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

[Twistinginthewind]

In BK's communities (IIRC, his family moved a few times when he was young) and/or region where he grew up in PA, there were 2 quadruple stabbing murders of female 'targets' in the home, he could have been aware of, then or later, IMO.

They were both committed by young men under 40 years old, and in both cases, it took many years for them to go to trial for the murders and later be convicted.

Hence, IMO, he could have been aware of and following them if they were front page news when he was growing up, even if he was "too young" to know about them at the time of the first one anyway.

In 2010
https://www.lehighvalleylive.com/breaking-news/2010/06/northampton_homicides_worst_ma.html#:~:text=July 1, 1994: Donald Snyder, 39, of Allentown,,himself in the head after crashing his car.
"Northampton homicides worst mass murder in county's recent history
... Ballard is accused of stabbing four people to death Saturday at the home. The bloody scene of the crime was described by the Northampton County district attorney as unlike anything he had seen before."
Convicted Pa. killer Michael Eric Ballard admits he murdered four more people after release from prison
“Ballard ... admitted he fatally stabbed his former girlfriend, her father, her 87-year-old grandfather and a neighbor...”

In 1994
Thomas Kimbell - National Registry of Exonerations
...Bonnie Dryfuse, her two daughters ... and her niece ... were brutally murdered at their mobile home in Pulaski Township, Pennsylvania. ... Each had been stabbed numerous times... Two and a half years later.... Thomas Kimball was arrested and charged with their murders... The trial did not begin until 1998, and a second trial began in 2002... "

 

[schooling]

I can never quite forget 'it's okay, I'm going to help you.' Did he feel rage and hate? Maybe. Did he do it for pleasure? Maybe. But that statement, which likely came after already violently killing three people, and about to kill again, sounds eerily calm and collected for the situation. I think he's a psychopath, literally, or at least he was in that moment, and I'm not convinced he truly felt much of anything. I think the planning was where he got his pleasure. Jmo.

I’m not a medical expert but I’d imagine that temporary anything is out of the question if planning is involved.

The visual snow syndrome posts speak for themselves. He told us all we need to know about his ability to empathize or sympathize with people. Little to none. He actually didn’t see them as people at all…(his words)

MOO

 

[Megnut]

Rage. Rage isn't always raging. If you've never had the misfortune of being in the presence of cold rage, it is scary beyond scary. Driven, unyielding, stone cold.

IMO he was exactly that: driven, unyielding, stone cold.

I also happen to think he misjudged. I still think he had one target in mind, and this would've looked very different IMO if X hadn't been awake and K hadn't been back, hadn't been in M's room.

Potentially he could have been in and out in under 5 minutes and probably even less. One fatal stabbing, sheath never leaving his side, in near and absolute silence.

IMO he failed to factor for the movements of the other roommates within the house. Lost control of the scene in M's room. Made noise. Created chaos. Got separated from his sheath. Only to encounter X downstairs, finding himself suddenly faced with two witnesses. IMO that room was frenzied. Moving targets-- he likely had to incapacitate one to get access to the other. I'm here to help you. He only needed to regain dominance, as two victims are harder to attack than one. MOO he was attempting to gain control of an improvised weapon, getting ever closer so he could grab it with one hand and stab with another....

X didn't necessarily know he'd already been upstairs, may have had no idea two of her roommates had been stabbed to death, may have in this moment been entirely unaware of a knife at all. E might have been fully asleep for much of it, stirring or not stirring in response to the footfalls on the third level, D's utterance on the second, and X's whimpering, right beside him.

Dark figure, suddenly appears as if out of nowhere, coming toward her. Confusing, scary but mostly you'd be processing -- and in that moment of calculation, he would already be upon her. He who owns the element of surprise always has the upper hand. Here, let me help you. Let me take that [bat, club, plastic fork, phone] from you. Don't worry, I'm here to help you.

And BK would have discovered how much harder it is to stab someone who's awake, aware, fighting back. IMO this is where he lost complete control... because of the actions of a woman.

IMO there was an extra price to pay for that. Abject overkill.

And it might explain how he walked right past D without seeing her. Eyes acclimating. We never did learn whether the light in X's room were on or off. His eyes may have been reacclimating to darkness, but mostly, he might've been reeling... just not in an outward way.

I think we'll learn he thinks globally, by which I mean that he saw the primary victim as a representation of all women, or all women of "a type" as perceived by him. All that we've learned about these four victims since, we know they were happy, loving, well-liked, well-connected, talented, purposeful, loved human beings. That would probably be shocking to him, if he cared at all. Probably felt himself the avenger for all men like him, against the women who ignore, are haughty, are fake (per his one-dimensional, grossly-mistaken assessment), basically teaching her a lesson. Sick. You won't go out with me (I just know you wouldn't, because) so I'll Take You Out.

Smug satisfaction.

People always have their reasons. He. Did. This. On. Purpose.

Cold rage.

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Rage. Rage isn't always raging. If you've never had the misfortune of being in the presence of cold rage, it is scary beyond scary. Driven, unyielding, stone cold.

IMO he was exactly that: driven, unyielding, stone cold.

I also happen to think he misjudged. I still think he had one target in mind, and this would've looked very different IMO if X hadn't been awake and K hadn't been back, hadn't been in M's room.

Potentially he could have been in and out in under 5 minutes and probably even less. One fatal stabbing, sheath never leaving his side, in near and absolute silence.

IMO he failed to factor for the movements of the other roommates within the house. Lost control of the scene in M's room. Made noise. Created chaos. Got separated from his sheath. Only to encounter X downstairs, finding himself suddenly faced with two witnesses. IMO that room was frenzied. Moving targets-- he likely had to incapacitate one to get access to the other. I'm here to help you. He only needed to regain dominance, as two victims are harder to attack than one. MOO he was attempting to gain control of an improvised weapon, getting ever closer so he could grab it with one hand and stab with another....

X didn't necessarily know he'd already been upstairs, may have had no idea two of her roommates had been stabbed to death, may have in this moment been entirely unaware of a knife at all. E might have been fully asleep for much of it, stirring or not stirring in response to the footfalls on the third level, D's utterance on the second, and X's whimpering, right beside him.

Dark figure, suddenly appears as if out of nowhere, coming toward her. Confusing, scary but mostly you'd be processing -- and in that moment of calculation, he would already be upon her. He who owns the element of surprise always has the upper hand. Here, let me help you. Let me take that [bat, club, plastic fork, phone] from you. Don't worry, I'm here to help you.

And BK would have discovered how much harder it is to stab someone who's awake, aware, fighting back. IMO this is where he lost complete control... because of the actions of a woman.

IMO there was an extra price to pay for that. Abject overkill.

And it might explain how he walked right past D without seeing her. Eyes acclimating. We never did learn whether the light in X's room were on or off. His eyes may have been reacclimating to darkness, but mostly, he might've been reeling... just not in an outward way.

I think we'll learn he thinks globally, by which I mean that he saw the primary victim as a representation of all women, or all women of "a type" as perceived by him. All that we've learned about these four victims since, we know they were happy, loving, well-liked, well-connected, talented, purposeful, loved human beings. That would probably be shocking to him, if he cared at all. Probably felt himself the avenger for all men like him, against the women who ignore, are haughty, are fake (per his one-dimensional, grossly-mistaken assessment), basically teaching her a lesson. Sick. You won't go out with me (I just know you wouldn't, because) so I'll Take You Out.

Smug satisfaction.

People always have their reasons. He. Did. This. On. Purpose.

Cold rage.

JMO

I love the thought you put into your posts Meg. Could very well be the case here, but I have to bring up that surely he would have to have know that DD had just delivered to the house and someone was up to receive and eating, yet he chose to go in at that time anyway. On the flip side, perhaps he missed seeing the DD driver while he was circling around, it would have been a very brief pull up, drop the food at the door 1-2 minutes tops.

Maybe he did think he could sneak upstairs and out without encountering Ethan or Xana (I don't think he had any idea DM was there on the second floor bedroom), but regardless, I totally agree he did this on purpose and proved it by driving by 4 times. He was intent on killing a person(s) that night.

MOO

 

[Cool Cats]

Rage. Rage isn't always raging. If you've never had the misfortune of being in the presence of cold rage, it is scary beyond scary. Driven, unyielding, stone cold.

IMO he was exactly that: driven, unyielding, stone cold.

I also happen to think he misjudged. I still think he had one target in mind, and this would've looked very different IMO if X hadn't been awake and K hadn't been back, hadn't been in M's room.

Potentially he could have been in and out in under 5 minutes and probably even less. One fatal stabbing, sheath never leaving his side, in near and absolute silence.

IMO he failed to factor for the movements of the other roommates within the house. Lost control of the scene in M's room. Made noise. Created chaos. Got separated from his sheath. Only to encounter X downstairs, finding himself suddenly faced with two witnesses. IMO that room was frenzied. Moving targets-- he likely had to incapacitate one to get access to the other. I'm here to help you. He only needed to regain dominance, as two victims are harder to attack than one. MOO he was attempting to gain control of an improvised weapon, getting ever closer so he could grab it with one hand and stab with another....

X didn't necessarily know he'd already been upstairs, may have had no idea two of her roommates had been stabbed to death, may have in this moment been entirely unaware of a knife at all. E might have been fully asleep for much of it, stirring or not stirring in response to the footfalls on the third level, D's utterance on the second, and X's whimpering, right beside him.

Dark figure, suddenly appears as if out of nowhere, coming toward her. Confusing, scary but mostly you'd be processing -- and in that moment of calculation, he would already be upon her. He who owns the element of surprise always has the upper hand. Here, let me help you. Let me take that [bat, club, plastic fork, phone] from you. Don't worry, I'm here to help you.

And BK would have discovered how much harder it is to stab someone who's awake, aware, fighting back. IMO this is where he lost complete control... because of the actions of a woman.

IMO there was an extra price to pay for that. Abject overkill.

And it might explain how he walked right past D without seeing her. Eyes acclimating. We never did learn whether the light in X's room were on or off. His eyes may have been reacclimating to darkness, but mostly, he might've been reeling... just not in an outward way.

I think we'll learn he thinks globally, by which I mean that he saw the primary victim as a representation of all women, or all women of "a type" as perceived by him. All that we've learned about these four victims since, we know they were happy, loving, well-liked, well-connected, talented, purposeful, loved human beings. That would probably be shocking to him, if he cared at all. Probably felt himself the avenger for all men like him, against the women who ignore, are haughty, are fake (per his one-dimensional, grossly-mistaken assessment), basically teaching her a lesson. Sick. You won't go out with me (I just know you wouldn't, because) so I'll Take You Out.

Smug satisfaction.

People always have their reasons. He. Did. This. On. Purpose.

Cold rage.

JMO

Stone Cold Rage is perfect, I don't see this happening without rage but then he was focused when going in the house so it is hard to put the 2 together and you just did this:

QUOTE:
Rage. Rage isn't always raging. If you've never had the misfortune of being in the presence of cold rage, it is scary beyond scary. Driven, unyielding, stone cold.
IMO he was exactly that: driven, unyielding, stone cold.

A guy was in a rage over custody and his girlfriend leaving him in a case I followed and even though he was in a rage he still shot her and her relatives in a planned calculated plot while they were in bed. He shot them in a stone cold, cold blooded controlled way.

Rage was shown in the overkill, multiple shots to the head and face, not just one shot to kill.

I believe the stab wounds, especially KG's, show horrible overkill which shows his rage. Her wounds were more like tears rather than stabs like he was angry at finding her there, not expecting it.

2 Cents

 

[Twistinginthewind]

Stone Cold Rage is perfect, I don't see this happening without rage but then he was focused when going in the house so it is hard to put the 2 together and you just did this:

QUOTE:
Rage. Rage isn't always raging. If you've never had the misfortune of being in the presence of cold rage, it is scary beyond scary. Driven, unyielding, stone cold.
IMO he was exactly that: driven, unyielding, stone cold.

A guy was in a rage over custody and his girlfriend leaving him in a case I followed and even though he was in a rage he still shot her and her relatives in a planned calculated plot while they were in bed. He shot them in a stone cold, cold blooded controlled way.

Rage was shown in the overkill, multiple shots to the head and face, not just one shot to kill.

I believe the stab wounds, especially KG's, show horrible overkill which shows his rage. Her wounds were more like tears rather than stabs like he was angry at finding her there, not expecting it.

2 Cents

Good points @Megnut and @Cool Cats.

I agree about cold rage driving the viciousness or heinous nature of the stabbings by BK, allegedly.

I have my own underlying theories on what was done to each of the victims during the killings and speculations on why.

I think Kaylee's wounds were allegedly worse than Maddie's because he hated her more. I think they were probably asleep or half asleep or huddled in fear for their lives and they never had a chance to defend themselves.

I think Xana's wounds were allegedly worse in another way - defensive wounds to her hands which were allegedly severe - for another reason. She was fully awake when he stabbed Ethan and probably out of bed and tried to defend herself.

I think Ethan's wounds were allegedly worse than any of them in terms of where and how deep they went because he was the biggest threat in terms of physically being able to fight off the attacker, so he was brutally disabled right away with a very vicious killing blow to a very vulnerable part of his upper body.

Acknowledging whomever said "There's someone here" may or may not have known of whether the someone was a danger to them or if it caused them to come awake or take pause or be frightened enough to come together in their beds in solidarity, and then they were killed.

If it was Kaylee who was initially in her own room with Murphy and heard a scuffle in Maddie's room and called out "someone's here" loud enough for DM to hear her downstairs, and she then entered Maddie's room to see what was happening and was attacked upon entering and ended up falling on or being pushed onto Maddie's bed or there was some staging of the bodies and evidence of that (e.g., blood around the room and not only on the bed), only LE knows.

MOO. It's all so gruesome and terribly awful to contemplate and speculate about, but my contemplation and speculation will continue until his trial and/or a plea, as a means to an end.

Sitting vigil and never forgetting the victims in the final minutes of their lives and the circumstances of their deaths until there is closure for their family in the how of it all, even if not why.

MOO

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Total hate and rage and vengeance against women. Only a killer in a hateful rage of fury could viciously stab people to death. Stabbing is up close and personal, stabbing a person in bed is as personable as it gets - unlike shooting outside at a distance. It shows pure hate, rage and vengeance.

Killers always kill for a specific reason, to gain something. What did Kohberger gain?

The answer to the motive is whatever he felt he was gaining for himself.

2 Cents

Vengeance against a world that was treating him wrong maybe. Having read Elliot Rodger's autobiography / manifesto I have really changed how I view this. I wasn't aware of that perspective existing before even though I'd heard of 'incels'. I always assumed that people angry with the world felt hostile, alienated, angry with their parents, screwed by the system, politics, religion, culture, society, etc and frustrated.

I never knew that some can distort it into being the actual fault of the people alongside them who they believe are doing OK where they're not, ie in that case, young women. Because it's really illogical, distorted, and twisted.

 

[Cool Cats]

Vengeance against a world that was treating him wrong maybe. Having read Elliot Rodger's autobiography / manifesto I have really changed how I view this. I wasn't aware of that perspective existing before even though I'd heard of 'incels'. I always assumed that people angry with the world felt hostile, alienated, angry with their parents, screwed by the system, politics, religion, culture, society, etc and frustrated.

I never knew that some can distort it into being the actual fault of the people alongside them who they believe are doing OK where they're not, ie in that case, young women. Because it's really illogical, distorted, and twisted.

Interesting. I definitely think this was going on with him, that he identified a type of person that was - as you point out - "doing OK but he was not doing OK."

Like a bigot hating on a whole specific group of people, the individuals don't matter because they are in this "group."

2 CT's

 

[DrQ]

IMHO I think they have the right guy with BK. This was a vicious killing of four innocents and has damaged many lives. One of my biggest fears is that a jury might not convict him. When I see him in a video or picture the hair on the back of my neck stands up. This Nov 13 will be one year since this evil killing. I am not an attorney but if I was BK's defense, I would not want to be heading to trial on or near Nov 13. Very likely to come up often during the trial.
Being strange does not always equal killer or criminal. However, a series of actions and events leading up to a serious crime or murder moves far away from coincidence (which LE generally does not rely on) and into the land of premeditation. Premeditation will go a long way with BK's actions and behavior. Closure may never happen for the families. Hopefully, justice will bring some relief.

 

[Idaho transplant]

IMHO I think they have the right guy with BK. This was a vicious killing of four innocents and has damaged many lives. One of my biggest fears is that a jury might not convict him. When I see him in a video or picture the hair on the back of my neck stands up. This Nov 13 will be one year since this evil killing. I am not an attorney but if I was BK's defense, I would not want to be heading to trial on or near Nov 13. Very likely to come up often during the trial.
Being strange does not always equal killer or criminal. However, a series of actions and events leading up to a serious crime or murder moves far away from coincidence (which LE generally does not rely on) and into the land of premeditation. Premeditation will go a long way with BK's actions and behavior. Closure may never happen for the families. Hopefully, justice will bring some relief.

If this case went to trial and I was a juror with little to no knowledge of the murders (and yes, in the case of Lori Vallow, jurors were found who had that same level of knowledge of her case, must to everyone's shock), I would be very confused upon hearing the evidence and then looking over at the defendant; a young man who presents as clean-cut, could be a professional lawyer, engineer, accountant, etc. in his suit/tie and his hair gelled. In the beginning, especially, I would wonder if they arrested the right person. As time progressed, I would, no doubt, become horrified but I still believe that a "WHY" would enable me to process the information in a logical manner. Maybe the evidence, in and of itself, would provide that WHY.

 

[jjleroche]

What did Kohberger gain? Pleasure.

Right, most murders are motivated by money, love, revenge. Villains are harder to figure out. I'd like to know BK's backstory. Cause & effect. What made BK into a killer? It's hard to believe pretty little girls bullying him was the reason. But maybe part of the reason. There must be events we don't know, can't talk about here.

IMO Hate/anger/hurting women got mixed together with pleasure in BK's young mind and he thought about it/revised it/obsessed over it for years. He collected pieces/ideas from the killers he studied, maybe a certain date stayed in his fantasy. He bought the knife before he left PA. He thought he was a criminal mastermind. Maybe getting away with it became part of his fantasy.

At WSU, BK, very immature, was like a troubled boy without his parents for the first time, driven by his desires, impulsive, no longer able to control his recurrent thrill-kill-pleasure fantasy & no prying eyes to curb his behavior. In August he was already hunting targets; Sept 23 his first altercation--what distracted him so much he failed to meet expectations so soon? IMO His life ran amok for his dark pleasures.

JMO

DBM

 

[Cool Cats]

If this case went to trial and I was a juror with little to no knowledge of the murders (and yes, in the case of Lori Vallow, jurors were found who had that same level of knowledge of her case, must to everyone's shock), I would be very confused upon hearing the evidence and then looking over at the defendant; a young man who presents as clean-cut, could be a professional lawyer, engineer, accountant, etc. in his suit/tie and his hair gelled. In the beginning, especially, I would wonder if they arrested the right person. As time progressed, I would, no doubt, become horrified but I still believe that a "WHY" would enable me to process the information in a logical manner. Maybe the evidence, in and of itself, would provide that WHY.

Yes lack of motive is the prosecution's headache but they have one way around this.

Find a digital connection from BK to the victims in late summer and fall of 2022 (or earlier) and add it to the 11 Moscow cell tower pings that were before and after midnight and add in possible King Rd WIFI pings as mentioned by KG's dad.

Then, as you describe him from a juror's point of view.........

This "young man who presents as clean-cut, could be a professional lawyer, engineer, accountant, etc. in his suit/tie and his hair gelled"

.......will look like a stalker in a suit with nice hair - obsessed with the victims.

Plus, as a juror not knowing much about the case I would want to know everything he was doing that night and would want to at least hear about this even if the defense has no evidence to prove it.

2 Cents

 

[Boxer]

Yes lack of motive is the prosecution's headache but they have one way around this.

Find a digital connection from BK to the victims in late summer and fall of 2022 (or earlier) and add it to the 11 Moscow cell tower pings that were before and after midnight and add in possible King Rd WIFI pings as mentioned by KG's dad.

Then, as you describe him from a juror's point of view.........

This "young man who presents as clean-cut, could be a professional lawyer, engineer, accountant, etc. in his suit/tie and his hair gelled"

.......will look like a stalker in a suit with nice hair - obsessed with the victims.

Plus, as a juror not knowing much about the case I would want to know everything he was doing that night and would want to at least hear about this even if the defense has no evidence to prove it.

2 Cents

He was apparently in his apartment during the evening then was at NE Stadium Way and SE Nevada in Pullmam just prior to his phone going silent.

 

[Cool Cats]

He was apparently in his apartment during the evening then was at NE Stadium Way and SE Nevada in Pullmam just prior to his phone going silent.

If the defense can reasonably show his phone did not ping on a Moscow tower and that it wasn't his car driving around the crime scene then maybe an alibi will be that he stayed in Pullman that night, depends on that phone and car video evidence put together.

If they offer an alibi it means they are able to poke holes in the car video and phone evidence.

No alibi means the cell tower and car video evidence is hard for them to overcome and they need to discredit that evidence entirely.

If the defense had a strong case they could do both. Here's the alibi and the cell records are not reliable and this is not his car.

If he was innocent they could do this.

2 Cents

 

[schooling]

Yes lack of motive is the prosecution's headache but they have one way around this.

Find a digital connection from BK to the victims in late summer and fall of 2022 (or earlier) and add it to the 11 Moscow cell tower pings that were before and after midnight and add in possible King Rd WIFI pings as mentioned by KG's dad.

Then, as you describe him from a juror's point of view.........

This "young man who presents as clean-cut, could be a professional lawyer, engineer, accountant, etc. in his suit/tie and his hair gelled"

.......will look like a stalker in a suit with nice hair - obsessed with the victims.

Plus, as a juror not knowing much about the case I would want to know everything he was doing that night and would want to at least hear about this even if the defense has no evidence to prove it.

2 Cents

I think it also depends on what is deemed admissible or not. Most people I've talked to about this case have naturally made the criminology student -> perfect crime jump on their own.

If the Reddit survey is somehow deemed admissible due to it demonstrating criminal intent (some reports implied that was not actually part of his assignment) and introduced as evidence (doubtful)...it's not hard to see the jury make that much smaller leap on their own. Then motive stops mattering as much.

I find it hard to believe that there's not at least 1 or 2 pieces of evidence out there that connects him directly to victims. I know the defense said there wasn't any......but if BK had a secret Instagram account that didn't contain his name or a known email...it's easy for the defense to say it wasn't BK and leave it up to the jury. They wouldn't necessarily be lying. Even if prosecutors claimed to have evidence to back it up. IMO that's how they are making the 'no connection' math add up.

MOO

 

[Gemmie]

If this case went to trial and I was a juror with little to no knowledge of the murders (and yes, in the case of Lori Vallow, jurors were found who had that same level of knowledge of her case, must to everyone's shock), I would be very confused upon hearing the evidence and then looking over at the defendant; a young man who presents as clean-cut, could be a professional lawyer, engineer, accountant, etc. in his suit/tie and his hair gelled. In the beginning, especially, I would wonder if they arrested the right person. As time progressed, I would, no doubt, become horrified but I still believe that a "WHY" would enable me to process the information in a logical manner. Maybe the evidence, in and of itself, would provide that WHY.

Clean-cut, hair gel and a suit wouldn't make me question if they had the right person. Are killers supposed to look a certain way? I don't think they do IMO. They come in all shapes, sizes, looks, education, ethnicity, you name it. Killers are a diverse bunch. It's the evidence against them, not their looks, that would help me determine a persons guilt should I be on a jury. Why? Because I know the defense is going to make him look as presentable as they can. I guess for those that make determinations based solely on someone's looks, background, ethnicity, etc., and not the evidence against them. I was on a jury once and jurors did that (determined guilt before we even sat down in the jury room and none of it was based on fact). It was hard to talk facts with people that were going off their emotions regarding someone that wasn't "like them".

I'm curious why cleaning up a person's looks would sway you into thinking they had the wrong person. To me it's not about how they look in court, it's the piles of evidence they have against someone. And for me (since this is something I've thought about for many years) do we really have to know "WHY" someone committed a heinous murder in order for us to feel they did it? I feel people can do things I'll never, ever understand. But just because I don't understand why or how they did something doesn't mean they didn't do it.

So honest question as to why his looks, and needing to know the "why", would sway you one way or the other. Just trying to understand a different point of view.

 

[jepop]

If the defense can reasonably show his phone did not ping on a Moscow tower and that it wasn't his car driving around the crime scene then maybe an alibi will be that he stayed in Pullman that night, depends on that phone and car video evidence put together.

If they offer an alibi it means they are able to poke holes in the car video and phone evidence.

No alibi means the cell tower and car video evidence is hard for them to overcome and they need to discredit that evidence entirely.

If the defense had a strong case they could do both. Here's the alibi and the cell records are not reliable and this is not his car.

If he was innocent they could do this.

2 Cents

I like your points. I think it is going to be impossible for the defense to prove, at the very least, that he, his vehicle and his phone were not 15 minutes south of Moscow at 4.50am. Additonally I don't see (Moo) the defense having any witnesses/surveliance images to reasonably suggest/infer he was at home with phone turned off between 2.50am and and 4.25am (murders took pace 4-4.25am according to PCA). Imo if defense present an 'at-home 'alibi, then BK will have to testify to that at trial. I doubt he will testify but who knows. Moo

And I think the prosecution will prove BaRD at the very least that BK's car is the same vehicle referred to in the PCA as SV1 (suspect vehicle 1). How? Through due diligence of elimination of other possibilities for that vehicle, proof BaRD that SVI sported a back plate only will help. Good location evidence of BK's prior presence x12 times will also help with the overall contention and I think the prosecution will be able to show that. It is all possible Imo, even in the most unlikely event that there is no digital/internet trail "connecting" him to the victims . Moo

EBM spelling

 

[Twistinginthewind]

IMHO I think they have the right guy with BK. This was a vicious killing of four innocents and has damaged many lives. One of my biggest fears is that a jury might not convict him. When I see him in a video or picture the hair on the back of my neck stands up. This Nov 13 will be one year since this evil killing. I am not an attorney but if I was BK's defense, I would not want to be heading to trial on or near Nov 13. Very likely to come up often during the trial.
Being strange does not always equal killer or criminal. However, a series of actions and events leading up to a serious crime or murder moves far away from coincidence (which LE generally does not rely on) and into the land of premeditation. Premeditation will go a long way with BK's actions and behavior. Closure may never happen for the families. Hopefully, justice will bring some relief.

I agree, @DrQ.

Regarding premeditation, it's spelled out in black & white in the indictments.

All 4 felony murder charges are written out as 1st degree murder with premeditation.

As well, the 5th felony burglary charge is specific to BK breaking & entering their home with intent to commit the 4 felony murders in the 1st degree with premeditation.

So LE had evidence of premeditation that was presented to the GJ by the prosecution and that evidence was sufficient at that time for the GJ to indict BK on 4 charges of premeditated 1st degree murder.

Links above and in the case documents and in the Media No Discussion thread.

Just pointing this out again in case anyone missed it, not directed at you, just elaborating on your mention of premeditation.

MOO

 

[TL4S]

I think it also depends on what is deemed admissible or not. Most people I've talked to about this case have naturally made the criminology student -> perfect crime jump on their own.

If the Reddit survey is somehow deemed admissible due to it demonstrating criminal intent (some reports implied that was not actually part of his assignment) and introduced as evidence (doubtful)...it's not hard to see the jury make that much smaller leap on their own. Then motive stops mattering as much.

I find it hard to believe that there's not at least 1 or 2 pieces of evidence out there that connects him directly to victims. I know the defense said there wasn't any......but if BK had a secret Instagram account that didn't contain his name or a known email...it's easy for the defense to say it wasn't BK and leave it up to the jury. They wouldn't necessarily be lying. Even if prosecutors claimed to have evidence to back it up. IMO that's how they are making the 'no connection' math add up.

MOO

I think it's possible that BK, being a student of CJ, might have thought he was planning the perfect crime (turning off phone, having no readable front plate, etc.), and maybe if he hadn't left the sheath behind, it would have been harder to positively identify him. IDK. I think that's why AT is working so hard at getting the DNA evidence suppressed.

I'll also be surprised if there is no evidence to connect him to the victims, prior to the murders. It's possible his stalking was all in-person, but I agree, there are likely secret accounts that are just not as easily linked back to BK, so AT can use that in her argument, as you said. Again, in his education, he was at least exposed to this kind of information, so unless he was a complete nitwit, he likely had enough knowledge to know how to be careful. I just think he thought he had more knowledge than he really did. JMO.

 

[maconrich]

Posting for clarification purposes only.

Regarding the reddit survery, noted in the PCA and frequently commented on as being reflective of intent to commit crime / murder. MOO.

Said "Crime Research Study" was conducted by three people. BK was the Student Investigator, there was a Co-Principal Investigator and the Principal Investigator was Professor Bolger. All three were noted in the study and their DeSales email addresses were included. There is nothing, IMO, that shows this was anything other than a research project conducted with assistance from two other individuals. As the professor notes, it was a routine questionnaire in criminology .

I personally don't see anything outstanding much less menacing or that implies motive or premeditation. Therefore, IMHO, it doesn't tell us anything other than the fact that BK was a psychology, criminal justice student doing research in his field of study. MOO

"Bolger said she advised Kohberger with his thesis, which involved questioning people about their thoughts and feelings during the commission of a crime."

“I was one of the professors who helped Bryan with his proposal on his graduate thesis, his capstone project. He did put out a routine questionnaire for his thesis. It looks weird, I understand from the public view. But in criminology it’s normal,” she told the Daily Mail."

from:

Accused Idaho killer Bryan Kohberger was a ‘brilliant student,’ DeSales professor claims

“In my 10 years of teaching, I’ve only recommended two students to a Ph.D program and he was one of them. He was one of my best students, ever,” DeSales University Associate Professor M…

nypost.com