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

[Megnut]

IMO - Horrifying to even imagine! MOO

If we imagine BK intended to enter the residence after everyone was asleep and murder one victim in total silence, and somehow completely missed that XK was awake and moving around, once he encountered KG, he lost control of silence. But he may have lost it before he even entered MM's room -- because, if DM hears KG (or someone) say "there's someone there", there's a fair chance BK heard it too. Also possible however that he didn't hear it if the reference was to the door dash vehicle/driver. I still think it's possible that DM WAS right and she did hear KG say it and did hear KG on the steps, minutes before KG was murdered.

In any event, surely BK heard DM when she called out from her door. He knew he had company.

I cannot account for one latent print. Either he stepped in blood or he didn't, right? How did he not step in blood and track it? How did he leave one footprint way over by DM's door? And not the footstep right before it? Some weird feature of the diamond pattern? And then some weird event with that one step, making fuller contact?

Did he come down the steps intent on locating that speaker, paused at her door to listen for movement and then encountered XK or EC and pivoted? Maybe the pressure of that step is what stamped his footprint in blood ink?

Happened not on his way out but between. Between murdering MM and KG first and XK and EC last.

How do you ever recover from knowing a murderer was right outside your door, with a knife covered in blood?

Living nightmare.

JMO

 

[Swansee]

On the alibi:
I agree that the "alibi" as we've seen it so far is worthless.
However I do not agree that on this day and age an alibi can only be produced by someone's testimony.
IMO the phone data (as analyzed by Sy Ray) should be the prime source of alibi. The Defense has had plenty of time to comb through this now.
If the D has cell data that puts BK somewhere else that night, they should be made to show it now in discovery. If they don't/can't, then and only then does any testimony of BK about his whereabouts have any value.

 

[Megnut]

I 100% agree with you. They wanted to manufacture an alibi out of the discovery, which is exactly why this is not allowed. BK should know from the first moment of arrest what his alibi is, and his counsel ought to be able to particularise it in filings so that the prosecution gets a fair chance to investigate it.

My guess is they have some Sy Ray stuff that doesn't actually qualify as alibi evidence.

Well, we know that, some of the time, BK wasn't driving toward Moscow apparently. (I'm going to bet he left his apartment by a different route because if the unrelated police presence.) And when he was circling, he was away from the house on the outer reaches. And iirc there's no cctv on the main stretch so no one knows how exactly he approached, to a point.

This is where AT was trying to work it IMO.

That it's BK's Elantra on the far side, that he never approaches 1122 and certainly never stops, but I'm guessing the evidence doesn't support that.

If the CAST report shows he turned his phone off, she loses her weak defense that he was driving around out of cell range. If LE has even one identifying image of the Elantra within proximity of 1122 King, she loses her other weak defense -- that he was driving, "just not over there".

Rush to judgment? SODDI? Who? A distant cousin who shares DNA but doesn't match the DNA on the sheath? Shoddy police work or a frame up and his DNA was reverse engineered? I think this might be the only thing she can do, on cross. Try to convince the jury there is something sketchy about the timing and something too convenient that it all points at BK. As if he's on trial because LE wanted him to be guilty so they made it fit.

Juries are smarter than that.

JMO

 

[INfisherman]

Ohhh. Now that's a snappy slogan!

…especially if he could manage to get Puffy Doodly Daddy Diddy to rap it for him, featuring R. Kelly.

"You stole the DNA n’ that will have to go away."
"He wasn’t driving that car, my boy was gazin’ up at stars."
"My homie was feelin’ depressed so we gonna get dat stuff suppressed."
"They say tha phone be in plane mode so AT gonna git dat flushed down the commode."

 

[iamshadow21]

If we imagine BK intended to enter the residence after everyone was asleep and murder one victim in total silence, and somehow completely missed that XK was awake and moving around, once he encountered KG, he lost control of silence. But he may have lost it before he even entered MM's room -- because, if DM hears KG (or someone) say "there's someone there", there's a fair chance BK heard it too. Also possible however that he didn't hear it if the reference was to the door dash vehicle/driver. I still think it's possible that DM WAS right and she did hear KG say it and did hear KG on the steps, minutes before KG was murdered.

In any event, surely BK heard DM when she called out from her door. He knew he had company.

I cannot account for one latent print. Either he stepped in blood or he didn't, right? How did he not step in blood and track it? How did he leave one footprint way over by DM's door? And not the footstep right before it? Some weird feature of the diamond pattern? And then some weird event with that one step, making fuller contact?

Did he come down the steps intent on locating that speaker, paused at her door to listen for movement and then encountered XK or EC and pivoted? Maybe the pressure of that step is what stamped his footprint in blood ink?

Happened not on his way out but between. Between murdering MM and KG first and XK and EC last.

How do you ever recover from knowing a murderer was right outside your door, with a knife covered in blood?

Living nightmare.

JMO

Nothing says that this was the ONLY print.

It may be that this print specifically was mentioned because a) the location was significant and supported the witness statement, and b) it had more clarity, completeness and detail than others (less smudged, less smeared, more crispness after development with Amido black than others documented).

The PCA is a handful of significant things, not the totality of the probably many thousands of individual evidence points collected from a complex, large and bloody scene with four victims. Just the blood spatter would be thousands of data points.

MOO

 

[mrjitty]

On the alibi:
I agree that the "alibi" as we've seen it so far is worthless.
However I do not agree that on this day and age an alibi can only be produced by someone's testimony.
IMO the phone data (as analyzed by Sy Ray) should be the prime source of alibi. The Defense has had plenty of time to comb through this now.
If the D has cell data that puts BK somewhere else that night, they should be made to show it now in discovery. If they don't/can't, then and only then does any testimony of BK about his whereabouts have any value.

Right but there is a policy reason we typically require early disclosure of the alibi - to stop a defendant using experts or friendly witnesses to manufacture one.

For instance, even if Sy Ray can support the alibi, there is no reason why the defendant should not have been required to disclose where his alibi places him early on - because he has always 'known' this. If the defence is allowed years to manufacture an alibi, after combing through all the discovery, it may become impossible for the state to disprove e.g if traffic camera data is deleted by then.

The law varies a lot between jurisdictions but that is the general gist of it.

MOO

 

[mrjitty]

Well, we know that, some of the time, BK wasn't driving toward Moscow apparently. (I'm going to bet he left his apartment by a different route because if the unrelated police presence.) And when he was circling, he was away from the house on the outer reaches. And iirc there's no cctv on the main stretch so no one knows how exactly he approached, to a point.

This is where AT was trying to work it IMO.

That it's BK's Elantra on the far side, that he never approaches 1122 and certainly never stops, but I'm guessing the evidence doesn't support that.

If the CAST report shows he turned his phone off, she loses her weak defense that he was driving around out of cell range. If LE has even one identifying image of the Elantra within proximity of 1122 King, she loses her other weak defense -- that he was driving, "just not over there".

Rush to judgment? SODDI? Who? A distant cousin who shares DNA but doesn't match the DNA on the sheath? Shoddy police work or a frame up and his DNA was reverse engineered? I think this might be the only thing she can do, on cross. Try to convince the jury there is something sketchy about the timing and something too convenient that it all points at BK. As if he's on trial because LE wanted him to be guilty so they made it fit.

Juries are smarter than that.

JMO

Yeah. I don't think BK has any defence personally.

I think the defence will mostly be passive - try to discredit the evidence

 

[Megnut]

Nothing says that this was the ONLY print.

It may be that this print specifically was mentioned because a) the location was significant and supported the witness statement, and b) it had more clarity, completeness and detail than others (less smudged, less smeared, more crispness after development with Amido black than others documented).

The PCA is a handful of significant things, not the totality of the probably many thousands of individual evidence points collected from a complex, large and bloody scene with four victims. Just the blood spatter would be thousands of data points.

MOO

I'm never find it now but iirc wasn't that a relevation from the transcript/released documents? That it was a lone print?

All this time, I assumed only one print was cited in the PCA not because there was only one but because of the relevance/location.

The transcript reads like there was one and only one print. Which makes zero sense, granted.

Anybody else read/remember it that way?

JMO

 

[Swansee]

Right but there is a policy reason we typically require early disclosure of the alibi - to stop a defendant using experts or friendly witnesses to manufacture one.

For instance, even if Sy Ray can support the alibi, there is no reason why the defendant should not have been required to disclose where his alibi places him early on - because he has always 'known' this. If the defence is allowed years to manufacture an alibi, after combing through all the discovery, it may become impossible for the state to disprove e.g if traffic camera data is deleted by then.

The law varies a lot between jurisdictions but that is the general gist of it.

MOO

This is incorrect in this case AFAIU.
Idaho code 19-519 states that an alibi, or witness to corroborate it, can be produced even as late as during trial if it was unknown beforehand, unless the judge objects then and there (see subsection 3).

Section 19-519 – Idaho State Legislature

legislature.idaho.gov

At the time the "alibi" was given, the complete CAST data had not been provided to the Defense. This was still true at the time Sy Ray took the stand. Therefore they could not in fact produce the analysis supporting a putative alibi back then.
AFAIK the Defense's discovery deadline was on January 9. We have not seen if a phone data based alibi is contained therein.
I do agree BK's claimed location should be disclosed by now since presumably the D now have everything and have had time to analyze, but if somehow they find cell phone data that places BK elsewhere, even during the trial, they absolutely can bring it in at the last minute unless the judge objects.
My main disagreement with the Prosecution's motion here is over the (IMO) very antiquated notion that eyewitnesses and a defendant taking the stand are the best way to prove an alibi. Cell data is the obvious best way to show where BK was/was not at any given time.
MOO

 

[imstilla.grandma]

Summaries of court documents in the case show the defense filed a motion Monday “to Strike Death Penalty RE: Autism Spectrum Disorder.”

A “Motion to Redact or Seal Newly Filed Records” was also filed Monday “in Support of their Motion to Strike Death Penalty RE: Autism Spectrum Disorder Under Seal.”

Defense for Idaho quadruple murder suspect Bryan Kohberger asks to remove the possibility of death penalty, citing autism

(CNN) — Attorneys for the man accused of stabbing four University of Idaho students to death in 2022 have nodded to autism spectrum disorder in asking the court to ensure

www.kten.com

 

[mickey2942]

@Megnut "Juries are smarter than that".

Let's hope so!

 

[AcousticViper]

I'm never find it now but iirc wasn't that a relevation from the transcript/released documents? That it was a lone print?

That's how I remember it. AT said there was no prints before or after. But maybe my mistake is accepting anything AT says at face value.

 

[Megnut]

That's how I remember it. AT said there was no prints before or after. But maybe my mistake is accepting anything AT says at face value.

Ah, there we go.

I forgot to translate from Defense language.

Bet we'll discover this. There were other prints. The one in question was included because of location and it gave the best print.

Makes sense AT would try to minimize and confuse.

Makes no sense that there were no other prints. Quite possibly they were too light (pressure wise) or smeared (movement wise) to be useful but the one time he planted his foot, he left one usable latent imprint.

JMO

 

[imstilla.grandma]

• 03/01/2024 Appellant Reply Motion Extention of Time
• 03/22/2024 Motion for Seventh Extension of Time
• 03/25/2024 Appellant Reply Motion Extention of Time
• 03/28/2024 Appellants Reply Brief
• 02/06/2025 Published Opinion
• 02/06/2025 Published Opinion Summary

Idaho Judicial Cases of Interest

NonStop Local KHQ submitted a records request for the motion, however a second motion filed on Tuesday suggested the parties agreed to file the motion to strike the death penalty under seal, meaning the information may not be made available, even with a records request.

Bryan Kohberger’s defense may seek to remove death penalty, citing autism spectrum disorder

BOISE, Idaho — The defense team for Bryan Kohberger, the man accused of killing four University of Idaho students in 2022, may be seeking to remove the death penalty as

www.nbcrightnow.com

 

[iamshadow21]

That's how I remember it. AT said there was no prints before or after. But maybe my mistake is accepting anything AT says at face value.

Yeah, she's misrepresented the evidence before and been caught out at it.

Common sense says that there is more than one print, and that they lead from a significant blood shedding event to the point where the evidence print was left. The blood shedding events that we know about took place on the top floor (MM's room) and in the front half of the middle floor (XK's room).

Stepping in dripping blood from, say, the knife blade while in transit would not leave a comprehensive print of probative value. There just wouldn't be enough liquid volume to cover the sole. I think he had to have stepped in a pool of it.

We know the house was floored in modern lino, which is a perfect surface for blood to puddle and pool, and for detailed prints to be left.

MOO

 

[SortaSleuthy]

Yes, that and him circling the house 3 times at the exact time of the murders caught on video surveillance. I wonder why he did circle so many times?

Was he scoping out any other unknown vehicles like the DD driver, Kaylee's new car, Ethan's car and the alleged couple who left close to the time before he parked and went it? Was he working up the actual courage to go through with his plan? IDK

I agree that we will probably never know the whole story of why. It's Bryan's way of controlling the narrative and leaving the families without the answers they so desperately need and deserve.

Budding serial killer IMO.

JMO

IMO, he was waiting for lights to be turned off.

 

[ilovewings]

@Megnut "Juries are smarter than that".

Let's hope so!

some (juries) are and some aren't!

 

[imstilla.grandma]

"The defense is making the argument that Bryan Kohberger was out for a drive in no specific area or place. And that's his alibi. And they presented no witness to be able to testify to that. So, the prosecution is arguing that if the defense does raise any argument about alibi, that would have to come from Bryan Kohberger and no other source," explained ABC News legal contributor Brian Buckmire.

Bryan Kohberger update: New battle over alibi in Idaho college murders case | What it means

The prosecution argued the judge should limit the evidence Kohberger's attorneys can present to support his alibi for the November 2022 murders of four University of Idaho students.

6abc.com

Autism spectrum disorder is a developmental disability caused by differences in the brain, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says, adding scientists believe multiple causes of the disorder act together to change the most common ways people develop.

One motion focuses on what Kohberger’s defense team calls an “ideological shift” and “evolving standards” in the way Americans view the death penalty..

Defense for Idaho quadruple murder suspect Bryan Kohberger may cite autism to try to strike death penalty option

(CNN) — Attorneys for the man accused of stabbing four University of Idaho students to death in 2022 have nodded to autism spectrum disorder in asking the court to ensure

www.news8000.com

 

[mrjitty]

This is incorrect in this case AFAIU.
Idaho code 19-519 states that an alibi, or witness to corroborate it, can be produced even as late as during trial if it was unknown beforehand, unless the judge objects then and there (see subsection 3).

Section 19-519 – Idaho State Legislature

legislature.idaho.gov

I advanced a general proposition over various jurisdictions, and said it varies. But the general policy reason to require early disclosure is to prevent the fabrication of an alibi late in the day. As per your cite

19-519. Notice of defense of alibi. (1) At any time after arraignment before a magistrate upon a complaint and upon written demand of the prosecuting attorney, the defendant shall serve, within ten (10) days or at such different time as the court may direct, upon the prosecuting attorney, a written notice of his intention to offer a defense of alibi. Such notice by the defendant shall state the specific place or places at which the defendant claims to have been at the time of the alleged offense and the names and addresses of the witnesses upon whom he intends to rely to establish such alibi.

Of course should a witnesses emerge late in the day, it might be possible to stand up an alibi defence - i didn't say anything about that.

At the time the "alibi" was given, the complete CAST data had not been provided to the Defense. This was still true at the time Sy Ray took the stand. Therefore they could not in fact produce the analysis supporting a putative alibi back then.

Sure - but that doesn't mean they can't give proper notice of a alibi within the statutory time limits. The defendant does not need Sy Ray to tell him where he was.

AFAIK the Defense's discovery deadline was on January 9. We have not seen if a phone data based alibi is contained therein.
I do agree BK's claimed location should be disclosed by now since presumably the D now have everything and have had time to analyze, but if somehow they find cell phone data that places BK elsewhere, even during the trial, they absolutely can bring it in at the last minute unless the judge objects.

Sure - I have never said they can't use Sy Ray to cast doubt on where the defendant was. I don't even think they need to go to an alibi defence for that. Sy Ray can simply cast doubt on the state's CAST expert's findings. But they didn't need time to analyse where BK was. AT could simply ask him.

My main disagreement with the Prosecution's motion here is over the (IMO) very antiquated notion that eyewitnesses and a defendant taking the stand are the best way to prove an alibi. Cell data is the obvious best way to show where BK was/was not at any given time.
MOO

I don't think the prosecution is saying the cell data can't be used in that way. This is an evidential argument in this specific case.

For an alibi defence, the defendant must disclose the location within the 10 day limit (unless the Judge otherwise directs). The state is saying that the star gazer alibi can only be laid out explicitly before the jury if it comes in via some admissible evidence from some witness. Logically that witness can only be BK.

Otherwise you have the absurd scenario of Sy Ray having 2 years to figure out where BK was. He can of course still dispute where BK wasn't, and give ideas on what he thinks is more likely. He obviously cannot say that BK was 'star gazing" per the alibi defence. There is no way for Ray to know this.

My original argument is still simply that you cannot get this 'star gazing' in as an alibi without the defendant, unless you have something like the defendant talking to someone and saying 'oh i will go star gazing this evening'

Like how else do you bring it in?

IMO

 

[jepop]

This is incorrect in this case AFAIU.
Idaho code 19-519 states that an alibi, or witness to corroborate it, can be produced even as late as during trial if it was unknown beforehand, unless the judge objects then and there (see subsection 3).

Section 19-519 – Idaho State Legislature

legislature.idaho.gov

At the time the "alibi" was given, the complete CAST data had not been provided to the Defense. This was still true at the time Sy Ray took the stand. Therefore they could not in fact produce the analysis supporting a putative alibi back then.
AFAIK the Defense's discovery deadline was on January 9. We have not seen if a phone data based alibi is contained therein.
I do agree BK's claimed location should be disclosed by now since presumably the D now have everything and have had time to analyze, but if somehow they find cell phone data that places BK elsewhere, even during the trial, they absolutely can bring it in at the last minute unless the judge objects.
My main disagreement with the Prosecution's motion here is over the (IMO) very antiquated notion that eyewitnesses and a defendant taking the stand are the best way to prove an alibi. Cell data is the obvious best way to show where BK was/was not at any given time.
MOO

I think a witness could be interpreted as defense producing an expert to opine that X white car on video at, say, 4am at X location could be an elantra. Moo that would be in support of an alibi, weak as it may be. Jmo 'witness' does not have to be an eye witness. Ditto for cell data. But my point is, it has to be for the time of the crime, not at 3am, not at 2am, not 'earlier in the evening. Re the cell data, if BK turned his phone off at c2.50am and kept it off until c4.50am, then what use is Sy Ray in terms of an alibi? AJ said the phone was off. This is something that can be ascertained from the forensic down load, as actions like that are logged by a phone. USB of BK phone forensic down load was another warrant the Defense sought to have suppressed and this could be one of the reasons why. Jmo

I think from the state's filings for the MIL, at this point the defense has still not provided any witnesses (experts or otherwise) to support an alibi for where BK was at the time the crime was committed. Stressing that this is just my conjecture. Jmo.