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

Status
Not open for further replies.
And it's time to ask the question again:

From today's additions
AT&T & Snapchat -
The documents or materials contain facts or statements that might threaten or endanger the life of safety of individuals

Whose life? BK is in jail, the four are dead, everyone knows the names of DM and BF, so whose life is in danger if an affidavit of PC for AT&T and Snapchat isn't
Good points, @Observe_dont_Absorb. I agree it's possible BK "ultimately didn't mind" going into the system / a version of "death by cop" if he got caught, and he did.

It has been discussed as a possibility quite a bit back on earlier threads, as I posted about, but maybe not as eloquently or thoroughly on underling reasons as you have. ;)

He seems from outward appearances to be okay with being incarcerated (e.g., not on any medication for anxiety or mental health stability AFAIK, staying quiet in his cell watching TV and being fed vegan cuisine which is important dietarily to him, per MSM news articles thus far).

And early after his arrest, there was a report in MSM that he was heard (unverified source) reassuring himself out loud in jail saying to himself "It's okay, you're okay, you can do this" or something along those lines.

Which if true, indicated to me he was maybe temporarily stressed by the incarceration situation and needed to soothe himself verbally, but he hasn't asked for any medical attention to help him cope, AFAIK, although it may be happening and not made public.

He seems overall calm, cool, and collected in his appearances on the way into and in court since his arrest, IMO.

When coupled with him telling his PA PD after his arrest "he believes he will be exonerated" which seems a pretty low key form of denying wrondoing, and waiving his right to a speedy PH, it seems like he is adjusting to being in jail or realizes he is in it for the long haul and doesn't seem to mind all that much.

This is just anecdotal and speculation that in comparison to other accused murder suspects who may go kicking and screaming and fight for bail or a speedy PH and make more declarative statements about their innocence, including entering a plea (whereas he stood silent) he seems pretty complacent about being in custody, for now anyway...

MOO
I’ve never thought he said anything about being exonerated; to me that statement sounded like boilerplate verbiage from a defense attny. ICBW JMO
 
I knew (hoped) that. :) I'm tired and delirious tonight, so it's probably not the best time for me to try to interpret all these documents, which I can barely interpret on a good day! One last note, though...BK did ask if anyone else had been arrested. I don't personally think anyone else was involved, but multiple numbers is interesting.
I believe BK was referring to his parents as that was where he was staying at the time. Big disclaimer I don't believe BK's parents were involved in any way. They are victims just as well.

moo
 
Another possibility is that LE did not find any digital evidence on the original google warrant and they now have to dig deeper? The time period is the same as before Jan 1 2021- Dec 30 2022 (not focusing on something found). There are three sealed google warrants in between these two for BK though (we do not know who those are for but BK is listed in these two, why not listed in the sealed 3?). MOO
Could BK have used someone else's account? Perhaps that is why BK is not listed. He would have been at home in Jan 21.

MOO
 
Re: Strava: It's not clear to me that there is space there. I think it could be where the page ends and the next begins, Imo. Other warrants have used dots and blanks with inter-joining words. I think the warrant is seeking data on a strava account using an IMEI (device number)- as an identifier. If there are other identifiers redacted in the space then I think they would be a phone number or email address, not names. MOO
Snipped FF

It does look like there is not much space in the written warrant.

There are five spaces before the IMEI on the receipt of the Strava warrant. In other warrants, when it is just the IMEI or phone plus imei, it is listed right under description of property (MOO since I am too tired to go look one up). BK has three email plus number and IMEI listed in some warrants - like this:

1685688469752.png

So that is four spaces plus IMEI.

In contrast: The strava warrant June 27-Dec 30 says this

all Strava accounts linked by recovery email, cookie, Android ID, Creation IP or phone number associated with the following identifiers: Five spaces plus IMEI as below MOO

The strava warrant receipt:


1685687878771.png

If LE found an additional number or email for BK, that would account for five spaces plus IMEI. Then asking for all accounts linked to any of those. Or it could be someone elses accounts (say four victims plus BK, maybe?) that they want to see whose strava linked to. MOO
 
Could BK have used someone else's account? Perhaps that is why BK is not listed. He would have been at home in Jan 21.

MOO

BK is listed in the latest google: (just noticed five spaces and IMEI on this one too @jepop)

1685703437724.png

Great point @girlhasnoname! Making me rethink about the sealed google warrants. Have to check those again today with that thought in mind.

MOO
 
Snipped FF

It does look like there is not much space in the written warrant.

There are five spaces before the IMEI on the receipt of the Strava warrant. In other warrants, when it is just the IMEI or phone plus imei, it is listed right under description of property (MOO since I am too tired to go look one up). BK has three email plus number and IMEI listed in some warrants - like this:

View attachment 426084

So that is four spaces plus IMEI.

In contrast: The strava warrant June 27-Dec 30 says this

all Strava accounts linked by recovery email, cookie, Android ID, Creation IP or phone number associated with the following identifiers: Five spaces plus IMEI as below MOO

The strava warrant receipt:


View attachment 426083

If LE found an additional number or email for BK, that would account for five spaces plus IMEI. Then asking for all accounts linked to any of those. Or it could be someone elses accounts (say four victims plus BK, maybe?) that they want to see whose strava linked to. MOO
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.
 
And it's time to ask the question again:

From today's additions
AT&T & Snapchat -
The documents or materials contain facts or statements that might threaten or endanger the life of safety of individuals

Whose life? BK is in jail, the four are dead, everyone knows the names of DM and BF, so whose life is in danger if an affidavit of PC for AT&T and Snapchat isn't sealed?
IMO, BK being in jail doesn't make him safe. He's getting hate mail. He's also in County Jail, which makes him more accessible to having his life in danger, than if he were in a Prison. And IMO, DM and BF lives are under constant threat and endangerment.
 
Snipped FF

It does look like there is not much space in the written warrant.

There are five spaces before the IMEI on the receipt of the Strava warrant. In other warrants, when it is just the IMEI or phone plus imei, it is listed right under description of property (MOO since I am too tired to go look one up). BK has three email plus number and IMEI listed in some warrants - like this:

View attachment 426084

So that is four spaces plus IMEI.

In contrast: The strava warrant June 27-Dec 30 says this

all Strava accounts linked by recovery email, cookie, Android ID, Creation IP or phone number associated with the following identifiers: Five spaces plus IMEI as below MOO

The strava warrant receipt:


View attachment 426083

If LE found an additional number or email for BK, that would account for five spaces plus IMEI. Then asking for all accounts linked to any of those. Or it could be someone elses accounts (say four victims plus BK, maybe?) that they want to see whose strava linked to. MOO
Thanks a lot @Nila Aella. That's really helpful and makes this one easier to read. There's definately more before the IMEI,could be alternate emails or like you say victims' names redacted plus an Imei.
 
BK is listed in the latest google: (just noticed five spaces and IMEI on this one too @jepop)

View attachment 426120

Great point @girlhasnoname! Making me rethink about the sealed google warrants. Have to check those again today with that thought in mind.

MOO
Thanks again @Nila Aella. I've since seen that the sealed Google accounts warrants fall between BK's redacted one and this latest one so all post arrest. There's so many the mind boggles so can only really do justice to one at a time! It's interesting that most of the identifiers are redacted. I'm thinking multiple email addresses but whilst not sure what "recovery email" means exactly, could it mean their looking for deleted email accounts from earlier periods? And associated phone numbers he had prior to opening the WA AT&T account on June 23rd 2022 perhaps? The scope is the same as the late Jan warrant, beginning in 2021. MOO
 
Totally agree. I think it's to give the TA's a lighter load (TA's do NOT want to do the work that was done in the past - many reasons). Individual grading of essay exams is, apparently, rather rare these days.

The "F" means "Hey, you didn't come ANYWHERE close to the standard of this class." Everyone else gets a C - while the prof/TA's await the final exam/project. I suppose that the really good students will be spurred on (and maybe pay attention to other graded assignments, as apparently no one else does).

This guy has been doing the TA oversight/mentoring for many years. I find it hard to believe that he messes up totally. Their goal in the 101 class is to get more students and more majors. I think that the really good students would be put off by this (but what percentage are they?) while the rest are really happy (because it means unless you really messed up, you're still in the running for an A/B).

Definitely helps with evals. I am biting my tongue here. At any rate, it's a fascinating side trip - which may actually be relevant in some manner. Would be strange if BK was simply trying to uphold "standards" in the face of this system.

IMO.

As I am in the thralls of grading right now, I have to say that ANYTHING that prevents the hysteria over midterm grades would be great. Oh my.

I think it was a mismatch of personal styles in teaching. Sounds like the Prof wants the message to be clear (the final, whether exam or paper or both) is more important. <modsnip: off topic>

IMO.

Best of luck grading!

IF you've correctly identified the professor's reasons for giving only C's and F's for midterm grades, the rest of the syllabus doesn't make sense to me. Call it a mismatch for sure, but I don't blame BK for having trouble if syllabi looked like the Spring 2020 one when he was a TA in 2022. Lots of text with lots of inconsistencies. If BK is usually outspoken with his opinions and we have reason to think he probably is, I could see him saying something whereas other TAs may have been reticent (although the Spring 2020 syllabus doesn't mention TAs at all. If TAs are routinely assigned for a year at WSU as we've been led to believe, either this prof had no TAs for the 2019-2020 year or they were fired like BK before spring or they were reassigned before spring. So I'm not sure how much "TA oversight/mentoring" the guy really does.) At any rate, a personality mismatch I can see, with maybe a very much secondary teaching style mismatch.

The Spring 2020 syllabus says

"Your final grade will be based on 3 examinations. Examinations will primarily be objective and come from the assigned readings and class lectures."

Later the syllabus says the 3 exams are equally weighted and worth 100 points each. IF, as you suggest, the prof wanted students to know the later tests counted more, a simple way to do that instead of giving only C & F midterm grades is to weight those later tests higher. Not as easy to average as 3-100 pt tests though but easy enough with a spreadsheet like Excel or in a grading program. At one point Bb wasn't easy to use that way but I think that kink was gone many years before 2020. Still, might have to teach the undergrads a bit of algebra (or a TA might have to.)

According to the course calendar, exam #1 fell on Mon Feb 24 before midterm grades were due on Wed Mar 4 and exams #2 & #3 fell after midterm. The syllabus also mentioned "quizzes" given randomly in class. Those couldn't be made up unless the makeup policy condition was met-- notifying the prof in advance of the absence (for a randomly given, unannounced quiz) But apparently quizzes didn't count in the final grade anyway if final grades were based only on the 3 announced 100-point exams.

It's unclear, however, what the exact date was for exam #3. It is the last listing on the course calendar and says TBD. And for this Spring 2020 MWF class the last date of lecture listed on the syllabus was Monday April 27. But per the registrar
The Washington State University General Catalog
the last day classes met that term was Friday May 1. So my bet is the exam was given as a class exam on Wed April 29 or Fri May 1, not during the final exam period with no class mtg on the other official day of classes that week. Maybe that's not allowed at WSU (planning to cancel classes the last week of the term has not been allowed where I've taught) so the date for exam #3 is not in writing but is TBD instead.

At any rate, if the prof continued that exam practice in 2022, BK was off the hook for not administering finals in Dec during finals week (Mon Dec 12-Fri Dec 16) as part of his TA. The official last day of classes was Fri Dec 9 but if the prof's MWF 2022 syllabi were like this one, the last class meeting he scheduled would have been Mon Dec 5 with the last test or assignment being TBD and likely done that last week of classes.
JMO
 
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?
 
Last edited:
I don't think the PA GJ was set up to help the ID case, at all. From my understanding, the only real things we know is that BK's parents had to testify, and that the information could be shared with ID. With me not having a strong understanding of legal matters, I'm not sure I fully have this right, but from what I've been reading here, the fact that sharing with ID was granted by the court has to mean something. Whatever BK's parents had to testify to has to pertain to a PA crime, and it has to pertain to BK, or why would the sharing with ID be granted? If their testimonies had absolutely nothing to do with BK, would ID attorneys have rights to his parents' testimonies on an unrelated case in PA? Sorry for all the question... :)

Great question! I await the answer as well (it might be further down thread, but I'm not there yet ;)) It would sway my theory of it having something to do with tampering with the evidence of the ID case while he was in PA.
 
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.

Interesting theory about a burner phone!

But I really don't think he could conjure up all that and not eventually trip himself up. After all, he drove his own car and got NA on a knife sheath that he probably precleaned before putting on gloves.

The idea someone said about touch blood hidden in the roll up part of the seat belt would be something he probably never thought thru. And a seat belt is woven textured and blood would seep into the weave of the belt and be extractable.

I think they have one or more of the victim's DNA in his car or apartment
 
Interesting theory about a burner phone!

But I really don't think he could conjure up all that and not eventually trip himself up. After all, he drove his own car and got NA on a knife sheath that he probably precleaned before putting on gloves.

The idea someone said about touch blood hidden in the roll up part of the seat belt would be something he probably never thought thru. And a seat belt is woven textured and blood would seep into the weave of the belt and be extractable.

I think they have one or more of the victim's DNA in his car or apartment
I agree, although the seat belt part I'm not sure about, because he's already been pulled over for a seat belt violation, I think, so he likely didn't use it. Jmo.
 
Great question! I await the answer as well (it might be further down thread, but I'm not there yet ;)) It would sway my theory of it having something to do with tampering with the evidence of the ID case while he was in PA.
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
70
Guests online
2,403
Total visitors
2,473

Forum statistics

Threads
590,011
Messages
17,928,948
Members
228,038
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top