ID - 4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered - Bryan Kohberger Arrested - Moscow # 69

[BondGirl007]

RBBM
Right?!

Yes but I still wonder how this case got 45 agents. That is a ton compared to what help they typically give. Did they suspect a serial murderer from the beginning?

 

[Cool Cats]

Yes, DNA evidence is circumstantial since we can make inferences about the sheath. I think the example used early on is that the sheath could have been stolen from BK by the perp.

So other evidence is needed to prove that only BK could have been responsible for the murders.

IMO

I thought DNA evidence was more direct than circumstantial. If DNA isn't direct evidence then what about fingerprints?

Obviously I need to do more research. I know for sure if a person/witness actually sees a killer commit murder, then gives testimony about it, their testimony is considered direct evidence.

I like the way you bring up the point that we can make inferences about the DNA found on the sheath. You mention the sheath could have been stolen from BK. Someone else mentioned BK touching the sheath in the store but he didn't buy it. Someone else mentioned BK being set up by someone, that someone planted his sheath at the crime scene.

When I look at it like this I can understand better why DNA might be considered circumstantial.

On every murder thread there are discussions that strongly discount the circumstantial evidence, saying it doesn't prove anything. However, from what I have seen, when you pair circumstantial evidence with DNA evidence you get a conviction almost every time. Even though DNA is apparently circumstantial evidence, nonetheless, it is considered very strong evidence by itself. When you take DNA evidence and add alot of circumstantial evidence with it, the DNA evidence becomes that much stronger.

I agree with posters who think the circumstantial evidence (we know of) might not meet the threshold for the required "beyond a reasonable doubt" to get a conviction in this Case.

But if expert witnesses can convince the jury that the sheath DNA is BK's DNA, and then the jury sees all the circumstantial evidence on top of that, I think there will be enough "beyond a reasonable doubt" evidence for a conviction.

Just my opinion and like I said, I need to do more research:

Circumstantial Evidence vs Direct Evidence.

 

[danablue1]

I'm going to sign off for a while I guess because there isn't really any news to report until trial. I just want to say that it doesn't really matter what his motive was, who his target or targets were or what order they were killed. The fact is is that he took four vibrant lives that had a bright future and I don't want to hear a bunch of excuses. He is a cold blooded killer. The best ending would be that he never walks free in the world again.

 

[Rosydecember]

True.

Also, collapsed lungs equals no air. No air equals no scream

Very true. I personally had a collapsed lung and was extremely winded just by walking, and even talking was difficult. I couldn’t scream if my life depended on it.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Yes but I still wonder how this case got 45 agents. That is a ton compared to what help they typically give. Did they suspect a serial murderer from the beginning?

4 murders. Possible interstate involvement. Intense publicity. Smart local police asking for help. No obvious suspect.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

On every murder thread there are discussions that strongly discount the circumstantial evidence, saying it doesn't prove anything. However, from what I have seen, when you pair circumstantial evidence with DNA evidence you get a conviction almost every time. Even though DNA is apparently circumstantial evidence, nonetheless, it is considered very strong evidence by itself. When you take DNA evidence and add alot of circumstantial evidence with it, the DNA evidence becomes that much stronger.

Snipped for focus. I'm sure we're thinking of some of the same cases, but the cases I'm familiar with, the perp's DNA itself was found on the victim's body. In this case, the DNA was on a snap on a sheath left at the scene. I think it's harder to explain DNA on a body vs on an accessory to the murder weapon. If they can connect the murder weapon itself with BK and tie that weapon with the sheath, I think the DNA evidence may be viewed much stronger.

MOO.

 

[Zella]

<modsnip - quoted post removed>

I've not seen any indication that the attorney "wants" to defend BK or that the victim parent paid her legal fees that would need to be reimbursed. My understanding is she's a PD who was appointed by the court as the representative in both cases, and that she really is one of a very small pool of people who can represent BK due to the death penalty being on the table.

I agree with the other posters that there is a point this could become a conflict of interest, depending on what approach the defense uses, but I don't think it's really fair to characterize the attorney as ruthlessly dumping a paying client for another paying client, which I do agree would be pretty shady. MOO

 

[r3d-ros3]

I've not seen any indication that the attorney "wants" to defend BK or that the victim parent paid her legal fees that would need to be reimbursed. My understanding is she's a PD who was appointed by the court as the representative in both cases, and that she really is one of a very small pool of people who can represent BK due to the death penalty being on the table.

I agree with the other posters that there is a point this could become a conflict of interest, depending on what approach the defense uses, but I don't think it's really fair to characterize the attorney as ruthlessly dumping a paying client for another paying client, which I do agree would be pretty shady. MOO

Well put. I think there are few public defenders equipped to handle a case like this in the state of Idaho, and she happens to be one of them and in the area.

 

[Zella]

Well put. I think there are few public defenders equipped to handle a case like this in the state of Idaho, and she happens to be one of them and in the area.

Yeah it's an undeniably weird coincidence, but I have never seen any indication that the attorney is acting improperly or that the court is either. I live in a more rural area than this place, and it's just inevitable that there's going to be some overlap with the small supply of lawyers we have. It wouldn't surprise me at all if something similar would happen where I live in a death penalty case. MOO

 

[steeltowngirl]

IMO the potential for conflicts here is with the past confidences of the victim's mother by the attorney currently representing the defendant.

What if through her previous representation of the victim's mother she was aware that they "worked" with LE and provided intel that led to the arrest of bigger players in the drug trade. Now, in the current case the defendant may want to explore alternate theories on who committed the murders. The mother of one of victims snitching on drug dealers would be a good avenue to explore.

If the attorney possesses this or similiar information do they withhold this information from the current client or use the information that was obtained from the previous representation? That situation could create a real nightmare for the attorney and is why these situation can and do present conflicts of interest....IMO.

^BBM
I’m interested in the legal answer to this also. I would think attorney-client privilege would prevent sharing info from a previous client with a current client.

 

[Cool Cats]

Yes but I still wonder how this case got 45 agents. That is a ton compared to what help they typically give. Did they suspect a serial murderer from the beginning?

Because of all the different LE jurisdictions involved, I've seen this with other Cases when suspects cross State lines.

The local police force conducted the initial investigation starting with the crime scene then they called in the FBI who have agents all across the Country. Both local police and the FBI tracked Kohberger to Pennsylvania.

Then the FBI called in the Pennsylvania Bureau of Criminal Investigation to assist with surveillance on Kohberger before his arrest. This involved multiple Troopers in Pennsylvania.

Then Pennsylvania state police coordinated and carried out Kohberger's arrest, with the agency's Special Emergency Response Team taking the lead.

Then Pennsylvania law enforcement agents had to fly with him back to Idaho. He was flown in a private plane owned and operated by the Pennsylvania State Police.

In Champaign Illinois the plane landed to refuel and Kohberger was taken into the airport. During this period of time that Kohberger was in the airport, the entire airport was placed on lockdown with everyone being evacuated, including employees.

How police surveillance helped catch Idaho murder suspect Bryan Kohberger

Kohberger, 28, was under surveillance for several days before law enforcement arrested him in connection with the slayings of four University of Idaho students.

www.newsweek.com

Bryan Kohberger Makes Pitstop During Plane Flight to Idaho

Bryan Kohberger is flying private to Idaho right now to face murder charges -- and it seems like the teeny-tiny plane he's on needed a break mid-flight... ditto for the suspect himself. TMZ has obtained

www.foxbangor.com

 

[Cedars]

I like the way you bring up the point that we can make inferences about the DNA found on the sheath. You mention the sheath could have been stolen from BK. Someone else mentioned BK touching the sheath in the store but he didn't buy it. Someone else mentioned BK being set up by someone, that someone planted his sheath at the crime scene.

When I look at it like this I can understand better why DNA might be considered circumstantial.

On every murder thread there are discussions that strongly discount the circumstantial evidence, saying it doesn't prove anything. However, from what I have seen, when you pair circumstantial evidence with DNA evidence you get a conviction almost every time. Even though DNA is apparently circumstantial evidence, nonetheless, it is considered very strong evidence by itself. When you take DNA evidence and add alot of circumstantial evidence with it, the DNA evidence becomes that much stronger.

I agree with posters who think the circumstantial evidence (we know of) might not meet the threshold for the required "beyond a reasonable doubt" to get a conviction in this Case.

But if expert witnesses can convince the jury that the sheath DNA is BK's DNA, and then the jury sees all the circumstantial evidence on top of that, I think there will be enough "beyond a reasonable doubt" evidence for a conviction.

Just my opinion and like I said, I need to do more research:

Circumstantial Evidence vs Direct Evidence.

Yes, I think two separate concepts are being mixed together a bit. One is the idea of evidence (classified as direct or indirect/circumstantial), the other separate concept is 'proof of guilt or innocence', which comes down to the lack of reasonable doubt about the whole case against the accused, based on the whole of the evidence.

Certain evidence may be more believable, regardless of whether it's direct or indirect. Someone can assert they saw a person commit a crime, but there can be doubt about that direct evidence: might they be mistaken? Are they misremembering? Are they not being truthful? The defense can often introduce doubt about that direct evidence.

DNA is indirect evidence, but it's scientific, so that makes it highly believable to most juries.

However, no single piece of evidence can ever be 100% proof of guilt, because 1. it all happened in the past and so relies on potentially fallable memories and technology and 2. whomever committed the crime attempted to get away with it by hiding their identity, avoiding (or killing) witnesses, wearing gloves, etc.

JMO

 

[RTC]

Yes but I still wonder how this case got 45 agents. That is a ton compared to what help they typically give. Did they suspect a serial murderer from the beginning?

Agreed. Now that they have a suspect BK, can they agree he is not a suspect on the other two stabbing cases in the vicinity and on the 13th??

 

[Nova]

Including driving across the WA/ID state line from a state with no death penalty into a state with the death penalty. Very curious indeed.

What a great point!

I haven't seen it mentioned before, but I can't keep up with all the posts.

<modsnip: encourages off topic discussion of DP>

On the other hand, if you are obsessed (popular usage) with one or more Idaho girls, maybe it's worth the risk. Or maybe the killer thought he would be less likely to be caught in a jurisdiction other than the one in which he lived...

 

[Chloegirl]

Agreed. Now that they have a suspect BK, can they agree he is not a suspect on the other two stabbing cases in the vicinity and on the 13th??

They may have. BCK was not in the area at the time of the other murders but it may have looked like something more than just local murders. LE and locals comments indicated this was more than just a local murder. I think when LE understood the scene, they knew what they were used to dealing with and they sort of stumbled the first three days (at least in terms of communication). The chief has background with the FBI and didn't think twice and called them in. The area was given support by the Governor. ISP was ready and available to help likely because there was a $1M amount set aside and they knew the huge impacts to the university, community and state. Those funds were crucial. JMHO.

 

[Chloegirl]

Why wouldn’t the PD bring up the conflict with the Judge? It’s not a ‘possible’ conflict, it’s lawfully a judicial conflict. Really strange and concerning.

Well, I can only imagine what's going on behind the scenes. It is likely they do object although they may understand the limited resources / case load. Perhaps they feel it can be explained away through processes or at a hearing on the topic. It should not be, for all parties involved and a fair trial. JMHO. Perhaps reassigning it to a Boise-based attorney makes the most sense, and relocating the trial to that area to help the jury pool as well, sending BCK with them and possibly allow healing for the community? Just not sure if it will play out that way.

 

[Nova]

I thought DNA evidence was more direct than circumstantial. If DNA isn't direct evidence then what about fingerprints?

Obviously I need to do more research. I know for sure if a person/witness actually sees a killer commit murder, then gives testimony about it, their testimony is considered direct evidence.

I like the way you bring up the point that we can make inferences about the DNA found on the sheath. You mention the sheath could have been stolen from BK. Someone else mentioned BK touching the sheath in the store but he didn't buy it. Someone else mentioned BK being set up by someone, that someone planted his sheath at the crime scene.

When I look at it like this I can understand better why DNA might be considered circumstantial.

On every murder thread there are discussions that strongly discount the circumstantial evidence, saying it doesn't prove anything. However, from what I have seen, when you pair circumstantial evidence with DNA evidence you get a conviction almost every time. Even though DNA is apparently circumstantial evidence, nonetheless, it is considered very strong evidence by itself. When you take DNA evidence and add alot of circumstantial evidence with it, the DNA evidence becomes that much stronger.

I agree with posters who think the circumstantial evidence (we know of) might not meet the threshold for the required "beyond a reasonable doubt" to get a conviction in this Case.

But if expert witnesses can convince the jury that the sheath DNA is BK's DNA, and then the jury sees all the circumstantial evidence on top of that, I think there will be enough "beyond a reasonable doubt" evidence for a conviction.

Just my opinion and like I said, I need to do more research:

Circumstantial Evidence vs Direct Evidence.

Everything that isn't eyewitness (or "direct") testimony is circumstantial evidence. Yes, that includes fingerprints. As we should expect, in this modern era circumstantial evidence usually outweighs direct evidence.

It is a lazy convention of screenwriters and novelists to use "circumstantial" as a synonym for "weak evidence". In the case of DNA, there's nothing weak about it.

 

[Nova]

Snipped for focus. I'm sure we're thinking of some of the same cases, but the cases I'm familiar with, the perp's DNA itself was found on the victim's body. In this case, the DNA was on a snap on a sheath left at the scene. I think it's harder to explain DNA on a body vs on an accessory to the murder weapon. If they can connect the murder weapon itself with BK and tie that weapon with the sheath, I think the DNA evidence may be viewed much stronger.

MOO.

Perhaps, but, as I'm sure you know, DNA remains circumstantial evidence no matter where it is found.

A lab tech might give "direct testimony" that s/he tested Sample X and got YZ result. But the result would still be circumstantial evidence re who committed the crime.

 

[want2solveit]

MOO BK was offended by not being hired by the police so he thought he would out smart them with the murders.

The not being hired was quite a while ago. I doubt that's it. One thing is certain, if he killed these people, and I'm convinced he did, he's not very smart.

 

[Chloegirl]

The not being hired was quite a while ago. I doubt that's it. One thing is certain, if he killed these people, and I'm convinced he did, he's not very smart.

I just don't think it has anything to do with intelligence. We (hopefully) do not understand the mind of a killer and what drives them, what they can justify, and what they're willing to do in relationship to what we would be willing to do. I am weirdly comforted by the fact that I cannot understand a mind like this. Lots of things had to go wrong in the suspects world to be brought to this point. JMHO.