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

[schooling]

<modsnip - rude>

And yes. I think there's plenty to find BK guilty. The astronomical lottery ticket like probability of being caught on camera, with the cell phone data, on video near the house at the time of the murders and your dna inside of the crime scene is beyond enough. IMO. Unless you believe he's the unluckiest guy in the world.

 

[Boxer]

He drove his own car to the crime scene past multiple cameras only to turn off his phone on the way there, was even caught doing a 3 point turn like a law abiding citizen.

If we can't call that stupid...what is? <modsnip> Or he's at least proving the point that book smarts don't equal street smarts.

MOO of course.

Agree.
He drove from his apartment to the WSU gym psrking lot, then turned his phone off.
Possibly he dressed for killing as habit on his night drives and decided impulsively to cruise to 1122 forming tunnel vision ideation on the way, and so forgetting or dicarding caution regarding the prevalence of business and citizen cameras.

 

[Boxer]

<modsnip - rude>

And yes. I think there's plenty to find BK guilty. The astronomical lottery ticket like probability of being caught on camera, with the cell phone data, on video near the house at the time of the murders and your dna inside of the crime scene is beyond enough. IMO. Unless you believe he's the unluckiest guy in the world.

Agree.
MOO DNA at the crime scene cannot be explained.

 

[Kemug]

I know next to nothing about killing people - in fact, that would be on the shady side of nothing. But when I see all the comments about how difficult it would be to kill 4 people in 15 minutes, I can't help but question that, rightly or wrongly. Maybe we should do some time tests? I wonder about the time needed to kill the 2 girls upstairs - with both victims conveniently in the same bed, and presumed to be sleeping, I should think 5 minutes would definitely be enough time, or even 4. Then perhaps a little longer to kill X and E, due to some resistance. Say 6 or 7 minutes? Plus say 30 seconds each for going up the stairs, and then down again? Now we're up to 11 - 13 minutes. Does that leave enough time to leave his car, enter and exit the building, and get back to the car?

 

[katydid23]

I know next to nothing about killing people - in fact, that would be on the shady side of nothing. But when I see all the comments about how difficult it would be to kill 4 people in 15 minutes, I can't help but question that, rightly or wrongly. Maybe we should do some time tests? I wonder about the time needed to kill the 2 girls upstairs - with both victims conveniently in the same bed, and presumed to be sleeping, I should think 5 minutes would definitely be enough time, or even 4. Then perhaps a little longer to kill X and E, due to some resistance. Say 6 or 7 minutes? Plus say 30 seconds each for going up the stairs, and then down again? Now we're up to 11 - 13 minutes. Does that leave enough time to leave his car, enter and exit the building, and get back to the car?

And I recently saw a post upthread discussing the autopsy. Apparently there was at least one 'kill shot' stab in each victim. In other words one stab that was lethal in itself. He may have researched this before he arrived.

So if you know how to make that one stab that gets to the heart or jugular, that ends the life instantly, then it could just be a few short minutes needed with each victim.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

I don't know whether DM's statement counts as direct evidence. I don't know if she would have had to have seen his face fully, or seen him actually stabbing her friends. She certainly saw someone who was not a housemate or a guest, whose physical description does not exclude BK, walking through the home at the time of the murders, and almost certainly that person left a footprint outside her door as he passed, in blood. I don't know where the line is between 'eyewitness' and 'witness', though. There is a difference between the two in the law.

MOO

It's circumstantial. For one, a description that doesn't exclude BK isn't the same as seeing BK in the home. Had she seen BK himself in the home, that still would be circumstantial, though stronger, because she'd just be placing him in the home but still not having seen him commit the crime. MOO. One of our verified attorneys weighed in on another thread and said that even the DNA on the sheath isn't direct evidence, IIRC.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

I have already searched the terms and stand by my comment. As @iamshadow21 said, define "eyewitness".

Dictionary by Merriam-Webster: America's most-trusted online dictionary "To support with evidence or authority : make more certain" **ETA copy & paste left out the actual term Corroborate.

DM is an eyewitness to a shadowy figure in her home. The figure doesn't exclude BK. She's not an eyewitness to the crime. MOO, based on what's been discussed already.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

He drove his own car to the crime scene past multiple cameras only to turn off his phone on the way there, was even caught doing a 3 point turn like a law abiding citizen.

If we can't call that stupid...what is? <modsnip> Or he's at least proving the point that book smarts don't equal street smarts.

MOO of course.

Was that stupidity or compulsion? In BK's case, pathologic compulsion? If anything, saying he's stupid enough to do the above hurts the case, IMO, because how did someone so stupid not leave more DNA at the crime scene? This is why I say he's not stupid. He made a lot of mistakes and did stupid things for some reason, but a stupid killer leaves DNA and/or carries victim's DNA/blood with him. MOO. If it comes out that he, in fact, did, I may reconsider.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

If that's what she saw ( I don't believe it is) then she is allowed to give that evidence under oath and the defense attorney's are allowed to challenge her recollection.

The KaBar doesn't have to be put in his hands. All the jurors have to do is consider all the evidence and decide whether or not there's another plausible/reasonable explanation. They'll look at BKs car on video, phone tracking east in the dead of night, prior visits to the neighborhood, and his DNA on part of the murder weapon and say...

"Nah, that wasn't him. Someone drove his car! Took his cell phone! planted the sheath there!!!!"

LOL ya right.

If there's not another plausible/reasonable explanation and he's found guilty. Then it's assumed that the knife was in BKs hand.

People keep mistakenly thinking that 1 hole or 2 holes or a shaky piece of evidence automatically means reasonable doubt. That's not how it works. If eye witness testimony was required to put a weapon in a defendants hand we would get 0 convictions if the crime was one person to another person with no witnesses.

MOO

Seems there's a number of shaky pieces with this case, but whenever it's brought up, all the other evidence is used to defend it. Individually, the evidence isn't as strong as has been portrayed. MOO. That doesn't mean he didn't do it. It just means that there are questions -- like wth didn't he leave more DNA and his own blood at the scene?

 

[veronica.mars]

I didn't say he was smart. This was far from the perfect crime. But I also don't think he fits the stupid criminal trope either. I've brought this up before and am told he was arrested because of the totality of circumstantial evidence. Fine. But up above, I'm saying exactly what we know as of right now with regard to DNA or his blood in the home. As far as we know, there was none. And as far as we know, there's also no direct evidence. IMO, that's not a stupid criminal.

MOO.

His DNA was found in the home, though, right?

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

I know next to nothing about killing people - in fact, that would be on the shady side of nothing. But when I see all the comments about how difficult it would be to kill 4 people in 15 minutes, I can't help but question that, rightly or wrongly. Maybe we should do some time tests? I wonder about the time needed to kill the 2 girls upstairs - with both victims conveniently in the same bed, and presumed to be sleeping, I should think 5 minutes would definitely be enough time, or even 4. Then perhaps a little longer to kill X and E, due to some resistance. Say 6 or 7 minutes? Plus say 30 seconds each for going up the stairs, and then down again? Now we're up to 11 - 13 minutes. Does that leave enough time to leave his car, enter and exit the building, and get back to the car?

And clean up his footprints, clean up blood he may have tracked into the hall or stairs, insure none of his DNA is on the sheath itself or on bed covers or on the bodies, insure no prints on the door, insure no noticeable footprints/blood prints in the yard or pavement on his way to his car. MOO.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

His DNA was found in the home, though, right?

His DNA was found on a snap of the knife sheath. Why only there (as far as we know)?

 

[veronica.mars]

His DNA was found on a snap of the knife sheath. Why only there (as far as we know)?

Regardless it is DNA found in the house.

My guess is because he messed up or wanted to get caught. Imo

 

[Kemug]

I would really like to know what the light/lighting was like that night. Was there any moonlight coming in to the house? Were there any nightlights on? Was there a light on in any of the rooms, eg in a bathroom to make it easier to see the way at night? If it was pitch black, that would surely slow the killer down somewhat. I suppose we'll eventually find out.

 

[jgarris]

I know next to nothing about killing people - in fact, that would be on the shady side of nothing. But when I see all the comments about how difficult it would be to kill 4 people in 15 minutes, I can't help but question that, rightly or wrongly. Maybe we should do some time tests? I wonder about the time needed to kill the 2 girls upstairs - with both victims conveniently in the same bed, and presumed to be sleeping, I should think 5 minutes would definitely be enough time, or even 4. Then perhaps a little longer to kill X and E, due to some resistance. Say 6 or 7 minutes? Plus say 30 seconds each for going up the stairs, and then down again? Now we're up to 11 - 13 minutes. Does that leave enough time to leave his car, enter and exit the building, and get back to the car?

4 minutes, in this type of crime, actually seems to be really long upstairs. I'd say once he started upstairs he was done in 2 mins or less. 4 minutes is a long, long time to continuously stab. As grusome as this is, I know it was mentioned right above that reportedly the autopsy shows a fatal wound for all - if he went right for something like the neck, we're talking 5 seconds per person.

All just MOO.

 

[SMK777]

4 minutes, in this type of crime, actually seems to be really long upstairs. I'd say once he started upstairs he was done in 2 mins or less. 4 minutes is a long, long time to continuously stab. As grusome as this is, I know it was mentioned right above that reportedly the autopsy shows a fatal wound for all - if he went right for something like the neck, we're talking 5 seconds per person.

All just MOO.

Right, the argument that he didn’t have time to accomplish this, or to do so without help, doesn’t seem valid.

 

[SMK777]

@pseudo_hum
Actually edited above: it was unclear as to what I was saying.

 

[Nichevo]

And I recently saw a post upthread discussing the autopsy. Apparently there was at least one 'kill shot' stab in each victim. In other words one stab that was lethal in itself. He may have researched this before he arrived.

So if you know how to make that one stab that gets to the heart or jugular, that ends the life instantly, then it could just be a few short minutes needed with each victim.

Well I agree with you line of thought, at this time none of the details of the autopsies have been released. I believe you are referring to statements made by the coroner. MOO

 

[U.N. Known]

His DNA was found on a snap of the knife sheath. Why only there (as far as we know)?

This is such an important distinction. The sheath being there does not mean BK is the one who left it.

The other pieces of evidence (that we know) could also be attributed to something or someone else:

• a car like his was seen on video.
• his cell phone pinged in the area multiple times

There is no video evidence of the car's license plate. The driver of the car was not identifiable. All of the above, put together is compelling; however, a good defense team will work hard to poke enough holes in at least one of those to create reasonable doubt. It doesn't matter how small the chances are that the combination of those things isn't likely to happen to one person--they only need one juror to vote not guilty.

I.C.R. 31. Jury Verdict. | Supreme Court

isc.idaho.gov

 

[SMK777]

This is such an important distinction. The sheath being there does not mean BK is the one who left it.

The other pieces of evidence (that we know) could also be attributed to something or someone else:

• a car like his was seen on video.
• his cell phone pinged in the area multiple times

There is no video evidence of the car's license plate. The driver of the car was not identifiable. All of the above, put together is compelling; however, a good defense team will work hard to poke enough holes in at least one of those to create reasonable doubt. It doesn't matter how small the chances are that the combination of those things isn't likely to happen to one person--they only need one juror to vote not guilty.

I.C.R. 31. Jury Verdict. | Supreme Court

isc.idaho.gov

My fear, looking theoretically and abstractly at the case, is that IF by some chance he really is not guilty (I believe he is guilty, but you never know) rather than that “one juror” who finds reasonable doubt and holds out, there will be a going along with presumptions.

There have been quite a few cases where there was reasonable doubt but conviction still came.