Is Law Enforcement Afraid Of ‘Muddying The Waters’ Of the Kohberger Case?
Professor and forensic scientist Dan Krane recently returned to the podcast “Hidden Killers,” hosted by Tony Brueski, to delve deeper into the complexities of the Brian Kohberger case. The conversation centered on the recent development that the DNA of three other men was found at the crime scene. This revelation ignited a spirited discussion on the significance of DNA evidence and its impact on the trial.
Brueski pointed out the importance of conducting thorough investigations before a trial. Even when scrutinizing small details, he said, “It’s always healthy to go through these sort of things… and make sure that we are dealing in facts.”
Krane concurred but also drew attention to an aspect of the case he deemed problematic – how Kohberger was identified as a suspect. He explained, “We aren’t sure how impressed we should be that he matches, given how he was identified.”
The forensic scientist underlined that even though the DNA on a knife sheath found at the murder scene matched Kohberger’s, this evidence’s impressiveness could be downgraded due to “ascertainment bias” – the way Kohberger was first identified as a suspect.
Krane used a lottery ticket analogy to explain the concept of ascertainment bias. He said, “If you tell me that you’ve got a winning lottery ticket after having purchased 10,000 tickets, I would be 10,000 fold less impressed that you got the winning lottery ticket than if you’d gotten the ticket from having purchased just one.”
While Krane acknowledged the DNA from Kohberger matched the sheath, the real issue, he asserted, was how Koberger was first identified as a suspect. The forensic scientist argued that the impressiveness of the DNA match was tainted by the process used to identify Kohberger.
The discussion also discussed why the investigators did not run all the DNA they found at the crime scene. Krane gave two reasons: the public one being that any match found in the FBI’s convicted offender database must be investigated by law, which can be resource-intensive. The cynical reason, he believes, is that investigators may not want to “muddy the waters” by identifying additional persons of interest, thereby complicating their case.
Krane ended the discussion by noting that the defense’s two-fold strategy aims to make the case so complex and costly that it deters the prosecution from seeking the death penalty. Simultaneously, they will strive to introduce reasonable doubt that could sway a jury towards life imprisonment.
Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj
Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com
The latest on Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com
Brueski pointed out the importance of conducting thorough investigations before a trial. Even when scrutinizing small details, he said, “It’s always healthy to go through these sort of things… and make sure that we are dealing in facts.”
Krane concurred but also drew attention to an aspect of the case he deemed problematic – how Kohberger was identified as a suspect. He explained, “We aren’t sure how impressed we should be that he matches, given how he was identified.”
The forensic scientist underlined that even though the DNA on a knife sheath found at the murder scene matched Kohberger’s, this evidence’s impressiveness could be downgraded due to “ascertainment bias” – the way Kohberger was first identified as a suspect.
Krane used a lottery ticket analogy to explain the concept of ascertainment bias. He said, “If you tell me that you’ve got a winning lottery ticket after having purchased 10,000 tickets, I would be 10,000 fold less impressed that you got the winning lottery ticket than if you’d gotten the ticket from having purchased just one.”
While Krane acknowledged the DNA from Kohberger matched the sheath, the real issue, he asserted, was how Koberger was first identified as a suspect. The forensic scientist argued that the impressiveness of the DNA match was tainted by the process used to identify Kohberger.
The discussion also discussed why the investigators did not run all the DNA they found at the crime scene. Krane gave two reasons: the public one being that any match found in the FBI’s convicted offender database must be investigated by law, which can be resource-intensive. The cynical reason, he believes, is that investigators may not want to “muddy the waters” by identifying additional persons of interest, thereby complicating their case.
Krane ended the discussion by noting that the defense’s two-fold strategy aims to make the case so complex and costly that it deters the prosecution from seeking the death penalty. Simultaneously, they will strive to introduce reasonable doubt that could sway a jury towards life imprisonment.
Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj
Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com
The latest on Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com
