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

[windrower]

I think what a lot of posters struggle with is that in a way, we want there to have been stalking, or some kind of prior contact, because that would make the senseless horror of these killings make just a little bit more sense.
Unfortunately the fact is that there has not been a single concrete element from an LE source to show stalking, or even actual prior contact whether IRL or online. Not one.
Please spare me Blum's drivel. It may be "allowed" here, but IMO it is completely irrelevant and has done nothing but promote inaccuracies, to put it mildly.
The PCA was worded ambiguously enough to leave the impression that pings showed prior visits by BK to the house. This was debunked by the Prosecution's own footnote mentioned in the posts above. He went to the general Moscow area 12 times, not to the specific neighborhood of the house.
Then there was the G family statement about social media contact, but that turned out to not actually be a true BK account: anyone looking at the Garrett Discovery report can easily see for themselves that this was a bot account.
The Mad Greek stuff was no more than rumor and conjecture and there is no reason to believe that an encounter there ever happened.
So we are left with nothing.
The lack of evidence of prior contact does not mean BK is innocent (extra bolded for those who seem to have trouble dissociating the two statements).
Sometimes a killer enters the home of complete strangers to murder them. The Bundy example has been given several times. IMO if BK is guilty it is one of those types of situations.

The one tiny detail that continues to bother me is that little step in the hallway outside DM's bedroom. IMO in a darkened house, an intruder who is unfamiliar with the inner layout of the floor and especially if they suffer from VS, would probably have missed it and tripped up there. This wasn't mentioned by DM, at least in the snippet of her testimony relayed by Payne in the PCA.

Bbm

I’ve mentioned this before, but I don’t see how anyone can say definitively and for certain that there was absolutely NO prior contact of any kind between the victims and BK.

Some kinds of contact/awareness with people are not recorded. And unless the victims told someone about a guy’s creepy behavior, there is only one person alive who knows, and he won’t tell.

IMO

 

[jepop]

Bbm

I’ve mentioned this before, but I don’t see how anyone can say definitively and for certain that there was absolutely NO prior contact of any kind between the victims and BK.

Some kinds of contact/awareness with people are not recorded. And unless the victims told someone about a guy’s creepy behavior, there is only one person alive who knows, and he won’t tell.

IMO

Yea, that's the whole point in a nutshell. And moo, a snippet from a hearing taken out of context cannot be logically twisted to suggest otherwise. Second guessing the state's case that way is pure speculation. The prosecution hasn't said anything to negate the possibility they have evidence to suggest BK was survieling that house on prior occasions sans any knowledge of the victims ie phone and GPS data; which added to the totality of evidence (including defendant's DNA on the sheathe in a victim's bed) could be very damaging indeed to BK's defense. We shall see. Jmo

 

[whiterhino]

Bbm

I’ve mentioned this before, but I don’t see how anyone can say definitively and for certain that there was absolutely NO prior contact of any kind between the victims and BK.

Some kinds of contact/awareness with people are not recorded. And unless the victims told someone about a guy’s creepy behavior, there is only one person alive who knows, and he won’t tell.

IMO

Just wanted to add: There are different categories/types of stalking. Different motivations, different behaviors.

Not all stalkers desire to have a relationship with their target. Some stalkers are predatory and have one thing on their mind. Predatory stalking is almost always in preparation for an assault.

I know this is a silly example but think about the strategy of a shark hunting their prey. They ambush and strike from seemingly nowhere. They might glide past, sizing up their prey. So you might see them at the library, the club, a restaurant. But if you tell a friend at that point, its plausible that it was just a "co-incidence".

FWIW I am not saying that this is how it happened but speaking from lived experience I am saying, this is how it happens, often.

jmho.

 

[Boxer]

RBBM: The word intimidation doesn't appear at all. In Idaho, it's called Malicious Harassment. Section 18-7906 – Idaho State Legislature

True. Still, harrassment means the person knows they're being observed.

 

[Boxer]

Bbm

I’ve mentioned this before, but I don’t see how anyone can say definitively and for certain that there was absolutely NO prior contact of any kind between the victims and BK.

Some kinds of contact/awareness with people are not recorded. And unless the victims told someone about a guy’s creepy behavior, there is only one person alive who knows, and he won’t tell.

IMO

And he may have left no trace and so stalking may always just be possibilty that can't be proven.
Or there could be a wifi handshake that fixed BKs proximity to the house at least once.

 

[Shadowtrix]

And he may have left no trace and so stalking may always just be possibilty that can't be proven.
Or there could be a wifi handshake that fixed BKs proximity to the house at least once.

Very true.

Few years ago had a few instances of somebody knocking on my back window at night and leaving flower petals/a bouquet on my back step. It got creepier when it happened a second time months after the first time, so I called police, but the person was obviously never identified since I didn’t have cameras set up or anything like that back then.

I feel like (so far) it’s impossible to rule out one or more of the victims were being stalked because some cases of stalking never get linked to any specific individual.

 

[PinkParis2052]

And he may have left no trace and so stalking may always just be possibilty that can't be proven.
Or there could be a wifi handshake that fixed BKs proximity to the house at least once.

Can you explain what is a WIFI handshake? Thank you

 

[whiterhino]

True. Still, harrassment means the person knows they're being observed.

You were not wrong to include intimidation (see link below, again not Idaho or US law but very similar definitions). I was just saying it isn't included in the Idaho statute which works in favor of the victim bc they don't have that added burden of proof.

Is it Harassment? A Tool to Guide Employees - Canada.ca

This tool will serve to help you in the analysis of a situation you believe might be workplace harassment.

www.canada.ca

"The respondent displayed an improper and offensive conduct including objectionable acts, comments or displays, or acts of intimidation or threats, or acts, comments or displays in relation to ...."

Just fwiw.

 

[SamiSleuth]

I don't post often, but wanted to weigh in on the 'stalking' aspect. While surveillance can be a part of stalking behavior, it's also a tool used by law enforcement, private investigators, etc. and is an appropriate word to describe BK's activities as he prepped for the murder(s). BK's desire to be in law enforcement may also play into his using this behavior.
I believe BK physically surveilled the house's exterior. He may also have cyber surveilled both the house and any or all of the occupants. By doing so, he could have gathered the necessary info to commit the crime. He would have avoided crossing the line into stalking in order to maintain his 'professional' distance from the target(s) of his surveillance. He may have also physically surveilled the house and/or occupant(s), but I believe he would have done so in a way to avoid bringing attention to himself. His goal was not to alarm, annoy, or harass anyone. His goal was to kill.

All JMO, MOO.

 

[LinasK]

What I wrote is that if BK didn't stalk one victim, then, he stalked no victims. 1 could be any of the 4 or as many as all 4. But BT said that question was based upon FALSE information. In other words, BK stalked no one.


That has nothing to do with whether or not he stalked anyone.


LE apparently has no proof that BK stalked anyone.

I don't think you understand what I wrote.

The survey question probably read something like this:

"Have you heard or read that Bryan Kohberger stalked one of the victims?"
( )Yes
( )No

Written in this manner, the question actually asks the respondents if they heard or saw information that BK stalked any of the 4 victims. So if the respondent read or heard that BK stalked one or more of the victims, the response is Yes. If you have followed this case in detail, early on there were allegations that KG was being stalked and then later allegations it was MM who was being stalked via instagram. However BT objected to this question because according to him, it could lead potential jurors to believe something false. In other words, BT was saying that stalking is a false allegation. Therefore, by BT's own comment, we can know that BK didn't stalk anyone. And what makes this even more apparent is that BK was NEVER charged with stalking AND LE would have charged BK with stalking IF he had stalked anyone. But there is no such charge. Therefore, it never happened.

JMO

BS! You think a criminal is going to be honest? Them not charging him only means that they don't have enough to prove it, NOT that it didn't happen. I firmly believe that it did happen.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

True. Still, harrassment means the person knows they're being observed.

It doesn't say anything like that. MOO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Bbm

I’ve mentioned this before, but I don’t see how anyone can say definitively and for certain that there was absolutely NO prior contact of any kind between the victims and BK.

Some kinds of contact/awareness with people are not recorded. And unless the victims told someone about a guy’s creepy behavior, there is only one person alive who knows, and he won’t tell.

IMO

Plenty of people are definitively saying it did happen, so shrug. There's no evidence of it either way.

MOO

 

[Balthazar]

I don't post often, but wanted to weigh in on the 'stalking' aspect. While surveillance can be a part of stalking behavior, it's also a tool used by law enforcement, private investigators, etc. and is an appropriate word to describe BK's activities as he prepped for the murder(s). BK's desire to be in law enforcement may also play into his using this behavior.
I believe BK physically surveilled the house's exterior. He may also have cyber surveilled both the house and any or all of the occupants. By doing so, he could have gathered the necessary info to commit the crime. He would have avoided crossing the line into stalking in order to maintain his 'professional' distance from the target(s) of his surveillance. He may have also physically surveilled the house and/or occupant(s), but I believe he would have done so in a way to avoid bringing attention to himself. His goal was not to alarm, annoy, or harass anyone. His goal was to kill.

All JMO, MOO.

IF he did that, shouldn't there be traffic camera and security camera evidence and possibly one or more witnesses?

 

[Kemug]

Plenty of people are definitively saying it did happen, so shrug. There's no evidence of it either way.

MOO

Well, there may be evidence of previous contact, but we haven't heard it yet. If there was, it may come out at trial.

 

[sunshineray]

What I wrote is that if BK didn't stalk one victim, then, he stalked no victims. 1 could be any of the 4 or as many as all 4. But BT said that question was based upon FALSE information. In other words, BK stalked no one.


That has nothing to do with whether or not he stalked anyone.


LE apparently has no proof that BK stalked anyone.

I don't think you understand what I wrote.

The survey question probably read something like this:

"Have you heard or read that Bryan Kohberger stalked one of the victims?"
( )Yes
( )No

Written in this manner, the question actually asks the respondents if they heard or saw information that BK stalked any of the 4 victims. So if the respondent read or heard that BK stalked one or more of the victims, the response is Yes. If you have followed this case in detail, early on there were allegations that KG was being stalked and then later allegations it was MM who was being stalked via instagram. However BT objected to this question because according to him, it could lead potential jurors to believe something false. In other words, BT was saying that stalking is a false allegation. Therefore, by BT's own comment, we can know that BK didn't stalk anyone. And what makes this even more apparent is that BK was NEVER charged with stalking AND LE would have charged BK with stalking IF he had stalked anyone. But there is no such charge. Therefore, it never happened.

JMO

Why do you think it's apparent that LE has no proof that BK stalked anyone? There's a gag order in place. We can't possibly say definitively that BK wasn't online following/stalking (NOT the legal term) because we're not privy to the discovery. In fact the little we do know from here and there (the PCA, victim family members and some MM outlets) makes an interesting case that he was surveilling some of the victims before the murders...and even after. AJMO

 

[sunshineray]

I think what a lot of posters struggle with is that in a way, we want there to have been stalking, or some kind of prior contact, because that would make the senseless horror of these killings make just a little bit more sense.
Unfortunately the fact is that there has not been a single concrete element from an LE source to show stalking, or even actual prior contact whether IRL or online. Not one.
Please spare me Blum's drivel. It may be "allowed" here, but IMO it is completely irrelevant and has done nothing but promote inaccuracies, to put it mildly.
The PCA was worded ambiguously enough to leave the impression that pings showed prior visits by BK to the house. This was debunked by the Prosecution's own footnote mentioned in the posts above. He went to the general Moscow area 12 times, not to the specific neighborhood of the house.
Then there was the G family statement about social media contact, but that turned out to not actually be a true BK account: anyone looking at the Garrett Discovery report can easily see for themselves that this was a bot account.
The Mad Greek stuff was no more than rumor and conjecture and there is no reason to believe that an encounter there ever happened.
So we are left with nothing.
The lack of evidence of prior contact does not mean BK is innocent (extra bolded for those who seem to have trouble dissociating the two statements).
Sometimes a killer enters the home of complete strangers to murder them. The Bundy example has been given several times. IMO if BK is guilty it is one of those types of situations.

The one tiny detail that continues to bother me is that little step in the hallway outside DM's bedroom. IMO in a darkened house, an intruder who is unfamiliar with the inner layout of the floor and especially if they suffer from VS, would probably have missed it and tripped up there. This wasn't mentioned by DM, at least in the snippet of her testimony relayed by Payne in the PCA.

We know what's in the investigative discovery so saying there's nothing has to be inaccurate, at this point in time. It's a long time to July 30th's hearings. We're allowed to speculate and mine is there will be an online connection between BK and at least one of the victims. JMO

 

[Balthazar]

Plenty of people are definitively saying it did happen, so shrug. There's no evidence of it either way.

MOO

People in the media who got the information originally from what is insinuated in the PCA but not really the behavior of a stalker AND comments from ONE of the victim's families that have said LE won't talk to them. They are not a valid source, IMO. And PCA DOES NOT say he stalked them at all. Its says he was using the same cell tower in Moscow and 1122 on 3 different occasions but that cell tower covers Walmart and other shops and restaurants as well as most of the UofI campus. It is also close to the tower that covered his apartment, so it is possible he may have been home at that time and got handed off to the tower in Moscow because the one he used in Moscow was too busy. And he apparently only was on that tower in Moscow 3 times in 4 months - that's not really stalking or even reconnaissance by any means.

IMO, this does not mean that BK didn't commit this crime, but it likely puts him or whoever did this in a different category of killers than a serial killer.

Also, when this first happened and we were observing CSI searching the yard of 1122 King Rd, there was a piece of paper that appeared to have a diagram or map on it which was flagged with Evidence Marker 4 on the right side of parking pad of 1122 if you are facing the house from Queen Rd. We do not know for certain if it was a diagram of the inside of the house, but CSI thought it was important enough to mark. It can be seen in a photo in this article - look for Evidence Marker 4:

Idaho student murders’ investigators likely comparing DNA evidence to FBI database

Authorities investigating the murders of four University of Idaho students are likely using forensic genetic genealogy – by comparing DNA evidence to genealogical family databases, an expert said i…

nypost.com

We will have to wait for the trial to find out if LE decided this diagram or map is related to this case or not. To be fair, there was an overflowing trash can on the back patio of 1122 and this piece of paper may have blown out of that and be unrelated. But we don't know when the trash can was put outside or by whom. It could have been put outside by CSI for all we know.

But if it is related to the crime and is a diagram of the floor plan, this could explain how someone who didn't know the floorplan of the house managed to navigate it in the dark.

 

[Warwick7]

What I wrote is that if BK didn't stalk one victim, then, he stalked no victims. 1 could be any of the 4 or as many as all 4. But BT said that question was based upon FALSE information. In other words, BK stalked no one.


That has nothing to do with whether or not he stalked anyone.


LE apparently has no proof that BK stalked anyone.

I don't think you understand what I wrote.

The survey question probably read something like this:

"Have you heard or read that Bryan Kohberger stalked one of the victims?"
( )Yes
( )No

Written in this manner, the question actually asks the respondents if they heard or saw information that BK stalked any of the 4 victims. So if the respondent read or heard that BK stalked one or more of the victims, the response is Yes. If you have followed this case in detail, early on there were allegations that KG was being stalked and then later allegations it was MM who was being stalked via instagram. However BT objected to this question because according to him, it could lead potential jurors to believe something false. In other words, BT was saying that stalking is a false allegation. Therefore, by BT's own comment, we can know that BK didn't stalk anyone. And what makes this even more apparent is that BK was NEVER charged with stalking AND LE would have charged BK with stalking IF he had stalked anyone. But there is no such charge. Therefore, it never happened.

JMO

That is quite a leep considering there is an active gag order. Lest we forget trial is not here. We have no idea the evidence that prosecution has.

Besides, Tammy and Sidney Moorer were found guilty of kidnapping Heather Elvis, and sentenced, (to 30 years a piece?) when in fact she was murdered by them. It was a stroke of genius on the prosecution to use the kidnapping.

 

[Balthazar]

That is quite a leep considering there is an active gag order. Lest we forget trial is not here. We have no idea the evidence that prosecution has.

Besides, Tammy and Sidney Moorer were found guilty of kidnapping Heather Elvis, and sentenced, (to 30 years a piece?) when in fact she was murdered by them. It was a stroke of genius on the prosecution to use the kidnapping.

It's not a leap at all. BT is the lead Prosecutor in this case, so it came straight from the Prosecutor. He actually broke the gag order at the hearing about the Jury survey and told everyone who was watching that the questions about stalking and social media contact were false - I posted the actual questions a page back, the last 2 are the ones BT was talking about. Please go back to that video and watch and hear for yourself.

 

[Nila Aella]

• 12/19/2024 Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limit
• 12/19/2024 Reply iso Motion to Suppress and Memo in Support - Arrest Id Person
• 12/19/2024 Reply to PAs Objection to Motion to Suppress and Memo in Support - 119 Lamsden PA
• 12/19/2024 Reply to PAs Objection to Motion to Suppress and Memo in Support Response - Amazon
• 12/19/2024 Reply to PAs Objection to Motion to Suppress and Memo in Support - Apple
• 12/19/2024 Reply to PAs Objection to Motion to Suppress and Memo in Support- ATT First Warrant
• 12/19/2024 Reply to PAs Objection to Motion to Suppress and Memo in Support - Cell phone USB
• 12/19/2024 Reply to PAs Objection to Motion to Suppress and Memo in Support - Google
• 12/19/2024 Reply to PAs Objection to Motion to Suppress and Memo in Support - Pen Trap Trace
• 12/20/2024 Response to 20th Supplemental Request for Discovery
• 12/20/2024 States Response to Defendants 20th Supplemental Request for Discovery
• 12/20/2024 Stipulated Motion to File Defendants Replies to States Objections to Franks and IGG Under Seal
• 12/26/2024 Subpoena Duces Tecum
• 12/27/2024 21st Supplemental Request for Discovery
• 12/27/2024 Motion to Compel ICT 16b7 Material and for Sanctions

Idaho Judicial Cases of Interest

ETA link