4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #86

[jepop]

It's been said by many crime victims that they were unable to scream, out of fear, feeling frozen----shut down. Waking up as a masked man with a huge knife, is suddenly stabbing you? No surprise to me if no one was able to actually scream. JMO

There was another poster, I can't remember who, who has pointed out that when you are fighting for your life instinct takes over and all your attention is occupied in the immediate struggle. I also think there would have been physical mainfestations of shock once the danger was registered on the visceral level. Screaming takes enegy that your body needs elsewhere. It's not like the movies. Given ambushed and drowsy (if not fully asleep) victims who were trapped in a physical space, that always made perfect sense to me. Moo

 

[gremlin444]

2015 Article

We asked pairs of people to shake hands for two minutes and then each individual handled a separate knife. In 85% of cases, the DNA of the other person was transferred to the knife and profiled. In one-fifth of the samples, the DNA analysis identified this other person as the main or only contributor of DNA to the 'weapon' (C.M.Caleetal.J.ForensicSci.http://doi.org/8j2;2015).

From the same article, written by the person who did that experiment:

"How significant is the result of a single study? Other analyses have shown that DNA transfer can be unpredictable and can depend on environmental conditions. We need more research on when and how secondary transfer can occur."

 

[Idaho transplant]

I've noticed you always start your posts with "If this case goes to trial", do you think it will not? I'm genuinely curious as to why you believe that? Do you think BK will try and make a plea?

I have no idea whether this case will go to trial or not. I hope that whatever the outcome, it gives whatever comfort possible to the families of the victims. It is my believe that they, and only they, should have the final say.

 

[10ofRods]

I agree. I think it'll be a loser argument but I still think it will be the argument. A battle of the experts "This is reliable" vs "This is not reliable." And, IIRC you are correct, single source.
jmo

Just like Letecia Stauch's trial. And with the same problems.

 

[Idaho transplant]

After reading the article in todays Idaho Statesman, it gave me a better understanding of the "Elsewhere" claim.

Offering an alibi is one form of criminal defense that argues the suspect was somewhere else at the time of the incident with evidence, including possible witness testimony. It “indicates a line of proof by which the defendant attempts to show that he could not have committed the crime of which he is accused because he was elsewhere at the time,” Taylor wrote, referencing a legal definition.

Read more at: https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/crime/article277634138.html#storylink=cpy

As far as the line about KB possibly explaining his whereabouts himself during his time on the stand, I'd give the odds of
that happening a kinda, maybe, but no.

 

[Boxer]

I agree 1000%. You have to suspend disbelief. You have to invest in the theory that they were not only able to identify this invisible evidence, but that they then somehow had the skill to transfer the invisible evidence to the button snap, while wiping clean all traces of any other evidence.

jmo

Agree. This is spinning. She will be looking for jurors that open emails with viruses, respond to robocall questionnaires etc.

 

[Boxer]

There was another poster, I can't remember who, who has pointed out that when you are fighting for your life instinct takes over and all your attention is occupied in the immediate struggle. I also think there would have been physical mainfestations of shock once the danger was registered on the visceral level. Screaming takes enegy that your body needs elsewhere. It's not like the movies. Given ambushed and drowsy (if not fully asleep) victims who were trapped in a physical space, that always made perfect sense to me. Moo

Screaming is movies, it can happen but there is also shock and MOO inability to get a sound out.

 

[Boxer]

I have no idea whether this case will go to trial or not. I hope that whatever the outcome, it gives whatever comfort possible to the families of the victims. It is my believe that they, and only they, should have the final say.

What odds do you give it will go to go to trial 50/50, 90/10?

 

[10ofRods]

I have no idea whether this case will go to trial or not. I hope that whatever the outcome, it gives whatever comfort possible to the families of the victims. It is my believe that they, and only they, should have the final say.

About what? Guilt or innocence? Penalty?

What if they don't agree? What if the only thing that would give some of them comfort is something not permitted within the system? If only the victims' families have a say, then there's no due process and death penalty in many, many cases.

Not that this is possible in the US legal system as it stands right now. In the end, this would result in lawless behavior, as revenge is one of the main historical causes of long term feuds and what the Italians call vendettas. It would never end if it was just the family members of victims who decided guilt/innocence and then penalty. And surely, the State would have to be boundaries on what family members could do, right? Someone has to oversee it - but you're suggesting that we don't need a court system?

Or by "final say" do you mean the victims' families should get to over-ride the jury? Again, in this case, the families apparently do not agree. That would be the case in any mass murder. Not everyone is for the death penalty. So should one family's objection over ride a death penalty, if the jury gives it?

IMO.

 

[Jurisprudence]

Forgetting of course the minor detail that the defense delayed from the jump and the state acquiesced. He didn't enter a plea for 6 months and only did so when he was forced to by law. IMOO, he would not have proceeded to a pc hearing but instead, would have asked for another delay. The use of the GJ imo, was the State using the tools it had available in its legal toolbox to attempt to try and stop the constant delays and get the clock to start ticking.

The requests for stays still came. Once he was arraigned the focus shifted to attack the indictment. They are looking for time to search for grounds to challenge the indictment, delay the inevitable. Defense wants the judge to stay the proceedings while they search for a wrong, as opposed to filing a motion citing the wrong that would provide the grounds necessary for the judge to quash the indictment and grant a stay while a new GJ is empaneled. (Delay the case now for us Judge (again), and we'll give you the reasons later). Defense asked for the kitchen sink - when what they are entitled to is the GJ transcript. The Judge granted the defense request without them laying a basis (giving great deference to the defense once again imo) and now the defense is hoping to find problems with the way the GJ was empaneled. It doesn't know what they are yet, but they plan to find at least one.

Court said your motion is premature defense, but I'll give you 37 days more to get the materials even though your clients isn't waiving his right to a speedy trial and you can renew your motion if necessary at that time. [snipped by me]

@Nila Aella, I think I can explain why this is such a big deal for the state, and why this should be of concern to each and every one of us. MOO, of course.

IMO, the state isn't splitting hairs or nitpicking with that motion to reconsider. They're concerned - about the judge's order in response to the defense's motion, and rightfully so I think.

The speedy trial statute in Idaho could cause this defendant's case to be dismissed if he isn't brought to trial within 6 months of arraignment unless he waives it and postpones it upon his application. And, he has not.

Indeed, BK is vehemently refusing to "postpone it upon his application" as we see from the filings. Instead, he says he wants to retain his right to a speedy trial but wants the judge to expand the time - and the judge did.

Problem is, and I agree with the State here 100%, Judge just very possibly violated the Speedy Trial statute and if he doesn't rescind this order this case may be in jeopardy of being thrown out unless somehow he proceeds to trial on 10/2 - and why would he?

Now, it is true that the Judge did say in his order something to the effect of "Well, the defense agreed on the record, so they can't come back later and cry foul"

But, then he proceeds to say in the very next sentence "But.... the court acknowledges that the defendant BK has NOT waived his right."

The State must have been like "Judge, What?!?"

In their filing the state told the judge that the defense "saying it on the record" does not get you around the speedy trial rule. Them saying it on the record does not satisfy the statute since it is not equal to "a waiver or postponement of trial upon the defendant's application".

And, even the court acknowledged this in its order (that the court has been told over and over on the record he's not waiving it).

MOO, the state is concerned he has just risked getting this case thrown out. And, AT and her defense team aren't dummies. They know exactly what they asked for, exactly what was granted, and its impact. And, they still filed that response. So take from that what you will.

As always, this is all jmo.

I don't think anyone wants this case messed up. Not the state, not any of us, and especially, not the families. MOO

Section 19-3501 – Idaho State Legislature

legislature.idaho.gov

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/071723%20Motion%20to%20Reconsider%20Order%20Staying%20Time%20for%20Speedy%20Trial.pdf

 

[Nila Aella]

From the same article, written by the person who did that experiment:

"How significant is the result of a single study? Other analyses have shown that DNA transfer can be unpredictable and can depend on environmental conditions. We need more research on when and how secondary transfer can occur."

Yes, there has been more research since this article and in 2019 this review describes the need for even more. A introduction about the the need for definitions and appropriate use of descriptive words to describe the different types of transfers being investigated. And reviewing the research to date. I found it interesting. MOO

And more interesting links at the bottom of this abstract.

Plus, there has been even more research since 2019 on this subject.

DNA transfer in forensic science: A review

Understanding the variables impacting DNA transfer, persistence, prevalence and recovery (DNA-TPPR) has become increasingly relevant in investigations…

www.sciencedirect.com

edit:spelling

 

[ktm44]

My biggest unanswered question is how did he keep them quiet? Especially when there were two together in each room. I mean he only has two hands. If you stab once non-fatally, that person can wake up and scream. Yet no one was alerted on either floor above or below.

Hollywood teaches us that people fighting for their lives scream but in reality, people fighting for their lives tend to focus on fighting for their lives and seldom ever scream for help.

We don't know that anybody was stabbed once, non fatally and that may also physically affect one's ability to scream. It's not possible to inhale for a loud scream if your lungs are filling with blood or deflated.

It's also worth mentioning that someone has to have sufficient time to assemble their thoughts and realize they are in that kind of danger and believing someone was in a house they felt safe in, intending to stab them to death in their sleep, likely wasn't the first thought that came to mind.

 

[North_Idaho_Nony]

I'm curious about the second person in the same room too. Personally, I don't think KG was in M's bed. I think she came in to MM's room after hearing or seeing something and then got attacked, landing on the bed. But that's just a guess. Downstairs is more curious, but I do wonder if he injured one (crying), killed the other, then went back to kill the first.

RBBM

Interesting & plausible, MOO, if you discount KG’s dad’s public comments about how her bed hadn’t been slept in.

MOO

Edit: spelling error - sorry!

 

[I'm Nobody]

My speculation is that Kohberger had a long and fairly intricate checklist of things he needed to do (in his mind) to avoid detection.

He was caught up in doing whatever he had planned to prevent blood evidence transferring to his car (and his person).

Another of his rubrics was to get out of there and speed away. He obviously had thought about (but likely not visited) possible places to dispose of evidence. So he was thinking about that, too.

My speculation is that he realized the sheath was missing when he was filling up his duffle or whatever bag he had chosen for evidence disposal. I don't think it could have been a trash bag because it simply wouldn't work as well as something with a zipper. Also, he would have noticed at that point that he was putting an unsheathed knife into a mere trash bag.

OTOH, he could have wrapped the knife up in something, temporarily. He must surely have wanted to speed out of there rather than return to look for the sheath (his risk of more blood contamination would have increased, had he gone back in at that point).

The question I have is whether his return trip to Moscow the next morning was an attempt to recover the sheath. Probably not, but I guess it's a possibility. He must have been rather anxious at that point (kicking himself for forgetting it). Maybe the neighbor was slightly mistaken on the exact time when she observed the open door on the first floor.

He would have revisited the crime scene rooms, if he did that. He might even have closed and locked Xana's door. But he surely knew that he took the knife out of the sheath on the third floor - but it was under MM's body and what a risk it would have been to touch or move her (having already disposed of his kill gear and probably not wanting to look like a crazy murderer in broad daylight).

Speculation. Trying to pull a few clues together in some way that makes sense to me.

Insightful speculation as always @10ofRods Thank you. Agree BK pre-planned not only the murders, but also his getaway, pre-dug disposal hole(s) someplace on the long stretch of road he took after. I don't think BK knew he left the sheath until he got to the trunk of his car. (I believe Kaylee was in Maddie's bed bc KG had moved out weeks before; taken bedding etc home w/her; they were best friends since 6th grade; fun talking, laughing, calling Jake. IMO It was Kaylee who dislodged the sheath or it fell from BK's pocket during those first 2 attacks & BK did not know this was where he lost it until PCA.)

Thanks to a previous @Twistinginthewind post about gear shift I looked at the Elantra's owner's manual where I found that his 2015 Elantra may have had a no-touch trunk lock. All BK had to do was stand w/in 3 feet of the trunk for seconds & the trunk opened on its own, no hands or feet involved. Even w/out that option he could have pressed the trunk lock button through his pants pocket. Pants changed at disposal hole site. IMO BK pre-lined his trunk & inside car, put an open bag or container(s) into his lined trunk. After the murders, while running to the car he removed shoe covers, bloody outer top, gloves and threw it all into the trunk's open bag. Slammed the trunk which was the thud heard on the security cam. Then he drove to his pre-dug hole(s) and buried the bag(s). That morning for the 9-10 minute return, BK parked close but ran to 1122 to see if he spotted the sheath in the yard. Later on the 13th, phone off, he retrieved the buried bag(s) to dump in river.

Highly doubt BK confessed to AT or provided any secret location/whereabouts to her. BK's past behavior re: taking responsibility for tickling, harassing, stealing sis phone, traffic stop or admitting he'd done anything wrong at WSU seems zero. AT's alibi response was more schooling about alibi law, legal mumbo-jumbo, a fairy tale reply.

100% this will go to trial. Hopeful BK being a guest of the state gives a little peace to the community & victims.

Speculation/JMO

 

[North_Idaho_Nony]

Coroner comments about wounds:

Nov 17

It would have been early in the morning, sometime after 2 a.m., but still during the night," Mabbutt said, adding that there wasn't a medical way to determine who was attacked first, but investigators are "trying to put timelines together with other text messages and other technology."

Mabbutt couldn't say how many times each victim was stabbed but said it was safe to say each of them had multiple wounds. She declined to say where on the body they were stabbed and later clarified that the victims were stabbed in different places and a different amount of times.

Coroner offers new details about fatal slaying of 4 U of Idaho students after preliminary autopsies

The four students were found stabbed to death inside a home in Moscow, Idaho, on Nov. 13.

www.today.com

More detail:
“There were multiple stab wounds on them and most of them had just one that was the lethal stab wound. The fatal ones were to the chest area, the upper body area,” Mabbutt said.”
University of Idaho murder victims were in bed, stabbed multiple times: coroner

I highly recommend finding the actual interview on NewsNation to listen to the full interview to hear exactly what the coroner said.

Some time back, I seem to recall posting here the time stamp of when in the hour long podcast the interview took place?

HTH & MOO

ETA: source of Coroner Mabbutt’s comments are from the NewsNation Banfield ~podcast~ dated 11/17/2022 starting at about 25:46.

 

[Nila Aella]

@Nila Aella, I think I can explain why this is such a big deal for the state, and why this should be of concern to each and every one of us. MOO, of course.

IMO, the state isn't splitting hairs or nitpicking with that motion to reconsider. They're concerned - about the judge's order in response to the defense's motion, and rightfully so I think.

The speedy trial statute in Idaho could cause this defendant's case to be dismissed if he isn't brought to trial within 6 months of arraignment unless he waives it and postpones it upon his application. And, he did not.

Indeed, BK is vehemently refusing to "postpone it upon his application" as we see from the filings. Instead, he says he wants to retain his right to a speedy trial but wants the judge to expand the time - and the judge did.

Problem is, and I agree with the State here 100%, Judge just very possibly violated the Speedy Trial statute and if he doesn't rescind this order this case may be in jeopardy of being thrown out unless somehow he proceeds to trial on 10/2 - and why would he?

Now, it is true that the Judge did say in his order something to the effect of "Well, the defense agreed on the record so, they can't come back later and cry foul"

But, then he proceeds to say in the very next sentence "But.... the court recognizes defendant BK has NOT waived his right."

The State must have been like "Judge, What?!?"

In their filing the state told the judge that the defense "saying it on the record" does not get you around the speedy trial rule. Them saying it on the record does not satisfy the statute since it is not equal to "a waiver or postponement of trial upon the defendant's application".

And, even the court acknowledged this in its order (that the court has been told over and over on the record he's not waiving it).

MOO, the state is concerned he has just risked getting this case thrown out. And, AT and her defense team aren't dummies. They know exactly what they asked for, exactly what was granted, and its impact. And, they still filed that response. So take from that what you will.

As always, this is all jmo.

I don't think anyone wants this case messed up. Not the state, not any of us, and especially, not the families. MOO

Section 19-3501 – Idaho State Legislature

legislature.idaho.gov

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/071723%20Motion%20to%20Reconsider%20Order%20Staying%20Time%20for%20Speedy%20Trial.pdf

Initially I did not see a difference between the two approaches except that the States approach seems safer for the Speedy Trial aspect of the case. After reading the filings again, I think there are multiple issues (GJ/Constitutional/speedy trial) and the Judge is having to weigh them against each other. JMO AND IANAL

IMO the State did wait a while before going to the GJ (for whatever reason) so I do believe the D has a valid issue there.

Curious how often Judges reconsider and adjust their Orders?

 

[Nila Aella]

More detail:
“There were multiple stab wounds on them and most of them had just one that was the lethal stab wound. The fatal ones were to the chest area, the upper body area,” Mabbutt said.”
University of Idaho murder victims were in bed, stabbed multiple times: coroner

I highly recommend finding the actual interview on NewsNation to listen to the full interview to hear exactly what the coroner said.

Some time back, I seem to recall posting here the time stamp of when in the hour long podcast the interview took place?

HTH & MOO

ETA: source of Coroner Mabbutt’s comments are from the NewsNation Banfield ~podcast~ dated 11/17/2022 starting at about 25:46.

TY! @North_Idaho_Nony
I was looking for that one and couldn't find it earlier.
MOO

 

[10ofRods]

Initially I did not see a difference between the two approaches except that the States approach seems safer for the Speedy Trial aspect of the case. After reading the filings again, I think there are multiple issues (GJ/Constitutional/speedy trial) and the Judge is having to weigh them against each other. JMO AND IANAL

IMO the State did wait a while before going to the GJ (for whatever reason) so I do believe the D has a valid issue there.

Curious how often Judges reconsider and adjust their Orders?

The clock starts with that first court appearance, doesn't it? And the GJ was completed before the PH was even set to begin. The PH was set at a reasonable time - but the GJ made it even speedier.

Or am I missing something? I too am curious about the Judge's balancing of the various time elements here.

 

[North_Idaho_Nony]

TY! @North_Idaho_Nony
I was looking for that one and couldn't find it earlier.
MOO

LOL - I can’t believe I was able to successfully use the Search, which is something I still struggle with. SMH

Still don’t know how to link to a podcast, though. Maybe this will work?
‎Banfield: Coroner: Idaho students stabbed to death, were likely asleep on Apple Podcasts

ETA: I’ve reported my own post because I’m not sure if the podcast link is allowed — apologies if it’s not.

 

[Nila Aella]

• 07/25/2023 Order Vacating Hearing

ETA: link and web capture

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi8ho_H_6yAAxWLMVkFHRHbBjYQFnoECBMQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcoi.isc.idaho.gov%2F&usg=AOvVaw3QpkN0NQPCGFbgfzIE_S1f&opi=89978449