Helechawagirl
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2012
- Messages
- 884
- Reaction score
- 5,621
So, you live in a gingerbread house?Ha, I thought something similar at the beginning of the OJ trial….gulp!
So, you live in a gingerbread house?Ha, I thought something similar at the beginning of the OJ trial….gulp!
I also commented on this a few pages back. AFAIK so far I haven't seen any links to proof of purchase for any knives belonging to BK.There is no document that the public could be aware of AFAIK. We have redacted return of inventories from several warrants served on Walmart, KBar,Ebay, Blue Ridge and so forth. Then we have returns from BK's residence (no knife receipt mentioned - just receipt and tag from Dickies -from memory-but definately no knife receipt). We have the Return of Inventory from PA residence, white elantra and BK's person. The PA Return does include a couple of knives, but again no specific mention of any document that could be inferred at this point to show BK purchased a likely murder weopen. Some papers and documents are listed but no specifics. I hope it is ok not to post all those links again right now. They are available at the Court Pages for Idaho and Pennsylvannia and have been posted quite a few times prior on this thread and all the most recent threads.
That's not to say some kind of documentation hasn't been uncovered. We don't know either way.
MOO
Emphasis and BBM.Just my opinion, but I think it may turn out to be a bit of serendipity that they ultimately matched the DNA from the knife sheath to that of Kohberger’s father and not to him personally. IMO, it heads off completely any rational defense argument that the DNA on the sheath was planted and/or contaminated.
Yes, I get what you're saying totally. A lack of documentation (if none is uncovered) does not mean that BK didn't at some point have possession of a relevant weopen. IMO, the weopen itself has definately been disposed of. There was plenty of time between the crime and arrest for BK (the alleged killer) to do that. MOOI also commented on this a few pages back. AFAIK so far I haven't seen any links to proof of purchase for any knives belonging to BK.
Someone else had made the comment that there might not even be a receipt for something like that. Especially if BK paid cash and if it was a private sale, garage sale, inherited etc. I haven't provided links either as most of it can be found within the threads already.
Sometimes the issue with looking at each piece of evidence, individually, can backfire, imo.Question to me BBM. That is correct. Totality of evidence, much like totality of symptoms matters, but only after each piece can stand up to scrutiny.
We can explain away the DNA, and the Elantra seen on the cctv, and the phone turned off and the latent foot print and the garbage secretly being put in neighbour's cans, if we look at it individually. But we might not end up with the correct conclusion, imo.
I'm not trying to speak for the doctor but as I said in an earlier post, I think it is important to examine each piece of evidence in isolation first before combining the pieces into a "narrative." It's been a few years since I was on a jury but as I recall, the judge's instructions to the jury suggest each piece of testimony or evidence must be evaluated separately. Jurors are told, for example, they can 100% believe or 100% disbelieve any witness including LE, expert and lay witnesses. Or they can believe only part of what any witness says.Sometimes the issue with looking at each piece of evidence, individually, can backfire, imo.
Since you are a doctor, maybe I can use a medical analogy. Let's say a patient comes to you for a 2nd opinion. Maybe their doctor told them they had disease X.
And perhaps there are 4 or 5 major symptoms that convinced the doctor they had disease X.
Swollen lymph nodes
Blurry vision
Severe lower back pain
Itchy, red bumpy rash
Fatigue
It may be known that disease X primarily causes these 5 simultaneous symptoms. So your new patient's doctor made that diagnosis.
If you decide to look at each symptom, individually, you could easily come to a different conclusion.
Swollen lymph nodes could indicate a large number of possibilities. Blurry vision as well. Many other possibilities for low back pain including over work or an accident. Rash could be an allergic reaction. Fatigue could be stress or lack of sleep.
If you take ALL of the symptoms together, it looks like it could be disease X and it could very well be the correct diagnosis.
But it is easy to look at each individual symptom and negate it and explain it away.
We can explain away the DNA, and the Elantra seen on the cctv, and the phone turned off and the latent foot print and the garbage secretly being put in neighbour's cans, if we look at it individually. But we might not end up with the correct conclusion, imo.
He seemed hyper-interested in how criminals choose their targets, how or whether. Is it possible he encountered one of these roommates remotely (online dating for instance) or a random, minimal encounter in person, much earlier than we imagine? When did each of the two young women start working at the restaurant? If he was in town for an interview or college visit, could he have happened by the restaurant? Entirely possible he never ate there. He could have accosted an employee in the parking, under the auspices of vegan-vetting. Just how many new pans.... then the staredown. When do you work, where do you live....Cops probe if Bryan Kohberger had contact with victims before slayings
Authorities have submitted several search warrants to social media companies, including TikTok and Google, which date back to January 2021 - over a year before the killings.www.dailymail.co.uk
This is so important. I always followed the news growing up and discussed cases with my mom, who is a crime analyst. As part of her job, she is sometimes called as an expert witness and has served as a juror. I was often convinced, from news reports that a person was guilty and grew frustrated when she would remind me of what jurors are instructed to do. I thought it was stupid! "There was so much evidence, why wasn't the person convicted?"It's been a few years since I was on a jury but as I recall, the judge's instructions to the jury suggest each piece of testimony or evidence must be evaluated separately. Jurors are told, for example, they can 100% believe or 100% disbelieve any witness including LE, expert and lay witnesses. Or they can believe only part of what any witness says.
Yes, I get what you're saying totally. A lack of documentation (if none is uncovered) does not mean that BK didn't at some point have possession of a relevant weopen. IMO, the weopen itself has definately been disposed of. There was plenty of time between the crime and arrest for BK (the alleged killer) to do that. MOO
Sometimes the issue with looking at each piece of evidence, individually, can backfire, imo.
Since you are a doctor, maybe I can use a medical analogy. Let's say a patient comes to you for a 2nd opinion. Maybe their doctor told them they had disease X.
And perhaps there are 4 or 5 major symptoms that convinced the doctor they had disease X.
Swollen lymph nodes
Blurry vision
Severe lower back pain
Itchy, red bumpy rash
Fatigue
It may be known that disease X primarily causes these 5 simultaneous symptoms. So your new patient's doctor made that diagnosis.
If you decide to look at each symptom, individually, you could easily come to a different conclusion.
Swollen lymph nodes could indicate a large number of possibilities. Blurry vision as well. Many other possibilities for low back pain including over work or an accident. Rash could be an allergic reaction. Fatigue could be stress or lack of sleep.
If you take ALL of the symptoms together, it looks like it could be disease X and it could very well be the correct diagnosis.
But it is easy to look at each individual symptom and negate it and explain it away.
We can explain away the DNA, and the Elantra seen on the cctv, and the phone turned off and the latent foot print and the garbage secretly being put in neighbour's cans, if we look at it individually. But we might not end up with the correct conclusion, imo.
and not to be the zebra party pooper, but the DNA is on an inside snap of a sheath. Yeah, it matters, and may be allowed into evidence, but there's a lot that can go wrong and potentially raise doubt imo jmo. imo it's not a compelling piece of proof unless there's other DNA of his at the crime scene or the victims' dna in his car. Then we're talking... imo jmo
and imo jmo I hope the jurors chosen care enough to wonder (that doesn't always happen obvs), but I also hope that this is a strong case one way or another, leaving very little doubt. jmo imo.
His DNA is at the scene on the knife sheath. We don't know where else it might be, yet.Which is why some of us are focusing on each individual piece of evidence, because it's entirely possible there may be holes and/or one or more pieces will not be allowed to be introduced at trial. Totality of evidence only works if all the evidence is introduced and deemed to be reliable.
MOO.
Thus far, a witness hasn't said she saw him there. She said she saw a tall black shadowy figure with bushy brows. That likely describes much of the student population. So you're left with the DNA. If the DNA evidence isn't solid for any reason, you've got nothing to place him inside the house.
MOO.
Always remember that the OJ trial (and Casey Anthony, nearly always included in these arguments) are outliers. There are very specific aspects to these cases, both in terms of the crimes themselves and the ways that the trials played out. And the OJ trial in particular was screwed up because TV became the story. I have no worries about the Idaho case going down that road. LE has been competent and careful.Ha, I thought something similar at the beginning of the OJ trial….gulp!
<snipped>We have the car data that shows him in the area.
Moo,
I was taken aback by the news of BK's arrest and the fact that he acted alone. My initial assumptions were completely off. It turns out that those who theorized about him being a lone wolf and a stalker were right all along.
Despite this, I have faith in the investigators handling the case. Their affidavit was incredibly thorough, going above and beyond what was required of them. I am confident that we will learn more about the situation once the trial is over. RSBM
His DNA is at the scene on the knife sheath. We don't know where else it might be, yet.
We also don't know if LE can place the knife sheath in BK's possession via sales receipt, etc.
We have the car data that shows him in the area.
We have a witness who saw a man that matches two distinctive feature of BK--his height and eyebrows. She doesn't have to pick him out of the lineup, just say that someone she didn't know with these two features was in the house at the time of the murders.
While I agree that many men on campus could be 5'10" with bushy eyebrows, what they don't have is their DNA on a knife sheath left next to one of the victims, nor many other things in the affidavit (Car, phone info, etc.). So, had she said something like "He was pretty short and barely came up to my shoulder" (and had some facial feature BK doesn't have, like a face tatt or large scar for instance), then it could be something the defense could fight and likely win that argument. But he DOES have bushy eyebrows, and he IS ~5'10"... so while that doesn't scream BK, added together with other "BK" things it's rather damning IMO.Right, lots of we don't knows.
Except those aren't distinctive features at all. DM says 5'10 or taller. How many men on U of I's campus does that describe? DM says bushy eyebrows. How many men on U of I's campus does that describe? Probably very many. These features are vague and pretty common, IMO. I think DM's part in this is very weak, actually (which is probably good since I'm sure she's been traumatized and she deserves a break).
MOO.