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

[Sister Golden Hair]

That’s the whole point. But I come back to Scott Peterson. The jury got it right for the wrong reasons, and if you get it right for the wrong reasons, you’re still wrong in my book.

It won’t come to that here, as I’m sure he’s going to have the blood of at least one victim in his car.

But. I’d rather them focus on the wrong things than not, if the evidence shapes up like we already know, and is confirmed.

His dna should not be there. He should have never ever been in that location, and he never should have had a single contact with any victim.

Prove one of those first two things true, and the case will flow from there.

I think all three will be confirmed.

my point is that manipulating the jury with the house should never be okay, and evidence rules support that. As to the rest of the evidence, I stand by my statements that there's not a compelling amount that we know of, and I won't make assumptions. I might believe that he did it, but the fact that I can weave an alternate explanation that explains all of the evidence we know about, without being the least bit outlandish, and answers all of the questions I've raised tells me that there are holes. The totality of the evidence and the details matter, and fine points will hang up a jury or juror and change a decision, imo jmo ime and lots of cases to support that.

editing to delete a misinterpretation

 

[Boxer]

my point is that manipulating the jury with the house should never be okay, and evidence rules support that. As to the rest of the evidence, I stand by my statements that there's not a compelling amount that we know of, and I won't make assumptions. I might believe that he did it, but the fact that I can weave an alternate explanation that explains all of the evidence we know about, without being the least bit outlandish, and answers all of the questions I've raised tells me that there are holes. The totality of the evidence and the details matter, and fine points will hang up a jury or juror and change a decision, imo jmo ime and lots of cases to support that.

editing to delete a misinterpretation

MOO what theory would you come up with to explain?

 

[ktm44]

That's true. Also, the kind of knife the sheath suggests was used has a guard designed to minimize chances of that happening.

I use mine for various tasks but quite often, it’s my go to tool for breaking ice for livestock to water and my technique involves a rapid stabbing motion.

Because of the design of the knife, I have never once cut myself, even with the handle covered in icy water.

 

[ktm44]

I am channeling our very logical BeginnerSleuther (I hope ) when I say that we shouldn't assume that BK's DNA is the only DNA found on the sheath, or that around the snap was the only place DNA has been found. We simply don't know. I believe 10ofRods mentioned that was likely the only DNA that could be obtained without possibly damaging the sheath. In any event, that is just the only DNA mentioned in the PCA. It seems highly unlikely to me that anyone could kill two adults in that bed, and leave a sheath behind with nothing but one bit of DNA on it.

I will concede that the killer, whoever it may be, might have left the sheath behind on purpose but I prefer Occam's Razor. I believe that ether one of the victims was over the sheath and he didn't want to try and move them or, as things got further an further out of hand, he may have bolted away from his first two victims when he heard Xana say "someone is here". Realizing at least one more person was awake in the house, and then killing two more people, could certainly have made the killer forget all about the sheath until he was gone from the scene. MOOooo

I thought they suggested it was more difficult, but not impossible to separate human from bovine DNA on the leather.

I believe that if there is more DNA found on the sheath, it would likely be in the loop. I notice that people who aren’t overly accustomed to wearing large knives, have a tendency to slide their hand through the loop and try to carry it on their wrist.

 

[Boxer]

I wonder if he actually didn't see DM in the hallway. It just seems to me that if he had he would have killed her too. It would have only taken moments.

I think he did not see her, or she shut and locked her door immediately so he just kept going out of the house.

 

[kae27]

Just a "what if" that came to mind... what if BK had loaned his car to someone, and his K Bar was in the vehicle along with his cell phone? I am just tacking a little on to your last sentence. Nice seein' ya' kd23.

"What if" he knew he had lent a car that, according to reports, matched one seen in the vicinity of a brutal murder by knife, and he knew his knife was also in that car, and for several weeks he didn't approach police to mention this? Geez, I guess I'd think awarding of his criminology Masters degree wasn't justified. Among other things.

 

[Sleuth2010]

<modsnip - quoted post was rude response to another member>

The authorities/police/law enforcement, know they have the killer of this heinous crime. Killer's obsession's with criminal murder & killing. Crime studies for years. The killer's " questionnaire," and comments on other social media. Practically explaining how, who, what, why, and now where is known!
The loss of these souls and the horror to their families; the pain to Chief Fry and his bold crew... the killer sits behind bars. Using common sense on WS is good. Keep at it. moo imo lmnop.

 

[Nova]

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....

Exactly. My situation at Columbia in the early 1980s was that the theater major was offered by one of the undergrad colleges while the actual courses were administered by the graduate School of the Arts. Hence, the extra "paperwork" to count toward my BA. (I was also allowed to direct the school play instead of taking Directing 101, because I had already been directing for several years. Yet another IS, IIRC, but I had to do the additional, semester-long work of mounting the play; they didn't just give me credit for plays from my resume. LOL)

But I agree with you it's unlikely some dean just gave KG "extra course hours" for her completed internship. I think taking online courses--either at UofI or another uni--and transferring them to her degree program is far more likely.

 

[jepop]

Yes but, that doesn't place him in the house to commit murder.

I was only correcting this statement from your original post:

"They basically closed in on him initially because he posted a blog asking how would you murder someone, (not verbatim)."

 

[DeDee]

That’s the whole point. But I come back to Scott Peterson. The jury got it right for the wrong reasons, and if you get it right for the wrong reasons, you’re still wrong in my book.

Help me for I don't understand. SP was convicted by the rope, the concrete and other stuff in the storage locker add a faux fishing trip, a lovely mistress and the two dead bodies of Lacey and Connor washing ashore and the jury got it right.

It won’t come to that here, as I’m sure he’s going to have the blood of at least one victim in his car.

If none of the victims' blood is found in his car or is not their blood dark stains on items from his apartment, it wouldn't be good. However, their blood/hair/fur will surely tie him to the crimes. There was likely some hair pulling during these events. imho

But. I’d rather them focus on the wrong things than not, if the evidence shapes up like we already know, and is confirmed.

His dna should not be there. He should have never ever been in that location, and he never should have had a single contact with any victim.

Prove one of those first two things true, and the case will flow from there.

I think all three will be confirmed.

They may need to provide the jury with a reasonable explanation for the inexplicable events. What are the reasons BK was willing risk everything he'd worked towards in order to conduct such an unimaginable assault by slaying these four wonderful individuals with an edged weapon making fierce wounds that tore through Kaylee's lungs and liver (more on that later), nearly severed Xana's fingers and allowed blood to drip down the exterior wall of the 1122 House.

The time BKs cell phone connects to the 1122 House's wifi is powerful evidence but that info came from SG and not the PCA. OTOH, could it be used by the D as BK claiming to be an invited guest at the party house?

They'll likely prove his attempted SM contacts with a victim. He allegedly had photos of one of the them stored on his phone. If true, does the combination prove he's an obsessive stalker or merely a casual interest in a potential date?

"It was clear that he was paying attention to her," a source tells PEOPLE​

Accused Idaho Killer Bryan Kohberger Allegedly Had Pictures of Victim on His Phone: Source

 

[DeDee]

A fatal knife wound can be produced in 1.5 seconds.

Seven best places on the human body to strike with a knife in order to cause exsanguination. The medical terminology for bleeding to death is exsanguination.

1. Attack at the back of the neck to sever the spinal cord; all body functions ceases immediately

You have to cut BETWEEN the vertebrae and cut through the disc in order to get to the spinal cord

2. Carotid artery cut requires a sharp knife to cut the cartilage; a quick slash won't do it
3. Cut the Axillary artery in the armpit
4. Attack the heart and lungs; victim drowns in own blood

By holding the knife blade flat so that it will slide easily between the ribs, you can enter the lungs easily. When someone has been stabbed in the lungs they cannot yell or scream in warning to others.

5. Attack the liver

Going between the second and third, or third and fourth ribs will most likely give a direct hit to the liver. Wounds to the liver are fatal

6. Attack the femoral artery in the groin area
7. Attack the back of the knee at the popliteal artery for rapid blood loss

In order to protect against a knife attack, shine a bright light in the attackers eyes. Use a baton, a stick, or a belt to block damage.
Most martial arts styles of knife fighting teach counters to various knife attacks. For each attack, there is a block or disarming technique.
The 7 Most Lethal Places to Strike with a Knife - Survival Sullivan

 

[jepop]

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.

I've always imagined that when it came down to it on the night, something else took over emotionally and whatever plans he may have had to park carefully/avoid cameras went to the dogs. I've imagined at some point that day he made a committment to kill that night and was not going to waver from that. I see the three very incautious passes the suspect vehicle made before eventually parking as suggestive of high frustration. He could have been waiting for lights out, and getting increasingly impatient and desperate to carry out his plan. I don't see this as discordant with his relative efficiency :- ( once inside, although in experiencing the actuality of killing (as opposed to planning in his head) I can fully imagine him dropping the sheath then forgetting it. I think he did come prepared to not leave his dna if at all possible. We already know he was masked across nose and mouth. Like many others I also speculate he wore gloves and avoided touching surfaces as much as possible inside the house. MOO

 

[sunshineray]

Help me for I don't understand. SP was convicted by the rope, the concrete and other stuff in the storage locker add a faux fishing trip, a lovely mistress and the two dead bodies of Lacey and Connor washing ashore and the jury got it right.

If none of the victims' blood is found in his car or is not their blood dark stains on items from his apartment, it wouldn't be good. However, their blood/hair/fur will surely tie him to the crimes. There was likely some hair pulling during these events. imho


They may need to provide the jury with a reasonable explanation for the inexplicable events. What are the reasons BK was willing risk everything he'd worked towards in order to conduct such an unimaginable assault by slaying these four wonderful individuals with an edged weapon making fierce wounds that tore through Kaylee's lungs and liver (more on that later), nearly severed Xana's fingers and allowed blood to drip down the exterior wall of the 1122 House.

The time BKs cell phone connects to the 1122 House's wifi is powerful evidence but that info came from SG and not the PCA. OTOH, could it be used by the D as BK claiming to be an invited guest at the party house?

They'll likely prove his attempted SM contacts with a victim. He allegedly had photos of one of the them stored on his phone. If true, does the combination prove he's an obsessive stalker or merely a casual interest in a potential date?

"It was clear that he was paying attention to her," a source tells PEOPLE​

Accused Idaho Killer Bryan Kohberger Allegedly Had Pictures of Victim on His Phone: Source

Because his DNA was found at the crime scene next to a dead body of a girl he had saved pictures of on his phone (as in your link) and numerous un-replied to SM media messages (my link) to...possible all of just one of the victims...I'd say it was obsession and not just wanting a date.
AJMO

Accused Idaho Killer Bryan Kohberger Repeatedly Messaged One of the Victims on Instagram: Source

"He was persistent," an investigative source on the case tells PEOPLE

people.com

 

[jepop]

Snipped for focus.

To me it's semantics. IMO he's been labeled as intelligent. You can be extremely intelligent with degrees up the ying yang, but still not very smart, which to me is more about common sense, street smarts, etc. I worked with very intelligent people (engineers with patents and degrees up the wazoo), but man o man some of them sure didn't have a lick of common sense!

One asked where office supplies were (in a drawer in the cabinet right outside her cubicle). I said In the office supply drawer. She asked... How do you open it? I said... Uh... you pull on it (demonstrating with my hand in the air while we walked).

True story!

All MOO

If he desired not to be caught then I just think BK (the alleged killer) made a few mistakes. There might be emotional reasons at base for these, and perhaps no amount of theoretical planning would have resulted in a different outcome. Whatever a person's 'level" of intelligence, people do end up doing stupid things (or things that are not in their best interests) owing to emotional compulsiveness and what not. MOO. So I agree with you that the mini debate re stupidity is pretty much semantics!

 

[sunshineray]

I'd find it odd that any juror can remain unemotional when viewing evidence. Isn't that part of what we ask of a jury...to have empathy, to understand circumstances? If not, maybe in the future AI can take the task of thinking, feeling and deciding out of human minds and hands? Just some thoughts

 

[jepop]

[Snipped for focus.]

Then, after visiting the murder scene, this car thief (never reported by BK) drives the same route as the night before. Wow.

Why didn't BK report all this? THat's clearly what all those asks by LE were after. Come forward and tell us the story, even if you have any knowledge about this situation. That would be the time for BK to exonerate himself.

And if he has this story to tell about the car being stolen, he should have had an early prelim and said exactly that. If his claim is that he himself slept in late, so this person could steal his car twice and bring it back twice, then yeah, that's a weak alibi. How did the person break into the car? There ought to be have been signs of hotwiring. Why is BK himself SEEN ON VIDEO at Albertson's and the Coffee Stand and one other place during the second "theft." How does BK know to go the same route as his ostensible enemy?

This is laughable. IMO. If it weren't so awfully tragic. But the story of a frame-up (which requires even more knowledge and actions by the perp than what I listed off the top of my head) is extremely far-fetched. And this person (the scoundrel who framed BK) is approximately his height and has a forehead that looks like BK's. Wow. So many amazing coincidences.

Occam's Razor, for me. Respectfully disagreeing with the "someone stole his phone, knife and car and impersonated him" theory (and BK's car phone and PERSON drive the same route the next morning - pausing at 1122 King Road, proceeding south, through Lewiston/Clarkston; getting out of his car; seen on camera in Albertson's and elsewhere).

How does BK know to drive to 1122 the next morning, then go on the same route that his stolen car went the night before (purportedly - according only to speculation here on WS, AFAIK).

I think my questions are good ones - anyone have any answers to this last one? Because we know for sure he did that the next morning. Seen at Albertson's, seen at the coffee stand - and there's one more place where his phone pauses. His car and his phone are in the same place as his body Sunday morning, if you ask me.

IME. IMO.

The second half of your post made me think of another matter that may be an issue for the defense. Assuming for the moment that the phone evidence we are aware of so far- just the pings - makes it into evidence (and not speculating on what else may come out re BK's movements from the forensic analysis of his actual phone etc) and the defense present a normalising argument for the at least 12 times BK's phone pinged in the vicinity of King Road prior to Nov 13th (ie late night shopping,jogging, insomniac late night driving etc); then how will it look that between Nov 14th and mid DEc when BK left for PA with his Dad, his phone never pinged again in that area? Did his regular/normalised activity prior to Nov 13th just suddenly stop? Did he continue the driving/shopping/jogging but with phone turned off? Did the battery keep dying? Was coverage suddenly sketchy? In a nutshell, to my mind it is not a good look, if the defense tries to normalise BK's late night sojourns to Moscow only to have to explain their sudden cessation after Nov 13th. MOO

 

[jepop]

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

MSN

BBM: Yes, I was reading up on this version of SODDI. I read an academic article that referred to it as SODDI 2. Prosecutors will be prepared for SODDI 2 if LE have done a competent job following up credible angles during investigation thus avoiding defense accusations of tunnel vision.

Below is really quite an interesting and information read (IMO) on the history and evolving use of SODDI 2.0 in the US.

https://www.luc.edu/media/lucedu/law/students/publications/llj/pdfs/vol47/Imwinkelried.pdf

 

[jepop]

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?

If you would like and if you have the time, go the thread #72. I believe the topic arose with this post

4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered - Bryan Kohberger Arrested - Moscow # 72

Oh, I think the Spring (APril) interview/exchange of emails with a person from Pullman PD were in relation to an assistanship position (with PPD) according to the NYT original report (ref at end post). BK applied for an Internship (the internship application) with PPD in the fall of 2022...

www.websleuths.com

and there is detailed discussion beginning on about page 14 or 15 that goes for much of the rest of thread. I'm late responding so probably others have already filled you in. MOO

 

[jepop]

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?

I agree, the PCA was what was needed to gain an arrest warrant, nothing more. MOO

 

[NCWatcher]

I agree, the PCA was what was needed to gain an arrest warrant, nothing more. MOO

True, but why cite a weaker piece of evidence vs a stronger one? Not that the print cited is not relevant but a "second-pass" latent print? If there were other footprints as so many here seem to think, why not cite a "stronger" one? The only answers it seems I've seen here are, in effect, "they didn't want to" or "they didn't have to."
JMO