4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered - Bryan Kohberger Arrested - Moscow # 72

[CSIDreamer]

I'm not convinced that the roommate's statement is all that significant in the bigger picture and unless there is something more later on, it only speaks to someone in the house and a fairly broad description so in my opinion, the weaker evidence (latent shoe print) supports a weaker statement.

I really don't feel either have a great deal of courtroom value nor do I believe that either was anything more than a starting point for the investigation.

It does leave me with questions though. I will admit that I have to remind myself often that the PCA is a starting point and we don't have any knowledge of the nature of the victim's wounds but as someone who can't drink coffee without spilling some, I can't imainge BK not having stepped in blood somewhere in the house. That particular latent print also leaves me wondering if he wiped his shoes on something after his last victim.

I've wondered the same about him wiping his feet. No matter which way I speculate he was going, that diamond print should hold a bit more blood I would think. JMO

 

[ktm44]

I've wondered the same about him wiping his feet. No matter which way I speculate he was going, that diamond print should hold a bit more blood I would think. JMO

If he did wipe his feet, I would suggest that the latent print speaks to the sloppiniess that SG mentioned in one of his many interviews.

 

[Strong1]

Interesting article.

University Investigated Idaho Murder Suspect's Behavior Around Time of Killings

The doctoral student charged with murdering four University of Idaho undergraduates displayed such troubling behavior in the weeks around the killings that the university investigated his conduct around women, counseled him over a verbal altercation with a professor and ultimately fired him from...

www.yahoo.com

 

[TeaTime]

The PCA mentions one footprint, it does not mean there wasn't a trail of bloody prints. They only mentioned the one to corroborate DM's story that the perp walked towards her room.

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

Would there be any reason to disclose more in the PCA? I believe the only purpose of that specific footprint is to substantiate the roommate’s statement and nothing more.

The PCA spoke very little to any other specific evidence except to DNA on the sheath and in my opinion, it’s not the right time disclose more evidence than necessary.

imo jmo there's also not a reason to exclude it, and one light footprint does not, imo, support the roommate's statement to any convincing degree. imo jmo.

 

[10ofRods]

About the latent print (my opinion);

As an obvious first step in this investigation, after the stage where the bodies were finally removed, the investigators brought in a luminol team, among many other technicians.

For there to be one invisible bloody footprint, there had to have been others. So, I assume that at least one foot of the murderer stepped in blood and they already had a luminol trail, so that from whatever point the killer stepped in blood, they could see it (keep in mind that luminol turns up nearly invisible footprints - the first couple of prints are likely visible).

Each time the murderer takes a step, there's less blood on the bottom of his shoes, as that's the basic mechanics of a liquid on the bottom of a shoe. As many of us already know, a UV light is used, along with luminol to produce images like this:

https://www.bvda.com/images/content/5-biological-traces/luminol_shoeprint.jpg

(That's not from this investigation). So, after interviewing DM, and probably after much of the rest of the investigation was completed at the house, they brought in an Amido black technician.

In the following image, the blue footprint was invisible before Amido black was used:

Forensic Science - Amido Black

dps.mn.gov

So, my view is that LE had a trail of footprints that gradually disappeared. Luminol picked up some of them, which we'll see in creepy and terrifying succession at the Prelim (most likely). There will likely also be actual bloody footprints at the beginning of the sequence, which will tell a story. First, there will be the bloody prints, then the luminol footprints (not visible to the naked eye but visible with luminol) and then the Amido black enhanced footprints, for footprints with even less blood protein in them.

The enhancement made by Amido makes proteins (not just blood) more visible, but in this case it was blood protein that made the Amido black react.

And so they got a latent print from right in front of DM's door. I would assume that a footprint expert can speak to whether the foot paused or not, if there's enough outline to the print (it looked pretty good to me). But it doesn't really matter. They have physical evidence to back up DM's claim that someone walked past her room.

A good footprint analysis (even if the shoes are never found) will reveal (obviously) foot size, the turn of the foot while walking (an aspect of gait), the sex of the person (with above 95% certainty). If the same footprints are found somewhere outside (there's a photo on the MSM of the day that investigators were in the back yard, seemingly examining and marking a footprint as evidence, IMO) then the story gets more detail. It's also possible to say something about how quickly the person was moving by looking carefully at all the prints. It also gives a rough estimate of height. The value of this is only in excluding many people, rather than in narrowing down to one (unless the shoes are found).

IMO

I feel so badly for DM, as it must be terrifying to be such an important witness.

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

it would also seem true that LE would exclude any findings that may damage their case.

That's a good point, and while they can't lie in a PCA or exclude exculpatory evidence, they can focus on the most compelling evidence. And of course, we completely agree that one light footprint that wasn't obvious enough to be seen round one is not the piece of evidence that seals the deal and underscores DM's story, so why not include more, if they have them? If LE's goal in inclusion of the single print was to support DM's story, imo they missed the mark. This is one of many questions I'd have as a juror, if indeed there is only the one. Walking with stuff on the bottom of the shoe leaves a trail that becomes more faint with time/distance, and this is pretty basic knowledge for anyone who's ever stepped in it.

Brady disclosure - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

Interesting article.

University Investigated Idaho Murder Suspect's Behavior Around Time of Killings

The doctoral student charged with murdering four University of Idaho undergraduates displayed such troubling behavior in the weeks around the killings that the university investigated his conduct around women, counseled him over a verbal altercation with a professor and ultimately fired him from...

www.yahoo.com

Threads ago, I referenced ways that the universities may be subject to civil suits. idk if this will happen, just something I'll be watching as we move forward imo jmo. So much to learn and consider, but at such a terrible cost.

 

[jepop]

I have the same question! The PCA, IMO, contains information that is cherry picked to point to one person only. They are including only information to support an arrest.
Since all the evidence collected will eventually be given to the defense in discovery, why wouldn’t they include other similar shoe prints that point to the suspect? Is it because there aren’t any others?

I certainly am not trying to imply innocence vs guilt. I’m just interested in the process, and the evidence they collected at the crime scene.
Just curious, IMO.

Could one reason be that if additional prints were found - be they latent or visible to the nake eye- LE investigators decided that such information should not be made available to the public? Maybe to keep that evidence out of the press because such prints might potentially form part of a wider collection of forensic evidence showing order of death or a more detailed picture of the killers movements during the murders? The PCA already establishes probable cause without additional forensic details. And exclusion from the PCA (ie the public and press) would protect the potential evidentiary integrity of such additional prints for the prosecution going forward. MOO

We don't know the extent of all the forensic evidence collected at the scene and another poster @TL4S pointed out earlier that the PCA didn't share much forensic evidence such as blood spatters, details and extent of wounds and detailed positions of bodies. MOO. Perhaps any other prints uncovered have not been shared for the same reasons that other forensic evidence has not been. Entirely speculative, but I think possible. Equally possible is that very few prints were discovered because the killer avoided stepping on/in blood. In that case perhaps there were a few other faint prints in other areas of the house and LE simply decided they were''t really necessary for inclusion in PCA. All speculation.

I do believe LE would have found more than the one latent print referred to in PCA. But as to how many, where and in what state, I don't believe we will know until PH or trial. Perhaps alleged killer was very careful in that regard and only left one or two faint prints elsewhere. MOO

ETA: Since writing, I just read a really informative post by @10ofRods upthread that talks about how latent prints are lifted and extra details about potential scenarios for foot prints left at crime scenes.
EBM: added name of poster referred to in text

 

[ktm44]

That's a good point, and while they can't lie in a PCA or exclude exculpatory evidence, they can focus on the most compelling evidence. And of course, we completely agree that one light footprint that wasn't obvious enough to be seen round one is not the piece of evidence that seals the deal and underscores DM's story, so why not include more, if they have them? If LE's goal in inclusion of the single print was to support DM's story, imo they missed the mark. This is one of many questions I'd have as a juror, if indeed there is only the one. Walking with stuff on the bottom of the shoe leaves a trail that becomes more faint with time/distance, and this is pretty basic knowledge for anyone who's ever stepped in it.

Brady disclosure - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Does a jury review the PCA? I was of the impression that it was simply indended to contain sufficient information for an arrrest.

I actually believe that when it does go to trial, DM's testimony is going to do little more than establish a general timeline and possibly her vague description but I also suspect that it will be backed by something more like phone records and any text discussion she had with friends or the other roommate.

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

The PCA mentions one footprint, it does not mean there wasn't a trail of bloody prints. They only mentioned the one to corroborate DM's story that the perp walked towards her room.

Although I disagree that it would only take one to corroborate the story, if there were more, why not mention the bloodiest and more obvious ones to corroborate DM's story? IDGI. I understand why LE would to include every detail of the crime and their theories of what happened, but leaving out convincing, stronger evidence and referencing that footprint only does not make sense imo jmo. The defense was going to have that information within the month anyway.

Idaho Judicial Cases of Interest

__________________________

General statement, not to Teatime - imo jmo when I raised the ? about the footprint, I was hoping for some ideas on how one could appear so faintly and potentially be the only one. It's easy to assume that the footprint is only mentioned to support DM's story. imo jmo I don't assume that, nor do I think one faint, latent print corroborates much imo jmo, but that wasn't my reason for asking the question. I'm curious about how/why there wouldn't have been more compelling evidence and how one footprint alone got there.

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

Does a jury review the PCA? I was of the impression that it was simply indended to contain sufficient information for an arrrest.

I actually believe that when it does go to trial, DM's testimony is going to do little more than establish a general timeline and possibly her vague description but I also suspect that it will be backed by something more like phone records and any text discussion she had with friends or the other roommate.

LE needs to make a strong case in the PCA and they cannot lie in it. that's why it's an affidavit with facts sworn to. My question was not about that.

 

[10ofRods]

My thoughts on the cell tower data.

I am not sure why some here are so confident that there are only 6-7 cell towers in Moscow, ID. To me, it seems there are way more. Sure, there are probably only 7 Verizon or ATT towers, but our phones do not know that. Our phones ping every tower around - even if our phones cannot complete the handshake to use that cell tower. Some of the cell towers belong to big telecommunications and those companies are accustomed to giving up their data via subpoena. However, it takes time to round up ALL the towers. I think LE went with their earliest results, and mentioned the 12 pings.

That being said, the way pings are reconstructed is to analyze as many towers as possible (some servers attached to those towers may not store data for long; others may store it for a long time). It's not really necessary to analyze all the towers that will be shown on the map I'm about to attach - but my point is that there are WAY more towers in Moscow than just 7 and that more data has come in since the PCA. The following map was posted by a WSer many threads ago; this was a person with a background in cellular technology:

AntennaSearch - Search for Cell Towers & Antennas

Search for the locations of cell towers and antennas to determine cell reception.

www.antennasearch.com

Note that it says there are 26 towers in the Moscow area (and a bunch of antennae, but those are relevant to us here, IMO).

Does a jury review the PCA? I was of the impression that it was simply indended to contain sufficient information for an arrrest.

I actually believe that when it does go to trial, DM's testimony is going to do little more than establish a general timeline and possibly her vague description but I also suspect that it will be backed by something more like phone records and any text discussion she had with friends or the other roommate.

I've never seen it. It's not evidence.

Aside from people like ourselves, most people will never see it. It is not evidence, it's a pleading in front of the court - it's for the court, and it is over. Jury won't see any pre-trial motions, either. Only evidence that is submitted to the court and upon which both sides have been able to weigh in - before a judge decides whether it's proper evidence - will get in front of the jury.

Going outside that evidence is a violation of the trust that is put in a jury and the judge will warn them sternly not to sleuth the case.

It's entirely possible and my hope that DM will not have to take the stand. The defense certainly won't call her (IMO), and I do not see much value in the prosecution calling her and allowing her to be grilled upon cross-examination. I suppose the judge could allow a sworn affidavit of hers to be presented by whoever took her sworn statement (an investigator),

IMO.

 

[Ghostwheel]

I'm not convinced that the roommate's statement is all that significant in the bigger picture and unless there is something more later on, it only speaks to someone in the house and a fairly broad description so in my opinion, the weaker evidence (latent shoe print) supports a weaker statement. .

RSBM for focus. I feel like an idiot. When you mentioned "it only speaks to someone in the house" it only JUST occurred to me that it only speaks to someone in the house AT THAT SPECIFIC TIME. It only speaks to someone in the house that did not exclude BK at that specific time.

That was the only point of that in the PCA. The footprint point was to back up her statement that someone was really there. No other footprints needed to be mentioned. The time mattered to match with the car outside stopping driving for a period of time and a person inside. The description mattered because it didn't rule BK out. Proof that a person that might have been BK in house at time of car not cruising around anymore outside, then leaving and car moving again shortly after. It's all that was for so even if there is more info, not needed for Probable Cause with everything else about the car and the phone attached to the person in the car.

I'm sure someone else or many others got that pages back. The whole work thing gets in my way of proper sleuthing thought process and reading time.

 

[maconrich]

He (BK) wrote: "I started treatment for hypothyroidism, and also i am exercising very heavily and eating a lot of very good stuff"

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/thosewithvisualsnow/search.php?st=0&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&author_id=6462313&start=10

Edit: dated Jul 8, 2011

 

[al66pine]

"Department’s end-of-year meeting"
So decision to terminate BK's TAship was made at regularly scheduled faculty meeting?

Was the meeting open to the public?
If not, how was the student's (BK followed me to my car) report get interjected into the meeting? Had she previously made report to someone in dept? Email? Letter? Phone?

Employment perf. issues (re TAship) sound like an HR type employment discussion for Exec Session, typically --- if this had been in a municipal or state level body/agency (like Public Utility Commission or City Council in many states. Also in some corners of the corporate world). Would a uni dept have similar exec sessions?
Are hiring/firing/disciplinary decisions in the hands of the Prof for whom the TA works? Was decision made at meeting by BK's Prof plus others or merely announced at meeting by decision-making Prof?

Are the dept. meeting minutes avail online? The agenda?
Can anyone in academia offer thoughts? Thx in adv.

And @Cindizzi TYVM for link to NYT article.


__________________________________
"The faculty made the decision at the department’s end-of-year meeting in December, during which professors were also told that some female students reported that Mr. Kohberger had made them feel uncomfortable. In one of those instances, Mr. Kohberger was accused of following a female student to her car, according to two people familiar with the situation..."
Feb 10.

University Investigated Idaho Murder Suspect’s Behavior Around Time of Killings (Published 2023)

Bryan Kohberger had a verbal altercation with a professor and was investigated over his behavior around female students before he was charged in four murders.

www.nytimes.com

 

[10ofRods]

Although I disagree that it would only take one to corroborate the story, if there were more, why not mention the bloodiest and more obvious ones to corroborate DM's story? IDGI. I understand why LE would to include every detail of the crime and their theories of what happened, but leaving out convincing, stronger evidence and referencing that footprint only does not make sense imo jmo. The defense was going to have that information within the month anyway.

Idaho Judicial Cases of Interest

__________________________

General statement, not to Teatime - imo jmo when I raised the ? about the footprint, I was hoping for some ideas on how one could appear so faintly and potentially be the only one. It's easy to assume that the footprint is only mentioned to support DM's story. imo jmo I don't assume that, nor do I think one faint, latent print corroborates much imo jmo, but that wasn't my reason for asking the question. I'm curious about how/why there wouldn't have been more compelling evidence and how one footprint alone got there.

There's a very good reason not to mention all the prints.

No prosecutor or lead investigator wants to give clues - to the public or to the suspect - that will enable either group to do what people do: impersonate suspects, or make up a story that explains the prints.

In the case of BK, they don't want him able to sit in his cell and think about how to explain the prints. He doesn't get that privilege He's not entitled to the evidence in its totality until he is arrested, not before. Too many details makes it easier for criminals to spin alibis, that's the bottom line.

So if they DO know what he bought in Albertson's in Clarkston, they do not put it in the PCA because they want to *ask* him what he bought there, what he was doing there - if his attorney will allow it. His attorney is very unlikely to do so.

Instead, the evidence will go before a **jury** and the defense will have advance notice of the sum of it, and the defendant can try to aid his attorney in his own defense. But to give the entire world a bunch of the evidence when a suspect isn't even in custody is a terrible idea, both constitutionally and in terms of legal strategies.

I am guessing there are myriad details that only the murderer knows. But his pathway through the house unfolds over 15-17 minutes and is **the** crucial story for trial. No footprints leading in, bloody crime, then footprints in blood - showing what? Showing, most likely, who was killed first and who was killed last. Only the killer knew this, beforehand. Now LE knows it too and can use the information to build a great scenario - for the jury.

I can't even imagine the mess this case would be if LE had dumped all that bloody footprint data on the public. They will likely only use some of the remaining footprint data at prelim - the rest of it will be car evidence, GPS (not yet used at all), possible further phone pings, possible computer searches, and some surprises, I'm sure.

 

[10ofRods]

"Department’s end-of-year meeting"
So decision to terminate BK's TAship was made at regularly scheduled faculty meeting?

Was the meeting open to the public?
If not, how was the student's (BK followed me to my car) report get interjected into the meeting? Has she previously made report to someone in dept? Email? Letter? Phone?

Employment perf. issues (re TAship) sound like an HR type employment discussion for Exec Session, typically --- if this had been in a municipal or state level body/agency (like Public Utility Commission or City Council in many states. Also in some corners of the corporate world). Would a uni dept have similar exec sessions?
Or are hiring/firing/disciplinary decisions in the hands of the Prof to whom the TA works? If so, was decision made at meeting by BK's Prof Plus others or merely announced at meeting by decision-making Prof?

Are the dept. meeting minutes avail online? The agenda?
Can anyone in academia offer thoughts? Thx in adv.

__________________________________
"The faculty made the decision at the department’s end-of-year meeting in December, during which professors were also told that some female students reported that Mr. Kohberger had made them feel uncomfortable. In one of those instances, Mr. Kohberger was accused of following a female student to her car, according to two people familiar with the situation..."
Feb 10.

University Investigated Idaho Murder Suspect’s Behavior Around Time of Killings (Published 2023)

Bryan Kohberger had a verbal altercation with a professor and was investigated over his behavior around female students before he was charged in four murders.

www.nytimes.com

Department meetings are never open to the public. I've never seen that in all my years of work in colleges. A department meeting is just what it sounds like - the members of the department (including adjuncts) meet, along with invited guests. Minutes are rarely taken. It's not publicly noticed nor does it have to be.

No public ability to see into the private meetings of employees, in any workplace, that I know of. People meet with their colleagues every day of the week and take no minutes. And that's what professors do - about once a month.

The next step is for the Department Chair, on behalf of the department, to go to the Dean. I would bet a bunch of donuts that the Dean was actually at the meeting. No one in that meeting had any ability to fire anyone nor was any such decision made at that meeting. Every individual who works at a college has the right to complain about sexual harassment (etc) to whomever they wish - but usually, we start with our departments (or with one trusted colleague).

Professors are NOT hiring agents. They do not employ the TA personally. Representatives of the University do that on behalf of the Chancellor and it usually says so in every employment contract. Professors are NOT managers of TA's - we use their services, the way we also use the library techs or the other techs on campus. Professors cannot be managers, where I work and therefore, an administrative chain is built by which I can complain to my ultimate bosses (the University and its top management).

 

[al66pine]

Department meetings are never open to the public. I've never seen that in all my years of work in colleges. A department meeting is just what it sounds like - the members of the department (including adjuncts) meet, along with invited guests. Minutes are rarely taken. It's not publicly noticed nor does it have to be.

No public ability to see into the private meetings of employees, in any workplace, that I know of. People meet with their colleagues every day of the week and take no minutes. And that's what professors do - about once a month.

The next step is for the Department Chair, on behalf of the department, to go to the Dean. I would bet a bunch of donuts that the Dean was actually at the meeting. No one in that meeting had any ability to fire anyone nor was any such decision made at that meeting. Every individual who works at a college has the right to complain about sexual harassment (etc) to whomever they wish - but usually, we start with our departments (or with one trusted colleague).

Professors are NOT hiring agents. They do not employ the TA personally. Representatives of the University do that on behalf of the Chancellor and it usually says so in every employment contract. Professors are NOT managers of TA's - we use their services, the way we also use the library techs or the other techs on campus. Professors cannot be managers, where I work and therefore, an administrative chain is built by which I can complain to my ultimate bosses (the University and its top management).

@10ofRods Thanks for your reply. Zeroing in on--- "No one in that meeting had any ability to fire anyone nor was any such decision made at that meeting."

Indirectly, in a very awkward way, that's what I was getting at ---
who is the decisionmaker re HR/employment issues re a TA's performance.

Seems statement in NYT --- decision was made at "department's end of year meeting" ---is not accurate.
Seems likely it would have been more accurate to state termination was ANNOUNCED at the meeting, IIUC.

Again, thx @10ofRods.

 

[jepop]

^^ I absolutely agree with you that it was mentioned due to its proximity to DM's room, but my point (and I believe SSH's) is that IMO JMO is that a barely visible latent shoe print is much less compelling than citing visible patent bloody shoe prints that can positively be matched to the killers shoe size, it would seem very likely they would be around the victims. If indeed they do exist why were they not mentioned, [snipped for focus].

Is it likely LE didn't have the killer's (BKs) shoe size at the time PCA was finalised? He was arrested 30 Dec the day after warrant granted IMO.

That print (or possibly others not disclosed) I think/believe would have been tested and excluded as belonging to any known person who was wearing Vans in the house between the murders and sealing of the scene, prior to PCA write up. Because LE must have been confident in extrapolating that it was left by the stranger DM saw that night. MOO

Edited spelling