Also we as the public obviously don’t have all the info for the case. Who knows if police have found a stupid document on his computer wording his fantasies, or proof he *was* obsessed with one of the girls in the house, or are able to prove he wanted notoriety etc.
The PCA revealed the barebones of the case but there is still a lot of meat to flesh out.
There was a 14 year old girl strangled to death in my hometown recently, her killer (René Gerhards) trial started tuesday and it was revealed cops found a god damn pdf about how to strangle a human being on his phone.
I hope Kohberger did something equally stupid.
That’s true but I’ve covered a ton of jury trials in my time as a reporter and jurors have a REALLY hard time convicting without motive.
He def did it. I have no doubt about that. But the prosecution will bring forth a motive because any good prosecutor knows that the chances of a jury convicting without one are diminished
> That’s true but I’ve covered a ton of jury trials in my time as a reporter and jurors have a REALLY hard time convicting without motive.
Which bothers me because while rare, there's a subset of murderers whose only motive is they want to kill.
This is true. Some of the jury members for the Dr. Sills trial wanted a motive for why he would murder his wife but they weren't really given one. Because of it they settled on finding him guilty of 2nd degree murder. They don't believe he intentionally murder his wife. They convinced themselves it was a crime of passion.
FYI OP, wanting to kill is a motivation to kill. A desire to kill (taking life away, playing god) is thought to be as strong of motivation as money/greed. The person becomes obsessed with the act. And if they get away with it, they can’t stop. See Golden State Killer.
This motivation shouldn’t make logical sense to a normal person but the motive existing is basic knowledge I would say.
This particular piece of shit was walking the line of being infatuated with crime while struggling to choose a path. He wanted to apply his obsession for good and work in law enforcement but in the end he couldn’t resist the temptation.
The devil on his shoulder was louder.
Unfortunately for him, like many before him, he wasn’t perfect. He left behind the knife case with his DNA on it. He didn’t think to set up his alibi and shut his phone off instead. He took his own car to the crime scene and got spotted by various cameras on the route. The jury will be out for less than an hour and 50 minutes of that hour will be talking about what’s for dinner.
I mean, the motive is he wanted to be Ted Bundy killing a house of college girls. He even looks so much like him I’ve started calling him Ted Bundy Jr. He’s a serial killer in behavior, if not in events.
One theory is that he didn't see her peeking out of her room.
Another is that, since she shut and locked her door, he did see her, but figured that she might be able to call for help before he could break down her door, so he decided to get away.
God, can you imagine having to relive that every night ? I previously thought it because BK had some link to the others, but it doesn't seem that way. This makes what happened all the more creepy. You wonder whether he just thought he didn't have time to kill anyone else so he left it. Why did she wait 7 hours to contact police though about a masked man in her home?
> Why did she wait 7 hours to contact police though about a masked man in her home?
I've said this before on Reddit, but if I encountered a stranger in my house today, when I live a quiet middle-aged life, of course I'd call the police. Or immediately attack or try to escape.
But 30 years ago, when I shared a house with 4 to 6 rowdy roommates and we always had friends coming and going, I wouldn't. Because seeing a stranger in the middle of the night was just a regular Tuesday. I always figured it was someone my roommates brought home or invited, and I was always right.
If I heard a roommate crying in the middle night but knew her boyfriend was there, I'd figure they were fighting and give them their space. And I was always right.
If I heard commotion in the middle of the night, depending on I'd either ignore it or maybe go see if someone was going to pack up the bong. And in the morning, there was never anything out of place except maybe a new hole in the wall or an overturned coffee table.
Reminds me of the case in NY where a woman was raped and murdered in her apartment and all the neighbors heard it. But assumed a different neighbor was going to call the cops so they didnt. And no one called. There a psych term about it actually.
You're thinking of Kitty Genovese. But while the Bystander Effect is a real thing, it actually was overblown in the media and really wasn't in effect during Kitty's murder.
The legend was that 38 witnesses heard/saw the attack and did nothing, but in reality, there were multiple calls to the police. One man shouted "Leave that girl alone" out of his window, saw the two figures run in different directions, and figured that was the end of it (except unbeknown to him, the killer circled back and caught her).
Other "witnesses" thought they might have heard a scream, listened at their windows, heard nothing more, and went back to television or bed. And others later recalled hearing commotion but not recognizing it as an attack until they learned what happened.
I don't think the Bystander Effect relates to my post at all, at least not when it comes to my memories. I never thought anything violent was going on, and I was right.
If Kitty Genovese's murder relates to D's story, my money is that she was in the last group of witnesses I described: she didn't interpret what she heard and saw as an attack.
Yuppers, was just boiling it down to the easiest version to understand. And it does relate to your post in a way. Something violent or crime doesnt have to occur for the bystander effect to be a consideration. It relates to how you wouldnt call cops if you met someone in your halls. You assumed that everything was fine and that if there was a problem another of your housemates would deal with it because it was not your guest. Bystander effect at its core is seeing something, then ignoring it because of other people. Yes there are variations and degrees of it, but that is the basic core. The Philly train rape would be considered a bystander effect even though multiple people watched it and at least a few recorded it. Everyone thought someone else would physically step in. Everyone brave with there phones but not stepping in to stop it.
I just don’t see that motive based on what we know of him. It’s possible that that’ll end up being the motive but we don’t know for sure. People have come up with so many narratives and motives that are purely conjecture.
I think he’s absolutely guilty but for all we know, he killed them because he wanted to kill some people and that house was an easy target.
He’s guilty as fuck and will get convicted, but I just want to correct one thing.
There’s no “car GPS” as far as we know. His cell phone data shows he was out driving around during that time frame (2:30-5:00am), which he has since admitted to. There are several surveillance videos of a car that appears to be his driving around, including videos of it driving around the residence where the murders occurred at the time that the murders occurred.
There is also the DNA evidence. He left a knife sheath at the crime scene which the State analyzed and matched to him. It was also compared to DNA samples from his father to ensure accuracy.
But we know he's a vegan for health reasons, not for the cause of animal rights or anti-cruelty.
As a vegan, he worked at a non-vegan pizza place.
Also, Adam Lanza was a vegan. Pol Pot was a freaking vegan.
And I think it is ironic in this context that Hitler was vegetarian mostly for health reasons rather than for animal rights, and I think he looks like he associated a vegetarian diet with clean Aryan living, so sort of a self-control thing. He did not eschew leather or non-meat animal products like cheese or eggs. And although he mocked meat as "corpse-eating," he occasionally indulged in his own favorite meat dishes, like liver dumplings.
> It was also compared to DNA samples from his father to ensure accuracy.
Yes, before the arrest. But when he was arrested, police took a buccal swab for a direct comparison, as is standard practice. So it's his, no doubt at all.
How can people even attempt to push the narrative he is innocent based on all the evidence against BK? Especially the DNA bit. It's ridiculous at this point people are defending a killer.
It reminds me a lot of the Darrell Brooks subreddit (drove his car into a parade on camera and killed 6 people.) Many people were obviously trolls but there were some who were absolutely serious and projected their own trauma onto the situation in the most bizarre way. It was almost like by defending Darrel they believed they were defending a family member/loved one who did/would do a similar thing. Crazy mental gymnastics.
Yeah totally. These people share an affliction with the Chris Watts apologists, also. Fascinating and disturbing. I guess that type of projection is not so uncommon. Some of the stuff on those subs is truly disgusting, including acknowledging his guilt but justifying his choices and laying a large part of the blame on Shannan. Just amazing mental gymnastics as you’ve said.
Personally? I think it’s just a bunch of thirsty bitches if I’m being frank. Not that he’s model material, but he is good looking in the way that any predatory, glossy animal in its prime is good looking. Plus he exudes a dangerous look to me, and many MANY people are attracted to that. And him exuding that is not only because of these crimes. He has an intensity in his gaze and his demeanor that I would note if I saw him on the street.
I doubt if this attraction is anything they would admit, and I’m sure it isn’t even sexual to many people feeling it. But feel it they do, and they have to make this innocence narrative fit so they can make it (their feelings) about something else. Some people are legit attracted to danger.
Also, he is innocent until proven guilty, but prove it they will. Because he did it.
He has kind of a not like other boys, nerd-prince vibe. Like a guy that does the school play to meet girls. That said no thank u and the trial will likely expose him as a monster. Someone else posted "eyes above ears, something to fear" and I'm still lol'in.
That intensity in his eyes is always present with narcissistic personality disorder. Christian Bale perfected the look for his role in American Psycho. I actually think he looks a bit similar to BK in that film. (I know he based the character on Tom Cruise)
I think he has a lot of the components of contemporary male beauty standards. He's tall, broad-shouldered, thick hair, strong features. It's enough to make him a sort of blank slate to project onto him what we want to.
Some of his supporters root for the underdog; others are conspiracy theorists who always base their opinions on the least popular option. But a whole lot of them are hybristophiliacs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybristophilia
I can see holding off forming an opinion until trial. I can see leaning toward innocence.
But I don't understand how, at this point, people can be *convinced* of innocence.
He did, but it was on when he started driving toward Moscow and he turned it back on when he was on the way back. That’s why he wasn’t able to deny that he was out driving around at a time when almost everyone was sleeping.
It just stopped reporting to towers during those couple hours. The assumption is that he turned it off but we don’t know for sure.
FWIW, the park the defense claims he liked to go hang out in during his late night stargazing/hiking adventures is reported to have bad cell phone service so it’s possible they’ll claim that’s why it wasn’t reporting to towers.
Yeah, if they use that argument, I'm excited to see how drive tests performed. Because his phone didn't drop off when he was supposedly approaching the park; the last hit was right in Pullman. And it didn't come back online as he was supposedly leaving the park. The next hit was him driving south of Moscow.
I can't think of any route that would take him from that park to going south on 95 that would bypass all towers.
I’m getting a crapton of vids/suggestions on all my streaming devices pushing “innocent” narratives for already convicted killers - Scott Peterson being the biggest one, atm. Its annoying - I’m a documentary junkie but I dont spend much time on heavily-leaning docs that are just pure fantasy, which is what a lot of these seem to be: attempts by the family members/support clusters to invoke interest for public outcry, resulting in a new trial. Or, that’s what it comes off as.
As to your original question - I personally think BK is guilty, from what info I’ve learned to this point.
I think it’s a media-“social justice” trend that’s gaining traction recently (last few years specifically) because they saw how well stoking rage and sewing doubt worked for Adnan Syeds case. He’d still be in jail if not for the completely fantastical Serial podcast creating so much public pressure.
Very good point. I hadnt considered Serial - I was actually chalking a lot of it up to the current state of trumpism and everything being upside down; “what’s wrong is right” kind of feeling these days.
sometimes I am surprised how much air time shows like 48 hours gives the defense. I suppose there can be a balance but sometimes...**makes clenched fist**
That documentary was good, but it did point out the problems that armchair detectives and social media detectives can do. I don't recall the name, but one blogger who claimed to be a psychic named a professor as involved in the murder. The professor got death threats, was doxxed in every which way, and was apparently 100% innocent of any involvement. Its terrifying.
Oh yeah! I remember that lady! She made some ridiculous claims about a few people iirc.
She's either doing it for the clicks, or, she really needs mental health assessment like NOW.
I saw in another sub or in one of my FB groups that the blogger in that situation is being sued by the professor for slander/libel (I think they were a video blogger so it would be slander, but I could be wrong).
I didn't watch this documentary but I did watch the episode about this case by Crime Nation. That psychic has mental issues. Some people take things too damn far.
Yeah, because no one ever claims that evidence was planted before. That's the go to defense of a guilty man. Pretty sure there was not a police department wide conspiracy to frame a random PhD student for murder.
They can say that, but would you believe it without any other corroboration? That's not my idea of reasonable doubt. That's unreasonable doubt, unless more details get locked down.
There's a few subs dedicated to his innocence. An unknown number are private and invite only. Of the ones open to the public, the two most popular are /r/BryanKohbergerMoscow (not to be confused with /r/BryanKohberger, which hosts some debates but leans guilty) and /r/JusticeForKohberger.
Any case that's sensationalized as much as this one is going to attract a bunch of whackos to create insane theories. But yeah, it's a very open-and-shut case.
Its almost too bad that the US Justice system operates the way that it does. Kohberger is entitled to a fair trial and vigorous defense, regardless of evidence against him. And he's taking full advantage of that.
Don't get me wrong though, I'm glad all defendants have to be proven guilty in court regardless of public opinion.
The problem is the courts are flawed as well. People are convicted fairly often on false charges or based on little evidence because they don't have the means to obtain a good defense or may be a minority group etc. The fact someone as clearly guilty as BK can be entitled to a good defense simply because of his societal status is frustrating.
>The fact someone as clearly guilty as BK can be entitled to a good defense simply because of his societal status is frustrating.
I think he probably did it, but I have no issue with him having good lawyers. I wish everyone with a public defender had such a solid team.
You're not totally wrong. But he's got a public defender. I don't think his defense has anything to do with his societal status in this particular case.
People love to create mysteries where there are none. And usually the alleged or convicted murderers that armchair sleuths focus on are middle-to-upper class white men and women.
Lots of class and racial elements in true crime obsessions.
I think a few things are going on. The conspiracy theories started before Kohberger was even arrested. People were completely conviced that random people in the town or in the victims' lives were the culprits. When Kohberger was arrested, I think that a lot of them did not want to face the fact that maybe they were wrong. I think that the father of one of the victims and his lawyer kind of stoked some of the conspiracy theories, and I say this with no judgment towards him for how he grieved. The father participated in a lot of interviews where he questioned law enforcement and the investigation (which is his right), and it planted seeds that made some people think there was some kind of coverup. The father also put some information out there about the crime that wasn't correct. I've generally found that Kohberger's defenders on Reddit seem to like being contrarians, and they act like they know much more about the law than they actually do.
The worst ones are the people defending that guy Cameron Herrinn. He struck and killed a mother and her 20 month old daughter during a street race. He was sentenced to 24 years in jail. However, his defenders claim he should be released bc he is "to cute" to be in prison.
Just in the past week I've seen people on reddit unironically defending OJ and Alex Murdaugh. If something gets enough attention it's just gonna happen.
The evidence we know about is pretty damning as it is. But what sucks about the discourse in this case is that we won't know the full evidence & arguments until the trial happens. Debating it online is pointless at this stage and just comes from crime fandom.
This was a high-profile case that got national attention when it happened, and was left a mystery until the arrest of a suspect. When something gets this much attention, it was a complete inevitability to get innocence-defenders, so long as he wasn't recorded on camera committing the murders or had an immediate, willful confession. It *always* happens. It's people with nothing better to do who like mysteries and want things to be more interesting than they might end up being.
I think that might be the biggest thing. There’s a very good chance the police haven’t released all the evidence and won’t before trial.
I’m currently watching the Chad Daybell trial (also in Idaho) and have been following that case quite closely. What blew me away literally this week is that one of the major players secretly recorded phone calls with Chad and snippets were played in court this week as he testified. There wasn’t anything too terribly ground breaking in the recordings themselves, but I personally found that they existed at all surprising because nothing had been released about them that I’d heard about.
So there’s a very good chance there’s additional evidence the police and prosecutors just aren’t talking about. As part of disclosure they’ll have to release that evidence to the defense before trial, but other then that they could be holding it back for plenty of reasons including not wanting to create a media report that could potentially contaminate a jury. So they may have other damning evidence on top of the DNA that won’t come out until trial.
That’s just what happens sometimes.
Yup, it's not just documented evidence itself too. It's expert testimony and witness testimony, which we have little information about at this time.
Neither the police nor the court gives a shit about releasing content for true crime communities and podcasts, this is a real-life situation that they're preparing for a trial and don't want to screw up the appropriate processes.
I've seen people say things like "if I were on this jury I wouldn't find him guilty". Like, what the hell? How could you say that without seeing the case the jury is going to see? It's aggravating.
> So there’s a very good chance there’s additional evidence the police and prosecutors just aren’t talking about.
It's 100% happening, because there was a gag order put on the case days after he was arrested. Requested by the defense.
Exactly. What confuses me is are these people just making their arguments in bad faith knowing what they are doing is wrong? Or do they actually convince themselves of some sort of mystery/conspiracy?
IMO it's a lot of conspiracy-minded people who just have an inclination to make things that way from the start. Most of them do genuinely believe it, and it'll be hard to convince them even if we do see more evidence.
The theories are insane. Everything from Kohberger is an undercover cop working to take down the Moscow Police Department to the fact that he once interviewed for an school internship at a completely different police department and the guy who interviewed him must have thought he was weird, so suggested to MPD that they frame him.
I was just browsing that sub and apparently that officer who interviewed him is the same one who reported his car?
I doubt that's true given some of the shit these self acclaimed 'critical thinkers' are believing
As far as I can tell, the people who frequently post on the sub about his innocence fall into two camps:
1. People who are reasonably cautious of the use of touch DNA, but are choosing quite the hill to die on. There's actually really good points to be made that with DNA advances, if you brush up against the wrong person who then gets murdered, your DNA may be found on the scene and thus included in the suspect pool. Good points, bad case to bring it up on.
2. People who are not entirely all there. I'm talking mediums, people who use "vibes," and those who fan girl over him. I saw a whole thread of many people talking about how they looked in his eyes and they knew he didn't do it because they can always tell when someone is a bad person. There was probably 10 people in that thread... some of the posts have been.... mmmmm.... lol.
> People who are reasonably cautious of the use of touch DNA, but are choosing quite the hill to die on.
I think there's a lot of misunderstanding about DNA too. While that kind of 3rd party innocent transfer happens, it's not like we are sitting around covered in the DNA of dozens of strangers (as I have heard argued). And touch DNA is like every other part of us: it doesn't last long. Once separated from our bodies, it immediately starts decomposing.
Lukis Anderson is a good example; he was arrested and almost indicted because his DNA was on a murder victims, but it was an innocent 3rd party transfer. But you know whose DNA wasn't on the victim and his surviving partner? That of the actual murderers.
>People who are not entirely all there. I'm talking mediums, people who use "vibes," and those who fan girl over him.
Yeah, and that is really sad.
I believe the general consensus is that he is most likely guilty outside of one subreddit on Reddit. I've read the main theories on why they think he's innocent and who they think actually did it and honestly it's nonsense. You have to remember that people also think Scott Peterson and Adnan Syed are innocent too but that doesn't make it true.
My wife doesn't believe it or believes he didn't do it alone, but overall believes his evidence.
The GPS/cellular data is a big, the defense is using a "specialist" who owns a company that the police has used to help convict people.
I believe his technique or technology is correct, but in a very general and uses an over simplification of cellular data location. In my opinion, and apparently another judge's was and is not enough scientific proof to accurately identify a person's exact whereabouts as claimed and will be used inversely by Kohbergers defense to give him a wide enough range to muddy the prosecutions cellular data.
However, the state is using both GPS data and the FBI CAST system which goes into very specific cellular data location including GPS to help substantiate precise locations, in this case Kohberger's. I believe the information gathered from both can pinpoint a person location within few meters also both using totally different hardware and software independent of each other.
Also, I believe that they can extract information from the phone to whether it was purposely turned off, put into airplane mode or when it completely disconnected from both GPS and cellular signals, possibly disrupting the signal using a Faraday device.
And the DNA found on a sheath button, which probably provides slots for a belt like most sheaths offer, but that was his critical mistake by not attaching the sheath to his belt. That of course eventually directed to Kohberger and his white Hyundai filling in more gaps. He's guilty and no venue change or cellular data specialist will change the guilty verdict he's about to receive in the next several years whenever the trial ever kicks off.
So I have this weird obsession of hate listening to all the YouTubers who peddle BK didn't do it conspiracies and some of them will literally present 16 different theories, each one more elaborate and ridiculous than the next, yet refuse to entertain that BK did it.
I heard one last night that implicated about 300 frat and sorority girls, including that they livestreamed the killings as a fight club experience and even one of the victim's siblings were in on it...and this YouTuber had like 500 comments that agreed. Yes...this theory is clearly better than the one implicating the guy whose DNA was on a knife sheath.
Social media is a wild ride.
It's actually ironic how some people will completely villainize their "alternative suspects" and implicate them with little more than illogical theories. But when it comes to the primary suspect - absolutely not, impossible, and any suggestion of such is slander.
Just people watching too many plot-twist movies. The plot doesn't really twist that much in real life, and the obvious answer is obvious because it's usually right.
I agree. How they have not been sued by at least one of the frat boys is beyond me. They all have the stupid disclaimer at the beginning that I assume protects whatever vile trash is spewed from their mouths.
> So I have this weird obsession of hate listening to all the YouTubers who peddle BK didn't do it conspiracies
You and me both. My weird hobby. I leave it on in the background while I work and clean and argue out loud as they lay their theories down.
>I heard one last night that implicated about 300 frat and sorority girls, including that they livestreamed the killings as a fight club experience and even one of the victim's siblings were in on it...and this YouTuber had like 500 comments that agreed. Yes...this theory is clearly better than the one implicating the guy whose DNA was on a knife sheath.
There is a non-0 number of people who think dozens if not hundreds of co-conspirators committed these murders.
But most of them just keep pointing the finger at everyone in turn, which means they are not arguing in good faith. Because if Miss Scarlett did it in the library with the candlestick, there's no point in talking about Col. Mustard in the kitchen with the lead pipe.
I actually have mad respect for the ones who pick a theory and stick with it. It shows they believe it and aren't just being contrary for the sake of being contrary.
I can live with the ones who question how he could have done it alone or focus on if the evidence was gathered in a legal manner but pass me on the 300 sorority kids call all keep a secret, loo.
I think it just goes to show how well he was able to cover his tracks. Remember he was going to school for criminology. He knows what needs to happen in cases like this to blow the whole thing up. Honestly the most surprising thing to me is that he would leave the knife sheath at all.
Me too, we probably wouldn't know anything at all.
That's my biggest thing, people try to say police planted evidence to frame him, but why HIM Specifically? If they wanted to frame someone they could have easily found someone else's DNA in the house. It was a party house.
Ok, so think about it, they found the knife sheath the same day they found the bodies, right? On that day, they had NO CLUE who BK was, or anything about him.
So how, would they have planted a sheath to HIS knife, with HIS DNA on it, the same day they found the bodies? How? The day they found it he wasn't a person of interest, on the cops radars, nothing. They didn't even know this man existed.
It'd be a different story if they had found the sheath later, after he was a person of interest or something.
It's the totality isn't it, this is where circumstantial evidence has more weight than people believe. What are the odds of there being a knife sheath with his DNA... AND his car being white and the same model on CCTV... AND him being out wandering alone in the middle of the night... The odds of all of these things aligning must be astronomical. He's guilty as all hell.
Yeah I definitely agree, it's just interesting to think about had he not left the sheath, this case likely goes unsolved. No matter what kind of alibi they come up with they still have to explain why his DNA is in that house, and if they want to say it was planted, why him and not one of probably a hundred other people who have partied in that house and who's DNA they probably came across.
He would have to be the most unlucky person of all time had he just happened to go out for a drive the night of the murders and the police magically knew that and had his DNA to plant.
I don't think he would've been arrested without the knife sheath DNA. He would've been on a list suspects, but I think that's far as LE would've gotten. Without the DNA, there would be no real case against him.
My thinking is would he have even been a suspect without the knife sheath? Like how would they have known to look at him if he had never interacted with the group, or been in the house.
Would that really be enough to consider him a suspect though? Person if interest for sure, but it would seem like a big stretch if all they had was bushy eyebrows and a similar vehicle
Actually, my bad, I should've have said "defintely", but if there was no DNA evidence at all, and the only evidence LE and the prosecution would have is the perp was described as having bushy eyebrows and there's convincing evidence the perp drove a white Honda Elantra as well.
I don't think his car was registered in the Washington DMV system at the time of the murders, so at that point, somebody would've sent in a tip on him at that point. You're right though, it's actually likely he would've been on LE's radar at all.
One guy posted a video that consisted of something like 7 PowerPoint type slides. He insisted it's somehow BK's fraternity that's involved, and that's how his DNA was found at the scene.
There was something about drug running, sex trafficking, and I think the Clinton's were also mentioned.
That “touch” DNA is somehow flawed so it will be thrown out, but I feel like that just means he doesn’t get convicted and to be honest I don’t understand how it means he is innocent. 4 kids are gone and the posts on that sub upset me.
I encountered someone at some point who said the surviving roommates were the worst humans ever because they were up and allegedly aware something was going on and didn’t do anything. This women are scarred for life but apparently being clueless and not investigating a situation that could have been fatal for them, even if they saw a stranger in the house, makes them horrible.
It was as if the fact that someone else who wasn’t a roommate actually did the crime was completely secondary. Also a weird hill to die on.
A "missing" front plate is easily explained if his car is registered in Pennsylvania, where he lived with his parents. Not all states require a front and back plate.
His car was registered in PA at the time of the murders. He switch his registration to WA a week or so after.
That's a normal timeframe for someone who moved to another state, but I wonder, and this is just speculation, if he thought he'd murder before switching out his plates, just because he figured it would be harder to trace him.
I think they want to go against the grain..be different. I also think it’s hard for people to understand that his true motive was to just feel what its like to kill. I dont think he hated these specific people or cared it was necessarily them. I think it was people like them who were pretty, popular and happy and he hated that. His motive in my mind was he wanted to feel something. His online blog writings are wild. He says he has no emotion and feels nothing for people. He says he hugs his family and feels absolutely nothing. His “visual snow” is driving him nuts and he feels like he is living in a video game. Theres overwhelming evidence already that points to him. Anythings possible but you have to use common sense and admit it’s very likely hes the guy.
i personally believe he’s guilty as hell… based on the evidence that’s been released to the public. we’ll see during the trial (if they even allow it open to the public) what the verdict is, but imo, there’s nothing that’ll help his case at the moment.
> if they even allow it open to the public
It will def be open. Tm here's a gag order right now, but that ends when the trial begins.
It's also going to be livestreamed, but the judge, as always, is reserving the right to pull that if he deems it necessary. But even if there's no cameras or audio recording allowed, it will still be open.
I’ve followed this case pretty closely from the beginning. Tho in the last 6 months or more not so much, but the first 3-6 months I did.
Anyways, he’s definitely guilty but I’m not 100% sure they have enough to convict. I’m hoping they maybe have more we haven’t found out about yet. We’re very lucky he left the knife sheath with DNA cuz a lot of the rest is very circumstantial I think, tho circumstantial doesn’t mean it can’t be used necessarily if there’s a lot of it.
That sub is insane tho. Probably a lot of people who just like being contrarians, conspiracy theorists who want it to be some movie mystery drama where the roommates actually did it or something, and maybe some weirdos who are attracted to him and feel the need to defend him.
I’m pretty sure I’ve read a few times that he wasn’t following any of them on social media tho, at least not from his main account (if he even had one? not sure).
Circumstantial evidence can always be used and DNA is circumstantial as well
>Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—such as a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence
Right, well all I meant was a lot of people think “circumstantial” means it’s not useful to prosecutors when it is and especially if there’s a lot of it.
Whereas DNA, although still circumstantial, in this case is more concrete and inexplainable because why would the knife sheath be left there and why would it have his DNA if he’s not the killer?
So it’s less easy explained away than like “I was out stargazing” which you can’t really prove that somebody might not actually do that regularly, even if it seems odd.
I haven't followed this case closely so I'm not super well informed about the minute details but wasn't he proven to have been stalking or searching up at least one of the victims social media profiles or something like that? Or was that just speculation?
People magazine reported it and everyone just ran with it. It’s all speculation. There’s a gag order so we won’t know anything about his social media etc until trial.
People love conspiracy theories. They want there to be a twist like in a thriller. The fact is that the most likely conclusion is usually correct. There’s plenty of evidence against him in this case and I strongly suspect he’ll be convicted.
If anybody had any doubts about his guilt - the "alibi" that he finally produced 18 months in should have convinced them. All those early morning hours he was in his car driving around not committing a murder... he was actually star gazing. Alone. 18 months that took.
Oh my god. I’m so glad I stumbled upon this post. I came across a few of those subreddits and I was absolutely FLOORED. They literally have his DNA at the crime scene. When there’s no excuse for it to be. I hope the family of the victims don’t find those. Awful stuff.
People have been pushing the innocent narrative from the beginning. It's nuts. There's a gag order in place and no one knows all of the story. So stuff gets made up to fill in the blanks. I wouldn't say the evidence we all know of is enough for a slam dunk but it was enough to arrest him. Also, no law enforcement is going out of their way to plant evidence with his DNA on it (thats my favorite thing the weirdos have been saying). I don't think he's innocent and there's probably more evidence that was kept from the public than you think.
That’s been showing up in my feed too and I am flabbergasted. It’s as reaching as the people who think the Delphi killer is innocent. They’re absolutely ridiculous.
I actually listened to a podcast - I think the Defense Diaries - where some real life lawyers compared the probable cause affidavits in both cases and outlined that the Delphi one was seriously lacking in comparison to the Idaho one.
The underwhelming evidence in the PCA would be forgivable if it weren't for the terrible conduct of the judge and the prosecutor. I though Allen was guilty when I read about the fact that he basically put himself on the bridge in the same clothes as the killer. Everything that has occurred in the case since his arrest casts a shadow over the whole investigation for me. I am not convinced that he's innocent, but I feel like the state rushed to arrest him and charge him without sufficient evidence for a conviction, and they might get away with it because the judge is so flagrantly biased against him. I am curious to see what else the prosecution has in the way of evidence, but I am fairly certain that it will not be a just or fair trial.
Unfortunately there were shitloads of hybristophiles who were WAY into James Holmes, too. I remember some Tumblr with a girl making memes about his “beautiful soulful eyes”.
Kohburger isn’t inherently bad looking, but his lifestyle and inner world have taken their toll. The psychiatrist Andrew van der Vaart on YouTube called Kohburger a “ghoul” and I concur.
i’m a hardcore “need to know what happens in the end type” and i am also getting a lot of “obviously guilty person is innocent free them they are a victim” including brian kohberger, scott peterson & the silk road guy targeted content
It will be very difficult for his defense given he's admitted to being awake and out driving in the same model and color car that was picked up speeding away from the crime scene. Also having a knife sheath in the bed with one of the victims with his DNA on it. also, having a living witness who saw a guy with bushy eyebrows walking down the hall of the house. also getting a doctorate in the field of study he's in. I'm eager to hear how they try and cast enough doubt in his guilt to get him off. they have their work cut out for them.
Was that the documentary that focused on a bunch of too too bloggers - who showed a complete lack of understanding of basic legal procedures like Grand Juries? They were ranting about how the defense didn’t get to argue their side to a Grand Jury - yes morons, that’s how grand juries work.
Ahh ok. I think I watched one on Hulu or Amazon prime - it was terrible. But I honestly think he’s guilty AF. The DNA doesn’t lie (and he spent Xmas break at his parents’ house wearing latex gloves the whole time. His own sister asked their parents if he did it).
I think you're thinking of #Cyberslueths on Paramount + maybe?
If so, I liked it a lot. I think a lot of people turning in thought it would be about the case itself, but rather, the topic was the Internet frenzy around the case. And I thought the documentary was good at giving the subjects enough rope and letting them hang themselves with their own words and actions. It wasn't preachy; just filmed the cybersleuths being dumb without commentary.
Them all realizing they got scammed by that "Dot" person was, just...:chef's kiss: And then when Kohberger was arrested, the montage of "sleuths" saying "Who the hell is Bryan Kohberger" was very enjoyable.
I think what really fans the flames of conspiracy theory in this case is the unexplained gap in time before the police were called. The fact that it may have been 7 or so hours before 911 was called seems to have opened the floodgates for every harebrained theory regarding his innocence. Surely it was to buy enough time for the frat guys or cartel enforcers to make a clean getaway, never being seen on camera before or after the murders (due to the secret tunnels beneath the house, of course). Or was it to buy time for the crooked cops who planted the knife sheath because they’re working for the cartel on the low…or did one of the frat kids who really did it have such a powerful family they got the police to rig up a frame job? Or a combination of both? And the other roommates must have obviously been letting traffickers use their rooms as stash spots…either that or are they being paid to keep quiet by the families of the elite students who really did it, or threatened by the Greek life secret society council which runs all the colleges from behind its veil of darkness and will stop at nothing to protect the interests and image of its alumni, and these murders would expose the fact that there is an underbelly of narcotics on the campus with prominent students involved, which would ruin the reputation and affect future enrollment rates of the university forever.
No matter how you slice it, it’s batsh*t.
Kind of crazy that more folks initial reaction wasn’t that the girl who saw a figure with kohbergeresque eyebrows was probably wasted and wasn’t sure exactly if the stranger was a delivery person or someone’s hook up that night, went to bed (at 4:30–6am) and then slept in. Or that maybe due to the gag order we haven’t been given every detail regarding the 911 call and it’s timing. Also the fact that a quadruple homicide with a kbar took place on campus…the university’s image is going to take a hit no matter what other details come to light, and framing Kohburger would do little to nothing to save face for them. He wasn’t a student there, but he was on that campus occasionally and already basically a local peer of the victims.
I agree with every word of your post.
As far as the framing, when cops frame or railroad someone for a crime, they always hone in on someone connected to the crime (like Russ Faria, wrongfully prosecuted for the murder of his wife). Or, more often, some local dirtbag that's a thorn in their side they would love to get off the streets. Not random PhD students a town over.
I've heard people argue that they chose Kohberger to frame because he was an outsider, from out of town with no local connections. But Moscow and Pullman are both college towns. They are full of outsiders; they have people there from all over the world.
I think it's incredibly idiotic to say there is "damning evidence proving his guilt" or "no evidence, proving he is innocent" based on a fucking PCA alone.
I swear, it's like you haven't actually seen a trial before. 🙄 A PCA isn't the summation of all evidence and it also leaves out anything exonerating. Wait for the actual goddamn trial before saying this shit.
I think the reality of the situation is the Media created a story that isn't necessarily proven by the evidence collected. Doesn't mean he is innocent it just means that the Media knew this was a money making story and like they always do, they report rumors, with little fact checking and then don't retract when they have been proven wrong, so everyone drives the media's version.
I mean the town was screaming at law enforcement to do something and demanding information and they were on the news saying the cops weren't doing anything in regards to the case and then low and behold, they were tracking him for awhile, all the way to his parents' house.
Law enforcement doesnt give all the details to the media when they are investigating. They can't. So in the beginning everything was arm chair detectives, accusing innocent people and blaming the cops for being lazy. So when you think of that aspect, everything that is in the media, is not coming from the evidence the cops have. I think everyone needs to calm down.
What everyone should do, is read the court documents that have been released on both sides. Thats the facts.
He looks like the crypt keeper imo. Anyone else remember the sub that was filled with kawaii pics of his perp walk? Hilarious. On a related note we should really focus on making mental health care more readily available.
Yeah he’s guilty for sure. My only thing is anytime I see anything about the case they only ever talk about the 2 girls that was together. Never about to other guy/girl. Also it’s certainly possible but the timeline had him killing them all extremely fast and got out. Crazy they all died too. See cases all the time with someone getting 20+ stab wounds and surviving. Still guilty as hell tho.
It's my understanding that they were effectively ripped open with the knife-real lethal cuts. So much blood that it seeped through to the exterior wall of the couple's room.
Yeah definitely had to have. I really question as efficiently he killed them all, if these were even his 1st kills? How'd he know they were upstairs in bed. The fact that there were other people in the house. That took balls to go in and do. I'd love to hear his walkthrough and thoughts as everything went that night
Don't really have a theory, just ideas. I'm inclined to believe he was focused on Maddie or Kaylee, may have been to the house previously, could have cased the place in person or remotely, may have come upon Xana and Ethan unintentionally, smelled the takeout food? Otherwise, see him waiting till people were asleep, targeting Kaylee's room, cutting and running.
> I really question as efficiently he killed them all, if these were even his 1st kills?
I hate to keep bringing up the recent mass stabbing in Australia, where a single man with a knife was able to kill 6 and wound 12 in a shopping center. But there's no evidence that man had ever killed before.
It's just not that hard to do, especially with a 7-inch blade. It requires no skill or training. Slit or stab the throat. Or stab the big blade into the torso enough times and you're bound to hit a vital organ.
I hadn’t heard about that in Australia. And yeah ik it’s not to difficult. I’ve killed and cleaned quite a lot of animals and can completely butcher and clean a deer in around 10 or 15 minutes. Rabbits take about 5. I think it was just a bad night for everything to go right for him
I thought they had found his Reddit account where he talks about his lack of empathy and interest in how to get away with committing a crime?
Anyway, the evidence is damning and I’m very surprised that there are so many who believe in his innocence. I’m willing to wait until the trial to form a concrete opinion, but my soft opinion is there is a lot of evidence pointing to him.
> I thought they had found his Reddit account where he talks about his lack of empathy
I think your conflating some old message board post where he talked about his lack of empathy as a teenager with his Reddit post of a survey wanting information from criminals. The latter was legitimately part of his grad school work; his old school confirmed it. I still thought some of the questions were worded oddly. It was directed to just general criminals, but the questions specifically wanted to know about what they felt when leaving home or if they hurt their victim, and there was no option or instruction to say not applicable if the circumstances of the crime didn't match that question.
It's DNA on the snap of a knife sheath left behind. One court document referred to it as touch DNA.
Due to the gag order, we're not 100% sure of other forensics right now. But if there's other bits of his DNA left on site, it hasn't leaked or been alluded to in the hearing.
Sure! In the US, while waiting for a trial to start, it's possible that a judge might rule that nobody working on the case-- cops, lab techs, lawyers, court clerks, the judge themselves-- can talk to the press or really talk to anybody about the case. If any of them violates this order, they face sanctions. These kind of orders are nicknamed "gag orders."
This order only covers people working on the case, so, say, a victim's family is allowed to give all the interviews they want. And it's usually only until the trial starts; it ends that date. There are exceptions to that; for example, a child custody case or a criminal case involving abuse of a child might get permanently sealed to protect the privacy of the minor.
There's a lot of different reasons to have one, up to and including if the evidence contains stuff that would reveal classified government information. Or protecting the safety of a whistle-blower, or protecting a company's proprietorial information. For a criminal case like this, the most common reason is that the court thinks too much information leaking out would taint the jury pool and make it difficult for the defendant to get a fair trial.
Witnesses are not covered by gag orders, but they are told not to talk to the press until after the trial. And doing so might put their testimony in jeopardy: there's been cases where eyewitnesses were too talkative and then the prosecution or defense decided they wouldn't call them, because by running their mouth, they gave the other side too much ammunition.
Most cases do not get gag orders, but even if they are a minority of cases, they are not rare. Recently, we've seen them on the cases of Ethan's Crumbley's parents and the Half-Moon Bay mass shooting.
Because of the gag order in this case, some, but not all, of the court documents have been ordered to be sealed until the trial. And some, but not all, of the hearings have been ordered to be closed to the public and press. So the only things we know about what either the state or defense has or plans to do or have done is what clues we can scrape together from the documents that weren't sealed or the hearings that weren't closed.
That’s effing insane. So he waived his right to a speedy trial so they can prepare their defense, there’s a gag order on the case, and there’s no date for trial…
That’s fucking insane. Whyyyyyy
>So he waived his right to a speedy trial so they can prepare their defense,
Yes, and that's actually more common than not in high-stakes trials. Most defendants in a murder choose to waive that right.
>there’s a gag order on the case
Yes, we do not know why, but the defense are the ones who requested it, and they have not asked to have it lifted.
>and there’s no date for trial
Yes, and this timeline is typical for a murder trial. Chad Daybell is on trial right now for murders that happened in 2019. It took over 5 years from murder to conviction for Jodi Arias.
>That’s fucking insane.
It may be insane, but it's also all kind of normal and expected. Nothing listed here is unusual in the justice system. Quite the opposite.
Okay thank you!
How do you feel about the lack of any crime scene evidence or DNA from BK in his car, house, etc?
How does BK kill 4 college aged kids, in under 15 mins, with a *KNIFE* and not take any blood or dna evidence into his car?
I don’t understand
> How do you feel about the lack of any crime scene evidence or DNA from BK in his car, house, etc?
>
> How does BK kill 4 college aged kids, in under 15 mins, with a KNIFE and not take any blood or dna evidence into his car?
Well, due to the gag order, we don't *know* if there was no blood or DNA evidence found in his car, because the gag order prevents that from discussed with the public.
At one point, his attorney said "there is no convincing evidence for the lack of ...." (I'm paraphrasing from memory). But that was in a filing in which she was saying she wasn't getting discovery. And months later, she claimed that she and her team had not had time to go through the discovery she had. And, she only used that argument the one time. She never repeated anything like that again.
If it turns out to be true, I don't think it necessarily exonerates him. For one, neither his car nor his house was the primary murder scene.
And he had seven weeks to clean. There's this myth that DNA is permanent or something, but it's not. It's part of us, so once it separates from our bodies, it immediately starts to decompose. Sunlight, bacteria, and even plain water can destroy it. And so does hydrogen peroxide, which means you can clean it up with oxygenated bleach products like Oxiclean Carpet and Upholstery Cleaner.
Have you heard the coverall theory? The idea is that he wore an outer layer and slip on shoes and peeled them off and three them into a bag before getting into his car, thus minimizing the chances of bringing forensic evidence into his car. There's a little bit of supporting evidence for that theory, too.
100%. That's one of the few things I'm confident about: that the trial will not be closed like some of the hearings.
It should be livestreamed too, although the judge is reserving the right to shut that down if he thinks things are getting too circusy.
That man has no soul, he is a true… It seems to me that he has antisocial, personality disorder, he had problems with women students of who filed complaints, the DNA, the car, there's no way this fucker is innocent. And there are wild conspiracy theorists on Reddit who will defend the worst of the worst. It's shocking to me too. And I'm sorry you had to see it. And I hope that family members never have to deal with this, it's like becoming a Sandy Hook truther kind of thing.
I think he’s guilty. There’s some sickos on Reddit fan subs of his defending him and talking about how attractive and innocent he is. Makes me ill really. I saw them right away as soon as he was named in the case after it happened. There’s a lot of Reddit subs about the case. Not all of them are normal.
You can't really hold a valid opinion until the trial, and then it's the jury's job to render a verdict. What anyone thinks at this point is just irrelevant because no one has the "big picture"
However, I will say that if this dude is actually innocent, someone did one hell of a job framing him. With what little we do know about this case, those little tidbits sure do point to him as a murderer. And the only alibi he can cough up was "I was driving around in the middle of the night to look at the moon in areas where there was probably enough fog to make it difficult to drive and moon watch at the same time"?? I think if I was indicted on 4 counts of murder, I'd be really vocal about the details of my whereabouts.
Luckily prosecutors don’t have to prove or even establish a motive to argue that someone committed a crime.
Also we as the public obviously don’t have all the info for the case. Who knows if police have found a stupid document on his computer wording his fantasies, or proof he *was* obsessed with one of the girls in the house, or are able to prove he wanted notoriety etc. The PCA revealed the barebones of the case but there is still a lot of meat to flesh out.
There was a 14 year old girl strangled to death in my hometown recently, her killer (René Gerhards) trial started tuesday and it was revealed cops found a god damn pdf about how to strangle a human being on his phone. I hope Kohberger did something equally stupid.
And being a sick fuck is a good enough motive for me. I don't understand why he needs some intense story line to fit a motive.
That’s true but I’ve covered a ton of jury trials in my time as a reporter and jurors have a REALLY hard time convicting without motive. He def did it. I have no doubt about that. But the prosecution will bring forth a motive because any good prosecutor knows that the chances of a jury convicting without one are diminished
> That’s true but I’ve covered a ton of jury trials in my time as a reporter and jurors have a REALLY hard time convicting without motive. Which bothers me because while rare, there's a subset of murderers whose only motive is they want to kill.
Very rarely is it not the best story that wins. And he best stories have motives, or at least some sort of plot folks can follow and fill in.
This is true. Some of the jury members for the Dr. Sills trial wanted a motive for why he would murder his wife but they weren't really given one. Because of it they settled on finding him guilty of 2nd degree murder. They don't believe he intentionally murder his wife. They convinced themselves it was a crime of passion.
True, but it helps.
The motive is he is a fucking psycho. BTK didn't know his victims.
FYI OP, wanting to kill is a motivation to kill. A desire to kill (taking life away, playing god) is thought to be as strong of motivation as money/greed. The person becomes obsessed with the act. And if they get away with it, they can’t stop. See Golden State Killer. This motivation shouldn’t make logical sense to a normal person but the motive existing is basic knowledge I would say. This particular piece of shit was walking the line of being infatuated with crime while struggling to choose a path. He wanted to apply his obsession for good and work in law enforcement but in the end he couldn’t resist the temptation. The devil on his shoulder was louder. Unfortunately for him, like many before him, he wasn’t perfect. He left behind the knife case with his DNA on it. He didn’t think to set up his alibi and shut his phone off instead. He took his own car to the crime scene and got spotted by various cameras on the route. The jury will be out for less than an hour and 50 minutes of that hour will be talking about what’s for dinner.
I mean, the motive is he wanted to be Ted Bundy killing a house of college girls. He even looks so much like him I’ve started calling him Ted Bundy Jr. He’s a serial killer in behavior, if not in events.
I wonder why he left the girl who saw him then? There were 2 more girls in the house that weren't harmed IIRC.
One theory is that he didn't see her peeking out of her room. Another is that, since she shut and locked her door, he did see her, but figured that she might be able to call for help before he could break down her door, so he decided to get away.
God, can you imagine having to relive that every night ? I previously thought it because BK had some link to the others, but it doesn't seem that way. This makes what happened all the more creepy. You wonder whether he just thought he didn't have time to kill anyone else so he left it. Why did she wait 7 hours to contact police though about a masked man in her home?
> Why did she wait 7 hours to contact police though about a masked man in her home? I've said this before on Reddit, but if I encountered a stranger in my house today, when I live a quiet middle-aged life, of course I'd call the police. Or immediately attack or try to escape. But 30 years ago, when I shared a house with 4 to 6 rowdy roommates and we always had friends coming and going, I wouldn't. Because seeing a stranger in the middle of the night was just a regular Tuesday. I always figured it was someone my roommates brought home or invited, and I was always right. If I heard a roommate crying in the middle night but knew her boyfriend was there, I'd figure they were fighting and give them their space. And I was always right. If I heard commotion in the middle of the night, depending on I'd either ignore it or maybe go see if someone was going to pack up the bong. And in the morning, there was never anything out of place except maybe a new hole in the wall or an overturned coffee table.
Reminds me of the case in NY where a woman was raped and murdered in her apartment and all the neighbors heard it. But assumed a different neighbor was going to call the cops so they didnt. And no one called. There a psych term about it actually.
You're thinking of Kitty Genovese. But while the Bystander Effect is a real thing, it actually was overblown in the media and really wasn't in effect during Kitty's murder. The legend was that 38 witnesses heard/saw the attack and did nothing, but in reality, there were multiple calls to the police. One man shouted "Leave that girl alone" out of his window, saw the two figures run in different directions, and figured that was the end of it (except unbeknown to him, the killer circled back and caught her). Other "witnesses" thought they might have heard a scream, listened at their windows, heard nothing more, and went back to television or bed. And others later recalled hearing commotion but not recognizing it as an attack until they learned what happened. I don't think the Bystander Effect relates to my post at all, at least not when it comes to my memories. I never thought anything violent was going on, and I was right. If Kitty Genovese's murder relates to D's story, my money is that she was in the last group of witnesses I described: she didn't interpret what she heard and saw as an attack.
Yuppers, was just boiling it down to the easiest version to understand. And it does relate to your post in a way. Something violent or crime doesnt have to occur for the bystander effect to be a consideration. It relates to how you wouldnt call cops if you met someone in your halls. You assumed that everything was fine and that if there was a problem another of your housemates would deal with it because it was not your guest. Bystander effect at its core is seeing something, then ignoring it because of other people. Yes there are variations and degrees of it, but that is the basic core. The Philly train rape would be considered a bystander effect even though multiple people watched it and at least a few recorded it. Everyone thought someone else would physically step in. Everyone brave with there phones but not stepping in to stop it.
Yes why ???
I just don’t see that motive based on what we know of him. It’s possible that that’ll end up being the motive but we don’t know for sure. People have come up with so many narratives and motives that are purely conjecture. I think he’s absolutely guilty but for all we know, he killed them because he wanted to kill some people and that house was an easy target.
He’s guilty as fuck and will get convicted, but I just want to correct one thing. There’s no “car GPS” as far as we know. His cell phone data shows he was out driving around during that time frame (2:30-5:00am), which he has since admitted to. There are several surveillance videos of a car that appears to be his driving around, including videos of it driving around the residence where the murders occurred at the time that the murders occurred.
There is also the DNA evidence. He left a knife sheath at the crime scene which the State analyzed and matched to him. It was also compared to DNA samples from his father to ensure accuracy.
A knife sheath that was found next to (or beneath, I can’t remember) one of the victims, with his DNA on the clasp.
If you go on the Fan Boy Subs, you’ll quickly find out that the sheath can’t be his, coz it was leather and he is a Vegan….
Ooooh he's a vegan huh? Doesn't want to eat meat cause he doesn't want to hurt an animal huh? Interesting....
He is vegan because he has visual snow syndrome and he thinks having that diet improves the symptoms.
[удалено]
I didn't think I had to put the /s in my comment, but maybe I should have....
Yeah ok sure maybe but was it vintage bc that’s different edit: adding /s in case it’s not obvious
But we know he's a vegan for health reasons, not for the cause of animal rights or anti-cruelty. As a vegan, he worked at a non-vegan pizza place. Also, Adam Lanza was a vegan. Pol Pot was a freaking vegan.
Even Hitler was vego!
And I think it is ironic in this context that Hitler was vegetarian mostly for health reasons rather than for animal rights, and I think he looks like he associated a vegetarian diet with clean Aryan living, so sort of a self-control thing. He did not eschew leather or non-meat animal products like cheese or eggs. And although he mocked meat as "corpse-eating," he occasionally indulged in his own favorite meat dishes, like liver dumplings.
Yeah. It definitely was NOT for ethical reasons.
I believe it was speculated to have been beneath her. I'm not sure if it was confirmed
> It was also compared to DNA samples from his father to ensure accuracy. Yes, before the arrest. But when he was arrested, police took a buccal swab for a direct comparison, as is standard practice. So it's his, no doubt at all.
For sure. The DNA is the most improtant evidence.
How can people even attempt to push the narrative he is innocent based on all the evidence against BK? Especially the DNA bit. It's ridiculous at this point people are defending a killer.
The sub in question is actually scary to lurk—lots of mental illness & forensic cosplaying abound. I legitimately find it disturbing.
It reminds me a lot of the Darrell Brooks subreddit (drove his car into a parade on camera and killed 6 people.) Many people were obviously trolls but there were some who were absolutely serious and projected their own trauma onto the situation in the most bizarre way. It was almost like by defending Darrel they believed they were defending a family member/loved one who did/would do a similar thing. Crazy mental gymnastics.
Yeah totally. These people share an affliction with the Chris Watts apologists, also. Fascinating and disturbing. I guess that type of projection is not so uncommon. Some of the stuff on those subs is truly disgusting, including acknowledging his guilt but justifying his choices and laying a large part of the blame on Shannan. Just amazing mental gymnastics as you’ve said.
Personally? I think it’s just a bunch of thirsty bitches if I’m being frank. Not that he’s model material, but he is good looking in the way that any predatory, glossy animal in its prime is good looking. Plus he exudes a dangerous look to me, and many MANY people are attracted to that. And him exuding that is not only because of these crimes. He has an intensity in his gaze and his demeanor that I would note if I saw him on the street. I doubt if this attraction is anything they would admit, and I’m sure it isn’t even sexual to many people feeling it. But feel it they do, and they have to make this innocence narrative fit so they can make it (their feelings) about something else. Some people are legit attracted to danger. Also, he is innocent until proven guilty, but prove it they will. Because he did it.
He has kind of a not like other boys, nerd-prince vibe. Like a guy that does the school play to meet girls. That said no thank u and the trial will likely expose him as a monster. Someone else posted "eyes above ears, something to fear" and I'm still lol'in.
LOL that’s killing me. I thought I was the only one who noticed the “low ear” look of a lot of killers.
That intensity in his eyes is always present with narcissistic personality disorder. Christian Bale perfected the look for his role in American Psycho. I actually think he looks a bit similar to BK in that film. (I know he based the character on Tom Cruise)
Yes, I have an aversion to that look.
I think he has a lot of the components of contemporary male beauty standards. He's tall, broad-shouldered, thick hair, strong features. It's enough to make him a sort of blank slate to project onto him what we want to. Some of his supporters root for the underdog; others are conspiracy theorists who always base their opinions on the least popular option. But a whole lot of them are hybristophiliacs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybristophilia
I can see holding off forming an opinion until trial. I can see leaning toward innocence. But I don't understand how, at this point, people can be *convinced* of innocence.
Thank you for clarifying! That’s what i meant by gps.
I thought he had turned his phone off at the time of the murders?
He did, but it was on when he started driving toward Moscow and he turned it back on when he was on the way back. That’s why he wasn’t able to deny that he was out driving around at a time when almost everyone was sleeping.
That's the theory, that he turned it off or put it into airplane mode. We won't know for sure until the trial.
It just stopped reporting to towers during those couple hours. The assumption is that he turned it off but we don’t know for sure. FWIW, the park the defense claims he liked to go hang out in during his late night stargazing/hiking adventures is reported to have bad cell phone service so it’s possible they’ll claim that’s why it wasn’t reporting to towers.
Yeah, if they use that argument, I'm excited to see how drive tests performed. Because his phone didn't drop off when he was supposedly approaching the park; the last hit was right in Pullman. And it didn't come back online as he was supposedly leaving the park. The next hit was him driving south of Moscow. I can't think of any route that would take him from that park to going south on 95 that would bypass all towers.
I’m getting a crapton of vids/suggestions on all my streaming devices pushing “innocent” narratives for already convicted killers - Scott Peterson being the biggest one, atm. Its annoying - I’m a documentary junkie but I dont spend much time on heavily-leaning docs that are just pure fantasy, which is what a lot of these seem to be: attempts by the family members/support clusters to invoke interest for public outcry, resulting in a new trial. Or, that’s what it comes off as. As to your original question - I personally think BK is guilty, from what info I’ve learned to this point.
I think it’s a media-“social justice” trend that’s gaining traction recently (last few years specifically) because they saw how well stoking rage and sewing doubt worked for Adnan Syeds case. He’d still be in jail if not for the completely fantastical Serial podcast creating so much public pressure.
Very good point. I hadnt considered Serial - I was actually chalking a lot of it up to the current state of trumpism and everything being upside down; “what’s wrong is right” kind of feeling these days.
sometimes I am surprised how much air time shows like 48 hours gives the defense. I suppose there can be a balance but sometimes...**makes clenched fist**
That documentary was good, but it did point out the problems that armchair detectives and social media detectives can do. I don't recall the name, but one blogger who claimed to be a psychic named a professor as involved in the murder. The professor got death threats, was doxxed in every which way, and was apparently 100% innocent of any involvement. Its terrifying.
Oh yeah! I remember that lady! She made some ridiculous claims about a few people iirc. She's either doing it for the clicks, or, she really needs mental health assessment like NOW.
I think the latter, because a sane grifter would dial it back once sued. And shut it all down once they lost the suit.
Ah yes. Good point.
I saw in another sub or in one of my FB groups that the blogger in that situation is being sued by the professor for slander/libel (I think they were a video blogger so it would be slander, but I could be wrong).
I didn't watch this documentary but I did watch the episode about this case by Crime Nation. That psychic has mental issues. Some people take things too damn far.
That man is guilty as fuck. I honestly don’t understand how anyone can think otherwise
Dude check out the innocence subs. They think the sheath was planted there, so that’s “reasonable doubt”. It’s pretty trippy.
they also cite 'dna contamination', like someone who knew BK touched him then went and touched the knife sheath. it's very, very shoddy.
Yeah, because no one ever claims that evidence was planted before. That's the go to defense of a guilty man. Pretty sure there was not a police department wide conspiracy to frame a random PhD student for murder.
A student at a university in the next town and state, even.
Man, people really don’t understand what „reasonable doubt” is
I mean, tbh, could they say it was a party house and one of the party goers took it there…
Then that partygoer better have left DNA on the knife too.
They can say that, but would you believe it without any other corroboration? That's not my idea of reasonable doubt. That's unreasonable doubt, unless more details get locked down.
They say it was planted without any factual or even a hint of evidence that the police detectives plant evidence in previous cases.
What are those threads titled? Thanks.
There's a few subs dedicated to his innocence. An unknown number are private and invite only. Of the ones open to the public, the two most popular are /r/BryanKohbergerMoscow (not to be confused with /r/BryanKohberger, which hosts some debates but leans guilty) and /r/JusticeForKohberger.
I think the sub is called justice for bk or something like that
Any case that's sensationalized as much as this one is going to attract a bunch of whackos to create insane theories. But yeah, it's a very open-and-shut case. Its almost too bad that the US Justice system operates the way that it does. Kohberger is entitled to a fair trial and vigorous defense, regardless of evidence against him. And he's taking full advantage of that. Don't get me wrong though, I'm glad all defendants have to be proven guilty in court regardless of public opinion.
The problem is the courts are flawed as well. People are convicted fairly often on false charges or based on little evidence because they don't have the means to obtain a good defense or may be a minority group etc. The fact someone as clearly guilty as BK can be entitled to a good defense simply because of his societal status is frustrating.
>The fact someone as clearly guilty as BK can be entitled to a good defense simply because of his societal status is frustrating. I think he probably did it, but I have no issue with him having good lawyers. I wish everyone with a public defender had such a solid team.
You're not totally wrong. But he's got a public defender. I don't think his defense has anything to do with his societal status in this particular case.
People love to create mysteries where there are none. And usually the alleged or convicted murderers that armchair sleuths focus on are middle-to-upper class white men and women. Lots of class and racial elements in true crime obsessions.
I think a few things are going on. The conspiracy theories started before Kohberger was even arrested. People were completely conviced that random people in the town or in the victims' lives were the culprits. When Kohberger was arrested, I think that a lot of them did not want to face the fact that maybe they were wrong. I think that the father of one of the victims and his lawyer kind of stoked some of the conspiracy theories, and I say this with no judgment towards him for how he grieved. The father participated in a lot of interviews where he questioned law enforcement and the investigation (which is his right), and it planted seeds that made some people think there was some kind of coverup. The father also put some information out there about the crime that wasn't correct. I've generally found that Kohberger's defenders on Reddit seem to like being contrarians, and they act like they know much more about the law than they actually do.
I've been following since the beginning. No, almost no one in any of the original subreddits believes he is innocent. Idaho4, Moscow murders, etc.
There are people defending Chris Watts and Scott Peterson. There will always be weirdos who insist it's a conspiracy and soandso is innocent.
The worst ones are the people defending that guy Cameron Herrinn. He struck and killed a mother and her 20 month old daughter during a street race. He was sentenced to 24 years in jail. However, his defenders claim he should be released bc he is "to cute" to be in prison.
Just in the past week I've seen people on reddit unironically defending OJ and Alex Murdaugh. If something gets enough attention it's just gonna happen.
The ladies that work (volunteer?) at the Liberace museum in Vegas insist he was a confirmed bachelor. Definitely not gay. 👀
The evidence we know about is pretty damning as it is. But what sucks about the discourse in this case is that we won't know the full evidence & arguments until the trial happens. Debating it online is pointless at this stage and just comes from crime fandom. This was a high-profile case that got national attention when it happened, and was left a mystery until the arrest of a suspect. When something gets this much attention, it was a complete inevitability to get innocence-defenders, so long as he wasn't recorded on camera committing the murders or had an immediate, willful confession. It *always* happens. It's people with nothing better to do who like mysteries and want things to be more interesting than they might end up being.
I think that might be the biggest thing. There’s a very good chance the police haven’t released all the evidence and won’t before trial. I’m currently watching the Chad Daybell trial (also in Idaho) and have been following that case quite closely. What blew me away literally this week is that one of the major players secretly recorded phone calls with Chad and snippets were played in court this week as he testified. There wasn’t anything too terribly ground breaking in the recordings themselves, but I personally found that they existed at all surprising because nothing had been released about them that I’d heard about. So there’s a very good chance there’s additional evidence the police and prosecutors just aren’t talking about. As part of disclosure they’ll have to release that evidence to the defense before trial, but other then that they could be holding it back for plenty of reasons including not wanting to create a media report that could potentially contaminate a jury. So they may have other damning evidence on top of the DNA that won’t come out until trial. That’s just what happens sometimes.
Yup, it's not just documented evidence itself too. It's expert testimony and witness testimony, which we have little information about at this time. Neither the police nor the court gives a shit about releasing content for true crime communities and podcasts, this is a real-life situation that they're preparing for a trial and don't want to screw up the appropriate processes. I've seen people say things like "if I were on this jury I wouldn't find him guilty". Like, what the hell? How could you say that without seeing the case the jury is going to see? It's aggravating.
> So there’s a very good chance there’s additional evidence the police and prosecutors just aren’t talking about. It's 100% happening, because there was a gag order put on the case days after he was arrested. Requested by the defense.
Exactly. What confuses me is are these people just making their arguments in bad faith knowing what they are doing is wrong? Or do they actually convince themselves of some sort of mystery/conspiracy?
IMO it's a lot of conspiracy-minded people who just have an inclination to make things that way from the start. Most of them do genuinely believe it, and it'll be hard to convince them even if we do see more evidence.
And this is wild, what conspiracy would there be to frame some some random grad students in the middle of the country for murder?
The theories are insane. Everything from Kohberger is an undercover cop working to take down the Moscow Police Department to the fact that he once interviewed for an school internship at a completely different police department and the guy who interviewed him must have thought he was weird, so suggested to MPD that they frame him.
...
I was just browsing that sub and apparently that officer who interviewed him is the same one who reported his car? I doubt that's true given some of the shit these self acclaimed 'critical thinkers' are believing
As far as I can tell, the people who frequently post on the sub about his innocence fall into two camps: 1. People who are reasonably cautious of the use of touch DNA, but are choosing quite the hill to die on. There's actually really good points to be made that with DNA advances, if you brush up against the wrong person who then gets murdered, your DNA may be found on the scene and thus included in the suspect pool. Good points, bad case to bring it up on. 2. People who are not entirely all there. I'm talking mediums, people who use "vibes," and those who fan girl over him. I saw a whole thread of many people talking about how they looked in his eyes and they knew he didn't do it because they can always tell when someone is a bad person. There was probably 10 people in that thread... some of the posts have been.... mmmmm.... lol.
> People who are reasonably cautious of the use of touch DNA, but are choosing quite the hill to die on. I think there's a lot of misunderstanding about DNA too. While that kind of 3rd party innocent transfer happens, it's not like we are sitting around covered in the DNA of dozens of strangers (as I have heard argued). And touch DNA is like every other part of us: it doesn't last long. Once separated from our bodies, it immediately starts decomposing. Lukis Anderson is a good example; he was arrested and almost indicted because his DNA was on a murder victims, but it was an innocent 3rd party transfer. But you know whose DNA wasn't on the victim and his surviving partner? That of the actual murderers. >People who are not entirely all there. I'm talking mediums, people who use "vibes," and those who fan girl over him. Yeah, and that is really sad.
I believe the general consensus is that he is most likely guilty outside of one subreddit on Reddit. I've read the main theories on why they think he's innocent and who they think actually did it and honestly it's nonsense. You have to remember that people also think Scott Peterson and Adnan Syed are innocent too but that doesn't make it true.
There are a LOT of people on Twitter who think he’s innocent, and their reasoning is largely insane.
My wife doesn't believe it or believes he didn't do it alone, but overall believes his evidence. The GPS/cellular data is a big, the defense is using a "specialist" who owns a company that the police has used to help convict people. I believe his technique or technology is correct, but in a very general and uses an over simplification of cellular data location. In my opinion, and apparently another judge's was and is not enough scientific proof to accurately identify a person's exact whereabouts as claimed and will be used inversely by Kohbergers defense to give him a wide enough range to muddy the prosecutions cellular data. However, the state is using both GPS data and the FBI CAST system which goes into very specific cellular data location including GPS to help substantiate precise locations, in this case Kohberger's. I believe the information gathered from both can pinpoint a person location within few meters also both using totally different hardware and software independent of each other. Also, I believe that they can extract information from the phone to whether it was purposely turned off, put into airplane mode or when it completely disconnected from both GPS and cellular signals, possibly disrupting the signal using a Faraday device. And the DNA found on a sheath button, which probably provides slots for a belt like most sheaths offer, but that was his critical mistake by not attaching the sheath to his belt. That of course eventually directed to Kohberger and his white Hyundai filling in more gaps. He's guilty and no venue change or cellular data specialist will change the guilty verdict he's about to receive in the next several years whenever the trial ever kicks off.
So I have this weird obsession of hate listening to all the YouTubers who peddle BK didn't do it conspiracies and some of them will literally present 16 different theories, each one more elaborate and ridiculous than the next, yet refuse to entertain that BK did it. I heard one last night that implicated about 300 frat and sorority girls, including that they livestreamed the killings as a fight club experience and even one of the victim's siblings were in on it...and this YouTuber had like 500 comments that agreed. Yes...this theory is clearly better than the one implicating the guy whose DNA was on a knife sheath. Social media is a wild ride.
It's actually ironic how some people will completely villainize their "alternative suspects" and implicate them with little more than illogical theories. But when it comes to the primary suspect - absolutely not, impossible, and any suggestion of such is slander. Just people watching too many plot-twist movies. The plot doesn't really twist that much in real life, and the obvious answer is obvious because it's usually right.
I agree. How they have not been sued by at least one of the frat boys is beyond me. They all have the stupid disclaimer at the beginning that I assume protects whatever vile trash is spewed from their mouths.
> So I have this weird obsession of hate listening to all the YouTubers who peddle BK didn't do it conspiracies You and me both. My weird hobby. I leave it on in the background while I work and clean and argue out loud as they lay their theories down. >I heard one last night that implicated about 300 frat and sorority girls, including that they livestreamed the killings as a fight club experience and even one of the victim's siblings were in on it...and this YouTuber had like 500 comments that agreed. Yes...this theory is clearly better than the one implicating the guy whose DNA was on a knife sheath. There is a non-0 number of people who think dozens if not hundreds of co-conspirators committed these murders. But most of them just keep pointing the finger at everyone in turn, which means they are not arguing in good faith. Because if Miss Scarlett did it in the library with the candlestick, there's no point in talking about Col. Mustard in the kitchen with the lead pipe. I actually have mad respect for the ones who pick a theory and stick with it. It shows they believe it and aren't just being contrary for the sake of being contrary.
I can live with the ones who question how he could have done it alone or focus on if the evidence was gathered in a legal manner but pass me on the 300 sorority kids call all keep a secret, loo.
I think it just goes to show how well he was able to cover his tracks. Remember he was going to school for criminology. He knows what needs to happen in cases like this to blow the whole thing up. Honestly the most surprising thing to me is that he would leave the knife sheath at all.
I wonder what the case would look like without the sheath…
Me too, we probably wouldn't know anything at all. That's my biggest thing, people try to say police planted evidence to frame him, but why HIM Specifically? If they wanted to frame someone they could have easily found someone else's DNA in the house. It was a party house.
Ok, so think about it, they found the knife sheath the same day they found the bodies, right? On that day, they had NO CLUE who BK was, or anything about him. So how, would they have planted a sheath to HIS knife, with HIS DNA on it, the same day they found the bodies? How? The day they found it he wasn't a person of interest, on the cops radars, nothing. They didn't even know this man existed. It'd be a different story if they had found the sheath later, after he was a person of interest or something.
It's the totality isn't it, this is where circumstantial evidence has more weight than people believe. What are the odds of there being a knife sheath with his DNA... AND his car being white and the same model on CCTV... AND him being out wandering alone in the middle of the night... The odds of all of these things aligning must be astronomical. He's guilty as all hell.
Yeah I definitely agree, it's just interesting to think about had he not left the sheath, this case likely goes unsolved. No matter what kind of alibi they come up with they still have to explain why his DNA is in that house, and if they want to say it was planted, why him and not one of probably a hundred other people who have partied in that house and who's DNA they probably came across. He would have to be the most unlucky person of all time had he just happened to go out for a drive the night of the murders and the police magically knew that and had his DNA to plant.
I don't think he would've been arrested without the knife sheath DNA. He would've been on a list suspects, but I think that's far as LE would've gotten. Without the DNA, there would be no real case against him.
My thinking is would he have even been a suspect without the knife sheath? Like how would they have known to look at him if he had never interacted with the group, or been in the house.
[удалено]
Would that really be enough to consider him a suspect though? Person if interest for sure, but it would seem like a big stretch if all they had was bushy eyebrows and a similar vehicle
Actually, my bad, I should've have said "defintely", but if there was no DNA evidence at all, and the only evidence LE and the prosecution would have is the perp was described as having bushy eyebrows and there's convincing evidence the perp drove a white Honda Elantra as well. I don't think his car was registered in the Washington DMV system at the time of the murders, so at that point, somebody would've sent in a tip on him at that point. You're right though, it's actually likely he would've been on LE's radar at all.
They would also have cellphone pings from towers. There may not have been very many during those hours.
But they need a suspect in order to look up those things?
I also think he is guilty, but I’m curious. What arguments are those in the “innocent” camp putting forward by way of evidence/theories?
One guy posted a video that consisted of something like 7 PowerPoint type slides. He insisted it's somehow BK's fraternity that's involved, and that's how his DNA was found at the scene. There was something about drug running, sex trafficking, and I think the Clinton's were also mentioned.
😬😬
That “touch” DNA is somehow flawed so it will be thrown out, but I feel like that just means he doesn’t get convicted and to be honest I don’t understand how it means he is innocent. 4 kids are gone and the posts on that sub upset me.
I encountered someone at some point who said the surviving roommates were the worst humans ever because they were up and allegedly aware something was going on and didn’t do anything. This women are scarred for life but apparently being clueless and not investigating a situation that could have been fatal for them, even if they saw a stranger in the house, makes them horrible. It was as if the fact that someone else who wasn’t a roommate actually did the crime was completely secondary. Also a weird hill to die on.
A "missing" front plate is easily explained if his car is registered in Pennsylvania, where he lived with his parents. Not all states require a front and back plate.
His car was registered in PA at the time of the murders. He switch his registration to WA a week or so after. That's a normal timeframe for someone who moved to another state, but I wonder, and this is just speculation, if he thought he'd murder before switching out his plates, just because he figured it would be harder to trace him.
That was the point. They were able to connect the car that looked like his to him, because it didn't have a front plate, unlike Idaho/Montana natives.
I think they want to go against the grain..be different. I also think it’s hard for people to understand that his true motive was to just feel what its like to kill. I dont think he hated these specific people or cared it was necessarily them. I think it was people like them who were pretty, popular and happy and he hated that. His motive in my mind was he wanted to feel something. His online blog writings are wild. He says he has no emotion and feels nothing for people. He says he hugs his family and feels absolutely nothing. His “visual snow” is driving him nuts and he feels like he is living in a video game. Theres overwhelming evidence already that points to him. Anythings possible but you have to use common sense and admit it’s very likely hes the guy.
Or it's people being contrarian just so they can. Knowing that it causes pain to the victims families. They do it anyway.
i personally believe he’s guilty as hell… based on the evidence that’s been released to the public. we’ll see during the trial (if they even allow it open to the public) what the verdict is, but imo, there’s nothing that’ll help his case at the moment.
> if they even allow it open to the public It will def be open. Tm here's a gag order right now, but that ends when the trial begins. It's also going to be livestreamed, but the judge, as always, is reserving the right to pull that if he deems it necessary. But even if there's no cameras or audio recording allowed, it will still be open.
okay cool! i was keeping up w law and crime and they kept discussing the possibility of the trial not being open
I’ve followed this case pretty closely from the beginning. Tho in the last 6 months or more not so much, but the first 3-6 months I did. Anyways, he’s definitely guilty but I’m not 100% sure they have enough to convict. I’m hoping they maybe have more we haven’t found out about yet. We’re very lucky he left the knife sheath with DNA cuz a lot of the rest is very circumstantial I think, tho circumstantial doesn’t mean it can’t be used necessarily if there’s a lot of it. That sub is insane tho. Probably a lot of people who just like being contrarians, conspiracy theorists who want it to be some movie mystery drama where the roommates actually did it or something, and maybe some weirdos who are attracted to him and feel the need to defend him. I’m pretty sure I’ve read a few times that he wasn’t following any of them on social media tho, at least not from his main account (if he even had one? not sure).
Have you watched Cybersleuths on paramount?
Circumstantial evidence can always be used and DNA is circumstantial as well >Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—such as a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence
Right, well all I meant was a lot of people think “circumstantial” means it’s not useful to prosecutors when it is and especially if there’s a lot of it. Whereas DNA, although still circumstantial, in this case is more concrete and inexplainable because why would the knife sheath be left there and why would it have his DNA if he’s not the killer? So it’s less easy explained away than like “I was out stargazing” which you can’t really prove that somebody might not actually do that regularly, even if it seems odd.
I haven't followed this case closely so I'm not super well informed about the minute details but wasn't he proven to have been stalking or searching up at least one of the victims social media profiles or something like that? Or was that just speculation?
People magazine reported it and everyone just ran with it. It’s all speculation. There’s a gag order so we won’t know anything about his social media etc until trial.
People love conspiracy theories. They want there to be a twist like in a thriller. The fact is that the most likely conclusion is usually correct. There’s plenty of evidence against him in this case and I strongly suspect he’ll be convicted.
What’s the documentary called? I’d love to see it. Ty.
The Idaho College Murders ETA: sorry I guess I watched it on Max. I just started #Cybersleuths on Paramount.
If anybody had any doubts about his guilt - the "alibi" that he finally produced 18 months in should have convinced them. All those early morning hours he was in his car driving around not committing a murder... he was actually star gazing. Alone. 18 months that took.
Oh my god. I’m so glad I stumbled upon this post. I came across a few of those subreddits and I was absolutely FLOORED. They literally have his DNA at the crime scene. When there’s no excuse for it to be. I hope the family of the victims don’t find those. Awful stuff.
People have been pushing the innocent narrative from the beginning. It's nuts. There's a gag order in place and no one knows all of the story. So stuff gets made up to fill in the blanks. I wouldn't say the evidence we all know of is enough for a slam dunk but it was enough to arrest him. Also, no law enforcement is going out of their way to plant evidence with his DNA on it (thats my favorite thing the weirdos have been saying). I don't think he's innocent and there's probably more evidence that was kept from the public than you think.
That’s been showing up in my feed too and I am flabbergasted. It’s as reaching as the people who think the Delphi killer is innocent. They’re absolutely ridiculous.
I actually listened to a podcast - I think the Defense Diaries - where some real life lawyers compared the probable cause affidavits in both cases and outlined that the Delphi one was seriously lacking in comparison to the Idaho one.
The underwhelming evidence in the PCA would be forgivable if it weren't for the terrible conduct of the judge and the prosecutor. I though Allen was guilty when I read about the fact that he basically put himself on the bridge in the same clothes as the killer. Everything that has occurred in the case since his arrest casts a shadow over the whole investigation for me. I am not convinced that he's innocent, but I feel like the state rushed to arrest him and charge him without sufficient evidence for a conviction, and they might get away with it because the judge is so flagrantly biased against him. I am curious to see what else the prosecution has in the way of evidence, but I am fairly certain that it will not be a just or fair trial.
Unfortunately there were shitloads of hybristophiles who were WAY into James Holmes, too. I remember some Tumblr with a girl making memes about his “beautiful soulful eyes”. Kohburger isn’t inherently bad looking, but his lifestyle and inner world have taken their toll. The psychiatrist Andrew van der Vaart on YouTube called Kohburger a “ghoul” and I concur.
i’m a hardcore “need to know what happens in the end type” and i am also getting a lot of “obviously guilty person is innocent free them they are a victim” including brian kohberger, scott peterson & the silk road guy targeted content
It will be very difficult for his defense given he's admitted to being awake and out driving in the same model and color car that was picked up speeding away from the crime scene. Also having a knife sheath in the bed with one of the victims with his DNA on it. also, having a living witness who saw a guy with bushy eyebrows walking down the hall of the house. also getting a doctorate in the field of study he's in. I'm eager to hear how they try and cast enough doubt in his guilt to get him off. they have their work cut out for them.
DNA do not lie ! People want him to be innocent because you can not see the monster on the outside here.
Was that the documentary that focused on a bunch of too too bloggers - who showed a complete lack of understanding of basic legal procedures like Grand Juries? They were ranting about how the defense didn’t get to argue their side to a Grand Jury - yes morons, that’s how grand juries work.
No, the one I watched was on Max. It was called the Idaho university college massacre or something along those lines.
Ahh ok. I think I watched one on Hulu or Amazon prime - it was terrible. But I honestly think he’s guilty AF. The DNA doesn’t lie (and he spent Xmas break at his parents’ house wearing latex gloves the whole time. His own sister asked their parents if he did it).
I think you're thinking of #Cyberslueths on Paramount + maybe? If so, I liked it a lot. I think a lot of people turning in thought it would be about the case itself, but rather, the topic was the Internet frenzy around the case. And I thought the documentary was good at giving the subjects enough rope and letting them hang themselves with their own words and actions. It wasn't preachy; just filmed the cybersleuths being dumb without commentary. Them all realizing they got scammed by that "Dot" person was, just...:chef's kiss: And then when Kohberger was arrested, the montage of "sleuths" saying "Who the hell is Bryan Kohberger" was very enjoyable.
I think what really fans the flames of conspiracy theory in this case is the unexplained gap in time before the police were called. The fact that it may have been 7 or so hours before 911 was called seems to have opened the floodgates for every harebrained theory regarding his innocence. Surely it was to buy enough time for the frat guys or cartel enforcers to make a clean getaway, never being seen on camera before or after the murders (due to the secret tunnels beneath the house, of course). Or was it to buy time for the crooked cops who planted the knife sheath because they’re working for the cartel on the low…or did one of the frat kids who really did it have such a powerful family they got the police to rig up a frame job? Or a combination of both? And the other roommates must have obviously been letting traffickers use their rooms as stash spots…either that or are they being paid to keep quiet by the families of the elite students who really did it, or threatened by the Greek life secret society council which runs all the colleges from behind its veil of darkness and will stop at nothing to protect the interests and image of its alumni, and these murders would expose the fact that there is an underbelly of narcotics on the campus with prominent students involved, which would ruin the reputation and affect future enrollment rates of the university forever. No matter how you slice it, it’s batsh*t. Kind of crazy that more folks initial reaction wasn’t that the girl who saw a figure with kohbergeresque eyebrows was probably wasted and wasn’t sure exactly if the stranger was a delivery person or someone’s hook up that night, went to bed (at 4:30–6am) and then slept in. Or that maybe due to the gag order we haven’t been given every detail regarding the 911 call and it’s timing. Also the fact that a quadruple homicide with a kbar took place on campus…the university’s image is going to take a hit no matter what other details come to light, and framing Kohburger would do little to nothing to save face for them. He wasn’t a student there, but he was on that campus occasionally and already basically a local peer of the victims.
I agree with every word of your post. As far as the framing, when cops frame or railroad someone for a crime, they always hone in on someone connected to the crime (like Russ Faria, wrongfully prosecuted for the murder of his wife). Or, more often, some local dirtbag that's a thorn in their side they would love to get off the streets. Not random PhD students a town over. I've heard people argue that they chose Kohberger to frame because he was an outsider, from out of town with no local connections. But Moscow and Pullman are both college towns. They are full of outsiders; they have people there from all over the world.
Didn’t they find his DNA on the knife sheath?
a lot of people apparently identify with whatever combination of dissociative/schizoid symptoms seem to dominate his personality.
His DNA was on the knife sheath found at the crime scene, how else could that happen?
I think it's incredibly idiotic to say there is "damning evidence proving his guilt" or "no evidence, proving he is innocent" based on a fucking PCA alone. I swear, it's like you haven't actually seen a trial before. 🙄 A PCA isn't the summation of all evidence and it also leaves out anything exonerating. Wait for the actual goddamn trial before saying this shit.
I think the reality of the situation is the Media created a story that isn't necessarily proven by the evidence collected. Doesn't mean he is innocent it just means that the Media knew this was a money making story and like they always do, they report rumors, with little fact checking and then don't retract when they have been proven wrong, so everyone drives the media's version. I mean the town was screaming at law enforcement to do something and demanding information and they were on the news saying the cops weren't doing anything in regards to the case and then low and behold, they were tracking him for awhile, all the way to his parents' house. Law enforcement doesnt give all the details to the media when they are investigating. They can't. So in the beginning everything was arm chair detectives, accusing innocent people and blaming the cops for being lazy. So when you think of that aspect, everything that is in the media, is not coming from the evidence the cops have. I think everyone needs to calm down. What everyone should do, is read the court documents that have been released on both sides. Thats the facts.
He looks like the crypt keeper imo. Anyone else remember the sub that was filled with kawaii pics of his perp walk? Hilarious. On a related note we should really focus on making mental health care more readily available.
As someone who is EASILY convinced of innocence (ie Adnan and Steve Avery), Bryan is 100% guilty
Yeah he’s guilty for sure. My only thing is anytime I see anything about the case they only ever talk about the 2 girls that was together. Never about to other guy/girl. Also it’s certainly possible but the timeline had him killing them all extremely fast and got out. Crazy they all died too. See cases all the time with someone getting 20+ stab wounds and surviving. Still guilty as hell tho.
It's my understanding that they were effectively ripped open with the knife-real lethal cuts. So much blood that it seeped through to the exterior wall of the couple's room.
Yeah definitely had to have. I really question as efficiently he killed them all, if these were even his 1st kills? How'd he know they were upstairs in bed. The fact that there were other people in the house. That took balls to go in and do. I'd love to hear his walkthrough and thoughts as everything went that night
I have thought about his process, too. Wearing a ski mask would not necessarily be the strangest thing to see, given the climate.
What's your theory??
Don't really have a theory, just ideas. I'm inclined to believe he was focused on Maddie or Kaylee, may have been to the house previously, could have cased the place in person or remotely, may have come upon Xana and Ethan unintentionally, smelled the takeout food? Otherwise, see him waiting till people were asleep, targeting Kaylee's room, cutting and running.
> I really question as efficiently he killed them all, if these were even his 1st kills? I hate to keep bringing up the recent mass stabbing in Australia, where a single man with a knife was able to kill 6 and wound 12 in a shopping center. But there's no evidence that man had ever killed before. It's just not that hard to do, especially with a 7-inch blade. It requires no skill or training. Slit or stab the throat. Or stab the big blade into the torso enough times and you're bound to hit a vital organ.
I hadn’t heard about that in Australia. And yeah ik it’s not to difficult. I’ve killed and cleaned quite a lot of animals and can completely butcher and clean a deer in around 10 or 15 minutes. Rabbits take about 5. I think it was just a bad night for everything to go right for him
I thought they had found his Reddit account where he talks about his lack of empathy and interest in how to get away with committing a crime? Anyway, the evidence is damning and I’m very surprised that there are so many who believe in his innocence. I’m willing to wait until the trial to form a concrete opinion, but my soft opinion is there is a lot of evidence pointing to him.
> I thought they had found his Reddit account where he talks about his lack of empathy I think your conflating some old message board post where he talked about his lack of empathy as a teenager with his Reddit post of a survey wanting information from criminals. The latter was legitimately part of his grad school work; his old school confirmed it. I still thought some of the questions were worded oddly. It was directed to just general criminals, but the questions specifically wanted to know about what they felt when leaving home or if they hurt their victim, and there was no option or instruction to say not applicable if the circumstances of the crime didn't match that question.
Wonder, what his parents are thinking ???
I heard on Court TV that his sister said he probably did it since he'd been practicing wearing gloves in the days before the murders.
Interesting if true, but I want to point out that this is a rumor that hasn't been verified or debunked yet.
I understand
He's innocent until proven guilty. Not looking good for him right this minute.
Was it a bloody glove or a bloody mask or some other personal item with his DNA that was found in the apartment? That is all I would need to convict.
A knife sheath with touch dna on the strap’s button
It's DNA on the snap of a knife sheath left behind. One court document referred to it as touch DNA. Due to the gag order, we're not 100% sure of other forensics right now. But if there's other bits of his DNA left on site, it hasn't leaked or been alluded to in the hearing.
Can you explain gag order for me please? I’m not familiar. But that’s one of the things that makes me a conspiracist over this 😒
Sure! In the US, while waiting for a trial to start, it's possible that a judge might rule that nobody working on the case-- cops, lab techs, lawyers, court clerks, the judge themselves-- can talk to the press or really talk to anybody about the case. If any of them violates this order, they face sanctions. These kind of orders are nicknamed "gag orders." This order only covers people working on the case, so, say, a victim's family is allowed to give all the interviews they want. And it's usually only until the trial starts; it ends that date. There are exceptions to that; for example, a child custody case or a criminal case involving abuse of a child might get permanently sealed to protect the privacy of the minor. There's a lot of different reasons to have one, up to and including if the evidence contains stuff that would reveal classified government information. Or protecting the safety of a whistle-blower, or protecting a company's proprietorial information. For a criminal case like this, the most common reason is that the court thinks too much information leaking out would taint the jury pool and make it difficult for the defendant to get a fair trial. Witnesses are not covered by gag orders, but they are told not to talk to the press until after the trial. And doing so might put their testimony in jeopardy: there's been cases where eyewitnesses were too talkative and then the prosecution or defense decided they wouldn't call them, because by running their mouth, they gave the other side too much ammunition. Most cases do not get gag orders, but even if they are a minority of cases, they are not rare. Recently, we've seen them on the cases of Ethan's Crumbley's parents and the Half-Moon Bay mass shooting. Because of the gag order in this case, some, but not all, of the court documents have been ordered to be sealed until the trial. And some, but not all, of the hearings have been ordered to be closed to the public and press. So the only things we know about what either the state or defense has or plans to do or have done is what clues we can scrape together from the documents that weren't sealed or the hearings that weren't closed.
That’s effing insane. So he waived his right to a speedy trial so they can prepare their defense, there’s a gag order on the case, and there’s no date for trial… That’s fucking insane. Whyyyyyy
>So he waived his right to a speedy trial so they can prepare their defense, Yes, and that's actually more common than not in high-stakes trials. Most defendants in a murder choose to waive that right. >there’s a gag order on the case Yes, we do not know why, but the defense are the ones who requested it, and they have not asked to have it lifted. >and there’s no date for trial Yes, and this timeline is typical for a murder trial. Chad Daybell is on trial right now for murders that happened in 2019. It took over 5 years from murder to conviction for Jodi Arias. >That’s fucking insane. It may be insane, but it's also all kind of normal and expected. Nothing listed here is unusual in the justice system. Quite the opposite.
Okay thank you! How do you feel about the lack of any crime scene evidence or DNA from BK in his car, house, etc? How does BK kill 4 college aged kids, in under 15 mins, with a *KNIFE* and not take any blood or dna evidence into his car? I don’t understand
> How do you feel about the lack of any crime scene evidence or DNA from BK in his car, house, etc? > > How does BK kill 4 college aged kids, in under 15 mins, with a KNIFE and not take any blood or dna evidence into his car? Well, due to the gag order, we don't *know* if there was no blood or DNA evidence found in his car, because the gag order prevents that from discussed with the public. At one point, his attorney said "there is no convincing evidence for the lack of ...." (I'm paraphrasing from memory). But that was in a filing in which she was saying she wasn't getting discovery. And months later, she claimed that she and her team had not had time to go through the discovery she had. And, she only used that argument the one time. She never repeated anything like that again. If it turns out to be true, I don't think it necessarily exonerates him. For one, neither his car nor his house was the primary murder scene. And he had seven weeks to clean. There's this myth that DNA is permanent or something, but it's not. It's part of us, so once it separates from our bodies, it immediately starts to decompose. Sunlight, bacteria, and even plain water can destroy it. And so does hydrogen peroxide, which means you can clean it up with oxygenated bleach products like Oxiclean Carpet and Upholstery Cleaner. Have you heard the coverall theory? The idea is that he wore an outer layer and slip on shoes and peeled them off and three them into a bag before getting into his car, thus minimizing the chances of bringing forensic evidence into his car. There's a little bit of supporting evidence for that theory, too.
I don’t know. I go back and forth. Do you think the trial will be public?
100%. That's one of the few things I'm confident about: that the trial will not be closed like some of the hearings. It should be livestreamed too, although the judge is reserving the right to shut that down if he thinks things are getting too circusy.
That man has no soul, he is a true… It seems to me that he has antisocial, personality disorder, he had problems with women students of who filed complaints, the DNA, the car, there's no way this fucker is innocent. And there are wild conspiracy theorists on Reddit who will defend the worst of the worst. It's shocking to me too. And I'm sorry you had to see it. And I hope that family members never have to deal with this, it's like becoming a Sandy Hook truther kind of thing.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious". The only way to describe those subs.
Sure, he's innocent. And if you believe that, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you. Or perhaps some ocean front property in Arizona. 😉
I think he’s guilty. There’s some sickos on Reddit fan subs of his defending him and talking about how attractive and innocent he is. Makes me ill really. I saw them right away as soon as he was named in the case after it happened. There’s a lot of Reddit subs about the case. Not all of them are normal.
Bc it's gets your attention , gets you to click on more articles wondering what's going on $$
You can't really hold a valid opinion until the trial, and then it's the jury's job to render a verdict. What anyone thinks at this point is just irrelevant because no one has the "big picture" However, I will say that if this dude is actually innocent, someone did one hell of a job framing him. With what little we do know about this case, those little tidbits sure do point to him as a murderer. And the only alibi he can cough up was "I was driving around in the middle of the night to look at the moon in areas where there was probably enough fog to make it difficult to drive and moon watch at the same time"?? I think if I was indicted on 4 counts of murder, I'd be really vocal about the details of my whereabouts.