Great overview of the case. A few thoughts / observations:
I had never seen the paper found outside described as having an "M" written on it (very interesting!) - I did see much earlier various speculations based on rotation, manipulation of the picture that it was a hand drawn map, or floor plan of the house etc. Do you have any theories what is on/ in it if indeed it was a large " M" -was it taken from inside, or brought to the house?
What makes you think the DD driver / car was seen by BK as he drove by 4th time? The timings could indeed fit that, am curious if you base this just on timings and the suspect car turning, such as whether you can see from where the suspect car turned in Queen Rd apt parking to outside the King Rd house where the DD car may have been sitting? Thanks
Initially, I looked at every investigation photo with skepticism. I thought, "that might be relevant, but it's probably not." I thought the sheet of paper was likely unrelated.
But now that there has been an arrest, I think Kohberger brought a handwritten note to the house. This would explain two things: (1) Why investigators took samples of Kohberger's handwriting through the search warrants, and (2) why investigators thought these crimes were crimes of passion. It's possible that Kohberger staged the scene to look like a crime of passion when it wasn't. (We could debate endlessly about what passion even is and whether Kohberger's mental state would constitute passion.)
I think the "M" is pretty clear when the contrast of the photo is increased. I do not see a map on the paper.
I plan to make an animation demonstrating how I believe the two cars passed each other. (I am waiting for my new computer monitor to arrive on Tuesday. Adobe After Effects is basically unusable on my small laptop.) I believe they passed each other because of the language used in the affidavit. Payne says that the DoorDash order arrived at "approximately 4:00am." Why approximately? They have the data. They know when the driver delivered the order.
I believe that Payne said "approximately" to conceal the fact that Suspect Vehicle 1 and the DoorDash driver were in the same area at the same time. Perhaps they wanted to protect the DoorDash driver from the prying media or something. And yes, the presence of the DoorDash driver could explain why Suspect Vehicle 1 stopped and turned around in the Linda Lane video.
This is a cool idea to help keep track of everything. And shows evolving thoughts as new information comes out. I sort of have this all in my head, but this would've been much easier. 😂
Laying out a theory in writing also helps organize the supporting points. I've written down theories before where, halfway through my writing, I realize that it is impossible. I throw the theory out at that point.
I just skimmed your Theory of the Case article (after reading it a couple of times previously) to see if you've ever covered this little PCA, page 16, tidbit. I didn't see you mention it:
They're talking about just before the August 21 traffic stop of 11:37 pm, and his use of King Rd cellular resources just beforehand:
"One of these occasions, on August 21, 2022, the 8458 phone utilized cellular resources providing coverage to the King Road residence from approximately 10:34 PM to 11:35 PM."
This is the first time I notice that stretch of time of that King Rd area visit lasted a whopping 61 minutes (10:34 pm to 11:35 pm.)
Is that a typo? Or does it mean he was in and out of the King Rd cellular area for a period of 61 minutes? Or was he in area the entire time? Either way, that's a really long time to be "just driving around, " even his route was sometimes outside the area.
And another side question: could his August 21 driving, being of similar length, show similarities to his Nov. 13th driving pattern?
It's definitely not a typo. I assume he was in the King Road neighborhood for most of that time because investigators likely wouldn't mention it otherwise.
They haven't released the footage of that traffic stop, and I go back and forth on how incriminating that footage likely is. It's possible that they haven't released the footage simply because he was stopped in Moscow, which might be enough to impede his right to a fair trial. Or it's possible that he said something to the officer that seemed normal at the time but is incriminating in hindsight.
The Indiana traffic stop footage was released, and I thought that footage was kinda weird. Does that mean that the Moscow traffic stop footage is even more incriminating than the Indiana footage if they haven't released it yet? Not sure.
Kathryn wrote: "Some time before the murders, Goncalves had moved out of the 1122 King Road residence and back in with her parents in Coeur D’Alene14 where she worked a remote internship with Extreme Networks.15 It is not publicly known exactly when Goncalves moved out, "
I heard a clue from Kaylee's mom about how long she had been gone (and I just spent an hour trying to hunt that video down, without success.)
Her mom was talking about Jack and Kaylee staying in communication when she had returned home, saying something like "those three weeks she was here". So I took it to be three weeks between when she returned home and went back for the fatal weekend - sorry I couldn't find the video where she said that. If I find it, I'll update this post.
I was very interested in the question of how long she had been away from Moscow because the longer she was the away, the less likely his plan involved Kaylee. But only three weeks, perhaps he had not given up on her (if she was even part of his plan. That said, I tend to agree with you - Maddie was the target, and Kaylee - and dog Murphy - foiled whatever his plan was for Maddie, alone.)
Here's a different source of info on how long Kaylee had been home. This podcast host says KG's sister Olivia told her KG had been home "for a couple of weeks" before she bought the Range Rover that Friday. ABC News, "The King Road Killings: An Idaho Mystery" podcast "E1: The House on a Hill", around 13:45.
Are you ignoring the leaked 1330 Linda Lane footage we've likely all seen on Youtube? If so, not saying I disagree with you, for now, as it could be bogus. I'm assuming its video, anyway, is legit.
It not-so-clearly shows a vehicle driving the "wrong way" at 4:07am (not at 4:05am) into the Queen Road Apts parking area ("wrong way" IMO because the map satellite view of that parking area - with southeast pointing parking spaces and all cars parked front-end-first - suggests it was easier for residents to enter through the west-end driveway to drive straight into their spaces.)
Thus that vehicle was likely a non-resident and likely Suspect Vehicle 1 - though the PCA doesn't specify the 4:07am east-end driveway entry (nor does it specify the 3:30am, 3:39am and 3:56 am entries in the Linda Lane footage as part of the "initial three passes" - it doesn't specify how Suspect Vehicle 1 gets turned around in the opposite direction to exit via King Rd each time. The PCA only says, after the three-point turnaround at King Rd and Queen Rd, "driving eastbound again on Queen Rd.")
Of course, the 1112 King Road footage with legit Linda Lane footage will likely clear this up when we finally see them together. We'll also know if SV1 and DD passed or missed each other (or was SV1 behind the house when DD arrived as part of its 3:56 am entry into the Queen Rd parking area? If so, could the driver of SV1, from that vantage point, have seen and heard what was going on with DD -and had any idea it was just a DD, and even known the delivery was to 1122 King, specifically?)
Anyway, If the 4:07am part of the the leaked footage 1330 Linda Lane footage is legit, and the the 4:07am "pass" isn't Suspect Vehicle 1, who is it - a "wrong way" driving resident of the Queen Rd Apts or someone else?
I definitely believe the footage is legit. If the footage were fraudulent, then the 1330 Linda Lane landlord was either complicit or would have said that the footage is fake by now.
The following passage was based on the Linda Lane footage: "I believe that he saw a DoorDash driver delivering a meal to the front doorstep of the 1122 King Road residence, so he drove behind the Queen Road Apartments at 4:05am to wait for the driver to leave, and at around 4:08am, he parked his car in the parking lot."
I got 4:08am from the movements of Suspect Vehicle 1 (SV1) at 4:07am, although I mistakenly did not include that reasoning in my post. (I think I was trying to leave room for the possibility that the 4:07am car wasn't SV1, so I just didn't mention it.)
I think it is SV1 though because, as you said, the car is driving the long way around. A resident who lived on the south side of the Queen Road Apartments complex would have just turned left from Queen to the parking lot on the south side, rather than turning left from Queen to the parking lot on the north side and driving around.
I am working on an animation that will demonstrate my idea of SV1 and the DoorDash vehicle passing each other. It is not *necessarily true* that the drivers saw each other, but it is the best explanation for SV1's pause at 4:05am. I am not sure why he stopped, waited, and turned around in the same narrow spot, instead of circling around the building like the other times. There's shrubbery and tree branches that would have blocked the SV1 driver's view of the DoorDash car through his rear-view mirror from that spot, but it's possible that he could see headlights on the road through his rear-view mirror.
I made a thread about this on Reddit a while ago, but I'll say it here: The 1112 King Road footage likely shows SV1's headlights shining on the road when the car is in front of 1122 Queen Road. That is why the affidavit says the car "attempted to park or turn around"; they aren't sure because they could not see the car itself. I wonder if I can demonstrate this in the animation somehow.
Also, the camera that catches the car driving south on Walenta Drive is also likely the camera at 1112 King Road. Walenta Drive is behind the tree line in the frame.
I will make a post explaining all of this with the animation. I will probably release it to paid subscribers first—I got my first paid subscriber this morning—and I will release it to unpaid subscribers a week or two later; or, if the 1112 King Road footage is released online before then, then I will make my paid post public at that point. I am curious if law enforcement told them not to release it.
The plate change theory may be right, and, if so, is very important to the case. It would explain a lot.
But it's possible BK was willing to take off his new WA front plate temporarily and risk late-night weekend police, if just patrolling, being more concerned with, say, drunk drivers - and not so sharped eyed in spotting missing front plates. If so, he might have considered later, non-Thanksgiving weekends (Dec 2-4 or Dec 9-11) as feasible before his planned WA -> PA trip - but obviously he ended up choosing Nov 11-13.
I say the fear of impending heavy winter snow may have been another factor in his Nov 11-13 decision. The closer it got to winter, the more chance a heavy snow would have left his shoeprints and tiretracks to and from the house - with nothing he could do about it. (EDIT: and his size 13 shoeprint would have narrowed the suspect pool quite a bit - which it might have done anyway if that kitchen Vans shoeprint holds up in court as his.)
He also could have used license plate covers on his Washington plates had he decided to execute his plan later. These covers are slightly opaque to the naked eye but completely black out the plate on camera. I saw someone driving with one the other day.
And maybe he did have a cover on his PA plate, although that does not have to be true for the plates to not be visible on camera.
Perhaps another explanation for executing his plan in November is that he wanted to do it when his courseload was lighter. It's also possible that, while he never returned to Moscow after November 13, he wanted to be somewhat close to the action to see the locals' reactions and hear people talk about it, including the students, many of whom leave when Finals Week begins.
Kathryn, here’s a copy-and-paste from a Reddit post I just made that I want your opinion on (it’s nested somewhat deep in the comments, so I wanted to make sure you saw it):
----
There’s a narrative from some people that he became a suspect as soon as Det. Payne got the WSU Kohberger-white-Elantra report (which I assume had info about the just-changed PA plates - from a non-front-plate-required state, and a photocopy of his WSU ID - and they had his WA driver’s license photo as well, right?)
Did they have other strong suspects by then, to prevent him from being #1?
If the “further review” by the FBI vehicle expert happened because of that - did they start following Kohberger and trying to intercept his WSU apartment trash right away? (the trial should reveal the date of that review.)
Chief Fry, on Dec. 8, was still asking the public to look for a 2011-2013. Were they deking Kohberger?
Or, did they wait for the IGG to return Kohberger as the probable guy before they got serious about him?
The FBI cross-country tailing of the Kohbergers (starting Dec. 13?) doesn’t make sense if the IGG results, a week or so later (Dec. 19?), was what made him the top suspect.
Investigators likely didn't identify Kohberger as a suspect on November 29 because, as I said in my most recent posts, they would have seen the unique characteristics of a 2011-2013 Hyundai Elantra in the Moscow footage. The Moscow footage wasn't blurry. They were confident that they had the year of the car correct.
At that point, they had little reason to believe that someone with a 2015 Elantra disguised his car, so at the most they would have done preliminary searches on him and moved on.
Oh yeah, I forgot about the disguising of the car. Some days ago, I EDIT'd my comment on your altered-Elantra post where I wrote thought I could see the tiniest bit of the indention in the Indiana stop (when the officer was several feet away, by the way.) Wasn't confidently seeing it.
I now agree with you, based on slowing down (0.25x) the Inside Edition's 1080p YouTube footage with my computer at max resolution, full-screen. When the officer is passing the right rear bumper with the camera angle downward changing - you CANNOT see any indention in any frame - and dirt-caking, to the thickness you can see there, does not explain that total lack of indention.
Still, it will be interesting to learn the date of when that "further review" took place, and if the FBI vehicle expert realized the alteration right then. I'm guessing this is not that expert's first vehicle alteration, but, yeah, it probably doesn't happen that often.
"The question then remains why Kohberger turned on his phone. It is possible that he monitored the police scanners online to listen for activity in the King Road neighborhood. This is likely why he returned to the scene at 9:00am: He had been listening to the police scanner for hours and heard nothing. He brought his phone with him back to the King Road area in case there was activity over the scanner while he was en route; then, if the 911 call was made on his way there, he could simply turn around and return home. (The online feed for the Moscow Police Department dispatch is now offline.)"
I see no reason why the MPD wouldn't have usage records for any internet device that's listened in on its scanner app (buried in server logs, somewhere.) Have you thought about how crucial this usage by Kohberger will be at trial? I'm guessing there will be time/duration data, but no location data.
If he was listening at any time on Nov. 12 or 13, that would seem to be important, or any time the PCA 12 King Rd area/phone-on visits.
But even if he wasn't listening during any of the King Rd area/phone-on visits, would just a whole bunch of listening to the MPD scanner (even from home) be suspicious? Were there other local police scanner apps he could have listened to but didn't, nearly as much?
"I see no reason why the MPD wouldn't have usage records for any internet device that's listened in on its scanner app"
- He could have been listening through a website like Broadcastify; it doesn't necessarily have to be an app.
"would just a whole bunch of listening to the MPD scanner (even from home) be suspicious? Were there other local police scanner apps he could have listened to but didn't, nearly as much?"
- There are hobbyists who listen to police scanners. My parents have a radio that they use exclusively to listen to the police frequency; sometimes they listen when there is news of something happening, but sometimes they listen for no particular reason. If investigators found evidence that Kohberger was monitoring the radio, then I suppose he could claim that he's interested in police activity due to his criminology studies, just like with anything else that investigators might find.
"Have you thought about how crucial this usage by Kohberger will be at trial? I'm guessing there will be time/duration data, but no location data."
- If investigators found evidence that he was listening to the police scanner that day, then that would certainly be mentioned at trial. It would look particularly bad for Kohberger if he stopped listening to the police scanner shortly after the 911 call was made; at this point, MPD officers would have switched over to an encrypted frequency and Kohberger wouldn't have heard much.
I've been working on a post about various methods that Kohberger *may* have used to conceal his digital activity related to these homicides, in part because there's a rumor that Kohberger used a FIDO key to lock a computer tower. If he was listening to the police scanner on his phone, then it's possible that he concealed this activity somehow. That said, if investigators could not find online activity on his phone, then they would almost certainly find the methods that he used to conceal his activity, like a certain kind of browser or whatever.
Anyway, the police scanner theory is obviously just that: a theory. But some people think that Kohberger brought his phone with him because he's an idiot, which could very well be true, but I think it's possible that he brought his phone with him because he needed it for a reason. That reason could be the police scanner.
They will go with whatever Kohberger's phone data suggests. If they found evidence that he was listening to the police scanner, then they will have continued to investigate that angle. I'm sure they considered it as soon as they discovered that he returned to the area at 9am.
Oh, and another thing that I forgot to mention: The body camera footage at Band Field ends at 3:15am. Suspect Vehicle 1 first appears in the neighborhood at 3:29am. This could be a coincidence and Kohberger happened to have very good timing, *or* he was listening to the police scanner and waited for the police to leave the neighborhood. Perhaps this is why he drove all the way to Indian Hills Drive on the east side of Moscow; he was stalling until the police left.
But if his phone was off during that time (PCA, pg. 13, says his phone stopped using the network starting at 2:47 am), how could he listen? Did he have a hardware scanner in his vehicle?
Kathryn wrote: "Upon entering Mogen’s bedroom, Kohberger saw that she was not alone: Mogen’s best friend, Kaylee Goncalves, was staying the evening in Mogen’s bedroom with her dog, Murphy. Kohberger proceeded to kill Mogen, Goncalves woke up and fought back, and Kohberger killed Goncalves before deliberately placing the leather Ka-Bar knife sheath under Mogen’s body. Kohberger then led the dog, without touching it, to Goncalves’s former bedroom that was presently unoccupied. "
I'm agreeing with a lot of your assertions about what happened, but have you considered the possibility Kohberger led the dog to the Goncalves bedroom before going back in to attack? If not, what rules that out? Letting the dog watch the two murders would seem to mean the dog didn't bark (or, if it did bark, somehow the PCA doesn't mention DM noticing the dog barking as what first woke her up and being "what sounded like Goncalves playing with her dog." Was the "playing" actually the "killing" with the dog watching and barking?)
I am assuming that Mogen's bedroom door was closed when the assailant got there. I'm not sure that he could have opened the door and led the dog out without Mogen and Goncalves stirring.
I think he went in there expecting only Mogen, but two people and a dog were in the room. He attacked the people in the bed and led the dog away. I think he wanted to separate the dog from the victims so that if the dog started barking while locked in a room, then a surviving resident would let the dog out of the room without discovering a crime scene. Of course, the surviving resident would have known that something was off because the dog was in a locked bedroom by itself.
Some people in the r/MoscowMurders sub might respond to me by saying, "Stop assuming he is a genius. He wasn't thinking about it that much and he made a lot of mistakes." But much of my theory is predicated upon him being totally calm. He was able to think clearly while killing people because that's just how his brain works. (I also think the brain has a way of regulating itself in these situations.)
What if Murphy walked out of the room as soon as he opened the door? That's not impossible to imagine - the dog being awoke by someone moving anywhere in the house, and it hearing that person coming up the stairs toward it, even jumping down from the bed and waiting for that person's arrival right by the door. (Murphy, with his powerful dog nose, could have been woken by the smell of the doordash food before that, even - and thought that person coming up the stairs was bringing some food up - in which case it would be happy to see him.)
Hopefully DM's testimony will shed some light as to exactly what she heard along with the playing. There are many possible scenarios. I'm sure she will be asked when she first heard barking on the witness stand.
Great overview of the case. A few thoughts / observations:
I had never seen the paper found outside described as having an "M" written on it (very interesting!) - I did see much earlier various speculations based on rotation, manipulation of the picture that it was a hand drawn map, or floor plan of the house etc. Do you have any theories what is on/ in it if indeed it was a large " M" -was it taken from inside, or brought to the house?
What makes you think the DD driver / car was seen by BK as he drove by 4th time? The timings could indeed fit that, am curious if you base this just on timings and the suspect car turning, such as whether you can see from where the suspect car turned in Queen Rd apt parking to outside the King Rd house where the DD car may have been sitting? Thanks
Initially, I looked at every investigation photo with skepticism. I thought, "that might be relevant, but it's probably not." I thought the sheet of paper was likely unrelated.
But now that there has been an arrest, I think Kohberger brought a handwritten note to the house. This would explain two things: (1) Why investigators took samples of Kohberger's handwriting through the search warrants, and (2) why investigators thought these crimes were crimes of passion. It's possible that Kohberger staged the scene to look like a crime of passion when it wasn't. (We could debate endlessly about what passion even is and whether Kohberger's mental state would constitute passion.)
I think the "M" is pretty clear when the contrast of the photo is increased. I do not see a map on the paper.
I plan to make an animation demonstrating how I believe the two cars passed each other. (I am waiting for my new computer monitor to arrive on Tuesday. Adobe After Effects is basically unusable on my small laptop.) I believe they passed each other because of the language used in the affidavit. Payne says that the DoorDash order arrived at "approximately 4:00am." Why approximately? They have the data. They know when the driver delivered the order.
I believe that Payne said "approximately" to conceal the fact that Suspect Vehicle 1 and the DoorDash driver were in the same area at the same time. Perhaps they wanted to protect the DoorDash driver from the prying media or something. And yes, the presence of the DoorDash driver could explain why Suspect Vehicle 1 stopped and turned around in the Linda Lane video.
I appreciate you stopping by!
This is a cool idea to help keep track of everything. And shows evolving thoughts as new information comes out. I sort of have this all in my head, but this would've been much easier. 😂
Laying out a theory in writing also helps organize the supporting points. I've written down theories before where, halfway through my writing, I realize that it is impossible. I throw the theory out at that point.
Nice to see you here!
I just skimmed your Theory of the Case article (after reading it a couple of times previously) to see if you've ever covered this little PCA, page 16, tidbit. I didn't see you mention it:
They're talking about just before the August 21 traffic stop of 11:37 pm, and his use of King Rd cellular resources just beforehand:
"One of these occasions, on August 21, 2022, the 8458 phone utilized cellular resources providing coverage to the King Road residence from approximately 10:34 PM to 11:35 PM."
This is the first time I notice that stretch of time of that King Rd area visit lasted a whopping 61 minutes (10:34 pm to 11:35 pm.)
Is that a typo? Or does it mean he was in and out of the King Rd cellular area for a period of 61 minutes? Or was he in area the entire time? Either way, that's a really long time to be "just driving around, " even his route was sometimes outside the area.
And another side question: could his August 21 driving, being of similar length, show similarities to his Nov. 13th driving pattern?
It's definitely not a typo. I assume he was in the King Road neighborhood for most of that time because investigators likely wouldn't mention it otherwise.
They haven't released the footage of that traffic stop, and I go back and forth on how incriminating that footage likely is. It's possible that they haven't released the footage simply because he was stopped in Moscow, which might be enough to impede his right to a fair trial. Or it's possible that he said something to the officer that seemed normal at the time but is incriminating in hindsight.
The Indiana traffic stop footage was released, and I thought that footage was kinda weird. Does that mean that the Moscow traffic stop footage is even more incriminating than the Indiana footage if they haven't released it yet? Not sure.
Kathryn wrote: "Some time before the murders, Goncalves had moved out of the 1122 King Road residence and back in with her parents in Coeur D’Alene14 where she worked a remote internship with Extreme Networks.15 It is not publicly known exactly when Goncalves moved out, "
I heard a clue from Kaylee's mom about how long she had been gone (and I just spent an hour trying to hunt that video down, without success.)
Her mom was talking about Jack and Kaylee staying in communication when she had returned home, saying something like "those three weeks she was here". So I took it to be three weeks between when she returned home and went back for the fatal weekend - sorry I couldn't find the video where she said that. If I find it, I'll update this post.
I was very interested in the question of how long she had been away from Moscow because the longer she was the away, the less likely his plan involved Kaylee. But only three weeks, perhaps he had not given up on her (if she was even part of his plan. That said, I tend to agree with you - Maddie was the target, and Kaylee - and dog Murphy - foiled whatever his plan was for Maddie, alone.)
Here's a different source of info on how long Kaylee had been home. This podcast host says KG's sister Olivia told her KG had been home "for a couple of weeks" before she bought the Range Rover that Friday. ABC News, "The King Road Killings: An Idaho Mystery" podcast "E1: The House on a Hill", around 13:45.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-king-road-killings-an-idaho-murder-mystery/id1687357696
Are you ignoring the leaked 1330 Linda Lane footage we've likely all seen on Youtube? If so, not saying I disagree with you, for now, as it could be bogus. I'm assuming its video, anyway, is legit.
It not-so-clearly shows a vehicle driving the "wrong way" at 4:07am (not at 4:05am) into the Queen Road Apts parking area ("wrong way" IMO because the map satellite view of that parking area - with southeast pointing parking spaces and all cars parked front-end-first - suggests it was easier for residents to enter through the west-end driveway to drive straight into their spaces.)
Thus that vehicle was likely a non-resident and likely Suspect Vehicle 1 - though the PCA doesn't specify the 4:07am east-end driveway entry (nor does it specify the 3:30am, 3:39am and 3:56 am entries in the Linda Lane footage as part of the "initial three passes" - it doesn't specify how Suspect Vehicle 1 gets turned around in the opposite direction to exit via King Rd each time. The PCA only says, after the three-point turnaround at King Rd and Queen Rd, "driving eastbound again on Queen Rd.")
Of course, the 1112 King Road footage with legit Linda Lane footage will likely clear this up when we finally see them together. We'll also know if SV1 and DD passed or missed each other (or was SV1 behind the house when DD arrived as part of its 3:56 am entry into the Queen Rd parking area? If so, could the driver of SV1, from that vantage point, have seen and heard what was going on with DD -and had any idea it was just a DD, and even known the delivery was to 1122 King, specifically?)
Anyway, If the 4:07am part of the the leaked footage 1330 Linda Lane footage is legit, and the the 4:07am "pass" isn't Suspect Vehicle 1, who is it - a "wrong way" driving resident of the Queen Rd Apts or someone else?
I definitely believe the footage is legit. If the footage were fraudulent, then the 1330 Linda Lane landlord was either complicit or would have said that the footage is fake by now.
The following passage was based on the Linda Lane footage: "I believe that he saw a DoorDash driver delivering a meal to the front doorstep of the 1122 King Road residence, so he drove behind the Queen Road Apartments at 4:05am to wait for the driver to leave, and at around 4:08am, he parked his car in the parking lot."
I got 4:08am from the movements of Suspect Vehicle 1 (SV1) at 4:07am, although I mistakenly did not include that reasoning in my post. (I think I was trying to leave room for the possibility that the 4:07am car wasn't SV1, so I just didn't mention it.)
I think it is SV1 though because, as you said, the car is driving the long way around. A resident who lived on the south side of the Queen Road Apartments complex would have just turned left from Queen to the parking lot on the south side, rather than turning left from Queen to the parking lot on the north side and driving around.
I am working on an animation that will demonstrate my idea of SV1 and the DoorDash vehicle passing each other. It is not *necessarily true* that the drivers saw each other, but it is the best explanation for SV1's pause at 4:05am. I am not sure why he stopped, waited, and turned around in the same narrow spot, instead of circling around the building like the other times. There's shrubbery and tree branches that would have blocked the SV1 driver's view of the DoorDash car through his rear-view mirror from that spot, but it's possible that he could see headlights on the road through his rear-view mirror.
I made a thread about this on Reddit a while ago, but I'll say it here: The 1112 King Road footage likely shows SV1's headlights shining on the road when the car is in front of 1122 Queen Road. That is why the affidavit says the car "attempted to park or turn around"; they aren't sure because they could not see the car itself. I wonder if I can demonstrate this in the animation somehow.
Also, the camera that catches the car driving south on Walenta Drive is also likely the camera at 1112 King Road. Walenta Drive is behind the tree line in the frame.
I will make a post explaining all of this with the animation. I will probably release it to paid subscribers first—I got my first paid subscriber this morning—and I will release it to unpaid subscribers a week or two later; or, if the 1112 King Road footage is released online before then, then I will make my paid post public at that point. I am curious if law enforcement told them not to release it.
"November 13 Was His Final Opportunity"
The plate change theory may be right, and, if so, is very important to the case. It would explain a lot.
But it's possible BK was willing to take off his new WA front plate temporarily and risk late-night weekend police, if just patrolling, being more concerned with, say, drunk drivers - and not so sharped eyed in spotting missing front plates. If so, he might have considered later, non-Thanksgiving weekends (Dec 2-4 or Dec 9-11) as feasible before his planned WA -> PA trip - but obviously he ended up choosing Nov 11-13.
I say the fear of impending heavy winter snow may have been another factor in his Nov 11-13 decision. The closer it got to winter, the more chance a heavy snow would have left his shoeprints and tiretracks to and from the house - with nothing he could do about it. (EDIT: and his size 13 shoeprint would have narrowed the suspect pool quite a bit - which it might have done anyway if that kitchen Vans shoeprint holds up in court as his.)
He also could have used license plate covers on his Washington plates had he decided to execute his plan later. These covers are slightly opaque to the naked eye but completely black out the plate on camera. I saw someone driving with one the other day.
And maybe he did have a cover on his PA plate, although that does not have to be true for the plates to not be visible on camera.
Perhaps another explanation for executing his plan in November is that he wanted to do it when his courseload was lighter. It's also possible that, while he never returned to Moscow after November 13, he wanted to be somewhat close to the action to see the locals' reactions and hear people talk about it, including the students, many of whom leave when Finals Week begins.
And yes, you're right about the snow.
Kathryn, here’s a copy-and-paste from a Reddit post I just made that I want your opinion on (it’s nested somewhat deep in the comments, so I wanted to make sure you saw it):
----
There’s a narrative from some people that he became a suspect as soon as Det. Payne got the WSU Kohberger-white-Elantra report (which I assume had info about the just-changed PA plates - from a non-front-plate-required state, and a photocopy of his WSU ID - and they had his WA driver’s license photo as well, right?)
Did they have other strong suspects by then, to prevent him from being #1?
If the “further review” by the FBI vehicle expert happened because of that - did they start following Kohberger and trying to intercept his WSU apartment trash right away? (the trial should reveal the date of that review.)
Chief Fry, on Dec. 8, was still asking the public to look for a 2011-2013. Were they deking Kohberger?
Or, did they wait for the IGG to return Kohberger as the probable guy before they got serious about him?
The FBI cross-country tailing of the Kohbergers (starting Dec. 13?) doesn’t make sense if the IGG results, a week or so later (Dec. 19?), was what made him the top suspect.
Investigators likely didn't identify Kohberger as a suspect on November 29 because, as I said in my most recent posts, they would have seen the unique characteristics of a 2011-2013 Hyundai Elantra in the Moscow footage. The Moscow footage wasn't blurry. They were confident that they had the year of the car correct.
At that point, they had little reason to believe that someone with a 2015 Elantra disguised his car, so at the most they would have done preliminary searches on him and moved on.
I'm telling you: Kohberger disguised his car.
Oh yeah, I forgot about the disguising of the car. Some days ago, I EDIT'd my comment on your altered-Elantra post where I wrote thought I could see the tiniest bit of the indention in the Indiana stop (when the officer was several feet away, by the way.) Wasn't confidently seeing it.
I now agree with you, based on slowing down (0.25x) the Inside Edition's 1080p YouTube footage with my computer at max resolution, full-screen. When the officer is passing the right rear bumper with the camera angle downward changing - you CANNOT see any indention in any frame - and dirt-caking, to the thickness you can see there, does not explain that total lack of indention.
Still, it will be interesting to learn the date of when that "further review" took place, and if the FBI vehicle expert realized the alteration right then. I'm guessing this is not that expert's first vehicle alteration, but, yeah, it probably doesn't happen that often.
Kathryn wrote:
"The question then remains why Kohberger turned on his phone. It is possible that he monitored the police scanners online to listen for activity in the King Road neighborhood. This is likely why he returned to the scene at 9:00am: He had been listening to the police scanner for hours and heard nothing. He brought his phone with him back to the King Road area in case there was activity over the scanner while he was en route; then, if the 911 call was made on his way there, he could simply turn around and return home. (The online feed for the Moscow Police Department dispatch is now offline.)"
I see no reason why the MPD wouldn't have usage records for any internet device that's listened in on its scanner app (buried in server logs, somewhere.) Have you thought about how crucial this usage by Kohberger will be at trial? I'm guessing there will be time/duration data, but no location data.
If he was listening at any time on Nov. 12 or 13, that would seem to be important, or any time the PCA 12 King Rd area/phone-on visits.
But even if he wasn't listening during any of the King Rd area/phone-on visits, would just a whole bunch of listening to the MPD scanner (even from home) be suspicious? Were there other local police scanner apps he could have listened to but didn't, nearly as much?
"I see no reason why the MPD wouldn't have usage records for any internet device that's listened in on its scanner app"
- He could have been listening through a website like Broadcastify; it doesn't necessarily have to be an app.
"would just a whole bunch of listening to the MPD scanner (even from home) be suspicious? Were there other local police scanner apps he could have listened to but didn't, nearly as much?"
- There are hobbyists who listen to police scanners. My parents have a radio that they use exclusively to listen to the police frequency; sometimes they listen when there is news of something happening, but sometimes they listen for no particular reason. If investigators found evidence that Kohberger was monitoring the radio, then I suppose he could claim that he's interested in police activity due to his criminology studies, just like with anything else that investigators might find.
"Have you thought about how crucial this usage by Kohberger will be at trial? I'm guessing there will be time/duration data, but no location data."
- If investigators found evidence that he was listening to the police scanner that day, then that would certainly be mentioned at trial. It would look particularly bad for Kohberger if he stopped listening to the police scanner shortly after the 911 call was made; at this point, MPD officers would have switched over to an encrypted frequency and Kohberger wouldn't have heard much.
I've been working on a post about various methods that Kohberger *may* have used to conceal his digital activity related to these homicides, in part because there's a rumor that Kohberger used a FIDO key to lock a computer tower. If he was listening to the police scanner on his phone, then it's possible that he concealed this activity somehow. That said, if investigators could not find online activity on his phone, then they would almost certainly find the methods that he used to conceal his activity, like a certain kind of browser or whatever.
Anyway, the police scanner theory is obviously just that: a theory. But some people think that Kohberger brought his phone with him because he's an idiot, which could very well be true, but I think it's possible that he brought his phone with him because he needed it for a reason. That reason could be the police scanner.
Do you think investigators will, at least, be pursuing the police scanner angle to see if there's any inculpatory patterns to be found?
They will go with whatever Kohberger's phone data suggests. If they found evidence that he was listening to the police scanner, then they will have continued to investigate that angle. I'm sure they considered it as soon as they discovered that he returned to the area at 9am.
Oh, and another thing that I forgot to mention: The body camera footage at Band Field ends at 3:15am. Suspect Vehicle 1 first appears in the neighborhood at 3:29am. This could be a coincidence and Kohberger happened to have very good timing, *or* he was listening to the police scanner and waited for the police to leave the neighborhood. Perhaps this is why he drove all the way to Indian Hills Drive on the east side of Moscow; he was stalling until the police left.
But if his phone was off during that time (PCA, pg. 13, says his phone stopped using the network starting at 2:47 am), how could he listen? Did he have a hardware scanner in his vehicle?
Oh wait, you're right. His phone was off. I forgot. I guess he just had good timing, then.
I don't think he used a radio because he wouldn't hear the MPD chatter from Pullman.
Kathryn wrote: "Upon entering Mogen’s bedroom, Kohberger saw that she was not alone: Mogen’s best friend, Kaylee Goncalves, was staying the evening in Mogen’s bedroom with her dog, Murphy. Kohberger proceeded to kill Mogen, Goncalves woke up and fought back, and Kohberger killed Goncalves before deliberately placing the leather Ka-Bar knife sheath under Mogen’s body. Kohberger then led the dog, without touching it, to Goncalves’s former bedroom that was presently unoccupied. "
I'm agreeing with a lot of your assertions about what happened, but have you considered the possibility Kohberger led the dog to the Goncalves bedroom before going back in to attack? If not, what rules that out? Letting the dog watch the two murders would seem to mean the dog didn't bark (or, if it did bark, somehow the PCA doesn't mention DM noticing the dog barking as what first woke her up and being "what sounded like Goncalves playing with her dog." Was the "playing" actually the "killing" with the dog watching and barking?)
I am assuming that Mogen's bedroom door was closed when the assailant got there. I'm not sure that he could have opened the door and led the dog out without Mogen and Goncalves stirring.
I think he went in there expecting only Mogen, but two people and a dog were in the room. He attacked the people in the bed and led the dog away. I think he wanted to separate the dog from the victims so that if the dog started barking while locked in a room, then a surviving resident would let the dog out of the room without discovering a crime scene. Of course, the surviving resident would have known that something was off because the dog was in a locked bedroom by itself.
Some people in the r/MoscowMurders sub might respond to me by saying, "Stop assuming he is a genius. He wasn't thinking about it that much and he made a lot of mistakes." But much of my theory is predicated upon him being totally calm. He was able to think clearly while killing people because that's just how his brain works. (I also think the brain has a way of regulating itself in these situations.)
What if Murphy walked out of the room as soon as he opened the door? That's not impossible to imagine - the dog being awoke by someone moving anywhere in the house, and it hearing that person coming up the stairs toward it, even jumping down from the bed and waiting for that person's arrival right by the door. (Murphy, with his powerful dog nose, could have been woken by the smell of the doordash food before that, even - and thought that person coming up the stairs was bringing some food up - in which case it would be happy to see him.)
Hopefully DM's testimony will shed some light as to exactly what she heard along with the playing. There are many possible scenarios. I'm sure she will be asked when she first heard barking on the witness stand.