True crime thread

yes and they are going to, but Type O's point is that that is not an alibi

if you shoot a man in Reno at a bar you can't say your alibi is that you were drinking at a bar in Reno

 

Sure you can - there are lots of bars in Reno.

It's an odd stretch of the law in Idaho to need to produce an alibi prior to the prosecution putting on its case. The only alibi he needs is one good enough to convince one juror that the theory put forth by the prosecution is too weak to remove reasonable doubt.

 

When I was just a baby, my Momma told me son, always be a good boy, don't ever play with guns. But I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.

 

@typeOnegative13NY did you hapoen to catch the '48 Hours' special 'The Night of the Idaho Student Murders' on 9/16/23? It aired on CBS. Compelling.

 

The Jets are more like a crime against humanity. Anyway, I watched the special on Paramount+ last night. It was very sad for obvious reasons, but the families had a lot to say as in F the gag order, we're not concerned about his fair trial and we're not trusting the justice system, we're doing our own investigation.

It was the first time I heard them say much of anything. Let me know what you took from it.

P.S : Kohberger's phone pinged 12 times in the days before the murders and also the day after. It was very creepy that the picture of the 6 of them was that we've alk seen was taken the day they were murdered. The 2 survivors are on opposite sides of the murdered 4. You'll see what's said about it.

Also the two blondes were inseparable and were sleeping in the same bed when they were killed. Brutal.

 

Here's something I didn't know but you probably did: the two girls were killed first on the 3rd floor and rhe killer most likely did not expect them to be in the same bed, so the inference is he was only after one of them, which means one of them was targeted.

Xana and her boyfriend were on the second floor and were found "in or near the bedroom", so the inference there is that they were collateral damage and not part of the plan. Maybe that's why the other two were left alive (along with his rage being sated).

There was more behind this than the thrill of getting away with the perfect murder.

 

They talked about one survivor very briefly, the frozen fear girl. They said absolutely nothing about the other girl.

 

There's still no trial date speaking of the trial.

 

Re the pinging of the phone: you have to know the distance limits from the towers etc to deduce he was anywhere around the house. This has yet to be addressed so it doesn't serve as evidence at this point and that it was put out by the prosecution publicly makes it even more suspect.

 

Yes, they got into that towards the end. It put him in "the vicinity", which isn't nearly as indicative of placing him DIRECTLY there. Anyway, the idea is he was casing the house re: their movements.

The interesting part was an Instagram acct of his. One of the victim's sisters screen shotted it before it was deleted. Supposedly he had no connection to the victims, but they have digital proof he had "liked" several photos posted by Kaylee Goncalves.

That would make it seem like he was choosing a victim in the planning phase. However - and it's a big however - the acct hasn't been authenticated yet. Or so they say.

Other than the tiny speck of DNA around the snap of the knife sheath that was found on the murdered girls bed this case is full of holes for the defense to exploit. However, it should be noted that the chance of the DNA NOT being him is one in one octillion. That is a tough hill to climb.

Kaylee Goncalves Dad is (shockingly) open to the idea that it could be someone other than Kohberger. Her Mom is not.

 

Vicinity can mean anything--why are you gulping this down as fact--I've seen you be way more critical of such junk at other times.

You have to consider what its like out there and not what its like in NY metro area--if you go to the grocery you'll get pinged because its the only business area around--i think they lived like 3 miles from city center or less.

 

Huh? In no way did I say that. Re-read it, I agreed with you. I was going to say if a bank was robbed in my town so what but I thought it was overkill (no pun intended). I also said the defense has a lot of holes to exploit.

I'll be more clear: I was mostly reiterating what was said in the special. I'd like to know where I said I thought/believed it was gospel (?).

 

I dont see how the defense gets around that. I would convict him based on that

 

Ok--my mistake--didn't really pour over the text--carry on friend.

 

Shit--they said that about oj when they found the glove. Turns out it was planted--also I recall the blood found on oj's door had Formaldehyde in it.

Someone may have framed the dude--get his print on a sheath and leave it there. Not saying this happened but its funny that no hair, no other physical evidience is there except the sheath with his fingerprint right on the button.

The Defense will have to show a chain of custody situation with the sheath.

 

yeah but the OJ verdict is clearly a known mistake

Im just thinking about sitting on that jury and during the trial the prosecution shows camera footage of his car driving by the house after the murder in the middle of the night some 30 miles from his apartment. They also show cell phone stuff putting him close by at the time of the murders. The defense is gonna say "that's just a coincidence, he can drive where he wants, he doesnt even know these girls"

Ok, I could buy that

but then the prosecution is gonna show his freakin DNA in their bedroom, on the sheath of the knife used to murder them no less.

I'm like wait a minute- I thought he didn't know these girls? now his DNA is in their bedroom? WTF? And I would pick guilty.