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

[Cool Cats]

I do think Idaho is a state where it is required, pre-trial, for the defense to state its affirmative defenses, so you are correct.

But even in states without that requirement, it's still embedded in legal procedure that the defense has to establish its defense pathways (that's one of the main points of a PH, after all). They can change their strategies all the way up until trial (and in some cases, during trial). In some states (and I think Idaho is one of them), no new evidence can be introduced beyond a certain pre-trial point (14 days, 30 days, whatever the statute says). The only way to make an exception is to bring a separate motion to the court and have a really good reason for new evidence.

Not a lawyer either, but 20 years of being a paralegal and 25 years of working in forensics and as a legal consultant (my consulting is usually part of "work product," although I have had to write affidavits as well).

I would assume that this defense has not yet settled on its strategy (isn't going to be easy). Getting *any* evidence thrown out at this point in time might be a goal. But at some point, in most jurisdictions, yes, the defense has to settle on a strategy (many states do not permit a general SODDI defense - I believe Idaho is also one of those). If one gives it some thought, it's pretty obvious how that would throw a monkey wrench into discovery matters.

IMO.

You bring this up and it is very interesting and definitely applies to BK:

"SODDI defense"

There is also:

"TODDI defense"

What is the SODDI Defense? | McClenahen Law Firm

The SODDI is one of the most commonly employed defenses in jury trials involving violent crimes. SODDI is an acronym, which ... Defenses

www.mattmlaw.com

No way around it, if BK says he's not guilty
that means he is insinuating that someone else did it. I don't see how he can mount any defense without giving the jury an alternate theory as to another perpetrator.

Of course the defense doesn't have to mention this, and as you stated, there may be Idaho trial law to consider in regards to this.

From article:

The SODDI is one of the most commonly employed defenses in jury trials involving violent crimes. SODDI is an acronym, which stands for “some other dude did it” or “some other dude done it,” and is thus derived from the way criminal defendants, rather than judges, lawyers or law professors talk. The term “SODDI” is used in situations where the Defense does not know who “the other dude” is.

The term “TODDI” is used when the Defense knows who “the other dude” is, with TODDI standing for “The other dude did it.” “The other dude” is most commonly a co-defendant.

A famous attempted use of the SODDI defense arose in the 1995 O.J. Simpson double murder trial. The Defense argued that Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman could have been killed by hitmen tied to drug dealers, because Nicole’s drug-addicted friend Faye Resnick had ripped off drug dealers.

Judge Lance Ito ruled that there was insufficient evidence to suggest such a scenario and, therefore, did not allow the Defense to present evidence of Resnick’s drug addiction.

 

[10ofRods]

You bring this up and it is very interesting and definitely applies to BK:

"SODDI defense"

There is also:

"TODDI defense"

What is the SODDI Defense? | McClenahen Law Firm

The SODDI is one of the most commonly employed defenses in jury trials involving violent crimes. SODDI is an acronym, which ... Defenses

www.mattmlaw.com

No way around it, if BK says he's not guilty
that means he is insinuating that someone else did it. I don't see how he can mount any defense without giving the jury an alternate theory as to another perpetrator.

Of course the defense doesn't have to mention this, and as you stated, there may be Idaho trial law to consider in regards to this.

From article:

The SODDI is one of the most commonly employed defenses in jury trials involving violent crimes. SODDI is an acronym, which stands for “some other dude did it” or “some other dude done it,” and is thus derived from the way criminal defendants, rather than judges, lawyers or law professors talk. The term “SODDI” is used in situations where the Defense does not know who “the other dude” is.

The term “TODDI” is used when the Defense knows who “the other dude” is, with TODDI standing for “The other dude did it.” “The other dude” is most commonly a co-defendant.

A famous attempted use of the SODDI defense arose in the 1995 O.J. Simpson double murder trial. The Defense argued that Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman could have been killed by hitmen tied to drug dealers, because Nicole’s drug-addicted friend Faye Resnick had ripped off drug dealers.

Judge Lance Ito ruled that there was insufficient evidence to suggest such a scenario and, therefore, did not allow the Defense to present evidence of Resnick’s drug addiction.

Great example. Yep, Judges do not usually allow the Defense to throw spaghetti at a case. The defense has to settle upon an actual defense, not a list of possible defenses.

The bottom line is that BK's defense will be very weak if all it does is attack one eyewitness's credibility and doesn't put forth an affirmative defense. If someone can be shown to have been with BK that evening, then they could use TODDI (but...rather obviously, the source of that information would be BK himself - and I don't see how they can base the defense on his word, unless he testifies - which I doubt his lawyers will permit).

So it will be some form of SODDI. And Some Other Dude has to exist and have access to the sheath, IMO, for that to work. Stolen knife with no police report? Still need BK to establish that, IMO. SOD must also have a white Elantra (or very similar) and not have his own alibi. Like looking for a needle in a haystack. All the things that LE did to clear (for example) the DoorDash driver are discoverable. The DD driver has made some statements here and there, but not to MSM that I know of. I think someone here posted a little bit about the driver, but it's several pages back now. At any rate, the third option would be someone on foot coming through the tree line, out of sight of camera. Shadowy figure, about BK's size, in the dark.

I don't think the jury will buy that type of defense. Defense has got to be back to scraping the barrel, as they've been doing. If there were a clear TODDI defense, those defense attorneys would have been back in court and wanted a speedy proceeding to get BK out of jail.

IMO.

 

[Cool Cats]

Idaho murder victim’s father shares stark warning to alleged killer: ‘He’s gonna realize’

Steve Goncalves says his family is ‘gonna make sure he doesn’t get away with it’

news.yahoo.com

Steve Goncalves, Kaylee’s father told ABC News: “I can’t wait to see the evidence… And then I’m gonna bring it.”

“And he’s gonna realize that this... is the family that’s gonna make sure he doesn’t get away with it,” he added.

Kaylee’s mother Kristi Goncalves said:

“We’ve talked as a family, you know, we’ve done a lot of research on what’s out there... None of it makes sense,” she told ABC News.

Describing her reaction when she saw Mr Kohberger for the first time at an initial court appearance, she said: “I was completely overwhelmed. I actually almost thought I was gonna pass out.”

“My daughter saw him face-to-face and in a very different light than we saw him, sitting there, looking very meek,” she said.

 

[U.N. Known]

Great example. Yep, Judges do not usually allow the Defense to throw spaghetti at a case. The defense has to settle upon an actual defense, not a list of possible defenses.

The bottom line is that BK's defense will be very weak if all it does is attack one eyewitness's credibility and doesn't put forth an affirmative defense. If someone can be shown to have been with BK that evening, then they could use TODDI (but...rather obviously, the source of that information would be BK himself - and I don't see how they can base the defense on his word, unless he testifies - which I doubt his lawyers will permit).

So it will be some form of SODDI. And Some Other Dude has to exist and have access to the sheath, IMO, for that to work. Stolen knife with no police report? Still need BK to establish that, IMO. SOD must also have a white Elantra (or very similar) and not have his own alibi. Like looking for a needle in a haystack. All the things that LE did to clear (for example) the DoorDash driver are discoverable. The DD driver has made some statements here and there, but not to MSM that I know of. I think someone here posted a little bit about the driver, but it's several pages back now. At any rate, the third option would be someone on foot coming through the tree line, out of sight of camera. Shadowy figure, about BK's size, in the dark.

I don't think the jury will buy that type of defense. Defense has got to be back to scraping the barrel, as they've been doing. If there were a clear TODDI defense, those defense attorneys would have been back in court and wanted a speedy proceeding to get BK out of jail.

IMO.

When I read possible prosecution or defense strategies I put myself in the place of a juror. What would convince me of either verdict? I'm skeptical in general and I have strong sense of justice. Those to traits are an odd, often warring combination.

I don't consider DM's (publicly known) information particularly compelling as it concerns BK specifically, so I also wouldn't be impressed with the defense if they spent any significant time attempting to contradict it.

As for SODDI, I find that interesting. I'd want the defense to spend time, not attempting to suggest who that other dude is, but convincing me that BK is not the dude. I can come up with explanations to explain some of the (publicly known) evidence attributed to BK, but the defense would need to provide plausible explanations for some of the evidence against him. I'd need proof that he was either elsewhere or had reason think he was set up. IMO, from the PCA, the DNA on the sheath is the most problematic piece of evidence for AT and co. Though they are not required to produce alternate evidence for that, I'd surely want to hear some. IMO, as a juror "SOD or even "TOD" borrowed it, stole it, or tricked BK into touching it, wouldn't suffice without supporting evidence.

That being said, as a juror, I'd also need the prosecutor to provide plugs to the evidentiary holes: show that the 12 times BK's phone was connected to the same cell tower as 1122 King Rd, that he was on King Rd or within sight of the house. Tie the white Elantra at the scene to BK specifically (forensics, license plate, etc.) as they did to the car at the grocery store after the murders. Provide direct evidence of how BK came to target that house or those students (this is a big one for me). If no other DNA of BK's was found at the scene and none of the victims' was fond on BK's property, I'd have a hard time convicting--unless, of course the prosecution can convince me he is a mastermind criminal who can leave a bloody crime scene completely clean.

Either way, I hope one team has some quality, irrefutable evidence to support a guilty or not guilty verdict.

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

@BeginnerSleuther, I think your original opinion is quite valid, and I'm providing the links to support this.

IMO the prosecution would know what valid affirmative defenses BK might have and if there were evidence to support those defenses. They would know this because the laws for murder are codified, so it's not a grab-bag of excuses.

Here are the ID statutes for Justifiable Homicide, Excusable Homicide, and Manslaughter. Those are the statutes that would allow for a 'yes, I did it, but... ' affirmative defense.

Chapter 40 – Idaho State Legislature

legislature.idaho.gov

Manslaughter, though I doubt this could be reduced to manslaughter:

Section 18-4006 – Idaho State Legislature

legislature.idaho.gov

Justifiable Homicide: Section 18-4009 – Idaho State Legislature

Excusable Homicide: Section 18-4012 – Idaho State Legislature

That's it. We would have to look to case law to see how the court has interpreted those laws specifically, but they're pretty straightforward on the surface. There may be variations on the themes, but the affirmative defenses from those would be along the lines of which, on the surface, don't seem to fit:

Yes, but it was self-defense so they didn't murder me or commit a felony or hurt another.
Yes, but I was defending my home or business or car, etc.
Yes, but I was defending my spouse, child, etc.
Yes, but I was apprehending them.

or

Yes, but it was an accident.
Yes, but it was in the heat of passion.

And insanity is not a defense in Idaho, so mental condition is not a defense - scratch that one from the possible defenses:

Section 18-207 – Idaho State Legislature

legislature.idaho.gov

And unlikely any of those above would work, but the prosecution is aware of the legislation and what would constitute an affirmative defense in ID, so they would not have to throw spaghetti at wall IMO. Instead, they would look for exculpatory evidence that showed that any of the above applied. It's not a wild guess without laws to guide them.

Also, the burden of proof is discussed in detail here for those who want to dig into the ID court's analysis
(ISC Introduction & Use),

but the short version is this:

Based upon these decisions, the general rule in Idaho is that the defendant in a criminal case has the burden of producing evidence regarding any defense, but he does not have the burden of persuasion. Once the defense is properly raised, the state must disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt... In drafting these instructions, the committee has taken the position that once a defense is sufficiently raised, the state must disprove that defense beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of persuasion has been placed on the defendant only where the legislature has expressly stated that the burden of persuasion is on the defendant and doing so would not violate the Due Process Clause of the federal constitution.

So BK can raise one of the defenses above, if he can produce evidence regarding those defenses, but that would seem unlikely - at this point. As I said above, I think a straight-up "Not Guilty" plea is more likely. Hard to fit what happened (4 brutal murders) and the facts as we know them at this point in time into an Affirmative Defense IMO. And "Not Guilty" allows the defense to chip away at the prosecution's BARD without providing evidence of an affirmative defense.

 

[Cool Cats]

When I read possible prosecution or defense strategies I put myself in the place of a juror. What would convince me of either verdict? I'm skeptical in general and I have strong sense of justice. Those to traits are an odd, often warring combination.

I don't consider DM's (publicly known) information particularly compelling as it concerns BK specifically, so I also wouldn't be impressed with the defense if they spent any significant time attempting to contradict it.

As for SODDI, I find that interesting. I'd want the defense to spend time, not attempting to suggest who that other dude is, but convincing me that BK is not the dude. I can come up with explanations to explain some of the (publicly known) evidence attributed to BK, but the defense would need to provide plausible explanations for some of the evidence against him. I'd need proof that he was either elsewhere or had reason think he was set up. IMO, from the PCA, the DNA on the sheath is the most problematic piece of evidence for AT and co. Though they are not required to produce alternate evidence for that, I'd surely want to hear some. IMO, as a juror "SOD or even "TOD" borrowed it, stole it, or tricked BK into touching it, wouldn't suffice without supporting evidence.

That being said, as a juror, I'd also need the prosecutor to provide plugs to the evidentiary holes: show that the 12 times BK's phone was connected to the same cell tower as 1122 King Rd, that he was on King Rd or within sight of the house. Tie the white Elantra at the scene to BK specifically (forensics, license plate, etc.) as they did to the car at the grocery store after the murders. Provide direct evidence of how BK came to target that house or those students (this is a big one for me). If no other DNA of BK's was found at the scene and none of the victims' was fond on BK's property, I'd have a hard time convicting--unless, of course the prosecution can convince me he is a mastermind criminal who can leave a bloody crime scene completely clean.

Either way, I hope one team has some quality, irrefutable evidence to support a guilty or not guilty verdict.

BBM

I just hope the prosecution has enough evidence for the judge to set this Case over for trial.

I don't think it matters where his phone pinged over the summer and into the fall except for where his phone pinged that specific night. Quite the coincidence that a car matching his car lines up with all those cell tower pings from that night from his phone.

But if he is innocent I'm sure his attorneys can account for his whereabouts that late night/early morning, like why he was driving to different towns in Idaho. Bar hopping?

Good. Then there will be camera evidence for his attorneys to present. BK just out socializing in different locations on Saturday night as per usual, nothing new. Plenty of social buddies to vouch for him.

Must just be a strange coincidence that his phone was deliberately turned off between 4:00 - 4:30 am that night. His lawyers can look for phone records that show he does this all the time at 4:00am, along with 4:00am "town hopping."

Really unlucky guy.

 

[Cindizzi]

Saturday May 13, 2023

https://twitter.com/x/status/1657422025751932929

https://twitter.com/x/status/1657437348899205121

https://twitter.com/x/status/1657441901925261312

 

[schooling]

I was looking at the Amazon search warrant related to the KA-BAR knife and sheath and noticed that it only goes back to January 2022. What if BK purchased the knife and sheath from Amazon before that date? Seems kind of arbitrary.

https://www.insideedition.com/sites/default/files/inline-files/Amazon_1.pdf

IMO the warrants point to LE now knowing exactly where the sheath and/or knife were sold and likely who purchased them.

That’s my interpretation anyway. After asking KaBar for a broad amount of information they are returned specifics that point them to Blue Ridge Knives and 3 large sales to retailers with some significance.

IMO the significance is that the sheath was found to have been manufactured during a certain window of time in a batch and sold to Blue Ridge. And Blue Ridge being a supplier in turn sold that batch to 1 to 3 retailers on 3 separate dates. Blue Ridge likely provided the name of the 1-3 retailers that purchased them.

The name of the retailer (I think 1 purchased all 3 batches) is still OBVIOUSLY sealed as we don’t know who they are. No one is going to assume that LE didn’t follow up with another warrant? So why would it be sealed?

I think the Amazon warrant was a fishing expedition and will end up being inconsequential to the case.

MOO

 

[Cool Cats]

IMO the warrants point to LE now knowing exactly where the sheath and/or knife were sold and likely who purchased them.

That’s my interpretation anyway. After asking KaBar for a broad amount of information they are returned specifics that point them to Blue Ridge Knives and 3 large sales to retailers with some significance.

IMO the significance is that the sheath was found to have been manufactured during a certain window of time in a batch and sold to Blue Ridge. And Blue Ridge being a supplier in turn sold that batch to 1 to 3 retailers on 3 separate dates. Blue Ridge likely provided the name of the 1-3 retailers that purchased them.

The name of the retailer (I think 1 purchased all 3 batches) is still OBVIOUSLY sealed as we don’t know who they are. No one is going to assume that LE didn’t follow up with another warrant? So why would it be sealed?

I think the Amazon warrant was a fishing expedition and will end up being inconsequential to the case.

MOO

What is so interesting about this (to me) is that it looks like they found the knife purchase.

Why? Because if they had not found it I think we would see Search Warrants looking for it's purchase from before January 2022. What we see is no searching in 2021.

You are so right about the manufacturing date.

LE forensics often looks for that to help rule in or rule out specific dates an item could have been purchased.

In a murder case I followed LE found the tube of a flashlight used to make a gun suppressor. They were able to get the manufacturing dates for those specific flashlights.

They also got the manufacturing date for a bullet proof vest (BPV) they found during another search.

The time frame of when this "batch" of BPV's were manufactured, proved that the defendant did not wear this vest on the night of the murders.

The vest was manufactured after the murders took place. Also, an online receipt showed that the vest was bought after the murders.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

IMO the warrants point to LE now knowing exactly where the sheath and/or knife were sold and likely who purchased them.

That’s my interpretation anyway. After asking KaBar for a broad amount of information they are returned specifics that point them to Blue Ridge Knives and 3 large sales to retailers with some significance.

IMO the significance is that the sheath was found to have been manufactured during a certain window of time in a batch and sold to Blue Ridge. And Blue Ridge being a supplier in turn sold that batch to 1 to 3 retailers on 3 separate dates. Blue Ridge likely provided the name of the 1-3 retailers that purchased them.

The name of the retailer (I think 1 purchased all 3 batches) is still OBVIOUSLY sealed as we don’t know who they are. No one is going to assume that LE didn’t follow up with another warrant? So why would it be sealed?

I think the Amazon warrant was a fishing expedition and will end up being inconsequential to the case.

MOO

I have the exact same KA-BAR sheath and I bought it on Amazon. I think that LE was looking at different sources for the sheath because they didn't know where suspect BK bought it.

Looking at my sheath I have no idea how to tell when it was made. There's no numbers or dates on it that would be used for that. JMO.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Here's an image of the KA-Bar sheath I bought in 2018 on Amazon.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000MAZIA0/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1

 

[schooling]

I have the exact same KA-BAR sheath and I bought it on Amazon. I think that LE was looking at different sources for the sheath because they didn't know where suspect BK bought it.

Looking at my sheath I have no idea how to tell when it was made. There's no numbers or dates on it that would be used for that. JMO.

Yes. LE did reach out to Amazon but IMO one look at the order in which they executed search warrants points to Blue Ridge Knives as LE's strongest lead. Amazon returned their information to LE and it resulted in nothing. They still continued on to Blue Ridge after that and Blue Ridge had super specific information they were seeking.

And yes, while you and I might not be able to tell when it's made.... KaBar likely has multiple leather, fabric and hardware sources. Manufacturing methods are constantly tweaked. So there's a strong possibility that they can tell when the sheath was manufactured and where those items were sent. There have been cases where LE has been able to trace back rope fiber to a manufacturer and the manufacturer subsequently helps identify the distributor and retailer.

When I was piecing together my theory I frequented KaBar forums where people used features of the sheath to identify year of manufacturing. Also, if you visit any Nike forum Air Jordan enthusiasts are able to identify batches by small tiny manufacturing errors and link them back to a factory. Something as small as a crooked thread could be a tell. Just imagine what information KaBar might have access to.

MOO

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Yes. LE did reach out to Amazon but IMO one look at the order in which they executed search warrants points to Blue Ridge Knives as LE's strongest lead. Amazon returned their information to LE and it resulted in nothing. They still continued on to Blue Ridge after that and Blue Ridge had super specific information they were seeking.

And yes, while you and I might not be able to tell when it's made.... KaBar likely has multiple leather, fabric and hardware sources. Manufacturing methods are constantly tweaked. So there's a strong possibility that they can tell when the sheath was manufactured and where those items were sent. There have been cases where LE has been able to trace back rope fiber to a manufacturer and the manufacturer subsequently helps identify the distributor and retailer.

When I was piecing together my theory I frequented KaBar forums where people used features of the sheath to identify year of manufacturing. Also, if you visit any Nike forum Air Jordan enthusiasts are able to identify batches by small tiny manufacturing errors and link them back to a factory. Something as small as a crooked thread could be a tell. Just imagine what information KaBar might have access to.

MOO

It will be interesting to see if your ideas are correct.

 

[schooling]

What is so interesting about this (to me) is that it looks like they found the knife purchase.

Why? Because if they had not found it I think we would see Search Warrants looking for it's purchase from before January 2022. What we see is no searching in 2021.

You are so right about the manufacturing date.

LE forensics often looks for that to help rule in or rule out specific dates an item could have been purchased.

In a murder case I followed LE found the tube of a flashlight used to make a gun suppressor. They were able to get the manufacturing dates for those specific flashlights.

They also got the manufacturing date for a bullet proof vest (BPV) they found during another search.

The time frame of when this "batch" of BPV's were manufactured, proved that the defendant did not wear this vest on the night of the murders.

The vest was manufactured after the murders took place. Also, an online receipt showed that the vest was bought after the murders.

Thanks for sharing! I remember watching Forensic Files back in the 90s during it's first television run and seeing multiple cases of ropes and nylon being traced back to manufacturers and on to retailers. It really is crazy what they can garner just from small manufacturing defects that are repeated across an entire run/batch/day, changes in suppliers, and other small things we would never notice.

 

[iamshadow21]

Thanks for sharing! I remember watching Forensic Files back in the 90s during it's first television run and seeing multiple cases of ropes and nylon being traced back to manufacturers and on to retailers. It really is crazy what they can garner just from small manufacturing defects that are repeated across an entire run/batch/day, changes in suppliers, and other small things we would never notice.

The batch/tool/machine marks thing never ceases to amaze me. And I love all kinds of forensics. But being able to say yeah, this bag was made seconds before this other one on the roll in this specific factory? That's pretty darn neat.

MOO

 

[schooling]

Also, worth noting that there are 3 officially authorized KaBar dealers less than an hour off the southern PA -> ID route. And 2 of them are in the area that Blue Ridge Knives likely supplies. Including a store that's amongst the largest in the world which IMO might be a great place to go and get lost in.

IMO Considering the possibility that BK took a detour or had on a prior occasion visited a store in Blue Ridge Knives distribution network does not take that big of a leap. Especially now that we know he had other knives at his PA residency.

We've yet to see any warrants related to BK financials or possible brick and mortar purchases, correct?

MOO

 

[Deleted member 39678]

We know that a KA-BAR marked sheath was found at the crime scene. Do we know that A KA-BAR brand knife was the murder weapon?

 

[Boxer]

We know that a KA-BAR marked sheath was found at the crime scene. Do we know that A KA-BAR brand knife was the murder weapon?

No.

 

[jepop]

<snipped> Items 34 and 45 are interesting to me:

View attachment 421437
Full list of items seized from suspect Bryan Kohberger's home revealed

Well, I just noticed something @girlhasnoname that makes me think that you are right, number 34 is "A man's world" drawing after all. Unfortunately I can't cut and paste from the doc, and I always stuff up screen shots so have given up on them for now, but if you scroll down to the word "paperwork" at number 45, have a look at how the word "work" is written.The letters 'w', 'o' and 'r' are almost identicle to the first three letters of the word in question in item 34. Another poster did point out that the supposed letter 'a' in the word "hand" did not have the characteristic tail that the writer's other 'a's have. This is probably because it's not an 'a' but an 'o', IMRevisedO. Then also in the word "work" the writer joins the 'r to the next letter, a 'k'. Similarly, in item 34 the writer is likely joining a letter 'r' to the next letter 'l' in the word "world". So it isn't a letter 'n' that we are looking at (in the word "hand") but an 'r' and an 'l' running together in the same way that the writer runs together 'r' and 'k' in the word "work". Sorry for the pedantic detail and hope this makes some sense. MOO

EBM: clarity
ETA: sorry, more detail.

 

[Cool Cats]

Well, I just noticed something @girlhasnoname that makes me think that you are right, number 34 is "A man's world" drawing after all. Unfortunately I can't cut and paste from the doc, and I always stuff up screen shots so have given up on them for now, but if you scroll down to the word "paperwork" at number 45, have a look at how the word "work" is written.The letters 'w', 'o' and 'r' are almost identicle to the first three letters of the word in question in item 34. Another poster did point out that the supposed letter 'a' in the word "hand" did not have the characteristic tail that the writer's other 'a's have. This is probably because it's not an 'a' but an 'o', IMRevisedO. Then also in the word "work" the writer joins the 'r to the next letter, a 'k'. Similarly, in item 34 the writer is likely joining a letter 'r' to the next letter 'l' in the word "world". Sorry for the pedantic detail and hope this makes some sense. MOO

EBM: clarity

Full list of items seized from suspect Bryan Kohberger's home revealed