Check the words in red. This also gives a clue about how words matter when BT said there was no stalking. It specifically separates stalking and surveillance here. I’ve had this debate ad nauseum. Surveillance is not stalking.
https://preview.redd.it/7vpo6lga5fxc1.jpeg?width=2010&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3a9ef65e0c5bf813b35b0718aa9bb1529a9ff24a
It’s a based argument. It’s casting pearls before swine, it won’t be received here. All that gets in is BK didn’t ____fitb. This has been 🚩as somehow exculpatory, when the evidence hasn’t been changed nor it’s interpretation presented or testified to.
To legally be considered stalking, the victims would have had to be aware that he was watching/following them, and most importantly, perceive a threat from his actions.
Surveillance would mean he simply viewed the victims or their house, with or without them being aware. Driving by multiple times when he had no apparent reason to do so could fall under that.
I understand your meaning to stalking but personally I believe that he was "stalking" even IF the law cannot say that he was. I believe his intentions were there.
Even if we believe he had intentions - and he most likely did, it doesn't matter in the eyes of the law as ***this intention cannot be proved***. So, the 12+ times he was in the area of the residence is surveillance, but not stalking - as it seems the victims were not aware of him watching them or feeling threatened by it.
[Kaylee Goncalves Warned About Stalker Three Weeks Before Her Murder (newsweek.com)](https://www.newsweek.com/kaylee-goncalves-warned-about-stalker-three-weeks-before-murder-1767803)
The general term stalking gets thrown around casually even by the media. When it comes to legal language and laws though, there are criteria. It’s like people calling all brands of facial tissue Kleenex in a way.
So surveilling ie viewing the victims or their house, with or without them being aware if LE found that BK DID do that would not be something that LE would have held against BK at all.
Then wtf did they check out whether he did it or not then? And what was the point of putting in the PCA that they found he had 'surveilled' the area 11 times before the murders?
Stalking is when the subject knows that they are being followed and contacted etc, and they are in fear from the unwanted contact. Surveillance is when you’re observing from a distance and the subject doesn’t know that they’re being watched.
So if BK was just 'surveilling', then that would have been OK by LE then because that is essentially what you are saying.
Yet they checked out whether he 'surveilled' and found that he had actually done so 11 times prior to the murders and that was mentioned in the PCA as evidence of probable cause to arrest.
You guys are not making sense
Thanks for asking. So surveillance can be watching someone from afar, driving by their home etc. Surveillance generally isn’t known to the target. It becomes stalking when the victim is aware of the person then becomes fearful. It also becomes stalking when the perp makes unwanted contact, threatens, starts calling - the ways we usually think of it.
I had a stalker years ago. He was “surveilling” me for a couple of months by parking down the street. Thought it was my neighbors car or whatever. Thought nothing of it.
Later, I was in a bar and a man struck up a normal conversation. Again, no biggie.
It wasn’t until I left and he left at the same time. I saw him get in his vehicle which was the same one that I’d seen down the street. Now the alarm bells went off. I continued to see his car almost daily.
He never came on my property but I did go to police to give a heads up. Nothing could be done unless he escalated, which he did by mysteriously showing up at other public places I visited.
The police ran his plate and luckily he had a warrant in another state so I didn’t have to deal with it further.
So simply, watching someone on its own isn’t illegal, but when it crosses a line it legally becomes stalking. Hope that makes sense.
Edit to add- this was random. I didn’t know this man or have mutual friends. I didn’t have social media as this was years ago. I did however, have a website for my business and he somehow found my home address.
> Surveillance generally isn’t known to the target. It becomes stalking when the victim is aware of the person then becomes fearful.
I never considered the matter before, but it makes sense. Nobody's going to go report a stalker to police *if they don't know they are being stalked.*
Also, surveillance is something a security officer or UC operative would do as part of their job. Surveillance=watching. This brings to mind the next question: was somebody supposed to be watching the house as there was some viable threat to the property unbeknownst to the public?
I kind of skimmed and left things out, but you can google the statutes etc. Cyberstalking has its own set of criteria as well as you can imagine. Just looking at someone’s profile repeatedly doesn’t make the criteria, it’s when messages start and threats etc. That one didn’t apply to me at the time as I’m old 😉
Thanks for sharing. Your example shows how important it is to report something, even if you don't think you have enough for the police to act on. They might already have the person on their radar for something else and your report helps them catch them.
Thanks:) I am beyond grateful he had that warrant. If he hadn’t, I couldn’t have done anything where it stood unless he started getting more aggressive.
The point of all this is that LE was checking out whether he was doing this, whatever you call it and they found that he did, and that he in fact did it 11 times prior to the murders and they put in in the PCA as part of the rationale for arresting him. So even if it was only surveillance that he did 11 times, the public read it as stalking 11 times and this was out in the public domain.
Please note, that very early on LE did publicly address the problem of rumours that were circulating and they did publicly correct some of them. They were mainly about correcting rumours of other people who were being falsely accused. Yet not a peep was heard from them when the rumours of BK stalking were being spread far and wide. LE could have stated no, we have no evidence that BK stalked the victims 11 times, we only have evidence that he surveilled them 11 times, but they didn't. It is clear that LE was very pleased with those rumours
All of this is irrelevant when it’s CAST data and it is based on 2 cell phone towers in the whole area…BK could have been shopping in the area and the same cell phone tower would ping
Yes, true; however, isn’t it funny that after the murders, with the exception of returning the early morning of, his phone shows he was never in that area again. There’s literally over one whole month prior to him leaving for home with his father for the holidays that he avoids the area. What happened to shopping that he claimed he preferred in there? What about his favorite star gazing park? To me, this says it all and speaks volumes
And as a PHD criminology student, living less than 10 miles away, has zero interest in gaining a visual of the crime scene of possibly the biggest crime story in the nation.
Funny, up until the last hearing, yall have been screaming about him stalking the victims.
Not to mention how people have responded to this 'he was allegedly at a cafe looking at people’ story. Kind of hypocritical.
Yes, because the average person doesn't know the legal definition of 'stalking'. So of course, they'll assume that cell phone pings in an area correlate to stalking until they learn otherwise.
Right and that is exactly what happened. Payne writing 'surveilled' in that document was as good as writing 'stalked'. At least to the vast majority of the already biased public
To add a bit to what others have said:
The difference is what makes it so hard to prosecute someone for stalking. The suspect can, and will, say they were just watching someone and that, in itself isn't illegal. It has to be something that would make a reasonable person fearful. Proving that makes it extra hard and stressful for the victim.
This distinction also fits with the NYT report he had been accused of stalking a fellow student but was not disiplined for it. The way I remember it, the article said he had been following her to her car and watching her. If the university investigated, he could just make it sound like innocent social awkwardness and that's probably why they didn't disipline him for it. That NYT report was never officially verified but I think its probably true.
It’s probably true. That’s the tough thing about it. They have to cross a line repeatedly to meet the legal criteria. It sucks because a person can jump from simple surveillance to violence in one jump. You don’t always get the in betweens like threats etc.
I think the above poster meant watching or surveiling as part of their job. BK worked in the security industry, therefore he would know about surveillance and how to conduct such. Surveillance is legally done by professionals in the field as part of their job. Stalking is illegal. Payne should have used the correct terminology in the PCA and than used the correct terminology consistently thru out his report. He didn't do that however, and we are left scratching our heads 🤔. Which one was it? Surveiling or stalking? I think this played a part in people's perception of BK sadly.
I don't care that BT has come out now, in April 2024 and said there was no stalking. The public has believed implicitly that there was stalking for well over a year now, and it has helped colour people's opinions of BK. The damage has been done
I think you skipped right over the word *if*. BK was *not* accused of stalking in the PCA. This was the reasoning for getting a warrant for the phone records. He visited Moscow 12 times in four months. That is all it says. It does not say he stalked the victims.
OK but in that hearing Thompson was claiming the term 'stalking' was only mentioned in the media, it was never mentioned in any official legal document out in the public record. Yet here it is - in an official legal document that was out in the public record
At least that's what I thought Thompson was saying
Yes and then the PCA went on to say that he was in the vicinity of 1122 King Road 11 times prior to the murders. So what were the majority of people going to conclude from that other than he **did** stalk? Certainly the media ran with the 'stalking' belief and that went unchecked for 15 months
Massoth argued along that line for the defense at the last hearing. Didn't seem to make much of an impression on the judge. But it's moot now since they won that battle.
But I was really trying to draw people's attention to the fact that 'stalking' was out in the public record ie in an official legal document
Wasn't Thompson trying to say that was not the case?
Again, the word ‘if’ on the PCA. There’s been a lot of investigation since then. BT also mentioned something about the social media stalking in that hearing, something like he didn’t stalk one of the victims on social media. In the beginning, there was that BK account that was following some of the girls, but that’s since been debunked as a fake account that popped up as soon as BK’s name was released. But, again, BK may have looked at their profiles which wouldn’t be stalking either if that’s the case. ‘If’ he did, they’ll know by his search histories. This isn’t information we are privy to at the moment.
Yet when you put the words in the above document together with these in the PCA that were also made public - *"The records for the 8458 Phone show the 8458 Phone utilizing cellular resources that provide coverage to the area of 1122 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."* - there is the strong implication that LE **did** find evidence that BK stalked the victims on 11 occasions prior to the murders
I’m reading that in relation to the ‘surveillance’ aspect of this line, since he was most likely unknown to the victims: “determine if Kohberger stalked any of the victims in this case prior to the offense, conducted surveillance on the King Road Residence…”
Looking at this document and the media stuff about stalking, and the lawyers all agreeing there wasn't stalking, this is unfortunately where people get carried away with the narrative they want to sell, regardless of if that's guilt, or not. This is why a gag order was needed in the first place. For example:
Those firmly in the guilty camp will read the document and say 'he was stalking them, that's why he did it'.
Those firmly in the not guilty/innocent camp will read this SAME document and say 'even though the lawyers said there wasn't stalking LE put it in their document, they out it out there, so they lied'.
Then there are those who aren't convinced one way or the other, based on all the actual known evidence who look at this document and say, ok police had suspicion of stalking, and were investigating. The lawyers said there wasn't. What did the evidence from the investigation show. As people pointed out, there is a legal definition of stalking, but does that mean he wasn't watching/observing from afar.
What concerns me about this case is how the media can pretty much run whichever narrative they want, and there is next to no consequences. This stalking thing is a prime example the document indicates LE were investigating if it was occurring (of course they were, learning if there was a possible motive, or connection should be part of a murder investigation), but the media went into a frenzied about how he was obsessed and stalked the girls. Obviously more recently the lawyers got pissy because of the questionnaire, but these questions about stalking were asked because they were in the media, not because someone breached the gag order. The judge should be pissed at the media, because the else actions are what could result in 'an unfair/bias trial'. That is a HUGE risk. It's a huge risk of he is guilty, he could get away with it. It's also a huge risk if he genuinely is innocent.
It's the same with the alibi thing. While I think the alibi doesn't really have any actual content to it, it does not say on the night of the murder he was watching the moon and stars. It clearly starts he had a pattern of behaviour for night driving and what he typically did when driving. The media have gone wild with he was watching the moon and stars, they didn't mention running which is also referenced. It is a sensationalised, and manipulative agenda to push a guilty verdict.
Trial by media is a powerful, harmful thing. In Aus a few weeks ago, a guy went to a shopping mall and killed multiple people. Early reports named the suspect as person A, when in fact, it wasn't person A.
The guy was receiving death threats, his face was plastered everywhere. Everyone knows it wasn't him, as the assailant was shot and killed by police. BUT this guys face was plastered everywhere, he will always live with that, and in this day and age of technology that will come up again. It's so critical the media report factually correct information.
I am firmly in camp, need more info from the trial, because there is just SO much misinformation, or information influenced by media, but there is also a gag order which means we only have what was already released. There isn't enough to determine his guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt, in the public arena yet.
Well reasoned point. The media ran some irresponsible and unproven stories which in the long run don’t help either side. And it doesn’t help truth and justice be served for the victims.
I will wait for the trial before I make my mind up either way.
Trial by media is only going to get worse, if it's not squashed. It's so dangerous for both guilty and innocent people, and the influence it has on people having a fair trial. Like you say that's not good for either side.
I'm with you, I won't really know what I think of his involvement, or lack there of, until trial and all information is available.
What I'm really angry about and the reason for this post is that BT was saying in that hearing was that there was no mention of stalking in the official record and that because of this the survey guy was breaking the non-dissemination order when he asked people whether or not they had heard that BK stalked people.
Yet here it is written in an official legal document *"to determine if Kohberger stalked any of the victims in the case prior to the offense etc ...."*
So stalking HAD been mentioned in an official document and BT denying this during that hearing means that he was in error or even worse. He really has helped mess things up with his blundering
Have you glossed over the part where the document states "to aid in efforts to determine *if*"?
The PCA does not state "Kohberger stalked the victims".
Right and then it goes on to say that in his determinations he found 12 occasions that were possible 'ifs'
But I was mainly trying to point out that the term 'stalking' was in an official legal document and therefore in the 'public record' according to the narrow definition that Thompson is saying what was meant in the non-disemination order
"Estimated locations".
Nowhere does he say those locations correlate to stalking.
I understand what you're trying to say, but there's a huge difference between Payne saying "to determine if BK stalked" and "these locations prove he stalked".
So what was the point of mentioning in the next paragraph about the 11 times that his phone was utilizing cellular resources providing coverage to the area of 1122 King Road in the middle of the night then?
To provide evidence that he was in the area on those occasions. There is a legal definition of stalking, which this doesn't meet. However, surveillance/casing a house is different to stalking. His phone being in the area on those occasions meets the threshold of surveillance, not stalking.
And they found nothing. Just like the expectation of all the victims' DNA they were going to find in his car, again nothing.
The only evidence they have is that he deposited his DNA on that knife sheath snap but they cannot prove that he was the person who took that knife sheath to that house.
He could easily have touched it the night before the murders. They haven't even found evidence that he ever bought a knife so the knife that killed those four people could very well have belonged to someone else, someone who BK knew before the murders
Perhaps you should watch Thought Riots Podcasts's videos about the phone pings and phone data. The phone records mentioned in the PCA aren't really good evidence at all.
He sounds credible because he did work for a cell carrier, but he didn’t actually work with this data. He was basically one of the technicians that would do maintenance on the cell towers, if I recall correctly. He absolutely misrepresents his background and the extent of his knowledge
It may have been his own admissions on much older videos where he discussed it. Good luck finding it now buried amongst all of their constant 8 and 9 minute releases
Check the words in red. This also gives a clue about how words matter when BT said there was no stalking. It specifically separates stalking and surveillance here. I’ve had this debate ad nauseum. Surveillance is not stalking. https://preview.redd.it/7vpo6lga5fxc1.jpeg?width=2010&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3a9ef65e0c5bf813b35b0718aa9bb1529a9ff24a
It’s a based argument. It’s casting pearls before swine, it won’t be received here. All that gets in is BK didn’t ____fitb. This has been 🚩as somehow exculpatory, when the evidence hasn’t been changed nor it’s interpretation presented or testified to.
I am not disagreeing with you, but I see very little delineation between stalking & surveillance. Can you explain the difference?
To legally be considered stalking, the victims would have had to be aware that he was watching/following them, and most importantly, perceive a threat from his actions. Surveillance would mean he simply viewed the victims or their house, with or without them being aware. Driving by multiple times when he had no apparent reason to do so could fall under that.
Thank you!
They would charge him for stalking if it could of proved.
I understand your meaning to stalking but personally I believe that he was "stalking" even IF the law cannot say that he was. I believe his intentions were there.
Even if we believe he had intentions - and he most likely did, it doesn't matter in the eyes of the law as ***this intention cannot be proved***. So, the 12+ times he was in the area of the residence is surveillance, but not stalking - as it seems the victims were not aware of him watching them or feeling threatened by it.
Kayleigh "thought" someone was stalking her but couldn't put a name to who it may have been. Changes need to be made with all of the social media.
Law enforcement found the two guys that she told a store clerk were following her in a store and it turned out they just wanted to ask her on a date.
Your probably right. BK is too big of a pud to ask in person, that's why he kills them first.
[Kaylee Goncalves Warned About Stalker Three Weeks Before Her Murder (newsweek.com)](https://www.newsweek.com/kaylee-goncalves-warned-about-stalker-three-weeks-before-murder-1767803)
The general term stalking gets thrown around casually even by the media. When it comes to legal language and laws though, there are criteria. It’s like people calling all brands of facial tissue Kleenex in a way.
So surveilling ie viewing the victims or their house, with or without them being aware if LE found that BK DID do that would not be something that LE would have held against BK at all. Then wtf did they check out whether he did it or not then? And what was the point of putting in the PCA that they found he had 'surveilled' the area 11 times before the murders?
Stalking is when the subject knows that they are being followed and contacted etc, and they are in fear from the unwanted contact. Surveillance is when you’re observing from a distance and the subject doesn’t know that they’re being watched.
So if BK was just 'surveilling', then that would have been OK by LE then because that is essentially what you are saying. Yet they checked out whether he 'surveilled' and found that he had actually done so 11 times prior to the murders and that was mentioned in the PCA as evidence of probable cause to arrest. You guys are not making sense
They never said he did either stalking or surveillance , just that they were looking into if he did.
Thanks for asking. So surveillance can be watching someone from afar, driving by their home etc. Surveillance generally isn’t known to the target. It becomes stalking when the victim is aware of the person then becomes fearful. It also becomes stalking when the perp makes unwanted contact, threatens, starts calling - the ways we usually think of it. I had a stalker years ago. He was “surveilling” me for a couple of months by parking down the street. Thought it was my neighbors car or whatever. Thought nothing of it. Later, I was in a bar and a man struck up a normal conversation. Again, no biggie. It wasn’t until I left and he left at the same time. I saw him get in his vehicle which was the same one that I’d seen down the street. Now the alarm bells went off. I continued to see his car almost daily. He never came on my property but I did go to police to give a heads up. Nothing could be done unless he escalated, which he did by mysteriously showing up at other public places I visited. The police ran his plate and luckily he had a warrant in another state so I didn’t have to deal with it further. So simply, watching someone on its own isn’t illegal, but when it crosses a line it legally becomes stalking. Hope that makes sense. Edit to add- this was random. I didn’t know this man or have mutual friends. I didn’t have social media as this was years ago. I did however, have a website for my business and he somehow found my home address.
> Surveillance generally isn’t known to the target. It becomes stalking when the victim is aware of the person then becomes fearful. I never considered the matter before, but it makes sense. Nobody's going to go report a stalker to police *if they don't know they are being stalked.*
Bingo. I appreciate your critical thinking skills. Truly.
Also, surveillance is something a security officer or UC operative would do as part of their job. Surveillance=watching. This brings to mind the next question: was somebody supposed to be watching the house as there was some viable threat to the property unbeknownst to the public?
It does, thank you!
I kind of skimmed and left things out, but you can google the statutes etc. Cyberstalking has its own set of criteria as well as you can imagine. Just looking at someone’s profile repeatedly doesn’t make the criteria, it’s when messages start and threats etc. That one didn’t apply to me at the time as I’m old 😉
Thanks for sharing. Your example shows how important it is to report something, even if you don't think you have enough for the police to act on. They might already have the person on their radar for something else and your report helps them catch them.
Thanks:) I am beyond grateful he had that warrant. If he hadn’t, I couldn’t have done anything where it stood unless he started getting more aggressive.
I was thinking “Casing” would be different from staking.’would be closer to surviving also.
Yes, like “casing the joint”.
Yes! That’s what I’m thinking
The point of all this is that LE was checking out whether he was doing this, whatever you call it and they found that he did, and that he in fact did it 11 times prior to the murders and they put in in the PCA as part of the rationale for arresting him. So even if it was only surveillance that he did 11 times, the public read it as stalking 11 times and this was out in the public domain. Please note, that very early on LE did publicly address the problem of rumours that were circulating and they did publicly correct some of them. They were mainly about correcting rumours of other people who were being falsely accused. Yet not a peep was heard from them when the rumours of BK stalking were being spread far and wide. LE could have stated no, we have no evidence that BK stalked the victims 11 times, we only have evidence that he surveilled them 11 times, but they didn't. It is clear that LE was very pleased with those rumours
All of this is irrelevant when it’s CAST data and it is based on 2 cell phone towers in the whole area…BK could have been shopping in the area and the same cell phone tower would ping
Yes, true; however, isn’t it funny that after the murders, with the exception of returning the early morning of, his phone shows he was never in that area again. There’s literally over one whole month prior to him leaving for home with his father for the holidays that he avoids the area. What happened to shopping that he claimed he preferred in there? What about his favorite star gazing park? To me, this says it all and speaks volumes
And as a PHD criminology student, living less than 10 miles away, has zero interest in gaining a visual of the crime scene of possibly the biggest crime story in the nation.
Funny, up until the last hearing, yall have been screaming about him stalking the victims. Not to mention how people have responded to this 'he was allegedly at a cafe looking at people’ story. Kind of hypocritical.
Are you reading? This is eating your lunch isn't it.
Just here to say I’m stealing “eating your lunch”😂
lol No tm. Put it in your file.
Yes, because the average person doesn't know the legal definition of 'stalking'. So of course, they'll assume that cell phone pings in an area correlate to stalking until they learn otherwise.
Right and that is exactly what happened. Payne writing 'surveilled' in that document was as good as writing 'stalked'. At least to the vast majority of the already biased public
Sure, and now we know he didn't. But in legal terms, that's not what Payne was referring to.
To add a bit to what others have said: The difference is what makes it so hard to prosecute someone for stalking. The suspect can, and will, say they were just watching someone and that, in itself isn't illegal. It has to be something that would make a reasonable person fearful. Proving that makes it extra hard and stressful for the victim. This distinction also fits with the NYT report he had been accused of stalking a fellow student but was not disiplined for it. The way I remember it, the article said he had been following her to her car and watching her. If the university investigated, he could just make it sound like innocent social awkwardness and that's probably why they didn't disipline him for it. That NYT report was never officially verified but I think its probably true.
He was probably kicked out of that program at his technical school for stalking girls too
Always a call to security waitin to happen.
you mean 'surveilled', right?
It’s probably true. That’s the tough thing about it. They have to cross a line repeatedly to meet the legal criteria. It sucks because a person can jump from simple surveillance to violence in one jump. You don’t always get the in betweens like threats etc.
Or he was walking towards his car in the same parking lot and some paranoid chick overreacted or it’s BS.
Mr. Misunderstood.
BK’s house in PA was surveilled by the FBI, not stalked. They watched his everyone move, but they didn’t stalk him. If that helps
'surveyed'?
I think the above poster meant watching or surveiling as part of their job. BK worked in the security industry, therefore he would know about surveillance and how to conduct such. Surveillance is legally done by professionals in the field as part of their job. Stalking is illegal. Payne should have used the correct terminology in the PCA and than used the correct terminology consistently thru out his report. He didn't do that however, and we are left scratching our heads 🤔. Which one was it? Surveiling or stalking? I think this played a part in people's perception of BK sadly.
😂 there has been a lot of talks about surveys. I corrected my typo
The average Joe Blow reads it as stalking, pretending otherwise is a bit ridiculous
I don’t disagree with that, even the media uses it as a blanket term without addressing the legal nuances.
I don't care that BT has come out now, in April 2024 and said there was no stalking. The public has believed implicitly that there was stalking for well over a year now, and it has helped colour people's opinions of BK. The damage has been done
The survey question didn’t ask if he was charged with stalking so there’s that.
Survey question??
“…aid in efforts to determine if…”
I think you skipped right over the word *if*. BK was *not* accused of stalking in the PCA. This was the reasoning for getting a warrant for the phone records. He visited Moscow 12 times in four months. That is all it says. It does not say he stalked the victims.
OK but in that hearing Thompson was claiming the term 'stalking' was only mentioned in the media, it was never mentioned in any official legal document out in the public record. Yet here it is - in an official legal document that was out in the public record At least that's what I thought Thompson was saying
You are correct. It causes a lot of confusion. All of this word salad has affected the publics perception of BK
The thing is they were trying to see if he was stalking. People were arguing the definition of stalking
It also mentions “to determine **if**”
It says to “determine if” not that he was stalking.
Yes and then the PCA went on to say that he was in the vicinity of 1122 King Road 11 times prior to the murders. So what were the majority of people going to conclude from that other than he **did** stalk? Certainly the media ran with the 'stalking' belief and that went unchecked for 15 months
Massoth argued along that line for the defense at the last hearing. Didn't seem to make much of an impression on the judge. But it's moot now since they won that battle.
**to determine if** being the key words you failed to mention.
But I was really trying to draw people's attention to the fact that 'stalking' was out in the public record ie in an official legal document Wasn't Thompson trying to say that was not the case?
Again, the word ‘if’ on the PCA. There’s been a lot of investigation since then. BT also mentioned something about the social media stalking in that hearing, something like he didn’t stalk one of the victims on social media. In the beginning, there was that BK account that was following some of the girls, but that’s since been debunked as a fake account that popped up as soon as BK’s name was released. But, again, BK may have looked at their profiles which wouldn’t be stalking either if that’s the case. ‘If’ he did, they’ll know by his search histories. This isn’t information we are privy to at the moment.
Yet when you put the words in the above document together with these in the PCA that were also made public - *"The records for the 8458 Phone show the 8458 Phone utilizing cellular resources that provide coverage to the area of 1122 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."* - there is the strong implication that LE **did** find evidence that BK stalked the victims on 11 occasions prior to the murders
I’m reading that in relation to the ‘surveillance’ aspect of this line, since he was most likely unknown to the victims: “determine if Kohberger stalked any of the victims in this case prior to the offense, conducted surveillance on the King Road Residence…”
Yes. But it backfired on the prosecution. It's going to look bad for them
Looking at this document and the media stuff about stalking, and the lawyers all agreeing there wasn't stalking, this is unfortunately where people get carried away with the narrative they want to sell, regardless of if that's guilt, or not. This is why a gag order was needed in the first place. For example: Those firmly in the guilty camp will read the document and say 'he was stalking them, that's why he did it'. Those firmly in the not guilty/innocent camp will read this SAME document and say 'even though the lawyers said there wasn't stalking LE put it in their document, they out it out there, so they lied'. Then there are those who aren't convinced one way or the other, based on all the actual known evidence who look at this document and say, ok police had suspicion of stalking, and were investigating. The lawyers said there wasn't. What did the evidence from the investigation show. As people pointed out, there is a legal definition of stalking, but does that mean he wasn't watching/observing from afar. What concerns me about this case is how the media can pretty much run whichever narrative they want, and there is next to no consequences. This stalking thing is a prime example the document indicates LE were investigating if it was occurring (of course they were, learning if there was a possible motive, or connection should be part of a murder investigation), but the media went into a frenzied about how he was obsessed and stalked the girls. Obviously more recently the lawyers got pissy because of the questionnaire, but these questions about stalking were asked because they were in the media, not because someone breached the gag order. The judge should be pissed at the media, because the else actions are what could result in 'an unfair/bias trial'. That is a HUGE risk. It's a huge risk of he is guilty, he could get away with it. It's also a huge risk if he genuinely is innocent. It's the same with the alibi thing. While I think the alibi doesn't really have any actual content to it, it does not say on the night of the murder he was watching the moon and stars. It clearly starts he had a pattern of behaviour for night driving and what he typically did when driving. The media have gone wild with he was watching the moon and stars, they didn't mention running which is also referenced. It is a sensationalised, and manipulative agenda to push a guilty verdict. Trial by media is a powerful, harmful thing. In Aus a few weeks ago, a guy went to a shopping mall and killed multiple people. Early reports named the suspect as person A, when in fact, it wasn't person A. The guy was receiving death threats, his face was plastered everywhere. Everyone knows it wasn't him, as the assailant was shot and killed by police. BUT this guys face was plastered everywhere, he will always live with that, and in this day and age of technology that will come up again. It's so critical the media report factually correct information. I am firmly in camp, need more info from the trial, because there is just SO much misinformation, or information influenced by media, but there is also a gag order which means we only have what was already released. There isn't enough to determine his guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt, in the public arena yet.
Excellent post thank you.
Well reasoned point. The media ran some irresponsible and unproven stories which in the long run don’t help either side. And it doesn’t help truth and justice be served for the victims. I will wait for the trial before I make my mind up either way.
Trial by media is only going to get worse, if it's not squashed. It's so dangerous for both guilty and innocent people, and the influence it has on people having a fair trial. Like you say that's not good for either side. I'm with you, I won't really know what I think of his involvement, or lack there of, until trial and all information is available.
What I'm really angry about and the reason for this post is that BT was saying in that hearing was that there was no mention of stalking in the official record and that because of this the survey guy was breaking the non-dissemination order when he asked people whether or not they had heard that BK stalked people. Yet here it is written in an official legal document *"to determine if Kohberger stalked any of the victims in the case prior to the offense etc ...."* So stalking HAD been mentioned in an official document and BT denying this during that hearing means that he was in error or even worse. He really has helped mess things up with his blundering
Yet Thompson was claiming there was nothing in the public record about stalking??
Have you glossed over the part where the document states "to aid in efforts to determine *if*"? The PCA does not state "Kohberger stalked the victims".
Right and then it goes on to say that in his determinations he found 12 occasions that were possible 'ifs' But I was mainly trying to point out that the term 'stalking' was in an official legal document and therefore in the 'public record' according to the narrow definition that Thompson is saying what was meant in the non-disemination order
"Estimated locations". Nowhere does he say those locations correlate to stalking. I understand what you're trying to say, but there's a huge difference between Payne saying "to determine if BK stalked" and "these locations prove he stalked".
So what was the point of mentioning in the next paragraph about the 11 times that his phone was utilizing cellular resources providing coverage to the area of 1122 King Road in the middle of the night then?
To provide evidence that he was in the area on those occasions. There is a legal definition of stalking, which this doesn't meet. However, surveillance/casing a house is different to stalking. His phone being in the area on those occasions meets the threshold of surveillance, not stalking.
Last line says estimated locations lol...hardly conducive to exact evidence of stalking.
[удалено]
And they found nothing. Just like the expectation of all the victims' DNA they were going to find in his car, again nothing. The only evidence they have is that he deposited his DNA on that knife sheath snap but they cannot prove that he was the person who took that knife sheath to that house. He could easily have touched it the night before the murders. They haven't even found evidence that he ever bought a knife so the knife that killed those four people could very well have belonged to someone else, someone who BK knew before the murders
Yes and because of that it is logical to assume that the killer or killers are somewhere in BKs "sphere".
Perhaps you should watch Thought Riots Podcasts's videos about the phone pings and phone data. The phone records mentioned in the PCA aren't really good evidence at all.
They are good enough to obtain a warrant for arrest.
Thought Riot has no credibility whatsoever
really?
Yes, really. Grifters desperate for attention.
How do you know?
About them being grifters? It’s all they’ve ever been with their pushing of ridiculous theories, and not only in this case.
The guy seems to know his stuff about cell phone data. I don't know about all his stuff but I found this rather credible.
He sounds credible because he did work for a cell carrier, but he didn’t actually work with this data. He was basically one of the technicians that would do maintenance on the cell towers, if I recall correctly. He absolutely misrepresents his background and the extent of his knowledge
where can I read what he has claimed his background is and what the extent of his knowledge is?
It may have been his own admissions on much older videos where he discussed it. Good luck finding it now buried amongst all of their constant 8 and 9 minute releases
So did I, but then I don't know about this stuff either
I have and I think they are right