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

[Rumination1]

Isn't it possible that the D is going by whatever story BK is telling them? Whether they believe it or have proof of it is entirely insignificant if he has told them a consistent story and is sticking to it. They can try to persuade him toward a different strategy, but if he insists he was somewhere else and wants to use that as his defense, they might just be doing their best to make their case.

If his "alibi" was something that's difficult to prove, AT is not going to throw that out there with no proof and expect him to be freed. She would have to assume (hope) there might be evidence of his story somewhere in the discovery, or via a witness. What else can she do if that is the strategy he insists on? They are still giving competent defense if behind the scenes they are warning him about the risky outcome of such a strategy. Again...the Mollie Tibbetts fiasco trial comes to mind. JMO.

Thats my point
She has ascertained there’s enough in the testimony of a Certain witness to create reasonable doubt it was him

It may have been him but she thinks there’s enough to get him off

 

[Jurisprudence]

<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.

https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4360&context=uclrev

edited for typos

This is great. Thanks!

 

[Jurisprudence]

BK was determined by the courts to be eligible for a public defender. Because his case was determined to be death-eligible, the state required that his public defender be a death-penalty qualified attorney. And the state requires that in a death-eligible case, that a co-counsel from the public defender's office be assigned to the case, so two death-penalty qualified public attorneys are assigned by the state to a death-eligible case in the state of Idaho.

How do we know that BK received preferential treatment in this regard? Do we know that there were other defendants at the same time as this case went forward who were eligible for a public defender in a death-eligible case and were denied death-penalty qualified public attorneys in the state of Idaho?


edited for typo

Do you have a link to how his indigent eligibility was decided or a statute mandating this bc it is a DP case? I would be very interested to see it.
Thanks!

 

[TL4S]

For the D to represent that BK has an alibi/alibi defense and even seek an extension of the same is IMO disingenuous. To suggest one will be presented at trial, vis-a-vis the experts and witnesses is IMO a dodge. It denies the Prosecution the proper notice to investigate his claim and prepare their case accordingly.

From this, I conclude that he has no alibi and what his defense plans to attempt to do is challenge eyewitness and expert (digital/forensic) testimony to wiggle open the possibility that his car, his phone, his knife, his eyebrows and his self weren't there. And if there's a teensy tiny possibility all the data points could be a tiny bit off, then he could've been elsewhere. Like an inverse alibi or something. There's not IMO a different place BK was at.

I draw one other conclusion, MOO-- whilst I believe BK is capable of participating in his own defense, I think he is not actually participating. I extrapolate from what I believe to be true about his interactions with people in general and women, in specific. I don't think BK, by nature, plays well with others, especially IMO women. Play, work, relate. I think he largely remains silent in the company of his attorneys because there's great power in that. As well, selself-control. And I happen to think BK lives within a very fixed framework of control.

I don't think he particularly cares about the outcome of a trial. Murder didn't make him suddenly more sociable, more personable, more integrated and associating.

He's a watcher IMO and he's watching.

JMO

You make a lot of good points, but I think there are other ways to look at those same points. All guessing, of course.

The D not divulging BK's alibi might indeed deny the P the opportunity to investigate that claim, but if there's nothing to investigate, because the evidence (like DNA) strongly places him on scene, it isn't really of any benefit to the D to be disingenuous or dodgy. It'll all come out at trial, and that wouldn't be a good look to the jury, IMO.

And if BK's interactions with women are as we've heard, I see no reason for him to sit quietly by while lowly women build his entire defense. They are representing him, in the end. That's where I see him insisting on something (like maybe this "alibi") being used, despite AT possibly advising him against it. If he is respectful of his attorney(s), regardless of gender, then who knows. They have the evidence, we don't.

Personally, I do think he cares about the outcome of the trial. I don't think he sees this as a game being played on a screen before him, but, maybe he does. I don't understand the mind of someone like that. Either way, he cared enough to be careful both before and well after the murders. JMO.

 

[Jurisprudence]

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.

I'm with you 100% here @Boxer. I think this is at least part of the game plan. The other part being expert testimony, getting them to agree other scenarios are possible. On the first part, pca tells us LE downloaded their phones. If texts reveal they were eventually in the room together AT could possibly argue "If DM is downstairs in BF's room, how could she possibly be upstairs to Identify BK" or it could be the frat guys leaving the house that I believe immo were likely the peple picked up on the officer's body cam. But with respect to these attacks on evidence I am guessing her timing will not line up.

In other words, both things could be true. DM could have seen BK and after he left ran down into the room with BF. BF could have seen frat guys outside who DM told to be quiet and who then left, but it might have been well before the time of the crimes (at 3 am (the time LE was ticketing the kids at Band Field)).

jmo

 

[Cool Cats]

Do you have a link to how his indigent eligibility was decided or a statute mandating this bc it is a DP case? I would be very interested to see it.
Thanks!

I.C.R. 44.3. Standards for the Qualification of Appointed Counsel in Capital Cases. | Supreme Court

isc.idaho.gov

Rule 44.3. Standards for the Qualification of Appointed Counsel in Capital Cases

(a) Applicability. The provisions for the appointment of counsel in this rule apply only in cases where (1) the defendant is needy, as defined in Idaho Code § 19-851 et seq., (2) counsel is not privately retained by or for the defendant, and (3) the death penalty may be or has been imposed on the defendant.

(b) Number of Attorneys Per Case.

In a case in which the death penalty may be imposed:

(1) At the initial appearance in the magistrate division, an attorney with experience representing defendants in felony cases and selected from the Idaho State Public Defense Commission Public Defense Roster must be appointed to represent an indigent defendant.

(2) Within fourteen days of the initial appearance in the magistrate division, or in the district court on an indictment, two qualified trial attorneys must be appointed to represent an indigent defendant.

(3) One appointed attorney must be designated "lead counsel" and the second as "co-counsel."

(c) Attorney Qualifications. Attorneys appointed pursuant to Idaho Criminal Rules 44.2(a) and 44.3(b)(2) must be selected from the Idaho State Public Defense Commission Capital Defending Attorney Roster.

(Adopted January 26, 2022, effective February 1, 2022; amended June 8, 2022, July 1, 2022.)

 

[Jurisprudence]

I've pondered this as well, all along...

Since BK was arrested and his PA PD said he seemed "calm".

When he didn't declare his innocence outright or give an alibi to LE or his PD.

When his PA PD said "He called the charges "a little out of character.... He said this is not him. He believes he's going to be exonerated. That's what he believes, those were his words.". Public defender says Idaho murder suspect is ‘calm,’ believes he’ll be exonerated: ‘This is not him’

IMO, there couldn't have been a more carefully worded 'non response' for an accused quadruple murderer to say after being arrested and taken into custody.

Then the standing silent/no active plea when he was requested to state his plea in court, which he didn't do, but still got a default one (not guilty plea entered by the court instead of him).

None of that added up to anything concrete in terms of an alibi, IMO.

And since the beginning, if true (I realize it's not proven and there is no source, so MOO) that he asked LEOs who arrested him if they had arrested anyone else, that implied to me he knew someone else had some some knowledge of the lead up to and/or commission of the murders.

Not necessarily an accomplice but more of an aider and/or abetter.

Whom will "show up" in some way in the evidence/data collected by LE during their investigation.

Whom he set up to take some blame or deflect from him doing everything himself.

Or with whom he arranged some squirrelly ruse to have some itsy bitsy piece of evidence planted, which probably can't be proven as 100% true, as to where he was or wasn't during the timeframe of their murders.

For example:

"Jane Doe was on a messageboard/online forum with me from 3:45 am to 4:30 am on November 13th, and the forum will have a record of my messages with time/date stamp, and the IP address of my computer/device I was using, and there will be retrievable(?) data on me accessing wifi or celltower data during that time, and it will show it (the device) was located in Pullman at the time."

And his former PD said this 2 1/2 months ago, that he doesn't expect BK's "stance" to change (BBM):

"With the news of suspected killer Bryan Kohberger's recent Grand Jury indictment, Monroe County public defender Jason LaBar says he doesn't think it changes anything for his former client, who said he was eager to get back to Idaho to be exonerated.

"This indictment is really just the formal charging instrument against Bryan. It's just formalizing the allegations. Idaho will still have to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, so I think his stance would remain the same," LaBar said."

Grand Jury indicts Kohberger: Public defender talks about former client

All MOO

Good points. Because, imoo, I don't think the possibility that he did not act alone and there was a potential co-conspirator can be dismissed until we learn the evidence at trial (I personally don't think this will be the case, but who knows). However, if there was a co-conspirator I would have to think that co-conspirator is now deceased or LE would 1) have that co-conspirator in custody, or 2) have a manhunt ongoing to locate that person. But, if there was a co-conspirator involved who is not able to be tried bc that co-conspirator is now deceased and unable to defend his or her self, it wouldn't matter with respect to this defendant's case bc this defendant is being charged with his alleged actions in these crimes, not of the actions of any co-conspirator if one should even exist if this makes sense.

All jmo

 

[Sundog]

Do you have a link to how his indigent eligibility was decided or a statute mandating this bc it is a DP case? I would be very interested to see it.
Thanks!

During BK's first court appearance in Latah County, following his extradition from Pennsylvania, the judge stated:

" I do find that you are indigent and you qualify for a court-appointed counsel. I will appoint Ms. Taylor to represent you in this case."

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=709631344212579

 

[Jurisprudence]

I.C.R. 44.3. Standards for the Qualification of Appointed Counsel in Capital Cases. | Supreme Court

isc.idaho.gov

Rule 44.3. Standards for the Qualification of Appointed Counsel in Capital Cases

(a) Applicability. The provisions for the appointment of counsel in this rule apply only in cases where (1) the defendant is needy, as defined in Idaho Code § 19-851 et seq., (2) counsel is not privately retained by or for the defendant, and (3) the death penalty may be or has been imposed on the defendant.

(b) Number of Attorneys Per Case.

In a case in which the death penalty may be imposed:

(1) At the initial appearance in the magistrate division, an attorney with experience representing defendants in felony cases and selected from the Idaho State Public Defense Commission Public Defense Roster must be appointed to represent an indigent defendant.

(2) Within fourteen days of the initial appearance in the magistrate division, or in the district court on an indictment, two qualified trial attorneys must be appointed to represent an indigent defendant.

(3) One appointed attorney must be designated "lead counsel" and the second as "co-counsel."

(c) Attorney Qualifications. Attorneys appointed pursuant to Idaho Criminal Rules 44.2(a) and 44.3(b)(2) must be selected from the Idaho State Public Defense Commission Capital Defending Attorney Roster.

(Adopted January 26, 2022, effective February 1, 2022; amended June 8, 2022, July 1, 2022.)

Thank you. Maybe I read your post wrong. I thought your post said he received publicly funded counsel because he was facing the DP. That's not what this statute states so perhaps I read your post wrong.

 

[Jurisprudence]

You make a lot of good points, but I think there are other ways to look at those same points. All guessing, of course.

The D not divulging BK's alibi might indeed deny the P the opportunity to investigate that claim, but if there's nothing to investigate, because the evidence (like DNA) strongly places him on scene, it isn't really of any benefit to the D to be disingenuous or dodgy. It'll all come out at trial, and that wouldn't be a good look to the jury, IMO.

And if BK's interactions with women are as we've heard, I see no reason for him to sit quietly by while lowly women build his entire defense. They are representing him, in the end. That's where I see him insisting on something (like maybe this "alibi") being used, despite AT possibly advising him against it. If he is respectful of his attorney(s), regardless of gender, then who knows. They have the evidence, we don't.

Personally, I do think he cares about the outcome of the trial. I don't think he sees this as a game being played on a screen before him, but, maybe he does. I don't understand the mind of someone like that. Either way, he cared enough to be careful both before and well after the murders. JMO.

With hope to confuse the jury maybe?

MOO

 

[maskedwoman]

Do you have a link to how his indigent eligibility was decided or a statute mandating this bc it is a DP case? I would be very interested to see it.
Thanks!

I found this:

Section 19-854 – Idaho State Legislature

legislature.idaho.gov

 

[Cool Cats]

Thank you. Maybe I read your post wrong. I thought your post said he received publicly funded counsel because he was facing the DP. That's not what this statute states so perhaps I read your post wrong.

Wasn't my post but all indigent defendants in the US are provided public defenders in criminal cases whether DP or not. The DP cases need the DP attorneys.

These attorneys can come from the public defender's office or they can be private attorneys who accept State funding.

 

[Balthazar]

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...

My guess would be that he was doing what a lot of us would do if strangers suddenly burst into our house in the middle of the night and was running for safety - either a room he could lock or a door to the outside to try to get away from them.

 

[10ofRods]

Thank you. Maybe I read your post wrong. I thought your post said he received publicly funded counsel because he was facing the DP. That's not what this statute states so perhaps I read your post wrong.

I read it as he is indigent AND in a DP case. The indigent criteria are cited in that post and it's the usual, of course.

He gets three attorneys and a fund because it's a DP case. (I know you know this, just kind of mulling it over, myself). The rest of this post is just riffing off what the two of you are discussing/related issues.

We already know from AT's situation that when she was representing other clients, she had many clients at once and hadn't even seen all of them yet (or at all, apparently). That's pretty standard for indigent clients. Most are standing in a queue waiting for next available lawyer (which where I live means that they often meet their lawyer the first time at their first court appearance - having had a teleconference or something in advance; they aren't guaranteed to have the same lawyer each time, either). This is not surprising, since obviously a DP case requires representation that can withstand higher court scrutiny - which I believe to be just.

I'd assume it's similar in most Western states, especially ones with lots of rural territory.


IMO.

 

[Boxer]

I can kind of picture that. Let's say that somewhere in all those files, there's a video of a white Elantra somewhere in Moscow passing a gas station, timestamped 4:15. No license plates can be seen, driver is male but obscure.

Defense will claim that this is Kohberger's Elantra - and that another Elantra was at 1122 King. The fact that the phone data doesn't lead directly to 1122 King will be used.

The timestamps at any particular surveillance camera can be way off, this could be advantageous to the Defense.

So basically, that would be admitting, "Yeah, I was awake and drove through Moscow, but it was not MY Elantra at 1122 King Road." They don't have to try and explain away all the evidence to form an alibi.

It's a weak alibi, of course. There will be no big time expert pointing this out - there will be at least one expert on surveillance cameras, I expect. It doesn't explain why he was in Moscow. It's vague. It doesn't explain why he drove such a long way home that night or why he came back to the house (with his phone) the next morning.

And it doesn't explain the DNA. The rest of that, they just have to get their BB gun and keep shooting holes.

IMO.

Right. BBs can kill hit the right spot at close range at by repeated hitting same spot. They can wound more easily.
Motions to dismiss, other motions and alibi footsie are the equivalent checking in hockey, wearing your opponent down by repeatedly hitting them, I wish to see some calls from the bench but if that is lacking to see some hitting back from the prosecutor.

 

[Idaho transplant]

Either I’m losing my mind (entirely possible) or you linked to Newsweek rather than an Idaho Statesman article?

TIA

It was Newsweek that originally printed the article, the Statesman "borrowed" it.

And now, today, the Press Tribune piggy-backed on to an article from a northern Idaho newspaper.

Kohberger's team seeks indictment dismissal

An attorney for Bryan Kohberger is asking the Latah County District judge to dismiss the grand jury indictment that led to the quadruple murder suspect’s arraignment.

www.idahopress.com

It seem that the defense is receiving favorable press, despite the gag order.

 

[Balthazar]

MOO? IMO? Link?

I believe that US citizens know or should know that if they are being accused of a crime they should not speak to LE about ANYTHING but instead should ask to speak to an attorney, therefore, the first person they should talk to about their alibi, IS their attorney, not LE. This is well-established US law, so it is not anyone's opinion, it is fact. But, as far as a link, the 5th and 6th Amendments of the US Constitution. The Amendments | Constitution Center

 

[Idaho transplant]

I have a question regarding the judge's knowledge of the evidence. Does he have a gist of what the prosecutor's evidence is; was he privy to the grand jury's indictment; or, does he hear the evidence for the first time when it is presented in court?

If he doesn't have any pre-knowledge relative to the trial, is he only making judgements now based on procedure/law, i.e., the defense and prosecution motions regarding the alibi and GJ?

I could understand why a judge would not be given any pre-trial evidence if he were deciding the case (versus a jury) but it seems ironic that the prosecution and defense are in the know and he doesn't, but he is at the top of the pyramid.

 

[10ofRods]

My guess would be that he was doing what a lot of us would do if strangers suddenly burst into our house in the middle of the night and was running for safety - either a room he could lock or a door to the outside to try to get away from them.

You don't think he knew that he was a suspect?

I think since he drove a white Elantra, even if he isn't the murderer, he surely must have thought about it. He's alleged to be very bright. He has a master's in criminal justice. Then he gets stopped twice in Indiana (and to me, looks seriously and intensely bothered at the time). He's putting things in the neighbor's trash (which I suppose an innocent person might do if they thought they were a suspect). I think he was worried. If innocent, he would be worried anyway. Surely he isn't that unaware of what goes on around him? There's a massive hunt for a white Elantra (sure, slightly different year announced, but still, if I drove any form of white Elantra, and lived in the area, I'd be thinking everyone was expecting me to contact police and suspecting me of murder). I don't think I'm alone in that.

If he did do it, then of course he knew what was happening.

But even if not, I doubt he thought this was a random break-in out in the middle of "the woods" in the Poconos, not when he was feeling anxious enough about his trash that he had to baggie it and carry it next door. I know people keep proposing good reasons for this behavior, but even his one sister was apparently suspicious. While his juvenile record had been expunged, since he was an MA in criminal justice, he knew they'd start running all white Elantras against the FBI's database at some point using names of all Elantra owners in the immediate reason (and they'd find minor convictions even though unexpunged - like his stealing of his sister's phone and selling it). They might even find evidence of his former treatment for heroin addiction. He surely knew that in a case like this, a list of some 200 suspects might include him (just as Joe DeAngelo was aware, and kept moving and changing his MO and then somehow apparently stopped being a serial killer).

He also knew he was in trouble with his prof, that his university was ejecting him, and since his prof was a criminologist, surely he wondered if that prof might not speak to police about him? Most profs I know, criminal justice or not, will reach out to at least campus police if they suspect someone of a major crime. We're actually trained to do that - and the police are professionals who take it from there. Most campus police are trained to be fair and tolerant toward students, so it's not like starting a witch hunt.

He's smart enough to know that he was a suspect. And he knew he had a missing sheath with his DNA on it, somewhere (no matter how it got there, I believe he knew about the sheath and had interacted with the sheath).

IMO.

 

[Cool Cats]

I have a question regarding the judge's knowledge of the evidence. Does he have a gist of what the prosecutor's evidence is; was he privy to the grand jury's indictment; or, does he hear the evidence for the first time when it is presented in court?

If he doesn't have any pre-knowledge relative to the trial, is he only making judgements now based on procedure/law, i.e., the defense and prosecution motions regarding the alibi and GJ?

I could understand why a judge would not be given any pre-trial evidence if he were deciding the case (versus a jury) but it seems ironic that the prosecution and defense are in the know and he doesn't, but he is at the top of the pyramid.

Latah County Magistrate Court Judge Megan Marshall was Kohberger's judge until Kohberger was indicted. Once BK was indicted his case moved to Latah County District Court where Judge John C Judge took over.

Judge John C Judge was not the judge on the case when the GJ was convened.

Grand Juries have their own separate judge.

Judge Judge has access to the evidence and would need it to make decisions for some of the Motions.

2 Cents