- Joined
- Jan 5, 2023
- Messages
- 958
- Reaction score
- 14,212
PA accidentally put in Michelle Bolger's name and rewrote the order with BA's name, but DM had already published their story.
I have to wonder if it's a combo of those blue-white LED bulbs many bathrooms have, substance abuse or other illness, and/or excitement? He looks giddy and not in a good way.. MOOCan anyone be as white as BK without altering the photo?
He looks like a ghoul. Oh wait! He is a ghoul.
From what he did in terms of... forgetting the sheath. Maybe that registered with him, I don't think anything else did.he has the pallor of a junky and that's why I wondered if he was using drugs again..he could be ghastly white from the shock of what he did. mOO
Most of the time when we see these photos in evidence, they're very low quality. This is very high as far as that goes, but it's still not going to be of the quality that's in discovery. This was just for purposes of a court filing, and the actual appearance may vary substantially.I have to wonder if it's a combo of those blue-white LED bulbs many bathrooms have, substance abuse or other illness, and/or excitement? He looks giddy and not in a good way.. MOO
@minazoehe has the pallor of a junky and that's why I wondered if he was using drugs again..he could be ghastly white from the shock of what he did. mOO
Great catch, we should have it Monday.Listed on p96 or p97 of the Case Summary; the State's Opposition the Defendant's Motion to Continue (June 5th 2025).
We should be able to read it soon! Hopefully the full document will be uploaded to the Cases of Interest page early next week.
In order to read the updated Case Summary I discovered you need to download the link rather than just click to open. Once downloaded I don't seem to be able to post a current link here.
They've taken a mysterious filing, and created a fictional narrative around it. I'm not sure what it is, but it isn't going to be that.The YouTubers are at it again. Several are claiming that BK has filed defamation lawsuits (one stating 16 in Adams County Washington, which also makes no sense). I think this is manufactured but I wanted to ask if anyone had any evidence of him filing? TIA
Not sure we should get totally bogged down with nuances in tint, lighting, focus, etc., related to photos we are finding online. There is so much variance in digital file qualities (especially when potentially compressed by servers or copied in as a screen grab), our screen settings, phone v. computer viewing, and Mac v. PC. As someone UT mentioned, probably only true image is what’s in evidencePhotos. FWIW
@minazoe
Compare BK's "ghastly white" bathroom selfie mere hrs after crime to
AP pic* ~ six weeks later, looking what ---
Tan, flush, sun-burned? IDK, maybe photoshopped?
_____________________________________________
* caption: "Bryan Kohberger (pictured at his extradition hearing in January 2023) is facing trial in August." bbm
![]()
Bryan Kohberger's past life looms with new witnesses in Idaho trial
In a new court document filed in Pennsylvania, five individuals were summoned to appear for a hearing to show why they should not be called to testify in the high-profile trial in Idaho this summer.www.dailymail.co.uk
They've taken a mysterious filing, and created a fictional narrative around it. I'm not sure what it is, but it isn't going to be that.
Why the separate counties you think? Based on where these people live?*snorts at those folks*
Three more seconds of work would have gotten them the right info:
If you go to the Washington State court filings website and search by Kohberger, you see 17 filings with him as the plaintiff. 14 of them are in Whitman County from June 2, 1 from Whitman County on May 28, and one in Adams County on May 23. All of them are marked "archived--no docket info, cause--miscellaneous."
To me, those are all witness summons, just like the ones we saw for Pennsylvania a few days ago. It appears that these aren't being or aren't likely to be contested by the people being summoned--unlike what is happening in PA. That's why the PA ones have a court date--those 5 ppl are going to come and say why they shouldn't be required to go. If the WA ones aren't being contested, there doesn't need to be a court date put into the docket....just WA creating the warrant/summons and delivering them.
It's possible that they could be subpoenas for deposing them, like with BF, but that seems unlikely for AT to suddenly want to depose 17 ppl at this late date.
Not sure we should get totally bogged down with nuances in tint, lighting, focus, etc., related to photos we are finding online. There is so much variance in digital file qualities (especially when potentially compressed by servers or copied in as a screen grab), our screen settings, phone v. computer viewing, and Mac v. PC. As someone UT mentioned, probably only true image is what’s in evidence![]()
Why the separate counties you think? Based on where these people live?
But that's just it. If it was a selfie sent to his parents, to celebrate his ability to dress himself, it's still a photo taken mere hours after slaughtering four young people. Akin to criminals in the Sonic drive-thru for post-murder munchies. It's the contrast that is creepy.Not to mention, when you search for selfies BK took in years prior--it's clear the boy does NOT know how to adjust his flash setting or account for harsh lighting in the room/outside. Plenty of bad angles, glare, and wash out.
While I like to look for hidden meaning and clues as much as the next person, given the timing of his phone calls to his parents and the time of the photo, paired with the oddity of wearing a white button up dress shirt on a Sunday morning, that photo gives me more of a "here's proof the shirt you sent me for my bday present fits, thanks mom and dad" vibe. I'm sure we'll find out at trial if that was a pic he sent to them or not and if there was a text he sent along with it.