In all of this I have no doubt that Kohberger *could* be the guy who did the murders just as the authorities describe them. However I also have a reasonable doubt that he's just a weird guy on the periphery of the case and an easy scapegoat. I understand why the authorities took as long to bring him in as they did. I'll bet that if you polled the room of the people investigating you'd find a lot of doubts and unanswered questions alongside the main thread.
So it’s just a coincidence that his bloody knife sheath was in their bedroom? That he tried (&failed) to hide his digital footprint in the middle of the night on the murder night? That he changed his license plates, drove across the country and hid in the woods for days after the murder?
1. The knife sheath--if its really his dna and it was really found with the bodies then it's him. There's no certainty that both of these premises are true. IMO The most likely contrary explanation is that he was already on a suspect list when the cops ran the sheath and he was a closer match than expectations but not a perfect match. 2. I guess you are talking about phone pings--we haven't heard enough about the range of the cell towers and if there was an opportunity for triangulation. The probable cause affadavit itself states there was a positive hit when the cops are certain he wasn't in the neigborhood. 3. His registration was expiring and under renewal he changed addresses--unclear if he intended on selling the car in Pennsylvania or whatever. Trip with Dad was planned for a long time--not sure if it was part of his master plan. If you gave me even money I'd bet he's guilty but that's not enough in a court of law--plus the prosecution case always sounds right until you hear the defense. You should believe whatever you want but its not unreasonable IMO to take the perspective of being hyper-critical of the State's evidence for discussion purposes.
I'm not even sure the knife sheath is enough with a positive match to his DNA that is not blood evidence. The timing of the initial search is so far after the crimes were committed that it is unclear what secondary evidence is real and what might be planted. Also the location of the sheath, on the bed beside one of the victims, is kind of strange. If they have the victim's prints on the sheath then maybe you argue she pulled it off in the struggle and he just didn't notice. However if it is just his skin tabs left on the snap - well that's a conundrum.
If what’s been presented so far were the case,I’m not sure it would be enough. But it’s just the pca. They haven’t revealed what was found in his apartment , his car, possibly more from the scene. They probably have more surveillance, more evidence from the house…. They didn’t mention him connecting to the house WiFi, but Kaylees father said he did.
I did some hasty internet research on making DNA judgments from fingerprints and it is the least reliable method thus far. Specifically in only 35% of cases is there enough matter to make a valid test. i'm interested to know the results of the entire sheath inspection including fingerprints etc. Most people would strap the sheath into a belt which if somehow pulled off would rip the leather and it would be obvious. OTHO, when I first got a similar knife in about 2004, I had to figure out the slits in the sheath were for a belt. Such an instruction does not come with the purchase. (Maybe the victim ripped the whole belt from the pants?) What do you make of him waiving a speedy hearing on the evidence? It seemed to me that the prosecution would have been under enormous pressure with a 14-day window to present evidence. Why give them until June?
Imo he didn’t have the sheath on his belt, but just removed the knife as he entered the room. Didn’t expect some resistance from Kaylee, and dropped it.
The defense apparently made a motion for discovery of all evidence related to a co-defendant, including conversations the co-defendant had with anybody from the Moscow PD, FBI or State investigators. This may relate in some way to the sealing of the warrant for the search of Kohberger's apartment. If a specific person is listed as a cooperating witness in that warrant and that person is not credible as being uninvolved in the crimes it opens up a major can of worms regarding motive and potential interest in seeing Kohberger take the fall.
Guys, you're reading way too much into this. The defense made a written request for pre-trial discovery. This is standard practice in every criminal case. That written request mirrored the precise language of Idaho's discovery rule (Idaho Criminal Rule 16) and is not tailored to the precise facts of this case. Among the items enumerated in the discovery rule is any statement by a co-defendant. This discovery request does not mean there is any co-defendant. Indeed, until another person is charged as a principal, accomplice or co-conspirator, there is no co-defendant. What happened here is simple: defense counsel has a generic and all-inclusive discovery-request template on her computer. She typed in the docket number and defendant's name and sent the request to the prosecutor.
As @Since1969 remarks above, this document does not implicate a co-defendent. However there are theories floating around about getaway driver etc so it doesn't mean there is not a co-defendent; merely it means there has thus far been no evidence forthcoming of one. Upon arrest the suspect did say something about "is anyone else arrested" and there is a guy (can't find a reference right now) who posts on twitter like he knows what going on and he recently said a co-def would be announced. He's 50/50 so can't be totally ignored. Next time I see him referenced I'll post specs.
heres a local case that has finally got to trial elderly couple goes camping in isolated country area, dissapear without trace, guy charged with murder , bodies found in grave ( elderly couple were having an affair for 15 years just to add to story) https://www.news.com.au/national/vi...r/news-story/6cd970b2303c4e848e6a29c601a0e38f
I think the only redactions are the full names. They took Multiple strands of hair Walmart receipt/ dickies tag Marshall’s receipt Computer tower Firestick Some stained bedding items Vacuum canister
It's going to be so ironic if the fledgling investigator gets convicted because of trace evidence of the crime all over his apartment.
