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

[BeginnerSleuther]

Not all information that is gathered produces valuable evidence, but it is certainly impossible to discern what is evidentiary without first combing through reams of precursory information.

Then LE has to separate the wheat from the chaff.

IMO we as outsiders really have no clue as to which information tumbles into the buckets of evidence vs. what is discarded.

A white Elantra is information. Pullman is information.

As LE fine-tunes the info that flows in, their case gets tighter. They study what at first is mere information and the picture becomes clearer…literally and figuratively. They have the opportunity to determine what year is correct for the Elantra as their experts clarify the videos. They realize Pullman is an easy drive from Moscow.

They sort through what is the likely weapon. They establish what DNA does not fit in that house by going through all that random information, and then alight upon foreign DNA in what should be an obscure snap on a knife sheath buried beneath a dead young woman.

Information leads to evidence.

I agree with those who believe LE has more evidence than we know about. They always do.

I do not believe they just decided to pick on some poor Ph.D student who has a disconcerting affect. I believe there is plenty of info turned evidence that will turn into justice.

JMO

I agree. But to suggest that every bit of the stuff they turned over was "evidence," which is the point I was responding to, is inaccurate. We don't yet know how much evidence they have. We only know what's been made public.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

It is called evidence/discovery in court. Yes, evidence/discovery is also known as information but courts call it discovery/evidence.

Bryan Kohberger's attorneys maintain DA is slow-walking evidence

Bryan Kohberger, who stands accused of killing four University of Idaho students, was in court Thursday for a pretrial hearing where witnesses testified about the collection of evidence and cellphone data.

www.fox13seattle.com

Defense attorneys for Kohberger have accused prosecutors of not turning over all the evidence they had during their discovery process, which the state denies. AT complains she needs to hire someone to sort the evidence for her because "it is like a snow globe

"Discovery is being given to us like we are living in a snow globe," a defense lawyer told Idaho Judge John Judge.

All of discovery is not evidence. Discovery is full of depositions, some of which may not be helpful to the state's case or may not point the finger at the accused (i.e. evidence). It's also about process. How did they find the information and evidence they found? This is why we're caught in a seemingly never-ending cycle of hearings. If it was all evidence, the case would be open and shut in one day without any MTS hearings.

MOO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Yes, you're right.
But the meal plans for BK don't need to be special.
That's what I was trying to point out.
Omo.

They aren't special. Prisoners in the US have a right to a special diet if they request it. That's just the way it is. It's likely just as disgusting as the regular meals. It just don't have meat or dairy in it.

MOO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

If BK lived in Alaska at the time of the murders would that be evidence of his innocence?

Of course not. It would only be evidence of his innocence if there was proof he was in Alaska at the time of the murders, much like his presence at the crime scene would be evidence of his guilt.

Will prosecturos spend time at the trials establishing BK’s residency in Pullman and establishing his whereabouts leading up to and at the time of the murders?

Of course his location is evidence.

His location at the time of the murders is evidence. His residence is not, anymore than the residence of anyone else in Pullman.

MOO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

I am still to be convinced it matters if the IGG results caused them to update their assessment on the year. They had reason to do so, and were correct. How is this bad? What reason they had does not matter.

Because evidence is supposed to lead you to a suspect. Let me use some hyperbole to make a point.

Let's say there's a murder in rural Wyoming and the getaway car is a red Nissan. LE looks at video and they release a statement saying the getaway car is a red Nissan. But then they find this weird guy they think may be the killer. But weird guy drives a black Toyota, not a red Nissan. So LE changes their statement to say the killer drove a black Toyota. The defense attorney would absolutely have a field day with that because it looks like LE changed their "expert" opinion to fit a narrative that the suspect is the killer, even if all the pieces don't fit.

Now I recognize in this case, it's much more nuanced given that it's a difference in years and not the car itself, but my point is that the timing of the change matters.

MOO.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

I’m a bit confused.
What criteria are you using to discern information from evidence?
I kinda think it’s a moot point right now anyway. Nothing is evidence until it is entered as such at the trial.

Just making the point that while we keep hearing about everything the state has turned over, it doesn't mean all of that is evidence. MOO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

I know I’ve responded previously with my opinion about information and when it factors as evidence, but in light of @StarryStarryNight asking you also to distinguish between the two, I wanted to ask you a sincere question, @BeginnerSleuther.

IIRC, you are a physician, I believe?

If so, I assume you’ve had endless interaction with patients who piled on you with information. Their head hurts, or they have some kind of lump, or they’re bleeding from somewhere, or whatever it may be.

Then you parse through the information you’ve gathered, you do your horses and zebras thing, you run tests.

After you’ve done your examinations and test results, you are able to discern what is irrelevant information vs. pertinent information in order to make your diagnosis.

That’s kind of how I see LE. They run through all the information available to them. They jettison anything that is immaterial but heavily focus on information that could be germane to the case.

Yes, this is accurate. But that's precisely my point in terms of what's turned over to the defense. Of the information turned over, not all of that is evidence. We actually don't yet know what percentage of it is evidence versus process versus information.

Those bits of info that in your opinion are trivial (living in Pullman, white Elantra) are IMO significant, as I posted earlier.

I didn't say that information was trivial. I said it's information. It is not evidence. You can use the information however you want, but evidence points to guilt and him living in Pullman doesn't point to his guilt. If it did, then every person living in a city where a murder occurs would have evidence against them just for living there.

Moscow was accessible to him.

But it was also accessible to all the residents of Moscow, Pullman, and all the nearby communities. It was also accessible to people in other parts of Idaho and other states too. IMO, in this day and age, accessibility to a town would apply to about 95% of the surrounding communities and, at the very least, all the surrounding states.

A white Elantra, maybe driven by many others, still was spotted at the crime scene and BK had one as well. Bushy eyebrows, lean or athletic build, they all add up.

The court provides the “diagnosis” of guilty or innocent.

Correct, but you're making some comparison between the information cited here and medical evidence that leads to a diagnosis and I'm not following.

When someone comes in and complains of chest pain, they give me information. About half of what they tell me is not evidence of any pathology. That's what I'm saying. The police have to investigate, the prosecution has to investigate, and they turn over the facts of their investigation. But not every bit of that is evidence of BK's guilt.

IMO the DNA on the snap of the sheath is as irrefutable as an MRI test.

I think the DNA is the most important evidence in this case. I would not say it's as irrefutable as an MRI test as DNA is only as good as its collection criteria and touch DNA has been discredited before. But I do think it's the most important evidence they have or at least, the most important we're privy to.

MOO

 

[GOBliaison]

Agreed !
Anyway, why can't he just be served what the rest of the jail is served ?

Eta : Some people have an allergy where the food needs to be prepared with care lest the inmate fall ill.
IF BK doesn't have anything he's allergic to, he shouldn't be getting special treatment.
Omo.
Imo.

Ri-i-i-ght ...yeah...allergies...

​

Well then I for one move that we start dabbing and pricking his back, ... oh say, 30-40 times each exam,... identifying (w/ repeat confirmation) any/all inmate Bryan's "positives".
Thereafter,...
... PRN, [“pro re nata”, Lat. "as the need arises"],
... most probably weekly,
... over, say 4-6 months...??...

These days, LE & DAs are walking an ignominity tight rope.
Assiduity and empathy are key.
​

 

[Margo Hughes]

Wouldn't the defense have to have unidentified fingerprints or something in order to present the TODDI?

 

[MassGuy]

Wouldn't the defense have to have unidentified fingerprints or something in order to present the TODDI?

If they wanted to accuse a specific person, then yes. But a general defense that someone else did it wouldn't require that.

So they'll probably claim that Kohberger has an alibi, and it couldn't have been him. Then they'll try and explain away the evidence that points to him (sheath DNA, vehicle footage, cell phone data, etc).

Then they'll claim the investigation was sloppy, the investigators had tunnel vision, and evidence at the scene shows that someone else was the real killer (any unidentified DNA for instance).

Good luck with that.

 

[jepop]

Yes, this is accurate. But that's precisely my point in terms of what's turned over to the defense. Of the information turned over, not all of that is evidence. We actually don't yet know what percentage of it is evidence versus process versus information.



I didn't say that information was trivial. I said it's information. It is not evidence. You can use the information however you want, but evidence points to guilt and him living in Pullman doesn't point to his guilt. If it did, then every person living in a city where a murder occurs would have evidence against them just for living there.



But it was also accessible to all the residents of Moscow, Pullman, and all the nearby communities. It was also accessible to people in other parts of Idaho and other states too. IMO, in this day and age, accessibility to a town would apply to about 95% of the surrounding communities and, at the very least, all the surrounding states.



Correct, but you're making some comparison between the information cited here and medical evidence that leads to a diagnosis and I'm not following.

When someone comes in and complains of chest pain, they give me information. About half of what they tell me is not evidence of any pathology. That's what I'm saying. The police have to investigate, the prosecution has to investigate, and they turn over the facts of their investigation. But not every bit of that is evidence of BK's guilt.



I think the DNA is the most important evidence in this case. I would not say it's as irrefutable as an MRI test as DNA is only as good as its collection criteria and touch DNA has been discredited before. But I do think it's the most important evidence they have or at least, the most important we're privy to.

MOO

Use

We have to watch for quotation marks to see if the witness actually said what the affiant is describing?
Good to know.

So this part might not be her words?
D.M. stated she looked out of her bedroom but did not see anything when she heard the comment about someone being in the house. D.M. said she opened her door a second time when she heard what she thought was crying coming from Kernodle's room.
JMO

I did not say that.

Skinny, slim, lean taller than 5'10
Athletically built but not muscular taller than 5'10

Two totally different body types IMO.
JMO

Adopted language = changed her words.
Using her words would be conveying her description.
JMO

Yes. That BP chose those words to replace skinny, slim, and lean.

JMO

I'm not getting your point. Two different body types? I can't agree and finding it hard to see what you are taking issue with. It,'s your opinion it seems that this is a deliberate mislead of some manner? If so, I don't believe the judge will see it that way at all and I don't recall the D making the point that you are at the latest hearing. I am not saying you shouldn't express your opinion just to be clear !

If you think a summary of some of
this witness' statement/s in the PCA or not using direct quotes is wrong or misleading that's your prerogative. I',m definitely not seeing what you are in terms of BP describing a completely different body type to the small amount of info revealed by AJ in the hearing. And of course we don't have access to DM's full statements which BP was drawing on. Either way, with the limited info we do have I don't see it. This is feeling like splitting hairs to me at this point so I'm not going to comment further on this specific topic. Moo

 

[jepop]

Rbbm

If it said skinny, slim, lean and bulked up, It's find that contradictory.

An athletic build IMO is exactly what slim and lean conjured for me.

He didn't strike her as elderly, for instance. No paunch. Not a body builder. We don't know what questions she was answering either. Maybe she volunteered her adjectives, maybe they were supplied. No, as to his build, was he more athletic or less? More muscular or no? Like others upthread, I myself would describe swimmers, runners, tennis players as athletic. Lean and slim. And while their sports require great strength and they have well defined muscles, I wouldn't describe them that way. 'Muscular' implies some heft to me.

AT is IMO trying hard to discredit a powerful State's witness, circumventing a gag order by doing it in a streamed hearing (one which hasn't even yet met the threshold for an actual hearing) and it's not at trial wherein the witness could speak for herself and the State could and would rebut any nonsense the Defense spins forth. Clearly the State isn't interested in trying this case prior to trial nor indulging the Defense in tit for tat.

It's ludicrous IMO. The warrant didn't hinge on adjectives.

JMO

Thanks for this @Megnut. You make the point and reply for more concisely than I am able to.

 

[schooling]

Use

I'm not getting your point. Two different body types? I can't agree and finding it hard to see what you are taking issue with. It,'s your opinion it seems that this is a deliberate mislead of some manner? If so, I don't believe the judge will see it that way at all and I don't recall the D making the point that you are at the latest hearing. I am not saying you shouldn't express your opinion just to be clear !

If you think a summary of some of
this witness' statement/s in the PCA or not using direct quotes is wrong or misleading that's your prerogative. I',m definitely not seeing what you are in terms of BP describing a completely different body type to the small amount of info revealed by AJ in the hearing. And of course we don't have access to DM's full statements which BP was drawing on. Either way, with the limited info we do have I don't see it. This is feeling like splitting hairs to me at this point so I'm not going to comment further on this specific topic. Moo

BFs characterization of the body she saw has more to do with what a figure was or was NOT wearing outside of her from the reporting I remember reading in the DailyMail (I’ll find it). Which aligned with things that were said/spread early on.

 

[wendy44]

We have to watch for quotation marks to see if the witness actually said what the affiant is describing?
Good to know.

So this part might not be her words?
D.M. stated she looked out of her bedroom but did not see anything when she heard the comment about someone being in the house. D.M. said she opened her door a second time when she heard what she thought was crying coming from Kernodle's room.
JMO

I did not say that.

Skinny, slim, lean taller than 5'10
Athletically built but not muscular taller than 5'10

Two totally different body types IMO.
JMO

Adopted language = changed her words.
Using her words would be conveying her description.
JMO

Yes. That BP chose those words to replace skinny, slim, and lean.

JMO

So you believe BP changed what DM said in her interview when he was writing the PCA?

First, BP had DM's interview in hand when he wrote the PCA. He would have had her statements before him. AJ did not. Who is more likely to be accurate about what DM actually said.

During the hearing, around 2:00:00, AJ addressed the defense's contention that omitting portions of DM's interview in the PCA supported their motion for a Franks, that omitting these portions of the interview would have changed the magistrate's mind when issuing the warrant. She told the judge, "I can tell you generally she consistently gave the same set of facts."

The judge then asked her why it was important to the PCA to include the portions of the interview that they did. AJ was really flustered by this, and was struggling to answer. The judge had to help her out and asked her--was it going to the ID of the perpetrator, was it helping to establish a timeline?

She said yes, the description DM provided helped to establish that someone who looked like she described was in the residence at the time the crimes were occurring. She said the general description was consistent throughout all her interviews. She did not have DM's interview in front of her so that she could read what DM had actually said. She told the judge, "She describes seeing someone wearing all black, a mask with only a portion of their face showing and visible. This person was male, white, she heard a voice that was not something that she recognized. The person was a slim, skinny, lean build, and the person was about, was taller than she was, is, around 5'8"...That general description did not change."

Second, the greatest evidence that BP did not change the description given by DM when he wrote the PCA is the fact that AT never mentions it. She never says once in anything I watched (please correct me if I'm wrong and link to the time) that BP changed the description. Does anyone here think she wouldn't bring that in if it were true?

She started addressing DM's statements at about 1:05:00. Her entire focus was on her contention that the PCA omitted statements by DM and that inclusion of these statements would have changed the magistrate's decision. She said that DM was sure she heard one of the victims in particular run up the stairs and then down the stairs. DM repeated this multiple times across multiple interviews. The defense contends that not including that in the PCA was an omission that could have changed the magistrate's mind because it went to the credibility of the witness. Because it wasn't possible that the victim DM named could have done that. AT also says that DM's statements about it feeling like a dream and being intoxicated should not have been omitted. Not once does she have an issue with the description given by DM being different than the one written by BP in the PCA. If it was different, she would have.

After AJ gave her argument and used the description quoted above, AT had a chance to rebut, and again, did not take issue with the description. Did not mention it. What would be a more relevant argument for a Franks--that they did not include portions of DM's interview that were not material to pointing at the defendant, or that they actually changed what DM said he looked like to fit the what BK looks like? If they had done that, AT would have argued it.

The part about a roommate running up and down the stairs is kind of interesting though. I think this is the first we've heard that. What if DM thought it was KG or MM but it was really XK? What if XK, still awake, heard something and ran upstairs to see what was going on, saw BK and ran back down, telling EC, "There's someone here." And maybe he then had to run after her before she could call 911, leaving the sheath behind.
JMO

 

[Nila Aella]

I'm not getting your point. Two different body types? I can't agree and finding it hard to see what you are taking issue with. It,'s your opinion it seems that this is a deliberate mislead of some manner? If so, I don't believe the judge will see it that way at all and I don't recall the D making the point that you are at the latest hearing. I am not saying you shouldn't express your opinion just to be clear !

If you think a summary of some of
this witness' statement/s in the PCA or not using direct quotes is wrong or misleading that's your prerogative.

Snipped for focus
You made the points (see below BBM)
That the descriptors were not intended to be a direct quote
That the descriptors were not in quotation marks
That there was nothing wrong with using more formalized lanquage to convey DMs description.
I responded.
JMO

Agree, it's completely realistic that DM did not recognise the stranger as BK. This is not a direct identification by DM and was clearly not intended to be in the PCA. It is a generic description which does not exclude the suspect.

Skinny, slim, lean.

Skinny ie not muscular
Lean ie athletically built
Slim ie not obese, not necessarily muscle bound?

In the PCA the language at that juncture is simply an accurate summing up of the three adjectives mentioned by AJ at the hearing. The descriptors aren't in quotation marks and as you say, not contradictory.

Imo nothing is changed and there isn't anything wrong or misleading about the more formalised language adopted to convey DM's description of the stranger she witnessed.

BBM

 

[jepop]

I agree with your viewpoint. In civilized countries we don't torture people by way of food just for cruelty sake because they're incarcerated, their conviction and sentencing is the justice.

I wonder if prisoners are provided vitamins and minerals supplements? BK would need iron, B12, etc. Prisoners are already on a restricted diet due to the low quality of what's given to them and also they don't get sunlight and Vitamin D etc. I wonder how many develop long term health problems as a result? Maybe no-one cares but it costs a lot to treat someone once an illness has begun and for those being released, it's best they leave in a decent condition to rejoin society IMO. JMO.

Agree, all valid points. Moo

 

[jepop]

Agreed. That is my issue with so many "self defense" classes. When you are out running, maybe with headphones, and a man is waiting in bushes to attack, he jumps you, you are down, no self defense class is going to make any difference. Unfortunately.

Especially, young women, against BK, with a knife. By the time they realized what was going on, they were probably almost dead. It happened that fast. They were asleep, he started stabbing them, it was over fast.

And I agree, whatever clothing, shoes he was wearing, and the murder weapon were neatly disposed of, into a "Go Bag" before BK got into his car. And disposed of on the way back to Pullman.

BK was smart. If not for the knife sheath, what else put him at the scene?!

Asleep or drowsy, in bed, caught unawares, coupled with the unexpected appearance of a perpetrator intent on killing, brandishing a massive knife. A deadly weapon. Those kids had no chance. Jmo

 

[LinasK]

I would not discount anything she says, even if she was a bit sleepy or drunk. After all, she did hear something, see something, and something did happen.

So, let the jury hear the information and make their own conclusions.

Even if I was drunk and sleepy, I'd think sounds of my roommmates being murdered would sober me awake real quick!

 

[LinasK]

When it becomes evidence, then it's evidence. But the definition of evidence is very different from the definition of information.

The fact that BK lives in Pullman is information. It is not evidence. BK's DNA on the sheath is evidence.

MOO.

Living in Pullman makes him a likely suspect because he wasn't living across the country- say in PA at the time of the murders.

 

[iamshadow21]

Even if I was drunk and sleepy, I'd think sounds of my roommmates being murdered would sober me awake real quick!

It depends what those sounds were, and whether you interpreted them as an attack.

If you read the surviving roommate's account, she interpreted earlier sounds as someone playing with the dog on the floor above her room.

I believe what she actually heard was MM and KG being murdered.

MOO