4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, 2022 #77

[al66pine]

Defending or Silence?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1645248346016153600

@Cindizzi
Thank you very much for posting this link, reminding me that
Websleuths is an island of sanity in a world of soc media madness.

Two quotes struck me:

Longtime best friend of Brent Kopacka (his death not related to the four ID. students murders):
“Now, not only is he dead and I’m never going to see him again, but it’s like all these other people are ruining his legacy,” said D[---], 36, of Illinois. “Not only do I have to mourn my friend, but I got to defend him, too.”

I. H[---], a neighbor to 1122 King, who did MSM interviews about what he heard that morning. He got "a slew of messages accusing him in the killings." He said to the W. Post:
“I’ve always been kind of weird and different.... so I’m used to ignoring what I want to ignore.”

Sometimes silence is a good course of action.
imo

 

[TeaTime]

On the warrant return, item #35 lists the ID found inside a glove inside a box, but there is an illegible word right after "ID".
Has anyone deciphered this word?

 

[Gemmie]

On the warrant return, item #35 lists the ID found inside a glove inside a box, but there is an illegible word right after "ID".
Has anyone deciphered this word?

I believe it's "ID cards" inside glove inside box. The handwriting is really bad. I noticed looking at other words that they make their a's look like u's, for one thing.

 

[Boxer]

I believe it's "ID cards" inside glove inside box. The handwriting is really bad. I noticed looking at other words that they make their a's look like u's, for one thing.

View attachment 413892

Creepy.

 

[Gemmie]

Creepy.

Yes, if they aren't his. I suppose they could be his and he does that so they are hidden in case someone breaks into his car.

 

[CGray123]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

As far as I can see re credibility, either defense will have to suggest that she saw no-one or that the person she did see was somehow different to the description she gave. Otherwise the fact remains that she saw someone. She can only testify to what she remembers seeing and hearing from her own perceptions and the approximate times (although I believe this will be backed up by her and BF's cell data and the DD delivery). Unless the defense can somehow demonstrate that she saw no-one I'm not sure how valuable a discredit of DM would be to defense. JMO, but I doubt the defense will get very far trying to prove she saw no-one, not saying that it will not be attempted necessarily. I think the prosecution will call her, she will give her account of what she saw, heard and did and her peceptions. Ditto for the morning after. The defense will cross examine.

I also believe,that like any other witnesses, DM and BF would have given detailed witness statements, signed and sworn to on the day of the crimes or very soon after.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People talk about crime scene contamination. I don't doubt for a second that will be addressed by the prosecution pre-emptively, using expert witnesses and the testimony of those who were there and discovered the crime later that morning. I'm sure the prosecution have thought about this, or a I assume so anyway, and are ready for that being raised by the defense. Again to my mind potential crime scene contamination later that morn by the roommates/friends of roommates, has zero to do with a line of questioning by the defense that somehow tries to suggest that the 911 call happening at 11.50am instead of 4.30am might have a bearing on who committed the murders, how the murders were committed, when the murders were committed or why they were committed. MOO

IMHO, the defense has much to lose and nothing significant to gain by attacking DM. They will go for the low hanging fruit on cross examination: (1) DM will acknowledge that she didn't see the individual's full face and therefore, can't ID the defendant; (2) she will say that it was not unusual to see strangers in that house in the wee hours; and (3) DM will affirm the individual DM saw made no move to attack her, despite the fact she opened her door within his field of vision. Succinct. Simple. Easy to remind the jury in summation.

From BK's perspective, the time gap between DM's observation of the masked figure and the 911 call should be left unexplained, if possible. The idea that another person committed these crimes should be left for the jury to wonder about, if possible. Reasonable doubt can arise from unexplained circumstances like this. Let the prosecution disprove it.

I could elaborate on all this, but I don't want to invite any further discussion about DM's truthfulness, character, credibility, etc. The reality is that she can testify truthfully without adding much to the prosecution's evidence or harming the defense.

All MOO.

 

[ktm44]

She wasn't in 'shock' until later in the morning/early afternoon when she learned that her roommates had been murdered. I think that's what people are forgetting, she heard noises and got up to check on them. She saw nothing the first 2 times and went back to bed. (she thought K was playing with the dog, etc.)

The 3rd time was when she saw BK walk past her. I still don't believe at that point it was knowledge of a murder type shock, rather somebody is in the house that I'm not sure of so I'm going to just lock my door, but she still did not realize the murders at that time. This is why she was able to go back to sleep until around 11 am.

JMO

I think that much is being read into the 'shock' comment in the PCA and it is subject to interpretation. Her statement seems to indicate that she did not feel the noises she heard were atypical for her household at that time.

She first went to sleep with a very good idea of many people were in the house and would been a somewhat startled to discover there was more than she thought, striding past her door, especially if the media reports are credible and she had previously shouted for quiet.

Perhaps she was more dismayed/stunned that she shouted for quiet and seemingly, they others complied with her request, including the 'guest' who fairly promptly departed.

 

[Boxer]

I think that much is being read into the 'shock' comment in the PCA and it is subject to interpretation. Her statement seems to indicate that she did not feel the noises she heard were atypical for her household at that time.

She first went to sleep with a very good idea of many people were in the house and would been a somewhat startled to discover there was more than she thought, striding past her door, especially if the media reports are credible and she had previously shouted for quiet.

Perhaps she was more dismayed/stunned that she shouted for quiet and seemingly, they others complied with her request, including the 'guest' who fairly promptly departed.

Exactly. It's a risk for the defense to go after this witness.
I doubt they will try it as there is little upside.
MOO likely jurors will be offended by any aggressive questioning of DM or implying DM is unreliable.

All that needs to be taken from her statement is that her description does not exclude the driver of a specific white Elantra.

The white Elantra and cell were tracked heading to Moscow in the early morning hours of 11/13/22, and the owner's DNA was found at the crime scene.

 

[PrairieWind]

IMHO, the defense has much to lose and nothing significant to gain by attacking DM. They will go for the low hanging fruit on cross examination: (1) DM will acknowledge that she didn't see the individual's full face and therefore, can't ID the defendant; (2) she will say that it was not unusual to see strangers in that house in the wee hours; and (3) DM will affirm the individual DM saw made no move to attack her, despite the fact she opened her door within his field of vision. Succinct. Simple. Easy to remind the jury in summation.

From BK's perspective, the time gap between DM's observation of the masked figure and the 911 call should be left unexplained, if possible. The idea that another person committed these crimes should be left for the jury to wonder about, if possible. Reasonable doubt can arise from unexplained circumstances like this. Let the prosecution disprove it.

I could elaborate on all this, but I don't want to invite any further discussion about DM's truthfulness, character, credibility, etc. The reality is that she can testify truthfully without adding much to the prosecution's evidence or harming the defense.

All MOO.

Thanks for your thoughts. But I think you misunderstand a few things. There are some that believe challenging her observations, her decisions to not do something right then, shouldn't be allowed.

But why do you think the Defense has anything to lose by attacking her statement? They may or may not. Her statement, at least as we know it from the PCA (which granted is only a snapshot) is full of questions. But because they included her statements, she will have to be called as a witness. Her actions/reactions are odd. I'm certain they are innocent. But they are odd.

 

[Boxer]

Thanks for your thoughts. But I think you misunderstand a few things. There are some that believe challenging her observations, her decisions to not do something right then, shouldn't be allowed.

But why do you think the Defense has anything to lose by attacking her statement? They may or may not. Her statement, at least as we know it from the PCA (which granted is only a snapshot) is full of questions. But because they included her statements, she will have to be called as a witness. Her actions/reactions are odd. I'm certain they are innocent. But they are odd.

MOO I find nothing odd whatsoever about her statement.

Attempting hard or soft impeachment of a lucky to be alive witness is a risky venture in my opinion.

 

[U.N. Known]

Unfortunately the defense will be able to make the noon call discredit her. It might not be right to do that but they will.

Is this why some are so worked up about whether the time difference between the time of the murders and the 911 call being called a delay--because they are worried about the witness?

IMO, attorneys bringing that up has nothing to do with discrediting an already cleared witness--as a human, but rather a way for the defense to investigate or suggest that the timeline of events or the evidence could be other than what it appears due to the extended time between when the intruder was seen and the time LE learned of the murders.

As others have mentioned, it's the job of the defense to keep their client out of jail and barring that, to minimize the sentence. IMO, BK's defense team would be remiss if they did not look into those unaccounted for hours in the house.

edited for clarity.

 

[PrairieWind]

MOO I find nothing odd whatsoever about her statement.

Attempting hard or soft impeachment of a lucky to be alive witness is a risky venture in my opinion.

You don't find anything odd?

 

[girlhasnoname]

Thanks for your thoughts. But I think you misunderstand a few things. There are some that believe challenging her observations, her decisions to not do something right then, shouldn't be allowed.

But why do you think the Defense has anything to lose by attacking her statement? They may or may not. Her statement, at least as we know it from the PCA (which granted is only a snapshot) is full of questions. But because they included her statements, she will have to be called as a witness. Her actions/reactions are odd. I'm certain they are innocent. But they are odd.

I'm wondering what you find odd about what D said in the PCA? It isn't her entire statement I'm sure.

 

[CGray123]

Thanks for your thoughts. But I think you misunderstand a few things. There are some that believe challenging her observations, her decisions to not do something right then, shouldn't be allowed.

But why do you think the Defense has anything to lose by attacking her statement? They may or may not. Her statement, at least as we know it from the PCA (which granted is only a snapshot) is full of questions. But because they included her statements, she will have to be called as a witness. Her actions/reactions are odd. I'm certain they are innocent. But they are odd.

Mine is just a gut reaction, and I respect the intuition of a trial attorney.

Trial lawyers often recite the old aphorism, "Don't ask questions to which you don't know the answer," because there is some truth to it.

In addition to the likelihood that the jury will view DM as a victim and look askance at questioning that distresses her, defense counsel may be surprised by her responses. Why risk it, if counsel can leave a clear impression with the jury that she can't identify BK, and that he might have been an invited visitor who bundled up as he was leaving? And that the murders could have happened any time after that?

Of course, there's a lot we don't know at this point, but I'm going with what I know. Do we know something about the interval between the sighting and the 911 call that would be worth a fishing expedition on cross - which might blow up in BK's face? IMO, the stakes are too high for that.

 

[I'm Nobody]

You don't find anything odd?

Yes, finding my friends dead would be extremely odd. At any age, in any scenario, deceased friends in my house thinking I may have seen the killer, unquestionably odd.

Questions about why 911 wasn't called sooner. Anyone not knowing roommates had been killed until awakening around noon, why call before? There is video of a previous noise complaint with Kaylee talking to LE who told her more calls could result in a fine. Should any roommate have call LE about the noise and get the house into more noise trouble and a possible fine? NO.

If I knew all the boyfriends and regulars at the house. After yelling to quiet down, then seeing a stranger in the hall, should I have called 911 to say what? One of my roommates had a creepy new guy over. NO.

I believe the alleged killer was who DM saw walk past her door. I do not know how far the door was open--an inch or a foot? Where is the evidence DM knew her roommates had been killed when she saw the person in the hall? AFAIK Dylan did not know her roommates had been killed when she saw the masked stranger. She did say (in the PCA) she did not recognize "the male" /him. Is it odd DM did not think MURDER after seeing a stranger in the hall? NO

After waking, DM called friends. AFAIK DM called friends before she even saw her roommates. I may have missed the link saying DM found the bodies. Please provide. RE finding the deceased> "Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin were found dead by his best friend, who checked for their pulse before calling 911 from a surviving roommate's cell phone eight hours later."

I'm not sure how I would react at my age much less at 19. I'm sure my reaction would be considered odd by many also.

corrected to add "the male"/ him Thanks @BeginnerSleuther/
There fixed it.

JMO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

She did say she did not recognize him.

Snipped because we're not supposed to discuss DM's testimony, per moderator's request.

I wanted to address the above because it's a misrepresentation of the PCA, not DM.

The PCA says that she "did not state that she recognized the male." That's different than what you have above.

MOO.

 

[PrairieWind]

Mine is just a gut reaction, and I respect the intuition of a trial attorney.

Trial lawyers often recite the old aphorism, "Don't ask questions to which you don't know the answer," because there is some truth to it.

In addition to the likelihood that the jury will view DM as a victim and look askance at questioning that distresses her, defense counsel may be surprised by her responses. Why risk it, if counsel can leave a clear impression with the jury that she can't identify BK, and that he might have been an invited visitor who bundled up as he was leaving? And that the murders could have happened any time after that?

Of course, there's a lot we don't know at this point, but I'm going with what I know. Do we know something about the interval between the sighting and the 911 call that would be worth a fishing expedition on cross - which might blow up in BK's face? IMO, the stakes are too high for that.

Why do you think the Defense attorneys wont know the answers to the questions they may ask DM on the witness stand? The aren't sitting around on their hands. They will know her full statement, maybe interview her, they will talk to her friends, know her whereabouts that night, see her phones records and know who she called and texted that night. There isn't a thing about DM that the Defense wont know by trial.

I have removed a bunch of this post since we aren't supposed to discuss her statement. But it is going to be fair game for the defense for sure.

 

[Boxer]

You don't find anything odd?

No. Do you find anything odd? Anything out of character for a woman living in a group household in college?

 

[PrairieWind]

Yes, finding my friends dead would be extremely odd. At any age, in any scenario, deceased friends in my house thinking I may have seen the killer, unquestionably odd.

Questions about why 911 wasn't called sooner. Anyone not knowing roommates had been killed until awakening around noon, why call before? There is video of a previous noise complaint with Kaylee talking to LE who told her more calls could result in a fine. Should DM have called LE about the noise and gotten the house into more noise trouble and a possible fine? NO.

DM knew all the boyfriends and regulars at the house. After yelling to quiet down, then seeing a stranger in the hall, should she have called 911 to say what? One of my roommates had a creepy new guy over. NO.

We believe the alleged killer was who DM saw walk past her door. We do not know how far the door was open--an inch or a foot? Where is the evidence DM knew her roommates had been killed when she saw the person in the hall? AFAIK Dylan did not know her roommates had been killed when she saw the masked stranger. She did say she did not recognize him. Is it odd DM did not think MURDER after seeing a stranger in the hall? NO

After waking, DM called friends. AFAIK DM called friends before she even saw her roommates. I may have missed the link saying DM found the bodies. Please provide. RE finding the deceased> "Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin were found dead by his best friend, who checked for their pulse before calling 911 from a surviving roommate's cell phone eight hours later."

I'm not sure how I would react at my age much less at 19. I'm sure my reaction would be considered odd by many also.

JMO

Are we at liberty to discuss DM's statement or not? I was under the impression we shouldn't since she is a victim. I think she is a victim, but her story is ripe for the defense to punch holes in. I look at her statement objectively, not believing or disbelieving. What does her statement say, and what does it not say? Why does the PCA exclude some obvious facts? Did I say she found the bodies? If I did, I didn't mean to. Part of the mystery is who exactly did find them. And we don't know what that is still a mystery.

 

[Gemmie]

Are we at liberty to discuss DM's statement or not? I was under the impression we shouldn't since she is a victim. I think she is a victim, but her story is ripe for the defense to punch holes in. I look at her statement objectively, not believing or disbelieving. What does her statement say, and what does it not say? Why does the PCA exclude some obvious facts? Did I say she found the bodies? If I did, I didn't mean to. Part of the mystery is who exactly did find them. And we don't know what that is still a mystery.

This is what @Sillybilly said on the matter:

DM is a victim in this matter and a witness. Questioning her credibility or potential testimony is not victim friendly.

Could we please move on from speculation that DM perhaps did not really see what she saw.

4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, 2022 #77

This tragedy seems to be breaking news: Police said they responded to King Road for a report of an unconscious person. When officers arrived, they “discovered four individuals who were deceased...”...

www.websleuths.com