4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, 2022 #77

[NCWatcher]

I don't think her testimony will be that important to the case anyway IMO.It's other things that will nail this creep.

That could very well be. We really don't know what the state has. But if her testimony comes in, like other pieces of circumstantial evidence in the case it can't just be accepted as-is. And the time of the 911 call must be looked at.
JMO

 

[Boxer]

I had read she was older. Thanks for the link.

Underage or not, I still think whether she was drinking that night is a fair question if she testifies about seeing a stranger in the house and/or testifies about hearing particular noises at particular times. Whether she was drinking may also relate to how late 911 was called. I think that's a fair question too because it could relate to contamination of the crime scene.

On WS there can be all kinds of rules about what's off-limits for anyone WS considers a victim. I don't think that's the way it works in court, especially when potential punishments of the DP or LWOP are on the line. And anything that affected DM's perception and behavior that night and morning would seem potentially relevant.

JMO

Her decription of the stranger she saw does not exclude the owner of a white Elantra tracked heading to Moscow early a.m. 11/13/22.

That could very well be. We really don't know what the state has. But if her testimony comes in, like other pieces of circumstantial evidence in the case it can't just be accepted as-is. And the time of the 911 call must be looked at.
JMO

MOO there is no delay to the 911 call. Are you suggesting DM intentionally tampered with the CS?

 

[Boxer]

That could very well be. We really don't know what the state has. But if her testimony comes in, like other pieces of circumstantial evidence in the case it can't just be accepted as-is. And the time of the 911 call must be looked at.
JMO

Eye witness accounts are direct evidence, MOO not as good as circumstantial (indirect, i.e. DNA) evidence but still important.

 

[NCWatcher]

Her decription of the stranger she saw does not exclude the owner of a white Elantra tracked heading to Moscow early a.m. 11/13/22.

MOO there is no delay to the 911 call. Are you suggesting DM intentionally tampered with the CS?

No, I am not suggesting intentional tampering. If you read my posts you'll see I never said the scene was tampered with. I did mention potential "contamination" and that's not the same thing as tampering. But I do think it's odd friends were called before 911 IF DM had been in a "frozen shock" phase shortly after 4am. You may not find that unusual. But in a case involving the death penalty or at least LWOP, it seems oddities do need to be looked at, even if some perceive it as somehow unfair to a 19-year old female victim.
JMO

 

[iamshadow21]

Eye witness accounts are direct evidence, MOO not as good as circumstantial (indirect, i.e. DNA) evidence but still important.

I think we talked about this a while back and worked out that D is a witness, not an eyewitness. She can testify about the person she saw in her home in the middle of the night, and about what she heard before she saw him, but she didn't see him kill her friends.

Direct evidence - Wikipedia

MOO

 

[SophieRose]

MSM has reported both ages. imo jmo if they can't get that right...

She was on BHS soccer team and it shows a graduation date of 2021. So she would be around 18 in 2021, a freshman in college that Fall, a sophomore in 2022, around 19 years old.

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

She was on BHS soccer team and it shows a graduation date of 2021. So she would be around 18 in 2021, a freshman in college that Fall, a sophomore in 2022, around 19 years old.

you're right, potentially. I would not assume that the norm applies, however, hence research, which is what I'd suggest to MSM. I graduated from HS a year younger than usual. Guys in my state were held back to be bigger for football. illness can happen and result in delays. so my way of saying, beats me, but I think to assume is wrong, and I also think it's kind of a moot point jmo imo. no snark intended in this reply, so if any is read into it, please know it wasn't meant that way.

 

[NCWatcher]

She was on BHS soccer team and it shows a graduation date of 2021. So she would be around 18 in 2021, a freshman in college that Fall, a sophomore in 2022, around 19 years old.

Or 20. Some students who have progressed normally graduate from high school at 19, not 18 depending on when their birthday is. But it doesn't sound like she could be 21 as some MSM sources have reported. No matter what, she would be considered an adult whether she can legally purchase alcohol or not.
JMO

 

[10ofRods]

I think we talked about this a while back and worked out that D is a witness, not an eyewitness. She can testify about the person she saw in her home in the middle of the night, and about what she heard before she saw him, but she didn't see him kill her friends.

Direct evidence - Wikipedia

MOO

One of the charges against BK is "burglary," which in Idaho includes unlawful entry into a private residence with criminal intent, whether or not anything is taken.

I'd say that DM directly witnessed a burglar in her home. IMO.

 

[iamshadow21]

One of the charges against BK is "burglary," which in Idaho includes unlawful entry into a private residence with criminal intent, whether or not anything is taken.

I'd say that DM directly witnessed a burglar in her home. IMO.

I'd forgotten about the burglary charge. That may change things, but maybe not, IANAL. She still might be restricted from making speculative statements about the intent of the person she saw, since she didn't see him attack anyone, including herself.

MOO

 

[10ofRods]

I'd forgotten about the burglary charge. That may change things, but maybe not, IANAL. She still might be restricted from making speculative statements about the intent of the person she saw, since she didn't see him attack anyone, including herself.

MOO

Oh, no doubt that she ought not to speculate. However, she can testify that a complete stranger was outside her door at approximately 4:15 am. That's the whole point of her testimony. And while we haven't heard it from LE, I assume they asked her the standard questions about this man (his approximate height, build, skin color, eyebrow color, apparent age, etc). If she had said "stocky, dark-skinned, about 5'8" and pony tail hanging down his back" that would be of great help to the defense.

IIRC, DM came home from whatever it was she had been doing the night before at around 12:30-1 am and went to bed. How much alcohol could be left in her system 3 hours later is unknown (if she was drinking at all, which she might not have been). We shall found out at trial (I wouldn't be surprised if she is not called at the Prelim).

Prelim is going to focus on DNA and digital evidence, IMO.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

MOO there is no delay to the 911 call. Are you suggesting DM intentionally tampered with the CS?

Not sure how you got there, but that isn't at all what the poster was saying, IMO.

 

[Boxer]

Not sure how you got there, but that isn't at all what the poster was saying, IMO.

Maybe you can tell me, why the fact the 911 call was made the next day is relevant, is there bearing on the case, and if so, why?

 

[Tricia]

SHORT VERSION. WE NEED 1,300.00 (one thousand three hundred dollars) MORE IN DONATIONS TO REACH OUR GOAL TO KEEP WEBSLEUTHS GOING.
Every month for about 228 months (that is 19 years) I have gladly paid the bills. Rarely over the 19 years have I asked for your help. THANK YOU to all who have donated. I will post an announcement and stop accepting donations when we reach our goal!
Please use PayPal Pay Websleuths.com, LLC using PayPal.Me
If the PayPal link does not work for you go to www.paypal.com and put in the email websleuths.com@gmail.com and you can send a donation that way.
Venmo name is Tricia-Griffith-14
OR
Cash App $tgrif14

(PLEASE DO NOT DISCUSS DONATIONS ON THIS THREAD. CLICK HERE FOR DISCUSSION AND MORE INFORMATION)
THANK YOU SO MUCH!
Tricia

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Maybe you can tell me, why the fact the 911 call was made the next day is relevant, is there bearing on the case, and if so, why?

There's several of us who have said why even before now - to create doubt that the murders happened right then and/or to create doubt that BK did it. That's literally the defense's job, to create doubt however she can. I mean, we can wait and see what happens at trial, but I'd be floored if no one brings up that 911 was called 8 hours after BK (from what we know thus far, a total stranger) was seen in the home in a chilling enough encounter that DM was in a frozen shock phase, according to LE. All this is said NOT to blame DM. I fully believe she's a trauma victim and I've said from the start that I believe trauma played a role in the delay to check things out, but I'm also not naive in thinking the defense won't raise a red flag about that.

 

[Dre]

Imo I hope they only use DM in the PCA and not the trial.

Her very brief description of who she saw that night only really guided the officer in deciding to look into BK further after having found his car and looked up his ID.
I think it would be pretty traumatizing for her and add a bunch of doubt during cross.
Moo

 

[pittsburghgirl]

No, I am not suggesting intentional tampering. If you read my posts you'll see I never said the scene was tampered with. I did mention potential "contamination" and that's not the same thing as tampering. But I do think it's odd friends were called before 911 IF DM had been in a "frozen shock" phase shortly after 4am. You may not find that unusual. But in a case involving the death penalty or at least LWOP, it seems oddities do need to be looked at, even if some perceive it as somehow unfair to a 19-year old female victim.
JMO

Once a good friend of mine was in her apartment after midnight when a guy high on drugs was trying to break down her door. He was in the apartment building's laundry area and she had a ground floor apartment that had a door to the laundry. She called ME instead of 911. I told her "hang up and call 911" but I did beat the police there...

We always want to view the actions of others through "what we think we would have done." College students are not fully matured in terms of judgment, even just speaking about brain development. We don't know [yet] what happened, exactly. As someone who teaches people the same age as these victims, I can absolutely believe that they would call friends first if they couldn't get the roommates to answer their doors. I think it very unlikely that anyone would wake up and immediately assume there had been mass murder. Or that even if what they saw pointed to the worst possibility, that they would not have to wade through a river of denial to get to that thought. Just my opinion, obviously. MOO.

 

[gizmobtj]

Were the couple of hours that EC and XK were unaccounted for that evening ever found out? I recall they left the frat party early (9?) and It was several hours before EC and XK got back to her house.

I don't believe so. The probable cause affidavit, as I recall, said that BF saw them at the party at the house on campus "at approximately at 9 p.m. on November 12th to about 1:45 a.m. on November 13" and that BF believed that everyone was home by 2 a.m.

 

[al66pine]

Witness Stmt. Direct Evd. or Circumstantial Evd.?

Eye witness accounts are direct evidence, MOO not as good as circumstantial (indirect, i.e. DNA) evidence but still important.

@Boxer Yes, sometimes circumstantial evd is better than direct evd in a case. Maybe often.
Whether a particular witness stmt/testimony re a crime is direct evidence or circumstantial evidence depends on what the witness saw and the subject matter. A somewhat oversimplified ex:
_ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
"If a witness testifies that he saw a defendant fire a bullet into the body of a person who then died, this is direct testimony of material facts in murder, and the only question is whether the witness is telling the truth.
"If, however, the witness is able to testify only that he heard the shot and that he arrived on the scene seconds later to see the accused standing over the corpse with a smoking pistol in his hand, the evidence is circumstantial; the accused may have been shooting at the escaping killer or merely have been a bystander who picked up the weapon after the killer had dropped it."

Circumstantial evidence | Criminal Cases, Proof & Admissibility | Britannica

Circumstantial evidence, in law, evidence not drawn from direct observation of a fact in issue. If a witness testifies that he saw a defendant fire a bullet into the body of a person who then died, this is direct testimony of material facts in murder, and the only question is whether the witness is

www.britannica.com

_ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.

¶ 1. If Wit. sees def't shoot bullet into body, Wit. can testify to an ELEMENT of the crime: the shooting, and Med Examiner testifies that the bullet wound caused the death. So this Wit.'s TESTIMONY in this hypo is DIRECT evd.

¶2. If Wit. hears gunshot, arrives seconds later to see body on floor, Wit. cannot testify as to who fired gun. Proving who fired gun is an essential ELEMENT or FACT for conviction.
He is a WITNESS, may testify at trial, but his testimony is CIRCUMSTANTIAL evd.

From a common sense POV, this circumstantial and direct evd. distinction may seem hyper-technical, so why does it matter? Historically some states’ laws required some direct evidence, not just circumstantial evd. for a criminal conviction.
But even today, def. atty's try to denigrate prosecutor's cases by saying to the jury, The state has provided only/largely circumstantial evidence.

Welcoming clarification or correction, esp'ly from our legal pro's.
imo

 

[10ofRods]

No, I am not suggesting intentional tampering. If you read my posts you'll see I never said the scene was tampered with. I did mention potential "contamination" and that's not the same thing as tampering. But I do think it's odd friends were called before 911 IF DM had been in a "frozen shock" phase shortly after 4am. You may not find that unusual. But in a case involving the death penalty or at least LWOP, it seems oddities do need to be looked at, even if some perceive it as somehow unfair to a 19-year old female victim.
JMO

I doubt that any of those friends killed the four housemates, myself. Their DNA would have been in the house anyway. And the footprints were still discovered with luminal and other means, and I"m sure the visitors had their shoes and everything else forensic about them collected in some form. Super easy to eliminate them from the suspect pool, IMO, although I'm sure they were all thoroughly interrogated and felt like suspects at the time.

It's my impression that DM couldn't get a response from any of the housemates on the second and third floors, and that the door to Xana's room was blocked somehow. She was hoping they might still wake up and didn't feel she should try to break in, IMO. So she called friends of Xana and Ethan's, IMO. And probably someone for her own support, as surely everyone's spirits had to have plummeted.

From memory. JMO.