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

[Rumination1]

Discovery works both ways. Both sides have to share their evidence and investigation with the other before the trial starts.

It is not fair for either side to spring brand new information upon the other during the trial.

The potential alibi falls under that discovery rule. The defense cannot wait until the trial to divulge alibi evidence because it does not give the state any chance to investigate and verify the information.

Does any one think he has an alibi
Either false n set up to cover his guilt

Or true if he is innocent
??

 

[Warwick7]

Does any one think he has an alibi
Either false n set up to cover his guilt

Or true if he is innocent
??

He has no alibi. None.
This is a defense tactic.

 

[TL4S]

Does any one think he has an alibi
Either false n set up to cover his guilt

Or true if he is innocent
??

Based only on the evidence we currently know about (DNA, phone pings, white elantra), I think BK is the likely killer. So I don't think he has a legitimate alibi. JMO.

With that said, my personal feeling is that he did try to set up an alibi for himself. I don't see any reason not to at least consider that he could have, since he did have some knowledge of how investigations go, especially the digital side of things. I think his objective was to disappear for awhile, which he knew would be hard to prove, but he hoped would be hard to disprove, as well. He knew a white car would eventually be on camera, but without license plate or phone data, so what? He could then be visible again when and where he chose to be. Bwahahaha...or so he thought. JMO.

OTOH, I'm totally open to the idea that he just turned his phone off and winged it.

 

[TL4S]

I think there's a lot of digital evidence from that early morning that has not been released, with good reason. For instance, in the PCA, they include a map of the white elantra's movements presumably leaving Pullman before the murders, and then coming back afterwards. But really, the elantra is only shown driving on campus beforehand, not actually exiting town. The next we hear of an elantra is 33 min later on the southeast side of Moscow (Indian Hills Dr). That elantra's movements can be tracked by camera footage and timing, finally leaving the King Rd area via Walenta Dr just after 4:20. Jump ahead an hour and an elantra is on Johnson Rd. in Pullman, seen on 5 cameras heading back through town and campus. The only thing linking the two elantras as being one in the same is possibly no front license plate.

There's no footage included in the PCA that shows the white elantra specifically leaving Pullman, and there's nothing at all showing a white elantra entering or exiting Moscow. Phone pings later support that BK's phone had the same route as the elantra in Pullman both before and after, and it puts his phone south by Genesee and back towards Pullman, but there's a big gap in phone data around Moscow. Per the PCA, his phone isn't placed in Moscow, his phone/elantra isn't placed leaving Pullman, entering Moscow, or leaving Moscow. Assumptions have to be made that these elantras are the same car, which again, is based only on what we see in the PCA.

I hope there is more camera evidence than what we see in the PCA. It wasn't needed in the PCA, because of the DNA evidence, but extra camera evidence might be helpful in proving BK as the killer during trial. JMO. If they don't have any other footage, then the D will definitely want to get the DNA evidence suppressed, because the camera and phone footage could be lacking. JMO.

 

[Justice101]

He got himself an attorney, in PA, and they discussed his extradition and he told his attorney he was looking forward to his exoneration. I think if he had a solid alibi, at that point he could have told his attorney why LE was wasting their time. If there was a witness, or a way to find cctv footage , etc, he could have gotten that started back then.

Makes me think he doesn't have one, MOO.

IMO, he doesn't have an alibi. All he wants to do is cross examine a couple of girls who were probably drunk at the time . one as to who she saw and the other as to what she heard. Their HOPE is that they admit they were enebriated and/or unsure of what they saw and heard.

The defense will say that if the prosecution witnesses can't swear it was BK, then BK must have been somewhere else.

THAT is a far stretch from BK giving his own alibi.

This trickery will not work.

 

[Justice101]

Based only on the evidence we currently know about (DNA, phone pings, white elantra), I think BK is the likely killer. So I don't think he has a legitimate alibi. JMO.

With that said, my personal feeling is that he did try to set up an alibi for himself. I don't see any reason not to at least consider that he could have, since he did have some knowledge of how investigations go, especially the digital side of things. I think his objective was to disappear for awhile, which he knew would be hard to prove, but he hoped would be hard to disprove, as well. He knew a white car would eventually be on camera, but without license plate or phone data, so what? He could then be visible again when and where he chose to be. Bwahahaha...or so he thought. JMO.

OTOH, I'm totally open to the idea that he just turned his phone off and winged it.

But he made the mistake of turning his phone back on about 20 miles south of Moscow.

He would have been far better off to leave the phone off, drive right back to his apartment, walk upstairs, THEN turn his phone on, walk downstairs and then drive off to somewhere else. That would "imply" that he was asleep up until 20 minutes after the murders and take a drive in the night.

But instead he made a big mistake and turned his phone on south of Moscow to find somewhere to ditch the knife and bloody clothes and to use maps to navigate him around that long path coming back to Pullman.

He did this and sped away from the crime scene because he actually thought the police would get there and catch him in Moscow.

 

[Justice101]

I think there's a lot of digital evidence from that early morning that has not been released, with good reason. For instance, in the PCA, they include a map of the white elantra's movements presumably leaving Pullman before the murders, and then coming back afterwards. But really, the elantra is only shown driving on campus beforehand, not actually exiting town. The next we hear of an elantra is 33 min later on the southeast side of Moscow (Indian Hills Dr). That elantra's movements can be tracked by camera footage and timing, finally leaving the King Rd area via Walenta Dr just after 4:20. Jump ahead an hour and an elantra is on Johnson Rd. in Pullman, seen on 5 cameras heading back through town and campus. The only thing linking the two elantras as being one in the same is possibly no front license plate.

There's no footage included in the PCA that shows the white elantra specifically leaving Pullman, and there's nothing at all showing a white elantra entering or exiting Moscow. Phone pings later support that BK's phone had the same route as the elantra in Pullman both before and after, and it puts his phone south by Genesee and back towards Pullman, but there's a big gap in phone data around Moscow. Per the PCA, his phone isn't placed in Moscow, his phone/elantra isn't placed leaving Pullman, entering Moscow, or leaving Moscow. Assumptions have to be made that these elantras are the same car, which again, is based only on what we see in the PCA.

IMO, there's more camera evidence than what we see in the PCA. It wasn't needed in the PCA, because of the DNA evidence, but extra camera evidence will support BK as the killer during trial. JMO. If they don't have any other footage, then the D will definitely want to get the DNA evidence suppressed, because the camera and phone footage could be lacking. JMO.

You said it better than I did. Well done.

The prosecution will put together a cohesive and compelling storyboard of the Elantra combining video and cell phone data.

 

[TL4S]

But he made the mistake of turning his phone back on about 20 miles south of Moscow.

He would have been far better off to leave the phone off, drive right back to his apartment, walk upstairs, THEN turn his phone on, walk downstairs and then drive off to somewhere else. That would "imply" that he was asleep up until 20 minutes after the murders and take a drive in the night.

But instead he made a big mistake and turned his phone on south of Moscow to find somewhere to ditch the knife and bloody clothes and to use maps to navigate him around that long path coming back to Pullman.

Unless turning his phone on in a specific location was part of his planned alibi. I'm not saying his plan, if he had one, was good, but it's something I wonder about.

 

[iamshadow21]

Does any one think he has an alibi
Either false n set up to cover his guilt

Or true if he is innocent
??

I think he was relying on the 'I'm the cleverest of clever clogs, too clever to ever get caught, and the police are dummies' thing, and didn't think he'd need an alibi.

Hubris is a beach.

MOO

 

[TL4S]

DBM

 

[al66pine]

BK's Timing & Expectations?

....The pca tells us he left his apt at 2:45 for the 10-15 minute trip. I don't think he expected to see all the lights on. I don't think he intended to have to drive around in circles waiting to see those lights go off. I don't think he expected a door dash delivery....

snipped for focus @Jurisprudence
Yes, when approaching the KIng Road house, BK may not have expected to see lights on then (~ 3:00 am).

If his Pullman apt neighbors stmts (about his vacuuming, etc. making noise in the wee hours) are accurate, does it seem a bit IRONIC, that BK might expect the residents to have been fast asleep, tucked away in their beds, at any particular time?

 

[maskedwoman]

The Public Defender in PA was hired for the extradition matter ONLY. Therefore, it would have been completely and totally inappropriate for him to represent BK for the murder charges which are a separate matter altogether. He would not have discussed anything to do with the murder charges with BK whatsoever, therefore, he would have no obligation to deal with BK's alibi, nor should he have dealt with it in any way, shape or form, since it would be far outside the scope of the extradition matter.

"The first thing I said to him was 'Bryan, don't tell me anything about the case. I don't want to know any of the facts and circumstances,'" said LaBar.

That's because LaBar was only representing Kohberger during the extradition process.

Bryan Kohberger's Pa. public defender opens up about what happened in the Poconos, what's next

69 News is learning new details from the Pennsylvania public defender who represented the Monroe County man accused of killing four Idaho college students.

www.wfmz.com

Of additional interest, from the article linked above, BK's family had planned to attend the preliminary hearing on June 26, 2023.

Yes, I recall him saying that, too. But, I don't think that's strictly accurate. He was appointed to represent BK for any legal issues while in PA. Maybe that's the issue. The Alibi wasn't a PA legal issue and so LeBar could not represent him for that. That makes sense to me. However, the fact that his legal team has not done anything to present an alibi or prevent a trial from moving forward pretty much says there isn't an alibi that will hold up. I just find the idea ridiculous that, getting arrested for a high profile enough murder means you're going to trial even if you have an alibi. That sounds more like a system designed to get lawyers more money in fees than finding justice.

ETA: of course, it's also possible that what someone else suggested is possible. He really wanted to know what they had on him, and wanted to get back to ID. Maybe he also didn't understand the finger legal points of his situation re the alibi. MOOooo

 

[10ofRods]

But he made the mistake of turning his phone back on about 20 miles south of Moscow.

He would have been far better off to leave the phone off, drive right back to his apartment, walk upstairs, THEN turn his phone on, walk downstairs and then drive off to somewhere else. That would "imply" that he was asleep up until 20 minutes after the murders and take a drive in the night.

But instead he made a big mistake and turned his phone on south of Moscow to find somewhere to ditch the knife and bloody clothes and to use maps to navigate him around that long path coming back to Pullman.

He did this and sped away from the crime scene because he actually thought the police would get there and catch him in Moscow.

You are, of course, correct. Which is why I believe he was likely lost, perhaps because his focus was lost after the crime. Pure speculation on my part.

I too think the killer was very much worried about police coming right away. Whatever noises there were, they were loud enough to reach neighbors' camera mics and they probably seemed even louder to him. He kept to his original plan of a very speedy crime, but he lost the thread of how to get back home via that southern route in the process.

Anyway, that's my working theory.

IMO.

 

[schooling]

Yes, I recall him saying that, too. But, I don't think that's strictly accurate. He was appointed to represent BK for any legal issues while in PA. Maybe that's the issue. The Alibi wasn't a PA legal issue and so LeBar could not represent him for that. That makes sense to me. However, the fact that his legal team has not done anything to present an alibi or prevent a trial from moving forward pretty much says there isn't an alibi that will hold up. I just find the idea ridiculous that, getting arrested for a high profile enough murder means you're going to trial even if you have an alibi. That sounds more like a system designed to get lawyers more money in fees than finding justice.

ETA: of course, it's also possible that what someone else suggested is possible. He really wanted to know what they had on him, and wanted to get back to ID. Maybe he also didn't understand the finger legal points of his situation re the alibi. MOOooo

YES!

There's not many things you can do this day and age that won't produce artifacts/evidence of you doing that thing.

Even the tried and true "I stayed home and watched TV and slept" can be supported by....

• pedometer (lack of movement)
• cellular triangulation data that aligns with other times you've been home
• GPS, if on
• Your Smartphone's WIFI connection inside of your home
• Your Smartphone's Bluetooth connections to items in your home
• Internet Activity via your computer or smartphones browser history, dns request history
• Internet Activity provided by the ISP
• Log in activity provided by an app or service that supports your story whether TV, computer, smartphone (Netflix, HBOMax, social media)
• Computer activity via system event logs and/or saved files
• eye witness testimony from a neighbor
• lack of video of your car leaving
• lack of video of you anywhere else

If he had a sound alibi he would have given it and then they would have attempted to prove it in court. The fact that he hasn't (yes, I know he doesn't have to) should tell you all you need to know. "Alibi on the Fly" and "Alibi by Inference" are the strategies.

 

[Boxer]

He can't suggest a stargazing alibi or anything concrete because their might be evidence that refutes. For instance stargazing south of Moscow...satellite data may show that no headlights were in that area 3-4:30 in that area, but then, oh yes there was a car after 4:30

 

[katydid23]

Does any one think he has an alibi
Either false n set up to cover his guilt

Or true if he is innocent
??

I don't think he has a valid one that would show innocence. He may be trying to manufacture one though.

 

[Justice101]

You are, of course, correct. Which is why I believe he was likely lost, perhaps because his focus was lost after the crime. Pure speculation on my part.

I too think the killer was very much worried about police coming right away. Whatever noises there were, they were loud enough to reach neighbors' camera mics and they probably seemed even louder to him. He kept to his original plan of a very speedy crime, but he lost the thread of how to get back home via that southern route in the process.

Anyway, that's my working theory.

IMO.

I agree with you and also believe that he never intended to kill more than 1 person. When he got surprised and it escalated immediately to 2 then to 4, he ran out of the house and sped away thinking they were on his tail. Only when he reached that point south of town on Rte. 95? did he feel safe to turn his phone back on.

 

[I'm Nobody]

He has no alibi. None.
This is a defense tactic.

Agree @Warwick7
Without question, the D-team gave each other a few high-fives after their alibi response tactic. Depending on which side of the aisle you're on, it was either a clever way to get more time/another delay without asking for it or a cagey lawyer trick. Delays usually add more billable hours to the case; so is AT doing this for her benefit or BK's?

JMO

 

[Sundog]

Agree @Warwick7
Without question, the D-team gave each other a few high-fives after their alibi response tactic. Depending on which side of the aisle you're on, it was either a clever way to get more time/another delay without asking for it or a cagey lawyer trick. Delays usually add more billable hours to the case; so is AT doing this for her benefit or BK's?

JMO

Given that her client is facing the death penalty, I would expect her to do whatever it takes to get the death penalty off the table.

 

[kittythehare]

Does any one think he has an alibi
Either false n set up to cover his guilt

Or true if he is innocent
??

I do not believe he has .