The 3 hours from 9 am. -- noon on 11/13/22 when a whole bunch of people came to the crime scene and likely contaminated it before law enforcement was even called.

Any semi-competent defense attorney will have a field day establishing reasonable doubt because of that. It doesn't matter who the suspect is or how many different suspects they try and prosecute, the argument will always be the same--"we really can't trust the evidence because we don't know what happened for those 3 hours and so there is reasonable doubt that any of the so called evidence against my client is a product of the commission of this crime."

I hope someday the families get together and sue the hell out of Brittany and Dylan for obstruction of justice.

Sometimes you get away with multiple murder in Idaho…..until you don't….

It is likely a massive uphill battle for the defense. They will have to convince the jury that all the forensic evidence is contaminated. You reach a point where it becomes illogical to think that numerous pieces of evidence are all contaminated in the same way. Plus there is likely a bunch of non-forensic evidence they have to overcome.

tequila4kapp said:

---

It is likely a massive uphill battle for the defense. They will have to convince the jury that all the forensic evidence is contaminated. You reach a point where it becomes illogical to think that numerous pieces of evidence are all contaminated in the same way. Plus there is likely a bunch of non-forensic evidence they have to overcome.

---

What evidence? You mean the car? The phone pings? That is not sufficient. Many folks have gotten off with much better evidence against them?

The metaphor about building a case one brick at a time comes to mind. If the phone pings, etc. were the only evidence...yeah, sure, people have gotten off. The totality of the evidence is what matters. We don't know but I suspect in a case like this - multiple victims in an enclosed area with a knife attack - it is likely there is a lot of physical evidence from inside the house. TBD.

tequila4kapp said:

---

The metaphor about building a case one brick at a time comes to mind. If the phone pings, etc. were the only evidence...yeah, sure, people have gotten off. The totality of the evidence is what matters. We don't know but I suspect in a case like this - multiple victims in an enclosed area with a knife attack - it is likely there is a lot of physical evidence from inside the house. TBD.

---

Yes, but the prosecution has 2 tasks in this case:

• Not only do they have to stack the evidence together
• they also have to prove the evidence is valid

The entire burden of proof is on them beyond reasonable doubt.
Do you think a jury won't doubt all of this when a bunch of time passed before any evidence could be gathered.
There was virtually a crowd of people at the house when the police arrived, some inside, some mulling around.
Dylan and Brittany NEVER called the police. It was some friend or bystander that used Dylan's phone after discovering someone unconscious.

If I'm on the jury, that sounds pretty sus. to me when all of the "evidence" came afterward. When you don't know what happened really in those 3 hours, that is reasonable doubt. No amount of evidence accumulated AFTER that can change that.

The prosecution is going to have to convince the jury that no hankypanky happened in those 3 hours. With Dylan and Brittany as the witnesses and a bunch of frat boys who have had a history of drug use etc., who is going to be your witness that the defense attorney can't destroy on cross? Without witnesses, what is your strategy for putting together your proof that no evidence was planted during those 3 hours? Remember that there is a reasonable narrative that it was the frat boys themselves that did it. They had means, motive and opportunity. 3 of them were seen running from the area. The heck with the Hyundai, all they had to do was walk. They lived within 3 minutes walk of the house. They all knew the house well.

If we want to talk about evidence, there is a plenty of anonymous testimony on social media that frat boys were involved with drug gangs and did it. That is why the gag order was put in place.

Law school grad here (but not an attorney). I am very prone to seeing things from defendant's perspective, believing deeply in the whole innocent until proven guilty thing.

It has been a while since I read it but the Probable Cause Warrant was pretty compelling, IMO. Obviously, that is the world in the light most favorable to the prosecution. Still, I had the very rare reaction (for me) of saying "yeah, he did it."

The defendant's DNA reportedly matches the DNA found on a knife sheath left at the crime scene. The defense can argue contamination all they want but my hunch is that one piece of evidence alone solves this case. And my hunch is they found evidence at defendant's residence which connects him to the crime seen (eg, victim's blood, hair, etc.). Case closed.

In total, this strikes me as a case defense-leaning type people aren't going to want to go to the mats on.

tequila4kapp said:

---

Law school grade here (but not an attorney). I am very prone to seeing things from defendant's perspective, believing deeply in the whole innocent until proven guilty thing.

It has been a while since I read it but the Probable Cause Warrant was pretty compelling, IMO. Obviously, that is the world in the light most favorable to the prosecution. Still, I had the very rare reaction (for me) of saying "yeah, he did it."

The defendant's DNA reportedly matches the DNA found on a knife sheath left at the crime scene. The defense can argue contamination all they want but my hunch is that one piece of evidence alone solves this case. And my hunch is they found evidence at defendant's residence which connects him to the crime seen (eg, victim's blood, hair, etc.). Case closed.

In total, this strikes me as a case defense-leaning type people aren't going to want to go to the mats on.

---

Interesting take. With the gag order, it's hard to know what they have, but, for what it's worth, internet sleuths and legal experts online have implied that there was no victim DNA in Bryan's possession.

What they have is questionable DNA on a knife sheath, which could easily be planted, some car info. based on video cameras, which is no more compelling than the 4 frat boys running from the area, which is also on video, and some phone pings which only indicate that he often travelled from WSU to U of Idaho at night using a path that went near the house. I'm so they can find similar data on a lot of phones owned by college kids. I don't know what else they have but I still have a hard time believing he could and would do that by himself in 15 minutes without being stopped or raising alarm.
It is becoming clear that none of the 4 were drunk & asleep and several of them fought back. You think the jury is going to believe that Bryan did all that out of the blue with no prior crime history? What was his motive? There were other people with motive.
I have a background in psychology. People don't do things for no reason. Means, MOTIVE, and opportunity are king in my world. Others had better means, more motive and wayyyy more opportunity than a guy living out of town.

The police (almost certainly) did not know who he was when they arrived at the crime scene and discovered the knife sheath. That leaves 2 contamination / planted evidence explanations:
1. Frat boys killed the 4 and had a plan of framing this guy by getting his DNA (but not their own) on the sheath and planting the sheath at the scene.
2. The police had the sheath in custody. The police somehow acquired Defendant's DNA and transferred it to the sheath.

Both things are theoretically possible. But let's put them in the "good luck" category for the defense.

Take a look for yourself:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/01/05/us/bryan-kohberger-affidavit.html

Next Netflix will do a documentary how this creepy POS is innocent….and then a couple of years later it will turn out he was good for it. This is Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald Fatal Vision bullsh@it.

Give Det. Vic Mackey 10 minutes in the interrogation room with him and he'll give it up.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

How it started:

heartofthebear said:

---

The 3 hours from 9 am. -- noon on 11/13/22 when a whole bunch of people came to the crime scene and likely contaminated it before law enforcement was even called.

Any semi-competent defense attorney will have a field day establishing reasonable doubt because of that. It doesn't matter who the suspect is or how many different suspects they try and prosecute, the argument will always be the same--"we really can't trust the evidence because we don't know what happened for those 3 hours and so there is reasonable doubt that any of the so called evidence against my client is a product of the commission of this crime."

I hope someday the families get together and sue the hell out of Brittany and Dylan for obstruction of justice.

---

How it's going:

heartofthebear said:

---

I have a background in psychology. People don't do things for no reason. Means, MOTIVE, and opportunity are king in my world. Others had better means, more motive and wayyyy more opportunity than a guy living out of town.

---

This would have been a more honest thread if you had told us at the beginning that you believed in a conspiracy theory. It sounds like you think some drug gang conspired with some frat boys to kill 4 kids?

I'm not saying the dude is guilty - he should have his day in court. But subscribing to random conspiracy theories because you think the ... [checks notes] ... loner criminology grad student with no alibi ... doesn't fit the profile you expect based on your psychology background isn't a compelling defense either.

---

. So any theory other than the official account is tin foil. In that case, everybody ever prosecuted would be convicted.

oski003 said:

---

Possible motive:

In the summer of 2022, Kohberger moved to Washington state to pursue a PhD at Washington State University in Pullman; its campus is less than eight miles (13 km) west of Moscow.[66][67][68][69] At the time of the killings, he was a doctoral student in criminology and had completed his first semester there nine days before his arrest.[70][71] Kohberger had been a teaching assistant at WSU, and less than two weeks before the murders, faculty members met with him to discuss growing concerns about his behavior and conduct. Kohberger was terminated from his teaching assistant role on December 19 with the decision being based on "his unsatisfactory performance as a teaching assistant, including his failure to meet the 'norms of professional behavior' in his interactions with the faculty."[72][73]

---

HUH?

heartofthebear said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

How it started:

heartofthebear said:

---

The 3 hours from 9 am. -- noon on 11/13/22 when a whole bunch of people came to the crime scene and likely contaminated it before law enforcement was even called.

Any semi-competent defense attorney will have a field day establishing reasonable doubt because of that. It doesn't matter who the suspect is or how many different suspects they try and prosecute, the argument will always be the same--"we really can't trust the evidence because we don't know what happened for those 3 hours and so there is reasonable doubt that any of the so called evidence against my client is a product of the commission of this crime."

I hope someday the families get together and sue the hell out of Brittany and Dylan for obstruction of justice.

---

How it's going:

heartofthebear said:

---

I have a background in psychology. People don't do things for no reason. Means, MOTIVE, and opportunity are king in my world. Others had better means, more motive and wayyyy more opportunity than a guy living out of town.

---

This would have been a more honest thread if you had told us at the beginning that you believed in a conspiracy theory. It sounds like you think some drug gang conspired with some frat boys to kill 4 kids?

I'm not saying the dude is guilty - he should have his day in court. But subscribing to random conspiracy theories because you think the ... [checks notes] ... loner criminology grad student with no alibi ... doesn't fit the profile you expect based on your psychology background isn't a compelling defense either.

---

. So any theory other than the official account is tin foil. In that case, everybody ever prosecuted would be convicted.

---

I never said any other theory is tin foil but yours is about as baseless as they come. I generally enjoy reading what you have to say and think you are a thoughtful poster but c'mon man.

You started with criticism of spoliation of evidence and now you are saying you think the guy is innocent because of your psychology background but that some other random people are guilty of brutally murdering 4 people without any shred of evidence because reasons? This is pizzagate level tin foil nonsense and I think if you were thinking clearly you would see that. For whatever reason, these sorts of high profile cases generate a lot of magical thinking. We saw it with OJ, we saw it with Casey Anthony. And on and on.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying our criminal justice system always gets it right. There have been plenty of shoddy dna-based cases. Black people have long been railroaded for murders and other violent crime based solely on the fact that a black man was seen in the vicinity and blood lust from prosecutors and communities. If that's what is happening here, I trust that this kid, being a white criminology PhD student and all, will be well-represented and will have a solid defense.

But your defense? About as tin foil as they come.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

How it started:

heartofthebear said:

---

The 3 hours from 9 am. -- noon on 11/13/22 when a whole bunch of people came to the crime scene and likely contaminated it before law enforcement was even called.

Any semi-competent defense attorney will have a field day establishing reasonable doubt because of that. It doesn't matter who the suspect is or how many different suspects they try and prosecute, the argument will always be the same--"we really can't trust the evidence because we don't know what happened for those 3 hours and so there is reasonable doubt that any of the so called evidence against my client is a product of the commission of this crime."

I hope someday the families get together and sue the hell out of Brittany and Dylan for obstruction of justice.

---

How it's going:

heartofthebear said:

---

I have a background in psychology. People don't do things for no reason. Means, MOTIVE, and opportunity are king in my world. Others had better means, more motive and wayyyy more opportunity than a guy living out of town.

---

This would have been a more honest thread if you had told us at the beginning that you believed in a conspiracy theory. It sounds like you think some drug gang conspired with some frat boys to kill 4 kids?

I'm not saying the dude is guilty - he should have his day in court. But subscribing to random conspiracy theories because you think the ... [checks notes] ... loner criminology grad student with no alibi ... doesn't fit the profile you expect based on your psychology background isn't a compelling defense either.

---

. So any theory other than the official account is tin foil. In that case, everybody ever prosecuted would be convicted.

---

I never said any other theory is tin foil but yours is about as baseless as they come. I generally enjoy reading what you have to say and think you are a thoughtful poster but c'mon man.

You started with criticism of spoliation of evidence and now you are saying you think the guy is innocent because of your psychology background but that some other random people are guilty of brutally murdering 4 people without any shred of evidence because reasons? This is pizzagate level tin foil nonsense and I think if you were thinking clearly you would see that. For whatever reason, these sorts of high profile cases generate a lot of magical thinking. We saw it with OJ, we saw it with Casey Anthony. And on and on.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying our criminal justice system always gets it right. There have been plenty of shoddy dna-based cases. Black people have long been railroaded for murders and other violent crime based solely on the fact that a black man was seen in the vicinity and blood lust from prosecutors and communities. If that's what is happening here, I trust that this kid, being a white criminology PhD student and all, will be well-represented and will have a solid defense.

But your defense? About as tin foil as they come.

---

-1000 for bringing race into this.

heartofthebear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Possible motive:

In the summer of 2022, Kohberger moved to Washington state to pursue a PhD at Washington State University in Pullman; its campus is less than eight miles (13 km) west of Moscow.[66][67][68][69] At the time of the killings, he was a doctoral student in criminology and had completed his first semester there nine days before his arrest.[70][71] Kohberger had been a teaching assistant at WSU, and less than two weeks before the murders, faculty members met with him to discuss growing concerns about his behavior and conduct. Kohberger was terminated from his teaching assistant role on December 19 with the decision being based on "his unsatisfactory performance as a teaching assistant, including his failure to meet the 'norms of professional behavior' in his interactions with the faculty."[72][73]

---

HUH?

---

He is interested in crimes and wanted to get away with murder. It is as plausible a motive as anything else I have read here.

tequila4kapp said:

---

The police (almost certainly) did not know who he was when they arrived at the crime scene and discovered the knife sheath. That leaves 2 contamination / planted evidence explanations:
1. Frat boys killed the 4 and had a plan of framing this guy by getting his DNA (but not their own) on the sheath and planting the sheath at the scene.
2. The police had the sheath in custody. The police somehow acquired Defendant's DNA and transferred it to the sheath.

Both things are theoretically possible. But let's put them in the "good luck" category for the defense.

---

Did they find anything in all of that garbage that linked him to the crime, to the house or to the victims? Bryan was OCD and many people elect to wear gloves when dealing with garbage even without OCD. How is bagging the garbage becomes suspicious only because he was up late and though he was alone. Many people do things that look suspicious because the behavior doesn't have context to it for the people observing. Doing weird things in your own kitchen late at night with gloves on won't get you convicted of murder unless you area black man in the south prior to 1960.
The defense doesn't need to prove anything. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

How it started:

heartofthebear said:

---

The 3 hours from 9 am. -- noon on 11/13/22 when a whole bunch of people came to the crime scene and likely contaminated it before law enforcement was even called.

Any semi-competent defense attorney will have a field day establishing reasonable doubt because of that. It doesn't matter who the suspect is or how many different suspects they try and prosecute, the argument will always be the same--"we really can't trust the evidence because we don't know what happened for those 3 hours and so there is reasonable doubt that any of the so called evidence against my client is a product of the commission of this crime."

I hope someday the families get together and sue the hell out of Brittany and Dylan for obstruction of justice.

---

How it's going:

heartofthebear said:

---

I have a background in psychology. People don't do things for no reason. Means, MOTIVE, and opportunity are king in my world. Others had better means, more motive and wayyyy more opportunity than a guy living out of town.

---

This would have been a more honest thread if you had told us at the beginning that you believed in a conspiracy theory. It sounds like you think some drug gang conspired with some frat boys to kill 4 kids?

I'm not saying the dude is guilty - he should have his day in court. But subscribing to random conspiracy theories because you think the ... [checks notes] ... loner criminology grad student with no alibi ... doesn't fit the profile you expect based on your psychology background isn't a compelling defense either.

---

. So any theory other than the official account is tin foil. In that case, everybody ever prosecuted would be convicted.

---

I never said any other theory is tin foil but yours is about as baseless as they come. I generally enjoy reading what you have to say and think you are a thoughtful poster but c'mon man.

You started with criticism of spoliation of evidence and now you are saying you think the guy is innocent because of your psychology background but that some other random people are guilty of brutally murdering 4 people without any shred of evidence because reasons? This is pizzagate level tin foil nonsense and I think if you were thinking clearly you would see that. For whatever reason, these sorts of high profile cases generate a lot of magical thinking. We saw it with OJ, we saw it with Casey Anthony. And on and on.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying our criminal justice system always gets it right. There have been plenty of shoddy dna-based cases. Black people have long been railroaded for murders and other violent crime based solely on the fact that a black man was seen in the vicinity and blood lust from prosecutors and communities. If that's what is happening here, I trust that this kid, being a white criminology PhD student and all, will be well-represented and will have a solid defense.

But your defense? About as tin foil as they come.

---

Honestly I don't really get why you disagree with my thoughts so strongly. They are based in logic and on the evidence and also on a whole lot of unanswered questions. But, okay, let's just see what happens at trial.

heartofthebear said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

How it started:

heartofthebear said:

---

The 3 hours from 9 am. -- noon on 11/13/22 when a whole bunch of people came to the crime scene and likely contaminated it before law enforcement was even called.

Any semi-competent defense attorney will have a field day establishing reasonable doubt because of that. It doesn't matter who the suspect is or how many different suspects they try and prosecute, the argument will always be the same--"we really can't trust the evidence because we don't know what happened for those 3 hours and so there is reasonable doubt that any of the so called evidence against my client is a product of the commission of this crime."

I hope someday the families get together and sue the hell out of Brittany and Dylan for obstruction of justice.

---

How it's going:

heartofthebear said:

---

I have a background in psychology. People don't do things for no reason. Means, MOTIVE, and opportunity are king in my world. Others had better means, more motive and wayyyy more opportunity than a guy living out of town.

---

This would have been a more honest thread if you had told us at the beginning that you believed in a conspiracy theory. It sounds like you think some drug gang conspired with some frat boys to kill 4 kids?

I'm not saying the dude is guilty - he should have his day in court. But subscribing to random conspiracy theories because you think the ... [checks notes] ... loner criminology grad student with no alibi ... doesn't fit the profile you expect based on your psychology background isn't a compelling defense either.

---

. So any theory other than the official account is tin foil. In that case, everybody ever prosecuted would be convicted.

---

I never said any other theory is tin foil but yours is about as baseless as they come. I generally enjoy reading what you have to say and think you are a thoughtful poster but c'mon man.

You started with criticism of spoliation of evidence and now you are saying you think the guy is innocent because of your psychology background but that some other random people are guilty of brutally murdering 4 people without any shred of evidence because reasons? This is pizzagate level tin foil nonsense and I think if you were thinking clearly you would see that. For whatever reason, these sorts of high profile cases generate a lot of magical thinking. We saw it with OJ, we saw it with Casey Anthony. And on and on.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying our criminal justice system always gets it right. There have been plenty of shoddy dna-based cases. Black people have long been railroaded for murders and other violent crime based solely on the fact that a black man was seen in the vicinity and blood lust from prosecutors and communities. If that's what is happening here, I trust that this kid, being a white criminology PhD student and all, will be well-represented and will have a solid defense.

But your defense? About as tin foil as they come.

---

Honestly I don't really get why you disagree with my thoughts so strongly. They are based in logic and on the evidence and also on a whole lot of unanswered questions. But, okay, let's just see what happens at trial.

---

I think the first post was fine. You went from there to slandering a bunch of kids and accusing them of violently murdering 4 people. Logic has nothing to do with the turn you made, nor does evidence. You are basically just concocting a wild theory based on your hunch. That's totally fine for speculating about football, but accusing kids of murder, I guess I just would expect you to hold yourself to a higher standard.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

How it started:

heartofthebear said:

---

The 3 hours from 9 am. -- noon on 11/13/22 when a whole bunch of people came to the crime scene and likely contaminated it before law enforcement was even called.

Any semi-competent defense attorney will have a field day establishing reasonable doubt because of that. It doesn't matter who the suspect is or how many different suspects they try and prosecute, the argument will always be the same--"we really can't trust the evidence because we don't know what happened for those 3 hours and so there is reasonable doubt that any of the so called evidence against my client is a product of the commission of this crime."

I hope someday the families get together and sue the hell out of Brittany and Dylan for obstruction of justice.

---

How it's going:

heartofthebear said:

---

I have a background in psychology. People don't do things for no reason. Means, MOTIVE, and opportunity are king in my world. Others had better means, more motive and wayyyy more opportunity than a guy living out of town.

---

This would have been a more honest thread if you had told us at the beginning that you believed in a conspiracy theory. It sounds like you think some drug gang conspired with some frat boys to kill 4 kids?

I'm not saying the dude is guilty - he should have his day in court. But subscribing to random conspiracy theories because you think the ... [checks notes] ... loner criminology grad student with no alibi ... doesn't fit the profile you expect based on your psychology background isn't a compelling defense either.

---

. So any theory other than the official account is tin foil. In that case, everybody ever prosecuted would be convicted.

---

I never said any other theory is tin foil but yours is about as baseless as they come. I generally enjoy reading what you have to say and think you are a thoughtful poster but c'mon man.

You started with criticism of spoliation of evidence and now you are saying you think the guy is innocent because of your psychology background but that some other random people are guilty of brutally murdering 4 people without any shred of evidence because reasons? This is pizzagate level tin foil nonsense and I think if you were thinking clearly you would see that. For whatever reason, these sorts of high profile cases generate a lot of magical thinking. We saw it with OJ, we saw it with Casey Anthony. And on and on.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying our criminal justice system always gets it right. There have been plenty of shoddy dna-based cases. Black people have long been railroaded for murders and other violent crime based solely on the fact that a black man was seen in the vicinity and blood lust from prosecutors and communities. If that's what is happening here, I trust that this kid, being a white criminology PhD student and all, will be well-represented and will have a solid defense.

But your defense? About as tin foil as they come.

---

Honestly I don't really get why you disagree with my thoughts so strongly. They are based in logic and on the evidence and also on a whole lot of unanswered questions. But, okay, let's just see what happens at trial.

---

I think the first post was fine. You went from there to slandering a bunch of kids and accusing them of violently murdering 4 people. Logic has nothing to do with the turn you made, nor does evidence. You are basically just concocting a wild theory based on your hunch. That's totally fine for speculating about football, but accusing kids of murder, I guess I just would expect you to hold yourself to a higher standard.

---

Okay. That's not what I said but I think it will be hard to really have an honest conversation with you if you have that much disrespect. All I said was that there isn't enough evidence against Bryan to withstand other alternative theories and that, since the frat boys were at the house for 3 hours before calling the police it makes the whole situation very muddy and suspicious. I don't think Bryan had much motive compared to the folks who knew them, partied with them and had disagreements with them. There had been an argument earlier that night at one frat house. All of this is public record.

If you are going to prove Bryan did it, it has to be so much more likely than any other theory to remove reasonable doubt. The frat boy theory is the leading alternative theory and even Kaylee's father thinks it's possible someone else was involved. If you think that Bryan is suspicious too, okay but it only points to him hiding evidence or being involved in some way. There is absolutely no evidence of Bryan having killed them that can't be easily refuted by a competent lawyer.

Keep in mind 2 things:

• The burden of proof is on the prosecution
• There are tons of cases with more evidence against the defendant that were unsuccessful in removing reasonable doubt.

I am not saying Bryan didn't do it.
I'm saying it will be hard to convict him because of 2 things:

• The time lag before LA were even called and
• The lack of credibility of the 2 remaining witnesses. BTW, if you think that Dylan and Brittany are credible then I suggest you tune in when they are under cross examination during the trial. The defense will have a field day.

Too many indica of guilt in this case (even for what little evidence has been released to media) for the defense to explain as "coincidences."

I don't see acquittal as a real possibility but all you need is one knucklehead juror to stubbornly and incorrectly interpret "reasonable doubt" as being based on a remote theoretical possibility and you get a hung jury (regardless of how clear the prosecutor and jury instruction explain what a "reasonable doubt" is). It happens in Bay Area criminal courtrooms all the time.
https://www.nytimes.com/article/idaho-student-murders-kohberger.html#:~:text=Chief%20among%20that%20evidence%20is,was%20found%20on%20the%20sheath.

heartofthebear said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

How it started:

heartofthebear said:

---

The 3 hours from 9 am. -- noon on 11/13/22 when a whole bunch of people came to the crime scene and likely contaminated it before law enforcement was even called.

Any semi-competent defense attorney will have a field day establishing reasonable doubt because of that. It doesn't matter who the suspect is or how many different suspects they try and prosecute, the argument will always be the same--"we really can't trust the evidence because we don't know what happened for those 3 hours and so there is reasonable doubt that any of the so called evidence against my client is a product of the commission of this crime."

I hope someday the families get together and sue the hell out of Brittany and Dylan for obstruction of justice.

---

How it's going:

heartofthebear said:

---

I have a background in psychology. People don't do things for no reason. Means, MOTIVE, and opportunity are king in my world. Others had better means, more motive and wayyyy more opportunity than a guy living out of town.

---

This would have been a more honest thread if you had told us at the beginning that you believed in a conspiracy theory. It sounds like you think some drug gang conspired with some frat boys to kill 4 kids?

I'm not saying the dude is guilty - he should have his day in court. But subscribing to random conspiracy theories because you think the ... [checks notes] ... loner criminology grad student with no alibi ... doesn't fit the profile you expect based on your psychology background isn't a compelling defense either.

---

. So any theory other than the official account is tin foil. In that case, everybody ever prosecuted would be convicted.

---

I never said any other theory is tin foil but yours is about as baseless as they come. I generally enjoy reading what you have to say and think you are a thoughtful poster but c'mon man.

You started with criticism of spoliation of evidence and now you are saying you think the guy is innocent because of your psychology background but that some other random people are guilty of brutally murdering 4 people without any shred of evidence because reasons? This is pizzagate level tin foil nonsense and I think if you were thinking clearly you would see that. For whatever reason, these sorts of high profile cases generate a lot of magical thinking. We saw it with OJ, we saw it with Casey Anthony. And on and on.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying our criminal justice system always gets it right. There have been plenty of shoddy dna-based cases. Black people have long been railroaded for murders and other violent crime based solely on the fact that a black man was seen in the vicinity and blood lust from prosecutors and communities. If that's what is happening here, I trust that this kid, being a white criminology PhD student and all, will be well-represented and will have a solid defense.

But your defense? About as tin foil as they come.

---

Honestly I don't really get why you disagree with my thoughts so strongly. They are based in logic and on the evidence and also on a whole lot of unanswered questions. But, okay, let's just see what happens at trial.

---

I think the first post was fine. You went from there to slandering a bunch of kids and accusing them of violently murdering 4 people. Logic has nothing to do with the turn you made, nor does evidence. You are basically just concocting a wild theory based on your hunch. That's totally fine for speculating about football, but accusing kids of murder, I guess I just would expect you to hold yourself to a higher standard.

---

Okay. That's not what I said but I think it will be hard to really have an honest conversation with you if you have that much disrespect. All I said was that there isn't enough evidence against Bryan to withstand other alternative theories and that, since the frat boys were at the house for 3 hours before calling the police it makes the whole situation very muddy and suspicious. I don't think Bryan had much motive compared to the folks who knew them, partied with them and had disagreements with them. There had been an argument earlier that night at one frat house. All of this is public record.

If you are going to prove Bryan did it, it has to be so much more likely than any other theory to remove reasonable doubt. The frat boy theory is the leading alternative theory and even Kaylee's father thinks it's possible someone else was involved. If you think that Bryan is suspicious too, okay but it only points to him hiding evidence or being involved in some way. There is absolutely no evidence of Bryan having killed them that can't be easily refuted by a competent lawyer.

Keep in mind 2 things:

• The burden of proof is on the prosecution
• There are tons of cases with more evidence against the defendant that were unsuccessful in removing reasonable doubt.

I am not saying Bryan didn't do it.
I'm saying it will be hard to convict him because of 2 things:

• The time lag before LA were even called and
• The lack of credibility of the 2 remaining witnesses. BTW, if you think that Dylan and Brittany are credible then I suggest you tune in when they are under cross examination during the trial. The defense will have a field day.

---

Challenging the strength of the prosecution's case is entirely within bounds. Where you go out of bounds is claiming based on your psychology background that the accused is unlikely to be the murderer and that some "frat boys," without any reasonable basis, may have murdered these poor kids. That isn't logic or evidence - it's rank speculation.

If you don't think this is an honest conversation perhaps it started when you pivoted from challenging the prosecution when what you really believe a wild theory that some other college kids are violent murderers. Honestly, if you had started there I would have written this thread off as a pointless rant by a conspiracist. I never would have considered you to be that way, but this thread speaks for itself at this point.

You are also taking a weird position that I am somehow charged with proving a case or that I have no connection to. I am not here to argue the prosecution's case or the accused's defense. No one on this forum is involved in this prosecution. I have no idea who killed these kids but would expect the prosecution to have done its work and that they likely feel pretty good about their case.

I never suggested any misconduct on the part of the police nor did I accuse anybody of anything other than Dylan and Brittany of obstructing justice, which I also now admit is the inaccurate terminology for what they may have done.

Also I did mention my psychology background for any reason other than to admit that, because of that, I have a bias regarding motivation and that I have hard time seeing Bryan as having motive more than some other folks. That's it. If you want to make me into a conspiracy theorist fine, but there are plenty of things that don't make sense in this case so pardon me from trying to make sense of it.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

How it started:

heartofthebear said:

---

The 3 hours from 9 am. -- noon on 11/13/22 when a whole bunch of people came to the crime scene and likely contaminated it before law enforcement was even called.

Any semi-competent defense attorney will have a field day establishing reasonable doubt because of that. It doesn't matter who the suspect is or how many different suspects they try and prosecute, the argument will always be the same--"we really can't trust the evidence because we don't know what happened for those 3 hours and so there is reasonable doubt that any of the so called evidence against my client is a product of the commission of this crime."

I hope someday the families get together and sue the hell out of Brittany and Dylan for obstruction of justice.

---

How it's going:

heartofthebear said:

---

I have a background in psychology. People don't do things for no reason. Means, MOTIVE, and opportunity are king in my world. Others had better means, more motive and wayyyy more opportunity than a guy living out of town.

---

This would have been a more honest thread if you had told us at the beginning that you believed in a conspiracy theory. It sounds like you think some drug gang conspired with some frat boys to kill 4 kids?

I'm not saying the dude is guilty - he should have his day in court. But subscribing to random conspiracy theories because you think the ... [checks notes] ... loner criminology grad student with no alibi ... doesn't fit the profile you expect based on your psychology background isn't a compelling defense either.

---

. So any theory other than the official account is tin foil. In that case, everybody ever prosecuted would be convicted.

---

I never said any other theory is tin foil but yours is about as baseless as they come. I generally enjoy reading what you have to say and think you are a thoughtful poster but c'mon man.

You started with criticism of spoliation of evidence and now you are saying you think the guy is innocent because of your psychology background but that some other random people are guilty of brutally murdering 4 people without any shred of evidence because reasons? This is pizzagate level tin foil nonsense and I think if you were thinking clearly you would see that. For whatever reason, these sorts of high profile cases generate a lot of magical thinking. We saw it with OJ, we saw it with Casey Anthony. And on and on.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying our criminal justice system always gets it right. There have been plenty of shoddy dna-based cases. Black people have long been railroaded for murders and other violent crime based solely on the fact that a black man was seen in the vicinity and blood lust from prosecutors and communities. If that's what is happening here, I trust that this kid, being a white criminology PhD student and all, will be well-represented and will have a solid defense.

But your defense? About as tin foil as they come.

---

Honestly I don't really get why you disagree with my thoughts so strongly. They are based in logic and on the evidence and also on a whole lot of unanswered questions. But, okay, let's just see what happens at trial.

---

I think the first post was fine. You went from there to slandering a bunch of kids and accusing them of violently murdering 4 people. Logic has nothing to do with the turn you made, nor does evidence. You are basically just concocting a wild theory based on your hunch. That's totally fine for speculating about football, but accusing kids of murder, I guess I just would expect you to hold yourself to a higher standard.

---

Okay. That's not what I said but I think it will be hard to really have an honest conversation with you if you have that much disrespect. All I said was that there isn't enough evidence against Bryan to withstand other alternative theories and that, since the frat boys were at the house for 3 hours before calling the police it makes the whole situation very muddy and suspicious. I don't think Bryan had much motive compared to the folks who knew them, partied with them and had disagreements with them. There had been an argument earlier that night at one frat house. All of this is public record.

If you are going to prove Bryan did it, it has to be so much more likely than any other theory to remove reasonable doubt. The frat boy theory is the leading alternative theory and even Kaylee's father thinks it's possible someone else was involved. If you think that Bryan is suspicious too, okay but it only points to him hiding evidence or being involved in some way. There is absolutely no evidence of Bryan having killed them that can't be easily refuted by a competent lawyer.

Keep in mind 2 things:

• The burden of proof is on the prosecution
• There are tons of cases with more evidence against the defendant that were unsuccessful in removing reasonable doubt.

I am not saying Bryan didn't do it.
I'm saying it will be hard to convict him because of 2 things:

• The time lag before LA were even called and
• The lack of credibility of the 2 remaining witnesses. BTW, if you think that Dylan and Brittany are credible then I suggest you tune in when they are under cross examination during the trial. The defense will have a field day.

---

Challenging the strength of the prosecution's case is entirely within bounds. Where you go out of bounds is claiming based on your psychology background that the accused is unlikely to be the murderer and that some "frat boys," without any reasonable basis, may have murdered these poor kids. That isn't logic or evidence - it's rank speculation.

If you don't think this is an honest conversation perhaps it started when you pivoted from challenging the prosecution when what you really believe a wild theory that some other college kids are violent murderers. Honestly, if you had started there I would have written this thread off as a pointless rant by a conspiracist. I never would have considered you to be that way, but this thread speaks for itself at this point.

You are also taking a weird position that I am somehow charged with proving a case or that I have no connection to. I am not here to argue the prosecution's case or the accused's defense. No one on this forum is involved in this prosecution. I have no idea who killed these kids but would expect the prosecution to have done its work and that they likely feel pretty good about their case.

---

I think somehow you took the suggestion that frat boys were involved personally. If so, I apologize for offending you. My point was that video evidence of someone driving in the proximity is kind of moot when you consider how many people didn't even have to drive and that some were on video walking/running nearby. That's all. Anyway, it's all circumstantial evidence other than the button snap on the knife sheath so it will be interesting to see how this is prosecuted.

tequila4kapp said:

---

Law school grad here (but not an attorney). I am very prone to seeing things from defendant's perspective, believing deeply in the whole innocent until proven guilty thing.

It has been a while since I read it but the Probable Cause Warrant was pretty compelling, IMO. Obviously, that is the world in the light most favorable to the prosecution. Still, I had the very rare reaction (for me) of saying "yeah, he did it."

The defendant's DNA reportedly matches the DNA found on a knife sheath left at the crime scene. The defense can argue contamination all they want but my hunch is that one piece of evidence alone solves this case. And my hunch is they found evidence at defendant's residence which connects him to the crime seen (eg, victim's blood, hair, etc.). Case closed.

In total, this strikes me as a case defense-leaning type people aren't going to want to go to the mats on.

---

This explains your bias in believing republicans and trump have been railroaded by Dems.

However, you DO believe in the end the murderer is guilty because of DNA evidence. Hmmm. I wish you could properly see the self-railroad trail to guilt that the Republicans/Trump has already laid bare for all to see.

heartofthebear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Possible motive:

In the summer of 2022, Kohberger moved to Washington state to pursue a PhD at Washington State University in Pullman; its campus is less than eight miles (13 km) west of Moscow.[66][67][68][69] At the time of the killings, he was a doctoral student in criminology and had completed his first semester there nine days before his arrest.[70][71] Kohberger had been a teaching assistant at WSU, and less than two weeks before the murders, faculty members met with him to discuss growing concerns about his behavior and conduct. Kohberger was terminated from his teaching assistant role on December 19 with the decision being based on "his unsatisfactory performance as a teaching assistant, including his failure to meet the 'norms of professional behavior' in his interactions with the faculty."[72][73]

---

HUH?

---

Translation:
He's a weirdo with beady eyes who has an interest with criminology and wanted to commit murder and get away with it.
Psychopath.
He probably wanted sex and was denied so he killed.

bearister said:

---

Too many indica of guilt in this case (even for what little evidence has been released to media) for the defense to explain as "coincidences."

I don't see acquittal as a real possibility but all you need is one knucklehead juror to stubbornly and incorrectly interpret "reasonable doubt" as being based on a remote theoretical possibility and you get a hung jury (regardless of how clear the prosecutor and jury instruction explain what a "reasonable doubt" is). It happens in Bay Area criminal courtrooms all the time.
https://www.nytimes.com/article/idaho-student-murders-kohberger.html#:~:text=Chief%20among%20that%20evidence%20is,was%20found%20on%20the%20sheath.

---

His best defense is to attach himself to Trump.
There will be 1 loon jurist who sets him free.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

How it started:

heartofthebear said:

---

The 3 hours from 9 am. -- noon on 11/13/22 when a whole bunch of people came to the crime scene and likely contaminated it before law enforcement was even called.

Any semi-competent defense attorney will have a field day establishing reasonable doubt because of that. It doesn't matter who the suspect is or how many different suspects they try and prosecute, the argument will always be the same--"we really can't trust the evidence because we don't know what happened for those 3 hours and so there is reasonable doubt that any of the so called evidence against my client is a product of the commission of this crime."

I hope someday the families get together and sue the hell out of Brittany and Dylan for obstruction of justice.

---

How it's going:

heartofthebear said:

---

I have a background in psychology. People don't do things for no reason. Means, MOTIVE, and opportunity are king in my world. Others had better means, more motive and wayyyy more opportunity than a guy living out of town.

---

This would have been a more honest thread if you had told us at the beginning that you believed in a conspiracy theory. It sounds like you think some drug gang conspired with some frat boys to kill 4 kids?

I'm not saying the dude is guilty - he should have his day in court. But subscribing to random conspiracy theories because you think the ... [checks notes] ... loner criminology grad student with no alibi ... doesn't fit the profile you expect based on your psychology background isn't a compelling defense either.

---

For those who imagine frat boys were involved… what interviews were made of all frat boys on campus?

Probably, A LOT

concordtom said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Possible motive:

In the summer of 2022, Kohberger moved to Washington state to pursue a PhD at Washington State University in Pullman; its campus is less than eight miles (13 km) west of Moscow.[66][67][68][69] At the time of the killings, he was a doctoral student in criminology and had completed his first semester there nine days before his arrest.[70][71] Kohberger had been a teaching assistant at WSU, and less than two weeks before the murders, faculty members met with him to discuss growing concerns about his behavior and conduct. Kohberger was terminated from his teaching assistant role on December 19 with the decision being based on "his unsatisfactory performance as a teaching assistant, including his failure to meet the 'norms of professional behavior' in his interactions with the faculty."[72][73]

---

HUH?

---

Translation:
He's a weirdo with beady eyes who has an interest with criminology and wanted to commit murder and get away with it.
Psychopath.
He probably wanted sex and was denied so he killed.

---

It is just a possible motive to go along with the large amount of circumstantial evidence implicating him.

heartofthebear said:

---

The 3 hours from 9 am. -- noon on 11/13/22 when a whole bunch of people came to the crime scene and likely contaminated it before law enforcement was even called.

Any semi-competent defense attorney will have a field day establishing reasonable doubt because of that. It doesn't matter who the suspect is or how many different suspects they try and prosecute, the argument will always be the same--"we really can't trust the evidence because we don't know what happened for those 3 hours and so there is reasonable doubt that any of the so called evidence against my client is a product of the commission of this crime."

I hope someday the families get together and sue the hell out of Brittany and Dylan for obstruction of justice.

---

"The 3 hours from 9 am. -- noon on 11/13/22 when a whole bunch of people came to the crime scene and likely contaminated it before law enforcement was even called."

Link?

dimitrig said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

The 3 hours from 9 am. -- noon on 11/13/22 when a whole bunch of people came to the crime scene and likely contaminated it before law enforcement was even called.

Any semi-competent defense attorney will have a field day establishing reasonable doubt because of that. It doesn't matter who the suspect is or how many different suspects they try and prosecute, the argument will always be the same--"we really can't trust the evidence because we don't know what happened for those 3 hours and so there is reasonable doubt that any of the so called evidence against my client is a product of the commission of this crime."

I hope someday the families get together and sue the hell out of Brittany and Dylan for obstruction of justice.

---

"The 3 hours from 9 am. -- noon on 11/13/22 when a whole bunch of people came to the crime scene and likely contaminated it before law enforcement was even called."

Link?


Do you mean you want a source that confirms that folks arrived on the scene before the police arrived? Watch any of the press conferences the police had on youtube to find out when they were called and who called them. The police have confirmed that someone other than the 2 girls called around noon and that there were "a crowd of people" there when they arrived on the scene. Police responded to concerns about an "unconscious person" from someone other than the girls. How do you know someone is unconscious if they are not in the crime scene? I am too busy to find a link for you for something that is obvious and/or logical and that everyone is agreeing happened.

I'm sorry I can't help you with this right now. I'm swamped with other things and I don't think it is going to be easy to find a specific link other than just googling it. Have you tried that?

Try googling 3 hour time lag for Idaho 4 murders on 11/13/22 and see what comes up. You should get some links, lots of them.

Part of the problem is the gag order. So a lot of this type of news is kind of old and came out before the gag order was issued.

---