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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I thought that his phone pinged their router on one of the other occasions (one of the 12 other times he was noted to be near 1122 King Road). I'm going entirely from memory though. I don't know his phone brand, but with both Apple and Android, if a person has enabled bluetooth while in airplane mode (say, so that their apple watch will still function or to wear earbuds), then when airplane mode is enabled the next time, bluetooth should stay on.

It's possible the phone tried to connect to a bluetooth device (which itself could have been connected to the router). Completely out of my bailiwick, but I do know that bluetooth can still work on airplane mode.



I think not. If in fact it turned out that BK was not the killer OR that there was some crazy whackadoo who wanted to claim that he or she was the real murdered, LE and DA simply do not want to give information about the path through the house. This is common to all criminal trials I've watched or been involved in. The defense will get the information, it's under lock and key, there's a reason for the gag order that goes beyond just jury selection.

With a latent print, it's common that the entire foot is not present in the print. Almost no one stomps with their foot such that a liquid would be equally distributed throughout the sole of the shoe. Often, the arch of the foot is missing in the imprint (which is valuable forensic info). If a person is running lightly (to be quiet) they will not always put their heel down (especially if they are turning). So partial prints are extremely common. A person wearing something like a knee brace may be forced to use their foot differently and give a fuller print, but you can experiment with this at home if you're so inclined (we do it in teaching labs, using washable paint from the education store).

Why would you assume both shoes were covered in blood? The fact that the print goes latent just a few meters from Xana's room tells me that not much blood was on that one shoe. I think he tried hard not to step in any blood, but because Xana was not in bed, as expected, he did anyway - but not much.

Shoe size isn't all that helpful to give out to the public. It's likely a common shoe size, from an average sized man. That does not help the public identify the person and it doesn't aid the Judge in deciding that it is Kohberger rather than someone else. It does back up what DM said, and that was the point. Indeed, since Kohberger was not yet in custody, shoe size was irrelevant - the judge needs reasons to arrest a specific individual (whose shoe size is unknown at the time).

We'll likely find out that, now that they can measure BK's foot in custody and also have his other shoes, what the shoe size was. If he were really smart, he'd have bought a special pair of shoes for his kill kit in a different size than what he usually wears (tighter would make sense, like approach shoes are supposed to be).

Wall IMO, but based on years of teaching forensic anthropology.

Quote:

"If he were really smart, he'd have bought a special pair of shoes for his kill kit in a different size than what he usually wears"

Thought you'd find it interesting that in a murder case and trial I followed 2 of the murderers did just that - wore shoes of the wrong size.

2 of the murderers, brothers, had their mom buy them shoes to wear the night they helped commit 8 murders.
They had their mom buy them shoes in the wrong sizes, in sizes they did not wear. They also had her buy them shoes of a brand and style they never wore.

No Van shoes were recovered from the Pennsylvania house, apartment or car.

If the "invisible" Van shoe print was BK's, it is possible that BK normally doesn't wear this specific type of shoe and only bought it for the murders. It is also possible that BK bought a size he never wears.

New Balance shoes
2 pair of dark colored boots
1 pair of brown boots
Hiking boots
Boot - found in car
Pair of black and white size 13 Nike shoes - he was wearing these so he is probably a size 13 (person warrant)
 
Last edited:
You're welcome. I agree he could have disposed of items from the crime scene literally anywhere in all those miles of wilderness in all those hours afterwards, and they will never be found.

Unless LE has been following "the bread crumbs" left by when his cell phone did ping (and where it was when it was off those times / locations noted ETA: and for how long) and have good reasons to have been in communication with Idaho Fish and Game because they are following some leads on areas he may have gone during that loop he drove where they have "game cams" or other surveillance cameras at the entrances to hiking trails or at fishing spots or wherever that may have captured him doing (some more of) his dirty work.

All MOO
I remember our local member @North_Idaho_Nony saying it was very foggy that night.
 
Regarding the mention of latent shoe print in PCA and lack of mention of any other prints….. imo the purpose of the mention of the latent print near DMs bedroom door was to substantiate her eyewitness testimony.

Ex. “DM saw bushy eyebrows man walk past her door and towards slider. We found print that corroborates her story”

Of course there are other prints. Moo
 
I think it's interesting how it used to be generally a cell phone being left on and it's location/pings that were used in criminal cases, but now if the phone is off or goes dark that is used against suspects as well. I guess the solution is to leave it at home powered on, but then they're going to use the fact that there was no physical activity on the phone against the subject.
It isn't just that BK's phone was off, but that it was off temporarily from just before the murders until 15 or 20 minutes afterward. Few of us turn off our phones at all, except under special circumstances, much less turn them off just long enough to commit mass murder!

It's like the surveillance video. It doesn't mean much that BK's car was caught on security video, but it means quite a bit that it was caught on video heading toward, and later away from, the murder scene shortly before and after the time of the murders.
 
A possible CI. Who could have sensitive information / knowledge about the murders. Possibly regarding BK's involvement. With BK being portrayed as being too standoffish and socially inept to interact well with others (FWIW I'm not sure I believe that) much less to share his plans, intent or conspire / work with anyone else (I might believe that part). Unless a CI might be tied to the purchase of a K-Bar knife. Or I'm not looking at this right? Which is very possible. I'll let the idea(s) settle a bit while I google the Dropbox info you suggested. All IMHO.
I was thinking perhaps a professor that has some of his writings. But I don’t know about the qualifications, if any, for someone to be a CI. IMO.
 
Regarding the mention of latent shoe print in PCA and lack of mention of any other prints….. imo the purpose of the mention of the latent print near DMs bedroom door was to substantiate her eyewitness testimony.

Ex. “DM saw bushy eyebrows man walk past her door and towards slider. We found print that corroborates her story”

Of course there are other prints. Moo

IMO JMO that just doesn't logically work - a very faint latent print that we can't even be sure was that of the killer is what they'd use to corroborate her story? if there were other footprints, there would, in theory, also be footprints before and after the partial one - wouldn't a path of footprints serve to support her story more convincingly?

What possible reason would they leave that evidence out of the PCA altogether? I can't make sense of that.

I can see why LE would exclude all but the most relevant, forceful evidence and focus solely on BK, but a few footprints headed out the door would seem like a logical inclusion. It just makes no sense to use such a weak piece of evidence if other more compelling evidence exits to support her story. LE sure didn't skimp on the cell phone details or the route details, so why leave out the footprints? were they problematic in some way?

I questioned this threads ago, and several others have also been asking the same questions.imo jmo this is in the top 5 questions I'd like answered, so June hurry up. Imo jmo.
 
If he left through the front door, that would mean that when DM saw him heading toward the kitchen, he would have immediately turned around and headed directly past her door to the stairway mere seconds after she saw him.
Correcting my own post from this morning -- realized I made the same mistake I had earlier, of thinking the stairway by DM's door went down when it actually goes up. So -- cue Emily Litella -- never mind!

Why don't you guys tell me when I say something wrong!?! :eyeroll:
 
I'd like to know what evidence is there that shows BK went back to the King Rd house at 9:00am?

A Moscow cell tower ping doesn't tell where he was in Moscow.

The car matching BK's car is only seen on camera up to about 4:20 am but not seen on camera at 9:00am.

If BK was at the house at 9:00am then the cameras that picked him up at 4:00am should have also picked him up at 9:00am.
 
a very faint latent print that we can't even be sure was that of the killer is what they'd use to corroborate her story? if there were other footprints, there would, in theory, also be footprints before and after the partial one - wouldn't a path of footprints serve to support her story more convincingly?
yes, quoting myself on this specific part because I finally figured out why it bugs me so much that this would be used to support DM's story. If LE wanted to corroborate the story in the PCA, then imo jmo do it, say "a trail of footprints", or "some footprint, one of which had a partial shoe print", but this latent, second processing, etc. is so lame if used to support something. It's feels like just the opposite to me (and that is in no way a reflection on DM and jmo imo). It is the PCA equivalent of someone telling me I don't look fat in these pants if I turn to a 277 degree angle in faint light. I mean, if you'e gotta work that hard for it, leave it out, or make it something that supports the statement strongly. jmo imo
 
IMO JMO that just doesn't logically work - a very faint latent print that we can't even be sure was that of the killer is what they'd use to corroborate her story? if there were other footprints, there would, in theory, also be footprints before and after the partial one - wouldn't a path of footprints serve to support her story more convincingly?

What possible reason would they leave that evidence out of the PCA altogether? I can't make sense of that.

I can see why LE would exclude all but the most relevant, forceful evidence and focus solely on BK, but a few footprints headed out the door would seem like a logical inclusion. It just makes no sense to use such a weak piece of evidence if other more compelling evidence exits to support her story. LE sure didn't skimp on the cell phone details or the route details, so why leave out the footprints? were they problematic in some way?

I questioned this threads ago, and several others have also been asking the same questions.imo jmo this is in the top 5 questions I'd like answered, so June hurry up. Imo jmo.
Left them out because pca is designed to get an arrest and not to include everything for conviction? Just speculating here but it makes sense to me.
 
yes, quoting myself on this specific part because I finally figured out why it bugs me so much that this would be used to support DM's story. If LE wanted to corroborate the story in the PCA, then imo jmo do it, say "a trail of footprints", or "some footprint, one of which had a partial shoe print", but this latent, second processing, etc. is so lame if used to support something. It's feels like just the opposite to me (and that is in no way a reflection on DM and jmo imo). It is the PCA equivalent of someone telling me I don't look fat in these pants if I turn to a 277 degree angle in faint light. I mean, if you'e gotta work that hard for it, leave it out, or make it something that supports the statement strongly. jmo imo
I disagree. A latent print doesn’t mean not as good. It’s strong evidence. Enough for an arrest and that’s why they included it. It supports the story of why BK should be arrested. It’s a small portion of the larger story.
 
I disagree. A latent print doesn’t mean not as good. It’s strong evidence. Enough for an arrest and that’s why they included it. It supports the story of why BK should be arrested. It’s a small portion of the larger story.

How is a single latent print strong evidence? Besides supporting the fact that someone with a foot was there that night, what else does it reveal?
 
Left them out because pca is designed to get an arrest and not to include everything for conviction? Just speculating here but it makes sense to me.
it doesn't make sense to me at all, and it is to get an arrest - and a search warrant - and WA courts are much pickier, but some of us are going to believe that and some aren't, and I'll just keep searching for fresh ideas because I'm all out :) jmo imo
 
How is a single latent print strong evidence? Besides supporting the fact that someone with a foot was there that night, what else does it reveal?
<modsnip>

why not include just a few more? what could it possibly have hurt? they included all the call info, the drive, Tik Tok, door dash, maybe JitB, the dog, the name of the boyfriend, etc., so why not a few more footprints? it makes no sense, unless they weren't there, and the it makes less sense imo jmo.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
How is a single latent print strong evidence? Besides supporting the fact that someone with a foot was there that night, what else does it reveal?
Shoe size, shoe type (brand, style), peculiarities of wear or gait, whether the wearer was walking, running, limping, directionality of movement, time it was left in relation to time of the killing (blood viscosity when the print was left - fresh, coagulated and separated into red cells and serum, dry), trace evidence from other locations(fibre, organics, chemicals, dirt, etc.)... just off the top of my head.

MOO
 
Oh, I see... I read it in reference to the list. I mean, we don't even know the car is his much less that he drove it, so to assume those things would require that we also assume he was potentially wearing those distinctive-soled shoes. as for what he shoes he owns, IDK and hard to say. there were shoes on the receipts (WA and PA IIRC), but IDK. I'm not even convinced there is a full footprint based on what we know and I'm not willing to assume. jmo imo and if they had a full print and ... well, I'll stop there. I just think it would be problematic if they had a full print and could have IDd the shoes but took a bunch of others jmo imo
Just on the shoes, IMO the alleged killer very likely ditched the shoes he wore on the night, well before he was arrested. From memory, the shoe print mentioned in the PCA has been described as showing a diamond pattern and LE mention similar to vans type" shoes (or something like that). Point being, FWIW, the shoe print may not have been left by a Vans shoe or IMO that is certainly not 100%. The print was left by a shoe that sported some kind of diamond pattern though IMO.

BBM: I'm going on memory too at this point (!), but I'm pretty sure LE took no shoes at all from BK's WA residence. I just remember the return of inventory being relatively sparse as compared to the PA warrant.

I think it's apples and oranges when comparing what we know about BK's vehicle and what we don't know about the shoes he wore (as alleged killer) on the night. The shoes that left the print we know about may or may not have been vans. As you point out, we are currently not privy to any other shoe print evidence. OTOH we know the alleged killer drove a white elantra with missing front plate that is a match for the suspect vehicle. On top of that we know that when combined with the video evidence and the timing of the movement of BK's phone, this set of circumstances added a lot to the case for PC for the arrest. IMO this is very self evident in the PCA - the relative weight of the elantra evidence in combo with the the phone data for the night. The shoe print carried far less weight in the PCA than that of the White elantra evidence. MOO
 
Me too because I assumed the sheath was attached to his pants somehow. Why would it be sitting around and not kept on his clothing so he could pull the knife out when needed? And why wouldn't he notice it was missing when he was done with the knife and wanted to put it back in the sheath for his exit?
I don't think it is out of the question at all to consider that they sheath was left behind on purpose. When we first heard about the sheath I thought it seemed odd a killer would leave it.
These statements by John Kelly, LLC have always made the most sense as a possible reason why the knife sheath with USMC insignia knife was left on the bed next to Kaylee & Maddie (BBM.

"Accused murderer Bryan Kohberger may have deliberately left a knife sheath at the home where four University of Idaho students were found stabbed to death in an attempt to mislead investigators, according to a criminal profiler.
...Kelly believes Kohberger left the brown leather sheath, which has “Ka-Bar,” “USMC” and the United States Marine Corps eagle globe and anchor insignia, to point blame toward someone in the military.
...“This is Staging 101,” he told Fox News. “They’re gonna look at this, and they’re gonna think it’s a military guy that did this. Some guy with some kind of training who lives up the road.”"


Accused Idaho murderer Bryan Kohberger may have left knife sheath behind to mislead investigators: expert

About a month after the murders an army vet who lived near WSU Pullman campus was killed in an armed standoff with police:

"... Photos from the scene show law enforcement personnel and vehicles descended upon an area adjacent to the south side of the WSU Pullman campus in the early morning hours of Dec. 15. Neighbors and witnesses stated they heard gunshots in the area....

The proximity of the Pullman incident to U of I led to some concern among locals and speculation that the two events could be related, but Pullman authorities have said they do not believe there is any connection. "


Pullman man who was fatally shot by SWAT officer after threat to roommates identified as Army vet

Just after BK and his father left WA and were pulled over in IN, they mentioned the shooting that had just occurred to the LEO who pulled them over:

"Idaho murders suspect Bryan Kohberger and his father mentioned a Washington State University shooting to an Indiana deputy during a traffic stop on their cross-country trip to Pennsylvania in mid-December, new bodycam footage reveals, along with the suspect's voice.

The encounter happened several hours before state police stopped the duo, and the same morning in which a Washington SWAT team killed an armed man after a standoff.

The Kohbergers do not appear to have been ticketed either time, and referred to the Washington incident as a "mass shooting," although only the suspect was shot.""


Idaho murders suspect Bryan Kohberger's dad mentioned WSU SWAT shooting in new police bodycam

All MOO of course, just one possibility I have considered and not discounted yet until/unless LE/prosecution does at trial, that the USMC knife sheath was left on purpose as a "red herring" pointing towards a perpetrator with military ties, and coincidentally about a month later an ex military vet "up the road" died in a shootout with LE and this led to speculation that "the two events could be related".
Trying to catch up....

Re: the sheath

I don't think it was attached to a belt. It wouldn't have fallen off, nor been torn off IMO.

I think most side pockets are too shallow for 7 " knife blade (overall knife length 11.875 inches). Maybe a side pocket of carpenter pants might be large enough? Leg pockets are longer and tighter than side pockets.

If in a pocket, I doubt he would have taken the whole sheath out , just unsnap and pull out the knife. Would he have done this prior to entering the room? If so, the sheath falling out during the removal of the knife would not be inside the bedroom nor on the bed. Could have done this in the room too, but then the sheath would be on the floor I think. In either case, I believe he would have noticed the sheath falling out of his pocket when removing the knife, JMO.

If he was carrying it - would he openly carry it from the car to the house, needing his hands free to get inside the house? If he retrieved it once in the house, carrying it into the room, using both hands to remove it from the sheath and then placing the sheath on the bed. That would mean he waited until he was in the bedroom, by the bed to remove the knife. MOO

If he had it in a bag: same thing - would he have waited until entering the room to remove it from the bag? then place the sheath on the bed? Wherever he removed the knife from a bag, why not place the sheath and in the bag?

IMO he had the knife out after entering the house and before entering the room, sheath in a pocket and the sheath fell out at some point when he bent his knee on the bed. I'm thinking leg pocket (thigh below a side pocket), they are tighter and sliding a knife back in, thinking that the sheath is still there, would be possible imo. But that would mean that he didn't take the time to snap the sheath around the knife once it was in his pocket, possible imo.

Or the sheath was left there on purpose, on the bed.

MOO
 
Shoe size, shoe type (brand, style), peculiarities of wear or gait, whether the wearer was walking, running, limping, directionality of movement, time it was left in relation to time of the killing (blood viscosity when the print was left - fresh, coagulated and separated into red cells and serum, dry), trace evidence from other locations(fibre, organics, chemicals, dirt, etc.)... just off the top of my head.

MOO

In the PCA? That's what I'm asking about. How is it strong evidence for the PCA when none of that stuff was mentioned, except Vans style shoe. But that still doesn't give PC for arresting BK. Now had they expanded it and said a set of size 13 footprints or something like that, I'd agree. But they didn't. All they did was confirm a single footprint they couldn't even see with the naked eye.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
91
Guests online
3,721
Total visitors
3,812

Forum statistics

Threads
591,529
Messages
17,953,970
Members
228,522
Latest member
Cabinsleuth
Back
Top