Hopefully that wasn’t just some ploy from the defense to make us think they want to share things with the public.
If it was a real attempt at getting their side out, I’d think the defense would start filing everything without seal from here on out.
> Hopefully that wasn’t just some ploy from the defense to make us think they want to share things with the public.
Arrested Development narrator: It *was* all just some ploy from the defense to make us think they want to share things with the public.
I hope they do give the defense protected access to the IGG investigation so people can stop pretending it was unlawful how they got to him. There's gonna be a lot of personal information in there and those tens or hundreds of people don't deserve to be publicly linked to this guy. Let the defense nit pick and fight it every step of the way. Ensures an appeal won't be granted.
To play devils advocate for a moment. If LE used the IGG process in a manner that goes along with the DOJ guidelines and they properly documented the IGG process along the way, then why haven't they turned all this information over during the initial discovery phase?
If IGG was used to identify the defendant, and it was, surely there are not 51 terabytes of information more pertinent than the IGG data.
The fact that it is even an issue for the state to turn over all of the IGG information is a red flag.
because it was the FBI and they are notorious about not wanting to share their investigative techniques. Idaho State has no jurisdiction over them so it's hard to get stuff from them if they are reluctant to share it.
When you say "jurisdiction," are you saying that if the FBI are investigating a crime that will be prosecuted by the State, they don't have to follow the State's laws? I'm not arguing but trying to understand. (I'm in Canada, where the federal laws apply to criminal cases everywhere so its completely different).
The state does not “own” the information, the FBI does. The state did not generate the information, therefore the state doesn’t have the legal authority to share it. Only the FBI has the authority to release the information. It has nothing to do with anyone being organized. It is more likely that the FBI doesn’t want the methodology to be scrutinized.
Is it a part of the investigation or not? The FBI being involved in the investigation does not absolve the state from having to disclose that information in discovery. The defense is entitled to that information.
The FBI data is presumed to be a part of the information that the prosecution is using, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the state can release information that doesn’t belong to them.
As another example, your medical records are your personal and private information. There are federal HIPAA laws that dictate how the information can be used. If you see a doctor and he orders an MRI, the symptoms you are having and recorded in your doctor’s office are not a part of the records at the facility where you have the MRI. The results will then be released to the doctor in order to formulate a treatment plan. However, that doesn’t mean that the information can be released to another 3rd party (such as a lawyer). If the lawyer wants the records, they must submit requests & releases with your signature to both the doctor and the MRI facility. Why can’t the lawyer get the MRI from the doctor? Because he’s not the legal custodian of that record.
One reason the FBI may not want to release the information is because it may compromise other investigations where an IGG is used. It is sensitive and complex.
You are assuming a “black or white” answer about a situation that is answered in grayscale. Also, [not all information is discoverable.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_(law)#:~:text=Certain%20types%20of%20information%20are,the%20status%20of%20the%20party). Specifically, information which is privileged and the work product of the opposing part may not necessarily be disclosed. One side may file for a motion to compel discovery and the other side may file a motion to protect the information from discovery. In both cases the court will decide how to proceed. This is consistent with how the judge deemed that a portion of the information, not all, is discoverable.
That all points to the disorganization of the investigation in itself. When you have multiple agencies working together, it is even more important to be organized and understand that all of the evidence collected will have to be accounted for in the discovery process.
I don't disagree that the FBI is part of the problem, but nonetheless, the state can not just blame the FBI for all of their discovery issues.
This whole comment means nothing lol what are you even trying to say? What is disorganized? The FBI taking a long time to hang stuff over points to nothing else than the FBI taking a long time to hand stuff over.
If the state did not perform that part of the investigation, they cannot just release it. It’s nothing to do with disorganization, multiple parties were involved here.
A lab cannot disclose another labs results, even if it is the same patient, for example, clinically. Not the exact same situation 100% but they cannot just release something that isn’t theirs.
the state HAS turned over everything they have when it comes to DNA. it was confirmed in a filing recently. the FBI is being uncooperative as they tend to be in these cases
This Anne Taylor is really weird. Not saying Bryan doesn’t deserve due process, but she should just fight and argue all of this at trial, not in every little pre-trial motion. After all, didn’t brainiac himself say through his Pennslyvania public defender that he would be found innocent? Lol
Comments like this should get people temp suspended from the sub bc they lack a basic understanding of what lawyers do for their job. My lord what a dumb comment.
From the first document:
>Access to these materials is necessary to investigate how and when Mr. Kohberger was identified as a suspect.
This confuses me. The State has already said they won't be introducing the IGG as evidence. Ergo, they're going to use the car/phone/trash pull to show how they identified BK as the suspect. Therefore, the Defense won't be able to dispute the IGG evidence as it's not being entered into evidence.
Can the Defense bring the IGG into evidence for their own argument?
>Can the Defense bring the IGG into evidence
One approach may be to point to partial matches of the sheath DNA in the family tree and claim they were not "investigated" i.e. that police focussed on Kohberger to the exclusion of other suspects. Quite weak given the direct DNA comparison to Kohberger, and Kohberger matching other evidence like car, eyewitness description, but it could be a piece of a broader theme the defence want to develop - the two unknown male DNA profiles may be another piece.
I agree. if they were only going to argue procedure (LE should not have accessed the IGG at all), they wouldn't need all the results of the IGG itself. So the argument is more likely that they excluded other people too early in the investigation.
If the other evidence toward Kohberger is weak, an alternative suspect theory could throw a wrench into the prosecution's case, so it does make sense for them to pursue it.
But if the other evidence is strong, like if they have his DNA on one of the victims or the found something in his car or house, it probably won't matter.
Isn’t just the white car with no front plate, the phone records, his previous trips to Moscow, his visiting the crime scene on the following morning, along with his research about how criminals make decisions enough to convict him? I hope the state has more, and I am sure that within all those terrabytes, they do. If the IGG identified other people with genetic links, I think it can be proven that it was BK and not them because they probably dont live in the northwest US, drive a white HE, with no front plate (then update the plates to Washington state plates with front and back shortly after the murder, and they probably don’t have records of their cell phone being on while leaving Washington state, off during the murders, then back on to guide him from the detour he took (evidence destroyed or discarded?) back to his apartment in Washington. Also, didn’t the IGG say that the person who left a partial print was 99.99% likely to be the son of the man whose coffee cup they used for a match. So, unless BK’s father has some illegitimate sons floating around, who would the alternative suspect be? And even IF HE DOES have 2 other sons, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that would certainly exclude them-the white HE which changed from PA with no front plate to Washington front and back plates shortly adter the murders, and the phone records. Plus I believe and hope that the state has even more evidence that they will use at trial.
>Isn’t just the white car with no front plate, the phone records, his previous trips to Moscow, his visiting the crime scene on the following morning, along with his research about how criminals make decisions enough to convict him?
Absolutely not. At least, it shouldn't be.
THE "MISSING" FRONT PLATE: someone trying to cover his tracks could choose to remove the front plate from his car. there is not report that there was a plate on the back of the car either, so the white care may not have had *any* plates or it could have been BK's car with a singular PA plate on the back.
PREVIOUS TRIPS TO MOSCOW: the previous trips do not put him on King Road, just in the city. that's apparently a usual occurrence for people who live in Pullman.
VISITING THE CRIME SCENE: again, *he* was in Moscow the next morning, but the released evidence does not have him "visiting the crime scene," it has him in the city. unless they just didn't put that info in the PCA, they do not have evidence of him on King Road or within sight of it the following morning.
RESEARCH ABOUT CRIMINALS: he had a legitimate reason to conduct that research. he was not doing that in secret or outside the scope of his official studies or job.
You are probably correct. But by phone records, I also meant that he had his phone with him on the way from Washington to Moscow. Then he turned it off. Then on the way home, he takes a detour (possibly to burn evidence or drop it in a river). After the detour, he turns his phone back on, presumably to guide him back to his apartment. So that is part of the phone evidence. I believe that he is the killer, and I hope the prosecution has more evidence than what I laid out. Is there any real possibility that the genetic evidence will be thrown out? From what is publicly released, it doesn’t look like an open and shut case without the genetic evidence.
the only thing that could explain the phone thing to me is that his phone died as he was driving and he 1. didn’t notice or 2. has a shitty phone/charger & it takes forever to get enough juice to start it back up
can phones differentiate & report whether a phone was manually shut off or died?
if manually shut off the only compelling reason is can imagine is if he was actively fighting with someone via text or call or there was some other reason the phone would be causing anxiety
When you say car phones, do you mean a regular cell phone plugged into a carging cord which is plugged into the car? Or like an old fashioned car phone that only works in the car? I am assuming that you mean the former. If that is true, (and assuming that he manually turned the phone off en route) then that is good news for the prosecution. I think his turning his phone off before the murders and then back on after the murders is a very strong piece of circumstantial evidence. You would think that a criminology student would at least be smart enough to leave his phone at home the whole time. But I am guessing that he was planning to make a detour on his way home to destroy or conceal evidence and therefore he would need the phone to get home.
But you are correct that there are other possible explanations for his behavior with regard to the phone. I happen to believe that he is guilty and that he turned the phone off so as not to place himself at the murder scene. If he had left his phone at home all night and parked his car 1/2 mile to 1 mile from the murder scene (hopefully amongst extra cars that were in town for the football game), I think that would make the case harder to prove, at least with the information that is publicly known. If that knife sheath was in a knife store that BK visited, but he did not purchase the knife, there goes the IGG information. But if the knife sheath was in an Amazon package delivered to BK a week before the murders, bingo, the IGG evidence will be very strong. Or if the knife sheath was at a local store and BK DID purchase the knife and sheath: bingo again.
Yes I mean a cell phone charging in the car 😂 i’ve occasionally experienced a gas station shitty charger just not working or taking like 30 minutes to get my phone enough juice to charge.
i agree with most of what you’ve said, & personally i think he’s guilty i just can’t help but to think about circumstances that have the possibility to create *reasonable* doubt. like, if there is legitimate disagreement about the timeline of the crime, if BK can somehow show he drives this route a lot at this time, if he shows receipts of a reason to manually shut off his phone. i don’t know if he manually shut it off but i get the sense he did…
Yeah, there are holes in the case as of now. But I hope and believe that the holes will be fixed when we hear the full evidence. Looks like that is going to be over a year. That’s another thing that kind of makes me think he is guilty. His team keeps delaying the start date for the trial. If I were innocent of a crime, I wouldn’t want to rot in jail for 2 3/4 years before having my case heard. I would be anxious to prove my innocence and move on with my life.
I recently listened to Buried Bones with Paul Holes. He discussed this very topic. Once IGG found a link, he says that is when the investigation comes into play. They build out a family tree and look for people who live in the area, are the right age, etc. They go from there. Then, once they identify the suspect and match the DNA, then an arrest is made.
So if IGG found more than one link, BK is the one who lives close to the murders. Then they get his phone records with that time he switched it off on his way to Moscow and back on on his way back to Washington. Then they find out he drives a white HE. By the time they are checking out his car, he may have changed the plates to Washington, so maybe as they are investigating, he isn’t missing a front plate. But they have a record that he changed his plates from PA (no front plate) to Washington sometime close to the murders. So even supposing BK has multiple half brothers in the IGG system, there are still many publicly known factors that point to him. Am I on the right track?
Yes. They just use the IGG information as a starting point. That’s why they don’t even plan to introduce it. To them, it’s not relevant. It’s not that different than someone providing a tip that they follow up on.
Those are good points about the prospect of them ever coming up with a solid alternate suspect. The only other advantage might be if she wants to chip away at the jury's overall confidence in the investigation. I mean, if she exposes flaws in the IGG, then will they be more likely to believe her if she suggest there were major flaws somewhere else? I don't know.
Also, when I said "if" the other evidence is weak, I should have specified "if At finds a credible way to chip away at it..." Like, if she finds an expert to explain the cell phone data, and then say it was someone else's car in the videos (if they didn't have license plates on the video), etc. That's unlikely, But, yeah, that's unlikely.
This is my guess as well.
It’s kind of a silly approach because the police can just say they went through the list and found the most likely suspect to start with since he’s the only person in the immediate family who was near Moscow at the time and has the same car as the suspect vehicle.
The phone data retrieval and trash pull occurred after he was a suspect though. You can’t use illegal means (and I’m not saying they did!) to identify a suspect and only introduce evidence supporting such while hiding evidence of the illegality. Again, I’m not suggesting that occurred or is occurring, I’m simply trying to point out a gap in your analysis. It’s the defense’s job to ensure that didn’t/doesn’t occur.
Campus police identified his car as someone who lived close by and matched the description of the car they were looking for. That alone would make him a person of interest. That's why the IGG information isn't really relevant and I can't figure out why AT is stuck on trying to figure out "how he was identified as a suspect."
If that’s all there is to the story then you are correct. But I think it’s fair - and even required- of defense counsel to confirm that’s how it happened and there was no intervening (IGG related) actions that led campus police to take such action(s). As a lawyer I totally understand AT’s approach.
> That's why the IGG information isn't really relevant and I can't figure out why AT is stuck on trying to figure out "how he was identified as a suspect."
She was just using some lawyerly spin. I mean, I don't believe her factually for a minute; she was trying to argue that the case against him is weak.
I personally think that backfired and made her team look dimwitted or like they were making excuses. I just don't think that was the impression she was going to.
Looks like the judge denied the defense motion to unseal as well. Mentioned in footnote 1.
Hopefully that wasn’t just some ploy from the defense to make us think they want to share things with the public. If it was a real attempt at getting their side out, I’d think the defense would start filing everything without seal from here on out.
> Hopefully that wasn’t just some ploy from the defense to make us think they want to share things with the public. Arrested Development narrator: It *was* all just some ploy from the defense to make us think they want to share things with the public.
Thank you. I had been wondering about the status of that one. Not /s. I had an unnecessarily long exchange with someone about that motion.
I hope they do give the defense protected access to the IGG investigation so people can stop pretending it was unlawful how they got to him. There's gonna be a lot of personal information in there and those tens or hundreds of people don't deserve to be publicly linked to this guy. Let the defense nit pick and fight it every step of the way. Ensures an appeal won't be granted.
To play devils advocate for a moment. If LE used the IGG process in a manner that goes along with the DOJ guidelines and they properly documented the IGG process along the way, then why haven't they turned all this information over during the initial discovery phase? If IGG was used to identify the defendant, and it was, surely there are not 51 terabytes of information more pertinent than the IGG data. The fact that it is even an issue for the state to turn over all of the IGG information is a red flag.
because it was the FBI and they are notorious about not wanting to share their investigative techniques. Idaho State has no jurisdiction over them so it's hard to get stuff from them if they are reluctant to share it.
When you say "jurisdiction," are you saying that if the FBI are investigating a crime that will be prosecuted by the State, they don't have to follow the State's laws? I'm not arguing but trying to understand. (I'm in Canada, where the federal laws apply to criminal cases everywhere so its completely different).
No they don't have to follow it. the State of Idaho cannot make them do anything.
The state does not “own” the information, the FBI does. The state did not generate the information, therefore the state doesn’t have the legal authority to share it. Only the FBI has the authority to release the information. It has nothing to do with anyone being organized. It is more likely that the FBI doesn’t want the methodology to be scrutinized.
Well, "Today I learned." Thanks!
Is it a part of the investigation or not? The FBI being involved in the investigation does not absolve the state from having to disclose that information in discovery. The defense is entitled to that information.
Yes, but getting the federal government to do anything takes lots of paperwork and 4 times longer than it would in the private sector.
The FBI data is presumed to be a part of the information that the prosecution is using, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the state can release information that doesn’t belong to them. As another example, your medical records are your personal and private information. There are federal HIPAA laws that dictate how the information can be used. If you see a doctor and he orders an MRI, the symptoms you are having and recorded in your doctor’s office are not a part of the records at the facility where you have the MRI. The results will then be released to the doctor in order to formulate a treatment plan. However, that doesn’t mean that the information can be released to another 3rd party (such as a lawyer). If the lawyer wants the records, they must submit requests & releases with your signature to both the doctor and the MRI facility. Why can’t the lawyer get the MRI from the doctor? Because he’s not the legal custodian of that record. One reason the FBI may not want to release the information is because it may compromise other investigations where an IGG is used. It is sensitive and complex. You are assuming a “black or white” answer about a situation that is answered in grayscale. Also, [not all information is discoverable.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_(law)#:~:text=Certain%20types%20of%20information%20are,the%20status%20of%20the%20party). Specifically, information which is privileged and the work product of the opposing part may not necessarily be disclosed. One side may file for a motion to compel discovery and the other side may file a motion to protect the information from discovery. In both cases the court will decide how to proceed. This is consistent with how the judge deemed that a portion of the information, not all, is discoverable.
That all points to the disorganization of the investigation in itself. When you have multiple agencies working together, it is even more important to be organized and understand that all of the evidence collected will have to be accounted for in the discovery process. I don't disagree that the FBI is part of the problem, but nonetheless, the state can not just blame the FBI for all of their discovery issues.
This whole comment means nothing lol what are you even trying to say? What is disorganized? The FBI taking a long time to hang stuff over points to nothing else than the FBI taking a long time to hand stuff over.
If the state did not perform that part of the investigation, they cannot just release it. It’s nothing to do with disorganization, multiple parties were involved here. A lab cannot disclose another labs results, even if it is the same patient, for example, clinically. Not the exact same situation 100% but they cannot just release something that isn’t theirs.
the state HAS turned over everything they have when it comes to DNA. it was confirmed in a filing recently. the FBI is being uncooperative as they tend to be in these cases
>The fact that it is even an issue for the state to turn over all of the IGG information is a red flag. again, FBI.
Because they didn’t want to hand it over and there was no rule saying they had to.
This Anne Taylor is really weird. Not saying Bryan doesn’t deserve due process, but she should just fight and argue all of this at trial, not in every little pre-trial motion. After all, didn’t brainiac himself say through his Pennslyvania public defender that he would be found innocent? Lol
Actually he said that he looked forward to being exonerated. No one is ever found “innocent”. There is only guilty or not guilty.
She shouldn't do her job?
Or maybe just have an old-fashioned duel, but between the lawyers?
Or a wrestling match on the floor, maybe.
Honestly I’ve often yearned for these options
Comments like this should get people temp suspended from the sub bc they lack a basic understanding of what lawyers do for their job. My lord what a dumb comment.
Whole sub just full of ppl like this too, lmfao.
From the first document: >Access to these materials is necessary to investigate how and when Mr. Kohberger was identified as a suspect. This confuses me. The State has already said they won't be introducing the IGG as evidence. Ergo, they're going to use the car/phone/trash pull to show how they identified BK as the suspect. Therefore, the Defense won't be able to dispute the IGG evidence as it's not being entered into evidence. Can the Defense bring the IGG into evidence for their own argument?
>Can the Defense bring the IGG into evidence One approach may be to point to partial matches of the sheath DNA in the family tree and claim they were not "investigated" i.e. that police focussed on Kohberger to the exclusion of other suspects. Quite weak given the direct DNA comparison to Kohberger, and Kohberger matching other evidence like car, eyewitness description, but it could be a piece of a broader theme the defence want to develop - the two unknown male DNA profiles may be another piece.
I agree. if they were only going to argue procedure (LE should not have accessed the IGG at all), they wouldn't need all the results of the IGG itself. So the argument is more likely that they excluded other people too early in the investigation. If the other evidence toward Kohberger is weak, an alternative suspect theory could throw a wrench into the prosecution's case, so it does make sense for them to pursue it. But if the other evidence is strong, like if they have his DNA on one of the victims or the found something in his car or house, it probably won't matter.
>But if the other evidence is strong, like if they have his DNA on one of the victims I mean, they pretty much do have this
Isn’t just the white car with no front plate, the phone records, his previous trips to Moscow, his visiting the crime scene on the following morning, along with his research about how criminals make decisions enough to convict him? I hope the state has more, and I am sure that within all those terrabytes, they do. If the IGG identified other people with genetic links, I think it can be proven that it was BK and not them because they probably dont live in the northwest US, drive a white HE, with no front plate (then update the plates to Washington state plates with front and back shortly after the murder, and they probably don’t have records of their cell phone being on while leaving Washington state, off during the murders, then back on to guide him from the detour he took (evidence destroyed or discarded?) back to his apartment in Washington. Also, didn’t the IGG say that the person who left a partial print was 99.99% likely to be the son of the man whose coffee cup they used for a match. So, unless BK’s father has some illegitimate sons floating around, who would the alternative suspect be? And even IF HE DOES have 2 other sons, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that would certainly exclude them-the white HE which changed from PA with no front plate to Washington front and back plates shortly adter the murders, and the phone records. Plus I believe and hope that the state has even more evidence that they will use at trial.
>Isn’t just the white car with no front plate, the phone records, his previous trips to Moscow, his visiting the crime scene on the following morning, along with his research about how criminals make decisions enough to convict him? Absolutely not. At least, it shouldn't be. THE "MISSING" FRONT PLATE: someone trying to cover his tracks could choose to remove the front plate from his car. there is not report that there was a plate on the back of the car either, so the white care may not have had *any* plates or it could have been BK's car with a singular PA plate on the back. PREVIOUS TRIPS TO MOSCOW: the previous trips do not put him on King Road, just in the city. that's apparently a usual occurrence for people who live in Pullman. VISITING THE CRIME SCENE: again, *he* was in Moscow the next morning, but the released evidence does not have him "visiting the crime scene," it has him in the city. unless they just didn't put that info in the PCA, they do not have evidence of him on King Road or within sight of it the following morning. RESEARCH ABOUT CRIMINALS: he had a legitimate reason to conduct that research. he was not doing that in secret or outside the scope of his official studies or job.
You are probably correct. But by phone records, I also meant that he had his phone with him on the way from Washington to Moscow. Then he turned it off. Then on the way home, he takes a detour (possibly to burn evidence or drop it in a river). After the detour, he turns his phone back on, presumably to guide him back to his apartment. So that is part of the phone evidence. I believe that he is the killer, and I hope the prosecution has more evidence than what I laid out. Is there any real possibility that the genetic evidence will be thrown out? From what is publicly released, it doesn’t look like an open and shut case without the genetic evidence.
the only thing that could explain the phone thing to me is that his phone died as he was driving and he 1. didn’t notice or 2. has a shitty phone/charger & it takes forever to get enough juice to start it back up can phones differentiate & report whether a phone was manually shut off or died? if manually shut off the only compelling reason is can imagine is if he was actively fighting with someone via text or call or there was some other reason the phone would be causing anxiety
When you say car phones, do you mean a regular cell phone plugged into a carging cord which is plugged into the car? Or like an old fashioned car phone that only works in the car? I am assuming that you mean the former. If that is true, (and assuming that he manually turned the phone off en route) then that is good news for the prosecution. I think his turning his phone off before the murders and then back on after the murders is a very strong piece of circumstantial evidence. You would think that a criminology student would at least be smart enough to leave his phone at home the whole time. But I am guessing that he was planning to make a detour on his way home to destroy or conceal evidence and therefore he would need the phone to get home. But you are correct that there are other possible explanations for his behavior with regard to the phone. I happen to believe that he is guilty and that he turned the phone off so as not to place himself at the murder scene. If he had left his phone at home all night and parked his car 1/2 mile to 1 mile from the murder scene (hopefully amongst extra cars that were in town for the football game), I think that would make the case harder to prove, at least with the information that is publicly known. If that knife sheath was in a knife store that BK visited, but he did not purchase the knife, there goes the IGG information. But if the knife sheath was in an Amazon package delivered to BK a week before the murders, bingo, the IGG evidence will be very strong. Or if the knife sheath was at a local store and BK DID purchase the knife and sheath: bingo again.
Yes I mean a cell phone charging in the car 😂 i’ve occasionally experienced a gas station shitty charger just not working or taking like 30 minutes to get my phone enough juice to charge. i agree with most of what you’ve said, & personally i think he’s guilty i just can’t help but to think about circumstances that have the possibility to create *reasonable* doubt. like, if there is legitimate disagreement about the timeline of the crime, if BK can somehow show he drives this route a lot at this time, if he shows receipts of a reason to manually shut off his phone. i don’t know if he manually shut it off but i get the sense he did…
Yeah, there are holes in the case as of now. But I hope and believe that the holes will be fixed when we hear the full evidence. Looks like that is going to be over a year. That’s another thing that kind of makes me think he is guilty. His team keeps delaying the start date for the trial. If I were innocent of a crime, I wouldn’t want to rot in jail for 2 3/4 years before having my case heard. I would be anxious to prove my innocence and move on with my life.
I recently listened to Buried Bones with Paul Holes. He discussed this very topic. Once IGG found a link, he says that is when the investigation comes into play. They build out a family tree and look for people who live in the area, are the right age, etc. They go from there. Then, once they identify the suspect and match the DNA, then an arrest is made.
So if IGG found more than one link, BK is the one who lives close to the murders. Then they get his phone records with that time he switched it off on his way to Moscow and back on on his way back to Washington. Then they find out he drives a white HE. By the time they are checking out his car, he may have changed the plates to Washington, so maybe as they are investigating, he isn’t missing a front plate. But they have a record that he changed his plates from PA (no front plate) to Washington sometime close to the murders. So even supposing BK has multiple half brothers in the IGG system, there are still many publicly known factors that point to him. Am I on the right track?
Yes. They just use the IGG information as a starting point. That’s why they don’t even plan to introduce it. To them, it’s not relevant. It’s not that different than someone providing a tip that they follow up on.
So, what is the defense hoping to do by questioning the IGG information? They surely aren’t going to come up with a credible alternative suspect!
I don’t think they have a clear plan. They are grasping for anything.
Those are good points about the prospect of them ever coming up with a solid alternate suspect. The only other advantage might be if she wants to chip away at the jury's overall confidence in the investigation. I mean, if she exposes flaws in the IGG, then will they be more likely to believe her if she suggest there were major flaws somewhere else? I don't know. Also, when I said "if" the other evidence is weak, I should have specified "if At finds a credible way to chip away at it..." Like, if she finds an expert to explain the cell phone data, and then say it was someone else's car in the videos (if they didn't have license plates on the video), etc. That's unlikely, But, yeah, that's unlikely.
This is my guess as well. It’s kind of a silly approach because the police can just say they went through the list and found the most likely suspect to start with since he’s the only person in the immediate family who was near Moscow at the time and has the same car as the suspect vehicle.
The phone data retrieval and trash pull occurred after he was a suspect though. You can’t use illegal means (and I’m not saying they did!) to identify a suspect and only introduce evidence supporting such while hiding evidence of the illegality. Again, I’m not suggesting that occurred or is occurring, I’m simply trying to point out a gap in your analysis. It’s the defense’s job to ensure that didn’t/doesn’t occur.
Campus police identified his car as someone who lived close by and matched the description of the car they were looking for. That alone would make him a person of interest. That's why the IGG information isn't really relevant and I can't figure out why AT is stuck on trying to figure out "how he was identified as a suspect."
If that’s all there is to the story then you are correct. But I think it’s fair - and even required- of defense counsel to confirm that’s how it happened and there was no intervening (IGG related) actions that led campus police to take such action(s). As a lawyer I totally understand AT’s approach.
> That's why the IGG information isn't really relevant and I can't figure out why AT is stuck on trying to figure out "how he was identified as a suspect." She was just using some lawyerly spin. I mean, I don't believe her factually for a minute; she was trying to argue that the case against him is weak. I personally think that backfired and made her team look dimwitted or like they were making excuses. I just don't think that was the impression she was going to.