Sister Golden Hair
Former Member
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2022
- Messages
- 1,395
- Reaction score
- 8,980
Replying to my own post to add add'l info now that I've had a chance to go through more documents. I see the trespass letter was served to BK on 12/31 in the PA jail. IMO the (see pages 160-163 https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/kohberger-search-records-from-wsu/6e5a6ce24a286a06/full.pdf) I really do not believe the WSU warrant/affidavit is related to the trespass letter.Yep. You may be right, and ICBW, but 'pending student conduct charges' probably related to the reasons he was fired from his position, and we already know the basic reasons for that. IMO and based on the other warrants/affidavits, I believe the reason for both documents to be sealed is something far more sensitive. I'm just taking a big picture approach since I've gone through all the warrants, and warrants that happened at the same time seem related to me, particularly DropBox.
IMO it is possible and I believe that the warrants/affidavits below are linked based on dates. IMO it looks like that when the WSU information was received, LE followed with three more warrants. IMO this could have been because information provided by WSU led LE to the next round of warrants and the information for the YikYak and Twitter may have come via Dropbox or Dropbox could have had its own documents/photo stash. This is just my opinion now and is subject to change, of course.
WSU Warrant/Affidavit
The Motion to seal for the WSU warrant/affidavit was dated 1.24.2023 and the order to seal was dated 1.25.2023. Based on this, I believe the warrant date was on or about 1.24.2023.
It came before the court again.
"This matter came before the court on February 10, 2023 on the court’s motion to seal or
redact pursuant to I.C.A.R. 32(i)." The court sealed both. The hearing was via Zoom.
Note that both the warrant and affidavit for WSU are sealed. Note the reason:
...court finds it necessary to seal the record related to the search warrant because it is necessary to preserve the right to a fair trial. I.C.A.R. 32(i)(2).
Other reasons were stated in the first order to seal, as well.
What could be so sensitive in the WSU information that it would require both docs sealed v Dropbox, YikYak and Twitter? I think the longer list of reasons for sealing may provide a clue.
Dropbox Warrant/Affidavit
The warrant for the anonymous (redacted name) Dropbox was dated 1.25.2023 and the order was dated 1.25.2023.
NOTE: we know that this is not Bryan Kohberger's account because his name is not redacted from documents. So whose account is it?
The final order to redact (the warrant) and seal (the affidavit) was dated 2.10.2023.
This matter came before the court on February 10, 2023 on the court’s motion to seal or redact
pursuant to I.C.A.R. 32(i). The hearing was held via Zoom.
Note the reasons:
(1) The documents contain highly intimate facts or statements, the publication of which would be
highly objectionable to a reasonable person; and
(2) lt is necessary to preserve the right to a fair trial.
YikYak Warrant/Affidavit
The warrant for Bryan Kohberger's YikYak was dated 1.25.2023 and the order to seal was dated 2.2.2023. The final order to redact (the warrant) and seal (the affidavit) was dated 2.10.2023, same as the Dropbox, same as WSU.
This matter came before the court on February 10, 2023 on the court’s motion to seal or redact
pursuant to I.C.A.R. 32(i). The hearing was held via Zoom.
Note the reasons:
(1) The documents contain highly intimate facts or statements, the publication of which would be
highly objectionable to a reasonable person; and
(2) lt is necessary to preserve the right to a fair trial.
Twitter Warrant/Affidavit
The warrant for Bryan Kohberger's Twitter was dated 1.25.2023. There were some delays with the service and receipt and the documents are not in order in the PDF.
This matter came before the court on March 14, 2023 on the court’s motion to seal or redact
pursuant to I.C.A.R. 32(i). The hearing was held via Zoom. The warrant was redacted (obv) and the affidavit was sealed.
Note the reasons:
(1) The documents contain highly intimate facts or statements, the publication of which would be
highly objectionable to a reasonable person; and
(2) lt is necessary to preserve the right to a fair trial.
Last edited: