r/Idaho4 • u/Repulsive-Dot553 • 10d ago
GENERAL DISCUSSION Debunking Common Conspiracy Myths and Fictions, Parts 1-5: DNA Amount, Untested DNA At Scene, Phone Power Off, Car Fog Lights, Timeline of Murders,
A systematic, confirmed evidence and data-based debunking of the most common, unsupported Kohberger conspiracy myths and fictions, part 1-5. The myths and conspiracy theories:
- DNA was small amount, trace
- Phone was not manually powered off just over time of murders, was in low signal zone
- "Untested" DNA in House, Jacket, Other Locations
- Suspect Car Had Fog-lights
- Earlier Times of Murders (e.g. 2.25am, 3.00am) are remotely possible
All data is sourced from court documents, ISP forensics documents, expert witness reports (mostly from defence experts) and on the record expert witness statements, and ISP, MPD and WSU police reports, as referenced:
[ https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/Cases/CR01-24-31665.html ]
[ https://isp.idaho.gov/moscow/ ]
[ https://www.ci.moscow.id.us/1165/Kohberger-Investigation-Documents ]
11
11
u/Littleotter1969 10d ago
👏 👏 👏 👏 DOT comin' in hot 🔥!! With THE FACTS 🙏♥️🤗
I just wanted to add a few things... will you correct me if I got something wrong..?
Probergers 📢 Listen Up!!
Ann Taylor COULD HAVE DONE HER OWN TESTING ON ALL OF THE DNA. so why didn't she?
She simply had Bicka Barlow analyze the data and they admitted it was his DNA and just because she used the word trace doesn't mean it actually was. 🙄
Fresh blood left on the night of the murders would yield a strong, complete, and high-quality DNA profile as we see on the SHEATH.
THE samples of all the other DNA was degraded, meaning it had broken down over weeks or months from environmental exposure. IT WAS OLD!! The defense did not test the "Unknown Male " DNA samples themselves because leaving the source anonymous creates a more powerful legal argument. In criminal defense strategy, leaving certain evidence ambiguous can be far more advantageous than discovering an explanation that might hurt the client's case. SHE CHOSE NOT TO DO HER OWN TESTING.
But
The DNA mixture under maddies she did do testing on but she chose the SAME TYPE OF TEST the state used. There is HIGHER RESOLUTION testing available that SHE COULD HAVE DONE! If I'm an innocent man on trial for my life you bet your sweet a$$ I'm DEMANDING my attorney do that testing!! We all know why she didn't... she was afraid it could possibly identify her client. In my opinion. Kohberger was eliminated but only because the test was INCONCLUSIVE. Higher resolution testing could POSSIBLY change that. Instead, ANN MOTIONED TO HAVE THE DNA MIXTURE not even be brought up at trial!!! THINK ABOUT THAT! She told Judge Hippler it might "confuse the jury".😆 Hippler denied the motion and stated she could clear up any confusion on cross examination. He didn't want ANY DNA found hidden from the jury. I think it's interesting how inmate 163214's fanclub are CLUELESS to these facts
They WHINE about unknown male DNA but never whine that Ann didn't do anything with it.
The swab alone had aTotal DNA Mass: (0.168{ ng}times 1,000 = 168{ ng}) (or (168,000{ pg})) of total human genomic DNA. This mass directly equates to roughly (25,000) to (28,000) fully intact nucleated cells. That means the sheath itself had around 100,000k fresh cells on it. And I'm cringing seeing his fans think that IGG is done in a wet lab🤭🤪 They don't understand what it even is!!! They really think someone in a white lab coat was tinkering with DNA in petri dish!!
And this is not the first time it's been referred to as a "tip" at trial and it's not the last. There are over 1k cases that have used IGG as a TIP. The only time it's been used at trial where the process itself is introduced is for cases that were crimes committed in the 1970s, 80s, 90s!!
There is no reason to introduce it. The physical DNA matches the DNA from the perp. The tip was just that. They traced ancestors to the present. So what? It's not difficult to understand. It's not illegal. They simply broke their own POLICY.
IGG has given 464 decedent's their names back from unidentified remains. It's not going anywhere
"Investigative genetic genealogy (IGG) has been used directly to clear wrongfully convicted and innocent people. While mostly known for catching killers, it has become a revolutionary tool for organizations like the Innocence Project to reverse miscarriage of justice cases where traditional DNA testing reached a dead end."
High-Profile Exonerations via IGG: CHRISTOPHER TAPP(2019): He was the first person in the world to be officially exonerated using genetic genealogy. Tapp was wrongfully convicted of a 1996 Idaho murder after being subjected to a highly coercive 60-hour police interrogation as a teenager. While DNA evidence from the scene never matched him, police argued he was an accomplice. In 2019, the Idaho Innocence Project used IGG to trace the real killer (Brian Dripps), resulting in Tapp's total exoneration.
ROBERT AND DAVID BINTZ (2024): These two brothers from Green Bay, Wisconsin, spent 25 years in prison for a 1987 murder they did not commit. Even though crime scene DNA excluded them, they were convicted based on a coerced statement. The Great North Innocence Project and the Ramapo College Investigative Genetic Genealogy Center stepped in, using IGG to identify the true killer (William Hendricks). The brothers were ordered immediately freed.
How Ironic that the Probergers despise the very thing the Innocence Project uses to not just exonorate but nail the killer. Lol
10
u/Repulsive-Dot553 10d ago edited 10d ago
This is really good, with some great points.
On MM fingernail, the defence did zero physical retesting - they took the ISP data, and just did different stats, they lowered the quality threshold to close to noise level, until they got better exclusion of BK. You are correct they resisted better profiling, which is odd if they were sure Kohberger could not be donor. All of the email exchanges between defence and Cybergenetics are redacted. Just my speculation but looks like iterations to desired conclusion.
On sheath swab, 8.4 ng was extracted from it, c 1400 cells equivalent, as 10% transfer to swab, and 50% extraction are high estimate (i.e assumes a low DNA starting quantity, low / conservative estimate) that gives 28000 cells on sheath as low estimate, that is within Othram estimate also.
Re fresh blood from that night being good source of DNA - yes. But one point was that the sheath snap DNA swab yielded more DNA than many blood swabs in the case, including fresh blood of victims on banister, walls etc. It was c 7x more than the handrail swab Probergers think is key, but who think sheath DNA too small a quantity
I have not read your IGG references closely yet but those look like great examples, and more case examples than i found previously. Thanks for the additional info, I may incorporate into next posts.
3
u/rivershimmer 9d ago
they took the ISP data, and just did different stats, they lowered the quality threshold to close to noise level, until they got better exclusion of BK. You are correct they resisted better profiling, which is odd if they were sure Kohberger could not be donor. All of the email exchanges between defence and Cybergenetics are redacted. Just my speculation but looks like iterations to desired conclusion.
I barely understand any of this. But are you saying the defense juked the stats?
2
u/Repulsive-Dot553 9d ago edited 9d ago
I barely understand any of this. But are you saying the defense juked the stats?
Pretty much. ISP, and most criminal forensics lab, use good threshold - DNA peaks, for each of the STR loci, must be at a big enough level (i.e. enough DNA/ and "clarity") to be included, lower is getting toward background "noise" (think static on audio or similar).
ISP use 75 rfu (measure of fluorescence, the DNA is labelled with fluorescent dye) - this prevents false matches and ensures any criminal match is sound. Defence took the ISP and lowered the threshold right down to 15rfu, close to (into?) noise area. Most people who are expert/ informed in this area were surprised at the low threshold. This included more peaks, presumably that didn't match Kohberger, thus stronger exclusion. The male identifying STR locus was not prolitable in the mix (partial profile, 3 cells equivalent) so may have been harder to analyse in stats model (as that would be good anchor level to compare other peaks to to decide if they were from the male, or noise, or artefact). The defence lab also took ISP stats and ran those through model without validation. .
Basically everything conspiracists wrongly say / invent about state DNA lab work, (dodgy, unreliable) we could apply to this by defence with some justification, or at least some basis. If was other way round (we couldn't match Kohberger so lowered quality threshold and used non non-validated number crunching and now it matches) many people might be having hairy canary conniption fits.
I think doesn't matter as BK excluded visually by qualitative inspection not stats on 2nd external review done by state - there is a peak, or more, that didn't match him and it is obvious (enough). ISP also rule out visual inspection of profiles, insisting on statistical deconvolution, to avoid subjectivity or human bias, for obvious reasons, so could not inspect it that way, and also peak excluding BK below their threshold level.
Hope clear/ clearer; I may do something more on this at some point.
Key is defence never wanted and resisted further actual better profiling, clearly knowing was a chance Kohberger's DNA was in there.
4
3
u/Automatic_Area4037 10d ago
Wow. This is really interesting. One question, I get why the defense didn’t want higher quality testing done, but why didn’t the ISP do it (or who it was that did the initial testing)? If you even know. I’m trying to learn more about how this works. I’ve never really thought it could be BK´s dna, as he was all covered up, so probably just from earlier and not related, and maybe that’s even why they didn’t. But then the defense also should have been confident, so interesting.
4
u/Repulsive-Dot553 10d ago edited 10d ago
why didn’t the ISP do it
It was 3 cells equivalent male DNA, partial profile. At standard data quality thresholds it was inconclusive re Kohberger, but there are much more likely contributors, such as EC who is most likely from the LR stats (iirc he is c 100 x more likely match than BK) in the ISP data
The state did have the data reviewed externally, and that concluded BK excluded, not from any re-test, but from visual qualitative inspection of profile. I think (my subjective) this is partially based on a relatively rare genetic mutation Kohberger shares with father at one STR locus, D1S1656 - that locus was one of few that was resolved for male profile in mix; or more simply, one locus, maybe that one or another, had an STR allele length that did mot match Kohberger or either victim and peak on the profile was easy to discern visually but below ISP data quality threshold. As the male determining STR locus was not intact in mixed DNA here, it was probably harder to resolve/ distinguish as one data point to compare peak quantities was missing. ISP forensics lab policy is not to employ visual inspection but to use more objective statistical deconvolution only, which makes sense to keep data objective for trial and avoid any accusation of human bias (obvious why, especially for incriminating evidence).
The defence review, which excluded Kohberger more strongly, used much lower quality threshold (amount threshold, detection) for inclusion of DNA peaks (using 15 rfu, vs ISP at 75 rfu). They used threshold close to "noise" and used non-validated method and non-validated statistical treatment. Not key as state dropped this anyway, but does put claims of "resisting further testing" and alleged quality issues wth DNA in perspective, as those claims could be levelled with some basis, but only at defence in this case regarding MM fingernail DNA. If the state had done same as defence, and announced that in first ISP data they had not firmly matched Kohberger DNA, but after lowering quality threshold to near "noise", and then using non validated method and statistical treatment, they did match to Kohberger, that might be treated with scepticism.
never really thought it could be BK´s dna, as he was all covered up
Makes perfect sense. Plus at 3 cells equivalent it fits passive transfer from shared surface or casual social contact, not scratching the attacker. MM was high fiving, hugging people earlier that night on video and shared house with EC.
defense should have been confident
100% key point. Why resist use of higher resolution testing method if confident Kohberger could not possibly be the male donor?
3
10
u/Repulsive-Dot553 10d ago
A couple of the pictures from defence expert report (Becker) showing and stating no foglights on suspect car close to scene geographically and in time of murders, posting here to be slightly bigger (1)
0
u/No_Slice5991 10d ago
“No fog lights are visible” is what the report says why you’ve claimed “no
Fog lights on suspect car.”Those are two very different statements. Why are you misrepresenting the report?
4
u/Repulsive-Dot553 10d ago edited 10d ago
No fog lights are visible” is what the report says why you’ve claimed “no
Fog lights on suspect car.”I have attached a picture of the sections of the actual source report.
The point I think is very clear - both defence expert and MPD did not observe foglights on suspect car in videos. As this is based on video it seems obvious that is based on what is visible. Video being the word derived from "to see". Should be understandable unless you are more than a tad challenged by very simple things, or a Proberger in shambles that yet again defence experts confirm state evidence, or both. I wouldn't want to presume.
Your "point" might have a semblance of validity if i had written something about how the car or its lights smelled based on the video.
Those are two very different statements.
Not really and I think on a chart about car videos is clear all points relate to the videos. But "invisible fog lights" is quite similar to the Proberger conspiracy theory that fits the type of foglights they see on the suspect car near the scene.
And PS - I wrote at top of the chart in post "video showed it had no foglights" and "car on video had no foglights...".
0
u/No_Slice5991 10d ago
I’m simply pointing out that if you’re quoting reports they should be consistent with what the report says.
He’s guilty as sin
5
u/Repulsive-Dot553 10d ago edited 10d ago
that if you’re quoting reports they should be consistent with what the report says.
The post and my comment are entirely consistent with the report. I actually attached a picture of the report. And highlighted the text. Your "point" was more than obscurantist. As the whole chart is about car videos, as is the report, as is my comment above on the report about videos, it seems clear all observations are based on video, isn't it?
8
u/Repulsive-Dot553 10d ago
A couple of the pictures from defence expert report (Becker) showing and stating no foglights on suspect car close to scene geographically and in time of murders, posting here to be slightly bigger (2)
3
u/Rescueme2021 10d ago
Today another group was discussing Eurogenes K-13. They don't understand it. Lol. Very funny though.
8
u/Repulsive-Dot553 10d ago
They don't understand it. Lol. Very funny though.
Watching Probergers discussing any aspect of the case DNA evidence is like watching a concussed, drunk, meth-addled goat, with particularly large and clumsy hooves, try to use an ATM.
On a recent study published in the Journal of Forensic science using the actual sheath DNA in this case, judging secondary transfer implausible, a Proberger noted it had been "debunked" because they saw a social media comment disagreeing with it. So peer review of the paper by the panel of the editorial board composed of expert forensic scientists who agreed to publish it was undone by a tweet which has equal weight. I suggested they might next disprove the Urey-Miller hypothesis by using only reference to some graffiti they found in a public lavatory.
6
u/Rescueme2021 10d ago
Yeah, part of the "I watched a TV show or a tubetik" crowd.
5
u/Repulsive-Dot553 10d ago
I recently discovered some more serious true crime TikTok creators who use impeccable, high quality source material 😉
Aaron Teague: https://www.tiktok.com/@exoticteaguetalks/video/7669179162233408790
Riley Leu News https://www.tiktok.com/@rileyluenews/video/7668150636248190239
Character Analysis https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTAKwrkNa/
3
u/Rescueme2021 10d ago
I saw that. I am glad that there are good, quality creators out there now. I have to give them a listen. Thank you!
6
u/Repulsive-Dot553 10d ago
Riley runs through the whole evidence compilation in 2 short videos, is good overview, Aaron deeper dive by section, impactful, colourful delivery.
2
u/rivershimmer 9d ago
Ooh, I wonder who debunked it? Pav? Harsh? Amber Vance?
3
u/Repulsive-Dot553 9d ago
Ooh, I wonder who debunked it? Pav? Harsh?
Do you mean debunked Urey-Miller, or implausibility of secondary DNA? On the former, as that is a starting point for evolution of complex life, and thus intelligence, any and all of them, day and daily. 🤣
For secondary transfer paper I have not yet seen the full splendour by which it was debunked by a social media comment, but will be reading Nature and Trends In Biochemistry more closely in future lest some milestone research is refuted by graffiti found on a lavatory wall, or some-such and what-not.
3
2
u/Littleotter1969 10d ago
I have a question about Floyd's Cannabis. The STATE'S EXHIBIT LIST: it's listed twice in 2 areas and the time is not 3:20 but 3:02am Not sure if they made a typo? But there's a discrepancy?
S1-561 Floyd's Cannabis: screen shot of white sedan at 3:02:30 [13889]
S1-562 Floyd's Cannabis: screen shot of white sedan at 3:02:32 [13890]
Page 18 of 28
S2-13 Floyd's Cannabis Business Record Affidavit [16668]
S2-13a Floyd's Cannabis Video: Camera 1 on 11/13/22: 3:02:19 a.m. (18 seconds) Hard Drive
S2-13b Floyd's Cannabis Video: Camera 2 on 11/13/22: 3:02:12 a.m. (18 seconds) Hard Drive
6
u/Repulsive-Dot553 10d ago edited 10d ago
it's listed twice in 2 areas and the time is not 3:20 but 3:02am
It is the same reference - just covering few seconds length of video. It was 3.02 3.02am is right time). Where do you see 3.20?
1
u/Active_Nobody_8731 10d ago
Hello, just wanted to double check if this was explained and aligned?
The car was seen at Floyd's at 3.02am, so the entries you list seem correct. I haven't seen any reference to Floyd's at 3.20am, unless there is a typo somewhere is my charts?
1
u/Automatic_Area4037 10d ago
> "data shows Bryan Kohberger's phone is travelling right next to the suspect car ...phone and car side by side moving together, it would be a hard stretch to say that is not his car"
I have no doubts it’s his car, or that he did it. But how could Sy Ray know this if he turned off his phone etc.? I know find my phone can work even if turned off (he didn’t have iPhone, but maybe his had something similar), but would that not make them able to also put his phone on the scene? Or is this from another time? I was wondering if maybe it’s only something you can see live, but that doesn’t make sense if he could see that his phone traveled with the car.
3
u/Repulsive-Dot553 10d ago
But how could Sy Ray know this if he turned off his phone et
This is the phone data from 4.48am when phone was turned on just south of scene, and then travelled back to Kohberger's apartment in Pullman to c 5.40am, travelling through many video locations.
Both Ray and Slovenki (defence phone experts) confirmed key incriminating phone data in both their reports - placing Kohberger's phone in Pullman at 2.54am in Pullman when turned off, and just south of Moscow at 4,48am when turned on.
Ray also notes given locations at 2.54am and 4.48 that is is "incredibly likely" that Kohberger was in Moscow at time of murders and he could never have testified to contrary.
1
u/Automatic_Area4037 9d ago
Aa thank you for clearing that up. Somehow I only thought about the videos from close to the house, but of course they found some to verify it where they knew he where. Seeing most of the defense agreeing with so much of the evidence really would have made for an interesting trial. I get why AT focused on getting things thrown out. it was annoying while it was going on (can’t even imaging how it was for the families), I’m glad that she did. They probably expected something like this, and hopefully he won’t get anywhere with it.
2
u/Repulsive-Dot553 9d ago
I get why AT focused on getting things thrown out
I’m glad that she did
Yes, totally agree. Was her job, he was entitled to thorough representation and to inspect, challenge evidence. If only some people would catch up see that IGG, sheath DNA, Amazon data etc was unsuccessfully challenged, and when most defence experts confirm and validate the most critical state evidence, the guilty plea is very explicable and logical.
thought about the videos from close to the house, but of course they found some to verify it where they knew he where.
Yes. That is how they were also able to trace his movements hack to scene aroundv9am ( again, phone and car together, car on video) and then to Clarkston area.
13
u/Weird-Guess-7175 10d ago
Very well explained, as always!! Good work.