4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, 2022 #79

[10ofRods]

IMO there are a number of ways that I could piece this together using what we do know to speculate on related activities. Unfortunately, for one reason or another, those scenarios fall outside of conversations allowed under TOS.

I think it's important to remember, though, that there are a lot of missing pieces that don't fit into the simple and obvious theories. Consider the sealed warrants and motions (3 IIRC with even the party served under seal), Doordash, 19-20 random Tinder accounts, Dropbox, WSU, etc., etc., and LE had probable cause to get those warrants. Warrants are not handed out without probable cause, regardless of who says otherwise. If warrants were given out just to investigate someone, the FBI and LE would have just gotten one for BK much earlier on. But they could not. They did not have PC yet. So what kind of PC must they have had to get warrants for DD, Tinder, Dropbox, etc., and how does that PC link to the PC re BK? Those are the interesting things to ponder IMO.

How do we know they are "random" Tinder accounts? Truly curious.

I assume that judges everywhere work the same - but that there's definitely individual variation on what, exactly, they want to hear or read before they agree there's probable cause. Some judges are stricter than others, and most prosecutors know who their go-to judges are. A phone call can be all it takes. It depends on the ask, and it depends on what cause is given.

Were the "random" Tinder accounts all from a time frame after June 2022? Or was it a wider period? Is that one of the things you're pondering?

Just speculating with you.

I think PC for Tinder (etc) is probably based on things LE saw on Tinder - as opposed to the DNA on the sheath or the model year of the car. Surely they had a search that was broader than just BK?

BTW, some judges are willing to go for PC if LE asks to investigate known associates of any of the victims, esp. if there were any social exchanges close to the time of the killings. So, for all we know, some members of Sigma Chi had some of their SM looked at, to see if they had deleted tweets or messages or anything that might have shed light on allegations about Sigma Chi that were rampant right after the murders. Also, Sigma Alpha Epsilon (which, IIRC, had just been either kicked off campus or started its own off-campus branch/party house - very near 1122 King) was initially looked at. Because some of the housemates are plainly partying (in bodycam video) with people from those places. Is that enough for an Idaho judge? I have no clue.

The partying was not that night, of course. But I would think LE would be trying to piece together the Four's social lives and whom they may have encountered, when and where, etc. Crimes like these affect many, many uninvolved and innocent people, causing lots of anxiety and lost sleep.

IMO.

 

[U.N. Known]

If the FBI is doing any of the testing, it's going to take A LOT longer. I don't think even the prosecution has this yet, IMO.

If they really don't have the evidence, why not just say that?

 

[Cool Cats]

He felt fit and strong, thought he was at his personal best, that it could slide away or he would go back to herion, or quite possibly he had planned this all along and the opportunity was about to slip out of his reach. Just so much to speculate on there!

Hummm....

One more reason why it was planned. Although I think there is the possibility it wasn't.

YOUR QUOTE:

"quite possibly he had planned this all along and the opportunity was about to slip out of his reach."

Possibly planned - to the day - because this was done exactly one month before BK wouldn't be able to do it. Final examinations began on Monday, December 12, 2022 to Friday, December 16, 2022.

He would be extremely busy administering final exams as a TA and may have known he might not be back. So he could have given himself the deadline of the 2nd Saturday of November, the one month mark before he would have to stick close to campus, see his dad, then leave the State.

Also needed time to be in the "thick" of it. To hear people talking about it, this could be part of a motive.

Planned? Planned by BK specifically?

1.) Would know who victims are (possible Instagram connection, seen on Idaho campus)
2.) Phone pinged from King Rd. cell tower 12 times (opportunity)

3.) BK's phone pinged 11 times late night early morning (cuts way down on where BK could be in Moscow, darkness is better for stalking

4.) Killer knew how to get in and out of the house, seemed familiar with house layout which points to stalking the house and researching the house online (possible searches on his computer?)

5.) Phone turned off (or put on airplane mode) before going in house
6.) BK's car cannot be ruled out from the car caught on video (white car seen on King Rd. that night)
7.) White car seen leaving Pullman that night before homicides took place (BK lived in Pullman)
8.) BK's phone pinged on cell towers conducive to a person driving from Pullman to Moscow that night
9.) It appears BK has no alibi (how can he say he was home when his phone was pinging elsewhere?)
10.) Witness description can not rule BK out
11.) Knife chosen because it is quiet unlike a gun
12.) Wore mask and black as a disguise
13.) Brought knife to use as murder a weapon

Not planned? Not planned by BK specifically?

1.) Could have been a stalking "mission" rather than a planned murder
2.) Could have been surprised by awake people and killed them so they wouldn't call 911
3.) Awake person could have advanced towards him first and he reacted in a frenzy

4.) Could have planned to creep through the house and changed his mind after seeing victims in bed or seeing the others awake

5.) Any number of other people could have gained access to the house
6.) There were many other people who knew the victims far better than BK knew them
7.) Could have been someone who was rejected by or angry with a victim due to interacting with them
8.) Could have been a stranger targeting the house

9.) Of all the many people who have talked about BK - WSU students, high school and junior high classmates, work place bosses, neighbors, past friends, past online date hook up, employees in businesses, others - not once has anyone said he was violent in any way. Nor has anyone said that he threatened violence.

10.)The witness description fits alot of people
11.) Phone could have been turned off just for stalking
12. Phone could have been turned off to avoid pinging the WI-FI
13.) Mask, black clothes and knife can be used when only creeping in the house
14.) Mask and black clothes were only in case someone saw him creeping in the house
15.) Knife was only suppose to scare someone so he could get away quickly if seen
16.) Might not be any digital or physical links to BK
17.) Knife was to be used to open a door or window
18.) Knife was to be used as a tool and was never intended for murder, like to cut security camera wires

 

[SpiderFalcon]

If they really don't have the evidence, why not just say that?

I think they will say, at the Motion to Compel hearing, whether they have it, or whether they don't. They will be "compelled" to answer.

I think they haven't "just said" because they don't have it YET. The FBI is not a small town in ID, and they work on many, many cases, nationwide.

IMO

 

[Nova]

IF they could prove he used it to destroy evidence. IF. Evidence rules are quite complicated and the suppressing or allowing evidence in error is one of the primary reasons appeals are granted, so very tricky stuff. I'm already watching and waiting for some motions to suppress

Obviously, if the suspect successfully "destroyed" some substance by cleaning, it's going to be hard to prove what is no longer there. (Unless traces remain, obviously.)

But if BK suddenly bought a lot of cleaning supplies on or around the date of the murders, that might be admitted as circumstantial evidence that he was erasing evidence of a crime, because he had never cleaned so thoroughly before.

It would have to be an extreme change in his normal behavior, I imagine. It wouldn't be enough to prove BK bought one bottle of Lysol.

 

[Nova]

This seems to be the banning story

KOHBERGER BANNED FROM WSU CAMPUS The WSU records also include a Dec. 30 letter to Kohberger threatening him with criminal trespassing if he again set foot on the WSU campus, signed by WSU Police Chief Gary Jenkins. Kohberger was served with the document the next day while he was held in jail in Monroe County, Pennsylvania, and includes his signature.

Read more at: https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/crime/article275080871.html#storylink=cpy

I don't see what info that link supplies, except for what we already know.

Some of us were speculating as to which of BK's behaviors led to the "trespass" decision. If the decision wasn't made until Dec. 29 or 30, then perhaps it was just a general response to BK being charged with multiple homicides.

 

[al66pine]

Hashing Out Certain Issues Pre-trial. Intended Defense? Alibi? SODDI?

I don't know Idaho law, but in some states, the defense *must* state the nature of its defense at the preliminary. No spaghetti throwing defenses in those states....
IMO.

snipped for focus. @10ofRods TYVM for your post w good point about states' rules requiring defense notification to prosecutor re certain defenses PRE-TRIAL.
Relevant text of ID Crim Rule 12* which covers other issues is below. Possibly of note in this case? Pre-trial motions:
12(b)(3) --- "motions to suppress evidence because it was illegally obtained;"
(imo, hard to imagine this would fly, imo, but icbw)
12(b)(4) --- "request for discovery under Rule 16;"
(imo, already analyzed & discussed by others, so not commenting)

12(f) ---FAILURE of defense to RAISE or objections or to make requests that must be made prior to trial, or by ct. set deadline or extension, constitutes WAIVER OF DEFENSES, but the ct may make exceptions.

NOTICE OF ALIBI**
12.1 --- if intending use ALIBI defense, def't must comply w ID. Code § 19-519.

Section 19-519***
(1) Alibi defense. If intending to use, def. must give notice to prosecutor of "the specific place or places at which the defendant claims to have been at the time of the alleged offense and the names and addresses of the witnesses upon whom he intends to rely to establish such alibi." Sets deadline for pre-trial notice.
(2) W'in 10 days of receipt, state must give "notice stating the names and addresses of the witnesses upon whom the prosecution intends to rely to establish the defendant’s presence at the scene of the alleged offense and any other witnesses to be relied on to rebut testimony of any of the defendant’s alibi witnesses."
(3) Cont'ing duty to update. Discusses procedure re newly discovered witnesses.
(4) and (5) If party fails to provide notice, ct may exclude wit. from testifying re alibi, but may also grant exceptions.

Have not searched specifically for required PRE-TRIAL NOTICE to state, re defenses other than in Rule 12 and 12.1. So nothing re SODDI defense yet.

Well, if everything could be hashed out pre-trial, we would not have trials.

______________________________________
* I.C.R. 12. Pleadings and Motions Before Trial - Form of Pleadings - Defenses and Objections. | Supreme Court
Idaho Criminal Rule 12. Pleadings and Motions Before Trial; Defenses & Objections
"(a) Pleadings and Motions.... Defenses and objections before trial must be raised by motion to dismiss or to grant appropriate relief as provided in these rules." (sbm)
"(b) Pretrial Motions. Any defense objection or request which can be determined without trial of the general issue may be raised before the trial by motion. The following must be raised prior to trial:" (sbm)
"(1) defenses and objections based on defects in the prior proceedings in the prosecution;"
" (2) defenses and objections based on defects in the complaint, indictment or information (other than that it fails to show jurisdiction of the court or to charge an offense, which objections may be made at any time during the pendency of the proceedings);"

"(3) motions to suppress evidence because it was illegally obtained;"
" (4) request for discovery under Rule 16;"

"(5) request for a severance of charges or defendants under Rule 14; or
"(6) motion to dismiss based on former jeopardy."

(c) Motions to Suppress. [[[Enough detail to give other party notice to respond]]]
(d) Motion Date. Motions under Rule 12(b) [[[ filed within 28 days after entering NG plea, or 7 days pre-trial. Ct can shorten or extend.]]]
(e) Ruling on Motion. [[[Court to rule on motions pre-trial, unless ordering deferred.]]]
"(f) Effect of Failure to Raise Defenses or Objections. Failure by the defendant to raise defenses or objections or to make requests that must be made prior to trial, or at the time set by the court pursuant to subsection (d), or prior to any extension of time granted by the court, constitutes waiver of the defenses, objections or requests, but the court, for cause shown, may grant relief from the waiver.
"(g) Records. A verbatim record must be made of all proceedings at the hearings, including all findings of fact and conclusions of law that are made orally."
(Adopted February 22, 2017, effective July 1, 2017.)"

** I.R.C. 12.1. Notice of Alibi. | Supreme Court
*** Section 19-519 – Idaho State Legislature

 

[Nova]

i know how it works, thanks.

In this and in most cases I follow in every state they look for the universe.

404 Page Not Found

2805/050423%20Motion%20to%20Compel%20Discovery.pdf

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/050323%20Defendants%203rd%20Supplemental%20Request%20for%20Discovery.pdf

It's neither a rare nor unusual phenomenon and it's certainly not a catastrophic one.

Both sides pretty much have to ask for the moon.

Anything they don't ask for, they don't get. In fact, it may be ruled that they have waived that info because they didn't ask for it early enough (or, conversely, in their most recent revised request).

In my experience--20+ years in legal support--there is a lot of gamesmanship on both sides when it comes to pre-trial discovery.

 

[kittythehare]

Both sides pretty much have to ask for the moon.

Anything they don't ask for, they don't get. In fact, it may be ruled that they have waived that info because they didn't ask for it early enough (or, conversely, in their most recent revised request).

In my experience--20+ years in legal support--there is a lot of gamesmanship on both sides when it comes to pre-trial discovery.

Aye, i was wondering about that..
Indeed
It is what I have least patience with.

 

[jjleroche]

The FBI takes apart cars like no others. They will use a sterile field, put the car in and start dismantling it. The seat belt's click station will be unscrewed. The seams of the upholstery will be tested in various ways. They will eventually sample the cushions under the upholstery (hard to clean). They should be doing blood/human protein analysis first, then swabs for DNA where appropriate, then fiber analysis. Each of these things are done by different teams, all of whom many other similar cases to work/jobs to do.

Radio knobs taken off, bagged. Car control pedals removed, tagged and bagged. I figure there would be as many as 700-800 individual pieces of evidence from most cars. Interior of the door mechanism (where the key goes in - he had to get his car keys out and even with gloved hands, he might still have had traces of victim blood. While he certainly tried to clean everything, it's hard to complete clean the interior of a car door locking mechanism or the seat belt buckle receptor.

However, it's possible he used various cleaning products to work extra hard at those places - he had time.

I do wonder how they tested the carpet and pedals for blood and human proteins (probably did that first, before ever taking anything apart).

I am preparing myself for very little of forensic value to have been found in the car, due to the length of time that BK had control of it (and the fact that he surely must have known what was coming, forensically).

IMO.

Anyone have any thoughts about what the Judge will do at Prelim if *no one* has the car search results and the car is still in PA?

Thanks 10 of Rods. Fascinating information.

 

[Nova]

I read that. But your response was that they followed the law by responding. IMO, I don't think a judge would consider such a response by the prosecution to be following the spirit of the law, so I think the state's response is irrelevant. The facts are, the prosecution has not yet complied after 3 requests. I realize that happens a lot, but I think it's relevant to point it out.

JMO.

The DA can't provide what s/he doesn't have or until s/he has it.

Perhaps the prosecution is playing games with discovery. I've allowed that it happens and I have witnessed it myself.

But just because you demand certain info "within 14 days" doesn't always guarantee that I have it to give you.

In the Idaho 4 case and like everyone else, I don't pretend to know all that is going on "backstage".

 

[al66pine]

A Prequel to my post made ~ 30min ago.

I don't know Idaho law, but in some states, the defense *must* state the nature of its defense at the preliminary. No spaghetti throwing defenses in those states.
I can't remember which state it was (I think Colorado) where the defense had to specifically alert the Court that they were going with a SODDI defense, but they had to tell the Judge who, specifically, the Other Dude was.....

snipped for focus @10ofRods
Meant to post this before my earlier post. NOT directly relevant to ID-4 case, but
confirming your memory re pretrial notice req'mt re defense.
I recall reading that too, specifically in CO. Maybe in Suzanne Morphew case'?

Anyway, have not nailed the req'mt in ID law, but did see info re pretrial notice (not to the court, but to the prosecution) defenses on a CO. crim def. law firm website.

FWIW:
"Defense Disclosures
All defense disclosures are subject to constitutional limitations.
Mandatory Disclosures by the defense must be made at least 30 days prior to the trial include:
Nature of the defenses they intend to use at trial;
Notice of alibi,..."
from Colorado Criminal Law – The Rules of Discovery in Colorado – Getting The Information You Need To Defend Your Clients

 

[Nova]

Aye, i was wondering about that..
Indeed
It is what I have least patience with.

I understand how you feel. But both sides take oaths to mount a vigorous prosecution or defense. To most, that means doing anything that isn't expressly prohibited by law.

 

[Sillybilly]

STOP THE BICKERING !!

A member innocently used a word that was not used in a legal sense, strictly their choice of wording, and accompanied by an IMO.

Another member picked up on that one word and 7 pages later, members are still hyper-focusing and arguing over its usage.

Apologies to members whose responses have been removed, but the initial, and unwarranted, zeroing in on and hyper-focusing on the innocent use of the word derailed the thread.

OP has been edited and all subsequent discussion about it has been removed.

 

[jepop]

Thanks, I agree with your points, anything is possible at this point.

As much as I appreciate you saying it looks like it, I didn't put alot of research into that post at all though.

It's just a summary of (almost) everything I remember that I think could be relevant to this case that I could link to in MSM related to why blood on his bedding could matter, that's all.
ETA: just following this case here and in MSM
Moo

RSBBM: It's some work plus 10 though to put all that MSM together and so carefully apply it to your thesis/theory! MOO

 

[Nila Aella]

I read somewhere (BUT CANNOT LOCATE, even tho I've been looking for days) that the Elantra is with the FBI. IMO, JMO, from what I've seen, this would make the most sense. That's a pretty BIG item, and chain of custody would really need to be maintained. But, JMO, MOO, ICBR.

SBM

I went back to check the receipt for the car search: USDOJ FBI receipt for property.

https://www.pacourts.us/Storage/media/pdfs/20230302/150347-dec.29,2022-searchwarrant(b.kohberger),inventory,exhibits.pdf

 

[SpiderFalcon]

SBM

I went back to check the receipt for the car search: USDOJ FBI receipt for property.

View attachment 420850

https://www.pacourts.us/Storage/media/pdfs/20230302/150347-dec.29,2022-searchwarrant(b.kohberger),inventory,exhibits.pdf

THANK YOU @Nila Aella !!!

 

[girlhasnoname]

If they really don't have the evidence, why not just say that?

Unfortunately with the gag order in place, we are not privy to what discussions the State and Defense are having between themselves. They are obviously speaking, because we now know the second roommate is scheduled to give her interview with the Defense in NV now.

In another recent high profile case (Murdaugh), the Defense filed these same type of motions for the record and the State responded that they didn't have them yet and would get them to them asap.(which they went on to do, nothing nefarious).

Perhaps the State has advised the Defense of some of these things and we just don't know. I have seen the Defense file motions to compel, late discovery in almost every single case I have followed here on WS.

I don't believe LE and the DA are going to jeopardize their very high profile case by intentionally withholding exculpatory or critical evidence. I look forward to the Judge's motion to dismiss.

MOO

 

[SpiderFalcon]

SBM

I went back to check the receipt for the car search: USDOJ FBI receipt for property.

View attachment 420850

https://www.pacourts.us/Storage/media/pdfs/20230302/150347-dec.29,2022-searchwarrant(b.kohberger),inventory,exhibits.pdf

Here is the official website, filled with lots of interesting information about their process....

DNA Casework | Law Enforcement

The FBI Laboratory's DNA casework experts provides forensic DNA examinations to the FBI and other law enforcement agencies in support of criminal, missing persons, and intelligence cases through evidence testing using forensic serological, mitochondrial DNA, and nuclear DNA methodologies.

le.fbi.gov

 

[maskedwoman]

Hashing Out Certain Issues Pre-trial. Intended Defense? Alibi? SODDI?

snipped for focus. @10ofRods TYVM for your post w good point about states' rules requiring defense notification to prosecutor re certain defenses PRE-TRIAL.
Relevant text of ID Crim Rule 12* which covers other issues is below. Possibly of note in this case? Pre-trial motions:
12(b)(3) --- "motions to suppress evidence because it was illegally obtained;"
(imo, hard to imagine this would fly, imo, but icbw)
12(b)(4) --- "request for discovery under Rule 16;"
(imo, already analyzed & discussed by others, so not commenting)

12(f) ---FAILURE of defense to RAISE or objections or to make requests that must be made prior to trial, or by ct. set deadline or extension, constitutes WAIVER OF DEFENSES, but the ct may make exceptions.

NOTICE OF ALIBI**
12.1 --- if intending use ALIBI defense, def't must comply w ID. Code § 19-519.

Section 19-519***
(1) Alibi defense. If intending to use, def. must give notice to prosecutor of "the specific place or places at which the defendant claims to have been at the time of the alleged offense and the names and addresses of the witnesses upon whom he intends to rely to establish such alibi." Sets deadline for pre-trial notice.
(2) W'in 10 days of receipt, state must give "notice stating the names and addresses of the witnesses upon whom the prosecution intends to rely to establish the defendant’s presence at the scene of the alleged offense and any other witnesses to be relied on to rebut testimony of any of the defendant’s alibi witnesses."
(3) Cont'ing duty to update. Discusses procedure re newly discovered witnesses.
(4) and (5) If party fails to provide notice, ct may exclude wit. from testifying re alibi, but may also grant exceptions.

Have not searched specifically for required PRE-TRIAL NOTICE to state, re defenses other than in Rule 12 and 12.1. So nothing re SODDI defense yet.

Well, if everything could be hashed out pre-trial, we would not have trials.

______________________________________
* I.C.R. 12. Pleadings and Motions Before Trial - Form of Pleadings - Defenses and Objections. | Supreme Court
Idaho Criminal Rule 12. Pleadings and Motions Before Trial; Defenses & Objections
"(a) Pleadings and Motions.... Defenses and objections before trial must be raised by motion to dismiss or to grant appropriate relief as provided in these rules." (sbm)
"(b) Pretrial Motions. Any defense objection or request which can be determined without trial of the general issue may be raised before the trial by motion. The following must be raised prior to trial:" (sbm)
"(1) defenses and objections based on defects in the prior proceedings in the prosecution;"
" (2) defenses and objections based on defects in the complaint, indictment or information (other than that it fails to show jurisdiction of the court or to charge an offense, which objections may be made at any time during the pendency of the proceedings);"

"(3) motions to suppress evidence because it was illegally obtained;"
" (4) request for discovery under Rule 16;"

"(5) request for a severance of charges or defendants under Rule 14; or
"(6) motion to dismiss based on former jeopardy."

(c) Motions to Suppress. [[[Enough detail to give other party notice to respond]]]
(d) Motion Date. Motions under Rule 12(b) [[[ filed within 28 days after entering NG plea, or 7 days pre-trial. Ct can shorten or extend.]]]
(e) Ruling on Motion. [[[Court to rule on motions pre-trial, unless ordering deferred.]]]
"(f) Effect of Failure to Raise Defenses or Objections. Failure by the defendant to raise defenses or objections or to make requests that must be made prior to trial, or at the time set by the court pursuant to subsection (d), or prior to any extension of time granted by the court, constitutes waiver of the defenses, objections or requests, but the court, for cause shown, may grant relief from the waiver.
"(g) Records. A verbatim record must be made of all proceedings at the hearings, including all findings of fact and conclusions of law that are made orally."
(Adopted February 22, 2017, effective July 1, 2017.)"

** I.R.C. 12.1. Notice of Alibi. | Supreme Court
*** Section 19-519 – Idaho State Legislature

Thank you, this was extremely helpful!