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

[girlhasnoname]

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

I don't think there is a chance that the MTS here will be granted. JMO

 

[schooling]

So is the legal wrangling and nitpicking over his traveling and eventual arrest in PA about the technicalities?

Or are we (the collective we) saying it’s a sign of some grand conspiracy?

How does any of this connect to the sheath with his DNA on it and the 4 dead innocent college students?

 

[girlhasnoname]

So is the legal wrangling and nitpicking over his traveling and eventual arrest in PA about the technicalities?

Or are we (the collective we) saying it’s a sign of some grand conspiracy?

How does any of this connect to the sheath with his DNA on it and the 4 dead innocent college students?

I'll take legal wrangling and nitpicking for $1000 Alex @schooling IMO

 

[Nila Aella]

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.

The motion to suppress has multiple arguments
MTS Lamsden

This Court Should Apply Idaho’s Exclusionary Rule and Law to this Search.

Mr. Kohberger has standing to challenge the search of his parents’ home

Pennsylvania Law Enforcement Violated Mr. Kohberger’s Fourth Amendment Rights by Entering and Searching His Parents’ Home without a Valid Local Warrant.

a. The Idaho arrest warrant could not have given police in Pennsylvania the authority to enter the home.

Federal and Pennsylvania Law Enforcement Violated Mr. Kohberger’s Idaho and Pennsylvania Constitutional Rights by not Knocking and Announcing their Presence and Presenting Mr. Kohberger with the Opportunity to Surrender.

The Affidavit Submitted in Support of the Application for the Issued Search Warrant Recklessly or Intentionally Omitted Material Information

D Argument regarding no knock MTS
Federal and Pennsylvania Law Enforcement Violated Mr. Kohberger’s Pennsylvania and Idaho Constitutional Rights by not Knocking and Announcing their Presence and Presenting Mr. Kohberger with the Opportunity to Surrender.

As noted above, Idaho’s law should apply to the entry in this case. However, Pennsylvania, like Idaho, has rejected the good faith exception. Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 526 Pa. 374, 586 A.2d 887, 888 (1991). Similarly, it insists upon suppression where the knock and announce rule has not been complied with absent an exigent circumstance. Commonwealth v. Frederick, 124 A.3d 748, 755-56 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015).

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has only found four exigent circumstances permitting police to ignore the knock and announce rule:
1. the occupants remain silent after repeated knocking and announcing;
2. the police are virtually certain that the occupants of the premises already know their purpose;
3. the police have reason to believe that an announcement prior to entry would imperil their safety; [or11]
4. the police have reason to believe that evidence is about to be destroyed.

Fn. 11 Even though the exigencies are enumerated with the conjunctive “and,” courts have held that “any one of the instances justifies noncompliance with the knock and announce rule.” Commonwealth v. Piner, 767 A.2d 1057, 1059 n. 1 (Pa.Super.2000) (holding that the second exigency applied because “a uniformed officer stood under a porch light and engaged the attention of at least several occupants with an announcement of his identity, authority, and purpose”).

In this case, there is and can be no showing of these exigencies. Mr. Kohberger had been surveilled by the FBI for weeks. At no point during this surveillance was he seen to have any weapons. There was no reason to take him inside the house, as surveillance undoubtedly was aware of his daily runs. The evidence the police sought was simply not of the kind that giving him a chance to exit the residence would have imperiled.

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

According to the D reply to States Objection: LE reasons were : he was inside, had a gun and the preservation of evidence. The P objection is sealed, but it seems they will argue #3 and #4 exigencies in replying to this portion fo the argument.
jmo

 

[Nila Aella]

I don't think there is a chance that the MTS here will be granted. JMO

You may be correct.
IMO one MTS should be granted.
The others IDK. It is hard to tell without seeing the States objections, the Franks motion/response and the IGG MTS and response to it.
jmo

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

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!

I agree with that. But for some reason, people keep posting that the victims have to be aware of it for it to be stalking and for the life of me, I have not been able to find that written into ID state law anywhere.

 

[sunspun]

Would LE have known that BK was even going to drive cross country with his father when he did? I didn't think they had any advance notice of the trip. If they had known, they might have arrested him before he could leave the state. Or they might not have, since they knew his destination and his route (debatable). In any case, I was under the impression that they were unaware of the planned trip until it happened. Just because they saw him (under surveillance) getting in his car with his father to go somewhere, they wouldn't necessarily know where they were going or that they weren't just running a local errand. They might have just been running out for some Thai food, for all LE knew.

Or do we know that LE did, in fact, know he was going to drive cross country to his parents' home? Were they able to monitor his phone conversations at that point at all? Or had they perhaps been given this info by his colleagues at the university, or his landlord, or someone else? And speaking of his landlord, I also wondered if BK had actually officially moved out of his apartment when he left town with his dad, or if he expected to be coming back to that apartment to live. What about all his furnishings and clothes and other belongings? They didn't all fit in his car with room left for him and his dad, did they? And one other thing I was wondering about was if BK had picked up his dad from the airport when he flew into town. And if so, didn't that cause a major dilemma for LE if they saw him heading to the airport, not knowing if he was trying to flee the country, for example?

 

[LinasK]

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.

"One" can be taken to mean a particular one, or just one. It does not mean zero. It can mean that he stalked others, more than one. It's semantics.

 

[LinasK]

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

That's exactly what I think- the victims were unaware that he stalked them.

 

[snooptroop88]

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

100%.

 

[jepop]

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

I don't think that request 23, at point number 4 of D's second motion to compel specifies that the requested phone call recording was between the FBI and BK? Going back to the D's original 1st supplemental request for discovery, exhibit A, like all others, is sealed. I think you noted the response by state indicates there was no recording of the MPD phone call but there was a recorded interview between the person and a Lt. Shirley? (IIRC)

Moo I don't think we actually know who was spoken with or when this interview took place. It could have been with anybody connected to the case at some time or other? Or a tip. One of the survivors. Parent or a boyfriend.

Noting this item was resolved without fanfare along with all others except some requested LE training records before the motion to compel was heard in June 2023.

ETA. From the docs, what appears to have happened is there was an unrecorded phone convo between Moscow Police and somebody. Then the person who made/was on the call was interviewed by FBI agent Shirley. D was provided with the recorded interview via discovery. This makes me wonder if it was a tip of some sort that the FBI then followed up with in another (recorded) call. Just a guess, but again no specifics to indicate this was an interview with BK imo.

EBM for clarity

 

[jepop]

Would LE have known that BK was even going to drive cross country with his father when he did? I didn't think they had any advance notice of the trip. If they had known, they might have arrested him before he could leave the state. Or they might not have, since they knew his destination and his route (debatable). In any case, I was under the impression that they were unaware of the planned trip until it happened. Just because they saw him (under surveillance) getting in his car with his father to go somewhere, they wouldn't necessarily know where they were going or that they weren't just running a local errand. They might have just been running out for some Thai food, for all LE knew.

Or do we know that LE did, in fact, know he was going to drive cross country to his parents' home? Were they able to monitor his phone conversations at that point at all? Or had they perhaps been given this info by his colleagues at the university, or his landlord, or someone else? And speaking of his landlord, I also wondered if BK had actually officially moved out of his apartment when he left town with his dad, or if he expected to be coming back to that apartment to live. What about all his furnishings and clothes and other belongings? They didn't all fit in his car with room left for him and his dad, did they? And one other thing I was wondering about was if BK had picked up his dad from the airport when he flew into town. And if so, didn't that cause a major dilemma for LE if they saw him heading to the airport, not knowing if he was trying to flee the country, for example?

I don't believe LE knew he was heading away on about 13th Dec IIRC. I actually don't think there was any FBI surveillance until after he arrived at his folk's place in PA. The Indiana traffic stops were just coincidence cos BK is a driver ( got traffic infringements pretty regularly it appears). Jmo

ETA just reading your post in a bit more detail, imo the pen trace and trap or whatever it's called on BK's phone didn't occur until 23rd Dec (AT&T warrant) so imo there was no cell phone monitoring at the time he took off from WA with his dad.

 

[jepop]

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

Agree, in that BK could have been reading Instagram posts without having an account himself, as long as the victims' accounts were public. It can be done quite easily jmo.

Post crime it's possible and probable moo that he made sure his internet history was removed from his phone and other devices. Not sure if LE could recover history later via warrants to Google or his ISP if his phone was wiped of relevant files. Speculation only.

 

[Kemug]

That's exactly what I think- the victims were unaware that he stalked them.

Didn't one of the girls say to another that she thought she had a stalker?

 

[girlhasnoname]

I'll take legal wrangling and nitpicking for $1000 Alex @schooling IMO

Replying to my own post to add that AT & Company are providing a vigorous and competent defense of BK as his 6th Amendment rights allows.

Whether I agree with some of the nitpicking and wrangling or not, AT is doing her job defending BK in a high profile DP case. I think she's one of the most thorough and competent Defense Attorneys I've seen in a long while. I must give credit where it's due here, even though I believe BK to be guilty and hope that a jury will find him guilty as well.

JMO

 

[Nila Aella]

I don't think that request 23, at point number 4 of D's second motion to compel specifies that the requested phone call recording was between the FBI and BK? Going back to the D's original 1st supplemental request for discovery, exhibit A, like all others, is sealed. I think you noted the response by state indicates there was no recording of the MPD phone call but there was a recorded interview between the person and a Lt. Shirley? (IIRC)

Although the First supplemental request exhibit was sealed, it is mentioned in the First motion to compel. Which is where this all started IMO.

Mr. Kohberger requests an Order for the State to disclose the following items included in the Defendant’s I“ SupplementalRequestforDiscovery: Request No. 119 — All notes Police Department recordings from all Officers from Moscow As of May 4, 2023 Counsel for Mr. Kohberger has not received recordings and notes from the interrogation ofMr. Kohberger by MPD Detective Payne.

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/050423+Motion+to+Compel+Discovery.pdf.

Moo I don't think we actually know who was spoken with or when this interview took place. It could have been with anybody connected to the case at some time or other? Or a tip. One of the survivors. Parent or a boyfriend.

Noting this item was resolved without fanfare along with all others except some requested LE training records before the motion to compel was heard in June 2023.

ETA. From the docs, what appears to have happened is there was an unrecorded phone convo between Moscow Police and somebody. Then the person who made/was on the call was interviewed by FBI agent Shirley. D was provided with the recorded interview via discovery.
This makes me wonder if it was a tip of some sort that the FBI then followed up with in another (recorded) call. Just a guess, but again no specifics to indicate this was an interview with BK imo.

EBM for clarity

The confusion (P and D) was with who did the telephone interview.
BT did clarify who did the interview in the hearing.
The fbi interview was not recorded per the P.
JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Would LE have known that BK was even going to drive cross country with his father when he did? I didn't think they had any advance notice of the trip. If they had known, they might have arrested him before he could leave the state. Or they might not have, since they knew his destination and his route (debatable). In any case, I was under the impression that they were unaware of the planned trip until it happened. Just because they saw him (under surveillance) getting in his car with his father to go somewhere, they wouldn't necessarily know where they were going or that they weren't just running a local errand. They might have just been running out for some Thai food, for all LE knew.

Or do we know that LE did, in fact, know he was going to drive cross country to his parents' home? Were they able to monitor his phone conversations at that point at all? Or had they perhaps been given this info by his colleagues at the university, or his landlord, or someone else? And speaking of his landlord, I also wondered if BK had actually officially moved out of his apartment when he left town with his dad, or if he expected to be coming back to that apartment to live. What about all his furnishings and clothes and other belongings? They didn't all fit in his car with room left for him and his dad, did they? And one other thing I was wondering about was if BK had picked up his dad from the airport when he flew into town. And if so, didn't that cause a major dilemma for LE if they saw him heading to the airport, not knowing if he was trying to flee the country, for example?

I've asked the question of was it a prearranged deal for BK's dad to fly out and ride back with him myself. If so, I wonder what date the ticket was purchased? If it was made after the murders, what story might he have told? It would have been cheaper for BK to fly home and back verses purchasing Dad a one way ticket, gas, meals and lodging to drive across the country.

IMO BK wasn't planning on returning to WSU. I believe he thought he was on LE's radar, he'd lost his TA position, he loaded his car with most, if not all, of his personal belongings.

BK's apartment and storage locker were left pretty well empty IIRC, especially of all computers and electronic devices.

Inquiring minds want to know, but I guess we'll have to wait and see.

JMO

 

[jepop]

Although the First supplemental request exhibit was sealed, it is mentioned in the First motion to compel. Which is where this all started IMO.

Mr. Kohberger requests an Order for the State to disclose the following items included in the Defendant’s I“ SupplementalRequestforDiscovery: Request No. 119 — All notes Police Department recordings from all Officers from Moscow As of May 4, 2023 Counsel for Mr. Kohberger has not received recordings and notes from the interrogation ofMr. Kohberger by MPD Detective Payne

The fbi interview was not recorded per the P.
JMO

Well all this is quite confusing lol. Per the D's 2nd MTC and per the state response, an in person interview with..(.blank.).. by SA Shirley was recorded and was handed over.

Ie.
"... 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"

So an in person interview was recorded and handed over imo. This was completed by SA Shirley. This second MTC item 23 seems to be related to a phone interview conducted by SA Shirley prior to the in person. State is then saying this phone interview was not recorded.

Are you certain the MTC 1 request for notes and recordings of Payne's "interrogation" with BK, is the same request as MTC 2 request re SA Shirley (phone and recorded in person) in 2nd MTC? Seems the item numbered 23 ( MTC 1 request numbered 119) may be unrelated to Payne's notes and interrogation. Jmo

Not going to watch the hearing again, but I am reasonably jmo assuming any Payne "interrogation" of BK would have happened post arrest. Moo. And if there was an actual "interrogation" I can't see why that would have been done by phone. Maybe a short convo but an interrogation? Jmo

 

[Nila Aella]

I've asked the question of was it a prearranged deal for BK's dad to fly out and ride back with him myself. If so, I wonder what date the ticket was purchased? If it was made after the murders, what story might he have told? It would have been cheaper for BK to fly home and back verses purchasing Dad a one way ticket, gas, meals and lodging to drive across the country.

IMO BK wasn't planning on returning to WSU. I believe he thought he was on LE's radar, he'd lost his TA position, he loaded his car with most, if not all, of his personal belongings.

BK's apartment and storage locker were left pretty well empty IIRC, especially of all computers and electronic devices.

Inquiring minds want to know, but I guess we'll have to wait and see.

JMO

Labar, BKs first attorney, said it was a previously scheduled trip.
No date provided.

Kohberger’s father flew to Washington state on a previously scheduled trip to join his son on the 2,500-mile drive back home to Pennsylvania for the holidays, public defender Jason LaBar told CNN last week.

Read more at: https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/state/article270760887.html#storylink=cpy

https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/state/article270760887.html?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0vCIguM39WSLFu23PQ43zhnT2eZSlKKQ48AvOSMQFwZ_h-SuH1mIVVp_M_aem_oF63Fg65RX7QOuweCnnW7Q

There was a computer tower and a firestick on the apartment return.
Pg 48

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi1qZvIzNmKAxW_MlkFHUDxGHAQFnoECBcQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsweek.com%2Fbryan-kohberger-apartment-search-warrant-reveals-details-about-idaho-murder-case-1774826&usg=AOvVaw2GvDzQqhmfc-3broZco0LZ&opi=89978449

LE expected his return to WSU (apartment search warrant)

Kohberger is visiting family in Pennsylvania over the current school break at WSU,I believe he intends to return for the start of the next semester, so I expect his belongings to still be in his residence at 1630 NE Valley Rd,G201.

page 36

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi1qZvIzNmKAxW_MlkFHUDxGHAQFnoECBcQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsweek.com%2Fbryan-kohberger-apartment-search-warrant-reveals-details-about-idaho-murder-case-1774826&usg=AOvVaw2GvDzQqhmfc-3broZco0LZ&opi=89978449

jmo

 

[Nila Aella]

Well all this is quite confusing lol. Per the D's 2nd MTC and per the state response, an in person interview with..(.blank.).. by SA Shirley was recorded and was handed over.

Ie.
"... 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"

So an in person interview was recorded and handed over imo. This was completed by SA Shirley. This second MTC item 23 seems to be related to a phone interview conducted by SA Shirley prior to the in person. State is then saying this phone interview was not recorded.

Yes, very confusing to us and the attorneys.
IMO the in person and recorded was in PA at arrest.
The telephone interview was seperate.

Are you certain the MTC 1 request for notes and recordings of Payne's "interrogation" with BK, is the same request as MTC 2 request re SA Shirley (phone and recorded in person) in 2nd MTC? Seems the item numbered 23 ( MTC 1 request numbered 119) may be unrelated to Payne's notes and interrogation. Jmo

No, not certain. Just MO that it started there. Early on the D would be wanting any interviews with their client vs. interviews with others.
IMO they saw a reference to a telephone interview or perhaps BK told them about one?,
So the D wanted the recording.
JMO

Not going to watch the hearing again

Me neither!

, but I am reasonably jmo assuming any Payne "interrogation" of BK would have happened post arrest.

BK invoked his rights in PA so not sure when a BP/BK interview would have occurred?
IMO they (both the D and P) thought the telephone interview was BP but it ended up being Agent S.

Moo. And if there was an actual "interrogation" I can't see why that would have been done by phone. Maybe a short convo but an interrogation? Jmo

I agree. There seems to have been some contact (interview) but it wasn't recorded so I don't think it was an interrogation. IMO it would have had to be pre arrest noting how BK invoked after his arrest. I don't think he would have done a telephone interview with the fbi after arrest.
So when did the telephone interview occur and what was it about?
jmo