4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #97

[BeginnerSleuther]

No one altered any evidence though.

What was altered was the analysis of the evidence.

You don't alter analysis of the evidence to match a suspect. That's blatant misconduct, IMO.

 

[schooling]

You don't alter analysis of the evidence to match a suspect. That's blatant misconduct, IMO.

You're not allowed to revisit any piece of evidence or ask someone to confirm? How about when you find additional evidence that might give them context? Like a higher resolution shot of the car?

Car identification is not binary. It's not even a 5 quadrillion to 1 DNA score. It's subjective. JMO

We wouldn't solve a single cold case and would probably have to stop investigations right after the first suspect was dismissed, if taking a second look at a piece of evidence was considered nefarious.

Also, I've yet to see a piece of evidence that says prosecutors knew Kohlberger's name before the misidentification was corrected. It's been all internet speculation and defense attorney conjecture.

 

[10ofRods]

The prosecution has BK’s DNA on the button of the knife’s sheath, which was on the bed partially under a body. How is he going to weasel out of that?

Here is one way:

BK simply says … “I bought a knife with a sheath just like that. Last time I saw it was when I put it in my desk drawer at the college. The next day it was gone. Instead of accusing me, why aren’t the police talking to the students and janitorial staff?”

Remember, it only takes one juror to create a hung jury!

So you think he'll take the stand?

Or that he has receipts? What will be the basis of this coming into evidence?

He will need to say where he bought it. And describe why he left it in a drawer in an office he did not use much andhat' which contained almost no personal items.

It's not "simple."

Of course, the DNA evidence is the most damning. And it's really strange that the thief left no dna, isn't it? I mean, DNA is microscopic and hard to remove. The rest of the knife was (apparently) clean. It was single source DNA. So the thief never used the snap, the one part that is hard to clean of microscopic evidence.

Why did he not report it the "next day"?

If it's only one juror and it's a hung jury, then the families wait for justice even longer. That does seem possible in American jurisprudence. But BK will be behind bars while all this happens.

Also,
The DNA is not on the bottom of the knife sheath.

It's was inside the tiny metallic groove of the snap (which is not on the bottom of the sheath).

IMO.

 

[10ofRods]

dbm

 

[schooling]

Snipped by me for a response

As @Balthazar noted and listed, BP testified as to what information he used to obtain the arrest warrant. He also testified as to what information he used to obtain each ATT warrant.

AT's interpretation of the PCA is that Payne's intention was to write it in chronological order "later it was discovered"). And according to the judge none of the thousands of emails she forwarded to him disputes that.

Which explains why AT continuously and repeatedly attempts to imply that Detective Payne was communicating off the record. She did it once re: the FBI specialist, again for the WSU officer. and again for the cellular evidence.

Also, Brett Payne was pretty clear about the piece of evidence he used and the exchange went down. And it aligns with the PCA...

Attorney Taylor:What I want to know first is what you relied on to expand that search from
2013 to include 14, 15, and 16
Detective Payne: that information was provided to FBI special Imel. He's a vehichle identificaiton specialist, he used snapshots from the previously mentioned surveillance videos and that was his determination on the types of vehicles we should be looking for, rather the year range we should look for, his report would be more specific but that was what I based the affidavit off of, that portion of it

He says that he provided information to the FBI specialist. The PCA tells us that the information was a video. The specialist provided back a report and Payne used that for the affidavit. JMO

I know a lot of people (IMO) want Payne's email to the specialist to read like "we have our man! change the car year!" but if AT had that email the judge would have seen it a long time ago.

I personally think that AT's next line of questioning is her acknowledging what more likely happened.

Using Occam's Razor a more likely scenario (IMO)

IMO...This doesn't need to involve a nefarious act. They've managed to track a car all the way back to Moscow at the end of a road that leads directly to Pullman. They want to know what's on the other side. It's a clearer picture of the car. By all logical sense it has to be the same car.

IMO ... "I have clearer video, could you take a look?" and the FBI specialist agrees, identifies the model year. It's different. then it's a simple question of "Can you look at the old footage? Is it possible that this is the same car?"

Why did it take so long to get the Pullman video? We have reports that they were still canvassing well into December and that they had an overwhelming amount of digital evidence and video to process. It's also in a different jurisdiction. JMO

Lastly, according to Ortho's website they process samples to make them IGG ready. A process that involves a lot of research and could takes weeks/months (IMO, based on past cases we've learned about) and differs from case to case (also IMO). So a paid invoice doesn't tell us much.

MOO

 

[schooling]

Also,

To share another more likely scenario that's based off of things that we know through reporting and logical assumptions (IMO) we could make off of the PCA and filings...

MOO on all of it

- 11/25 Bolo goes out about a 2013 Elantra based on the FBI specialist. They trust it. (this is from reports)

- 11/29 The tip from the WSU police officer doesn't go anywhere (this is from reports) because BKs car is not a 2013 Elantra.

- 12/07 a Flyer goes out to the public about the 2013 Elantra and they start getting an overwhelming amount of tips. (this is from reports)

- 12/08 - 12/19 - the investigation continues. IMO Moscow LE likely reverse engineers the car's approach from the neighborhood back to the road that leads to Pullman. they now have much clearer footage. (this is an assumption and based on the PCA, MOO)

- 12/20 the video of the car on the other side is sent to the specialist. (this is from reports) theres no way it can't be the same car as that road is a straight shot. (in my logical opinon)

- 12/20 the flagging is updated. (IMO) The WSU tip immediately rises to the top because of the bushy eyebrows, proximity and build of the suspect. (this is from reports as evident of Payne's calls)

- 12/20 Detective Payne immediately connects with the officer about the tip.

- 12-20 and On - A flurry of warrants go out including the ATT warrant cited in the PCA. The case is busted wide open.

All MOO and doesn't require many leaps of logic or faith. AT immediately following up her questioning of Payne about the misidentification of the car by inquiring (implying, IMO) about off the record communications (because IMO the record demonstrates good ol fashioned police work) is evidence of how damaging this could be to the case.

 

[jepop]

You're not allowed to revisit any piece of evidence or ask someone to confirm? How about when you find additional evidence that might give them context? Like a higher resolution shot of the car?

Car identification is not binary. It's not even a 5 quadrillion to 1 DNA score. It's subjective. JMO

We wouldn't solve a single cold case and would probably have to stop investigations right after the first suspect was dismissed, if taking a second look at a piece of evidence was considered nefarious.

Also, I've yet to see a piece of evidence that says prosecutors knew Kohlberger's name before the misidentification was corrected. It's been all internet speculation and defense attorney conjecture.

Yes, all internet speculation, extrapolated from defense snippets and limited public testimony at a few hearings. Jmo

I can't get over what a fine investigation combined LE managed in order to arrest a very, very viable and 'suss' suspect. Imo. I congratulate MPD, ISP, the FBI, Idaho State Lab. This was four stranger murders. The investigation was phenomenal. All above is moo.

Defense has a job ahead of them proving misconduct and by the wayside satisfying those who believe BK is either the unluckiest star gazer in history or has been set up by multiple state players or is the victim of incompetence. Imoo.

Oh, and Othram also did a fine job developing the snp profile and kickstarting the IGG. They have a deservedly very, very good professional reputation. Imo

 

[jepop]

Snipped by me--this is exactly it. The defense needs for the model year correction to be after the name was produced from IGG for two reasons. One, to claim that law enforcement is fitting the evidence to the suspect. They only believed it to be the later model after they found out BK drove a later model.

Two, recall what the defense wrote in the Motion to Suppress regarding the white Elantra. "...the State must show it would have been discovered anyway...The State cannot make this showing..."

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR01-24-31665/2024/111424-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-White-Hyundai.pdf

The defense needs to show that the other evidence would not have led to BK and the car is an essential part of that other evidence. The defense will likely argue that law enforcement thought it was an earlier model (before IGG) and therefore would never have run BK's plates and looked at his DL photo etc etc. The defense needs to convince the court that without the IGG, BK would never have been a suspect in order to get the IGG and every warrant that resulted from the IGG thrown out (which they will say is all the warrants). The argument about the model years is a vital component of proving "The State cannot make this showing."

JMO

Not seeing how defense will be able to prove that LE would not have run BK's plates if not for the IGG. I'm sure LE ran plenty of Elantra plates as part of their investigation. This was four stranger murders and I think LE would have been allowed to run Elantra plates, especially BK's 2015 plates given the footage supplied to them by WSU and possible traffic cams in Pullman at extremely suspect early morning hours on 13th November. Plus the one licence plate SV1 Elantra captured at around 3.26am on Indian Hills Drive. I can't see AT getting anywhere with this. LE is allowed to be flexible in their investigating as more evidence comes to light. FBI is also permitted to reassess earlier findings. Jmo.

 

[Balthazar]

His DNA is on the sheath of the murder knife.

That would NOT matter. IF there is a Frank's Hearing and the first AT&T warrant is invalidated due to the vehicle year, the arrest warrant and warrant to collect BK's DNA in both PA and ID ALL fall under the first AT&T Warrant, so it would ALL be Fruit of the Poisonous Tree.

 

[Balthazar]

Not seeing how defense will be able to prove that LE would not have run BK's plates if not for the IGG. I'm sure LE ran plenty of Elantra plates as part of their investigation. This was four stranger murders and I think LE would have been allowed to run Elantra plates, especially BK's 2015 plates given the footage supplied to them by WSU and possible traffic cams in Pullman at extremely suspect early morning hours on 13th November. Plus the one licence plate SV1 Elantra captured at around 3.26am on Indian Hills Drive. I can't see AT getting anywhere with this. LE is allowed to be flexible in their investigating as more evidence comes to light. FBI is also permitted to reassess earlier findings. Jmo.

22,000 white Elantras in the original date range were reported to be in the area they were searching by LE. Also, on the night of the murders tens of thousands of people had come into these cities from out of town for the football game and also for Family weekend at WSU. The correct white Elantra could have been anywhere.

 

[Balthazar]

...edited by me for focus:

It's was inside the tiny metallic groove of the snap (which is not on the bottom of the sheath).

IMO.

Just out of curiosity, where did you learn the DNA was inside the tiny metallic groove of the snap?

 

[Boxer]

SBM

That's not fine at all, IMO or in the opinion of the law. The evidence is supposed to lead you to the suspect. All of the evidence. If you have a suspect and some evidence doesn't lead you there, then you keep an open mind or you dismiss the evidence as irrelevant. You can't name a suspect, then alter evidence to make it match. That's how verdicts are thrown out.

MOO

Is this in reference to thr car year?
The Elantras are the same model iteration.

That would NOT matter. IF there is a Frank's Hearing and the first AT&T warrant is invalidated due to the vehicle year, the arrest warrant and warrant to collect BK's DNA in both PA and ID ALL fall under the first AT&T Warrant, so it would ALL be Fruit of the Poisonous Tree.

True - the only way for him to get off is suppression of evidence because he is guilty.

 

[snooptroop88]

The prosecution has BK’s DNA on the button of the knife’s sheath, which was on the bed partially under a body. How is he going to weasel out of that?

Here is one way:

BK simply says … “I bought a knife with a sheath just like that. Last time I saw it was when I put it in my desk drawer at the college. The next day it was gone. Instead of accusing me, why aren’t the police talking to the students and janitorial staff?”

Remember, it only takes one juror to create a hung jury!

Agreed this is a good point. But then, we run into the problem of why BK felt the need to dispose of trash using latex gloves and individual ziploc bags and then further decided to deposit trash in his neighbors' trash at 4am right around the time of his arrest. Was he supposedly just paranoid over the knife purchase by that time, but not guilty?

No way, MOO he's guilty as sin, seriously. There's no way to make this guy look innocent because he's just not innocent. Did LE make some procedural error in terms of the car id? I doubt even that, but anything is certainly possible and remains that way so long as the defense won't produce clear evidence of error. (Which I think is probably why that's taking as long as it is taking.)

The idea, though, that the D is ever, ever going to be able to whip this into a chicken-or-the-egg scenario where LE decided to make poor innocent Bryan Kohberger into their criminal justice pinada because poor lil ole BK had a white car, I mean, please. Please. And then there's the "fruit of the poisonous tree" where ok, D (you know, more or less) concedes he's guilty, but condemns LE, "You didn't do things all in the proper way!!"

Not holding my breath on this one. JMO, D's best bet is to keep proclaiming his innocence (eh...???) and cling to this idea that it's a gigantic LE frame-up of BK (???) that started with the "white car" and then blossomed into a frame-up with LE bias into the IGG (??? or maybe that's concurrent, I don't know??), and probably includes LE planting the sheath!! (eh...???)

That would NOT matter. IF there is a Frank's Hearing and the first AT&T warrant is invalidated due to the vehicle year, the arrest warrant and warrant to collect BK's DNA in both PA and ID ALL fall under the first AT&T Warrant, so it would ALL be Fruit of the Poisonous Tree.

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree only goes so far. imo, they're not going to let the (incredibly likely/to me, transparent) quadruple homicide murderer walk away from court in his suit to hit the new vegan restaurant because Officer Careless got the particulars wrong on the car ID. Like any tree could be more poisonous than the one that killed four people, and that's based on DNA with stats that look like they're from outer space in terms of the probability it could be anyone else but their guilty-as-sin client?? I doubt that anything was done improperly here. If it was, it'll be dealt with... just as soon as AT identifies it, and we don't really know how long that will take. Probably as long as possible, but there's no way it's going to be dealt with by sending Bryan out for more Thai food, jmo.

 

[Nila Aella]

Snipped by me for a response

AT's interpretation of the PCA is that Payne's intention was to write it in chronological order "later it was discovered"). And according to the judge none of the thousands of emails she forwarded to him disputes that.

There were not thousands of emails.

Footnote in Order:
That exhibit is over one hundred pages of duplicative emails. Defendant does not identify which email supports his proposition.

The FM was 2000 pages. 38 exhibits. Over 100 pages of emails.

Which explains why AT continuously and repeatedly attempts to imply that Detective Payne was communicating off the record. She did it once re: the FBI specialist, again for the WSU officer. and again for the cellular evidence.

She asked because she needs to know what communications occurred. There is no other way to find out.

Also, Brett Payne was pretty clear about the piece of evidence he used and the exchange went down. And it aligns with the PCA...

He says that he provided information to the FBI specialist. The PCA tells us that the information was a video. The specialist provided back a report and Payne used that for the affidavit. JMO

JL mentioned (spring 2023) that the expert relied heavily on a Walenta video.

I know a lot of people (IMO) want Payne's email to the specialist to read like "we have our man! change the car year!" but if AT had that email the judge would have seen it a long time ago.

This is the appropriate time for the Judge to see it. The Judge set the schedule. Not the D.

I personally think that AT's next line of questioning is her acknowledging what more likely happened.

Using Occam's Razor a more likely scenario (IMO)

IMO...This doesn't need to involve a nefarious act. They've managed to track a car all the way back to Moscow at the end of a road that leads directly to Pullman. They want to know what's on the other side. It's a clearer picture of the car. By all logical sense it has to be the same car.

There is no video of ANY elantra leaving the neighborhood on any route.
There is a 2014-2016 Elantra in Pullman.
They tracked his phone from a Dec 23 ATT warrant.

IMO ... "I have clearer video, could you take a look?" and the FBI specialist agrees, identifies the model year. It's different. then it's a simple question of "Can you look at the old footage? Is it possible that this is the same car?"

What did the expert reply to that last question?
Might be documented in the emails.
Very curious as to the experts identification of the white car on 270.

Why did it take so long to get the Pullman video? We have reports that they were still canvassing well into December and that they had an overwhelming amount of digital evidence and video to process. It's also in a different jurisdiction. JMO

I don't recall a date on when LE saw the Pullman video.

Lastly, according to Ortho's website they process samples to make them IGG ready. A process that involves a lot of research and could takes weeks/months (IMO, based on past cases we've learned about) and differs from case to case (also IMO). So a paid invoice doesn't tell us much.

MOO

The invoice shows when O was aware of the job they were asked to perform.
Nov 29. Most businesses do not send an invoice unless they are contracted to do a job.

JMO

 

[Nila Aella]

Also,

To share another more likely scenario that's based off of things that we know through reporting and logical assumptions (IMO) we could make off of the PCA and filings...

MOO on all of it
- 11/25 Bolo goes out about a 2013 Elantra based on the FBI specialist. They trust it. (this is from reports)

- 11/29 The tip from the WSU police officer doesn't go anywhere (this is from reports) because BKs car is not a 2013 Elantra.

This BOLO was for any white elantra. Not a 2013.

PCA
On November 25, 2022 MPD asked area law enforcement agencies to be on the lookout for white Hyundai Elantras in the area

JMO

 

[Balthazar]

Agreed this is a good point. But then, we run into the problem of why BK felt the need to dispose of trash using latex gloves and individual ziploc bags and then further decided to deposit trash in his neighbors' trash at 4am right around the time of his arrest. Was he supposedly just paranoid over the knife purchase by that time, but not guilty?

No way, MOO he's guilty as sin, seriously. There's no way to make this guy look innocent because he's just not innocent. Did LE make some procedural error in terms of the car id? I doubt even that, but anything is certainly possible and remains that way so long as the defense won't produce clear evidence of error. (Which I think is probably why that's taking as long as it is taking.)

The idea, though, that the D is ever, ever going to be able to whip this into a chicken-or-the-egg scenario where LE decided to make poor innocent Bryan Kohberger into their criminal justice pinada because poor lil ole BK had a white car, I mean, please. Please. And then there's the "fruit of the poisonous tree" where ok, D (you know, more or less) concedes he's guilty, but condemns LE, "You didn't do things all in the proper way!!"

Not holding my breath on this one. JMO, D's best bet is to keep proclaiming his innocence (eh...???) and cling to this idea that it's a gigantic LE frame-up of BK (???) that started with the "white car" and then blossomed into a frame-up with LE bias into the IGG (??? or maybe that's concurrent, I don't know??), and probably includes LE planting the sheath!! (eh...???)

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree only goes so far. imo, they're not going to let the (incredibly likely/to me, transparent) quadruple homicide murderer walk away from court in his suit to hit the new vegan restaurant because Officer Careless got the particulars wrong on the car ID. Like any tree could be more poisonous than the one that killed four people, and that's based on DNA with stats that look like they're from outer space in terms of the probability it could be anyone else but their guilty-as-sin client?? I doubt that anything was done improperly here. If it was, it'll be dealt with... just as soon as AT identifies it, and we don't really know how long that will take. Probably as long as possible, but there's no way it's going to be dealt with by sending Bryan out for more Thai food, jmo.

It's not about a careless mistake, it's about LE lying to get a warrant, when they would not have gotten the warrant without the lie. AT identified the lie last May during BP's testimony - perhaps you missed that hearing? This situation didn't just suddenly come up nor is it a surprise.

 

[Balthazar]

edited by me for focus:

"The FM was 2000 pages. 38 exhibits. Over 100 pages of emails."

Lying about who expanded the car years to search for is only a small part of the Frank's Hearing, IMO. 2,000 pages indicates a lot of other issues, although lying to get a warrant is incredibly serious, illegal and corrupt

JMO

 

[mrjitty]

It's not about a careless mistake, it's about LE lying to get a warrant, when they would not have gotten the warrant without the lie. AT identified the lie last May during BP's testimony - perhaps you missed that hearing? This situation didn't just suddenly come up nor is it a surprise.

I've watched that hearing now. I am struggling to see where the lie is. Can you please be more specific?

 

[mrjitty]

What did the expert reply to that last question?
Might be documented in the emails.
Very curious as to the experts identification of the white car on 270.

RSBM

This is where I am struggling to see any heat so far. My take on the testimony is he probably did call the FBI expert and ask him if it could be a later year, because they thought they had a match. Likely there is an email back to that effect.

I also believe whomever drafted the Affidavit is highly unlikely to include that statement about the email if it does not exist. IMO much more likely that the email was written entirely so it can go in the Affidavit (that's how lawyers work).

I do agree that the Franks is written to obscure how they put 2 and 2 together. But that is entirely fine in my view. Search warrant PC is a low bar and I don't believe they need to tell the judge about how their analysis played out. Also nothing exculpatory is concealed because they include the original opinion on the year in the affidavit.

As far as Frank's goes, then there is no lie, but the suppression on constitutional grounds could be different of course.

It would of course be bad if the affiant did in fact say there was an email but it didn't exist. Enough to be successful in a Franks hearing? I guess that's up to the judge but again i think it's not clear cut.

Where my spidey sense is in play is in the examination of the affiant, AT does not put these allegations to him directly at all. In fact his answers are quite generic.

MOO

 

[jepop]

I've watched that hearing now. I am struggling to see where the lie is. Can you please be more specific?

Right. Seriously, it is simply not a fact that he lied. It is only an opinion/interpretation of what a moment of limited testimony 'revealed'. There is no 'lie' as substantive fact that we can be aware of. Only conjecture and assumption. Moo