4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #89

[Jurisprudence]

What I've never understood about this detail is how SG our anyone else knew he "touched" their wifi, if he did. Is every wifi a person has ever been near enough to detect stored somewhere on the device? What else could tell them this?

ETA: @m00c0w said it better above. So there are no logs of these "handshakes"?

Well, someone told SG. Not sure if it was the family PI or if it was a piece of information he learned from LE.

jmo

 

[ArianeEmory]

Well, I just locked myself out of my home router config trying to guess whatever password I had set for it. At least it wasn’t Netgear’s old default, “password”.

(To look at device/connection logs, I mean.)

 

[m00c0w]

I'm honestly just wondering if it was a misunderstanding of what "cellular resources that provide coverage to the area of 1122 King Road" means in the PCA.

MOO

 

[North_Idaho_Nony]

What I find to be far too much of a coincidence is that it was to be KG's last night ever at the house and in town. She would have got up the next day, taken the dog, and left for her future life - to commence her new job. Following which in only a short matter of time the other members of the house would have duly graduated and vacated and gone their separate ways.

I find it almost beyond belief that this situation of KG's one and only last night isn't somehow related. And yet on the other hand it seems BK may have targeted the house believing that KG and the dog weren't there and he was going upstairs to an upper level that only M was occupying. Strange.

You don’t think she would have returned for graduation parties, especially since she was graduating?

I feel like she would have & likely would have stayed with her BFF at least some of the time, MOO.

 

[Helechawagirl]

Or login attempts?

If I recall correctly, Kaylee’s sister had her phone and SG is in IT so he may have a bit more skill than you average person.

 

[loreet]

Do you think he has enough hubris to insist on taking the stand, even against the advice of his attorney? I’m inclined to think he might.
JMO

I believe BK is full of hubris. IMO he applied to the internship with the Pullman police department believing he was bringing his incredible insight and knowledge to share with ‘rural’ LE and when planning his crime, he seriously underestimated the resources and intelligence of investigators. I believe he thought 100% he was dealing with agencies and persons less capable and intelligent than himself and thought he would never get caught. We are going to see his hubris again. He won’t be able to help himself.

 

[Speculaytor]

What I find to be far too much of a coincidence is that it was to be KG's last night ever at the house and in town. She would have got up the next day, taken the dog, and left for her future life - to commence her new job. Following which in only a short matter of time the other members of the house would have duly graduated and vacated and gone their separate ways.

I find it almost beyond belief that this situation of KG's one and only last night isn't somehow related. And yet on the other hand it seems BK may have targeted the house believing that KG and the dog weren't there and he was going upstairs to an upper level that only M was occupying. Strange.

If M was the target, I agree with you that he may have believed M would be the only one upstairs. Kinda ridiculous though, it was a weekend, late evening. It would be more likely people would be in the house, and with M.

 

[DizzyB]

If M was the target, I agree with you that he may have believed M would be the only one upstairs. Kinda ridiculous though, it was a weekend, late evening. It would be more likely people would be in the house, and with M.

A bunch of cars in the driveway, and people were still awake in the house, X got a DoorDash delivery. He wasn’t hiding behind the house watching their movements and waiting for the house to go dark. It appears he made a few passes by King, had some difficulty parking, and went in straightaway. Tight timeline.

 

[Boxer]

This is the question that keeps me awake at night. Well, one of them.

WHAT in the world made that particular night "the night"?

Compulsion, yes. Such compulsions are noted in the psychiatric literature, for sure. But there's some kind of triggering/correlating event. Some bizarre ideation, usually. "I have to do this on the full moon." However, in this case, I keep thinking that, even if he had more than one target in that quiet neighborhood, and Big Feelings about his situation at WSU/work...there's more.

I agree with you that he believed it had to be done that night - but at what moment he developed that thought, is anyone's guess. I think WSers have done an outstanding job of theorizing, though.

Did he think Kaylee had gone - and that Maddie would be alone? Did he know that Kaylee had come back? Or was it more related to his work situation. He might have decided his "life was over" due to his failure to remain in the program at WSU (which is huge, btw, for a grad student - he clearly tried to organize himself and his life for a doctorate/success in criminology). When it was clear he was going to be booted, did he lose it?

IOW, a kind of "I tried to fix the crime situation; I have been rejected by criminologists; I'll teach 'em!!"

Or was it more mysterious (urges that came cyclically into his mind, and the work situation simply made it worse?) Was it the anniversary of something? Did numbers have a mystical meaning to him? All of the above?

IMO.

MOO It was Saturday night and everyone seeming to have fun but him made him mad.
But killer thinking is so self involved hard to know unless he gets interviewed someday.

 

[Megnut]

I wonder if BK was loitering in a dark corner of a local Moscow watering hole. Observing. Staring. Eavesdropping.

Drove to and from Moscow before midnight and to and from after midnight. With very dark intentions.

jmo

 

[10ofRods]

If BK had visited the victims house previously and while they’re connected to their Wi-Fi, he would automatically connect if close enough another time correct? On the other hand, if BK never actually connected to their Wi-Fi but was close enough where their network was an option, would LE see history of the victims wi-fi? Apologies if I am making no sense- Still haven’t slept!

No!

(Sorry for the exclamation point).

No one "connects" to your wifi. Your device "reaches out" (a handshake protocol).

Handshake Protocol - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

www.sciencedirect.com

THEN, unless you have a password to that device, it's a one-way thing and there's no two party authentication. So, my router clearly knows my neighbors are there - but SO FAR, no one has hacked our router and no one has the password (except our kids - who will show up as connected).

YES, your router has records of who has driven by your house (if the range of the router is far enough). Some cheaper, older routers keep nothing but most modern routers keep lots of records. Cell towers, I believe, keep a permanent record - routers would need to be taken and tested right away. So whether your router contains yesterday's info, depends on the router.

Police were at 1122 by noon-ish. I'm sure one of the first things the forensic unit did was take any routers (and victim cell phones) and go start the process. That's one reason Kohberger turned off his phone - he knew he had been by before, perhaps had researched that one aspect a bit more (he's no whiz in this department, IMO).

Could I please trouble you to explain consumptive testing? All of the below is pure hypothetical speculation on my part!

Hypothetically, if there was visible blood on the sheath, would swabbing that visible (in my speculative hypothetical) blood be considered consumptive testing?

And continuing in my hypothetical, if that swabbing found a blood mixture, is it possible to separate the DNA in a mixture if there were two (or more) contributors to the visible blood on a sheath?

All of the above are hypotheticals to try to better understand what others may already have an understanding about.

TIA for you patience educating people like me!

It's when the piece of evidence is partly or entirely destroyed in order to provide additional evidence. Typically, evidence can be swabbed carefully, but not subjected to any process that would alter or destroy it - without a ruling from a Judge.

The Defense has not asked for additional testing, because if that happens, the Judge will likely have the testing done at an independent lab with representatives from both sides - and the Defense has to think about whether the results will be the same. If they are, then it's double evidence against their client. IOW, it's a gamble.

An example would be taking a tool that splits a core of the sheath off from the rest of the sheath - or takes the snap off to get further underneath it (possibly a good place to find more user DNA). Usually, cores are taken from various parts of the sheath - so that it will not look as it did when it was picked up as evidence. That's why the Judge has to okay it.

The State already has what it wants from the sheath - so they won't ask for it.

 

[Nova]

Speaking from experience, yes.
I was a juror on a gruesome murder trial. We saw a LOT of photos. Not just saw but, printed 8x10s were given to us to look at during deliberation. I was traumatized for a long time. Months? A year maybe? Traumatized meaning, scared to be alone, scared having my blinds open, and couldn’t walk past a meat section of a grocery store or eat/look at meat at all. That’s how it affected me anyway.

I was also a juror on a gruesome murder trial: a stabbing murder in which the defendant used a Ka-bar-sized knife to stab the victim TEN TIMES. There was no doubt about who killed whom; rather, the defendant was claiming self-defense.

NONETHELESS, the prosecution showed us photos of each and every wound, and put the coroner on the stand to describe each wound, depth and width in inches, what organs, etc., were cut, and whether each wound would have been lethal on its own (yes). All that gore, although whodunnit and what was the result weren't even in doubt!

Yes, Sundog was right pages back that defense attorneys object and the judge rules as to what is more probative than prejudicial. But the prosecution WANTS the jurors to be appalled and thirsty for justice, and as other have noted, little is left to the imagination.

I am not particularly squeamish, but I do recall those photos, even now, 35 years later!

 

[Boxer]

I wonder if BK was loitering in a dark corner of a local Moscow watering hole. Observing. Staring. Eavesdropping.

Drove to and from Moscow before midnight and to and from after midnight. With very dark intentions.

jmo

Why would the defense even mention he was out driving late on 11/12, if not to try and get ahead of the information he was near them earlier?

 

[schooling]

What I've never understood about this detail is how SG our anyone else knew he "touched" their wifi, if he did. Is every wifi a person has ever been near enough to detect stored somewhere on the device? What else could tell them this?

ETA: @m00c0w said it better above. So there are no logs of these "handshakes"?

It depends...

'touching' likely means handshake. which is when a device probes for a list of nearby Wifi routers/access points broadcasting a SSID. when they do a small packet of information is exchanged for them to identify each other. like Mac address, whether the network is protected or not, whether that device has been authorized already on that network. etc. the handshake is considered completed if a successful login is made (public or with username/password)

unless you have wifi EXPLICITLY turned off....your device will do this constantly wherever you are, without your intervention. On most modern phones Airplane mode will not turn off WIFI or Bluetooth anymore. Just cellular. that's why this is a popular tracking method in department stores.

My prosumer system has a full blown tool that logs all wifi devices and access points that are probing and broadcasting in my neighborhood.

Consumer level products tend to put that individual device data behind a layer of abstraction for users. The individual device information is temporarily stored in RAM while it's being processed and rolled up for reporting or automation. The problem with RAM is that it loses memory the moment the router/access point is rebooted or loses power.

I'm more inclined to believe the other reports of Bluetooth touching because those devices are much more likely to store that handshake information in non volatile memory with the advent of Bluetooth Low Energy and quick connections and handoffs.

But if you told me that the FBI found a way to forensically extract this data from consumer routers / wifi access points....I wouldn't be surprised one bit.

Edit: just seeing @10ofRods post as I've been watching football while trying to write my post off and on. The trick for the FBI is getting that info off the premises without losing. So something tells me that they've found a method or have a tool or found an exploit that gets the job done.

Edit 2: For Windows users Wireshark is a 100% free legal popular tool that will let you see the devices and wifi around you. For my Mac users you can use Wireshark OR an app built into your computer and is located in the Airport app (will not be as comprehensive). This allows you to get a sense of what kind of information that LE and anyone listening has access to

 

[Slamalam]

I was also a juror on a gruesome murder trial: a stabbing murder in which the defendant used a Ka-bar-sized knife to stab the victim TEN TIMES. There was no doubt about who killed whom; rather, the defendant was claiming self-defense.

NONETHELESS, the prosecution showed us photos of each and every wound, and put the coroner on the stand to describe each wound, depth and width in inches, what organs, etc., were cut, and whether each wound would have been lethal on its own (yes). All that gore, although whodunnit and what was the result weren't even in doubt!

Yes, Sundog was right pages back that defense attorneys object and the judge rules as to what is more probative than prejudicial. But the prosecution WANTS the jurors to be appalled and thirsty for justice, and as other have noted, little is left to the imagination.

I am not particularly squeamish, but I do recall those photos, even now, 35 years later!

Yes!… I remember all of those details too. There was a lot of stabbing involved in the case I sat on as well. And this person also tried to claim self defense. Very similar.

 

[Cindizzi]

https://x.com/brianentin/status/1701386183035793667?s=61&t=Vp-AZ81ShrhzLNqqCFHAgA

 

[katydid23]

Well, I think his phone was still off and not detectable when he was speeding away. It only became discoverable a time later, right?

But as shown in the PCA, they tracked the cell before and after, including when it turned off and when it turned back on. So looking at the big picture, that cell can be placed in his car using circumstantial evidence.

And the next day there are cctv videos from Albertsons showing him in that car and they can place the cell there too.

Besides, it may also end up true that the phone was still detectable using more advanced methods, after the PCA.

 

[Charlot123]

I have this in saved docs just don’t have time to quote-I remember KG father stating that BK was close enough to the victims’ house to connect to their Wi-Fi. Anyone remember that?

Yes. And it still raises questions in my head. I am not a specialist at all. Having set up several internet wi-fis, i know that the devices in the house live their own lives. I now wonder if: 1) the easiest scenario - BK knew the password and would log into wifi before, so his phone automatically logged into a known wifi. Maybe some passwords are super easy, and BK, being interested in such things, could figure it out. 2) there could have been two wi-fis. Not impossible if it was a party house. One, private, and one, public for the guests. BK would use the public one before, and his phone recognized it.

Only his phone was dark during these hours, this is unusual. Maybe, when he approached the house the morning after, with the phone being with him and on, the phone made a handshake?

 

[girlhasnoname]

Well, someone told SG. Not sure if it was the family PI or if it was a piece of information he learned from LE.

jmo

Kaylee's sister stated she had access to her phone records in her first interview IIRC. She is actually the one who discovered the video that they were at the Food Truck at 1:30 that night.

MOO

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Totally random question here after all this time...

is it in any way possible that BK was on some kind of a mission but went in the wrong house?

or BK literally had not selected any house, was not stalking anyone, but went out that night determined to make mischief and went in the house fairly arbitrarily?

Had the dog not been locked in the upstairs room, chances are it could have created an immediate problem for him and then he'd have been standing inside the home with a barking dog jumping at him and several residents coming to confront him... all seems a bit odd.