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

[Charlot123]

If Kohberger were to strike a deal for life in prison without the possibility of parole (I hope he gets the DP), does the evidence the prosecution has against him become public record? Or, does the public have to rely on authors such as James Patterson to find out the details of the crime?

It would be better if Patterson, a good writer, made a novel loosely resembling the case, and not a true crime book.

 

[Nova]

It would certainly be useful to know if that is established. Perhaps @PrairieWind knows?

"Has it been established that you must stand silent at arraignment in Idaho in order to later invoke the Alford plea?"

IANAL, but I am nearly 100% sure that is not the case.

Many defendants change their pleas before they are convicted or acquitted, frequently in collaboration with the prosecution. It would be barbaric to deny them that right.

Perhaps @PrairieWind would like to put this Alford plea discussion to bed. IMO, it is a side track produced by us in this thread.

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1660898660312559618

 

[Charlot123]

S&BBMFF

I don't believe he went after four. I think he went after one, another was in her bed so that's 2, and the remaining 2 were likely killed because they were awake and encountered him in one way or another. All MOO

That’s the thing. The two upstairs I understand. Or the two downstairs. But remember how SG said, he didn’t need to go upstairs? Either up or down, but he didn’t need to go to two floors. Something doesn’t add up, and I am starting to wonder if he mostly enjoyed making a mess. I am trying to understand, why.

 

[NuttMegg]

Yup!

What you said happened. Right away it was all over the media how BK put all this energy into his vocal replies in court to the judge's questions - then contrasted to that - it seemed odd for him to stay silent on his "not guilty" plea.

So yes, had he said "not guilty" out loud, it would have been mocked and torn to shreds no matter how he said it.

He couldn't even walk to his seat without being accused of staring at women in the gallery. As it is, it is a feeding frenzy over his staying silent, letting the judge put in his plea.

His quick smile to his attorney has turned into a middle finger to the families, his beating a hasty retreat instead of shooting the breeze with his attorney means he is going to fire his counsel. I have never seen anything reaching this level before.

2 Cents

it was the contrast that was mind blowing. I don't agree with you, I think that had he simply said "not guilty" in the same neutral tone he used for saying he understood the charges, no one would have remarked on the style. It was as though he wanted to attract attention and cause a stir with the silent treatment. Obviously a jury didn't see the stunt, but I wish they had.


Imo

 

[Puzzles]

I've read every post on every WS's thread here about the slaughter of Ethan, Xana, Kaylee and Maddie.

Of all the words, the ones that have me shudder each time I read them are "There's someone here."

Of all the images, the one that catches my breath each time I see it is the boarded-up house where the young women once lived.

 

[Cool Cats]

it was the contrast that was mind blowing. I don't agree with you, I think that had he simply said "not guilty" in the same neutral tone he used for saying he understood the charges, no one would have remarked on the style. It was as though he wanted to attract attention and cause a stir with the silent treatment. Obviously a jury didn't see the stunt, but I wish they had.


Imo

I do not believe he is pulling a stunt, I believe he is going along with his attorney's counsel and taking it seriously.
His life is on the line, his attorneys have strategy to follow.

He doesn't need to deliberately plea a certain way for attention or to create any stirs. He needs to plea for what is in his best interests.

 

[wary]

Indeed. If they had pleaded "Guilty" there would be no reason for the Alford plea.

The point of the original post was to question the claim that, once a defendant has pled Not Guilty, he couldn’t change it to an Alford plea.

 

[Nova]

A question I have in regards to evidence, because this was such a "messy" and horrific crime scene, is it possible that some of the revealing photos may be argued about or suppressed because they are so revealing? Will the defense try to get some of the photos thrown out so as not to prejudice the jury? Just wondering.

Thirty-five years ago I was a juror on a stabbing murder in Santa Monica. The victim was killed with a knife similar in size and weight to the Ka-Bar.

During the trial, we saw wide and close-up photos of each of the ten wounds, along with testimony as to precise depth and width and affect on mortality. If the prosecution held anything back, you couldn't prove it by me!

But in that case, the murder took place on the busy pier, in front of dozens of witnesses. There was no question that the defendant did the stabbing; his claim was "self-defense". Nonetheless, the ADA wanted us to see every gory detail.

Obviously, the DA in Moscow isn't bound by the way we do things in California, but that was one example of an ADA feeling, I suspect, that he was duty-bound to show how heinous the crime really was and the fury with which the defendant wielded his weapon.

 

[Charlot123]

I can't regard a mass murderer as a prankster. And I don't see much humor in the face of BK.

I do think they regard their "work" as a hobby or as a quest for greater human knowledge about a really awful subject.

He is disturbed, but illustrates just how hard it is to prevent, given our current system. We have no gatekeepers to knowledge about psychosexual murder (which is how I see this). I surely do hope you're right about being able to treat homicidal mania, but it sure looks to me as if there are way too many brain conditions/neuro conditions, etc, that will alway elude detection.

And in this case, I can't think of a single thing that the dead could have done, to prevent their own murders. Some of us have been scared (by assaults, etc) into not going out at night, but that's not the case here. I don't know what to say to young people who are putting their (sexualized) pictures up on SM - because most them are not assaulted or murdered, it's just a handful of cases. And "sexualized" is a matter of perception. I think young people are very savvy about where the line is, but it does them little good if strangers break into their houses in the wee hours of the morning, with the intent to murder

IMO. I don't know which other case you're alluding to, there are so many. (Amon Goth, I think - but I don't know the case). I believe this murderer acted alone. I don't know how we prevent it, it seems as if women, in particular, are still stuck in the "we have to modify our own lives" modality, rather than in counting on LE or prevention.

Sobering stuff. I do hope you're right that we'll gradually find ways of innoculating people with brain disorders (or at least properly medicating them) so that these things don't happen. That's a great point of view.

IMO.

Amon Göth was a) a person portrayed in “the Schindler’s list” by Ralph Fiennes and b) the real-life prototype, the the commandant of the Kraków-Plaszów concentration camp in WWII, executed after war for crimes against humanity. He literally said to his detainees, “I am your god”. One survivor said about him, “When you saw Göth, you saw death." In Schindler’s list, there is an episode of him shooting at the captives, playing the god, deciding who’s to die, and who not. That trait, I believe, both serial killers and mass murderers have. They need to be in control, but they enjoy the power to choose who lives and who dies. This being said, I think most of them trail not too far from suicide, either. Surely BK is scared now, and of DP, too, but this is precisely the situation when all control is taken away from him.

Of course they are disturbed, and as I suspect, they don’t enjoy own company, either. Most probably feel miserably.

Prevention is hard, because prevention implies asking for help, and most won’t. We, the society, have done much to destigmatize suicidal thoughts, but sadly, there is a stigma against homicidal ones, and maybe, some, at the stage when they are still fighting own urges, are simply scared to ask for help? And so we end up with lots of safety plans for suicidal ones, and none - for homicidal. Has anyone even worked on it?

These four kids were on the receiving end and there is nothing they could have done to prevent it. I don’t think they are sexualized, rather, the photos remind me of cheerleading - they were so young, these four, a step above schoolkids. after all. Good that they left so many photos, for their families to remember that once they were very happy, but of course there was no way to prevent being attacked. They were just enjoying college life, shouldn’t they have? No student ever got drunk on a weekend night?

I hope that there will be prevention available.

 

[Nova]

Thanks for your reply! ...'he was required to sign a document admitting......' Is that what is referred to as the Alford Plea?

I fear that Kohberger's case could follow the same strategy as you have laid out about the Watt's case. IMO, a travesty of justice.

No, that isn't an Alford plea. In an Alford, the defendant maintains his innocence, so there is theoretically nothing to admit (except that the defendant admits the prosecution has inculpatory evidence and may succeed at trial).

Providing the details of your crime after pleading "Guilty" is called an "allocution". The defendant allocutes, usually as a condition of a plea bargain.

Both legal terms are brought to you by the Letter A!

 

[Nova]

Johnny Depp's attorney, Ben, was just on Law an d Crime, and said that if it had been his client he would have wanted a firm "not guilty" spoken out.

And the lawyer (Peter Tragos of @TragosLaw and the YT channel, THE LAWYER YOU KNOW) I was watching said he too would have had BK stand silent.

I guess that's why we bother to hold criminal trials!

(I realize Depp's lawyer and "mine" aren't recognized WS sources on the Idaho case, but perhaps we'll be allowed to invoke them just as examples of differing counselors.)

 

[Nova]

It would be better if Patterson, a good writer, made a novel loosely resembling the case, and not a true crime book.

Why so? (I am genuinely curious as to your thinking.)

If he writes it as a novel, none of us will take seriously any detail in it.

 

[Nova]

The point of the original post was to question the claim that, once a defendant has pled Not Guilty, he couldn’t change it to an Alford plea.

Yes, I know. And my reply is that once a defendant pleads guilty--in most cases, barring some extraordinary habeas corpus issue--there is no chance of and no purpose to an Alford plea.

So all or nearly all who resort to Alford pleas have previously pleaded Not Guilty. (Sorry to keep resorting to the West Memphis 3 as my example, but that's the most recent Alford case I know: all three of the defendants had pleaded Not Guilty, but had been found guilty by juries. When it became clear that much or most of the evidence against them was bogus, they were offered the Alford pleas so the prosecution and judge could save face.)

We at WS have caught "Alford fever"! It's like a new variation of Covid! LOL

 

[Nova]

A question I have in regards to evidence, because this was such a "messy" and horrific crime scene, is it possible that some of the revealing photos may be argued about or suppressed because they are so revealing? Will the defense try to get some of the photos thrown out so as not to prejudice the jury? Just wondering.

I answered you once above and got lost in my account of a stabbing-murder trial on which I was a juror. In the process I didn't really answer you and I missed the time to edit my post. Hence, this second response.

Yes, IANAL but I expect the defense will move to limit the number of graphic photos shown to jurors and the prosecution will argue that the "triers of fact" need to see the full extent of the destruction. Judge Judge will have to arbitrate that battle.

 

[girlhasnoname]

That

Ms Taylor is requesting to have the Grand Jury proceedings unsealed. Interesting.

That doesn't surprise me, I think it's fairly SOP.

MOO

 

[kittythehare]

No, that isn't an Alford plea. In an Alford, the defendant maintains his innocence, so there is theoretically nothing to admit (except that the defendant admits the prosecution has inculpatory evidence and may succeed at trial).

Providing the details of your crime after pleading "Guilty" is called an "allocution". The defendant allocutes, usually as a condition of a plea bargain.

Both legal terms are brought to you by the Letter A!

Thanks so much for your wonderful explainers.
I deeply appreciate the time and patience you put into simplifying complex legal jargon.

 

[kittythehare]

Is BK still on suicide watch?

 

[girlhasnoname]

Have any talking experts from MSM said anything re Alford Plea option yet?

I don't believe there is any way that the State will offer an Alford plea in this case.

Him standing silent is a way to 'say without saying' they challenge the indictment.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

I keep reading that in Idaho, Defense is supposed to get a transcript (but transcripts can take a week or 10 days, where I live - maybe longer elsewhere?)

If she hasn't seen it, I wonder at the wisdom of having it be public, myself.

IMO.

It would only be made public to BK and his Defense team IMO