4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered - Bryan Kohberger Arrested - Moscow # 76

[whiterhino]

For me to know (more clearly) if it is 19/20 Tinder accounts or actually 39/40 accounts total, I need to check the Order to Seal Documents to see how it is written. I have all of them in my Download File so I will take a look.

The information seems more solid to me because we have more than just an anonymous investigator talking to People Magazine. People Magazine saw Kohberger's account themselves and noted Kohberger followed the 3 female victims:

"Kohberger's now-deleted Instagram account — which was viewed by PEOPLE before it was removed — followed the accounts of Mogen, Gonclaves and Kernodle, but there was no public interaction."

Your right, if the article is correct then it would be significant.

Question:

How can the prosecution claim that Kohberger was stalking the victims if they can't prove Kohberger even
knew who the victims were?

To stalk someone you have to know who they are.

The thing is, they don't have any proof that Kohberger was on King road those dozens of times that his phone pinged from the Moscow area. All they have is that his phone pinged from the same cell tower that services the residents who live on King road.

I would have to research it but I can bet dollars to doughnuts that the range of the King Rd cell tower expands to quite a large range out from King Rd. Maybe even out of town.

The defense can say there is no proof Kohberger was stalking the victims, he was just out doing XYZ in the area, or he wasn't even in that area because his phone pinged erroneously on that tower or was transferred over to that tower, not unheard of.

Point is....

It would bolster the prosecution's case (phone evidence shows stalking) if they can prove that Kohberger knew who the victims were - if they can prove that he followed 3 ladies on Instagram who happen to be the same 3 ladies he killed that night. The 2 women he didn't kill in that house might be alive because he did not know who they were, did not follow them on Instagram.

And if they can prove that just a couple of weeks before the murders he tried to communicate with one of them but was ignored by her, then that shows some level of escalation and bolsters the stalking evidence.

Note all the SM accounts in evidence. They are looking for BK's connection to the victims. Proof he knew them.

2 Cents

BBM

That's what I was getting at. Is it just a typo in the Tinder warrants where there's a missing/extra bullet point?

It's hard to believe there could potentially be 40 Tinder accounts to sift through. Except that I know how Tinder works and 40 might be conservative for some people. Also, if it were a matter of catfishing then again, maybe 40 is normal for that sort of thing?

Again, I'm saying all of this without knowing if each bullet point represents an account but have been assuming so up to now.

I'd forgotten that People Magazine stated they'd witnessed BKs Instagram IRL as I completely forgot I'd already read it.

Overall on the subject of stalking, I tend to disagree. The victim doesn't always know their stalker but that is a separate subject.

Unless there is a witness, video or photo evidence to place BK on King Road on the dates his phone pinged then correct, all they have is BKs phone pinging in the area. Defense could argue that BK was in the area for other reasons. Technically, they could even argue it was just BKs phone and not BK himself (don't go after me please, I'm just pointing out there's room for argument). Except for the fact that the phone pinged so close the night and morning of the murders where BKs DNA was found on the sheath of a knife at the scene of a fatal stabbing

Right. If the prosecution can establish an initial point of contact (esp if IRL) and they can provide evidence of BK following/contacting any of the victims via SM or Tinder, if they can prove that BK attempted to contact any of the victims in the weeks leading up to the murders, it should illustrate that BK was stalking. This is important to establish motive to ensure without a doubt that BK "had his reasons".

Let's be clear though, even if there is a connection between BK and the victims via SM it's not proof that BK knew them. It's proof that contact was made between BK and the victims. Considering BK sent messages to one of them and they didn't reply (apparently due to the fact that they were not mutually following one another therefore the message was never seen), I'd say they did not know each other.

If BK made multiple attempts to contact any of the victims via any one of multiple platforms (in particular Tinder) especially if he got no response, especially if he got no response and persisted, I'd say that illustrates stalking.

JMO.

 

[Cool Cats]

BBM

That's what I was getting at. Is it just a typo in the Tinder warrants where there's a missing/extra bullet point?

It's hard to believe there could potentially be 40 Tinder accounts to sift through. Except that I know how Tinder works and 40 might be conservative for some people. Also, if it were a matter of catfishing then again, maybe 40 is normal for that sort of thing?

Again, I'm saying all of this without knowing if each bullet point represents an account but have been assuming so up to now.

I'd forgotten that People Magazine stated they'd witnessed BKs Instagram IRL as I completely forgot I'd already read it.

Overall on the subject of stalking, I tend to disagree. The victim doesn't always know their stalker but that is a separate subject.

Unless there is a witness, video or photo evidence to place BK on King Road on the dates his phone pinged then correct, all they have is BKs phone pinging in the area. Defense could argue that BK was in the area for other reasons. Technically, they could even argue it was just BKs phone and not BK himself (don't go after me please, I'm just pointing out there's room for argument). Except for the fact that the phone pinged so close the night and morning of the murders where BKs DNA was found on the sheath of a knife at the scene of a fatal stabbing

Right. If the prosecution can establish an initial point of contact (esp if IRL) and they can provide evidence of BK following/contacting any of the victims via SM or Tinder, if they can prove that BK attempted to contact any of the victims in the weeks leading up to the murders, it should illustrate that BK was stalking. This is important to establish motive to ensure without a doubt that BK "had his reasons".

Let's be clear though, even if there is a connection between BK and the victims via SM it's not proof that BK knew them. It's proof that contact was made between BK and the victims. Considering BK sent messages to one of them and they didn't reply (apparently due to the fact that they were not mutually following one another therefore the message was never seen), I'd say they did not know each other.

If BK made multiple attempts to contact any of the victims via any one of multiple platforms (in particular Tinder) especially if he got no response, especially if he got no response and persisted, I'd say that illustrates stalking.

JMO.

I didn't say the victim needs to know their stalker, just that the stalker has to know who they are stalking. No way did Bryan stalk those ladies if he didn't even know they existed. There has to be some way he knew who they were and that would be through SM most likely. I do not think they knew him at all.

When I say he knew them I mean he was aware of them, knew of them from SM, knew them just enough to be able to stalk them and that fed into a building obsession. Murderers like Bryan tend to show an escalation pattern.

So the defense will not want to see any evidence that Bryan knew who the victims were, I mean they will hope there isn't any.

If the prosecution has SM proof that Bryan knew who they were then they will put it all up on a big screen for the jury to see. His SM accounts that show any messages or photos concerning the victims will be presented to a jury by the agent who analyzed the digital data.

Does a killer have to know a victim to kill them?

No.

The Manson murderers basically stalked 2 houses and killed whoever happened to be inside, not knowing who their victims were.

But with Bryan his phone records play a big part in the evidence against him and show the aggravating factor of premeditation. The stalking shows the methodical premeditation.

Yes, catfishing could account for a person having multiple accounts, that is an interesting perspective.

2 Cents

 

[girlhasnoname]

Sure. I wasn't putting DM down or dismissing her value as a witness.

But unless there's a lot more to her testimony than what we read in the PCA, I don't think her description of the intruder can ever be considered definitive. (Again, not her fault: kudos to DM for not embellishing her story!)

This isn't to say that DM's testimony won't be key when combined with the circumstantial evidence we already know about. I only posted because I think we need to keep in mind that DM's identification, by itself, has never been complete or final; as reported, it probably fits a lot of young men in Pullman and Moscow, and a few of those may own Elantras.

Well the MPD said the 'roommate may be critical to solving this case' in the first few day after makes me believe D's testimony will be quite important. She was home that night by 1 am, this happened around 4 am so she would have had 3 hours to sober up even assuming she'd had a lot to drink. I don't believe they had. JMO

Her description was quite detailed IMO: 5 10" or taller, slim, athletic build, bushy eyebrows, dark clothing. Fits BK to a tee.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Saving Victims from More Trauma? Legally Viable Route?

snipped for focus. @WingsOverTX
Not sure if ^ stmt is directed at this case specifically or to prosecutions generally.

Not uncommon for prosecutors make public stmts to that effect --- this plea agreement saves victims from the trauma of a trial---
many times over the years. LEGALLY VIABLE.

OTOH, reaching a plea agreement (no matter what the terms) in some cases may be POLITICAL SUICIDE (or close to it) for a publicly elected prosecutor.

IDK if that would hold true for this case. As others have pointed out, BK does not have the classic bases (offering to disclose where victim's remains are or to testify against the crim ringleader) to interest prosecutor in a plea negotiation.
jmo

Yeah, no way are they going to offer a plea deal here IMO. The national attention and that fact that 4 innocent college kids were brutally murdered, nope.

MOO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

How foggy? Would a neighbor even be able to see that front door from their own house?

From the pictures we've seen, the houses are pretty clustered, so I would say yes.

 

[katydid23]

From the pictures we've seen, the houses are pretty clustered, so I would say yes.

But does 'neighbor' mean it was a close neighbor or could it be across the street or down the lane?

I can't see it being a very close neighbor because, if so, investigators would have already interviewed her and she would presumably had said something about a wide open door.

It makes me wonder how accurate it is. Wouldn't a neighbour call and report that info?

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Saving Victims from More Trauma? Legally Viable Route?

snipped for focus. @WingsOverTX
Not sure if ^ stmt is directed at this case specifically or to prosecutions generally.

Not uncommon for prosecutors make public stmts to that effect --- this plea agreement saves victims from the trauma of a trial---
many times over the years. LEGALLY VIABLE.

OTOH, reaching a plea agreement (no matter what the terms) in some cases may be POLITICAL SUICIDE (or close to it) for a publicly elected prosecutor.

IDK if that would hold true for this case. As others have pointed out, BK does not have the classic bases (offering to disclose where victim's remains are or to testify against the crim ringleader) to interest prosecutor in a plea negotiation.
jmo

Agreed. The case isn't the victims vs BK. The case is the state vs BK. It isn't in the state's best interest to offer a plea, IMO. What the families want may be taken into consideration during sentencing, but I've never heard of a murder case where pleas are made based on the wants of the families.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Well the MPD said the 'roommate may be critical to solving this case' in the first few day after makes me believe D's testimony will be quite important. She was home that night by 1 am, this happened around 4 am so she would have had 3 hours to sober up even assuming she'd had a lot to drink. I don't believe they had. JMO

Her description was quite detailed IMO: 5 10" or taller, slim, athletic build, bushy eyebrows, dark clothing. Fits BK to a tee.

MOO

IMO, that likely describes more than half the student population in these two college towns.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

But does 'neighbor' mean it was a close neighbor or could it be across the street or down the lane?

I can't see it being a very close neighbor because, if so, investigators would have already interviewed her and she would presumably had said something about a wide open door.

It makes me wonder how accurate it is. Wouldn't a neighbour call and report that info?

We don't know how close the neighbor's house is, but I'm not sure that matters. There are a lot of houses down my street that I can't see from my porch, but if I'm driving out of the neighborhood, I drive right past them.

After the murders, I do think the neighbor would have called to report that information. We don't know that the neighbor didn't. There was one presser where the Chief said he hadn't heard that, but we don't know if another officer checked it out and the Chief wasn't yet aware and/or if the Chief may have said that to protect the investigation.

MOO.

 

[Justice101]

Yeah, no way are they going to offer a plea deal here IMO. The national attention and that fact that 4 innocent college kids were brutally murdered, nope.

MOO

Yes, especially if they have even a STRONGER case with new evidence.

 

[U.N. Known]

Saving Victims from More Trauma? Legally Viable Route?

snipped for focus. @WingsOverTX

OTOH, reaching a plea agreement (no matter what the terms) in some cases may be POLITICAL SUICIDE (or close to it) for a publicly elected prosecutor.

IDK if that would hold true for this case. As others have pointed out, BK does not have the classic bases (offering to disclose where victim's remains are or to testify against the crim ringleader) to interest prosecutor in a plea negotiation.
jmo

As an outside/impartial observer, I've always disliked plea agreements that allow the guilty to have reduced, and often ridiculously short sentences for horrid crimes. In this case, as you say, the difference is DP or Life in prison. It's likely that the victims' family and friends have different views on which they'd prefer anyway.

 

[maskedwoman]

NN's exclusive comes 2 months after every other MSM reported on it.

Pennsylvania cold cases under review for possible links to Bryan Kohberger

Kohberger was arrested at his parents’ Albrightsville home on Dec. 30.

nypost.com

Actually, I think they reported it months ago, too. Maybe it was exclusively being reported for the second time by them. LOL

 

[maskedwoman]

Saving Victims from More Trauma? Legally Viable Route?

snipped for focus. @WingsOverTX
Not sure if ^ stmt is directed at this case specifically or to prosecutions generally.

Not uncommon for prosecutors make public stmts to that effect --- this plea agreement saves victims from the trauma of a trial---
many times over the years. LEGALLY VIABLE.

OTOH, reaching a plea agreement (no matter what the terms) in some cases may be POLITICAL SUICIDE (or close to it) for a publicly elected prosecutor.

IDK if that would hold true for this case. As others have pointed out, BK does not have the classic bases (offering to disclose where victim's remains are or to testify against the crim ringleader) to interest prosecutor in a plea negotiation.
jmo

BBM: My idealistic side hates that getting re-elected would be factored into whether to try or plea a case, but I remind myself that everybody likes to keep their job. I can also see the administrative appeal for prosecutors of not having to try a death penalty case. Death penalty cases are more expensive to try and they automatically come with years/decades of appeals. That's a heck of a lot of man hours and money. It's an "easier" decision to make when you have to get agreement from one victim's family. I feel for the prosecutors in having to try and get 4 victim's familys on the same page for how to move forward.

 

[U.N. Known]

For me to know (more clearly) if it is 19/20 Tinder accounts or actually 39/40 accounts total, I need to check the Order to Seal Documents to see how it is written. I have all of them in my Download File so I will take a look.

The information seems more solid to me because we have more than just an anonymous investigator talking to People Magazine. People Magazine saw Kohberger's account themselves and noted Kohberger followed the 3 female victims:

"Kohberger's now-deleted Instagram account — which was viewed by PEOPLE before it was removed — followed the accounts of Mogen, Gonclaves and Kernodle, but there was no public interaction."

Your right, if the article is correct then it would be significant.

Question:

How can the prosecution claim that Kohberger was stalking the victims if they can't prove Kohberger even
knew who the victims were?

To stalk someone you have to know who they are.

The thing is, they don't have any proof that Kohberger was on King road those dozens of times that his phone pinged from the Moscow area. All they have is that his phone pinged from the same cell tower that services the residents who live on King road.

I would have to research it but I can bet dollars to doughnuts that the range of the King Rd cell tower expands to quite a large range out from King Rd. Maybe even out of town.

The defense can say there is no proof Kohberger was stalking the victims, he was just out doing XYZ in the area, or he wasn't even in that area because his phone pinged erroneously on that tower or was transferred over to that tower, not unheard of.

Point is....

It would bolster the prosecution's case (phone evidence shows stalking) if they can prove that Kohberger knew who the victims were - if they can prove that he followed 3 ladies on Instagram who happen to be the same 3 ladies he killed that night. The 2 women he didn't kill in that house might be alive because he did not know who they were, did not follow them on Instagram.

And if they can prove that just a couple of weeks before the murders he tried to communicate with one of them but was ignored by her, then that shows some level of escalation and bolsters the stalking evidence.

Note all the SM accounts in evidence. They are looking for BK's connection to the victims. Proof he knew them.

2 Cents

I appreciate your logic RE the pings and tower information.

What's interesting to me (if I have all of the warrants straight) is that LE did not request a Meta/Instagram for BK. IF that's the case, IMO the Instagram stalking narrative is false. If LE found evidence of his Instagram account in the victims' messages, they would have requested a warrant for his account(s).

Yeah, no way are they going to offer a plea deal here IMO. The national attention and that fact that 4 innocent college kids were brutally murdered, nope.

MOO

But what is the point of a trial or a plea? Ideally, suspects plead guilty and trials are avoided altogether. The trial only needs to happen if the suspect does not plead guilty. From what I understand, the purpose of offering a plea is to avoid the risk of a jury acquittal. If BK is asked to or volunteers that he is guilty, the prosecution, "wins" for lack of a better term.

 

[PrairieWind]

Yeah, no way are they going to offer a plea deal here IMO. The national attention and that fact that 4 innocent college kids were brutally murdered, nope.

MOO

If DK offered to plead guilty in exchange for removal of death penalty, I can't imagine the State wouldn't accept that.

 

[Bogbacal2]

Kaylee reddit 1.1.2021. Warrant dated 12.1.22, motion for extension 12.14

BK Google. 1.1.2021. Warrant dated 1.3.23
notice how BK's warrant is dated after they had PC to search and arrest - that is true for these as well:
BK Tinder 6.1.2022. Warrant dated 1.25.23
BK Yik Yak 6.1.2022 (edited to add). Warrant dated 1.25.23
warrants are not about checking things off a list or just clearing people

Kaylee Tinder 1.1.2021. Warrant dated 11.29.22.
Maddie Tinder 1.1.2021. Warrant dated 12.6.22

Tinder 19 or 20 redacted 11.3.2022 to present. Warrant dated 12.6.22 same date as Door Dash
Then finding something
Tinder from March 1, 2021 to March 31, 2021 for 20 redacted accounts - that's not just LE being Tinder curious imo (last match warrant). warrant dated 12.22.2022

Those are the additional dates and here is the additional information re probable cause. These are not random choices. For LE to get the warrants, they weren't just investigating randoms. There was something linking the places to be searched, things to be seized and nexus to the crime:

skip to -- although this is about geofencing, it lays out PC in layman's terms
III. PROBABLE CAUSE AND PARTICULARITY AT STEP TWO
Geofence Warrants and the Fourth Amendment

you'll find nicely written descriptions that explain: defining what is searched, probable cause, and particularity
Although it's Harvard Law Review, it's not stuffy, but is written in language for humans imo jmo
But imo jmo ime what we know from the 4th amendment of the constitution and a ton o'case law supporting it:

search warrant

www.law.cornell.edu

LE cannot get a warrant to demontrate what is 'normal'. LE investigates to get a warrant; they don't get warrant to investigate (other than with geofencing and that's the issue discussed). imo jmo & the 4th Amendment

 

[maskedwoman]

I doubt any breathalyzers or tests were done until well after noon on Sunday.

Are you thinking that her lawyers will allow her to testify that she had been drinking within...what time period?

She was home by 1 am, according to early reports, IMO, IIRC. Are you thinking that the defense would actually try and find witnesses who saw DM drinking around midnight? Why would they do it? How would a judge allow it?

At any rate, I'll continue on my point that it does not matter, any longer, what DM saw and I doubt she'll be a major witness at trial. The witnesses will go in order of importance/strategy, and the LE/forensic witnesses will take up a very long time. Now that there's a match between BK and the DNA on the sheath, she's very little needed.

IMO. Trying to impeach a co-ed victim in this crime because they had drinks with friends the night before is a perilous tactic for the defense and has more chance of backfiring than convincing. (Yes, I know the OOJ doctrine, but I don't see it applying in this case, at all).

IMO. DM had nothing to do with the killings. She is a regular person doing regular things on a Saturday night. She admits her impressions were not strong (she didn't call the police), but she still had them. I think many people will find her *more* credible than a paid expert who is willing to testify on behalf of the defense.

IMO.

Let's say Jane Smith is a key witness in a bank robbery, and she's known to be regularly impaired to a point that she sees things that aren't there. Jane's drinking habits would go to her credibility, so I can see the defense going there. Or trying to. I'm sure it would be allowed 7 out of 10 times on just about every tv courtroom drama I have watched. LOL. In real life? I'm not as sure.

 

[Bogbacal2]

The preliminary hearing is to establish probable cause. It's likely the state will offer much more context and detail for the warrants we've already seen, and will hopefully offer some answers to some of the puzzling parts of this.

"A preliminary hearing is the State's opportunity to convince a magistrate that there is probable cause for each and every element of the charge. Remember, no probable cause for any element of the alleged crime means no further prosecution in the case. The State is required to put on sufficient admissible evidence, via testimony, documents (think laboratory reports), and other things. The defense can object to the introduction of evidence. Also, although the defense may ask questions during a preliminary hearing, because this is not a trial, sometimes no questions are asked. The probable cause requirement certainly exists, but it is not terribly difficult for the State to satisfy."

imo jmo there probably won't be much fluff thrown in, even if it were admissible.

I.C.R. 5.1. Preliminary Hearing - Probable Cause Hearing - Discharge or Commitment of Defendant - Procedure. | Supreme Court

isc.idaho.gov

https://www.khsidaholaw.com/whats-a-preliminary-hearing

once trial begins,

Idaho Rules of Evidence Rule 404. Character Evidence; Crimes or Other Acts. will rule on this

I.R.E. 404. Character Evidence not Admissible to Prove Conduct; Exceptions; Other Crimes. | Supreme Court

isc.idaho.gov

pretty much wipes out hope of any of the various Dailymail 15-minutes of fame type rolling up at trial. imo jmo

(a) Character Evidence.
(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a person's character or trait of character is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait. (so we won't here about BK being mean to someone in 2nd grade or staring at someone on campus imo jmo)
(2) Exceptions for a Defendant or Victim in a Criminal Case. The following exceptions apply in a criminal case:
(A) a defendant may offer evidence of the defendant’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may offer evidence to rebut it;
(B) a defendant may offer evidence of an alleged victim’s pertinent trait of character, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may offer evidence to rebut it;
(C) in a homicide case, the prosecutor may offer evidence of the alleged victim’s trait of peacefulness to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor.

(3) Exceptions for a Witness. Evidence of a witness’s character may be admitted under Rules 607, 608 and 609.

I.R.E. 404. Character Evidence not Admissible to Prove Conduct; Exceptions; Other Crimes. | Supreme Court

isc.idaho.gov

I.R.E. 608. Evidence of Character and Conduct of Witness. | Supreme Court

isc.idaho.gov

I.R.E. 609. Impeachment by Evidence of Conviction of Crime. | Supreme Court

isc.idaho.gov

Character evidence - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

has a nice general summary, not required reading, but for those unfamiliar, it gives a go.

May have a little “brain fog” going on today! I read the links you provided. Referring to “A witnesses character for truthfulness or untruthfulness” Having a little trouble understanding extrinsic evidence. Would this pertain to Brady/Gig?

(b) Specific Instances of Conduct. Except for a criminal conviction under Rule 609, extrinsic evidence is not admissible to prove specific instances of a witness's conduct in order to attack or support the witness's character for truthfulness. But the court may, on cross-examination, allow them to be inquired into if they are probative of the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of:

1. the witness; or
2. another witness whose character the witness being cross-examined has testified about.

 

[PrairieWind]

Let's say Jane Smith is a key witness in a bank robbery, and she's known to be regularly impaired to a point that she sees things that aren't there. Jane's drinking habits would go to her credibility, so I can see the defense going there. Or trying to. I'm sure it would be allowed 7 out of 10 times on just about every tv courtroom drama I have watched. LOL. In real life? I'm not as sure.

Certainly. If she is going to testify (and I'm sure she will) the Defense is going to question her about if she had been drinking. I'm sure they will try to talk to her friends that she was with earlier to get an idea if/how much she had drank that evening/morning. If she testifies, she will be questioned about it. That will be fair game.

 

[iamshadow21]

Certainly. If she is going to testify (and I'm sure she will) the Defense is going to question her about if she had been drinking. I'm sure they will try to talk to her friends that she was with earlier to get an idea if/how much she had drank that evening/morning. If she testifies, she will be questioned about it. That will be fair game.

I think if there's any question of that kind of thing, the prosecution will ask her first, in such a way that any defense follow-up will seem like it's just going over something that's already been talked about. If they leave it for the defense to raise, it'll seem like something that was being hidden.

IANAL
MOO