4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #85

[Chloegirl]

IMO, @Chloegirl, you are onto something.

I think BK could have done all of the above, including:

• DNA testing to identify his own signature and potentially those of others and see which methods worked best at erasing DNA/leaving unidentifiable traces of DNA.
• Blood testing for same/similar reasons as DNA.
• Luminol testing to see to what degree blood might soak through things like Tyvek booties, etc. (in regards to things like the "latent" footprint outside DM's room that was only seen through use of luminol, IIRC).

Creepy crazy kind of stuff for an everyday sort of person to do, IMO, but not beyond the realm of possibility for someone like him.

IIRC (as documented in MSM, and linked in the Media Only thread):

• When he was arrested in PA in the middle of the night at his parents'/his home LE found color coded ziploc baggies he was sorting his personal trash into in the kitchen. What a bizarre thing for him to be doing if he wasn't practicing at studying and controlling "release" of his DNA into the trash. And he was observed by LE before his arrest disposing of trash in the middle of the night in their neighbor's trash cans.
• His neighbors in the apartment complex in Pullman said he was often up all night running appliances and showering and making noises that woke them up. IMO, he could have been practicing then and there as well, at controlling release of his DNA onto this that or the other surfaces.

MOO

Well that sure is interesting to hear because I thought I was losing it. Suppose if you are OCD and fascinated by crime scene investigation, maybe. It's just another level. JMOO

 

[Nova]

Yes, I had considered that. But you're right, it's all good until Nudith Judith steals something and now, not only are there no cameras in the courtroom, all the lenses are fried.

But really, in general, wouldn't that be the fairest? Whatever you came in wearing --

Unfortunately for him, IIRC BK was arrested in his underthings so he'd need an alternative with more coverage, ffs. Maybe his prowler uniform would do. Maybe, with his guidance, someone could round up his Vans for him.

Jmo

Every defendant is innocent until proven guilty, as you well know.

On what ground are you going to dictate the clothing of the defendant, other than requiring him/her to cover up appropriately?

Most defendants don't have brand, new suits to wear to court. Most criminal defendants are poor. This isn't Bryan Kohberger's fault or problem.

If you are really concerned about the disparity, perhaps there are charities that donate clothing or money to indigent defendants. I'm sure they'd be happy to have your donation or assistance.

Let's fix inequality by raising the most needy, not by forcing defendants with resources to imitate the lowest common denominator!

 

[Nova]

But chances are that the attorneys that handle his appeal will not be the same as the ones that handled his trial. So, new attorneys will have no problem with throwing his old attorneys to the wolves. They can claim that he was deprived of his right to sn informed jury—they can rant and rave about the incompetence of AT and her crew, I think. The fact that if they’d been the trial attorneys themselves, they’d have made exactly the same choices—that won’t hold them back at all,

MOO

Not only that, but in many cases--see West Memphis 3--the original trial attorney is actively involved in claiming his defense of his client was ineffective.

"Ineffective assistance of counsel" can mean rank incompetence by a trial attorney, but I believe it can also mean things like not being given the funds to properly compete with the vast resources of the State. (IANAL)

 

[Balthazar]

Public defenders in many cities in the US keep a selection of donated men's suits, shirts, shoes and women's apparel and shoes on hand to loan to defendants who are indigent. The attire usually comes from the attorneys in the office, but you can donate clean professional attire to any public defender's office if you are concerned about inequity. They will be glad to accept your donation!

Poor defendants deserve good clothes, too

“You have the right to an attorney … if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you.”Got it. We watched “Law and Order.” But where in reading a su…

www.dailybreeze.com

 

[jepop]

IMO, Kaylee and Xana had distinctly different voices. DM would know her roommates voices. DM said it was Kaylee and I believe her. From the position of DM in her room in the house, she would know where the voice came from (for example, second or third floor and approximately where on that floor) and that the speaker sounded like Kaylee. Apparently after DM mentioned that Kaylee said "Someone's here," the interviewer then asked DM if it could have been Xana due to the timeline LE was developing. When you question a witness you want them to tell you 100% of what they believe happened and not say or do anything to influence their account of the events, even if the interviewer believes the witnesses account is incorrect in some way. You want to get 100% their own account without your input. It is so important for the interviewer to remain as neutral as possible and exert extreme care in not putting their opinion or idea into the head of the witness. Most especially, the interviewer should not do anything to direct witness testimony to fit a pre-existing theory of the crime including the timeline. IMO, the appropriate followup question would have been: "What floor in the house did the voice seem to come from?" and then, when DM said what floor, ask what part of that floor of the house. The interviewer should have then asked DM to imitate how "Someone's here" was said and asked DM if the speaker sounded distressed. We don't know at this time if the interviewer went to this level of questioning. However, what we do know is that the interviewer presented an alternative answer (that Xana may have been the speaker.) When an alternative answer is suggested to a witness by someone in authority (in this case the interviewer), the witness will often think the alternative suggested must be correct, even when it is not or the witness may feel that they have to agree with the interviewer as they view the interviewer as an authority figure. I am concerned that may have been what happened in this situation, which, of course, is going to be of interest to the Defense. So, IMO, here we have the Genesis of the defense request for the training records of the LE officer who questioned witnesses.

[snipped for focus]

All JMO.

RBBM: We don't know anything about how the interview was conducted with DM, how it was structured and how it took place Imo. It could well be that DM also gave an unsolicited statement to LE. I think the PCA is constructed so as to include relevant parts of DM's statement/s, the sentence that refers to perhaps DM having heard XK rather than DM say "someone's here" is presented as the view of investigators not the view of DM. Moo.

I don't think there is anything at all that we know of in MSM or LE statements or Courtdocs to speculate that Moscow MPD officers or detectives or whoever, were incompetent and solicted information from DM in their interviews and or statement taking. Moo

 

[jepop]

Thank you again and again and again @Nila Aella

The release of "sealed" Exhibit A, assuming it's the grand jury names and answers to voir dire questions, is shocking to me. I'd be okay with "juror 1 answered...." but to give out the actual juror's name before any question arises about their answer is frightening to me given leaks and crazy SM people. I understand witness names; juror names, not so much.. Seems the defense should have to question an answer before getting the name of a juror--falls under Thompson's cart-before-the-horse statement. This is so BK can fight the indictment; only to be re-indicted by a new grand jury; just buying time. But a WIN for the defense for now. What a load of hooey. I'd love to be wrong on this, so please correct me. JMO

I'm not fully certain and perhaps this has already been addressed and if so apologies for being repetitive! My reading is that the names of the individual Grand Jurors will not be released to either the Prosecution or the Defense. That's just the way I understand the last paragraph of the amended stipulation doc. Moo

 

[jepop]

As someone with a moderate visual impairment, I have always used visualization extensively to try and picture in advance what my new school buildings would look like (using a map), what's inside various buildings I'm going to visit, and how to get around inside of them.

I do believe the house was known for its top two floors and that party goers and others entered through that second floor deck (just as Kohberger did). So, he really only had to suss out two floors. If he came around occasionally (and we know he was nearby 11-12 times, at least) he probably went up on the road behind the house and could see directly through KG's window, at the very least. He would have known about the living room/kitchen layout merely by walking by.

If his goal was to get to the third floor, that house is not very big per floor and I don't see how he could miss that upward staircase (and then, each person can decide for themselves whether Xana and Ethan were collateral damage - happening to be up and going into her room at the time BK came down...or he really meant to kill everyone in the house). He might not have known how many actual residents there were, as that would be hard to suss out even at a party.

IMO.

We're on the same page here I think. I think it's entirely possible he could have had a good idea of the internal layout of the house and where Xana's, Maddie's and Kaylee's rooms were from a combination of internet sources and stalking the property, including peeking in windows on the second/middle floor - for e.g kitchen - late at night/early morning without being seen when it was 'safe' for him to do so. Moo

ETA first sentence

 

[Twistinginthewind]

Well that sure is interesting to hear because I thought I was losing it. Suppose if you are OCD and fascinated by crime scene investigation, maybe. It's just another level. JMOO

Yeah, it's definitely a possibility that I wouldn't disregard in this case, IMO.

Who the heck knows what all went into planning the "perfect crime of the century" from those quarters?

JMO, there may have been years and years of planning and messing around by the killer to hide their tracks, modern day version of.

 

[Twistinginthewind]

I'm not fully certain and perhaps this has already been addressed and if so apologies for being repetitive! My reading is that the names of the individual Grand Jurors will not be released to either the Prosecution or the Defense. That's just the way I understand the last paragraph of the amended stipulation doc. Moo

I hope so. The way I read it was that the Prosecution and Defense and their "investigators" were all privy to the names of the Grand Jurors, but they were "not allowed" to share that information any further. MOO. Slippery slope, IMO. Even if the Grand Juror's names were to be redacted in all that released information to the Defense, there would still be a handful of people working on the case that would know. Eek, JMO.

 

[jepop]

We don't know at this time if the interviewer went to this level of questioning. However, what we do know is that the interviewer presented an alternative answer (that Xana may have been the speaker.)

{snipped for focus]

All JMO.

My emphasis and snipped for focus: Just to be clear from my previous post, Imo we absolutely do not know that the "...interviewer presented an alternative answer". This seems to be presented as fact in your post and to me it is pure speculation on the way an interview with DM may have been conducted. I think the PCA writers simply presented an alternative scenario to a particular recollection of DM's when writing the PCA. The PCA tells us nothing about the manner in which DM was interviewed or provided statements to LE/detectives. Apologies for being somewhat repetitive but this is an imprtant distiction to be clear on I think. Moo

 

[TL4S]

{snipped for focus]

My emphasis and snipped for focus: Just to be clear from my previous post, Imo we absolutely do not know that the "...interviewer presented an alternative answer". This seems to be presented as fact in your post and to me it is pure speculation on the way an interview with DM may have been conducted. I think the PCA writers simply presented an alternative scenario to a particular recollection of DM's when writing the PCA. The PCA tells us nothing about the manner in which DM was interviewed or provided statements to LE/detectives. Apologies for being somewhat repetitive but this is an imprtant distiction to be clear on I think. Moo

I agree, and in the PCA, the statement about it possibly being X who said it was a belief by the interviewer based on her 4:12 Tik Tok activity alone. Just my interpretation.

 

[jepop]

I agree, and in the PCA, the statement about it possibly being X who said it was a belief by the interviewer based on her 4:12 Tik Tok activity alone. Just my interpretation.

I agree, except it is presented in the PCA as a belief by the invetigators/writer of the PCA not a belief by the interviewer of DM. That's a separate matter. Moo

 

[TL4S]

I agree, except it is presented in the PCA as a belief by the invetigators/writer of the PCA not a belief by the interviewer of DM. That's a separate matter. Moo

Ah, yes, that's what I meant. Thank you for clarifying.

 

[Nila Aella]

Re: contradicting DM in the PCA

I agree with @Balthazar that DM knows what her roomates sounded like and what direction the voice was coming from, upstairs vs same level vs downstairs. Something that might make a difference is how long she occupied that bedroom - she might not have been used to direction yet? But I still think she would have known the voice. JMO

IMO it was a mistake to contadict the witness in the PCA. It could appear to a juror that it was added to fit the timeline of events better, even if that was not the intention. It could also make a juror hesitate about or question the other portions of her statement, if they find this detail to be contradicted. I feel LE will explain this at the trial. JMO

This discussion also made me recall the last hearing when AT was discussing the 2nd officer that she wanted training records from. She stated that the officer did a interview with a key witness expected to testify. One of multiple interviews of this witness. (26.50 in link to hearing below).

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi8opLRh___AhX7MVkFHTiqALgQFnoECBYQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.courttv.com%2Fnews%2Fjudge-rules-on-defense-motions-in-case-against-bryan-kohberger%2F&usg=AOvVaw1IAI_nQT980Epe70jACTVa&opi=89978449

MOO

I agree, except it is presented in the PCA as a belief by the invetigators/writer of the PCA not a belief by the interviewer of DM. That's a separate matter. Moo

Great Point! about whether the questioning investigator was the PCA writer.
As stated above, there were multiple interviews with the witness and officer 2 only did one. So there were at least 2 officers that asked the witness questions. We do not know if the witness was questioned by the PCA writer, yet.
MOO

Edit: Oops. Just realized it might not be DM they were referring to (as the key witness) in the hearing. It might be BF. Might not be related to the PCA narrative. MOO

 

[jepop]

Re: contradicting DM in the PCA

I agree with @Balthazar that DM knows what her roomates sounded like and what direction the voice was coming from, upstairs vs same level vs downstairs. Something that might make a difference is how long she occupied that bedroom - she might not have been used to direction yet? But I still think she would have known the voice. JMO

IMO it was a mistake to contadict the witness in the PCA. It could appear to a juror that it was added to fit the timeline of events better, even if that was not the intention. It could also make a juror hesitate about or question the other portions of her statement, if they find this detail to be contradicted. I feel LE will explain this at the trial. JMO

This discussion also made me recall the last hearing when AT was discussing the 2nd officer that she wanted training records from. She stated that the officer did a interview with a key witness expected to testify. One of multiple interviews of this witness. (26.50 in link to hearing below).

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi8opLRh___AhX7MVkFHTiqALgQFnoECBYQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.courttv.com%2Fnews%2Fjudge-rules-on-defense-motions-in-case-against-bryan-kohberger%2F&usg=AOvVaw1IAI_nQT980Epe70jACTVa&opi=89978449

MOO

Great Point! about whether the questioning investigator was the PCA writer.
As stated above, there were multiple interviews with the witness and officer 2 only did one. So there were at least 2 officers that asked the witness questions. We do not know if the witness was questioned by the PCA writer, yet.
MOO

Edit: Oops. Just realized it might not be DM they were referring to (as the key witness) in the hearing. It might be BF. Might not be related to the PCA narrative. MOO

I don't view The PCA's inference as a mistake at all - I view it as an honest comment on the investigation and inferences drawn at the time. Imo, we know absolutely nothing about LE's procedure for interviewing key witnesses. In the absence of information to the contrary and despite the defense's motions for the release of Officer training at reqest 160, there's nothing at all to suggest incompetence. I see the PCA and the interviews of Key witnesses as separate matters. The point being that the PCA does not discuss the procedure at all for interviewing witnesses. Moo

EBM. Altered first sentence and spelling

 

[schooling]

I've said this before...but worth saying again...

If the defense contradicted a surviving witness in the PCA, one that they know will likely testify, I'd assume they have the goods to back it up. Otherwise, why put it in there at all? Eliminate that line and BK is still taken into custody.

MOO

 

[schooling]

IMO we're going to see a lot of cellular evidence. My office is in the basement of my house. I'm constantly text messaging my wife asking her about loud noises (we have a 2 year old) and anything I might hear outside. She's either on the main floor or the 2nd floor where our bedrooms are.

IMO LE is confident that those voices could not have been who DM thought she heard.

 

[di anna]

Does anyone else on this case ponder at the oddness of a door dash to occur at the approximation of the time of the murders? What are the odds of this? It makes someone pause and think someone had to be diligently observing the comings and goings, cellphone activity, etc. I mean you don't wanna go in and murder a bunch of folks if you are gonna risk being seen by some erroneous delivery person. It is almost like the perpetrator knew all cellphone activity or wifi activity.

 

[Dotta]

There were also frantic calls to K's ex boyfriend, but I already forgot the time of them.
Both K&M called him.

 

[jepop]

There were also frantic calls to K's ex boyfriend, but I already forgot the time of them.
Both K&M called him.

Around 2.50am was the last call made to Kaylee's ex.

"Alivea Goncalves, Kaylee’s sister previously told Inside Edition that Kaylee called a man named Jack six times between 2:26am at 2:52am in the morning.
Her roommate Moden also called Jack three times as well from 2.44am to 2.52am."

https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/idaho-students-called-ex-seven-times-before-brutal-stabbing-family-says-hes-innocent/news-story/ed654f74cb72b903788a03dd6d4684d2