No doubt last Thursday’s (Dec. 28) tearing down the home at 1122 King Road evoked emotions. 
Some were quite happy to see the home be razed. Given the unspeakable crime that happened there in the early morning hours of Nov. 13, 2022, some people had hoped the home would have been long gone before last Thursday.
For others, keeping the home standing through the eventual finale of a trial of defendant Bryan Kohberger was the way to go. Why risk even a slight chance of tearing down the home if it could open up a possibility of Kohberger getting off either altogether or at the appellate level should he be convicted at some point?
I have been consistent from early on saying the home should stand through a trial.
Yes, I get that it was an eyesore and did bring out emotions in many people in the neighborhood and those able to see the home in the distance.
Even with that in mind, I feel the University of Idaho made a big mistake in signing off on the home’s demise.
According to Idaho law, a jury would not have been authorized to visit the inside of the home given how altered it had become. That then leads to the question…. why was the inside so drastically changed during the state’s investigation? Sure, forensics and so on are key whenever a murder (let alone four) happens in a place. On the flip side of the coin, why was the home so drastically altered inside? If the murders were confined to the two bedrooms (one on each of the floors) as we have been told, why the need to rip out floorboards, walling and so on? We were also told early on the four victims were sleeping at the time of the killings. If so, doubtful any of them made it out of their beds alive to struggle, try and get away etc.
While I am not a conspiracy theorist in general, I do question the reported notable altering of the home by the state and its investigators. Given the long-standing gag order being in place, what other many nuggets are we going to be surprised to hear about come trial?
I’ve watched countless interviews with legal experts and law enforcement folks (many of whom are now retired and are called in by TV stations and others) over the months, notably when it came to discussing taking down the home. Not many of them thought it was a smart move by the U of I to tear it down when a jury has not even been selected and of course a trial has not taken place. For example, check out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_XNqYBHqoM
The old adage about better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it rings very true.
As for the reported cost of $700 a day for the U of I to keep the home up, hey, who wants to waste money? On the other hand, that is like a few dollars to most of us when comparing our bank accounts to the school’s financial records.
Imagine for a moment if BK ultimately is either not convicted at trial or wins on an appellate ruling. President Scott Green can then tell the four families how his decision to take the home down before a trial finishes may well have played a part in BK walking at some point.
While it has been pointed out the families were split on tearing down the home early, those against it would have every right to raise their hands up and salute Green minus four fingers showing.
So, would you have left the home up through the trial or did the school do the right thing?
DavidAlanThomas 