4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, 2022 #79

[cottonweaver]

I've seen a couple of posts insinuating that the state and/or the defense are developing their case strategies to include protecting or traumatizing the remaining roommates.

As my students say, "Make it make sense." How would that in any way help BK's defense? Attacking the roommates' credibility and intimidating them to prevent their honest testimony would (IMO) only make sense if they had reason to feel endangered by BK/his "associates" or if they saw enough to positively ID him as the murderer. If either of those things were what the state was relying on to gain a conviction then maybe scaring them into modifying their testimony would make sense. However, to our knowledge, neither of those scenarios is true.

We now know that BF has some information that the defense feels is valuable to help BK so the defense likely (IMO) was on their best witness-friendly behavior before resorting to a subpoena because they want her help. Wearing her down, frightening her, or traumatizing her would not be in their best interests.

I don't find it logical that the state would convene a grand jury for the sake of the witness in this case. Unless there is some unknown (public) information they don't want the defense to rebut prior to trial, the roommates' testimony isn't (IMO) serious enough to spend that much time discrediting. It was very interesting to learn that DM heard and saw what she did, but IMO, her testimony is more a confirmation that something happened than news of what happened or how.

I haven't read every WS post since the Grand Jury indictment was released but has any WS-er actually said that they think the Def strategy is to traumatise the survivors? I may have missed those posts.

 

[SpiderFalcon]

At this point, all BK can do is stall, and game the system. I am waiting for him to request new counsel, attempt to get evidence excluded, file motions. People have done this, especially with capital murder charges. He has nothing but time here, and being in jail is a lot better than death row.

It's probably a lot better than being out in the world, free, also. I wonder why he would "stall" if he was innocent (IMO, he's not, with the little info we have), tho I can see him being terrified to be set free. Everybody knows where he's from, where he lived, etc.

 

[schooling]

I've seen a couple of posts insinuating that the state and/or the defense are developing their case strategies to include protecting or traumatizing the remaining roommates.

As my students say, "Make it make sense." How would that in any way help BK's defense? Attacking the roommates' credibility and intimidating them to prevent their honest testimony would (IMO) only make sense if they had reason to feel endangered by BK/his "associates" or if they saw enough to positively ID him as the murderer. If either of those things were what the state was relying on to gain a conviction then maybe scaring them into modifying their testimony would make sense. However, to our knowledge, neither of those scenarios is true.

We now know that BF has some information that the defense feels is valuable to help BK so the defense likely (IMO) was on their best witness-friendly behavior before resorting to a subpoena because they want her help. Wearing her down, frightening her, or traumatizing her would not be in their best interests.

I don't find it logical that the state would convene a grand jury for the sake of the witness in this case. Unless there is some unknown (public) information they don't want the defense to rebut prior to trial, the roommates' testimony isn't (IMO) serious enough to spend that much time discrediting. It was very interesting to learn that DM heard and saw what she did, but IMO, her testimony is more a confirmation that something happened than news of what happened or how.

I've seen arguments that the defense will try to discredit survivors/witnesses with their line of questioning. With the assumption that it would be traumatizing to them...intended or not.

I haven't seen anyone say that the point was to traumatize. Maybe there isn't as much nuance there that I'm pretending there is.

I think it's also worth mentioning that discrediting the witnesses IMO is an often used tactic.......? With some attorneys (on both sides) being more aggressive than others.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Whilst I personally think there are multiple (or at least more than one) reasons/rationales that played into State's decision re GJ, IMO it's not unreasonable to speculate that part of defense's (perhaps covert) strategy might have been to try and wear down, frighten, or even "re-traumatise" the surviving victims, for the current or future benefit of the defense. This would be something that the State might seek to subvert. Pure speculation and MOO.

Just because there's been an indictment, it doesn't mean that the defense won't interview BF like they originally planned. So that doesn't really solve anything. JMO.

 

[10ofRods]

HE DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL - HE ONLY WAIVED HIS PRELIMINARY HEARING - YOU CANNOT WAIVE SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T EXIST.

A trial did not exist for him at this time, at this time the Court did not know if there was enough evidence to even send him to trial. Then, even if he was bound over for trial the Court didn't know how he would plead. If he pled guilty there is no trial.

I transcribed the Hearing where the judge lets him waive his speedy Preliminary Hearing.
I am also linking 2 articles that specifically say he is waiving his Preliminary Hearing, they do not say he is waiving his speedy trial.

In this article is the Hearing I transcribed where the Judge waives Kohberger's speedy Preliminary Hearing.

Bryan Kohberger waives right to speedy preliminary hearing

Bryan Kohberger, accused of killing four University of Idaho students, waived his right to a speedy preliminary hearing in court Thursday. He will appear for his probable cause hearing June 26.

news.yahoo.com

Judge:
Good morning. We are on record this is Case CR29................
This is the time set in the matter for the Preliminary Hearing Status Conference. So I am going to inquire of counsel, Miss Taylor what is the status at this time?

Taylor:
Thank you your Honor. We are going to ask the court to set Preliminary Hearing out into June we would request the 3rd or 4th week of June and probably 4 or 5 days for Preliminary Hearing. Mr. Kohberger understands his right to a timely Preliminary Hearing and he's willing to waive the timeliness to allow us time to obtain Discovery in this Case. Thank you your Honor.

Judge:
And Mr. Thompson are you in agreement with that?

Thompson:
The State has no objection to that your Honor.....Miss Taylor reached out to us by email yesterday with her proposal..................(Dates are discussed for Preliminary Hearing)

Judge:
So Mr Kohberger I need to speak with you for a moment then. Sir you understand Miss Taylor has represented here that she has advised you of your right to have or fully discussed with you the right that you have which is to have your Preliminary Hearing within 14 days of the date that you initially appear before this court.

As you recall when I advised you of your rights, that Hearing is a Probable Cause Hearing where the State has to establish that more likely than not these felony offenses were committed and you are the one who committed the felony offenses. If you waive your right to a speedy Preliminary Hearing it does not mean that you are giving up your right to have a Preliminary Hearing, it simply means that you would not be able to come back and challenge that the State did not present Probable Cause within 14 days. Do you understand?

Kohberger:
Yes.

Judge:
Have you had enough time to speak to Miss Taylor about your decision to waive your right to a speedy Preliminary Hearing?

Kohberger:
Yes

Judge:
Do you need any additional time to do so?

Kohberger:
No.

Judge:
Then I will ask at this time as to the 5 Counts, Felony Counts, that were charged in the criminal complaint that was filed December 29th of 2022, are you waiving your right to a speedy Preliminary Hearing and agreeing that that Hearing can be held outside the 14 day period?

Kohberger:
Yes.

Judge:
And Miss Taylor do you concur with his waiver?

Taylor:
I do your Honor, thank you.

Judge:
I will find your waiver of speedy Preliminary Hearing is knowing, intelligently, voluntarily entered here in open court with the assistance of counsel, we will go ahead and set the matter for Preliminary Hearing............
(Preliminary Hearing date is set)

Kohberger waives right to speedy trial; preliminary hearing set for June

Bryan Kohberger, the man accused of killing four University of Idaho students, waived his right to a speedy preliminary hearing Thursday morning.

www.boisestatepublicradio.org

Mistake in article title, article does not say "speedy trial."

"Bryan Kohberger, the man accused of killing four University of Idaho students, waived his right to a speedy preliminary hearing Thursday morning."

A subdued Bryan Kohberger waived his right to speedy court appearance at second hearing in Idaho murders case

Kohberger's former lawyer has said he doesn't think the accused murderer can get a fair trial in Moscow, Idaho.

www.insider.com

"Waiving his right to a speedy preliminary hearing"

THANK you. I am now disgusted by the MSM coverage of this. I hope like heck that he doesn't waive his right to a speedy trial (but I bet he will - because on Monday, I imagine the Judge is going to set a trial date about six months in the future or less - to make it a speedy trial).

The Defense may even believe that they have to waive it, so that they can go over the mountain of evidence. OTOH, Kohberger himself gets to decide, even if his attorneys want to waive it, he may not want to. I wonder if he has to do that on Monday, or if he has the right to do it right before the trial starts. The Defense has tons of ways of getting the trial pushed off, IMO, if this is a DP case, which I assume it will be.

I assume we'll find out if it's a DP case on Monday. The statute below says the Defendant must "make application" to get a trial date further out in time than six months. I have no clue how Idaho procedure works in this matter.

And I'm so impressed that you found that transcript, I was thinking it was under the gag order.

Section 19-3501 – Idaho State Legislature

legislature.idaho.gov

imo

 

[JerseyGirl]

New thread:

4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, 2022 #80

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