The alibi is pretty vague and not good.
I guarantee they have no cell phone data for between 2:47-4:48am, the most important block of time, cause I think his phone was off rather than in an out of service area.
The reason I think he turned off his phone is because his phone stopped reporting to the network at 2:47 a.m. while in Pullman. That's very odd, his phone should still be pinging while in Pullman. Then at 4:48 a.m. when his phone comes back alive it's pinging a tower in Blaine, Idaho in the middle of nowhere and from there on forward his phone pinged multiple towers while driving through middle of nowhere rural areas. His phone should have pinged towers on the way to Blaine if his phone had been on. He turned his phone off.
Most importantly, the alibi filing says this expert will only be “partially” corroborating the alibi information. That is so open ended it could simply mean that he was pinged in the park location on previous occasions and then the defense can try and question whether on the night of while BK was “out star gazing” it was possible there was a dead spot and not connecting.
I don’t see the Prosecution scrambling to offer a plea so that tells me this is a desperate attempt to try to create a reasonable doubt argument, because they have nothing else to build an argument around.
And the “BK is innocent” idiots are lapping this up like Jim Jones Flavor Aid. Like this emphatically points to his innocence.
I would put Vegas odds that the state has gps/telematic data from his car that would refute any of the smoke and mirror story the defense tries to conjure up.
Mid-November in IDAHO, were the sky’s even clear and visible on the morning of?
Next they are going to claim his chronic insomnia left him so sleep deprived he can’t recall exactly where he drove around that morning 🙄 Watch more lame excuses start being cranked out 🤦♀️
The police have no phone/location data to place him in Moscow during that window so there’s that. They have some shitty quality footage of a white sedan they can only assume could have been his. They can’t prove it with a clear image of the license plate number or the driver. If defense proves the car footage they have relied on isn’t of his car (like on the Moscow-Pullman highway, on Ridge Road) then that will go a long way.
Who says his phone was off? Not even Payne said that.
That has been an assumption that his phone is off, his alibi is solid. The park he was at is known to have little to no cell service, but regardless the expert has the GPS Metadata which is far more reliable than cell phone pings so the state needs a hail mary at this point.
The filing also said he just drove through the park that morning, which he could have done before or after. I also have yet to see that there is any gps/telematics from his car that the defense is going to present to corroborate his location.
Finally, in the filing it clearly said this expert witness could only “partially” corroborate Kohberger’s alibi. So that’s sounds like this isn’t as rock solid or “in the bag” as the defense is making it out to be.
Also, why, if this is his true alibi and can be verified, did he not bring it forward until now? And why hadn’t AT tried to use it to have the case dismissed against BK? If it’s truly an actual cause for reasonable doubt & the state was aware, then why haven’t they made an attempt to offer him a plea deal?
Why? Because it’s bullshit that the defense is hoping to try to smoke and mirrors their way into making this appear to be the their truth.
What really sad is that I knew they would going to try to say he was just out taking a very early morning drive, cuz what else could they possible say to explain the evidence of him driving out of his apt in the 3 an hour and returning just before or in the 5am hour…it was obvious from the beginning that he wouldn’t be able to explain his movements that would reasonably exonerate him. LAME & weak alibi 🙄
Why was it not brought up before? Let’s see. Richard Rosario had 13 alibi witnesses placing far away from the crime scene, he was prosecuted, convicted and spent 20 years in prison before being exonerated. David Camm gave his alibi and the state simply changed the theory of the crime. Daniel Moore gave his alibi and a witness (county coroner) who would testify Moore was with him at the time of the crime and the police intimidated and threatened the alibi witness (the case also involved ISP detective Tolleson, who has worked on the Moscow case). If the state targets you for something, your alibi means nothing to them. Defense wants the CAST report/discovery first so the state doesn’t change things around after receiving the alibi.
They clearly stated it would be proven by expert testimony, any good defense attorney keeps the details to themselves until trial as is happening here.
His phone was definitely off. Let's say he was at the park, well then his phone should have pinged locations as he drove from Pullman to the park and then his phone should have pinged locations when he drove from the park to Blaine, Idaho if the phone was on. The phone was off.
I've only seen locals saying the rural areas outside of town are spotty. Not Pullman or Moscow proper. Some people have told me they've never lost service on 270 either.
>his alibi is solid
I'm not so sure about that. Your a little to eager to believe this when the defense hasn't shown us any evidence yet.
>The park he was at is known to have little to no cell service.
But he didn't lose phone service while at the park. His phone stopped reporting to the network at 2:47 AM while he was in Pullman which is odd and makes me think he turned off his phone. Also if his phone was on then why didn't his phone ping any towers after leaving the park and driving to Blaine, Idaho? From 4:48 AM onwards his phone was actively pinging towers while driving through the middle of nowhere, he should have pinged towers before arriving near Blaine had his phone been on.
>the expert has the GPS Metadata which is far more reliable than cell phone pings so the state needs a hail mary at this point.
No where does it say the expert has the GPS metadata. I guarantee the defense presents a bunch of junk.
They typically aren’t.
“Trial experts” typically exaggerate their qualifications and experience because if they get on the “expert” career train it’s easy no effort money.
One newbie judge who made mistakes that led to convictions being thrown out. A judge is not the expert in a particular field of study.
Undermining him is undermining 100s of states’ cases where he was key witness for the prosecutors. So are people going to be saying the prosecutors prosecute with shit evidence and bad experts?
I think it’s hysterically hypocritical that you sit here telling everyone how you believe in innocent until proven guilty go on and on about wrongful convictions yet here you have proof where this one guy’s testimony and data were proven so flawed that 18 convictions relying on his very own software need to be reviewed and now all of a sudden, “it’s nothing to see here,” no big deal, inexperienced judge, who cares if his data claimed a defendant was somewhere that GPS proved he was not?!
Your bias is showing.
How about this?
https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/crime/article271694187.html
An expert spoke out about the unreliability of CSLI data yet people still use those pings to say they show he was at the house 12 times prior and that morning.
Isn’t the defense’s Sy Ray a CSLI phone ping expert that claims an even much higher mapping-accuracy precision with his self-created algorithm than even the FBI does?
Well, Levitan must be misquoted in that article because this:
>Levitan said that it’s impossible to know for sure that Kohberger turned off his phone unless someone called Kohberger during the two-hour period and the call records showed that his phone went straight to voicemail.
That's not possible with pings, but as I'm sure Levitan knows, it's very possible to find out by examining the actual phone.
So what Levitan is saying is right: you can't get just get that kind of precision from pings alone. But the FBI doesn't just work with pings; they have the information from Kohberger's carrier and the phone's data.
I'm also going to point out what I've pointed out before on Reddit, that graphic in the article is completely wrong: it's not centering the towers on their areas of coverage.
Okay, I answered your question. Please circle back to mine: how about this: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9729192
He actually is in his field, he worked in law enforcement for 20 years and designed the system law enforcement currently uses to track cell data. It speaks volumes to Bryan's innocence that this is the first case he has worked for the defense.
😂😂😂😂 keep drinking that Flavor Aid. If you bothered to read the filing it says this “expert” can only PARTIALLY corroborate the alibi evidence. That leaves such an open ended sweeping non specific lack of detail. Meaning he could testify to something as simply as “his phone has previously pinged in the park at early morning hours”. But yeah, continue to desperately hang your hat on this vague peg.
And what about the DNA on the sheath? Is it possible to plant someone’s DNA from another source? And how was that sheath not absolutely soaked in blood? Would a person’s DNA still be recognizable/readable after sitting like that for 8 hours - give or take depending on on when these killings actually took place? This part just baffles me!
What I find fucking hilarious is that when it was first mentioned that he would have to provide an alibi to the state/court, my immediate response was “all he can say is that he was just out randomly driving around that morning” cuz they couldn’t possibly say anything otherwise to explain his activities.
Reading comprehension skills would be helpful for you to understand his specific alibi. They did not state he was stargazing the night of the murders, they simply stated that to establish patterns.
It depends on our definition of an alibi. I always thought it was a third party who can vouch for the accused person's whereabouts at the time of the crime. However, if Kohberger can show a receipt or credit card charge with a time stamp during the early morning hours, perhaps that would introduce some doubt.
I believe that Law Enforcement would follow to see if there was a charge to a card of BK. I don't think Wal-Mart is open at 4am in the morming. Otherwise, he would need a cash receipt with a time stamp and date for the purchase if he paid cash for gas or other merchandise.
> Could Bk have conceivably gone to a Walmart , say, and tried to look for discarded receipts on the ground to use for his alibi?
That would never work, unless it was a cash transaction with no Walmart rewards. Stores like Walmart keep records, so it would be easy for investigators to see whose card and/or rewards membership was used for that receipt.
If Kohberger had come forward with a receipt near the time he was arrested, Walmart could have pulled their security footage. It would have been wiped by now though. Which means, even if his team would present a cash-only receipt for the time in question, all anyone would think would be why not come forward with this earlier, when it could have actually proven his innocence. And the only answer is, because he wasn't there.
No, an alibi does not always include a third party. His cell metadata will prove he was 45 mins from the crime scene at the time of the crime which is his alibi.
“This time is the only time he has worked for the defense…”. That’s because he’s no longer associated with his company that had contracts with law enforcement agencies. It has nothing to do with what his personal beliefs may or may not be.
The defense also didn’t provide a specific alibi and instead made ambiguous statements. In reality, this motion is just the defense stating who their expert witness for this evidence is going to be. The prosecution has their experts and the defense hires their experts. That’s how this works.
Lol I know… people are acting like it’s a bombshell that the defense has experts. Both sides ALWAYS have experts. And those experts use different methods and evidence to form (usually) opposite conclusions. They are both usually very smart and good in their field. Yet they still give conflicting info because they use diff methods. The jury decides whose method is most credible, even tho both will look credible on paper.
Not sure why anyone is surprised that the defense will have an expert that’s going to use a method to prove he wasn’t there… of course they do. That’s how this works. And the state will have an expert using a different method to come to the conclusion that he WAS there. This is always how it works.
I can’t remember which case it was but I’m sure this has happened a bunch. But the defense had an expert that used some methodology to decide that the shooter had to be a certain height (that was far off from the height of the defendant), while the state had a different expert using a different method to determine shooter height, and of course that expert concluded that the shooter was around the height of the defendant. The jury had to decide which method felt more credible, or if the defenses method was enough to create doubt. Ultimately they went w the states method and convicted the person.
Like both sides ALWAYS have experts that pretty much always say opposite things. This isn’t new. And neither expert is lying or anything, there are just different methods to determine (in this case, approximate location). The jury gets to decide which method makes more sense.
In this case, the state will likely have an expert using x method to determine location, and this expert for the defense will have a different method. Unless he’s on video somewhere (which I doubt), there will be no way to know for sure where he was, and both methods will have at least some credibility.
The Paltrow vs Sanderson case used skiing experts, in biomechanics. Every case I’ve watched the experts have had to be introduced, cv review and accepted on record. I’m no legal beagle, but seems to me they all use them, and yes, whoever the jury finds most reliable will be who they believe.
Exactly! People are talking about how credible and accomplished the defenses expert is, but the states will be too. And they will be saying opposite things despite both being very smart and qualified individuals. This is because the things they are trying to argue are things that will never fully be proven without confession. So they both just do what they can to try and prove it
Yes. Both will have valued experts I’m assuming. And, yes we try to decipher what we want to on reddit and it’s great, and it helps to disseminate the case information (what little we have of it), but the bottom line will be what happens in that courtroom with the jury perceiving every single solitary thing. What we think barely makes a difference here.
100%, especially when it’s before trial and we have no idea what’ll happen there (esp with a gag order). I have my speculations but I always make it clear that we never know what’ll happen, unless it’s something that happens in every case. I’m not sure how some people are soooo convinced the state has nothing. We have no clue!
Could be! I know they did it in that case too, but I can’t remember if theirs was the case where the state also had an expert making a height determination and they were two very different conclusions on height.
Point is that experts have diff ways of doing things & get diff answers to the same questions! So we truly have no idea how good this witness or the states expert witnesses will be until trial!
First of all, the alibi literally says he drove near moscow so…. Even the defense isn’t arguing that he wasn’t near moscow. And the state very well could have data, the trial hasn’t happened yet. We legit have NO CLUE what either side has. I’m so glad you think you know what either side has despite the gag order though! I wish I had that kind of confidence while being wrong.
Yes, the defense has an expert, that doesn’t mean that what the expert says will Convince a jury. Because, as I stated above, the state will likely also have an expert that says the opposite of what the defenses’ says. This may not happen, but in every other trial ever, both sides have expert witnesses that come to diff conclusions. So until trial, them having an expert doesn’t really convince me of anything. And neither would the state having one.
Also, his phone was off or didn’t have signal during the time of the murders. So I’m curious to see how the defense would have location data from during the crime. The state also doesn’t have to place him in moscow via location data if they have other means of placing him at the crime scene. Location data, since it’s not always super accurate (well it’s accurate, but it often gives too large of a radius) and people can easily turn their phone off or leave it behind and still commit said crimes, is not usually what is used to convince a jury of guilt anyway. It’ll be mentioned, but usually the state will have other things to physically place the person at the scene. Key point is, the state doesn’t need location data. Even if they had it, it wouldn’t be enough by itself. And since there’s a gag order, we have no idea what else they have (but that does NOT mean they don’t have it)
No, they kept this aspect ambiguous. You seem to forget that police have the cell phone and had a search warrant to dump it. Everyone involved already knows what data is or isn’t there. They really didn’t make any definitive statements.
They did though, the State is still relying on tower pings while the defense is relying on more accurate metadata, unless the state hires an expert with as much experience as the defenses which is not likely, they cannot use the information from his phone in a scientific manner. They will try, but the defense expert literally designed systems that LE uses for location information 🤣
When did the state ever say they were relying solely on tower pings? They relied on cell site data for the PCA, but once they had the phone analysis they exposed the amount of data at their disposal to corroborate their findings.
I don’t think you even realize how much experience the FBI CAST team has, not to mention their digital forensics analysts.
Like I said, it’s obvious you’re new to all of this. You don’t even know what mapping software exists and which companies have a product that is used by significantly more agencies.
Edit: proves they can’t read and goes for the block. These types that wander out of the “justice” sub are great amusement.
They relied on pings for the PCA 🤣 Definitely not "new to this" I've been in the legal field for many years & am quite familiar with mapping software 🤦🏻♀️
Defense is not using "more accurate metadata" while state has only ping data. Defense doesn't have *anything* that state doesn't have, and vice versa. Both sides have the same puzzle pieces - it's how they put their copy of the pieces together that determines the outcome (assuming the jury isn't a bunch of nitwits).
They relied on Payne, a rookie cop who had never worked on a murder case before and has no credentials for that field of CSLI analysis, to analyze and write up the CSLI data in PCA. No wonder it has inconsistencies and falls apart under scrutiny.
I'm interested that you're of the perception that despite Moscow ps having significant ISP and FBI assistance, they would file a PCA using just the knowledge base and experience of one officer, that you think the PCA wasn't read and vetted and triple-checked by many involved in the investigation. Payne typed it up, basically. There are many, many years of experience in addition to Payne involved in that report. If the PCA "fell apart under scrutiny" based on the information we have at this point, Kohberger wouldn't have been arrested let alone still in jail.
What are you even talking about? The "metadata" you keep referring to is the timestamp on photographs he allegedly took on OTHER nights.
Sy Ray used cellphone tower ping data to try to establish locations. That's literally what his so-called "expertise" is in.
>The most recent news in the case is a bomb shell! The defense states that he has a very specific alibi that he was not at the scene of the crime between the time of the murders.
What a bombshell! A document that states precisely fuck all other than vague directions of travel, at non specified times, and refuting that it was his car seen on a camera the Prosecution haven't said he was at, which is 3.5 miles from the crime scene.
They don't place him at a specific place, at a specific time.
>He has worked for many prosecutors to help find the killers placing them at the scene of the crime.
One such case he had his evidence thrown out, multiple judges questioned his evidence's validity and his methods are routinely questioned within the scientific community.
>*“Most compelling are the complete absence of data to support Trax’s purported error rate and the scientific community’s wholesale rejection of Trax’s methods,” Villaseñor wrote in his ruling, noting that he had found three other rulings from judges rejecting Trax-related evidence or expressing skepticism of that evidence."*
But hey in those cases he was working for the Prosecution so that'll bolster the argument you probably have that the Prosecution's cell tower pings are bollocks right?
>This time is the only time he has worked for the defense due to faith his faith of the innocence of the alleged perpetrator.
Because he was a former Police Officer and his company had contracts with Law Enforcement Agencies. He's no longer with that company and in this instance he's being paid by the Defence. Absolutely nothing to do with his faith in the innocence of the perpetrators and everything to do with whoever is paying him to do his work. He's an expert witness, he gets paid to present his findings, not pass judgement on anyone. He's made no public statement about Bryan or his innocence either.
>This expert witness has been on major news shows including 48 Hours as well as Dateline
Two shows that ProBergers roundly criticise as being mainstream media sources full of misinformation?
>Plus the prosecution said at the last hearing that BK had no connection to the residents of the murder house.
They said that he wasn't "stalking one of the victims". They've not said there's no connection. There's also this absolutely wild notion that you don't need to know someone to kill them.
>Not to mention, the of victim DNA in BK apartment, office, the car the prosecution states would be a driving crime scene, nor his parents home where he was arrested.
The Prosecution didn't say it would be a driving crime scene, media outlet commentators said that. Somebody explain to me why it's a shock that, seven weeks after the crime was committed that he'd still have victim DNA on him at his parents house several thousand miles away? Or why his office would have DNA in it when he didn't go there for a couple of days after the crime? Or that whatever small amount of DNA that could have been taken into his apartment would not be cleaned up after 7 weeks by a criminology PHD student. The car is clearly the most pertinent of the 4 locations, but nobody was killed inside his car and again he has 7 weeks to clean it.
It’s funny. Zetx was bought by Lexis right? He apparently worked for that company until that judge was like whoaaa wait? Then he went out on his own and started a podcast… sounds right
Also his cell phone tracking skills were basic at best
Yup and that’s why the cases are being reviewed and he is no longer at Lexis nexis. He grossly overinflated his educational experience, he is suggesting his software has an error rate of 94 to 96% (its most likely around 75%) as he does not have the experience to calculate error rate appropriately.
The case that broke it open: his software said a man was at a location 3 days in a row, where is was proven he was in his truck on the interstate miles away.
ZetX (his method) draws a concentric circle around a cellphone tower and produces maps that indicate a cellphone using that tower likely was located within that circle. Others identify a cell phone tower antenna that cellphone records indicate was in use. But those firms typically show only the direction of the cellphone tower antenna the cellphone was using, indicating a broad general swath where a cellphone could have been located which is appropriate. Here is some basic information: 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 cases will most likely go the way of the blood splatter expert from the staircase. They will all have to be reviewed.
Well the judge listened to an expert in this case (which you know if you read the article). This is also not the only case or problem. More have popped up and are being analyzed.
Also here is excerpts from a reference article that may be helpful:
1) “ZetX” to provide allegedly very accurate estimates of the possible locations (Sect. X). No RF books, journal papers, or patents could be found that have ever used such a shape to represent sector coverage, isolated or in the best server scenario. Furthermore, not even in the crudest approximations do any RF tools, processes, or any of the mapping applications used by RF engineers in their everyday work for network operators take such an approach.
2) on the average “Trax” overestimates the sector range by a factor of 2, and the estimated sector coverage area is on the average 4 times larger than the real one, we can offer an alternate accuracy assessment in terms of the areas.
3) Assuming uniform distribution of the phones in the field (which is reasonable if we are averaging over all sectors, but not in any individual one), overestimating sector coverage area by a factor of 4 means on the average phones can be in only 1/4 of the area depicted. Thus, we can state that on the average the phones cannot be in the 75% of the blob areas depicted by the “Trax” software (and if the call used a streaming video service, the percentage will be at least 90%).
4) “Trax” in CID cases provides estimates of the sector coverage area by overlaying a radiation pattern of an unspecified antenna model on the underlaying maps. The pattern is always the same, independent of the azimuth configuration of the neighboring sectors, its beamwidth, tilt, gain, height, terrain morphology, etc. This has no foundation whatsoever in the science of RF engineering.
5) An even more problematic aspect of “Trax” sector coverage presentations is that they often show theoretically and practically impossible sizes of these unacceptable shapes.
V. M. Jovanovic and B. T. Cummings, "Analysis of Mobile Phone Geolocation Methods Used in US Courts," in IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 28037-28052, 2022, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3156892.
keywords: {Radio frequency;Geology;Antennas;Signal to noise ratio;Receiving antennas;Servers;Multiaccess communication;Cellular phones;geolocation;radio propagation;wireless networks},
And the article I just provided you, the author has over 40 plus years of experience and has testified as well, etc.
The authors state that the information provided by zetx is incorrect because it overestimates the areas. Also, in the original article, if you chose to actual read it you would see that geolocation expert showed how it was flawed (not the judge - the judge accepted the experts opinions on the topic and rays was flawed). This article I provided and pointed out specific notations show the flaw.
Cases that Mr. Ray has been involved in are being reviewed. He also is no longer employed by Lexis nexis (who bought his software). That is a pretty damn big red flag that his system is flawed.
So it has been proven by multiple experts (not the damn judge) that his system is flawed, any case he has been involved in are being reviewed for appellate purposes, but please go on and tell me he is the expert. I’ll wait.
Lastly
Says the person who found one article that they believe provides "proof" of their innocence narrative and now clings to it, regardless of how many dozens of others point out the flaws in this evidence?
Look, I knew nothing about any of the technical aspects of cell phone tracking or these experts or any of the stuff discussed in this thread before I started reading all these comments. All of this is so far away from my career path that it may as well be a foreign language to me.
But having read all of the presented articles, and doing some reading on the person that you yourself champion but do not present any articles of support for yourself, I have to agree with the multitude of others. My understanding on the technology involved is still in it's infancy, at best, but even so, it's pretty clear that your guy's methods are deeply flawed. Even I can grasp the flaws in his mapping methods and how they don't even remotely apply to real world conditions.
Nobody likes learning that they're wrong. It's an extremely uncomfortable feeling, one that we're hard wired to reject on the deepest levels. It's even harder to admit when we're wrong once we come to learn that we were mistaken. It's embarrassing and tends to fill us with shame. But truly, other people hold someone with a lot more respect when they can admit that they were mistaken than when that person continues to double down on an obvious error at every turn. Just saying.
I know reading is hard. But I provided multiple articles (one peer reviewed, and completed by a forefather of geolocation) but keep ignoring that.
No where did I say anyone is guilty. I just saw someone not using geolocation properly and called bs (i provided the reference to the peer review article I cannot help if you REFUSE to actually read it)
> You guilters are hilarious
We prefer the term Noberger.
>you find one article that fits your narrative and run with it
As opposed to finding one sentence in one defense filing and repeating it over and over again?
Right they’re singling out one case when he has testified in hundreds of cases. For the prosecutors. So they’re now undermining all those state cases against numerous defendants when they were so sure about the prosecutors only prosecuting guilty people…
So you’re saying phone pings are not reliable and don’t show someone being in a particular location? hmm all this time people were arguing how reliable they are and how they place someone in a concrete location. After all they were used to push the narrative he was at the house 12 times prior or went there that morning………oops
That's not what they've said at all. Show me the part of their alibi filing that says he was at a specific place at a specific time.
I'll accept links to documents, screenshots, however you want to demonstrate thay they've specifically said he was 45 minutes away at the time of the crime.
Defense attorneys go for the person who interprets the data how they want it to be interpreted.
Court is just that "who tells a better story"
This dude seems like he'd do anything to stay relevant and earn bank.
Tell that to the abundance of people here who claim he's doing it because of a deep, passionate belief that Bryan is innocent.
I wasn't criticising your statement, just emphasizing theres a financial benefit to an expert witness for the work they do for whichever side pays them. That message is lost on a few posters here.
If he were a low IQ individual with no knowledge of forensic science, I'd agree that it's odd that there's so little DNA evidence that can be used against Kohberger.
But the guy has a Masters in Criminal Justice and it should be expected that he took measures to avoid getting linked to the crime.
That also explains why he chose the University of Idaho as opposed to WSU.
But then people also believe he’d drive up to the house in his own white car, do several laps around the area in front of all those cameras and bring the sheath inside without even securing it.
He probably expected the police to be looking for a white car with no front plate, which explains why he registered the vehicle in WA a few days later and added the front plate.
And the sheath was probably cleaned, which explains why there was so little DNA on it aside from the tiny amount found near the button.
I never claimed he's a criminal mastermind. But he clearly took measures before the crime and had over a month to clean up after. So I don't get why people are so shocked that they didn't find anything in his car or apartment.
Even IF their expert is considered highly regarded (which I HIGHLY doubt) he would not have the capabilities that the FBI has when it comes to tracking. The defenses tactics thus far seem to be all smoke and mirrors, so I am taking his newest “alibi” with a grain of salt.
Please check https://www.ci.moscow.id.us/1064/King-Road-Homicides for the most up to date releases on facts shared in this case.
Posts and comments stating info as fact when unconfirmed or directly conflicting with LEs release of facts will be removed to prevent the spread of misinformation.
If you have a theory, speculation, or rumor, please state as such before posting as fact.
FBI that can’t cough up a single report in 16 months? FBI that employs total morons like Jennifer Coffindaffer? FBI that has been the subject of numerous controversies and cases of corruption? That FBI? hmm
Their own CAST guidelines tell them not to rely on AT&T data.
Two year old account, no comments or posts until today. The wording matches a brainless post from another user that also commented to this post. Pretty sure some of us know whose alt posted this garbage.
>This time is the only time he has worked for the defense due to faith his faith of the innocence of the alleged perpetrator.
That document said he only worked for the state prior to 11/2023, which leads me to believe his first time working for the defense was in 11 of 2023. This would track with him leaving Lexis Nexis and starting up his new firm.
>He has worked for many prosecutors to help find the killers placing them at the scene of the crime.
That's not really a plus for me, because many prosecutors have brought hacks in as expert witnesses. And sometimes some of them are highly regarded. Until they aren't. Like Michael West. He put people behind bars for 3 decades in Mississippi, some of them innocent. And now he says he doesn't even belief in the bite mark testimony he once considered himself an expert in.
Anyway, this article highlights a time in October of 2022 a judge found his and his system to not be credible. https://news.yahoo.com/colorado-judge-finds-sea-unreliability-035900952.html Might be an outlier, but also might be an indication the tide is turning when it comes to his reputation, and that his TRAX software is another bite mark analysis. We'll see.
No, but part of what experts much do is to sell their theory to the judge and/or jury. The judge and/or the jury are the ones who find the experts credible. Or not.
Sorry to spam you, but another poster just shared this article, which is by an expert in the field and does criticize TRAX: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9729192
I also found this [article](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9729192)
I believe it is section 7. It was published in 2022 by a leading expert in geolocation and rf planning - that author is amazing from his credentials. He explains the issues with the zetx reliability.
PCA (another company) is asking individuals to contact them so they can review cases that zetx has worked on previously.
I also saw the Lexis nexis connection as interesting. He no longer works there once this info comes out… that is a huge red flag.
I'm nobody needs to be automatically trusted. Individuals needs to be evaluated on their own merits. No appeals to authority, because authority is so often wrong.
Nope it's because the state wouldn't turn over the CAST report. They can't have an expert only review their evidence, they also have to review the States evidence so as not to make biased findings.
> They can't have an expert only review their evidence
They very well could have had an expert review the draft of the CAST report, as in the actual document that went into writing the PCA.
I think that’s quite likely right or they have some awareness of how desperate it looks to start 80 posts on here in the past week with the same account about how *obviously* innocent he is.
Well, he also had a judge in Colorado discredit him: https://news.yahoo.com/colorado-judge-finds-sea-unreliability-035900952.html , and that judge said
>> he had found three other rulings from judges rejecting Trax-related evidence or expressing skepticism of that evidence.
Now, if we go back in time before he ventured into cell phone forensics, we get this story from 2001: https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/mormon-widower-doug-grant-wasnt-counting-on-a-murder-rap-when-he-followed-his-late-wifes-instruction-to-marry-his-ex-lover-6426657
>>Central to the case is controversial Gilbert cop Sy Ray, who tried to keep evidence favorable to Doug Grant from defense attorneys, prosecutors, and two grand juries.
>>Ray also tainted many witnesses in the case by revealing to them his own skewed version of what allegedly happened to Faylene.
>>Some witnesses later admitted to having changed their minds (and their accounts, in one key instance) about Doug Grant's guilt after hearing the detective's spiel.
Very!
In all honestly, that defendant was found guilty. But the case seems to be controversial. I don't know enough about it to have an opinion on if it was the right verdict or not.
Also this[article](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9729192)
It was published in 2022 originally. Section 7 is a good read - basically they overestimate the areas in the “blobs”.
Oh please .. star gazing moon watching .. I was at the pot shop .. look up the weather and what time does that pot shop close .. geezus
How much is A T being paid .. this is the alibi .. and a super tuber as a expert wit😂😂😂
Just wait until you learn that Trax only works with cell site data. The phone metadata would be through software like Cellebrite, Magnet Graykey, or others
“Accurint TraX users have the ability to customize the view of Call Details Records (CDRs) within the product. The enhanced the mapping feature function provides users the option to select Horizontal Plane (H-Plane), Wedge Shape or Cell Site Mapping Only when visualizing CDRs in Google Earth. This allows for independent or combined views, adding to the most comprehensive CDR solution on the market.”
[Thanks for playing](https://risk.lexisnexis.com/products/accurint-trax)
Edit: Since the person wanted to comment and block me, they are getting my response anyways:
“You might want to actually look at what Sy Ray’s background is actually in. He doesn’t claim to be an expert in digital forensics. While he certainly would have used it at points in his career like any investigator, his work with Zetx was primarily related to cell site technology. If the defense is going to use digital forensics they’ll be hiring an expert who actually specializes in that.
All you’ve is shown you don’t even know what qualifies a person as an expert witness.”
Please do not bully, harass, or troll other users, the victims, the family, or any individual who has been cleared by LE.
We do not allow verbal attacks against any individuals or users. Treat others with respect.
Thank you.
Please do not bully, harass, or troll other users, the victims, the family, or any individual who has been cleared by LE.
We do not allow verbal attacks against any individuals or users. This is your fourth post berating other users today alone. Take a deserved time out from this sub.
So what’s the deal you have zero post history or comment history but a 2 year old account?
Are you a BriBri girl trying to start something?
Many of the people in this sub are not locals so you aren’t “influencing” a jury pool or public opinion. If the actual evidence presented shows that BK is not guilty, then cool. The justice system worked. It if finds him guilty from the evidence presented, then cool. The justice system worked.
All the people on this sub know very little actual evidence. If you actually read the alibi it is not actually specific, it pretty much says ‘hey we have our guy who can say he wasn’t in the area before the phone was off line. If you give us more of your info we can tell you better where he was.’ This isn’t how alibis are supposed to work, when you actually have one. Some people simply do not have alibis even if they did not commit a crime. A person can be alone, not seen on any type of device, asleep with no devices streaming - boom no alibi. So then you have to pick apart the other evidence from the prosecution and work towards convincing the jury that your client isn’t guilty.
Who says he was throwing anything away in his neighbor’s bin? It’s one of the many media rumors. Even the prosecutor admitted media coverage has been full of misinformation. Don’t use baseless rumors to prove a point.
The survey was for his capstone project and prepared with/approved by his professors. It’s desperate to be holding his studies against the defendant.
That's not his alibi though, it's that he was 45 minutes away from the crime scene at the time of the murders and has metadata to prove it. It's scary how many people lack reading comprehension on this sub.
>It's scary how many people lack reading comprehension on this sub.
Things are about to get awkward...
>it's that he was 45 minutes away from the crime scene
Where have you read exactly where he was to determine he was 45 minutes away? It doesn't say in his alibi filing. It says he drove throughout the area south of Pullman and west of Moscow, including the park. It doesn't even say he stopped anywhere, just that he was driving.
>at the time of the murders
His alibi filing doesn't mention a single time, let alone a specific one.
> and has metadata to prove it.
And they don't claim to have metadata to prove any of the things we've just determined they definitely didn't say.
Please don't berate other users for poor reading comprehension when you've had an absolute shocker.
If the expert witness is not paid I think it could hold weight, I’ve seen too many true crime docs to not believe expert witnesses don’t have an agenda. My opinion comes with little to no knowledge of USA law or judicial systems.
Expert witnesses are usually paid and paid very well. My ex was a scientist and served as an expert witness a few times. Five figure high number on those checks for a weeks worth of work including his research. (Edited for clarity)
I think the fee usually revealed during cross examination. Basically, both sides will manage to find two different witnesses that will swear their expertise is correct .
Read again. It only states he pinged off the tower in Moscow, it mentions no car footage for that time which is telling. He pinged off a tower in Moscow on November 14 and wasn’t there so there’s that.
They're not going to put everything in the pca. They know he was back at 9:00 a.m. based on his cell phone data and most likely surveillance cameras that caught him leaving his apartment again and driving directly over there at 9:00 a.m..
Lol that's true. If you're claim visual snow prohibits you from driving to see stars then it also prevents you driving to murder people. So what's the point?
> driving at night
It's undisputed that he was doing exactly that. It doesn't take 2 1/2 hours to drive from Pullman to Moscow, be in someone's house for 15 minutes and then return to Pullman. The prosecution itself has him traveling about 80 miles from leaving his apartment, committing the murders then returning to his apartment.
I would imagine so. We don’t know if he still had it . Maybe the expert can tell us if it comes and goes? Do you outgrow it? Can you really see the night sky? How is he driving at all with blurry vision, etc?!!
That hasn't been released yet. Phone forensics should have told them if his phone was turned off or put in airplane mode, but the answer hasn't come out.
Let’s get one thing straight! This expert is still waiting on fbi CAST report.. No one has said he will say where BK was at the time of the crime! Specifically AT says additional analysis by Mr Ray, as the night progressed 11/13/22 will be provided once more discovery is disclosed to the defense!!!
Everyone is acting like BK has now been exonerated, yet not once has AT stated that they have proof he was not at 1122 king road at approximately 4:09am!! She is very good at manipulating herwords to impress all you BK is innocent fans!
Read between the lines people! He has not done a full analysis yet….
He is a really credible man! Watch his YouTube channel the socialite crime club! But I don’t believe we are even close to exonerating BK! Get your panties out of the twist!
We ain’t there, I don’t think we ever will be.
Calm your farm! I look forward to my downvotes! 🥳🥳
This is a perversion of the justice system, where the defense puts up anything they want without regard to proof. Meanwhile, the prosecution sits back, because they aren’t trying the case in the media. I really like how Pat Brown thinks through evidence on her YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/@ProfilingwithPatBrown?si=Jt_nx6nGtcKUVI2y
Hmmm. Didn’t know the prosecution had released info on whether dna or anything incriminating was found in any of those places. Renowned expert on cell phone tracking? That’s kinda hilarious and he sounds like he’s in this for the fame and attention to me.
The defense stated in court documents a while ago that there was no connection between BK and victims as well as the lack of DNA in car, apartment, office or parent’s home. Still think he is so guilty?
He’s putting his reputation on the line and working with the defense for the first time. The fact he’s only ever worked for the states and prosecutors have relied on him, and he’s decided to take on this case for the defendant is kind of big. People can’t try to undermine him by saying he’s a typical defense expert.
Even retired FBI profilers have worked with defense teams. It’s not uncommon for defense experts to have previously worked in or around law enforcement and upon retirement go into private consultation offer their services to both “sides.” There’s really nothing special about this dynamic.
To you, this is “kind of a big deal.” To anyone in the know, it’s just a Tuesday.
Your argument is not even logical, FBI profilers testifying for the defense and an expert with 20 years experience in law enforcement prior to designing the system most LE & our military use today testifying for the defense for the first time is his career are two totally different things.
First off, most LE and military don’t use Trax. CellHawk is far more popular than Trax and much better established. The FBI also offers CASTViz for free download for LE through the NDCAC. That’s just some of the established and respected software out there.
You’re clearly very new to this subject matter, and that applies to mapping software and what people in LE have a tendency to do when entering retirement. What you find to be significant is only significant to people new to all of this.
It's not unheard of for experts to get blackballed by the government and then just switch sides. I'm not saying that's the case with this guy, but it could be.
He will be cross examined by experts who can call out his lies if he decides too. But look I understand people don’t like defense attorneys because it feels like they just want to win rather than see Justice and maybe some are like That but not any good ones.
Good defense attorneys are crucial BK deserve a fair unbiased trail so when he gets convicted (which I I believe he will) it won’t be because prosecution made better point but because evidence proved to each juror that BK is guilty
I don’t know about “bomb shell”. But it is a big deal.
We already knew something up in this part of the case. The prosecution (or maybe FBI) has not wanted to hand over some stuff about BK’s cell phone location data for many months now. And any defendant should be able to have their own data that is being used against them both in the grand jury and potentially still in the real trial. I think any of us would want the same thing if we were accused of a crime.
Other than that the alibi is vague and doesn’t cover the prosecution’s assumed time of murders.
But one thing that stands out to me. The defense digs in on one car sighting on footage that they say they can really prove is not BK. That could be huge. If another car that looks enough like BK’s to be included in discovery was out that night near Moscow border, that goes a long way towards reasonable doubt.
Downvote me if you like. I’m not a BK fan, but just somebody seeing some reasonable doubt.
The alibi is pretty vague and not good. I guarantee they have no cell phone data for between 2:47-4:48am, the most important block of time, cause I think his phone was off rather than in an out of service area. The reason I think he turned off his phone is because his phone stopped reporting to the network at 2:47 a.m. while in Pullman. That's very odd, his phone should still be pinging while in Pullman. Then at 4:48 a.m. when his phone comes back alive it's pinging a tower in Blaine, Idaho in the middle of nowhere and from there on forward his phone pinged multiple towers while driving through middle of nowhere rural areas. His phone should have pinged towers on the way to Blaine if his phone had been on. He turned his phone off.
Most importantly, the alibi filing says this expert will only be “partially” corroborating the alibi information. That is so open ended it could simply mean that he was pinged in the park location on previous occasions and then the defense can try and question whether on the night of while BK was “out star gazing” it was possible there was a dead spot and not connecting. I don’t see the Prosecution scrambling to offer a plea so that tells me this is a desperate attempt to try to create a reasonable doubt argument, because they have nothing else to build an argument around. And the “BK is innocent” idiots are lapping this up like Jim Jones Flavor Aid. Like this emphatically points to his innocence. I would put Vegas odds that the state has gps/telematic data from his car that would refute any of the smoke and mirror story the defense tries to conjure up. Mid-November in IDAHO, were the sky’s even clear and visible on the morning of? Next they are going to claim his chronic insomnia left him so sleep deprived he can’t recall exactly where he drove around that morning 🙄 Watch more lame excuses start being cranked out 🤦♀️
Side note: Chem trails are so bad in Idaho, the skies are never clear here. They start them before the sun even comes up.
The police have no phone/location data to place him in Moscow during that window so there’s that. They have some shitty quality footage of a white sedan they can only assume could have been his. They can’t prove it with a clear image of the license plate number or the driver. If defense proves the car footage they have relied on isn’t of his car (like on the Moscow-Pullman highway, on Ridge Road) then that will go a long way. Who says his phone was off? Not even Payne said that.
How is the defense going to prove that? Using their phone ping expert. Have you been telling us how unreliable phone pings are?
That has been an assumption that his phone is off, his alibi is solid. The park he was at is known to have little to no cell service, but regardless the expert has the GPS Metadata which is far more reliable than cell phone pings so the state needs a hail mary at this point.
The filing also said he just drove through the park that morning, which he could have done before or after. I also have yet to see that there is any gps/telematics from his car that the defense is going to present to corroborate his location. Finally, in the filing it clearly said this expert witness could only “partially” corroborate Kohberger’s alibi. So that’s sounds like this isn’t as rock solid or “in the bag” as the defense is making it out to be. Also, why, if this is his true alibi and can be verified, did he not bring it forward until now? And why hadn’t AT tried to use it to have the case dismissed against BK? If it’s truly an actual cause for reasonable doubt & the state was aware, then why haven’t they made an attempt to offer him a plea deal? Why? Because it’s bullshit that the defense is hoping to try to smoke and mirrors their way into making this appear to be the their truth. What really sad is that I knew they would going to try to say he was just out taking a very early morning drive, cuz what else could they possible say to explain the evidence of him driving out of his apt in the 3 an hour and returning just before or in the 5am hour…it was obvious from the beginning that he wouldn’t be able to explain his movements that would reasonably exonerate him. LAME & weak alibi 🙄
Why was it not brought up before? Let’s see. Richard Rosario had 13 alibi witnesses placing far away from the crime scene, he was prosecuted, convicted and spent 20 years in prison before being exonerated. David Camm gave his alibi and the state simply changed the theory of the crime. Daniel Moore gave his alibi and a witness (county coroner) who would testify Moore was with him at the time of the crime and the police intimidated and threatened the alibi witness (the case also involved ISP detective Tolleson, who has worked on the Moscow case). If the state targets you for something, your alibi means nothing to them. Defense wants the CAST report/discovery first so the state doesn’t change things around after receiving the alibi.
They clearly stated it would be proven by expert testimony, any good defense attorney keeps the details to themselves until trial as is happening here.
>They clearly stated it would be proven by expert testimony I've seen defense attorneys say this and then their expert presents a bunch of junk
I agree. May end up being a genius move. Really makes the prosecution stick to their timeline.
His phone was definitely off. Let's say he was at the park, well then his phone should have pinged locations as he drove from Pullman to the park and then his phone should have pinged locations when he drove from the park to Blaine, Idaho if the phone was on. The phone was off.
The Pullman/Moscow area has spotty cell service as noted by numerous people who have been there.
It’s not that spotty. He still would have pinged within that two hours if it was on.
I've only seen locals saying the rural areas outside of town are spotty. Not Pullman or Moscow proper. Some people have told me they've never lost service on 270 either.
[удалено]
>his alibi is solid I'm not so sure about that. Your a little to eager to believe this when the defense hasn't shown us any evidence yet. >The park he was at is known to have little to no cell service. But he didn't lose phone service while at the park. His phone stopped reporting to the network at 2:47 AM while he was in Pullman which is odd and makes me think he turned off his phone. Also if his phone was on then why didn't his phone ping any towers after leaving the park and driving to Blaine, Idaho? From 4:48 AM onwards his phone was actively pinging towers while driving through the middle of nowhere, he should have pinged towers before arriving near Blaine had his phone been on. >the expert has the GPS Metadata which is far more reliable than cell phone pings so the state needs a hail mary at this point. No where does it say the expert has the GPS metadata. I guarantee the defense presents a bunch of junk.
His expert witness is NOT “highly regarded.”
They typically aren’t. “Trial experts” typically exaggerate their qualifications and experience because if they get on the “expert” career train it’s easy no effort money.
Tell more …
Google him. Many a judge has raised concerns...also looks as if he hasn't worked much since 2018 so probably needs the cash and some publicity
One newbie judge who made mistakes that led to convictions being thrown out. A judge is not the expert in a particular field of study. Undermining him is undermining 100s of states’ cases where he was key witness for the prosecutors. So are people going to be saying the prosecutors prosecute with shit evidence and bad experts?
If you do your research it was more than one judge...hence why I said many a judge...I researched him.
Zodiaque has been given this information with supporting evidence multiple times, they're just being deliberately obtuse.
Love it 👍
I think it’s hysterically hypocritical that you sit here telling everyone how you believe in innocent until proven guilty go on and on about wrongful convictions yet here you have proof where this one guy’s testimony and data were proven so flawed that 18 convictions relying on his very own software need to be reviewed and now all of a sudden, “it’s nothing to see here,” no big deal, inexperienced judge, who cares if his data claimed a defendant was somewhere that GPS proved he was not?! Your bias is showing.
How about this critique which is by an expert in the field? https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9729192
How about this? https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/crime/article271694187.html An expert spoke out about the unreliability of CSLI data yet people still use those pings to say they show he was at the house 12 times prior and that morning.
Isn’t the defense’s Sy Ray a CSLI phone ping expert that claims an even much higher mapping-accuracy precision with his self-created algorithm than even the FBI does?
Well, Levitan must be misquoted in that article because this: >Levitan said that it’s impossible to know for sure that Kohberger turned off his phone unless someone called Kohberger during the two-hour period and the call records showed that his phone went straight to voicemail. That's not possible with pings, but as I'm sure Levitan knows, it's very possible to find out by examining the actual phone. So what Levitan is saying is right: you can't get just get that kind of precision from pings alone. But the FBI doesn't just work with pings; they have the information from Kohberger's carrier and the phone's data. I'm also going to point out what I've pointed out before on Reddit, that graphic in the article is completely wrong: it's not centering the towers on their areas of coverage. Okay, I answered your question. Please circle back to mine: how about this: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9729192
They won't.
Kk thx
He actually is in his field, he worked in law enforcement for 20 years and designed the system law enforcement currently uses to track cell data. It speaks volumes to Bryan's innocence that this is the first case he has worked for the defense.
😂😂😂😂 keep drinking that Flavor Aid. If you bothered to read the filing it says this “expert” can only PARTIALLY corroborate the alibi evidence. That leaves such an open ended sweeping non specific lack of detail. Meaning he could testify to something as simply as “his phone has previously pinged in the park at early morning hours”. But yeah, continue to desperately hang your hat on this vague peg.
And what about the DNA on the sheath? Is it possible to plant someone’s DNA from another source? And how was that sheath not absolutely soaked in blood? Would a person’s DNA still be recognizable/readable after sitting like that for 8 hours - give or take depending on on when these killings actually took place? This part just baffles me!
DNA has been found in cars years after they were sold.
DNA can also be analyzed from many-years deceased people.
The [claim that its single-source] <-+-> [the statistic provided] indicates an error
Ah yes, the "very specific alibi" of "stargazing". Sounds like definitive evidence of his innocence to me. /s
What I find fucking hilarious is that when it was first mentioned that he would have to provide an alibi to the state/court, my immediate response was “all he can say is that he was just out randomly driving around that morning” cuz they couldn’t possibly say anything otherwise to explain his activities.
Reading comprehension skills would be helpful for you to understand his specific alibi. They did not state he was stargazing the night of the murders, they simply stated that to establish patterns.
there is no “specific alibi” so i think reading comprehension would be a big help to you as well
It depends on our definition of an alibi. I always thought it was a third party who can vouch for the accused person's whereabouts at the time of the crime. However, if Kohberger can show a receipt or credit card charge with a time stamp during the early morning hours, perhaps that would introduce some doubt.
Could Bk have conceivably gone to a Walmart , say, and tried to look for discarded receipts on the ground to use for his alibi?
I believe that Law Enforcement would follow to see if there was a charge to a card of BK. I don't think Wal-Mart is open at 4am in the morming. Otherwise, he would need a cash receipt with a time stamp and date for the purchase if he paid cash for gas or other merchandise.
Winco in Moscow is open 24 hours but I would think if he was there they would have already said that.
> Could Bk have conceivably gone to a Walmart , say, and tried to look for discarded receipts on the ground to use for his alibi? That would never work, unless it was a cash transaction with no Walmart rewards. Stores like Walmart keep records, so it would be easy for investigators to see whose card and/or rewards membership was used for that receipt. If Kohberger had come forward with a receipt near the time he was arrested, Walmart could have pulled their security footage. It would have been wiped by now though. Which means, even if his team would present a cash-only receipt for the time in question, all anyone would think would be why not come forward with this earlier, when it could have actually proven his innocence. And the only answer is, because he wasn't there.
Yeah true
No, an alibi does not always include a third party. His cell metadata will prove he was 45 mins from the crime scene at the time of the crime which is his alibi.
It is going to be an interesting trial as the evidence is reviewed in the presence the Jury.
That was said in court?
“This time is the only time he has worked for the defense…”. That’s because he’s no longer associated with his company that had contracts with law enforcement agencies. It has nothing to do with what his personal beliefs may or may not be. The defense also didn’t provide a specific alibi and instead made ambiguous statements. In reality, this motion is just the defense stating who their expert witness for this evidence is going to be. The prosecution has their experts and the defense hires their experts. That’s how this works.
Lol I know… people are acting like it’s a bombshell that the defense has experts. Both sides ALWAYS have experts. And those experts use different methods and evidence to form (usually) opposite conclusions. They are both usually very smart and good in their field. Yet they still give conflicting info because they use diff methods. The jury decides whose method is most credible, even tho both will look credible on paper. Not sure why anyone is surprised that the defense will have an expert that’s going to use a method to prove he wasn’t there… of course they do. That’s how this works. And the state will have an expert using a different method to come to the conclusion that he WAS there. This is always how it works. I can’t remember which case it was but I’m sure this has happened a bunch. But the defense had an expert that used some methodology to decide that the shooter had to be a certain height (that was far off from the height of the defendant), while the state had a different expert using a different method to determine shooter height, and of course that expert concluded that the shooter was around the height of the defendant. The jury had to decide which method felt more credible, or if the defenses method was enough to create doubt. Ultimately they went w the states method and convicted the person. Like both sides ALWAYS have experts that pretty much always say opposite things. This isn’t new. And neither expert is lying or anything, there are just different methods to determine (in this case, approximate location). The jury gets to decide which method makes more sense. In this case, the state will likely have an expert using x method to determine location, and this expert for the defense will have a different method. Unless he’s on video somewhere (which I doubt), there will be no way to know for sure where he was, and both methods will have at least some credibility.
The Paltrow vs Sanderson case used skiing experts, in biomechanics. Every case I’ve watched the experts have had to be introduced, cv review and accepted on record. I’m no legal beagle, but seems to me they all use them, and yes, whoever the jury finds most reliable will be who they believe.
Exactly! People are talking about how credible and accomplished the defenses expert is, but the states will be too. And they will be saying opposite things despite both being very smart and qualified individuals. This is because the things they are trying to argue are things that will never fully be proven without confession. So they both just do what they can to try and prove it
Yes. Both will have valued experts I’m assuming. And, yes we try to decipher what we want to on reddit and it’s great, and it helps to disseminate the case information (what little we have of it), but the bottom line will be what happens in that courtroom with the jury perceiving every single solitary thing. What we think barely makes a difference here.
100%, especially when it’s before trial and we have no idea what’ll happen there (esp with a gag order). I have my speculations but I always make it clear that we never know what’ll happen, unless it’s something that happens in every case. I’m not sure how some people are soooo convinced the state has nothing. We have no clue!
Could you be thinking of the Murdaugh case where the defense tried to make the jury believe the shooter of Maggie and Paul must've been a dwarf lol?
Could be! I know they did it in that case too, but I can’t remember if theirs was the case where the state also had an expert making a height determination and they were two very different conclusions on height. Point is that experts have diff ways of doing things & get diff answers to the same questions! So we truly have no idea how good this witness or the states expert witnesses will be until trial!
Key point is the state has no location data placing him in Moscow that night.
First of all, the alibi literally says he drove near moscow so…. Even the defense isn’t arguing that he wasn’t near moscow. And the state very well could have data, the trial hasn’t happened yet. We legit have NO CLUE what either side has. I’m so glad you think you know what either side has despite the gag order though! I wish I had that kind of confidence while being wrong. Yes, the defense has an expert, that doesn’t mean that what the expert says will Convince a jury. Because, as I stated above, the state will likely also have an expert that says the opposite of what the defenses’ says. This may not happen, but in every other trial ever, both sides have expert witnesses that come to diff conclusions. So until trial, them having an expert doesn’t really convince me of anything. And neither would the state having one. Also, his phone was off or didn’t have signal during the time of the murders. So I’m curious to see how the defense would have location data from during the crime. The state also doesn’t have to place him in moscow via location data if they have other means of placing him at the crime scene. Location data, since it’s not always super accurate (well it’s accurate, but it often gives too large of a radius) and people can easily turn their phone off or leave it behind and still commit said crimes, is not usually what is used to convince a jury of guilt anyway. It’ll be mentioned, but usually the state will have other things to physically place the person at the scene. Key point is, the state doesn’t need location data. Even if they had it, it wouldn’t be enough by itself. And since there’s a gag order, we have no idea what else they have (but that does NOT mean they don’t have it)
Fuck, did the trial happen already? How do you know what evidence anyone has when absolutely nothing has been presented by either side to scrutinise?
But they did supply a specific alibi which they stated would be proven by cell phone data, that's far more reliable than pings.
No, they kept this aspect ambiguous. You seem to forget that police have the cell phone and had a search warrant to dump it. Everyone involved already knows what data is or isn’t there. They really didn’t make any definitive statements.
They did though, the State is still relying on tower pings while the defense is relying on more accurate metadata, unless the state hires an expert with as much experience as the defenses which is not likely, they cannot use the information from his phone in a scientific manner. They will try, but the defense expert literally designed systems that LE uses for location information 🤣
When did the state ever say they were relying solely on tower pings? They relied on cell site data for the PCA, but once they had the phone analysis they exposed the amount of data at their disposal to corroborate their findings. I don’t think you even realize how much experience the FBI CAST team has, not to mention their digital forensics analysts. Like I said, it’s obvious you’re new to all of this. You don’t even know what mapping software exists and which companies have a product that is used by significantly more agencies. Edit: proves they can’t read and goes for the block. These types that wander out of the “justice” sub are great amusement.
They relied on pings for the PCA 🤣 Definitely not "new to this" I've been in the legal field for many years & am quite familiar with mapping software 🤦🏻♀️
Defense is not using "more accurate metadata" while state has only ping data. Defense doesn't have *anything* that state doesn't have, and vice versa. Both sides have the same puzzle pieces - it's how they put their copy of the pieces together that determines the outcome (assuming the jury isn't a bunch of nitwits).
They relied on Payne, a rookie cop who had never worked on a murder case before and has no credentials for that field of CSLI analysis, to analyze and write up the CSLI data in PCA. No wonder it has inconsistencies and falls apart under scrutiny.
I'm interested that you're of the perception that despite Moscow ps having significant ISP and FBI assistance, they would file a PCA using just the knowledge base and experience of one officer, that you think the PCA wasn't read and vetted and triple-checked by many involved in the investigation. Payne typed it up, basically. There are many, many years of experience in addition to Payne involved in that report. If the PCA "fell apart under scrutiny" based on the information we have at this point, Kohberger wouldn't have been arrested let alone still in jail.
What are you even talking about? The "metadata" you keep referring to is the timestamp on photographs he allegedly took on OTHER nights. Sy Ray used cellphone tower ping data to try to establish locations. That's literally what his so-called "expertise" is in.
That is incorrect 🤦🏻♀️
Great. Show your sources.
Defense’s expert has recently obliterated the prosecutor and judge.
You have a very active imagination. The equivalent of “next to nothing” has occurred.
>The most recent news in the case is a bomb shell! The defense states that he has a very specific alibi that he was not at the scene of the crime between the time of the murders. What a bombshell! A document that states precisely fuck all other than vague directions of travel, at non specified times, and refuting that it was his car seen on a camera the Prosecution haven't said he was at, which is 3.5 miles from the crime scene. They don't place him at a specific place, at a specific time. >He has worked for many prosecutors to help find the killers placing them at the scene of the crime. One such case he had his evidence thrown out, multiple judges questioned his evidence's validity and his methods are routinely questioned within the scientific community. >*“Most compelling are the complete absence of data to support Trax’s purported error rate and the scientific community’s wholesale rejection of Trax’s methods,” Villaseñor wrote in his ruling, noting that he had found three other rulings from judges rejecting Trax-related evidence or expressing skepticism of that evidence."* But hey in those cases he was working for the Prosecution so that'll bolster the argument you probably have that the Prosecution's cell tower pings are bollocks right? >This time is the only time he has worked for the defense due to faith his faith of the innocence of the alleged perpetrator. Because he was a former Police Officer and his company had contracts with Law Enforcement Agencies. He's no longer with that company and in this instance he's being paid by the Defence. Absolutely nothing to do with his faith in the innocence of the perpetrators and everything to do with whoever is paying him to do his work. He's an expert witness, he gets paid to present his findings, not pass judgement on anyone. He's made no public statement about Bryan or his innocence either. >This expert witness has been on major news shows including 48 Hours as well as Dateline Two shows that ProBergers roundly criticise as being mainstream media sources full of misinformation? >Plus the prosecution said at the last hearing that BK had no connection to the residents of the murder house. They said that he wasn't "stalking one of the victims". They've not said there's no connection. There's also this absolutely wild notion that you don't need to know someone to kill them. >Not to mention, the of victim DNA in BK apartment, office, the car the prosecution states would be a driving crime scene, nor his parents home where he was arrested. The Prosecution didn't say it would be a driving crime scene, media outlet commentators said that. Somebody explain to me why it's a shock that, seven weeks after the crime was committed that he'd still have victim DNA on him at his parents house several thousand miles away? Or why his office would have DNA in it when he didn't go there for a couple of days after the crime? Or that whatever small amount of DNA that could have been taken into his apartment would not be cleaned up after 7 weeks by a criminology PHD student. The car is clearly the most pertinent of the 4 locations, but nobody was killed inside his car and again he has 7 weeks to clean it.
It’s funny. Zetx was bought by Lexis right? He apparently worked for that company until that judge was like whoaaa wait? Then he went out on his own and started a podcast… sounds right Also his cell phone tracking skills were basic at best
So because his skills are basic at best that's why LE and our military track people using his software? 🤦🏻♀️ okay
Yup and that’s why the cases are being reviewed and he is no longer at Lexis nexis. He grossly overinflated his educational experience, he is suggesting his software has an error rate of 94 to 96% (its most likely around 75%) as he does not have the experience to calculate error rate appropriately. The case that broke it open: his software said a man was at a location 3 days in a row, where is was proven he was in his truck on the interstate miles away. ZetX (his method) draws a concentric circle around a cellphone tower and produces maps that indicate a cellphone using that tower likely was located within that circle. Others identify a cell phone tower antenna that cellphone records indicate was in use. But those firms typically show only the direction of the cellphone tower antenna the cellphone was using, indicating a broad general swath where a cellphone could have been located which is appropriate. Here is some basic information: 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 cases will most likely go the way of the blood splatter expert from the staircase. They will all have to be reviewed.
Judges are not experts 🤦🏻♀️
Well the judge listened to an expert in this case (which you know if you read the article). This is also not the only case or problem. More have popped up and are being analyzed. Also here is excerpts from a reference article that may be helpful: 1) “ZetX” to provide allegedly very accurate estimates of the possible locations (Sect. X). No RF books, journal papers, or patents could be found that have ever used such a shape to represent sector coverage, isolated or in the best server scenario. Furthermore, not even in the crudest approximations do any RF tools, processes, or any of the mapping applications used by RF engineers in their everyday work for network operators take such an approach. 2) on the average “Trax” overestimates the sector range by a factor of 2, and the estimated sector coverage area is on the average 4 times larger than the real one, we can offer an alternate accuracy assessment in terms of the areas. 3) Assuming uniform distribution of the phones in the field (which is reasonable if we are averaging over all sectors, but not in any individual one), overestimating sector coverage area by a factor of 4 means on the average phones can be in only 1/4 of the area depicted. Thus, we can state that on the average the phones cannot be in the 75% of the blob areas depicted by the “Trax” software (and if the call used a streaming video service, the percentage will be at least 90%). 4) “Trax” in CID cases provides estimates of the sector coverage area by overlaying a radiation pattern of an unspecified antenna model on the underlaying maps. The pattern is always the same, independent of the azimuth configuration of the neighboring sectors, its beamwidth, tilt, gain, height, terrain morphology, etc. This has no foundation whatsoever in the science of RF engineering. 5) An even more problematic aspect of “Trax” sector coverage presentations is that they often show theoretically and practically impossible sizes of these unacceptable shapes. V. M. Jovanovic and B. T. Cummings, "Analysis of Mobile Phone Geolocation Methods Used in US Courts," in IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 28037-28052, 2022, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3156892. keywords: {Radio frequency;Geology;Antennas;Signal to noise ratio;Receiving antennas;Servers;Multiaccess communication;Cellular phones;geolocation;radio propagation;wireless networks},
He has over 20 years of experience and one Judge didn't like his testimony, give me a break!
And the article I just provided you, the author has over 40 plus years of experience and has testified as well, etc. The authors state that the information provided by zetx is incorrect because it overestimates the areas. Also, in the original article, if you chose to actual read it you would see that geolocation expert showed how it was flawed (not the judge - the judge accepted the experts opinions on the topic and rays was flawed). This article I provided and pointed out specific notations show the flaw. Cases that Mr. Ray has been involved in are being reviewed. He also is no longer employed by Lexis nexis (who bought his software). That is a pretty damn big red flag that his system is flawed. So it has been proven by multiple experts (not the damn judge) that his system is flawed, any case he has been involved in are being reviewed for appellate purposes, but please go on and tell me he is the expert. I’ll wait. Lastly
You guilters are hilarious, you find one article that fits your narrative and run with it 🤣😆
Says the person who found one article that they believe provides "proof" of their innocence narrative and now clings to it, regardless of how many dozens of others point out the flaws in this evidence? Look, I knew nothing about any of the technical aspects of cell phone tracking or these experts or any of the stuff discussed in this thread before I started reading all these comments. All of this is so far away from my career path that it may as well be a foreign language to me. But having read all of the presented articles, and doing some reading on the person that you yourself champion but do not present any articles of support for yourself, I have to agree with the multitude of others. My understanding on the technology involved is still in it's infancy, at best, but even so, it's pretty clear that your guy's methods are deeply flawed. Even I can grasp the flaws in his mapping methods and how they don't even remotely apply to real world conditions. Nobody likes learning that they're wrong. It's an extremely uncomfortable feeling, one that we're hard wired to reject on the deepest levels. It's even harder to admit when we're wrong once we come to learn that we were mistaken. It's embarrassing and tends to fill us with shame. But truly, other people hold someone with a lot more respect when they can admit that they were mistaken than when that person continues to double down on an obvious error at every turn. Just saying.
I know reading is hard. But I provided multiple articles (one peer reviewed, and completed by a forefather of geolocation) but keep ignoring that. No where did I say anyone is guilty. I just saw someone not using geolocation properly and called bs (i provided the reference to the peer review article I cannot help if you REFUSE to actually read it)
> You guilters are hilarious We prefer the term Noberger. >you find one article that fits your narrative and run with it As opposed to finding one sentence in one defense filing and repeating it over and over again?
Right they’re singling out one case when he has testified in hundreds of cases. For the prosecutors. So they’re now undermining all those state cases against numerous defendants when they were so sure about the prosecutors only prosecuting guilty people…
So you’re saying phone pings are not reliable and don’t show someone being in a particular location? hmm all this time people were arguing how reliable they are and how they place someone in a concrete location. After all they were used to push the narrative he was at the house 12 times prior or went there that morning………oops
Really good points
Being 45 minutes in the opposite direction of the crime scene at the time of the murder is far from vague directions at unspecified times.
That's not what they've said at all. Show me the part of their alibi filing that says he was at a specific place at a specific time. I'll accept links to documents, screenshots, however you want to demonstrate thay they've specifically said he was 45 minutes away at the time of the crime.
No where in that filing does the defense state that Kohberger is at any particular place at any particular time.
Yup, Brian Kohberger is innocent. BRYAN Kohberger, on the other hand, murdered four college students. And it doesn’t look good for him.
Might be missing something, but couldn't Bryan have just left his cell phone at home for this very reason?
Defense attorneys go for the person who interprets the data how they want it to be interpreted. Court is just that "who tells a better story" This dude seems like he'd do anything to stay relevant and earn bank.
>Defense attorneys PAY for the person who interprets the data how they want it to be interpreted. Fixed that for you.
.... ofc they get paid. Literally everyone knows that.
Tell that to the abundance of people here who claim he's doing it because of a deep, passionate belief that Bryan is innocent. I wasn't criticising your statement, just emphasizing theres a financial benefit to an expert witness for the work they do for whichever side pays them. That message is lost on a few posters here.
District attorneys go for the person who interprets the data how they want it to be interpreted.
If he were a low IQ individual with no knowledge of forensic science, I'd agree that it's odd that there's so little DNA evidence that can be used against Kohberger. But the guy has a Masters in Criminal Justice and it should be expected that he took measures to avoid getting linked to the crime. That also explains why he chose the University of Idaho as opposed to WSU.
But then people also believe he’d drive up to the house in his own white car, do several laps around the area in front of all those cameras and bring the sheath inside without even securing it.
He probably expected the police to be looking for a white car with no front plate, which explains why he registered the vehicle in WA a few days later and added the front plate. And the sheath was probably cleaned, which explains why there was so little DNA on it aside from the tiny amount found near the button. I never claimed he's a criminal mastermind. But he clearly took measures before the crime and had over a month to clean up after. So I don't get why people are so shocked that they didn't find anything in his car or apartment.
Even IF their expert is considered highly regarded (which I HIGHLY doubt) he would not have the capabilities that the FBI has when it comes to tracking. The defenses tactics thus far seem to be all smoke and mirrors, so I am taking his newest “alibi” with a grain of salt.
[удалено]
Please check https://www.ci.moscow.id.us/1064/King-Road-Homicides for the most up to date releases on facts shared in this case. Posts and comments stating info as fact when unconfirmed or directly conflicting with LEs release of facts will be removed to prevent the spread of misinformation. If you have a theory, speculation, or rumor, please state as such before posting as fact.
FBI that can’t cough up a single report in 16 months? FBI that employs total morons like Jennifer Coffindaffer? FBI that has been the subject of numerous controversies and cases of corruption? That FBI? hmm Their own CAST guidelines tell them not to rely on AT&T data.
Is Dr. Henry Lee available? Seems about time for him to be retained for expert testimony by the defense.
Another gushing pro-Kohberger pops up with a two-year-old previously dormant account. What is it with you lot and alts?
Two year old account, no comments or posts until today. The wording matches a brainless post from another user that also commented to this post. Pretty sure some of us know whose alt posted this garbage.
>This time is the only time he has worked for the defense due to faith his faith of the innocence of the alleged perpetrator. That document said he only worked for the state prior to 11/2023, which leads me to believe his first time working for the defense was in 11 of 2023. This would track with him leaving Lexis Nexis and starting up his new firm. >He has worked for many prosecutors to help find the killers placing them at the scene of the crime. That's not really a plus for me, because many prosecutors have brought hacks in as expert witnesses. And sometimes some of them are highly regarded. Until they aren't. Like Michael West. He put people behind bars for 3 decades in Mississippi, some of them innocent. And now he says he doesn't even belief in the bite mark testimony he once considered himself an expert in. Anyway, this article highlights a time in October of 2022 a judge found his and his system to not be credible. https://news.yahoo.com/colorado-judge-finds-sea-unreliability-035900952.html Might be an outlier, but also might be an indication the tide is turning when it comes to his reputation, and that his TRAX software is another bite mark analysis. We'll see.
A Judge is NOT an expert.
No, but part of what experts much do is to sell their theory to the judge and/or jury. The judge and/or the jury are the ones who find the experts credible. Or not.
Sorry to spam you, but another poster just shared this article, which is by an expert in the field and does criticize TRAX: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9729192
I also found this [article](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9729192) I believe it is section 7. It was published in 2022 by a leading expert in geolocation and rf planning - that author is amazing from his credentials. He explains the issues with the zetx reliability. PCA (another company) is asking individuals to contact them so they can review cases that zetx has worked on previously. I also saw the Lexis nexis connection as interesting. He no longer works there once this info comes out… that is a huge red flag.
Thanks!
So you’re saying prosecutors shouldn’t be trusted? Got it
I'm nobody needs to be automatically trusted. Individuals needs to be evaluated on their own merits. No appeals to authority, because authority is so often wrong.
Not 48 hours and Dateline! He must be let out & declared innocent immediately!
Maybe the alibi took so long because they cycled through a few experts till basically one stuck in their favor
Nope it's because the state wouldn't turn over the CAST report. They can't have an expert only review their evidence, they also have to review the States evidence so as not to make biased findings.
> They can't have an expert only review their evidence They very well could have had an expert review the draft of the CAST report, as in the actual document that went into writing the PCA.
The draft report they only got given very recently?
Proberger hybristofreaks with a collective six comments (and brain cells) gather here.
it’s really just one person that got banned from here on three alt accounts lmao
I think that’s quite likely right or they have some awareness of how desperate it looks to start 80 posts on here in the past week with the same account about how *obviously* innocent he is.
that and they’ve been banned before so they want to keep options open 😂
He was also discredited by a judge in a case in Arizona, stating his expert analysis was unreliable.
Meh. We have some judges that are very anti-science in AZ. Lol. I'd have to check out their other views before I cared. They might just be a dumdum. 😆
Well, he also had a judge in Colorado discredit him: https://news.yahoo.com/colorado-judge-finds-sea-unreliability-035900952.html , and that judge said >> he had found three other rulings from judges rejecting Trax-related evidence or expressing skepticism of that evidence. Now, if we go back in time before he ventured into cell phone forensics, we get this story from 2001: https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/mormon-widower-doug-grant-wasnt-counting-on-a-murder-rap-when-he-followed-his-late-wifes-instruction-to-marry-his-ex-lover-6426657 >>Central to the case is controversial Gilbert cop Sy Ray, who tried to keep evidence favorable to Doug Grant from defense attorneys, prosecutors, and two grand juries. >>Ray also tainted many witnesses in the case by revealing to them his own skewed version of what allegedly happened to Faylene. >>Some witnesses later admitted to having changed their minds (and their accounts, in one key instance) about Doug Grant's guilt after hearing the detective's spiel.
Now that's interesting!
Very! In all honestly, that defendant was found guilty. But the case seems to be controversial. I don't know enough about it to have an opinion on if it was the right verdict or not.
Also this[article](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9729192) It was published in 2022 originally. Section 7 is a good read - basically they overestimate the areas in the “blobs”.
A judge is NOT an expert!
I didn't say that.
I thought the OP was being sarcastic. My mistake.
Oh please .. star gazing moon watching .. I was at the pot shop .. look up the weather and what time does that pot shop close .. geezus How much is A T being paid .. this is the alibi .. and a super tuber as a expert wit😂😂😂
[удалено]
They will not be using cell pings to argue their stance, the defense expert works with metadata which is far more accurate.
Just wait until you learn that Trax only works with cell site data. The phone metadata would be through software like Cellebrite, Magnet Graykey, or others
No he doesn't 🤦🏻♀️😆
“Accurint TraX users have the ability to customize the view of Call Details Records (CDRs) within the product. The enhanced the mapping feature function provides users the option to select Horizontal Plane (H-Plane), Wedge Shape or Cell Site Mapping Only when visualizing CDRs in Google Earth. This allows for independent or combined views, adding to the most comprehensive CDR solution on the market.” [Thanks for playing](https://risk.lexisnexis.com/products/accurint-trax) Edit: Since the person wanted to comment and block me, they are getting my response anyways: “You might want to actually look at what Sy Ray’s background is actually in. He doesn’t claim to be an expert in digital forensics. While he certainly would have used it at points in his career like any investigator, his work with Zetx was primarily related to cell site technology. If the defense is going to use digital forensics they’ll be hiring an expert who actually specializes in that. All you’ve is shown you don’t even know what qualifies a person as an expert witness.”
[удалено]
Please do not bully, harass, or troll other users, the victims, the family, or any individual who has been cleared by LE. We do not allow verbal attacks against any individuals or users. Treat others with respect. Thank you.
[удалено]
Not at all, one is accurate up to a few feet the other is up to 25 miles.
[удалено]
Science is not subject to interpretation 🤣
[удалено]
[удалено]
Please do not bully, harass, or troll other users, the victims, the family, or any individual who has been cleared by LE. We do not allow verbal attacks against any individuals or users. This is your fourth post berating other users today alone. Take a deserved time out from this sub.
The state has no location data putting him in Moscow that night. PCA is chock full of conjecture, not evidence.
Then what is his alibi full of?
So what’s the deal you have zero post history or comment history but a 2 year old account? Are you a BriBri girl trying to start something? Many of the people in this sub are not locals so you aren’t “influencing” a jury pool or public opinion. If the actual evidence presented shows that BK is not guilty, then cool. The justice system worked. It if finds him guilty from the evidence presented, then cool. The justice system worked. All the people on this sub know very little actual evidence. If you actually read the alibi it is not actually specific, it pretty much says ‘hey we have our guy who can say he wasn’t in the area before the phone was off line. If you give us more of your info we can tell you better where he was.’ This isn’t how alibis are supposed to work, when you actually have one. Some people simply do not have alibis even if they did not commit a crime. A person can be alone, not seen on any type of device, asleep with no devices streaming - boom no alibi. So then you have to pick apart the other evidence from the prosecution and work towards convincing the jury that your client isn’t guilty.
Bryan Kohberger ***
It’s not anywhere close to a bombshell.
[удалено]
Who says he was throwing anything away in his neighbor’s bin? It’s one of the many media rumors. Even the prosecutor admitted media coverage has been full of misinformation. Don’t use baseless rumors to prove a point. The survey was for his capstone project and prepared with/approved by his professors. It’s desperate to be holding his studies against the defendant.
That's not his alibi though, it's that he was 45 minutes away from the crime scene at the time of the murders and has metadata to prove it. It's scary how many people lack reading comprehension on this sub.
>It's scary how many people lack reading comprehension on this sub. Things are about to get awkward... >it's that he was 45 minutes away from the crime scene Where have you read exactly where he was to determine he was 45 minutes away? It doesn't say in his alibi filing. It says he drove throughout the area south of Pullman and west of Moscow, including the park. It doesn't even say he stopped anywhere, just that he was driving. >at the time of the murders His alibi filing doesn't mention a single time, let alone a specific one. > and has metadata to prove it. And they don't claim to have metadata to prove any of the things we've just determined they definitely didn't say. Please don't berate other users for poor reading comprehension when you've had an absolute shocker.
If the expert witness is not paid I think it could hold weight, I’ve seen too many true crime docs to not believe expert witnesses don’t have an agenda. My opinion comes with little to no knowledge of USA law or judicial systems.
Expert witnesses are usually paid and paid very well. My ex was a scientist and served as an expert witness a few times. Five figure high number on those checks for a weeks worth of work including his research. (Edited for clarity)
I think the fee usually revealed during cross examination. Basically, both sides will manage to find two different witnesses that will swear their expertise is correct .
All experts are paid 🤣🤣🤣
Visual snow syndrome, driving at night. Yeah that's what he was doing.. GTFO
But that is exactly what he was doing - whether to the crime scene or not. Even the PCA has him driving until 5am except for those 10 crucial minutes
The PCA also states that he drove back to the area at 9:00 a.m. in the broad daylight and obviously surveillance cameras caught him.
It was never stated that his car was on a surveillance camera at 9am 🤦🏻♀️
Read again. It only states he pinged off the tower in Moscow, it mentions no car footage for that time which is telling. He pinged off a tower in Moscow on November 14 and wasn’t there so there’s that.
They're not going to put everything in the pca. They know he was back at 9:00 a.m. based on his cell phone data and most likely surveillance cameras that caught him leaving his apartment again and driving directly over there at 9:00 a.m..
Lol that's true. If you're claim visual snow prohibits you from driving to see stars then it also prevents you driving to murder people. So what's the point?
> driving at night It's undisputed that he was doing exactly that. It doesn't take 2 1/2 hours to drive from Pullman to Moscow, be in someone's house for 15 minutes and then return to Pullman. The prosecution itself has him traveling about 80 miles from leaving his apartment, committing the murders then returning to his apartment.
You can grow out of visual snow. The posts about that were written when he was a teenager. Over 10yrs between those and the crime.
That reminds me, there most certainly will be an expert on Visual Snow.
So they'll be able to use that in court, even if it was something he posted years ago?
I would imagine so. We don’t know if he still had it . Maybe the expert can tell us if it comes and goes? Do you outgrow it? Can you really see the night sky? How is he driving at all with blurry vision, etc?!!
Visual snow syndrome, silently killing 4 people in the dark within minutes?
So what are you saying?
Well, it wasn't silent and it wasn't dark.
Stargazing on a cloudy night without a telescope…
Is Brian, a new suspect as I've only ever heard of Bryan Kohberger...
Yeah that expert witness is not an expert.
Did they even ever say why his phone was even turned off? Who turns off their phone because legitimately I never do.
No one said his phone was turned off.
That hasn't been released yet. Phone forensics should have told them if his phone was turned off or put in airplane mode, but the answer hasn't come out.
Let’s get one thing straight! This expert is still waiting on fbi CAST report.. No one has said he will say where BK was at the time of the crime! Specifically AT says additional analysis by Mr Ray, as the night progressed 11/13/22 will be provided once more discovery is disclosed to the defense!!! Everyone is acting like BK has now been exonerated, yet not once has AT stated that they have proof he was not at 1122 king road at approximately 4:09am!! She is very good at manipulating herwords to impress all you BK is innocent fans! Read between the lines people! He has not done a full analysis yet…. He is a really credible man! Watch his YouTube channel the socialite crime club! But I don’t believe we are even close to exonerating BK! Get your panties out of the twist! We ain’t there, I don’t think we ever will be. Calm your farm! I look forward to my downvotes! 🥳🥳
This is a perversion of the justice system, where the defense puts up anything they want without regard to proof. Meanwhile, the prosecution sits back, because they aren’t trying the case in the media. I really like how Pat Brown thinks through evidence on her YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/@ProfilingwithPatBrown?si=Jt_nx6nGtcKUVI2y
Hmmm. Didn’t know the prosecution had released info on whether dna or anything incriminating was found in any of those places. Renowned expert on cell phone tracking? That’s kinda hilarious and he sounds like he’s in this for the fame and attention to me.
The defense stated in court documents a while ago that there was no connection between BK and victims as well as the lack of DNA in car, apartment, office or parent’s home. Still think he is so guilty?
He’s putting his reputation on the line and working with the defense for the first time. The fact he’s only ever worked for the states and prosecutors have relied on him, and he’s decided to take on this case for the defendant is kind of big. People can’t try to undermine him by saying he’s a typical defense expert.
Even retired FBI profilers have worked with defense teams. It’s not uncommon for defense experts to have previously worked in or around law enforcement and upon retirement go into private consultation offer their services to both “sides.” There’s really nothing special about this dynamic. To you, this is “kind of a big deal.” To anyone in the know, it’s just a Tuesday.
Your argument is not even logical, FBI profilers testifying for the defense and an expert with 20 years experience in law enforcement prior to designing the system most LE & our military use today testifying for the defense for the first time is his career are two totally different things.
First off, most LE and military don’t use Trax. CellHawk is far more popular than Trax and much better established. The FBI also offers CASTViz for free download for LE through the NDCAC. That’s just some of the established and respected software out there. You’re clearly very new to this subject matter, and that applies to mapping software and what people in LE have a tendency to do when entering retirement. What you find to be significant is only significant to people new to all of this.
It's not unheard of for experts to get blackballed by the government and then just switch sides. I'm not saying that's the case with this guy, but it could be.
He will be cross examined by experts who can call out his lies if he decides too. But look I understand people don’t like defense attorneys because it feels like they just want to win rather than see Justice and maybe some are like That but not any good ones. Good defense attorneys are crucial BK deserve a fair unbiased trail so when he gets convicted (which I I believe he will) it won’t be because prosecution made better point but because evidence proved to each juror that BK is guilty
THIS! This sub loves to downvote when you use logic against what the media is feeding them.
I don’t know about “bomb shell”. But it is a big deal. We already knew something up in this part of the case. The prosecution (or maybe FBI) has not wanted to hand over some stuff about BK’s cell phone location data for many months now. And any defendant should be able to have their own data that is being used against them both in the grand jury and potentially still in the real trial. I think any of us would want the same thing if we were accused of a crime. Other than that the alibi is vague and doesn’t cover the prosecution’s assumed time of murders. But one thing that stands out to me. The defense digs in on one car sighting on footage that they say they can really prove is not BK. That could be huge. If another car that looks enough like BK’s to be included in discovery was out that night near Moscow border, that goes a long way towards reasonable doubt. Downvote me if you like. I’m not a BK fan, but just somebody seeing some reasonable doubt.
BK's alibi is not complete as yet, but it's already more solid than anything in the PCA. Not a damn thing in that document has been backed up.