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.
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.
We know very little about the evidence after the arrest since everything has been under seal, but law enforcement did say early in the investigation, but after the report from the medical examiner/coroner, they believed this was the type of weapon used.


Amid the ongoing investigation into the death of four University of Idaho students, there have been reports of police searching for a specific knife that could have been used.
"There has been much conversation about the terminology used to describe the weapon," the Moscow Police Department said in an update on Tuesday night. "The type of knife though to be used in the attacks is believed to be a fixed-blade knife. Detectives continue to look for the weapon."

The update comes just a few days after the Idaho Statesman reported that the manager of the Moscow Building Supply store said investigators visited his location several times asking if anyone had recently purchased a Ka-Bar brand knife.
 
Also, just asking, isn't there anyone else out there that snaps and unsnaps snaps in that mindless kind of way? Waiting for something, need to fidget, loosening the snap so it snaps easier, something? Most sheaths with snaps come with the snap unsnapped so the item will ship nicely and not put a fold in the leather where you don't want one. First thing a person who gets this should do is snap the snap and make sure it doesn't pull out or break off (so you can return it if needed) and that is easiest done without the knife in it. And sometime easiest done with a rock where the knife handle should be if you have one of THOSE snaps and don't want to ruin your handle or hands. So very many ways to leave your DNA on a snap that the manufacturer may never have even touched at all. As a child, I was known to use my teeth to get one apart. (Yes, terrible idea, but it did work).
 
...The update comes just a few days after the Idaho Statesman reported that the manager of the Moscow Building Supply store said investigators visited his location several times asking if anyone had recently purchased a Ka-Bar brand knife.
RSBM and BBM. I have always wondered if the terminology is exact. Suppose the investigators came by asking if anyone had recently purchased a K-Bar STYLE knife. And it was interpreted as "brand". I've seen that more often that I can count, one word used, but interpreted as another.

I am very much waiting to see the actual evidence. All of it.
 
The sheath had Ka-Bar stamped on it, so I'm guessing between that and the wounds they believed it was a Ka-Bar, but in the article they just say they were looking for a fixed-blade knife. The wounds match a weapon that fits in a sheath found under one of the victims--too much of a coincidence that these two items aren't part of the crime, whether it's a Ka-Bar brand or not.
JMO
 
It was not snowing in Moscow that night. It was cold but clear with no precipitation. Doordash texts you to let you know food(or whatever) was delivered - usually just before they drive away.
My DD app sends us a '5 minute away ' notification, which is pretty accurate. You will know they are about to drop off the order and sometimes I grab it while the driver is still in the front yard.
 
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.
Agree. The IE method of using alternative terms or terms from another application and intentionally questioning an associate about specifics, instead of the expert who could answer will be less effective than they once were.
 
So... It's been almost two weeks since the last hearings and JJJ has only addressed the IGG portion of what was discussed.
Does this mean he isn't going to do anything about the defense's other requests for discovery related to video and phone data?
I like JJJ but he has really appeared to struggle with understanding tech-related things like what a cast report is. Perhaps he doesn't understand the requests and is still trying to figure them out? Or should we assume that his silence is a "no"?
 
My DD app sends us a '5 minute away ' notification, which is pretty accurate. You will know they are about to drop off the order and sometimes I grab it while the driver is still in the front yard.
Yes, I know. I use DD frequently. My point was XK or EC didn't have to answer the door to the dasher and receive the bag from that person directly. It would be left at the door.
 
So... It's been almost two weeks since the last hearings and JJJ has only addressed the IGG portion of what was discussed.
Does this mean he isn't going to do anything about the defense's other requests for discovery related to video and phone data?
I like JJJ but he has really appeared to struggle with understanding tech-related things like what a cast report is. Perhaps he doesn't understand the requests and is still trying to figure them out? Or should we assume that his silence is a "no"?
MOO, until the Judge rules otherwise, the State has complied & will continue to comply.

From watching/attending the previous hearings, it seems to me the Motions to Compel are kind of basically a way for the Defense to get a record of things they've asked for and to track progress. They're difficult to follow, at least for me, because we're (mostly) hearing about numbers rather than specifics in the open hearings due almost everything being sealed, but the Defense starts going through a numbered list & says (I'm paraphrasing) we've received items 302-311, 319, 339 and are still waiting for X, Y, Z. The State then responds & there's often discussion that might sometimes give a bit of a clue about what an item might be.

So, MOO, at this point, it seems to me all involved (State, Defense, Judge) are recognizing that discovery is an ongoing process. At this point, MOO, the lack ruling on any of the Motions to Compel indicates the Defense hasn't presented anything establishing the State has failed to comply with its discovery obligations under ICR 16 and any other applicable laws.

But, an important record is being established by the Defense, MOO, leaving it open for the Judge to make a ruling if/when he finds the Defense has established there's sufficient evidence that the State isn't complying with its discovery obligations.

As always, all of the above is MOO.
 
MOO, until the Judge rules otherwise, the State has complied & will continue to comply.

From watching/attending the previous hearings, it seems to me the Motions to Compel are kind of basically a way for the Defense to get a record of things they've asked for and to track progress. They're difficult to follow, at least for me, because we're (mostly) hearing about numbers rather than specifics in the open hearings due almost everything being sealed, but the Defense starts going through a numbered list & says (I'm paraphrasing) we've received items 302-311, 319, 339 and are still waiting for X, Y, Z. The State then responds & there's often discussion that might sometimes give a bit of a clue about what an item might be.

So, MOO, at this point, it seems to me all involved (State, Defense, Judge) are recognizing that discovery is an ongoing process. At this point, MOO, the lack ruling on any of the Motions to Compel indicates the Defense hasn't presented anything establishing the State has failed to comply with its discovery obligations under ICR 16 and any other applicable laws.

But, an important record is being established by the Defense, MOO, leaving it open for the Judge to make a ruling if/when he finds the Defense has established there's sufficient evidence that the State isn't complying with its discovery obligations.

As always, all of the above is MOO.

Yes!

Discovery is an ongoing process and so is the investigation.

The timeline has been set despite uninformed people claiming that no one saw Xanax so she died sooner and the victims' online postings aren't accurate to establish time. Misinformation.

And the sheath being cleaned is strong circumstantial evidence for the jury that BK was cleaning up to cover his tracks like most deranged killers do.

2 Cents
 
Last edited:
think the chance of him putting himself in the position to hear victim impact statements are ZERO.

RSBM.
If he's found guilty, he'll have to hear victim impact statements, but I don't think he will feel bad hearing them. IMO he won't feel remorse or truly understand what they are saying....like most murderers, I suppose.
 
RSBM.
If he's found guilty, he'll have to hear victim impact statements, but I don't think he will feel bad hearing them. IMO he won't feel remorse or truly understand what they are saying....like most murderers, I suppose.

He would actually have a chance to speak. Defendants have to be allowed to speak before sentencing.

I recently read where sentencing had to be done over again because a defendant did not get to speak at his sentencing.

The judge would ask BK if he wants to speak. Of course no defendant has to speak.

However, this would be his big moment and he could get his own words out on social media then enjoy the ruckus it would cause.

Regarding victim impact statements, if BK planned to speak I believe he would plan over and over what he would say for the world to hear. I think it would be planned as opposed to a last minute decision.

My thoughts are that he would say he is sorry for their loss but that he did not do it. I do not believe he would take responsibility.

In fact, he would likely be planning what to say in his appeal.

2 Cents
 
Right. And my point was that she COULD have opened the door to grab it and be seen by the driver. We don't know.
I agree. We also don't know who got the DD bag OR even IF anyone brought the DD bag inside that night. We also don't know who ordered the DD or if that bag in the kitchen was THE DD bag from that night. Many different scenarios are possible, but we won't know until the trial what happened.
 
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.
It would be neither unusual nor unexpected that DNA could be transferred from something BK touched by some unknown person onto the snap of the sheath.

"Four Indianapolis scientists recently questioned the reliability of the modern day high-sensitivity forensic lab technologies used by law enforcement to identify suspects via DNA. They explained that even though current technologies utilized by forensic laboratories are now reading DNA profiles from low-template and low-quality samples, they have "not been systematically investigated." The scientists published their findings in 2016, in the Journal of Forensic Science, under the heading: Could Secondary DNA Transfer Falsely Place Someone at the Scene of a Crime? Their answer was an unequivocal yes. Touch-transfer DNA "could falsely link someone to a crime" and forensic scientists relying on modern high-sensitivity equipment could "falsely conclude that DNA left on an object is a result of direct contact." Their findings revealed that it is impossible for scientists to determine whether the tiny bits of DNA came into contact with evidence from a direct source or via secondary source. And, that no matter how much they tried to sanitize their experiment, unknown third-party DNA was nonetheless able to make its way into the results, highlighting the plausibility of cross-contamination with touch-transfer DNA. "

 
It would be neither unusual nor unexpected that DNA could be transferred from something BK touched by some unknown person onto the snap of the sheath.

"Four Indianapolis scientists recently questioned the reliability of the modern day high-sensitivity forensic lab technologies used by law enforcement to identify suspects via DNA. They explained that even though current technologies utilized by forensic laboratories are now reading DNA profiles from low-template and low-quality samples, they have "not been systematically investigated." The scientists published their findings in 2016, in the Journal of Forensic Science, under the heading: Could Secondary DNA Transfer Falsely Place Someone at the Scene of a Crime? Their answer was an unequivocal yes. Touch-transfer DNA "could falsely link someone to a crime" and forensic scientists relying on modern high-sensitivity equipment could "falsely conclude that DNA left on an object is a result of direct contact." Their findings revealed that it is impossible for scientists to determine whether the tiny bits of DNA came into contact with evidence from a direct source or via secondary source. And, that no matter how much they tried to sanitize their experiment, unknown third-party DNA was nonetheless able to make its way into the results, highlighting the plausibility of cross-contamination with touch-transfer DNA. "

There was no "DNA transfer" though. It was epithelial cells. On a use point.
 
It would be neither unusual nor unexpected that DNA could be transferred from something BK touched by some unknown person onto the snap of the sheath.

"Four Indianapolis scientists recently questioned the reliability of the modern day high-sensitivity forensic lab technologies used by law enforcement to identify suspects via DNA. They explained that even though current technologies utilized by forensic laboratories are now reading DNA profiles from low-template and low-quality samples, they have "not been systematically investigated." The scientists published their findings in 2016, in the Journal of Forensic Science, under the heading: Could Secondary DNA Transfer Falsely Place Someone at the Scene of a Crime? Their answer was an unequivocal yes. Touch-transfer DNA "could falsely link someone to a crime" and forensic scientists relying on modern high-sensitivity equipment could "falsely conclude that DNA left on an object is a result of direct contact." Their findings revealed that it is impossible for scientists to determine whether the tiny bits of DNA came into contact with evidence from a direct source or via secondary source. And, that no matter how much they tried to sanitize their experiment, unknown third-party DNA was nonetheless able to make its way into the results, highlighting the plausibility of cross-contamination with touch-transfer DNA. "

This link was published in 2018. Have you found a more "modern day high-sensitivity forensic lab technologies" publication that's less than SIX years old? And further, these findings are from 2016 and prior: "The scientists published their findings in 2016, in the Journal of Forensic Science". I also remember SINGLE SOURCE. IMO, this is outdated technology.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
147
Guests online
1,380
Total visitors
1,527

Forum statistics

Threads
599,277
Messages
18,093,676
Members
230,837
Latest member
StuartGotz
Back
Top