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.
The public and media doesn’t need to see it but the defense team should. This is the way they found the suspect so the process should be absolutely transparent to avoid any argument to validity.

It’s only fair that the defense should see everything regarding the methods behind the search, the search log, input information, all of the results. The defense should be allowed to see every single person in the database that came back as a possible or close match to the DNA, as the prosecution has that information as well and we want a fair trial.
Then the defense can hire their own IGG experts and see if its is possible to get to the K family with the profiles on GED MATCH, that are approved.
 
I agree with you here. The defense should be able to scrutinize all of the IGG information. BK has family members who live in the Western United States.

In addition, there is another possibility that needs to be ruled out. I came across this fascinating article about Dopplegangers - people who are unrelated but identical in appearance AND shared many genetic variants.

"The team found that people who look very similar are also very similar genetically, says Esteller. Comparing the 16 pairs of true look-alikes with 16 other pairs photographed by Brunelle that hadn’t been scored as look-alikes by all three algorithms, the researchers found that true look-alikes shared more genetic variants with each other than did the 16 less similar pairs. However, the true look-alike pairs differed when it came to patterns of gene expression and bacterial communities. “The differences we see between look-alikes are more due to the epigenetics and the microbiome,” he says."

"“The elegant experiment described in the paper . . . shows that look-alike individuals share more genetic variants than randomly-selected individuals.”"


Is there the possibility that there is someone out there who is genetically similar to BK, either a family member or a Doppelgänger? There's no way to know without the IGG being completely and totally scrutinized.
Let me tell you, that Doppleganger thing-- it's a real thing. Many years ago when I was in college, several people came up to me out of the blue asking me questions that made no sense, noting I'd lost a great deal of weight and I looked so much better, etc. I had no idea who these people were. It was like something out of a comedy movie.

Some time later, I enrolled in a class where there was a girl also enrolled in that same class that looked so much like me, we could have been identical twins. I'd never seen her before, she did not have the same last surname as me, she did not have the same last surname as my mother. I've never seen her before or after the class, I have no idea who she is. I have pretty distinctive facial features, so it was quite strange.

But I was the "spitting image" of her, so to speak.
 
Or the prosecution could fully participate in discovery as the law requires and have the actual evidence prove the search was lawful.
The 'law requires' whatever the court decides in the upcoming rulings.

The P has given them the required Discovery concerning the IGG. But the D is pushing the envelope and asking for more than has EVER been given before in prior cases.

There is nothing to indicate the search was illegal. The D is just fishing to see if they can find anything. They haven't so far but are hoping to find something, anything, if they keep pushing. IMO
 
My understanding of the IGG/DNA situation is that the FBI used the IGG database to match with BK prior to the LE being able to identify him using the video/cell data. So from that IGG identification, LE worked backwards to find the evidence that puts BK at the crime scene.

Why this is important (to me) that the IGG was done legally is because of “fruit of the poisonous tree”. My own concerns are that if it is not done legally, it could affect their ability to use that IGG result and in turn, lose all the further evidence they were able to get because of that result.

However, there’s always “inevitable discovery” so I won’t opine which way the court would favour if they did find issue with IGG result. I am just sharing my own opinion and concern.
State's motion for protective order is really worth a read in terms of explaining IGG.jmo.

Imo BK was on the radar from Nov28th/29th as per pca. He was a POI (and not the only one at that time moo). My speculation is that the IGG derived tip fbi investigators forwarded to LE investigators confirmed they were on the right path re this particular POI. I think @10ofRods explains that the IGG process does not result in direct matches; doesn't work that way cos it utilises an snp profile of suspect sample from sheath and all that, not the same as str 'profile' that can be plugged into CODIS for eg. Motion for Protective order and a follow up response really do explain it clearly imo.

Re timing of fbi tip, my current guess is some time in 3rd week of December, maybe around 20th. A guess. AT&T phone warrant was then sought on 23rd DEc and returned same day and BK's cell phone location data was then linked to early am pullman video of elantra already in LE's possession and already suspected to be BK's vehicle. On top of this LE were surprised imo to find BK's phone moving 20 mins south of the crime scene at 4.48 am and all the rest (phone disconnecting for two hours surrounding murders, at least 12 x prior in close vicinity to 1122 King road, phone travelling to Moscow and back later same morning). All moo

Initial Motion for protective order June 16 2023 explains IGG per state

Additional Reply by state July 22nd has additional great explanantion re IGG vs str dna matching jmo

Ditto

Judge's Order Oct 25th in favor of defense (there was also a hearing between July and this order where D presented IGG witnesses)

States' timely compliance with Judge's order Nov 30th

Judge's order for disclosure of IGG material to defense 11th Jan 2024

"On November 30, 2023, the State submitted to the Court, in camera, all IGG information
pertaining to the State’s investigation fi‘om both the FBI and a private laboratory. The Court has now
completed its review of the information provided by the State and orders the State to discover to the
defense a portion of the IGG information. The specific material to be provided is set forth in a sealed
order to protect the privacy of the IGG information, including individuals on the family tree.
DATED this 11‘“ day of January 2024."


Sorry about the layout above. I can't master screen shots of these docs for some reason.
 
Or the prosecution could fully participate in discovery as the law requires and have the actual evidence prove the search was lawful.
We've had threads upon threads of discussion about the IGG and I don't want to bore everyone by going through it all again, but if you're interested in this kind of thing, it might be worth a read to you.

Genetic genealogy usually starts with a few matches--you would be lucky to have a second cousin, they are usually more distant than that--but the bulk of the work is done using public databases and social media.

The IGG was reportedly done by Othram, which is 100% opt-in for law enforcement. If you provide your profile, you are opting in. The Idaho Statesman reported on payments that were made to Othram in the relevant timeframe to support this.

The dna is everything and the defense knows this. They were looking for any violations of terms of service of the genetic genealogy sites like GEDcom to get it thrown out. Violating terms of service is not the same as breaking the law. The FBI considers IGG an investigative technique and they were resisting turning over everything the defense asked for that they felt fell under investigative techniques. It wasn't the prosecution refusing. This was a case of the FBI claiming IGG is an investigative technique and not subject to discovery.
 
Let me tell you, that Doppleganger thing-- it's a real thing. Many years ago when I was in college, several people came up to me out of the blue asking me questions that made no sense, noting I'd lost a great deal of weight and I looked so much better, etc. I had no idea who these people were. It was like something out of a comedy movie.

Some time later, I enrolled in a class where there was a girl also enrolled in that same class that looked so much like me, we could have been identical twins. I'd never seen her before, she did not have the same last surname as me, she did not have the same last surname as my mother. I've never seen her before or after the class, I have no idea who she is. I have pretty distinctive facial features, so it was quite strange.

But I was the "spitting image" of her, so to speak.
Did you get a dna test done to see if you shared identicle dna too?

eta and did you both drive the same make and model of vehicle?
:)
 
Do you have a source of this comparison? Are you indicating that the types of evidence the defense is requesting is unprecedented in the history of all court cases ?
Yes, according to what I've read, the state has never been required to try to name every single person which filtered through the database while it was processed. ... and it is impossible to hand over anyway because it is a split second function of the computer analysis---not a conscious step by step process by a human analyst.

Here is the info within the Court Order addressing IGG :


ORDER ADDRESSING IGG DNA AND ORDER FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW
...snipped...

The State now seeks a protective order for “information related to the use of IGG in this
case.” Mot. for Protective Order at 6-7. Specifically, the State wishes to protect and not disclose to
the defense the following:
l. The raw data related to the SNP profile and the underlying laboratory documentation related to the development of the profile, such as chain of custody forms, laboratory standard operating procedures analyst notes, etc.
2. All information related to IGG efforts in creating a family tree and identifying Defendant’s potential relatives, including the identities of the genetic genealogy service(s) and the personally identifying information of Defendant’s relatives.
Id. at 7-8

While the FBI no longer has access to View much of the information it used to create the
family tree, the State acknowledges that the FBI does possess “the family tree itself, notes jotted down by FBI agents as they constructed the family tree, and any records created to document the
removal of the SNP profile from the genetic genealogy service(s) pursuant to the DOJ Policy.”2 Mot. for Protective Order at 6. The State has represented that it has already disclosed the suspect SNP profile to the defense. Reply in Supp. of Mot. for Protective Order at 2.

...snipped....

1 At oral argument on August l8, 2023, the Court asked the State directly if any information obtained from the SNP profile, the use of IGG, or the family tree created was used to obtain any warrant in the case. The State represented that it was not. The Court has confirmed that nothing about the use of IGG or a family tree was used in the affidavit to obtain the arrest warrant for Kohberger or in the affidavit to obtain the search warrant for Kohberger’s DNA.



Ok, HERE is the list of what AT wants the P to give them:

The defense opposes the State’s Motion for Protective Order, and on June 22, 2023, filed Defendant’s Third Motion to Compel Discovery. A portion of that Motion to Compel asks that the State be required to turn over the following information related to the use of IGG:
  1. All reports generated by any lab that conducted SNP testing on any sample in this case, including from samples where “unknown” males, not the defendant, were identified.
  2. Copies of all communications between laboratory personnel and any other person or organization, with regard to the instant case, including letters, memos, emails, intemet posts, press releases, and records of other communications
    (including communications with regard to any DNA profile uploaded to any public or private DNA database).

3. All documentation associated with any database search, including, but not limited to, CODIS, NDIS, GEDMatch, Family Tree DNA, and/or felon databases, case sample databases, missing persons databases, and internal quality assurance databases. The documentation should include, but is not limited to, the input profile, the input search parameters, the search output, all reports, allcorrespondence, and any follow-up actions.

4. Add documents related to any genetic genealogy search, including, but not limited to, the creation of a user profile(s), account(s) information, automated search results, uploading of data, all queries and search results from any private or public databank(s), family tree information, and all other documents, reports, notes or other communications pertaining to genealogy DNA database searches.

5. All documents related to any genetic genealogy investigations, including but not limited to additional collection and/or testing of DNA samples, notes of any interviews, documents obtained related to ancestry, and/or recommendation for
further testing.


6. All documents related to comparison of any DNA samples collected during the genealogy investigation to crime scene evidence.

7. The name and address of all persons found to have sufficient sharing centimorgams with the “subject” profile to be identified as a match in the report created in this case.

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

I think this is a ridiculously long and involved list of documentation that AT is asking for. It is not the usual info which is given to the court concerning an IGG case.



CASE LAW
The state replies with a very well set forth legal opinion of why it is unnecessary, according to prior legal court opinions.
You can read them at the same link---

one example:
State v. Bortree, 170 Ohio St. 3d 310, 212 N.E.3d 874
(2022).
The Court of Appeals concluded that:
In this case the trial court found that the evidence did not establish any illegal
activity by engaging in forensic genetic genealogy research, and the research did not, in fact, yield any substantive evidence that Bortree had engaged in any criminal activity. Rather, ‘t merely narrowed the focus of law enforcement.’ We agree with the trial court's conclusion that the research merely narrowed the focus of law enforcement, and consequently we can find no error with the trial court's determination to allow the testimony related to forensic genetic genealogy in this matter.

4. State v. Hartman
The Court ofAppeals ofWashington recently addressed whether a defendant had standing to challenge the DNA comparison of DNA collected at a crime scene with DNA in the GEDmatch database (i.e., the “analysis of the GEDmatch database”). State v. Hartman, 534 P.3d 423, 432 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).

The trial court found that Hartman “did not have standing to challenge the analysis of his relative’s DNA profile, which his relatives volunteered to have analyzed and posted on an open— source, unrestricted website.

The court concluded that Hartman did not have dominion or control over the item seized (his relative’s raw data DNA) nor the public database where the DNA profiles were compared (GEDmatch). Hartman had no authority to exclude others from accessing his relatives’ DNA profiles on GEDmatch.” Id. at 430 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Further, the court found that “Hartman failed to show that the State intruded on his private affairs because any individual or entity could have directly accessed this voluntarily published and public information. Thus, Hartman had no standing to challenge the comparison with his relatives’ DNA profiles in the
GEDmatch database
.

As a result, the tn'al court ruled that the State did not need a search warrant or court order to access GEDmatch due to the public and unrestricted availability of the GEDmatch data.” Id. Hartman was convicted of first-degree murder after a bench trial.
 
Yes, according to what I've read, the state has never been required to try to name every single person which filtered through the database while it was processed. ... and it is impossible to hand over anyway because it is a split second function of the computer analysis---not a conscious step by step process by a human analyst.

Here is the info within the Court Order addressing IGG :


ORDER ADDRESSING IGG DNA AND ORDER FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW
...snipped...

The State now seeks a protective order for “information related to the use of IGG in this
case.” Mot. for Protective Order at 6-7. Specifically, the State wishes to protect and not disclose to
the defense the following:
l. The raw data related to the SNP profile and the underlying laboratory documentation related to the development of the profile, such as chain of custody forms, laboratory standard operating procedures analyst notes, etc.
2. All information related to IGG efforts in creating a family tree and identifying Defendant’s potential relatives, including the identities of the genetic genealogy service(s) and the personally identifying information of Defendant’s relatives.
Id. at 7-8

While the FBI no longer has access to View much of the information it used to create the
family tree, the State acknowledges that the FBI does possess “the family tree itself, notes jotted down by FBI agents as they constructed the family tree, and any records created to document the
removal of the SNP profile from the genetic genealogy service(s) pursuant to the DOJ Policy.”2 Mot. for Protective Order at 6. The State has represented that it has already disclosed the suspect SNP profile to the defense. Reply in Supp. of Mot. for Protective Order at 2.

...snipped....

1 At oral argument on August l8, 2023, the Court asked the State directly if any information obtained from the SNP profile, the use of IGG, or the family tree created was used to obtain any warrant in the case. The State represented that it was not. The Court has confirmed that nothing about the use of IGG or a family tree was used in the affidavit to obtain the arrest warrant for Kohberger or in the affidavit to obtain the search warrant for Kohberger’s DNA.



Ok, HERE is the list of what AT wants the P to give them:

The defense opposes the State’s Motion for Protective Order, and on June 22, 2023, filed Defendant’s Third Motion to Compel Discovery. A portion of that Motion to Compel asks that the State be required to turn over the following information related to the use of IGG:
  1. All reports generated by any lab that conducted SNP testing on any sample in this case, including from samples where “unknown” males, not the defendant, were identified.
  2. Copies of all communications between laboratory personnel and any other person or organization, with regard to the instant case, including letters, memos, emails, intemet posts, press releases, and records of other communications
    (including communications with regard to any DNA profile uploaded to any public or private DNA database).

3. All documentation associated with any database search, including, but not limited to, CODIS, NDIS, GEDMatch, Family Tree DNA, and/or felon databases, case sample databases, missing persons databases, and internal quality assurance databases. The documentation should include, but is not limited to, the input profile, the input search parameters, the search output, all reports, allcorrespondence, and any follow-up actions.

4. Add documents related to any genetic genealogy search, including, but not limited to, the creation of a user profile(s), account(s) information, automated search results, uploading of data, all queries and search results from any private or public databank(s), family tree information, and all other documents, reports, notes or other communications pertaining to genealogy DNA database searches.

5. All documents related to any genetic genealogy investigations, including but not limited to additional collection and/or testing of DNA samples, notes of any interviews, documents obtained related to ancestry, and/or recommendation for
further testing.


6. All documents related to comparison of any DNA samples collected during the genealogy investigation to crime scene evidence.

7. The name and address of all persons found to have sufficient sharing centimorgams with the “subject” profile to be identified as a match in the report created in this case.

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

I think this is a ridiculously long and involved list of documentation that AT is asking for. It is not the usual info which is given to the court concerning an IGG case.



CASE LAW
The state replies with a very well set forth legal opinion of why it is unnecessary, according to prior legal court opinions.
You can read them at the same link---

one example:
State v. Bortree, 170 Ohio St. 3d 310, 212 N.E.3d 874
(2022).
The Court of Appeals concluded that:
In this case the trial court found that the evidence did not establish any illegal
activity by engaging in forensic genetic genealogy research, and the research did not, in fact, yield any substantive evidence that Bortree had engaged in any criminal activity. Rather, ‘t merely narrowed the focus of law enforcement.’ We agree with the trial court's conclusion that the research merely narrowed the focus of law enforcement, and consequently we can find no error with the trial court's determination to allow the testimony related to forensic genetic genealogy in this matter.

4. State v. Hartman
The Court ofAppeals ofWashington recently addressed whether a defendant had standing to challenge the DNA comparison of DNA collected at a crime scene with DNA in the GEDmatch database (i.e., the “analysis of the GEDmatch database”). State v. Hartman, 534 P.3d 423, 432 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).

The trial court found that Hartman “did not have standing to challenge the analysis of his relative’s DNA profile, which his relatives volunteered to have analyzed and posted on an open— source, unrestricted website.

The court concluded that Hartman did not have dominion or control over the item seized (his relative’s raw data DNA) nor the public database where the DNA profiles were compared (GEDmatch). Hartman had no authority to exclude others from accessing his relatives’ DNA profiles on GEDmatch.” Id. at 430 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Further, the court found that “Hartman failed to show that the State intruded on his private affairs because any individual or entity could have directly accessed this voluntarily published and public information. Thus, Hartman had no standing to challenge the comparison with his relatives’ DNA profiles in the
GEDmatch database
.

As a result, the tn'al court ruled that the State did not need a search warrant or court order to access GEDmatch due to the public and unrestricted availability of the GEDmatch data.” Id. Hartman was convicted of first-degree murder after a bench trial.
That order is really worth a read. I listed it in my previous post because it contains all the info re how IGG has played out in the case so far and a good chronology of events. State complied in Nov and presented everything it had (including whatever the fbi had handed over to them), during an in Camera hearing. But ultimately it was JJJ who decided what was then to be passed on to defense with conditions (I suspect just about everything the state presented jmo).
 
Do you have a source of this comparison? Are you indicating that the types of evidence the defense is requesting is unprecedented in the history of all court cases ?
In the initial Motion for Protective Order on 16 June, the state says that:

While the question of whether IGG information must be disclosed as exculpatory is one of first impression in Idaho, courts outside of Idaho have correctly decided that IGG information need not be disclosed as exculpatory.

In Idaho, what they're requesting is without precedent.

 
The 'law requires' whatever the court decides in the upcoming rulings.

The P has given them the required Discovery concerning the IGG. But the D is pushing the envelope and asking for more than has EVER been given before in prior cases.

There is nothing to indicate the search was illegal. The D is just fishing to see if they can find anything. They haven't so far but are hoping to find something, anything, if they keep pushing. IMO


Given the upcoming hearings, this document seems like a good thing to review now.

So much important info packed in tight.
 
The trial court found that Hartman “did not have standing to challenge the analysis of his relative’s DNA profile, which his relatives volunteered to have analyzed and posted on an open— source, unrestricted website
This is the crucial part. The relative opted-in. So of course I agree with the decision there.
 
WA mom reclaims son’s story after University of Idaho murders
“Why does someone who doesn’t know my son get to capitalize on his death?” Stacy Chapin’s at work to save Ethan’s legacy from tabloid headlines.

by Aspen Anderson / May 24, 2024


Aficionados of true crime also latched onto the case almost immediately, to Stacy’s chagrin. A number of books have already been written on it. An academic spoke about the Idaho case at CrimeCon, a convention for true-crime aficionados.

“Why does someone who doesn’t know my son get to capitalize on his death?” Stacy said. “It kills me.”

After doing some research, she realized that anyone has the right to her son’s story, and these books were legal. She pondered how, as his mother, she could take the narrative back and tell people about the Ethan she knew.

One night she woke up abruptly and said, “I am going to write a book today.” Her children’s book about Ethan is titled The Boy Who Wore Blue.
I admire the Chapin family's approach. I feel so much respect for that family. His mum sounds like a wonderful person. Books being written before the case has even been tried is ethically dubious and grossly insensitive and exploitive imo (I believe/am guessing moo she must be referring to Howard Blum's serial installment book 'When Idaho Slept' or some such (amongst others if there are any) whose work I personally detest so not claiming any objectivity here) but I am in awe of her ability to turn around her indignation and produce something positive out of it. Jmo
 
I admire the Chapin family's approach. I feel so much respect for that family. His mum sounds like a wonderful person. Books being written before the case has even been tried is ethically dubious and grossly insensitive and exploitive imo (I believe/am guessing moo she must be referring to Howard Blum's serial installment book 'When Idaho Slept' or some such (amongst others if there are any) whose work I personally detest so not claiming any objectivity here) but I am in awe of her ability to turn around her indignation and produce something positive out of it. Jmo
How do you feel about James Patterson? He's got a book on the way which has already been optioned for TV:

I must admit, I don't like books being written at this stage of the case any better than you do. It is ALL in poor taste and I feel bad for the families.
 
After some searching, I’m not able to locate any dates that the IGG results were received and the date they added BK to the “short list”. This isn’t publicly available information from what I can see so I don’t think we can definitively state which came first. We can agree to disagree.
Still unclear when the results were complete, but there was an invoice published

The invoice for IGG was issued Nov 29th, payment due Dec 29


JMO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
152
Guests online
2,101
Total visitors
2,253

Forum statistics

Threads
600,483
Messages
18,109,283
Members
230,991
Latest member
Clue Keeper
Back
Top