4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #93

[pittsburghgirl]

The defense may just ignore it and not even address those pings. I know that sounds ridiculous, and it would be ridiculous to me, too… except that I was a juror on a murder trial once, and the defense tried to say nothing was premeditated and that the murder was accidental and self defense. And some of the evidence that was really, really flipping obvious wasn’t even addressed! When the defendant got on the stand and was questioned, the question that seemed like the obvious hole in his story was never even asked. (To this day, I still find it bizarre.) But there were also photos and x-rays of this evidence, provided to us jurors. So maybe they thought those spoke for themselves? I dunno. I just won’t be surprised if BK’s defense just ignores and glosses over some of the holes in their story. JMO.

Again, excuse the reference to the Pike County case. But they cooked up an original alibi: they were all at home together! That held up until they found shell casings from the murder gun on their property and a receipt and store video that showed the mother buying the brand of murder shoes in the same size as the bloody footprint. And so on. BK's alibi won't hold up past the first actual evidence the prosecutor puts up.

 

[Balthazar]

I'm a catholic from one of the most catholic places outside of the vatican, born and raised in Boston MA. The northeastern united states flavor of catholic. Probably similar to BK.

I've completed all my sacraments but the last two. Which would require me to become a priest (no thanks). I'm far more progressive than the church will ever be. So while I'm not the biggest person of faith as of late. I do still actively practice and participate.

In all of my life on this planet earth Ive never heard the catholic church associated with astronomy. I never heard about it in Sunday school nor my kids' current Sunday school. Never heard about it in a priest's sermon during the weekly homily. I've gone to church's steeped in tradition where the entire mass is delivered in Latin, and the more progressive churches where the priest is in Air Jordan's and commiserating with us about religious memes on social media.

I'm not saying it doesn't exist. Your link proves it does. I'm just wondering how prevalent that sort of thing is and how many kids/adults/people found astronomy through relgion....

I'm not sure how prevalent it is either, but I became interested in Astronomy through the Catholic Church. It was part of learning about the art in various churches and cathedrals. I was inside one where they painted the local night sky on the night of Jesus birth above the altar showing how the Star of Bethlehem would have looked from there - so incredible! It was being restored and the painter had initially thought it was decorative and didn't have meaning, but the priest called a church historian who called an astronomer and the astronomer verified what it was! So she had to paint the stars on the ceiling laid out in a very exacting way which the church astronomer helped her with and it is absolutely gorgeous but more important significant and meaningful!

As far as the metadata goes. IMO You're right in that if he faked it and he manually manipulated the data that they will be able to tell. And using the sky for verification is a good call. GPS is pretty much impossible to fake (regardless of all the "fake a location" apps on the app store) without leaving traces behind. And Cellular location data depends on way too many variables to be fool proof. So for the prosecution...without supporting evidence (i.e. video that aligns to the cellular) the cell phone evidence is a dud IMO. Because it can be interpreted in many ways.

I agree.

I still don't agree with your claims on capacity though. As I've shown here towers can support upwards of thousands of calls per tower. Less than 10 years ago you would be in a 15k arena in a college town and any call attempts or web browsing would fail because of congestion. Today you have thousands of people simultaneously streaming and making phone calls with no issues.

MOO

Not claim, theory. I've been trying to come up with a theory as to how his pings may be right although he was out of town according to the defense. How will the defense explain that because they will have to as part of their theory? I'm always open to other ideas.

 

[wendy44]

I don't think BK's driving times have shifted at all, only that the defense is starting to provide information about the most critical part of the timeline and most important, who their witness will be. I don't think the time before midnight is that important to this case, although, based on what the defense has written in the first alibi answer, I believe BK was already out driving during that timeframe.

To be clear, the first alibi response was filed July 24th in response to the state's demand for one:

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/072423+Notice+of+Defendants+Response+to+States+Alibi+Demand.pdf

There weren't even the vaguest details about where he was, just that they would be providing corroborating evidence that he wasn't at King Road.
The filing from last August was not an alibi response and not meant to be taken as an alibi. It was an objection to being compelled to provide one according to statute.
The filing from this month was a supplement to the original alibi response last July since the original response didn't satisfy the requirements of Idaho code. This is what he intends to present as his alibi.

But I agree--the time before midnight is not important if the 2:42am and 2:47am pings/footage of his car are not disputed by the defense. It will only become important if the defense tries to say he was elsewhere before midnight and therefore that could not be him in Pullman at those times.

We know that AT can only state what is the truth in court or in court documents. We also know that AT is not a cellular expert. Therefore, the ONLY way this could be the truth is if the expert (Sy Young) found this information in the course of his research and investigation. Sy Young's process is scientific and has been verified to be between 92% to 96% accurate, but in rural situations with fewer cell towers, the accuracy can be even higher. So, based on that, I'm going to say we have significantly more reason than not to believe that this IS scientifically provable factual information. I'm looking forward to seeing and hearing Sy Young's presentation and equally looking forward to seeing and hearing what the Prosecution presents. I wonder how similar the Prosecutors case will actually be to what is in the PCA?
United States v. Snipes, CRIMINAL 1:16-CR-212 | Casetext Search + Citator

So let's look at what AT did state in the Supplemental Response.

He moved to Pullman in June 2022--true.
As an avid runner and hiker he explored many areas of the Palouse--sounds truthful.
He explored Wawawai Park in July 2022 and this became a favorite location--sounds truthful.
When he started classes his running and hiking decreased, but did not stop--okay.
His night time drives increased--okay.
The phone data shows him in the countryside late at night and early morning on several occasions, and includes photographs taken including in November--sounds truthful
He was out driving in the early morning hours of November 13th--true.
He drove throughout the area south of Pullman and west of Moscow, including Wawawai Park--if he told her this is what he was doing, she's not being untruthful to say this, especially since there are no times listed and it could actually be true, just not at 4am. It doesn't mean if he was at King Road at 4am AT has not told the truth, therefore he couldn't have been at King Road. That statement is so vague it's pretty safe from being debunked.

She then goes on to say that the defense expert is going to testify that BK's mobile device was south of Pullman and west of Moscow, and did not travel east in those early morning hours and could not have been the vehicle captured in front of Floyd's Cannabis Shop. That's it. She herself does not say that. That's how this works. Defense attorneys find experts to support the defense. Leticia Stauch's defense lawyers found an expert to say she had Dissociative Identity Disorder and talked to the vampire council--her defense lawyers didn't necessarily believe that just because they found an expert who would testify to that and neither were they being untruthful to the court when they told the court they had an expert to testify to this.

AT will present her expert and the prosecution will present theirs and neither should be automatically believed by virtue of either side saying so. If there are conflicting experts it will be up to the jury to sort through it and decide which expert they believe. JMO

 

[wendy44]

I'm a catholic from one of the most catholic places outside of the vatican, born and raised in Boston MA. The northeastern united states flavor of catholic. Probably similar to BK.

I've completed all my sacraments but the last two. Which would require me to become a priest (no thanks). I'm far more progressive than the church will ever be. So while I'm not the biggest person of faith as of late. I do still actively practice and participate.

In all of my life on this planet earth Ive never heard the catholic church associated with astronomy. I never heard about it in Sunday school nor my kids' current Sunday school. Never heard about it in a priest's sermon during the weekly homily. I've gone to church's steeped in tradition where the entire mass is delivered in Latin, and the more progressive churches where the priest is in Air Jordan's and commiserating with us about religious memes on social media.

I'm not saying it doesn't exist. Your link proves it does. I'm just wondering how prevalent that sort of thing is and how many kids/adults/people found astronomy through relgion....

Snipped by me--agree with this--I'm Catholic and my dad's whole family is Catholic in NE PA about an hour west of where BK grew up and have attended mass in that area many times--this is interesting but I've never experienced it. I think a lot of people enjoy astronomy and also some of us may have taken it in college to get the required second science class instead of Physics, Chemistry or Geology lol.

 

[Cool Cats]

Again, excuse the reference to the Pike County case. But they cooked up an original alibi: they were all at home together! That held up until they found shell casings from the murder gun on their property and a receipt and store video that showed the mother buying the brand of murder shoes in the same size as the bloody footprint. And so on. BK's alibi won't hold up past the first actual evidence the prosecutor puts up.

Left their phones all in one place at the home where 3 of them lived. The mother stayed at home and sent out texts from their phones to make it look like they were home that night.

It was such a bad alibi that the defense didn't even try to use it in the trial of one of them.
A phone can be left anywhere and provides no alibi.

However, a phone can place a suspect in the vicinity of a crime scene and this is happening to BK. BK's phone did not stay in Pullman all night, it accessed cell towers that show he was in the Moscow area.

2 Cents

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Left their phones all in one place at the home where 3 of them lived. The mother stayed at home and sent out texts from their phones to make it look like they were home that night.

It was such a bad alibi that the defense didn't even try to use it in the trial of one of them.
A phone can be left anywhere and provides no alibi.

However, a phone can place a suspect in the vicinity of a crime scene and this is happening to BK. BK's phone did not stay in Pullman all night, it accessed cell towers that show he was in the Moscow area.

2 Cents

Murderers are not all that smart, are they, since they think killing people will solve whatever bothers them or prove their superiority. And your post shows that trying to use cell phones to create an alibi is very dumb, as is carrying it on your murder spree.

 

[Balthazar]

Left their phones all in one place at the home where 3 of them lived. The mother stayed at home and sent out texts from their phones to make it look like they were home that night.

It was such a bad alibi that the defense didn't even try to use it in the trial of one of them.
A phone can be left anywhere and provides no alibi.

However, a phone can place a suspect in the vicinity of a crime scene and this is happening to BK. BK's phone did not stay in Pullman all night, it accessed cell towers that show he was in the Moscow area.

2 Cents

But BK's phone never accessed any tower in Moscow that night/morning before 6 and there are no cell towers on the way to Moscow that picked up his phone. The PCA says BK's phone was turned off or put in airplane mode in Pullman. According to the PCA, the only tower he accessed besides the ones in Pullman was South of Moscow in Blaine sometime after the time police allege the murders took place. Even that ping does not place him in the Moscow area. The defense says BK went south and west of Pullman and was in Wawawai Park and other places, not Moscow.

All LE has are photos and video of a white Elantra in Pullman but apparently no proof it was BK's and then a white Elantra which seemed to appear out of thin air on Indian Hills Rd (it passed numerous traffic cameras to get into that neighborhood - why is there no video or pictures from these?) and later appeared near 1122 King Rd. LE does not seem to have a license plate number nor any photo or video of the driver and/or occupants of the white Elantra. IMO, there is, so far, no way to be sure the white Elantra in Pullman is the same one that appeared on Indian Hills Rd. And with 22,000 white Elantra's in the area that LE was searching through, plus who knows how many from out of state for the large events taking place in Pullman and Moscow, well, I can't see any way to be certain they were the same vehicle unless LE has more information on the vehicle that proves it is the same one which was not included in the PCA. But if they had that level of proof, BK's attorney would know by now and I would think there would be an offer to take the DP off the table for a confession and life sentence. But instead she's saying that was not BK's vehicle and BK was not in Moscow that night and I'm concerned that she says data from his phone that should be in the discovery is missing and she wants that data, has proof from Sy Young that the data should exist and otherwise she wants to know if it was lost or destroyed. The prosecutor should be concerned about that as should every US citizen.

 

[Chloegirl]

But BK's phone never accessed any tower in Moscow that night/morning before 6 and there are no cell towers on the way to Moscow that picked up his phone. The PCA says BK's phone was turned off or put in airplane mode in Pullman. According to the PCA, the only tower he accessed besides the ones in Pullman was South of Moscow in Blaine sometime after the time police allege the murders took place. Even that ping does not place him in the Moscow area. The defense says BK went south and west of Pullman and was in Wawawai Park and other places, not Moscow.

All LE has are photos and video of a white Elantra in Pullman but apparently no proof it was BK's and then a white Elantra which seemed to appear out of thin air on Indian Hills Rd (it passed numerous traffic cameras to get into that neighborhood - why is there no video or pictures from these?) and later appeared near 1122 King Rd. LE does not seem to have a license plate number nor any photo or video of the driver and/or occupants of the white Elantra. IMO, there is, so far, no way to be sure the white Elantra in Pullman is the same one that appeared on Indian Hills Rd. And with 22,000 white Elantra's in the area that LE was searching through, plus who knows how many from out of state for the large events taking place in Pullman and Moscow, well, I can't see any way to be certain they were the same vehicle unless LE has more information on the vehicle that proves it is the same one which was not included in the PCA. But if they had that level of proof, BK's attorney would know by now and I would think there would be an offer to take the DP off the table for a confession and life sentence. But instead she's saying that was not BK's vehicle and BK was not in Moscow that night and I'm concerned that she says data from his phone that should be in the discovery is missing and she wants that data, has proof from Sy Young that the data should exist and otherwise she wants to know if it was lost or destroyed. The prosecutor should be concerned about that as should every US citizen.

Right. It's Sy Ray. And we don't yet know what they have even if there's an implication of what they don't have, all the facts are not laid out. Very frustrating, but I think we need to know that he's getting a fair trial, as citizens. Period. Lots of folks are running around acting like there's evidence of collusion, planting things like and whatnot. We have not seen the prosecutions case. It's possible that Ann Taylor is stalling for time because she hasn't seen all the evidence. There's mountains of it to go through. I can feel bad for BK later, if it turns out that he was wronged. Right now, I have to give them time to digest the facts, both teams, lay it out and look at it. Otherwise we let somebody who's potentially guilty just walk free. JMOO.

 

[snooptroop88]

Right. It's Sy Ray. And we don't yet know what they have even if there's an implication of what they don't have, all the facts are not laid out. Very frustrating, but I think we need to know that he's getting a fair trial, as citizens. Period. Lots of folks are running around acting like there's evidence of collusion, planting things like and whatnot. We have not seen the prosecutions case. It's possible that Ann Taylor is stalling for time because she hasn't seen all the evidence. There's mountains of it to go through. I can feel bad for BK later, if it turns out that he was wronged. Right now, I have to give them time to digest the facts, both teams, lay it out and look at it. Otherwise we let somebody who's potentially guilty just walk free. JMOO.

Totally agreed on all of this. But by the way some of the defense's statements are worded, I am getting the feeling there may be nothing tangible even here, behind this more "advanced" version of the non-alibi. Meaning in the end, I don't think there will be hard data (like in the form of pings, what have you) to actively refute the P, it will still be, to the jury, "You have to take BK's word for it." With a bunch of pics of the moon & stars on other days. Now, maybe I'm wrong on this, I am not a fortuneteller, agreed I just have to wait and see. But as of now, based on what I've seen, I still think this is going to end up "having to take BK's word for" whatever is presented as the "alibi." That still leaves this kind of ridiculous situation where we're all supposed to trust the person being tried for a quadruple homicide. Right, someone who did such a thing would never-- lie (??). Uh huh. The moon and stars will have planted the sheath, and a cow will be jumping over said moon as that occurred, I guess. It's ridiculous. But totally and sincerely agreed-- fair trial. But I don't really know why AT isn't encouraging this person to try to get some plea deal. I wouldn't assume some actual basis for his innocence is behind it. I think it's more likely he's simply refusing. Again, though, waiting and watching.

 

[NCWatcher]

Totally agreed on all of this. But by the way some of the defense's statements are worded, I am getting the feeling there may be nothing tangible even here, behind this more "advanced" version of the non-alibi. Meaning in the end, I don't think there will be hard data (like in the form of pings, what have you) to actively refute the P, it will still be, to the jury, "You have to take BK's word for it." With a bunch of pics of the moon & stars on other days. Now, maybe I'm wrong on this, I am not a fortuneteller, agreed I just have to wait and see. But as of now, based on what I've seen, I still think this is going to end up "having to take BK's word for" whatever is presented as the "alibi." That still leaves this kind of ridiculous situation where we're all supposed to trust the person being tried for a quadruple homicide. Right, someone who did such a thing would never-- lie (??). Uh huh. The moon and stars will have planted the sheath, and a cow will be jumping over said moon as that occurred, I guess. It's ridiculous. But totally and sincerely agreed-- fair trial. But I don't really know why AT isn't encouraging this person to try to get some plea deal. I wouldn't assume some actual basis for his innocence is behind it. I think it's more likely he's simply refusing. Again, though, waiting and watching.

BBM

Do you really think BK would be offered a plea deal? I do understand the logic. A deal would let him avoid the DP. Presumably that would appeal to him even though it takes decades for the DP to be carried out. And a deal would give the state a guarantee of guilty that might not happen with a trial. And it would save the taxpayers the continuing expense involved in preparing for and eventually holding a trial. Finally, in case a change of venue is granted, avoiding a trial would save those in the DA's office alot of personal inconvenience. So l get it. But despite the. logic, I still don't think the state will offer a plea deal. So BK can't get one whether he wants one or not and I think AT knows that. But that's just MOO.

 

[DizzyB]

BBM

Do you really think BK would be offered a plea deal? I do understand the logic. A deal would let him avoid the DP. Presumably that would appeal to him even though it takes decades for the DP to be carried out. And a deal would give the state a guarantee of guilty that might not happen with a trial. And it would save the taxpayers the continuing expense involved in preparing for and eventually holding a trial. Finally, in case a change of venue is granted, avoiding a trial would save those in the DA's office alot of personal inconvenience. So l get it. But despite the. logic, I still don't think the state will offer a plea deal. So BK can't get one whether he wants one or not and I think AT knows that. But that's just MOO.

I don’t think he will be offered a plea deal, and I most certainly think he would reject it. He wants that trial. This is his stage.

 

[Boxer]

MOO BK is planning on being "exonerated," perhaps losing at trial on the facts, but successfully challenging police/prosecution processes.
He is a Ph.D. student of criminology, he isn't going to misuse the word "exonerate."
Also, it is in keeping with his "standing silent," where he also avoided having to lie outright and say he didnt do it.

MOO He looks like he is enjoying himself, and from his perspective this is probably way better life than returning home after making a mess of his WSU opportunity.

Exonerate "when a person who has been convicted of a crime is officially cleared after new evidence of innocence becomes available."

Glossary

www.law.umich.edu

 

[NCWatcher]

I don’t think he will be offered a plea deal, and I most certainly think he would reject it. He wants that trial. This is his stage.

You could be right that BK would reject a deal and you may be right about why. But I really doubt a deal would ever be offered to be able to be rejected. If the state wanted to deal, I doubt they'd not offer simply because a defendant might not accept the deal. And while we might not know if a deal has been offered, there hasn't been even a hint of that. And I'd think there would have been SOME hint leaked.
MOO

 

[Sundog]

Can someone explain to me why BK has to "officially" submit his alibi, instead of just presenting it during trial? Is that a rule?

As @jepop posted above, the Alibi Rule is included in Idaho's criminal code along with many other states. The Alibi Rule is controversial in the legal community because it compels speech from a defendant. It was adopted to help trials move along more efficiently, so that the prosecution wouldn't be surprised with a new defense witness in the middle of a trial and then they would have to stop the trial while the prosecution dealt with the new information. Responding to a request from the state for an alibi in accordance with the Alibi Rule is optional for the defense, but if later during the trial the defense wants to call a witness or present some evidence that establishes an alibi for the defendant, they are prohibited from doing so if they did not submit their alibi defense to the court by the date established by the judge.

 

[Sundog]

MOO BK is planning on being "exonerated," perhaps losing at trial on the facts, but successfully challenging police/prosecution processes.
He is a Ph.D. student of criminology, he isn't going to misuse the word "exonerate."
Also, it is in keeping with his "standing silent," where he also avoided having to lie outright and say he didnt do it.

MOO He looks like he is enjoying himself, and from his perspective this is probably way better life than returning home after making a mess of his WSU opportunity.

Exonerate "when a person who has been convicted of a crime is officially cleared after new evidence of innocence becomes available."

Glossary

www.law.umich.edu

Just my opinion, but I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the use of the word "exonerate" since it was BK's PA lawyer who made the remark and not necessarily a term used by BK. He may have told his lawyer that ultimately he would be found not guilty and his attorney used the term "exonerate" when he spoke to the press.

 

[iamshadow21]

As @jepop posted above, the Alibi Rule is included in Idaho's criminal code along with many other states. The Alibi Rule is controversial in the legal community because it compels speech from a defendant. It was adopted to help trials move along more efficiently, so that the prosecution wouldn't be surprised with a new defense witness in the middle of a trial and then they would have to stop the trial while the prosecution dealt with the new information. Responding to a request from the state for an alibi in accordance with the Alibi Rule is optional for the defense, but if later during the trial the defense wants to call a witness or present some evidence that establishes an alibi for the defendant, they are prohibited from doing so if they did not submit their alibi defense to the court by the date established by the judge.

Reminds me a little of an element of the English system... Being cautioned and told you do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if you don't disclose something you later rely on in court.

MOO

 

[Boxer]

Just my opinion, but I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the use of the word "exonerate" since it was BK's PA lawyer who made the remark and not necessarily a term used by BK. He may have told his lawyer that ultimately he would be found not guilty and his attorney used the term "exonerate" when he spoke to the press.

True.
MOO
At the same time the lawyer was sidestepping saying BK is innocent or didn't do it, both lawyers did.

 

[Cool Cats]

I don’t think he will be offered a plea deal, and I most certainly think he would reject it. He wants that trial. This is his stage.

It is extremely extremely rare for a defendant under the DP to offer to plead guilty to avoid the DP and the prosecutor says "No."

There are a few rare cases here and there but just rarely happens.

2 Cents

 

[jepop]

Just my opinion, but I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the use of the word "exonerate" since it was BK's PA lawyer who made the remark and not necessarily a term used by BK. He may have told his lawyer that ultimately he would be found not guilty and his attorney used the term "exonerate" when he spoke to the press.

It always seemed odd to me that the Pennsylvania lawyer phrased it that way, unless this is actually what BK said.

Initially I thought LeMar (right name? am relying on distant memory) may have just been exercising tact and being cautious but I realised this didn't really make much sense. I can't remember the exact timing, but think BK was still awaiting extradition to Idaho and therefore prior to the first non dissemination order. So I don't see LeMar saying 'expects to be exonerated' as a lawyerly rephrasing of what BK actually said to him to avoid a prejudicial public statement. In any event, publicly repeating that his client says he 'expects to be exonerated' seems to be no less potentially prejudicial than repeating that his client says 'I'm innocent'/'Not guilty'/'What the...I didn't do it'. If BK said anything along these lines I don't see why LeMar would choose to rephrase it to 'expect to be exonerated'. All moo.

The suggestion that BK may have told his lawyer something like 'I will ultimately be found not guilty', Imo seems as unusual a thing to say as 'I will be exonerated', so soon after arrest (as opposed to 'i'm innnocent/didn't do it'). But agree it makes sense that exonerate may have been lawyer's own word if that is what BK said to him. Moo

 

[Cool Cats]

It always seemed odd to me that the Pennsylvania lawyer phrased it that way, unless this is actually what BK said.

Initially I thought LeMar (right name? am relying on distant memory) may have just been exercising tact and being cautious but I realised this didn't really make much sense. I can't remember the exact timing, but think BK was still awaiting extradition to Idaho and therefore prior to the first non dissemination order. So I don't see LeMar saying 'expects to be exonerated' as a lawyerly rephrasing of what BK actually said to him to avoid a prejudicial public statement. In any event, publicly repeating that his client says he 'expects to be exonerated' seems to be no less potentially prejudicial than repeating that his client says 'I'm innocent'/'Not guilty'/'What the...I didn't do it'. If BK said anything along these lines I don't see why LeMar would choose to rephrase it to 'expect to be exonerated'. All moo.

The suggestion that BK may have told his lawyer something like 'I will ultimately be found not guilty', Imo seems as unusual a thing to say as 'I will be exonerated', so soon after arrest (as opposed to 'i'm innnocent/didn't do it'). But agree it makes sense that exonerate may have been lawyer's own word if that is what BK said to him. Moo

Public defender says Idaho murder suspect is ‘calm,’ believes he’ll be exonerated: ‘This is not him’

Public defender Jason LaBar said he expects for Bryan Kohberger to sign extradition paperwork during Tuesday’s hearing, paving the way for his return to Idaho.

www.today.com

Jason LaBar, the chief public defender of Monroe County, Pennsylvania, is representing Kohberger in the extradition but not the murder case.

"He said this is not him," LaBar told TODAY on Tuesday, Jan. 3. "He believes he's going to be exonerated. That's what he believes, those were his words."