4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #93

When testimony starts, I can see BK huffing and puffing, rolling his eyes and showing contempt every time he hears testimony that HE WOULD LIKE A SHOT AT REFRUTING or trying to explain it away.

His lawyers have probably told him that not testifying is his only chance of not being found guilty.

I don't think he will be able to resist the temptation of taking the prosecutor on head to head and try to actually question the prosecutor himself and also just answer prosecutor questions with snarky counter questions.

Here is what I imagine.......
Prosecutor: "Mr. Kohberger, how come you can't prove exactly where you were in the early hours of the morning in question?"

BK: "How does anyone know exactly where there were on a given date and time? I only got asked about this 6 weeks afterwards! Who can remember that far back? Answer is Nobody can remember about some random night 6 weeks ago! So let me ask you Bill.....Do you know Bill where you were at the time date and time? Like how can you prove it if you say you were sleeping and you just had left your phone at the house? Can you prove you didn't kill those girls yourself, Bill?"


Prosecutor: "Mr. Kohberger, we are not talking about me. You are the accused and are the one on trial."

BK: "But how can you prove you were not the murderer Mr. Thompson. I can't prove it just like you can't prove it."

Would that be contempt of court?
I can picture it just as you're saying it. Then him holding up charts and images of constellations for the jury to view as he narrates.

I just... Oh please, no... If ever I would beg that a defendant give a pass on testifying in his own behalf, it's this defendant. Please, just-- just no. No. No. Nails on a chalkboard. I don't think it'll happen. But agreed, this defendant? It's possible.

There's a nightmare waiting to happen! But it could take years at the rate we're going, so I'm just going to enjoy myself while I can, lol!!
 
We can only HOPE he takes the stand because if he does, all bets are off...because ANYTHING can be asked by the prosecution.

Just my opinion....
In the interests of justice, I have to agree with you on this.

But the idea of actually having to sit and listen to this individual spew and drone on for hours-- it's going to be an experience!
 
During the last hearing, JJJ said: "when this case gets to trial, if it gets to trial".
That may have been a casual comment implying the pretrial phase is taking forever, but it stuck with me. Why would the judge say this?
For those of you who've watched the hearing, I'm curious, what was your take on it? Just a sarcastic comment or hinting at something else?
 
During the last hearing, JJJ said: "when this case gets to trial, if it gets to trial".
That may have been a casual comment implying the pretrial phase is taking forever, but it stuck with me. Why would the judge say this?
For those of you who've watched the hearing, I'm curious, what was your take on it? Just a sarcastic comment or hinting at something else?
Do you mean when he says when we get to the trial, "if we ever get there"? I'm pretty sure he's talking about all the delays that are going to be caused by the motions and hearings & lack of communication between the D and P because he dwells on that a lot later. Just generally, one does have to wonder with what we're seeing exactly when it's really going to happen. It seems like it's going to take a long, long time.

Would love to see a plea deal, but I don't think that's what he meant.
 
Would love to see a plea deal, but I don't think that's what he meant
Thanks for the exact quote @snooptroop88 !
I don't believe a plea deal is in the cards either: neither side seems to be interested in going that route.
I guess he was being sarcastic about how long it's taking. Then again, I've heard that many cases take even longer than this one before the trial starts, so would he really find the delays unusual? After all the prosecution already stated several hearings ago they won't have all their discovery ready until the fall, so whatever circus is going on right now doesn't actually seem to delay anything further.
It was an odd remark, to me at least. But maybe just a frustrated judge.
 
During the last hearing, JJJ said: "when this case gets to trial, if it gets to trial".
That may have been a casual comment implying the pretrial phase is taking forever, but it stuck with me. Why would the judge say this?
For those of you who've watched the hearing, I'm curious, what was your take on it? Just a sarcastic comment or hinting at something

This isnt about the delays keeping BK's case from trial because delays never stop a trial from happening.
The only thing that srops a trial from happening is the judge dismisses it for various resons or the defendant pleads guilty which means no trial is necessary. There would then be the sentencing hearing.
 
Thank you @Cool Cats !
Hmm... I don't see BK pleading guilty, and certainly not before the trial starts. On the contrary his lawyers seem more adamant than ever about proclaiming his innocence, so I doubt it could be that one.
So that leaves the other option you listed: could the judge be considering dismissal...? I would be surprised, but then again this case is full of surprises.
 
I'm listening again to the most recent hearing -- a hearing whether to close a hearing --

AT is arguing that "Brian has a right for the public to know..."

Does he?

He has a right to a trial before a jury of his peers....

This isn't that.

She seems really angry that the PCA is public and wants "the public to know" what she claims the State is withhholding .... and yet the judge opines that he doesn't know whether the defense is asking for things that don't exist.

That the State has provided her with clips of a vehicle but not streaming video or clips but not streaming audio isn't shattering to justice. They've highlighted the relevant portions. You know what's in the rest of the video? Nothing. Dead space. And AT knows it. Meanwhile she's the one who appears to be withholding her witnesses, conveniently shielded by "they won't be giving a report".

My take: a lot of bluster, a lot of court (hearing) time to filibuster while keeping her defense a secret.

JMO
 
Thank you @Cool Cats !
Hmm... I don't see BK pleading guilty, and certainly not before the trial starts. On the contrary his lawyers seem more adamant than ever about proclaiming his innocence, so I doubt it could be that one.
So that leaves the other option you listed: could the judge be considering dismissal...? I would be surprised, but then again this case is full of surprises.
IMO AT is drumming his "innocence" because she's trying to offset the fallout of the public PCA which is altogether damning. So every time she can say 'Brian is innocent' it wafts into the public sphere where, especially for people who follow headlines loosely, it has its greatest power. Is he innocent? Like: did he not do it? He is innocent until proven guilty. Big difference. She's not wrong, technically. He is protectedly innocent. Until or unless he is tried and convicted.

No dismissal. The State has a solid case.

JMO
 
IMO AT is drumming his "innocence" because she's trying to offset the fallout of the public PCA which is altogether damning. So every time she can say 'Brian is innocent' it wafts into the public sphere where, especially for people who follow headlines loosely, it has its greatest power. Is he innocent? Like: did he not do it? He is innocent until proven guilty. Big difference. She's not wrong, technically. He is protectedly innocent. Until or unless he is tried and convicted.

No dismissal. The State has a solid case.

JMO
Agree; it's strategic and as in reality he is actually only presumed innocent, the fact that her statements appear as a personal belief give the repeated claims more kudos with the public and jury pool (learned attorney).Jmo. We are seeing the speculation it creates right here and also throughout social media/eff book etc imoo.
 
Agree; it's strategic and as in reality he is actually only presumed innocent, the fact that her statements appear as a personal belief give the repeated claims more kudos with the public and jury pool (learned attorney).Jmo. We are seeing the speculation it creates right here and also throughout social media/eff book etc imoo.
That's the word I was looking for -- presumed! I think we are wisely advised to pencil that word in every time AT speaks of his innocence. Presumed innocent.

He has already passed the grand jury indictment and PCA thresholds but his legal guilt comes at a higher one -- BARD, as determined by the jury of his peers after reviewing all the testimony and evidence the judge allows.

Much of what we see now IMO is posturing and --afreeing with you again -- it's strategic.

JMO
 
Thanks for the exact quote @snooptroop88 !
I don't believe a plea deal is in the cards either: neither side seems to be interested in going that route.
I guess he was being sarcastic about how long it's taking. Then again, I've heard that many cases take even longer than this one before the trial starts, so would he really find the delays unusual? After all the prosecution already stated several hearings ago they won't have all their discovery ready until the fall, so whatever circus is going on right now doesn't actually seem to delay anything further.
It was an odd remark, to me at least. But maybe just a frustrated judge.
The judge may have been referring to the time it's taken so far. As you suggest, he may be frustrated and may feel like the case has been moving very slowly. But despite his feelings and despite the feelings of some family members, if historical statistics can be believed (and I suspect they can) objectively it's not taken that long given it's a death penalty case, and it's a DP case with four victims.

Per State Studies on Time Costs

In a 2013 study published in the University of Denver Criminal Law Review, DP cases in Colorado took an average of nearly 4 years longer (1902 days) to conclude than LWOP cases. Time was measured from the time the defendant was charged to final sentencing, not from the date of the crime. (That makes perfect sense to me but some family complaints about time in BK's case cite the time of the crime.) In contrast, LWOP cases took an average of 526 days to complete. That's still 17.5 months for the average LWOP cases to conclude. While the study was from 2013, I don't know of any reason cases would be faster to go to trial today than 10 + years ago. If anything, forensic evidence has become more complex and discovery more complicated.

The study also found "...even when a death-penalty case ends in a plea agreement and a life sentence, the process takes a year and a half longer than an LWOP case with a trial. The authors noted that selecting a jury in an LWOP case takes about a day and a half; in a capital case, jury selection averages 26 days."

In comparison to Colorado, Idaho does (or did) have a "rocket docket." The above link states (based on an Idaho legislative study released in 2014 & available by clicking on a link at the end of the above article) "Capital cases with trials took 20.5 months to reach a conclusion while non-capital cases with trials took 13.5 months." While this multiple victim case WILL take longer than that Idaho capital case average to reach a conclusion, it's only been a bit more than 16 months since BK was charged with 4 murders and a little less than 12 months since he was indicted. (As discussed at the time, it was a bit weird to suddenly indict with a grand jury.)

The Idaho legislative study also discussed other costly and time-consuming aspects of DP cases like appeals. Further data were presented to show how seldom the DP is sought in Idaho and how seldom it's awarded. And, unfortunately, DP reversals weren't rare in the state's historical data (for reasons of prosecutorial misconduct, violation of Constitutional rights, ineffective assistance of counsel.) So I'm not sure what basis of comparison for "time to trial" the judge has. Given how seldom the DP is sought for first-degree murder in Idaho, I wouldn't think an individual trial judge, no matter how experienced he/she is, could have a lot of experience with DP trials. So the delays in this case may seem more unusual than they really are.
MOO
 
Thank you @NCWatcher . I was fairly sure this case was actually not taking that long, but I hadn't considered the judge's lack of experience with DP cases. I guess it was just an expression of the judge's frustration.
@Megnut and @jepop , at this point, my concern was whether or not a guilty plea might arise before trial, which might lead to no trial. The defense's statements make that extremely unlikely IMO, and also if the families have any influence, I doubt they would want to see a plea deal happen.
As for dismissal, it would be very surprising. But considering we can't see many of the proceedings or documents, we don't know.
One issue I can see is that the prosecution seems to be unable to get the FBI to hand over the full materials requested , which are the very ones that they relied on to establish the PCA and get the grand jury indictment. That may become a problem, per Idaho discovery rules.
"The prosecuting attorney's obligations under this paragraph extend to material and information in the possession or control of members of prosecuting attorney's staff and of any others who have participated in the investigation or evaluation of the case who either regularly report, or have reported in that case, to the office of the prosecuting attorney. " (BBM)
Idaho Criminal Rule 16
I hope these problems can be resolved, the full discovery can be given and a proper verdict can be reached by the jury. I would hate for this case to end prematurely because the FBI is unexpectedly turning it's back on the prosecution when they request documents for discovery.
 
IMO AT is drumming his "innocence" because she's trying to offset the fallout of the public PCA which is altogether damning. So every time she can say 'Brian is innocent' it wafts into the public sphere where, especially for people who follow headlines loosely, it has its greatest power. Is he innocent? Like: did he not do it? He is innocent until proven guilty. Big difference. She's not wrong, technically. He is protectedly innocent. Until or unless he is tried and convicted.

No dismissal. The State has a solid case.

JMO

Yeah, but what changed? Strategy is off, something is different. Is it the rejection of the alibi? The insistence of innocence in the way it is stated seems like "personal". Is dealing with him, making her feel maternal or wearing her down? Not attacking AT. I can't put my finger on it and it may not be her, it might be the case, but something has shifted. JMOO

On second thought, I wonder if they were given certain assurances it was going to take a certain amount of time. Maybe they were fine with it but now are not or the state's case is waiting on something, CAST, etc.? I can't help feel that there's a lot going on in the background related to other issues that were being investigated and they're trying to get that sorted, so there is frustration. JMOO
 
Last edited:
Do you mean when he says when we get to the trial, "if we ever get there"? I'm pretty sure he's talking about all the delays that are going to be caused by the motions and hearings & lack of communication between the D and P because he dwells on that a lot later. Just generally, one does have to wonder with what we're seeing exactly when it's really going to happen. It seems like it's going to take a long, long time.

Would love to see a plea deal, but I don't think that's what he meant.
ATs second goal, just keep BK out of prison as long as possible.
 
Yeah, but what changed? Strategy is off, something is different. Is it the rejection of the alibi? The insistence of innocence in the way it is stated seems like "personal". Is dealing with him, making her feel maternal or wearing her down? Not attacking AT. I can't put my finger on it and it may not be her, it might be the case, but something has shifted. JMOO

On second thought, I wonder if they were given certain assurances it was going to take a certain amount of time. Maybe they were fine with it but now are not or the state's case is waiting on something, CAST, etc.? I can't help feel that there's a lot going on in the background related to other issues that were being investigated and they're trying to get that sorted, so there is frustration. JMOO
Even though BK has been arrested, there's still an active investigation with new information coming in, new reports, etc, so AT's narrative that she doesn't have all of the discovery is true. It's always true. Because it's not a finite or fixed amount with a prior end date.

The Defense is also required to turn over its discovery. I've noticed several times that AT has said she has witnesses but not reports. This is no small thing. From watching trials, it is my understanding that, if there's a report, it has to be turned over to the opposing side. Reports are written by the experts. The work around is to call them as witnesses but not experts, ask them NOT to prepare reports... why? So Defense doesn't have to tip its hand. Wait until the last minute or during the trial itself to add them to their witness list. Last minute curricula vitae, where the State has no time to vet and little opportunity to counter the testimony.

Like her alibi. She told the judge she couldn't give the specifics until the State gave her more discovery. (Think: I can't tell you where he was until I know all the places the State can show he was.) IMO she already has that information but then suggests there's important missing data outside the relevant video or hidden in the bits with audio she claims she doesn't have. IMO she's purposefully talking in circles.

As to the FBI and IGG, I think she is asking for things that don't exist. Which is why it hasn't been provided to her. IGG doesn't have a print out of all the submissions they've ever had. It's an absurd ask. As if the IGG people can draw her a quick family tree with just related names and DNA profiles. Their software makes a kajillion computations a second to arrive at closeness of kin.

FWIW, the argument isn't new. It's what used to be said of DNA testing. It was new. Defense could tackle the science, tackle how it was collected, tested. DNA analysis is largely and widely accepted now. Testing has been privatized and now it's become entertainment! Trendy to get DNA tested.

I see AT following the playbook. Challenge the evidence, the investigation, the investigators and when that doesn't work -- "pound the table".

If she can convince or confuse the judge and get anything thrown out before trial, that's a huge win for her. She's overwhelming the court with asks, aware he's not going to throw it all out. She's playing the odds. Battling them all, hoping for a couple.

She's doing exactly what I expect her do it. It's what defense attorneys do when the Prosecution has a strong case -- act like it doesn't. State it like a refrain. But attack, attack, attack.

DEF 101.

JMO
 
Thank you @Cool Cats !
Hmm... I don't see BK pleading guilty, and certainly not before the trial starts. On the contrary his lawyers seem more adamant than ever about proclaiming his innocence, so I doubt it could be that one.
So that leaves the other option you listed: could the judge be considering dismissal...? I would be surprised, but then again this case is full of surprises.

The defense has already tried to get the case dismissed citing errors with GJ instructions but it didn't work. The defense has also tried to get the case dismissed through the use of geneology but that didnt work.

THIS CASE IS GOING TO GO TO TRIAL.
 
The Leonid Meteor Shower is probably one of the most famous yearly events for amateur astronomers and was going on from Nov. 6 to Nov. 30, 2022. On Nov. 12-13, the meteor shower was building up to its peak which was on Nov. 17-18, 2022 and would include at least 15 meteors per hour. (In some years there are thousands of meteors per hour.) In particular these meteors can be extremely colorful. Leonids are known for Earth-Grazer meteors which have long tails and skim the horizon and fireball meteors which are extremely bright and last longer. These two types of meteors are easier to see. Peak meteor activity was at 3am in Wawawai park that night. In general, the Leonids are best viewed between midnight and 6am. It takes about 30 minutes for a human's eyes to adjust so they can see the meteors in the night sky. It takes 30 minutes to drive from the Steptoe Apartments to Wawawai Park. IMO, IF BK was doing this activity, logically he would have left his apartment no later than 11:00pm on November 12 to get to a no artificial light location in Wawawai Park and allow his eyes 30 minutes to adjust. My expectation is that he would not be the only person viewing the Leonids at Wawawai park that night. There ARE watch parties for meteor shower events, both informal and organized, so it is likely that there were others who were watching the Leonids in the same location(s) BK claims he was watching from. From the PCA, BK returned home around 5:30am, which IS consistent with viewing the Leonids or at least trying to view the Leonids from various locations. It takes about 43 minutes to get from Wawawai to 1122 King Rd.


And in October 2022, there was the Orinid Meteor Shower, lending at least some credibility to AT's allegation that BK had done this star-gazing before.

Now we wait to see if there are photos and/or witnesses that prove he was doing this activity that night during the critical timeframe - 4am to 4:20am.
"Now we wait to see if there are photos and/or witnesses that prove he was doing this activity that night during the critical timeframe - 4am to 4:20am."


If BK had photos that he took of the meteor showers between 4 to 4:20 am, from Wawawai Park, he wouldn't have taken 2 years to say so. And he wouldn't have been incarcerated all this time. JMO
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
83
Guests online
1,651
Total visitors
1,734

Forum statistics

Threads
594,457
Messages
18,005,677
Members
229,399
Latest member
roseashley592
Back
Top