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

[girlhasnoname]

There were multiple videos/photos from Pullman street cameras, then 1102 - the house next to 1122, Linda Lane, some house on Indian Hills Dr.

There must be some proof in the emails she sent to the Judge of what she is alleging.

No one has mentioned any missing emails.

Unknown at this point and with a 10-15% rate of cases being dismissed after a Franks Hearing, I would say, it COULD happen in this case. Unfortunately mistakes and/or mis-representations are made in all kinds of criminal cases. This one is no different than any other criminal case from that standpoint.

Because the FBI expert IS the expert witness who determined what kind of car was involved. The prosecution will need to call him as a witness during the trial (if there ever is a trial) so the expert can identify the vehicle and explain to the jury HOW he identified the vehicle in the first place. This is why we have expert witnesses so they can state facts based upon their expertise to the jury. IF he NEVER said it could be a 2015 Elantra, or said it was NOT a 2015 Elantra, that is significant and he should not have been represented in the PCA as saying it could be a 2015 Elantra.

No, that is NOT how this works. A police officer CANNOT lie in a PCA under any circumstances. A PCA is a court document. Lying or guessing in the PCA is the surest way to get a case thrown out. If the email chain shows the FBI expert said it was not a 2015 and the PCA says the opposite, then there is good cause for a Franks hearing. The PCA is the document from which all the warrants for BK sprang. If the PCA contains one or more lies then ALL of the warrants were gotten under false pretenses and the case will have to be dismissed. That is how our laws work.

All JMO.

In a perfect world...

The FBI Expert did NOT specifically exclude the year 2015, if they did I'd like to see you provide a link to that. They originally gave a model and year range based on videos/evidence at the time 2011-2013 and then further defined that year range as more video/evidence was received 2011-2016. That's how investigations work, narrowing down the facts as more information is made available, nothing nefarious about it. LE will also intentionally not identify the actual model because they don't want to spook the suspect before an arrest can be made. <Link attached>

The State met the PCA threshold 100% IMO and BK will be sitting in a cell for many, many years to come, DP appeals are automatic, so let AT & Company bring them on.

JMO

The white sedan: How police found the man accused of slaying four Idaho students

 

[girlhasnoname]

The only way to make such an assessment is to view hundreds of hours of Linda Lane recordings from prior nights and weekends (paired samples). Did you actually do that?

Right and not according to LE in this statement:

<snipped>
“This is a residential neighborhood with a very limited number of vehicles that travel in the area during the early morning hours,” Payne wrote. “Upon review of the video there are only a few cars that enter and exit this area during this time frame.”

The white sedan: How police found the man accused of slaying four Idaho students

jmo

 

[Balthazar]

Plus the fog on that night was very noticeable. JMO

There is no discernible fog on the Linda Lane videos at all. Nor is fog visible on the Band Field video or the food truck video.

While it is true that the State should deservedly have its search warrants tossed where it lies/misrepresents in the PCA, it's typically hard for the defence to achieve in my opinion. A mere mistake or immaterial misrepresentation is not going to cut it.

I am further sceptical that a discrepancy over year is going to matter, even if it can be proven the affiant intentionally lied about that to deceive the judge. The cars look similar enough if my opinion.

YMMV, but personally I will be waiting to see if the defence can even prove any misrepresentation occurred before I would even begin evaluating whether such misrepresentation would justify tossing the evidence.

Like I am pretty sure this warrant would be granted even if the affiant hadn't said this.

IMO

It helps to read the documents to understand what was and what was not used to get the warrant. There were only 4 pieces of evidence used to get the warrant:
1. Movements of the 2011 - 2013 car near 1122 from 3:26am to 4:20am. The date range on this car was later changed to include 2011- 2016.
2. Movements of a 2014-2016 car near WSU between 2:43am and 5:27am
3. Dylan's description of the man she saw. Bushy eyebrows, 5'10", not very muscular.
4. Phone dump showing BK's phone was not in the area of 1122 King Rd.

2,3 and 4 prove nothing without BK's car being in the vicinity of 1122. So...no, the warrant would not have been granted based on only 2, 3 and 4. If 1 is removed, there is no evidence that BK was involved in this at all.

Finding for Probable Cause requires SUBSTANTIAL evidence. 2,3 and 4 are not substantial. So what's a first-time lead detective on such an infamous case to do?

BP said on the stand that the FBI analyst later changed the car date to 2011 - 2016. Well, let's hear from the analyst as to if that is true or not. And if it is not true, then BP lied on the stand and that/ will also be taken into consideration by the judge.

 

[mrjitty]

There is no discernible fog on the Linda Lane videos at all. Nor is fog visible on the Band Field video or the food truck video.

It helps to read the documents to understand what was and what was not used to get the warrant. There were only 4 pieces of evidence used to get the warrant:
1. Movements of the 2011 - 2013 car near 1122 from 3:26am to 4:20am. The date range on this car was later changed to include 2011- 2016.
2. Movements of a 2014-2016 car near WSU between 2:43am and 5:27am
3. Dylan's description of the man she saw. Bushy eyebrows, 5'10", not very muscular.
4. Phone dump showing BK's phone was not in the area of 1122 King Rd.

2,3 and 4 prove nothing without BK's car being in the vicinity of 1122. So...no, the warrant would not have been granted based on only 2, 3 and 4. If 1 is removed, there is no evidence that BK was involved in this at all.

Finding for Probable Cause requires SUBSTANTIAL evidence. 2,3 and 4 are not substantial. So what's a first-time lead detective on such an infamous case to do?

BP said on the stand that the FBI analyst later changed the car date to 2011 - 2016. Well, let's hear from the analyst as to if that is true or not. And if it is not true, then BP lied on the stand and that/ will also be taken into consideration by the judge.

i didn’t say that though.

What is at issue is the specific year range. You still have an id of a car similar to his on point 1 at the end of the day whether or not they got the year range correct.

We will have to see whether there was any error on the year range let alone an intentional misrepresentation intended to deceive the judge, let alone lying on the stand.

i remain sceptical we will see that given they didn’t manage to point it out to the Judge.

But if the affiant has lied and they can show it then yes there is a chance it could be tossed.

MOO

 

[mrjitty]

What is the counter factual here?

Like if investigators really thought the two cars were different models how did they get up on the suspect?

 

[girlhasnoname]

There is no discernible fog on the Linda Lane videos at all. Nor is fog visible on the Band Field video or the food truck video.

I don't think we've had the opportunity to post before, are you a verified lawyer or insider on this case? I like to provide my statements with links when stating them as fact so even though we've all seen this 100 times before I will link it again. I also did NOT say there was fog during the food truck video as that happened a bit earlier in the evening approx 1:30-1:40 am. On the Linda Lane coverage though you can really see the fog starting around 8:22 min marker from an approved WS source Gray Hughes:

linda lane video Bryan kohberger case gray hughes - Yahoo Video Search Results

It helps to read the documents to understand what was and what was not used to get the warrant. There were only 4 pieces of evidence used to get the warrant:
1. Movements of the 2011 - 2013 car near 1122 from 3:26am to 4:20am. The date range on this car was later changed to include 2011- 2016.
2. Movements of a 2014-2016 car near WSU between 2:43am and 5:27am
3. Dylan's description of the man she saw. Bushy eyebrows, 5'10", not very muscular.

<snipped & BBM> There was more to her description as well:

It was a male stranger, DM said, describing him as at least 5 feet, 10 inches, "not very muscular, but athletically built with bushy eyebrows."

https://www.npr.org/2023/01/05/1147112440/idaho-murders-suspect-charged-bryan-kohberger

 

[mrjitty]

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

We literally know that the FBI expert was initially mistaken.

Unless you believe the real killer had the earlier model car.

MOO

 

[GOBliaison]

It is not a minor mistake because it is in a sworn legal document. If AT can show that BP knew about BK AND his 2015 Elantra AND the FBI agent told him 2011 - 2013 BUT BP put 2011 - 2016 because he knew he needed that date range for BK's 2015 car, or if BP is seen to be badgering the FBI expert to include 2015 in the emails or telling him he needs 2015, then the Judge is going to have to dismiss the PCA and therefore the whole case. Falsifying evidence never goes well for a police officer if they are caught and can, unfortunately destroy the whole case.

2011 - 2013 ? ?
vs
2011 - 2016 ? ?​

GOBliaison J., woolsack ensconced, restates, reminding all parties:

"De minimis non curat lex."
* * *​

"We shall now pivot, counsel, to more directly ford this...er...Bailiff: What river have we ahead?
"That be 'The Rubicon', yer Honor.
"Yessss... then this Rubicon it shall be!"

​

 

[Boxer]

It is not a minor mistake because it is in a sworn legal document. If AT can show that BP knew about BK AND his 2015 Elantra AND the FBI agent told him 2011 - 2013 BUT BP put 2011 - 2016 because he knew he needed that date range for BK's 2015 car, or if BP is seen to be badgering the FBI expert to include 2015 in the emails or telling him he needs 2015, then the Judge is going to have to dismiss the PCA and therefore the whole case. Falsifying evidence never goes well for a police officer if they are caught and can, unfortunately destroy the whole case.

The range of years for nearly identical model year car minor mistake.

We literally know that the FBI expert was initially mistaken.

Unless you believe the real killer had the earlier model car.

MOO

I believe that a minor mistake in model year range is not a large issue.

 

[Megnut]

Does anyone believe the white Elantra that looped around the neighborhood before parking for a mere ten minutes before speeding off was actually a 2011-13 Elantra?

AT would LOVE for us (the judge, future jury) to think so... but it turns out that, the same FBI expert who first identified it as a 2011-2013 Elantra later concurred that it could be a 2015. Right make and model, misidentified year.

AT is playing  reindeer Defense Attorney games. Asking questions of the wrong witnesses, asking anachronistic questions.

Isn't it true that.... the FBI expert determined it to be a 2011-2013 Elantra?

Yes, true. But that was before that very information led to the discovery of the suspect vehicle. After which he opined -- the recorded car could be a 2015.

There are two choices.

BK's car isn't on CCTV in Moscow because a 2015 Elantra isn't a 2012.

Or... the 2011-2013 range was wrong. Off by a mere two years.

Given that the make and model wasn't immediately discernable, given the quality of the cctv, the speed of the car, the locations/distances and angles of the cameras, I'd say the FBI did pretty well with his initial call, and he did so well that LE was able to put out a color, make and model with years from which to inspire tips from the community. And it did just that.

There is no lie.

LE had every reason to believe that the previously identified 2011-2013 Elantra was actually a 2015 Elantra and pursued the lead as such.

A quick call to the FBI expert would clear it all up too IMO. But AT knows that. Knows the judge can't do that. Doesn't want to do it herself. She knows it's the same car. The only value in this crafted detour is that false appearance of sumpin, sumpin. (When there's nuthin, nuthin.)

This is really no different than if they'd gotten a partial license plate from an eyewitness -- let's say, the witness remembered the first three characters as 7-B-4. Later investigation results in identifying a vehicle of interest, the plates of which starts 7-8-4. Two different cars? Lying witness? Nah. Working the case. They start with what they have, develop it or discard it. Just like LE likely investigated people known to the victims -- boyfriends, former boyfriends -- as well as local SOs and other known criminals, none of which panned out. Doesn't mean, for a while, one of those POIs was the killer. Nope. Just leads to investigate. Rule in, rule out.

Even now, WHAT IF, what if LE learned BK had an accomplice (I don't personally think he did, this is just for argument's sake), and BK was dropped off a half-mile from the house 30-40 minutes earlier, he jogged to the house, laid in wait for his bingo time, while his accomplice circled the neighborhood before parking, and then the two drove off, it wouldn't make the PCA a lie! It was the best information they had at the time.

In fact, if by some unbelievable coincidence, that wasn't BK's car at all, and he jogged in from the State line, the PCA still wouldn't be a lie. It would be the best information they had at the time.

AT has nothing to work with. I applaud her for being inventive, even if it aggravates me to no end.

LE didn't lie.
The FBI expert didn't lie.
LE didn't lie about what the FBI expert said.
The PCA was not a lie. 2011-2016 Elantra. All of which comprise an older model Elantra, that could be on the earlier end or could be on the later end, based on additional evidence recovered prior to the PCA.

JMO

 

[Chloegirl]

I don't think we've had the opportunity to post before, are you a verified lawyer or insider on this case? I like to provide my statements with links when stating them as fact so even though we've all seen this 100 times before I will link it again. I also did NOT say there was fog during the food truck video as that happened a bit earlier in the evening approx 1:30-1:40 am. On the Linda Lane coverage though you can really see the fog starting around 8:22 min marker from an approved WS source Gray Hughes:

linda lane video Bryan kohberger case gray hughes - Yahoo Video Search Results


<snipped & BBM> There was more to her description as well:

It was a male stranger, DM said, describing him as at least 5 feet, 10 inches, "not very muscular, but athletically built with bushy eyebrows."

https://www.npr.org/2023/01/05/1147112440/idaho-murders-suspect-charged-bryan-kohberger

Chimming in, I live here it was very heavily foggy that night/morning, whether it shows up or not on camera. In some places, it hovers a little higher and there's a little bit of a dip down on Taylor so it's less obvious in parts. But if you look out through the yard on nights like that, it's thick, moving and somewhat patchy. This often generates hoarfrost the next morning, not that I'm a weather reporter. LOL JMOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Chimming in, I live here it was very heavily foggy that night/morning, whether it shows up or not on camera. In some places, it hovers a little higher and there's a little bit of a dip down on Taylor so it's less obvious in parts. But if you look out through the yard on nights like that, it's thick, moving and somewhat patchy. This often generates hoarfrost the next morning, not that I'm a weather reporter. LOL JMOO

Thank you for reassuring me that I haven't lost my mind lol, it sure looked foggy to me on the Linda Lane video I linked.

 

[Chloegirl]

Thank you for reassuring me that I haven't lost my mind lol, it sure looked foggy to me on the Linda Lane video I linked.

Ironically, it is like that tonight!

 

[schooling]

There is no discernible fog on the Linda Lane videos at all. Nor is fog visible on the Band Field video or the food truck video.

It helps to read the documents to understand what was and what was not used to get the warrant. There were only 4 pieces of evidence used to get the warrant:
1. Movements of the 2011 - 2013 car near 1122 from 3:26am to 4:20am. The date range on this car was later changed to include 2011- 2016.
2. Movements of a 2014-2016 car near WSU between 2:43am and 5:27am
3. Dylan's description of the man she saw. Bushy eyebrows, 5'10", not very muscular.
4. Phone dump showing BK's phone was not in the area of 1122 King Rd.

2,3 and 4 prove nothing without BK's car being in the vicinity of 1122. So...no, the warrant would not have been granted based on only 2, 3 and 4. If 1 is removed, there is no evidence that BK was involved in this at all.

Finding for Probable Cause requires SUBSTANTIAL evidence. 2,3 and 4 are not substantial. So what's a first-time lead detective on such an infamous case to do?

BP said on the stand that the FBI analyst later changed the car date to 2011 - 2016. Well, let's hear from the analyst as to if that is true or not. And if it is not true, then BP lied on the stand and that/ will also be taken into consideration by the judge.

BK's attorney's remind us everyday that they have terabytes and terabytes of data/potential evidence to dig through. We can't honestly think that the only thing that's connecting him to the crime is a misidentified vehicle? Can we?

How about his DNA on the literal sheath that more than likely held the literal murder weapon?

Jurors are going to want to know how that DNA got there. And the most reasonable explanation is that BK was inside of that home at the time of the murders. And at that point it doesn't matter if he got there via bus pass or in his car.

 

[snooptroop88]

Does anyone believe the white Elantra that looped around the neighborhood before parking for a mere ten minutes before speeding off was actually a 2011-13 Elantra?

AT would LOVE for us (the judge, future jury) to think so... but it turns out that, the same FBI expert who first identified it as a 2011-2013 Elantra later concurred that it could be a 2015. Right make and model, misidentified year.

AT is playing  reindeer Defense Attorney games. Asking questions of the wrong witnesses, asking anachronistic questions.

Isn't it true that.... the FBI expert determined it to be a 2011-2013 Elantra?

Yes, true. But that was before that very information led to the discovery of the suspect vehicle. After which he opined -- the recorded car could be a 2015.

There are two choices.

BK's car isn't on CCTV in Moscow because a 2015 Elantra isn't a 2012.

Or... the 2011-2013 range was wrong. Off by a mere two years.

Given that the make and model wasn't immediately discernable, given the quality of the cctv, the speed of the car, the locations/distances and angles of the cameras, I'd say the FBI did pretty well with his initial call, and he did so well that LE was able to put out a color, make and model with years from which to inspire tips from the community. And it did just that.

There is no lie.

LE had every reason to believe that the previously identified 2011-2013 Elantra was actually a 2015 Elantra and pursued the lead as such.

A quick call to the FBI expert would clear it all up too IMO. But AT knows that. Knows the judge can't do that. Doesn't want to do it herself. She knows it's the same car. The only value in this crafted detour is that false appearance of sumpin, sumpin. (When there's nuthin, nuthin.)

This is really no different than if they'd gotten a partial license plate from an eyewitness -- let's say, the witness remembered the first three characters as 7-B-4. Later investigation results in identifying a vehicle of interest, the plates of which starts 7-8-4. Two different cars? Lying witness? Nah. Working the case. They start with what they have, develop it or discard it. Just like LE likely investigated people known to the victims -- boyfriends, former boyfriends -- as well as local SOs and other known criminals, none of which panned out. Doesn't mean, for a while, one of those POIs was the killer. Nope. Just leads to investigate. Rule in, rule out.

Even now, WHAT IF, what if LE learned BK had an accomplice (I don't personally think he did, this is just for argument's sake), and BK was dropped off a half-mile from the house 30-40 minutes earlier, he jogged to the house, laid in wait for his bingo time, while his accomplice circled the neighborhood before parking, and then the two drove off, it wouldn't make the PCA a lie! It was the best information they had at the time.

In fact, if by some unbelievable coincidence, that wasn't BK's car at all, and he jogged in from the State line, the PCA still wouldn't be a lie. It would be the best information they had at the time.

AT has nothing to work with. I applaud her for being inventive, even if it aggravates me to no end.

LE didn't lie.
The FBI expert didn't lie.
LE didn't lie about what the FBI expert said.
The PCA was not a lie. 2011-2016 Elantra. All of which comprise an older model Elantra, that could be on the earlier end or could be on the later end, based on additional evidence recovered prior to the PCA.

JMO

100% agreed with everything in this post. Reindeer games indeed, and what a perfect follow-up for defending the
fog-impaired stargazer who was at the closed park when he was murdering four people. I mean, the D still insists this is an "alibi," and to me, that speaks volumes in itself. The PCA's not a lie, but that bag of tricks the D's defending appears to be.

Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin' -Billy Preston

We'll see how things stand when the smoke clears after the D finishes up with the "Where's Waldo?" with the judge.

 

[Balthazar]

BK's attorney's remind us everyday that they have terabytes and terabytes of data/potential evidence to dig through. We can't honestly think that the only thing that's connecting him to the crime is a misidentified vehicle? Can we?

I think it is time to ask the hard questions. Why was what I listed the ONLY evidence used to get the AT&T phone warrant?

This is a rhetorical question - I'm not personalizing this towards you but towards the reader as food for thought:

If you were the lead detective on this case would you choose to use the least evidence possible to secure the most important baseline warrant, THE warrant from which all other warrants on this suspect would spring or would you use all the evidence you had so if some piece of evidence was thrown out, the warrant would still stand? IMO, they used all of what little evidence they had at the time.

 

[Megnut]

I think it is time to ask the hard questions. Why was what I listed the ONLY evidence used to get the AT&T phone warrant?

This is a rhetorical question - I'm not personalizing this towards you but towards the reader as food for thought:

If you were the lead detective on this case would you choose to use the least evidence possible to secure the most important baseline warrant, THE warrant from which all other warrants on this suspect would spring or would you use all the evidence you had so if some piece of evidence was thrown out, the warrant would still stand? IMO, they used all of what little evidence they had at the time.

Why stack the deck for warrant?

I don't know any warrant that includes all the things. IMO they're historically thin, by design. They can always be rewritten.

JMO

 

[mrjitty]

Why stack the deck for warrant?

I don't know any warrant that includes all the things. IMO they're historically thin, by design. They can always be rewritten.

JMO

Also it's a low bar - the whole point of these warrants is to try to get the evidence that would allow charges to be laid. So often it's thin because that's all they have - a decent suspicion!

 

[CKS]

There were multiple videos/photos from Pullman street cameras, then 1102 - the house next to 1122, Linda Lane, some house on Indian Hills Dr.

There must be some proof in the emails she sent to the Judge of what she is alleging.

No one has mentioned any missing emails.

Unknown at this point and with a 10-15% rate of cases being dismissed after a Franks Hearing, I would say, it COULD happen in this case. Unfortunately mistakes and/or mis-representations are made in all kinds of criminal cases. This one is no different than any other criminal case from that standpoint.

Because the FBI expert IS the expert witness who determined what kind of car was involved. The prosecution will need to call him as a witness during the trial (if there ever is a trial) so the expert can identify the vehicle and explain to the jury HOW he identified the vehicle in the first place. This is why we have expert witnesses so they can state facts based upon their expertise to the jury. IF he NEVER said it could be a 2015 Elantra, or said it was NOT a 2015 Elantra, that is significant and he should not have been represented in the PCA as saying it could be a 2015 Elantra.

No, that is NOT how this works. A police officer CANNOT lie in a PCA under any circumstances. A PCA is a court document. Lying or guessing in the PCA is the surest way to get a case thrown out. If the email chain shows the FBI expert said it was not a 2015 and the PCA says the opposite, then there is good cause for a Franks hearing. The PCA is the document from which all the warrants for BK sprang. If the PCA contains one or more lies then ALL of the warrants were gotten under false pretenses and the case will have to be dismissed. That is how our laws work.

All JMO.

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.

 

[mrjitty]

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.

Does anyone have the link to where the Franks alleges this?

TIA!