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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think the question is going to be: Is there method generally accepted in the scientific community. Has it been peer reviewed and subject to publication. Can it be tested objectively. Can they demonstrate their error rate. Is there independent research to support their methodology?
Thanks @PrairieWind Can the defense ask to run their own testing on the DNA sample? What if the sample was depleted during the initial testing? Thanks!

When I did a DNA test with Ancestry, I downloaded the results so I could use them on another genealogy website. It was a PDF file. I'm assuming the State has a PDF file of BK's DNA results.

Example of some of my results. I changed some of the numbers so I don't publish my DNA :)

rsid chromosome position allele1 allele2
rs369202 1 569322 G G
rs199476 1 569421 T T
rs190214 1 69362 T T
rs3131900 1 752731 G G
rs125620 1 768420 A G
 
Thanks @PrairieWind Can the defense ask to run their own testing on the DNA sample? What if the sample was depleted during the initial testing? Thanks!

When I did a DNA test with Ancestry, I downloaded the results so I could use them on another genealogy website. It was a PDF file. I'm assuming the State has a PDF file of BK's DNA results.

Example of some of my results. I changed some of the numbers so I don't publish my DNA :)

rsid chromosome position allele1 allele2
rs369202 1 569322 G G
rs199476 1 569421 T T
rs190214 1 69362 T T
rs3131900 1 752731 G G
rs125620 1 768420 A G
The Defense absolutely will demand to run its own test. If the sample was destroyed that is going to be a problem for the prosecution.
 
I think the question is going to be: Is there method generally accepted in the scientific community. Has it been peer reviewed and subject to publication. Can it be tested objectively. Can they demonstrate their error rate. Is there independent research to support their methodology?
That's fair. I did a little research on them, which is sort of my "thing". They closed a round of funding with Gigafund almost 2 years ago. Gigafund has large investments in SpaceX, so they are well-versed in advanced tech. Per their press, as well as articles linked to their website, they are being used by local, state, federal LE, as well as LE from other countries. I found several articles where people have been charged but I haven't pursued those further to see if any have gone to court yet.
 
It's wrong, if they did lost their jobs because he's their brother. I know it says one was a mental health therapist or school councilor, but so what. She didn't commit a crime. JMO though.

In January, his family issued a statement that said they would be standing by him, adding: 'We will love and support our son and brother.'

The statement was released just days after the former Washington State University criminology student was arrested and charged with four counts of murder in the first degree, as well as felony burglary.

Now, months later, Kohberger's family are facing a multitude of troubles in the wake of the arrest.

His older sister Melissa Kohberger was a school counselor and his other sister, Amanda, had been working as an actress.

Both have been let go from their jobs.

The family has reportedly not visited Kohberger in jail, but have spoken to him on the phone.

They are also victims of a horrible crime and it would be sad to see them victimized all over again.
 
The "Sister Golden Hair" Indicator,
A New Scale to Indicate Level of Knowledge & Training in a Given Field.*

degree or
academic background or
just a coloring book ...
(about the field, e.g., cloud-based dynamics).

Thank you, Sister Golden Hair.

Folks, a round of applause/likes, please, for SGH.

_________________________________________
* Derived from this post
....honestly, whether it was degree or academic background or just a coloring book about cloud-based dynamics, the things I cited still just do not make sense to me for someone w/ his level of knowledge and training....
snipped for focus
 
I think the question is going to be: Is there method generally accepted in the scientific community. Has it been peer reviewed and subject to publication. Can it be tested objectively. Can they demonstrate their error rate. Is there independent research to support their methodology?

Thank you. This is exactly my point as well. Admittedly, I didn't realize it was Othram last night. I just heard "start up" and didn't know that Othram was still considered a start up, so I figured it was someone newer on the scene. But that said, my questions stand. Othram has done great work, but I absolutely believe that a fair line of questioning can lead to the above. I'm curious what the answers are.

MOO.
 
Source for that now frequently repeated "fact" that BK has a degree in cloud-based forensics. I've posted just today links that say otherwise and I've watched his full graduation ceremony - they announce every degree and certificate, but nothing in cloud forensics for BK.

I really do think you need a source or another IMO when you state that. It's my opinion that he has no such degree and here's a link:


Criminal Justice and Cloud Forensics are two different programs at DeSales. We don't know if he even took a single course in Cloud Forensics (just that he used that specialty to apply to the LE internship in Pullman and was rejected).


I don't always trust the NYPost, but it lifted these facts from a couple of other papers that are behind paywalls. He doesn't even say "cloud based" on his internship application, he just says "helping rural LE with technology in investigations" or something like that. As if they needed his help, he obviously was no expert in this area. IMO.

IMO.
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.
 
That's fair. I did a little research on them, which is sort of my "thing". They closed a round of funding with Gigafund almost 2 years ago. Gigafund has large investments in SpaceX, so they are well-versed in advanced tech. Per their press, as well as articles linked to their website, they are being used by local, state, federal LE, as well as LE from other countries. I found several articles where people have been charged but I haven't pursued those further to see if any have gone to court yet.
This company maybe very well established and highly advanced and cutting edge. But that cutting edge aspect is exactly what can work against the prosecution here. I don't know how the DNA sample was tested/analyzed here, and have just read the brief article.
There has been a bit of push back against expert testimony lately in cases and requiring that courts do a better job at their gate keeping function and requiring expert testimony actually meet the standards. This method used by the company will have to be peer reviewed and well scrutinized and generally accepted before the Court will allow it to be admitted at trial. I anticipate a battle here.
 
The Defense absolutely will demand to run its own test. If the sample was destroyed that is going to be a problem for the prosecution.

I don't think the sheath has been destroyed. The sample was probably 4-5 swabs, unlikely to have taken all of the DNA from the knife closure. I would wager that there is lots of DNA left and that the lab knew what it was doing. Indeed, it is possible that they used fewer swabs than that.

The sample itself has been used, as that's how it works. But the sheath is still available for the defense to test it at their own lab (usually under observation of LE). I'd be very surprised if a simple DNA test would use up all the DNA on the snap.

Further, there should be DNA in the leather of the sheath too, but as that requires destructive testing, what is usually done is that both sides agree to a lab, send representatives and it is sampled in that context.

IME. IMO.
 
This company maybe very well established and highly advanced and cutting edge. But that cutting edge aspect is exactly what can work against the prosecution here. I don't know how the DNA sample was tested/analyzed here, and have just read the brief article.
There has been a bit of push back against expert testimony lately in cases and requiring that courts do a better job at their gate keeping function and requiring expert testimony actually meet the standards. This method used by the company will have to be peer reviewed and well scrutinized and generally accepted before the Court will allow it to be admitted at trial. I anticipate a battle here.

I'm so confused. The company in question is not the company that actually found the DNA on the sheath. They just sent their results to them, is how I'm reading it.

At the time they sent it, they were treating it as if it were a sample from a missing persons (unknown person) case, because at that time, it was.

This company could be challenged by the defense, of course, but there's no reason to even use its findings. They now have the actual person of Bryan Kohberger, took his DNA directly from him (I believe it was 5-6 swabs) and it matches what was on the sheath. Before that, they were looking for clues as to who the DNA-donor might be and that's where Othram may have helped. For all we know they also used GEDMatch. IOW, they used the two main providers of matching missing person DNA to a person - and they got a hit on the Kohberger family (they also had WSU mentioning Kohberger to them).

They verified that Kohberger did indeed have a white Elantra, and of course, they had his phone number from the geofencing.

Voilà!

Once they had BK's own DNA, such companies as Othram became superfluous. To me, it's like they had a phone number and started looking at reverse phone books from various places.

IMO. IME. It's now completely irrelevant (and someone in the investigation is leaking to News Nation <modsnip> IMO).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That "startup in Texas" has ID'd many UID cold cases on this forum. I respect Othram a lot, as it offers a new opportunity for crimes to be solved as well. It's a much-needed service to families & LE.

Good to know more about them, WingsOverTX. As you said, Othram is working on cold cases that are posted about here on WS, and there's a thread with general discussions with posts from one of their owners here:

Othram - General Discussion - #2
 
is it not mentioned in the PCA?:

After reviewing the numerous observations of Suspect Vehicle 1, the forensic examiner initially believed that Suspect Vehicle 1 was a 2011-2013 Hyundai Elantra. Upon further review, he indicated it could also be a 2011-2016 Hyundai Elantra. As a result, investigators have been reviewing information on persons in possession of a vehicle that is a 2011-2016 white Hyundai Elantra. (Pg 7, paragraph 3)

I guess maybe I see your point, I initially interpreted the “change (I.e. correction)“ happening as the forensic examiner was making his observations.

MOO
To me, it's the "when." So much specificity on so many things in the PCA, yet no indication of exactly when the forensic examiner modified his official opinion. And the fact that the model year correction/expansion was never publicly made prior to BCK's arrest leaves a country mile for speculation. MOO & YMMV, of course!

Reminder: there was a 2013 white Hyundai Elantra found abandoned in Eugene, OR on 12/17/2022 & the online world, including WS, exploded with interest. Investigative resources were invested to rule it out; even after it was ruled out, nearly every word of every statement about it was parsed. "Sure, maybe the owner wasn't the murderer, but she could have loaned the car to someone else," "the dirt on that car is exactly what it would look like fleeing from Moscow to Eugene," etc, etc, etc.

To me, the silent "when" raises questions in the same way the abandoned Elantra did for others. Again, MOO & YMMV.

UPDATE: Hyundai Elantra found in Oregon isn’t connected to Moscow homicides, police say
 
Thank you. This is exactly my point as well. Admittedly, I didn't realize it was Othram last night. I just heard "start up" and didn't know that Othram was still considered a start up, so I figured it was someone newer on the scene. But that said, my questions stand. Othram has done great work, but I absolutely believe that a fair line of questioning can lead to the above. I'm curious what the answers are.

MOO.
The question whether an expert's testimony can be admitted into evidence - in whole or in part - is always a good one, and will certainly be raised by BK's defense team with respect to many, if not all, prosecution experts. I cannot begin to assess the outcome under the applicable standards, without much more information than we have.

In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court established a new standard under which Federal judges act as gatekeepers to determine in advance of trial the admissibility of expert testimony. The case, Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. requires that the judge determine:

(1) whether the theory or technique in question can be and has been tested;

(2) whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication;

(3) its known or potential error rate;

(4)the existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation; and

(5) whether it has attracted widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific community.

The Federal Rules of Evidence were amended to incorporate the Supreme Court's mandate, but the rule reads a bit differently:

Federal Rules of Evidence

Rule 702: Testimony of Expert Witnesses

A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:

(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;

(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;

(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and

(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

The Daubert standard replaced an earlier, more general one, established a century ago in Frye v. United States (1923). A court using the Frye standard must decide only whether the methodologies used by the expert witness follow the generally accepted practices of specialists in that field.

But according to a company that trains expert witnesses:

"The state of Idaho does not follow either the Daubert or Frye test for the admissibility of expert witness testimony. Clair v. Clair, 281 P.3d 115 (Idaho 2012). Instead, Idaho follows its Rule of Evidence, Rule 702. Id. This statute states that an expert can testify regarding scientific or technical methods if the court finds the expert to be qualified by its “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” I.R.E., Rule 702 (1985). For an expert to attain the necessary “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education” it does not have to have formal training. Id. However, the witness must have “practical experience or special knowledge” within the area it is testifying in. Clair, 281 P.3d 115. It is up to the party offering the expert to establish that the expert is qualified to be an expert in the area it is to testify to. Id."

Here is I.R.E. Rule 702:

"A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue."

The Idaho rule seems to grant very broad discretion to the judge, and IMO could produce a wide variety of outcomes. But in the only case I found via a quick Google search, the judge was fairly restrictive. See, Idaho District Court Affirms Its Role as the Gatekeeper of Expert Testimony
 
Last edited:
The "Sister Golden Hair" Indicator,
A New Scale to Indicate Level of Knowledge & Training in a Given Field.*

degree or
academic background or
just a coloring book ...
(about the field, e.g., cloud-based dynamics).

Thank you, Sister Golden Hair.

Folks, a round of applause/likes, please, for SGH.

_________________________________________
* Derived from this post

snipped for focus

I'm laughing, but I'm sure you understand that my point was that the mistakes made were so obvious and bad that even a coloring book would have covered those basic moves. Sometimes my intent is not clear, so just want to clarify in case this is taken out of context :)
 
I hope we aren't making this case more interesting than it already is, but I agree that there seems to be more than a case of stranger murder.

Regarding what's in bold: good point, but also interesting because none of the victims were in that house in 2021 and Xana was still in HS. I wonder if f the spring break times of the two universities overlapped. If so, would the ID victims have even been in Moscow?
I confirmed, Xana graduated HS in 2020. :)

jmo imo

My intent isn't to make the case more interesting, but there are so many questions and curious events, that between that and the dates and scope of the warrants, I feel compelled to consider. ICBW, it's jmo imo, but I can't look at blanks and fill them in one way, so this keeps me busy and occupied which is esp important since I don't have adult supervision :) (that's a joke, I'm an adult :))

Post Falls Middle and High School, where she played volleyball, track and soccer until she graduated in 2020.

 
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.
Before we assume the PCA is wrong, perhaps we should acknowledge that we don't know what information Pullman's interview panel was given and whether it was passed on to Moscow PD accurately. There are a lot of possible scenarios between everything being presented and shared truthfully and accurately by all parties and someone lied like a rug or totally screwed up the PCA. MOOooo
 
I am just so confused as to why any expert testimony from Othram would be required at trial.

Thoughts?
You are absolutely right. Othram helped LE identify a suspect but did they match BK's DNA with the sheath?

Is there a potential motion to suppress evidence obtained by a warrant which was supported by Othram's assessment?
 
I hope we aren't making this case more interesting than it already is, but I agree that there seems to be more than a case of stranger murder.

Regarding what's in bold: good point, but also interesting because none of the victims were in that house in 2021 and Xana was still in HS. I wonder if f the spring break times of the two universities overlapped. If so, would the ID victims have even been in Moscow?
Wait — can you please provide a source citing that none of the victims lived in the house in 2021? That conflicts with my understanding, which was that while the most recent lease was signed 6/5/2022, it wasn’t the first lease for all of the victims? ICBW so would appreciate learning more. TIA!

Also, Xana was not still in high school in 2021, she graduated in 2020:
Xana Kernodle, 20

MOO & YMMV
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
171
Guests online
2,021
Total visitors
2,192

Forum statistics

Threads
589,952
Messages
17,928,178
Members
228,015
Latest member
Amberraff
Back
Top