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

[sunshineray]

"In this day and age". Our tech now is way better. Those peeps were convicted long ago. They also were not high profile cases (high profile being ones where even people not following the case know them like Chris Watts or Scott Peterson or Patrick Frazee). None. IMO. Some theories are basically ignoring so many facts about the situation and not relevant to reality IMO. The whole picture is what matters. BK is in jail for a reason. I guess this discussion has turned into 'ways BK can be innocent' but ignoring most of the actual facts of the case. IMO.

My Dad was state LE for over 30 years. One of the things I learned from that was that stating what I believed was the way of things, from growing up in that environment, "Well I don't feel the police would have arrested and then charged them if there wasn't evidence of guilt", got me dismissed from jury duty.

Isn't that ironic...having great faith in LE to protect and serve you makes you a lousy juror for justice. I so understand your post, he's in jail for a reason. AJMO

 

[Momac-07]

Uuuummm, absolutely ridiculous!! JMHO. How was this overlooked when assigning the case?

What makes you think it was overlooked? Just because an article wasn’t written about it immediately doesn’t mean it wasn’t handled properly; it’s really a pretty standard legal process. Idaho is a big state with a very small population. The coroner is also a lawyer.

Kohberger’s lawyer is a public defender; not a wild coincidence that in a small community there is crossover among folks. The article linked above also says something to the effect of “Taylor is one of just 13 public defenders in Idaho approved by the state’s public defense commission to lead a capital punishment case. She’s also the only one in all of North Idaho” BBM

It is something that should be discussed, but in that area I also don’t think it’s odd.

 

[jepop]

What a great point!

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

If "any victim(s) will do", why choose the state with the d.p.? Why?

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...

Speculating; He could have done some weighing up of the odds I guess, but in the end fixation/committment to that house and its inhabitants won. Plus, I don't think he planned on being caught (which criminal does - generally speaking?). Focus on plan, not consequences. Focus on immediate and near future benefit (ie whatever 'other' logic applies, the killer saw benefit to his self in these acts). MOO

Other thoughts; Many non criminals are familiar with logic of immediate or short term benefit overriding longer term in other aspects of life. White collar crimes, fraud, embezzlement also similiarly focused on the now and immediate future benefits not long term consequences. Granted, death penalty not issue in these egs.

MOO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

"In this day and age". Our tech now is way better. Those peeps were convicted long ago. They also were not high profile cases (high profile being ones where even people not following the case know them like Chris Watts or Scott Peterson or Patrick Frazee). None. IMO. Some theories are basically ignoring so many facts about the situation and not relevant to reality IMO. The whole picture is what matters. BK is in jail for a reason. I guess this discussion has turned into 'ways BK can be innocent' but ignoring most of the actual facts of the case. IMO.

I haven't seen anyone post about ways BK can be innocent. I have seen posts talk about the evidence not being that strong, but that's different. It's entirely possible that BK is guilty and yet, the evidence doesn't show it as strongly as we'd like. It could also be that some aren't entirely sold on BK's guilt, but that doesn't mean we're theorizing on ways he could be innocent. I think most here just want the justice system to play itself out fairly. It sometimes doesn't.

MOO.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

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.

Yup, I hear you. I actually also thought DNA was direct evidence, so I did learn something. But I do think the link to BK in this situation is weaker than the cases we've followed where DNA was found on the body of the deceased. It'll be interesting to see if they find the murder weapon and can tie it to him.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

The same technology as today did not exist even 10 years ago. The DNA anaylsis, the phone, and cameras are all way better now and are on almost every home and business and traffic light and car. Now and forever into the future will both be way more difficult to get away with any crime let alone murder, and will see way fewer wrongful convictions. Also, social media wasn't a thing to make the victims famous and creating slueths like us here. IMO

I don't think sleuths make any difference to miscarriage of justice, except maybe by complicating the situation for LE. But while I agree that it's harder for a criminal to get away with their crimes, it isn't impossible and I think some will continue to be wrongfully convicted, unfortunately.

 

[ilovewings]

I don't think sleuths make any difference to miscarriage of justice, except maybe by complicating the situation for LE. But while I agree that it's harder for a criminal to get away with their crimes, it isn't impossible and I think some will continue to be wrongfully convicted, unfortunately.

Yes some will continue to be wrongfully convicted and that is because IMO the police get focused on one person really fast and there is a rush to judgement. I don't believe that is the case with BK-looks to me like the police and FBI did their homework before arresting him

 

[NCWatcher]

My Dad was state LE for over 30 years. One of the things I learned from that was that stating what I believed was the way of things, from growing up in that environment, "Well I don't feel the police would have arrested and then charged them if there wasn't evidence of guilt", got me dismissed from jury duty.

Isn't that ironic...having great faith in LE to protect and serve you makes you a lousy juror for justice. I so understand your post, he's in jail for a reason. AJMO

I think I understand what you are saying. But I was on a murder jury once. DP case but per NC law at the time a separate jury decided the penalty. Trial lasted a full week plus one day. That's not long for many high-profile cases but even 6 full days can be hard on a jury. So much to weigh and absorb.

We eventually convicted and I think we made the right decision. BUT there were some legit points that had to be hashed out before we could all agree to convict. I admit I was extremely shocked when after 6 full days of testimony and a competent defense, two of my fellow jurors argued during our deliberations "the police wouldn't have arrested him if he wasn't guilty." Yarrgh.

I know what those people said is not what you said or what you meant. But I can see defense attorneys wanting to boot all candidates who say things like that during voir dire. It could suggest the defendant isn't starting off as presumed innocent in those people's minds. It could further suggest those folks might think the defense carries the burden to prove the defendant is innocent and to prove the police were wrong.

i hope a fair and impartial jury can be seated in this case so we can all have confidence in the outcome. Unfortunately with high-profile cases people may have some iffy motivations for wanting to serve on the jury.
 JMO

 

[cujenn81]

I have often wondered whether someone capable of mass murder, or serial killing is capable of empathy for anyone else. Family or otherwise.

Jeffrey MacDonald killed his family, so clearly the answer in his case was "None." I don't specifically recall whether any serial killer has ever seemed to express genuine regret for anything they did, to their family or anyone else. I'm not sure they are capable of that emotion.

Israel Keyes had a young daughter and made all kind of deals with the prosecution to keep the details of his killing of Samantha Koenig out of the public eye. He told them where to find her remains and gave up information about the VT couple he killed (which would likely still be unsolved) and in exchange he wanted to be executed within a year because he didn’t want his daughter and the rest of his family to live with what he’d done for years and years. He didn’t want his crimes hanging over his daughter’s head for the rest of her life. Of course, he was incredibly naive about how slowly the justice system works. And when an officer in VT leaked his name to the press, he stopped cooperating with the FBI and then he took matters into his own hands when he realized “his deal” wasn’t getting him anywhere.

Did he show remorse for his victims? No, but he did regret that his actions were having a negative impact on his family. I think part of him wanting to shelter his daughter from his crimes was self-serving — he didn’t want his daughter to think of him differently, etc. But I also think he really loved his daughter (at least, in the only way he knew how).

I think it’s impossible for us to conceptualize a person who can commit such heinous crimes and also be capable of love. But the inner workings of the human mind are complex and complicated because no two brains are the same.

 

[Nila Aella]

Just reviewing the notification of rights in this case. It says, inital items which you fully understand and leave blank items which you do not understand.

One question left blank.

Has anyone made you promises or coerced you to act in this matter?

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/010523%20Notification%20of%20Rights.pdf

edit: changed three questions to one question and removed two, thanks for the correction CityKid

 

[maskedwoman]

OK. Be the defense attorney for a minute. You have documentation on video that your client accused of the heinous murder of 4 young people is absolutely innocent because you can PROVE he was somewhere else--video plus the testimony of the gym manager and maybe others from a 4 am workout. Do you let your client sit in jail awaiting trial or do you show law enforcement he's innocent?

My question exactly! To me, she would be doing both her client and the public a disservice to let him rot in jail, and the police think the have the right guy, if she can prove the killer is still loose.

 

[maskedwoman]

Israel Keyes had a young daughter and made all kind of deals with the prosecution to keep the details of his killing of Samantha Koenig out of the public eye. He told them where to find her remains and gave up information about the VT couple he killed (which would likely still be unsolved) and in exchange he wanted to be executed within a year because he didn’t want his daughter and the rest of his family to live with what he’d done for years and years. He didn’t want his crimes hanging over his daughter’s head for the rest of her life. Of course, he was incredibly naive about how slowly the justice system works. And when an officer in VT leaked his name to the press, he stopped cooperating with the FBI and then he took matters into his own hands when he realized “his deal” wasn’t getting him anywhere.

Did he show remorse for his victims? No, but he did regret that his actions were having a negative impact on his family. I think part of him wanting to shelter his daughter from his crimes was self-serving — he didn’t want his daughter to think of him differently, etc. But I also think he really loved his daughter (at least, in the only way he knew how).

I think it’s impossible for us to conceptualize a person who can commit such heinous crimes and also be capable of love. But the inner workings of the human mind are complex and complicated because no two brains are the same.

Thank you for sharing that. It was very interesting. And you're right. Human beings are very complicated.

 

[steeltowngirl]

Speculating; He could have done some weighing up of the odds I guess, but in the end fixation/committment to that house and its inhabitants won. Plus, I don't think he planned on being caught (which criminal does - generally speaking?). Focus on plan, not consequences. Focus on immediate and near future benefit (ie whatever 'other' logic applies, the killer saw benefit to his self in these acts). MOO

Other thoughts; Many non criminals are familiar with logic of immediate or short term benefit overriding longer term in other aspects of life. White collar crimes, fraud, embezzlement also similiarly focused on the now and immediate future benefits not long term consequences. Granted, death penalty not issue in these egs.

MOO

You raise an interesting question as to whether he considered the consequences. He certainly planned the crime, as it took effort and forethought to drive to King Rd and enter the house.

There was no tangible benefit to murdering 4 unknown people. He can’t collect a life insurance policy, and he wasn’t robbing them, AFAIK. Did he plan to get caught? Did he actually hope to get caught? He surely wasn’t looking for 3 hots and a cot in prison. Though that’s what he got, and now staring down possible LWOP or DP.

So why?
Revenge? Perceived rejection? SA? Thrill kill?
POWER
Or - to just remove himself from society without taking his own life?

We may never really know the why.

 

[maskedwoman]

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.

Defense attorneys also love to say the words "circumstantial case" as if were synonymous with "fictional". Actually, if only direct evidence were worthy of convicting someone, few criminals would go to jail. Fingerprints, GSR, DNA, all of that is circumstantial.

<modsnip - referencing unapproved source>

 

[jepop]

You raise an interesting question as to whether he considered the consequences. He certainly planned the crime, as it took effort and forethought to drive to King Rd and enter the house.

There was no tangible benefit to murdering 4 unknown people. He can’t collect a life insurance policy, and he wasn’t robbing them, AFAIK. Did he plan to get caught? Did he actually hope to get caught? He surely wasn’t looking for 3 hots and a cot in prison. Though that’s what he got, and now staring down possible LWOP or DP.

So why?
Revenge? Perceived rejection? SA? Thrill kill?
POWER
Or - to just remove himself from society without taking his own life?

We may never really know the why.

BBM: Totally for sure! I would never expect to know in any categorical sense with these terrible crimes. The why is undoubtedly more complicated than I and I'd imagine most people could ever truly know, and there may never be any answers, at least not categorically. I doubt if the killer even knows. The why is likley multi-layered, complex.
I wasn't really thinking re tangible benefit, just speculating on perceived benefit from his perspective. Psychological benefit - relief from obsession, pleasure from killing, attainment of feeling of power and/or attainment of feeling of agency. Speculating that such psychological benefits (again from killer's perspective) might mean foregoing rational self preservation considerations as to why Idaho and not WA (ie long into the future death penalty considerations may have been a moot consideration). Just speculations. MOO

 

[maskedwoman]

Yea, I've often wondered if his suddenly (apparently/reportedly) giving "all" his students 100% on assessments post murders was related to the dress down, IMO, infront of the 150 students prior to the murders. That's what popped into my head when I first read about it. MOO

Either that of, after the killings, he had so much on his mind that he couldn't be bothered. It could have been both, I suppose. MOOooo

 

[jepop]

OK. Be the defense attorney for a minute. You have documentation on video that your client accused of the heinous murder of 4 young people is absolutely innocent because you can PROVE he was somewhere else--video plus the testimony of the gym manager and maybe others from a 4 am workout. Do you let your client sit in jail awaiting trial or do you show law enforcement he's innocent?

Really, if that was the case, BK would have spoken to police with lawyer present, alibi would have been checked and BK would not be in jail, and LE would be looking for the killer. I realise you understand that, just adding my two cents in response to the original post and speculation MOO

 

[sunshineray]

I think I understand what you are saying. But I was on a murder jury once. DP case but per NC law at the time a separate jury decided the penalty. Trial lasted a full week plus one day. That's not long for many high-profile cases but even 6 full days can be hard on a jury. So much to weigh and absorb.

We eventually convicted and I think we made the right decision. BUT there were some legit points that had to be hashed out before we could all agree to convict. I admit I was extremely shocked when after 6 full days of testimony and a competent defense, two of my fellow jurors argued during our deliberations "the police wouldn't have arrested him if he wasn't guilty." Yarrgh.

I know what those people said is not what you said or what you meant. But I can see defense attorneys wanting to boot all candidates who say things like that during voir dire. It could suggest the defendant isn't starting off as presumed innocent in those people's minds. It could further suggest those folks might think the defense carries the burden to prove the defendant is innocent and to prove the police were wrong.

i hope a fair and impartial jury can be seated in this case so we can all have confidence in the outcome. Unfortunately with high-profile cases people may have some iffy motivations for wanting to serve on the jury.
 JMO

Yes it was the question I was asked and the way in which I answered it (along with being a child of LE I'm sure) that got me booted...probably rightly so. I too hope an open-minded jury is chosen. The victims and their families deserve a fair trial as much as the defendant. IMO

 

[Ceska]

<modsnip - name calling> just stating what BK's family statement included, love and support. I believe their denial of his homicidal nature may lessen with evidence given but not their love. AJMO

I can't imagine what BK's family must be going through... no one knows, what sort of statement could anyone in that situation possibly come up with, they must be as shocked as we all are. <modsnip - telling others what to do/think/say>

 

[Montecore1]

My Dad was state LE for over 30 years. One of the things I learned from that was that stating what I believed was the way of things, from growing up in that environment, "Well I don't feel the police would have arrested and then charged them if there wasn't evidence of guilt", got me dismissed from jury duty.

Isn't that ironic...having great faith in LE to protect and serve you makes you a lousy juror for justice. I so understand your post, he's in jail for a reason. AJMO

I respect your comment here but I could argue the opposite...

I haven't seen anyone post about ways BK can be innocent. I have seen posts talk about the evidence not being that strong, but that's different. It's entirely possible that BK is guilty and yet, the evidence doesn't show it as strongly as we'd like. It could also be that some aren't entirely sold on BK's guilt, but that doesn't mean we're theorizing on ways he could be innocent. I think most here just want the justice system to play itself out fairly. It sometimes doesn't.

Agreed 100%