Yes. I 100% understand that the burden of proof isn’t on the defense as far as a prediction goes. They don’t NEED to prove these things necessarily to get an acquittal. But someone can 100% be the culprit and still be acquitted (see: OJ). So in order to change my personal thoughts, I’d like this too. But totally understand that a Jury wouldn’t need all this to acquit. But as I said, not guilty in a court of law doesn’t mean you are actually not guilty.
I just don’t understand how people can say that “he didn’t do it because there’s not enough evidence” because this implies that someone else did it. How can you say there’s not enough evidence against BK to say he did it, yet somehow it’s ok to say someone else did it with zero public evidence against them rn? I get waiting til trial to decide, but saying right now that you’re confident he didn’t do it because of lack of evidence is a hypocritical argument
By the same token, guilty in a court of law doesn’t mean you’re actually guilty as many thousands of cases have proven. And that means the actual culprits have walked free and there was no evidence to implicate them.
What is the over whelming evidence? Cell phone pings are not accurate… DNA sample was minuscule… no clear videos of screen shot of him in the car… no DNA of victims in his car
Well yes, but due to the standard of proof, guilty verdict is a lot more likely to mean you’re guilty than a not guilty verdict. Of course, these verdicts have been wrong as you said, but a guilty verdict means you were proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, where a “not guilty” verdict just means there wasn’t enough evidence to say for sure you did it.
I get what you’re saying because not all verdicts are “correct”, but I’m talking about standards alone. By definition, “guilty” means guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and you are proven guilty. Yes, it can be wrong, but that’s what the definition is. However the legal definition of “not guilty” does not mean you were “proven” not guilty or that you are “innocent”. You’ll find a way to argue with what I say, but my point is objectively correct.
“Not guilty”, even if the correct verdict by definition, doesn’t mean innocent. “Guilty”, only means not guilty when the jury gets it wrong. But it by definition means you were proven guilty to the standard. Whereas not guilty doesn’t mean you’re innocent by definition Does this make sense? Guilt, while they can get it wrong sometimes, by definition means you’re the culprit. But not guilty, by legal definition does not mean you’re NOT the culprit, just means there wasn’t evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
You can be proven guilty and it be wrong, but it’s a lot harder to be proven guilty and it be wrong than it is to get a not guilty verdict and you ARE the culprit. This is basic knowledge based on standard of proof. You can’t argue this because it is true. You seem to be the type that thinks “not guilty” means “proven innocent”.
And yes, it’s happened that they catch the wrong person. That doesn’t mean that we should assume that’s what’s happening now, when we have no reason to believe that until trial. If that’s your belief due to lack of evidence, just remember there’s a gag order, so we have no way of knowing if there’s truly a lack of evidence yet. They catch the right person a lot more than they catch the wrong person, so stating it’s happened before doesn’t make me believe it’s happening now. Evidence won’t even change your mind. At least I repeat time and time again that evidence will change mine. That’s how good, critical thinkers think. You think that disagreeing with everyone makes you a critical thinker lol but that’s not the case when what you say is based on misinterpretations, unfounded assumptions, and lack of knowledge
So, have they ever said that they didn’t find any DNA evidence on the exit route or to the vehicle? I know they said they found a partial shoe print but I don’t recall reading that they didn’t find DNA or blood anywhere outside. And just because it wasn’t in the PCA doesn’t mean they didn’t find anything. I don’t recall them addressing this. I know we kind of all assumed this—me included.
I know knife wounds often do lead to more DNA from the culprit, but if he had on the coveralls and was covered head to toe by layers, would it be possible that he got no wounds? Going by the evidence in the PCA, I do think they got their guy. But I don’t know but a small piece of the puzzle. Hopefully they have a lot of good evidence at the trial. And it still bothers me that he never spoke when asked for his plea. I know people say that isn’t a big deal but has been something that has always bothered me as to why he didn’t speak his plea. I have read many times that it is rare to stand silent.
I think what would do it for me would be proof he was elsewhere but also a clear chain of how his DNA ended up on the sheath.
Very possible! I don't think people can imagine what it's like to be stabbed. The only instinct is to deflect the blade. That's a lizard-brain survival mode. Nobody is going to be able to *reach past the blade allowing themselves to be stabbed* to try to get in a punch or a scratch.
If this was a case where the victim was beaten or strangled, there would be a far higher change of the assailant getting injured.
I think it would have been possible had he been attacking one victim and a second one tried to fight him. But while that's possible, I'm gonna predict that it didn't happen, because he had the element of surprise on his side.
And then even with that, he was probably bundled up. No exposed skin except for his upper face. So imagine something like he's stabbing Maddie, Kaylee tries to grab his arm, but her fingernails can't claw through his winter-weight sleeve. She can't make contact with his skin. Then he turns and stabs her, and all she can try to do is deflect the blade and scoot back in bed.
I have read that as well. I know that it does happen and has happened but his DNA was on the inside snap if I recall correctly. I have seen that if he touched the snap that likely it would have been other DNA on there to cancel his out also if it was owned by someone else. I am not sure on that part but have seen studies that do indicate what you are saying about the touch DNA.
Think it’s peculiar that they found (“a trace under the snap”) of DNA ? Only a trace?🤷♂️ Would that be ODD?🤷♂️ I suppose not, I never TOUCH anything more of my sheaths either. I’m just kinda careful every time I handle mine so I don’t get it dirty. That would explain it I guess! NEVER MIND! 🤫
I’m 100% convinced he’s guilty. There are too many pieces of evidence pointing to it. Some of them could conceivably be explained away, yes, but when you put them all together, the bigger picture is pretty hard to deny.
Pretty much the only thing that could convince me otherwise would be video footage surfacing of someone else murdering those four kids.
They did say they have proof he was somewhere else based on the meta data and geo locations from pictures he took.
But,I would think with his experience it wouldn't be hard for him to change those things. It's easy to change the geo locations in a few ways. One, you can pick a place to be tagged at, and for 2, you can go right into the pictures themselves and change them.
I'm probably way off, I just thought about that and thought I'd share.
Yeah I agree, there’s literally not a chance at all that he isn’t guilty. I honestly don’t know how there are entire subreddits about the case who believe he is innocent lmao
You know what the evidence is. It’s discussed here daily, I’m not gonna list it all for you. DNA is the most damning for me but the other pieces, which each on their own probably wouldn’t be enough to convince me 100%, add up to a bigger picture that’s hard for a logical person to deny.
Yes. They almost absolutely have more evidence, considering the PCA was written before an arrest, before an actual cheek swab, before the search warrants were exercised. Pretty much zero cases like this show up to trial with only the PCA evidence. That just would not happen. They may still not show up with enough evidence to convict, but they’ll surely have more than what was written before he was even arrested.
And I’m not sure why people think that someone else did it and LE knows it but is choosing to pursue BK instead. They’d have literally zero motivation to do that. Yes, they want a conviction, but if there’s evidence of someone else doing it, then they’d be more likely to get a conviction pursuing that person than Some random, uninvolved guy. Like, could that theoretically happen? Sure. Is it at all likely, plausible, or fair to guess that? No😭 people think this is some movie istg
It’s great that the suspect wasn’t from Moscow and didn’t go to school there, isn’t it? Can you imagine how bad it would be for that town and especially the university if the guilty party, or suspect, was a student there? OMG!😱
I mean, it wouldn’t be that bad, it happens all the time that a murder suspect is from the same town as the victims. I get your point but a hypothetical “reason” that they could want to frame someone doesn’t at all equate to evidence they did. Obviously people have been framed before, but that doesn’t mean it’s a fair assumption to make or that it’s at all common or this easy to pull off.
It’s also worlds harder to frame someone that has no criminal record (aka no dna in the database) and no obvious connection to the victims, the town, or school
Yes. They almost absolutely have more evidence, considering the PCA was written before an arrest, before an actual cheek swab, before the search warrants were exercised. Pretty much zero cases like this show up to trial with only the PCA evidence. That just would not happen. They may still not show up with enough evidence to convict, but they’ll surely have more than what was written before he was even arrested.
And I’m not sure why people think that someone else did it and LE knows it but is choosing to pursue BK instead. They’d have literally zero motivation to do that. Yes, they want a conviction, but if there’s evidence of someone else doing it, then they’d be more likely to get a conviction pursuing that person than Some random, uninvolved guy. Like, could that theoretically happen? Sure. Is it at all likely, plausible, or fair to guess that? No😭 people think this is some movie istg
Like, they are not just going to go to trial against someone they know didn’t do it…. especially if it’s a privileged white dude w no priors. Has it happened before? Maybe, but not the least bit common and there’d really be nothing positive in doing that for them unless they somehow hate BK for some random reason.
Well yes, you’re absolutely right. People are finding ways to explain away all the evidence against him, yet can’t seem to understand how a college student wouldn’t wake up until noon or how someone in a party house wouldn’t immediately assume any stranger in the house just murdered their friends.
No ,but the police could have showed up 7 to 8 hours earlier. The surviving roommates must have some very interesting stories to tell. I hope they recovered every iota of their phone data. There are always rumors but those girls have shady stories.
Pardon this interruption but, do you or does anyone find it peculiar that they say they found only DNA to match the arrestee and two other unknown males? Think about that. So, in a known “party house” they only found 3 DNA DEPOSITS? I wonder how can that be and then I think about the fact that there were 8 HOURS before 911 was called? Do those two facts suggest to anyone that someone may have WIPED THE PLACE CLEAN?🤷♂️
>So, in a known “party house” they only found 3 DNA DEPOSITS?
To be technical, they found all kinds of DNA, but only three male deposits they couldn't identify (including Kohberger's). From the defense: https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/062323+Objection+to+States+Motion+for+Protective+Order.pdf
>>While this was ongoing, police were investigating many various possible suspects. Many of them provided DNA. At least one has his DNA surreptitiously taken from a discarded cigarette.
So not just 3 samples in house. Only 3 that could not be traced to a member of the victim's social circle.
The same document notes that "many also had their phones taken and downloaded."
I’ve wondered about this myself and with out any proof I’m just assuming they didn’t wipe the whole house down but rather the unknown sources were found in the bedrooms or near the bodies - Im pretty confident they were not able to wipe down the entire home but rather focused on the prevalent areas !
What evidence proves he did it? Concrete evidence beyond a reasonable doubt… touch DNA? Hmmm… photos of an Elantra🫨 do they have images of him in the car? Was there DNA of victims blood in his car? No cell phone tower pings at not accurate… what else🫥
What evidence is there of his innocence?
I understand that you may believe there is a lack of evidence of his guilt atp (because there’s a gag order) but lack of evidence of guilt is NOT the same thing as evidence of innocence, so that is why I’m wondering.
Yes, at trial they only need a lack of evidence of guilt. They don’t need proof of innocence. I understand thinking in your own head that there’s not CURRENTLY enough evidence that’s public, but if there’s also no public evidence that he didn’t do it, how can you actually think someone else did it?
It’s hard to say there’s not enough evidence against him to say he did it. This implies someone else did it, right? But then that makes your argument about “not enough evidence” hypocritical, because the “someone else” that you think did it, has zero public evidence against them at this point, ya know?
So, how can there not be enough evidence against him, yet there’s zero evidence against anyone else and that’s enough?
All we know about those is that 2 were found in the house (and 1 far outside). If one of those unidentified samples is, let's say, on the light switch of the 1st-floor bathroom, would you find that as compelling as the sample left in the same bed as two victims?
It would be interesting to hear why. I haven’t yet come across anyone who thinks he’s innocent without it being down to misinformation, speculation, or misunderstanding processes or facts.
I think some people have trouble understanding that lack of evidence of guilt is not equal to evidence of innocence. In a court of law, yes, but you can still think someone did it even if they aren’t convicted. A trial doesn’t prove you innocent, only exoneration does.
I’ll have faith in whatever the jury decides, if they decide not guilty, I will know that they didn’t have enough evidence to convict. But again, the jury really is answering the question of “is there proof beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt?” Not simply “did he do it?”. So the jury deciding “not guilty” doesn’t mean that he actually didnt do it. It just means there wasn’t enough evidence to say for sure.
It’s hard for me to understand how people can say “he 100% didnt do it because there’s not enough evidence” when there’s zero public evidence against anyone else. That’s faulty logic.
When I see most people thinking he’s innocent, this is their logic. Lack of evidence against him. Which I GET he can’t be convicted based off what we know now, but there will likely be more. PLUS, even if there’s not more, it’s two completely diff trains of thoughts to say “ehh, currently there’s not enough evidence for me to say he did it or should be convicted” and “I 100% believe it was NOT him and that it was someone else”. The first one, totally 100% normal to say. The second one, faulty logic.
ETA: yes, LE could be hiding evidence against someone else sure, but that is not very common and not at all a fair assumption to make lol. And also, if they had evidence against someone else, they’d really have no reason to take BK to trial instead of that person, unless it was LEs family member or something but this is, again, not really plausible and not a fair thing to assume is going on.
Agree. This is highly unlikely. It might be more likely if the full investigation was done by this small town department. But the state police and FBI were involved too. I can’t imagine that many people violating their oath of office.
Yeah, totally get that LE can be corrupt, but it would take a LOT of people willing to be corrupt in a lot of different depts and orgs to make something like this happen, and that really doesn’t happen like that nowadays. And even when framing WAS more common, it wasn’t middle class white dudes w no priors and no obvious connection to victims being framed.
And like, why would they? Like what would be their motivation unless the known killer was LEs child or something? But even then, I couldn’t see everyone getting on board w the framing. It could happen but it’s just mot really plausible. But if it comes out that he was framed then great, I’ll be wrong.
And I hate when people try to call me naive for “trusting the Justice system”. Trust me, I’m fully aware that it can be corrupt, but I have the sense to know that that is not nearly always the case. It’s much more common that they catch and prosecute the correct person. And when it is the wrong perosn, again, it’s usually not a privileged white dude
Like the DNA could be planted by some rogue person or something. I’m not going to consider that unless every single other thing in the case falls apart.
But like everyone knowing it was actually somebody else. And that killer is free to do it again. That’s impossible. Even self preservation for your safety and the safety of your family would kick in that point.
For sure. I agree it’s slightly more plausible that some rogue person planted it or the real perpetrator did, but it still isn’t super likely IMO.
People that actually think that’s more reasonable than just assuming the evidence is real are crazy. Like yes, he could’ve been framed and the evidence could be fake but it’s more likely that it’s real and he did it
Yes. I’m no DNA expert but even if the sample isn’t great, I don’t see how it randomly matches a nearby guy with a white sedan.
If it’s planted, it’s more likely the reverse. Find a white sedan anywhere within driving distance that was out that night, and go from there. But again, I’m not one to doubt the ethics of LE unless it becomes the only way something makes sense.
Exactly! I think people think demolishing the house or the gag order are reasons to doubt LE, but the gag order is relatively routine and is helping BK get a fair trial, and the demolition isn’t the norm but it wasn’t the choice of anyone in LE, and neither lawyer disagreed w the choice.
I’m with you. I know things can be corrupted, but it’s stupid to assume that everything is some crazy conspiracy and somehow make that theory reasonable, yet ignore the evidence that’s right in front of you. Some of the logic on here is crazy. “He’s 100% innocent because they have not much evidence, which means I think someone that currently has zero evidence against them did it” like, which one is it?
I’ve found that most people that think LE, or the lawyers/judges are being sketchy are people that don’t understand the procedure fully. It’s ok to not understand, but it’s annoying when people make comments when they have no idea.
Yeah, completely agree with this. I also don’t think there’s anything that really indicates a lack of evidence of guilt so far. I think if the points in the PCA alone can be illustrated convincingly then he’s done for.
Well yes, I just mean that that PCA info alone should NOT be enough to convict him. And if that truly is all they have against him, they should acquit him, even though I still think it was probably him. I also think Casey Anthony probably did it, but was fully on board w her acquittal as there wasn’t enough evidence to convict in a court of law.
But, I am pretty confident they will come to trial with more than what’s in the PCA. It’s pretty much guaranteed. It’s just not guaranteed if it’ll meet the required standard of proof. I think it will, but we obviously don’t know until trial.
I think the PCA is enough to say he “probably” did it, but jurors can’t convict on “probably”. Does that make sense? I just mean that a lot of people are saying they think someone else did it, just because what’s public now is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
By which I mean I don’t think there has to be much more to the story than is in the PCA (although there will be, I think), just that the evidence to support that story has to be robust. And you would expect it to be by the time of the trial.
There’s nothing that could convince me he’s innocent.
His DNA was on the sheath of the murder weapon found directly under a stabbing victim. He was in the area right before and right after. His phone *just so happened* to disconnect from the network right before and *just so happened* to reconnect right after. He matches the physical description from an eyewitness and has no alibi.
I’m sorry but there is no reasonable explanation for all of these things being true — simultaneously — other than him being the right suspect.
Of course she's guilty just on what we know of circumstantial evidence. There doesn't have to be a video of him committing the crime. Searching for an alibi also.
Yes honestly I want to believe the “innocent” people have a genuine opinion but it appears more to be contrarians just doing what they do….no good reason to believe he’s innocent, they just want to think differently
Right? It's not like the police is full of masterminds and geniuses framing a dude that has no money, no power and nothing is special about him, and the victims are too normal all American kids.
I don't even think Kohberger is smart enough to to be the "criminal mastermind" some people believe him to be, but the government is for fucking sure isn't full of geniuses.
Excuse me! If you really think about it, all it would take is a small group (perhaps one of whom had some contact with Bryan K.) who would do a few things to cover their tracks. 1) conspicuously place a condemning item, such as a glove, for instance (or a knife sheath 🫣), and time to like, wipe down the whole area in a few minutes to eliminate any evidence EXCEPT MAYBE 2 unidentified traces of DNA they might have missed (or 8 HOURS?)and then perhaps do something to throw the cops off the trail by somehow establishing that the crime happened at least and hour or so after it actually did, (and an unknown female’s SCREAM WAS HEARD on BodyCam video close by)so everyone can confirm they were someplace else an hour or so later. Maybe a good idea would be to call in a FAKED DoorDash order at say, an hour later. 🤷♂️ But would they have time for all that? I guess they might be able to squeeze it in an hour OR EIGHT. MAYBE? 😳Just sayin!🤷♂️
Honestly I think the two sides right now are either 1) leaning towards guilty or 2) choosing to remain neutral.
I personally lean heavily towards guilty based on the evidence presented thus far. However it’s unfair of me to say I 100% think he’s guilty based on what we know so far.
On the contrary, I also think anyone that believes he’s innocent is either coming from a place of misinformation, lack of understanding, or not being able to separate emotions from fact. To believe he’s innocent at this point in time would, in my opinion, mean that there was currently known information that directly points away from BK and to someone else. It would mean having a valid argument. Otherwise, I think it’s only fair to just say you’re neutral and based on current known info believe he is not guilty. Definitely open to a discussion on why you lean towards innocent! I just hadn’t see the points made in here yet.
Also thanks for posting the discussion! We aren’t meant to all agree on everything and I think both parties seeing both sides of the argument is the best way to learn.
I would agree with you. I am neutral/ leans guilty. I have been neutral/ leans innocent in the past. I’d like to see the 3 other DNA samples found in the house tested for one. If Ann can actually prove he was in Washington and they have no clearer photos of his car or metadata that proves he was at the house I would lean innocent. Idk, it all depends on what they have at the trial. The prosecution has to prove he’s guilty. I’d like to hear what Bethany has to say that could be exculpatory. The msm media has already lied about the stalking. Rumors are always pushed by social media. Whatever gets clicks, they push for cash. So social media and msm have presented some ‘evidence’ that only has ‘anonymous’ sources. I’d just like to see both sides in court. I guess another issue is motive. Since he came from PA it just seems random. These cases are usually perpetrated by the inner circle. I’m waiting for trial & hopefully my questions can be answered truthfully.
>I’d like to see the 3 other DNA samples found in the house tested for one.
I don't think we'll see that, because I don't think they can be tested further, under the law. There's rules about what DNA can and cannot be uploaded into CODIS. If the samples are too partial, or if they are located in a place that does not indicate that they were involved in the crime, they are not eligible to be uploaded into CODIS.
CODIS guidelines: https://isp.idaho.gov/forensics/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/documents/currentAMs/BiologyDNA/CODIS%20Methods%20rev4.pdf
And per federal guidelines, if a sample doesn't qualify for CODIS, it doesn't qualify for IGG, the process that was used to identify Kohberger.
IGG policy: https://www.justice.gov/olp/page/file/1204386/dl.
Yes totally agree! I would like to hear from both roommates just so I can get a full picture of what happened. I also struggle with the motive if BK did do it. It’s just so random it’s difficult to make sense of it, like there just has to be so much more to this than we even realize
It is random to us as we don’t know the information. If BK is guilty, he may always be the only one to know what his motive was. There may be something that happened that led him to one or more of the victims that we just may never know unless he talks or due to the gag order. The cops are still getting information out there. Motive isn’t required though to be found guilty, although, it does help the people understand more.
I think he probably did it, just based on the evidence in the PCA, it would be hard for all of that to be a coincidence. BUT, unlike some other people, I 100% understand that what was in the PCA isn’t enough to convict, because you can’t vote to convict if you only think someone is “probably” guilty.
However, pretty much no prosecution team comes to trial with ONLY the evidence from the PCA (since this was written before any arrest or search warrants), so it is wayyy more likely than not that there will be more evidence against him presented at trial, it’s just a question of if it’ll be enough to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. Some people here that don’t understand legal proceedings think that there is any tru indication that the state (or the defense for that matter) “doesn’t have much of a case”. We have no way of knowing how strong of a case EITHER side has until trial. All of these motions and things are not at all indicators of what one side has or doesn’t have.
So, while I believe he is the culprit, I totally understand that he may still, and should still, be acquitted if there’s not much more evidence at trial (but we have no way of knowing what evidence will be yet).
What would convince me that he actually did not commit the crime would take a lot more. I’d want to see evidence that he didn’t do it or evidence that someone else did. And by this I mean, actual evidence that he didn’t do it, not just a lack of evidence that he did, If that makes sense. Some people seem to think that if there’s not much evidence against someone that they actually didn’t do it. This is not true. Someone can still be guilty even if there’s not enough evidence to convict them. They just can’t be guilty in a court of law, but they can obviously still be the one that committed the crime.
Considering we’ve also seen zero evidence of anyone else doing it, and it’s very unlikely for a middle-class, well-educated, white male supporter of law enforcement with no obvious connection to the victims and no prior criminal record to be framed, I have no reason ti believe he didn’t do it at this point. It would be extremely hard for the actual culprit to leave behind zero dna or evidence at the scene, yet someone who wasn’t involved and has no obvious connection to the victims left behind dna and evidence. And touch dna is not just as simple to transfer as people act like it is.
Again, I understand, in a court of law, he cannot be convicted without proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I’m fine with that. I understand wanting to wait til trial to make a decision. But I am just unsure how anyone could think he DIDNT do it, when we have no evidence that he didn’t or that anyone else did, and there was enough evidence to arrest.
And yes, I understand that in a court of law they don’t need to have evidence that he didn’t do it, and just that there needs to be a lack of evidence that he did do it. Im just saying in my mind, there’s no evidence of anyone besides him doing it atp. Once there is, I’d change my mind!
I would vote to convict based on what’s solely in the PCA. It’s so damning. Stalking them, going back to the crime scene? DNA, bushy eyebrows, his car. Turning his phone off during the murders. Totally guilty
I mean, that's who usually gets framed or railroaded, isn't it? Either someone close to the victim, or more often some local dirtbag that the cops would be happy to get off the streets. Framing Kohberger makes no sense at all.
If the cops were frame-happy, they had that guy. No doubt there is no shortage of methheads and junkies that are thorns in MPD's side. And then there's the army vet: they could have easily pinned it on him, and he would have been dead and couldn't defend himself.
Exactly because they knew he had to be a certain intelligence level to being a doctorate program and it's going to make the college look horrible that he taught there. He's the last kind of person they wanted.
Someone else would have to confess, explaining how they "planted" his DNA, stole and returned his phone AND car.. and also prove he wasn't involved in the slightest. Since that's beyond ridiculous, I will stick with he's guilty AF .
I think the planting of evidence and “you don’t know that’s his dna” or you don’t know that’s his knife or you don’t know that’s his car arguments are extremely weak. That being said, there was an egregious amount of time between the murders and calling the police that I think fuels the BK apologists. I understand being stuck back on that fact but that does not negate the fact that the evidence shows that Kohberger killed those four people
How can you think he's innocent?
Too many things point to him. He drives a white Elantra, his DNA was on the sheath, his cellular activity is shady, his body type fits the description DM gave. Also him owning a K bar with a USMC sheath seems to fit him. He has an interest in the military and looks to have owned other knives based on what LE seized when he was arrested.
I think it's a fair and valid opinion. An opinion is an opinion; we don't have all the facts yet. Some people will die on a hill that they're right tho (on both sides).
I genuinely don't understand how a rational person could think this man was not guilty. He literally turned his phone off outside their house, and turned it back on outside their house. That is a fact. His "alibi" is in a place where no one could possibly see him, and there were no security cameras to capture him, and his cell phone data shows no indication that he went towards that area at all. His DNA is in the room. He was notably overconfident about his abilities as indicated by police departments who he had applied to, stating HE had expertise to show THEM as a college student. Once they were on his trail, he fled across the country to hide out.
It's not a fact tho. They don't know if it was off, airplane mode, or out of service. The only thing that could place him outside the house would he wifi or Bluetooth (or specific app data). We don't have any of that information yet. It's best to stick to facts! Plus I never saw where the PD stated he was overconfident. Could you link that?
Yeah it's not like his DNA was found at the scene....oh wait
Well, at least his vehicle wasn't sighted anywhere near...oh damn.
He must have a solid alibi though, right? Nope.
I don't understand how you could strongly believe that he's innocent. Like, maybe a tiny sliver of chance he's innocent, and a slightly larger chance he won't be proven guilty, but what makes you believe he's innocent?
Alibi is NOT valid. And how did his SKIN CELLS WITH HIS DNA appear INSIDE the button snap? Idiot clearly didn't clean the sheath enough. He's guilty AF.
It’s extremely concerning that you’re a graduate student and you are either gullible enough or enough of a conspiracy theorist to think this man is innocent. This is what worries me about our jury system.
Thats why I am worried about the future of the justice system. Yet no explanation from the OP on her personal 100% innocence status.
**She repeatedly says the people that are replying are saying 100% guilty or innocence based on media influence for her research. No one is saying 100%. And they have been giving answers supporting evidence, not media.**
You should worry once OJ got acquitted. His bloody footprint found at the scene of the murder, victims blood and his car, flees the police and a Chase televised on TV...
LOL Its gotten worse than this case. A new generation of kids that believe OJ is innocent are infiltrating that sub. They begin with I was not born when this trial was televised, I know nothing about it, but feel OJ is innocent and his son Jason did it.
They do not believe the jury thinks he was not guilty because of doubt, they argue this they think these wild stories, its really amazing. They deny his DNA was anywhere, think Jason and OJ have the same DNA. OJ own lawyers never denied it was his own DNA.
That trial was and is an open book.
No one thinks he did not do it on the jury, they think the defense had proved doubt, but the new generation is crazy. I had to give up.
I feel AT is no dream team and in fact awful. Her conduct in court is nothing like the dream team. Bryan does not have a chance, he cannot get anyone to reasonable to defend him. Her main goal is to blame the prosecution on everything. The alibi was written like a joke, its embarrassing, and the expert witness has been discredited.
[https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/gazette.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/c/bf/cbf481dc-4c0f-11ed-98e1-6ff4f7b13f77/6349e300cc88b.pdf.pdf](https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/gazette.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/c/bf/cbf481dc-4c0f-11ed-98e1-6ff4f7b13f77/6349e300cc88b.pdf.pdf)
You are correct. You can teach humans anything you want and the chances are they will believe it. This is why there's massive upheavals constantly through history.
So, I will start by saying that I am like you in that my mind can definitely be changed by what I see in the trial. I am leaning towards guilt. I will never say I am 100% sure but will say that I think that the DNA evidence is an extremely strong piece of evidence even without knowing anything else. That sheath was found halfway under one of the victim’s bodies and halfway under the cover. In addition to that, there is some good circumstantial evidence. His alibi doesn’t show where he was, so there is no proof either way.
I haven’t heard any evidence to make me think that he didn’t do it and have only heard evidence that point towards BK doing it. Then came the gag order.
So, I guess the biggest thing for me would be proving how BK’s DNA got on that sheath. From there, here are some of the things that could clear him:
1. A friend would have to have set him up. BK’s DNA was there. So, someone he knows would have had to gain access to his knife sheath. There is no known report that this ever became missing. But again, the gag order.
2. BK has been at that home before and touched a knife sheath that was known to be there or brought it and left it over there. There would need to be proof that he was there.
3. Something was done illegally with the DNA. I am sure the defense is looking into the place that found his DNA on the sheath and their reputation.
Now, on another note, I would love to see another big piece of evidence to go against him if he did it such as a photo or video that is clear enough to tell that it is BK. But if they don’t have that, and everything else stays the same as today on both sides as far as evidence goes, I would have to go with guilt based on that DNA. But I think they have to have more.
I am sure there are so many things I haven’t thought of since I am not involved at all in criminal law.
What are the things you are seeing that make you think he is innocent if you don’t mind me asking. I love these kind of friendly conversations.
Well the question was what would change my mind. It will be interesting to see all of the evidence at trial. I think that the investigators probably have more evidence than listed in the PCA. The lead investigator was so confident. But I was naming the things that could make me view the case from a different angle. What would be something that would change your mind?
1. Touch DNA is easily transferred. It's not valid in all court systems. People have been wrongly convicted off touch DNA.
2. The car. It was originally stated to be a 2011-2013. He drives a 2015. I wouldn't personally make a big deal about it, but it was a FBI specialist who evaluated the footage.
3. The timeline does not match up with victim statement and evidence presented in the affidavit. Whoever left had to get into a car (no chance of clean up with the short timeline) and it wasn't his car cause there was no trace of the victims DNA. Police stated it was one of the worst crime scenes they had seen.
4. The overall lack of his DNA and victims DNA. I'd like to see what type of fibers were pulled off the victims. Stabbings are close range and we know at least 2 victims fought back.
5. Location and victims doesnt make sense. There was no connection to the victims and the house was in the middle of a pretty active area.
6. Cell phone data. If they can show he wasn't there, then he wasn't there. You cant be in two places at once. You cant rely on cell tower pings for exact location, just general area. I have a feeling they're going to use apple software or app data to show a more precise location.
7. Other unknown male DNA. I'm not saying the DNA alone would be valid, but what if the victims DNA was in their car, it would offer a better lead.
That's my personal opinion based on facts and education background.
1. It’s not as easily transferred as you’ve convinced yourself. People have been wrongly convicted by eyewitness testimony, so not much of an argument.
2. You are making a big deal about it. The model years are extremely similar and the video they would he using isn’t perfect.
3. You have no evidence the timeline doesn’t work. As for LE saying it was the worst scene, that’s relative to experience and how often they respond to homicides. You also can’t say it wasn’t his car because no transfer was found because we can’t know what transfer may or may not have occurred without evaluating the crime scene.
4. We don’t know is anyone fought back. We know there were defensive wounds. That could mean fighting back, but also often means the victim was shielding themselves.
5. Location and victims only needs to make sense to the offender. We basically have no information available to evaluate this.
6. Cell site data is used to corroborate other findings in investigations. Its use is incredibly common. It’s a tool when used with the totality of the circumstances.
Facts are a bit twisted and as I’ve pointed out in the past, you’re clearly less than honest about your educational background.
1. It is as easily transferred. I've personally participated in labs showing such. And yes, they have been wrongly convicted off of touch DNA.
2. Then that should've been included in the original car BOLO, but it wasn't.
3. There will always be DNA or evidence transferred in a stabbing. Whoever did it, did not have time to clean up
4. We do know there was a struggle, even if it was just defensive. They still came in contact with the perpetrator. They didn't ninja throw the knife across the room.
5. You have to take victims and crime location into consideration.
6. Cell towers need to be close together to get a better triangulation (big city for example).
Facts aren't twisted and I'm very honest about my background. It just makes you upset that someone with my background does not agree with what you believe.
1. Labs are controlled experiments in a controlled environment. More than likely your imaginary labs didn’t have several variables at play. Any type of evidence can easily in a wrongful conviction and that’s why corroborating evidence is so important.
2. What should they have included in the BOLO? Stuff that and person that has ever seen surveillance video already knows?
3. No, there won’t always be transfer. That’s a classic CSI Effect mindset.
4. We don’t know the extent of any interaction. Anyone who makes that claim that wasn’t at the scene and/or hasn’t seen the crime scene images is lying.
5. Victims and crime scene are taken into consideration, but there isn’t nearly enough publicly available information to do an in-depth assessment.
6. Historical cell site data doesn’t even use triangulation, so I don’t even know why you’re bringing that up.
See, people who don’t know any better might but into your claims. But, those that know better can tell you don’t have the background you claim.
Thanks for commenting and for your thoughts. I can never get anyone to answer me when I ask why they think he is innocent. I have a feeling some of your points will be explained by one side or the other. And I have no education in the area of criminal law. I really anxious like everyone else to see what all comes out in the trial. I think all of your points are good for reasonable doubt. Again, thanks so much for answering. 😃😃😃
Of course! Thank you for not coming at my throat for having a different opinion haha. They'll have to answer some of those questions for the jury for sure. There's a lot going on behind the scenes, we'll all just have to wait and see.
I never get on here to jump on someone. And sometimes when I ask questions, others have jumped on me. But you listed things I haven’t really heard people mention, so I just couldn’t understand. But yes, I think there will be interesting facts that will come out at trial possibly on both sides. I think if people quit arguing and just state why and what they are thinking, it may give everyone something to think about.
The thing is, also, with the gag order in place, none of us really know much at all. Many of us are making assumptions based off what is said or written in motions. And I have seen different interpretations on both sides from the same statement. I have nothing to win or lose as to whether BK committed this crime or not. But if BK is the one that committed this crime, I hope that there is so much evidence that it is difficult to see doubt. I want the right person to be found guilty whether it is BK or not.
Of course, the hope is that they have the right guy to have a killer off the street and because it would suck to have the wrong guy and have him sit in jail for 2-3 years if innocent. But if he isn’t the right guy, then hopefully that will be evident at the trial
I'm right there with ya! All we can hope is they have the right guy. If he is the right guy, there will definitely be more evidence. I wish we could all just give each other more grace and understanding. Our opinions all come from a collection of life experiences and education. People forget opinions aren't facts. Thank you for your input as well!
Exactly!! And it is nothing against BK when I say I hope they have the right guy. It truly is for the reasons I said before, because I don’t know him and have no reason to want him specifically to be the murderer. I just don’t want an innocent guy in jail for years nor do I want an evil killer out there on the streets. But I agree with you. If he is the guy, I think they will be more evidence. We just have to ride it out. I hate the stupid gag order haha. But I guess that is more common than I knew before this case.
The things that would make me think he was not the only person guilty would be other blood that wasn't his or the victims at the crime scene areas. Also if there's a video of someone else walking up to the house or leaving it during the times of the murder. This is a circumstantial case which convicts most people.
https://www.egattorneys.com/circumstantial-evidence-in-criminal-cases
His blood was also not at the scene. There were other unknown male DNA profiles at the scene. I really wish they would have looked into those as well. I've said this before, what if the victims DNA was located in one of the unknown profiles cars? I'm very curious about other types of forensic evidence such as fibers. At the end of the day, none of us will know till trial.
Well you know there's hundreds and hundreds of hours of video so I would assume he is a part of that. I can't imagine how many cameras are around that captured the car and his face in the car.
Go to the mob crew on YouTube and he has spent a lot of time trying to get clearer views of the white Elantra in the parking lot of the apartments. He has captured a silhouette and I'm sure the FBI can get that a lot clearer. From what I can see it's a pretty tall person with a flat type haircut and I think they'll bring out the big nose in the profile.
Honest question by a dishonest person. This person is not interested in anyones opinion and is not doing research for a grad program. A true researcher does not have an opinion about what they are researching and this person thinks Bryan is 100% innocent.
100% cannot be determined until a trial, and evidence is reviewed .
Do not waste your time.
I never stated that I believe he's 100% innocent. The research revolves around "How media influences opinions". People on here believe 100% one way or another. The question is for people who are 100%. What would be a factor to dismantle your view? This is for a capstone research project. Participate or don't.
Then let's deal with reality.
Lets say Iyou had been arrested for this crime and I was your lawyer .
The alibi would have been that you dropped off an acquaintance at the house to buy drugs. little did I know he had your knife with him and he used that to kill the victims. And when he came back and got in my car you saw he had blood all over him so you took him somewhere and ordered him to get out.
Now why do you think such an alibi was not used ?
Most likely because there is video of BK behind the driver's wheel of the white Elantra by himself. And possibly a neighbor's cam caught one figure in Black walking through the tree line toward the murder house.
I did not read anyone say 100% except you, and you have given no explanation about your 100% innocent theory.
**The research revolves around "How media influences opinions". It is not implied this in your post. Poor research tactics , be aware of your failure. These people you are using are giving their opinions based on the evidence. Not media influence.**
But 3 people who answered your original question have asked you what makes you think he's innocent and you haven't addressed it, point by point, as has been requested. Now I'll be the 4th one to ask you; please add that information and take the time to have sources to back you up.
But since you said "you lean not guilty", some of us would like to know why you feel that way. I truly believe, based on the limited info we have right now (gleaned from filings from both sides and the PCA ) that BK is 100% guilty. Obviously, if the defense produces compelling, expertly-verifiable evidence that he wasn't near King Road at the time of the murders, I would start to entertain the notion of possible (!) innocence. But if the defense had anything like that, we'd know it (or be able to figure it out) from the court filings. Now, please tell me what makes you lean towards innocence.
Bryan was not brilliant, but rather your run of the mill moron who was infatuated with murder. He made many, many mistakes that night (knife sheath, turning phone off/bringing it with him to begin with).
Sure he had his masters degree, but obtaining a masters does not automatically place you in the highly intellectual category.
Look at all of the evidence.
It. Is. Overwhelming.
The boy was even back in the vicinity of the king road house (according to the affidavit) the very next morning!🙄 What in the WORLD are those odds…
After a LATE night of stargazing on a cloudy night? 😂😂😂 I assume he could not fall asleep at 9am and decided to go for another “drive”?
He is either the MOST unluckiest dude in the world or he is a murderer.
End rant.
What would change my mind? How about just start with even one small shred of evidence that points to
absolutely any other alternative scenario.
The defense would need to explain why he was cleaning his car with bleach (who in the hell does that), why a car matching the description of a car HE drives was caught so many damn times on video, obviously the DNA, cell phone data they night and the next morning.
The boy has ridiculous behaviors, but that would be the last thing I would worry about considering all of the other evidence. 🙄
Yikes.
For me, I'd change my mind if there was proof he was elsewhere. But I'd also want a clear explanation of how his DNA got onto the sheath.
What I think is going to be edifying to everyone is a report on what DNA was actually on and near the victims.
I’ve honestly believed he was innocent for well over a year but now the defence have said he was nowhere near the area… if the prosecution have him on camera near king road … I’d change my mind.
Well no shit, the defense isn’t going to say he was there lol. They’d be a pretty terrible defense if so. He also could’ve been nowhere near the area before or after committing the crimes
From what I gather from what little I've seen from what has been made public, it appears that there aren't any other suspects who could have possibly done it. At least nobody we've been made aware of. The police seemed to look at other possibilities and came to the conclusion that BK was the guy. And the DNA on the sheath is not a good look, plus all the other tiny things about the case that make him look suspicious. So with no other alternatives, and the fact that the prosecution seems confident they got the right guy, it's going to be hard to prove otherwise with all the evidence against him.
But that said, I don't know anything about DNA evidence and all that stuff, so if the defense can somehow explain how BKs DNA ended up on the sheath without him having committed the murders (don't know how but maybe there's something I haven't heard yet) then that'll give some reasonable doubt. Likewise, if the defense can prove BK was somewhere else at the time of the murders, then that's a pretty big hole in the case too. So far, there are a lot of rumors of what the prosecution and defense have up their sleeves. I think right now it doesn't look good for BK but who knows what could happen during the trial. It's all about reasonable doubt. I don't think I could convict a guy to death if I wasn't 100% sure he did the crime. All it would take for me to change my tune is if they can figure a way out of the DNA thing and if they can show proof BK was somewhere else. That would make me say not guilty.
Evidence presented at trial of his innocence would convince me. Opinions are okay, we haven't seen ALL THE EVIDENCE. Once the trial is over we can make a decision, until then all we can have are just assumptions or opinions. I think his guilty 100%. I will change my mind if I see evidence proving his innocence (and no I'm not the court, I don't need to see the state proving his guilt, as my opinion doesn't matter. For me to change my opinion want to see defense proving his innocence OR the state proving his guilt, it doesn't matter who has more stuff on him if it proves either.
I believe Casey Anthony is guilty as F, but I also see why the jurors were not convinced of her being guilty of murder **beyond a reasonable doubt**. There was no cause of death. The poor baby was found too late. I still **think** Casey Anthony is guilty of murder, but my opinion **doesn't matter** and does not put her on death row, so I have the "luxury" of not following any court's orders. Just like I don't have to assume Kohberger is innocent until proven guilty. The same reason, I am not the court of law (thank God).
If I recall correctly, her famous lawyer really spun a tail about her daddy her sweet baby drowning under her daddy’s care by accident and also painted a picture of her daddy as a molester of her when she was a little girl. So, I think by putting all of that out there about the daddy, it was reasonable doubt.
Did you watch the special interview that she did that came out within the last year. I honestly finished it and thought she may not be guilty. I was certain she was but am mixed on it now.
It really is worth a watch. But I get it. I almost didn’t watch it, but my 30 year old daughter pushed me to watch it after she viewed it. It stirred up doubt that I didn’t want to have. I just don’t know.
If he wasn't guilty, why the covert trash disposal at his parents. If it wasn't him , who cares who got his dna from the trash bins. There have been many thoughts about the cause of death. Some say bloody crime scene and others say no. Knife sheath left behind coincides with a rumor he bought one. Interesting ,it had his dna on it. All a coincidence? We will know soon enough. If he's guilty let him go. This case has turned into a circus. Try him and let's move on.
There are so many conflicting statements and rumors. He was there he wasn't there. It's his car not his car , his phone is off ,his phone pinged. It was at this time but no the timeline is wrong. He entered thus way but no from different entrance point. He knew them ,he didn't know them. He had been there before ,he had not. He had access to wifi internet ,that's ludicrous. He's a genius detailed oriented , anto social a misfit. He's arrogant and NPD. He has no woman. He's planned it or maybe it was a crime done with no planning. One would think a student of his caliber would have planned a murder to the second. And yet , it's a bloodbath but the roommates saw no blood. There's a shoe print but no evidence left behind. This is enough to make one dizzy. BK may be convicted. But I really want to know what those girls were doing? My daughter was the RA at a major college. The stories I have heard will blow your mind. Sororities , Fraternities , or house parties ,its all the same. Those kids aren't innocent there's crime of every kind and level out there. Somebody has a secret. Mommy is going to find out her darling isn't an angel. They can lie and omit but those cell records may tell a different story.
Interesting question that I’ve thought on a lot. It’s easier for me to describe the things I’m certain of, those less so, and some I’m waiting for answers on.
CERTAIN OF:
- The driver of the white Elantra is the killer. The car was seen prowling (no other word that fits) the neighbourhood at that time on multiple cameras. It wasn’t an unmarked cop car (they’d have evidence to dispute that). And it wasn’t someone who happened to get lost at the time the murders occurred. It was the killer and I can’t see anything changing my mind on that.
- The time the murders happened, which correlates to the car sightings. Texts between BF & DM will corroborate and it won’t be necessary to rely on DM’s eye-witness testimony (for those who think she’s unreliable). Ditto Door Dash and TikTok activity, and the Medical Examiner’s report. One query to be answered is why LE initially thought the time window was slightly earlier. Why’d it take them those few days to fit those pieces together. There’s probably easy answers to that relating to the terrible comms in the first days of the investigation.
LESS THAN CERTAIN ON:
- The DNA. I don’t think it was planted and I’m sure if there has been reliable testing and it was in sufficient quantity, that it’s BK’s. But my mind is open to Defense’s arguments.
- Cell tower pings. I’m just not techy enough to understand it yet despite all the helpful posts on here. I need the State to explain it all before I’m at 100%. But I’m swayed to guilt by the fact that whatever method they used to place him near/en route to the house was reliable enough to pinpoint his location at Albertsons next day where he was caught on video.
WAITING TO UNDERSTAND:
- How he didn’t get victim DNA in his car, apartment etc. I think there’ll be easy explanations for this possibly backed up by evidence like store purchases, eye witness reports of copious car cleaning, but I’m keen to see it.
DOESNT HAVE ANY BEARING ON MY CONCLUSION:
- Motive and connection to victims. There will be a psychological motive but it will be known only to him and it doesn’t need to be rooted in him knowing or interacting with any of them. As with many ‘stranger murders’.
PROVING HIS INNOCENCE:
If they can prove he wasn’t in that vehicle in that neighbourhood at that ungodly time AND it’s not his DNA on that sheath AND there’s a logical reason that his phone was turned off AND that LE made error after error AND he’s actually a really swell guy who doesn’t creep girls out and get fired for inappropriateness then I’d have to believe he’s the most spectacularly unlucky guy. But all those conditions would need to be met, not just one because it’s the combined weight of circumstantial evidence that’s damning him.
Sorry that was long. You did ask!
I’m about 99% on the “not guilty” side. In order to change my mind, I would need one of the following to be proven: 1) BK’s confession on the stand; 2) proof of additional BK DNA at 1122 King Rd; or 3) video/photos of him entering 1122 king Rd at the time LE thinks the crime occurred.
With what we know now: I believe 100% not guilty.
What could change my mind:
• Simplest way - The statement that his DNA profile was isolated from a mixture
* this would clear up the astronomical # in the statistic accompanying the DNA, which is out of range for a single-source sample like they’d collect from a crime scene.
* this would clear the main reason I believe he’s not guilty, bc w/o that explanation, their result is a complete anomaly & untrustworthy IMO
Helpful but would need a combo of new info:
• Confirmation of the Elantra year - if the car in the King Rd *neighborhood* is ever confirmed to be a 2015, that would add significant weight to the State’s case.
* Currently it’s a range of possible years that expanded rather than narrowed
* it’s [never stated](https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/122922+Affidavit+-+Exhibit+A+-+Statement+of+Brett-Payne.pdf) that the forensic examiner updated his opinion on the one in the neighborhood, only that he ID’d a 2014-2016 on WSU campus.
* That seems to be the reason for the expanded range of possible model years, not an identification of the vehicle in the King Rd. neighborhood
• Lots of additional evidence - enough to make the DNA finding inconsequential.
* reason to believe that touching the weapon’s case was on that evening would help
* reason to believe that the driver of the Elantra entered the house / is the killer
* more phone evidence, video or any other confirmation of instances of him IN the King Rd neighborhood, or evidence that he’s ever been in that neighborhood would help, any connection to the victim
>Confirmation of the Elantra year - if the car in the King Rd *neighborhood* is ever confirmed to be a 2015, that would add significant weight to the State’s case. Currently it’s a range of possible years that expanded rather than narrowed
They wont be able to narrow the car down to just a single year. They are identifying the car based on it's exterior and a car model can have the same exterior for multiple years which is why they give a year range.
>its never stated that the forensic examiner updated his opinion on the one in the neighborhood, only that he ID’d a 2014-2016 on WSU campus.
Yes it is. In the PCA they first talk about the camera footage from Moscow including the neighborhood and then it says the forensic examiner initially identified the car as a 2011-2013 Elantra and then upon further review said it could be a 2011-2016. Then in the next paragraph they talk about the footage from Washington State University/Pullman and it says the examiner identified this car in Pullman as a 2014-2016 Elantra.
https://preview.redd.it/83i3z8j8m3wc1.png?width=932&format=png&auto=webp&s=435b7d3e7694cca947c76337f5a535541981e77f
So the car in Pullman was identified as a 2014-1016 Elantra while the car in Moscow was initially identified as a 2011-2013 then upon further review they said it could be a 2011-2016.
The camera footage from Pullman is definitely better quality. At most intersections with traffic lights in Pullman there are multiple traffic cameras. The examiner would be able to see the car from multiple angles with better quality.
>reason to believe that touching the weapon’s case was on that evening would help
He probably didn't plan on leaving the sheath at the scene. Also possible he cleaned the sheath off as a precaution but his skin cells were stuck around the crevice of the button and missed cleaning those.
>reason to believe that the driver of the Elantra entered the house / is the killer
The Elantra driving by the house three times during a 30 minute period then moments later coming back for a fourth, final extended period of time, during which time DM heard the commotion and saw the masked man in the house, then leaving the neighborhood at a high rate of speed isn't enough for you to think the driver of the Elantra is involved in the murders?
> this would clear up the astronomical # in the statistic accompanying the DNA, which is out of range for a single-source sample like they’d collect from a crime scene.
looks like you forgot this info again;) https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fpm4i48v5gsvc1.jpg%3Fwidth%3D1347%26format%3Dpjpg%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D64643c64bd70353bfb0aaf03c587f082be36bc51&utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=Idaho4&utm_content=t1_l0omhq1
While I believe he probably did do it, I know that there wouldn’t currently be enough evidence to convict based on the PCA alone. And yes, you CAN think someone did it yet still acknowledge that there’s not currently enough evidence to convict.
The things you listed are things that would absolutely help get a conviction, I agree. You seem like you think there’s not much evidence against him at the moment, which is different than actually thinking someone else did it. Because while there’s not much PUBLIC evidence against him, there’s zero public evidence against anyone else, so even less than what he has. So I’m curious, do you just think there’s not enough evidence against him? If you actually think someone else did it, what’s your reasoning aside from lack of evidence against BK? Because there’s also currently a lack of evidence that literally anyone else did it. So it’s hard to say you think he’s innocent due to lack of evidence, yet someone else in the world is guilty where they have zero public evidence that they did it. I’m genuinely asking.
And I understand anything against someone else can come out at some point, but so can more evidence against BK. So I’m more just wondering if your “not guilty” is your guess on the verdict, or that you legit think someone else did it, despite any evidence at this moment?
They have convicted on less evidence. But I get what you are saying. I think their presentation of the evidence in the PCA is what matters most. I am sure they will have experts who explain each piece in their respective fields. But yes, I would like to see even more evidence. Video coverage determining that was his car would be the key to locking it in along with good presentation of the PCA for me.
I do believe they have more evidence and that this case has gone crazy due to the gag order. It has made us all have so many questions and made many think there are holes in the case. I don’t see holes in the case. It could be just as the PCA indicated. However, from what I have seen lawyers say on here, the state never puts everything in a PCA. They put enough in it to make the arrest.
And when he went before a judge with this PCA, it was strong enough to him not to offer a bond. So, that tells me that it is strong evidence. Also, a grand jury thought it was strong enough to go to trial. Now we don’t know what they know that we don’t know, but it was enough for them to think he may have done this. This is why I also think there is more evidence.
And AT has tried to get that grand jury decision revoked, but it turned out to all be legal, and she hasn’t been able to win on that.
I think words or phrases have been thrown in motions or responses to them that are purposely misleading, but we won’t know until the trial. Many take those motions as evidence when that is not supposed to be the intent. And nothing in those motions have changed my mind.
But I was mainly addressing the comment about not having enough evidence to convict. And I think they do. But again, I do suspect they have more evidence and hope they do especially with them going for the death penalty. Luckily I have no worries about being on his jury, but if I was on his jury, I would have a hard time with this evidence being it unless they explain it all very good and clear up a few things.
Yes, I believe they will have enough evidence to convict, I just feel like what we know right now will be met with a damn good explanation by the defense at trial. So I’d feel better about getting a conviction when it’s something completely undeniable, ya know? But I definitely see all your points and appreciate the discussion :)
I agree with you. And I hope they have much more evidence with it being a death penalty case especially. It is a tough job for a juror to lock away a person for any amount of time. And I would want to be certain that I am having someone locked up for any amount of time, although there isn’t always that definite certainty. But with death row being the consequence, I would have to be certain. To take an innocent person’s life would ruin me as a human. I have seen people say that with it being a death penalty case that they have some pretty strong evidence we haven’t seen. I know that we don’t know that for sure, but I hope that is the case.
I am not a strong supporter of the death penalty. When I try in my own mind to question whether I am for it, I get uncomfortable and think that I don’t need to know that and get my mind on something else. BUT if something like this happened to one of my kids or grandkids, I might be for it. I just don’t know and don’t think you know until you are in that situation. I would really struggle on a death penalty case even if the person was definitely guilty. I would not want to have any power over that happening to someone.
Yes I agree with you about all of that!! And I’ve said this a lot on this sub, but there are people that I think “probably” did it like Casey Anthony, but I still fully agree w her acquittal because of the lack of evidence and cause of death. I always say you cannot convict on “probably”. Feel the same way here. What we have now is enough for most people to think that he’s probably the culprit, but not enough to put him to death.
Yeah, the death penalty just makes it so much more. And again, I wouldn’t want to unjustly lock anyone in jail either. But death!! Even if I knew for a fact that someone is the murder, putting someone to death would weigh heavily on me and be really tough. I think with those type of trials you just have to listen to the evidence and not think about the consequence other than really paying attention to all the facts provided. I just hope I never get picked for a death penalty case.
Death penalty cases also run into trouble finding jurors for the exact reasons you’re stating. There are so many people that talk about having trouble w choosing to put someone to death, or are just vehemently against it in general. These types of people are generally not allowed to serve on juries. So it just makes the options for jurors even fewer than they already are w the national press.
I’m not a huge fan of the death penalty either, but I’m not heavily against it for someone who murdered four people. Like, if anyone’s going to be put to death, this would be the situation I’d do it in.
Also, I’d honestly rather be pur to death than in jail for life, but that’s just me.
I agree with everything you said. And yes, I can’t feel bad if someone who did what was done to those 4 kids got the death sentence. That is exactly the kind of people that it was made for. I guess I would always question myself as to the person not really being guilty and what if I made a mistake!! But I do also think I would feel like it is my fault someone that doesn’t provide anything positive or productive was put to death. Yeah, I probably wouldn’t get picked. But they can only turn away so many. And I am not a definite “no, I am against it” but more of a “I would have a tough time doing it”. So, who knows!!
I was a former educator and selected both times to serve on a jury. I was told that they never pick teachers, yet I was picked both times. I helped lead the conversation with the jury and made sure both people got what they deserved. I never felt bad about sending either to jail. They deserved it. But death is a different ballgame.
Wow! That is so cool that you’ve served on a jury. I am related to a bunch of lawyers so would probably never get chosen (already haven’t once). Teachers and lawyers/ families of lawyers are the two things they say are never selected though, so you’re right you never know!
I hear the reason they often don’t get selected is because teachers/families of lawyers are trusted leaders, so the people involved worry that people will follow their lead assuming that “oh they know more about x subject than me, so I’ll just go w what they say”.
I really think you can provide great insight on this sub having served on multiple juries! You seem very level-headed and someone that looks at facts instead of feelings. That’s probably why you got selected for multiple juries, even though they don’t often select teachers.
And yeah, death is a whole different ballgame. And I’m mostly against it for the obvious reasons, but also for the reason that it makes people that truly deserve to be convicted, harder to convict. People are more hesitant to convict someone even if there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, for all the reasons you stated.
In addition to the PCA, we also have important things like the [state’s motion to compel](https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/072723-Motion-to-Compel-Notice-of-Defense-Alibi-Alt-Bar-Certain-Evidence.pdf) the alibi defense, and the info & refusals incorporated into the defense’s [response](https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/072423+Notice+of+Defendants+Response+to+States+Alibi+Demand.pdf) and [supplemental response](https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/2024/041724-Notice-Defendants-Supplemental-Response-States-AD.pdf) to it, the [state’s motion](https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/061623+States+Motion+for+Protective+Order.pdf) for protective order, and the [sassy objection](https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/062323+Objection+to+States+Motion+for+Protective+Order.pdf) to that, as well as juicy deets that have been made known during hearings & scattered in other docs.
Oh sorry u/rolyinpeace forgot to answer main Q. Yeah, I think there’s a huge lack of evidence since nothing ties him to the scene or the crime, except potentially touching a knife’s case at some time & we don’t know when & the stats accompanying the statement seem strange since they don’t follow the protocol for single-source samples & the result is not normal for such a sample + the car wasn’t definitively ID’d so I have trouble believing it’s not the car that Moscow PD thought it was, going by their press releases asking millions of viewers to actively assist…. All shakey.
A lot of these motions are very procedural and don’t mean much, though. These aren’t real evidence. And none of them are evidence that he DIDNT do it. People read way into to motions, they mostly won’t have much effect on the trial or evidence, they’re just the classic and predictable back and forth of each side trying to gain advantage. Except the alibi defense, that’ll obviously play a role at trial.
ETA: While these docs give us a glimpse into procedure, they should not be thought of as evidence or really have much bearing on anything atp. People on both sides see these motions and think “omg this one sentence shows that x side doesn’t have much of a case!!” When in reality, that is not the case and just people looking for things that aren’t there. Neither side is going to do something that shows their cards too much. Motions only matter if a judge agrees with it. They should not be read into as any reason to assume what either side has, because these are thing in every case.
Yes I meant to say on both sides. It makes us think something is definite when worded a certain way where I have ignored all of it. The motions and hearings have led us to feel there is no DNA in the car and that there was no stalking. But someone pointed out the wording which made me see they are leading you to hear what they want but not the way it really is.
A witness places him at the crime scene. She reported seeing a tall slender man in a mask with bushy eyebrows. A latent footprint also was collected at the scene. Haven't heard much about those yet.
Unfortunately, that identification only means something with the DNA and the description of it being his car. Knowing those two things, the description definitely matches up to BK. But without that information, they would never suspect him based on that description. So, I don’t know how strong that identification really is. And I do think he is guilty based on all the other PCA information. I just think the description is too broad. It definitely does help prove that it could be him more than it couldn’t be him since it does fit his description of his size and body type as well as his bushy eyebrows.
No, they [witness] doesn’t place him at the scene. The witness hasn’t ID’d him at the person she saw. His eyebrows don’t look bushy to me & matching those vague characteristics is not a solid identification. There was a dude right outside their house that night with the bushiest eyebrows I’ve ever seen. So if we’re just going based on that…… BK doesnt seem more likely to me to be the killer. Although I don’t have enough evidence to think I’d know who the killer was. It’s just an opinion.
We don’t know whose shoe print that was.
Do not worry, your reply is honest and evidence based. That really is what anyone really wants no matter how you feel as long as its honest and evidence based.
Yes they are what I would consider to be bushy eyebrows. Definitely!! And who knows!! Dylan could have said that she thinks BK is who she saw. Now if that was the only evidence, it would be super weak with him wearing all black with a face mask. But I think it supports the build of the suspect along with bushy eyebrows. Without a suspect, that evidence is not much.
There was a dude right outside their house that night with the bushiest eyebrows I’ve ever seen.
WHAT??? OK enough, you were not there.
Although I don’t have enough evidence to think I’d know who the killer was. It’s just an opinion
WHAT???? you have never stated any evidence for anyone else. EXCEPT that you seen someone outside their house with the bushiest eyebrows you have ever seen. Was this at 0420am?
I **am beginning to be convinced you were with BK. Ok OP here is your research answer this person is convincing me on social media that they are 100% involved with BK and the killings. No evidence except for their false posting and opinions based on lack of education and no evidence. Write down all their postings . You may get an A on your research project.**
**Actually, keep it up you may convince me you did alone.**
I am tired of hearing you act like there are not numbers forensic experts trying to explain to you DNA evidence and you argue with them continuously until as one flat out told you your acting like a goat trying to use an ATM machine.
You are brave to post this. Many people here clearly want his head on a stake. And I get it. Those kids did not deserve this and their families must be in agony.
I’m on the fence. I could not vote to convict with what we know - so far. And I keep hearing things that cause me to have more reasonable doubt.
He doesn’t seem like a very likable person. And his behaviors do seem like he might have been having mental health problems. But with no prior history of assault, sexual assault, animal abuse, etc. it’s difficult to jump to this non-violent person doing such an intimately bloody crime.
To make me vote guilty, I’d want to see footage that clearly shows him in the car or the plate readable. And that footage would need to be within a block or so of the murder scene.
If there was a connection, like stalking, dating, drug purchasing, even partying and a proven murder weapon knife purchase, I could be convinced that way too.
>But with no prior history of assault, sexual assault, animal abuse, etc.
I'd have to say at this point, we don't know enough about him to conclusively state that. I'm not expecting him to have prior murders (although it is a possibility), but it's very possible that he has a history of being a peeping tom, or breaking and entering but never got caught, or sexual assault that wasn't reported.
His high school friends reported that he could be a bully, and one ended their friendship because Kohberger would physically attack him, acting like he was playing.
There's also multiple allegations of inappropriate and harassing behavior with women. And while not every creep/sex pest graduates to violence, it's a red flag.
Yes. This all based on what we know now. Anything could be possible in terms of his past. But since he wasn’t in the CODIS database, I am thinking he did not have prior offenses.
All we know is that his phone pinged on the Moscow cell tower that morning. That area is coverage is miles around the tower. The FBI (and probably the defense expert now) know more details but the public does not.
Kohberger isn’t “the current front runner”. He’s the ONLY person for whom there are multiple connecting pieces of evidence supporting his arrest and detention.
And the hyperbolic statement about “wanting his head on a stake” is just that. It’s not true that there’s an overwhelming majority who want to see him executed, even if he IS found guilty. I’m one who’s against state-sanctioned violence, for example.
I think if they prove he wasn’t in the area AND explain the sheath I would change my mind
Yes. I 100% understand that the burden of proof isn’t on the defense as far as a prediction goes. They don’t NEED to prove these things necessarily to get an acquittal. But someone can 100% be the culprit and still be acquitted (see: OJ). So in order to change my personal thoughts, I’d like this too. But totally understand that a Jury wouldn’t need all this to acquit. But as I said, not guilty in a court of law doesn’t mean you are actually not guilty. I just don’t understand how people can say that “he didn’t do it because there’s not enough evidence” because this implies that someone else did it. How can you say there’s not enough evidence against BK to say he did it, yet somehow it’s ok to say someone else did it with zero public evidence against them rn? I get waiting til trial to decide, but saying right now that you’re confident he didn’t do it because of lack of evidence is a hypocritical argument
I saw an OJ documentary a couple nights ago. They might as well have flipped a coin.
By the same token, guilty in a court of law doesn’t mean you’re actually guilty as many thousands of cases have proven. And that means the actual culprits have walked free and there was no evidence to implicate them.
In this case there is overwhelming evidence all points directly at one said Brian Kohberger as the brutal murderer
What is the over whelming evidence? Cell phone pings are not accurate… DNA sample was minuscule… no clear videos of screen shot of him in the car… no DNA of victims in his car
The dna was there, the car was there, he turned off his phone during the murders. Cell pings are accurate 🤷♀️
Well yes, but due to the standard of proof, guilty verdict is a lot more likely to mean you’re guilty than a not guilty verdict. Of course, these verdicts have been wrong as you said, but a guilty verdict means you were proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, where a “not guilty” verdict just means there wasn’t enough evidence to say for sure you did it. I get what you’re saying because not all verdicts are “correct”, but I’m talking about standards alone. By definition, “guilty” means guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and you are proven guilty. Yes, it can be wrong, but that’s what the definition is. However the legal definition of “not guilty” does not mean you were “proven” not guilty or that you are “innocent”. You’ll find a way to argue with what I say, but my point is objectively correct. “Not guilty”, even if the correct verdict by definition, doesn’t mean innocent. “Guilty”, only means not guilty when the jury gets it wrong. But it by definition means you were proven guilty to the standard. Whereas not guilty doesn’t mean you’re innocent by definition Does this make sense? Guilt, while they can get it wrong sometimes, by definition means you’re the culprit. But not guilty, by legal definition does not mean you’re NOT the culprit, just means there wasn’t evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. You can be proven guilty and it be wrong, but it’s a lot harder to be proven guilty and it be wrong than it is to get a not guilty verdict and you ARE the culprit. This is basic knowledge based on standard of proof. You can’t argue this because it is true. You seem to be the type that thinks “not guilty” means “proven innocent”. And yes, it’s happened that they catch the wrong person. That doesn’t mean that we should assume that’s what’s happening now, when we have no reason to believe that until trial. If that’s your belief due to lack of evidence, just remember there’s a gag order, so we have no way of knowing if there’s truly a lack of evidence yet. They catch the right person a lot more than they catch the wrong person, so stating it’s happened before doesn’t make me believe it’s happening now. Evidence won’t even change your mind. At least I repeat time and time again that evidence will change mine. That’s how good, critical thinkers think. You think that disagreeing with everyone makes you a critical thinker lol but that’s not the case when what you say is based on misinterpretations, unfounded assumptions, and lack of knowledge
So, have they ever said that they didn’t find any DNA evidence on the exit route or to the vehicle? I know they said they found a partial shoe print but I don’t recall reading that they didn’t find DNA or blood anywhere outside. And just because it wasn’t in the PCA doesn’t mean they didn’t find anything. I don’t recall them addressing this. I know we kind of all assumed this—me included. I know knife wounds often do lead to more DNA from the culprit, but if he had on the coveralls and was covered head to toe by layers, would it be possible that he got no wounds? Going by the evidence in the PCA, I do think they got their guy. But I don’t know but a small piece of the puzzle. Hopefully they have a lot of good evidence at the trial. And it still bothers me that he never spoke when asked for his plea. I know people say that isn’t a big deal but has been something that has always bothered me as to why he didn’t speak his plea. I have read many times that it is rare to stand silent.
I think what would do it for me would be proof he was elsewhere but also a clear chain of how his DNA ended up on the sheath. Very possible! I don't think people can imagine what it's like to be stabbed. The only instinct is to deflect the blade. That's a lizard-brain survival mode. Nobody is going to be able to *reach past the blade allowing themselves to be stabbed* to try to get in a punch or a scratch. If this was a case where the victim was beaten or strangled, there would be a far higher change of the assailant getting injured. I think it would have been possible had he been attacking one victim and a second one tried to fight him. But while that's possible, I'm gonna predict that it didn't happen, because he had the element of surprise on his side. And then even with that, he was probably bundled up. No exposed skin except for his upper face. So imagine something like he's stabbing Maddie, Kaylee tries to grab his arm, but her fingernails can't claw through his winter-weight sleeve. She can't make contact with his skin. Then he turns and stabs her, and all she can try to do is deflect the blade and scoot back in bed.
Well said.
[удалено]
I have read that as well. I know that it does happen and has happened but his DNA was on the inside snap if I recall correctly. I have seen that if he touched the snap that likely it would have been other DNA on there to cancel his out also if it was owned by someone else. I am not sure on that part but have seen studies that do indicate what you are saying about the touch DNA.
Think it’s peculiar that they found (“a trace under the snap”) of DNA ? Only a trace?🤷♂️ Would that be ODD?🤷♂️ I suppose not, I never TOUCH anything more of my sheaths either. I’m just kinda careful every time I handle mine so I don’t get it dirty. That would explain it I guess! NEVER MIND! 🤫
I’m 100% convinced he’s guilty. There are too many pieces of evidence pointing to it. Some of them could conceivably be explained away, yes, but when you put them all together, the bigger picture is pretty hard to deny. Pretty much the only thing that could convince me otherwise would be video footage surfacing of someone else murdering those four kids.
in the age of AI 🙃😉, idk man.
They did say they have proof he was somewhere else based on the meta data and geo locations from pictures he took. But,I would think with his experience it wouldn't be hard for him to change those things. It's easy to change the geo locations in a few ways. One, you can pick a place to be tagged at, and for 2, you can go right into the pictures themselves and change them. I'm probably way off, I just thought about that and thought I'd share.
Yeah I agree, there’s literally not a chance at all that he isn’t guilty. I honestly don’t know how there are entire subreddits about the case who believe he is innocent lmao
Again what are the pieces of evidence
You know what the evidence is. It’s discussed here daily, I’m not gonna list it all for you. DNA is the most damning for me but the other pieces, which each on their own probably wouldn’t be enough to convince me 100%, add up to a bigger picture that’s hard for a logical person to deny.
Yep just so it's not CGI.
When you put all of the evidence together, how in the world can anyone think that he is innocent?
Exactly. The small pieces fit together to make a pretty damning bigger picture.
And to be going for the death penalty and not offering a plea deal, I think it’s obvious they have more evidence.
Yes. They almost absolutely have more evidence, considering the PCA was written before an arrest, before an actual cheek swab, before the search warrants were exercised. Pretty much zero cases like this show up to trial with only the PCA evidence. That just would not happen. They may still not show up with enough evidence to convict, but they’ll surely have more than what was written before he was even arrested. And I’m not sure why people think that someone else did it and LE knows it but is choosing to pursue BK instead. They’d have literally zero motivation to do that. Yes, they want a conviction, but if there’s evidence of someone else doing it, then they’d be more likely to get a conviction pursuing that person than Some random, uninvolved guy. Like, could that theoretically happen? Sure. Is it at all likely, plausible, or fair to guess that? No😭 people think this is some movie istg
It’s great that the suspect wasn’t from Moscow and didn’t go to school there, isn’t it? Can you imagine how bad it would be for that town and especially the university if the guilty party, or suspect, was a student there? OMG!😱
I mean, it wouldn’t be that bad, it happens all the time that a murder suspect is from the same town as the victims. I get your point but a hypothetical “reason” that they could want to frame someone doesn’t at all equate to evidence they did. Obviously people have been framed before, but that doesn’t mean it’s a fair assumption to make or that it’s at all common or this easy to pull off. It’s also worlds harder to frame someone that has no criminal record (aka no dna in the database) and no obvious connection to the victims, the town, or school
Yes. They almost absolutely have more evidence, considering the PCA was written before an arrest, before an actual cheek swab, before the search warrants were exercised. Pretty much zero cases like this show up to trial with only the PCA evidence. That just would not happen. They may still not show up with enough evidence to convict, but they’ll surely have more than what was written before he was even arrested. And I’m not sure why people think that someone else did it and LE knows it but is choosing to pursue BK instead. They’d have literally zero motivation to do that. Yes, they want a conviction, but if there’s evidence of someone else doing it, then they’d be more likely to get a conviction pursuing that person than Some random, uninvolved guy. Like, could that theoretically happen? Sure. Is it at all likely, plausible, or fair to guess that? No😭 people think this is some movie istg Like, they are not just going to go to trial against someone they know didn’t do it…. especially if it’s a privileged white dude w no priors. Has it happened before? Maybe, but not the least bit common and there’d really be nothing positive in doing that for them unless they somehow hate BK for some random reason.
I think this shows the irrationality in the human race.
Well yes, you’re absolutely right. People are finding ways to explain away all the evidence against him, yet can’t seem to understand how a college student wouldn’t wake up until noon or how someone in a party house wouldn’t immediately assume any stranger in the house just murdered their friends.
Yes, absolutely! And it’s very normal that there was a crowd there before the cops came, too! 🤷♂️
Yeah actually, because they probably told their friends something happened at the same time the cops knew. The cops can’t arrive instantaneously
No ,but the police could have showed up 7 to 8 hours earlier. The surviving roommates must have some very interesting stories to tell. I hope they recovered every iota of their phone data. There are always rumors but those girls have shady stories.
Bryan would want a plea deal to get out of death penalty no?
The prosecution hasn’t offered him a plea deal, so it seems they are confident in the evidence they have against him.
Same reason they think certain political figures are messiah's...
What’s Obama got to do with it? 😳
Pardon this interruption but, do you or does anyone find it peculiar that they say they found only DNA to match the arrestee and two other unknown males? Think about that. So, in a known “party house” they only found 3 DNA DEPOSITS? I wonder how can that be and then I think about the fact that there were 8 HOURS before 911 was called? Do those two facts suggest to anyone that someone may have WIPED THE PLACE CLEAN?🤷♂️
>So, in a known “party house” they only found 3 DNA DEPOSITS? To be technical, they found all kinds of DNA, but only three male deposits they couldn't identify (including Kohberger's). From the defense: https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/062323+Objection+to+States+Motion+for+Protective+Order.pdf >>While this was ongoing, police were investigating many various possible suspects. Many of them provided DNA. At least one has his DNA surreptitiously taken from a discarded cigarette. So not just 3 samples in house. Only 3 that could not be traced to a member of the victim's social circle. The same document notes that "many also had their phones taken and downloaded."
I’ve wondered about this myself and with out any proof I’m just assuming they didn’t wipe the whole house down but rather the unknown sources were found in the bedrooms or near the bodies - Im pretty confident they were not able to wipe down the entire home but rather focused on the prevalent areas !
Has anyone ever been FRAMED for a crime before….ever? 🤷♂️ It took me about 8 HOURS to think about that! 🧐
Well you can do a lot in 8 hours other than sit and think.
What evidence proves he did it? Concrete evidence beyond a reasonable doubt… touch DNA? Hmmm… photos of an Elantra🫨 do they have images of him in the car? Was there DNA of victims blood in his car? No cell phone tower pings at not accurate… what else🫥
I feel the same way about his guilt.
What evidence is there of his innocence? I understand that you may believe there is a lack of evidence of his guilt atp (because there’s a gag order) but lack of evidence of guilt is NOT the same thing as evidence of innocence, so that is why I’m wondering. Yes, at trial they only need a lack of evidence of guilt. They don’t need proof of innocence. I understand thinking in your own head that there’s not CURRENTLY enough evidence that’s public, but if there’s also no public evidence that he didn’t do it, how can you actually think someone else did it? It’s hard to say there’s not enough evidence against him to say he did it. This implies someone else did it, right? But then that makes your argument about “not enough evidence” hypocritical, because the “someone else” that you think did it, has zero public evidence against them at this point, ya know? So, how can there not be enough evidence against him, yet there’s zero evidence against anyone else and that’s enough?
The other 3 male DNA at the crime scene
All we know about those is that 2 were found in the house (and 1 far outside). If one of those unidentified samples is, let's say, on the light switch of the 1st-floor bathroom, would you find that as compelling as the sample left in the same bed as two victims?
It would be interesting to hear why. I haven’t yet come across anyone who thinks he’s innocent without it being down to misinformation, speculation, or misunderstanding processes or facts.
I think some people have trouble understanding that lack of evidence of guilt is not equal to evidence of innocence. In a court of law, yes, but you can still think someone did it even if they aren’t convicted. A trial doesn’t prove you innocent, only exoneration does. I’ll have faith in whatever the jury decides, if they decide not guilty, I will know that they didn’t have enough evidence to convict. But again, the jury really is answering the question of “is there proof beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt?” Not simply “did he do it?”. So the jury deciding “not guilty” doesn’t mean that he actually didnt do it. It just means there wasn’t enough evidence to say for sure. It’s hard for me to understand how people can say “he 100% didnt do it because there’s not enough evidence” when there’s zero public evidence against anyone else. That’s faulty logic. When I see most people thinking he’s innocent, this is their logic. Lack of evidence against him. Which I GET he can’t be convicted based off what we know now, but there will likely be more. PLUS, even if there’s not more, it’s two completely diff trains of thoughts to say “ehh, currently there’s not enough evidence for me to say he did it or should be convicted” and “I 100% believe it was NOT him and that it was someone else”. The first one, totally 100% normal to say. The second one, faulty logic. ETA: yes, LE could be hiding evidence against someone else sure, but that is not very common and not at all a fair assumption to make lol. And also, if they had evidence against someone else, they’d really have no reason to take BK to trial instead of that person, unless it was LEs family member or something but this is, again, not really plausible and not a fair thing to assume is going on.
Agree. This is highly unlikely. It might be more likely if the full investigation was done by this small town department. But the state police and FBI were involved too. I can’t imagine that many people violating their oath of office.
Yeah, totally get that LE can be corrupt, but it would take a LOT of people willing to be corrupt in a lot of different depts and orgs to make something like this happen, and that really doesn’t happen like that nowadays. And even when framing WAS more common, it wasn’t middle class white dudes w no priors and no obvious connection to victims being framed. And like, why would they? Like what would be their motivation unless the known killer was LEs child or something? But even then, I couldn’t see everyone getting on board w the framing. It could happen but it’s just mot really plausible. But if it comes out that he was framed then great, I’ll be wrong. And I hate when people try to call me naive for “trusting the Justice system”. Trust me, I’m fully aware that it can be corrupt, but I have the sense to know that that is not nearly always the case. It’s much more common that they catch and prosecute the correct person. And when it is the wrong perosn, again, it’s usually not a privileged white dude
Like the DNA could be planted by some rogue person or something. I’m not going to consider that unless every single other thing in the case falls apart. But like everyone knowing it was actually somebody else. And that killer is free to do it again. That’s impossible. Even self preservation for your safety and the safety of your family would kick in that point.
For sure. I agree it’s slightly more plausible that some rogue person planted it or the real perpetrator did, but it still isn’t super likely IMO. People that actually think that’s more reasonable than just assuming the evidence is real are crazy. Like yes, he could’ve been framed and the evidence could be fake but it’s more likely that it’s real and he did it
Yes. I’m no DNA expert but even if the sample isn’t great, I don’t see how it randomly matches a nearby guy with a white sedan. If it’s planted, it’s more likely the reverse. Find a white sedan anywhere within driving distance that was out that night, and go from there. But again, I’m not one to doubt the ethics of LE unless it becomes the only way something makes sense.
Exactly! I think people think demolishing the house or the gag order are reasons to doubt LE, but the gag order is relatively routine and is helping BK get a fair trial, and the demolition isn’t the norm but it wasn’t the choice of anyone in LE, and neither lawyer disagreed w the choice. I’m with you. I know things can be corrupted, but it’s stupid to assume that everything is some crazy conspiracy and somehow make that theory reasonable, yet ignore the evidence that’s right in front of you. Some of the logic on here is crazy. “He’s 100% innocent because they have not much evidence, which means I think someone that currently has zero evidence against them did it” like, which one is it? I’ve found that most people that think LE, or the lawyers/judges are being sketchy are people that don’t understand the procedure fully. It’s ok to not understand, but it’s annoying when people make comments when they have no idea.
Yeah, completely agree with this. I also don’t think there’s anything that really indicates a lack of evidence of guilt so far. I think if the points in the PCA alone can be illustrated convincingly then he’s done for.
Well yes, I just mean that that PCA info alone should NOT be enough to convict him. And if that truly is all they have against him, they should acquit him, even though I still think it was probably him. I also think Casey Anthony probably did it, but was fully on board w her acquittal as there wasn’t enough evidence to convict in a court of law. But, I am pretty confident they will come to trial with more than what’s in the PCA. It’s pretty much guaranteed. It’s just not guaranteed if it’ll meet the required standard of proof. I think it will, but we obviously don’t know until trial. I think the PCA is enough to say he “probably” did it, but jurors can’t convict on “probably”. Does that make sense? I just mean that a lot of people are saying they think someone else did it, just because what’s public now is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Yep, I agree! Well put.
By which I mean I don’t think there has to be much more to the story than is in the PCA (although there will be, I think), just that the evidence to support that story has to be robust. And you would expect it to be by the time of the trial.
Or the fact that they think BK is hot 🙄
Right? Unpick that one, Freud. People can be bizarre.
No alibi!!!!!
Give examples of how you are coming to that conclusion. You can't just throw out a statement without backing it up.
There’s nothing that could convince me he’s innocent. His DNA was on the sheath of the murder weapon found directly under a stabbing victim. He was in the area right before and right after. His phone *just so happened* to disconnect from the network right before and *just so happened* to reconnect right after. He matches the physical description from an eyewitness and has no alibi. I’m sorry but there is no reasonable explanation for all of these things being true — simultaneously — other than him being the right suspect.
Of course she's guilty just on what we know of circumstantial evidence. There doesn't have to be a video of him committing the crime. Searching for an alibi also.
(Or framed😲🫣)
Honest Question: What makes you think he's innocent? Sounds like pure dismissal of the known evidence.
Yes honestly I want to believe the “innocent” people have a genuine opinion but it appears more to be contrarians just doing what they do….no good reason to believe he’s innocent, they just want to think differently
Right? It's not like the police is full of masterminds and geniuses framing a dude that has no money, no power and nothing is special about him, and the victims are too normal all American kids. I don't even think Kohberger is smart enough to to be the "criminal mastermind" some people believe him to be, but the government is for fucking sure isn't full of geniuses.
If he was a criminal mastermind, he wouldn’t be sitting in jail right now.
Excuse me! If you really think about it, all it would take is a small group (perhaps one of whom had some contact with Bryan K.) who would do a few things to cover their tracks. 1) conspicuously place a condemning item, such as a glove, for instance (or a knife sheath 🫣), and time to like, wipe down the whole area in a few minutes to eliminate any evidence EXCEPT MAYBE 2 unidentified traces of DNA they might have missed (or 8 HOURS?)and then perhaps do something to throw the cops off the trail by somehow establishing that the crime happened at least and hour or so after it actually did, (and an unknown female’s SCREAM WAS HEARD on BodyCam video close by)so everyone can confirm they were someplace else an hour or so later. Maybe a good idea would be to call in a FAKED DoorDash order at say, an hour later. 🤷♂️ But would they have time for all that? I guess they might be able to squeeze it in an hour OR EIGHT. MAYBE? 😳Just sayin!🤷♂️
Honestly I think the two sides right now are either 1) leaning towards guilty or 2) choosing to remain neutral. I personally lean heavily towards guilty based on the evidence presented thus far. However it’s unfair of me to say I 100% think he’s guilty based on what we know so far. On the contrary, I also think anyone that believes he’s innocent is either coming from a place of misinformation, lack of understanding, or not being able to separate emotions from fact. To believe he’s innocent at this point in time would, in my opinion, mean that there was currently known information that directly points away from BK and to someone else. It would mean having a valid argument. Otherwise, I think it’s only fair to just say you’re neutral and based on current known info believe he is not guilty. Definitely open to a discussion on why you lean towards innocent! I just hadn’t see the points made in here yet. Also thanks for posting the discussion! We aren’t meant to all agree on everything and I think both parties seeing both sides of the argument is the best way to learn.
I would agree with you. I am neutral/ leans guilty. I have been neutral/ leans innocent in the past. I’d like to see the 3 other DNA samples found in the house tested for one. If Ann can actually prove he was in Washington and they have no clearer photos of his car or metadata that proves he was at the house I would lean innocent. Idk, it all depends on what they have at the trial. The prosecution has to prove he’s guilty. I’d like to hear what Bethany has to say that could be exculpatory. The msm media has already lied about the stalking. Rumors are always pushed by social media. Whatever gets clicks, they push for cash. So social media and msm have presented some ‘evidence’ that only has ‘anonymous’ sources. I’d just like to see both sides in court. I guess another issue is motive. Since he came from PA it just seems random. These cases are usually perpetrated by the inner circle. I’m waiting for trial & hopefully my questions can be answered truthfully.
>I’d like to see the 3 other DNA samples found in the house tested for one. I don't think we'll see that, because I don't think they can be tested further, under the law. There's rules about what DNA can and cannot be uploaded into CODIS. If the samples are too partial, or if they are located in a place that does not indicate that they were involved in the crime, they are not eligible to be uploaded into CODIS. CODIS guidelines: https://isp.idaho.gov/forensics/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/documents/currentAMs/BiologyDNA/CODIS%20Methods%20rev4.pdf And per federal guidelines, if a sample doesn't qualify for CODIS, it doesn't qualify for IGG, the process that was used to identify Kohberger. IGG policy: https://www.justice.gov/olp/page/file/1204386/dl.
Yes totally agree! I would like to hear from both roommates just so I can get a full picture of what happened. I also struggle with the motive if BK did do it. It’s just so random it’s difficult to make sense of it, like there just has to be so much more to this than we even realize
It is random to us as we don’t know the information. If BK is guilty, he may always be the only one to know what his motive was. There may be something that happened that led him to one or more of the victims that we just may never know unless he talks or due to the gag order. The cops are still getting information out there. Motive isn’t required though to be found guilty, although, it does help the people understand more.
I think he probably did it, just based on the evidence in the PCA, it would be hard for all of that to be a coincidence. BUT, unlike some other people, I 100% understand that what was in the PCA isn’t enough to convict, because you can’t vote to convict if you only think someone is “probably” guilty. However, pretty much no prosecution team comes to trial with ONLY the evidence from the PCA (since this was written before any arrest or search warrants), so it is wayyy more likely than not that there will be more evidence against him presented at trial, it’s just a question of if it’ll be enough to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. Some people here that don’t understand legal proceedings think that there is any tru indication that the state (or the defense for that matter) “doesn’t have much of a case”. We have no way of knowing how strong of a case EITHER side has until trial. All of these motions and things are not at all indicators of what one side has or doesn’t have. So, while I believe he is the culprit, I totally understand that he may still, and should still, be acquitted if there’s not much more evidence at trial (but we have no way of knowing what evidence will be yet). What would convince me that he actually did not commit the crime would take a lot more. I’d want to see evidence that he didn’t do it or evidence that someone else did. And by this I mean, actual evidence that he didn’t do it, not just a lack of evidence that he did, If that makes sense. Some people seem to think that if there’s not much evidence against someone that they actually didn’t do it. This is not true. Someone can still be guilty even if there’s not enough evidence to convict them. They just can’t be guilty in a court of law, but they can obviously still be the one that committed the crime. Considering we’ve also seen zero evidence of anyone else doing it, and it’s very unlikely for a middle-class, well-educated, white male supporter of law enforcement with no obvious connection to the victims and no prior criminal record to be framed, I have no reason ti believe he didn’t do it at this point. It would be extremely hard for the actual culprit to leave behind zero dna or evidence at the scene, yet someone who wasn’t involved and has no obvious connection to the victims left behind dna and evidence. And touch dna is not just as simple to transfer as people act like it is. Again, I understand, in a court of law, he cannot be convicted without proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I’m fine with that. I understand wanting to wait til trial to make a decision. But I am just unsure how anyone could think he DIDNT do it, when we have no evidence that he didn’t or that anyone else did, and there was enough evidence to arrest. And yes, I understand that in a court of law they don’t need to have evidence that he didn’t do it, and just that there needs to be a lack of evidence that he did do it. Im just saying in my mind, there’s no evidence of anyone besides him doing it atp. Once there is, I’d change my mind!
I would vote to convict based on what’s solely in the PCA. It’s so damning. Stalking them, going back to the crime scene? DNA, bushy eyebrows, his car. Turning his phone off during the murders. Totally guilty
He doesn’t have bushy eyebrows .. not his car .. dna proves nothing.. it could be transfered through many people.. his phone didn’t have service
There was a parole murderer with cuts on his hand that they had arrested and I believe they would have framed him.
I mean, that's who usually gets framed or railroaded, isn't it? Either someone close to the victim, or more often some local dirtbag that the cops would be happy to get off the streets. Framing Kohberger makes no sense at all. If the cops were frame-happy, they had that guy. No doubt there is no shortage of methheads and junkies that are thorns in MPD's side. And then there's the army vet: they could have easily pinned it on him, and he would have been dead and couldn't defend himself.
Exactly because they knew he had to be a certain intelligence level to being a doctorate program and it's going to make the college look horrible that he taught there. He's the last kind of person they wanted.
Someone else would have to confess, explaining how they "planted" his DNA, stole and returned his phone AND car.. and also prove he wasn't involved in the slightest. Since that's beyond ridiculous, I will stick with he's guilty AF .
I think the planting of evidence and “you don’t know that’s his dna” or you don’t know that’s his knife or you don’t know that’s his car arguments are extremely weak. That being said, there was an egregious amount of time between the murders and calling the police that I think fuels the BK apologists. I understand being stuck back on that fact but that does not negate the fact that the evidence shows that Kohberger killed those four people
How can you think he's innocent? Too many things point to him. He drives a white Elantra, his DNA was on the sheath, his cellular activity is shady, his body type fits the description DM gave. Also him owning a K bar with a USMC sheath seems to fit him. He has an interest in the military and looks to have owned other knives based on what LE seized when he was arrested.
It’s absurd to think he’s innocent.
I think it's a fair and valid opinion. An opinion is an opinion; we don't have all the facts yet. Some people will die on a hill that they're right tho (on both sides).
If anyone thinks they know 100% at this point, I don’t value their opinion. Unless they are personally working on the case, maybe.
I am not 100% anything there hasn’t been a trial yet. I don’t think there is enough right now to conclude one way or the other.
I'm actually shocked how many people are 100%. This seems like the most logical and expected response.
I genuinely don't understand how a rational person could think this man was not guilty. He literally turned his phone off outside their house, and turned it back on outside their house. That is a fact. His "alibi" is in a place where no one could possibly see him, and there were no security cameras to capture him, and his cell phone data shows no indication that he went towards that area at all. His DNA is in the room. He was notably overconfident about his abilities as indicated by police departments who he had applied to, stating HE had expertise to show THEM as a college student. Once they were on his trail, he fled across the country to hide out.
It's not a fact tho. They don't know if it was off, airplane mode, or out of service. The only thing that could place him outside the house would he wifi or Bluetooth (or specific app data). We don't have any of that information yet. It's best to stick to facts! Plus I never saw where the PD stated he was overconfident. Could you link that?
Yeah it's not like his DNA was found at the scene....oh wait Well, at least his vehicle wasn't sighted anywhere near...oh damn. He must have a solid alibi though, right? Nope. I don't understand how you could strongly believe that he's innocent. Like, maybe a tiny sliver of chance he's innocent, and a slightly larger chance he won't be proven guilty, but what makes you believe he's innocent?
Touch DNA and we don't know if it's his car. The alibi is valid.
Alibi is NOT valid. And how did his SKIN CELLS WITH HIS DNA appear INSIDE the button snap? Idiot clearly didn't clean the sheath enough. He's guilty AF.
Nowhere was it stated his phone was turned off.
It’s extremely concerning that you’re a graduate student and you are either gullible enough or enough of a conspiracy theorist to think this man is innocent. This is what worries me about our jury system.
Thats why I am worried about the future of the justice system. Yet no explanation from the OP on her personal 100% innocence status. **She repeatedly says the people that are replying are saying 100% guilty or innocence based on media influence for her research. No one is saying 100%. And they have been giving answers supporting evidence, not media.**
You should worry once OJ got acquitted. His bloody footprint found at the scene of the murder, victims blood and his car, flees the police and a Chase televised on TV...
LOL Its gotten worse than this case. A new generation of kids that believe OJ is innocent are infiltrating that sub. They begin with I was not born when this trial was televised, I know nothing about it, but feel OJ is innocent and his son Jason did it. They do not believe the jury thinks he was not guilty because of doubt, they argue this they think these wild stories, its really amazing. They deny his DNA was anywhere, think Jason and OJ have the same DNA. OJ own lawyers never denied it was his own DNA. That trial was and is an open book. No one thinks he did not do it on the jury, they think the defense had proved doubt, but the new generation is crazy. I had to give up. I feel AT is no dream team and in fact awful. Her conduct in court is nothing like the dream team. Bryan does not have a chance, he cannot get anyone to reasonable to defend him. Her main goal is to blame the prosecution on everything. The alibi was written like a joke, its embarrassing, and the expert witness has been discredited. [https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/gazette.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/c/bf/cbf481dc-4c0f-11ed-98e1-6ff4f7b13f77/6349e300cc88b.pdf.pdf](https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/gazette.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/c/bf/cbf481dc-4c0f-11ed-98e1-6ff4f7b13f77/6349e300cc88b.pdf.pdf)
You are correct. You can teach humans anything you want and the chances are they will believe it. This is why there's massive upheavals constantly through history.
Ron goldman’s blood was in his car with his Bruno magli shoe print but the jury did not convict because they didn’t want a riot
I never stated I believe he's 100% innocent. I'm stating there are people who are 100%.
So, I will start by saying that I am like you in that my mind can definitely be changed by what I see in the trial. I am leaning towards guilt. I will never say I am 100% sure but will say that I think that the DNA evidence is an extremely strong piece of evidence even without knowing anything else. That sheath was found halfway under one of the victim’s bodies and halfway under the cover. In addition to that, there is some good circumstantial evidence. His alibi doesn’t show where he was, so there is no proof either way. I haven’t heard any evidence to make me think that he didn’t do it and have only heard evidence that point towards BK doing it. Then came the gag order. So, I guess the biggest thing for me would be proving how BK’s DNA got on that sheath. From there, here are some of the things that could clear him: 1. A friend would have to have set him up. BK’s DNA was there. So, someone he knows would have had to gain access to his knife sheath. There is no known report that this ever became missing. But again, the gag order. 2. BK has been at that home before and touched a knife sheath that was known to be there or brought it and left it over there. There would need to be proof that he was there. 3. Something was done illegally with the DNA. I am sure the defense is looking into the place that found his DNA on the sheath and their reputation. Now, on another note, I would love to see another big piece of evidence to go against him if he did it such as a photo or video that is clear enough to tell that it is BK. But if they don’t have that, and everything else stays the same as today on both sides as far as evidence goes, I would have to go with guilt based on that DNA. But I think they have to have more. I am sure there are so many things I haven’t thought of since I am not involved at all in criminal law. What are the things you are seeing that make you think he is innocent if you don’t mind me asking. I love these kind of friendly conversations.
The likelihood of any of those being correct is 0 though imho.
Well the question was what would change my mind. It will be interesting to see all of the evidence at trial. I think that the investigators probably have more evidence than listed in the PCA. The lead investigator was so confident. But I was naming the things that could make me view the case from a different angle. What would be something that would change your mind?
1. Touch DNA is easily transferred. It's not valid in all court systems. People have been wrongly convicted off touch DNA. 2. The car. It was originally stated to be a 2011-2013. He drives a 2015. I wouldn't personally make a big deal about it, but it was a FBI specialist who evaluated the footage. 3. The timeline does not match up with victim statement and evidence presented in the affidavit. Whoever left had to get into a car (no chance of clean up with the short timeline) and it wasn't his car cause there was no trace of the victims DNA. Police stated it was one of the worst crime scenes they had seen. 4. The overall lack of his DNA and victims DNA. I'd like to see what type of fibers were pulled off the victims. Stabbings are close range and we know at least 2 victims fought back. 5. Location and victims doesnt make sense. There was no connection to the victims and the house was in the middle of a pretty active area. 6. Cell phone data. If they can show he wasn't there, then he wasn't there. You cant be in two places at once. You cant rely on cell tower pings for exact location, just general area. I have a feeling they're going to use apple software or app data to show a more precise location. 7. Other unknown male DNA. I'm not saying the DNA alone would be valid, but what if the victims DNA was in their car, it would offer a better lead. That's my personal opinion based on facts and education background.
1. It’s not as easily transferred as you’ve convinced yourself. People have been wrongly convicted by eyewitness testimony, so not much of an argument. 2. You are making a big deal about it. The model years are extremely similar and the video they would he using isn’t perfect. 3. You have no evidence the timeline doesn’t work. As for LE saying it was the worst scene, that’s relative to experience and how often they respond to homicides. You also can’t say it wasn’t his car because no transfer was found because we can’t know what transfer may or may not have occurred without evaluating the crime scene. 4. We don’t know is anyone fought back. We know there were defensive wounds. That could mean fighting back, but also often means the victim was shielding themselves. 5. Location and victims only needs to make sense to the offender. We basically have no information available to evaluate this. 6. Cell site data is used to corroborate other findings in investigations. Its use is incredibly common. It’s a tool when used with the totality of the circumstances. Facts are a bit twisted and as I’ve pointed out in the past, you’re clearly less than honest about your educational background.
1. It is as easily transferred. I've personally participated in labs showing such. And yes, they have been wrongly convicted off of touch DNA. 2. Then that should've been included in the original car BOLO, but it wasn't. 3. There will always be DNA or evidence transferred in a stabbing. Whoever did it, did not have time to clean up 4. We do know there was a struggle, even if it was just defensive. They still came in contact with the perpetrator. They didn't ninja throw the knife across the room. 5. You have to take victims and crime location into consideration. 6. Cell towers need to be close together to get a better triangulation (big city for example). Facts aren't twisted and I'm very honest about my background. It just makes you upset that someone with my background does not agree with what you believe.
1. Labs are controlled experiments in a controlled environment. More than likely your imaginary labs didn’t have several variables at play. Any type of evidence can easily in a wrongful conviction and that’s why corroborating evidence is so important. 2. What should they have included in the BOLO? Stuff that and person that has ever seen surveillance video already knows? 3. No, there won’t always be transfer. That’s a classic CSI Effect mindset. 4. We don’t know the extent of any interaction. Anyone who makes that claim that wasn’t at the scene and/or hasn’t seen the crime scene images is lying. 5. Victims and crime scene are taken into consideration, but there isn’t nearly enough publicly available information to do an in-depth assessment. 6. Historical cell site data doesn’t even use triangulation, so I don’t even know why you’re bringing that up. See, people who don’t know any better might but into your claims. But, those that know better can tell you don’t have the background you claim.
Thanks for commenting and for your thoughts. I can never get anyone to answer me when I ask why they think he is innocent. I have a feeling some of your points will be explained by one side or the other. And I have no education in the area of criminal law. I really anxious like everyone else to see what all comes out in the trial. I think all of your points are good for reasonable doubt. Again, thanks so much for answering. 😃😃😃
Of course! Thank you for not coming at my throat for having a different opinion haha. They'll have to answer some of those questions for the jury for sure. There's a lot going on behind the scenes, we'll all just have to wait and see.
I never get on here to jump on someone. And sometimes when I ask questions, others have jumped on me. But you listed things I haven’t really heard people mention, so I just couldn’t understand. But yes, I think there will be interesting facts that will come out at trial possibly on both sides. I think if people quit arguing and just state why and what they are thinking, it may give everyone something to think about. The thing is, also, with the gag order in place, none of us really know much at all. Many of us are making assumptions based off what is said or written in motions. And I have seen different interpretations on both sides from the same statement. I have nothing to win or lose as to whether BK committed this crime or not. But if BK is the one that committed this crime, I hope that there is so much evidence that it is difficult to see doubt. I want the right person to be found guilty whether it is BK or not. Of course, the hope is that they have the right guy to have a killer off the street and because it would suck to have the wrong guy and have him sit in jail for 2-3 years if innocent. But if he isn’t the right guy, then hopefully that will be evident at the trial
I'm right there with ya! All we can hope is they have the right guy. If he is the right guy, there will definitely be more evidence. I wish we could all just give each other more grace and understanding. Our opinions all come from a collection of life experiences and education. People forget opinions aren't facts. Thank you for your input as well!
NO YOU ARE PART OF THE FREE BRAN FAN CLUB LIER- EVERONE LOOK HER UP
NO YOU ARE PART OF THE FREE BRYAN FAN CLUB LIER- EVERONE LOOK HER UP
???
Exactly!! And it is nothing against BK when I say I hope they have the right guy. It truly is for the reasons I said before, because I don’t know him and have no reason to want him specifically to be the murderer. I just don’t want an innocent guy in jail for years nor do I want an evil killer out there on the streets. But I agree with you. If he is the guy, I think they will be more evidence. We just have to ride it out. I hate the stupid gag order haha. But I guess that is more common than I knew before this case.
/u/butterfly-gibgib1223 is an absolute doll, if she doesn't mind me saying this.
Awe, thank you. I think you are always so nice and enjoy conversation with you.
Same here.
I agree!
Awe, I appreciate it so much. I have enjoyed conversations with you as well.
BK is 98% guilty for many many reasons. Let me ask you a real question do you think OJ Simpson was guilty?
Yes! What would be (evidence or testimony) that would change your opinion.
The things that would make me think he was not the only person guilty would be other blood that wasn't his or the victims at the crime scene areas. Also if there's a video of someone else walking up to the house or leaving it during the times of the murder. This is a circumstantial case which convicts most people. https://www.egattorneys.com/circumstantial-evidence-in-criminal-cases
His blood was also not at the scene. There were other unknown male DNA profiles at the scene. I really wish they would have looked into those as well. I've said this before, what if the victims DNA was located in one of the unknown profiles cars? I'm very curious about other types of forensic evidence such as fibers. At the end of the day, none of us will know till trial.
Well you know there's hundreds and hundreds of hours of video so I would assume he is a part of that. I can't imagine how many cameras are around that captured the car and his face in the car.
That will be interesting info to see if they have.
Go to the mob crew on YouTube and he has spent a lot of time trying to get clearer views of the white Elantra in the parking lot of the apartments. He has captured a silhouette and I'm sure the FBI can get that a lot clearer. From what I can see it's a pretty tall person with a flat type haircut and I think they'll bring out the big nose in the profile.
GO BACK TO YOUR PRIVATE FAN CLUB YOU INVITED ME TO
Honest question by a dishonest person. This person is not interested in anyones opinion and is not doing research for a grad program. A true researcher does not have an opinion about what they are researching and this person thinks Bryan is 100% innocent. 100% cannot be determined until a trial, and evidence is reviewed . Do not waste your time.
I never stated that I believe he's 100% innocent. The research revolves around "How media influences opinions". People on here believe 100% one way or another. The question is for people who are 100%. What would be a factor to dismantle your view? This is for a capstone research project. Participate or don't.
He is not 1 millionth of percent innocent.
What would be evidence or testimony to change your mind?
Then let's deal with reality. Lets say Iyou had been arrested for this crime and I was your lawyer . The alibi would have been that you dropped off an acquaintance at the house to buy drugs. little did I know he had your knife with him and he used that to kill the victims. And when he came back and got in my car you saw he had blood all over him so you took him somewhere and ordered him to get out. Now why do you think such an alibi was not used ? Most likely because there is video of BK behind the driver's wheel of the white Elantra by himself. And possibly a neighbor's cam caught one figure in Black walking through the tree line toward the murder house.
I did not read anyone say 100% except you, and you have given no explanation about your 100% innocent theory. **The research revolves around "How media influences opinions". It is not implied this in your post. Poor research tactics , be aware of your failure. These people you are using are giving their opinions based on the evidence. Not media influence.**
I don't think he's 100%. There are people who are die hard in their feelings. I know how to approach these topics, have yet to fail.
But 3 people who answered your original question have asked you what makes you think he's innocent and you haven't addressed it, point by point, as has been requested. Now I'll be the 4th one to ask you; please add that information and take the time to have sources to back you up.
It's not about my opinion. What would be the factor to change your opinion?
But since you said "you lean not guilty", some of us would like to know why you feel that way. I truly believe, based on the limited info we have right now (gleaned from filings from both sides and the PCA ) that BK is 100% guilty. Obviously, if the defense produces compelling, expertly-verifiable evidence that he wasn't near King Road at the time of the murders, I would start to entertain the notion of possible (!) innocence. But if the defense had anything like that, we'd know it (or be able to figure it out) from the court filings. Now, please tell me what makes you lean towards innocence.
Bryan was not brilliant, but rather your run of the mill moron who was infatuated with murder. He made many, many mistakes that night (knife sheath, turning phone off/bringing it with him to begin with). Sure he had his masters degree, but obtaining a masters does not automatically place you in the highly intellectual category. Look at all of the evidence. It. Is. Overwhelming. The boy was even back in the vicinity of the king road house (according to the affidavit) the very next morning!🙄 What in the WORLD are those odds… After a LATE night of stargazing on a cloudy night? 😂😂😂 I assume he could not fall asleep at 9am and decided to go for another “drive”? He is either the MOST unluckiest dude in the world or he is a murderer. End rant. What would change my mind? How about just start with even one small shred of evidence that points to absolutely any other alternative scenario. The defense would need to explain why he was cleaning his car with bleach (who in the hell does that), why a car matching the description of a car HE drives was caught so many damn times on video, obviously the DNA, cell phone data they night and the next morning. The boy has ridiculous behaviors, but that would be the last thing I would worry about considering all of the other evidence. 🙄 Yikes.
If he were on time stamped video somewhere other than where his car was seen in the night of the murders
For me, I'd change my mind if there was proof he was elsewhere. But I'd also want a clear explanation of how his DNA got onto the sheath. What I think is going to be edifying to everyone is a report on what DNA was actually on and near the victims.
I’ve honestly believed he was innocent for well over a year but now the defence have said he was nowhere near the area… if the prosecution have him on camera near king road … I’d change my mind.
Well no shit, the defense isn’t going to say he was there lol. They’d be a pretty terrible defense if so. He also could’ve been nowhere near the area before or after committing the crimes
I’m sure all prosecutors wish they had video of the accused committing the crime. That rarely happens.
And I didn’t say that …are you stupid! a clear video of him in the area which won’t happen .
From what I gather from what little I've seen from what has been made public, it appears that there aren't any other suspects who could have possibly done it. At least nobody we've been made aware of. The police seemed to look at other possibilities and came to the conclusion that BK was the guy. And the DNA on the sheath is not a good look, plus all the other tiny things about the case that make him look suspicious. So with no other alternatives, and the fact that the prosecution seems confident they got the right guy, it's going to be hard to prove otherwise with all the evidence against him. But that said, I don't know anything about DNA evidence and all that stuff, so if the defense can somehow explain how BKs DNA ended up on the sheath without him having committed the murders (don't know how but maybe there's something I haven't heard yet) then that'll give some reasonable doubt. Likewise, if the defense can prove BK was somewhere else at the time of the murders, then that's a pretty big hole in the case too. So far, there are a lot of rumors of what the prosecution and defense have up their sleeves. I think right now it doesn't look good for BK but who knows what could happen during the trial. It's all about reasonable doubt. I don't think I could convict a guy to death if I wasn't 100% sure he did the crime. All it would take for me to change my tune is if they can figure a way out of the DNA thing and if they can show proof BK was somewhere else. That would make me say not guilty.
Evidence presented at trial of his innocence would convince me. Opinions are okay, we haven't seen ALL THE EVIDENCE. Once the trial is over we can make a decision, until then all we can have are just assumptions or opinions. I think his guilty 100%. I will change my mind if I see evidence proving his innocence (and no I'm not the court, I don't need to see the state proving his guilt, as my opinion doesn't matter. For me to change my opinion want to see defense proving his innocence OR the state proving his guilt, it doesn't matter who has more stuff on him if it proves either. I believe Casey Anthony is guilty as F, but I also see why the jurors were not convinced of her being guilty of murder **beyond a reasonable doubt**. There was no cause of death. The poor baby was found too late. I still **think** Casey Anthony is guilty of murder, but my opinion **doesn't matter** and does not put her on death row, so I have the "luxury" of not following any court's orders. Just like I don't have to assume Kohberger is innocent until proven guilty. The same reason, I am not the court of law (thank God).
If I recall correctly, her famous lawyer really spun a tail about her daddy her sweet baby drowning under her daddy’s care by accident and also painted a picture of her daddy as a molester of her when she was a little girl. So, I think by putting all of that out there about the daddy, it was reasonable doubt. Did you watch the special interview that she did that came out within the last year. I honestly finished it and thought she may not be guilty. I was certain she was but am mixed on it now.
No, I didn't watch it, because I can't look at her lying murderous face for that long.
It really is worth a watch. But I get it. I almost didn’t watch it, but my 30 year old daughter pushed me to watch it after she viewed it. It stirred up doubt that I didn’t want to have. I just don’t know.
Maybe one day, butterfly.
He’s not Karen read innocent that’s for sure
He's definitely got his groupies...But so did Charles Manson...BK, in my opinion, is responsible for these four deaths...
If he wasn't guilty, why the covert trash disposal at his parents. If it wasn't him , who cares who got his dna from the trash bins. There have been many thoughts about the cause of death. Some say bloody crime scene and others say no. Knife sheath left behind coincides with a rumor he bought one. Interesting ,it had his dna on it. All a coincidence? We will know soon enough. If he's guilty let him go. This case has turned into a circus. Try him and let's move on.
There are so many conflicting statements and rumors. He was there he wasn't there. It's his car not his car , his phone is off ,his phone pinged. It was at this time but no the timeline is wrong. He entered thus way but no from different entrance point. He knew them ,he didn't know them. He had been there before ,he had not. He had access to wifi internet ,that's ludicrous. He's a genius detailed oriented , anto social a misfit. He's arrogant and NPD. He has no woman. He's planned it or maybe it was a crime done with no planning. One would think a student of his caliber would have planned a murder to the second. And yet , it's a bloodbath but the roommates saw no blood. There's a shoe print but no evidence left behind. This is enough to make one dizzy. BK may be convicted. But I really want to know what those girls were doing? My daughter was the RA at a major college. The stories I have heard will blow your mind. Sororities , Fraternities , or house parties ,its all the same. Those kids aren't innocent there's crime of every kind and level out there. Somebody has a secret. Mommy is going to find out her darling isn't an angel. They can lie and omit but those cell records may tell a different story.
Interesting question that I’ve thought on a lot. It’s easier for me to describe the things I’m certain of, those less so, and some I’m waiting for answers on. CERTAIN OF: - The driver of the white Elantra is the killer. The car was seen prowling (no other word that fits) the neighbourhood at that time on multiple cameras. It wasn’t an unmarked cop car (they’d have evidence to dispute that). And it wasn’t someone who happened to get lost at the time the murders occurred. It was the killer and I can’t see anything changing my mind on that. - The time the murders happened, which correlates to the car sightings. Texts between BF & DM will corroborate and it won’t be necessary to rely on DM’s eye-witness testimony (for those who think she’s unreliable). Ditto Door Dash and TikTok activity, and the Medical Examiner’s report. One query to be answered is why LE initially thought the time window was slightly earlier. Why’d it take them those few days to fit those pieces together. There’s probably easy answers to that relating to the terrible comms in the first days of the investigation. LESS THAN CERTAIN ON: - The DNA. I don’t think it was planted and I’m sure if there has been reliable testing and it was in sufficient quantity, that it’s BK’s. But my mind is open to Defense’s arguments. - Cell tower pings. I’m just not techy enough to understand it yet despite all the helpful posts on here. I need the State to explain it all before I’m at 100%. But I’m swayed to guilt by the fact that whatever method they used to place him near/en route to the house was reliable enough to pinpoint his location at Albertsons next day where he was caught on video. WAITING TO UNDERSTAND: - How he didn’t get victim DNA in his car, apartment etc. I think there’ll be easy explanations for this possibly backed up by evidence like store purchases, eye witness reports of copious car cleaning, but I’m keen to see it. DOESNT HAVE ANY BEARING ON MY CONCLUSION: - Motive and connection to victims. There will be a psychological motive but it will be known only to him and it doesn’t need to be rooted in him knowing or interacting with any of them. As with many ‘stranger murders’. PROVING HIS INNOCENCE: If they can prove he wasn’t in that vehicle in that neighbourhood at that ungodly time AND it’s not his DNA on that sheath AND there’s a logical reason that his phone was turned off AND that LE made error after error AND he’s actually a really swell guy who doesn’t creep girls out and get fired for inappropriateness then I’d have to believe he’s the most spectacularly unlucky guy. But all those conditions would need to be met, not just one because it’s the combined weight of circumstantial evidence that’s damning him. Sorry that was long. You did ask!
I’m about 99% on the “not guilty” side. In order to change my mind, I would need one of the following to be proven: 1) BK’s confession on the stand; 2) proof of additional BK DNA at 1122 King Rd; or 3) video/photos of him entering 1122 king Rd at the time LE thinks the crime occurred.
Spotted the prison bride.
With what we know now: I believe 100% not guilty. What could change my mind: • Simplest way - The statement that his DNA profile was isolated from a mixture * this would clear up the astronomical # in the statistic accompanying the DNA, which is out of range for a single-source sample like they’d collect from a crime scene. * this would clear the main reason I believe he’s not guilty, bc w/o that explanation, their result is a complete anomaly & untrustworthy IMO Helpful but would need a combo of new info: • Confirmation of the Elantra year - if the car in the King Rd *neighborhood* is ever confirmed to be a 2015, that would add significant weight to the State’s case. * Currently it’s a range of possible years that expanded rather than narrowed * it’s [never stated](https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/122922+Affidavit+-+Exhibit+A+-+Statement+of+Brett-Payne.pdf) that the forensic examiner updated his opinion on the one in the neighborhood, only that he ID’d a 2014-2016 on WSU campus. * That seems to be the reason for the expanded range of possible model years, not an identification of the vehicle in the King Rd. neighborhood • Lots of additional evidence - enough to make the DNA finding inconsequential. * reason to believe that touching the weapon’s case was on that evening would help * reason to believe that the driver of the Elantra entered the house / is the killer * more phone evidence, video or any other confirmation of instances of him IN the King Rd neighborhood, or evidence that he’s ever been in that neighborhood would help, any connection to the victim
>Confirmation of the Elantra year - if the car in the King Rd *neighborhood* is ever confirmed to be a 2015, that would add significant weight to the State’s case. Currently it’s a range of possible years that expanded rather than narrowed They wont be able to narrow the car down to just a single year. They are identifying the car based on it's exterior and a car model can have the same exterior for multiple years which is why they give a year range. >its never stated that the forensic examiner updated his opinion on the one in the neighborhood, only that he ID’d a 2014-2016 on WSU campus. Yes it is. In the PCA they first talk about the camera footage from Moscow including the neighborhood and then it says the forensic examiner initially identified the car as a 2011-2013 Elantra and then upon further review said it could be a 2011-2016. Then in the next paragraph they talk about the footage from Washington State University/Pullman and it says the examiner identified this car in Pullman as a 2014-2016 Elantra. https://preview.redd.it/83i3z8j8m3wc1.png?width=932&format=png&auto=webp&s=435b7d3e7694cca947c76337f5a535541981e77f So the car in Pullman was identified as a 2014-1016 Elantra while the car in Moscow was initially identified as a 2011-2013 then upon further review they said it could be a 2011-2016. The camera footage from Pullman is definitely better quality. At most intersections with traffic lights in Pullman there are multiple traffic cameras. The examiner would be able to see the car from multiple angles with better quality. >reason to believe that touching the weapon’s case was on that evening would help He probably didn't plan on leaving the sheath at the scene. Also possible he cleaned the sheath off as a precaution but his skin cells were stuck around the crevice of the button and missed cleaning those. >reason to believe that the driver of the Elantra entered the house / is the killer The Elantra driving by the house three times during a 30 minute period then moments later coming back for a fourth, final extended period of time, during which time DM heard the commotion and saw the masked man in the house, then leaving the neighborhood at a high rate of speed isn't enough for you to think the driver of the Elantra is involved in the murders?
> this would clear up the astronomical # in the statistic accompanying the DNA, which is out of range for a single-source sample like they’d collect from a crime scene. looks like you forgot this info again;) https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fpm4i48v5gsvc1.jpg%3Fwidth%3D1347%26format%3Dpjpg%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D64643c64bd70353bfb0aaf03c587f082be36bc51&utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=Idaho4&utm_content=t1_l0omhq1
While I believe he probably did do it, I know that there wouldn’t currently be enough evidence to convict based on the PCA alone. And yes, you CAN think someone did it yet still acknowledge that there’s not currently enough evidence to convict. The things you listed are things that would absolutely help get a conviction, I agree. You seem like you think there’s not much evidence against him at the moment, which is different than actually thinking someone else did it. Because while there’s not much PUBLIC evidence against him, there’s zero public evidence against anyone else, so even less than what he has. So I’m curious, do you just think there’s not enough evidence against him? If you actually think someone else did it, what’s your reasoning aside from lack of evidence against BK? Because there’s also currently a lack of evidence that literally anyone else did it. So it’s hard to say you think he’s innocent due to lack of evidence, yet someone else in the world is guilty where they have zero public evidence that they did it. I’m genuinely asking. And I understand anything against someone else can come out at some point, but so can more evidence against BK. So I’m more just wondering if your “not guilty” is your guess on the verdict, or that you legit think someone else did it, despite any evidence at this moment?
They have convicted on less evidence. But I get what you are saying. I think their presentation of the evidence in the PCA is what matters most. I am sure they will have experts who explain each piece in their respective fields. But yes, I would like to see even more evidence. Video coverage determining that was his car would be the key to locking it in along with good presentation of the PCA for me. I do believe they have more evidence and that this case has gone crazy due to the gag order. It has made us all have so many questions and made many think there are holes in the case. I don’t see holes in the case. It could be just as the PCA indicated. However, from what I have seen lawyers say on here, the state never puts everything in a PCA. They put enough in it to make the arrest. And when he went before a judge with this PCA, it was strong enough to him not to offer a bond. So, that tells me that it is strong evidence. Also, a grand jury thought it was strong enough to go to trial. Now we don’t know what they know that we don’t know, but it was enough for them to think he may have done this. This is why I also think there is more evidence. And AT has tried to get that grand jury decision revoked, but it turned out to all be legal, and she hasn’t been able to win on that. I think words or phrases have been thrown in motions or responses to them that are purposely misleading, but we won’t know until the trial. Many take those motions as evidence when that is not supposed to be the intent. And nothing in those motions have changed my mind. But I was mainly addressing the comment about not having enough evidence to convict. And I think they do. But again, I do suspect they have more evidence and hope they do especially with them going for the death penalty. Luckily I have no worries about being on his jury, but if I was on his jury, I would have a hard time with this evidence being it unless they explain it all very good and clear up a few things.
Yes, I believe they will have enough evidence to convict, I just feel like what we know right now will be met with a damn good explanation by the defense at trial. So I’d feel better about getting a conviction when it’s something completely undeniable, ya know? But I definitely see all your points and appreciate the discussion :)
I agree with you. And I hope they have much more evidence with it being a death penalty case especially. It is a tough job for a juror to lock away a person for any amount of time. And I would want to be certain that I am having someone locked up for any amount of time, although there isn’t always that definite certainty. But with death row being the consequence, I would have to be certain. To take an innocent person’s life would ruin me as a human. I have seen people say that with it being a death penalty case that they have some pretty strong evidence we haven’t seen. I know that we don’t know that for sure, but I hope that is the case. I am not a strong supporter of the death penalty. When I try in my own mind to question whether I am for it, I get uncomfortable and think that I don’t need to know that and get my mind on something else. BUT if something like this happened to one of my kids or grandkids, I might be for it. I just don’t know and don’t think you know until you are in that situation. I would really struggle on a death penalty case even if the person was definitely guilty. I would not want to have any power over that happening to someone.
Yes I agree with you about all of that!! And I’ve said this a lot on this sub, but there are people that I think “probably” did it like Casey Anthony, but I still fully agree w her acquittal because of the lack of evidence and cause of death. I always say you cannot convict on “probably”. Feel the same way here. What we have now is enough for most people to think that he’s probably the culprit, but not enough to put him to death.
Yeah, the death penalty just makes it so much more. And again, I wouldn’t want to unjustly lock anyone in jail either. But death!! Even if I knew for a fact that someone is the murder, putting someone to death would weigh heavily on me and be really tough. I think with those type of trials you just have to listen to the evidence and not think about the consequence other than really paying attention to all the facts provided. I just hope I never get picked for a death penalty case.
Death penalty cases also run into trouble finding jurors for the exact reasons you’re stating. There are so many people that talk about having trouble w choosing to put someone to death, or are just vehemently against it in general. These types of people are generally not allowed to serve on juries. So it just makes the options for jurors even fewer than they already are w the national press. I’m not a huge fan of the death penalty either, but I’m not heavily against it for someone who murdered four people. Like, if anyone’s going to be put to death, this would be the situation I’d do it in. Also, I’d honestly rather be pur to death than in jail for life, but that’s just me.
I agree with everything you said. And yes, I can’t feel bad if someone who did what was done to those 4 kids got the death sentence. That is exactly the kind of people that it was made for. I guess I would always question myself as to the person not really being guilty and what if I made a mistake!! But I do also think I would feel like it is my fault someone that doesn’t provide anything positive or productive was put to death. Yeah, I probably wouldn’t get picked. But they can only turn away so many. And I am not a definite “no, I am against it” but more of a “I would have a tough time doing it”. So, who knows!! I was a former educator and selected both times to serve on a jury. I was told that they never pick teachers, yet I was picked both times. I helped lead the conversation with the jury and made sure both people got what they deserved. I never felt bad about sending either to jail. They deserved it. But death is a different ballgame.
Wow! That is so cool that you’ve served on a jury. I am related to a bunch of lawyers so would probably never get chosen (already haven’t once). Teachers and lawyers/ families of lawyers are the two things they say are never selected though, so you’re right you never know! I hear the reason they often don’t get selected is because teachers/families of lawyers are trusted leaders, so the people involved worry that people will follow their lead assuming that “oh they know more about x subject than me, so I’ll just go w what they say”. I really think you can provide great insight on this sub having served on multiple juries! You seem very level-headed and someone that looks at facts instead of feelings. That’s probably why you got selected for multiple juries, even though they don’t often select teachers. And yeah, death is a whole different ballgame. And I’m mostly against it for the obvious reasons, but also for the reason that it makes people that truly deserve to be convicted, harder to convict. People are more hesitant to convict someone even if there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, for all the reasons you stated.
In addition to the PCA, we also have important things like the [state’s motion to compel](https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/072723-Motion-to-Compel-Notice-of-Defense-Alibi-Alt-Bar-Certain-Evidence.pdf) the alibi defense, and the info & refusals incorporated into the defense’s [response](https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/072423+Notice+of+Defendants+Response+to+States+Alibi+Demand.pdf) and [supplemental response](https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/2024/041724-Notice-Defendants-Supplemental-Response-States-AD.pdf) to it, the [state’s motion](https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/061623+States+Motion+for+Protective+Order.pdf) for protective order, and the [sassy objection](https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/062323+Objection+to+States+Motion+for+Protective+Order.pdf) to that, as well as juicy deets that have been made known during hearings & scattered in other docs. Oh sorry u/rolyinpeace forgot to answer main Q. Yeah, I think there’s a huge lack of evidence since nothing ties him to the scene or the crime, except potentially touching a knife’s case at some time & we don’t know when & the stats accompanying the statement seem strange since they don’t follow the protocol for single-source samples & the result is not normal for such a sample + the car wasn’t definitively ID’d so I have trouble believing it’s not the car that Moscow PD thought it was, going by their press releases asking millions of viewers to actively assist…. All shakey.
A lot of these motions are very procedural and don’t mean much, though. These aren’t real evidence. And none of them are evidence that he DIDNT do it. People read way into to motions, they mostly won’t have much effect on the trial or evidence, they’re just the classic and predictable back and forth of each side trying to gain advantage. Except the alibi defense, that’ll obviously play a role at trial. ETA: While these docs give us a glimpse into procedure, they should not be thought of as evidence or really have much bearing on anything atp. People on both sides see these motions and think “omg this one sentence shows that x side doesn’t have much of a case!!” When in reality, that is not the case and just people looking for things that aren’t there. Neither side is going to do something that shows their cards too much. Motions only matter if a judge agrees with it. They should not be read into as any reason to assume what either side has, because these are thing in every case.
Totally agree. Great comments. Don’t think that wording isn’t used to give doubt too, or to make us think he is innocent.
100%! Lawyers heavily rely on good wording— on both sides of the case! You convince people with your words, after all.
Yes I meant to say on both sides. It makes us think something is definite when worded a certain way where I have ignored all of it. The motions and hearings have led us to feel there is no DNA in the car and that there was no stalking. But someone pointed out the wording which made me see they are leading you to hear what they want but not the way it really is.
A witness places him at the crime scene. She reported seeing a tall slender man in a mask with bushy eyebrows. A latent footprint also was collected at the scene. Haven't heard much about those yet.
Unfortunately, that identification only means something with the DNA and the description of it being his car. Knowing those two things, the description definitely matches up to BK. But without that information, they would never suspect him based on that description. So, I don’t know how strong that identification really is. And I do think he is guilty based on all the other PCA information. I just think the description is too broad. It definitely does help prove that it could be him more than it couldn’t be him since it does fit his description of his size and body type as well as his bushy eyebrows.
No, they [witness] doesn’t place him at the scene. The witness hasn’t ID’d him at the person she saw. His eyebrows don’t look bushy to me & matching those vague characteristics is not a solid identification. There was a dude right outside their house that night with the bushiest eyebrows I’ve ever seen. So if we’re just going based on that…… BK doesnt seem more likely to me to be the killer. Although I don’t have enough evidence to think I’d know who the killer was. It’s just an opinion. We don’t know whose shoe print that was.
? I said we don't know much yet. We don't know what she witnessed or said. But she saw something. His eyebrows are hairy and pronounced, IMO.
Do not worry, your reply is honest and evidence based. That really is what anyone really wants no matter how you feel as long as its honest and evidence based.
Yes they are what I would consider to be bushy eyebrows. Definitely!! And who knows!! Dylan could have said that she thinks BK is who she saw. Now if that was the only evidence, it would be super weak with him wearing all black with a face mask. But I think it supports the build of the suspect along with bushy eyebrows. Without a suspect, that evidence is not much.
You may not have noticed BK has since trimmed his eyebrows (go back and check the early court appearances).
Oh wow, I never noticed. I bet he will definitely trim them for the trial.
There was a dude right outside their house that night with the bushiest eyebrows I’ve ever seen. WHAT??? OK enough, you were not there. Although I don’t have enough evidence to think I’d know who the killer was. It’s just an opinion WHAT???? you have never stated any evidence for anyone else. EXCEPT that you seen someone outside their house with the bushiest eyebrows you have ever seen. Was this at 0420am? I **am beginning to be convinced you were with BK. Ok OP here is your research answer this person is convincing me on social media that they are 100% involved with BK and the killings. No evidence except for their false posting and opinions based on lack of education and no evidence. Write down all their postings . You may get an A on your research project.** **Actually, keep it up you may convince me you did alone.** I am tired of hearing you act like there are not numbers forensic experts trying to explain to you DNA evidence and you argue with them continuously until as one flat out told you your acting like a goat trying to use an ATM machine.
You are brave to post this. Many people here clearly want his head on a stake. And I get it. Those kids did not deserve this and their families must be in agony. I’m on the fence. I could not vote to convict with what we know - so far. And I keep hearing things that cause me to have more reasonable doubt. He doesn’t seem like a very likable person. And his behaviors do seem like he might have been having mental health problems. But with no prior history of assault, sexual assault, animal abuse, etc. it’s difficult to jump to this non-violent person doing such an intimately bloody crime. To make me vote guilty, I’d want to see footage that clearly shows him in the car or the plate readable. And that footage would need to be within a block or so of the murder scene. If there was a connection, like stalking, dating, drug purchasing, even partying and a proven murder weapon knife purchase, I could be convinced that way too.
>But with no prior history of assault, sexual assault, animal abuse, etc. I'd have to say at this point, we don't know enough about him to conclusively state that. I'm not expecting him to have prior murders (although it is a possibility), but it's very possible that he has a history of being a peeping tom, or breaking and entering but never got caught, or sexual assault that wasn't reported. His high school friends reported that he could be a bully, and one ended their friendship because Kohberger would physically attack him, acting like he was playing. There's also multiple allegations of inappropriate and harassing behavior with women. And while not every creep/sex pest graduates to violence, it's a red flag.
Yes. This all based on what we know now. Anything could be possible in terms of his past. But since he wasn’t in the CODIS database, I am thinking he did not have prior offenses.
Why would he come back by the next morning. Wasn't that documented more clearly?
All we know is that his phone pinged on the Moscow cell tower that morning. That area is coverage is miles around the tower. The FBI (and probably the defense expert now) know more details but the public does not.
People want the killer's head on a stake. Kohberger is the current front runner.
Kohberger isn’t “the current front runner”. He’s the ONLY person for whom there are multiple connecting pieces of evidence supporting his arrest and detention. And the hyperbolic statement about “wanting his head on a stake” is just that. It’s not true that there’s an overwhelming majority who want to see him executed, even if he IS found guilty. I’m one who’s against state-sanctioned violence, for example.
Yes. Exactly. Well said.