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

[Idaho transplant]

Part of the reason I say that is that I don't think this prosecutor is very pro death penalty. And he can save his office a LOT of money. But I do agree with you that I'm not sure BK (I keep typing DK for some reason) would agree to it. At least not yet.

So now some of the families have appealed to the Univ. not to raze the home because of the Murdaugh verdict and the fact that the jurors visited the crime scene. The Univ. is going to leave the decision up to the defense and prosecution lawyers. If they cannot agree, it will be up to the presiding judge. I see two problems with keeping the house intact; how long before a potential trial happens and the more-than-likely possibility of a venue change.

 

[jepop]

I don't know the answer, but I do know that the rights of someone who is presumed innocent and is a criminal defendant are protected. I also know that many rights die with a person: dead people have few rights.

Maybe BK was looking forward to moving to WA/ID and surrounding area, and got a bunch of tinder accounts to use Rational Choice Theory and Script Theory to try and meet women. Who knows? If I were profiling him, I'd consider it. Why go small when the warrant can go as large as a judge allows? Judges see so much **advertiser censored** stuff in their courtrooms, they are willing to realize that stalking behaviors (etc) can go back in time.

We don't know who the Tinder accounts belong to. Perhaps they subpoena'ed all the accounts of everyone BK ever swiped on. Who knows? Maybe they want to know his pattern of interaction with all those women, as well. Maybe they want to know if he ever stalked any other women. Perfectly okay to investigate that aspect.

I think the dates on the messages are about a month before or within a month before the murders, but that's just MOO as I do not have the energy to look it up again. My specific memory is that BK messaged one of the victims 3 weeks before the murders (and I believe it can be found by using Google and being patient - the name of that particular victim will come up).

It's likely that another WSer has the link.

Three weeks before the murders stayed in my mind for obvious reasons. But I can see why a court would allow further exploration of various parties' Tinder accounts, due to the fact that if LE has the theory that BK used Tinder to stalk, contact, track etc., then other people could have done so as well. They have to rule everything out.

The impact on innocent Tinder account holders who also messaged one of the victims is part of the community impact of murder - and rape - and criminals take advantage of that. Hiding amidst a pool of other people who performed the same behavior is (as we can see on these threads about BK), is a better tactic than sticking out like a sore thumb.

IMO.

RBBM above: Yes, but hopefully the impact on innocent Tinder account holders won't take the form of public knowledge. Given the protections offerred via the court as far as privacy and protection goes, I can't envisage a time when any of that information could be legally revealed.MOO. Nor should it be ofcourse. MOO

 

[NCWatcher]

So now some of the families have appealed to the Univ. not to raze the home because of the Murdaugh verdict and the fact that the jurors visited the crime scene. The Univ. is going to leave the decision up to the defense and prosecution lawyers. If they cannot agree, it will be up to the presiding judge. I see two problems with keeping the house intact; how long before a potential trial happens and the more-than-likely possibility of a venue change.

There's also the issue of maintaining the house in terms of security and in terms of the integrity of the physical structure. That's not easy to do for any vacant house but one related to murder on/near a university campus? It would cost a fortune to have security 24/7. Even before the families' requests, I'm sure the university checked with attorneys on both sides.

I can't imagine there's much to learn from the house-- most jurors will have seen or can imagine a house with separately rented bedrooms. The Murdaugh murder location was "dog kennels" on a hunting estate. Not as familiar to most. (Although I'm pretty sure AM would have been convicted anyway since his voice was on that video.)
JMO

 

[I'm Nobody]

Posting this because JC is talking to us, true crimers/sleuths/educated on the Idaho 4 case . IF TRUE, the reason NN story was old last night was because something new got muted/pulled. JC is thinking it's about the hearing and perhaps a grand jury/GJ (secret). What that means for the case is unclear to me. Probable cause was already established, wasn't it? Why seat a GJ now? AFAIK Witnesses don't have to testify in grand jury, a detective can read/give their testimony also GJ is very prosecution heavy, "you can indict a ham sandwich" as the saying goes. I'm taking it with a grain of salt until more reliable news. JMO
Thoughts?

edit to add link

https://twitter.com/x/status/1643949480343994368

 

[gremlin444]

A prosecutor will try a Death Penalty much differently than a Life Sentence case. With a LS case they just need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, however with a DP case they need to "show" that the murder was so heinous, so savage with horrendous brutality that the guilty party deserves to be put to death for the crime instead of just spending the rest of their life in prison.

A Death Penality case will certainly display every gruesome crime scene pic and go into excruciating detail of each victims wounds and the extent of how they suffered and died, which wouldn't be necessary to display for the jury (and the gallery) to achieve a guilty verdict with a preponderance of evidence linking the person on trial to the crime

In the recent Murdaugh double murder trial, which was not a DP case, the jury (but not the audience) saw every explicit crime scene photo and autopsy photo multiple times during the 6 weeks of trial. Multiple experts on both sides spent hours testifying in detail about each victim's wounds and how neither Paul nor Maggie would have been incapacitated after their initial shots but would of been clearly capable of seeing their father/husband continuing to pursue and shoot them more. The jury heard testimony by the murderer's brother of how he had had to clean up the crime scene afterwards and pick up the shattered blown up bits of his nephew's skull off the ground. By the time they got to closing statements, even the prosecutors were more than ready to stop subjecting the jury to the photos and instead used much less graphic visual depictions of them. Murdaugh received 2 LWOP sentences.

 

[Justice101]

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.

I doubt she goes on the stand for the prosecution. I even doubt they have to use her eyewitness description.

I think the defense calls her to the stand as THEIR witness ... but that is not going to work very well. And then, the prosecution has a chance at the end to cross examine to set the record straight.

 

[wary]

Does anyone know why/how Maddie had a tinder account when she had a long term (one year+) boyfriend at the time of the murder? I’m just curious

I’d guess that she’d had a Tinder account at one time, and just didn’t bother to delete it. I have no idea if someone is even able to delete a Tinder account—many apps save the account, even if you delete the account from your device.

 

[Montecore1]

DBM

 

[wary]

I doubt she goes on the stand for the prosecution. I even doubt they have to use her eyewitness description.

I think the defense calls her to the stand as THEIR witness ... but that is not going to work very well. And then, the prosecution has a chance at the end to cross examine to set the record straight.

If D isn’t called by the prosecution, I have absolutely no idea why the defense would call her. What can they prove by her? Prove that she saw someone who might be their client, but she’s not sure he is?

MOO

 

[10ofRods]

Don’t forget that there were multiple fake accounts made right after the arrest. I believe People was fooled by this as I was. JMO

The account in question was using the name Bryan Kohberger at least 3 weeks before the murders - long before anyone could change their name on Insta. None of the spoof accounts had interactions going back before the murders, IMO.

That's how I read the People article and other articles on this topic. JMO. For example, there's this Banfield article:

Kohberger 'liked' all of Madison Mogen's Instagram | Banfield

Sources close to the Idaho killings investigation told NewsNation's "Banfield" that the person who is featured on Bryan Kohberger's phone is the same person that he was reaching out to on social media. The photos were downloaded off of the victim's Instagram. Kohberger also apparently followed...

www.newsnationnow.com

that says BK liked all of MM's posts on Instagram (before the murders). What I'd like to know is whether he hit that like button soon after she posted each picture (a form of cyber-stalker). Of course, hundreds of guys were likely also hitting the like button - or at least dozens and dozens. Both MM and KG had tons of foreign followers, mostly male followers for both of them, last time I checked (don't know if their accounts are still active).

IMO.

 

[Twistinginthewind]

Posting this because JC is talking to us, true crimers/sleuths/educated on the Idaho 4 case . IF TRUE, the reason NN story was old last night was because something new got muted/pulled. JC is thinking it's about the hearing and perhaps a grand jury/GJ (secret). What that means for the case is unclear to me. Probable cause was already established, wasn't it? Why seat a GJ now? AFAIK Witnesses don't have to testify in grand jury, a detective can read/give their testimony also GJ is very prosecution heavy, "you can indict a ham sandwich" as the saying goes. I'm taking it with a grain of salt until more reliable news. JMO
Thoughts?

edit to add link

https://twitter.com/x/status/1643949480343994368

I suspected something new was a catalyst for this, thanks @I'm Nobody

I'm glad it's come up again for discussion in MSM that BK may have done things in PA or elsewhere that were of a criminal nature Prior To Committing these Horrendous Murders.... Allegedly.... "It's Not Over Till the Fat Lady Sings" MOO
ETA: Or reasons why a Grand Jury is possibly being considered due to new evidence that has been processed

 

[maskedwoman]

Posting this because JC is talking to us, true crimers/sleuths/educated on the Idaho 4 case . IF TRUE, the reason NN story was old last night was because something new got muted/pulled. JC is thinking it's about the hearing and perhaps a grand jury/GJ (secret). What that means for the case is unclear to me. Probable cause was already established, wasn't it? Why seat a GJ now? AFAIK Witnesses don't have to testify in grand jury, a detective can read/give their testimony also GJ is very prosecution heavy, "you can indict a ham sandwich" as the saying goes. I'm taking it with a grain of salt until more reliable news. JMO
Thoughts?

edit to add link

https://twitter.com/x/status/1643949480343994368

I have exhausted my poor brain at work today. Can someone help me understand Jennifer C's comment "Last night, the initial news was muted. I don't know why but in hindsight, it was for the best." I read her tweet and many of the comments, but I'm somehow missing her point. One poster asked if she was suggesting that, at the last minute, Newsnation had changed what they intended to report to a more blanket/general story that he's being looked at as a possible serial killer. I translated that comment to mean that perhaps Newsnation had originally intended to report something more specific about that topic, but decided not to. Does that seem like I have it right?

Also, I read some follow up discussion that pointed out going with a GJ would keep more of the evidence secret until trial. I also found one article where it mentioned that Idaho prosecutors seem to prefer the Prelim Hearing over Grand Juries, but it is Newsweek, so grab the salt.

Will Bryan Kohberger face a grand jury? What we know

A grand jury is a "body controlled by the prosecution," a criminal defense attorney told Newsweek.

www.newsweek.com

https://twitter.com/x/status/1644006482638241794

 

[PrairieWind]

I doubt she goes on the stand for the prosecution. I even doubt they have to use her eyewitness description.

I think the defense calls her to the stand as THEIR witness ... but that is not going to work very well. And then, the prosecution has a chance at the end to cross examine to set the record straight.

She was a witness at the scene whose statements were relied upon to get an arrest warrant. She allegedly saw the killer. If the prosecution doesn't call her, the Defense is going to raise that, "Why?" Then defense can call her, subject to their own line of questioning, that the Prosecution can cross examine her on, but only within the scope of the Defense's direct exam. whether they call her or not, i'm not sure, it depends on how the evidence shakes out that we haven't see. She gave an account, and to the effect that her account doesn't match the Prosecution's case, she will may be called to testify. But her existence will be brought up. And if she doesn't testify, the Defense will mention that in closing. "there is an eyewitness you heard about, but she wasn't called to testify. Why?" DM might end up being a bit of an albatross. I think the State has to call her.

 

[SophieRose]

If it was that foggy, I'd have to wonder about clarity of the white Elantra video.

Scroll to the 13th and it shows no fog just cloudy.

Weather in November 2022 in Moscow, Idaho, USA

Weather reports from November 2022 in Moscow, Idaho, USA with highs and lows

www.timeanddate.com

I know this is earlier in the night but no fog then.

 

[NCWatcher]

Scroll to the 13th and it shows no fog just cloudy.

Weather in November 2022 in Moscow, Idaho, USA

Weather reports from November 2022 in Moscow, Idaho, USA with highs and lows

www.timeanddate.com

I know this is earlier in the night but no fog then.

Several of the hourly overnight listings for that date in the above link (12am-8am) say "ice fog." There are some that say "overcast" too, mostly later on in the day. One thing for sure, there was not much wind and it was cold-- right below or right at freezing.

 

[Cool Cats]

SBMFF

I don't know that I agree that you have to know someone in order to stalk them. I had seen a guy on a bike once (long ago, so pre-internet, FB, etc.) downtown (smallish city around 76K population) and he smiled at me. I went about my business and thought nothing of it. A few days later I walked out my door to go to my car and there he was, sitting on his bike for who knows how long, facing my house, and smiled at me when he saw me. I don't know who he was but that felt like stalking to me and it creeped me out and made me VERY uncomfortable. My house was on a quiet street that was out of the way so he was there, facing my house for a reason, and I feel it was because he somehow figured out where I lived by following my car. Or he had ridden up and down several streets, looking for my car which was visible down a long driveway. I can't think of any other way.

So it's my opinion that the early stages of stalking someone can be done without knowing them. You follow someone around who catches your eye to figure out who they are, where they live, work, shop, hang out, etc., and in this day and age you can then continuing your stalking online. There just wasn't the online factor 40+ yrs ago.

You have to know the person EXISTS - IS ALIVE - WALKS ON EARTH.

You can't stalk someone if YOU ARE NOT EVEN AWARE OF THEM.

If Bryan had no prior knowledge of the vicims - had no clue who they were - he couldn't have stalked them.

His defense can say he had no idea who these people on King Rd were.

The prosecution can say they have proof he was aware of them.

For example, I have no idea who you are, I couldn't stalk you. But if I saw who you were through your SM accounts then I would know who you are and if I only lived 15 minutes away - finding out your location - then I could stalk you in person. Now I'm aware of you, I know who you are. You don't know me though. I can be sneaky and drive to your house a dozen times, no one knows.

Just an example, Cool Cats doesn't stalk people.

2 Cents

 

[Twistinginthewind]

<Snipped for focus>
Also, I read some follow up discussion that pointed out going with a GJ would keep more of the evidence secret until trial. I also found one article where it mentioned that Idaho prosecutors seem to prefer the Prelim Hearing over Grand Juries, but it is Newsweek, so grab the salt.

Will Bryan Kohberger face a grand jury? What we know

A grand jury is a "body controlled by the prosecution," a criminal defense attorney told Newsweek.

www.newsweek.com

https://twitter.com/x/status/1644006482638241794

Thanks, @maskedwoman, I remember reading this article back when (late January), and when reading it again, this snippet was interesting to me/IMO:

"In Idaho specifically, according to Bond, prosecutors choosing a grand jury over a preliminary hearing is "rare." A prosecutor would be more inclined to take a case to a grand jury "when they have witnesses who are petrified of showing up to court," he added, and the prosecution wishes to avoid a witness cross-examination from the defense at that stage."

https://www.newsweek.com/will-bryan...the grand jury whenever they want," Bond said.

 

[maskedwoman]

Thanks, @maskedwoman, I remember reading this article back when (late January), and when reading it again, this snippet was interesting to me/IMO:

"In Idaho specifically, according to Bond, prosecutors choosing a grand jury over a preliminary hearing is "rare." A prosecutor would be more inclined to take a case to a grand jury "when they have witnesses who are petrified of showing up to court," he added, and the prosecution wishes to avoid a witness cross-examination from the defense at that stage."

https://www.newsweek.com/will-bryan-kohberger-face-grand-jury-university-idaho-murders-1775763#:~:text=But Kohberger will not face both a preliminary,the grand jury whenever they want," Bond said.

The article was new to me but I found that statement interesting as well!

 

[SophieRose]

If it was that foggy, I'd have to wonder about clarity of the white Elantra video.

This isn't about the fog but just how dark it is there (remember the party in Sep).

News video taken the night of Nov 13th.

Moscow police investigate homicide, UI urges residents to shelter in place

Click here to view this video from kulr8.com.

www.kulr8.com

 

[whiterhino]

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

This may be a matter of semantics but IMO you're using the term "know" very loosely.

To my mind, BK was aware of the housemates existence. To my mind, the word "know" means something else. JMOO.

As I said many threads ago in the early stages, if prosecution can establish a point of contact IRL between BK and any of the victims (particularly prior to following any of them on SM) it would illustrate a pattern of escalation (but IMO it isn't necessary). If BK in fact made and continued to attempt contact despite being rebuffed, ignored, blocked etc then it would illustrate fixation, escalation, harassment etc. Particularly any attempts made several weeks leading up to the murders.

The Manson family murders is very much OT.

It would not surprise me to discover that BK had attempted to catfish any of the victims via SM or Match. If he did, it was likely in the hope of luring his "desired target".

BKs' phone records and history of attempting to contact/follow/like the victims SM is crucial IMO. Coupled with all the other digital evidence, it paints a picture.