ID - 4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered - Bryan Kohberger Arrested - Moscow # 62

[whiterhino]

Do you think that unsecured doors will help the defendant in this murder case?

No.<modsnip>

I do know in some instances, when the door is unlocked and a crime is committed there are cases where it's not considered a crime (depending on the acts that occur **& location ie state).

 

[jcamh]

So if I call out a name in the waiting room, Am I violating the law?

You are only supposed to say their first name.

 

[OckhamsRazor22]

Im picking up on your sarcasm. My feelings about this stems from the media. The digging, this case is so sensationalized and I would hate for a Casey Anthony sequel where the media puts everyone including the prosecution in a trance that this is open shut and a monster walks. Im just saying, HIPAA laws are real and tangible. The article even quotes the source saying she wants to be anonymous because she might be violating HIPAA laws. Do I care about this man’s privacy rights if he is a murderer absolutely not but I don’t want stupid errors that could result in evidence being thrown out later because of this. Let’s say he did go to an appointment to treat cuts on his arm? The prosecution could obtain a legal right to that information but with someone leaking info that is legally bound by privacy laws before the trial even starts, any potential evidence pertinent at that appointment could be thrown out as a result.

Yes. Absolutely. And I would also believe his lawyer has already filed regarding the HIPPA violation. They are taken very seriously. JMOO

 

[Ap186]

Precisely, and if (and IMO when/if not already) LE investigate and determine that this appointment took place just days after the murders...during trial there would be a reasonable chance that the physician who attended BK that day, and perhaps also the receptionist who interacted with him, (called him to apppointment, gave him his form to fill out or whatever) would be called as witnesses for either prosecution, defense (perhaps both?). At that point, if it arrives, the receptionist may not be able to maintain their anonymity. IMO

Absolutely. It could also compromise any testimony received by the clinic/office that could be very crucial to the prosecution.

 

[meatandcookies]

A few thoughts on familial DNA evidence. Only and handful of states explicitly allow it, last I checked (though list is old) Idaho and Pennsylvania weren't on it. In fact,"...genealogical evidence has never been used in Idaho during a conviction in court."
It is a controversial topic both scientifically and due to civil liberty issues. There's a reason it wasn't overtly mentioned in the PCA.
Not saying it will but there is also a real chance it gets tossed. Without it, and 'poisoned fruit' there might be serious issues in getting a conviction.
If the accused is convicted and the DNA evidence is part of the case then imho there will be many years of appeals possibly to the highest level of state and even federal courts.

https://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/state/article271003142.html

Okay, so it's been a minute since I took Criminal Law; I did go back to my coursework as a refresher before posting. This is the first 'legal' post I've made since getting verified, so I'm a bit terrified, and I want to preface this with MOO to be safe.

I don't think “fruit of the poisonous tree,” or even the broader exclusionary rule would apply to the familial DNA obtained in this case for several reasons.

First, as far as we know, LE obtained the familial DNA legally. They had a warrant--obtained before they had the DNA evidence-- which allowed them to go through the trash at the family home in PA. I believe they didn't need a warrant to go through the trash as long as it had been put out for collection (see CA v. Greenwood) but MSM is reporting that they did obtain one.

Second, and I think you know this, FamilyTreeDNA and GEDMatch (the two DNA databases available to law enforcement) both indicate to users uploading data that they are searchable by LE; in one of them (I forget which), the user actually has to check a box to opt in to LE searches. We don't know which database LE used here, or if they used one at all. Current PA law allows for an exception to confidentiality in genetic testing when, pursuant to a court order (here, the warrant), a court determines it will produce information relevant and material to a matter before the court (here, a familial genetic match to the suspect in a quadruple homicide). As a side note, there is a stricter bill, introduced in the PA house last year, which does not appear to have made it out of committee. All LE needed for the arrest warrant was probable cause, and the legitimately acquired familial DNA gave them that. The prosecution is not going to use the familial DNA at trial; they will use the DNA taken from BK after he was brought into custody, which will be an absolute match to the snap on the knife sheath, rather than a match to the paternal line of the person whose DNA is on the sheath. Using familial DNA to identify a suspect is different than introducing it as evidence at trial.

Lastly, FOPT also doesn't always apply when evidence was gathered in good faith, even if the evidence used to produce it is excluded--so if the defense argues that the warrant that allowed LE to collect the trash was invalid, and the court agrees, the DNA obtained by going through the trash is potentially still admissible because LE followed the proper procedures, got their warrants, and were acting in good faith.

I'm sure there are some nuances I'm missing, but hope this was useful.
MOO.

 

[zoomom2]

Maybe listening or tracking devices or video of him packing his vehicle? JMO

Honestly I don't think they did know he was going back to PA for Christmas. Didn't matter what his plans were. They have FBI offices all over the country and they could just go and check out the DNA in the trash. Best case scenario? It could rule him in or out as a suspect.

 

[RANCH]

No <modsnip>

I do know in some instances, when the door is unlocked and a crime is committed there are cases where it's not considered a crime (depending on the acts that occur).

<modsnip> I'm trying to stay focused on this case and not how situations that are different from this one can have different penalties. JMO

 

[OckhamsRazor22]

No and I was reading your reply to the other poster as defensive of the victims & calling out the victim blaming re: window coverings and door locks. As in I detected sarcasm.

I do know in some instances, when the door is unlocked and a crime is committed there are cases where it's not considered a crime (depending on the acts that occur).

Spot-on. This is why LE charged him with burglary, as he was trespassing (doesn’t matter if the door was locked or unlocked). He entered the home uninvited and without any permission. I also believe that it didn’t matter whether he could SEE into the home as he stalked them (according to the investigation and affidavit, they closely reviewed his phone records and found his device was pinging at/near the home on at least a dozen prior occasions). JMOO

 

[jepop]

…and instead of driving home and replacing the front plate (which is what a well-informed and properly read/educated criminal Justice studied perp would do), BK does nothing. So many mistakes.

For someone who considers himself to be intellectually advanced…he seems quite the opposite. Thank the Universe for SMALL miracles. Just goes to show, there is no such thing as a perfect crime. Only an imperfectly processed crime scene (in most all cases where there is no suspect). It would be impossible to not leave ANY trace during such a rampage and rage-fueled quad killing. JMOO

Just on this, maybe I am being nitpicky but would he even have a front plate to replace as PA law doesn't require a front plate for car rego (as was investgated in the PCA). Or does that just mean that he would have been issued with 2 plates (front and back) but only required to exhibit the back one. If that's the case, then I agree with you, why not stick the front plate back on ASAP post murders.

 

[layer]

It could be argued that the knife sheath was planted or had been left behind from a previous visit.

Planted could be argued, I think, although it would probably require some kind of foundation.

Left behind on a previous visit, just coincidentally on the bed next to a victim that had been stabbed to death would be a stretch for even the most skeptical juror to swallow, I think.

JMHO

 

[jcamh]

The more I think of the evidence that is present the more it looks to me like one or more of these situations-

- BK didn’t care if he got caught, as he was eager to seek the fame and live the life of a killer, so while he deliberately did not place evidence, he was not as diligent as we would expect him to be

- BK obsessed over some details of the crime planning, and failed to consider some details that were vitally important to preventing forensic evidence

- BK placed evidence on purpose thinking LE would need a hand, and they located him quicker than he expected

- BK is not at all as bright as people think, he has some book knowledge that seems a smoke screen for his lack of common sense, scatterbrained ness, and mental health issues that prevent high order detailed/ focused planning for that day as well as broad planning in time.
For instance- why turn your phone off only during the short time near the deaths If normally you do not turn your phone off at all?

JMO

I can think of another scenario. BCK put his plan into action to sneak into the house in the middle of the night and kill Maddie. But then his plan gets messed up when Kaylee is there. So, at that point, he is improvising. He is just trying to get out of there without getting caught. He's flustered and maybe panicked. So, Caylee was struggling with him, hence the reason her wounds are worse. Then, he is shocked by the fact that he has just killed two people. As he goes down the stairs, he comes in contact with Xana, who had just said, "is someone there?" He kills her, but it's a struggle. Ethan was still asleep, but groggily waking up and BCK killed him too. BCK's whole plan had fallen apart. He had just killed 4 people!

 

[WingsOverTX]

Okay, so it's been a minute since I took Criminal Law; I did go back to my coursework as a refresher before posting. This is the first 'legal' post I've made since getting verified, so I'm a bit terrified, and I want to preface this with MOO to be safe.

I don't think “fruit of the poisonous tree,” or even the broader exclusionary rule would apply to the familial DNA obtained in this case for several reasons.

First, as far as we know, LE obtained the familial DNA legally. They had a warrant--obtained before they had the DNA evidence-- which allowed them to go through the trash at the family home in PA. I believe they didn't need a warrant to go through the trash as long as it had been put out for collection (see CA v. Greenwood) but MSM is reporting that they did obtain one.

Second, and I think you know this, FamilyTreeDNA and GEDMatch (the two DNA databases available to law enforcement) both indicate to users uploading data that they are searchable by LE; in one of them (I forget which), the user actually has to check a box to opt in to LE searches. We don't know which database LE used here, or if they used one at all. Current PA law allows for an exception to confidentiality in genetic testing when, pursuant to a court order (here, the warrant), a court determines it will produce information relevant and material to a matter before the court (here, a familial genetic match to the suspect in a quadruple homicide). As a side note, there is a stricter bill, introduced in the PA house last year, which does not appear to have made it out of committee. All LE needed for the arrest warrant was probable cause, and the legitimately acquired familial DNA gave them that. The prosecution is not going to use the familial DNA at trial; they will use the DNA taken from BK after he was brought into custody, which will be an absolute match to the snap on the knife sheath, rather than a match to the paternal line of the person whose DNA is on the sheath. Using familial DNA to identify a suspect is different than introducing it as evidence at trial.

Lastly, FOPT also doesn't always apply when evidence was gathered in good faith, even if the evidence used to produce it is excluded--so if the defense argues that the warrant that allowed LE to collect the trash was invalid, and the court agrees, the DNA obtained by going through the trash is potentially still admissible because LE followed the proper procedures, got their warrants, and were acting in good faith.

I'm sure there are some nuances I'm missing, but hope this was useful.
MOO.

What say you on the HIPAA discussion here re: medical office receptionist interview. Prosecutable or not?

 

[zoomom2]

I mentioned earlier that DNA is literally sucked up by leather and is less likely to be retained by metal. So... how come BCK's DNA is on the metal but not on the leather where it would be much more difficult to remove. This question may be answered but we don't know it. MOO

Correct. They told us where they found the dna. They didn't say they didn't find it anywhere else on the sheath.

 

[OckhamsRazor22]

There is still unlawful entry. I am in Canada though, IDK the laws in Idaho. IIRC burglary doesn't have to involve theft in ID and I believe unlawful entry is included under the term burglary in this case?

That is precisely WHY there is a Burglary charge first and foremost. He has already committed a crime by simply entering in this fashion. Jmoo

 

[meatandcookies]

What say you on the HIPAA discussion here re: medical office receptionist interview. Prosecutable or not?

I'm not professionally qualified to make that call.

ETA: a bit of research leads me to believe that the procedure would be for BCK to file a complaint with the department of Health and Human services or the state of Washington's privacy officer, who would decide to prosecute or not. I do not believe he can personally sue. This is MOO!

 

[OckhamsRazor22]

Good post. And that's why the State has to put together all of the circumstantial evidence they can find that supports their case against the defendant.

The DNA is powerful evidence but by itself it's not enough. JMO.

Agreed. It rarely has the LEGS to stand on its own in murder cases. It is us you supported with additional (even if circumstantial) evidence. JMOO

 

[Zinn]

IMO, what kind of vehicle was driven by the door dash driver?

As far as I know, the only mention has been the delivery time of approximately 4:00am and the fact that the driver was identified and provided the delivery time info, according to the PCA. No idea what type of vehicle.

 

[RANCH]

Spot-on. This is why LE charged him with burglary, as he was trespassing (doesn’t matter if the door was locked or unlocked). He entered the home uninvited and without any permission. I also believe that it didn’t matter whether he could SEE into the home as he stalked them (according to the investigation and affidavit, they closely reviewed his phone records and found his device was pinging at/near the home on at least a dozen prior occasions). JMOO

Here's why he was charged with burglary.

Latah County Prosecutor Bill Thompson said the burglary charge involved "entering the residence with the intent to commit the crime of murder."

The relevant Idaho statute (Idaho Code 18-1401) states that "every person who enters any house, room, apartment, tenement, store, shop, warehouse, mill, barn, stable, outhouse, or a building, tent, vessel, vehicle, trailer, airplane, or railroad car with intent to commit any theft or any felony is guilty of burglary.

Why Bryan Kohberger was charged with burglary as well as murder

Kohberger is facing four counts of first-degree murder and one count of felony burglary in connection with the killings of four University of Idaho students.

www.newsweek.com

 

[OckhamsRazor22]

Correct. They told us where they found the dna. They didn't say they didn't find it anywhere else on the sheath.

Genius point. Maybe we will become privy to more details once he is on trial and the complete discovery details (most of them) is finally revealed. Jmoo

 

[MsBetsy]

He was reportedly in Vocational training as a Sophomore and I am curious as to why he was there. We don’t have those programs where I live. I understood they were to fast track kids into a job or for behavioral struggles. I just don’t get it. He reportedly dropped out of that program early, not high school.His Senior class picture in the school yearbook would be for 2013 graduation.
Classmates statements about Senior year:

Everything we know about the Idaho murders suspect

More than six weeks after four University of Idaho students were brutally murdered, authorities have arrested 28-year-old Bryan Christopher Kohberger

www.independent.co.uk

He didn’t begin community college until 2016. He spent two years at a Community College where he fot an AA degree, entered Desales in 2018 and completed a BA in 2020, started his Masters and earned that in 2022. That’s all a normal full course load which was my reference to zipping through.
My point was where was he between graduation 2013 and 2016 start of college? He supposedly worked at least part of that time as a School guard of some sort until 2017, but other than that his life history is blank, nothing has been discovered online that we have seen and there are only vague references to some possible rehab.
No one goes to rehab for 3 years. IMO
Maybe under different circumstances it would be different but it may be important to an underlying cause. JMO

I'm glad you included the dates because I can never remember them. So, if he went to the vocational program as a sophomore, he would definitely have to be in school for classes for half a day. Maybe he lost interest and dropped out of the vocational program or wasn't passing. Or maybe he only attended for a year instead of two.

I'm more familiar with the vo-tech program in NY (BOCES) but I live in the Poconos and have heard the program is comparable.

There are four school districts in Monroe County and the Vocational school he would have gone to is Monroe Career and Tech Institute, if you want to go to their website for more information.

So there were three years between high school and Community College. Could he have been working and saving money to pay for college? I'm pretty sure he went to rehab when he was still in school and it likely would have been for under a year.

I think he probably lived at home during those three years and possibly while he was attending Community College.