You know there were 4 people killed that night. I wonder if she heard anything else in addition to what we’re now hearing. But also, his DNA on a knife sheath in that room might be circumstantial, but that is really damning.
Idaho murders suspect
- Thread starter ChiefWB
- Start date
“We” may not but it is likely those responsible for collecting evidence and putting together a case do have more. And that will come out over time. I also firmly believe the accused will talk at some point if he hasn’t done so already.
it’s not damning to you? If you wanna say there could still be some reasonable doubt, sure. But I don’t know how the ONLY DNA on the sheath of a knife found at the crime scene being his isn’t damning. Unless this guy had some other reason to ever be in the house or it was planted by police it’s pretty clear how it got there.
Aside from the car like his spotted circling the neighborhood at the time, the same time he happened to turn off his cell phone while on his way from where he lived to the scene.
Jurors are expected to be impartial in reviewing the evidence, but they don’t have to pretend they are imbeciles unable to piece together evidence.
We’ll have to see if the defense can convince the jury that Mark Furman planted the sheath with the suspect’s DNA there.
Ok. I feel like you’re trying too hard to find reasonable doubt. So his DNA is on the sheath of a large knife found at the crime scene. And ONLY his DNA. So no one picked it up and brought it in. I’m just confused where the reasonable doubt is specific to the sheath. I’d imagine they’ll be able to show the knife that comes with that sheath is consistent with a knife that could have been used in the murders. The more I think about it the less actual doubt I have.
LOL
Yeah. How could it have happened? What’s a reasonable conclusion for the facts in evidence?
A) He turned off his phone while heading toward the scene.
B) His car was spotted at the scene
C) His DNA is on evidence recovered from the scene
On what reasonable basis do you presume he didn’t put the sheath with his DNA at the scene he was spotted circling at the time of the murder?
What is the source of your doubt?
Lets see. They have him at or near the scene from cell phone tracking, he turned the phone off during the time of the murders, his car was at or near the scene and a knife sheath with his DNA was found at the scene. Each item by itself would be one thing but all together makes it look more like him. I guess all these things could have been planted or staged but its getting to be more of a long shot as they come out with more evidence.
What reasonable way do you think his DNA go onto this sheath other than him touching it? Unless it was planted there the only reasonable way would be from his hands. So what reasonable way could it have gotten in the house? He either brought it in himself or somehow someone got ahold of a large knife sheath with his DNA on it and brought it in and left it there. So this simplifies down to he either was the one who brought it into the house and handled it or he’s being framed by someone. There isn’t any other conclusion that I can think of.
But this also highlights why jury trials are such a crapshoot.
I think Brain is fostering a good discussion of what we DO know.
I have no doubt we’re going to see a release (or a leak) of more evidence the authorities have gathered over the months before any trial.
I read somewhere that the knife was a K Bar type knife. Not sure if this was determined by the sheath they found or through autopsy. If the autopsy reveals that the knife used is the same type as the sheath his DNA was on its going to be fairly convincing.
According to Nancy Grace they can warm up Old Sparky now.
She’s certainly got her own POV.
He may just be declared mentally unfit to stand trial.
A mad “genius” for sure.
There is a deliberate obtuseness at play that goes beyond ‘fostering a good discussion’.
One hopes for a jury that is impartial, not idiotic.
Well thank you for your in depth riveting legal synopsis. You aren't one of those obsessed with Theodore Robert Bundy are you? Those people are some kind of special.
I like challenges. I think. Definitely. Maybe. Not a fan of dental challenges, however.
This is Perry Mason and Ben Matlock and they approve this message.
Last edited:
Who? 🤪Well thank you for your in depth riveting legal synopsis. You aren't one of those obsessed with Theodore Robert Bundy are you? Those people are some kind of special.
The prosecution has to prove this beyond a REASONABLE doubt. Not beyond ANY doubt. People have been convicted many times with circumstantial evidence and jurors are allowed to use their common sense. Is the presence of the sheath and the car and the cell phone data and the DNA attributable to coincidence? In my mind, hell no! But I won’t be on the jury😎.
It will be interesting to see his defense. Can he explain all the circumstantial evidence? Will the state have stronger evidence in court?
And in those cases somehow he’d still be the only source of DNA on the sheath? I mean, c’mon with this.
Correction, you’re dismissing evidence he was in the house.
Your burden of proof is on the state to prove Mark Furman didn’t plant the DNA that ties him to the murder scene his car was spotted circling at the time of the murders, after he switched off his phone driving from where he lives toward the murder scene after midnight?
And you think that’s ‘reasonable’?
I don't think he is saying that it isn't more than likely that the guy did it, but this isn't a civil trial.
There could be potentially reasonable explanations of how the sheath got in the house without the suspect being there. And in the U.S. court system, the defense does not need to provide the explanation of specifically how it got there. So to him if the only evidence they have is what they have in the affidavit, then that would not be enough to convict. It is merely a good start. They will need to present more evidence to get a conviction in criminal court.
Funny story about the SR71...............in the late 1960s I was at Fairborn, Ohio where my dad just retired from the USAF out of Wright Patterson. Would go to the indoor swimming pool for practice. One morning after our 5:30AM practice there was a really funny looking airplane on a rarely used runway close to the facility. We all gawked at it on our way out. Several friends later told me their dads have worked on it and it was "invisible" to radar (stealth technology). At the time it would be many years before we officially admitted to building it. But, there it was, on some runway in the middle of Wright Patterson AFB........
So far everything released is from the prosecutors. They always get out in front of the narrative. But, it is likely that the defense will start to form a counter-narrative and will be feeding media with that soon. Until trial, unless a plea is made, we won't have a full picture.
I think with the recent gag order we won’t be hearing much of anything for a while.
Really?
No recollection of his role in the OJ trial at all, especially as presented by the defense?
This is an example of you being disengenuous, because you’re not actually this obtuse. Your next sentence gives it away.
But you enjoy acting this way on the internet for some reason.
Per cell phone records he was in the area of the house 11 times in the last 12 months the last time his phone was off at the same time as the murders. His car was spotted in the area, he matches the loose description the roommate gave (height, weight ect). His and only his DNA was found on the sheath that was recovered from the scene. Circumstantial ? Sure. Is it going to be hard for him to explain all of this away? Yes. Right now it walks and sounds like a duck.
Just so we’re clear. You think it’s reasonable the suspect could have misplaced/lost/dropped/donated the sheath to a large knife that was then acquired in someway by someone wearing gloves. That person then brought the sheath into the house where the victims lived and left the sheath on the bed of one of the victims right in the middle of the crime scene. The sheath stayed there untouched (or only touched by someone with gloves on) until found by police that morning after the murders. I suppose one of the victims might also have opened a window at some point, the suspect walked by with the sheath for some reason and then decided it would be fun to throw the sheath thru the window onto the bed where again, it sat untouched until found by police.
Driving through the neighborhood (near the scene) repeatedly (stalking) combined with being at the house when the phone was off is pretty damning and yes he would need to explain it. This will be presented to the jury then they will let the defense try to pick it apart. Besides that they now have his car and will surely find some more evidence. Unless this guy is very smart and leading everyone on he's likely done and going to walk the green mile.
Interesting story here from Fox. Its a little on the Nancy Grace side but paints a pretty dim picture for the defense.
Idaho murders: 5 key pieces of evidence against Bryan Kohberger
The case against Bryan Kohberger for the Idaho quadruple homicide appears strong.
So you never heard about this?
Detective Mark Fuhrman was called back to the witness stand Wednesday and was asked point blank whether he planted evidence against O.J. Simpson. He refused to answer, invoking his Fifth-Amendment right against self-incrimination.
Climaxing months of defense claims that Simpson was framed by a racist detective, Fuhrman refused to answer any question. Jurors weren't in the courtroom to see the brief confrontation between Simpson attorney Gerald Uelmen and the subdued detective who, five months earlier, told the panel he found a bloody glove on Simpson's property.
``Detective Fuhrman, did you plant or manufacture any evidence in this case?'' Uelmen asked.
``I assert my Fifth Amendment privilege,'' Fuhrman replied, his attorney standing at his side.
Fuhrman gave a similar answer to three other questions including, ``Have you ever falsified a police report?''
As Fuhrman was led out of court, Simpson was overcome with emotion. His eyes reddened and he buried his face in his hands, apparently crying.
Not controversial at all its a different opinion which is why we have a jury of our peers. The case has holes but put all together it tells a story that doesn't favor the accused. However, tying the sheath to the murder weapon would help the prosecution immensely.
You only know what the prosecutors have fed the media. That means, you are right in that you really don't know anything about the case or how any of the evidence will be presented at trial or if it will be presented at all. Your guess is as good as any of the talking head presented on TV or anyone on here.
I would have picked you, depending on the case. You present a certain psychological/personality profile that can be very useful on a jury. (I was a jury consultant for a decade)Well, you all are probably seeing why I have never been selected to serve on a jury despite being called at least a dozen times over the last 20 years.
Thankfully I have never been through the selection process. I always have a good enough excuse to get out of going.Well, you all are probably seeing why I have never been selected to serve on a jury despite being called at least a dozen times over the last 20 years.
Because you’re acting obtuse.
If you weren’t acting obtuse you’d readily recognize the connection between OJs defense accusing Mark Furman of planting DNA at the scene and your search for an explanation for how the Idaho accused’s DNA showed up at the murder scene he was driving toward and around at the time of the murders.
My only alternative is to believe you’re really, really dumb.
But you’re not.
