re: Idaho Murders Thread (Links inside)

Potential killer sighting at Vigil

Thoughts?

Posting again for those interested and may have missed it amongst other very relevant banter.

quote:

---

I agree that it's incredibly damning, but it's still circumstantial. Like I said, I think the thing that will ultimately put him away is when they find blood in his car.

---

I think the DNA on the sheath matching him along with all the circumstantial evidence in the affidavit will easily put him away.

His only play is plead guilty full. Confession in exchange for life in prison. His arse is toast.

quote:

---

I believe they said there were 90 white elantras on the Idaho campus and they didn't get a plate.

---

If this crime took place at noon, they would have a much harder time narrowing down the exact car with certainty. At 230 to 430 am the number of white Elantra’s on the road and in the area drops significantly. Let’s say there are 20 of them on the road at 230. What does that number drop to at 4am? Less than 5? How about 4:45 am? 1 or 2? So during the time frame of the murders you’re looking at a very small number of white Elantras on the road… his car was on the road during that time because they have it leaving his house and returning to campus. His car also had no front plate because PA doesn’t require it. The possibility of it being anyone other than him on the road in a white Elantra without a front plate in the area of the murder is infinitesimal.

Correct, the amount of circumstantial evidence from the affidavit I think would be enough to convict along with the DNA. There's no telling what they have that we don't know about. I'm assuming they will find more now that they have his car, phone, computer, access to his apartment.

quote:

---

I think the DNA on the sheath matching him along with all the circumstantial evidence in the affidavit will easily put him away.

---

Although highly improbable, there's plausible explanations for the sheath that don't involve him being the killer. If he had been to the house before, he can claim that he left the knife there previously. If he had not been to the house before, he can claim he left the knife elsewhere or it was stolen.

I obviously don't believe any of this to be true, just trying to explain why he and his attorney may decide not to plead guilty and go to trial.

IMO, the blood in the car is going to be the big piece of evidence that swings whether this goes to trial. If the prosecution rip the car apart and don't find any blood then the defense might feel pretty good about an acquittal. If the find blood, he's obviously done.

Looking for premeditation:

Did he pay January rent for his apartment in Washington state?
Did he and his Dad clear out the apartment?

Did he pre-register for second semester classes? Did , does, he have payment for those classes covered by a Teaching Assistantship and was he assigned classes to teach for second semester?

Was his mail for that apartment forwarded or put on hold for a return?

And two questions: most grad students have someone else in their life, if not a spouse, significant other, then a dog.
Is there a review of his younger sister's Slasher film anywhere?

quote:

---

Although highly improbable, there's plausible explanations for the sheath that don't involve him being the killer. If he had been to the house before, he can claim that he left the knife there previously. If he had not been to the house before, he can claim he left the knife elsewhere or it was stolen.

---

Those attorneys would be laughed out of court if they took that approach.

quote:

---

I agree that it's incredibly damning, but it's still circumstantial. Like I said, I think the thing that will ultimately put him away is when they find blood in his car. It doesn't matter how thoroughly he thinks he cleaned it, there will be blood in there. If not, then the defense has another arrow in their quiver to sow reasonable doubt.

---

I agree that additional forensic evidence will likely be found in his vehicle and will def help solidify the case further.

However, both DNA and forensic evidence are both also considered circumstantial evidence. It’s the totality of circumstantial evidence presented in a trial that builds to beyond a reasonable doubt.


This is helpful:

Direct Evidence

Evidence that clearly demonstrates a defendant committed a crime is known as direct evidence. Factual evidence that incontrovertibly shows a person committed the alleged offense may be used to meet the standards for proving guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. Examples of direct evidence include:

Security camera footage showing a person breaking into a store and stealing items;
An audio recording of a person admitting to committing a crime;
Ballistics tests that show a bullet was fired by a specific firearm;
Eyewitness testimony that a person saw the defendant commit a crime;
The defendant’s fingerprints on a weapon used to commit murder; and
Computer records showing a person illegally used someone else’s credit card.

Circumstantial Evidence

In many cases, direct evidence of a crime does not exist and prosecutors must use evidence that implies the defendant committed the alleged offense. This is known as circumstantial evidence, and examples of this type of evidence include:

Eyewitness testimony that a person was seen fleeing from the scene of a crime;
A person’s fingerprints found at the scene of the crime alongside other people’s fingerprints;
An audio recording of the defendant stating his or her intent to commit a crime before the alleged crime actually occurred;
Harassing emails or text messages a defendant sent to a person who was later assaulted; and
A person’s browser history showing how he or she searched for information about the tools used to commit the crime of which he or she is accused.
While a single piece of circumstantial evidence may not be enough to demonstrate a person’s guilt, multiple pieces of evidence may be used together, and the prosecutor may ask the jury to “connect the dots” to determine that the defendant committed the alleged offense.

quote:

---

IMO, the blood in the car is going to be the big piece of evidence that swings whether this goes to trial.

---

Unfortunately, we have reports that he thoroughly cleaned his vehicle. I guarantee you he went to Albertsons and purchased a plethora of cleaning supplies (Lysol sanitizing wipes, bleach, Resolve, gloves, etc.) with cash (so it couldn't be later investigated) and cleaned that thing till it basically looked brand new. I'm sure the car was vigorously cleaned and vacuumed. Probably the same with his apartment.