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

[ilovewings]

Exactly. If I'm thinking about killing someone, am I seriously going to be deterred because of the death penalty? Like, "life in prison is fine, but the death penalty is a bridge too far."

He had every intention of getting away with this, and that takes an incredible degree of arrogance. The fact that he was incredibly close to doing just that, notwithstanding.

I believe most killers believe they are going to get away with murder. some do. A lot don't.
If BK had not left the sheath with his DNA he may have gotten away with it.

 

[Megnut]

There's that flashpoint where all his careful planning becomes that which burns him at trial.

JMO

 

[katydid23]

I can imagine how a person of his type could get thoughts and dreams of control and dominance sitting for years in a vacuum. Two things, however: first, there is zero connection between him and the victims.

These specific types of killers do not usually choose victims they already know. They look for opportunities and for a
'type' of desired victim. I think he wanted to kill attractive young sorority girls, the type who repeatedly rejected him.

And also, popular frat boys---the type that get all the girls that rejected him.

This house full of students was exactly what he was looking for. There was a 'connection' but it was all in his sick head.

(Whatever they say about IG I don’t put much value on.) Second, out of two potential witnesses, only one is seen. (One wants to ask, if he is a random loner from PA, why the fear?) It is like, the house was not in the vacuum, there should have been tons of witnesses, and yet, all depends on DM and touch DNA.

However, this being said, with all my doubts, I won’t be surprised if in course of the trial it will turn out to be a more straightforward case. Some others that have just finished or might be eventually reviewed raise more questions.

 

[katydid23]

I didn’t think of “material” connection or clues. It is still unproven whether he knew either, had crush on any or even thought about them. Following someone on IG means nothing. Likewise, sending messages or answering/not answering. It is Instagram.

Did Ted Bundy know his victims before hand? Or Elliot Rodgers? [NO, they chose them spontaneously]

 

[MassGuy]

I believe most killers believe they are going to get away with murder. some do. A lot don't.
If BK had not left the sheath with his DNA he may have gotten away with it.

John Douglas has a great saying: “Serial killers expect to get away with it, mass murderers don’t, and a spree killer hasn’t thought that far ahead.”

This guy committed a mass murder, but I’ve always viewed him the exact same way I’d view a serial killer.

I think all the same rules apply, despite him not meeting the official definition.

Power, control, a hatred of women, blah, blah, blah, but a main part of it I think, was the satisfaction he would have gotten from getting away with this. He was smarter than law enforcement, and better than them.

That means not getting caught.

 

[INfisherman]

Can't the prosecution just hold up a picture of him with bushy eyebrows?

They tried during a preliminary hearing prior to the Super Bowl but evidently got lots of false tips leading to Eugene Levy & tons of calls to Little Caesar’s. MOO

 

[minazoe]

I don't imagine a murderer considers if a state has the death penalty before he commits murder.

well now, except he is in study of criminal behavior so he can't be oblivious. mOO

 

[katydid23]

Considering this is the first time IGG has been used in a current case that is impossible. However, just because it has not been done is not an excuse for not doing it. Either LE wants to get to the right answer or they just want any old solution which may or may not be right. Without following the entire evidence trial to completion, they have only a partial picture of what may have happened. It is weak and it is unjust to the victims and their families. JMO.


My numbers are easily proven by decision science. JMO.

It is focusing on a blood spot within the crime scene. Blood DNA is always better evidence than touch/transfer DNA. Blood DNA proves it was deposited within that house. Touch/transfer DNA could have been deposited on the sheath anytime and anywhere. JMO.

Highly doubtful they have the right guy. The FBI NEVER said its was BK's DNA. Nothing else matches up. There is no DNA evidence in his car, apartment, office, storage unit or at his parents house. He didn't know any of the victims existed much less where they lived. JMO.

The case amounts to touch/transfer DNA which has not even been identified as belonging to BK. This is NOT a strong case based upon what we know so far. JMO.

PS: You are forgetting to put JMO after your statements.

All JMOO.

"Highly doubtful they have the right guy. The FBI NEVER said its was BK's DNA. Nothing else matches up. There is no DNA evidence in his car, apartment, office, storage unit or at his parents house. He didn't know any of the victims existed much less where they lived. JMO."

Bryan Kohberger DNA a "statistical match" from Idaho murders knife sheath: court documents

Bryan Kohberger's DNA is a "statistical match" to DNA collected from the sheath of a knife found at the University of Idaho murders scene, according to court documents filed by prosecutors.

www.cbsnews.com

CRIME

Bryan Kohberger DNA a "statistical match" from Idaho murders knife sheath: court documents​

June 21, 2023 / 2:24 PM EDT / CNN

(CNN) -- The DNA of Bryan Kohberger, the suspect in the stabbing deaths of four University of Idaho students at an off-campus home in Moscow last fall, is a "statistical match" to DNA collected from the sheath of a knife found at the scene, according to court documents filed by prosecutors.

An "STR" DNA comparison was performed on DNA collected from Kohberger and DNA taken from the knife sheath, prosecutors said in the June 16 filing. The samples showed a "statistical match," the court documents state.

 

[minazoe]

What if BK was the one that removed all of the other sources all over the sheath, then put his gloves on before he used it again----but he accidentally missed that one tiny spot when he was cleaning it?

So according to the above scenario, someone would have to set up the frame job against BK, way before the murders.

They had to get some of his DNA to put onto the Sheath snap.

How did they make sure that on the night of the actual murders, the patsy they framed, didnt have an alibi?

In fact, not only did he not have an alibi, he was actually out driving alone all night with his phone powered down. And he was driving a car looking just like the on seen on video, speeding away from the crime scene.

They were pretty lucky !

He wore gloves for the crime and to open the sheath on that fateful night...but I think he opened that snap BEFORE when he got the knife from amazon. when it arrived he popped open the snap on the sheath and played with the knife in front of the mirror and swung it around..then he put it back in the sheath...seriously he never thought about that snap again ..he was remiss..thank god. mOO

 

[Megnut]

well now, except he is in study of criminal behavior so he can't be oblivious. mOO

He prolly thought he bought himself a degree of insulation choosing a sorority-type house one campus over.

JMO

 

[iamshadow21]

@iamshadow21 , respectfully, autism is not a single genovar. Many different conditions might be lumped under “autism” just according to ICD10 or because we don’t yet know what genetic composition stands behind it. BK’s autism might be very different from a “conventional” one.

IMHO, autistic people as a group have fallen victims of an old description where it was said that autistic people had to be lacking empathy. Most autistic people I have met don’t. They may be struggling with alexithymia, finding words for emotions, and it may be viewed as lack of empathy but it is just not so.

So if BK is diagnosed with autism, I’d like to know what stands behind his form and how he indeed views this world. Also, if he did commit the crime, what phase of his upbringing was the most deleterious one. How sitting for years at home and gaining degrees and then being let out to “freedom” might have contributed.

Lastly, strange doesn’t equate “potentially able to kill”. I am concerned about the way he is viewed by the LE system and the community.

You seem to be disagreeing with me while agreeing with everything I said.

I was saying that BK should be judged on his actual ability to gauge the effects of his actions and his understanding of the rules of acceptable behaviour and morality and the law. Regardless of if he is autistic or has low or high empathy.

He shouldn't just be able to say 'but autism!' if he knew exactly what he was doing and what it meant. That's not what those laws are for. Those laws are to prevent intellectually and developmentally disabled people who don't have a clear understanding of the consequences of their actions from being executed. The same reason we don't execute children. The punishment is unfair if the subject can't grasp what is happening and why.

BK does not fit into this category. He is highly intelligent and can confirm to the rules of society when he chooses. He, if responsible, planned this crime and executed it in such a way that shows he was trying to achieve what he did and get away with it. That's very different to a case of an individual who couldn't gauge that their actions could bring great harm, or couldn't understand that their actions might be illegal.

MOO

 

[Tealgrove]

Did Ted Bundy know his victims before hand? Or Elliot Rodgers?

I do not believe Ted Bundy knew his victims. I’m not sure about Elliott Rodgers.

 

[Boxer]

What if BK was the one that removed all of the other sources all over the sheath, then put his gloves on before he used it again----but he accidentally missed that one tiny spot when he was cleaning it?

So according to the above scenario, someone would have to set up the frame job against BK, way before the murders.

They had to get some of his DNA to put onto the Sheath snap.

How did they make sure that on the night of the actual murders, the patsy they framed, didnt have an alibi?

In fact, not only did he not have an alibi, he was actually out driving alone all night with his phone powered down. And he was driving a car looking just like the on seen on video, speeding away from the crime scene.

They were pretty lucky !

Also placing or planting 20 skin cells needs a large microscope and other equipment.

 

[katydid23]

That is only corroborating evidence if they can prove it was HIS white Elantra. There is no proof of this as far as I know. There's no video that shows the driver or gives any evidence that it is his car.

As far as I know, we also don't know that he drove by the crime scene later that morning. I'm not sure where that came from.



Again, you're mixing up facts with theory here. Yes, he submitted an alibi about stargazing. We don't know if his phone was off or out of a service area (last I heard) and again, we don't know that is his vehicle. That is a white Elantra. He drives a white Elantra. But there is no evidence that is his white Elantra. The prosecution will have to prove that in court.

MOO

They won't necessarily have to prove, beyond all doubt, that it was his Elantra. But they can use the circumstantial evidence logic, to convince the jury that it was quite probably HIS Elantra.

It is like building that wall of guilt, brick by brick. The foundAtion of that wall is, of course, HIS single source male DNA, on the knife sheath left under the 2 bodies.

On top of that evidence, brick by brick, they need to show that he was there probably that night, circumstance by circumstance.

Where was he that night?
Oh, he admits to be out driving alone all night in Moscow area. <Brick
And his phone was powered off or dead, only during crime window. <Brick
One surviving witness described intruder in the house who potentially resembled BK <Brick
His phone logs show him leaving his home, phone soon powered off, then near sunrise, it is powered back on. <Brick
CCTV shows a white Elantra, just like his car, arriving before crime, speeding away after <Brick
Next morning, cctv shows him in his white Elantra at market, on his cell. So he did use that phone and car. <Brick

 

[katydid23]

I do not believe Ted Bundy knew his victims. I’m not sure about Elliott Rodgers.

Neither of them did. That was my point. lol

 

[Arkay]

I think that the item would have others’ DNAs on it. However, the fact that only BK’s DNA was lifted from the sheath and it was touch DNA is a little bit suspicious. Think of the opposite situation, like leaving your pen at the crime scene. It would contain your DNA, but potentially, these of the people in your household, your work, your bank.

Now, just one spot of touch DNA, and only yours, at the place where the pen is usually held, would be suspicious. It is as if someone bothered to remove other potential sources before lifting yours. Or more likely, cleared all and transferred yours on one spot. It is not difficult to do. When did BK buy the knife on Amazon?

IMO, an everyday object such as a pen, particularly in a public place like a bank or a work environment, is commonly touched by various people.

That is not something I’d expect people to do with a dangerous weapon such as a K-Bar knife, unless you’re a terrorist or a member of some hit squad and you’re handing out knives like candy.

I’m not at all following your reasoning when you state all this about removing multiple sources of DNA, then clandestinely somehow grabbing some cells of one person’s DNA off some object and transplanting it to one spot on the sheath, and adding that it’s not difficult to do?

DNA is microscopic and cannot be seen with the naked eye. Perhaps someone could remove all traces of DNA with some solvent, but lifting a single person's invisible DNA from an object and transferring it elsewhere—— how does that work?

JMO

 

[Charlot123]

IMO, an everyday object such as a pen, particularly in a public place like a bank or a work environment, is commonly touched by various people.

That is not something I’d expect people to do with a dangerous weapon such as a K-Bar knife, unless you’re a terrorist or a member of some hit squad and you’re handing out knives like candy.

I’m not at all following your reasoning when you state all this about removing multiple sources of DNA, then clandestinely somehow grabbing some cells of one person’s DNA off some object and transplanting it to one spot on the sheath, and adding that it’s not difficult to do?

DNA is microscopic and cannot be seen with the naked eye. Perhaps someone could remove all traces of DNA with some solvent, but lifting a single person's invisible DNA from an object and transferring it elsewhere—— how does that work?

JMO

OK. DNA that we are talking about is not a tiny strand under a microscope. For DNA testing, it is extracted from nucleated cells. To get DNA, you have to have source of nucleated cells - blood, saliva, epithelium of the oral mucosa, sweat if it contains shed skin cells, hair roots. Seldom would touch DNA come from just one cell; “touch” like a fingerprint contains shed epithelial cells, sweat and sebum (another potential source of DNA).

So if you use biometrics on your phone, you can leave DNA on the screen. Theoretically, someone who doesn’t like you can take your cell phone (not touching the screen) and rub the screen against something (including the button of the sheath) where people want to leave your incriminating DNA. They can steal your worn T-shirt and rub the collar against the same button of the sheath.
<modsnip - off topic>

So I made notes. It was a little bit strange after that to not hear anbout any murderer’s DNA on the crime scene but, the case was closed.

But, if you subscribe to the theory, it is hard to let go. If DNA can be even transferred from one person to another and they are not in direct contact, which I btw, fully believe can happen, then the same fact could be used as a counter argument against “BK’s touch DNA on a sheath button irrefutably proves that he was the killer.” Maybe there will be a wealth of another information during the trial - as I have said, I am split about “BK’s the killer” theory but not against it. If anything, I just can’t believe that he worked alone, that’s all. But…maybe.

Mostly, you just can’t ardently persuade the public why touch DNA is irrelevant in one case and then assume they will forget, you know?

 

[Balthazar]

I can understand if someone is a germaphobe, for example, wearing gloves to sort the trash.

What I CANNOT understand is subsequently disposing of one’s trash in the NEIGHBOR’S garbage.

It definitely implies he had something to hide—since he was, after all, hiding something.

What has to be hidden? The police aren’t going to care about his crumpled bag of potato chips, his empty milk carton or whatever. They are looking for DNA and he knows it. Hence the attempted switcheroo.

IMO

Where I live, putting your trash in your neighbor's bins is not unusual. Our HOA limits the amount of trash and so, if you have extra, you put it in your neighbor's bin IF there is room, if you are friends with them and it causes them no hardship. Nothing unusual or weird about it.

 

[LinasK]

OK. DNA that we are talking about is not a tiny strand under a microscope. For DNA testing, it is extracted from nucleated cells. To get DNA, you have to have source of nucleated cells - blood, saliva, epithelium of the oral mucosa, sweat if it contains shed skin cells, hair roots. Seldom would touch DNA come from just one cell; “touch” like a fingerprint contains shed epithelial cells, sweat and sebum (another potential source of DNA).

So if you use biometrics on your phone, you can leave DNA on the screen. Theoretically, someone who doesn’t like you can take your cell phone (not touching the screen) and rub the screen against something (including the button of the sheath) where people want to leave your incriminating DNA. They can steal your worn T-shirt and rub the collar against the same button of the sheath.
<modsnip - off topic>

So I made notes. It was a little bit strange after that to not hear anbout any murderer’s DNA on the crime scene but, the case was closed.

But, if you subscribe to the theory, it is hard to let go. If DNA can be even transferred from one person to another and they are not in direct contact, which I btw, fully believe can happen, then the same fact could be used as a counter argument against “BK’s touch DNA on a sheath button irrefutably proves that he was the killer.” Maybe there will be a wealth of another information during the trial - as I have said, I am split about “BK’s the killer” theory but not against it. If anything, I just can’t believe that he worked alone, that’s all. But…maybe.

Mostly, you just can’t ardently persuade the public why touch DNA is irrelevant in one case and then assume they will forget, you know?

Who is going to frame BK and get his DNA and rub it only on the snap of the knife sheath that just happens to be under the murder victim? How is there no evidence of any other intruder, but the witness description and all the other circumstantial evidence- car, cell phone off, etc. all point to him???

 

[LinasK]

Where I live, putting your trash in your neighbor's bins is not unusual. Our HOA limits the amount of trash and so, if you have extra, you put it in your neighbor's bin IF there is room, if you are friends with them and it causes them no hardship. Nothing unusual or weird about it.

Did Kohlberger's parents live in an HOA? If not, that theory is out the window.