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

[10ofRods]

I'm sure they'll roll out every instrument possible to test coverage, signal strength, using the radio in his phone and/or similar radios. The prosecution isn't going to take that evidence into court without an expert witness who will have accounted for all of that. With the recent rulings around CLSI evidence and it's admissibility in court they'll be extra careful in order to avoid the possibility of appeal IMO.

It's an obvious place for the defense to attack. Their issue is that a car that looks 98% like Bryan's is seen on various cameras in a eastward direction before the crime, and westward after that just so happens to corroborate the cell evidence.

Not only that, but the phone traveled with Bryan's car from Pullman toward Moscow that night. He turns it off just before the car is caught on camera in Moscow.

Cell + car is strong. DNA makes it stronger. There will be more to come.

IMO.

 

[10ofRods]

And judging by the early descriptions of the crime scene being 'the worst' that investigators had ever seen...

There were likely other footprints.

To me, as a forensics person, it's absolutely the case that there were other footprints. It's not going to be a big issue at the trial in any case. I've explained several times, so I won't again, but you can't have a latent footprint made of bio proteins without another footprint somewhere that isn't latent. If we posit that the murderer got only the tiniest amount of blood on his shoe, then there would be several more latent prints. If we posit that he got "some blood" on his shoe, then they picked those up with luminol.

I also believe he touched the slider on either the way in or out or both. But none of this really matters that much in the long run. It's simply not going to be hard to convince a jury that the murderer walked around the house. I can't imagine spending much time on such an obvious thing. I doubt they'll ever find the actual Van's, but I bet many donuts that they have 1) witnesses who remember seeing him wear Van's (curiously, in my own lab classes, if I ask teammates to describe what their teammates were wearing at the last class - without telling them in advance I'm going to ask - the top thing remembered is...shoes; for women, it's shoes and nail polish, if any) or 2) receipts for Van's. Of course the print will reveal one more little detail about the killer: his shoe size. The latent print, by itself, will also reveal a little about height of arch and toe length (a whole subspecialty in forensic anatomy).

If Kohberger has the same shoe size, same toe lengths and same arch height as the killer, that's just another piece to throw on the pile. If someone can testify to seeing him wear Van's, even better. If there's a receipt for him buying Van's, that's a trifecta on that piece of it.

IMO.

 

[PrairieWind]

Have they decided on change of venue? I can't imagine this trial to be held in Moscow, ID.

That is something that will be decided way down the road.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Right. Although I’m strongly leaning toward the prosecution’s side of things, I’ve never seen anything suspicious about BK going home for Christmas.

Have you seen anything that implies that the prosecution intends to try to turn it into something suspicious? (Obviously, they have to SAY something about it, to clarify why various pieces of evidence have an East Coast provenance.)

No, I haven't. That's why I don't agree with it being framed as him fleeing to PA.

 

[Bogbacal2]

Going way off topic here, but anyone want to speculate as to the whereabouts of the knife? I realize the river is the obvious choice, but my gut is telling me he did not dispose of the weapon in that way. I’m thinking he made a specific hiding place for the weapon. maybe somewhere at the University?

 

[CGray123]

But I haven't come to any conclusions that aren't fully reasonable and some wasn't even speculation. IMO, jurors are likely to do the same, even free of speculation.

For example, the prosecution says "BK went to his parent's in PA a month after the murders." As a juror, I'd hear "BK spent the holidays with his family." That isn't speculation. That's fact, just a different angle than the prosecution wants. If the prosecution wants me to see this as suspicious, they have to give me a reason it's suspicious. Unless they can, then I suspect what some people hear is that a grad student went home for the holidays. MOO.

If what you are trying to say is that if there is no more evidence than the fact of BK's trip to PA, the prosecution will have a tough burden to persuade a jury that the trip and the midnight dump in his neighbor's trash is an effort to remove the car from the area of the crime, and to remove evidence from it where no one will suspect, I would tend to agree.

But we know that the trip did not occur in isolation from other evidence - in particular LE's call for information about a white Elantra and all the other evidence in the affidavit.

Virtually all cases are built on circumstances that form a mosaic picture. Taken in isolation they may not seem significant, but a jury will deliberate with full knowledge of all the pieces the prosecution has. And they won't need to see all the pieces to get the picture - beyond a reasonable doubt.

Both studies and my own experience show to my satisfaction that jurors in most cases do a good job of holding one another to account in following the instructions and sticking to the evidence. The one instruction they struggle with is an instruction to ignore evidence that is presented then stricken by order of the judge.

All MOO.

 

[10ofRods]

Right. Although I’m strongly leaning toward the prosecution’s side of things, I’ve never seen anything suspicious about BK going home for Christmas.

Have you seen anything that implies that the prosecution intends to try to turn it into something suspicious? (Obviously, they have to SAY something about it, to clarify why various pieces of evidence have an East Coast provenance.)

I'm confused too. Why would the prosecution bring up BK's holiday plans? What they will do is mention that he was fired from his TA job right before he left. They may discuss what he left behind. But there's nothing suspicious about him going home for Christmas and they aren't going to try to get a jury to see it that way. There's such a thing as losing people in the weeds and I have no reason to doubt that this prosecutor, as a trial attorney, know that.

It's only people on the internets that try to spin things that way. If it can be shown that he took evidence with him or disposed of it in PA, that will be mentioned. People on the internets are not usually competent trial attorneys or even trial watchers.

Some of the best trial watchers in the world are here on WS (and include several attorneys). While I often go watch trials in person, and have worked in/with law firms for a total of 30 years, I never cease to be amazed by the crew that hangs out in the Trial forums (right now, they are watching/listening the boring but instructive jury selection in Gannon Stauch's case in CO; I take their reporting on what they see seriously and am so grateful for it). I wish we could give awards here.

 

[WingsOverTX]

If it was on his belt, it would stay on his belt. You can't rip leather off leather like that. Leather is really tough.

However, I think he put the sheath in his Dickies coveralls and it fell out of his front pocket.

that is... if he didn't plant it as evidence.. thinking he had wiped off ALL of his DNA beforehand.

That's still my theory... crazy as it sounds, that he thought he would taunt LE with a knife sheath with no DNA on it.

Crazy as it sounds, I too think the sheath was left on purpose.

 

[jgarris]

Crazy as it sounds, I too think the sheath was left on purpose.

As do I.

I can't help but think that BK has a superiority complex and wanted to see how long it would take for police to catch him, if they ever did.

MOO

 

[U.N. Known]

And judging by the early descriptions of the crime scene being 'the worst' that investigators had ever seen...

There were likely other footprints.

I believe you're right, in part: it does not make sense that there would be only one footprint.

However, if there was only one, IMO it is not related to the murders. The bloodiest parts of the house should have been the bedrooms. The print they found was far enough from both bedrooms that there had to be more than one closer to the victims' rooms and containing more cellular material since they were nearer to the scene.

I've read multiple times that the PCA contains the minimum to get a warrant, but IMO, If those prints exist, there isn't a reason to omit them from the PCA.

LE didn't see the footprint by DM's door on the first pass. They clearly tested the area, didn't find anything, then tested again, with a different substance and found the latent print. They were looking for evidence on the floor. The officer thought the one latent print was important. Why would that one be important but not others, if there were any?

If there was a substantial amount of blood on the floors (1) the killer would have tracked more between the 3rd floor and DM's door or from X's room to the front of her door. Either way, a directional pattern would have been established.

Regardless, I find the two sides of this discussion interesting.

 

[10ofRods]

Going way off topic here, but anyone want to speculate as to the whereabouts of the knife? I realize the river is the obvious choice, but my gut is telling me he did not dispose of the weapon in that way. I’m thinking he made a specific hiding place for the weapon. maybe somewhere at the University?

Could be absolutely anywhere he's ever been since then. I think it's in the river.

I've known of people who hid sharp edge weapons in planters (eventually found), buried them (some never found), in tree hollows (found and unfound, some of them not involved in any crime - just hidden for personal reasons with the intention of coming back, person couldn't find it again).

In Idaho or Washington, the obvious place would be a body of water. The coffee stand where they saw him in the drive-through is near the Snake River. Very near. IIRC, he stops near that coffee stand but I don't think we know for how long. I don't think it would even be worthwhile to try and find the weapon.

My hope is that since U of W is a world leader in forensic radiology, they may have recovered data upon autopsy that helps identify the knife brand and that the wounds show the length and width of the blade (which I'm sure some of the wounds do).

IMO. Btw, unless it's found near a place where he could be digitally placed, if it's in water, there might not be a lot of DNA evidence left to link it to him. Maybe. But since the Snake is a river with a lot of sediment, it's like sandpapering the knife thoroughly.

IMO.

 

[10ofRods]

As do I.

I can't help but think that BK has a superiority complex and wanted to see how long it would take for police to catch him, if they ever did.

MOO

If that's true, then he's a lot like Gary Gilmore. Wanted to be caught. Which is possible.

If that's true, he may be closer to Gary's path than he realized.

Idaho set to allow firing-squad executions in some cases

The measure is headed to the governor's desk after passing the legislature with a veto-proof majority.

www.cbsnews.com

IMO

 

[mickey2942]

Too soon. BK hasn't even entered his plea yet. Judge still needs the June hearing to decide if there is enough evidence to go forward to trial.

I really don't understand why BK didn't want a hearing sooner.

That is something that will be decided way down the road.

Thanks. I really haven't been following this much.

 

[U.N. Known]

I've wondered if he did, yes. Otherwise, I can't explain the footprint. Do we think when the girls called their friends, they came and cleaned? I doubt it. So why else was the print not noticeable? MOO.

Though with the friends, that also brings up a good point. Were their footprints cleared? IOW, were their shoes looked at to insure this print was unaccounted for and didn't belong to one of the friends?

I don't think BK was near the house that morning--just using the same cell tower. The PCA mentioned that his phone pinged in the area, but they did not mention having video of a white Elantra near the house.

IMO, if he'd driven up to or even close to the house, it would be on camera. If video from 4 a.m. was available, video from 9 a.m. should have been available from the same source. If the white Elantra was seen on a camera, IMO, they would have every reason to mention it to corroborate the BK's phone using the area's cell service.

 

[wary]

I really don't understand why BK didn't want a hearing sooner.

Thanks. I really haven't been following this much.

Regarding the timing of the hearing, I’m not a lawyer, but I’d guess that his lawyer wanted as much time as possible to get the discovery information, assimilate it, and form a battle plan for the preliminary hearing.

MOO

 

[Boxer]

1. the time lapse between the crime and LE arrival (maybe nothing, but maybe something)
2. the possible misidentification of the model year of the Elantra
3. no license plate number identification for the suspect's car
4. no sightings of BK himself in the car
5. the phone pings put BK in the area, but cannot alone place him at the house prior to the murders or the day after (if he went back there should be video evidence of the car as there was from the night before)
6. no known connection between BK and any of the victims' (from verifiable/reliable sources)

All of the above is based on the current information that is available, not on what LE may have discovered after the gag order was put in place and the warrants sealed.

1. What delay? Forensic team arrived later. Even of there was a delay how is that relevant?

2. Elantras of those years are virtually the same, even if it was a mistake by the police of putting out shorter year span of models, how is that relevant?

3. PA does not have front plates on vehicles. No front plate is a lean to the Elantra being BKs.

4. Were there any other White Elantras sighted on any cameras anywhere atound Moscow that night? If so, maybe relevant.

5. In the immediate area and his DNA was found beside the corpse of a victim stabbed and slashed to death; on the carrying case of a fighting knife used for that kind of killing.

6. Is this a hole or just information to fill out if possible?
Jayme Closs was seen once walking across the street from her school bus, she was kidnapped and her parents were murdered.

 

[mickey2942]

Regarding the timing of the hearing, I’m not a lawyer, but I’d guess that his lawyer wanted as much time as possible to get the discovery information, assimilate it, and form a battle plan for the preliminary hearing.

MOO

Yes, I have noticed this with another "Slam Dunk" case I have been following. I guess that the defense is looking for any possible flaws to gain a dismissal. Or rather "Hail Mary" defense.

 

[U.N. Known]

1. What delay? Forensic team arrived later. Even of there was a delay how is that relevant?

The delay between the estimated time of the murders, the friends' arrival and the 911 call. It may not be relevant, but it happened, so it could be relevant.

2. Elantras of those years are virtually the same, even if it was a mistake by the police of putting out shorter year span of models, how is that relevant?

They are virtually the same . A discrepancy is a discrepancy.

3. PA does not have front plates on vehicles. No front plate is a lean to the Elantra being BKs.

Yes, it is a lean but that isn't the same as having the actual plate number captured. There may not have been a back plate either. Nothing was mentioned about the back of the car. I think it's safe to assume that they couldn't see a back plate, but we don't know if that's because it wasn't clear or because it wasn't there.

4. Were there any other White Elantras sighted on any cameras anywhere atound Moscow that night? If so, maybe relevant.

Good question. I only mentioned it because the description from the video of what LE believes is the suspects car was very detailed

5. In the immediate area and his DNA was found beside the corpse of a victim stabbed and slashed to death; on the carrying case of a fighting knife used for that kind of killing.

DNA on the sheath does not automatically mean BK was last in possession of that sheath. It's highly likely, but without more direct evidence (victim DNA in his car or on his clothing, GPS data from the car, etc.) it's not enough for a life sentence/DP for me

6. Is this a hole or just information to fill out if possible?

Just information. From what we know, there is no reason for BK to have been in that specific house in that neighborhood, in that city, without a connection to the victims.

 

[U.N. Known]

Yes, I have noticed this with another "Slam Dunk" case I have been following. I guess that the defense is looking for any possible flaws to gain a dismissal. Or rather "Hail Mary" defense.

...And 6 months in a small county jail with low level drug dealers and deadbeat dads would be worth giving your attorney time to keep you out of a large state prison with serial killers and rapists.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

If what you are trying to say is that if there is no more evidence than the fact of BK's trip to PA, the prosecution will have a tough burden to persuade a jury that the trip and the midnight dump in his neighbor's trash is an effort to remove the car from the area of the crime, and to remove evidence from it where no one will suspect, I would tend to agree.

But we know that the trip did not occur in isolation from other evidence - in particular LE's call for information about a white Elantra and all the other evidence in the affidavit.

That doesn't mean the trip wasn't already planned, like (my guess) around 90% of other students in the country. The majority of students go home for the holidays. There is no reason a juror should believe this was BK fleeing vs something that is very normal among college and graduate students. That isn't jurors not following instructions. MOO.

Virtually all cases are built on circumstances that form a mosaic picture. Taken in isolation they may not seem significant, but a jury will deliberate with full knowledge of all the pieces the prosecution has. And they won't need to see all the pieces to get the picture - beyond a reasonable doubt.

Both studies and my own experience show to my satisfaction that jurors in most cases do a good job of holding one another to account in following the instructions and sticking to the evidence. The one instruction they struggle with is an instruction to ignore evidence that is presented then stricken by order of the judge.

All MOO.

Respectfully, I disagree. I don't disagree because I'm ignorant to the law or to juries or to how these things play out. I don't claim to be an attorney or anything, but I know everything you said above and I still disagree.