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.
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.
If BK's dna wasn't a match to the dna on the sheath, we would know by now. This would be priority number one for the defense.

Having access to the IGG and the details of how it was created has nothing to do with the dna match on the sheath. Challenging the investigative technique of IGG is not in any way saying that BK is not the contributor of the dna on the sheath.
JMO
 
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?
I don't think this is true. I don't believe we know if the defense ran their own dna test. We haven't seen them challenge the match though.
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.
I think this is the only avenue for the defense. If BK has a story for how his dna got on the sheath, but it's not his, he'll have to testify and tell that story and it will have to be believable to the jury. For example, if the sheath was sold in a local shop he could testify he went into that shop and looked at the items. If he doesn't testify, the defense could ask hypotheticals, like, could that dna have gotten there because someone who is not the killer handled it? And yes, that's possible, but it will be up to the jury to believe it or not. Without all the other evidence against him, that scenario could produce some doubt. But you start adding the other stuff in, it becomes harder to believe that explanation.

If the sheath was purchased online, that's going to be more difficult to explain, especially if there's a history of BK purchasing one. I can't really think of an explanation that I would buy as a juror for his dna being there in that scenario.
JMO
 
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.

The DNA evidence is very strong and BK's defense knows this... 2 cents

They know it is his DNA on the sheath and not a distant relative. Period... 2 cents
 
I don't think this is true. I don't believe we know if the defense ran their own dna test. We haven't seen them challenge the match though.
Yes, it's not true AFAIK. We don't know if defense has run their own dna tests on snap button. Not in any court docs or publicly available info and I didn't see OP provide an approved source for the statement. jmo
 
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
RBBM to answer your question even though I realise it was probably rhetorical?!
Nowhere in any of the publicly available documents has the defense said BK's dna is not a match to the dna on the sheath. AFAI can ascertain from the court file in this case, that has NEVER been stated or even implied. moo
 
None of that is true. There is enough DNA, even the defense doesn't dispute it.

Hmmmm... it appears the DNA they have very well could be "touch DNA."

From KREM2 News:
"Based on the affidavit in this case, it looks like touch DNA is what they had to work with. That's just skin cells."

A bit of research reveals that touch DNA is controversial evidence, and National Review explains how previous convictions have been overturned as a result:

"Trace amounts of DNA on a knife and bra clasp in 2007 were key to American student Amanda Knox’s prosecution and conviction on charges of murdering her roommate in Italy. But when American forensic expert Dr. Greg Hampikian and others exposed contamination and interpretation and replicability/reliability problems with the DNA evidence, the Italian Supreme Court threw out the convictions eight years after the killing."

This is the first time I've heard the term "touch DNA," so I had to do some research to learn what it was all about and whether the DNA, in this case, qualifies as touch DNA.

The National Review article is interesting. If AT is on her game—and she strikes me as someone who's usually on her game—she may challenge the touch DNA evidence. There appears to be precedent for doing so.

This case gets more interesting all the time.
 
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.

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.


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.
I just posted about touch DNA being controversial, so the scenario you presented earlier appears to be plausible. Whether AT will actually challenge the DNA evidence is yet to be seen, but it is controversial and convictions have been overturned as a result.

Blum has a blog -- you have to sub your email to get access to the full articles -- but he brings up some interesting questions.

Why would any *source* be in danger? I don't get that. From the linked article:

"That was what Kohberger’s defense team had ominously warned when they filed an extraordinary motion a week earlier, requesting that their discovery information be placed under seal because “the document contains facts or statement that might endanger the life or safety of individuals.

In other words, what these “individuals” know about the case might get them killed."
...
"And, no less perplexing, the prosecution seemed to agree that a deus ex machina was hovering over the proceedings. They responded to Taylor’s cryptic motion by stating that the release of discovery evidence could “disclose the identity of a confidential source.” A confidential source?"


There appears to be a lot going on behind the scenes--and I wish I had more time to sleuth it out, but work beckons. I'll have to rely on WSers to figure out what lies beneath...
 
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
RSBM...

I don't think the Defense is questioning the DNA match. But, it appears touch DNA is legally controversial evidence and convictions have been overturned where it was involved.

Who knows what the Defense will or will not do. But, you have to admit, this is an interesting case.
 
Bringing forward one of @10ofRods posts from the last thread discussing 'touch' dna. This topic is brought up periodically and is nothing new to these threads.
Below is just one of many of their posts putting the dreaded touch dna boogey man into perspective. I looked for another, also from last thread, which offered some insights into the interplay of dna science, the media's reporting of it and development of general public misunderstandings and bias concerning the word 'touch' whenever it is used in conjunction with the acronym dna, but couldn't find. Perhaps if Rods recalls the one I mean and has no objection they could bring it forward too. :) Moo

 
In other words, what these “individuals” know about the case might get them killed."
Maybe, or it could just be to protect them from online harassment and threats or worse.
I mean honestly in this internet age and seeing how this case in particular seems to have people feeling passionately for one side or the other, I don't want to imagine the kind of crazy that could get unleashed on anyone connected to the case in any important way. I bet the State doesn't want anyone's mental or physical health endangered because the State made their name public.
 
I just posted about touch DNA being controversial, so the scenario you presented earlier appears to be plausible. Whether AT will actually challenge the DNA evidence is yet to be seen, but it is controversial and convictions have been overturned as a result.

Blum has a blog -- you have to sub your email to get access to the full articles -- but he brings up some interesting questions.

Why would any *source* be in danger? I don't get that. From the linked article:

"That was what Kohberger’s defense team had ominously warned when they filed an extraordinary motion a week earlier, requesting that their discovery information be placed under seal because “the document contains facts or statement that might endanger the life or safety of individuals.

In other words, what these “individuals” know about the case might get them killed."
...
"And, no less perplexing, the prosecution seemed to agree that a deus ex machina was hovering over the proceedings. They responded to Taylor’s cryptic motion by stating that the release of discovery evidence could “disclose the identity of a confidential source.” A confidential source?"


There appears to be a lot going on behind the scenes--and I wish I had more time to sleuth it out, but work beckons. I'll have to rely on WSers to figure out what lies beneath...
One of the reasons Blum is a bane IMO to the accurate reporting of this case is precisely demonstrated by your post. All discovery is sealed in this case, the phraseology is boiler plate. It's not about a source if you mean confidential source. You can read the initial Discovery requests and standard phraseology thats used from the link below (January 2023 from memory.), All Moo and INAL.

Check out all the redacted motions and warrants for this case and you'll notice the reasons for sealing are restricted to a few standard phrases including the one Blum inflates into a major mysterious occurence. Within these standard phrases there is room for much varience. For instance a motion to seal a warrant for dash cam where a trucking company manager told detectives about dash cam on trucks that were on Queen Road at the relevant times might be sealed using that very phrase. Why? Because if the public had unredacted access his safety might be compromised. That's just an eg from memory but you get the gist. All moo

Scroll down to Kohberger from the link below if you want to find more examples. Moo

 
I get that the DNA from the sheath is a match to the DNA from the swab taken from BK.

How does the GG DNA matching work. There were two “close matches”- one was BK’s father. How did they get his name vs. BK’s name? They both share the same surname so why didn’t it show as a close match to BK? Is this to do with where in the family tree the DNA came from? So for example BK’s uncle (Dad’s brother- I don’t even know if he has one, but theoretically) submits DNA, is this a “close match” through GG to BK’s father but not BK directly?

I’m just struggling to understand how they narrow it down among all the potential male relatives.
 
I get that the DNA from the sheath is a match to the DNA from the swab taken from BK.

How does the GG DNA matching work. There were two “close matches”- one was BK’s father. How did they get his name vs. BK’s name? They both share the same surname so why didn’t it show as a close match to BK? Is this to do with where in the family tree the DNA came from? So for example BK’s uncle (Dad’s brother- I don’t even know if he has one, but theoretically) submits DNA, is this a “close match” through GG to BK’s father but not BK directly?

I’m just struggling to understand how they narrow it down among all the potential male relatives.
deleted.. (thought I was making an intelligent response, but it really just sounded dumb afterwards.. ) hahaha
 
As @Megnut said: "AT is saying she can't firm up BK's nonspecific alibi defense until she sees all discovery the State has (she's entitled to see everything the State is obligated to turn over but nothing more), everything that's irrelevant (hard to fathom how much data that would be!) and of course the CAST report."

It makes me mad every time I read AT's position on this. I understand that AT doesn't want to tell the court that "BK was at X" and then be made to look like a big fat liar, but she only has to worry about that if BK isn't telling the truth about having an alibi. So, which is it AT? Do you firmly believe your client is innocent, or not? Because you should really only be wouldn't that discovery is going to squash your client's alibi if it's made up. MOOooo
 
As @Megnut said: "AT is saying she can't firm up BK's nonspecific alibi defense until she sees all discovery the State has (she's entitled to see everything the State is obligated to turn over but nothing more), everything that's irrelevant (hard to fathom how much data that would be!) and of course the CAST report."

It makes me mad every time I read AT's position on this. I understand that AT doesn't want to tell the court that "BK was at X" and then be made to look like a big fat liar, but she only has to worry about that if BK isn't telling the truth about having an alibi. So, which is it AT? Do you firmly believe your client is innocent, or not? Because you should really only be wouldn't that discovery is going to squash your client's alibi if it's made up. MOOooo


To me, AT is just trying to work with what she's got. Which is VERY LITTLE.

IMO, AT's only hopes of a defense are:
1) Question the way LE narrowed down the search to BK. Was it familial DNA from public database or was he FIRST identified from his car being reported by Pullman Police Dept.

2) Since it was dark and you can't see a license plate or driver, question whether it was really BK. Make the prosecution prove it was him and him alone. BK driving around at 3AM is not an alibi. It has no required specificity. She knows that and she knows it sounds stupid. BK is probably very vague about where she drove around that night, may even tell her he drives around all the time and doesn't even remember that night. Her defense will look weak.

3) Cell phone data. She will try to show that the arcs involved COULD put BK's miles away.. .but the fact that he turned it off and then back on, will be more damning to the defense than whether the pinging was close or not.

She can't/won't question the DNA because that is bullet proof. BK will not have given her any information that could be used as a defense for his DNA on that sheath. I'll bet the prosecution has info that he bought it on Amazon or elsewhere.

I think she is doing what a "good" defense lawyer would do, but she has very little to work with and is just grasping for straws.
 
As @Megnut said: "AT is saying she can't firm up BK's nonspecific alibi defense until she sees all discovery the State has (she's entitled to see everything the State is obligated to turn over but nothing more), everything that's irrelevant (hard to fathom how much data that would be!) and of course the CAST report."

It makes me mad every time I read AT's position on this. I understand that AT doesn't want to tell the court that "BK was at X" and then be made to look like a big fat liar, but she only has to worry about that if BK isn't telling the truth about having an alibi. So, which is it AT? Do you firmly believe your client is innocent, or not? Because you should really only be wouldn't that discovery is going to squash your client's alibi if it's made up. MOOooo
Thanks for saying it in plain language. AT's doing her job but imo the prosecution, probably jmo the Judge and at least some of the public, have to be considering the non-specific alibi saga and musing along those lines. Defending must sometimes be a little like method acting in that one is required to immerse deeply into the role. Moo
 
I get that the DNA from the sheath is a match to the DNA from the swab taken from BK.

How does the GG DNA matching work. There were two “close matches”- one was BK’s father. How did they get his name vs. BK’s name? They both share the same surname so why didn’t it show as a close match to BK? Is this to do with where in the family tree the DNA came from? So for example BK’s uncle (Dad’s brother- I don’t even know if he has one, but theoretically) submits DNA, is this a “close match” through GG to BK’s father but not BK directly?

I’m just struggling to understand how they narrow it down among all the potential male relatives.

I don't think this is oversimplifying to say it like this: BK lived near the house, his type of car was seen essentially circling, and he pinged 12 times before the murders.

It wouldn't make any sense to investigate all relatives from anywhere across the US. What is that medical saying? When you hear hoofbeats, think horses not zebras. JMOO
 
Hmmmm... it appears the DNA they have very well could be "touch DNA."

From KREM2 News:
"Based on the affidavit in this case, it looks like touch DNA is what they had to work with. That's just skin cells."

A bit of research reveals that touch DNA is controversial evidence, and National Review explains how previous convictions have been overturned as a result:

"Trace amounts of DNA on a knife and bra clasp in 2007 were key to American student Amanda Knox’s prosecution and conviction on charges of murdering her roommate in Italy. But when American forensic expert Dr. Greg Hampikian and others exposed contamination and interpretation and replicability/reliability problems with the DNA evidence, the Italian Supreme Court threw out the convictions eight years after the killing."

This is the first time I've heard the term "touch DNA," so I had to do some research to learn what it was all about and whether the DNA, in this case, qualifies as touch DNA.

The National Review article is interesting. If AT is on her game—and she strikes me as someone who's usually on her game—she may challenge the touch DNA evidence. There appears to be precedent for doing so.

This case gets more interesting all the time.

There is nothing wrong with touch DNA. Touch DNA are skin cells we leave behind rather than LE getting our DNA from our blood or spit or vomit or sweat, etc...

BK would have put alot of pressure on the snap and he left a good DNA sample that matches his cheek swab which is 5.37 Octillion times likely to be BK's DNA.

Touch DNA has solved alot of murders, got alot of bad people off the streets.

 
Last edited:
I don't think this is true. I don't believe we know if the defense ran their own dna test. We haven't seen them challenge the match though.

I think this is the only avenue for the defense. If BK has a story for how his dna got on the sheath, but it's not his, he'll have to testify and tell that story and it will have to be believable to the jury. For example, if the sheath was sold in a local shop he could testify he went into that shop and looked at the items. If he doesn't testify, the defense could ask hypotheticals, like, could that dna have gotten there because someone who is not the killer handled it? And yes, that's possible, but it will be up to the jury to believe it or not. Without all the other evidence against him, that scenario could produce some doubt. But you start adding the other stuff in, it becomes harder to believe that explanation.

If the sheath was purchased online, that's going to be more difficult to explain, especially if there's a history of BK purchasing one. I can't really think of an explanation that I would buy as a juror for his dna being there in that scenario.
JMO
If BK innocently touched the sheath in a store (or a buddy's house, or whatever), his DNA would be in multiple places on the outside of the sheath, not merely in a minute crevice in the snap.

As would the DNA of all other shoppers who touched it, as well as the store clerk who put it out on display, and the warehouse employee who took it out of the box, etc etc ad nauseum.

But a sheath that has been wiped clean with only one person's DNA remaining only in the crevice? Not an innocuous shopping experience IMO.

Also, I know we've moved on from this but anyone trying to frame BK by planting his DNA would plant it on the surface where it could be easily found by LE -- not only in a crevice where LE might well have overlooked it.

MOO
 
Have you ever heard the saying, that the more you know, the more questions you have??? I think that is those of us here... those in the true crime community.

However, the people on the jury are NOT (generally) going to be people like us who may follow true crime and think of all the instances where there is real proof versus innuendo and circumstantial evidence.

I think the jury will be much more like regular people and will use logic and common sense to see if they believe the facts brought out in the trial.

To me, I need to step back and ask, "What would a jury of our peers conclude from the evidence we already know about?"

I think BK is guilty and this is more or less a slam dunk when all the evidence is presented at the trial to regular jurors... that BK is the ONLY PERSON on this planet that could have killed these students.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
170
Guests online
1,619
Total visitors
1,789

Forum statistics

Threads
600,516
Messages
18,109,828
Members
230,991
Latest member
Clue Keeper
Back
Top