Ghostwheel
Pyrrhonist
This was kind of interesting to me. The MEN'S NIKE AIR WINFLO 9 RUNNING SHOES have a diamond pattern on the soles. ( the white ones with a red sole show it best).
4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered - Bryan Kohberger Arrested - Moscow # 73
- Thread starter ChatteringBirds
- Start date
- Status
Gemmie
Clam dip nose
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2014
- Messages
- 7,366
- Reaction score
- 46,518
GREAT find! I'm going to post the pic with the red soles so we can have it here on this thread.
Source: https://www.finishline.com/store/pr...-shoes/prod2842866?styleId=DD6203&colorId=006
Thanks, Nila Aella for the link to the stipulation which references this:
Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct.
This post, the rule itself:
"RULE 3.6: TRIAL PUBLICITY
(a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the
investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an
extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or
reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of
public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative
proceeding in the matter.
(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may state:
(1) the claim, offense or defense involved and, except
when prohibited by law, the identity of the persons
involved;
(2) information contained in a public record;
(3) that an investigation of a matter is in progress;
(4) the scheduling or result of any step in litigation;
(5) a request for assistance in obtaining evidence and
information necessary thereto;
(6) a warning of danger concerning the behavior of a
person involved, when there is reason to believe that
there exists the likelihood of substantial harm to an
individual or to the public interest; and
(7) in a criminal case, in addition to subparagraphs (1)
through (6):
(i) the identity, residence, occupation and family
status of the accused;
(ii) if the accused has not been apprehended,
information necessary to aid in apprehension of
that person;
(iii) the fact, time and place of arrest; and
(iv) the identity of investigating and arresting officers
or agencies and the length of the investigation.
(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may make a
statement that a reasonable lawyer would believe is
required to protect a client from the substantial undue
prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the
lawyer or the lawyer's client. A statement made pursuant
to this paragraph shall be limited to such information as is
necessary to mitigate the recent adverse publicity.
(d) No lawyer associated in a firm or government agency with
a lawyer subject to paragraph (a) shall make a statement
prohibited by paragraph (a)."
https://isb.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/irpc.pdf
My next post, the Commentary for the Rules, sub ¶ 1 and 3, also referenced in stipulation.
Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct.
This post, the rule itself:
"RULE 3.6: TRIAL PUBLICITY
(a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the
investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an
extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or
reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of
public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative
proceeding in the matter.
(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may state:
(1) the claim, offense or defense involved and, except
when prohibited by law, the identity of the persons
involved;
(2) information contained in a public record;
(3) that an investigation of a matter is in progress;
(4) the scheduling or result of any step in litigation;
(5) a request for assistance in obtaining evidence and
information necessary thereto;
(6) a warning of danger concerning the behavior of a
person involved, when there is reason to believe that
there exists the likelihood of substantial harm to an
individual or to the public interest; and
(7) in a criminal case, in addition to subparagraphs (1)
through (6):
(i) the identity, residence, occupation and family
status of the accused;
(ii) if the accused has not been apprehended,
information necessary to aid in apprehension of
that person;
(iii) the fact, time and place of arrest; and
(iv) the identity of investigating and arresting officers
or agencies and the length of the investigation.
(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may make a
statement that a reasonable lawyer would believe is
required to protect a client from the substantial undue
prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the
lawyer or the lawyer's client. A statement made pursuant
to this paragraph shall be limited to such information as is
necessary to mitigate the recent adverse publicity.
(d) No lawyer associated in a firm or government agency with
a lawyer subject to paragraph (a) shall make a statement
prohibited by paragraph (a)."
https://isb.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/irpc.pdf
My next post, the Commentary for the Rules, sub ¶ 1 and 3, also referenced in stipulation.
Last edited:
Do all Nikes have the Nike symbol on the sole? (The thing that's supposed to be a wing of a goddess)
Continuation re Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct.
....... RULE 3.6: TRIAL PUBLICITY "Commentary"
sub¶ 1 of Rule 3.6.
"[1] It is difficult to strike a balance between protecting the right
to a fair trial and safeguarding the right of free expression.
Preserving the right to a fair trial necessarily entails some
curtailment of the information that may be disseminated about a
party prior to trial, particularly where trial by jury is involved. If
there were no such limits, the result would be the practical
nullification of the protective effect of the rules of forensic
decorum and the exclusionary rules of evidence. On the other
hand, there are vital social interests served by the free
dissemination of information about events having legal
consequences and about legal proceedings themselves. The public has a right to know about threats to its safety and measures aimed at assuring its security. It also has a legitimate interest in the conduct of judicial proceedings, particularly in matters of general public concern. Furthermore, the subject matter of legal proceedings, particularly in matters of general
public concern. Furthermore, the subject matter of legal
proceedings is often of direct significance in debate and
deliberation over questions of public policy."
AND sub¶ 3 of Rule 3.6.
"[3] The Rule sets forth a basic general prohibition against a
lawyer's making statements that the lawyer knows or should know
will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an
adjudicative proceeding. Recognizing that the public value of
informed commentary is great and the likelihood of prejudice to a proceeding by the commentary of a lawyer who is not involved in the proceeding is small, the rule applies only to lawyers who are, or who have been involved in the investigation or litigation of a case, and their associates.
https://isb.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/irpc.pdf
(more quotes from Commentary to follow in next post)
....... RULE 3.6: TRIAL PUBLICITY "Commentary"
sub¶ 1 of Rule 3.6.
"[1] It is difficult to strike a balance between protecting the right
to a fair trial and safeguarding the right of free expression.
Preserving the right to a fair trial necessarily entails some
curtailment of the information that may be disseminated about a
party prior to trial, particularly where trial by jury is involved. If
there were no such limits, the result would be the practical
nullification of the protective effect of the rules of forensic
decorum and the exclusionary rules of evidence. On the other
hand, there are vital social interests served by the free
dissemination of information about events having legal
consequences and about legal proceedings themselves. The public has a right to know about threats to its safety and measures aimed at assuring its security. It also has a legitimate interest in the conduct of judicial proceedings, particularly in matters of general public concern. Furthermore, the subject matter of legal proceedings, particularly in matters of general
public concern. Furthermore, the subject matter of legal
proceedings is often of direct significance in debate and
deliberation over questions of public policy."
AND sub¶ 3 of Rule 3.6.
"[3] The Rule sets forth a basic general prohibition against a
lawyer's making statements that the lawyer knows or should know
will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an
adjudicative proceeding. Recognizing that the public value of
informed commentary is great and the likelihood of prejudice to a proceeding by the commentary of a lawyer who is not involved in the proceeding is small, the rule applies only to lawyers who are, or who have been involved in the investigation or litigation of a case, and their associates.
https://isb.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/irpc.pdf
(more quotes from Commentary to follow in next post)
Last edited:
gliving
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2003
- Messages
- 8,650
- Reaction score
- 39,664
Ghostwheel
Pyrrhonist
I cannot say if they do or don't as I haven't seen all of them, but some have it in a recessed area (so it doesn't wear off with the sole) like this one does. If you look carefully at the many angles of pictures, you can see how the area with the Swoosh is curved upwards and likely rarely hits the floor, though it might show in snow, mud, anything with a little cush that would leave an impression. (Play dough, clay, half set concrete, the like)
Continuation re Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct.
....... RULE 3.6: TRIAL PUBLICITY "Commentary"
sub¶ 5 of Rule 3.6.
"[5] There are, on the other hand, certain subjects that are more
likely than not to have a material prejudicial effect on a proceeding,
particularly when they refer to a civil matter triable to a jury, a
criminal matter, or any other proceeding that could result in
incarceration. These subjects relate to:
(1) The character, credibility, reputation or criminal record of a
party, suspect in a criminal investigation or witness, or the
identity of a witness, or the expected testimony of a party or
witness;
(2) In a criminal case or proceeding that could result in
incarceration, the possibility of a plea of guilty to the
offense or the existence or contents of any confession,
admission, or statement given by a defendant or suspect or
that person's refusal or failure to make a statement;
(3) The performance or results of any examination or test or the
refusal or failure of a person to submit to an examination or
test, or the identity or nature of physical evidence expected
to be presented;
(4) Any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of a defendant or
suspect in a criminal case or proceeding that could result in
incarceration;
(5) Information that the lawyer knows or reasonably should
know is likely to be inadmissible as evidence in a trial and
that would, if disclosed, create a substantial risk of
prejudicing an impartial trial; or
(6) The fact that a defendant has been charged with a crime,
unless there is included therein a statement explaining that
the charge is merely an accusation and that the defendant is
presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty."
AND sub¶ 7 of Rule 3.6.
"[7] Finally, extrajudicial statements that might otherwise raise a
question under this Rule may be permissible when they are made in response to statements made publicly by another party, another party's lawyer, or third persons, where a reasonable lawyer would believe a public response is required in order to avoid prejudice to the lawyer's client. When prejudicial statements have been publicly made by others, responsive statements may have the salutary effect of lessening any resulting adverse impact on the adjudicative proceeding. Such responsive statements should be limited to contain only such information as is necessary to mitigate undue prejudice created by the statements made by others."
....... RULE 3.6: TRIAL PUBLICITY "Commentary"
sub¶ 5 of Rule 3.6.
"[5] There are, on the other hand, certain subjects that are more
likely than not to have a material prejudicial effect on a proceeding,
particularly when they refer to a civil matter triable to a jury, a
criminal matter, or any other proceeding that could result in
incarceration. These subjects relate to:
(1) The character, credibility, reputation or criminal record of a
party, suspect in a criminal investigation or witness, or the
identity of a witness, or the expected testimony of a party or
witness;
(2) In a criminal case or proceeding that could result in
incarceration, the possibility of a plea of guilty to the
offense or the existence or contents of any confession,
admission, or statement given by a defendant or suspect or
that person's refusal or failure to make a statement;
(3) The performance or results of any examination or test or the
refusal or failure of a person to submit to an examination or
test, or the identity or nature of physical evidence expected
to be presented;
(4) Any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of a defendant or
suspect in a criminal case or proceeding that could result in
incarceration;
(5) Information that the lawyer knows or reasonably should
know is likely to be inadmissible as evidence in a trial and
that would, if disclosed, create a substantial risk of
prejudicing an impartial trial; or
(6) The fact that a defendant has been charged with a crime,
unless there is included therein a statement explaining that
the charge is merely an accusation and that the defendant is
presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty."
AND sub¶ 7 of Rule 3.6.
"[7] Finally, extrajudicial statements that might otherwise raise a
question under this Rule may be permissible when they are made in response to statements made publicly by another party, another party's lawyer, or third persons, where a reasonable lawyer would believe a public response is required in order to avoid prejudice to the lawyer's client. When prejudicial statements have been publicly made by others, responsive statements may have the salutary effect of lessening any resulting adverse impact on the adjudicative proceeding. Such responsive statements should be limited to contain only such information as is necessary to mitigate undue prejudice created by the statements made by others."
Sounds like braking an entering burglar gear.
Gemmie
Clam dip nose
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2014
- Messages
- 7,366
- Reaction score
- 46,518
gliving and I had a sidebar convo so doing this per gliving.
(I didn't want to appear like I was stepping on anyone's paws. Woof.)Vans sole
(same link)
Good find.
brinyside
Member
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2021
- Messages
- 15
- Reaction score
- 87
The term "flashlight" could include a UV Blacklight flashlight. Ultraviolet light can identify blood, semen, saliva and urine stains that aren't visible to the naked eye.
Last edited:
CSIDreamer
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2015
- Messages
- 9,874
- Reaction score
- 79,875
Mr. Gray seemed a bit unhappy there. JMO
Nila Aella
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2022
- Messages
- 1,191
- Reaction score
- 9,850
Bullet 5 on search warrant:
Any property belonging to Ethan Chapin, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kernoodle, Madison Mogen, redacted name, and/or redacted name.
https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2023/02/Kohberger-warrant_Redacted2.pdf
Any property belonging to Ethan Chapin, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kernoodle, Madison Mogen, redacted name, and/or redacted name.
https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2023/02/Kohberger-warrant_Redacted2.pdf
Gemmie
Clam dip nose
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2014
- Messages
- 7,366
- Reaction score
- 46,518
Perhaps the 2 redacted names are the 2 surviving roomates.
arielilane
Justice for Liz Barraza
Gemmie
Clam dip nose
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2014
- Messages
- 7,366
- Reaction score
- 46,518
Doesn't this cover it? (Pg 6)
- Status