Tag Archives: Idaho4

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?

It is safe to say emotions have been high for many individuals when it comes to the case of the Idaho 4.

Whether you think defendant Bryan Kohberger is guilty or not guilty, he is not the focal point. The focal point to most of us has and always will be Kaylee, Maddie, Xana and Ethan.

These four young adults in no way deserved what happened to them in the early morning hours of Nov. 13, 2022. To have their promising futures taken away from them in such a harsh manner is not something you’d wish on your worst enemy.

Against that backdrop, one of the biggest days to date in this case took place Thursday in Moscow, Idaho.

Yes, the home at 1122 King Road is no more. Several pieces of construction equipment took the rental home to the ground in a matter of a few hours. With it, so many good memories and not what took place on Nov. 13 one year ago came crashing to the ground.

Whether you were fully in support of the home being torn down, leaving it up or maybe were on the fence about it, you likely had some reaction on Thursday if invested in the case.

I have said repeatedly that the home should stand until the end of the trial. Better to have it if you need it than not have it if needed as so many people have noted in the last 24 hours.

Having been to the home (outside) twice this year, I fully understand the eyesore it was, especially to those living immediately in its shadow. No doubt seeing it daily was a painful reminder to those having to look at it up close or a block etc. away.

It is important to remember the home was NOT smack dab in the middle of the campus. This narrative by the University of Idaho administrators that the large percentage of students saw it daily is not true. It would be a totally different scenario if the house were next to the campus bookstore, library etc.

It has also been documented that the four families were split on the home coming down. Some of the comments directed specifically towards Steve and Kristi Goncalves I’ve seen in chat forums are nothing short of despicable. Whether you agree with these parents or not, for God’s sake have a little dignity and give them the chance to grieve what happened on Thursday let alone the last year. While their daughter died in that home along with three of her best friends, she also had many happy times there too.

In closing, I hope that the trial takes place sooner than later, the right person is ultimately convicted no matter who it is, and that the four families know how much support they have out there.

Thursday was a tough day for many people seeing what was once a home of a lot of joy and happiness be reduced to rubble.

At the end of the day, the University of Idaho administration can for now sleep better in knowing it buried a bad PR matter that may ultimately come back to haunt it.

Things have been relatively quiet in the Idaho 4 case for the most part over the last month or so.

While there have been some court tidbits that popped out, most of the news has in fact been no news. That is until Thursday when it was announced the home at 1122 would begin to undergo demolition on Dec. 28. That date was likely picked given the University of Idaho and its students will be on holiday break.

So, what is the rush to tear the home down when the trial date has not even been announced?

Having been to the home (outside of course) several times this year, I can tell you first-hand it is a totally different feel seeing it for your own eyes and walking around the outside perimeter (front and back) than it is seeing on television, online videos and pictures etc.

While the home has been altered to a degree inside since its five residents lived there, it can still prove valuable should a jury request and receive approval from the judge to tour it.

As for claims it is a biohazard, how many people have been in and out of that home in the last few months conducting tests etc? Were any of them wearing biohazard suits? The answer of course is no.

I’ve met several people from the University of Idaho this year during my two trips to Moscow. I can say that those I met were upstanding people and I would have nothing but good things to say about them no matter their role on the campus.

All that being said, here are a few of my takes on taking down the home starting Dec. 28:

* What’s the rush? – I get that neighbors (including some U of I students) have to see the home on a daily basis as they come and go around the neighborhood. That said, there are not thousands of students, staff etc. seeing the home daily. That is because it is NOT directly on campus. While we do not know the exact date of when the trial will start, leaving the home up is not going to hurt the majority of people tied to the U of I.

* Does the U of I administration give a damn about the four families? – It would appear the higher-ups at the U of I do not give a damn about the four families – Goncalves, Mogen, Kernodle, Chapin. They put out nice press releases etc. saying they do. If they really cared about the loved ones, they’d abide by the wishes of most of them whom want the home to remain standing until the end of the trial. Giving the families lip service is the ultimate slap in the face to those already suffering with the loss of their loved ones. Do us all a favor and stop with the press statements that you feel for the four families and understand their suffering etc. Quite frankly you don’t understand or care.

* Are you trying to hide something? – What remains in that home that is of concern to university officials and others tied to the case? – The home is secured 24 hours a day, seven days a week by campus security, boards on the windows, locks on doors etc. If you are saying security is an issue, put that fear to the side. While the home still needs security, heat, electricity, water etc. do not tell me the University of Idaho can’t afford those bills.

* What will be the outcry if defendant gets off on technicality or is even found not guilty due to home being torn down? – Finally, imagine the outcry from the Bryan Kohberger haters if he gets off on a technicality or is even found not guilty because a juror did not get to personally see the inside of the home (if the judge granted such a request) and thus could not convict the defendant. We know there will be countless photos, 3-D imaging etc, present at trial. That said, those are NOT the same as actually physically being in the home for most jurors. Being able to experience the home if allowed to would be a unique experience for a juror that thousands of photos and other images can’t provide. Looking at the rooms where the killings took place albeit without furniture etc. where Dylan allegedly was staying, the distance between rooms, the overall layout etc. There is still a lot there to see.

In conclusion, why not wait until the end of the school year (spring) and then make a decision on demolition? Who knows, we may get lucky and have a trial by then? 

While I would like to give the administration at the U of I the benefit of the doubt, this demolition in two weeks is nothing short of shady. Is there something in that home you do not want public?

So, would you leave the home up until the trial concludes if it were up to you?

The sad one-year anniversary of the deaths of the Idaho 4 took place on a Monday morning last month.

As we head into the holiday season, not much has changed with the case.

Of most note recently was the decision by the judge to limit cameras in the courtroom once a trial does start, notably press cameras. Instead, the court will control the camera feeds and not the various media outlets covering the event.

I have no issue with this, especially given I fully support cameras in the courtroom at any trial. Not having cameras there would open up even more theories of wrongdoing by authorities and others. With cameras in the courtroom, the public can for one see their tax dollars at work. Having that transparency and not having a blackout on coverage is the only way most of us can trust the system.

Speaking of the system, it goes without saying that countless documents, pictures, videos and more have been submitted over the last year. Many of these items will be used to try and convict Bryan Kohberger for the murders of Kaylee Goncalves, Maddie Mogen, Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin.

While there is likely still a lot of evidence the public is not aware of, we’ve gotten glimpses into the case from both a prosecution and defense perspective.

With that in mind, could you convict Kohberger with what you know if you were a juror sitting in on the case?

For me, I do not have enough evidence to date to convict him, especially with the death penalty sitting there on the table.

Among the things I would need from the prosecution to be more inclined to convict would include:

• Clear video or eyewitness evidence of his vehicle with either him behind the wheel or his Pennsylvania license plate clearly seen leaving the scene from 1122 King Road. Keep in mind we have not seen such to date.
• Clear video or eyewitness evidence of him leaving the home right after the killings took place. Keep in mind we have not seen such to date.
• Any social media evidence that clearly shows he targeted one or more of the victims. To date, no such evidence has been put out there that I am aware of.

There is no doubt circumstantial evidence that the prosecution will rely on. With that to think about, people do get convicted on such evidence, so it is quite possible there could emerge a guilty verdict.

On the flip side of the coin, the defense will no doubt poke holes in what to me is a marginal conviction case at this point.

So, would you convict Kohberger today with what you know or do you need more to send him to a guilty verdict?

As many of us wait for a trial date to be set in the Idaho 4 murders case, news came out recently that Judge Judge would allow cameras in the courtroom at the time of trial.

Yes, while it sounds like Judge will be putting some restrictions on cameras, I applaud his decision to allow them in. Really, was there any other way to go?

Sure, he could have banned them and we could have been left with media pool reports, still photographs and so on. At the end of the day, this would have been a fraction of the valuable details cameras can provide to the public.

One of the big fears of having cameras televise the trial is that they would be too focused on defendant Bryan Kohberger. Given BK is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, having the cameras trained on him much of the trial could lead some to have biased views on him. It also can take away from focusing on those who will testify, the prosecution and defense teams and so on.

My guess is Judge will lean to having one camera set up at perhaps the back of the courtroom. This could be similar to watching a CSPAN hearing on television. In doing this, you do not have the camera locked in on one specific subject.

Given there is much to question about the prosecution’s case, having the cameras in the courtroom should help limit misinformation getting out there. With some of the misinformation out there now and doubts in how this case has been handled to date, transparency is of the utmost importance.

One thing that I will be curious to see is how much focus there will be on witnesses and others taking the stand to testify under oath.

For example, assuming roommates Dylan Mortensen and Bethany Funke get called to testify, how much camera time will they get? Their testimony may well prove critical to this case and whether or not BK is ultimately found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

With it looking like the trial will in fact be televised in some manner, are you for or against cameras in the courtroom when the Idaho 4 case goes to trial?

The holiday of Halloween means different things to different people.

Some people go all out on this big day in late October and others take little to no interest in it.

One thing that Halloween often conjures up is haunted thoughts. From scary movies to haunted homes and more, it can be easy to let one’s mind run a little wild on them.

With that thought in mind, why exactly would the FBI be inside of a quadruple murder scene almost a year after the tragic crime took place?

As authorities make their way in and out of the rental home at 1122 King Road in Moscow, Idaho this Halloween, this activity has created its share of buzz online.

As Brian Entin of News Nation reported on X (@BrianEntin), authorities were inside the home.

The reported goal is to create a version of the home that could be used at trial. Reconstructing the home where Kaylee Goncalves, Maddie Mogen, Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin were found deceased on Nov. 13, 2022, is not something that goes unnoticed. Plenty of web sleuths have been wondering exactly why do this and even more so the timing of such action.

I’ve advocated for the home remaining up until the trial ultimately concludes. Of course we do not even have a trial date set at this point. It could be 2024 or even 2025 before a trial takes place. In the meantime, more emotional suffering for the four families of the victims.

I have also said and will continue to say that a jury should be allowed to see the inside of the home for themselves if they request such and Judge Judge grants such a request. I do not care how many photos, videos and so on you take or if you do your best to have a physical recreation of the home at trial, it is NOT the same.

Yes, most of us know by now that the interior of the home is not what it was that fateful morning last Nov. 13.

Victim items are gone, some floorboards and walls were reportedly removed etc. Even with all that in mind, I would still want to see with my own eyes and hear with my ears the actual house if a juror and if approved by the judge.

With that in mind, why do you think officials are back at the home now?

If you were a juror on the case when it gets to trial, would you feel comfortable and find it beneficial going to the home if allowed to for a visit?