ID - 4 University of Idaho Students Murdered - Moscow # 18

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sandy007

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2022
Messages
302
Reaction score
1,798
Whoah, sounds like dad seems to know exactly who did this. And behavior of victim's afterwards?

Hmmm would Kaylee send an email to herself like if "anything ever happens to me?" I'm so confused about those last 2 quotes from dad.
Interesting. He may refers to the surviving girls or surviving boyfriends albeit the BFs were no at the house at the time of the crime? Text/Voice messages left on the phones of the killed students by their friends prior to uncovering the murders? Or someone supposed to answer the left on their phone by one or more of the killed students imporrant message(s) in the morning of 13th before the killings were discovered, but they did not? He hits that something was expected to happen and the person should have done that if they were innocent and unaware that the person they supposed to reply/do something they promised to do was killed. How about loan someone had to pay back, to K account, for example, on the morning of 13th? That late night calls were about something important, weren't they?
 
Last edited:

Ghostwheel

Pyrrhonist
Joined
Aug 13, 2003
Messages
4,535
Reaction score
2,124
Website
Visit site
I won't try to interpret all of his comments but the gist I got was that he uncovered communications on the phone showing evidence of behavioral changes on someone's part leading him and the authorities in a specific direction.
Like a text message that wasn't there that maybe normally would have been there.....
 

AzPistonsGirl

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
5,974
Reaction score
16,136
A behavior footprint afterwards might be something like someone called or texted after K was deceased, so K did not respond and she would have if she had not been deceased. Prior behavior might have indicated she would respond no matter what , no matter the time. That was my thought.
or conversely, someone used to call/text constantly and those contacts stopped at a certain time... got our thinking caps on
 

Newb7961

Active Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2022
Messages
14
Reaction score
115
From Kaylee’s Father on Fox News…
- Not happy with the statements from LE creating more questions than answers
- Picture of Kaylee’s bed which was made up I.e. not slept in was shared before and Kaylee’s Dad did not realise Kaylee and Maddie being in the same bed was new information when he shared it. They did sleep in the same bed that night, Maddie’s bed.
- Father says it is ‘pretty much a fact’ that the perp would show up at any funeral service and follow the case online. Family don’t want to hold service now as they wouldn’t want to ‘exclude anyone.’
- Some information the family got from Kaylee’s phone and shared with LE. Then mentions the ‘behaviour footprint’ afterwards getting some things in the works. (Not sure what this means.)
- This quote strikes me ‘I do have some incline that there was some behaviour difference as I call them a footprint when you commit a crime you do something, you do different behaviours, I’ve asked permission to give any of that out and they told me no it would not be beneficial, so I’ve held back on that.’
Reporter: ‘Behaviour of her or someone she knew?’
Father: ‘behaviour of the victims.’Father of slain Idaho student: 'I'm not going nowhere' until the killer is off the streets | Fox News Video
Interesting. This strikes me as odd:
“Father says it is ‘pretty much a fact’ that the perp would show up at any funeral service and follow the case online. Family don’t want to hold service now as they wouldn’t want to ‘exclude anyone.’”

Who would be “excluded,” then? Would he be excluding someone based on suspicion and wants to wait to hold the funeral until that person is cleared, so he/she could go?
 

Wallendo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2011
Messages
247
Reaction score
2,555
That was interesting albeit confusing. At one point Martha asks about him getting into Kaylee's phone and what he learned. He stated there was some info which he got to LE that definitely helped. That "the behavior footprint afterwards did definitely get some more things in the works."

Later she asks him was Kaylee the target over anyone else or vice versa. He stated he has some inkling there was some behavior difference, he calls it a footprint, when you commit a crime you do different behaviors. Martha asks behavior of her, Kaylee, or someone she knew. He states behavior of the victims.

Which victims behavior is he speaking of and what was it?
It is a cryptic message:
My first interpretation is that one of the four killed victims had committed some crime and behavior changed after that leading to the killing. But that didn't make sense. He only had access to Kaylee's phone
My second thought was that one or both of the survivors changed their behavior after the murders, but that would be 100% expected.
 

cottonweaver

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 20, 2014
Messages
6,003
Reaction score
11,536
I don't want to tear apart possibly a starving journalist or journalism or university student for trying to get a channel off the ground and asking donations.

I doubt she's making much, unlike corporate stations. I don't respect much any news these days, nothing is really reputable anymore. Her Amazon wish list is all media gear, so she's probably trying to get some cash to keep her channel running and do as a full-time job.

Don't get me wrong - I don't love this stuff, but it's a free country. I don't find her that exploitive from the segment I watched for the first time. Crime is exploitive in general sadly. JMO, MOO

I understand that but but I was referring mainly to Bullhorn ( the blonde in the hat.)

Remember what she did on the Gabby Petito case? Literally foghorned stuff at that couple. I doubt you would have done it
( and yes I did criticise one of the big shows for paying a neighbour to park a marquee on a lawn to report from the same house for weeks, and then later, when nothing was happening in the case, for reporting on Bullhorn and friends. They both fed off each other.)

I do agree with you on hypocrisy re legacy media vs some SM start-ups but they need to go home imo

Here's another example of what I think is irresponsible reporting -
 

Colorado303

Verified Insider Watts Case
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
2,623
Reaction score
38,075

Cryptic

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2014
Messages
3,480
Reaction score
18,416
I am new to this thread. Any insight why the other two house mates did not hear four people being butchered to death and fighting back.
"Seek the cause, and you will learn the end"

Ok, fake mystical insights aside...

I think it helps to understand the area and home. The area is a student district. Students like inexpensive rents and land lords like to maximize occupants via additional rooms or micro apartments while being with in building codes.

In this case, a home was expanded into a three level "split level" on a hill side. The lowest level (there are two ground floors), does not sit immediately below the other levels. Rather, it is behind of (or in front of) depending on the approach of the other levels. So, there would not have been noise coming though the ceiling per se.

It is also possible that an attacker might not realize there was another level to the house. Or, even if if he realized it, might conclude that it was a garage.

Factor the quirky lay out into the fact that the other two residents may of had a few to drink themselves, and I think its credible that they did not hear anything.
 
Last edited:

Ghostwheel

Pyrrhonist
Joined
Aug 13, 2003
Messages
4,535
Reaction score
2,124
Website
Visit site
Interesting. This strikes me as odd:
“Father says it is ‘pretty much a fact’ that the perp would show up at any funeral service and follow the case online. Family don’t want to hold service now as they wouldn’t want to ‘exclude anyone.’”

Who would be “excluded,” then? Would he be excluding someone based on suspicion and wants to wait to hold the funeral until that person is cleared, so he/she could go?
Maybe that or maybe he has his own suspicions and does NOT want the person who killed his daughter to come to a service. If he excluded out who he suspected, that would cast suspicion on that person. If he didn't exclude them, the person would come. It could get sticky. JMO.
 

TheBorez

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2017
Messages
214
Reaction score
2,222
Interesting. This strikes me as odd:
“Father says it is ‘pretty much a fact’ that the perp would show up at any funeral service and follow the case online. Family don’t want to hold service now as they wouldn’t want to ‘exclude anyone.’”

Who would be “excluded,” then? Would he be excluding someone based on suspicion and wants to wait to hold the funeral until that person is cleared, so he/she could go?
I think this is the case, it’s certainly how I interpreted it. They won’t hold the service because there is someone they know will come and they cannot exclude them without it being very obvious that they suspect them, that in itself could compromise the LE investigation as LE wouldn’t want the person being tipped off that they’re suspected. (Though I would say students close to this friends group will be able to decipher a lot more from those comments as they will know the friends/relations of most victims.)
 

EM152

Active Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2022
Messages
33
Reaction score
223
The residence being targeted is interesting. I would assume this meant targeted for possible robbery/burglary, but they have ruled that out? So what makes the residence “targeted”?
If the residence was targeted could the reason relate back to the owner of that house? Someone with a history to the owner that wanted to inflict revenge, chaos, reprisal knowing that murdering these kids would impact this owner in many, many ways. Of course, my thinking only as we try to figure out how the 'house' could be the target and the kids were not direct targets.
 

Newb7961

Active Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2022
Messages
14
Reaction score
115
Maybe that or maybe he has his own suspicions and does NOT want the person who killed his daughter to come to a service. If he excluded out who he suspected, that would cast suspicion on that person. If he didn't exclude them, the person would come. It could get sticky. JMO.
That’s what I was thinking. He must suspect someone. We all would in that situation.
 

Mamamerced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2014
Messages
1,941
Reaction score
1,593
There are more similarities here than I realized:
- perp broke into home around 3:00 am while residents were asleep.
- two residents in the same bed stabbed multiple times (one survived, just barely)
- A guest in a different bedroom was unharmed
- A dog was present and also left unharmed
And on the 13th day of the month.
 

livewiiiiire

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2022
Messages
96
Reaction score
776
Interesting. This strikes me as odd:
“Father says it is ‘pretty much a fact’ that the perp would show up at any funeral service and follow the case online. Family don’t want to hold service now as they wouldn’t want to ‘exclude anyone.’”

Who would be “excluded,” then? Would he be excluding someone based on suspicion and wants to wait to hold the funeral until that person is cleared, so he/she could go?
I thought about this earlier, and was wondering if he meant that he wanted to be able to have a public funeral, not wanting to exclude anyone that wanted to pay respects to K who may not otherwise get a direct invite if they had a private, family-only service (ex: someone they knew from college or work but not familiar with family). Just a thought/MOO
 

Lalalacasbah

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2014
Messages
2,920
Reaction score
5,581
I understand that but but I was referring mainly to Bullhorn ( the blonde in the hat.)

Remember what she did on the Gabby Petito case? Literally foghorned stuff at that couple. I doubt you would have done it
( and yes I did criticise one of the big shows for paying a neighbour to park a marquee on a lawn to report from the same house for weeks, and then later, when nothing was happening in the case, for reporting on Bullhorn and friends. They both fed off each other.)

I do agree with you on hypocrisy re legacy media vs some SM start-ups but they need to go home imo

Here's another example of what I think is irresponsible reporting -
I think you and I are basically on the same page :) I get what you mean 100%.

There is a fine ethical line. I'm not familiar with Bullhorn but if they're too aggressive and tasteless then it's not good.

So hard nowadays, integrity is rare!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top