4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #97

[Boxer]

If the Defense did this on purpose, they really shot themselves in their own foot with Judge Hippler. It appears he doesn't suffer foolishness period and a Death Penalty High Profile Case would be the last place I would expect to see any lawyer try and do so.

The State, IMO, has provided what they have had to this Defense except the drilled down GGI information, which they didn't have from the FBI that AT wanted to begin with. Kind of tough to make the FBI respond on your timeline.

<RSBBM>
Other than that, I don't know of what "They've been complaining about receiving massive amounts of unlabeled, disorganized, snowglobe-style discovery" you are speaking about.

JMO

AT and her expert were asking for evidence of where Kohberger was not, to "find" and alibi.
Where BK was not is pretty much infinite.
MOO She needs to be more specific. "Snowglobe" is a just a buzzy word.
I hope Hippler can get the defense to defend by logic and not just successfully tantrum to victory.

 

[Balthazar]

MOO They look almost identical.
I personally went through Car
Max etc. looking at Elantras and saw that the 2014 and later models were almost indeistinguishable long before the year correction.

Look again. The front array is completely different. There is no way a car identification expert could mistake one for the other.

2011 front
2015 front

IMO, no car identification expert would ever say a 2015 and 2011 could be mistaken for each other. The rearview of these two years are also different in terms of the placement of the deflectors.

2011 rear:


2015 rear

Deflector locations and shape has changed between 2011 and 2015 and the lower rear ini 2015 has black on the bottom of the bumper whereas 2011 the bumper is all white.

All JMO.

 

[Boxer]

Look again. The front array is completely different. There is no way a car identification expert could mistake one for the other.

2011 frontView attachment 548134
2015 front
View attachment 548135
IMO, no car identification expert would ever say a 2015 and 2011 could be mistaken for each other. The rearview of these two years are also different in terms of the placement of the deflectors.

2011 rear:
View attachment 548142

2015 rear
View attachment 548143
Deflector locations and shape has changed between 2011 and 2015 and the lower rear ini 2015 has black on the bottom of the bumper whereas 2011 the bumper is all white.

All JMO.

Dont see what you see, MOO minor changes.

 

[TallCoolOne]

Dont see what you see, MOO minor changes.

Agreed.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

Agreed.

Agree….. and with some of the grainy evening-time video IIRC that was shown early in this case, also virtually indistinguishable. The vehicles in those model year spans are nearly identical and equal when viewed from a distance or while traveling. Years prior and years post that time expanse are a different matter perhaps. MOO

 

[schooling]

Dont see what you see, MOO minor changes.

I agree, and I think the differences are even less noticeable on security camera equipment. Which can really struggle with low light, even in 'night vision' mode IMO.

I have a combination of Ring Doorbell products and a set of 4 Prosumer grade Ubiquiti 4K cameras (often found at hotels and businesses). One of my Ubiquiti cameras partially captures the street. At night the diffused car lights (one big blur for each light) become really hard to distinguish. JMO and experience.

These camera limitations are even there with $300,0000 Hollywood cameras with gigantic sensors. Just take a look at any of your favorite movies "behind the scenes" and how many lights it takes to get a clear picture in the dark. Even up close. JMO

So IMO the difference of inches on the bumper are not going to be perceivable. And the slightly restyled front lights are going to largely be a blur. MOO.

I don't think any reasonable juror is going to knock the prosecutions case for the initial misidentification. The entire point of running an investigation is to correct course.

MOO

 

[Nila Aella]

Look again. The front array is completely different. There is no way a car identification expert could mistake one for the other.

2011 frontView attachment 548134
2015 front
View attachment 548135
IMO, no car identification expert would ever say a 2015 and 2011 could be mistaken for each other. The rearview of these two years are also different in terms of the placement of the deflectors.

2011 rear:
View attachment 548142

2015 rear
View attachment 548143
Deflector locations and shape has changed between 2011 and 2015 and the lower rear ini 2015 has black on the bottom of the bumper whereas 2011 the bumper is all white.

All JMO.

Agree.
Very distinguishing Ident points, especially to an expert.
IMO the expert would not have narrowed it to a 2011-13 without a reason. He saw something in the video that indicated a 2011-13. JMO
JL said that the expert relied heavily on a video from Walenta (not released to the public).

JMO

The email thread that Judge Hippler is complaining about is proof of something for the requested Frank's Hearing.

A Franks Hearing is a hearing in which the defense must prove that LE lied in order to obtain a warrant.

I believe AT gathered the proof of a lie from the testimony of BP shown here:

There is much about BP's testimony on that particular day which gave me pause, however, it became clear to me that AT was nailing down his testimony under oath starting at about 16:00. I believe the key question comes at 16:30. I think everyone here is aware that attorneys never ask questions in a courtroom unless they already know the answer. AT is no exception.

I'm not sure why the judge would want the defense to limit the evidence shown to him when the defense is clearly exposing an electronic email "paper trail." The situation may be that ALL of the emails read in their totality ARE the evidence. In the hearing I linked, BP claimed he received an email from the FBI car identification agent saying the Elantra model might date 2011 - 2016 instead of the original 2011-2013.

BP replied:
17:18
BP: that it would have been his his input as an expert in vehicle identification

BP claimed the FBI car expert decided that a 2014 - 2016 Elantra could be mistaken for a 2011-13 Elantra. Take a look at these pictures:

white 2011 Elantra:
View attachment 548029

2011 Pearl White Hyundai Elantra GLS #84042946 Photo #6 | GTCarLot.com - Car Color Galleries

gtcarlot.com

white 2015 Elantra:
View attachment 548026

%VEHICLE_SEARCH_PAGE_KEYWORDS_CAP_FIRST_LETTER% Vehicles for Sale in %CITY%, %STATE% | %DEALER_NAME%

Search %VEHICLE_SEARCH_PAGE_KEYWORDS% vehicles for sale in %CITY%, %STATE% at %DEALER_NAME%. We're your auto dealership serving %DEALER_GEO_ONE%, %DEALER_GEO_TWO%, and %DEALER_GEO_THREE%.

www.mygalleriachevrolet.com

If you ignore the wheels and just compare the two car bodies, it quickly becomes apparent that a 2015 Elantra could NEVER be confused with a 2011 Elantra, most especially NOT by an FBI car expert. Not even in the dark.

We will learn more at the forthcoming Jan. 23 Motion Hearing.

All JMO.

JH order on Franks:
By way of example, Defendant cites generally to Exhibit D9 for the proposition that law enforcement's vehicle expert felt more comfortable setting the date range of 2011-2013 for the Elantra. That exhibit is over one hundred pages of duplicative emails.
BBM

Curious about the date and content of that email chain. Hopefully we will get to hear direct testimony from that expert in January.

During the hearing, BP testified there was one email he did not recall.
Also from testimony, the email was a group email. Guessing these are the duplicative emails mentioned by JH- showing each recipient of the email?

JMO

 

[windrower]

And I’m still not understanding why changing the years of car is a problem. Seems to me that all info in an investigation is subject to change and additions as more is learned.

What am I missing?

 

[Balthazar]

And I’m still not understanding why changing the years of car is a problem. Seems to me that all info in an investigation is subject to change and additions as more is learned.

What am I missing?

In this particular situation, based on the PCA, the email evidence and BP's testimony. IMO, AT believes that BP lied on the affidavit to get the AT&T warrant. It appears that AT thinks that BP (allegedly) changed the date range for the vehicle from 2011-2013 to 2011-2016 WITHOUT the FBI Vehicle Identification Specialist agreeing with the new date range. The emails and BP's testimony are her proof that this is what occurred. This is from the PCA - notice BP specifically states that the forensic examiner indicated it could also be "a 2011 to 2016 white Hyundai Elantra."



The problem here is that BP got the first AT&T warrant based on what is written in the PCA Exhibit A and all the BK warrants fall under the PCA. IF the PCA contains false information that the FBI examiner changed the date range of the Elantra, when, in fact, the FBI examiner did not change the date range, then all the rest of the warrants must be thrown out as fruit of the poisonous tree. Along with this, there must be proof that the officer who wrote the PCA knew the false information was false at the time of writing. It must be shown that the writer either 1. knowingly wrote false information or 2. wrote false information with reckless disregard for the truth. This is why the PCA is a sworn document. The officer who wrote it must swear that everything in the PCA is true. IMO, the email chain AT provided to Judge Hippler shows one of these two conditions existed and that the FBI analyst did not agree that the car was from 2015 but from 2011-2013. If all the warrants are thrown out, then there is no longer probable cause or evidence to hold BK for trial and all discovery gleaned from the various warrants can never be used in court to prosecute BK for this crime. Should it be determined that the information in the PCA in regards to the FBI examiner changing the date range is false and BP knew it was false and put it in the PCA anyway, Hippler would have no choice but to dismiss the case.

All JMO.

 

[Balthazar]

Dont see what you see, MOO minor changes.

That you cannot see the differences, only proves my point. The FBI Vehicle Identification Analyst would not only recognize the differences but know exactly where the differences exist down to a granular level. No expert could mistake a 2011 for a 2015.

 

[Balthazar]

Agree….. and with some of the grainy evening-time video IIRC that was shown early in this case, also virtually indistinguishable. The vehicles in those model year spans are nearly identical and equal when viewed from a distance or while traveling. Years prior and years post that time expanse are a different matter perhaps. MOO

The FBI has excellent software that can sharpen grainy evening video and increase contrast so the details on the car are much, much easier to see.

 

[windrower]

In this particular situation, based on the PCA, the email evidence and BP's testimony. IMO, AT believes that BP lied on the affidavit to get the AT&T warrant. It appears that AT thinks that BP (allegedly) changed the date range for the vehicle from 2011-2013 to 2011-2016 WITHOUT the FBI Vehicle Identification Specialist agreeing with the new date range. The emails and BP's testimony are her proof that this is what occurred. This is from the PCA - notice BP specifically states that the forensic examiner indicated it could also be "a 2011 to 2016 white Hyundai Elantra."

View attachment 548172

The problem here is that BP got the first AT&T warrant based on what is written in the PCA Exhibit A and all the BK warrants fall under the PCA. IF the PCA contains false information that the FBI examiner changed the date range of the Elantra, when, in fact, the FBI examiner did not change the date range, then all the rest of the warrants must be thrown out as fruit of the poisonous tree. Along with this, there must be proof that the officer who wrote the PCA knew the false information was false at the time of writing. It must be shown that the writer either 1. knowingly wrote false information or 2. wrote false information with reckless disregard for the truth. This is why the PCA is a sworn document. The officer who wrote it must swear that everything in the PCA is true. IMO, the email chain AT provided to Judge Hippler shows one of these two conditions existed and that the FBI analyst did not agree that the car was from 2015 but from 2011-2013. If all the warrants are thrown out, then there is no longer probable cause or evidence to hold BK for trial and all discovery gleaned from the various warrants can never be used in court to prosecute BK for this crime. Should it be determined that the information in the PCA in regards to the FBI examiner changing the date range is false and BP knew it was false and put it in the PCA anyway, Hippler would have no choice but to dismiss the case.

All JMO.

Thank you for that explanation.

But if I were an investigator, I would make the range as wide as possible, if the years are very similar to one another. Why does it matter if the FBI didn’t agree?

Did BP say the FBI examiner did agree?

Sorry, I feel rather clueless at the moment.

 

[Megnut]

Before BK became a POI, LE had a suspect video. The expert identified it by make and model, older years.

Enough to ask the public for help, and a campus officer did just that Noticed an older white Elantra, newer tha 2013 but still an older model, belonging to BK.

Does that make the FBI car expert wrong? No. Off. We know NOTHING about the quality of the video he reviewed.

IMO AT is trying to stir up dirt. Where there is none.

No missing emails.

No one lied in the PCA.

Why would the FBI expert even be needed at that point?

His best guess led to good tips and that advanced the investigation, widening the range of years.

That's how it works. Active investigation.

JMO

 

[Balthazar]

Thank you for that explanation.

But if I were an investigator, I would make the range as wide as possible, if the years are very similar to one another. Why does it matter if the FBI didn’t agree?

Did BP say the FBI examiner did agree?

BP wrote in the PCA that the FBI analyst widened the range from 2011-2013 to 2011 - 2016. But apparently AT believes that is not what happened based on the emails between BP and the FBI analyst. If BP took it upon himself to widen the date range even though the FBI analyst disagreed, then his statement about the FBI Analyst changing the date range in the PCI is a lie. The PCA is a sworn court document. If a police officer lies knowingly in a PCA and gets caught, the case can be thrown out.

10-15% of Criminal cases in the US are dismissed due to insufficient evidence, which could happen in this case if AT can prove that BP lied in the PCA.

All JMO.

Sorry, I feel rather clueless at the moment.

No need to apologize, this legal stuff is complex.

All JMO

 

[Balthazar]

Thank you for that explanation.

But if I were an investigator, I would make the range as wide as possible, if the years are very similar to one another. Why does it matter if the FBI didn’t agree?

The FBI examiner determined the date range to be 2011-2013.

Did BP say the FBI examiner did agree?

BP wrote in the PCA that the FBI analyst widened the range from 2011-2013 to 2011 - 2016. But apparently AT believes that is not what happened based on the emails between BP and the FBI analyst. If BP took it upon himself to widen the date range even though the FBI analyst disagreed, then this is a lie in the PCA, a sworn court document.
All JMO.

Sorry, I feel rather clueless at the moment.

No need to apologize, our legal system is complex.

All JMO

 

[windrower]

BP wrote in the PCA that the FBI analyst widened the range from 2011-2013 to 2011 - 2016. But apparently AT believes that is not what happened based on the emails between BP and the FBI analyst. If BP took it upon himself to widen the date range even though the FBI analyst disagreed, then his statement about the FBI Analyst changing the date range in the PCI is a lie. The PCA is a sworn court document. If a police officer lies knowingly in a PCA and gets caught, the case can be thrown out.

10-15% of Criminal cases in the US are dismissed due to insufficient evidence, which could happen in this case if AT can prove that BP lied in the PCA.

All JMO.

No need to apologize, this legal stuff is complex.

All JMO

Thank you. I think I get it now.

Distressing, if in fact something was done that could threaten the prosecution of BK.

All along, with four murdered students, I’ve hoped that LE had investigated by the book, crossed every T and dotted every I.

How do the families of the victims manage the ins and outs of all of this?

 

[cherrybier]

Wasn't there some issue with a sunroof and one either not being on BK's car, but visible on a video?

I can't remember exactly but I've seen it mentioned somewhere.

 

[AcousticViper]

Look again. The front array is completely different.

It's objectively not "completely different."

There is no way a car identification expert could mistake one for the other.

Apples and mangos, IMO. Your stationary, close-up photographic examples are captured in daylight hours. The expert examiner is dealing with multiple complicating factors, such as distance, the absence of natural light, physical motion, and variance in the video equipment that recorded SV1. Highlight Compensation alone, or lack thereof, can make identification of the exact model year uncertain.

AT believes that BP lied on the affidavit to get the AT&T warrant.

If the email exchange that AT seems hesitant to cite directly reads: "It could be a 2011 to 2016 white Hyundai Elantra, yes, but at this time I'm more comfortable with a 2011-2013 model", then it's another nothing burger, IMO.

 

[Balthazar]

Wasn't there some issue with a sunroof and one either not being on BK's car, but visible on a video?

I can't remember exactly but I've seen it mentioned somewhere.

The Linda Lane videos are available on Youtube from various vloggers. There is one white car on these videos which has a sunroof and another which does not. The white car with the sunroof is clearly not BK's car. BK's Elantra did not have a sunroof. There is a black SUV and 2 red cars in the video and several other cars passing in the far background on Taylor Ave. Some vehicles appear to be coming from Blake Ave. Linda Lane was surprisingly busy that night.

 

[Boxer]

That you cannot see the differences, only proves my point. The FBI Vehicle Identification Analyst would not only recognize the differences but know exactly where the differences exist down to a granular level. No expert could mistake a 2011 for a 2015.

MOO The mistake was a mistake.
They got the right car but put out a mistaken year range.