The defense team is also trying to persuade their case. They can use descriptive language.

You know, it reminds me of the saying:
"BETTER is the enemy of GOOD"
If you know what I mean

JMO
The defense team is also trying to persuade their case. They can use descriptive language.
JMO MOO
He was 'stupid enough.' Make that evil. LovingIdaho4. We seek justice, because the victim's can not. WOJ
Didn't he "get lost" for some time (phone turned off) while going to his apartment?But where did he go immediately after to clean up?
DOTTA said (TY)The defense team is also trying to persuade their case. They can use descriptive language.
I don't get what you mean.DOTTA said (TY)
You know, it reminds me of saying:
"BETTER is the enemy of GOOD"
If you know what I mean
------------------
First recorded as an Italian proverb in 1603, this aphorism has been discussed by many thinkers including Voltaire and Shakespeare. There is general agreement that the meaning of the proverb is that:
"always striving for something better keeps us from appreciating the good we already have."
GOOD response to Press would be normal legal language.I don't get what you mean..
Yeah, that's why I'm wondering how easy it is to walk with one of those things looped. IMO, the length of the knife sounds like it would restrict movement, especially the type of movement the perp probably had to make to kill four people.
I'm not sure DM will testify. But if she does, I'm not at all sure she can identify BK. We've speculated that she was shocked to see anyone who didn't live there at that hour much less someone in the dark in a mask. But even if she says she's now sure it was BK, 1) that may not come across as believable and 2) that's still not direct evidence he committed murder anyway. She didn't witness him killing anyone. So she's not an eyewitness to murder. People may think the only reason he was there was to kill but that still means an inference has to be made. Same with presence of DNA on the sheath. DNA is indirect evidence like fingerprint evidence or shoe print evidence. Placing someone at the scene isn't direct evidence of murder although conviction is certainly possible based on only indirect evidence. And I've personally not seen any direct evidence discussed in this case.
JMO
Respectfully, they have a lot of circumstantial evidence against him as well. With the DNA, the videos, the stalking, etc., if he can't come up with a pretty strong explanation for how the sheath got there without him having left that sheath there during the attack, I think he's toast.
Didn't he "get lost" for some time (phone turned off) while going to his apartment?
Or did he go straight home?
I don't remember.
JMO
There's some time-line for pre and post murders based on historical phone ping records and video surveilance footage of the white elantra (suspect vehicle) in the PCA.Dunno... have we even been presented with any theories or evidence and timeline?
from the article you posted:GOOD response to Press would be normal legal language.
BETTER (in their view) was a response using tabloid expression.
JMO
I have one really important question. Was BK framing someone?
BK being the type of personality he was (as we have gleaned a fair bit over time) - why would he have taken the sheath for the knife into the house in the first place? If it wasn't affixed to his clothing via a belt / loop / cable tie etc. We know he barely left a trace in the house never mind only a single speck on the sheath itself. He must have handled the sheath incredibly carefully that it didn't have a jot of his DNA bar a tiny speck in the fastener, I mean that in itself is almost impossible.
So effectively, IMO, he didn't go in the house and take that knife out of the sheath to use it. The knife he used must have already either been out of that sheath -or- maybe was never in it and he used a knife that had it's own sheath.
He *must have* carefully deposited the 'discarded' sheath in a location he'd thought about either before or after all what he did, meantime having kept it in a sealed ziplock type bag so as it didn't pick up even a scrap of DNA or fibre, like he wasn't even breathing near that sheath.
Where was the sheath found again? It's placing must be significant. It's placing may have also been 'ceremonial' ie marking the end of his action - or - the 'commencing' of his action. I would argue the end because having kept it free from contact with the outside world in all the time he had it, he wouldn't be so stupid as to place it before he commenced his gruesome plan.
JMO MOO
I know the car was identified differently, I said the DNA correlated to the car registration. In other words, the familial DNA if searched through genealogy could have pinged a 2nd cousin for example, then tracing to great-grandparents could have possibly shown the Kohberger name, the name on genealogy PLUS the separate identification of the car being registered to a “Kohberger”, would IMO show a pretty strong correlation.BBM: I've never seen that verified by any LE source or in any documents released by LE and the courts (including the PCA which says something very different in regards to how BK's car was located). See PCA (link in media thread) for details of how BK's car was identofied initially. It sounds like media speculation. MOO
MOO I would say he thought he cleaned it like all his gear, but the snap area grabbed a bit of TDNA and retained it.Hmmm dunno. If he'd been stupid enough to leave the sheath that he'd actually used it would have had far more traces on it, wouldn't it? IMO JMO
With respect, I think you are turning BK into a super-villain. I think one keeps a knife that large in its sheath so nobody sees you with it in the street and so you don't accidentally cut yourself while swinging your arms when you walk.
I'm not a big knife person, but I think walking around with such a big knife loose in your hand would be like walking while holding a loaded gun with the safety off: just asking for trouble.
IIRC, the sheath was said to have been found "next" to Maddy's body. I don't recall the source and I don't remember that the report said the sheath was on the bed, a nightstand, or the floor.
Since we don't know in what order M and K were attacked, there's no way to know for sure. But Occam's Razor argues, I would guess, that the intruder took the knife out its sheath just before he began to use it.
Snipped for focus.Do you think he was planning to never return to Idaho?
He would have to testify to make those claims. His DNA is on or under the snap of the knife sheath so it's not relevant that he handled some knife at some other time.I guess he could say he visits the local hunting and fishing store now and then and had maybe once handled the different types of knife on sale? Or that someone he once met showed him a knife they had purchased.
His bathtub.Slightly sideways and a 'me-rail' but I once dropped a tin of gloss paint all down myself just outside my house. It bounced, the lid flew off, I was covered head to foot in bright blue oil based paint. I couldn't go inside my home because that would have destroyed the carpet, walls, door. Ideally I needed to strip off but couldn't as public outdoors. So, I had to think what to do. I went (dripping) to the shop next door and yelled out for them to please give me some heavy duty garbage bags and some selotape. I was able to seal my whole self head to toe in bin liners, sealing the paint inside, to get into my apartment. Once inside I sat in the bath to peel my clothes and the bin liners off me and I honestly didn't get a speck of paint on anything except the bath tub.
So what I'm saying is, three or four bin liners, or pull on some waterproof rain pants and anorack (is that a word?) would have kept the car relatively free of mess.
But where did he go immediately after to clean up?
Snipped for focus.IIRC, the sheath was said to have been found "next" to Maddy's body. I don't recall the source and I don't remember that the report said the sheath was on the bed, a nightstand, or the floor.
Since we don't know in what order M and K were attacked, there's no way to know for sure. But Occam's Razor argues, I would guess, that the intruder took the knife out its sheath just before he began to use it.