4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered - Bryan Kohberger Arrested - Moscow # 74

[Dotta]

Look at where it first mentions "Websleuths" it says 'the site of the same name'. It's very specific.
"Websleuths earned their moniker in 1999 on a site by the same name, ..."

I still think it is about ALL Internet users' response to this terrible crime.
"Our" WS is very tame
It just gave name and replaced the slightly old fashioned term "armchair detectives".

JMO

 

[Interested Torontonian]

BK is by no means a stupid man, but lacks common sense. Maybe, and it’s a big maybe, he could have gotten away with one murder, but after that first one, I’ll bet whatever plan he had was messed up by the other three and has DNA transfer from the house on him/car and plenty more of his we have not heard about left at the victims’ home. Air droplets,….JMO

He probably doesn't even lack common sense.

The reality is killing someone (let alone 4 people in the way he is alleged to have done it) without being detected is very difficult. Even someone who is very smart, has a lot of common sense, and is very street smart would likely fail.

Yes, it's undeniable that there have been intentional murderers who have planned their crime brilliantly and gone without detection - but that population is very tiny.

Most unsolved murders aren't because the perpetrator was brilliant - it's because of the circumstances of the crime (and, in some situations, the lack of willing witnesses).

 

[Cool Cats]

I think in the case of both search warrants when you read the applications for those warrants, the trash dna did not end up being necessary for the execution of either. MOO

4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered - Bryan Kohberger Arrested - Moscow # 74

BBM: Also, if BK was being careful about how he disposed of his rubbish after the murders as opposed to how he behaved in general prior to the murders (or maybe prior to any decision/ideation concerning committing these murders) then his reasoning for commencing and/or escalating the behaviour...

www.websleuths.com

It looks like the Search Warrants were based on

1.) Witness description - BK fit Mortensen's description according to Officer Payne
2.) Bryan driving a White Elantra
3.) Cell tower records using Bryan's phone number

 

[jepop]

It looks like the Search Warrants were based on

1.) Witness description - BK fit Mortensen's description according to Officer Payne
2.) Bryan driving a White Elantra
3.) Cell tower records using Bryan's phone number

Yes, MOO, I pretty much agree. I don't think the reconstructions of the white elantra's movements on the night of the crime via the detailed and expert analyses of the video surveilance footage can be underestimated - the video footage of the elantra (suspect vehicle) in the King Street neighbourhood and Pullman in conjunction with the historical cell phone records/ping data. MOO

 

[Kemug]

I've always been of the belief that once something has been put in garbage at the curb that is becomes public property?
JMO

Here in Australia (well, where I live, anyway) we have a system where twice a year the council picks up larger trash from the "footpath"/"nature strip". It's a really good system - the homeowners can get rid of stuff that is too big for the normal bin, plus second-hand dealers scour the streets in their vehicles, picking up stuff put out early that they think they can fix/sell, and likewise people walking past pick up things they can use. An enormous amount is thus saved from landfill. A brilliant scheme, you may think. But several years ago, I was shocked to see a news article from Melbourne where A's nosy neighbour reported a citizen for taking something from A's footpath offerings. It turns out that once a householder has put stuff on the footpath (which is council property) removing it is theft from the council. So that wicked criminal was fined, I think. (not sure what happens if the householder changes his mind and puts something from the footpath back into his house! Is that also theft from the Council?!)

 

[Helechawagirl]

If he has VSS (which I believe he does), then yes, his night vision is weaker than most humans. Of course, he's out driving around at night anyway, so it can't be that bad. It can be compared to having floaters (those little squiggly things many of us have in our vision) but it's distributed like snow over the visual field. Some compare it to static on an old TV. It obscures vision more than floaters do, apparently. There seems to be no cure and very little evidence of spontaneous remission, either.

This is based on the TapATalk posts (see media thread) and on looking into the medical literature on VSS.

At any rate, his vision ought to have been worse at night, if he has VSS, is what I'm saying. Of course, it may not be severe enough to impair night driving, especially if roads are well marked. OTOH, it could help explain why he stops soon after he leaves Moscow on the night of the crime, gets his bearings, etc.

VSS was first explored in the medical literature in the late 1800's/early 1900's. Dr. Bleuler (Freud's mentor) mentions it. I had never heard of it until this case.

Brief article (recent): Visual snow syndrome

IME, IMO.

In his writings as a teenager, he said that the VS was less bothersome at night. Different than the literature. JMO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

In his writings as a teenager, he said that the VS was less bothersome at night. Different than the literature. JMO

A hallmark feature of VS is sensitivity to light.

 

[U.N. Known]

Most unsolved murders aren't because the perpetrator was brilliant - it's because of the circumstances of the crime (and, in some situations, the lack of willing witnesses).

And lack of noncircumstantial evidence. LE may know who committed a crime, but due to uncooperative witnesses as you said or physical evidence, won't push for an arrest. With double jeopardy in play, they don't want to risk an acquittal, so they'll hold out for definitive proof. Sadly, sometimes that means, the murderer has to kill again for them to get that evidence.

 

[NCWatcher]

And lack of noncircumstantial evidence. LE may know who committed a crime, but due to uncooperative witnesses as you said or physical evidence, won't push for an arrest. With double jeopardy in play, they don't want to risk an acquittal, so they'll hold out for definitive proof. Sadly, sometimes that means, the murderer has to kill again for them to get that evidence.

But physical evidence is circumstantial too-- fingerprints, DNA, etc are circumstantial. You could be right that sometimes LE wants to have an eyewitness identification of the suspected perpetrator. But that's a bit odd because even cooperative eyewitnesses are too often wrong!
JMO

 

[schooling]

In his writings as a teenager, he said that the VS was less bothersome at night. Different than the literature. JMO

"Less bothersome" is not 0.

99 out of a usual 100 qualifies as "less bothersome"

"It doesn't bother me at all, at night" is 0.

 

[schooling]

But physical evidence is circumstantial too-- fingerprints, DNA, etc are circumstantial. You could be right that sometimes LE wants to have an eyewitness identification of the suspected perpetrator. But that's a bit odd because even cooperative eyewitnesses are too often wrong!
JMO

Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable if said witness didn't have a prior relationship with the person they are identifying.

In undergrad our psych professor setup a fake robbery that lasted about a minute. Live on the lecture hall stage. Even though they almost immediately calmed everyone down (they = professor, TA, ATAs) and passed out paper to capture descriptions. Not one person could fully describe the person who did it. Some of the descriptions were wildly off. Even students in the first few rows failed to identify the person. This was a lecture hall of 400 students.

Everyone is going to draw a slightly different line between direct vs circumstantial evidence. IMO, I don't think jurors care.

 

[schooling]

There's a 3 week gap in the PCA which ended with LE obtaining a warrant for cell tower data. Which means they had enough evidence to clear the probable cause bar at the point.

Were they able to do that using a vague "bushy eye brows" description, a LE ticket in August, BK driving 1 out of 20k+ white Elantras and videos voluntarily given to them? Maybe...but they had that stuff 3 weeks prior.

IMO, we're going to learn that during those suspiciously quiet 3 weeks LE was able to strengthen their case against BK.

 

[NCWatcher]

Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable if said witness didn't have a prior relationship with the person they are identifying.

In undergrad our psych professor setup a fake robbery that lasted about a minute. Live on the lecture hall stage. Even though they almost immediately calmed everyone down (they = professor, TA, ATAs) and passed out paper to capture descriptions. Not one person could fully describe the person who did it. Some of the descriptions were wildly off. Even students in the first few rows failed to identify the person. This was a lecture hall of 400 students.

Everyone is going to draw a slightly different line between direct vs circumstantial evidence. IMO, I don't think jurors care.

BBM
Maybe but the definition of circumstantial evidence seems pretty clear to me-- an inference must be made. A finger print can be tied to Person X factually but to use that finger print to conclude Person X did Crime Y requires an inference.

I don't know that jurors don't care. I've been on a few juries and unfortunately there is a bias in favor of eyewitness testimony. Jurors leaning towards acquittal will say "but nobody saw him do it." (They apparently haven't taken psychology or studied work by people like Elizabeth Loftus!)

It's also not uncommon to hear a defense attorney says "the case against my client is entirely circumstantial" and that plays into any eyewitness bias jurors have. (It's also a common line in TV shows and some jurors have their ideas about court formed by TV.)
JMO

 

[ktm44]

Look at where it first mentions "Websleuths" it says 'the site of the same name'. It's very specific.
"Websleuths earned their moniker in 1999 on a site by the same name, ..."

It does mention Websleuths but I believe it mentions that members did help solve a case but does use that as a starting point to address some pretty horrible behaviour.

I think most of us watched some of the over the top behavior on social media that literally put people's lives and careers in peril and the concerns are valid.

I'm thankful for our rules and the mods that enforce them because they work very hard at keeping WS victim friendly and prevents those ugly accusations that harm others.

 

[U.N. Known]

But physical evidence is circumstantial too-- fingerprints, DNA, etc are circumstantial. You could be right that sometimes LE wants to have an eyewitness identification of the suspected perpetrator. But that's a bit odd because even cooperative eyewitnesses are too often wrong!
JMO

I mean, if we consider all of that circumstantial, there is nothing short of being caught in the act that would bring an arrest. But I wasn't clear when I mentioned witnesses. I didn't mean eye witness in the usual sense, I wasn't clear. I really meant informants or snitches with verifiable information that LE can then use to find evidence.

 

[Justice101]

It looks like the Search Warrants were based on

1.) Witness description - BK fit Mortensen's description according to Officer Payne
2.) Bryan driving a White Elantra
3.) Cell tower records using Bryan's phone number

and a white elantra with no front license plate.

idaho and washington states have plates on the front and the back.

they knew they were looking for a white elantra in the local area.... but a car licenses from out of state.

 

[Justice101]

Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable if said witness didn't have a prior relationship with the person they are identifying.

In undergrad our psych professor setup a fake robbery that lasted about a minute. Live on the lecture hall stage. Even though they almost immediately calmed everyone down (they = professor, TA, ATAs) and passed out paper to capture descriptions. Not one person could fully describe the person who did it. Some of the descriptions were wildly off. Even students in the first few rows failed to identify the person. This was a lecture hall of 400 students.

Everyone is going to draw a slightly different line between direct vs circumstantial evidence. IMO, I don't think jurors care.

Yes, and thank goodness for modern forensic science.

There were so many people convicted wrongfully by single eyewitness accounts a hundred years ago, that it was such an injustice for many.

At least now, eyewitness accounts are much smaller part of the case and are almost considered lower tier evidence... although the press loves a good eyewitness account

 

[Justice101]

Yes, MOO, I pretty much agree. I don't think the reconstructions of the white elantra's movements on the night of the crime via the detailed and expert analyses of the video surveilance footage can be underestimated - the video footage of the elantra (suspect vehicle) in the King Street neighbourhood and Pullman in conjunction with the historical cell phone records/ping data. MOO

yes agree. But only IF the ping data is finite enough to get it down the to street level. I think there were only 3 cell towers in all of Moscow

 

[NCWatcher]

I mean, if we consider all of that circumstantial, there is nothing short of being caught in the act that would bring an arrest. But I wasn't clear when I mentioned witnesses. I didn't mean eye witness in the usual sense, I wasn't clear. I really meant informants or snitches with verifiable information that LE can then use to find evidence.

BBM

Your first sentence partly makes the point I was trying to make. There's nothing wrong with circumstantial evidence. It's not weaker than direct evidence. In fact, since eyewitness testimony is often flawed, it's often better than direct evidence. So while it is true that DNA, fingerprints, and so on are circumstantial, that does not mean a person must be "caught in the act" to be arrested (or convicted.)
JMO

 

[schooling]

BBM

Your first sentence partly makes the point I was trying to make. There's nothing wrong with circumstantial evidence. It's not weaker than direct evidence. In fact, since eyewitness testimony is often flawed, it's often better than direct evidence. So while it is true that DNA, fingerprints, and so on are circumstantial, that does not mean a person must be "caught in the act" to be arrested (or convicted.)
JMO

Not to mention that going to trial with a smoking gun and having the defense place doubt on your smoking gun is a great way for prosecutors to lose a case.

I'd much rather have a circumstantial case with evidence that corroborates and strengthens other pieces of evidence. Leaving no other plausible scenario (aka reasonable doubt).

If BK did leave his house that night in his car and truly didn't do it..... We are talking PowerBall wining numbers level of probabilties. A car like his on video, moving towards the crime scene from his neighborhood, at the same time and locations matching up with cell his phone movement, his dna at the crime scene and returning home dead of night after the crime.