u/Jumpy_Lion_6938

These are several of the questions and issues I have related to this case. All sources: State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665.

THE WOUND COUNT

150+ documented wound entrances. Four victims. Two floors. 13 minutes. How?

THE BLOOD TRAIL

No victim left their bedroom after being attacked — official forensic conclusion. Yet blood from all four victims was carried throughout the house, deliberately diluted and in motion. Someone carried it. Who?

THE SHOE PRINT

A bloody shoe print outside DM’s bedroom door — Vans type sole pattern — described in a Room Search report as believed to belong to Kohberger. Never forensically confirmed. No evidence Kohberger owned Vans shoes. Who made that print?

THE UNKNOWN MALE DNA

A bloodstain on the stairway handrail contained unknown male DNA excluding all 18 reference samples. Only one profile searched through CODIS. Who is he?

THE SHEATH

Original evidence receipt documents it found on the floor — not the bed. New and unused. No fingerprints anywhere on it. DNA on the front strap described by the ISP lab as naturally occurring environmental trace DNA. The murder weapon was never recovered.

THE KA-BAR CONCLUSION

The autopsy reports don’t mention a Ka-Bar anywhere. The identification came six months later when MPD brought a purchased sample knife to Dr. Singh. The expert disclosure that followed adds details never in the original reports and softens documented findings. That opinion was never cross examined.

THE AMAZON EVIDENCE

Det. Payne confirmed under sworn testimony that he first heard Kohberger’s name on December 19, 2022. 11 days after Amazon returned the broad warrant data. If Kohberger purchased the Ka-Bar through Amazon his name would have appeared in that return. The actual order history Excel file is sealed. No verified purchase receipt has ever been made public.

THE EYEWITNESS

DM said “I have no clue” when shown Kohberger’s mugshot. Her account changed in every interview over 18 days. She could not distinguish dreams from reality. She never called anyone, Bethany called her. She locked her door instead of helping her roommates. This was the foundation of the prosecution’s eyewitness case.

THE FINGERNAIL DNA

The defense’s independent lab excluded Kohberger entirely from the fingernail scrapings. The state’s expert presented his inconclusive result without disclosing the same result applied to virtually everyone tested — including a victim herself.

THE ALTERNATE PERPETRATORS

Defense identified four individuals connected to the victims, three at social events with them the night before, all within walking distance of the scene. All four cooperated. All four were excluded from crime scene DNA testing. A jury never heard about any of them.

THE CRIME SCENE

ISP forensic team handwritten notes document that detectives moved beds and furniture before the forensic team arrived. Evidence swabs were zip-tied and left at the scene overnight. The forensic team was directed by police on where evidence was and was not.

THE BOTTOM LINE

He could not get a single thing thrown out. He faced the death penalty. He took the plea.

None of this was ever tested in open court. There was no trial.

Feel free to add any questions I missed in the comments.

This is absolutely wild! The Defense requested independent testing on Dylan’s coat & blanket… Then Talbott immediately pulled both items and sprayed them with Bluestar on June 8, 2023 (8 months later) and before turning them over to the defense as ordered.

Direct from the ISP forensic file: Rylene Nowlin receives a call from Talbott on (06/08/2023):

“Received call re: additional items for testing. Per Talbott the defense requested items be sent to a private lab. He pulled the requested items and he sprayed them with bluestar. Two items, a coat and a blanket both from Dylan had a positive reaction.”

Note: Talbott also confirmed that both items tested positive with Bluestar (a presumptive test for blood).

Rylene Nowlin immediately responded:

“I asked what the request for examination was and he stated foreign DNA. I expressed application of bluestar on these types of items was not the ideal first step and I would need to speak with my DNA unit prior to submission to see what could still be done on these items.”

After Rylene Nowlin received both items from Talbott on 06/14/2023 she immediately called Bill Thompson:

“Per Bill these were items identified by the defense expert Matt Noedel during his crime scene examination. The defense provided a list of the items they wanted sent to Noedel’s lab and their office and D2 investigations discussed and decided it would be beneficial for Det. Talbott to first examine the items and do a presumptive test.”

Rylene warned about the serious limitations:

“I stated we are limited in what we can now do. Bluestar is a chemical designed for use in crime scenes after all other testing is done. 1 stated it has poor specificity for blood so it is not typically used in lab as a presumptive test. Studies have shown Bluestar does inhibit presumptive blood tests performed in lab like pheno and o-tol. We can examine for blood but it is likely any stains we test will be negative and there is no way to determine at this point if there is blood on the item. Also discussed DNA. I said there are studies that say Bluestar has no negative impact on DNA. However, those studies were done with undiluted blood in concentrations known to produce a full DNA profile. Studies with diluted blood are less certain. Most obtain no DNA profile but unknown if that is because stain is so dilute or Bluestar is causing an issue. The application of the liquid Bluestar to these items also dilutes any stains/ DNA that may be present. I was not able to find studies on Bluestar's impact on forensic lighting techniques like IR and ALS. I said if we don't see anything with our lighting techniques again I could not say if that was because of the Bluestar or because nothing is present on the item.”

Then Talbott calls Rylene Nowlin: “Called to ask if we had any questions or needed anything additional from them at this time. I said I talked to Bill and Ashley this morning to discuss the limitation we have given these items have been processed with Bluestar and I did have some questions for them. I asked the following of Det. Talbott and listed are his responses:

Were photos taken of the items prior to Bluestar application?--No, unsure if Moscow did that:

Were photos taken of the Bluestar reaction?-- Yes but they did not turn out;

Were gloves and mask worn while handling items?-- Yes;

Was examination surface sprayed with bleach and clean paper placed and changed between items?- Yes;

Were the areas of fluorescence circled?--Blanket yes, coat was zipper could be reacting with the metal;

Was a sterile or single use marker used to mark on the item?--Yes;

Were both sides of the blanket sprayed?--Yes;

Was the inside and the outside of the coat sprayed?-- Yes;

They stated these items were ones that were deemed personal items and released back to Dylan. The court ordered they get all items from the crime scene that had been released back into custody I asked if Dylan had washed the items while they were back in Dylan’s custody. They said they did not know.”

So let’s take a second to think about this!

Both items were NEVER sprayed nor tested at the original crime scene in November 2022. They sat untouched for 8 months and were possibly given back to Dylan! Then only after the defense asked for independent testing by Matt Noedel did Talbott pull them and spray them with Bluestar which completely ruined them from being fully tested! Why spray them after the defense asked to examine them? What the hell is going on here!? Why didn’t Anne Taylor go nuclear on this?

This isn’t “routine crime scene processing.” This is police altering potentially exculpatory evidence after the defense formally requested to test it themselves.

Google Drive with the full ISP reports:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/14kz\_lKTzfil54XB4FhXN50ik4Y9xvwfd