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

Or the prosecution could fully participate in discovery as the law requires and have the actual evidence prove the search was lawful.
I wonder if the use of IGG to build a case against a suspect is settled law in all states and if it has been ruled upon by the U.S. Supreme Court. If not, I suspect that defense attorney AT will take this case and this matter as far as she can go and that it may be one of the cases that is influential in determinig precedent in some areas of law.
 
Re last sentence, ofcourse! In this case, autopsy and evidence from ME will be presented at trial. This is a high profile crime and the case is subject to a strict non dissemination order (for what imo are obvious reasons but see court docs on its evolution). Moo

Also just wanted to note that a perusal of the PCA or current discussion here shows that time of death as proposed in PCA was established by more than 'just that car drove fast past the house'. Moo
If Xana started or finished eating the DoorDash order, that will be important in terms of determining time of death. We know when it was delivered. The autopsy will show how long she lived after eating. That gives us the core of the timeline.
 
The public and media doesn’t need to see it but the defense team should. This is the way they found the suspect so theurn 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.

I admit that sounds reasonable - except that even the prosecution doesn't have that information. The IGG company would not turn over their entire database to LE. I've never seen a judge issue a subpoena for a company's entire proprietary database (or the software that runs it). Not in a murder trial, any criminal trial or any civil trial. It would be like someone suing a bank for misconduct and demanding the transaction records of every depositer across that bank's entire system.

So the prosecution does not have the information sought by the defense, IMO. Discovery only means that each side has to turn everything they actually have over to the other side. If one side finds more potential evidence, it has to be turned over as well (including during trial and before any such evidence is mentioned in the trial).

If the prosecution does not have the IGG's entire database (but only the results of their inquiry into the database), then of course the defense has the same ability to submit the in-evidence DNA record of BK. They have that. IMO. THe defense would then get virtually identical results (a Kohberger will show up - maybe some new people too). I believe AT knows that attempting to investigate or accuse people merely because they are in an internet gene database but are not in fact BK (whose DNA now matches that same sample that was submitted) is a legal no-go.

The specific Kohberger whose DNA was in that database should also not be named at trial (and I predict will not be) nor harassed by media, etc.

I do think AT wants to get all of this on record (as it likely won't come into the trial). IMO. I don't think it will go far upon appeal, but she will give it a shot after the trial. I hope next week's hearing can provide a ruling on the Defense's motion. They may appeal the Judge's ruling (postponing things more) but I believe Judge Judge's ruling, whatever it is, will be legally proper and upheld by the Idaho appellate courts. IMO.

But your basic premise - that the Defense should get everything the Prosecution actually has...is exactly the same premise that Judge Judge must apply in regard to that motion.

I think that in order to learn more about how the IGG company compiles and labels its information would require a subpoena of their corporate records. I do not think Judge Judge will do that. IMO.
 
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?
:)
LOL, nope on the DNA test because as near as I know, she never murdered anyone. And I highly doubt she had an identical vehicle since I had no vehicle at the time, LOL.

They did subsequent DNA testing on BK showing it's a match. That's all I need. DNA is the undisputed gold standard of evidence.

As far as criticism of use of this genealogical DNA, it's voluntary. If you don't want your "stuff" available in the database, don't do it. There's no way that use of IGG is going to get thrown out, and BK's defense is the Titanic without getting it thrown out. But while I compare his defense to the Titanic, please let me note, BK is no Leonardo DiCaprio, and I personally won't be crying when BK gets his recompense. (I will cry for actual Titanic victims and survivors, which is a fascinating and horrifying story, thanks to an iceberg. Here, though, BK himself is the fascinating and horrifying story.)

Yes, Dopplegangers are a real thing. But stargazing by yourself in an area with no cell service isn't a real alibi. I'm only watching the trial to make sure he didn't have an accomplice. All I need to see is that he bleached the car, that the footprint at the CS is the same size as his, and he has an order for a Ka-Bar on Amazon before the murders.

It's done as far as I'm concerned. I have no questions. I see pretty much no way he couldn't have done this. I appreciate others trying to raise the specter of doubt. I sure don't envy them. No easy job. And a thankless one, judging by BK's general attitude and demeanor.
 
Last edited:
does everything think BK entered and exited through the slider and it was unlocked?

Yes, the easiest point of entry was the sliding glass door, unless he slide in behind the DoorDash person through an unlocked door.
Sliding glass doors are easy to open, way too damn easy. I hate them.
Research sliding glass doors and first-floor apartments and houses. Many criminals are aware of how easy they are to push off track and open.
 
You're correct that private genealogical databases have to get consent from participants before they will share any DNA records.

The difference between them and IGG (Investigative Genetic Genealogy) is that IGG is a traditional forensic database that maintains DNA records of those who have been tested in the process of being arrested or have consented to have their DNA in the database.

But LE would not have used IGG in this case (JMOO) because they only needed to test the DNA they found in the family trash to the sample on the sheath. In this case, they were just looking for a match because they already had the DNA from the sheath.

This is an odd case. A lot of things don't make a lot of sense in this case.

This is a little inaccurate. Only CODIS and other LE-based data bases have the results of the limited testing of felons. Florida apparently plans to take DNA from every person who is arrested, whether they are convicted or not - this will obviously involve massive constitutional issues for Florida down the road, as it begins to use this database.

However, an IGG company like the one used in this case (Othram is an example, there are others) has its users upload DNA with consent to use by LE agencies. Everyone must state that they have read the terms of service and agree to have their DNA records used to find criminals or identify missing persons.

IGG's are not traditional. They are relatively new. The GG stands for Genetic Genealogy (which I teach and do). It combines our knowledge of someone's genes with the use of documents such as birth and death records, census records, migration and transportation records. Combining the genealogy and the genes (often by using the Y chromosome or mitochondrial DNA markers), we can trace a person's ancestry very far back into time.

I guess I should add that I don't consider 6 years long enough to be a tradition (just a personal opinion). Othram is about 6 years old; Gedmatch went forensic just 5 years ago. I'm sure there are a bunch of others by this time - and the technology will only get better (already has, is resulting in amazing ways of using DNA for many technologies, not just forensics of course). But it's new. CODIS is old.

The question is: How would LE have found the Kohberger household in the first place? They had only DNA of an unknown person. How would they have known to go to PA? They had one DNA sample out of 150,000,000 American males. A needle in a haystack. No test on an unknown sample of DNA brings up a name or an address (it can bring up a face though - www.parabon.com exists - but if you go there, you see it's not a viable way of finding 1 person out of 150,000,000 - although the tech is getting better).

DNA does not come with a label as to who provided it - that comes from a swab and then a match in a database.

Step one: Find DNA that is possibly that of a perpetrator (sheath DNA in this case)
Step two: Run it through the LE databases to see if it's a known criminal (CODIS) (no matches in this case)
Step three: Run it through a forensic IGG to see if any relative of this person has submitted. (the name Kohberger was one of two close matches - but not Mr Kohberger, Bryan's dad - but it gave them reason to go through Kohberger family trash in PA, which is legal).

They were lucky that a Kohberger (for whatever reason) decided to put their genetic profile in a database. Interestingly, these same sites ask people to give the name on their birth certificates, as well as married names or other names they might go by.

So it's even possible that the donor was BK's own sister. And if so, what a bombshell that would be for the family if the Court allows it to be revealed to the public record (after the trial, the records will all be unsealed).

Interesting to think about, for sure.

Here's the link to a forensic database that reconstructs faces:

www.parabon.com

It also has started doing IGG, it's an opt-in forensic online genetic genealogy database (internet-based genetic genealogy, IGG). It's worth a look.

Phenotypic reconstruction

Genetic genealogy

And here on Websleuths, we have a whole forum devoted to the amazing work of Othram.
 
I admit that sounds reasonable - except that even the prosecution doesn't have that information. The IGG company would not turn over their entire database to LE. I've never seen a judge issue a subpoena for a company's entire proprietary database (or the software that runs it). Not in a murder trial, any criminal trial or any civil trial. It would be like someone suing a bank for misconduct and demanding the transaction records of every depositer across that bank's entire system.

So the prosecution does not have the information sought by the defense, IMO. Discovery only means that each side has to turn everything they actually have over to the other side. If one side finds more potential evidence, it has to be turned over as well (including during trial and before any such evidence is mentioned in the trial).

If the prosecution does not have the IGG's entire database (but only the results of their inquiry into the database), then of course the defense has the same ability to submit the in-evidence DNA record of BK. They have that. IMO. THe defense would then get virtually identical results (a Kohberger will show up - maybe some new people too). I believe AT knows that attempting to investigate or accuse people merely because they are in an internet gene database but are not in fact BK (whose DNA now matches that same sample that was submitted) is a legal no-go.

The specific Kohberger whose DNA was in that database should also not be named at trial (and I predict will not be) nor harassed by media, etc.

I do think AT wants to get all of this on record (as it likely won't come into the trial). IMO. I don't think it will go far upon appeal, but she will give it a shot after the trial. I hope next week's hearing can provide a ruling on the Defense's motion. They may appeal the Judge's ruling (postponing things more) but I believe Judge Judge's ruling, whatever it is, will be legally proper and upheld by the Idaho appellate courts. IMO.

But your basic premise - that the Defense should get everything the Prosecution actually has...is exactly the same premise that Judge Judge must apply in regard to that motion.

I think that in order to learn more about how the IGG company compiles and labels its information would require a subpoena of their corporate records. I do not think Judge Judge will do that. IMO.
Theres an implication by defense that FBI/LE purposely did not save their work or provide it to prosecution so they did not have to disclose it via discovery (meaning CAST etc, not just IGG). I don’t know standard practice so I can’t speak to whether that’s unusual. I can only use my own experience working in enforcement and the requirement my own office had for meticulous recordkeeping in case our files went to court. If I breathed on a file, it was written in the running record and disclosed in discovery. But that’s not FBI or this LE office so I don’t know how they operate. I guess our defendants were just very lucky we were so open about our practices.

The issue for me is that this case is not happening within a vacuum. IMO the arguments over discovery has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of this particular defendant. The outcome will become case law and have real world implications. If there is a defendant in the future that is innocent and could be proven innocent by disclosure of this type of evidence, this case law could affect whether they get to even see that evidence.

But yes absolutely agree to disagree we can end the IGG discussion and wait for the outcome of the courts. All MOO
 
Theres an implication by defense that FBI/LE purposely did not save their work or provide it to prosecution so they did not have to disclose it via discovery (meaning CAST etc, not just IGG). I don’t know standard practice so I can’t speak to whether that’s unusual. I can only use my own experience working in enforcement and the requirement my own office had for meticulous recordkeeping in case our files went to court. If I breathed on a file, it was written in the running record and disclosed in discovery. But that’s not FBI or this LE office so I don’t know how they operate. I guess our defendants were just very lucky we were so open about our practices.

The issue for me is that this case is not happening within a vacuum. IMO the arguments over discovery has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of this particular defendant. The outcome will become case law and have real world implications. If there is a defendant in the future that is innocent and could be proven innocent by disclosure of this type of evidence, this case law could affect whether they get to even see that evidence.

But yes absolutely agree to disagree we can end the IGG discussion and wait for the outcome of the courts. All MOO

There's not much to disagree about. I understand that different agencies have different practices.

My point was about the DNA and how it could not possibly have led to BK's father without GG. And when it was collected, no one knew who left it on the sheath, so there was no address or identity.

Yes, the upcoming hearing is about more than that - (CAST). I wasn't addressing that. The discovery issues are still the same. If the Prosecution doesn't have what the FBI has, then it can't produce it. The Defense will have to deal directly (presumably at the time expert witnesses are appointed) with the FBI or whatever other agencies were involved. They could also start a federal case (but personally, I don't believe any federal court is going to compel the FBI to tell its methods of analysis in detail). If that were to happen, it would have nationwide implications, of course.

I do appreciate your company in waiting for the results of the pre-trial motions - and very much look forward to hanging out with everyone here during the trial.

IMO.
 
I wonder if the use of IGG to build a case against a suspect is settled law in all states and if it has been ruled upon by the U.S. Supreme Court. If not, I suspect that defense attorney AT will take this case and this matter as far as she can go and that it may be one of the cases that is influential in determinig precedent in some areas of law.
IGG policies are still in development all across the United States. The first two were in Maryland and Montana in 2021:


And more states have followed. Currently the laws are incredibly variable as states explore the new circumstance of having IGG available to solve crimes:


IMO, if there is a conviction in this case, it WILL be argued all the way up to the Supreme Court because the DNA was on an easily transportable item and it was touch DNA and it was such a tiny sample of touch DNA that none could be preserved for the defense to run their own tests and apparently no complete documentation was supplied to the defense, only partial.
 
IMO, if there is a conviction in this case, it WILL be argued all the way up to the Supreme Court because the DNA was on an easily transportable item and it was touch DNA and it was such a tiny sample of touch DNA that none could be preserved for the defense to run their own tests and apparently no complete documentation was supplied to the defense, only partial.

Sounds like wishful thinking.

Even Anne Taylor doesn't dispute that this is BK's DNA.

Supreme court wouldn't hear this case. They reject many.

2 Cents
 
Last edited:
IMO, if there is a conviction in this case, it WILL be argued all the way up to the Supreme Court because the DNA was on an easily transportable item and it was touch DNA and it was such a tiny sample of touch DNA that none could be preserved for the defense to run their own tests and apparently no complete documentation was supplied to the defense, only partial.

I'm missing a lot here because I haven't had the time I need to dedicate myself to all the issues. But, are you saying the Defense wasn't able to repeat the DNA tests? Do we know what substance the DNA was? I mean, was it blood, saliva, skin cells?

If it was skin cells, I wonder if the Defense could argue that BK looked at a knife like that to purchase in a sports store, opened the sheath, looked at it but put it back. Or, something similar. It if was blood, it would be harder to argue away.

My thoughts have always been that this case would be won on the DNA evidence, but you present an interesting scenario. I was unaware there was that little of an amount of DNA. As you say, a sheath like that is easily transportable.

This is an odd case.
 
I'm missing a lot here because I haven't had the time I need to dedicate myself to all the issues. But, are you saying the Defense wasn't able to repeat the DNA tests? Do we know what substance the DNA was? I mean, was it blood, saliva, skin cells?

If it was skin cells, I wonder if the Defense could argue that BK looked at a knife like that to purchase in a sports store, opened the sheath, looked at it but put it back. Or, something similar. It if was blood, it would be harder to argue away.

My thoughts have always been that this case would be won on the DNA evidence, but you present an interesting scenario. I was unaware there was that little of an amount of DNA. As you say, a sheath like that is easily transportable.

This is an odd case.

None of that is true. There is enough DNA, even the defense doesn't dispute it.
 
I'm missing a lot here because I haven't had the time I need to dedicate myself to all the issues. But, are you saying the Defense wasn't able to repeat the DNA tests? Do we know what substance the DNA was? I mean, was it blood, saliva, skin cells?
According to Howard Blum (chapter 4 "Eyes of a Killer") it was 20 skin cells. We don't have the discovery to tell us that is what it was for certain, but it is known that Howard Blum, as an author, usually ingratiates himself with LE and gets his information that way. Is he right? Was he told right? IDK.
If it was skin cells, I wonder if the Defense could argue that BK looked at a knife like that to purchase in a sports store, opened the sheath, looked at it but put it back. Or, something similar. It if was blood, it would be harder to argue away.
IMO, the prosecutor has a tough case to prove in regards to this touch DNA. I've become more and more convinced there is a problem because the prosecution wanted the IGG information withheld from the defense. There should be no reason to do that. It's a straight forward scientific process. Either it is provably right or it is not. I don't like lawyers (or others) weaponizing science. IMO there should be a law that requires the the entire IGG report be turned over to both the prosecution and defense along with information on accuracy of those who ran the tests and their company, which generated the information in the IGG report. The fact that BT has fought giving the defense this information every step of the way has done a lot to convince me that BT knows something is wrong with it.

My thoughts have always been that this case would be won on the DNA evidence, but you present an interesting scenario. I was unaware there was that little of an amount of DNA. As you say, a sheath like that is easily transportable.

This is an odd case.
IMO, I think this case is a real problem for the prosecution and I'm not certain what will happen in light of the hearing last Thursday or what is forthcoming in the hearing this week with the defense DNA experts and possibly Sy Ray and/or others.
 
Even Anne Taylor doesn't dispute that this is BK's DNA.
AT said BK's mouth swab is his DNA, obviously, but in regards to the DNA on the sheath, in the first hearing on the DNA she said it could be some distant relative or cousin of BK's which is exactly why her experts were saying that the defense needed access to the IGG and details of how it was created. From the very beginning the defense has been talking about the mis-identification of BK as the contributor of the DNA on the sheath and that has never changed.
 
IMO, if there is a conviction in this case, it WILL be argued all the way up to the Supreme Court because the DNA was on an easily transportable item and it was touch DNA and it was such a tiny sample of touch DNA that none could be preserved for the defense to run their own tests and apparently no complete documentation was supplied to the defense, only partial.
Snipped by me--if this is argued, it will be based on IGG and 4th amendment questions. This has been addressed over and over in this thread by a verified expert and based on my understanding of what she's said, I think you're mischaracterizing it. JMO

Where has the defense said BK's dna is not a match to the dna on the sheath? They have worked so hard to get the dna thrown out on the investigative techniques of the IGG because they know it's a match.
JMO
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
325
Guests online
1,687
Total visitors
2,012

Forum statistics

Threads
597,567
Messages
18,066,507
Members
230,390
Latest member
Brandhans
Back
Top