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

[Balthazar]

"Profile" is a term that means a complete profile.
When it is not complete (see below) it is called a "Partial Profile"

Partial Profiles: In cases where samples have very low quantities of DNA, are exposed to extreme environmental conditions or are not properly preserved, it may be difficult to obtain a full DNA profile and the test may only yield a partial profile.

https://www.forensicsciencesimplified.org/dna/DNA.pdf

Profile only means that a DNA profile of some kind exists. If it was a Complete Profile, it would have been described using the words Complete Profile. But it wasn't. So, basically, without seeing the discovery stating it was a Complete Profile or BT actually stating this was a Complete DNA Profile or some expert for the prosecution describing it as a Complete DNA Profile, we don't know if it is or isn't complete at this time. And frankly, the defense expert Bika Barlow stated its was a partial profile (see below.) However, we do know that the sample was touch DNA.

"They are also analyzing trace amounts of DNA, including the “touch DNA” left behind when someone touches an object. These types of evidence can be far more difficult to interpret reliably than the relatively simple DNA evidence typical of earlier decades. "

"With DNA mixtures and trace (touch) DNA, the results can be ambiguous and difficult to understand, sometimes even for the experts."

DNA Mixtures: A Forensic Science Explainer

What are DNA mixtures? And why are they sometimes so difficult to interpret?

www.nist.gov

We need to avoid getting ahead of ourselves. We don't really know if the touch DNA yielded a complete or partial profile. All we know is there is some kind of profile. We don't know much about it at all except that it was found on the brass snap of the knife sheath and was skin cells - touch DNA.

In addition to this being touch DNA, apparently other DNA samples were taken:

Bicka Barlow declaration

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/062323+Notice+of+Filing+Declaration+of+Bicka+Barlow+in+Support+of+Def+Third+Motion+to+Compel.pdf

Page 11
"From the discovery in this case, it appears that at least three, and possibly four profiles were uploaded to the CODIS database prior to Mr. Kohberger being charged."

Then on page 13 it says:

The last sentence above indicates that Bika Barlow is saying the BK profile is both "ambiguous and partial". Is she right? IDK. But I find Bika Barlow's comments interesting in light of the fact that AT now wants the courts permission for the defense investigator to be involved in the DNA.

 

[10ofRods]

CODIS doesn't use a complete profile to make its matches. It's designed to merely suss out whether already-convicted felons (and unknown criminals whose DNA is on file) are in any way related to the DNA under study.

That's why CODIS often turns up 2-3 partial matches. It's not designed to do anything else.

CODIS now uses 20 SNP's (out of 4-6 million SNP's in the human genome). In other words, a very small number are profiled.

The word profile has no specific meaning in genetic science, it has to be defined according to its use. The match made between BK and the sheath DNA was based on many more data points. I don't think we know how many. But ultimately, the statistical match created absolutely no doubt that BK was the source of the DNA - the odds against it being any one else exceed the population of our planet

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/21/us/bryan-kohberger-dna-match-idaho-killings-evidence/index.html

And that's because DNA has millions of data points and billions of individual combinations.

 

[mickey2942]

Imagine if the defense is successful with their technique, and BK walks out, a free man.

No one would be safe. I don't even think his own family would want him back home.

 

[Cool Cats]

BBM

Personally I don't see the judge's actions as coddling and certainly not as cowering. A trial that can result in the government putting someone to death is a pretty big deal. And a judicial "slip up" would be a huge deal.

I agree a lot of money is being spent. DP trials always take longer and always cost a lot more. Per the link you posted above about costs, on the average a DP trial costs at least a million dollars more than a LWOP case. And appeals are more costly and time-consuming than appeals in other kinds of cases. That's one of many arguments against the DP, of course.

Regardless, it's very unlikely ANY judge could be "experienced" with DP trials. It's relatively rare for the State to seek the DP. In Idaho there are only 8 people on death row. The last execution was in 2012. Some who are on death row were convicted back in the 1980's when this judge was probably just starting law school..

Who is on Idaho's death row?

There are currently eight people on Idaho’s death row. The state last executed someone in 2012, when Richard Leavitt was put to death by lethal injection.

www.ktvb.com

JJJ has been a judge only since 2018. In a bit less than 6 years as a judge he can't have had much experience with DP trials but neither can other judges given how rare DP cases are. IMO better he be cautious though regardless of his experience level.

Latah Magistrate John Judge appointed to District Court bench

Formerly a magistrate, John Judge will take over the Latah County 2nd District court bench.

www.lmtribune.com

MOO

Even the judge is not happy with it and so he should do something about it....2 Cents

 

[mickey2942]

Really, just take the DP off the table. I am fine with LWOP. So many jurors seem to be very tepid about actually voting for the DP without a video of the murder now. The concept of "Reasonable Doubt" had been turned inside out and upside down by defense attorneys.

 

[Cool Cats]

Imagine if the defense is successful with their technique, and BK walks out, a free man.

No one would be safe. I don't even think his own family would want him back home.

The public isn't stupid....no one buys all this defense hand wringing. Not how jurors are.

Jurors look at evidence and in Voir dire they confirm they can just go by the evidence presented.

DNA is the most important evidence to a jury and even the defense doesn't dispute that this is Bryan's DNA.

2 Cents

 

[Cool Cats]

Made With Kindness Foundation

Made With Kindness Foundation. 1,123 likes · 474 talking about this. The Madison Mogen and Kaylee Goncalves Memorial Scholarship Fund

www.facebook.com

Home | MadeWithKindnessFoun

www.madewithkindnessfoundation.com

 

[jepop]

snipped for focus

Bicka Barlow declaration

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/062323+Notice+of+Filing+Declaration+of+Bicka+Barlow+in+Support+of+Def+Third+Motion+to+Compel.pdf

Page 11
"From the discovery in this case, it appears that at least three, and possibly four profiles were uploaded to the CODIS database prior to Mr. Kohberger being charged."

Then on page 13 it says:
View attachment 503305
The last sentence above indicates that Bika Barlow is saying the BK profile is both "ambiguous and partial". Is she right? IDK. But I find Bika Barlow's comments interesting in light of the fact that AT now wants the courts permission for the defense investigator to be involved in the DNA.

Re the bolded in your post above: I think you've placed this sentence out of context unfortunately. Barlow's last sentence is actually referring back to the example she was exploring in the preceding paragraphs, not to the single source male dna profile lifted from the knife sheathe by the ISL. This seems pretty clear to me when reading this section of Barlows report in proper context (moo) which I just did. This part of Barlow's report falls under a heading highlighting her speculations re the the 2 unknown male dna partial profiles found in the house (we do not know where in the house) and the one found outside the house (Barlow had the facts slightly wrong re the number imo).

Imo I believe it was subsequently revealed by the P at a hearing last year following Barlow's testimony that none of these unknown profiles qualified for Codis. If you go through the listings in Idaho Courts Cases of Interest page you should be able to find the hearing I'm referring to jmo. In it BT reveals this. Around the time of the hearing when Barlow gave testimony. I believe this is what happenned. Moo

 

[Cool Cats]

Re the bolded in your post above: I think you've placed this sentence out of context unfortunately. Barlow's last sentence is actually referring back to the example she was exploring in the preceding paragraphs, not to the single source male dna profile lifted from the knife sheathe by the ISL. This seems pretty clear to me when reading this section of Barlows report in proper context (moo) which I just did. This part of Barlow's report falls under a heading highlighting her speculations re the the 2 unknown male dna partial profiles found in the house (we do not know where in the house) and the one found outside the house (Barlow had the facts slightly wrong re the number imo).

Imo I believe it was subsequently revealed by the P at a hearing last year following Barlow's testimony that none of these unknown profiles qualified for Codis. If you go through the listings in Idaho Courts Cases of Interest page you should be able to find the hearing I'm referring to jmo. In it BT reveals this. Around the time of the hearing when Barlow gave testimony. I believe this is what happenned. Moo

This is just the defense desperate to get the DNA thrown out due to using geneology trees to help pin down Bryan's DNA.

Even this expert doesn't dispute that the sheath DNA is Bryan's DNA.

 

[Balthazar]

Re the bolded in your post above: I think you've placed this sentence out of context unfortunately. Barlow's last sentence is actually referring back to the example she was exploring in the preceding paragraphs, not to the single source male dna profile lifted from the knife sheathe by the ISL. This seems pretty clear to me when reading this section of Barlows report in proper context (moo) which I just did. This part of Barlow's report falls under a heading highlighting her speculations re the the 2 unknown male dna partial profiles found in the house (we do not know where in the house) and the one found outside the house (Barlow had the facts slightly wrong re the number imo).

Imo I believe it was subsequently revealed by the P at a hearing last year following Barlow's testimony that none of these unknown profiles qualified for Codis. If you go through the listings in Idaho Courts Cases of Interest page you should be able to find the hearing I'm referring to jmo. In it BT reveals this. Around the time of the hearing when Barlow gave testimony. I believe this is what happenned. Moo

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this. Hopefully it will be clarified to everyone's satisfaction at trial.

 

[NCWatcher]

Even the judge is not happy with it and so he should do something about it....2 Cents

I do hope judges usually don't make decisions in court for "emotional reasons" including how they feel about a case. But I'm not sure what you mean by this judge should be "doing something about it" since he's "not happy." I'd think most judges in a DP case would be very cautious to protect the defendant's rights. It seems to me that's what this judge is doing. While lots of money is being spent to try BK, nobody wants to have to do it a second time! There have been delays, but BK was indicted only about 12 months ago. DP cases often move very slowly as do cases with multiple victims. For example James Holmes' trial began about 3 months short of 3 years after the crime. And Holmes was arrested at the scene within minutes of LE arriving at the theater.
MOO

 

[katydid23]

snipped by me for length.....

When and where would he have said so? BK has been under indictment since 2022 and the prosecutor canceled the preliminary hearing by going with a Grand Jury leaving BK NO OPTION to proffer his alibi.

IF BK had a solid, provable alibi, he could have walked away from this long incarceration and arrest awhile ago. His attorneys could have met with the prosecutors and showed them the proof of his whereabouts. IF IT WAS SOLID PROOF, the DA would have pivoted from him. It happens all the time when the prime suspect has proof of a solid alibi.

The problem is that the DNA tells a different story.

 

[Balthazar]

This is just the defense desperate to get the DNA thrown out due to using geneology trees to help pin down Bryan's DNA.

Even this expert doesn't dispute that the sheath DNA is Bryan's DNA.

IMO, there is a problem with the DNA but we will have to wait for the trial, if it ever happens, since we cannot watch this next hearing. Why do I think this? Because the defense DNA experts have looked at the IGG evidence and now AT wants to involve her investigator in this specific matter. AT is NOT going to waste her investigator's time on this when there is a ton of other things he could be investigating instead. Something has been discovered and it has to do with the DNA. It really could not be clearer. Now will prosecution DNA experts disagree with whatever defense DNA experts have found? Probably. I guess we'll learn about all of this at trial.

 

[Boxer]

The public isn't stupid....no one buys all this defense hand wringing. Not how jurors are.

Jurors look at evidence and in Voir dire they confirm they can just go by the evidence presented.

DNA is the most important evidence to a jury and even the defense doesn't dispute that this is Bryan's DNA.

2 Cents

Agree. This is a convoluted attempt at evidence suppression, a standard defense tactic. From the defense's point of view its worth a try.

 

[Cool Cats]

I do hope judges usually don't make decisions in court for "emotional reasons" including how they feel about a case. But I'm not sure what you mean by this judge should be "doing something about it" since he's "not happy." I'd think most judges in a DP case would be very cautious to protect the defendant's rights. It seems to me that's what this judge is doing. While lots of money is being spent to try BK, nobody wants to have to do it a second time! There have been delays, but BK was indicted only about 12 months ago. DP cases often move very slowly as do cases with multiple victims. For example James Holmes' trial began about 3 months short of 3 years after the crime. And Holmes was arrested at the scene within minutes of LE arriving at the theater.
MOO

The judge isn't happy, I don't see any other way to interpret what he said in open court to everyone.
The judge has the ability to control his courtroom and he sounds like he is letting the defense control it.

Judge John Judge of Idaho’s 2nd Judicial District in Latah County, who is overseeing the case, said at a hearing earlier this month that he was mindful of the public costs for the extended pretrial process.

“If we have to have hearings on every single thing, we’ve got a long ways to go"

“And it’s a lot of time"

"It’s a lot of work"

"It’s a lot of money"

"And it just makes everything more difficult"

https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/crime/article287365665.html

UPDATED APRIL 18, 2024 1:12 PM

 

[katydid23]

IMO, there is a problem with the DNA but we will have to wait for the trial, if it ever happens, since we cannot watch this next hearing. Why do I think this? Because the defense DNA experts have looked at the IGG evidence and now AT wants to involve her investigator in this specific matter. AT is NOT going to waste her investigator's time on this when there is a ton of other things he could be investigating instead.

I disagree that this means they already 'found' something wrong with the DNA. I think it means they are desperate to try and find a problem with the DNA. That is the most damning evidence the State has against BK.

Something has been discovered and it has to do with the DNA. It really could not be clearer.

It does not seem clear to me that anything wrong has been found. I think they are urgently fishing for something.

Now will prosecution DNA experts disagree with whatever defense DNA experts have found? Probably. I guess we'll learn about all of this at trial.

Yep.

 

[Cool Cats]

IMO, there is a problem with the DNA but we will have to wait for the trial, if it ever happens, since we cannot watch this next hearing. Why do I think this? Because the defense DNA experts have looked at the IGG evidence and now AT wants to involve her investigator in this specific matter. AT is NOT going to waste her investigator's time on this when there is a ton of other things he could be investigating instead. Something has been discovered and it has to do with the DNA. It really could not be clearer. Now will prosecution DNA experts disagree with whatever defense DNA experts have found? Probably. I guess we'll learn about all of this at trial.

This is about trying to discredit the way LE used geneology to find who's DNA is on the knife sheath.

Not even the defense disputes that this is Bryan's DNA.

The first thing Anne Taylor tried was to claim the DNA was planted or contaminated because she falsely claimed the DNA traveled through dozens of different hands.

This didn't work, so now all she can do is get the DNA thrown out due to illegal use of geneology.

Why not just get the DNA itself ruled inadmissible?

Can't because the Idaho State Lab used the correct chain of custody and there are no grounds to render their results incomplete or faulty.

2 Cents

 

[jepop]

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this. Hopefully it will be clarified to everyone's satisfaction at trial.

Was only commenting on this
"View attachment 503305
The last sentence above indicates that Bika Barlow is saying the BK profile is both "ambiguous and partial". "

When reading relevant section of Barlow's report it's clear she is not referring to the BK profile (you mean the str single source male dna profile from the sheathe button) in that sentence. It's my strong opinion you are misreading what is unambiguous and quite clear in meaning. But yes ofcourse we can and will just disagree.

For anyone interested in reading for themselves see pps 11 to 13 "Item 4.2: Match Detail Reports and long-form Candidate Match Reports for the
hit(s) including partial hits and hits that are dispositioned to be nonmatching (even if the laboratory has dispositioned a profile as a hit)."

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/062323+Notice+of+Filing+Declaration+of+Bicka+Barlow+in+Support+of+Def+Third+Motion+to+Compel.pdf

 

[mickey2942]

This is about trying to discredit the way LE used geneology to find who's DNA is on the knife sheath.

Not even the defense disputes that this is Bryan's DNA.

The first thing Anne Taylor tried was to claim the DNA was planted or contaminated because she falsely claimed the DNA traveled through dozens of different hands.

This didn't work, so now all she can do is get the DNA thrown out due to illegal use of geneology.

Why not just get the DNA itself ruled inadmissible?

Can't because the Idaho State Lab used the correct chain of custody and there are no grounds to render their results incomplete or faulty.

2 Cents

I am going to bet that it was section chiefs that oversaw the chain of evidence. To ensure that there were absolutely no errors that could be attributed to incorrect documentation or chain of custody. This is probably the most significant case that ever happened in this town.

They called in the FBI immediately, for technical support. I doubt that the defense is going to find many errors here to peck at.

 

[Balthazar]

I disagree that this means they already 'found' something wrong with the DNA. I think it means they are desperate to try and find a problem with the DNA. That is the most damning evidence the State has against BK.

The reason I am certain they found a problem with the DNA is because it is touch DNA. Touch DNA gets everywhere and all over everything and the person whose DNA is found doesn't even have to touch the object or ever be in the presence of the object for their DNA to be found on the object. Touch DNA is EASILY disputed in court, yet AT is wanting her defense investigator to do work based on whatever they found in regards to the DNA. If you really think about it, the ONLY reason AT would do that would be because there is a problem with the DNA. No defense attorney is going to waste money and time on this issue when it is easy to bring reasonable doubt about it before a jury.

Touch DNA | US Military Law Lawyer Philip D. Cave

Free Consultation - Call (800) 401-1583 - Philip D. Cave is dedicated to serving our clients with a range of legal services including Military Law and Court-Martial cases. Touch DNA - US Military Law Lawyer

www.court-martial.com

Is "Touch DNA" Precisely the Opposite? | Ohio State Bar Association

In even routine criminal cases, prosecutors are now using “touch DNA” as powerful evidence. The science and technology behind the “touch DNA” phenomenon deserve careful examination. In less than a decade and despite countless prosecutions which relied in whole or in part on “touch DNA,” the...

www.ohiobar.org

Indirect DNA Transfer and Forensic Implications: A Literature Review

Progress in DNA profiling techniques has made it possible to detect even the minimum amount of DNA at a crime scene (i.e., a complete DNA profile can be produced using as little as 100 pg of DNA, equivalent to only 15–20 human cells), leading ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov