4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #100

[Ghostwheel]

We know whose knife sheath it was.

To be fair, no, we don't. We know that BKs DNA is on the sheath found next to one of the murdered people. It could have belonged to Murphy, for all we know, though he'd have had a hard time wiping his paw prints off it. But BK touched it at some point where it did not get covered or wiped off.

Having no reason or excuse for his DNA being on a sheath found next to a murdered person, this becomes circumstantial evidence 1.
2 is cell phone data indicating his cell phone went to the area of the house several times before the murders.
3 is a car like his having left his apartment parking lot,, being caught on multiple cameras and then in the vicinity during the crime, making 3 passes of the house before stopping on the fourth pass.
4 is the car leaving at 4:20 and his phone reactivation at 4:50 near Blaine which is about the correct time for travel that far.
5 is his driving back to the area around 9 am before any crime was announced (why would he go there? No stars to gaze at in the daytime.)
6 having pinged in Moscow on several occasions before the murders, the cell phone never pinged there after the murders.
7 is putting his trash in a neighbors trash can

I could go on, and there is much more circumstantial evidence we don't know about. None of these things alone point to a person being a murderer. LE believes that everything they have together does point that direction. I can believe variations of someone stole the knife and sheath or carefully had BK touch the sheath and then planted it at the scene to throw suspicion on BK, or that the DNA was left by the killer, or something in between. Adding up known circumstantial evidence points to BK barring some valid reason his DNA was on a knife sheath next to a murder victim.

I will be quite interested to see what else LE has.

 

[Boxer]

To be fair, no, we don't. We know that BKs DNA is on the sheath found next to one of the murdered people. It could have belonged to Murphy, for all we know, though he'd have had a hard time wiping his paw prints off it. But BK touched it at some point where it did not get covered or wiped off.

Having no reason or excuse for his DNA being on a sheath found next to a murdered person, this becomes circumstantial evidence 1.
2 is cell phone data indicating his cell phone went to the area of the house several times before the murders.
3 is a car like his having left his apartment parking lot,, being caught on multiple cameras and then in the vicinity during the crime, making 3 passes of the house before stopping on the fourth pass.
4 is the car leaving at 4:20 and his phone reactivation at 4:50 near Blaine which is about the correct time for travel that far.
5 is his driving back to the area around 9 am before any crime was announced (why would he go there? No stars to gaze at in the daytime.)
6 having pinged in Moscow on several occasions before the murders, the cell phone never pinged there after the murders.
7 is putting his trash in a neighbors trash can

I could go on, and there is much more circumstantial evidence we don't know about. None of these things alone point to a person being a murderer. LE believes that everything they have together does point that direction. I can believe variations of someone stole the knife and sheath or carefully had BK touch the sheath and then planted it at the scene to throw suspicion on BK, or that the DNA was left by the killer, or something in between. Adding up known circumstantial evidence points to BK barring some valid reason his DNA was on a knife sheath next to a murder victim.

I will be quite interested to see what else LE has.

The witness description doesn't exclude him, his car is an Elantra of the same color and model production years captured on various security cams, he has no alibi, his phone turned off for the crime window.
And his DNA is on the murder weapon sheath.

 

[Ghostwheel]

The witness description doesn't exclude him, his car is an Elantra of the same color and model production years captured on various security cams, he has no alibi, his phone turned off for the crime window.
And his DNA is on the murder weapon sheath.

Did you read what I wrote? Or are you just agreeing with me?

 

[jepop]

If it looks like and duck, and it smells like a duck, and it's got the
DNA of a duck.....it's probably a duck.

 

[NCWatcher]

The witness description doesn't exclude him, his car is an Elantra of the same color and model production years captured on various security cams, he has no alibi, his phone turned off for the crime window.
And his DNA is on the murder weapon sheath.

Since LE has not recovered the murder weapon, at least not that we know of, we don't know that the sheath they did find is the murder weapon sheath. It probably is, but that is not a fact, and it is speculation.
MOO

 

[mrjitty]

Since LE has not recovered the murder weapon, at least not that we know of, we don't know that the sheath they did find is the murder weapon sheath. It probably is, but that is not a fact, and it is speculation.
MOO

natural and supportable inferences are not speculative IMO

eg you say it is probable therefore it is an inference the jury can reach in their deliberations.

MOO

 

[NCWatcher]

natural and supportable inferences are not speculative IMO

eg you say it is probable therefore it is an inference the jury can reach in their deliberations.

MOO

Hmm. While I was writing it appears your post was edited. I believe your post used to make a distinction between permissable inferences based on the evidence and impermissible speculation. (Speculation based on anything, including the evidence.) That's a hard distinction to make if evidence is involved either way.

Anyway, technically there's no official evidence for anyone to consider or make inferences about since the trial hasn't started yet. And an inference is a conclusion that may be drawn, not one that must be drawn based on evidence.

Some posts have unequivocally stated BK ordered the knife & the sheath from Amazon. That may be true but we don't know that. It's unclear how that could be an inference -- based on what evidence? The existence of known subpoenas for Amazon records? A TV show? Others have stated the sheath is part of the actual murder weapon. I'm not sure most people in the general public would agree with that belief. A knife that's never been put in a sheath can still be used to kill just like a gun without a holster can be used to shoot someone. And it's pretty unlikely a sheath or a holster would be thought of as a deadly weapon or even though of objects to make ordinary objects into deadly weapons.

At any rate, for me, there's a big difference at this point between saying "BK's DNA is on the murder weapon sheath" vs saying "the sheath probably was left behind by a knife-wielding murderer..."

MOO

 

[schooling]

SBMFF
1. We don't even know whose knife was used.
2. If he had a white Bugatti and it was the only one around, then maybe you could call it a coincidence.
3. The late-night drive might seem odd, but in that town, partying and ordering food at 4 am is the norm, isn't it?
4. His cell phone goes dark during the murder window. Have you checked his logs?
5. Sure, criminals often return to the crime scene, we hear. But not that soon. This is more like an anxious guy checking things out.

<modsnip - speculation outside the bounds of the known facts of the cast>

. But there's no murder - no motive, no purpose, no propensity. We'll know more at trial. MOO

IMO Explaining away a coincidence doesn’t make it non-coincidental. Never mind a string of them.

If anything, it just reinforces the astronomical improbabilities of them being actual coincidences.

Why don’t we just use Occam’s razor instead? BK did it.

All MOO

 

[Megnut]

Hmm. While I was writing it appears your post was edited. I believe your post used to make a distinction between permissable inferences based on the evidence and impermissible speculation. (Speculation based on anything, including the evidence.) That's a hard distinction to make if evidence is involved either way.

Anyway, technically there's no official evidence for anyone to consider or make inferences about since the trial hasn't started yet. And an inference is a conclusion that may be drawn, not one that must be drawn based on evidence.

Some posts have unequivocally stated BK ordered the knife & the sheath from Amazon. That may be true but we don't know that. It's unclear how that could be an inference -- based on what evidence? The existence of known subpoenas for Amazon records? A TV show? Others have stated the sheat is part of the actual murder weapon. I'm not sure most people in the general public would agree with that belief. A knife that's never been put in a sheath can still be used to kill just like a gun without a holster can be used to shoot someone. And it's pretty unlikely a sheath or a holster would be thought of as a deadly weapon or even though of objects to make ordinary objects into deadly weapons.

At any rate, for me, there's a big difference at this point between saying "BK's DNA is on the murder weapon sheath" vs saying "the sheath probably was left behind by a knife-wielding murderer..."

MOO

RBBM

Of course, the trial is the proper place for admissible evidence, but we have the time here to make predictions about how the trial will go.

The break down on this one is easy for me.

If BK shopped on Amazon for vegan cookbooks or bathroom rugs, AT would be THRILLED for the State -- and the public -- to know it.

Her motion to suppress is VERY telling, and when added to the growing list of other observations about the case, that Amazon discovery is bad for BK.

JMO

 

[Knitty]

This thread is closed. Please continue at Thread #101