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

[Justice101]

The prosecution has BK’s DNA on the button of the knife’s sheath, which was on the bed partially under a body. How is he going to weasel out of that?

Here is one way:

BK simply says … “I bought a knife with a sheath just like that. Last time I saw it was when I put it in my desk drawer at the college. The next day it was gone. Instead of accusing me, why aren’t the police talking to the students and janitorial staff?”

Remember, it only takes one juror to create a hung jury!

Prosecution: "Okay, fair enough... so how come NOBODY ELSE'S DNA was on the knife sheath that was stolen from your desk as school? Please explain that."

Defense: "Person that stole it from his desk used gloves".

Jury: "Nice try.... but Nope"

 

[Megnut]

It's a pity, too, because I suspect BK "borrowed" a license plate between 2 and 5 am, and his efforts went unnoticed. Did him no good.

Guessing he thought his older model white sedan was just generic enough to be invisible.

Guess he was wrong about that.

JMO

 

[schooling]

MOO but I agree with Balthazar. Brett Payne lied about the FBI changing the year of the car in court. AT set him up when she knew the FBI did not change it and that BP did. All my opinion.

BP used the movements of the elantra on video to obtain the the first AT&T warrant. BP was the one that changed the years of the elantra and not the FBI. BP said in court the FBI changed it and imo that is the lie AT is talking about.

If this is indeed true then the whole case is thrown out imo.

The entire case is thrown out and then what? IMO Law enforcement would just immediately rearrest him since his DNA is a direct CODIS hit now. Couldn't they use that DNA to serve dozens of simultaneous warrants?

Or are you suggesting that it's dismissed with prejudice? Or that it's dismissed in a way that makes every piece of evidence gathered against Kohlberger fruit from a poisoned tree. Which couldn't be reused in another prosecution. Essentially making him immune from prosecution....forever. JMO

IMO those would be fantastical outcomes that are less than 0.000001% likely to fly. But Is that justice?

I've yet to see anyone cite appropriate recourse when they are presenting this sort of argument for dismissal.

MOO

 

[schooling]

It's a pity, too, because I suspect BK "borrowed" a license plate between 2 and 5 am, and his efforts went unnoticed. Did him no good.

Guessing he thought his older model white sedan was just generic enough to be invisible.

Guess he was wrong about that.

JMO

I've been thinking about this a lot. The blunders of this 'criminal mastermind.' And I think it's pretty simple;

BK was extremely well prepared for the coverup. Being a Criminology PhD candidate gives him insight into all of the investigative techniques. JMO

But BK couldn't account for the parts that contained variability. Which was the time and day the victims would be most vulnerable and how they would react inside of the house. MOO

I think BK drove around at night dressed in the dickies suit with a trunk containing everything he needed to commit a murder and cover it up. And for whatever reason (academic issues, thanksgiving break) he thought that night was appropriate. MOO

I don't believe for a second that he somehow thought his car wouldn't be caught on any cameras. I think he long accepted and reasoned with this in his planning. He likely knew where most of the cameras were. I think he just thought his generic white sedan (thanks for that) would provide him a buffer and his regular seemingly innocent drives through the neighborhood (this alibi might have been successful without the dna) would provide him reasoning if it ever got to that. MOO

Same goes for the cell phone. Those things on their own aren't much. IMO.

The Locard's Exchange Principle most explains this approach and reasoning, IMO. He thought that as long as he took care to dress the part while inside (not leaving anything behind, OOPS!) and disposed of everything he took with him. LE would have nothing. JMO

One more thing I'll say that kind of supports my argument of BK methodically planning out this crime. And attempting to account for every possible variable...... "I'm here to help". Those words are from the PCA ...AND could have been an answer to any of the questions in the Reddit questionnaire he posted. JMO

MOO

 

[GOBliaison]

My personal guess to add to the speculation: We'll get to see the basis of defense's argument (such as it may be) in an order denying a franks hearing before Jan 23rd (which is date scheduled for Hearing Suppress Motions). Looking forward.
Jmo

HIP!
HIPPLER!
HOORAY!
​

 

[INfisherman]

I've been thinking about this a lot. The blunders of this 'criminal mastermind.' And I think it's pretty simple;

BK was extremely well prepared for the coverup. Being a Criminology PhD candidate gives him insight into all of the investigative techniques. JMO

But BK couldn't account for the parts that contained variability. Which was the time and day the victims would be most vulnerable and how they would react inside of the house. MOO

I think BK drove around at night dressed in the dickies suit with a trunk containing everything he needed to commit a murder and cover it up. And for whatever reason (academic issues, thanksgiving break) he thought that night was appropriate. MOO

I don't believe for a second that he somehow thought his car wouldn't be caught on any cameras. I think he long accepted and reasoned with this in his planning. He likely knew where most of the cameras were. I think he just thought his generic white sedan (thanks for that) would provide him a buffer and his regular seemingly innocent drives through the neighborhood (this alibi might have been successful without the dna) would provide him reasoning if it ever got to that. MOO

Same goes for the cell phone. Those things on their own aren't much. IMO.

The Locard's Exchange Principle most explains this approach and reasoning, IMO. He thought that as long as he took care to dress the part while inside (not leaving anything behind, OOPS!) and disposed of everything he took with him. LE would have nothing. JMO

One more thing I'll say that kind of supports my argument of BK methodically planning out this crime. And attempting to account for every possible variable...... "I'm here to help". Those words are from the PCA ...AND could have been an answer to any of the questions in the Reddit questionnaire he posted. JMO

MOO

I’ve thought all along he did it because he thought he could somehow test the criminal justice system & thought he was smart/educated enough to get away with it by some technicality or loophole during trial.

The body cam footage where he was pulled over for entering an intersection before clear gives a glimpse into his thinking & shows how he has issues with accepting he was wrong & moving on. I found myself saying aloud, "it doesn’t matter what the traffic codes are in PA, you’re in WA, dummy" but BK just kept hammering on that point.

ETA punctuation, clarity

 

[schooling]

PCA:
After reviewing the numerous observations of Suspect Vehicle 1, the forensic examiner initially believed that Suspect Vehicle 1 was a20ll-2013 Hyundai Elantra. Upon further review, he indicated it could also be a2011-2016 Hyundai Elantra. As a result, investigators have been reviewing information on persons in possession of a vehicle that is a 201 1-2016 white Hyundai Elantra.

The sealed FM has 38 exhibits.

IGG is a major focus as are the basic facts used to support an arrest.

From the MTS Arrest warrant

The basic facts Cpl. Payne used to support the arrest are discussed in detail in a separately filed motion pursuant to Franks v. Delaware 438 U.S. 154 (1978).

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR01-24-31665/2024/111424-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-Arrest-Warrant.pdf

From the MTS ATT

All information in the affidavit was gathered because of law enforcement’s unconstitutional use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy, and thus nothing in the warrant should remain.

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR01-24-31665/2024/111424-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-ATT-First-Warrant.pdf

The FM is about more than a car identification. The car identification is only one basic fact in the PCA. The car is under discussion because of a footnote in an Order and the previous testimony of BP.

ETA links

JMO

I think while it's possible that the car was "only under discussion because of a footnote"....I have to disagree with you saying that the car is just "one basic fact".

As I called out in June 2023. The car is central to the defense's IGG conspiracy (my characterization) argument.

The defense needs the model year correction to happen after the IGG is conducted. As they continue to imply that the IGG led to shortcuts in the investigation and LE tunnel vision. And in this specific case, AT implying (IMO) that after learning about Kohlberger via IGG... LE adjusted the model year because they were looking for a 2013 and Kohlberger's Elantra was a 2015. JMO.

If the call from WSU really led to Kohlberger getting on LE's radar (as is implied in the PCA) and the correction of the identification led to that tip surfacing....Then the entire conspiracy (again, my characterization) comes crumbling down. IMO

The car is EVERYTHING to their argument. It's merely a footnote in the prosecutions case, though.

MOO

Note: yes, im aware that PCAs are not meant to be exhaustive

 

[jepop]

I've been thinking about this a lot. The blunders of this 'criminal mastermind.' And I think it's pretty simple;

BK was extremely well prepared for the coverup. Being a Criminology PhD candidate gives him insight into all of the investigative techniques. JMO

But BK couldn't account for the parts that contained variability. Which was the time and day the victims would be most vulnerable and how they would react inside of the house. MOO

I think BK drove around at night dressed in the dickies suit with a trunk containing everything he needed to commit a murder and cover it up. And for whatever reason (academic issues, thanksgiving break) he thought that night was appropriate. MOO

I don't believe for a second that he somehow thought his car wouldn't be caught on any cameras. I think he long accepted and reasoned with this in his planning. He likely knew where most of the cameras were. I think he just thought his generic white sedan (thanks for that) would provide him a buffer and his regular seemingly innocent drives through the neighborhood (this alibi might have been successful without the dna) would provide him reasoning if it ever got to that. MOO

Same goes for the cell phone. Those things on their own aren't much. IMO.

The Locard's Exchange Principle most explains this approach and reasoning, IMO. He thought that as long as he took care to dress the part while inside (not leaving anything behind, OOPS!) and disposed of everything he took with him. LE would have nothing. JMO

One more thing I'll say that kind of supports my argument of BK methodically planning out this crime. And attempting to account for every possible variable...... "I'm here to help". Those words are from the PCA ...AND could have been an answer to any of the questions in the Reddit questionnaire he posted. JMO

MOO

I really agree with your take. I think he planned it methodically, took a risk with the idea of generic sedan and inadequate footage. Though I do think he took care with off road routes from and then returning to Pullman with the idea of avoiding cameras.

I also think he went there only to kill. Perhaps just MM and KG or perhaps as many as possible. Imo he wanted to do it quickly and silently and leave nothing of himself behind. I think he knew the layout of the house quite well and had been periodically watching the occupants in prior weeks unbeknownst to them.

On the night of 12th/13th November he decided and committed. Then I think he became frustrated that it was taking so long for lights out. He hung around and circled for over half an hour before finally biting the bullet. Despite his frustrations imo he had made his decision and was going to do it. He is detached from himself so didn't understand how built up frustration might affect his planned and ( in his mind) rational actions. That how the sheath got left behind. Jmo.

 

[schooling]

I really agree with your take. I think he planned it methodically, took a risk with the idea of generic sedan and inadequate footage. Though I do think he took care with off road routes from and then returning to Pullman with the idea of avoiding cameras.

I also think he went there only to kill. Perhaps just MM and KG or perhaps as many as possible. Imo he wanted to do it quickly and silently and leave nothing of himself behind. I think he knew the layout of the house quite well and had been periodically watching the occupants in prior weeks unbeknownst to them.

On the night of 12th/13th November he decided and committed. Then I think he became frustrated that it was taking so long for lights out. He hung around and circled for over half an hour before finally biting the bullet. Despite his frustrations imo he had made his decision and was going to do it. He is detached from himself so didn't understand how built up frustration might affect his planned and ( in his mind) rational actions. That how the sheath got left behind. Jmo.

Do you think he was stalking that entire neighborhood and eventually narrowed down to just them? Or do you think they brought him into that neighborhood?

It was reported (in either the Dateline NBC or ABC News specials, whichever had the Amazon receipt reporting) that in Spring of 22 a bunch of weird 'stalkerish (my characterization) things happened in that neighborhood and nearby neighborhoods. Specifically targeting women.

It didn't seem like they wanted to go out on a limb and make a claim that Kohlberger was responsible, but they also couldn't definitively say whether Kohberger was in town or not for something like orientation. They just thought it was worthy enough to mention and said that LE was seeing if there was a connection. IIRC.

And I remember that after the orientation questions started popping up. And the ABC/NBC reporting. I went through his CarFax report to check his miles (which was reported on by a local Idaho news outlet).
My post is floating around somewhere in these threads....but I remember that in a short 6 months, his car had enough miles put on it to travel back and forth to Pullman 2 times by the time he officially arrived in Pullman that summer.

Thats a lot of night driving, right? Since he loves it so much?

Nope, those 6 months were a MAJOR outlier in all previous years of him owning this car. I posted about it here in detail, including breaking down all of the miles from the report by service date, year, and attempted to correlate it to his acceptance into WSU. MOO

So I'm not a big believer in conspiracy theories...but the miles and the reporting have always stood out to me. And makes the purported purchase of the Ka-Bar in April of 2022 that much creepier. What if he made an orientation trip in the late spring and planned on doing something to anyone back then but didn't?

Again, all MOO.

 

[jepop]

Do you think he was stalking that entire neighborhood and eventually narrowed down to just them? Or do you think they brought him into that neighborhood?

It was reported (in either the Dateline NBC or ABC News specials, whichever had the Amazon receipt reporting) that in Spring of 22 a bunch of weird 'stalkerish (my characterization) things happened in that neighborhood and nearby neighborhoods. Specifically targeting women.

It didn't seem like they wanted to go out on a limb and make a claim that Kohlberger was responsible, but they also couldn't definitively say whether Kohberger was in town or not for something like orientation. They just thought it was worthy enough to mention and said that LE was seeing if there was a connection. IIRC.

And I remember that after the orientation questions started popping up. And the ABC/NBC reporting. I went through his CarFax report to check his miles (which was reported on by a local Idaho news outlet).
My post is floating around somewhere in these threads....but I remember that in a short 6 months, his car had enough miles put on it to travel back and forth to Pullman 2 times by the time he officially arrived in Pullman that summer.

Thats a lot of night driving, right? Since he loves it so much?

Nope, those 6 months were a MAJOR outlier in all previous years of him owning this car. I posted about it here in detail, including breaking down all of the miles from the report by service date, year, and attempted to correlate it to his acceptance into WSU. MOO

So I'm not a big believer in conspiracy theories...but the miles and the reporting have always stood out to me. And makes the purported purchase of the Ka-Bar in April of 2022 that much creepier. What if he made an orientation trip in the late spring and planned on doing something to anyone back then but didn't?

Again, all MOO.

I tend to think he began by surveying the house because it was easy to do so from his car. He could learn about the house and its occupants that way. Of course this is entirely speculative. He got to know who the occupants of the house were by first watching the house. Moo

I do remember your Carfax mileage posts vaguely! I suppose he could have been to Pullman prior to his move there in late July/ early August 2022. Idk. if there is proof of that I'm sure it would be relevant and admissible at trial. So wait and see I guess. I tend to think not, but your milage posts were very interesting as I recall.

If he did purchase the knife in April 2022 then that may speak to his thinking about killing for some time. However, I don't think he selected his actual victims until after discovering the house at 1122 King Road some time in August. All speculative of course!

 

[jepop]

Not necessarily. Look at the "alibi." Look how their DP quest ended. Just because a defense team claims something doesn't mean they can ultimately deliver. And I don't think this snippet I'm seeing (splashed all over MSM and already being widely discussed on here in terms of general idea) bodes well for the D team on this, Hippler:

"Accompanying the motion are 38 exhibits comprising over 2,000 pages. Unfortunately, Defendant's memorandum largely fails to identify with particularity the relevant portions of the exhibits, instead referring simply to the exhibit number without identifying the precise pages at issue," a written response from Judge Hippler read. "Thus, the Court is left with the unenviable task of sifting through pages and pages of largely irrelevant documents to ascertain what portion Defendant may be referring to. The Court is not required to search the record looking for evidence."

When you have the goods, there's no need to make the judge play "Where's Waldo?" JMO, he may have already seen enough already to know if they have the goods. My guess is this is going to be along the lines of the "alibi" in terms of substantive impact. Another empty suit that makes headlines and generates interest along the way.

By the end of this, no straw will remain ungrasped, MOO.

Great expression! Think this may be why I feel Judge Hippler is not going to find sufficient proof for a Franks hearing. I do believe the original strategy with the D's hugely hefty memorandum and lack of clear references and connections to exhibits was an attempted obfuscation (aka 'Where's Waldo' lol.).

Done that way deliberately because an unambiguous, factual basis is actually lacking. Jmo, it's either that or this was an incompetent filing ( ie forgot to reference, poor proof reading, ran out of time to edit for preciseness), and quite frankly (pardon the pun) I find it almost impossible to believe BK's defense would fall to that level if incompetence. AT and co. are far too thorough for that. So jmo 'where's Waldo' strategy has a ring of likelihood about it.

 

[Nila Aella]

I think while it's possible that the car was "only under discussion because of a footnote"....I have to disagree with you saying that the car is just "one basic fact".

As I called out in June 2023. The car is central to the defense's IGG conspiracy (my characterization) argument.

The defense needs the model year correction to happen after the IGG is conducted. As they continue to imply that the IGG led to shortcuts in the investigation and LE tunnel vision. And in this specific case, AT implying (IMO) that after learning about Kohlberger via IGG... LE adjusted the model year because they were looking for a 2013 and Kohlberger's Elantra was a 2015. JMO.

If the call from WSU really led to Kohlberger getting on LE's radar (as is implied in the PCA) and the correction of the identification led to that tip surfacing....Then the entire conspiracy (again, my characterization) comes crumbling down. IMO

The car is EVERYTHING to their argument. It's merely a footnote in the prosecutions case, though.

MOO

Note: yes, im aware that PCAs are not meant to be exhaustive

BBM

I disagree.
The car is one basic fact in the PCA. I only used the words "basic fact" because that is what the D used in their MTS.

The basic facts Cpl. Payne used to support the arrest are discussed in detail in a separately filed motion pursuant to Franks v. Delaware 438 U.S. 154 (1978).

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/...Supress-Memorandum-Support-Arrest-Warrant.pdf

As @Balthazar noted and listed, BP testified as to what information he used to obtain the arrest warrant. He also testified as to what information he used to obtain each ATT warrant.

The PCA definitely made it seem like WSU led to BK being on the radar, but that is not what happened according to BPs testimony. BP testified that he did NOT know about the WSU car information until Dec 20.

The Invoice from the private Lab was dated Nov. 29th which is the same day WSU spotted and queried the elantra.

The PCA was deceitful IMO, in more than one place.
JMO

 

[Kemug]

⁸

“But apparently AT believes that is not what happened based on the emails between BP and the FBI analyst.”

First, as for me, I’m not going to make sweeping changes in what I think about a case based on what a defense attorney “believes”.

RSBM
What a defence attorney believes - no, sorry - what a defence attorney says she believes!

 

[Balthazar]

The entire case is thrown out and then what? IMO Law enforcement would just immediately rearrest him since his DNA is a direct CODIS hit now. Couldn't they use that DNA to serve dozens of simultaneous warrants?

Or are you suggesting that it's dismissed with prejudice? Or that it's dismissed in a way that makes every piece of evidence gathered against Kohlberger fruit from a poisoned tree. Which couldn't be reused in another prosecution. Essentially making him immune from prosecution....forever. JMO

IMO those would be fantastical outcomes that are less than 0.000001% likely to fly. But Is that justice?

I've yet to see anyone cite appropriate recourse when they are presenting this sort of argument for dismissal.

MOO

The structure and organization of the documents answers that question. The AT&T warrant is the primary document from which the other warrants spring. If the judge finds that the primary warrant is fouled, then all warrants beneath it are Fruit of the Poisonous Tree.

This happens in 10 - 15% of cases.

The ONLY possible recourse would be a Federal Prosecution, but I think that highly unlikely.

 

[jepop]

BBM

I disagree.
The car is one basic fact in the PCA. I only used the words "basic fact" because that is what the D used in their MTS.

The basic facts Cpl. Payne used to support the arrest are discussed in detail in a separately filed motion pursuant to Franks v. Delaware 438 U.S. 154 (1978).

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/...Supress-Memorandum-Support-Arrest-Warrant.pdf

As @Balthazar noted and listed, BP testified as to what information he used to obtain the arrest warrant. He also testified as to what information he used to obtain each ATT warrant.

The PCA definitely made it seem like WSU led to BK being on the radar, but that is not what happened according to BPs testimony. BP testified that he did NOT know about the WSU car information until Dec 20.

The Invoice from the private Lab was dated Nov. 29th which is the same day WSU spotted and queried the elantra.

The PCA was deceitful IMO, in more than one place.
JMO

I'll take your word for it that receipt from private lab was 29 November. But that's not an issue or any sort of proof of deliberate deception in the PCA.IMO.

According to the PCA and State's Motion for Protective order, private lab developed an snp profile and "commenced" IGG. Then the FBI took over the IGG from private lab ( Othram I believe) and went on to do standard IGG investigative work using the SNP profile. This would have included the longer term task of developing a family tree. Imo that probably took weeks. Moo BK was not identified via IGG by 29th November if that is what you are implying. Or at the very least if lab receipted LE for their work on 29th Nov that in no way implies LE had BK's name on that date. Moo

See PCA plus p4 of link below

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-222805/061623+States+Motion+for+Protective+Order.pdf

Idaho Judicial Cases of Interest

 

[Nila Aella]

I'll take your word for it that receipt from private lab was 29 November. But that's not an issue or any sort of proof of deliberate deception in the PCA.IMO.

According to the PCA and State's Motion for Protective order, private lab developed an snp profile and "commenced" IGG. Then the FBI took over the IGG from private lab ( Othram I believe) and went on to do standard IGG investigative work using the SNP profile. This would have included the longer term task of developing a family tree. Imo that probably took weeks. Moo BK was not identified via IGG by 29th November if that is what you are implying. Or at the very least if lab receipted LE for their work on 29th Nov that in no way implies LE had BK's name on that date. Moo

See PCA plus p4 of link below

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-222805/061623+States+Motion+for+Protective+Order.pdf

Idaho Judicial Cases of Interest

Date of issue was Nov 29th
Payment Due by Dec 29th

https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/crime/article287365665.html

I did not say it was proof of deliberate deception. That is something the D will have to prove with supporting evidence.

I was not implying they had a name Nov 29th. The public does not know when the IGG was initiated/completed nor when the family tree was initiated/completed. The public does not know the details of what was done nor how long it took by either agency. It IS supposed to take weeks. IMO LE knew his name before he went on Christmas break.

I am saying that BP did NOT know about the WSU car discovery until December 20. I was responding to the idea that the D case falls apart because they got BKs name from the WSU query and not the IGG. And how the car change fits into that timeline.

And I am saying I believe the PCA was misleading.

JMO

 

[mrjitty]

BBM

I disagree.
The car is one basic fact in the PCA. I only used the words "basic fact" because that is what the D used in their MTS.

The basic facts Cpl. Payne used to support the arrest are discussed in detail in a separately filed motion pursuant to Franks v. Delaware 438 U.S. 154 (1978).

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/...Supress-Memorandum-Support-Arrest-Warrant.pdf

As @Balthazar noted and listed, BP testified as to what information he used to obtain the arrest warrant. He also testified as to what information he used to obtain each ATT warrant.

The PCA definitely made it seem like WSU led to BK being on the radar, but that is not what happened according to BPs testimony. BP testified that he did NOT know about the WSU car information until Dec 20.

The Invoice from the private Lab was dated Nov. 29th which is the same day WSU spotted and queried the elantra.

The PCA was deceitful IMO, in more than one place.
JMO

I find this analysis interesting.

Of course we are groping around in the dark a bit but I think what you suggest raises one interesting question. At some point, LE put 2+2 together that the cars are the same, as reflected in the PCA. This "lightbulb" was apparently correct.

Does it actually matter how the affiant was able to do that?

It's not exactly unusual that LE are working on an investigative theory from some other intelligence (e.g a source). So at some point they realise the cars are the same, and the FBI guy corrects his analysis.

All fine in my opinion. What would not make it fine, is if the source intel came from an unconstitutional search, which I am guess, is the real crux of the D argument?

MOO

 

[mrjitty]

Further to my last post, in watching the first few minutes of the examination of the affiant, I am not seeing any bombshells. He simply says he relies on the FBI expert, and spoke to him by email and phone. Nowhere does he talk about what drove the conversation.

IMO, even if it is the DNA insight that drove a re-evaluation, and even if such a public data search were ultimately ruled unconstitutional in US courts, I'm not necessarily convinced the PCA contains any lie, let alone anything enough to toss it. IMO LE are allowed to connect these two pieces of intelligence by one means or another. We know they did indeed do that - it's implicit, if not explicit in the PCA. Indeed it does not say what drove the FBI to re-evaluate or when this happened.

tldr; even if the defence claim is true, it seems clear IMO that the affiant did indeed discuss the year discrepancy with the FBI expert which led to a re-evaluation which he relied upon in the PCA. Defence would need to convince the court that the background and timings in all of this makes that representation deceitful in some way. But IMO it seems to reflect what happened even on the defence view.

 

[mrjitty]

I think while it's possible that the car was "only under discussion because of a footnote"....I have to disagree with you saying that the car is just "one basic fact".

As I called out in June 2023. The car is central to the defense's IGG conspiracy (my characterization) argument.

The defense needs the model year correction to happen after the IGG is conducted. As they continue to imply that the IGG led to shortcuts in the investigation and LE tunnel vision. And in this specific case, AT implying (IMO) that after learning about Kohlberger via IGG... LE adjusted the model year because they were looking for a 2013 and Kohlberger's Elantra was a 2015. JMO.

If the call from WSU really led to Kohlberger getting on LE's radar (as is implied in the PCA) and the correction of the identification led to that tip surfacing....Then the entire conspiracy (again, my characterization) comes crumbling down. IMO

The car is EVERYTHING to their argument. It's merely a footnote in the prosecutions case, though.

MOO

Note: yes, im aware that PCAs are not meant to be exhaustive

But also, even if the defence conspiracy is true, so what?

At the end of the day, LE where able to match their suspect car to an identified car of a different year. They never said how they were able to make that insight. But it was an available one.

So you are left arguing there is a deception by omission here. But is the affiant required to set out an entire timeline and backstory for how they resolved this error?

I note AT does not press the affiant on any critical details here.

As usual I'd like to read the full Franks in order to understand what the D argument specifically is, but i'd hazard a guess that the trial court is not going to be the one to toss out all this evidence on an underlying constitutional question - it will be the appeal courts that consider that

MOO

 

[jepop]

Date of issue was Nov 29th
Payment Due by Dec 29th

View attachment 548926

https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/crime/article287365665.html

I did not say it was proof of deliberate deception. That is something the D will have to prove with supporting evidence.

I was not implying they had a name Nov 29th. The public does not know when the IGG was initiated/completed nor when the family tree was initiated/completed. The public does not know the details of what was done nor how long it took by either agency. It IS supposed to take weeks. IMO LE knew his name before he went on Christmas break.

I am saying that BP did NOT know about the WSU car discovery until December 20. I was responding to the idea that the D case falls apart because they got BKs name from the WSU query and not the IGG. And how the car change fits into that timeline.

And I am saying I believe the PCA was misleading.

JMO

But also, even if the defence conspiracy is true, so what?

At the end of the day, LE where able to match their suspect car to an identified car of a different year. They never said how they were able to make that insight. But it was an available one.

So you are left arguing there is a deception by omission here. But is the affiant required to set out an entire timeline and backstory for how they resolved this error?

I note AT does not press the affiant on any critical details here.

As usual I'd like to read the full Franks in order to understand what the D argument specifically is, but i'd hazard a guess that the trial court is not going to be the one to toss out all this evidence on an underlying constitutional question - it will be the appeal courts that consider that

MOO

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/122922+Affidavit+-+Exhibit+A+-+Statement+of+Brett-Payne.pdf

I think it's on page 7 or 8 of attached arrest affidavit. LE also had WSU footage of a white Hyundai Elantra out and about in Pullman between approx 2.40am and 2.50am that morning. And footage of same vehicle travelling into Pullman from 5.25am. BP recounts how this footage was analysed by the same FBI expert and he identified the car as a 2015 Hyundai Elantra unambiguously. I believe the camera captures in Pullman were in mostly well lit streets.

Moo the PCA is well written. Some appear to object to it not laying out a timeline of exactly when each piece of evidence was discovered. But imo that is unnecessary. Everything in the PCA is factual imo. There are no fabrications. Take out the IGG and LE would have found him anyway. The video of 2015 Elantra in Pullman is integral evidence. Jmo