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

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.
There are several states that do require notice to the Court if an alibi is going to be presented in addition to contesting the other evidence.
<snipped for focus>

There are 41 states, including Idaho, that have alibi notice rules that require the defense to notify the court by a specific deadline prior to trial if they are going to put forward an alibi defense. If the defense does not provide an alibi notice then the defense is not able to call witnesses and present the alibi defense, although in the state of Idaho, the defendant is not precluded from testifying to his/her alibi defense. Some states disallow the defendant from testifying with regard to the alibi defense if they have not notified the court or prosecution of their intent to do so by the deadline established by the court prior to trial.

The article linked below from the Chicago Law Review has an appendix that lists the states that have an alibi notice rule and whether or not the defense is sanctioned if they fail to meet the deadline, and if the sanction includes prohibiting testimony of witnesses and/or testimony from the defendant him/herself.

Note the article was published in 1984, so the 41 state reference could have changed or some of the legal issues involved in these states and their alibi notice rules may have changed. Note also that the federal courts have the alibi notice rule on which the state alibi notice rules mostly follow.



edited for typos
 
Last edited:
Do we know that he had access to a gun or am I missing something? Thanks.
One was taken from the house (in PA), but I don't think we know if it belonged to him, his parents or a sibling.

Number 4 a gun; Number 14 empty magazines

Full Document
 

Attachments

  • pa search.jpg
    pa search.jpg
    229.3 KB · Views: 6
Last edited:
One was taken from the house (in PA), but I don't think we know if it belonged to him, his parents or a sibling.

Number 4 a gun; Number 14 empty magazines

Full Document
Whenever I read the reports that he was running downstairs as the cops come in...I always wonder what he was running for. No, I don't think he was going to have a shootout with cops...
 
Whenever I read the reports that he was running downstairs as the cops come in...I always wonder what he was running for. No, I don't think he was going to have a shootout with cops...
I've wondered too, and I don't think it was for that reason either. With the sliding glass door down there, I'd think SWAT would have come into the house that way too. So possibly in thru the lower level; the slider on the main floor and the front and kitchen doors. No way was he getting out of there. Can't think he would have been concerned about having drugs or anything along those lines at that point. But maybe hoping to get rid of something else? The search warrant receipt is a bit sketchy about some items. MOO.
 
I've wondered too, and I don't think it was for that reason either. With the sliding glass door down there, I'd think SWAT would have come into the house that way too. So possibly in thru the lower level; the slider on the main floor and the front and kitchen doors. No way was he getting out of there. Can't think he would have been concerned about having drugs or anything along those lines at that point. But maybe hoping to get rid of something else? The search warrant receipt is a bit sketchy about some items. MOO.
Wondering what people normally do when there is a night entry into a home to make an arrest and the people inside are awake and hear that entry?
MOO
 
RE: Victim's Compensation Program
I also feel deeply for the victims' families in this matter. I imagine that they all would have needed to retain legal counsel, which would be costly (and unanticipated). Do they get any assistance for this?

IMO, the decision to provide what appears to be preferential treatment for BK is an outrage, and unjustified.

TIA anyone who can respond to my questions.
Snipped & BBM. ^^^ @jjleroche I mostly think about the victims & that thing called grief. Thank you for mentioning them.

In 1984 & amended 1988 Congress passed a federal law (Victims of Crimes Act VOCA) & established OVC (Office of Victims of Crime) & created the Crime Victims Fund, which provides funds to states for victim assistance and compensation programs that offer support and services to those affected by violent crimes.

Every state in the US has a Victim's Compensation Program (ID since 1986) to cover some financial costs for certain expenses after all other sources of payment have been exhausted (insurance, sick leave, restitution from the offender, employee assistance programs). Idaho only covers up to a maximum of $25,000 which can add up quickly for funeral, lawyer, mental health, wage loss to attend trials & appointments, etc. The prosecuting attorney’s office will assist in preparing a restitution statement to inform the judge of reimbursable expenses & enable the judge to determine & order the appropriate restitution. The Idaho victims were all over 18, legal age of consent, no longer minors. Generally it's parents of minors who are eligible but bc 18-21 & college students the victims were likely still dependents. We know JJJ notified BK of maximum restitution at his arraignment so I am assuming their families are covered.

Victim legal fees are not usually covered & come out of the victim's pocket unless a pro-bono arrangement is found. Victims working with the prosecution will often get their own lawyers to help guide them through the legal aspects of the case. The prosecutor's office has advocates who help victims file claims, steer victims to groups & organizations. The FBI teaches victim advocacy programs & have exceptional people assigned to victims if FBI is still working the case. Advocates can be involved with their victims for years, from event through trial and after.

At arraignment Judge JJ read the charges to BK & told him if found guilty BK's max. restitution was $20,000 to the families (each family IMO). JJJ asked BK if he understood the charges and the maximum penalties. BK answered "Yes." BK is indigent & therefore will not pay restitution owed if found guilty. That is when the victim's fund would kick in to cover eligible costs.


IDAHO CRIME VICTIMS COMPENSATION PROGRAM
Treatment eligible:
Payments for physician and hospital services, medicine, and other approved treatment
Mental health treatment
Counseling benefits for family members of victims
Wage loss
Dependent death benefits
Funeral expenses

Funding: Fines help pay for Victim Programs, not tax dollars:
Fines imposed as a result of felony and misdemeanor convictions
Misdemeanors: $37.00
Felonies: $75.00
Sex Offenses: $300.00
Judgments imposed on offenders
A federal grant; and
Restitution from offenders--judge informs offender of the exact amount when found guilty.
And there are private donors too.

VICTIM RIGHTS, COMPENSATION, AND ASSISTANCE. 34 U.S. Code Chapter 201

Hope this helps a little to understand compensation to victims.
JO and links.
 
She doesn’t want to outright point it out but I firmly believe BK will be there in jail reading every single paragraph trying to figure ways to elicit info to create doubt

Info I bet he set up on purpose to generate doubt and hence the need to murder that particular night whilst the info wd stick
 
Because Anne Taylor has stated that there is an alibi in court documents. Anne Taylor is not going to lie about that in a Court document. She has clarified that the alibi will come from prosecution witnesses on cross and also expert witnesses she or the prosecution will call. Further she has previously mentioned that the alibi may go into "protected information."

All JMO.
I don't understand how AT expects to set forth his alibi in that^^ manner, after they refused to follow the court's regulations concerning alibis.

https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4360&context=uclrev
There are 41 states, including Idaho, that have alibi notice rules that require the defense to notify the court by a specific deadline prior to trial if they are going to put forward an alibi defense.

If the defense does not provide an alibi notice then the defense is not able to call witnesses and present the alibi defense, although in the state of Idaho, the defendant is not precluded from testifying to his/her alibi defense.


So how is AT going to put forth BK's alibi, using cross, and expert witnesses? Doesn't that conflict with the court's 'alibi notice rules' ?
 
I don't understand how AT expects to set forth his alibi in that^^ manner, after they refused to follow the court's regulations concerning alibis.

https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4360&context=uclrev
There are 41 states, including Idaho, that have alibi notice rules that require the defense to notify the court by a specific deadline prior to trial if they are going to put forward an alibi defense.

If the defense does not provide an alibi notice then the defense is not able to call witnesses and present the alibi defense, although in the state of Idaho, the defendant is not precluded from testifying to his/her alibi defense.



So how is AT going to put forth BK's alibi, using cross, and expert witnesses? Doesn't that conflict with the court's 'alibi notice rules' ?
She plans to use BF to say she saw someone else, and make DM look unreliable, then use texts where the roommates speculated on what was going on ---
All to create doubt for one juror that BK is not the right person.
 
She plans to use BF to say she saw someone else, and make DM look unreliable, then use texts where the roommates speculated on what was going on ---
All to create doubt for one juror that BK is not the right person.
Maybe so, but that's not really an alibi. If BF did see someone else, and BK was not the killer, then why not tell the jurors what his alibi is? Where was he and what was he doing at that time of the morning?

Why try to eke out a vague version of an alibi using cross exam questions and the survivor's texts? Why not just directly tell the facts and spell out his alibi?
 
Maybe so, but that's not really an alibi. If BF did see someone else, and BK was not the killer, then why not tell the jurors what his alibi is? Where was he and what was he doing at that time of the morning?

Why try to eke out a vague version of an alibi using cross exam questions and the survivor's texts? Why not just directly tell the facts and spell out his alibi?
Scott Reisch theorized the defense is doing all this to waste the prosecutors court preparation time.
 
You promise them if they just comply that you’ll leave and let them live. Tidbits he picked up from that Reddit survey, I’m sure.

From there you can imagine it’s a devastating stab to one person, followed by quickly turning attention to the other person. Upstairs anyway…

Downstairs I suspect both of them fought like hell. My theory is he ran into Xana, mortally wounding her and chasing her down the hallway only to run into Ethan who was responding to the “there’s somebody here” and commotion. I think the “here to help” line is when he got back into Xanas room after dealing with Ethan.

IMO the coroners “killed in their sleeps” was BS from the get go. Bed, yes. For two of them. The other two retreated there. Again, IMO. Sleep, no.

MOO
I agree, @schooling.

Per the PCA, the words DM heard, "something to the effect of 'it's okay, I'm going to help you'", which I believe was said by the killer (IMO BK) to a victim (IMO Xana) right before he killed them when they were mortally wounded and suffering, have been used before by killers under the same or similar circumstances.

That kind of thing has been said in the murder/slasher fictional realm as well as having been said by a convicted serial killer in his confessions. Samuel Little: Confessions of a Killer | Federal Bureau of Investigation

IMO, BK being a student of psychology (community college), criminal justice (Master's program), and briefly criminology (PhD program) would have heard of it being said by killers before him. And he said it loud enough for DM to hear him, so it could have been intentional, to drop that phrase for a survivor to hear and retell.

All MOO.
 
Last edited:
I have no idea about this - it's pure speculation because none of us knows. But, for some reason I was thinking they were getting that info from PA LE. PA LE is not subject to the gag order. None of their warrant returns are sealed. They are all openly posted to the docket. WA too.

Speculation only
That sounds right. It's been alleged but I don't think we'll know one way or the other until trial.
 
IMO, reading between the lines, the support for the alibi already exists in the prosecution's discovery and the prosecution's witnesses. As I researched this case, I had some idea many months ago that this was going to happen. However, I always try to remain objective and the only side I am really on is that of the victims, their families and friends, so I set my earlier thoughts about this aside, hoping I was wrong, but now, it appears to be true. Sigh.
But, that's not a surprise is it? AT is going to put on the best defense she can, and it certainly looks like trying to wedge open any cracks in the case is her only way forward. Unless you're talking about something else altogether, I don't consider that an alibi. It also doesn't mean it will work, but it's clearly her job to try. MOOooo
 
The article says his own court appointed attorneys didn't bother to check his alibi, which not only goes against your earlier statement that one should only offer alibis to your attorney but it also indicates he had inadequate counsel. Bad things happen, clearly. But also clearly, this is not an example of why one should only give alibi's to your attorney. MOOooo
 
Because Anne Taylor has stated that there is an alibi in court documents. Anne Taylor is not going to lie about that in a Court document. She has clarified that the alibi will come from prosecution witnesses on cross and also expert witnesses she or the prosecution will call. Further she has previously mentioned that the alibi may go into "protected information."

All JMO.
What she actually said was: "Evidence corroborating Mr. Kohberger being at a location other than the King Road address will be disclosed pursuant to discovery and evidentiary rules as well as statutory requirements. It is anticipated this evidence may be offered by way of cross-examination of witnesses produced by the State as well as calling expert witnesses."

Maybe I'm putting too find a point on it, but she can use those rules and statutory requirements to not present an alibi and still not be lying. Her out is "anticipating that this evidence may" be offered by cross examination and expert witnesses. If the opportunity presents itself, great. If it doesn't, she hasn't lied. MOOooo
 
The article says his own court appointed attorneys didn't bother to check his alibi, which not only goes against your earlier statement that one should only offer alibis to your attorney but it also indicates he had inadequate counsel. Bad things happen, clearly. But also clearly, this is not an example of why one should only give alibi's to your attorney. MOOooo
His attorney did contact the couple he was staying with and they both gave testimony at his trial.

And even his own court-appointed attorneys failed to make contact with any of the alibi witnesses, save for the couple he was staying with.

While the couple did testify at Rosario’s trial, the trial prosecutor told jurors they were tainted by their close friendship with Rosario. He was convicted and sentenced to 25 years to life in prison.


MOO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
58
Guests online
1,618
Total visitors
1,676

Forum statistics

Threads
605,337
Messages
18,185,845
Members
233,318
Latest member
AR Sleuth
Back
Top