4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, 2022 #77

Status
Not open for further replies.

ChatteringBirds

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
9,492
Reaction score
46,569
This tragedy seems to be breaking news:

Police said they responded to King Road for a report of an unconscious person. When officers arrived, they “discovered four individuals who were deceased...”


Thread #1 Thread #2 Thread #3 Thread #4 Thread #5 Thread #6 Thread #7 Thread #8
Thread #9 Thread #10 Thread #11 Thread #12 Thread #13 Thread #14 Thread #15 Thread #16
Thread #17 Thread #18 Thread #19 Thread #20 Thread #21 Thread #22 Thread #23 Thread #24
Thread #25 Thread #26 Thread #27 Thread #28
Thread #29 Thread #30 Thread #31 Thread #32
Thread #33 Thread #34 Thread #35 Thread #36 Thread #37 Thread #38 Thread #39 Thread #40
Thread #41 Thread #42
Thread #43 Thread #44 Thread #45 Thread #46 Thread #47 Thread #48
Thread #49
Thread #50 Thread #51 Thread #52 Thread #53 Thread #54 Thread #55 Thread #56
Thread #57
Thread #58 Thread #59 Thread #60 Thread #61 Thread#62 Thread #63 Thread #64
Thread #65 Thread #66 Thread #67 Thread #68 Thread #69 Thread #70 Thread #71 Thread #72
Thread #73 Thread #74 Thread #75 Thread #76

Media Thread/No Discussion

Probable Cause Affidavit

Press photo album (compilation courtesy of WS member cujenn81)

Moscow ID Police Department Facebook page

City of Moscow re King Road Homicide

Detectives are looking to develop context for the events and people involved in the four murders at 1122 King Rd in Moscow, Idaho. Anyone who observed notable behavior, has video surveillance, or can provide relevant information about these murders:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ADMIN REMINDER:

It is okay for members to discuss Visual Snow Syndrome because it was referenced by BK himself in his social media. Also, iirc, a BK family member had referred to him having or possibly having OCD. Those two conditions may be discussed because they are sourced to the accused himself and to his family members.

What members can not discuss are other random mental health conditions beyond those specified above. None of us is in a position to diagnose the mental health of a person we have never met. Introducing various and sundry, potential diagnoses only serves to derail the thread with opinions, debate, unrelated personal anecdotes, etc that may end up not being remotely related to this case.

Thank you.
 
ADMIN NOTE:

To clarify ...

While it is true that members do not need to provide a link every single time to something that is common knowledge, IF a member requests a link, it is WS policy and common courtesy to provide one.

ETA: Some posts have been removed due to bickering. We are always fortunate to have Verified members, and NOBODY wants to be responsible for driving a verified member away from Websleuths. If you disagree with a Verified member, do so politely or not at all or there will be a loss of posting privileges.
 
ADMIN NOTE:

This post lands at random.

DM is a victim in this matter and a witness. Questioning her credibility or potential testimony is not victim friendly.

Could we please move on from speculation that DM perhaps did not really see what she saw.
 
4. Entering through the kitchen and back out would also allow someone to avoid the added step by DM's room

The more I read everyone's ideas the more questions I have!
RSBM

He would have had to go up the step to go to Xana's room after his attack on the top floor, and down it again to leave through the kitchen, passing D. He couldn't avoid that single step.

What he didn't do, as far as I know with the information we have at this time, is go down the staircase from the middle floor to the bottom floor, but even that he couldn't have done without going up that single step into the front half of the middle floor of the house, as the staircase from the middle to bottom floors was right next to the entry to Xana's room.

MOO
 
Respectfully, I completely disagree unless her BAC was captured and could be entered into evidence. Even then, it would provide very limited info as others have pointed out in recent posts due to passage of time.

Asking about her alcohol use as an underage female is implicit bias, IMO.

As long as DM is a victim, I don't care & I don't see how it is relevant in a legal context.

<modsnip>

We will just have to agree to disagree.
MOO
I guess we will.

I don't believe there's a court in the land that would stop a defense attorney from asking an eyewitness who was awake at 4 a.m. on a Saturday night if she had been drinking. Not to impeach her, per se, but to ascertain whether her condition affected what she could see and recall. But maybe you are right, if I understand correctly that you think the defense would have to first establish some foundation for the question.

Per the NY POST, DM was 21 at the time. She wasn't "underage" for alcohol consumption.

My lawyer (criminal defender, though not of me) is visiting for the holiday weekend. I'll ask her about the rules of evidence in this regard.
 
I guess we will.

I don't believe there's a court in the land that would stop a defense attorney from asking an eyewitness who was awake at 4 a.m. on a Saturday night if she had been drinking. Not to impeach her, per se, but to ascertain whether her condition affected what she could see and recall. But maybe you are right, if I understand correctly that you think the defense would have to first establish some foundation for the question.

Per the NY POST, DM was 21 at the time. She wasn't "underage" for alcohol consumption.

My lawyer (criminal defender, though not of me) is visiting for the holiday weekend. I'll ask her about the rules of evidence in this regard.
Would the fact that the house apparently was known as a "party house" be allowed to come in? I'd think it would have to given that that means lots & lots of people would have had access to the house for parties. (Maybe even BK) It's also been reported lots of people had access to the door key codes. When a man's life is at stake I don't see how those topics could be avoided. DM was a fairly new house resident from my understanding. Surely she knew she was moving into a party house. She may have even partied at the house before moving in.

We know XK and EC had been at a frat party that night. We know MM and KG had been at a bar. It was a Sat night after all. And many college students drink whether it's legal or not. Why wouldn't a college student eyewitness be asked if she'd been drinking regardless of her age and gender? (Although I realize DM wasn't under age, even if she had been....) I do expect she won't be treated too roughly in court but the fact that she's considered a psychological "victim" can't mean questions any other witness would face somehow aren't fair to ask her.
JMO
 
RSBM

He would have had to go up the step to go to Xana's room after his attack on the top floor, and down it again to leave through the kitchen, passing D. He couldn't avoid that single step.

What he didn't do, as far as I know with the information we have at this time, is go down the staircase from the middle floor to the bottom floor, but even that he couldn't have done without going up that single step into the front half of the middle floor of the house, as the staircase from the middle to bottom floors was right next to the entry to Xana's room.

MOO
Quoting Myself: "

4. Entering through the kitchen and back out would also allow someone to avoid the added step by DM's room"


That was in reference to getting in and out of the house if the people on the 3rd floor were the intended targets/if there was no plan or decision to kill anyone else.
 
Quoting Myself: "

4. Entering through the kitchen and back out would also allow someone to avoid the added step by DM's room"


That was in reference to getting in and out of the house if the people on the 3rd floor were the intended targets/if there was no plan or decision to kill anyone else.
Okay, cool, I missed that part, I assumed you meant the presumed path that the perpetrator took through the home in the actual crime. My bad.
 
DMs testimony will show she described a man that does not exclude BK, the owner if a white Elantra that was tracked heading toward Moscow early morning 11/13/22, then a whire Ekantra was on camera at 1122.
Having been drinking pretty much explains getting up late on Sunday morning.
 
I guess we will.

I don't believe there's a court in the land that would stop a defense attorney from asking an eyewitness who was awake at 4 a.m. on a Saturday night if she had been drinking. Not to impeach her, per se, but to ascertain whether her condition affected what she could see and recall. But maybe you are right, if I understand correctly that you think the defense would have to first establish some foundation for the question.

Per the NY POST, DM was 21 at the time. She wasn't "underage" for alcohol consumption.

My lawyer (criminal defender, though not of me) is visiting for the holiday weekend. I'll ask her about the rules of evidence in this regard.

I think different publications had different ages for her. I also remember reading she was 19 in the DM. Regardless, I agree that alcohol consumption is relevant, IMO. But that said, like every other part of this case, it's complicated. The medical research tells us without a doubt that alcohol intoxication affects perceptions, emotions, judgment, reaction time, mood, etc. The medical research also tells us that alcohol withdrawal also affects many of those same things, including perceptual disturbances. So IMO, it's an important line of questioning and I'd be shocked if the defense doesn't pursue it.

The complication is if they decide to have expert testimony on the affect of alcohol on eyewitness memory because the studies are mixed in this regard and interestingly, this study I've linked adds yet another layer of complexity.


MOO.
 
I guess we will.

I don't believe there's a court in the land that would stop a defense attorney from asking an eyewitness who was awake at 4 a.m. on a Saturday night if she had been drinking. Not to impeach her, per se, but to ascertain whether her condition affected what she could see and recall. But maybe you are right, if I understand correctly that you think the defense would have to first establish some foundation for the question.

Per the NY POST, DM was 21 at the time. She wasn't "underage" for alcohol consumption.

My lawyer (criminal defender, though not of me) is visiting for the holiday weekend. I'll ask her about the rules of evidence in this regard.
DM was 21? I didn't know that. Thanks for the correction.
 
Would the fact that the house apparently was known as a "party house" be allowed to come in? I'd think it would have to given that that means lots & lots of people would have had access to the house for parties. (Maybe even BK) It's also been reported lots of people had access to the door key codes. When a man's life is at stake I don't see how those topics could be avoided. DM was a fairly new house resident from my understanding. Surely she knew she was moving into a party house. She may have even partied at the house before moving in.

We know XK and EC had been at a frat party that night. We know MM and KG had been at a bar. It was a Sat night after all. And many college students drink whether it's legal or not. Why wouldn't a college student eyewitness be asked if she'd been drinking regardless of her age and gender? (Although I realize DM wasn't under age, even if she had been....) I do expect she won't be treated too roughly in court but the fact that she's considered a psychological "victim" can't mean questions any other witness would face somehow aren't fair to ask her.
JMO

If DM was at a party before returning home, there may be witnesses who will testify to drinking and possibly drug use at the party, if it pertains to DM. I assume neither would be off limits to discuss at the trial, if a witness can place DM at the party where there was lots of heavy drinking and/or drug use.
 
DM was 21? I didn't know that. Thanks for the correction.
Other articles have reported her age as 19. <modsnip: Sleuthing a witness is not allowed>


Amid the torment of losing three of her roommates in a tragic murder, University of Idaho student Dylan Mortensen has been spotted for the first time since it was revealed she saw the killer at the scene.

Exclusive DailyMail.com photos show the 19-year-old sophomore returning to her family's home in Boise after a Sunday morning coffee run.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Other articles have reported her age as 19. On LinkedIn there is a DM who graduated from BHS in 2021, making her around 19 in 2022.


Amid the torment of losing three of her roommates in a tragic murder, University of Idaho student Dylan Mortensen has been spotted for the first time since it was revealed she saw the killer at the scene.

Exclusive DailyMail.com photos show the 19-year-old sophomore returning to her family's home in Boise after a Sunday morning coffee run.
I had read she was older. Thanks for the link.

Underage or not, I still think whether she was drinking that night is a fair question if she testifies about seeing a stranger in the house and/or testifies about hearing particular noises at particular times. Whether she was drinking may also relate to how late 911 was called. I think that's a fair question too because it could relate to contamination of the crime scene.

On WS there can be all kinds of rules about what's off-limits for anyone WS considers a victim. I don't think that's the way it works in court, especially when potential punishments of the DP or LWOP are on the line. And anything that affected DM's perception and behavior that night and morning would seem potentially relevant.

JMO
 
I had read she was older. Thanks for the link.

Underage or not, I still think whether she was drinking that night is a fair question if she testifies about seeing a stranger in the house and/or testifies about hearing particular noises at particular times. Whether she was drinking may also relate to how late 911 was called. I think that's a fair question too because it could relate to contamination of the crime scene.

On WS there can be all kinds of rules about what's off-limits for anyone WS considers a victim. I don't think that's the way it works in court, especially when potential punishments of the DP or LWOP are on the line. And anything that affected DM's perception and behavior that night and morning would seem potentially relevant.

JMO
I don't think her testimony will be that important to the case anyway IMO.It's other things that will nail this creep.
 
I think different publications had different ages for her. I also remember reading she was 19 in the DM.
You're right :) I did a quick search and the Daily mail has her age at both 19 and 21. I agree that she will testify; young children, the most vulnerable, are still called to testify, so imo jmo Dylan will be called. Whether or not she is directly asked about alcohol usage, she will be asked to recall the night, where she was, when she got home, what she saw, etc. imo jmo. I think that is actually the fair (best?) thing for her, given the number of "stories" from "friends". After all, as many have said, she is a victim, and her testimony is essential to show her innocence to those not on WS who continue to side-eye her. I think it is only in her benefit to testify, even if she is asked if she had one too many tequila sunrises (at 19 or 21, most of us had imo jmo ime).

Also, pre-gag-order stories like this were coming out and there were LE sources commenting in the media questioning the eight hours. Here's one example, though I wouldn't rely heavily on the NYPost:


In addition, the discovery request means that any questions and responses contained within that contradict or aid the defense will be explored imo jmo - that's the defense's job, and if we believe in the legal system, this should be applauded imo jmo. So AT will have to pry that open:


here are some more resources:
this has good info:

re Daubert: Daubert standard
this from SMU Law Review applies Daubert to eyewitness testimony - this is for those who want to let their full-nerd flag fly:
"For most rules, the evidentiary foundation required for admitting evidence ensures the reliability of the evidence. Courts effectively conduct gatekeeping merely by applying the rules such as the hearsay exceptions in FRE803 and 804. For other rules, the reliability paradigm has informed the interpretation of the rules, as was the case for FRE 702 in Daubert v.Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. A general thesis of this Article is that it is especiallyappropriatefor courtsin criminaltrialsto engagein gatekeep- ing for evidence fraught with reliability issues because it is highly prone to misleading the jury and causing a wrongful criminal conviction.
This Article applies the holistic interpretationof the rules of evidence seen in Daubert to eyewitness identification, the leading cause of wrongful convictions."


children as witnesses since I used it as an example:

(1) In a criminal proceeding, the presiding officer may order the presentation of the testimony of a child witness by an alternative method
only in the following situations:
(a) A child witness’ testimony may be taken otherwise than in an open forum in the presence and full view of the finder of fact if the presiding officer finds by clear and convincing evidence that the child would suffer serious emotional trauma that would substantially impair the child’s ability to communicate with the finder of fact if required to testify in the open forum.
(b) A child witness’ testimony may be taken other than in a face-to-face confrontation between the child and a defendant if the presiding officer finds by clear and convincing evidence that the child would suffer serious emotional trauma that would substantially impair the child’s ability to communicate with the finder of fact if required to be confronted face-to-face by the defendant.


At the time a child under the age of ten (10) years of age is called to testify in any court proceeding, the court shall conduct a hearing in chambers to determine whether the child qualifies as a witness under this section...

edited to fix funkiness of cut & paste
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
242
Guests online
3,939
Total visitors
4,181

Forum statistics

Threads
592,150
Messages
17,964,262
Members
228,703
Latest member
Megankd
Back
Top