4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, 2022 #78

[Sister Golden Hair]

Was that it? Maybe so. I will do some looking.

https://d.newsweek.com/en/file/465464/bryan-kohberger-search-warrant.pdf

Washington search warrant, asking that the DNA be excluded from consideration re probable cause.

 

[SophieRose]

No sorry necessary. At all. But I'm not seeing what you're seeing -- I know I need glasses, but?? -- Edited to add that I agree a fast run in cold weather might be uncomfortable, but not impossible

3:17 am		28 °F	Overcast.	3 mph	↑	89%	30.27 "Hg	7 mi
3:53 am		28 °F	Ice fog.	5 mph	↑	89%	30.36 "Hg	6 mi
4:53 am		28 °F	Overcast.	No wind

Here's the right date from Wunderground.

Pullman, WA Weather History | Weather Underground

 

[maconrich]

Here's the right date from Wunderground.

Pullman, WA Weather History | Weather Underground

So both sites say it was 28.

 

[U.N. Known]

Another example of “Harpootlianing” like from the Murdaugh trial. You get around a gag order by filing motions that are public record. In that motion you make hints that there is evidence proving your client innocent, but you don’t have to actually prove anything. You’re playing to the potential jury pool.
If the defense truly wants to hear what this child knows, they need to depose her in Nevada. I doubt they actually will.

They've already said they will interview her in Reno. The subpoena for her in person appearance in ID on June 28, was withdrawn. The notice is posted upthread.

 

[Sundog]

They've already said they will interview her in Reno. The subpoena for her in person appearance in ID on June 28, was withdrawn. The notice is posted upthread.

How will the interview between BF and BK's attorney work? I assume this is a deposition and that BF will have her attorney present who may advise her at times not to answer a question, if appropriate to do so.

What does Anne Taylor gain or lose by going to Nevada to interview BF versus insisting that BF appear at the preliminary hearing? Definitely looks more victim-friendly to drop the subpoena requiring BF to show up at the PH, so this is a goodwill gain for the defense. On the other hand, at a PH it seems that BK's defense team would be able to question BF without BF's attorney playing a role. IANAL, so wonder what others think.

 

[katydid23]

No, I'm not. But as you said, "And if the DNA match came back to someone that was found to have no connection at all to the crime scene, and had an alibi or a physical disability etc, then we would nullify the importance of the DNA. But the Elantra was connected to the crime separately from the DNA."

You can't use the Elantra to back up the DNA (i.e. as evidence), then use the Elantra to confirm time of death.

What if (and I know this isn't true, but hypothetically), it was revealed the time of death was actually at 6 am. Well, the Elantra was there at 4 am and gone by 6 am, so then what? Would the DNA still matter? Maybe, but it wouldn't be as strong on its own. That's why it's important to nail down time of death independent of the Elantra if you're going to use the Elantra (as a support for the DNA) to suggest BK was at the crime scene.

MOO

If they have OTHER ways to connect him to the crime, besides the DNA, then they can use his car leaving the crime scene as a timing device. I am pretty sure they do have other things connecting him. We will have to wait and see unless the gag order is withdrawn.

 

[katydid23]

Except I never said you can't use the car for two reasons. I said you can't use the car to determine time of death. What DM saw and a car speeding away does not determine time of death.

MOO

If HIS DNA was found on the button of the knife sheath, which was found alongside one of the bodies, and HIS car is seen speeding away from the scene, right after one of the survivors saw a masked man in black coming down the stairs, and exiting, then I think one can logically use the car to help determine the time of the attack.

 

[U.N. Known]

How will the interview between BF and BK's attorney work? I assume this is a deposition and that BF will have her attorney present who may advise her at times not to answer a question, if appropriate to do so.

What does Anne Taylor gain or lose by going to Nevada to interview BF versus insisting that BF appear at the preliminary hearing? Definitely looks more victim-friendly to drop the subpoena requiring BF to show up at the PH, so this is a goodwill gain for the defense. On the other hand, at a PH it seems that BK's defense team would be able to question BF without BF's attorney playing a role. IANAL, so wonder what others think.

I wonder if. after speaking with BF, the defense team feels her information truly is exculpatory that they can/will request another subpoena.

Could they enter her interview into evidence without compelling her to appear in person?

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

If HIS DNA was found on the button of the knife sheath, which was found alongside one of the bodies, and HIS car is seen speeding away from the scene, right after one of the survivors saw a masked man in black coming down the stairs, and exiting, then I think one can logically use the car to help determine the time of the attack.

I agree that if you're using the car as additional information and not saying "his car was there, so he committed the murder," you can use the car to determine other things. But the reason this topic headed in this direction is because it began with using the car as evidence of his whereabouts (per the PCA) AND suggesting using it to determine time of the murder. I go back to the grocery store analogy. If LE has proof I did it, then they can use the time I was there to suggest a timeline. But if LE is trying to make the case that I'm the suspect because they can place me at the scene, then they need to affirm time of the crime in order to place me at the scene.

MOO.

 

[katydid23]

I agree that if you're using the car as additional information and not saying "his car was there, so he committed the murder," you can use the car to determine other things. But the reason this topic headed in this direction is because it began with using the car as evidence of his whereabouts (per the PCA) AND suggesting using it to determine time of the murder. I go back to the grocery store analogy. If LE has proof I did it, then they can use the time I was there to suggest a timeline. But if LE is trying to make the case that I'm the suspect because they can place me at the scene, then they need to affirm time of the crime in order to place me at the scene.

MOO.

Then we both agree, because I was not saying "his car was there, so he committed the murder"---I was using it for other things. Like using it to show what time HE left the scene. And there are, allegedly, other things to connect him to the act of murder, IMO.

 

[10ofRods]

If they have OTHER ways to connect him to the crime, besides the DNA, then they can use his car leaving the crime scene as a timing device. I am pretty sure they do have other things connecting him. We will have to wait and see unless the gag order is withdrawn.

Yes, if it were true (legally) that courts can never connect one fact to another, we wouldn't have to have jury trials.

IMO.

Instead, it's the opposite. If one piece of evidence corroborates another, that's consider good evidence.

DNA
Phone
Car on video

That's the trident of the PCA. There is more to come. If there isn't, he may well walk free in June. But because his attorney hasn't arranged an earlier hearing, I doubt that's going to happen, either. Instead there will be way more evidence (GPS in particular). And cell tower pings from other carriers besides the ones registered to BK's phone.

OTOH, if there is absolutely no evidence from the car, that's going to be exonerating to some degree. Hard to explain by forensic experts, for sure (explainable yes, but perhaps not to the standard a jury might expect).

Hard to say.

IMO.

 

[10ofRods]

If HIS DNA was found on the button of the knife sheath, which was found alongside one of the bodies, and HIS car is seen speeding away from the scene, right after one of the survivors saw a masked man in black coming down the stairs, and exiting, then I think one can logically use the car to help determine the time of the attack.

Very carefully worded. And to my mind, indisputable.

Two strands of evidence (his car seen speeding away; the sheath).

And then we have his phone traveling with the car (but going dark 20 minutes out of Pullman and then turning back on about 20-30 minutes after the murders).

That's three strands.

Whether or not the housemates agree on manner of dress or what they saw in the middle of the night, eyewitness testimony is often the most unreliable. The above facts are far more objective.

OTOH, if GPS doesn't show the same features, that will be damaging.

IMO.

 

[WingsOverTX]

But was he really an insider? He had some information prior to the arrest and he briefly mentioned that there was no connection between his daughter and BK. However, it's not as though he is getting information either. Nor is it absolute that he knows every person Kaylee knew or came into contact with.

If the media were more circumspect or had more accountability to report just the facts, I'd be more opposed to keeping information from the public. As it is, even mainstream media has devolved into opinion journalism more often than not. At least we have reason to be suspicious of the generic "sources" and people still run with those reports.

My only concern with the order here is that if BK is not the killer, the public doesn't have enough information to be on the watch for an alternate suspect.


From the 2/24/23 redacted summary of a 1/13/23 in Chambers Zoom conference with Judge Marshall and case-related attorneys:

"Judge Marshall appreciates perspective. Judge Marshall reiterates she is hot saying that clients cannot talk to the .media but does question whether it is wise for them to talk to the media. Reminds lawyers they have a responsibility in giving advice to their clients. If any lawyer has questions about this, or takes· issue with this, they should contact the Idaho State Bar and seek clarification."

Stipulation to Unseal With Redactions Posted here: Idaho Judicial Cases of Interest

I just see Mr. G as an advocate for the victims, two in particular. That was really what I wanted to express.

Frankly, I am not a fan of any judge who issues a blanket gag order with no stated review date meaning it could drag on until a verdict is rendered IF SHE SO WISHES.

The media are always taking heat for their excesses & perceived wrongdoing here at WS but until a better way comes along, the media is all we have to protect the public's right to know.

The ID SC recently stated that the judge in this case would have to rule on the media appeal of the overreaching (IMO) gag order then the case would have to proceed through appeals before they will consider it when they have the power to immediately act in the public interest. The SC knows this case is likely to be decided long before they will have another opportunity to rule on it. By defacto action they have granted BK's judge gag order power carte blanche.

If BK is not the mass murderer? Not an argument I'm interested in. The gag order as it stands definitely offers him great protection in that regard.

JMO; YMMV

 

[gliving]

https://d.newsweek.com/en/file/465464/bryan-kohberger-search-o warrant.pdf

Washington search warrant, asking that the DNA be excluded from consideration re probable cause.

Here's the Pennsylvania warrant for comparison.

https://www.pacourts.us/Storage/media/pdfs/20230302/150347-dec.29,2022-searchwarrant(b.kohberger),inventory,exhibits.pdf

 

[Nova]

What in the name of made-up nonsense is this? How do they get away with blatantly lying? I mean, if seeing a naked man run out of her 2nd-floor kitchen door from her first-floor bedroom happened, that would be a much more interesting story, but SMH at the Mirror.

While we are shaking our heads, what about that phrase "running through"? (Emphasis added.) The article doesn't say whether the "naked man" was running in or out of the house. How did the writer/editor miss that tiny--but essential--fact?

And how would BF see anyone coming or going through the slider from her first floor window? The only windows on that lower floor face the front, IIRC. Unless the "naked man" ran toward the parking area in front of 1122--but then how would BF have seen him use the slider?

As I recall the floor plan, BF would have had to have been on the staircase from lower to middle floor and near the top of the stairs, at that, if she were able to see anyone using the slider.

 

[Nova]

I think he'd make too big a mess stripping out of bloody clothes on the way out. IMO, the article only makes sense if we start thinking about some of the speculation in the early days, that there were two intruders/killers. DM saw one and BF saw the other. JMO.

I think you are being hasty, Doctor. It's possible both survivors saw the same man, but he dressed or undressed at some point during the attacks to keep blood spatter off his clothing.

What will be odder to me is if it turns out BF saw a naked man entering or leaving the house, yet failed to call 911 (at least for the next 8 hours). WTF?!

Or why didn't she at least wake everyone up to ask if somebody had a guest who arrived or left naked?

I realize some behaviors are overlooked by college kids because everybody is experimenting with something, but I've never heard of a man running outside naked being considered acceptable.

 

[U.N. Known]

I just see Mr. G as an advocate for the victims, two in particular. That was really what I wanted to express.

Frankly, I am not a fan of any judge who issues a blanket gag order with no stated review date meaning it could drag on until a verdict is rendered IF SHE SO WISHES.

The media are always taking heat for their excesses & perceived wrongdoing here at WS but until a better way comes along, the media is all we have to protect the public's right to know.

The ID SC recently stated that the judge in this case would have to rule on the media appeal of the overreaching (IMO) gag order then the case would have to proceed through appeals before they will consider it when they have the power to immediately act in the public interest. The SC knows this case is likely to be decided long before they will have another opportunity to rule on it. By defacto action they have granted BK's judge gag order power carte blanche.

If BK is not the mass murderer? Not an argument I'm interested in. The gag order as it stands definitely offers him great protection in that regard.

JMO; YMMV

Because there is little journalistic integrity anymore. Yes, the public has "a right to know," but IMO, if the media isn't vetting sources, doing its due diligence and reporting, rather than editorializing we still don't really know anything.

Even before the gag order was in place, the media (collectively) effectively put a negative spotlight on people who were later cleared, including BF and DM.

As for BK being or not being a mass murderer, the gag order offering him protection was not my point. I was agreeing that his arrest, coupled with the gag order prevents protection to the public if he is not the guilty party--no one is able to fully scrutinize LE's case compared to the provided evidence. That is my only (minor) objection to the gag order. That being said, my personal preference in this case is the gag order over the media in all its forms adding more confusion to the case.

If he is guilty, we the public do not need the protection open records and media scrutiny provide.

 

[maconrich]

So, yeah, BF would have to be a bit closer than the stairs to see around the kitchen wall to the sliding door. Possibly from living room close to the little hallway; the little hallway itself or DM's room. MOO. Both images from

1122 King Road, Moscow, Idaho Tour

1122tour.com

 

[whiterhino]

I agree that if you're using the car as additional information and not saying "his car was there, so he committed the murder," you can use the car to determine other things. But the reason this topic headed in this direction is because it began with using the car as evidence of his whereabouts (per the PCA) AND suggesting using it to determine time of the murder. I go back to the grocery store analogy. If LE has proof I did it, then they can use the time I was there to suggest a timeline. But if LE is trying to make the case that I'm the suspect because they can place me at the scene, then they need to affirm time of the crime in order to place me at the scene.

MOO.

As someone who has been observing this exchange and the confusion, can I please chime in?

I'm not sure who (if anyone) was actually suggesting using the Elantra as some way of proving or estimating the time of the murders.

Personally I misunderstood and thought @BeginnerSleuther was saying "you can't do both" (using the car to establish two things). Quoting: "And I'm saying, if the police want to prove BK is guilty of murder because his car was at the scene of the crime, they can't use the car to determine the time of the murders. That's circular logic and confirmation bias, IMO.".

(admittedly I was confused and didn't want to say anything as you are a doctor and therefore already aware that a vehicle cannot be used to estimate TOD *ETA unless perhaps in a motor vehicle accident just in case someone comes for me later* and I was unsure why you were even speaking on it lol ok I will stfu now)

As it was discussed a few threads ago, all of those pieces corroborate each other (the sheath, the video footage of the car, DMs witness account and description, not to mention the fact that DMs description and the DNA of BK match each other etc). JMO.

 

[whiterhino]

Yes, if it were true (legally) that courts can never connect one fact to another, we wouldn't have to have jury trials.

IMO.

Instead, it's the opposite. If one piece of evidence corroborates another, that's consider good evidence.

DNA
Phone
Car on video

That's the trident of the PCA. There is more to come. If there isn't, he may well walk free in June. But because his attorney hasn't arranged an earlier hearing, I doubt that's going to happen, either. Instead there will be way more evidence (GPS in particular). And cell tower pings from other carriers besides the ones registered to BK's phone.

OTOH, if there is absolutely no evidence from the car, that's going to be exonerating to some degree. Hard to explain by forensic experts, for sure (explainable yes, but perhaps not to the standard a jury might expect).

Hard to say.

IMO.

I basically wrote the same thing (in my own plebian way lol).

Even without evidence from the car, if there is any victim DNA amongst BKs personal items that would be just as damning IMO.

Sorry for the double posting! This thread is like watching a pot of water boil, nothing happens until I walk away