4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered - Bryan Kohberger Arrested - Moscow # 75

[iamshadow21]

BK was smarter than this. They basically closed in on him initially because he posted a blog asking how would you murder someone, (not verbatim). He was a graduate student for God sake. It's part of his curriculum to learn about the mind of a murderer. Given all the knowledge of criminology, I find it hard to believe he'd be this careless. LE honed in on him from the beginning and continuously monitored him while at his parents home. They say he's also a suspect because he cleaned his car one day at his parents. Lastly, one of the surviving roommates peeked out of her door, claims she saw a tall man with "bushy" eyebrows. She even mentioned he walked right past her door while she was looking out the door. Why didn't she call 911 when she first opened her door? You know why? Because they never knew who was in their house. There's so much circumstantial evidence in this case. Smh.

So, how do you think a knife sheath with his DNA ended up next to a victim weeks before they even looked at BK as a suspect?

Most cases are comprised of mostly circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial does not equal flimsy, bad, or speculative. In fact, if you have a large volume of circumstantial evidence all pointing in one direction, the case could be considered very strong.

MOO

 

[jepop]

BK was smarter than this. They basically closed in on him initially because he posted a blog asking how would you murder someone, (not verbatim). {snipped]

They closed in on him initially because of his vehicle matching with the suspect vehicle recorded by numerous surveilance cameras on the night of the murders as per PCA. MOO

122922 Affidavit - Exhibit A - Statement of Brett Payne.pdf | PDF Host

PDF Host read free online - 122922 Affidavit - Exhibit A - Statement of Brett Payne.pdf

pdfhost.io

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

I think it's interesting to contemplate if there would have been enough PC for an Arrest Warrant without the DNA.

It doesn't look like they needed the DNA for the Search Warrants.

it looks like the Search Warrants were based on:

1.) Witness description - BK fit Mortensen's description according to Officer Payne
2.) Bryan driving a White Elantra
3.) Cell tower records using Bryan's phone number

I'm confused though. It looks like the PC for Search Warrant is also the PC for Arrest Warrant?

If so, then the DNA isn't even listed to make the arrest.

1.) Tall guy with bushy brows dressed in black? That likely describes at least 30% of the UI male student population, IMO.
2.) A white Elantra of the wrong year
3.) This is the only thing that would start to make a case for PC, but could they even get those records without more? And even if they did, could that on its own be cause for arrest? IANAL, but I'd be shocked if so.

MOO.

I can't quite get this figured out.

 

[U.N. Known]

RB&SBM

This is something that has consistently bothered me.

from pg 5 https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/122922 Affidavit - Exhibit A - Statement of Brett-Payne.pdf

"a latent shoe print" during the "second processing of the crime scene"

although imo jmo LE probably did not include all evidence in the PCA, there would be no reason to exclude a full print in the document, esp since 1) it was sealed and 2) discovery. imo jmo 'keeping a secret to build their case' would not work and a full print with shoe type would be much more convincing for the warrant, esp for WA state courts where a higher expectation of privacy is provided by the state constitution.

https://leg.wa.gov/CodeReviser/Documents/WAConstitution.pdf

In addition, one could argue imo jmo that a partial print would not be enough to support DM's story. In fact, if that is all LE had, imo jmo the defense might bring that up during trial. this is of course all imo jmo

I've come to the conclusion (mo, of course) that the footprint is unrelated to the murders. It doesn't make sense to me that they found only one print and so far from any of the victims. If the print was from a victim's blood, there should have been a trail of prints.

The other thing that makes me question its connection is that it was latent. Again, if there was enough blood on the killer's shoe to leave a print, what happened to the blood? The forensics team didn't even find it until a 2nd pass over the area.

Considering the number of residents who were living and had lived there and the number of people there for parties, whatever print was made could have been from any multitude of occasions.

 

[noseyknows47]

I understand your point. Also there were no wounds to his hands. If someone is stabbed the perpetrator would have cuts and wounds to his hands. Even if he was wearing gloves. I don't think the circumstances are well defined.

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

I've come to the conclusion (mo, of course) that the footprint is unrelated to the murders. It doesn't make sense to me that they found only one print and so far from any of the victims. If the print was from a victim's blood, there should have been a trail of prints.

The other thing that makes me questions its connection is that it was latent. Again if there was enough blood on the killer's shoe to leave a print, what happened to the blood? The forensics team didn't even find it until a 2nd pass over the area.

Considering the number of residents who were or had lived there and the number of people there for parties, whatever print was made could have been from any other of occassions.

I have been troubled by this and a few other gaps in logic early on... jmo imo

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

The Las Vegas stabbing attack in October last year only took a few minutes. The victims were all awake and alert, surrounded by other people, and the killer was more disorganised as he was experiencing a mental health episode. He was also using a chef knife, rather than a K-Bar or other military style knife with a hilt. He killed two and injured 6 - 8 people.

2022 Las Vegas Strip stabbings - Wikipedia

The perpetrator in this case used stealth, had a knife fit for purpose, attacked in the dark, attacked victims who were mostly asleep or not alert because of the hour and the fact that they were in their own home, and had, as far as we know, no mental illness or intoxication to get in the way of his movements or planning.

Not that hard.

MOO

Way different, IMO. Sure, you can stab 20 people if your intention is to stab and run. But if your intention is to stab, run, AND cover your tracks, not so easy, and I'd actually argue it's very hard not to leave your DNA on the victim or the house, or get the victim's DNA on your person. The guy in Vegas likely had no care about these things. Our guy does/did or else the house would have been covered in his DNA. But somehow, that wasn't the case. In fact, there as noted above, there was only a partial footprint that wasn't even visible with luminol. Why? Did someone clean up after him? Did he do it himself? Was there really a change of wardrobe? And if so, then that has to be factored into that 15 minutes.

MOO.

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

Also there were no wounds to his hands. If someone is stabbed the perpetrator would have cuts and wounds to his hands. Even if he was wearing gloves.

rsbm

Do we know for sure that there were no wounds to his hands? I don't recall that.

imo jmo, there are cut-proof gloves, so I find other circumstances surrounding this more problematic, but IDK b/c it's jmo only. I don't even carve meat.

 

[jepop]

I've come to the conclusion (mo, of course) that the footprint is unrelated to the murders. It doesn't make sense to me that they found only one print and so far from any of the victims. If the print was from a victim's blood, there should have been a trail of prints.

The other thing that makes me questions its connection is that it was latent. Again if there was enough blood on the killer's shoe to leave a print, what happened to the blood? The forensics team didn't even find it until a 2nd pass over the area.

Considering the number of residents who were or had lived there and the number of people there for parties, whatever print was made could have been from any other of occassions.

MOO but it would be entirely unreasonable for LE not to have excluded every other known person's shoe prints at the scene at the time of the murders and the following morning. LE would not mislead in the PCA and I see no evidence that they have done so with the print. MOO

 

[iamshadow21]

I've come to the conclusion (mo, of course) that the footprint is unrelated to the murders. It doesn't make sense to me that they found only one print and so far from any of the victims. If the print was from a victim's blood, there should have been a trail of prints.

The other thing that makes me questions its connection is that it was latent. Again if there was enough blood on the killer's shoe to leave a print, what happened to the blood? The forensics team didn't even find it until a 2nd pass over the area.

Considering the number of residents who were or had lived there and the number of people there for parties, whatever print was made could have been from any other of occassions.

They never said they only found one print.

In my opinion, they put the print they did into the PCA because it a) was in blood (it was first located with a positive presumptive test for blood, so most likely is in blood), b) was clear enough when stained with Amido black to show the tread pattern, and c) supported and was supported by the statement of a surviving housemate who witnessed a stranger in the home at the time of the killings.

The print in the PCA was metres from the last source of blood - Xana's room. It follows that there would be footprints in blood across that whole floor, to the point where that specific print was recovered. Not all prints he left would be detailed and crisp - many will be almost invisible to the naked eye, some will be partial, some will be smeared, but they will be there, because he didn't levitate from Xana's room to D's doorway, land briefly, then levitate out of the home. He didn't hop on a clean shoe and then briefly put the bloody shoe to the floor outside D's doorway. He walked. And we know he walked, because D saw him walk right past her.

The PCA isn't an encyclopaedic record of everything they found. It's a teaser, with just the information they needed to provide probable cause for arrest.

MOO

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

Way different, IMO. Sure, you can stab 20 people if your intention is to stab and run. But if your intention is to stab, run, AND cover your tracks, not so easy, and I'd actually argue it's very hard not to leave your DNA on the victim or the house, or get the victim's DNA on your person. The guy in Vegas likely had no care about these things. Our guy does/did or else the house would have been covered in his DNA. But somehow, that wasn't the case. In fact, there as noted above, there was only a partial footprint that wasn't even visible with luminol. Why? Did someone clean up after him? Did he do it himself? Was there really a change of wardrobe? And if so, then that has to be factored into that 15 minutes.

MOO.

Your points are quite valid imo jmo, and raise this question for me:

Even though there was evidence left out of the PCA, if the house was covered in his DNA and they had full footprints supporting every bit of the story, why would the prosecution be so willing to delay trial until July (they suggested July; defense said June) and why all the subsequent warrants after? imo if LE really had BK's DNA all over the scene, this would be more obvious. icbw.

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

@Nila Aella I got permission to share the trash link, but I offer it with this caveat: it varies from state to state, depending on many things. These are general guidelines, and will not apply in all states/circumstances. This is why we research case law specific to circumstance. whenever anyone says to me, "LE can legally search trash at the curb.", I know they've never fallen trap to that easy answer because there are many exceptions, and LE never wants to be on the curtilage v curb losing side. In WA, for example, where there is a greater expectation of privacy, the courts have been really specific, and so when in doubt, get a warrant goes double in WA jmo imo

Can Police Search Through Your Trash? - FindLaw

You may have never found your trash to be anyone's treasure, but it easily could be the target of a police search. As the law stands, there is no expectation of privacy in trash that you put out by the curb, and law enforcement can rifle through your refuse with wild abandon. So what rights do...

www.findlaw.com

 

[U.N. Known]

MOO but it would be entirely unreasonable for LE not to have excluded every other known person's shoe prints at the scene at the time of the murders and the following morning. LE would not mislead in the PCA and I see no evidence that they have done so with the print. MOO

Though LE has been known to mislead or in some cases lie on a PCA (that's a post for another place and time), I'm in no way suggesting that LE, in this case was attempting to mislead anyone nor that they should not have mentioned the print in the PCA since they discovered it.

I am simply of the opinion that the lone, latent footprint that was uncovered could easily be from some other source from some other time.

 

[jepop]

1.) Tall guy with bushy brows dressed in black? That likely describes at least 30% of the UI male student population, IMO.
2.) A white Elantra of the wrong year
3.) This is the only thing that would start to make a case for PC, but could they even get those records without more? And even if they did, could that on its own be cause for arrest? IANAL, but I'd be shocked if so.

MOO.

I think the OP could have just been summarising? There was a discussion about this on a previous thread. The new warrants were being discussed so not that long ago.

The WA search warrant was based on everything in PCA except the dna test result on the sheath. The judge agreed that PC was established sans the dna test result, without this meaning it was exculpatory. This was done at the request of the affiant who argued that PC would remain in the event that dna test result at some future point is ruled inadmissable. As the dna test result is just one of many factors that come together to show PC for arrest, if the dna test result is ruled inadmissable at some future point, then IMO PC for arrest would very likely still stand. MOO ofcourse!

p6 and pp14-15

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

 

[Nila Aella]

Perhaps, but that's kind of my point. He wasn't nearly as sloppy, based on what we know right now, during the actual murders as some have speculated. It wasn't the perfect crime, by any means, but based on only the facts, we don't know how many mistakes he made inside. If it was as sloppy as some suggested, then I suspect there are a slew of errors inside as well, but that's not a fact yet. MOO.

100%. We don't know much about the crime scene other than what is in the PCA.

I'm not so sure. A car driving erratically and even his phone pinging in the area don't place him inside the home. Without the DNA or even the murder weapon, cops may have a good idea he's their guy, but I highly doubt they'd have enough to charge him.

Relative to other criminals, including some LE types guilty of crimes, I really don't think BK was as stupid as some do. MOO. I mean, the house was a bloody mess according to LE, yet there was only ONE partial footprint? How did that happen? He killed 4 people in 15 minutes and yet, the only DNA is on the snap of the knife sheath (as far as we know)?

For a killer, any killer, to get in and out and kill 4 people in the process without leaving a drop of his own blood at the crime scene, without leaving his own blood footprints and fingerprints, without leaving any other DNA (besides the snap, as far as we know), there, isn't as stupid/sloppy as some have said. It certainly wasn't perfect in any way, shape, or form and he absolutely made a lot of mistakes. But as far as crimes like this go, I think it wasn't nearly as clumsy as has been said.

All just MOO.

ETA: "as far as we know" bolded because I fully recognize that there could be more info than the PCA revealed. I'm going exclusively by the facts we're privy to at this time only and not theories that other DNA was left.

Totally agree with all of your points about BK not being stupid. I have seen him described as dumb or smart depending on the topic. To me there are many pieces leading up to and after the crime that scream rock dumb, especially for someone with a criminology/criminal behavior background. Because I don't believe he is stupid, I find his actions before and after the crime hard to believe. Yet, once he enters the house he is swift and deadly, leaving little behind? Just doesn't mesh with his actions before and after. If they do not have more evidence of him inside the house, I think that will be a problem for the prosecution. MOO

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

Though LE has been known to mislead or in some cases lie on a PCA (that's a post for another place and time)

Truth, but as I know you know, lying/misleading on a PCA is a really bad idea imo jmo and piles of case law.

 

[iamshadow21]

Though LE has been known to mislead or in some cases lie on a PCA (that's a post for another place and time), I'm in no way suggesting that LE, in this case was attempting to mislead anyone nor that they should not have mentioned the print in the PCA since they discovered it.

I am simply of the opinion that the lone, latent footprint that was uncovered could easily be from some other source from some other time.

In blood?

Blood dries fairly quickly, if it's not a big pool. With the house being heated, most of the blood would have been dry, or mostly dry and separated into clotted red cells and serum, by the time people were awake and moving through the scene.

Someone would have had to walk through blood - at a different time - and leave a print in that blood outside D's door.

They will, by now, have been able to test that blood for DNA. It is most likely going to be Xana's, or Ethan's, or even a mix of all four victims.

The chances of that print being unrelated to the perpetrator walking past D's door are pretty darn small, IMHO.

MOO

 

[Boxer]

I'm not so sure. A car driving erratically and even his phone pinging in the area don't place him inside the home. Without the DNA or even the murder weapon, cops may have a good idea he's their guy, but I highly doubt they'd have enough to charge him.

Relative to other criminals, including some LE types guilty of crimes, I really don't think BK was as stupid as some do. MOO. I mean, the house was a bloody mess according to LE, yet there was only ONE partial footprint? How did that happen? He killed 4 people in 15 minutes and yet, the only DNA is on the snap of the knife sheath (as far as we know)?

For a killer, any killer, to get in and out and kill 4 people in the process without leaving a drop of his own blood at the crime scene, without leaving his own blood footprints and fingerprints, without leaving any other DNA (besides the snap, as far as we know), there, isn't as stupid/sloppy as some have said. It certainly wasn't perfect in any way, shape, or form and he absolutely made a lot of mistakes. But as far as crimes like this go, I think it wasn't nearly as clumsy as has been said.

All just MOO.

ETA: "as far as we know" bolded because I fully recognize that there could be more info than the PCA revealed. I'm going exclusively by the facts we're privy to at this time only and not theories that other DNA was left.

Agree. The cameras though, everyone hase an ,

With all the mistakes made outside the house, how could he be so meticulous inside the house?
Factor in that it was done in such a small window of time and with at least one victim fighting back (if not more). I believe there will be more evidence inside the house that hasn't been included in the PCA.

MOO

MOO not so meticulous as aggressive, efficient and quick.
After all he left a sheath behind.
Just not as smart as he might seem.
His grand ideas of his prowess blinding him to the breadth of details.
But criminals are generally not smart, as the idea that committimg a crime will
Solve their problems is defective from inception.

 

[U.N. Known]

They never said they only found one print.

In my opinion, they put the print they did into the PCA because it a) was in blood (it was first located with a positive presumptive test for blood, so most likely is in blood), b) was clear enough when stained with Amido black to show the tread pattern, and c) supported and was supported by the statement of a surviving housemate who witnessed a stranger in the home at the time of the killings.

The print in the PCA was metres from the last source of blood - Xana's room. It follows that there would be footprints in blood across that whole floor, to the point where that specific print was recovered. Not all prints he left would be detailed and crisp - many will be almost invisible to the naked eye, some will be partial, some will be smeared, but they will be there, because he didn't levitate from Xana's room to D's doorway, land briefly, then levitate out of the home. He didn't hop on a clean shoe and then briefly put the bloody shoe to the floor outside D's doorway. He walked. And we know he walked, because D saw him walk right past her.

The PCA isn't an encyclopaedic record of everything they found. It's a teaser, with just the information they needed to provide probable cause for arrest.

MOO

I appreciate the visual of the killer not levitating from room to room! That is actually, precisely why it's stuck in my brain that the print isn't from that night. Of course, I have no evidence of that other than logic: only one, latent print (w/no visible blood, where did the print originate?), near a survivor's, not a victim's, room. That doesn't seem logical to me.

As for the information in the PCA, if they found more than one print, what reason would they have to omit that they found multiple prints going away from two of the victims toward DM's room? If they didn't feel the need to mention other prints, why mention that latent one?

 

[jepop]

Though LE has been known to mislead or in some cases lie on a PCA (that's a post for another place and time), I'm in no way suggesting that LE, in this case was attempting to mislead anyone nor that they should not have mentioned the print in the PCA since they discovered it.

I am simply of the opinion that the lone, latent footprint that was uncovered could easily be from some other source from some other time.

Oh well, I have more faith that LE would not make a blunder of that sort. The possibility that it could be unrelated I cannot"easily" contemplate because I don't believe LE are incompetent. I believe they would have tested the print (I believe that there is some blood there), eliminated any other known possibilities, and established it was not an "old" print. MOO