r/BryanKohbergerMoscow

I thought I’d post this so that people who haven’t bought the book, can see what a lot of the book focuses on

The last chapter really ties it together (for me anyway). It tells you what he focuses on in the book and what his main issues are with the case. I think most will agree that a lot of it are things that have been issues with us as well when we discuss the case.
He holds off saying things straight out about certain parts and like many have said, you have to read between the lines. I'm guessing thats down to what he can say without being sued.
I found the book really good. Yes theres a few details that are wrong but I'm not sure if that's because it's in the files he's reading or down to a mistake on his behalf. He does mention a couple of things in the investigation that had been said by LE and then proven wrong yet never corrected by LE.
Like Bryan not using his card after a certain date etc.
All in all, I think he hits on things that make us realise we're not going crazy when we wonder WHY? If that makes any sense.
From what I can tell, there's nothing different in the paper version to the digital version and its peanuts to buy if you buy the digital version. Unlike Sy rays book which is set to
sell for $95

I’ve also included a snippet of a witness who was with Dylan that night, who called in on the 1st of December to tell LE that Dylan wasn’t drunk that night.

Hi everyone, I want to reel all the way back to 2022. I know this could be totally unreliable, and it is all speculation I am disclaiming now, but this has really been eating at me. For anyone who has been following this from the start like myself, I’d like to address the 4chan posts, that were made an exact month after the murders, that supposedly came from a frat brother from Sigma Chi, or another frat, I believe. While it is all alleged and you cannot really trust an anonymous forum— everything that is being discussed in these images that I will include [WARNING/DISCLAIMER: some of these come off really disrespectful regarding the victims, but these are supposedly another college aged student discussing them, this is just proof I am providing so you can read, I do not mean ANY DISRESPECT TO THE VICTIMS WHATSOEVER.] This was SO recent after the murders, so little information had come out yet. So everything that was being discussed in these posts, go into great detail, especially with the Greek culture, and personal life of the victims among the students relationships with one another, is really eerie to me. I genuinely don’t know if LE ever investigated these. I REALLY MEAN NO DISRESPECT AT ALL GUYS. But the accusation of these supposed frat brothers that Ethan Chapin got into this fight with, that was discussed a lot as of now that happened that night prior to the murders, goes into more details. Real specifics and history. I can provide the video that provides these 4chan posts. I really just wanted to share this with you all to get your perspective/opinions on all of it. Please do not bash me or shame me, this is genuine proof and information I needed to get out there as I haven’t seen it be discussed since very early in the murders. I’m surprised David Loach and David Berriochoa were never interviewed - to our knowledge. This is all so weird. All 4chan posts come from the same user, besides the final complete anonymous one, accusing David Loach of being the killer. There is another post coming from the user accusing Loach of being the killer I have an image of but it is way too disgusting and graphic of me to post. Discusses the killer being in PA and what he did with their insides and something graphic he did to Kaylee…But I am not trying to be disrespectful in any way here I promise. I just need to know other people’s thoughts on this. I don’t know if this will get taken down. But I will provide the images now.

Here again is the link to most of the anonymous 4chan posts about the case.

https://medium.com/@veritasaequitas/4chan-archived-threads-re-idaho-4-777c070d9a2d

Someone seems to know too many details and names for them not to be from the area IMO.

Thread for YouTube videos by non legal professional YouTubers.

Here’s an interesting short video on tik tok from an account going by Brent Turvey. And here’s a SS from it where it tells you when forensic experts are not obligated to abide to an NDA.

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZNRp66Y4r/

Saw it posted by TT on YouTube

https://virnous.com/the-truth-line-order-today/

(Third time's the charm? Repost.)

I'm sorry in advance for the length of this post; once I got to this point, I considered not posting it but, like, what else am I going to do with it? So since I did the work already, here were are. I'm making two "parts" to this post; the first part is the image descriptions that summarize my findings, and the second part is basically my tl;dr commentary.

( Link to Turvey's website; at the bottom, there is a link that says Turvey CV and clicking on it will automatically download the CV onto your computer.)

So first, the images. I’ve attached 4 images and I hope that the quality is legible; if not, let me know and I will post them again. I’ve labeled the images in the captions, so I’m including longer descriptions below. I do have sources, but I kind of saved them haphazardly along the way, so I will add those in a comment later on.

Image Descriptions:

1. Court Experience. This is a breakdown of the 72 cases Turvey included on his CV in which, in addition to working on / providing reports for, he also qualified as an expert witness in forensic examination, crime scene reconstruction and analysis, and/or any of the other major areas designated on his CV. Subsequent to qualifying as an expert, he provided testimony in these cases, either at the trial level or as part of the post-conviction appeal process.

Of the 72 cases, 50 don’t really include a result; they indicate the charge, such as homicide, etc, but whether or not the defendant was actually convicted and/or the conviction was upheld or not isn’t stated. However, he specifically includes when a case resulted in an acquittal/exoneration, etc, so I’m assuming these 50 cases were convictions.

That leaves 22 cases: 12 resulted in an acquittal, exoneration, or an Alford plea (which I realize does not indicate innocence but in these cases did result in the defendant being released from prison, so I’ve grouped it in here), 7 resulted in the defendant pleading to lesser charges as part of a deal and/or larger charges being dropped, and 2 were civil cases in which monetary judgements were awarded (not clear to whom the judgements were awarded, so I’m not counting them as either a “win” or a “loss,” just not criminal).

2. Additional Major Case Experience. These are an additional 104 cases Turvey has included on his CV. He did not testify in these trials, either bc he was brought on post-trial, the case never made it to trial, or other various reasons, but he did work / provide reports for them. There are several categories on this particular pie chart that probably could have been condensed, but I tried to categorize them as Turvey did on his CV. So, for example, he included cases that resulted in “charges dropped” and “case dismissed,” and I am not really sure what the difference is between those but either way, the result is no trial.

3. Total Major Case Experience. For this chart, I combined the numbers from the previous two charts, condensed some of the redundant categories, and came up with some totals. Between 72 cases with expert testimony and 104 cases without expert testimony, the total is 176 cases, with the breakdown as indicated.

4. Key Cases. These are some of the main details / points of interest from a handful of the cases that resulted in exoneration. The most well-known one is the West Memphis 3 case. Apparently, Turvey was in at least one of the documentaries about this case, but I didn’t know that and didn’t know he was involved in this case at all until I looked it up. But considering that the WM3 case is pretty universally regarded as one in which the 3 were legitimately wrongfully convicted, I thought it was worth pointing out not just Turvey’s hand in that result but also including how highly the defense team on that case spoke of him.

How I Got Here:

This started as a deep dive into Christopher Whitcomb to determine his credibility after the release of Broken Plea, and from there, I wanted to also determine for myself the credibility of Dr. Turvey, Sy Ray, and anyone else who has spoken out against the official narrative of the case.

Anne Taylor’s press release really threw a monkey wrench into the “post book” press, in that where it would have been ideal to see what people thought of the new information released on its own merit, the immediate accusation of Taylor et al. of Turvey breaking an NDA led to many people immediately discrediting him and by extension the book (in addition to those who had decided to discredit the book before it even came out, which is a choice).

Anyway, there is literally nothing in this case that can be determined through discussion alone, especially on social media - the only thing I can be sure of is what I can figure out for myself, based on facts. Hence the deep dive.

It’s been a few days that I’ve been working on this, and it’s still in progress, bc Brent Turvey’s CV / body of work is so extensive that this ended up being just a deep dive on Turvey exclusively as I tried to sift through the absolutely ridiculous amount of experience he includes on his CV. It is 54 pages long, and we live in the era of “tl;dr,” so I very much doubt that many people are reading all 54 pages, let alone exploring anything on it further. Not that I’ve seen, anyway.

Anyway, I’ve done my best to sift through his CV material to provide what I feel like is an accurate breakdown of how his work has directly or indirectly affected his cases, as well as to show that Bryan Kohberger’s case is not an outlier at all to Turvey.

The basic summary / conclusion here is this: He has consulted on plenty of post-conviction cases as well as testified as an expert during the trial phases, and while he more often than not he aligns himself with the defense and has done a lot of work with the Innocence Project, he also collaborates/works with several law enforcement agencies. Furthermore, his experience is not just limited to the US, as he has included a good handful of international cases on his CV, as well.

The only thing that makes BK’s case different from the other cases he’s worked on is that this is the only time (that I could find) that a defense team he previously worked with came out and threw him under the bus with accusations of impropriety. While there are certainly criticisms of criminal profiling (one of his areas of expertise), and challenges to his conclusions, these are things that come down to “battle of the experts” in trial and do not indicate anything dishonest, sensationalist, or not credible about his work.

I did find vague references to his credibility being called into question by professionals but could not find anything concrete, aside from a filing in one of the cases where LE / the State tried to discredit him with unsubstantiated claims, and those claims were refuted. I couldn't find where I saved that document, and wasn't sure if anyone would be interested in that; if you are, let me know and I'll dig it back up / post it, but the takeaway for me was that a State got salty that Turvey called bullshit on their case and tried to smear him in response. While this is not unlike what's happening now, the difference is that he wasn't working with the State on that case; AT is the only other "entity" to try to discredit him, and the only one with whom he had a previous working relationship. So, make of that what you will.

Regarldess, for all of the “his career is over” discourse I’ve seen in the past couple of weeks, I think that unless Anne Taylor brings some cold, hard facts to the table to prove her allegations, his career isn’t going anywhere. It’s too consistently accomplished.

A couple of disclaimers: For the sake of trying to narrow down his CV into what is most relevant to the BK case, I omitted his list of publications, LE associations, and peer review credentials, though they are certainly on his CV for anyone who wants to tackle that themselves. I also omitted the international cases, as they wouldn’t pertain directly to patterns / procedures in the US justice system.

This left me with approximately 180 cases. What’s most challenging about this CV is that while Turvey includes relevant work he did on various cases, he doesn’t always include the result of the cases, nor does he make the extent of his work easily accessible aside from noting on the CV that he provided reports to XYZ.

He does, however, include when a defendant has been exonerated, or acquitted, or when there was an outcome that basically indicated the defendant either wasn’t convicted or the conviction was overturned. So in the cases where there’s no clear “result” on the CV, I assume these are convictions. Of course, on some of the cases he *does* include “Conviction” explicitly, so I’m not sure why he includes some but not all.

So I did my best with that. The other thing that made this challenging was that I’m aware a CV is meant to bolster a person’s experience, and that Turvey clearly thinks very highly of himself / his work (which is fine, but is not unbiased), so I wanted a more objective view of his work. Unfortunately, there isn’t a lot of consistency on which cases he provides links for on his CV. Many of the cases don’t have links and of those that do, sometimes the link just leads to one of Turvey’s own posts somewhere (usually LinkedIn) regarding the case.

Finally, the cases are only titled by the State vs. XYZ, and there’s no single, comprehensive database that has ALL the court decisions of ALL the states and counties. Justia Law, CaseLaw, and similar sites have some of the court filings and materials available, but without knowing the county that the case occurred in, tracking down records was difficult and I only have so much time.

So I’ve only included notes / commentary on a handful of cases in which the person(s) was exonerated, acquitted, etc. I did read more filings than I included here, including a lot of the cases where the conviction was upheld, and I got the idea that the cases that didn’t result in an exoneration or acquittal (despite Turvey claiming to find exculpatory evidence) were not necessarily due to Turvey being wrong in his assertions but rather that the Court found said issues insufficient to grant an appeal, or a new trial, or whatnot.

Once a person is convicted, it is a steep climb to even make it through the appeal process, let alone actually get a conviction vacated. Which is a travesty when these are not airtight convictions. That said, the amount of cases that Turvey was involved in that *did* get overturned is nothing to scoff at. Personally, I have concluded that he is credible, that his claims / work is credible, and that anyone who wants to discredit or dismiss him is welcome to but if they want to be taken seriously they better be able to rebut this massive body of work that more than speaks for itself (imo).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgPseSA-5eo

Did anyone else watch it?

So far it seems that his main points are :

1. There was no evidence - including DNA evidence - tying Kohberger to the crimes.

2. There were many items that were not processed or analysed by the defense or prosecution.

3. Anne Taylor had all the information and knew about potential exculpatory evidence but did nothing, and let Kohberger plead guilty for unknown reasons.