touche!
4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #97
- Thread starter ChatteringBirds
- Start date
- Status
Once again I agree 100%
As a general rule, I always counsel against trying to read in from passing comments in motions (which may wildly overstate or misrepresent the evidence) let alone in oral argument about something unrelated.
I agree with you that he was speaking about to the actual rumours which could be an issue with jurors. He isn't talking about what evidence he does or doesn't have. e.g. we may well hear evidence of "casing the house" in due course.
MOO
All MOO and just curious.
Where did you hear BK he loaded his car with most of his belongings? If you've seen the video of him being pulled over it doesn't look like the car was loaded with items at all. For example wasn't one of the items LE found in his apartment a fire stick or whatever for streaming? That could fit in his pocket and wouldn't you think if he didn't plan on returning he'd take that with him? IMO, yes he would've taken that with him. He also left his computer tower in his apartment as well as his vacuum. Both of which LE seized.
Don't' you think he'd of taken his computer tower with him if wasn't planning on returning?
The storage locker was empty you say but how do we know? What if it was already pretty well empty?
IMO, there was nothing he did or took with him that would make you think he wasn't returning. If he had taken the computer tower and fire stick then I would agree with you.
All MOO
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2017
- Messages
- 11,469
- Reaction score
- 115,703
A public arrest also can go wrong.
In this case they arrested a man for a heinous crime in his parents home, where they were survelling him.
Is the question was a hard entry too much? I don't think so. They arrested him where they had been observing him.
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2024
- Messages
- 195
- Reaction score
- 1,189
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
So according to the defense the FBI was surveilling Mr. Kohberger since Dec 21, 2022.
Source: REPLY TO STATE’S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT RE: PENNSYLVANIA SEARCH WARRANT FOR 119 LAMSDEN DR., ALBRIGHTSVILLE, PA
IMO, it looks like LE didn't know about Bryan until they got his name back from the IGG on Dec 19. 2022 and the FBI didn't start watching Bryan until Dec 21, 2022, All in IMO.
- Joined
- May 28, 2018
- Messages
- 632
- Reaction score
- 5,932
TITLE 18
CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
CHAPTER 79
MALICIOUS HARASSMENT
18-7906. Stalking in the second degree. (1) A person commits the crime of stalking in the second degree if the person knowingly and maliciously:
(a) Engages in a course of conduct that seriously alarms, annoys or harasses the victim and is such as would cause a reasonable person substantial emotional distress; or
(b) Engages in a course of conduct such as would cause a reasonable person to be in fear of death or physical injury, or in fear of the death or physical injury of a family or household member.
(2) As used in this section:
(a) "Course of conduct" means repeated acts of nonconsensual contact involving the victim or a family or household member of the victim, provided however, that constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of this definition.
Given we know BK did actually do these murders thanks to his DNA left at the scene, do we think BK believed he had got clean away with it?
Of course he was not particularly clever in his execution but by picking random victims not connected to himself he did make it hard to solve ….
MOO
Of course he was not particularly clever in his execution but by picking random victims not connected to himself he did make it hard to solve ….
MOO
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2019
- Messages
- 10,864
- Reaction score
- 90,186
"Malicious behavior" describes it...first and second degree as the victim having knowledge because it causes them alarm, annoyance or harrassment. Sounds like victim awareness of the predator to me. AJMO
Section 18-7905 – Idaho State Legislature
legislature.idaho.gov
Section 18-7906 – Idaho State Legislature
legislature.idaho.gov
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2010
- Messages
- 246
- Reaction score
- 2,405
I also have many questions about the timeline and what lead to what and when. I wonder/speculate if the arrest in PA was in anyway associated with the loss of his scholarship. In other words, when BK left for PA, did he know he lost his scholarship? So, I am curious/wondering IF, and then when did WSU contact Moscow PD to let them know. Maybe they were waiting to arrest him when he returned and found out he most likely would not be returning.
This is all just my wondering.
The other thing I recall back in the day before the arrest was LE stating that they didn't just want an arrest, they wanted a conviction. So, they weren't going to arrest too early, IMO.
Ok, well I don't read into any of those items in MTC 1 and 2 that point to telephone contact between MPD and BK prior to arrest. Telephone "interview" referenced reads as conducted by FBI and could be nothing to do with BK. If Payne talked with BK jmo it was after arrest and probably informal prior to Miranda. I think there is probably confusion of some separate items of discovery here. Moo
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2019
- Messages
- 10,864
- Reaction score
- 90,186
And there in lies the rub....unfortunately. People can stalk (non-legal term), online and in person with immunity and not be charged with it after it leads to a serious crime. The actions can however, possibly, be used at trial to show motive. We don't yet know what LE has found out through investigations. Trial will tell or possibly at hearings beforehand. MO
With emphasis on the section I bolded, totally. It's worse than reading tea leaves. Judge, attorneys on both sides are aware of the unstated context which as readers and observers we are surely mostly oblivious too. Especially in this case where in theory at least if the hearing is public, counsel are talking around points to try and preserve the integrity of trial evidence. Moo
Agree, that this tells us BK was not under surveillance before leaving for PA. Imo FBI had good cause to begin surveillance post IGG return result. OTOH I don't think this tells us LE was unaware of BK in any sense prior to 19th Dec. Moo
Victim's Awareness? Necessary for ID. Stalking 2nd Degree Stalking Conviction?
Yes, if prosecution presents evd under 18-7906 ¶(1)(a), imo.
No, if prosecutor presents evd under 18-7906 ¶(1)(b), imo.
Speaking only to ID statutory section 18-7906 crim offense: “Stalking in the Second Degree”* in the “Malicious Harassment” chapter.
For conviction, Prosecutor must present evd re ONE of these ¶’s:
¶(1)(a) “…the person’s “course of conduct seriously ALARMS, ANNOYS, or HARASSES the victim, or” w “course of conduct” defined in (2)(a) and ”non-consensual contact” defined in (2)(c). (<- my CAPS)
{{{Text in curly brackets = imo: IOW, Vic is not just aware of Perp’s stalking acts but the acts alarm, annoy, or harass Vic. }}}
{{{In non-homicide trials, I’d expect the VICTIM to TESTIFY about her (well, statistically her, not him) awareness of a Perp - either known to her or a stranger - stalking her and her reactions – of being alarmed, annoyed, or harassed. Example: if for months on a daily basis, Perp followed her btwn home & work, that she took circuitous routes to elude him, so was often late for work, etc. That plus Perp’s other acts collectively constituting a “course of conduct” in the statute, Victim testifies that when Perp did X, she was alarmed, annoyed, harassed & reacted by doing Y. }}}
{{{In a homicide case, w VIC NOT available to personally testify at trial (TY Captain Obvious), prosecutor who wants to present the most damning statements -those of the VIC on the stand – needs to find applicable exceptions to ID’s HEARSAY RULE.** In some circumstances, a brick wall?}}}
.
………………………………………….OR
.
¶(1)(b). The person’s “course of conduct such as would cause a REASONABLE person to be in FEAR OF DEATH OR PHYSICAL INJURY, or in fear of the death or physical injury of a family or household member.” (<- my CAPS)
{{{Imo. This alternative does NOT require the Vic to be aware of or react to the stalking acts, but requires OTHER EVIDENCE re Perp’s acts. See below 18-7906 (2)(a) defining “COURSE OF CONDUCT” and 18-7906 (2)(c) defining “NONCONSENSUAL CONTACT” w examples (i) –(vii). Perhaps audio or video of those acts, and/or perhaps content from email, soc. media accounts, cell records, electronic/digital records, etc. Other people who personally observed the Perp’s stalking acts may TESTIFY at trial.}}}
N.B. This post ^ is about the ID. STATUTE, NOT the actions or inactions of anyone in this case, NOT fed. law or other state laws, NOT a definition in Webster’s or Black’s Law Dict. or OED, NOT common everyday use of the word “stalking.” And for crying out loud,
NOT “Generative AI” or any other AI. LOL.
Welcoming other lines of thinking or interpretations.
_________________________________________________
*The section of ID statute. Verbatim.
“18-7906. STALKING IN THE SECOND DEGREE. (1) A person commits the crime of stalking in the second degree if the person knowingly and maliciously:
“(a) Engages in a course of conduct that seriously alarms, annoys or harasses the victim and is such as would cause a reasonable person substantial emotional distress; or
“(b) Engages in a course of conduct such as would cause a reasonable person to be in fear of death or physical injury, or in fear of the death or physical injury of a family or household member.
“(2) As used in this section:
“(a) "Course of conduct" means repeated acts of nonconsensual contact involving the victim or a family or household member of the victim, provided however, that constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of this definition.
“(b) "Family or household member" means:
• (i) A spouse or former spouse of the victim, a person who has a child in common with the victim regardless of whether they have been married, a person with whom the victim is cohabiting whether or not they have married or have held themselves out to be husband or wife, and persons related to the victim by blood, adoption or marriage; or
(ii) A person with whom the victim is or has been in a dating relationship, as defined in section 39-6303, Idaho Code; or
(iii) A person living in the same residence as the victim.
“(c) "Nonconsensual contact" means any contact with the victim that is initiated or continued without the victim’s consent, that is beyond the scope of the consent provided by the victim, or that is in disregard of the victim’s expressed desire that the contact be avoided or discontinued. "Nonconsensual contact" includes, but is not limited to:
• (i) Following the victim or maintaining surveillance, including by electronic means, on the victim;
(ii) Contacting the victim in a public place or on private property;
(iii) Appearing at the workplace or residence of the victim;
(iv) Entering onto or remaining on property owned, leased or occupied by the victim;
(v) Contacting the victim by telephone or causing the victim’s telephone to ring repeatedly or continuously regardless of whether a conversation ensues;
(vi) Sending mail or electronic communications to the victim; or
(vii) Placing an object on, or delivering an object to, property owned, leased or occupied by the victim.
“(d) "Victim" means a person who is the target of a course of conduct.
“(3) Stalking in the second degree is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one (1) year or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both such fine and imprisonment.”
law.justia.com
^ A little easier to read than on the ID. legislature site below.
Section 18-7906 – Idaho State Legislature
** Idaho Rules of Evidence--------------------------------https://isc.idaho.gov/ire
801. Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay.
802. Hearsay Rule.
803. Exceptions– Regardless of Whether the Declarant is Available as a Witness.
Rule 804. Exceptions – When the Declarant Is Unavailable as a Witness.
Yes, if prosecution presents evd under 18-7906 ¶(1)(a), imo.
No, if prosecutor presents evd under 18-7906 ¶(1)(b), imo.
Speaking only to ID statutory section 18-7906 crim offense: “Stalking in the Second Degree”* in the “Malicious Harassment” chapter.
For conviction, Prosecutor must present evd re ONE of these ¶’s:
¶(1)(a) “…the person’s “course of conduct seriously ALARMS, ANNOYS, or HARASSES the victim, or” w “course of conduct” defined in (2)(a) and ”non-consensual contact” defined in (2)(c). (<- my CAPS)
{{{Text in curly brackets = imo: IOW, Vic is not just aware of Perp’s stalking acts but the acts alarm, annoy, or harass Vic. }}}
{{{In non-homicide trials, I’d expect the VICTIM to TESTIFY about her (well, statistically her, not him) awareness of a Perp - either known to her or a stranger - stalking her and her reactions – of being alarmed, annoyed, or harassed. Example: if for months on a daily basis, Perp followed her btwn home & work, that she took circuitous routes to elude him, so was often late for work, etc. That plus Perp’s other acts collectively constituting a “course of conduct” in the statute, Victim testifies that when Perp did X, she was alarmed, annoyed, harassed & reacted by doing Y. }}}
{{{In a homicide case, w VIC NOT available to personally testify at trial (TY Captain Obvious), prosecutor who wants to present the most damning statements -those of the VIC on the stand – needs to find applicable exceptions to ID’s HEARSAY RULE.** In some circumstances, a brick wall?}}}
.
………………………………………….OR
.
¶(1)(b). The person’s “course of conduct such as would cause a REASONABLE person to be in FEAR OF DEATH OR PHYSICAL INJURY, or in fear of the death or physical injury of a family or household member.” (<- my CAPS)
{{{Imo. This alternative does NOT require the Vic to be aware of or react to the stalking acts, but requires OTHER EVIDENCE re Perp’s acts. See below 18-7906 (2)(a) defining “COURSE OF CONDUCT” and 18-7906 (2)(c) defining “NONCONSENSUAL CONTACT” w examples (i) –(vii). Perhaps audio or video of those acts, and/or perhaps content from email, soc. media accounts, cell records, electronic/digital records, etc. Other people who personally observed the Perp’s stalking acts may TESTIFY at trial.}}}
N.B. This post ^ is about the ID. STATUTE, NOT the actions or inactions of anyone in this case, NOT fed. law or other state laws, NOT a definition in Webster’s or Black’s Law Dict. or OED, NOT common everyday use of the word “stalking.” And for crying out loud,
NOT “Generative AI” or any other AI. LOL.Welcoming other lines of thinking or interpretations.
_________________________________________________
*The section of ID statute. Verbatim.
“18-7906. STALKING IN THE SECOND DEGREE. (1) A person commits the crime of stalking in the second degree if the person knowingly and maliciously:
“(a) Engages in a course of conduct that seriously alarms, annoys or harasses the victim and is such as would cause a reasonable person substantial emotional distress; or
“(b) Engages in a course of conduct such as would cause a reasonable person to be in fear of death or physical injury, or in fear of the death or physical injury of a family or household member.
“(2) As used in this section:
“(a) "Course of conduct" means repeated acts of nonconsensual contact involving the victim or a family or household member of the victim, provided however, that constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of this definition.
“(b) "Family or household member" means:
• (i) A spouse or former spouse of the victim, a person who has a child in common with the victim regardless of whether they have been married, a person with whom the victim is cohabiting whether or not they have married or have held themselves out to be husband or wife, and persons related to the victim by blood, adoption or marriage; or
(ii) A person with whom the victim is or has been in a dating relationship, as defined in section 39-6303, Idaho Code; or
(iii) A person living in the same residence as the victim.
“(c) "Nonconsensual contact" means any contact with the victim that is initiated or continued without the victim’s consent, that is beyond the scope of the consent provided by the victim, or that is in disregard of the victim’s expressed desire that the contact be avoided or discontinued. "Nonconsensual contact" includes, but is not limited to:
• (i) Following the victim or maintaining surveillance, including by electronic means, on the victim;
(ii) Contacting the victim in a public place or on private property;
(iii) Appearing at the workplace or residence of the victim;
(iv) Entering onto or remaining on property owned, leased or occupied by the victim;
(v) Contacting the victim by telephone or causing the victim’s telephone to ring repeatedly or continuously regardless of whether a conversation ensues;
(vi) Sending mail or electronic communications to the victim; or
(vii) Placing an object on, or delivering an object to, property owned, leased or occupied by the victim.
“(d) "Victim" means a person who is the target of a course of conduct.
“(3) Stalking in the second degree is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one (1) year or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both such fine and imprisonment.”
2024 Idaho Code :: Title 18 - CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS :: Chapter 79 - MALICIOUS HARASSMENT :: Section 18-7906 - STALKING IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
Justia Free Databases of U.S. Laws, Codes & Statutes
law.justia.com
Section 18-7906 – Idaho State Legislature
** Idaho Rules of Evidence--------------------------------https://isc.idaho.gov/ire
801. Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay.
802. Hearsay Rule.
803. Exceptions– Regardless of Whether the Declarant is Available as a Witness.
Rule 804. Exceptions – When the Declarant Is Unavailable as a Witness.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2018
- Messages
- 36,961
- Reaction score
- 243,433
In the documents, the defense says the prosecution only disclosed 25 experts, and of those, only five had reports from experts. The defense said that there are over 68 terabytes of discovery in the case and they added that it is all “extremely disorganized.”
The defense is seeking a court order that requires the prosecution to provide all detailed expert reports. They are also asking for possible sanctions which include excluding non-compliant expert testimony or extending the defense’s deadline for disclosures.
The court is expected to review the motion and decide whether to grant the defense’s request.
www.krem.com
The defense is seeking a court order that requires the prosecution to provide all detailed expert reports. They are also asking for possible sanctions which include excluding non-compliant expert testimony or extending the defense’s deadline for disclosures.
The court is expected to review the motion and decide whether to grant the defense’s request.
Kohberger’s defense seeks sanctions on prosecution over missing expert reports
The defense is seeking a court order that requires the prosecution to provide all detailed expert reports.
www.krem.com
It's possible that BK's father was using the return portion of his airline ticket that he purchased as a round-trip ticket. He may have used the first leg of the ticket to fly from Pulman back to PA after accompanying BK by car at the start of BK's fall semester (or just before). That would have been the more economical plan.
Also, it's my experience that graduate students have a lot of things to take with them if they travel home to visit family for the winter break as it is often close to a month-long break and work still needs to be done, so you need computer, books, other things, which makes it difficult to travel by air.
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 13,070
- Reaction score
- 103,538
Common sense.
He needed to get his car home because he knew he ruined his PHD program. He has a nice dad who moved him into his apartment and then helped him get his car back to the family home. And it sounds like BK pretty much cleaned out his apartment and storage and office which is necessary if not coming back.
I think this has to do with his not cutting it in his PHD program and not about being scared of arrest. I mean like he knew he could be arrested anywhere so leaving Pullman for good was not to protect himself from prosecution.
I believe he was scared of being arrested because of the glove and trash behavior at home where an article mentioned that his behavior was suspicious to his sister. Sounds like wearing gloves and sorting trash was not normal for him in his every day life at home with his family.
2 Cents
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2018
- Messages
- 36,961
- Reaction score
- 243,433
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 13,070
- Reaction score
- 103,538
BK was extremely meticulous with his digital footprint I believe. He even applied for a police internship involving online data to help the department with crime. I believe he was careful to keep his online "footprints" away from his victims.
I think he tried to be careful with his phone by not letting it signal for a couple hours that night. He seemed to know how to do that. Airplane mode? Turning it off? Whatever he did it was to hide his digital footprint.
I do not believe he would buy the murder weapon online because of leaving a digital footprint. I have not seen proof he bought murder items online.
If he bought any murder "kit" items online it will come out in court.
Knife, sheath, dark clothes, mask, blood cleaning supplies....etc...
2 Cents
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
Staff online
-
friendlysleutherModerator -
BreezyflavorModerator
Online statistics
- Members online
- 135
- Guests online
- 2,642
- Total visitors
- 2,777