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

Status
Not open for further replies.
True. They need not say a word.
Yet there are formulas for defenses: "It wasn't me (SODDI), it was justified, I was impaired."

Here is a defense that basically stayed silent.

Chandler Halderson
Jurors deliberated for just over two hours before finding 23-year-old Chandler Halderson guilty on all counts related to the July 1 killing of 50-year-old Bart Halderson and 53-year-old Krista Halderson at their home in Windsor, about 80 miles (130 kilometers) west of Milwaukee.

Chandler was convicted on two counts each of first-degree intentional homicide, mutilating a corpse, hiding a corpse and falsifying information about a missing person. A first-degree intentional homicide conviction carries a mandatory life sentence.

Defense attorneys for Halderson rested their case Thursday without calling witnesses or testimony from the defendant.

There's a big difference between staying silent and providing an alternate suspect. The defense needs to sow doubt in just one juror, however they can. MOO.
 
Last edited:
Yes but, that doesn't place him in the house to commit murder.
It doesn't, but it certainly warrants closer inspection, which is how where we got where we are, with a suspect in custody and being readied to stand trial. No single piece of evidence stands alone, it's about the totality of the case, the potentially hundreds of pieces of evidence they have gathered that come together to build a case.

And, to turn it the other way up, if his car had been seen driving in the area at the time of the killings and it hadn't been investigated, wouldn't that be worrying? Wouldn't it be best for LE to have scrutinised his every move on that evening just to make sure? Even if he was innocently in the area, with nothing to do with the murders?

MOO, they have been over so many other people who have all been ruled out. They were left with the person who's been arrested, who just got stronger as a potential perpetrator the more they looked at his life and his movements.

It isn't about the car or the phone or the witness description or the sheath with his DNA on it, it's about EVERYTHING. The things we've seen the PCA, and all the things we haven't seen yet, most of which we won't see until trial. None of us is going to fully understand this case until then, because we've only got a handful of pieces from a thousand piece puzzle. LE and forensic scientists are slowly assembling the rest, and eventually, the prosecution is going to show us the whole picture.

MOO
 
I know you understand hyperbole and turns of phrase but I'll bite....if his defense for heading that way at 3am with his DNA in the house is "it's a public street" then he's going to have a really really really hard time in court.

And it's always 1 juror away. In every single case in every single court room. And simlarly, I have a 'punchers chance' against Mike Tyson. But I still wouldn't want to be in that ring.

But I would take a match with Tyson over being in BK's position with the evidence stacked against me (IMO) and facing a potential firing squad.

MOO, of course.

I dont' think any of us would want to be in BK's position and I think most agree that BK did it. But there absolutely remain questions in this case and I think it'll be a problem for the prosecution if they don't acknowledge that. MOO.
 
Last edited:
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.

That's not the post I was responding to. I was responding to this post by you on page 24:

"I think it's interesting to contemplate if there would have been enough PC for an Arrest Warrant without the DNA.

It doesn't look like they needed the DNA for the Search Warrants.

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

I'm confused though. It looks like the PC for Search Warrant is also the PC for Arrest Warrant?

If so, then the DNA isn't even listed to make the arrest."

My response is that I don't see how it's possible to arrest BK based on a very vague witness description that "doesn't rule out BK."
 
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."




I'm aware of that, but my point is that the defense is not required to name another suspect in order to defend the defendant. Would it make their defense stronger? Sure. But they don't have to do it. All they have to do is convince one juror that their guy might not have.
 
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?

This has been answered multiple times, but the Reader's Digest version is that the PCA says: "During the processing of the crime scene, investigators found a latent shoe print. This was located during the second processing of the crime scene by the ISP Forensic Team by first using a presumptive blood test and then Amino Black, a protein stain that detects the presence of cellular material. The detected shoe print showed a diamond-shaped pattern (similar to the pattern of a Vans type shoe sole) just outside the door of D.M.'s bedroom (located on second floor). This is consistent with D.M.'s statement regarding the suspect's path of travel."

It took until the second processing to see it with Amino black. If there were footprints all around, why was this particular one not detected until second processing with the use of Amino black? I get that not everything is in the PCA (and have said so), but this is worded so strangely that it leaves me with the impression that there were not footprints around it (at least, not footprints that were visible to the naked eye).
 
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 the critical time of the crime.

I'm not familiar with the Chase Merritt case, but speaking in generalities, someone being on a street where a crime occurred doesn't mean he did it. Sure, if there's a relationship between him and the victims, if there's evidence of on-going stalking, if there's been threats, if there's other links, you can draw that conclusion. But my point is, him driving on a public street doesn't place him inside the house.

FTR, I do think BK did it. So I'm not disputing that. But just because I think he probably did it, doesn't mean that there can't be alternative answers for why he would be on a public street at 4 am, including the fact that he had a pattern of being up until all hours at night and doing what people usually do in the daytime overnight, per neighbors in MSM reports from early on in the case.
 
But, again, he DID leave DNA in this house. I’m confused why you keep saying he didn’t.

(bbm)

Would it clear things up if I said ON the house? As in, on the door frame, the locks, the doorknobs, the railing on the stairs, the wall? My point is just that IF (and I realize it's a big if) his DNA was only on the snap of the sheath, how is that even possible? MOO.
 
It does bother me that he left the sheath. Did he walk out of the house with knife in hand? Was he startled and interrupted by Xana, coming quickly down the stairs to silence her? I am curious to know how the prosecution believes this unfolded.

As far as lousy pockets, I am very disappointed in a Carhartt jacket I recently bought. For a workwear apparel company, I was shocked at how short the pockets were. I cannot keep my keys in them because they constantly fall out. Maybe BK was in new clothing and expected the sheath to stay put.
I have wondered if perhaps he was stunned/overwhelmed. If he "only" (only!) intended to assault or kill one person and ended up killing four, he might truly have been in shock or some other sort of detached mental state. He might not have been clicking on all cylinders until he started dumping evidence and then - oh crap! where is it? and he's faced with having made a mistake. MOOooo
 
Would it clear things up if I said ON the house? As in, on the door frame, the locks, the doorknobs, the railing on the stairs, the wall? My point is just that IF (and I realize it's a big if) his DNA was only on the snap of the sheath, how is that even possible? MOO.
I'm sure the police know from experience where to check for DNA and other evidence based on what they think happened, but I have often wondered just how thoroughly it's possible to search. I know they vacuum, looking for hair, etc., and they swab a lot of places, but I don't know likely it is that a DNA deposit could be missed. For example, how many swabs does it take to feel you probably didn't miss a DNA deposit on a door knob? Guess I know what I'll be doing at lunch today.
 
Would it clear things up if I said ON the house? As in, on the door frame, the locks, the doorknobs, the railing on the stairs, the wall? My point is just that IF (and I realize it's a big if) his DNA was only on the snap of the sheath, how is that even possible? MOO.

I think it'd be pretty easily possible in the sense that he wore gloves when he went to commit the actual crime so he didn't transfer anything to the physical house. Probably wasn't wearing gloves when he was at home playing with his little sheath and practicing unsheathing his knife. JMO
 
I’m a night owl.

I work a corporate job during typical corporate working hours. I’m often up until 3am working on my side projects in my computer/wood/cnc/3D print lab in my basement. That’s evident by my late night posting times.

Luckily I’ve never found myself casually and coincidentally cruising the scene of a quadruple murder where my dna is found inside.

Sounds like BK just had a really unlucky string of events befall him. One second you’re building a chair. The next second you’re caught on video speeding away from a crime scene with your cell phone off.

Us night owls. Always up to some crazy stuff.
 
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.
It's a lone footprint, obviously invisible to the naked eye. Why bring up a basically invisible footprint if there were visible prints 2 or 3 feet away? It would still show the killer was in that hallway. JMO

My idea of how it happened has him walking to Xana's room after killing Maddie and Kaylee. Then walking out after killing Xana and Ethan. Same hallway.
 
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.
That's true. Also, the kind of knife the sheath suggests was used has a guard designed to minimize chances of that happening.
 
I dont' think any of us would want to be in BK's position and I think most agree that BK did it. But there absolutely remain questions in this case and I think it'll be a problem for the prosecution if they don't acknowledge that. MOO.
To be fair, I don't think there is anything for the prosecution to acknowledge - yet. There are always questions about cases before they come to trial and we see all the evidence, and I think it's logical for there to be more gaps than usual with virtually everything under seal. Even without a seal, they're going to keep as much secret as they can because they don't want potential jurors to hear it all before court. Currently, they literally cannot address any questions or gaps even if they were inclined to do so outside of court.

IMO, I think the case is right where one could expect it to be at this point. We have a general idea of where things are heading, and there are questions that definitely won't be answered until the Prosecution puts on their case. Some questions will probably never be answered, because the answer lies within BK's brain and I don't think he's going to tell us what we want to know even if he testifies. MOOooo
 
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?
We really don't know enough yet to know if it could be suppressed. It would have to be something amiss in the collection, or preservation of the scene, a screw up in custody of the evidence, contamination, lab blunders, etc.
 
It isn't about the car or the phone or the witness description or the sheath with his DNA on it, it's about EVERYTHING.

MOO
It IS about the car, and the phone, and the sheath with BK's DNA on it, and all other pieces of evidence. The jury must ultimately evaluate the evidence, not as a totality - not as part of a narrative, not as a part of a theory - but each piece of evidence has to stand on its own merits. That is why the evidence is so critical to the prosecution's case.

I sure hope a jury wouldn't make a verdict based on a narrative, but on the evidence that they are presented with in the court room.



edited a double post that was unrelated
 
Last edited:
This has been answered multiple times, but the Reader's Digest version is that the PCA says: "During the processing of the crime scene, investigators found a latent shoe print. This was located during the second processing of the crime scene by the ISP Forensic Team by first using a presumptive blood test and then Amino Black, a protein stain that detects the presence of cellular material. The detected shoe print showed a diamond-shaped pattern (similar to the pattern of a Vans type shoe sole) just outside the door of D.M.'s bedroom (located on second floor). This is consistent with D.M.'s statement regarding the suspect's path of travel."

It took until the second processing to see it with Amino black. If there were footprints all around, why was this particular one not detected until second processing with the use of Amino black? I get that not everything is in the PCA (and have said so), but this is worded so strangely that it leaves me with the impression that there were not footprints around it (at least, not footprints that were visible to the naked eye).
I agree this is a little perplexing right now. I'm sure once we know everything it will make sense, but when we just get to look at evidence through the straw of a PCA it leaves us to say "wait....what?"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
109
Guests online
1,403
Total visitors
1,512

Forum statistics

Threads
589,162
Messages
17,915,052
Members
227,745
Latest member
branditau.wareham72@gmail
Back
Top