To be clear, I'm not saying I'd have no alibi for any crime that happened anywhere else. Of course I would for the reasons you stated. I'm saying that if I'm driving through the woods of Mississppi at 2:30 am and a crime happened down the road from where I was driving, my alibi would be that I was driving in the area. Short of camera footage, I could not prove or disprove my exact coordinates or that I did not take a 5 min lapse in my journey to break a car window.
If the crime was 'breaking a car window', true it would be hard to disprove that you didnt take a 5 min detour to break the window.
But if the crime was a quadruple murder, there'd be other ways to strengthen your alibi assertion. Like if you left no DNA or fingerprints.
However if you happened to leave a knife sheath with your single source DNA, tucked under one of the bodies, your vague uncorroborated alibi would be of little value.
When I looked into it I also came to the conclusion that his non-plea was because AT was trying to get his GJ indictment thrown out. There is some legal/strategic reason for this.
Like how can a client plead not guilty to charges in a GJ indictment when the GJ was “misled as to the standard of proof required for this indictment.”
I recently spent 4 days at a lake fairly close to home and I suspect I would have a hard time proving my presence. I bought no fuel, it's unlikely that I passed any traffic cameras, my phone was shut off for the duration and the people that may have seen me, were a couple of Korean fishermen who spoke very little English and not local.
Exactly.
MOO That is why he is not providing any detail, because AT/BK can't know where those cameras that would corroborate his "alibi" would be.
Stating any specific place would bring scrutiny.
I don't understand what you mean by scrutiny. What kind of scrutiny would be more invasive than a death penalty trial? His life is already under a microscope. He's known nationwide. Any sort of normal (and certainly successful) life he had hoped to have is gone for the foreseeable future. I would be floored if his attorneys haven't told him that, even if he were somewhere highly embarrassing or otherwise illegal (buying drugs again, stalking someone, hot prowling, committing armed robbery, or whatever) he would be much better off to explain why he couldn't have killed four people because he was doing XXX at the time. If it can't be proven, he can't be worse off than life in prison or the death penalty. If it can be proven, he could go free.
I don't understand what you mean by scrutiny. What kind of scrutiny would be more invasive than a death penalty trial? His life is already under a microscope. He's known nationwide. Any sort of normal (and certainly successful) life he had hoped to have is gone for the foreseeable future. I would be floored if his attorneys haven't told him that, even if he were somewhere highly embarrassing or otherwise illegal (buying drugs again, stalking someone, hot prowling, committing armed robbery, or whatever) he would be much better off to explain why he couldn't have killed four people because he was doing *advertiser censored* at the time. If it can't be proven, he can't be worse off than life in prison or the death penalty. If it can be proven, he could go free.
By scrutiny, I think the poster is probably referring to likely specific and extra scrutiny by the State of available video footage, if the D were to nominate a specific or approximate area where BK was driving at the time of the crime (so at this point between say 4am and 4,20am.) Just my understanding of the post in the context of discussion re BK's current non-alibi (Moo). ICBW but that makes sense to me.
I don't understand what you mean by scrutiny. What kind of scrutiny would be more invasive than a death penalty trial? His life is already under a microscope. He's known nationwide. Any sort of normal (and certainly successful) life he had hoped to have is gone for the foreseeable future. I would be floored if his attorneys haven't told him that, even if he were somewhere highly embarrassing or otherwise illegal (buying drugs again, stalking someone, hot prowling, committing armed robbery, or whatever) he would be much better off to explain why he couldn't have killed four people because he was doing *advertiser censored* at the time. If it can't be proven, he can't be worse off than life in prison or the death penalty. If it can be proven, he could go free.
I just mean scrutiny of where he said was driving for his asserted alibi.
He has given 0 detail of being elsewhere.
But maybe I am missing the point and AT intends to capitulate that he was driving around 1122.
I recently spent 4 days at a lake fairly close to home and I suspect I would have a hard time proving my presence. I bought no fuel, it's unlikely that I passed any traffic cameras, my phone was shut off for the duration and the people that may have seen me, were a couple of Korean fishermen who spoke very little English and not local.
No, I shut down and shut out the world and it's on gravel roads between traffic cameras but I did realize that I always turn my phone off after I arrive so there would be digital evidence of my arrival.
No, I shut down and shut out the world and it's on gravel roads between traffic cameras but I did realize that I always turn my phone off after I arrive so there would be digital evidence of my arrival.
I totally take your point about being 'off grid' but I think if you were subject to intense scrutiny by detectives, they'd probably find all sorts of evidence that you really were gone to ground in a cabin during a particular time frame, as opposed to say that you were inner city having simply turned all your devices off. There's things you'd have left and created whilst there too that could be somewhat 'dated' like footprints, fingerprints, DNA, energy consumption, water usage, tyre tracks, witness accounts, even remote people seeing distant lights. You'd be able to describe in detail how you passed your time and days and this would also prove that you were at that location and not somewhere else.
Something I wonder is did BK fill his tank just prior the night in question - possibly with the intention to flee far away if necessary. If something happened that had him nearly caught, I wonder if he was intending to drive off and keep on driving. I wonder if he had his car packed up for 'survival mode' and going off grid if necessary? I imagine if he perpetrated this crime and planned it, which seems to be the case, he'd have also made a contingency plan which involved the need to get in the car and drive on back roads as far as he could possibly get. That would mean he'd have put water, food, spare clothes, valuables and ID docs etc, and the means of shelter and warmth all packed up in his car in advance.
He must have gone through 'what ifs' - what if I get non fatally shot? what if I get non fatally but severely wounded? what if the dog bites me? what if she screams and alerts others? what if I get locked inside a room in the house? what if police arrive before I've left? what if the police chase me as I'm leaving?
I wonder if he was planning hostage taking or suicide in the event of LE arriving whilst he was inside the house? He wasn't to know there wasn't any form of security device or panic button or alarm connected to LE or a security company or that no neighbour would alert the police after seeing him entering. He seems like an obsessive kind of person, he must have surely gone through every scenario? JMO
As I was writing the above post, it struck me that BK surely must have thought that KG and the dog weren't there. I know that's old ground but he must have had a gap in his info - maybe last he heard was that KG had left town to relocate and work after finishing studies. He maybe thought M was alone in the upper part of the house and that he had a sufficient watertight plan to control her on a 1:1 basis, plus a potential escape route in case of trouble, imagining that anyone lower down in the house wasn't a problem. If he's a control freak and planned this incident, a dog and a second person, possibly with their boyfriend in tow, would be unmanageable variables.
If the crime was 'breaking a car window', true it would be hard to disprove that you didnt take a 5 min detour to break the window.
But if the crime was a quadruple murder, there'd be other ways to strengthen your alibi assertion. Like if you left no DNA or fingerprints.
However if you happened to leave a knife sheath with your single source DNA, tucked under one of the bodies, your vague uncorroborated alibi would be of little value.
Of course it is. But if your DNA is found on a knife sheath, underneath a dead student, then using an alibi saying you were out all night driving alone is not especially helpful. JMO
Funny how BK himself helped confirm the prosecution's case against him with his non-alibi. Hypothetical Prosecution:
"We saw your car at the murder scene at the time of the murders." BK:
"Yah, well, I was out driving around at 4:00am I do that alot. I don't know where I was driving but I was out driving somewhere, I can't keep track all the roads look the same to me." Defense to the jury:
Please believe Mr Kohberger, he says he wasn't on King Rd, just believe him.
@Cool Cats Yes, ^ seems to be a claimed "alibi defense"* sans the alibi, imo.
The Dec 2022 Arrest Warrant set forth the State's allegations re specific PLACE (1122 King) of homicides and TIME (~ 5 - 10 min. btwn 4 & 4:30 am, iirc) of homicides.
To estab an alibi defense, those two ^ elements of the alleged crime (capped by me) are what BK must address, to refute his presense at that place & time, either by his own trial testimony (or testimony of another WIT taking the stand), perhaps supplemented by dash-cam; home or bus. surv cam recordings; Ring vids; cell tower data; other elec/digital data;, etc, that BK was at another PLACE at that TIME.
Assuming BK takes the stand & provides no further info than ^, his testimony merely DENIES that he was at 1122 King at crime-time. If he (or other WIT) does NOT specify the PLACE where he claims to have been at that TIME, it may not be an alibi defense, imo, jmo, moo.
As always, welcoming comment from all, but esp'ly from our legal professionals.
______________________________________________
* Alibi Defense in criminal cases.
- Idaho Criminal Rule 12.1. Notice of Alibi.
^ ID SupCt rule incorporates by reference ID Code § 19-519.
- ID Code § 19-519 re ALIBI DEFENSE ¶(1) requires def't planning to offer alibi defense to serve notice on the State w-
- "the specific PLACE or places at which the defendant claims to have been at the time of the alleged offense" (<- my caps);
- "the NAMES and addresses of the WITNESSES upon whom he intends to rely to establish such alibi." (<- my caps)
The def. is to provide such info at certain time(s), yadda, yadda.
¶(2) In response, prosecutor is to give notice to defense, w names of WIT(s) to testify to def't's presense at crime scene;
"and any other witnesses to be relied on to REBUT testimony of any of the defendant’s ALIBI witnesses." (<- my caps)
It is true but an innocent person would be describing in detail ever area they drove in the hope that ring doorbells, CCTVs, dashcams, ANPR, road traffic cameras, other drivers, shopkeepers, and pedestrians would have seen him. He'd be hoping his mobile phone was pinging whether switched on or not, he'd be hoping his google maps was tracking him even if wifi was off, etc.
His defence would be working on all this.
As I was writing the above post, it struck me that BK surely must have thought that KG and the dog weren't there. I know that's old ground but he must have had a gap in his info - maybe last he heard was that KG had left town to relocate and work after finishing studies. He maybe thought M was alone in the upper part of the house and that he had a sufficient watertight plan to control her on a 1:1 basis, plus a potential escape route in case of trouble, imagining that anyone lower down in the house wasn't a problem. If he's a control freak and planned this incident, a dog and a second person, possibly with their boyfriend in tow, would be unmanageable variables.
It could very well be that BK knew about Murphy (Kaylee's dog) as part of his reconnaissance. No burglar wants to encounter barking dogs and it is very possible that one reason BK picked that night was because he thought Murphy would be gone, ditto Kaylee also.
The over-kill and leaving the sheath look to me like he was shocked to see 2 people in bed and reacted in more of a frenzy vs controlled.
I actually think it is possible he didn't see the DD car pull up because why on earth would he have entered a house when clearly someone is wide awake and eating a meal? Makes no sense. I think MM was his target and with DD he had no way of knowing if the food was for her or not.
He had plenty of time to wait longer for everyone to go to sleep if he saw DD.
Do you (anyone) know the exact times the car was seen circling around King Rd before he went in?
It can and could be an alibi but it wasn't used as an alibi by BK.
As stated above this post by @al66pine BK said he was driving around but he never provided a proper alibi or offered any witnesses.
Meanwhile, a white Elantra matching BKs own car was seen on camera near a gas station just outside the area of 1122 only minutes before the murders. Why didn't BK offer this information to corroborate his claim of "driving around"?
The car can be seen here within the timeline of the crime in this video:
Of course it is. But if your DNA is found on a knife sheath, underneath a dead student, then using an alibi saying you were out all night driving alone is not especially helpful. JMO
RSBM
He had plenty of time to wait longer for everyone to go to sleep if he saw DD.
Do you (anyone) know the exact times the car was seen circling around King Rd before he went in?
RBSBM: Per PCA, SV1 begins its passes at around 3.30am and does four passes between then and approximately 4.04am. It is then recorded on camera/s exiting Queen Road at c 4.20am. That Grey Hughes video of Linda Lane (approved for WS) camera footage shows the timing of each pass in more detail. I can't locate a link off - hand at the moment but recall Hughes speculating on the basis of what PCA says about DD timing (DD is not in Linda Lane footage as it didn't have any reason to pass behind 500 block Queen Road) and timing of u-turn SV1 does in front of 500 Queen Road (at around 4.06am?), that SV1 and DD likely missed each-other by a matter of minutes, but did not pass each-other on Queen Road. That's just Hughe's informed speculation though. Will look for the Link and post. No time to re study the vid atm. Moo
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
legislature.idaho.gov
