4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #102

[Megnut]

And another thing....

BK doesn't have an alibi specifically for 4:09 to 4:20 am on November 13, 2022.

We're all agreed that he was driving before and after that.

It's the middle part AT has no answer for.

JMO

 

[Tealgrove]

And another thing....

BK doesn't have an alibi specifically for 4:09 to 4:20 am on November 13, 2022.

We're all agreed that he was driving before and after that.

It's the middle part AT has no answer for.

JMO

AT may not want to divulge what the answer is, however, she knows exactly where BK was during that time period.

If she does answer that question truthfully, it’s the end for her client.

MOO

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

IMO, I think the defence might suggest that the knife wasn't in BK's possession for a while before the murders. I don't think it'll be as cut and dry as "the REAL killer put it there."

IANAL so if anybody knows whether this is allowed, please let me know, but I think it'll be something like this: they might suggest that BK sold the knife & sheath off at a car boot sale, on eBay, to a friend, or donated it somewhere. Then, the REAL killer bought / found it, wiped it down of their own DNA, but left a trace of BK's on the snap unintentionally.

This would make more sense to me. It's not very believable, but seems more logical than simply suggesting BK was elaborately framed. Wouldn't they need to provide an actual suspect to bring this theory forward?

If they did want to suggest BK had sold / given away the knife, do they need empirical or digital evidence for this? Or can they just say it?

Moo.

Respectfully, I am not sure this ‘twist’ is all that realistic or practical perhaps?

Reasons include, from what is publicly known thus far, I don’t believe that “the REAL killer put it there.”

On the contrary it seems that the killer might have left it there accidentally?

And on the premise that “BK was elaborately framed.” :

If that is the case, again from available evidence seen publicly, it appears that BK might have framed himself perhaps? Maybe accidentally?

But after the release of a IMO disturbing ‘selfie’ - maybe someone thought they had done the impossible? And that they were clever enough to have fooled someone in a twisted way perhaps? And by that I mean someone = BK - the suspect and defendant …… from what has been publicly released.

I guess it will possibly become apparent once the judge and court dispatch of the plethora of motions and this trial begins. MOO

 

[Warwick7]

BK reminds me so much of Elliott Rodgers. Even that morning selfie they just released----it reminds me of ER.

And I do think that they may have had similar selfish motivations and similar internal struggles that were released in awful sick ways.

I had wondered where Pappa Rodgers came from.

Could BK have simulated the Rodgers name??

 

[Warwick7]

.

 

[danablue1]

RSBM
She may find it cathartic.

I myself have a problem with someone taking advantage of any unfortunate situation for money or attention. I'm not sure of her motive but i would never want to read a book about BK. Just my opinion.

 

[Warwick7]

Just like a child might be enamored with superheroes he reads about, BK may have felt like the criminals he studied were his friends.

Sick emulation. Shades of BTK, Ted Bundy, Elliott Rodgers.

JMO

As in Pappa Rodgers??

 

[Megnut]

AT may not want to divulge what the answer is, however, she knows exactly where BK was during that time period.

If she does answer that question truthfully, it’s the end for her client.

MOO

She claims of course that he was driving around, just not "over there" and of course not stopping.

Never mind those 12 minutes or so with no Elantra captured on any CCTV, I guess .3 miles is not "over there". In every other universe, .3 miles is proximal.

He must truly have imagined his Elantra to be invisible. And now AT wants us to believe it too.

JMO

 

[Gemmie]

I had wondered where Pappa Rodgers came from.

Could BK have simulated the Rodgers name??

Makes me wonder what he called his father when he was a child. Dad? Pappa?

 

[ilovewings]

IMO, I think the defence might suggest that the knife wasn't in BK's possession for a while before the murders. I don't think it'll be as cut and dry as "the REAL killer put it there."

IANAL so if anybody knows whether this is allowed, please let me know, but I think it'll be something like this: they might suggest that BK sold the knife & sheath off at a car boot sale, on eBay, to a friend, or donated it somewhere. Then, the REAL killer bought / found it, wiped it down of their own DNA, but left a trace of BK's on the snap unintentionally.

This would make more sense to me. It's not very believable, but seems more logical than simply suggesting BK was elaborately framed. Wouldn't they need to provide an actual suspect to bring this theory forward?

If they did want to suggest BK had sold / given away the knife, do they need empirical or digital evidence for this? Or can they just say it?

Moo.

Right? It’s so preposterous, IMO, all these ludicrous scenarios and the defense trying to make them sound plausible in any way.

It’s wearisome. I think I am getting worn out with this nonsense.

If the sheath were randomly touched in a store by BK, you know, just browsing around, that means the sheath was accessible to anyone shopping and not in protective packaging or kept in a locked counter.

What are the odds that BK is the only one who ever touched a sheath that was on display? If, as suggested by the defense, BK touched the sheath snap in the store, and then after him someone else did the same, then where is the DNA from the other shopper?

Someone was crafty enough to know that it was BK who had randomly touched that snap on display, then preserved BK’s DNA, and wiped off their own DNA without wiping off Bryan’s?
Impossible.

Yes, of course, then there is all the other incriminating evidence, again. The car, the physical description, the phone off, the lack of an alibi. Etcetera.

Plus all the fruitless attempts by the defense to keep the DNA results out of the evidence. Now that they had to acquiesce that the DNA is in fact Bryan’s, we get more loony explanations that are just ridiculously illogical.

IMO

It is total nonsense but that is all they have-- BS defense, but what else is new- we've seen crap like this in high profile trials----

 

[Megnut]

I hope the State leads with the selfie in their opening remarks.

Maybe some beautiful, life-size posters of the victims... then the selfie...

Here's what the victims looked like when they were full of life. And here's what BK looked like after killing them.

Then the jury can continuously compare that to the stone-faced, flat-affected, shrinking violet in the shrinking defendant's chair.

Defendant feeeeeeeels what he wants to feeeeeeeeeel.

He hadn't slept all night, he slaughtered four young adults in their own home and he's smirking at his proud self.

When people show you who they are, believe them.

JMO

 

[minazoe]

he's checking his mask. mOO

 

[Gemmie]

I hope the State leads with the selfie in their opening remarks.

Maybe some beautiful, life-size posters of the victims... then the selfie...

Here's what the victims looked like when they were full of life. And here's what BK looked like after killing them.

Then the jury can continuously compare that to the stone-faced, flat-affected, shrinking violet in the shrinking defendant's chair.

Defendant feeeeeeeels what he wants to feeeeeeeeeel.

He hadn't slept all night, he slaughtered four young adults in their own home and he's smirking at his proud self.

When people show you who they are, believe them.

JMO

Or pics of them where and as they were found, then his thumbs-up selfie.

 

[Arkay]

IANAL so if anybody knows whether this is allowed, please let me know, but I think it'll be something like this: they might suggest that BK sold the knife & sheath off at a car boot sale, on eBay, to a friend, or donated it somewhere. Then, the REAL killer bought / found it, wiped it down of their own DNA, but left a trace of BK's on the snap unintentionally.

I know we are all just speculating here, but IMO, (and I know I’m becoming redundant having said this too many times), this is such an implausible chain of events. Impossible, actually, IMO.

Not at all against you, @Bahshudc, just against the multitude of outrageous theories the defense has been throwing around since Day One.

If I were a juror on this case and the defense presented this theory, it would strike me as so absurd that I don’t know if I’d laugh or cry.

I would have reasonable doubt that this theory hangs together in any way. Or whatever is even beyond reasonable doubt. Certainty, maybe?

The skin cells of BK’s DNA on the snap are not visible without a microscope. The “real killer” would have had to touch the snap to unsheathe the knife. There is just no reasonable way to wipe off any other “real killer’s” DNA from the snap while leaving BK’s intact.

BK’s DNA is on a critical spot of the murder weapon’s outer portion. The murderer HAD to touch the snap if he had any hope of using the K-Bar to kill, rather than just brandish it to scare his victims.

If there were 100 men involved in this murder, it still does not negate that his was there.

There’s only his, though. That’s because he did it. Only him.

His ghastly self-congratulatory selfie is not proof of guilt, IMO, but certainly goes to his state of mind post-murder.

JMO

 

[MassGuy]

And another thing....

BK doesn't have an alibi specifically for 4:09 to 4:20 am on November 13, 2022.

We're all agreed that he was driving before and after that.

It's the middle part AT has no answer for.

JMO

And she needs an answer for this. It’s a rare situation where the defense absolutely has to prove something, or their client is done. The burden is entirely on them in this regard, because anything less than clear proof that he was elsewhere means that he’s definitely guilty.

They can’t merely poke holes, and raise some degree of doubt; that’s not remotely good enough.

And of course, we know they cannot do this.

 

[Arkay]

Sick emulation. Shades of BTK, Ted Bundy, Elliott Rodgers.

As in Pappa Rodgers??

I can see this. I seem to recall that Elliot Rodger became the “patron saint” of incels. “Papa” could fit as the progenitor of notorious incels.


Oh, I see now that Wikipedia ends their entry on him by claiming his legacy as bringing attention to incels, praises for him by others in the “incel community,” celebrating “Saint Elliot Day” on the anniversary of his murders, etc.

Also incels referring to attacking women as “going E.R.”

Yikes.

Elliot Rodger - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Megnut]

And she needs an answer for this. It’s a rare situation where the defense absolutely has to prove something, or their client is done. The burden is entirely on them in this regard, because anything less than clear proof that he was elsewhere means that he’s definitely guilty.

They can’t merely poke holes, and raise some degree of doubt; that’s not remotely good enough.

And of course, we know they cannot do this.

Well, exactly.

And crazy that that same sliver of time for which there's no cellular or cctv evidence of BK driving any Elantra is the self-same 12 minutes during which EVERYTHING BAD happened at house.

So.... while we don't "technically" know where his car was (parked here, parked there, it sure wasn't a Tesla driving without him), he kinda parked his sheath, like a flag on the moon, saying, "I was here."

AT's new strategy is a classic shell game. Elantra. BK's phone. BK himself. The knife sheath. As if these are four independent characters, moving freely of each other. But a smart jury won't fall for the trick.

Truth doesn't need tricks.

JMO

 

[windrower]

This gave me a start—the lid on my to-go coffee from a new place.

Only those on this forum will understand why I was creeped out.

 

[Gemmie]

This gave me a start—the lid on my to-go coffee from a new place.

Only those on this forum will understand why I was creeped out.

I don't think I could actually use that after seeing what it says. And to put my lips on it? Nope. Not happening.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

I think a suspected quadruple murderer is an extreme circumstance.

If BK had seen Swat sneaking up the driveway, he could have taken his family hostage. Or maybe taken the easy way out and killed himself and taken some family down with him?

I think LE made the right choice to take them by surprise.

A suspected quadruple murderer is an extreme criminal, not by itself, an extreme "circumstance."

This was absolutely NOT an extreme circumstance, IMO. They could have gotten him when he left the house. They could have gotten him when he went on one of his nighttime runs. They could have gotten him the next time he emptied the trash. Etc. Etc. Etc. There were many opportunities to get this guy in the weeks before and there would have been in the weeks after too. There's no evidence he was soon-to-become a hermit isolating in the woods or taking off to some far-off exotic country. There would have been ways to get him without all the trauma and damage they did to the family.

This was a choice.

MOO.