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

[North_Idaho_Nony]

(snipped for focus)

this is the part that is confusing for me and perhaps there is a legal process or legal reasoning behind this, but what would be the difference between the report that was prepared for the grand jury a year ago and the report that was created for the Defense the day before the hearing we just witnessed.

Is it different data? why would they not just hand over the previous report that they created for the grand jury or simply re-create it again for the sole purposes of giving to the defense. why did it take a year to produce if they already had the data for the grand jury and the AA?

MOO, I kind of feel like you’re putting the cart before the horse by accepting the Defense’s claim as factually true.

The Defense is alleging the State hasn’t complied with discovery requirements; the State maintains it has and will continue to comply with Idaho Criminal Rule 16 regarding discovery & inspection as well as other applicable law.

MOO, it’s impossible, at least at this point, to form an opinion on the validity of the Defense’s allegation(s) because so much is rightly-if-frustratingly (MOO) sealed.

There’s a dispute Judge Judge has been asked to resolve, which is the point of the hearing next Thursday morning, MOO. Testimony will be offered, the judge will examine the record, including the sealed records, exhibits, etc, and he will render a decision in due course. At least, that’s my IANAL understanding!

In any case, I’ve followed many criminal cases throughout my life, and these kind of pre-trial “disputes” & sparring are very common, MOO.

Indeed, I’m all for a vigorous criminal defense, which BK is certainly receiving, at least so far, MOO.

As always, all MOO.

 

[Betty P]

I guess we don't, but common sense and years of watching cases tells me that if BK's dna was found in that trash they would have used that comparison in the PCA, not the father's. If they're looking for BK's dna, they're going to test everything they have to try to find it.
JMO

JMO, they wanted to arrest and detain him ASAP so they could test his DNA for comparison. Getting the Dad's DNA and comparing it to the crime scene DNA allowed them enough probable cause to arrest BK, then test his DNA. JMO, from an evidence chain, it makes more sense this way.

ETA: I'm fairly sure, if they have to get the perp's DNA surreptitiously (from a discarded cup, etc.) LE has to observe him discarding the item prior to their gathering and testing it. E.G. Rex Heuermann had to be observed discarding the pizza box.

 

[Cool Cats]

JMO, they wanted to arrest and detain him so they could test his DNA for comparison. Getting the Dad's DNA and comparing it to the crime scene DNA allowed them enough probable cause to arrest BK, then test his DNA. JMO, from an evidence chain, it makes more sense this way.

They have so much evidence against him that they did not use the DNA evidence in the PCA - probable cause affidavit.

The reason is because if the DNA, for some reason, was ruled inadmissible at trial, the PCA would still stand.

2 Cents

 

[Betty P]

They have so much evidence against him that they did not use the DNA evidence in the PCA - probable cause affidavit.

The reason is because if the DNA, for some reason, was ruled inadmissible at trial, the PCA would still stand.

2 Cents

Right, for back up. They literally have to build cases carefully this way.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/06/us/idaho-killings-suspect-bryan-kohberger-friday/index.html

He was observed by law enforcement putting trash in the neighbors' garbage bins at 4am, so it's certainly possible they speculated they wouldn't find his dna in his own bins and stopped once they had a match to his father. It was definitely dumb for him to think they couldn't get a match from a family member, but possibly he's paranoid and not thinking clearly at that point.

Putting your trash in someone else's bin is more indicative of trying to hide it than it is of OCD behavior. Certainly each element of what he did those days could be broken down and explained another way. But when you look at the whole picture--he knows he left that sheath behind and he's wearing rubber gloves and putting his trash in the neighbor's bin--the most likely explanation is that he's trying to hide his dna. It's a lot more likely than he has OCD and was using the neighbor's bin at 4am for extra Christmas trash. As a juror, I wouldn't buy that.
JMO

I wonder if the accused BK had the foresight to try and switch the entire neighbor’s trash and receptacles/cans with those of his parents? Like sort of do the ‘full Monty’? Seems that he didn’t think of that one eh? Good for him. MOO

 

[Cool Cats]

Right, for back up. They literally have to build cases carefully this way.

I researched it and posted links and so it is my understanding that jurys consider DNA evidence as the most important type of evidence.

Not only does the prosecution have DNA but the defense actually admits that it is BK's DNA by suggesting that it was planted, and then on top of all this BK still hasn't given an alibi that meets Idaho law standards and there is phone and car and witness testimony.

Well, maybe BK will enjoy moving from his small jail into a big prison.

2 Cents

 

[10ofRods]

My (as well's as other's) theories are that he was consumed with serial killing and he wanted to be one himself.

He wanted to be infamous like BTK or Zodiac but not be caught and therefore go down in history as an unknown serial killer. I wouldn't be surprised if he bought a replacement sheath (or a new knife altogether) after the fact BEFORE he knew they were onto him... just so he could do it again some day and leave another "clean" sheath. The Knife Sheath Killer.

I think he would even be as so bold as to write a book about it once he got his PhD.

He thought he knew enough to get away with the perfect crime. But he forgot the first lesson in law enforcement, there is no perfect crime.

If true, that is pretty sick. Anyway, that theory might just be my runaway imagination getting the best of me.

While he can't make money from writing about his crime (in most jurisdictions), he can write a book from which he doesn't profit. He might still do it.

You might well be right. As to his "forgetting" that there's no perfect crime, for a certain personality that thinks they are the main character of a story (runaway imagination is a great term), there are goals. They want to best the criminals of the best in some way (and their own pre-imagined crimes, correcting them, so to speak).

 

[Betty P]

I researched it and posted links and so it is my understanding that jurys consider DNA evidence as the most important type of evidence.

Not only does the prosecution have DNA but the defense actually admits that it is BK's DNA by suggesting that it was planted, and then on top of all this BK still hasn't given an alibi that meets Idaho law standards and there is phone and car and witness testimony.

Well, maybe BK will enjoy moving from his small jail into a big prison.

2 Cents

I agree with you.

 

[Megnut]

(snipped for focus)

this is the part that is confusing for me and perhaps there is a legal process or legal reasoning behind this, but what would be the difference between the report that was prepared for the grand jury a year ago and the report that was created for the Defense the day before the hearing we just witnessed.

Is it different data? why would they not just hand over the previous report that they created for the grand jury or simply re-create it again for the sole purposes of giving to the defense. why did it take a year to produce if they already had the data for the grand jury and the AA?

Usually after arrest and arraignment, there's a preliminary hearing. No jury, just the judge ruling whether a case has merit to move to trial. State makes its case (not its entire case, just enough to satisfy the judge). The Defense has an opportunity to challenge the State's evidence and experts.

But BK was indicted by Grand Jury. The Defense was not invited.

(Which is why AT wants to challenge the whole institution of Grand Juries).

As I understand it, Mowery went to his computer, gathered the exhibit from the Grand Jury -- accessed emails, attachments, files, none of which he manipulated, changed, subtracted from or added to. Then in response to the specific ask, pulled up some screen shots (stills of DOT CCTV that WINDY procured) and attached them, even though they have zero evidentiary value! That's it. Nothing nefarious, nothing secretive, a piece of data like a gazillion others, that have no bearing, no evidentiary value.

He didn't not save anything!

Bottom line here, IMO:

IF it had evidentiary value, the State would've been using it! If it had exculpatory value, they'd have been obligated to turn it over. It was neither of those things!!

It was an investigative dead end.

JMO

 

[grannygates]

Usually after arrest and arraignment, there's a preliminary hearing. No jury, just the judge ruling whether a case has merit to move to trial. State makes its case (not its entire case, just enough to satisfy the judge). The Defense has an opportunity to challenge the State's evidence and experts.

But BK was indicted by Grand Jury. The Defense was not invited.

(Which is why AT wants to challenge the whole institution of Grand Juries).

As I understand it, Mowery went to his computer, gathered the exhibit from the Grand Jury -- accessed emails, attachments, files, none of which he manipulated, changed, subtracted from or added to. Then in response to the specific ask, pulled up some screen shots (stills of DOT CCTV that WINDY procured) and attached them, even though they have zero evidentiary value! That's it. Nothing nefarious, nothing secretive, a piece of data like a gazillion others, that have no bearing, no evidentiary value.

He didn't not save anything!

Bottom line here, IMO:

IF it had evidentiary value, the State would've been using it! If it had exculpatory value, they'd have been obligated to turn it over. It was neither of those things!!

It was an investigative dead end.

JMO

Sorry I think we have some crossed lines. I was referring to the CAST data reports that were presented at the Grand Jury and provided to defense during the hearing.

My question was why could they not give the CAST report created for the grand jury to the defense per discovery. Mowery had to run a second report the day before the hearing.

 

[Balthazar]

Sorry I think we have some crossed lines. I was referring to the CAST data reports that were presented at the Grand Jury and provided to defense during the hearing.

My question was why could they not give the CAST report created for the grand jury to the defense per discovery. Mowery had to run a second report the day before the hearing.

Excellent question.

And to add to your question, from yesterday's hearing, we learned that BT asked for this map to be produced and asked a specific MPD detective to create it the day before the hearing.
Doesn't that prove that BT:
1. Knew that the detective had the CAST files.
2. Knew that the CAST files did exist.
AND
3. Knew the CAST files were in the possession of MPD, not the FBI.

 

[schooling]

Sorry I think we have some crossed lines. I was referring to the CAST data reports that were presented at the Grand Jury and provided to defense during the hearing.

My question was why could they not give the CAST report created for the grand jury to the defense per discovery. Mowery had to run a second report the day before the hearing.

From what I understand the CAST data was going through continuous analysis. And at the time of the PCA ( not sure about the grand jury) they didn’t have the FBI teams analysis yet.

I haven’t looked at the subpoenas in awhile but I’m sure there are hints in there somewhere within the ATT warrants.

MOO

 

[Balthazar]

Sorry I think we have some crossed lines. I was referring to the CAST data reports that were presented at the Grand Jury and provided to defense during the hearing.

My question was why could they not give the CAST report created for the grand jury to the defense per discovery. Mowery had to run a second report the day before the hearing.

In regards to your question about why they couldn't give the CAST report created for the Grand Jury to the defense per discovery, from the hearing Thursday, Mowery stated that he knew that he could save his work in CASTviz but he didn't do that and at the time (preparing for the Grand Jury), he made a screenshot of the map he created in CASTviz for the Grand Jury instead. So basically, he was testifying about this screenshot. He said gave BT the screenshot of the map to give to AT before the hearing on Thursday.

However, without the AT&T source data file that generated the map, how can the map be checked for accuracy? If the AT&T source data file was loaded incorrectly, the resulting map would be completely wrong. So it is actually imperative to keep the (AT&T)source data file in order to double check the result and have proof that the result is actually based upon the (AT&T)source data and prove that the (AT&T) source data was loaded correctly.

Mowery said he did give the AT&T source data to BT who gave it to AT the day before the hearing. IMO, AT will give this AT&T source data to Sy Ray and Sy Ray's going to load it into CASTviz and see if he gets the same map result as Mowery or not. I am expecting we will hear about these results on May 30.

Mowery said he has 24 hours of training in CASTviz, but the FBI CAST team manual specifically states that 500 hours of training is necessary in order to be qualified to testify about cell analysis.

https://www.scribd.com/document/543142970/Cellular-Analysis-and-Geolocation-FBI-Guide

All JMO.

 

[twall]

Today is Maddie May Day! Share some kindness! Maddie May Day (@maddie.may.day) • Instagram photos and videos

 

[grannygates]

In regards to your question about why they couldn't give the CAST report created for the Grand Jury to the defense per discovery, from the hearing Thursday, Mowery stated that he knew that he could save his work in CASTviz but he didn't do that and at the time (preparing for the Grand Jury), he made a screenshot of the map he created in CASTviz for the Grand Jury instead. So basically, he was testifying about this screenshot. He said gave BT the screenshot of the map to give to AT before the hearing on Thursday.

However, without the AT&T source data file that generated the map, how can the map be checked for accuracy? If the AT&T source data file was loaded incorrectly, the resulting map would be completely wrong. So it is actually imperative to keep the (AT&T)source data file in order to double check the result and have proof that the result is actually based upon the (AT&T)source data and prove that the (AT&T) source data was loaded correctly.

Mowery said he did give the AT&T source data to BT who gave it to AT the day before the hearing. IMO, AT will give this AT&T source data to Sy Ray and Sy Ray's going to load it into CASTviz and see if he gets the same map result as Mowery or not. I am expecting we will hear about these results on May 30.

Mowery said he has 24 hours of training in CASTviz, but the FBI CAST team manual specifically states that 500 hours of training is necessary in order to be qualified to testify about cell analysis.

https://www.scribd.com/document/543142970/Cellular-Analysis-and-Geolocation-FBI-Guide

All JMO.

Thank you so much for that explanation !

 

[katydid23]

I believe BK was hiding his DNA and that LE took from the house what they needed.

It comes down to common sense, imo. He is not going to sit up in the middle of the night, placing his Mom and Dad's Kleenex and Q-tips into tiny zip-locs and separate them in different trash bins. That makes zero sense.

Separating HIS trash however, that does make sense, since LE was actively looking for his DNA at the time.

I'm not going to keep repeating it.

BK will be found guilty I am sure. I know it is hard for some to accept but DNA evidence is the most important evidence to juries and AT does not dispute this is BK's DNA.

2 Cents

Yes, yes and yes.

 

[katydid23]

The entire point of the DA's comment was to insinuate that BK was trying to conceal his DNA. But:

1. How would a police officer know that was only BK's personal trash just from looking at it?
Answer: He wouldn't.
2. If this was ONLY the trash with BK's DNA on it, now law enforcement cannot prove it because they didn't take and test the trash.
3. Without testing the trash, they cannot prove BK was trying to conceal his DNA by disposing of his trash separately.

Without proof and evidence in regards to the 3 above points, this story is absolute rubbish. The SWAT team did not wear body cams, so a jury would have no way to even see what BK was doing when they breached the Kohberger home. This story is not legally provable in any way shape or form.

It really does not matter, one way or another. In the whole scheme of things, it is just a tiny footnote. I am pretty sure one or two of the officers on scene will describe that zip-loc bag situation, in testimony, in passing. All they need to do is describe what they saw. No need for DNA tests to be done on the trash he was bagging up. Just a description of his actions are plenty. JMO

They have much bigger DNA tests to discuss with the jury, which will put this situation in context. It does not need to be 'proven' with any kind of DNA tests done on the rubbish in the bags. It does not even matter. What matters is his conduct and strange behaviour in terms of the trash he was bagging up. It just adds to the big DNA reveal---that of HIS DNA on the knife sheath.

 

[jepop]

I think Ashley Jennings was stellar in Thursday's hearing. Points made on cross succinctly and clearly with no fanfare. Hadn't heard much of her style and presentation before.Moo.

I know Mowery was out of order re witnesses the D has lined up, but it's clear to me at least and jmo from Thurs, the defense up to this juncture hasn't produced any evidence that demonstrates state deliberately/intentionally withheld discovery. Also I think it really wasn't clear if what AT was trying to get at would even fall into a category of being discoverable. jmo.

I trust JJJ to know the rules and understand how the testimony relates and when the time comes after May 30th to rule accordingly.

One other lay person's observation: Ashley Jennings and BT did not appear at all ruffled. AJ questioned Mowery in a relaxed manner whilst remaining seated. Moo

eta last sentence above.

 

[jepop]

MOO, I kind of feel like you’re putting the cart before the horse by accepting the Defense’s claim as factually true.

The Defense is alleging the State hasn’t complied with discovery requirements; the State maintains it has and will continue to comply with Idaho Criminal Rule 16 regarding discovery & inspection as well as other applicable law.

MOO, it’s impossible, at least at this point, to form an opinion on the validity of the Defense’s allegation(s) because so much is rightly-if-frustratingly (MOO) sealed.

There’s a dispute Judge Judge has been asked to resolve, which is the point of the hearing next Thursday morning, MOO. Testimony will be offered, the judge will examine the record, including the sealed records, exhibits, etc, and he will render a decision in due course. At least, that’s my IANAL understanding!

In any case, I’ve followed many criminal cases throughout my life, and these kind of pre-trial “disputes” & sparring are very common, MOO.

Indeed, I’m all for a vigorous criminal defense, which BK is certainly receiving, at least so far, MOO.

As always, all MOO.

This. Excellent point and I (obviously!) agree

 

[GRT]

IMO, given the first scenario with just an overflow of trash and a hope that the neighbors are away for Christmas and BK could innocuously stuff their garbage can with his garbage—-if I were a juror, this would not seem to me to be something which would offer me REASONABLE doubt about BK’s actions. With respect, it seems to me to be a long, long way around to normalize uncommon and suspicious behavior.

Particularly with the inclusion of the evidence we do know, as @schooling has summarized.

If I suffered from OCD, I think I’d also feel extra squeamish to touch a neighbor's garbage can.

JMO about something often discussed here for over a year.

For me, the trash thing is a non-starter. I wouldn't be surprised if the state doesn't even bring it up in court. It feels extraneous to the case.

But that's all MOO.

I think they'll focus heavily on the car, the timing, the phone pings, and, of course, the DNA on the sheath.