University of Idaho Stabbings

[Ally]

anyone have a clue how he found out where they lived??

No real way of knowing, yet. The most broad speculation would just be that he ran across one of them somewhere or the two girls who were friends (since it appears he might have been following them on instagram though that is just internet "sleuthing" conjecture, and not proven yet) but he could have run across them and just ...followed them home. It's possible he tagged them in a bar or a grocery store or at the mall, and just followed them.

We know he was circling their house for weeks prior to the murders so it may just have been as simple as "random victims" chosen from a "random spot". Although I imagine he was "hunting" spots with a lot of college girls, and he selected them. As a criminology student (albeit a **** one) he would have known that the random victim without any actual ties to him was the "safest" choice. Assuming you don't leave your knife sheath with your DNA all over it at the murder scene.

[Abby Normal]

No real way of knowing, yet. The most broad speculation would just be that he ran across one of them somewhere or the two girls who were friends (since it appears he might have been following them on instagram though that is just internet "sleuthing" conjecture, and not proven yet) but he could have run across them and just ...followed them home. It's possible he tagged them in a bar or a grocery store or at the mall, and just followed them.

We know he was circling their house for weeks prior to the murders so it may just have been as simple as "random victims" chosen from a "random spot". Although I imagine he was "hunting" spots with a lot of college girls, and he selected them. As a criminology student (albeit a **** one) he would have known that the random victim without any actual ties to him was the "safest" choice. Assuming you don't leave your knife sheath with your DNA all over it at the murder scene.

that all makes sense. also, as you mentioned, it was known as a party house.. maybe he was there before at a party. or if he was following them on instagram, if they or friends ever mentioned on instagram their address to advertise a party or something along those lines.

[Pcdunn]

The evidence may be circumstantial, but is adding up. The white Elantra was seen near the house at about the presumed time of the deaths, and there was a report of it in the neighboring state's university parking lot.

One survivor among the house occupants was awake, and described seeing a man fitting the suspect's description inside the home.

They were able to get a DNA sample from trash at the suspect's parents' home that returned likely results of being from the suspect's father.

A print was found on the button clasp of the tan sheath found at the scene that matches the suspect.

I'm amazed at how fast the investigation has moved so far. And also amazed at how the suspect seems to have overestimated his skill at fooling local police.

[Ally]

Personally, I've never understood why people say evidence is "just circumstantial". I'll take DNA evidence over an eye witness any day of the week. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. And proven to be so. I've never understood why people consider it the gold star standard, as if people aren't fooled by their eyes all the time. The police in this have done an amazing job, especially considering the shin kicking they've been getting from idiots on the internet and some of the parents, who apparently think criminal procedures proceed like they do on TV with the cops bumbling around telling everyone everything that's going on and solving it in an hour.

This small town police force did an amazing job from the get go, knew they needed help, asked for that help, kept their lids on, and walked through every thing with meticulous precision. They deserve massive kudos for how they have conducted themselves in this from the jump.

[Abby Normal]

The evidence may be circumstantial, but is adding up. The white Elantra was seen near the house at about the presumed time of the deaths, and there was a report of it in the neighboring state's university parking lot.

One survivor among the house occupants was awake, and described seeing a man fitting the suspect's description inside the home.

They were able to get a DNA sample from trash at the suspect's parents' home that returned likely results of being from the suspect's father.

A print was found on the button clasp of the tan sheath found at the scene that matches the suspect.

I'm amazed at how fast the investigation has moved so far. And also amazed at how the suspect seems to have overestimated his skill at fooling local police.

im confused. they have circumstantial, forensic and eyewitness testimony.not just circumstantial. not only that circumstantial evidence is not only allowed in court, its enough to get people convicted by itself.

[cobalt]

The eye witness evidence in this case is obviously open to question: a passing glimpse of an intruder with his mouth and nose covered under poor lighting. We are assuming that the rough description of the intruder was later matched to the suspect but I do not know if this is the correct order of events. Once BK became a suspect it may be that the police re-interviewed the witness DM and coached her, wittingly or unwittingly, into the description that has been made public.

I am not convinced that cell phone data pinging off towers is a reliable indicator of a person’s specific location. The suspect may well have had good reason to be in the general area of Moscow, Idaho on around a dozen occasions late at night.

The strongest evidence available so far is surely the forensic DNA link to the knife pouch found at the property. In itself that doesn’t prove BK ever entered the house- the knife might have been stolen/lost earlier- but it’s perfectly good grounds to place him before a jury. The CCTV footage of a white Hyundai arriving and leaving the immediate area at the presumed time of the murders is also pretty damning; but the prosecution would have to establish that the car in the footage is actually the suspect’s car and also that he was the person driving it at the time.

[Aethelwulf]

The evidence may be circumstantial, but is adding up.

There was a docu on a couple of months ago narrated by Colin Sutton and his team about how they nailed that evil f****r Levi Bellfield. One thing that struck me was that Sutton said that all of the evidence was circumstantial and based largely on CCTV. There wasn't any actual physical evidence as far as I recall.

The DNA plus the circumstantial stuff must surely nail this guy.

[Ally]

im confused. they have circumstantial, forensic and eyewitness testimony.not just circumstantial. not only that circumstantial evidence is not only allowed in court, its enough to get people convicted by itself.

Believe it or not, forensic evidence is largely considered circumstantial, not direct evidence. Because it requires inference. For example, a video or eyewitness showing him putting the knife sheath on the bed is direct evidence. His dna being found on the knife sheath is only circumstantial evidence that he placed the knife sheath on the bed. Or that he handled the knife sheath. You can infer that he was there, and handled the knife sheath, from his DNA being on it, but it is an inference, not direct knowledge.

[Damaso Marte]

Between the coroner's report, the sounds picked up by a nearby security camera, and the noises the surviving roommates heard, the prosecution will be able to show that the murders occurred around 4:15 AM. They will be able to demonstrate that somebody vaguely resembling the suspect was in the house at that time. And they will be able to show that white Hyundai Elantra was in the neighborhood, behaving suspiciously, at the same time - a Hyundai Elantra that like the suspect's did not have front license plates in a state where almost all cars have front license plates. They will be able to trace that same white Elantra all the way to the suspect's parking lot in Pullman, Washington (via an indirect route, as if he was trying to cover his tracks) - and use cell phone ping data to show that the suspect was in that car.

They can place him at the murder scene without DNA evidence, and then there's DNA evidence on top of that: his only plausible defense would be something like "somebody stole my car AND my cell phone AND my knife AND drove back to my house when they were done" - and that defense won't account for why he was in Idaho at odd hours in the weeks running up to the murder and at 9 AM the next morning. The shopping's not THAT great.

[cobalt]

The evidence revealed so far falls short of placing KB at the scene of the crime.

The prosecution can show that a white Hyundai car very similar to his was near the scene of the crime but the defence will point out that police experts originally identified a slightly different model of car from security cameras. If these same experts testify at trial they will have to admit fallibility.

Much the same applies to the time of the murders. Originally police announced they took place between 3am and 4am, presumably on the basis of surviving witness evidence and pathology reports. Now, in light of the traffic camera photo evidence and the neighbouring audio camera tape, the time of the murders has been moved back. Not by any great amount it is true- estimating time of death is not an exact science- but the original police estimate would at best have a suspicious white car driving around the area without stopping.

The audio tape may prove useful for the prosecution but it also throws up another issue: what is heard on the tape should verify what was heard by the surviving witness. As of yet, I have read nothing from the surviving witness which mentions a dog barking or a loud thump.

Unless phone pings are more accurate than I understand, then the most the police can do is place KB in a general area at relevant times. The knife pouch remains the most solid piece of evidence that he has to explain. What is needed to confirm guilt well beyond a reasonable doubt is victim DNA found in his car or his property. That may be forthcoming.

[Joshua Rogan]

Unless phone pings are more accurate than I understand, then the most the police can do is place KB in a general area at relevant times.

According to the father of one of the victims, the suspect was close enough to the house that his phone interacted with the WiFi, so I think the police have more precise info than was revealed in the affidavit. Of course, his phone was (probably) turned off at the time of the murders, so this only goes for the previous occasions he was in the vicinity.

[Ally]

According to the father of one of the victims, the suspect was close enough to the house that his phone interacted with the WiFi, so I think the police have more precise info than was revealed in the affidavit. Of course, his phone was (probably) turned off at the time of the murders, so this only goes for the previous occasions he was in the vicinity.

Yeah, while I don't really like the fact that the father is milking this case for all its worth, the prosecution is doing the exact right thing and giving away only enough publicly to get exactly what they need - a probable cause arrest warrant and search warrants. They aren't by any means showing their entire hand at this time.

They aren't stupid, they've played this extremely well, and the father really ought to shut his mouth, he's done the investigation no favors with his shooting his mouth off since the start. Even back in the beginning when he was whinging about how they had eliminated people too quickly I was thinking... uh...dumbass, if they are eliminating people quickly, that means they already know who they are looking for. They have evidence they aren't telling you. Probably because you keep shooting your damn mouth off every five minutes.

[erobitha]

Yeah, while I don't really like the fact that the father is milking this case for all its worth, the prosecution is doing the exact right thing and giving away only enough publicly to get exactly what they need - a probable cause arrest warrant and search warrants. They aren't by any means showing their entire hand at this time.

They aren't stupid, they've played this extremely well, and the father really ought to shut his mouth, he's done the investigation no favors with his shooting his mouth off since the start. Even back in the beginning when he was whinging about how they had eliminated people too quickly I was thinking... uh...dumbass, if they are eliminating people quickly, that means they already know who they are looking for. They have evidence they aren't telling you. Probably because you keep shooting your damn mouth off every five minutes.

I guess if your daughter has been savagely murdered you might not be thinking through every decision rationally and logically?

Perhaps his emotions have got the better of him, but I wouldn’t even know where to begin to understand what he is going through.

[Ally]

Yep, but if his goal is to do right by his murdered daughter, constantly going on the news and **** talking the police, the investigation and running his mouth may not be the best option. Grief isn't an excuse for basic stupidity. His daughter wasn't the only victim and his constantly torpedoing law enforcement efforts by running his yap isn't doing justice by the other victims of the crime. He wasn't the only one who lost a child. He's not the only one grieving. But he is the one who is constantly talking to the media. And who knows if any of the information he's putting out there is actually accurate. He's the one who put out that HIS daughter was the target. Nobody else has corroborated that information, but it's now everywhere. There's no actual source for that but news outlets are repeating it like it's gospel. And misinformation gets into the public consciousness and can **** with future juries heads if facts conflict with "gossip". He needs to shut up. What if the wifi information is bogus? And then it doesn't come up at trial. But people are waiting for it, because they "heard" it existed. Now there's reasonable doubt. "I thought there was evidence, I heard there was evidence". He needs to shut up.

[Pcdunn]

Dr. Phil is doing a television program today (Thursday, Jan. 12th, 2023) about the "eerie facts" of the University of Idaho murders. Thought I'd mention it if anyone is interested. Presume he'll go over the timeline and evidence that have been revealed to date.