4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #86

[jepop]

Forgetting of course the minor detail that the defense delayed from the jump and the state acquiesced. He didn't enter a plea for 6 months and only did so when he was forced to by law. IMOO, he would not have proceeded to a pc hearing but instead, would have asked for another delay. The use of the GJ imo, was the State using the tools it had available in its legal toolbox to attempt to try and stop the constant delays and get the clock to start ticking.

The requests for stays still came. Once he was arraigned the focus shifted to attack the indictment. They are looking for time to search for grounds to challenge the indictment, delay the inevitable. Defense wants the judge to stay the proceedings while they search for a wrong, as opposed to filing a motion citing the wrong that would provide the grounds necessary for the judge to quash the indictment and grant a stay while a new GJ is empaneled. (Delay the case now for us Judge (again), and we'll give you the reasons later). Defense asked for the kitchen sink - when what they are entitled to is the GJ transcript. The Judge granted the defense request without them laying a basis (giving great deference to the defense once again imo) and now the defense is hoping to find problems with the way the GJ was empaneled. It doesn't know what they are yet, but they plan to find at least one.

Court said your motion is premature defense, but I'll give you 37 days more to get the materials even though your clients isn't waiving his right to a speedy trial and you can renew your motion if necessary at that time.

[From Motion to Reconsider] State says respectfully, judge, you can't do that. He can't halfway waive his right to a speedy trial by you extending this out 37 days without him waiving it. He either has to waive it, or it has to be set as scheduled with them renewing their motion prior to trial. ["The Idaho Supreme Court unambiguously rejected the notion that a defendant can partially, but not fully, waive his right to a speedy trial, explaining that “Section 19-3501 does not allow for such a limited waiver. Once the trial has been postponed, the six-month statutory period no longer applies."]

Besides, the motion to stay has no practical effect since Taylor can renew the motion when its ripe for consideration. And, "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."

Now from the document you cite above, Response to State's Motion to Reconsider defense says we don't want to waive our right to speedy trial and we can't be compelled to. However, we want you judge to extend his speedy trial right by 37 days.

Can't do this. Judge has to get the waiver and set the trial for a date 37 days out from October 2nd (or any time after that) or leave the trial date at October 2nd and have the defense make their motion later. This is cart before the horse. It is procedurally deficient.

As always, all jmo.

This is one of those cases where people are seeing things differently from both sides. So, I understand and respect your post. I just read it differently.

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/061523%20States%20Objection%20to%20Motion%20To%20Stay%20Proceedings.pdf

061323 Motion to Stay Proceedings.pdf

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/070723%20Order%20Staying%20Time%20for%20Speedy%20Trial.pdf

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/071723%20Motion%20to%20Reconsider%20Order%20Staying%20Time%20for%20Speedy%20Trial.pdf

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/072423%20Response%20to%20States%20Motion%20to%20Reconsider%20Order%20Staying%20Time%20for%20Speedy%20Trial.pdf

"Can't do this. Judge has to get the waiver and set the trial for a date 37 days out from October 2nd (or any time after that) or leave the trial date at October 2nd and have the defense make their motion later. This is cart before the horse. It is procedurally deficient."

Quoted from your post above. Precisely this Imo. That's the crux of the P's issues with the current Order to Stay Proceedings Imoo.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the D's recent response to State's motion to reconsider Order to Stay:
There is no need for the D to personalise against the P in their response and I agree with you and other's as to why the D is using a certain hyperbolic style in the pre-trial motions that are available for public consumption. It is to the Ps credit that their own motions continue to be informed, straightforward and styled respectfully. Moo

I also find it ironic that certain sections of the D's Objection to Protective Order (ostensibly re IGG testing of previously pulled single source DNA sample from sheath snap button, but muddied in with other points that are irrelevant to the P's motion for Protective Order) and this latest response to Ps Motion to Reconsider Order to Stay, remind me personally (but I believe the resemblance is quite noticeable in general) of the muddying and hyperbolic style of certain MSM reporting; reporting that the D objected to so strongly in its arguments against the lifting of the non-dissemination order. Moo.

*Idaho COI page is down again so unable to post link to eg of D's arguments against lifting/modification of non-dissemination order atm

EBM spelling x2

 

[girlhasnoname]

I agree. I don't see it being something that would help the state in it's case.

The jury may wonder why BK used a knife to kill multiple people when he had access to a gun. JMO.

I think the jury will plainly see that it would have been a massive blunder to use a loud gun to kill 4 people at approx 4:10 am when it is the quietest time on the street, especially when the victims were on different levels of the house.

Those houses and apartments are close together, gun shots would have drawn immediate attention and a call to 911 either by neighbors or by the others on 3 different floors. It's one thing to hear some unidentified noises in the house, but if the roommates had heard gun shots, they'd be dialing 911 as fast as possible.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

The State doesn't have a 'slight touch transfer' result from the sheath it was solid STR match:

• DNA found on a knife sheath was at least 5.37 octillion times more likely to be Kohberger’s than that of an unrelated member of the public, prosecutors said in a court filing last week. www.nbcnews.com › news › crime-courts

There's a reasonable explanation why no other DNA was found, BK was gloved, or double gloved up with cut resistant gloves. They sell them on Amazon all day long.

<snipped>

Why exactly do you need cut resistant gloves, and what specific tasks will you be using them for? Is it strictly for kitchen use and to prevent knife cuts, or maybe you handle metals and require something stronger. This is important is because all gloves are not the same; cut resistant gloves vary based on cut levels. There are 2 different types of cut level ratings/designations: ANSI and EN388. If you live in North America, the only rating you should be concerned about is ANSI. So what are ANSI cut levels in layman terms? Without going into too much detail, an ANSI cut level indicates the amount of grams required to cut through glove fabric when placed under a TDM 100 machine. There are a total of 9 ANSI cut levels; level 9 is for high cut hazards, and level 1 is for low cut hazards. Make sense? Below is a useful info graphic explaining this!
4 Of The Best Cut Resistant Gloves To Stop Pesky Knife Wounds! - Knife Sharpener Reviews

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

If this case goes to trial, what would be the strategy of a professional juror consultant hired by the DEFENSE? What type of juror would be an asset, what type would they want to avoid at all costs?

I've noticed you always start your posts with "If this case goes to trial", do you think it will not? I'm genuinely curious as to why you believe that? Do you think BK will try and make a plea?

 

[girlhasnoname]

Just ftr, and MOO, I have issues with the veracity of many of the defense team's filings. I find them to be disingenuous, at best, and I wish the judge would do something about it. I think the judge is afraid to do anything wrong in this case and risk an issue on appeal, and as a result, the defense is getting away with things they would ordinarily be shut down on.

I think the state did a good job of pointing this out quite well in some of their responses, particularly in their response to the motion to compel when they had to say Judge, their claim we have not been responsive is basically false (or disingenuous at best). We have provided them to date with thousands of pages of docs and endless terabytes of digital data, some items they have asked for have not yet been returned to us from the lab, and others, the defense knows she is not entitled to receive under the Idaho Criminal Rules.
(https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/051223 States Response to Defendants Motion to Compel Discovery.pdf)

I'm not trying to change your opinion. I'm responding only because you seem to be putting a lot of stock in their papers. I have the opposite opinion and have maintained it since their early filings. MOO is that motion to compel, like the many motions that have preceded it and have followed it, were done for public consumption - for people to spread the theory, taint the jury pool. To muddy the waters that were never muddied to start. To start far in advance to plant a seed of doubt. jmo Time will tell. Hopefully all the evidence they have will be admitted and then we can judge.

jmo

RBBM
Agreed. Not only disingenuous, but highly inflammatory bordering on derogation.

MOO

 

[Karin1974]

I know zero about the inner workings of a criminal case. I have some questions if anyone could respond. Let’s say BK is guilty, does AT really know he’s guilty, do defendants tell their lawyers yes I’m guilty, find me a way out of this? Would AT have said, okay, where were you & he actually offered up somewhere? Does AT not say, well your car was here, your phone was here, what’s your explanation or do they all just pretend he’s not guilty & go about their job looking for evidence they really know they won’t find? Sorry if these are dumb questions!

Edited to add another question.

 

[Megnut]

I agree. I don't see it being something that would help the state in it's case.

The jury may wonder why BK used a knife to kill multiple people when he had access to a gun. JMO.

He didn't want to awaken anyone.

A knife, wielded precisely, is efficient and silent.

I think he wanted to get in and get out undetected. After that, he privacy didn't much care. About much of anything.

JMO

 

[DizzyB]

He didn't want to awaken anyone.

A knife, wielded precisely, is efficient and silent.

I think he wanted to get in and get out undetected. After that, he privacy didn't much care. About much of anything.

JMO

I would like to know if he had ever broken into King Road before. Was it his intent to attack one person, or everyone, had he mapped out different plans based on who he encountered? How forthcoming has he been with his defense team about his life, whatever diagnoses he may have been given, what was happening with school.

 

[Maat99]

I know zero about the inner workings of a criminal case. I have some questions if anyone could respond. Let’s say BK is guilty, does AT really know he’s guilty, do defendants tell their lawyers yes I’m guilty, find me a way out of this? Would AT have said, okay, where were you & he actually offered up somewhere? Does AT not say, well your car was here, your phone was here, what’s your explanation or do they all just pretend he’s not guilty & go about their job looking for evidence they really know they won’t find? Sorry if these are dumb questions!

Edited to add another question.

Well she’s not an idiot. And she has seen all the evidence we have seen plus a lot more. So draw your own conclusions on if she knows he’s guilty! I’m sure she doesn’t dwell on it though because her job is to defend him regardless.

IANAL but maybe they don’t really discuss guilt or innocence at this stage - more like proven or unproven. And they look for issues with the evidence on that basis instead of pretending that the real killer is still on the loose.
With that said, I don’t think she can stop him from sticking to an implausible alibi (hello Alex Murdaugh), she can just advise him on how/when/if to air it out in front of the jury. But again IANAL - hopefully one will chime in.

 

[TL4S]

After these latest statements from AT, I'm sticking with the idea that BK tried to lay out an alibi for himself on the night of the murders. He knew about surveillance cameras and cell phone data, so if he's claiming he was somewhere else, maybe it's because he thinks his plan, whatever that was, worked.

Here's the thing, what if his alibi is believable? What becomes of the DNA evidence? It's problematic for him, but perhaps one juror will find reasonable doubt if the alibi story is good enough. Jmo.

 

[Emilie D]

Well she’s not an idiot. And she has seen all the evidence we have seen plus a lot more. So draw your own conclusions on if she knows he’s guilty! I’m sure she doesn’t dwell on it though because her job is to defend him regardless.

IANAL but maybe they don’t really discuss guilt or innocence at this stage - more like proven or unproven. And they look for issues with the evidence on that basis instead of pretending that the real killer is still on the loose.
With that said, I don’t think she can stop him from sticking to an implausible alibi (hello Alex Murdaugh), she can just advise him on how/when/if to air it out in front of the jury. But again IANAL - hopefully one will chime in.

I mean her whole entire job is to defend him, that's what she is paid for. A lot of times, I think they know or at least have a strong feeling of guilt but deciding guilt is not their job. It's not what you believe, it's all about what you can prove.

 

[Maat99]

After these latest statements from AT, I'm sticking with the idea that BK tried to lay out an alibi for himself on the night of the murders. He knew about surveillance cameras and cell phone data, so if he's claiming he was somewhere else, maybe it's because he thinks his plan, whatever that was, worked.

Here's the thing, what if his alibi is believable? What becomes of the DNA evidence? It's problematic for him, but perhaps one juror will find reasonable doubt if the alibi story is good enough. Jmo.

But why would he sit in jail for all these months if he had a believable alibi from the get go?

 

[TL4S]

But why would he sit in jail for all these months if he had a believable alibi from the get go?

Because he's yet to be able to prove it (probably because it's not real). AT claims the evidence of such will come later. Have they interviewed BF already? Supposedly she has exculpatory evidence. I'm just not sure any of us know enough details to have a good guess at what's happening behind the scenes. Jmo.

 

[Jurisprudence]

Its always possible to lose a case and the guilty walk free.
MOO its unlikely here.
BK is tied to the Elantra. The Elantra is tied to 1122 King St.
Bk is tied to the Kabar sheath, the sheath tied to the crime scene inside 1122 King Rd.

I agree. Though, it does depend on what if anything the defense is able to successfully suppress. The pc affidavit contained a lot of information. More than was/is necessary for an arrest warrant. MOO. It connected BK to the car, the car to the phone, and both to the house.

jmo

 

[wary]

Isn't that a double-edged sword if the defense then turns around and asks for a venue change?

They can’t get the venue changed to outside of Idaho!

MOO, since I’m not a lawyer.

 

[Jurisprudence]

His DNA on the sheath is evidence. His DNA is not on a notebook or a fast food bag or some random item, it's on the sheath of a fighting knife.

Because, ... he touched it. Unless it's not skin cells. Unless it's his blood. But, we have seen nothing to tell us this (not that we necessarily would). I have been under the impression that what they have is touch DNA, invisible to the naked eye, but this impression might be wrong. I don't think we know yet.

jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

<snipped for focus>

So the issue with transferred-touch DNA, would be that BK may have never touched the sheath. He may have touched a door knob to open a door, and the person who next went through the door (let's call him person X) and touched the same door knob could have BK's DNA on his hand. Then if person X touched his knife sheath, person X could transfer BK's DNA onto the sheath.

BK would never have needed to touch the sheath himself for his DNA to get there. This is what these experts are saying, although not using BK's case as an example, but other cases with similar examples. They are saying that if a DNA sample is small enough, it could place a person in a place where he never went, and have his DNA on an object that he never touched.

Good article to explain transfer-touch DNA.

Yes. I think this will be their argument. I don't think it will get suppressed. And, I suspect they will bring in a DNA expert to make this point and force the state's expert on the stand during cross to admit this point. I think like many posters here, it will fail in face of other evidence they have if all other evidence they have gets in. Because again, you're not proving beyond any hypothetical possibility or doubt whatsoever. Rather, the doubt must be "reasonable".

jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

Don't count the defense out yet.

We have a long way to go. Including jury selection which can make or break a case. JMO.

It only takes one. MOO

 

[maskedwoman]

Exactly this. Alibi by inference.

They are building the case for their opening statement.

IMO they will cross-examine certain prosecution experts, hoping for the dramatic aha moment where the expert concedes, " yes, it's possible the phone could have been anywhere in this wider sector. Yes, there's cellular draft impacting where a phone really is and where it thinks it is. Can touch DNA have been transfered, a long time ago? Just because it's on a sheath now, doesn't mean it just got there, right? IMO the defense will attempt to raise doubt piece by piece, and string it all together again at closing argument, in attempt to suggest the Prosecution's case is built on a heap of unscientific supposes....

(Even though it's their supposes which are the unscientifickest.)

He's got good counsel. They're doing exactly what one would expect, when a defense has no defense.

BK was never anywhere else. He won't have an actual alibi, linking him to a real other place. What they have is: if his DNA could've gotten there another way, if his vehicle could've been mistaken, if the sleepy roommate was mistaken, if the cellar data is sketchy, if you can't prove he was there, then it's reasonable to conclude he could've been elsewhere.

Flawed.

But the beauty of all of this is that the defense would mount a stronger countercase if they could. This is all they've got. Smoke, mirrors and the walnutshell game.

JMO

Fantastic post!! I wanted a whistle and heck yeah response button for that one.

 

[Jurisprudence]

They probably will want someone who may have had negative experiences with LE and the justice system and therefore will take a hard look at the states case.

They would probably try to exclude people who have been a victim of crime or are close to a crime victim.

JMO.

And, who are against the DP. Also lawyers, anyone who has a family in LE, etc. MOO