4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #93

Status
Not open for further replies.
To add to the weather related piece of the conversation—I got married in January (3 years ago) in Montana. the weather is not all that different, it’s about a 6 hour drive to Moscow. The day we got married I would say it was around 40, but there was ice fog that made it feel SO much colder. it really changes the environment and makes it feel unpleasant to be outside, especially in the dark.

this is what the defense team’s story is looking like to me…MOO of course :)
 

Attachments

  • IMG_4039.jpeg
    IMG_4039.jpeg
    235 KB · Views: 39
Yes, I agree @jepop . Both sides know now.
They didn't fully know at the time the PCA was written, since they didn't have all the data. BK's physical phone was analyzed after his arrest, along with the various warrants for apps and digital accounts which were issued later. Then, full CAST was only known to both parties after the full report was finished on March 31st. But at this point now, yes, they know. IMO that's why both parties are suddenly so adamant that there was no stalking: because now, they know a lot more than at the time the PCA was written up.

Of the two options you listed, I would tend to believe option 2 is pretty close to what the Defense seems to be going with. I don't know for a fact of course, but if the data can back it up, they will say the phone was never switched off, but BK merely entered an area with no coverage, and drove around there for two hours. They will question the location accuracy of the pings.
Like I said in my previous posts, if the phone truly was on, but just out of range, the D will be able to show this rather easily. It would be very stupid of them to lie on something so easy to know definitively, and, whether you like them or not, those lawyers are definitely not dumb.
It cuts both ways: if BK switched the phone off, there's no way the D can reasonably deny it: it's not something anyone would consider controversial. The same goes if the phone was set to airplane mode.
I'll add that if the phone ran out of battery and was charging for two hours before being turned back on, that low batt will also show unquestionably.
There won't be a battle of experts on that topic, but more likely IMO there will be one about the accuracy of the ping locations in general, not just for those two hours but also for the 12 previous times he supposedly visited the house and for the morning after. Massoth kind of hinted at that at the last hearing.
 
Last edited:
Hah - I posted before I saw your post layer. No these CAST experts are, well experts. They can explain it like you're five years old.
I have no doubt, that slide presentation I linked is slick. But in a cloud of opposing experts, things become hazy, some jurors tune out, some get weird ideas, anything can happen. It's a valid concern, IMO
 
Thank goodness for the quote feature. The other thread closed while I researched and wrote all this. LOL

I agree with the technical portion of what you said about the cell phone, but I don't see it as a game change or an alibi IMO. I am not a nerd, although I dearly love nerdy stuff. I guess that means I speak conversational rather than fluent nerd LOL. But wouldn't the phone gyroscope, etc., simply confirm that he had the phone with him, that it was not receiving/accepting service for some reason, and that he was in some form of motion? He could have been anywhere.

Page 13 of the PCA stated his phone was on when he left home that morning and it stopped reporting to the network at 2:47am, suggesting pretty clearly that he left home and THEN turned it off. If he was just going to a park to stargaze in the ice fog, why turn it off or put it in airplane mode after leaving home?

The PCA also says the phone didn't report again until almost 5am, near Blaine ID, which is 20 minutes south and slightly east of Moscow ID. So, he left home at 2:45-ish, drove 25 minutes to Wawawai Park, and by 5:00 was in Blaine, which is another 40 minutes way. That only leaves him an hour to stargaze in the ice fog. Actually, from a literal standpoint, he could have driven to the park and still been at King Road by 4am to commit murder and in Blaine by 5. But I disgress. If he could make it from home to the park and then on to Blaine, why turn his phone back on in Blaine? Is the defense going to suggest he knew his way around well enough to make it to the park and to Blaine without any guidance, but could not get from Blaine back home again? That last leg was pretty straightforward compared to the other drives.

Plus, it seems rather odd for a member generation that can't eat a meal without their phone, as well as unsafe to habitually drive around in the middle of the night with your phone out of service. I have also wondered, with the cost of gas so high, how a starving graduate student could afford to routinely be driving aimlessly around during the night. He didn't have another job so he was dependent on his stipend. I would expect him to have to watch almost every penny. Driving around is a pretty expensive way of passing the time. MOOooo
He was a problem for his parents and they tried among other things to money his interests. He beat heroin and addixt behaviors like stealing from family so they were probably more than happy to do it. But on the other hand Addicts often become burglars and prowlers to fund habit. Part A of this criine is thenperpetrators ease with hot prowling.

The alibi is weird because she intends to present this and then to extract a doubt on on the crioss of the prosecutions testimony of the cell about whether the phone was off or out of signal. The Snake river river cut is there south west of Pullman and that is where she is going to his "elsewhere," while his DNA was sitting on the snap of the sheath of the murder weapon.

If he thought of this in advance that would be the first time his education really looks like it might paly a role in planning.
 
Re the alibi

I actually feel embarassed that the public and others seem to be treated like idiots with this ridiculous alibi about "watching moon and stars" :rolleyes:

I feel sorry for the victims' families that they have to go through all this.

JMO
It's more than embarrassing. It's preposterous. Stargazing? This is what we waited a year and a half for? Is it really a wonder why so many think our justice system has become a joke??
 
Yes, I agree @jepop . Both sides know now.
They didn't fully know at the time the PCA was written, since they didn't have all the data. BK's physical phone was analyzed after his arrest, along with the various warrants for apps and digital accounts which were issued later. Then, full CAST was only known to both parties after the full report was finished on March 31st. But at this point now, yes, they know. IMO that's why both parties are suddenly so adamant that there was no stalking: because now, they know a lot more than at the time the PCA was written up.

Of the two options you listed, I would tend to believe option 2 is pretty close to what the Defense seems to be going with. I don't know for a fact of course, but if the data can back it up, they will say the phone was never switched off, but BK merely entered an area with no coverage, and drove around there for two hours. They will question the location accuracy of the pings.
Like I said in my previous posts, if the phone truly was on, but just out of range, the D will be able to show this rather easily. It would be very stupid of them to lie on something so easy to know definitely, and, whether you like them or not, those lawyers are definitely not dumb.
It cuts both ways: if BK switched the phone off, there's no way the D can reasonably deny it: it's not something anyone would consider controversial.
There won't be a battle of experts on that topic, but more likely IMO there will be one about the accuracy of the ping locations in general, not just for those two hours but also for the 12 previous times he supposedly visited the house and for the morning after. Massoth kind of hinted at that at the last hearing.
I actually think both options I listed are ridiculous and think the D will try to use their expert in some other way for alibi support even if phone was off. Will have to see what this expert comes up with. . I'm not holding my breath though and I'm tired of D skirting around the absolute basics of notice of alibi defence and relevant ICRs. Imo in prep for alibi defence at this point the Ds job is to state alibi for the time of the crime, the rest is to do with refuting the state's potential case which we aren't discussing moo (Perhaps Kohberger will take the stand to explain his activities in those two hours, though I doubt it),

BTW. RE the stalking blow up on the last thread. Imo BT was talking about the public court record in the context of non dissemination order and two survey questions when he said "no stalking"... stalking is not a known fact in the public record of the case at this time, yet it was presented in survey as a 'fact' of the official public record. There is a very strict context in which judge and P understand the current public record, and the stalking convo and refs to facts are referred to in that context...see time stamp 2Hs 16 mins approx of 10th April hearing.

At time stamp 2hs.20mins approx BT mentions which part of non D order he saw as compromised by those last two survey questions...specifically the dissemination of info that may form part of the Ps case.

One JJJ's expressed concerns was not to add to speculation and extrapolations produced by media off of the PCA. I also noted JJJs numerous reiterations of the definition of public record as the official public record. After the defence's summary by Massoth (time stamp 5 approx minutes from end of hearing) judge corrected her contention that P through the PCA told the media that bk stalked a victim. Moo PCA was written at a time prior to forensic analysis of BKs phone, gps and more detailed cast analysis...it was written carefully because the investigation was ongoing into any build up to the crime. Moo I really don't think the P were telling us the public on 10th April in a public hearing about their future case and what will and won't be used at trial. They were complaining re dissemintion of some info which is not a fact of the current official public record.Moo

I think this has been widely misunderstood from the last hearing jmo. Imo we don't know what evidence of possible surveilance or maybe 'stalking' (imo of the house) the P may present at trial. As members of the public, we don't know the extent of info that will make up prosecution case.And this is a as it should be until the trial

*links to 10th April hearing are on previous thread I believe.
 
The
He was a problem for his parents and they tried among other things to money his interests. He beat heroin and addixt behaviors like stealing from family so they were probably more than happy to do it. But on the other hand Addicts often become burglars and prowlers to fund habit. Part A of this criine is thenperpetrators ease with hot prowling.

The alibi is weird because she intends to present this and then to extract a doubt on on the crioss of the prosecutions testimony of the cell about whether the phone was off or out of signal. The Snake river river cut is there south west of Pullman and that is where she is going to his "elsewhere," while his DNA was sitting on the snap of the sheath of the murder weapon.

If he thought of this in advance that would be the first time his education really looks like it might paly a role in planning.
When it comes down to it, the DNA will be the main thing the jury concentrates on to put him in the house on that night.

I think the cell phone, blurry video and other data will be used "to tell the story" of when and how BK's DNA was left on a knife sheath in the house in a room where the murders took place.

Once DNA is allowed to be introduced as evidence... that does it. However, I can imagine a scenario where BK says he once went to a part there and left a knife sheath accidentally. BUT, he would have to TESTIFY himself to say that... and that would be BAD for him because the prosecution would have free reign to nail him to a wall with his "alibi".
 
Yes, I agree @jepop . Both sides know now.
They didn't fully know at the time the PCA was written, since they didn't have all the data. BK's physical phone was analyzed after his arrest, along with the various warrants for apps and digital accounts which were issued later. Then, full CAST was only known to both parties after the full report was finished on March 31st. But at this point now, yes, they know. IMO that's why both parties are suddenly so adamant that there was no stalking: because now, they know a lot more than at the time the PCA was written up.

Of the two options you listed, I would tend to believe option 2 is pretty close to what the Defense seems to be going with. I don't know for a fact of course, but if the data can back it up, they will say the phone was never switched off, but BK merely entered an area with no coverage, and drove around there for two hours. They will question the location accuracy of the pings.
Like I said in my previous posts, if the phone truly was on, but just out of range, the D will be able to show this rather easily. It would be very stupid of them to lie on something so easy to know definitively, and, whether you like them or not, those lawyers are definitely not dumb.
It cuts both ways: if BK switched the phone off, there's no way the D can reasonably deny it: it's not something anyone would consider controversial. The same goes if the phone was set to airplane mode.
I'll add that if the phone ran out of battery and was charging for two hours before being turned back on, that low batt will also show unquestionably.
There won't be a battle of experts on that topic, but more likely IMO there will be one about the accuracy of the ping locations in general, not just for those two hours but also for the 12 previous times he supposedly visited the house and for the morning after. Massoth kind of hinted at that at the last hearing.

It's more than embarrassing. It's preposterous. Stargazing? This is what we waited a year and a half for? Is it really a wonder why so many think our justice system has become a joke??
It's true he haunts the night.
Star gazing is an attempt to put positive spin on it.
 
Yes, I agree @jepop . Both sides know now.
They didn't fully know at the time the PCA was written, since they didn't have all the data. BK's physical phone was analyzed after his arrest, along with the various warrants for apps and digital accounts which were issued later. Then, full CAST was only known to both parties after the full report was finished on March 31st. But at this point now, yes, they know. IMO that's why both parties are suddenly so adamant that there was no stalking: because now, they know a lot more than at the time the PCA was written up.

Of the two options you listed, I would tend to believe option 2 is pretty close to what the Defense seems to be going with. I don't know for a fact of course, but if the data can back it up, they will say the phone was never switched off, but BK merely entered an area with no coverage, and drove around there for two hours. They will question the location accuracy of the pings.
Like I said in my previous posts, if the phone truly was on, but just out of range, the D will be able to show this rather easily. It would be very stupid of them to lie on something so easy to know definitively, and, whether you like them or not, those lawyers are definitely not dumb.
It cuts both ways: if BK switched the phone off, there's no way the D can reasonably deny it: it's not something anyone would consider controversial. The same goes if the phone was set to airplane mode.
I'll add that if the phone ran out of battery and was charging for two hours before being turned back on, that low batt will also show unquestionably.
There won't be a battle of experts on that topic, but more likely IMO there will be one about the accuracy of the ping locations in general, not just for those two hours but also for the 12 previous times he supposedly visited the house and for the morning after. Massoth kind of hinted at that at the last hearing.
Is that the consensus on the 'stalking' theory? Because if so, IMO people are misinterpreting what the prosecution said in the last hearing (assuming that's where this is stemming from).

IMO...They were not saying that there's no evidence of stalking.

IMO what prosecutors were saying is that some of the information being reported on as evidence of 'stalking' (rumors, essentially) is not only NOT in public record, but also not accurate, and would not make it to trial. That was the contextg of the conversation. Which IMO is completely independent from the information that's in the PCA. Which pretty much can only be interpreted as evidence of stalking.

IMO prosecutors have evidence that he stalked and will present evidence that he stalked at trial. They are in no way shying away from it.

Or maybe I'm misinterpreting what you wrote.

Also, I'm pretty sure (IMO) that whatever expert the defense puts on the stand to present cellular data will be in opposition to whoever the prosecutors have. I'm just not buying for a single second that prosecutors all of the sudden got a batch of data that made them abandon part of the PCA.

IMO This defense's expert will likely interpret the cellular evidence the same way Henry Lee interpreted the DNA evidence at OJs trial. Which is - present an alternative plausible theory from an authoritative source. And I think cellular data and it's millions of variables by it's very nature (what us laymen know: radio waves, tower technology, service provider, triangulation, signal strength, interference, buildings, weather etc etc) is the perfect foil for that sort of stuff.

MOO
 
Last edited:
So agree, proof are things like Single Source DNA matching BK 5 Octillion + times on a sheath left under a murder victim. That's PROOF. Not this measly 'I was out star watching' on a cold, foggy night for chits and giggles".

No, nope, and nopers BK. Not buying it and neither will a jury.

IMO

I'm shocked his attorney would present such garbage with a straight face.
 
Is that the consensus on the 'stalking' theory? Because if so, IMO people are misinterpreting what the prosecution said in the last hearing (assuming that's where this is stemming from).

IMO...They were not saying that there's no evidence of stalking.

IMO what prosecutors were saying is that some of the information being reported on as evidence of 'stalking' (rumors, essentially) is not only NOT in public record, but also not accurate, and would not make it to trial. That was the contextg of the conversation. Which IMO is completely independent from the information that's in the PCA. Which pretty much can only be interpreted as evidence of stalking.

IMO prosecutors have evidence that he stalked and will present evidence that he stalked at trial. They are in no way shying away from it.

Or maybe I'm misinterpreting what you wrote.

Also, I'm pretty sure (IMO) that whatever expert the defense puts on the stand to present cellular data will be in opposition to whoever the prosecutors have. I'm just not buying for a single second that prosecutors all of the sudden got a batch of data that made them abandon part of the PCA.

IMO This defense's expert will likely interpret the cellular evidence the same way Henry Lee interpreted the DNA evidence at OJs trial. Which is - present an alternative plausible theory from an authoritative source. And I think cellular data and it's millions of variables by it's very nature (what us laymen know: radio waves, tower technology, service provider, triangulation, signal strength, interference, buildings, weather etc etc) is the perfect foil for that sort of stuff.

MOO

I read somewhere and can't recall exactly where that stalking (in the state of Idaho) technically is not what he was doing which was surveilling. That there had to be intimidation involved to call it stalking. I interpret this as hair-splitting terminology about what the name of the behavior, based on precedence, should be referred to as.

Some folks have run with there was absolutely no stalking and others have realized that it wasn't for public knowledge, thereby had not been presented yet and "stalking" being used in the survey was not appropriate until it was announced during the trial. I have absolutely no idea where I stand on any of this. I guess for simplicity, I'll just go with surveilling, for now? JMOO

I have to go back to the last thread to check when that was stated, or if I read it in an article.
 
I am following a case where a family of 4 - mother, father, 2 sons - murdered 8 members of another family. All 4 put their phones in one place....at the mother's home.

So 3 of them went out to commit the murders and the mother stayed at home and she sent texts from the phones to make it look like the family were home instead of out murdering people.

LE didn't buy it.....It was such a lame alibi that the defense didn't even bring it up at trial.

No jury will buy this dog pile. It doesn't matter where a phone is....It proves zero.

2 Cents
 
In the new filing, the defense says:

Bryan Kohberger's mobile device did not travel east on the Moscow-Pullman Highway in the early morning hours of November 13th, and thus could not be the vehicle captured on video along the Moscow-Pullman Highway near Floyd's Cannabis shop.

The problem with this is going to be that front license plate. According to the arresting affidavit:

A review of camera footage indicated that a white sedan, hereafter "Suspect Vehicle 1", was observed traveling westbound in the 700 block of Indian Hills Drive in Moscow at approximately 3:26am and westbound on Styner Avenue at Idaho State Highway 95 in Moscow at approximately 3:28am. On this video, it appeared Suspect Vehicle 1 was not displaying a front license plate.


Floyd's is only 4 miles from the 700 block of Indian Hills Dr and and on the route that would be taken to get there. Even if the footage from Floyd's doesn't show the front, it just defies logic that it's not the same vehicle and it's not the vehicle belonging to the suspect--who drives that same car without a front license plate. And, not only that, the defense is going to try to say that the suspect was 45 minutes away at Wawawai Park when a vehicle matching his, without a front license plate, just like his, is captured on film 1 mile from the crime scene. Where his dna was found. Inside the house. As a juror, I would find this argument that it's not his car really, really hard, if not impossible to believe.
 
Is that the consensus on the 'stalking' theory? Because if so, IMO people are misinterpreting what the prosecution said in the last hearing (assuming that's where this is stemming from).

IMO...They were not saying that there's no evidence of stalking.

IMO what prosecutors were saying is that some of the information being reported on as evidence of 'stalking' (rumors, essentially) is not only NOT in public record, but also not accurate, and would not make it to trial. That was the contextg of the conversation. Which IMO is completely independent from the information that's in the PCA. Which pretty much can only be interpreted as evidence of stalking.

IMO prosecutors have evidence that he stalked and will present evidence that he stalked at trial. They are in no way shying away from it.

Or maybe I'm misinterpreting what you wrote.
Just to clarify, my posts are my opinion only. I don't claim to represent any kind of consensus. Of course others are free to interpret things in a different way, and I respect their opinion.
It seemed very clear to me that Bill Thompson's issue with two of the questions in the survey was that they were not factual.
Bill Thompson, in his statements during the hearing right before this latest one, accused the survey of "tainting people who may have no knowledge of the case with detailed information, and detailed information some of which is completely false! And not only completely false but it's false in a sense that makes Mr Kohberger look bad. It is creating bias against Mr Kohberger based on false or inadmissible evidence." [BBM because he practically screams it]
At the latest hearing, BTspecifically mentioned that the most problematic question was the stalking one.
Evidence of stalking, like phone pings or social media history, is not inadmissible. The CAST report is not inadmissible. So the only remaining option is that the stalking is false.
All MOO!
 
Where are all these phone records of Kohbeger out driving at 4:00am?

The one time he drives at 4:00am just happens to be during a 4:00am quadruple homicide?

Phone records show late night/early morning drives. This is not 4:00am in my opinion.
 
Just to clarify, my posts are my opinion only. I don't claim to represent any kind of consensus. Of course others are free to interpret things in a different way, and I respect their opinion.
It seemed very clear to me that Bill Thompson's issue with two of the questions in the survey was that they were not factual.
Bill Thompson, in his statements during the hearing right before this latest one, accused the survey of "tainting people who may have no knowledge of the case with detailed information, and detailed information some of which is completely false! And not only completely false but it's false in a sense that makes Mr Kohberger look bad. It is creating bias against Mr Kohberger based on false or inadmissible evidence." [BBM because he practically screams it]
At the latest hearing, BTspecifically mentioned that the most problematic question was the stalking one.
Evidence of stalking, like phone pings or social media history, is not inadmissible. The CAST report is not inadmissible. So the only remaining option is that the stalking is false.
All MOO!
My opinion is that the "completely false" information referred to by BT on April 4th hearing is logically and likely to be re survey question that asked participants if they had heard, read etc etc etc that BK was following a victim/victims or whatever it was on instagram/social media. That was reported by People Mag from memory and has never been part of the official public record. Moo
 
My opinion is that the "completely false" information referred to by BT on April 4th hearing is logically and likely to be re survey question that asked participants if they had heard, read etc etc etc that BK was following a victim/victims or whatever it was on instagram/social media. That was reported by People Mag from memory and has never been part of the official public record. Moo

Yes!

The false information was the survey asking if the person had heard that Kohberger stalked the victims.

This makes it sound like Kohberger stalked the victims and this is false information.

I believe Kohberger was aware of the victims and did some surveillance of them, but he was too clever to leave a digital footprint of having any connection to the victims.

Kohberger specialized in digital data helping to solve crimes.He was smart in covering up his digital footprint and cleaning up blood evidence. To be expected.

2 Cents
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
102
Guests online
993
Total visitors
1,095

Forum statistics

Threads
594,940
Messages
18,015,975
Members
229,552
Latest member
Nursestump
Back
Top