4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #105

[girlhasnoname]

I'm thinking maybe when he walked down the stairs after killing MM and KG. He heard something, maybe XK saying someone was there. He comes down the stairs, turns to the right towards DM's door, leans in to listen for someone in that room. He puts weight down on one foot and that's why it shows up, and why the print is closer to the door than DM reported seeing him and why the print is not positioned toward the slider and the exit. He doesn't hear anything, so proceeds to XK's room.
JMO

Could have been. IIRC DM opened and shut/locked her door 3 times. Maybe BK did try her door, found it locked and moved on to Xana's room as you mentioned.

Whatever the sequence of events, it's all a terrible and vicious crime committed by someone who has no MH issues that 'caused' his actions. I believe he'd been fantasizing about it for some time. Perhaps since working with the Prof at DeSales who has studied and written specifically on BTK.

JMO

 

[Balthazar]

The question with any piece of circumstantial evidence is what inference can be drawn from it. In this case the answer will be nothing. So it's not relevant.

We don't know that for a fact. We seem to have a circumstantial case where not all of the circumstances were taken into consideration:

Unknown male blood on the bannister
Unknown male DNA under MM's fingernail
Unknown male blood on the glove just outside the house

Why is the unknown male blood less important than a miniscule amount of touch DNA on the sheath?

 

[MassGuy]

We don't know that for a fact. We seem to have a circumstantial case where not all of the circumstances were taken into consideration:

Unknown male blood on the bannister
Unknown male DNA under MM's fingernail
Unknown male blood on the glove just outside the house

Why is the unknown male blood less important than a miniscule amount of touch DNA on the sheath?

<modsnip>

I don't know if you're joking or not, but touch DNA on the sheath to a murder weapon is absolutely going to be your best evidence based on what we know here. We know for a fact the killer had to have touched not only the sheath, but that specific portion of it.

It is not even remotely close to the value of less than 1% male DNA under MM's fingernails, when all evidence suggests it was impossible for her to have scratched her attacker in the first place(ignoring the tiny percentage of DNA that also tells us that).

Or some random blood spot found in an area of the house the killer almost certainly did not go, which has no corresponding blood.

Or some glove found outside that almost certainly doesn't have victim DNA on it, or a cut in it.

Again, this would make a better comedy scene than a real life scenario (law enforcement ignoring their best evidence).

 

[MassGuy]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed> ... it is incredibly common for former FBI profilers to make the news rounds after crimes like this. They tend to talk about unexplained injuries, and behavioral changes.

 

[mrjitty]

We don't know that for a fact. We seem to have a circumstantial case where not all of the circumstances were taken into consideration:

Unknown male blood on the bannister
Unknown male DNA under MM's fingernail
Unknown male blood on the glove just outside the house

Why is the unknown male blood less important than a miniscule amount of touch DNA on the sheath?

BBM

Because no inference can be drawn from it.

This is evidence 300 class basic stuff. You can't speculate doubt out of it.

 

[MassGuy]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

This is simply not true:


CSI teams err on the side of caution, collecting items that might be relevant to avoid missing critical evidence. They don’t need certainty to collect something—only reasonable suspicion it could be useful. For example, they might collect a stain that looks like blood but turns out to be paint or an old injury mark. Protocols prioritize thoroughness to ensure no potential evidence is overlooked.

• Crime Scene Investigation: How It’s Done - National Institute of Justice
  • Link: https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/crime-scene-investigation-how-its-done
  • Relevant Info: This article explains that crime scene investigators collect a wide variety of physical evidence deemed "probative" (potentially valuable) for investigation, including blood and other body fluids. It emphasizes the importance of a systematic approach to evidence collection and documentation to ensure nothing is overlooked, with initial screening tests conducted to prioritize evidence.
• Evidence Collection - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf
  • Link: Evidence Collection - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf
  • Relevant Info: This source details the meticulous process of evidence collection, emphasizing that evidence must be identified, collected, and preserved correctly to maintain its integrity for legal proceedings. It highlights that forensic examiners collect evidence broadly to ensure all potential clues are captured, with analysis determining relevance later.
• Crime Scene Collection Techniques Information Page - All About Forensic Science
  • Link: Crime Scene Collection Techniques Information Page
  • Relevant Info: This resource explains that CSI investigators follow strict protocols to collect biological evidence, such as blood, and use techniques like cutting or scraping to ensure thorough collection. It notes that substrate controls (clean samples of the material) may be collected to troubleshoot contamination, indicating a cautious, inclusive approach to evidence gathering.
• Crime-Scene Investigation and Evidence Collection: 5 Steps - Eclipse Forensics
  • Link: Crime-Scene Investigation and Evidence Collection: 5 Steps - Eclipse Forensics
  • Relevant Info: This article outlines the steps of crime scene investigation, emphasizing that CSIs secure the scene and collect potential evidence using specific tools to prevent contamination. It underscores that the goal is to preserve all possible evidence, even if its relevance is not immediately clear, for later analysis.

 

[SteveP]

I don't recall this being said officially, but it is incredibly common for former FBI profilers to make the news rounds after crimes like this. They tend to talk about unexplained injuries, and behavioral changes.

Exactly! But no such definitive statement that the killer cut himself coming from anyone actually close to the crimes.

 

[SteveP]

This is simply not true:


CSI teams err on the side of caution, collecting items that might be relevant to avoid missing critical evidence. They don’t need certainty to collect something—only reasonable suspicion it could be useful. For example, they might collect a stain that looks like blood but turns out to be paint or an old injury mark. Protocols prioritize thoroughness to ensure no potential evidence is overlooked.

• Crime Scene Investigation: How It’s Done - National Institute of Justice
  • Link: https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/crime-scene-investigation-how-its-done
  • Relevant Info: This article explains that crime scene investigators collect a wide variety of physical evidence deemed "probative" (potentially valuable) for investigation, including blood and other body fluids. It emphasizes the importance of a systematic approach to evidence collection and documentation to ensure nothing is overlooked, with initial screening tests conducted to prioritize evidence.
• Evidence Collection - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf
  • Link: Evidence Collection - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf
  • Relevant Info: This source details the meticulous process of evidence collection, emphasizing that evidence must be identified, collected, and preserved correctly to maintain its integrity for legal proceedings. It highlights that forensic examiners collect evidence broadly to ensure all potential clues are captured, with analysis determining relevance later.
• Crime Scene Collection Techniques Information Page - All About Forensic Science
  • Link: Crime Scene Collection Techniques Information Page
  • Relevant Info: This resource explains that CSI investigators follow strict protocols to collect biological evidence, such as blood, and use techniques like cutting or scraping to ensure thorough collection. It notes that substrate controls (clean samples of the material) may be collected to troubleshoot contamination, indicating a cautious, inclusive approach to evidence gathering.
• Crime-Scene Investigation and Evidence Collection: 5 Steps - Eclipse Forensics
  • Link: Crime-Scene Investigation and Evidence Collection: 5 Steps - Eclipse Forensics
  • Relevant Info: This article outlines the steps of crime scene investigation, emphasizing that CSIs secure the scene and collect potential evidence using specific tools to prevent contamination. It underscores that the goal is to preserve all possible evidence, even if its relevance is not immediately clear, for later analysis.

Thank you!

 

[Megnut]

I'm thinking maybe when he walked down the stairs after killing MM and KG. He heard something, maybe XK saying someone was there. He comes down the stairs, turns to the right towards DM's door, leans in to listen for someone in that room. He puts weight down on one foot and that's why it shows up, and why the print is closer to the door than DM reported seeing him and why the print is not positioned toward the slider and the exit. He doesn't hear anything, so proceeds to XK's room.
JMO

If DM said snything to her housemates when she opened her door -- like "I'm trying to sleep", BK would have heard it, alerting him to an obstacle to his escape. We still don't know for certain who said "there's someone there" or to whom they said it or even whom or what they saw, leading to that conclusion.

We also don't know what XK heard, it's possible that she didn't hear anything, if she was listening to videos on TikTok with headphones, which means she nay not have heard KG if she said "there's someone there" or DM if she said anything or Murphy.

She was mobile... BK likely entered about ten minutes after she received her door dash delivery. She may have eaten it, listened to the last of her TikTok videos, the returned to the kitchen to set it down only to notice the slider different than it was, and give to get EC in about the same instant BK could have emerged from the dark staircase, quickly overtaking her. It's okay, I'm here to help. All he would have needed was the half second it took her to process the situation to overtake her, realizing only then that she too wasn't alone in her room. Maybe her bedroom light was on. And BK turned it off before he left...

I think DM's testimony is going to be STARTLING for her recall, despite any alcohol/sleep fog. She heard it all, she just didn't know at the time what is was that she was hearing.

It all syncs. Door Dash. TikTok. BK's Elantra in the area but not on any cameras. The thud and dog barking. DM's texts and phone calls. The squeal.

BK was pealing out probably at the exact moment DM was bolting for BF's room.

JMO

 

[Megnut]

FWIW I think BF may have volunteered that XK was wearing all black (when BF would have seen her last), as a statement and a question. To DM. As in: "Could it have been XK? She was wearing all black." "No. It wasn't her. It had a mask on.

JMO

 

[INfisherman]

This is simply not true:


CSI teams err on the side of caution, collecting items that might be relevant to avoid missing critical evidence. They don’t need certainty to collect something—only reasonable suspicion it could be useful. For example, they might collect a stain that looks like blood but turns out to be paint or an old injury mark. Protocols prioritize thoroughness to ensure no potential evidence is overlooked.

• Crime Scene Investigation: How It’s Done - National Institute of Justice
  • Link: https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/crime-scene-investigation-how-its-done
  • Relevant Info: This article explains that crime scene investigators collect a wide variety of physical evidence deemed "probative" (potentially valuable) for investigation, including blood and other body fluids. It emphasizes the importance of a systematic approach to evidence collection and documentation to ensure nothing is overlooked, with initial screening tests conducted to prioritize evidence.
• Evidence Collection - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf
  • Link: Evidence Collection - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf
  • Relevant Info: This source details the meticulous process of evidence collection, emphasizing that evidence must be identified, collected, and preserved correctly to maintain its integrity for legal proceedings. It highlights that forensic examiners collect evidence broadly to ensure all potential clues are captured, with analysis determining relevance later.
• Crime Scene Collection Techniques Information Page - All About Forensic Science
  • Link: Crime Scene Collection Techniques Information Page
  • Relevant Info: This resource explains that CSI investigators follow strict protocols to collect biological evidence, such as blood, and use techniques like cutting or scraping to ensure thorough collection. It notes that substrate controls (clean samples of the material) may be collected to troubleshoot contamination, indicating a cautious, inclusive approach to evidence gathering.
• Crime-Scene Investigation and Evidence Collection: 5 Steps - Eclipse Forensics
  • Link: Crime-Scene Investigation and Evidence Collection: 5 Steps - Eclipse Forensics
  • Relevant Info: This article outlines the steps of crime scene investigation, emphasizing that CSIs secure the scene and collect potential evidence using specific tools to prevent contamination. It underscores that the goal is to preserve all possible evidence, even if its relevance is not immediately clear, for later analysis.

You might wish to save this as a bookmark or in a text file so you can copy & paste it in the future, as I have a feeling it’s going to be needed again & again in this thread.

JMO

 

[fcavanaugh]

We don't know that for a fact. We seem to have a circumstantial case where not all of the circumstances were taken into consideration:

Unknown male blood on the bannister
Unknown male DNA under MM's fingernail
Unknown male blood on the glove just outside the house

Why is the unknown male blood less important than a miniscule amount of touch DNA on the sheath?
<modsnip>

IMO most cases are circumstantial and a lot of convictions secured on mostly, if not all, circumstantial evidence.

I believe the glove was found outside a week after the crime in November cold, snowy Idaho near a college house and could have been dropped by anyone walking by or around the house after the crime occured.
LE collected the other samples you listed above and results turned out to be inconclusive under MM’s nail and the handrail blood didn’t meet CODIS eligibility per B. Thompson.
In other words, they were limited samples, determined to be non-probative and ruled out as having anything to do with the crime.
The DNA under MM’s nail could have been deposited anytime that night prior when she was out at the bar and touching/hugging people, and the handrail DNA could’ve been from anyone who visited the party house prior.

I’m just trying to understand, are you saying you think 3 agencies of LE (MPD, ISP, FBI) and the DA/state of Idaho are incompetent, ignored evidence or you don’t believe all the LE involved investigated thoroughly enough had tunnel vision and BK had nothing to do with this/is being framed by ‘real killer’ for this atrocious crime and everything pointing at him like his DNA on knife sheath and other corroborating circumstantial evidence listed in a previous post is just all coincidences? And BK is being framed? Or do you think he’s involved and had an accomplice or something?

Also a very important point @SteveP mentioned, the defense could have had the DNA tested on their own if they felt it would lead anywhere/exonerate their client being tried with DP hanging over his head, but they haven’t and that says something don’t you think?

I’m just trying to understand and follow your logic and who you think is responsible and/or involved in this crime and any evidence corroborating the DNA under MM’s nail or blood on the handrail that you’re aware of because personally, I haven’t read about or seen any evidence pointing to anyone else being responsible for perpetrating this atrocity, and a bunch of evidence/corroborating evidence pointing straight at BK.

IMHOO

ETA-clarity

 

[Megnut]

Until LE determined otherwise, the entire house was a crime scene. As such, the secured the entire house. And yard, for thst matter.

Logical to hit up the handrails. In case the murderer didn't wear gloves. And was dumb or feeble enough to use a handrail. That it was swabbed shows due diligence.

Only later was a tighter crime scene drawn. There's everything to indicate one perpetrator, and one who didn't use that staircase. LE may have really good evidence he entered and exited on the middle level. And only went up, not down.

Regardless, LE had way better evidence to follow.

Sheath DNA.

Funny how AT tried to argue that BK had a right to privacy, relative to his DNA being run through IGG, conflating J Q Public's right.

Like, let's say Neighbor B feels really strongly about Big Brother overreach. Publicly condemns genetic genealogy on principle. Neighbor A feels differently. Crosses over to Neighbor B's house and surreptitiously collects his DNA and submits it. UTTER BREACH OF HIS PRIVACY.

This is not that. The judge shot it down immediately. BK has no right/expectation of privacy because it's his DNA and it's at a crime scene.

And if relatives of BK's who submitted their own DNA to a genetic genealogy site want to be outraged at the FBI's reach, they have no standing in BK's court and BK has no standing regarding their DNA. At most there's a civil court argument but again, it's not BK's party. For his interest, it was a closed box before AT even tried to pry the lid off.

We come full circle. Now we have people saying the FBI should have violated the presumption of privacy, to test the handrail blood to terminus. (Assuming it's even possible, of which I'm not convinced.) Run some poor chaos DNA through IGG where they can't make the comes from the suspect.

I suspect it's a limited sample anyway. Perhaps adequate to test as blood, as make blood, maybe as not a match to BK's blood, even though it doesn't contain the needed 20 alleles for CODIS but differs from BK's somewhere.

Heck, we might come to find it was such a limited quantity that any further testing would prove consumptive so LE simply shelved it.

The handrail blood is the Frazee case's cinnamon rolls. Popular discussion. Filled three threads, but in the end, zero evidentiary value.

JMO

 

[Ghostwheel]

My post was in response to the OP questioning if it could have been different from a targeted one person killing plan. I thought it was an interesting question. We really don't know for a fact at this point where BK started, 3rd vs 2nd floor. He could have encountered Xana upon entering, as we know she was up receiving DD and on TIKTOK, which meant a surprise of Ethan being there.

I mentioned BK may well have been targeting one roommate, but was also prepared to kill whomever became an obstacle. Agree, Kaylee sleeping in Maddie's room would likely have been another surprise, whether he was targeting Maddie or her.

I believe after murdering Maddie, Kaylee, Xana and Ethan, he felt he needed to get out of there ASAP (dog barking, neighborhood noises). I don't think BK saw DM, she said he observed him from a couple of feet away. If they had literally come into direct contact, I believe she would be dead as well.

I did say I changed my mind daily, lol, but it's a good exercise to consider all possibilities. IMO

Thank you, I am just wondering how to reconcile leaving anyone alive if the plan was mass murder. I can't seem to do it, except that he may have just gotten exhausted, or things didn't go in the order planned so he gave up. I was hoping someone else had some different thoughts on it.

 

[Ghostwheel]

Has anyone mentioned that maybe he did see DM and since she was awake during all the killing, assumed she called the police and thought he needed to get out of there STAT? This would explain not killing everyone, sort of. Except he would still have been on the way out and never gone downstairs, so maybe not. I just can't make planned mass killer work in my mind.

 

[fcavanaugh]

Has anyone mentioned that maybe he did see DM and since she was awake during all the killing, assumed she called the police and thought he needed to get out of there STAT? This would explain not killing everyone, sort of. Except he would still have been on the way out and never gone downstairs, so maybe not. I just can't make planned mass killer work in my mind.

Yes myself and others have opined that he may have got spooked and thought DM called 911 which could also account for him speeding away from the scene.

There are many following the case that think he only intended to kill one or possibly two of the coeds and things went sideways because he expected all the house occupants’ to be asleep when he went in to kill one and/or two. We will never know if his intent was to kill just one/two or to commit mass murder and kill everyone in the home unless he talks someday or something is revealed at trial like he wrote his plans down somewhere or something.

At any rate, the fact is he killed four individuals qualifying him a mass murderer no matter what his initial intent was and just shows what he’s capable of if things don’t go his way/someone(s) get in his way, and I’m one who personally believes had they not caught BK, he more than likely would have killed again.

IMHOO

 

[JudyBolton]

AT said it was one single footprint and no others.

AT says a lot of things...

 

[INfisherman]

AT says a lot of things...

To add, just because AT says things doesn’t mean they’re true or even based on case law or legal precedent either. I believe the judge has reminded her a few times of things she’s claimed which weren’t based on case law, precedent or probable cause. Frank’s hearing anyone?

Hence JH’s "every day & twice on Sunday" statement to AT.

 

[Sillybilly]

ADMIN NOTE:

I am very cranky as a result of having to spend a lot of time going back and forth, reviewing information, editing, removing, who's right / who's wrong, etc etc

Members who are frequently stating opinion as fact and failing to provide supporting links will be banned from this discussion.

Other members have better things to do than constantly try to discuss/explain/refute, and they do not appreciate when their time is spent only to result in having their post removed as a result of violations by the OP. Not to mention that WS staff do not appreciate having to spend large amounts of time dealing with the cleanup when there are hundreds of other threads to deal with.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Has anyone mentioned that maybe he did see DM and since she was awake during all the killing, assumed she called the police and thought he needed to get out of there STAT? This would explain not killing everyone, sort of. Except he would still have been on the way out and never gone downstairs, so maybe not. I just can't make planned mass killer work in my mind.

Agree, also every room he encountered turned out to be two people. So he could have imagined there was more than just DM in that room ?