4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered - Bryan Kohberger Arrested - Moscow # 75

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #541
  • #542
Yes, he left a sheath behind. But as far as we know, he left nothing else except a partial footprint. IMO, killing 4 people in 15 minutes without leaving your DNA (beyond on a snap to the sheath) is the thing crime novels are made of. So while I agree he made mistakes, as far as crimes go and relative to other crimes, BK wasn't as stupid as he's made out to be. MOO.
Wait. What? Yet somehow he got arrested. Look at the forums on this site of unsolved missing, dead, cold cases--thousands with no arrests. Maybe BK isn't as smart as he's made out to be. JMO
 
  • #543
Yes, he left a sheath behind. But as far as we know, he left nothing else except a partial footprint. IMO, killing 4 people in 15 minutes without leaving your DNA (beyond on a snap to the sheath) is the thing crime novels are made of. So while I agree he made mistakes, as far as crimes go and relative to other crimes, BK wasn't as stupid as he's made out to be. MOO.
Nothing in the PCA to say the footprint was partial.

It was enhanced by staining with Amido black to photograph it, to show the detail. That doesn't mean it was partial, just difficult or impossible to see with the naked eye.

It does matter, even if both kinds of prints are sharp and clear.

A full print will show you a full tread pattern including distinctive wear patterns unique to the individual. It will give shoe size with precision.

A partial print only shows a portion of the sole. It may not be enough to determine size with precise accuracy. It may only show a section of tread pattern that is used by several models of shoes.

MOO
 
  • #544
Men with BK's eyebrow configuration (it's mostly the silhouette of his actual bone structure that's being noticed - with slightly bushier than average eyebrows) constitute about 10-12% of the European-descended North American population. IMO, based on studying variations in skull bones. Still too many to look at, of course. They may have had a footprint - still not going to narrow it down much. It's a so-called

White Elantra was sought in various ways - the public was asked to call in cars of a certain model year, but long before that, the WSU PD had already contacted Pullman police, because they looked at BK's records and knew he was a criminal justice student. Frankly, I think most LE have a kind of instinctive "let's pay attention" when a person is of about the right age to commit such crimes (based on FBI profiling), is driving a car nearly identical to what they thought they saw in grainy videos, LEO officers know to pay attention to similar looking cars - but MPD didn't want BK to know at that point (and were probably had very good reasons).

In short, many things outside the written words could have been spoken about; more might have been known - but the Judge knows that the PCA must conform to the minimum legal requirement, because the defense has the right to hear all the evidence prior to the Prelim - it doesn't belong in the PCA. The public has no right to the information until the Prelim. And even then, the Court will modulate what becomes known. There will be phone and in chambers discussions to discuss the rules of evidence. As they exist in Idaho.





The whole point is that the liver is large and even I could hit it with one slash. Practicing a martial art would of course help.

At any rate, I do not believe he had to slash more than one time. Any decent knife user, with a stationary target, could get it done in two (liver and lungs first slash; other lung second slash) Again, this is how people are taught to use knives as offensive weapons in militaries all over the world.

it's not rocket science. The whole Psycho Slasher making multiple stabs (when in this case, the coroner even said "not stabs, slashes" is not the way every knife killing is done.

If a person doesn't want blood all over themselves and their clothes and their car, they do not make stabbing motions; they do go for "gouge" wounds - maybe as few as one per victim. We may not know until trial. These are just my views.

It took me about 10 minutes to look up how to use a Ka-Bar style knife in this manner and to find multiple training videos.

So my point is that he didn't run around for 20 minutes wildly slashing. He didn't wildly stab at all. He had a plan, and it involved rapid, silent death for the victims (a style that also included less energy expenditure so that he could have killed more).

Simply my opinion. When all the autopsy results are known, I may have to eat my words.

IMO.
Coroner interview 11/18/2022

“There were multiple stab wounds on them and most of them had just one that was the lethal stab wound. The fatal ones were to the chest area, the upper body area,” Mabbutt said.

 
  • #545
Wait. What? Yet somehow he got arrested. Look at the forums on this site of unsolved missing, dead, cold cases--thousands with no arrests. Maybe BK isn't as smart as he's made out to be. JMO

I didn't say he was smart. This was far from the perfect crime. But I also don't think he fits the stupid criminal trope either. I've brought this up before and am told he was arrested because of the totality of circumstantial evidence. Fine. But up above, I'm saying exactly what we know as of right now with regard to DNA or his blood in the home. As far as we know, there was none. And as far as we know, there's also no direct evidence. IMO, that's not a stupid criminal.

MOO.
 
  • #546
I didn't say he was smart. This was far from the perfect crime. But I also don't think he fits the stupid criminal trope either. I've brought this up before and am told he was arrested because of the totality of circumstantial evidence. Fine. But up above, I'm saying exactly what we know as of right now with regard to DNA or his blood in the home. As far as we know, there was none. And as far as we know, there's also no direct evidence. IMO, that's not a stupid criminal.

MOO.
all excellent points, and one other thing here:

LE had probable cause to arrest, but that's not the same as Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, and for those of us here to consider the evidence and ask the questions, it's very important we frame everything with BARD in mind. these are the instructions the jury will be given, and a good outline for all of us

ICJI 103 REASONABLE DOUBT - Idaho Supreme CourtIdaho.govhttps://isc.idaho.gov › jury › criminal › ICJI_103
 
  • #547
I didn't say he was smart. This was far from the perfect crime. But I also don't think he fits the stupid criminal trope either. I've brought this up before and am told he was arrested because of the totality of circumstantial evidence. Fine. But up above, I'm saying exactly what we know as of right now with regard to DNA or his blood in the home. As far as we know, there was none. And as far as we know, there's also no direct evidence. IMO, that's not a stupid criminal.

MOO.
I don't know whether DM's statement counts as direct evidence. I don't know if she would have had to have seen his face fully, or seen him actually stabbing her friends. She certainly saw someone who was not a housemate or a guest, whose physical description does not exclude BK, walking through the home at the time of the murders, and almost certainly that person left a footprint outside her door as he passed, in blood. I don't know where the line is between 'eyewitness' and 'witness', though. There is a difference between the two in the law.

MOO
 
  • #548
that's a big leap from 11.13 to a month later, so IMO that wouldn't be sufficient to easily link to the crime unless they have his blood at the scene, but I don't recall reading anything that said he didn't have any cuts. imo did he? / didn't he? could go either way. I can see how the killer could've geared up to minimize the chances, but IDK. I can't seem to get through a day without doing something to damage myself -- and that's just stupid stuff from not paying attention or doing too many things at once. jmo imo
It was speculation I believe from pouring over the traffic stop video, thread back. I remember observing the debate but not participating in that one. MOO
 
  • #549
Defense asked for late June, prosecution said July would work better. starts at about a minute in.

Gosh, I remember this too. It was a calender thing with the prosecution wanting first week of July IMO. In a previous thread I posted this video and noted the time stamp but won't repeat that here. MOO
 
  • #550
I don't know whether DM's statement counts as direct evidence. I don't know if she would have had to have seen his face fully, or seen him actually stabbing her friends. She certainly saw someone who was not a housemate or a guest, whose physical description does not exclude BK, walking through the home at the time of the murders, and almost certainly that person left a footprint outside her door as he passed, in blood. I don't know where the line is between 'eyewitness' and 'witness', though. There is a difference between the two in the law.

MOO
I believe this is what is called corroborating evidence?
 
  • #551
I believe this is what is called corroborating evidence?


editing to add:


evidence rules are tricky business. for ex, some 911 calls but not all. Improper admission or exclusion of evidence are common cause for appeal.


 
Last edited:
  • #552
I believe this is what is called corroborating evidence?
If wikipedia is to be believed, it looks like DM's statement would be considered circumstantial.

Direct evidence - Wikipedia

I can't quote it, because the article is too short, basically a stub, but you can follow the link and read it yourselves.

But yeah, the statement and the footprint corroborate each other, as far as I know. DM saw him walk that way in the direction of the kitchen, presumably to leave. The footprint shows his direction of movement, and that he was moving away from a source of blood.

MOO
 
Last edited:
  • #553
Last edited:
  • #554
I have already searched the terms and stand by my comment. As @iamshadow21 said, define "eyewitness".

Dictionary by Merriam-Webster: America's most-trusted online dictionary "To support with evidence or authority : make more certain"
no problem. works for me :) I was linking to legal terms, not suggesting yours was incorrect.
  • Direct evidence usually is that which speaks for itself: eyewitness accounts, a confession, or a weapon.
  • Circumstantial evidence usually is that which suggests a fact by implication or inference: the appearance of the scene of a crime, testimony that suggests a connection or link with a crime, physical evidence that suggests criminal activity.
Exculpatory evidence is another fun one :)
 
  • #555

editing to add:


evidence rules are tricky business. for ex, some 911 calls but not all. Improper admission or exclusion of evidence are common cause for appeal.

To your more recent post, I mistook and was slightly defensive. I'm just saying from what we know, DM did not directly witness any of the murders being carried out. Her statement supports other evidence indicating that it was BK.

Even if DM said she saw BK stabbing her roommate with a KaBar knife, there has to be proof outside of one individuals recollection. Or not? *eta: even if DM said KaBar and the injuries indicate KaBar knife, it still doesn't put the KaBar in BKs hands.
 
Last edited:
  • #556
I didn't say he was smart. This was far from the perfect crime. But I also don't think he fits the stupid criminal trope either. I've brought this up before and am told he was arrested because of the totality of circumstantial evidence. Fine. But up above, I'm saying exactly what we know as of right now with regard to DNA or his blood in the home. As far as we know, there was none. And as far as we know, there's also no direct evidence. IMO, that's not a stupid criminal.

MOO.
He drove his own car to the crime scene past multiple cameras only to turn off his phone on the way there, was even caught doing a 3 point turn like a law abiding citizen.

If we can't call that stupid...what is? <modsnip>. Or he's at least proving the point that book smarts don't equal street smarts.

MOO of course.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #557
There is no universal definition for direct evidence and circumstantial. Cornell and the University of Michigan and Harvard likely don't share definitions.

With advances in investigations and forensics the distinction between the two are now nearly useless. Things aren't as black and white anymore. And having direct evidence is no longer an indication that your case is strong.

30 years ago an eye witness's testimony and microscopic hair analysis was direct and would have pretty much automatically put someone in jail. Now, hair analysis under a microscope is rarely accepted and the other doesn't carry as much weight.
 
  • #558
To your more recent post, I mistook and was slightly defensive. I'm just saying from what we know, DM did not directly witness any of the murders being carried out. Her statement supports other evidence indicating that it was BK.

Even if DM said she saw BK stabbing her roommate with a KaBar knife, there has to be proof outside of one individuals recollection. Or not? *eta: even if DM said KaBar and the injuries indicate KaBar knife, it still doesn't put the KaBar in BKs hands.
If that's what she saw ( I don't believe it is) then she is allowed to give that evidence under oath and the defense attorney's are allowed to challenge her recollection.

The KaBar doesn't have to be put in his hands. All the jurors have to do is consider all the evidence and decide whether or not there's another plausible/reasonable explanation. They'll look at BKs car on video, phone tracking east in the dead of night, prior visits to the neighborhood, and his DNA on part of the murder weapon and say...

"Nah, that wasn't him. Someone drove his car! Took his cell phone! planted the sheath there!!!!"

LOL ya right.

If there's not another plausible/reasonable explanation and he's found guilty. Then it's assumed that the knife was in BKs hand.

People keep mistakenly thinking that 1 hole or 2 holes or a shaky piece of evidence automatically means reasonable doubt. That's not how it works. If eye witness testimony was required to put a weapon in a defendants hand we would get 0 convictions if the crime was one person to another person with no witnesses.

MOO
 
  • #559
If that's what she saw ( I don't believe it is) then she is allowed to give that evidence under oath and the defense attorney's are allowed to challenge her recollection.

The KaBar doesn't have to be put in his hands. All the jurors have to do is consider all the evidence and decide whether or not there's another plausible/reasonable explanation. They'll look at BKs car on video, phone tracking east in the dead of night, prior visits to the neighborhood, and his DNA on part of the murder weapon and say...

"Nah, that wasn't him. Someone drove his car! Took his cell phone! planted the sheath there!!!!"

LOL ya right.

If there's not another plausible/reasonable explanation and he's found guilty. Then it's assumed that the knife was in BKs hand.

People keep mistakenly thinking that 1 hole or 2 holes or a shaky piece of evidence automatically means reasonable doubt. That's not how it works. If eye witness testimony was required to put a weapon in a defendants hand we would get 0 convictions if the crime was one person to another person with no witnesses.

MOO
There's what we all know so far and then there is the rest. For some, what is currently known might be enough to find BK guilty. For me, IMO MOO it would take something more compelling than DMs recollection combined with BK driving around, even with the shoeprint and sheath being left behind. Then again, I don't know what I don't know.

Of course it's only logical that "we" would get 0 convictions if the law required an eyewitness to murders only involving 2 individuals :rolleyes::confused:
 
  • #560
I applaud the WSU police officer who noticed the car and called it in. He or she set this ball in motion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
58
Guests online
1,737
Total visitors
1,795

Forum statistics

Threads
632,382
Messages
18,625,516
Members
243,125
Latest member
JosBay
Back
Top