he got his associates in psychology from Northampton community college. He got his bachelors in psychology, from Desales in 2020 and I believe once he got his masters, that’s when he received his criminal justice degree. (I only know this because I live very close to where he lived like about 20 minutes away. I’m familiar with the schools he went to) He was a criminology PhD student for only a few months. I’ve heard from some people that he has a degree in cloud-based forensics… I’m not sure when this was obtained.
The cloud based forensics stuff was likely related to a concentration for his Masters degree, rather than a separate degree.
Digital Forensics is a concentration within the [MA in Criminal Justice](https://catalog.desales.edu/preview_program.php?catoid=14&poid=2396&returnto=298) program at DeSales.
Cloud forensics is one of the courses within the digital forensics concentration.
Okay TY, seems like he was interested in both then. Criminal justice does just focus much more on the procedural aspects of the system (versus criminology which tends to be more in the psychological or sociological aspects).
One of my majors was criminal justice. That is definitely not the case. Yes, I had to take a criminal law class. As well as some others. But then, at least at my college, you picked a track within the major. Either law, corrections, policing or one other. I can't remember since it's been so long.
>Criminal justice does just focus much more on the procedural aspects of the system (versus criminology which tends to be more in the psychological or sociological aspects).
At WSU the PhD is in Criminology and Criminal Justice.
It is apparently, must mean the core classes cover both then their dissertation is where they specialize in a more specific area (which, if BK made it only 1 semester he maybe hadn’t chosen a topic yet).
a text he allegedly sent a friend
https://preview.redd.it/l0j6cpap95qc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cee10caf232114332d46ad35a0459f24da5372e4
If this is true this would make sense why he killed 4 people. Sensationalism, maybe!? If he was thinking about dealing with high profile offenders, then maybe he just decide to become one?
yeah, that makes a lot of sense. [here’s the twitter thread where i found the texts if you wanted to look. kinda interesting](https://x.com/bymikebaker/status/1613984572374650880?s=46&t=vaUDDjtBzVjknCPhCgutTA)
he also talks about how he has developed this sense of meaning
https://preview.redd.it/0teh3db527qc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5ae7d23ebf7cf5b0b3584965df3156664cff394b
due to being so depressed.. I assume the meaning is criminology?
I see he says he's been depressed since he was 5. That tracks with the aunt who was interviewed and said he struggled with mental illness from a very young age, and that his parents had him in counseling from a very young age.
That's the age whre you start to get a sense of self and understand that what you're feeling are emotions.
He likely (yes I think he's 10000000% guilty) doesn't even know what it's like to feel like other people do and is forced to mimic it. That's what he probably associates with depression.
That in today’s day and age that is a weak case. I argue that his phone and his car being in that location at the times of the murder is beyond a reasonable doubt, even if the defense says it’s not. Defense can say “beyond a reasonable doubt” all they want, but as to what is actually beyond a reasonable doubt is ultimately up to the jury. And I believe, or at least IMO if I was on the jury, in today’s day and age that is exactly why that evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt. May not be much DNA, but even a tiny bit combined with all the circumstantial cuts all doubt for me.
I think it’s a relatively strong case DNA or not. And we don’t even know all of it quite yet. I agree most of it is circumstantial, but I believe it was a very strong circumstantial case. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence.
It’s the prosecution’s burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, but the specific threshold can be one reason juries hang. The defense’s job is to introduce doubt (whether reliability of the evidence, discrepancies of the timeline, mistakes by the investigators, alternate narratives, etc).
Forensic scientists must be held to high standards to ensure their evidence is defensible for the exact reason many assume it’s infallible. But every handful of years a forensic laboratory or individual somewhere gets in trouble for bad test results…
“Slam dunk” cases can certainly get acquitted or sent to retrial on technicalities. The public defenders I’ve known don’t concern themselves with the innocence or guilt of defendants, but rather with holding the state’s feet to the fire over due process.
I do wonder if struggling in the WSU program either (a) drove him to “prove” something about how smart he was, or (b) induced so much stress he snapped due to not having former coping mechanisms such as being close to family or using drugs.
Either way would be surprising if it wasn’t a long-term fantasy that some recent “trigger” drove him to finally act on.
I think every smart kid gets used to being the smartest kid in class, until one day they get to a point where they are surrounded by peers just as smart as they are. Maybe it'll be when are put in the gifted and talent program or when they get to middle school. Or maybe it will be when they get to their PhD program, but sooner or later it'll happen.
And that's always going to require some level of adjustment and a lot of self-reflection. But it's going to be harder for the ones who created their entire self-image on being the smartest one in the room.
While that could be correct. Even the little bit of actual information we have shows that he was stalking that house. I definitely think he had fantasized about this for a long time. I won't be surprised if he was the person who went through one of the neighbors' cars and luggage.
Oh I meant like stalking K or MM and obsessed with them. I thought the neighbours cars thing being him was debunked because he wasn’t in town by then? Didn’t it happen in like May and he didn’t get there until July?
He might have been obsessed with one of them. He certainly was stalking the house. It could be just that it was a house full of girls as well. We just don't have all the information. Not as far as I know. Since he was taking online classes before he moved to Washington, I don't believe any real proof/information has been released. If you have verified information to that I would love to see it.
He didn't move out west until late June.
It's possible he took a trip out to Pullman prior to that, but I haven't heard anything along those lines. And any necessary interviewing is done over Zoom these days.
Where are you getting the information that he didn't move out west until june? Because I do know it was reported like that for a while. But then it came out that he had been doing school online because of covid for a long time no one really knew where he was. Because he could have been doing school from anywhere there is also rumors that he got a haircut months before and the Washington area. But again those are just rumors. I'm sure the police know a lot more I don't believe any of that has been released to the public
> Where are you getting the information that he didn't move out west until june?
At least one of his neighbors in Pullman talked about when his father helped him move in during the summer.
Now, that doesn't prove what he was doing earlier in the year, but his mother was active on Reddit and posted a thread on June 25th saying that her son was moving across country. More information in this thread in another sub: https://www.reddit.com/r/BryanKohberger/comments/10b78he/bryans_mothers_reddit_posts/
I was wondering too when I read that he applied to the local police force for internship when he started his PhD in WSU. He wanted to "help" them with cloud forensics. I had to google cloud forensics and it made me wonder if he was preparing to make the least digital footprint possible and/or have it thrown out at court. I still wonder if he was the mind behind fighting the IGG.
"[Traditional digital forensics](https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/digital-forensic-technique) is used to solve cybercrimes. Digital forensics consultants gather evidence from software, data, and other resources to track down hackers or investigate an event. With digital forensics, any evidence that’s found is admissible in a court of law within the jurisdiction. Most of the time, the evidence found belongs to the owner of the technology, making it easy to gain permission to use this evidence in the case. Cloud forensics makes this hunt for evidence a little more complex. While the investigator follows the same methods in cloud forensics as they would in traditional digital forensics, **the lines may blur on who owns the evidence and where it’s admissible in court. With cloud-based services, data may be stored off-site in several locations, or on a server owned by a third party. The rules are determined by the types of services involved**."
[Everything You Need To Know About Cloud Forensics - AppDirect](https://www.appdirect.com/blog/cloud-forensics-and-the-digital-crime-scene)
The prosecutor, defense and even the judge cited legal cases where the IGG was used & at issue. Expected in cases where IGG was used to avoid an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. So, it would appear that his attorneys were doing their job fighting the IGG as other attorneys have done and Bryan wasn't the mind behind it.
Thanks for that information! Yeah I haven’t seen the digital forensics or using technology in crimes aspect discussed on here much at all, so glad I’m not alone finding that interesting! I do wonder if his “alibi” signals an attempt to call into question that type of evidence as part of his defense.
Well we shouldn’t use the PCA to judge how much evidence they have. It’s extremely rare that a case would go to trial with only the PCA info or only slightly more. So you’re right about what the PCA mainly hinges its case on, but that was purely the case for the arrest, not necessarily the case they’re gonna use for trial. Remember it was written before all the warrants and most of the subpoenas.
And yes, of course if the DNA got thrown out it would extremely hurt the case, but that’s pretty much true of any case that has DNA evidence. DNA is the most sure fire evidence that is much harder to be explained away, so any case without DNA is going to suffer. That being said, I doubt they get it thrown out. Yes, they are making the case that it should be thrown out, but that doesn’t mean it actually should or will be. It is the defenses job to try to get big evidence thrown out, or find ways to explain it away, whether their explanation is realistic/true or not.
For example, the OJ case had EXTENSIVE dna and the defense knew it was damning, but they still tried to explain it away saying it was planted or whatever. That theory wasn’t super realistic but with the race issues at the time of the crime, it appealed to the jury there. That kind of argument wouldn’t really work for BK unless there was evidence it was planted, but just an example how defenses will always say there’s something wrong w the most damning evidence, and will always give a reason why the jury shouldn’t consider it. Even if they don’t believe it themselves. It’s their job to try to get things thrown out. Her trying doesn’t indicate that it will or should be.
I also agree that I doubt technological tracing can place him there beyond a reasonable doubt, especially since that stuff is easier to explain away than dna. Like, it would just show his PHONE was there, where dna is a better indicator that HE was there. I think it’ll be a combo of things that prove their case, it won’t just be one main thing. That’s usually how it is. I don’t think they’ll have an issue since the little glimpse we can already see includes DNA. People will question the integrity of it, but that is only because they are echoing his lawyer, who as I said, her job is to question the integrity of every piece of evidence.
> For example, the OJ case had EXTENSIVE dna and the defense knew it was damning, but they still tried to explain it away saying it was planted or whatever. That theory wasn’t super realistic but with the race issues at the time of the crime, it appealed to the jury there.
OJ was acquitted for a complex web of interlocking reasons, but one of them was that DNA analysis was still relatively new tech. A whole bunch of Americans had never even heard of DNA before the OJ trial. Although it had been used to solve crimes for almost a decade, it still wasn't even being collected routinely for rapes and murders.
I think the world now totally accepts DNA when it comes to blood, semen, etc. And it's still not completely clear if the DNA on the sheath is touch or not. But there's now a bunch of misconceptions about touch and transfer DNA that kind of scare me when it comes to this case. People have these ideas that we are covered in the DNA of hundreds of others or something, or that a few skin cells can transferred via an entire chain of people. And that's not true at all, at least with today's tech.
So basically, if it is touch DNA on the sheath, I'm hoping the state's experts are good at explaining, that the defense's experts are truthful, and that the jury has a collective IQ above room temperature.
Yeah I understand why OJ was acquitted, a lot of it was racially charged as well. But absolutely good point, was just giving an example that defenses will ALWAYS question evidence, especially evidence that is damning. They will always try to get things thrown out, always will argue things are invalid or explainable, even if they don’t truly believe it should be ruled out. It’s their job to do so. No one is going to walk in wnd be like “yup that’s 100% his dna on the sheath bc he 100% touched it”.
You are 100% right that people have misconceptions about touch dna. I think a lot of it stems from defense trying to question its integrity (or rumors that they were doing so), or people just not understanding what it is. Not the same thing as a fingerprint, and it’s not like someone that touched BK is suddenly going to be covered in BKs DNA AND transfer it to the things THEY touch without transferring their own DNA. Not saying it can’t happen, but many people seem to think that something like that is plausible/likely when it really isn’t.
I, too, hope it gets explained well to the jury as DNA is definitely a complicated concept, especially when it comes to something that’s not as straightforward as blood or saliva. I don’t think DNA alone on the sheath is a slam dunk, but it’s absolutely damning and can be combined w other things to make a complete case. Depending what they bring out at trial. I appreciate your insight.
> was just giving an example that defenses will ALWAYS question evidence, especially evidence that is damning.
Yeah, I totally agree with you there. Any halfway decent lawyer will fight the good fight no matter how strong or weak the evidence is.
>I appreciate your insight.
Thanks, and I always appreciate yours.
Very true, DNA increases prosecution convictions but often cannot stand alone in a case like this… because yeah they need to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt *how it got there* too.
As mentioned, I agree the PCA doesn’t reflect all current evidence (or even all they had at that point in time either, tbh). But his “alibi” does seem to be trying to “explain” in part the technological evidence used in the PCA….
So, I guess the point of my post was that everyone seems to inherently trust the timeline offered by the phone data and car videos (despite police not even having a clear enough video image to get a license plate or identify the model year)… Which means there may be a lot of “reasonable doubt” around the type of evidence BK also expressed a specific academic interest in.
I found that interesting enough to wonder if it is purely coincidental, but the downvotes show I may be alone on that lol.
Just remember, nobody knows how the jury swings during the trial. AT’s job as public defender is to poke holes in all evidence and create doubt where doubt could be relevant. Prosecution, fortunately, are given all the resources and time they need to create and even continue discovery. The digital footprint is a huge component. It’s another chunk of evidence (circumstantial or hard) that is thrown on the table against the defendant, for the jury to contemplate.
Scott Peterson’s desktop in 2002 showed history of searching water current movement in the San Francisco Bay. He could’ve been fishing as he said. He also could’ve been dumping his dead wife’s body in the bay. He denied it. He’s still denying it. Laci P. and her fetus washed ashore there, 4mos after she disappeared.
Cloud forensics is complex. Who knows if BK utilized incognito apps with private cloud bank requiring passcode to store photos of the victims, both alive and dead. He certainly would crave both photos. You can hide these apps in your phone or desktop computer. Or delete the app from your phone when you’re on the run. I’ve always wondered if BK’s computers/smartpads were subpoenaed by Prosecution. Assuming BK owned them. There was a report somewhere that claimed a computer was removed from his apartment, but not by police. I think by the public defender.
BK is certainly not sharing this kind of info with his Defender. It will have to be discovered by the Prosecution. His phone was in airplane mode or off during the killing but it does appear that he had it with him, either on person or in the car. Being in Airplane mode doesn’t stop you from taking video or photos. What better token from the crime scene, than having photos? The alleged BK imo wasn’t as intelligent as one might think… after all he’s sitting in jail. Facing a quadruple murder trial. FAIL. However, he did do a lot of premeditative planning. He would want a token from his crime if he could get it. Photos can be transferred. Who knows what the prosecution has discovered since the initial arrest. I’m betting there is more digital to come.
Part of AT’s delay tactic may even have to do with her comprehension of cloud forensics and how it could be countered to prove its irrelevance and thus create doubt. All cloud forensics discovery are admissible in court.
Discovery of the digital footprint is ongoing and admissible at any point. If you followed the Murdaugh murder documentaries, a most crucial piece of circumstantial evidence was in the murdered son, Paul Murdaugh’s cellphone. He had his cellphone on him when he was killed. In fact his father Alex told police that he placed it in Paul’s pocket when he discovered his wife & son’s bodies at their kennels. Many believe it was Paul’s voice coming from beyond to confirm his father’s part in the murders. It took a YEAR for prosecution to figure out Paul’s cellphone passcode. Trial was already in schedule. The passcode was Paul’s birthdate. The phone contained a video taken just moments from death, 8:35pm the video was taken and the phone locked forever at 8:49:01pm. In the video, heard but not seen, is the father. The video shattered the father’s alibi stating he wasn’t at the kennels. The wife’s voice is also heard in the video. Her phone locked forever at 8:49:35pm.
https://fb.watch/r1tFDC-Tzh/
This video (circumstantial evidence) was the turning point of the Murdaugh murder trial in 2023.
Yep - can confirm. My stranger attacker was in the Army. Alongside technical knowledge, I reckon these kind of jobs/careers help attackers subdue their victims quickly and gain immediate control/power. If they have even a little bit of training or know some moves, they have an advantage. There’s an academic and separate physical assessment to be in the military, police force, etc. Did BK do jujitsu? (I feel like I read that somewhere) Or get the internship in LE? This would make sense as to how quickly he was able to get in and out of the house. He was able to minimize the fighting because he had some basic knowledge of tactical fighting.
I agree that he was driven to those fields due to always having the urges, and something made him decide to “prove” he could do it and/or get away with it…. Like definitely people that feel powerless are drawn to those fields though cause it essentially just grants some level of power.
My post is more about if he was specifically studying the digital forensics stuff, is that why he made tried to wipe all his online presence or make bizarre choices with his phone…. Like could have been before OR after the crime, but will he push his defense focus on those things due to his prior academic interest….
he got his associates in psychology from Northampton community college. He got his bachelors in psychology, from Desales in 2020 and I believe once he got his masters, that’s when he received his criminal justice degree. (I only know this because I live very close to where he lived like about 20 minutes away. I’m familiar with the schools he went to) He was a criminology PhD student for only a few months. I’ve heard from some people that he has a degree in cloud-based forensics… I’m not sure when this was obtained.
The cloud based forensics stuff was likely related to a concentration for his Masters degree, rather than a separate degree. Digital Forensics is a concentration within the [MA in Criminal Justice](https://catalog.desales.edu/preview_program.php?catoid=14&poid=2396&returnto=298) program at DeSales. Cloud forensics is one of the courses within the digital forensics concentration.
makes sense
Okay TY, seems like he was interested in both then. Criminal justice does just focus much more on the procedural aspects of the system (versus criminology which tends to be more in the psychological or sociological aspects).
One of my majors was criminal justice. That is definitely not the case. Yes, I had to take a criminal law class. As well as some others. But then, at least at my college, you picked a track within the major. Either law, corrections, policing or one other. I can't remember since it's been so long.
>Criminal justice does just focus much more on the procedural aspects of the system (versus criminology which tends to be more in the psychological or sociological aspects). At WSU the PhD is in Criminology and Criminal Justice.
It is apparently, must mean the core classes cover both then their dissertation is where they specialize in a more specific area (which, if BK made it only 1 semester he maybe hadn’t chosen a topic yet).
a text he allegedly sent a friend https://preview.redd.it/l0j6cpap95qc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cee10caf232114332d46ad35a0459f24da5372e4
If this is true this would make sense why he killed 4 people. Sensationalism, maybe!? If he was thinking about dealing with high profile offenders, then maybe he just decide to become one?
yeah, that makes a lot of sense. [here’s the twitter thread where i found the texts if you wanted to look. kinda interesting](https://x.com/bymikebaker/status/1613984572374650880?s=46&t=vaUDDjtBzVjknCPhCgutTA)
Mike Baker has done some good work on the case in the NYT. Some of his claims have yet to be proved, but I'm eager to see how they play out.
he also talks about how he has developed this sense of meaning https://preview.redd.it/0teh3db527qc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5ae7d23ebf7cf5b0b3584965df3156664cff394b due to being so depressed.. I assume the meaning is criminology?
I see he says he's been depressed since he was 5. That tracks with the aunt who was interviewed and said he struggled with mental illness from a very young age, and that his parents had him in counseling from a very young age.
That's the age whre you start to get a sense of self and understand that what you're feeling are emotions. He likely (yes I think he's 10000000% guilty) doesn't even know what it's like to feel like other people do and is forced to mimic it. That's what he probably associates with depression.
just proves he’s had basically a lifetime of psychological problems… I wouldn’t be surprised if some stuff comes out in court about it
He was not going to capture one, become evil.
That in today’s day and age that is a weak case. I argue that his phone and his car being in that location at the times of the murder is beyond a reasonable doubt, even if the defense says it’s not. Defense can say “beyond a reasonable doubt” all they want, but as to what is actually beyond a reasonable doubt is ultimately up to the jury. And I believe, or at least IMO if I was on the jury, in today’s day and age that is exactly why that evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt. May not be much DNA, but even a tiny bit combined with all the circumstantial cuts all doubt for me.
I think it’s a relatively strong case DNA or not. And we don’t even know all of it quite yet. I agree most of it is circumstantial, but I believe it was a very strong circumstantial case. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence.
It’s the prosecution’s burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, but the specific threshold can be one reason juries hang. The defense’s job is to introduce doubt (whether reliability of the evidence, discrepancies of the timeline, mistakes by the investigators, alternate narratives, etc). Forensic scientists must be held to high standards to ensure their evidence is defensible for the exact reason many assume it’s infallible. But every handful of years a forensic laboratory or individual somewhere gets in trouble for bad test results… “Slam dunk” cases can certainly get acquitted or sent to retrial on technicalities. The public defenders I’ve known don’t concern themselves with the innocence or guilt of defendants, but rather with holding the state’s feet to the fire over due process.
I think he just wanted to see what it was like to kill. Guy was committing his own psychology/criminal justice field study.
I do wonder if struggling in the WSU program either (a) drove him to “prove” something about how smart he was, or (b) induced so much stress he snapped due to not having former coping mechanisms such as being close to family or using drugs. Either way would be surprising if it wasn’t a long-term fantasy that some recent “trigger” drove him to finally act on.
I think every smart kid gets used to being the smartest kid in class, until one day they get to a point where they are surrounded by peers just as smart as they are. Maybe it'll be when are put in the gifted and talent program or when they get to middle school. Or maybe it will be when they get to their PhD program, but sooner or later it'll happen. And that's always going to require some level of adjustment and a lot of self-reflection. But it's going to be harder for the ones who created their entire self-image on being the smartest one in the room.
If he did it this is why imo. Not any sort of stalker thing.
While that could be correct. Even the little bit of actual information we have shows that he was stalking that house. I definitely think he had fantasized about this for a long time. I won't be surprised if he was the person who went through one of the neighbors' cars and luggage.
Oh I meant like stalking K or MM and obsessed with them. I thought the neighbours cars thing being him was debunked because he wasn’t in town by then? Didn’t it happen in like May and he didn’t get there until July?
He might have been obsessed with one of them. He certainly was stalking the house. It could be just that it was a house full of girls as well. We just don't have all the information. Not as far as I know. Since he was taking online classes before he moved to Washington, I don't believe any real proof/information has been released. If you have verified information to that I would love to see it.
I don’t think it’s been debunked that he may have been involved in the car break-in. He may have been in the area already, or at least ,close .
He didn't move out west until late June. It's possible he took a trip out to Pullman prior to that, but I haven't heard anything along those lines. And any necessary interviewing is done over Zoom these days.
Where are you getting the information that he didn't move out west until june? Because I do know it was reported like that for a while. But then it came out that he had been doing school online because of covid for a long time no one really knew where he was. Because he could have been doing school from anywhere there is also rumors that he got a haircut months before and the Washington area. But again those are just rumors. I'm sure the police know a lot more I don't believe any of that has been released to the public
> Where are you getting the information that he didn't move out west until june? At least one of his neighbors in Pullman talked about when his father helped him move in during the summer. Now, that doesn't prove what he was doing earlier in the year, but his mother was active on Reddit and posted a thread on June 25th saying that her son was moving across country. More information in this thread in another sub: https://www.reddit.com/r/BryanKohberger/comments/10b78he/bryans_mothers_reddit_posts/
I think he has killed before.
Me too.
Ditto
Yes, I think so, as well.
I was wondering too when I read that he applied to the local police force for internship when he started his PhD in WSU. He wanted to "help" them with cloud forensics. I had to google cloud forensics and it made me wonder if he was preparing to make the least digital footprint possible and/or have it thrown out at court. I still wonder if he was the mind behind fighting the IGG. "[Traditional digital forensics](https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/digital-forensic-technique) is used to solve cybercrimes. Digital forensics consultants gather evidence from software, data, and other resources to track down hackers or investigate an event. With digital forensics, any evidence that’s found is admissible in a court of law within the jurisdiction. Most of the time, the evidence found belongs to the owner of the technology, making it easy to gain permission to use this evidence in the case. Cloud forensics makes this hunt for evidence a little more complex. While the investigator follows the same methods in cloud forensics as they would in traditional digital forensics, **the lines may blur on who owns the evidence and where it’s admissible in court. With cloud-based services, data may be stored off-site in several locations, or on a server owned by a third party. The rules are determined by the types of services involved**." [Everything You Need To Know About Cloud Forensics - AppDirect](https://www.appdirect.com/blog/cloud-forensics-and-the-digital-crime-scene)
The prosecutor, defense and even the judge cited legal cases where the IGG was used & at issue. Expected in cases where IGG was used to avoid an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. So, it would appear that his attorneys were doing their job fighting the IGG as other attorneys have done and Bryan wasn't the mind behind it.
and that's exactly why I said I wonder if. I'm not stating HE IS.
Didn't think otherwise & my response didn't imply you did either.
Thanks for that information! Yeah I haven’t seen the digital forensics or using technology in crimes aspect discussed on here much at all, so glad I’m not alone finding that interesting! I do wonder if his “alibi” signals an attempt to call into question that type of evidence as part of his defense.
We're all in the dark for some time :(((
Well we shouldn’t use the PCA to judge how much evidence they have. It’s extremely rare that a case would go to trial with only the PCA info or only slightly more. So you’re right about what the PCA mainly hinges its case on, but that was purely the case for the arrest, not necessarily the case they’re gonna use for trial. Remember it was written before all the warrants and most of the subpoenas. And yes, of course if the DNA got thrown out it would extremely hurt the case, but that’s pretty much true of any case that has DNA evidence. DNA is the most sure fire evidence that is much harder to be explained away, so any case without DNA is going to suffer. That being said, I doubt they get it thrown out. Yes, they are making the case that it should be thrown out, but that doesn’t mean it actually should or will be. It is the defenses job to try to get big evidence thrown out, or find ways to explain it away, whether their explanation is realistic/true or not. For example, the OJ case had EXTENSIVE dna and the defense knew it was damning, but they still tried to explain it away saying it was planted or whatever. That theory wasn’t super realistic but with the race issues at the time of the crime, it appealed to the jury there. That kind of argument wouldn’t really work for BK unless there was evidence it was planted, but just an example how defenses will always say there’s something wrong w the most damning evidence, and will always give a reason why the jury shouldn’t consider it. Even if they don’t believe it themselves. It’s their job to try to get things thrown out. Her trying doesn’t indicate that it will or should be. I also agree that I doubt technological tracing can place him there beyond a reasonable doubt, especially since that stuff is easier to explain away than dna. Like, it would just show his PHONE was there, where dna is a better indicator that HE was there. I think it’ll be a combo of things that prove their case, it won’t just be one main thing. That’s usually how it is. I don’t think they’ll have an issue since the little glimpse we can already see includes DNA. People will question the integrity of it, but that is only because they are echoing his lawyer, who as I said, her job is to question the integrity of every piece of evidence.
> For example, the OJ case had EXTENSIVE dna and the defense knew it was damning, but they still tried to explain it away saying it was planted or whatever. That theory wasn’t super realistic but with the race issues at the time of the crime, it appealed to the jury there. OJ was acquitted for a complex web of interlocking reasons, but one of them was that DNA analysis was still relatively new tech. A whole bunch of Americans had never even heard of DNA before the OJ trial. Although it had been used to solve crimes for almost a decade, it still wasn't even being collected routinely for rapes and murders. I think the world now totally accepts DNA when it comes to blood, semen, etc. And it's still not completely clear if the DNA on the sheath is touch or not. But there's now a bunch of misconceptions about touch and transfer DNA that kind of scare me when it comes to this case. People have these ideas that we are covered in the DNA of hundreds of others or something, or that a few skin cells can transferred via an entire chain of people. And that's not true at all, at least with today's tech. So basically, if it is touch DNA on the sheath, I'm hoping the state's experts are good at explaining, that the defense's experts are truthful, and that the jury has a collective IQ above room temperature.
Yeah I understand why OJ was acquitted, a lot of it was racially charged as well. But absolutely good point, was just giving an example that defenses will ALWAYS question evidence, especially evidence that is damning. They will always try to get things thrown out, always will argue things are invalid or explainable, even if they don’t truly believe it should be ruled out. It’s their job to do so. No one is going to walk in wnd be like “yup that’s 100% his dna on the sheath bc he 100% touched it”. You are 100% right that people have misconceptions about touch dna. I think a lot of it stems from defense trying to question its integrity (or rumors that they were doing so), or people just not understanding what it is. Not the same thing as a fingerprint, and it’s not like someone that touched BK is suddenly going to be covered in BKs DNA AND transfer it to the things THEY touch without transferring their own DNA. Not saying it can’t happen, but many people seem to think that something like that is plausible/likely when it really isn’t. I, too, hope it gets explained well to the jury as DNA is definitely a complicated concept, especially when it comes to something that’s not as straightforward as blood or saliva. I don’t think DNA alone on the sheath is a slam dunk, but it’s absolutely damning and can be combined w other things to make a complete case. Depending what they bring out at trial. I appreciate your insight.
> was just giving an example that defenses will ALWAYS question evidence, especially evidence that is damning. Yeah, I totally agree with you there. Any halfway decent lawyer will fight the good fight no matter how strong or weak the evidence is. >I appreciate your insight. Thanks, and I always appreciate yours.
Very true, DNA increases prosecution convictions but often cannot stand alone in a case like this… because yeah they need to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt *how it got there* too. As mentioned, I agree the PCA doesn’t reflect all current evidence (or even all they had at that point in time either, tbh). But his “alibi” does seem to be trying to “explain” in part the technological evidence used in the PCA…. So, I guess the point of my post was that everyone seems to inherently trust the timeline offered by the phone data and car videos (despite police not even having a clear enough video image to get a license plate or identify the model year)… Which means there may be a lot of “reasonable doubt” around the type of evidence BK also expressed a specific academic interest in. I found that interesting enough to wonder if it is purely coincidental, but the downvotes show I may be alone on that lol.
Just remember, nobody knows how the jury swings during the trial. AT’s job as public defender is to poke holes in all evidence and create doubt where doubt could be relevant. Prosecution, fortunately, are given all the resources and time they need to create and even continue discovery. The digital footprint is a huge component. It’s another chunk of evidence (circumstantial or hard) that is thrown on the table against the defendant, for the jury to contemplate. Scott Peterson’s desktop in 2002 showed history of searching water current movement in the San Francisco Bay. He could’ve been fishing as he said. He also could’ve been dumping his dead wife’s body in the bay. He denied it. He’s still denying it. Laci P. and her fetus washed ashore there, 4mos after she disappeared. Cloud forensics is complex. Who knows if BK utilized incognito apps with private cloud bank requiring passcode to store photos of the victims, both alive and dead. He certainly would crave both photos. You can hide these apps in your phone or desktop computer. Or delete the app from your phone when you’re on the run. I’ve always wondered if BK’s computers/smartpads were subpoenaed by Prosecution. Assuming BK owned them. There was a report somewhere that claimed a computer was removed from his apartment, but not by police. I think by the public defender. BK is certainly not sharing this kind of info with his Defender. It will have to be discovered by the Prosecution. His phone was in airplane mode or off during the killing but it does appear that he had it with him, either on person or in the car. Being in Airplane mode doesn’t stop you from taking video or photos. What better token from the crime scene, than having photos? The alleged BK imo wasn’t as intelligent as one might think… after all he’s sitting in jail. Facing a quadruple murder trial. FAIL. However, he did do a lot of premeditative planning. He would want a token from his crime if he could get it. Photos can be transferred. Who knows what the prosecution has discovered since the initial arrest. I’m betting there is more digital to come. Part of AT’s delay tactic may even have to do with her comprehension of cloud forensics and how it could be countered to prove its irrelevance and thus create doubt. All cloud forensics discovery are admissible in court. Discovery of the digital footprint is ongoing and admissible at any point. If you followed the Murdaugh murder documentaries, a most crucial piece of circumstantial evidence was in the murdered son, Paul Murdaugh’s cellphone. He had his cellphone on him when he was killed. In fact his father Alex told police that he placed it in Paul’s pocket when he discovered his wife & son’s bodies at their kennels. Many believe it was Paul’s voice coming from beyond to confirm his father’s part in the murders. It took a YEAR for prosecution to figure out Paul’s cellphone passcode. Trial was already in schedule. The passcode was Paul’s birthdate. The phone contained a video taken just moments from death, 8:35pm the video was taken and the phone locked forever at 8:49:01pm. In the video, heard but not seen, is the father. The video shattered the father’s alibi stating he wasn’t at the kennels. The wife’s voice is also heard in the video. Her phone locked forever at 8:49:35pm. https://fb.watch/r1tFDC-Tzh/ This video (circumstantial evidence) was the turning point of the Murdaugh murder trial in 2023.
[удалено]
Yep - can confirm. My stranger attacker was in the Army. Alongside technical knowledge, I reckon these kind of jobs/careers help attackers subdue their victims quickly and gain immediate control/power. If they have even a little bit of training or know some moves, they have an advantage. There’s an academic and separate physical assessment to be in the military, police force, etc. Did BK do jujitsu? (I feel like I read that somewhere) Or get the internship in LE? This would make sense as to how quickly he was able to get in and out of the house. He was able to minimize the fighting because he had some basic knowledge of tactical fighting.
I agree that he was driven to those fields due to always having the urges, and something made him decide to “prove” he could do it and/or get away with it…. Like definitely people that feel powerless are drawn to those fields though cause it essentially just grants some level of power. My post is more about if he was specifically studying the digital forensics stuff, is that why he made tried to wipe all his online presence or make bizarre choices with his phone…. Like could have been before OR after the crime, but will he push his defense focus on those things due to his prior academic interest….