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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

Thanks, @Nila Aella, as always, for sharing the court docs here so we can think about them and what they may mean.

<modsnip - rude, personalizing>

But IMO, there is a word that encapsulates all of the wobbly legs and efforts against all odds of the Defense's case to endeavor to prove BK is not guilty of heinously murdering the four victims in cold blood...

Xana and her loving boyfriend Ethan. Her best friends Maddie and Kaylee.

Or from other perspectives, Kaylee's best friend Maddie and hers hers, and vice versa.

Or from other perspectives, their loved ones and community, and on and on....

The Defense's "Be All End All" on this quadruple murder case "From The Get Go", via BK, is, IMO, "The Only Leg They Have To Stand On".

The Word is

Obfuscation.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/obfuscation

obfuscation​

/ (ˌɒbfʌsˈkeɪʃən) /

noun
  1. the act or an instance of making something obscure, dark, or difficult to understand
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/obfuscate

MOO.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks, @Nila Aella, as always, for sharing the court docs here so we can think about them and what they may mean.

<modsnip - rude, personalizing>

But IMO, there is a word that encapsulates all of the wobbly legs and efforts against all odds of the Defense's case to endeavor to prove BK is not guilty of heinously murdering the four victims in cold blood...

Xana and her loving boyfriend Ethan. Her best friends Maddie and Kaylee.

Or from other perspectives, Kaylee's best friend Maddie and hers hers, and vice versa.

Or from other perspectives, their loved ones and community, and on and on....

The Defense's "Be All End All" on this quadruple murder case "From The Get Go", via BK, is, IMO, "The Only Leg They Have To Stand On".

The Word is

Obfuscation.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/obfuscation

obfuscation​

/ (ˌɒbfʌsˈkeɪʃən) /

noun
  1. the act or an instance of making something obscure, dark, or difficult to understand
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/obfuscate

MOO.

This just shows how the defense knows the evidence against their client is so overwhelming that they will lose at trial so in all cases like this the defense tries everything possible to get evidence dismissed.

NOTE:

What they HAVE TO get dismissed is this DNA evidence and they simply cannot find any legal reason to have it dismissed, so what do they do?
They attack HOW it was collected.

Also, They attack HOW the GJ was convened.

They attack HOW the police investigators were trained to try to get important witness testimony dismissed.

They are scared over DM's description because it matches BK's license (PCA) and helped lead to him.
Many many posters on here criticize DM's description, oh it fits 1/4 the population etc...

Please, spare me, it was meant to not be able to rule BK out. The defense can't use the witness description to say "see it was the short fat guy not Mr. Kohberger."

So this is one reason why they want those training records - in my opinion - because they, like I said, they are scared about DM's eye balling their client. To have DNA with a witness right there helps confirm the DNA match.

And the defense doesn't know what the heck to do about the ATT phone records. These phone records are - in my opinion - the reason they can't offer an alibi.

1.) Witness description
2.) DNA
3.) Phone evidence
4.) Car
5.) 11 times in area late at night (according to a dad close enough to hit the WIFI)
6.) According to LE investigator and "People" looking at BK's Instagram, he messaged his victim
7.) Possible other digital connection(s)

Oh, the 2 unknown male DNA's in the house? Actually is bad new for the defense. If there were several John Doe DNA's then the defense could tell the jury " see all the guys that could've done it?"

Only 2 in the house - good for the prosecution. They ruled out a ton of guys.

2 Cent Opinion
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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
Trying here to summarise State's Argument for a reconsideration of the order to Temporarily Stay Proceedings.Moo

1. Precedent.

"State v. Lundquist is instructive...There, the Idaho Supreme Court held that an
individual who requested a single trial continuance beyond the speedy trial period in order to substitute counsel—but objected to further continuances—had fully waived his right to a speedy trial. Id....

...The Idaho Supreme Court unambiguously rejected the notion that a defendant can partially,but not fully, waive his right to a speedy trial,"


2. INAL but Imo state is saying below - let's not mix up a Stay with a stipulation to extend speedy trial period. There were no current grounds to Stay proceedings so instead

"...the Court crafted a limited stay that serves not to halt the proceedings in the traditional sense of a "stay" but rather to simply extend the speedy trial priod for 37 dqys. However, trial was set for October 2, 2023"


3.INAL but I think the State is suggesting there is potential for the order to be litigated against in the future - even with the stipulation as to good cause. Imo the State wants to play it safe and by the book. Moo

"CONCLUSION
... 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. As such,in the interests of protecting the record in this case, and in the interest of promoting efficiency and predictability in the weeks and/or months ahead, the State respectfully requests that this Court reconsider its Order Staying Time for Speedy Trial"



Moo


 
Just catching up with a few of the warrants. Admittedly I haven't had Facebook in more than a decade..but it looks like LE asked Facebook for usernames using Reddit's "u/" URL syntax/routing for username (which has since been replaced with "username/"). And Facebook interpreted it literally and responded with a "No, we don't have that" (paraphrasing).

Weird.

LE has faced a few of these unforced errors (ebay and amazon comes to mind). I'm going to guess that there's just a lot going and that it's not a result of lack of knowledge.

Also, another hint towards someone playing games with support re: Kaylee or Maddie's accounts...we saw this with Snapchat too.

All records pertaining to communications between Instagram and any person

regarding the user or the user’s Instagram account; including contacts with support

services and records of action taken;


Does LE think that BK was filing false reports and trying to get their accounts banned? Was he contacting support to try and take over their accounts or learn more about them?

Also, also, META warrants being returned not too long ago and sealed this July does not bode well for BK and his Defense team's loosey goosey use of the word "connections".

Also, also, also LE's redactions are getting worse and worse. In a few spots they left tiny remnants of the bottom of letters that anyone with some time on their hands could likely figure out. They should tighten things up.

Also x4, it looks like LE is doing their research and clearing ALL unknown numbers that had meaningful contact wih the victims. Covering any and all bases. Good on them.

MOO
 
Last edited:
Trying here to summarise State's Argument for a reconsideration of the order to Temporarily Stay Proceedings.Moo

1. Precedent.

"State v. Lundquist is instructive...There, the Idaho Supreme Court held that an

individual who requested a single trial continuance beyond the speedy trial period in order to substitute counsel—but objected to further continuances—had fully waived his right to a speedy trial. Id....

...The Idaho Supreme Court unambiguously rejected the notion that a defendant can partially,but not fully, waive his right to a speedy trial,"


2. INAL but Imo state is saying below - let's not mix up a Stay with a stipulation to extend speedy trial period. There were no current grounds to Stay proceedings so instead

"...the Court crafted a limited stay that serves not to halt the proceedings in the traditional sense of a "stay" but rather to simply extend the speedy trial priod for 37 dqys. However, trial was set for October 2, 2023"


3.INAL but I think the State is suggesting there is potential for the order to be litigated against in the future - even with the stipulation as to good cause. Imo the State wants to play it safe and by the book. Moo

"CONCLUSION
... 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. As such,in the interests of protecting the record in this case, and in the interest of promoting efficiency and predictability in the weeks and/or months ahead, the State respectfully requests that this Court reconsider its Order Staying Time for Speedy Trial"



Moo


<modsnip - personalizing, rude>

BK has clearly giving them nothing to work with and they are stalling and flailing. On alibi day.... I wouldn't' be surprised if one or two of them ask to leave the defense team.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
<modsnip - rude, personalizing>

BK has clearly giving them nothing to work with and they are stalling and flailing. On alibi day.... I wouldn't' be surprised if one or two of them ask to leave the defense team.

Probably before that, at some point, the Defense team probably needs to have a "come to Jesus" moment with BK and tell him that he needs to cooperate with them so that they can get the best deal for him. My suspicion is that BK will ask the judge to remove the team from his defense and get another set of lawyers to lie to. Just a hunch he tries that trick
"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Probably before that, at some point, the Defense team probably needs to have a "come to Jesus" moment with BK and tell him that he needs to cooperate with them so that they can get the best deal for him. My suspicion is that BK will ask the judge to remove the team from his defense and get another set of lawyers to lie to. Just a hunch he tries that trick
"
He can ask. But, as my grandmother used to say - "askin' ain't gettin'". LOL. The hearing should certainly be interesting. ;)

From what I read online, he can't fire state-appointed counsel. He can only ask to have them replaced. And it doesn't happen that often. He sure can't claim his lawyer sucks since he was appointed a highly qualified attorney from the start.

According to the ABA, a lawyer can only withdraw under certain conditions. They can't claim they aren't getting paid, so their withdrawal would depend on the other reasons there are for an attorney to withdraw.

 
According to this article, it is an investigative nonfiction book:


Best-selling novelist James Patterson and investigative journalist Vicky Ward will reportedly team up to write a nonfiction book

Patterson said he’s “as caught up in” the murders as anyone else and sees telling the story as “a compelling challenge” that he and Ward are “eager to investigate further”— Deadline reported that Patterson said he hasn’t been haunted by a story like this since he wrote Filthy Rich about Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes in 2016

The book doesn’t have a title or release date yet.

Skydance Television is planning to option the rights to the book for a docuseries based on Patterson and Ward’s investigation,

I would think that it would be quite difficult for him to convince key figures to speak to him until after the trial.
 
From what I read online, he can't fire state-appointed counsel. He can only ask to have them replaced. And it doesn't happen that often. He sure can't claim his lawyer sucks since he was appointed a highly qualified attorney from the start.

Do you know if he can try to step in and represent himself, or would he have needed to play that card sooner?
 
Do you know if he can try to step in and represent himself, or would he have needed to play that card sooner?
IANAL but, from what I read in various google searches, he could have represented himself from the start. That makes sense to me, since Ted Bundy also represented himself in his death penalty trial. But now that he has been labels as indigent and has court appointed attorneys, I believe he is dependent on the judge to even give him a different attorney.

MOOooo
 
<modsnip - personalizing, rude>

BK has clearly giving them nothing to work with and they are stalling and flailing. On alibi day.... I wouldn't' be surprised if one or two of them ask to leave the defense team.

Are you speculating that BK has asked his attorneys to file an alibi motion by the deadline, and that the defense has advised him that they don't have any evidence to support the alibi, such as witnesses, etc.? And that BK wants them to go ahead and file the alibi motion anyway, against his attorneys' advice?

Otherwise, if the defense team and BK are in agreement that they are not going to file an alibi, then nothing will happen at the deadline, it will just come and go without anything being filed.

BK can always take the stand during his trial and present his own alibi if he wants to, even if no alibi motion was filed by the deadline. He just can't call any witnesses to support his alibi if he chooses to do it that way.
 
Are you speculating that BK has asked his attorneys to file an alibi motion by the deadline, and that the defense has advised him that they don't have any evidence to support the alibi, such as witnesses, etc.? And that BK wants them to go ahead and file the alibi motion anyway, against his attorneys' advice?

Otherwise, if the defense team and BK are in agreement that they are not going to file an alibi, then nothing will happen at the deadline, it will just come and go without anything being filed.

BK can always take the stand during his trial and present his own alibi if he wants to, even if no alibi motion was filed by the deadline. He just can't call any witnesses to support his alibi if he chooses to do it that way.
Sort of. My interpretation is if they had an alibi then we would have seen some evidence of it by now. Or some inkling that they have something alibi related (2 other dna profiles can support an alibi, if there was one) that contradicts or puts into question the prosecutions timeline and BKs involvement. Contradictory evidence that’s directly exonerating, exculpatory or really anything that needs additional context to be interpreted as such.

I know that they don’t have to do that. And the burden is on the prosecution. But IMO BK has a gigantic uphill battle without sharing his own story either directly (which they won’t do) or indirectly via evidence/testimony.

MOO

I’ll be back on the 27th when we find out!
 
Last edited:
If this case does go to trial, will the prosecution stick to the known facts or do they also have to address the psychological side via expert testimony (or however) in order to give jurors a possible WHY? I realize that could become a slippery
slope to go down and the fact is, we may never know why.
 
If this case does go to trial, will the prosecution stick to the known facts or do they also have to address the psychological side via expert testimony (or however) in order to give jurors a possible WHY? I realize that could become a slippery
slope to go down and the fact is, we may never know why.
They have to stick to known facts, to get a psychologist to hypothesize is prejudicial to the jury.

His psychology is fair game if he goes to a Penalty Phase Trial though. Defense will have psychologists who testify so fair game for prosecution to do as well...2 cents
 
If this case does go to trial, will the prosecution stick to the known facts or do they also have to address the psychological side via expert testimony (or however) in order to give jurors a possible WHY? I realize that could become a slippery
slope to go down and the fact is, we may never know why.

MOO no matter what "set" a murderer is a member of, others in that set do not murder.
MOO why one stressed domineering male murders and another does not, is a real mystery.

To me it's also a big mystery why BK is the at the beginning of his fall term practically intentionally blew his PhD.
 
ID. Alibi Ct. Rule & Law: Notice; Newly Discovered Wit's; Exceptions
....if the defense team and BK are in agreement that they are not going to file an alibi, then nothing will happen at the deadline, it will just come and go without anything being filed.

BK can always take the stand during his trial and present his own alibi if he wants to, even if no alibi motion was filed by the deadline.

He just can't call any witnesses to support his alibi if he chooses to do it that way.
snipped for focus. @Sundog
Agreeing w ^ ¶1 & ^ ¶2 of ^ post.
^ ¶ 3 (per my ¶ numbering of ^ post). Not sure if BK’s (hypothetical, atm) wit’s alibi-specific part of testimony would be automatically excluded, if def’t fails to serve alibi notice & info on state.

Per statutory sub (3) below, if, prior to or even DURING TRIAL, a party discovers new wit. whose identity should have been provided re alibi, that party (def't. or state) shall promptly notify other party of existence & identity of wit.

Per statutory sub (4) below: If either def't or state fails to give notice to other re alibi w wits' name(s), etc., court MAY EXCLUDE testimony of any undisclosed witness, re the ALIBI-SPECIFIC portion of testimony.

So, exclusion of alibi-specific part of that wit's testimony is not automatic (IIUC, not saying I do).

Statutory sub (5) allows ct. to grant exceptions to reqmts of subs (1)- (4). Well, that is, for "good cause shown."

On my ^ interp, as always, welcoming clarification or correction. ICBW.

Also ---
Anybody wonder if BK plans to see how trial progresses, then (try to) insist his def. team pull an alibi rabbit out of a hat and along w it "good cause" for judge to grant exception re alibi wit's?


_____________________________________
* ID. Crim Rule on Alibi Defense Incorporates ID Statute by Reference

Idaho Criminal Rule 12.1. Notice of Alibi
If the defendant intends to rely on the defense of alibi, the defendant must comply with Idaho Code § 19-519.
(Adopted February 22, 2017, effective July 1, 2017.)

Idaho Code § 19-519
TITLE 19
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 5
COMPLAINT AND WARRANT OF ARREST
19-519. NOTICE OF DEFENSE OF ALIBI. (1) At any time after arraignment before a magistrate upon a complaint and upon written demand of the prosecuting attorney, the defendant shall serve, within ten (10) days or at such different time as the court may direct, upon the prosecuting attorney, a written notice of his intention to offer a defense of alibi. Such notice by the defendant shall state the specific place or places at which the defendant claims to have been at the time of the alleged offense and the names and addresses of the witnesses upon whom he intends to rely to establish such alibi.
(2) Within ten (10) days after receipt of the defendant’s notice of alibi but in no event less than ten (10) days before trial, unless the court otherwise directs, the prosecuting attorney shall serve upon the defendant or his attorney a written notice stating the names and addresses of the witnesses upon whom the prosecution intends to rely to establish the defendant’s presence at the scene of the alleged offense and any other witnesses to be relied on to rebut testimony of any of the defendant’s alibi witnesses.
(3) If prior to or during trial a party learns of an additional witness whose identity, if known, should have been included in the information furnished under subsection (1) or subsection (2) of this section, the party shall promptly notify the other party or his attorney of the existence and identity of such additional witness.
(4) Upon the failure of either party to comply with the requirements of this section, the court may exclude the testimony of any undisclosed witness offered by such party as to the defendant’s absence from or presence at, the scene of the alleged offense. This section shall not limit the right of the defendant to testify in his own behalf.
(5) For good cause shown the court may grant an exception to any of the requirements of subsections (1) through (4) of this section.
History:
[19-519, added 1978, ch. 301, sec. 1, p. 758.]
 
They have to stick to known facts, to get a psychologist to hypothesize is prejudicial to the jury.

His psychology is fair game if he goes to a Penalty Phase Trial though. Defense will have psychologists who testify so fair game for prosecution to do as well...2 cents
As far as trial proceedings go, I would guess that BK's family would not attend the trial but watch via Zoom. Do you foresee that the defense would follow what was done at Lori Vallow's trial, not call any witnesses but claim that the prosecution did not meet the beyond-a-reasonable doubt threshold? If the defense were to call witnesses, would they all be experts? I can't imagine the defense finding personal friends, family, etc. to testify on BK's behalf.
 
<modsnip - personalizing, rude>

BK has clearly giving them nothing to work with and they are stalling and flailing. On alibi day.... I wouldn't' be surprised if one or two of them ask to leave the defense team.
I don't see anybody jumping ship yet.

Many of the D motions seem like tricks, delays, or pure nonsense to me. BUT IMO Taylor might feel she is defending the constitution & the Idaho laws more than the person (BK). I doubt Taylor trusts any BS coming from BK at this point. AT is busy investigating the investigators; she's being the gatekeeper to make sure every piece of evidence is on the up-and-up. Just plain sad that we need these people. AT said when named Public Defender, 2017, "It's important to make sure Constitutional rights apply to everybody. You help people who are facing horrible times. I love the work." COEUR d'ALENE Press AT named county's public defender.

Recent thoughts: If a key witness has a credibility problem, improperly gathered evidence is used, or the state's expert reports have errors in them, the D could point any of these out & argue at trial that the prosecution hasn't met its burden of proof even if the defendant is in fact guilty. Perhaps AT is listening to BK who thinks he knows best & wants things pointed out/removed/discussed before trial so nothing faulty is presented/argued in front of a jury. ICBW Couldn't that actually backfire?

My guess is that: In the end Taylor only hopes to win a reduction of BK’s sentence to LWOP & the death penalty is taken off the table; BK has future plans for a need-new-counsel-play; Alibi deadline day will come & go without a peep.


As always, my speculation & moo
 
<modsnip - personalizing, rude>

BK has clearly giving them nothing to work with and they are stalling and flailing. On alibi day.... I wouldn't' be surprised if one or two of them ask to leave the defense team.
The defense is doing the job taxpayers pay them to do. I don't believe any member of the defense will quit their job over this case.

JMO
 
MOO no matter what "set" a murderer is a member of, others in that set do not murder.
MOO why one stressed domineering male murders and another does not, is a real mystery.

To me it's also a big mystery why BK is the at the beginning of his fall term practically intentionally blew his PhD.
I honestly think this was a 'thrill kill' for BK. He wanted to know what it felt like, who knows maybe he was going to use his experience for his Doctorate Thesis (in abstract of course). He certainly seemed determined the night of the murders.

His frustration and desires may have been building for years, this was really the first time BK was out on his own away from his parents with total anonymity.

ALL MOO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
161
Guests online
2,505
Total visitors
2,666

Forum statistics

Threads
599,874
Messages
18,100,605
Members
230,942
Latest member
Patturelli
Back
Top