MOO What wrong is sifting through cell data to "find" an alibi.
4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #94
- Thread starter ChatteringBirds
- Start date
- Status
Justice101
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2013
- Messages
- 2,392
- Reaction score
- 15,709
Nothing wrong at all. But don't we already know that his phone was off during the murders so his cell phone data already does not give him an alibi. What am I missing?
arielilane
Justice for Liz Barraza
I think BK and his defense team are working extremely hard on keeping him safely in a jail cell... as comfortable as possible in order to avoid going to trial. It’s been working well, thus far. A master of deception? moo
I've yet to see the question of whether or not Kohberger's phone was manually silenced addressed by either side. He almost certainly protected the device after those two traffic stops, if not earlier. Can digital forensics determine if the phone was switched off via the cloud alone, or do they need to gain internal access? Detectives did not manage to unlock Paul Murdaugh's phone for a considerable period of time
"Apple allows users to enter the wrong passcode only a handful of times before the phone is permanently disabled. To access the device after that, it needs to be reset — a process that would wipe out everything on it, including videos. (...) [T]ools, which allow investigators to manually sidestep entering a passcode, can take years depending on the code’s complexity, Dove said." (The code that broke open the Murdaugh murder case was right at investigators’ fingertips. It still took months to crack)
If Kohberger's defense team were confident he did not silence his phone, I would expect them to divulge such information. They were not slow to reveal no DNA was found in his car, or the lower burden of probable cause needed to be emphasised to six grand jury members, among other things. The recent hearing on cellular data was the perfect opportunity to disclose it.
Perhaps they won't acknowledge this point until they feel confident detectives will never gain access to his phone.
"Apple allows users to enter the wrong passcode only a handful of times before the phone is permanently disabled. To access the device after that, it needs to be reset — a process that would wipe out everything on it, including videos. (...) [T]ools, which allow investigators to manually sidestep entering a passcode, can take years depending on the code’s complexity, Dove said." (The code that broke open the Murdaugh murder case was right at investigators’ fingertips. It still took months to crack)
If Kohberger's defense team were confident he did not silence his phone, I would expect them to divulge such information. They were not slow to reveal no DNA was found in his car, or the lower burden of probable cause needed to be emphasised to six grand jury members, among other things. The recent hearing on cellular data was the perfect opportunity to disclose it.
Perhaps they won't acknowledge this point until they feel confident detectives will never gain access to his phone.
maskedwoman
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2008
- Messages
- 1,608
- Reaction score
- 7,756
I'm not sure if that's what they are doing or not, but you raise an excellent point. A genuine alibi is supported by the evidence and they would pretty much know what they are looking for to support it. If they cannot say exactly what is missing that they need, it much announces that his alibi is not genuine.
It looks that way to me absolutely jmo. I speculated last year that defense was looking for any video at all of a white sedan at relevant times and once that was found, an actual 'alibi' location would be forthcoming. Seems that hasn't occurred at this point. Moo. What I don't understand is how csl stuff pulled by Sy Ray is going to help if my guess that BK switched his phone off for the two hours surrounding the crimes is correct. Imo state forensic expert would already know if this occurred and hence both P and D know. So what...is Sy Ray going to challenge the state's forensics or does he claim to be able to show csl when a phone is off? Jmo.
Personally moo I have no doubt that BK's 'alibi' such as it currently stands is manufactured. However the 'alibi' submitted in April doesn't comply with relevant ICRs imo so the saga is not over.
Justice101
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2013
- Messages
- 2,392
- Reaction score
- 15,709
What the Defense is looking for is ANY WHITE CAR (hopefully an Elantra) that can be seen ANYWHERE in ANY OF VIDEOS, NOT NEAR THE HOUSE, when the murders occurred. Maybe even going the opposite direction so that there are TWO white cars.. .trying to create reasonable doubt.
If they find that, then that is their alibi. that it is BK.
That, to me, is why they TRIED to use the "We have an alibi but do not know who will come forward to give it" statement.
Video of white cars in the night, that night, is what they are looking for. It is a very common car and there will probably be a white car somewhere else in Moscow, Pullman or whenever, between 3:30AM and 4:30AM that they will claim is BK's car.
Last edited:
So Sy Ray and all the cell phone bizzo is a red herring you think? I agree blurry white car video may still be d's ultimate aim and would account for the total vaguaries of the current 'alibi' (a read shows WAWAWai park is mentioned as visited that evening but as to the actual time of crime NOTHing is forthcoming, so in a nutshell all options are still open as to where he may actually claim he was imo). Running on with this, I wish judge would put a stop to the nonsense, how many extensions of time and statements from d that alibi is coming will he put up with? I feel that d is about to get more time to comply jmo when judge rules on the 'alibi' (notwithstanding the state's objection) as he has the leeeway to do so according to ICRS. Moo
ilovewings
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 9,043
- Reaction score
- 68,948
If a person has a legitimate alibi, they wouldnt have to go find one, would they?
Cool Cats
I EXPECT DOUGHNUTS
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 12,280
- Reaction score
- 94,217
Well they better make sure the FBI doesn't spot a missing front license plate because that would look suspicious to a jury.
Cool Cats
I EXPECT DOUGHNUTS
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 12,280
- Reaction score
- 94,217
What type of ruling is Judge supposed to make regarding the alibi? When?
GRT
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2020
- Messages
- 2,778
- Reaction score
- 23,491
That sounds feasible.
But the optics of the Prosecution not turning over all discovery are poor, and I fear news of the issue could taint a jury pool. And that issue is getting ample coverage.
AT is bright enough to know how to plant tiny seeds of suspicion. If they're at all smart, the Prosecution should turn over the discovery without needing to be asked twice. If there is a white car in some different location somewhere, they can use their other evidence to show why it wasn't BK.
Justice101
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2013
- Messages
- 2,392
- Reaction score
- 15,709
I really don't blame the defense for asking for ALL the video in this case since the police collected it all themselves...and it is WAY TOO LATE for the defense to canvass the areas and obtain videos themselves.
You know, I get it.
But going thru endless hours of video when only 1% of it even shows movement of any traffic will take forever. They will be looking for any additional white car in any video.
I know what they are looking for and pity the person at the Defense who has to plod thru that mess.
girlhasnoname
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2018
- Messages
- 9,462
- Reaction score
- 119,793
I think AT is entitled to the video too, just not packaged, labeled and pointing directly to the State's area of interest neatly with a bow on top. lol
It will take a lot of time but they've also had it for some time now too. BK could really help out and tell them the truth to speed things up.
JMO
Megnut
A piece of peace is peace enough.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2018
- Messages
- 11,832
- Reaction score
- 205,991
And they wouldn't have to pore over endless hours of useless video if their useless client had an actual alibi. He would be able to pinpoint time and place.
The State is required only to turn over evidentiary discovery and, should they stumble upon some, exculpatory discovery.
It is not the State's job to turn over every single thing nor is it the State's job to find alibis for defense teams! If they haven't turned over exculpatory discovery, it well could be because they haven't encountered any.
AT wanted these hearings livestreamed in order to perform for an audience. Pound it: BK is innocent. The State is withholding. The FBI won't turn it over. We can't do our job because.....
It's all nonsense. The State has gone back, dug up details that were neither evidentiary nor exculpatory, and still the defense isn't satisfied. She is very dramatic, I'll give her that. But so far, I haven't seen a single word of hers expose wrongdoing by the Prosecution. She's happy with creating the SPECTRE of it, but substance? It's just not there.
LE did not need to track every single light-colored sedan loose on the streets of Moscow and Pullman.
It is not the State making AT's job hard. It's not the Court. It's BK. He made it hard. He left no room for an alibi. Never mind that he left his DNA in THE room.
All the fireworks in the world can't change that.
JMO
Last edited:
Well, they have until January. Should be plenty of time. But I agree it's an incredibly tedious and boring task.
I'm not sure they're only looking for a white sedan. They might also be looking for lack thereof to invalidate the prosecution's claims.
If what we saw during the last hearing is any hint, they're also trying to show the absence of white elantras along the routes shown in the PCA exhibit, especially on roads leading into and out of Moscow.
maskedwoman
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2008
- Messages
- 1,608
- Reaction score
- 7,756
Yes, that's what the prosecution said. However, as was shown during AT's interaction with Payne, there are several video items they've requested that appear to be just sitting in the MPD evidence room.
maskedwoman
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2008
- Messages
- 1,608
- Reaction score
- 7,756
Discovery by definition is what the prosecution intends to use at trial as well as any exculpatory evidence. IANAL, but based on what I read, I don't think the prosecution was obligated to turn over the 98% (estimate) of the video they were not intending to use at trial and it did not appear to be exculpatory. I don't think the prosecution would be opposed to giving them all of it if they want it but, if the prosecution wasn't going to use it and didn't consider it to be exculpatory, it seems quite reasonable to me that she would have had to specifically request it. MOOoooI think AT is entitled to the video too, just not packaged, labeled and pointing directly to the State's area of interest neatly with a bow on top. lol
It will take a lot of time but they've also had it for some time now too. BK could really help out and tell them the truth to speed things up.
JMO
Discovery
- Status