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

[Sister Golden Hair]

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.

Again, I'm not arguing, just expressing an opinion I do understand the purpose of a warrant; I just happen to disagree that it makes sense to exclude the evidence and that's jmo imo ime.

I know many share your POV, and that's okay. I don't approach this that way, but ICBW.

Imo jmo there are some inconsistencies in the PCA as well, and I think some of this will be problematic for the prosecution. Again, jmo imo. I have to question those.

I have never once suggested that LE was writing to entertain us, and I doubt that the others who have the same questions I do were looking for bread and circus. That rather minimizes what I feel are relevant and valid questions that have been raised, but again imo jmo. I have consistently supported the gag order, both with my opinion and citing the relevant rules and legislation. I'm not looking for entertainment; I'm questioning investigative and legal processes. imo jmo Everything I write here is to examine the issues.

As I said in my original post re this, there are two general camps, and one camp is not going to change the minds in the other camp. As we get closer to the hearing and more evidence is revealed, maybe those camps will merge imo jmo idk icbw. I suspect that we're all here for a mix of different reasons.*

Most importantly, I think this is less about any of us being right or wrong, and more about how we process information in different ways - jmo imo ime - and I think that's its own learning experience, if we're open to it. Regardless, I appreciate that your assessment of the warrant and evidence shared is equally valid.

*I suspect @al66pine is here to steal my coloring book ideas, but that's a whole other swab of DNA << just teasing lol, a little fun and al started it lol

 

[Montecore1]

I do understand the purpose of a warrant; I just happen to disagree that it makes sense to exclude the evidence and that's jmo imo ime.

I know many share your POV, and that's okay. I don't approach this that way, but ICBW.

Imo jmo there are some inconsistencies in the PCA as well, and I think some of this will be problematic for the prosecution. Again, jmo imo. I have to question those.

I have never once suggested that LE was writing to entertain us, and I doubt that the others who have the same questions I do were looking for bread and circus. That rather minimizes what I feel are relevant and valid questions that have been raised, but again imo jmo. I have consistently supported the gag order, both with my opinion and citing the relevant rules and legislation. I'm not looking for entertainment; I'm questioning investigative and legal processes. imo jmo Everything I write here is to examine the issues.

As I said in my original post re this, there are two general camps, and one camp is not going to change the minds in the other camp. As we get closer to the hearing and more evidence is revealed, maybe those camps will merge imo jmo idk icbw. I suspect that we're all here for a mix of different reasons.*

Well said and I totally agree...

 

[10ofRods]

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.

And to avoid this:

// a false confession is a statement given by a person that incriminates them in a crime they did not commit. Scientists who study this phenomenon group false confessions into three general categories: (1) voluntary; (2) coerced-compliant, and (3) coerced-internalized.//

IMO.

 

[Twistinginthewind]

Idaho legal definitions on probable cause for arrest and hearsay (with parts about hearsay BBM):

"Idaho Criminal Rule 4. Arrest Warrant; Summons; Determination of Probable Cause
...
(1) In General. The finding of probable cause must be based on substantial evidence, which may be hearsay in whole or in part, provided there is a substantial basis, considering the totality of the circumstances, to believe probable cause exists for the warrant. The magistrate may rely on information provided in the form of an affidavit or sworn oral statement."
I.C.R. 4. Warrant - Summons - Determination of Probable Cause | Supreme Court

And on hearsay:
...
Article VIII. Hearsay
801. Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay.
...
"Idaho Rules of Evidence Rule 801. Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay.
(a) Statement. “Statement” means a person's oral assertion, written assertion, or nonverbal conduct, if the person intended it as an assertion.
(b) Declarant. “Declarant” means the person who made the statement.
(c) Hearsay. "Hearsay" means a statement that:
(1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and
(2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement."

 

[jepop]

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!

IMO, the body of the sheath itself may well have had blood on it and if that is the case then there will be victim dna on the leather body of the sheath. MOO.

The sample of single source dna later identified as BK's was found on the snap button of the sheath. AS far as I understand it, no other dna was extracted from the snap button of the sheath( MOO informed by my reading of prior posts on this subject esp @10ofRods ).

If there is any of BK's dna also embedded in the body of the sheath then that may be mixed with any victim dna that might be present. Based on previous posts I have read I believe that @10ofRods is more able to speak with authority about what testing of the body (leather) of the sheath might involve and the difficulties or otherwise of identifying and/or extracting potentially mixed dna profiles (ie victims' and possibly BK''s) from a leather object such as the knife sheath. MOO

 

[10ofRods]

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?

No it would not be normal. There are too many people who make false confessions in big cases. There are other reasons as well, such as not revealing facts to a defense team that may not even be taking the thing to trial. BK has not been bound over to trial. He waived his right to rapid "exoneration" (his attorney in PA introduced that word to the story).

There's a gag order on the whole case because the Judge doesn't want the many negative consequences of anyone but the defense getting the evidence. The prosecution has the legal obligation to turn the evidence over to the defense. It is in no one's interest to give the public too much information. It pollutes the jury pool. It causes false confessions. If there were going to be conversations/interrogations of the suspect, it would give the suspect clues on how to be more evasive.

Further, when the PCA is given to the Court, the Judge can speak to LE and the DA about it and IMO certainly would have, in this case. The Pennsylvania search warrant went a little differently and I do believe the judge in PA wanted it to contain slightly less information (it could have been the PA prosecutions sole decision, but IME, the prosecution often consults with the Court about what is wanted).

It's always best if the DA knows in advance what the Judge wants to see in a particular case.

It would be absolutely unprecedented, unwieldy and lacking in common sense for the prosecution to put in ALL of the evidence from 50 search warrants, multiple dead ends, every single bit of DNA information about the victims, the roommates, etc. They have literally thousands of pieces of evidence. Tire tracks. Foot print in the yard (which is like irrelevant but still evidence). It *must* be boiled down to essentials or the Judge would be overwhelmed. In the Suzanne Morphew case, the Judge said it was the most lengthy affidavit he'd ever seen and IIRC said that made his job more difficult.

Only the evidence needed for probable cause goes in the arrest affidavit. Next we have the Preliminary where there is a higher standard of evidence - evidence needed to proceed to trial. Then we get to the beyond reasonable doubt rubric at the actual trial. That's where the evidence is agreed upon by the Court and the Judge decides what the evidence will be (not the Prosecution, as in the PCA).

IMO.

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

<modsnip: quoted post was removed>

Idaho legal definitions on probable cause for arrest and hearsay (with parts about hearsay BBM):

snipped by me
...

my one caveat here is that the legislation must always been considered through the lens of subsequent case law and the Court's interpretations of the terms and conditions. imo jmo ime.

Who identified that dna on the sheath as BK's and how did they do it?

The way I understand it (and this is why the timeline is important) and ICBW is that if the DNA or sheath was sent out to Othram, then the answer is Othram. The ID state lab then used the trash from PA to compare to whatever Othram sent them and that led them to BK.

imo jmo I think it's telling re the lack of clarity and omissions* (Othram, for ex) that it's possible to come away with different understandings of the DNA identification timeline - who and how and when. I will keep your understanding of the timeframe and events in mind as I read b/c your understanding of this matters imo jmo.


*full disclosure: omissions of significant facts always set my spidey senses off because - and this is my own bias based on experience - the omissions often lead to inconvenient truths and sometime lies of omission (my least favorite because I feel most duped). this is jmo imo ime not saying anyone is lying and ICBW. I'm just adding transparency re my bias.

 

[gliving]

 

[deugirtni]

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.

Or.. it simply may have been correct. Why assume it is miscommunication?

 

[schooling]

Any DNA profile extracted and entered into CODIS searches perpetually. Until it gets a match.

The Idaho Lab extracted profile as cited in the PCA would have likely been immediately run through CODIS. As it matches procedures for most law enforcement agencies and it’s what has been reported.

Whatever happens to the sheath next (including its trip to Texas) does not change anything about this original extracted profile. Sitting neatly inside of CODIS…waiting.

So the swab attained during BKs arrest is sent to the first lab with availability for immediate processing. They run that profile against CODIS and likely get an immediate match. Against the original unknown male profile extracted by the Idaho labs. A direct hit.

From crime scene. To Idaho lab. To codis. To lab. To match on codis. There’s no need for the original lab to get involved. CODIS is the source of truth.

The sheath’s chain of custody after the local original extraction is only questionable if there’s an expectation that the defense also be able to test it (not a legal expert. Someone chime in)

But 3rd party labs are often involved in testing and returning evidence. Can the defense question it? Claim they couldn’t find dna on the sheath? Claim someone in TX planted it? Did BKs dna magically end up in the Idaho lab during the first test? Sure. OK. Try it. Will the sheath or dna be tossed? IMO no. And if it does I’ll eat my Tesla.

Here’s a link from GA re: the perpetual search and an example of procedure.

CODIS Match

Report of match between samples using CODIS database

dofs-gbi.georgia.gov

Notice I didn’t have to say familial dna once to link BK directly to the crime scene and a clear chain of custody.

MOO

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

<modsnip: quoted post was removed>

the quoted post specifically asked about the warrant for the garbage search at the kohberger home and specific to this case. my reply is both general and specific. icbw, but the Kohberger defense may or may not address this evidence. imo jmo.

It is legal in PA to search garbage abandoned at the curb. Garbage left in the curtilage around the home, however, is a different thing altogether. This link was allowed previously, so I use it again:

Loading…

www.thefishmanfirm.com

bolding is mine. explanation from the link, quoting here for ease of access

Curtilage. Curtilage is a somewhat elusive concept to understand because there are no steadfast rules to define it. The Supreme Court stated that curtilage is the area of a property that houses the “intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of life.” Although this may sound eloquent, it does not quite give the average person a solid idea of what curtilage actually is.

Generally, curtilage is considered to be the area in and around the home where the owners and/or occupants have a reasonable expectation of privacy from government intrusion. This could encompass anything from an outdoor shed to a fenced backyard. Because of the expectation of privacy associated with these areas, police officers may be required to have a warrant, consent, or exigent circumstance before they are legally allowed to enter into the curtilage.

Garbage. Police can search your garbage in Pennsylvania if it is placed on your curb for pick up. Once the trash is placed on the curb, it is considered abandoned property and the police may seize it or search it for evidence of illegal activity.

re the kohberger case:

Imo jmo Curtilage v curb can sometimes get sticky. apparently, the trash in PA was at the curb. I would not be totally shocked if the defense sees it differently, however. that's jmo icbw. Many (most) will dismiss my caveat, but the curb v. curtilage re expectation of privacy has happened before.

here's WA to give a perspective on some of the arguments. see link below as an example. cut to 1294. relevant as to any trash search in the kohberger case but idk know that there was one. just including for context as to how things can be interpreted, and relevant b/c PA also as higher expectation, so on my radar as a potential consideration imo jmo icbw

https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2613&context=sulr

Pennsylvania does have a higher expectation of privacy, as does WA state, but the courts' interpretations/ applications of that can still be quite different. imo jmo ime it is never wise to use one case to support an opinion. it requires research and evaluation imo jmo ime.

Search and seizure law in Pennsylvania - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[MadMcGoo]

AGREE TO DISAGREE AND MOVE ON. This thread has gone off topic with general discussion of Othram, Blum, genetic genealogy, reasonable doubt, to name a few and bickering back and forth. If your post is 5 paragraphs long and only one sentence pertains to this case, there’s a decent chance it’s off topic.

I understand we’re all awaiting the next break in the case, but please keep the discussion civil and on topic.

Thanks & have a good weekend!
Mad

 

[schooling]

Anyone else notice that Blue Ridge Knives is likely a distributor and supplier for Ka-Bar knives for stores that would likely fall on the southern route of the ID <-> PA route. I made the connection when a local WB’er said that they never take the Northern Route.

What’s especially interesting is that after talking to Ka-Bar and serving them. I think Ka-Bar helped them identify the manufacturing date/time based on materials used to construct the sheath, suppliers and QA measures.

Kabar points them to suppliers who received that batch.

This leads them to Blue Ridge where they specifically ask them for two lots. And likely where they were shipped.

And suddenly…searching for the knife ends. This was after months of eBay, Amazon, etc. ending with two very speciifc lots at Blue Ridge. Along the southern route BK would have taken on his way out to Idaho that summer.

IMO they don’t have the murder weapon. <modsnip - no link from an approved source>

MOO

 

[PrairieWind]

<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.

Keep in mind, you may see stuff in a PCA and at Preliminary, that will not be admissible at trial.

 

[wary]

Anyone else notice that Blue Ridge Knives is likely a distributor and supplier for Ka-Bar knives for stores that would likely fall on the southern route of the ID <-> PA route. I made the connection when a local WB’er said that they never take the Northern Route.

What’s especially interesting is that after talking to Ka-Bar and serving them. I think Ka-Bar helped them identify the manufacturing date/time based on materials used to construct the sheath, suppliers and QA measures.

Kabar points them to suppliers who received that batch.

This leads them to Blue Ridge where they specifically ask them for two lots. And likely where they were shipped.

And suddenly…searching for the knife ends. This was after months of eBay, Amazon, etc. ending with two very speciifc lots at Blue Ridge. Along the southern route BK would have taken on his way out to Idaho that summer.

IMO they don’t have the murder weapon. <modsnip - no link from an approved source>

MOO

As I see it, if they can show that BK purchased a Ka-Bar type knife that could have been the one used in the murders, the fact that LE can’t find it is almost as significant as if they had found it.

 

[wary]

Keep in mind, you may see stuff in a PCA and at Preliminary, that will not be admissible at trial.

What type of things would be admissible in the Preliminary, but not admissible at trial? (I know some states allow officers to testify in a way that would be considered hearsay at trial, in the interests of streamlining the hearing. Is Idaho one of those states?)

 

[SortaSleuthy]

No it would not be normal. There are too many people who make false confessions in big cases. There are other reasons as well, such as not revealing facts to a defense team that may not even be taking the thing to trial. BK has not been bound over to trial. He waived his right to rapid "exoneration" (his attorney in PA introduced that word to the story).

There's a gag order on the whole case because the Judge doesn't want the many negative consequences of anyone but the defense getting the evidence. The prosecution has the legal obligation to turn the evidence over to the defense. It is in no one's interest to give the public too much information. It pollutes the jury pool. It causes false confessions. If there were going to be conversations/interrogations of the suspect, it would give the suspect clues on how to be more evasive.

Further, when the PCA is given to the Court, the Judge can speak to LE and the DA about it and IMO certainly would have, in this case. The Pennsylvania search warrant went a little differently and I do believe the judge in PA wanted it to contain slightly less information (it could have been the PA prosecutions sole decision, but IME, the prosecution often consults with the Court about what is wanted).

It's always best if the DA knows in advance what the Judge wants to see in a particular case.

It would be absolutely unprecedented, unwieldy and lacking in common sense for the prosecution to put in ALL of the evidence from 50 search warrants, multiple dead ends, every single bit of DNA information about the victims, the roommates, etc. They have literally thousands of pieces of evidence. Tire tracks. Foot print in the yard (which is like irrelevant but still evidence). It *must* be boiled down to essentials or the Judge would be overwhelmed. In the Suzanne Morphew case, the Judge said it was the most lengthy affidavit he'd ever seen and IIRC said that made his job more difficult.

Only the evidence needed for probable cause goes in the arrest affidavit. Next we have the Preliminary where there is a higher standard of evidence - evidence needed to proceed to trial. Then we get to the beyond reasonable doubt rubric at the actual trial. That's where the evidence is agreed upon by the Court and the Judge decides what the evidence will be (not the Prosecution, as in the PCA).

IMO.

Well said! The Morphew case was a good example of overdoing it, what with a 132 page AA with theory, guesswork and contradiction.

 

[I'm Nobody]

Keep in mind, you may see stuff in a PCA and at Preliminary, that will not be admissible at trial.

Thank you. Please help me understand Motions to Suppress in Idaho. Assuming the hearing will have some dueling expert witnesses, do Motions to Suppress have to be in writing? pre-trial? Does the judge have an evidence hearing before trial? How and when do Motions to Suppress happen?

edit spelling

 

[PrairieWind]

Thank you. Please help me understand Motions to Suppress in Idaho. Assuming the hearing will have some dueling expert witnesses, do Motions to Suppress have to be in writing? pre-trial? Does the judge have an evidence hearing before trial? How and when do Motions to Suppress happen?

edit spelling

I can't speak to Idaho since I don't practice there. However, typically in my jurisdictions Motions to Suppress can be brought any time before trial. Yes they are going to have to be in writing and well supported. The Preliminary Hearing, if it happens, will a good look at some of the prosecution's evidence, but not all of it. I doubt we see a battle of experts in the Prelim but who knows. We will see some of that battle in a hearing on motions to suppress or motions in limine to exclude evidence prior to trial.

 

[DrQ]

IMHO I have followed this from the day it was announced. It gives me a hallow pit in my stomach and is one of the most evil senseless crimes I have followed. BK has shown unusual behavior throughout his life. I have no idea what his state of mind is/was but watching the video (I tried to download it here) of the traffic stop when heading back to PA with Dad made the hair on the back of my neck stand up.
I am not a trash expert but I personally would be suspect of any neighbor of mine slipping anything into my trash. No matter how the picture is painted, (per the arrest warrant) standing in your kitchen at 1:30 am casually dressed and wearing rubber gloves while putting personal trash in separate baggies absolutely does not seem like an innocent person. You can holler at me all day long but until they find someone else who fits the bill. BK is the man I am pointing my finger at. Deep in my heart I believe he is an empty shell with his soul incased in an iron box. If I am wrong about him, I'll write him a letter and apologize. Otherwise, I will see him as one of the crulest, coldest, and caculating killers.