Either way: It casts further suspicion on Kohberger, but isn’t really hard evidence, IMO.Yes Scott Reisch on his last update said that that crucial detail on timing hadn't been confirmed. Before or after the murders
Either way: It casts further suspicion on Kohberger, but isn’t really hard evidence, IMO.Yes Scott Reisch on his last update said that that crucial detail on timing hadn't been confirmed. Before or after the murders
Indeed. And there's nothing in what I read that dates the photos, so as others have noted, it might be a "tribute" page built after the murders. In theory.I cannot make it out really well either but, yes, MM is the main theme and I don't see a photo of E on there at all. As egotistical and eccentric as BK seems to be, it just feels like something he might do so he could be a part of the discussion. He gets to talk to others, about what he did. Anonymously. Idk that it's him, and if it's not, it's not, but whoever it is, chose a photo with a striking resemblance to BK.
IANAL and not an expert on HIPAA rules, but I think confidentiality requirements have become pretty strict, even for adults.I would think this to be true as he was a minor. If they didn't know why he left school, or they'd pulled him out to, say, attend home school, they could have stated the years he attended school there, but I don't think they can go much further into details.
If BK built a shrine on his phone before the murders, I think it is very significant evidence when combined with his DNA on the sheath, the repeated appearances of his car on surveillance video, turning off his phone for a short period including the time of the murders, etc.Either way: It casts further suspicion on Kohberger, but isn’t really hard evidence, IMO.
Indeed. Can the People and Banfield's leakers ( 'sources') be relied on? What's the ratio? I followed the case for at least 60 threads ( Threads containing links from both) Recall we all spent a lot of time trying to separate wheat from chaffEither way: It casts further suspicion on Kohberger, but isn’t really hard evidence, IMO.
Yes, point well taken.If BK built a shrine on his phone before the murders, I think it is very significant evidence when combined with his DNA on the sheath, the repeated appearances of his car on surveillance video, turning off his phone for a short period including the time of the murders, etc.
I don't know what constitutes "hard" v. "soft" evidence. This isn't to say you used the term incorrectly; I'm just admitting I don't really know what it means. (Yes, despite appearances, English is my first language.)
Exactly why it would be interesting to know who posted the photos, when, and if they have any close connection to this case. JMOIMO the PR stuff is nonsense. Anyone knows how social media companies respond to preservation of evidence requests knows that if PR was BK that account would have been suspended on THE EXACT DAY warrants were issued on 12/30. The same day his Reddit account was taken down and likely any aliases he had on Reddit.
Facebook and Reddit's hardware/software fingerprinting is practically unavoidable. No amount of VPNs or Incognito mode or new computers or fresh installs are going to avoid them for long. It's the same technology that powers their Ad Network stalking.
Finding duplicate accounts is trivial to them. If an account wasn't suspended on 12/30 (like the Reddit account)...it wasn't BK. If he did have any aliases they were likely all suspended on that day.
MOO of course.
Boarded up and a perimeter fence.
Even when HIPPA is not involved, companies and schools put as little in writing as possible. All my company will do is give start date and separation date, with no details at all. Sort of the corporate version of name, rank and serial number.IANAL and not an expert on HIPAA rules, but I think confidentiality requirements have become pretty strict, even for adults.
I am a retired educator, but if you asked me about one of my students who had taken a leave for any reason, really, or who had a learning disability, say, I would certainly leave that info out of my response.
Do you mean that it would only be circumstantial rather than direct evidence? I just wanted to make sure I was following you.Either way: It casts further suspicion on Kohberger, but isn’t really hard evidence, IMO.
Also, people often cite (Jennifer Coffindaffer is one of them) PR's mentioning of the sheath on 11/30 as the smoking gun proving that he's BK. But the sheath was being talked about on social media forums as far back as 11/17. By dozens of different users. In the same places that PR was likely frequenting.
All MOO, of course.
SBM. Assuming the jury will be going through there, then.Boarded up and a perimeter fence.
MOO
Quite possible. I wonder arrangement the State has made with the property owners.SBM. Assuming the jury will be going through there, then.
MOO.
Quite possible. I wonder arrangement the State has made with the property owners.
Soooo, can you do this every Friday, and I will just follow you?A 63 document filing Response to Request for Discovery State's Response to Defendant's First Supplemental Request for Discovery. (Way too much for my exploded brain to really say what that’s about.)
New document added to gag order, looks to me like a response is due 3/4.
Lots of discussion here about change of venue and how knowledge of the case factors into choosing a jury.
Ashleigh Banfield /People say an investigative source revealed BK had photos of one of the students on his phone. We are thinking Maddie, due to SG’s previous comments that he thought Maddie might have been the target.
A couple of news articles discussing BK as a kid, maybe just a normal kid. One article discussed his heroin use, and massive weight loss in high school. And a tummy tuck. But we aren’t going to talk about that anymore, k?
We did talk about Murphy again. He’s good with us.
That’s all I can think of.
What's the purpose of the jury going in there vs photos of the layout?
What's the purpose of the jury going in there vs photos of the layout?
Either side could claim that photos alone don't proved a real context and the jurors need to actually be there. I'm not sure what that argument would be at this time, and maybe neither side will make that assertion. In which case the home will be turned back over to the owner.What's the purpose of the jury going in there vs photos of the layout?