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

[ChatteringBirds]

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...”

4 Idaho college students killed in 'targeted attack,' no suspects in custody

Four University of Idaho students were found dead on Sunday, officials said.

abcnews.go.com

Thread #1 Thread #2 Thread #3 Thread #4 Thread #5 Thread #6 Thread #7 Thread #8
Thread #9 Thread #10 Thread #11 Thread #12 Thread #13 Thread #14 Thread #15 Thread #16
Thread #17 Thread #18 Thread #19 Thread #20 Thread #21 Thread #22 Thread #23 Thread #24
Thread #25 Thread #26 Thread #27 Thread #28 Thread #29 Thread #30 Thread #31 Thread #32
Thread #33 Thread #34 Thread #35 Thread #36 Thread #37 Thread #38 Thread #39 Thread #40
Thread #41 Thread #42 Thread #43 Thread #44 Thread #45 Thread #46 Thread #47 Thread #48
Thread #49 Thread #50 Thread #51 Thread #52 Thread #53 Thread #54 Thread #55 Thread #56
Thread #57 Thread #58 Thread #59 Thread #60 Thread #61 Thread#62 Thread #63 Thread #64
Thread #65 Thread #66 Thread #67 Thread #68 Thread #69 Thread #70 Thread #71 Thread #72
Thread #73 Thread #74 Thread #75 Thread #76 Thread #77 Thread #78 Thread #79

Media Thread/No Discussion

Probable Cause Affidavit

Press photo album (compilation courtesy of WS member cujenn81)

Moscow ID Police Department Facebook page

City of Moscow re King Road Homicide

Media Guide to the Idaho Courts

Detectives are looking to develop context for the events and people involved in the four murders at 1122 King Rd in Moscow, Idaho. Anyone who observed notable behavior, has video surveillance, or can provide relevant information about these murders:

• Telephone: 208-883-7180
• Email: tipline@ci.moscow.id.us
• Digital Media: fbi.gov/moscowidaho

 

[Sillybilly]

ADMIN REMINDER:

It is okay for members to discuss Visual Snow Syndrome because it was referenced by BK himself in his social media. Also, iirc, a BK family member had referred to him having or possibly having OCD. Those two conditions may be discussed because they are sourced to the accused himself and to his family members.

What members can not discuss are other random mental health conditions beyond those specified above. None of us is in a position to diagnose the mental health of a person we have never met. Introducing various and sundry, potential diagnoses only serves to derail the thread with opinions, debate, unrelated personal anecdotes, etc that may end up not being remotely related to this case.

Thank you.

 

[Sillybilly]

ADMIN NOTE:

Speculation must be based on some known fact. Posts about a confidential informant are not based on known fact and it is at times being stated as fact.

Many posts have been removed. Please move on from that discussion.

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1659590990225895424

 

[wary]

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

Back when we thought there’d be a preliminary hearing, we kept being told that the DA would have two months after the arraignment to decide if it’d be a death penalty case. However….

A: Who knows if those reporters got it right?

B: The DA could have had his mind made up a long time ago, for all we know. And, I can’t think of a strategic reason he’d stall on announcing his decision.

 

[10ofRods]

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.

Except they aren't getting to interview her exactly as they originally planned. They originally requested she be brought back to Idaho, IIRC and that she be deposed under subpoena. Now, they have agreed to do it differently, in Nevada, as I understand it and it will be a voluntary interview by BF.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong. There was a compromise.

I personally do not think the GJ was mainly based on a desire to protect witnesses, though, so I agree with those of you saying that.

I think it's all about getting Kohberger a court date six months from Monday. The Defense, having waived their right to a speedy PH seemed to me to be on track for trying to postpone it. I do think it is in the best interests of the State and the families to get this matter on the calendar for trial.

Then, instead of having two series of motions (pre-PH and pre-Trial), there will be just the one set of motions. The State is ready to go ahead, the ball is now in the Defense's (trial) court.

All imo of course.

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

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, too, find it disconcerting that the defense attorneys, professionals doing their jobs within the parameters of the law, are on the receiving end of slurs and insinuations. That makes no sense to me. IMO those who actually believe in the legal system and our constitutional rights would want both sides to do an equally skilled and professional job with integrity and to the utmost to ensure an outcome that is unimpeachable - and without reason for appeal. <modsnip>

edited to correct a typo / oversight

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Except they aren't getting to interview her exactly as they originally planned. They originally requested she be brought back to Idaho, IIRC and that she be deposed under subpoena. Now, they have agreed to do it differently, in Nevada, as I understand it and it will be a voluntary interview by BF.

The point is that had nothing to do with the GJ. The GJ did not solve that problem, which was the comment I was replying to.

I think it's all about getting Kohberger a court date six months from Monday. The Defense, having waived their right to a speedy PH seemed to me to be on track for trying to postpone it. I do think it is in the best interests of the State and the families to get this matter on the calendar for trial.

I don't think the defense's strategy has ever been to try to postpone it. IMO, it was next to impossible to do the type of investigation this crime needed in 14 days and the defense made the right strategic move in waiving the speedy PH. Once that decision was made, it was up to the court calendar in terms of dates.

MOO.

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1659571322605961216

[…]

Morrison has also been busy following the murders of four University of Idaho students. Bryan Kohberger is accused of killing Madison Mogen, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin on Nov. 13.

‘The Killings on King Road’ is scheduled to air Friday on ‘Dateline NBC’ and will reveal new information on the tragic case that has gripped the nation, according to Morrison.

“We have learned some things about this case – the background and what was going on in Bryan Kohberger’s life, what was going on in his family’s life and what may have been happening as the police were finally closing in,” Morrison explains. “All of these things are fascinating to know about but at the same time, we’re being very careful to present these bits of information with the proviso that here’s a man sitting in jail awaiting his trial before a jury of his peers and he is not guilty until proven otherwise.”

[…]

 

[10ofRods]

Back when we thought there’d be a preliminary hearing, we kept being told that the DA would have two months after the arraignment to decide if it’d be a death penalty case. However….

A: Who knows if those reporters got it right?

B: The DA could have had his mind made up a long time ago, for all we know. And, I can’t think of a strategic reason he’d stall on announcing his decision.

Well, I'm now doubting all the reporting on this case and seriously doubt the reporters have any clue about Idaho procedure.

It's all up to you all, now, as far as I'm concerned (to help me understand this case).

Perhaps the DA has decided about the DP. I can't imagine that there'd be an arraignment without a clear charge - so we'll find out on Monday. I also hold what may be an unpopular opinion that Kohberger will not take a plea bargain, even if offered. I think he wants to be on Death Row. This is mere speculation based on my own 'profiling," I guess. I think I'm basing it mostly on his youthful writings (TapATalk posts) and what we know of his personality from various sources (high school friends; fellow students at WSU, employment issues at WSU, etc).

What I'd like to know is whether Idaho procedure even allows the DA to stall past Monday on that subject. I simply can't imagine that anyone would be asked to plead to a charge and then later, it turns to a DP charge. Now that I type that, I realize the whole topic is making me anxious. Will they or won't they go for the DP? I believe they will, and that from Monday onward, the strategy of the Defense will be fully geared up to represent their client as fully as possible, as they should.

IMO.

 

[Cindizzi]

Back when we thought there’d be a preliminary hearing, we kept being told that the DA would have two months after the arraignment to decide if it’d be a death penalty case. However….

A: Who knows if those reporters got it right?

B: The DA could have had his mind made up a long time ago, for all we know. And, I can’t think of a strategic reason he’d stall on announcing his decision.

Within 60 days after the plea is correct. It was the same in Colorado before we abolished the DP.

Page 29

https://isc.idaho.gov/files/ISC_Media_Guide_2020.pdf

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

The point is that had nothing to do with the GJ. The GJ did not solve that problem, which was the comment I was replying to.



I don't think the defense's strategy has ever been to try to postpone it. IMO, it was next to impossible to do the type of investigation this crime needed in 14 days and the defense made the right strategic move in waiving the speedy PH. Once that decision was made, it was up to the court calendar in terms of dates.

MOO.

Important to remember, too, that the prosecution not only agreed to this, but suggested an even later date that would be convenient.

 

[10ofRods]

The point is that had nothing to do with the GJ. The GJ did not solve that problem, which was the comment I was replying to.



I don't think the defense's strategy has ever been to try to postpone it. IMO, it was next to impossible to do the type of investigation this crime needed in 14 days and the defense made the right strategic move in waiving the speedy PH. Once that decision was made, it was up to the court calendar in terms of dates.

MOO.

You may well be right that they don't want to stall. If they feel the evidence is weak, they have every reason to want a speedy trial (and I seriously doubt there will be a plea bargain that gives him LWOP at this point).

However, we shall see whether they stay the course on that. I have no clue whether the defendant has an option to ask for a trial sooner than six months from - statute says "up to six months" so it implies he could ask to go to trial sooner - but I doubt that he will, if this is a DP case or even if it isn't.

I think it's going to be hard for them to get ready for trial in six months, frankly, with the massive amount of evidence.

jmo of course.

 

[Cool Cats]

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

Yes we will see if he waives Speedy Trial Monday. If not, he can waive it later.

Yes this is Idaho so it could be different than what I'm used to in Ohio, from my Ohio Cases. In the Ohio DP Cases some defendants waited close to trial, couple months, before invoking speedy trial. Then the speedy trial runs out and they have to invoke it again.

So if BK doesn't waive speedy trial Monday it doesn't mean he won't.

I transcribed the hearing myself, couldn't find a transcribed copy and was tired of all the misinformation. You can't waive your trial when your not even on trial yet.

 

[10ofRods]

Within 60 days after the plea is correct. It was the same in Colorado before we abolished the DP.

Page 29

https://isc.idaho.gov/files/ISC_Media_Guide_2020.pdf

View attachment 423355

Ah, okay. Wow. He'll obviously plead not guilty, but how strange that the law allows a person to plead guilty to a crime and then have the DP pulled out by the State. I wonder if the Judge will advise Kohberger of this on Monday. I would assume so.

This is a very grave matter and I can't imagine what the mood is, among the defendant/defense group. I expect the judge to follow statute and likely set the matter for next November. I imagine the almost entire population of Idaho wants to see this go to trial quickly.

IMO.

 

[Boxer]

Well, I'm now doubting all the reporting on this case and seriously doubt the reporters have any clue about Idaho procedure.

It's all up to you all, now, as far as I'm concerned (to help me understand this case).

Perhaps the DA has decided about the DP. I can't imagine that there'd be an arraignment without a clear charge - so we'll find out on Monday. I also hold what may be an unpopular opinion that Kohberger will not take a plea bargain, even if offered. I think he wants to be on Death Row. This is mere speculation based on my own 'profiling," I guess. I think I'm basing it mostly on his youthful writings (TapATalk posts) and what we know of his personality from various sources (high school friends; fellow students at WSU, employment issues at WSU, etc).

What I'd like to know is whether Idaho procedure even allows the DA to stall past Monday on that subject. I simply can't imagine that anyone would be asked to plead to a charge and then later, it turns to a DP charge. Now that I type that, I realize the whole topic is making me anxious. Will they or won't they go for the DP? I believe they will, and that from Monday onward, the strategy of the Defense will be fully geared up to represent their client as fully as possible, as they should.

IMO.

Agree. Make a guilty plea and "we will let you know" what the punishment will be makes no sense.
That is about the same throwing oneself to the mercy of the court.
MOO an honorable thing for the guilty to do, but rarely chosen.

 

[10ofRods]

Yes we will see if he waives Speedy Trial Monday. If not, he can waive it later.

Yes this is Idaho so it could be different than what I'm used to in Ohio, from my Ohio Cases. In the Ohio DP Cases some defendants waited close to trial, couple months, before invoking speedy trial. Then the speedy trial runs out and they have to invoke it again.

So if BK doesn't waive speedy trial Monday it doesn't mean he won't.

I transcribed the hearing myself, couldn't find a transcribed copy and was tired of all the misinformation. You can't waive your trial when your not even on trial yet.

You are so appreciated for doing that transcription and being on top of procedure in these cases. I don't think he'll make application to waive the six month date on Monday, that wouldn't look right. I agree that the Defense will wait until closer to trial (or make a number of motions that end up postponing the trial). Others have mentioned the various motions that will likely be filed by the Defense.

Now I'm wondering if the pre-trial motions will be out of public view or not. I understand the gag order, but I would think that they'd allow a pool report or something, at least, for those motions. I missed some of the discussion on this over the past week.

The way it works in some states, if the Defense asks for the postponement of the speedy trial required by statute (in Idaho it is of course six months), then that ask constitutes a waiver of speedy trial. I didn't realize it could be re-invoked afterwards, but I suppose it could be. I do wonder if the Defense will persuade Kohberger to be psychiatrically evaluated at some point (they'd have to talk him into it). I can't imagine that they won't seek various ways of delaying. I hope it will be speedy, but I'm doubting that it will actually be in November.

jmo

 

[10ofRods]

Agree. Make a guilty plea and "we will let you know" what the punishment will be makes no sense.
That is about the same throwing oneself to the mercy of the court.
MOO an honorable thing for the guilty to do, but rarely chosen.

Yeah - not gonna happen (it's almost as if the statute assumes that everyone is going to plead not guilty). Not a strong encouragement to fessing up, I guess.

One thing I love about being on WS is getting down into these details. I was stunned that the NM legislators screwed up their own law-making in such a way as to initially make "brandishing a weapon" punishable by an added sentence to a felony charge but actually firing the same weapon was not added. They caught it and corrected it within a year (they meant to add brandishing to the existing statute, but somehow, it went through the whole process with the document substituting brandishing instead). That narrow window meant that Alec Baldwin's charges could not be filed under the more stringent statute that was the intent of the change in the first place (they were trying to increase penalties for involuntary manslaughter where a gun was used OR brandished, I believe).

This is a small thing, I suppose, in Idaho. You may be right about the intent though - it gives the criminal defendant a chance to literally throw themselves on the mercy of the Court. I can see how that may have worked, in the past (as an idea; I assume it rarely worked as intended, if that was the intent).

"I'll plead guilty if the DP is off the table," is still something the Defense could try to negotiate, I suppose, in that window of time. As it is, seems it would encourage defendants to plead guilty and then withdraw that plea if the DP was eventually added, which would be strange and, IMO, prejudice the Defense's case.

IMO.

 

[Cindizzi]

Ah, okay. Wow. He'll obviously plead not guilty, but how strange that the law allows a person to plead guilty to a crime and then have the DP pulled out by the State. I wonder if the Judge will advise Kohberger of this on Monday. I would assume so.

This is a very grave matter and I can't imagine what the mood is, among the defendant/defense group. I expect the judge to follow statute and likely set the matter for next November. I imagine the almost entire population of Idaho wants to see this go to trial quickly.

IMO.

I doubt the Judge will address the DP but I’m guessing the Defense team has informed BK that the Prosecution has 60 days. JMO

The Judge did inform him of the maximum penalties for each crime he’s charged with. Except for the burglary charge they all carry a penalty of death or life in prison.

I think the Defense probably has some idea of how the Prosecution is leaning, so it won’t be like he’s pulling out a big surprise ( IMO).
Surely BK realizes that his Counsel is death penalty qualified for a reason.

At 3:23

 

[Cool Cats]

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.

Quote
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.

Is it true? Someone posting that the defense isn't going to attack these 2 witnesses on the stand? Well you mention one, I'm adding the other.

It never made sense to me that the defense would want to attack these victims who are lucky by some miracle to even be alive. The defense will get no cooperation from them if they attack their credibility, the jury will be disgusted, the families would be appalled and the general public pissed off.

I expect the defense to go after LE and DNA testimony like a dog tearing into raw meat, not these 2 girls already traumatized for life.

2 Cents