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

[mickey2942]

Most of us have an alibi for every service of our lives. Our phones stand as witness.

Criminals know this. So they turn their phones off. Thinking they've gamed the system. When in fact the very action of turning their phones off created a telling black data hole and often a glaring break with typical usage.

Their phones stand as witness too. Silent witness screaming with data.

And leads to loud, earned convictions.

If BK had been stargazing throughout Moscow on a dozen other nights, why did he turn his phone off this night? That's a problem.

He's a problem. For the Defense.

JMO

There was a case in Montana, proved based on that exact glaring fact, the perpetrator had always consistently checked his email, responded to text messages, over a year of use, except for five hours when his cellphone was turned off. Coincidentally, the same day his girlfriend disappeared.

The case is several years old, when using cellphones forensically was just starting out. It was interesting to me though. Five hours, his phone was off, the only five hours completely off in over 18 months. I tried to find the case, I can't remember it though.

I have an app on my phone, for my car insurance, it tracks my driving history, and I get 15% off my bill for not using my phone while driving. There is a history of where I go, going back a few years. The most boring history ever. Work, home, yoga, VA. I never go anywhere.

Imagine, looking at BK's history, and there are several specific times, when his cellphone is off. Conspicuously on the dates and times of the murder. That is a lot of missing information, for a key time frame.

 

[arielilane]

Hearing adjourned

 

[girlhasnoname]

Judge is not ordering a new date for the State's disclosure, they can be supplemented unless it's an entirely new Expert.

He doesn't know if he will be holding a Franks Hearing, but asked each side to identify a possible date within 3 weeks.

 

[girlhasnoname]

He's proven very timely up to now. I'll place my bet as within a week. Is the hearing over?

ETA oh, ok seeing MTC is on now.

It's over now.

 

[girlhasnoname]

There was a case in Montana, proved based on that exact glaring fact, the perpetrator had always consistently checked his email, responded to text messages, over a year of use, except for five hours when his cellphone was turned off. Coincidentally, the same day his girlfriend disappeared.

The case is several years old, when using cellphones forensically was just starting out. It was interesting to me though. Five hours, his phone was off, the only five hours completely off in over 18 months. I tried to find the case, I can't remember it though.

I have an app on my phone, for my car insurance, it tracks my driving history, and I get 15% off my bill for not using my phone while driving. There is a history of where I go, going back a few years. The most boring history ever. Work, home, yoga, VA. I never go anywhere.

Imagine, looking at BK's history, and there are several specific times, when his cellphone is off. Conspicuously on the dates and times of the murder. That is a lot of missing information, for a key time frame.

Agree, historical data will be key. If BK was not in the habit of turning his phone off late at night for a few hours and did so only on that night, it tells a story in and of itself IMO.

It has come up in a lot of cases lately, Morphew, Murdaugh, etc.

JMO

 

[Megnut]

I'm behind on the feed, catching up at 1.5x playback.

Why is the judge allowing the Defense to waste his time? This is nothing but deposing.

"Do you have training with Google?"

Did I hear that right? Ridiculous. You don't need training in Google, Apple, Amazon, etc to pull a search.... a search with warrants, no less.

Not only is this a long-shot hearing to wrangle a hearing, it appears that the Defense itself is still searching for cause/basis for their own motion.

Seems like a buttoned up investigation to me.

IMO...at the end of this day, the entire Defense table will be sitting short.

JMO

 

[mrjitty]

I mean, what’s the difference if you never intend to end up on LE’s radar in the first place.

Yes. It's the same mistake he made with his phone.

Every case I followed has had this kind of blunder in one way or another.

 

[wendy44]

Slippery slope. I resolved never to be tested-mostly because I don’t want my DNA to be utilized in the future for all sorts of things, including healthcare decisions. It will eventually come to that.

However, I’m pretty much screwed anyway.Odds are, someone, somewhere in my family tree is going to upload their DNA to a site. We will all end up in a database eventually. You can’t unring that bell. They are not tossing evidence. If it was BK’s DNA in the database, and he had opted out, maybe, just maybe, the defense could argue the point. But he personally has no standing.

This is really the core of the constitutional argument. You haven't provided your DNA to law enforcement either voluntarily--uploading to a database and opting in, or providing it willingly for an investigation--or involuntarily--you've been convicted of a crime and it's in CODIS, or are required to because of warrant, or you're a suspect already and have abandoned it in the trash, or some other means the courts have already determined to be a legal way to obtain your DNA. But the nature of familial DNA means they have it in a way that doesn't fit into those boxes. The courts are going to have to decide if that's constitutional. They've been working through 4th Amendment issues with DNA for a long time and will have to work through this one too.

 

[mrjitty]

This is really the core of the constitutional argument. You haven't provided your DNA to law enforcement either voluntarily--uploading to a database and opting in, or providing it willingly for an investigation--or involuntarily--you've been convicted of a crime and it's in CODIS, or are required to because of warrant, or you're a suspect already and have abandoned it in the trash, or some other means the courts have already determined to be a legal way to obtain your DNA. But the nature of familial DNA means they have it in a way that doesn't fit into those boxes. The courts are going to have to decide if that's constitutional. They've been working through 4th Amendment issues with DNA for a long time and will have to work through this one too.

agreed.

I just don't see why i should be big mad about this situation though. While I agree that there needs to be consumer protections, i can't see any down side in criminals being caught this way ...

Like what is the violation of their rights exactly, that ought to be protected here?

MOO

 

[mrjitty]

There was a case in Montana, proved based on that exact glaring fact, the perpetrator had always consistently checked his email, responded to text messages, over a year of use, except for five hours when his cellphone was turned off. Coincidentally, the same day his girlfriend disappeared.

The case is several years old, when using cellphones forensically was just starting out. It was interesting to me though. Five hours, his phone was off, the only five hours completely off in over 18 months. I tried to find the case, I can't remember it though.

I have an app on my phone, for my car insurance, it tracks my driving history, and I get 15% off my bill for not using my phone while driving. There is a history of where I go, going back a few years. The most boring history ever. Work, home, yoga, VA. I never go anywhere.

Imagine, looking at BK's history, and there are several specific times, when his cellphone is off. Conspicuously on the dates and times of the murder. That is a lot of missing information, for a key time frame.

This happened in every case I followed except the one where they used burners lol

I suspect we'll see more of criminals trying to fake phone activity to give themselves a digital alibi

If i was planning a murder I think i'd change my phone habits at least 6 months before!

 

[DizzyB]

agreed.

I just don't see why i should be big mad about this situation though. While I agree that there needs to be consumer protections, i can't see any down side in criminals being caught this way ...

Like what is the violation of their rights exactly, that ought to be protected here?

MOO

My fingerprints are on file, as a requirement of licensing for my job. I have no idea what databases they are in. There are cameras everywhere, and face recognition software is in use already. I imagine it will improve and grow in the future. DNA is being collected and stored in databases, and individuals can be tracked down using the science gathered from somewhat distant relatives. Phones track our movements. The train is barreling the track, and I don’t see that we are going back.

 

[Rolypolyoly]

This is really the core of the constitutional argument. You haven't provided your DNA to law enforcement either voluntarily--uploading to a database and opting in, or providing it willingly for an investigation--or involuntarily--you've been convicted of a crime and it's in CODIS, or are required to because of warrant, or you're a suspect already and have abandoned it in the trash, or some other means the courts have already determined to be a legal way to obtain your DNA. But the nature of familial DNA means they have it in a way that doesn't fit into those boxes. The courts are going to have to decide if that's constitutional. They've been working through 4th Amendment issues with DNA for a long time and will have to work through this one too.

But with familial DNA, they don't have your DNA, all they have is a broad range of names to run with, which is really no different to someone ringing a tip line and offering a name when you think about it, and there's not really anything you could do about that.
They still need to investigate the tip and do the legwork.

 

[GoJacks]

I'm probably like 8 months behind on this but the way they're arguing for Amazon records absolutely means he bought the knife on there eh?

I mean I think this has been assumed for awhile but just seems like they really don't want this to be admissable.

 

[Jade]

All MOO


If BK was a fugitive then why did LE in Indiana let him go.......twice? Something off there in my opinion.

Then again at that point how could possibly even be a fugitive? Maybe a suspect but how would he have been a fugitive?

MOO

Broadly used as an adjective fugitive is anyone who is hiding from LE to avoid arrest or give testimony in a criminal case.

Fugitive can be a suspect, witness or defendant involved in a criminal case who tries to evade LE especially when leaving the jurisdiction.

The legal noun Fugitive of Justice refers to a person who has been charged with a crime in a jurisdiction and the judge has signed an arrest order in order for the person to be brought in but the suspect has fled, or is in hiding.

Wasn’t BK just being “watched” at the time of the pullovers?

Other jurisdictions aren’t going to interfere in a case, IF the officer knew what he had, by taking BK into custody prematurely, imo





All imo

 

[INfisherman]

This happened in every case I followed except the one where they used burners lol

I suspect we'll see more of criminals trying to fake phone activity to give themselves a digital alibi

If i was planning a murder I think i'd change my phone habits at least 6 months before!

People are just dumb, most murderers in particular. Who needs a phone while committing a murder? If I were planning one, the phone would be left at home & likely playing a very long instructional video on YouTube. Old tech would be for pics if that was my thing. Horrible thoughts, but just sayin’….

JMO

 

[Justice101]

There was a case in Montana, proved based on that exact glaring fact, the perpetrator had always consistently checked his email, responded to text messages, over a year of use, except for five hours when his cellphone was turned off. Coincidentally, the same day his girlfriend disappeared.

The case is several years old, when using cellphones forensically was just starting out. It was interesting to me though. Five hours, his phone was off, the only five hours completely off in over 18 months. I tried to find the case, I can't remember it though.

I have an app on my phone, for my car insurance, it tracks my driving history, and I get 15% off my bill for not using my phone while driving. There is a history of where I go, going back a few years. The most boring history ever. Work, home, yoga, VA. I never go anywhere.

Imagine, looking at BK's history, and there are several specific times, when his cellphone is off. Conspicuously on the dates and times of the murder. That is a lot of missing information, for a key time frame.

And... his cell phone will probably be off multiple times when he was probably driving by the girl's apartment stalking them.

I think LE will be able to paint a clear picture with the data on nights where he went there but did not go inside to kill.

 

[Justice101]

People are just dumb, most murderers in particular. Who needs a phone while committing a murder? If I were planning one, the phone would be left at home & likely playing a very long instructional video on YouTube. Old tech would be for pics if that was my thing. Horrible thoughts, but just sayin’….

JMO

I think he probably took it with him when stalking her multiple times and that he did not know ahead of time that he would murder her that night.

It will be interesting if he turned it off multiple late nights. I'll bet he thought he was smart and would sometimes actually go star gazing... and would turn his phone back on way out in the wide open country to use that as a potential alibi.

But, it doesn't matter what he did every other night he was "out driving". It only matters what he did this one particular night.

 

[Boxer]

Also he is not very smart - like most people who do a crime like this.

More likely he has elevated levels of risk taking compared to the average citizen and is poor at evaluating risks and consequence.

my opinion.

MOO thinking that murder will solve your problems is stupid as a starting point.

 

[Rolypolyoly]

People are just dumb, most murderers in particular. Who needs a phone while committing a murder? If I were planning one, the phone would be left at home & likely playing a very long instructional video on YouTube. Old tech would be for pics if that was my thing. Horrible thoughts, but just sayin’….

JMO

Right? I mean there's literally a whole manual of what not to do right here on WS, case after case of stupid criminals making stupid mistakes, and yet.....

 

[Megnut]

Perhaps AT & Co thought, by airing this pre-hearing, they could invite public energy and outrage over presumed government overreach as if the FBI is illegally accessing J. Q. Public's DNA. The New World order of criminal defense seeks to be conspiracy. Fire up the machine, get the masses to believe any one of them could be BK, with LE operating without warrants to... invade their DNA.

But that's not what's in play here.

CODIS has been the standard for ages. Nothing unconstitutional about LE searching for statistical matches between DNA left at crime scenes and DNA in the CODIS system.

The standardization and commercialization of DNA analysis created an opportunity to warehouse DNA beyond what is collected courtesy of the penal system. Instead of the limitations of CODIS (generally the DNA convicted felons), the new genetic genealogy industry has broadened it to include everybody's brother.

I am STUNNED that the judge granted the Defense two days to fish for any basis for their own motion.

They've provided no case law, presented no evidence of misconduct, deceit, nothing to suggest any magistrate anywhere was misled.

Generous, I guess, for the judge to grant them the time to wander in the weeds, saving anyone from ever having to evaluate the absence of it on appeal.

He gave them ample opportunity to produce.

And they prodidn't.

JMO