GUILTY PLEA DEAL ACCEPTED - ID - 4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #114

[LadyL]

Ugh, this won't be a popular post---but whenever I hear these audios, I go back to that very confusing question---WHY didn't the survivors call 911 until noon the next day?

Gray Hughes is explaining that those sounds/screams etc. heard in the audio are from inside the house with the camera - they are not the victims in his opinion.

 

[gremlin444]

You are probably right. And yes it was too late. And yes DM was totally devastated.

It just bothers me that DM ran past Xana's bedroom and saw her laying on the floor. I know it makes sense that she just passed out drunk. But even a college kid would check on a roomie, at least by the next morning, imo. It is hard for me to let go of that.

I think one thing that people tend to forget to factor in about DM's behavior is the fact that she had been drinking that day/evening, and it wasn't just one beer (I don't have the file right in front of me, but I recall reading from several of her police interviews her list of what she had drank that day and it was significant). I'm pretty sure that had an impact on her behavior/choices in this situation as well as made her doubt what she thought she had seen/heard/experienced. Mixed in with being the youngest, the one accused of being the worst scaredy-cat, and her age.

One thing I've always wondered about--did Dylan wear contacts? I've never seen it mentioned anywhere, but I do recall that later on she had requested that her lawyer/representative be given her reading glasses from evidence because she needed them. If she had any vision issues, her glimpse of Xana while running through the dimly lit living room could have just given her a general impression--Xana on the floor--without any details to it.

 

[katydid23]

If I saw that I would think she fell asleep drunk. It would never occur to me in my wildest imagination that a heinous maniac evil killer had stabbed her.

Ok, I get that...

However, remember that there is no mention whatsoever
that DM saw ANY signs of foul play. For instance, I believe, my opinion, that had DM seen any blood she would have went right in or got BF to go in with her etc...

THIS ^^^ is what is confusing to me though. On one hand, they just think Xana passed out and fell asleep on the floor...OK

But on the other, Xana texted about seeing a tall man all in black with a face mask on, coming down stairs and going out the door in the middle of the night. And it scared her so much that she ran down to BF's room out of fright. And they were both concerned and were trying to communicate with the others and couldn't get any replies.

And the next morning they were too scared to go check on anyone until noon, when their friends came over.

So it does seem like they did have an inkling?

I totally get your point of view though.

2 Cents

I get yours too and I want to feel OK with all of it. I'm just mainly glad they didnt have to go through cross because I do believe it would have been difficult.

 

[katydid23]

Gray Hughes is explaining that those sounds/screams etc. heard in the audio are from inside the house with the camera - they are not the victims.

Who is screaming then?

 

[LadyL]

Who is screaming then?

he says it's the people partying in the house with the camera

if you watch his video, it's very enlightening

ETA: at some points in the audio, the noises were happening when BK was still at his house

 

[Boxer]

Ok, I get that...


THIS ^^^ is what is confusing to me though. On one hand, they just think Xana passed out and fell asleep on the floor...OK

But on the other, Xana texted about seeing a tall man all in black with a face mask on, coming down stairs and going out the door in the middle of the night. And it scared her so much that she ran down to BF's room out of fright. And they were both concerned and were trying to communicate with the others and couldn't get any replies.

And the next morning they were too scared to go check on anyone until noon, when their friends came over.

So it does seem like they did have an inkling?


I get yours too and I want to feel OK with all of it. I'm just mainly glad they didnt have to go through cross because I do believe it would have been difficult.

Halloween just happened and the house itself has history of many parties.
Prankster, some drunk frat, someones ex, wrong house etc. the likelihood of what happened happening was so remote MOO they put their fears on hold till waking up next day.

 

[seasideForest]

Ok, I get that...


THIS ^^^ is what is confusing to me though. On one hand, they just think Xana passed out and fell asleep on the floor...OK

But on the other, Xana texted about seeing a tall man all in black with a face mask on, coming down stairs and going out the door in the middle of the night. And it scared her so much that she ran down to BF's room out of fright. And they were both concerned and were trying to communicate with the others and couldn't get any replies.

And the next morning they were too scared to go check on anyone until noon, when their friends came over.

So it does seem like they did have an inkling?


I get yours too and I want to feel OK with all of it. I'm just mainly glad they didnt have to go through cross because I do believe it would have been difficult.

I don’t think you mean Xana here, do you?

 

[Gemmie]

I don’t think you mean Xana here, do you?

Nope, she meant DM, not Xana. Xana wasn't texting anyone when BK was seen leaving.

 

[155etta]

We are now referring to him as Karen K., right?

Bryan Kohberger in hell: Excuse me, I was told there would be a special place for me here?

 

[NyxNY]

Just a word of warning. Chris Mcdonough, who famously coerced false confessions in the Stephanie Crowe case, and accused an innocent Twitter user of being Bryan Laundrie when Laundrie was dead, is the source of all the new news articles we're seeing (bananas, threatening to commit suicide, befriending serial killers).

Take anything you're reading with a massive grain of salt.

Thank you. We definitely needed that reminder.

 

[MassGuy]

New court docs!!

Scroll to the red ones.

State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger

 

[MassGuy]

Finally we have HJ’s full account of that morning. Parts were redacted in his recorded interview.

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/CR01-24-31665/2025/032425+Supplemental+Report+-+Mowery.pdf

 

[gremlin444]

Welp, all but 2 of the new red documents are gone. Mike Baker thinks it's probably because they missed some redactions and will be back up when that's corrected.

 

[Betty P]

Finally we have HJ’s full account of that morning. Parts were redacted in his recorded interview. View attachment 633888View attachment 633889

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/CR01-24-31665/2025/032425+Supplemental+Report+-+Mowery.pdf

Poor kid. I felt so sorry for him in the video from the officers bodycam. You could tell he was almost in shock, under extreme duress. He kept his cool and handled everything very well.

 

[Sleuthnewb]

I really think that the testimony of the survivors, and notably their cross examinations, could have been very problematic for the prosecution. Especially when they have to explain being on social media that morning and not ever checking on Xana, who they knew had 'passed out' on her bedroom floor.

It makes sense to drunk college kids but I don't know if the jurors would have understood.

Can someone please explain this to me from a legal perspective? I don’t mean any disrespect - genuinely just trying to understand. The prosecution’s role is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was responsible for the crime. How does the roommates’ morning social media use or whether or not they checked on Xana prior to calling friends have anything to do with the jury’s view of the evidence presented against the defendant? Those two things seem wholly unrelated to me. Person B’s actions in the morning don’t hold any weight on my opinion as to whether person A did or didn’t do something the night prior. In my opinion it would be very, very difficult for the defense to try to argue that because a roommate checked LinkedIn in the morning, they’re the killer not the defendant? Is that the leap we’re supposing would have been made? Imo. Just trying to understand this argument.

 

[MassGuy]

Can someone please explain this to me from a legal perspective? I don’t mean any disrespect - genuinely just trying to understand. The prosecution’s role is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was responsible for the crime. How does the roommates’ morning social media use or whether or not they checked on Xana prior to calling friends have anything to do with the jury’s view of the evidence presented against the defendant? Those two things seem wholly unrelated to me. Person B’s actions in the morning don’t hold any weight on my opinion as to whether person A did or didn’t do something the night prior. In my opinion it would be very, very difficult for the defense to try to argue that because a roommate checked LinkedIn in the morning, they’re the killer not the defendant? Is that the leap we’re supposing would have been made? Imo. Just trying to understand this argument.

There is a small but very loud group of people on social media, who believe the roommates actions (or inaction) proves that they were somehow involved. I've been arguing with these people since very early on, and it continues even now, despite overwhelming evidence and a guilty plea.

Most of them don't accuse them of being the killer(s), but they do accuse them of having some involvement with the people who did.

It's not so much illogical as it is insane, but these people do exist.

So if you're the defense you discredit them, you point out the strangeness of their behavior, and you basically throw up a Hail-Mary, hoping one of the jurors is a lunatic who doesn't believe Bryan Kohberger did this, because you can't get past the roommates' behavior.

 

[Sleuthnewb]

There is a small but very loud group of people on social media, who believe the roommates actions (or inaction) proves that they were somehow involved. I've been arguing with these people since very early on, and it continues even now, despite overwhelming evidence and a guilty plea.

Most of them don't accuse them of being the killer(s), but they do accuse them of having some involvement with the people who did.

It's not so much illogical as it is insane, but these people do exist.

So if you're the defense you discredit them, you point out the strangeness of their behavior, and you basically throw up a Hail-Mary, hoping one of the jurors is a lunatic who doesn't believe Bryan Kohberger did this, because you can't get past the roommates' behavior.

Thank you for your response to a long time lurker on this sub but socially anxious first-time poster like me. Your response validates my thoughts that this kind of “doubt” just wouldn’t rise to the level of reasonable in my opinion for most reasonable jury members. Thank you for being kind

 

[katydid23]

Can someone please explain this to me from a legal perspective? I don’t mean any disrespect - genuinely just trying to understand. The prosecution’s role is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was responsible for the crime. How does the roommates’ morning social media use or whether or not they checked on Xana prior to calling friends have anything to do with the jury’s view of the evidence presented against the defendant?

One survivor was testifying about being frozen in fear after seeing a man in a black mask coming down the stairs at 4 am. So that seems relevant to the question about whether they ever checked on Xana, after seeing her passed out on the floor. If one saw something so frightening , wouldn't that spur them on to see why their friend was laying on the bedroom floor?

Would the jury possibly doubt their testimony about seeing the scary intruder if they did not call for help until noon the next day? I think it is a relevant jury concern.

Those two things seem wholly unrelated to me. Person B’s actions in the morning don’t hold any weight on my opinion as to whether person A did or didn’t do something the night prior. In my opinion it would be very, very difficult for the defense to try to argue that because a roommate checked LinkedIn in the morning, they’re the killer not the defendant? Is that the leap we’re supposing would have been made? Imo. Just trying to understand this argument.

The reason I was worried about their cross examination was because the people that I often argued with about BK's guilt, would usually point to the survivors and ask why they didn't call for help for their passed out friend. And their point was that maybe they were actually somehow involved and didnt want to call LE in too early. Maybe they wanted the suspect to get away etc.

I know that is ridiculous. But the 'reasonable doubt' crew always brought this issue up as something that creates doubt in others. The way they saw it was that murders often happen close to home---And maybe there was something more to the reason for the long delay in checking on their roommates.

I believed 100% in BK's Guilt and I still do. I don't think the survivors had anything nefarious to do with the crimes.

But it still worried me that the defense team would have a chance to dig into some difficult subjects to try and create doubt and division.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

Can someone please explain this to me from a legal perspective? I don’t mean any disrespect - genuinely just trying to understand. The prosecution’s role is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was responsible for the crime. How does the roommates’ morning social media use or whether or not they checked on Xana prior to calling friends have anything to do with the jury’s view of the evidence presented against the defendant? Those two things seem wholly unrelated to me. Person B’s actions in the morning don’t hold any weight on my opinion as to whether person A did or didn’t do something the night prior. In my opinion it would be very, very difficult for the defense to try to argue that because a roommate checked LinkedIn in the morning, they’re the killer not the defendant? Is that the leap we’re supposing would have been made? Imo. Just trying to understand this argument.

Also to add to other posters comments on this, I also think (as bad as it sounds) many defense lawyers will try to poke holes in any way or form to plant the tiniest seed of doubt in jurors.

Some will use victim's (who have already been through enough) accounts of their experience or testimony and "word salad" it, twist it, bend it or manipulate it or whatever they have to do steer the jury away from the suspect being accountable.

Or another way to put it - they can almost come up with a narrative that may be illogical or even unreasonable and 'throw it out there' in a way to a jury, throw something at the wall and see what sticks so to speak!

Call me jaded but I think many defense lawyers have used this tactic in the past which sadly victimizes victims more or a second time around My 2 cents and MOO

*ETA: WELCOME TO WEBSLEUTHS @Sleuthnewb

 

[MassGuy]

SEE IT: Bryan Kohberger Caught on Store Video Behaving Bizarrely After Quadruple Murders

Recently-released video footage shows Idaho killer Bryan Kohberger multiple times in a Walmart store, following the 2022 deaths of four University of Idaho students. According to FOX News Digital, investigators collected the footage “as part of a years-long case against Kohberger.” Between...

www.crimeonline.com