4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #83

[jepop]

I think you are correct jepop. But IANAL.

Going on recollection, this is what I took from Friday’s second hearing before Judge John Judge.

At one point JJJ gave an example of what irritated him about media coverage up to this point. 3J said something to the effect of, standing silent is a defendant’s right under Idaho law and a not guilty plea is automatically entered for him. So why is the media making a big deal about it?

Wendy Olson, lawyer for the media, replied that a less comprehensive gag—oops! Make that dissemination—order would have allowed any party to the current gag order to explain that to the media, which would actually reduce media speculation without jeopardizing any of the defendant’s rights.

Later, when Jay Logsdon, one of BK’s attorneys, had his own chance to reply, he told 3J that standing silent also preserved the defendant’s right to challenge aspects of the grand jury indictment, and the judge thanked him for the information. (3J didn’t know? I’m not sure; he might have been thanking him for reminding himself of something he did know but failed to mention. He’s an odd duck at times. I didn’t hear it myself but it was widely tweeted that 3J couldn’t pronounce sequestration and had to be helped with the word—he must have had food poisoning again!)

I am pretty sure, BTW, that Anne Taylor said almost nothing during this hearing other than words to the effect of, Mr Logsdon will be arguing for the defense today.

The foregoing is based exclusively on my memory of the hearing, and could therefore be incorrect.

Does anyone know if both or either of those proceedings from Friday are available in their entirety? I looked on Saturday and could not find them on YouTube.

And jepop, I remember your “standing silent” post from when you first made it and it made a lot of sense then as now. I’m glad you linked to it above for anyone who missed it the first time.

Thank you @Orange Tabby. And thank you for the correction on who spoke for the defense on June 9th, it being Mr Logsdon not AT.

EBM corrected spelling of Logsdon

 

[maconrich]

I think you are correct jepop. But IANAL.

Going on recollection, this is what I took from Friday’s second hearing before Judge John Judge.

At one point JJJ gave an example of what irritated him about media coverage up to this point. 3J said something to the effect of, standing silent is a defendant’s right under Idaho law and a not guilty plea is automatically entered for him. So why is the media making a big deal about it?

Wendy Olson, lawyer for the media, replied that a less comprehensive gag—oops! Make that dissemination—order would have allowed any party to the current gag order to explain that to the media, which would actually reduce media speculation without jeopardizing any of the defendant’s rights.

Later, when Jay Logsdon, one of BK’s attorneys, had his own chance to reply, he told 3J that standing silent also preserved the defendant’s right to challenge aspects of the grand jury indictment, and the judge thanked him for the information. (3J didn’t know? I’m not sure; he might have been thanking him for reminding himself of something he did know but failed to mention. He’s an odd duck at times. I didn’t hear it myself but it was widely tweeted that 3J couldn’t pronounce sequestration and had to be helped with the word—he must have had food poisoning again!)

I am pretty sure, BTW, that Anne Taylor said almost nothing during this hearing other than words to the effect of, Mr Logsdon will be arguing for the defense today.

The foregoing is based exclusively on my memory of the hearing, and could therefore be incorrect.

Does anyone know if both or either of those proceedings from Friday are available in their entirety? I looked on Saturday and could not find them on YouTube.

And jepop, I remember your “standing silent” post from when you first made it and it made a lot of sense then as now. I’m glad you linked to it above for anyone who missed it the first time.

Link to the first hearing. I've not found the second.

 

[Helechawagirl]

If you were in AT shoes, would you want to know if he is guilty?

I don’t think I could do it. I’d be imagining the person next to me attacking me; irrational, but that’s why I’m not a lawyer.

 

[Helechawagirl]

Good question. Would I WANT to know if he is guilty? IF in AT's shoes, my job would be to defend my client to the best of my ability whether guilty or innocent. If BK is guilty, if his lawyer, I'd want to know because the fight plan would change to getting him the best possible deal under that avenue. Different strategies would take over.

Both the prosecution and defense are fighting the good fight upholding the laws. Me personally, I'm a sentimental schmuck, always on the victim's side; my personal feelings run too high to be a defense attorney.

I agree with @Observe_dont_Absorb that the jury or judge decides guilt in the end.

JMO

edit ;

I suppose that if I were a defense attorney, I’d try my best to prove to myself and the Jury that my client was innocent; if the prosecution does a better job of proving my client is guilty, I’d be ok with that. JMO

 

[NCWatcher]

No one is accusing her of a crime. My dad was a long time, well respected defense attorney so I do understand how this alibi stuff works. Every 'guilty' party that went on trial had an alibi they set forth, with the aid of their attorney. I haven't seen any attorneys being in legal trouble if their client claimed to be at their girlfriend's when the crime was taking place across town.

A defendant trying to establish an alibi with his girlfriend's help, an alibi he later conveys to his attorney, isn't the issue. But an attorney who helps a jailed defendant "finagle" a knowingly false alibi for court by examining the pieces of evidence the state has is another matter. That seemed to be what was suggested here. An attorney is an officer of the court and so far as I know, cannot ethically participate in the manufacture of false evidence to be produced in court. And again, that seemed to be what was suggested here. Whether that's an illegal act depends. It could perhaps be obstruction of justice but it definitely is not consistent with professional standards for attorneys. And attorneys do get in trouble for violating professional standards. At worst they may be disbarred.
JMO

 

[TL4S]

If that car is an elantra, then could be where defendant went/drove after one of the three passes of1122 King Road, between 3.30am and 4.04am. I'm sure LE were very interested in that footage and followed up accordingly. Moo

It's odd to me, because at 3:26 he was westbound on Indian Hills, and at 3:28 he was at Styner and Hwy 95. The 76 station sits right at that intersection, so I suspect that was the 3:28 capture. A minute later is when he began his passes at King Rd. So, if he left Pullman at 2:44, what the hell was he doing before heading west on Indian Hills at 3:26? And why was he driving all the way near Safeway between passes at 3:45ish? I've read all the theories as to why he did this, and any could be possible, but it's super strange behavior, imo.

 

[jepop]

It's odd to me, because at 3:26 he was westbound on Indian Hills, and at 3:28 he was at Styner and Hwy 95. The 76 station sits right at that intersection, so I suspect that was the 3:28 capture. A minute later is when he began his passes at King Rd. So, if he left Pullman at 2:44, what the hell was he doing before heading west on Indian Hills at 3:26? And why was he driving all the way near Safeway between passes at 3:45ish? I've read all the theories as to why he did this, and any could be possible, but it's super strange behavior, imo.

We don't know if that footage is SVI or not, but I feel like it would have been assessed by LE, so they probably know.The Styner and Indian Hills sightings I'm taking as SV1, so in other words the same vehicle captured multiple times etc etc per PCA. I feel like I've posted at length re various theories about why he may have been approaching 1122 from Indian Hills and Styner. It could be anything, can't get in his head, it doesn't worry me as I can think of any reasonable explanations - such as prepping prior to crime at some spot he knew east of Moscow. He may also have approached Indian Hills from the Johnson Road/Sand Road route, which is the eventually the way he came back later that morning after 4.50am. Moo

IF that vehicle under discussion is part of the picture, then I guess why not? Can't get in his head, but driving around waiting and frustrated, losing track slightly of where he is. Idk, just passing time, getting more reckless? Getting lost in backstreet and ended up there by mistake? We don't know the timing of his passes between 3.29 and 4.04am. Enters Queen for the first time at 3.29am, and last time at 4.04am. I haven't looked closely at the map but seems like there isn't a problem time wise for him to have gone past there at 3.45am? . Others have done that I think. Is there a problem with him being there in some way from a logistical POV? Whether or not the footage is connected, I can easily imagine it might be as long as long as logistics aren't logic defying. Moo

ETA: I might be wrong but seems to me you're kind of asking why would he do these things (approach from Indian Hills and not go directly to 1122 from Pullman, pass by that area at 3.45am in between passes-if that vehicle is his- and so forth)? Moo, it's only frustrating if trying to apply non- criminal logic, or logic that a person in a 'normal' state of mind or if you like 'sound' state of mind might use. I don't imagine the defendant was of a sound state of mind that night. The why isn't so important to me atm. Can't get in defendant's head, can't know the pressures he may have felt, frustration if what he expected at 1122 (ie all lights out?) at 3.30 was NOT. He may well have lost his cool and begun erratic driving, and that is one of my favourite theories which makes sense to me at least and one that I circle back to as others fall by the wayside. Clearly I have to believe in the existence of SV1 and PCA to entertain such theories in the first place, that is the point I jump off from. Moo

 

[Nova]

If the defendant was home with someone, watching the Price Is Right, this is the time to say so.

If he was home asleep, say so. If he was out driving around to help him relax and get ready to go home and sleep, this is the time to say so.

They can still look for evidence to bolster their alibi for the trial, for the next several months or more probably. But he knows where he was so why not say so?

Well, maybe he knows, but then again...

I was home last Nov. 13th (as I am almost every night), but if I had been out for a drive in the early morning hours (as BK often was), I might not know exactly where I was between 4 and 4:20 a.m.

 

[Boxer]

Her description was confusing to me. Neither White Place nor Hanson Ave. a the north side of White Ave go through — they are dead ends. The “side streets” on the south side aren’t streets per se — they are business parking lot entrances. Presumably there would be surveillance available from at least some of the businesses? I’m pretty sure the state liquor store has exterior cameras.

Speculation: there’s a lot more surveillance video than we know that could be helpful to the State, to the defense, to both, or to neither.

IIRC, the Mobile station footage isn’t referenced in the PCA (correction welcome) — we learned about it because the assistant night manager contacted media.

I’m looking forward to learning more about all pertinent video evidence, MOO.

The Mobil is on Whitw, turns into Styner

It's odd to me, because at 3:26 he was westbound on Indian Hills, and at 3:28 he was at Styner and Hwy 95. The 76 station sits right at that intersection, so I suspect that was the 3:28 capture. A minute later is when he began his passes at King Rd. So, if he left Pullman at 2:44, what the hell was he doing before heading west on Indian Hills at 3:26? And why was he driving all the way near Safeway between passes at 3:45ish? I've read all the theories as to why he did this, and any could be possible, but it's super strange behavior, imo.

Strange behavior is his norm.
Up through the night being a noisy neighbor of other grad students who have children for instance.

 

[Sjöberg]

So, if he left Pullman at 2:44, what the hell was he doing before heading west on Indian Hills at 3:26? And why was he driving all the way near Safeway between passes at 3:45ish? I've read all the theories as to why he did this, and any could be possible, but it's super strange behavior, imo.

Moo, it's only frustrating if trying to apply non- criminal logic, or logic that a person in a 'normal' state of mind or if you like 'sound' state of mind might use. I don't imagine the defendant was of a sound state of mind that night. The why isn't so important to me atm.

I've been thinking for a long time about how it all started. And not started as in the stalking started, but started as in on the night of.

1) How did he know, back at Pullman at 2.44, that his "target" is at home? And alone enough and asleep enough? Or did he not know?
2) While the odd drive could be simply to avoid being on cameras going directly from home to King Road, he actually exposed himself to more CCTV etc like that. The risk was larger. Did he have a reason for that?
3) When and where did he "get ready" (and "clean up")?

No answers, just an aspect on my mind.

 

[Twistinginthewind]

• 06/09/2023 Stipulation To Temp Seal
• 06/09/2023 Temporary Order

Thanks as always, @Nila Aella, for posting links to new court documents.

I noticed in the "Stipulation To Temporarily Seal The Stipulation To Remove Evidentiary Items For Forensic Evaluation And Order Allowing Removal of Evidentiary Items for Forensic Evaluation Pending Hearing" (<<<< That's a mouthful, IMO, and note it was in "ALL CAPS" in the document title):

There are 4 new words added after the "right to a fair trial" line previously included as a reason to seal in previous court documents.

The reasons given in this stipulation are (BBM):

"... release or disclosure would:

1. Interfere with enforcement proceedings;
2. Deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication;
2. Constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,
3. Disclose the identity of a confidential source; and/or
4. Disclose investigative techniques and procedures."

Note there are 2 "2."s (numbered reasons). Looking at the use of semi-colon vs. comma at the end of each numbered reason, it looks to me like they maybe go together, the 2 "2."s, and it's not a typo.

Although guessing the 4 new words / bolded part in the first "2." likely has been added for legal reasons in this context, it's interesting / caught my eye.

I could be wrong (ICBW), however, I interpret the addition as intended to be able to apply that reason (depriving a person of...) to a broader set of circumstances, e.g., not just a fair trial but an impartial adjudication.

Which could mean there might be evidentiary material that an adjudicating party will not be seeing (temporarily) in order to protect BK's right to an impartial adjudication?

Also "1." is new, IIRC. Could "1." also have been added because it might apply in a different context here -- re evidence? a "Stipulation" vs. a "Motion"?

MOO

 

[Megnut]

We know from the PCA he made x 3 passes...he left the area and returned is what I read that as. Between 3.29 and 4.04am. I'm interested in your interpretation of the PCA if it differs from this? Ofcourse we are free to speculate pn why he didn't park and wait at 3.29am, and that has been done on many threads in the case. The camera didn't catch him parking. It caught him driving east past 1122 before parking somewhere else (off camera to the east of the house) Imoo. Most have deduced it must have been in the lot situated above and to the south-east of the front of the house. Moo. All my inferences come from my reading of PCA. Again, would be interested in what inferences you draw from your reading of it? Moo
spelling edit.

We don't know if that footage is SVI or not, but I feel like it would have been assessed by LE, so they probably know.The Styner and Indian Hills sightings I'm taking as SV1, so in other words the same vehicle captured multiple times etc etc per PCA. I feel like I've posted at length re various theories about why he may have been approaching 1122 from Indian Hills and Styner. It could be anything, can't get in his head, it doesn't worry me as I can think of any reasonable explanations - such as prepping prior to crime at some spot he knew east of Moscow. He may also have approached Indian Hills from the Johnson Road/Sand Road route, which is the eventually the way he came back later that morning after 4.50am. Moo

IF that vehicle under discussion is part of the picture, then I guess why not? Can't get in his head, but driving around waiting and frustrated, losing track slightly of where he is. Idk, just passing time, getting more reckless? Getting lost in backstreet and ended up there by mistake? We don't know the timing of his passes between 3.29 and 4.04am. Enters Queen for the first time at 3.29am, and last time at 4.04am. I haven't looked closely at the map but seems like there isn't a problem time wise for him to have gone past there at 3.45am? . Others have done that I think. Is there a problem with him being there in some way from a logistical POV? Whether or not the footage is connected, I can easily imagine it might be as long as long as logistics aren't logic defying. Moo

ETA: I might be wrong but seems to me you're kind of asking why would he do these things (approach from Indian Hills and not go directly to 1122 from Pullman, pass by that area at 3.45am in between passes-if that vehicle is his- and so forth)? Moo, it's only frustrating if trying to apply non- criminal logic, or logic that a person in a 'normal' state of mind or if you like 'sound' state of mind might use. I don't imagine the defendant was of a sound state of mind that night. The why isn't so important to me atm. Can't get in defendant's head, can't know the pressures he may have felt, frustration if what he expected at 1122 (ie all lights out?) at 3.30 was NOT. He may well have lost his cool and begun erratic driving, and that is one of my favourite theories which makes sense to me at least and one that I circle back to as others fall by the wayside. Clearly I have to believe in the existence of SV1 and PCA to entertain such theories in the first place, that is the point I jump off from. Moo

Perhaps, having seen all the vehicles at 1122, he had second thoughts, drive away, had third thoughts and circles back, convicted to carry through with his initial plan.

Also, as is his custom (we have since learned), perhaps he was searching for an accessible trash can or dumpster for disposal, for after.

Jmo

 

[katydid23]

A defendant trying to establish an alibi with his girlfriend's help, an alibi he later conveys to his attorney, isn't the issue. But an attorney who helps a jailed defendant "finagle" a knowingly false alibi for court by examining the pieces of evidence the state has is another matter. That seemed to be what was suggested here. An attorney is an officer of the court and so far as I know, cannot ethically participate in the manufacture of false evidence to be produced in court. And again, that seemed to be what was suggested here. Whether that's an illegal act depends. It could perhaps be obstruction of justice but it definitely is not consistent with professional standards for attorneys. And attorneys do get in trouble for violating professional standards. At worst they may be disbarred.
JMO

I think the problem is the optics of the explanation set forth by the defense team---saying they cannot tell the court about BK's whereabouts during the crime, until they go through the entire discovery.

He either knows where he was at that time or he doesn't.

 

[Nila Aella]

The lights were on at the house so BK allegedly drove all the way over to the area of the gas station and then came back? Why would he do that? The lights were on at 1122 King Rd, so why not park and wait on Walenta or somewhere else nearby? It just seems to me that the more you drive around in the area where you intend to commit a crime at 3-4am, the more likely you are to attract attention. Whereas, you could park and lay down in your car for a bit to wait for the lights to go out in the house and most people would think it was a vacant car.

Also, what camera caught him parking at 4:04am? We know about the camera at the house next door to 1122 King Rd, but that faced away from 1122 King Rd, That would be the one that caught him circling and making the 3 point turn. What camera caught him parking?

I have the same thoughts.
IMO the car was only captured going to and fleeing the area.

He finds the lights on and drives away. Or drives away for some other reason.
Finding lights and thinking everyone is up and only waiting 30 minutes? When he comes back there is no way to know when the lights went off. MOO

Always wondered where the car went for a half hour before returning at 4:04. IMO LE should have captured something during that time.

And about the exit from the neighborhood at 4:20 mentioned in the PCA....based on where we don't see it, we think it went this way. Why don't they see the exit route? Initially they thought it went back to Pullman by Palouse.

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/122922%20Affidavit%20-%20Exhibit%20A%20-%20Statement%20of%20Brett-Payne.pdf

It was Mobil station at 802 Troy Rd. (Troy Rd is the same as Hwy 8). The attendant said the car was going away from the direction of King Rd and turned on a side street. Hwy 8 runs Northwest. Mobil station is on the Northeast side of Hwy8. Based on the photo of the car taken from the Mobil station, I think it was traveling Southeast on Hwy 8 but have a look on Googlemaps and see what you think. And also look at where 1122 King Rd is compared to this location. I must admit, I'm a bit puzzled.

Idaho murder update: Clerk at gas station spots 'white sedan'

A clerk at an Idaho gas station may have spotted a white sedan speeding away from the scene of the University of Idaho students' off-campus house the night of the quadruple homicide.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Something that might be related to this particular video capture is @TL4S post regarding the request by LE for Troy and Kendrick video. Perhaps they wanted to see if that particular car went from White Ave to 8 to Troy or Kendrick. Or even if the car came from there? Or maybe LE captured a car (76 station on 8) that was headed toward Troy/Kendrick? Maybe even a capture from the new Police Station on 95? MOO

@TL4S post re: Troy and Kendrick

https://www.websleuths.com/forums/videos/subnow1.gif

If that car is an elantra, then could be where defendant went/drove after one of the three passes of1122 King Road, between 3.30am and 4.04am. I'm sure LE were very interested in that footage and followed up accordingly. Moo

Just strange to me: This is 5 minutes away and the car is reportedly going West.

Something else that bothers me more: how does a car get from West bound on Styner at 95 to King Road in 1 minute.

IMO there are two different cars.
Maybe three (car on taylor 2:45-3:15)

MOO

 

[Nila Aella]

Thanks as always, @Nila Aella, for posting links to new court documents.

I noticed in the "Stipulation To Temporarily Seal The Stipulation To Remove Evidentiary Items For Forensic Evaluation And Order Allowing Removal of Evidentiary Items for Forensic Evaluation Pending Hearing" (<<<< That's a mouthful, IMO, and note it was in "ALL CAPS" in the document title):

There are 4 new words added after the "right to a fair trial" line previously included as a reason to seal in previous court documents.

The reasons given in this stipulation are (BBM):

"... release or disclosure would:

1. Interfere with enforcement proceedings;
2. Deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication;
2. Constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,
3. Disclose the identity of a confidential source; and/or
4. Disclose investigative techniques and procedures."

Note there are 2 "2."s (numbered reasons). Looking at the use of semi-colon vs. comma at the end of each numbered reason, it looks to me like they maybe go together, the 2 "2."s, and it's not a typo.

Although guessing the 4 new words / bolded part in the first "2." likely has been added for legal reasons in this context, it's interesting / caught my eye.

I could be wrong (ICBW), however, I interpret the addition as intended to be able to apply that reason (depriving a person of...) to a broader set of circumstances, e.g., not just a fair trial but an impartial adjudication.

Which could mean there might be evidentiary material that an adjudicating party will not be seeing (temporarily) in order to protect BK's right to an impartial adjudication?

Also "1." is new, IIRC. Could "1." also have been added because it might apply in a different context here -- re evidence? a "Stipulation" vs. a "Motion"?

MOO

Good Catch @Twistinginthewind !

The words impartial adjudication have been used before. Just off the top of my head: yik yak. And a few others during that time period IIRC.

Motion codes cited:

Idaho Code 74-124

74-124. EXEMPTIONS FROM DISCLOSURE — CONFIDENTIALITY. (1) Notwithstanding any statute or rule of court to the contrary, nothing in this chapter nor chapter 10, title 59, Idaho Code, shall be construed to require disclosure of investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes by a law enforcement agency, but such exemption from disclosure applies only to the extent that the production of such records would:
(a) Interfere with enforcement proceedings;
(b) Deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication;
(c) Constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
(d) Disclose the identity of a confidential source and, in the case of a record compiled by a criminal law enforcement agency in the course of a criminal investigation, confidential information furnished only by the confidential source;
(e) Disclose investigative techniques and procedures;
(f) Endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement personnel; or
(g) Disclose the identity of a reporting party maintained by any law enforcement entity or the department of health and welfare relating to the investigation of child abuse, neglect or abandonment unless the reporting party consents in writing to the disclosure or the disclosure of the reporting party’s identity is required in any administrative or judicial proceeding

Section 74-124 – Idaho State Legislature

legislature.idaho.gov

And Idaho code 32 (g) 1

(g) Court records exempt from disclosure. Except as provided in paragraph (h) of this rule, court records specified below are exempt from disclosure. Any willful or intentional disclosure or accessing of a sealed or exempt court record, not otherwise authorized under this rule, may be treated as a contempt of court.

(1) Documents and records to which access is otherwise restricted by state or federal law;

MOO

 

[SLouTh]

The reasons given in this stipulation are (BBM):

"... release or disclosure would:

1. Interfere with enforcement proceedings;
2. Deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication;
2. Constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,
3. Disclose the identity of a confidential source; and/or
4. Disclose investigative techniques and procedures."

Note there are 2 "2."s (numbered reasons). Looking at the use of semi-colon vs. comma at the end of each numbered reason, it looks to me like they maybe go together, the 2 "2."s, and it's not a typo.

Excellent pick up!!!

It would be interesting to know why that particular wording has been included, in the case going forward ….

Using google in Aus, this terminology brings this up in reference to a judge..

Any person before a court has the fundamental right to a hearing by a judge who is independent and impartial.

Review of Judicial Impartiality | ALRC

The Government has committed to implementing all three recommendations made to it in Without Fear or Favour: Judicial Impartiality and the Law on Bias (ALRC Report 138) View the Government response >> Any person before a court has the fundamental right to a hearing by a judge who is independent...

www.alrc.gov.au

However the definition may be different in the US?

IMO

 

[SLouTh]

Something else that bothers me more: how does a car get from West bound on Styner at 95 to King Road in 1 minute.

Are they referring to “95 Styner Avenue” or is there a suburb or town also called “Styner“ along Highway 95 somewhere.??

From 95 Styner Avenue to 1121 King Road is 0.6 miles in the most direct route … but I haven’t checked if a car can travel that way eg. no one way streets etc ….

Edit to add: the Mobil servo is a long way from where google is showing 95 Styner Avenue ….on E White Avenue / Styner…

 

[SLouTh]

I have the same thoughts.
IMO the car was only captured going to and fleeing the area.

He finds the lights on and drives away. Or drives away for some other reason.
Finding lights and thinking everyone is up and only waiting 30 minutes? When he comes back there is no way to know when the lights went off. MOO

Always wondered where the car went for a half hour before returning at 4:04. IMO LE should have captured something during that time.

And about the exit from the neighborhood at 4:20 mentioned in the PCA....based on where we don't see it, we think it went this way. Why don't they see the exit route? Initially they thought it went back to Pullman by Palouse.

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/122922%20Affidavit%20-%20Exhibit%20A%20-%20Statement%20of%20Brett-Payne.pdf

Something that might be related to this particular video capture is @TL4S post regarding the request by LE for Troy and Kendrick video. Perhaps they wanted to see if that particular car went from White Ave to 8 to Troy or Kendrick. Or even if the car came from there? Or maybe LE captured a car (76 station on 8) that was headed toward Troy/Kendrick? Maybe even a capture from the new Police Station on 95? MOO

@TL4S post re: Troy and Kendrick

https://www.websleuths.com/forums/videos/subnow1.gif

Just strange to me: This is 5 minutes away and the car is reportedly going West.

Something else that bothers me more: how does a car get from West bound on Styner at 95 to King Road in 1 minute.

IMO there are two different cars.
Maybe three (car on taylor 2:45-3:15)

MOO

Has anyone mapped the times and places on a map in a previous thread??? And does any one have a copy of that please ? As it may make it easier to understand??

I am pretty dreadful at mapping …. Or I would offer …

TIA

 

[Nila Aella]

Are they referring to “95 Styner Avenue” or is there a suburb or town also called “Styner“ along Highway 95 somewhere.??

From 95 Styner Avenue to 1121 King Road is 0.6 miles in the most direct route … but I haven’t checked if a car can travel that way eg. no one way streets etc ….

The PCA says Westbound on Styner Avenue at 95. 3:28
First Pass at King Road 3:29.

It does say "at approximately 3:28" so maybe there is some wiggle room?

MOO

 

[Nila Aella]

Has anyone mapped the times and places on a map in a previous thread??? And does any one have a copy of that please ? As it may make it easier to understand??

I am pretty dreadful at mapping …. Or I would offer …

TIA

I did this on my own: checking the times against the distances, but I did not create a map. I do recall another poster did this for some sections of the route. I'll try to find it.
MOO