4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #99

[Arkay]

I don't know if you have ever owned a dog, but that's extraordinarily out of character behavior for a dog unless they are drugged.

She apparently said her own height or taller - which would indicate someone very close in height to her, not someone 6', not someone 5 inches taller. JMO.

I replied to you in an earlier post that I believe we will have to agree to disagree.

I’ll respond just to these two quotes and that’ll be that, because it’s fruitless, I think, for us to keep retreading the same issues.

Neither you nor I nor any of us here were in that house or knew any of the people within. Nor do we know Murphy.

My take on Murphy’s behavior is that he heard his humans screaming, sniffed blood, knew that something was way out of order, and therefore was traumatized.

Just my take because I wasn’t there.

In the same way, neither you nor I nor any of us know DM, and it is the court that will have her explicate in more detail exactly what she remembers from that agonizing night.

Not knowing her, I have no way of knowing if by “or taller,” DM was indicating that the person she saw was only slightly taller than her. She said “5’ 8” or taller.” That suggests to me he may have hovered well above her.

The testimony in the courtroom will be the lodestone for the jury to follow. Until then, nothing we say ultimately matters.

Just my opinion and trying to be fair.

 

[schooling]

So in the two full days that the defense made arguments before the court, the defense never said that what is in the PCA regarding the description is a lie and that the description in the PCA appears to have been changed to fit BK better?

Do you understand what a motion to hold a Franks hearing is? Genuinely asking.
JMO

I suspect that this is part of the "DM was coached" argument that AT keeps hinting at (one of a billion of her conspiracy theories IMO) . Maybe DM initially gave a range and then after talking it out managed to narrow it down to what's in the PCA. Which seems completely normal. I mean..."if you remember anything, call us" is practically a trope / cliche now.

For those that tend to lean towards massive multistate multiagency conspiracy...this is where you imply that LE already had BK in their sights. So therefore they got DM to change the height. JMO.

If you're not into conspiracy theories you look at DM seeing a figure in the house as a cherry on top of a 2 foot tall hot fudge sunday that is the prosecutions case. Do you need it...it would be nice. But the rest of it is the overwhelming evidence against him. With each and every piece building on both the piece before it and the piece after it. Culminating in 3am sessions in the kitchen and the neighbors trash. Wearing black gloves no less.

Witnesses have always remembered more after talking it out or coming to terms with what they saw or experienced. Is this stronger evidence than the DNA? Is it stronger evidence than his car on video heading towards the scene? Him turning off his cell phone? I'd argue none of the 3.

 

[fcavanaugh]

We get to draw conclusions here all we like, but for the jury, it's not evidence until it's admitted at trial or presented under oath, via direct testimony, subject to cross.

And the jury will decide what weight, if any, to give what they hear and see.

DM saw a figure. LE developed a latent footprint in the very place DM said she saw someone...

IME juries love corroboration. Circumstantial evidence upon circumstantial evidence upon circumstantial evidence.

JMO

Well, exactly.

IMHO

 

[wendy44]

AT obviously has DM's original interview. If they lied and changed what DM said to fit the description of BK, this is where you're going to argue that and request a Franks. But she didn't. Her primary argument was that DM said things that couldn't be true--KG or MM ran up and down the stairs--and that she admitted to being confused and having memory problems, therefore she was an unreliable witness and the magistrate should have been informed of that.
JMO

 

[Balthazar]

So in the two full days that the defense made arguments before the court, the defense never said that what is in the PCA regarding the description is a lie and that the description in the PCA appears to have been changed to fit BK better?

Do you understand what a motion to hold a Franks hearing is? Genuinely asking.
JMO

I can only guess you have not watched this hearing. AT did make a solid argument for a Franks hearing starting at 6:18. While AT DID argue these points, IMO, <modsnip - personalizing> Therefore, the only logical way to give you this information is to tell you what the prosecution confirmed during the rebuttal.

 

[Megnut]

AT obviously has DM's original interview. If they lied and changed what DM said to fit the description of BK, this is where you're going to argue that and request a Franks. But she didn't. Her primary argument was that DM said things that couldn't be true--KG or MM ran up and down the stairs--and that she admitted to being confused and having memory problems, therefore she was an unreliable witness and the magistrate should have been informed of that.
JMO

And the irony! Because AT wasn't there. DM might be totally right. KM (or whichever of the victims) could have gonre up and down the stairs before being killed in the bed. She could have been the one to say "there's someone there".... DM might not recall things in the exact order or ascribe them perfectly but that only underscores her starting premise IMO -- that she didn't know there was a murderer in the house -- and only after opening her door -- saw a figure she didn't recognize.

LE probably asked her hard for more description. Until the single source DNA lead and cctv of a vehicle, she was their greatest asset. She orients the crime in time and space, she apparently memorialized her thinking in texts, she could fill in the blanks fir what she thought, why she thought it, what all the sounds might have been once she realized her friends had been slaughtered, even how she arrived at the adjectives she chose.

Just because AT was arguing for a Frank's hearing doesnt mean she has a basis for one.

JMO

 

[DizzyB]

I suspect that this is part of the "DM was coached" argument that AT keeps hinting at (one of a billion of her conspiracy theories IMO) . Maybe DM initially gave a range and then after talking it out managed to narrow it down to what's in the PCA. Which seems completely normal. I mean..."if you remember anything, call us" is practically a trope / cliche now.

For those that tend to lean towards massive multistate multiagency conspiracy...this is where you imply that LE already had BK in their sights. So therefore they got DM to change the height. JMO.

If you're not into conspiracy theories you look at DM seeing a figure in the house as a cherry on top of a 2 foot tall hot fudge sunday that is the prosecutions case. Do you need it...it would be nice. But the rest of it is the overwhelming evidence against him. With each and every piece building on both the piece before it and the piece after it. Culminating in 3am sessions in the kitchen and the neighbors trash. Wearing black gloves no less.

Witnesses have always remembered more after talking it out or coming to terms with what they saw or experienced. Is this stronger evidence than the DNA? Is it stronger evidence than his car on video heading towards the scene? Him turning off his cell phone? I'd argue none of the 3.

Was she coached? Inebriated and unable to provide a height? I imagine the defense understands it will be hard to come at DM strongly during trial. Poor kid was a survivor of a massacre, and expected to provide details of a person she came to find out was the killer. I had a friend who was the victim of a robbery at gunpoint. The only thing he remembered was the barrel of the gun. Zero details of the person holding it. If they want to throw out the bushy eyebrows and the height, okay. The timing of her seeing him (did she glance at her phone before/after she got up, which would lock in time evidence), a white masked male dressed in black, along with car video, and oh, DNA on the sheath? Enough for me.

 

[SpiderFalcon]

7:21:20 In regards to height, AJ said, DM said the man she saw was her height (5'8") or taller. BK is at least 6' tall. There is a HUGE difference between 5'8" and 5'10" which is stated in the PCA. and an even bigger visual difference between 5'8" and 6'. 6' could not be mistaken for 5'8". DM described a slim, skinny, lean build, not an athletic build as stated in the PCA. So here we have an eyewitness saying the man was her height which would make him around 5'6" to maybe 5'10" and that he was slim, skinny and lean. This does NOT describe BK at all. But then DM told LE she may have dreamed it all, she wasn't sure.

BBM: This is NOT TRUE. AJ never said that DM said this. I can only guess that you haven't listened to AJ. IMO

She apparently said her own height or taller - which would indicate someone very close in height to her, not someone 6', not someone 5 inches taller. JMO.

BBM: Where is it apparent DM said this?

 

[INfisherman]

Just because AT was arguing for a Frank's hearing doesnt mean she has a basis for one.

….and hence why some people may have good reasons for not believing everything which AT says at a hearing.

MOO

 

[wendy44]

I can only guess you have not watched this hearing. AT did make a solid argument for a Franks hearing starting at 6:18. While AT DID argue these points, IMO, <modsnip> Therefore, the only logical way to give you this information is to tell you what the prosecution confirmed during the rebuttal.

I did watch the hearing. We're talking about your statement:

If you watch the hearing from the 23rd, you will also find out that what is in the PCA is a lie. DM described a slim and skinny man who was 5'8" or taller. The description in the PCA appears to have been changed to fit BK better, but it's not what DM said.

I asked where the defense said this. You replied:

First off, it was not the defense but the prosecution...

Now you're saying AT DID argue these points.

You can't make a statement that what is in the PCA is a lie and that the description in the PCA appears to have been changed from what DM said without any evidence that this actually happened. It becomes confusing when people in the threads start repeating this as fact. I think the greatest evidence that this is not true is the fact that the defense did not argue this when making a case for a Franks. If this was true, they would have argued it.
JMO

 

[Boxer]

And the irony! Because AT wasn't there. DM might be totally right. KM (or whichever of the victims) could have gonre up and down the stairs before being killed in the bed. She could have been the one to say "there's someone there".... DM might not recall things in the exact order or ascribe them perfectly but that only underscores her starting premise IMO -- that she didn't know there was a murderer in the house -- and only after opening her door -- saw a figure she didn't recognize.

LE probably asked her hard for more description. Until the single source DNA lead and cctv of a vehicle, she was their greatest asset. She orients the crime in time and space, she apparently memorialized her thinking in texts, she could fill in the blanks fir what she thought, why she thought it, what all the sounds might have been once she realized her friends had been slaughtered, even how she arrived at the adjectives she chose.

Just because AT was arguing for a Frank's hearing doesnt mean she has a basis for one.

JMO

Apparently its ordinary to argue a Franks. AT has to come up with something for it.

 

[Megnut]

Apparently its ordinary to argue a Franks. AT has to come up with something for it.

Indeed.

There's where the academic discussion could come in on this thread. How do you defend a guilty defendant? You try to create doubt. In whatever way you can. You challenge the investigators, the investigation, the evidence, the witnesses, and the table.

You talk in circles and never land the plane.

JMO

 

[Gigiky]

Indeed.

There's where the academic discussion could come in on this thread. How do you defend a guilty defendant? You try to create doubt. In whatever way you can. You challenge the investigators, the investigation, the evidence, the witnesses, and the table.

You talk in circles and never land the plane.

JMO

Exactly!! You summed it up right in a nut shell!!!

 

[INfisherman]

You talk in circles and never land the plane.

RSBM

Ahhhh….explains the feeling I was having regarding some discussions.

Air sickness.

 

[girlhasnoname]

From the hearing

2:02:00
AJ
interviews she described seeing someone wearing all

black, a mask, with only a portion of their face showing

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.

From the original PCA:

<snipped & BBM>

D.M. stated she opened her door for the third time after she heard the crying and saw a figure clad in black clothing and a mask that covered the person's mouth and nose walking towards her. D.M. described the figure as 5'10" or taller, male, not very muscular, but athletically built with bushy eyebrows.

I know from personal experience you can be athletically built without being muscular. Boxing and running does that to a person. It did to me. Look at BK's arrest photo and first court appearances. Tall, lean, athletically built with bushy eyebrows until he got a glow up...coiffed eyebrows and suits/ties.

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Apparently its ordinary to argue a Franks. AT has to come up with something for it.

Exactly, if you ever want to see/read a completely overblown and inaccurate Memo for Franks, take a look at the 136 page one the Defense tried to argue in the Delphi case. It went nowhere.

JMO

 

[iamshadow21]

In this back and forth about the height, I think I should raise again that at the time he was seen, the perpetrator was stepping down a step from the living room area to the level of the back of the house.

I think everyone would agree it's probably more difficult to precisely gauge someone's height if they're doing that than walking on a flat, level surface.

MOO

 

[Karin1974]

At this point, we really don't know what DM saw.

But as to the items, maybe you don't live in the USA because they are all normal household items that the vast majority of Americans would have in their homes.

A gun, but no bullets - well I would think the majority of gun owners have bullets, but in this case, no. So that's a huge nothing. Obviously BK was not planning on shooting anyone with a gun.

A few random knives - most Americans own dozens of knives for all kinds of purposes.

Black masks - Black ski masks in an area where it snows a lot, black covid-19 masks, nothing scary about any of that.

Gloves: Playtex Living Gloves, medical gloves/food service gloves, snow gloves. All seem very normal to me for pretty much any household in America.

And absolutely none of the items were tied to the murders in any way. So they are just a bunch of non-evidence in this crime. That's why I'm nonchalant about them. The items proved nothing whatsoever.

IMO - Whilst I completely agree, if there happens to be a pic in BK’s phone of him in a black coverall suit & black mask looking in the mirror, holding a knife, I wouldn’t be completely surprised. MOO

 

[INfisherman]

Exactly, if you ever want to see/read a completely overblown and inaccurate Memo for Franks, take a look at the 136 page one the Defense tried to argue in the Delphi case. It went nowhere.

JMO

No, please, sweet Lord, just no.

I hope AT doesn’t put all her eggs in the Franks basket on this case & just plow into trial with it, if it’s denied.

MOO

 

[INfisherman]

In this back and forth about the height, I think I should raise again that at the time he was seen, the perpetrator was stepping down a step from the living room area to the level of the back of the house.

I think everyone would agree it's probably more difficult to precisely gauge someone's height if they're doing that than walking on a flat, level surface.

MOO

Was it dark in the background behind BK as well or do we know? If it was dark, & he’s clad in black, that might also cause things to not be seen as clearly as in a lit area or play tricks with perception.

JMO