ID - 4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered - Bryan Kohberger Arrested - Moscow # 69

[RonSwanson33]

For the record, I think BCK is 1,000% guilty. I think he targeted the house first (easy access) and then after he chose it, started stalking the victims. That being said, all I'm saying is that on the VERY LITTLE information that the public has on BCK provided by trustworthy court documents, it's way too soon to convict him in our minds. I realize (hope) that LE has piles of evidence against this creep, but as of yet he's innocent until proven guilty.

Innocent in the court of law sure, but we aren't the court of law so can speculate he's indeed the culprit IMO!

 

[Boxer]

Snipped for focus. I'm sure we're thinking of some of the same cases, but the cases I'm familiar with, the perp's DNA itself was found on the victim's body. In this case, the DNA was on a snap on a sheath left at the scene. I think it's harder to explain DNA on a body vs on an accessory to the murder weapon. If they can connect the murder weapon itself with BK and tie that weapon with the sheath, I think the DNA evidence may be viewed much stronger.

MOO.

I find the knife sheath DNA completely damning.
His DNA has no reason to be there in the house, and it was transported there on the sheath to a fighting knife.

 

[jepop]

BBM. Yeah, I think most agree on this point. The evidence for the night of the murders is strong. I think sometimes things get lost in translation because we all feel so passionately about this case. That isn't necessarily a bad thing (I think debate is great), but I'm trying not to misrepresent anyone's position. I hope we can all do that so the discussion goes smoothly. We have 4 more months before more information is released lol.

MOO.

Absolutely, sometimes there is a bit a talking at cross purposes. Good to try and separate out the issues.

 

[Ceska]

<modsnip - quoted post removed>
Which 'other' private law firms would or could have have taken BK's case for the state (he is currently represented through Idaho PDO by a registered public defender)? BK is being defended by Public defender IMO. On initial arrest his family and BK himself did not engage private counsel IIRC (affordability issue IMO). Would the state PDO hire a private firm to represent him, with no cost to client? I'm no expert on Idaho State law and hadn't realised that might be an option.

Good point, and good question. There are private practice attorneys out there who will take a case pro bono, occasionally.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Really, if that was the case, BK would have spoken to police with lawyer present, alibi would have been checked and BK would not be in jail, and LE would be looking for the killer. I realise you understand that, just adding my two cents in response to the original post and speculation MOO

Oh, yes. My question was purely rhetorical, intended to eliminate the idea that BK can prove he was "somewhere else" but for mysterious reasons, is still in jail...

 

[pittsburghgirl]

I have the same question : Can you please list the reference showing numbers of fbi agents usually assigned to quadruple homicides?

Eh, if you are thinking this through, remember the case crosses state lines and the Moscow police chief asked for help right away. Some places resist federal help.

For fun, let's say that the only DNA from BCK that LE found at the crime scene was from the knife sheath. I think there could be 100 arguments the defense could explain that away, the top probably being LE's DNA testing might have been faulty. Personally, as a juror, that little bit of DNA would not be enough to convince me BCK was guilty.

I'm curious what you think shows that he had motive, because I am not seeing it just yet? All the public has thus far is contradicting media stories that BCK "messaged" one of the girls more than once and that he "ordered a vegan pizza" at the Mad Greek on a couple of occasions.

People always want to see "motive." What's the motive for some guy to get a high-level hotel room and start shooting people in a concert crowd? What's the motive for somebody getting mad and shooting someone in a road rage incident? What's the motive for someone to sell heroin laced with fentanyl? Sometimes, "motive" is "what I feel like doing." This is just another way, in my view, of projecting typical/normal human behavior onto people who are very atypical. We think because we wouldn't kill without some compelling motive that someone who would commit mass murder is wired like we are and has to have some normal personal reason like romantic rejection. Eric Harris planned a huge bombing massacre at Columbine. His motive? He hated people. He wanted the world to end. That was it. He wanted to KILL PEOPLE.

For what it's worth, I'll believe BK "messaged" one of the girls when the prosecution presents the evidence and the context. If he did, it might just have been research to find out if he could get one of them to talk to him via messaging. But in my opinion, BK killed because he wanted to kill. That's the evidence I see for "motive."

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Good point, and good question. There are private practice attorneys out there who will take a case pro bono, occasionally.

In PA, there are death-qualified private attorneys whom the state asks to do high-profile death penalty cases for indigent defendants.

 

[SharonNeedles]

Q: Has it been established what time the surviving roommates got up the next morning?

 

[gliving]

Good discussion on the COI situation. I started the video at 1:30 for the parts I found interesting.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

I find the knife sheath DNA completely damning.
His DNA has no reason to be there in the house, and it was transported there on the sheath to a fighting knife.

With his car outside and his bushy eyebrows inside.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Is anyone else here pretty sure that the Kootenai County Public Defender's Office thoroughly looked into the laws before they appointed AT to be BCK's attorney? I mean, they are lawyers, after all! While on the surface it looks sketchy to a layperson, I don't think there is anything nefarious going on here. MOO.

SRWCF, I don't think there's anything scandalous happening by any means.
But IMO, there is a possibility that there has been an unintentional oversight in the selection process for BK's public defender. Omissions and failures to notice are possibilities in all professions.

 

[jepop]

Good point, and good question. There are private practice attorneys out there who will take a case pro bono, occasionally.

I'm not sure if it is common practice for PDO of Idaho to contract out cases to private firms. MOO. The poster I was responding to deleted post or it was deleted. Pro bono sure, only can't see any one coming forward to offer that somehow...MOO

 

[Cedars]

With his car outside and his bushy eyebrows inside.

I agree, it is the fact that the normal course of investigation led to:
- drives that kind of car? check
- didn't have a front license plate? check
- phone pings show highly suspicious behaviour at time of crime, including going there at 9 am next morning? check
- fits physical profile of glimpsed perp? check
- fits psychological profile of potential perp - loner, no friends/girlfriends, obsessed with crime? check.
- only his DNA is connected to probable weapon? check.

At some point, you get to: Bingo!

 

[WingsOverTX]

Is anyone else here pretty sure that the Kootenai County Public Defender's Office thoroughly looked into the laws before they appointed AT to be BCK's attorney? I mean, they are lawyers, after all! While on the surface it looks sketchy to a layperson, I don't think there is anything nefarious going on here. MOO.

I agree it's not "nefarious" but the conflict of interest exists & needs to be resolved IMO. Perhaps the decision has been made to keep AT but the victims she has represented on other matters would need to agree, wouldn't they?

I understand options to replace AT are few but in a legal sense to protect the case against BK, formal on-the-record agreements involving the victims would need to be made, wouldn't they?

Also, if it looks odd to a layperson, then a public acknowledgement & clarification of what the law allows is not out of order.

jmo

 

[WingsOverTX]

Q: Has it been established what time the surviving roommates got up the next morning?

No. We only know when the 911 call was made AFAIK.

 

[CGray123]

I agree it's not "nefarious" but the conflict of interest exists & needs to be resolved IMO. Perhaps the decision has been made to keep AT but the victims she has represented on other matters would need to agree, wouldn't they?

I understand options to replace AT are few but in a legal sense to protect the case against BK, formal on-the-record agreements involving the victims would need to be made, wouldn't they?

Also, if it looks odd to a layperson, then a public acknowledgement & clarification of what the law allows it is not out of order.

jmo

These are good points. But the court approved AT's withdrawal from the parent cases, and her appointment to represent BK. The Idaho Public Defender can point to court approval, and courts don't do PR. So where is this clarification to come from?

At some point the PD's motions and supporting documentation and testimony (if any) will be available to satisfy any public curiosity about this. They are public documents, but they may cost money to obtain. There is nothing urgent about this issue, that I see. If BK isn't concerned about it and the judge isn't concerned about it, I'm not inclined to demand a detailed explanation.

 

[SRWCF]

People always want to see "motive." What's the motive for some guy to get a high-level hotel room and start shooting people in a concert crowd? What's the motive for somebody getting mad and shooting someone in a road rage incident? What's the motive for someone to sell heroin laced with fentanyl? Sometimes, "motive" is "what I feel like doing." This is just another way, in my view, of projecting typical/normal human behavior onto people who are very atypical. We think because we wouldn't kill without some compelling motive that someone who would commit mass murder is wired like we are and has to have some normal personal reason like romantic rejection. Eric Harris planned a huge bombing massacre at Columbine. His motive? He hated people. He wanted the world to end. That was it. He wanted to KILL PEOPLE.

For what it's worth, I'll believe BK "messaged" one of the girls when the prosecution presents the evidence and the context. If he did, it might just have been research to find out if he could get one of them to talk to him via messaging. But in my opinion, BK killed because he wanted to kill. That's the evidence I see for "motive."

Based on what we know so far from the affidavit and subsequent search warrant of his apartment, if that information was all LE had on him, to me it wouldn't be enough to convict him. IMO, a strong motive would need to be presented in conjunction with the DNA evidence found in order to convince an entire jury.

Like you, I think he killed because he wanted to kill (I think he wanted to introduce some excitement into his sad life). But I think a jury will want more than that. They will want a stronger motive if there is not a lot of DNA evidence to prove he was there. It's very possible there will be one of more jurors who will introduce doubt into the jury.

 

[Cassady]

Good discussion on the COI situation. I started the video at 1:30 for the parts I found interesting.

Chris and Mark both hit the nail on the head in this segment....IMO

 

[Dotta]

Based on what we know so far from the affidavit and subsequent search warrant of his apartment, if that information was all LE had on him, to me it wouldn't be enough to convict him. IMO, a strong motive would need to be presented in conjunction with the DNA evidence found in order to convince an entire jury.

Like you, I think he killed because he wanted to kill (I think he wanted to introduce some excitement into his sad life). But I think a jury will want more than that. They will want a stronger motive if there is not a lot of DNA evidence to prove he was there. It's very possible there will be one of more jurors who will introduce doubt into the jury.

Re a "strong motive"

How would anybody know how a twisted mind works?

After all, only the perp knows, and there are cases when even he/she is oblivious what made them act in particular way.

Facts/evidence count.

JMO

 

[SRWCF]

Re a "strong motive"

How would anybody know how a twisted mind works?

After all, only the perp knows, and there are cases when even he/she is oblivious what made them act in particular way.

Facts/evidence count.

JMO

I agree with you. Again, what I'm saying is that IF (and that's a big if) all LE has on him is the DNA on the knife sheath, then they are likely going to also have to present some type of motive to the jury as to why he should be found guilty. Like you said, facts/evidence count, and as it now stands that the public knows, there is precious little to go on.