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

[Balthazar]

No charge simply means the victims didn't know they were being stalked; they can't prove the elements of the crime. It does not mean that he didn't stalk the victims in some form, to include surveilling the house.

His phone data, and the way this crime was committed certainly indicates he put a lot of planning into this. I can't fathom he hadn't driven past that house before, at the very least.

It honestly wouldn't shock me if he had been even closer than that.

Not factual.

Also, how would a murder victim know they were being stalked if the ONLY stalking that occurred was minutes BEFORE their murder?

 

[MassGuy]

Not factual.

Also, how would a murder victim know they were being stalked if the ONLY stalking that occurred was minutes BEFORE their murder?

That's my point; they legally can't prove stalking if a murder victim wasn't aware of it. But I have no doubt he scouted the scene, as all killers like this do. I also can't fathom him not honing in on a particular victim at some point, but again, you can't get a stalking charge out of that.

But stalking did happen, just not in a legal sense.

And what’s “not factual?”

 

[snooptroop88]

That's my point; they legally can't prove stalking if a murder victim wasn't aware of it. But I have no doubt he scouted the scene, as all killers like this do. I also can't fathom him not honing in on a particular victim at some point, but again, you can't get a stalking charge out of that.

But stalking did happen, just not in a legal sense.

And what’s “not factual?”

Exactly. Fantasizing, obsessing, and visiting social media pages (and I'd definitely guess beyond with scouting and so forth)--I would guess that's not "stalking" per se. "Obsession" isn't in itself illegal. Neither's fantasizing. He's completely crazy, and didn't need actual human involvement and reciprocity to create a "relationship" in his head, jmo.

 

[sunshineray]

I was referring to both before and during the murders. The fact that there was no charge for stalking, is telling, IMO.

And I respectfully disagree as we don't yet know what the discovery holds about that subject.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

From my understand and please correct me if I'm wrong, the legal term "stalking" must include the victim knowing they were being stalked/surveilled, so could be why BK is not be charged with stalking. It's not a given that it never happened, IMO without the victim(s) knowing. We don't know the full discovery, whether BK was "stalking/surveilling" (in the layman's terms, not legal) one of the victims. That information from LE's investigating is not known yet. Trial will tell.
AJMO

IMO, this is a faulty read of the law. I wish I knew how this interpretation started and what it was based on. I have researched it myself and have found no such thing written in ID state law (or the state law of any of the other states I've read).

Section 18-7905 – Idaho State Legislature

legislature.idaho.gov

Section 18-7906 – Idaho State Legislature

legislature.idaho.gov

https://www.idaholegalaid.org/node/2802/stalking#:~:text=Idaho%20Legal%20Aid%20Provides%20Confidential,a%20family%20or%20household%20member.

https://www.womenslaw.org/laws/id/restraining-orders/protection-orders-against-malicious-harassment-stalking-and-telephone-3#:~:text=Stalking%20happens%20when%20an%20abuser,feel%20substantial%20emotional%20distress%3B%20or

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

That's my point; they legally can't prove stalking if a murder victim wasn't aware of it.

SBMFF.

Why?

 

[MassGuy]

SBMFF.

Why?

Because of the way the statute is written they’ll never get him on a stalking charge, which doesn’t matter. Quadruple murder makes that a moot point.

In regards to the rumors earlier about him supposedly following one of them on TikTok or whatever it was, that’s apparently completely false.

But this idea that a guy who planned this whole thing to a T, just randomly went to that house that night is absurd to me.

I’m convinced he knew of one or more of them, if only in passing (literally).

History says that’s almost certainly true.

 

[Kemug]

To change the subject a bit, to something that hasn't been mentioned for a while, I'll be very interested to learn if the food truck had any relevance.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Because of the way the statute is written they’ll never get him on a stalking charge, which doesn’t matter. Quadruple murder makes that a moot point.

SBMFF

Ok, but that's not what is being said. People are saying that the victims have to be aware of the stalking for it to be stalking and that simply isn't true, IMO.

 

[Boxer]

To change the subject a bit, to something that hasn't been mentioned for a while, I'll be very interested to learn if the food truck had any relevance.

Interesting. Watching a web cam.

 

[sunshineray]

To change the subject a bit, to something that hasn't been mentioned for a while, I'll be very interested to learn if the food truck had any relevance.

That they had a camera live filming there and people watching online could call and pay for your order...what was up with that? Just generating voyeurism of college students by who knows who.

 

[Boxer]

That they had a camera live filming there and people watching online could call and pay for your order...what was up with that? Just generating voyeurism of college students by who knows who.

Irs all supposed to be in fun, but like always, entitled individuals mess things up.

 

[schooling]

That they had a camera live filming there and people watching online could call and pay for your order...what was up with that? Just generating voyeurism of college students by who knows who.

Dating myself here but, I was in college in 2000 at a fairly large (30k student population) state university.

The most popular after hours spot was a downtown pizza place with a live a webcam outside. On nights in I’d watch it out of pure curiosity. Did I recognize anyone? Any drama?

Pure voyeurism and fomo. Great marketing.

Since it was only 3 blocks away (in the last 2 years I was there) I’d sometimes run down there (texts were still extremely expensive/limited at this time) depending on who I saw.

Did I mention it refreshed at about a frame a second, was pretty grainy and it was in night vision’ish black and white?

Not sure if non-student locals or anyone outside the city/state/country ever visited. This was a college town’s pizza spots’ website that looked like a 5th grader put together. I’d imagine Twitch changes things a little.

MOO

 

[schooling]

That's my point; they legally can't prove stalking if a murder victim wasn't aware of it. But I have no doubt he scouted the scene, as all killers like this do. I also can't fathom him not honing in on a particular victim at some point, but again, you can't get a stalking charge out of that.

But stalking did happen, just not in a legal sense.

And what’s “not factual?”

After looking at the miles he piled up on his car (source: reported on Carfax) over the course of 6 months and his arrival in Pullman…

IMO…I’m going to go out on a limb and say we’re going to find out he was in Pullman sometime in early 2022. And if you really twisted my arm and I looked at some of those early post arrest warrants….I’d say March/April. And if you really really really twisted my arm I’d bet he was making himself comfortable in the neighborhoods back then. JMO

In those 6 months he not only exceeded the miles that he typically drove in prior years, but he put enough on that car to account for either a lot of Poconos night driving for star gazing or an extra round trip to Pullman. Seriously. It’s almost an exact round trip over to he average. JMO


All MOO and theory of course.

Happy New Year to the east coast

 

[Balthazar]

That's my point; they legally can't prove stalking if a murder victim wasn't aware of it. But I have no doubt he scouted the scene, as all killers like this do. I also can't fathom him not honing in on a particular victim at some point, but again, you can't get a stalking charge out of that.

But stalking did happen, just not in a legal sense.

And what’s “not factual?”

"No charge simply means the victims didn't know they were being stalked; they can't prove the elements of the crime. It does not mean that he didn't stalk the victims in some form, to include surveilling the house."

That is NOT factual. There are many ways to prove stalking.

 

[MassGuy]

"No charge simply means the victims didn't know they were being stalked; they can't prove the elements of the crime. It does not mean that he didn't stalk the victims in some form, to include surveilling the house."

That is NOT factual. There are many ways to prove stalking.

How? His phone puts him in the general area on multiple occasions, but that's not specific enough.

There's no known surveillance footage that proves this.

No evidence from any of the victims that they were stalked, and finding digital evidence on his devices is hit or miss (as we've learned from plenty of cases on here). He had plenty of time to cover his tracks in the days and weeks following the crime.

So it absolutely could have happened, I'd bet the farm on it happening, but you cannot prove that it happened, as knowing something and proving something are two completely different things.

So I ask you, how can they prove it?

 

[snooptroop88]

"No charge simply means the victims didn't know they were being stalked; they can't prove the elements of the crime. It does not mean that he didn't stalk the victims in some form, to include surveilling the house."

That is NOT factual. There are many ways to prove stalking.

Not the type he'd have been doing, jmo. And not with his level of expertise.

 

[Balthazar]

How? His phone puts him in the general area on multiple occasions, but that's not specific enough.

There's no known surveillance footage that proves this.

No evidence from any of the victims that they were stalked, and finding digital evidence on his devices is hit or miss (as we've learned from plenty of cases on here). He had plenty of time to cover his tracks in the days and weeks following the crime.

So it absolutely could have happened, I'd bet the farm on it happening, but you cannot prove that it happened, as knowing something and proving something are two completely different things.

So I ask you, how can they prove it?

There were possible outcry witnesses - the Vape shop manager and the girls who were with KG and MM, when MM told the tale of KG being followed in the downtown area near Corner Club to the Vape shop manager.

Moscow store owner says Kaylee Goncalves shared fears about potential stalker

The vape shop manager said two of the students killed had visited his business about three weeks earlier

www.the-independent.com

But, police couldn't discover anything about KG having a stalker.
"Moscow Police said weeks ago that they had looked extensively at reports that Goncalves had a stalker, but were unable to link that line of investigation to the murders. "

https://www.newsnationnow.com/banfield/idaho-store-manager-says-murder-victim-complained-of-stalker/

Outcry witnesses whose stories agree are generally considered excellent proof of stalking whether the victim is alive or deceased. However, it is unknown how much the MPD looked into the Vape shop manager's allegations so we have to wait for trial to find out. Yet, apparently it went nowhere or these people would ALL be on the witness list if BT wanted to prove stalking.

 

[Balthazar]

deleted by me.

 

[Sheila Terranova]

Exactly. Fantasizing, obsessing, and visiting social media pages (and I'd definitely guess beyond with scouting and so forth)--I would guess that's not "stalking" per se. "Obsession" isn't in itself illegal. Neither's fantasizing. He's completely crazy, and didn't need actual human involvement and reciprocity to create a "relationship" in his head, jmo.

I agree with everything you said except the word crazy. Psychopaths or anti social personality disorders technically aren’t crazy, (which to me makes them more terrifying and repulsive.)