Indeed, I think this whole privacy argument goes way too far. We live in a world with other humans. Thus, other humans might know I exist. Cops can also follow you around and find out which school your kids go to, based on where you pick them up. They can look through your window and know whether you're a clean or a filthy person. They can find out what snacks you eat in the car. That's life. It shouldn't be any different with technology.
My husband is a garbage man, he has pulled trash for police many times over the years. The cops usually just ask the driver directly. In my state no warrant is required because once it’s on the street for collection it’s not your property anymore. So the driver pulls the can and drives away and to the cops. They collect the trash and my husband returns the garbage can to the his customer.
Judge Hippler listens closely and stops A Taylor in her tracks. She tries to recover but can’t because Judge Hippler brings her back to argument of, probable cause. She’s grasping and it doesn’t look good. I’m surprised she became so rattled. But, Judge Hippler is a formidable judge that can take her argument apart…easily. She is no match for Judge Hippler.
So she admits he DID go to Moscow that night. What happened to her claim that he went to Wawawai Park (in Washington) that night and never went in the direction of Moscow?! Guess Sy Ray couldn’t come through with backing up her claims.
Replay crew: Pausing at 1:40:32 because I appreciate how doggedly Anne Taylor is defending her client, but I do not like this tone & verbiage for the witnesses. If she brings this kind of heat to trial & cross examination, I do not see it working in the defendant's favor.
@@gothgammy666 There's a difference between being efficient and rushing through things. Hasn't this defence also tried to argue away the capital punishment citing his right to a speedy trial?
Boise is still Idaho, and therefore not a major city. This judge is efficient enough while still giving adequate time for all the motions and arguments brought up. A reminder that we still can't hear any of the sealed bearings
@terripetre8159 some are, but she also has valid arguments as well. Telling g her to sit down is dismissive, she's a defense lawyer . She can stand up while arguing her clients case case !!!
She goes on and on and on… Distasteful…she’s telling Judge Hippler that a judge isn’t going to….she doesn’t know what a judge will say….Hippler proved that. She’s whining too. Not a good look.
Ann Taylor is going to regret her decision to change venue. This new judge isn’t going to listen to her ramble on like Judge Judge. She’s really reaching right out of the gate. I think Bryon is making her argue IGG.
BK has been wanting to know how they connected his DNA on sheath to him from the beginning. He’s arguing police obtained it illegally. They did not. This is not looking good for BK. Why was his DNA on sheath underneath victim? What was found on his computer’s, phone, purchases from Amazon, Walmart etc? Defense wants all that evidence suppressed. Why? If he’s innocent, why suppress evidence?
Ann seems to personalise a lot of her responses and this judge does not care for it. He wants legal facts and can see right through the emotionality and personalisation.
I get it that this woman is really defending her client. But wow. "Don't we leave fingerprints everywhere." I'm dying. If only the bailiff had dropped his mic and then asked her to sit down.
Defense: The police intentionally and recklessly left out the fact no victim’s DNA was found in his car in order to obtain probable cause. Had the magistrate known that, she wouldn’t have found probable cause…” Ummm, how could they have recklessly and intentionally omitted that information that wasn’t even known at the time of the writing of the PCA since his car, apartment and office wasn’t even searched until AFTER probable cause to search those places had already been established?!??!
I snorted in laughter when the defence tried to argue that there was a privacy interest in the DNA sample because it wasn’t intentionally and purposefully left at the scene hence it wasn’t abandoned.
Defense put her foot in her own mouth. She says police didn’t investigate until December when the IGG came back-except a public BOLO was put out weeks before the IGG results came back and an LE BOLO was put out November 25th-several weeks prior, which negates her entire argument.
This is all so painful to me and AT really seems like she’s grasping at straws and is really uninspired about the judge actually buying her claims! I get she’s doing her job, but the arguments really hurt my head! 😂
Defense: “The police intentionally and recklessly left out the fact no victim’s DNA was found in his car, apartment and office in order to obtain probable cause. Had the magistrate known that, she wouldn’t have found probable cause…” Ummm, how could they have “recklessly and intentionally omitted that information” that wasn’t even known at the time of the writing of the PCA since his car, apartment and office weren’t even searched until AFTER probable cause to search those places had already been established?!??! “It’s not fair that my client ILLEGALLY killed 4 people and then accidentally left his DNA on a knife sheath at the crime scene and that the police then used this completely unknown DNA to try and figure out who that DNA belonged to, violating a terms of service agreement (which is not illegal) and that the expectation of someone else’s privacy was violated without first getting a warrant to search for genetically related matches to my client’s DNA.”
She doesn’t really state facts she sounds more like a conspiracy theorist with her secrecy arguments. She isn’t even calling out what was so secretive?so wait… is the defense trying again at a cake and eat it too in regards to the witness DM statements? They omitted her telling them she heard someone run up and down the stairs a few times BUT she also has memory problems and was intoxicated. Don’t those 2 things negate each other for her entire argument?
1:39:42 hold up. She may have heard someone run down and up the stairs. Assumed it’s as her roommate, and may have said that in her interview. Her though wasn’t “ there is a man stabbing my roommates to death” so maybe it was him she heard, but heard the noise of someone on the stairs none the less. Also, the “ not sure if it was a dream or what was real “ I have been in that same place before, we all have. Something happens that seems so bizarre or out of the norm or scary and we are trying to decide in our own minds “ is this real right now, what’s happening” until we get our bearings and can begin to process the puzzle pieces and put things into perspective. I will give an example. You’re asleep, in a deep sleep, you are hearing a noise, it’s a ringing phone, but you try answering the phone, in your dream and there’s no one there, the ringing continues, and you’re now convinced it’s the doorbell, you jolt yourself awake and realize it’s your alarm going off. In that split second you’re awake, but still so vividly remember the dream and the phone ringing and trying to answer the phone and hearing the door bell, and even though it was your alarm and you’ve shut the alarm off, you still feel the urge to see if some called or if someone is at the door. It takes a few moments to get yourself together and determine what was your dream and what was real. It doesn’t mean you have memory problems, you just had a very normal response to something that happens So the defense trying to claim that the survivors interview was “ watered down” or that she wasn’t being “ honest is absurd.
Bro, practically everyone has an ordinance for trash collection. If you forget to put your trash out where you are supposed to put it, it doesn’t get picked up.
Did AT say, BK was in Moscow the night when the murders occurred but not at the resident of victims? Is AT minimizing finding a knife sheath with BK’s DNA on it not worthy of probable cause? This is not sounding good for BK’s defense. The car was searched 7 weeks after murders. Plenty of time to clean with bleach etc. AT is telling the judge how he should think…is that wise on her part?
All of her arguments against the initial warrant from the Magistrate Judge are ridiculous. The burden for a warrant is so low as to not impede an investigation! It was a random brutally violent quadruple homicide. The Magistrate Judge isn’t going to be very picky about probable cause. Her attempt to read their mind in hindsight is so insulting!
She's conflating the definition of 'search', 'searching' a person's belongings to find incriminating evidence is different from 'searching' a database to match evidence you've appropriately gathered and profiled.
@@siobhan6926Absolutely, but that's a separate argument and that's what the judge was trying to get at. He's not assuming it was but he's saying if it was, the subsequent search of databases don't require a warrant because they're not a personal search to find evidence, it's a process to identify the DNA using available data. She could possibly argue it's a 4th amendment violation of the people in that database if they have a reasonable right to privacy, but if Mr. Kohberger wasn't in there and didn't own the database himself, his 4th amendment rights haven't been violated.
@@siobhan6926the crime scene needs no warrant, any evidence collected at a crime scene is supject to investigation. Trash needs no warrant once placed out for collection, the prosecution made it clear that is how it was collected. The state doesn’t need to PROVE it collected evidence properly. Of the defense is making allegations of misconduct the burden of proof is on the defense.
i tend to agree with, once you upload your information to those genealogy sites, even if you opt out- you have no right of privacy. like they said, you have made it public to millions of people.
*even if you opt out* sounds unfair. The argument the prosecutor made was that standard operating procedures are best practices, in other words they mean nothing.
Criminals can apparently use illegal means to commit murder but police can’t violate a 3rd party terms of service, which is still NOT illegal, in order to catch said criminal.
Re-watch crew here. Ann Taylor's arguments are hard to listen to 😑. A knife sheath left at the crime scene with K's DNA is all I need to know at this point 🤨. And taking DNA from a crime scene seems pretty standard to me 🤷🏾♀️🤦🏾♀️
I liked Ann's analogy about cell phones. You need a separate warrant to access the contents of a phone -- and that is recent law, responding to new technology. I do think that eventually, hopefully soon, DNA will also require a separate warrant for more invasive levels of analysis. What matters is not that it's "dna at a crime scene" & thus fair game for any level of testing. What matters is the degree (total) of personal information revealed by the SNP profile. The judge brushed off the "medical information" argument, saying the cops just wanted an identification. But the line is blurry. Cops were using (and notice they no longer brag about it in press conferences) DNA phenotyping to *describe* race, eye color, body type etc of unknown suspects in the era immediately prior to IGG. SNP profiles give you that and more. And medical information *is* identifying. What we learned in today's hearing is that law enforcement considers *any DNA from anybody* an investigative tool. Whether left at a crime scene, abandoned on trash, or submitted in good faith to a supposedly confidential database. One case that was cited concerned DNA collected for health reasons being accessed years later for suspect identification. We also learned that law enforcement, and at least this court, see little *ethical* or *privacy* distinction between the STR profile, originally developed to be minimally invasive as to personal genetic data, and the SNP profile. The SNP profile is maximally invasive. With it you can construct a vast family tree through history, all relationships, and a compendium of personal genetic information. With enough SNP profiles (fewer that you think because math) you can construct a comprehensive family tree of everyone, all relationships, all genetic attributes. Othram Labs and, I believe, quietly, the FBI, are collecting an SNP library. Soon they won't need to access the commercial DNA services. The privacy implications are staggering. There should be a separate warrant, or even some kind of barrier or threshold, for generating these profiles.
It won’t, you leave DNA at a crime scene and police have a right to try to identify who left that evidence. Just because it’s sciencey doesn’t mean it’s special. Blood type, Serology, hair fiber analysis & fingerprinting are also forensic sciences. DNA analysis for crimes has been around for almost 40 years. I don’t believe the courts believe your DNA is more entitled to privacy than your blood, semen or hair. Not sure where you live but no the police didn’t use DNA to make inappropriate comments about suspects. You make the same argument that the defense does and it’s baseless. If you don’t want your DNA at a murder scene, don’t commit murder. That rule applies to your fingerprints or body fluids. Your conspiracy theories aren’t a reason to make it even HARDER to solve murders. Which are already hard enough.
QQQ if a cell phone is left at a crime scene and the police investigate and realise it doesn't belong to a victim can the police search it without a warrant as an identification tool as to find the suspect?
I wonder if/when she looses these motions to suppress if they try for a plea deal. The only defense any of us have heard since the start is that the DNA was illegally found. Oh, and he was stargazing
She doesn’t really state facts she sounds more like a conspiracy theorist with her secrecy arguments. She isn’t even calling out what was so secretive?
@@johannawigg6921give a time stamp I never heard OTHRAM. But the FBI has no requirement to be open with their investigation. They don’t even have to disclose evidence and it’s not a Brady violation. So she’s throwing shade at the FBI for operating under the normal procedures of the FBI. The State of Idaho does not get to dictate how the FBI operates.
@gothgammy666 so they don't have to be accountable to anyone ? Just take their word for it, no need to supply proof of how they did their work ? Is that right ? I'm in New Zealand , maybe I'm not understanding how it works?
This is the same woman who tried to get his indictment thrown out by arguing that the Idaho Constitution, when it was originally written required evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to even just charge her client. Throwing 💩at the wall to see what sticks. 🙄
There is no blood in the car, proves nothing, he made only one mistake that night. Otherwise he was incredibly prepared to commit this crime.( allegedly )
Yo imagine if every time a cop goes to investigate a new crime they have to call the judge and say “hey there’s a dead body and blood everywhere…can we like…collect evidence to see who did this?”
Does anyone else see smirks on the two defense women attorneys face when the prosecution woman attorney is speaking to the court? Or am I just making it up in my head?
@@toadevergreen2561 does my comment ask you anything about a legal argument? No, it does not! Reading comprehension is hard for some people but remember to keep working on your reading skills and never give up.
They were surveilling his parents home. They observed him take out trash late at night, wearing nitrile gloves and put into the neighbors trash can. Police take trash for criminal investigations quite a lot of the time.
They used IGG to identify a link, then tested that link. Which must have been through the father’s side. They could tell from the DNA (that they had on the sheath) shared a certain amount in common with a relative in a DNA database. They could then trace, through marriage/birth records, to a male relative (the father) that would have that % in common with the database sample. So this is suggested to be the suspects father. (Of course this is still theoretical because people have affairs etc.). They needed a sample of the father’s DNA to prove this link, and to confirm paternity to the suspect sample. If Bryan had an uncle, who also had a son, they’d also have to test him. (Providing age matches and they lived in the US etc) When they tested the trash,it was just as likely they could have got Bryan’s DNA and get a direct match. It was reported he was wearing gloves inside which was odd (I think this came from his sister!).
Replay Crew ❤ Forgive my Ignorance but is the defence actually struggling to find anything at all or was the lawyer having a terrible day with arguments?
Her argument is that police maliciously tried solving a crime by trying to identify whose DNA was on the knife sheath left at the crime scene. Don’t you know that all murderers have a right to privacy and the right to not have their DNA left behind at a crime scene used to figure out who they are? 😂 Apparently, the killers are the only ones who who have the right to violate others.
The people who gave their DNA to a database/company gave it to the company, not the federal government. He has no expectation of privacy in regards to his own DNA. But the fact that the FBI breached policy, rather than just get a warrant, to compare that snp to the database is very concerning.
But wait, thats an interesting argument though... 1. DNA was collected from the crime scene - thats fine 2. DNA was sequenced in the lab - thats fine 3. DNA profile was run through law enforcement databases that are closed to public access - thats fine 4. Here is gets tricky - DNA profile was uploaded to a site that the public has access to. Thus everything revealed in his DNA was now on a publicly accessible website - and THAT is the violation. DNA contains all sorts of health information that is private, and by exposing that DNA profile on a publicly accessible site, you have exposed private health information. That is the argument they should have been having. All of the jumping around that she did means that this sort of got lost in the weeds. She did come back to it and touched on it very briefly, but too little too late.
@@gothgammy666Indeed that is a different thing. That is not what she said, her words were that his profile was uploaded. Perhaps she misspoke or I misunderstood.
Just curious, how is it that we have not heard from BK or his family during these 2 yrs of being behind bars, when, there for a while, we heard so many things about Diddy (comments, etc.)? Only bringing up the outside case for comparison sake. Thanks, everyone. :)
How is familial DNA not Kohberger's DNA when Kohberger literally got copies of alleles, actual genetic material, from each of his parents? So aren't our parents DNA our DNA and even our grandparents, at least the DNA we share with them, and so forth for any family members? I agree with Ann Taylor's argument academically but I see how it wouldn't fly in court. Courts are going to continue to uphold the robusticity of DNA evidence in courts.
I’m thinking there’s more DNA than trace DNA on the knife sheath. Trace DNA can be disputed through smart defensive arguments…so why fight so hard to suppress it?
I feel like the female prosecutor needs more experience arguing. It is actually painful listening to her. Is she a baby lawyer cause this is awful. The bar is so low for her (to uphold the warrant) but geez
I actually found her really clear and to the point. She did include more info that needed… Emily even commented on it (it being hard to exclude everything when being in an adversarial setting).
But Emily, I contend that the government also knows a lot about having a meeting about scheduling a meeting about a meeting and to infinity and beyond! 😅
Feelings re: date of trial being shared. Also, what is timeline to start selection to create greatest potential, all prop owners and renters as residents should be eligible.
Do we know what DNA database they used? More than one? GEDmatch? FamilyTreeDNA? Because those DNA databases are used by law enforcement. And that is part of the reason why people upload their DNA to those sites. I'm confused.
Q: "If DNA is everywhere then what can we infer from a lack of DNA in Kohbergers car, apartment". A: Nothing. We have a lack of DNA in that location. That's it.
Just because the defense claims the police reverse engineered their case doesn't mean it's true. Sarah boones defense made lots of claims to be factually so were infact not factual.
Is she genuinely expecting that when police argue PC for a warrant they should include every line of investigation, that could be HUGE, I'd expect the police to make argument relevant to that line of investigation, if there is other dna of a Joe Bloggs then you'd expect the argument to be about them and not all the Kohberger stuff. It's supposed to mean, there's 'enough' evidence at this stage to look harder at this individual/search their property.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
Get Exclusive NordVPN deal + 4 months extra here → nordvpn.com/emilydbaker . It’s risk-free with Nord’s 30-day money-back guarantee!
“He doesn’t have a 4th amendment right to someone else’s DNA. 😊 “
I have been SCREAMING this for months now!
Indeed, I think this whole privacy argument goes way too far. We live in a world with other humans. Thus, other humans might know I exist. Cops can also follow you around and find out which school your kids go to, based on where you pick them up. They can look through your window and know whether you're a clean or a filthy person. They can find out what snacks you eat in the car. That's life. It shouldn't be any different with technology.
DNA is not technology, though, it's biological material, perhaps the most personal of property that exists @@katego370
@lizzimmermann7164 on what grounds have you been making this argument?
My husband is a garbage man, he has pulled trash for police many times over the years. The cops usually just ask the driver directly. In my state no warrant is required because once it’s on the street for collection it’s not your property anymore. So the driver pulls the can and drives away and to the cops. They collect the trash and my husband returns the garbage can to the his customer.
I bet she wishes she would have never asked for a change of venue.
I was thinking the same thing!
She thought she would have a leg up on the state lawyers. Cause she felt outta place in the old venue.
It doesn’t usually include a change of judge, so I am sure regrets are very high.
Judge Judge had the choice to opt out if trial moved from Moscow and thank goodness he did.
@@terripetre8159absolutely Judge Judge is probably a great judge but she’s not going run over this judge….this is his court room. 👏🏻 👏🏻
Petition for new merch:
DNA: That Shit’s Like Glitter. It’s Everywhere.
Yeeees!
"Dear Judge, you need to suppress anything that incriminates Bryan Kohberger." - Defence.
😂that’s what she she is asking! She better change her defense or pled out
😂😂😂
Basically that is what her argument is! You just cleared out her silly nonsense.
What has incrimated him? Besides TRANSFER/CONTACT DNA? NOTHING. But there was BLOOD DNA from another male on the handrail and it wasn't even TESTED?
This judge is awesome. He knows his stuff and is no nonsense unlike judge judge !
Judge Hippler listens closely and stops A Taylor in her tracks. She tries to recover but can’t because Judge Hippler brings her back to argument of, probable cause.
She’s grasping and it doesn’t look good. I’m surprised she became so rattled. But, Judge Hippler is a formidable judge that can take her argument apart…easily. She is no match for Judge Hippler.
So she admits he DID go to Moscow that night. What happened to her claim that he went to Wawawai Park (in Washington) that night and never went in the direction of Moscow?! Guess Sy Ray couldn’t come through with backing up her claims.
And she basically admitted the sheath DNA is his by arguing he has a right to privacy over it being used for testing without a warrant.
Judge H’s memory and Emily’s synchronicity with him (and the lawyers’ arguments/attempts) are impressive!
Replay crew: Pausing at 1:40:32 because I appreciate how doggedly Anne Taylor is defending her client, but I do not like this tone & verbiage for the witnesses. If she brings this kind of heat to trial & cross examination, I do not see it working in the defendant's favor.
She sounds defensive at times, but mostly I don't get that from her
I like this Judge, if more judges were like him, they’d save a lot of time. Time wasting not so much with this Judge.
Capital cases should not be a race.
@@gothgammy666 There's a difference between being efficient and rushing through things. Hasn't this defence also tried to argue away the capital punishment citing his right to a speedy trial?
Boise is still Idaho, and therefore not a major city. This judge is efficient enough while still giving adequate time for all the motions and arguments brought up. A reminder that we still can't hear any of the sealed bearings
Ann loves talking in circles so much that I’m actually dizzy
Agree goodness!
Atleast Anne said Your Honor. Instead of ummm, ummm,ummm.
Thanks EDB Air, replay crew here & so grateful for the flight with my baby pawnerd!
I appreciate the look the judge has when listening
I'm trying to be impartial, and I know she's doing her job, but find her arguments so distasteful
Distasteful? What exactly ?
Her arguments are falling flat!
Sit down…AT.
@terripetre8159 some are, but she also has valid arguments as well. Telling g her to sit down is dismissive, she's a defense lawyer . She can stand up while arguing her clients case case !!!
She goes on and on and on…
Distasteful…she’s telling Judge Hippler that a judge isn’t going to….she doesn’t know what a judge will say….Hippler proved that.
She’s whining too. Not a good look.
@terripetre8159 she's not whining at all. Would you say that about a male lawyer pleading his case ?
Ann Taylor is going to regret her decision to change venue. This new judge isn’t going to listen to her ramble on like Judge Judge. She’s really reaching right out of the gate. I think Bryon is making her argue IGG.
BK has been wanting to know how they connected his DNA on sheath to him from the beginning. He’s arguing police obtained it illegally. They did not.
This is not looking good for BK.
Why was his DNA on sheath underneath victim?
What was found on his computer’s, phone, purchases from Amazon, Walmart etc?
Defense wants all that evidence suppressed. Why? If he’s innocent, why suppress evidence?
Violating another company’s terms of service is not a criminal offense. It might be a civil tort, but Kohberger still has no interest in such claim.
Thank you for all your explanations! And the comedy along the way! 😊
Ann seems to personalise a lot of her responses and this judge does not care for it. He wants legal facts and can see right through the emotionality and personalisation.
I get it that this woman is really defending her client. But wow. "Don't we leave fingerprints everywhere." I'm dying. If only the bailiff had dropped his mic and then asked her to sit down.
Defense: The police intentionally and recklessly left out the fact no victim’s DNA was found in his car in order to obtain probable cause. Had the magistrate known that, she wouldn’t have found probable cause…”
Ummm, how could they have recklessly and intentionally omitted that information that wasn’t even known at the time of the writing of the PCA since his car, apartment and office wasn’t even searched until AFTER probable cause to search those places had already been established?!??!
I was screaming the same things! Like WTAF AT 😂😂😂😂
Her going after the person in the house is just icky
How is law enforcement supposed to solve any crime if they are not allowed to test DNA in any and every data base that has DNA profiles?
I snorted in laughter when the defence tried to argue that there was a privacy interest in the DNA sample because it wasn’t intentionally and purposefully left at the scene hence it wasn’t abandoned.
@ 😂
Arguably, then why not test every man in the area?
See crime solving pre 2020
@ I thought they tested at least some of the main people who were known to have been in the house but data bases are an entirely different entity
Your Honor, this is NOT a question of 'trash-picking.' It is 'CURBSIDE SHOPPING'!
Defense put her foot in her own mouth. She says police didn’t investigate until December when the IGG came back-except a public BOLO was put out weeks before the IGG results came back and an LE BOLO was put out November 25th-several weeks prior, which negates her entire argument.
I'm glad everything's moving along. Trials right around the corner. 💜
Had to catch up with the rewatch crew, but thank you for this EDB! Excited for the stream later this morning
This is all so painful to me and AT really seems like she’s grasping at straws and is really uninspired about the judge actually buying her claims! I get she’s doing her job, but the arguments really hurt my head! 😂
Defense: “The police intentionally and recklessly left out the fact no victim’s DNA was found in his car, apartment and office in order to obtain probable cause. Had the magistrate known that, she wouldn’t have found probable cause…”
Ummm, how could they have “recklessly and intentionally omitted that information” that wasn’t even known at the time of the writing of the PCA since his car, apartment and office weren’t even searched until AFTER probable cause to search those places had already been established?!??!
“It’s not fair that my client ILLEGALLY killed 4 people and then accidentally left his DNA on a knife sheath at the crime scene and that the police then used this completely unknown DNA to try and figure out who that DNA belonged to, violating a terms of service agreement (which is not illegal) and that the expectation of someone else’s privacy was violated without first getting a warrant to search for genetically related matches to my client’s DNA.”
Exactly 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
🙄
She doesn’t really state facts she sounds more like a conspiracy theorist with her secrecy arguments. She isn’t even calling out what was so secretive?so wait… is the defense trying again at a cake and eat it too in regards to the witness DM statements? They omitted her telling them she heard someone run up and down the stairs a few times BUT she also has memory problems and was intoxicated. Don’t those 2 things negate each other for her entire argument?
She can't call it out because it's what they are talking about when they close the hearing
My Go-To. Thank you EDB. My honest opinion is Ann T is regretting the new venue and the loss of Judge Judge.
1:39:42 hold up. She may have heard someone run down and up the stairs. Assumed it’s as her roommate, and may have said that in her interview. Her though wasn’t “ there is a man stabbing my roommates to death” so maybe it was him she heard, but heard the noise of someone on the stairs none the less.
Also, the “ not sure if it was a dream or what was real “
I have been in that same place before, we all have. Something happens that seems so bizarre or out of the norm or scary and we are trying to decide in our own minds “ is this real right now, what’s happening” until we get our bearings and can begin to process the puzzle pieces and put things into perspective. I will give an example. You’re asleep, in a deep sleep, you are hearing a noise, it’s a ringing phone, but you try answering the phone, in your dream and there’s no one there, the ringing continues, and you’re now convinced it’s the doorbell, you jolt yourself awake and realize it’s your alarm going off. In that split second you’re awake, but still so vividly remember the dream and the phone ringing and trying to answer the phone and hearing the door bell, and even though it was your alarm and you’ve shut the alarm off, you still feel the urge to see if some called or if someone is at the door. It takes a few moments to get yourself together and determine what was your dream and what was real. It doesn’t mean you have memory problems, you just had a very normal response to something that happens
So the defense trying to claim that the survivors interview was “ watered down” or that she wasn’t being “ honest is absurd.
Bro, practically everyone has an ordinance for trash collection. If you forget to put your trash out where you are supposed to put it, it doesn’t get picked up.
This judge rocks 🥂👌🏾. He takes no b.s. and is about clear, articulate case law argument; Ann Taylor is struggling 😑
Judge is Chefs Kiss 💋
Watching on replay. I thought Karen Reed trial stuff today was big 😮 omg.!!!.
Hey ! 😃 I'm back!!
EDB you're the BEST!
I just can't without your commentary. 💜
Did AT say, BK was in Moscow the night when the murders occurred but not at the resident of victims?
Is AT minimizing finding a knife sheath with BK’s DNA on it not worthy of probable cause?
This is not sounding good for BK’s defense.
The car was searched 7 weeks after murders. Plenty of time to clean with bleach etc.
AT is telling the judge how he should think…is that wise on her part?
You know that bleach is detectable on those same tests right?
All of her arguments against the initial warrant from the Magistrate Judge are ridiculous. The burden for a warrant is so low as to not impede an investigation! It was a random brutally violent quadruple homicide. The Magistrate Judge isn’t going to be very picky about probable cause. Her attempt to read their mind in hindsight is so insulting!
So where does her 13 minutes come from?
Forty minutes into a four-hour-plus stream…favorite thing Judge H has said so far … “…then don’t go to a crime scene…”!!!
She's conflating the definition of 'search', 'searching' a person's belongings to find incriminating evidence is different from 'searching' a database to match evidence you've appropriately gathered and profiled.
If that DNA was appropriately gathered and profiled.
@@siobhan6926Absolutely, but that's a separate argument and that's what the judge was trying to get at. He's not assuming it was but he's saying if it was, the subsequent search of databases don't require a warrant because they're not a personal search to find evidence, it's a process to identify the DNA using available data.
She could possibly argue it's a 4th amendment violation of the people in that database if they have a reasonable right to privacy, but if Mr. Kohberger wasn't in there and didn't own the database himself, his 4th amendment rights haven't been violated.
@@siobhan6926the crime scene needs no warrant, any evidence collected at a crime scene is supject to investigation.
Trash needs no warrant once placed out for collection, the prosecution made it clear that is how it was collected. The state doesn’t need to PROVE it collected evidence properly. Of the defense is making allegations of misconduct the burden of proof is on the defense.
i tend to agree with, once you upload your information to those genealogy sites, even if you opt out- you have no right of privacy. like they said, you have made it public to millions of people.
*even if you opt out* sounds unfair. The argument the prosecutor made was that standard operating procedures are best practices, in other words they mean nothing.
I didn't think you needed a warrant for trash
It might be different in different states but in Minnesota you do not.
EDB Lawnerd luggage tags would be awesome
Idaho needed the cellphone tower expert that was used in the Chandler Halderson case. That report and testimony was amazing
Watching reply. Thank you, Emily
Criminals can apparently use illegal means to commit murder but police can’t violate a 3rd party terms of service, which is still NOT illegal, in order to catch said criminal.
Yeah that appears to be the exact difference. FBI violating a terms of service is not criminal it's a civil violation
Re-watch crew here. Ann Taylor's arguments are hard to listen to 😑. A knife sheath left at the crime scene with K's DNA is all I need to know at this point 🤨. And taking DNA from a crime scene seems pretty standard to me 🤷🏾♀️🤦🏾♀️
Emily, you have a great legal mind along with quick wit. 😂😂😂😂😂. It’s like legal night at, The Improv.
LMAO several times.
Smack talking one of the survivors of this BRUTAL CRIME isn’t going to sit well with a jury…AT is really making me mad with this line of reasoning.
We don't know for sure what she is yet.
“Marching their happy asses down your driveway” had me giggling like a school girl 😂😂
Ann Taylor is arguing like a 1st yr grad! Some of the arguments make no sense.
HOOOWWW did I miss this??!!!
Thanks Emily! You are the very best, and I enjoy you and your channel so much.
Maddening
If judge is saying there's no privacy at a crime scene then ALL DNA found should have been profiled and searched. Like the unknown males.
How do you know if wasn’t
I assume it must have been but they remain unidentified, they must not have had a relative into ancestry 🤷
I liked Ann's analogy about cell phones. You need a separate warrant to access the contents of a phone -- and that is recent law, responding to new technology. I do think that eventually, hopefully soon, DNA will also require a separate warrant for more invasive levels of analysis. What matters is not that it's "dna at a crime scene" & thus fair game for any level of testing. What matters is the degree (total) of personal information revealed by the SNP profile. The judge brushed off the "medical information" argument, saying the cops just wanted an identification. But the line is blurry. Cops were using (and notice they no longer brag about it in press conferences) DNA phenotyping to *describe* race, eye color, body type etc of unknown suspects in the era immediately prior to IGG. SNP profiles give you that and more. And medical information *is* identifying.
What we learned in today's hearing is that law enforcement considers *any DNA from anybody* an investigative tool. Whether left at a crime scene, abandoned on trash, or submitted in good faith to a supposedly confidential database. One case that was cited concerned DNA collected for health reasons being accessed years later for suspect identification. We also learned that law enforcement, and at least this court, see little *ethical* or *privacy* distinction between the STR profile, originally developed to be minimally invasive as to personal genetic data, and the SNP profile. The SNP profile is maximally invasive. With it you can construct a vast family tree through history, all relationships, and a compendium of personal genetic information. With enough SNP profiles (fewer that you think because math) you can construct a comprehensive family tree of everyone, all relationships, all genetic attributes.
Othram Labs and, I believe, quietly, the FBI, are collecting an SNP library. Soon they won't need to access the commercial DNA services. The privacy implications are staggering. There should be a separate warrant, or even some kind of barrier or threshold, for generating these profiles.
It won’t, you leave DNA at a crime scene and police have a right to try to identify who left that evidence. Just because it’s sciencey doesn’t mean it’s special. Blood type, Serology, hair fiber analysis & fingerprinting are also forensic sciences. DNA analysis for crimes has been around for almost 40 years. I don’t believe the courts believe your DNA is more entitled to privacy than your blood, semen or hair.
Not sure where you live but no the police didn’t use DNA to make inappropriate comments about suspects.
You make the same argument that the defense does and it’s baseless.
If you don’t want your DNA at a murder scene, don’t commit murder. That rule applies to your fingerprints or body fluids.
Your conspiracy theories aren’t a reason to make it even HARDER to solve murders. Which are already hard enough.
QQQ if a cell phone is left at a crime scene and the police investigate and realise it doesn't belong to a victim can the police search it without a warrant as an identification tool as to find the suspect?
No, cell phone data always needs a search warrant to look at it. Even if the person is deceased.
On the flip side-if the DNA would have excluded him, then it would have been ok? 🤔🤔
I wonder if/when she looses these motions to suppress if they try for a plea deal. The only defense any of us have heard since the start is that the DNA was illegally found. Oh, and he was stargazing
😂😂😂😂
Stargazing on a completely cloudy night.
Loses
He was driving around, not stargazing.
@@dougcorcoran5455in the freezing rain
She doesn’t really state facts she sounds more like a conspiracy theorist with her secrecy arguments. She isn’t even calling out what was so secretive?
Yes she did. She said after Othram couldn't find anything the feds got it and after that the process was secretive.
@@johannawigg6921give a time stamp I never heard OTHRAM. But the FBI has no requirement to be open with their investigation. They don’t even have to disclose evidence and it’s not a Brady violation. So she’s throwing shade at the FBI for operating under the normal procedures of the FBI. The State of Idaho does not get to dictate how the FBI operates.
@gothgammy666 so they don't have to be accountable to anyone ? Just take their word for it, no need to supply proof of how they did their work ? Is that right ? I'm in New Zealand , maybe I'm not understanding how it works?
Did EDB just reference the band Live & their song "Pain Lies On The Riverside??" If so, I 💜 her even more!!! Lol
Law Nerds Unite ❤ I can't wait for this trial and spending time with the Nerds 😊
This one AND Karen's💯💯
@bekahdoug5572 100%... I miss Karen Reed lmao 🤣 and Johnny... we need this lol
@@bekahdoug5572and Kouri’s trial coming bio at the end of April.
Me neither
@@bekahdoug5572I can’t hand the miscarriage of justice that is the prosecution of Karen Reed! Bless the lawtubers who have the strength to watch!
I cannot imagine the nerves all speaking attorneys must be processing through. Going to the judges/ boss/ principal situation.
This is the same woman who tried to get his indictment thrown out by arguing that the Idaho Constitution, when it was originally written required evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to even just charge her client. Throwing 💩at the wall to see what sticks. 🙄
This is the right grudge for the case!
OMG!!! Hahaha THE FBIIIIIII just said “…nope!” And yeeted EDB off the livestream!!!! (It was RIGHT when she hit the sound yet) 😂
What person did they think was Runkle? No one on this screen resembles him imo. 😂 Thanks for the giggle tho fellow law nerds.
The match was found on a database that shares information with police.
Can someone explain the dog being an example of police bending the truth…. Dogs move? And some do often avoid things on the floor.
How does the issue with the dog being in his room even exculpatory to the defendant or a material omission that would have negated probable cause?!
I participated in 23 and me. My brother did not. My brother has a right to his privacy.
Right, they aren't collecting his information. They collect your information and look for a familial link.
They are comparing the DNA profile they have legally obtained from their investigation to familial DNA profiles on a public database.
There is no blood in the car, proves nothing, he made only one mistake that night. Otherwise he was incredibly prepared to commit this crime.( allegedly )
No blood in a place where the crime wasn’t committed is definitely not evidence no crime was committed by the vehicle owner
Yo imagine if every time a cop goes to investigate a new crime they have to call the judge and say “hey there’s a dead body and blood everywhere…can we like…collect evidence to see who did this?”
OMGGGGGGG…. This prosecutor saying “at the end of the day.” Is killing me.
AT is soooooo worried about the DNA. I wonder why? ☺️
It’s a real mystery
Does anyone else see smirks on the two defense women attorneys face when the prosecution woman attorney is speaking to the court? Or am I just making it up in my head?
I don't see how this is relevant to the legal arguments made
@@toadevergreen2561 does my comment ask you anything about a legal argument? No, it does not!
Reading comprehension is hard for some people but remember to keep working on your reading skills and never give up.
Question is what evidence led LE to search his parents trash? and that is quite sus...
Yes, once they had IGG, it is reasonable to believe they would get to the DNA anyway
They were surveilling his parents home. They observed him take out trash late at night, wearing nitrile gloves and put into the neighbors trash can.
Police take trash for criminal investigations quite a lot of the time.
They used IGG to identify a link, then tested that link. Which must have been through the father’s side.
They could tell from the DNA (that they had on the sheath) shared a certain amount in common with a relative in a DNA database. They could then trace, through marriage/birth records, to a male relative (the father) that would have that % in common with the database sample. So this is suggested to be the suspects father. (Of course this is still theoretical because people have affairs etc.).
They needed a sample of the father’s DNA to prove this link, and to confirm paternity to the suspect sample. If Bryan had an uncle, who also had a son, they’d also have to test him. (Providing age matches and they lived in the US etc)
When they tested the trash,it was just as likely they could have got Bryan’s DNA and get a direct match. It was reported he was wearing gloves inside which was odd (I think this came from his sister!).
Replay Crew ❤
Forgive my Ignorance but is the defence actually struggling to find anything at all or was the lawyer having a terrible day with arguments?
"That sheesh's like glitter. It's everywhere!" - EDB Lol!!! 😂 ❤
I love how affectionate you are with your kido
I’m kind of for it. So many cases could be solved with IGG.
Replay crew
Defense makes a lot of allegations about "intentional" or "malicious " behavior... but based on what? Did she ever prove intent?
Her argument is that police maliciously tried solving a crime by trying to identify whose DNA was on the knife sheath left at the crime scene.
Don’t you know that all murderers have a right to privacy and the right to not have their DNA left behind at a crime scene used to figure out who they are? 😂
Apparently, the killers are the only ones who who have the right to violate others.
The people who gave their DNA to a database/company gave it to the company, not the federal government. He has no expectation of privacy in regards to his own DNA. But the fact that the FBI breached policy, rather than just get a warrant, to compare that snp to the database is very concerning.
But wait, thats an interesting argument though...
1. DNA was collected from the crime scene - thats fine
2. DNA was sequenced in the lab - thats fine
3. DNA profile was run through law enforcement databases that are closed to public access - thats fine
4. Here is gets tricky - DNA profile was uploaded to a site that the public has access to. Thus everything revealed in his DNA was now on a publicly accessible website - and THAT is the violation. DNA contains all sorts of health information that is private, and by exposing that DNA profile on a publicly accessible site, you have exposed private health information.
That is the argument they should have been having. All of the jumping around that she did means that this sort of got lost in the weeds. She did come back to it and touched on it very briefly, but too little too late.
They did NOT upload his DNA profile on a public database. They compared his DNA to a DNA from a public database. Wildly different things.
@@gothgammy666Indeed that is a different thing. That is not what she said, her words were that his profile was uploaded. Perhaps she misspoke or I misunderstood.
Just curious, how is it that we have not heard from BK or his family during these 2 yrs of being behind bars, when, there for a while, we heard so many things about Diddy (comments, etc.)? Only bringing up the outside case for comparison sake. Thanks, everyone. :)
I was just thinking how absent his family is for someone wrongly accused.
Replay crew here. I’m
Wondering if the IGG doesn’t have a roll in evidence to the jury won’t they wonder how he was doing to be the culprit?
How is familial DNA not Kohberger's DNA when Kohberger literally got copies of alleles, actual genetic material, from each of his parents? So aren't our parents DNA our DNA and even our grandparents, at least the DNA we share with them, and so forth for any family members? I agree with Ann Taylor's argument academically but I see how it wouldn't fly in court. Courts are going to continue to uphold the robusticity of DNA evidence in courts.
This is sports for us true crime and court junkies lol
I’m thinking there’s more DNA than trace DNA on the knife sheath.
Trace DNA can be disputed through smart defensive arguments…so why fight so hard to suppress it?
Yeah, I’m absolutely no expert but to be able to get 2 snips feels like there was a lot
I feel like the female prosecutor needs more experience arguing. It is actually painful listening to her. Is she a baby lawyer cause this is awful. The bar is so low for her (to uphold the warrant) but geez
Plus, she rambled herself out of her argument.
She’s the most experienced capital case public defender in the entire state of Idaho!!!
It’s absolutely insane
I actually found her really clear and to the point. She did include more info that needed… Emily even commented on it (it being hard to exclude everything when being in an adversarial setting).
But Emily, I contend that the government also knows a lot about having a meeting about scheduling a meeting about a meeting and to infinity and beyond! 😅
Feelings re: date of trial being shared. Also, what is timeline to start selection to create greatest potential, all prop owners and renters as residents should be eligible.
Do we know what DNA database they used? More than one? GEDmatch? FamilyTreeDNA? Because those DNA databases are used by law enforcement. And that is part of the reason why people upload their DNA to those sites. I'm confused.
The dog is good every one
Dogs name is Murphy and he lives with jack
No, shes talking about the 12x,
Q: "If DNA is everywhere then what can we infer from a lack of DNA in Kohbergers car, apartment". A: Nothing. We have a lack of DNA in that location. That's it.
Just because the defense claims the police reverse engineered their case doesn't mean it's true.
Sarah boones defense made lots of claims to be factually so were infact not factual.
Is she genuinely expecting that when police argue PC for a warrant they should include every line of investigation, that could be HUGE, I'd expect the police to make argument relevant to that line of investigation, if there is other dna of a Joe Bloggs then you'd expect the argument to be about them and not all the Kohberger stuff. It's supposed to mean, there's 'enough' evidence at this stage to look harder at this individual/search their property.