4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #85

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
From the order listed on the cases of interest page: 7/6

Based upon the State’s Motion to Temporarily Seal STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CLOSE AND SEAL RECORD OF HEARING PURSUANT TO I.C.A.R. 32(g) PENDING HEARING


So I looked at the summary page and it listed a closed hearing that was held today. 7/6


MOO I am guessing that it was addressing the IGG because the States response to the 3rd motion to compel (posted today but dated 7/5) says this at the bottom

In addition, the State incorporates the “Motion for Protective Order" filed on June 16, 2023, and any subsequent filings on issues raised regarding IGG. As outlined in that motion, the State seeks an order protecting IGG information from disclosure as it falls outside the purview of Rule 16. In the alternative, if the defense can establish that IGG information is relevant, the State asked the Court to conduct an in camera hearing so the State can present information related to the IGG information and enter protective order pursuant to I.C.R. 16(1)

 
What else is outstanding beside Motion to Compel #3
Alibi request
Exception/extension of time for alibi
Motion to stay proceedings
Anything else? Maybe a supplemental discovery request? Have to go look.
MOO
 
Nailed by you every time! Your post are insightful and am waiting for your book to come out ;). He’s a true narcissist ... is willing to destroy everything and everyone around when feeling hurt or rejection... Moo

Coming from you, that's quite a compliment. I think all my posts here collectively would be book-length.

I agree that he's a true narcissist.

I just learned that in the beginning of the 20th century, anti-social and narcissism were regarded as basically the same thing (by Freud and other early students of personality formation). It hasn't changed much since then. Merely having a criminal record (which Kohberger does, although it is apparently juvenile) puts him nearer the antisocial group (which heavily overlaps with the narcissist group). I'm basing this on literary, sociological and anthropological work on those terms, not on DSM at this point. Just the ordinary use of those words pre-DSM, basically. The terms are part of English language for a long time.

I learned that people who never factor in the feelings and rights of others are the ones who fit both categories.

The self-esteem overload usually has a self-protection part to it, meaning that they feel justified in harming others who they believe have harmed them (including dislike or hatred of entire groups of people deemed unworthy). I really do think that in the past, ordinary human interaction often revealed these character disorders, but in the past few years, someone who is supremely selfish and volatile and manipulative might have flown under the social radar. I do worry about encountering such people in fully online classes because, well, saying the wrong thing could be bad news (it's easy to find people).

IMO.
 
You are way on it!!
TY @Chloegirl. :)
It is getting much harder to keep track now with all the seals, some things listed in the summary that are not in the primary page, and now there are double listings (sealed vs. public) on the summary page :eek:.

I did find this when looking for supplemental requests which I think is outstanding? MOO

Defendants 4th Supplemental request for discovery: with Exhibit C (sealed). 6/16

 
As a local in a family in which two generations have attended a few <g> wonderful parties in the house, I hate seeing it now. I’m able to mostly avoid seeing it, a privilege those who live in that neighborhood don’t have. And it continues to draw creepy people. And media, creepy & non-creepy. So I’m not unsympathetic to the UI’s desire to demo it. All MOO.

However, I completely agree with you: as much as I hate seeing it now, I personally think preserving the structure until after trial/plea feels important to me. The layout is funky enough I think it’s possible the jury potentially may need to experience the layout, the space, the structure. Again, all MOO.

I can understand the Defense not objecting to the demolition, but I’m puzzled that the State doesn’t seem to be objecting, at least yet, and I’m curious what others think. Thanks for sharing your thoughts! MOO
Thank you for your response-- I can certainly understand why locals would want that house demolished, but as you so astutely point out the layout of that house is unusual and "funky", which I believe would assist the jury in understanding how the killer carried out the crime and in a rather short period of time. I really hope they don't demolish that house until after the trial.
 
What else is outstanding beside Motion to Compel #3
Alibi request
Exception/extension of time for alibi
Motion to stay proceedings
Anything else? Maybe a supplemental discovery request? Have to go look.
MOO
Don't they tend to also do this for any matters/information that might be prejudicial and compromise the defendant's right to a fair trial?

The defense is definitely picking and choosing the type of information/evidence (favorable to BK) that they want to strategically leak through filings.

So I'm assuming there's a host of things that the prosecution has that they don't want at trial AND don't want the general public to know about beforehand. So I'd imagine they'd fight to keep those to private hearings and/or sealed filings.

Someone feel free to check my thinking.

MOO
 
Thank you for your response-- I can certainly understand why locals would want that house demolished, but as you so astutely point out the layout of that house is unusual and "funky", which I believe would assist the jury in understanding how the killer carried out the crime and in a rather short period of time. I really hope they don't demolish that house until after the trial.

I agree.

But the University is going strictly by what the prosecution and defense told them, that they do not plan to take the jury through the house, they do not need the house.

If the house was needed for trial then Idaho State University would leave it up.
I don't understand why anyone wants it to stay up when it isn't going to be used at trial.

University of Idaho attorney Kent Nelson added that neither the prosecution nor defense objected to the property being destroyed, and also wrote that it had been released from the criminal proceedings.

He told Gray that U of I needed “cogent argument” that cited relevant case law, rules or statutes from the families to deviate from its plan to move forward with demolition of the house.
“The university has good-faith reasons for wanting to demolish the house and the university did not own the house when the homicides occurred. In addition, the defendant was not, and is not, affiliated with the university in any way.”

 
Last edited:
From the order listed on the cases of interest page: 7/6

Based upon the State’s Motion to Temporarily Seal STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CLOSE AND SEAL RECORD OF HEARING PURSUANT TO I.C.A.R. 32(g) PENDING HEARING


So I looked at the summary page and it listed a closed hearing that was held today. 7/6


MOO I am guessing that it was addressing the IGG because the States response to the 3rd motion to compel (posted today but dated 7/5) says this at the bottom

In addition, the State incorporates the “Motion for Protective Order" filed on June 16, 2023, and any subsequent filings on issues raised regarding IGG. As outlined in that motion, the State seeks an order protecting IGG information from disclosure as it falls outside the purview of Rule 16. In the alternative, if the defense can establish that IGG information is relevant, the State asked the Court to conduct an in camera hearing so the State can present information related to the IGG information and enter protective order pursuant to I.C.R. 16(1)

Here's ID Rule 16:1-8:

Disclosure of Evidence and Materials by the Prosecution on Written Request.Except as otherwise provided in this rule, the prosecuting attorney must, at any time following the filing of charges, on written request by the defendant, disclose the following information, evidence and material to the defendant:

(1) Statement of Defendant. On written request of a defendant, the prosecuting attorney must permit the defendant to inspect and copy or photograph:

(A) any relevant written or recorded statements made by the defendant in the possession, custody or control of the state, the existence of which is known or is available to the prosecuting attorney by the exercise of due diligence;

(B) the substance of any relevant, oral statement made by the defendant, whether before or after arrest, to a peace officer, prosecuting attorney or agent of the prosecuting attorney; and

(C) the recorded testimony of the defendant before a grand jury that relates to the offense charged.

(2) Statement of a Co-Defendant. On written request of a defendant, the prosecuting attorney must permit the defendant to inspect and copy or photograph:

(A) any written or recorded statements of a co-defendant; and

(B) the substance of any relevant oral statement made by a co-defendant, whether before or after arrest, in response to interrogation by any person known by the co-defendant to be a peace officer or agent of the prosecuting attorney.

(3) Defendant's Prior Record. On written request of the defendant, the prosecuting attorney must furnish the defendant copy of the defendant's prior criminal record, if any, if it is then or may become available to the prosecuting attorney.

(4) Documents and Tangible Objects. On written request of the defendant, the prosecuting attorney must permit the defendant to inspect and copy or photograph:

(A) books,

(B) papers,

(C) documents,

(D) photographs,

(E) tangible objects,

(F) buildings or places,

or copies or portions of them, that are in the possession, custody or control of the prosecuting attorney and that:

(A) are material to the preparation of the defense,

(B) are intended for use by the prosecutor as evidence at trial, or

(C) were obtained from the defendant or belong to the defendant.


(5) Reports of Examinations and Tests. On written request of the defendant, the prosecuting attorney must permit the defendant to inspect and copy any results or reports of physical or mental examinations, and of scientific tests or experiments, made in connection with the particular case, that are in the possession, custody or control of the prosecuting attorney or the existence of which is known or is available to the prosecuting attorney by the exercise of due diligence.

(6) State Witnesses. On written request of the defendant, the prosecuting attorney must furnish to the defendant a written list of the names and addresses of all persons having knowledge of relevant facts who may be called by the state as witnesses at the trial, together with any record of prior felony convictions of any of them, that is within the knowledge of the prosecuting attorney. The prosecuting attorney must also furnish, on written request, the statements made by the prosecution witnesses or prospective prosecution witnesses to the prosecuting attorney or the prosecuting attorney's agents or to any official involved in the investigation of the case unless a protective order is issued as provided in subsection (l) of this rule.

(7) Expert Witnesses. On written request of the defendant, the prosecutor must provide a written summary or report of any testimony that the state intends to introduce at trial or at a hearing pursuant to Rules 702, 703 or 705 of the Idaho Rules of Evidence. The summary provided must describe the witness’s opinions, the facts and data for those opinions, and the witness's qualifications. Disclosure of expert opinions regarding mental health must also comply with the requirements of Idaho Code § 18-207. The prosecution is not required to produce any materials not subject to disclosure under subsection (g) of this Rule. This subsection does not require disclosure of expert witnesses, their opinions, the facts and data for those opinions, or the witness's qualifications, intended only to rebut evidence or theories that have not been disclosed under this Rule prior to trial.

(8) Police Reports. On written request of the defendant, the prosecuting attorney must furnish to the defendant reports and memoranda in possession of the prosecuting attorney that were made by a police officer or investigator in connection with the investigation or prosecution of the case.
 
Don't they tend to also do this for any matters/information that might be prejudicial and compromise the defendant's right to a fair trial?

The defense is definitely picking and choosing the type of information/evidence (favorable to BK) that they want to strategically leak through filings.

So I'm assuming there's a host of things that the prosecution has that they don't want at trial AND don't want the general public to know about beforehand. So I'd imagine they'd fight to keep those to private hearings and/or sealed filings.

Someone feel free to check my thinking.

MOO
Excellent point! Agree. It could be something else that is not listed.
Normally I see some type of notice of hearing for major stuff so you may be right.
Thinking back, in this case, the other private hearing (later unsealed) was a status hearing where they discussed AT conflict.
MOO
 
Just an aside the suit BK wore most recently to court had the basting stitches still on the vents/slits on the back. Meaning its brand new, they are just a big x to keep the suit in shape during shipping. They are to be taken out before wear. So not only was it new, he obviously hasn't had many suits or he would've known to remove those.
 
Just an aside the suit BK wore most recently to court had the basting stitches still on the vents/slits on the back. Meaning its brand new, they are just a big x to keep the suit in shape during shipping. They are to be taken out before wear. So not only was it new, he obviously hasn't had many suits or he would've known to remove those.
It did look new to me as well. I was thinking BK's parents might have bought them and sent to the DT.

Surprised eagle eye AT didn't catch that one. :)

MOO
 
I agree.

But the University is going strictly by what the prosecution and defense told them, that they do not plan to take the jury through the house, they do not need the house.

If the house was needed for trial then Idaho State University would leave it up.
I don't understand why anyone wants it to stay up when it isn't going to be used at trial.

University of Idaho attorney Kent Nelson added that neither the prosecution nor defense objected to the property being destroyed, and also wrote that it had been released from the criminal proceedings.

He told Gray that U of I needed “cogent argument” that cited relevant case law, rules or statutes from the families to deviate from its plan to move forward with demolition of the house.
“The university has good-faith reasons for wanting to demolish the house and the university did not own the house when the homicides occurred. In addition, the defendant was not, and is not, affiliated with the university in any way.”

I understand and I expect the house will be demolished prior to the trial
 
Here's ID Rule 16:1-8:

Disclosure of Evidence and Materials by the Prosecution on Written Request.Except as otherwise provided in this rule, the prosecuting attorney must, at any time following the filing of charges, on written request by the defendant, disclose the following information, evidence and material to the defendant:

(1) Statement of Defendant. On written request of a defendant, the prosecuting attorney must permit the defendant to inspect and copy or photograph:

(A) any relevant written or recorded statements made by the defendant in the possession, custody or control of the state, the existence of which is known or is available to the prosecuting attorney by the exercise of due diligence;

(B) the substance of any relevant, oral statement made by the defendant, whether before or after arrest, to a peace officer, prosecuting attorney or agent of the prosecuting attorney; and

(C) the recorded testimony of the defendant before a grand jury that relates to the offense charged.

(2) Statement of a Co-Defendant. On written request of a defendant, the prosecuting attorney must permit the defendant to inspect and copy or photograph:

(A) any written or recorded statements of a co-defendant; and

(B) the substance of any relevant oral statement made by a co-defendant, whether before or after arrest, in response to interrogation by any person known by the co-defendant to be a peace officer or agent of the prosecuting attorney.

(3) Defendant's Prior Record. On written request of the defendant, the prosecuting attorney must furnish the defendant copy of the defendant's prior criminal record, if any, if it is then or may become available to the prosecuting attorney.

(4) Documents and Tangible Objects. On written request of the defendant, the prosecuting attorney must permit the defendant to inspect and copy or photograph:

(A) books,

(B) papers,

(C) documents,

(D) photographs,

(E) tangible objects,

(F) buildings or places,

or copies or portions of them, that are in the possession, custody or control of the prosecuting attorney and that:

(A) are material to the preparation of the defense,

(B) are intended for use by the prosecutor as evidence at trial, or

(C) were obtained from the defendant or belong to the defendant.


(5) Reports of Examinations and Tests. On written request of the defendant, the prosecuting attorney must permit the defendant to inspect and copy any results or reports of physical or mental examinations, and of scientific tests or experiments, made in connection with the particular case, that are in the possession, custody or control of the prosecuting attorney or the existence of which is known or is available to the prosecuting attorney by the exercise of due diligence.

(6) State Witnesses. On written request of the defendant, the prosecuting attorney must furnish to the defendant a written list of the names and addresses of all persons having knowledge of relevant facts who may be called by the state as witnesses at the trial, together with any record of prior felony convictions of any of them, that is within the knowledge of the prosecuting attorney. The prosecuting attorney must also furnish, on written request, the statements made by the prosecution witnesses or prospective prosecution witnesses to the prosecuting attorney or the prosecuting attorney's agents or to any official involved in the investigation of the case unless a protective order is issued as provided in subsection (l) of this rule.

(7) Expert Witnesses. On written request of the defendant, the prosecutor must provide a written summary or report of any testimony that the state intends to introduce at trial or at a hearing pursuant to Rules 702, 703 or 705 of the Idaho Rules of Evidence. The summary provided must describe the witness’s opinions, the facts and data for those opinions, and the witness's qualifications. Disclosure of expert opinions regarding mental health must also comply with the requirements of Idaho Code § 18-207. The prosecution is not required to produce any materials not subject to disclosure under subsection (g) of this Rule. This subsection does not require disclosure of expert witnesses, their opinions, the facts and data for those opinions, or the witness's qualifications, intended only to rebut evidence or theories that have not been disclosed under this Rule prior to trial.

(8) Police Reports. On written request of the defendant, the prosecuting attorney must furnish to the defendant reports and memoranda in possession of the prosecuting attorney that were made by a police officer or investigator in connection with the investigation or prosecution of the case.
I believe the State is referring to ICR 16 (l) ie: protective order

ICR 16 (l)
(l) Protective Orders. At any time the court may, for good cause, deny, restrict, or defer discovery or inspection, or grant other appropriate relief. The court may permit a party to show good cause by a written statement that the court will inspect ex parte. If relief is granted, the court must preserve and seal the entire text of the party’s statement.


Sometimes when I copy paste it changes figures/individual letters and it looks like a 1 on my copy/paste - sorry.

Here is a web capture:
1688688404384.png
 
I guess I am blue-print impaired. I have looked through all the videos, diagrams, and 3-D walkthroughs of that house and all it does is make me dizzy.

I don't think I'm rare in this handicap. I expect it's likely that someone on the jury might have difficulty understanding who was where, ingress and egress, and outside camera locations as well. I am not sure I could comprehend the facts without actually walking through the house myself to gain proper perspective.

It seems like the state is gambling when they think a walkthrough might not be important knowledge for the jury.

moo
 
I also listened to Ben Mogen say that (if found guilty) life in prison might be enough... (at abt 19:50), which doesn't match the media claim that Maddie's family wants the death penalty, so I found that interesting. Thank you again.

Link 1:
Idaho murder victims' parents divided over death penalty for killer

and Newsweek links their source for that info from this article:
Death penalty sought for accused Idaho student killer

The link to this ABC podcast is:
The King Road Killings: An Idaho Murder Mystery: Unresolved on Apple Podcasts
RSBM

Thanks for that brief bit about Maddie’s dad! I think most of us understand why some parents have been less vocal, but it’s important IMO to remember they may have different thoughts than those expressed by those represented by attorney SG.
 
I guess I am blue-print impaired. I have looked through all the videos, diagrams, and 3-D walkthroughs of that house and all it does is make me dizzy.

I don't think I'm rare in this handicap. I expect it's likely that someone on the jury might have difficulty understanding who was where, ingress and egress, and outside camera locations as well. I am not sure I could comprehend the facts without actually walking through the house myself to gain proper perspective.

It seems like the state is gambling when they think a walkthrough might not be important knowledge for the jury.

moo

I agree a walk through seems like it should be left up to the jury to decide if they needed to do this, especially to understand the tight timeline involved.

But for the prosecution to have severed the house from the criminal case means to me that they have a very strong case without a walk through. In fact, those walk throughs are quick and could actually confuse some jurors with the layout.

So it is actually often better for the prosecution to present crime scenes to jurors this way:

The use of 3D laser scanners is expanding the role of geospatial technology in criminal investigations. The technology is being used to produce accurate, feature-rich visualizations of crime scenes that put evidence into context for judges and juries.
 
I agree.

But the University is going strictly by what the prosecution and defense told them, that they do not plan to take the jury through the house, they do not need the house.

If the house was needed for trial then Idaho State University would leave it up.
I don't understand why anyone wants it to stay up when it isn't going to be used at trial.

University of Idaho attorney Kent Nelson added that neither the prosecution nor defense objected to the property being destroyed, and also wrote that it had been released from the criminal proceedings.

He told Gray that U of I needed “cogent argument” that cited relevant case law, rules or statutes from the families to deviate from its plan to move forward with demolition of the house.
“The university has good-faith reasons for wanting to demolish the house and the university did not own the house when the homicides occurred. In addition, the defendant was not, and is not, affiliated with the university in any way.”


What are the chances that, if BK is convicted, his appeals attorneys will claim that the jury had a right to view the house interior in person, and that because it was demolished, he’s been deprived of his right to a fair trial?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
123
Guests online
1,564
Total visitors
1,687

Forum statistics

Threads
605,831
Messages
18,193,162
Members
233,580
Latest member
Bob84999381
Back
Top