4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #98

[LinasK]

That isn't universally believed.

I don't believe that, for example.

MOO

I believe that he targeted one girl, and the others were collateral damage. I do not believe that he selected this house at random.

 

[iamshadow21]

I believe that he targeted one girl, and the others were collateral damage. I do not believe that he selected this house at random.

Whereas I believe he targeted the house, and whomever he came across within it.

There's no indication at this point which, if either, is more accurate to reality.

Unless it comes up at trial or he talks about it one day, we may never know why this house, these people. We can only theorise, and one theory is as good as another.

MOO

 

[Arkay]

I believe that he targeted one girl, and the others were collateral damage. I do not believe that he selected this house at random.

Whereas I believe he targeted the house, and whomever he came across within it.

There's no indication at this point which, if either, is more accurate to reality.

Unless it comes up at trial or he talks about it one day, we may never know why this house, these people. We can only theorise, and one theory is as good as another.

MOO

I vacillate between the two scenarios.

Sometimes I think he had a fetish about one of the girls and this was a stalking murder, with the other three students being collateral damage because they were in his way.

Almost as often, I think instead that he cased the area for quite some time. He was looking for a busy house with easy access, found one, and then just stabbed everyone who crossed his path until he was satiated. In this narrative, IMO if he even noticed DM at all, he was in some kind of zombie state and had no inclination to kill her.

As @iamshadow21 states, we won’t know unless BK confesses, or irrefutable evidence of his intent is revealed at trial.

JMO

 

[LinasK]

I vacillate between the two scenarios.

Sometimes I think he had a fetish about one of the girls and this was a stalking murder, with the other three students being collateral damage because they were in his way.

Almost as often, I think instead that he cased the area for quite some time. He was looking for a busy house with easy access, found one, and then just stabbed everyone who crossed his path until he was satiated. In this narrative, IMO if he even noticed DM at all, he was in some kind of zombie state and had no inclination to kill her.

As @iamshadow21 states, we won’t know unless BK confesses, or irrefutable evidence of his intent is revealed at trial.

JMO

Much more evidence will come out at trial. I believe that he did target one of the girls, and the house had easy access.

 

[MassGuy]

I vacillate between the two scenarios.

Sometimes I think he had a fetish about one of the girls and this was a stalking murder, with the other three students being collateral damage because they were in his way.

Almost as often, I think instead that he cased the area for quite some time. He was looking for a busy house with easy access, found one, and then just stabbed everyone who crossed his path until he was satiated. In this narrative, IMO if he even noticed DM at all, he was in some kind of zombie state and had no inclination to kill her.

As @iamshadow21 states, we won’t know unless BK confesses, or irrefutable evidence of his intent is revealed at trial.

JMO

Yeah, you could really make an argument for either scenario. He's focused on one, and kills the others in the process of finding that main target. Or he's looking to do something big (kill a bunch of women at once).

I have no doubt that he had conducted some degree of surveillance on that house though, and had seen one or more of the victims before.

I lean towards an intentional mass murder, with no main target.

What gives me pause is that even if he was satiated, wouldn't he kill the witness? I wonder if he was just in a rush to get out of there or something.

 

[jepop]

They could suggest it, and if it was part of an OCD ritual, that would be very easy to established. I don’t think that’s the case here, simply because the defense hasn’t brought it up.
I will weigh in further, not as an expert but as the mother of an adult son with OCD. It is a stereotype that all people with the condition are super neat and clean and germaphobic. It can involve a myriad of things and rituals that would make your head spin. A sense of humor is recommended!
Concerning BK, in my opinion, his handling of the trash is an attempt to limit the chances of LE having access to his DNA and nothing more.


Opinion

Thanks for your insights on what diagnosed OCD looks like. Hope your son is doing well!

I think in the case of BK, if the defense was to try and go down some sort of OCD path they would have to establish the hypothesis with supporting witnesses. As you suggest, probably not too hard if he is actually diagnosed as such (ie call in the expert). But I agree with you that's not the case here. Or at least, we know nothing about any (if at all) mental health diagnoses. Jmo

Another option for the defense might be trying to demo that BK had a known pre crime pattern of select meticulous tendencies, ie bagging his own trash in small ziplocks or whatever/wearing rubber gloves inside and in public. But again, they'd need credible witnesses to support this ( people who knew him and saw this tendency in action).

Personally I agree with you and think BK likely commenced this intense sort of trash bagging and rubber glove wearing post crime. To my mind probably some paranoia about leaving evidence of himself around the place, though maybe the behaviour was also becoming a comfortable habit that made him feel safe and calm, regardless of whether or not he imagined LE closing in. Jmo

 

[jepop]

Yeah, you could really make an argument for either scenario. He's focused on one, and kills the others in the process of finding that main target. Or he's looking to do something big (kill a bunch of women at once).

I have no doubt that he had conducted some degree of surveillance on that house though, and had seen one or more of the victims before.

I lean towards an intentional mass murder, with no main target.

What gives me pause is that even if he was satiated, wouldn't he kill the witness? I wonder if he was just in a rush to get out of there or something.

I think he was in a rush and simply didn't see her. Eyes focused dead ahead, mind reeling as he headed for the the door.

 

[iamshadow21]

Yeah, you could really make an argument for either scenario. He's focused on one, and kills the others in the process of finding that main target. Or he's looking to do something big (kill a bunch of women at once).

I have no doubt that he had conducted some degree of surveillance on that house though, and had seen one or more of the victims before.

I lean towards an intentional mass murder, with no main target.

What gives me pause is that even if he was satiated, wouldn't he kill the witness? I wonder if he was just in a rush to get out of there or something.

I strongly believe he was temporarily blinded by the neon sign on the left as he stepped down from the living room. I believe if he'd seen her, he would have killed her, whatever his exhaustion level.

I imagine he was very shocked to learn he'd been seen.

MOO

 

[INfisherman]

Thanks for your insights on what diagnosed OCD looks like. Hope your son is doing well!

I think in the case of BK, if the defense was to try and go down some sort of OCD path they would have to establish the hypothesis with supporting witnesses. As you suggest, probably not too hard if he is actually diagnosed as such (ie call in the expert). But I agree with you that's not the case here. Or at least, we know nothing about any (if at all) mental health diagnoses. Jmo

Another option for the defense might be trying to demo that BK had a known pre crime pattern of select meticulous tendencies, ie bagging his own trash in small ziplocks or whatever/wearing rubber gloves inside and in public. But again, they'd need credible witnesses to support this ( people who knew him and saw this tendency in action).

Personally I agree with you and think BK likely commenced this intense sort of trash bagging and rubber glove wearing post crime. To my mind probably some paranoia about leaving evidence of himself around the place, though maybe the behaviour was also becoming a comfortable habit that made him feel safe and calm, regardless of whether or not he imagined LE closing in. Jmo

BK was a former instructor to lower level students at colleges, right? Surely if he had a form of OCD it might have shown in classes he taught. Simply interview former students to see if OCD patterns were noted. Experts could verify as well.

MOO

 

[jepop]

I've been thinking about the FBI and the use of unconventional genealogy outfits. Keeping in mind that the State never conceded to law breaking, the issue of course is that not everybody on these sites has opted in, but here's the rub -- 1. if enough customers opt in, a family tree will form regardless of the number who opt out. They won't be included. 2. even if the FBI had the ability to wink, wink, nudge, nudge get the company to toggle the switch real quick like and opt those people in to give the FBI a sneaky peek, the violation would be between the company and those individuals. Where would BK have ANY standing in that? Even the FBI, while some might question their eagerness and participation in such a sketchy enterprise, it remains the domain of the company, violating their own terms of service, assuming it's not embedded in their fine print's ultra fine print already.

Interestingly, by my maths, if BK himself submitted his own DNA to one such company and opted the hell out, and the FBI got a direct match anyway, IMO BK, as a civilian might have a case against the company but it would be a civil one. BK, the defendant in a criminal trial, zero standing. But it's immaterial anyway, as I understand the evidence at this point. The FBI didn't match the DNA from the crime scene to BK's DNA as logged into a popular genealogy database, opted in or out. It matched to a relative, providing a family name. And we don't know which company or companies provided that match. And frankly, why wouldn't LE submit his DNA to as many as possible? It's a brilliant investigative tool!

You'd think a criminology scholar would know as much.

But BK thought he could outsmart everyone.

Oh, snap.

JMO

Great post, yeah think it was certainly established BK has no standing. Just in response to your last couple of sentences, I guess I'm not sure that BK himself would have much role in directing this part of his defence re IGG. I would think it's probably something AT and co. would pursue with any client where IGG is in the mix. Jmo

 

[jepop]

BK was a former instructor to lower level students at colleges, right? Surely if he had a form of OCD it might have shown in classes he taught. Simply interview former students to see if OCD patterns were noted. Experts could verify as well.

MOO

Students wouldn't see him bagging trash though. Was responding to poster who noted a diagnosed condition can manifest in many different ways.

Sure defense could have an expert come in to try and diagnose him, but I can't really see that happening for purpose of countering hypothetical P contention of trash bagging as sign of consciousness of guilt. But yeah, who knows. It's all just speculation. This may never even be raised in trial!

 

[INfisherman]

Students wouldn't see him bagging trash though. Was responding to poster who noted a diagnosed condition can manifest in many different ways.

Sure defense could have an expert come in to try and diagnose him, but I can't really see that happening for purpose of countering hypothetical P contention of trash bagging as sign of consciousness of guilt. But yeah, who knows. It's all just speculation. This may never even be raised in trial!

Apologies, poor wording in my part - it’s late & I wasn’t very clear.

Yeah, just carrying on discussion of IDing if he had previous OCD tendencies or if they "suddenly" developed later, like after the crime, wink, wink. Make sense?

 

[snooptroop88]

Bolded by me--the thing is, the defense hasn't. They haven't challenged the physical description given by DM vs the physical description in the PCA vs BK's physical description. They may during trial just to pick away and produce reasonable doubt, but they took no issue with AJ's use of "skinny".
JMO

Snipped by me:


We don't know that DM described BK as "skinny". AJ said this in court without DM's interview in front of her--she was paraphrasing what DM said. The defense took no issue with DM's description in interviews versus what was written in the PCA. That tells us the PCA is likely the correct summary of DM's description.

This is an argument being made here that even the defense isn't making. If they could, they would. One facet of Franks is to argue that the warrant was obtained with false information--if the PCA changed what DM actually said, the defense would be presenting it to argue for a Franks motion. They didn't.

But the defense says that KG or MM did not run downstairs and back up again. So do you believe DM or the defense?

JMO

Such a point seems to logically spring (as we see it doing here) from the line of attack clearly planned for the survivor of the horrendous event. And I think those doing the anticipating re: this point are logical in making such an assumption.

The idea that someone with his knife sheath left in the bed of quadruple homicide victims, along with an avalanche of other corroborating evidence-- the idea that the defense team of such a person would attempt to attack the credibility of a survivor of the scene is beyond belief to me. You're noting D is taking no issue with this critical description the survivor has offered. If defense thinks the survivor "had it together" enough not to take issue with the point, well, so D believes, then, the witness has given reliable testimony on one of the most significant pieces of information that the survivor can offer. So why then attack that survivor's credibility at all? That survivor's general credibility extends into all points being discussed here. The defense attacking any relevant piece of information provided by that survivor attacks the witness's overall credibility which reaches into everything that leaves that survivor's mouth, and D knows that. The logic of it would be well, if you're wrong on "a," who then is to say you're not wrong on "b"? What about "c"? It also gives the D an opportunity to just go right ahead and cast suspicion on the totality of the survivor's statements, which the D certainly did do, jmo. The D, though, doesn't need to attack every single point by the witness; they don't have to. (In my mind, however, AT came close to doing just that with a few of AT's more "sweeping" statements.) Theoretically, though, if D succeeds with one point, other parties will do the rest for them as to other points (and D knows that, too).

Straws and desperation. And I think it's a losing strategy for a guilty client, but jmo. But I find the attack on this surivor of a quadruple homicide to not only be a losing strategy, but an offensive one, and in this client's case-- a futile one. They'll do themselves no favors with this aspect of their "line of defense" for BK.

 

[jepop]

Those 6 words did strike a chime & are quite nice to repeat.

"Could I possibly have committed close to the perfect crime yet 11 skin cells be one of the most contributing factors towards my conviction?"

"Every day & twice on Sunday."

JMO

Glad you raised this, I've been meaning to ask where the 11 skin cells number comes from. I haven't watched all of the hearings but haha I do recall the twice on Sundays comment. Judge Hippler has a hidden, somewhat dry sense of humour. That was such a great moment if levity for me!

Not asking for you to dig up a link or anything, but just where you heard there were 11 skin cells on the snap of the sheathe. That's news to me.

Does anyone remember hearing that said in the recent hearings? Was it said,?

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I think BK found regular life boorish.

So he took up gambling.

With his freedom.

But, sorry to say it, BK -- house wins.

The Big House

JMO

Snipped and bolded by me for focus

This!

I imagine BK had come to find life challenging, unsuited to his personality needs, lonesome, unfulfilling. Many addicts in recovery deal with other behavioral / compulsive issues in other fellowships such as sex and love addiction, codependence, etc. Gambling in all it forms can sit at the heart of many addicts attitudes because it's the risk taking, playing with one's life, affecting others.

I imagine maybe BK is highly narcissistic and controlling and needed to get 'high' on risk taking, secrecy, and power. He was setting out to play a long game with LE. I think his game went wrong as he'd hyper-focussed on only one scenario going exactly as planned.

He imagined he would drive away from that house leaving zero evidence and a puzzle for LE. Maybe he even planted the sheath in the hope of framing a military or agricultural worker? JMO

 

[Charlot123]

I believe that he targeted one girl, and the others were collateral damage. I do not believe that he selected this house at random.

This is something that is concerning.
I would say that if BK is guilty of murder, then by nature and type he resembles more of a SK. And killing one girl would be "that" behavior.
But how often do we see SKs attacking four people? That would be a mass killing behavior. Very different. I can imagine killing the second person who by chance ended up there as a witness, but two more people? On a different floor? Kind of unusual. Although God knows, behaviors turn unpredictable.

 

[girlhasnoname]

@MassGuy
At approximately 16.50, they talk about the no knock warrant.

Then there's discussion (from the Law&Crime folks) of caselaw whereby, even if a no knock warrant is challenged, the remedy isn't throwing out evidence (spoiled fruit); it's a civil rights issue, if anything. No knock is not a violation of the 4th amendment, per the L&C expert lawyer.

Solid argument.

JMO

Agree and I think the State did a great job in explaining why the did a call out then no knock. They were apprehending a dangerous, quadruple murder suspect. They had good reason to believe he may self harm, harm the residents inside the home, harm one of Tactical Officers or destroy evidence.

That isn't going to go anywhere for the Defense as much as the rest of their MTS.

JMO

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I believe that he targeted one girl, and the others were collateral damage. I do not believe that he selected this house at random.

JMO MOO. I believe that too and further, my personal suspicion is that his obsession / drive / lust to access that one person, possibly to fulfil a sick desire -or- to wreak a vengeance for perceived slight that had happened between them, is what pushed him to action over and beyond being cautious. I think it was 'personal' (in his mind).

People say there's no evidence he had interacted with any members of the household but I suspect he had identified someone somehow, whether by surveillance or simply crossing paths and he had become fixated. If there had been any form of altercation whereby he had attempted to approach and chat with the object of his obsession, that could have escalated in his mind to other proportions re rejection or being slighted.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Is it possible BK thought sniffer dogs might be used to try and scent him ?
That's the only reason I can think he would bag his garbage and put it in a different bin.
Could he have thought he'd left no trace in the house but maybe a trained canine could track him? Maybe after what he did, he'd simply lost his mind in general with fear / paranoia?

BK knew he left the sheath at the scene, big screw up on his part. Being a Doctoral Student in CJ he is well versed in the process of how LE operates. He already knew they were looking to speak with the driver of a white Elantra, his guard was already up before he left Pullman IMO.

I believe he also knew they would be trying to retrieve his DNA. It makes absolutely no sense to me to think he would wear gloves, separate his trash from his families in PA, put in Ziplock baggies and place it in a neighbors bin in the middle of the night. He was in self preservation mode.

Too late smartest (not) guy in the room.

JMO

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Agree and I think the State did a great job in explaining why the did a call out then no knock. They were apprehending a dangerous, quadruple murder suspect. They had good reason to believe he may self harm, harm the residents inside the home, harm one of Tactical Officers or destroy evidence.

That isn't going to go anywhere for the Defense as much as the rest of their MTS.

JMO

100% he had gone to great lengths to conceal his identity and cleanse evidence. At the point of them knocking, he could have felt all is lost and taken his own life -or- taken hostages or harmed others before they apprehended him. He probably had a plan for various scenarios. Why would they knock? He had slaughtered four people with a knife, he was in a kitchen probably with knives at hand, a clear known risk, it wasn't idle speculation. JMO.