I mean, if we’re going off of “there’s no proof that he wasn’t in the state”, then we might as well open up the suspect list to the entire population of the planet.
I was thinking more in the line of all those who are believed to have stabbed other people within a certain distance of such a crime. That should thin down the list a bit.
This isn’t good news for the case. The DA will have trouble getting a jury to ignore the presence of 2 unknown males at the crime scene.
The handrail dna bothers me because I can easily see the killer hyped up on adrenaline, and grabbing the handrail to avoid tripping on the stairs.
Link https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/crime/article299620254.html
I’m pretty sure the whole “defendant’s DNA on the sheath for the murder weapon” thing will more than override any trace DNA from a couple of randos in a home rented to a bunch of young college students. Plus all the matching with his vehicle and his consistent (with the time of the murder) movements.
I hope so. It certainly seems like Bryan K. did it. But juries can be unpredictable.
Not to mention, if the other DNA was from “unidentified males”, how hard did anyone try to identify them? Anyone who lived in that house, or who was close friends with anyone who did, could probably come up with a few dozen candidates for who it might have been… Did they do comparison tests against all of those people?
Yeah, that is a good point. Those “unidentified males should be IDed to make the prosecution caser air tight- or wide open. And the DNA was from blood, including blood on a glove.
Why did the police eliminate the 'surviving roommate" so fast?
But that DNA is 'touch" or trace" DNA which is not 100% accurate.
Touch DNA | US Military Law Lawyer Philip D. Cave.
As investigators struggled for weeks to find who might have committed the brutal stabbings of four University of Idaho students in the fall of 2022, they were focused on a key piece of evidence: DNA on a knife sheath that was found at the scene of the crime. At first they tried checking the DNA with law enforcement databases, but that did not provide a hit. They turned next to the more expansive DNA profiles available in some consumer databases in which users had consented to law enforcement possibly using their information, but that also did not lead to answers. F.B.I. investigators then went a step further, according to newly released testimony, comparing the DNA profile from the knife sheath with two databases that law enforcement officials are not supposed to tap: GEDmatch and MyHeritage.
It was a decision that appears to have violated key parameters of a Justice Department policy that calls for investigators to operate only in DNA databases “that provide explicit notice to their service users and the public that law enforcement may use their service sites.”
It also seems to have produced results: Days after the F.B.I.’s investigative genetic genealogy team began working with the DNA profiles, it landed on someone who had not been on anyone’s radar: Bryan Kohberger…
[Perhaps someone can provide a gift link?]
So, does the end justify the means?
Yes. Law enforcement has a civic duty to solve crimes. What they did was a last resort.
No. You operate within the parameters of the law as it is written. If you want a law changed, then work to change it. But if law enforcement gets to ignore the rule of law, we’re not left with much.
Gift link as requested:
Doesn’t appear to be a statute per se, but rather a policy of implied privacy according to what is stated or not stated in terms of use.
It’s understood by most people that law enforcement can use any legally-available piece of information to solve crimes.
I agree, but violation of a DOJ “policy” probably does not have the same affect. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Right. Violating an internal policy is much different than breaking a law. There may be work related consequences to violating the policy but there are no legal consequences.
As far as I know there is no law or caselaw prohibiting what the agents did. The policy was probably put in place with an eye towards future court cases and appeals. No one wants to be part of new caselaw. Whether his rights were violated because a relative didn’t consent to their sample being used this way is an entirely different and unclear discussion.
Those DNA databases are publicly-available. Anyone could do what the FBI did. Heck, the local police (who are not bound by the federal DoJ) could have done it.
Nevermind.
The audio file:
Prosecutors in Bryan Kohberger’s trial filed a motion asking a judge to allow them to present his Amazon shopping activity as evidence during trial.
I thought he had probably bought it at a sporting goods store sometime.
For a guy who (seemingly / allegedly) thought of himself as a criminal genius, he sure seems to have flunked Criming 101: Don’t leave lots of evidence connecting you to the weapons or the scene or the victims.
D’oh!
I’d immediately dial 911 if I saw a masked guy in the hallway. I understand texting is common with young people today. It should be alarming when you don’t get a reply.
These aren’t five year old kids that hopes it will be all better in the morning.
I think their state of impairment could come up if they testify. They didn’t do anything wrong. But it will require answers during testimony.
IANA 20-something. But if you texted me during the wee hours, my phone will make no noise becasue it’s in overnight silent mode. Darn good bet most younger folks use some variation of that too.
Sure, they may have some contacts on “do not silence”. I sure do. But not necessarily their housemates. Housemates are not always besties.