For what it’s worth, I didn’t interpret the reporter’s response to you as snarky. I think he was just trying to add a little levity and for me his efforts to answer your inquiry shows he took you seriously. I could be wrong; deciphering tone in texts is always tricky.
"his efforts to answer your inquiry shows he took you seriously."
Yeah, and that's why I was sure to mention that I appreciate him taking the time to look into it further, although I do think that the term 'sleuth' has mostly negative connotations.
I hesitated to mention the snark because I don't want my frustrations to be the focus of this post; however, I wanted to include his response because it's likely accurate, and I wanted to defend myself in case anyone else thinks that my line of inquiry was irrational or whatever.
Thanks for your efforts, Kathryn! I hope you are doing well!
I review iCourt records all the time, and it is NOT common to see double entries of the same citation being filed so I understand your interest. That said, the rest of the case information does appear to me to be regarding one citation (including a late payment of the $10 fine). My guess is he was pulled over for speeding or something dumb like that. OR maybe you're right and his plate was obstructed, but the officer let him off for that. A final possibility is that the Court was successful at removing information about another citation from the iCourt information to keep a second citation sealed, but that seems least likely to me.
I'd like to clarify, though, that immediately after his arrest, I checked iCourt and saw this seat belt infraction AND his murder case. Then sometime shortly after his arrival in Idaho, both the infraction and felony cases disappeared from iCourt. The infraction case reappeared on iCourt in mid to late summer of 2023. I still highly recommend you check out case number CR29-23-0030; it's probably another Court snapu, but I'm thinking that case is part of the reason why they removed information regarding the infraction case from the public view on iCourt.
The way I see it, the two scenarios regarding the citation are the following: (1) Kohberger was pulled over for a relatively innocuous reason, cited for the lack of safety restraint, and the footage of the traffic stop is sealed for a third reason; or (2) Kohberger was pulled over for the license plate, there was a conversation about it, he was cited for the lack of safety restraint, and the footage was sealed due to the conversation about the license plate. In other words, the initial reason for the stop and the justification for the sealing of the footage are synonymous.
I think the second scenario is the most likely.
Wow, I just looked up that record. Why do you think the case was closed in July? Edit: I just looked up the documents filed in the Kohberger case in July, and there were documents filed regarding the grand jury information on July 26. Hmm.
Is there a way to discover similarly filed charges? In other words, are there charges filed under other strange names in early- to mid-2023? I've narrowed down the final case in 2023 as between 3200 and 3300 as the final digits, and that's a lot of cases to sift through manually. I've started a spreadsheet to indicate the case benchmarks throughout the year: case 100 is in January, 1000 in April, 2000 in August, etc.
Edit: I checked Megan Marshall's calendar on the date of Kohberger's arraignment, and his arraignment isn't listed. I assume the arraignment for CR29-23-0030 also isn't listed on the calendar; while it is listed as "vacated" in the iCourt records, I believe he must still be arraigned.
I'll publish a post about this in a few days, likely on Thursday.
(If I recall correctly, you were present for my livestream. Thanks for attending!)
Hi Kathryn, sorry I haven't been able to watch the recent Court hearings live with you; I've been working during those times but I'm glad you have the YouTube channel!
I agree that it's probably most likely Kohberger was pulled over for something such as an obstructed license plate and then cited for the seat belt. I sure wish they would release the bodycam footage! I would hope they have footage anyway. But whether or not anything of interest is on the footage, I don't believe they will release it because of the gag order.
Speaking of bodycam footage: did you notice on one of the stops in Indiana you analyzed of the footage from inside the car that it looks like the officer may have very, very quickly tapped on his trunk on his way to the passenger side window to speak to them? I'm curious what you think of that.
In regards to that other Court case I mentioned above: If the case was a mistake by someone at the Court, or a sick joke, maybe it was "closed" in July because a supervisor finally noticed it as an open case in the system and had it closed out. If that case is/was actually created for a legitimate purpose in connection to Kohberger, I would speculate it may have had something to do with the grand jury (just as you note since that's what was going on during that time). I already went through all the early cases manually, as well as around the time of the indictment, to look for other weird names/circumstances. I did find one case matter that appears to have Ms. Marshall's calendar for some civil cases (super weird if you ask me); I can send you that case number later. I also tried finding an arraignment hearing for the Bugs case but couldn't, just like you could not. It could all be a joke, but the coincidence it just crazy and I wouldn't be at all surprised if Kohberger went over there the evening of November 12. Ms. Taylor's statement that he was out driving around late on November 12 and into the early morning hours of November 13 makes me wonder where he was prior to 2:30 AM on November 13; why would she mention November 12 if the police allege in the PCA his phone was pinging at or near his apartment around 2:40 AM before he left to Moscow?
Final thing I've been thinking about (although I haven't yet read your most recent posts and you might have already discussed this): Ms. Taylor has mentioned at the January hearing something about a video that law enforcement is trying to "match up" with audio; she only has a bit of the video but wants it all. She called it an important video. She also mentioned a video at the February 28th hearing (not regarding Kohberger's car) which I assume is referencing the same video they're trying to synch the audio to (maybe not, but that's what it sounded like to me). What do you think it might be? Maybe a home surveillance video coupled with audio someone recorded? Ms. Taylor said Feb 28 that she thinks the Prosecution "might" use the tape (or something similar), so it sounds like it must not be regarding the murders themselves (although we could wish!)
There's footage of the August 21 traffic stop that investigators have confirmed is sealed.
"it looks like the officer may have very, very quickly tapped on his trunk on his way to the passenger side window to speak to them? I'm curious what you think of that."
Good catch! Yes, I did notice this. I even have a screenshot somewhere in my screenshots folder of that moment.
Fox News reported that the traffic stops were coordinated by the FBI, and the FBI later stated that this wasn't true and that Indiana police were conducting an initiative to counter drug trafficking.
I think that the first officer noticed Kohberger's vehicle during the initiative to counter drug trafficking. If I am correct that Kohberger modified his vehicle, then it might have stood out to the officer. (Maybe Kohberger stripped his vehicle of its make and model insignia, in which case the insignia captured in the footage was added later to the footage itself.)
The officer might have thought the conversation was strange, so he sent a message over the radio asking for someone else to stop the vehicle again. That's the stop wherein the officer touches the vehicle.
I am publishing a post tomorrow that somewhat goes into Kohberger's vehicle, and it will be a good segue into my post on Thursday about the strange charge, because I think that they are indirectly connected. When you read tomorrow's post, keep the November 12 charge in mind.
The only other explanation for that case is that someone else was charged with a burglary committed on November 12, and the court was trying to prevent that person from getting wrapped up in the Kohberger case commentary. The court isn't obligated to do that, though. That case is also stripped of some information, like the active attorneys for both parties; I see no reason to hide that information unless one of the attorneys is Anne Taylor, who does not typically represent defendants in Latah County.
Also, this case was filed on January 5, the same day that Kohberger appeared in the Latah County court for the first time. The timing suggests that they found an item from the house in Kohberger's possession through the search warrants, which was the final piece of evidence they needed to support that particular burglary charge.
My only question: How did they know that he broke into the house on November 12? If Kohberger burglarized the home on November 12, then that necessarily means that he broke into the house with the intention of committing a felony. We know that cameras would have captured his car driving through the area, but how did they know that he exited his vehicle and entered the house? And if it's true that investigators found an item from the house in his possession, then how did they know that he committed the burglary on November 12 and not some other occasion? I don't think that a camera caught him entering the house, because if that were the case, then surely investigators would have had probable cause to search the cellular towers for that time. They didn't. (Perhaps they did but the search warrant is one of the three fully sealed and redacted warrants.)
I searched the Washington state court records for any Bugs Bunny charges, and I found one, although it's in a distant county and the case was filed January 2024. This makes me think that the Bugs Bunny moniker is something people use for sealed charges in certain circumstances. If there are any charges for Kohberger in Washington, then they are sealed and not in the online records system.
I wonder if there is a sealed charge corresponding to the March 1 or 2 vehicle prowl that occurred down the street.
As for the video that Anne Taylor keeps referring to: It's possible that the video isn't crucial but she's inflating its importance to the court to ensure that she receives it. As you said, Taylor said that the state "might" use it in their case, which again suggests that it might not be a crucial video. Then again, apparently it's crucial enough that Taylor won't say what's in it.
Based on how Taylor has discussed this video, it sounds longer than a few seconds. It also sounds like the video isn't solely in MPD's possession.
Perhaps the FBI analyzed the video, and that's why the process is taking so long.
Hi Kathryn, I should clarify that I didn't go through each and every case as I alluded to in a previous post, but I did go through a BUNCH of cases individually which is how I discovered the Bugs Bunny case. But I decided to search for strange names and missing case numbers by running an advanced search on iCourt under attorney names Thompson and Brevig (as it appeared those were the two assigned in most cases). I put those cases into an Excel sheet for dates 05/11/2023 through 07/26/2023 (to see if there could possibly be another case around the time of the indictment and when the Bugs case was "closed" and additional motions re the grand jury indictment were filed). I also selected those dates based on my previous (erroneous) speculation that a Case Number was redacted on some of the Court filings regarding Motion to Take Judicial Notice of Grand Jury Record (09/14/2023 & 09/19/2023). I combined my results for each of the prosecutors and sorted them by date. From there, I noted missing case numbers. Some of those cases simply weren't assigned to one of those attorneys, but there are several case numbers that don't provide any info at all (just a CR29-22-2805 doesn't show up). The other case I referenced that appears to be Judge Marshall's drug court and wedding calendar is under the name "test, test" CR29-23-1738. I didn't see any other strange names during the 05/11/2023 - 07/26/2023 timeframe. The case numbers not producing any info in iCourt as of this morning include:
CR29-23-1150 (Filed around 05/11/2023-05/12/2023)
CR29-23-1151 (Filed around 05/21/2023)
CR29-23-1229 (Filed around 05/22/2023)
CR29-23-1239 (Filed around 05/22/2023)
CR29-23-1262 (Filed around 05/23/2023)
CR29-23-1263 (Filed around 05/23/2023)
CR29-23-1775 (Filed around 07/19/2023)
I agree that Bugs Bunny appears to be a name used in certain circumstances for whatever reason. The one you found in Washington is interesting; I searched it using the case number and it appears to be a small claims case (Bugs is the Defendant and John Doe Laserfiche is the Plaintiff (lol). I also searched Oregon for Bugs Bunny and there's a felony case stating it was filed in 2001 and the year of birth listed is 1989 (I doubt they'd charge someone that young with a felony). The case summary information is also scattered and doesn't make sense just like the CR29-23-0030 case, but it has more entries. Anyway, I agree that maybe Latah County/MPD were looking into someone else for burglary committed on 11/12/2022 and changed the info in the system to protect that person, but I still wonder why they didn't just make that case info in the system unavailable as they've done for Kohberger?
As to how they would know if Kohberger committed burglary the night of 11/12/2022 by going into the house if that wasn't caught on camera: could there possibly be a witness? And not enough evidence and that's why that case didn't appear to go anywhere? Or, again, it's nothing. I just find it VERY odd, especially for such a small place to have added that case to the system! I've been very tempted to request that complete record, but I haven't wanted to harass the Court or MPD/Latah County Sheriff; they've been through enough.
In regards to the video and audio Ms. Taylor mentions they are trying to match up: One thing I've thought about might be if there's any bodycam footage from the pedestrian v. car hit-and-run that occurred the evening of 11/12/2022 right by Kohberger's apartment complex. It's been reported the police were there until the early morning hours of 11/13/2022; what if there's a bodycam video showing Kohberger's comings and goings from the apartment, and another bodycam that's closer by picking up audio? Just a thought, but I agree that whatever Ms. Taylor is referencing must be longer than just a few minutes.
The "Test, Test" case is weird, but it almost looks like someone temporarily migrated calendar information to that case's records. I'm not seeing an indication that it's related to Kohberger.
Back to your comment months ago about the grand jury case numbers: There are more cases in Latah County than I thought, so it wouldn't surprise me if Kohberger's case were the fourth. But those blank cases are interesting, and they were filed days after the announcement of the indictment on May 17.
I'll include something at the bottom of my post tomorrow stating that the Bugs Bunny case might be unrelated. I also wonder why they didn't just remove the charge entirely, especially if there are several blank cases in May. That said... the parallels are strong to the Kohberger case. A burglary on November 12? He's in custody of another agency on January 5? (Kohberger was in the correct custody on January 5, but he was in another agency's custody on the morning of January 4.) Also, there were no details at all in the case records for six months.
And then consider everything about suspicious behavior in the area on November 12. I believe that Kohberger was there regardless of whether or not the Bugs Bunny charge belongs to his case.
If this were New York City, then I might think, "maybe this Bugs Bunny charge belongs to one of the other 350 people who committed burglary within a 48-hour period." But we're talking about Latah County, Idaho, as you said.
Perhaps someone inquired to the court about the case in June, and someone thought, "oh shit, that test case is still up? Need to close that case." But they should have included a note clarifying that it was a test.
As for why they kept that case up but took down the Kohberger case: I'm not sure that Latah County deals with cases of this complexity that often. Maybe they were troubleshooting in real time how to handle the charges in the system, and when this case was filed in January, they decided to use aliases but changed their minds by May.
I just sent an email to someone inquiring about this, and I included the list of cases numbers without records. I don't want to bother anyone either, but they're going to be bothered regardless because I intend to post the Bugs Bunny charge on Reddit tomorrow. (It's just too damn funny!) Some reporters lurk in the MoscowMurders subreddit.
I might push the Bugs Bunny stuff to Friday if I don't hear back.
"could there possibly be a witness?"
Perhaps, but that witness wasn't suspicious enough of the intruder to call the police if that's the case.
Let's say, for the sake of example, that Kohberger took a victim's ID card on November 12 and the Bugs Bunny charge refers to that burglary. (I believe People Magazine and/or NewsNation reported that a victim's ID card, likely Mogen's, was found at his parent's house.) How would investigators know that he took the card on November 12 and not during the homicides? Perhaps the victim used her ID card often, and investigators deduced that she lost her ID card on November 12. Or perhaps the item that Kohberger took was larger, and investigators observed him on camera carrying something back to his car.
But the intended felony in a burglary doesn't need to be a theft. I just think this is the most likely scenario given the timing of the charge. Perhaps he intended to commit the homicides late on November 12, entered the house, and left after seeing nobody there. But then why did he return to Pullman for a few minutes at around 2:45am before leaving again?
By the way, Substack now has a DM feature. I'm not sure how to use it, but you can send information that way if you're ever concerned about identity. I'll check my account settings to ensure that everything is enabled.
Edit: My email was forwarded to someone at the District Court. Hopefully I'll hear back on Thursday.
I don’t think the test test case is connected; it was just the only other case that stood out to me.
Posting about the Bugs Bunny case on Reddit would be perfect. I love the marvelicious note! I also don’t understand why they didn’t just delete it from the system; maybe it hasn’t been brought to the attention of those with that capability (yet). But I looked up Kohberger’s case the day of his arrest on iCourt and saw it, so I don’t think the Bugs Bunny entry was a test regarding the CR29-23-2805 case. I wish I had saved it!! I hope you receive some info from the Court about it so I can finally put that one to bed,too, as a nothingburger
If he did go to the house on the 12th, I’ve also been trying to figure out why he would have returned home only to leave again. Boy I wish we had a little more information; I completely respect his right to a fair trial and the dignity of the victims and their families, but this has gripped me. I also think that with a bit more info the curiosity of the sleuths/gossiping would calm way down (after a big storm that is). Just with this case I’ve felt since the first week passed without an arrest, and absolutely by the second week, that the person who did this was a serial killer type of person. I live in the Boise area, and while it’s pretty far away from Moscow, the U of I is still sown into the fabric of the Boise area with TONS of graduates here (including dozens of people I know). We were all on alert, too, scared the killer would come here and strike again. Anyway, this case is scary, depressing, and interesting to me all at the same time.
I’ll look for the DM function; thanks for pointing that out!
Edited to add: thanks for sticking up for Chief Fry on Reddit. If it turns out he f’d up this case, Idahoans will rip him a new one. Until then, I fully support him and think most others do, too.
Could Kohberger’s “missing” front plate have been the Moscow PD Officer’s “legal" reason for the August 21 traffic stop, since the seatbelt violation wasn’t? (related: I’m neutral on whether that iCourt second court item is an actual different offense, or just a bug in iCourt's item listing display code for the seatbelt violation.)
Did that officer have the states memorized which only require rear plates - to know PA didn’t require a front plate, and would it have made it an illegitimate stop, even if he already knew? I’m thinking no. And, perhaps he thought pulling over an out-of-state vehicle might be a good idea, just to find out what the driver was doing in a college town far away - as a pro-active anti-drug-trafficking inquiry?
Would the no-front-plate be an allowed reason for the officer to stop Kohberger - instead of or in addition to your suspected license plate-visibility violation?
I’m looking at the Idaho regulation for license plates, and where it says both plates are required with exceptions, there is no mention this requirement is only for Idaho-registered vehicles. Also, and it makes no mention/exception about states where only front plates are required:
49-428. DISPLAY OF PLATE AND STICKERS. (1) License plates assigned to a motor vehicle shall be attached, one (1) in the front and the other in the rear, with the exception of the following:
(a) The license plate assigned to a motorcycle, all-terrain vehicle, utility type vehicle, motorbike or semitrailer and the license plate assigned to a motor vehicle operated by a manufacturer, repossession agent or dealer shall be attached to the rear.
(b) Vehicles displaying year of manufacture, old timer, classic car, street rod, or custom vehicle license plates shall be allowed to display one (1) plate attached to the rear of the vehicle.
(c) The license plate attached to a tractor shall be attached to the front.
(d) The wrecker plate shall be displayed on the vehicle being towed in such a manner as to be visible when the vehicle being towed is approached from the rear.
I suppose it's possible, although it would be somewhat shitty for the officer to say, "oops, my bad. I didn't realize you were from Pennsylvania. Here's a citation for not wearing your seat belt."
And if this scenario were true, then that means the footage is sealed for a *third* reason, one that doesn't involve the lack of seat belt or initial suspected violation.
It makes the most sense to me that the suspected violation and the reason for the sealing of the footage are synonymous.
Substack bug? Anyone, can you see all four exceptions in the vehicle code I copied and pasted in my above post, (a), (b), (c), and (d)?
After an edit, I can only see (a) and (b). It ends there. If I open the comment again the editor, I can see everything. This may be a bug that only affects the commenter (me, in this case), or it could be one that effects everyone reading, which would be more serious.
Is there a character limit I’m not aware of? That may be the bug, a character limit is enforced, but not in the editor itself. (I hate it when a comment box lets you type over the character limit, but doesn’t warn you - which ends up wasting your time.)
MY CONFIGURATION: MacOS Monterey 12.7.2, Safari 17.2.1
Hm, interesting. I've typed longer comments without running into a character limit. I don't think there's anything in my Substack settings that would cause this.
Edit: I think I see your full comment, although there's colons at the end.
Yes, you are seeing the whole comment. I am also seeing the whole comment, now. But immediately after an edit, I could only see (a) and (b), not (a) though (d) plus the colons. I’ve seen this problem more than once after an edit (so far, on long comments). Thanks for taking a look at it. I’ll contact substack.
I've figured it out - it's not a character limit, though it only happens on long comments. The bug is that the purple-texted link "expand full comment" is not displayed, and there is no other way to scroll down to see the rest of your post - without the "expand full comment" link to click on.
This can be very disconcerting for the user. Imagine if your recent edit was at the end of the long comment - you have no way to know that substack didn't just "eat your homework." So this needs to be fixed.
Note, I've verified that this bug happens on various browsers on the Mac platform, on two different computers - and your workaround of refreshing the page has worked every time so far (it brings back "expand full commment.")
Now if I could only find that email from the support person to reply back :-)
Hi Jonnyhands, sorry it's taken me so long to respond. I could read your complete comment even when I wasn't logged in to Substack (which it sounds like Kathryn already confirmed that she was able to view, too).
Good workaround, thanks! Note, the substack help person’s suggestion was to clear my cache (which I didn’t want to do.) Just refreshing the page is a hell of a lot more convenient.
But it’s still a bug - and I will take responsibility for keeping an eye on it - but If you want to report it yourself, feel free.
Are you using a Mac or Windows? The browser you were using would be helpful, also. Just want to know so I can report that additional information next time I contact them about it (after I’ve got screenshots and evidence on some other browsers where it does or doesn’t happen. I’ve only seen it on Safari on Mac, so far.) EDIT: one more question: did it happen in a comment or just in the regular section where you make your posts? (the substack code could be the same for both kinds of edits, but I don’t know that from where I sit. They might want to know.)
For what it’s worth, I didn’t interpret the reporter’s response to you as snarky. I think he was just trying to add a little levity and for me his efforts to answer your inquiry shows he took you seriously. I could be wrong; deciphering tone in texts is always tricky.
"his efforts to answer your inquiry shows he took you seriously."
Yeah, and that's why I was sure to mention that I appreciate him taking the time to look into it further, although I do think that the term 'sleuth' has mostly negative connotations.
I hesitated to mention the snark because I don't want my frustrations to be the focus of this post; however, I wanted to include his response because it's likely accurate, and I wanted to defend myself in case anyone else thinks that my line of inquiry was irrational or whatever.
Thanks for your efforts, Kathryn! I hope you are doing well!
I review iCourt records all the time, and it is NOT common to see double entries of the same citation being filed so I understand your interest. That said, the rest of the case information does appear to me to be regarding one citation (including a late payment of the $10 fine). My guess is he was pulled over for speeding or something dumb like that. OR maybe you're right and his plate was obstructed, but the officer let him off for that. A final possibility is that the Court was successful at removing information about another citation from the iCourt information to keep a second citation sealed, but that seems least likely to me.
I'd like to clarify, though, that immediately after his arrest, I checked iCourt and saw this seat belt infraction AND his murder case. Then sometime shortly after his arrival in Idaho, both the infraction and felony cases disappeared from iCourt. The infraction case reappeared on iCourt in mid to late summer of 2023. I still highly recommend you check out case number CR29-23-0030; it's probably another Court snapu, but I'm thinking that case is part of the reason why they removed information regarding the infraction case from the public view on iCourt.
(Sorry it took so long for me to respond.)
The way I see it, the two scenarios regarding the citation are the following: (1) Kohberger was pulled over for a relatively innocuous reason, cited for the lack of safety restraint, and the footage of the traffic stop is sealed for a third reason; or (2) Kohberger was pulled over for the license plate, there was a conversation about it, he was cited for the lack of safety restraint, and the footage was sealed due to the conversation about the license plate. In other words, the initial reason for the stop and the justification for the sealing of the footage are synonymous.
I think the second scenario is the most likely.
Wow, I just looked up that record. Why do you think the case was closed in July? Edit: I just looked up the documents filed in the Kohberger case in July, and there were documents filed regarding the grand jury information on July 26. Hmm.
Is there a way to discover similarly filed charges? In other words, are there charges filed under other strange names in early- to mid-2023? I've narrowed down the final case in 2023 as between 3200 and 3300 as the final digits, and that's a lot of cases to sift through manually. I've started a spreadsheet to indicate the case benchmarks throughout the year: case 100 is in January, 1000 in April, 2000 in August, etc.
Edit: I checked Megan Marshall's calendar on the date of Kohberger's arraignment, and his arraignment isn't listed. I assume the arraignment for CR29-23-0030 also isn't listed on the calendar; while it is listed as "vacated" in the iCourt records, I believe he must still be arraigned.
I'll publish a post about this in a few days, likely on Thursday.
(If I recall correctly, you were present for my livestream. Thanks for attending!)
Hi Kathryn, sorry I haven't been able to watch the recent Court hearings live with you; I've been working during those times but I'm glad you have the YouTube channel!
I agree that it's probably most likely Kohberger was pulled over for something such as an obstructed license plate and then cited for the seat belt. I sure wish they would release the bodycam footage! I would hope they have footage anyway. But whether or not anything of interest is on the footage, I don't believe they will release it because of the gag order.
Speaking of bodycam footage: did you notice on one of the stops in Indiana you analyzed of the footage from inside the car that it looks like the officer may have very, very quickly tapped on his trunk on his way to the passenger side window to speak to them? I'm curious what you think of that.
In regards to that other Court case I mentioned above: If the case was a mistake by someone at the Court, or a sick joke, maybe it was "closed" in July because a supervisor finally noticed it as an open case in the system and had it closed out. If that case is/was actually created for a legitimate purpose in connection to Kohberger, I would speculate it may have had something to do with the grand jury (just as you note since that's what was going on during that time). I already went through all the early cases manually, as well as around the time of the indictment, to look for other weird names/circumstances. I did find one case matter that appears to have Ms. Marshall's calendar for some civil cases (super weird if you ask me); I can send you that case number later. I also tried finding an arraignment hearing for the Bugs case but couldn't, just like you could not. It could all be a joke, but the coincidence it just crazy and I wouldn't be at all surprised if Kohberger went over there the evening of November 12. Ms. Taylor's statement that he was out driving around late on November 12 and into the early morning hours of November 13 makes me wonder where he was prior to 2:30 AM on November 13; why would she mention November 12 if the police allege in the PCA his phone was pinging at or near his apartment around 2:40 AM before he left to Moscow?
Final thing I've been thinking about (although I haven't yet read your most recent posts and you might have already discussed this): Ms. Taylor has mentioned at the January hearing something about a video that law enforcement is trying to "match up" with audio; she only has a bit of the video but wants it all. She called it an important video. She also mentioned a video at the February 28th hearing (not regarding Kohberger's car) which I assume is referencing the same video they're trying to synch the audio to (maybe not, but that's what it sounded like to me). What do you think it might be? Maybe a home surveillance video coupled with audio someone recorded? Ms. Taylor said Feb 28 that she thinks the Prosecution "might" use the tape (or something similar), so it sounds like it must not be regarding the murders themselves (although we could wish!)
Thanks for your excellent work!
There's footage of the August 21 traffic stop that investigators have confirmed is sealed.
"it looks like the officer may have very, very quickly tapped on his trunk on his way to the passenger side window to speak to them? I'm curious what you think of that."
Good catch! Yes, I did notice this. I even have a screenshot somewhere in my screenshots folder of that moment.
Fox News reported that the traffic stops were coordinated by the FBI, and the FBI later stated that this wasn't true and that Indiana police were conducting an initiative to counter drug trafficking.
I think that the first officer noticed Kohberger's vehicle during the initiative to counter drug trafficking. If I am correct that Kohberger modified his vehicle, then it might have stood out to the officer. (Maybe Kohberger stripped his vehicle of its make and model insignia, in which case the insignia captured in the footage was added later to the footage itself.)
The officer might have thought the conversation was strange, so he sent a message over the radio asking for someone else to stop the vehicle again. That's the stop wherein the officer touches the vehicle.
I am publishing a post tomorrow that somewhat goes into Kohberger's vehicle, and it will be a good segue into my post on Thursday about the strange charge, because I think that they are indirectly connected. When you read tomorrow's post, keep the November 12 charge in mind.
The only other explanation for that case is that someone else was charged with a burglary committed on November 12, and the court was trying to prevent that person from getting wrapped up in the Kohberger case commentary. The court isn't obligated to do that, though. That case is also stripped of some information, like the active attorneys for both parties; I see no reason to hide that information unless one of the attorneys is Anne Taylor, who does not typically represent defendants in Latah County.
Also, this case was filed on January 5, the same day that Kohberger appeared in the Latah County court for the first time. The timing suggests that they found an item from the house in Kohberger's possession through the search warrants, which was the final piece of evidence they needed to support that particular burglary charge.
My only question: How did they know that he broke into the house on November 12? If Kohberger burglarized the home on November 12, then that necessarily means that he broke into the house with the intention of committing a felony. We know that cameras would have captured his car driving through the area, but how did they know that he exited his vehicle and entered the house? And if it's true that investigators found an item from the house in his possession, then how did they know that he committed the burglary on November 12 and not some other occasion? I don't think that a camera caught him entering the house, because if that were the case, then surely investigators would have had probable cause to search the cellular towers for that time. They didn't. (Perhaps they did but the search warrant is one of the three fully sealed and redacted warrants.)
I searched the Washington state court records for any Bugs Bunny charges, and I found one, although it's in a distant county and the case was filed January 2024. This makes me think that the Bugs Bunny moniker is something people use for sealed charges in certain circumstances. If there are any charges for Kohberger in Washington, then they are sealed and not in the online records system.
I wonder if there is a sealed charge corresponding to the March 1 or 2 vehicle prowl that occurred down the street.
As for the video that Anne Taylor keeps referring to: It's possible that the video isn't crucial but she's inflating its importance to the court to ensure that she receives it. As you said, Taylor said that the state "might" use it in their case, which again suggests that it might not be a crucial video. Then again, apparently it's crucial enough that Taylor won't say what's in it.
Based on how Taylor has discussed this video, it sounds longer than a few seconds. It also sounds like the video isn't solely in MPD's possession.
Perhaps the FBI analyzed the video, and that's why the process is taking so long.
Hi Kathryn, I should clarify that I didn't go through each and every case as I alluded to in a previous post, but I did go through a BUNCH of cases individually which is how I discovered the Bugs Bunny case. But I decided to search for strange names and missing case numbers by running an advanced search on iCourt under attorney names Thompson and Brevig (as it appeared those were the two assigned in most cases). I put those cases into an Excel sheet for dates 05/11/2023 through 07/26/2023 (to see if there could possibly be another case around the time of the indictment and when the Bugs case was "closed" and additional motions re the grand jury indictment were filed). I also selected those dates based on my previous (erroneous) speculation that a Case Number was redacted on some of the Court filings regarding Motion to Take Judicial Notice of Grand Jury Record (09/14/2023 & 09/19/2023). I combined my results for each of the prosecutors and sorted them by date. From there, I noted missing case numbers. Some of those cases simply weren't assigned to one of those attorneys, but there are several case numbers that don't provide any info at all (just a CR29-22-2805 doesn't show up). The other case I referenced that appears to be Judge Marshall's drug court and wedding calendar is under the name "test, test" CR29-23-1738. I didn't see any other strange names during the 05/11/2023 - 07/26/2023 timeframe. The case numbers not producing any info in iCourt as of this morning include:
CR29-23-1150 (Filed around 05/11/2023-05/12/2023)
CR29-23-1151 (Filed around 05/21/2023)
CR29-23-1229 (Filed around 05/22/2023)
CR29-23-1239 (Filed around 05/22/2023)
CR29-23-1262 (Filed around 05/23/2023)
CR29-23-1263 (Filed around 05/23/2023)
CR29-23-1775 (Filed around 07/19/2023)
I agree that Bugs Bunny appears to be a name used in certain circumstances for whatever reason. The one you found in Washington is interesting; I searched it using the case number and it appears to be a small claims case (Bugs is the Defendant and John Doe Laserfiche is the Plaintiff (lol). I also searched Oregon for Bugs Bunny and there's a felony case stating it was filed in 2001 and the year of birth listed is 1989 (I doubt they'd charge someone that young with a felony). The case summary information is also scattered and doesn't make sense just like the CR29-23-0030 case, but it has more entries. Anyway, I agree that maybe Latah County/MPD were looking into someone else for burglary committed on 11/12/2022 and changed the info in the system to protect that person, but I still wonder why they didn't just make that case info in the system unavailable as they've done for Kohberger?
As to how they would know if Kohberger committed burglary the night of 11/12/2022 by going into the house if that wasn't caught on camera: could there possibly be a witness? And not enough evidence and that's why that case didn't appear to go anywhere? Or, again, it's nothing. I just find it VERY odd, especially for such a small place to have added that case to the system! I've been very tempted to request that complete record, but I haven't wanted to harass the Court or MPD/Latah County Sheriff; they've been through enough.
In regards to the video and audio Ms. Taylor mentions they are trying to match up: One thing I've thought about might be if there's any bodycam footage from the pedestrian v. car hit-and-run that occurred the evening of 11/12/2022 right by Kohberger's apartment complex. It's been reported the police were there until the early morning hours of 11/13/2022; what if there's a bodycam video showing Kohberger's comings and goings from the apartment, and another bodycam that's closer by picking up audio? Just a thought, but I agree that whatever Ms. Taylor is referencing must be longer than just a few minutes.
I love your analysis and insight! Thank you!
The "Test, Test" case is weird, but it almost looks like someone temporarily migrated calendar information to that case's records. I'm not seeing an indication that it's related to Kohberger.
Back to your comment months ago about the grand jury case numbers: There are more cases in Latah County than I thought, so it wouldn't surprise me if Kohberger's case were the fourth. But those blank cases are interesting, and they were filed days after the announcement of the indictment on May 17.
I'll include something at the bottom of my post tomorrow stating that the Bugs Bunny case might be unrelated. I also wonder why they didn't just remove the charge entirely, especially if there are several blank cases in May. That said... the parallels are strong to the Kohberger case. A burglary on November 12? He's in custody of another agency on January 5? (Kohberger was in the correct custody on January 5, but he was in another agency's custody on the morning of January 4.) Also, there were no details at all in the case records for six months.
And then consider everything about suspicious behavior in the area on November 12. I believe that Kohberger was there regardless of whether or not the Bugs Bunny charge belongs to his case.
If this were New York City, then I might think, "maybe this Bugs Bunny charge belongs to one of the other 350 people who committed burglary within a 48-hour period." But we're talking about Latah County, Idaho, as you said.
Perhaps someone inquired to the court about the case in June, and someone thought, "oh shit, that test case is still up? Need to close that case." But they should have included a note clarifying that it was a test.
As for why they kept that case up but took down the Kohberger case: I'm not sure that Latah County deals with cases of this complexity that often. Maybe they were troubleshooting in real time how to handle the charges in the system, and when this case was filed in January, they decided to use aliases but changed their minds by May.
I just sent an email to someone inquiring about this, and I included the list of cases numbers without records. I don't want to bother anyone either, but they're going to be bothered regardless because I intend to post the Bugs Bunny charge on Reddit tomorrow. (It's just too damn funny!) Some reporters lurk in the MoscowMurders subreddit.
I might push the Bugs Bunny stuff to Friday if I don't hear back.
"could there possibly be a witness?"
Perhaps, but that witness wasn't suspicious enough of the intruder to call the police if that's the case.
Let's say, for the sake of example, that Kohberger took a victim's ID card on November 12 and the Bugs Bunny charge refers to that burglary. (I believe People Magazine and/or NewsNation reported that a victim's ID card, likely Mogen's, was found at his parent's house.) How would investigators know that he took the card on November 12 and not during the homicides? Perhaps the victim used her ID card often, and investigators deduced that she lost her ID card on November 12. Or perhaps the item that Kohberger took was larger, and investigators observed him on camera carrying something back to his car.
But the intended felony in a burglary doesn't need to be a theft. I just think this is the most likely scenario given the timing of the charge. Perhaps he intended to commit the homicides late on November 12, entered the house, and left after seeing nobody there. But then why did he return to Pullman for a few minutes at around 2:45am before leaving again?
By the way, Substack now has a DM feature. I'm not sure how to use it, but you can send information that way if you're ever concerned about identity. I'll check my account settings to ensure that everything is enabled.
Edit: My email was forwarded to someone at the District Court. Hopefully I'll hear back on Thursday.
I don’t think the test test case is connected; it was just the only other case that stood out to me.
Posting about the Bugs Bunny case on Reddit would be perfect. I love the marvelicious note! I also don’t understand why they didn’t just delete it from the system; maybe it hasn’t been brought to the attention of those with that capability (yet). But I looked up Kohberger’s case the day of his arrest on iCourt and saw it, so I don’t think the Bugs Bunny entry was a test regarding the CR29-23-2805 case. I wish I had saved it!! I hope you receive some info from the Court about it so I can finally put that one to bed,too, as a nothingburger
If he did go to the house on the 12th, I’ve also been trying to figure out why he would have returned home only to leave again. Boy I wish we had a little more information; I completely respect his right to a fair trial and the dignity of the victims and their families, but this has gripped me. I also think that with a bit more info the curiosity of the sleuths/gossiping would calm way down (after a big storm that is). Just with this case I’ve felt since the first week passed without an arrest, and absolutely by the second week, that the person who did this was a serial killer type of person. I live in the Boise area, and while it’s pretty far away from Moscow, the U of I is still sown into the fabric of the Boise area with TONS of graduates here (including dozens of people I know). We were all on alert, too, scared the killer would come here and strike again. Anyway, this case is scary, depressing, and interesting to me all at the same time.
I’ll look for the DM function; thanks for pointing that out!
Edited to add: thanks for sticking up for Chief Fry on Reddit. If it turns out he f’d up this case, Idahoans will rip him a new one. Until then, I fully support him and think most others do, too.
Could Kohberger’s “missing” front plate have been the Moscow PD Officer’s “legal" reason for the August 21 traffic stop, since the seatbelt violation wasn’t? (related: I’m neutral on whether that iCourt second court item is an actual different offense, or just a bug in iCourt's item listing display code for the seatbelt violation.)
Did that officer have the states memorized which only require rear plates - to know PA didn’t require a front plate, and would it have made it an illegitimate stop, even if he already knew? I’m thinking no. And, perhaps he thought pulling over an out-of-state vehicle might be a good idea, just to find out what the driver was doing in a college town far away - as a pro-active anti-drug-trafficking inquiry?
Would the no-front-plate be an allowed reason for the officer to stop Kohberger - instead of or in addition to your suspected license plate-visibility violation?
I’m looking at the Idaho regulation for license plates, and where it says both plates are required with exceptions, there is no mention this requirement is only for Idaho-registered vehicles. Also, and it makes no mention/exception about states where only front plates are required:
https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title49/T49CH4/SECT49-428/
--
49-428. DISPLAY OF PLATE AND STICKERS. (1) License plates assigned to a motor vehicle shall be attached, one (1) in the front and the other in the rear, with the exception of the following:
(a) The license plate assigned to a motorcycle, all-terrain vehicle, utility type vehicle, motorbike or semitrailer and the license plate assigned to a motor vehicle operated by a manufacturer, repossession agent or dealer shall be attached to the rear.
(b) Vehicles displaying year of manufacture, old timer, classic car, street rod, or custom vehicle license plates shall be allowed to display one (1) plate attached to the rear of the vehicle.
(c) The license plate attached to a tractor shall be attached to the front.
(d) The wrecker plate shall be displayed on the vehicle being towed in such a manner as to be visible when the vehicle being towed is approached from the rear.
:
:
:
---------
I suppose it's possible, although it would be somewhat shitty for the officer to say, "oops, my bad. I didn't realize you were from Pennsylvania. Here's a citation for not wearing your seat belt."
And if this scenario were true, then that means the footage is sealed for a *third* reason, one that doesn't involve the lack of seat belt or initial suspected violation.
It makes the most sense to me that the suspected violation and the reason for the sealing of the footage are synonymous.
Substack bug? Anyone, can you see all four exceptions in the vehicle code I copied and pasted in my above post, (a), (b), (c), and (d)?
After an edit, I can only see (a) and (b). It ends there. If I open the comment again the editor, I can see everything. This may be a bug that only affects the commenter (me, in this case), or it could be one that effects everyone reading, which would be more serious.
Is there a character limit I’m not aware of? That may be the bug, a character limit is enforced, but not in the editor itself. (I hate it when a comment box lets you type over the character limit, but doesn’t warn you - which ends up wasting your time.)
MY CONFIGURATION: MacOS Monterey 12.7.2, Safari 17.2.1
Hm, interesting. I've typed longer comments without running into a character limit. I don't think there's anything in my Substack settings that would cause this.
Edit: I think I see your full comment, although there's colons at the end.
Yes, you are seeing the whole comment. I am also seeing the whole comment, now. But immediately after an edit, I could only see (a) and (b), not (a) though (d) plus the colons. I’ve seen this problem more than once after an edit (so far, on long comments). Thanks for taking a look at it. I’ll contact substack.
I've figured it out - it's not a character limit, though it only happens on long comments. The bug is that the purple-texted link "expand full comment" is not displayed, and there is no other way to scroll down to see the rest of your post - without the "expand full comment" link to click on.
This can be very disconcerting for the user. Imagine if your recent edit was at the end of the long comment - you have no way to know that substack didn't just "eat your homework." So this needs to be fixed.
Note, I've verified that this bug happens on various browsers on the Mac platform, on two different computers - and your workaround of refreshing the page has worked every time so far (it brings back "expand full commment.")
Now if I could only find that email from the support person to reply back :-)
Hi Jonnyhands, sorry it's taken me so long to respond. I could read your complete comment even when I wasn't logged in to Substack (which it sounds like Kathryn already confirmed that she was able to view, too).
Thanks for taking a look. I've reported it to Substack, and I'll be looking out for the problem next time I make a long comment and edit it.
Your error has been happening to me today with my own comments, but it resolves when I refresh the page.
Good workaround, thanks! Note, the substack help person’s suggestion was to clear my cache (which I didn’t want to do.) Just refreshing the page is a hell of a lot more convenient.
But it’s still a bug - and I will take responsibility for keeping an eye on it - but If you want to report it yourself, feel free.
Are you using a Mac or Windows? The browser you were using would be helpful, also. Just want to know so I can report that additional information next time I contact them about it (after I’ve got screenshots and evidence on some other browsers where it does or doesn’t happen. I’ve only seen it on Safari on Mac, so far.) EDIT: one more question: did it happen in a comment or just in the regular section where you make your posts? (the substack code could be the same for both kinds of edits, but I don’t know that from where I sit. They might want to know.)