4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #85

[al66pine]

Def Atty: No "Link" or No "Connection"? Meaning What?

The results are apparently back in Anne Taylor's possession and there was no link according to what she wrote. We know they are back because she didn't have to request the results again and further she went on to say that there is no evidence to link BK to the victims.

@Balthazar Or anyone w link handy to motion or request?

Maybe I've missed something from not reading the entire doc or may be missing something from the context. Thinking "connections" & "links," my imagination is going wild.

IIRC, def.'s doc. said BK had no "connection" to the victims but seems either word is VAGUE imo. What does either one mean? Many specialized definitions, such as * below, are not applicable to AT's doc. Did she use it in a broad sense?

Hypo: During fall 2022 if BK attended Sun. 10 a.m. masses at St. ___ CHURCH & one of the vic's also attended same there, is that a "connection." IDK.

Hypo: If thru out 2022, BK watched true crime (title) PODCAST every week, and if one of the vic's also watched same, particularly in fall 2022, is that a "connection?" What if they both posted on the side screen, maybe chatting directly w each other [<--- sorry, a late-night terminology fail here w me]. Is that a connection, even if under user names, w actual ID(s) unknown to one or both? IIRC, IDK.

^^^ Saying either the CHURCH, PODCAST, or similar is a “connection” may be a s-t-r-e-t-c-h but basically def. atty is asserting a negative.
If the state has evidence of one connection like ^^^, what is the significance?
Is this strictly a PRE-TRIAL issue? Does jury get to see/hear the state pop the bubble? IDTS.

Was "connection" written to claim BK & victims had never engaged in TWO-way COMUNICATION, either in person, phone, online (such as contacts thru soc media), Zoom, etc.

Hypo: BK sent MESSAGES to one or more thru a facebook page, or similar soc media and received no reply, no digital acknowledgement of vic receiving/reading it?

Hypo: In fall 2022 on UI-Moscow campus, seeing one of the vic's, BK snapped some pix or recorded vid w his cell, just kept pix/vid on his phone, on his digital devices, is that a connection? IDK.

Can AT's doc truthfully aver --- no connection? Or no link? IDK.

________________________________
"CONNECTIONS" Definition & Legal Meaning
* "Relations by blood or marriage, but more commonly the relations of a person with whom one is connected by marriage. In this sense, the relations of a wife are “connections” of her husband."
CONNECTIONS Definition & Meaning - Black's Law Dictionary

* "1. when passengers have to transfer to another transport. 2. hooking up a utility or internet connection."

"Being composed or made up of..."

"A unit in a connected series; anything which serves to connect or bind to- gether the things which precede and follow it."

^CONNECTIONS Definition & Meaning - Black's Law Dictionary.

"LINK"
"a relationship between two things or situations, especially where one thing affects the other.
"investigating a link between pollution and forest decline"
Similar:
connection..."
"2. a ring or loop in a chain.
"a chain made of steel links"
^ Google’s English dictionary is provided by Oxford Languages.

 

[katydid23]

This is a real curiosity to me. I understand KG had a history sort of doing that, but even when you set that aside it's still really interesting. That many calls and that short of time from both phones makes you wonder if they heard something, saw something (that was maybe left for them while they were out?), or I wonder further if they were threatened by someone. I would almost think they came home to discover someone attacked IF there was no DoorDash I could consider that, but it does not fit.

I think this is a very significant issue that has been downplayed but there's something behind it. It could have been as easy as hacking into their accounts and they wanted to know what to do about it, maybe they could tell that someone was outside. It just has to be explained at trial. JMOO

I don't think the urgent texts to the bf was because they were afraid of outside noises because he was not responding---so wouldn't they call someone else, if they were scared? Like Ethan or Jack the neighbour if they needed help?

 

[katydid23]

The results are apparently back in Anne Taylor's possession and there was no link according to what she wrote. We know they are back because she didn't have to request the results again and further she went on to say that there is no evidence to link BK to the victims.

We have no way of knowing for sure if there was a connection between BK and the victims---and neither does AT.

BK could have seen one or more of them on social media, or on the Grub Truck streams, or at the Greek restaurant or anywhere---and we wouldn't know about it.

But even if there is no evidence of a prior connection, that is not exculpatory. Many home invasions and/or mass killings involve strangers as victims because it is often impulsive and opportunistic. JMO

 

[wary]

Thanks for response, but again I have to disagree that LE had certainty of their timeline before questioning DM. I don't think that is suggested in the PCA. Moo

I agree—I can’t see what would suggest that. And I’d hope that they’d have questioned D and B as soon as possible.

 

[maconrich]

Does anyone know how many minutes elapsed from the time BK approached the house till he supposedly left? The timeline seems to be very tight-or I’m imagining that. If it’s not, I need to get that perception out of my head. I can see the defense stating that even if BK was found to be in the area, he could not have committed the amount of carnage in that short of a window. Yes, I know it’s possible to murder 4 in a very short period, but it might be something to try to sell to a jury.

Timeline
(paraphrased or quoted from PCA)

4am Doordash delivery
4am DM stating it sounded like KG was playing with dog upstairs
4:04 Suspect car entering neighborhood 4th time; turns around; drives back; funky turn attempt - (MOO Speculation: how long did the driving, turning etc take and how long did it take to successfully park and then walk from car to house? 3 minutes from car to house - based on security camera sounds and car seen exiting after the murders?)
4:12 XK was on TikTok
4:?? DM heard someone say "there's someone here"
4:?? DM hears crying coming from X's room then hears man say something like "it's ok, I'm going to help you."
4:?? DM looks out the bedroom door and sees man with mask
4:17 security camera picked up voice / whimper and thud
4:20 Suspect vehicle leaving area of King Rd

4:00 - 4:20 - LE believes murders took place
Note :?? because the PCA doesn't say exactly when DM heard those things, so can only place them between times the PCA gives.

IMHO the timeline is so tight that it leaves little to no time for deviation / errors. And if DM did hear KG (instead of Xana) that throws things off too.

 

[Megnut]

Timeline
(paraphrased or quoted from PCA)

4am Doordash delivery
4am DM stating it sounded like KG was playing with dog upstairs
4:04 Suspect car entering neighborhood 4th time; turns around; drives back; funky turn attempt - (MOO Speculation: how long did the driving, turning etc take and how long did it take to successfully park and then walk from car to house? 3 minutes from car to house - based on security camera sounds and car seen exiting after the murders?)
4:12 XK was on TikTok
4:?? DM heard someone say "there's someone here"
4:?? DM hears crying coming from X's room then hears man say something like "it's ok, I'm going to help you."
4:?? DM looks out the bedroom door and sees man with mask
4:17 security camera picked up voice / whimper and thud
4:20 Suspect vehicle leaving area of King Rd

4:00 - 4:20 - LE believes murders took place
Note :?? because the PCA doesn't say exactly when DM heard those things, so can only place them between times the PCA gives.

IMHO the timeline is so tight that it leaves little to no time for deviation / errors. And if DM did hear KG (instead of Xana) that throws things off too.

Perhaps Murphy responded to the Doordash delivery and K shushed him, also noting that vehicle. Perhaps she DID tell M there's someone here, a reference to the doordash vehicle, unaware that BK was set to park/enter almost simultaneously. Perhaps that's when K put M in her room, to settle him, before returning to M's room. Alternately, if the doordash car bothered Murphy so K put him in her room, it's possible that K could have seen BK coming up to the sliders. And told M someone was there. Whoever saiis it, K or X, said it loud enough for D to hear it, which suggests to me it wasn't a panicked whisper or warning as much as an observation-- house full of roommates, who is going to assume it's a masked, mass murderer? So maybe it was K who said it, slightly earlier than D recalled. She had a lot of details to recall after the trauma and terror she faced at daybreak.

I can see that. Murphy responding first to the doordash vehicle. K putting him in her room. K telling M she's seen someone. From M's room, she could've seen the doordash vehicle, from her room, she might've seen BK, worth mentioning but maybe not seemingly alarming.

For all we know, BK didn't slink in the shadows but walked with purpose to the door, which might give a viewer a sense that he belonged there....

K's last act in this world, unaware of what was about to transpire, may well have been relocating Murphy, thereby saving his life....

Jmo

 

[maconrich]

Perhaps Murphy responded to the Doordash delivery and K shushed him, also noting that vehicle. Perhaps she DID tell M there's someone here, a reference to the doordash vehicle, unaware that BK was set to park/enter almost simultaneously. Perhaps that's when K put M in her room, to settle him, before returning to M's room. Alternately, if the doordash car bothered Murphy so K put him in her room, it's possible that K could have seen BK coming up to the sliders. And told M someone was there. Whoever saiis it, K or X, said it loud enough for D to hear it, which suggests to me it wasn't a panicked whisper or warning as much as an observation-- house full of roommates, who is going to assume it's a masked, mass murderer? So maybe it was K who said it, slightly earlier than D recalled. She had a lot of details to recall after the trauma and terror she faced at daybreak.

I can see that. Murphy responding first to the doordash vehicle. K putting him in her room. K telling M she's seen someone. From M's room, she could've seen the doordash vehicle, from her room, she might've seen BK, worth mentioning but maybe not seemingly alarming.

For all we know, BK didn't slink in the shadows but walked with purpose to the door, which might give a viewer a sense that he belonged there....

K's last act in this world, unaware of what was about to transpire, may well have been relocating Murphy, thereby saving his life....

Jmo

Sure, that's possible.

It just makes me uncomfortable that the PCA allows for like 5 minutes (from 4:12 to 4:17) inside the house - and 3 minutes to get to the house from where ever the vehicle was parked, and then out of the house, to the car and on the road in time to be caught on video. I realize it might not take long considering the weapon, even though the murders were on two different floors with potentially at least one victim fighting, and maybe he parked closer to the house than I'm thinking... And they seem to be going off the videos, audio, Xana's phone, dd delivery. But IMHO it's too tight and borders on unbelievable. MOO, IMO

Edited to correct to 5 minutes (not 6 as I'd previously typed)

 

[Justice101]

I'm not surprised because there are a lot of reasons why it is not a good idea for prosecutors to do a jury walk through - called "jury view" - of the crime scene. These can backfire and cause doubt in juror's minds and weaken the prosecution's Case. And, the defense can use the "jury view" to cast doubt on the prosecution's case. The prosecution doesn't want to weaken their case.

1.) Inconvenience due to distance with change of venue.

2.) Some jurors could feel creeped out and uncomfortable, especially if they see any blood.

3.) Items have been removed so the crime scenes are not the way they were when BK was there, not a true picture, thus, court photos and videos of the house would be better to show what actual items and furniture were in the rooms, hallways etc... before anything was removed.

4.) Confusing layout could confuse the jury and make the jury doubt the timeline, doubt BK had enough time to find his way around in the dark, finding bedrooms on 2 floors, stabbing and fighting 4 people, finding the exit then navigating steep terrain outside, all within 15 minutes.

5.) Could cause a Mistrial from talking. No one is allowed to talk on a walk through. No commentary. No questions. Just a description of what they are looking at.

6.) Waste of time when the Courtroom presentations of the crime scenes can accomplish the same thing as a "jury view." "Jury views" are rare for a reason - often technology can clearly show juries all the information they need in understanding how murders occurred in a specific building.

7.) Congested area at King Rd, this could cause security and privacy issues such as photos taken of jurors, jurors being followed in vehicles to and from court, etc..

When jurors are allowed to visit crime scenes

Question: I recently read about a case in which a jury was allowed to visit the scene of...

www.theintelligencer.com

Juries Visited The Crime Scenes In These Five Murder Trials. Here’s Why That Can't Happen In The Idaho Stabbings Case.

“Evidence that jurors can see for themselves and feel personally involved in, compiling in their heads, is going to be much more powerful ... than what they were just told by someone else like an expert,” one jury consultant told BuzzFeed News.

www.buzzfeednews.com

Excellent post Cool Cats!

 

[Balthazar]

Thanks for response, but again I have to disagree that LE had certainty of their timeline before questioning DM. I don't think that is suggested in the PCA. Moo

I cannot agree with this at all and, I think if you really think about it, you will realize it logically doesn't make any sense. If LE didn't already know the timeline prior to getting witness statements, then LE would be completely remiss and I don't believe that they were remiss at all. They were taking this case extremely seriously and would have gathered information before talking to the survivors. Remember, initially, LE had no idea who was a suspect and one of the important early tasks would be that they had to rule out the survivors. To rule out the survivors, they would have used what concrete information they had to try to determine the timeframe and/or any other possible facts the survivors might know. In this case it would be the victim's cellphones and then listen to what the survivors had to say, including the timeframe, to determine if they were being truthful or not. LE would have to have this information prior to the interviews in order to know if they are hearing truth or BS as that would determine the nature and path of the interview. In addition, because LE didn't know who committed these murders or why, they would have to consider that these two witnesses might have still been in danger and LE would need to get them to a safe place quickly. We know LE was protecting them because BF and DM were NOT at any of the memorials. Further, we have heard the rumors that one survivor fainted and the other was hysterical to the point of being insensate, so obviously, if this is true, LE was quite limited on taking their statements on arrival at the house and would, instead speak with them later after they had time to calm down giving LE time to gather facts BEFORE speaking to the surviving witnesses.

 

[Balthazar]

Def Atty: No "Link" or No "Connection"? Meaning What?

@Balthazar Or anyone w link handy to motion or request?

Maybe I've missed something from not reading the entire doc or may be missing something from the context. Thinking "connections" & "links," my imagination is going wild.

IIRC, def.'s doc. said BK had no "connection" to the victims but seems either word is VAGUE imo. What does either one mean? Many specialized definitions, such as * below, are not applicable to AT's doc. Did she use it in a broad sense?

Hypo: During fall 2022 if BK attended Sun. 10 a.m. masses at St. ___ CHURCH & one of the vic's also attended same there, is that a "connection." IDK.

Hypo: If thru out 2022, BK watched true crime (title) PODCAST every week, and if one of the vic's also watched same, particularly in fall 2022, is that a "connection?" What if they both posted on the side screen, maybe chatting directly w each other [<--- sorry, a late-night terminology fail here w me]. Is that a connection, even if under user names, w actual ID(s) unknown to one or both? IIRC, IDK.

^^^ Saying either the CHURCH, PODCAST, or similar is a “connection” may be a s-t-r-e-t-c-h but basically def. atty is asserting a negative.
If the state has evidence of one connection like ^^^, what is the significance?
Is this strictly a PRE-TRIAL issue? Does jury get to see/hear the state pop the bubble? IDTS.

Was "connection" written to claim BK & victims had never engaged in TWO-way COMUNICATION, either in person, phone, online (such as contacts thru soc media), Zoom, etc.

Hypo: BK sent MESSAGES to one or more thru a facebook page, or similar soc media and received no reply, no digital acknowledgement of vic receiving/reading it?

Hypo: In fall 2022 on UI-Moscow campus, seeing one of the vic's, BK snapped some pix or recorded vid w his cell, just kept pix/vid on his phone, on his digital devices, is that a connection? IDK.

Can AT's doc truthfully aver --- no connection? Or no link? IDK.

________________________________
"CONNECTIONS" Definition & Legal Meaning
* "Relations by blood or marriage, but more commonly the relations of a person with whom one is connected by marriage. In this sense, the relations of a wife are “connections” of her husband."
CONNECTIONS Definition & Meaning - Black's Law Dictionary

* "1. when passengers have to transfer to another transport. 2. hooking up a utility or internet connection."

"Being composed or made up of..."

"A unit in a connected series; anything which serves to connect or bind to- gether the things which precede and follow it."

^CONNECTIONS Definition & Meaning - Black's Law Dictionary.

"LINK"
"a relationship between two things or situations, especially where one thing affects the other.
"investigating a link between pollution and forest decline"
Similar:
connection..."
"2. a ring or loop in a chain.
"a chain made of steel links"
^ Google’s English dictionary is provided by Oxford Languages.

Look at the June 22, 2023 filing and there are many, many articles online about this and it has already been linked here in Websleuths. Google "Bryan Kohberger no connection to victims" to read the articles. The exact quote is this: “There is no connection between Mr. Kohberger and the victims. There is no explanation for the total lack of DNA evidence from the victims in Mr. Kohberger's apartment, office, home, or vehicle.” Basically the defense is arguing that the state targeted their client without having sufficient evidence to do so. It is extremely concerning. Defense attorneys are not going to lie in a document that is filed with the court because they could be in serious trouble for doing so, they could be fined or even disbarred and none of that has occurred, so we have to take this very seriously.

 

[maskedwoman]

Not only that, but in many cases--see West Memphis 3--the original trial attorney is actively involved in claiming his defense of his client was ineffective.

"Ineffective assistance of counsel" can mean rank incompetence by a trial attorney, but I believe it can also mean things like not being given the funds to properly compete with the vast resources of the State. (IANAL)

IANAL either but if being given the funds to effectively complete with the more or less unlimited resources of the state is a requirement for defense counsel to be judged effective, I don't see how anyone ever goes to jail. Cornell Law's website provided two elements that must be proven when claiming ineffective assistance. Both of these are directly related to whether the defense attorney did their job, as opposed to how much money was made available for them to spend on tests, experts and investigation.

"To prove ineffective assistance, a defendant must show (1) that their trial lawyer's performance fell below an "objective standard of reasonableness" and (2) "a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)."

ineffective assistance of counsel

www.law.cornell.edu

Then I found a website that gave specific examples of how that might apply:

Some of the possible things that could lead you to suspect ineffective assistance of counsel in your case include your attorney’s failure to:

• Interview important witnesses
• Investigate or engage in discovery of evidence
• Tell you about a plea offer or makes decisions without consulting you
• File appropriate motions on time
• Protect your right to appeal
• Object to inadmissible and prejudicial evidence
• Assert appropriate defenses

Signs You Received Ineffective Assistance of Counsel in a Florida Criminal Case

You have a constitutional right to counsel. Find out if your rights may have been violated by recognizing signs of ineffective assistance of counsel.

www.robertmalovelaw.com

 

[jepop]

I cannot agree with this at all and, I think if you really think about it, you will realize it logically doesn't make any sense. If LE didn't already know the timeline prior to getting witness statements, then LE would be completely remiss and I don't believe that they were remiss at all. They were taking this case extremely seriously and would have gathered information before talking to the survivors. Remember, initially, LE had no idea who was a suspect and one of the important early tasks would be that they had to rule out the survivors. To rule out the survivors, they would have used what concrete information they had to try to determine the timeframe and/or any other possible facts the survivors might know. In this case it would be the victim's cellphones and then listen to what the survivors had to say, including the timeframe, to determine if they were being truthful or not. LE would have to have this information prior to the interviews in order to know if they are hearing truth or BS as that would determine the nature and path of the interview. In addition, because LE didn't know who committed these murders or why, they would have to consider that these two witnesses might have still been in danger and LE would need to get them to a safe place quickly. We know LE was protecting them because BF and DM were NOT at any of the memorials. Further, we have heard the rumors that one survivor fainted and the other was hysterical to the point of being insensate, so obviously, if this is true, LE was quite limited on taking their statements on arrival at the house and would, instead speak with them later after they had time to calm down giving LE time to gather facts BEFORE speaking to the surviving witnesses.

The only issue I have with your prior posts (or initial post) is the insinuation/speculation/suggestion that interview procedure may have included solicitation and/or suggesting answers to witnesses so as to fit a timeline. We have no information that LE interviewed and/or took statements in any other way than in compliance with proper procedure. There is no basis to speculate otherwise,.Moo. Whether interviews took place that day or the in the next few days, whether there were follow up questions or interviews as the invetsigation proceeded, and whatever timeline LE were developing, I expect detectives to have interviewed sensitively within procedural protocals, with open ended questions and for the surviving Roommates to have given their accounts with no undue influence from interviewing officers. If yo uhave an approved source to suggest otherwise, please provide. Moo

 

[ArianeEmory]

It is extremely concerning. Defense attorneys are not going to lie in a document that is filed with the court because they could be in serious trouble for doing so, they could be fined or even disbarred and none of that has occurred, so we have to take this very seriously.

JMO, but I'm not concerned at all, and I don't 'have to take this very seriously' because I'm not involved in prosecuting the case and am not eligible to be on any jury.

 

[MyBelle]

Look at the June 22, 2023 filing and there are many, many articles online about this and it has already been linked here in Websleuths. Google "Bryan Kohberger no connection to victims" to read the articles. The exact quote is this: “There is no connection between Mr. Kohberger and the victims. There is no explanation for the total lack of DNA evidence from the victims in Mr. Kohberger's apartment, office, home, or vehicle.” Basically the defense is arguing that the state targeted their client without having sufficient evidence to do so. It is extremely concerning. Defense attorneys are not going to lie in a document that is filed with the court because they could be in serious trouble for doing so, they could be fined or even disbarred and none of that has occurred, so we have to take this very seriously.

BBM. The defense attorney isn't lying if her client told her he had no connection to the victims. Defense attorneys do this all the time in opening and closing arguments, which are not "evidence."

JMO

 

[jepop]

Look at the June 22, 2023 filing and there are many, many articles online about this and it has already been linked here in Websleuths. Google "Bryan Kohberger no connection to victims" to read the articles. The exact quote is this: “There is no connection between Mr. Kohberger and the victims. There is no explanation for the total lack of DNA evidence from the victims in Mr. Kohberger's apartment, office, home, or vehicle.” Basically the defense is arguing that the state targeted their client without having sufficient evidence to do so. It is extremely concerning. Defense attorneys are not going to lie in a document that is filed with the court because they could be in serious trouble for doing so, they could be fined or even disbarred and none of that has occurred, so we have to take this very seriously.

I'm actually taking it with a grain of salt. There is plenty of leeway in the interpretation of "connection". The defendant didn't know the victims - so what, Imo. We don't know anything about the digital evidence against him. The defense uses a general term - no- one here is accusing them of lying in documents - Again, no victim dna in defendant's appartment or car? So what? The prosecution's case is going to rest on other evidence. Sure, a stranger murder may be harder to prove and I think the prosecution has known that from the get go. Moo

EBM grammar

 

[Boxer]

Look at the June 22, 2023 filing and there are many, many articles online about this and it has already been linked here in Websleuths. Google "Bryan Kohberger no connection to victims" to read the articles. The exact quote is this: “There is no connection between Mr. Kohberger and the victims. There is no explanation for the total lack of DNA evidence from the victims in Mr. Kohberger's apartment, office, home, or vehicle.” Basically the defense is arguing that the state targeted their client without having sufficient evidence to do so. It is extremely concerning. Defense attorneys are not going to lie in a document that is filed with the court because they could be in serious trouble for doing so, they could be fined or even disbarred and none of that has occurred, so we have to take this very seriously.

MOO Semantics.
This is a carefully constructed statement which is trying hard not to be a lie.
The DNA is a connection.

 

[Chloegirl]

I'm actually taking it with a grain of salt. There is plenty of leeway in the interpretation of "connection". The defendant didn't know the victims - so what, Imo. We don't not know anything about the digital evidence against him. The defense uses a general term - no- one here is accusing them of lying in documents - Again, no victim dna in defendant's appartment or car? So what? he prosecution's case is going to rest on other evidence. Sure, a stranger murder may be harder to prove and I think the prosecution has known that from the get go. Moo

Does this just suggest that they're reporting the amount of information they've gotten through has no "connection" and that possibly they will discover that later. There's been issues about how much of the information they've been given could this have been a statement towards that maybe not an absolute? I know that is being remedied, and they're requesting more time to go through all the evidence. JMOO

Those of you with legal backgrouds, remember we don't all have that information. When I make comments, I do try to be careful but my comments are as a citizen, not addressing legal arguments. Just saying we all have varying backgrounds.

 

[DizzyB]

Sure, that's possible.

It just makes me uncomfortable that the PCA allows for like 5 minutes (from 4:12 to 4:17) inside the house - and 3 minutes to get to the house from where ever the vehicle was parked, and then out of the house, to the car and on the road in time to be caught on video. I realize it might not take long considering the weapon, even though the murders were on two different floors with potentially at least one victim fighting, and maybe he parked closer to the house than I'm thinking... And they seem to be going off the videos, audio, Xana's phone, dd delivery. But IMHO it's too tight and borders on unbelievable. MOO, IMO

Edited to correct to 5 minutes (not 6 as I'd previously typed)

And he had to make sure he was careful when getting back in the Elantra-change clothing or use his pre-planned way of keeping DNA out of his car. And if this was his first time, it’s a pretty tall order. Can he be that methodical with the amount of adrenaline he must have had after murdering 4 people? Yet he missed DM? Yes, I absolutely believe he did this. But I have so many things turning around in my head.

 

[jepop]

Does this just suggest that they're reporting the amount of information they've gotten through has no "connection" and that possibly they will discover that later. There's been issues about how much of the information they've been given could this have been a statement towards that maybe not an absolute? I know that is being remedied, and they're requesting more time to go through all the evidence. JMOO

All I think it might mean is that BK was a stranger to the victims - which has been strongly hypothesised by many interested in the case from the earliest days of his arrest. It's just a general statement thrown in there that is open to interpretation and ofcourse not a lie. Moo

 

[Boxer]

This is a real curiosity to me. I understand KG had a history sort of doing that, but even when you set that aside it's still really interesting. That many calls and that short of time from both phones makes you wonder if they heard something, saw something (that was maybe left for them while they were out?), or I wonder further if they were threatened by someone. I would almost think they came home to discover someone attacked IF there was no DoorDash I could consider that, but it does not fit.

I think this is a very significant issue that has been downplayed but there's something behind it. It could have been as easy as hacking into their accounts and they wanted to know what to do about it, maybe they could tell that someone was outside. It just has to be explained at trial. JMOO

IMO Typical behavior for the girls. The content of the texts might reveal more.