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

[Twistinginthewind]

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

Me too, @ExpectingUnicorns.

None of the descriptions of the house and ingress/egress and videos and reenactments and what not resonate for me, I would have to see it to believe it.

I have a general idea of the layout of their rooms and where the killer probably entered, and the path they took (top floor first), but it doesn't speak to me in any clear fashion that I could digest easily without seeing it myself, maybe if there's a walk through video of the crime scene, but I don't know if that's even a possibility.

So if their house where they lived and were murdered is demolished before BK stands trial, I might balk at what I hadn't been able to see with my own eyes if I were seated on the jury, and/or be pretty confused, being perhaps graphically challenged.

JMO

 

[jepop]

There are a lot of posts about BK wearing civilian clothing so thought I'd add this:

Right to appear in civilian clothes and without restraints (Fourteenth Amendment)​

• Defendant has a right to appear before the jury in ordinary civilian dress, and cannot be compelled to appear in prison garb, but this right can be waived.
• Defendant also has a right to appear before the jury without restraints, but the court may order restraints if it makes findings that they are necessary and justified.

The defendant has a right to appear in civilian clothing (instead of a prison or jail uniform) to avoid the risk that the jury’s judgment will be tainted and the defendant’s right to a presumption of innocence will be compromised. See Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (1976)

The State cannot, consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment, compel an accused to stand trial before a jury while dressed in identifiable prison clothes. If the defendant is denied this right, the state will have the burden of showing on appeal that it was harmless error.

Defendant's Rights in the Courtroom | NC PRO

Thanks for posting all that. Good Info! Most posts, mine at least, were discussing defendants appearing in civilian clothes at publicly viewed pre-trial hearings - disturbing presumption of innocence etc and potentially tainting a jury pool if defendants appear each time in their prison uniform.

My concern was mainly if BK can do it/afford it then all defendants who are heading to trial should a) have the right and be advised of a right to don civilian clothing at their pre-trial hearings and b) where publicly defended clients cannot afford civilian clothes for pre-trial hearings, the PD office should supply for them. Moo

 

[North_Idaho_Nony]

I see this all the time in big cases like this with intense MEDIA COVERAGE.

Potential jurors could easily see his photos and videos and articles describing him plastered all over the media.

He has a constitutional right to wear his own clothes in front of INTENSE PUBLIC MEDIA COVERAGE THAT COULD INFLUENCE A JURY.

Just to be clear, I would argue every incarcerated defendant should receive the same “privilege,” MOO, not just those who attract intense media attention.

Indeed, local media coverage of local incarcerated defendants (whether due to being held w/o bail or simply can’t afford bail) in jail orange, it seems to me, is likely more of threat to local jury pools than the potential harm feared in rare cases like this.

What offends my sensibilities is an incarcerated “media darling” defendant receiving extraordinary privilege denied literally every other incarcerated defendant in Idaho.

All MOO, as always!

 

[Cool Cats]

Just to be clear, I would argue every incarcerated defendant should receive the same “privilege,” MOO, not just those who attract intense media attention.

Indeed, local media coverage of local incarcerated defendants (whether due to being held w/o bail or simply can’t afford bail) in jail orange, it seems to me, is likely more of threat to local jury pools than the potential harm feared in rare cases like this.

What offends my sensibilities is an incarcerated “media darling” defendant receiving extraordinary privilege denied literally every other incarcerated defendant in Idaho.

All MOO, as always!

All defendants coming to court (from jail) for the first few times wear jail garb, you can see this even with BK. It takes time to get street clothes approved and this must be requested by the defense.
And even with BK many media outlets continue to show him in jail garb even though they are talking about a hearing where he wore his suit.

So defendants can be wearing regular clothes but the media posts their first court photos showing them in jail clothes.

Defendants must request to wear their street clothes and not all of them do for various reasons. I saw a murder defendant get her street clothes Motion approved but at all her preliminary hearings she wore jail clothes, her choice. Her co-defendants wore their street clothes.

Many defendants have no need for street clothes because most defendants take a plea deal and are not in court for more than a few hearings.

What do you mean by local? 100% of State trials are local unless a change of venue moves them to a different city or a jury pool is taken from the surrounding counties instead of the local county.


2 Cents

 

[schooling]

ZERO - Defense severed the house from the criminal case it's not a part of the criminal case.

Defense has to claim they need the house NOW - defense loses right to do this after the trial.

DEFENSE HAS SAID THEY WONT USE THE HOUSE - can't change their mind just because their client is convicted.
Defense has been given every opportunity to say they need the house.

You’d figure with all the reports of PIs chasing down victims because of naked people outside of windows the defense might want to keep the house in play.

Also, I can’t think of a better way to play up the survivors confusion on that night than to show the proximity of everything and force jurors to imagine that 8 hour time gap live inside the house.

Something tells me that maybe the prosecutors can definitively place BK outside of it. Or inside…and in that case putting jurors in BKs shoes is the last thing they’d want to do.

 

[I'm Nobody]

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.

Good to know they took his scissors away. He probably plans to return the suit.

JMO

 

[maconrich]

You’d figure with all the reports of PIs chasing down victims because of naked people outside of windows the defense might want to keep the house in play.

Also, I can’t think of a better way to play up the survivors confusion on that night and the proximity of everything and the 8 hour gap than to put the jurors inside the house.

They must have it really bad.

Do you think the house would be safe to go in with all of the toxins etc from what happened, plus chemicals used by LE? Like can they clean it up enough, w/o destroying the crime scene, so it wouldn't be a health risk?

 

[maconrich]

Good to know they took his scissors away. He probably plans to return the suit.

JMO

Sorry to double post, but thank you for making me laugh - I seriously needed it. Twisted for sure, and really not at all funny, but the idea that BK would be allowed to have scissors just hit me as so wrong that my somewhat dark sense of humor kicked in. (MOO of course)

 

[jepop]

All defendants coming to court (from jail) for the first few times wear jail garb, you can see this even with BK. It takes time to get street clothes approved and this must be requested by the defense.
And even with BK many media outlets continue to show him in jail garb even though they are talking about a hearing where he wore his suit.

So defendants can be wearing regular clothes but the media posts their first court photos showing them in jail clothes.

Defendants must request to wear their street clothes and not all of them do for various reasons. I saw a murder defendant get her street clothes Motion approved but at all her preliminary hearings she wore jail clothes, her choice. Her co-defendants wore their street clothes.

Many defendants have no need for street clothes because most defendants take a plea deal and are not in court for more than a few hearings.

What do you mean by local? 100% of State trials are local unless a change of venue moves them to a different city or a jury pool is taken from the surrounding counties instead of the local county.


2 Cents

Good points. Just to clarify and hone down the issue from my POV. Regarding a privilege to wear civilian clothes at pre-trial hearings in Idaho:
1) The group of defendants I'm concerned with are a) those that are heading to trial; and b) attend pre-trial hearings that are subject to public viewing or any publicity where clothing can be seen or described in the press.
2) I'm concerned with the subsequent reporting of those pre-trial hearings after the initial attendance where all defendants appear in jail uniform.
3) My concern is with equality of access - so are all defendants in the two groups above aware and advised by their counsel that they can appear in post-intial pre-trial hearings in civilian clothes? Is this true to begin with that all defendants in the above categories do have this right?That is, they are aware and can request this - so their counsel can then put the necessary motion before the court?
4) Equality of access is the least that should be available and ensures a semblance of fairness Imo. - So if defendants heading for trial do have equality of access in Idaho then if a defendant chooses not to appear in civilian clothes that is their choice - as long as they have been advised to the contrary and, if they lack funds (especially if an indigent PD defendant with no/low income and/or family assistance) the PD office has a budget for supplying.

Moo

 

[jepop]

Good to know they took his scissors away. He probably plans to return the suit.

JMO

It may have been hired for the occasion?

 

[ilovewings]

Good points, @Nova.

In the Alec Murdaugh Murders case -- he was found guilty this year of murdering his wife Maggie and adult son Paul in cold blood at their "hunting property" where he lived and they didn't - they were separated, he and his wife, and he lured her back there that fateful night under false pretense, IMO, and his son was there as well looking after a friend's dog in their kennels who was having some issues...

I truly believe it brought things home clearly to the jury, which was undecided at the time, IMO, to do a tour of the scene of the crime and see where it all happened, which was described to them (the jury) in detail beforehand.

IMO, it made it "real" for the jury to go there (the scene of their murders), and that may have been a lynch-pin in the jury's decision to convict him.

Although I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other whether the house at 1122 King Road should be kept as is or be demolished soon (before trial) and a serenity or reflecting or peace garden erected in its place for people to go to to remember the victims, because IMO, that would be up to the victim's families, what they would like, and then the university and community.

Just the same, I still wouldn't want it (demolishing their house) to detract from the prosecution's case against BK if, for instance, the defense says something at trial like "we really don't know what all went down during the murders and with the victims and BK because their house isn't there anymore".

Though I trust LE/the prosecution has such a mountain of evidence that proves BK's guilt in their murders BARD, that they're willing to let the crime scene go, because it's all been documented.

Not surprised the defense doesn't want the scene of the crime to be demolished----it certainly doesn't hurt their case if the jury can't visit that crime scene

 

[maskedwoman]

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.”

Victims’ families ask U of I to delay demolition of Moscow house where killings occurred - East Idaho News

MOSCOW (Idaho Statesman) — Some of the families of the four University of Idaho students killed in Moscow last fall oppose tearing down the off-campus home where the crime occurred before suspect Bryan Kohberger’s murder trial in October. A date has yet to be set for demolition of the King Road...

www.eastidahonews.com

The university is in an awkward position - trying to help the living move on and feel safer, while also trying not to "step in it", as they say. What I am really puzzled by is the State's decision not to use the house for the trial. Even if they don't end up using it, I am very surprised the State is not keeping that option available to them.

 

[Chloegirl]

Is it too late at this point for them to decide to move the trial out of the county? I feel like I've see multiple mentions in media recently that it still could be moved out of Moscow to Boise. In that case a jury visit to the house wouldn't even be practical--it's at least a 5hr 30 min drive. The OJ and Alex Murdaugh trials were both quite near those crime scenes, so it was relatively easy to achieve both time and money wise in those situations.

I was really hoping for this and I guess it's not ruled out completely. But I feel like now that the Judge is attached to it, he may not do so. I would much prefer this and they can take BK with them! There's a lot of reasonable people in Moscow but they'd be better off in Boise. I understand wanting to keep the house because it helps the prosecution but I also am ready to move forward on some level. Ultimately, I want what's best for the victims. IMO

 

[maskedwoman]

True kitty. OR They could actually rebuild a model of the house elsewhere like the FBI did for the Unabomber cabin. Then the jury could walk thru to experience the weird floor plan.
I might be floor plan challenged as another poster mentioned bc I get confused going thru some 3D graphics of the house w the odd steps and door locations. If on the jury I'd like to see the door Dylan Mortenson opened to see BK walk past.
Rebuild it elsewhere. WIN-WIN
Probably won't happen due to money.

JMO
edit. Thanks @Twistinginthewind . Changed mistaken survivor's name.

Unabomber’s Cabin Reconstruction at FBI Headquarters | Federal Bureau of Investigation

Theodore “Ted” Kaczynski—also known as the Unabomber—was arrested at his cabin near Lincoln, Montana, on April 3, 1996. This time-lapse video shows the cabin being reconstructed at FBI Headquarters in 2020.

www.fbi.gov

The unibomber's cabin was very small and simple. Basically the size of one horse stall with a roof. They would have to rebuild most, if not all of the upper 2 floors to put the jury "at the scene". Not to mention that building materials are a LOT more expensive today than they were a few years ago. I can't see spending thousands upon thousands of taxpayer money for that when the building is already right there. MOOooo

 

[Justice101]

Do we have a trial date? Sorry if I missed it (or forgot it).

 

[Nila Aella]

Do we have a trial date? Sorry if I missed it (or forgot it).

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/Summary/Case-Summary-Kohberger-07062023.pdf

 

[Cool Cats]

The university is in an awkward position - trying to help the living move on and feel safer, while also trying not to "step in it", as they say. What I am really puzzled by is the State's decision not to use the house for the trial. Even if they don't end up using it, I am very surprised the State is not keeping that option available to them.

I'm not surprised because there are a lot of reasons why it is not a good idea for prosecutors to do a jury walk through - called "jury view" - of the crime scene. These can backfire and cause doubt in juror's minds and weaken the prosecution's Case. And, the defense can use the "jury view" to cast doubt on the prosecution's case. The prosecution doesn't want to weaken their case.

1.) Inconvenience due to distance with change of venue.

2.) Some jurors could feel creeped out and uncomfortable, especially if they see any blood.

3.) Items have been removed so the crime scenes are not the way they were when BK was there, not a true picture, thus, court photos and videos of the house would be better to show what actual items and furniture were in the rooms, hallways etc... before anything was removed.

4.) Confusing layout could confuse the jury and make the jury doubt the timeline, doubt BK had enough time to find his way around in the dark, finding bedrooms on 2 floors, stabbing and fighting 4 people, finding the exit then navigating steep terrain outside, all within 15 minutes.

5.) Could cause a Mistrial from talking. No one is allowed to talk on a walk through. No commentary. No questions. Just a description of what they are looking at.

6.) Waste of time when the Courtroom presentations of the crime scenes can accomplish the same thing as a "jury view." "Jury views" are rare for a reason - often technology can clearly show juries all the information they need in understanding how murders occurred in a specific building.

7.) Congested area at King Rd, this could cause security and privacy issues such as photos taken of jurors, jurors being followed in vehicles to and from court, etc..

When jurors are allowed to visit crime scenes

Question: I recently read about a case in which a jury was allowed to visit the scene of...

www.theintelligencer.com

Juries Visited The Crime Scenes In These Five Murder Trials. Here’s Why That Can't Happen In The Idaho Stabbings Case.

“Evidence that jurors can see for themselves and feel personally involved in, compiling in their heads, is going to be much more powerful ... than what they were just told by someone else like an expert,” one jury consultant told BuzzFeed News.

www.buzzfeednews.com

 

[ilovewings]

I'm not surprised because there are a lot of reasons why it is not a good idea for prosecutors to do a jury walk through - called "jury view" - of the crime scene. These can backfire and cause doubt in juror's minds and weaken the prosecution's Case. And, the defense can use the "jury view" to cast doubt on the prosecution's case. The prosecution doesn't want to weaken their case.

1.) Inconvenience due to distance with change of venue.

2.) Some jurors could feel creeped out and uncomfortable, especially if they see any blood.

3.) Items have been removed so the crime scenes are not the way they were when BK was there, not a true picture, thus, court photos and videos of the house would be better to show what actual items and furniture were in the rooms, hallways etc... before anything was removed.

4.) Confusing layout could confuse the jury and make the jury doubt the timeline, doubt BK had enough time to find his way around in the dark, finding bedrooms on 2 floors, stabbing and fighting 4 people, finding the exit then navigating steep terrain outside, all within 15 minutes.

5.) Could cause a Mistrial from talking. No one is allowed to talk on a walk through. No commentary. No questions. Just a description of what they are looking at.

6.) Waste of time when the Courtroom presentations of the crime scenes can accomplish the same thing as a "jury view." "Jury views" are rare for a reason - often technology can clearly show juries all the information they need in understanding how murders occurred in a specific building.

7.) Congested area at King Rd, this could cause security and privacy issues such as photos taken of jurors, jurors being followed in vehicles to and from court, etc..

When jurors are allowed to visit crime scenes

Question: I recently read about a case in which a jury was allowed to visit the scene of...

www.theintelligencer.com

Juries Visited The Crime Scenes In These Five Murder Trials. Here’s Why That Can't Happen In The Idaho Stabbings Case.

“Evidence that jurors can see for themselves and feel personally involved in, compiling in their heads, is going to be much more powerful ... than what they were just told by someone else like an expert,” one jury consultant told BuzzFeed News.

www.buzzfeednews.com

You make some good points!

 

[Nila Aella]

NYT Article on demolishing house debate:

Officials want to tear down the house where four Idaho college students were murdered last year, setting off a debate over preserving the scenes of mass violence.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjQ1Lyq_vz_AhVVKFkFHbjLB3MQvOMEKAB6BAgUEAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2023%2F07%2F07%2Fus%2Fidaho-murders-house-demolition.html&usg=AOvVaw2r3-30z6ZWHRE6Acf3sETT&opi=89978449

ETA NYT

 

[Twistinginthewind]

MOO:

Regarding the lack of victim DNA in BK's vehicle, I'm reposting this from a few months ago, in which I speculated BK may have removed the lid or cap on the gear shift in his car because it may have possibly had victim DNA on it.

In the bodycam footage of the LE stop in Indiana on his way back to PA with his father, you can see that the gearshift is missing it's cap or lid decal, and it's an open gap or hole at the top of the round part of the gear shift that your hand goes around.

I've always wondered if he got rid of it because it may have been the one place in the car where he put his right hand with maybe some possibility of trace DNA from the victims on his glove (after touching the bags or sheets of plastic), and he was being extra careful just in case.

If he's right-handed, which I think he is, he would have used his right hand for everything, touching the knife, sheath, and doorknob/slider handle, stabbing the victims, touching the bags and plastic sheets (I think he used to stow the bloody clothes/kill kit), and ultimately his gearshift.

Here is a still photo from 1 minute 56 seconds into the stop from the video linked below:


And a closeup:

ETA: Here's what it's supposed to look like with the cap in tact:



Source: 2015 Hyundai Elantra - Carvana