4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #96

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #841
Balthazar said:
No, this case is totally unrelated to what you are alleging. Despite the gag order, there is considerable evidence to prove that. BK had never actually been on any of the victim's social media or liked any photos according to BT and, I would think the prosecutor would know for sure if BK had ever done that. Most likely some internet troll pretended to be BK as soon as BK's name was announced and initially the families didn't know that so they accidentally spread false information through the media. It's not their fault. Yes, there are people out there who do these types of things, unfortunately. IMO, someone who concocts false evidence and puts it on the internet should be arrested. LE has enough to deal with without having to sort through fake evidence. The good news is that LE has tools where they can actually tell if it is legit or not. BT has already stated in court during one of the hearings that BK was not on any of the victim's social media. Further BT stated that BK never stalked any of the victims. AT has said in court that BK didn't know the victims. I believe what both of these officers of the court stated since it was said in hearings. The prosecution and defense are not supposed to lie during a hearing under any circumstances.

From the start LE said this was a "targeted attack." LE uses that description in specific types of cases only and that does not include a stalker or incel or even a serial killer operating alone, and LE would know from seeing the evidence inside the house that it is a "targeted attack" because the attacker(s) would have left a signature of some kind. IMO, that is why LE immediately described this as a "targeted attack" because they saw something inside that house which told them it was a targeted attack. Chief Fry initially said the rest of the public were not in danger but didn't say directly why that was. Perhaps police started second guessing their working theory that it was a targeted attack or they didn't want to explain why they knew it was a targeted attack to the public. In fact Chief Fry told us precisely that in this interview:
At 3:32 Chief Fry says:
"Based on details at the scene, we believe this was an isolated targeted attack on our victims."

BT revealed the information about BK not being on any victims social media and not stalking the victims at the hearing with Dr. Edelman in regards to Edelman's study of potential jurors in the Moscow area on April 10, 2024. Edelman had developed the survey based upon what was in the media about the case and BT specifically mentioned what questions were based on false information. This is available on Youtube for anyone who cares to rewatch it.

IMO, the police saw evidence at 1122 King Rd. that this was an isolated targeted attack and what was recognized by LE and said was correct from the start of the investigation.

All JMO grounded in what few facts are publicly known, so far.
Click to expand...
It was a targeted attack, yes MO. The one targeting the victims was the owner of the knife sheath (found under a victim's dead body) and a white Elantra car buzzing around the crime scene and surrounding area that night, caught on video. They broke into the house with murder as the objective, like a hit man.

LE also found BK's phone # had connected to the wifi utilized by the murder home and in the surrounding areas in the days before the murders. Stalking the house, surveilling for patterns, times, opportunities...targeting.

As far as the Instagram account. Screenshots taken by a victim's sister immeadiately after the murders dont lie. After the account is then closed and most likely wiped, whether those screenshots can be useful in court or not, that's a big if. Doesn't mean he wasn't following two of the victims, one more closely than the other, on SM. I have no reason to disbelieve KG's sister.

LE utilizes everything they can when tracking a killer, and they were actively doing that. It's historically known that there's a factor of those who commit crimes to revisit the scene. I'm sure LE scoured all the live at the scene media reports for just such activity.

There was one that did show a white Elantra-looking car driving by on the road in back of the murder house, the day after the murders...twice during the broadcast.

If anyone wants a look. It's a WTVB Channel 7 video news piece. Behind the reporter, behind the police car on the right, up the bank by the bare trees is Walenta Drive. The two timestamps are 1:50 and 3:00 approximately. Use full screen and zoom in.


Is it BK's Elantra? Maybe. Is it something that LE would look into? Definitely, possible useful information provided by the media, IMO.

Everything AJMO
 
  • #842
@sunshineray,
both the "touching their wi-fi" claim and the cyberstalking claim were debunked a while ago. The origin of the social media misinformation is Garrett Discovery, a consultancy who privately carried out a mapping of social media interactions of an account believed to be BK's. But it turned out not to be BK's. So their whole mapping is worthless.
Regarding the stalking: Here is an excerpt from the prosecution's objection to change of venue:
weve-said-this-from-the-beginning-bryan-kohberger-wasnt-v0-4nguejep7pid1.jpeg

Prosecutor Bill Thompson was also very clear during the hearings. There was no stalking, physical or on social media. He practically screamed that this was false. It's really not controversial.
I wish MSM would put retraction banners over pages containing information that has since been disproven. Otherwise the stories stay up and people are misled.
If there was a prior connection between BK and the victims, it's something we haven't been privy to yet, but will certainly come out at trial.
 
  • #843
Swansee said:
@sunshineray,
both the "touching their wi-fi" claim and the cyberstalking claim were debunked a while ago. The origin of the social media misinformation is Garrett Discovery, a consultancy who privately carried out a mapping of social media interactions of an account believed to be BK's. But it turned out not to be BK's. So their whole mapping is worthless.
Regarding the stalking: Here is an excerpt from the prosecution's objection to change of venue:
View attachment 545323

Prosecutor Bill Thompson was also very clear during the hearings. There was no stalking, physical or on social media. He practically screamed that this was false. It's really not controversial.
I wish MSM would put retraction banners over pages containing information that has since been disproven. Otherwise the stories stay up and people are misled.
If there was a prior connection between BK and the victims, it's something we haven't been privy to yet, but will certainly come out at trial.
Click to expand...
I'm confused by what you mean "touching their wifi"?
 
  • #844
@sunshineray , you said "LE also found BK's phone # had connected to the wifi utilized by the murder home".
In my reply I was referring to the way Steve G phrased it in the KTVB interview where he made that claim (around the 4:42 timestamp).
However, the wi-fi element was never stated by LE or by the Prosecution. On the contrary, the Prosecution has watered down the claim that any phone evidence placed Kohberger "near" the home of the victims, but rather within the wider radius of the vicinity of the cell tower (see scrrenshot in my previous post).
 
  • #845
Wishing JJJ a very merry Christmas, and a happy and peaceful New Year!
 
  • #846
sunshineray said:
Yes it does state that. I don't believe Kaylee's family are telling an untruth about it. I also think LE may have had something to do with closing the account. If not, hopefully they were able to get the information that was on the account from Instagram while investigating. It's also not unheard of for a friend/family to deactivate an account for someone, easy to do I'm sure. Maybe his lawyer did it for him? Who knows, maybe LE knows how it was deactivated but cannot now prove it existed except for the screenshots Kaylee's sister took. Just to add, I think BK is as guilty as they come and his trial will tell, he's a cold-blooded killer. AJMO
Click to expand...


With all due respect I disagree. It definitely does not state that it was confirmed to be BK's account.

As bad as you want it to be true that BK stalked them or used their internet it never happened.

As for your video claiming that's a white elantra in the background it may or may not be. If you didn't have 'elantra' already on your mind and I asked you what type of car that was there is no way you'd be able to identify that as any specific car. LE stated there was what 26,000 white elantras in the area? Add to that all the white altima's, sentras, etc and who knows without seeing the license plate imo. I remind you that even the FBI experts originally had the year wrong for about a month.

IMO there's no chance that BK actually used his car if he did commit the murders b/c LE didn't find one spec of evidence in his car which would be impossible if you just killed 4 people with a knife.

Here's a list of things that was claimed in the media that appear to be false...

  • He was fired as a TA from WSU in Dec
  • He was fired from DeSales University
  • He visited Mad Greek Restaurant
  • He followed the victims on Instagram
  • He messaged to the victims
  • He had pictures of them on his phone
  • He knew/met them
  • He was kicked from bars
  • He is a virgin/incel
  • He followed his students to their cars
  • He harrassed women at bars
  • He relapsed and was back on drugs
  • He was at the victim’s vigil
  • His ‘true’ Instagram accounts
  • He was at the Corner Club
  • He had a 2013 white Hyundai Elantra
  • He was Pappa Rodger/InsideLooking/RocketSurgeon22
  • He acted different after the murders
  • The podcast calls, TikTok videos
  • He is the next Ted Bundy and other serial killers
  • He was wearing Vans shoes
  • His dad knew
  • He had no friends/GFs
  • He skinned someone’s dog
  • His jailhouse behavior in PA
  • He was in contact with BTK through Katherine Ramsland (DeSales prof.)
  • He had marks/cuts on his hands/wrist (police body cam)
  • His ‘bk5781’ reddit account
  • He has own TV in jail/He always watches himself on news




My 2 cents.
 
  • #847
IMO we need to remember that in Idaho, "stalking" is a legal term. He was never charged with stalking but it doesn't mean he didn't follow one of them physically, and the victim didn't realize it.
Stalking in the 2nd degree
 
  • #848
Balthazar said:
No, this case is totally unrelated to what you are alleging. Despite the gag order, there is considerable evidence to prove that. BK had never actually been on any of the victim's social media or liked any photos according to BT and, I would think the prosecutor would know for sure if BK had ever done that. Most likely some internet troll pretended to be BK as soon as BK's name was announced and initially the families didn't know that so they accidentally spread false information through the media. It's not their fault. Yes, there are people out there who do these types of things, unfortunately. IMO, someone who concocts false evidence and puts it on the internet should be arrested. LE has enough to deal with without having to sort through fake evidence. The good news is that LE has tools where they can actually tell if it is legit or not. BT has already stated in court during one of the hearings that BK was not on any of the victim's social media. Further BT stated that BK never stalked any of the victims. AT has said in court that BK didn't know the victims. I believe what both of these officers of the court stated since it was said in hearings. The prosecution and defense are not supposed to lie during a hearing under any circumstances.

From the start LE said this was a "targeted attack." LE uses that description in specific types of cases only and that does not include a stalker or incel or even a serial killer operating alone, and LE would know from seeing the evidence inside the house that it is a "targeted attack" because the attacker(s) would have left a signature of some kind. IMO, that is why LE immediately described this as a "targeted attack" because they saw something inside that house which told them it was a targeted attack. Chief Fry initially said the rest of the public were not in danger but didn't say directly why that was. Perhaps police started second guessing their working theory that it was a targeted attack or they didn't want to explain why they knew it was a targeted attack to the public. In fact Chief Fry told us precisely that in this interview:
At 3:32 Chief Fry says:
"Based on details at the scene, we believe this was an isolated targeted attack on our victims."

BT revealed the information about BK not being on any victims social media and not stalking the victims at the hearing with Dr. Edelman in regards to Edelman's study of potential jurors in the Moscow area on April 10, 2024. Edelman had developed the survey based upon what was in the media about the case and BT specifically mentioned what questions were based on false information. This is available on Youtube for anyone who cares to rewatch it.

IMO, the police saw evidence at 1122 King Rd. that this was an isolated targeted attack and what was recognized by LE and said was correct from the start of the investigation.

All JMO grounded in what few facts are publicly known, so far.
Click to expand...

Has there been any clarification as to what is meant by "not on their social media" ? I only ask because language can be ambiguous, for example I would ask "Oh, do you have Fred on your FB or Insta?" and that would've me asking if they are friends, or follow that person, or that person follows them. It wouldn't cover if the person I was asking had an open FB or Insta page, where anyone can 'like' a photo or comment without needing to be an approved follower, or friend.
So, to me, I wouldn't necessarily think that just because BK wasn't friends with, or following (depending on the platform) anyone from the house, that it meant he hadn't reacted to any public photos etc, if he was confirmed to not be "on" their socials.
So BT may have been confirming there was no social media connection at all, but he could also have been careful with wording and still be truthful with his statement if BK had, in fact, liked one of the girls photos.

To be clear, I'm not saying he did, just offering a different perspective.
 
  • #849
MeadowMuffin said:
IMO we need to remember that in Idaho, "stalking" is a legal term. He was never charged with stalking but it doesn't mean he didn't follow one of them physically, and the victim didn't realize it.
Stalking in the 2nd degree
Click to expand...


True but in my opinion we need to remember we have no reason whatsoever to think he followed them physically and if actually did we'd of probably heard about it by now.



My 2 cents.
 
  • #850
Rolypolyoly said:
Has there been any clarification as to what is meant by "not on their social media" ? I only ask because language can be ambiguous, for example I would ask "Oh, do you have Fred on your FB or Insta?" and that would've me asking if they are friends, or follow that person, or that person follows them. It wouldn't cover if the person I was asking had an open FB or Insta page, where anyone can 'like' a photo or comment without needing to be an approved follower, or friend.
So, to me, I wouldn't necessarily think that just because BK wasn't friends with, or following (depending on the platform) anyone from the house, that it meant he hadn't reacted to any public photos etc, if he was confirmed to not be "on" their socials.
So BT may have been confirming there was no social media connection at all, but he could also have been careful with wording and still be truthful with his statement if BK had, in fact, liked one of the girls photos.

To be clear, I'm not saying he did, just offering a different perspective.
Click to expand...


Possibly but it's highly unlikely imo. I would say if that did actually happen then there is/was indeed a connection.


My 2 cents
 
  • #851
  • #852
@aburkhartlaw

A Franks motion and 13 separate motions to suppress evidence were just filed by Bryan Kohberger's attorneys. Lots of reading but I've got time now!


4:13 PM · Nov 15, 2024
 
  • #853

State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger​

Ada County CR01-24-31665 / Latah County CR29-22-2805

Case Summary (Updated 11/15/24)


 
  • #854
Oh wow!!
That 119 Lamsden statements document is a real treasure trove!
Still going through the rest but from page 16,
IMO, the redacted statement he allegedly made right after his arrest would be the oft-reported "has anyone else been arrested?", I'm guessing.
So he actually never said that, or at least, there's no evidence he did.
Screenshot_20241115-232533~2.png
 
  • #855
Swansee said:
Oh wow!!
That 119 Lamsden statements document is a real treasure trove!
Still going through the rest but from page 16,
IMO, the redacted statement he allegedly made right after his arrest would be the oft-reported "has anyone else been arrested?", I'm guessing.
So he actually never said that, or at least, there's no evidence he did.
View attachment 545411
Click to expand...
I actually hadn’t heard of that alleged quote before (or forgot about it if I did).

It does sound like something someone like him would say, as it would be an attempt to muddy the waters, and needle law enforcement a bit. “You think you’ve solved this but you haven’t.”

It does seem like there’s no merit to it, but who knows.
 
  • #856
While JJJ might have granted the extension of discoverydeadline for the DT, Hippler is having none of it.

"Motions to enlarge deadline filed on the eve of the deadline are not well taken. The State's discovery deadline was September 6, 2024. Defendant could have ascertained far sooner whether the discovery motions deadline would pose difficulty and brought it to the Court's attention. Further, and importantly, Defendant has not demonstrated with his filing good cause toenlarge the deadline. He has not set forth what efforts have been made to review the discovery, what portion of discovery has not yet been reviewed, why it has not been reviewed or how long it will take to complete such review. Consequently, his motion is DENIED."

I mean, my kids (high schooler and college) have literally been told this by every professor and teacher they've had--you may have a valid reason for an extension, but do NOT wait until the night before to ask me because the answer will be no (barring death of a family member) because you would have had a good idea of how far behind your progress was a few days ago.
 
  • #857
I haven't had a chance to plow through the plowshare of motions to throw out the entire case against BK, but I'm expecting she's asked for his sheath and DNA back.

I do have to give her credit for effort and creativity. Seeking, among myriad others, to have a statement there's no written or audio record of him having said thrown out.

Point of law -- I'm curious because I don't know the answer -- if a person, let's say BK, were to make an excited utterance, while LE is in the process of executing an arrest warrant, but before the arrest is made, do the rules of Miranda (pre)apply?

Off to read what AT wants taken off her pounded table --

JMO
 
  • #858
arielilane said:

State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger​

Ada County CR01-24-31665 / Latah County CR29-22-2805

Case Summary (Updated 11/15/24)


Click to expand...
Just bouncing off your post @arielilane.

All tracking in accordance with Judge Hippler's schedule. Motions to Compel Discovery re any known items by Nov 14th; Motions to suppress evidence by Nov 14th; Responses to Motions to suppress by Dec 2nd.


Judge Hippler with nice, timely order, quickly denying defendant's motion for leave (for more time to file discovery motions) filed on 13th Nov, the literal eve of the deadline. Summarising; Judge Hippler takes issue with both timing and vagueness. Moo


Filed Nov. 13th
"COMES NOW, Bryan C. Kohberger, by and through his attorneys of record, and hereby moves the Court for leave from the court’s Order Governing Further Criminal Proceedings and Notice of Trial Setting, specifically the Discovery Motions Deadlines of November 14, 2024...

Defense Counsel and Investigators have not had finished a full review of the vast amount of discovery in this case and will continue to do so."


Filed Nov. 15th.
"Defendant asserts his counsel and investigators are still reviewing"the vast amount of discovery in this case" and, therefore, he needs additional time to file motions related to discovery. Motions to enlarge deadline filed on the eve of the deadline are not well taken. The State's discovery deadline was September 6, 2024. Defendant could have ascertained far sooner whether the discovery motions deadline would pose difficulty and brought it to the Court's attention...

Further, and importantly, Defendant has not demonstrated with his filing good cause to enlarge the deadline. He has not set forth what efforts have been made to review the discovery, what portion of discovery has not yet been reviewed, why it has not been reviewed or how long it will take to complete such review. Consequently, his motion is DENIED".

(my emphasis).
 
  • #859
gremlin444 said:
While JJJ might have granted the extension of discoverydeadline for the DT, Hippler is having none of it.

"Motions to enlarge deadline filed on the eve of the deadline are not well taken. The State's discovery deadline was September 6, 2024. Defendant could have ascertained far sooner whether the discovery motions deadline would pose difficulty and brought it to the Court's attention. Further, and importantly, Defendant has not demonstrated with his filing good cause toenlarge the deadline. He has not set forth what efforts have been made to review the discovery, what portion of discovery has not yet been reviewed, why it has not been reviewed or how long it will take to complete such review. Consequently, his motion is DENIED."

I mean, my kids (high schooler and college) have literally been told this by every professor and teacher they've had--you may have a valid reason for an extension, but do NOT wait until the night before to ask me because the answer will be no (barring death of a family member) because you would have had a good idea of how far behind your progress was a few days ago.
Click to expand...
Haha Great minds... @gremlin444
 
  • #860
MeadowMuffin said:
IMO we need to remember that in Idaho, "stalking" is a legal term. He was never charged with stalking but it doesn't mean he didn't follow one of them physically, and the victim didn't realize it.
Stalking in the 2nd degree
Click to expand...
Agree. Also imo BT never said "all of the victims" in the hearing regarding the very specific survey questions commissioned by the defense. Imo that is a misrepresentation and this has been discussed a lot in prior threads. Posters continue to post about "none of the victims were stalked" or similar as if a fact. Jmo.

BT said "a victim" or "one of" the victims and imo this refers to an investigation LE did back in mid Nov. after it was reported that KG was worried she had a stalker prior to the murders. LE investigated and found no evidence of a stalker. That is what was reported in the media prior to BK even being on the radar and imo is the context within which BT made his comment. Pretty much of a nothing burger here, Jmo, but is raised periodically.

Linking prior post which contains a link to msm report re KG stalker story.

J

Post in thread '4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #95'

As far as the whole stalking thing goes, imo what actually occurred at that hearing has been misrepresented and taken out of context. Also, BT's ref was "one of the victims" not "the victims".

Moo, the hearing was addressing facts of the then public record which was clearly taken to be the official public record, not the media as claimed by the D. BT was concerned that two of the survey questions suggested or referred to things reported in the media unrelated to the public record.

On top of that, the question re BK; stalking one of the victims was not even reported by the media. Imo...
  • Like
  • Love
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

ChatteringBirds
  • Locked
4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #89
50 51 52
Replies
1K
Views
138K
Knitty
Knitty
ChatteringBirds
  • Locked
4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #101
52 53 54
Replies
1K
Views
62K
Tricia
Tricia
ChatteringBirds
  • Locked
4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #100
51 52 53
Replies
1K
Views
56K
Knitty
Knitty
ChatteringBirds
  • Locked
4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #99
54 55 56
Replies
1K
Views
62K
MadMcGoo
MadMcGoo
ChatteringBirds
  • Locked
4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #98
70 71 72
Replies
1K
Views
82K
Sillybilly
Sillybilly

Members online

... and 117 more.
Total: 3,493 (members: 118, guests: 3,375)

Online statistics

Members online
118
Guests online
3,375
Total visitors
3,493
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
632,264
Messages
18,624,060
Members
243,071
Latest member
jackie_39069
Back
Top