4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #96

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Boxer said:
MOO DNA is basically a genetic last name.
Click to expand...
It really is. And BK may have been especially easy to find. Howard Blum wrote in his book that the matches interconnected at the marriage of BK's grandparents--this would be extraordinarily close--an uncle, aunt or cousin. You could build a tree down from these two in a half hour and have less than 15 people to look among their male children and grandchildren. I don't know if Blum is at all accurate or just using flowery writing to describe a convergence at the grandparents.

Another kind of interesting thing--I threw together a tree a while ago just to see how many people they might be looking at before they had the actual dna match from BK himself. He had a first cousin who passed away in 2020. The obit was published on the funeral home site, but also on Find A Grave by an unrelated third party (so the family would not have been able to change it after the fact). The obit was lengthy and listed his parents, siblings, grandparents, aunts and uncles (including BK's parents) and 14 cousins, including BK's sisters but not BK. It's so strange that he was left off. I wonder what the story is there.
 
schooling said:
The way Apple’s Find My technology (including AirTags, and your dead phone) is actually a good example of how a phone (or an Airtag) constantly broadcasting out it's presence violates our privacy. This happens hundreds to thousands (if you live in a major city) times a day without us noticing. For every device/wifi that shows up on our "Available Connections" list we leave a piece of our phones identity behind in it's memory. JMO.

I'm going off of 2 assumptions
  1. The independent reporting and/or Kayleigh's Dad are correct. The FBI has Bluetooth and Wifi evidence connecting BK to the crime scene. A capability that everyone knew was plausible but had no clue the FBI was actively using it.
  2. The Defense's filing to exclude the location data on his phone tells us there's something there that they don't want the jurors to see. JMO.
From there this is my best guess scenario, ALL OF THE BELOW IS MOO, I AM NOT AN EXPERT NOR DO I CLAIM TO BE ONE

1) BK's phone wasn't off. It was in Airplane Mode. This is the only way that report is plausible.
2) I think BK was concerned that if his escape route changed (LE presence/response, wrong turn in the dark) he could get lost. Airplane mode would still give him access to anonymous GPS mapping. He could see where his blue dot was on the cached map without the need for any data transmission with Google or AT&T.
3) Airplane mode also appears as your phone being off to AT&T. Which eliminates being location tracked by towers (via triangulation). Also eliminating the possibility that his phone transmits any unintended data at all.
4) This likely gave BK the sense that he was in full control. A ghost.
5) I think BK approaches the house. His phone is likely in a zip lock bag, in his pocket.
6) While committing the crimes, BK's phone is mindlessly doing it's job. Searching for Wifi access points and/or Bluetooth devices to connect to.
7) at various points it pings off of a bluetooth and/or wifi device without successfully connecting.
8) during this time, the two survivors are texting each other about what is happening in real time (its my interpretation of the PCAs statement about forensic evidence from DM and BFs phone) creating a record of when the murders likely happened.
9) LE will likely use the time of those text exchanges combined with the time of BKs phone pinging off of a bluetooth or wifi device in the home to place him inside or within BLE's normal operating range. Either way, I bet a couple 100ft still contradicts his alibi.
10) thought BK never manually enters an address in Google Maps on this night. Or may have never even opened it. Unbeknownst to him Google is still keep tabs on his locations this entire time. It stores it locally first.
11) Yes, Going back to when he first pulled into Washington. Yes, on his first trip into Idaho.
12) The moment BK pulls closer to his apartment in Pullman and confidently turns on his phone. Google Maps has already done the damage and sealed his fate.

Let's also keep in mind when the PCA was written LE did not have physical possession of his phone. And didn't have access to this GPS data. Which is why they relied so heavily on cellular triangulation. JMO.

IMO
I think the defense is likely not as worried about the bluetooth/wifi evidence. IMO retrieving that stuff from short term memory comes with a lot of questions. And IMO mac addresses can get messy. And IMO the defense can claim that BK's driven by the house before and came in close enough range and the time stamps are off. JMO.

BUT.....if BK really did forget to turn off location history. A feature that up until December 2023 Google went out of their way to obfuscate from users (they now have it off by default, only keep 3 months of data, etc etc). Then that means LE likely has the time he stopped at the house on King Rd, the time he left the house on King Rd, and the general areas in which he likely stopped that night and in the subsequent days to get rid of evidence (which of note, they have not been able to find). JMO.

IMO I think the defense knew that the triangulation data was going to be the easier of the two challenges. As it's been successfully challenged in court before (Adnan's case on appeal being most recent). It's approximate from everything we know (IMO)

I think this entire ride that they've taken us on about IGG in relation to the warrants was to try and get this likely (IMO) DAMNING piece of GPS (which can be extremely accurate as we know by driving our cars) evidence thrown out.

I am not an expert. Just a generalist with hobbies. I make no claim at being an expert and shouldn't be interpreted as such. All MOO, if i hadn't said it enough :)

Sources:
www.newsweek.com

Technology could place Kohberger at scene of Idaho murders: Ex-FBI agent

Bryan Kohberger is charged with the murder of four University of Idaho students.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com
www.ktvb.com

Kaylee Goncalves' father assumed suspect followed victims before Moscow murders

"I miss what she meant to the family," Steve Goncalves said about the loss of his daughter. "She knew how to make memories."
www.ktvb.com www.ktvb.com
The last article is about the wifi claim and KG's dad.
Click to expand...

I agree and think you're probably correct. I wonder if BK would have taken his phone or left it in the car. I seem to recall it was said he was somewhat studying forensic technology, if so, he of all people would be more aware than most, perhaps I'm wrong?
 
Swansee said:
No surprise there: It seemed obvious these motions would fail. This is very clearly a DP case. But hey they had to give it a try, I guess.
As always thanks @Nila Aella for sharing these links here!
Click to expand...
This might be one of the most thorough responses by any Judge to a Defense Motion I have ever read. Judge Hippler is well versed and proved such in his Motion to Deny. Wow

JMO
 
mrjitty said:
It's obvious the D should try to challenge the constitutionality of the DNA, and therefore seek to exclude everything that arose from that.

Personally I doubt they will succeed. But YOLO!
Click to expand...
That makes 2 of us:

<snipped>
In terms of the U.S. Constitution, a genealogy search triggered by DNA collected from a crime scene probably would not count as a “search” under the Fourth Amendment. Even assuming it would, the applicable legal theory—the “abandonment doctrine”— holds that a person has no “reasonable expectation of privacy” in abandoned materials. Courts have allowed law enforcement to test DNA “abandoned” in a range of settings (such as hair clippings and discarded cigarette butts). At genealogy Web sites, users voluntarily upload (that is, abandon) familial data into commercial databases. Whether they are aware that their data are subject to police collection is, legally, irrelevant.

Is It Ethical to Use Genealogy Data to Solve Crimes? - PMC

MOO
 
Observe_dont_Absorb said:
I agree and think you're probably correct. I wonder if BK would have taken his phone or left it in the car. I seem to recall it was said he was somewhat studying forensic technology, if so, he of all people would be more aware than most, perhaps I'm wrong?
Click to expand...
I think BK had to have his phone with him because he took the back way home to Pullman. With his alleged VSS he could not see very well at night and he might have left it somewhere while 'stargazing' while the murders occurred.

We know he's not the best driver in general getting pulled over; ie blocking crosswalk, following too closely, speeding close to the home on one of 12 previous drive bys before the murders.

jmo
 
Boxer said:
DNA at a crime scene.

Then seems to lead to anything left at a crime scene becomes an item of unreasonable search.

Since the database in question is made of solely "opt in" peoples DNA, is their DNA not their own? Does everyone they are related to have rights over their replicated DNA snippets carried within their cells?

Leading to your DNA not being your own property.

And on a normal size scale, if say a wallet was left behind by the killer with ID, would the police have to take it to the lost and found beause other people with the same last name could be tracked down by it?
Click to expand...
Exactly. What I find fascinating about this is that they're discussing this idea of unconstitutionality with the IGG in this case where they're discussing BK's trash, and they themselves know why that garbage of BK's is fair game: once he puts it in the public domain, that's tough, it's "out there."

The same principle would apply to IGG, the data is "out there." That person has voluntarily given that sample/information/data. Here's an example of how the reasoning falls apart for the D. Say Joe Blow's at a party. Joe Blow is throwing articles in the trash at this party. Joe Blow leaves the party. The people at the premises of the party dispose of the trash, it's put way out on the curb past a sidewalk. LE decides to search it with no warrant. That's okay, so if Joe Blow has disposed of his crack pipe or whatever into the trash and he's really territorial and possessive and he had his name carved into the side of it, that's Joe Blow's problem, to my knowledge. Yep, I know there are states with exceptions and so forth, but to my knowledge, that's the overall "gist." Maybe D's planning to use the caveats where LE generally needs a warrant to get the IGG but often no warrant for trash (and sometimes they will need one for trash). But that's probably because those giving the data involved in IGG have a reasonable expectation of privacy generally in what they have surrendered to the company itself, meaning some random loose cannon individual cannot just call up and get someone's DNA information from one of these companies. But it would not follow from this that LE can't obtain it in exceptional cases. All moo.
 
snooptroop88 said:
Exactly. What I find fascinating about this is that they're discussing this idea of unconstitutionality with the IGG in this case where they're discussing BK's trash, and they themselves know why that garbage of BK's is fair game: once he puts it in the public domain, that's tough, it's "out there."

The same principle would apply to IGG, the data is "out there." That person has voluntarily given that sample/information/data. Here's an example of how the reasoning falls apart for the D. Say Joe Blow's at a party. Joe Blow is throwing articles in the trash at this party. Joe Blow leaves the party. The people at the premises of the party dispose of the trash, it's put way out on the curb past a sidewalk. LE decides to search it with no warrant. That's okay, so if Joe Blow has disposed of his crack pipe or whatever into the trash and he's really territorial and possessive and he had his name carved into the side of it, that's Joe Blow's problem, to my knowledge. Yep, I know there are states with exceptions and so forth, but to my knowledge, that's the overall "gist." Maybe D's planning to use the caveats where LE generally needs a warrant to get the IGG but often no warrant for trash (and sometimes they will need one for trash). But that's probably because those giving the data involved in IGG have a reasonable expectation of privacy generally in what they have surrendered to the company itself, meaning some random loose cannon individual cannot just call up and get someone's DNA information from one of these companies. But it would not follow from this that LE can't obtain it in exceptional cases. All moo.
Click to expand...
No search warrant is needed for LE or anyone else really to access third party sites where a person has freely submitted their DNA by accepting the T&C's of the website.

That's the very reason a lot of people have connected to other family members, found out family heritage, etc. This link explains it in more detail @snooptroop88. :)

GEDMatch and the Fourth Amendment: No Warrant Required

JMO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Members online

... and 138 more.
Total: 1,580 (members: 139, guests: 1,441)

Online statistics

Members online
139
Guests online
1,441
Total visitors
1,580
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
615,394
Messages
18,334,805
Members
236,680
Latest member
Dave_Jones_Lock
Back
Top