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

Status
Not open for further replies.
RBBM

Thank you again! My tactic is to ask the naive, more obvious questions as their answers often narrow things down and point to the truth :cool:

Right?! Is there not also some kind of physical, hormonal or physiological change that occurs after someone commits murder? I cannot imagine that many people (even the worst SKs) commit this kind of crime without having some kind of bad reaction or psychological effect. Especially for someone who hasn't killed before, you'd think they'd be shaking all the way home, sweating, tossing their cookies :oops:
bbm

imo jmo I volunteered in a couple of ERs at trauma centers, and I've seen bodies splayed open. I found it a little disconcerting (understatement). I saw open heart massage, and I think anyone would be a bit taken aback (understatement) by it. If it is true, as SG said, that Kaylee had gouges, then that would be even more startling (understatement). IIRC the officers who found this were quite upset. Without getting too gross, imo ime, from what I observed, not everything 'in' stays 'in', some comes out. Plus, there's just the smell, if nothing else. I found the whole experience to be quite unsettling, and several things put me off meat entirely. I'll stop there and this is all jmo imo ime, but if this was the killer's first time, it would be rather surprising to me if there was no immediate reaction.
 
I've had to skim the thread lately, so I apologize if this has been covered.

But let's speculate that neighboring cameras (maybe the one we already know about, or maybe others we haven't heard about yet) showed frequent visits to King Rd. by a white Elantra-ish car.

Rather than suspecting doordash drivers of the crime, couldn't LE request their records in order to EXCLUDE from suspicion all the identified deliveries, leaving x number of other vehicle approaches to be considered as possibly the murderer casing the place?
nope. see my post above. warrant are not used that way.
 
SPECULATION/theory below

My theory on that is that planning a crime of this time was an every day obsession for BK. He was incorporating more and more of his knowledge about crime into his theorized "perfect crime." I have interviewed many non-murderers (people in jail for attempted murder; serial rape; breaking and entering, etc) and many of them fantasized about homicide/larger crimes. Indeed, even so-called petty criminals (the ones who sneak onto people's porches and steal packages) are often thinking about other crimes.

BK was thinking about crime, all the time. It is my view, based solely on what SG said before he quieted down, that the murderer in this case researched and practiced how to use a knife and how to use a knife in such a way as to eliminate screaming and to minimize blood spatter (as SG says, KG's wounds were large slash wounds; he says the coroner says that "slash" was a better term than "stab.") What the slash method accomplishes is rapid blood loss (some of it initially into the inside of the body, particularly the lung injuries) but it also results in less splatter. Choosing the lungs and the liver results in way less arterial blood spurt to the outside of the body, if the killer knows at all what he's doing (checked where the liver and lungs are and memorized a little anatomy).

Snipped by me. If it's true that he intentionally chose to slash around the liver, then I believe he did so because the liver is the bloodiest organ in the body thanks to the hepatic artery and portal vein. It also produces what's called clotting factors to clot blood and prevent blood loss. Liver lacerations are common in car accidents and other injuries and can be mild or reparable in some cases, but a laceration from someone intentionally cutting someone with a knife, if they did the research, would suggest to me they want their victim to bleed to death. JMO.
 
if they did the research, would suggest to me they want their victim to bleed to death.
rsbm

how easy would it be to hit the liver first time, four times, if you've never done it before and under some degree of pressure/stress? I know it requires speculation, but yours is based on experience, and mine is based on nothing, so your answer would be much better :)
 
RSBM


the warrant requests:
  • all information in your possession or control related to sales, deliveries, purchases, and/or transactions made to 1122 King Road, Moscow, Idaho 83 843 for flre period of January 1, 2022 to present, to include:date and time of sales;
  • date and time ofdeliveries;
  • purchases and/or transactions;
  • name and identification of the drivers;
  • a full description of the vehicles used;
  • any and all communications between drivers and the purchasers;
Those are big asks that require probable cause because
“no intrusion at all is justified without a careful prior determination of necessity".

If you skip to this

III. PROBABLE CAUSE AND PARTICULARITY AT STEP TWO​


you'll find nicely written descriptions that explain: defining what is searched, probable cause, and particularity.

Although it's Harvard Law Review, it's not stuffy, but is written in language for humans imo jmo

But imo jmo ime what we know from the 4th amendment of the constitution and a ton o'case law supporting it:

LE cannot get a warrant to demontrate what is 'normal', nor can they request personal communications between drivers and victims to show what is 'normal'.

This outlines in very clear layman's terms what is required for a warrant and there are links to each term for more detailed explanation:


The type of warrant requested by LE is not a geofence-type warrant (those are problematic for the reasons cited in the law review link). LE had to have probable cause to get this DD warrant. Probable cause requires specificity to time and location, and relation to crime. Relation to crime does not mean some general thing like being sure or ruling out or setting the normal bar.

The 4th amendment of the US Constitution requires that warrants be issued only “upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”49×49. U.S. CONST. amend. IV.

When LE signs the warrant, they are attesting that they believe probable cause exists AND that it exists for the reasons stated in the affidavit. (you can google the penalties for the affiant for lying or misrepresenting).
imo jmo ime and fact


This warrant is supported by an affidavit that is sealed -- as are almost all of these -- and, therefore, not on this list here: Idaho Judicial Cases of Interest

Before a warrant can be issued, a judge must determine that a warrant application has sufficiently established probable cause. LE would need to prove that those records related to this crime.

The affidavit contains the evidence related to PC. We do not know what was in the affidavit,
but we do know that it contains more than a request for a warrant based on determining what was normal because normal isn't pc. imo jmo ime

This language is from this warrant:

Therefore, the court finds it necessary to seal in part and redact the record related to the search warrant because the documents contain highly intimate facts or statements, the publication of which would be highly objectionable to a reasonable person. I.C.A.R. 32(i)(2)(A). After due consideration and with good cause appearing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the record herein shall be disclosed except for the following:
1.
The Afiidavit in Support of Search Warrant and the Amended Aflidavit in Support of Search Warrant be SEALED.
The Search Warrant, Amended Search Warrant and Receipt and Inventory be REDACTED.


this really does lay it out well for those who want an understanding:

edited to delete extra bullet point and add 4 words and a link
Finally got through it all: Thank you, excellent, interesting information and I have a better understanding of probable cause for search warrants now. Still digesting it all and probably will need to read it again. The Geofence warrants link was eye opening for me, I now realize why they are problematic.
This case: 3-5 am at these distances:
T mobile distance 2 miles
Verizon distance 0.5miles
Inland Cellular distance 0.5miles
ATT distance 0.5miles

I did notice one part under probable cause (2nd Link) that caught my eye.

Such information may come from the officer’ personal observations or that of an informant.

MOO
 
Investigation is one thing. Warrant is another. LE doesn't get warrants just to investigate. They would have investigated to get PC to get a warrant. Warrants must weigh personal rights v need to know (gross oversimplification). It really is a complex thing, but the links I provided should help, I hope. Warrants aren't 'starting somewhere'. Geofencing is different, but the link really explains that well, too. for some, 4A isn't something to read about on a Sunday afternoon, but I think that law review piece is interesting any day of the week, if you're interested in knowing more about warrants.

A bit of an aside, but if you want to read an interesting book, and the difficulty getting a warrant, read Unmasked by Paul Holes. Or watch Zodiac (one of my favs). Although it's Hollywood, it's based on the true story.
Sorry, I don't know a lot about American laws and etc., but what I am referring to is more along the lines of what's covered in the link below. I think here (in Canada) they call them 'Information to Obtain Judicial Authorization', maybe this is similar?:
Law Enforcement Access to Third Party Records
 
Such information may come from the officer’ personal observations or that of an informant.

I'm so happy it helped! if it's any consolation, this is a really complex area, and there's volumes (literally) of fine points to know, so those links are only for general understanding, but it is really interesting. Fine points and exceptions abound, but pc is required, and even with geowarrants, scope and geographic location are part of the requirements. And even if it seems like a gimme, when it doubt, get a warrant is the rule I learned. for example, in PA the officers could search garbage left at the curb without a warrant, but what if it's curtilage, and what if you take it and lose the argument of curb v. curtilage because it does happen. anyway, I'll share a link after I get approval (I've learn the hard way)
 
Where did the police say "the house was a bloody mess"? What they did say is that it was a bloody crime scene. Given how few stabbings/murders Moscow has, it's not surprising that it would be very bloody (all four died of exsanguination, after all). However, I do believe this murderer took many steps to make sure that he, himself, was not very bloody - and I do not believe that this was some crazy bloody crime scene to the degree that it would make the record books (there was no dismemberment, for example). "Sloppy" means that the murderer made mistakes, left things behind (such as, well, a knife sheath). Obviously, he also left footprints - likely some visible ones. He also created blood transfer from the first room to the second room, even if wearing gloves.

The roommates, upon awakening the next morning, do not see a "bloody mess" or they wouldn't have been questioning what was wrong with Xana and Ethan. By the time the killer walks past DM's room, there's so little blood on the sole of his shoe that the print is invisible, even with luminol (which was done early in the case). Without Amido black, that print would not have been found.

Any quadruple stabbing is going to look shockingly bloody, but making the house into a "bloody mess" (when we can see in the press telephoto shots that things in the kitchen look pretty normal and DM noticed no bloody mess when she arose) is a bit of a stretch, to me. But then, I'm really into trying to figure out the forensics of these murders (particular the manner of injury) with the scant information we have.

I believe there was lots of blood in two places in the house, but a lot of it was soaked into bedding and mattresses. Xana ended up on the floor and it's my guess that it was her blood that they will find composed the latent print.

IMO. IME.


I'm going to post a link that is likely unavailable to those without institutional access:


Liver lacerations in car accidents are scary because the person can be rapidly bleeding out with fewer signs of outside trauma.

Another strong advantage of attacking these organs with a slash is that there's no bone encountered in attacking the liver when done "properly" and the lungs can be accessed without hitting ribs, if a person practices. Because Ka-Bar knives are known for chipping off a bit of their protective coating and sometimes even having the point break off. If the sheath hadn't been left, if the killer had left even microscopic metal fragments behind, those could have been used to trace the weapon. I may be overestimating BK, but he had indeed spent years of his life thinking about such things. Maybe not this specific thing - but my hunch is that he did think about it.

All just hunches (except the part about blood spatter).
 
This was discussed quite a bit in other threads, but until we know more, I don't think we can definitively call it either, especially the baggies as there can be a host of other reasons for that. MOO
Just because others have supplied their explanations for the trash behavior as being non-suspicious doesn’t mean that I find it so.
 
Sorry, I don't know a lot about American laws and etc., but what I am referring to is more along the lines of what's covered in the link below. I think here (in Canada) they call them 'Information to Obtain Judicial Authorization', maybe this is similar?:
Law Enforcement Access to Third Party Records
Well, what you proposed is not allowed here in the US re warrants. Period. If you review the links, you'll see why.
Geofence Warrants and the Fourth Amendment
search warrant

Access to third party records is allowed,

Once this degree of privacy is determined, it sets a threshold level of protection: highly private records are highly protected, moderately private records are moderately protected, etc.[29]

Warrant required; this was not emergency aid or existent circumstance, and all of the information I provided is included in the links I provided;

Absent consent, emergency aid, or exigent circumstances; consistent with the law of privilege;[30] and absent any greater constitutional protection; law enforcement should be permitted to access a highly protected record via a warrant or, if the legislature or other decision maker so chooses, a court order supported by reasonable suspicion.

edited to add links
 
btw, I think these are all great points, and imo jmo based on research, yes re the castoff. I'm not sure what I can link here, but if you google, there's lots blood spatter can tell us imo jmo and from disturbing searches. @BeginnerSleuther, you're a physician, can you share any info about how someone who didn't have skill at this would be able to do it?

And imo jmo because I've never done it, it does seem like it would be hard to murder 4 people with a knife, 5 minutes (if that, we don't know that he started right away) per victim, with at least one fighting back, and then scoot on home (walk to car, peel out, etc.) For one thing, just the shock of having done it, esp if it were your first time... IDK, though
You nailed it! Killing four people in such a short span of time, using a knife- Imo, how would one contend with two victims in the same bed, monitor spatter, castoff, trying to be as quiet as one can, esp. if this was the first time killing, IMO, one can “practice” and perfect his killing method but often times things do not go as planned. I would think he’s thrown off by not one, but 4 victims, so being rationale at that moment, trying not to get victims DNA transferred onto him, him leaving DNA/evidence seems next to impossible. Like you said, we’ve never done it, so it is hard to imagine.
 
Just because others have supplied their explanations for the trash behavior as being non-suspicious doesn’t mean that I find it so.
it's hard to say if it's suspicious or just odd imo jmo. I was watching an old movie the other night (Matchstick men?) and at the beginning, there was Nicolas Cage's character bagging up garbage because he's OCD, I think. just hard to say imo jmo.
 
Thank you for that link!

I was just pointing out that they were also interested in times and dates (and wondering what they might be interested in relation to times). Also any communications with drivers and the cars they were driving in addition to whatever caused them to look at drivers in the first place.. I agree there is more behind it with relation to the drivers.

Maybe they found a driver that had previous history?
Some kind of tip about a particular driver?
Perhaps a driver owned an elantra?


MOO
BBM, I agree that those are possibilties and that something like that may have been partially behind the warrant.

Just bouncing off with some of my own thoughtson DD and the Warrants in general:

IMO, it's possible LE could have made a case for PC based on the expert opinions of experienced detectives knowledgable in Mass murder/stranger murder, along with evidence from the crime scene, that the house may have been the target. This could be why the warrant goes back to Jan 2022. And perhaps for one or some of the reasons you mention LE decided at the time DD could produce a suspect. MOO. IMO, PC for search warrants is based on probable cause that a search may produce evidence related to the crime but cannot demand it will. The language is legalese and naturally convoluted but by way of eg, there is no guarantee that the victims' and redacteds' financial transactions will produce evidence related to the crime, but at the time there was probable/reasonable cause to grant warrants. Ditto for UPS. The provisions for sealing do their best to protect the innocent and that is why such provisons exist. MOO

EBM: altered post structure for clarity
 
Last edited:
we’ve never done it, so it is hard to imagine.
you know, what's so disturbing about this case for me is how it has made me walk through it to make sense of it, and that goes to just really difficult and terrifying places. I have a visceral reaction to knives in general, and this case... yowza.... imo jmo

also, this is so true and so important to consider because pretty sure the defense will bring it up imo jmo

...Killing four people in such a short span of time, using a knife- Imo, how would one contend with two victims in the same bed, monitor spatter, castoff, trying to be as quiet as one can,

and then this...

... thrown off by not one, but 4 victims, so being rationale at that moment, trying not to get victims DNA transferred onto him, him leaving DNA/evidence seems next to impossible.

how is that possible? idk, jmo imo but there is more to this than there appears to be, and a clue imo jmo is found by going warrant to warrant and reading the final order to seal. although the language re the reasons is cookie-cutter but not the same for every warrant, and these are legal documents, so the judge didn't just spitball or include reasons that did not exist because that's obviously frowned upon...

anyway, you make excellent points.
 
Well, what you proposed is not allowed here in the US re warrants. Period. If you review the links, you'll see why.
Geofence Warrants and the Fourth Amendment
search warrant

Access to third party records is allowed,

Once this degree of privacy is determined, it sets a threshold level of protection: highly private records are highly protected, moderately private records are moderately protected, etc.[29]

Warrant required; this was not emergency aid or existent circumstance, and all of the information I provided is included in the links I provided;

Absent consent, emergency aid, or exigent circumstances; consistent with the law of privilege;[30] and absent any greater constitutional protection; law enforcement should be permitted to access a highly protected record via a warrant or, if the legislature or other decision maker so chooses, a court order supported by reasonable suspicion.

edited to add links
What level of protection would there be to the records of Doordash regarding deliveries their drivers made in which vehicles, etc. ? It's not like personal health info, or work disputes with other employees, or ?
 
He was observed by LE placing his trash in his neighbor’s trash can. Also, inside his home he was seen organizing trash into separate zip loc baggies. I’m not sure if I would call these specific things “mistakes” or if I’d call it incriminating behavior.
Even if BK is the killer, I wouldn't consider either of those things as mistakes. If BK suspected he was being watched or that the family's trash was, he'd have also had reason to believe they'd see him leave trash in the neighbor's bin. If he didn't suspect that, he had no reason to use their bins for concealment.

Why he was separating trash was an assumption by the person being interviewed or by a person who spoke to the person being interviewed. There is no indication that they actually asked BK what that's what he was actually doing (I know, he may not have told them if it was for a sus reason.).
 
you know, what's so disturbing about this case for me is how it has made me walk through it to make sense of it, and that goes to just really difficult and terrifying places. I have a visceral reaction to knives in general, and this case... yowza.... imo jmo

also, this is so true and so important to consider because pretty sure the defense will bring it up imo jmo



and then this...



how is that possible? idk, jmo imo but there is more to this than there appears to be, and a clue imo jmo is found by going warrant to warrant and reading the final order to seal. although the language re the reasons is cookie-cutter but not the same for every warrant, and these are legal documents, so the judge didn't just spitball or include reasons that did not exist because that's obviously frowned upon...

anyway, you make excellent points.
will now be going back and re-reading all warrants and order to seal-I agree, there is more to this and I think I am ”slowly” seeing clues, things starting to “click”. Off to do some reading
 
What level of protection would there be to the records of Doordash regarding deliveries their drivers made in which vehicles, etc. ? It's not like personal health info, or work disputes with other employees, or ?
well, that's your opinion maybe, but that's not the way it works. as I said, the links will explain it if you care to research it, and that's why I shared them because a lot of WSers had the same thoughts. I didn't make the law, but warrant requirements are warrant requirements unless there is an exception to the warrant requirement, and none of those apply here imo jmo and ime. anyway, hope this helps :)
 
Last edited:
btw, I think these are all great points, and imo jmo based on research, yes re the castoff. I'm not sure what I can link here, but if you google, there's lots blood spatter can tell us imo jmo and from disturbing searches. @BeginnerSleuther, you're a physician, can you share any info about how someone who didn't have skill at this would be able to do it?

I'm not well-versed enough in blood spatter to speak to the specific forensic information, like height, that can be gleaned. But to slash someone, if that's what we're thinking, he could have stabbed first, then driven the knife up or down, basically slashing internal organs. There would be a ton of blood if that's what happened and may explain SG's early comments about KG's wounds being worse than MM.

I do agree though that it would be exceedingly difficult to stab 4 people and high-tail it out of there in 15 minutes, especially if we want to introduce coveralls, shoe covers, or change of wardrobe. There is something about this whole thing that doesn't add up.

MOO.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
73
Guests online
2,704
Total visitors
2,777

Forum statistics

Threads
590,011
Messages
17,928,948
Members
228,038
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top