ID - 4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered - Bryan Kohberger Arrested - Moscow # 57

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
There is a lot of discussion about BK moving the dog. Didn't LE say Murphy was not in any rooms the crimes were committed in? And something about no evidence on him? I don't think he was ever in M's room during the murders. I'm heading out of the house for a bit, and have no links, sorry. Imo.
 
<modsnip - quoted post was removed, and following concerns a segment on Fox News with Ted Williams>

Original post is here, link added by moderator

I don't know who Ted is, but I kind of agree with the one-target in each bedroom theory. Also, if he comes in through the slider, he's already on the 2nd floor. Why then go to the third if one or both of the other girls were not a target? KG was supposed to be gone. E was not a resident. I think all his plans went to H3ll in a coal bucket when he got in there. I don't think it was supposed to be fast either, he had plans. I feel that he felt a bit cheated and angry that his plans went askew, by the existence of two other humans, to deal with, when he got to the 3rd floor. I also feel LE let us believe that the two survivors saw nothing, heard nothing, and lived downstairs, until now. Just pondering.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
NicoleInVa said:
Long time reader on WS about this case but my first post. If (according to the PCA), they had BK's name by November 29, why didn't they get his DNA from his own garbage? Why use his parents garbage in late December?

Source: Idaho PCA
Click to expand...
I just looked at the PCA trying to find out when the DNA was discovered on the sheath. It says "The Idaho state lab later located a single source of male DNA (suspect Profile) left on the button snap of the knife sheath". It's not clear when they discovered it. My question to any lawyers/attorneys on here is: can you get a warrant for DNA if you don't currently have something to compare it to? It would almost seem like a fishing expedition. IMO once they had a DNA sample isolated from the sheath, they would be trying to get his DNA. It's possible they discovered the sample once he was already on the way to PA. Tough to tell from the info in the PCA.

MOO.
 
layer said:
My opinion is that it was in reference to the DoorDash delivery.
Click to expand...
That is my thought as well. JMO, but I imagine BK driving around the house was to look if anyone had arrived there and what lights were on. When he thought it was a good time he looked for a place to leave his car. As BK was looping around is maybe when the DoorDash dropped the delivery off and BK didn’t even see him. Xana was expecting a delivery, so I think it was her saying someone is here.

The times described in the PCA are so tight.
 
rsd1200 said:
I don't know who Ted is, but I kind of agree with the one-target in each bedroom theory. Also, if he comes in through the slider, he's already on the 2nd floor. Why then go to the third if one or both of the other girls were not a target? KG was supposed to be gone. E was not a resident. I think all his plans went to H3ll in a coal bucket when he got in there. I don't think it was supposed to be fast either, he had plans. I feel that he felt a bit cheated and angry that his plans went askew, by the existence of two other humans, to deal with, when he got to the 3rd floor. I also feel LE let us believe that the two survivors saw nothing, heard nothing, and lived downstairs, until now. Just pondering.
Click to expand...
There is not one inkling of anyone being targeted in the PCA. I think he was there to kill, whoever he could, where ever they were. The two survivors lucked out.

JMHO
 
kittythehare said:
It's chilling as he followed it up by killing her, horror story material.
I wish we could know for sure who his role models were, if that's an aspect of the crime, as in who was he imitating or trying to exceed for notoriety?
Click to expand...
One of my touchstones for thinking about attacks like this one is Dave Cullen's book Columbine, where he talks about "spectacle murder" in relation to this sort of school massacre where there is no apparent motive other than notoriety and name recognition. Cullen writes this in the Epilogue to the latest edition:
For his glory week, the spectacle killer is the hottest star on earth. He dwarfs any sports champ, movie star, president, or pope. In October 2015, the Umpqua Community College killer in Oregon explained the media to itself in a blog post reflecting on Roanoke five weeks earlier: “They spill a little blood, the whole world knows who they are… A man who was known by no one, is now known by everyone. His face splashed across every screen, his name across the lips of every person on the planet, all in the course of one day. Seems the more people you kill, the more you’re in the limelight.”
--Cullen, Dave. Columbine (p. 503). Grand Central Publishing. Kindle Edition.
Click to expand...
There are all sorts of killers who might have inspired a middle of the night murder spree; Richard Speck, the killer of 8 student nurses in a Chicago apartment in 1966 comes to mind. But one thing Cullen points out is that reaching for fame might involve in some way outdoing murderous predecessors. The Columbine killers really planned a bombing, intended to out=do Timothy McVeigh in terms of body count. The other way to gain notoriety is by choosing victims that shock the rest of us--kindergarten kids, whole families, etc. In this case, he choose young, attractive college kids in a small college town. He got his shock value. I hope he's left a trove of writings (as the killer quoted above did, as Eric Harris did before Columbine) so we can get a glimpse into his demented thought processes. My guess is that he's just another spectacle murderer, no big mastermind. Just a failure who used the lives and deaths of others to catch the limelight. My opinion only, of course.
 
newredtabby said:
As per the PCA, we know the sheath was: tan, leather, marked "Kabar", and had the USMC Globe and Anchor Insignia stamped on it. Find a pic of a "flimsy" one of those, and I'll believe if fell off during the attack.
Click to expand...

Was never on his belt, IMO. As someone else posted, too big and heavy, throws a person off balance, makes the leg on that side work differently, etc. It was cold that night. I believe BK is said to be wearing a jacket and I believe he wore layers, so as not to leave DNA and to provide himself protection.

Many jackets have knife carrying pockets (I just posted a picture of one, above). I believe he did the simple and reasonable thing and put the knife in a jacket pocket, likely designed for that purpose. There are even jackets that hold more than one knife. For people who carry knives as a self-defense item, these jackets are way more common than publicly revealing one has a knife by wearing it on a belt.

That's why the sheath gets left. It's not attached to him in the first place.
 
"I think the treasure trove is in that apartment and in the car," former FBI agent Jennifer Coffindaffer told Newsweek on Friday. "In my experience you just really can't hide blood evidence, it sinks in. Just imagine the upholstery of your car, the gas pedal....I know he was probably gloved, we know he was covered all in black in terms of his face and all, but he would have been bloody."
www.newsweek.com

Bryan Kohberger's home could have "treasure trove" of DNA: Ex-FBI agent

In addition to DNA evidence, former FBI agent Jennifer Coffindaffer told Newsweek that digital evidence could also be found on his electronic devices.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com
 
Apologies if this has been asked and answered before, but for attorneys, is there ever a point in working with a defendant that you would say look, this evidence is going to be difficult to contest, and my advice is not to go to trial? Or is it a matter of doing whatever the defendant chooses and making sure that they are afforded the procedural protections to which they’re entitled if you aren’t able to offer much of a challenge to the evidence—or something else entirely?
 
Barry said:
I just looked at the PCA trying to find out when the DNA was discovered on the sheath. It says "The Idaho state lab later located a single source of male DNA (suspect Profile) left on the button snap of the knife sheath". It's not clear when they discovered it. My question to any lawyers/attorneys on here is: can you get a warrant for DNA if you don't currently have something to compare it to? It would almost seem like a fishing expedition. IMO once they had a DNA sample isolated from the sheath, they would be trying to get his DNA. It's possible they discovered the sample once he was already on the way to PA. Tough to tell from the info in the PCA.

MOO.
Click to expand...

IANAL, but you do not need a warrant for anything thrown out in a public place.
 
Fargo said:
I haven't been commenting much, but I've been reading along. So thanks everyone for all the links and great information.

I've read through the PCA several times and have formed a bit of a different idea of what happened, including motive. Many people have commented how odd it is that a seemingly regular guy would commit a mass murder like this as his first crime. I agree. Not because I think he is a serial killer of some kind, but because it's possible his intent was not murder at all.

I'm coming to believe the intent was forcible rape and the intended target was M. I believe he knew where M's room was from prior surveillance. I believe he removed the knife from the sheath, which was looped on his belt and entered through the slider in the kitchen and went directly to M's room, finding her asleep. I believe he unbuckled his belt in preparation for a sexual attack at which time three things happened - (1) M awoke and fought back, (2) the sheath slipped off his undone belt, and (3) K heard the commotion and entered the room. At that point, he killed both of them.

I think his intent was to quickly exit the house the way he came, out the kitchen slider. Coming down the stairs he heard X moving around and saying "someone is here". Now he has a problem. Does he leave or does he dispatch a witness who may call 911 in the next few minutes? I believe he decided to kill X, not knowing E was there. I think he saw X as he rounded the corner and attacked her near the doorway or just inside the doorway of her room. Then he saw E and turned his attention to him as the bigger threat. I think X was still alive, injured, and crying. When he finishes with E he turns back to X telling her he will help her, but he finishes killing her instead.

Then he walks back down the hall, passing DM's room, and exits the way he came in through the kitchen slider. He showed no interest in DM's room or the two bedrooms on the first floor. I believe his focus was entirely on M's room on the third floor, he chose the most efficient route to get there, and did not expect K to be on the third floor at all. I think he thought he could rape (not kill) M on the third floor and then slip away.

I think that's why this crime seems so sloppy. He planned to commit a rape, in a college town, which is a fairly common occurrence and does not attract national attention and 50 FBI agents. He wasn't planning a mass murder; he was planning a rape and at most a local investigation by a local detective or two.

This is all my own opinion and my general sense of the case at this time.
Click to expand...
Wow, haven’t seen a narrative like this, and don’t disagree. MOO that this could be very possible. At the very least, there isn’t anything in your statement (which I acknowledge as speculative) that I can refute with the information that I know.

I’ve long wondered why he would bring his phone with him on drive-bys and to the crime itself, and I’m anxiously awaiting more details on what was on his phone in particular. If he was stalking any of the residents in the home, it could be possible he was also photographing them. It too is possible he was casing the home, and therefore photos of the home prior to the crime would make sense, for planning purposes.

Neither explain the phone at the crime, which the affidavit suggests it was, although disconnected from the network.

There’s a lot of information that we don’t know, and a lot of holes in the timeline. But your theory may even help explain the gap from BK’s estimated arrival at the home that night (3:30ish) and the crime itself (after 4:00ish).

Your theory cites BK getting caught off guard by others in the home he did not expect. If he pulled up to the home that night and saw more vehicles in the driveway than he anticipated, he may have waivered and hesitated. MOO, I’m just riffing with your post which offers a perspective I think is worth considering.
 
BUF said:
That is my thought as well. JMO, but I imagine BK driving around the house was to look if anyone had arrived there and what lights were on. When he thought it was a good time he looked for a place to leave his car. As BK was looping around is maybe when the DoorDash dropped the delivery off and BK didn’t even see him. Xana was expecting a delivery, so I think it was her saying someone is here.

The times described in the PCA are so tight.
Click to expand...
But why would X say that to mean the DoorDash delivery? That makes no sense to me since she would have placed the order (I believe?) and would know who the person was at the door. I think it could have been X saying it in the living room as she noticed the perp in the house, exiting through the kitchen or otherwise. I believe it was audible to DM because it was a phrase that was being said by X in the living room.
 
pittsburghgirl said:
The limits of planning in any kind of conflict have been described by a number of military theorists as something like: No plan survives first contact with the enemy. Mike Tyson, the boxer, put it this way: “Everybody has plans until they get hit for the first time”.

So BK could have done all sorts of planning--from what to do with his cell phone to his routes for getting to the house and escaping the crime scene--that has turned out to be not very smart. But no matter how many scenarios he ran in his head as he planned and envisioned the attacks, his plans were almost certainly not going to describe the real life situation of multiple murder in small spaces, with actual humans who in some cases could fight back and make noise, with a dog that started barking and probably disrupted his mental time line. Even if his plan seemed flawless to him on paper, it would not have survived the reality of murdering four people. My opinion only, of course.
Click to expand...
Yes, very good points and illustration. These holes/errors in his plan may hit that he acted on his own. Not that there is any information to the contrary. When considering where plans are executed almost flawlessly is in the gymnastic or skating performances or a late night robbery. Kohberger was not performing, and the conditions were not fixed. He appeared focused on one person and everyone else was in relation to that person. He seemed to carry out his first strike where he left his sheath, then went on to the other room perhaps as a matter of being associated closely.

Kohlberg's behavior seems, to me, to point to a response to an interaction the target had that triggered a lot of emotion that he wanted to exact revenge.
 
Fargo said:
I haven't been commenting much, but I've been reading along. So thanks everyone for all the links and great information.

I've read through the PCA several times and have formed a bit of a different idea of what happened, including motive. Many people have commented how odd it is that a seemingly regular guy would commit a mass murder like this as his first crime. I agree. Not because I think he is a serial killer of some kind, but because it's possible his intent was not murder at all.

I'm coming to believe the intent was forcible rape and the intended target was M. I believe he knew where M's room was from prior surveillance. I believe he removed the knife from the sheath, which was looped on his belt and entered through the slider in the kitchen and went directly to M's room, finding her asleep. I believe he unbuckled his belt in preparation for a sexual attack at which time three things happened - (1) M awoke and fought back, (2) the sheath slipped off his undone belt, and (3) K heard the commotion and entered the room. At that point, he killed both of them.

I think his intent was to quickly exit the house the way he came, out the kitchen slider. Coming down the stairs he heard X moving around and saying "someone is here". Now he has a problem. Does he leave or does he dispatch a witness who may call 911 in the next few minutes? I believe he decided to kill X, not knowing E was there. I think he saw X as he rounded the corner and attacked her near the doorway or just inside the doorway of her room. Then he saw E and turned his attention to him as the bigger threat. I think X was still alive, injured, and crying. When he finishes with E he turns back to X telling her he will help her, but he finishes killing her instead.

Then he walks back down the hall, passing DM's room, and exits the way he came in through the kitchen slider. He showed no interest in DM's room or the two bedrooms on the first floor. I believe his focus was entirely on M's room on the third floor, he chose the most efficient route to get there, and did not expect K to be on the third floor at all. I think he thought he could rape (not kill) M on the third floor and then slip away.

I think that's why this crime seems so sloppy. He planned to commit a rape, in a college town, which is a fairly common occurrence and does not attract national attention and 50 FBI agents. He wasn't planning a mass murder; he was planning a rape and at most a local investigation by a local detective or two.

This is all my own opinion and my general sense of the case at this time.
Click to expand...
I respectfully disagree
 
MikeHammer911 said:
How can the white car be spotted on camera (gas station) at 3:45 AM (after the murders), when the affidavit states that killing took place 4 AM to 4:25 AM?
Click to expand...

Not the same car. LE has never said it was the same car and it isn't mentioned in the PCA.

We were not told the actual time of death until the PCA, which is in keeping with wanting to protect the survivors, IMO.

Now that BK is in custody, without bail, it's safe to reveal the actual facts. That's why the Idaho procedure is designed the way it is (PCA is only released once perp is in custody and, in this case, without bond).

We knew nothing about multiple cameras catching multiple passes by the white Elantra, or that they had his plate and name fairly early on, or that he left the sheath, or that the time of death was an hour later than originally thought, or that D was actually on the second floor (although many guessed that from TikTok videos) and so on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 55 more.
Total: 2,783 (members: 56, guests: 2,727)

Online statistics

Members online
56
Guests online
2,727
Total visitors
2,783
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
604,276
Messages
18,169,980
Members
232,271
Latest member
JayneDrop
Back
Top