ID - 4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered - Bryan Kohberger Arrested - Moscow # 70

[Twistinginthewind]

'NO GENIUS'

Idaho ‘killer’ Bryan Kohberger is a fantasist with no common sense & returned to scene to live out dream, expert claims​

The U.S. Sun
Luke Kenton
1/22/2023 update

ACCUSED Idaho killer Bryan Kohberger is an "obsessive fantasist" who was fixated on the idea of murdering but lacked enough common sense to adequately cover his tracks, a forensic psychologist claims.
... [...] ...
"When news of the murders first broke, it appeared as though the culprit had pulled off the perfect crime, with police seemingly struggling to find leads, leaving the victim's families furious.

However, since Kohberger's arrest last month, the evidence disclosed by investigators revealed the Ph.D. criminology student allegedly made a host of rookie errors that led police right to his door.

Veteran forensic psychologist Dr. Joni Johnston told The U.S. Sun that his purported mistakes show Kohberger to be an "obsessive fantasist" rather than the criminal mastermind he may have believed himself to be.

"There’s clear evidence this was pre-planned for months or weeks ahead of time," said Johnston, "but this crime was certainly not meticulously planned.

"He drove his own car [to the murder scene], he brought his own phone with him, he left his knife sheath there - so that doesn’t sound meticulous to me.

"Instead, it seems to me like someone who is very obsessive and fantasizing about [the act of killing] and thinking about it.

"Thinking about what weapon he's going to use, and think about what time he's going to go in, and thinking about how he's going to get in, and watching the house perhaps.

"But it appears he then had no common sense in terms of thinking about: 'OK, how am I not going to get caught?' - the basics.

"I’ve heard a lot of people say: 'Well, why wasn’t he focusing on forensics as a criminology student?' But he was basically studying the criminal mind, not forensic science," she added.

"I don't think he was studying how to make sure blood spatter goes in the right way, or anything like that; I think he was focusing on the psychology of it.

"I think it was very obsessively pre-planned, and I think he was obsessed with the fantasy of it all, this is my theory."
... [...] ..."

Expert reveals why 'fantasist' Idaho 'killer' Bryan Kohberger returned to scene

 

[polyD]

If you got home at 4 am the dog would likely be awake and probably need to be let out. Did anyone let the dog out ? If I was up and awake and my dog was also up and awake and we were chatting and talking after a night out I definitely would be playing with my dog at that hour. That hour seems odd to you but young people keep odd hours and may not be unusual to them.

 

[Cassady]

You're right. However, venue changes are rare. The judge's decision in Barry Morphew's case was exceptional. Among the many factors that made it difficult to get a jury pool was the small size of the county in which the trial was set (about 18,000). The case was moved to a neighboring county with a population about 50,000, where the judge thought he could draw a jury pool sufficiently large to find twelve impartial jurors notwithstanding the publicity surrounding the case, which had been promoted by the District Attorney in ways the judge found concerning.

Kootenai County is the third largest in Idaho, with about 180,000 people, which should support the more common approach to venue change: to reserve ruling on the motion until after an attempt has been made to seat an impartial jury in the origninal jurisdiction.

For a typical rationale, see: Order on Defendant's Amended Motion for Change of Venue, People v Pankey

IMO the current venue is Latah County, with a population of just over 40,000 people. A large percentage of those people have ties to the U of I...IMO

IMO the defense will have good arguments for a change of venue, if they choose to make them.

 

[Twistinginthewind]

If you got home at 4 am the dog would likely be awake and probably need to be let out. Did anyone let the dog out ? If I was up and awake and my dog was also up and awake and we were chatting and talking after a night out I definitely would be playing with my dog at that hour. That hour seems odd to you but young people keep odd hours and may not be unusual to them.

"Goncalves and Mogen returned home just before 2 a.m., according to police.

The other victims, roommate Xana Kernodle and her boyfriend, Ethan Chapin, both 20, had returned to the house around 1:45 a.m., according to police.

Between 3 and 4 a.m., investigators say they were killed with what police have described as a "fixed-blade knife.""

Idaho murders: Full video appearing to show Kaylee Goncalves and Maddie Mogen hours before slayings released

 

[Boxer]

Yes, facts do matter which is why I replied to the post that said Xana was the only person awake. We have no way of knowing Xana was the only person awake, so that isn't a factual statement. IMO, it is entirely possible (and likely, given DM's report in the PCA) that Kaylee was awake as well.

Facts do matter.

MOO.

No screams from awake people?

 

[North_Idaho_Nony]

What about the Idaho PDC?

About the Commission

pdc.idaho.gov

Roster:

Capital Defending Attorney Qualifications and Roster

pdc.idaho.gov

Capital Counsel Roster:

https://pdc.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/IdahoCapitalCounselRoster20230126.pdf

I think perhaps it’s best described as a hybrid system?

The Idaho PDC mission is at the link you provided:
Home

However, it’s up to each of the 44 counties in Idaho to determine how to implement those standards. Criminal public defenders here (below the appellate level) are not state employees. They also aren’t necessarily county employees — some counties contract out all or part of the PD work.

As has been previously mentioned, (non-appellate) criminal public defense in Idaho is a work in progress, largely as a result of Tucker v State of Idaho. For those interested in the progress Idaho is making, here’s an older non-paywall article that touches on it:
Senate panel OKs public defense caseload rules

For those who have looked at the Admin Rules, there’s a reason everything was reviewed/updated 7/1/22.

All MOO, of course!

 

[Dotta]

No screams from awake people?

What about the scream the neighbour heard?
Or was it a rumour?

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

No screams from awake people?

Not unusual, IMO, especially if killed quickly. May have been no time to scream. People are also often in a state of shock in these circumstances, so I'm not at all surprised there were no screams. MOO.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

What about the scream the neighbour heard?
Or was it a rumour?

That was unconfirmed. I'm not sure if it was official debunked or not? The PCA didn't indicate a scream.

 

[WingsOverTX]

Does anyone think that a family member may have suspected BK involvement early on and contacted the FBI with their concerns?

We do not have any public information that would lead to such a scenario AFAIK.

If you are suggesting one of the parents who have had AT as a public defender, I would say that seems extremely unlikely.

One of the hallmarks of this case is the level of stranger danger IMO. Motive appears to be hidden by that very fact.

JMO

 

[WingsOverTX]

If you got home at 4 am the dog would likely be awake and probably need to be let out. Did anyone let the dog out ? If I was up and awake and my dog was also up and awake and we were chatting and talking after a night out I definitely would be playing with my dog at that hour. That hour seems odd to you but young people keep odd hours and may not be unusual to them.

The murdered four were all in residence by 2 a.m. The crimes occurred approx. between 4:05 & 4:20 a.m. Murphy may have barked during commission of the crimes. IIRC, he was in KG's room, possibly crated when Maddie & Kaylee were attacked.
MOO

 

[WingsOverTX]

What about the scream the neighbour heard?
Or was it a rumour?

We only have the PCA to rely on for facts & a scream is not mentioned. Maybe DM heard a scream or a nearby security cam picked up a noise like that.

I tend to think none of the murdered victims screamed because the large knife used by the killer disabled them while sleeping or so quickly they lost that ability with the 1st wound.

Because so many people are living densely in the area near the party house, it could have been anyone. IMO what the neighbor heard is unrelated to the crimes.

JMO

 

[WingsOverTX]

"Goncalves and Mogen returned home just before 2 a.m., according to police.

The other victims, roommate Xana Kernodle and her boyfriend, Ethan Chapin, both 20, had returned to the house around 1:45 a.m., according to police.

Between 3 and 4 a.m., investigators say they were killed with what police have described as a "fixed-blade knife.""

Idaho murders: Full video appearing to show Kaylee Goncalves and Maddie Mogen hours before slayings released

Actual time of the murders was after 4 a.m.

The 3 to 4 a.m. was cited by LE early before the PCA confirmed these victims were murdered in a time span as tight as 10 to 12 minutes.

This time frame revealed in the PCA has been closely analyzed in these threads.

It was quick!

MOO

 

[CGray123]

This is a very good point.

The complicating factor, however, is that the families of three of the four victim families have deep roots in Kootenai County, so finding an impartial jury with no connection to the victims or their families might be more difficult.

I, of course, continue to believe that Latah County will be more than capable to seat an impartial jury when it’s trial time.

I am sure Latah County could provide an impartial jury if Kootenai can't.

However, the presence of victim families alone will not create the presumption of prejudice that BK will need if he wants a judge to transfer the case out of the jurisdiction where the crime occurred. Friends of the victims and their families will be excused from serving during voir dire, if they are allowed to reach the jury box at all.

The Supreme Court of the United States articulated some of the principles involved in assessing the impact of pretrial publicity in the case of Skilling v. United States:

"...In each of these (prior) cases, we overturned a 'conviction obtained in a trial atmosphere that [was] utterly corrupted by press coverage'. Our decisions, however, 'cannot be made to stand for the proposition that juror exposure to … news accounts of the crime … alone presumptively deprives the defendant of due process.' (citations omitted) Prominence does not necessarily produce prejudice, and juror impartiality, we have reiterated, does not require ignorance. Jurors are not required to be 'totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved'; scarcely any of those best qualified to serve as jurors will not have formed some impression or opinion as to the merits of the case. Every case of public interest is almost, as a matter of necessity, brought to the attention of all the intelligent people in the vicinity, and scarcely any one can be found among those best fitted for jurors who has not read or heard of it, and who has not some impression or some opinion in respect to its merits. A presumption of prejudice, our decisions indicate, attends only the extreme case."

In evaluating whether Skilling established that the jury members seated in his trial were actually prejudiced against him, the SCOTUS said:

"No hard-and-fast formula dictates the necessary depth or breadth of voir dire. Impartiality is not a technical conception. It is a state of mind. For the ascertainment of this mental attitude of appropriate indifference, the Constitution lays down no particular tests and procedure is not chained to any ancient and artificial formula. Jury selection, we have repeatedly emphasized, is particularly within the province of the trial judge.

When pretrial publicity is at issue, primary reliance on the judgment of the trial court makes especially good sense because the judge sits in the locale where the publicity is said to have had its effect and may base her evaluation on her own perception of the depth and extent of news stories that might influence a juror. Appellate courts making after-the-fact assessments of the media’s impact on jurors should be mindful that their judgments lack the on-the-spot comprehension of the situation possessed by trial judges.

Reviewing courts are properly resistant to second-guessing the trial judge’s estimation of a juror’s impartiality, for that judge’s appraisal is ordinarily influenced by a host of factors impossible to capture fully in the record—among them, the prospective juror’s inflection, sincerity, demeanor, candor, body language, and apprehension of duty. In contrast to the cold transcript received by the appellate court, the in-the-moment voir dire affords the trial court a more intimate and immediate basis for assessing a venire member’s fitness for jury service. We consider the adequacy of jury selection in Skilling’s case, therefore, attentive to the respect due to district-court determinations of juror impartiality and of the measures necessary to ensure that impartiality."

Given the deference of appellate courts to the trial court's judgement as to the impartiality of individual jurors, I doubt that a jury seated by the presiding Judge in Kootenai County could be successfully challenged on appeal.

 

[CGray123]

IMO the current venue is Latah County, with a population of just over 40,000 people. A large percentage of those people have ties to the U of I...IMO

IMO the defense will have good arguments for a change of venue, if they choose to make them.

You are right about the jurisdiction - my apologies for the error!

Good arguments? Perhaps. Even so, It will be tough to challenge successfully a Latah county judge's decision to defer ruling on the venue change until an attempt is made to seat a jury, and even harder to challenge a jury after it has been accepted by the judge as fair and impartial, for the reasons I have given.

 

[North_Idaho_Nony]

I am sure Latah County could provide an impartial jury if Kootenai can't.

However, the presence of victim families alone will not create the presumption of prejudice that BK will need if he wants a judge to transfer the case out of the jurisdiction where the crime occurred. Friends of the victims and their families will be excused from serving during voir dire, if they are allowed to reach the jury box at all.

The Supreme Court of the United States articulated some of the principles involved in assessing the impact of pretrial publicity in the case of Skilling v. United States:

"...In each of these (prior) cases, we overturned a 'conviction obtained in a trial atmosphere that [was] utterly corrupted by press coverage'. Our decisions, however, 'cannot be made to stand for the proposition that juror exposure to … news accounts of the crime … alone presumptively deprives the defendant of due process.' (citations omitted) Prominence does not necessarily produce prejudice, and juror impartiality, we have reiterated, does not require ignorance. Jurors are not required to be 'totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved'; scarcely any of those best qualified to serve as jurors will not have formed some impression or opinion as to the merits of the case. Every case of public interest is almost, as a matter of necessity, brought to the attention of all the intelligent people in the vicinity, and scarcely any one can be found among those best fitted for jurors who has not read or heard of it, and who has not some impression or some opinion in respect to its merits. A presumption of prejudice, our decisions indicate, attends only the extreme case."

In evaluating whether Skilling established that the jury members seated in his trial were actually prejudiced against him, the SCOTUS said:

"No hard-and-fast formula dictates the necessary depth or breadth of voir dire. Impartiality is not a technical conception. It is a state of mind. For the ascertainment of this mental attitude of appropriate indifference, the Constitution lays down no particular tests and procedure is not chained to any ancient and artificial formula. Jury selection, we have repeatedly emphasized, is particularly within the province of the trial judge.

When pretrial publicity is at issue, primary reliance on the judgment of the trial court makes especially good sense because the judge sits in the locale where the publicity is said to have had its effect and may base her evaluation on her own perception of the depth and extent of news stories that might influence a juror. Appellate courts making after-the-fact assessments of the media’s impact on jurors should be mindful that their judgments lack the on-the-spot comprehension of the situation possessed by trial judges.

Reviewing courts are properly resistant to second-guessing the trial judge’s estimation of a juror’s impartiality, for that judge’s appraisal is ordinarily influenced by a host of factors impossible to capture fully in the record—among them, the prospective juror’s inflection, sincerity, demeanor, candor, body language, and apprehension of duty. In contrast to the cold transcript received by the appellate court, the in-the-moment voir dire affords the trial court a more intimate and immediate basis for assessing a venire member’s fitness for jury service. We consider the adequacy of jury selection in Skilling’s case, therefore, attentive to the respect due to district-court determinations of juror impartiality and of the measures necessary to ensure that impartiality."

Given the deference of appellate courts to the trial court's judgement as to the impartiality of individual jurors, I doubt that a jury seated by the presiding Judge in Kootenai County could be successfully challenged on appeal.

I’m not sure I’m following you — my apologies if I sound dense.

All of this discussion about changing venue from Latah County — where the crimes occurred — to Kootenai County feel a whole lot like putting the cart before the horse.

The PA certainly won’t request it, MOO, and while I have no doubt the defense will try , it’s far too soon to assume such a motion would be granted by Judge Judge (that’s our district court judge’s actual name!).

While I “get” that people not from this area “think” the venue should be changed, there’s zero evidence, MOO, to support the idea that BCK couldn’t receive a fair trial right here.

Assuming, of course, a trial, rather than a plea agreement, is needed.

All MOO, of course!

 

[Cool Cats]

Meh, I really doubt the bushy eyebrows make the case. I bet I could walk down the street in Moscow and see about a dozen men with bushy brows. The devil IS in the details, but the details that make a difference in terms of looks wasn't in the PCA, IMO.

My point is that it is the details adding up - not about the eyebrows by themselves.

Not everything is in a PCA but expect that witness to give her description on the stand.
Then the jury will decide how much weight to give to the details that the witness saw.
Maybe she saw his eyes, she may have seen more than we know. She has had time to see photos of BK now.

Eyewitness testimony placing a guy right at the crime scene who just happens to match BK enough to where it could have been him. This adds to all the other information like a CAR exactly matching his was there at the crime scene and the knife sheath HE TOUCHED was there.

All the details adding up is my point. Anything an eyewitness sees is important evidence. Could be a mole on a suspect's face or a scar or a tattoo, details ADDING UP help convict people.

Sometimes it doesn't take much evidence....

A person can get arrested for murder from biting a piece of cheese then throwing it in the trash.

 

[Twistinginthewind]

Actual time of the murders was after 4 a.m.

The 3 to 4 a.m. was cited by LE early before the PCA confirmed these victims were murdered in a time span as tight as 10 to 12 minutes.

This time frame revealed in the PCA has been closely analyzed in these threads.

It was quick!

MOO

I was responding to a post that referred to Kaylee and Maddie getting home at 4 am
ETA: and referencing MSM article that gave an earlier time for them getting home. Acknowledge the same excerpt from same MSM article about the probable time of the killings was updated as a later time in the PCA. JMO

 

[CGray123]

I’m not sure I’m following you — my apologies if I sound dense.

All of this discussion about changing venue from Latah County — where the crimes occurred — to Kootenai County feel a whole lot like putting the cart before the horse.

The PA certainly won’t request it, MOO, and while I have no doubt the defense will try , it’s far too soon to assume such a motion would be granted by Judge Judge (that’s our district court judge’s actual name!).

While I “get” that people not from this area “think” the venue should be changed, there’s zero evidence, MOO, to support the idea that BCK couldn’t receive a fair trial right here.

Assuming, of course, a trial, rather than a plea agreement, is needed.

All MOO, of course!

Some of the confusion is mine: I confused Latah with Kootenai .

Otherwise, ITA.

The topic of venue change came up here early and often, as it always does on nationally prominent cases. I have been attempting to point out how difficult it is to establish grounds for a court to presume that "a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in the county where the case is pending" - the only basis on which the court could transfer this matter to another county under Rule 21 other than convenience of the parties and witnesses (which doesn't apply).

 

[Sundog]

My point is that it is the details adding up - not about the eyebrows by themselves.

Not everything is in a PCA but expect that witness to give her description on the stand.
Then the jury will decide how much weight to give to the details that the witness saw.
Maybe she saw his eyes, she may have seen more than we know. She has had time to see photos of BK now.

Eyewitness testimony placing a guy right at the crime scene who just happens to match BK enough to where it could have been him. This adds to all the other information like a CAR exactly matching his was there at the crime scene and the knife sheath HE TOUCHED was there.

All the details adding up is my point. Anything an eyewitness sees is important evidence. Could be a mole on a suspect's face or a scar or a tattoo, details ADDING UP help convict people.

I agree that a distinguishing physical marker like a mole, scar or tatoo would be an important detail, but the height of 5 ft 10 in is just above the average male height in the U.S. of 5 ft 9 in. Also bushy eyebrows strikes me as very general and even subjective. I don't think we can call DM an eyewitness to anything other than a person dressed in black, we don't even know, really, if she could say it was a male or a female. As far as we know from the PCA, at least.