4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #93

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jumping in after not following for a bit, but is this Public Defender the same attorney that previously represented the parent(s) of victims? If so, and if she really doesn’t want to try this case, couldn’t she just try to recuse herself based on a “conflict of interest” and/or concerns about grounds for appeal?
Since she runs the Public Defenders Office, I'm not sure if she could have avoided the case entirely, as long as the office and attorneys she manages are involved. That's why I said she could have gotten another job.

I do recall her potential COI came up very early on, and she took some actions that allowed her to handle BK's case. So, it appears she had no problem handling this case. I'm sure attorneys occasionally regret taking on certain cases, but I doubt we'll ever hear that from her directly. A tidbit might show up in a book, but I think she's too professional to speak about that to the press. MOOooo
 
Where does it say the sample from the sheath was a complete profile? Do we have any document that proves it or BT saying it is a complete profile in court? Because if we don't have either discovery that says it is a complete profile or BT saying the DNA from the sheath is a complete profile, then there's no way to know at this time and we should not be assuming it is a complete profile.
You raise some interesting questions, and unfortunately, the answers are complex and lengthy.

TL;DR: the word "profile" is not precise or scientific; it is a tool - like alphabetization or use of letters to denote sounds.

The very word "profile" is the problem. Human DNA is 99.5% the same as chimp DNA. Humans are 50% the same, genetically, as bananas.

The word "profile" is used to denote the process by which geneticists study the relevant part of the DNA. It's silly and useless to use the part we share with so many life forms (fruit flies, palm trees, cows, etc). Instead, we look only at the...parts that make us human. We do not profile bananas in order to find a human, obviously (that is supposed to be funny, I realize this is kind of dry).

A FULL DNA sample would contain 50-300 million separate base pairs. But we don't need all of those in order to make a match - we need the parts that are specific to humans. When the lab looked at the DNA, they likely chose to look at...the base pairs associated with being human. Further, there are sets of base pairs (we can call them SNP's when we are talking about variation in a base pair) that have a lot of variation. THAT is what we have to look at.

If humans are 99.5% the same as chimps, we need to study ONLY the specific parts of the genome that relate first to...being human and then to being a human individual. Some base pairs have tremendous variation (hemoglobin for example - has about 600 variants in just one base pair). If we look at hemoglobin variation closely, we can see that once upon a time we had hemoglobin similar to that of chimps, but our line had an early mutation (maybe 6 million years ago) that then spread through out the genus *advertiser censored* (to ergaster, erectus, habilis, etc) - so we share some of those markers with them. However, we have tremendous variation at that one location.

One set of SNP's is not enough to make a match. What is wanted is for ALL of the relevant SNP's in the sample to match another sample (in this case BK's full DNA - which is what we get with a cheek swab). The lab said it was "single source" DNA, which means that all of the bits of DNA on the sheath came from the same person (the various strands were tested against each other to see if it was one person or more than one person). That means the lab had plenty of SNP's to make that determination. Indeed, it seemed to me at the time that they had entire chromosomes. I don't think a determination of "single source" (or sex of the contributor) can be made without complete chromosomes (or relatively complete). Did they have his ENTIRE set of genes on that sheath? We don't know. What they did find was sufficient DNA to conduct the legally admissible STR analysis (which is not considered profiling in the way that SNP analysis is a sampled profile - a profile just means "consistent sampling technique" in DNA labwork).

To sum up, we do not look at 300,000,000 variant base pairs when we find the specific SNP's that denote H. sapiens. We look at the genes that make us human. So that's 0.5% of 300,000,000. Does the public want banana analysis added back in? I don't think so. We can deduce ethnicity from facts surrounding whether there is much variation within the given sample (so, some people do NOT have 300,000,000 varying base pairs - they have far fewer, only 50,000,000). This occurs due to inbreeding coefficients in isolated places (so for example, my non-European ancestors include populations where there is much less genetic variation than in Europe, whereas my European ancestors have much more variation, especially after arriving in the Americas).

What the lab did was compare the valuable SNP's in the sample, sufficient in number to make the analysis, with an online genetic database.

What the Defense is asking for has nothing to do with profiles or sampling. They know that's been done in the standard, worldwide-accepted scientific manner. What is going on is the questioning of the IGG process.

I would say that it's somewhat like requiring the phone company to explain and divulge how they got the numbers in the phone book. It's such a wierd (and naive?) question that most experts in phone analysis would just stare in disbelief. "We are the phone company; we issue the numbers to a person who has given us some proof of name and identity, we simply print it out and put it in a book - so that people can look up each others' phone numbers!"

IGG is a big phone book, with identities, of DNA.



and for more about our similarity to bananas, this is a good piece:


Most anthropological geneticists say that there are only 1000-1500 genes that actually distinguish humans from other close species. That's what we're looking at in forensic analysis, unless we think a chimp did it (which would be pretty obvious if it was chimp DNA). Is that a profile? The press uses the word loosely. It is not merely a "sample" - it's the core of our biological identity, the roots of the human genomic tree.
 
He is innocent in the eyes of the law. That is true. It can be repeated as often as they like, with all the earnestness they want to try and counter the evidence that is public.

You raise some interesting questions, and unfortunately, the answers are complex and lengthy.

TL;DR: the word "profile" is not precise or scientific; it is a tool - like alphabetization or use of letters to denote sounds.

The very word "profile" is the problem. Human DNA is 99.5% the same as chimp DNA. Humans are 50% the same, genetically, as bananas.

The word "profile" is used to denote the process by which geneticists study the relevant part of the DNA. It's silly and useless to use the part we share with so many life forms (fruit flies, palm trees, cows, etc). Instead, we look only at the...parts that make us human. We do not profile bananas in order to find a human, obviously (that is supposed to be funny, I realize this is kind of dry).

A FULL DNA sample would contain 50-300 million separate base pairs. But we don't need all of those in order to make a match - we need the parts that are specific to humans. When the lab looked at the DNA, they likely chose to look at...the base pairs associated with being human. Further, there are sets of base pairs (we can call them SNP's when we are talking about variation in a base pair) that have a lot of variation. THAT is what we have to look at.

If humans are 99.5% the same as chimps, we need to study ONLY the specific parts of the genome that relate first to...being human and then to being a human individual. Some base pairs have tremendous variation (hemoglobin for example - has about 600 variants in just one base pair). If we look at hemoglobin variation closely, we can see that once upon a time we had hemoglobin similar to that of chimps, but our line had an early mutation (maybe 6 million years ago) that then spread through out the genus *advertiser censored* (to ergaster, erectus, habilis, etc) - so we share some of those markers with them. However, we have tremendous variation at that one location.

One set of SNP's is not enough to make a match. What is wanted is for ALL of the relevant SNP's in the sample to match another sample (in this case BK's full DNA - which is what we get with a cheek swab). The lab said it was "single source" DNA, which means that all of the bits of DNA on the sheath came from the same person (the various strands were tested against each other to see if it was one person or more than one person). That means the lab had plenty of SNP's to make that determination. Indeed, it seemed to me at the time that they had entire chromosomes. I don't think a determination of "single source" (or sex of the contributor) can be made without complete chromosomes (or relatively complete). Did they have his ENTIRE set of genes on that sheath? We don't know. What they did find was sufficient DNA to conduct the legally admissible STR analysis (which is not considered profiling in the way that SNP analysis is a sampled profile - a profile just means "consistent sampling technique" in DNA labwork).

To sum up, we do not look at 300,000,000 variant base pairs when we find the specific SNP's that denote H. sapiens. We look at the genes that make us human. So that's 0.5% of 300,000,000. Does the public want banana analysis added back in? I don't think so. We can deduce ethnicity from facts surrounding whether there is much variation within the given sample (so, some people do NOT have 300,000,000 varying base pairs - they have far fewer, only 50,000,000). This occurs due to inbreeding coefficients in isolated places (so for example, my non-European ancestors include populations where there is much less genetic variation than in Europe, whereas my European ancestors have much more variation, especially after arriving in the Americas).

What the lab did was compare the valuable SNP's in the sample, sufficient in number to make the analysis, with an online genetic database.

What the Defense is asking for has nothing to do with profiles or sampling. They know that's been done in the standard, worldwide-accepted scientific manner. What is going on is the questioning of the IGG process.

I would say that it's somewhat like requiring the phone company to explain and divulge how they got the numbers in the phone book. It's such a wierd (and naive?) question that most experts in phone analysis would just stare in disbelief. "We are the phone company; we issue the numbers to a person who has given us some proof of name and identity, we simply print it out and put it in a book - so that people can look up each others' phone numbers!"

IGG is a big phone book, with identities, of DNA.



and for more about our similarity to bananas, this is a good piece:


Most anthropological geneticists say that there are only 1000-1500 genes that actually distinguish humans from other close species. That's what we're looking at in forensic analysis, unless we think a chimp did it (which would be pretty obvious if it was chimp DNA). Is that a profile? The press uses the word loosely. It is not merely a "sample" - it's the core of our biological identity, the roots of the human genomic tree.

Excellent explanation! Thanks Rods!
 
Since she runs the Public Defenders Office, I'm not sure if she could have avoided the case entirely, as long as the office and attorneys she manages are involved. That's why I said she could have gotten another job.

I do recall her potential COI came up very early on, and she took some actions that allowed her to handle BK's case. So, it appears she had no problem handling this case. I'm sure attorneys occasionally regret taking on certain cases, but I doubt we'll ever hear that from her directly. A tidbit might show up in a book, but I think she's too professional to speak about that to the press. MOOooo

Just as a reminder because it’s been a long time since we discussed it, but AT is the only public defender in this whole part of the state qualified to act as lead counsel on death qualified cases.

In the entire state, there are only 14 public defenders qualified to act as lead counsel in death penalty cases.

AT runs the Public Defenders office in Kootenai County, which is two counties north of Latah County.

For any interested in learning more about the Idaho State Public Defense Commission:
Home

For any interested in understanding the mandatory qualifications for public defenders to represent defendants in potential death cases:
Capital Defending Attorney Qualifications and Roster

And for any interested, here’s a direct link to the roster:
Capital Counsel Roster

HTH
 
Since she runs the Public Defenders Office, I'm not sure if she could have avoided the case entirely, as long as the office and attorneys she manages are involved. That's why I said she could have gotten another job.

I do recall her potential COI came up very early on, and she took some actions that allowed her to handle BK's case. So, it appears she had no problem handling this case. I'm sure attorneys occasionally regret taking on certain cases, but I doubt we'll ever hear that from her directly. A tidbit might show up in a book, but I think she's too professional to speak about that to the press. MOOooo

AT is one of the lawyers on the State's list of PD's who can defend a client in a DP case. She cannot recuse herself from a case easily. She is, I have read, the most or one of the most experienced DP defense lawyers in Idaho. Here's why it was not easy for her to say no:

Taylor is one of 13 public defenders statewide who are qualified to lead a death penalty defense. She is the only one of those attorneys in all of North Idaho, and her Kohberger case co-counsel, Jay Logsdon, who is her office's chief deputy, is the only death penalty-qualified co-counsel for the same region.

She is of course the Chief Public Defender for the entire state, so it's obvious that Kohberger is getting the best representation possible in Idaho. What we're watching is an experienced DP attorney at the top of her game - and with interesting "wins" on some of her motions in the past. This is likely the case of a lifetime for her, with all her skills at play, deploying a large team of researchers and assistants. It was already ruled that her passing on a different case to another attorney (a case where she'd really never even met with the clients or started the defense) removed the COI.

IMO.
 
I may have missed posts relating to this so I apologize if this topic has already been dissected but.....does anyone have any info on why none of the 4 victims seem to not put up a fight during the attack? Especially the male (Ethan)? And what about the other 2 roommates? The one who reportedly saw the suspect and didn't do anything/check on her roommates/call 911/etc for hours and hours? How does a single person brutally stab 4 adults in the same house (not even 4 isolated adults but 2 pairs of adults in their respective rooms - Ethan & Xana, Kaylee & Madison) without anyone else being aware and without any chaos????? And the main piece of concrete evidence (that has been released to public knowledge thus far anyway) is a sample of TRACE DNA on a knife sheath??? It almost seems statistically impossible IMO. Again, my apologies if this has already been discussed...
 
Last edited:
I may have missed posts relating to this so I apologize if this topic has already been dissected but.....does anyone have any info on why none of the 4 victims seem to not put up a fight during the attack? Especially the male (Ethan)? And what about the other 2 roommates? The one who reportedly saw the suspect and didn't do anything/check on her roommates/call 911/etc for hours and hours? How does a single person brutally stab 4 adults in the same house (not even 4 isolated adults but 2 pairs of adults in their respective rooms - Ethan & Xana, Kaylee & Madison) without anyone else being aware and without any chaos????? And the main piece of concrete evidence (that has been released to public knowledge thus far anyway) is a sample of TRACE DNA on a knife sheath??? It almost seems statistically impossible IMO. Again, my apologies if this has already been discussed...
Where are you getting your info that none of the victims put up a fight? That's not what I've read.
 
I may have missed posts relating to this so I apologize if this topic has already been dissected but.....does anyone have any info on why none of the 4 victims seem to not put up a fight during the attack? Especially the male (Ethan)? And what about the other 2 roommates? The one who reportedly saw the suspect and didn't do anything/check on her roommates/call 911/etc for hours and hours? How does a single person brutally stab 4 adults in the same house (not even 4 isolated adults but 2 pairs of adults in their respective rooms - Ethan & Xana, Kaylee & Madison) without anyone else being aware and without any chaos????? And the main piece of concrete evidence (that has been released to public knowledge thus far anyway) is a sample of TRACE DNA on a knife sheath??? It almost seems statistically impossible IMO. Again, my apologies if this has already been discussed...
Some of the victims did have defensive injuries:
Idaho students were stabbed to death in their beds, coroner says

“Some of the victims had defensive wounds and each was stabbed multiple times, the Moscow police said in a release Friday, confirming what the coroner had said in an interview on Thursday.”

And the DNA profile in the snap of the knife sheath was found to be 5.37 octillion times more likely to belong to suspect BK than to anyone else.

Slam dunk, MOO.
 
Where are you getting your info that none of the victims put up a fight? That's not what I've read.
I did read about the victims having defensive wounds so i really should've phrased my statement to reflect more about BK NOT having injuries (or at least not that we know of) from such a brutal attack. It was definitely a chaotic scene based on the statements regarding blood actually pooling down the side of the house which was visible from outside of the house, so I would presume that there would be more DNA evidence than just trace DNA on the knife sheath. And yes, the DNA is obviously BK's however it was trace DNA not a direct source (ie sweat glands, blood, body fluids, etc) which is, IMO, a point the defense will likely exacerbate. He would've been bloody and disheveled when he left and no one can clean a car that eliminates ALL DNA. I hope the prosecution has more physical evidence that just hasn't been revealed to the public. I appreciate your response.
 
I did read about the victims having defensive wounds so i really should've phrased my statement to reflect more about BK NOT having injuries (or at least not that we know of) from such a brutal attack. It was definitely a chaotic scene based on the statements regarding blood actually pooling down the side of the house which was visible from outside of the house, so I would presume that there would be more DNA evidence than just trace DNA on the knife sheath. And yes, the DNA is obviously BK's however it was trace DNA not a direct source (ie sweat glands, blood, body fluids, etc) which is, IMO, a point the defense will likely exacerbate. He would've been bloody and disheveled when he left and no one can clean a car that eliminates ALL DNA. I hope the prosecution has more physical evidence that just hasn't been revealed to the public. I appreciate your response.
We don't know for certain if BK had injuries.

If, and again we don't know for certain, blood was pooling down the side of the house, it would most likely be the victim's DNA/blood from his brutal and hellish attack.

A few people, way smarter than me, have explained the trace DNA many many times through these thousands of pages of posts. It's honestly a slam dunk and I kind of feel bad for Anne Taylor, well actually I don't at all. lol

If he were wearing a "kill kit" or PPE, the cleanup wouldn't be that difficult at all.
 
I did read about the victims having defensive wounds so i really should've phrased my statement to reflect more about BK NOT having injuries (or at least not that we know of) from such a brutal attack. It was definitely a chaotic scene based on the statements regarding blood actually pooling down the side of the house which was visible from outside of the house, so I would presume that there would be more DNA evidence than just trace DNA on the knife sheath. And yes, the DNA is obviously BK's however it was trace DNA not a direct source (ie sweat glands, blood, body fluids, etc) which is, IMO, a point the defense will likely exacerbate. He would've been bloody and disheveled when he left and no one can clean a car that eliminates ALL DNA. I hope the prosecution has more physical evidence that just hasn't been revealed to the public. I appreciate your response.
Why do you believe he has to have been wounded?
The Kabar is a knife made specifically to kill people efficiently and quickly without breaking or slipping. BK
Was experienced with boxing and running, very fit. Targets were soft, vulnerable and ambushed, including the male.
 
I may have missed posts relating to this so I apologize if this topic has already been dissected but.....does anyone have any info on why none of the 4 victims seem to not put up a fight during the attack? Especially the male (Ethan)? And what about the other 2 roommates? The one who reportedly saw the suspect and didn't do anything/check on her roommates/call 911/etc for hours and hours? How does a single person brutally stab 4 adults in the same house (not even 4 isolated adults but 2 pairs of adults in their respective rooms - Ethan & Xana, Kaylee & Madison) without anyone else being aware and without any chaos????? And the main piece of concrete evidence (that has been released to public knowledge thus far anyway) is a sample of TRACE DNA on a knife sheath??? It almost seems statistically impossible IMO. Again, my apologies if this has already been discussed...

I have an explanation, and very little to base it on. If you look into what techniques are taught in the military for the use of the KaBar knife, one is "silent killing." This involves the same type of injuries that Mr. Gonaçalves describes for Kaylee.

The idea is to strike the liver and the lungs. The knife is held in the "tennis racquet" grip, not the slasher grip. It should take only 2-3 strikes. BK, a former boxer, knows exactly where the liver is. The lungs are the first target (striking up under the rib cage - similar to some punches in boxing). The strike to the lungs prevents any further speech or sound from the victims. The coup-de-grâce goes to the liver, causing massive bleed-out.

BK, IMO, practiced this technique. Was he able to use it on everyone? It would seem so - since the roommates apparently heard very little.

It seems statistically VERY possible to me, since the military use this technique. You can google it (it's graphic). You can watch youtubes on this (look for knife training). There are even knife classes throughout the US (and Moscow, ID, interestingly, had an ax throwing business at the time the murders occurred. People who learn knife skills often also study ax throwing. It's a whole hobbyist thing. There are a couple of ways to do a silent kill - the one I just described is one of them.

I would love to know if BK grew up with knives. He clearly understood them well enough to buy a KaBar, military-style knife used in some of the youtube videos on offensive knife training.

It makes sense to me, given that whoever did this obviously DID kill four people without making much noise - just as the military has done in the field while clearing certain areas and not wanting to alert a lot of enemies with the use of noisy weapons.

Are you suggesting that it was more than one person? BK is clearly involved in some way - his DNA (probably epithelial) was found no the use point (snap groove) of the knife. I don't see why we need to introduce more people at this point. Nor do I have any trouble believing this was an impossible crime. It happened. It provided a challenge to BK, and didn't require him to undergo federal inspection to acquire a gun (I believe we've read that he had at least one psychiatric hospitalization when he was younger; the feds, I believe, also get to see behind the sealed juvenile records).

IMO.
 
Jumping in after not following for a bit, but is this Public Defender the same attorney that previously represented the parent(s) of victims? If so, and if she really doesn’t want to try this case, couldn’t she just try to recuse herself based on a “conflict of interest” and/or concerns about grounds for appeal?
Just regarding a COI: Court decided to unseal some minutes from late Jan 2023 regarding this issue. The minutes were unsealed on March 1st 2023. Appears this decision was made in order to address factually the amount of misinformation and speculation that had been generated re COI. Moo

 
There is no perfect crime.

But there is planning.

This was a planned crime.

IMO the mass casualties were not part of the plan.

Counter measures --

Generic car
Kill kit
Layers
DNA scrub (missed the snap fold)
No phone

I think it's entirely possible he had been in the house before. Knew what would be required to gain access to the home itself and M's room in particular. I think he had done it before, perhaps watched her sleep, came and went without incidence.

Didn't have his phone, that tells me he went there with intent.

Parking nearby was foolish but I'm going to speculate that he altered his license plate in some way, expecting LE to look for the wrong car altogether. I think he felt that his vehicle was disguised enough...

If X and E had been asleep and K had not decided to come to campus, BK would have entered a quiet home where everyone was asleep, all behind closed doors.

Makes his way to M's room where he could watch her and then silence her in one, then murder her in one, two, maybe three deft moves. Virtually silent but fully lethal attack. Power, dominance. Avenging some kind of sexual justice. Conquers the woman who represents a kind of woman, as he sees it.

I don't think the knife was accidental, neither choosing a knife as his weapon nor choosing that particular knife. I think he was, in his mind, an elite Special Ops PROFESSIONAL, a Marine unit of 1.

Had M been alone in her bed, I doubt his sheath would have been forgotten but it's possible, as I've theorized previously, he intended to leave it -- had a second scabbard in order to house his knife after, no one is tucking an unsheathed Kbar in their waistband and trotting off to the parking lot. So... he may have meant to leave it. Coup de etat. He's the Marine but also framing all Marines, because it's the first place they're going to look for crime committed with a military-issue weapon. IMO BK would appreciate that level of wordplay symbolism. LE would move on to boyfriends and then known criminals. Nobody would be looking PhD student, teaching at a college over.....

Had he cleaned the sheath completely, leaving no DNA behind, or didn't leave the sheath at all, what headlines would have been written?

IMO he would have been back in the morning, blending into the expected crowd of onlookers, and his lesson plans would write themselves. "Teach, you scare us. It's almost like you HAVE the mind of a criminal". Think how smartly he could pontificate .

IMO it would have carried him for a very long time.... until the next time -- another blonde, of a type (as defined by him), maybe another school, maybe another sheath.

He would lecture on and write books about the Marine killer....

JMO
 
There is no perfect crime.

But there is planning.

This was a planned crime.

IMO the mass casualties were not part of the plan.

Counter measures --

Generic car
Kill kit
Layers
DNA scrub (missed the snap fold)
No phone

I think it's entirely possible he had been in the house before. Knew what would be required to gain access to the home itself and M's room in particular. I think he had done it before, perhaps watched her sleep, came and went without incidence.

Didn't have his phone, that tells me he went there with intent.

Parking nearby was foolish but I'm going to speculate that he altered his license plate in some way, expecting LE to look for the wrong car altogether. I think he felt that his vehicle was disguised enough...

If X and E had been asleep and K had not decided to come to campus, BK would have entered a quiet home where everyone was asleep, all behind closed doors.

Makes his way to M's room where he could watch her and then silence her in one, then murder her in one, two, maybe three deft moves. Virtually silent but fully lethal attack. Power, dominance. Avenging some kind of sexual justice. Conquers the woman who represents a kind of woman, as he sees it.

I don't think the knife was accidental, neither choosing a knife as his weapon nor choosing that particular knife. I think he was, in his mind, an elite Special Ops PROFESSIONAL, a Marine unit of 1.

Had M been alone in her bed, I doubt his sheath would have been forgotten but it's possible, as I've theorized previously, he intended to leave it -- had a second scabbard in order to house his knife after, no one is tucking an unsheathed Kbar in their waistband and trotting off to the parking lot. So... he may have meant to leave it. Coup de etat. He's the Marine but also framing all Marines, because it's the first place they're going to look for crime committed with a military-issue weapon. IMO BK would appreciate that level of wordplay symbolism. LE would move on to boyfriends and then known criminals. Nobody would be looking PhD student, teaching at a college over.....

Had he cleaned the sheath completely, leaving no DNA behind, or didn't leave the sheath at all, what headlines would have been written?

IMO he would have been back in the morning, blending into the expected crowd of onlookers, and his lesson plans would write themselves. "Teach, you scare us. It's almost like you HAVE the mind of a criminal". Think how smartly he could pontificate .

IMO it would have carried him for a very long time.... until the next time -- another blonde, of a type (as defined by him), maybe another school, maybe another sheath.

He would lecture on and write books about the Marine killer....

JMO

I think he had either broken in before and/or knew somehow (maybe a party he attended) that the sliding door lock/mechanism didn't work very well and could be "Jimmy'd " pretty easily to gain access.

Otherwise, how would one ever hope to get in a house without people hearing.
 
I think he had either broken in before and/or knew somehow (maybe a party he attended) that the sliding door lock/mechanism didn't work very well and could be "Jimmy'd " pretty easily to gain access.

Otherwise, how would one ever hope to get in a house without people hearing.
The kitchen window next to the slider got lot of forensic attention, maybe in the window and out the door.
Some are easy to pry open with a screwdriver - and of course it may not have been locked.
 
BKs DNA is a match for the knife sheath. MOO all the rest is typical and precictable challenge to process.
If it is touch DNA as reported by Howard Blum in "Eyes of a Killer" then I think any good defense attorney can easily destroy the touch DNA evidence before a jury. However, I'm curious about what the defense DNA witnesses have to say about their findings, whatever they were.
Wawawai Park is where the body of a WSU Coed was found who was murdered in 1971. She was stabbed to death on WSU Campus, Stevens Hall which is still standing.
It l's a famous unsolved case.
Interesting that Stevens Hall was not demolished like 1122 King Rd, since it was also the scene of a heinous stabbing - a case which remains unsolved to this day. But, instead, people live in Stevens Hall.

All JMO.
 
I think he had either broken in before and/or knew somehow (maybe a party he attended) that the sliding door lock/mechanism didn't work very well and could be "Jimmy'd " pretty easily to gain access.

Otherwise, how would one ever hope to get in a house without people hearing.
It's ridiculously easy to do and it only takes maybe 3-5 seconds.
Here's how with a screwdriver:
Here's how with your bare hands:

This is why it is imperative to have and use a crossbar to secure sliding glass doors.

All JMO.
 
Everyone was asleep except Xana, apparently. No one heard anything. Murphy the Dog may have growled (misinterpreted as playful growling by one of the surviving roommates). There was no chaos.

It was fast, gruesome and silent. No one alerted to anything. People inside the house would not have seen the blood right away (there's some on the outside of the house - and there are latent bloody footprints from someone coming down the stairs - but no mention of pooled blood inside the house. Latent means "invisible."

The bloody footprints belong to a person who appears to be the intruder - a single person's footprints. I think we'd have heard if there were two sets and LE would be looking for that other person. In order to produce bloody footprints, someone had to step in blood, for sure.

There is no such thing as indirect DNA. Every cell in an organism has "direct" DNA. It has only one form and is created in only one set of processes (cellular division). Sweat is not indirect. It's a body fluid. Body fluids like semen and sweat are not indirect. The would make rape kids "indirect," but I've never heard anyone say that. It's likely epithelial DNA, given where it was found. Doesn't matter the type of cell from which it came. DNA is DNA.

It was not even what is sometimes called "trace" DNA (that has an entirely different meaning in forensic science). It is "touch" DNA (an encounter between the body and an object which leaves a DNA trace of that person being very near or touching the object - there is now research on exhaled DNA as well. Epithelial DNA is by far the most common type of forensic DNA that's found.

"Touch" merely refers to the method by which the DNA got where it is. We don't say "touch fingerprints", DNA comes with fingers as well. Even after death, humans are shedding/discarding some DNA. DNA persists for centuries, even millennia, in some cases. DNA can be obtained through indirect methods of analysis - which would be much harder to explain to a jury. There's no evidence that any of these reconstructive methods were used in this case.

I believe BK used tactics that were specifically designed to keep himself from being bloody - the technique I've described (unlike throat slashing) does not produce external blood spurts - but there would have been blood, for sure. He wore a mask, suitable clothing and gloves. He had prepared his car to receive those items, just in case he was stopped (we know of three traffic errors resulting in stops for him - I don't think he's a great driver).

I'm going with "he took precautions and wasn't bloody" when he climbed back into the driver's seat of his car. No victim DNA was found inside his vehicle (that's according to AT though).

He did exactly what all forensic specialists know to do to keep their own DNA out of a crime scene (this is usually learned at the bachelor's level in criminal justice, a doctoral candidate in criminology would know this and should be prepared to explain and TEACH it, criminologists are hired as consultants by LE agencies to review, do and establish such training). It's an area of specialization, however (no grad student would be hired in such a capacity - and they'd need more than grad criminology coursework in the forensic anthropology/genetics to get to that level of expertise). I have tagged along and suited up to make sure my own DNA didn't contaminate a crime scene (they still take samples of all forensic personnel and visitors to crime scenes if there's good local LE practice - you can find videos of the Moscow PD forensic investigators suiting up - including the crime scene photographers). I've been to a body farm and suited up there for the same reason (as the whole point of my field trip was to observe various field DNA collection techniques).

BK did very well, so far as we know, at keeping his DNA off objects - as I hope I did when I did the above things. BK used his training as a criminal justice and budding criminologist to aid in planning this crime - to me, it almost HAS to be someone with extensive knowledge of how to avoid forensic detection. A student of crime plans a crime - this is what it looks like. I also think his VSS plays a role in learning to plan things carefully and adjust for variables that the rest of us might find nerve-wracking.

I would love to see an academic citation or two describing what, exactly "touch DNA" is (other than a popular notion). Here is an article where it is mentioned, but in quotation marks (because it is not proper scientific terminology). Note that the author uses the word "trace" to mean the same thing. That's how it was usually referred to until the press started using other terms. But the press are not DNA experts.


And here is example of how the term is currently used in science (to mean epithelial DNA):


Some view any sample gained with a swab to be "touch" DNA (which makes sense, as shorthand). Note that there's high scientific validity to what scientists are calling touch/epithelial DNA. I am at a loss as to why anyone (including journalists) think that epithelial DNA is problematic. But then, some people thought fingerprints were problematic. The media has decided "touch" DNA is a specific forensic problem - but that's wildly inaccurate.

IMO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
194
Guests online
636
Total visitors
830

Forum statistics

Threads
596,449
Messages
18,047,829
Members
230,004
Latest member
DirtyV53
Back
Top