4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #96

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Nila Aella said:
JJJ courtroom conduct order

Pooled Media Seating The representatives ofthe media serving as the pooled camera staff shall be seated in an area approved by the Court, as designated by the Administrative District Judge, presiding judge, Trial Court Administrator, or Bailiffsubject to a limit oftwo (2) media members operating the pooled audio and video recording ofthe hearing and one (1) mediamemberhandling the pooled still photography.

General Public and Additional Media Seating The public and members ofthe media, not designated as pooled camera staff, may be permitted in the courtroom as space permits on a first come basis. No person may reserve seats. No standing in the courtroom will be allowed

Click to expand...
This is from after JJJ removed the media cameras from the courtroom

COURTROOM SEATING AND ATTENDANCE

A) Seating for Victims’ Families, Counthfendant’s Family, and Court Personnel
Certain seating may be reserved for counsel, authorized court personnel, the Defendant’s family, and the victims’ families.

B) General Public and Media Seating
The public and members of the media may be permitted in the courtroom as space permits on a first come basis. No person may reserve seats. No standing in the courtroom will be allowed.

AMENDED ORDER GOVERNING COURTHOUSE AND COURTROOM CONDUCT Filed Jan 2024
 
GRT said:
RSBM BBM

That's a real possibility. I wonder if his attorneys have said anything to give him that hope. He did look much less concerned about his situation.
Click to expand...

Well BK did say he looks forward to being exonerated and if he does I would imagine he'll be a rich man when he sues the state of Idaho. If of course he is exonerated.

All MOO
 
CKS said:
Well BK did say he looks forward to being exonerated and if he does I would imagine he'll be a rich man when he sues the state of Idaho. If of course he is exonerated.

All MOO
Click to expand...
I'd imagine (IMO) that almost every single person who goes to trial 'looks forward to being exonerated'. Which is well within their right. But I wouldn't use that as any sort of barometer. Idaho, for example, has over a 70% conviction rate.

I noticed the demeanor as well. But IMO if they defense had anything that was truly a bombshell AT would be having hearings to have the charges vacated.

I wouldn't start counting a single cent of that theoretical money if I was BK. This is probably one of the strongest major (country wide / global attention ) cases I've seen on Websleuths in my 16 years here to ever go to trial.

MOO.
 
PinkParis2052 said:
I respectfully disagree that Bryan is trimming his eyebrows to the same length to make them appear less prominent, he never seem to have bushy eyebrows in the first place. they look the same as the first court hearing in PA.
Click to expand...
You must not have seen his DL photo or his initial arrest photo, they are definitely bushy IMO. He appeared to have had them trimmed during his first hearing.

JMO
 
Moo. The bushy eyebrows description is at least partially subjective to the witness who observed a masked stranger ( to her) inside and apparently heading towards rear slider in a very specific context as per PCA. To me, if necessary (which seems unlikely?) the state may be driven to demonstrate or suggest on direct or redirect, how prominent brow structure in combo with the lighting and mask, witness would come to describe the stranger thus. And imo BK certainly has what could be described as prominent brow structure jmo.

Adding, there are other aspects to witness description that also do not exclude BK. And in all events, BK's brows in Nov 2022 could not be objectively described as "thin", "refined", "not prominent" or "unthick". Moo

Trimming BK's eyebrows for court technically shouldn't have much of an impact, as it's how he was on the night that matters. State could potentially find a way to emphasise this if it becomes an issue at trial ( raised by defense say on cross of the witness) jmo, maybe through another witness who knew and saw BK just prior to the murders. Jury may also see photo from BK's licence or a still from Oct 2022 LE pull over near WSU. Just speculating. However, can't see this occurring unless D goes hard at questioning witness re how she could describe the person she saw as bushy browed and door is opened for the state ( if it even could be, noting INAL).moo

In summary, not really sure eyebrows will play too much of a role. Though perhaps d will try to insinuate bias of LEO who first looked at BK licence and also saw the brows a bushy. If so, I see state countering with good records of the LEO with emphasis on past and current professionalism.
Moo
 
Boxer said:
Agree. He is thriving in the structure.
MOO this seen a lot where jail is better than the chaotic lives that many criminals lead. An example here is MOO the late night forays among which he cited Wawaia Park.
This "tourism" is creepy and MOO suggest a decline by going to see the dumping site for a famous unsolved murder of a WSU coed. (He didn't have time, he needed to be spending every minute he had fixing the breach of he created with his Ph.D. program.)

Also MOO The defense will never use that place or word again - MOO BK didn't think when he gave the place name to AT who then unwittingly used it in open court as an example of places he would go to to see stars.
Click to expand...
Agree, defense made a mistake in not looking into history of that place before inclusion and advising against accordingly moo. Agree it likely won't be used again. Imoo
 
Boxer said:
Agree. He is thriving in the structure.
MOO this seen a lot where jail is better than the chaotic lives that many criminals lead. An example here is MOO the late night forays among which he cited Wawaia Park.
This "tourism" is creepy and MOO suggest a decline by going to see the dumping site for a famous unsolved murder of a WSU coed. (He didn't have time, he needed to be spending every minute he had fixing the breach of he created with his Ph.D. program.)

Also MOO The defense will never use that place or word again - MOO BK didn't think when he gave the place name to AT who then unwittingly used it in open court as an example of places he would go to to see stars.
Click to expand...
If BK's phone pinged in that area on the murder night, I think the Defense will certainly use that info.

I checked out reviews of Wawawai Park, and for the most part, they're pretty positive. I didn't find anything creepy, but maybe I didn't look in the right spot.

The photos I saw of the part show a relatively tree-free skyline, which might make it a good site for stargazing. Although, I don't recall anyone saying he was stargazing on that night.

But one odd thing, some of the park reviewers indicate there's zero cell reception in that area, so maybe they're going to show a ping from a nearby spot?

Btw, who was the coed that was killed and dumped there?
 
GRT said:
If BK's phone pinged in that area on the murder night, I think the Defense will certainly use that info.

I checked out reviews of Wawawai Park, and for the most part, they're pretty positive. I didn't find anything creepy, but maybe I didn't look in the right spot.

The photos I saw of the part show a relatively tree-free skyline, which might make it a good site for stargazing. Although, I don't recall anyone saying he was stargazing on that night.

But one odd thing, some of the park reviewers indicate there's zero cell reception in that area, so maybe they're going to show a ping from a nearby spot?

Btw, who was the coed that was killed and dumped there?
Click to expand...

It may not be relevant whatsoever about Waiwaiwa Park, but the answer to your question is Joyce Margaret LePage, stabbed to death and found there in 1971.

There's a lot of speculation about her being one of TB's early victims (unconfirmed) in this link, again not related directly to BK. TB was apparently a possible suspect and it follows his lore if you are a person who studies him.

anotherbundyblog.com

Joyce Margaret LaPage.

Joyce Margaret LePage was born to Walter and Florence (nee Ham) LePage on December 4, 1949 in Pullman, Washington. Mr. LePage was born on August 13, 1913 in Santa Ana, CA, and even though he droppe…
anotherbundyblog.com anotherbundyblog.com
 
jepop said:
Moo. The bushy eyebrows description is at least partially subjective to the witness who observed a masked stranger ( to her) inside and apparently heading towards rear slider in a very specific context as per PCA. To me, if necessary (which seems unlikely?) the state may be driven to demonstrate or suggest on direct or redirect, how prominent brow structure in combo with the lighting and mask, witness would come to describe the stranger thus. And imo BK certainly has what could be described as prominent brow structure jmo.

Adding, there are other aspects to witness description that also do not exclude BK. And in all events, BK's brows in Nov 2022 could not be objectively described as "thin", "refined", "not prominent" or "unthick". Moo

Trimming BK's eyebrows for court technically shouldn't have much of an impact, as it's how he was on the night that matters. State could potentially find a way to emphasise this if it becomes an issue at trial ( raised by defense say on cross of the witness) jmo, maybe through another witness who knew and saw BK just prior to the murders. Jury may also see photo from BK's licence or a still from Oct 2022 LE pull over near WSU. Just speculating. However, can't see this occurring unless D goes hard at questioning witness re how she could describe the person she saw as bushy browed and door is opened for the state ( if it even could be, noting INAL).moo

In summary, not really sure eyebrows will play too much of a role. Though perhaps d will try to insinuate bias of LEO who first looked at BK licence and also saw the brows a bushy. If so, I see state countering with good records of the LEO with emphasis on past and current professionalism.
Moo
Click to expand...
I agree with you the question of "bushy eyebrows" won't play much of a role at the trial. But I may disagree with some other points you have made about potential state actions at trial (assuming I'm reading your post correctly.)

I do think the defense is likely to score a few points against DM, the witness, without appearing to attack her. After all, she saw the person in the dark, she got only a pretty brief look, and she apparently said she was in a "frozen shock phase" at the time. Various professionals have described that reactive fear state as a kind of dissociation. For example, Traumatic shock: A surviving roommate of the Idaho slain students said she saw killer, according to affidavit

It's hard to argue that fear response increases attention to details OR that it improves memory for details. After all, as the above link indicates, “In those states, the mind is really shutting down to protect itself.”

So IMO the harder the state works to convince jurors the witness really did see BK because he
really does have bushy eyebrows (or his "normal" eyebrows look bushy depending on the lighting), the worse off the state is. They have to put DM on the stand IMO because it would raise questions if they didn't. But they need to give up the idea that everybody thinks BK has bushy eyebrows. Obviously not everybody thought that back when he was arrested and don't think that now. Chances are some jurors will think he does and others will think he doesn't. So saying to those latter jurors (in effect) "you are wrong/don't trust your own eyes" would be foolish. And getting into the weeds about who else said his eyebrows are bushy (at best an opinion) seems to me to signal the case may be weak. It just doesn't make sense to do anything that might cause a juror to dig in his/her heels about DM likely seeing somebody else. Further, IMO the state needs to give up convincing jurors the witness identified BK because she didn't (unless they suddenly disclose that she did pick him out of a secret lineup but I strongly doubt that will happen.) And the more they try to make it sound like DM really did identify BK, the more it looks like the state is grasping at straws or even worse, trying to pull a fast one. Neither is a good look. The state just needs to just move on with stronger evidence.
MOO
 
It's not that DM could or did identify BK. What she did was identify a guest/stranger/intruder and provide a timestamp for a cluster of sights and sounds, all of which sync with other evidence that puts this particular suspect in position during that same frame and her description/impression didn't exclude the suspect.

JMO
 
schooling said:
I'd imagine (IMO) that almost every single person who goes to trial 'looks forward to being exonerated'. Which is well within their right. But I wouldn't use that as any sort of barometer. Idaho, for example, has over a 70% conviction rate.

I noticed the demeanor as well. But IMO if they defense had anything that was truly a bombshell AT would be having hearings to have the charges vacated.

I wouldn't start counting a single cent of that theoretical money if I was BK. This is probably one of the strongest major (country wide / global attention ) cases I've seen on Websleuths in my 16 years here to ever go to trial.
Click to expand...
They sh
NCWatcher said:
I agree with you the question of "bushy eyebrows" won't play much of a role at the trial. But I may disagree with some other points you have made about potential state actions at trial (assuming I'm reading your post correctly.)

I do think the defense is likely to score a few points against DM, the witness, without appearing to attack her. After all, she saw the person in the dark, she got only a pretty brief look, and she apparently said she was in a "frozen shock phase" at the time. Various professionals have described that reactive fear state as a kind of dissociation. For example, Traumatic shock: A surviving roommate of the Idaho slain students said she saw killer, according to affidavit

It's hard to argue that fear response increases attention to details OR that it improves memory for details. After all, as the above link indicates, “In those states, the mind is really shutting down to protect itself.”

So IMO the harder the state works to convince jurors the witness really did see BK because he
really does have bushy eyebrows (or his "normal" eyebrows look bushy depending on the lighting), the worse off the state is. They have to put DM on the stand IMO because it would raise questions if they didn't. But they need to give up the idea that everybody thinks BK has bushy eyebrows. Obviously not everybody thought that back when he was arrested and don't think that now. Chances are some jurors will think he does and others will think he doesn't. So saying to those latter jurors (in effect) "you are wrong/don't trust your own eyes" would be foolish. And getting into the weeds about who else said his eyebrows are bushy (at best an opinion) seems to me to signal the case may be weak. It just doesn't make sense to do anything that might cause a juror to dig in his/her heels about DM likely seeing somebody else. Further, IMO the state needs to give up convincing jurors the witness identified BK because she didn't (unless they suddenly disclose that she did pick him out of a secret lineup but I strongly doubt that will happen.) And the more they try to make it sound like DM really did identify BK, the more it looks like the state is grasping at straws or even worse, trying to pull a fast one. Neither is a good look. The state just needs to just move on with stronger evidence.
MOO
Click to expand...
MOO they should take the chance since its pretty obvious his eyebrows are prominent and it is a matching detail of appearance.
 
Boxer said:
They sh

MOO they should take the chance since its pretty obvious his eyebrows are prominent and it is a matching detail of appearance.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure it's obvious to everyone. It doesn't even seem to be obvious to everyone posting to WS. And different people view as well as describe physical characteristics differently. For example, height can be measured but "bushiness" of eyebrows can't. DM also said the person wasn't muscular but had an athletic build-- I'm not sure what that even means. Nor is it obvious to me how it was possible to observe body type to that extent in the dark especially if the person was dressed in dark clothes & was seen only briefly.

The state has to put DM on IMO. And maybe it will go fine without having to provide additional testimony to "shore up" what she said. But if it doesn't go well, I can't see the value in the state trying to fight it out and insist everybody should view BK's eyebrows a certain way. The more the eyebrows become a big deal, the more chance there is for jurors to wonder why in a quadruple murder trial so much hangs on a personal observation made in the dark by a viewer who says she was in "frozen shock" and saw the person only briefly. It seems to me jurors discounting the value of DM's testimony (especially if it's pretty much what was described in the PCA & reported in the press) doesn't damage the case nearly as much as even one juror deciding DM probably saw somebody else, not BK. And the more attention the state gives to defending her description, the more chance of the latter happening. Obviously that's just my opinion.
 
CKS said:
Well BK did say he looks forward to being exonerated and if he does I would imagine he'll be a rich man when he sues the state of Idaho. If of course he is exonerated.

All MOO
Click to expand...

If the jury acquits him he will go free but has no right to sue because he was lawfully arrested, jailed, and prosecuted. He was given all his constitutional rights. Prosecution will still see him as guilty...2 Cents
 
Cool Cats said:
If the jury acquits him he will go free but has no right to sue because he was lawfully arrested, jailed, and prosecuted. He was given all his constitutional rights. Prosecution will still see him as guilty...2 Cents
Click to expand...

I agree, it is not like BK is being held without substantial evidence linking him to the murders. If he is found not guilty, he goes on with his life.

The only way he would have cause to get damages from the state is if he was being held, based on no evidence or even manufactured evidence, prosecutorial malfeasance, or LEO incompetence.

I don't see that here, LEO contacted SLC FBI to come in, this case is tight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 85 more.
Total: 1,575 (members: 86, guests: 1,489)

Online statistics

Members online
86
Guests online
1,489
Total visitors
1,575
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
605,717
Messages
18,191,131
Members
233,505
Latest member
reneej08
Back
Top