4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #82

Status
Not open for further replies.
They obtained the search warrants both for snapchat and AT&T at the same day (march 30) and both receive date is april 12 .

So how could these two phone numbers show up on their radar through snapchat for this specific time frame if the snapchat warrant info didn't come before the AT&T's or vica versa?

So if these two search warrants (AT&T, snapchat) have something to do with each other, what prompted them to ask for them for this specific time frame?

When and how these phone numbers got on their radar? From which search warrants?

It can't be that that they got them from the first snapchat warrants from november, because those didn't cover the june 23-august 1 time frame.

Or that's what happened they had these suspicious phone numbers for 4 months and suddenly decided to obtain search warrants for them and extend the snapchat SWs time frame?
It crossed my mind that because the AT & T Warrant time frame starts June 23 that maybe they got the numbers from a deleted log on BK's phone. As you said, it was served March 30th so I'd guess the forensics of his actual device would have been finalised by then? But I'm guessing. BK signed up with AT&T on 23rd June 2022. The warrant's looking for names connected with the numbers. IDK, was pondering this earlier. MOO

ETA: They could have something to do with eachother,at any rate it's all going to make sense in retrospect (!), but it's also possible that investigators just got them signed off on the same day, efficient use of time and all that. MOO
 
Last edited:
It crossed my mind that because the AT & T Warrant time frame starts June 23 that maybe they got the numbers from a deleted log on BK's phone. As you said, it was served March 30th so I'd guess the forensics of his actual device would have been finalised by then? But I'm guessing. BK signed up with AT&T on 23rd June 2022. The warrant's looking for names connected with the numbers. IDK, was pondering this earlier. MOO

ETA: They could have something to do with eachother,at any rate it's all going to make sense in retrospect (!), but it's also possible that investigators just got them signed off on the same day, efficient use of time and all that. MOO


So do you think these phone numbers showed up as deleted incoming or outgoing calls or something else on BK's phone? But what made them suspicious?
And how do the snapchat warrants come in this picture?
 
When and how these phone numbers got on their radar? From which search warrants?

Or that's what happened they had these suspicious phone numbers for 4 months and suddenly decided to obtain search warrants for them and extend the snapchat SWs time frame?
Snipped FF

In November, LE did geofence warrants. T Mobile geofence first (Nov 13 3-5AM 2 miles), then T mobile with two unknown numbers second (august 1 to present Nov 16). Could be the same numbers? MOO


 
So do you think these phone numbers showed up as deleted incoming or outgoing calls or something else on BK's phone? But what made them suspicious?
And how do the snapchat warrants come in this picture?
Hah, I'm guessing, I've got no idea what made them suspicious if indeed that's where investigators acquired knowledge of them. I just can't think where else they may have come from. Incoming,outcoming?? No idea. Perhaps if they are from a deleted log, LE wanted to find out more because of frequency of calling? But I stress, I am just speculating. There may be another explanation. I suppose another possibility is that ivestigators somehow found these numbers written down somewhere and wanted to find out if BK registered two extra numbers with AT&T. How would that work? No idea? Three numbers one phone? Or three numbers three devices? This is all speculation.
 
IDK re sealed google warrants.I suppose there might be some clues in the wording for sealing. My guess would be likely BK's if after arrest. I can't remember the inital dates for sealing. If served before BK arrest late Nov to early Dec -hard to guess IMO. Possible alternate POI now eliminated which would also justify a reason for the continued sealing. I do have a premise that LE were not soley focused on BK after Nov 29, and would have continued following feasible leads including getting PC for those leads where deemed necessary via detective informed affidavits. MOO. Do you have any thoughts on reasons for sealing?
Snipped for focus

Reasons for sealing: I look at both the prosecution motion reasons and then the Judges order reasons. Many times the judge whittles it down, sometimes she accepts all reasons in the motion. This is the hardest part to decipher, because the judge sometimes comes back later with another extension that changes the reasons a little bit. With so many warrants, it is hard to keep track.

For sealed google: the latest reasons

Originally November 30/12-1 (MM signed second date)
Latest seal 3/8:

1685719742062.png

Originally Feb 23/25
Latest seal 3/24:

1685719812935.png

Originally Feb 23/25
Latest seal 3/24
1685719860821.png
 
Snipped for focus

Reasons for sealing: I look at both the prosecution motion reasons and then the Judges order reasons. Many times the judge whittles it down, sometimes she accepts all reasons in the motion. This is the hardest part to decipher, because the judge sometimes comes back later with another extension that changes the reasons a little bit. With so many warrants, it is hard to keep track.

For sealed google: the latest reasons

Originally November 30/12-1 (MM signed second date)
Latest seal 3/8:

View attachment 426137

Originally Feb 23/25
Latest seal 3/24:

View attachment 426138

Originally Feb 23/25
Latest seal 3/24
View attachment 426139
So, does this language mean it could be for any one of these reasons, a combination of these reasons, or all of these reasons?
 
You could be right that the parents' GJ testimony is about BK tampering with evidence in PA that pertains to the ID crime. BUT if so, then I think it was still only an attempt to help ID. It was unethical in my opinion and maybe a Constitutional violation legally per <modsnip>

Here's why I think that.

IF BK is found guilty of major crimes in ID that carry a major sentence or even death, IMO no way PA will drag him back to PA to be tried for a piddling crime like getting rid of evidence of the ID crime. So the GJ investigation was likely for ID.

IF BK is found not guilty of the ID crimes, IMO no way PA will charge him with getting rid of material that pertained to a crime that legally it's been found he didn't do. That just wouldn't happen. Trials cost money besides. So the GJ wasn't a serious investigation.

Your reasoning makes total sense. Thank you
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The sheer size and scope would be my guess. They had over 330 million active members in 2018. Plus, BK could have had multiple user names and IP addresses if he was using different computers (personal, office, phone, etc.)

Reddit Statistics For 2023: Eye-Opening Usage & Traffic Data
The first reddit (KG) came back with information requested that was returned in an email. This second one came back with a link for LE to download the information. According to the return, they waited to download it.

1685720595510.png



So, does this language mean it could be for any one of these reasons, a combination of these reasons, or all of these reasons?
IMO all reasons listed by the Judge, but IANAL. I think the judge has to be convinced of the reasons, then she lists the reasons she believes are relevant in the order that she signs. MOO
 
Snipped for focus

Reasons for sealing: I look at both the prosecution motion reasons and then the Judges order reasons. Many times the judge whittles it down, sometimes she accepts all reasons in the motion. This is the hardest part to decipher, because the judge sometimes comes back later with another extension that changes the reasons a little bit. With so many warrants, it is hard to keep track.

For sealed google: the latest reasons

Originally November 30/12-1 (MM signed second date)
Latest seal 3/8:

View attachment 426137

Originally Feb 23/25
Latest seal 3/24:

View attachment 426138

Originally Feb 23/25
Latest seal 3/24
View attachment 426139
Thanks again! Could hypothesise that sealed warrant returns contain info that may be used as evidence in trial then. Could be related to BK, could be related to victims. MOO

Just squizzed at the most recent seal and redact order for the latest redacted Google warrant for BK and similarly the Judge cites 1) intimate facts and statements and 2) preserve right to fair trial.
 
Snipped for focus

Reasons for sealing: I look at both the prosecution motion reasons and then the Judges order reasons. Many times the judge whittles it down, sometimes she accepts all reasons in the motion. This is the hardest part to decipher, because the judge sometimes comes back later with another extension that changes the reasons a little bit. With so many warrants, it is hard to keep track.

For sealed google: the latest reasons

Originally November 30/12-1 (MM signed second date)
Latest seal 3/8:

View attachment 426137

Originally Feb 23/25
Latest seal 3/24:

View attachment 426138

Originally Feb 23/25
Latest seal 3/24
View attachment 426139
Thanks, @Nila Aella, for putting the reasons for sealing over time in one place.

I've always interpreted the "It is necessary to preserve the right to a fair trial" added reason starting in February, as due to some very compelling and potentially damaging evidence against BK that LE had collected during their investigation after his arrest (Jan & into Feb).

If there was such evidence that got out into the public domain, I'm guessing it would damage his right to a fair trial in terms of presumption of innocence.

Just spitballing and JMO.

JMO
 
Thanks, @Nila Aella, for putting the reasons for sealing over time in one place.

I've always interpreted the "It is necessary to preserve the right to a fair trial" added reason starting in February, as due to some very compelling and potentially damaging evidence against BK that LE had collected during their investigation after his arrest (Jan & into Feb).

If there was such evidence that got out into the public domain, I'm guessing it would damage his right to a fair trial in terms of presumption of innocence.

Just spitballing and JMO.

JMO
And also @Nila Aella ...

It could also be such evidence that doesn't have anything to do with THE CASE, but maybe a big violation of privacy, such as medication. IMO MOO
 
Thanks, @Nila Aella, for putting the reasons for sealing over time in one place.

I've always interpreted the "It is necessary to preserve the right to a fair trial" added reason starting in February, as due to some very compelling and potentially damaging evidence against BK that LE had collected during their investigation after his arrest (Jan & into Feb).

If there was such evidence that got out into the public domain, I'm guessing it would damage his right to a fair trial in terms of presumption of innocence.

Just spitballing and JMO.

JMO
Just want to clarify: My post contained three different sealed google warrants and I only posted the latest reasoning in each. It is difficult to keep track and equally difficult to post about each one in a clear manner. MOO

Most of them start off with the fair trial reason included in the motions to seal. Actually, most of the motions to seal include all reasons, then the judge sometimes decreases the number or keeps them all....most keep the fair trial reason in the order. The first sealed google one I listed is an outlier in that it does not have the fair trial reason. MOO

ET remove boilerplate and fix a sentence
And also @Nila Aella ...

It could also be such evidence that doesn't have anything to do with THE CASE, but maybe a big violation of privacy, such as medication. IMO MOO
Definitely Yes!
 
Last edited:
to me that statement sounded like boilerplate verbiage from a defense attny. ICBW JMO
Well, I'm going to disagree there. The judge signed off on this as the reason. And I don't think they lie in court documents. PRRs require that documents be shared unless certain conditions apply; same with judicial rules. the links are all over the place, so I'm going with not a lie, and actual conditions, and they vary from order to order, so IMO the judge is not so careless.
 
Could what we're seeing in these latest warrants suggest that BK was using multiple identities? I mean, if he was indeed stalking people online, or in person, might he have used different names and email addresses to set up accounts so they did not appear to be coming from the same person, even via the records? Maybe so far as identity theft? It might explain redacted names to protect people, BK asking if anyone else was arrested, multiple phones and numbers, etc.

I know I'm out there with this idea, but back to my theory of him setting up an alibi for himself, maybe he also wanted to point the crime to someone else. He knew he'd likely be seen either by people or cameras leaving his housing area in Pullman, so he left with his known phone on. Once he left Pullman and turned off his phone, maybe he drove (thinking himself invisible at this point) to the east side of Moscow and turned around to head to King Rd., he then turned on a different phone, either a burner, which couldn't be identified, or a phone he'd activated using a stolen or fake identity. At the scene of the crime, on the night of the crime, LE would only have footage of a car heading west from the southeast corner of Moscow, and then at King Rd. with no identifiable plates, and a phone number that they couldn't identify, or would identify as the wrong person. Again, not giving too much credit to BK, but even if he wasn't smart, he thought he was, and with his interest in digital evidence tracking in crime, this seems like something he'd try to outsmart LE with. IDK.

There are many variations on this theme. The DD warrants and the Tinder warrants weren't for nothing IMO.
 
So, does this language mean it could be for any one of these reasons, a combination of these reasons, or all of these reasons?
The warrants do use the and/or, but those are still documents to which someone is taking an oath in the supporting affidavit. The judge's orders are not "boilerplate". Those are stating the facts for the judge's actions.

Standard language as set forth in the legislation and rules may be the same, but the judge is not lying about their reasons IMO. People keep using "boilerplate" as if it's thrown in willy-nilly without purpose, but I can assure you that even in the most boring contracts, "time is of the essence" clause has a purpose, and there can definitely be a throw down over it later. Ditto with "form and substance" - seems like a minor thing at the end of a long document, and it's found in so many of the documents I regularly reviewed, but that's a big throw down in certain arcane worlds.

I will see if I can find some quick links from my previous posts, but regardless of how many times it's insisted that the judge just punted and used boilerplate language in an order, saying it doesn't make it so, and the orders change for reasons after conference with counsel, so there's that.


ETA:

JUST BECAUSE the language is standard and matches what is used here, it does not mean that the judge just threw it in for grins; the language chosen matters:

This is the law:
Pretty sure the judge and LE and prosecutors aren't lying about their reasons. They cannot just make stuff up and throw it in.

Here are examples used in previous posts that show differences:


 
Last edited:
Last edited:
I appreciate everyone's explanations on all the warrants. It's overwhelming to me. In case anyone else wants a link to all the documents, this media article contains a link directly to them.

Sealed search warrants made public in case against Bryan Kohberger

Idaho Judicial Cases of Interest

It is confusing for sure! I found a case back in the olden days of a couple of months ago :) and it shows exactly what I'm talking about for those who want to understand how the boilerplate language is applied in a case. On page 2 of this motion, the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney (whom I thank immensely for her clarity here) first cites all the reasons allowed for sealing the document under I.C.A.R. 32. Following that, she lays out her reasons for requesting that the document be sealed. In those points, she only uses three of the five "boilerplate" pieces from the I.C.A.R. (the other two points are included in the paragraph above. Begin with If the court redacts... if you want to see how this was done.) This is how the rules are applied, and just because the document contains the same matching verbiage doesn't mean it doesn't mean what it means.

Whoops, forgot to include the link:

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR01-21-34839/081622 Motion to Seal Record Pursuant to Idaho Court Administrative Rule 32.pdf
 
Last edited:

"I always feel as if I am not there, completely depersonalized," the post reads, followed by a list of symptoms the user was allegedly experiencing, including lack of comprehension, depression, suicidal thoughts, "Crazy thoughts," "Delusions of Grandeur," "poor social skills" and "NO EMOTION."


The last line of the post reads: "When I get home, I am mean to my family. This started when VS did. I felt no emotion and along with the depersonalization,

I can say and do whatever I want with little remorse…
everyone hates me pretty much I am an a-----e."
 

"I always feel as if I am not there, completely depersonalized," the post reads, followed by a list of symptoms the user was allegedly experiencing, including lack of comprehension, depression, suicidal thoughts, "Crazy thoughts," "Delusions of Grandeur," "poor social skills" and "NO EMOTION."


The last line of the post reads: "When I get home, I am mean to my family. This started when VS did. I felt no emotion and along with the depersonalization,

I can say and do whatever I want with little remorse… everyone hates me pretty much I am an a-----e."
I wonder why there are not any Tapatalk warrants? And why not BK's reddit prior to June 1, 2022? Would these two examples from the article not be considered evidence in any way because it was not taking place in the time of question?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
128
Guests online
3,537
Total visitors
3,665

Forum statistics

Threads
592,631
Messages
17,972,149
Members
228,844
Latest member
butiwantedthatname
Back
Top