4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #84

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pre-Sentencing
Each of them, each victim's family members, will be allowed to speak to the Jury during their victim impact statements, if they choose to give one. It is at that time that the family member can inform the Jury of their wish for his punishment should the Defendant be found Guilty. ::gavel::

Under Idaho Code § 19—5306

Awhile back I did some research on this and IIRC Idaho law says that in a death penalty case, the victims' family members are permitted to give impact statements to the jury during the penalty phase of the trial, but if it is a death penalty case, the victims' family members are not permitted to mention their wishes with regard to the death penalty.

I will search for the link I posted awhile back on this issue.

Also, BK is allowed to address the jury during the penalty phase of a death-eligible case, and there is no cross-examination allowed. I found that interesting.
 
Love the mind splits into a 'helping personality'.

JMO I do not believe for one second that BK has a helpful personality. I doubt he's carried a classmates books across campus or opened the car door for a lady or shoveled a snowy sidewalk for a neighbor, or performed any other acts of kindness, although I could be wrong.

JMO The creepy "It's okay. I'm here to help you." comment comes from the killer or else DM would have said, "And, then I heard Ethan say: It's okay..." bc she'd recognize E's voice. DM did not recognize this voice. That's why I think it was the killer taunting his victim, his prey. It's okay. I'm here to help you is a lie!
Thank you @DeDee Agree BK said "It's okay....I'm here to help you" but IMO he was trying to help/reassure himself. He was self-soothing out loud that he could do it, kill two extra people. He allegedly said something similar during the extradition process.

According to a police source from PA jail, "Kohberger seemed 'really nervous' during the extradition process."

“He was narrating to himself everything that was happening,” the source said. “At one point, he was saying something to himself like, ‘I’m fine, this is okay. Like he was reassuring himself that this whole thing wasn’t awful.”

JMO

 
Last edited:
Awhile back I did some research on this and IIRC Idaho law says that in a death penalty case, the victims' family members are permitted to give impact statements to the jury during the penalty phase of the trial, but if it is a death penalty case, the victims' family members are not permitted to mention their wishes with regard to the death penalty.

I will search for the link I posted awhile back on this issue.

Also, BK is allowed to address the jury during the penalty phase of a death-eligible case, and there is no cross-examination allowed. I found that interesting.
Replying to my own post so that I don't have to retype it.

Here is the link:

If the prosecution has tried a case as death-eligible, the sentencing jury decides on whether or not they will sentence the defendant to death or life without parole. During the sentencing trial, the defendant is allowed, if he or she chooses, to address the jury and offer any mitigating information that they wish. The defendant is not under oath when he/she does this, and there is no cross-examination. The victims' families may also address the sentencing jury and speak on the impact on them of the murder of the victims, but they are not permitted to comment on their wish regarding the sentencing of either the death penalty or life without parole. If they do so, the judge will instruct the sentencing jury not to consider these statements during their deliberations and decision regarding the sentence (death or LWOP).

During the sentencing trial of a death penalty case, mental health issues may be introduced by the defendant as mitigating issues, and/or by the defense attorney. So even though Idaho doesn't have a "guilty by insanity" plea, the state does allow mental health issues to be introduced as mitigation during the sentencing trial of a death-eligible case, and it allows the sentencing jury to take this into account during their sentencing deliberations.

Anyway, for those who want to read about this for themselves, here is the link (above). The issues I have discussed are on the bottom of page 10 and top of page 11. There is a lot of other interesting information in this document and worth the read, in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Pre-Sentencing
Each of them, each victim's family members, will be allowed to speak to the Jury during their victim impact statements, if they choose to give one. It is at that time that the family member can inform the Jury of their wish for his punishment should the Defendant be found Guilty. ::gavel::

Under Idaho Code § 19—5306
I can't open the above link. It said "forbidden" once and "file not found" after that. As @Sundog's later post indicates though, victim impact statements aren't permitted to address the desired punishment re: death or LWOP. Instead they are supposed to address the impact of the loss. Further, the DA has to announce whether he's seeking the DP in advance of the trial. I believe the deadline for that announcement is around July 21.

It seems clear the families are going to have different preferences re: the DP. But even if they were united, family preference isn't the deciding factor nor should it be.
JMO
 
Last edited:
<modsnip - quoted post was removed for opinion stated as fact>

Here is the statement:
"First and foremost we care deeply for the four families who have lost their precious children. There are no words that can adequately express the sadness we feel, and we pray each day for them. We will continue to let the legal process unfold and as a family we will love and support our son and brother. We have fully cooperated with law enforcement agencies in an attempt to seek the truth and promote his presumption of innocence rather than judge unknown facts and make erroneous assumptions. We respect privacy in this matter as our family and the families suffering loss can move forward through the legal process."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
does anyone ever wonder how it must feel to be in this limbo land awaiting the trial .,, for the four sets of family , for BK s family …. For him ?

Such a long time to wait for conclusion
 
Thank you @DeDee Agree BK said "It's okay....I'm here to help you" but IMO he was trying to help/reassure himself. He was self-soothing out loud that he could do it, kill two extra people. He allegedly said something similar during the extradition process.

According to a police source from PA jail, "Kohberger seemed 'really nervous' during the extradition process."

“He was narrating to himself everything that was happening,” the source said. “At one point, he was saying something to himself like, ‘I’m fine, this is okay. Like he was reassuring himself that this whole thing wasn’t awful.”

JMO

Guy is a weirdo.
 
Computation of Time Periods. ICR 45.
Curious if they count weekends in the required time for response to seek the death penalty? MOO
@Nila Aella
Thank you so much for your posts (along w the rest of this case's 'Motions Posse' posters) w links to the gazillions of motions, responses, & rulings, etc. At last, a chance for me to provide a teensy bit of info for you, posse, & others.

ID Crim Rule re computing time,* from my reading, do not refer to weekends, calendar, or business days, but may require knowledge of -
--- "COURTS — DAYS WHEN HELD" (sec. 1-1606)**
--- "NONJUDICIAL DAYS" (sec. 1-1607)***
--- ID's HOLIDAYS (enumerated in sec. 73-108).****

Here we go, per ICR 45:
First see if a local rule, or court order, or statute specifies
a method of computing time.
--- If so, use that method.
--- If not, use this from ICR 45, re Computing & Extending Time*
"(1) exclude the day of the event that triggers the period;
"(2) count every day, including intermediate Saturdays, Sundays and non-judicial days as defined in Idaho Code § 1-1607; and
"(3) include the last day of the period, but if the last day is a Saturday, Sunday, or non-judicial day, the period continues to run until the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or non-judicial day...."*

Someone who has a calendar handy (and does not have a raging headache ATM :) ), may check to see if the provision re prosecutor's DP-decision specifies a method of calculating, and if section does not specify, may provide us an answer based on ICR 45.

Hope this helps.
As always, welcoming correction or clarification or other interp's of ICR.

___________________________
* "Idaho Criminal Rule 45. Computing and Extending Time
(a) Computation of Time Periods. In computing any time period specified in these rules, in any local rule or court order, or in any statute that does not specify a method of computing time:
(1) exclude the day of the event that triggers the period;
(2) count every day, including intermediate Saturdays, Sundays and non-judicial days as defined in Idaho Code § 1-1607; and
(3) include the last day of the period, but if the last day is a Saturday, Sunday, or non-judicial day, the period continues to run until the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or non-judicial day...."*
**** I.C.R. 45. Computing and Extending Time | Supreme Court

** "TITLE 1
"COURTS AND COURT OFFICIALS
"CHAPTER 16
"MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
"1-1606. COURTS — DAYS WHEN HELD. The courts of justice may be held and judicial business be transacted on any day except as provided in the next section."

*** "TITLE 1
"COURTS AND COURT OFFICIALS
"CHAPTER 16
"MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
"1-1607. NONJUDICIAL DAYS. No court can be opened nor can any judicial business be transacted on any day enumerated in section 73-108, Idaho Code, or on every day appointed by the President of the United States, or by the governor of this state, for a public fast, thanksgiving, or holiday, or on a day on which the general election is held, except for the following purposes:
1. To give, upon their request, instructions to a jury when deliberating on their verdict.
2. To receive a verdict or discharge a jury.
3. For the exercise of the powers of a magistrate in a criminal action or in a proceeding of a criminal nature: provided, that in civil causes orders of arrest may be made and executed; writs of attachment, executions, injunctions and writs of prohibition may be issued and served; proceedings to recover possession of personal property may be had; and suits for the purpose of obtaining any such writs and proceedings may be instituted on any day."

**** "TITLE 73
"GENERAL CODE PROVISIONS
"CHAPTER 1
"CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES
"73-108. HOLIDAYS ENUMERATED. Holidays, within the meaning of these compiled laws, are:
Every Sunday;
January 1 (New Year’s Day);
Third Monday in January (Martin Luther King, Jr.-Idaho Human Rights Day);
Third Monday in February (Washington’s Birthday);
Last Monday in May (Memorial Day);
July 4 (Independence Day);
First Monday in September (Labor Day);
Second Monday in October (Columbus Day);
November 11 (Veterans Day);
Fourth Thursday in November (Thanksgiving Day);
December 25 (Christmas);
Every day appointed by the President of the United States, or by the governor of this state, for a public fast, thanksgiving, or holiday.
Any legal holiday that falls on Saturday, the preceding Friday shall be a holiday and any legal holiday enumerated herein other than Sunday that falls on Sunday, the following Monday shall be a holiday."
 
Last edited:
I thought they kept the data after reading this DOJ policy (2019) in AT's declaration
It isn't clear to me what data they mean though. JMO

Exhibit B of ACTaylor Declaration:

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE INTERIM POLICY FORENSIC GENETIC GENEALOGICAL DNA ANALYSIS AND SEARCHING

Page 7:

If suspect is arrested and charged with criminal offense after an GG profile has been entered into one or more DTC services, the investigative agency shall make prompt formal request that all FGG profiles and associated account information and data held by any such service be removed from its records and provided directly to the investigative agency.” The investigative agency shall document its request and compliance by the DTC service(s). All FGG profiles, account information, and data shall be retained by the investigative agency for potential use during prosecution and subsequent judicial proceedings.

If suspect is arrested and charged with criminal offense afier an FGG profile has been entered into an open-data personal genomics DNA database, the investigative agency shall promptly remove the FGG profile and all associated account information and data from the database.” The investigative agency shall document the removal of this information and data shall be retained by the investigative agency for potential use during prosecution and subsequent judicial proceedings.

I thought they kept the data after reading this DOJ policy (2019) in AT's declaration
It isn't clear to me what data they mean though. JMO

Exhibit B of ACTaylor Declaration:

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE INTERIM POLICY FORENSIC GENETIC GENEALOGICAL DNA ANALYSIS AND SEARCHING

Page 7:

If suspect is arrested and charged with criminal offense after an GG profile has been entered into one or more DTC services, the investigative agency shall make prompt formal request that all FGG profiles and associated account information and data held by any such service be removed from its records and provided directly to the investigative agency.” The investigative agency shall document its request and compliance by the DTC service(s). All FGG profiles, account information, and data shall be retained by the investigative agency for potential use during prosecution and subsequent judicial proceedings.

If suspect is arrested and charged with criminal offense afier an FGG profile has been entered into an open-data personal genomics DNA database, the investigative agency shall promptly remove the FGG profile and all associated account information and data from the database.” The investigative agency shall document the removal of this information and data shall be retained by the investigative agency for potential use during prosecution and subsequent judicial proceedings.

I could be wrong, but I think “data” in the first sentence of each paragraph you cited refers to any data associated with the entered FGG profile, not the complete match results.

The word “data” in the second sentence of the first paragraph (DTC companies) reads differently to me than in the second sentence of the second paragraph (open databases). If the profile was uploaded by a DTC company (e.g. FamilyTree DNA), it seems like the data returned to the investigative agency would include the match results. If the profile was instead entered into an open database like GEDmatch (via the PRO portal) by the investigating agency, as the second paragraph describes, it seems like the “data” retained could be just the tree built to identify the person of interest. There doesn’t seem to be any specific requirement in that instance to maintain the complete list of match results.

It IS possible to download a list of match results from GEDmatch PRO, but I can see why LE would not want to do so/ would not want to retain those records. And it’s true that if you remove the FGG profile from GEDmatch, you can no longer see or access those match results unless you re-enter the FGG profile.

IMO.

Edit: Sorry for the double quote that I don’t know how to remove!
 
How many items were swabbed for DNA purposes? Typically, CS Det only swab an area that is likely to hold a cell intimately affiliated and pertaining to the crime scene whether it's on a victim's body or items of their clothing or doorknobs and such the killer may have touched. The Unknown Male DNA samples did not come from inside of an empty closet on the first floor, ie, but an Unknown Male DNA sample could have been taken from Maddie's bedding near the KaBar knife.

And that's JMOO

That’s a really good point. I do not think the public has been given the information about how many total swabs were collected, as far as I know.
 
That glove, I believe, is probably the one found out by the street, literally at the property line of the street? It could have been anyone's glove that lived around there and could have been there well before the murders. Just some thoughts.

Could be. Just pointing out that it was in court filings so is fair game for discussion.
 
Love the mind splits into a 'helping personality'.

JMO I do not believe for one second that BK has a helpful personality. I doubt he's carried a classmates books across campus or opened the car door for a lady or shoveled a snowy sidewalk for a neighbor, or performed any other acts of kindness, although I could be wrong.

JMO The creepy "It's okay. I'm here to help you." comment comes from the killer or else DM would have said, "And, then I heard Ethan say: It's okay..." bc she'd recognize E's voice. DM did not recognize this voice. That's why I think it was the killer taunting his victim, his prey. It's okay. I'm here to help you is a lie!

The PCA spells out very little other than it claims the roommate heard those words, which the PCA may imply came from the killer.

The PCA also indicated the witness felt that 'someone is here' comment came from KG yet the PCA suggests othewise because of TikTok. I've wondered about this because I keep thinking that a roommate should recognize other roommate's voices.

I've actually thought about that phrase many times and wondered if it was something that was misinterpreted, actually stated or possibly even something said when that person dressed in black walked past her door and is simply out of sequence because of emotional trauma.
 
Computation of Time Periods. ICR 45.

@Nila Aella
Thank you so much for your posts (along w the rest of this case's 'Motions Posse' posters) w links to the gazillions of motions, responses, & rulings, etc. At last, a chance for me to provide a teensy bit of info for you, posse, & others.

ID Crim Rule re computing time,* from my reading, do not refer to weekends, calendar, or business days, but may require knowledge of -
--- "COURTS — DAYS WHEN HELD" (sec. 1-1606)**
--- "NONJUDICIAL DAYS" (sec. 1-1607)***
--- ID's HOLIDAYS (enumerated in sec. 73-108).****

Here we go, per ICR 45:
First see if a local rule, or court order, or statute specifies
a method of computing time.
--- If so, use that method.
--- If not, use this from ICR 45, re Computing & Extending Time*
"(1) exclude the day of the event that triggers the period;
"(2) count every day, including intermediate Saturdays, Sundays and non-judicial days as defined in Idaho Code § 1-1607; and
"(3) include the last day of the period, but if the last day is a Saturday, Sunday, or non-judicial day, the period continues to run until the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or non-judicial day...."*

Someone who has a calendar handy (and does not have a raging headache ATM :) ), may check to see if the provision re prosecutor's DP-decision specifies a method of calculating, and if section does not specify, may provide us an answer based on ICR 45.

Hope this helps.
As always, welcoming correction or clarification or other interp's of ICR.

___________________________
* "Idaho Criminal Rule 45. Computing and Extending Time
(a) Computation of Time Periods. In computing any time period specified in these rules, in any local rule or court order, or in any statute that does not specify a method of computing time:
(1) exclude the day of the event that triggers the period;
(2) count every day, including intermediate Saturdays, Sundays and non-judicial days as defined in Idaho Code § 1-1607; and
(3) include the last day of the period, but if the last day is a Saturday, Sunday, or non-judicial day, the period continues to run until the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or non-judicial day...."*
**** I.C.R. 45. Computing and Extending Time | Supreme Court

** "TITLE 1
"COURTS AND COURT OFFICIALS
"CHAPTER 16
"MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
"1-1606. COURTS — DAYS WHEN HELD. The courts of justice may be held and judicial business be transacted on any day except as provided in the next section."

*** "TITLE 1
"COURTS AND COURT OFFICIALS
"CHAPTER 16
"MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
"1-1607. NONJUDICIAL DAYS. No court can be opened nor can any judicial business be transacted on any day enumerated in section 73-108, Idaho Code, or on every day appointed by the President of the United States, or by the governor of this state, for a public fast, thanksgiving, or holiday, or on a day on which the general election is held, except for the following purposes:
1. To give, upon their request, instructions to a jury when deliberating on their verdict.
2. To receive a verdict or discharge a jury.
3. For the exercise of the powers of a magistrate in a criminal action or in a proceeding of a criminal nature: provided, that in civil causes orders of arrest may be made and executed; writs of attachment, executions, injunctions and writs of prohibition may be issued and served; proceedings to recover possession of personal property may be had; and suits for the purpose of obtaining any such writs and proceedings may be instituted on any day."

**** "TITLE 73
"GENERAL CODE PROVISIONS
"CHAPTER 1
"CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES
"73-108. HOLIDAYS ENUMERATED. Holidays, within the meaning of these compiled laws, are:
Every Sunday;
January 1 (New Year’s Day);
Third Monday in January (Martin Luther King, Jr.-Idaho Human Rights Day);
Third Monday in February (Washington’s Birthday);
Last Monday in May (Memorial Day);
July 4 (Independence Day);
First Monday in September (Labor Day);
Second Monday in October (Columbus Day);
November 11 (Veterans Day);
Fourth Thursday in November (Thanksgiving Day);
December 25 (Christmas);
Every day appointed by the President of the United States, or by the governor of this state, for a public fast, thanksgiving, or holiday.
Any legal holiday that falls on Saturday, the preceding Friday shall be a holiday and any legal holiday enumerated herein other than Sunday that falls on Sunday, the following Monday shall be a holiday."

I looked up the statute and there is no method of calculation in the statute: I think Criminal rule 45 applies. I agree July 21, 2023 which is a Friday. MOO

18-4004A. NOTICE OF INTENT TO SEEK DEATH PENALTY. (1) A sentence of death shall not be imposed unless the prosecuting attorney filed written notice of intent to seek the death penalty with the court and served the notice upon the defendant or his attorney of record no later than sixty (60) days after entry of a plea......

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
124
Guests online
2,879
Total visitors
3,003

Forum statistics

Threads
599,915
Messages
18,101,514
Members
230,955
Latest member
ClueCrusader
Back
Top