ID - 4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered - Bryan Kohberger Arrested - Moscow # 64

[Charlot123]

I know you were being sincere, but this did make me laugh.

Not only killing - how often do we hear or read about parents physically punishing their kids? It is not the part about “how they were raised themselves” that I think of. It is obvious enjoyment in some cases that makes one concerned. Some of them (e.g., Valva’s case) are shocking not only because of the result, but also due to obviously sadistic element of parental behavior. I believe we have to talk about it, too, since it is the future of our children and grandchildren.

 

[Dotta]

But he's not schizophrenic. And schizophrenics very much appear to be having a conversation with the voices, not "talking to themselves." He is reassuring himself and narrating his life, not responding to voices that only he can hear.

We have to go with the facts of the case, but my source on schizophrenia is a decade of research on schizophrenics and doing 20 years of field diagnostics, mostly of schizophrenics. I did 2 years of fieldwork in inpatient wards for schizophrenics.

When a schizophrenic responds to voices, it very much sounds like someone being on the phone (although there's often a lot of unusual affect in the responses, as opposed to the flat affect otherwise seen in many schizophrenics). BK never mentions hearing voices in any of his TapATalk missives, which go on for a couple of years. We are allowed to use what he says there. He describes a specific auditory disturbance (which can be part of VSS) and another person responds that they have the same auditory disturbance, but it's not hearing voices.

This is self-soothing and I'm guessing that since childhood, his parents have used those words to soothe him, he has internalized the parental voice and is now soothing himself.

The narration-of-ongoing events is also seen in perfectly normal people. I've never witnessed a schizophrenic narrate their ongoing life events. I've seen schizophrenics pause conversation to listen to their voices, but never have I heard one report that the voices are soothing. The very fact of the existence of unseen people speaking in a room is anxiety producing, not soothing. I also know schizophrenics as colleagues (high functioning schizophrenics) and two of them have been helped by medication (to not hear voices) and the third has grown accustomed to them and ignores them (kind of the way VSS sufferers have to do with their snow).

So it's POSSIBLE that he could be hearing voices, but so far, I see no evidence of it and am going with what has been permitted to be discussed here, as it is the best guess (BK's own account is compelling).

You asked and I answered.

 

[CityKid]

Not sure what this is about.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1614329433002856448

Is this standard in murder cases? Looks like survivors and family members and a few initials I'm unsure about. I'm glad they got these in either case.

 

[maskedwoman]

Not sure what this is about.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1614329433002856448

Based on the initials of the protected persons, it looks like BK is forbidden to contact the victims' families and surviving roommates. I don't know if that's common or if that means he already tried to contact one of them.

 

[Pretty Go Pale]

Last night on Dateline, Keith Morrison asked an experienced attorney who is very familiar with the case if he thought that the case was "strong" according to what we now know in the affadavit. The attorney said that at this point, with what we know, he wouldn't say that the case is "strong," but "solid."

Lol - "solid" is literally a synonym for "strong."

 

[Friday Fan]

Not sure what this is about.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1614329433002856448

It's signed 1/5/23...so it's not new! Just the tweet is new!

Was discussed when he was officially charged last week. I think it's fairly standard.

 

[eloquence]

A defendant has the right to face his/her accuser.

Is DM an accuser though? She's a witness, not the plaintiff.

Regardless the below article states DM is expected to testify at the prelim hearing in June, hope she does!

Idaho murders suspect Bryan Kohberger trades intensity for fear in 2nd court appearance: body language expert

University of Idaho quadruple murder suspect Bryan Kohberger's body language in court is analyzed by Susan Constantine, a behavioral analyst who specializes in body language and detecting deception.

www.foxnews.com

 

[sunshineray]

Not sure what this is about.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1614329433002856448

It means DM is a protected person from BK or anyone doing work on his behalf. It means no PI working for the defense or lawyers can approach her. She mostly likely can be deposed by the defense under protective circumstances and of course questioned in court but nothing else.

 

[ag513]

Based on the initials of the protected persons, it looks like BK is forbidden to contact the victims' families and surviving roommates. I don't know if that's common or if that means he already tried to contact one of them.

It's also dated January 5, so I think perhaps whoever posted this thought it was new, but it's actually not? I thought he was given verbal no contact orders at the first hearing in Idaho as well. JMO

 

[ObsessedNightOwl]

For those who saw the Dateline or 20/20, were either them worth watching? Any new useful information?

I watched the Dateline show last night. There were a couple of new things mentioned, mainly about the wi-fi connection and size of party on Friday night before murders at housemates residence, plus some other clarifications.
Even without a lot of new info, it would still be worth the watch.

The show did provide a very good overview of the case. Some interviews with students that have not been seen prior. Plus some very stunning visuals of the Moscow area probably from drones.

Keith Morrison was very dignified and somber, especially when speaking with KG's parents. He presented very dignified tributes to all 4 of the victims. Very poignant.

There was some time spent on YouTube and TikTok sleuths and how they were proved wrong on most elements of the case after the PCA was published.

I thought the show was very well done. Very respectful to the families, friends, the community and of course the victims.

At the end Keith Morrison summed things up to conclude while showing photos of the victims. This was just absolutely heartbreaking.

 

[Sundog]

Lol - "solid" is literally a synonym for "strong."

Not for the attorney that Keith Morrison interviewed. For him, there was a distinction between a case being "solid" or "strong," and he wouldn't go so far as to affirm the latter.

 

[Ccging]

The only new information I learned from the 20/20 show was that during one of the Indiana traffic stops the cop asked BK for his phone #. I’ve been pulled over a few times and never been asked for my phone #. Pretty sneaky and smart if they used it to ping location prior to getting a warrant issued.

 

[eloquence]

I wondered if he could have stashed the weapon in the ductwork. Could be why the HVAC people were there after, to check?

IMO given the timeframe (in and out in under 15 min) this would have been very difficult. Guess he could have quickly put it into an AC vent but that wouldn't require HVAC to find

 

[Mad Hettie]

Last night on Dateline, Keith Morrison asked an experienced attorney who is very familiar with the case if he thought that the case was "strong" according to what we now know in the affadavit. The attorney said that at this point, with what we know, he wouldn't say that the case is "strong," but "solid."

I would go along with this. Given the evidence at hand, I want to see what the defense has to say because it doesn't look good. But it's such a weird story and there are so many things out of place that this makes me want to see more evidence.

In other words: attorneys, convince me.

 

[eloquence]

The only new information I learned from the 20/20 show was that during one of the Indiana traffic stops the cop asked BK for his phone #. I’ve been pulled over a few times and never been asked for my phone #. Pretty sneaky and smart if they used it to ping location prior to getting a warrant issued.

The PCA states that his phone number was provided to Moscow PD in the August traffic stop. If they are writing you a ticket (he got a seatbelt violation) they need a way to contact you

 

[EJB123456]

All information on the 911 call is being withheld and LE has indicated it was for investigative reasons.

It has been discussed a few times over several threads but there has been no confirmation that anyone has passed out and passed out may have been a term used by dispatch for legal reasons and to protect the dignity of the deceased.

Very few people can legally determine death and frightened roommate or friends are not legally capable. In this case, LE would be able to have legally determined death but autopsies were required to establish manner and time of death.

SG said that one of them passed out so that’s good enough for me!

 

[10ofRods]

So now we know that BK was in Pullman since July.

Interesting that they still had a voicemail of BK calling for a haircut appointment in July.

I think I still have almost every voicemail I've ever received. About once a year, I go through and delete a few from telemarketers. I can imagine that a hairdresser would keep them, for ease of managing clients and knowing when they last came in. It helps me remember the many different aspects of my life and what I need to do, that's why I keep them.

 

[Alethea]

Not for the attorney that Keith Morrison interviewed. For him, there was a distinction between a case being "solid" or "strong," and he wouldn't go so far as to affirm the latter.

I wouldn’t necessarily use these words but I think many attorneys would say a case was “solid” if there was evidence for each element of the crime and no real basis for reasonable doubt. For example, the crime was captured on CCTV and the defendant could be identified in the video along with DNA and fingerprint evidence. Pretty solid - like a solid cube with no missing pieces or dents or holes.

A case can be strong if there’s substantial evidence but maybe a few things that the defense could challenge.

FWIW I don’t think it’s really useful to try to categorize cases since each one is different but that would be the difference to me hearing this. If someone said solid, I’d think “slam dunk.” If someone said strong, I’d think lots of evidence but not necessarily a slam-dunk.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

The only new information I learned from the 20/20 show was that during one of the Indiana traffic stops the cop asked BK for his phone #. I’ve been pulled over a few times and never been asked for my phone #. Pretty sneaky and smart if they used it to ping location prior to getting a warrant issued.

The PCA says LE got his phone number during a traffic stop in Moscow in August. I also had never heard of giving your phone during a traffic stop.

 

[Sassafrass]

It doesn't eliminate that the person she saw was blond, short or obese etc though. As I have recently learned, her statement is hearsay until she takes the stand and is cross examined. And cross examination, (or examination) by defense is the defense's opportunity to discredit DM's basic descriptors of the person she saw (it was too dark, you were too sleepy, you were too drunk for e.g.). MOO

Oh, I hope I didn't give the wrong impression about hearsay. Hearsay/exceptions are about getting evidence admitted at trial, and so it's about proving a case, not whether it is literally true or not. If she gave a statement that said she saw a person of x dimensions, then that has weight as part of the initial arrest/case. It is a piece of evidence in the investigation. Unless for some crazy reason it/her testifying is excluded from trial, her testimony will be a piece of evidence at trial. If she's on the stand the jury (assuming it's a jury trial) will evaluate her/its credibility on anything the court finds can be testified about. The defense will of course (as you noted) seek to find inconsistencies or weaknesses in her testimony in court (or if something terrible happens and she cannot testify, her statements alone), and the jury will give her testimony the weight they think it deserves, after having assessed it and any impact of cross.

TL; DR: just because a statement will need the maker to testify about the same subject at trial doesn't mean the statement is meaningless or has no weight or could just blow up. It has weight as evidence now, and after a cross-examination it will have more or less or different weight, depending on how it all goes.

TL; DR (2): Like everything else recited, it's currently considered evidence supporting the case against BK.