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

[Jurisprudence]

Linked to the house ?

PCA p. 16

"After consulting with CAST SA, I was able to determine estimated locations for the 8458 Phone from
June 2022 to present, the time period authorized by the court.

The records for the 8458 Phone show the 8458 Phone utilizing cellular resources that provide coverage to the area of 1122 King Road on at least twelve occasions prior to November 13,2022. All of these occasions, except for one, occurred in the late evening and early morning hours of their respective days."

PCA

MOO (I'm expecting the defense will challenge the accuracy of the FBI CAST mapping)

jmo

 

[maconrich]

PCA p. 16

"After consulting with CAST SA, I was able to determine estimated locations for the 8458 Phone from
June 2022 to present, the time period authorized by the court.

The records for the 8458 Phone show the 8458 Phone utilizing cellular resources that provide coverage to the area of 1122 King Road on at least twelve occasions prior to November 13,2022. All of these occasions, except for one, occurred in the late evening and early morning hours of their respective days."

PCA

MOO (I'm expecting the defense will challenge the accuracy of the FBI CAST mapping)

jmo

It's controversial, so it wouldn't surprise me at all if it's challenged. All MOO since no links.

 

[schooling]

It's controversial, so it wouldn't surprise me at all if it's challenged. All MOO since no links.

They can challenge it. But I doubt it will amount to anything.

The Adnan Syed trial and the overturning of his conviction seems to be fueling a lot of this cellular triangulation data admissibility talk. Like Adnan’s trial is some sort of bellwether for cellular. But that case is completely different from this one.

Back then there wasn’t a prevalence of data going back and forth between tower and phone. Cellular data was extremely slow. Cellular internet sucked as everything was a WAP text site. SMS was still fairly new. There was no App Store. So what LE & prosecutors could get from AT&T was explicitly tied to phone calls. And if I recall correctly accuracy depended on outgoing calls only.

Today. None of those limitations are there. Your phone is in constant communication with cellular towers. And if you’re in an area that’s dense enough with towers. They can put you on a street block within a few meters.

Of course, Pullman and Moscow’s tower coverage is fairly limited. But the great thing is that the towers are spread out enough that him being in one location or another becomes an impossibility. Deep into Moscow there is no way he’s going to hit a Pullman tower and vice versa.

So in summary. People are still using the 90s and early 2000s examples to frame cellular triangulation data. When in fact the technology has jumped leaps and bounds. IMO the chances of the cellular evidence being successfully challenged and dismissed are 0.

Edit: for the record. If prosecutors only had the cellular evidence. And didn’t have the supporting video evidence that aligns to it. It would be a lot easier for jurors to dismiss that piece of evidence. Or for the judge to block it (still don’t think they would).

But the video just confirms the cellular evidence IMO. With the cherries on top being

1) the cellular and video lining up at the grocery store next day in broad daylight with BK coming out of the car

2) the cellular and toll booth pictures, and PA home address all lining up to the same number same car.

 

[MyBelle]

PCA p. 16

"After consulting with CAST SA, I was able to determine estimated locations for the 8458 Phone from
June 2022 to present, the time period authorized by the court.

The records for the 8458 Phone show the 8458 Phone utilizing cellular resources that provide coverage to the area of 1122 King Road on at least twelve occasions prior to November 13,2022. All of these occasions, except for one, occurred in the late evening and early morning hours of their respective days."

PCA

MOO (I'm expecting the defense will challenge the accuracy of the FBI CAST mapping)

jmo

I doubt the jury will not believe the testimony of the expert witness.

JMO

 

[jepop]

The state has no choice, IMO, but to make it clear that they don't consider the defense's "alibi notice" a valid alibi notice as defined by Idaho Code. The state needs to make it clear that they do not consider it valid and that if the judge doesn't compel the defense to file a valid alibi notice according to the requirements as they see it as laid out in the Idaho Code, then the state is going to prohibit any alibi witnesses for the defense during the trial. The state wants to make sure that this is in writing and that the defense is given notice so that it is understood and on record. All important for later issues on appeal.

What did surprise me about the state's Motion to Compel Notice of Alibi Defense was the statement that if the defense does not offer what the state considers to be a valid alibi defense, then the state will ask the Court to prohibit the defense from presenting any evidence by direct OR CROSS EXAMINATION in support of any alibi defense. I don't see anything in the Idaho Code that prohibits the defense from cross examination of the state's witnesses in support of a defendant's alibi. Only that the defense cannot call alibi witnesses as evidence if they miss the deadline to file an alibi defense which would include names of witnesses for the defense.

Alternatively, the State prays for an order of this Court pursuant to Idaho Code § 19- 519( 4) prohibiting the Defendant from presenting any evidence, whether by direct or cross examination, in support of any claimed alibi other than from the Defendant himself.


IANAL, JMO
Bolded and underline BM

edited by me for clarity

I forget to say in my other post that testimony supporting an alibi elicited in cross examination may only be mentioned in State's motion because the D has contended that is their intention or a possibility.Moo

 

[Sundog]

I forget to say in my other post that testimony supporting an alibi elicited in cross examination may only be mentioned in State's motion because the D has contended that is their intention or a possibility.Moo

I agree, but the Idaho Code says nothing about prohibiting cross-examination of witnesses called by the state as a sanction related to failure to file an alibi defense by the deadline provided.

IANAL, but it sounds to me like it could be overreach by the prosecution. I don't think the judge will accept that, because I think that a sanction imposed on the defense that would prohibit the defense from cross examination of the state's witnesses would be grounds for appeal. But I guess we shall see later in August when the judge hears the Motion to Compel filed by the state.

 

[jepop]

I agree, but the Idaho Code says nothing about prohibiting cross-examination of witnesses called by the state as a sanction related to failure to file an alibi defense by the deadline provided.

IANAL, but it sounds to me like it could be overreach by the prosecution. I don't think the judge will accept that, because I think that a sanction imposed on the defense that would prohibit the defense from cross examination of the state's witnesses would be grounds for appeal. But I guess we shall see later in August when the judge hears the Motion to Compel filed by the state.

We'll have to wait and see. I don't think the P means that the D be prohibited from cross examining the state's witnesses. I think they are asking that the D be prohibited from a line of cross examination that explicitly seeks testimony in support of "claimed alibi". It could get tricky if what the D ultimately intends is for BK to get on the stand and make the claim then for the testimony in support of the alibi to somehow be elicited or partially from cross examination. That's the problem because the D has not yet given the state any information about the alibi even though under ICRS the time is up and the D asked for that extension of time with the implication they were going to do so.Moo. The state needs clarity of this whole obfustcating situation,Imo and that seems a fair call.

 

[gremlin444]

One would imagine that someone who struggles with this visual interference situation would not be best suited to creeping around people's homes in the small hours in the first place. It really does require a lot of leaps in my comprehension, not in any way suspecting BK is innocent just trying to imagine what he was thinking of, or not. It's quite a setback to know you're visually challenged in such a way, surely.

My 20 yo with VSS sees much better at night--bright sunlight makes his VSS much worse and more apparent.

 

[Ksfarmer8]

Cowardly and deranged to ambush folks in bed.

He had to know how to get in, that is the first order of business.

I believe he stalked the house on his early morning/late night forays and specifically checked the 2 accessable doors to see if they were left unlocked.

By going several times he could ascertain
that one of the doors was consistently left unlocked.

I believe this is what he did, even creeping into the house getting familiar with getting in and out quickly.

Cut to save space

Agreed! I would bet the farm that he had been inside the house prior to the murders and probably more than once. May have been someone else but the evidence sure is not in BK's favor. JMO

 

[Boxer]

nt
F

They can challenge it. But I doubt it will amount to anything.

The Adnan Syed trial and the overturning of his conviction seems to be fueling a lot of this cellular triangulation data admissibility talk. Like Adnan’s trial is some sort of bellwether for cellular. But that case is completely different from this one.

Back then there wasn’t a prevalence of data going back and forth between tower and phone. Cellular data was extremely slow. Cellular internet sucked as everything was a WAP text site. SMS was still fairly new. There was no App Store. So what LE & prosecutors could get from AT&T was explicitly tied to phone calls. And if I recall correctly accuracy depended on outgoing calls only.

Today. None of those limitations are there. Your phone is in constant communication with cellular towers. And if you’re in an area that’s dense enough with towers. They can put you on a street block within a few meters.

Of course, Pullman and Moscow’s tower coverage is fairly limited. But the great thing is that the towers are spread out enough that him being in one location or another becomes an impossibility. Deep into Moscow there is no way he’s going to hit a Pullman tower and vice versa.

So in summary. People are still using the 90s and early 2000s examples to frame cellular triangulation data. When in fact the technology has jumped leaps and bounds. IMO the chances of the cellular evidence being successfully challenged and dismissed are 0.

Edit: for the record. If prosecutors only had the cellular evidence. And didn’t have the supporting video evidence that aligns to it. It would be a lot easier for jurors to dismiss that piece of evidence. Or for the judge to block it (still don’t think they would).

But the video just confirms the cellular evidence IMO. With the cherries on top being

1) the cellular and video lining up at the grocery store next day in broad daylight with BK coming out of the car

2) the cellular and toll booth pictures, and PA home address all lining up to the same number same car.

Agree.
MOO AT will try something from the Iris Eytan playbook, and question the FBI CAST expert in terminology of a CAST program the FBI does not use.

 

[kittythehare]

nt
F

Agree.
MOO AT will try something from the Iris Eytan playbook, and question the FBI CAST expert in terminology of a CAST program the FBI does not use.

Offering an alibi is one form of criminal defense that argues the suspect was somewhere else at the time of the incident with evidence, including possible witness testimony. It “indicates a line of proof by which the defendant attempts to show that he could not have committed the crime of which he is accused because he was elsewhere at the time,” Taylor wrote, referencing a legal definition.

Read more at: https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/crime/article277634138.html#storylink=cpy

Kohberger’s team of public defenders had until Monday to file the document. They issued the notice to the court near the close of business to meet the deadline.

Read more at: https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/crime/article277634138.html#storylink=cpy

“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,” Taylor wrote. “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.”

Read more at: https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/crime/article277634138.html#storylink=cpy


zzzzzzzzzz

 

[katydid23]

MOO This MOTION TO COMPEL "NOTICE OF DEFENSE OF ALIBI is good. State says defense didn't comply so we request the court order the defense to either tell us

" 1. The specific place or places at which the Defendant claims to have been at the time of the burglary and homicides in this case, and

2. The names and addresses of all witnesses upon whom the Defendant intends to rely to establish such alibi.

Or,

that the court limit his alibi to

" evidence [presented by] the Defendant himself.

All jmo

Ohhhh, so the State wants him to be on the stand when he divulges his secret alibi? That could go sideways for BK really fast.

For some reason I feel like he is looking forward to testifying. I think he might be overrating his capabilities, if so.

 

[Boxer]

I agree, but the Idaho Code says nothing about prohibiting cross-examination of witnesses called by the state as a sanction related to failure to file an alibi defense by the deadline provided.

IANAL, but it sounds to me like it could be overreach by the prosecution. I don't think the judge will accept that, because I think that a sanction imposed on the defense that would prohibit the defense from cross examination of the state's witnesses would be grounds for appeal. But I guess we shall see later in August when the judge hears the Motion to Compel filed by the state.

Should be simply failure to file for an alibi defense on time because that is what this is.

 

[Boxer]

Ohhhh, so the State wants him to be on the stand when he divulges his secret alibi? That could go sideways for BK really fast.

For some reason I feel like he is looking forward to testifying. I think he might be overrating his capabilities, if so.

MOO AT means to use cross argument with state witnesses to "prove" he was not at 1122 King Rd. So that is the forensic camera, cell experts.

DM testimony is not identification, just not exclusionary since her statement was made long before BK came into the frame. So ripping her up is just because they can.

BF had some other people or naked man etc. She saw but that is not exclusionary of BK. Just more confusion tactic.

Texts between the roommates probably help confuse.

Back to the cell/camera/satellite data.

 

[jepop]

MOO AT means to use cross argument with state witnesses to "prove" he was not at 1122 King Rd. So that is the forensic camera, cell experts.

DM testimony is not identification, just not exclusionary since her statement was made long before BK came into the frame. So ripping her up is just because they can.

BF had some other people or naked man etc. She saw but that is not exclusionary of BK. Just more confusion tactic.

Texts between the roommates probably help confuse.

Back to the cell/camera/satellite data.

I agree very likely be to do with forensic, location data/video experts. Speculation only: BK is currently sitting tight re his 'alibi'. D finds in the discovery some grainy video of a white sedan driving beyond Troy at time of murders. After this BK tells the D that is where he was driving around. Bk must take the stand to say it. Defense cross examines car expert on video of white sedan around Troy. Expert says yeah it's a white elantra/sedan. That supports BK's alibi. Just a thought because of all this stuff about the discovery 'containing the alibi' (or something similar). Alibi has to be about proving BK was somewhere else. That's a pretty weak alibi I just thought up but it's an alibi and it involves State expert witnesses so maybe something like that is on the menu. Might be that BK isn't communicating 'alibi' to the Defense yet. He's waiting while he 'tries to remember'...Moo

 

[BeachSky]

Offering an alibi is one form of criminal defense that argues the suspect was somewhere else at the time of the incident with evidence, including possible witness testimony. It “indicates a line of proof by which the defendant attempts to show that he could not have committed the crime of which he is accused because he was elsewhere at the time,” Taylor wrote, referencing a legal definition.

Read more at: https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/crime/article277634138.html#storylink=cpy

Kohberger’s team of public defenders had until Monday to file the document. They issued the notice to the court near the close of business to meet the deadline.

Read more at: https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/crime/article277634138.html#storylink=cpy

“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,” Taylor wrote. “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.”

Read more at: https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/crime/article277634138.html#storylink=cpy


zzzzzzzzzz

Sounds like a nothing burger.
Mark Geragos tried all this type trickery (LE framed Peterson , yadda yaya)
I think it’s telling…she’s going to prove his alibi through cross examination of expert witnesses????
Presents like posturing IMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

PCA p. 16

"After consulting with CAST SA, I was able to determine estimated locations for the 8458 Phone from
June 2022 to present, the time period authorized by the court.

The records for the 8458 Phone show the 8458 Phone utilizing cellular resources that provide coverage to the area of 1122 King Road on at least twelve occasions prior to November 13,2022. All of these occasions, except for one, occurred in the late evening and early morning hours of their respective days."

PCA

MOO (I'm expecting the defense will challenge the accuracy of the FBI CAST mapping)

jmo

RBBM

Agreed, but good luck with Defense challenging the CAST mapping. It has only gotten more accurate and reliable over the years. I've seen a couple of FBI agents on the stand in trials recently (Murdaugh) that all but drive the nail in the coffin.

MOO

EBM: Added word

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

snipped by me for focus

So that night he was confident he could pull up and walk right in but the doordash threw him and he kept circling around the block waiting for them to leave.

Strange he didn't just drive off and come another night when the students weren't up so late.

I think he was determined that it had to be that particular night for some reason. Could have to do with who was there or it was the night that was more convenient for him.

2 Cents

I'm v confused about this aspect. Maybe he had no idea of DD delivery?

I can't imagine how it would work to know there were people up and awake inside the house receiving food deliveries and then enter same house only minutes later. Why didn't he cancel plan? If indeed there was a plan, there may not have been?

Most people don't receive incoming food at 4am and then flat out fast asleep 20 mins later. In fact it could be more a sign they're socialising and pulling an all nighter.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Ohhhh, so the State wants him to be on the stand when he divulges his secret alibi? That could go sideways for BK really fast.

For some reason I feel like he is looking forward to testifying. I think he might be overrating his capabilities, if so.

Assuming the small chance that BK is innocent. Saving his big reveal for the hearing in which I imagine he would proclaim all forms of LE and the criminal justice system flawed and stoopid, then prove his innocence beyond all reasonable doubt... wouldn't that mean he and his legal team have been perfectly satisfied to know that a horrifically dangerous murderer has been on the loose all this time?

 

[OldCop]

Ohhhh, so the State wants him to be on the stand when he divulges his secret alibi? That could go sideways for BK really fast.

For some reason I feel like he is looking forward to testifying. I think he might be overrating his capabilities, if so.

Just like he was overrating his ability to get away with murder.