4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #94

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
No matter how many humans touched the knife, one and only one profile was found on the place that must be touched to activate the taking out of the knife (and putting it back in - but the fact that no knife has been found will leave the jury with a chilling picture of BK taking the knife out of the sheath in the room where two young women were murdered). The fact that the sheath was in/on the bed tells a story too - and again, only one person's DNA is on the use point.

My own personal opinion is that they would find considerably more BK DNA on the sheath if they did the consumptive testing, as DNA truly does persist. If in fact he used a bleach solution on it, they'd also find evidence of that. I bet he didn't - he didn't want to ruin his knife sheath. But that would be incriminating as well. More likely he used something like a wipe (maybe a Clorox wipe - which btw, contains no bleach even though of course it sounds as if it does). It still isn't designed to be used on leather, though.

All just my own conjecture.
RSBBM

If BK was wearing latex gloves and tried to open the snap, could the metal snap tear the latex?

JMO BK touched the snap (use point) at another time, previous to the murders. Again JMO but I don't believe BK touched the sheath (snap) with bare skin for the first time in KG & MMs' room on the night of the murders. JMO but hard to believe BK was not wearing gloves that night.

Also the discussion of BK wiping down the sheath... When do others think BK did this, if at all? Anytime I try to "replay" the possible sequence of events, I cannot make sense of it. Is this what they mean by "Organized/Disorganized"?? Some aspects appear to have been memorized and rehearsed whereas other aspects make it look like an entirely different person :confused: (also comparing to what I've read about LISK who seemingly had it almost down to a science). MOO.
 
From the last hearing AJ mentioned the D requesting the examination of additional DNA trace evidence.

3:12:04

AJ: The state has facilitated additional dna trace evidence to be examined at their request.


So they want trace DNA evidence left all over the house including the doors, etc.

This is so they can say that there were a myriad of people in that house.

No b
RSBBM

If BK was wearing latex gloves and tried to open the snap, could the metal snap tear the latex?

JMO BK touched the snap (use point) at another time, previous to the murders. Again JMO but I don't believe BK touched the sheath (snap) with bare skin for the first time in KG & MMs' room on the night of the murders. JMO but hard to believe BK was not wearing gloves that night.

Also the discussion of BK wiping down the sheath... When do others think BK did this, if at all? Anytime I try to "replay" the possible sequence of events, I cannot make sense of it. Is this what they mean by "Organized/Disorganized"?? Some aspects appear to have been memorized and rehearsed whereas other aspects make it look like an entirely different person :confused: (also comparing to what I've read about LISK who seemingly had it almost down to a science). MOO.

I think he did some things very well both before and after the murders (ORGANIZED):
1) Used alcohol or other cleaner to wipe of sheath and knife.
2) Disposed of the murder weapon itself as well as disposing of clothing he wore.
3) Continued to teach and attend classes as usual.
4) Covered his face during the murders and wore special clothing.
5) Cleaned the ever-living crap out of his car. No evidence left.
6) Apparently cleaned his apartment well before leaving for Christmas.
7) Did his car runs in the dead of night when 99% of people are asleep.
8) Knew how to get in the (presumably) sliding glass door.
9) Knew how to get up the steps in the dark to the first victim's room.



The things he did not do well (DISORGANIZED):
1) Not soaking the entire sheath in alcohol.
2) Not changing his license plate ahead of time to Washington where a plate is required front and back. This narrowed down the police search immensely.
3) Continuing to throw away evidence in a weird manner while not noticing he was under surveillance in PA.
4) Driving back to the scene of the crime the late morning after... probably wondering why it had not hit the news yet.
5) Going on line tracible and asking a survey from criminals how they got the courage/emotions to kill someone.
 
So they want trace DNA evidence left all over the house including the doors, etc.

This is so they can say that there were a myriad of people in that house.

No b


I think he did some things very well both before and after the murders (ORGANIZED):
1) Used alcohol or other cleaner to wipe of sheath and knife.
2) Disposed of the murder weapon itself as well as disposing of clothing he wore.
3) Continued to teach and attend classes as usual.
4) Covered his face during the murders and wore special clothing.
5) Cleaned the ever-living crap out of his car. No evidence left.
6) Apparently cleaned his apartment well before leaving for Christmas.
7) Did his car runs in the dead of night when 99% of people are asleep.
8) Knew how to get in the (presumably) sliding glass door.
9) Knew how to get up the steps in the dark to the first victim's room.



The things he did not do well (DISORGANIZED):
1) Not soaking the entire sheath in alcohol.
2) Not changing his license plate ahead of time to Washington where a plate is required front and back. This narrowed down the police search immensely.
3) Continuing to throw away evidence in a weird manner while not noticing he was under surveillance in PA.
4) Driving back to the scene of the crime the late morning after... probably wondering why it had not hit the news yet.
5) Going on line tracible and asking a survey from criminals how they got the courage/emotions to kill someone.

Very interesting post. I agree with most of what you say - and that he shows traits of both organized and disorganized.

However, I think putting alcohol on the sheath would have been highly incriminating, and it may not have destroyed skin cells down inside the snap mechanism. He ought to have made sure the sheath stayed on his belt. I figure he did not wear a belt and may have kept the sheath in a large pocket in some coveralls (ease of access).

Good catch on the license plate. He obviously thought of it too late.

I keep thinking that while he planned this crime (or some version of it) over time, he was relying on his own internal emotional states to trigger when he actually went into full on murderous action. I believe he was going out at night and peeping/stalking (probably back in PA too) and like many such perps, he kept escalating. He believed he could pull off the perfect crime, but all the errors you mention in that second list really show what an amateur he was. Over-confident and overly certain of himself (as described by his classmates).

We can also add that his behavior toward his chief mentor professor at WSU was described as "altercations" and he was undergoing behavioral review that ultimately led to his expulsion, even before he was arrested. A group of women students had complained about him and were worried enough about his behavior to start keeping book on him (having conversations, exchanging emails, talking to the prof about the issue).

I would imagine that this professor might also have contacted LE about BK - a major error on BK"s part (can't fly under the radar, keeps earning negative attention).

He may have "snapped" that weekend due to the notification about his conduct (I think it was that Saturday that he was discussed by faculty and the procedure initiated that ultimately resulted in terminating his position as a T.A.)

That would account for the messier aspects of an obsessively planned crime. IMO.
 
So they want trace DNA evidence left all over the house including the doors, etc.

This is so they can say that there were a myriad of people in that house.

No b
The forensic team does not sample everything, all over the house.
They are very deliberate in what they sample IMO
The location of these additional dna trace recoveries is unknown to us.
Any unknown recovered dna is important.
JMO
 
The forensic team does not sample everything, all over the house.
They are very deliberate in what they sample IMO
The location of these additional dna trace recoveries is unknown to us.
Any unknown recovered dna is important.
JMO

I agree but they definitely would have sampled the means of entry (sliding glass door handle) etc and there will be many people's DNA on there.
 
I agree but they definitely would have sampled the means of entry (sliding glass door handle) etc and there will be many people's DNA on there.
True.
I also recall a photo of them sampling a print on the kitchen window, outside. From the press photo thread:1718222861324.png

Two of the unknown male dna recoveries JL referred to back in June were inside the house. Not sure if these additional trace samples AJ mentioned last hearing are the same he referred to in the objection to the protective order.

Page 2


IMO it is good that they were examined. Hopefully they will be able to identify who left them.


JMO
 
So they want trace DNA evidence left all over the house including the doors, etc.

This is so they can say that there were a myriad of people in that house.

No b


I think he did some things very well both before and after the murders (ORGANIZED):
1) Used alcohol or other cleaner to wipe of sheath and knife.
2) Disposed of the murder weapon itself as well as disposing of clothing he wore.
3) Continued to teach and attend classes as usual.
4) Covered his face during the murders and wore special clothing.
5) Cleaned the ever-living crap out of his car. No evidence left.
6) Apparently cleaned his apartment well before leaving for Christmas.
7) Did his car runs in the dead of night when 99% of people are asleep.
8) Knew how to get in the (presumably) sliding glass door.
9) Knew how to get up the steps in the dark to the first victim's room.



The things he did not do well (DISORGANIZED):
1) Not soaking the entire sheath in alcohol.
2) Not changing his license plate ahead of time to Washington where a plate is required front and back. This narrowed down the police search immensely.
3) Continuing to throw away evidence in a weird manner while not noticing he was under surveillance in PA.
4) Driving back to the scene of the crime the late morning after... probably wondering why it had not hit the news yet.
5) Going on line tracible and asking a survey from criminals how they got the courage/emotions to kill someone.
Do you think by the time this gets close to trial, and evidence becomes more clear, that BK will be so humiliated by his utter failure that he pleads Guilty to avoid public humiliation at trial.
(Sorry if this sounds crazy, but IMO he is going to be embarrassed by his mistakes which are in conflict with his smug smartest-killer idea of himself. )
 
I agree but they definitely would have sampled the means of entry (sliding glass door handle) etc and there will be many people's DNA on there.
Referencing recent Michelle Troconis conspiracy to commit murder, evidence tampering etc in CT, Guilty verdict.

There were dozens and dozens of DNA samples that yielded nothing. Days & days of this evidence in detail. Many many samples of “blood like substance”, with no dna.

There were only the tiniest touch DNA that matched Troconis on a plastic bag, the smallest testable amount, her lawyer spent days arguing about DNA just flying around in breath could go anywhere, amount of dna so small it can’t be trusted etc etc. The defense could not make that DNA go away, jury knew it was there and that meant she touched that plastic bag,

The days of DNA bamboozling a jury are long gone. That dna on the sheath is going to be very strong evidence, nothing defense can do to make it go away.
 
Do you think by the time this gets close to trial, and evidence becomes more clear, that BK will be so humiliated by his utter failure that he pleads Guilty to avoid public humiliation at trial.
(Sorry if this sounds crazy, but IMO he is going to be embarrassed by his mistakes which are in conflict with his smug smartest-killer idea of himself. )

When a defendant pleads guilty they must do it in front of the judge and the public, this would be more humiliating than a guilty verdict because if BK is found guilty he can keep saying things like. ...

"The jurors got it wrong" "The jurors don't understand the evidence " "I'm smarter than the jurors."
ETC ....

Also, he would have to have an entire separate hearing for sentencing and there would be a ton of victim impact statements.

I think the chances of him getting up in front of the world and admitting he is a murderer are ZERO.
I think the chance of him putting himself in the position to hear victim impact statements are ZERO.

2 Cents
 
Agreed, it's mass production, they sell these types of knives on Amazon. I would not be concerned about DNA from workers associated with the production process. The larger concern for me is whether BK's DNA is in fact the only DNA on that sheath. That is a really interesting question where the D could actually get some traction, MOO. And I have to admit I've always assumed there's no other DNA other than BK's on it because I would think the D would be doing a lot more with that information by now. Is that question being considered-- other DNA besides BK's on the sheath excluding the workers? Or am I misunderstanding?

JMO, the fact that there's no DNA from the production process would not in any way alarm me unless it becomes a definite that these are hand-stitched products, and maybe not even then.
My question is if there should be DNA from the production process or packaging process on the sheath. I would think that it should be and, in fact, would have to be. And I would also think that whoever sold the sheath, probably inspected the item when it arrived. With leather goods, there can be problems that make the product unsellable - for example, leather that was not tanned correctly and stinks or is damaged somehow. AND the person who received the sheath might have put it on display with the knife outside of the box. Customers could have asked to see the sheath and knife and been handed these objects. Store cleaning people may have dusted it. It seems to me there is an endless variety of ways that other people's DNA could have gotten onto the sheath. So I'm having real trouble believing there was only 1 person's DNA on it.
 
Yet, the Defense is going after something similar. I've read a lot for and against touch DNA.

Just to play devil's advocate (because I do think BK is the killer), what would happen if BK looked at the knife in a store and opened the sheath (leaving touch DNA on the snap) and then put it back; then someone else comes along, buys the knife but doesn't open it until he has gloves on and --just to be safe -- wipes down the entire sheath to remove any errant DNA?

That's the sort of scenario I think we'll see the Defense argue.

Keep in mind that convictions based on touch DNA, such as the Amanda Knox case, have been overturned later.
OK, so let's say that's what happened, hypothetically....BK randomly left his DNA on a knife sheath in a random store one day. Then, randomly, a violent killer buys that same knife, and uses gloves etc etc...

It seems like a very unlucky coincidence for BK, that during the investigation they discover that on the night of the home invasion, BK was driving around in the same area for hours in the middle of the night, with his phone off during the key times. And even more of a coincidence, A white Elantra with no front plate, just like BK's, was seen parking by the house right before the murders, and leaving quickly immediately after.

And the surviving witness, who saw the killer leaving, describes someone who does fit BK's description.

One would think that IF someone randomly left their DNA on a weapon, in a store, and that same weapon was then used in a quadruple murder sometime later, it would be an extremely rare coincidence that all of the other suspicious circumstances would also fall into place like that.

I'd think if a random stranger left their DNA on a knife in a store and another random stranger used that knife in a murder later on, there'd be NO nexus between the first person and that crime. They'd be in a different location that night, with a valid alibi, clearing themself quickly. They wouldn't drive a car exactly like the one seen leaving the crime scene and they wouldn't fit the suspect's description.
 
My question is if there should be DNA from the production process or packaging process on the sheath. I would think that it should be and, in fact, would have to be. And I would also think that whoever sold the sheath, probably inspected the item when it arrived. With leather goods, there can be problems that make the product unsellable - for example, leather that was not tanned correctly and stinks or is damaged somehow. AND the person who received the sheath might have put it on display with the knife outside of the box. Customers could have asked to see the sheath and knife and been handed these objects. Store cleaning people may have dusted it. It seems to me there is an endless variety of ways that other people's DNA could have gotten onto the sheath. So I'm having real trouble believing there was only 1 person's DNA on it.
"So I'm having real trouble believing there was only 1 person's DNA on it."

Unless of course, someone with an advanced degree in criminology was planning to use the knife and the sheath in a home invasion. If that were the case, the criminology expert would most likely have thoroughly cleaned the sheath with substances that would destroy any lingering DNA. But that one tiny place, tucked under the snap, was not successfully cleansed apparently?
 
I wonder.... if any of the abnormalities with BK's cellphone data can be explained by a faraday bag. Guess what else Amazon sells.

Jmo


3 Ways to Block Your Phone From Being Tracked (2022) - Privacy Pros​


Can a phone be tracked in a Faraday bag?


A Faraday bag is a cell phone signal blocking bag that prevents any kind of radio waves that your cell phone is built to receive from entering the bag, keeping your phone safe from tracking methods like those I described above. Whenever you need your phone, you can take it out of the bag and use it normally.

====================================

OK, but if you " take it out of the bag and use it normally" then you can instantly be tracked. So it isn't the perfect answer to the problem.

But he might have used one for much of that night. He certainly knew about them, being a criminology expert, etc.
 
"So I'm having real trouble believing there was only 1 person's DNA on it."

Unless of course, someone with an advanced degree in criminology was planning to use the knife and the sheath in a home invasion. If that were the case, the criminology expert would most likely have thoroughly cleaned the sheath with substances that would destroy any lingering DNA. But that one tiny place, tucked under the snap, was not successfully cleansed apparently?

No DNA or not enough for a profile?

Evidence of cleaning is circumstantial evidence. That someone cleaned up a crime scene to cover their tracks has been used by the prosecution in many cases as circumstantial evidence.

Sheath appears to have been cleaned by Kohberger covering his tracks, same for his car. The defense themselves admit it is surprising how clean his car is.

Very suspicious - Circumstantial evidence. This Kohberger case is full of Circumstantial evidence.

2 Cents

Circumstantial evidence simply helps people draw inferences about a fact, or the events that took place. This type of evidence is, on its own, considered to be weak or ineffective, so it is used in conjunction with direct evidence in both criminal and civil cases. Whether or not the judge or jury makes the intended inference has a major impact on the outcome of the case.

There are popular misconceptions surrounding the validity of circumstantial evidence, as many people believe it is not as convincing as direct evidence. In reality, circumstantial evidence is an important tool used by prosecutors to convict people. Circumstantial evidence, which can be derived from a variety of sources, can be used to lay a foundation of belief, and backed up by witness testimony and direct evidence for credibility.


 
That is odd. Being hand-stitched, you'd think there would at least be some DNA traces caught in the seams. And, leather is skin.
They probably didn't look for any DNA deep in the seams. The snap is where the user of the weapon would touch, so it's the logical place to check for DNA.

They don't care who sewed the seams together.
 
My question is if there should be DNA from the production process or packaging process on the sheath. I would think that it should be and, in fact, would have to be. And I would also think that whoever sold the sheath, probably inspected the item when it arrived. With leather goods, there can be problems that make the product unsellable - for example, leather that was not tanned correctly and stinks or is damaged somehow. AND the person who received the sheath might have put it on display with the knife outside of the box. Customers could have asked to see the sheath and knife and been handed these objects. Store cleaning people may have dusted it. It seems to me there is an endless variety of ways that other people's DNA could have gotten onto the sheath. So I'm having real trouble believing there was only 1 person's DNA on it.

Manufacturing by machines not by hand, workers wear gloves, stocking boxes in stores because merchandise is packaged not loose.

Or

Circumstantial Evidence that he cleaned it. This is an inference I would make on a jury.

2 Cents.
 
RSBM

Good point. I guess I just took "single source" to mean that was it.

But, maybe that isn't what it actually means.
No, the 'single source male DNA' found on the snap only refers to what was found when they tested the snap.

If they tore the seam opened and searched there, they'd possibly find the DNA from the person who sewed the seams shut. But why do that?

Testing the snap was perfect and most logical because it showed who was opening and closing the sheath, in order to use the murder weapon.
 
My question is if there should be DNA from the production process or packaging process on the sheath. I would think that it should be and, in fact, would have to be. And I would also think that whoever sold the sheath, probably inspected the item when it arrived. With leather goods, there can be problems that make the product unsellable - for example, leather that was not tanned correctly and stinks or is damaged somehow. AND the person who received the sheath might have put it on display with the knife outside of the box. Customers could have asked to see the sheath and knife and been handed these objects. Store cleaning people may have dusted it. It seems to me there is an endless variety of ways that other people's DNA could have gotten onto the sheath. So I'm having real trouble believing there was only 1 person's DNA on it.
<modsnip - personalizing> I get leather items missing snaps, missing stitching, missing the item that goes with it, you name it, it happens. Especially if you shop online, things come prepackaged in boxes, bags, shrink wrapped in plastic. It comes off the truck, goes on a shelf, then from the shelf goes into a box and off to the customer. At hunting shops, there is often ONE display and completely packaged items in the back that get pulled for the customer. There is a reason that things are marked as Open Box or Display. Was there DNA on the packaging? Most likely, but that's not around anymore.

Is there other DNA on the sheath? Maybe, maybe not. If the killer cleaned it several times before using it, maybe not. If the killer didn't realize that the snap had a roughish spot and scraped some surface off their skin then only killer DNA makes total sense. And have I missed where they have presented everything that they have in this case? Because I think there is a lot we are going to be seeing that no one has leaked. JMO.

But what I want to know is why bring the sheath? Why bring the knife? Why not just use a kitchen knife? The knife meant something. Was the sheath the old style (with a stamped emblem and USMC) or one of the new style (Laser etched). Standard? Stained? Custom? Did it have the victim's blood on it? (So someone else's DNA....). Lots to speculate on for the sheath.

I don't believe they put all their eggs in a single DNA match basket. JMO.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Respectfully, we don't know if the sheath actually housed the actual murder weapon either. For that matter we don't even know if it really was a kbar knife that was used in the crime either.
Well, the empty knife sheath was found wedged below the body of a victim who was stabbed to death. It would be very hard to conclude it was NOT the sheath used by the murderer to house the weapon.

How else did it get there?

By now, investigators probably know if it was a Kbar used or not. IMO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
90
Guests online
2,311
Total visitors
2,401

Forum statistics

Threads
600,476
Messages
18,109,169
Members
230,991
Latest member
Clue Keeper
Back
Top