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

[Soulmagent]

All MOO

It is my opinion his car definitely was not. I am open to him being involved but do not believe he did it by himself. I also lean towards BK has never stepped foot in that house which is why they only found a few of his skin cells on a moveable object.

In my opinion they have nothing on BK other than the transfer DNA. For me there is quite a bit of reasonable doubt.

That's my opinion. I realize it won't be popular but that is my opinion.

I true ,to the most hard spot in my soul , believe the most important thing they have on BK is a conviction. prediction. IMO.

 

[Cool Cats]

All MOO

Well on 'cell phone expert' Sy Ray testified all of the evidence is exculpatory from he's seen. What CAST experts are you talking about? Idaho LE?

What do cellphone records say about Bryan Kohberger’s location? Expert explains

But Levitan said a typical cellphone tower covers an area of 12 square miles. Someone could be miles away from the nearest cell tower, and Moscow is a roughly 3-by-5-mile town.

“You cannot pinpoint a person,” Levitan said about cellphone records. “There’s no chance any expert in the world can tell you where that person is located.”

Levitan added that the nearest cell tower to the King Road home covers an area of 27.3 square miles — the same size as nearly 14,000 football fields.

No. Sy Ray did not say all the evidence is exculpatory from what he's seen. "There are other reports that are missing that I can't tell you are benefiting of Mr. Kohberger or the state."

Cellphone expert testifies missing data benefits University of Idaho murder suspect

Sy Ray, a cellphone tower analyst, said at an evidence hearing that what he has seen so far appears to be "exculpatory" to Bryan Kohberger, although that could change.

www.nbcnews.com

Villaseñor also took exception with how the Trax algorithm wasn’t open to “scientific scrutiny.”

“While Ray stands by his formula, it hasn’t gained traction in the scientific community,” the judge wrote. “The methodology and algorithm aren’t published or subject to peer review, and they’ve been routinely labeled as junk science by the relevant scientific community.”

Judge is
District Court Judge Juan Villaseñor.

Ray, a former Gilbert, Arizona, police detective, founded ZetX Corp., a company specializing in cellular geolocation mapping, in 2014. In the courtroom, Ray has found himself and his mapping software, Trax, under questions about reliability before.

“I’ve seen in previous cases where his credibility has been brought into question,” said Mark Pfoff, a cellular technology expert and former sheriff’s detective in El Paso County, Colorado.

Pfoff testified for the defense in a 2022 hearing related to the case of a man accused of stalking an ex-girlfriend. But the judge barred prosecutors from using Ray’s software data.

District Court Judge Juan Villaseñor ruled that ZetX’s Trax mapping was inadmissible and based on a “sea of unreliability” after other experts found the technology to be problematic.

“For one, the Court doesn’t find Ray credible,” Villaseñor wrote, adding: “He inflated his credentials, inaccurately claiming to be an engineer.” He went on to say that Ray has “no qualifications, licenses, or credentials to support” calling himself an engineer and that there’s “no evidence that Ray’s taken any engineering classes.

Villaseñor also took exception with how the Trax algorithm wasn’t open to “scientific scrutiny.”

“While Ray stands by his formula, it hasn’t gained traction in the scientific community,” the judge wrote. “The methodology and algorithm aren’t published or subject to peer review, and they’ve been routinely labeled as junk science by the relevant scientific community.”

“Where the challenges come in is when there’s a different level of experience,” he added, “and some of these records can be extremely complicated.”

ME:

"Sounds very confusing for the jury."

 

[Soulmagent]

Knocking on the door gets bullets shot into bullet proof vests.



I hate math but this sounds too convoluted for a jury. I mean juries need to know the mileage and road conditions.

Also ,you really cannot predict anything after alerting to inhabitants , your there.
I dont open my door if I can avoid it. For people I dont know. such as =. ups, cops, canucks, ups, fed ex. the plumber etc..
I have been known to address people from my second story window.

 

[Soulmagent]

Maybe. But it was reported that one of the first things that BK's father did when they arrived back home in PA was to take the car in for servicing, so I don't think he was aware that the car wasn't going to make the return trip back to WSU.

So if my kid bought her car home and expected me to upgrade their lifestyle , (in a flash ) but I gotta give her or him,my Lexus ,or VW, (THEY ARE NOT GETTING THE TRANS AM OR THE 79 FORD, ) I would run it though the shop . day one. I keep 6 junks built in the 90's. I am not trying to loose a car. I tell my kids if it is mine an running funny park it. where you are. That is what keeps my family in cars. Without payments. Then they drive something diff for a minute. Also I have 4 kids, 6 cars is not a lot for my huge fam. I do get surprised when we need an extra ... wft really. Sorry ,I babble .

 

[mrjitty]

Was it 27 square miles or 27 mile radius? Both have been mentioned and these are not the same.
JMO

The radius thing can be misleading.

We know just as a basic question that they will know which sector of the tower the phone was connected to which gives approximate azimuth.

Also timing advance gives an approximation of how far away the phone is. This is all before anything like multiple towers, location evidence or combination of tower and other evidence.

My boy will be positioned much more accurately than represented in that quote IMO.

MOO

 

[INfisherman]

The radius thing can be misleading.

We know just as a basic question that they will know which sector of the tower the phone was connected to which gives approximate azimuth.

Also timing advance gives an approximation of how far away the phone is. This is all before anything like multiple towers, location evidence or combination of tower and other evidence.

My boy will be positioned much more accurately than represented in that quote IMO.

MOO

Asking out of ignorance, but won’t GPS data be separate from tower data & even more accurate if it’s available? I am under the impression those are 2 distinctly separate things using 2 different means for location. Thoughts, if any?

 

[Megnut]

Asking out of ignorance, but won’t GPS data be separate from tower data & even more accurate if it’s available? I am under the impression those are 2 distinctly separate things using 2 different means for location. Thoughts, if any?

Yes.

And AT knows this.

I re-listened to some of the hearing again and lost my mind over one thing and other things and the context of the one thing (her language not mine) and I'm not sure she even knew what she was talking about after a while. She is IMO mastering that art of highlighting a point that's not the point.

Case in point, her argument about the direction a car is pointed, and more than an hour before the crime is committed, no less -- rubbish. Maybe he went the other way, drive around the block to avoid something (oh, I don't know, like maybe police presence in his immediate area). It's evidence of nothing. What possible bearing could that have on a crime that occurred an hour later?

For as long as BK was driving with his phone on, IMO the CAST report will show where he was and what he was doing, and there may be some very telling patterns.

For instance, compare:

Let's say on those trips to Moscow, 12 times I think it was, if his phone was on, and it must have been (for LE to know about the trips in the first place), maybe AT is right that he didn't loiter anywhere (no indication he stopped anywhere) and "right" that he wasn't "over there", easily he could have driven near enough to 1122 to satisfy whatever force that drove him to drive himself there. Perhaps not unlike his loops the night of the crimes. Bet the same thing could be said -- he didn't "stop", he wasn't "over there". But it wasn't aimless.

She's word-smithing.

It's all that's left when you're defending someone who's guilty.

JMO

 

[Kemug]

Did BK intend to return to WSU, or did he not? IMO, he hadn't yet made up his mind. He was going to think about it over the Xmas break, keep an eye on the news, and then decide. But in the end, it wasn't his decision.

 

[jepop]

The radius thing can be misleading.

We know just as a basic question that they will know which sector of the tower the phone was connected to which gives approximate azimuth.

Also timing advance gives an approximation of how far away the phone is. This is all before anything like multiple towers, location evidence or combination of tower and other evidence.

My boy will be positioned much more accurately than represented in that quote IMO.

MOO

Yes, I agree re timing advance records. I went and checked out the 17 -26 November 2022 geo fence warrants ( AT &T, Verizon Wireless and TMobile - they're in the March 2023 redacted warrant dumps on COI page) and compared with select parts of PCA. Will post about that when time permits. Suffice to say, the link up thread to Levitan, someone who had no access to the csl data for this case and imoo was pontificating simplicities for the sake of it and his reputation as a talking head, can be taken with a truck bed of salt. Jmo. As many point out, probably best to stick to what the CAST experts will testify at trial. Jmo

 

[mrjitty]

Asking out of ignorance, but won’t GPS data be separate from tower data & even more accurate if it’s available? I am under the impression those are 2 distinctly separate things using 2 different means for location. Thoughts, if any?

GPS data is passive data from global positioning satellites. It can be recovered as location data off the device itself or from cloud services which use it (eg google apps, apple health etc).

so when BK turned his phone back on it may have created on board location data to supplement the tower.

 

[INfisherman]

Yes.

And AT knows this.

I re-listened to some of the hearing again and lost my mind over one thing and other things and the context of the one thing (her language not mine) and I'm not sure she even knew what she was talking about after a while. She is IMO mastering that art of highlighting a point that's not the point.

Case in point, her argument about the direction a car is pointed, and more than an hour before the crime is committed, no less -- rubbish. Maybe he went the other way, drive around the block to avoid something (oh, I don't know, like maybe police presence in his immediate area). It's evidence of nothing. What possible bearing could that have on a crime that occurred an hour later?

For as long as BK was driving with his phone on, IMO the CAST report will show where he was and what he was doing, and there may be some very telling patterns.

For instance, compare:

Let's say on those trips to Moscow, 12 times I think it was, if his phone was on, and it must have been (for LE to know about the trips in the first place), maybe AT is right that he didn't loiter anywhere (no indication he stopped anywhere) and "right" that he wasn't "over there", easily he could have driven near enough to 1122 to satisfy whatever force that drove him to drive himself there. Perhaps not unlike his loops the night of the crimes. Bet the same thing could be said -- he didn't "stop", he wasn't "over there". But it wasn't aimless.

She's word-smithing.

It's all that's left when you're defending someone who's guilty.

JMO

GPS data is passive data from global positioning satellites. It can be recovered as location data off the device itself or from cloud services which use it (eg google apps, apple health etc).

so when BK turned his phone back on it may have created on board location data to supplement the tower.

Thank you both for your input. Much appreciated.

 

[mrjitty]

Yes, I agree re timing advance records. I went and checked out the 17 -26 November 2022 geo fence warrants ( AT &T, Verizon Wireless and TMobile - they're in the March 2023 redacted warrant dumps on COI page) and compared with select parts of PCA. Will post about that when time permits. Suffice to say, the link up thread to Levitan, someone who had no access to the csl data for this case and imoo was pontificating simplicities for the sake of it and his reputation as a talking head, can be taken with a truck bed of salt. Jmo. As many point out, probably best to stick to what the CAST experts will testify at trial. Jmo

Right. As we know from other cases, each network will have an approximate location and azimuth for where it thinks the phone was. Levitan's statements are only true at a generic level.

 

[girlhasnoname]

And LE thought he would be returning to WSU according to the PCA exhibit for the apartment search warrant:

page 36
While I believe Kohberger is visiting family in Pennsylvania over the current school break at WSU, I believe he intends to return for the start of the next semester,so I expect his belongings to still be in his residence at 1630 NE Valley Rd, G201.

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/search%20warrant%20for%20bryan%20kohberger%20apartment/ddb059f6cc8e24c1/full.pdf

JMO
edit spelling

Yes, that was written before gaining access to BK's residence and storage. He had no way of knowing on Dec 29th they would only recover a bare minimum of items. BK took far more with him on his drive to PA than what he left in WA.

Page One of Return of SW Residence and Storage Locker
<snipped>

DATE ISSUED: 12/29
DATE SERVED: 12/30
SERVED BY: Assistant Chief Dawn Daniels
HOW SERVED: In Person

All seized from Residence and currently stored at WSUPD 17

Items Seized
1. 1 nitrite type black glove
2. 1 Walmart receipt with one Dickies tag
3. Marshalls receipts
4.. Dust container from BissellPowerForce" vacuum
5. 8 possible hair strands
6. FireTV stick with cord/plug
7. 1 possible animal hair strand
8. 1 possible hair
9. 1 possible hair 1
10.1 possible hair
11.1 possible hairs strand
12.1 computer tower
A. 1 collection of dark red spot (collected without testing)
B. 2 cuttings from uncased pillow of reddish/brown stain(larger stain tested)
C. 2 top and bottom of mattress cover packaged separately both labeled multiple stains (one tested)
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/search warrant for bryan kohberger apartment/ddb059f6cc8e24c1/full.pdf

JMO
EBM: Duplicate words

 

[girlhasnoname]

I do find it particularly interesting that in the file I linked above this paragraph is referred to often (4 times I believe). It makes me think LE has info on this. Did BK have a history of this prior to the murders?

Evidence of use of the device to conduct internet searches relating to a review of other murders or violent assaults/stabbing and/or cutting of people, as well as how to avoid detection after the commission of such crimes; details of the 1122 King Road house, its location/neighborhood, and/or information about one or more of the victims Ethan Chapin, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kernodle, Madison Mogen, DM and BF.

MOO

 

[Nila Aella]

Yes.

And AT knows this.

I re-listened to some of the hearing again and lost my mind over one thing and other things and the context of the one thing (her language not mine) and I'm not sure she even knew what she was talking about after a while. She is IMO mastering that art of highlighting a point that's not the point.

Case in point, her argument about the direction a car is pointed, and more than an hour before the crime is committed, no less -- rubbish. Maybe he went the other way, drive around the block to avoid something (oh, I don't know, like maybe police presence in his immediate area). It's evidence of nothing. What possible bearing could that have on a crime that occurred an hour later?

LE thought it was important enough to put in the PCA exhibit. That the car was headed toward Moscow.

This last hearing was about the PCA.
Was the Cast information that was provided to the magistrate false? If so, was it knowingly false?
The car was pointed in the opposite direction, for seven minutes, then the phone stopped reporting. The time the phone stopped reporting was different between the CAST and PCA.
Both sides appear to agree this happened.
Does it matter why?
JMO

For as long as BK was driving with his phone on, IMO the CAST report will show where he was and what he was doing, and there may be some very telling patterns.

For instance, compare:

Let's say on those trips to Moscow, 12 times I think it was, if his phone was on, and it must have been (for LE to know about the trips in the first place), maybe AT is right that he didn't loiter anywhere (no indication he stopped anywhere) and "right" that he wasn't "over there", easily he could have driven near enough to 1122 to satisfy whatever force that drove him to drive himself there.

128:36
AT
but based on those records they absolutely knew that Mr koberger wasn't
around that residence wasn't parked near the residence didn't stop and have his phone in a stationary position at that residence they absolutely knew that that's not what was happening but they put it in there to make a connection that didn't exist they put it in there so that the judge would think that this was the right person and they shouldn't have done that they knew that was incorrect.

AJ
1:59:13
here's what is an Evidence
though uh it and based off of the PC affidavit is that the phone was in the
area for the tower that provides service to the 1122 residence still maintain that's
true regardless none of this has any bearing on the validity of the search warrant their argument is merely a clarification about which member did what work um and and that doesn't matter to the ultimate determination for probable cause

JMO

Perhaps not unlike his loops the night of the crimes.

AT:
1:10:53
the issue with that that's not disclosed to the magistrate is that car appears one time on one video and not any of the others that they try to say are the path it it's not let me see if I can say this right it's not following a consistent Trail where the one camera that can identify the car where it appears again it appears one time and then what law enforcement did was they took several videos from all over the area and said
well it's the same car and we have an identification that's not all the
identification was most comfortably from that FBI agent to be a 2011 to 2013

AJ:
1:58:01
we have an expert who tells us and that's what was relayed in the probable cause affidavit and those opinions haven't changed we're we differ on a few factual
issues I believe there are three towers that provide service to the Moscow area
defendant is

JH here's my concerned with you telling me that at this stage of
things where in the record is that currently apart from anything you may
have submitted after they filed the Frank's motion uh what specifically that there are three towers I believe I referen my response yeah but that doesn't if you give me
evidence and I rely on that evidence then I have to give them a full Franks hearing and so that's why I'm been very clear to say I'm looking at what the proffer is from the defense without evidence submitted by the state to determine whether they have met their threshold burden and so I get concerned when you start telling me things that
are not necessarily part of the evidence understood

AJ we can we can move past the number of towers

JMO

Bet the same thing could be said -- he didn't "stop", he wasn't "over there". But it wasn't aimless.

She's word-smithing.

IMO AT was clear.

they absolutely knew that Mr koberger wasn't
around that residence wasn't parked near the residence didn't stop and have his phone in a stationary position at that residence

It's all that's left when you're defending someone who's guilty.

JMO

 

[Nila Aella]

Yes, that was written before gaining access to BK's residence and storage. He had no way of knowing on Dec 29th they would only recover a bare minimum of items. BK took far more with him on his drive to PA than what he left in WA.

Page One of Return of SW Residence and Storage Locker
<snipped>

DATE ISSUED: 12/29
DATE SERVED: 12/30
SERVED BY: Assistant Chief Dawn Daniels
HOW SERVED: In Person

All seized from Residence and currently stored at WSUPD 17

Items Seized
1. 1 nitrite type black glove
2. 1 Walmart receipt with one Dickies tag
3. Marshalls receipts
4.. Dust container from BissellPowerForce" vacuum
5. 8 possible hair strands
6. FireTV stick with cord/plug
7. 1 possible animal hair strand
8. 1 possible hair
9. 1 possible hair 1
10.1 possible hair
11.1 possible hairs strand
12.1 computer tower
A. 1 collection of dark red spot (collected without testing)
B. 2 cuttings from uncased pillow of reddish/brown stain(larger stain tested)
C. 2 top and bottom of mattress cover packaged separately both labeled multiple stains (one tested)
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/search warrant for bryan kohberger apartment/ddb059f6cc8e24c1/full.pdf

JMO
EBM: Duplicate words

The return shows items that LE was allowed to seize. Items detailed in the search warrant. Not all of the items left in the apartment.
JMO

 

[Justice101]

Him leaving his computer tower and firestick at the apartment is interesting to me.

I think he left them there to conceal to his father that he might get loose his TA position. "Son, why is your computer in the trunk?" Also, being the doctoral candidate in criminology, I think he knew more than to simply delete the contents of the hard drive. Even knowing a reformat might not even get rid of everything (I don't actually know). I think he probably physically removed the hard drive and threw it in a river. We will find out at trial if it ever makes it to that point. I doubt he used the firestick to search the internet so that might be of no value. The stains were probably not the victims.

So... in my humble opinion, he did a really good job at MOST of the evidence hiding. But he 1) did not clean the inside of the snap on his knife sheath and 2) he did not get his car tags replaced early enough so that both tags showed. 3) He also didn't dispose of the phone he had.

Like everyone else is saying, the DNA evidence is the major thing his defense team will have no success with explaining away. Couple that with the circumstantial evidence (car video, eye witness description consistent, phone and/or GPS data, no alibi and any other evidence they come up with that was not in the PCA... his goose is pretty much cooked.

Post note: the hairs are interesting. He had short curly hair, I wonder if some of the hair they found was long and/or straight? If he bagged his bodysuit or whatever he wore, then due to the physically violent stabbings, it is possible when he put his body suit into perhaps a large garbage bag, that due to static electricity, a hair or two stuck to the bag and if he took it back to his apartment to figure out how to dispose, that a hair stuck to the carpet or elsewhere. Total supposition on my part.

 

[mmeynstyn]

Yes.

And AT knows this.

I re-listened to some of the hearing again and lost my mind over one thing and other things and the context of the one thing (her language not mine) and I'm not sure she even knew what she was talking about after a while. She is IMO mastering that art of highlighting a point that's not the point.

Case in point, her argument about the direction a car is pointed, and more than an hour before the crime is committed, no less -- rubbish. Maybe he went the other way, drive around the block to avoid something (oh, I don't know, like maybe police presence in his immediate area). It's evidence of nothing. What possible bearing could that have on a crime that occurred an hour later?

For as long as BK was driving with his phone on, IMO the CAST report will show where he was and what he was doing, and there may be some very telling patterns.

For instance, compare:

Let's say on those trips to Moscow, 12 times I think it was, if his phone was on, and it must have been (for LE to know about the trips in the first place), maybe AT is right that he didn't loiter anywhere (no indication he stopped anywhere) and "right" that he wasn't "over there", easily he could have driven near enough to 1122 to satisfy whatever force that drove him to drive himself there. Perhaps not unlike his loops the night of the crimes. Bet the same thing could be said -- he didn't "stop", he wasn't "over there". But it wasn't aimless.

She's word-smithing.

It's all that's left when you're defending someone who's guilty.

JMO

I have to admit, while listening to AT during the hearing, one of the things that crossed my mind was that old saying: "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bs."

JMO

 

[jepop]

128:36
AT
but based on those records they absolutely knew that Mr koberger wasn't around that residence wasn't parked near the residence didn't stop and have his phone in a stationary position at that residence they absolutely knew that that's not what was happening but they put it in there to make a connection that didn't exist they put it in there so that the judge would think that this was the right person and they shouldn't have done that they knew that was incorrect.

From PCA, p16.

"The records for the 8458 Phone show the 8458 Phone utilizing cellular resources that provide coverage to the area of I 122 King Road on at least twelve occasions prior to November 13,2022. All of these occasions, except for one, occurred in the late evening and early morning hours of their respective days."
(my emphasis)

The PCA says his phone utilised cellular resources that provide coverage to the area of 1122 King Road late at night/early am on at least 11 occasions. PCA states historical phone records were obtained in part to aid in the investigation:

P15
"...a search warrant for Kohberger's historical CSL from June 23, 2022 to current, prospective location information, and a Pen Register/Trap and Trace on the 8458 Phone to aid in efforts to determine if Kohberger stalked any of the victims in
this case prior to the offense, conducted surveillance on the King Road Residence..."

AT at hearing, as transcribed
"...they absolutely knew that Mr koberger wasn't around that residence wasn't parked near the residence didn't stop and have his phone in a stationary position at that residence they absolutely knew that that's not what was happening..."

How does AT claim that at the time investigators absolutely knew BK was not around that residence? We're talking about a cell phone here, not a person.

"...but they put it in there to make a connection that didn't exist they put it in there so that the judge would think that this was the right person and they shouldn't have done that they knew that was incorrect."

AT's claims in this second paragraph are ..what? Speculation? Difference of opinion ? I believe AJ alluded to that being the case and State stands by the statement in the PCA. AT does not say whether CSL data showed BK phone stopping somewhere within walking distance of 1122 on some of those occasions. Does the data show this? If it does, could BK have then proceeded on foot?

The point I'm making is, at the time of the PCA the investigation of BK's connection to 1122 and it's occupants was in its infancy. And as one element making up a case of probable cause for arrest, the late night/early morn occasions when BK's phone was at the very least in the vicinity of 1222 King Road was relevant information. Jmo

Imo: Judge who issued the arrest warrant made what he/she made of this information when considering the affidavit. AT's argument is not solid argument for deception at all. Is AT arguing that the info should not have been included at all ? It is not false info and imo it can hardly be considered irrelevant info. Moo

 

[Nila Aella]

From PCA, p16.

"The records for the 8458 Phone show the 8458 Phone utilizing cellular resources that provide coverage to the area of I 122 King Road on at least twelve occasions prior to November 13,2022. All of these occasions, except for one, occurred in the late evening and early morning hours of their respective days."
(my emphasis)

Yes, that is the P response.
JMO

The PCA says his phone utilised cellular resources that provide coverage to the area of 1122 King Road late at night/early am on at least 11 occasions. PCA states historical phone records were obtained in part to aid in the investigation:

P15
"...a search warrant for Kohberger's historical CSL from June 23, 2022 to current, prospective location information, and a Pen Register/Trap and Trace on the 8458 Phone to aid in efforts to determine if Kohberger stalked any of the victims in
this case prior to the offense, conducted surveillance on the King Road Residence..."

It did aid LE. They knew he was not near the residence before writing the PCA (draft cast). And according to AT, the final draft says the same. Inbetween, additonal information came in supporting that he was not near the residence.

Did the PCA exhibit ever change to reflect this?
JMO

AT at hearing, as transcribed
"...they absolutely knew that Mr koberger wasn't around that residence wasn't parked near the residence didn't stop and have his phone in a stationary position at that residence they absolutely knew that that's not what was happening..."

How does AT claim that at the time investigators absolutely knew BK was not around that residence? We're talking about a cell phone here, not a person.

AT referenced the draft CAST.
LE has connected BK, phone, and car.
JMO

"...but they put it in there to make a connection that didn't exist they put it in there so that the judge would think that this was the right person and they shouldn't have done that they knew that was incorrect."

AT's claims in this second paragraph are ..what? Speculation? Difference of opinion ? I believe AJ alluded to that being the case and State stands by the statement in the PCA. AT does not say whether CSL data showed BK phone stopping somewhere within walking distance of 1122 on some of those occasions. Does the data show this? If it does, could BK have then proceeded on foot?

The hearing was about the PCA and the information that LE knew at the time.
At the time LE wrote the PCA exhibit, the draft CAST data shows he was not near the residence.
JMO

The point I'm making is, at the time of the PCA the investigation of BK's connection to 1122 and it's occupants was in its infancy. And as one element making up a case of probable cause for arrest, the late night/early morn occasions when BK's phone was at the very least in the vicinity of 1222 King Road was relevant information. Jmo

Where in Moscow is relevant.
JMO

Imo: Judge who issued the arrest warrant made what he/she made of this information when considering the affidavit. AT's argument is not solid argument for deception at all. Is AT arguing that the info should not have been included at all ? It is not false info

ATs argument is about what was included and about the omission.
Heading toward Moscow vs. heading away from Moscow.
The arrow on the map is pointed toward Moscow.
Timing difference between draft CAST and PCA.
The omission (that he was not near the house)

Would love to hear what Judge M thought when reading that portion of the PCA exhibit.

JMO

and imo it can hardly be considered irrelevant info. Moo