4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #92

[schooling]

Well said @schooling !

He could prepare for many things but no one can prepare for the unexpected: 2 girls in one bed was NOT expected.. which probably caused the 2nd unexpected thing to happen... losing the sheath while stabbing two. Another girl downstairs probably in the hallway. Etc.

As you know, in order to gather enough light at night, all video capture devices open the aperture widely just to get in enough light, but that is still not enough light and that causes everything everything filmed at night to look blurry. He probably was counting on LE not being able to identify his type of vehicle. (I can't tell because the pictures and video I have seen are very blurry). Also, since there are so few cell towers and everyone in the area driving between Pullman and Warsaw would have to use the same cell tower(s), he thought if he ever got caught they could argue everyone pings those cell towers besides him.

So something that's really interesting is that all but the end of the dead end street's Google Street View images are from 2020. And all the rest are from 2023. So assuming they were all 2020 when Kohlberger committed his crimes...the maps would have been too outdated to be useful for anything other than general layout of the neighborhood.

But with the houses being so close to the road. it would only take Kohlberger (IMO) a few rides around the neighborhood to get an idea of what kind of surveillance awaited him. So I totally agree that he believed that whatever cameras that were in the area weren't in position to capture him. But he was wrong and I think LE has at least a few closeups. MOO.

If these 2023 images were available to Kohlberger on the weeks leading up to the murders they would have 100% been helpful to him. Which is why I choose to blur my home completely.

And re: the cell phone towers. That very September something happened that was likely the talk of his class. Adnan Syed's conviction was overturned because of unreliable cell tower information (the technology has come a long way since then). Which might have also clouded his judgement?

The average person would look at our discussion and say "those things are still too risky and only a idiot would still proceed"...but the average person doesn't enter a strangers home and stab 4 people to death. So IMO he doesn't process risk like the rest of us do.

MOO

Edited: to remove specificity around google street view and the neighborhoods surveillance equipment.

 

[SpiderFalcon]

New today on : Idaho Judicial Cases of Interest

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/2024/020824-Motion-Requesting-Clarification.pdf

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/2024/020824-Objection-to-Defendants-Motion.pdf

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/2024/020924-States-Responses-to-Defendants-Motion.pdf

 

[Cool Cats]

Agree, he did several DUMB things:
1) Left a knife sheath with touch DNA on it at the crime scene. Probably wiped it down and cleaned the sheath but forgot to clean the snap.
2) Drove his own car. Drove by the house up to 3 times. Did not change his license plate to Wash with plates front and back until AFTER several days after the crime. One license plate for PA is fairly rare in the West.
3) Took his phone with him on his scouting trips to the house, to and from the murder, to and from the house again the next morning with his phone one at times.

BUT... he also did several "SMART" things:
1) (Apparently) thoroughly cleaned his car of DNA evidence to the T. No blood. No DNA of the victims.
2) (Apparently) Successfully hid the murder clothes and weapon from LE.
3) (Apparently) Left the crime scene successfully to get home.
4) Wore a face mask, gloves and probably a disposable suit.

He really screwed up number 4 by only covering part of his face.

He could have gotten away with it if he had covered his entire face, left his phone at home that night and other nights he stalked the house, not left the knife sheath, had a front plate on his car so it would not stand out from all the Washington cars with front plates. He also should have parked discreetly in a dark area away from King Rd. He never should have driven on King Rd.

I don't understand why he gets pegged as a super smart person. I am so happy he is not.

2 Cents

 

[Boxer]

Interesting that Katherine Ramsland has decided to insert herself publicly now in this case. Albeit about the King Road house/site of the murders, but she has been silent so far, AFAIK, on the murders given that BK was one of her students and a student at DeSales where she teaches.

Yes, and wasn't she the one who called him brilliant and recommended him for the PhD program?

 

[iamshadow21]

Yes, and wasn't she the one who called him brilliant and recommended him for the PhD program?

Nope. That was a different teacher. The one who's in her thirties, I think? Ramsland is much older.

 

[Nova]

I'm surprised the motion for change of venue only mentioned jury pool issues. I don't think a new venue will make much difference in that regard, and actually there is some benefit in having a jury that's familiar with King road, the surroundings, the particular topography of the neighborhood, cell phone network coverage and potetntial dead zones in the area, etc.
IMO the main problem with having the trial in Moscow is scheduling: the prosecutor's priority seems to be on not disrupting the school across the street and parking/lodging. (eyeroll)
Move it out of Moscow and that problem goes away. No considerations about lodgings or parking will interfere with scheduling the trial for whenever is truly the right time for it.

With rare exceptions, the officers of the court (prosecutor, defense attorney, judge) do NOT consider independent knowledge of the crime, victims, crime scene, etc., a positive.

The system is set up so that the info given to jurors is carefully controlled.

 

[Nova]

Does it matter legally, how a defendant is identified?

Whether it is: A person that fit the description, a fingerprint in the database, someone's partial DNA, even a lucky guess??

Again, if the defense is challenging how he was initially named to be a suspect, that to me, is a weak weak line of defense and screams that they don't have a defense.

The DNA on the knife sheath matches BK's DNA from his person.

A REAL defense might be that the lab botched the DNA comparison and their client is not guilty. But they can't even try that. The science is too robust, the chain of custody was probably right on track and they can't argue the statistics that this DNA is 99.9999991% his by mathematics.

His goose is cooked. That DNA is better than any eye witness, it is better than a finger print, it is better than a picture of him standing over the body, it is better than someone taking a picture of his license plate, it is even better than a confession.

He can deny it till the cows come home but he legal team is swinging for the fence and whiffing every time.

Like it or not, courts have ruled time and again that the remedy for an illegal search may be a dismissal of the indictment.

Not that any judge will be in a hurry to free a possible 4-time murderer on a technicality, but THAT is the hope when AT is challenging how LE focussed on BK. Barring a dismissal before trial, the same argument may be a ground for a successful appeal of a guilty verdict.

IANAL, but some rights to appeal must be protected with objections before and during the original trial. What you call "whiffing" may be securing those rights.

 

[Cool Cats]

Yes, and wasn't she the one who called him brilliant and recommended him for the PhD program?

It was DeSales University Associate Professor Michelle Bolger who taught Kohberger in one online class, never meeting him in person. She helped him with his master's thesis project and she gives some detail on that in the article.

The program has a mock crime scene house where it gives our students hands-on practical experience in investigating criminal activity, said the director of the program Joe Walsh.

In an exclusive interview Bolger said that he's a brilliant student, I'm shocked as s**t at what he's been accused of. He was always perfectly professional when I had any interactions with him. I don't believe it, but I get it.

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. Everyone is in shock over this.

Ben Roberts a criminology student said that Kohberger was confident and outgoing but still appeared as if he was always looking for a way to fit in. It's pretty out of left field (his charges) I had honestly just pegged him as being super awkward. One thing he would always do, almost without fail, was find the most complicated way to explain something.

In an email to The Associated Press BK Norton, a criminology student, said that he didn't know Kohberger well but didn't like him. We interacted in class but personally I was not a fan of Bryan because of comments he made about LGBTQ+ individuals.

Idaho 'killer' a brilliant student, says his criminology professor

DeSales University Professor Michelle Bolger said she's in absolute shock after hearing that her former student Bryan Kohberger is the accused Idaho quadruple murder suspect.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Hansen]

I still want to know why 911 wasn't called for 7-8 hours. When I say I'd like to know, I'd like specific details on why 911 wasn't called and specifically what were they doing for those hours.
I'd really like to see what activity was on the cell phone tower that covers that residence from say 3:45 am the night of the murder to 12 noon.
I'm not saying BK didn't do it. There's definitely some evidence that he could've done it.
I think it's important information for a jury to know. I don't think that's asking a lot given the situation.

 

[Idaho transplant]

I do hope they keep the trial in Moscow.

But the same circumstances existed with Chad Daybell and Lori Vallow and their trials were moved to Boise where they believed population wise they would have a better chance of jurors that do live under a mushroom.

Boise would also have the needed hotel space for the reporters, expert witnesses etc. And of course a secure cell for Kohberger and plenty of armed guards for him too.

We will see sometime in the distant future what the defense wants but as the largest city in Idaho it has all the criteria needed.

Comparing the Vallow/Daybell cases to BK is like comparing apples to oranges. The Vallow/Daybell cases had to be moved based on the religious demographics. The area of Idaho that borders Utah tends to be populated by Mormons and this includes Eastern Idaho. There wasn't any other option (city) but to move the trial to Boise.

This issue does not impact Northern Idaho. A venue change for BK would be based on what the defense wants but my point is that what the people of Moscow feel about BK is no different than what the residents of Idaho as a whole think.
Idaho is a small state and small population compared to most other states. As such, we are more closely connected.
You may recall that Kaylee's boyfriend lived in Boise. Students from around the state that major in Engr./Legal/Medical study in Moscow. We can travel within the State from top to bottom in one day.

 

[whiterhino]

It was DeSales University Associate Professor Michelle Bolger who taught Kohberger in one online class, never meeting him in person. She helped him with his master's thesis project and she gives some detail on that in the article.

The program has a mock crime scene house where it gives our students hands-on practical experience in investigating criminal activity, said the director of the program Joe Walsh.

In an exclusive interview Bolger said that he's a brilliant student, I'm shocked as s**t at what he's been accused of. He was always perfectly professional when I had any interactions with him. I don't believe it, but I get it.

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. Everyone is in shock over this.

Ben Roberts a criminology student said that Kohberger was confident and outgoing but still appeared as if he was always looking for a way to fit in. It's pretty out of left field (his charges) I had honestly just pegged him as being super awkward. One thing he would always do, almost without fail, was find the most complicated way to explain something.

In an email to The Associated Press BK Norton, a criminology student, said that he didn't know Kohberger well but didn't like him. We interacted in class but personally I was not a fan of Bryan because of comments he made about LGBTQ+ individuals.

Idaho 'killer' a brilliant student, says his criminology professor

DeSales University Professor Michelle Bolger said she's in absolute shock after hearing that her former student Bryan Kohberger is the accused Idaho quadruple murder suspect.

www.dailymail.co.uk

RBBM (having trouble w quoting):
JMO but sounds like something called "word salad" (which in psychiatry means one thing but is basically a bunch of nonsense put together to confuse others, to misdirect and fluster the other person so by the time they sort it out, the "OP" is long gone). Again, JMO, MOO, IMO. FWIW.

 

[North_Idaho_Nony]

Comparing the Vallow/Daybell cases to BK is like comparing apples to oranges. The Vallow/Daybell cases had to be moved based on the religious demographics. The area of Idaho that borders Utah tends to be populated by Mormons and this includes Eastern Idaho. There wasn't any other option (city) but to move the trial to Boise.

This issue does not impact Northern Idaho. A venue change for BK would be based on what the defense wants but my point is that what the people of Moscow feel about BK is no different than what the residents of Idaho as a whole think.
Idaho is a small state and small population compared to most other states. As such, we are more closely connected.
You may recall that Kaylee's boyfriend lived in Boise. Students from around the state that major in Engr./Legal/Medical study in Moscow. We can travel within the State from top to bottom in one day.

RBBM

Just to clarify, I don’t agree that the Change of Venue order in either of Vallow/Daybell cases were due to “religious demographics.

While I think it might be fair to say the Defense tried to make that a factor, I don’t think the Order reflects that the judge bought that part of the Defense’s claim:
https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/...sion+on+Defendants+Motion+to+Change+Venue.pdf

MOO & YMMV.

 

[Cool Cats]

Comparing the Vallow/Daybell cases to BK is like comparing apples to oranges. The Vallow/Daybell cases had to be moved based on the religious demographics. The area of Idaho that borders Utah tends to be populated by Mormons and this includes Eastern Idaho. There wasn't any other option (city) but to move the trial to Boise.

This issue does not impact Northern Idaho. A venue change for BK would be based on what the defense wants but my point is that what the people of Moscow feel about BK is no different than what the residents of Idaho as a whole think.
Idaho is a small state and small population compared to most other states. As such, we are more closely connected.
You may recall that Kaylee's boyfriend lived in Boise. Students from around the state that major in Engr./Legal/Medical study in Moscow. We can travel within the State from top to bottom in one day.

Read above Motion posted by @North_Idaho_Nony and it lists the exact reasons the defense wants a change of venue and it is not because of religious demographics. To exclude a group of people from serving on a jury based on their religious beliefs - such as being of the Mormon faith -
isn't even legal.

If a person feels they can't be fair and impartial on a specific jury because of their religion then that would be dealt with individually during Voir dire.

During Voir dire prospective jurors are questioned to decide whether they can be fair and impartial.

2 Cents

From above linked Motion, here is what the Motion says about religion:

 

[SpiderFalcon]

Read above Motion posted by @North_Idaho_Nony and it lists the exact reasons the defense wants a change of venue and it is not because of religious demographics. To exclude a group of people from serving on a jury based on their religious beliefs - such as being of the Mormon faith -
isn't even legal.

If a person feels they can't be fair and impartial on a specific jury because of their religion then that would be dealt with individually during Voir dire.

During Voir dire prospective jurors are questioned to decide whether they can be fair and impartial.

2 Cents

From above linked Motion, here is what the Motion says about religion:

100%. BK is trying to get a Change of Venue based on whether people can read or hear (the media).
IT ISN'T LEGAL.

 

[Cool Cats]

100%. BK is trying to get a Change of Venue based on whether people can read or hear (the media).
IT ISN'T LEGAL.

It even says in one of these Motions that publicity alone is not a valid reason for a venue change.

This isn't 1980 before the internet. Now with the internet the news is everywhere so media is not a reason to move a trial. What they look for is can a juror be fair and impartial and unbiased despite having seen news stories on the case.

2 Cents

 

[Boxer]

100%. BK is trying to get a Change of Venue based on whether people can read or hear (the media).
IT ISN'T LEGAL.

its just ground work for appeal.
AT intends to win on appeal.

 

[10ofRods]

The courts have not really started to work out whether obtaining someone's DNA without a warrant using someone ELSE's DNA is considered an unreasonable search and seizure. If my child provides their DNA to a database that law enforcement can access without warrant, law enforcement effectively has my husband's DNA without warrant even though he hasn't provided access.

Of course, law enforcement was able to obtain BK's father's DNA when it was discarded in the trash and that was legal--but if the only thing leading to that was the IGG and the IGG lead violates the 4th amendment, they will make the argument to get it thrown out altogether. If the IGG lead was obtained by violating terms of service of the DNA databases, they will work to get it thrown out altogether.

If the lead to searching the trash and obtaining BK's dad's discarded DNA came from the Elantra or other things in those sealed search warrants, it should not be an issue.

They obtained Kohberger's DNA from the crime scene. Their IGG had nothing to do with "obtaining his DNA." Upon arrest for a felony, I do believe most Courts will okay obtaining DNA. But they already had his DNA.

There's a missing step n there. They obtained his IDENTITY (name, parents) from someone else's DNA. NOT his DNA. His DNA was already part of the case.

It was on the sheath.

Perhaps you are using "obtain DNA" differently than I would. DNA is a complex molecule. It cannot be obtained except from organic lifeforms. It can be written down as a code (like a picture of a fingerprint, I guess).

A warrant is not needed to use a phone book (an index of names). A warrant is not needed to consult public databases (and many private databases). IGG is like using a well-written encyclopedia. If it turns out that using such databases violates the 4th amendment, then people's names ought not to be seized either.

Leads are not searches. Leads are not seizures of anything. In my view, it's much like someone's face. Can you look at a person's face, if you are LE? Is that illegal? Did you "seize" their face? No, you simply observed something obvious. Like the weather.

DNA is part of nature, it's like a fingerprint or a face. Lifting a fingerprint from a crime scene has never, ever been ruled "illegal search and seizure." I think the reasons are obvious (nothing is searched - it's found; nothing is seized, it's just there). Fourth amendment applies strictly to search of a person (and their cars and homes - but not their public walking down the street; looking at someone on the street - even if you look hard and notice things they wish to keep private - is not an illegal search). Seizure is even more specific. It applies to taking someone's personal property after performing a search. It does not apply to things they left behind (fingerprints; images on security cameras; eyewitness accounts of what they looked like or left behind).

 

[Thomas 3377]

It was on the sheath.

Why is the dna not an exact match?

 

[Boxer]

Why is the dna not an exact match?

I am unclear what your question is.
The DNA in the knife sheath is a match to Bryan Kohberger.

 

[wendy44]

They obtained Kohberger's DNA from the crime scene. Their IGG had nothing to do with "obtaining his DNA." Upon arrest for a felony, I do believe most Courts will okay obtaining DNA. But they already had his DNA.

There's a missing step n there. They obtained his IDENTITY (name, parents) from someone else's DNA. NOT his DNA. His DNA was already part of the case.

It was on the sheath.

Perhaps you are using "obtain DNA" differently than I would. DNA is a complex molecule. It cannot be obtained except from organic lifeforms. It can be written down as a code (like a picture of a fingerprint, I guess).

A warrant is not needed to use a phone book (an index of names). A warrant is not needed to consult public databases (and many private databases). IGG is like using a well-written encyclopedia. If it turns out that using such databases violates the 4th amendment, then people's names ought not to be seized either.

Leads are not searches. Leads are not seizures of anything. In my view, it's much like someone's face. Can you look at a person's face, if you are LE? Is that illegal? Did you "seize" their face? No, you simply observed something obvious. Like the weather.

DNA is part of nature, it's like a fingerprint or a face. Lifting a fingerprint from a crime scene has never, ever been ruled "illegal search and seizure." I think the reasons are obvious (nothing is searched - it's found; nothing is seized, it's just there). Fourth amendment applies strictly to search of a person (and their cars and homes - but not their public walking down the street; looking at someone on the street - even if you look hard and notice things they wish to keep private - is not an illegal search). Seizure is even more specific. It applies to taking someone's personal property after performing a search. It does not apply to things they left behind (fingerprints; images on security cameras; eyewitness accounts of what they looked like or left behind).

Yes, they obtained his DNA from the sheath. But they had no matching DNA in any databases where DNA has been legally obtained to be matched, like CODIS or GEDMatch, etc. Before IGG that would be the end of the line. They would have to wait until BK's DNA was loaded to where they could legally search for a match, or collect it legally by having a lead through traditional investigative methods (car, cell data, etc.)

So there are established legal ways to "obtain" someone's DNA to see if it's a match to the DNA you've gathered as evidence. If someone has never had their DNA profile loaded to CODIS, has never provided DNA to Othram or GEDMatch and given permission for law enforcement to access, has never had their discarded DNA collected in the trash because they've become a suspect due to traditional investigative methods--there's a lot of legal discussion about whether or not law enforcement has obtained the suspect's DNA legally for the match if it's obtained via a relative that has willingly provided his or her DNA. Because if they have your relative's DNA profile through legal means, they essentially have yours, even if you haven't given permission or been court ordered, etc.

We don't really know right now if IGG had nothing or had everything to do with obtaining his DNA for the match. If IGG generated the lead to the name BK, it had everything to do with it. Law enforcement is arguing hard that it's a lead, like any other investigative method. BK's defense attorneys see an opportunity because it's new and hasn't worked its way through the courts and there are 4th amendment concerns. It's going to take some cases and rulings for the courts to settle it. I'm not saying I agree or disagree or know what the heck the ramifications are going to be either way, just that these are legal questions being discussed with lots of different opinions.