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

[INfisherman]

For clarity.

Red lines indicate trim lines where sheet metal ends & plastic begins & is symmetrical on driver & passenger side. Area marked in green will NOT be different from 2011-2016 on a factory body. Area below the red lines WILL be potentially different but MUST match up to that red line. For sake of clarity & argument, let’s refer to the front & rear plastic bumper coverings as fascias. The fascias are where things will typically differ. Wheels/tires are of zero consequence because they are independent of the sheet metal & easily swapped as long as they fit & clear the wheel well openings & brakes/suspension. Any splash guards will likely be attached (screws/bolts) & not part of the fascia. The INSIDES (bulbs, coloration, bulb locations or array/pattern) of the lights, front or rear, can be different but the exterior shell (lens) & outline must match the original silhouette or body opening(s) (cutouts).



JMO

 

[Rolypolyoly]

MOO that if the FBI expert wasn't 100% certain in the range of years they would have just said white elantra 2011- 2018. The ONLY reason it was 2011-2013 is b/c the FBI expert was 100% certain.

IMO the one video where the white car is seen by the dumpster turning around is actually a BMW X6. The car has a sunroof and BK's car did not have a sunroof.

Also, even if BK did it how does anyone explain there is not one spec of evidence in his car or apartment after allegedly killing 4 people with a knife? The same people who think BK is guilty b/c of one tiny spec of touch DNA on a moveable object somehow are the same people who think that it's possible to commit the crime in 10 minutes and not bring any DNA evidence with them.

IMO if BK was ever in the house that night he certainly did not leave in his car otherwise they would have found evidence. Whether it be a dog hair, human hair, blood, etc.

A reminder I'm still on the fence on if he's guilty or not but as of now I'm not really sure how so many of you are convinced he did it.



my 2 cents

I would speculate that he had plastic coverings on his seat, and mats on the floor which he disposed of after the fact, add to that a thorough clean of his car inside and out and it's not hard to see how no evidence was found in it.
He was a criminology student, so he would know of many precautions to take. I would consider that he could even have sprayed luminol or an equivalent inside his car to find any slight traces of blood and then cleaned any traces away.
A thorough brushing with a dustpan and brush, followed by a vacuum at a random petrol station would take care of hairs and fibres.
We think from shoe prints found that he didn't cover his shoes with disposable booties before the murders, but who is to say that he didn't slip a pair on before he got into his car?.
JMO

 

[Nila Aella]

Honestly, I don't think they're glaring at all. I had to look really hard to spot the differences on the original pics, and I knew there were supposed to be some.

That's cool.
The differences are what an expert uses to narrow the model year.
If they do not see a difference, they don't narrow it.

jmo

 

[Megnut]

Do we even know the date of the FBI expert's analysis? He was obviously enlisted super early, probably long before all the relevant cctv was viewed/collected. Or the quality of the images/videos he was reviewing.

IMO this won't be a topic at trial. Because it's answerable, AT knows that. The question has value to the defendant. The answer doesn't.

JMO

 

[Nila Aella]

But, again, is this what AT "identified [as] the lie" during the May hearing? This is being debated for pages--but what exactly did she say that's causing this debate?

The testimony referred to is both AT questions and BP answers about the car identification.

The discussion all started with a footnote in the Judges order regarding the Franks Motion The footnote revealed the D proposition that the expert felt more comfortable identifying 2011-13 with over 100 duplicative emails submitted to the court in support of one exhibit. The exhibits did not include cites to specific areas the Judge should look at, prompting the Judge to issue an Order (with footnote as an example). Whew, hope you can follow that.

The contents of the footnote led posters back to the car testimony in the Motion to Compel hearing.

Franks Motion is challanging the Affidavit. The car id exhibit is only one exhibit out of 38 in the FM.

In MTS (there are lengthier references, no time to grab)
Warrant Recklessly or Intentionally Omitted Material Information

Which led to the discussions about ATs questions and BP testimony regarding the expansion of model years.

Here is the hearing (Car id testimony around 16:00)

Here is the Order with footnote

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR01-24-31665/2024/112224-Order-Re-Franks-Motion.pdf




jmo

 

[Boxer]

It's not about a careless mistake, it's about LE lying to get a warrant, when they would not have gotten the warrant without the lie. AT identified the lie last May during BP's testimony - perhaps you missed that hearing? This situation didn't just suddenly come up nor is it a surprise.

What lie?

 

[Nila Aella]

Notice of hearing.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Bryan C. Kohberger, by and through his attorneys of record, will call on for a closed remote hearing for the defendant’s Ex Parte Motions in the above-entitled matter on 12/11/24 at 2:30PM or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard in front of the Honorable Judge Steven Hippler.

ETA link

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR01-24-31665/2024/120924-Notice-of-Hearing.pdf

 

[jepop]

Do we even know the date of the FBI expert's analysis? He was obviously enlisted super early, probably long before all the relevant cctv was viewed/collected. Or the quality of the images/videos he was reviewing.

IMO this won't be a topic at trial. Because it's answerable, AT knows that. The question has value to the defendant. The answer doesn't.

JMO

Yes, I think you hit the nail on the head. I can't be bothered getting into the weeds here but your summary is where the answer lies: Quality of various footage in Moscow after 3.25am; quality and timing of analysis of the 2.50am and 5.25am Pullman footage; comparison between Pullman and Moscow footage. Moo

And jmo, no, it is not fact that BP was caught out in a lie when testifying in pre-trial hearing. That's a WS poster's personal opinion apparently, after viewing the hearing. Jmo

It's a high bar for a Franks hearing. Moo there won't be one unless defense has provided a factual basis to support claims that certain LE/investigators deliberately deceived in order to get the court to issue the warrants subject to the Franks motion. Jmo.

 

[schooling]

For clarity.

Red lines indicate trim lines where sheet metal ends & plastic begins & is symmetrical on driver & passenger side. Area marked in green will NOT be different from 2011-2016 on a factory body. Area below the red lines WILL be potentially different but MUST match up to that red line. For sake of clarity & argument, let’s refer to the front & rear plastic bumper coverings as fascias. The fascias are where things will typically differ. Wheels/tires are of zero consequence because they are independent of the sheet metal & easily swapped as long as they fit & clear the wheel well openings & brakes/suspension. Any splash guards will likely be attached (screws/bolts) & not part of the fascia. The INSIDES (bulbs, coloration, bulb locations or array/pattern) of the lights, front or rear, can be different but the exterior shell (lens) & outline must match the original silhouette or body opening(s) (cutouts).

View attachment 550643
View attachment 550644
JMO

Thanks for visualizing this.

 

[schooling]

Yes, I think you hit the nail on the head. I can't be bothered getting into the weeds here but your summary is where the answer lies: Quality of various footage in Moscow after 3.25am; quality and timing of analysis of the 2.50am and 5.25am Pullman footage; comparison between Pullman and Moscow footage. Moo

And jmo, no, it is not fact that BP was caught out in a lie when testifying in pre-trial hearing. That's a WS poster's personal opinion apparently, after viewing the hearing. Jmo

It's a high bar for a Franks hearing. Moo there won't be one unless defense has provided a factual basis to support claims that certain LE/investigators deliberately deceived in order to get the court to issue the warrants subject to the Franks motion. Jmo.

Any clue what the strategy is with the Franks hearings? Do you try and challenge anything that you can piece together a challenge for? Or are defense teams typically more tactical?

I’m generally familiar with the precedent setting case and the process from my social sciences / pre-law days (20+ years and a tech career ago now). But I have no clue how common they are this day and age. Or what decorum is.

 

[jepop]

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR01-24-31665/Summary/Case-Summary-Kohberger-12102024.pdf

Defense also participated in a closed, ex parte sealed hearing on 10/08 re representation status. I wonder if this is also related to BK's representation and whether defense is now seeking to add another attorney to their team. Could be prompted by state's amended petition to add special asst. AGs. Just a guess. Or could be re street clothing which at this point is being decided on a hearing by hearing basis?

I think Judge Hippler said something in the initial status hearing in Sept that he expected in person hearings for substantive case motions, but would be amenable to remote hearings on house keeping type matters, imoo.

Any clue what the strategy is with the Franks hearings? Do you try and challenge anything that you can piece together a challenge for? Or are defense teams typically more tactical?

I’m generally familiar with the precedent setting case and the process from my social sciences / pre-law days (20+ years and a tech career ago now). But I have no clue how common they are this day and age. Or what decorum is.

I really can't say anything general about tactics. INAL. Just going on a couple of other cases that I've seen fail with Frank's because it seemed the ds tried everything but there was no sufficient factual basis for the claims. Assuming Idaho's laws re Frank's are similar to others in the US. I haven't looked it up specifically.

 

[wendy44]

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.

Okay, I went back through the thread and this appears to be where the discussion about proof of a lie began. It's not accurate that the defense must prove that LE lied in order to obtain a warrant. The defense lays out the circumstances under which a defendant can challenge the veracity of an affidavit used to obtain a search warrant in their Motion to Suppress regarding the arrest warrant:

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

Upon a preliminary showing of a warrant's deficiency the defendant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, "that intentional or reckless falsehoods were included in the warrant affidavit and were material to the magistrate's finding of probable cause, or that material exculpatory information was deliberately or recklessly omitted".

"An omission of the facts is 'material' only if there is a substantial probability that had the omitted information been presented, it would have altered the magistrate's determination of probable cause."

"Whether information in a warrant was obtained via violation of the constitution, Idaho courts excise that information."

The motion argues that the warrant omitted exculpatory information and that evidence was gathered in violation of the constitution. The motion goes into great detail about how the IGG fits with the latter point, but doesn't say specifically what exculpatory information was omitted from the PCA. The motion makes no argument that there were intentional or reckless falsehoods included in the warrant affidavit.

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 listened to this again and I don't think this is where she was going with this. She asked him what he relied on when he wrote the affidavits. She asked him what he relied on for the 2011-2013 model years and then how that was expanded. He answered that it was based on the FBI expert analysis. And then she moved on. What she was getting at came next. She asked him if he recalled the date he first had communication with the WSU officer who ran the query on the Elantra. It was December 20th. The date Blum claims in his book that the FBI relayed the name from the IGG to Moscow PD. He testified that he had messaging and phone conversations with this officer. She asked him if the information "related backwards" to when the WSU officer first noticed the Elantra and he said yes. She asked him if when the WSU officer noticed it, he didn't know about it and he said that's correct. This is clearly all related to the last two points in the Motion to Suppress, not the first.

Snipped by Me/JMO

 

[wendy44]

The testimony referred to is both AT questions and BP answers about the car identification.

The discussion all started with a footnote in the Judges order regarding the Franks Motion The footnote revealed the D proposition that the expert felt more comfortable identifying 2011-13 with over 100 duplicative emails submitted to the court in support of one exhibit. The exhibits did not include cites to specific areas the Judge should look at, prompting the Judge to issue an Order (with footnote as an example). Whew, hope you can follow that.

The contents of the footnote led posters back to the car testimony in the Motion to Compel hearing.

Franks Motion is challanging the Affidavit. The car id exhibit is only one exhibit out of 38 in the FM.

In MTS (there are lengthier references, no time to grab)
Warrant Recklessly or Intentionally Omitted Material Information

Which led to the discussions about ATs questions and BP testimony regarding the expansion of model years.

Here is the hearing (Car id testimony around 16:00)

Here is the Order with footnote

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR01-24-31665/2024/112224-Order-Re-Franks-Motion.pdf




jmo

Thank you! I know I missed some discussion over Thanksgiving. The thing about that footnote is that it really doesn't support the argument being made here. The judge says:

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. Defendant does not identify which email supports his proposition.

By way of example--so likely just one example in the 2000 pages submitted by the defense of throwing a bunch of exhibits in but not explaining how they are relevant to the motion. The judge is saying--you submitted over 100 pages of emails about the vehicle expert's analysis and you're not saying how this is at all relevant to the motion you've submitted. This doesn't support your motion.

JMO

 

[INfisherman]

Thanks for visualizing this.

You’re welcome, hope it helps. Just look for those angled gap lines near the front & rear wheel arches & leading up to or near the light housings. It’s the same for most cars & light duty trucks (non-semis/tractor trailer) regardless of manufacturer. That’s where the front & rear fascias wrap wrap around & interface with the sheet metal.

 

[Balthazar]

Okay, I went back through the thread and this appears to be where the discussion about proof of a lie began. It's not accurate that the defense must prove that LE lied in order to obtain a warrant.

Snipped by me.

"A Franks hearing is a legal proceeding that determines whether a police officer's affidavit used to obtain a search warrant that yields incriminating evidence was based on false statements by the police officer. This hearing is named after the landmark case Franks v. Delaware, which established the legal standard for challenging the validity of a search warrant."

Legal Definitions - LSD.Law

Navigate law school with LSD.Law. Access application tracking, admission data, school rankings, case briefs, a simple legal dictionary, and more. Trusted by 175k+ users.

www.lsd.law

Please go to the site above to read an in-depth explanation of what a Frank's Hearing is all about.

 

[katydid23]

Okay, I went back through the thread and this appears to be where the discussion about proof of a lie began. It's not accurate that the defense must prove that LE lied in order to obtain a warrant. The defense lays out the circumstances under which a defendant can challenge the veracity of an affidavit used to obtain a search warrant in their Motion to Suppress regarding the arrest warrant:

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

Upon a preliminary showing of a warrant's deficiency the defendant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, "that intentional or reckless falsehoods were included in the warrant affidavit and were material to the magistrate's finding of probable cause, or that material exculpatory information was deliberately or recklessly omitted".

"An omission of the facts is 'material' only if there is a substantial probability that had the omitted information been presented, it would have altered the magistrate's determination of probable cause."

"Whether information in a warrant was obtained via violation of the constitution, Idaho courts excise that information."

The motion argues that the warrant omitted exculpatory information and that evidence was gathered in violation of the constitution. The motion goes into great detail about how the IGG fits with the latter point, but doesn't say specifically what exculpatory information was omitted from the PCA. The motion makes no argument that there were intentional or reckless falsehoods included in the warrant affidavit.

I listened to this again and I don't think this is where she was going with this. She asked him what he relied on when he wrote the affidavits. She asked him what he relied on for the 2011-2013 model years and then how that was expanded. He answered that it was based on the FBI expert analysis. And then she moved on. What she was getting at came next. She asked him if he recalled the date he first had communication with the WSU officer who ran the query on the Elantra. It was December 20th. The date Blum claims in his book that the FBI relayed the name from the IGG to Moscow PD. He testified that he had messaging and phone conversations with this officer. She asked him if the information "related backwards" to when the WSU officer first noticed the Elantra and he said yes. She asked him if when the WSU officer noticed it, he didn't know about it and he said that's correct. This is clearly all related to the last two points in the Motion to Suppress, not the first.

Snipped by Me/JMO

Thank you for doing a deep dive here. This section below is what I really want to understand:

She asked him if he recalled the date he first had communication with the WSU officer who ran the query on the Elantra. It was December 20th. The date Blum claims in his book that the FBI relayed the name from the IGG to Moscow PD. He testified that he had messaging and phone conversations with this officer. She asked him if the information "related backwards" to when the WSU officer first noticed the Elantra and he said yes. She asked him if when the WSU officer noticed it, he didn't know about it and he said that's correct.

Could you clarify this:
She asked him if when the WSU officer noticed it, he didn't know about it and he said that's correct.

When the WSU cop 1st noticed the Elantra , he didn't know about it. He didn't know what about it? I am confused.

Is the question about whether the WSU cop already knew about the IGG search revealing BK's name?

 

[wendy44]

Thank you for doing a deep dive here. This section below is what I really want to understand:

She asked him if he recalled the date he first had communication with the WSU officer who ran the query on the Elantra. It was December 20th. The date Blum claims in his book that the FBI relayed the name from the IGG to Moscow PD. He testified that he had messaging and phone conversations with this officer. She asked him if the information "related backwards" to when the WSU officer first noticed the Elantra and he said yes. She asked him if when the WSU officer noticed it, he didn't know about it and he said that's correct.

Could you clarify this:
She asked him if when the WSU officer noticed it, he didn't know about it and he said that's correct.

When the WSU cop 1st noticed the Elantra , he didn't know about it. He didn't know what about it? I am confused.

Is the question about whether the WSU cop already knew about the IGG search revealing BK's name?

Sorry--it's definitely confusing. The WSU officer who first ran the query on white Elantras registered at WSU and found one with PA plates registered to BK, ran that query on 29 November. That same day, another WSU officer was looking for white Elantras and ran one that was in the apartment complex with WA tags registered to BK.

Brett Payne says in this hearing he pulled BK's license and photo 20 December. She was asking him if he knew about the WSU queries and results the month before when they happened and he said he didn't. The first conversations he had with WSU were around 20 December. The PCA doesn't say that the WSU queries prompted him to pull BK's license and photo. But I'm sure her argument will be that it implies it and that it was the IGG that prompted Payne to pull the license and led to all the warrants she wants to get thrown out, not the WSU queries. When I have time I'll listen to the rest of the hearing to see if they circle back to this.

 

[Swansee]

The WSU officer who first ran the query on white Elantras registered at WSU and found one with PA plates registered to BK, ran that query on 29 November. That same day, another WSU officer was looking for white Elantras and ran one that was in the apartment complex with WA tags registered to BK.

Brett Payne says in this hearing he pulled BK's license and photo 20 December. She was asking him if he knew about the WSU queries and results the month before when they happened and he said he didn't. The first conversations he had with WSU were around 20 December.

RSBM

Thank you for this clear recap.

So, according to BP's testimony, in the middle of a search for a mass murderer, two separate WSU officers identified a prime candidate for suspect, and then they both waited a whole month to report their findings to the lead investigator in the case?

Also, said "lead investigator" never thought to have a single exchange with LE in the next town over during that entire time ?

I'm sorry but IMO, either BP's account of how things happened is inaccurate, or everyone involved here is profoundly incompetent.
JMO

 

[wendy44]

"A Franks hearing is a legal proceeding that determines whether a police officer's affidavit used to obtain a search warrant that yields incriminating evidence was based on false statements by the police officer. This hearing is named after the landmark case Franks v. Delaware, which established the legal standard for challenging the validity of a search warrant."

Legal Definitions - LSD.Law

Navigate law school with LSD.Law. Access application tracking, admission data, school rankings, case briefs, a simple legal dictionary, and more. Trusted by 175k+ users.

www.lsd.law

Please go to the site above to read an in-depth explanation of what a Frank's Hearing is all about.

I quoted right from the defense's own motion. Are you saying the defense is incorrect?

The link you provided is self-described as "A quick definition of a Franks hearing". Even their "more thorough explanation" is a brief summary. There's a ton of caselaw and legal literature that includes omission of material facts under Franks.

In this motion under "Issues" the defense says:

The Affidavit Submitted in Support of the Application for the Issued Search Warrant Recklessly or Intentionally Omitted Material Information. Mr. Kohberger has filed a motion for a Franks hearing and without repeating incorporates that challenge to this Search Warrant.
There is no mention of false statements. The defense goes on to cite State v. Peterson, 133 Idaho 44 in saying:

[a] criminal defendant may challenge the veracity of an affidavit used to obtain a search warrant and An omission of the facts is 'material' only if there is a substantial probability that had the omitted information been presented, it would have altered the magistrate's determination of probable cause.
They continue:

The challenge pursuant to this section of the motion is separately laid out in Mr. Kohberger's motion for hearing under Franks v. Delaware.

Again, no mention of false statements. They state that the challenge to this section--Affidavit Submitted in Support of the Application for the Issued Search Warrant Recklessly or Intentionally Omitted Material Information--is laid out in the motion for hearing under Franks. The case that the defense cites, State v. Peterson, is a case about omission of facts, not about false statements. It says, in part:

A criminal defendant may challenge the veracity of an affidavit used to obtain a search warrant. If the defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that the affidavit is faulty, the defendant will be entitled to an evidentiary hearing. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978); State v. Kay, 129 Idaho 507, 511, 927 P.2d 897, 901 (Ct.App. 1996). At such a hearing, the defendant bears the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that intentional or reckless falsehoods were included in the warrant affidavit and were material to the magistrate's finding of probable cause, or that material exculpatory information was deliberately or recklessly omitted. Franks, 438 U.S. at 156;

State v. Peterson, 133 Idaho 44 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read State v. Peterson, 133 Idaho 44, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

I looked through every Memorandum in Support and every one cited omission of facts and not a single one cited false statements--if I missed where the defense has claimed in court there were false statements in the PCA please link it. But the defense themselves say that the challenge to the search warrant based on omission of facts is laid out in their motion for hearing under Franks.

 

[wendy44]

RSBM

Thank you for this clear recap.

So, according to BP's testimony, in the middle of a search for a mass murderer, two separate WSU officers identified a prime candidate for suspect, and then they both waited a whole month to report their findings to the lead investigator in the case?

Also, said "lead investigator" never thought to have a single exchange with LE in the next town over during that entire time ?

I'm sorry but IMO, either BP's account of how things happened is inaccurate, or everyone involved here is profoundly incompetent.
JMO

I was really surprised by that too. Did they hand the list over to the Moscow PD and they hadn't looked at it or were still going through it? Did WSU police know that at least one of the images captured a vehicle without a front plate, which should have put the Elantra with the PA plates to the top of the list? I need to listen to the remainder of the hearing to see if he's pressed on this.