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

[Cool Cats]

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

Agree!

"lookey-loo"

"tunnel vision"

Yup

 

[jepop]

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?

I like your logic and speculations regarding a possible gap in the alleged killer's planning and how this could account for his leaving behind of the sheath. Very interesting. From this POV one would speculate that perhaps in the ((emotional) chaos of the acts the killer would hold tight to his 'checklist' (for want of a better word) and this might help him continue on and even adapt in the face of an unexpected contingency. But the sheath never made the checklist...just speculation. Thanks for posting your thoughts.

 

[Nova]

What do you think wordsmith means? Your message implies it’s a negative thing - it simply means ”skilled user of words”. Which is exactly what the authors of the PCA did - very skillfully IMO.

I think the OP was disagreeing with your characterization. I doubt s/he misunderstood the use of "wordsmith".

I wouldn't use that characterization either, first, because I doubt the PCA had only one writer (even though it is sworn to and signed by one officer). As I wrote previously I doubt we profit from treating the wording in the Affidavit as specially and thoughtfully chosen.

I don't mean the writers were stupid, either, but I don't think men and women become police officers because they are Ernest Hemingway.

 

[Cool Cats]

I would suggest that if he were to take a plea bargain, there would be sufficient evidence to verify the story he may tell.

Exactly what happened in a death penalty case I followed.

Defendant took a plea deal to avoid the death penalty and get LWOP. He had to give a proffer (testimony) about his crimes. He took the deal because of overwhelming evidence against him. There was sufficient evidence to verify his story.

 

[jepop]

I see the error you point to all the time as a someone who teaches college kids reading and quotation. People start with the word they want without regard to the full sentence they are clipping. In this case, no one has a need to cut the beginning of the sentence; it's possible that people who have a preconceived notion or light-bulb moment inspiration can spot those words that support their idea and then just run with it.

Yea, I see what you mean. In the excitement of the lightbulb moment an inadvertent omission is made so the evidence fits the premise/idea. I do get that. My main concern was that this is an official LE Search Warrant so it's important to me that the intent is not misunderstood or mistakenly misrepresented. MOO

 

[I'm Nobody]

DBM

 

[Kdot112]

I’ve touched on this before but I just wanted to clarify IMO the PCA has two problematic phrases. Those are “frozen shock phase” and “bushy eyebrows”. I’ll explain why I see this as the case.

1. Frozen shock phase leads the reader to infer that the witness had an understanding something was seriously wrong. It could be argued that the impact could be the same if the reader is indeed a warrant granting official.

2. Bushy eyebrows leads the reader to believe that the “witness” had a clear view of the intruder. Clear enough to sit on a stand and point out if a suspect’s attributes are consistent.

Here is the problem, if there is a possibility that these phrases were fill in the blank type words that actually came from the interviewer and reluctantly agreed to by the interviewee that could be an issue. If thrown out, a star eye witness testimony could go with it and the case takes a hit.

 

[Nova]

...

I don't blame the prof at all. We have two student workers in my department right now - I have absolutely no say over who they are, whether they continue etc. That's not something a prof gets to do. We don't hire or fire.

IMO.

My experience--at a well-known university geographically far but casually affiliated with WSU--was exactly as yours. There were 4 TAships and 6 students in my Ph.D. year, but two of those students had full rides from outright grants, so the rest of us automatically got to TA.

Likewise, as an adjunct professor later at the same uni, I never chose my own TAs. That was not a problem, as I was almost always given great people with whom to work, but the rare exceptions were not my fault.

I still blame BK's professor for the 150-member "intervention"--which you have pointed out may not have been the prof's idea, but that of HR or the program administration--but I certainly don't blame the professor for BK being a problem in the first place.

 

[I wonder]

I’ve touched on this before but I just wanted to clarify IMO the PCA has two problematic phrases. Those are “frozen shock phase” and “bushy eyebrows”. I’ll explain why I see this as the case.

1. Frozen shock phase leads the reader to infer that the witness had an understanding something was seriously wrong. It could be argued that the impact could be the same if the reader is indeed a warrant granting official.

2. Bushy eyebrows leads the reader to believe that the “witness” had a clear view of the intruder. Clear enough to sit on a stand and point out if a suspect’s attributes are consistent.

Here is the problem, if there is a possibility that these phrases were fill in the blank type words that actually came from the interviewer and reluctantly agreed to by the interviewee that could be an issue. If thrown out, a star eye witness testimony could go with it and the case takes a hit.

Would the police do something so stupid? I’m not au fait with the complexities of the US justice system, particularly as States vary, but in the UK interviewing a witness must abide with stiff rules and leading a witness is an almighty no, no.

I can absolutely understand the witness seeing the bushy eye brows. The witness would have seen something coming towards her, her brain would have determined it is a human and then her brain would have tried to make sense of who/what this person is.

We all go straight to a face, which, in this situation was mostly covered by a mask. Her brain would be desperately trying to see something, anything that would make a person and when it saw the bushy eyebrows, would have completely focused on them, because this is a true human identifier.

In other crimes, people particularly remember a perp’s eyes, or their nose etc. In a confusing and frightening situation our brains might not remember every last detail of what clothing was worn etc, but it absolutely can very clearly remember certain characteristics, such as bushy eyebrows.

 

[Nova]

RBBM.

The professor as omniscient hiring authority... do you think this is a realistic expectation? BK came with good credentials and recommendations. He seems to present himself well to professors. What should the professor have done that he didn't do in hiring BK?

Grading student work is a typical TA task. Professors set the assignments and the evaluation rubrics, and train the student - then monitor his performance. It appears that the professor intervened immediately after receiving feedback, took corrective action and gave BK a chance to change as required by University policy

I am not inclined to judge the professor for a bad outcome he had no reason to anticipate. You start your post with the anticipation this might be unpopular. Have you reflected why that might be?

As a TA myself, I always attended all class meetings, including all lectures by the professor I was assisting. I didn't then and I don't know now how I could fairly grade students without knowing what information had been given to or withheld from them!

And while I admittedly don't know the course to which BK was assigned, I wonder how he and his fellow TA could grade papers without attending the lectures. Since they were first-term students, they could not have taken the course in question from that prof in the past!

But I have to admit that such attendance was never required of me--and I TAed more than a dozen different courses over several years--or any other TA in my department. The only exception was a one-quarter "TA-training" course that was required of all Ph.D. students in our first term; for that, attendance was mandatory at lectures and small group discussions.

 

[Dotta]

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.

Yes, I'm beginning to think his plan was to outwit LE
but...
Surprise, surprise!
He fell into his own trap.

JMO

 

[NCWatcher]

I think the OP was disagreeing with your characterization. I doubt s/he misunderstood the use of "wordsmith".

I wouldn't use that characterization either, first, because I doubt the PCA had only one writer (even though it is sworn to and signed by one officer). As I wrote previously I doubt we profit from treating the wording in the Affidavit as specially and thoughtfully chosen.

I don't mean the writers were stupid, either, but I don't think men and women become police officers because they are Ernest Hemingway.

I agree with you about the dangers in assuming wording in the PCA was "specially and thoughtfully chosen." The PCA really has one purpose-- to demonstrate probable cause to believe X did a particular crime (s). The document needs to be persuasive so words are likely not chosen carelessly and there is likely some group input. But at the same time, the wording needs to be straightforward. It would seem that wording that over-promises & goes far beyond the actual evidence described would backfire. So a certain word in the PCA probably means pretty much what it appears to mean. A word doesn't typically mean "We've used this word to convince you we know A when we don't" or " the word B was chosen instead of C to give the appearance of certainty when any real sense of certainty is false" or "we used word C instead of word D to signal XYZ."
JMO

 

[Nova]

I have a question re "No insanity plea".

What does it exactly mean?

What if a defendant

(generally speaking, not BK)

suffers from a mental illness?

And during an act of crime this person was conscious of right and wrong,
but the illness caused her/him to commit it?

I ask b/c such a person is usually sent to a psychiatric ward and not to regular prison.

I'm really curious.

Most of we Americans are guessing as well. Idaho's law is unusual in this matter. It has something called "Guilty but Insane". If anyone here has figured out how that verdict differs from the "Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity" that most American states have, I didn't see it. But we are told that a difference exists.

I'm embarrassed to add that in most American states, being unable to tell right from wrong IS the bar for legal insanity, which is almost entirely different than the clinical insanity recognized by mental health professionals. If you weren't so befuddled by delusions that you didn't know you were doing wrong, you are sane enough to be convicted in most states, even sane enough to be put to death.

 

[steeltowngirl]

I’ve touched on this before but I just wanted to clarify IMO the PCA has two problematic phrases. Those are “frozen shock phase” and “bushy eyebrows”. I’ll explain why I see this as the case.

1. Frozen shock phase leads the reader to infer that the witness had an understanding something was seriously wrong. It could be argued that the impact could be the same if the reader is indeed a warrant granting official.

2. Bushy eyebrows leads the reader to believe that the “witness” had a clear view of the intruder. Clear enough to sit on a stand and point out if a suspect’s attributes are consistent.

Here is the problem, if there is a possibility that these phrases were fill in the blank type words that actually came from the interviewer and reluctantly agreed to by the interviewee that could be an issue. If thrown out, a star eye witness testimony could go with it and the case takes a hit.

I don’t find the “bushy eyebrows” description very worrisome. The witness saw a masked person in the house at 4 am that shouldn’t have been there. She may not recall a lot of detail, aside from his approximate build and noticeable eyebrows. She also hears unusual noises. Four roommates are murdered during this time. There is a reasonable connection between the stranger and the murders.

Can you elaborate on a “star eye witness”?

 

[Nova]

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.

I think most defendants who accept plea bargains are required to give a "proffer"...

[Deleted because Cool Cat covered this better on the previous page, but see, e.g. Dennis Rader.]

The primary exception would be Alford pleas, which allow a defendant to maintain his/her innocence while pleading guilty. There is nothing to attest with such a plea (and no reason to expect one will be offered to BK).

 

[NCWatcher]

Most of we Americans are guessing as well. Idaho's law is unusual in this matter. It has something called "Guilty but Insane". If anyone here has figured out how that verdict differs from the "Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity" that most American states have, I didn't see it. But we are told that a difference exists.

I'm embarrassed to add that in most American states, being unable to tell right from wrong IS the bar for legal insanity, which is almost entirely different than the clinical insanity recognized by mental health professionals. If you weren't so befuddled by delusions that you didn't know you were doing wrong, you are sane enough to be convicted in most states, even sane enough to be put to death.

But outside of forensics settings, mental health professionals don't use the term "insanity." It's not in the DSM, for example. It's a legal concept only these days days, not one that is used in mental health settings. And while about half the US states do use the M'Naghten Rule, the Model Penal Code Test is also in high use.

The Insanity Defense Among the States - FindLaw

Most states allow criminal defendants to plead not guilty by reason of insanity if they can prove they lacked mental capacity for the crime. Learn about the insanity defense among the states and more at FindLaw's Criminal Procedure section.

www.findlaw.com

(That test requires the defendant was unable to appreciate the criminality of his conduct OR was unable to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.)

 

[Nova]

Thank you, NCWatcher!

 

[Tillyjames]

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

I agree. And he had to be losing it when he drove back at 9 and there was still nothing. For hours!

 

[MyTinkieGirl]

I’ve touched on this before but I just wanted to clarify IMO the PCA has two problematic phrases. Those are “frozen shock phase” and “bushy eyebrows”. I’ll explain why I see this as the case.

1. Frozen shock phase leads the reader to infer that the witness had an understanding something was seriously wrong. It could be argued that the impact could be the same if the reader is indeed a warrant granting official.

2. Bushy eyebrows leads the reader to believe that the “witness” had a clear view of the intruder. Clear enough to sit on a stand and point out if a suspect’s attributes are consistent.

Here is the problem, if there is a possibility that these phrases were fill in the blank type words that actually came from the interviewer and reluctantly agreed to by the interviewee that could be an issue. If thrown out, a star eye witness testimony could go with it and the case takes a hit.

Just wanted to add that "frozen with fear" doesn't really cover one's vision, per se. Frozen insinuates unable to move.
As far as the bushy brows, don't know if you've noticed with covid and masking up, etc., what's actually visible AND noticeable is what's NOT covered. Eyes and eyebrows. (IMO, and this is giving just IMO, assuming that the mask was similar to a paper type mask used during covid.)
I usually don't wear eye makeup, yet at many app'ts people have mentioned my eye color with the mask on. A few friends have told me I need to fill in my left brow a bit, as well.
Dude's got full on hedges above his eyes. Sorry.
Go to his pic and cover the bottom of his face. He's got, IMO as always, pretty distinct eyes and ear location.
Many victims of violent crimes say "I will never forget those eyes".
Again, that's just me. No one really knows what part of the trial this will be, yet, again, IMO, this won't be a deal breaker. I'm thinking the trial is gonna be a lot of evidence, yet a lot of put together the puzzle pieces, as many cases are.
All my opinion and any suggestions of the part or importance this will play is just opinion.

 

[schooling]

I’ve touched on this before but I just wanted to clarify IMO the PCA has two problematic phrases. Those are “frozen shock phase” and “bushy eyebrows”. I’ll explain why I see this as the case.

1. Frozen shock phase leads the reader to infer that the witness had an understanding something was seriously wrong. It could be argued that the impact could be the same if the reader is indeed a warrant granting official.

2. Bushy eyebrows leads the reader to believe that the “witness” had a clear view of the intruder. Clear enough to sit on a stand and point out if a suspect’s attributes are consistent.

Here is the problem, if there is a possibility that these phrases were fill in the blank type words that actually came from the interviewer and reluctantly agreed to by the interviewee that could be an issue. If thrown out, a star eye witness testimony could go with it and the case takes a hit.

IMO The bushy eye brow description (by DM) was in the PCA to further help establish time. Anyone who's expecting some dramatic "can you identify the eyebrows in the court room!" moment is going to severly disappointed. It's in there as almost an aside.

They want to help close the window of when the murders actually happened. This shadowy figure with bushy eye brows is the only thing that DM definitively saw. Everything else she heard, denied, and struggled with.

LE likely has much better evidence putting BK near or inside of that house during that window of time. Like the Bluetooth evidence that NewsNation keeps alluding to and the Wifi evidence Kaylee's Dad keeps hinting at. Both reported nationally.