4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered - Bryan Kohberger Arrested - Moscow # 76

[Helechawagirl]

Ha, I thought something similar at the beginning of the OJ trial….gulp!

So, you live in a gingerbread house?

 

[whiterhino]

There is no document that the public could be aware of AFAIK. We have redacted return of inventories from several warrants served on Walmart, KBar,Ebay, Blue Ridge and so forth. Then we have returns from BK's residence (no knife receipt mentioned - just receipt and tag from Dickies -from memory-but definately no knife receipt). We have the Return of Inventory from PA residence, white elantra and BK's person. The PA Return does include a couple of knives, but again no specific mention of any document that could be inferred at this point to show BK purchased a likely murder weopen. Some papers and documents are listed but no specifics. I hope it is ok not to post all those links again right now. They are available at the Court Pages for Idaho and Pennsylvannia and have been posted quite a few times prior on this thread and all the most recent threads.

That's not to say some kind of documentation hasn't been uncovered. We don't know either way.

MOO

I also commented on this a few pages back. AFAIK so far I haven't seen any links to proof of purchase for any knives belonging to BK.

Someone else had made the comment that there might not even be a receipt for something like that. Especially if BK paid cash and if it was a private sale, garage sale, inherited etc. I haven't provided links either as most of it can be found within the threads already.

 

[jepop]

Just my opinion, but I think it may turn out to be a bit of serendipity that they ultimately matched the DNA from the knife sheath to that of Kohberger’s father and not to him personally. IMO, it heads off completely any rational defense argument that the DNA on the sheath was planted and/or contaminated.

Emphasis and BBM.
It's easy enough to get confused about all this, and I'm absolutely no expert on dna matching and science! I'm actually not sure if you're are saying (in your opinion) the dna on the snap button was matched not to BK but to his dad? I'm guessing you probably mean something else ie the method of identifying the unknown 'suspect' sample found on the sheath snap? But simply for clarity, the dna 'suspect' sample extracted from the snap button of the knife sheath was found in extreme likelihood to be BK's dna via a kind of testing that used a sample of BK's father's dna. (p19 PCA). This was just prior to arrest on 28th Dec.

Re your last sentence re planting, IMO the initial method of identifying the suspect sheath snap sample via BK's Dad's dna would not rule out planting per se as it was still BK's dna that was identified, not his dad's. Just to note that in no way do I subscribe to any notion that the dna sample on sheath button was planted, there is absolutely no evidence of this and IMO discussion about that has no grounds/basis. MOO

I'm willing to make the assumption that since the arrest and getting swabs of BK's actual dna, BK's dna has been directly matched with the sample found on the button/snap of the knife sheath. MOO

edited for clarity

 

[jepop]

I also commented on this a few pages back. AFAIK so far I haven't seen any links to proof of purchase for any knives belonging to BK.

Someone else had made the comment that there might not even be a receipt for something like that. Especially if BK paid cash and if it was a private sale, garage sale, inherited etc. I haven't provided links either as most of it can be found within the threads already.

Yes, I get what you're saying totally. A lack of documentation (if none is uncovered) does not mean that BK didn't at some point have possession of a relevant weopen. IMO, the weopen itself has definately been disposed of. There was plenty of time between the crime and arrest for BK (the alleged killer) to do that. MOO

 

[katydid23]

Question to me BBM. That is correct. Totality of evidence, much like totality of symptoms matters, but only after each piece can stand up to scrutiny.

Sometimes the issue with looking at each piece of evidence, individually, can backfire, imo.

Since you are a doctor, maybe I can use a medical analogy. Let's say a patient comes to you for a 2nd opinion. Maybe their doctor told them they had disease X.

And perhaps there are 4 or 5 major symptoms that convinced the doctor they had disease X.

Swollen lymph nodes
Blurry vision
Severe lower back pain
Itchy, red bumpy rash
Fatigue


It may be known that disease X primarily causes these 5 simultaneous symptoms. So your new patient's doctor made that diagnosis.

If you decide to look at each symptom, individually, you could easily come to a different conclusion.

Swollen lymph nodes could indicate a large number of possibilities. Blurry vision as well. Many other possibilities for low back pain including over work or an accident. Rash could be an allergic reaction. Fatigue could be stress or lack of sleep.

If you take ALL of the symptoms together, it looks like it could be disease X and it could very well be the correct diagnosis.

But it is easy to look at each individual symptom and negate it and explain it away.

We can explain away the DNA, and the Elantra seen on the cctv, and the phone turned off and the latent foot print and the garbage secretly being put in neighbour's cans, if we look at it individually. But we might not end up with the correct conclusion, imo.

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

We can explain away the DNA, and the Elantra seen on the cctv, and the phone turned off and the latent foot print and the garbage secretly being put in neighbour's cans, if we look at it individually. But we might not end up with the correct conclusion, imo.

snipped by me because I'll leave Dr S to the medical analogy, but a couple of things on this imo jmo:

-none of us are trying to 'explain it away' - we're looking at it to find where there are potential questions and holes in the case; big difference imo jmo ime, and both sides will be doing the same to the opponent's case.

-we don't have any other evidence than this little bit, and we haven't heard from the defense at all; the whole purpose of a trial is to consider all of the evidence. We presumably have very little of it.

Until we consider all of the evidence, we might not end up with the correct conclusion. it's just too soon to say. imo jmo ime.

 

[NCWatcher]

Sometimes the issue with looking at each piece of evidence, individually, can backfire, imo.

Since you are a doctor, maybe I can use a medical analogy. Let's say a patient comes to you for a 2nd opinion. Maybe their doctor told them they had disease X.

And perhaps there are 4 or 5 major symptoms that convinced the doctor they had disease X.

Swollen lymph nodes
Blurry vision
Severe lower back pain
Itchy, red bumpy rash
Fatigue


It may be known that disease X primarily causes these 5 simultaneous symptoms. So your new patient's doctor made that diagnosis.

If you decide to look at each symptom, individually, you could easily come to a different conclusion.

Swollen lymph nodes could indicate a large number of possibilities. Blurry vision as well. Many other possibilities for low back pain including over work or an accident. Rash could be an allergic reaction. Fatigue could be stress or lack of sleep.

If you take ALL of the symptoms together, it looks like it could be disease X and it could very well be the correct diagnosis.

But it is easy to look at each individual symptom and negate it and explain it away.

We can explain away the DNA, and the Elantra seen on the cctv, and the phone turned off and the latent foot print and the garbage secretly being put in neighbour's cans, if we look at it individually. But we might not end up with the correct conclusion, imo.

I'm not trying to speak for the doctor but as I said in an earlier post, I think it is important to examine each piece of evidence in isolation first before combining the pieces into a "narrative." It's been a few years since I was on a jury but as I recall, the judge's instructions to the jury suggest each piece of testimony or evidence must be evaluated separately. Jurors are told, for example, they can 100% believe or 100% disbelieve any witness including LE, expert and lay witnesses. Or they can believe only part of what any witness says.

Of course, we aren't at the jury stage yet and there is a lot we don't know. And some things we think we know may turn out not to be true. If we were on the jury instead of on WS though, we'd properly be starting with the assumption BK is innocent. So it wouldn't be a matter of trying to "explain away" evidence-- rather it would be a matter of insisting the state's evidence be valid and reliable before accepting it and weaving it into a convincing narrative of guilt. And even if A, B, & C are all accepted as true, D still needs to stand on its own before being combined with A, B, & C.

I do remember jury deliberations I was in once where we discussed an eyewitness's testimony that claimed to put the defendant at the murder scene. (There was nothing else putting him there-- no DNA or fingerprints, for example. No murder weapon either-- and we'd mostly been given "motive" evidence.) IMO the eyewitness testimony was problematic testimony for a host of reasons and several jurors agreed. But one juror said something like but the other evidence says the defendant had reason to do it, so who else could it have been the eyewitness saw? The defense couldn't prove it was anyone else and didn't even try to prove the defendant wasn't there. Yarrgh. Lots of issues there. Regardless, IMO a trial isn't about deciding the defendant had reason to commit the crime so he must have done it nor is it about showing that while lots of people could have done the crime, he's the "most likely." Neither can lead to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt IMO.

Re: the medical analogy-- before deciding that a collection of symptoms represents X disease or condition, it would be important to be sure each member of the symptom collection is actually present and/or described correctly. In other words, each symptom does need to be looked at on an individual basis rather than only in combination with a list of other symptoms. Further some symptoms (like fatigue) are so omnipresent to be practically useless for diagnosis. Finally, if the job of someone providing a second medical opinion is simply to decide if a set of symptoms could represent X condition, no human is needed for that--that can be done easily and cheaply using symptom checker from the internet. But IMO the second evaluator isn't simply determining a collection of symptoms may represent disease X. The second evaluator needs to be sure 1) no potentially important symptoms were missed by the first evaluator and 2) the symptoms reported have been reported correctly. For example, the patient may say she's "dizzy." Rather than accepting that at face value, it would be important to determine what she means. Is she experiencing vertigo? Or does she feel she might faint? Or is it something else? Which it is matters for diagnosis.
JMO

 

[ilovewings]

Cops probe if Bryan Kohberger had contact with victims before slayings

Authorities have submitted several search warrants to social media companies, including TikTok and Google, which date back to January 2021 - over a year before the killings.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Megnut]

Cops probe if Bryan Kohberger had contact with victims before slayings

Authorities have submitted several search warrants to social media companies, including TikTok and Google, which date back to January 2021 - over a year before the killings.

www.dailymail.co.uk

He seemed hyper-interested in how criminals choose their targets, how or whether. Is it possible he encountered one of these roommates remotely (online dating for instance) or a random, minimal encounter in person, much earlier than we imagine? When did each of the two young women start working at the restaurant? If he was in town for an interview or college visit, could he have happened by the restaurant? Entirely possible he never ate there. He could have accosted an employee in the parking, under the auspices of vegan-vetting. Just how many new pans.... then the staredown. When do you work, where do you live....

Could it be that he chose his grad program because of a brewing obsession? In the same way an innocent person might blossom a crush, his dark proclivities led him to construct a whole grad school endeavor around one unsuspecting victim...

And after "all he'd done to get close to her", he felt slighted....

Nothing so deadly as an injustice collector with a weapon.

JMO

 

[U.N. Known]

It's been a few years since I was on a jury but as I recall, the judge's instructions to the jury suggest each piece of testimony or evidence must be evaluated separately. Jurors are told, for example, they can 100% believe or 100% disbelieve any witness including LE, expert and lay witnesses. Or they can believe only part of what any witness says.

This is so important. I always followed the news growing up and discussed cases with my mom, who is a crime analyst. As part of her job, she is sometimes called as an expert witness and has served as a juror. I was often convinced, from news reports that a person was guilty and grew frustrated when she would remind me of what jurors are instructed to do. I thought it was stupid! "There was so much evidence, why wasn't the person convicted?"

As I matured and learned more about how our court system works, I understood better. However, I know many people--adults--who have not served on a jury, don't fully comprehend the seriousness of the judge's instructions nor how important it is for jurors to follow them. IMO, many of the people who are later exonerated had juries who did not look at the evidence as you said your judge instructed.

I've read many comments, most of them elsewhere, that declare BK guilty based solely on what we know. That big picture take sure points to his guilt, but as mentioned by many here, there are small holes in that evidence. I imagine myself on trial with this case (of course, I'm innocent in this imagining!) or on the jury. What would I want the people responsible for deciding my guilt or not to do, think, proceed? If I was a juror, would I look at the evidence rather than the crying victims or their families? Would I consider actual justice or justice right now?

I would be that juror from 12 Angry Men! Was the accused seen in the car the night of the murders? Is there video evidence of a white Elantra from the cameras at 9 AM 11/14/22, that captured the white Elantra the night before? Was there any blood found outside of the victim's bedrooms (that pesky latent footprint)? Exactly what happened between 4:17 AM and 11:58 AM? Who took the dog out of the house? Was he "locked" in a room barking to be let out or was he wandering around the house looking for his owner and/or food? etc. What was Bryan's reaction when SWAT arrived? If they didn't find the knife, is there evidence that BK ever bought or was given a Ka-Bar knife? If BK is the guy, why was LE looking at Tinder and DD from months before BK moved to WA? So many questions. The DNA evidence is certainly compelling, but there is no way I could follow the usual jury instructions and vote to commit a man to life in prison or worse the DP with just what is publicly available as of April 2, 2023.

I reserve the right to change my opinion once we learn more.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Yes, I get what you're saying totally. A lack of documentation (if none is uncovered) does not mean that BK didn't at some point have possession of a relevant weopen. IMO, the weopen itself has definately been disposed of. There was plenty of time between the crime and arrest for BK (the alleged killer) to do that. MOO

BBM. But it also doesn't mean he was. That's important.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Sometimes the issue with looking at each piece of evidence, individually, can backfire, imo.

Since you are a doctor, maybe I can use a medical analogy. Let's say a patient comes to you for a 2nd opinion. Maybe their doctor told them they had disease X.

And perhaps there are 4 or 5 major symptoms that convinced the doctor they had disease X.

Swollen lymph nodes
Blurry vision
Severe lower back pain
Itchy, red bumpy rash
Fatigue


It may be known that disease X primarily causes these 5 simultaneous symptoms. So your new patient's doctor made that diagnosis.

If you decide to look at each symptom, individually, you could easily come to a different conclusion.

Swollen lymph nodes could indicate a large number of possibilities. Blurry vision as well. Many other possibilities for low back pain including over work or an accident. Rash could be an allergic reaction. Fatigue could be stress or lack of sleep.

If you take ALL of the symptoms together, it looks like it could be disease X and it could very well be the correct diagnosis.

But it is easy to look at each individual symptom and negate it and explain it away.

We can explain away the DNA, and the Elantra seen on the cctv, and the phone turned off and the latent foot print and the garbage secretly being put in neighbour's cans, if we look at it individually. But we might not end up with the correct conclusion, imo.

The concept's right, but your conclusion is what causes erroneous diagnoses and malpractice. Let's say the patient is fatigued due to sleep apnea. Let's say the blurry vision is due to cataract that hasn't been diagnosed. Let's say the low back pain is due to a herniated disc. So now you're left with swollen lymph nodes and rash only. These are the symptoms of whatever disease process is going on. The others are co-morbid conditions and not necessarily part of the overall picture. It changes the diagnosis. This is why it's important to look at the individual symptoms (could anything else be going on that causes this) THEN (and only then) can you assume all symptoms are part of one disease process. So if a patient like this is seen, they should rule out everything else causing these symptoms before making a potentially life-changing diagnosis and starting potentially toxic treatment. This is why an accurate medical history is VERY important and why people have to fill out so much paperwork before their first visit. If the back pain started 25 years before everything else and began immediately following a back injury and the pain hasn't changed, then it's a high likelihood that it's unrelated to the fatigue and lymph nodes. If the blurry vision began slowly over time and predates the other symptoms by a decade, then an eye exam is in order before making any conclusion.

It's exactly the same thing here. You have to look at each individual piece of evidence and then and only then should you put it all together, IMO.

 

[GGbankster]

Moo,

I was taken aback by the news of BK's arrest and the fact that he acted alone. My initial assumptions were completely off. It turns out that those who theorized about him being a lone wolf and a stalker were right all along.

Despite this, I have faith in the investigators handling the case. Their affidavit was incredibly thorough, going above and beyond what was required of them. I am confident that we will learn more about the situation once the trial is over. However, it's possible that we may never truly understand why BK committed this crime. My own theory was that he was fixated on Maddie, but there's a chance that I could be mistaken yet again.

 

[10ofRods]

and not to be the zebra party pooper, but the DNA is on an inside snap of a sheath. Yeah, it matters, and may be allowed into evidence, but there's a lot that can go wrong and potentially raise doubt imo jmo. imo it's not a compelling piece of proof unless there's other DNA of his at the crime scene or the victims' dna in his car. Then we're talking... imo jmo


and imo jmo I hope the jurors chosen care enough to wonder (that doesn't always happen obvs), but I also hope that this is a strong case one way or another, leaving very little doubt. jmo imo.

So if a forensic expert can show that only one person's DNA was found on that sheath, and if there are receipts linking Kohberger to buy both the same style sheath and a knife to go with it, and if the autopsies show that an identical knife caused four deaths, you'd need to see victim DNA in the white Elantra?

And more Kohberger DNA at the crime scene?

Let's add in that Kohberger's phone traveled with his car to Moscow that night; turning off 20 minutes before the murders and then seen driving around the neighborhood and then parking near 1122 King Road about 5 minutes before the estimated time of the murders (Per DM). Then his car, still bearing his phone in it, moves off quickly from King Road and heads south, phone turning on about 20 minutes later and traveling onward toward Clarkston/Lewiston, stopping at least once along the way.

Then, Kohberger (with phone on) drives to 1122 King Road a few hours later. Again.

And you still think DNA is needed at the house?

DNA is not usually found all over a crime scene. It's found on use points on weapons and cars, it's found in semen, it's found if the perp injuries himself enough to bleed. Even if Kohberger DNA is found inside the house (say in the heating filter), defense will just say he'd been there to party.

Can you say why you need there to be DNA somewhere in the house? Doesn't it need to be in a particular place? (such as mixed with victim blood, which is unlikely or on the body of the victims, also unlikely, as they were mostly under covers/in bed). Because it is likely the killer wore gloves, there's just not going to be DNA or fingerprints on door knobs, etc. I think the phone and car evidence are stronger than finding more BK DNA inside the house (esp. if it turns out they were all in contact on Tinder or similar).

Myself, I'm looking forward more to the GPS data, as yet not known to us.

IMO.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Which is why some of us are focusing on each individual piece of evidence, because it's entirely possible there may be holes and/or one or more pieces will not be allowed to be introduced at trial. Totality of evidence only works if all the evidence is introduced and deemed to be reliable.

MOO.




Thus far, a witness hasn't said she saw him there. She said she saw a tall black shadowy figure with bushy brows. That likely describes much of the student population. So you're left with the DNA. If the DNA evidence isn't solid for any reason, you've got nothing to place him inside the house.
MOO.

His DNA is at the scene on the knife sheath. We don't know where else it might be, yet.
We also don't know if LE can place the knife sheath in BK's possession via sales receipt, etc.
We have the car data that shows him in the area.
We have a witness who saw a man that matches two distinctive feature of BK--his height and eyebrows. She doesn't have to pick him out of the lineup, just say that someone she didn't know with these two features was in the house at the time of the murders.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Ha, I thought something similar at the beginning of the OJ trial….gulp!

Always remember that the OJ trial (and Casey Anthony, nearly always included in these arguments) are outliers. There are very specific aspects to these cases, both in terms of the crimes themselves and the ways that the trials played out. And the OJ trial in particular was screwed up because TV became the story. I have no worries about the Idaho case going down that road. LE has been competent and careful.

I think it's important to note that in this case that LE was determined to arrest the right guy or guys: I don't think the investigators were pushing to arrest someone, anyone. I think they did, with the help of surveillance cameras, meticulous police work.

 

[Sundog]

We have the car data that shows him in the area.

<snipped>

The car data shows that the car was in the area. It doesn't show that BK was in the area.

 

[jepop]

Moo,

I was taken aback by the news of BK's arrest and the fact that he acted alone. My initial assumptions were completely off. It turns out that those who theorized about him being a lone wolf and a stalker were right all along.

Despite this, I have faith in the investigators handling the case. Their affidavit was incredibly thorough, going above and beyond what was required of them. I am confident that we will learn more about the situation once the trial is over. RSBM

I too find the PCA thorough and believe it presented a strong collection of circumstantial evidence for probable cause for the arrest. In a general sense, I'm of the opinion that the evidence needed for the arrrest and the evidence that wil be presented at trial are two separate matters although I think that the prosecution''s case will likely build off what we (as the public)are currently privy to via PCA. MOO

Having said that I also think that at the time of arrest there were very, very likely matters or potential points/paths of evidence that were left out of the PCA. I think we can see from many of the warrants now partially released that investigation was still ongoing at the time of arrest. And since the arrest I am happy to assume that investigation has continued. It is clear that more warrants have been served. Also since arrest we know that many items,including the suspect's phone, laptop and other digital devices have been collected. So I assume that forensic investigation of these devices has occurred/is ongoing. MOO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

His DNA is at the scene on the knife sheath. We don't know where else it might be, yet.
We also don't know if LE can place the knife sheath in BK's possession via sales receipt, etc.

Right, lots of we don't knows.

We have the car data that shows him in the area.
We have a witness who saw a man that matches two distinctive feature of BK--his height and eyebrows. She doesn't have to pick him out of the lineup, just say that someone she didn't know with these two features was in the house at the time of the murders.

Except those aren't distinctive features at all. DM says 5'10 or taller. How many men on U of I's campus does that describe? DM says bushy eyebrows. How many men on U of I's campus does that describe? Probably very many. These features are vague and pretty common, IMO. I think DM's part in this is very weak, actually (which is probably good since I'm sure she's been traumatized and she deserves a break).

MOO.

 

[Gemmie]

Right, lots of we don't knows.



Except those aren't distinctive features at all. DM says 5'10 or taller. How many men on U of I's campus does that describe? DM says bushy eyebrows. How many men on U of I's campus does that describe? Probably very many. These features are vague and pretty common, IMO. I think DM's part in this is very weak, actually (which is probably good since I'm sure she's been traumatized and she deserves a break).

MOO.

While I agree that many men on campus could be 5'10" with bushy eyebrows, what they don't have is their DNA on a knife sheath left next to one of the victims, nor many other things in the affidavit (Car, phone info, etc.). So, had she said something like "He was pretty short and barely came up to my shoulder" (and had some facial feature BK doesn't have, like a face tatt or large scar for instance), then it could be something the defense could fight and likely win that argument. But he DOES have bushy eyebrows, and he IS ~5'10"... so while that doesn't scream BK, added together with other "BK" things it's rather damning IMO.