ID - 4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered - Bryan Kohberger Arrested - Moscow # 54

[eloquence]

Probably would be best if the family didn't have to read or hear these things yet. It's so soon after their child's death to hear such horrid details. The families don't even have time to process the loss.

Not to mention the trial would likely have crime scene photos... I know KG's father was planning to attend most of the trial, hopefully he has a heads up as to what days he should avoid

 

[Leve]

My newest theory is M was the main target. He was surprised by K being there and it messed up his plans. When he came down the stairs X saw him and said "there's someone in the house" to E trying to wake him. So BK killed them as well.

 

[catewac]

I believe the probable cause warrant mentioned the dna on knife sheethe at crime scene and did not mention any other dna at crime scene at this point. More may come out at trial.

I wonder if they felt confident the DNA on the sheath was the murderer and while they may have lots of other sources to work through and identify, they did the sheath first as it would definitely be the killer. Perhaps his DNA will also turn up in a blood sample or other fluid, but it takes longer to sort through all of those and weed out the victims. Hopefully, they identify more sources of his DNA in the house.

 

[elainebenice]

Curious question that I've often wondered but never really dug into... does a defense attorney generally know whether their client is actually guilty of the crime they are charged of? Or how does that work? I cannot imagine having motivation to build a defense case on someone I knew was guilty. But I also can't imagine the not knowing and trying to build a case. Any attorneys here to shed light?

It's a don't ask, don't tell policy usually

 

[Chris_p_bacon]

Y'all slammed the door on me as I was typing a response in the last thread. lol Here is it....


Apparently he wanted his car with him in Pennsylvania, likely to keep LE from finding it. But here's the odd thing for me... his dad flies out to drive back with BK to Pennsylvania for Christmas. That means BK was going to (likely) drive alone all that way back to WA when the visit was over. That doesn't make sense to me. He needs company one way, but not the other? Someone has wondered if it was due to a long haul during winter, but it would still be winter when he made the drive back.

I am betting he was somehow planning to get a different vehicle to drive back to Moscow/pullman area.

 

[Pretty Go Pale]

DNA is NOT circumstantial evidence. It is direct, physical evidence

Source: I'm an attorney

"Is DNA evidence circumstantial or direct?


It is important to remember, however, that DNA evidence, like much scientific evidence, is ultimately considered to be circumstantial evidence. This means that it does not definitively prove anything the point which needs to be proved within the trial, and instead provides only a strong inference in favor of the point."

The Use of DNA Evidence in a Crime

The Use of DNA Evidence in a Crime - Understand The Use of DNA Evidence in a Crime, Trial, its processes, and crucial Trial information needed.

trial.laws.com

 

[Michael0808]

this was my thought. I don't think he planned to take the car back with him. (IMO)

Me neither. I think his plan was to ditch that car.

 

[SouthAussie]

Curious question that I've often wondered but never really dug into... does a defense attorney generally know whether their client is actually guilty of the crime they are charged of? Or how does that work? I cannot imagine having motivation to build a defense case on someone I knew was guilty. But I also can't imagine the not knowing and trying to build a case. Any attorneys here to shed light?

IANAL but I have read that they don't ask if their client is guilty. They don't want to know. Because then they might have to admit that knowledge.


I am not sure how it works in the US, but in my country it works like this ....

"The ethical standards do not prevent criminal lawyers from representing a client they know is guilty, but the lawyer will not be able to lie or knowingly mislead the court on their client’s behalf."

Can My Lawyer Still Defend Me If They Know I'm Guilty?

If you confess to your lawyer, but still want to plead innocent, your lawyer can continue representing you, although it would be inadvisable. Find out why.

www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au

 

[Murphy1950]

I was thinking we'd find out he was going to get a new car but weird to me that he switched the registration if he planned to sell it in PA. You'd think he would have just registered online or had his mom do it in PA.

Then I thought briefly maybe he had to have it inspected since the registration was up but he just switched his registration from PA to WA so he could have done the inspection in WA - no need to head to PA.

It does not make much sense.

Keeping the car period, does not make much sense IMO. He could have easily abandoned it in a bad neighborhood, with the keys, and when it's recovered, where's my knife ?...here comes your reasonable doubt.

ETA. A simple disguise,a one hour bus ride from Spokane to Pullman and $30.00.

 

[Gardenista]

Curious question that I've often wondered but never really dug into... does a defense attorney generally know whether their client is actually guilty of the crime they are charged of? Or how does that work? I cannot imagine having motivation to build a defense case on someone I knew was guilty. But I also can't imagine the not knowing and trying to build a case. Any attorneys here to shed light?

In my experience, they don't ask. But we have attorneys on here who've said they want to know everything, which means it depends on the preference of the attorney.

 

[Tippy Lynn]

I believe the probable cause warrant mentioned the dna on knife sheethe at crime scene and did not mention any other dna at crime scene at this point. More may come out at trial.

Agreed. I would be surprised if they didn't have more DNA from BK. They only need enough information from the investigation in the AA to make an arrest they don't need all the info.

 

[kittythehare]

Mogen said he received a copy of the affidavit ahead of Kohberger’s court hearing Thursday morning. He only made it through the first few pages of the unredacted affidavit before he broke down.

Still, the document left him convinced that police zeroed in on the right suspect.

“There’s not much doubt,” Mogen said. “I think my family feels the same way.”

Mogen did not attend the hearing Thursday and doesn’t plan to attend future court hearings, saying it’s too difficult.

“It’s just so overwhelming to just even see that guy,” Mogen said. “I can’t imagine being in the same room as him.”

“I think I’d be honoring Maddie more by living my best life out here and not letting that consume me.”

'There's not much doubt': Families of UI students react to suspect's initial court appearance and new details released

MOSCOW, Idaho – After a seven-week wait, Ben Mogen finally read the details of how investigators believe they solved the killing of his daughter.

www.spokesman.com

praying that healing finds these families soonest though I know it is not a quick process.
This is all new for them too..
And so much more to go, each revelation bringing with it fresh knives of pain for a justice that cannot bring them back.

 

[r3d-ros3]

What if he claims he’s been to a party at the house before, had seen the knife, been intrigued and touched it once. He could claim a frat boy left it or gave it to one of the girls for protection. Because the house is known for welcoming parties, it’s not strange that he could have happened to overhear conversations at mad Greek and gotten word of a party. He could claim that Because he was welcomed in to party in the past he felt like he could just randomly show up for a party in the future. On the night of the murder he was in the area because he was hoping for another welcoming party. He arrives at the house expecting a party….doesn’t find one there…but parked in the area and lurked around or knocked on doors or windows of 1122. He gives up after no one answers and goes home. He later learns of the murder and feels like he can’t come forward out of the fear of being accused. The knife and dna aren’t his main concern. He tries to defend his reason for being there. Now when they have dna of his on the sheath he offers up some insight- “the real killer used this girls knife against herself! I know this because I had talked to her before and she showed me this knife…”

In my mind it all comes down to victims DNA in the car.


To take take it a step further he could even say, yeah I entered a door because it was open. There’s always a party and it’s not even burglary because I just came here to party. I ended up leaving because it seemed like no one was awake. On the way out I walked past a roommate who just stood in the doorway.


I know this is extremely hard to believe, and I know a jury might convict with what is already known. I just find it absolutely imperative that victim dna be found in that car OR some proof that the sheath belongs to BK

I absolutely agree. Unless they find additional DNA evidence linking him to the crime (or perhaps have already found it, but excluded it from the PCA), it would be very possible to construct a strong defense that explains DNA on the sheath. I also feel, IMO, that it's imperative that they locate the murder weapon.

I say this knowing they have cell phone data, and his car, linking him to the crime and to the scene.

 

[The Scarecrow]

This is a perfect scenario to describe why DNA is considered circumstantial evidence. Although I too believe a jury will convict with what is in the PCA, I'm with you in hoping they find DNA in his car.

But why was the phone turned off? He could argue that the battery just happened to die at the same time the victims died? It gets to the point that there are just too many unlucky coincidences to be believable.

 

[Gardenista]

'There's not much doubt': Families of UI students react to suspect's initial court appearance and new details released

MOSCOW, Idaho – After a seven-week wait, Ben Mogen finally read the details of how investigators believe they solved the killing of his daughter.

www.spokesman.com

 

[RoosterRock]

I was thinking we'd find out he was going to get a new car but weird to me that he switched the registration if he planned to sell it in PA. You'd think he would have just registered online or had his mom do it in PA.

Then I thought briefly maybe he had to have it inspected since the registration was up but he just switched his registration from PA to WA so he could have done the inspection in WA - no need to head to PA.

It does not make much sense.

It could be as simple as the dad always wanted to do a cross country trip, so Bryan called and asked his dad to come with him for company on the ride home. Any dad would do that if their son asked....

 

[AngTxGal]

Mogen said he received a copy of the affidavit ahead of Kohberger’s court hearing Thursday morning. He only made it through the first few pages of the unredacted affidavit before he broke down.

Still, the document left him convinced that police zeroed in on the right suspect.

“There’s not much doubt,” Mogen said. “I think my family feels the same way.”

Mogen did not attend the hearing Thursday and doesn’t plan to attend future court hearings, saying it’s too difficult.

“It’s just so overwhelming to just even see that guy,” Mogen said. “I can’t imagine being in the same room as him.”

“I think I’d be honoring Maddie more by living my best life out here and not letting that consume me.”

'There's not much doubt': Families of UI students react to suspect's initial court appearance and new details released

MOSCOW, Idaho – After a seven-week wait, Ben Mogen finally read the details of how investigators believe they solved the killing of his daughter.

www.spokesman.com

I was driving and listening when the PCA was read. None of these kids are related to me and still it was too many tears to drive.
The stolen young lives, the fear and innocence lost, the pain and loss to the families.

I pray he confesses gets the death penalty, is forgotten, and the victims are remembered.
Too much to ask, but I can ask

JMO

 

[pentimento]

My newest theory is M was the main target. He was surprised by K being there and it messed up his plans. When he came down the stairs X saw him and said "there's someone in the house" to E trying to wake him. So BK killed them as well.

Makes a lot of sense to me. We also know that X had defensive wounds, and was found on the floor. I also believe the noise from killing X & E is what started the dog barking.

 

[Zella]

I really hope he gets internet access so he can see everyone saying he's so stupid.

I hope he felt like a real goober all on his own when he heard the evidence in the PCA.

 

[Kurzz10]

It's a don't ask, don't tell policy usually

That makes sense! Thanks!!