re: Idaho Murders Thread (Links inside)

quote:

---

What is y’all’s theory of why a police plane would be circling BK’s parents house 2.5 hours after they arrested him?

---

Spoof cell signal to see who parents call or watch to see if they discard evidence

quote:

---

she was likely drunk/high

---

If the prosecution uses this to justify why she did not immediately call the police, the defense is going to use it to question her first hand account of seeing him in the house.

Will be interesting to hear her story….I am sure at some point she is going to testify so it will all come out.

Also in regards to cleaning the car, trace evidence gets everywhere, and unless he took that car down to the frame its highly likely there is evidence there…..too many tiny cracks and crevices in a vehicle that minute evidence can land.

I agree, but I don’t think her ID’ing him is necessary to the prosecution thanks to the combination of the DNA, cell tracking, car video info, and who knows what else they find on his devices/property. More than anything, it helped them with the timeline and zeroing in on him.

I doubt the prosecution will rely on it that much with all the other evidence, the only reason we’re all focused on her actions and the actions of the roommates in the morning are because that’s one of the few areas that law enforcement hasn’t fully explained.

quote:

---

If the prosecution uses this to justify why she did not immediately call the police

---

Why would the prosecution need to justify that? Or anything she did for that matter. I still don’t understand why some of you are so fixated on her behavior unless you’re somehow suggesting she was in on it. She did what she did. The “why” is irrelevant.

quote:

---

the defense is going to use it to question her first hand account of seeing him in the house.

---

If that’s going to be a significant part of their defense, he’s right fricked anyway.

quote:

---

Will be interesting to hear her story

---

I do agree with this.

quote:

---

.I am sure at some point she is going to testify so it will all come out.

---

She may, but she’s not going to be some star witness that the prosecution’s case depends on. She didn’t identify him because he was wearing a mask up to his nose (some people seem to think he was decked out in some murder suit with a ski mask, but it was closer to a Covid mask) and it was dark.

All she could tell them was his approximate height and build (she said 5’10” or a little taller and not big, but athletically built), hardly enough to distinguish him from probably 75% of the local male population) and had “bushy eyebrows.”

None of that could be used to accurately identify him, so I don’t see any real reason for the prosecution to even need to bring it up. Her seeing him had nothing to do with him being arrested. They don’t “need” her testimony. (And if she had been seen drinking at the frat house or bar a few hours earlier, I’m not sure they’ll bother with it anyway). At best it initially helped police with a basic timeline, but they’ve got enough now to pin it down much more precisely.

I think what most of y’all really want to know is more about HIS behavior and why he didn’t kill her. Probably won’t get that until somebody interviews him for a documentary 25 years from now when he’s still on death row.

Like I said, it’d be interesting to hear her story from her, but I don’t know how much it matter as it relates to his eventual trial and conviction. With the gag order, we might have to wait until after the trial if she decides to do the talk show circuit. Or she may testify. But don’t expect her to be this trial’s Kato Kalen. Her testimony—if she’s even called—will be a very small part of the prosecution’s case.

quote:

---

Why would the prosecution need to justify that? Or anything she did for that matter. I still don’t understand why some of you are so fixated on her behavior unless you’re somehow suggesting she was in on it. She did what she did. The “why” is irrelevant.

---

Yes I know, but these are the straws the defense is going to grasp if they don’t take a plea and it goes to trial, so its relevant to discuss.

Why are you so damn wound up about it? You do realize that people will see things from different perspectives than you, right?

A case, from both sides, is built from either building the preponderance of evidence, or tearing it down.

quote:

---

Assuming this is him.

---

I mentioned earlier someone put together BK’s research questions from DeSales side by side with his questions in the FB group. Here’s the link. Take a look for yourself. Scroll through them. He wasn’t just asking random questions. He was no longer conducting the interview from the researchers point of view. He was conducting research interviews from the criminals point of view. Remember, he knows the answer to all the questions much like a TA or a professor would know when handing out a case study, but now he’s asking the class/ fb group to give their opinions and interpretations of the events.

LINK

When you read his fb questions, read them in the first person.

Ex instead of how do you think the killer approached the house, read it as how did I approach the house?

quote:

---

Yes I know, but these are the straws the defense is going to grasp if they don’t take a plea and it goes to trial, so its relevant to discuss.

---

So the dude is going to somehow be found not guilty or less guilty because this chick waited too long to cal cops?

quote:

---

Just announced on fox news Xana and Ethan were the first ones killed.

---

Interesting.

I wonder if he stabbed them first, killing Dylan but not Xana (remember her dad saying she put up a fight), went upstairs and killed the other 2 victims, went back to the room where he found Xana still alive and finished her off (explaining why she was found on the floor and heard crying), before leaving back out the kitchen without noticing Dylan seeing him

quote:

---

Her dad saying she put up a fight

---

Will be interesting to see if they have found his DNA on her if so as typically when a victim fights back, there is a transfer of DNA from the attacker to the victim.

If they were looking to see if he had scratches on his hands, face etc from the stops in Indiana, they must think someone scratched him. Might be something they found on her and have they didn’t feel needed to be released in a probable cause affidavit at this time but that would be the nail in his coffin.

Yep. If his eyes were dilated and he was experiencing tunnel vision due to the high stress and adrenaline of committing a quadruple homicide, it’s a very strong possibility he never saw her even if the distance between them was less than a couple feet. Potentially dark lighting conditions, him moving fairly quickly past her as she didn’t move (frozen in her words) all make for a very plausible explanation.

Don’t discount the euphoric high this guy was probably experiencing as well.