That makes sense but my opinion is that he came for murder. He definitely came prepared to my knowledge and this doesn’t appear to be a last minute crime as he nearly left no trace. Except the knife sheath and the sightings of his car.
Maybe he egotistically assumed that he wouldn't be focused on, or caught so quickly, so they wouldn't be looking at his phone, if he didnt have it turned on when he was near the crime scene. And if he didn't leave any trace DNA or fingerprints, he didn't have to worry about being caught.
Was it absolutely debunked? Do we know that for sure or just a theory it was?
The prosecution is attempting to reject the alibi, but this is a modern day alibi where a cellphone may indeed prove to be the witness to where BK actually was. IMO, it must be allowed to prevent a future appeal. If other types of electronic witnesses are allowed such as traffic cameras, Ring doorbells, cellphone technology and the like, for the prosecution, so too, must cellphone technology be allowed for the defense. I can't see this trial not allowing that unless everyone's goal is to have an easily overturned verdict.
I have confidence that the prosecution will handle this alibi situation like they have for many years. I am sure this is nothing new from a defense attorney---
He had probably downloaded some phony app that claimed prevent anyone tracking his phone, thinking it would protect him. Just a guess, we’ll find out at trial.
Murderers are caught all the time by the law enforcement by tracking their phone records- phones are often tracked to the area where the murder was committed. If a murderer has a phone with them, IMO it is no indication if the murder was planned or not planned. If murderers were great at planning a murder they would never be caught- Many murderers are caught because all of their planning does not go the way they envisioned for one reason or another. Emotions enter into the equation- so for example, during the murder (assuming KB is the killer), he was caught up in the emotion of killing for people in a short period of time, and left the knife sheath behind unintentionally. As far as lack of DNA in the car or apartment, he had plenty of time to clean up the blood.
They agreed he "did not stalk one of the victims before their death..."
No. This is not a word game. There was no stalking. It's as simple as that. And he also didn't follow any of the victims online. We have yet to find out how the prosecution thinks he came across these victims, but we should rule out stalking and online.
We don't know that prosecutors were using a legal definition of stalking simply because they were in a courtroom. People here (especially those who are hanging on to the idea BK must have been stalking the women) have suggested that is the case-- so when the prosecution publicly agreed there was no stalking they "didn't really mean it." That it's a matter of how the term is defined.
