4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered - Bryan Kohberger Arrested - Moscow # 73

[BeginnerSleuther]

MOO he meant his father whom he used.

That's a stretch, IMO, unless he told his father what he did.

 

[iamshadow21]

Agree, but to me it explains “was anyone else arrested?” belatedly worrying about the jeopardy he put his family in.

I agree, IF he said it, it's either wondering if they arrested his family, or, possibly, wondering about whether he left that clear a trail that it led directly, and only, to himself. (Dude, you totally did.)

That's IF. Did that quote ever have a source that seemed solid? Wasn't there some kind of formal denial that he'd said it at all?

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

His father (MOO unwittingly) aided him in fleeing Idaho. If his father had inkling his son was involved in murder, that would be the crime of ‘accessory after the fact’

The physical act of leaving Idaho with his son was potentially a criminal act, only the fathers state of kind, being unsuspecting makes it not a crime.

BK would be aware of that and wonder if the police suspected his father of knowingly helping him leave Idaho.

BBM.

Is it? Can you link a source please? I really don't think it's a criminal act for a killer to leave the state in which the crime occurred in if they're not hiding themselves or hiding evidence. This was a planned trip, IMO. He didn't change the car, didn't paint it, didn't leave the country to flee law enforcement (in fact, he was stopped twice in IN), didn't take any steps that make me think the father could be charged with "accessory." I guess we could argue that the father didn't turn him in, but I'm still not sure as I think that would depend on when the father found out (on the road trip vs before) and if he was trying to talk him into turning himself in.

If BK is guilty, he literally committed a heinous quadruple murder and went back to living his life as if nothing happened. Short of the murder weapon, he didn't change his sheets (or whatever that the warrant noted had stains on it), didn't change/paint his car, only left town when everyone else did for the holidays (even though, he would have had a prime excuse to leave town right after the murders as many other students did). It's like he either underestimated LE or he was wanting to get caught.

Now if the father helped him get rid of evidence, like the knife or something, THEN definitely accessory. But IMO, this road trip had been planned well in advance of the murders and they didn't do anything to evade LE, so I don't see this being an accessory case.

MOO.

 

[Sundog]

I agree, IF he said it, it's either wondering if they arrested his family, or, possibly, wondering about whether he left that clear a trail that it led directly, and only, to himself. (Dude, you totally did.)

That's IF. Did that quote ever have a source that seemed solid? Wasn't there some kind of formal denial that he'd said it at all?

When asked about it by the media, BK's PA public defender/attorney said that he didn't know if BK said that or not, that BK did not remember what he said to LE before he invoked his Miranda rights.

 

[iamshadow21]

When asked about it by the media, BK's PA public defender/attorney said that he didn't know if BK said that or not, that BK did not remember what he said to LE before he invoked his Miranda rights.

Okay, thanks. I had misremembered that as a formal denial by counsel.

 

[U.N. Known]

His father (MOO unwittingly) aided him in fleeing Idaho. If his father had inkling his son was involved in murder, that would be the crime of ‘accessory after the fact’

The physical act of leaving Idaho with his son was potentially a criminal act, only the fathers state of kind, being unsuspecting makes it not a crime.

BK would be aware of that and wonder if the police suspected his father of knowingly helping him leave Idaho.

I don't consider that fleeing which denotes running away/leaving swiftly. They left a month after the murders--not swiftly and Mr. K was the passenger, not the driver. BK did not need his father's assistance to leave the area, nor was he at any point in hiding. He just went back to his parents' home between semesters.

 

[maskedwoman]

<snipped for focus>

"Officials" TOD 3 or 4AM: Dec 1

The murders likely took place around 3 a.m. or 4 a.m., according to officials. Idaho murders: What we know and what's still a mystery

TOD at 4-4:25 per the PCA. Dec 29

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/122922%20Affidavit%20-%20Exhibit%20A%20-%20Statement%20of%20Brett-Payne.pdf

I'm don't believe forensics alone can get us any closer on TOD that we already are from Tik Tok, Door Dash, the videos at the food truck, security cameras, etc. Where forensics would really cause a stir in this case is if anyone's forensic TOD fell outside the time frame we already know about. Unlikely, given what we know, but we can't yet say impossible. I almost wrote "but stranger things have happened" but I'm not sure I could stand behind that statement if it actually came to be.

 

[maskedwoman]

I don't consider that fleeing which denotes running away/leaving swiftly. They left a month after the murders--not swiftly and Mr. K was the passenger, not the driver. BK did not need his father's assistance to leave the area, nor was he at any point in hiding. He just went back to his parents' home between semesters.

I understand where you're coming from, but he could still have been concerned that LE thought his father helped him flee. It would not be the first time a parent did so. I'm sure whatever planning he engaged in didn't include being arrested in his parent's home after that cross country trip. He may have convinced himself he was home free since he didn't get arrested by the time school let out. The early morning arrest was probably quite a shock to his system.

 

[Dotta]

I understand where you're coming from, but he could still have been concerned that LE thought his father helped him flee. It would not be the first time a parent did so. I'm sure whatever planning he engaged in didn't include being arrested in his parent's home after that cross country trip. He may have convinced himself he was home free since he didn't get arrested by the time school let out. The early morning arrest was probably quite a shock to his system.

I bet he thought he had a lucky escape.
Home, sweet home
Ha!

JMO

 

[maskedwoman]

I don't consider that fleeing which denotes running away/leaving swiftly. They left a month after the murders--not swiftly and Mr. K was the passenger, not the driver. BK did not need his father's assistance to leave the area, nor was he at any point in hiding. He just went back to his parents' home between semesters.

Section 49-1404 – Idaho State Legislature

legislature.idaho.gov

Section 18-205 – Idaho State Legislature

legislature.idaho.gov

If I'm reading the Idaho statutes correctly, I don't think fleeing applies, but not due to speed or lack thereof. It looks like they had to be in active pursuit of him and he refused to stop. I looked up evading and eluding as well, and it looks like they all involve the police attempting to stop him first. I didn't spend too much time on the difference between evading and eluding, etc.

It looks like BK might have been more worried about Dad being charged as accessory after the fact. For Dad to be guilty of that, he would have to know his son committed a crime when they left Idaho. I suppose we can't be sure BK knew that since he's a criminology major rather than a lawyer.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

I understand where you're coming from, but he could still have been concerned that LE thought his father helped him flee. It would not be the first time a parent did so. I'm sure whatever planning he engaged in didn't include being arrested in his parent's home after that cross country trip. He may have convinced himself he was home free since he didn't get arrested by the time school let out. The early morning arrest was probably quite a shock to his system.

Maybe, but that post was responding to the assertion that if his father knew before the road trip, Dad could be charged with accessory. That's what the poster was addressing, IMO.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Section 49-1404 – Idaho State Legislature

legislature.idaho.gov

Section 18-205 – Idaho State Legislature

legislature.idaho.gov

If I'm reading the Idaho statutes correctly, I don't think fleeing applies, but not due to speed or lack thereof. It looks like they had to be in active pursuit of him and he refused to stop. I looked up evading and eluding as well, and it looks like they all involve the police attempting to stop him first. I didn't spend too much time on the difference between evading and eluding, etc.

It looks like BK might have been more worried about Dad being charged as accessory after the fact. For Dad to be guilty of that, he would have to know his son committed a crime when they left Idaho. I suppose we can't be sure BK knew that since he's a criminology major rather than a lawyer.

That's not how I'm reading the law. For Dad to be guilty of accessory after the fact, he had to know his son committed the crime AND BK had to be in hiding (or named a suspect), which he wasn't. The father helping him hide is what would get him that charge. MOO.

 

[Boxer]

I don't consider that fleeing which denotes running away/leaving swiftly. They left a month after the murders--not swiftly and Mr. K was the passenger, not the driver. BK did not need his father's assistance to leave the area, nor was he at any point in hiding. He just went back to his parents' home between semesters.

Here is the definition, it need not be immediately after crime.
A murderer could go another country for year return for the refuge in their parents home and the parents would become accessories if they suspected their child committed a crime.

Idaho Statutes​

TITLE 18
CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
CHAPTER 2
PERSONS LIABLE, PRINCIPALS AND ACCESSORIES
18-205. ACCESSORIES DEFINED. All persons are accessories who, having knowledge that a felony has been committed:
(1) Willfully withhold or conceal it from a peace officer, judge, magistrate, grand jury or trial jury; or
(2) Harbor and protect a person who committed such felony or who has been charged with or convicted thereof.

Section 18-205 – Idaho State Legislature

legislature.idaho.gov

From Findlaw:

“Accessory after the fact requires proving that:

1. The accused knew that a person committed a crime; and
2. The accused assisted that person with the specific purpose or design to hinder or prevent that person's apprehension, trial or punishment.”

MOO BK said “Was anyone else arrested?” because he was startled by the windows and doors being broken in and being put in restraints. He was not allowed to see his parents who were in protective custody in another part of the house.

 

[Boxer]

That's a stretch, IMO, unless he told his father what he did.

Agree, MOO he did not tell father. I don’t think father had any suspicion on the road trip from his demeanor in either of the police stops.
But he may have had some idea after from BKs behavior while at home, “out damn spot etc..”
I am sure no one wants to charge this poor father with anything, but the truth remains if the father came to the conclusion that BK committed the murders, his status changed to accessory for providing harbor. And I think a criminalogy student would be sensitive to what that would mean.

 

[maskedwoman]

That's not how I'm reading the law. For Dad to be guilty of accessory after the fact, he had to know his son committed the crime AND BK had to be in hiding (or named a suspect), which he wasn't. The father helping him hide is what would get him that charge. MOO.

IANAL, but I did say in my post that Dad would have to know what he did. As I read the accessory statute, Dad merely had to know what he did, then "(1) Willfully withhold or conceal it from a peace officer," or "(2) Harbor and protect a person who committed such felony". Just from a literal reading of the words, I think simply allowing him to come home and stay there would be harboring IF he knew.

Now, I have no idea at all how that would work across state lines.

 

[NCWatcher]

D

Here is the definition. need not be immediately after crime.
A murderer could go another country for year return for the refuge in their parents home and the parents would become accessories if they suspected their child committed a crime.

Idaho Statutes​

TITLE 18
CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
CHAPTER 2
PERSONS LIABLE, PRINCIPALS AND ACCESSORIES
18-205. ACCESSORIES DEFINED. All persons are accessories who, having knowledge that a felony has been committed:
(1) Willfully withhold or conceal it from a peace officer, judge, magistrate, grand jury or trial jury; or
(2) Harbor and protect a person who committed such felony or who has been charged with or convicted thereof.

Section 18-205 – Idaho State Legislature

legislature.idaho.gov

From Findlaw:

“Accessory after the fact requires proving that:

1. The accused knew that a person committed a crime; and
2. The accused assisted that person with the specific purpose or design to hinder or prevent that person's apprehension, trial or punishment.”

MOO BK said “Was anyone else arrested?” because he was startled by the windows and doors being broken in and being put in restraints. He was not allowed to see his parents who were in protective custody in another part of the house.

I don't think what you are saying is consistent with the law in most states or with the Findlaw definition you provided. You wrote (emphasis added by me) "A murderer could go another country for year return for the refuge in their parents home and the parents would become accessories if they suspected their child committed a crime."

Nowhere in the statutes you've provided or in the Findlaw definition do I see that having a mere suspicion the person committed a crime is sufficient to meet that part of being an accessory after the fact. IMO, and in the Findlaw blurb, the accessory has to know or be pretty thoroughly convinced the person committed a particular crime- maybe the person confessed, maybe the person didn't. But suspecting something might be amiss or thinking the person might have criminal acts in his/her past doesn't seem to be enough. Although a strict reading of Idaho 18-205 above actually says knowing a crime happened and protecting x person who did the crime is enough. The excerpt above doesn't say the accessory has to even suspect person x did the crime. Knowing there WAS a crime & protecting a person who happened to have done it (even without having a clue he/she was involved) is enough. But honestly I think some words must have been left out. That can't be right!

In BK's case, I don't know if we know where his legal residence was. There would have been reasons for him to establish residency in Washington. But I don't know that we know if he did that. So IF his legal residence was the home he'd shared with his parents, I don't know that allowing him to return there would be "harboring" or "protecting" him anyway.

I seriously doubt Dad knew anything. And while I expect he was questioned I doubt he got any sort of 3rd degree over helping his grad student son drive home for winter break.
JMO

 

[maskedwoman]

Agree, MOO he did not tell father. I don’t think father had any suspicion on the road trip from his demeanor in either of the police stops.
But he may have had some idea after from BKs behavior while at home, “out damn spot etc..”
I am sure no one wants to charge this poor father with anything, but the truth remains if the father came to the conclusion that BK committed the murders, his status changed to accessory for providing harbor. And I think a criminalogy student would be sensitive to what that would mean.

I don't think his poor father had any idea either. I also can't imagine that parents are often charged, unless their actions are particularly egregious. I could see the police threatening it in order to find out where someone is, but they probably have better things to do than follow through with charges unless someone else gets hurt/killed because of the parent holding out.

 

[Nila Aella]

Re Mr Kohberger (Dad)

LaBar noted that this white Hyundai Elantra was found at his parents' house, and added that both the suspect and his father were cooperative when police came to the door.

Speaking about the drive, he said: "Driving cross country took them about two and a half days. Mr. Kohberger indicated that Bryan was acting normal and not out of character during that drive from Washington."

What Bryan Kohberger's parents have said about the Idaho murders

Suspect Bryan Kohberger's parents have called for privacy as they support their son while cooperating with law enforcement.

www.newsweek.com

 

[CGray123]

Section 49-1404 – Idaho State Legislature

legislature.idaho.gov

Section 18-205 – Idaho State Legislature

legislature.idaho.gov

If I'm reading the Idaho statutes correctly, I don't think fleeing applies, but not due to speed or lack thereof. It looks like they had to be in active pursuit of him and he refused to stop. I looked up evading and eluding as well, and it looks like they all involve the police attempting to stop him first. I didn't spend too much time on the difference between evading and eluding, etc.

It looks like BK might have been more worried about Dad being charged as accessory after the fact. For Dad to be guilty of that, he would have to know his son committed a crime when they left Idaho. I suppose we can't be sure BK knew that since he's a criminology major rather than a lawyer.

I tend to agree with your idea that BK's question about someone else being arrested was about his dad's participation in the drive home and the potential for an accessory charge.

But it is not necessary to be guilty of the crimes of Eluding police (state) or Unlawful Flight to Avoid Prosecution (Federal) for evidence of flight to be used in a criminal case to show a guilty state of mind.

The circumstances need to support a reasonable inference that the evidence supports this conclusion, however. Here's what the Idaho Supreme Court said about the general subject in State v Wren:

"...Mere departure from the area where a crime allegedly took place is not by itself sufficient to support an instruction on 'flight.'

For departure to take on the legal significance of flight, there must be other circumstances present and unexplained which, together with the departure, reasonably justify an inference that it was done with a consciousness of guilt and in an effort to avoid apprehension or prosecution based on that guilt."

A prominent Colorado defense attorney has a website that is rich with information on many topics, including this one. If anyone is interested, go to:

Colorado Criminal Law – What If I Run? – Absconding – Fleeing A Colorado Criminal Case – Evidence Of Flight At Trial​

IMO, evidence that BK cleaned out the Elantra the night he got home, placing the items removed in the **neighbor's** trash, shows that he believed he was suspected at that time. More would be needed to show that his planned trip was motivated by such knowledge. MOO.

 

[10ofRods]

@10ofRods According to this tweet by Brian Entin, the owner is giving the house to the university.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1629170517369298945

Thank you!

I can't tell whether it's just the house or the real estate itself that's been donated. Interesting that the owners decided to do that.