4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, 2022 #79

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you want to get technical, the DNA doesn't put him in the house either, unless there's more DNA than we've learned about.
The defense may try to convince the jury that the DNA evidence which places the defendant at the crime scene is unreliable.

I have my doubts that they will be successful if they try that tactic. JMO.
 
If this evidence is presented in a silo, sure. I guess that might fly.

But when you consider her recollection within the timeline established by the rest of the evidence it only bolsters whatever testimony she's able to provide. The time stamped video evidence of the car parking. The same kind of car used by the suspect who's DNA was found inside of the house. Xana's time stamped DoorDash order and time stamped abrupt stoppage of phone usage. The thumping sound caught on the neighbors camera also time stamped. All fittingly neatly within the approximate times she cited.

IMO Now her testimony sounds a lot more believable. The timeline of her experience is more easily accepted. Now her description of the suspect not eliminating BK matters more. Particularly if her statement was taken before she learned about the above evidence.

MOO
I honestly don't know what point you are making.

Yes, of course, if there is other evidence that confirms DM's testimony, then that will make her account seem more credible.

Nonetheless, if she were (note use of subjunctive mood to indicate statement in contrast to known fact) chemically impaired at the time of the murders, then that will lessen her credibility.

But the mere fact that her account falls short of an ironclad ID doesn't change the truth that an impaired witness is less likely to be believed.
 
RBBM: DM's sighting of the masked, male, stranger, who from her POV was athletically built but not muscular and about 5ft10" occurred about seven or so hours before the bodies were discovered and the arrival of LE. IDK,but from my understanding reading here, tox screens are legal for impaired driver's (when pulled over by LE) and other categories of citizens who may be potentially breaking the law. But not surviving victims of crime. MOO

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Just a general comment bouncing off your post.

Thinking through DM's description of the person she saw that night (per PCA), all it really is is her best attempt to describe the person she saw using positive attributes IMO. MOO as others have suggested many times, the main point of her description is that it cannot exclude the defendant.

No matter the (valid IMO) speculations on here re potential defense tactics to discredit or nullify testimony re basic physical description, is it possible for the prosecution to use a tactic that shows how sure DM is of what she did not see? And ultimately arriving at the same place...that the person she saw cannot exclude the defendant?

Could a witness's testimony include statements such as; 'I saw a male person clad in black, wearing a mask who was not; obese; really musclely/well built; very short; broad across the shoulders?'

For e.g;
q: "what do you mean by tall/5ft10"? a:"well he wasn't really short or even noticeably short, he looked tall and thin to me, he looked taller than me..."; q; "what do you mean by athletic?"; a; "well not big and musclely or wide across the shoulders, and the person didn't look overweight or bulky, they were upright and a bit lanky looking...".

IDK, thinking as I write maybe this would be a bad tactic, because of its imprecision? Maybe negative 'this is not what I saw' statements, defy positive logic and would be impermissable?
I wasn't claiming witnesses would be given a formal tox-screen. Depending on the circumstances, such a test might be considered too invasive. The original hypothetical, as I understood it, depended on the possibility of a blood alcohol test and DM's own account of her mental acuity at the time she saw the intruder.

My point, once again, is that the alleged certainty or uncertainly of DM's testimony does not make her mental state irrelevant. She can still be questioned re how well she could see and how well she could understand what she was seeing.

(ETA @jepop, having caught up to this point, I see that *I* made the error of referring to a "tox-screen" in re DM. I hope it was obvious to all that witnesses aren't given the same "tox-screen" given to dead victims. I was careless in using the term to mean anything--breathalyzer, interrogation, field sobriety test--that tended to reveal DM's consumption of consciousness-altering substances. I have no way of knowing whether the issue ever came up during the investigation. I apologize for any confusion I caused.)
 
Last edited:
MOO Even on a hallucinagen (which seems very unlikely alone at 4am) her description does not exclude BK.

I don't know whether using an hallucinogen is "unlikely" or not at 4am at the UofI. I doubt any of us knows this and it is nearly irrelevant.

If her description is the result of impaired thinking, then it isn't worth much, not as a inculpatory ID, an exculpatory ID or even just as a general account.

IF DM testifies, I will be very surprised if she isn't at least asked about her state of mind during the time that she eventually learned was the quarter-hour of four murders. (ETA I am still not suggesting I have any reason to believe her vision or comprehension was impaired. We were discussing hypotheticals.)
 
Last edited:
I don't know whether using an hallucinogen is "unlikely" or not at 4am at the UofI. I doubt any of us knows this and it is nearly irrelevant.

If her description is the result of impaired thinking, then it isn't worth much, not as a inculpatory ID, an exculpatory ID or even just as a general account.

IF DM testifies, I will be very surprised if she isn't at least asked about her state of mind during the time that she eventually learned was the quarter-hour of four murders. (ETA I am still not suggesting I have any reason to believe her vision or comprehension was impaired. We were discussing hypotheticals.)
RBBM: IMO hypothetically, if a defense attorney attempts to address a witness's testimony in this manner, then ultimately only the jury will decide "...if [the witness's] description is a result of impaired thinking"... and/or how much it is worth. They decide witness credibility and the credibility of a witness's testimony? A jury might decide a witness was impaired in some way (for e.g. somewhat 'under the influence'; somewhat tired), yet still find the witness and their testimony credible. MOO

EBM to remove ref to the actual potential witness.
 
Last edited:
Hi everyone,
I don't understand something about the timeline with Doordash, and would appreciate if someone can help me make sense of it.
In the photos of the house, we see the doordash bag in the kitchen with Xana's name on it as well as a disposable drink cup with straw.
xana-meal-089.jpg
As I understand the DD was delivered at 4am, while the killer is said to have entered the house a couple minutes later. The kitchen is right there on the way in if someone enters from the back sliding door.
So, here's what I don't understand: did Xana just eat that food in the kitchen/living area extremely fast between 4am and ±4:04 ish, then go back to her room, just barely avoiding the killer as he entered ? Or did Xana receive the DD and go eat in her room. But then wouldn't she or Ethan have run into the killer when taking the empty bag and food wrappers etc back to the kitchen? I find this very confusing.
Sorry if this has been discussed before, or if there's an obvious explanation I haven't thought of!
 
So, here's what I don't understand: did Xana just eat that food in the kitchen/living area extremely fast between 4am and ±4:04 ish, then go back to her room, just barely avoiding the killer as he entered ? Or did Xana receive the DD and go eat in her room. But then wouldn't she or Ethan have run into the killer when taking the empty bag and food wrappers etc back to the kitchen? I find this very confusing.
Sorry if this has been discussed before, or if there's an obvious explanation I haven't thought of!
There has been speculation that that is stuff from an earlier order. The drink in particular looks like it’s been sitting around for a while.
 
It's in the PCA that when LE first pulled BK's liscense on Nov 29th, they noticed his photo roughly matched the generic description provided by DM in earlier statement. So before that. It's well known that normal police procedure is to interview victims of crime as close to the time of the crime as possible. MOO

EBM for spelling
Haven't caught up yet, but I agree they were interviewed before the 29th and before LE wrote the PCA.

It seems likely the girls were among those in front of the house "crying while draped in emergency blankets." And most likely, IMHO, they were in no condition to give intensive interviews right away. Which makes perfect sense. So IMHO maybe some basic questions at first and interviews set up for later: probably not much later. And IMHO it seems logical there would be several interviews, varying in depth and time, after that. Several considering that, as far as we know, they were the only two people in the house who survived the attack. I don't recall seeing when or if either girl hired an attorney at any point. I would hope they did, because it seems like LE would have come up with new questions as they found new information. IMHO from what we've seen the girls might have been protected to whatever extent from the media, which also makes sense. But protected or not, and lawyered up or not, it seems unlikely that LE stopped questioning them right up to or after the 29th. IMHO. Thus my curiosity.

Link to girls crying while draped in emergency blankets:
 
Ashley Banfield tweeted two hours ago that a grand jury has indicted BK and arraignment will be Monday. Per “a source”.

@ArianeEmory Hugh news. Any chance you have a link for that?
It's not showing up on my twitter, Banfield, Entin, NN, Cuomo nor YouTube.
Maybe they pulled it like the report on the ID collected in PA search which ran the next day.
Thanks.

I searched and found it. Unless it’s fake—looks real to me, but I don’t do much with Twitter.
 
Hi everyone,
I don't understand something about the timeline with Doordash, and would appreciate if someone can help me make sense of it.
In the photos of the house, we see the doordash bag in the kitchen with Xana's name on it as well as a disposable drink cup with straw.
View attachment 422841
As I understand the DD was delivered at 4am, while the killer is said to have entered the house a couple minutes later. The kitchen is right there on the way in if someone enters from the back sliding door.
So, here's what I don't understand: did Xana just eat that food in the kitchen/living area extremely fast between 4am and ±4:04 ish, then go back to her room, just barely avoiding the killer as he entered ? Or did Xana receive the DD and go eat in her room. But then wouldn't she or Ethan have run into the killer when taking the empty bag and food wrappers etc back to the kitchen? I find this very confusing.
Sorry if this has been discussed before, or if there's an obvious explanation I haven't thought of!
We don't know where X ate her food. Did she eat it in the stairwell? Did she bring it back to her bedroom? Or did she eat in the kitchen? Maybe grab some ketchup from the fridge?

It's eerie to know that she was awake and moving freely about the house at the exact same time the killer was.

If this were a movie, that'd be the point we'd be screaming at the screen, "get out!"

IMO the killer entered while X was still downstairs or while she was in her bedroom. I think, for roommate D to have heard someone say thst there was someone there, it's more likely she heard X say it than K... and I think X was saying it to E. IMO X noticed something. Possibly the sliding door, partially open. Or a pair of shoes in the hallway or by the Plstairs. Maybe the killer slipped his shoes off for stealth. Or... this creeps me out -- that dirt by the potted plant. Had X tipped it over around 4 am and when she set her DD bag and cup at the sink, mysteriously the pot was upright again? I just think they're was something different... more than just movement on the third floor.

The timeline is so tight... somehow the killer entered and made it to the third floor... within minutes of X retrieving and eating her food (though we don't technically know that she ate it)...

The killer would have known someone was awake because surely he heard D... I happen to think he actually saw X. Perhaps he saw her as she was heading into her bedroom, when she said someone is there... she didn't scream, didn't say he's got a knife, so to me, it wasn't full out alarm, it was just weird, odd, unexpected -- might she even have seen him go upstairs? Still not scary, couldn't been a guest on the 3rd floor, same way D might've been shocked to see someone right outside her door but not terrified (if that was the case). I mean, she'd have no way to know he had just murdered her roommates.

I think there was only one target that night. I think X was murdered only because she was awake and I think K and E were murdered because they were in shared rooms.

I can see X getting her food at 4 am, drinking her soda as she walks up the stairs, wolfing down a burger in the stairwell, in the kitchen or in her bedroom, then setting her debris down so she could wash her hands quick before going to bed....

So imnocent, so mundane.

So unfairly fatal.

All of it, so violent, so senseless, so unfair.

Jmo
 
Hi everyone,
I don't understand something about the timeline with Doordash, and would appreciate if someone can help me make sense of it.
In the photos of the house, we see the doordash bag in the kitchen with Xana's name on it as well as a disposable drink cup with straw.
View attachment 422841
As I understand the DD was delivered at 4am, while the killer is said to have entered the house a couple minutes later. The kitchen is right there on the way in if someone enters from the back sliding door.
So, here's what I don't understand: did Xana just eat that food in the kitchen/living area extremely fast between 4am and ±4:04 ish, then go back to her room, just barely avoiding the killer as he entered ? Or did Xana receive the DD and go eat in her room. But then wouldn't she or Ethan have run into the killer when taking the empty bag and food wrappers etc back to the kitchen? I find this very confusing.
Sorry if this has been discussed before, or if there's an obvious explanation I haven't thought of!
It's never made sense to me either, I can only imagine Xana ate the food that was in that Jack In The Box bag and put the empty bag on the kitchen counter and went back to bed when BK allegedly was upstairs, and didn't see or hear him come in. If he was being stealthy and cat burglar like and went quickly upstairs to Maddie's room, as I've imagined he would. JMO
 
Ashley Banfield tweeted two hours ago that a grand jury has indicted BK and arraignment will be Monday. Per “a source”.
If this is true, it means there was enough evidence presented before a Grand Jury that they have decided to indict him, no?
ETA: And no longer a need for the prosecution to demonstrate probable cause?
jmo
 
Last edited:
If this is true, it means there is enough evidence for a Grand Jury to indict him, no? jmo

Well, I hate to bring up the old cliché, but they say that a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich, if the DA wanted that.

Seriously, I suspect that the PCA itself would supply enough evidence for a grand jury indictment.

Assuming that the source told the truth, I’ll be very interested in hearing what knowledgeable people say the change is all about. My mind’s full of wild speculations.
 
About all these love letters to BK, most likely they are all from the same person, his mother.

Meanwhile, someone at the jail is about to be fired.
JMO

Edit for @wary: Thanks, yes. I don't want to give BK 's fan club any credibility so for me it's his mother.

"An employee at the jail, who did not reveal their name, but has frequent contact with the inmate told The Messenger 'it's disturbing.' 'He gets these letters a couple of times a week...they're usually handwritten with hearts and stars...colored envelopes,' he said. 'Everyone in the jail talks about how weird it is.'

What stands out to me is how the Chapin family continues to be so classy. Not only does my heart go out to them, but they also have my respect and admiration.
 
Ashley Banfield tweeted two hours ago that a grand jury has indicted BK and arraignment will be Monday. Per “a source”.
Well, I believe these media talking heads about as far as I can throw them but......

I said several threads back that I felt there might be a GJ convened in this case. I was basically laughed off the thread. It will be interesting to see if this is true or not.

MOO
 
Well, I believe these media talking heads about as far as I can throw them but......

I said several threads back that I felt there might be a GJ convened in this case. I was basically laughed off the thread. It will be interesting to see if this is true or not.

MOO
I remember you posting about it and I agreed with you (didn't laugh at all lol).

I've always leaned towards a GJ being convened in this case.

In light of the "nature of the crime" and what seems to me like overwhelming evidence against him, as well as all the sealed and redacted court documents that points towards privacy issues.

MOO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
240
Guests online
866
Total visitors
1,106

Forum statistics

Threads
587,147
Messages
17,876,965
Members
226,989
Latest member
Blwmad
Back
Top