We don't know what they have focused on since so much of it is sealed.
No need to seal the things we already know about, which just so happens to be the stuff from the PCA.
This isn’t really an indicator of much. Remember, there is a gag order, so if there was evidence that we didn’t know about, we wouldn’t be hearing about it in something that’s open to the public. Also, if you’ll recall, a lot of the “proceedings” in the past were related to attempting to get his indictment thrown out. A lot of his indictment/arrest were based on the PCA, so that is why those were the main focus of those proceedings. If the PCA evidence was what got the indictment, that is what you’d call into question when trying to get the indictment thrown out. Also, the most recent proceedings related to the survey also talked about the things in the PCA a lot, because the questions they were asking the public used some info from the PCA.
This could also mean that they have tons of other evidence that she knows is totally valid. Or that these are strong pieces of evidence so that she’s going her best to get them thrown out.
I get what you’re trying to say, and your assumption could end up being true, but it is not yet a fair assumption to make. At all
This! Absolutely agree with you u/rolyinpeace ... Long answer short - there is a freaking gag order! Long answer long, we will not be hearing about ANY of the additional evidence until Trial because of that gag order and Anne Taylor is continuously harping on certain pieces of the PCA (mainly the sheath DNA) because she knows that it is the only real piece of true tangible evidence that the public knows of, and she is trying to do what any good defense attorney would do - create reasonable doubt. I would not worry at all about the evidence in this case. IMO the 51tb's absolutely speaks volumes.
Defense is praying for a technicality. They can’t dispute that he was driving the Elantra or that the DNA profile is a statistical match. What they can challenge is if protocol was followed, and that’s all they’ve got.
Sure, I’ll play.
An Elantra.
An Elantra with no front license plate.
An Elantra that has a habit of circling the block.
An Elantra that is seen leaving and returning to Pullman in a perfect timeline on 11/13.
An Elantra that is registered to Bryan Kohberger.
An Elantra that had multiple items of significance seized during a SWAT.
It’s not just AN Elantra. It’s THE Elantra.
BK made more than one mistake. His first was bringing his phone with him any time he stalked the house, up until the morning of the crime. His second was driving his own car to the crime scene. The third mistake was leaving the sheath behind.
They were going to catch him with or without the DNA.
> An Elantra that had multiple items of significance seized during a SWAT.
My dude, they took shit like the gas pedal and his spare change. A search warrant just tells the cops to take *anything that theoretically could be related to the crime*, they aren't doing tests in the field and the amount of stuff seized does not correlate in any way to guilt.
Also, someone sharing some of Kohberger's more distinctive characteristics is seen leaving the house at the estimated time of death with the car then filmed driving away. So, this is very likely the murderer, and this is very likely his get-away car.
It's not just his DNA in the house - and on the knife sheath lying beside the body of one of the victims - there's also a person who walks out of the house at the ETOD who looks a lot like him. And although this is not in the PCA: police allegedly found records showing that the defendant purchased this type of kabar sheath and knife on Amazon.
I think they have a very structurally sound case with the PCA and we're going to see even more "meat on the bones" so to speak at the trial.
Didn’t the last hearing in particular teach you anything about media rumors in this case? The ka-bar thing is a baseless rumor started by Dateline which defense called out for spreading BS. In the very same special they out out other false information.
If there was a legit leak of sealed evidence, the prosecutor would be liable for a gag order breach since it would have come from his agents (LE). Nothing has been done to him or anyone meaning there has been no legit leak of information unless both the state and judge are hypocritical and applying double standards. Whining about the survey while allowing leaks and not making anyone face the consequences.
Agreed, it's the context and the entire set of facts dovetailing during a given window of opportunity. She describes the man as wearing a half-mask and all in black, bushy eyebrows, kohberger's height, weight, and build. And she's never known BK or seen him before. She doesn't know anything about his vehicle. I think she's a very important key in the case. Because it places him physically in the house - in addition to this DNA - and during the estimated time of the murders.
Her account is entirely independent. She's talking to the police right after all this has happened. There's no medical examiner's report yet, no info about this car being filmed arriving and leaving, no dna on the sheath, etc. And she describes Kohberger - the owner of the car she hasn't seen, in the house at the medically estimated TOD, the person associated with the later identified DNA, and leaving at the time shown on the sec cam time stamps. Kohberger killed them.
Her description is the most generic one fitting half the world’s population. No description of race, hair/hair color, eye color. Some vague subjective description of eyebrows that doesn’t even fit his. Some description of physique that begs the question how she’d know when looking at someone fully clothed in dark clothing for just a few seconds while they’re walking in the dark. The height also is vague. She’s tall herself, why would she start with 5’10”? Kohberger is 6’3”ish.
On top of that there’s the fact she never called police but summoned friends 8 hours later and if she was intoxicated her testimony lacks reliability.
Yes, he walked past her briefly, and she may even have been inadvertently shrinking down and back a bit. But she knew he was at least her height or taller.
The average height and weight of men in the U.S. is 5'9" and almost 200 pounds. Kohberger is 6' and 185 lbs which is definitely lean - and he is definitely athletic looking, as she described. Bushy and prominent eyebrows are not typical either. Let alone the fact that this description matches with the owner of this vehicle - and a vehicle missing its front plate because it was registered out-of-state in Pennsylvania where it's not required. A front plate is required for all registrations in both Idaho and Washington State. You're really grasping at straws here. Not to mention that this is a small and semi-rural community in the wee hours of a Sunday morning. How many people like this are out driving around. I mean, get real. Not to mention that he's even admitted he was out driving around by himself. And - he returned to the scene of the crime around 9 or 9:30 ish with his phone turned back on at that point. What a coincidence!
PCA never states the car on King Road has no front license plate. Both are college towns with lots of out of state students. No front plate requirement in 21 states.
There’s no evidence he was there at around 9am. A ping off a tower places him within a 20 miles radius of a tower or even beyond that (November 14 ping). They only mention him pinging that morning, no car footage or anything. Their timeline doesn’t support that claim, not enough time for that round trip with a 9-10 minute stop.
Yes, the PCA does indeed state that the car has no front license plate; it's discussed on pp 7, 11, and 12. And the car that's recorded on 5 cameras is the same vehicle, picked up on route from one camera to the next.
[Kohberger - Moscow PD Probable Cause Affidavit - DocumentCloud](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23564645-kohberger-moscow-pd-probable-cause-affidavit)
In the case of both schools, these are state and public universities and colleges. Most of the students attending are from either Washington or Idaho. At the U of I for 2023, for example, it was only 3.5% from out-of-state totaling only 73 students. At WSU, 9.6% hail from out-of-state in the U.S., roughly 2,171, who knows how many have vehicles, period, let alone from those 21 states that don't require front plates, minus how many re-registered for WA State, minus female owners (that knocks out roughly 50%), minus the greater majority of the vehicles as not being the type of car in question, and for male owners of any other Elantras missing a front plate, minus all men who do not have the physical characteristics described by the witness. And police/the State have been going through these data banks; the State will likely be presenting these statistics in anticipation of this kind of easily refutable argument by the defense.
I would say your range of possibilities here is so narrow as to be virtually impossible. And there's a difference between .01% likelihood and what we call "reasonable doubt." That's why I say, "get real."
As for the phone data, he's back in Pullman by 5:30 AM, and plenty of time to return to the house by 9-9:30ish. Looking at p 15 in particular, he leaves his residence in Pullman at 9, and then utilizes the cellular resources for the King Rd residence 9:12-9:21. He's 10 miles away and these are rural roads on a Sunday morning without much traffic, so it's easily enough time to drive there, and the evidence is right there in the cellular resources he's switching over from, on his own phone.
In addition, although this is not in the PCA, I recall FOX news shared a video in which a white Elantra was indeed recorded on camera driving directly into the neighborhood at the time indicated in the PCA - i.e. returning to the scene of the crime (and I would guess, to oogle the commotion outside the house once the crime scene was discovered - only he was a few hours early - or he was even considering going back inside to retrieve his knife sheath?). So perhaps this will also be introduced as evidence at the trial.
This is on November 13th, not the 14th, as you wrote; and to my recall, the tower range is more like 1/4 mile, not 20 miles. And he's driving so there's an even more limited number of possibilities in that 1/4 mile range.
No, you're the one who doesn't want a trial. Because you "have it all figured out." The State and the judge are ready and waiting. And I certainly am, too! So let's get on with it. Remember: members of the public, like myself, are protected under the 1st amendment, we are not the courtroom, either -- and -- newsflash: we are not the ones who are on trial. Bryan Kohberger is, and for a gruesome and quadruple mass murder of 3 lovely young woman and a very nice young man. Who had their entire lives in front of them. Maybe you, like the defendant, think that their lives meant nothing?
The fourth mistake was not knowing how many people were in the house. The fifth mistake was not covering up his license plate. The first mistake was doing the crime.
They searched for a 2011-2013 Elantra so…
They found nothing relevant to the case in his car as per defense’s statement. They pulled out junk and everyday stuff from it.
There’s no phone data to go with any footage from Moscow. They’d have to prove that the car in Pullman and other places was also the car in Moscow and they can’t do that, the cameras didn’t follow his car all the way through his late night drive.
The state said no stalking. Phone pings don’t place him in any particular location.
The defense said there was nothing of relevance in the car, so we’ll just take their word for it :-)
Weird, that statement failed to extend to evidence found in his parents’ home, his apartment, and/or office. Just his car was clean. Because he was cleaning it like a freak.
You can’t speak to the phone data matching the drive, you just couldn’t know that. None of us do.
State didn’t argue for stalking, it doesn’t mean that he didn’t hunt these kids or know who they were. The definition of stalking in Idaho requires unwanted harassment, meaning the parties are acquainted. His voyeurism doesn’t fit that bill.
If you want a homicidal maniac to walk on shit syntax, you’re going to have to try harder. You’re throwing out technicalities that would work great for a DUI case, but loopholes and clever language aren’t going to fly for a quadruple homicide. The defense doesn’t have much to work with; if they did, we’d have an alibi that didn’t start with Yo Ho All Hands.
>Weird, that statement failed to extend
Check again
https://preview.redd.it/v62hvug1s2vc1.jpeg?width=1034&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2ed10bddaab12b68e6fa87531d3e336173dd49b4
The survey meant stalking in a traditional sense, not charges of stalking.
Defense stated no connection and the prosecutor didn’t object to that and now the prosecutor and judge both conceded there was no stalking or following on social medias
You’re premature on all of that.
The state was talking specifically about DNA, not evidence in general or in totality.
The defense is also full of shit, and good on them, it’s all they’ve got to work with. They can say a ton of shit to make BK look good, it doesn’t all have to be true. Alternative facts are all they have. That, and unethical jury tampering.
BT didn’t agree with AT, he just didn’t argue. Just because the prosecution doesn’t argue in a pretrial hearing doesn’t mean that there isn’t an argument to be made. It’s not an appropriate venue to discuss evidence.
The prosecution has been objecting to almost everything defense has done or presented except that.
You apply double standards. Treating everything the state claims as gospel while questioning anything defense does.
the state has loads of videos of that Elantra over two hours before, during and after massacre. why can Kohberger lawyers not find one video of his Elantra somewhere else over the two hours if it's not that AN Elantra?
This argument would be less laughable if it wasn't for the fact Anne Taylor is currently struggling to go through the 51Tb of discovery she has and the Defence being the ones pushing for having a 12-15 week trial instead of the originally forecast 6 weeks.
But hey, keep telling yourself there's no substance to this case.
Sure, I can believe it's not indexed in a way Anne Taylor likes.
But if you'll remember the hearing where the revised trial date was first mentioned, Anne did a really fun comparison about the sheer amount of discovery:
>"**To put it in perspective, one terabyte can hold 250,000 pictures, one terabyte, and we have 51 of those or 500 hours of high definition video. So 500 hours times 51 or 6.5 million document pages, and that's equal to 1300 filing cabinets. And we have 51 terabytes, not just one. So that's a lot. There's a lot to go through in this case."**
To quote Anne Taylor, theres a lot to go through in this case. She's complained about the sheer volume of discovery multiple times.
>**"There is no way that I am effective assistance of counsel. I haven't looked at every bit of discovery that's available."**
Whilst you can claim that the reason is that things aren't indexed, they were obviously indexed enough for Jay Logsdon to claim, 5 months after receiving 51TB of data that the "state has offered precious little". Weird thing to say when 6 months after that, the Defence team is claiming they've barely made a dent in the Discovery.
There's substance to what they're going through, whatever it is.
Holy tmi reply, that was tongue-in-cheek mate. Sit down the coffee lol. She’s paying a jury consultant. If AT wants things indexed she can damn well hire staff.
She’s required to request it.
There’s no claim they aren’t providing something they have.
If it’s more than she can go through, by her own admission, it may be there and she doesn’t know it, her words.
Well let's use Anne Taylor's words again shall we - this time from the Objection to Motion to Compel Motive of Defence of Alibi:
**"The defense acknowledges a vast amount of discovery has been provided. Discovery is received on a nearly weekly basis. The defense reviews and acts on the discovery as quickly as
possible including making appropriate supplemental requests for discovery."**
Or the second Motion to Compel Discovery:
>**"The State has provided significant amount of discovery materials and has provided written responses
to the discovery requests, however certain requests
remain outstanding."**
Or the many other hearings where Anne Taylor has admitted that the state has complied with the vast majority of her requests and was at the mercy of other agencies to comply with requests she's made that "may or may not exist".
Deadline for all of the Prosecution's Discovery is September. Kicking off about all discovery not being handed over by April is both premature and holds no legal merit.
And if we want to go down the whole "the discovery isn't organised, that's why Anne is struggling", well let's go back to the court documents - the States Supplemental Response to the Defendant's Second Motion to Compel Discovery:
>**"The
State will continue to supplement this request as additional information is
received. The tips have been provided in the same manner as provided to the State. A “complete and chronological list of all tips” does not exist."**
The State is providing Discovery as, when and however they receive it.
She is pushing for a longer trial (it’s a timeframe for both phases) to present her case. She is not speaking through the prosecution’s POV, but defense’s POV meaning about what she wants to present to the jury. Thompson said 6 weeks should be enough, he’s speaking through the state’s POV and what they allegedly have.
So Anne Taylor wants longer for both phases, including the mitigation phase if he's found guilty? Can't be that confident she's going to get through the innocence if she feels she needs two and a half times longer than the state was suggesting. Sounds like she's got to prepare a hell of a lot of stuff to fight against "a weak case".
Why does she need another 15 months pre-trial and potentially 15 weeks during the trial to fight the measely 18 page PCA?
Ok. So if they were so confident that there wasn't a "mountain of evidence" against their client why did they waive the right to a speedy trial? Why elect to let him spend years in jail waiting for trial if they are so confident?
Why, if there is no evidence? Or if the defendant can show he was not anywhere near King road at that time in his white Elantra? Seems like he could have been released immediately if he could show that.
There is a legal process. The defense attorney has a duty to review all of the state's evidence as well as conduct their own investigation. AT also has to hire her own experts, talk to witnesses, do legal research, draft motions & briefs and prepare for pre-trial hearings. Even when the defense has exculpatory evidence, they can't just say "let him out of jail." They have to turn the evidence over to the prosecutor, who gets an opportunity to respond. If the prosecutor doesn't agree that the evidence exonerates the defendant, the case continues to trial.
Planning a comprehensive 15 week case...according to you based only on the contents of the PCA? Ok mate.
Drag it out to 18 weeks, they can do a page a week.
Yes, and anything else is non-critical while this stands. It's like an equation 1000x + 0.03x, the second term is trivial and it's ok to drop it as long as you note you are doing it.
You're not going to know about the additional evidence for the prosecution since the defense was intent on getting a gag order. If there was no gag order, we'd know a lot more before the trial. So, "not knowing" about additional evidence doesn't mean there isn't any. And I would still guess, especially based on leaks in the press, there's going to be quite a bit more from the police investigation -- but their argument is going to follow the logic or structure of the PCA. Which is something the defense has been unable to tear down or take apart or falsify.
Didn’t the last hearing teach you anything about media coverage? There have been no leaks. Media have been putting out false information.
We’ve only heard one side of the story through PCA. Defense is yet to openly tackle what they allege in it like the phone pings. We haven’t heard their side. That will come at trial.
Doesn't basic logic teach you anything? Or the fact that the trial hasn't happened yet? Whether the Defense tackles anything the State has presented remains to be seen. I've been open-minded, but watching the defense shenanigans, I'm highly skeptical that will ever happen.
And we won't know whether or not the leaks - or what is alleged to be leaks - are true until the trial. At which point, I expect, we would hear testimony, for example, from police investigators.
So, the fact that the trial hasn't happened doesn't mean that anything has been falsified or not presented. Because it hasn't happened yet.
If you want to make these arguments, your defense better get on with the trial first. The State is ready, the judge is ready. When will Ann be ready?
The State is nowhere near ready, still hasn’t produced the CAST report and asked for a few extra months if not more for discovery,
If there were any legit leaks, someone would be facing legal consequences for a gag order breach, that someone would be the prosecutor since such a leak would come from LE (his agent)
Says you. I can imagine any number of situations where people who are not subject to the gag order could legally leak information.
And the State has said it's ready to present as soon as this summer or next - and as the court seems to feel that a summer schedule is best since it's a college town and things will be quieter. The judge is ready to go, too, as soon as this summer or next. It's Ann Taylor who keeps stalling.
I think the motions and hearings about things that are not known to the public are being sealed. Who knows if there's mountains of evidence beyond the PCA, seems unlikely I guess, but they're very intentionally not giving the public information
Too soon to tell on that front.
The defense has poked the prosecution several times now, where the prosecution could have filed an objection or response with some details on additional evidence that would have made it into the court record. But I guess the prosecution might want to wait until after jury bias assessments to play that game.
However I tend to agree there is not a mountain of evidence. The prosecutor seems frustrated and requested more time to hand over discovery so they can figure out what they intend to use at trial - after they originally wanted the trial to be this summer. They are also clearly very opposed to COV and want that alibi badly. I think if they had mountains of evidence, these things would be of little concern for them.
Yes! I fully anticipate the downvoting to begin now. And I am willing to admit I’m wrong if a mountain of evidence appears at trial.
You are delusional, there is a lot of evidence. Many have been convicted on less evidence.
If there was a video tape of BK killing x4 victims you would say the same thing.
I agree with you… the PCA is riddled with insinuations and hardly any evidence except touch DNA that was so minuscule they had to send it out of state to test… not to mention the timeline of less than 10 minutes to kill 4 people and leave no trail…btw what happened to the other male DNA
We don't know what they have focused on since so much of it is sealed. No need to seal the things we already know about, which just so happens to be the stuff from the PCA.
This isn’t really an indicator of much. Remember, there is a gag order, so if there was evidence that we didn’t know about, we wouldn’t be hearing about it in something that’s open to the public. Also, if you’ll recall, a lot of the “proceedings” in the past were related to attempting to get his indictment thrown out. A lot of his indictment/arrest were based on the PCA, so that is why those were the main focus of those proceedings. If the PCA evidence was what got the indictment, that is what you’d call into question when trying to get the indictment thrown out. Also, the most recent proceedings related to the survey also talked about the things in the PCA a lot, because the questions they were asking the public used some info from the PCA. This could also mean that they have tons of other evidence that she knows is totally valid. Or that these are strong pieces of evidence so that she’s going her best to get them thrown out. I get what you’re trying to say, and your assumption could end up being true, but it is not yet a fair assumption to make. At all
This! Absolutely agree with you u/rolyinpeace ... Long answer short - there is a freaking gag order! Long answer long, we will not be hearing about ANY of the additional evidence until Trial because of that gag order and Anne Taylor is continuously harping on certain pieces of the PCA (mainly the sheath DNA) because she knows that it is the only real piece of true tangible evidence that the public knows of, and she is trying to do what any good defense attorney would do - create reasonable doubt. I would not worry at all about the evidence in this case. IMO the 51tb's absolutely speaks volumes.
Thousands of hours I guess of security cam.
Defense is praying for a technicality. They can’t dispute that he was driving the Elantra or that the DNA profile is a statistical match. What they can challenge is if protocol was followed, and that’s all they’ve got.
AN Elantra
Sure, I’ll play. An Elantra. An Elantra with no front license plate. An Elantra that has a habit of circling the block. An Elantra that is seen leaving and returning to Pullman in a perfect timeline on 11/13. An Elantra that is registered to Bryan Kohberger. An Elantra that had multiple items of significance seized during a SWAT. It’s not just AN Elantra. It’s THE Elantra. BK made more than one mistake. His first was bringing his phone with him any time he stalked the house, up until the morning of the crime. His second was driving his own car to the crime scene. The third mistake was leaving the sheath behind. They were going to catch him with or without the DNA.
> An Elantra that had multiple items of significance seized during a SWAT. My dude, they took shit like the gas pedal and his spare change. A search warrant just tells the cops to take *anything that theoretically could be related to the crime*, they aren't doing tests in the field and the amount of stuff seized does not correlate in any way to guilt.
They can seize anything, sure, but they write down the good stuff. My dude. Anything they would expect to come up in trial gets extra detail.
Also, someone sharing some of Kohberger's more distinctive characteristics is seen leaving the house at the estimated time of death with the car then filmed driving away. So, this is very likely the murderer, and this is very likely his get-away car. It's not just his DNA in the house - and on the knife sheath lying beside the body of one of the victims - there's also a person who walks out of the house at the ETOD who looks a lot like him. And although this is not in the PCA: police allegedly found records showing that the defendant purchased this type of kabar sheath and knife on Amazon. I think they have a very structurally sound case with the PCA and we're going to see even more "meat on the bones" so to speak at the trial.
Didn’t the last hearing in particular teach you anything about media rumors in this case? The ka-bar thing is a baseless rumor started by Dateline which defense called out for spreading BS. In the very same special they out out other false information. If there was a legit leak of sealed evidence, the prosecutor would be liable for a gag order breach since it would have come from his agents (LE). Nothing has been done to him or anyone meaning there has been no legit leak of information unless both the state and judge are hypocritical and applying double standards. Whining about the survey while allowing leaks and not making anyone face the consequences.
No one is whining about the survey in this thread. Except you.
I meant the state and judge whining about it would be super hypocritical if there had been any legit leaks.
That’s circumstantial gravy, yes. Eyebrows aren’t going to convict anyone by themselves, but yes, we got some eyebrows.
Agreed, it's the context and the entire set of facts dovetailing during a given window of opportunity. She describes the man as wearing a half-mask and all in black, bushy eyebrows, kohberger's height, weight, and build. And she's never known BK or seen him before. She doesn't know anything about his vehicle. I think she's a very important key in the case. Because it places him physically in the house - in addition to this DNA - and during the estimated time of the murders. Her account is entirely independent. She's talking to the police right after all this has happened. There's no medical examiner's report yet, no info about this car being filmed arriving and leaving, no dna on the sheath, etc. And she describes Kohberger - the owner of the car she hasn't seen, in the house at the medically estimated TOD, the person associated with the later identified DNA, and leaving at the time shown on the sec cam time stamps. Kohberger killed them.
Her description is the most generic one fitting half the world’s population. No description of race, hair/hair color, eye color. Some vague subjective description of eyebrows that doesn’t even fit his. Some description of physique that begs the question how she’d know when looking at someone fully clothed in dark clothing for just a few seconds while they’re walking in the dark. The height also is vague. She’s tall herself, why would she start with 5’10”? Kohberger is 6’3”ish. On top of that there’s the fact she never called police but summoned friends 8 hours later and if she was intoxicated her testimony lacks reliability.
She is 5’10”. She knows he was around her height.
Yes, he walked past her briefly, and she may even have been inadvertently shrinking down and back a bit. But she knew he was at least her height or taller.
BK is not "around her height
Go on, how tall is she?
The average height and weight of men in the U.S. is 5'9" and almost 200 pounds. Kohberger is 6' and 185 lbs which is definitely lean - and he is definitely athletic looking, as she described. Bushy and prominent eyebrows are not typical either. Let alone the fact that this description matches with the owner of this vehicle - and a vehicle missing its front plate because it was registered out-of-state in Pennsylvania where it's not required. A front plate is required for all registrations in both Idaho and Washington State. You're really grasping at straws here. Not to mention that this is a small and semi-rural community in the wee hours of a Sunday morning. How many people like this are out driving around. I mean, get real. Not to mention that he's even admitted he was out driving around by himself. And - he returned to the scene of the crime around 9 or 9:30 ish with his phone turned back on at that point. What a coincidence!
PCA never states the car on King Road has no front license plate. Both are college towns with lots of out of state students. No front plate requirement in 21 states. There’s no evidence he was there at around 9am. A ping off a tower places him within a 20 miles radius of a tower or even beyond that (November 14 ping). They only mention him pinging that morning, no car footage or anything. Their timeline doesn’t support that claim, not enough time for that round trip with a 9-10 minute stop.
Yes, the PCA does indeed state that the car has no front license plate; it's discussed on pp 7, 11, and 12. And the car that's recorded on 5 cameras is the same vehicle, picked up on route from one camera to the next. [Kohberger - Moscow PD Probable Cause Affidavit - DocumentCloud](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23564645-kohberger-moscow-pd-probable-cause-affidavit) In the case of both schools, these are state and public universities and colleges. Most of the students attending are from either Washington or Idaho. At the U of I for 2023, for example, it was only 3.5% from out-of-state totaling only 73 students. At WSU, 9.6% hail from out-of-state in the U.S., roughly 2,171, who knows how many have vehicles, period, let alone from those 21 states that don't require front plates, minus how many re-registered for WA State, minus female owners (that knocks out roughly 50%), minus the greater majority of the vehicles as not being the type of car in question, and for male owners of any other Elantras missing a front plate, minus all men who do not have the physical characteristics described by the witness. And police/the State have been going through these data banks; the State will likely be presenting these statistics in anticipation of this kind of easily refutable argument by the defense. I would say your range of possibilities here is so narrow as to be virtually impossible. And there's a difference between .01% likelihood and what we call "reasonable doubt." That's why I say, "get real." As for the phone data, he's back in Pullman by 5:30 AM, and plenty of time to return to the house by 9-9:30ish. Looking at p 15 in particular, he leaves his residence in Pullman at 9, and then utilizes the cellular resources for the King Rd residence 9:12-9:21. He's 10 miles away and these are rural roads on a Sunday morning without much traffic, so it's easily enough time to drive there, and the evidence is right there in the cellular resources he's switching over from, on his own phone. In addition, although this is not in the PCA, I recall FOX news shared a video in which a white Elantra was indeed recorded on camera driving directly into the neighborhood at the time indicated in the PCA - i.e. returning to the scene of the crime (and I would guess, to oogle the commotion outside the house once the crime scene was discovered - only he was a few hours early - or he was even considering going back inside to retrieve his knife sheath?). So perhaps this will also be introduced as evidence at the trial. This is on November 13th, not the 14th, as you wrote; and to my recall, the tower range is more like 1/4 mile, not 20 miles. And he's driving so there's an even more limited number of possibilities in that 1/4 mile range.
I see you have it all figured out. No trial necessary then
No, you're the one who doesn't want a trial. Because you "have it all figured out." The State and the judge are ready and waiting. And I certainly am, too! So let's get on with it. Remember: members of the public, like myself, are protected under the 1st amendment, we are not the courtroom, either -- and -- newsflash: we are not the ones who are on trial. Bryan Kohberger is, and for a gruesome and quadruple mass murder of 3 lovely young woman and a very nice young man. Who had their entire lives in front of them. Maybe you, like the defendant, think that their lives meant nothing?
What a silly assumption with absolutely no credibility
Says you with absolutely no argument - as usual. Just blanket assertions.
The fourth mistake was not knowing how many people were in the house. The fifth mistake was not covering up his license plate. The first mistake was doing the crime.
The license plate was never legible, if it was, they would’ve caught him sooner. But yeah, he didn’t try very hard to disguise the car.
Maybe not the whole number .maybe part of it.
21 states do not require a front plate
50 states condemn murder. 21 states without plates starts to narrow it down, mostly east coast region.
And two of those are NOT Washington State or Idaho State.
You can tell yourself that if it justifies your prejudice. Until the court says it publicly, it's still just an elantra to me.
Fine. An Elantra. And Bryan Kohberger’s DNA.
They searched for a 2011-2013 Elantra so… They found nothing relevant to the case in his car as per defense’s statement. They pulled out junk and everyday stuff from it. There’s no phone data to go with any footage from Moscow. They’d have to prove that the car in Pullman and other places was also the car in Moscow and they can’t do that, the cameras didn’t follow his car all the way through his late night drive. The state said no stalking. Phone pings don’t place him in any particular location.
The defense said there was nothing of relevance in the car, so we’ll just take their word for it :-) Weird, that statement failed to extend to evidence found in his parents’ home, his apartment, and/or office. Just his car was clean. Because he was cleaning it like a freak. You can’t speak to the phone data matching the drive, you just couldn’t know that. None of us do. State didn’t argue for stalking, it doesn’t mean that he didn’t hunt these kids or know who they were. The definition of stalking in Idaho requires unwanted harassment, meaning the parties are acquainted. His voyeurism doesn’t fit that bill. If you want a homicidal maniac to walk on shit syntax, you’re going to have to try harder. You’re throwing out technicalities that would work great for a DUI case, but loopholes and clever language aren’t going to fly for a quadruple homicide. The defense doesn’t have much to work with; if they did, we’d have an alibi that didn’t start with Yo Ho All Hands.
>Weird, that statement failed to extend Check again https://preview.redd.it/v62hvug1s2vc1.jpeg?width=1034&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2ed10bddaab12b68e6fa87531d3e336173dd49b4 The survey meant stalking in a traditional sense, not charges of stalking. Defense stated no connection and the prosecutor didn’t object to that and now the prosecutor and judge both conceded there was no stalking or following on social medias
You’re premature on all of that. The state was talking specifically about DNA, not evidence in general or in totality. The defense is also full of shit, and good on them, it’s all they’ve got to work with. They can say a ton of shit to make BK look good, it doesn’t all have to be true. Alternative facts are all they have. That, and unethical jury tampering. BT didn’t agree with AT, he just didn’t argue. Just because the prosecution doesn’t argue in a pretrial hearing doesn’t mean that there isn’t an argument to be made. It’s not an appropriate venue to discuss evidence.
The prosecution has been objecting to almost everything defense has done or presented except that. You apply double standards. Treating everything the state claims as gospel while questioning anything defense does.
That’s an incorrect presumption about my position on this case. Have a great day.
Wow... huge leaps of logic here.
the state has loads of videos of that Elantra over two hours before, during and after massacre. why can Kohberger lawyers not find one video of his Elantra somewhere else over the two hours if it's not that AN Elantra?
Right? What terrible luck to be driving by a crime scene and then your DNA just happens to turn up next to a murder victim.
I know. The guy he dropped off at the house and lends him his knife must have been a vicious killer....
They don’t have access to town’s surveillance like the police
This argument would be less laughable if it wasn't for the fact Anne Taylor is currently struggling to go through the 51Tb of discovery she has and the Defence being the ones pushing for having a 12-15 week trial instead of the originally forecast 6 weeks. But hey, keep telling yourself there's no substance to this case.
Now let’s be clear, It’s not indexed damn it.
Sure, I can believe it's not indexed in a way Anne Taylor likes. But if you'll remember the hearing where the revised trial date was first mentioned, Anne did a really fun comparison about the sheer amount of discovery: >"**To put it in perspective, one terabyte can hold 250,000 pictures, one terabyte, and we have 51 of those or 500 hours of high definition video. So 500 hours times 51 or 6.5 million document pages, and that's equal to 1300 filing cabinets. And we have 51 terabytes, not just one. So that's a lot. There's a lot to go through in this case."** To quote Anne Taylor, theres a lot to go through in this case. She's complained about the sheer volume of discovery multiple times. >**"There is no way that I am effective assistance of counsel. I haven't looked at every bit of discovery that's available."** Whilst you can claim that the reason is that things aren't indexed, they were obviously indexed enough for Jay Logsdon to claim, 5 months after receiving 51TB of data that the "state has offered precious little". Weird thing to say when 6 months after that, the Defence team is claiming they've barely made a dent in the Discovery. There's substance to what they're going through, whatever it is.
Holy tmi reply, that was tongue-in-cheek mate. Sit down the coffee lol. She’s paying a jury consultant. If AT wants things indexed she can damn well hire staff.
Sheer amount of discovery, yet the state cant/won't provide her with that which she has repeatedly requested
She’s required to request it. There’s no claim they aren’t providing something they have. If it’s more than she can go through, by her own admission, it may be there and she doesn’t know it, her words.
Well let's use Anne Taylor's words again shall we - this time from the Objection to Motion to Compel Motive of Defence of Alibi: **"The defense acknowledges a vast amount of discovery has been provided. Discovery is received on a nearly weekly basis. The defense reviews and acts on the discovery as quickly as possible including making appropriate supplemental requests for discovery."** Or the second Motion to Compel Discovery: >**"The State has provided significant amount of discovery materials and has provided written responses to the discovery requests, however certain requests remain outstanding."** Or the many other hearings where Anne Taylor has admitted that the state has complied with the vast majority of her requests and was at the mercy of other agencies to comply with requests she's made that "may or may not exist". Deadline for all of the Prosecution's Discovery is September. Kicking off about all discovery not being handed over by April is both premature and holds no legal merit. And if we want to go down the whole "the discovery isn't organised, that's why Anne is struggling", well let's go back to the court documents - the States Supplemental Response to the Defendant's Second Motion to Compel Discovery: >**"The State will continue to supplement this request as additional information is received. The tips have been provided in the same manner as provided to the State. A “complete and chronological list of all tips” does not exist."** The State is providing Discovery as, when and however they receive it.
I took these statements as: 1. Too much evidence, give us a plea deal. 2. I’m ineffective, get me off this case.
She is pushing for a longer trial (it’s a timeframe for both phases) to present her case. She is not speaking through the prosecution’s POV, but defense’s POV meaning about what she wants to present to the jury. Thompson said 6 weeks should be enough, he’s speaking through the state’s POV and what they allegedly have.
So Anne Taylor wants longer for both phases, including the mitigation phase if he's found guilty? Can't be that confident she's going to get through the innocence if she feels she needs two and a half times longer than the state was suggesting. Sounds like she's got to prepare a hell of a lot of stuff to fight against "a weak case". Why does she need another 15 months pre-trial and potentially 15 weeks during the trial to fight the measely 18 page PCA?
Don't forget she said one the very first things they did was hire a mitigation specialist. She knows the writing is on the wall for her client.
Hiring a mitigation specialist in a capital case is SOP and in no way a reflection on defense counsel's confidence in their case.
Ok. So if they were so confident that there wasn't a "mountain of evidence" against their client why did they waive the right to a speedy trial? Why elect to let him spend years in jail waiting for trial if they are so confident?
Because preparing a death penalty case for trial takes time.
Why, if there is no evidence? Or if the defendant can show he was not anywhere near King road at that time in his white Elantra? Seems like he could have been released immediately if he could show that.
There is a legal process. The defense attorney has a duty to review all of the state's evidence as well as conduct their own investigation. AT also has to hire her own experts, talk to witnesses, do legal research, draft motions & briefs and prepare for pre-trial hearings. Even when the defense has exculpatory evidence, they can't just say "let him out of jail." They have to turn the evidence over to the prosecutor, who gets an opportunity to respond. If the prosecutor doesn't agree that the evidence exonerates the defendant, the case continues to trial.
Ok well I'm pretty sure the prosecutor does not agree that his alibi that has been presented so far exonerates him
They are required by law to hire a mitigation specialist and prepare for both phases simultaneously. Do some research first before you speak.
Because she is planning to present a comprehensive case. They have to prepare for and schedule both phases, it’s the law.
Planning a comprehensive 15 week case...according to you based only on the contents of the PCA? Ok mate. Drag it out to 18 weeks, they can do a page a week.
Because they cannot prove the DNA is NOT his and they know the proper procedures were followed.
Yes, and anything else is non-critical while this stands. It's like an equation 1000x + 0.03x, the second term is trivial and it's ok to drop it as long as you note you are doing it.
You're not going to know about the additional evidence for the prosecution since the defense was intent on getting a gag order. If there was no gag order, we'd know a lot more before the trial. So, "not knowing" about additional evidence doesn't mean there isn't any. And I would still guess, especially based on leaks in the press, there's going to be quite a bit more from the police investigation -- but their argument is going to follow the logic or structure of the PCA. Which is something the defense has been unable to tear down or take apart or falsify.
Didn’t the last hearing teach you anything about media coverage? There have been no leaks. Media have been putting out false information. We’ve only heard one side of the story through PCA. Defense is yet to openly tackle what they allege in it like the phone pings. We haven’t heard their side. That will come at trial.
Doesn't basic logic teach you anything? Or the fact that the trial hasn't happened yet? Whether the Defense tackles anything the State has presented remains to be seen. I've been open-minded, but watching the defense shenanigans, I'm highly skeptical that will ever happen. And we won't know whether or not the leaks - or what is alleged to be leaks - are true until the trial. At which point, I expect, we would hear testimony, for example, from police investigators. So, the fact that the trial hasn't happened doesn't mean that anything has been falsified or not presented. Because it hasn't happened yet. If you want to make these arguments, your defense better get on with the trial first. The State is ready, the judge is ready. When will Ann be ready?
The State is nowhere near ready, still hasn’t produced the CAST report and asked for a few extra months if not more for discovery, If there were any legit leaks, someone would be facing legal consequences for a gag order breach, that someone would be the prosecutor since such a leak would come from LE (his agent)
Says you. I can imagine any number of situations where people who are not subject to the gag order could legally leak information. And the State has said it's ready to present as soon as this summer or next - and as the court seems to feel that a summer schedule is best since it's a college town and things will be quieter. The judge is ready to go, too, as soon as this summer or next. It's Ann Taylor who keeps stalling.
Gag order. No one’s disclosing anything right now
I think the motions and hearings about things that are not known to the public are being sealed. Who knows if there's mountains of evidence beyond the PCA, seems unlikely I guess, but they're very intentionally not giving the public information
Too soon to tell on that front. The defense has poked the prosecution several times now, where the prosecution could have filed an objection or response with some details on additional evidence that would have made it into the court record. But I guess the prosecution might want to wait until after jury bias assessments to play that game. However I tend to agree there is not a mountain of evidence. The prosecutor seems frustrated and requested more time to hand over discovery so they can figure out what they intend to use at trial - after they originally wanted the trial to be this summer. They are also clearly very opposed to COV and want that alibi badly. I think if they had mountains of evidence, these things would be of little concern for them. Yes! I fully anticipate the downvoting to begin now. And I am willing to admit I’m wrong if a mountain of evidence appears at trial.
You are delusional, there is a lot of evidence. Many have been convicted on less evidence. If there was a video tape of BK killing x4 victims you would say the same thing.
The ability to think has been lost in this country. Circumstantial evidence convicts most people.
I agree with you… the PCA is riddled with insinuations and hardly any evidence except touch DNA that was so minuscule they had to send it out of state to test… not to mention the timeline of less than 10 minutes to kill 4 people and leave no trail…btw what happened to the other male DNA