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

[CKS]

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

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

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

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

All MOO

So explain why they allowed BK and his dad to drive across the country if they were worried BK might be such a huge threat to others?

Just admit that it makes NO SENSE for them to allow BK to drive across the county if they thought he was such a threat. Also, if they did think he was a suspect why didn't they bring him in for questioning as soon as he was on their radar?

Sorry but I've always had a problem with LE allowing BK to go on a cross country trip when he was allegedly a suspect.

MOO

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

All MOO

So explain why they allowed BK and his dad to drive across the country if they were worried BK might be such a huge threat to others?

Just admit that it makes NO SENSE for them to allow BK to drive across the county if they thought he was such a threat. Also, if they did think he was a suspect why didn't they bring him in for questioning as soon as he was on their radar?

Sorry but I've always had a problem with LE allowing BK to go on a cross country trip when he was allegedly a suspect.

MOO

Authorities probably did not have sufficient evidence at that point for an arrest. IMO they likely did not have probable cause at that time. And since he was IIRC traveling with his father across country, the departure was not prevented. (I can’t recall the exact timeline, but I don’t believe there was suspicion of any others yet, including the suspect’s father? So no reason or grounds to detain the suspect?)

IANAL….. and frankly, as an uninvolved non ID resident, and with no access to any case details, it is very difficult to ascertain exactly all of the evidence and information in this case since if I recall correctly, there is a gag order in place. MOO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

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

This is not true. Nowhere in the law does it state or imply the victim has to be aware of the predator.

MOO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Section 18-7906 – Idaho State Legislature

legislature.idaho.gov

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.

Where in the link you gave does it say that? I don't see any language that states the victim has to be aware or that the stalker has to make contact. Can you please quote teh passage on which your opinion is based?

 

[Balthazar]

All MOO

So explain why they allowed BK and his dad to drive across the country if they were worried BK might be such a huge threat to others?

Just admit that it makes NO SENSE for them to allow BK to drive across the county if they thought he was such a threat. Also, if they did think he was a suspect why didn't they bring him in for questioning as soon as he was on their radar?

Sorry but I've always had a problem with LE allowing BK to go on a cross country trip when he was allegedly a suspect.

MOO

Not only did LE allow BK to go on a multi-day cross-country trip, they apparently lost track of him.

How FBI "lost" Bryan Kohberger as he left Idaho for holidays

FBI agents who were surveilling Kohberger on a cross-county trip lost him for at least several hours, according to a new report.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Bahshudc]

dbm

 

[Bahshudc]

Where in the link you gave does it say that? I don't see any language that states the victim has to be aware or that the stalker has to make contact. Can you please quote teh passage on which your opinion is based?

My bad — you’re right! But there would still need to be evidence of stalking and I believe he would have been charged if that evidence was available. Moo!

 

[AcousticViper]

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.

Again, this is where the temporal factor comes into play. The defense are keen for Judge Hippler to know that Kohberger was being monitored closely and authorities could have arrested him more peacefully when driving or out for a run. There simply was no justification for a "hasty" early-morning entry. The State must be penalized appropriately by throwing out all evidence collected.

But this argument ignores any number of shifting realities that may have informed decision making over a period of hours or days. Initially, detectives may have afforded Kohberger latitude in the hope he would be observed ditching, or lead them to, critical evidence. A storage locker perhaps. So, they waited patiently and gathered intel. Alas, as this hope diminished in strength vis-a-vis other operational realities, or fear that Kohberger was engaged in a sequence of evidence destruction, the decision was taken to end surveillance. As @girlhasnoname notes, Logsdon 's use of sarcasm here is misjudged.

SWAT teams go through considerable training. Their actions, as direct as they are, are informed by many successful and failed operations across the country. They are not in the business of guessing how a quadruple murder suspect is going to react. Binding hands and bringing occupants into one secured area, for example. It's harsh, but there is very good reason why they operate this way.

 

[Nila Aella]

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

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

They knew he owned A gun.

Reply to Lamsden
“we knew he was in there and owned a gun”
Basically, the police tell us they had to destroy the house to save the car, or some other evidence, from Mr. Kohberger’s rubber gloves.
D cites:
U.S. v. Gaither, 871 F.Supp. 5, 6-7 (D.D.C. 1994): Forcible entry upheld where police loudly announced but could hear “sounds consistent with a constructive refusal”, and the subject was suspected of murder and believed well-armed.
Kornegay v. Cottingham, 120 F.3d 392, 398-400 (3rd Cir. 1997): No knock entry found unjustified where suspect was suspected of murder, the murder weapon, a handgun, was missing, and he had a history of drug dealing and violent crimes.

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

jmo

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

AFAIK, whether the bin was near the house (curtilage), open field, or beyond is not public.

Curtilage

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjdw5zI8deKAxUELtAFHTmdMMEQFnoECBYQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.law.cornell.edu%2Fwex%2Fcurtilage&usg=AOvVaw1YQyWM04dAr5qO_8QwGrQ_&opi=89978449

jmo

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

LE was surveilling him days before his arrest.

MTS arrest
Despite days of constant FBI surveillance, Pennsylvania law enforcement did their own surveillance starting at 11:15 PM EDT (8:15 PM PDT). And despite the fact that days of constant FBI surveillance showed Mr. Kohberger was unarmed and tended to go for runs around his parents’ neighborhood, police decided that forcefully entering Mr. Kohbergers’ parents’ home was the best option.

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

Arresting him outside the home would have kept his parents safe and prevented what his parents had to experience during the no knock.

RH, a serial killer, was approached and arrested while walking on busy 5th Avenue at 33rd, 7 pm.

jmo

 

[Boxer]

He was taken in a swat raid on a big HOA. Suspected of killing 4 people in cold blood.
What problem is there with that?

 

[iamshadow21]

They knew he owned A gun.

Reply to Lamsden
“we knew he was in there and owned a gun”
Basically, the police tell us they had to destroy the house to save the car, or some other evidence, from Mr. Kohberger’s rubber gloves.
D cites:
U.S. v. Gaither, 871 F.Supp. 5, 6-7 (D.D.C. 1994): Forcible entry upheld where police loudly announced but could hear “sounds consistent with a constructive refusal”, and the subject was suspected of murder and believed well-armed.
Kornegay v. Cottingham, 120 F.3d 392, 398-400 (3rd Cir. 1997): No knock entry found unjustified where suspect was suspected of murder, the murder weapon, a handgun, was missing, and he had a history of drug dealing and violent crimes.

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

jmo

AFAIK, whether the bin was near the house (curtilage), open field, or beyond is not public.

Curtilage

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjdw5zI8deKAxUELtAFHTmdMMEQFnoECBYQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.law.cornell.edu%2Fwex%2Fcurtilage&usg=AOvVaw1YQyWM04dAr5qO_8QwGrQ_&opi=89978449

jmo

LE was surveilling him days before his arrest.

MTS arrest
Despite days of constant FBI surveillance, Pennsylvania law enforcement did their own surveillance starting at 11:15 PM EDT (8:15 PM PDT). And despite the fact that days of constant FBI surveillance showed Mr. Kohberger was unarmed and tended to go for runs around his parents’ neighborhood, police decided that forcefully entering Mr. Kohbergers’ parents’ home was the best option.

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

Arresting him outside the home would have kept his parents safe and prevented what his parents had to experience during the no knock.

RH, a serial killer, was approached and arrested while walking on busy 5th Avenue at 33rd, 7 pm.

jmo

The problem is, BK wasn't in his own home going about his regular routine. He was visiting his parents for the holidays. They couldn't predict when he would leave the home to be scooped up, because he wouldn't be getting in his car to drive to the office at 8:30am on Monday morning like clockwork. He could have spent the entirety of the holidays indoors.

Arresting him in the early hours of the morning in the home was the only option.

MOO

 

[Boxer]

The problem is, BK wasn't in his own home going about his regular routine. He was visiting his parents for the holidays. They couldn't predict when he would leave the home to be scooped up, because he wouldn't be getting in his car to drive to the office at 8:30am on Monday morning like clockwork. He could have spent the entirety of the holidays indoors.

Arresting him in the early hours of the morning in the home was the only option.

MOO

I still see no problem. And Actually BK put his parents at risk for abetting the crime.

 

[windrower]

If BK didn't stalk one of the victims, it is impossible that he stalked more than one of the victims. I don't think the prosecution has ANY evidence that BK was surveilling the house or the residents of the house.

In some of his/her earlier posts, @jepop has brought up the context of the statements BT made about BK and any stalking behavior—context and specificity and legality.

The statements made are most likely based on the legal definition of stalking.

Many of us here think BK did follow/know of/was familiar with one or more of the victims, but not necessarily in the legal sense of stalking.

My mind says we could maybe interpret the “BK didn’t stalk one of the victims” as “BK didn’t stalk that one particular victim.” Leaving it open that he did stalk that other one.

Because it seems like BT would have said BK didn’t stalk any of the victims if that was true.

IMO

Just my weird mind spinning.

 

[Nila Aella]

The problem is, BK wasn't in his own home going about his regular routine. He was visiting his parents for the holidays. They couldn't predict when he would leave the home to be scooped up, because he wouldn't be getting in his car to drive to the office at 8:30am on Monday morning like clockwork. He could have spent the entirety of the holidays indoors.

Arresting him in the early hours of the morning in the home was the only option.

MOO

The Court filings show that he wasn't always inside the house, never leaving.
There were two LE agencies surveilling his every move.
It was not the only option. LE chose that option, for whatever reason.
According to the D reply the reasons were: he was inside the home, he had a gun and preservation of evidence.
jmo

 

[MassGuy]

Not only did LE allow BK to go on a multi-day cross-country trip, they apparently lost track of him.

How FBI "lost" Bryan Kohberger as he left Idaho for holidays

FBI agents who were surveilling Kohberger on a cross-county trip lost him for at least several hours, according to a new report.

www.newsweek.com

You cannot arrest someone without probable cause. They either trail him so he’s unaware he’s a suspect, or you tip your hand (ask him to come in for questioning) and set in motion potential devastating consequences, like destruction of evidence.

I’m pretty sure the FBI knows how to conduct an investigation, and how to assess certain risks. They’ve been doing this a while.

 

[Nila Aella]

In some of his/her earlier posts, @jepop has brought up the context of the statements BT made about BK and any stalking behavior—context and specificity and legality.

The statements made are most likely based on the legal definition of stalking.

Many of us here think BK did follow/know of/was familiar with one or more of the victims, but not necessarily in the legal sense of stalking.

My mind says we could maybe interpret the “BK didn’t stalk one of the victims” as “BK didn’t stalk that one particular victim.” Leaving it open that he did stalk that other one.

Because it seems like BT would have said BK didn’t stalk any of the victims if that was true.

IMO

Just my weird mind spinning.

Edelman used the media reports of stalking. Media reports that he testified originated from the release of the PCA.

The reports of KG being stalked were in December, before the PCA. LE repeatedly stated there was no evidence of this ocurring in multiple MPD press releases.

The one incident at the vape shop with two individuals (also reported in December before the PCA) was investigated by LE and determined not related to the crime. Also in MPD press releases.

Edelman used the reports in MSM, that originated from the PCA (BT agreed that the questions originated from the PCA and were twisted by the media). One question about following on SM did not originate from the PCA.

All of the multitude of stalking stories, after the PCA was released, were about his twelve visits to the house.

jmo

 

[Nila Aella]

You cannot arrest someone without probable cause. They either trail him so he’s unaware he’s a suspect, or you tip your hand (ask him to come in for questioning) and set in motion potential devastating consequences, like destruction of evidence.

I’m pretty sure the FBI knows how to conduct an investigation, and how to assess certain risks. They’ve been doing this a while.

MPD was in charge with the FBI assisting according to the Chief.
We know from the Court documents that there was an unrecorded telephone interview between BK and the fbi at some point.

2nd motion to compel
Request 23. (Please see Exhibit A to Defendant’s First Supplemental discovery request for specifics) The State responded that they have provided AV000123 discovered on 3/30/23, however, the provided recording is an in person interview with FBIAgents rather than the phone interview done by Moscow Police

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/061523+Defendants+Second+Motion+to+Compel+Discovery.pdf

States supplemental response to 2nd MTC
Request 23. The State responded that they have provided AV000123 discovered on 3/30/23, however, the provided recording is an in person interview with FBI Agents rather than the phone interview done by Moscow Police. The State has been informed this phone interview was completed by SA Shirley who confirmed this referenced phone interview was not recorded.

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/071123+States+Supplemental+Response+to+Defendants+Second+Motion+to+Compel+Discovery.pdf

jmo

 

[MassGuy]

MPD was in charge with the FBI assisting according to the Chief.
We know from the Court documents that there was an unrecorded telephone interview between BK and the fbi at some point.

2nd motion to compel
Request 23. (Please see Exhibit A to Defendant’s First Supplemental discovery request for specifics) The State responded that they have provided AV000123 discovered on 3/30/23, however, the provided recording is an in person interview with FBIAgents rather than the phone interview done by Moscow Police

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/061523+Defendants+Second+Motion+to+Compel+Discovery.pdf

States supplemental response to 2nd MTC
Request 23. The State responded that they have provided AV000123 discovered on 3/30/23, however, the provided recording is an in person interview with FBI Agents rather than the phone interview done by Moscow Police. The State has been informed this phone interview was completed by SA Shirley who confirmed this referenced phone interview was not recorded.

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/071123+States+Supplemental+Response+to+Defendants+Second+Motion+to+Compel+Discovery.pdf

jmo

If it wasn't recorded, that makes me think this was some sort of preliminary thing, before he was actually a suspect.

MPD had zero jurisdiction once he left the state, and even if the FBI was merely assisting, they likely did most of the work. I'm following another case now where a local police department was the lead agency, and 99% of the work was done by the FBI and a state agency.

This type of case is way beyond the capability of most departments, especially a small one like that.

 

[Nila Aella]

Case summary Page

12/31/24 Response to Defendant's 21st Supplemental Request for Discovery
12/31/24 Objection to Defendant's Motion to Compel I.C.R. 16(b)(7) Material and for Sanctions

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR01-24-31665/Summary/Case-Summary-Kohberger-01022025.pdf

ETA link

 

[Cool Cats]

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

None of what I mentioned is stalking or half the country who uses the internet to read public SM posts would be in jail.

2 Cents