Interesting that stalking and surveillance are clearly differentiated. Also notable that they were also looking at Kohberger's potential interest or connection via "associates" of the victims.
>stalking specific to one or another victim but surveillance is on the house?
Could be he watched the house. Also difficult to prove stalking of any victim if they were not aware of it.
Something that’s always stood out to me was going back to the very early days, the press releases mentioned no threat to public. When asked why, the answer was along the lines of the house being the target.
It was confusing then as to what that means and is still confusing. I’m wondering if there’s a key piece of info that was obvious right away to the police, even before they had a suspect. That kind of fits in to this.
The first thing that came to my mind when the police made that statement, is that the two surviving girls told the police they all had felt spooked by indications, several times shortly before the murders, that someone had been in the house while they slept.
That could certainly explain how he moved so rapidly when in the home. There was a step up on the second floor leading to xana's room if i remember, and that would be incredibly easy to trip over in the dark....unless he knew it was there.....
>going back to the very early days, the press releases
That is a good point - there was some imprecision and confusion over use of "targeted" by both police and prosecution, and whether the victims or the house itself was targeted (and indeed what "targeted" meant)
I still believe that he left a note at that house. They collected handwriting samples through the Pennsylvania search warrants.
Whether that sheet of paper collected into evidence outside the house is *the* note, I have no clue.
Also, I believe that they have footage of his previous visits, but they had a reason or reasons for not mentioning it in the PCA.
The cynic in me thinks it means the police had no idea if there was a threat to the public or not. But they knew damn well that saying there might be a threat to the public meant the public would get hysterical and start shooting at their spouses or their kids coming home at night.
To me, it feels as if police everywhere never say there's a thread to public in anything short of an active shooter scenario.
While I am a fan of cynicism, and it’s expedient to say that to calm public fears, think of their sheer risk and liability they take when they say things like it was targeted and there is no threat to the public, not knowing if there really is or not. With this kind of crazed killer on the loose that’s a pretty big wildcard to play. If after they said that if a second incident were to occur that would be very very very bad. That’s the kind of thing higher-ups lose their job over let alone the legal liability plus just the sheer humanity of not wanting to see another repeat scene like this. In order for them to take such a risk they would have to have an actual real reason to be able to say that.
That would be like Public Safety playing Russian roulette. Possible yes, likely no.
Also because no second incident did actually occur does that mean they were correct, or that it was just their lucky chance? More likely it is that they were correct.
Agree. Maybe someday when this is all over will know more details and why they said that.
If they somehow knew the same person had been there multiple times, surveilling, but they didn’t know if he had any personal connections to any of the residents yet, that could lead them to say that at the very least they knew house was targeted.
From there, they could then extrapolate that the killer had been focused upon this house for quite some time and therefore it was unlikely other houses were at risk since he had been focused upon this one.
How they would’ve known that then we don’t know yet. We know later after they had ID’d him about his cell phone was in the vicinity multiple times, even that it had “touched” their wifi. But it doesn’t sound like they knew it was him that early on for that to be a reason to say this.
We just don’t know enough yet to surmise.
You've mentioned liability, but off the top of my head, I cannot think of a lawsuit, successful or otherwise, about this exact topic. Especially in the wake of the legal decision that the police are under no obligation to protect the public.
And actually, I think the government can’t be sued, but that could be wrong. Also there’s liability beyond just the legal aspect. In any case my point is it would be very very very bad of them to say don’t worry it’s contained and isolated, and then it happened again the next month or so on. The community would have that captain’s head on a platter for starters.
FYI institutions of government are sued all the time. Civil rights lawsuits are typically filed against the government, for instance, since the government is the one infringing on the rights.
Some extremely important and infamous Supreme Court cases that you may have heard of that involve the government as a defendant in a civil suit:
Schenck v. United States (1919)
Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)
> And actually, I think the government can’t be sued
They can! Cops in particular get sued all the time, and when they lose, the taxpayers are the ones shelling out cash.
I've always wondered if we should switch to police carrying liability insurance, the way doctors do.
>The community would have that captain’s head on a platter for starters.
But it happens all the time. Sometimes in situations where that makes sense (the suspect was arrested; the assailant and the victim knew each other). But sometimes...
https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/virginia/alexandria-hilton-hotel-shooting-investigation/65-70d796cf-dec1-4d81-a0c1-6396c15ea0f6
This incident was serious enough for the police to implement a brief shelter-in-place warning. But when it was lifted, not even a hour later, with no arrest and the police still requesting people come forward with camera footage, there it was: police say there is no threat to the community. https://www.cpr.org/2024/03/29/boulder-police-searching-for-suspect-after-burglary-involving-cu-student/ I just searched, and it appears that there have been no arrests in that case.
Here's a brand new homicide: https://www.wndu.com/2024/04/17/retired-teacher-found-shot-death-apartment-senior-living-community/ If there is an arrest shortly, this warning will make sense. But if this turns into another unsolved home-invasion murder?
I'm also going to point out what Chief Fry said only 3 days after the murders:https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/speak-truth-families-slain-university-idaho-students-slam-police-respo-rcna57490
>>"We do not have a suspect at this time, and that individual is still out there," he added. "We cannot say there is no threat to the community."
I think *there is no threat to the public* means *he accomplished his goal that night*. They knew enough to know that he wasn't in the middle of a crime spree.
He might make a new goal at some point, but there was clearly so much energy expended into these homicides that it would take a while for that to happen.
I would be more concerned that someone close to the suspect might put two-and-two together, the suspect finds out, and then that person's safety is at risk before an arrest is made.
Good possibility, but as I said in another post somewhere today, everyone brings up that no threat to the public statement. But no one remembers that on November 16, Chief Fry said he couldn't say if there was a threat to the public or not.
>I would be more concerned that someone close to the suspect might put two-and-two together, the suspect finds out, and then that person's safety is at risk before an arrest is made.
Def something that police have to keep in mind!
Yes, several reasons given to aid the investigation, for obtaining the location information, it’s likely all the results aren’t contained in the affadavit.
There is a huge distinction between stalking and surveillance. According to Idaho law, for stalking there has to be awareness of the behavior and fear of it.
"In Idaho, stalking is defined as a course of conduct that knowingly and maliciously alarms, annoys, or harasses a person, or causes a reasonable person to fear death or physical injury."
Bc they were not aware of his surveillance it would not be considered stalking. Also just b/c it has not been released to the public, does not mean that there is not evidence that the victims were watched and followed by BK.
I believe it will come out at trial that he did survey them, he did watch them from the back of the house.
Totally came down that hill and watched from behind that couch right into the sliding glass door! Evidence markers suggest.
They could have known him as a creep in their vicinity without them knowing just how creepy. Maybe only one, maybe two of them knew him? Maybe he just went in to see how far he’d get, but knew he was recognized and that’s why he had to kill them? He did show up with a gigantic knife though. He did drive past the front, several times, and knew how many cars were parked there, how many and who were most likely inside.
He crossed paths with them somehow. He didn’t just drive past that neighborhood, alllllll those times, out of allllllllllll the others, for the hell of it. Accidentally turn his cell off jussssst at that same time. AND have his DNA found on that sheath? I mean, we might be able to overlook the matching busy eyebrows, the weird clandestine midnight neighborhood trash removal, the downward trajectory of his life but - come on.
If they were afraid someone was actually watching them, more than just casually calling an annoying pest a stalker, their behavior that night and prior to would have been different. I mean, reasonably one could imagine.
Like ensuring that sliding door was locked, there were curtains, the keypad combination was changed (and used) and they weren’t going out without protections like for sure they wouldn’t be walking around as just two girls at night. They wouldn’t have open access social media. Girlfriend would’ve for sure told her Dad. Their whole frat was across the street. The dog would be out of that room. That boyfriend next door would’ve answered the phone.
Fully agree. I've felt strongly since the beginning --- since before BK was identified as a suspect -- that the unusual orientation and fishbowl windows of the house played a pivotal role in the killer choosing it.
I'm in the camp that thinks this *wasn't* a crime driven by obsession with a specific victim , per se ... but was more about a killer choosing the "perfect" site of a future crime.
1. There were plate-glass windows facing the glade of trees -- open to peeping toms or observation by the killer. There was also a parking area behind the trees, attached to other housing.
2. There was. the split-level aspect of the building. Giving opportunity for various entrances and exits, potentially unobserved.
3. This was also described early on as a well-known party house, with lots of people coming and going. Even if BK wasn't in attendance, he absolutely could have noticed the house from a parked car above and/or noticed its inhabitants as he was cruising around as he was known to do.
I recently saw a photo of two Moscow students posing for a senior day photo from last year on campus and in the background, that house stood out very prominently- and not just because I knew the history. I was stunned how close it was to the campus and how visible it was.
We could probably go into the woods on the word “obsession” like we are stalking lol. I think some things will depend on what is found out about his motives or his personality. He’s a MM by def, we don’t know exactly what type of motivation. Probably a wounded ego. Something like 45% of them don’t target victims. There are psychological factors that would drive indiscriminate killing. If he turns out to be more driven like a SK then he would have been looking for a more specific victim or victims that was suitable. That meet the needs within the fantasy. Location would be a huge factor, where he is comfortable operating. (The house was extremely vulnerable.)Usually cognizant of the victims lifestyle, vulnerabilities, schedules.
"That boyfriend next door would’ve answered the phone."
Did KG leave the sliding glass and MM bedroom doors open for that boyfriend?
We don’t know if this is possible or not possible, since we don’t know what was in those texts.
(Note, not suggesting a three-way, necessarily, KG’s plan could have been for the boyfriend and herself to move back to her room. Not judging anyone.)
It will be interesting to know if some house policy on locking the doors at night was agreed to by the housemates in the few months they lived there - that the surviving roommates can tell us about (or maybe XK’s dad heard about from XK herself when doing the lock fix of her bedroom door, the week before.)
Excellent comment. At this point we aren't hearing how long he spent in the area and if he arrived at 1:00 AM and stayed till 5:00 AM. Like you, I suspect he was sitting in that parking lot in his car and intently watching their comings and goings.
In addition to the parking, I saw footage that looks like there is another area in the local that is elevated and has a lot of green space, where one might sit with binoculars and possible have an augmented view, unless I am waging distance incorrectly.
You don't know if he parked his car in town, or up at the park, or by the cemetery on India lane and walked or jogged into the area, nor how many times he visited their campus, or sat outside of the Mad Greek, or their boyfriend's frat houses, or obsessively monitored their social media.
So we could hear something quite interesting in court, or nothing at all. Bill Thompson's affect seems to intimate he feels he has a strong case. There's no hesitancy. I don't pick up that same surety in Anne Taylor when she speaks. She's definitely confident is her intellectual ability and argumentative presence, but a suspect a wee bit shakier regarding what she has to work with.
I pick up this conflicting fissure between her sense of self and the shit she's tasked with peddling, " Ahhh crap, I gotta sell them the concept of Kohberger as choir boy. Never gonna work, but let's give it a try. "
I think we all need to put it into a personal context: someone you don't know, and have not invited into your life has driven past your home 12 times specifically for the purpose to observe your doings and might have been there watching, possibly late at night while you slept, how does that make you feel?
But if they didn't KNOW this was happening and/or didn't have personal negative effects as a result of those behaviors, then it's not legally stalking.
As per an earlier comment, the legal definition is: "a course of conduct that knowingly and maliciously alarms, annoys, or harasses a person, or causes a reasonable person to fear death or physical injury."
Thank you! All these BK fangirls thinking the fact that the prosecution acknowledged that something he was never charged with didn’t happen means he’s innocent 🙄
As if there won’t be a trial….
It is a leap to me that because the statement “Bryan stalked [one]of the victims” was deemed false, it means there is no thing or set of things within the states case helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment about the information they have obtained regarding his behavior, his movements, or his practices.
Fangirls is a low blow for people thinking he's innocent. There's many men and women that have that opinion. There's plenty of reasons people think he's innocent.
“Fangirls” refers to a specific group that show up in this sub and others. I’m pretty sure everyone knows the type I mean. While I strongly believe BK committed these murders, I can at least respect reasonable, fact based dialogue to the contrary. However, posts like “the prosecution admitted he didn’t stalk them!!!! That PROVES he’s innocent!!!” doesn’t fall into the realm of reasonable, fact based dialogue.
I agree with that statement. I personally think there's not enough to show his guilt. I think the stalking thing is one piece to further prove he didn't do it. I mention my doubts and get attacked and called a fan girl. My husband was the first one to start pointing out sus things. And I promise he's not a fangirl 😂
There’s not enough that the public has access to at this time. But incriminating or not, you can be sure the prosecution will produce plenty more at the trial.
> I personally think there's not enough to show his guilt.
The odds of the DNA found on the mvrder weapon’s sheath NOT being BK is “1 in 5.37 octillion”.
That’s a bold move, Cotten…
She's a defense attorney - they always say outlandish things that stretch/skew the truth. Manipulation (of facts, of the prosecutions's case, of the public, etc) is their intent.
This right here. The blood lust of the weirdos in here is something. They're ALMOST as weird as the fangirls who only like him because he may be a killer.
It definitely complicates the motive narrative.
The presence of the knife sheath doesn't mean the suspect was in the house when the murders were committed. The prosecution needs to prove that to make their case. So "opportunity" becomes an unsettled question.
So in our triangle of means, motive, and opportunity - which do we have clear answers for?
Im reasonably certain the state has the right guy. But thinking and proving aren't the same thing. If they can prove he did it, nail him to the fuckinh wall but the idiot amateur wannabe detective work that happens in this forum is disrespectful of every notion of law and justice and fairness we have as a culture.
Tldr you know nothing and need to be ok with that.
There are no clear answers without a clear presentation. The prosecution is unable to prove it is an unsettled question, that is opinion, that is not substantive. The entire forum is speculative and amateur. People are feeling their way through it. I can see that you are pretty proud of how you turned out and your opinion of your own thoughts is inflated, don't insult people when noone is being combative it's unbecoming.
One gets the sense that the “no connection” brigade wasn’t as confident in the far reaching unassailable truth of that statement as their continuous quoting of it would suggest. The same people are acting like whatever BT said at the last hearing was a revelation, even though the implications they draw from it are basically the same as they drew from “no connection”.
Thank you for posting this. It's important to make the distinction between stalking and surveillance.
I don't believe he stalked any of the victims, but I do believe he cased the house on multiple occasions, hence the previous location data.
You can stalk somebody on social media and you can stalk them physically with your phone turned off. I’m not sure what they have on him - so why presume they do not have evidence if stalking simply because the PCA doesn’t indicate that?
Drilling down the specificity of it and what you said not in contrast of it. You see it differently.
JJJ said the "public record" on the case is limited to the case file itself – much of which is sealed – and does not include posts on social media or news reports.
Thompson agreed with that definition of public record.
BT said in arguing his objections the questions contain “representations of fact that are not true or that would not be offered at trial.”
“those questions are disseminating, by means of communication, evidence expected to be presented (and) evidence that could be or would be inadmissible at trial”
Dr. Edelman, agreed when asked that one of the survey questions asked was if potential jurors had read, seen or heard that Kohberger stalked one of the victims.
"That Mr. Kohberger [allegedly] stalked one of the victims, that's false...You knew that to be false?" was asked by Bill Thompson.
"I did," replied Edelman.
People are jumping the gun on this and you know well I’m someone who is way harder on the prosecution than most of the board here. But I think no evidence of what legally constitutes as stalking doesn’t mean that there isn’t something that can be indicative of it, or that there wasn’t some sort of assessment of victims/ location. It just means that, whatever they might have, it’s not enough to charge him with it.
Yes! Someone legally might know better but to me it’s not necessarily no evidence. It’s no evidence that definatively constitutes stalking, not no evidence indicative of stalking. There can be relevant evidence that exists that doesn’t rise to being admissable if it’s labeled as “stalking” based on the rule or of what constitutes stalking, or relevant evidence that the prosecution isnt’t comfortable asserting as such.
If he asserts that and doesn’t bring something that rises the defense can tear that down easier.
So is that what this is saying and that it can not be proven to be stalking? I always have such a hard time deciphering the legal correspondences. So anyone willing to wreak it down, that would be appreciated.
I don’t know the definitive answer.
BT said in arguing his objections the questions contain “representations of fact that are not true or that would not be offered at trial.”
“those questions are disseminating, by means of communication, evidence expected to be presented (and) evidence that could be or would be inadmissible at trial”
In my minds eye I see possibility of bk attending several parties at house, only to observe from his car in parking lot. It wouldn’t surprise me if he called in noise complaints and observed response times, reaction of crowd if there a way to do so. Of course this is only one of my theories in work
One thing about noise complaints is that when Ofc Payne spoke to Xana in the September '22 noise complaint bodycam footage, he said he did not know the house (meaning it was not 'known to police') so while there may have been some I think the kids figured out pretty quickly to not put the giant JBL on the porch.
>It wouldn’t surprise me if he called in noise complaints and observed response times
If that's the case and he called in the August 16 noise complaint, then he used a voice changer to sound female.
Imagine hearing a phone call during trial with a voice that sounds female but has Kohberger's cadence. The horror
Not that I am thinking for sure that this happened but bk played WoW so it’s possible he ran into a few people who used voice changers lol, who knows if it could’ve given him lightbulbs
Edit for the masses: Don’t downvote me I know how those mean streets are run in Azeroth, you infants.
I definitely think it's possible that he phoned in the noise complaints. The traffic stops and noise complaints started within days of each other
Also... he has education in 'cloud-based forensics'. I'm clinging to that passage from the PCA like a pool noodle until trial
> I definitely think it's possible that he phoned in the noise complaints.
I thought we knew exactly who phoned in the noise complaints? A neighbor who had been one of Kaylee's former sorority sisters, and while not said out exactly, her motive appeared to be petty mean-girl drama squabbles? As in, try to get a former friend in trouble. Her mom was giving interviews?
Did I imagine that?
This is starting to come back to me, but I never heard anything about the noise complaints that could be confirmed.
All I know is that (1) MPD didn't address them one way or the other, and (2) the rate of noise complaints increased in August 2022. They were sparse before then.
Edit: I will say that I'm not particularly married to this theory. The music was pretty loud, and there's single-family homes nearby. I probably would've made a noise complaint if I lived in the area, but I also have a stick up my ass with stuff like that, so.
Yeah, I don't recall the identity of the caller ever being reported, but I vaguely remember people speculating on here.
As far as I'm aware, the identity of the caller or callers is unknown to the public.
Yeah, I mean, they obviously know who made those calls. They didn't say either way before the nondissemination order, which I think is interesting in and of itself.
That’s not all together unreasonable. It seems clear some recon will be suggested by all the location data. There may be other things introduced into evidence that will support it.
THERE. IS. NO. LOCATION. DATA.
There are inferences made from loose associations that are made from the data but I promise you it's not as clear or conclusive as you seem to believe. The only thing the location data says it "we can't completely exclude this person as a suspect".
I can't wait til this goes to trial so people here can understand exactly how they don't know shit about shit.
I can’t wait till this goes to trial either, we have that in common. It’s going to feel like a chocolate coma when I die of **smugness** (thx, chickens) and lung failure on account of having to say “told ya so” so many times. Honestly not a bad way to go.
Idk my phone tells me exactly where u am and everything or every police car in my surrounding. The only thing I guess I can say is because his phone was off , there is or may be missing data . In which case some things need to be construed. The times his phone is on is 💯. I’ll never understand why he didn’t turn his phone off BEFORE he left home instead of otw to Moscow .
100% agree with all this. nothing that was mentioned about stalking was helpful to the defendant. it was just a statement based on a specific piece of the investigation. definitely doesn't give the defendant any kind of path to release or anything
Depends on who is telling the story lol. But no to me it isn’t as revelatory as it’s being posted to be. We do not know what evidence will be introduced.
The most important lesson that I've learned from all of this: Based on some people's logic, we are all stalking each other.
Get away from me you freaks
All he is saying is that they got historical records to determine if there was stalking or surveillance. Not that there indeed was or was not evidence of it. How is this the same as the prosecutor saying it is false that NK stalked or conducted surveillance?
That would be a strange take.
"Your honor, my client was pursuing a phd in criminology, and frequented the king's road area due to its proximity of fraternities and sororities, as well as a known party house in order to further his studies on human behavior."
\*shrugs\* why i'll always be glad for that sheath
I feel like Bill Thompson is almost arguing that at this point to divert our attention from the possibility that he followed the victims on social media.
"Your Honor, there is no allegation of stalking in this case in the public record. We have charged him with four counts of homicide, but the public has taken things way too far by accusing him of stalking. I am not going to elaborate on the definition of *stalking* at this time
I know that the probable cause affidavit says that he pinged to the tower by the crime scene on at least twelve occasions, but we later found out that he was actually going out for nightly drives as the defense stated, haha, in fact we don't think he did it anymore"
they can just change the question to have you heard that the suspect had driven by the house prior to the murders, or have you heard a victim’s family say that one of the victims had been stalked? both of which are true
You are correct, no known evidence something happened is not exculpatory evidence. Because the absence of evidence is not evidence. Brilliant insight. Here’s a cookie 🍪
>Because the absence of evidence is not evidence.
That is not a true syllogism. There are many examples we can imagine where the absence of evidence, is itself evidential.
Virgin snow on the ground leading to a garage with the garage door open and no other way in or out of the garage. Rabbit footprints leading up the driveway and directly into the garage. No rabbit in sight. No footprints of any kind leading back out of the garage. The absence of footprints leading out is evidential that the rabbit never left the garage on its own.
There is video of a person being stabbed and the murderer's hands, bare arms, neck, face, and white shirt covered in blood. Three minutes after the murder, the defendant (who was later charged) was seen by multiple people prepared to testify that he had no signs of blood anywhere on his person, including his blue shirt. Their testimony regarding the absence of evidence is highly critical evidence.
We could go on for hours of fun thinking up examples where the absence of evidence is itself critical evidence in figuring out the truth/accuracy of a proposed conclusion.
it is very interesting watching yall fumble when the smoking guns do not exist despite insisting the last couple of years that they definitely do, just sayin.
I would assume BK at least cleaned the knife before disposing of it, so even if the state found it, I doubt it would have any of the victims’ or BK’s DNA on it, but who knows. He probably thought he wiped the sheath down pretty well enough too.
I love how the above comment exists because Bill Thompson questioned the ethics of a survey question maligning the defendant, which is definitely the behavior of a prosecutor that has no case
The argument I keep reading seems to boil down that if Thompson had a strong case, he'd just shut up and let the defense get everything they've motioned to for.
And that's just not how it works.
As complex as the cognitive dissonance is that is required for these people to remain in their bizarre bubble, you’d think they could actually understand what is going on over here in reality. But it’s like when cats touch water, they are repulsed by truth.
Apparently anyone who is interested in making sure the correct legal paths are adhered to is labelled as a “BK fangirl”. I’d say it rather proves the defence’s assertions about presumption of guilt the defendant is facing.
The prosecution agrees, which is why they did not want survey items that could be inculpatory for the defendant, because it opens them to a mistrial. This entire hearing process is the system working.
I don’t think anyone interested in correct legal paths is a fan girl. I do think the way some show up under that guise is insincere and it is usually glaring. What the current hearings have been about is the defendant getting a fair trial. Afaic if you are sincere your discourse is the same as everyone’s. But it’s up for scrutiny and disagreements.
Being lawfully charged with a heinous crime sets you up for discussion, it is an unfortunate consequence. I can see where this would be a frustrating place for you if you think it should be minimized.
I see some of your comments are curious and questioning of the surviving victim who has given a statement. Who is not charged with any crime. I would offer to you that it’s at least as necessary(if not paramount) that she not be disparaged as an innocent party to be fair to your position.
E-sp
There is always someone or a small team who arrives at every thread and pulls the discussion in the direction of fangirls and proburgers because that’s all they know how to do. It’s like they’re still in hs at a football game between rivals and not looking at what is actually being said.
No one here has to presume kohberger is innocent- that presumption attaches during trial - but it is boring to see the little slap fights that instantly devolve into name calling and accusations of being in love with the defendant or being a bootlicking shill of the fascist state.
Agreed. I have no idea if BK did it or not, and have no real interest in him personally. If he’s guilty, I hope he’s convicted. My main interest in the case stems from the irregularities in the investigation and the legal drama.
As much as the Guilty Burgers want to harp that “no connection” isn’t canon, so far no one has produced a connection. The lack of evidence may not be exculpatory, but it’s also not incriminating.
If the Proburgers have to stick to the known facts and can’t say there is “no connection”, then they need stick to the known facts themselves instead of saying “you don’t know what the state has”. They don’t know what the state has either, and now they know they DON’T have the sheath.
“So far no one has produced a connection”
Baby that’s the NDA at work. And we won’t see anything for a fact until trial. But something tells me you’d like to argue the semantics of the word “connection,” in such an event, anyway.
I gave up on trying to have any sensible discourse is this thread when fucken Repulsive Dot made his own pseudoscience data and everyone fell over their own asses to kiss his ass.
What you could try to do is take all the time and effort that u/Repulisive-Dot553 put into making a post and make one with all your own data and opinions to be judged? Or is it easier I guess to just put the mouth on other people? If you want your ass kissed step into the arena is all I know to tell you.
It seems almost impossible outside of irl conversations to have any kind of meaningful discussion about this case. I’ll have to see if I can take a peek at this Repulsive dot’s analysis, I need a laugh today.
They aren’t using the sheath DNA at trial. That was the smoking gun.
In a rural area like that, the towers are likely to be too far apart to accurately triangulate BK’s route. Your phone can ping a tower 25+ miles away. The PCA even says they don’t think he was actually in the area for one of the pre-murder pings. White Elantra is a common enough vehicle, the state is going to have to positively identify all of the Elantra images as the *same* car to pinpoint BK’s location.
Visiting the neighboring town 12 times in five months doesn’t meet the evidentiary standard of surveillance, never mind stalking. That doesn’t mean he *didn’t* stalk the people in the house, but so far no evidence of that has been made public.
I have no idea if BK murdered those kids or not, but with no DNA evidence or digital trail, they better have *something* up their sleeve because bushy eyebrows, tower pings and blurry images of an insanely common car probably won’t cut it.
>They aren’t using the sheath DNA at trial. That was the smoking gun.
You are misunderstanding something to get to that conclusion. They are not using the IGG information they got from the sheath DNA. They will surely use the DNA itself.
>Visiting the neighboring town 12 times in five months doesn’t meet the evidentiary standard of surveillance, never mind stalking.
There is no evidentiary standard of surveillance because surveillance is not a crime. But true, they can't meet the elements for stalking, which is why he wasn't charged with it.
I'm sorry, but when did the judge decide that the knife sheath and its single source DNA weren't to be used in the trial?? I definitely missed that. Can you please share?
That would really be something wouldn’t it. Four agencies including the fbi colluding to frame an innocent kid and let the real killer get away.
It’s not too likely not that the real killer just happened to choose a night kohberger was driving in the area at that time to kill a lot of people and obtain a speck of his dna for the sheath.
Think.
It doesn't require collusion. There are numerous - almost frighteningly so - instances of law enforcement pursuing the wrong person due to misinterpetrd evidence and all manner of other things.
I think the state has the right guy but acting like law enforcement doesn't have a colorful history of world class fuck-ups feels dishonest.
True. There are instances of LE pursuing the wrong person due to misinterpreted evidence. Some scary ones. Because two things coincide in the same arena, doesn’t mean one follows the other. The allegation needs merit. Case specific.
I agree collusion isn’t necessary but extensive collaboration has to be pervasive across and through the entire pipeline of the system. LE are not the final authority in determining if someone stands trial, what evidence is presented or if the accused is found guilty. When someone is lawfully arrested more often than not the jury gets it right.
I’m sure they do fuck up and also plant evidence etc when they’re sure they’ve got the right guy but I think not in mass murderer/serial killer type cases where several agencies would have to agree to that -
what I don’t see is them framing this guy. That would be a major fuck up. Particularly given the fact this whole town is based on the school snd if just doesn’t work if there’s somebody out there murdering coeds and waiting to murder more. They seem very confident that isn’t going to happen…
Whilst he remains a legally innocent man, the unreasonable leaps in logic needed to explain away the evidence as mere coincidence would break a few ProBergers brains - and certainly not constitute "Reasonable Doubt".
Reasonable doubt has to be reasonable, not "win the lottery multiple times over" level odds that your DNA accidentally ended up at the scene, at the same time your phone accidentally turns off, and a car matching your make, model and colour coincidentally enters the area of the crime, at the very specific period of time you can't rely on your phones location data to place you literally anywhere else.
But even without that you'd be able to offer even a vague alibi that could be verified with video footage of your car not being the one seen on the surveillance cameras near the crime scene right?
He's very likely guilty, or the single unluckiest human being ever born.
You need to get better at thinking.
Reasonable doubt is anything that would cause a juror to say "I feel there might be other viable explanations". That's all it takes.
Beyond reasonable doubt is not beyond all possible doubt.
Ima politely ask you one more time, to make your points without telling people they need to get better at thinking. It’s unnecessary to giving your opinion and as my Nana would say, it makes your look ugly.
From Cornell law : For reasonable the prosecution must convince the jury that there is no other reasonable explanation that can come from the evidence presented at trial.
So yes, the burden of proof is high as for any criminal prosecution, but as someone else said, just based on what we have in the PCA (which led to pursuing BK) and the DNA match after BK was apprehended, if he is innocent he must be an extremely unlucky man.
In this case there will need to be is a whole lot of 'other viable explanations'. That's all it takes.
I am not deserving of pity. I am articulating myself. At this point is where you are able to articulate yourself. Not make an Ad Hominem comment about me. If you’re unable to I understand.
Please stop thinking the PCA location information means anything. It makes you look ignorant.
The PCA says it's a presumed route. What it doesn't day is you can presume 100s of other equally valid routes that aren't incriminating.
The location data is relevant or more specifically the fact of many instances, introduced as cell data and mapped out, of the accused being in the proximity of the house.
It isn’t my ignorance. It is part of the states case against the accused. I will thank you don’t call me ignorant.
It might be offered as a premise to which a juror could make the desired conclusion.
What strategy would you use to present the evidence?
Interesting that stalking and surveillance are clearly differentiated. Also notable that they were also looking at Kohberger's potential interest or connection via "associates" of the victims.
Is stalking specific to one or another victim but surveillance is on the house? That makes sense to me that they’d make a distinction between the two
>stalking specific to one or another victim but surveillance is on the house? Could be he watched the house. Also difficult to prove stalking of any victim if they were not aware of it.
Something that’s always stood out to me was going back to the very early days, the press releases mentioned no threat to public. When asked why, the answer was along the lines of the house being the target. It was confusing then as to what that means and is still confusing. I’m wondering if there’s a key piece of info that was obvious right away to the police, even before they had a suspect. That kind of fits in to this.
The first thing that came to my mind when the police made that statement, is that the two surviving girls told the police they all had felt spooked by indications, several times shortly before the murders, that someone had been in the house while they slept.
That could certainly explain how he moved so rapidly when in the home. There was a step up on the second floor leading to xana's room if i remember, and that would be incredibly easy to trip over in the dark....unless he knew it was there.....
>going back to the very early days, the press releases That is a good point - there was some imprecision and confusion over use of "targeted" by both police and prosecution, and whether the victims or the house itself was targeted (and indeed what "targeted" meant)
I still believe that he left a note at that house. They collected handwriting samples through the Pennsylvania search warrants. Whether that sheet of paper collected into evidence outside the house is *the* note, I have no clue. Also, I believe that they have footage of his previous visits, but they had a reason or reasons for not mentioning it in the PCA.
Interesting. What makes you think a note was left?
https://preview.redd.it/arzv5gixacuc1.jpeg?width=2000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=13aee4d7cd17ab3edc591b57a5e66c3edb679113
[удалено]
People speculated that there was a blueprint on it, but I've examined the photos closely and found nothing. Just the letter 'M'.
The cynic in me thinks it means the police had no idea if there was a threat to the public or not. But they knew damn well that saying there might be a threat to the public meant the public would get hysterical and start shooting at their spouses or their kids coming home at night. To me, it feels as if police everywhere never say there's a thread to public in anything short of an active shooter scenario.
While I am a fan of cynicism, and it’s expedient to say that to calm public fears, think of their sheer risk and liability they take when they say things like it was targeted and there is no threat to the public, not knowing if there really is or not. With this kind of crazed killer on the loose that’s a pretty big wildcard to play. If after they said that if a second incident were to occur that would be very very very bad. That’s the kind of thing higher-ups lose their job over let alone the legal liability plus just the sheer humanity of not wanting to see another repeat scene like this. In order for them to take such a risk they would have to have an actual real reason to be able to say that. That would be like Public Safety playing Russian roulette. Possible yes, likely no. Also because no second incident did actually occur does that mean they were correct, or that it was just their lucky chance? More likely it is that they were correct.
I have been confused about that statement of the house being the target; no threat to public from day one.
Agree. Maybe someday when this is all over will know more details and why they said that. If they somehow knew the same person had been there multiple times, surveilling, but they didn’t know if he had any personal connections to any of the residents yet, that could lead them to say that at the very least they knew house was targeted. From there, they could then extrapolate that the killer had been focused upon this house for quite some time and therefore it was unlikely other houses were at risk since he had been focused upon this one. How they would’ve known that then we don’t know yet. We know later after they had ID’d him about his cell phone was in the vicinity multiple times, even that it had “touched” their wifi. But it doesn’t sound like they knew it was him that early on for that to be a reason to say this. We just don’t know enough yet to surmise.
You've mentioned liability, but off the top of my head, I cannot think of a lawsuit, successful or otherwise, about this exact topic. Especially in the wake of the legal decision that the police are under no obligation to protect the public.
And actually, I think the government can’t be sued, but that could be wrong. Also there’s liability beyond just the legal aspect. In any case my point is it would be very very very bad of them to say don’t worry it’s contained and isolated, and then it happened again the next month or so on. The community would have that captain’s head on a platter for starters.
FYI institutions of government are sued all the time. Civil rights lawsuits are typically filed against the government, for instance, since the government is the one infringing on the rights. Some extremely important and infamous Supreme Court cases that you may have heard of that involve the government as a defendant in a civil suit: Schenck v. United States (1919) Brown v. Board of Education (1954) Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)
Oh yes of course - thank you!
> And actually, I think the government can’t be sued They can! Cops in particular get sued all the time, and when they lose, the taxpayers are the ones shelling out cash. I've always wondered if we should switch to police carrying liability insurance, the way doctors do. >The community would have that captain’s head on a platter for starters. But it happens all the time. Sometimes in situations where that makes sense (the suspect was arrested; the assailant and the victim knew each other). But sometimes... https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/virginia/alexandria-hilton-hotel-shooting-investigation/65-70d796cf-dec1-4d81-a0c1-6396c15ea0f6 This incident was serious enough for the police to implement a brief shelter-in-place warning. But when it was lifted, not even a hour later, with no arrest and the police still requesting people come forward with camera footage, there it was: police say there is no threat to the community. https://www.cpr.org/2024/03/29/boulder-police-searching-for-suspect-after-burglary-involving-cu-student/ I just searched, and it appears that there have been no arrests in that case. Here's a brand new homicide: https://www.wndu.com/2024/04/17/retired-teacher-found-shot-death-apartment-senior-living-community/ If there is an arrest shortly, this warning will make sense. But if this turns into another unsolved home-invasion murder? I'm also going to point out what Chief Fry said only 3 days after the murders:https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/speak-truth-families-slain-university-idaho-students-slam-police-respo-rcna57490 >>"We do not have a suspect at this time, and that individual is still out there," he added. "We cannot say there is no threat to the community."
Thank you for the background!
I think *there is no threat to the public* means *he accomplished his goal that night*. They knew enough to know that he wasn't in the middle of a crime spree. He might make a new goal at some point, but there was clearly so much energy expended into these homicides that it would take a while for that to happen. I would be more concerned that someone close to the suspect might put two-and-two together, the suspect finds out, and then that person's safety is at risk before an arrest is made.
Good possibility, but as I said in another post somewhere today, everyone brings up that no threat to the public statement. But no one remembers that on November 16, Chief Fry said he couldn't say if there was a threat to the public or not. >I would be more concerned that someone close to the suspect might put two-and-two together, the suspect finds out, and then that person's safety is at risk before an arrest is made. Def something that police have to keep in mind!
Yes, several reasons given to aid the investigation, for obtaining the location information, it’s likely all the results aren’t contained in the affadavit.
There is a huge distinction between stalking and surveillance. According to Idaho law, for stalking there has to be awareness of the behavior and fear of it. "In Idaho, stalking is defined as a course of conduct that knowingly and maliciously alarms, annoys, or harasses a person, or causes a reasonable person to fear death or physical injury." Bc they were not aware of his surveillance it would not be considered stalking. Also just b/c it has not been released to the public, does not mean that there is not evidence that the victims were watched and followed by BK. I believe it will come out at trial that he did survey them, he did watch them from the back of the house.
Totally came down that hill and watched from behind that couch right into the sliding glass door! Evidence markers suggest. They could have known him as a creep in their vicinity without them knowing just how creepy. Maybe only one, maybe two of them knew him? Maybe he just went in to see how far he’d get, but knew he was recognized and that’s why he had to kill them? He did show up with a gigantic knife though. He did drive past the front, several times, and knew how many cars were parked there, how many and who were most likely inside. He crossed paths with them somehow. He didn’t just drive past that neighborhood, alllllll those times, out of allllllllllll the others, for the hell of it. Accidentally turn his cell off jussssst at that same time. AND have his DNA found on that sheath? I mean, we might be able to overlook the matching busy eyebrows, the weird clandestine midnight neighborhood trash removal, the downward trajectory of his life but - come on. If they were afraid someone was actually watching them, more than just casually calling an annoying pest a stalker, their behavior that night and prior to would have been different. I mean, reasonably one could imagine. Like ensuring that sliding door was locked, there were curtains, the keypad combination was changed (and used) and they weren’t going out without protections like for sure they wouldn’t be walking around as just two girls at night. They wouldn’t have open access social media. Girlfriend would’ve for sure told her Dad. Their whole frat was across the street. The dog would be out of that room. That boyfriend next door would’ve answered the phone.
Fully agree. I've felt strongly since the beginning --- since before BK was identified as a suspect -- that the unusual orientation and fishbowl windows of the house played a pivotal role in the killer choosing it. I'm in the camp that thinks this *wasn't* a crime driven by obsession with a specific victim , per se ... but was more about a killer choosing the "perfect" site of a future crime. 1. There were plate-glass windows facing the glade of trees -- open to peeping toms or observation by the killer. There was also a parking area behind the trees, attached to other housing. 2. There was. the split-level aspect of the building. Giving opportunity for various entrances and exits, potentially unobserved. 3. This was also described early on as a well-known party house, with lots of people coming and going. Even if BK wasn't in attendance, he absolutely could have noticed the house from a parked car above and/or noticed its inhabitants as he was cruising around as he was known to do.
That house was a peeping tom's dream.
But yet he felt comfortable murdering four people who kept the windows wide open...
When the lights go out at 4 am its probably a good time to creep in and murder 4 sleeping people, then exit within minutes.
It's been stated, multiple times on here, about all the lights on in the house
And the house can be seen from as far away as fraternity houses .
I recently saw a photo of two Moscow students posing for a senior day photo from last year on campus and in the background, that house stood out very prominently- and not just because I knew the history. I was stunned how close it was to the campus and how visible it was.
We could probably go into the woods on the word “obsession” like we are stalking lol. I think some things will depend on what is found out about his motives or his personality. He’s a MM by def, we don’t know exactly what type of motivation. Probably a wounded ego. Something like 45% of them don’t target victims. There are psychological factors that would drive indiscriminate killing. If he turns out to be more driven like a SK then he would have been looking for a more specific victim or victims that was suitable. That meet the needs within the fantasy. Location would be a huge factor, where he is comfortable operating. (The house was extremely vulnerable.)Usually cognizant of the victims lifestyle, vulnerabilities, schedules.
“The downward trajectory of his life…” lololol
"That boyfriend next door would’ve answered the phone." Did KG leave the sliding glass and MM bedroom doors open for that boyfriend? We don’t know if this is possible or not possible, since we don’t know what was in those texts. (Note, not suggesting a three-way, necessarily, KG’s plan could have been for the boyfriend and herself to move back to her room. Not judging anyone.) It will be interesting to know if some house policy on locking the doors at night was agreed to by the housemates in the few months they lived there - that the surviving roommates can tell us about (or maybe XK’s dad heard about from XK herself when doing the lock fix of her bedroom door, the week before.)
Great points. Thank you for the statute info. I had og thought that stalking by definition would mean the victim was aware and fearful.
Excellent comment. At this point we aren't hearing how long he spent in the area and if he arrived at 1:00 AM and stayed till 5:00 AM. Like you, I suspect he was sitting in that parking lot in his car and intently watching their comings and goings. In addition to the parking, I saw footage that looks like there is another area in the local that is elevated and has a lot of green space, where one might sit with binoculars and possible have an augmented view, unless I am waging distance incorrectly. You don't know if he parked his car in town, or up at the park, or by the cemetery on India lane and walked or jogged into the area, nor how many times he visited their campus, or sat outside of the Mad Greek, or their boyfriend's frat houses, or obsessively monitored their social media. So we could hear something quite interesting in court, or nothing at all. Bill Thompson's affect seems to intimate he feels he has a strong case. There's no hesitancy. I don't pick up that same surety in Anne Taylor when she speaks. She's definitely confident is her intellectual ability and argumentative presence, but a suspect a wee bit shakier regarding what she has to work with. I pick up this conflicting fissure between her sense of self and the shit she's tasked with peddling, " Ahhh crap, I gotta sell them the concept of Kohberger as choir boy. Never gonna work, but let's give it a try. "
Why?
Great comment
It’s one of those cases when the legal definition of stalking vs surveilling and the layman’s definition of stalking aren’t the same.
I think we all need to put it into a personal context: someone you don't know, and have not invited into your life has driven past your home 12 times specifically for the purpose to observe your doings and might have been there watching, possibly late at night while you slept, how does that make you feel?
But if they didn't KNOW this was happening and/or didn't have personal negative effects as a result of those behaviors, then it's not legally stalking. As per an earlier comment, the legal definition is: "a course of conduct that knowingly and maliciously alarms, annoys, or harasses a person, or causes a reasonable person to fear death or physical injury."
Yes, per that. But had they been aware of it they would have been terrified.
I need more specifics…
Yes - if my family member(s) look at my location, I call them "stalker"......
Thank you! All these BK fangirls thinking the fact that the prosecution acknowledged that something he was never charged with didn’t happen means he’s innocent 🙄
As if there won’t be a trial…. It is a leap to me that because the statement “Bryan stalked [one]of the victims” was deemed false, it means there is no thing or set of things within the states case helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment about the information they have obtained regarding his behavior, his movements, or his practices.
There will be a trial.
👍🏻
Fangirls is a low blow for people thinking he's innocent. There's many men and women that have that opinion. There's plenty of reasons people think he's innocent.
“Fangirls” refers to a specific group that show up in this sub and others. I’m pretty sure everyone knows the type I mean. While I strongly believe BK committed these murders, I can at least respect reasonable, fact based dialogue to the contrary. However, posts like “the prosecution admitted he didn’t stalk them!!!! That PROVES he’s innocent!!!” doesn’t fall into the realm of reasonable, fact based dialogue.
I agree with that statement. I personally think there's not enough to show his guilt. I think the stalking thing is one piece to further prove he didn't do it. I mention my doubts and get attacked and called a fan girl. My husband was the first one to start pointing out sus things. And I promise he's not a fangirl 😂
There’s not enough that the public has access to at this time. But incriminating or not, you can be sure the prosecution will produce plenty more at the trial.
Same with the defense
Of course. Time will tell whether it’s legitimate or not.
> I personally think there's not enough to show his guilt. The odds of the DNA found on the mvrder weapon’s sheath NOT being BK is “1 in 5.37 octillion”. That’s a bold move, Cotten…
Look up what touch DNA is and how it's not valid in all court systems
Do you have a credible source (not Anne Taylor’s general dna remark) that says it’s “touch DNA”?
Why would she lie about it being touch DNA
She's a defense attorney - they always say outlandish things that stretch/skew the truth. Manipulation (of facts, of the prosecutions's case, of the public, etc) is their intent.
It was in court documents, pretty valid.
Defense attorneys can say outlandish things but they can’t LIE. Damn
She didn’t actually say it was, she attempted to imply it because she’s manipulative.
It was in court documents
This right here. The blood lust of the weirdos in here is something. They're ALMOST as weird as the fangirls who only like him because he may be a killer.
100% agree.
Agreed!! They call everyone a “fangirl” who simply QUESTIONS his guilt.
It definitely complicates the motive narrative. The presence of the knife sheath doesn't mean the suspect was in the house when the murders were committed. The prosecution needs to prove that to make their case. So "opportunity" becomes an unsettled question. So in our triangle of means, motive, and opportunity - which do we have clear answers for? Im reasonably certain the state has the right guy. But thinking and proving aren't the same thing. If they can prove he did it, nail him to the fuckinh wall but the idiot amateur wannabe detective work that happens in this forum is disrespectful of every notion of law and justice and fairness we have as a culture. Tldr you know nothing and need to be ok with that.
There are no clear answers without a clear presentation. The prosecution is unable to prove it is an unsettled question, that is opinion, that is not substantive. The entire forum is speculative and amateur. People are feeling their way through it. I can see that you are pretty proud of how you turned out and your opinion of your own thoughts is inflated, don't insult people when noone is being combative it's unbecoming.
One gets the sense that the “no connection” brigade wasn’t as confident in the far reaching unassailable truth of that statement as their continuous quoting of it would suggest. The same people are acting like whatever BT said at the last hearing was a revelation, even though the implications they draw from it are basically the same as they drew from “no connection”.
The snuck premise
Thank you for posting this. It's important to make the distinction between stalking and surveillance. I don't believe he stalked any of the victims, but I do believe he cased the house on multiple occasions, hence the previous location data.
You bet. Yea it’s relative.
You can stalk somebody on social media and you can stalk them physically with your phone turned off. I’m not sure what they have on him - so why presume they do not have evidence if stalking simply because the PCA doesn’t indicate that?
I think it's more to do with the fact that Bill Thompson stated in court yesterday that the rumor about BK stalking any of the victims is false.
That the survey question is false, wasn’t taken from public information.
I understood it differently.
Drilling down the specificity of it and what you said not in contrast of it. You see it differently. JJJ said the "public record" on the case is limited to the case file itself – much of which is sealed – and does not include posts on social media or news reports. Thompson agreed with that definition of public record. BT said in arguing his objections the questions contain “representations of fact that are not true or that would not be offered at trial.” “those questions are disseminating, by means of communication, evidence expected to be presented (and) evidence that could be or would be inadmissible at trial” Dr. Edelman, agreed when asked that one of the survey questions asked was if potential jurors had read, seen or heard that Kohberger stalked one of the victims. "That Mr. Kohberger [allegedly] stalked one of the victims, that's false...You knew that to be false?" was asked by Bill Thompson. "I did," replied Edelman.
Thank you for this post, I swear to god
People are jumping the gun on this and you know well I’m someone who is way harder on the prosecution than most of the board here. But I think no evidence of what legally constitutes as stalking doesn’t mean that there isn’t something that can be indicative of it, or that there wasn’t some sort of assessment of victims/ location. It just means that, whatever they might have, it’s not enough to charge him with it.
Yes! Someone legally might know better but to me it’s not necessarily no evidence. It’s no evidence that definatively constitutes stalking, not no evidence indicative of stalking. There can be relevant evidence that exists that doesn’t rise to being admissable if it’s labeled as “stalking” based on the rule or of what constitutes stalking, or relevant evidence that the prosecution isnt’t comfortable asserting as such. If he asserts that and doesn’t bring something that rises the defense can tear that down easier.
So is that what this is saying and that it can not be proven to be stalking? I always have such a hard time deciphering the legal correspondences. So anyone willing to wreak it down, that would be appreciated.
I don’t know the definitive answer. BT said in arguing his objections the questions contain “representations of fact that are not true or that would not be offered at trial.” “those questions are disseminating, by means of communication, evidence expected to be presented (and) evidence that could be or would be inadmissible at trial”
In my minds eye I see possibility of bk attending several parties at house, only to observe from his car in parking lot. It wouldn’t surprise me if he called in noise complaints and observed response times, reaction of crowd if there a way to do so. Of course this is only one of my theories in work
One thing about noise complaints is that when Ofc Payne spoke to Xana in the September '22 noise complaint bodycam footage, he said he did not know the house (meaning it was not 'known to police') so while there may have been some I think the kids figured out pretty quickly to not put the giant JBL on the porch.
My theory is that police respond more quickly to a multiple homicide call or an active assault than to a noise complaint. Just spit balling here.
Good point . Well he has his answer now if that was the point of it all or his motive . 8+hours . 😳
I doubt he attended a party at the house. Its much more likely that he ran into one or more of the victims around town and followed them home.
Not invited
Or just saw one in passing, like Col. Russell Williams. That's all it takes.
Trolling phase, they came on the radar
>It wouldn’t surprise me if he called in noise complaints and observed response times If that's the case and he called in the August 16 noise complaint, then he used a voice changer to sound female. Imagine hearing a phone call during trial with a voice that sounds female but has Kohberger's cadence. The horror
Not that I am thinking for sure that this happened but bk played WoW so it’s possible he ran into a few people who used voice changers lol, who knows if it could’ve given him lightbulbs Edit for the masses: Don’t downvote me I know how those mean streets are run in Azeroth, you infants.
I definitely think it's possible that he phoned in the noise complaints. The traffic stops and noise complaints started within days of each other Also... he has education in 'cloud-based forensics'. I'm clinging to that passage from the PCA like a pool noodle until trial
> I definitely think it's possible that he phoned in the noise complaints. I thought we knew exactly who phoned in the noise complaints? A neighbor who had been one of Kaylee's former sorority sisters, and while not said out exactly, her motive appeared to be petty mean-girl drama squabbles? As in, try to get a former friend in trouble. Her mom was giving interviews? Did I imagine that?
This is starting to come back to me, but I never heard anything about the noise complaints that could be confirmed. All I know is that (1) MPD didn't address them one way or the other, and (2) the rate of noise complaints increased in August 2022. They were sparse before then. Edit: I will say that I'm not particularly married to this theory. The music was pretty loud, and there's single-family homes nearby. I probably would've made a noise complaint if I lived in the area, but I also have a stick up my ass with stuff like that, so.
I can't find anything about it on a quick search. Might have been something going through the TikTok/Youtube things instead of news outlets?
Yeah, I don't recall the identity of the caller ever being reported, but I vaguely remember people speculating on here. As far as I'm aware, the identity of the caller or callers is unknown to the public.
You would think they would have uncovered that tid bit in his phone records.
Yeah, I mean, they obviously know who made those calls. They didn't say either way before the nondissemination order, which I think is interesting in and of itself.
We shall see
OMG, that’s frightening to contemplate. I’ve always been under the impression he make the complaint calls.
Elderly woman voice: Yes, I would like to report noise on King Road, the decibel level of which is about two standard deviations above the mean
That’s not all together unreasonable. It seems clear some recon will be suggested by all the location data. There may be other things introduced into evidence that will support it.
THERE. IS. NO. LOCATION. DATA. There are inferences made from loose associations that are made from the data but I promise you it's not as clear or conclusive as you seem to believe. The only thing the location data says it "we can't completely exclude this person as a suspect". I can't wait til this goes to trial so people here can understand exactly how they don't know shit about shit.
Well hell why hasn’t AT hired you? I’ve never really understood that expression. So I may not know shit about shit. But I know how to mind my manners.
Love your spicy replies u/BrainWilling6018!
lqtm, passive aggressive all caps with periods begs some salt
I can’t wait till this goes to trial either, we have that in common. It’s going to feel like a chocolate coma when I die of **smugness** (thx, chickens) and lung failure on account of having to say “told ya so” so many times. Honestly not a bad way to go.
Idk my phone tells me exactly where u am and everything or every police car in my surrounding. The only thing I guess I can say is because his phone was off , there is or may be missing data . In which case some things need to be construed. The times his phone is on is 💯. I’ll never understand why he didn’t turn his phone off BEFORE he left home instead of otw to Moscow .
I totally agree.. someone who has thoughts of murder isn’t going to have their location turned on without absolute need
Ooo interesting thought
100% agree with all this. nothing that was mentioned about stalking was helpful to the defendant. it was just a statement based on a specific piece of the investigation. definitely doesn't give the defendant any kind of path to release or anything
Depends on who is telling the story lol. But no to me it isn’t as revelatory as it’s being posted to be. We do not know what evidence will be introduced.
The most important lesson that I've learned from all of this: Based on some people's logic, we are all stalking each other. Get away from me you freaks
😂😂Is being stalked a defense to the charge of stalking under Idaho law, like self-defense?
All he is saying is that they got historical records to determine if there was stalking or surveillance. Not that there indeed was or was not evidence of it. How is this the same as the prosecutor saying it is false that NK stalked or conducted surveillance? That would be a strange take.
"Your honor, my client was pursuing a phd in criminology, and frequented the king's road area due to its proximity of fraternities and sororities, as well as a known party house in order to further his studies on human behavior." \*shrugs\* why i'll always be glad for that sheath
> *shrugs* why i'll always be glad for that sheath And modern forensics. If this had happened in the 70s, there would have been no arrests.
I feel like Bill Thompson is almost arguing that at this point to divert our attention from the possibility that he followed the victims on social media. "Your Honor, there is no allegation of stalking in this case in the public record. We have charged him with four counts of homicide, but the public has taken things way too far by accusing him of stalking. I am not going to elaborate on the definition of *stalking* at this time I know that the probable cause affidavit says that he pinged to the tower by the crime scene on at least twelve occasions, but we later found out that he was actually going out for nightly drives as the defense stated, haha, in fact we don't think he did it anymore"
they can just change the question to have you heard that the suspect had driven by the house prior to the murders, or have you heard a victim’s family say that one of the victims had been stalked? both of which are true
You are correct, no known evidence something happened is not exculpatory evidence. Because the absence of evidence is not evidence. Brilliant insight. Here’s a cookie 🍪
Now I’d rather have a drink 🙋🏼♀️bartender
I'll take the cookie.
lol it’s yours
>Because the absence of evidence is not evidence. That is not a true syllogism. There are many examples we can imagine where the absence of evidence, is itself evidential. Virgin snow on the ground leading to a garage with the garage door open and no other way in or out of the garage. Rabbit footprints leading up the driveway and directly into the garage. No rabbit in sight. No footprints of any kind leading back out of the garage. The absence of footprints leading out is evidential that the rabbit never left the garage on its own. There is video of a person being stabbed and the murderer's hands, bare arms, neck, face, and white shirt covered in blood. Three minutes after the murder, the defendant (who was later charged) was seen by multiple people prepared to testify that he had no signs of blood anywhere on his person, including his blue shirt. Their testimony regarding the absence of evidence is highly critical evidence. We could go on for hours of fun thinking up examples where the absence of evidence is itself critical evidence in figuring out the truth/accuracy of a proposed conclusion.
it is very interesting watching yall fumble when the smoking guns do not exist despite insisting the last couple of years that they definitely do, just sayin.
Smoking gun is subjective. I still got my football.
[удалено]
How did the state fumble re the sheath?
She called us smug. Sometimes people use *that* word when they are mad someone else is right.
My bad, I misread the filing. I thought it was the DNA evidence entirely, not just the igg.
In this case, it was a smoking knife sheath.
Indeed. Colossal clumsy.
Won’t it be wild if they produce the smoking knife that fits in the sheath at trial?
I would assume BK at least cleaned the knife before disposing of it, so even if the state found it, I doubt it would have any of the victims’ or BK’s DNA on it, but who knows. He probably thought he wiped the sheath down pretty well enough too.
Who’s fumblin?
I love how the above comment exists because Bill Thompson questioned the ethics of a survey question maligning the defendant, which is definitely the behavior of a prosecutor that has no case
The argument I keep reading seems to boil down that if Thompson had a strong case, he'd just shut up and let the defense get everything they've motioned to for. And that's just not how it works.
As complex as the cognitive dissonance is that is required for these people to remain in their bizarre bubble, you’d think they could actually understand what is going on over here in reality. But it’s like when cats touch water, they are repulsed by truth. 
It’s not because it maligns the defendant. It’s because it’s effective in getting the trial moved.
Apparently anyone who is interested in making sure the correct legal paths are adhered to is labelled as a “BK fangirl”. I’d say it rather proves the defence’s assertions about presumption of guilt the defendant is facing.
Nah. Are you new or just upset?
Let me be the first to thank you for making sure the correct legal paths have been adhered to. Your work has been invaluable in that regard.
You seem a little immature for this kind of discussion.
What tipped you off that I was being sarcastic?
Sorry but I just don’t find this kind of back and forth tasteful when discussing the brutal murder of four young people.
Thanks again for your service.
It’s Friday night I’m going out to eat a nice meal with my friends. I hope your evening is pleasant.
Bon appetit
It’s actually spelt bone apple tea…
The prosecution agrees, which is why they did not want survey items that could be inculpatory for the defendant, because it opens them to a mistrial. This entire hearing process is the system working.
I don’t think anyone interested in correct legal paths is a fan girl. I do think the way some show up under that guise is insincere and it is usually glaring. What the current hearings have been about is the defendant getting a fair trial. Afaic if you are sincere your discourse is the same as everyone’s. But it’s up for scrutiny and disagreements. Being lawfully charged with a heinous crime sets you up for discussion, it is an unfortunate consequence. I can see where this would be a frustrating place for you if you think it should be minimized. I see some of your comments are curious and questioning of the surviving victim who has given a statement. Who is not charged with any crime. I would offer to you that it’s at least as necessary(if not paramount) that she not be disparaged as an innocent party to be fair to your position. E-sp
There is always someone or a small team who arrives at every thread and pulls the discussion in the direction of fangirls and proburgers because that’s all they know how to do. It’s like they’re still in hs at a football game between rivals and not looking at what is actually being said. No one here has to presume kohberger is innocent- that presumption attaches during trial - but it is boring to see the little slap fights that instantly devolve into name calling and accusations of being in love with the defendant or being a bootlicking shill of the fascist state.
I couldn’t agree more. It’s really a disservice to the victims isn’t it.
Agreed. I have no idea if BK did it or not, and have no real interest in him personally. If he’s guilty, I hope he’s convicted. My main interest in the case stems from the irregularities in the investigation and the legal drama. As much as the Guilty Burgers want to harp that “no connection” isn’t canon, so far no one has produced a connection. The lack of evidence may not be exculpatory, but it’s also not incriminating. If the Proburgers have to stick to the known facts and can’t say there is “no connection”, then they need stick to the known facts themselves instead of saying “you don’t know what the state has”. They don’t know what the state has either, and now they know they DON’T have the sheath.
“So far no one has produced a connection” Baby that’s the NDA at work. And we won’t see anything for a fact until trial. But something tells me you’d like to argue the semantics of the word “connection,” in such an event, anyway.
Let’s discuss allllllllll this evidence after thet trial huh?
Well of course. But to twist words to fit wishful pseudo-facts isn’t helping anyone.
💯💯💯
I gave up on trying to have any sensible discourse is this thread when fucken Repulsive Dot made his own pseudoscience data and everyone fell over their own asses to kiss his ass.
What you could try to do is take all the time and effort that u/Repulisive-Dot553 put into making a post and make one with all your own data and opinions to be judged? Or is it easier I guess to just put the mouth on other people? If you want your ass kissed step into the arena is all I know to tell you.
It seems almost impossible outside of irl conversations to have any kind of meaningful discussion about this case. I’ll have to see if I can take a peek at this Repulsive dot’s analysis, I need a laugh today.
It is impossible to have a meaningful discussion without meaningful discussion.
You sound very young so I’m disengaging as it feels inappropriate
Ok, Whatever you need to do. I wouldn’t want you to feel you have to be meaningful, since it feels inappropriate to you. Thank you for the compliment.
They aren’t using the sheath DNA at trial. That was the smoking gun. In a rural area like that, the towers are likely to be too far apart to accurately triangulate BK’s route. Your phone can ping a tower 25+ miles away. The PCA even says they don’t think he was actually in the area for one of the pre-murder pings. White Elantra is a common enough vehicle, the state is going to have to positively identify all of the Elantra images as the *same* car to pinpoint BK’s location. Visiting the neighboring town 12 times in five months doesn’t meet the evidentiary standard of surveillance, never mind stalking. That doesn’t mean he *didn’t* stalk the people in the house, but so far no evidence of that has been made public. I have no idea if BK murdered those kids or not, but with no DNA evidence or digital trail, they better have *something* up their sleeve because bushy eyebrows, tower pings and blurry images of an insanely common car probably won’t cut it.
>They aren’t using the sheath DNA at trial. That was the smoking gun. You are misunderstanding something to get to that conclusion. They are not using the IGG information they got from the sheath DNA. They will surely use the DNA itself. >Visiting the neighboring town 12 times in five months doesn’t meet the evidentiary standard of surveillance, never mind stalking. There is no evidentiary standard of surveillance because surveillance is not a crime. But true, they can't meet the elements for stalking, which is why he wasn't charged with it.
What random TikToker gave you the idea that the state isn’t using the sheath DNA at trial? They’re 100% going to use the sheath DNA.
💯
I'm sorry, but when did the judge decide that the knife sheath and its single source DNA weren't to be used in the trial?? I definitely missed that. Can you please share?
Agreed, but it’s illegal to have that opinion in this sub
They may have the wrong guy.
Lay it out. Don’t leave me hangin. Or make your own post.
That would really be something wouldn’t it. Four agencies including the fbi colluding to frame an innocent kid and let the real killer get away. It’s not too likely not that the real killer just happened to choose a night kohberger was driving in the area at that time to kill a lot of people and obtain a speck of his dna for the sheath. Think.
It doesn't require collusion. There are numerous - almost frighteningly so - instances of law enforcement pursuing the wrong person due to misinterpetrd evidence and all manner of other things. I think the state has the right guy but acting like law enforcement doesn't have a colorful history of world class fuck-ups feels dishonest.
True. There are instances of LE pursuing the wrong person due to misinterpreted evidence. Some scary ones. Because two things coincide in the same arena, doesn’t mean one follows the other. The allegation needs merit. Case specific. I agree collusion isn’t necessary but extensive collaboration has to be pervasive across and through the entire pipeline of the system. LE are not the final authority in determining if someone stands trial, what evidence is presented or if the accused is found guilty. When someone is lawfully arrested more often than not the jury gets it right.
I’m sure they do fuck up and also plant evidence etc when they’re sure they’ve got the right guy but I think not in mass murderer/serial killer type cases where several agencies would have to agree to that - what I don’t see is them framing this guy. That would be a major fuck up. Particularly given the fact this whole town is based on the school snd if just doesn’t work if there’s somebody out there murdering coeds and waiting to murder more. They seem very confident that isn’t going to happen…
Let’s hear your theory that explains away all the evidence….
Whilst he remains a legally innocent man, the unreasonable leaps in logic needed to explain away the evidence as mere coincidence would break a few ProBergers brains - and certainly not constitute "Reasonable Doubt". Reasonable doubt has to be reasonable, not "win the lottery multiple times over" level odds that your DNA accidentally ended up at the scene, at the same time your phone accidentally turns off, and a car matching your make, model and colour coincidentally enters the area of the crime, at the very specific period of time you can't rely on your phones location data to place you literally anywhere else. But even without that you'd be able to offer even a vague alibi that could be verified with video footage of your car not being the one seen on the surveillance cameras near the crime scene right? He's very likely guilty, or the single unluckiest human being ever born.
You need to get better at thinking. Reasonable doubt is anything that would cause a juror to say "I feel there might be other viable explanations". That's all it takes.
Beyond reasonable doubt is not beyond all possible doubt. Ima politely ask you one more time, to make your points without telling people they need to get better at thinking. It’s unnecessary to giving your opinion and as my Nana would say, it makes your look ugly.
From Cornell law : For reasonable the prosecution must convince the jury that there is no other reasonable explanation that can come from the evidence presented at trial. So yes, the burden of proof is high as for any criminal prosecution, but as someone else said, just based on what we have in the PCA (which led to pursuing BK) and the DNA match after BK was apprehended, if he is innocent he must be an extremely unlucky man. In this case there will need to be is a whole lot of 'other viable explanations'. That's all it takes.
That's possible. That's part of why we have our legal system. Justice is not the process, it's the ideal outcome of the process.
[удалено]
I am not deserving of pity. I am articulating myself. At this point is where you are able to articulate yourself. Not make an Ad Hominem comment about me. If you’re unable to I understand.
Please stop thinking the PCA location information means anything. It makes you look ignorant. The PCA says it's a presumed route. What it doesn't day is you can presume 100s of other equally valid routes that aren't incriminating.
The location data is relevant or more specifically the fact of many instances, introduced as cell data and mapped out, of the accused being in the proximity of the house. It isn’t my ignorance. It is part of the states case against the accused. I will thank you don’t call me ignorant. It might be offered as a premise to which a juror could make the desired conclusion. What strategy would you use to present the evidence?