4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered - Bryan Kohberger Arrested - Moscow # 72

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Would you believe what BK might tell you about the crime? Would he be credible?
If he provided credible information that only the killer would know about the crime scene, then his account likely would be accepted as credible.

But I don't think the state of Idaho really has an incentive to not go after the death penalty. He's the one who benefits most from a plea deal. I'd say most of what they're missing may be regarding motive, which we may never know, and I doubt they care enough about that to play let's make a deal with him. MOO
 
Why do you think it's only a "little" DNA on the sheath? How much DNA would it take to be considered a medium or large amount?

I'm just asking because a person sheds about 500,000,000 epithelial cells every day - with many of them rubbed off on things we use. It's very likely the DNA was deposited over time, each time the owner of the sheath opened and shut it. I figure the tiny groove around the edge of the snap (and the other half of the snap) would contain hundreds of thousands of epithelial cells in various stages of disintegration - but the DNA won't disintegrate. DNA lasts a very long time indeed. It is also very tiny. So there could thousands and thousands of chromosome bits on that sheath.

Half life of DNA is about 600 years, but there are bits of DNA that are much older. There would still be DNA on that sheath after 600 years, IMO, and some of it would be in the actual leather (where it is very hard to clean off). They likely will test the sheath again as part of ongoing discovery, now that a destructive test could be ordered by a judge (it wouldn't really destroy much of the sheath, but it isn't usually done without approval of a court, when there are opposing parties both wanting results).

There is no reason that even one of BK's chromosomal segments should be found on an object on the bed of the deceased victims, IMO.

And no, I don't believe that someone stole BK's knife (using gloves) and planted it.

IMO.
There no reason the smallest particle of his DNA should in the house, let alone next to a murder victims body.
 
In Idaho, folks who are determine to be mentally incompetent to stand trial are remanded to the custody of Idaho Department of Health & Welfare for treatment until competency is restored.

We saw this recently with Lori Vallow Daybell, who has been returned to competency.

If mental competency to stand trial cannot be restored, charges may be dropped as recently happened with Rene Jaramillo Navarrete. I’m not sure if the article is paywalled, so here’s the Google summary from a couple of days ago:
A man who allegedly killed his coworker in 2019 is no longer facing charges after the court found him mentally incompetent to stand trial because of a dementia diagnosis.”

HTH & MOO
That’s sad. MOO the state just wants to save money. He got sent home.
 
This kind of stuff has been floating around since the day of the murder. So it makes me wonder if NewsNation has an actual source or if they are just digging through old Reddit comments between 11/13 - 11/21 (and calling it a source). Sort of like the DailyMail story on Xana's sister in law. Of course the DailyMail was completely transparent about where they got their information from.
In my experience, there is zero good info about this case on Reddit.
 
Why do you think it's only a "little" DNA on the sheath? How much DNA would it take to be considered a medium or large amount?

I'm just asking because a person sheds about 500,000,000 epithelial cells every day - with many of them rubbed off on things we use. It's very likely the DNA was deposited over time, each time the owner of the sheath opened and shut it. I figure the tiny groove around the edge of the snap (and the other half of the snap) would contain hundreds of thousands of epithelial cells in various stages of disintegration - but the DNA won't disintegrate. DNA lasts a very long time indeed. It is also very tiny. So there could thousands and thousands of chromosome bits on that sheath.

Half life of DNA is about 600 years, but there are bits of DNA that are much older. There would still be DNA on that sheath after 600 years, IMO, and some of it would be in the actual leather (where it is very hard to clean off). They likely will test the sheath again as part of ongoing discovery, now that a destructive test could be ordered by a judge (it wouldn't really destroy much of the sheath, but it isn't usually done without approval of a court, when there are opposing parties both wanting results).

There is no reason that even one of BK's chromosomal segments should be found on an object on the bed of the deceased victims, IMO.

And no, I don't believe that someone stole BK's knife (using gloves) and planted it.

IMO.
THIS
 
Yes Yes Yes @pittsburghgirl
IMO BK never wanted to be a teacher nor was teaching his life's dream. I think the TA job was bc of $$ and the cheapest way for him to get into a PhD program. Nor do I believe BK was inspired to be a police officer to protect and serve/help his community but more wanting a badge for authority; maybe for a cloak of respectability he had never found.
He did not seem to care about anything other than studying crime.
He did not seem to have any real devoted life plan at 28 y o.

As many have said here, he needed to be the smartest person in the room.
I think any room any where as long as he could continue his criminal studies/fantasies.

Einstein: ‘The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don’t know.’
MOO
He went from a small school online M.A. to the much more intense, in-person Ph.D. program. I went from an in-person M.A. to the Ph.D. program in the same university and same department. What changed for me was residency. As someone who worked full-time when I did the M.A., I thought the in-person residency of the Ph.D. would be easier than a full-time teaching job. Imagine my surprise when it turned out that was not the case. BK would have had a much tougher jump to make going from an online program during COVID to being a TA in full, in-person residency.
 
But he had to touch gloves to put them on.

Gloves are great at keeping fingerprints off things, not so great at keeping all epithelial cells off things. We shed 500,000,000 a day or thereabouts. He should have worn a respirator, goggles, and surgical hat, shoes, etc and never touched his own clothing except for what was laundered - if he wanted to keep all DNA off his sheath.

You breathe out some epithelial cells, for example. Scientists are currently using breath to attempt to diagnose certain lung diseases quickly and easily - from the epithelial cells emitted in breathing.

A mask will capture some of these cell, so he would have had to mask up each time he looked at his knife - but even then, masks are not 100%. 1% of 500,000,000 daily cells is a lot (and the air around us has our epithelial cells floating around until they settle somewhere).

Most people unconsciously touch their own faces several times an hour - he'd have had to practice his best gloving technique and change gloves frequently. I bet he did not do that. And everyone breathes. I doubt he was wearing a mask while he drove in his car, but perhaps he did.

As the old saying goes, something always leaves with the murderer and something is always left behind.

I bet BK is sitting in his cell wishing he had in fact opened his knife packaging while wearing gloves - he could have diminished the amount. He'd have had to change gloves frequently. DNA is not destroyed by soap, bleach or alcohol, so he couldn't just wipe his gloved fingers with wipes - but it would have helped to do that too, by dispersing some of the cells onto the wipe.

I bet, instead, that he practiced with the knife with his bare hands. He thought he'd be tossing both knife and sheath.

IMO. Speculation, of course.
New to WS... Been lurking for all 72 threads. Just a thought about the sheaf:
"Everything is created twice; first in the mind and then in reality." - attributed to Robin Sharma.

It is my opinion (MOO) based on reports and statements from LE, that the killer planned the murders in advance.
1) The particular weapon was chosen for a reason: It was imagined to be quiet, easy to obtain but hard to trace and easy to conceal. So the killer put the idea into reality by procuring the weapon.
2) The killer may have imagined what would be required to vanquish another human being. Possibly practiced different stabbing motions.
3) The killer may have constructed a mental map of how to gain entry, and leave without detection. This may have included time of day, how to get there/approach, what to wear, and timing.

MOO, MOO, I believe it HAD to be premeditated. Planned. Researched. Imagined over and over. In his mind, firs

He approaches with the knife. Gains entry. Goes upstairs. Finds himself there, ready to do this act he has been imagining. He pulls the knife from the sheaf, and drops it or places it on the bed because he needs that hand to push against or subdue his first victim. And moves from there to the next and the next.

In other words, he never imagined beforehand what to do with the sheaf once he removed the knife. He didn't lose it, he dropped it or put it down, without thought. He did not intend to leave it, he just did not imagine, plan, how to make sure he exited with it. MOO.

I wonder when the killer first became aware the sheath was no longer in his possession?
 
IKR One would think the interview panel could delve into it to find something. Obviously someone made a choice. It's part of the arrest affidavit so it must be of some importance.

"Pursuant to records provided by a member of the interview panel for Pullman Police Department we learned that Kohberger's past education included undergraduate degrees in psychology and cloud-based forensics. These records also showed Kohberger wrote an essay when he applied for an internship with the Pullman Police Department in the fall of 2022. Kohberger wrote in his essay he had interest in assisting rural law enforcement agencies with how to better collect and analyze technological data in public safety operations."

Different Internship or position. One was applied for in April with PPD. That is the Spring. The arrest Affadavit makes clear that BK applied for an Internship with PPD "in the fall of 2022". (see PCA). The Independent article has conflated these two different applications, IMO. The most recent Indepndent article being discussed here also says something about the research assistant position being filled by August 22nd, the article where PPD haven't handed over details of BK's application to the the press? Well, if it was filled by August, it definately cannot be the Internship application BK submitted "in the fall of 2022" (PCA, p 11 from memory), MOO

EBM: Changed NYP to "Independent

ETA
"Police have ‘no record’ of whether Bryan Kohberger was offered internship position

EBM: Correction from 25th to 22nd August, per Independent Article.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I agree, and have seen many of them.

However, if the death penalty is not on the table, no need for BK to negotiate right?

What does he have to exchange?

And, what if the public and the families want the DP and BK doesn't seem to care one way or the other>


I know about phases of trials. Can you answer my question about whether a penalty phase trial is needed if he pleads guilty to first degree murder? I know the DA can drop the DP in exchange, but my question is whether there is another process by which the DP could be removed from the table OR if the DA insists on the DP, does it not go, at least, to a judge? What's the process?

I am only interested (right now) in the question of the DP. I'm fully aware that if it's not a DP case that he could enter a guilty plea to Murder 1 (X 4 people) and avoid the DP. But IF the DP is sought, what then? What if the DA won't budge?

That's my question. Not about the negotiations, but about the legal proceedings.

TIA. JMO.

Yes a penalty phase trial would be needed if BK pleads guilty to first degree murder without a plea deal in place.

Defendants on rare occasions have pled guilty while still under the death penalty and then have gone through a penalty phase trial where the jurors recommend death instead of LWOP.

So if BK pleads guilty while still under the DP, it will be up to the jurors in his penalty phase trial to decide to give him death or LWOP.

Danny Rolling pled guilty to the Gainesville Student Murders, received the death penalty, and it was carried out. Aileen Wournos pled guilty to a murder she committed in Dixie County, Florida, and received the death penalty. She was executed on a death warrant for another murder she committed.

Both of these cases went to penalty phase juries. The rationale for pleading guilty and then having a penalty phase jury is this:

Someone whose guilt is so obvious that a guilty verdict is an almost foregone conclusion will sometimes plead guilty hoping to (1) rack up brownie points with the jury for admitting the crime, and (2) render a lot of inflammatory evidence of guilt inadmissible.

Another rationale for pleading guilty is this:

Sometimes defendants “volunteer” for the death penalty. A man pled guilty to murder and told the judge, “If you don’t give me the death penalty, I’ll commit another murder as soon as I get to prison.” The judge gave him life, and he immediately committed another murder when he got to prison.


What if BK wanted to waive his penalty phase trial to seek a death sentence?

Well, then it gets very complicated and he would have to undergo a serious psychological evaluation as shown here:

 
Last edited:
He has no "degree" in "cloud-based forensics." DeSales does have a master's track that includes those courses - but other graduates of the program had that called out at graduation; he did not. I think it's like two courses. But two courses is not a degree. His degree, as announced at graduation, was in criminology.

I hope Bryan didn't exaggerate 1 class into 2; and I hope that no one confused 2 classes (a certificate, basically) with an actual degree in cloud forensics/security.

This is what an actual master's degree in the topic looks like. And DeSales has an add-on certificate. I'm too lazy to contact the registrar, but the degree awarded to a student is public information and not covered by FERPA, so some sleuth could do that.
I don't think that matters much in regards to the arrest affidavit's intent. But thanks : )

Officer Payne was the team leader for a huge investigation. Each part of his team supplied their evidence showing Kohberger's involvement in this crime. He consolidated all of it into an arrest affidavit. For reasons we don't know, the internship is mentioned right along with everything else. It's a piece of the puzzle. Maybe even a corner piece. idk <moo>
 
Last edited:
If you are "trading" the DP for some information, you would need to believe that the person actually has information you want and that the person would reliably give it to you. That was my point. Would you believe what BK might tell you about the crime? Would he be credible?
Wow. That was left field. What I believe about the truthfulness of a killer's words has nothing to do with my question. I wanted to know if legally a person who pleads guilty in exchange for LWOP is required to say anything more.

If there is a trial, information about the crime comes out, sometimes even a motive for the crime. If there is no trial, some of that information can be released if it's a matter of public record somewhere, but other information does not necessarily have to come out.

If a family member or members want to know as much as they can about what happened, then they might not agree to LWOP if the killer can just say "guilty" and be done. They might fight for DP just to see if they can force a trial. All my wondering because since there was no trial for my murdered friend (because the killer was deceased when he was identified), there were a ton of unanswered questions. Some of them would have been answered in a trial.

What I think about what a convicted killer says has nothing to do with my question, which is can someone make a plea deal for LWOP to take the DP off the table and plea guilty without saying anything else. It seems like the answer is yes. But I wanted to know what the answer is.

All my thoughts.
 
Wow. That was left field. What I believe about the truthfulness of a killer's words has nothing to do with my question. I wanted to know if legally a person who pleads guilty in exchange for LWOP is required to say anything more.
I think it depends on the terms of the deal. I know Gary Ridgway had to fully disclose what he could remember about all his victims and their burial sites. They kept him 'on hand' for a prolonged period of time and went on a series of excursions to areas he left victims, where he'd direct them driving, and then walking into the woods, for example, and point out precise places they might find remains. A number of his victims were recovered this way.

MOO
 
New to WS... Been lurking for all 72 threads. Just a thought about the sheaf:
"Everything is created twice; first in the mind and then in reality." - attributed to Robin Sharma.

It is my opinion (MOO) based on reports and statements from LE, that the killer planned the murders in advance.
1) The particular weapon was chosen for a reason: It was imagined to be quiet, easy to obtain but hard to trace and easy to conceal. So the killer put the idea into reality by procuring the weapon.
2) The killer may have imagined what would be required to vanquish another human being. Possibly practiced different stabbing motions.
3) The killer may have constructed a mental map of how to gain entry, and leave without detection. This may have included time of day, how to get there/approach, what to wear, and timing.

MOO, MOO, I believe it HAD to be premeditated. Planned. Researched. Imagined over and over. In his mind, firs

He approaches with the knife. Gains entry. Goes upstairs. Finds himself there, ready to do this act he has been imagining. He pulls the knife from the sheaf, and drops it or places it on the bed because he needs that hand to push against or subdue his first victim. And moves from there to the next and the next.

In other words, he never imagined beforehand what to do with the sheaf once he removed the knife. He didn't lose it, he dropped it or put it down, without thought. He did not intend to leave it, he just did not imagine, plan, how to make sure he exited with it. MOO.

I wonder when the killer first became aware the sheath was no longer in his possession?

Welcome to Websleuths!
Kudos for the patience to follow 72 threads before posting. The threads for this case have been tremendously fast-moving.

In response to your question (bbm), I have pondered that BK became aware the sheath was missing upon his return to his apartment, and that when he went back to King Rd around 9 am he was considering whether he could somehow get in and retrieve it.
 
in certain cases the victims' families and LE may want information from the killer but in this instance, I am not sure that people would be that intersted in his statements, IMO
I would imagine the folks that study deviant criminal behavior would be very interested in hearing what he has to say.

Ugh. I just realized as I typed that, that it would people like BK (minus the murdering part) that would want to study BK.
 
Wow. That was left field. What I believe about the truthfulness of a killer's words has nothing to do with my question. I wanted to know if legally a person who pleads guilty in exchange for LWOP is required to say anything more.

If there is a trial, information about the crime comes out, sometimes even a motive for the crime. If there is no trial, some of that information can be released if it's a matter of public record somewhere, but other information does not necessarily have to come out.

If a family member or members want to know as much as they can about what happened, then they might not agree to LWOP if the killer can just say "guilty" and be done. They might fight for DP just to see if they can force a trial. All my wondering because since there was no trial for my murdered friend (because the killer was deceased when he was identified), there were a ton of unanswered questions. Some of them would have been answered in a trial.

What I think about what a convicted killer says has nothing to do with my question, which is can someone make a plea deal for LWOP to take the DP off the table and plea guilty without saying anything else. It seems like the answer is yes. But I wanted to know what the answer is.

All my thoughts.

No a killer cannot just plead guilty and give no information at all IF they are taking a PLEA DEAL. The prosecution can require a complete proffer (testimony) of the crime in order for the defendant to get their plea deal.

Prosecutors normally want a FULL CONFESSION from the defendant that details how they carried out their crime.

For example, the prosecution not giving a plea deal unless the killer reveals where they buried the body, or where they disposed of the weapon, or how were they able to gain access to the victim's home? The prosecution can even interrogate the defendant as to their motive etc...The prosecution has the upper hand in any plea negotiation.

The confession and proffer can be used as leverage. "You give us a full confession of your participation and planning in this crime and help bring closure to the families, and we in exchange will give you the plea deal you want." Plea deals are an exchange, the defendant gives something and in exchange the prosecution gives something in return - the net result of this is almost always a lighter reduced sentence.

But if the defendant wants to plead guilty WITHOUT A PLEA DEAL, this is when you may get zero answers.

Without the plea deal the prosecution loses their leverage and can't demand a full confession and full proffer. They can ask, but a stubborn defendant who has no remorse and doesn't care about giving the family some closure won't give the answers.

 
Last edited:

The Washinton state police department that interviewed Bryan Kohberger for an internship months before the Idaho murders has “no documentation” regarding whether he was offered the position.

The Independent filed a public records request with the Pullman Police Department earlier this year, asking for any documents relating to Mr Kohberger’s application for the research assistantship for public safety position.

One of the core goals of the request was to determine whether Mr Kohberger had been offered the position - as the department had previously declined to answer that question.


A public records officer responded to the request with 10 documents on Friday - but with a major caveat.

“The Pullman Police Department does not have any documentation regarding whether or not Mr. Kohberger was chosen for the internship position,” the officer stated in an email.

“The Pullman Police Department does not have any documentation regarding whether or not Mr. Kohberger was chosen for the internship position,” the officer stated in an email.

Given it looks like the Indepent has conflated Internship and Research Assistant for Public Safety in this article, it's a bit hard to know what's going on here MOO. We know from the article that the Research Assistantship for public safety was applied for in the Spring and was decided by August 22nd, so BK, it seems, didn't get that, IMO. When PPD says no documenation for BK's outcome re Internship position, perhaps they are referring to the Internship BK applied for in the Fall of 2022, the one mentioned in the PCA. MOO

As for the Spring application: Research Assistant for Public Safety Position as per the article, the position was decided by 22nd August 2022. PPD probably has documentation on the candidate who did get/was offered the position. That would show that BK didn't get the position but PPD naturally aren't going to get themselves a lawsuit by handing the selected candidate's name to the press to prove this. MOO.
 
Welcome to Websleuths!
Kudos for the patience to follow 72 threads before posting. The threads for this case have been tremendously fast-moving.

In response to your question (bbm), I have pondered that BK became aware the sheath was missing upon his return to his apartment, and that when he went back to King Rd around 9 am he was considering whether he could somehow get in and retrieve it.
Possibly; I have also wondered if he went back to harm the witness, but that seems unlikely in broad daylight.
 
Welcome to Websleuths!
Kudos for the patience to follow 72 threads before posting. The threads for this case have been tremendously fast-moving.

In response to your question (bbm), I have pondered that BK became aware the sheath was missing upon his return to his apartment, and that when he went back to King Rd around 9 am he was considering whether he could somehow get in and retrieve it.

Wouldn't he be aware of the sheath missing when he gets to his car and goes to set the knife down?

A knife dripping blood all over his car.

I have to wonder if he left the sheath on purpose to look like a military person did it. It is a military style sheath.

Did he go back because it took 8 hours for news to break on it? I wonder. He probably was dying to hear the news on it and couldn't figure out why the radio silence?

Why not HUGE (early morning) breaking news stories on it? I bet he scoured the news.
 
Last edited:
Did he go back because it took 8 hours for news to break on it? I wonder. He probably was dying to hear the news on it and couldn't figure out why the radio silence?
That's what I've suspected ever since that was reported. I bet he was scouring every possible source of news he could find waiting to hear about a quadruple homicide in Moscow, ID, and was absolutely baffled when nothing had come out then he couldn't resist doing a lookey-loo to see what was going on.

Incidentally, I think him being a non-traditional college student may have played a role in his impatience. It's really not unusual at all for college students the ages of the victim to sleep in on weekends and not be up until noon or so. Regardless of whether he knew about other survivors in the house, it's not unreasonable to assume that family or friends may not realize anything was wrong until later in the day. But there he is fairly early in the morning apparently trying to see what was happening at the house. It just strikes me as him thinking on his own schedule without any consideration other folks may have a different schedule/pattern and having tunnel vision, which seems to be a recurring theme with him. MOO
 
Wouldn't he be aware of the sheath missing when he gets to his car and goes to set the knife down?

A knife dripping blood all over his car.

I have to wonder if he left the sheath on purpose to look like a military person did it. It is a military style sheath.

Did he go back because it took 8 hours for news to break on it? I wonder. He probably was dying to hear the news on it and couldn't figure out why the radio silence?

Why not HUGE (early morning) breaking news stories on it? I bet he scoured the news.
Right after the murders, I feel that he was in such a state of mind, that he likely didn't realize what he did or didn't have.

I think he went back after that time period b/c he was curious. There'd not been any news breaking, about what he'd done.

I'm on the fence about whether he intentionally left the knife sheath. If he did not intentionally mean to leave it, he had to come to that realization pretty early on.

I don't think he's crazy, I do believe this was premeditated. I don't know why he chose them, or the house. He's probably in a state of heightened anxiety right now, though I doubt he is fearful. He reminds me a little bit of the fella who murdered Savannah Spurlock. Low key, had it under control, till he finally gave up faking who/what he was.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
78
Guests online
1,599
Total visitors
1,677

Forum statistics

Threads
606,895
Messages
18,212,526
Members
233,992
Latest member
gisberthanekroot
Back
Top