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

[mrjitty]

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?

Yes.

IMO the prosecution will likely produce some evidence of planning and premeditation - some of which might loosely be called 'stalking'. Stalking is a red flag pre-cursor that appears in many cases like this. But I would not expect it to be charged as such. Like you, my guess is he pre-selected the property after observation.

On the other hand, you don't want "fake news" entering the trial e.g bogus reports about 'stalking' as that would be prejudicial.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

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

Yes, this is why we can't have nice things. jmo

 

[Nila Aella]

Sounds like AT & Company are really 'pounding the table' on their MTC and Sanctions from 12/27/24. She and the entire D Team probably had to work through the holidays to stay on the tight schedule Judge Hippler has put into place. Probably the State did as well.

IMO the Law and Facts are on the D side.

MTC/Sanctions

On December 18, 2024 the State disclosed twenty five (25) experts. Of those, only five (5) include actual expert reports. Notably, not a single DNA expert opinion or report was produced. Instead, the State’s disclosures refer to bates numbered pages and say:

“This disclosure is provided as an aid; it does not encompass all findings, impressions, conclusion, or materials related to this expert’s involvement in this case. It further does not in any way limit the scope of the expert’s testimony. Further, this expert may testify about findings, impressions, and/or conclusions that he/she drew from the work of other experts who previously examined or handled the evidence in question.”

At least three digital forensic experts are disclosed with lists of sixty-seven (67) electronic devices or third-party data bases examined. Not a single report of what the three experts will opine related to any specific device or data is disclosed.

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR01-24-31665/2024/122724-Motion-Compel-ICT-16b7-Material-Sanctions.pdf

ICR 16 b (7)

(7) Expert Witnesses. On written request of the defendant, the prosecutor must provide a written summary or report of any testimony that the state intends to introduce at trial or at a hearing pursuant to Rules 702, 703 or 705 of the Idaho Rules of Evidence. The summary provided must describe the witness’s opinions, the facts and data for those opinions, and the witness's qualifications. Disclosure of expert opinions regarding mental health must also comply with the requirements of Idaho Code § 18-207. The prosecution is not required to produce any materials not subject to disclosure under subsection (g) of this Rule. This subsection does not require disclosure of expert witnesses, their opinions, the facts and data for those opinions, or the witness's qualifications, intended only to rebut evidence or theories that have not been disclosed under this Rule prior to trial.
BBM

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiyuPqlpNSKAxUqKlkFHT_1GzcQFnoECBsQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fisc.idaho.gov%2Ficr16&usg=AOvVaw1hP5u11pI4ds817oq8yDuo&opi=89978449

The D would have had a lot more work over the holiday if the P would have produced 20 more reports.

JMO

I do wonder who the SDT 12/26/24 from the Defense is going out to? IGG/DNA related FBI or Othram Expert(s)?

JMO

FGJ subpoenas IMO.

I believe things are winding up, and it will be interesting to see how the Judge rules on these MTS and Franks.

JMO

MTC/Sanctions and Franks hearings/rulings should be next.
It will be interesting to learn how this Judge rules on these two.
MTS are scheduled for 1/23/25.
JMO

 

[Nila Aella]

Footnotes from the MTC/Sanctions

Page 2
1Mr. Kohberger does not include here a motion to strike the death penalty for failure to properly disclose experts; without proper disclosure that motion is forthcoming.

Page 4
3Recently, in State v. Lori Vallow Daybell, an Idaho court struck the death penalty when the state produced recorded jail calls after the Court’s imposed deadline. See CR22-21-1624. Failure to properly disclose experts is arguably more prejudicial than late disclosed jail calls.

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR01-24-31665/2024/122724-Motion-Compel-ICT-16b7-Material-Sanctions.pdf

jmo

 

[NCWatcher]

While we don't know what will come out at the trial, I tend to believe BT's in-court statements. When he said BK did not stalk the victims, that there was no stalking, I think he meant that vs that he was trying to mislead his primary audience by splitting hairs. In this case, his immediate audience was the judge. I posted earlier my reasons for my belief BT wasn't lying to the judge or trying to mislead him.

It seems the definition of stalking used by many posting on WS could refer to behavior of any suspect who has reason to know or think he/she knows where his/her intended victims can be found before committing the crime. Well, ok. I never considered that stalking but ok. And that would seem to render kind of meaningless the no-murder, no-assault kinds of obsessive "stalking" Lifetime movies are made of, behavior that can and does distress real people who are targeted. But by the apparent WS definition, just about anyone who commits first-degree murder or an intentional planned assault would have to be a stalker if the victim wasn't randomly chosen. (But perhaps an exception to stalking would have to be made if the perpetrator lived with the victim?)

It also seems the lack of a charge for stalking in this case is sometimes being used as evidence there WAS stalking. While we all know absence of evidence doesn't mean evidence of absence, it's quite a leap IMO to say just because there appears to be no legally-admissable evidence of stalking (yet) and the victims are dead, that means it's likely stalking did occur. Heck, by that reasoning maybe people need to consider I may have stalked the 4 murder victims! Yes, I would claim I was on the East Coast at the time, no one reports seeing me in Moscow, I don't match the eyewitness's REPORTED description (I'm not tall, not a man) but hey, who cares? According to Ashley Banfield, 6-ft tall BK could be seen by a witness as a short 5'3" man. Evidence he was in PA when the 2021 home invasion occurred is irrelevant (or in itself suspect. He was probably intentionally creating an "alibi.")

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1179953593492635&id=100044340163581

Obviously people are free to believe whatever they wish. But to suggest the facts as now known support BK was a stalker and BT's in-court statements are unreliable makes no sense to me.
MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

IMO the Law and Facts are on the D side.

MTC/Sanctions

On December 18, 2024 the State disclosed twenty five (25) experts. Of those, only five (5) include actual expert reports. Notably, not a single DNA expert opinion or report was produced. Instead, the State’s disclosures refer to bates numbered pages and say:

“This disclosure is provided as an aid; it does not encompass all findings, impressions, conclusion, or materials related to this expert’s involvement in this case. It further does not in any way limit the scope of the expert’s testimony. Further, this expert may testify about findings, impressions, and/or conclusions that he/she drew from the work of other experts who previously examined or handled the evidence in question.”

At least three digital forensic experts are disclosed with lists of sixty-seven (67) electronic devices or third-party data bases examined. Not a single report of what the three experts will opine related to any specific device or data is disclosed.

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR01-24-31665/2024/122724-Motion-Compel-ICT-16b7-Material-Sanctions.pdf

ICR 16 b (7)

(7) Expert Witnesses. On written request of the defendant, the prosecutor must provide a written summary or report of any testimony that the state intends to introduce at trial or at a hearing pursuant to Rules 702, 703 or 705 of the Idaho Rules of Evidence. The summary provided must describe the witness’s opinions, the facts and data for those opinions, and the witness's qualifications. Disclosure of expert opinions regarding mental health must also comply with the requirements of Idaho Code § 18-207. The prosecution is not required to produce any materials not subject to disclosure under subsection (g) of this Rule. This subsection does not require disclosure of expert witnesses, their opinions, the facts and data for those opinions, or the witness's qualifications, intended only to rebut evidence or theories that have not been disclosed under this Rule prior to trial.
BBM

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiyuPqlpNSKAxUqKlkFHT_1GzcQFnoECBsQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fisc.idaho.gov%2Ficr16&usg=AOvVaw1hP5u11pI4ds817oq8yDuo&opi=89978449

The D would have had a lot more work over the holiday if the P would have produced 20 more reports.

JMO

FGJ subpoenas IMO.


MTC/Sanctions and Franks hearings/rulings should be next.
It will be interesting to learn how this Judge rules on these two.
MTS are scheduled for 1/23/25.
JMO

Thanks for the information as always.

While I agree about the ID Laws ICR 16 b (7) I find it hard to believe that the State filed incorrect or lacking documentation concerning the Experts they are calling on purpose. IIRC, the State had quite the time trying to get information from the Experts re GG on what information and reports they maintained and what was deleted as SOP.

It might not be everything AT wants or feels she is entitled to, or in the format she desires, but I don't think the State has intentionally excluded or withheld exculpatory information. I believe the P has tried to work with the D as much as possible in good faith with supplying the information they've had and when they've received it.

I thought the Defense generally has limited access to Federal Grand Jury Subpoenas? Here's a link to some interesting information regarding FGJ for anyone who is interested:

9-11.000 - Grand Jury

JMO

 

[Nila Aella]

Thanks for the information as always.

While I agree about the ID Laws ICR 16 b (7) I find it hard to believe that the State filed incorrect or lacking documentation concerning the Experts they are calling on purpose. IIRC, the State had quite the time trying to get information from the Experts re GG on what information and reports they maintained and what was deleted as SOP.

It might not be everything AT wants or feels she is entitled to, or in the format she desires, but I don't think the State has intentionally excluded or withheld exculpatory information. I believe the P has tried to work with the D as much as possible in good faith with supplying the information they've had and when they've received it.

The P tried but failed to meet the deadline on expert reports.
20 experts are not ready to provide the P with a report outlining their opinions/facts and data used to develop their opinions.
jmo

I thought the Defense generally has limited access to Federal Grand Jury Subpoenas? Here's a link to some interesting information regarding FGJ for anyone who is interested:

9-11.000 - Grand Jury

JMO

Footnote in MTS Amazon
Page 3
1Grand Jury subpoenas issued by the government have been the subject of a motion to compel. There is an order to compel their production “if available to the state” or at a minimum for the state to provide dates of subpoenas. Order on Defendant’s 4th and 5th Motions to Compel June 14, 2024. The state has done neither. The issues in the memorandum are among the reasons a copy of the subpoenas are necessary. It is unclear what the subpoena asked for or its scope. The subpoena return identifies two iCloud accounts.

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

jmo

 

[arielilane]

Debunked. The victim described the home invader on police body cam as "a gnome" who was 5'2" or shorter. BK is substantially taller than that - at least 6'.

Agree on BK's height. However, witness accounts are not always reliable especially under stress. Not saying BK was the home invader, but I suspect that BK attempted other home invasion prior to the ID college murders. My thoughts, opinion only

 

[arielilane]

@kfixler

In new filings, the defense for #BryanKohberger seeks to exclude a variety of lead evidence against their client at his #Idaho4 murder trial next summer. They also said police in #Idaho first ID’d him as the suspect with use of DNA #IGG on Dec. 19, 2022.

3:28 PM · Dec 31, 2024

https://twitter.com/x/status/1874190801447862619

 

[Bahshudc]

In regards to the stalking aspect, it was my first impression that both MM and KG’s instagram accounts provided a lot of information about their home & some of its layout. Lots of pics of them on the balcony or mirror selfies in bedrooms, as well as potential Insta stories they may have posted prior of them inside the home (which are not viewable anymore). I don’t think BK would have necessarily NEEDED to stalk the victims or go into the house prior to get an understanding of 1122’s layout / each victims bedroom. A lot of speculation in the early days suggested he MUST have visited the home at some point beforehand to be able to go straight upstairs and find KG’s bedroom first (if this was, in fact, planned ahead), but you can find the floor plan and interior images of the home from a quick google search. Unfortunately, that info got into the wrong hands and ended tragically.
All MOO.

 

[Rolypolyoly]

Agree on BK's height. However, witness accounts are not always reliable especially under stress. Not saying BK was the home invader, but I suspect that BK attempted other home invasion prior to the ID college murders. My thoughts, opinion only

I have wondered if BK possibly heard about this prior home invasion on the grapevine, maybe it was discussed by students in his classes and he just decided to copy the MO?
The details of the attack do seem far too coincidental, but at the same time improbable if not completely impossible to have been BK, but a copycat crime could be a possibility to further muddy any waters?

Just speculating at this point.

 

[Balthazar]

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

Because BT, the lead prosecutor, said so. This was said during the hearing in May, 2023 in regards to the Jury survey. He said BK was not stalking one of the roommates. Logically if he was not stalking even one of the roommates, the could not be stalking 2 of the roommates because 1 is a part of 2 and BT also said in court that BK had no social media contact with any of the victims.

The info in the PCA is that he pinged the same tower that was used by 1122 King Rd. That proves nothing. If the cell tower closest to BK's apartment was too busy, his call could have been passed to the one in Moscow. That's how cell-towers work. They can only handle a certain number of active calls at one time before passing other calls to other nearby cell towers. Or he could have gone shopping in Moscow - their grocery stores and other shops are near that cell tower - closer than 1122 King Rd is.

 

[sunshineray]

Because BT, the lead prosecutor, said so. This was said during the hearing in May, 2023 in regards to the Jury survey. He said BK was not stalking one of the roommates. Logically if he was not stalking even one of the roommates, the could not be stalking 2 of the roommates because 1 is a part of 2 and BT also said in court that BK had no social media contact with any of the victims.

The info in the PCA is that he pinged the same tower that was used by 1122 King Rd. That proves nothing. If the cell tower closest to BK's apartment was too busy, his call could have been passed to the one in Moscow. That's how cell-towers work. They can only handle a certain number of active calls at one time before passing other calls to other nearby cell towers. Or he could have gone shopping in Moscow - their grocery stores and other shops are near that cell tower - closer than 1122 King Rd is.

Lawyerly language and much more investigative work has been done since then, MO.

"He said BK was not stalking one of the roommates. Logically if he was not stalking even one of the roommates..."

You including an "even" in there changes it all, but I'm not going to argue semantics of lawyers or posters. Not having contact doesn't mean he wasn't keeping tabs on/surveilling a victim(s) without their knowledge. AJMO

 

[Balthazar]

Because BT, the lead prosecutor, said so. This was said during the hearing in May, 2023 in regards to the Jury survey. He said BK was not stalking one of the roommates. Logically if he was not stalking even one of the roommates, the could not be stalking 2 of the roommates because 1 is a part of 2 and BT also said in court that BK had no social media contact with any of the victims.

The info in the PCA is that he pinged the same tower that was used by 1122 King Rd. That proves nothing. If the cell tower closest to BK's apartment was too busy, his call could have been passed to the one in Moscow. That's how cell-towers work. They can only handle a certain number of active calls at one time before passing other calls to other nearby cell towers. Or he could have gone shopping in Moscow - their grocery stores and other shops are near that cell tower - closer than 1122 King Rd is.

I made a mistake in the post above and it was too late to edit when I realized it. The hearing I was referring to was May 2024, NOT May 2023.

 

[LinasK]

Not factual.

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

I don't believe that that's the only stalking that occured.

 

[LinasK]

Because BT, the lead prosecutor, said so. This was said during the hearing in May, 2023 in regards to the Jury survey. He said BK was not stalking one of the roommates. Logically if he was not stalking even one of the roommates, the could not be stalking 2 of the roommates because 1 is a part of 2 and BT also said in court that BK had no social media contact with any of the victims.

The info in the PCA is that he pinged the same tower that was used by 1122 King Rd. That proves nothing. If the cell tower closest to BK's apartment was too busy, his call could have been passed to the one in Moscow. That's how cell-towers work. They can only handle a certain number of active calls at one time before passing other calls to other nearby cell towers. Or he could have gone shopping in Moscow - their grocery stores and other shops are near that cell tower - closer than 1122 King Rd is.

Considering that there were 4 victims in a household of 6, not stalking "one" (one in particular) of the victims doesn't preclude him from stalking any or all of the others. Once again, I find your logic flawed.

 

[Kemug]

"He said BK was not stalking one of the room-mates."

RSBM
Or, that could even mean that BK was stalking the other 5.

 

[LinasK]

If I hadn't stalked any of the victims in this household,I'd be straightforward in my language- "I stalked none of the victims". He's playing word games here because he did stalk at least one of them, IMO.

 

[Cool Cats]

It is not stalking to look people up on SM.
Not stalking to DM someone
Not stalking because you used SM publically posted to find where someone lives and works, etc...
Not stalking to drive by someone's house.

BK was intelligent enough not to get charged for stalking but I believe he followed his victims on SM and was a peeping Tom and creeper on King Rd.

Some day he will be sitting on DR eating the vegan options available.

2 Cents

 

[NCWatcher]

If I hadn't stalked any of the victims in this household,I'd be straightforward in my language- "I stalked none of the victims". He's playing word games here because he did stalk at least one of them, IMO.

I'm not sure who "he" is in your post but so far as I know, BK hasn't made a public statement about what he did or didn't do re: stalking or re: anything else. BT spoke publicly in court, however.

When BT spoke in court, he was speaking about (& against) the defense survey questions. Those concerned with stalking used the word "one" not the word "none." So BT didn't come up with the word one out of thin air. And as I've said before, I'm also not sure why, as an officer of the court, BT would play word games to deliberately mislead the judge. Was the judge supposed to know he was being duplicitous and be able to figure out what he was really saying?

The relevant survey questions:

8. Have you read, seen or heard that Bryan Kohberger stalked one of the victims?
9. Have you read, seen or heard that Byran Kohberger had followed one of the victims on social media?

Bryan Kohberger did not stalk Idaho victim before murder, court hears

MOO