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

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
10ofRods said:
Yes, it does.

Your neighbor's wireless router has your device's identification number and will store it for whatever period of time it stores such things (more expensive wireless routers have more storage; over the years most routers have gained more and more storage - but it will push your information out to free up space for new info).

So, if someone breaks into your neighbor's house the day after you've decided to try to join, and LE sends its digital forensic team to the neighbor's house (which they probably won't unless there's actual harm to one of your neighbors), they will figure out that it's you. And fairly quickly, too.

It definitely could be used as evidence of stalking. Some people interact with their routers rather regularly (to change the name; to see who in the neighborhood has tried to join; if I see a car parked in front of my house and someone is on their phone, I sometimes check to see if they tried our router - only once in 15 years has that happened.) If I saw the same MAC address show up frequently, I might even investigate the issue myself - even if the phone had never connected to our router, I'd feel as if someone was trying to hack in.

I no longer have my phone set up to auto-join networks; just recognized networks that I have said I want to join. Like at work.

Otherwise, as I drive around, all these people's routers respond to my phone with the router names (some of them quite humorous or political) but now my unique MAC address (which would lead eventually to me, as I purchased the device myself, with my real name and address) is on those people's routers - temporarily.

Since of course I've never tried to join (I've never clicked "join this network") it would still be innocent, but I simply don't want to be involved in any unnecessary hassles in the highly urban area where I live. People can be quite sensitive around these issues. Fortunately, if all one does is ping the router (not try to join), it's not illegal.

Where I live, trying to join someone's private network is against the law. They will show up in the router's log as "authentication error attempts" log if you don't know or don't use the password - but they'll still know someone tried and wonder why. They won't know it's YOU personally - unless they can get a PI or LE to help them figure out who belongs to the device you used to do this. If a person (like the IT guy three doors down from me) has the tools to track MAC addresses (what he has to say about it is still gobbledy gook to me - but if I wanted to track a MAC address, he'd be my go-to person).

blog.invgate.com

How to Locate a Device Using a MAC Address

If you're in a situation where you can't find a device's IP address, you can resort to the MAC address. Here's a breakdown of the steps to accomplish it.
blog.invgate.com blog.invgate.com

IMO.
Click to expand...
Yep. I had a pretty long post about this a few months ago (speculation at that time) back before any reporting. So sorry to people if it feels like a retread.

This method is used in a lot more places than people realize. It's used for everything from tracking your movement through department stores to Apple using this behavior (but with Bluetooth Low Energy aka BLE) to power Airtags network. The latter has absolutely no wifi or cellular capabilities. It relies 110% on any iPhone within it's transmission range to listen to it's transmissions.

I use Bluetooth Beacons for presence detection in my backyard for people we don't know and to power automations based on location in the house for the people we do know.

Wifi handshakes (go back to my old post to learn about handshakes or just look at the post I quoted for a summary) essentially work the same way.

I could use a network sniffer like Wireshark (totally legal tool) or even my at home Unifi network to see what devices and/or routers in my area are transmitting and how wifi noisy (the channels) y the area is.

IMO LE has one or the other, or both. An independent reporter on Twitter tweeted the Bluetooth thing months ago. And Newsweek seemingly published a story corroborating it and attributing it to Kaylee's father. But Kaylee's father also said on the news that they also had Wifi data.


www.newsweek.com

Technology could place Kohberger at scene of Idaho murders: Ex-FBI agent

Bryan Kohberger is charged with the murder of four University of Idaho students.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com

Bryan's Elantra is a 2015 and was not equipped with BLE. Barely any cars in that price range were at that time.

So we know that it wasn't his car that made the connections. And people keep dismissing what Mr. Goncalves has said because BK's phone was purportedly off. BUT....I disagree with that assertion.

IMO it's more likely that BK wasn't familiar with the pattern that cell phones have been adopting in the last few years. That arose from user frustrations when getting comfortable in their plane seat. Your bluetooth headphones are all connected, you might have already connected to the planes wifi, the captain tells you to put your phone in airplane mode to take off, and when you do....it kills the connection to your headphones and wifi. SUPER FRUSTRATING.

Once BLE was widely adopted around 2016 with Bluetooth 5 it enabled manufacturers to start the implement the pattern that we see now. Apple started in 2017 by not turning Wifi off on you. Then followed up shortly with the iPhone 13 when the bluetooth exhibited the same behavior. Android rolled out the same behavior in 2020 to their root OS. Meaning the functionality is baked into the core that's distributed to and adopted by manufactures. Affecting all phones. They were so worried that this would confuse users that if you were savvy enough to install the core and not your manufacturers skinned version you'd be met with a notification letting you know about the change of functionality.

If you tell the average person this, that your wifi and bluetooth stay on in airplane mode (post 2020 Android) most don't even realize it.

Another semi related tidbit re: iPhones (not sure of this behavior on Android). If you turn off bluetooth or wifi from the quick controls in the control center....it doesn't really turn it off. It just puts it into hibernation. You have to long press and/or access settings to turn it off.

So the moral of the lesson is.....leave your phone at home if you're going to go commit a quadruple homicide in your own car at 4am. Or buy yourself a faraday cage.
 
Last edited:
Auntie Cipation said:
Knowing that Square is now Block and includes multiple apps including CashApp, it seems likely to me that "everyone" had CashApp accounts which are technically with Square? IMO only
Click to expand...
I thought it was asking Block/Square for any purchases made by the four victims - plus three other redacted names. Not that they actually had the device.

The Grub Truck probably uses Square for payment. Maybe LE issued the warrant for their timeline and to ID others buying food at the same time. Add in E and X for any purchases they may have made that night. <moo>
 
Last edited:
gliving said:
I thought it was asking Block/Square for any purchaces made by the four victims - plus three other redacted names. Not that they actually had the device.

The Grub Truck probably uses Square for payment. Maybe LE issued the warrant for their timeline and to ID others buying food at the same time. Add in E and X for any purchases they may have made that night. <moo>
Click to expand...
Yes. I think initially we all thought one would only need an account with Square if one was a merchant, as Square's only product/service was that little plastic square :cool: used to accept credit card payments. But once we learned that Square is now Block and that they are the parent company for several apps including very-common CashApp, I think that mystery dissolved, as it would not be surprising for most college age folks to have a CashApp account. MOO
 
BeginnerSleuther said:
3. Don't have explanation for the dark period.
Click to expand...
somewhere without signal? battery died and he didn't realize it for awhile? He accidentally sat on it and everyone thought he'd disappeared (don't ask how I came up with this one :) ? it's a stretch to use any of those, but then how dumb did we think just turning your phone off just before committing the crime was? so I can come up with equally dumb things. imo jmo

I had never read this, so sharing it here:

www.dailymail.co.uk

Retracing Bryan Kohberger's alleged route on night of Idaho murders

DailyMail.com drove the route police claim Idaho murder suspect, Bryan Kohberger, took to and from the quadruple homicide home on November 13.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk

BeginnerSleuther said:
4. The gloves he wore at grocery stores, like most of America during the pandemic? I could explain it as a hold-out from the pandemic. I still will occasionally see someone wearing gloves out and about.
Click to expand...

A friend's son is very quirky, and he doesn't want to touch certain things, eat foods that are browned, pick up other people's mail, etc., and he's not a killer, just really awkward, painfully shy, no life except with his parents, etc. -- and that was pre-pandemic. He will probably wear gloves forever now. so gloves at the grocery, that's a nothing burger, imo jmo

BeginnerSleuther said:
For example, the prosecution says "BK went to his parent's in PA a month after the murders." As a juror, I'd hear "BK spent the holidays with his family." That isn't speculation. That's fact, just a different angle than the prosecution wants. If the prosecution wants me to see this as suspicious, they have to give me a reason it's suspicious. Unless they can, then I suspect what some people hear is that a grad student went home for the holidays. MOO.
Click to expand...

People see things differently, and it's sometimes one or two points that keep a juror from voting guilty - because they have reasonable doubt about a key point of evidence imo jmo ime. This is a perfect example of how people interpret differently, why totality of the evidence isn't the only thing that matters, and why the individual points must be examined because it's those tiny holes where reasonable doubt comes in sometimes imo jmo.

Auntie Cipation said:
The only easy explanation that comes to mind would be if the footprint was made and visible, and then wiped up so no longer visible but still identifiable with the enhancing techniques. But DM would have seen him bend over and wipe away the print if it happened on his way out, yes?

Or maybe the print was made through shoe cover booties, such that the bootie absorbed the visible blood but the tread was still there to be found by the Amido black? (but then again, if there were other, progressively less bloody prints leading up to that one, that wasn't mentioned so we don't know about them).

What am I missing?
Click to expand...

Thank you, auntie. I've been asking myself the same thing for many threads now because I can't make sense of it. imo jmo I thought about the print through the bootie, but there still would've been others. instead, it's like he wiped them clean but how? imo jmo it's possible she would've seen him, and maybe she did and we don't know, but this is a curious bit of the PCA and June is going to be welcome s some of this finally gets answered. Imo jmo.
 
gliving said:
I thought it was asking Block/Square for any purchaces made by the four victims - plus three other redacted names. Not that they actually had the device.

The Grub Truck probably uses Square for payment. Maybe LE issued the warrant for their timeline and to ID others buying food at the same time. Add in E and X for any purchases they may have made that night. <moo>
Click to expand...
The scope of the warrant was back to September 1, 2022 to present (as in November date of warrant). And if LE were looking for Grub hub payments for that night, it would have been in the timeframe that Kaylee and Maddie were there. jmo imo ime

 
Last edited:
jepop said:
I'll just say that if BK had leant his car, let's say overnight for 12th/13th November, and he kept his K Bar in the glove box and, let's say his phone had slid between the seats and he forgot about it, then:

a) Would he not have contacted police once the call went out Re elantras, given those circumstances (loaned car overnight 12/13th Nov,large knife in car)? Heck, would he not have perhaps contacted police even before that? But let's say he forgot what night he leant the car or was not following the case or missed the call out for elantras; and/or
b) Would he not have told his alibi by now? Would his defense be obligated to inform LE about this alibi and the name of the person he loaned the car (and by extension the knife) to? Because if he really had leant his car in those circumstances then that person needs to be investigated ASAP, as per danger to the public. Surely he would have wanted to be interviewed at initial arrest and spilled the beans if this was true? MOO

Anyway, MOO, I doubt he leant his car that night whilst having a kbar in it and his phone.
Click to expand...
Ok. I may be right and you may be wrong... OR... you may be right and I may be wrong. ;)

BTW, I never cast my guilty or not guilty vote before listening to all the evidence, accusations are not proof until they are proven. I am a firm believer in this right. It was a "what if" question anyway. Do I truly think he lent anyone his car? Uhm, NO but thanks for your input. :)
 
Last edited:
deugirtni said:
RSBM
Good point. It has been said many times on this thread that LE includes the bare minimum of info to obtain a search warrant or prove PC, whatever... so it's very possible his phone continued to access those same cell towers after the murders, similar to its access prior to the murders, but LE left out those details as they weren't relevant to LE's goals?e
Click to expand...
BBM, No, in this instance the PCA makes non access to Moscow towers post Nov 14th explicit. LE actually put this into the PC.
P15

"Investigors found that the 8458 Phone did connect to a
cell phonet ower tbat provides service to Moscow
on November l4,2022, but invcstigarors do not believe the 8458 Phone was
in Moscow on that datc. The 8458 Phone has not connected to any towers that provide serrvice to Moscow since that date".

 
gliving said:
So two months prior. Maybe looking for a pattern? The warrant is dated 11/19 so before BK is known. LE was looking for something else.
Click to expand...
LE can't look for patterns without probable cause. And they didn't get a warrant for Grub Hub records, so if they had PC from someone at Grub hub, why not get that and make it easy instead of rolling dice? And I think Kaylee paid with a card? if so, that probably wasn't square. there are other services square provides, so I think we have to consider all of them, not just the one jmo imo -- esp given the sheer number of other accounts that overlap - jmo imo ime. editing to add: I think you're right that LE was already connecting dots and looking for something other than BK at that time. imo jmo
 
Last edited:
maconrich said:
The scope of the warrant was from Sept 1, 2002 "to present" (11/19). They might have been looking for something else, but if any of those named used the service on Nov 13 those records would also be included.

Click to expand...
The scope of the warrant has to be specific to time, place, things, related to the crime, and probable cause. LE can't go back to September if they think it happened in November. I provided a lot of links earlier in this thread explaining probable cause.
 
Caylee Advocate said:
Ok. I may be right and you may be wrong... OR... you may be right and I may be wrong. ;)

BTW, I never cast my guilty or not guilty vote before listening to all the evidence, accusations are not proof until they are proven. I am a firm believer in this right. It was a "what if" question anyway. Do I truly think he lent anyone his car? Uhm, NO but thanks for your input. :)
Click to expand...
No issue, I was responding to your "what if" with reasons as to why I think it's a most unlikely what if. MOO ofcourse
 
Sister Golden Hair said:
LE can't look for patterns without probable cause. And they didn't get a warrant for Grub Hub records, so if they had PC from someone at Grub hub, why not get that and make it easy instead of rolling dice? And I think Kaylee paid with a card? if so, that probably wasn't square. there are other services square provides, so I think we have to consider all of them, not just the one jmo imo -- esp given the sheer number of other accounts that overlap - jmo imo ime.
Click to expand...
I stick my card into the Square device when making purchases. Wouldn't their Grub purchases et al show up on the Block warrant anyway?

Indeed, I'd like to know what probable cause they had at that time to issue that warrant. Same with all the other financial institutions. Like I said, it's all before BK was a suspect AFAIK.
 
gliving said:
I stick my card into the Square device when making purchases. Wouldn't their Grub purchases et al show up on the Block warrant anyway?

Indeed, I'd like to know what probable cause they had at that time to issue that warrant. Same with all the other financial institutions. Like I said, it's all before BK was a suspect AFAIK.
Click to expand...
if they use their card, their card transaction will show up on their card (whatever financial institution it was - date, amount, etc.) along with all their other transactions for that time period. Their card will also show up on Grub hub's transactions for the night along with all the other cards. The CCs are generally reconciled and posted at the end of the night. If LE is looking at where Kaylee and Maddie spent money, their trail is logical and easy enough to get a warrant for their financial institutions (which they did). LE wouldn't get a warrant for their accounts just to see who else was at Grub Hub that night. if LE had PC after investigation that they needed all the details for GH that night, they'd get a warrant for Grub hub, but within that scope of time. imo jmo and ime

and bolded by me above - I am 100% with you.

also adding to say the card/app processors are intermediaries. I'm saying card for simplicity b/c Idk all the ways grub hub takes pmt, but the process is similar if it's not cash.
the card processor handles the point-of-sale transaction, collects pmt/card information from customer, gets sale approved electronically, and at the end of the night (generally) those transactions are reconciled and posts.
The funds received are posted by the business and are deposited to the business' financial institution.
For an audit trail and to support their tax records, the business would then have a transaction report or trail for the business day showing all card transactions.
They'd also get their statement from Block showing the total transactions (amount that would tie to the bank (financial institution) for the month (that's usual, but they could also go online to see real time) and that would show how their fees to Block were calculated as well.
Then they'll also have their bank statement (a bank or credit union) that shows their deposits into their business account. some of those deposits would be cash from business sales, too.
Block would have all of the transactions for the business for the day --- IF a customer used a card and IF that was the only card/pmt processor the business use.
From an LE standpoint, whose data you want depends on what you're looking for. I hope that makes sense.
 
Last edited:
Sister Golden Hair said:
The scope of the warrant has to be specific to time, place, things, related to the crime, and probable cause. LE can't go back to September if they think it happened in November. I provided a lot of links earlier in this thread explaining probable cause.
Click to expand...
So they were looking for something specific to Sept 1?
 
jepop said:
Is the open door (in day light of Nov 13th) proven as fact or is it speculation? What sources are there for it?
Click to expand...
The source is an "unnamed neighbor" according to this NYPost article:

"A neighbor of the four slain University of Idaho students says the door of their home was wide open the morning of the murders, according to a new report.

The unnamed neighbor in Moscow, Idaho, told Fox News that the front door of the three-floor home wasn’t shut around 8:30 a.m. Nov. 13."

Idaho students’ front door was left open on morning of murders: neighbor
 
maconrich said:
So they were looking for something specific to Sept 1?
Click to expand...
sept 1 is when they would present PC that what they were looking for probably started around then. if you look for my post the contains the Harvard Law review link re geofencing, there's a great, readable breakdown re probable cause. it's really interesting and not legalese. jmo imo ime

editing to add the link:
Geofence Warrants and the Fourth Amendment

remember, LE investigates to get PC to get the warrant, not the other way around (except with geofence warrants, which is why geofence warrants are problematic).
 
Last edited:
Twistinginthewind said:
The source is an "unnamed neighbor" according to this NYPost article:

"A neighbor of the four slain University of Idaho students says the door of their home was wide open the morning of the murders, according to a new report.

The unnamed neighbor in Moscow, Idaho, told Fox News that the front door of the three-floor home wasn’t shut around 8:30 a.m. Nov. 13."

Idaho students’ front door was left open on morning of murders: neighbor
Click to expand...
More:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1601291856738160641
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 192 more.
Total: 3,995 (members: 193, guests: 3,802)

Online statistics

Members online
193
Guests online
3,802
Total visitors
3,995
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
593,014
Messages
17,979,769
Members
228,988
Latest member
Kebrando
Back
Top