4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #94

[jepop]

What type of ruling is Judge supposed to make regarding the alibi? When?

State responded to D's Supplemental Notice of Alibi Defense (submitted to a deadline on April 17th). State objected based on exact same grounds as last year; D's notice of Albi Defense doesn't comply with ICRs. My understanding is,the ball is now in JJJ's court (pardon the pun!) and could go one of three ways:
1) Judge accepts 'Alibi' as it currently stands (unlikely moo as hard to see how it complies with ICRs);
2) Judge finds Notice of Alibi doesn't comply and grants D additional extension of time to comply (personally think this is what he will decide); or
3) Judge rejects as non compliant and rules time is up. No alibi has been submitted would be the finding here Imo. Which IIUC, would mean d cannot call witnesses to support any alibi potentially presented come trial. BK would ofcourse be free to take the stand or not as he/defense sees fit. (I think JJJ unlikely to rule along these lines at this point). All Moo

17th April D's Supplemental Response, Notice of Alibi (submitted to deadline ordered by JJJ).

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/2024/041724-Notice-Defendants-Supplemental-Response-States-AD.pdf

26th April State's Response basically objecting on grounds of non compliance and projecting various outcomes dependent on Court's findings.

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/2024/042624-Response-Notice-Defendants-Supplemental-Response-Alibi-Demand.pdf

eta regarding when? JJJ mentioned the whole Albi thingy at that early May hearing I believe and just my impression was that he was not going to rule/consider it until after the hearings which have just taken place. It was just a casual mention though if I'm recalling it right. Jmo

 

[Balthazar]

It looks that way to me absolutely jmo. I speculated last year that defense was looking for any video at all of a white sedan at relevant times and once that was found, an actual 'alibi' location would be forthcoming. Seems that hasn't occurred at this point. Moo. What I don't understand is how csl stuff pulled by Sy Ray is going to help if my guess that BK switched his phone off for the two hours surrounding the crimes is correct. Imo state forensic expert would already know if this occurred and hence both P and D know. So what...is Sy Ray going to challenge the state's forensics or does he claim to be able to show csl when a phone is off? Jmo.

Personally moo I have no doubt that BK's 'alibi' such as it currently stands is manufactured. However the 'alibi' submitted in April doesn't comply with relevant ICRs imo so the saga is not over.

What if BK's phone was NOT off? What if it was simply out of range of the cell towers?

State responded to D's Supplemental Notice of Alibi Defense (submitted to a deadline on April 17th). State objected based on exact same grounds as last year; D's notice of Albi Defense doesn't comply with ICRs. My understanding is,the ball is now in JJJ's court (pardon the pun!) and could go one of three ways:
1) Judge accepts 'Alibi' as it currently stands (unlikely moo as hard to see how it complies with ICRs);
2) Judge finds Notice of Alibi doesn't comply and grants D additional extension of time to comply (personally think this is what he will decide); or
3) Judge rejects as non compliant and rules time is up. No alibi has been submitted would be the finding here Imo. Which IIUC, would mean d cannot call witnesses to support any alibi potentially presented come trial. BK would ofcourse be free to take the stand or not as he/defense sees fit. (I think JJJ unlikely to rule along these lines at this point). All Moo

17th April D's Supplemental Response, Notice of Alibi (submitted to deadline ordered by JJJ).

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/2024/041724-Notice-Defendants-Supplemental-Response-States-AD.pdf

26th April State's Response basically objecting on grounds of non compliance and projecting various outcomes dependent on Court's findings.

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/2024/042624-Response-Notice-Defendants-Supplemental-Response-Alibi-Demand.pdf

eta regarding when? JJJ mentioned the whole Albi thingy at that early May hearing I believe and just my impression was that he was not going to rule/consider it until after the hearings which have just taken place. It was just a casual mention though if I'm recalling it right. Jmo

IMO, Judge will rule extension.

 

[North_Idaho_Nony]

It is disappointing to see this hearing pushed back, however, IMO this does not equate to stalling by the defense.
Keep in mind the prosecution has a September deadline for discovery, and the defense is January.
COV hearings, or even an actual change of venue, will not have any bearing on that.
I too wish things would move along faster, but nothing that is going on right now is actually changing the broader timeline of the trial.
MOO

ETA: If I had to guess, I would bet that the results they got in other counties were not that different from what they found in Latah county. It really wouldn't surprise me since media coverage of this case has been so broad. So they are probably wondering what to do with their survey results, which probably don't help them argue for COV at all. MOO

Sorry to so belatedly be responding, but the Defense team specifically requested the late June COV hearing date at the end of the 4-10-2024 hearing.

I know folks are pressed for time, but for those interested, you can listen to AT making that specific calendaring request about 2 hours 32 minutes into the hearing:

The Order permitting the Defense to continue the surveys was issued 4-19-2024. So, that was a pretty timely ruling that allowed the Defense to continue moving forward to meet its requested late June COV hearing date, MOO.

I share your speculation/curiosity about how the survey results are going and if they will support a COV!

But this is the method the defense picked to try to get data to support a COV, and this is the expert the defense hired.

I personally don’t know if MSM coverage was any less in Ada or Bonneville counties. One of the big potential drawbacks for the defense in its quest for a COV is that lots of kids from all over the state, including Ada & Bonneville counties, come to the UI each semester and had their lives directly impacted by this heinous crime. And so did their parents, who had to decide if it was safe for their kids to come back to school with a mass murderer on the loose.

And for that matter, almost everyone in the state that’s lived in Idaho for more than a hot minute has some connection to the UI and to Moscow, MOO.

So, the defense may have a heck of a mountain to climb with respect to COV, it seems to me, when their client is accused of committing a particularly heinous crime that horrified an entire state. I know of no Idaho families who didn’t closely follow MSM reporting until an arrest was made, MOO.

Thanks for the thought-provoking discussion, and apologies again for my delay in responding.

 

[Nila Aella]

Well, they have until January. Should be plenty of time. But I agree it's an incredibly tedious and boring task.
I'm not sure they're only looking for a white sedan. They might also be looking for lack thereof to invalidate the prosecution's claims.
If what we saw during the last hearing is any hint, they're also trying to show the absence of white elantras along the routes shown in the PCA exhibit, especially on roads leading into and out of Moscow.

Re: Possible routes leaving

Testimony from the lead investigator during the Motion to Compel hearing stated that, to his knowledge, there was not one video depicting the car leaving by any possible route.

45:06

x.com

twitter.com

JMO

 

[katydid23]

Re: Possible routes leaving

Testimony from the lead investigator during the Motion to Compel hearing stated that, to his knowledge, there was not one video depicting the car leaving by any possible route.

45:06

x.com

twitter.com

JMO

Right, but that does not mean he did NOT return home, right? Obviously he did drive home somehow---he admits he was out driving at that time and in that general area.

There are thousands of cars that were not picked up on video as they drove home.

 

[jepop]

Right, but that does not mean he did NOT return home, right? Obviously he did drive home somehow---he admits he was out driving at that time and in that general area.

There are thousands of cars that were not picked up on video as they drove home.

My working theory for his homeward journey. All speculative:
Queen Road to Palouse via Conestoga (per PCA)
Palouse west to Snow Road
Snow Road south and east to Main highway adjacent to Blaine at c 4.48am (phone back on)
Per PCA pinging his way back to Pullman with first camera capture off Johnston Road just out of Pullman tat around 5.25 am congruent with phone pings (per PCA).

Eta imo state will present plenty at trial to connect sv1 to bk's elantra and jury will see the reasonable likelihood (very strong circumstantial inference plus details of elimination of any other white elantras on surrounding roads from 4.20am to 4.48am (not thinking there will actually be any besides sv1 jmo) that it is indeed sv1 that turns up 20 mins south of crime scene and then pings it's way to johnston road for that first homeward camera capture. moo

 

[Nila Aella]

Sorry to so belatedly be responding, but the Defense team specifically requested the late June COV hearing date at the end of the 4-10-2024 hearing.

I know folks are pressed for time, but for those interested, you can listen to AT making that specific calendaring request about 2 hours 32 minutes into the hearing:

The Order permitting the Defense to continue the surveys was issued 4-19-2024. So, that was a pretty timely ruling that allowed the Defense to continue moving forward to meet its requested late June COV hearing date, MOO.

I share your speculation/curiosity about how the survey results are going and if they will support a COV!

But this is the method the defense picked to try to get data to support a COV, and this is the expert the defense hired.

I personally don’t know if MSM coverage was any less in Ada or Bonneville counties. One of the big potential drawbacks for the defense in its quest for a COV is that lots of kids from all over the state, including Ada & Bonneville counties, come to the UI each semester and had their lives directly impacted by this heinous crime. And so did their parents, who had to decide if it was safe for their kids to come back to school with a mass murderer on the loose.

And for that matter, almost everyone in the state that’s lived in Idaho for more than a hot minute has some connection to the UI and to Moscow, MOO.

So, the defense may have a heck of a mountain to climb with respect to COV, it seems to me, when their client is accused of committing a particularly heinous crime that horrified an entire state. I know of no Idaho families who didn’t closely follow MSM reporting until an arrest was made, MOO.

Thanks for the thought-provoking discussion, and apologies again for my delay in responding.

The Court hearing on the survey and the MSM stories that followed increased the number of people who had read, seen, or heard about the questions. Not sure how the survey will deal with that in comparing the survey results.

The entire State could be equally biased or some Counties might be less biased. Even though the D might not find one, the D still has to look to see if there is a County that is least biased.

JMO

Right, but that does not mean he did NOT return home, right? Obviously he did drive home somehow---he admits he was out driving at that time and in that general area.

There are thousands of cars that were not picked up on video as they drove home.

He was caught on camera at 2:53 and 5:25 in Pullman. He left and returned.
As I understand it:
AT says BK was SW of Moscow and never went to Moscow or 1122 that evening. Pullman to Blaine.
The Prosecution says he went to Moscow and 1122, then left taking a route to Blaine, then returned to Pullman at 5:25. Pullman to Moscow to Blaine.

The P showed one possible route. Can that route be correct without video, yes. But it also might be incorrect.
Corroborating evidence helps. The Prosecution has to prove he went from Pullman to Moscow to Blaine, BARD. JMO

IMO, the important video is near the house (Styner, Ridge and King, plus?).
Have to wait for trial to see what those reveal.

And yes, I know we are only focusing on one bit of the evidence.

JMO

 

[Megnut]

So....the State proffers a possible route.... and BK sees it in discovery... imagine his inward smirk....

Imagine my outward sneer.

JMO

 

[GRT]

I'm getting the impression that this case will be stacked with experts on both sides.

 

[katydid23]

I'm getting the impression that this case will be stacked with experts on both sides.

True, but unless they have a credible expert to discount and dismiss his DNA on the knife sheath left under one of the victims, the other experts won't matter much. JMO

 

[GRT]

True, but unless they have a credible expert to discount and dismiss his DNA on the knife sheath left under one of the victims, the other experts won't matter much. JMO

And I think that's probably what the Prosecution should focus on most vigorously. If they can drive that home, the rest is just so much noise.

 

[schooling]

Re: Possible routes leaving

Testimony from the lead investigator during the Motion to Compel hearing stated that, to his knowledge, there was not one video depicting the car leaving by any possible route.

45:06

x.com

twitter.com

JMO

Well the the suspects vehicle travels down Walenta and then it vanishes (according to the PCA). From there the Detective uses his training and best judgement to determine where it went next. Since he believes that thethe vehicle had to exit the neighborhood, somewhere. I'm not sure I've ever seen a case that was lost because law enforcement couldn't account for the entire escape route. MOO.

And IMO though it may sound like the Detective is conceding the point and admitting to a hole in the case. I think it's more of a case of 1) this is not a trial and he's not testifying as an expert witness and 2) AT is a master at asking very specific questions that she's going to know the answer to.

Even if the Detective is 99.9999999% sure of

Suspect Vehicle I is next seen departing the area oftle King Road Residence atapproximately 4:20 a.m. at a high rate of speed. Suspect Vehicle I is next observed travelingsouthbound on Walenta Drive. Based on my knowledge ofthe area and review of camera footagein the neighborhood tlat does not show Suspect vehicle 1 dwing that timeframe, I believe thatSuspect Vehicle I likely exited the neighborhood at Palouse River Drive and Conestoga Drive.Palouse Nver Drive is at the southem edge of Moscow and proceeds into Whitrnan County,Washington. Eventually the road leads to Pullrnaq Washington.

From the PCA

99.9999999% sure is still "it's possible". He couldn't possibly be 100% sure. And AT wasn't going to get into those details with him.

MOO

 

[North_Idaho_Nony]

That sounds feasible.

But the optics of the Prosecution not turning over all discovery are poor, and I fear news of the issue could taint a jury pool. And that issue is getting ample coverage.

AT is bright enough to know how to plant tiny seeds of suspicion. If they're at all smart, the Prosecution should turn over the discovery without needing to be asked twice. If there is a white car in some different location somewhere, they can use their other evidence to show why it wasn't BK.

RBBM

Optics may be one thing, but attending/listening/watching the court hearings is another.

For any concerned about poor optics regarding the empty allegation (MOO) that the State “isn’t complying with discovery,” I cannot strongly enough recommend listening to the bulk of the State’s powerful, MOO, position starting about 3 hours 9 minutes in on the 5/31/2024 hearing to help separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak:

I know many/most of us live with time crunches, and the gag order makes it difficult to follow these Motion to Compel hearings from one to the next to the next, but I personally find it helpful to watch/listen for myself, which is why I provided the time code above for those who can’t listen to the whole thing.

There was a lot of solid info in that hearing, MOO, that makes the whole thing a solid listen for those with the time.

I was left feeling even more confident in the State’s case & their compliance thus far with Idaho Criminal Rule 16 regarding discovery after watching the entire thing. I’m also not surprised/disappointed at the spaghetti throwing by the defense — they have a job to do — but the desperation was palpable, MOO, with EM trying to pull a Vallow-Daybell move to have JJJ throw out the death penalty when we are still so far away from a trial even being scheduled. Sad & desperate, MOO.

 

[grannygates]

RBBM

Optics may be one thing, but attending/listening/watching the court hearings is another.

For any concerned about poor optics regarding the empty allegation (MOO) that the State “isn’t complying with discovery,” I cannot strongly enough recommend listening to the bulk of the State’s powerful, MOO, position starting about 3 hours 9 minutes in on the 5/31/2024 hearing to help separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak:

I know many/most of us live with time crunches, and the gag order makes it difficult to follow these Motion to Compel hearings from one to the next to the next, but I personally find it helpful to watch/listen for myself, which is why I provided the time code above for those who can’t listen to the whole thing.

There was a lot of solid info in that hearing, MOO, that makes the whole thing a solid listen for those with the time.

I was left feeling even more confident in the State’s case & their compliance thus far with Idaho Criminal Rule 16 regarding discovery after watching the entire thing. I’m also not surprised/disappointed at the spaghetti throwing by the defense — they have a job to do — but the desperation was palpable, MOO, with EM trying to pull a Vallow-Daybell move to have JJJ throw out the death penalty when we are still so far away from a trial even being scheduled. Sad & desperate, MOO.

I watched the hearing in full and heard the defense list a multitude of items that are missing and are necessary to present their case. I want the prosecution to just hand it over. If BK is guilty, all this evidence will say so anyways. Whether or not it’s true, these hearings are making it appear like prosecution is withholding evidence because they’re hiding something. a procedural issue ? Not sure. But the optics are bad and I watched the entire hearing.

 

[schooling]

RBBM

Optics may be one thing, but attending/listening/watching the court hearings is another.

For any concerned about poor optics regarding the empty allegation (MOO) that the State “isn’t complying with discovery,” I cannot strongly enough recommend listening to the bulk of the State’s powerful, MOO, position starting about 3 hours 9 minutes in on the 5/31/2024 hearing to help separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak:

I know many/most of us live with time crunches, and the gag order makes it difficult to follow these Motion to Compel hearings from one to the next to the next, but I personally find it helpful to watch/listen for myself, which is why I provided the time code above for those who can’t listen to the whole thing.

There was a lot of solid info in that hearing, MOO, that makes the whole thing a solid listen for those with the time.

I was left feeling even more confident in the State’s case & their compliance thus far with Idaho Criminal Rule 16 regarding discovery after watching the entire thing. I’m also not surprised/disappointed at the spaghetti throwing by the defense — they have a job to do — but the desperation was palpable, MOO, with EM trying to pull a Vallow-Daybell move to have JJJ throw out the death penalty when we are still so far away from a trial even being scheduled. Sad & desperate, MOO.

Thanks for sharing this! I must have cut out early because I didn't see this. Wow! Overwhelming!

IMO the defense's alibi is essentially admitting - that at least some of the videos are of BKs car BUT we are going to argue that some of them aren't (personally, i think it's all of them)

IMO I think they'll leverage those that are most beneficial to his alibi, attempt to pick apart the most damning via the 2013 vs 2015 argument , and leave the rest unchallenged,

IMO Judging by the continued focus and innuendo (mostly by AT, through questioning and. filings) around this now legendary video near the home, that could very well be a damning video to their case.

Thoughts?


MOO

 

[North_Idaho_Nony]

I watched the hearing in full and heard the defense list a multitude of items that are missing and are necessary to present their case. I want the prosecution to just hand it over. If BK is guilty, all this evidence will say so anyways. Whether or not it’s true, these hearings are making it appear like prosecution is withholding evidence because they’re hiding something. a procedural issue ? Not sure. But the optics are bad and I watched the entire hearing.

MOO, AT reiterated several times that she’s not accusing the State of intentionally withholding items.

The State simply cannot turn over what it does not yet have.

Also, the defense cannot compel the State to turn over items that do not exist.

A good example of this gamesmanship defense tactic was brought up here a few pages back by @Cool Cats (
Post in thread '4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #94'
4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #94)

One of the earlier Motions to Compel apparently alleged the defense had asked for and not received notes/recordings of Detective Payne’s interview with BK. Sounds damning, right?!

Except it’s not. AT knew Detective Payne hadn’t ever interviewed BK. Requesting it was arguably just due diligence. That’s it.

But sometimes, people read something like that and assume that because the defense asked for something, it must exist, which just isn’t true, MOO.

It feels to me there’s a lot of assumptions like that being made in this case, MOO.

FWIW, JJJ has not ruled in favor of the Defense on any of the Motions to Compel, at least yet.

Discovery is an ongoing process, and unless/until the judge finds in favor of any of the defense’s Motions to Compel, it’s incredibly premature to jump the gun and accuse the State of not meeting their legal discovery obligations, MOO.

ETA: attempt to correct broken link:
Post in thread '4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #94'
4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #94

 

[GRT]

RBBM

Optics may be one thing, but attending/listening/watching the court hearings is another.

For any concerned about poor optics regarding the empty allegation (MOO) that the State “isn’t complying with discovery,” I cannot strongly enough recommend listening to the bulk of the State’s powerful, MOO, position starting about 3 hours 9 minutes in on the 5/31/2024 hearing to help separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak:

I know many/most of us live with time crunches, and the gag order makes it difficult to follow these Motion to Compel hearings from one to the next to the next, but I personally find it helpful to watch/listen for myself, which is why I provided the time code above for those who can’t listen to the whole thing.

There was a lot of solid info in that hearing, MOO, that makes the whole thing a solid listen for those with the time.

I was left feeling even more confident in the State’s case & their compliance thus far with Idaho Criminal Rule 16 regarding discovery after watching the entire thing. I’m also not surprised/disappointed at the spaghetti throwing by the defense — they have a job to do — but the desperation was palpable, MOO, with EM trying to pull a Vallow-Daybell move to have JJJ throw out the death penalty when we are still so far away from a trial even being scheduled. Sad & desperate, MOO.

Thanks for the video and the time stamp. That helps so much!

It sounds as though the State is trying to comply with all discovery requests as much as possible.

After watching from the time stamp to the end of the video, I feel as though the ATT records and the subsequent software analysis may be the more significant sticking point.

This is where Sy Ray comes in. When Ray says cellphone data is missing, I'm not sure he means physically missing (like it exists but was lost or something), but that data to draw the location possibilities is missing. That's just MOO, but that was the impression I got when the State responded that the software did not create a saved point in the process that the State can turn over to the Defense. If I'm understanding that situation correctly (I could be wrong), I get that.

But here's the thing: If the software program created a location possibility map, it can recreate it. It's repeatable. That's what I think Ray is saying at this point—that a specific location possibility was generated when some of the necessary data was missing.

But, I could be waaaaaay off.

 

[Justice101]

Thanks for the video and the time stamp. That helps so much!

It sounds as though the State is trying to comply with all discovery requests as much as possible.

After watching from the time stamp to the end of the video, I feel as though the ATT records and the subsequent software analysis may be the more significant sticking point.

This is where Sy Ray comes in. When Ray says cellphone data is missing, I'm not sure he means physically missing (like it exists but was lost or something), but that data to draw the location possibilities is missing. That's just MOO, but that was the impression I got when the State responded that the software did not create a saved point in the process that the State can turn over to the Defense. If I'm understanding that situation correctly (I could be wrong), I get that.

But here's the thing: If the software program created a location possibility map, it can recreate it. It's repeatable. That's what I think Ray is saying at this point—that a specific location possibility was generated when some of the necessary data was missing.

But, I could be waaaaaay off.

My opinion is that the people that testify on the cell phone data will be doubly sure to say what is FACT and what is supposition. They will do it in a professional manner so that it paints a picture that a reasonable person on the jury will understand that it is impossible to have 100% accuracy of cell tower data, but the map they draw shows that BK was in the close proximity and turned off his phone and then back on after the murders took place.

THAT is going to be a red flag for the jury to draw their own conclusions.

However, this may not matter. The DNA evidence is going to be the 1000 lb gorilla in the room.

 

[GRT]

My opinion is that the people that testify on the cell phone data will be doubly sure to say what is FACT and what is supposition. They will do it in a professional manner so that it paints a picture that a reasonable person on the jury will understand that it is impossible to have 100% accuracy of cell tower data, but the map they draw shows that BK was in the close proximity and turned off his phone and then back on after the murders took place.

THAT is going to be a red flag for the jury to draw their own conclusions.

However, this may not matter. The DNA evidence is going to be the 1000 lb gorilla in the room.

I agree that the DNA evidence should be the most substantial part of the case.

The problem, as I see it, is that we already know it's "touch DNA," and we've already heard how that DNA technology hasn't held up in some cases. Or, it's been the cause for an overturned conviction.

If Sy Ray can show--as he claims he can--that BK's phone was nowhere near the murders, it could convince some jurors that BK, himself, was not there.

Some have said (and I agree) that BK could have turned his phone off and left it elsewhere to keep from being tracked.

But, if Ray can show the phone was moving -- not just in one spot during that time -- it might be a game changer.

All just thinking aloud and MOO...

 

[maskedwoman]

I agree that the DNA evidence should be the most substantial part of the case.

The problem, as I see it, is that we already know it's "touch DNA," and we've already heard how that DNA technology hasn't held up in some cases. Or, it's been the cause for an overturned conviction.

If Sy Ray can show--as he claims he can--that BK's phone was nowhere near the murders, it could convince some jurors that BK, himself, was not there.

Some have said (and I agree) that BK could have turned his phone off and left it elsewhere to keep from being tracked.

But, if Ray can show the phone was moving -- not just in one spot during that time -- it might be a game changer.

All just thinking aloud and MOO...

I'm not sure why it matters whether the phone was stationary or in motion. Clearly the phone was with him because he turned it on again after the murders. He could have turned it off and left it in the car or stuffed it in the deep pocket of his coveralls. The smart move would have been to leave it at home and on, but we know he left the house with it on. Either way, he had the phone. MOOooo