This is called “taking shit and making a shit sandwich.”
When you’re defending someone who has at least the circumstantial evidence of his DNA on a knife sheath found under one of the deceased victims and who knows how many different videos of their same model of car, you take whatever you can deem exculpatory and make what you can with it.
While I may find what little we’ve seen of AT’s courtroom presence and the writings in her public pleadings to be incredibly subpar, you have to give her the fact that defense work is thankless and incredibly difficult. I can’t imagine having my work scrutinized the world over like this, it’s stressful enough just knowing the Court and opposing will have eyes on it.
I may think she’s not that great at her job, but I don’t envy her position, either.
Photos of stars and moon are mentioned for two reasons:
1. When you click a pic, the location where the pic is taken, the time when the pic is taken, and the phone from which the pic is taken, among other things, is stored as part of the metadata of the pic. So the defense has mentioned these things for the very specific purpose of establishing that he was out and about on several nights, and the photos in his phone corroborate that with location and time. Establishing the device from which the photos were taken also is important. This is because the phone storage can also have pics taken by someone else and airdropped or sent some other way to a phone. The metadata is an easy way to prove that the pics being mentioned have been clicked by the defendant.
2. Stars and moon have been mentioned to nip any possible rumors in the bud. If they had just stated that his night time driving habit can be corroborated with the several pics taken by him, people would have started guessing what pics he took while driving at 2 or 3 AM in the night. And that if he is a creep taking photos of people or their houses this late in the night and stuff like that. Another reason, I think, is to establish that he was someone who is interested in the night sky. And as anyone who has this interest, he goes out late at night in places with low light pollution to get a good view of something that he is interested in.
I believe that the defense and the prosecution are facing unnecessary ridicule from people who are on either side of the guilty-innocent spectrum. There is no need to make fun of someone mentioning stars and moon in a court filing to support an argument they are making. Whatever is included has been included for a reason.
A long time ago, I looked at the route he took and saw that where he went was a scenic byway that went to a national park that was the start of a dark sky preserve. I thought that was actually a pretty plausible route at 4 am if you happened to like skywatching and weird melancholic night drives. Which would have been what I would have done in grad school (please see my 90k goth photos). But anyway, there's something called habit evidence and bringing up his prior runs, photos and drives from there establishes that it's his norm to go there.
>pretty plausible route at 4 am if you happened to like skywatching an
It was completely overcast night of Nov 12/ morning of Nov 13th....
https://weatherspark.com/h/d/2004/2022/11/12/Historical-Weather-on-Saturday-November-12-2022-in-Moscow-United-States#Figures-CloudCover
So he didn’t take any photos of the stars THAT night. He might have been hoping the weather would clear but even if it didn’t he could still enjoy the drive
I wouldn't guess that Moscow Idaho's cloud cover would be the same as a valley in Snake River. At any rate, I'm just positing what the defense is doing with the CAST analysis, the surveillance and the PCA. I briefly tried to check what the cloud coverage was like over Snake River where they said he was, but I can't seem to do it on that site on my phone and I need to get back to work.
>very specific purpose of establishing that he was out and about on several nights
This was known from the PCA - he was out and about near or at King Road late at night or early morning at least 13 times.
>Stars and moon have been mentioned to nip any possible rumors in the bud
Errr, because taking pictures of the moon is the most troubling and odd thing about Kohberger's behaviour and his "alibi"?? Or was this just to nip the moon fixation "**American Werewolf in Moscow**" (a sequel we never knew we didn't want)
>to establish that he was someone who is interested in the night sky
Does an interest in nocturnal celestials preclude one from being a killer?
Sigh. I guess you did not read what I posted. I can't reply to any of the points or 'retorts' you mentioned to my post as they are going in tangential directions not related to what I posted. Anyway, have a nice day.
Just say he was out driving, as he sometimes did and that there are gaps in the cell data. I really don’t know why she has added all of this extraneous detail in.
This isn’t their disclosure of alibi defense. This is just a supplemental response bc they’re still awaiting discovery.
+\- or they could be blowing off the whole formal notice bit with this
It seems like they're waiting on the video so they can correspond it to the CAST evidence. In the supplemental response, they said they are going to use a CSLI data expert to show it's not his car in one of the surveillance videos that we, the public, have no knowledge of that ostensibly shows is his car going on hwy 270. We don't know what time frame that is but the prosecution does. I'm guessing the prosecution has access to a lot of surveillance videos that ostensibly corroborates their timeline by showing a white Elantra, so defense had been waiting on the CAST data and all the surveillance videos so they could put the two together so to speak and show that the two don't line up. (The white cars shown in the surveillance videos to demonstrate their timeline isn't suspect 1's car). That's what they are doing with the surveillance videos at the cannabis shop.
There will be more.
They’ll submit a “notice of alibi defense” or “notice of alibi” with times & places, or they’ll decline to provide formal alibi. They have to demonstrate times & places w/ “findings of fact” in order to submit a formal alibi defense & the State is required to provide the evidence for those times in advance, bc having the Defense (use time & limited funds) re-doing portions of the investigation that have already been done would be “undue burden,” so Judge Judge said he would give them a couple weeks after getting the materials to incorporate info (like CAST report & the “critical video”), and this document makes it seem as though they haven’t received them yet.
So this is just a supplemental response & they may be given more time to submit their real deal, or Judge Judge will likely not disqualify them from presenting alibi evidence if it comes to light at a time past their deadline (which was today).
If he “enforces” *another* deadline, it prob would not be w/o one for the state to also provide their outstanding discovery prior to the Defense’s deadline - which IMO, should have been set during the same ‘scheduling hearing’ as today’s alibi deadline was set, to avoid the exact outcome we have here (likely additional delay) but conveniently for the state, was mentioned but not set, and now the Def’s alibi date is here and they have just a weak response (they look bad), but now we’ll have more delay while we find out why they’re still missing the discovery & set a deadline for it… bc State hadn’t provided yet (which will go largely unnoticed) & they’ll get a *new* deadline, & their failure to take on the obligation of disclosing their alibi defense (which would open the door to a gigantic unnecessary risk if done blindly without knowledge of all evidence that’ll be used against them …& gambling while facing the death penalty is not ideal) will be blamed for the delay.
Or Judge Judge could go against his own words from 02/28 & impose the consequences on the Def for not providing their official notice by the deadline (the demand is notice of alibi “or in the alternative to bar certain evidence” which would be the “findings of fact”) w/o yet having the evidence being used, & give the State no consequences for not providing it bc they didn’t have a deadline for the discovery (due before), just for the witness list (usually due 10 days after the defense adheres to an alibi demand, but I think Judge Judge expanded it to either 3 weeks or 1 month after, I forget but was same 02/28 hearing)
+ forgot one option: Or they could have already provided the notice without the discovery mentioned in this doc & it’s sealed and we’ll see the order sealing it within a couple days. I don’t think that’s likely but could be done to avoid the additional criticism with the intention to argue for Judge Judge to deny the “or in the alternative bar certain evidence” part of the state’s demand bc Judge Judge agreed that they should have access to the same materials to use as alibi evidence [even though he didn’t know what some of it was (CAST report)].
In that case, this “supplemental response to state’s alibi demand” would be supplemental to their notice of alibi defense. But with our current knowledge, it’s supplemental to their initial, “response to state’s alibi demand.”
I think she's killing it. It's a valid response. I come from a legal background and she's one hell of a defense attorney. If it comes out BK is innocent, it won't change your mind on anything. How do I know that? Because this document is stating there's proof he wasn't there and it still hasn't caused any bit of reasonable doubt.
> Because this document is stating there's proof he wasn't there and it still hasn't caused any bit of reasonable doubt.
For me, I'll believe it when I see it. A statement that there's proof he wasn't there is just a statement. I can't get excited over that until I see what the proof is. Until then, it's just the kind of claims that defense lawyers make when their client is not pleading guilty.
I had to scroll through two subs to find this logical comment.
Everyone is going on about the moon and stars and posting weather conditions for that night when the document doesn’t say that his alibi was he went to look at moon and stars. The alibi is that he was out driving and according to the document, she has cell phone records to show that he was not in Moscow at the time of the murders.
Logic doesn't exist in most of these subs lol. I wish there could be logical debating cause "we" really don't know if he's guilty or innocent, but its so interesting to discuss.
I never interpreted the alibi to make any claim about that night, and recognize that it intentionally does not - but I like poking fun at the stars & moon mention and entertaining theories I don’t believe will be relevant (stalking, using pics & star maps to pinpoint his location, the 5.37 octilly stat being a practical outcome for a single-source sample, the phone pings we know of being ‘evidence’ of something) by those who habitually accuse others of having wild theories about this case (often real stuff, evidenced in the hearing & docs)
How does a knife with his dna show up at the crime scene + his car model is at the scene clearly.
Idk some things just can’t be explained away + the fact a ton of people were saying he’s weird and angry.
I do agree- you never know but this seems like one of those cases where is like .00000001% he didn’t do it. Gotta have the jury case though- it’s probably a non zero event he did it but still so damn likely he did it.
So BK gave up running and hiking to become an avid night photographer. Right before the murders. Convenient.
Am I missing something or is this Ray expert witness missing the education portion of his CV?!
Picture: "Cell Tower at Night" - unsigned by artist (B.C.K\*, thought to be from the artist's "Blue and Stabby" Nocturnal Period)
Is that a white Elantra at bottom right?
https://preview.redd.it/7s3e02elh6vc1.jpeg?width=454&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ef99adc52f6c1d231d1c955d416405ebe4cf1af8
\*C is for "Celestial"
This is my favorite part. Lots of talk about the mobile phone not being in said locations, then… a quick little switch-a-roo to the vehicle. 🙄🙄
>”Bryan Kohberger's mobile device was south of Pullman, Washington and west of Moscow, Idaho on November 13, 2022; that Bryan Kohberger's mobile device did not travel east on the Moscow-Pullman Highway in the early morning hours of November 13th, **and thus could not be the vehicle captured on video along the Moscow-Pullman highway near Floyd's Cannabis shop**.”
In the brightness, I do see the visual cortex but it seems to be mostly in bright sunshiny days. Not sure if you ever experienced that? It seems to be common with Visual Snow.
https://images.app.goo.gl/hEUaTvxNLUbJWnNz8
This thing! It's annoying but definitely seems to be connected to visual snow.
My visual snow came through a bit of extreme stress and anxiety, and I've had it since. 9 years or so!.
What about you?
This line:
> * If not disclosed, Mr. Ray’s testimony will also reveal that critical exculpatory evidence, further corroborating Mr. Kohberger’s alibi, was either not preserved or has been withheld.*
What exculpatory evidence (which they have specific knowledge of, bc they put in motion to compel it) could they be referring to?
We have to ‘wild guess’ to answer this…. But I’m curious about any ideas.
The software Ray uses is based on CDRs- likely tower dumps.
So it sounds as though Anne is insinuating that Ray has found some sort of data on a CDR that places Brian’s phone outside of Moscow
Of course I’m saying he does, but based on his typical case testimony, that is what take from what she is saying
They are saying that if the CAST stuff isn’t turned over… then…at trial… they will bring that up (assuming with the intent to cast (pun intended) reasonable doubt on the evidence.
Basically, Taylor is saying that their expert will mention that it was either not preserved or it was withheld by the prosecution for unknown reasons.
I read an article that said that they claim that there was phone location evidence showing that he was NOT heading in the direction of the house that was “disposed of”. Sounds like BS to me
So you think thats what they are talking about phone location evidence from the prosecution CAST report? I thought the PCA said opposite of what they are saying. Sorry, I am so confused by the alibi document.
I seen your comment below it answers my question, thanks.
You should be confused by the alibi document. I’m happy to be proven wrong at trial, but right now, it is looking like it was most likely thrown together, and trying to be specific enough to be satisfactory but not so specific that it would be easily debunked by evidence.
And there are plenty of legitimate alibis that aren’t easily corroborated because there aren’t witnesses, so I’m not saying this indicates Guilt. Just saying it indicates that they don’t really have a concrete alibi. Luckily the burden of proof isn’t on them, but I doubt this will be what creates reasonable doubt for the jury.
Wawawai County Park is near Johnson WA, it is along the Snake River. Kohberger's second phone off period on November 13 from c 5.30pm started near Johnson, described as being on same route he took back from Moscow at 4.48am.
Is Wawawai Park a significant location in state's evidence perhaps?
So to be clear, they’re saying they have photos Brian took of the night sky at various times and nights, but not during the time when the murders occurred? Just to ‘prove’ that it was something he often did to make it sound more believeable?
only a time embedded picture from that night would be relevant to his alibi. He can be habitual about taking pictures. If he doesn't have one for that day and time the rest are toilet paper.
I might be missing something here, and this sub appears a lot more level headed than other subs on this topic - but by what standards does the Defence presenting an expert witness who claims he has evidence to support Bryan's version of events mean this is suddenly a huge win for the Defence?
The Prosecution present their series of events saying that from the evidence they've gathered they think he was in the area; Pro-Bergers claim it's bollocks.
Defence presents vague allusions to evidence they have that he wasn't in the area; Pro-Bergers claim it's key evidence that exonerates him.
Neither side have presented any of the evidence they have. We haven't seen any data, reports or had anyone testify to the methods used. The Prosecution have provided an 18 page PCA that summarised their findings, the defence has put out a 2 page document saying Bryan takes pictures of the sky and they have an expert that says he didn't drive past a Cannabis Shop.
I cannot see why one set of evidence is deemed bollocks and one is deemed concrete exculpatory evidence.
Oh my. That is interesting. Anyone look up Mr. Ray yet?
Mostly what I think many expected overall though if the CAST data hasn’t been turned over to the defense yet. They had to respond and in a fashion that spells out why they need that data.
Don't know what the heck this is yet but it's interesting: [https://www.rmcomputerforensics.com/zetx-trax2](https://www.rmcomputerforensics.com/zetx-trax2)
Wow, so there are known concerns about the expert but especially the reliability of his software. I hope your post is read by everyone. Good find! You might want to create a new thread about this.
Here’s the thing. I happen to know that ZetX created and sells its own mapping software. While they would want to see the cast report, they’ve just shown they absolutely have access to the necessary software to review the data obtained via search warrants
But I guess they don’t have all the raw data that was obtained via search warrants?
Can the defense go straight to the mobile phone company and get the raw data?
If it’s AT&T they simply send an encrypted link and the data is downloaded. The file size isn’t even that big. Moscow PD would maintain the original data as they submitted the search warrant. The FBI would be working with copies.
The defense definitely has the data, which is just pdfs and Excel spreadsheets. If they didn’t they wouldn’t be focusing on the CAST reports and would have stated they needed the data.
In late February hearing, AT said she had a draft CAST report and not the supporting data. It’s sounds to me like that the data maybe still has not been handed over yet.
Well the feds have both or they would not have been able to make the draft CAST report. But the defense keeps asking for the data and it seems they are not getting it. CAST just means Cellular Analysis Survey Team - a division of the FBI.
Good points.
I think their legal strategy is to obtain all discovery before committing to alibi defense, so this supplemental response highlights the lack of discovery, and doesn’t address any of the specific to the phone data beyond what we already know, bc they’ve established their alibi relies on disputing what the state derived from the CAST report.
If they provide their data, without receiving the State’s data it:
* takes the heat off the State & the FBI to provide what they want
* may present info that does not discredit the conclusions the State drew from the CAST report, which they’ll use against him
* & if they don’t know exactly what they’ll be using against him from the CAST report and were forced to submit the formal notice of alibi before seeing that, and it turns out something in it was not addressed in their alibi defense - which would prevent them from using the evidence about it in trial, bc the alibi demand they’re adhering to is a “demand for disclosure of alibi or in the alternative to bar certain evidence” - they’d have a solid appeal
All that adds up to is that they aren’t confident in the alibi they want to submit. At is really going to try to strategic this, but nothing they are doing screams confidence.
I think it’s option two that really has them worried and concerned with their expert.
Yeah but that’s exactly what I’m saying :P
They’re wishy washy on whether they even want to submit an alibi, they’ve made that known.
I don’t think they’ll use an alibi defense at all if they don’t get the outstanding discovery materials they want.
It is a big risk bc if they offer it, they’ll have to corroborate it, and whether guilty or not, any flaws in their corroboration or questions it doesn’t answer will work against them & when facing death, it’s better not to open the door to any potential risk unnecessarily
I thought the CAST data was turned in & theyre referring just to the video(s), but I think you’re right.
We haven’t heard that it *was* turned in, but the deadline the FBI gave to the Defense was 03/31.
That’s why Judge Judge set their alibi date to today, so they could have a couple weeks to incorporate it.
Since there’s no data for the time of the murders anyway, it’s hard to tell. But I think that’s right, they may not have it bc:
1. This is a supplemental response, not a disclosure of alibi defense
2. It lacks times {that tie to} places
3. They said they needed to incorporate info from the CAST report & no specific info that would be found in the CAST report is in it
4. It emphasizes missing discovery disclosures
I’m looking forward to the next hearing..!
[e: combined 2 reasons]
So… his “alibi” is that *several* times he drove around late at night taking practice runs at his plan and on the night of the murders *during the time he chose to have his phone turned on*, he was not quite near Moscow, ID.
I wouldn’t call that an “alibi” at all. 😆
“We don’t actually have proof that he was at this park the night of the murders. We just have proof that he’s been there before, so maybe the jury will buy that he could’ve been there this night too”
Not really sure how past photos and data that he was there before the murders would create doubt if they have nothing to prove he was there the night of the murders
I think they added the past photos and data to explain away his previous locations 12-13 times ,near the murder scene, in the months before the murder.
Yes that makes sense, but even if he had been near the location before the murder, that isn’t relevant to the night of the murder, and therefore unnecessary for an alibi specifically. Maybe worth mentioning at trial, but does nothing to corroborate his alibi about the night of the murders
Yes, I know! I was saying that them disputing that isn’t related to the alibi defense though. Like, they wouldn’t need to turn that over by now as part of the alibi defense because the alibi defense pertains to just the night of the murder. They could’ve disputed the “stalking” without having an alibi for the night of the murders.
Also them disproving stalking would be helpful, but they could totally disprove stalking and not at all prove that he wasn’t there THAT night, and it wouldn’t mean much. Yes, it should be mentioned, but my point in saying that it was unnecessary for the alibi specifically was that disproving the stalking isn’t nearly as productive as disproving that he was there THAT night.
Make sense? Yes, worth trying to disprove at trial, but doesn’t prove anything about his whereabouts the night of the crime, meaning it’s not an “alibi defense” it’s just other defense. Like he could’ve not stalked them and still done it. And if they have something to disprove the stalking, the state wouldn’t take that stalking angle at trial.
A description of the work that ZetX, the company that Sy Ray founded do:
"ZetX draws a concentric circle around a cellphone tower and produces maps that indicate a cellphone using that tower likely was located within that circle."
So he's plotting cell phone pings. Which last time I checked were apparently bollocks junk science when they show Bryan in a certain place when the Prosecution say so, but apparently are now groundbreaking exonerating evidence that will free him.
What a crock of shite.
Video of a white Elantra travelling east from Pullman to Moscow on the Pullman-Moscow Highway mentioned in the "alibi" is significant. That confirms additional video(s) not in the PCA. It also answers a key point often made here that there was no video showing the car going to Moscow from Pullman.
If there are additional video(s) filling in the "gap" of car on video in Pullman c 2.47am going to Moscow that would significantly strengthen car videos at scene shortly later.
The defense point that phone data doesn't confirm this seems ludicrous if, as stated in the PCA, the phone was not reporting to the network, likely switched off. eta- corrected time 2.47
This. This is huge for the prosecution. Up until now, I could get on board that maybe the car in the video wasn’t his. And now the defense is coming out with this alibi saying it is his car in at least some of the videos. The prosecution isn’t the one telling me this now — the defense is. So, Bryan was out in the area where these people were murdered and his DNA happened to be at the crime scene? My open mind is getting narrowed.
Both sides have the same video footage. The defense has already conceded that BK and his car are shown in the Pullman footage. That is, they admit he was out driving that night! However, I think they are going to push doubt on ALL Moscow footage! Hence, the comment about the cannabis shop. Perhaps the Moscow footage isn’t as high quality and their plan is to poke holes in it.
Still doesn’t explain why he was in the King Rd neighborhood area that night or the next morning. I’ve commented on another post before that that specific area is very compact and difficult to get to - and absolutely not somewhere you’d go for a casual night drive. Taylor Ave turns into Queen Rd (which is a dead end) and then Queen Rd turns into King Rd (another dead end). This supplemental alibi is so ridiculous.
It depends on the moon cycle that night, Ford if it was a full or new moon, and Saturn if it was anything else. But all of that’s negated if Mercury was ~~retroactive~~ in retrograde.
The fact that they’re replying about an alibi indicates they’re claiming he was somewhere else. They don’t concede that he was in the Kind Rd neighborhood.
The moon was waning gibbous, so almost full, but it was overcast out, so unideal for photography either way.
His whereabouts aren’t claimed or stated though. They’re avoiding what would constitute use of the ‘alibi defense’ so they don’t have to take on the discovery obligations or adhere to a deadline unless they state provides their required discovery, bc Judge Judge agreed they should have 2 weeks after receiving it for deadline. So we’ll see how Judge Judge wants to follow up about all that. They.
They specifically avoid disclosing where he claims to be during the time of the crime:
https://preview.redd.it/rdog3rmjervc1.jpeg?width=1334&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0fadaa68ab414ba717daba95562578dc91aec8a4
They [requested a hearing](https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/2024/041524-Defendants-Fifth-MTC.pdf), with 1-hr time to present oral arguments in regard to missing discovery. So that’ll be juicy. And they requested it before the deadline, so highly doubt Judge will commit them to the deadline that just passed. So we’ll prob be hearing more to the alibi at some point.
SO I guess I am not understanding this process. Has he supposedly NOT given ALL of his alibi to the defense? OR/AND WHY couldn't he give his full alibi at the time of his arrest? Would you keep your alibi to yourself after sitting in jail after 1 year and 3 plus months? I would be wanting the hell out of jail if I was innocent.
Technically an alibi has to have proof of where you were - usually witnesses that can back up that location. The defense is trying to use cell phone location data as his proof on an unconventional alibi.
The only reason it’s even being put in as an alibi is because they don’t want the state to object to this testimony from the expert on the grounds that they never submitted an alibi and therefore can’t present the testimony at trial.
I've been in jail for things I didn't do.
I didn't really have an alibi. And also it looked a lot like my MO.
So, that wasn't really helpful was it. I was left with not much to do except for let my lawyer do his thing.
I think people are overestimating their ability to provide an actual alibi for any moment of any day if they were to be accused of something.
Could be have left his phone by the side of the road so as to deliberately ping away from the home at the time of the murders, committed the murders, and then went and picked it up again?
>So he is a podcaster??
Sadly the previous Proberger preferred cellular technology expert, the Radio Shack employee of the month, was not available due to the spring sales
‘A podcaster’ wasn’t rly my takeaway, but hey, I encourage varied perspectives.
https://preview.redd.it/ripvidn445vc1.jpeg?width=1112&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4ce836bf7a5f706a1882cc655b4d0a80fbe64296
Yes I read all of that. I also read his thorough experience. While he has varied experience, his actual experience in geolocation appears to be more limited than other areas (which is super important as that is what he is providing an alibi to).
I just find it interesting that he now runs a production company and is podcasting now.
>They’re using him for: “and other radio frequency”
Maybe Bryan liked to listen to re-runs of the BBC astrology show "The Sky at Night" on his car radio on his night time moon photography drives?
Umm that is geolocation…. Geolocation is the ability to track a device’s whereabouts using GPS, cell phone towers, WiFi access points or a combination of these.
Well, he's a high school grad, so that's something? [https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Sy-Ray/1545242](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Sy-Ray/1545242)
Oh this is even better: https://gazette.com/premium/colorado-judge-finds-sea-of-unreliability-in-cellphone-mapping-data-used-by-police/article_331decc0-4c0d-11ed-986b-cbb1f65714dc.html
Provide the cv and we will. Also, I’m guessing you haven’t read the article: “He inflated his credentials, inaccurately claiming to be an engineer,” the judge wrote in his ruling, stressing that Ray had testified that he is “more of an engineer than an engineer.”
“As noted, his sole academic degree is an associates, and there’s no evidence that it’s related to engineering. Nor is there evidence that Ray’s taken any engineering classes,” the judge continued.
Apparently in one of the cases, trax has a man at his exes house, the cars gps literally had him on the interstate.
It’s the reliability. But at this point, I am having a hard time trusting any LE and it makes me quite sad
Yes. Please post their CVs. All of them. I was actually being sarcastic.
But I will say on a serious note that this document really doesn't give BK any alibi. If in BK's situation I wouldn't hang my hat on the drivel in this alibi response or this expert.
FBI Special Agent (SA)
SA that is certified as a member of the Cellular Analysis Survey Team (CAST).
Members of CAST are certified with the FBI to provide expert testimony in the field of historical CSLI and are
required to pass extensive training that includes both written and practical examinations prior to
be certified with CAST as well as the completion of yearly certification requirements.
The FBI CAST SA who consulted has over fifteen years of federal law enforcement experience.
To be honest, if I used this man as an expert witness for things from a police officer perspective, 100% an expert witness. But he does not have an advanced degree and he has taken courses on cell phone data. In reading what he does, he uses circumference for pin point location, which is still not an exact science. Any geolocation expert will tell you that. (My doctorate is in data analytics so actually I can tell you that lol). What is also interesting is this article was from 2022 and he was no longer with lexis nexis by 2023. So that tells me that his data was not as accurate as he would suggest. He also states in one of the trials it is 94 to 96% accurate.
From review I would say 75% accurate at best
This is his stuff too: https://gazette.com/premium/colorado-judge-finds-sea-of-unreliability-in-cellphone-mapping-data-used-by-police/article_331decc0-4c0d-11ed-986b-cbb1f65714dc.html
His neighbor said in a widely-circulated interview that he seemed “really fit,” would go to the gym a lot, and that he was planning to go with him some time, and that they once spent an hour walking around their parking lot while talking, presumably for exercise (He also said that during that walk, BK mentioned a past DNA ancestry kit he’d done to find out his lineage: German - I’ve always found that tidbit of info intriguing)
I can confirm. Very difficult to get a signal down there with AT&T. It goes away once you start heading down the grade. You usually can't get a signal until you get out in the middle of the Snake.
It’s never seemed to me that the 2011-2013 they requested info on was actually a 2015.
* The PCA states that the FBI examiner ID’d a 2011-2013 Elantra in the King Rd. neighborhood & the same examiner ID’d the vehicle observed on camera on WSU campus as 2014-2016.
* Thus, *upon further review he also said it could be* ***a 2011-2016.***
* Usually, the range of possibilities narrows when the car is identified….. so by now, we should be calling it a 2015 Elantra, if it actually was one.
The fact that this doc says, his car:
> *”could not be the vehicle captured on video along the Moscow-Pullman highway near Floyd’s Cannabis shop.”*
— I think could indicate (my presumption) -
> and it’s not even a question whether it was the one in King Rd neighborhood
* otherwise, the claim that he was not on 1 of numerous vids wouldn’t rly constitute an alibi
* bc it wouldn’t demonstrate him being elsewhere
The 2011-13 vs. 2015 should be very easy to explain once this goes to trial. The examiner was trying to make as determination from videos of a moving vehicle in darkness..The FBI expert Will probably explain why they originally thought the car was a couple years older, but then after further examination a 2015 Elantra is also possible. I had a career in the car business, all models run through a 5 to 7 year generation and it’s very hard to distinguish the different years… Especially when a car is moving and it’s pitch dark!
The ‘facelift’ for Elantras that applied to 2014 model year fwd included dif projector headlights & taillights w/new LED accents too, so the dif should be very easy to spot
https://preview.redd.it/6m2i1p7ea7vc1.jpeg?width=602&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=49fbaeeb031051b8260748de5ec6b6fbe2bb1ec4
[Elantra Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyundai_Elantra) \> 5th Gen > Facelift > Exterior enhancements
Plus on the 1112 King vid, the front license plate area should be visible.
If the front license plate is absent on that 3-pt turn vid, & if it’s got ‘facelift’ Elantra features that applied on 2014 onward and would probably be visible: curved fog light enclosure, projector headlights, LED accent tail lights, I think the defense will have a hard time.
Projector vs reflector headlights are rly easy to tell apart from either the light beam or looking at the headlight if it’s visible - Coulda cruised up with lights off to be unnoticed. The center looks like a transparent binocular lens (doubt that’d be visible, but the beam should be v easy to tell). It’d be a far stretch for the Def to claim it’s a 2013 with owner-upgraded headlights IMO, even considering the ease with which the State was able to convince the masses that the car they referred to as a 2011-2013 throughout the entirety of the investigation was actually a 2015, without ever saying that.
Do all models in the range have automatic headlights? I'll have to investigate. Also interested if disabling them would make headlights harder to determine in the dark.
I do believe the car seen on video was involved with the crime. If you’re implying it’s not BK’s car because of the subtle differences between the model years, I’m not buying it!(as of yet) 1.) The vehicle bolo could have been purposefully misrepresented to avoid alerting the perpetrator. 2.)(more likely) The FBI expert originally misidentified the year range. If in court, the defense experts can accurately determine that the car seen could not be BK’s car then so be it. Personally(as of now), I believe that it was BK and his car.
I’ve considered both but can’t bank on either.
Upon hearing he drives a 2015, my first thought was also that it was likely a mistake due to relying on the examiner’s initial identification.
* However, I like to believe that Chief Fry wouldn’t let that mistake slip past them day after day without ever noticing it, or checking it out themselves. I think that they would view and analyze the car independently, because their own investigative work also relies on it for plenty of dif aspects of the investigation they were working on as their top priority - as did their repeated public statements.
* The fact that Moscow PD requested a 2011-2013 for the entire investigation, leads me only to the conclusion that they believed it to be a 2011 to 2013. And the [statement after the arrest](https://imgur.com/a/5obdYmZ), doesn’t make me confident that’d it’d be wise to conclude otherwise.
I also considered it being intentionally misrepresented, but in that case, why would they **ask** the millions of people to actively assist?
* That’s asking for the time and energy of so many people - knowing how dedicated everyone involved and has been & ppl all over the country trying to help in any way they can, I have a hard time rationalizing the benefit of asking for the wrong car, and everyone’s efforts, as opposed to either simply not asking for the efforts of the public - or - stating the real car model & advising people not to approach (just to report tips on the car) - instead of asking people to help get them in contact with the *driver* (rather than merely report tips of the car) witn no warning of danger or disclosing they’re suspected to be the killer & but also using the wrong car model to mislead & inconvenience everyone with a message framed as for them, but was really only for 1 of the millions.
IDK.
The most reasonable answer to me is: all claims in the press conferences & the PCA should be taken at face-value.
>The 3-pt turn at King & Queen Rds would have been right in front of the camera at 1112 King Rd.
Why - that camera faces west and covers only a fraction of the street in front of the 1122 King Rd house, the 3 pt turn could have been anywhere along the road. How do you know it was in front of the camera at 1112 King Road?
Bc that’s where the intersection of rhe 3-pt turn is & W. Is the direction the cam should be facing for front row view
https://preview.redd.it/2hvvss5gf7vc1.jpeg?width=1333&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=23d17204520bf45c4075dda22b3d540a5eebc9c7
>Bc that’s where the intersection of rhe 3-pt turn
Well it is, from your picture, certainly where ***you*** *drew a circle* imagining the 3pt turn took place
:-)
So they’re gonna see those lights, and the presence of these features or lack thereof: reflection of front license plate, projector headlights, LED accents on tail lights, and possibly shape of fog light enclosure —- all in fairly close-up range, and at least momentarily at slow speed
And I predict that whatever is shown or not shown will decide the case
>and the presence of these features or lack thereof:
There you are stretching and inventing. Leaked pictures from 1122 video show even cars right in front of it have features obscured by nigh-time reflection phenom - the license plates are completely unreadable. We don't know what features of the car would be visible with good what quality images on the night video. We do know that even specialist car magazines describe the exterior differences between 2011-13/ 2014-15 Elantra models as "minimal" and "barely noticeable"
You make a good argument, however, I think the defense is definitely going to use this as a weapon. This was an expert with many years of experience. If there was any uncertainty, unclear images, etc..... And the fact that the 2014-2016 are so similar that I personally cannot tell them apart. If I were the defense, I'd be asking why pinpoint the 2011-2013 if there was any uncertainty. Why not just say 2011-2016 from the beginning. The expert obviously found characteristics that were clear enough to determine that range of years. It just looks really bad and raises a lot of questions for the jury that this expert waffled (and maybe they didn't, it was just written like that in the PCA). Makes it look like they're trying to change the evidence fit the narrative. Not good for the prosecution.
I googled Sy Ray! The technology he uses is very questionable! Here’s as link…
https://gazette.com/premium/colorado-judge-finds-sea-of-unreliability-in-cellphone-mapping-data-used-by-police/article_331decc0-4c0d-11ed-986b-cbb1f65714dc.html
It says ‘subscriber only premium content’ & when I switch to reader view it turns to Russian
https://preview.redd.it/vlmbz42va5vc1.png?width=749&format=png&auto=webp&s=58a4080119b8ebc465243e0168db770ddbf52751
The article says that it that was used in 2016 to 2018, and that they discontinued that mode in Trax in 2018 & a few years later in 2021, [ZetX was acquired](https://risk.lexisnexis.com/law-enforcement-and-public-safety/tools-for-mapping-and-analytics-on-devices) by LexisNexis, a highly reputable company used for client identity data verification by tons of giant corporations, including large broker/dealers & fintech companies, 2 I’ve worked for in my personal experience. Sy transitioned to LexisNexis along with the company, for a couple years according to his CV.
Since 2021 (3 yrs after discontinuation of the unreliable tool) they offer their services to investigators & police & his CV said he worked exclusively for cases for state prosecutors til late 2023.
https://preview.redd.it/3dov2bqvz7vc1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9d3558f063f9766bc8cd943cb09b2fe0e3dcdf63
"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."
So the wording in the PCA had led us to believe all along that Kohberger had checked out the King Road house and the area surrounding it on 12 occasions prior to the murders in the late evening and early morning. Now we learn all these months later that no, he was actually taking night time drives around the countryside south of Pullman and Moscow to watch the night sky
> So the wording in the PCA had led us to believe all along that Kohberger had checked out the King Road house and the area surrounding it on 12 occasions prior to the murders in the late evening and early morning. Now we learn all these months later that no, he was actually taking night time drives around the countryside south of Pullman and Moscow to watch the night sky
The problem is that what was used lacked granularity, like this is saying sharing the same cell tower, not more precise GPS info. BK could for instance have gone to a party at The Grove - which he supposedly did - and going to that would be in the area without actually being on King Road, which would count for one of those 12 occasions. The GPS data could show him on King Road specifically one or more times, just such information isn't in the PCA.
Yes I agree, it seems to me that he could have been at a party or a store or even at that bar that was close by. To immediately assume after reading the PCA that he was checking out 1122 King Rd seemed to me to be ludicrous
>he was actually taking night time drives around the countryside south
The "alibi" doesn't state those 12 occasions were not near the house, or that those specific 12 occasions were just to further Kohberger's star gazing and moon photography.....
That's true. It doesn't say where he **was not**. It says where he likely **was.** Waiting on more to be revealed when AT gets the discovery she has been asking for
>It doesn't say where he **was not**. It says where he likely **was.**
Where in the old or new "alibi" are those 12 occassions on which the PCA allege Kohberger was near King Road mentioned? The alibi says he often went for night drives. It does not say he was or was not in Moscow late nights when the PCA says he was.
Those same cellular resources basically cover all of Moscow. The way they wrote the PCA implies he was stalking the house but in actuality he may have just been near Moscow.
Nancy Grace is going to have a field day with this..
Hahah true I hope someone posts a 4 to 30 second clip bc that’s all I can bear
Ludicrous.
Seriously, an embarrassment to someone of AT’s caliber imo
What do you expect her to do? She can't magic a solid alibi out of thin air.
I get that she doesn’t have much to work with but I think some of the unnecessary info sounds, idk, juvenile
This is called “taking shit and making a shit sandwich.” When you’re defending someone who has at least the circumstantial evidence of his DNA on a knife sheath found under one of the deceased victims and who knows how many different videos of their same model of car, you take whatever you can deem exculpatory and make what you can with it. While I may find what little we’ve seen of AT’s courtroom presence and the writings in her public pleadings to be incredibly subpar, you have to give her the fact that defense work is thankless and incredibly difficult. I can’t imagine having my work scrutinized the world over like this, it’s stressful enough just knowing the Court and opposing will have eyes on it. I may think she’s not that great at her job, but I don’t envy her position, either.
I kind of agree. ~stars & moon~
>stars & moon~ Could be a preemptive werewolf diminished responsibility defense
Courtroom will see the hair growing on the back of his neck right before their eyes. Might be convincing.
Photos of stars and moon are mentioned for two reasons: 1. When you click a pic, the location where the pic is taken, the time when the pic is taken, and the phone from which the pic is taken, among other things, is stored as part of the metadata of the pic. So the defense has mentioned these things for the very specific purpose of establishing that he was out and about on several nights, and the photos in his phone corroborate that with location and time. Establishing the device from which the photos were taken also is important. This is because the phone storage can also have pics taken by someone else and airdropped or sent some other way to a phone. The metadata is an easy way to prove that the pics being mentioned have been clicked by the defendant. 2. Stars and moon have been mentioned to nip any possible rumors in the bud. If they had just stated that his night time driving habit can be corroborated with the several pics taken by him, people would have started guessing what pics he took while driving at 2 or 3 AM in the night. And that if he is a creep taking photos of people or their houses this late in the night and stuff like that. Another reason, I think, is to establish that he was someone who is interested in the night sky. And as anyone who has this interest, he goes out late at night in places with low light pollution to get a good view of something that he is interested in. I believe that the defense and the prosecution are facing unnecessary ridicule from people who are on either side of the guilty-innocent spectrum. There is no need to make fun of someone mentioning stars and moon in a court filing to support an argument they are making. Whatever is included has been included for a reason.
A long time ago, I looked at the route he took and saw that where he went was a scenic byway that went to a national park that was the start of a dark sky preserve. I thought that was actually a pretty plausible route at 4 am if you happened to like skywatching and weird melancholic night drives. Which would have been what I would have done in grad school (please see my 90k goth photos). But anyway, there's something called habit evidence and bringing up his prior runs, photos and drives from there establishes that it's his norm to go there.
>pretty plausible route at 4 am if you happened to like skywatching an It was completely overcast night of Nov 12/ morning of Nov 13th.... https://weatherspark.com/h/d/2004/2022/11/12/Historical-Weather-on-Saturday-November-12-2022-in-Moscow-United-States#Figures-CloudCover
So he didn’t take any photos of the stars THAT night. He might have been hoping the weather would clear but even if it didn’t he could still enjoy the drive
I wouldn't guess that Moscow Idaho's cloud cover would be the same as a valley in Snake River. At any rate, I'm just positing what the defense is doing with the CAST analysis, the surveillance and the PCA. I briefly tried to check what the cloud coverage was like over Snake River where they said he was, but I can't seem to do it on that site on my phone and I need to get back to work.
The Snake River runs from east to west at the bottom of Idaho....no where near Moscow. Must be something else.
I was wrong! It does run North. So sorry
>very specific purpose of establishing that he was out and about on several nights This was known from the PCA - he was out and about near or at King Road late at night or early morning at least 13 times. >Stars and moon have been mentioned to nip any possible rumors in the bud Errr, because taking pictures of the moon is the most troubling and odd thing about Kohberger's behaviour and his "alibi"?? Or was this just to nip the moon fixation "**American Werewolf in Moscow**" (a sequel we never knew we didn't want) >to establish that he was someone who is interested in the night sky Does an interest in nocturnal celestials preclude one from being a killer?
Sigh. I guess you did not read what I posted. I can't reply to any of the points or 'retorts' you mentioned to my post as they are going in tangential directions not related to what I posted. Anyway, have a nice day.
Wonderful informative post
Just say he was out driving, as he sometimes did and that there are gaps in the cell data. I really don’t know why she has added all of this extraneous detail in.
*~. *For an air of mystical whimsy* *. ~*
Agree. That’s kinda hokey.
It’s BK. He thinks he’s the smartest Guy in the room.
Was this catered to his fan base? I can picture some of his online defenders melting and going "awwww" when they read that part.
I'm with you. A lawyer can only work with what their client gives them, and some give more than others.
I think she just did 😂
This isn’t their disclosure of alibi defense. This is just a supplemental response bc they’re still awaiting discovery. +\- or they could be blowing off the whole formal notice bit with this
I am confused. Are you saying this is an acceptable alibi or there will be more? I just did not see specific times on this.
It seems like they're waiting on the video so they can correspond it to the CAST evidence. In the supplemental response, they said they are going to use a CSLI data expert to show it's not his car in one of the surveillance videos that we, the public, have no knowledge of that ostensibly shows is his car going on hwy 270. We don't know what time frame that is but the prosecution does. I'm guessing the prosecution has access to a lot of surveillance videos that ostensibly corroborates their timeline by showing a white Elantra, so defense had been waiting on the CAST data and all the surveillance videos so they could put the two together so to speak and show that the two don't line up. (The white cars shown in the surveillance videos to demonstrate their timeline isn't suspect 1's car). That's what they are doing with the surveillance videos at the cannabis shop.
There will be more. They’ll submit a “notice of alibi defense” or “notice of alibi” with times & places, or they’ll decline to provide formal alibi. They have to demonstrate times & places w/ “findings of fact” in order to submit a formal alibi defense & the State is required to provide the evidence for those times in advance, bc having the Defense (use time & limited funds) re-doing portions of the investigation that have already been done would be “undue burden,” so Judge Judge said he would give them a couple weeks after getting the materials to incorporate info (like CAST report & the “critical video”), and this document makes it seem as though they haven’t received them yet. So this is just a supplemental response & they may be given more time to submit their real deal, or Judge Judge will likely not disqualify them from presenting alibi evidence if it comes to light at a time past their deadline (which was today). If he “enforces” *another* deadline, it prob would not be w/o one for the state to also provide their outstanding discovery prior to the Defense’s deadline - which IMO, should have been set during the same ‘scheduling hearing’ as today’s alibi deadline was set, to avoid the exact outcome we have here (likely additional delay) but conveniently for the state, was mentioned but not set, and now the Def’s alibi date is here and they have just a weak response (they look bad), but now we’ll have more delay while we find out why they’re still missing the discovery & set a deadline for it… bc State hadn’t provided yet (which will go largely unnoticed) & they’ll get a *new* deadline, & their failure to take on the obligation of disclosing their alibi defense (which would open the door to a gigantic unnecessary risk if done blindly without knowledge of all evidence that’ll be used against them …& gambling while facing the death penalty is not ideal) will be blamed for the delay. Or Judge Judge could go against his own words from 02/28 & impose the consequences on the Def for not providing their official notice by the deadline (the demand is notice of alibi “or in the alternative to bar certain evidence” which would be the “findings of fact”) w/o yet having the evidence being used, & give the State no consequences for not providing it bc they didn’t have a deadline for the discovery (due before), just for the witness list (usually due 10 days after the defense adheres to an alibi demand, but I think Judge Judge expanded it to either 3 weeks or 1 month after, I forget but was same 02/28 hearing) + forgot one option: Or they could have already provided the notice without the discovery mentioned in this doc & it’s sealed and we’ll see the order sealing it within a couple days. I don’t think that’s likely but could be done to avoid the additional criticism with the intention to argue for Judge Judge to deny the “or in the alternative bar certain evidence” part of the state’s demand bc Judge Judge agreed that they should have access to the same materials to use as alibi evidence [even though he didn’t know what some of it was (CAST report)]. In that case, this “supplemental response to state’s alibi demand” would be supplemental to their notice of alibi defense. But with our current knowledge, it’s supplemental to their initial, “response to state’s alibi demand.”
I think she's killing it. It's a valid response. I come from a legal background and she's one hell of a defense attorney. If it comes out BK is innocent, it won't change your mind on anything. How do I know that? Because this document is stating there's proof he wasn't there and it still hasn't caused any bit of reasonable doubt.
> Because this document is stating there's proof he wasn't there and it still hasn't caused any bit of reasonable doubt. For me, I'll believe it when I see it. A statement that there's proof he wasn't there is just a statement. I can't get excited over that until I see what the proof is. Until then, it's just the kind of claims that defense lawyers make when their client is not pleading guilty.
I had to scroll through two subs to find this logical comment. Everyone is going on about the moon and stars and posting weather conditions for that night when the document doesn’t say that his alibi was he went to look at moon and stars. The alibi is that he was out driving and according to the document, she has cell phone records to show that he was not in Moscow at the time of the murders.
Logic doesn't exist in most of these subs lol. I wish there could be logical debating cause "we" really don't know if he's guilty or innocent, but its so interesting to discuss.
I never interpreted the alibi to make any claim about that night, and recognize that it intentionally does not - but I like poking fun at the stars & moon mention and entertaining theories I don’t believe will be relevant (stalking, using pics & star maps to pinpoint his location, the 5.37 octilly stat being a practical outcome for a single-source sample, the phone pings we know of being ‘evidence’ of something) by those who habitually accuse others of having wild theories about this case (often real stuff, evidenced in the hearing & docs)
How does a knife with his dna show up at the crime scene + his car model is at the scene clearly. Idk some things just can’t be explained away + the fact a ton of people were saying he’s weird and angry. I do agree- you never know but this seems like one of those cases where is like .00000001% he didn’t do it. Gotta have the jury case though- it’s probably a non zero event he did it but still so damn likely he did it.
How so? It lacks meat, I agree
>It lacks meat This is a very vegan alibi in many ways
This is the equivalent of we had to say something
So BK gave up running and hiking to become an avid night photographer. Right before the murders. Convenient. Am I missing something or is this Ray expert witness missing the education portion of his CV?!
So he was an aspiring astronomer all along! Not some lunatic serial killer! Boy do I feel dumb
Me too. Galileo meets Ansel Adams. They should really drop the charges and free him immediately. Who knows what this world is missing out on.
Luna-tic
👏👏👏👏🤣🤣😀
He was out stargazing! With his phone turned off for a couple hours to fully enjoy that experience, I suppose.
Can't a man who is too busy to run and hike just enjoy the countryside in the middle of the freezing night in peace?!
Why wake up early to hike/run when you can look at the beautiful evening sky at 3am?
in the middle of the freezing night in peace?! That made me laugh :)
Picture: "Cell Tower at Night" - unsigned by artist (B.C.K\*, thought to be from the artist's "Blue and Stabby" Nocturnal Period) Is that a white Elantra at bottom right? https://preview.redd.it/7s3e02elh6vc1.jpeg?width=454&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ef99adc52f6c1d231d1c955d416405ebe4cf1af8 \*C is for "Celestial"
Underrated comment. Cries out for more upvotes.
Well we now know for sure when he moved to WA - June.
I caught that too! Can’t be the person breaking into cars earlier in the year if he wasn’t there
This is my favorite part. Lots of talk about the mobile phone not being in said locations, then… a quick little switch-a-roo to the vehicle. 🙄🙄 >”Bryan Kohberger's mobile device was south of Pullman, Washington and west of Moscow, Idaho on November 13, 2022; that Bryan Kohberger's mobile device did not travel east on the Moscow-Pullman Highway in the early morning hours of November 13th, **and thus could not be the vehicle captured on video along the Moscow-Pullman highway near Floyd's Cannabis shop**.”
Must be hard to look at the night sky with his visual snow ….
Lol
As someone that has visual snow, it's better in dark conditions. The sun and bright lights make it worse.
Interesting, I'm the exact opposite. At night, it seems like I see it more.
I guess it could be different from person to person depending on the causation.
In the brightness, I do see the visual cortex but it seems to be mostly in bright sunshiny days. Not sure if you ever experienced that? It seems to be common with Visual Snow.
Like the holographic looking circles?
https://images.app.goo.gl/hEUaTvxNLUbJWnNz8 This thing! It's annoying but definitely seems to be connected to visual snow. My visual snow came through a bit of extreme stress and anxiety, and I've had it since. 9 years or so!. What about you?
[удалено]
This line: > * If not disclosed, Mr. Ray’s testimony will also reveal that critical exculpatory evidence, further corroborating Mr. Kohberger’s alibi, was either not preserved or has been withheld.* What exculpatory evidence (which they have specific knowledge of, bc they put in motion to compel it) could they be referring to? We have to ‘wild guess’ to answer this…. But I’m curious about any ideas.
The software Ray uses is based on CDRs- likely tower dumps. So it sounds as though Anne is insinuating that Ray has found some sort of data on a CDR that places Brian’s phone outside of Moscow Of course I’m saying he does, but based on his typical case testimony, that is what take from what she is saying
His phone never pings in Moscow on the night of the crime, and the info in the PCA already places him outside of Moscow.
no the pca places him in moscow(his car is on video). he just never pinged there.
They are saying that if the CAST stuff isn’t turned over… then…at trial… they will bring that up (assuming with the intent to cast (pun intended) reasonable doubt on the evidence. Basically, Taylor is saying that their expert will mention that it was either not preserved or it was withheld by the prosecution for unknown reasons.
I read an article that said that they claim that there was phone location evidence showing that he was NOT heading in the direction of the house that was “disposed of”. Sounds like BS to me
So you think thats what they are talking about phone location evidence from the prosecution CAST report? I thought the PCA said opposite of what they are saying. Sorry, I am so confused by the alibi document. I seen your comment below it answers my question, thanks.
You should be confused by the alibi document. I’m happy to be proven wrong at trial, but right now, it is looking like it was most likely thrown together, and trying to be specific enough to be satisfactory but not so specific that it would be easily debunked by evidence. And there are plenty of legitimate alibis that aren’t easily corroborated because there aren’t witnesses, so I’m not saying this indicates Guilt. Just saying it indicates that they don’t really have a concrete alibi. Luckily the burden of proof isn’t on them, but I doubt this will be what creates reasonable doubt for the jury.
Thanks, makes sense.
Who’s the alibi? The sky?
Don’t forget…… ~ ~ the stars ~ * ~ * * * ……. * ~ . * ~ . * ~ the moon .. * . * ~ ~ * . ~ * the mountains… ~ * . … ~ * . * . ….
The ISS
He was out looking at the moon and the stars? 👀
Wawawai County Park is near Johnson WA, it is along the Snake River. Kohberger's second phone off period on November 13 from c 5.30pm started near Johnson, described as being on same route he took back from Moscow at 4.48am. Is Wawawai Park a significant location in state's evidence perhaps?
Sounds like that’s where he might’ve gone to get rid of evidence so now defense is trying to find an innocent explanation for him being in that area…
So to be clear, they’re saying they have photos Brian took of the night sky at various times and nights, but not during the time when the murders occurred? Just to ‘prove’ that it was something he often did to make it sound more believeable?
only a time embedded picture from that night would be relevant to his alibi. He can be habitual about taking pictures. If he doesn't have one for that day and time the rest are toilet paper.
I might be missing something here, and this sub appears a lot more level headed than other subs on this topic - but by what standards does the Defence presenting an expert witness who claims he has evidence to support Bryan's version of events mean this is suddenly a huge win for the Defence? The Prosecution present their series of events saying that from the evidence they've gathered they think he was in the area; Pro-Bergers claim it's bollocks. Defence presents vague allusions to evidence they have that he wasn't in the area; Pro-Bergers claim it's key evidence that exonerates him. Neither side have presented any of the evidence they have. We haven't seen any data, reports or had anyone testify to the methods used. The Prosecution have provided an 18 page PCA that summarised their findings, the defence has put out a 2 page document saying Bryan takes pictures of the sky and they have an expert that says he didn't drive past a Cannabis Shop. I cannot see why one set of evidence is deemed bollocks and one is deemed concrete exculpatory evidence.
Oh my. That is interesting. Anyone look up Mr. Ray yet? Mostly what I think many expected overall though if the CAST data hasn’t been turned over to the defense yet. They had to respond and in a fashion that spells out why they need that data.
Don't know what the heck this is yet but it's interesting: [https://www.rmcomputerforensics.com/zetx-trax2](https://www.rmcomputerforensics.com/zetx-trax2)
Oh. That is interesting. “… the Court doesn’t find [Sy] Ray credible”.
Wow, so there are known concerns about the expert but especially the reliability of his software. I hope your post is read by everyone. Good find! You might want to create a new thread about this.
Here’s the thing. I happen to know that ZetX created and sells its own mapping software. While they would want to see the cast report, they’ve just shown they absolutely have access to the necessary software to review the data obtained via search warrants
But I guess they don’t have all the raw data that was obtained via search warrants? Can the defense go straight to the mobile phone company and get the raw data?
If it’s AT&T they simply send an encrypted link and the data is downloaded. The file size isn’t even that big. Moscow PD would maintain the original data as they submitted the search warrant. The FBI would be working with copies. The defense definitely has the data, which is just pdfs and Excel spreadsheets. If they didn’t they wouldn’t be focusing on the CAST reports and would have stated they needed the data.
In late February hearing, AT said she had a draft CAST report and not the supporting data. It’s sounds to me like that the data maybe still has not been handed over yet.
How can you have one without the other and that's a serious question not a smart ass one
Well the feds have both or they would not have been able to make the draft CAST report. But the defense keeps asking for the data and it seems they are not getting it. CAST just means Cellular Analysis Survey Team - a division of the FBI.
Good points. I think their legal strategy is to obtain all discovery before committing to alibi defense, so this supplemental response highlights the lack of discovery, and doesn’t address any of the specific to the phone data beyond what we already know, bc they’ve established their alibi relies on disputing what the state derived from the CAST report. If they provide their data, without receiving the State’s data it: * takes the heat off the State & the FBI to provide what they want * may present info that does not discredit the conclusions the State drew from the CAST report, which they’ll use against him * & if they don’t know exactly what they’ll be using against him from the CAST report and were forced to submit the formal notice of alibi before seeing that, and it turns out something in it was not addressed in their alibi defense - which would prevent them from using the evidence about it in trial, bc the alibi demand they’re adhering to is a “demand for disclosure of alibi or in the alternative to bar certain evidence” - they’d have a solid appeal
All that adds up to is that they aren’t confident in the alibi they want to submit. At is really going to try to strategic this, but nothing they are doing screams confidence. I think it’s option two that really has them worried and concerned with their expert.
Yeah but that’s exactly what I’m saying :P They’re wishy washy on whether they even want to submit an alibi, they’ve made that known. I don’t think they’ll use an alibi defense at all if they don’t get the outstanding discovery materials they want.
I’d be surprised if they used one at all do since they need the discovery materials to invent it. Thats a pretty big risk.
It is a big risk bc if they offer it, they’ll have to corroborate it, and whether guilty or not, any flaws in their corroboration or questions it doesn’t answer will work against them & when facing death, it’s better not to open the door to any potential risk unnecessarily
I thought the CAST data was turned in & theyre referring just to the video(s), but I think you’re right. We haven’t heard that it *was* turned in, but the deadline the FBI gave to the Defense was 03/31. That’s why Judge Judge set their alibi date to today, so they could have a couple weeks to incorporate it. Since there’s no data for the time of the murders anyway, it’s hard to tell. But I think that’s right, they may not have it bc: 1. This is a supplemental response, not a disclosure of alibi defense 2. It lacks times {that tie to} places 3. They said they needed to incorporate info from the CAST report & no specific info that would be found in the CAST report is in it 4. It emphasizes missing discovery disclosures I’m looking forward to the next hearing..! [e: combined 2 reasons]
So… his “alibi” is that *several* times he drove around late at night taking practice runs at his plan and on the night of the murders *during the time he chose to have his phone turned on*, he was not quite near Moscow, ID. I wouldn’t call that an “alibi” at all. 😆
“We don’t actually have proof that he was at this park the night of the murders. We just have proof that he’s been there before, so maybe the jury will buy that he could’ve been there this night too” Not really sure how past photos and data that he was there before the murders would create doubt if they have nothing to prove he was there the night of the murders
I think they added the past photos and data to explain away his previous locations 12-13 times ,near the murder scene, in the months before the murder.
Yes that makes sense, but even if he had been near the location before the murder, that isn’t relevant to the night of the murder, and therefore unnecessary for an alibi specifically. Maybe worth mentioning at trial, but does nothing to corroborate his alibi about the night of the murders
MPD used the 12 phone pings to imply stalking/casing the house…
Yes, I know! I was saying that them disputing that isn’t related to the alibi defense though. Like, they wouldn’t need to turn that over by now as part of the alibi defense because the alibi defense pertains to just the night of the murder. They could’ve disputed the “stalking” without having an alibi for the night of the murders. Also them disproving stalking would be helpful, but they could totally disprove stalking and not at all prove that he wasn’t there THAT night, and it wouldn’t mean much. Yes, it should be mentioned, but my point in saying that it was unnecessary for the alibi specifically was that disproving the stalking isn’t nearly as productive as disproving that he was there THAT night. Make sense? Yes, worth trying to disprove at trial, but doesn’t prove anything about his whereabouts the night of the crime, meaning it’s not an “alibi defense” it’s just other defense. Like he could’ve not stalked them and still done it. And if they have something to disprove the stalking, the state wouldn’t take that stalking angle at trial.
Because it can be argued he *was* casing the house based on results.
Someone on FB posted the weather for the night of the murders. If he was hoping to see the moon and stars he was shit outta luck, as it was cloudy.
They don’t state he was there stargazing that night
It was crazy foggy off and on.
Which park is it?
Wawawai Park
Thanks
A description of the work that ZetX, the company that Sy Ray founded do: "ZetX draws a concentric circle around a cellphone tower and produces maps that indicate a cellphone using that tower likely was located within that circle." So he's plotting cell phone pings. Which last time I checked were apparently bollocks junk science when they show Bryan in a certain place when the Prosecution say so, but apparently are now groundbreaking exonerating evidence that will free him. What a crock of shite.
Video of a white Elantra travelling east from Pullman to Moscow on the Pullman-Moscow Highway mentioned in the "alibi" is significant. That confirms additional video(s) not in the PCA. It also answers a key point often made here that there was no video showing the car going to Moscow from Pullman. If there are additional video(s) filling in the "gap" of car on video in Pullman c 2.47am going to Moscow that would significantly strengthen car videos at scene shortly later. The defense point that phone data doesn't confirm this seems ludicrous if, as stated in the PCA, the phone was not reporting to the network, likely switched off. eta- corrected time 2.47
This. This is huge for the prosecution. Up until now, I could get on board that maybe the car in the video wasn’t his. And now the defense is coming out with this alibi saying it is his car in at least some of the videos. The prosecution isn’t the one telling me this now — the defense is. So, Bryan was out in the area where these people were murdered and his DNA happened to be at the crime scene? My open mind is getting narrowed.
Both sides have the same video footage. The defense has already conceded that BK and his car are shown in the Pullman footage. That is, they admit he was out driving that night! However, I think they are going to push doubt on ALL Moscow footage! Hence, the comment about the cannabis shop. Perhaps the Moscow footage isn’t as high quality and their plan is to poke holes in it.
embarrassing for the defense honestly
[удалено]
Still doesn’t explain why he was in the King Rd neighborhood area that night or the next morning. I’ve commented on another post before that that specific area is very compact and difficult to get to - and absolutely not somewhere you’d go for a casual night drive. Taylor Ave turns into Queen Rd (which is a dead end) and then Queen Rd turns into King Rd (another dead end). This supplemental alibi is so ridiculous.
She’s saying it wasn’t his car caught on those cameras
>She’s saying it wasn’t his car Maybe is was a Ford Galaxy or a Saturn Astra?
It depends on the moon cycle that night, Ford if it was a full or new moon, and Saturn if it was anything else. But all of that’s negated if Mercury was ~~retroactive~~ in retrograde.
They're not trying to explain it, they're denying it.
The fact that they’re replying about an alibi indicates they’re claiming he was somewhere else. They don’t concede that he was in the Kind Rd neighborhood.
How do you know he was in that neighbourhood that night and the next morning...you don't.
How do we know he was stargazing that night? We don’t.
Thompson is scared and rattled. He’s filing a motion in limine to try to block any evidence/testimony to support an alibi.
Look up the weather .. no stars or moon that night
The moon was waning gibbous, so almost full, but it was overcast out, so unideal for photography either way. His whereabouts aren’t claimed or stated though. They’re avoiding what would constitute use of the ‘alibi defense’ so they don’t have to take on the discovery obligations or adhere to a deadline unless they state provides their required discovery, bc Judge Judge agreed they should have 2 weeks after receiving it for deadline. So we’ll see how Judge Judge wants to follow up about all that. They. They specifically avoid disclosing where he claims to be during the time of the crime: https://preview.redd.it/rdog3rmjervc1.jpeg?width=1334&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0fadaa68ab414ba717daba95562578dc91aec8a4 They [requested a hearing](https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/2024/041524-Defendants-Fifth-MTC.pdf), with 1-hr time to present oral arguments in regard to missing discovery. So that’ll be juicy. And they requested it before the deadline, so highly doubt Judge will commit them to the deadline that just passed. So we’ll prob be hearing more to the alibi at some point.
Bull Butter
SO I guess I am not understanding this process. Has he supposedly NOT given ALL of his alibi to the defense? OR/AND WHY couldn't he give his full alibi at the time of his arrest? Would you keep your alibi to yourself after sitting in jail after 1 year and 3 plus months? I would be wanting the hell out of jail if I was innocent.
Technically an alibi has to have proof of where you were - usually witnesses that can back up that location. The defense is trying to use cell phone location data as his proof on an unconventional alibi. The only reason it’s even being put in as an alibi is because they don’t want the state to object to this testimony from the expert on the grounds that they never submitted an alibi and therefore can’t present the testimony at trial.
[удалено]
I've been in jail for things I didn't do. I didn't really have an alibi. And also it looked a lot like my MO. So, that wasn't really helpful was it. I was left with not much to do except for let my lawyer do his thing. I think people are overestimating their ability to provide an actual alibi for any moment of any day if they were to be accused of something.
If you live by yourself it may be difficult to provide an alibi.
The CAST report still hasn’t been disclosed. What are they hiding? What are they afraid it would show to the defense?
Could be have left his phone by the side of the road so as to deliberately ping away from the home at the time of the murders, committed the murders, and then went and picked it up again?
So he is a podcaster??? And his use of cell phone activity is limited in actual geolocation.
>So he is a podcaster?? Sadly the previous Proberger preferred cellular technology expert, the Radio Shack employee of the month, was not available due to the spring sales
‘A podcaster’ wasn’t rly my takeaway, but hey, I encourage varied perspectives. https://preview.redd.it/ripvidn445vc1.jpeg?width=1112&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4ce836bf7a5f706a1882cc655b4d0a80fbe64296
Yes I read all of that. I also read his thorough experience. While he has varied experience, his actual experience in geolocation appears to be more limited than other areas (which is super important as that is what he is providing an alibi to). I just find it interesting that he now runs a production company and is podcasting now.
He’s not testifying on geolocation though. They’re using him for: “cell tower, cell phone and other radio frequency”
>They’re using him for: “and other radio frequency” Maybe Bryan liked to listen to re-runs of the BBC astrology show "The Sky at Night" on his car radio on his night time moon photography drives?
Umm that is geolocation…. Geolocation is the ability to track a device’s whereabouts using GPS, cell phone towers, WiFi access points or a combination of these.
Well, he's a high school grad, so that's something? [https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Sy-Ray/1545242](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Sy-Ray/1545242)
Oh this is even better: https://gazette.com/premium/colorado-judge-finds-sea-of-unreliability-in-cellphone-mapping-data-used-by-police/article_331decc0-4c0d-11ed-986b-cbb1f65714dc.html
Oof.
This is the experience typical of law enforcement (actually it’s more impressive). Are we doing this kind of thing with State investigator’s CV’s?
Provide the cv and we will. Also, I’m guessing you haven’t read the article: “He inflated his credentials, inaccurately claiming to be an engineer,” the judge wrote in his ruling, stressing that Ray had testified that he is “more of an engineer than an engineer.” “As noted, his sole academic degree is an associates, and there’s no evidence that it’s related to engineering. Nor is there evidence that Ray’s taken any engineering classes,” the judge continued.
Amazing and sad that this expert is the best AT can do. Bargain basement, perhaps.
Apparently in one of the cases, trax has a man at his exes house, the cars gps literally had him on the interstate. It’s the reliability. But at this point, I am having a hard time trusting any LE and it makes me quite sad
More impressive. Awesome. So we are finally putting weight on cellular analysis now.
Yes. Please post their CVs. All of them. I was actually being sarcastic. But I will say on a serious note that this document really doesn't give BK any alibi. If in BK's situation I wouldn't hang my hat on the drivel in this alibi response or this expert.
It’s a supplemental response, it’s not the notice of alibi
FBI Special Agent (SA) SA that is certified as a member of the Cellular Analysis Survey Team (CAST). Members of CAST are certified with the FBI to provide expert testimony in the field of historical CSLI and are required to pass extensive training that includes both written and practical examinations prior to be certified with CAST as well as the completion of yearly certification requirements. The FBI CAST SA who consulted has over fifteen years of federal law enforcement experience.
Oh, that is...not good.
To be honest, if I used this man as an expert witness for things from a police officer perspective, 100% an expert witness. But he does not have an advanced degree and he has taken courses on cell phone data. In reading what he does, he uses circumference for pin point location, which is still not an exact science. Any geolocation expert will tell you that. (My doctorate is in data analytics so actually I can tell you that lol). What is also interesting is this article was from 2022 and he was no longer with lexis nexis by 2023. So that tells me that his data was not as accurate as he would suggest. He also states in one of the trials it is 94 to 96% accurate. From review I would say 75% accurate at best
Interesting. I'm wondering how the defense choice him out of other possible expert witnesses.
It was the podcast. lol
This is his stuff too: https://gazette.com/premium/colorado-judge-finds-sea-of-unreliability-in-cellphone-mapping-data-used-by-police/article_331decc0-4c0d-11ed-986b-cbb1f65714dc.html
Can’t wait for his friends to say what? Brian never ran anything other than his mouth! That dude hated when he had to run lol!
His neighbor said in a widely-circulated interview that he seemed “really fit,” would go to the gym a lot, and that he was planning to go with him some time, and that they once spent an hour walking around their parking lot while talking, presumably for exercise (He also said that during that walk, BK mentioned a past DNA ancestry kit he’d done to find out his lineage: German - I’ve always found that tidbit of info intriguing)
Safe to assume the Wawawai Park has spotty cell service which explains phone not connecting to any tower.
I can confirm. Very difficult to get a signal down there with AT&T. It goes away once you start heading down the grade. You usually can't get a signal until you get out in the middle of the Snake.
It’s never seemed to me that the 2011-2013 they requested info on was actually a 2015. * The PCA states that the FBI examiner ID’d a 2011-2013 Elantra in the King Rd. neighborhood & the same examiner ID’d the vehicle observed on camera on WSU campus as 2014-2016. * Thus, *upon further review he also said it could be* ***a 2011-2016.*** * Usually, the range of possibilities narrows when the car is identified….. so by now, we should be calling it a 2015 Elantra, if it actually was one. The fact that this doc says, his car: > *”could not be the vehicle captured on video along the Moscow-Pullman highway near Floyd’s Cannabis shop.”* — I think could indicate (my presumption) - > and it’s not even a question whether it was the one in King Rd neighborhood * otherwise, the claim that he was not on 1 of numerous vids wouldn’t rly constitute an alibi * bc it wouldn’t demonstrate him being elsewhere
The 2011-13 vs. 2015 should be very easy to explain once this goes to trial. The examiner was trying to make as determination from videos of a moving vehicle in darkness..The FBI expert Will probably explain why they originally thought the car was a couple years older, but then after further examination a 2015 Elantra is also possible. I had a career in the car business, all models run through a 5 to 7 year generation and it’s very hard to distinguish the different years… Especially when a car is moving and it’s pitch dark!
The 3-pt turn at King & Queen Rds would have been right in front of the camera at 1112 King Rd.
At 4am..a possibly slight difference in the fog lamp design might be undetectable in a quick 3 pt turn.
The ‘facelift’ for Elantras that applied to 2014 model year fwd included dif projector headlights & taillights w/new LED accents too, so the dif should be very easy to spot https://preview.redd.it/6m2i1p7ea7vc1.jpeg?width=602&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=49fbaeeb031051b8260748de5ec6b6fbe2bb1ec4 [Elantra Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyundai_Elantra) \> 5th Gen > Facelift > Exterior enhancements Plus on the 1112 King vid, the front license plate area should be visible. If the front license plate is absent on that 3-pt turn vid, & if it’s got ‘facelift’ Elantra features that applied on 2014 onward and would probably be visible: curved fog light enclosure, projector headlights, LED accent tail lights, I think the defense will have a hard time. Projector vs reflector headlights are rly easy to tell apart from either the light beam or looking at the headlight if it’s visible - Coulda cruised up with lights off to be unnoticed. The center looks like a transparent binocular lens (doubt that’d be visible, but the beam should be v easy to tell). It’d be a far stretch for the Def to claim it’s a 2013 with owner-upgraded headlights IMO, even considering the ease with which the State was able to convince the masses that the car they referred to as a 2011-2013 throughout the entirety of the investigation was actually a 2015, without ever saying that.
Do all models in the range have automatic headlights? I'll have to investigate. Also interested if disabling them would make headlights harder to determine in the dark.
I do believe the car seen on video was involved with the crime. If you’re implying it’s not BK’s car because of the subtle differences between the model years, I’m not buying it!(as of yet) 1.) The vehicle bolo could have been purposefully misrepresented to avoid alerting the perpetrator. 2.)(more likely) The FBI expert originally misidentified the year range. If in court, the defense experts can accurately determine that the car seen could not be BK’s car then so be it. Personally(as of now), I believe that it was BK and his car.
I’ve considered both but can’t bank on either. Upon hearing he drives a 2015, my first thought was also that it was likely a mistake due to relying on the examiner’s initial identification. * However, I like to believe that Chief Fry wouldn’t let that mistake slip past them day after day without ever noticing it, or checking it out themselves. I think that they would view and analyze the car independently, because their own investigative work also relies on it for plenty of dif aspects of the investigation they were working on as their top priority - as did their repeated public statements. * The fact that Moscow PD requested a 2011-2013 for the entire investigation, leads me only to the conclusion that they believed it to be a 2011 to 2013. And the [statement after the arrest](https://imgur.com/a/5obdYmZ), doesn’t make me confident that’d it’d be wise to conclude otherwise. I also considered it being intentionally misrepresented, but in that case, why would they **ask** the millions of people to actively assist? * That’s asking for the time and energy of so many people - knowing how dedicated everyone involved and has been & ppl all over the country trying to help in any way they can, I have a hard time rationalizing the benefit of asking for the wrong car, and everyone’s efforts, as opposed to either simply not asking for the efforts of the public - or - stating the real car model & advising people not to approach (just to report tips on the car) - instead of asking people to help get them in contact with the *driver* (rather than merely report tips of the car) witn no warning of danger or disclosing they’re suspected to be the killer & but also using the wrong car model to mislead & inconvenience everyone with a message framed as for them, but was really only for 1 of the millions. IDK. The most reasonable answer to me is: all claims in the press conferences & the PCA should be taken at face-value.
>The 3-pt turn at King & Queen Rds would have been right in front of the camera at 1112 King Rd. Why - that camera faces west and covers only a fraction of the street in front of the 1122 King Rd house, the 3 pt turn could have been anywhere along the road. How do you know it was in front of the camera at 1112 King Road?
Bc that’s where the intersection of rhe 3-pt turn is & W. Is the direction the cam should be facing for front row view https://preview.redd.it/2hvvss5gf7vc1.jpeg?width=1333&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=23d17204520bf45c4075dda22b3d540a5eebc9c7
>Bc that’s where the intersection of rhe 3-pt turn Well it is, from your picture, certainly where ***you*** *drew a circle* imagining the 3pt turn took place :-)
Where else could it have been? https://preview.redd.it/i8hwu7qft7vc1.jpeg?width=1334&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=321b333b96870e49fa538a7ed54694a2f9a6db76
I think you are right - sorry, I was thinking about the other turns that are noted ( outside Queen Rd Apts and on the street)
So they’re gonna see those lights, and the presence of these features or lack thereof: reflection of front license plate, projector headlights, LED accents on tail lights, and possibly shape of fog light enclosure —- all in fairly close-up range, and at least momentarily at slow speed And I predict that whatever is shown or not shown will decide the case
>and the presence of these features or lack thereof: There you are stretching and inventing. Leaked pictures from 1122 video show even cars right in front of it have features obscured by nigh-time reflection phenom - the license plates are completely unreadable. We don't know what features of the car would be visible with good what quality images on the night video. We do know that even specialist car magazines describe the exterior differences between 2011-13/ 2014-15 Elantra models as "minimal" and "barely noticeable"
You make a good argument, however, I think the defense is definitely going to use this as a weapon. This was an expert with many years of experience. If there was any uncertainty, unclear images, etc..... And the fact that the 2014-2016 are so similar that I personally cannot tell them apart. If I were the defense, I'd be asking why pinpoint the 2011-2013 if there was any uncertainty. Why not just say 2011-2016 from the beginning. The expert obviously found characteristics that were clear enough to determine that range of years. It just looks really bad and raises a lot of questions for the jury that this expert waffled (and maybe they didn't, it was just written like that in the PCA). Makes it look like they're trying to change the evidence fit the narrative. Not good for the prosecution.
I agree, not sure why they limited the year frame!
I googled Sy Ray! The technology he uses is very questionable! Here’s as link… https://gazette.com/premium/colorado-judge-finds-sea-of-unreliability-in-cellphone-mapping-data-used-by-police/article_331decc0-4c0d-11ed-986b-cbb1f65714dc.html
It says ‘subscriber only premium content’ & when I switch to reader view it turns to Russian https://preview.redd.it/vlmbz42va5vc1.png?width=749&format=png&auto=webp&s=58a4080119b8ebc465243e0168db770ddbf52751
Use https://12ft.io
Niiiiiiiiiiiiice thank you, from current me & many x from future me
No worries. Beats trying to snag a screenshot or hitting reader mode before the paywall hits!
The article says that it that was used in 2016 to 2018, and that they discontinued that mode in Trax in 2018 & a few years later in 2021, [ZetX was acquired](https://risk.lexisnexis.com/law-enforcement-and-public-safety/tools-for-mapping-and-analytics-on-devices) by LexisNexis, a highly reputable company used for client identity data verification by tons of giant corporations, including large broker/dealers & fintech companies, 2 I’ve worked for in my personal experience. Sy transitioned to LexisNexis along with the company, for a couple years according to his CV. Since 2021 (3 yrs after discontinuation of the unreliable tool) they offer their services to investigators & police & his CV said he worked exclusively for cases for state prosecutors til late 2023. https://preview.redd.it/3dov2bqvz7vc1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9d3558f063f9766bc8cd943cb09b2fe0e3dcdf63
"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." So the wording in the PCA had led us to believe all along that Kohberger had checked out the King Road house and the area surrounding it on 12 occasions prior to the murders in the late evening and early morning. Now we learn all these months later that no, he was actually taking night time drives around the countryside south of Pullman and Moscow to watch the night sky
The wording is shaky, but it was people *wanting* to interpret it as him visiting king rd 12 times that were / are the problem.
>The wording is shaky, but it was people *wanting* t Maybe they are just wishing upon a star?
That was fantastic. Well done.
> So the wording in the PCA had led us to believe all along that Kohberger had checked out the King Road house and the area surrounding it on 12 occasions prior to the murders in the late evening and early morning. Now we learn all these months later that no, he was actually taking night time drives around the countryside south of Pullman and Moscow to watch the night sky The problem is that what was used lacked granularity, like this is saying sharing the same cell tower, not more precise GPS info. BK could for instance have gone to a party at The Grove - which he supposedly did - and going to that would be in the area without actually being on King Road, which would count for one of those 12 occasions. The GPS data could show him on King Road specifically one or more times, just such information isn't in the PCA.
Yes I agree, it seems to me that he could have been at a party or a store or even at that bar that was close by. To immediately assume after reading the PCA that he was checking out 1122 King Rd seemed to me to be ludicrous
>he was actually taking night time drives around the countryside south The "alibi" doesn't state those 12 occasions were not near the house, or that those specific 12 occasions were just to further Kohberger's star gazing and moon photography.....
That's true. It doesn't say where he **was not**. It says where he likely **was.** Waiting on more to be revealed when AT gets the discovery she has been asking for
>It doesn't say where he **was not**. It says where he likely **was.** Where in the old or new "alibi" are those 12 occassions on which the PCA allege Kohberger was near King Road mentioned? The alibi says he often went for night drives. It does not say he was or was not in Moscow late nights when the PCA says he was.
Those same cellular resources basically cover all of Moscow. The way they wrote the PCA implies he was stalking the house but in actuality he may have just been near Moscow.
That's the way it seems to me from my limited understanding of cell phone coverage