I get it. Judge sort of has to accept it.
What if I was hiking by myself from 2 to 6 PM one day and had no witnesses. It is still my alibi, but the alibi cannot be corroborated from another individual.
However, the part where he said more or less that his alibi might be able to be corroborated by unknown individuals who saw him is the far fetched part.
All he would have to have said is I went into 7 Eleven to get a coke OR I stopped at a gas station to get gas ... if it was far enough away from the CS and time of the murders, then he would be in the clear.
I know, this is common sense.
It depends…
Was your phone turned off during the portion of your hike when the murder more than likely occurred? Even though there was cell signal covering said hiking trails? How about the cameras that caught someone who was wearing the same sneakers and hat (the equivalent to the car) as you next to a path that could plausibly lead to the murder scene? Because that is your DNA at the scene when it has no business being there.
I don’t think anyone’s arguing that on their own “out driving aimlessly” or “turned cell phone off because I wanted peace” is nefarious. Even those two things together on their own don’t really rise to that level.
It’s the DNA that makes his alibi suspect. It’s the DNA that makes the cell phone off suspect. It’s the DNA that makes the CCTV foootage of a car like his headed to the murder scene suspect. And when you add those three things up along with the DNA - the alibi becomes downright implausible IMO.
Also, I don’t think you can discount the time that this crime happened. Late late late night when there’s not a lot of road or foot traffic and most people are sleeping. Which is not the same as hiking in the late afternoon / early evening.
Whener I read cases for BKs innocence ( I’m not reading your response as one) it’s usually critical of individual pieces of evidence, as if they exist in a vacuum. Or they’ll preface with “without the dna”.
I haven’t seen a single defense of Kohlberger that considers the totality of the evidence without going into Lee Harvey Oswald like “patsy” territory.
This is going to present as a lack of an alibi in court IMO. I just don’t see how the defense gets it in without looking clumsy and making BK look guilty. Are they going to ask his neighbor if they know of his late drives? His childhood friends? The FBI cellular expert on nights BK didn’t go near Kings road?
Ugh.
MOO. I am not a legal expert. Obviously.