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

[Helechawagirl]

So the 911 call was made around noon, but detectives didn’t show until 4 pm? Seems like a long time. Thoughts?

 

[jepop]

I

100 percent hear what you are saying and it can totally be interpreted that way. But I have to wonder why not say "I could see a body in the room"? Why say "as I approached the room". What does that have to do with the price of butter, in my mind? Why not even "as I approached the room, I could see a body on the floor of the room." In my house, you could approach the open front door and see something on the floor of the entry, floor of the dining room, floor of the kitchen and/or floor of the family room. Also someone half out of the office, hallway and/or living room. In that case "as I approached the front door, I could see a body on the floor" means nothing except that there is a body on the floor of the entry or dining room or kitchen or family room or partly in the living room or partly in the office or partly in the hallway. Also, in the kitchen was another body. (As an example where the placement of a comma changes the meaning)

It's why I keep an open mind and believe accuracy in what we say anything "says" is important. Ethan was in the room (or at least part of him was) per the words in the PCA. But Xana was just "on the floor" and could be seen "as I approached the room" per the words in the PCA. Words following that can be interpreted multiple ways. Occam's razor isn't always the sharpest tool in the box.Your mileage may vary.

We all get to believe what we want. I haven't closed my mind to different possibilities yet. JMO.

Yes,IMO there's a certain kind of legalistic or, IDK, official type of language and tone utilised in the PCA. Some parts, MOO, seem more open to various interpretations than others. I think it has been very carefully crafted. IMO it was written to secure probable cause but the style/language is careful in part I feel to ensure LE and the prosecution have themselves covered moving forward with new/expanded evidence. It's going to be a sad day when, if this goes to trial, the full details of the victims' deaths become known. MOO

 

[wary]

So the 911 call was made around noon, but detectives didn’t show until 4 pm? Seems like a long time. Thoughts?

Someone misunderstood the PCA, that’s all. The person who wrote it arrived at 4 pm, but LE had been there for hours.

MOO, but I’m right.

 

[Charlot123]

Idaho isn't the PNW IMO. It's more insurrectionist country and being weird isn't a thing really. (Source: Parents live in Coeur D'alene.)

Well, but people from WA move there, have winter homes, or simply travel. And Western WA where I live is mostly the land of progressive outliers, but not without the means.

I wouldn't discount self harm.

- cuts on face and throat
(supposedly from shaving)
- a big bruise on throat
- some cuts on hands/wrist
(during the traffic stop, were they from the night of murders?,
were they just shadows?)
- stained bed linen taken from the flat
( was it his blood?)

I also think he is terrified of dying.

His alleged "murderous fantasy" got out of hand and now, when arrested, he is scared stiff.

He lost his "superior" look and is following meekly the advice of his FEMALE attorney.

Just my opinion

He may be not terrified of dying per se. I would bet he felt suicidal in his life. But he would be terrified of dying on someone else’s terms. Homicide and suicide have one thing in common, the penultimate control over a person’s life. But in DP and execution something totally opposite happens, you lose any control over your life and death whatsoever. You choose neither how to die, nor when. I think for people scoring so highly on control indices as BK does, losing all of it would be very scary.

 

[Charlot123]

I wouldn't discount self harm.

- cuts on face and throat
(supposedly from shaving)
- a big bruise on throat
- some cuts on hands/wrist
(during the traffic stop, were they from the night of murders?,
were they just shadows?)
- stained bed linen taken from the flat
( was it his blood?)

I also think he is terrified of dying.

His alleged "murderous fantasy" got out of hand and now, when arrested, he is scared stiff.

He lost his "superior" look and is following meekly the advice of his FEMALE attorney.

Just my opinion

He may be not terrified of dying per se. I would bet he felt suicidal in his life. But he would be terrified of dying on someone else’s terms. Homicide and suicide have one thing in common, the penultimate control over a person’s life. But in DP and execution something totally opposite happens, you lose any control over your life and death whatsoever. You choose neither how to die, nor when. I think for people scoring so highly on control indices as BK does, losing all of it would be very scary. JMO

 

[TL4S]

That makes me wonder, would there be any reason TO include more bloody footprints in the PCA? Would there be more probable cause for this particular guy if there were? If the latent print was simply to prove DMs story someone was there, would there need to be mention of more elsewhere in the house? Or might that be something to save for the trial? (I don't have any idea if it would have been useful or not. Open to thoughts)

I agree. The mention of the footprint was placed specifically in the PCA during the DM narrative of seeing the man walk by her door and towards the sliding glass door. While I find the latent footprint compelling, as well, IMO, it was solely there to show there was someone walking past DM's door toward the sliding glass door, who left a shoe print likely with blood, after DM heard crying from X's room, and likely on his way exiting the house. It serves as a directional marker, of sorts, to supports her story and LE's belief he exited through the sliding glass door after the murders. Jmo.

But, other footprints, if there were any, would detail his movements throughout the house more than what the PCA covers, such as what order the victims were killed, if that makes sense. Jmo. And would other footprints bolster the argument that they were stabbed by the man DM saw? Maybe, but it also is information perhaps the public shouldn't know before trial and wasn't needed for the judge. Just like how we don't see anything in the PCA about blood splatters or bloody fingerprints, or specifics on how each victim was found other than a very general location. Just my own speculation.

 

[jepop]

I agree. The mention of the footprint was placed specifically in the PCA during the DM narrative of seeing the man walk by her door and towards the sliding glass door. While I find the latent footprint compelling, as well, IMO, it was solely there to show there was someone walking past DM's door toward the sliding glass door, who left a shoe print likely with blood, after DM heard crying from X's room, and likely on his way exiting the house. It serves as a directional marker, of sorts, to supports her story and LE's belief he exited through the sliding glass door after the murders. Jmo.

But, other footprints, if there were any, would detail his movements throughout the house more than what the PCA covers, such as what order the victims were killed, if that makes sense. Jmo. And would other footprints bolster the argument that they were stabbed by the man DM saw? Maybe, but it also is information perhaps the public shouldn't know before trial and wasn't needed for the judge. Just like how we don't see anything in the PCA about blood splatters or bloody fingerprints, or specifics on how each victim was found other than a very general location. Just my own speculation.

Thank you. Some sound points that I hadn't considered, especially the withholding of information to protect the integrity of evidence that may arise in trial.

 

[Dotta]

But why was the shoe print "latent"?

If fresh, it should have been visible, no?

Was it trampled by those who came to investigate?

 

[TL4S]

But why was the shoe print "latent"?

If fresh, it should have been visible, no?

Was it trampled by those who came to investigate?

It's interesting, isn't it? We know it wasn't a clear and obvious shoe print, but likely discovered by chemical means. Maybe if his shoe only had a very light coat of blood on part of it, that print might not have been obvious on the wood grain floor, especially hours later when dried. Just a thought. I'm not convinced his shoes were caked with blood.

 

[Megnut]

But why was the shoe print "latent"?

If fresh, it should have been visible, no?

Was it trampled by those who came to investigate?

He is tall. Walking presumably from X's room to the slider, long stride, how many actual steps would that be? Let's assume he had  some blood on his feet/foot. Some, like only a little and left most of it behind at Step 1 and Step 2, leaving no visible trail into and thru the kitchen, but enough sticky trace to be picked up later, that they could see just exactly how close he passed by or stood at her door.

If additional prints were identified, I'd be interested to know what story they tell in relation to that step up/down. Did he trip, did he seem to anticipate it? Did he detour at all? Was the latent print the last one they could make out or were there more?

The thought of a bloody footprint outside my bedroom would haunt me for life, apart from the rest of the nightmare.

JMO

 

[Montecore1]

The only reason that particular shoe print was included in the PCA would be to try and confirm he could have been close enough for the roommate to have seen him.

I’m sure there are other much more visible footprints in the house but likely not near her door or there could be others near her door that LE doesn’t want to disclose yet.

^^ I absolutely agree with you that it was mentioned due to its proximity to DM's room, but my point (and I believe SSH's) is that IMO JMO is that a barely visible latent shoe print is much less compelling than citing visible patent bloody shoe prints that can positively be matched to the killers shoe size, it would seem very likely they would be around the victims. If indeed they do exist why were they not mentioned, its obvious that brevity wasn't a concern when writing the PCA. Is it possible that if there were indeed patent shoe prints at the scene they were a different size than what BCK wears?

thank you. it's not like the killer can fly, most likely, so it seems like there wouldn't be just one whoopsie-daisy-is-that-a-latent footprint imo jmo. it seems reasonable that if there were going to be a bloody footprint, it would be closer to the bodies and blood, and that yes, it would get more faint as the killer moved away imo jmo. Per the PCA, the latent shoe print was only found on the second processing, too, so it must not have been that obvious, and if they had more, why not say so? It's not like evidence can be hidden. There would be no reason not to include more bloody prints in the PCA imo jmo.

^^ Exactly... there must be a reason LE didn't mention it. IMO MOO JMO, as we know they put specific compelling evidence in a PCA for the judge to review and move forward for trial, it would also seem true that LE would exclude any findings that may damage their case.

 

[iamshadow21]

But why was the shoe print "latent"?

If fresh, it should have been visible, no?

Was it trampled by those who came to investigate?

Just because we can't see it, doesn't mean it's not there. There are whole areas of forensic science devoted to the unseen. Fingerprints, which can be left in various bodily fluids, from skin oils, to sweat, to blood, or semen. To footprints, which can be left in the same. The unseen can be exposed by alternate light, staining (with substances like Amido black), chemicals like Bluestar and Luminol, dusting with powders, and probably more methods I'm not yet aware of.

I think you're picturing a big bloody footprint outlined as neatly as in posterpaint. Instead, think of the last time you put moisturiser or body cream on, then walked across a wooden or tile floor when you thought the cream was all soaked in. You could see a clear line of footprints when the light hit the floor surface at the right angle, couldn't you? Your feet even maybe made a different sound or felt a little tacky on the floor, and you thought, oh, jeez, now I've got to mop those up. Yet you weren't leaving big, bold footprints in bright white cream (or pink, if you have Lush Snow Fairy body lotion like me), clearly visible in big splodges. But a crime scene tech could come in and get clear prints from those nearly-invisible footmarks. You could too, if you dusted them with a little cornflour and used a make-up brush. And a tech could test them and tell those prints were left in lotion. Probably even has a database of ingredients and chemical formula to tell that yes, this print is left in Lush Snow Fairy.

That's the skill and value of latent print finding and collection. They can tell so much from something invisible to the naked eye.

MOO, I am not a CSI or SOCO tech.

 

[IDK]

That makes me wonder, would there be any reason TO include more bloody footprints in the PCA? Would there be more probable cause for this particular guy if there were? If the latent print was simply to prove DMs story someone was there, would there need to be mention of more elsewhere in the house? Or might that be something to save for the trial? (I don't have any idea if it would have been useful or not. Open to thoughts)

I have the same question! The PCA, IMO, contains information that is cherry picked to point to one person only. They are including only information to support an arrest.
Since all the evidence collected will eventually be given to the defense in discovery, why wouldn’t they include other similar shoe prints that point to the suspect? Is it because there aren’t any others?

I certainly am not trying to imply innocence vs guilt. I’m just interested in the process, and the evidence they collected at the crime scene.
Just curious, IMO.

 

[TL4S]

I have the same question! The PCA, IMO, contains information that is cherry picked to point to one person only. They are including only information to support an arrest.
Since all the evidence collected will eventually be given to the defense in discovery, why wouldn’t they include other similar shoe prints that point to the suspect? Is it because there aren’t any others?

I certainly am not trying to imply innocence vs guilt. I’m just interested in the process, and the evidence they collected at the crime scene.
Just curious, IMO.

Although the latent shoe print is compared to Vans, like BK has, I don't feel like the shoe print was a key piece of physical evidence in the PCA. Jmo. Especially at that point in the investigation, prior to BK's arrest and the search of his apartment.

They have DNA from the sheath, digital evidence, and a vehicle linked directly to BK. The case would be there without the shoe print, IMO. And for the judge, it was enough, because they granted the arrest. So, I think the shoe print served its purpose in the PCA as likely placing him where DM said she saw him, and pointed in the direction of the sliding glass door, where she said she saw him heading, leaving behind blood, which suggests he was near the victims when they bled.

Even if there were bloody shoe prints all over the house, at the point the PCA was being written, there was no proof the prints were from BK, so it wouldn't be helpful information for an arrest, IMO.

 

[gizmobtj]

So the 911 call was made around noon, but detectives didn’t show until 4 pm? Seems like a long time. Thoughts?

I would say it lines up with what I have seen in smaller town and rural cases. Officers get there early and detectives get there as soon as they can. For these cases, the officers focus on securing the crime scenes for the detectives, crime scene units and coroner's. In larger metropolitan areas or cities, the detectives appear to come right behind patrol and focus on canvassing after a quick look at the scene

 

[ktm44]

thank you. it's not like the killer can fly, most likely, so it seems like there wouldn't be just one whoopsie-daisy-is-that-a-latent footprint imo jmo. it seems reasonable that if there were going to be a bloody footprint, it would be closer to the bodies and blood, and that yes, it would get more faint as the killer moved away imo jmo. Per the PCA, the latent shoe print was only found on the second processing, too, so it must not have been that obvious, and if they had more, why not say so? It's not like evidence can be hidden. There would be no reason not to include more bloody prints in the PCA imo jmo.

Would there be any reason to disclose more in the PCA? I believe the only purpose of that specific footprint is to substantiate the roommate’s statement and nothing more.

The PCA spoke very little to any other specific evidence except to DNA on the sheath and in my opinion, it’s not the right time disclose more evidence than necessary.

 

[ktm44]

So the 911 call was made around noon, but detectives didn’t show until 4 pm? Seems like a long time. Thoughts?

I'm not certain that is fact. I interpret is saying that the 911 call was made around noon and the person who compiled the PCA arrived around 4 pm.

 

[ktm44]

Sorry, double post.

 

[gliving]

Part III of Howard Blum's Air Mail article.

The Eyes of a Killer: Part III​

The investigation into the murders of four University of Idaho students was crowd-sourced—for better and worse

FEBRUARY 11, 2023

Inside the Idaho Student Murders: Part III

The investigation into the Moscow killings and the manhunt for the alleged murderer was crowd-sourced—for better and worse.

airmail.news

 

[ktm44]

^^ I absolutely agree with you that it was mentioned due to its proximity to DM's room, but my point (and I believe SSH's) is that IMO JMO is that a barely visible latent shoe print is much less compelling than citing visible patent bloody shoe prints that can positively be matched to the killers shoe size, it would seem very likely they would be around the victims. If indeed they do exist why were they not mentioned, its obvious that brevity wasn't a concern when writing the PCA. Is it possible that if there were indeed patent shoe prints at the scene they were a different size than what BCK wears?

^^ Exactly... there must be a reason LE didn't mention it. IMO MOO JMO, as we know they put specific compelling evidence in a PCA for the judge to review and move forward for trial, it would also seem true that LE would exclude any findings that may damage their case.

I'm not convinced that the roommate's statement is all that significant in the bigger picture and unless there is something more later on, it only speaks to someone in the house and a fairly broad description so in my opinion, the weaker evidence (latent shoe print) supports a weaker statement.

I really don't feel either have a great deal of courtroom value nor do I believe that either was anything more than a starting point for the investigation.

It does leave me with questions though. I will admit that I have to remind myself often that the PCA is a starting point and we don't have any knowledge of the nature of the victim's wounds but as someone who can't drink coffee without spilling some, I can't imainge BK not having stepped in blood somewhere in the house. That particular latent print also leaves me wondering if he wiped his shoes on something after his last victim.