We've seen it with other killers. Bundy and Ramirez, notably. They chose a house, entered, and attacked who they found inside.
The least affirmative thing I can ever remember a DT saying is to wait until all the facts come out. Plus, AT is not testifying. She's making a statement of feelings. Big deal. Unless something earth-shattering happened, no one would ever be able to prove that they didn't believe him to be innocent. She can say they believe he is innocent all she likes. It means nothing. MOOooo
But that's exactly the problem: if it was random like that, then this makes the police's statement about this being a targeted attack untrue.
It depends what they mean by targeted, I suppose.
As to why a busy house, surrounded by others - the challenge. The thrill of it. As was the factor of an unknown number of multiple occupants.
I'm thinking that to make a definitive statement that he was not stalking these women does not make sense to me---how would they know that definitively-- i would imagine the investigation is still on-going---I think he targeted at least one of those women-- I believe this was not a random murder--perhaps technically he didn't stalk the women in that house, but he sure knew they were living there- maybe we are too hung up on the term "stalking".
Two days after the attack, the MPD said
I supposed it's also possible that he chose the house rather than specific occupants of the house. Maybe he would sit and watch the parties. The house and occupants represented what he was not. Young, well-adjusted, living their best lives. Maybe he really didn't "know" any of them, but just struck out at what the house and occupants represented. Just a thought.
that is a possibility
Thank you for your thoughts on this.
None of us can know what AT has or hasn't said to BK. But I strongly doubt BK has been or ever will be offered a deal if he pleads guilty. While the DA's office has to do what that office feels is right (keeping in mind DAs are elected!), and despite some beliefs to the contrary, families of victims don't get to make trial decisions, I can't imagine the public outcry from some families in this case if it didn't go to trial. BK is in jail and has been there for over 15 months. Clearly he will not get out on bond (and he's not requested bond, I don't believe.) But the recent statement from some family members of the victims pretty much says they don't care if mistakes are made-- the trial needs to start because they can't begin to heal from their 2022 loss until the public trial occurs.
Families upset by delay in setting date for Kohberger trial
Four University of Idaho students, Kaylee Goncalves, Madison Mogen, Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin, were killed in 2022.www.newsnationnow.com
They would not welcome a plea IMO. Several family members have said they want BK put to death (and earlier they seemed to think the families should get to vote on whether the DP was sought.) Families in other cases might see a deal to avoid trial/take the DP off the table as a good thing if it means the killer will confess to where their loved one's body can be found, family members are worried about the portrayal of their loved one at trial, family members are saved from having to testify about difficult topics, the DA has told the families the case is somewhat weak, family members are strongly opposed to the DP, etc. None of that seems to be true here.
When a person is found guilty and/or receives a harsh sentence, his/her attorneys are sometimes blamed (especially by the client!) While there can be legitimate grounds to claim ineffective assistance of counsel, those situations aren't terribly commonplace and often involve failure to do the kinds of things AT has been roundly criticized here for doing! (Challenging evidence in advance of the trial, looking for exculpatory evidence, demanding discovery be furnished in a timely manner, recruiting consultants/experts, being a fierce advocate for the client and so forth.) So it is starting to sound like AT will be blamed no matter what.
MOO
The house could have been targeted for those very reasons you listed. That was a busy, active college party house. Clearly visible from many angles. Young, beautiful girls, and guys coming in and out at all times. He would not seem out of place being around there.
True. He declined to say he was not guilty, and/or also that he was guilty.
Perhaps the families of the victims ought to prefer a deal but I don't think the more outspoken family members in this case would welcome a deal that takes the DP off the table. I also think some of the family members in this case want a public trial. Perhaps they haven't seriously considered the possibility of NG verdicts for the 4 murders. Perhaps they haven't thoroughly considered the toll a trial may take on them. Perhaps they feel their murdered family member "deserves" a trial. I don't know. But based on what they've said publicly and the fact that victims' families do not uniformly welcome deals that take the DP off the table in states that have the DP, I personally doubt a deal is what some of these families want. But obviously I can't know that. None of us can know what the family members think, only what they say. I also don't think the DA will be offering a deal. There's been no indication that he might so far as I know. But despite some feeling the process is moving too slowly, it's still somewhat early in the process given the nature of the crimes. Perhaps a deal will be offered before the expected trial date in 2025.
He thought he was smarter than LE, and was continuing trying to outsmart them even at his parents house, just in case. It was a well known party house, probably evident to young ppl outside other students. The fact that it wasn’t isolated added to the thrill of getting away.
Well, all that may be true. But I don't think it's reasonable to assume families of murder victims won't be emotional (or sometimes even irrational.) Certainly the latest statement from two of the families re: the delay in going to trial contains plenty of emotion IMO.
www.nbcnews.com
www.krem.com
Well, all that may be true. But I don't think it's reasonable to assume families of murder victims won't be emotional (or sometimes even irrational.) Certainly the latest statement from two of the families re: the delay in going to trial contains plenty of emotion IMO.
Families of slain University of Idaho students blast murder trial's delay
"Start making some decisions, get to work and quit playing the delay game," said loved ones of two of the four college students fatally stabbed in 2022.
The statement about the planned demolition of the house was also emotional.
Family of Idaho murder victim expresses frustration with decision to tear down home
As the suspect's defense team gains access to the home, the family of Kaylee Goncalves says they feel their opinion on what to do with the home is not a priority.
In that statement released by SG it was stated (bold added by me)
"Isn’t it better to have the King Rd. House and not need it than need the house and not have it? That has been our question to the Prosecution and the University of Idaho for the entire time the demo of the King Road has been an issue. But why is it even up for discussion? This is one of the most horrific crimes in the history of Idaho and the University of Idaho wants to destroy one of the most critical pieces of evidence in the case..."
And
"The family has stressed tirelessly to the Prosecution and the University of Idaho the importance (evidentiary and emotionally) that the King Road house carries but nobody seems to care enough. It’s like screaming into a void. Nobody is listening and everyone tells you how sorry they are for the decision but the families’ opinion isn’t a priority. Victims' families have a voice and should be heard and listened to!"
I do think the DA shouldn't be held hostage by emotions/preferences/viewpoints expressed by the families. But realistically the application of criminal justice is not free from "politics."
MOO
