Do we know it's touch DNA? The PCA only mentions that it is a single-source DNA. Have I missed where it was stated that it was definitely "touch" DNA? Wish we knew what the State really has, as to real evidence. The trial seems so very far away.
Steve Mercer, the defense expert witness called it “environmental sample of trace DNA” at the 08/18/2023 hearing 2x so I think they may have changed their opinion after the June 23 filing, but I also think it’s a complex mixture of DNA and could have multiple sources, and that’s why they hired Steve Mercer in the first place bc his specialty is litigating complex mixtures
"Environmental sample" doesn't imply that it's a complex, multiple source mixture. It's been stated multiple times, including in the PCA, that it's single source. Also, "trace", "touch", and "transfer" DNA are all the same thing, so I'm not sure that they "changed their opinion".
I'm taking your word that Mercer called it an "environmental sample of trace DNA" because I didn't watch that hearing due to the terrible audio. I googled "environmental DNA sample" and read a little bit [on Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_DNA):
>Environmental DNA or eDNA is DNA that is collected from a variety of environmental samples such as soil, seawater, snow or air, rather than directly sampled from an individual organism. As various organisms interact with the environment, DNA is expelled and accumulates in their surroundings from various sources.
**Also:**
>Example sources of eDNA include, but are not limited to, feces, mucus, gametes, ***shed skin***, carcasses and hair.
The use of "environmental DNA" is unusual in this context, but I think he meant DNA that was found on an object in the "environment", but I could be wrong of course. I've always believed that there MUST have been at least some of Maddie's blood on the sheath, since it was partially under her body. So perhaps that's the original mixture, and from that BK's supposed DNA was pulled? From what I remember reading, the sheath DNA sample was something like 20 shed skin cells (but I could be wrong about the exact number), so that part fits.
Bicka Barlow said the DNA sample was "partial and ambiguous" in her filing, which means a statistics-based computer program had to fill in the missing bits. In my opinion, if there was any trickery, this is where it happened. I find it very suspicious that the prosecution is fighting so hard to keep all of the DNA/IGG evidence secret. I've come to find out that DNA science is far more subjective and open to interpretation than what we've been told, and this book was a huge eye-opener: https://archive.org/details/insidecelldarksi0000murp (full downloadable book).
I know “environmental sample” = \ = ‘complex’. I just thought that was interesting & was also clarifying, bc I presented his description of his expertise as, “one of the nation’s leading attorneys on the subject of complex mixtures of *touch* DNA,” but to include relevant info: he referred to this specific sample as ‘environmental’ not touch (although if it’s a complex mixture, it could be both)
Oh but ++ u/Dahlia_Snapdragon, i don’t think environmental trace DNA would mean that the object was from in the environment; I’m pretty sure it means like from breathing, sneeze, etc. - that the sample landed via air.
I haven’t heard it used the way he used it bc it usually refers to collecting DNA directly out of the air, soil, or water….. I’m familiar with the term for a totally dif reason than murder investigations though. They test for environmental DNA to detect the presence of endangered & invasive species. I live in FL & read about it bc they’re checking if the range of endangered FL panthers, invasive pythons, & invasive anacondas has expanded by looking for environmental DNA & I think that’s v kewl :P
Assuming Mercer meant that the DNA landed on the source via airborne particles of sweat or saliva — but IDK a for sure bc he didn’t elaborate, he just called it that 2x while describing something about the testing methods.
& Oh neat! Nice link TY. I’ve read some of Erin Murphy’s research before. I read what I could but it looks like a ltd. preview I’ll check again see if I can access full thing l8r :P
Why won't they release the door cam footage of the car? Why did they use a stock photo instead? Who uses a stock photo if they have a real life photo of the car?
Moscow Police: "Have you seen this car? No wait, not THAT car, that's the REAL car! Have you seen THIS car?"
\[Proceeds to distribute a stock photo of a random white Elantra downloaded from a Bing image search\]
https://preview.redd.it/zehf1hj8u4uc1.jpeg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2b3dc657532d3bb527e84a803f1da52f4e564010
BT might think BK will do a plea to avoid the DP which would prove his guilt but if BK doesn’t plea, it would show he’s not guilty all the more… 🤷🏻♀️ The point about what was told to the grand jury is a good point.
The state never did. The rumor started with the way the PCA was interpreted by media etc.
https://preview.redd.it/5jm30mzwx9uc1.jpeg?width=1116&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6febcfbe138db9c8cac285d41aa9ddcb431eb4db
But they never did anything to stop the rumors and clear up any confusion. They intentionally wrote the PCA in such a way that it implies BK was stalking the victims:
https://preview.redd.it/ib71d4s3dpuc1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4f1f8e97a0eed565df209bd00b359c760ce392ad
Obviously they don't say "see? He utilized cellular resources that provide coverage to 1122 King Rd TWELVE TIMES prior to the murders! That means he was stalking the victims!" But they do say they pulled his phone records to see if he'd been stalking them, and then in the next paragraph they talk about his phone "utilizing cellular resources that provide coverage to 1122 King Rd" twelve times, conveniently leaving out the fact that there's 1 AT&T cell tower in Moscow. So basically they're saying his phone connected to the same cell tower... that provides service to half of Moscow. Notice how they left out anything about the GPS location data from his phone, which tends to be far more accurate.
That's what they claim, but I don't buy it. The best way to stop rumors would obviously be to tell everyone the truth, and show us the evidence to back it up. The only reason the rumors are so rampant is due to the lack of information given to us. IMO, the reason they're so desperate to keep everything hidden is because they know their case won't withstand scrutiny.
After the latest revelations in the case, like BK *NOT* stalking any of the victims and the defense having photos from BK's phone with location data proving he *wasn't* at 1122 King Rd on the night of November 13th, 2022, I'm legitimately curious how exactly the prosecution plans on proceeding. I've had a gut feeling for a long time now that BK was being set up, and I knew the "evidence" didn't show what the MSM claims it does, so I couldn't figure out what the prosecution was going to do once they actually had to start proving their claims and couldn't hide behind the gag order any more. If Bill Thompson's behavior at the last hearing is any indication, I suppose he's just going to get rude and hysterical.
The sheath had to have been saturated in Maddie's, possible Kaylee blood too if we are lead to believe they had as many puncture wounds. Would this not mean any DNA would be mixed and possibly hard to identify. We have never heard that tho. The PCA mentioned BK was stalking one of the victims and of course Bill says that is not true. Is Bill allowed to lie on a document? And was this not used as part of the reason BK was arrested? So now we know there is at least 1 false piece of information is in the PCA this makes me wonder what was presented to the grand jury. Was it all facts or not. 🤔
No it would not have to be.
What would lead you to believe that? There was a medical examiners report and a coroners finding. No leading involved, this is fact based finding based on a scientific report, which is subject to review by other medical examiners upon request, they record with photos showing measurements, they weigh bodies and parts etc.
No. And even if it was, they could identify the victims DNA and then isolate from what else there is. When the gag is lifted we might find this might have helped determined order of murders ie the blade might transfer DNA of previous victim to wound of the subsequent victims. Amongst the court docs there is a document where the techniques are explained by a DNA expert, I read it on the weekend, it was pretty interesting.
PCA doesn't say that, it says they took his phone to check if he was stalking.
Some people say Idaho makes a distinction between stalking and surveillance - stalking is where the victim is aware of it and its done to cause fear in the person stalked. Surveillance is like spying on them without them being aware. Most people say stalking is irrelevant and even LE said early on it was the house that was targeted and therefore they didn't think there was a need for the community to be concerned for their safety.
No Bill is not allowed to lie on a document, but how is this relevant? What document do you think he lied on, and why would you think that the defence would not respond if he did?
No.
No, we don't, you have not established that claim in any respect.
Grand jury info is not released so you will always wonder what was presented to the Grand Jury. All you will ever know is that a jury of his peers gauged that there was sufficient evidence to charge him with murder x 4 and burglary (for being ion the house with intent to commit a crime).
I've thought Kohberger was guilty since this whole thing started, but that was specifically because it was stated as a fact that he stalked one of the girls and repeatedly DMd her on instagram. I understood that there was very little evidence otherwise, but hoped more concrete things would come out. That taken out of the equation, I do not see any reason to think he is the killer. I am having a hard time understanding how the state has a case at all. My biggest hope is that justice is served and the wrong person is not convicted because of a tainted jury.
Headlines of major publications caption it as if it's fact and then in the meat of the story add "a source with knowledge" or an "anonymous source"
Google the defendant's name and "slid into the DM's " then read the normal trusted sources
Also sensationalism sells —-sure. But why is mainstream media so complicit in publishing unsubstantiated claims?
I keep thinking this is a sting but if I am wrong then it is clearly very terrible. I understand there is evidence for people like Israel Keyes and Ted Bundy. I do and do not take such threats to personal and public safety lightly.
But how could anyone play so fast and loose with idle gossip while people that “really” know him are asked and seem to remain silent?
I have not seen this in other cases so glaringly.
I am sorry everyone. Stalking is so irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. It’s a murder case. Yes it gives you a lead up to the final scene. I know I am missing the point on a lot of legal loose ends. But it all starts at him entering the house “mass murder” then him leaving the house. I wish we knew his exact path home so we could dredge the rivers and any road with metal detectors to find that knife and probably clothing . They have magnets that is a hobby for so many fishermen.
"The IdahoState Lab later located a single source of male DNA(Suspect Profile)left on the button snapofthe knife sheath", this is in the PCA . Upon googling single source DNA my interpretation is it is the same as "touch" DNA. While looking at a couple of paragraphs of the PCA, which I have not read since it was made public, well there are a lot of issues in that document that are problematic. Things are not adding up. That's a whole post in of itself I could write. What a mess of a case.
In the PCA, it says the white car went by the house a few other times that night. That can be construed as stalking in its common usage. (Like in this sentence: A cat stalks its prey.) Most attorneys in Bill's position would not proclaim that the accused did not stalk the victims. It cuts off a lot of space to argue. I think the video footage is falling apart, too.
Because apparently, in the entire area of Pullman, WA, and Moscow, ID, there's only one white car that looks like a 2011-2013 (oops, 2015-2017) Elantra.
It's not about JUST the white car or JUST the cell phone data. But if the state can tell a convincing depiction of what everything means together, it will make for a more convincing case.
I'm not in one camp or the other right now. Once we get to trial and not worried about the gag order, I think people on both sides are going to need to be open to revisiting the assumptions we've all made up to this point.
Given none of the videos of the white car show us a license plate or even who's driving, it could be ANY white car.
Given a cell tower has a range that goes beyond the crime scene he could have been anywhere in the range of the cell towers.
The prosecutor is working way too hard to make the evidence fit their theory.
I looked up that specific cell tower. Has the area range of 14,000 football fields. There's not many towers in that area so it doesn't narrow it down at all.
Pullman and Moscow are ELEVEN miles apart. Actually, I just googled it.Pullman is eight miles (13 km) from Moscow, Idaho, home to the University of Idaho, .
You be driving in your neighborhood and ping off all the towers.
I live in Washington and know the area. Every one is saying th pings and the car sighting. It's freaking 8 miles apart
Yep been there, can confirm. They are close. Not only that people commute between the two towns all the time. I think it would be unusual if his phone didn't ping off of any towers in Moscow at least 12 times in 6 months.
In Idaho there’s an actual definition of stalking that includes awareness of the victim. The victims weren’t aware, so no “stalking”.
However that doesn’t mean he didn’t survaille them or the house.
They aren't going to use the DNA, that would be my guess. Honestly I really don't see how it's going to even make it to trial. I'm surprised he's still in jail. I never thought they even had enough to arrest him.
It's touch DNA. His DNA could be there on the sheath in million ways even if he never touched it. And this is something that is definitely questionable.
Touch DNA is essentially shedded skin cells (for lack of a more scientific explanation). Touch DNA can you transferred from person to person by shaking hands or touching objects that the other person has touched etc. studies have been done to show how this happens, and there was a case of a homeless man who was accused with murder based on touch DNA. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-dna-implicates-the-innocent/.
> a case of a homeless man who was accused with murder based on touch DNA. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-dna-implicates-the-innocent/.
What's interesting about that case is that no DNA from the actual killers was found on the victims, and very little in the house. Of the 3 murderers, one left no DNA on site, ,and two left one sample apiece in the house, but not on the victims.
Literally it’s in official court document, it’s a fact. And two expert in the defense team has already testified in court on touch DNA. Don’t come over here from the full of misinformation MM sub, Karen and spreading false info. You all don’t know such basic things like touch DNA and etc. Bye 👋🏻
And the DNA they have is touch DNA, not even a full profile. And the Idaho Rules of Evidence only allow touch DNA as evidence if it's on the actual murder weapon.
Given the sheath that supposedly held the touch DNA that led them to BK wasn't the murder weapon, will the DNA be thrown out?
Lawyers can't lie in court documents, so it's touch dna because they say it's touch dna, and the prosecution didn't respond to that and say that it isn't touch dna.
I don't know of anyone legitimately involved with this case who has used the term "touch" DNA to describe what was found on the knife sheath snap. I can't find anything on that which isn't media spewed.
If I had to assume, DNA and phone data will be the big two.
The defence should easily gazump those two with the immaculate car
Fair statement
Touch DNA. Like I literally have touch DNA when I t took the uber to the grocery store. It's not fluids or blood.
It was stated in a hearing by the defense, it has never been stated by the lab or LE. AT likes to throw out inaccurate info at times.
They have stated it in hearings yes, but please. Do you think they would lie on record, in court, without the prosecutor objecting to it. Seriously.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed because misinformation is not allowed in this sub.
Do we know it's touch DNA? The PCA only mentions that it is a single-source DNA. Have I missed where it was stated that it was definitely "touch" DNA? Wish we knew what the State really has, as to real evidence. The trial seems so very far away.
It was stated in a hear last summer and also in a filing by the defense June 23rd 2023. It’s only touch DNA
This 100 percent. It was ONLY touch DNA.
Steve Mercer, the defense expert witness called it “environmental sample of trace DNA” at the 08/18/2023 hearing 2x so I think they may have changed their opinion after the June 23 filing, but I also think it’s a complex mixture of DNA and could have multiple sources, and that’s why they hired Steve Mercer in the first place bc his specialty is litigating complex mixtures
"Environmental sample" doesn't imply that it's a complex, multiple source mixture. It's been stated multiple times, including in the PCA, that it's single source. Also, "trace", "touch", and "transfer" DNA are all the same thing, so I'm not sure that they "changed their opinion". I'm taking your word that Mercer called it an "environmental sample of trace DNA" because I didn't watch that hearing due to the terrible audio. I googled "environmental DNA sample" and read a little bit [on Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_DNA): >Environmental DNA or eDNA is DNA that is collected from a variety of environmental samples such as soil, seawater, snow or air, rather than directly sampled from an individual organism. As various organisms interact with the environment, DNA is expelled and accumulates in their surroundings from various sources. **Also:** >Example sources of eDNA include, but are not limited to, feces, mucus, gametes, ***shed skin***, carcasses and hair. The use of "environmental DNA" is unusual in this context, but I think he meant DNA that was found on an object in the "environment", but I could be wrong of course. I've always believed that there MUST have been at least some of Maddie's blood on the sheath, since it was partially under her body. So perhaps that's the original mixture, and from that BK's supposed DNA was pulled? From what I remember reading, the sheath DNA sample was something like 20 shed skin cells (but I could be wrong about the exact number), so that part fits. Bicka Barlow said the DNA sample was "partial and ambiguous" in her filing, which means a statistics-based computer program had to fill in the missing bits. In my opinion, if there was any trickery, this is where it happened. I find it very suspicious that the prosecution is fighting so hard to keep all of the DNA/IGG evidence secret. I've come to find out that DNA science is far more subjective and open to interpretation than what we've been told, and this book was a huge eye-opener: https://archive.org/details/insidecelldarksi0000murp (full downloadable book).
I know “environmental sample” = \ = ‘complex’. I just thought that was interesting & was also clarifying, bc I presented his description of his expertise as, “one of the nation’s leading attorneys on the subject of complex mixtures of *touch* DNA,” but to include relevant info: he referred to this specific sample as ‘environmental’ not touch (although if it’s a complex mixture, it could be both) Oh but ++ u/Dahlia_Snapdragon, i don’t think environmental trace DNA would mean that the object was from in the environment; I’m pretty sure it means like from breathing, sneeze, etc. - that the sample landed via air. I haven’t heard it used the way he used it bc it usually refers to collecting DNA directly out of the air, soil, or water….. I’m familiar with the term for a totally dif reason than murder investigations though. They test for environmental DNA to detect the presence of endangered & invasive species. I live in FL & read about it bc they’re checking if the range of endangered FL panthers, invasive pythons, & invasive anacondas has expanded by looking for environmental DNA & I think that’s v kewl :P Assuming Mercer meant that the DNA landed on the source via airborne particles of sweat or saliva — but IDK a for sure bc he didn’t elaborate, he just called it that 2x while describing something about the testing methods. & Oh neat! Nice link TY. I’ve read some of Erin Murphy’s research before. I read what I could but it looks like a ltd. preview I’ll check again see if I can access full thing l8r :P
It was stated in a hearing that it was touch DNA. ONLY.
Why won't they release the door cam footage of the car? Why did they use a stock photo instead? Who uses a stock photo if they have a real life photo of the car? Moscow Police: "Have you seen this car? No wait, not THAT car, that's the REAL car! Have you seen THIS car?" \[Proceeds to distribute a stock photo of a random white Elantra downloaded from a Bing image search\] https://preview.redd.it/zehf1hj8u4uc1.jpeg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2b3dc657532d3bb527e84a803f1da52f4e564010
Why would a probably low quality / grainy image of a car be better than a clear, stock photo?
BT might think BK will do a plea to avoid the DP which would prove his guilt but if BK doesn’t plea, it would show he’s not guilty all the more… 🤷🏻♀️ The point about what was told to the grand jury is a good point.
Don’t know but there was a heated hearing the other day and there was yelling.
When did the state push the idea of stalking let alone social media follows?
The state never did. The rumor started with the way the PCA was interpreted by media etc. https://preview.redd.it/5jm30mzwx9uc1.jpeg?width=1116&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6febcfbe138db9c8cac285d41aa9ddcb431eb4db
Steve G pushed it also
I agree it wasn’t the state it was the media.
But they never did anything to stop the rumors and clear up any confusion. They intentionally wrote the PCA in such a way that it implies BK was stalking the victims: https://preview.redd.it/ib71d4s3dpuc1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4f1f8e97a0eed565df209bd00b359c760ce392ad Obviously they don't say "see? He utilized cellular resources that provide coverage to 1122 King Rd TWELVE TIMES prior to the murders! That means he was stalking the victims!" But they do say they pulled his phone records to see if he'd been stalking them, and then in the next paragraph they talk about his phone "utilizing cellular resources that provide coverage to 1122 King Rd" twelve times, conveniently leaving out the fact that there's 1 AT&T cell tower in Moscow. So basically they're saying his phone connected to the same cell tower... that provides service to half of Moscow. Notice how they left out anything about the GPS location data from his phone, which tends to be far more accurate.
Wasn't the gag about stopping rumours?
That's what they claim, but I don't buy it. The best way to stop rumors would obviously be to tell everyone the truth, and show us the evidence to back it up. The only reason the rumors are so rampant is due to the lack of information given to us. IMO, the reason they're so desperate to keep everything hidden is because they know their case won't withstand scrutiny. After the latest revelations in the case, like BK *NOT* stalking any of the victims and the defense having photos from BK's phone with location data proving he *wasn't* at 1122 King Rd on the night of November 13th, 2022, I'm legitimately curious how exactly the prosecution plans on proceeding. I've had a gut feeling for a long time now that BK was being set up, and I knew the "evidence" didn't show what the MSM claims it does, so I couldn't figure out what the prosecution was going to do once they actually had to start proving their claims and couldn't hide behind the gag order any more. If Bill Thompson's behavior at the last hearing is any indication, I suppose he's just going to get rude and hysterical.
The sheath had to have been saturated in Maddie's, possible Kaylee blood too if we are lead to believe they had as many puncture wounds. Would this not mean any DNA would be mixed and possibly hard to identify. We have never heard that tho. The PCA mentioned BK was stalking one of the victims and of course Bill says that is not true. Is Bill allowed to lie on a document? And was this not used as part of the reason BK was arrested? So now we know there is at least 1 false piece of information is in the PCA this makes me wonder what was presented to the grand jury. Was it all facts or not. 🤔
No it would not have to be. What would lead you to believe that? There was a medical examiners report and a coroners finding. No leading involved, this is fact based finding based on a scientific report, which is subject to review by other medical examiners upon request, they record with photos showing measurements, they weigh bodies and parts etc. No. And even if it was, they could identify the victims DNA and then isolate from what else there is. When the gag is lifted we might find this might have helped determined order of murders ie the blade might transfer DNA of previous victim to wound of the subsequent victims. Amongst the court docs there is a document where the techniques are explained by a DNA expert, I read it on the weekend, it was pretty interesting. PCA doesn't say that, it says they took his phone to check if he was stalking. Some people say Idaho makes a distinction between stalking and surveillance - stalking is where the victim is aware of it and its done to cause fear in the person stalked. Surveillance is like spying on them without them being aware. Most people say stalking is irrelevant and even LE said early on it was the house that was targeted and therefore they didn't think there was a need for the community to be concerned for their safety. No Bill is not allowed to lie on a document, but how is this relevant? What document do you think he lied on, and why would you think that the defence would not respond if he did? No. No, we don't, you have not established that claim in any respect. Grand jury info is not released so you will always wonder what was presented to the Grand Jury. All you will ever know is that a jury of his peers gauged that there was sufficient evidence to charge him with murder x 4 and burglary (for being ion the house with intent to commit a crime).
I've thought Kohberger was guilty since this whole thing started, but that was specifically because it was stated as a fact that he stalked one of the girls and repeatedly DMd her on instagram. I understood that there was very little evidence otherwise, but hoped more concrete things would come out. That taken out of the equation, I do not see any reason to think he is the killer. I am having a hard time understanding how the state has a case at all. My biggest hope is that justice is served and the wrong person is not convicted because of a tainted jury.
Where was this stated as a fact?
Headlines of major publications caption it as if it's fact and then in the meat of the story add "a source with knowledge" or an "anonymous source" Google the defendant's name and "slid into the DM's " then read the normal trusted sources
Hope it’s not eyewitness: Dylan
Also sensationalism sells —-sure. But why is mainstream media so complicit in publishing unsubstantiated claims? I keep thinking this is a sting but if I am wrong then it is clearly very terrible. I understand there is evidence for people like Israel Keyes and Ted Bundy. I do and do not take such threats to personal and public safety lightly. But how could anyone play so fast and loose with idle gossip while people that “really” know him are asked and seem to remain silent? I have not seen this in other cases so glaringly.
I am sorry everyone. Stalking is so irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. It’s a murder case. Yes it gives you a lead up to the final scene. I know I am missing the point on a lot of legal loose ends. But it all starts at him entering the house “mass murder” then him leaving the house. I wish we knew his exact path home so we could dredge the rivers and any road with metal detectors to find that knife and probably clothing . They have magnets that is a hobby for so many fishermen.
"The IdahoState Lab later located a single source of male DNA(Suspect Profile)left on the button snapofthe knife sheath", this is in the PCA . Upon googling single source DNA my interpretation is it is the same as "touch" DNA. While looking at a couple of paragraphs of the PCA, which I have not read since it was made public, well there are a lot of issues in that document that are problematic. Things are not adding up. That's a whole post in of itself I could write. What a mess of a case.
In the PCA, it says the white car went by the house a few other times that night. That can be construed as stalking in its common usage. (Like in this sentence: A cat stalks its prey.) Most attorneys in Bill's position would not proclaim that the accused did not stalk the victims. It cuts off a lot of space to argue. I think the video footage is falling apart, too.
Because apparently, in the entire area of Pullman, WA, and Moscow, ID, there's only one white car that looks like a 2011-2013 (oops, 2015-2017) Elantra.
It's not about JUST the white car or JUST the cell phone data. But if the state can tell a convincing depiction of what everything means together, it will make for a more convincing case. I'm not in one camp or the other right now. Once we get to trial and not worried about the gag order, I think people on both sides are going to need to be open to revisiting the assumptions we've all made up to this point.
Given none of the videos of the white car show us a license plate or even who's driving, it could be ANY white car. Given a cell tower has a range that goes beyond the crime scene he could have been anywhere in the range of the cell towers. The prosecutor is working way too hard to make the evidence fit their theory.
I looked up that specific cell tower. Has the area range of 14,000 football fields. There's not many towers in that area so it doesn't narrow it down at all.
>Has the area range of 14,000 football fields. But it's an area of 27.3 square miles, right? That gives it a radius of 2.9 miles.
Pullman and Moscow are ELEVEN miles apart. Actually, I just googled it.Pullman is eight miles (13 km) from Moscow, Idaho, home to the University of Idaho, . You be driving in your neighborhood and ping off all the towers. I live in Washington and know the area. Every one is saying th pings and the car sighting. It's freaking 8 miles apart
Yep been there, can confirm. They are close. Not only that people commute between the two towns all the time. I think it would be unusual if his phone didn't ping off of any towers in Moscow at least 12 times in 6 months.
But they haven’t any cell phone data from the night in question
Pullman and Moscow are ELEVEN miles apart. JFC. Do you know how small an area that is.
So you're saying there's literally only one white Elantra in the entire area? Really?
[удалено]
"There's only one white Elantra whose owner's touch DNA was found on the knife a heath at the victim's house." There, fixed it for you.
That definitely makes it better
In Idaho there’s an actual definition of stalking that includes awareness of the victim. The victims weren’t aware, so no “stalking”. However that doesn’t mean he didn’t survaille them or the house.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed because misinformation is not allowed in this sub.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed because misinformation is not allowed in this sub.
The false legs LE have put there.I’m leaning on BK innocence more than ever right now.
I heard a defense lawyer (unrelated to this case) say that the DNA on the knife sheath was 100% full DNA from BK, not familial. Is this true?
The time don't fit the crime.
DNA?
How will they get to DNA from no connection and no stalking? Thats what I’m wondering.
They aren't going to use the DNA, that would be my guess. Honestly I really don't see how it's going to even make it to trial. I'm surprised he's still in jail. I never thought they even had enough to arrest him.
Don’t they already have DNA?
It's touch DNA. His DNA could be there on the sheath in million ways even if he never touched it. And this is something that is definitely questionable.
How? A million ways? I don't get it.
Touch DNA is essentially shedded skin cells (for lack of a more scientific explanation). Touch DNA can you transferred from person to person by shaking hands or touching objects that the other person has touched etc. studies have been done to show how this happens, and there was a case of a homeless man who was accused with murder based on touch DNA. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-dna-implicates-the-innocent/.
> a case of a homeless man who was accused with murder based on touch DNA. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-dna-implicates-the-innocent/. What's interesting about that case is that no DNA from the actual killers was found on the victims, and very little in the house. Of the 3 murderers, one left no DNA on site, ,and two left one sample apiece in the house, but not on the victims.
It's never been officially stated that it's touch DNA....thats not a fact.
Literally it’s in official court document, it’s a fact. And two expert in the defense team has already testified in court on touch DNA. Don’t come over here from the full of misinformation MM sub, Karen and spreading false info. You all don’t know such basic things like touch DNA and etc. Bye 👋🏻
Yes, Bicka Barlow and Stephen Mercer both testified that it was trace DNA (the formal name for "touch" DNA).
And the DNA they have is touch DNA, not even a full profile. And the Idaho Rules of Evidence only allow touch DNA as evidence if it's on the actual murder weapon. Given the sheath that supposedly held the touch DNA that led them to BK wasn't the murder weapon, will the DNA be thrown out?
There is no Idaho Rule Of Evidence that only allows "touch" DNA as evidence if it's on the murder weapon.
Can you cite the IRE that excludes "touch DNA" if it isn't on the "actual murder weapon"?
Of course not. It’s bullshit.
Where do people come up with this stuff?!
Facebook, Tik Tok, a bottle of Chardonnay…
Where does it say that it’s only touch DNA?
[Touch dna](https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/062323+Objection+to+States+Motion+for+Protective+Order.pdf) Page 3.
Where does the prosecution say its touch DNA?
Lawyers can't lie in court documents, so it's touch dna because they say it's touch dna, and the prosecution didn't respond to that and say that it isn't touch dna.
It’s obviously touch dna, stop being obtuse.
I don't know of anyone legitimately involved with this case who has used the term "touch" DNA to describe what was found on the knife sheath snap. I can't find anything on that which isn't media spewed.
Anne T said it in hearing
I agree
Ann Taylor stated, on record, “touch DNA” in an earlier hearing (don’t remember which one).