ID - 4 University of Idaho Students Murdered - Moscow # 22

[Spute]

...I saw the news nation video from this weekend that mentions police are still trying to piece together what Ethan and X were up to from 9 PM to 2 AM. That they still might not know is surprising to me, and possibly crucial.

I think this could be a primary reason they went back to the house to collect the cars and put them into evidence. The sophistication of on-board computers in cars varies, and I think it's unlikely they would be able to retrace their exact steps by accessing a car's computers, but those computers should tell them something if one or more of the cars was used.

 

[Knitty]

MOD NOTE:

You may discuss what the father says in any of his interviews. You may choose to believe him or not to believe him. The father has whatever information that LE has chosen to tell him - and that may or may not be complete information. The father may have a POI in mind, but that does not mean that the person is actually a POI.

You may NOT take what the father says in his interviews and use it to discuss, sleuth, or accuse anyone who has not been declared a POI or suspect by LE. Websleuths' policy is and always has been that those not named POI are not to be sleuthed.

 

[Down To Earth]

There has to be much more to the stalker claim than this. People go out to meet other people all the time, and there is nothing unusual or stalker-ish about this scenario. The man didn’t make contact with K, whether he changed his mind, was too shy or intimidated or a million other reasons. It appears he followed a pretty girl into store. So?

Agreed. Well sort of. There is a difference between someone looking at you and someone staring at you. One pings your spidey sense and the other hardly registers. Being "followed" into a store can mean a person simply entered after you, or it can mean that someone purposely entered the store only because you did. The latter is unnerving unless it was obvious that they were in no way a threat.

It could be that the "local business" was the restaurant she worked, and he stayed exactly the length of time until her shift was over, and followed her out toward her car. That's stalkery for sure. But, as with almost all aspects of this case, we can only speculate in a hundred different directions based on wording in a media release. Sigh.

I agree though that nobody would even know about this incident if there wasn't more to it.

 

[newredtabby]

Of course I feel for SG and I also feel for hoodie guy because this is awful. He is going to be seriously harassed after this claim. I hope if he truly has nothing to do with this that LE is able to shut down the suspicion around him ASAP. This could get dangerous.

MOO

Not to mention a huge civil law suit.

 

[layer]

Interesting that they are only now asking for information about E and X's timeline!

Where are you seeing that? I can't seem to find it?

 

[pumpfe]

In regards to the reports of K’s injuries being more brutal than the others … if true, an explanation for this could simply be that she was stabbed first and the killer simply had an adrenaline surge during her stabbing then just …got tired. MOO I don’t believe that the extent of her injuries necessary mean she was the “target”

Or that MM was stabbed and killed first and then KG woke up and put up a struggle (hence the defensive injuries she reportedly sustained). The killer would be having to struggle more to subdue KG because she's struggling and would probably inflict more harm to her in trying to get her subdued.

 

[kittythehare]

I would suggest parental speculation after today's press release. LE is not going to confirm that nor are they going to release anything regarding the other autopsies.

I was replying to a question regarding the origin.

 

[Helechawagirl]

Courts have ruled that DNA collection does not fall under Miranda. That being said, a person can refuse.

I have never seen a case where a defense attorney successfully used thé increased scrutiny to persuade either judge or jury.

DNA was eventually obtained without a warrant.


Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm speaking from my own years of professional experience and that mantra had nothing to do with my statements.

I do know for a fact that if a bunch of people are asked to volunteer DNA samples, all of them being contacted because of a particular scenario that is leading an investigation, and ONE of them says Nope to the DNA that it is not at all difficult to obtain it - even without probable cause.

Courts have ruled, for example, that no probable cause is needed to grab a piece of trash left behind by any person. And "probable cause" covers many such situations. In this case, of course, LE is trying to rule people out not in, by asking for samples. Would a judge later agree that LE had probable cause to grab a straw out of a JitB trash bin, and the DNA on the straw leads them to the killer (as evidenced by many others things - not just the DNA)?

I think the judge would so rule (and likely would not hear about it otherwise - no one would, outside LE). If the DNA exonerates the person, it just goes in a file.


Naturally, LE doesn't do this unless they have suspicions about a particular person.

Hmm I wouldn’t have thought to collect trash from the food truck area, but might have been useful.

 

[priyaya]

There’s a good amount of info in the release. My takeaways are as follows:

1-There are no named suspects or suspects in custody, but does not state there are no suspects or POIs.

2- The release did not clarify more than “male in grub truck surveillance video”. In light of interviews today, I am surprised at that unless there is a reason. Nor was anything updated/added to that video in the rumor section.

3- Dog was found in room where murders did not take place. That leaves the 1st floor, Ks room on the 3rd floor, and the room opposite Xs on the 2nd floor.

4- The still don’t have a ton of info about X&Es whereabouts - how is that even possible?

4. This one kind of bothers me... but it also makes sense that no one would know their whereabouts if they were on a date alone together. There simply wouldn't be any witnesses.

 

[BondGirl007]

Agreed. Well sort of. There is a difference between someone looking at you and someone staring at you. One pings your spidey sense and the other hardly registers. Being "followed" into a store can mean a person simply entered after you, or it can mean that someone purposely entered the store only because you did. The latter is unnerving unless it was obvious that they were in no way a threat.

It could be that the "local business" was the restaurant she worked, and he stayed exactly the length of time until her shift was over, and followed her out toward her car. That's stalkery for sure. But, as with almost all aspects of this case, we can only speculate in a hundred different directions based on wording in a media release. Sigh.

I agree though that nobody would even know about this incident if there wasn't more to it.

Kaylee didn't work in a restaurant. I'm thinking this could have happened in a grocery store but could have been any business.

 

[Helechawagirl]

Ultimately, he may very well had a verifiable alibi that didn't require DNA and I would wonder if other 'suspicious characters' were also asked to provide a DNA sample.

And just might have a case for slander. Way too much doxing going on.

 

[priyaya]

Also I pointed this out a whileeee ago but I think in relation to K being the "target", I think it's relevant that she was visiting that night (or a couple of nights?) but otherwise didn't really live there anymore. So, if she was the target, the perp would have had to have known that she was in town (how? saw her? social media? stalker? word of mouth?)

yes this was addressed before. she did make a post with her and the roommates which would show she was back. she also had been out and about in town since Friday and people would have known she was there/the killer if he were stalking the house would have seen she was there.

 

[Ur728]

This part is odd too. Was the dog in a crate? Was it closed in a separate room? By the victims when they went to bed, or by the perp before he committed the murders? Because it says "it has not been determined where the dog was physically located when the murders took place" - wouldn't there be blood on the dog if it was around during (or after) the murders? And if it was crated by the victims before they went to bed or something, wouldn't that be something the surviving roommates could confirmed ("we put the dog in the crate every night. or the spare room") or something like that. Just weird to me they don't know more about this, but not sure that it's really relevant..?

The first thing that entered my mind when I read that was that the killer put the dog in a separate room. Indicating that the dog knew the killer. MOO IMO

 

[priyaya]

Kaylee didn't work in a restaurant. I'm thinking this could have happened in a grocery store but could have been any business.

yeah the way im taking the guys who were on film... they were just guys trying to pick up girls and unfortunately were not very good at it. Backed out/got scared something like that. to me this means nothing and happens constantly especially in a digital age where people dont really get asked on dates unless its through an app.

 

[Seattle1]

During a live report on Fox just now, the reporter said they were expecting a report today from Moscow police. This is the second time I have heard this on Fox this morning. Is there anything scheduled out there for today?

Please find 12/5/22 UPDATE from Moscow PD:

Moscow Homicide Update

MOSCOW, Idaho – The Moscow Police Department is providing the following information to update the public on the known facts surrounding the four murders that occurred on November 13th in Moscow, Idaho.

Updated Information:

• There have been statements and speculation about this case, victim injuries, cause of death, evidence collection and processing, and investigative techniques. With the active criminal investigation, law enforcement has not released additional facts to the family or the public. We recognize the frustration this causes and that speculation proliferates in the absence of facts. However, we firmly believe speculation and unvetted information is a disservice to the victims, their families, and our community. The Moscow Police Department is committed to providing information whenever possible but not at the expense of compromising the investigation and prosecution.

• Detectives continue investigating what occurred from approximately 9 p.m. on November 12th to 1:45 a.m. on November 13th, when Ethan Chapin and Xana Kernodle were believed to be at the Sigma Chi house on the University of Idaho Campus at 735 Nez Perce Drive. Any interactions, contacts, direction and method of travel, or anything abnormal could add context to what occurred.

[..]

https://www.ci.moscow.id.us/DocumentCenter/View/24875/12-05-22-Moscow-Homicide-Update

 

[layer]

As I keep staying, people on the paranoid spectrum are harder for obvious reasons, but they too touch things. Like their car door handles.

LOL!
I'm not sure exactly where I fall on the paranoid spectrum. There's an old saying "Just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean they're not out to get you."

I'm, curious. Why do you think people have a right against self incrimination?

 

[Diddian]

This part is odd too. Was the dog in a crate? Was it closed in a separate room? By the victims when they went to bed, or by the perp before he committed the murders? Because it says "it has not been determined where the dog was physically located when the murders took place" - wouldn't there be blood on the dog if it was around during (or after) the murders? And if it was crated by the victims before they went to bed or something, wouldn't that be something the surviving roommates could confirmed ("we put the dog in the crate every night. or the spare room") or something like that. Just weird to me they don't know more about this, but not sure that it's really relevant..?

It seems to me LE is stating ONLY what they can accurately state: that LE found the dog in the house after LE searched and found the victims’ bodies, that the dog was found in a room other than any of the rooms containing victims’ bodies, and that LE found no evidence of the crimes on the dog.

LE likely does not know for certain that the dog was in the place where they found it all night (I.e., throughout the commission of the crime), so they aren’t stating that.

LE may or may not know WHO put the dog where it was found and when they did so and may or may not know if it was crated at any time, including at the time LE found it. That may be information held back strategically (because only the perpetrator would know) or held back because it is unknown (because only the victims would know).

 

[10ofRods]

That's not exactly true. If they are requesting samples from anyone that fits a particular dynamic or circumstance, like neighbors, males between certain ages, heck they have asked entire towns to provide samples in Great Britain. I'm just saying that if you feel like you have legitimate probable cause against me, get a court order or go dig in my trash.
I ain't volunteering mine.

BTW, I meant LE doesn't usually go to the trouble to get to probable cause unless they have another reason to suspect a person. "All males in a town" is not enough for probable cause where I live. "Was seen in the vicinity right after the crime" might be.

I don't have much experience with large scale volunteer DNA drives nor do I think they are a valuable investigation technique. When did any such (expensive) quest turn up a suspect? I know we have a lot of true crime gurus here - there must be at least one case.

While I wouldn't respond to a "can I have your DNA please?" request from LE if it was "Let's do everyone in the whole town," I certainly would if the crime were narrowed down to say, "group of people at a campground" (and I was one of them) or my workplace. Because I know the value of sussing out the 1 or 2 individuals who aren't caring enough to help out and then looking more closely at them. So I guess there's value in some of these larger asks from the public.

People who say they want to "help the victim's family" but don't submit DNA in circumstances that could really aid in finding the perp are perplexing to me. I get not wanting to be involved at all, but people who allow themselves to be involved in helping solve crime are awesome.

 

[Helechawagirl]

From the News Nation little crime lab bit, they made it seem like there was a lot of DNA and trace evidence, but it would be figuring out who all has been in that house and when, that will be the issue. Since so many people have spent time there. I can imagine they are first detecting how many DNA profiles they have, then identifying them one by one, and using that a starting point for suspects.

I would think they would start with dna on the victims and see if there’s dna that isn’t theirs—then take it from there—ruling out the immediate friends, etc and keep widening their search as evidence indicates.

 

[EmmieA]

There has to be much more to the stalker claim than this. People go out to meet other people all the time, and there is nothing unusual or stalker-ish about this scenario. The man didn’t make contact with K, whether he changed his mind, was too shy or intimidated or a million other reasons. It appears he followed a pretty girl into store. So?

In the previous thread there was a post about K sometimes being a drama queen or something along those lines - the post talked about how her mother & sister knew she could be like that but she was also very street smart, always checking her surroundings. So I guess the stalker claim could be something as simple as that and it got blown out of proportion? I think even her family has walked back the claims that she ever claimed she had a stalker.

All MOO because I can’t find the post