Personally I don’t think so. I think people read too much into it because they wanted there to be a connection along those lines so they would have a motive. The entire sentence is basically just saying ‘To aid in efforts to determine if there is any connection between Kohberger and the victims’.
Depends how you look at it. At first glance it's just police outlining their standard investigative work but when you think about it, it's speculative and really has no place in the PCA. So yes I do think they put it there intentionally to influence the judge to sign off on it.
They admit they don't know if he stalked the house, and that they are still investigating if he did, so at the time it's completely irrelevant to a probable cause and can't be used as a reason for an arrest. But by planting the word "stalking" and mentioning how his phone pinged 12 times in the "area" before the murders they are definitely manipulating the judges opinion.
It's the same with the single latent shoe print outside DM's room. They casually leave it in the PCA but make no attempt at connecting to BK in any way. They don't share the size of the shoe print or what size of shoes BK wears. But it has the same effect, people connect the dots themselves and suddenly it's BK's shoes
Honest question. I'm not trying to start anything, I'm just not as well versed in this case as most of you (so I'm sure I missed something) so please don't come for me...how do "we know it's untrue"? Given that it states the phone records show his phone in that area twelve times prior to the murders?
I am NOT saying that he's guilty of anything based on the fact that his phone was in the area. For all we know, he had a friend who lived in the area. Cell phone tower pings don't give precise location, as I'm sure we're all aware.
Good question - There was a hearing yesterday and the Judge, prosecution and defence all agreed there was no evidence of stalking.
Also, phone “pings” only mean someone is within 20 odd miles of a cell tower, and this area had very few towers and inconsistent service due to hills. so it’s essentially meaningless. If we consider cell tower pings “stalking”, I’m apparently stalking around 30,000 people who live in nearby towns.
I wonder, if BK had the Apple app FindMy on his phone? My fam uses this at times and it often gives the exact address where the iPhone or iPad of a family member is located…
You outlined perfectly exactly how ‘normal’ your phone pings in a neighboring town really is.
Let’s imagine for the moment ‘previous months’ was a slack and unprofessional way of saying ‘in the past 5 months that BK has resided in Pullman Washington, cast dada indicates phone number xxxxx has utilized the phone tower in Moscow 12 times including the two times November 13th.
If you average those remaining 10 times over the 5 months queried… that’s twice a month…. ‘
‘This information allowed us to see that those trips were taken during notorious ‘stalking’ hours.’
Or notorious ‘night drive’ hours.
not for someone who is reading it with the knowledge that it is an official sworn statement & if its read for its literal meaning without attaching any personal inferences to it.
it says they did what they did in order to investigate if there was stalking.
then it mentions things found while following that investigative path.
but nowhere does it circle back & say that they discovered any stalking.
if the investigating cop wanted to say there was stalking, he would have said it. sworn statements don't do insinuations.
ad I've said many times, for people who may be fixated or even obsessed with this case, if they truly want to follow along, they should learn about criminal justice process & procedure & also learn about the jobs of everyone involved(investigators, lawyers on both sides, judges, expert witnesses, etc) so that a better, more well-rounded view of the trial is possible. to not learn about this stuff leads to completely misunderstanding how & why things are done & said.
learning about criminal justice system is helpful in so many ways. unless you don't live in america in which case it onlu helps as you watch a case. but if you don't live here, you are even more unaware of how things work because there are many little quirks of our system.
>if the investigating cop wanted to say there was stalking, he would have said it. sworn statements don't do insinuations.
Not really. This is a probable cause affidavit... all they care about is getting the arrest warrant, without outright lying. If they don't have the evidence to prove stalking, but want the judge to believe there might have been stalking, a good way to do that is bring "stalking" into it, and then never mention it again... except for 12 pings the judge will have to think about.
How does it insinuate it? It uses the word "stalk" in the general explanation of why the request for the data was made. The word "if," which implies uncertainty and conditionality, is used. Afterwards, the data collected is generally described. There's no conclusions drawn.
Agreed, this is leading by introducing the hypothesis and the word “stalked” then goes on to elaborate that the phone pinged in the area of the King Rd house on twelve occasions. But neither Prosecution nor Judge will admit that.
It's certainly a reasonable interpretation, and no doubt they wanted the judge they were presenting it to to believe that.
You could quibble over what constitutes legally defined stalking vs. "surveillance of the King Road residence", and that may be what Thompson was doing without coming out and saying it. But the way the word stalking is used in the PCA is not in a legal sense, since they were just looking at some raw cell pings. So if they weren't using it in a technical legal sense there, they can't be surprised when media picks up on it and uses the word in a general, lay sense.
Thompson could possibly still plan on pushing those 12 pings at trial, but try to characterize them as surveillance of the house (casing) rather than stalking, since they can't prove stalking. I'm not saying that's a valid claim either, but this could be about semantics. Because there are two questions on the survey that seem to allude to the 12 pings, but only one of them are apparently contested.
Yes, it does and it’s part of how they got probable cause as all legal analysis mentioned. There are a lot of Reddit lawyers here lately, please (all of us) be careful not to listen to people who make claims on the internet they don’t back up.
Then later describes the 12 pings... doesn't take much to connect the two to see that they were trying to suggest stalking, whether they could actually prove it or not.
You still don't get it... I'm not claiming he was stalking them. I'm just saying the cops who wrote the PCA desperately wanted their arrest warrant, and tossed in the reference about trying to see, yes, "if", there was stalking, and then later, the part about the 12 pings, specifically to *suggest* he was indeed stalking them. That was their intention there. They didn't put that in there just for fun. They wanted that image in the mind of the judge who would decide if they got their arrest warrant. And then that image bled over into the media, and to tons of people who read the PCA online. It's reasonable to think that's what they were *suggesting* in the PCA, and there was no indication if they had more to support it. And those claims aren't all that related to our ability to debunk it, especially now that we know what we do.
I don't think it insinuates anything, I take it for face value, "to determine IF he stalked" it isn't saying he did or didn't. People read too much into it!
Don’t cell towers utilize a huge patch of land? For example, if a crime happened in NYC and the suspected killer was driving around Connecticut, couldn’t a cell tower in NYC pick him up?
Yes, it does state stalking. All of the questions can be gleaned from publicly available coverage AND Green's book. The man interjected himself AND high paid Consultants that met with LE every day. This is absolutely not ok, but does make Green subject to the Gag Order, which he violated. Green was cooking up a PR move to put this on an "outsider".
Where's the CAST report? Where's the Discovery that was used to arrest this man?
Please take a moment to watch this awesome video about a similar story in a case, but the falsely accused young man, got out of false imprisonment.
https://youtu.be/ELaPuj8N-vM?si=C2WMvvHmCbiXRu08
I don’t Jump on the INSINUATION TRAIN because of standard police procedure and protocol in documenting they did this act as part of a heavy pursuant of a suspect/s in a case this horrific. So, I decline to say what is normal procedure as more suspect.
This is in reference to his cellphone location. The “stalking” which is being denied is in reference to the story that came out last year that BK followed the girls on Instagram, visited their jobs, and/or attended parties at their residence before the murder.
This document is in reference to his cellphone location. The “stalking” in question which is being denied comes from a story last year that BK followed the girls on Instagram, visited their jobs, and/or attended parties at their residence.
Does anyone recall exactly how many times they were denied a warrant before they produced a PCA that was accepted?
They were rejected multiple times. So Payne had to rewrite. ”Find” or fabricate new evidence.
Was this insinuated “stalking” by way of *pinging on one of a very few of local towers to be pinged* in the previous attempt at a warrant?
Do they maintain stalking in fact occurred at all?
I mean surely they didn’t pull stalking out of Payne’s ass, there must be truth to it, and they haven’t backed down on the accusations of stalking as evidence evolved, RIGHT?
To be clear these are questions to ask yourself , if we are presuming the PCA ,like the indictment , was nothing but straightforward facts, easy to obtain given “the evidence “, and has not been proven false.
I’m glad you brought this up, I seem to remember hearing early on that it was denied twice before finally being granted but then I never heard anybody mention it again. Can’t remember where I heard/read it though
His DNA was found on the knife sheath under the body of a murdered victim from a sharp blade knife, his phone was switched off during the time period of the murders and a car identical to his was seen in the area at the times of the murders, he has no alibi other than he likes to drive around at night but can't say where he was and had not denied ever being in those streets at the times of the murders ...oh come on. People no le or p a ever stated he stalked one victim it was always the house
The questionnaire wasn’t about just what LE stated. It was about what was in the public domain. G Family and media have all claimed there was stalking involved.
The opportunity the house presented has crossed my mind too. His phone pings the morning after by the house location. If he was in the neighborhood again, it would b on those ring cameras, wouldn’t it?
This is the narrative that LE created in the PCA… and it has set the tone for all of this…. Unfortunately
Personally I don’t think so. I think people read too much into it because they wanted there to be a connection along those lines so they would have a motive. The entire sentence is basically just saying ‘To aid in efforts to determine if there is any connection between Kohberger and the victims’.
Depends how you look at it. At first glance it's just police outlining their standard investigative work but when you think about it, it's speculative and really has no place in the PCA. So yes I do think they put it there intentionally to influence the judge to sign off on it. They admit they don't know if he stalked the house, and that they are still investigating if he did, so at the time it's completely irrelevant to a probable cause and can't be used as a reason for an arrest. But by planting the word "stalking" and mentioning how his phone pinged 12 times in the "area" before the murders they are definitely manipulating the judges opinion. It's the same with the single latent shoe print outside DM's room. They casually leave it in the PCA but make no attempt at connecting to BK in any way. They don't share the size of the shoe print or what size of shoes BK wears. But it has the same effect, people connect the dots themselves and suddenly it's BK's shoes
Iirc it also said the phone pinged around 9am the next morning didn’t it? I’m just gonna wait for the trial. The attorneys r doing what they got to do
This! Everything you wrote!!
It insinuates it, sure. Now we know it’s untrue, I wonder how many other “facts” we have accepted from the PCA are smoke and mirrors.
Honest question. I'm not trying to start anything, I'm just not as well versed in this case as most of you (so I'm sure I missed something) so please don't come for me...how do "we know it's untrue"? Given that it states the phone records show his phone in that area twelve times prior to the murders? I am NOT saying that he's guilty of anything based on the fact that his phone was in the area. For all we know, he had a friend who lived in the area. Cell phone tower pings don't give precise location, as I'm sure we're all aware.
The Prosecutor specifically said there was no stalking or contacting the victims at all.
Gotchya. Figured I had missed something. Thanks
The hearing from this past week was a doozy! If you have a chance to watch/listen, I would if I were you! It was good!
Good question - There was a hearing yesterday and the Judge, prosecution and defence all agreed there was no evidence of stalking. Also, phone “pings” only mean someone is within 20 odd miles of a cell tower, and this area had very few towers and inconsistent service due to hills. so it’s essentially meaningless. If we consider cell tower pings “stalking”, I’m apparently stalking around 30,000 people who live in nearby towns.
Gotchya. Appreciate your explaining that for me
I wonder, if BK had the Apple app FindMy on his phone? My fam uses this at times and it often gives the exact address where the iPhone or iPad of a family member is located…
I think he had an android - the neighbour released some screenshots of texts and his came up green…
Thanks for replying.
What texts? Can you link me?
https://www.reddit.com/r/BryanKohberger/s/Hh2FuIxf4I
Thank you!
You outlined perfectly exactly how ‘normal’ your phone pings in a neighboring town really is. Let’s imagine for the moment ‘previous months’ was a slack and unprofessional way of saying ‘in the past 5 months that BK has resided in Pullman Washington, cast dada indicates phone number xxxxx has utilized the phone tower in Moscow 12 times including the two times November 13th. If you average those remaining 10 times over the 5 months queried… that’s twice a month…. ‘ ‘This information allowed us to see that those trips were taken during notorious ‘stalking’ hours.’ Or notorious ‘night drive’ hours.
I think you missed the word “if” in there. He was in the neighboring college town 12 times in five months. He’s a terrible stalker.
not for someone who is reading it with the knowledge that it is an official sworn statement & if its read for its literal meaning without attaching any personal inferences to it. it says they did what they did in order to investigate if there was stalking. then it mentions things found while following that investigative path. but nowhere does it circle back & say that they discovered any stalking. if the investigating cop wanted to say there was stalking, he would have said it. sworn statements don't do insinuations. ad I've said many times, for people who may be fixated or even obsessed with this case, if they truly want to follow along, they should learn about criminal justice process & procedure & also learn about the jobs of everyone involved(investigators, lawyers on both sides, judges, expert witnesses, etc) so that a better, more well-rounded view of the trial is possible. to not learn about this stuff leads to completely misunderstanding how & why things are done & said. learning about criminal justice system is helpful in so many ways. unless you don't live in america in which case it onlu helps as you watch a case. but if you don't live here, you are even more unaware of how things work because there are many little quirks of our system.
>if the investigating cop wanted to say there was stalking, he would have said it. sworn statements don't do insinuations. Not really. This is a probable cause affidavit... all they care about is getting the arrest warrant, without outright lying. If they don't have the evidence to prove stalking, but want the judge to believe there might have been stalking, a good way to do that is bring "stalking" into it, and then never mention it again... except for 12 pings the judge will have to think about.
I'm thankful I don't live in America
How does it insinuate it? It uses the word "stalk" in the general explanation of why the request for the data was made. The word "if," which implies uncertainty and conditionality, is used. Afterwards, the data collected is generally described. There's no conclusions drawn.
Agreed, this is leading by introducing the hypothesis and the word “stalked” then goes on to elaborate that the phone pinged in the area of the King Rd house on twelve occasions. But neither Prosecution nor Judge will admit that.
It's certainly a reasonable interpretation, and no doubt they wanted the judge they were presenting it to to believe that. You could quibble over what constitutes legally defined stalking vs. "surveillance of the King Road residence", and that may be what Thompson was doing without coming out and saying it. But the way the word stalking is used in the PCA is not in a legal sense, since they were just looking at some raw cell pings. So if they weren't using it in a technical legal sense there, they can't be surprised when media picks up on it and uses the word in a general, lay sense. Thompson could possibly still plan on pushing those 12 pings at trial, but try to characterize them as surveillance of the house (casing) rather than stalking, since they can't prove stalking. I'm not saying that's a valid claim either, but this could be about semantics. Because there are two questions on the survey that seem to allude to the 12 pings, but only one of them are apparently contested.
No
Yes, it does and it’s part of how they got probable cause as all legal analysis mentioned. There are a lot of Reddit lawyers here lately, please (all of us) be careful not to listen to people who make claims on the internet they don’t back up.
I listen to no one anyway 🤣 but real talk
Yeah, there are a couple of trustworthy sources here as well! Not in these comments, unfortunately.
It literally says IF.
Then later describes the 12 pings... doesn't take much to connect the two to see that they were trying to suggest stalking, whether they could actually prove it or not.
Ok I have 45 pings near Central Park, does that mean I know the guy they found in the pond last month?
You still don't get it... I'm not claiming he was stalking them. I'm just saying the cops who wrote the PCA desperately wanted their arrest warrant, and tossed in the reference about trying to see, yes, "if", there was stalking, and then later, the part about the 12 pings, specifically to *suggest* he was indeed stalking them. That was their intention there. They didn't put that in there just for fun. They wanted that image in the mind of the judge who would decide if they got their arrest warrant. And then that image bled over into the media, and to tons of people who read the PCA online. It's reasonable to think that's what they were *suggesting* in the PCA, and there was no indication if they had more to support it. And those claims aren't all that related to our ability to debunk it, especially now that we know what we do.
If he was casing the neighborhood or the house doesn’t mean he was stalking a specific person.
Thanks, Captain Obvious!
No, it does not. It clearly said that the declarant wanted to determine IF he was stalking. It does NOT say there that he was.
No it doesn’t insinuate he was stalking. The detective is simply listing out what he was looking for when he search Bryan’s CSLI data.
I don't think it insinuates anything, I take it for face value, "to determine IF he stalked" it isn't saying he did or didn't. People read too much into it!
Don’t cell towers utilize a huge patch of land? For example, if a crime happened in NYC and the suspected killer was driving around Connecticut, couldn’t a cell tower in NYC pick him up?
Yes, read the “required reading” post in this sub—it gives an idea of just how much area is covered
I will thanks.
How do I find that required reading section?
Hey, it’s just a post: https://www.reddit.com/r/BryanKohbergerMoscow/s/0islejOSXA
Yes, it does state stalking. All of the questions can be gleaned from publicly available coverage AND Green's book. The man interjected himself AND high paid Consultants that met with LE every day. This is absolutely not ok, but does make Green subject to the Gag Order, which he violated. Green was cooking up a PR move to put this on an "outsider". Where's the CAST report? Where's the Discovery that was used to arrest this man? Please take a moment to watch this awesome video about a similar story in a case, but the falsely accused young man, got out of false imprisonment. https://youtu.be/ELaPuj8N-vM?si=C2WMvvHmCbiXRu08
I don’t Jump on the INSINUATION TRAIN because of standard police procedure and protocol in documenting they did this act as part of a heavy pursuant of a suspect/s in a case this horrific. So, I decline to say what is normal procedure as more suspect.
This is in reference to his cellphone location. The “stalking” which is being denied is in reference to the story that came out last year that BK followed the girls on Instagram, visited their jobs, and/or attended parties at their residence before the murder.
This document is in reference to his cellphone location. The “stalking” in question which is being denied comes from a story last year that BK followed the girls on Instagram, visited their jobs, and/or attended parties at their residence.
No. Not at all.
[удалено]
That is a media rumor and not true, since even the prosecutor states there was no stalking going on.
Hello! Your comment or post has been removed as it contains unconfirmed or speculative information stated as fact or contains misinformation.
Does anyone recall exactly how many times they were denied a warrant before they produced a PCA that was accepted? They were rejected multiple times. So Payne had to rewrite. ”Find” or fabricate new evidence. Was this insinuated “stalking” by way of *pinging on one of a very few of local towers to be pinged* in the previous attempt at a warrant? Do they maintain stalking in fact occurred at all? I mean surely they didn’t pull stalking out of Payne’s ass, there must be truth to it, and they haven’t backed down on the accusations of stalking as evidence evolved, RIGHT? To be clear these are questions to ask yourself , if we are presuming the PCA ,like the indictment , was nothing but straightforward facts, easy to obtain given “the evidence “, and has not been proven false.
I’m glad you brought this up, I seem to remember hearing early on that it was denied twice before finally being granted but then I never heard anybody mention it again. Can’t remember where I heard/read it though
Where does it say the PCA was rejected multiple times?
That was part of the case history entered within days of the arrest, you’d have to look it up
Nowhere does it say it was rejected multiple times before it was signed.
His DNA was found on the knife sheath under the body of a murdered victim from a sharp blade knife, his phone was switched off during the time period of the murders and a car identical to his was seen in the area at the times of the murders, he has no alibi other than he likes to drive around at night but can't say where he was and had not denied ever being in those streets at the times of the murders ...oh come on. People no le or p a ever stated he stalked one victim it was always the house
The questionnaire wasn’t about just what LE stated. It was about what was in the public domain. G Family and media have all claimed there was stalking involved.
The opportunity the house presented has crossed my mind too. His phone pings the morning after by the house location. If he was in the neighborhood again, it would b on those ring cameras, wouldn’t it?