nospam wrote:

>>> in hindsight, he should have left his phone at his apartment that
>>> night. at least he would have had an alibi that he 'was home'.
>>
>> Yeah, but he also took the phone with him when he cased the household.
>
> he had his phone with him all the time, just like everyone else does.

First off I must commend you as normally you're completely ignorant of
everythign you claim (you just make it all up); but you seem to have read a
newspaper or two about these murders (which is a good thing, nospam).

Most iKooks appear to have never read the news in their entire lives.
So kudos to you for keeping up on this subject for the most part.
(You even mentioned things I wasn't aware of, but, you also jumped to
brazen conclusions which, typical for you, you provided zero cites for).

I'm different than you iKooks in that I'll change my opinion on a dime if
you show evidence of that or if your arguments are logically sensible.

Therefore I'm not disagreeing that he more than likely kept the phone with
him the whole time and just turned it off during the actual murders.

My main concern with all these crimes where the phone does the person in is
what made them think that having a phone turned on wouldn't be traced back?

Even though my (free) Android phone is set up to be far more private than
even the most expensive iPhones on the planet, there's still data leakage
which isn't necessary when you don't need a phone to commit a crime.

> however, there's no evidence that he *did* case the house. it's likely,
> but it's not a guarantee.

Having read the original public PDFs, I would agree that it's logical that
he might have cased the joint, given the many nearby pings, but it's up to
the police to prove that he did (not that it matters greatly if they can
already pinpoint him at the murder scene anyway on the night of the crime).

> it's only known that he was 'using cellular resources' in the area at
> least 12 times. that's careful wording.
>
> moscow, idaho is a rural town, and according to the fcc, there are only
> *three* cell towers for at&t that serve the area, which is not enough
> to pinpoint anyone at any specific location.

I won't disagree with any of that as it's a logical sensible assessment.

>
>> He was _desperate_ to have his phone with him, which is another observation
>> which makes me think he's more likely an idiot iPhone than Android owner.
>
> what a colossally stupid thing to say.

Actually, it's not. You just don't understand that I'm trying to assess
what kind of person commits a heinous crime like that who feels the need to
bring his phone along. Was he expecting a call from his mother or was he
live streaming the whole thing?

If it's an unplanned spur-of-the-moment crime of passion, for example, then
sure, the phone would be with you most likely - but if it's a carefully
planned murder - then the phone has no business being anywhere near you.

Best to tape the phone to the bottom of a Greyhound bus or something, so
you can plausibly say you were somewhere else the entire time.

The reason I associate iPhone owners with stupidity like this, nospam, is
that I can give you plenty of situations where iPhone owners are bamboozled
by their imaginary belief systems. Do I need to back that up or do you
understand that iPhone owners fall for the dumbest marketing gimmicks.

>> I'm not aware that his person was seen in any surveillance video,
>
> his vehicle was seen *at* the house at the time of the murders.

I haven't read anything on it since the early days of his arrest, so I
wasn't aware there was "visual" (either in person or via cameras) evidence
of the white Elantra _at_ the house - but I wouldn't doubt he'd park it a
block away or so as the white Elantra was seen going down the road and
turning around at the culdesac as I recall.

> his vehicle was *also* seen the next morning at the albertson's in
> clarkston (~30 mi south), with video of him getting into and out of the
> vehicle.

This I wasn't aware of, where what might matter could be what he bought. If
he bought, for example, cleaning supplies that he then used on his car,
that would be different than if he bought a grill cheese sandwich instead.

> that's is a key part of the probable cause affidavit that links him to
> a white elantra without a front plate seen at the house (which is
> unusual for the area since washington & idaho both require it).

I don't know how well you know west coast law enforcement, but I haven't
had a front license plate on a few of my cars for many years. Only once did
I get a ticket (a parking officer gave me a fixit ticket years ago).

I still don't have a front plate on that car, my point being some states
don't enforce their laws (but where I came from, back in NY, they do).

> it's also a virtual certainty that he was seen on surveillance video
> inside alberston's and what he bought.

As I said, I wasn't aware of this but I'm sure he went shopping in the days
between the crime and when he and his father drove across the country.

They're even in the police bodycam video having been pulled over multiple
times on that trip (the guys is apparently a horrible driver.

You'd think a guy who just committed a few murders would drive below the
speed limit, stop at stop signs, not cross over the white lines, etc.

> if he paid cash, they can pull the register receipt when he is seen
> going through the checkout lane.

I'm agreeing that whatever items he bought before and after the murders can
be important, e.g., they found "a knife" and "a mask" at his parent's home.

> if he paid by credit card, they don't even need that since the
> transaction is linked to his card, with an itemized list of everything
> he bought.

The fact he cleaned his car multiple times rather thoroughly will be
certain to be brought up to jurors, where the timing of the purchase of
those supplies will also be of interest (if he did buy them, of course).

>
> they will also be able to see where he went in the store. was he
> looking at fresh arugula or was he looking at sponges and detergents.
>
>> although
>> he was seen face to face by one of the surviving roommates (who,
>> paradoxically, didn't phone police at the time).
>
> she freaked out, which is not unusual.

He was probably looking for lemon juice to hide from the surveillance
cameras. I heard that works for bank robbers anyway...

>> His vehicle was seen
>> though, and the dog was heard barking (much as in the Alex Murdaugh case).
>
> the dog knew something wasn't normal.

What was really creepy was him apparently telling the girls who were crying
that he was going to make it better (or something to that creepy effect).

> the problem for alex murdaugh was his voice on a phone video that
> placed him *at* the crime scene *at* the time it occurred, which
> contradicted his claim that he was not there. in other words, it's
> proof he lied.

It would be interesting to compare how many times Alex Murdaugh lied versus
how many times Apple lied in the same time frame as those murders took.

I think Apple will easily be shown to lie more than Murdaugh did though.
Apple has billion-dollar lies while Murdaugh's are only in the millions.

BTW, on that note, Apple is a horrible company because they perpetrate so
many brazen lies which they have no sense of shame for doing, mostly
because Apple gets rich as a predator of people who can't understand
Apple's marketing lies. Your predatory personality mirrors that of Apple.
>> If you have a cite for your fabrication that his person was on a video, you
>> should produce that cite now as you have a history of fabricating lies.
>
> it's not a fabrication. see above.

I must have misunderstood because I was talking about AT THE TIME of the
crime, and at that time, the only video is of a similar (probably his)
vehicle but not of a _person_ (again, during the time of the crime).

If there _is_ surveillance video _at the time_ of the crime that shows his
person, I wouldn't be surprised though - I just haven't seen a cite saying
that it exists.

> keep in mind that there is a reasonable chance that the surveillance
> video from the house *next* *door* has him on video *that* *night*.

Certainly the camera recorded sounds so it was certainly on and running but
it was supposedly pointed at the side of the house as I recall from the
police reports I read long ago.

This issue seems to be classic for how your strange brain works, nospam,
where I don't jump to the unwarranted conclusion that surveillance video of
his person exists - while you apparently do (but you lack the evidence).

It's classic for people like you who can't handle processing of detail.

> that information is not needed to make an arrest, so there's no need to
> disclose it at this time (assuming it does exist).

I will agree with any logical statement you (or anyone) makes, nospam,
where I am not a lawyer, but I "think" they have to give the defense _all_
that they have at "some point" in time. I don't know when that point in
time is, but certainly it must be before the trial starts I would think.
>> I still want to know, for sure, if he was using an iPhone though.
>
> of course you do.

My hypothesis is clear, nospam, that iPhone owners are gullible.
You can't make that kind of profit off of intelligent people.

But I must agree that there's no evidence I've seen that says either way if
his phone was Android or iOS but you're the one claiming it's Android and
yet I have no expectation of a cite from you since your mind isn't normal.

You fabricate your entire belief system out of usually zero real facts.
>> Because he's incredibly stupid but he seems to think he's a genius.
>
> phd students often are.

A PhD in the sciences needs skills that a PhD in "criminology" doesn't.
There's a reason a huge proportion of "bio sci" majors flunk Freshman
Chemistry & Sophomore Organic, and for the same reason a smaller proportion
but still large proportion of Engineering students flunk statics &
dynamics.

> he may be academically smart, but he's definitely not street smart.

The history and music majors have it easy in comparison to the science and
engineering majors, and this guy was a liberal arts major as I recall -
which doesn't take all that much in smarts.

Earning a sociology degree, for example, may be beyond Jolly Roger, but it
should be within the grasp of people like Ant, Badgolferman & Steve.

> this is likely his first major crime (and fortunately, his last), which
> is why he made a lot of mistakes that a seasoned criminal would never
> have done.

I'm going to agree with you that this appears to be his first major crime,
as leaving the knife sheath and using the phone were simply dumb actions.
> oddly enough, it's analogous to you, who *thinks* you're hiding from
> google by not having a google account, while not having any idea what
> *other* evidence you're leaving.

What you show no evidence of comprehending, nospam, is that the privacy
between Android and iOS is *COMPLETELY DIFFERENT* in myriad ways.

For example, in Android I randomize my Wi-Fi MAC address per connection.
Can you do that with iOS by a simple toggle like you can with Android?

The point is that Apple has you bamboozled that only what Apple MARKETING
touts is about privacy when Apple never advertises they have more zero day
holes in the iPhone than any Android on the planet.

Also Apple touts the privacy settings but Apple doesn't mention they track
almost everything you do, which you can get back from them - but they do so
using the mothership tracking account that Google can't use becuase it
doesn't exist on Android.

What you don't understand, nospam, I can't teach you because you are left
of the first quartile in Dunning Kruger terms of your assessment of your
skills versus your actual knowledge (which you show no evidence of having).
*iPhone apps no better for privacy than Android*
<https://www.tomsguide.com/news/ios-android-app-privacy-parity>

>> They actually said they had MORE probable cause than they used to ask for
>> teh search warrant in the search warrant itself, so as to have a readily
>> available defense if the criminal's lawyers challenge the search warrant.
>
> they only needed probable cause to make an arrest.

We both agree it's highly likely they have much more on this guy than what
they stated in the court documents which were made public and which,
apparently both you and I read.

> additional evidence will be presented at a future trial, assuming there
> is one.

His lawyer isn't in any rush to be tried it seems, which makes sense.
What I'll be looking for is which phone did he own. iPhone or Android.

> it's possible (and quite likely) that the evidence against him is so
> overwhelming that taking a plea deal might be a wise choice.

My bet is he's an iPhone owner.