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

[mrjitty]

It is frustrating! Seems to me, there is often a knee jerk reaction whenever the term is used. I sometimes think of it as the touch DNA bogeyman.

If it's not from bodily fluids then it's touch DNA, right?. I prefer the term epithelial cell DNA to keep the bogeyman at bay lol ( thanks to @10ofRods ).

The dna on the sheathe snap is outstanding evidence imo, a male single source sample that produced a full STR profile. As you say, not a partial profile, not trace, not a mixed profile.

Jmo Prosecution expert/s will testify to the extreme unlikelihood that it arrived on the sheathe via secondary transfer. It got there because BK directly manipulated with his hands and fingers the snap button on that sheathe. Moo

Secondary transfer is laughable.

Usually you'd try to argue contamination but of course the problem is investigators did not know BKs identity at the time. Oh dear.

 

[Nila Aella]

270 is less than two miles south of his apartment and traveling south on Stadium Way to get there would make sense. Nevada St is a loop off of Stadium Way on the left right before you get to the intersection of Stadium Way and 270 where you'd turn left to go east toward Moscow. I think he was going north on Nevada there because he was turning around on that loop, likely several times since it caught him going north first and south second. He might have tried to cut through the apartments there to get on 270 or taken the turn early and got confused.
JMO

Interesting thought about the turn around! Gave me something to think on.
Suspect vehicle 1 was captured traveling North on SouthEast Nevada at Stadium way 2:44. At 2:53, the vehicle was captured going South on SouthEast Nevada.
Later in the PCA it implies he is at home (CAST) at 2:42 (skips the 2:44 North video) and implies he is leaving home and traveling South at 2:47.
IMO It is impossible to go from home to traveling N on SouthEast Nevada in 3-5 minutes on any route. And there was that hit and run being investigated all night near his apartment.

PCA

Video
A review of that video indicated that at approximately 2:44 a.m. on November 13,2022, a white sedan, which was consistent with the description of the White Elantra known as Suspect Vehicle 1, was observed on WSU surveillance cameras travelling north on southeast Nevada Street at northeast Stadium Way. At approximately 2:53 a.m., a white sedan, which is consistent with the description of the White Elantra known as Suspect Vehicle 1, was observed traveling southeast on Nevada Street in Pullman, WA towards SR 270

CAST
On November 13,2022 al approximately 2:42 a.m., the 8458 Phone was utilizing cellular resources that provide coverage to 1630 Northeast Valley Road, Apt G201, Pullman, WA, hereafter the "Kohberger Residence." At approximately 2:47 a.m., the 8458 Phone utilized cellular resources that provide coverage southeast ofthe Kohberger Residence consistent with the 8458 Phone leaving the Kohberger Residence and traveling south through Pullman, WA

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

It doesn't make sense.
jmo

That video doesn't really address my two points though. One, that there's no evidence he traveled east from Pullman to Moscow. The prosecution alleges there is.

I agree.

Two, that it's interesting the defense disputes the Floyd's video, but not the video at the actual scene in the all-important alibi response.

At the very minimum the defense has a time stamp on that video (if not the entire video) to be able to claim Sy Ray will show BK's mobile device was south of Pullman and west of Moscow when the vehicle was captured on that video. Otherwise, how could they claim to know via Sy Ray his car wasn't there? They would need the time. And Floyd's is only 3 miles and 8 minutes from the King Rd house.

I agree

If you have evidence that the vehicle in the Floyd's video could not have been BK, don't you also have evidence the videos near King Rd could not have been BK? If you have evidence he was south of Pullman and west of Moscow in the 3:10-3:15 am-ish time frame, don't you also have evidence he wasn't at King Rd around 3:25am? So why not dispute the Moscow/King Rd video in the alibi response. Wouldn't this have been a stronger alibi response? Why risk it when you know the prosecution is saying your alibi response doesn't meet Idaho code.

If Sy Ray is able to offer testimony that BK's mobile device was not in the area of Floyd's at 3:15am-ish, he should also be able to offer testimony that BK's mobile device was not in the area 3 miles away at 3:25am.

Snipped by me/JMO

I see what you are saying.
IDK the answer.

One thought is that the D is only disputing what the Expert has documented. But then Ridge Road is not in the alibi either. Nor is whatever other "observations" the expert made to ID the car in Moscow.

IMO just by saying he did not travel East disputes all the footage East (in general, not specifically each one).

I also think about the Drive testing that was missing per SR testimony: 270 and the King home. Perhaps the D needed that? It might be they had it to Floyds but not further East? IDK

And Last, maybe the D did not want to give up their work product/strategy except in an ex parte hearing with the Judge? The alibi was apparently accepted by the Judge. We have not heard anything otherwise for a while. Not sure if there was an ex parte hearing (the D offered this in one filing, ? if it happened). Or if it was just dropped?

jmo

 

[girlhasnoname]

The MTS specifically refers to media reports of what BK said.

This is what it was referring to:
A suspect arrested for murders of four University of Idaho students allegedly asked police if anyone else had been taken into custody.

Idaho murder suspect allegedly asked police if anyone else had been arrested

Bryan Kohlberger is facing extradition from Pennsylvania to Idaho for the slayings of four University of Idaho students

www.independent.co.uk

MTS Lamsden
The conduct of law enforcement with Mr. Kohberger in the house is referred to as “small talk” when he is being recorded during transport. This cannot be verified because no audio or video is produced. The conduct of the officer in the police car during transport cannot be described as “an interrogation”. However, without a video or audio recording of in custody discussions inside the house, the true nature of the statements made in the car are without context. All statements made at the police station were post Miranda.

Information in the media, right after arrest, and attributed to law enforcement, report that Mr. Kohberger -redacted statement. Such a statement is not in a police report or in an audio/video recording that can be found in discovery.

If it is a statement that the state will seek to attribute to him at trial, it should be suppressed as a nonmirandized statement. If the conversation with Mr. Kohberger inside the house was custodial in nature, that context may warrant suppression of the conversation in the police car during transport.

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

I interpreted the reading of the MTS by SR on the Crime Talk video linked above by @mrjitty that BK had said something while in custody in PA after he had been mirandized. There must be something to it or the Defense wouldn't have identified it and be working so hard to have it suppressed IMO.

Not what BK may/may not have uttered when they cuffed him at his parents home, and not what he may have said while riding in the police vehicle. It was mentioned early on the video and again at the 19:32 mark.

Feel free to correct me if I misunderstood. I knew of the rumor that BK had asked 'if anybody else had been arrested', which I don't think has ever been proven or not. I think this is something totally different.

JMO

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

@Observe_dont_Absorb
Yes that's exactly what we've been hearing. Only one single source of DNA on the sheath. Supposedly because the killer cleaned it meticulously but missed a spot.
It is confusing to me, because I too would think that sheath would have been full of the victims' DNA, either from their blood, or simply from having been stuck under their bodies and on their bedsheets.
But the way they phrase it, the sheath would have been absolutely pristine, in spite of the very DNA-rich context in which it was found, which does sound improbable.

I assume there was plenty of the victims' DNA but that it becomes excluded as they are identified. JMO?

 

[Nila Aella]

I interpreted the reading of the MTS by SR on the Crime Talk video linked above by @mrjitty that BK had said something while in custody in PA after he had been mirandized. There must be something to it or the Defense wouldn't have identified it and be working so hard to have it suppressed IMO.

Not what BK may/may not have uttered when they cuffed him at his parents home, and not what he may have said while riding in the police vehicle. It was mentioned early on the video and again at the 19:32 mark.

Feel free to correct me if I misunderstood. I knew of the rumor that BK had asked 'if anybody else had been arrested', which I don't think has ever been proven or not. I think this is something totally different.

JMO

He was reviewing the MTS Lamsden. He thinks the blacked out portion might be a confession (19:46 mark).
I am going by the Court Document which specifically states Media reports after arrest.
It states non-mirandized. The media has reported about his "someone else arrested statement." Most people following this case know what LE said and what B Entin reported. I suppose people might think if he wondered if someone else was arrested, that he was involved along with someone else.
The D states there is no audio or video so it is impossible to tell what was said inside the house.

This is what it says
All statements made at the police station were post Miranda. Information in the media, right after arrest, and attributed to law enforcement, report that Mr. Kohberger Blacked out portion. Such a statement is not in a police report or in an audio/video recording that can be found in discovery. If it is a statement that the state will seek to attribute to him at trial, it should be suppressed as a nonmirandized statement. If the conversation with Mr. Kohberger inside the house was custodial in nature, that context may warrant suppression of the conversation in the police car during transport.

Everything at the station was Miranda. Everything before was nonmirandized. The D wants to suppress what was said in the media attributed to LE, and maybe what was said in the car before he was mirandized. Specifically the statement in the house that was reported in the media. Non Mirandized. And only IF the prosecution intends to use it at trial. JMO

In the D conclusion, they also mention suppressing all statements after an illegal arrest. But that is not referring to what the blacked out portion is. That is referring to the reasons the D believes it was an unlawful arrest and everything after is FOTPT. JMO

Ds conclusion
Mr. Kohberger requests this Court to suppress all evidence obtained by police via the warrant that permitted them to search his parents' home. As explained above, law enforcement failed to knock and announce before raiding the home, and the warrant lacked probable cause as written, given its heavy reliance on conclusions reached by law enforcement without the details necessary for the magistrate to draw its own conclusions, and because the warrant omitted exculpatory information and information that put into question the reliability of the facts upon which it relies, and finally because the affidavit relied on evidence gained in violation of the constitution, all in violation ofthe Fourth Amendment and Art. I Sec. 17. Any statements made by Mr. Kohberger are the fruit of the poisonous tree of the illegal arrest. Some statements may also be excludable under Miranda.

All JMO

Here is the Lamsden MTS

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

Edit spelling

 

[Boxer]

The sheath was “face down, partially under Madison’s body and the comforter on the bed” according to the State's June 16 2023 Motion for Protective Order.
I guess they just didn't mention it, but IMO there had to be victim DNA all over that sheath, just by it being between MM's body and her beddings, even if it was somehow not in the bloodflow.

Why. I see no reason for the sheath to be covered in victims DNA.
Clean sheets. Sleeping on top of the comforter etc.
On the other hand, BKs DNA is on the sheath from handling it.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

Why. I see no reason for the sheath to be covered in victims DNA.
Clean sheets. Sleeping on top of the comforter etc.
On the other hand, BKs DNA is on the sheath from handling it.

Agree @Boxer …. and the prior posted ‘theory’ alleged ‘even if it was somehow not in the bloodflow’. (IIUC ‘it’ refers to the knife sheath.)

I am looking forward to the trial and evidence presented before a jury or to a judge. And IIUC the apparent gag order in the case is to some benefit, while at the same time allowing for speculative interpretation and possibly unfounded theories. Real presented evidence will be interesting. MOO

 

[Boxer]

Interesting thought about the turn around! Gave me something to think on.
Suspect vehicle 1 was captured traveling North on SouthEast Nevada at Stadium way 2:44. At 2:53, the vehicle was captured going South on SouthEast Nevada.
Later in the PCA it implies he is at home (CAST) at 2:42 (skips the 2:44 North video) and implies he is leaving home and traveling South at 2:47.
IMO It is impossible to go from home to traveling N on SouthEast Nevada in 3-5 minutes on any route. And there was that hit and run being investigated all night near his apartment.

PCA

Video
A review of that video indicated that at approximately 2:44 a.m. on November 13,2022, a white sedan, which was consistent with the description of the White Elantra known as Suspect Vehicle 1, was observed on WSU surveillance cameras travelling north on southeast Nevada Street at northeast Stadium Way. At approximately 2:53 a.m., a white sedan, which is consistent with the description of the White Elantra known as Suspect Vehicle 1, was observed traveling southeast on Nevada Street in Pullman, WA towards SR 270

CAST
On November 13,2022 al approximately 2:42 a.m., the 8458 Phone was utilizing cellular resources that provide coverage to 1630 Northeast Valley Road, Apt G201, Pullman, WA, hereafter the "Kohberger Residence." At approximately 2:47 a.m., the 8458 Phone utilized cellular resources that provide coverage southeast ofthe Kohberger Residence consistent with the 8458 Phone leaving the Kohberger Residence and traveling south through Pullman, WA

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

It doesn't make sense.
jmo

I agree.

I agree

I see what you are saying.
IDK the answer.

One thought is that the D is only disputing what the Expert has documented. But then Ridge Road is not in the alibi either. Nor is whatever other "observations" the expert made to ID the car in Moscow.

IMO just by saying he did not travel East disputes all the footage East (in general, not specifically each one).

I also think about the Drive testing that was missing per SR testimony: 270 and the King home. Perhaps the D needed that? It might be they had it to Floyds but not further East? IDK

And Last, maybe the D did not want to give up their work product/strategy except in an ex parte hearing with the Judge? The alibi was apparently accepted by the Judge. We have not heard anything otherwise for a while. Not sure if there was an ex parte hearing (the D offered this in one filing, ? if it happened). Or if it was just dropped?

jmo

MOO
The alibi was "accepted" in error.
Out of time line and not within definition of an alibi.

 

[girlhasnoname]

He was reviewing the MTS Lamsden. He thinks the blacked out portion might be a confession (19:46 mark).
I am going by the Court Document which specifically states Media reports after arrest.
It states non-mirandized. The media has reported about his "someone else arrested statement." Most people following this case know what LE said and what B Entin reported. I suppose people might think if he wondered if someone else was arrested, that he was involved along with someone else.
The D states there is no audio or video so it is impossible to tell what was said inside the house.

This is what it says
All statements made at the police station were post Miranda. Information in the media, right after arrest, and attributed to law enforcement, report that Mr. Kohberger Blacked out portion. Such a statement is not in a police report or in an audio/video recording that can be found in discovery. If it is a statement that the state will seek to attribute to him at trial, it should be suppressed as a nonmirandized statement. If the conversation with Mr. Kohberger inside the house was custodial in nature, that context may warrant suppression of the conversation in the police car during transport.

Everything at the station was Miranda. Everything before was nonmirandized. The D wants to suppress what was said in the media attributed to LE, and maybe what was said in the car before he was mirandized. Specifically the statement in the house that was reported in the media. Non Mirandized. And only IF the prosecution intends to use it at trial. JMO

In the D conclusion, they also mention suppressing all statements after an illegal arrest. But that is not referring to what the blacked out portion is. That is referring to the reasons the D believes it was an unlawful arrest and everything after is FOTPT. JMO

Ds conclusion
Mr. Kohberger requests this Court to suppress all evidence obtained by police via the warrant that permitted them to search his parents' home. As explained above, law enforcement failed to knock and announce before raiding the home, and the warrant lacked probable cause as written, given its heavy reliance on conclusions reached by law enforcement without the details necessary for the magistrate to draw its own conclusions, and because the warrant omitted exculpatory information and information that put into question the reliability of the facts upon which it relies, and finally because the affidavit relied on evidence gained in violation of the constitution, all in violation ofthe Fourth Amendment and Art. I Sec. 17. Any statements made by Mr. Kohberger are the fruit of the poisonous tree of the illegal arrest. Some statements may also be excludable under Miranda.

All JMO

Here is the Lamsden MTS

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

Edit spelling

Thanks for your take on this. I find it hard to understand how the D thinks it can suppress what they claim the Media reported supposedly made by LE? The media has stated a lot of things in the course of covering this trial. Some accurate, some not.

AT is working hard, but I don't see this MTS succeeding. LE did not know what type of emotional state BK would have been in at the time of arrest. He is an accused Defendant of 4 brutal murders. It would make sense they did a no knock entry into his parents' home. They were not going to risk injury to someone in the home or the opportunity for BK to get rid of evidence.

The D paints a picture of BK just out innocently at night jogging, not disposing of his own trash separated in ziplock baggies being placed into another neighbors trash can. Who does that? Someone who is trying to hide their DNA from LE. BK knew he was being watched when he left WSU IMO.

A vigorous and competent Defense BK is entitled to under his 6th Amendment Rights, and he is surely getting that and more.

JMO

 

[Nila Aella]

MOO
The alibi was "accepted" in error.
Out of time line and not within definition of an alibi.

Possibly.
Judge Hippler seems extremely thorough.
I expect he has reviewed everything up to now.
Might hear more about it after the D discovery deadline.

Title 19 does include an exception
(5) For good cause shown the court may grant an exception to any of the requirements of subsections (1) through (4) of this section.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjqgujporKKAxXm6ckDHWDgLxYQFnoECBQQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Flegislature.idaho.gov%2Fstatutesrules%2Fidstat%2Ftitle19%2Ft19ch5%2Fsect19-519%2F&usg=AOvVaw2lAvaRdDs2BRy9RPrqhRGQ&opi=89978449

jmo
Edit to correct JH name

 

[jepop]

maybe the D did not want to give up their work product/strategy except in an ex parte hearing with the Judge? The alibi was apparently accepted by the Judge. We have not heard anything otherwise for a while. Not sure if there was an ex parte hearing (the D offered this in one filing, ? if it happened). Or if it was just dropped?

jmo

RBBM RSBM.

Just on the alibi. I think that's incorrect to assume the alibi as stands has passed scrutiny by the court and has been accepted as is. It clearly does not comply with Idaho court rules. Jmo

On 26 April the prosecution made a motion for court to disallow D any more additional time to comply with ICRs and to limit testimony in an alibi defense to the defendant only. Alibi clearly lacked the necessary specificity and not possible for P to rebut. JJJ had given extensions of time and leeway in orders, with D's assurance they would comply with ICRs. April this year was supposed to be final deadline for that to happen. Jmo

The P noted they could not even rebut the alibi claims because D had not said where BK.was at the time of crime.

I believe JJJ was leaving the Alibi decision until after other hearings, including MTC at end of May, and I believe he fully expected D to comply with specificity down the track. Imo he used discretion to informally extend D's deadline by putting P's motion on hold. He considered it non urgent at the time. IOWs he put it on the back burner. In the meantime change of venue and change of Judge occurred. All Jmo.

I agree Hippler is aware but do not agree it's been okayed by him. The P will raise the issues with him if not so already.


26th April 2024 State's response to notice of alibi.

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/2024/042624-Response-Notice-Defendants-Supplemental-Response-Alibi-Demand.pdf

 

[jepop]

I assume there was plenty of the victims' DNA but that it becomes excluded as they are identified. JMO?

Whether or not any victim blood was on the sheathe is not really a pertinent question at this time imo. It isn't something at any rate that requires elaboration in the pre-trial motions to do with defendant's DNA being found on snap and a full profile developed from it. Jmo

 

[wendy44]

Interesting thought about the turn around! Gave me something to think on.
Suspect vehicle 1 was captured traveling North on SouthEast Nevada at Stadium way 2:44. At 2:53, the vehicle was captured going South on SouthEast Nevada.
Later in the PCA it implies he is at home (CAST) at 2:42 (skips the 2:44 North video) and implies he is leaving home and traveling South at 2:47.
IMO It is impossible to go from home to traveling N on SouthEast Nevada in 3-5 minutes on any route. And there was that hit and run being investigated all night near his apartment.

I don't think it's impossible, but it's definitely tight. It's about a 5 minute drive. The PCA says he's using resources that provide coverage to his residence at 2:42am. If he's actually in his apartment and hasn't left yet, there's no way he's on Nevada at 2:44am. If he's using resources in the vicinity of his apartment and is already on his way, it's tight but possible, especially if the time on the camera is off by a couple of minutes.

That area of SE Nevada is dorms and I could definitely see him driving around the loop there in the same way his phone records show him driving around the King Rd area at least 12 other times prior. JMO. I think the PCA skips the 2:44am north video later because one section was referring to video and the other section was referring to cellular resources. The PCA says that the phone was using resources southeast of the residence at 2:47am when it stopped reporting--this is not inconsistent with the phone being in the SE Nevada area at 2:47am.

He leaves around 2:40, phone pings in the area of his apartment 2:42, camera picks him up around 2:44 on Nevada, phone pings and then stops reporting in an area southeast of his apartment, which is consistent with where his car is spotted around those dorms, camera picks him up again on Nevada at 2:53am, around 500 feet from the turn to get on 270, camera then picks him up at Floyd's going east on 270 into Moscow.

I don't think the defense really cares about this evidence because the phone records show he is out driving in that area at that time. The phone matches the video. They admit he went out, but they say he went west, not east. To my knowledge, they've never tried to say this footage on SE Nevada is not him.

IMO just by saying he did not travel East disputes all the footage East (in general, not specifically each one).

Right, I do get that. It doesn't seem AT's style though, given her 2000 pages of exhibits accompanying her Motion for Franks lol.

I also think about the Drive testing that was missing per SR testimony: 270 and the King home. Perhaps the D needed that? It might be they had it to Floyds but not further East? IDK

And Last, maybe the D did not want to give up their work product/strategy except in an ex parte hearing with the Judge? The alibi was apparently accepted by the Judge. We have not heard anything otherwise for a while. Not sure if there was an ex parte hearing (the D offered this in one filing, ? if it happened). Or if it was just dropped?

jmo

This is all possible. My own opinion is that AT would not take chances with these very important motions. She's too good a lawyer. She wouldn't take the chance that the judge would allow her to come back and make another alibi argument. She wouldn't take the chance that the judge would allow her to come back and identify what exactly in those 100 pages of emails supports her position. She has no idea if he's going to allow that. She's not going to risk being shut out entirely. If she has it, she's going to use it to its fullest advantage.

Snipped by Me/JMO

 

[Boxer]

Possibly.
Judge Hippler seems extremely thorough.
I expect he has reviewed everything up to now.
Might hear more about it after the D discovery deadline.

Title 19 does include an exception
(5) For good cause shown the court may grant an exception to any of the requirements of subsections (1) through (4) of this section.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjqgujporKKAxXm6ckDHWDgLxYQFnoECBQQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Flegislature.idaho.gov%2Fstatutesrules%2Fidstat%2Ftitle19%2Ft19ch5%2Fsect19-519%2F&usg=AOvVaw2lAvaRdDs2BRy9RPrqhRGQ&opi=89978449

jmo
Edit to correct JH name

Hmm.
Waiting for a cell report to identify shadows in coverage to "find an alibi."
Doesn't seem to meet a good cause.

 

[jepop]

Hmm.
Waiting for a cell report to identify shadows in coverage to "find an alibi."
Doesn't seem to meet a good cause.

Agree. JJJ avoided that whole question by simply putting P's motion to stop giving extensions of time for d compliance on hold. Jmo.

And just on the history of albi compliance issue: Between about June 2023 and April 2024, JJJ used discretion and found good cause to extend time for D compliance. And if IRRC the initial extension of time in 2023 was stipulated to by the p in good faith. At that point trial was scheduled for that coming October. Moo

After BK waived his right to speedy trial in Aug 2023, JJJ at some point found good cause to extend D's deadline for compliance to April 2024. But JJJ never found good cause to order an exception for d compliance with ICR alibi rules all together. Moo

Similarly I don't believe that Hippler has found good cause to grant an overall exception. There is no Court record of such. Surely, alibi compliance question is simply still on hold at this point. Jmo

 

[mrjitty]

Thanks for your take on this. I find it hard to understand how the D thinks it can suppress what they claim the Media reported supposedly made by LE? The media has stated a lot of things in the course of covering this trial. Some accurate, some not.

Reisch is wondering if BK made an incriminating statement before he was mirandised. We don't actually know if LE have such a statement or intend to use such a statement. The D is saying such a statement (if made) should be suppressed.

Obviously such a statement could be quite bad for the D

 

[arielilane]

Mom of Idaho Murders Victim Madison Mogen Speaks Out on Delayed Trial: 'Legal System Is Not About Victims'

Two years after the murders of four University of Idaho students, suspect Bryan Kohberger's trial is now set to begin August 2025.

people.com

12/18/2024

Mom of Idaho murder victim shares story behind matching ring from late daughter

Karen Laramie, the mother of Madison Mogen, shared how she's keeping her daughter's memory alive through her work with the Made With Kindness Foundation.

www.today.com

12/18/2024

 

[PinkParis2052]

Does anyone know if Law and Crime or Court TV or anyone else have uploaded to the IGG hearing that took place on November 2, 2023 with Bill Thompson and Anne Taylor via Zoom with Judge John Judge in the court room? Thank you
P.S. I'm asking because I'm looking to see who else has video of it besides Brian Entin. Thank you

 

[schooling]

I agree with @wendy44 , IMO the defense would be wasting their time trying to prove that it's not BK in Pullman on video aligned with plausible tower coverage.

Prosecutors are going to use the grocery store surveillance video to put an exclamation mark on this point. IMO, by the description in the PCA:

The grocery video is in broad daylight, it's a car pulling into a grocery store, the car is a white Hyundai , it's clearly missing a plate, the door opens, it's clearly BK stepping out of a car, it's BK shopping inside, it's BK getting back in the white Elantra with the missing front plate, it's BK driving off and it's aligned to where the towers expect the suspect driving an Elantra on the same AT&T number might be . JMO

Oh, and it's the guy who's DNA is at the crime scene.

Is the defense ready to answer to why the video, car, suspect and cellular data all perfectly line up on Sunday morning at the grocery store but that the same data shouldn't be trusted hours before? Are they going to ask the jury not to trust their own eyes?

MOO

 

[al66pine]

Madison's Mother Karen Laramie said on Today show:
"I feel like the legal system is not about the victims, and I'll leave it at that."

A dignified, remarkably self-constrained statement for a homicide victim's parent. imo
Applauding her for it and for creating Made with Kindness Foundation, in honor of her daughter and her friends. imo


Dec. 18

Idaho murder victim's mom breaks silence about suspect Bryan Kohberger

The mother of one of the Idaho Murder victims, Madison Mogen, has broken her silence for the first time with a blunt message about suspected killer Bryan Kohberger.

www.dailymail.co.uk