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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Scheduling motion: Looked up the Rules (in blue) that correspond to States request for scheduling:


1. Deadlines for completion of discovery by both the State and Defense.
2. Deadlines for both parties to make expert disclosures pursuant to I.C.R. l6(b)(7) and (c)(4).

(b) Disclosure of Evidence and Materials by the Prosecution on Written Request.
(7) Expert Witnesses.

(c) Disclosure of Evidence by the Defendant on Written Request.
(4) Expert Witnesses (defense)

3. Deadlines for filings of pretrial motions and responses and replies thereto, including, but not limited to, motions in limine, motions relating to the death penalty, and any motions under I.C.R. 12(b).

(b) Pretrial Motions. Any defense objection or request which can be determined without trial of the general issue may be raised before the trial by motion. The following must be raised prior to trial:

(1) defenses and objections based on defects in the prior proceedings in the prosecution;

(2) defenses and objections based on defects in the complaint, indictment or information (other than that it fails to show jurisdiction of the court or to charge an offense, which objections may be made at any time during the pendency of the proceedings);

(3) motions to suppress evidence because it was illegally obtained;

(4) request for discovery under Rule 16;

(5) request for a severance of charges or defendants under Rule 14; or

(6) motion to dismiss based on former jeopardy.

4.Deadlines forjury questionnaire proposals.
5.Deadlines for proposed jury instructions. Deadlines for proposed witnesses pursuant to I.C.R. l6(b)(6) and (c)(3).

(b) Disclosure of Evidence and Materials by the Prosecution on Written Request.
(6) State Witnesses.

(c) Disclosure of Evidence by the Defendant on Written Request.
(3) Defense Witness

6.Deadlines for Rule 404(b) notice.

(b) Crimes, Wrongs, or Other Acts.


7.Dates for pretrial motions to be heard.
8.Any other matters to facilitate the orderly progress of this case toward trial

 
Nila Aella said:
Return of evidentiary items


View attachment 435499

Looks like the newly posted notice of hearing is for concerns about transporting the evidentiary items.


MOO
edit sp
Click to expand...
The Court having concerns over transport of evidentiary items really has my interest piqued. What on earth could those items be? Any guesses?

ETA: I am making my own guess but saying they must be large, perhaps identifiable items. Maybe headboard or mattress, parts or components of BK's car? I've seen LE remove large patches of walls or floors that might hold evidentiary value.
 
Last edited:
jepop said:
It's just a guess re PC but the Moscow PD forensic Lab warrant for BK's phone came back on 9th Jan. I think that means the date the raw data was extracted and then available for analysis by forensic agents/investigtors, specialists or whoever does that side of things. The additional warrants for BK Google, Tik tok etc begin from Jan 25th I believe - then later more victim warrants for social media. I'm just struck by the June 23rd starting date and think the forensics analyses of BK's phone (and possibly other devices) may be tied to the start date for PC - so what was found in his phone and new google/social media warrants for BK. Moo

Moscow PD forensic lab warrant
Click to expand...
I thought the same about there being something LE found. The start date might just be related to when he arrived in Pullman or when he obtained his phone.
Some additional thoughts:
If they found "something" on his computer/phone, wouldn't it be a more targeted warrant - a particular victims inta/face? Unless he was in contact with all victims and survivors somehow.
And: If they found no connection on the previous warrants (Aug to Nov) and wanted to expand to earlier? Now that his buccal DNA matches on top of the previous probable cause for arrest, that could be enough probable cause for the extended time?
All JMO
 
girlhasnoname said:
The Court having concerns over transport of evidentiary items really has my interest piqued. What on earth could those items be? Any guesses?

ETA: I am making my own guess but saying they must be large, perhaps identifiable items. Maybe headboard or mattress, parts or components of BK's car? I've seen LE remove large patches of walls or floors that might hold evidentiary value.
Click to expand...
I guess the Elantra. MOO

edit: I didn't see your ETA when posting. :)
I'm thinking large too. Might be another car? I think the medium sized things would not be difficult to transport in a truck.
 
Nila Aella said:
I thought the same about there being something LE found. The start date might just be related to when he arrived in Pullman or when he obtained his phone.
Some additional thoughts:
If they found "something" on his computer/phone, wouldn't it be a more targeted warrant - a particular victims inta/face? Unless he was in contact with all victims and survivors somehow.
And: If they found no connection on the previous warrants (Aug to Nov) and wanted to expand to earlier? Now that his buccal DNA matches on top of the previous probable cause for arrest, that could be enough probable cause for the extended time?
All JMO
Click to expand...
For sure, all of what you suggest is possible. We just don't have enough information to understand the process of timing of warrants given the redactions Imo. I'm just looking at some of the biger markers - when we can at least be sure investigators would have had access to additional sources related Bk's digital trail (or lack thereof). If BK made a habit of wiping his phone, including logs - then LE may have only found fragments that necessitated going to Soc Media companies for deleted info potentially still stored on servers. Idk, that's just a guess baesd on my personal belief that defendant was mindful and did possess sufficient knowledge to attempt covering his digital trail.Moo

I tend towards the opening date for some of these Feb/March/April warrants being significant because it is the actual date when BK's official AT&T account was opened as per PCA. I think that is a more likely reason than June 23rd 2022 being the date he moved to Pullman. That is, unless the two events were contemporaneous. At this point I still think we are in the dark about the exact date he moved to Pullman. I think it may have been in July or early August though that is based on nothing but Moo from vague memories of MSM reports re his dad helping him set up in his appartment. Moo

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/122922 Affidavit - Exhibit A - Statement of Brett-Payne.pdf pp12-13.

"OnDecember 23,2022, pursuantto that search warrant, I received records for the 8458 Phone from AT&T. These records indicated that the 8458 Phone is subscribed to BryanKohberger at an address in Albrightsville, Pennsylvania and
the account has been open since June 23rd 2022"

EBM changed undeleted to deleted in par in support, yes 1.

ETA: Forgot to add that I'm no expert on PC but seems to me that with the right kind of investigative affidavits for support PC for the post arrest digitaland phone company warrants could have been gained on the basis of the dna being matched directly to BK via buccal swabs. Moo
 
Last edited:
Nila Aella said:
And: If they found no connection on the previous warrants (Aug to Nov) and wanted to expand to earlier? Now that his buccal DNA matches on top of the previous probable cause for arrest, that could be enough probable cause for the extended time?
Click to expand...
RSBM

This is what I've been wondering. We have AT saying there is no connection between BK and the victims, so we suddenly assume she's playing word games, but maybe we should consider that perhaps there really isn't any known connection to be found.

Her statement was made having seen all the evidence, so perhaps even after they expanded the search timeframe, no connection existed. I don't think we should totally dismiss this scenario. Jmo.

We've heard a lot of rumors about him contacting KG via SM, etc, but have we seen anything to confirm that? Maybe this wasn't a case of online stalking, but physical, drive-by, up-close stalking. Just a thought.

Another option was that maybe BK was successful in using untraceable technology to online stalk. Idk...
 
Last edited:
Reconsider Speedy Trial motion:


In his argument:

Idaho Code §l9-3501, which allows Court to dismiss case for lack of speedy trial, is triggered “if Defendant, whose trial has not been postponed upon his application, is not brought to trial within six months [from the filing of an indictment or information].” Idaho Code l9- 3501(2) (emphasis added). Notably, 19-3501 does not require an unequivocal, on-the-record, waiver of speedy trial. Instead, the statute by its own language excludes from relief those individuals whose trials have been postponed upon their own application.

The court can't dismiss the case for lack of a speedy trial if the defendant triggered the stay....didn't BK trigger it? maybe I am not reading it right?

Just a little :confused:...State is asking for it to go back to no stay because it encompasses the same conditions as with a stay? Then if the D finds something to support their good cause, they can file a motion to dismiss. The only difference with the stay is the ability of the D to gain 37d - isn't that only IF the Ds "good cause" is that the GJ was flawed, discovers evidence of it in the GJ proceedings, and needs to bring forth a motion to dismiss?

Either scenario looks the same to me. Maybe without a stay it is safer for later issues that could arise?

MOO
 
Nila Aella said:
Yes! Especially by James Patterson. He sells a lot of books.
MSM and SM (you tube, twitter, facebook, and podcasts) too. MOO

Click to expand...
I'm confused about how much he can possibly have nailed down as 100% accurate before trial with the gag order in place.
 
maskedwoman said:
I'm confused about how much he can possibly have nailed down as 100% accurate before trial with the gag order in place.
Click to expand...
I think it might be released right after the trial because this article mentions attendance at BKs trial. MOO

The book will tell the story of the four murders drawing “from dozens of exclusive interviews, extensive on-the-ground reporting,” court transcripts and attendance at suspect Bryan Kohberger’s trial, multiple outlets reported.

 
Nila Aella said:
I think it might be released right after the trial because this article mentions attendance at BKs trial. MOO

The book will tell the story of the four murders drawing “from dozens of exclusive interviews, extensive on-the-ground reporting,” court transcripts and attendance at suspect Bryan Kohberger’s trial, multiple outlets reported.

Click to expand...
That makes a LOT more sense than it coming out before trial. Thanks! :)
 
Nila Aella said:
Reconsider Speedy Trial motion:


In his argument:

Idaho Code §l9-3501, which allows Court to dismiss case for lack of speedy trial, is triggered “if Defendant, whose trial has not been postponed upon his application, is not brought to trial within six months [from the filing of an indictment or information].” Idaho Code l9- 3501(2) (emphasis added). Notably, 19-3501 does not require an unequivocal, on-the-record, waiver of speedy trial. Instead, the statute by its own language excludes from relief those individuals whose trials have been postponed upon their own application.

The court can't dismiss the case for lack of a speedy trial if the defendant triggered the stay....didn't BK trigger it? maybe I am not reading it right?

Just a little :confused:...State is asking for it to go back to no stay because it encompasses the same conditions as with a stay? Then if the D finds something to support their good cause, they can file a motion to dismiss. The only difference with the stay is the ability of the D to gain 37d - isn't that only IF the Ds "good cause" is that the GJ was flawed, discovers evidence of it in the GJ proceedings, and needs to bring forth a motion to dismiss?

Either scenario looks the same to me. Maybe without a stay it is safer for later issues that could arise?

MOO
Click to expand...
Yes, my reading is safer for later issues arising out of possible litigation re waiver of speedy trial. State gives an eg.in their argument - it's to do with precedent. Judge's ruling may not have it and may have been proven ineffectual/does not stand up to the law under prior testing (conditional stay for 37 days is currently ordered). I think JJJ will reconsider. Law says either waive speedy trial (and set new date) or don't. Imo State wants to play by book, no special waivers, no in-betweens. Judge's recent use of discretion is potentially up for challenge in the future - according to the precedent cited. State want more predictability for all concerned.Moo

ETA: State sees potential for wasting time and creating uncertainty for witnesses and the State with potential future speedy trial litigation.Moo
 
Last edited:
Karin1974 said:
IMO - This blows my mind - I’m not hiding anything & I don’t look at or do anything nefarious on my phone but there’s no way I’d allow my partner to have this kind of access (Or vice versa) This absolutely reeks of distrust! MOO
Click to expand...
I didn’t want to say it…

I also didn’t want to say that this theoretical app (especially Android to iphone) to run secretly on a phone would require some pretty deep MDM allowances that the iPhone doesn’t afford any developers and certificates that would need to be approved by the target. And for the target to download and install applications that likely don’t currently exist with these capabilities. The reason I didn’t share it is because I know someone is going to Google and inevitably find some obscure dusty web page to some enterprise app filled with caveats and insist BK used it.

The DoorDash thread is a dud. IMO it was a contactless delivery. He’ll be a good timeline witness and might have briefly saw someone inside the house or maybe seen the Elantra before it’s 4th pass.

MOO
 
Re: motion/order to temporarily seal Subpoena duces tecum.

State asked for its first seal for this subpoena on 4/17.

Per LII:
A subpoena duces tecum is a type of subpoena that requires the witness to produce a document or documents pertinent to a proceeding. From the Latin duces tecum, meaning "you shall bring with you".


edit: at first I thought this was BFs subpoena. But the dates are different. Her subpoena was requested 4/3, issued 4/11, and motion to quash was filed 4/21. Plus the document part doesn't make sense. And it is the State requesting the seal. JMO
 
Last edited:
The crux of the Motion to Reconsider Order Staying Time for Speedy Trial:

IANAL but what I think is that the State is trying to guarantee that BK & Defense don't try to bring up a reason for dismissal, since the stay of 37 days would run the clock. They are just saying let's proceed as normal and if at the time BK wants to waive his rights to ST he can or not.

From the Motion: BBM

But while the Defendant undeniably has the right to review the grand jury materials, the law simply does not allow for a Defendant to agree to toll speedy trial beyond six months, and later invoke his right to a speedy trial.

MOO
 
girlhasnoname said:
The crux of the Motion to Reconsider Order Staying Time for Speedy Trial:

IANAL but what I think is that the State is trying to guarantee that BK & Defense don't try to bring up a reason for dismissal, since the stay of 37 days would run the clock. They are just saying let's proceed as normal and if at the time BK wants to waive his rights to ST he can or not.

From the Motion: BBM

But while the Defendant undeniably has the right to review the grand jury materials, the law simply does not allow for a Defendant to agree to toll speedy trial beyond six months, and later invoke his right to a speedy trial.

MOO
Click to expand...


And this is at the end of the Judges Order:

1689700302719.png




Kohberger and his counsel agreed that he cannot later argue violation of his right to speedy trial.
JMO
 
girlhasnoname said:
The Court having concerns over transport of evidentiary items really has my interest piqued. What on earth could those items be? Any guesses?

ETA: I am making my own guess but saying they must be large, perhaps identifiable items. Maybe headboard or mattress, parts or components of BK's car? I've seen LE remove large patches of walls or floors that might hold evidentiary value.
Click to expand...
Sounds very likely.
They said the house is a total wreck inside from removal of wallboard, flooring and such.
 
Nila Aella said:
And this is at the end of the Judges Order:

View attachment 435568




Kohberger and his counsel agreed that he cannot later argue violation of his right to speedy trial.
JMO
Click to expand...
Interesting. IANAL but I wonder if the Prosecution is concerned that could be seen as an error on appeal? It's very Solomon-like, but is it constitutional? I suppose it could be a very normal part of the legal process and we just don't know.
 
maskedwoman said:
Interesting. IANAL but I wonder if the Prosecution is concerned that could be seen as an error on appeal? It's very Solomon-like, but is it constitutional? I suppose it could be a very normal part of the legal process and we just don't know.
Click to expand...
Yes! I think you are right on what the prosecutions concern is. MOO

@girlhasnoname posted part of this earlier (TY :) )

The first paragraph has this:

The law does not allow Defendant to partially waive his statutory right to speedy trial and thus, his acquiescence to the limited stay in this matter could be deemed full waiver of speedy trial, with the potential to create needless litigation in the future.

The State further requests that the jury trial in this matter remain set for October 2, 2023, or alternatively, that it be moved beyond the speedy trial period only if Defendant unambiguously waives his right to speedy trial. The State makes these requests to give the parties, the victims’ families, and the witnesses predictability as to future trial dates; to protect the record; and to avoid needless speedy trial litigation down the road.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 183 more.
Total: 2,761 (members: 184, guests: 2,577)

Online statistics

Members online
184
Guests online
2,577
Total visitors
2,761
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,879
Messages
18,100,677
Members
230,942
Latest member
Patturelli
Back
Top