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

[Boxer]

Again, it depends on why he changed his mind. If he changed his mind independent of the suspect? No big deal. If he changed his mind because now they had a suspect who drove a car of a different model year? Becomes a bigger deal.

MOO.

The model years a are virtually identical. So its not a case of tailoring evidence. Its a mistake in the first place cutting the model years short.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

The model years a are virtually identical. So its not a case of tailoring evidence. Its a mistake in the first place cutting the model years short.

There were a couple of posters here in the early threads after the PCA pointing out the differences in the cars of the different years. I would bet that AT will do the same. The jury can decide if they were that identical and whether the timing of naming a suspect played any role.

MOO

 

[Boxer]

There were a couple of posters here in the early threads after the PCA pointing out the differences in the cars of the different years. I would bet that AT will do the same. The jury can decide if they were that identical and whether the timing of naming a suspect played any role.

MOO

I researched Elantras before the police expanded their BOLO year range to match the actual Elantra model year range.
MOO the differences are negligible.

 

[Balthazar]

I researched Elantras before the police expanded their BOLO year range to match the actual Elantra model year range.
MOO the differences are negligible.

Interesting how people interpret differences, so very differently. To me, the differences are like "night and day" - the vehicles are so different and differences so obvious that I could never mistake one vehicle for the other, especially the front array, side profile and rearview. To you, they are negligible. But, in the end, what we think really doesn't matter. What matters is if the vehicle dates were set by the FBI expert or BP AND if the dates were set PRIOR to them knowing about BK's car or not.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

I researched Elantras before the police expanded their BOLO year range to match the actual Elantra model year range.
MOO the differences are negligible.

Sure, but not to an FBI expert. MOO

 

[Nila Aella]

Interesting how people interpret differences, so very differently. To me, the differences are like "night and day" - the vehicles are so different and differences so obvious that I could never mistake one vehicle for the other, especially the front array, side profile and rearview. To you, they are negligible. But, in the end, what we think really doesn't matter. What matters is if the vehicle dates were set by the FBI expert or BP AND if the dates were set PRIOR to them knowing about BK's car or not.

Sure, but not to an FBI expert. MOO

Obvious differences, especially to an expert.

Details, dates, and the expert's testimony are important to answer the questions.

Was it the video in the immediate area of the crime scene (4 passes by the house, three point turn, attempting to park, speeding away) that was reevaluated or was it the Ridge Road capture (at the wrong time and going the wrong direction) that JL stated was heavily relied upon by the expert to id an elantra? Or some other video?

Object to PO
Precisely how the police came to believe the car was an Elantra is still unknown. A report from an analyst for the FBI dated March 21, 2023 shows the analyst heavily relying on a video of a car heading in the wrong direction and at the wrong time on Ridge Rd.

The State’s latest filing admits that somewhere within all of this they engaged in “Investigative Genetic Genealogy” using the DNA taken from the button on the sheath, and now claims that it was due to the use of this technique that it “tip[ed]” local law enforcement to investigate Mr. Kohberger.

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/062323+Objection+to+States+Motion+for+Protective+Order.pdf

States PO
The FBI then sent to local law enforcement a tip to investigate Defendant.

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/061623+States+Motion+for+Protective+Order.pdf

PCA
On November 25, 2022MPD asked area law enforcement agencies to be on the lookout for white Hyundai Elantras in the area

After the expert extended the range - date unknown, LE reviewed records of persons in possession of 2011-16. In the PCA, the WA car videos follow this statement. Then the car sightings by the two officers. Is the a chronological timeline in the PCA? We know BP was not aware of the sighting by the officer until Dec 20 (testimony).

As a result, investigators have been reviewing information on persons in possession of a vehicle that is a 2011-2016 white Hyundai Elantra.

Investigators were given access to video footage on the Washington State University (WSU) campus located in Pullman, WA.......

On November 29, 2022, at approximately 1228 a.m., Washington State University (WSU) Police Officer Daniel Tiengo, queried white Elantras registered at WSU. As a result of that query he located a 20I5 white Elantra with a Pennsylvania license plate LFZ-86......

That same day at approximately 12:58 a-m., WSU Officer Curtis Whitman was looking for white Hyundai Elantra's and locacd a 2015 white Hyundai Elantra.....

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

Dec 7th LE requests Public help regarding 2011-13 Elantras.

Detectives are interested in speaking with the occupant(s) of a white 2011-2013 Hyundai Elantra, with an unknown license plate. Tips and leads have led investigators to look for additional information about a vehicle being in the immediate area of the King Street residence during the early morning hours of November 13th. Investigators believe the occupant(s) of this vehicle may have critical information to share regarding this case.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjc4cPQsJiKAxUQElkFHUsyDg0QFnoECCcQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ci.moscow.id.us%2FDocumentCenter%2FView%2F24894%2F12-07-22-Moscow-Police-Ask-for-Communitys-Help&usg=AOvVaw0cLlmPjBuWWgb5AtVaYDhw&opi=89978449

Some of the dates are unknown. The details/dates/documentation of each step is important to know the overall timeline of the investigation and how these events relate to each other.

jmo

 

[schooling]

That’s a directly comparable 2015 and 2013. I reveal the answer as to which is which below

IMO most of the people who say that they think they are vastly different are looking at models that are not equivalent across the model years.

Kohlberger's VIN has been reported on by a local news org that tweeted out his CARFAX and his PA registration is part of court filings. The VIN gives you the EXACT configuration of any given car.

Here's a 101 on VINs for anyone who's interested

What is a VIN (Vehicle Identification Number)?

A car's VIN (vehicle identification number) is a code that identifies the vehicle's history. Find out where the VIN is located and what it's used for.

www.progressive.com

If you use any of the dozens of Hyundai VIN decoders only you see that he has a Hyundai Elantra SE. Which is equivalent (MOO but I will look for official documentation when I return home) to the base model of the 2013 year the GLS.

Kohlberger's VIN shows that his car had NO extra equipment added. No fog lamps. No fancy lights. No telematics, which is why it lacked navigation, blue link and anything that might have given investigators car GPS.

The pictures I've seen compared have fog lights. Fancier lights (which was an upgrade option) fancier wheels etc.

When you look at the picture I attached of the 2013 base model white Elantra and the 2015 base model Elantra...the differences are barely there.....IMO. I mean...I do see some (fog lights delete black covers, base wheels changed, reflector on back bumper) . But in IMO grainy footage...at night?

These images were pulled off the official Hyundai website using Archive.org. I should have done a better job of getting them sized the same (but for those who can't tell the bottom is the 2015)

MOO

 

[Swansee]

The thing is, none of us have any idea how good the footage of the car is. Presumably, it has to be better than that one awful still shot (complete with distracting reflection of a phone in the screen) which we've seen.
Regardless, IMO the main question is how the expert changed his assessment.
Was it spontaneous eg, "upon further review of the footage, I think you should also look at later years"? Or was it a simple question from Payne that prompted the change, eg: -"Could it be later year?"... -" Yeah, totally, they're almost indistinguishable". Or did Payne have to pester the expert with multiple emails to finally get him to relent and revise his opinion, with the caveat that he still felt "more comfortable" going with the earlier year ID?
The judge's complaint that the defense included a long chain of emails to back up their point on this issue, does tend to lend some credence to the latter scenario, IMO. But at this point we don't know.
Really looking forward to the State's responses on all these motions! Hopefully they'll pop up on the docket tomorrow.
JMO etc

 

[TallCoolOne]

So this is what all the big ta-doo is over? Unreal. I can't believe that there are some who are acting like the differences between the two years are so pronounced.

Another big old nothingburger IMO.......

 

[katydid23]

Again, it depends on why he changed his mind. If he changed his mind independent of the suspect? No big deal. If he changed his mind because now they had a suspect who drove a car of a different model year? Becomes a bigger deal.

MOO.

Ok, so let's hypothetically say it happened this way-----they had video images of a white Elantra, and an FBI car expert said he thought the car was 2011-203 model.

Then later investigators see a parking permit application at U of Wash for a later model car.

So then investigators ask the expert if that car in the image COULD POSSIBLY be a later model.

Is that problematic? I don't see how that is unethical or weird. I think that is how investigation happens. You ask questions and sometimes have to adjust criteria for search data when new information is revealed. IMO

 

[schooling]

The thing is, none of us have any idea how good the footage of the car is. Presumably, it has to be better than that one awful still shot (complete with distracting reflection of a phone in the screen) which we've seen.
Regardless, IMO the main question is how the expert changed his assessment.
Was it spontaneous eg, "upon further review of the footage, I think you should also look at later years"? Or was it a simple question from Payne that prompted the change, eg: -"Could it be later year?"... -" Yeah, totally, they're almost indistinguishable". Or did Payne have to pester the expert with multiple emails to finally get him to relent and revise his opinion, with the caveat that he still felt "more comfortable" going with the earlier year ID?
The judge's complaint that the defense included a long chain of emails to back up their point on this issue, does tend to lend some credence to the latter scenario, IMO. But at this point we don't know.
Really looking forward to the State's responses on all these motions! Hopefully they'll pop up on the docket tomorrow.
JMO etc

Im in total agreement with this. I do think it's problematic if BK's name was involved in the decision to change the model year. But seeing that AT was inquiring about off the record conversations through non-documented channels, I'm doubtful. JMO

If the specialist was cooerced, or told about a suspect or BK, then the car differences will come under even more scrutiny. As the jury will be looking for a non-nefarious explanation to weight against that bombshell. MOO

IfI had to play devil's advocate, the one thing that kind of bugs me is the rear reflector. The small red lens close to the rear bumper. It's a super small thing in that 2015 picture, but at night it's a safety feature that shines brightly (and red) whenever light reflects against it. It's there to make others aware of your presence.

I don't know the angles of the videos prosecutors have... but it would have been hard to miss. IMO. ESPECIALLY for an expert, again IMO. And it would have been completely missing from a 2013, IMO. So it makes you wonder what he was looking at exactly.

MOO

 

[Balthazar]

View attachment 550200

That’s a directly comparable 2015 and 2013. I reveal the answer as to which is which below

IMO most of the people who say that they think they are vastly different are looking at models that are not equivalent across the model years.

Kohlberger's VIN has been reported on by a local news org that tweeted out his CARFAX and his PA registration is part of court filings. The VIN gives you the EXACT configuration of any given car.

Here's a 101 on VINs for anyone who's interested

What is a VIN (Vehicle Identification Number)?

A car's VIN (vehicle identification number) is a code that identifies the vehicle's history. Find out where the VIN is located and what it's used for.

www.progressive.com

If you use any of the dozens of Hyundai VIN decoders only you see that he has a Hyundai Elantra SE. Which is equivalent (MOO but I will look for official documentation when I return home) to the base model of the 2013 year the GLS.

Kohlberger's VIN shows that his car had NO extra equipment added. No fog lamps. No fancy lights. No telematics, which is why it lacked navigation, blue link and anything that might have given investigators car GPS.

The pictures I've seen compared have fog lights. Fancier lights (which was an upgrade option) fancier wheels etc.

When you look at the picture I attached of the 2013 base model white Elantra and the 2015 base model Elantra...the differences are barely there.....IMO. I mean...I do see some (fog lights delete black covers, base wheels changed, reflector on back bumper) . But in IMO grainy footage...at night?

These images were pulled off the official Hyundai website using Archive.org. I should have done a better job of getting them sized the same (but for those who can't tell the bottom is the 2015)

MOO

The differences between the two vehicles are significant and obvious to me and I think it is absolute nonsense to think an FBI car identification expert could not tell the difference between the two vehicles. Even if a photo were taken in the dark, the FBI has photo software that can lighten the image so obvious differences can be seen more clearly, especially given this is a white car and the differences are red or black parts on the vehicle. So there really is absolutely no reason why the FBI expert would make a mistake on the year.

JMO.

 

[Nila Aella]

The differences between the two vehicles are significant and obvious to me and I think it is absolute nonsense to think an FBI car identification expert could not tell the difference between the two vehicles. Even if a photo were taken in the dark, the FBI has photo software that can lighten the image so obvious differences can be seen more clearly, especially given this is a white car and the differences are red or black parts on the vehicle. So there really is absolutely no reason why the FBI expert would make a mistake on the year.

JMO.

These differences are glaring to an expert. These are the specific characteristics that an expert looks for in order to narrow the year. The expert saw something on the footage (even if it was foggy/grainy/blurry/night time/moving), that prompted a 2011-13 range. Otherwise he would not have narrowed it to a specific range.

Add the digital capability, programs, and databases of the fbi.

There are obvious differences between them in each view (that an expert would have no problem visualizing at night). Just seeing one characteristic would point to a range. More than one would increase confidence of a narrowed range.

JMO

 

[schooling]

These differences are glaring to an expert. These are the specific characteristics that an expert looks for in order to narrow the year. The expert saw something on the footage (even if it was foggy/grainy/blurry/night time/moving), that prompted a 2011-13 range. Otherwise he would not have narrowed it to a specific range.

Add the digital capability, programs, and databases of the fbi.

There are obvious differences between them in each view (that an expert would have no problem visualizing at night). Just seeing one characteristic would point to a range. More than one would increase confidence of a narrowed range.

JMO

Could you point out to me in the pictures I shared where the glaring differences are? Aside from the 2” long (imo) rear red reflector I pointed out.

I’m particularly interested in the side profile shape. As the body of the car remains literally unchanged (IMO)

If this is a glaring difference then how would we characterize the difference between his Elantra and a lime green 2010 Lamborghini ?

 

[mrjitty]

Ok, so let's hypothetically say it happened this way-----they had video images of a white Elantra, and an FBI car expert said he thought the car was 2011-203 model.

Then later investigators see a parking permit application at U of Wash for a later model car.

So then investigators ask the expert if that car in the image COULD POSSIBLY be a later model.

Is that problematic? I don't see how that is unethical or weird. I think that is how investigation happens. You ask questions and sometimes have to adjust criteria for search data when new information is revealed. IMO

This is my point as well. If there is a factual basis for him to reconsider, and the PCA notes that he did update his thinking, there is no Franks issue as the judge knew this. So i don't feel the heat on an evidential level unless you are going to be able to prove the affiant straight up lied and the FBI guy never changed his mind. But i also don't feel it on a policy level. LE put 2+2 together so what is the issue? We want them to make insights like this.

To my mind, the only genuine argument is that the genealogy search is unconstitutional - but as far as the affiant and FBI agent knew at the time, it was constitutional - so in the moment, they didn't do anything wrong on that score either, even if a Supreme Court should later say the opposite.

As we saw with Delphi, these strike me as trial issues, when the defence wants to say that it isn't the defendant's car. But it clearly could be IMO.

Anyway, this all seems highly theoretical until we see the Franks.

 

[mrjitty]

These differences are glaring to an expert. These are the specific characteristics that an expert looks for in order to narrow the year. The expert saw something on the footage (even if it was foggy/grainy/blurry/night time/moving), that prompted a 2011-13 range. Otherwise he would not have narrowed it to a specific range.

Add the digital capability, programs, and databases of the fbi.

There are obvious differences between them in each view (that an expert would have no problem visualizing at night). Just seeing one characteristic would point to a range. More than one would increase confidence of a narrowed range.

JMO

I guess the counter view is that it likely will be proven pretty quickly it was the defendant's car because his DNA is at the crime scene. So the FBI guy did botch the ID as far as the year goes. Which is why he changed his mind.

I am not sure why this is not fully on the table for you? Or is it?

MOO

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Right. We actually know the two cars are the same one, and that BK is the killer. So the FBI expert made a partial error that was corrected - all of which is in the affidavit.

BKs only chance is the constitutional one, which IMO is likely to play out in post trial appeals up to the highest court.

IMO the defence argument to suggest that the investigation is not allowed to make errors and correct them, or to connect pieces of evidence, or to make use of other insights is wrongheaded.

Probable cause for SW is a low bar. There is no need for the affiant to set out the whole case there, or explain all the investigators thinking. So long as they tell the Judge they changed their minds.

It's not like this "error" isn't understandable. One year's car model is pretty much like another. I have a Dodge Charger R/T 2014 and the cars for the next 10 years are pretty much alike. A well-kept one can look brand new.

 

[Nila Aella]

Could you point out to me in the pictures I shared where the glaring differences are? Aside from the 2” long (imo) rear red reflector I pointed out.

I’m particularly interested in the side profile shape. As the body of the car remains literally unchanged (IMO)

Red is glaring:
Reflector in back
Overall shape of the FL
Black portion of the FL
Distance between the HL and FL
Wheel

Lime green less glaring:
HL shape
Rear panel/bumper angular vs smooth

jmo

If this is a glaring difference then how would we characterize the difference between his Elantra and a lime green 2010 Lamborghini ?

2010 lime green Lamborghini vs white 2015 Elantra
The expert would be looking for a new job in a different field. lol.



jmo

 

[katydid23]

View attachment 550301View attachment 550302
Red is glaring:
Reflector in back
Overall shape of the FL
Black portion of the FL
Distance between the HL and FL
Wheel

Lime green less glaring:
HL shape
Rear panel/bumper angular vs smooth

jmo

2010 lime green Lamborghini vs white 2015 Elantra
The expert would be looking for a new job in a different field. lol.

View attachment 550303View attachment 550304

jmo

It's not glaringly obvious, IMO. Those are still subtle differences that would be hardly noticeable in a moving pixilated image at night. IMO

 

[Nila Aella]

I guess the counter view is that it likely will be proven pretty quickly it was the defendant's car because his DNA is at the crime scene. So the FBI guy did botch the ID as far as the year goes. Which is why he changed his mind.

I am not sure why this is not fully on the table for you? Or is it?

MOO

Sure it is on the table.

It is also entirely possible that the expert genuinely thought 2011-13 and a later review put later model years into play. There are only a few possibilities to explain that imo. There is just not enough information about the timeline and why the change happened to tell what the explanation is.

IMO it is ok to consider and discuss what the D puts forward, without deciding it is rubbish simply because one has already come to a conclusion regarding his guilt.

The D thinks they have some evidence that supports the proposition the expert felt more comfortable with 2011-2013 determination. We do not know any details about what that evidence is nor what the P response to the proposition is. The Judge will consider both and determine if there is anything substantial to the claim or not. It is only one part of the FM. Frankly, I am more interested in one of the MTSs and the consititutional issues.

As for the touch DNA. The Lukis Anderson case always gives me pause. I would like to see more information about the DNA recovery and analysis in this case. And yes, I know there have been a lot of studies on the subject and advances in the field of touch DNA since the LA case.

JMO
edit grammar