focus solely on the sheath? Why not just use other DNA from the scene? It makes no sense to me. The defense was going to see it anyway, and if there were something sensitive, it could be redacted (much to my chagrin lol). jmo imo icbw

So the DNA, like the partial footprint, why roll the dice like that with nothing to be gained from it? I don't get it, and I'm not arguing, just sharing my confusion. I also think that if there were bloody footprints everywhere, the Dailymail would have gotten a few long shots of it. We saw nothing out the back door where the killer apparently left covered in blood but didn't drip? this just doesn't make sense to me. jmo imo icbw

There seem to be two camps -- and that's okay, too, we need different perspectives. Some of us can assume that LE has more and make the argument that LE didn't need to share more. Others of us refuse to make that assumption, because that is what it is. We just don't know, and I guess we all deal differently with that liminal space, but until I see more and this makes more sense, I will continue to question this bizarre set of circumstances. jmo imo icbw

On another note entirely, I hope your town is finding some peace after all this. I always like seeing you posting here.

As I see things, it’s the other way around. Why should LE include more than is necessary on the PCA? They’re not writing it to entertain us—they’re writing it to convince a judge to issue a warrant, and it was successful in that.

 

[Bogbacal2]

When it is said that the knife sheath had “single source” DNA, are they meaning DNA of BK in addition to DNA of victim-because imo, if the sheath were laying on the side of MM, surely the sheath had blood from MM, possible KG on it as well. Not sure if I am making sense!

 

[maskedwoman]

I'm not one that is assuming the PCA is wrong, however, this is why I ask.... if that is the case, then what else can't be trusted in the PCA? The PCA said the information was provided BY a person ON the interview panel the police department... so one of their own. Presumably since it came directly from someone on the interview panel, that information would've come from either BK's resume (would he lie about a degree on a resume which may get followed up on?), or their own check they may have done. I'm willing to go with it at this point.

I don't go all the way to someone on the panel or author of the PCA being a liar. It could have been an honest miscommunication. They do happen. They've certainly happened to me. But, since you asked, people do lie about their degrees to advance their career. And many succeed a surprising amount of the time.

 

[schooling]

I think we are talking passed each other. My understanding was ID lab didn't find anything, and sent the item to this company. If they then located this DNA and provided the results as our suspects, they must show how and use a methodology that is admissible. It must be peer reviewed, tested, failure rates known and understood. If there is no further sample to test, and those criteria are not met, there may be no DNA evidence from the sheath admitted at trial. But my opinions are based just upon a very sketchy news report that probably does not accurately reflect the true facts. But my point is, that just because his DNA is found, doesn't mean that it will be admissible at trial.

The local Idaho lab identified and pulled a male DNA profile. It’s right there in the PCA in clear black and white ink.

The “didn’t find anything” is nonsense. The sensationalist author who wrote that error filled article, Blum, is the one purposely muddying up his words to sell the book he has coming.

In reality, they had a male profile, as stated in the LEGAL DOCUMENT (as opposed to Blum in some tabloid rag), and IMO didn’t find anything in CODIS. So they immediate turned to familial DNA.

Does anyone want to bet whether or not that original CODIS sample has not gotten a hit? Lol. <modsnip>

 

[schooling]

I don't go all the way to someone on the panel or author of the PCA being a liar. It could have been an honest miscommunication. They do happen. They've certainly happened to me. But, since you asked, people do lie about their degrees to advance their career. And many succeed a surprising amount of the time.

The cloud forensics thing continues to be inconsequential. Course material you can learn on YouTube in an afternoon. Nothing that’s going to equip BK with elite hacking skills or knowledge. Especially not from Desale of all places (I help hire software and security engineers all of the time).

Sometimes thing just are what they are. The dolt drove his own car to the murder scene.

MOO

 

[PrairieWind]

The local Idaho lab identified and pulled a male DNA profile. It’s right there in the PCA in clear black and white ink.

The “didn’t find anything” is nonsense. The sensationalist author who wrote that error filled article, Blum, is the one purposely muddying up his words to sell the book he has coming.

In reality, they had a male profile, as stated in the LEGAL DOCUMENT (as opposed to Blum in some tabloid rag), and IMO didn’t find anything in CODIS. So they immediate turned to familial DNA.

Does anyone want to bet whether or not that original CODIS sample has not gotten a hit? Lol. <modsnip>

I think you are missing the key point. Who identified that dna on the sheath as BK's and how did they do it? Is there enough of the source remaining to retest?

 

[Justice101]

The local Idaho lab identified and pulled a male DNA profile. It’s right there in the PCA in clear black and white ink.

The “didn’t find anything” is nonsense. The sensationalist author who wrote that error filled article, Blum, is the one purposely muddying up his words to sell the book he has coming.

In reality, they had a male profile, as stated in the LEGAL DOCUMENT (as opposed to Blum in some tabloid rag), and IMO didn’t find anything in CODIS. So they immediate turned to familial DNA.

Does anyone want to bet whether or not that original CODIS sample has not gotten a hit? Lol. <modsnip>

Bingo! Well said!

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

I think you are missing the key point. Who identified that dna on the sheath as BK's and how did they do it? Is there enough of the source remaining to retest?

Several members have posted the information on the sequence of events that led to the conclusion that BK's DNA was on the SNAP of the sheath. In the PCA, it states the Idaho lab recovered DNA from the snap.
This article explains the rest.

DNA, genetic genealogy helped lead police to Idaho slayings suspect

Police ran DNA left at the scene through a public database, then used genetic genealogy techniques to connect the DNA to Bryan Kohberger through his family members

www.police1.com

 

[Twistinginthewind]

When it is said that the knife sheath had “single source” DNA, are they meaning DNA of BK in addition to DNA of victim-because imo, if the sheath were laying on the side of MM, surely the sheath had blood from MM, possible KG on it as well. Not sure if I am making sense!

Good question, Bogbacal2.

The knife sheath could have been otherwise clean, if dropped/placed far enough away on the bed from the victims and significant blood at some point, and kept separate and away from the knife.

Where the PCA says:

"As I entered this bedroom, I could see two females in the single bed in the room. Both Goncalves and Mogen were deceased with visible stab wounds. I also later noticed what appeared to be a tan leather knife sheath laying on the bed next to Mogen's right side (when viewed from the door)."

I interpret that to mean the sheath was off to the side and not covered in blood if they could see the tan color of the leather.

Although it's possible LE is staying silent on all of the blood evidence/DNA from the victims and only focused on unknown person's DNA they found when writing about it in the PCA.

All MOO

 

[Sundog]

122922 Affidavit - Exhibit A - Statement of Brett Payne.pdf | PDF Host

PDF Host read free online - 122922 Affidavit - Exhibit A - Statement of Brett Payne.pdf

pdfhost.io

In the PCA, it says that the Idaho lab identified a single source of male DNA. It does not say that the Idaho lab identified the male DNA as belonging to BK.

In brackets, the PCA includes "(Suspect's Profile") but this could mean that they later identified the male DNA as matching the suspect's DNA profile. It isn't clear that the Idaho lab made this identifiction or another lab, such as Othram, made the match.

And remember that Pullman LE mentioned in their search warrant that their warrant should still stand even if the DNA evidence was later adjudicated to be excluded from the case.


edited typo

 

[ktm44]

Here is what I don't understand though, and I'm not arguing and I'm not snarking, just typing and thinking:

jmo imo At the point the PCA was written, LE had already processed the crime scene. IF they had so much more evidence, why not include it? Esp if they had more DNA, then why focus solely on the sheath? Why not just use other DNA from the scene? It makes no sense to me. The defense was going to see it anyway, and if there were something sensitive, it could be redacted (much to my chagrin lol). jmo imo icbw

So the DNA, like the partial footprint, why roll the dice like that with nothing to be gained from it? I don't get it, and I'm not arguing, just sharing my confusion. I also think that if there were bloody footprints everywhere, the Dailymail would have gotten a few long shots of it. We saw nothing out the back door where the killer apparently left covered in blood but didn't drip? this just doesn't make sense to me. jmo imo icbw

There seem to be two camps -- and that's okay, too, we need different perspectives. Some of us can assume that LE has more and make the argument that LE didn't need to share more. Others of us refuse to make that assumption, because that is what it is. We just don't know, and I guess we all deal differently with that liminal space, but until I see more and this makes more sense, I will continue to question this bizarre set of circumstances. jmo imo icbw

On another note entirely, I hope your town is finding some peace after all this. I always like seeing you posting here.

I'm not overly familiar with US PCA's so I'm curious how they are usually presented. Would it be normal for one to include every shred of evidence available or is it more typical to provide just enough to justify an arrest?