Kohberger trial moving out of Moscow, Idaho State Supreme Court rules

The trial of Bryan Kohberger, the man accused of murdering four University of Idaho students, will be moved to Boise, the Idaho State Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The State Supreme Court granted a ‘change of venue’ motion, which will move the trial from its current location in Latah County, in North Idaho, down south to the capital in Ada County.

Bryan Kohberger is accused of murdering University of Idaho students Ethan Chapin, Xana Kernodle, Madison Mogen and Kaylee Goncalves in an off-campus house in Nov. 2022.

Kohberger’s defense pushed for a change of venue to Boise, arguing that due to the high-profile nature of the case, it would be difficult to find an impartial jury in Latah County, which has a population around 40,000.

Their motion was granted by Latah County District Judge John Judge, who deferred the decision of the venue to the State Supreme Court.

Since his Father's DNA is on the knife sheath, maybe he will claim his Father killed them?

There was unidentified DNA on the sheath which, by questionable science, has only been claimed to be from "a male as not being excluded as the biological father of Suspect Profile." Not being excluded may be one of millions that cannot be excluded. It is not a positive finding of being the DNA of the father.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/28/us/idaho-student-killings-genetic-genealogy/index.html

In the days afterward, officials said they did not have a murder weapon or a suspect. However, investigators did find a tan leather knife sheath at the scene, and the Idaho State Lab found a single source of male DNA on the button snap of the sheath, according to a probable cause affidavit.
According to the affidavit, investigators homed in on Kohberger, at the time a Ph.D student in criminology at nearby Washington State University, by using surveillance video of a vehicle in the area around the time of the killings, physical descriptions of the suspect from a surviving witness and his cell phone location data. Further, detectives took DNA from the trash at the Kohberger family’s home in Pennsylvania and compared it to the DNA on the sheath, and identified “a male as not being excluded as the biological father of Suspect Profile,” according to the affidavit. Kohberger was then arrested on December 30, 2022.
In all, investigative genetic genealogy was not mentioned in the arrest warrant or in any search warrants in the case.
However, court documents filed by prosecutors in June 2023 revealed the FBI originally loaded the DNA profile from the knife sheath onto public genealogy sites. “The FBI went to work building family trees of the genetic relatives to the suspect DNA left at the crime scene in an attempt to identify the contributor of the unknown DNA,” and then sent a tip to investigate Kohberger, according to prosecutors.
The tip “pointed law enforcement toward (the) Defendant, but it did not provide law enforcement with substantive evidence of guilt,” according to the filing.

That appears to say that there is a DNA sample from the sheath that maybe, possibly could be from Kohberger's father. He can't be excluded. As evidence, that might not create probable cause.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/28/us/idaho-student-killings-genetic-genealogy/index.html

Expert will testify Bryan Kohberger’s cell phone was outside of Moscow on the night of the Idaho murders, defense says

By Taylor Romine, CNN
Updated 10:21 AM EDT, Thu April 18, 2024

[excerpts]

But genetic genealogy has rarely been tested in a courtroom setting to an intense degree. And questions remain about how investigators obtained and used the forensic technique in this case, as well as broader constitutional evidentiary and privacy concerns.
“This is still a very new investigative technique,” said Jennifer Lynch, the general counsel of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit organization that defends civil liberties online. “I think the public should have the ability to know more about how these sorts of searches are conducted so that we can ensure the police are not just willy-nilly collecting DNA from people and running them against consumer genetic genealogy databases.”
Here’s a look at how investigative genetic genealogy works generally, its relevance to the Idaho student murders case and why Kohberger’s defense has focused on it.
How investigative genetic genealogy works
Genetic genealogy is a practice that blends DNA analysis in the lab with genealogical research, such as tracing a person’s family tree.
Genetic testing companies like 23AndMe and Ancestry have made it easy for millions of people to take at-home DNA tests and learn more about their heritage, families and health traits. Neither site allows members of the public or law enforcement to access their database of genetic knowledge.
Still, consumers can upload their DNA file to other public websites, such as GEDmatch, to learn about connections to other people who have also uploaded their DNA files to the site. From there, users can comb through public information, like obituaries, birth certificates or social media profiles, to try to learn about their family heritage, such as informing adopted children about their biological parents.
The practice began with hobbyists interested in learning about their family histories but in recent years has expanded into the world of forensics to try to solve cold cases and other violent crimes.
In the realm of forensics, investigators occasionally come upon a crime scene with DNA evidence, such as blood or sperm, but no specific suspects. Investigators can take this unknown person’s DNA and compare it to DNA profiles in the FBI database CODIS to see if there’s a match with a known criminal offender. But if there’s no match, the perpetrator’s identity might remain unknown.
Investigative genetic genealogy marries these two fields. With it, criminal investigators can take an unknown suspect’s DNA profile and upload it to a public database to learn about the suspect’s family members. Investigators can then use the genealogical information and other evidence to build back through the family tree and identify potential suspects.
From there, investigators do general detective work to narrow down the suspect pool to one person. This can mean looking at people’s age, location, physical appearance or ability to carry out the crime.

This may entail problems as science or privacy violation. Hidden in the murk may be a search without probable cause.

Bryan Kohberger, who is accused of killing four University of Idaho students in November 2022, was out driving west of Moscow, Idaho, the night of the slayings, his attorney says, and the defense plans to offer a cell phone tower and radio frequency expert to partially corroborate this account, a court document supporting an alibi defense filed Wednesday shows.
Kohberger was driving south of Pullman, Washington, and west of Moscow, Idaho, “as he often did to hike and run and/or see the moon and stars,” his attorney says in the document. The two towns are about 10 miles apart.
More information on Kohberger’s location will be shared after prosecutors provide discovery evidence previously requested, the document says.
Due to a wide-ranging gag order, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and attorneys for victims’ families and witnesses are prohibited from saying anything publicly, aside from what is already in the public record.
The filing is the latest turn in the high-profile case against Kohberger, who is accused of fatally stabbing four Idaho college students early on November 13, 2022. A not guilty plea was entered last May on his behalf, and his attorneys have indicated he intends to present an alibi as part of his defense.
Kohberger’s public defenders several times have pointed to their client’s purported penchant for taking long drives alone late at night. In an August filing, they wrote of the night of the killings, “Mr. Kohberger is not claiming to be at a specific location at a specific time.”
Still, Wednesday’s filing outlining Kohberger’s alibi had been anticipated for months: Idaho law requires a defendant to submit in writing “the specific place or places at which the defendant claims to have been at the time of the alleged offense and the names and addresses of the witnesses upon whom he intends to rely to establish such alibi.”

I was being sarcastic about blaming the Father.

That was obvious and I did not question that. You were not being sarcastic when you incorrectly claimed the Father's DNA is on the sheath. That was incorrectly stated as fact.

Since his Father's DNA is on the knife sheath, maybe he will claim his Father killed them?

- - - - -

As I recall, there is always some level of DNA uncertainty between family members.

Which has not much relevance as they were not comparing the suspect's DNA to anyone, and what DNA the FBI obtained from unknown sources by unknown methods could not be positively related to the father of Kohberger. They could not establish that the DNA on the sheath came from the father of Kohberger.

The legal language the Prosecution used is just standard boiler plate to avoid stating the exact percentage, which the Defense would immediately use to claim that thousands of people are now suspects in the crime.

They can't state a percentage. What they stated they have is "a male as not being excluded as the biological father of Suspect Profile."

This sort of "evidence" sounds good until it is contested and reminds me of testimony from the O.J. case.

Prosecution with its own medical expert:

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would you stake your reputation that based upon the forensic pathology evidence you reviewed, that all of that evidence is in fact consistent with one killer, six foot two, 210 pounds, athletically built with the element of surprise with a 6-inch long single-edged knife killing Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman? Would you risk your reputation, stake your reputation on that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I said that one person could have done all the injuries, yes, I did say that.
MR. KELBERG: And will you stake your reputation that all of the evidence is consistent with that?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

- - - - -

Prosecution with defense medical expert:

MR. KELBERG: So, doctor, is it your use of the term "Possibility" to relate to doctors who talk in terms of "Consistent with" or "Inconsistent with" when questions are posed?
DR. BADEN: What I said is that the witness, me in the blue chair, Dr. Lakshmanan in the blue chair here, can only answer the questions that the lawyers put to us, and I think we try to answer the questions the best we can. But if all we say is it's possible that it happened by a bushy-haired stranger who's righthanded from behind, yes, but it's also equally consistent with a bald-headed midget from the front who is left-handed. It's all — it depends on what kind of information I want to give across as an expert, but I don't have control over your questions or Mr. Shapiro's questions.

- - - - - - - - -

The Police definitely had enough probable cause to ask the Father for a DNA sample - or - to just ask the father if the knife sheath belonged to him.

What was that probable cause? A tip from the FBI? And what was the probable cause that the FBI had? They cannot bootstrap, using the results of an illegal search to justify a subsequent search. What comparison data did the FBI obtain, and how did they obtain it?

Recall from my #6:

Genetic testing companies like 23AndMe and Ancestry have made it easy for millions of people to take at-home DNA tests and learn more about their heritage, families and health traits. Neither site allows members of the public or law enforcement to access their database of genetic knowledge.

It is not clear what evidence they have to take to trial. Without more than is publicly known, the sheath goes nowhere. They lack proof to show it belonged to Kohberger or his father. They have various car sightings in the area which may, or may not, have been Kohberger. They may have a lot of evidence that has not been made public, but the evidence made public does not appear very strong.

The Fathers garbage DNA matched the DNA on a knife sheath discovered at the murder scene.

Your repeated claim is utter nonsense. There was no match to the knife sheath. What they have, for the third time, is "a male as not being excluded as the biological father of Suspect Profile." Forensic Genetic Geneology is incapable of producing a "match." It produces an association which results in a lead, not a match.

They have an unidentified male sample which cannot be excluded as the father of the suspect.

"Cannot be excluded" signifies insufficient information to establish a match. It fails utterly to establish that the garbage DNA matches the DNA on the sheath. They have not matched the DNA on the sheath to anyone.

Garbage DNA can be degraded or contaminated.

They could knock on his door and just ask him how his DNA got on the sheath.

They could knock on your door and ask how your DNA got on the sheath. So what? They cannot demand an answer.

They can call the Father as a witness at the trial and ask him how his DNA got on the sheath.

Assumes a fact not in evidence, that DNA on the sheath was that of Kohberger's father. That question cannot be asked.

The claim is to have used a genealogical DNA analysis, not RFLP or PCR in a laboratory. This is comparing data in a genealogical database to a DNA sample.

https://www.justice.gov/olp/page/file/1204386/download

U.S. Dep’t of Just., United States Department of Justice Interim Policy: Forensic Genetic Genealogical DNA Analysis and Searching (2019)

IV. Limitations
If the search of an FGG profile results in one or more genetic associations,13 the GG service typically generates and provides the service user with a list of genetically associated service usernames along with an estimated relationship and (in some cases) the amount of DNA shared by those individuals. A genetic association means that the donor of the (forensic or reference) sample may be related to a service user. However, information derived from genetic associations is used by law enforcement only as an investigative lead. Traditional genealogy research and other investigative work is needed to determine the true nature of any genetic association. A suspect shall not be arrested based solely on a genetic association generated by a GG service. If a suspect is identified after a genetic association has occurred, STR DNA typing must be performed, and the suspect’s STR DNA profile must be directly compared to the forensic profile previously uploaded to CODIS.14 This comparison is necessary to confirm that the forensic sample could have originated from the suspect.
V. Case Criteria
Investigative agencies may initiate the process of considering the use of FGGS when a case involves an unsolved violent crime15 and the candidate forensic sample16 is from a putative perpetrator,17 or when a case involves what is reasonably believed by investigators to be the unidentified remains of a suspected homicide victim (‘unidentified human remains’).

Noteworthy is that the sheath sample is NOT from a putative perpetrator.

https://forensiccoe.org/report-2022-forensic-genetic-genealogy/

Press Release
Department of Justice Announces Interim Policy on Emerging Method to Generate Leads for Unsolved Violent Crimes
Tuesday, September 24, 2019
Today, the Department of Justice announced its Interim Policy on forensic genetic genealogy (FGG), an emerging investigative technique that will combine technological advancements in DNA analysis and searching with traditional genealogy research. FGG is a unique investigative method that can generate leads used by law enforcement to not only identify unknown suspects but to help identify the remains of homicide victims.
“Prosecuting violent crimes is a Department priority for many reasons, including to ensure public safety and to bring justice and closure to victims and victims’ families,” said Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen. “We cannot fulfill our mission if we cannot identify the perpetrators. Forensic genetic genealogy gets us that much closer to being able to solve the formerly unsolvable. But we must not prioritize this investigative advancement above our commitments to privacy and civil liberties; and that is why we have released our Interim Policy – to provide guidance on maintaining that crucial balance.”
The Department’s policy, which will go into effect on Nov. 1, 2019, is designed to balance the Department’s relentless commitment to solving violent crimes and protecting public safety against equally important public interests – such as preserving the privacy and civil liberties of all citizens. In order to do so, the Department’s Interim Policy on Forensic Genetic Genealogical DNA Analysis and Searching (found at www.justice.gov/forensics) provides the first comprehensive guidance to law enforcement on the use of FGG.
The Interim Policy contains nine sections that lay out critical requirements for the use of FGG by law enforcement, including the collaborative interdisciplinary use of the technique, the criteria a case must meet in order to use FGG, and how the practice is used to generate leads for unsolved crimes.
As genetic genealogy websites become more popular and individuals continue to voluntarily submit their DNA or enter their genetic profiles onto publically available genetic genealogy sites, the more biological information there is to compare with DNA samples from crime scenes.
In essence, a DNA sample taken from the scene of a violent crime that does not match any samples available in the FBI’s Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) will not generate a lead for law enforcement. FGG provides an alternative option. However, FGG requires a type of DNA testing that Department laboratories currently do not perform, so the sample must be outsourced to a vender laboratory. After the vender laboratory completes a more comprehensive analysis on the sample, the resulting genetic profile is entered into one or more publicly-available genetic genealogy services and compared by automation against the genetic profiles of individuals who have voluntarily submitted their own samples. The computer’s algorithm then evaluates potential familial relationships between the sample donor and the website’s users. If an association is detected, it generates a lead. Subsequently, law enforcement can use that lead to advance their investigation using traditional investigative and genealogical methods.
The personal genetic information is not transferred, retrieved, downloaded, or retained by the genetic genealogy users – including law enforcement. And before FGG is an option, all other available techniques, including a search of CODIS, must be exhausted.
A final Department policy on forensic genetic genealogy will be issued in 2020.
Updated November 19, 2020

https://forensiccoe.org/report-2022-forensic-genetic-genealogy/

Forensic Technology Center of Excellence > Discipline > Biology & DNA > DNA > An Introduction to Forensic Genetic Genealogy Technology for Forensic Science Service Providers
September 2022
Overview
DNA evidence can play a key role in investigations of cold case violent crimes and in cases of missing and unidentified individuals. Searching DNA profiles against the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)’s Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) is a critical first step toward finding investigative leads—but these searches may not always yield probative matches. When a search does not result in a CODIS match, forensic science service providers (FSSPs) may identify leads using forensic genetic genealogy (FGG), a technique that combines traditional genealogy research with DNA analysis. FGG use is growing across the United States, but many laboratories lack the capacity to generate the single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) profile required for FGG.
[...]

Having used FGG implies that a CODIS search was exhausted. FGG has no such thing as a direct match. It attempts to construct genealogical family trees to narrow down where to look. It may identify LEADS, not DNA matches.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.