ID - 4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered - Bryan Kohberger Arrested - Moscow # 58

[NuttMegg]

Imo Comments about shaving eyebrows and former drug abuse are examples of just turning life events into suspicious actions reflect bias.
Furthermore, they feed into lynch mob mentality.
I would guess many people have been, or been close with someone, who at some point in their lives has struggled with addiction.
The fact that this particular man overcame it and went to college IMO is commendable.

How do we know he overcame it?

 

[newredtabby]

I think "only" is implied. The list of body parts covered in the PCA seems closed/definitive to me, else DM and the investigator would describe a mask which covered mouth, nose, eyes, hair, etc. OR which covered areas such as his mouth and nose, if a broader category of words were meant. Normally in a legal document words and language are to be interpreted narrowly, IMO

DM may not have seen or remembered seeing what else was covered. We just don't know, which is why we shouldn't assume words that aren't in the PCA. There is no mention of his arms and legs being covered. I assume they were, but that's only my ASSUMPTION, though, and shouldn't become facts of the case. THAT'S my only point. No more, no less.

 

[thoughts101]

I wonder that if his shoe left bloody imprint in the house, then there must have been also imprints in the car - especially gas and brake pedals, no?

Also, there must have been numerous imprints of his shoes in the crime scene, but I guess it is not published now.

I think the report of the single shoe imprint was made known only to give credit to the survivor's story.

JMO

Absolutely, and to confirm the investigation's allegations or theories regarding the order of the murders.

 

[RANCH]

brilliant. did he resist taking pictures? was it too chaotic and no time? how fast can he be with a phone camera? is 15 minutes plenty of time to kill and take some photos? mOO

I wonder if BK had taken any photos of the victims before the murders with his phone. Does LE have his phone to check it for incriminating evidence? JMO.

 

[Omega Man]

brilliant. did he resist taking pictures? was it too chaotic and no time? how fast can he be with a phone camera? is 15 minutes plenty of time to kill and take some photos? mOO

Thank you kindly. There's more to this from what I was able to find online. It seems that current gen smartphones (android) can go straight to camera app without wasting time for logging in/going into the apps menu etc. Apparently this is designed to assist in emergency situations (take a snapshot of car plates, face of the mugger etc.). And all it takes, if the phone is configured correctly, is to press power button twice quickly. Works on my phone with factory settings. Relevant quote below:

"Launch with the Power Button
The fastest way to launch the camera takes advantage of the phone’s power button. This method doesn’t require any swiping or unlocking. It’s super fast, and your Android device most likely supports it.
All you need to do is double-press the power button. If your device supports it, the camera will immediately launch."

One other thing which is easily missed. That micro? nano? SIM card may have been inserted back into the phone shortly after the murders so there is a chance there would be residual blood/DNA remnants on it even if he sanitized external parts of the phone. The card sits embedded in the SIM slot so if he's forgotten the knife sheath he may have forgotten to wipe SIM clear also. All of that is assuming he ejected SIM card instead of using Airplane Mode or just switched off his phone, but again he would have no use for a switched off phone. Just IMHO.

 

[thoughts101]

I wonder that if his shoe left bloody imprint in the house, then there must have been also imprints in the car - especially gas and brake pedals, no?

Also, there must have been numerous imprints of his shoes in the crime scene, but I guess it is not published now.

I think the report of the single shoe imprint was made known only to give credit to the survivor's story.

JMO

Absolutely, and to confirm the investigation's allegations or theories regarding the order of the murders.

 

[Pretty Go Pale]

And that’s why we have lawyers for the defendants. It is only “reasonable” doubt. I remember the case of the pastors wife in Indiana and we were sure it was the spouse. His actions seemed unexplainable, but he wasn’t guilty. It’s strange that while there seems like lots of clear evidence…it just also seems plausible he could be innocent.

At this point, and it's early in the process of the case, granted, I don't think there is reasonable doubt - not even close.

 

[Omega Man]

Someone suggested on a preivous thread that he may have brought his phone to check the girls social media in real time, to see where they were or what they were doing. (What if they all decided they were now hungry and headed out to breakfast at a pancake house? We used to do that, knowing full well we would just sleep the rest of the day away.)

This requires GSM connectivity, SM wouldn't work in Airplane Mode, with SIM ejected and, of course, if the phone was switched off.

 

[trustno1007]

I wonder that if his shoe left bloody imprint in the house, then there must have been also imprints in the car - especially gas and brake pedals, no?

Also, there must have been numerous imprints of his shoes in the crime scene, but I guess it is not published now.

I think the report of the single shoe imprint was made known only to give credit to the survivor's story.

JMO

I read recently the information in the affidavit was only about 10% of the evidence they have against BK. Only acknowledging enough to get him arrested at this time. So there may be more about the blood trail on his shoes, footprints etc as they get closer to trial.

 

[Tortoise]

That’s kind of how I am looking at it right now as well. I think he went into the house and up to the third floor first. The timeline is already incredibly tight and given DM seen him walking towards her, it seems to suggest he was coming from X’s room before he passed her and left. Also if the noises above woke DM then I think X who must have been awake given her food order/TikTok scrolling at around 4:12am must have also heard them. I think it’s possible it was her who said “There’s someone here” or something to that effect rather than it being K.

I agree.

Matter of fact I think X went upstairs and investigated the noises D heard, and saw BK. I think she said out loud "there's someone here" to warn the others, BK caught up with her just outside her room and she froze into silence or he put his hand over her mouth, which is why D heard nothing when she opened her door. Reason I think this is because D was able to identify when she heard crying from X's room, through her closed door, but she thought it was K on the 3rd floor saying "there's someone here".

I think BK pursued X down the stairs, and he now knew there was another person X had been warning. I think he thought that was E, perhaps E stirred from sleep when X started crying out loud.

When the dog started barking I think BK had one single purpose, to get away before the noise raised other people either inside or from neighboring houses.

All MOO

 

[thoughts101]

At this point, and it's early in the process of the case, granted, I don't think there is reasonable doubt - not even close.

If the state would be put to proof, I do think it is far too early for anyone to say that there is no reasonable doubt, with any degree of certainty.

 

[CityKid]

I would have expected it to say “DM stated she did not recognize the male” so she didn’t state that she recognized him, she didn’t state that that she didn’t recognize him. Just weird wording, again speaking from having prepared many legal documents, we only know what she didn’t say, not what she said. That’s just odd. I don’t think DM IS ANYTHING OTHER THAN A VICTIM. just super confused on why it was worded that way.

Possibility that she wasn't asked if she knew who the male was, and this oversight caused this ambiguous wording?

 

[want2solveit]

The way I look at it is it would have been put back in his pocket after he took it off and could have fallen out anywhere. I doubt he would put it on the bed after he removed it the first time because it might be hard to find afterwards.

I agree, logical. I don't think he was capable of the thought required to be leaving messages. After all, the bodies were his message.

 

[Txbarfly]

If they haven’t already, they should be able to compare the suspect’s DNA from the scene to samples obtained from him in custody. Buccal swab or whatever. If he’s the guy, results ought to be a nearly infinitesimal match — much more exclusive than the 99.998% father-son match. I think.

 

[wary]

That is only a thought exercise IMO, in the face of the forensic and phone evidence (no doubt there is more), and BK needs to account for his presence at the scene if the police can establish it in fact (which IMO, based on the PCA and other evidence, they could assert this at court and in interview with BK).

However, it may be possible for BK, or any defendent in a criminal case, to be found not guilty on the basis of not forming the intention to do murder, despite still committing a murder, since the law broadly requires the action AND intention. This would be the only way I believe that BK could avoid the offence.

If his defence were to argue "it wasn't him, he wasn't there at the time of the murders" or similar, I would consider that potentially an act of professional negligence on the part of his legal team, as it does not provide him with the best defence he could have against the death penalty, IMProfessionalO. It is a fanciful argument IMO, and bares no attempt to understand and refute the prosecution's case.

Edit for grammar.

What could happen in court that would make a jury believe that he did not intend to commit a murder, while committing four murders?

His attorney can’t testify for him. (They try, but I’d never believe it. They aren’t under oath.) I don’t think that his attorney would dare put him on the stand, to make this sort of a claim.

What possible explanation could there be? He carried along a massive knife, but he didn’t intend to use it to commit any sort of felony? He murdered the first person, then the second. He went up or down a fight of stairs and murdered the third, and the fourth, all the while not intending to kill any of them?

He turned off his phone as he approached the area, turned it back on as he left. But that doesn’t show any planning of a crime?

He was only there to rape, or steal (theoretical) drugs? Looks to me like first degree murder. Check section (d)

Section 18-4003 – Idaho State Legislature

legislature.idaho.gov

What argument could there be?

MOO

 

[Rallodgnrl]

We never will hear the "full story" in court. There is all sorts of evidence blocked because of this or that. Do you really think BK is going to get on the stand and relate what happened that night? Do you think his pd won't fight to disallow everything she can?

Anyway thank goodness we're on a crime board that allows analysis of the msm verified words and actions of a person accused of cold blooded grisly murder of 4 kids.

Imo

How do we know he overcame it?

Imo a heavily addicted heroine addict has their day & night 100% focused on heroin. Using it, attaining it, rinse repeat. Zero time for anything else.

 

[Boxer]

Good point, I forgot about frozen ground since it’s not frozen where I live! Yet, his plan may have included preparing a spot in a remote location in advance, even a week or two before, since it appears he may have been stalking the house since as early as August.

MOO if his intent was murder during the stalking the phone would not have been on. He was stalking and stewing, but MOO he had not formulated a plan. He was just obsessed.
MOO for some reason he crossed over into a killer on 11/12/22, When he made the shift, with so much stalking experience and forensics he falsely thought he could cover his bases and should go end the life of the roommate he was stalking.
So he did.
He successfully nearly left no DNA. Obviously he failed to consider his car would have been picked up by random cameras going to and leaving the CS. And that is the clue that unraveled his identity and cell history.

 

[indicolite22]

This is interesting insight into (possibly) BK’s teen mental health issues. Thank you for sharing.

HTC says in the video it was found through searching on one of BK‘s old email addresses, which provides evidence (to me) that it is likely legit.

IIRC, HTC did previously analyze a recent recording that has been later debunked.

These appear to be old posts from 11-13 years ago. The first post reveals the poster's birthday/age which matches BK's.

 

[ray9898]

In addition to saying that the killer left the sheath at the murder scene, "Pappa Rodger" also posted that he thinks that it only took the killer 15 minutes to commit the crimes. He also posted that Kaylee and Maddie weren't sleeping in the bed together, but that Kaylee fell on top of Maddie when she was killed. All of these posts were before the PCA came out with the sheath information in it.

Lots of people including myself speculated the sheath was left the moment LE specified it was a Ka-Bar. The autopsy and crime scene can certainly allow them to conclude the injuries were from a 'large fixed blade hunting knife' but when they narrowed it down to a specific maker it was obvious they had evidence leading them there.

 

[thoughts101]

I agree.

Matter of fact I think X went upstairs and investigated the noises D heard, and saw BK. I think she said out loud "there's someone here" to warn the others, BK caught up with her just outside her room and she froze into silence or he put his hand over her mouth, which is why D heard nothing when she opened her door. Reason I think this is because D was able to identify when she heard crying from X's room, through her closed door, but she thought it was K on the 3rd floor saying "there's someone here".

I think BK pursued X down the stairs, and he now knew there was another person X had been warning. I think he thought that was E, perhaps E stirred when X started crying out loud.

When the dog started barking I think BK had one single purpose, to get away before the noise raised other people either inside or from neighboring houses.

All MOO

I think X stayed in the living room as she had just received a food delivery and was using her phone on Tiktok, and when she heard or spotted the perp possibly making an egress in the kitchen, and may then have said "someone is here" that could be audible to DM, given the location of DM's room adjoining onto the living room. IMO X did not venture upstairs, given the evidence in the PCA.

Indeed: DM does not describe anyone running past her room or up/down stairs so the idea that X went upstairs is not borne out by the evidence, as it is alleged in the PCA.