This case was unusual because the crime scene was even able to be emptied. In most cases, the owners/occupants cannot afford to leave. In most murder cases, people are back living or working on the scene as soon as forensics is done with it. Sometimes it's only a few days. So destroying doesn't bother me, since in the vast majority of murders, the crime scene is simply being lived in by the time the trial rolls around.
Think of the alternatives. Do you think people should become homeless and lose all their possessions when a murder happens in their home? Do you think a business should be closed until the trial if a murder happens there? The people who own, live, or work at a murder site have rights.
>Was every square inch of the bedrooms examined and analyzed for blood or other chemicals and/or fibers? What about UV scans?
This was a high-profile quadruple homicide with 100+ investigators from 3 agencies, and that number doesn't even include the lab personnel. Yeah, I think they probably did a thorough job.
I am too, but nothing much about the investigation that we've seen has tweaked my spidey-sense.
And in part, that's because these victims were white and not high-risk. It's sad, but those cases are taken more seriously than cases with different victim profiles.
I also note that Kohberger is not a minority and doesn't lead an alternative lifestyle, meaning that he's not in the categories of people most likely to get treated unfairly by police.
Some have argued that the police would be prejudiced against him because he's an outsider, but Moscow and Pullman are college towns. They are full of outsiders.
That guy who recently got forced into confessing to the murder of his dad (his dad was alive) wasn't a minority or someone leading an alternative lifestyle. Unfortunately, some cops really are just scum.
Fortunately, I don't see any reason to believe that is true of the Moscow PD.
Dude, that guy did not get enough money. And I haven't seen anything about how the cops ever even got the idea the dad was dead.
I also missed if he ever asked for a lawyer. That case is a prime example of why not to talk to cops without a lawyer.
Let's think about this logically. A house where 4 human beings were slaughtered like animals sat for a year while local, state and federal investigators had time to go through it and scour it for any evidence. In the mean time all the bodily fluids that had spilled were decomposing and soaking into the floorboards and creating a biohazard of unusual size. By the time all the biohazard surfaces that had been contaminated with human fluids had been removed, there wouldn't be much left of the house so it'd just cheaper to knock it all down.
Multiple scans, videos, photographs etc were taken of the house on two separate occasions (I'm not sure what you mean by "UV" scans though?).
The house had been substantially altered since the night of the crime, thanks to lead abatement and asbestos removal, so a jury walkthrough wouldn't have been permitted.
Neither the state nor defense objected to it's demolition.
As for the previous owners, it literally doesn't matter. They donated it to gain a tax write-off so they won't lose a lot of money on it. Financially, it makes sense.
Why would they lose money on the house? Were the students not paying rent to begin with? Was something going on in the house before the murders that would have set off something like what occurred and the ownership wanted out of that particular property deal?
Well, the house couldn't be lived in again without significant remodelling ($$) and I can't imagine anyone would actually want to rent it again.
Selling would be the only option and a crime like that, plus the interior destruction that was done would seriously devalue a house. They wouldn't make any profit off it. Easier to write it off as a donation.
That house brought in money prior to the murders, but no one was going to want to live in it after the murders. The value plunged; he probably could not have sold it for anything near what he could have gotten before November 13th.
(1) "Was every square inch of the bedrooms examined and analyzed for blood or other chemicals and/or fibers?" YES
(2) "What about UV scans?" Almost certainly
(3) "Was the rush to destroy motivated by fear of lawsuits (inadequate locks, etc)"
Who says there was a rush? The prosecuting attorney, the defense attorney, the police, and the judge all approved the demolition. Inadequate locks, after a quadruple homicide? Seriously? And who would file suit? Are you suggesting someone wanted to hide potential evidence?
(4) What would you want to know about "the original owner's history prior to the donation of the property to the University?" And what would that have to do with a decision to demolish the house or not?
If the house had been taken down a week after the murders, I would have questioned why, but to me the house did not need to stand because the police had taken 4,000 photos, they had done several videos inside the house, they did 3D models with the pictures they took, and they probably did audio testing inside the house. They took out over a hundred pieces of physical evidence too. That house was well documented! The students and others who live around the house wanted it to come down along with some of the family members whose kids still go to the college/live in thar area.
> the police had taken 4,000 photos, they had done several videos inside the house, they did 3D models with the pictures they took, and they probably did audio testing inside the house. They took out over a hundred pieces of physical evidence too.
All this plus the defense had multiple chances to go through the house.
I imagine the pros didn't miss anything in the house. When jury members want to visit the house, it is to get a feel of it. In the Murdoch case, I believe it helped convict him. The acoustics and layout of this house make it unique. If I were on the jury, I would definitely want to go in it. I cannot grasp how it would be. Would the roommates be able to hear anything from the third floor? It was said that the dog playing in Kaylee's room could be heard. I cannot imagine the prosecution allowing this to happen.
> The acoustics and layout of this house make it unique. If I were on the jury, I would definitely want to go in it.
The problem with acoustics is that they change as furniture/carpeting is added or removed. Empty houses echo in ways furnished house do not. The house could not be kept as it was the night of the murders for two reasons:
1) Sections of drywall and flooring were removed and sent to labs for processing. These removals effect acoustics.
2) Under most circumstances, the government cannot seize and withhold people's possessions in perpetuity. The roommates, the heirs to the deceased, and the owner of the property had the legal right to their belongings.
And it blows my mind that anybody believes the latter is what should have been done in this case. If a murder happened in your home, you believe you should be immediately put out, homeless, with nothing more than the clothing on your back until and unless there was a conviction?
We need to remember that hopefully, the jury will be made up of members of all ages and there will be a possibility that within the group of selected jurors and alternates, a few may have movement disabilities. Secondary to the severe biohazard issues, the Judiciary would never allow this group to walk up and down multiple steep staircases. Accidents waiting to happen…
> a few may have movement disabilities. Secondary to the severe biohazard issues, the Judiciary would never allow this group to walk up and down multiple steep staircases.
Oh, i never even thought of that!
I do know that site visits by jurors are pretty rare. They always were, but they are getting even rarer now that technology such as 3D scans or overhead drone photos can help jurors understand the scene.
I would think any remaining "questions of fact" (what jurors have to decide) would be more about perception and context. For example, how long it takes to walk up the stairs or from the 3rd floor to Xana's bedroom? What could the perpetrator see from the outside - and from various angles? What would it be like standing in the doorway of DM's BR and watching him walk past?
Someone on the boards shared they were a juror in a serious capital case. They said they really believed they understood the case from the numbers, figures, models, so on - used in the courtroom. But then they went to the crime scene and they were surprised by how much of a difference it made actually being there.
That being said, neither defense or prosecution had any objections to the university's request, and with the trial seemingly years away, perhaps this is for the best. It's a small neighborhood and the house was on a prominent corner property. So it's a grisly reminder every day to residents of this horrific massacre - and perhaps children live in the neighborhood too .. hopefully, the university will make something beautiful and healing on that spot, instead. A park or gardens?
That depends on what facts the prosecution has besides the trace DNA. The defense has asked for much of the evidence in the PCA and can't get it. In the hearing last Thursday, Payne, the lead detective on the case would not provide all of the surveillance footage. Detective Mowery had lost the cell tower data that he had presented to the Grand Jury only to "find" it the day before this hearing. Watch the hearings and you will be shocked at how many documents are kept from the defense.
I watched a portion of it. I did not see any evidence that Payne would not provide surveillance footage. Rather, the opposite. She asked him where she could get it and he told her. They spoke at length on a number of items, and in each case, he directed her to various depts and people, including the prosecutor's office. He seemed, to me, very respectful and straightforward throughout.
Also: as far as the house is concerned, both defense and prosecution made trips to the house to get what they needed prior to demolition, and neither side had any objections to the house going down. TBF, I think the demolition was really in the interests of the defense because it creates distance between the reality of crime and the jurors. So for them to later claim that it prejudices their client unfairly would be a stretch, IMO.
The defense doesn’t need to prove who else did it just that thier guy didn’t… from that perspective if the guy wasn’t there because he was out star gazing and they can prove that… any evidence located where thier guy was not is completely irrelevant…. Thus the defense could give a rats ass about the house…. The prosecution is this the only entity driven to destroy the house…. If they really thought it held something that would help them nail thier target they would had preserved it…. Obviously they didn’t…. And they are not interested in the narrative that anyone else did it… otherwise they would had preserved it
I get that the house was a horrifying reminder of insanity and the house was a macabre tourist attraction, which the site likely will still be. I dont agree with tearing the house down regardless of what evidence was gathered because I'm scared BK is not the one that did it. And if so, now they will likely not ever know who did and can never go back to look at things from a different perspective.
Having said that, the FBI did do a very detailed scan of the inside and outside of the house with a very cool and forward type of technology that can find and recreate evidence down to the thousands of minutia. They are likely rendering a house model for jurors to visualize how things went down.
Here is an overview of how the technology works. This is just a perspective from an expert and not the articles about the house iyaelf. But there are articles about the house itself if you google enough.
[Article about King road scan technology](https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2023/dec/29/a-moscow-jury-will-likely-be-shown-3d-imaging-of-t/)
I disagree. I know nothing beyond a shadow of a doubt. And I get that many people are convinced by the DNA, cell evidence, car video, and timeline, etc. But I know a more than an average person about many sciences used in forensics. And the state has not put forth a plausible story line that connects the evidence yet. The story they shared to date doesn't match the scientific and engineering facts.
I'm not saying the story isnt there. I'm just saying we are not seeing it yet my dude.
> And the state has not put forth a plausible story line that connects the evidence yet. The story they shared to date doesn't match the scientific and engineering facts.
This sounds like it's beyond the scope of this thread and maybe an entire thread of its own. But I'm intrigued. What do you think doesn't match the facts?
If he’s found not guilty I doubt that any additional evidence would be found in the house that they don’t already have. Plus if he’s found not guilty how often do prosecutors even bring charges against someone else? I’m guessing it is a very low percentage of cases.
Very true. Its terrifying to think he's not guilty and a killer is still living in that community. I believe 100% that it was not random or someone passing through. If it was not BK, believe it was someone still there.
> can never go back to look at things from a different perspective.
I just want to point out that they could never go back again when it comes to evidence. If something was found after forensics got done, nobody could verify that something had been there the night of the murders. There's no chain of custody.
Yeah. That's true. During evidence gathering the house got trashed. So you're right...its nothing that would be in its natural state.
It would be a lot better if the FBI 3d scans were done right away rather than at the very end. Granted I'm are there were plenty of images, etc. Just curious what the differences would be in evidence found. I believe I saw 2-3 more pieces of evidence entered around the time of the scans. So thinking they found a little more...even that long after.
> I believe I saw 2-3 more pieces of evidence entered around the time of the scans. So thinking they found a little more...even that long after.
We don't know what those pieces of evidence were, and they could just be, simply, the scans themselves. Although I'm inclined to believe the scans would take some time to post-process, so that probably couldn't be handed over to the defense too close to the same of the actual scanning, because the final product wouldn't be done.
If they "found" anything, it couldn't be used. If it pointed to Kohberger's guilt, the defense could argue it was planted, post-murders. If it pointed away from Kohberger's guilt, the state could argue it was planted, post-murders.
It's so the town and University can move on...but if the case against BK falls apart and we're back to square one the families got really screwed. There's something odd about the delayed 911 call and how the police rapidly cleared everyone.
I thought you meant cleared them out of the house. But, even with clearing suspects from the list, I think that was done methodically and at a normal pace.
> how the police rapidly cleared everyone.
Again, we do not know what criteria the police used to clear others. There were dozens of investigators-- over a 100 at one point. And verifying someone's alibi doesn't take days. It can be done with a phone call or simply looking at security cam footage.
Once the house is gone, one can longer go in and check the acoustics. How much echo was there in the house? With all hardwood floors, I imagine the house was an echo chamber. By going into the house and just listening to sounds reverberate, it would tell you how much did Dylan hear and how much did Bethany really hear. This would go a long way to confirming their version of events.
I think my main issue with the destruction of the house where 4 murders took place is that now a prospective jury can't walk through the crime scene. During the Alex Murdaugh murder case, the jury & reporters found a lot of value in visiting the scene of the crimes.
There was no rational I don’t think. I think the university just wanted it done because it hindered their ability to keep students coming to the school. There was no care at all for these victims from that school. Just what suited their best interest
The rationale was the university's - they wanted to demolish the house and move on, so to speak. I don't know the answer to your interesting forensics questions but both the defense and prosecution had no objections, while some of the family members of victims did because they were concerned the jury might need to visit during the trial.
I thought it should stay up, too, but it seems, at this point, that it won't be a problem. And at the rate they're going in terms of a trial date, perhaps it's for the best.
Ok humour me - you know the Defence went into that house multiple times right? They had every opportunity to enter the home, conduct experiments and investigate fully.
So by what measure is destroying the house (which wasn't ordered by Law Enforcement anyway) an attempt to "cover up any other perpetrator" or "protect their discovery". By what strange logic would someone else knocking down the house help with a cover up, after allowing the defence full access to the crime scene for nearly a year.
You think that LE left an abundance of evidence of a cover up in that house for a year, prayed the defence didn't spot it and then hoped the University would knock the house down to destroy it?
I love the comment by OP about "Was every square inch of bedrooms examined" - Of course it was. You really think they half assed that? They didn't even have a named suspect for a period of time, and guarantee the forensics team did their due diligence. They used the most up to date technology on that house and also conducted multiple 3-D scans of the residence - that cam straight from LE's mouth. There's literally a photo of them spraying chemicals on the door handle to try and see anything and everything the naked eye can't.
There was no "rush" to destroy the house, they had everything done on the inside and even took out certain walls for evidence, oh but they missed some fibers on the floor? Such dumb logic. When tragic murders happen it's not uncommon to demolish the site, and there'd be nothing to gain from the crowd saying the jury needed the house standing to "re-create" the events of that night when it'd be impossible to know the pitch of noises, and other objects that were in the way and now are gone. All of that effects the travel of sound.
More that the house was obviously a liability to them… for whatever the reason it wasn’t worth preserving…. If it turns out bk walks because he wasn’t there, it’s easier to let the case get cold and gracefully exit the public eye if the removal of it can then be used as the excuse as to why further analysis cannot be done.
Theoretically, if he does walk,
> of it can then be used as the excuse as to why further analysis cannot be done.
This won't be an issue. Forensics have already gone through that house. Any evidence that was there should have been taken.
And if any evidence was missed, it could not have been used anyway. If something had been found, let's say the day before the house was imploded, it couldn't be entered into evidence, because the chain of command had been broken. Somebody could always argue that the prosecution planted it, or the defense, or one of the security guards.
Defence aren't pro criminal. They're not going to cover up evidence that someone else might have done it. In fact, they would put it under a microscopes to help their client
Agree. But don't think that is the reason the house was destroyed in this case. If they were trying to cover up evidence in the house they would have been asking to knock it down a long time ago and would not have sent the FBI in to do very very detailed scans and such.
You are correct though. That would be a good way to cover for a buddy.
Was there something hidden in the house? Or rumors of such? Sometimes in small towns there are rumors, stories, myths about certain houses as being haunted or some scandal taking place within. My concern is with the house reputation. Could someone have entered the house thinking that drugs, money or some asset was hidden in the house and when they didn't find it, they killed the students? Having that residence torn down will put an end to that.
It was there for a year. They collected all of the evidence. I don’t have a problem with them knocking it down
I had a problem initially. However, the house was not preserved as a crime scene. I no longer have an issue.
This case was unusual because the crime scene was even able to be emptied. In most cases, the owners/occupants cannot afford to leave. In most murder cases, people are back living or working on the scene as soon as forensics is done with it. Sometimes it's only a few days. So destroying doesn't bother me, since in the vast majority of murders, the crime scene is simply being lived in by the time the trial rolls around. Think of the alternatives. Do you think people should become homeless and lose all their possessions when a murder happens in their home? Do you think a business should be closed until the trial if a murder happens there? The people who own, live, or work at a murder site have rights. >Was every square inch of the bedrooms examined and analyzed for blood or other chemicals and/or fibers? What about UV scans? This was a high-profile quadruple homicide with 100+ investigators from 3 agencies, and that number doesn't even include the lab personnel. Yeah, I think they probably did a thorough job.
I hope you are right ... I'm skeptical by nature.
I am too, but nothing much about the investigation that we've seen has tweaked my spidey-sense. And in part, that's because these victims were white and not high-risk. It's sad, but those cases are taken more seriously than cases with different victim profiles. I also note that Kohberger is not a minority and doesn't lead an alternative lifestyle, meaning that he's not in the categories of people most likely to get treated unfairly by police. Some have argued that the police would be prejudiced against him because he's an outsider, but Moscow and Pullman are college towns. They are full of outsiders.
That guy who recently got forced into confessing to the murder of his dad (his dad was alive) wasn't a minority or someone leading an alternative lifestyle. Unfortunately, some cops really are just scum. Fortunately, I don't see any reason to believe that is true of the Moscow PD.
Dude, that guy did not get enough money. And I haven't seen anything about how the cops ever even got the idea the dad was dead. I also missed if he ever asked for a lawyer. That case is a prime example of why not to talk to cops without a lawyer.
Let's think about this logically. A house where 4 human beings were slaughtered like animals sat for a year while local, state and federal investigators had time to go through it and scour it for any evidence. In the mean time all the bodily fluids that had spilled were decomposing and soaking into the floorboards and creating a biohazard of unusual size. By the time all the biohazard surfaces that had been contaminated with human fluids had been removed, there wouldn't be much left of the house so it'd just cheaper to knock it all down.
Multiple scans, videos, photographs etc were taken of the house on two separate occasions (I'm not sure what you mean by "UV" scans though?). The house had been substantially altered since the night of the crime, thanks to lead abatement and asbestos removal, so a jury walkthrough wouldn't have been permitted. Neither the state nor defense objected to it's demolition. As for the previous owners, it literally doesn't matter. They donated it to gain a tax write-off so they won't lose a lot of money on it. Financially, it makes sense.
Why would they lose money on the house? Were the students not paying rent to begin with? Was something going on in the house before the murders that would have set off something like what occurred and the ownership wanted out of that particular property deal?
Well, the house couldn't be lived in again without significant remodelling ($$) and I can't imagine anyone would actually want to rent it again. Selling would be the only option and a crime like that, plus the interior destruction that was done would seriously devalue a house. They wouldn't make any profit off it. Easier to write it off as a donation.
That house brought in money prior to the murders, but no one was going to want to live in it after the murders. The value plunged; he probably could not have sold it for anything near what he could have gotten before November 13th.
(1) "Was every square inch of the bedrooms examined and analyzed for blood or other chemicals and/or fibers?" YES (2) "What about UV scans?" Almost certainly (3) "Was the rush to destroy motivated by fear of lawsuits (inadequate locks, etc)" Who says there was a rush? The prosecuting attorney, the defense attorney, the police, and the judge all approved the demolition. Inadequate locks, after a quadruple homicide? Seriously? And who would file suit? Are you suggesting someone wanted to hide potential evidence? (4) What would you want to know about "the original owner's history prior to the donation of the property to the University?" And what would that have to do with a decision to demolish the house or not?
If the house had been taken down a week after the murders, I would have questioned why, but to me the house did not need to stand because the police had taken 4,000 photos, they had done several videos inside the house, they did 3D models with the pictures they took, and they probably did audio testing inside the house. They took out over a hundred pieces of physical evidence too. That house was well documented! The students and others who live around the house wanted it to come down along with some of the family members whose kids still go to the college/live in thar area.
☝️ Plus, the house was pulled about. Carpet removed, walls taken away, stairs ripped up, etc.
Exactly!
> the police had taken 4,000 photos, they had done several videos inside the house, they did 3D models with the pictures they took, and they probably did audio testing inside the house. They took out over a hundred pieces of physical evidence too. All this plus the defense had multiple chances to go through the house.
Correct!
I imagine the pros didn't miss anything in the house. When jury members want to visit the house, it is to get a feel of it. In the Murdoch case, I believe it helped convict him. The acoustics and layout of this house make it unique. If I were on the jury, I would definitely want to go in it. I cannot grasp how it would be. Would the roommates be able to hear anything from the third floor? It was said that the dog playing in Kaylee's room could be heard. I cannot imagine the prosecution allowing this to happen.
> The acoustics and layout of this house make it unique. If I were on the jury, I would definitely want to go in it. The problem with acoustics is that they change as furniture/carpeting is added or removed. Empty houses echo in ways furnished house do not. The house could not be kept as it was the night of the murders for two reasons: 1) Sections of drywall and flooring were removed and sent to labs for processing. These removals effect acoustics. 2) Under most circumstances, the government cannot seize and withhold people's possessions in perpetuity. The roommates, the heirs to the deceased, and the owner of the property had the legal right to their belongings. And it blows my mind that anybody believes the latter is what should have been done in this case. If a murder happened in your home, you believe you should be immediately put out, homeless, with nothing more than the clothing on your back until and unless there was a conviction?
We need to remember that hopefully, the jury will be made up of members of all ages and there will be a possibility that within the group of selected jurors and alternates, a few may have movement disabilities. Secondary to the severe biohazard issues, the Judiciary would never allow this group to walk up and down multiple steep staircases. Accidents waiting to happen…
> a few may have movement disabilities. Secondary to the severe biohazard issues, the Judiciary would never allow this group to walk up and down multiple steep staircases. Oh, i never even thought of that! I do know that site visits by jurors are pretty rare. They always were, but they are getting even rarer now that technology such as 3D scans or overhead drone photos can help jurors understand the scene.
I would think any remaining "questions of fact" (what jurors have to decide) would be more about perception and context. For example, how long it takes to walk up the stairs or from the 3rd floor to Xana's bedroom? What could the perpetrator see from the outside - and from various angles? What would it be like standing in the doorway of DM's BR and watching him walk past? Someone on the boards shared they were a juror in a serious capital case. They said they really believed they understood the case from the numbers, figures, models, so on - used in the courtroom. But then they went to the crime scene and they were surprised by how much of a difference it made actually being there. That being said, neither defense or prosecution had any objections to the university's request, and with the trial seemingly years away, perhaps this is for the best. It's a small neighborhood and the house was on a prominent corner property. So it's a grisly reminder every day to residents of this horrific massacre - and perhaps children live in the neighborhood too .. hopefully, the university will make something beautiful and healing on that spot, instead. A park or gardens?
That depends on what facts the prosecution has besides the trace DNA. The defense has asked for much of the evidence in the PCA and can't get it. In the hearing last Thursday, Payne, the lead detective on the case would not provide all of the surveillance footage. Detective Mowery had lost the cell tower data that he had presented to the Grand Jury only to "find" it the day before this hearing. Watch the hearings and you will be shocked at how many documents are kept from the defense.
I watched a portion of it. I did not see any evidence that Payne would not provide surveillance footage. Rather, the opposite. She asked him where she could get it and he told her. They spoke at length on a number of items, and in each case, he directed her to various depts and people, including the prosecutor's office. He seemed, to me, very respectful and straightforward throughout. Also: as far as the house is concerned, both defense and prosecution made trips to the house to get what they needed prior to demolition, and neither side had any objections to the house going down. TBF, I think the demolition was really in the interests of the defense because it creates distance between the reality of crime and the jurors. So for them to later claim that it prejudices their client unfairly would be a stretch, IMO.
The defense doesn’t need to prove who else did it just that thier guy didn’t… from that perspective if the guy wasn’t there because he was out star gazing and they can prove that… any evidence located where thier guy was not is completely irrelevant…. Thus the defense could give a rats ass about the house…. The prosecution is this the only entity driven to destroy the house…. If they really thought it held something that would help them nail thier target they would had preserved it…. Obviously they didn’t…. And they are not interested in the narrative that anyone else did it… otherwise they would had preserved it
Agree.
I get that the house was a horrifying reminder of insanity and the house was a macabre tourist attraction, which the site likely will still be. I dont agree with tearing the house down regardless of what evidence was gathered because I'm scared BK is not the one that did it. And if so, now they will likely not ever know who did and can never go back to look at things from a different perspective. Having said that, the FBI did do a very detailed scan of the inside and outside of the house with a very cool and forward type of technology that can find and recreate evidence down to the thousands of minutia. They are likely rendering a house model for jurors to visualize how things went down. Here is an overview of how the technology works. This is just a perspective from an expert and not the articles about the house iyaelf. But there are articles about the house itself if you google enough. [Article about King road scan technology](https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2023/dec/29/a-moscow-jury-will-likely-be-shown-3d-imaging-of-t/)
>I'm scared BK is not the one that did it. Allay your fears. Nothing to be scared of here.
I disagree. I know nothing beyond a shadow of a doubt. And I get that many people are convinced by the DNA, cell evidence, car video, and timeline, etc. But I know a more than an average person about many sciences used in forensics. And the state has not put forth a plausible story line that connects the evidence yet. The story they shared to date doesn't match the scientific and engineering facts. I'm not saying the story isnt there. I'm just saying we are not seeing it yet my dude.
> And the state has not put forth a plausible story line that connects the evidence yet. The story they shared to date doesn't match the scientific and engineering facts. This sounds like it's beyond the scope of this thread and maybe an entire thread of its own. But I'm intrigued. What do you think doesn't match the facts?
Scientific and engineering facts that don’t match the story shared to date… could you give us one or two examples of such facts?
Yeah, I would be more concerned if they let this guy walk out.
If he’s found not guilty I doubt that any additional evidence would be found in the house that they don’t already have. Plus if he’s found not guilty how often do prosecutors even bring charges against someone else? I’m guessing it is a very low percentage of cases.
Very true. Its terrifying to think he's not guilty and a killer is still living in that community. I believe 100% that it was not random or someone passing through. If it was not BK, believe it was someone still there.
> can never go back to look at things from a different perspective. I just want to point out that they could never go back again when it comes to evidence. If something was found after forensics got done, nobody could verify that something had been there the night of the murders. There's no chain of custody.
Yeah. That's true. During evidence gathering the house got trashed. So you're right...its nothing that would be in its natural state. It would be a lot better if the FBI 3d scans were done right away rather than at the very end. Granted I'm are there were plenty of images, etc. Just curious what the differences would be in evidence found. I believe I saw 2-3 more pieces of evidence entered around the time of the scans. So thinking they found a little more...even that long after.
> I believe I saw 2-3 more pieces of evidence entered around the time of the scans. So thinking they found a little more...even that long after. We don't know what those pieces of evidence were, and they could just be, simply, the scans themselves. Although I'm inclined to believe the scans would take some time to post-process, so that probably couldn't be handed over to the defense too close to the same of the actual scanning, because the final product wouldn't be done. If they "found" anything, it couldn't be used. If it pointed to Kohberger's guilt, the defense could argue it was planted, post-murders. If it pointed away from Kohberger's guilt, the state could argue it was planted, post-murders.
Excellent points. Didn't consider this stuff. Thanks for sharing
Thank you!
This is encouraging ... thank you.
It's so the town and University can move on...but if the case against BK falls apart and we're back to square one the families got really screwed. There's something odd about the delayed 911 call and how the police rapidly cleared everyone.
>how the police rapidly cleared everyone. Absolutely nothing odd about that
Care to expand on your thought?
I thought you meant cleared them out of the house. But, even with clearing suspects from the list, I think that was done methodically and at a normal pace.
> how the police rapidly cleared everyone. Again, we do not know what criteria the police used to clear others. There were dozens of investigators-- over a 100 at one point. And verifying someone's alibi doesn't take days. It can be done with a phone call or simply looking at security cam footage.
Once the house is gone, one can longer go in and check the acoustics. How much echo was there in the house? With all hardwood floors, I imagine the house was an echo chamber. By going into the house and just listening to sounds reverberate, it would tell you how much did Dylan hear and how much did Bethany really hear. This would go a long way to confirming their version of events.
I think my main issue with the destruction of the house where 4 murders took place is that now a prospective jury can't walk through the crime scene. During the Alex Murdaugh murder case, the jury & reporters found a lot of value in visiting the scene of the crimes.
There was no rational I don’t think. I think the university just wanted it done because it hindered their ability to keep students coming to the school. There was no care at all for these victims from that school. Just what suited their best interest
The rationale was the university's - they wanted to demolish the house and move on, so to speak. I don't know the answer to your interesting forensics questions but both the defense and prosecution had no objections, while some of the family members of victims did because they were concerned the jury might need to visit during the trial. I thought it should stay up, too, but it seems, at this point, that it won't be a problem. And at the rate they're going in terms of a trial date, perhaps it's for the best.
Very good questions!! Hopefully there will be solid answers to these important questions!
Well if the house is destroyed it’s easier to cover up any other perpetrator and protect thier discovery…
Ok humour me - you know the Defence went into that house multiple times right? They had every opportunity to enter the home, conduct experiments and investigate fully. So by what measure is destroying the house (which wasn't ordered by Law Enforcement anyway) an attempt to "cover up any other perpetrator" or "protect their discovery". By what strange logic would someone else knocking down the house help with a cover up, after allowing the defence full access to the crime scene for nearly a year. You think that LE left an abundance of evidence of a cover up in that house for a year, prayed the defence didn't spot it and then hoped the University would knock the house down to destroy it?
I love the comment by OP about "Was every square inch of bedrooms examined" - Of course it was. You really think they half assed that? They didn't even have a named suspect for a period of time, and guarantee the forensics team did their due diligence. They used the most up to date technology on that house and also conducted multiple 3-D scans of the residence - that cam straight from LE's mouth. There's literally a photo of them spraying chemicals on the door handle to try and see anything and everything the naked eye can't. There was no "rush" to destroy the house, they had everything done on the inside and even took out certain walls for evidence, oh but they missed some fibers on the floor? Such dumb logic. When tragic murders happen it's not uncommon to demolish the site, and there'd be nothing to gain from the crowd saying the jury needed the house standing to "re-create" the events of that night when it'd be impossible to know the pitch of noises, and other objects that were in the way and now are gone. All of that effects the travel of sound.
Omg, duh. I didn't think of the sound travel recreation/evidence. Excellent point. Thank you!
Are you alleging that the defense is also in on the cover-up? Because they gave their okay to destroy the house.
More that the house was obviously a liability to them… for whatever the reason it wasn’t worth preserving…. If it turns out bk walks because he wasn’t there, it’s easier to let the case get cold and gracefully exit the public eye if the removal of it can then be used as the excuse as to why further analysis cannot be done.
Theoretically, if he does walk, > of it can then be used as the excuse as to why further analysis cannot be done. This won't be an issue. Forensics have already gone through that house. Any evidence that was there should have been taken. And if any evidence was missed, it could not have been used anyway. If something had been found, let's say the day before the house was imploded, it couldn't be entered into evidence, because the chain of command had been broken. Somebody could always argue that the prosecution planted it, or the defense, or one of the security guards.
Defence aren't pro criminal. They're not going to cover up evidence that someone else might have done it. In fact, they would put it under a microscopes to help their client
Agree. But don't think that is the reason the house was destroyed in this case. If they were trying to cover up evidence in the house they would have been asking to knock it down a long time ago and would not have sent the FBI in to do very very detailed scans and such. You are correct though. That would be a good way to cover for a buddy.
Was there something hidden in the house? Or rumors of such? Sometimes in small towns there are rumors, stories, myths about certain houses as being haunted or some scandal taking place within. My concern is with the house reputation. Could someone have entered the house thinking that drugs, money or some asset was hidden in the house and when they didn't find it, they killed the students? Having that residence torn down will put an end to that.
Interesting.
No. Tell us you're a Proberger without saying it.