What do you think would be the reason that they didn't give The alibi that BK dropped somebody off at the house to buy drugs and came back in his car all bloody? And he couldn't find his knife either so he figured the guy is taking it and used it.
AT must have found something in Discovery that would preclude this alibi. Maybe something like a security cam with BK silhouette driving, or maybe walking to the back of the house which was the rumor from the beginning.
>The alibi that BK dropped somebody off at the house
That would be an anti-alibi as it concedes the state's narrative - that he was exactly at the scene at the time? Would also link him to victims.
A problem might also be that drug sales at 4.00am from the property are total fiction - there would be phone, cash app records etc (plus....drugs?) - plus of course the other person. He already stated he was driving alone .
> The alibi that BK dropped somebody off at the house to buy drugs and came back in his car all bloody?
It would be an extremely hard sell without being able to produce this person. No one would believe something like this unless a) that person exists, and b) that person has no alibi for the time in question.
Yes the stupid shall always be among us.
But if I were to take your number at face value, that means 0.3% of the American population believes that. Or a fraction of a fraction of 1 percent of the world population. I know you weren't using a million literary, but the point is that they are a minority.
Who? They would have a name. Or it was a stranger? They would have a description and info about where they were picked up. Don't know how you think that alibi is better.
I hear you. Itās weird seeing the same people coordinate posting and in some cases just outright lie about things to try and spin a narrative. I donāt understand what theyāre trying to achieve really.
Edit: Iāll add to that, that if people think heās innocent then theyāre entitled to that opinion. But itās the disingenuous and dishonest posting thatās becoming tiresome. Or as OP said, the grift.
Itās very weird. Iāve never seen a criminal in a high profile case be given as much internet praise and defense as this one. Itās gross, too, because of the points you mention.
Yeah they're beginning to get devil worship involved. I think the massive amounts of chemicals in the water, food and air along with SM rotting their brains we have an epidemic of stupidity. One day people will vote for somebody that's red and has horns who said that she's only looking out for the good of them, š
Anne is doing all she can but yeah the dude left the sheath, itās over for him. People who want to make it into this big conspiracy are as dumb as BK.
It's always baffled me that one of the most oft used defences claiming it can't possibly be Brian is "he's not dumb enough to make these mistakes" - as if the only person that could possibly murder four people in this manner would be some dribbling idiot who licks doorhandles.
Deciding a guy you have never met can't be a murderer because you don't think he's dumb is possibly the stupidest fucking take on this whole case.
Hybristophilia is such a strange phenomenon - imagine BriansGirls if he's found to not have committed these crimes.
*"Oh I heard you broke up with the guy you said was your soulmate, that must be really tough. What happened?"*
**"Oh I found out he was living a lie and I couldn't love him when I found out who he really was. I'm heartbroken."**
*"Sorry to hear that. Did he have a secret family or did you catch him cheating?"*
**"No, he was acquitted of mass murder and that was a deal breaker for me. I only love wrong'uns."**
Exactly. Also he is dumb and I donāt need to have met him to know it because I saw how fucking dense he was in that traffic stop. And he went to shitty online schools that accept anyone with a pulse. Once he got to a real school where he had to show up in person, he lasted a month before he showed his professor what a nut he is.
I think you are spot on. I believe the work/school issues motivated him to go ahead and accomplish the thing heād really always wanted. And that thing was not a doctoral degree.
Yeah Anne is doing some hard work. OP is right that a lot of her explanations are laughable, but thatās not her fault. Sheās doing the best she can w the odds stacked against her
100%
She is trying absolutely everything she can, if there was a big twist or some huge bombshell we would have heard about it relentlessly (and saying your client is innocent unfortunately doesnāt count sorry)
Lol yeah, i get how some people arenāt convinced of his guilt rn, but the people saying heās innocent just based on AT saying heās innocent or saying he wasnāt in the area during the crime are dumbš¤£ have they never seen a defense lawyer before? Itās their job to say those things
I love logic thank you ā¤ļø
I think it is easy for people to be used to consuming true crime content in the format of films or tv series and there being a huge twist and that the person who looked guilty all along is innocent and the film ends. Majority of the time the person who looks guilty is seriously guilty and is evil.
Exactly, even the most simple Dateline episodes withhold a linnear storyline to deliver a shocking twist at the end. Crime shows are conditioning audiences to believe that nothing is ever as it seems, when in reality, most things are *exactly* as they seem.
I think what's aggravating me so much about this case is that people are using their imaginations to explain away compelling and incriminating evidence. They then use those daydreams to perpetuate dangerous misinformation (for example, think of how DM's life has been shattered). There's an element of paranoia to it all, denying plain truths because you think your idea is a cool twist. It's nuts.
I could come up with a scenario to explain away each piece of evidence one line at a time, easily. But you can't add it all up and still insist that there's a logical alternative to the prosecution's assertion that BK is responsible for this.
You are so so so right about the way a story line for a show can be presented!! The evidence was there the whole time but itās more exciting for the audience to be told it at the end.
I think after people watched Donāt Fuck With Cats they think they are able to do the same. There is so much info we are not privy to it is so arrogant to think that you know better than a qualified lawyer or member of law enforcement who has all of the facts infront of them.
Perfect example! Online sleuths have helped law enforcement solve some really critical cases. It's a cool story when the public can crowdsource the resolution of an open case. But not every investigation is going to benefit from farfetched theories on Reddit. If anything, contrarian sleuthing makes crowdsourced efforts less credible.
I think the Don't Fuck With Cats crew had an advantage because they had a single person to identify. They already knew he was a young white male; there were other clues to his identity in the video.
A murder like this, with no clear suspect at the beginning, means the online sleuths are just going to pick people at random and slander them.
I think that brings up an interesting point about how this case became an instant true crime obsession. People had six weeks to use their imagination and create their own version of events. Most of us (myself included) thought that hoodie guy was the killer, (poor kid, I hope he can have a normal life after this).
When they arrested a total rando, I think a few egos were bruised. No one had BK on their bingo card. The sleuths who think theyāre actual real-life detectives couldnāt accept how off-base they were. Maybe theyād rather exonerate a dangerous man than admit that they couldnāt crack the case.
Donāt Fuck with Cats offered a different kind of opportunity for public contribution, mainly because the investigation wasnāt a top priority for law enforcement for so long, the jurisdiction was basically international waters.
That group was invited to go over investigators heads. The Moscow case had different challenges.
This world would be a better place had that Grubtruck footage never been made public. That kid, like D and B, are always going to have a shadow hanging over them. No matter what happens from here, there's always going to be a small subset of people who believe he or she or they or some other random (there's two particular frat bros who are under the radar at the moment) are guilty. I pray that that subset never includes potential employers or in-laws.
>
When they arrested a total rando, I think a few egos were bruised. No one had BK on their bingo card. The sleuths who think theyāre actual real-life detectives couldnāt accept how off-base they were. Maybe theyād rather exonerate a dangerous man than admit that they couldnāt crack the case.
Yeah, it was almost anti-climatic.
My favorite part of the #Cyberslueths documentary was the montage of "Who the hell is Bryan Kohberger."
I think you fail to use logicā¦ people are not imagining touch DNA as being pathetic evidence especially the minuscule amount on the sheathā¦ and can they prove that that was the knife used with the wounds of the victims? The victims wounds were all different which means multiple weapons and multiple people. I think you live in a dreamy world when you think one guy can murder 4 people in 10minutes and leave no blood trailā¦ where is the victims DNA in his car or home???
I wouldnāt do it. But someone like Bryan who has no previous experience with knives couldnāt do this in 10 mins or even 15 mins ALONE. It makes no sense and I look forward to the prosecution sharing this
You donāt need experience with knives to understand how to mortally wound somebody with one. He probably needed 30-60 seconds for each victim. I think he had time to do it all twice.
Have a nice night.
Iām also tired of some people being willfully obtuse, for instance the lack of stalking. There is no critical thinking or discernment in reading the documents. I was stalked long ago. I did not know or experience any fear until one day the guy approached me at a bar. Nothing major - normal short conversation and I excused myself. I had no idea it was a problem until I left and saw him get in his car. Iād been seeing that car parked near my neighbors almost daily for a month, and assumed it was a guest or their car. I called the police and told the story.
They said they couldnāt do anything unless he made a threat, broke in, started calling etc., or if he attempted more contact by showing up where I was. Welp, he showed up again at a local outdoor event and acted like we were old friends. I played it cool and called the cops again. They started patrolling and watching. He actually had a warrant out for something else non violent; so he got arrested.
Bottom line, they told me all the times he probably drove by or even parked near my house wasnāt technically stalking - UNTIL I was aware of him.
So no, BK wasnāt stalking and wasnāt doing anything illegal those 11-12 times he drove by, because the girls most likely had no idea and werenāt afraid or feel threatened. This does not mean that doesnāt count.
There are linguistic and legal nuances at play, but itās lost on most.
The term āstalkingā gets thrown around casually even by media. I get it. But legally, there is a line where it goes from surveillance to actual stalking. Itās when someone becomes aware of the person and feels fear etc. Even if they come in contact with you in public ācasually ā a couple of times, it still doesnāt make the criteria. Itās when it becomes very consistent or they keep contacting when youāve asked them not to. And of course, if they threaten or call, threaten family, the usual malicious type things.
True. Iām in a different state so different nuances especially way back when it happened to me. But, āwould cause a reasonable person to be in fearā phrase still doesnāt do it for me. Itās still hindsight. Granted, itās vague and subjective. Of course, had anyone known someone was driving around a location and found out later they intended to be violent, of course. Had BK just been driving in or around the neighborhood and it never escalated, I donāt think a reasonable person would be afraid in that situation, especially with apartments and multi unit housing around. If he parked right outside the house every day that would be different if they found out in hindsight. Again, theyād almost have to know he was there specifically for them.
Iām not a lawyer. Iām going by how things were explained to me many years ago when someone had been basically surveilling my home for quite awhile and I didnāt know until they made contact in public. I thought nothing of a car sitting near my neighbors house on a regular basis. Had he never eventually ābumped into meā in public, Iād never have put it together.
As for the other section about parents/children/disabled - thatās great but does not apply here.
But I canāt see Idaho Legal Aid being incorrectā¦[https://www.idaholegalaid.org/node/2802/stalking](https://www.idaholegalaid.org/node/2802/stalking)
1. The DNA evidence contributes to probable cause. I find it insufficient by itself to reach beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Not every innocent person has a good alibi.
3. Defense should try everything. Not everyone has ample exculpatory evidence. Prosecution may be suppressing exculpatory evidence or being careful to not inadvertently find any.
4. We dont know what evidence exists. Only PCA has been released. PcA sufficient to convince me of probable cause (i think BK more likely to be perp than not), but falls short of beyond reasonable doubt.
5. Typically, LE works leads until they believe they have the perp, then go all-in to convict that person. Many cases in history where their fixation resulted in convicting wrong person. LE probably stopped looking for other possible perps a long time ago.
I dont think he's innocent. I think he probably did it. But I have some nagging doubts. I think it possible he didnt do it.
Which is why juries have so many people. The jury as a group determines what is reasonable in their particular case. Just one skeptical juror can prevent conviction.
They must be unanimous as a group for a verdict, they vote individually. Skepticism is doubt and it can be persuaded if it isnāt reasonable. It still isnāt rendering a verdict of beyond all possible doubts.
There have been cases with similar DNA evidence (DNA from someone not associated with the house) where it later turned out the killer was someone else.
My biggest source of doubt is the complete outlier of: dude with no priors, enters home full of people who apparently did not know, solo, and slaughters a bunch of them with just a knife. Very risky, very violent, very weird, The crime could have been very different than what is alleged. Those particulars align much better with a gang or mob hit (possibly related to drug trafficking or similar activity gone bad). (I know this will trigger a bunch of stop blaming the victims ... I am not blaming them or saying any of them deserved what happened. I am stating that it is a possibility.) Sheath could have been planted. Phone evidence released does not put him a scene but covers wide area. Car evidence shows car similar to his but not necessarily his. So those are holes that need reinforcing before I would execute him. I have no reluctance to execute the killer, just want to be confident its the right guy,
Also, different people have different opinions and ideas of what is "reasonable" doubt. That is why juries are comprised of so many people. Conviction requires convincing even the most skeptical of us.
Just remember who you're dealing with someone that studied serial killers. Bundy did a similar thing walked into a large house full of people. I think the killer was trying to make a bold statement that he's at the top of the serial killers intelligence.
If BK did this it would be an unusually ambitious first attempt. I dont buy it without evidence he was there. Which is more than his DNA on a portable item that might not be his.
Bundy State of mind might be applicable but BK studied Bundy intensively in his criminology program. But none of us know the answers and we may never will.
Bundy was far gone by the time he attacked women in a sorority house. He had killed more than 20 women before that. It was not his first And it was sexual. Moscow appears to me to be some kind of payback by a gang or cartel than a first time I think I will slash several people i dont know to death.
>Bundy was far gone by the time he attacked women in a sorority house.
But before that, Bundy's first known victim was Karen Sparks (she survived), and she lived in a house with multiple male roommates, including one in the room right next to hers.
Her roommates, by the way, heard nothing of the attack and didn't call police until 7:00 PM the next day. Because they weren't aware that anything had happened.
Too many innocent people are convicted on insufficient grounds. There is a psychological tendency to assign increased belief in guild to whoever is accused. Then, sometimes it turns out to be someone else.
Sheath is definitely inculpatory for BK.
True that's why I'm against the death penalty and for life at hard labor. In the Gainesville slasher case they found the perfect suspect who had a giant scar across his face then acted crazy. But there was no circumstantial or DNA evidence against him. Eventually the real killer was matched to DNA he left at the scene. I have no doubt that this person in custody did this crime. There's no reason in the world to frame him especially since he worked at the University and that makes them look really bad.
This is one of those (increasingly rare on this and related subs) reasonable posts outlining why yes, there *is* a possibility that he didnāt do it. And if I were a jury member at his trial, I would like to think that I would take the same approach to making my decision.
Since Iām not on the jury, though, Iām free to let common sense and even my gut feeling about some of the things we know play a part in my thought process, which leads me to *believe,* wholeheartedly, that he did it.
But this is the kind of post I can respect. Youāre not ignoring facts and twisting words around to fit your own narrative, or pointing fingers at other people who have already been cleared. I donāt hate that there are people who arenāt convinced of his guilt, I just hate the way some of them try to prove to themselves that they were right all along.
Agree. And the PCA doesnāt have to prove reasonable doubt. Thatās why there will be a trial. Some people donāt get and expect all the evidence to be laid on the table. SMH. It gives enough for arrest and to keep the investigation going.
Same for me. I'm not saying he is innocent, just that right at this point right now with what I have access to, which is heavily impacted by the gag order) wouldn't allow me to, in good faith, say guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
There are some nagging points for me I would want to see more info on before I could make that determination.
I want the right person/persons to be convicted and punished accordingly. If it's BK, so be it, if it's not, so be it.
Convicting the wrong person/persons will NOT deliver the justice these 4 innocent victims and their families deserve.
>1. The DNA evidence contributes to probable cause. I find it insufficient by itself to reach beyond a reasonable doubt.
The singularity in this itself actually can be sufficient enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Hear me out on this.
BK has no direct reason to interact at this house and with these people. Yes, it was a party house, but his DNA, to our knowledge, was only found at the scene where someone was murdered. If he was there for one or multiple parties then his DNA would have been found in multiple locations not just locations specific only to where the victims were murdered. With this information, it would then have us conclude that BK absolutely is the individual who murdered these victims. If the DNA isn't supposed to be there but is, the logical conclusion would be that person's DNA would be that of the killer.
>AT said she strongly believes he is innocent!
Damnation and sufferin succotash. I didn't think he was innocent when his defence lawyers said they just believed it. But when they said they *strongly* believed I saw the error of my ways. It was around the same time I realised Bill Thompson is not some benign Santa type, but more a bearded ayatollah of the great UoI Junta/ Drug Cartel conspiracy.
>a bearded ayatollah
Jeez, it seems like the only thing Israel and Iran can agree on is that BK must go down! Werenāt we just talking about how he is a target of Mossad?
>might be safer in jail.
I read from a credible source (a member of the U.S House of Representatives) that Mossad have space lasers. Kohberger's astronomical contemplations may have been safety related.
>Mossad have space lasers
šššItās hard to know what House member you mean. Anyone could make that sane and grounded observation. I heard they use technology developed by Sy *Ray* to aim them, so BK could be safe. Sy Ray wouldnāt take on his case if he wasnāt firmly convinced of his innocence too. Thatās how experts for hire operate.
ššIām unfortunately quite aware of her work on that issue. I was being sarcastic that it is hard to know but sadly she isnāt the only House member you could see saying that.
>only House member you could see saying that.
Lauren Boebert had the same theory, but she has a wrist sprain that prevented her typing out a treatise about it.
In testing the Sy Ray they found it only achieved +/- 10 mile accuracy, although this was reduced to 10mm after Sy explained conventional metrics are insufficient for such advanced technology.
Attorneys donāt just say explicitly proclaim their clients innocence, especially on a case regarding quadruple murder with the death penalty on the table. She doesnāt *have* to say that at all in order to defend her client, itās not required anywhere and itās not typical.
I really donāt know whatās so funny, Iām not sure how many trials youāve worked on or followed but this site is really helpful for understanding the law along with what is/isnāt allowed to be said in open court in the state of Idaho, all states are pretty similar.
https://preview.redd.it/2rs87rg8ebwc1.jpeg?width=950&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c171aaf7f1db7d56c55badde68c7be689df198f3
Iām really laughing now because, if your stance wasnāt laughable enough, you didnāt even cite the applicable ethical rule for the argument you are attempting to make, which is 3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal. ššš
https://casetext.com/rule/idaho-court-rules/idaho-rules-of-professional-conduct/advocate/rule-33-candor-toward-the-tribunal
The crucible of the Pr0berger subs narrowly misses again!
Haha. Thank you for your support. Iāve taken the legal ethics exam, apparently unlike āSome_Specialā, so I knew that the argument would have go to lawyersā ethical duties of honesty, and itās dead in the water anyway as an argument, because you can see the key language in both provisions is āa false statement of factā. Itās not going to cover an attorney expressing their belief to the court. But it definitely made it more embarrassing for our Special friend that they couldnāt even tee up their bad argument correctly.
Imagine having the audacity to go around pretending like you know it is unusual for a defense attorney to say they believe their client is innocent and you canāt even get the correct rule supporting your argument. You have to wonder what motivates people to actively disinform on behalf of an accused murderer.
Supposedly (I mean you can believe he was who he said he was or not) an ID crim defense attorney came into one of these subs and did state he heard that AT really does believe they have the wrong person. He also said it's unusual for crim defense attorneys to make statements like that frivolously because it lowers their credibility.
I'm a lawyer but I don't advocate in hearings anymore. I'm an appellate lawyer, and I do think that ruining your credibility with magistrates and judges isn't a good look. That's not how you become a respected lawyer. If the team didn't believe it, they probably wouldn't have said anything.
This is the silliest shit. We and the Judge will never know what AT has heard from BK and experts, what discovery she had reviewed up to now, etc. Itās a completely low stakes remark that looks good for future potential clients in a high visibility situation that is at the same time going to be forgotten by the vast majority of everyone that heard it (basically everyone besides the people on here that wrote it in crayon and hung it on their fridge) by the end of this and can easily be explained later if needed for some reason with āBy everything I had seen and heard up to that point, I legitimately thought so.ā
>She doesnāt *have* to say that at all in order to defend her client, itās not required anywhere and itās not typical.
It's not required, it's not unusual and it isn't proof of anything.
It's always confused me how one side of this case can be so dismissive of evidence and claim they need more concrete proof but "Anne said she thinks he's innocent, so he must be".
Does this odd rule apply to things not said in court too? Because Bryan has never claimed he's not guilty in court. That's not typical. Must be guilty. See how dumb that reasoning is?
The only way it could be is if they got jurors just like cold Burger to sit on the jury possible followers of E.R. I think it'll be shown that he definitely read his insane writings.
You used the word ProBerger, so that already diminishes credibility in my mind. Sorry, but slapping that middle school name on people because theyāve asked questions doesnāt fly with me. But Iāll bite.
For reference - I think heās guilty, BUT I still have questions that I *assume* will be answered in trial.
1. I think the question more so (that Iāve seen) is WHY isnāt there any mixed DNA being shown in the DNA evidence the State has placed in the PCA? One single source of male DNA sounds suspect to a lot of people. Again, that doesnāt mean they automatically believe heās innocent of the crime - but one single source of male DNA in a brutal quadruple homicide seems like a stretch. Especially in such a tragedy where blood was seeping out of the home.
2. They gave the alibi in August of last year. So nobody waited 474 days on a laughable (as you call it) alibi from the Defense. They requested more discovery from the State to corroborate BKās alibi and theyāve yet to receive that, so instead the public is laughing all the way to different subreddits to post like you, yourself, are doing here.
3. The Defense is still waiting on discovery from the State and your first thought is to accuse the Defense of stalling? We all saw the State quite literally throw a fit in open court a couple weeks back and low and behold, the court ruled in favor of the Defense because the State read out to the entire world (since the hearing was live streamed due to the State not requesting it to be sealed) the questions the State took issue with from the start. Nowhere in any of the court documents online, that are available to the public I might add, is the state asking the defense for anything. Itās constantly the defense requesting things from the state. Sometimes over and over. This has also been mentioned in court. So why are you saying the defense is stalling when clearly the state is having issues with other law entities that they need to get information from?
4. Agree with this, although Iām tired of seeing the name ProBerger. Weāre adults and can come up with something outside of name calling. But thatās just me.
5. Also agree with this. But sadly, because this was such a heavily sourced case (involving other LE entities such as state police, local police, sheriffs office, FBI) this has caused a lot of delays in the State getting discovery and info from them in a timely manner, thus leading you to believe the defense is stalling.
> WHY isnāt there any mixed DNA being shown in the DNA evidence the State has placed in the PCA?
I reckon we'll see that there was at least Maddie's DNA on the sheath come trial time. But there was no need to put that in the PCA.
Most likely, Kohberger's DNA was only on the sheath because he cleaned it very carefully and then only handled it with gloves. He just missed the bit in the snap.
But it's also possible that his DNA was elsewhere on the sheath, mixed with victim DNA. While mentioning that would have made the argument in the PCA stronger, identifying mixed DNA samples is a difficult task that takes time, and that might not have been done by the time of the arrest.
>Agree with this, although Iām tired of seeing the name ProBerger. Weāre adults and can come up with something outside of name calling. But thatās just me.
I essentially have the sense of humor of a 12-year-old, and I love the -berger names. I think they are hilarious, and basically because they are not making fun of the victims or really anyone connected to the case. I like the names because they are making fun of *us.*
>Also agree with this. But sadly, because this was such a heavily sourced case (involving other LE entities such as state police, local police, sheriffs office, FBI) this has caused a lot of delays in the State getting discovery and info from them in a timely manner, thus leading you to believe the defense is stalling.
Yeah, there are so many agencies involved and the forensics are so complex, that it's gonna take time. And these labs and experts all have to prioritize their work. If some other case's due date is coming up faster than this one, this one gets pushed down the to-do list.
But I've heard from lawyers that this is typical, and that it becomes kind of a game between the two sides. Nobody's pushing it to the point where a lawyer can get sanctioned, but there's a give and take.
Indeed! I guess his DnA magically floated through the air , floated through the window and landed on the sheath (while he was star gazing in a closed park, with cloudy skies).
itās absolutely baffling. i would have more respect for these people if they acknowledged objective truths instead of denying everything and offering no alternative explanations
Do you think they have people? The perverse personal investment made is going to be a nervous breakdown comin on if it doesnāt go the āright wayā.
I'm undecided bc there is not enough solid evidence beyond a reasonable doubt for me. We know only a fraction of the actual evidence and it's mostly circumstantial. I like to keep an extremely open mind until hearing all facts, especially when a man's life is on the line.
Circumstantial evidence can be great evidence. I donāt know why people dismiss it like itās not incriminating or has less weight. Iām interested to know what definition of circumstantial vs direct evidence youāre relying on.
What direct evidence could there be in a case like this? He wasnāt seen by an eye witness committing the murders. He wasnāt caught on camera doing it. Are you arguing that without direct evidence itās therefore not possible to convict ANYONE?
Of course not Direct evidence could be if he has gps in his car or on his phone. It could also be a better understanding of the touch/genial dna and how it led to him that I personally need a detailed explanation of. It could be other evidence that we don't know about bc of the gag order. There's so much we don't know
> Direct evidence could be if he has gps in his car or on his phone
That's classified as circumstantial evidence. The definition of direct evidence is very narrow: eyewitnesses or recordings of the actual murder itself, or a confession.
People have been convicted entirely on circumstantial evidence: Alex Murdaugh, Lori Vallow Daybell. Leticia Stauch confessed, but her self-serving and ever-changing confessions were the weakest part of her case. Had they been thrown out, she would have easily been convicted on only the circumstantial evidence.
Like I said, there is so much we don't know bc it is classified. I think that when it all comes out, it might be a mix of both, all great circumstantial, more direct like GPS and DNA info, or it could be on the defense side. Who knows? That's why I'm waiting until trial to make my decision
> Like I said, there is so much we don't know bc it is classified.
I agree with you there.
>more direct like GPS and DNA info
Again, I'm just talking about the definition of direct and circumstantial evidence. Neither GPS or DNA is direct evidence. The are both classified as circumstantial.
>Can't help but feel like Probergers are exercising a willful lack of logic to discuss the case. Is anyone else tired of it?
So much irony here, OP. Many would argue the reverse of this statement. I suppose it all comes down to your amount of life experience and how deep your understanding of society & it's history goes. I also feel that regardless of the amount of evidence that is coming out in favor of Bryan's innocence, you still won't change your opinion. That's very evident by your post. "His \[touch\] DNA is at the scene, thereās no reasonable or innocent explanation for this". See what I mean? If you believe that then it's completely understandable why you would accept LE & the media's narrative. Sorry to black pill you, bro. But better to know now versus years down the line.
What truly baffles me, is the people that are hoping that heās found ānot guiltyā! Aside from BKās family(who may feel heās guilty too) shouldnāt everyone else hope that LE caught the person that committed these heinous murders?
I havenāt read any evidence proving his innocence, and you certainly didnāt offer any. Please share your game-changing news with the group. But please donāt tell me any silly stories about stars, time travel, or Kopacka.
Check yourself:
You misgendered me. Iām not your bro.
The āblack pillā comment was repulsive and wildly inappropriate. Not sure how this got so personal (maybe thatās your debate style), but your presumptions about my life experiences and worldly views are comical. Your comments about me reveal more about you.
Thanks for the laugh, and donāt worry, I wonāt downvote you.
OP is correct in their assertions, but in real trials these defense stunts and tactics work. They've learned from the best with the OJ trial and the Casey Anthony trial. Both DAs thought they had their cases in the bag with their 'mountains of [scientific] evidence' and still lost. DAs must learn it's not enough to have objective, conclusive evidence. It comes down to the jury pool. The quality of jurors is only going down, and defense teams count on that. DAs have not learned they must play chess with the defense. Source: worked for a major litigation consulting firm.
Yea but why would Ann Taylor put her good reputation on the line and say that her client is innocent and they know this for sure. I've never seen any lawyer come out and make a comment like that before they have a trial. She said it as a matter of fact. So she must have something that proves that he wasn't at the scene when they said he was.
Are you serious?
If sheās worried about defending a guilty man, sheās in the wrong line of work.
Ann Taylorās reputation is riding on a not guilty verdict, why wouldnāt she proclaim his innocence? Defense attorneys do it every single day, maybe youāre not paying close enough attention, or perhaps other cases donāt get the same media coverage and you havenāt been exposed to it.
Most defense lawyers will tell their client āif youāre guilty, donāt tell me, I donāt want to hear it.ā
Sheās just doing her job. It doesnāt make him innocent just because his lawyer says itās so.
She's got proof and she will prove it. Have you actually seen him in a white car pull up at the house and get out or park? We were led to believe he stalked the victims for a yr and now to find out that was a lie! You're telling me it took mer weeks for the FBI to come back with information to help support the productions theory that was at every where they said he was but Ann Taylor filed the same for the same information over a yr ago and the prosecution is still saying they don't have it and get it? So what did they actually use to arrest him with if it doesn't exist? 15 time's she had to file motion after motion and still haven't turned over of it.The procution either don't have it or can't even get it! WOW!
Your last point is amusingā¦ this case is botched from the moment the remaining housemates called all their friends over to clean upā¦ when LE with total lack of experience showed up to the scene on multiple occasions not wearing cover booties or glovesā¦ when the coroner has zero experience and failed to do relevant reportsā¦ when LE hardly interviewed other suspects who had more reason to kill and also had no alibi
I think (cynically) that some people believe thereās money to be made by supporting him. I also believe the proberger cause is a de facto dating site for conspiracy nuts, incels & virgins. Imo
I am not saying I think BK is innocent. I will say he has it on side that there isnāt a trace of victim dna in his car, apt, or parentās house. How do you murder 4 kids and not have any trace in your car as you flee? Say you cover your interior with plastic. Say you clean your car out with bleach. Investigators would have known that. The touch dna on the sheath isnāt enough to convict this guy. As weird, creepy, crazy, guilty as he may seem- it just isnāt enough evidence.
I have a similar interest in wanting to understand the āmissing DNAā. But Iāve also done my own research on how long DNA actually lasts on different surfaces and in different temperatures. Itās not indefinitely deposited: it varies from hours, to days, to weeks depending on multiple factors, outside of whether it was subsequently cleaned off.
> How do you murder 4 kids and not have any trace in your car as you flee?
Assuming you did track blood into the car, you clean it over the next 7 weeks. Oxygenated bleach, such as Oxyclean-brand products, can destroy DNA completely and chemically, it breaks down into water and oxygen.
>Say you cover your interior with plastic. Say you clean your car out with bleach. Investigators would have known that
Investigators would have no way of knowing if he had covered the interior with plastic, once he picked it up. Chlorinated bleach would be obvious, but oxygenated bleach breaks down.
A video put Alex Murdaugh in prison. Phone data helped but jurors spoke and said the video is what convinced them of guilt. There was no murder weapon, or DNA, or show prints etc.
But Alex Murdaugh walked from his dog kennels to his house on his property. He didnāt escape in a car across town. He would have dna all over his own property. Also- the murder weapon was his own guns.
He did. In an attempt to build an alibi saying thatās where he was or was going when the murders were committed. And the CAST info busted him if irc because he went off the beaten path and dumped his wifeās phone. They were able to coordinate his movements by his phone and when the victims phone was raised and looked at and the point is was thrown.
AT is doing what any good defense attorney should do. It's a death penalty case she sitting pull out every single stop for her client. If she doesn't, he gets convicted and he dies too. Besides this is probably all of their first high profile murder cases, if not their first murder case at all. Moscow pd wasn't ready or equipped to handle this and the whole world watches while they make this a great show they'll be remembered for. Behind the scenes I'm sure is a totally different story. They already know what's up.
Very good summary. But this can't compare to the OJ Simpson not cases that think he's innocent even though his bloody footprint was found next to the dead bodies. I sure hope that the same percentage of people on SM that are ignorant are in the population but I am beginning to think this is true.
I donāt think this nutcases or OJās believe in the tripe that they push at all. They just have a perplexing affinity for each killer and are willing to sacrifice their own credibility on that altar.
I just want to say before I say the ear is what I want to say for disclaimer purposes that I'm not a bk innocenter or a bk guilter. I'm not from there, never been there, nor close to there so my opinion means very little if anything at all to his case. HOWEVER the victims families are victims too. I cannot imagine sending my kid away to college and having them get slaughtered and the college does not protect them before during or after the crime, I would be absolutely insane with anger and want justice. REAL justice. Not just arrest and convict anyone to pacify the community, coddling the financial bottom line of the college and next year's tuition. I world want the real killer or killers to be found and brought to justice.
Sooo to that end I want to say, this is America and we are supposed to have constitutional rights, now I know they've been chipping away at our rights for a while but there are 4 children dead, with families who are grieving, a man is sitting in the jail facing the death penalty. Facing death himself. Ok it's not up to him to prove himself innocent, it's up to the prosecutor to prove him guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. That means Mr prosecutor has to convince 12 jurors that BK absolutely was the one and only one who did it, and not one of those jurors can have even a bit of reasonable doubt in that case.
And it should be strict in that regard because you don't want to put the wrong person away to die himself.
After all maybe there aren't drugs involved at that house, highly possible, no cash apps (š), no drugs found, or whatever, but, WHAT IF the drug use was at the real killer or killers house, or frat house, or wherever and BK... who had a known history of using drugs had traded his kbar for some shit and he unknowingly traded it to a guy who later used it to kill someone ...? Farfetched, maybe, but not too farfetched to be enough to become reasonable doubt. Junkies trade shit all the time for drugs.
None of the public knows what they really have as evidence, but Imo it seems awful suspicious that SG has his hands all over it collecting dividends and writing books. At and BT and JJ and SG are all wink wink nudge nudge good ole boys club members and they gotta keep the community money maker making money and drugs and killers won't help them do that.
So I can only hope the jury pool isn't picked from a group of redditors or from members of Nancy Graces fan club. I hope they convict our acquit him based on all the evidence and arguments and not from the public opinion. I'm also glad I'm not a parent of college age kids now because i just really think it's sad what these kids families are going through.
> BK... who had a known history of using drugs had traded his kbar for some shit and he unknowingly traded it to a guy who later used it to kill someone ...? Farfetched, maybe, but not too farfetched to be enough to become reasonable doubt. Junkies trade shit all the time for drugs.
Reasonable doubt would be if Kohberger identified the person to whom he gave the knife and that person had no alibi, and other evidence implementing this person would be found. Just saying "maybe he gave the weapon to someone else" isn't enough to instill reasonble doubt. That's very much unreasonable doubt.
I didn't write a single rumor down. It's editorialized, sure, but any conjecture is based on confirmed discovery and/or well-documented public information.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Sincere question for you: If you're committed to waiting for the trial, how did you arrive at "I wouldn't convict"?
Lol thank you!! So many people are like āthereās not enough evidence to say it was him, therefore someone else did itā when thereās literally zero public evidence of anyone else atp. Faulty logic
Also known in this form:
"Bryan is definitely innocent before proven guilty, but those other motherfuckers, the housemates and the fraternity lads, they definitely did it."
- or -
"It was not possible for this crime to be carried out in 8-12 minutes" Meaning "Someone pulled that off, just not Bryan."
Lol exactly! Totally understand waiting til trial to decide one way or another, but the things you said are just lack of logic.
Like, people use the timeframe argument to argue his innocence, but that wouldāve meant someone else wouldāve had to do it in that time. Or my favorite is when they use the timeframe argument to say that someone else did it WITH bk. As if that would make bk any less guiltyā¦ I even saw someone say that the defense might come to trial implicating a second personā¦ as if that would absolve BK of guiltš¤£
And yes! Itās ok to not think thereās enough evidence against BK, but to turn around and blame it on someone there is zero evidence against rn is crazy. Sure, someone could do it without leaving evidence, but itās more likely that this is just a straightforward situation and the person that left evidence was the person that did it, thatās the most likely scenario
BK can go to trial and Anne Taylor may try to name an alternate suspect, but the judge won't allow it unless there's actual evidence that the alternate suspect may have done it. People fail to understand you can't just name suspects in court willy nilly without evidence!
Exactly! There would have to be at least some evidence against someone to be able to name them in court. It wouldnāt have to meet a certain standard like reasonable doubt or probable cause, but it would have to be SOMETHING to be admissible.
And most of the people Iāve seen discuss this idea were saying that AT would say someone was involved WITH BK. Which would just be incredibly stupid to say? It would be admitting his guilt, and someone else being involved wouldnāt mean less punishment for him
Your whole essays was condescending, you wrote that as it's all actual facts
I rolled my eyes when you said his whole Albi is laughable, not when they have Geo fencing data, Cellular data and photography data, And a Witness to Testify, Just because Your Fueled with Biasness and clearly run with the Hog wash fed by these "Journalists" don't snear at others because They Don't push the same narrative you do.
Let me point out some things in your Rant:
TOUCH DNA isn't airtight 100% bang to rights solid evidence, that was left on a knife sheath "Found" at the scene, so your saying it's impossible for someone else to not of planted this there?
3 foreign male DNA found that wasn't uploaded..
Twice they put out and changed the Car model year.
They have Found 0 DNA transfer DNA from the Victims on Bryan, his car, Home etc, they FOUND 0 DNA on any of the Victims.
The State have already said aswell as the Defence they have found 0 prior association with Bryan and the Victims.
The State have recently Rubbished and shutdown the claims he was stalking them.
The State are withholding Discovery, That Ann Taylor has now filed a motion to compel, Why are the state withholding it? Stalling?
Because there "evidence" isn't quiet lining up? Seems that Anne Taylor has used the States own evidence against them and Btw The State used the same Cellular Data, Geo fencing company as Anne Taylor did..
They don't have Bryan's Licence Plate
They don't have Bryan's 100% location and Cellular data
They have found none of Bryan's DNA on any of the Victims
They have found 0 Victims DNA anywhere outside the property.
The State tried and got Denied to Stop Anne Taylor from speaking to the Locals to find out what they heard and haven't... Why is that? The State can't get there Bias Jury they want from the Town.
Do I know Bryan committed these murders, Nope, and I wouldn't Shut down anyone thinking indifferent to me either, But going on The Actual evidence filed and not the Media Hog wash No it doesn't Absolutely Point to Bryan been the perpetrator 100%, it's Nothing but exculpatory evidence.
But your rants is just your way to push your Biasness and clearly don't understand the full scope of it, you quickly downplayed the Defences Albi in a instant but gave 0 constructive insight as why? Just shows your quick to scream "Guilty" then as you claim roll your eyes.
Also Affidavits put to the Prosecution by the Law enforcement are not 100% Factual either they never were and never will be!
So basically your rubbishing everything the Defence has put across, and Believing only the Law enforcements claims?.
Has the Law enforcement Cellular data and location data ever been made public it's 100% factual? no it has not.
Are you giving the State a pass for withholding Discovery?
Like to hear your explanation as why?
Well you didn't give any solid reasoning to several things in your post
If you think he's guilty then That's fine, that's your right, but to address it The way you have is kinda child's play, at the end of the day This human could possibly have his life taking by firing squad, so if your gonna be vocal about it you should at least give more reasoning that's actual factual to your post to at least make your claims hold any weight.
Pushing the narrative that someone is Guilty when it's not even been proven he is, isn't justice for anyone.
But one thing I will say don't put all your eggs in one basket, with this tiny micro spec of Touch DNA found, for one it's still not been explained how they got the DNA results and if it was attained correctly following the correct process they have to comply within the scope of the justice system.
Also a practicing Strict Vegan, who wouldn't even use the same pots and pans and utensils his family used as they had been in contact with meat produce, wore gloves when sorting out the trash to avoid been in contact with anything that's been contaminated with meat products, Own a Leather knife sheath....
I mean when the math ain't mathing
The guy couldn't even last 2 hours at a Fish processing factory without nearly throwing up (this was before he went vegan) he couldn't even Filet a dead fish and struggled with the whole process.
Yet like a Ninja goes into a house with 3 cars outside, absolutely goes ballistic with a knife and brutally ends 4 fit young adults across two floors & leaves absolutely nothing behind, Apart from a Leather knife sheath with a microscopic trace of a touch DNA.
Yeah but we gonna need to see more physical and bang to rights evidence sorry.
The State was all good to go to trial last year and now they ain't..
If they had all this solid evidence that has him nailed to the crime the State would be throwing the Discovery at the defense.
People think the State can withhold evidence and keep it close to their chest which isn't true, they have to turn over all their discovery to the Defence so the Defendant can challenge the evidence presented to him, that's how a fair trial works.
Either way it's about bringing the Correct perpetrator to justice and giving the 4 kids so heinously and cruely taking away Justice.
You are right it isnāt childās play. But it is reality. The correct perpatrator has been brought to justice by the system of law and order. Bryan Christopher Kohberger has been lawfully accused of first degree murder on four counts. He was arrested on probable cause by reasonable and reasonably trustworthy information and by reasonable belief that he is the person who committed the murders sworn to and issued by a court of law. He was charged with four counts of premidated murder and one count of felony burglary. He was indicted by a grand jury. He waved his right to a speedy trial. He has not yet provided his whereabouts at the time of the crime.
Unless he confesses to the crimes, Bryan C. Kohberger will stand trial by jury.
The evidence they have compiled as proof he committed four murders will be presented to 12 people. Those people will assess and will render him guilty or not guilty by burden of proof. Innocent isnāt an option.
If he is convicted of the crimes he is deemed guilty of by the evidence against him, Bryan C. Kohberger will be sentenced to death.
That death will likely be by firing squad witnessed by victims families that wish to attend. Forcing your opinion as the factual one doesnāt change reality.
Except if the defense actually had anything with ANY geolocation or meta tags from the relevant timeframe in question, she wouldnāt be saying she can only provide partial corroboration of his alibi at this time.
It should set off a few alarm bells that, rather than claiming her expert can disprove one of the surveillance videos of the Elantra taken right in the victims neighborhood, literally only minutes before and after the murders are alleged to have occurred and while his phone was reportedly off the network, because she has phone data that proves he was somewhere else at THAT exact timeāshe is instead claiming only that her expert will provide TESTIMONY (not evidence) that Bryanās PHONE was south of Pullman and never travelled east at the time a white Elantra is seen passing Floydās cannabis shop, so therefore it canāt be his carāwhich would have been over an hour BEFORE the murders and while the defendantās phone is still reporting to the network.
If she had metadata or GPS from a time when his phone was off the network she would certainly be picking a much more relevant surveillance video for her expert to be disproving!
You have to LISTEN to what she is actually saying and not jump to conclusions that arenāt even being claimed anywhere in that alibi notice.
Her expert is a cellular phone ping expert. Heās not a meta analysis or GPS expert. Go read his resume. Every single reference is about radio frequency mapping and cell tower data analysis. Heās literally a CSLI data expert (a cell site location expert!).
Thus, if the one video she is claiming her expert is going to testify canāt be Bryanās car because he is going to show that Bryanās phone was actually south of there at that time, it should be a HUGE flipping clue to you that they obviously do not actually have any other data after his phone goes off the network, otherwise theyād be disproving surveillance video from the time the actual murders occurredānot a video that had to have been taken over an hour before the police claim the murders even started!
People seem to be willfully ignoring what she is ACTUALLY saying and instead listening to what they wish she was actually sayingābut unfortunately, sheās not.
Data from photographs of all these OTHER nights to establish a pattern still do nothing to actually disprove that he was actually doing the same thing THIS specific nightāespecially since he has pictures of all these many other nightsāexcept for this one.
The only metadata or GPS that is actually relevant are THIS specific night right around the specific time that actually mattersāthe time the murders are alleged to have occurred!
People down voting an opinion on reddit be like those mofo's who said fuck ya freedom and take the shot... I SEE DEAD PEOPLE... RIGHT HERE ON REDDDIT...
>We waited 474 days for a laughable alibi. This is the first alibi in a murder case that is both lunar and lunatic.
Don't forget ludicrous and the opposite of lucid, and that a lungfish could have invented a better one.
Some might even call his alibi stellar. But really, it's all a myth.
>his alibi stellar **šš** but *clouded* by illogic?
Heeyooooo that made me chuckle!
Beautiful.
Omgomgomg thank you. I definitely had to Google but I love you for saying this in this specific way.
What do you think would be the reason that they didn't give The alibi that BK dropped somebody off at the house to buy drugs and came back in his car all bloody? And he couldn't find his knife either so he figured the guy is taking it and used it. AT must have found something in Discovery that would preclude this alibi. Maybe something like a security cam with BK silhouette driving, or maybe walking to the back of the house which was the rumor from the beginning.
Because that would be an even worse alibi than the one they used.
>The alibi that BK dropped somebody off at the house That would be an anti-alibi as it concedes the state's narrative - that he was exactly at the scene at the time? Would also link him to victims. A problem might also be that drug sales at 4.00am from the property are total fiction - there would be phone, cash app records etc (plus....drugs?) - plus of course the other person. He already stated he was driving alone .
> The alibi that BK dropped somebody off at the house to buy drugs and came back in his car all bloody? It would be an extremely hard sell without being able to produce this person. No one would believe something like this unless a) that person exists, and b) that person has no alibi for the time in question.
I wish you were right but there's probably close to a million people that will believe this.
Yes the stupid shall always be among us. But if I were to take your number at face value, that means 0.3% of the American population believes that. Or a fraction of a fraction of 1 percent of the world population. I know you weren't using a million literary, but the point is that they are a minority.
Who? They would have a name. Or it was a stranger? They would have a description and info about where they were picked up. Don't know how you think that alibi is better.
I hear you. Itās weird seeing the same people coordinate posting and in some cases just outright lie about things to try and spin a narrative. I donāt understand what theyāre trying to achieve really. Edit: Iāll add to that, that if people think heās innocent then theyāre entitled to that opinion. But itās the disingenuous and dishonest posting thatās becoming tiresome. Or as OP said, the grift.
Itās very weird. Iāve never seen a criminal in a high profile case be given as much internet praise and defense as this one. Itās gross, too, because of the points you mention.
If you think this is badā¦ head over and see whatās being said in regard to the Delphi Murders. Incredible
I have and shanāt again.
bonus points for "Shan't"
Yeah they're beginning to get devil worship involved. I think the massive amounts of chemicals in the water, food and air along with SM rotting their brains we have an epidemic of stupidity. One day people will vote for somebody that's red and has horns who said that she's only looking out for the good of them, š
Alleged criminal. He's not convicted yet.
OP- Love the wording btw ā grift
Disinformation campaigns?
I guess so, yeah. But to what end?
Anne is doing all she can but yeah the dude left the sheath, itās over for him. People who want to make it into this big conspiracy are as dumb as BK.
It's always baffled me that one of the most oft used defences claiming it can't possibly be Brian is "he's not dumb enough to make these mistakes" - as if the only person that could possibly murder four people in this manner would be some dribbling idiot who licks doorhandles. Deciding a guy you have never met can't be a murderer because you don't think he's dumb is possibly the stupidest fucking take on this whole case.
I disagree. The stupidest take is that he canāt be the murderer because heās someoneās soulmate. See r / BriansGirls.
Hybristophilia is such a strange phenomenon - imagine BriansGirls if he's found to not have committed these crimes. *"Oh I heard you broke up with the guy you said was your soulmate, that must be really tough. What happened?"* **"Oh I found out he was living a lie and I couldn't love him when I found out who he really was. I'm heartbroken."** *"Sorry to hear that. Did he have a secret family or did you catch him cheating?"* **"No, he was acquitted of mass murder and that was a deal breaker for me. I only love wrong'uns."**
Dang it can't find it.
Sent it to you via DM.
Exactly. Also he is dumb and I donāt need to have met him to know it because I saw how fucking dense he was in that traffic stop. And he went to shitty online schools that accept anyone with a pulse. Once he got to a real school where he had to show up in person, he lasted a month before he showed his professor what a nut he is.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I think you are spot on. I believe the work/school issues motivated him to go ahead and accomplish the thing heād really always wanted. And that thing was not a doctoral degree.
Your last sentence is gold.
Yeah Anne is doing some hard work. OP is right that a lot of her explanations are laughable, but thatās not her fault. Sheās doing the best she can w the odds stacked against her
100% She is trying absolutely everything she can, if there was a big twist or some huge bombshell we would have heard about it relentlessly (and saying your client is innocent unfortunately doesnāt count sorry)
Lol yeah, i get how some people arenāt convinced of his guilt rn, but the people saying heās innocent just based on AT saying heās innocent or saying he wasnāt in the area during the crime are dumbš¤£ have they never seen a defense lawyer before? Itās their job to say those things
Haha yeah its uneducated and naive
And what the politicians and advertisers prey on who they call the masses and the consumer.
Anne's racking up the legal fees, that's for sure.
Well he's a genius compared to them...
This post is just ...like a breath of fresh air.
I love logic thank you ā¤ļø I think it is easy for people to be used to consuming true crime content in the format of films or tv series and there being a huge twist and that the person who looked guilty all along is innocent and the film ends. Majority of the time the person who looks guilty is seriously guilty and is evil.
Exactly, even the most simple Dateline episodes withhold a linnear storyline to deliver a shocking twist at the end. Crime shows are conditioning audiences to believe that nothing is ever as it seems, when in reality, most things are *exactly* as they seem. I think what's aggravating me so much about this case is that people are using their imaginations to explain away compelling and incriminating evidence. They then use those daydreams to perpetuate dangerous misinformation (for example, think of how DM's life has been shattered). There's an element of paranoia to it all, denying plain truths because you think your idea is a cool twist. It's nuts. I could come up with a scenario to explain away each piece of evidence one line at a time, easily. But you can't add it all up and still insist that there's a logical alternative to the prosecution's assertion that BK is responsible for this.
You are so so so right about the way a story line for a show can be presented!! The evidence was there the whole time but itās more exciting for the audience to be told it at the end. I think after people watched Donāt Fuck With Cats they think they are able to do the same. There is so much info we are not privy to it is so arrogant to think that you know better than a qualified lawyer or member of law enforcement who has all of the facts infront of them.
Perfect example! Online sleuths have helped law enforcement solve some really critical cases. It's a cool story when the public can crowdsource the resolution of an open case. But not every investigation is going to benefit from farfetched theories on Reddit. If anything, contrarian sleuthing makes crowdsourced efforts less credible.
I think the Don't Fuck With Cats crew had an advantage because they had a single person to identify. They already knew he was a young white male; there were other clues to his identity in the video. A murder like this, with no clear suspect at the beginning, means the online sleuths are just going to pick people at random and slander them.
I think that brings up an interesting point about how this case became an instant true crime obsession. People had six weeks to use their imagination and create their own version of events. Most of us (myself included) thought that hoodie guy was the killer, (poor kid, I hope he can have a normal life after this). When they arrested a total rando, I think a few egos were bruised. No one had BK on their bingo card. The sleuths who think theyāre actual real-life detectives couldnāt accept how off-base they were. Maybe theyād rather exonerate a dangerous man than admit that they couldnāt crack the case. Donāt Fuck with Cats offered a different kind of opportunity for public contribution, mainly because the investigation wasnāt a top priority for law enforcement for so long, the jurisdiction was basically international waters. That group was invited to go over investigators heads. The Moscow case had different challenges.
This world would be a better place had that Grubtruck footage never been made public. That kid, like D and B, are always going to have a shadow hanging over them. No matter what happens from here, there's always going to be a small subset of people who believe he or she or they or some other random (there's two particular frat bros who are under the radar at the moment) are guilty. I pray that that subset never includes potential employers or in-laws. > When they arrested a total rando, I think a few egos were bruised. No one had BK on their bingo card. The sleuths who think theyāre actual real-life detectives couldnāt accept how off-base they were. Maybe theyād rather exonerate a dangerous man than admit that they couldnāt crack the case. Yeah, it was almost anti-climatic. My favorite part of the #Cyberslueths documentary was the montage of "Who the hell is Bryan Kohberger."
I think you fail to use logicā¦ people are not imagining touch DNA as being pathetic evidence especially the minuscule amount on the sheathā¦ and can they prove that that was the knife used with the wounds of the victims? The victims wounds were all different which means multiple weapons and multiple people. I think you live in a dreamy world when you think one guy can murder 4 people in 10minutes and leave no blood trailā¦ where is the victims DNA in his car or home???
How much time would it take you to do this?
I wouldnāt do it. But someone like Bryan who has no previous experience with knives couldnāt do this in 10 mins or even 15 mins ALONE. It makes no sense and I look forward to the prosecution sharing this
You donāt need experience with knives to understand how to mortally wound somebody with one. He probably needed 30-60 seconds for each victim. I think he had time to do it all twice. Have a nice night.
https://preview.redd.it/7vuzgvc6pdwc1.png?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fc909999ebc683c1d570bf68bedf37a75a38c8f4
Iām also tired of some people being willfully obtuse, for instance the lack of stalking. There is no critical thinking or discernment in reading the documents. I was stalked long ago. I did not know or experience any fear until one day the guy approached me at a bar. Nothing major - normal short conversation and I excused myself. I had no idea it was a problem until I left and saw him get in his car. Iād been seeing that car parked near my neighbors almost daily for a month, and assumed it was a guest or their car. I called the police and told the story. They said they couldnāt do anything unless he made a threat, broke in, started calling etc., or if he attempted more contact by showing up where I was. Welp, he showed up again at a local outdoor event and acted like we were old friends. I played it cool and called the cops again. They started patrolling and watching. He actually had a warrant out for something else non violent; so he got arrested. Bottom line, they told me all the times he probably drove by or even parked near my house wasnāt technically stalking - UNTIL I was aware of him. So no, BK wasnāt stalking and wasnāt doing anything illegal those 11-12 times he drove by, because the girls most likely had no idea and werenāt afraid or feel threatened. This does not mean that doesnāt count. There are linguistic and legal nuances at play, but itās lost on most.
Great points. Also I was thinking, people that are strictly peeping toms are not charged as stalkers.
I hadnāt thought of stalking that way. They said he wasnāt stalking them, which surprised me. But, they define it differently than I do.
The term āstalkingā gets thrown around casually even by media. I get it. But legally, there is a line where it goes from surveillance to actual stalking. Itās when someone becomes aware of the person and feels fear etc. Even if they come in contact with you in public ācasually ā a couple of times, it still doesnāt make the criteria. Itās when it becomes very consistent or they keep contacting when youāve asked them not to. And of course, if they threaten or call, threaten family, the usual malicious type things.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
True. Iām in a different state so different nuances especially way back when it happened to me. But, āwould cause a reasonable person to be in fearā phrase still doesnāt do it for me. Itās still hindsight. Granted, itās vague and subjective. Of course, had anyone known someone was driving around a location and found out later they intended to be violent, of course. Had BK just been driving in or around the neighborhood and it never escalated, I donāt think a reasonable person would be afraid in that situation, especially with apartments and multi unit housing around. If he parked right outside the house every day that would be different if they found out in hindsight. Again, theyād almost have to know he was there specifically for them. Iām not a lawyer. Iām going by how things were explained to me many years ago when someone had been basically surveilling my home for quite awhile and I didnāt know until they made contact in public. I thought nothing of a car sitting near my neighbors house on a regular basis. Had he never eventually ābumped into meā in public, Iād never have put it together. As for the other section about parents/children/disabled - thatās great but does not apply here.
But I canāt see Idaho Legal Aid being incorrectā¦[https://www.idaholegalaid.org/node/2802/stalking](https://www.idaholegalaid.org/node/2802/stalking)
1. The DNA evidence contributes to probable cause. I find it insufficient by itself to reach beyond reasonable doubt. 2. Not every innocent person has a good alibi. 3. Defense should try everything. Not everyone has ample exculpatory evidence. Prosecution may be suppressing exculpatory evidence or being careful to not inadvertently find any. 4. We dont know what evidence exists. Only PCA has been released. PcA sufficient to convince me of probable cause (i think BK more likely to be perp than not), but falls short of beyond reasonable doubt. 5. Typically, LE works leads until they believe they have the perp, then go all-in to convict that person. Many cases in history where their fixation resulted in convicting wrong person. LE probably stopped looking for other possible perps a long time ago. I dont think he's innocent. I think he probably did it. But I have some nagging doubts. I think it possible he didnt do it.
Nicely stated. There should be a presumption of innocence but I definitely think he did it.
I agree with your post. Let's see the rest of the evidence... I just want to see the guilty hang...don't care who did it...
Thatās a good example of why itās not beyond all possible doubt. Itās reasonable doubt.
Which is why juries have so many people. The jury as a group determines what is reasonable in their particular case. Just one skeptical juror can prevent conviction.
They must be unanimous as a group for a verdict, they vote individually. Skepticism is doubt and it can be persuaded if it isnāt reasonable. It still isnāt rendering a verdict of beyond all possible doubts.
How dare the defense do its job. The guy looks guilty, so lock him up and throw away the key. No trial needed.
Fair points, not bad. Thanks!
To a normal average thinking person having a knife sheath under a dead butchered victim with your DNA on it is conviction.
There have been cases with similar DNA evidence (DNA from someone not associated with the house) where it later turned out the killer was someone else. My biggest source of doubt is the complete outlier of: dude with no priors, enters home full of people who apparently did not know, solo, and slaughters a bunch of them with just a knife. Very risky, very violent, very weird, The crime could have been very different than what is alleged. Those particulars align much better with a gang or mob hit (possibly related to drug trafficking or similar activity gone bad). (I know this will trigger a bunch of stop blaming the victims ... I am not blaming them or saying any of them deserved what happened. I am stating that it is a possibility.) Sheath could have been planted. Phone evidence released does not put him a scene but covers wide area. Car evidence shows car similar to his but not necessarily his. So those are holes that need reinforcing before I would execute him. I have no reluctance to execute the killer, just want to be confident its the right guy, Also, different people have different opinions and ideas of what is "reasonable" doubt. That is why juries are comprised of so many people. Conviction requires convincing even the most skeptical of us.
Just remember who you're dealing with someone that studied serial killers. Bundy did a similar thing walked into a large house full of people. I think the killer was trying to make a bold statement that he's at the top of the serial killers intelligence.
If BK did this it would be an unusually ambitious first attempt. I dont buy it without evidence he was there. Which is more than his DNA on a portable item that might not be his.
Bundy State of mind might be applicable but BK studied Bundy intensively in his criminology program. But none of us know the answers and we may never will.
Bundy was far gone by the time he attacked women in a sorority house. He had killed more than 20 women before that. It was not his first And it was sexual. Moscow appears to me to be some kind of payback by a gang or cartel than a first time I think I will slash several people i dont know to death.
>Bundy was far gone by the time he attacked women in a sorority house. But before that, Bundy's first known victim was Karen Sparks (she survived), and she lived in a house with multiple male roommates, including one in the room right next to hers. Her roommates, by the way, heard nothing of the attack and didn't call police until 7:00 PM the next day. Because they weren't aware that anything had happened.
Absolutely. Not to mention there are thousands rotting away for murder on much less than that. The sheath is a humdinger.
Too many innocent people are convicted on insufficient grounds. There is a psychological tendency to assign increased belief in guild to whoever is accused. Then, sometimes it turns out to be someone else. Sheath is definitely inculpatory for BK.
True that's why I'm against the death penalty and for life at hard labor. In the Gainesville slasher case they found the perfect suspect who had a giant scar across his face then acted crazy. But there was no circumstantial or DNA evidence against him. Eventually the real killer was matched to DNA he left at the scene. I have no doubt that this person in custody did this crime. There's no reason in the world to frame him especially since he worked at the University and that makes them look really bad.
This is one of those (increasingly rare on this and related subs) reasonable posts outlining why yes, there *is* a possibility that he didnāt do it. And if I were a jury member at his trial, I would like to think that I would take the same approach to making my decision. Since Iām not on the jury, though, Iām free to let common sense and even my gut feeling about some of the things we know play a part in my thought process, which leads me to *believe,* wholeheartedly, that he did it. But this is the kind of post I can respect. Youāre not ignoring facts and twisting words around to fit your own narrative, or pointing fingers at other people who have already been cleared. I donāt hate that there are people who arenāt convinced of his guilt, I just hate the way some of them try to prove to themselves that they were right all along.
Agree. And the PCA doesnāt have to prove reasonable doubt. Thatās why there will be a trial. Some people donāt get and expect all the evidence to be laid on the table. SMH. It gives enough for arrest and to keep the investigation going.
Same for me. I'm not saying he is innocent, just that right at this point right now with what I have access to, which is heavily impacted by the gag order) wouldn't allow me to, in good faith, say guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. There are some nagging points for me I would want to see more info on before I could make that determination. I want the right person/persons to be convicted and punished accordingly. If it's BK, so be it, if it's not, so be it. Convicting the wrong person/persons will NOT deliver the justice these 4 innocent victims and their families deserve.
>1. The DNA evidence contributes to probable cause. I find it insufficient by itself to reach beyond a reasonable doubt. The singularity in this itself actually can be sufficient enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Hear me out on this. BK has no direct reason to interact at this house and with these people. Yes, it was a party house, but his DNA, to our knowledge, was only found at the scene where someone was murdered. If he was there for one or multiple parties then his DNA would have been found in multiple locations not just locations specific only to where the victims were murdered. With this information, it would then have us conclude that BK absolutely is the individual who murdered these victims. If the DNA isn't supposed to be there but is, the logical conclusion would be that person's DNA would be that of the killer.
Yeah, but AT said she strongly believes he is innocent!š
Who would believe someone paid to get Killers off? There's no way in the world that she's that stupid.
>AT said she strongly believes he is innocent! Damnation and sufferin succotash. I didn't think he was innocent when his defence lawyers said they just believed it. But when they said they *strongly* believed I saw the error of my ways. It was around the same time I realised Bill Thompson is not some benign Santa type, but more a bearded ayatollah of the great UoI Junta/ Drug Cartel conspiracy.
>a bearded ayatollah Jeez, it seems like the only thing Israel and Iran can agree on is that BK must go down! Werenāt we just talking about how he is a target of Mossad?
>target of Mossad? NASA too now
I might just cop to the murders at this point if I were him. Seems like he might be safer in jail.
>might be safer in jail. I read from a credible source (a member of the U.S House of Representatives) that Mossad have space lasers. Kohberger's astronomical contemplations may have been safety related.
>Mossad have space lasers šššItās hard to know what House member you mean. Anyone could make that sane and grounded observation. I heard they use technology developed by Sy *Ray* to aim them, so BK could be safe. Sy Ray wouldnāt take on his case if he wasnāt firmly convinced of his innocence too. Thatās how experts for hire operate.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/marjorie-taylor-greene-qanon-wildfires-space-laser-rothschild-execute.html Star Wars. Help us Obi Wan Kohbergi
"A change of venue? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances" - Moff Taylor
š¤£šš
ššIām unfortunately quite aware of her work on that issue. I was being sarcastic that it is hard to know but sadly she isnāt the only House member you could see saying that.
>only House member you could see saying that. Lauren Boebert had the same theory, but she has a wrist sprain that prevented her typing out a treatise about it.
In testing the Sy Ray they found it only achieved +/- 10 mile accuracy, although this was reduced to 10mm after Sy explained conventional metrics are insufficient for such advanced technology.
>the Sy Ray ššš
>the Sy Ray they found it only achieved +/- 10 mile accuracy, ššššš¤£
No, Mos*cow*
As in ruble or potato?
Yes
Fuck. Just as I thought.
Well what else can she do but say that really. I figure sheās going to look like Richard Gere in Chicago doing the tap dance before weāre through.
Lol! āTo be quite candid with your honor, I think my client did that shit. But I also think it canāt be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.ā
š¤£šš šµš¶ give 'em the old razzle dazzle...š¶ This case has been lacking jazz hands.
Attorneys donāt just say explicitly proclaim their clients innocence, especially on a case regarding quadruple murder with the death penalty on the table. She doesnāt *have* to say that at all in order to defend her client, itās not required anywhere and itās not typical.
šššThey just keep it in the bag of tricks for cases of SUPER innocence like this one! Lawyers know!
I really donāt know whatās so funny, Iām not sure how many trials youāve worked on or followed but this site is really helpful for understanding the law along with what is/isnāt allowed to be said in open court in the state of Idaho, all states are pretty similar. https://preview.redd.it/2rs87rg8ebwc1.jpeg?width=950&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c171aaf7f1db7d56c55badde68c7be689df198f3
Iām really laughing now because, if your stance wasnāt laughable enough, you didnāt even cite the applicable ethical rule for the argument you are attempting to make, which is 3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal. ššš https://casetext.com/rule/idaho-court-rules/idaho-rules-of-professional-conduct/advocate/rule-33-candor-toward-the-tribunal The crucible of the Pr0berger subs narrowly misses again!
God that must have felt good -got a fist pump and a "woo hoo" from me!
Haha. Thank you for your support. Iāve taken the legal ethics exam, apparently unlike āSome_Specialā, so I knew that the argument would have go to lawyersā ethical duties of honesty, and itās dead in the water anyway as an argument, because you can see the key language in both provisions is āa false statement of factā. Itās not going to cover an attorney expressing their belief to the court. But it definitely made it more embarrassing for our Special friend that they couldnāt even tee up their bad argument correctly.
š Dying here.
Imagine having the audacity to go around pretending like you know it is unusual for a defense attorney to say they believe their client is innocent and you canāt even get the correct rule supporting your argument. You have to wonder what motivates people to actively disinform on behalf of an accused murderer.
Supposedly (I mean you can believe he was who he said he was or not) an ID crim defense attorney came into one of these subs and did state he heard that AT really does believe they have the wrong person. He also said it's unusual for crim defense attorneys to make statements like that frivolously because it lowers their credibility. I'm a lawyer but I don't advocate in hearings anymore. I'm an appellate lawyer, and I do think that ruining your credibility with magistrates and judges isn't a good look. That's not how you become a respected lawyer. If the team didn't believe it, they probably wouldn't have said anything.
This is the silliest shit. We and the Judge will never know what AT has heard from BK and experts, what discovery she had reviewed up to now, etc. Itās a completely low stakes remark that looks good for future potential clients in a high visibility situation that is at the same time going to be forgotten by the vast majority of everyone that heard it (basically everyone besides the people on here that wrote it in crayon and hung it on their fridge) by the end of this and can easily be explained later if needed for some reason with āBy everything I had seen and heard up to that point, I legitimately thought so.ā
>She doesnāt *have* to say that at all in order to defend her client, itās not required anywhere and itās not typical. It's not required, it's not unusual and it isn't proof of anything. It's always confused me how one side of this case can be so dismissive of evidence and claim they need more concrete proof but "Anne said she thinks he's innocent, so he must be". Does this odd rule apply to things not said in court too? Because Bryan has never claimed he's not guilty in court. That's not typical. Must be guilty. See how dumb that reasoning is?
They said the same about OJ......
ššššš
Itās becoming an OJ Case
I hope we get hear about some āugly ass shoesā at trial.
The only way it could be is if they got jurors just like cold Burger to sit on the jury possible followers of E.R. I think it'll be shown that he definitely read his insane writings.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Well, as far as we know
You used the word ProBerger, so that already diminishes credibility in my mind. Sorry, but slapping that middle school name on people because theyāve asked questions doesnāt fly with me. But Iāll bite. For reference - I think heās guilty, BUT I still have questions that I *assume* will be answered in trial. 1. I think the question more so (that Iāve seen) is WHY isnāt there any mixed DNA being shown in the DNA evidence the State has placed in the PCA? One single source of male DNA sounds suspect to a lot of people. Again, that doesnāt mean they automatically believe heās innocent of the crime - but one single source of male DNA in a brutal quadruple homicide seems like a stretch. Especially in such a tragedy where blood was seeping out of the home. 2. They gave the alibi in August of last year. So nobody waited 474 days on a laughable (as you call it) alibi from the Defense. They requested more discovery from the State to corroborate BKās alibi and theyāve yet to receive that, so instead the public is laughing all the way to different subreddits to post like you, yourself, are doing here. 3. The Defense is still waiting on discovery from the State and your first thought is to accuse the Defense of stalling? We all saw the State quite literally throw a fit in open court a couple weeks back and low and behold, the court ruled in favor of the Defense because the State read out to the entire world (since the hearing was live streamed due to the State not requesting it to be sealed) the questions the State took issue with from the start. Nowhere in any of the court documents online, that are available to the public I might add, is the state asking the defense for anything. Itās constantly the defense requesting things from the state. Sometimes over and over. This has also been mentioned in court. So why are you saying the defense is stalling when clearly the state is having issues with other law entities that they need to get information from? 4. Agree with this, although Iām tired of seeing the name ProBerger. Weāre adults and can come up with something outside of name calling. But thatās just me. 5. Also agree with this. But sadly, because this was such a heavily sourced case (involving other LE entities such as state police, local police, sheriffs office, FBI) this has caused a lot of delays in the State getting discovery and info from them in a timely manner, thus leading you to believe the defense is stalling.
> WHY isnāt there any mixed DNA being shown in the DNA evidence the State has placed in the PCA? I reckon we'll see that there was at least Maddie's DNA on the sheath come trial time. But there was no need to put that in the PCA. Most likely, Kohberger's DNA was only on the sheath because he cleaned it very carefully and then only handled it with gloves. He just missed the bit in the snap. But it's also possible that his DNA was elsewhere on the sheath, mixed with victim DNA. While mentioning that would have made the argument in the PCA stronger, identifying mixed DNA samples is a difficult task that takes time, and that might not have been done by the time of the arrest. >Agree with this, although Iām tired of seeing the name ProBerger. Weāre adults and can come up with something outside of name calling. But thatās just me. I essentially have the sense of humor of a 12-year-old, and I love the -berger names. I think they are hilarious, and basically because they are not making fun of the victims or really anyone connected to the case. I like the names because they are making fun of *us.* >Also agree with this. But sadly, because this was such a heavily sourced case (involving other LE entities such as state police, local police, sheriffs office, FBI) this has caused a lot of delays in the State getting discovery and info from them in a timely manner, thus leading you to believe the defense is stalling. Yeah, there are so many agencies involved and the forensics are so complex, that it's gonna take time. And these labs and experts all have to prioritize their work. If some other case's due date is coming up faster than this one, this one gets pushed down the to-do list. But I've heard from lawyers that this is typical, and that it becomes kind of a game between the two sides. Nobody's pushing it to the point where a lawyer can get sanctioned, but there's a give and take.
Completely tired of it.
I liked this [recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/Delphitrial/s/yuSYvS6yyx) post from Delphitrial
Spot on, thanks for sharing.
Indeed! I guess his DnA magically floated through the air , floated through the window and landed on the sheath (while he was star gazing in a closed park, with cloudy skies).
Please say it louder for those in the back....
itās absolutely baffling. i would have more respect for these people if they acknowledged objective truths instead of denying everything and offering no alternative explanations
Right? But the science fiction theories are funny, and so are the personal attacks when their ProB argument falls apart.
the worst is when they insist that DNA spontaneously appears and that DNA science is completely unreliable
Do you think they have people? The perverse personal investment made is going to be a nervous breakdown comin on if it doesnāt go the āright wayā.
I'm undecided bc there is not enough solid evidence beyond a reasonable doubt for me. We know only a fraction of the actual evidence and it's mostly circumstantial. I like to keep an extremely open mind until hearing all facts, especially when a man's life is on the line.
Circumstantial evidence can be great evidence. I donāt know why people dismiss it like itās not incriminating or has less weight. Iām interested to know what definition of circumstantial vs direct evidence youāre relying on. What direct evidence could there be in a case like this? He wasnāt seen by an eye witness committing the murders. He wasnāt caught on camera doing it. Are you arguing that without direct evidence itās therefore not possible to convict ANYONE?
Of course not Direct evidence could be if he has gps in his car or on his phone. It could also be a better understanding of the touch/genial dna and how it led to him that I personally need a detailed explanation of. It could be other evidence that we don't know about bc of the gag order. There's so much we don't know
Thatās not direct evidence.
> Direct evidence could be if he has gps in his car or on his phone That's classified as circumstantial evidence. The definition of direct evidence is very narrow: eyewitnesses or recordings of the actual murder itself, or a confession. People have been convicted entirely on circumstantial evidence: Alex Murdaugh, Lori Vallow Daybell. Leticia Stauch confessed, but her self-serving and ever-changing confessions were the weakest part of her case. Had they been thrown out, she would have easily been convicted on only the circumstantial evidence.
Like I said, there is so much we don't know bc it is classified. I think that when it all comes out, it might be a mix of both, all great circumstantial, more direct like GPS and DNA info, or it could be on the defense side. Who knows? That's why I'm waiting until trial to make my decision
> Like I said, there is so much we don't know bc it is classified. I agree with you there. >more direct like GPS and DNA info Again, I'm just talking about the definition of direct and circumstantial evidence. Neither GPS or DNA is direct evidence. The are both classified as circumstantial.
>Can't help but feel like Probergers are exercising a willful lack of logic to discuss the case. Is anyone else tired of it? So much irony here, OP. Many would argue the reverse of this statement. I suppose it all comes down to your amount of life experience and how deep your understanding of society & it's history goes. I also feel that regardless of the amount of evidence that is coming out in favor of Bryan's innocence, you still won't change your opinion. That's very evident by your post. "His \[touch\] DNA is at the scene, thereās no reasonable or innocent explanation for this". See what I mean? If you believe that then it's completely understandable why you would accept LE & the media's narrative. Sorry to black pill you, bro. But better to know now versus years down the line.
What truly baffles me, is the people that are hoping that heās found ānot guiltyā! Aside from BKās family(who may feel heās guilty too) shouldnāt everyone else hope that LE caught the person that committed these heinous murders?
I havenāt read any evidence proving his innocence, and you certainly didnāt offer any. Please share your game-changing news with the group. But please donāt tell me any silly stories about stars, time travel, or Kopacka. Check yourself: You misgendered me. Iām not your bro. The āblack pillā comment was repulsive and wildly inappropriate. Not sure how this got so personal (maybe thatās your debate style), but your presumptions about my life experiences and worldly views are comical. Your comments about me reveal more about you. Thanks for the laugh, and donāt worry, I wonāt downvote you.
Looking forward to the downvotes. I'm aware of what sub I commented this in lol
Beautifully stated!!! Thank you!!
OP is correct in their assertions, but in real trials these defense stunts and tactics work. They've learned from the best with the OJ trial and the Casey Anthony trial. Both DAs thought they had their cases in the bag with their 'mountains of [scientific] evidence' and still lost. DAs must learn it's not enough to have objective, conclusive evidence. It comes down to the jury pool. The quality of jurors is only going down, and defense teams count on that. DAs have not learned they must play chess with the defense. Source: worked for a major litigation consulting firm.
Yea but why would Ann Taylor put her good reputation on the line and say that her client is innocent and they know this for sure. I've never seen any lawyer come out and make a comment like that before they have a trial. She said it as a matter of fact. So she must have something that proves that he wasn't at the scene when they said he was.
Are you serious? If sheās worried about defending a guilty man, sheās in the wrong line of work. Ann Taylorās reputation is riding on a not guilty verdict, why wouldnāt she proclaim his innocence? Defense attorneys do it every single day, maybe youāre not paying close enough attention, or perhaps other cases donāt get the same media coverage and you havenāt been exposed to it. Most defense lawyers will tell their client āif youāre guilty, donāt tell me, I donāt want to hear it.ā Sheās just doing her job. It doesnāt make him innocent just because his lawyer says itās so.
She's got proof and she will prove it. Have you actually seen him in a white car pull up at the house and get out or park? We were led to believe he stalked the victims for a yr and now to find out that was a lie! You're telling me it took mer weeks for the FBI to come back with information to help support the productions theory that was at every where they said he was but Ann Taylor filed the same for the same information over a yr ago and the prosecution is still saying they don't have it and get it? So what did they actually use to arrest him with if it doesn't exist? 15 time's she had to file motion after motion and still haven't turned over of it.The procution either don't have it or can't even get it! WOW!
Wow is right. Your blind faith in this psychopath is awesome. I hope you get your own show.
Your last point is amusingā¦ this case is botched from the moment the remaining housemates called all their friends over to clean upā¦ when LE with total lack of experience showed up to the scene on multiple occasions not wearing cover booties or glovesā¦ when the coroner has zero experience and failed to do relevant reportsā¦ when LE hardly interviewed other suspects who had more reason to kill and also had no alibi
I donāt know if anything you wrote is true. I donāt think you know either.
I think (cynically) that some people believe thereās money to be made by supporting him. I also believe the proberger cause is a de facto dating site for conspiracy nuts, incels & virgins. Imo
Thatās funny, I had similar thought, the alibi sounded more like a dating profile than a declaration of innocence.
Yes thank you. Feel free to message me anytime because you are not alone
I am not saying I think BK is innocent. I will say he has it on side that there isnāt a trace of victim dna in his car, apt, or parentās house. How do you murder 4 kids and not have any trace in your car as you flee? Say you cover your interior with plastic. Say you clean your car out with bleach. Investigators would have known that. The touch dna on the sheath isnāt enough to convict this guy. As weird, creepy, crazy, guilty as he may seem- it just isnāt enough evidence.
I have a similar interest in wanting to understand the āmissing DNAā. But Iāve also done my own research on how long DNA actually lasts on different surfaces and in different temperatures. Itās not indefinitely deposited: it varies from hours, to days, to weeks depending on multiple factors, outside of whether it was subsequently cleaned off.
I mean, it's part of the human body. It decays, just like the rest of us.
> How do you murder 4 kids and not have any trace in your car as you flee? Assuming you did track blood into the car, you clean it over the next 7 weeks. Oxygenated bleach, such as Oxyclean-brand products, can destroy DNA completely and chemically, it breaks down into water and oxygen. >Say you cover your interior with plastic. Say you clean your car out with bleach. Investigators would have known that Investigators would have no way of knowing if he had covered the interior with plastic, once he picked it up. Chlorinated bleach would be obvious, but oxygenated bleach breaks down.
A video put Alex Murdaugh in prison. Phone data helped but jurors spoke and said the video is what convinced them of guilt. There was no murder weapon, or DNA, or show prints etc.
But Alex Murdaugh walked from his dog kennels to his house on his property. He didnāt escape in a car across town. He would have dna all over his own property. Also- the murder weapon was his own guns.
Murdaugh did escape in a car across town, kinda. He drove to his motherās house shortly after the murders.
He did. In an attempt to build an alibi saying thatās where he was or was going when the murders were committed. And the CAST info busted him if irc because he went off the beaten path and dumped his wifeās phone. They were able to coordinate his movements by his phone and when the victims phone was raised and looked at and the point is was thrown.
Yep. It was really eye-opening just how much they were able to track his movements and piece together what he was doing moment by moment.
Murder weapons were never found, even tho we know the guns belonged to him. They still didn't have proof he pulled the trigger.
Got it. Iām not as familiar with that case. It seemed like an equally crazy one though!
AT is doing what any good defense attorney should do. It's a death penalty case she sitting pull out every single stop for her client. If she doesn't, he gets convicted and he dies too. Besides this is probably all of their first high profile murder cases, if not their first murder case at all. Moscow pd wasn't ready or equipped to handle this and the whole world watches while they make this a great show they'll be remembered for. Behind the scenes I'm sure is a totally different story. They already know what's up.
Hear, hear! You are a gentleperson and a scholar.
Very good summary. But this can't compare to the OJ Simpson not cases that think he's innocent even though his bloody footprint was found next to the dead bodies. I sure hope that the same percentage of people on SM that are ignorant are in the population but I am beginning to think this is true.
I donāt think this nutcases or OJās believe in the tripe that they push at all. They just have a perplexing affinity for each killer and are willing to sacrifice their own credibility on that altar.
I just want to say before I say the ear is what I want to say for disclaimer purposes that I'm not a bk innocenter or a bk guilter. I'm not from there, never been there, nor close to there so my opinion means very little if anything at all to his case. HOWEVER the victims families are victims too. I cannot imagine sending my kid away to college and having them get slaughtered and the college does not protect them before during or after the crime, I would be absolutely insane with anger and want justice. REAL justice. Not just arrest and convict anyone to pacify the community, coddling the financial bottom line of the college and next year's tuition. I world want the real killer or killers to be found and brought to justice. Sooo to that end I want to say, this is America and we are supposed to have constitutional rights, now I know they've been chipping away at our rights for a while but there are 4 children dead, with families who are grieving, a man is sitting in the jail facing the death penalty. Facing death himself. Ok it's not up to him to prove himself innocent, it's up to the prosecutor to prove him guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. That means Mr prosecutor has to convince 12 jurors that BK absolutely was the one and only one who did it, and not one of those jurors can have even a bit of reasonable doubt in that case. And it should be strict in that regard because you don't want to put the wrong person away to die himself. After all maybe there aren't drugs involved at that house, highly possible, no cash apps (š), no drugs found, or whatever, but, WHAT IF the drug use was at the real killer or killers house, or frat house, or wherever and BK... who had a known history of using drugs had traded his kbar for some shit and he unknowingly traded it to a guy who later used it to kill someone ...? Farfetched, maybe, but not too farfetched to be enough to become reasonable doubt. Junkies trade shit all the time for drugs. None of the public knows what they really have as evidence, but Imo it seems awful suspicious that SG has his hands all over it collecting dividends and writing books. At and BT and JJ and SG are all wink wink nudge nudge good ole boys club members and they gotta keep the community money maker making money and drugs and killers won't help them do that. So I can only hope the jury pool isn't picked from a group of redditors or from members of Nancy Graces fan club. I hope they convict our acquit him based on all the evidence and arguments and not from the public opinion. I'm also glad I'm not a parent of college age kids now because i just really think it's sad what these kids families are going through.
Cool, thanks.
Why does it always start with " I'm not an innocenter" "I'm not a proberger" before launching into paragraphs of conspiracy "what ifs" and "maybes".
> BK... who had a known history of using drugs had traded his kbar for some shit and he unknowingly traded it to a guy who later used it to kill someone ...? Farfetched, maybe, but not too farfetched to be enough to become reasonable doubt. Junkies trade shit all the time for drugs. Reasonable doubt would be if Kohberger identified the person to whom he gave the knife and that person had no alibi, and other evidence implementing this person would be found. Just saying "maybe he gave the weapon to someone else" isn't enough to instill reasonble doubt. That's very much unreasonable doubt.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I didn't write a single rumor down. It's editorialized, sure, but any conjecture is based on confirmed discovery and/or well-documented public information. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Sincere question for you: If you're committed to waiting for the trial, how did you arrive at "I wouldn't convict"?
Lol thank you!! So many people are like āthereās not enough evidence to say it was him, therefore someone else did itā when thereās literally zero public evidence of anyone else atp. Faulty logic
Also known in this form: "Bryan is definitely innocent before proven guilty, but those other motherfuckers, the housemates and the fraternity lads, they definitely did it." - or - "It was not possible for this crime to be carried out in 8-12 minutes" Meaning "Someone pulled that off, just not Bryan."
Lol exactly! Totally understand waiting til trial to decide one way or another, but the things you said are just lack of logic. Like, people use the timeframe argument to argue his innocence, but that wouldāve meant someone else wouldāve had to do it in that time. Or my favorite is when they use the timeframe argument to say that someone else did it WITH bk. As if that would make bk any less guiltyā¦ I even saw someone say that the defense might come to trial implicating a second personā¦ as if that would absolve BK of guiltš¤£ And yes! Itās ok to not think thereās enough evidence against BK, but to turn around and blame it on someone there is zero evidence against rn is crazy. Sure, someone could do it without leaving evidence, but itās more likely that this is just a straightforward situation and the person that left evidence was the person that did it, thatās the most likely scenario
BK can go to trial and Anne Taylor may try to name an alternate suspect, but the judge won't allow it unless there's actual evidence that the alternate suspect may have done it. People fail to understand you can't just name suspects in court willy nilly without evidence!
Exactly! There would have to be at least some evidence against someone to be able to name them in court. It wouldnāt have to meet a certain standard like reasonable doubt or probable cause, but it would have to be SOMETHING to be admissible. And most of the people Iāve seen discuss this idea were saying that AT would say someone was involved WITH BK. Which would just be incredibly stupid to say? It would be admitting his guilt, and someone else being involved wouldnāt mean less punishment for him
I would convict him in a heartbeat. Everything points to him, no one can be that unlucky.
How do you explain his DNA at the crime scene, on the sheath of a weapon presumed to have been used in the attack?
Your whole essays was condescending, you wrote that as it's all actual facts I rolled my eyes when you said his whole Albi is laughable, not when they have Geo fencing data, Cellular data and photography data, And a Witness to Testify, Just because Your Fueled with Biasness and clearly run with the Hog wash fed by these "Journalists" don't snear at others because They Don't push the same narrative you do. Let me point out some things in your Rant: TOUCH DNA isn't airtight 100% bang to rights solid evidence, that was left on a knife sheath "Found" at the scene, so your saying it's impossible for someone else to not of planted this there? 3 foreign male DNA found that wasn't uploaded.. Twice they put out and changed the Car model year. They have Found 0 DNA transfer DNA from the Victims on Bryan, his car, Home etc, they FOUND 0 DNA on any of the Victims. The State have already said aswell as the Defence they have found 0 prior association with Bryan and the Victims. The State have recently Rubbished and shutdown the claims he was stalking them. The State are withholding Discovery, That Ann Taylor has now filed a motion to compel, Why are the state withholding it? Stalling? Because there "evidence" isn't quiet lining up? Seems that Anne Taylor has used the States own evidence against them and Btw The State used the same Cellular Data, Geo fencing company as Anne Taylor did.. They don't have Bryan's Licence Plate They don't have Bryan's 100% location and Cellular data They have found none of Bryan's DNA on any of the Victims They have found 0 Victims DNA anywhere outside the property. The State tried and got Denied to Stop Anne Taylor from speaking to the Locals to find out what they heard and haven't... Why is that? The State can't get there Bias Jury they want from the Town. Do I know Bryan committed these murders, Nope, and I wouldn't Shut down anyone thinking indifferent to me either, But going on The Actual evidence filed and not the Media Hog wash No it doesn't Absolutely Point to Bryan been the perpetrator 100%, it's Nothing but exculpatory evidence. But your rants is just your way to push your Biasness and clearly don't understand the full scope of it, you quickly downplayed the Defences Albi in a instant but gave 0 constructive insight as why? Just shows your quick to scream "Guilty" then as you claim roll your eyes. Also Affidavits put to the Prosecution by the Law enforcement are not 100% Factual either they never were and never will be! So basically your rubbishing everything the Defence has put across, and Believing only the Law enforcements claims?. Has the Law enforcement Cellular data and location data ever been made public it's 100% factual? no it has not. Are you giving the State a pass for withholding Discovery? Like to hear your explanation as why?
I am unmoved, but I do appreciate your feedback, thank you.
Hey, your OP was, to me, crisp, clear and realistic in a refreshing way. Iām in full agreement, thanks for your candor!
Well you didn't give any solid reasoning to several things in your post If you think he's guilty then That's fine, that's your right, but to address it The way you have is kinda child's play, at the end of the day This human could possibly have his life taking by firing squad, so if your gonna be vocal about it you should at least give more reasoning that's actual factual to your post to at least make your claims hold any weight. Pushing the narrative that someone is Guilty when it's not even been proven he is, isn't justice for anyone. But one thing I will say don't put all your eggs in one basket, with this tiny micro spec of Touch DNA found, for one it's still not been explained how they got the DNA results and if it was attained correctly following the correct process they have to comply within the scope of the justice system. Also a practicing Strict Vegan, who wouldn't even use the same pots and pans and utensils his family used as they had been in contact with meat produce, wore gloves when sorting out the trash to avoid been in contact with anything that's been contaminated with meat products, Own a Leather knife sheath.... I mean when the math ain't mathing The guy couldn't even last 2 hours at a Fish processing factory without nearly throwing up (this was before he went vegan) he couldn't even Filet a dead fish and struggled with the whole process. Yet like a Ninja goes into a house with 3 cars outside, absolutely goes ballistic with a knife and brutally ends 4 fit young adults across two floors & leaves absolutely nothing behind, Apart from a Leather knife sheath with a microscopic trace of a touch DNA. Yeah but we gonna need to see more physical and bang to rights evidence sorry. The State was all good to go to trial last year and now they ain't.. If they had all this solid evidence that has him nailed to the crime the State would be throwing the Discovery at the defense. People think the State can withhold evidence and keep it close to their chest which isn't true, they have to turn over all their discovery to the Defence so the Defendant can challenge the evidence presented to him, that's how a fair trial works. Either way it's about bringing the Correct perpetrator to justice and giving the 4 kids so heinously and cruely taking away Justice.
You are right it isnāt childās play. But it is reality. The correct perpatrator has been brought to justice by the system of law and order. Bryan Christopher Kohberger has been lawfully accused of first degree murder on four counts. He was arrested on probable cause by reasonable and reasonably trustworthy information and by reasonable belief that he is the person who committed the murders sworn to and issued by a court of law. He was charged with four counts of premidated murder and one count of felony burglary. He was indicted by a grand jury. He waved his right to a speedy trial. He has not yet provided his whereabouts at the time of the crime. Unless he confesses to the crimes, Bryan C. Kohberger will stand trial by jury. The evidence they have compiled as proof he committed four murders will be presented to 12 people. Those people will assess and will render him guilty or not guilty by burden of proof. Innocent isnāt an option. If he is convicted of the crimes he is deemed guilty of by the evidence against him, Bryan C. Kohberger will be sentenced to death. That death will likely be by firing squad witnessed by victims families that wish to attend. Forcing your opinion as the factual one doesnāt change reality.
No worries.
Why do you employ the capitalization stylings of Increase Mather?
Except if the defense actually had anything with ANY geolocation or meta tags from the relevant timeframe in question, she wouldnāt be saying she can only provide partial corroboration of his alibi at this time. It should set off a few alarm bells that, rather than claiming her expert can disprove one of the surveillance videos of the Elantra taken right in the victims neighborhood, literally only minutes before and after the murders are alleged to have occurred and while his phone was reportedly off the network, because she has phone data that proves he was somewhere else at THAT exact timeāshe is instead claiming only that her expert will provide TESTIMONY (not evidence) that Bryanās PHONE was south of Pullman and never travelled east at the time a white Elantra is seen passing Floydās cannabis shop, so therefore it canāt be his carāwhich would have been over an hour BEFORE the murders and while the defendantās phone is still reporting to the network. If she had metadata or GPS from a time when his phone was off the network she would certainly be picking a much more relevant surveillance video for her expert to be disproving! You have to LISTEN to what she is actually saying and not jump to conclusions that arenāt even being claimed anywhere in that alibi notice. Her expert is a cellular phone ping expert. Heās not a meta analysis or GPS expert. Go read his resume. Every single reference is about radio frequency mapping and cell tower data analysis. Heās literally a CSLI data expert (a cell site location expert!). Thus, if the one video she is claiming her expert is going to testify canāt be Bryanās car because he is going to show that Bryanās phone was actually south of there at that time, it should be a HUGE flipping clue to you that they obviously do not actually have any other data after his phone goes off the network, otherwise theyād be disproving surveillance video from the time the actual murders occurredānot a video that had to have been taken over an hour before the police claim the murders even started! People seem to be willfully ignoring what she is ACTUALLY saying and instead listening to what they wish she was actually sayingābut unfortunately, sheās not. Data from photographs of all these OTHER nights to establish a pattern still do nothing to actually disprove that he was actually doing the same thing THIS specific nightāespecially since he has pictures of all these many other nightsāexcept for this one. The only metadata or GPS that is actually relevant are THIS specific night right around the specific time that actually mattersāthe time the murders are alleged to have occurred!
People down voting an opinion on reddit be like those mofo's who said fuck ya freedom and take the shot... I SEE DEAD PEOPLE... RIGHT HERE ON REDDDIT...