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

[girlhasnoname]

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.

I remember when this story first broke there was a previous report of a male pulling a knife on some students who were walking along campus trails. LE said it was investigated and wasn't BK. Does anyone else remember that?

MOO

 

[Balthazar]

I remember when this story first broke there was a previous report of a male pulling a knife on some students who were walking along campus trails. LE said it was investigated and wasn't BK. Does anyone else remember that?

MOO

Yes. It happened 2 months prior to the murders and apparently had nothing to do with this case, according to the MPD.

University of Idaho issued knife threat warning weeks before killings

Three housemates Madison Mogen, 21, Kaylee Goncalves, 21, and Xana Kernodle, 20, and her boyfriend Ethan Chapin, 20, were found brutally knifed in their rented student home.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[sunshineray]

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

I disagree. If someone does the things you listed with the intent of or the end result of doing violence to that/those individual(s), it is stalking. It's the singling out of prey by a predator. MO

 

[sunshineray]

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

The legal term of stalking, "malicious harrassment" implies the person being "stalked" knows the predator is there because they're being harrassed openly with the possible intent to do them harm.

The layman's term of "stalking" describes the "pursue or approach stealthly" as in a predator somehow concealing themselves from their prey as to not spook or alert them...example: like a cat.

It's as simple as that. Within those parameters, BK may not have legally stalked but did surveilled/stalked and chose his victim(s) without their knowledge.

So BT didn't mislead the judge. It would be stalking behavior that led to chosing of a victim(s) and would come out at trial as evidence/action of a killer's motion...infatuation or anger etc...

AJMO

 

[NCWatcher]

The legal term of stalking, "malicious harrassment" implies the person being "stalked" knows the predator is there because they're being harrassed openly with the possible intent to do them harm.

The layman's term of "stalking" describes the "pursue or approach stealthly" as in a predator somehow concealing themselves from their prey as to not spook or alert them...example: like a cat.

It's as simple as that. Within those parameters, BK may not have legally stalked but did surveilled/stalked and chose his victim(s) without their knowledge.

So BT didn't mislead the judge. It would be stalking behavior that led to chosing of a victim(s) and would come out at trial as evidence/action of a killer's motion...infatuation or anger etc...

AJMO

So the assumption is people polled knew the difference? Or that they used the layman's definition? But BT didn't speak to that definition in court? Hmm.
MOO

 

[sunshineray]

So the assumption is people polled knew the difference? Or that they used the layman's definition? But BT didn't speak to that definition in court? Hmm.
MOO

Why would BT get into motive, the investigation, I would think, is still ongoing. The defense is entitled to discovery, the public is not. MO

 

[CKS]

Exactly. They wouldn't know they were being stalked. But that doesn't negate the fact that they were, they just never realised it.

All MOO

You say it's a fact that they were stalked but where is the factual proof?

 

[minazoe]

he totally stalked that house and the people in it..he was fixated on the house and drove over there prior to the murders..he followed the girls on insta. anyone who thinks he didn't just because it's not currently charged would be wrong. this is a DP case and all the details have to perfect.. so some charges may be withheld or pending additional evidence.

and what difference in the end? he's guilty and will be euthanized for what he did. He's a peeper and has done other things..he became a full blown junkie in HS..he has serious problems. he never fit's in and seems to be disliked by all who knew him. mOO

 

[MassGuy]

All MOO

You say it's a fact that they were stalked but where is the factual proof?

Highly probable, not proven.

This guy was meticulous, and thought of everything. Of course he’d been near that house before, as that would be part of the fantasy in addition to practicality.

Just look at what organized serial killers like BTK or Keyes did. They’ll scouted, they fantasized, and then they acted. I believe he has more in common with someone like that than your standard mass murderer.

 

[Nila Aella]

Defense Reply to Lamsden

Page3
no knock and yelling from their bearcat,
they had snipers watching Mr. Kohberger go from room to room
the FBI had been surveilling Mr. Kohberger since December 21
The State had identified Mr. Kohberger on December 19, 2022 through Investigative Genetic Genealogy
the State had obtained aerial photographs of the Kohberger residence on December 21, 2022
the State had driven by the Kohberger residence on December 23, 2022
followed Mr. Kohberger on December 24, 2022
Cameras were placed on his parents’ property on December 25, 2022
trash was taken from the property on December 27, 2022

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR01-24-31665/2024/121924-Reply-PAs-Objection-Motion-Suppress-Memo-119Lamsden.pdf

 

[NCWatcher]

Why would BT get into motive, the investigation, I would think, is still ongoing. The defense is entitled to discovery, the public is not. MO

That's not what I am saying. And this was not related to anyone's right to discovery. And the hearing was "open" per the judge's decision.

BT was trying to object to the defense's change of venue survey. In particular, he objected to the "stalking" questions he claimed were false. BT's objection to the survey questions is why he said what he said in court about the stalking story being false. But it sounds like you are saying BT was using a legal definition of stalking that survey participants would not have used when responding to the survey. So his objection and his court behavior makes no sense from a two-definition perspective. At any rate, the judge wasn't convinced by BT's argument especially given that BT himself caused the supposedly problematic survey questions to become public!
MOO

 

[MassGuy]

Defense Reply to Lamsden

Page3
no knock and yelling from their bearcat,
they had snipers watching Mr. Kohberger go from room to room
the FBI had been surveilling Mr. Kohberger since December 21
The State had identified Mr. Kohberger on December 19, 2022 through Investigative Genetic Genealogy
the State had obtained aerial photographs of the Kohberger residence on December 21, 2022
the State had driven by the Kohberger residence on December 23, 2022
followed Mr. Kohberger on December 24, 2022
Cameras were placed on his parents’ property on December 25, 2022
trash was taken from the property on December 27, 2022

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR01-24-31665/2024/121924-Reply-PAs-Objection-Motion-Suppress-Memo-119Lamsden.pdf

Lol, this idea that they should have knocked is absolutely insane to me. You have a suspected quadruple murderer believed to be in possession of a firearm, who has absolutely nothing to lose.

You do it to this way, or you take him outside his house. What you do not do, is give him any opportunity to hurt himself or others.

This was a good tactical play.

 

[Nila Aella]

he totally stalked that house and the people in it..he was fixated on the house and drove over there prior to the murders..he followed the girls on insta. anyone who thinks he didn't just because it's not currently charged would be wrong. this is a DP case and all the details have to perfect.. so some charges may be withheld or pending additional evidence.
mOO

This question on the survey was false.

"Have you read, seen or heard if Bryan Kohberger had followed one of the victims on social media?"

BEntin searched for BKs SM accounts BEFORE the name was public.
He did not find any.
0.58

Instagram warrants
11/21/22 Three plus EC
3/30/23 BF,DM,EC,XK,KG
4/19/23 XK,MM
7/24/23 XK, MM, KG

Survey hearing 4/4/24

Idaho Judicial Cases of Interest

JMO
Edit add jmo
ETA link

 

[girlhasnoname]

Defense Reply to Lamsden

Page3
no knock and yelling from their bearcat,

Understandable, subject behavior was unknown by LE of an alleged quadruple murderer

they had snipers watching Mr. Kohberger go from room to room

They did not know for sure how many if any guns were at the residence and where they might be located

the FBI had been surveilling Mr. Kohberger since December 21
The State had identified Mr. Kohberger on December 19, 2022 through Investigative Genetic Genealogy
the State had obtained aerial photographs of the Kohberger residence on December 21, 2022
the State had driven by the Kohberger residence on December 23, 2022
followed Mr. Kohberger on December 24, 2022
Cameras were placed on his parents’ property on December 25, 2022
trash was taken from the property on December 27, 2022

Trash was collected from their garbage can on their property, completely legal and considered abandoned

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR01-24-31665/2024/121924-Reply-PAs-Objection-Motion-Suppress-Memo-119Lamsden.pdf

I KNEW that Logsdon wrote that reply within the first few sentences. I think it's a mistake for him to try and play the 'oh so witty' aka sarcastic lawyer here. It comes across disrespectful to the State and to the Court in general to me.

Judge Hippler seems like the sort of no nonsense type of Judge that might also not appreciate the disguised attempt at humor, but at least Logsdon kept this one short instead of his usual several to 20 page pontificators.

All of these actions taken by LE/FBI were warranted by not knowing what type of behavior BK might resort to upon an arrest attempt. He stands accused of easily murdering four college students with a Kabar knife in minutes. How were they to know if BK might harm himself, his parents, or use them as hostages? They didn't. Keeping all the occupants of the home safe and themselves without casualty was their main objective.

JMO

 

[sunshineray]

That's not what I am saying. And this was not related to anyone's right to discovery. And the hearing was "open" per the judge's decision.

BT was trying to object to the defense's change of venue survey. In particular, he objected to the "stalking" questions he claimed were false. BT's objection to the survey questions is why he said what he said in court about the stalking story being false. But it sounds like you are saying BT was using a legal definition of stalking that survey participants would not have used when responding to the survey. So his objection and his court behavior makes no sense from a two-definition perspective. At any rate, the judge wasn't convinced by BT's argument especially given that BT himself caused the supposedly problematic survey questions to become public!
MOO

It makes perfect sense to me. He was arguing in a court of law about the survey containing language about "stalking" in the legal definition when there are no charges for legal stalking. If it was a reversed situation about whatever the defense didn't want included in a survey, they would state reasons appropriately thought of on their side of the case. BT most likely didn't want a change of venue. IMO

 

[NCWatcher]

It makes perfect sense to me. He was arguing in a court of law about the survey containing language about "stalking" in the legal definition when there are no charges for legal stalking. If it was a reversed situation about whatever the defense didn't want included in a survey, they would state reasons appropriately thought of on their side of the case. BT most likely didn't want a change of venue. IMO

I agree BT didn't want a change of venue. We'll just have to disagree on the rest.

MOO

 

[Bahshudc]

Section 18-7906 – Idaho State Legislature

legislature.idaho.gov

If the prosecution had evidence that BK stalked the victims, he would have been charged with stalking. This is not to say that BK didn’t obsess over their social media and surveil the house undetected.

For there to be evidence of stalking, there must be evidence that one or multiple victims were aware of a stalker — by definition. The stalker has to make contact in some form.

For example, if KG mentioned to MM she thought she had a stalker, but there is no evidence of this conversation, he will not be charged.

 

[jepop]

It makes perfect sense to me. He was arguing in a court of law about the survey containing language about "stalking" in the legal definition when there are no charges for legal stalking. If it was a reversed situation about whatever the defense didn't want included in a survey, they would state reasons appropriately thought of on their side of the case. BT most likely didn't want a change of venue. IMO

I think I agree with your general point across several posts.

But Imo BT was referring to rumours, as referenced by the specific survey question. That survey question introduced to respondents information prejudicial to the defendant; information based on media reports and rumour. It was not info from the official court record. Unfounded rumours of KG being 'stalked', that KG thought she had a stalker, are not admissible evidence at trial imo. There's the false fact regarding the stalking survey question.. That's all imo.

This whole jumping on the general semantics around the term 'stalking' (in general that is, not talking re your comments specifically!) and then conflating that with potential trial evidence is a real stretch. To take what was said and then attribute to the prosecution unfounded that BK never stalked any of the victims, or watched or cased the house ( and by extension watched any of the victims) makes no sense to me at all.

I guess if people feel they must extrapolate in such a manner then surely that is purely an opinion, a guess, a speculation. Moo

 

[CKS]

Lol, this idea that they should have knocked is absolutely insane to me. You have a suspected quadruple murderer believed to be in possession of a firearm, who has absolutely nothing to lose.

You do it to this way, or you take him outside his house. What you do not do, is give him any opportunity to hurt himself or others.

This was a good tactical play.

And yet somehow they were okay with BK driving across the country???? Giving BK how many opportunities along the way to hurt others as you state. Rather than you know, bring BK in for questioning as soon as they thought he was a suspect. Makes ZERO sense.

All MOO

 

[MassGuy]

And yet somehow they were okay with BK driving across the country???? Giving BK how many opportunities along the way to hurt others as you state. Rather than you know, bring BK in for questioning as soon as they thought he was a suspect. Makes ZERO sense.

All MOO

They had no probable cause to arrest him at that point, nor did they have it during those many days they had him under surveillance. They did not want to tip their hand and let him know he was a suspect.

Say they did bring him in for questioning. He could have told them to pound sand, and now he goes home, fully aware that he’s about to be arrested for murder.

That scenario is far more dangerous than the former. How can you honestly say that’s a better option?