4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered - Bryan Kohberger Arrested - Moscow # 75

[Auntie Cipation]

@10ofRods most people seem to assume that he went to the 3rd floor first and then encountered X and E on his way down/out.

Which would mean that leaving the sheath behind occurred fairly early in the crime, while he was still upstairs.

Are you thinking things happened in the reverse order?

 

[Bogbacal2]

If I were on the jury, based on just what we know now, no assumptions, not with an already predetermined intent to hang BK high but actually take the jury instructions/BARD to heart, I would not be able to say the BARD burden had been met. this is jmo imo based on all the holes I see/questions I have.

If anyone thinks the prosecution is sitting around high-fiving that they've got this... well, maybe, but imo jmo I think they're actively looking for any and all holes in their BARD evidence and planned approach...

If I may, I’l interject one more thing-I agree with you, the prosecution is definitely not sitting around and let’s not forget BK‘s criminology background. IMO, BK can communicate with his attorney in a different way than most defendants due to his criminology background. I‘d love to be a fly on the wall when BK is collaborating with AT.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Gosh, I've been unable to keep up here as faithfully as I'd like and am surprised to see all these posts. In trying to catch up, it appears the majority are about 'the whole picture' vs the ability of each fact standing alone being worthy or not of showing guilt.
We're ALL worried about that 'one juror' who might get hung up on one single piece of evidence that doesn't point singularly to the fact that it proves BK is guilty. And maybe it's a good thing to look at the facts we know from that point of view.
But it certainly makes me wonder what we think, at this point, could ever be presented by the prosecution to make this case air tight? What? What evidence could they have that could stand alone to ensure a successful prosecution?

 

[wary]

Already addressed, but this was my initial thought too. But someone else said in this thread that they don't believe the house was bloody, just the rooms in which the murders occurred. So my point is, if the house wasn't bloody, then his clean hands must have left fingerprints all over the place. And if they didn't and we want to assume he wore gloves, then I would assume the gloves were wiped clean and/or he changed gloves to leave if we really think he didn't leave blood places other than the site of the murders. MOO.

I don’t know who said that the house wasn’t bloody, except for the murder rooms, but I feel extreme skepticism about the idea—I doubt that it’s been said by LE. If they’re thinking about the PCA, that was focused. There would be, in my opinion, no reason to bother to mention that they found the victims’ blood in various places in the house.

 

[Cool Cats]

Gosh, I've been unable to keep up here as faithfully as I'd like and am surprised to see all these posts. In trying to catch up, it appears the majority are about 'the whole picture' vs the ability of each fact standing alone being worthy or not of showing guilt.
We're ALL worried about that 'one juror' who might get hung up on one single piece of evidence that doesn't point singularly to the fact that it proves BK is guilty. And maybe it's a good thing to look at the facts we know from that point of view.
But it certainly makes me wonder what we think, at this point, could ever be presented by the prosecution to make this case air tight? What? What evidence could they have that could stand alone to ensure a successful prosecution?

They do not have "stand alone evidence" that we know of, which is called direct evidence.

This so far looks like the majority of murder cases which are cases built on circumstantial evidence.

The prosecution doesn't need direct evidence, they have the next best thing, it's called DNA evidence and it is one of the strongest pieces of evidence to convict on.

This is a strong case already because they were able to arrest him without the DNA evidence.

If the judge allows the DNA evidence to go before the jury - and if the DNA expert convinces the jury that this is BK's DNA - and if the defense can't provide a reasonable explanation of how BK's DNA ended up in the victim's bed - then BK will in all probability be convicted because this strong DNA evidence will be added on top of the strong circumstantial evidence.

BK has another thing going against him. Juries are prone to convict in these types of cases because these cases are so heinous that the jury wants someone to pay and they want justice for the victims and for the victim's families.

Also, death penalty juries are more prone to convict.

The Death Penalty's Other Victims

Reasonover's jury was ready and willing to believe the prosecutor's case at least partly because, as in all capital cases, the jury pool had been carefully, and legally, purged of anyone who had doubts about the death penalty -- a category that conveniently and disproportionately includes…

deathpenaltyinfo.org

When prosecutors eliminate jurors opposed to capital punishment, they also weed out women and minorities and stack the deck against defendants.

Effects of Death Qualification on Jurors' Predisposition To Convict and on the Quality of Deliberation | Office of Justice Programs

www.ojp.gov

People who are permitted to serve on juries in capital cases (death-qualified jurors) are more likely to convict a defendant than are people who are excluded from servin
g on capital juries because of their unwillingness to impose the death penalty (excludable jurors).

Death Qualification | Capital Punishment in Context

capitalpunishmentincontext.org

Fitzgerald and Ellsworth also found that the jury in capital trials is more biased towards the prosecution and a guilty verdict as compared to the juries in robbery trials or non-capital murder trials. There is evidence that death qualification biases the jury in two different ways. First, it tends to select jury members who are “conviction prone.” Second, the very process of death qualification may further bias the jurors. Researcher Craig Haney argues that questioning the jurors intensively about punishment, before the trial even starts, suggests that there will be a sentencing phase of the capital trial – implying that the defendant is probably guilty.

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

Gosh, I've been unable to keep up here as faithfully as I'd like and am surprised to see all these posts. In trying to catch up, it appears the majority are about 'the whole picture' vs the ability of each fact standing alone being worthy or not of showing guilt.
We're ALL worried about that 'one juror' who might get hung up on one single piece of evidence that doesn't point singularly to the fact that it proves BK is guilty. And maybe it's a good thing to look at the facts we know from that point of view.
But it certainly makes me wonder what we think, at this point, could ever be presented by the prosecution to make this case air tight? What? What evidence could they have that could stand alone to ensure a successful prosecution?

Imo jmo, there's not going to be a completely air-tight case, there will always be questions, but his blood inside the house or theirs inside his car would really go a long way imo jmo to sealing a guilty verdict. I do not think analysis and perspective fit into binary choices, either totality or individual pieces - both must be evaluated and weighed. Read a bunch of case law, and you'll see the courts do that all of the time. I think it's important to consider the totality of the evidence, but the defense will chip away at the parts enough to potentially create that reasonable doubt, and even if it is only one juror, that's all it takes. People process information differently, and in this case, this evidence will be no different, imo jmo. I question the evidence not because I'm defending BK but because I see missing pieces imo jmo.

Imo jmo no one here has been defending BK, just some of us do see holes in the case -- based on the facts that we know and the documents we've reviewed. What I am not willing to do is fill in the blanks with assumptions. Assumptions aren't answers. My education and experience have taught me that filling in my own blanks is a bad way to go sometimes (most times). Based on the facts that we know, I have questions. I don't think that's wrong, and I'm pretty sure the prosecution is painfully aware of any missing link, no matter how small, because one juror... better to think about it and fill in the blanks now imo jmo.

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

If I may, I’l interject one more thing-I agree with you, the prosecution is definitely not sitting around and let’s not forget BK‘s criminology background. IMO, BK can communicate with his attorney in a different way than most defendants due to his criminology background. I‘d love to be a fly on the wall when BK is collaborating with AT.

I'd work for free to be that fly imo jmo

 

[10ofRods]

I agree that he probably realized after the fact that he left the sheath, maybe even when he got to his car, but then he was afraid of going back in, especially if he saw the hallway witness.

I always wondered if this is why "it looks like" he went back at 9:00am that morning.

I agree that he probably thought he'd cleaned the sheath well enough to not leave any DNA, especially as time went by with no arrest.

However, he still wasn't sure so he tried to hide his DNA just in case his DNA was found on his knife sheath.

I think it's possible he didn't really think about cleaning the sheath, because he didn't intend to leave it. He thought he would remember. But his mental states as two women lay dying and he realized the situation he had now created (it had all been fantasy up until them) did not enable him to remember it. Getting the sheath from near MM's body (was the sheath in the middle of the bed? was it on the far edge?) would have brought him into the zone where blood was flowing and how he was risking more.

Risks and benefits. I think a new and indeterminate risk (the sheath) was so much a literal distractor that his mind urged him to just move on quickly. I think this is why some people here believe he didn't go in, intending to kill all four (I'm undecided). If he had had to kneel on any part of the 3rd floor mattress to reach the sheath, blood would have likely soaked through his coveralls (which was decidedly not the plan).

I lean toward him planning to kill more people, though. But he got off track with his plan. Sharp-eyed WSers noticed in one crime scene photo that KG's bed appeared to have had the covers pulled back, as if she started out there. I think the two girls were likely alone in their beds when the murderer started killing (MM first; KG comes in and that's also not according to plan - he might not have known she was there).

So he cannot handle how life has surprises at all. He thinks he can rationally foresee most variables in a complex scenario.

All speculation. IMO.

 

[Caylee Advocate]

If they do admit it is his DNA, but try to say it got there by the hands of another, then they will have to explain why BK's car was seen at the crime scene just before, and seen speeding away after. And why his cell was turned off at that same time as the murders----when it was not turned off like that on previous nights.
Once the DNA is admitted to, the other circumstantial things take on a more incriminating aspect.

Seeing the car there is not as big a deal if there is no evidence he was inside the home.

Just a "what if" that came to mind... what if BK had loaned his car to someone, and his K Bar was in the vehicle along with his cell phone? I am just tacking a little on to your last sentence. Nice seein' ya' kd23.

 

[schooling]

Gosh, I've been unable to keep up here as faithfully as I'd like and am surprised to see all these posts. In trying to catch up, it appears the majority are about 'the whole picture' vs the ability of each fact standing alone being worthy or not of showing guilt.
We're ALL worried about that 'one juror' who might get hung up on one single piece of evidence that doesn't point singularly to the fact that it proves BK is guilty. And maybe it's a good thing to look at the facts we know from that point of view.
But it certainly makes me wonder what we think, at this point, could ever be presented by the prosecution to make this case air tight? What? What evidence could they have that could stand alone to ensure a successful prosecution?

This is purely my opinion but jurors aren't going to dismiss all evidence just because one piece of evidence is shaky. There's only so many coincidences you have to be able to accept.

I know there was someone in here doing probability calculations. Can they tell me the probability of...

• a car that looks like yours with no front plate (like your car) on video heading east towards the murder seen in the dead of night.
  
  
• And coincidentally your cell phone is also headed east in the same direction.
  
  
• And coincidentally your phone battery dies within the window of time the murders were committed?
  
  
• And coincidentally someone with bushy eye brows and around your height is seen inside.
  
  
• And coincidentally that car is seen leaving the scene at a high speed.
  
  
• And coincidentally the phone is turned back on and the car is seen heading into your apartment building.
  
  
• And coincidentally there's evidence of you being in the area multiple times of the murder scene.
  
  
• And coincidentally you were pulled over in the area at night in August.
  
  
• Did I mention that your DNA is on a piece of the murder weapon inside of the house? Do we know the probability of DNA. 1 in how many billions? Is this a multiplier to the above?

In the 530,000 minutes that make up a year. BK just happens to be in the area with a piece of him in the house (via DNA) on the night 4 people are murdered. Is BK the unluckiest guy in the world or what?

All MOO, of course.

 

[al66pine]

Atty's & Layperson's Perceptions re Forensic Evd?

I thought so too. Then I found this:

How Do Lawyers and Jurors Perceive Forensic Evidence?

Is there a reverse-CSI effect in our courtrooms? How much do lawyers and jurors trust fingerprint and DNA evidence?

www.psychologytoday.com

@BeginnerSleuther Thanks for the post w link.

Interesting article by a law school prof w some pretty sturdy credentials. A couple sentences* caught my attention.

Authors explained the study's selection process for laypeople: Amazon's Mechanical Turk.
Unless I missed it, they did not note the source of attorneys chosen.

Article did not hint at attorney affiliations, like current or past prosecution or crim defense work, in the study.
Martindale Hubbell for a broad cross section, or ___?

ETA: Oops. ^ was not specified in the Psychology Today article, but the 2016 law review article states: "This Article aims to take a closer look at how criminal defense lawyers and prosecutors assess forensics..."

Thx agn.
________________________________
* "Two hundred and sixty-four lawyers participated in the first survey. In the second survey, 251 jury-eligible adults were recruited through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk software."

How Do Lawyers and Jurors Perceive Forensic Evidence?

Is there a reverse-CSI effect in our courtrooms? How much do lawyers and jurors trust fingerprint and DNA evidence?

www.psychologytoday.com

** Brandon L. Garrett, Gregory Mitchell, FORENSICS AND FALLIBILITY: COMPARING THE VIEWS OF LAWYERS AND JURORS, 119 W. Va. L. Rev. 621 (2016)
PDF

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6569&context=faculty_scholarship

 

[Cool Cats]

Just a "what if" that came to mind... what if BK had loaned his car to someone, and his K Bar was in the vehicle along with his cell phone? I am just tacking a little on to your last sentence. Nice seein' ya' kd23.

Then a different person would have been arrested.

 

[mickey2942]

Idaho murders house set to be demolished amid 'true-crime tourism'

Demolition "removes efforts to further sensationalize the crime scene," University President Scott Green said in a memo.

www.newsweek.com

If they demolish the house before trial, could this have any impact on the outcome?

 

[schooling]

Atty's & Layperson's Perceptions re Forensic Evd?

@BeginnerSleuther Thanks for the post w link.

Interesting article by a law school prof w some pretty sturdy credentials. A couple sentences* caught my attention.

Authors explained the study's selection process for laypeople: Amazon's Mechanical Turk.
Unless I missed it, they did not note the source of attorneys chosen.

Article did not hint at attorney affiliations, like current or past prosecution or crim defense work, in the study.
Martindale Hubbell for a broad cross section, or ___?

ETA: Oops. ^ was not specified in the Psychology Today article, but the 2016 law review article states: "This Article aims to take a closer look at how criminal defense lawyers and prosecutors assess forensics..."

Thx agn.
________________________________
* "Two hundred and sixty-four lawyers participated in the first survey. In the second survey, 251 jury-eligible adults were recruited through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk software."

How Do Lawyers and Jurors Perceive Forensic Evidence?

Is there a reverse-CSI effect in our courtrooms? How much do lawyers and jurors trust fingerprint and DNA evidence?

www.psychologytoday.com

** Brandon L. Garrett, Gregory Mitchell, FORENSICS AND FALLIBILITY: COMPARING THE VIEWS OF LAWYERS AND JURORS, 119 W. Va. L. Rev. 621 (2016)
PDF

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6569&context=faculty_scholarship

Interesting study. Luckily there's corroborating evidence that bolsters the forensic evidence.

I wish they would have specified if they used Mechanical Turk's option to limit their audience to only proven lawyers. It's more expensive but essential in getting quality results. Otherwise any registered user can say that they are a lawyer and fill out the survey and collect their fee.

Source: My team uses MechanicalTurk almost daily to recruit participants for user testing, interviews, surveys etc.

 

[schooling]

Idaho murders house set to be demolished amid 'true-crime tourism'

Demolition "removes efforts to further sensationalize the crime scene," University President Scott Green said in a memo.

www.newsweek.com

If they demolish the house before trial, could this have any impact on the outcome?

If the defense or prosecution believed that...they would stop the demolition by submitting the crime scene as evidence. This is probably a sign that a jury visit and walkthrough is not needed. .

MOO

 

[Auntie Cipation]

@10ofRods don't forget about K and M's calls to K's ex in the half hour or so before they were killed. I'm inclined to think K may have intended to sleep in her own bed, and may have even started out there, crating Murphy there for the night, but my guess is that she moved into M's room to connect with M about their attempt to reach the ex, or due to whatever then triggered those calls. I suppose they could have texted each other about it rather than being in the same room, but it seems more likely to me they were in the same room.

Anyway we don't know for sure but I think it's likely K was already in M's room and maybe even had nodded off or otherwise decided to stay in M's room when the killer arrived.

I wonder if the girls left J (the ex) any voicemails or texts that will give a clue why they were trying to reach him (if it's relevant to the murders in any way).

MOO

 

[WingsOverTX]

They do not have "stand alone evidence" that we know of, which is called direct evidence.

This so far looks like the majority of murder cases which are cases built on circumstantial evidence.

The prosecution doesn't need direct evidence, they have the next best thing, it's called DNA evidence and it is one of the strongest pieces of evidence to convict on.

This is a strong case already because they were able to arrest him without the DNA evidence.

If the judge allows the DNA evidence to go before the jury - and if the DNA expert convinces the jury that this is BK's DNA - and if the defense can't provide a reasonable explanation of how BK's DNA ended up in the victim's bed - then BK will in all probability be convicted because this strong DNA evidence will be added on top of the strong circumstantial evidence.

BK has another thing going against him. Juries are prone to convict in these types of cases because these cases are so heinous that the jury wants someone to pay and they want justice for the victims and for the victim's families.

Also, death penalty juries are more prone to convict.

The Death Penalty's Other Victims

Reasonover's jury was ready and willing to believe the prosecutor's case at least partly because, as in all capital cases, the jury pool had been carefully, and legally, purged of anyone who had doubts about the death penalty -- a category that conveniently and disproportionately includes…

deathpenaltyinfo.org

When prosecutors eliminate jurors opposed to capital punishment, they also weed out women and minorities and stack the deck against defendants.

Effects of Death Qualification on Jurors' Predisposition To Convict and on the Quality of Deliberation | Office of Justice Programs

www.ojp.gov

People who are permitted to serve on juries in capital cases (death-qualified jurors) are more likely to convict a defendant than are people who are excluded from servin
g on capital juries because of their unwillingness to impose the death penalty (excludable jurors).

Death Qualification | Capital Punishment in Context

capitalpunishmentincontext.org

Fitzgerald and Ellsworth also found that the jury in capital trials is more biased towards the prosecution and a guilty verdict as compared to the juries in robbery trials or non-capital murder trials. There is evidence that death qualification biases the jury in two different ways. First, it tends to select jury members who are “conviction prone.” Second, the very process of death qualification may further bias the jurors. Researcher Craig Haney argues that questioning the jurors intensively about punishment, before the trial even starts, suggests that there will be a sentencing phase of the capital trial – implying that the defendant is probably guilty.

If this is a problem, what are the solutions? I can see the logic in the research even if I also see some bias in it. Did they offer practical remedies? If not, that is unfortunate since inherent bias always exists in each of us. That's just human nature. And yet our justice system depends heavily on humans to make final judgments.
JMO

 

[MassGuy]

Idaho murders house set to be demolished amid 'true-crime tourism'

Demolition "removes efforts to further sensationalize the crime scene," University President Scott Green said in a memo.

www.newsweek.com

If they demolish the house before trial, could this have any impact on the outcome?

If that was an issue, I’m sure the prosecution would protest. Personally, if I was the prosecutor, I’d want it standing if I felt the need to feed into the jury’s emotions. I can’t imagine that will be an issue here.

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

I’d want it standing if I felt the need to feed into the jury’s emotions.

hopefully, the jurors will be making decisions on the evidence, imo jmo

Idaho Rules of Evidence Rule 403. Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons.

The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.

heat v. light - if the evidence tends to inflame the emotions more than it sheds light on the case.

I.R.E. 403. Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time. | Supreme Court

isc.idaho.gov

 

[MassGuy]

hopefully, the jurors will be making decisions on the evidence, imo jmo

Idaho Rules of Evidence Rule 403. Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons.

The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.

I.R.E. 403. Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time. | Supreme Court

isc.idaho.gov

That’s the whole point. But I come back to Scott Peterson. The jury got it right for the wrong reasons, and if you get it right for the wrong reasons, you’re still wrong in my book.

It won’t come to that here, as I’m sure he’s going to have the blood of at least one victim in his car.

But. I’d rather them focus on the wrong things than not, if the evidence shapes up like we already know, and is confirmed.

His dna should not be there. He should have never ever been in that location, and he never should have had a single contact with any victim.

Prove one of those first two things true, and the case will flow from there.

I think all three will be confirmed.