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

[Cool Cats]

This is one of my problems with forums in general. Something is posted, someone replies, and it (unintentionally) gets taken out of context. I understand that you're saying the description doesn't rule BK out. But the context is that your post that I replied to said they could have PC to arrest him with that, if I'm not mistaken. I do not believe inability to rule someone out is PC for an arrest. PC for questioning, certainly, but not for arrest. MOO, IANAL.

Not what I said.

I posted:

it looks like the Search Warrants were based on:

1.) Witness description - BK fit Mortensen's description according to Officer Payne
2.) Bryan driving a White Elantra
3.) Cell tower records using Bryan's phone number

This witness description is important and contributed to the probable cause in getting the judge to sign off on Warrants against BK.

The witness description is not meant to prove that this is in fact BK, it's to prove that the witness description cannot rule BK OUT. Different descriptions would rule BK out.

If you think the Search Warrants were based on something else let us know.

 

[Nova]

Why would that mean moving out before the end of the semester? I thought she planned to travel in Europe in January before her job started in February.

I have been bugged by not knowing how long KG lived at the house & why she "moved out early" since that info became public. We just don't know enough to satisfy these questions with FACTS. I want the FACTS and hope we will eventually have an understanding of the whys.

I appreciate everyone's speculations but I need more. Maybe it won't matter to these crimes when more facts are known about KG. But I find it to be - like the DD driver's crazy timing - too odd.

JMO

It wouldn't necessitate moving out before the end of Fall term; I was talking about her moving out for good before the end of what I presume is a year-long lease that wouldn't end until this coming June. Of course, I can't know the exact term of the lease, but posters who have been college students more recently than I mentioned that they had to sign year-long leases even when they weren't going to be in town over the summer.

I agree with you, however; I too have wondered exactly how much time KG spent on the upper floor during the Fall term. Until I find out, I am going to suspect MM was the target, with her pink boots like a neon sign in her window. (This is not a criticism of her, of course; she has every right to put her boots where she likes and still be safe in her own house!)

I suspect LE told KG's father that her wounds were more severe and that's why he early on suggested his daughter was the target. But there are other explanations for why poor KG may have sustained greater injuries: she woke up, she fought back, she ran over from the other bedroom on the top floor, etc.

 

[Nova]

I took @Ghostwheel to mean K got extra credit beyond the already promised amount for internship. And that seems quite unusual if that happened. Chairs may be able to sign off but we know accreditation folks may be watching. Especially if awarding credit after the fact. And hammers have come down on independent studies as that can be abused too. I am not saying you did that or suggesting K did that for independent study but it does happen.

I think it's more likely she took an extra online course or wasn't really finished but had planned to away from campus as @BeginnerSleuther suggested. I guess we'll eventually find out.
JMO

I am aware of the academic/athletic scandals you mentioned in an earlier post, but I have trouble imaging an accreditation committee looking for my transcript to check on an IS here and there. (Where I was an undergrad, there was no undergrad program in theater. One had to talk one's way into grad courses, which were then written up using various codes--including IS--for posterity. This was true of all theater undergrads and, to my knowledge, was never used inappropriately. It was a result of a major given by one college within the Columbia system but administered by another.)

But an online course (or even two or three) such as those that have popped up like weeds since quarantine may be even more likely, as you suggest. Some such courses can be done in one's own time, so faster and enabling an early graduation.

 

[Cool Cats]

No they don't. It isn't up to the defense to provide an alternate suspect. It's up to the defense to defend the accused.

It is a defense strategy to give the jury an alternative suspect and involves more than simply throwing a name out there. It can involve an alternative senario, motives the defendant lacks, revenge, a bad business deal, stalker, drug involvement, poking holes in the police investigation:

Alternate suspect evidence can include evidence that the police inadequately investigated alternate suspects or that they had "tunnel vision" and failed to pursue important lines of inquiry.

Of course they don't have to offer the jury anything, they can just let the jury decide for themselves who could have possibly done it if it wasn't the defendant. If it wasn't the defendant someone else had to have done it.

Juries respond better when they have other possible alternative suspects.

There were other POI's in this case. For example:

The hoodie guy at food truck that Maddie told "eff you."

“This Other Dude Did It!” A Test of the Alternative Explanation Defense

How does a criminal defense attorney argue for a Not Guilty verdict? One strategy is simply to argue that the state’s case is incomplete and has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt; no more is required. Another strategy is to provide alternative explanations of each piece of evidence...

www.thejuryexpert.com

Alternative Suspect Evidence - Criminal Law Notebook

www.criminalnotebook.ca

Expert discusses touch DNA, alternate suspects in Hae Min Lee case

 

[Nova]

I understand your point. Also there were no wounds to his hands. If someone is stabbed the perpetrator would have cuts and wounds to his hands. Even if he was wearing gloves. I don't think the circumstances are well defined.

That the one wielding a knife will end up cutting himself is very common, true, but I've never heard anyone say it is universal.

Perhaps the intruder practiced with the knife he used, or maybe he just got lucky and avoided cutting his hand.

 

[Nova]

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

IANAL but I think she would be a witness to what she saw, but it may not be specific enough to be useful to the prosecution, when all the other evidence has been collected.

IF--BIG IF--she can identify BK as the masked intruder she saw, then that will be direct evidence that he was in the house at the time of the murders, but circumstantial evidence that BK was in fact the killer.

But in terms of how jurors think, I suspect if DM could actually identify BK as the intruder, the jury would think of it as direct enough to satisfy the inevitable complaint that "we weren't there".

 

[Nova]

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?

I'm not speaking for others, but I suspect their point is not that killing 4 in 20--more like 15--is impossible, just that almost everything has to go "right" for the killer to accomplish it in that time. And maybe that's what occurred...

 

[iamshadow21]

And DM is tall. She might even be 5'10". Her impression would be based on comparison to her height most likely.
JMO

Comparison to her height, but the step from the living room he was coming down as he passed may have made her a little less certain.

I reconstructed his probable movement path at the time of DM sighting him in a previous thread, here:

ID - 4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered - Bryan Kohberger Arrested - Moscow # 71

Okay, I went to the photo album at the beginning of the thread, and found this. It is a step UP, not down, from the kitchen to the living room, if this photo is the living room, which I think it is. The ajar door would be D's door. So, not a full flight of stairs, but a step, if this is the...

www.websleuths.com

If you use the reply arrows to go up the reply thread, you'll be able to understand why I think he passed the way he did. I also linked to photos of the inside of the house to show the movement path from Xana's room, past D's room, and to the kitchen door.

MOO

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

And DM is tall. She might even be 5'10". Her impression would be based on comparison to her height most likely.
JMO

so then it was probably a good estimate, but imo jmo the questions on the short list I made - and many more - will be raised if this goes to trial.

 

[Ghostwheel]

RB&SBM

This is something that has consistently bothered me.

from pg 5 https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/122922 Affidavit - Exhibit A - Statement of Brett-Payne.pdf

"a latent shoe print" during the "second processing of the crime scene"

although imo jmo LE probably did not include all evidence in the PCA, there would be no reason to exclude a full print in the document, esp since 1) it was sealed and 2) discovery. imo jmo 'keeping a secret to build their case' would not work and a full print with shoe type would be much more convincing for the warrant, esp for WA state courts where a higher expectation of privacy is provided by the state constitution.

https://leg.wa.gov/CodeReviser/Documents/WAConstitution.pdf

In addition, one could argue imo jmo that a partial print would not be enough to support DM's story. In fact, if that is all LE had, imo jmo the defense might bring that up during trial. this is of course all imo jmo

Can someone explain what is it that makes people think that only one partial footprint was found and no other footprints at all anywhere? That there was not a multitude of other evidence that might have included more footprints that wasn't necessary for the PCA? That is not rhetorical, btw. I'd really like to understand where that comes from?

There was no reason to put down every single footprint, fingerprint, blood smear, etc in a Probabable Cause affidavit as far as I can see. The notation of the partial print was , imo, just to indicate someone really was in the place where DM (the roommate) said she saw someone. It might also carry more meaning as to the kitchen being the exit route as opposed to a side trip before exit, not sure about that.

But a PCA has never, in any cases I have followed or studied, contained ALL evidence found at the scene. It only carries the minimum needed to get a probable cause warrant. There are plenty of reasons to leave evidence as unknown, and no reason to include it in if there is already probable cause from what I have read over the years.

There was no mention of blood on the floor. Does that mean there wasn't any, or it was not necessary for the probable cause warrant? There was no mention of the contents of the statement from the other roommate. Does that mean she didn't give one, or that it wasn't necessary for the warrant? There was no mention of a lot of things, yet that doesn't mean it wasn't there. They didn't specifically mention the Jack in the Box bag or wrappers, yet it had to be there somewhere (unless BK took it with him which I don't think happened because, well, images of a JITB bag and all.)

I feel like I must be missing something. I don't expect anything more to be in the PCA than the minimum of what LE needed to get the warrant. Is there a reason others think that not mentioning something in a PCA means it doesn't exist?

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

Can someone explain what is it that makes people think that only one partial footprint was found and no other footprints at all anywhere? That there was not a multitude of other evidence that might have included more footprints that wasn't necessary for the PCA? That is not rhetorical, btw. I'd really like to understand where that comes from?

There was no reason to put down every single footprint, fingerprint, blood smear, etc in a Probabable Cause affidavit as far as I can see. The notation of the partial print was , imo, just to indicate someone really was in the place where DM (the roommate) said she saw someone. It might also carry more meaning as to the kitchen being the exit route as opposed to a side trip before exit, not sure about that.

But a PCA has never, in any cases I have followed or studied, contained ALL evidence found at the scene. It only carries the minimum needed to get a probable cause warrant. There are plenty of reasons to leave evidence as unknown, and no reason to include it in if there is already probable cause from what I have read over the years.

There was no mention of blood on the floor. Does that mean there wasn't any, or it was not necessary for the probable cause warrant? There was no mention of the contents of the statement from the other roommate. Does that mean she didn't give one, or that it wasn't necessary for the warrant? There was no mention of a lot of things, yet that doesn't mean it wasn't there. They didn't specifically mention the Jack in the Box bag or wrappers, yet it had to be there somewhere (unless BK took it with him which I don't think happened because, well, images of a JITB bag and all.)

I feel like I must be missing something. I don't expect anything more to be in the PCA than the minimum of what LE needed to get the warrant. Is there a reason others think that not mentioning something in a PCA means it doesn't exist?

the threads are filled with the reasons. just a quick search will do the trick. I have supported my reasons for believing that the footprint is an issue. Others have as well. I do not believe that the PCA contains all of the evidence, nor do I believe it is perfectly crafted. I've raised the issue of the non-sequitur because it interests me, and I hoped there would be others who would have thoughts on it. I am not here to hang Kohberger or defend him, but to examine the various points and questions I have related to the case considering the evidence was we know it and from a legal perspective. Some want to assume and feel validated that this is wrapped up; I prefer to question. simple as that imo jmo.

 

[iamshadow21]

Can someone explain what is it that makes people think that only one partial footprint was found and no other footprints at all anywhere? That there was not a multitude of other evidence that might have included more footprints that wasn't necessary for the PCA? That is not rhetorical, btw. I'd really like to understand where that comes from?

There was no reason to put down every single footprint, fingerprint, blood smear, etc in a Probabable Cause affidavit as far as I can see. The notation of the partial print was , imo, just to indicate someone really was in the place where DM (the roommate) said she saw someone. It might also carry more meaning as to the kitchen being the exit route as opposed to a side trip before exit, not sure about that.

But a PCA has never, in any cases I have followed or studied, contained ALL evidence found at the scene. It only carries the minimum needed to get a probable cause warrant. There are plenty of reasons to leave evidence as unknown, and no reason to include it in if there is already probable cause from what I have read over the years.

There was no mention of blood on the floor. Does that mean there wasn't any, or it was not necessary for the probable cause warrant? There was no mention of the contents of the statement from the other roommate. Does that mean she didn't give one, or that it wasn't necessary for the warrant? There was no mention of a lot of things, yet that doesn't mean it wasn't there. They didn't specifically mention the Jack in the Box bag or wrappers, yet it had to be there somewhere (unless BK took it with him which I don't think happened because, well, images of a JITB bag and all.)

I feel like I must be missing something. I don't expect anything more to be in the PCA than the minimum of what LE needed to get the warrant. Is there a reason others think that not mentioning something in a PCA means it doesn't exist?

Agreed. I've said this about a half a dozen times over, in different ways. Today's version is: The PCA isn't The Lord of The Rings Extended Edition, it's the 20 second teaser trailer they needed to make the arrest.

MOO

 

[Ghostwheel]

the threads are filled with the reasons. just a quick search will do the trick. I have supported my reasons for believing it. Others have as well. I am not here to hang Kohberger or defend him, but to examine the various points and questions I have related to the case considering the evidence was we know it and from a legal perspective. Some want to assume and feel validated that this is wrapped up; I prefer to question. simple as that imo jmo.

I wouldn't have asked if I understood reasons why you (or anyone) believes the absence of evidence in a single PCA means the evidence does not exist at all. Please help me to understand. I get having questions, but feel like I must not be understanding the questions. I saw where you posted that you had questions why more footprints weren't mentioned, but not why you think they should have been mentioned, if mentioning them was not necessary, if you see what I mean.

I am seriously trying to look from another perspective and I can't get there.

 

[katydid23]

You don't have to convince me, I do not think that some other killer found or stole BK's knife sheath, then used it, then left it behind either accidentally or to frame him. Odds are against that. Common sense and Occam's Razor.

Posts keep coming up where someone says:

"Just because BK's DNA is on the knife sheath doesn't mean he was there."

But I pointed out that if the defense wants to go this route then they need to give the jury an alternative suspect. They would also need to give the jury some credible answers as to when, where, why, how this could have happened. Like when did BK acquire the sheath, where did he keep it, did he lose it somewhere or was it stolen out of his car or apartment or car? When did he last see it? Who was he with when he last saw it? ETC......

I don't think this is a realistic defense, also it is a dangerous defense. Why dangerous?

Because this defense requires the defense to admit in open court that yes this is BK's DNA.

There is nothing a jury likes more than for the defense to confirm that their client left behind his DNA. This erases reasonable doubt and I believe would lead to a slam dunk conviction. Jurys want to be confident in the DNA results. Jurys love DNA, it helps them feel confident that they are not condemning an innocent man.

No, I think the defense will take both other routes with the DNA:

1.) File a Motion to get the DNA thrown out. This would include a hearing where the defense argues for their Motion to exclude the DNA evidence and the prosecution argues for their Opposition Motion, their Motion to keep the DNA evidence in. This can also include presenting evidence and calling witnesses.

2.) If the defense's Motion to exclude the DNA evidence is denied and the prosecution's Motion is granted, then the defense would have to try to cast as much doubt as possible on the DNA results.This would include expert witness testimony to cast doubt on the testing results, and possibly trying to prove the DNA was compromised in some way even before being tested.

2 Cents

If they do admit it is his DNA, but try to say it got there by the hands of another, then they will have to explain why BK's car was seen at the crime scene just before, and seen speeding away after. And why his cell was turned off at that same time as the murders----when it was not turned off like that on previous nights.
Once the DNA is admitted to, the other circumstantial things take on a more incriminating aspect.

Seeing the car there is not as big a deal if there is no evidence he was inside the home.

 

[katydid23]

Just one note, the Defense would not have to bring a challenge to the DNA evidence at preliminary hearing. They can do that later.

Do you think it is likely they can get it suppressed? Isn't DNA usually allowed into court in a murder case?

Is it a question of chain of evidence or competence of the lab they used?

 

[sunshineray]

I wouldn't have asked if I understood reasons why you (or anyone) believes the absence of evidence in a single PCA means the evidence does not exist at all. Please help me to understand. I get having questions, but feel like I must not be understanding the questions. I saw where you posted that you had questions why more footprints weren't mentioned, but not why you think they should have been mentioned, if mentioning them was not necessary, if you see what I mean.

I am seriously trying to look from another perspective and I can't get there.

You're right. LE doesn't include everything they have in the PCA. They only give enough probable cause to arrest and/or get search warrants. It's early days in this case. I'm certain there's other evidence against BK in addition to what was listed in the PCA. The investigation is also ongoing and more evidence can still be uncovered and incorporated into his prosecution.

 

[katydid23]

He has no business being on a public street? I've also told folks that when every single piece of evidence is weak (minus the DNA), the sum total has giant holes. The fact is that the suspect in a quadruple homicide not leaving any of his DNA in the house or, possibly, none of the victims' DNA on him/in his car is a problem. MOO. Many posters have now said this. If just one juror happens to agree, that's the ballgame. MOO.

What would his business be on King Street at 4 am that morning?

There have been many cases where the killer did not leave behind their blood or DNA at the crime scene.

Chase Merritt is doing LWOP for the brutal murders of a family of four. No blood or DNA of his was ever found in the home, nor any blood left behind from the violent murders.

But there was strong circumstantial evidence that convinced the jurors of his guilt. Like in this case, they had phone records, cctv of cars coming and going, and the suspect turning off his phone during the critical time of the crime.

 

[NCWatcher]

I am aware of the academic/athletic scandals you mentioned in an earlier post, but I have trouble imaging an accreditation committee looking for my transcript to check on an IS here and there. (Where I was an undergrad, there was no undergrad program in theater. One had to talk one's way into grad courses, which were then written up using various codes--including IS--for posterity. This was true of all theater undergrads and, to my knowledge, was never used inappropriately. It was a result of a major given by one college within the Columbia system but administered by another.)

But an online course (or even two or three) such as those that have popped up like weeds since quarantine may be even more likely, as you suggest. Some such courses can be done in one's own time, so faster and enabling an early graduation.

I was not suggesting independent studies (IS) were never legitimately done. Sorry if I wasn't clear. But what you seem to be describing at Columbia is a bit different from an "after the fact" awarding of credit to allow graduation early for some "non-academic" purpose (including a job-- universities aren't exactly "job-training" centers.) Most universities that I know of do allow undergrads in grad courses under certain conditions following a written policy. Those completed courses have to be designated on the transcript as some sort of IS if an undergrad course on the topic doesn't exist. But from what you say, that was a planned approach to offering academic study to theater at the UG level.

I wouldn't think accreditation folks spend much time on transcripts either (but some committees do spot checks of all kinds of records.) But part of the university's prep for a visit is preparing a huge report including confessing to all kinds of policy irregularities. Hiding info isn't advised. And the idea that individual student "immediate needs" should trump published handbook/catalog policies is just not common at reputable schools. I do think there are other possibilities for early graduation like a last minute online course or even a "prospective" IS for fall semester that are more likely than giving K graduation credit for getting a job that would start in Feb or adding extra credit to an already-completed summer internship. I just don't think those latter things would ever happen.
JMO

 

[veronica.mars]

He has no business being on a public street? I've also told folks that when every single piece of evidence is weak (minus the DNA), the sum total has giant holes. The fact is that the suspect in a quadruple homicide not leaving any of his DNA in the house or, possibly, none of the victims' DNA on him/in his car is a problem. MOO. Many posters have now said this. If just one juror happens to agree, that's the ballgame. MOO.

But, again, he DID leave DNA in this house. I’m confused why you keep saying he didn’t.

(bbm)

 

[Kemug]

I am of the opinion that Kohberger is intelligent but not smart. I've said before and will say again that I believe he went in to murder Madison, and got a surprise twofer when he found Kaylee in Madison's bed, and that surprise caused him to drop/leave the knife sheath. Then he went down the stairs to get the heck out and encountered Xana, took her down, then the boyfriend awakened and Kohberger took him down as well. On the way out, he was perhaps in a state of shock and awe, and that's why he didn't see the witness.

It has just occurred to me that with M & K in the same bed, and with whatever light there was, (we don't know how much, but not a lot), then BK may not have been able to tell which girl was which. They looked so very similar anyway. So if his intent was to kill just one girl, he had first the shock of finding both together, and then the problem of which girl was which. So he killed both to be sure .