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

[jepop]

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?

Only in the movies and only if it's a bad movie. Moo

 

[TL4S]

If he didn't expect Kaylee to be there and therefore didn't realize the unknown car was hers, he still had to have seen the "extra" vehicle there with all the times that he was circling that night. And that car could have been anyone--a guy spending the night with one of the girls, a sibling or friend from home of one of the girls visiting and sleeping in the living room or one of the girl's room. Heck, it could even be one of the girl's parents visiting. And yet he still decided to go ahead with his plan even though there is now an unknown person/factor.

I just can't decide if the killer's sense of superiority was so enormous that he saw none of these things as threats to his success or if the compulsion that night was so great that he had to do it at that time anyway even though he saw and knew the risks.

And it all ended up coming down to luck (both good and bad) in the end. If the sounds of Murphy and what DM thought was playing hadn't woken her up the first time, would DM have even woken up at all to the rest of voices/sounds as reported in the PCA or would she have continued to sleep right through them?

If he had plotted it out as targeting just Maddie, thought that DM was still living on the first floor, and waited until Kaylee had moved out....he would have had incredibly high chances of being able to go in. do his deed, and slip out undetected.

I don't entirely dismiss him taking into consideration that it was likely a house full of people who were out late and under the influence. I agree that he had to notice the cars. In my opinion, he potentially knew his victims very well, not personally, but from afar, and had a pretty good idea what he was walking into.

While I don't discount the idea that M was his sole target, I also am very open to the idea that this was like special ops to him, and he was prepared to take out whomever necessary to fulfill his mission.

I don't mean to sound dramatic, I just happen to think his mind was full of dramatics when he planned it.

 

[Jurisprudence]

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

Yup. I agree.

jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

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.

Kind of but not necessarily. They can't compel him to testify. That would be a definite appealable issue I think (moo).

I read this as them asking the judge to compel them to 1) comply and produce; and if not, 2) to limit his right to do to so to his case.

In other words, order that BK's alibi, if there is one at all, be elicited through his case, not the prosecution's case (if the defense even intends to put one on). This could mean the "alibi" would be permitted through testimony elicited on the stand by him (BK), or through his witnesses (not the state's witnesses) that his attys call. I thought that was a smart play by the state. MOO

As always, jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

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

It is. But it's also more than this IMO. She's shown her cards. She's indicated that she will likely formulate an alibi by cross of the state's experts and other witnesses so imo, the state had to go that extra step. They had to say Judge, she can't have it both ways. If she's going to use our witnesses, she has to produce so we can explore this. If she's not going to produce then she has to be barred per the rules or be limited to presenting it through her own case.

jmo

Edit: She also mentions protected material making me wonder if part of her goal is to try to destroy one of the officers whose training records she fought so hard to obtain.

jmo

 

[ktm44]

As to the bolded above, I cannot agree.

If I was at a public function, or at my job with co-workers, or at a restaurant that had cameras, during the time of a crime, which I was being accused of, I WOULD TELL THE DETECTIVES.

IMO, if BK had an alibi, he would have shared with LE during his initial interviews. JMO

LE managed to clear a lot of people of interest in the early stages of their investigation and I suspect that quite a few of those were cleared by their own statements and verifiable alibis.

 

[al66pine]

Why Did BK Not Spill Alibi at Earliest Opp?

If I was at a public function, or at my job with co-workers, or at a restaurant that had cameras, during the time of a crime, which I was being accused of, I WOULD TELL THE DETECTIVES.
IMO, if BK had an alibi, he would have shared with LE during his initial interviews. JMO

@katydid23 ETA: "snipped for focus"
Several ppl posted the same thought, and it makes sense to many (if we had an alibi like ex. in your post)...

but IIRC, LE (neither ID nor PA LE) did not conduct any "initial interviews" w BK...

... unless we want to characterize as "initial interviews," whatever BK may have said after PA LE's (sudden, ahem) entry into parents' PA house. Only thing I recall reading was his anybody-else-being-arrested line.

After immed'ly lawyering up, BK said nothing to LE (IIRC not saying I do).

Hoping someone w clearer memory (& link pls?) will correct or clarify.

ETA: Did MSM report, from any LE source, comments about whether BK was a chatter box while enroute from PA to ID w LE?
IDTS, but ICBW.

 

[kittythehare]

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

very arrogant and disrespectful to victims.

 

[Jurisprudence]

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

JMO

They'll have a battle of the experts. It's par for the course and is the nature of this beast we call a jury trial.

MOO

 

[Megnut]

Good questions, why was he undeterred by the door dash delivery or the fleet of parked cars?

Bundy wasn't fazed by a houseful of potential witnesses. One could argue he was spurred by it. Add to the risk, the rush, the thrill. BK might've been motivated similarly.

Or.... he saw the DD so he mini looped to give it time to drive away, unaware that it was a delivery to 1122. He was probably trying to stay out of every car's way.

BK made, by my count, 3.5 passes.... First pass, maybe to assess. By passes 2 and 3, lights could've been out. Extra loops just for good measure, make sure everyone was dead asleep. Unless he had bionic eyes, he may have had no way to know X was awake, on TikTok or that M and K had been up at 2, the end time for when they'd been texting and calling IIRC.

I think he thought his recon was solid. Household asleep.

Fear did not go in with him. Focus did.

He was on a mission.

Jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

If he didn't expect Kaylee to be there and therefore didn't realize the unknown car was hers, he still had to have seen the "extra" vehicle there with all the times that he was circling that night. And that car could have been anyone--a guy spending the night with one of the girls, a sibling or friend from home of one of the girls visiting and sleeping in the living room or one of the girl's room. Heck, it could even be one of the girl's parents visiting. And yet he still decided to go ahead with his plan even though there is now an unknown person/factor.

I just can't decide if the killer's sense of superiority was so enormous that he saw none of these things as threats to his success or if the compulsion that night was so great that he had to do it at that time anyway even though he saw and knew the risks.

And it all ended up coming down to luck (both good and bad) in the end. If the sounds of Murphy and what DM thought was playing hadn't woken her up the first time, would DM have even woken up at all to the rest of voices/sounds as reported in the PCA or would she have continued to sleep right through them?

If he had plotted it out as targeting just Maddie, thought that DM was still living on the first floor, and waited until Kaylee had moved out....he would have had incredibly high chances of being able to go in. do his deed, and slip out undetected.

[BBM]

MOO.Speculation. I agree with that. I think there was some compulsion. I believe he fully intended to commit these crimes between 3 and 4 am. There were so many signs imo that were screaming to him "This is not the night. Turn around and go home." And, yet he couldn't do that.

I suspect that he had some kind of compulsion that it had to be done on that date, or that it had to be done because he was mentally prepared for it, or maybe it was something as practical as "I have to re-register my car soon. I need to do this before I change plates."

Whatever obstacles he faced, didn't matter. The pca tells us he left his apt at 2:45 for the 10-15 minute trip. I don't think he expected to see all the lights on. I don't think he intended to have to drive around in circles waiting to see those lights go off. I don't think he expected a door dash delivery. I don't think he expected kids to get a drinking ticket at band field at 3 am w LE on the scene. Yet, something compelled him to proceed with his plan anyway.

All speculation.

 

[maskedwoman]

Why Did BK Not Spill Alibi at Earliest Opp?

@katydid23 ETA: "snipped for focus"
Several ppl posted the same thought, and it makes sense to many (if we had an alibi like ex. in your post)...

but IIRC, LE (neither ID nor PA LE) did not conduct any "initial interviews" w BK...

... unless we want to characterize as "initial interviews," whatever BK may have said after PA LE's (sudden, ahem) entry into parents' PA house. Only thing I recall reading was his anybody-else-being-arrested line.

After immed'ly lawyering up, BK said nothing to LE (IIRC not saying I do).

Hoping someone w clearer memory (& link pls?) will correct or clarify.

ETA: Did MSM report, from any LE source, comments about whether BK was a chatter box while enroute from PA to ID w LE?
IDTS, but ICBW.

My recollection was that he was very quiet enroute to ID. However, once he asked for an attorney in PA, he would have had the chance to say that he had an alibi. I recall his PA public defender stated that BK started talking and he told BK to stop. Of course, he offered no details as that would have been inappropriate. What I am still curious about is - if BK was saying he had an alibi, wouldn't the public defender have an obligation to deal with that? I mean, why let him be taken all the way to ID if he had an alibi?

Of course, another question could be, wouldn't they be pretty danged sure he was their man to burst into the house and arrest him in the wee hours, which pretty much guaranteed he wouldn't be talking to them? MOOooo

 

[Trebor5591]

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

I am not an attorney, and a little confused by this Motion to compel "Notice of Alibi", in that, I had always thought the entire burden in a criminal case was on the State and the Prosecution to prove the Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and I thought the Defense could present no defense at all or present any defense it wanted to.

It seems this motion to compel a "Notice of Alibi", makes the Defense reveal its defense strategy early and therefore locks the defense into a position well before the trial. It seems to make it far easier for the prosecution to anticipate the defense strategy and then prepare to contradict it.

Again, I am not an attorney, and want to ask, is this something unique to Idaho criminal law? Or is this demand for the defendants to present an alibi defense early something each state requires?

 

[TL4S]

DBM

 

[TenaciousTBacon]

The purpose of demanding an alibi is so the prosecution can find witnesses to prove/refute it before the trial. Not because it might get him out of jail. He's been indicted and jailed. An alibi witness won't result in him "being freed", just provides a heads up for the investigators so they don't have to wait until witnesses take the stand to research the credibility of their statements.

This New Nation link is in regards to the behavior of BK post arrest. I hope News Nation is an approved source. Banfield

 

[Sundog]

I am not an attorney, and a little confused by this Motion to compel "Notice of Alibi", in that, I had always thought the entire burden in a criminal case was on the State and the Prosecution to prove the Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and I thought the Defense could present no defense at all or present any defense it wanted to.

It seems this motion to compel a "Notice of Alibi", makes the Defense reveal its defense strategy early and therefore locks the defense into a position well before the trial. It seems to make it far easier for the prosecution to anticipate the defense strategy and then prepare to contradict it.

Again, I am not an attorney, and want to ask, is this something unique to Idaho criminal law? Or is this demand for the defendants to present an alibi defense early something each state requires?

The majority of states (over 40) have a procedural element during trials called "alibi rules." Below is a good article that discusses how and when the alibi rule was established and why.

The defendant and his/her attorneys are not required to respond to a request made by the court or prosecution regarding the filing of an alibi defense. But if they do not file an alibi defense, then the defense loses the right to call upon witnesses to testify to an alibi for the defendant. (The exception would be if the defendant him/herself wanted to take the stand to discuss his/her alibi. That right cannot be taken away from a defendant.)

The reason for the establishment of the alibi rule is so that the prosecution has time to prepare their case with regard to the defense's alibi defense. It is a kind of "discovery," if you will. Otherwise, in the middle of a trial, the prosecution would have to stop the trial (ask the judge for a continuance) in order to prepare this aspect of the case). It is a legal procedure that assists with the efficiency of the case.

If a defendant/their attorney do file an alibi defense, then the prosecution has to also reply to the defense with information on witnesses they will call that will testify against the alibi defense.

Below is a link to a good article that discusses the alibi rule and how it is applied.

The main thing to note with regard to your post and question is that it is not required, the defendant absolutely has the right to stay silent.

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

 

[Jurisprudence]

As to the bolded above, I cannot agree.

If I was at a public function, or at my job with co-workers, or at a restaurant that had cameras, during the time of a crime, which I was being accused of, I WOULD TELL THE DETECTIVES.

IMO, if BK had an alibi, he would have shared with LE during his initial interviews. JMO

And, even if he was lawyered up immediately which seems to be the case with LaBar being on site so quickly, you'd think he would tell his attorneys immediately. After all, he was living there for weeks after these crimes which were national news. So, he knew exactly when these crimes occurred well in advance of any arrest and if he knew he was elsewhere, I agree that would be the first thing I'd be telling my lawyer.

jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

I am not an attorney, and a little confused by this Motion to compel "Notice of Alibi", in that, I had always thought the entire burden in a criminal case was on the State and the Prosecution to prove the Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and I thought the Defense could present no defense at all or present any defense it wanted to.

It seems this motion to compel a "Notice of Alibi", makes the Defense reveal its defense strategy early and therefore locks the defense into a position well before the trial. It seems to make it far easier for the prosecution to anticipate the defense strategy and then prepare to contradict it.

Again, I am not an attorney, and want to ask, is this something unique to Idaho criminal law? Or is this demand for the defendants to present an alibi defense early something each state requires?

All that follows is MOO

You are correct. The burden is on the state, and the defense is not required to put on any case at all. They can sit there and poke holes at the state's evidence without calling a single witness of their own if they choose.

However, the unusual thing here is that the Idaho rules (19-519) require the defense to disclose alibi evidence to the state in advance of trial so that the state may explore it. If you think about it, this makes sense as it could be an immense cost saving measure. For example, if the defendant really does have an alibi, if LE actually did overlook something or fail to interview someone, the state could move dismiss the charges. Better to do that than to let jeopardy attach.

So in this case what you are seeing is the defense file a paper about an alibi by the deadline (as is required) but instead of giving the alibi evidence required, stating in it instead "we're not telling you what his alibi is. He is remaining silent and we will offer our alibi at trial through the cross examination of the state's witnesses." (paraphrased)

So, she arguably didn't comply. And, the rules say if the defense doesn't comply with the law and disclose this information then they cannot come back later and ambush the state by offering it at trial unless there is a showing of good cause as to why the information was not disclosed when required.

Every time the defense files a paper, the state has to respond. And, this was no exception but this reply was actually important. Because what the state is saying to the judge is that the defense didn't comply with the law so we are asking you to please enter an order to either make them comply or, limit their right to offer this evidence through their own witnesses and case, not through ours.

Hope this makes sense.

All jmo.

 

[10ofRods]

I am not an attorney, and a little confused by this Motion to compel "Notice of Alibi", in that, I had always thought the entire burden in a criminal case was on the State and the Prosecution to prove the Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and I thought the Defense could present no defense at all or present any defense it wanted to.

It seems this motion to compel a "Notice of Alibi", makes the Defense reveal its defense strategy early and therefore locks the defense into a position well before the trial. It seems to make it far easier for the prosecution to anticipate the defense strategy and then prepare to contradict it.

Again, I am not an attorney, and want to ask, is this something unique to Idaho criminal law? Or is this demand for the defendants to present an alibi defense early something each state requires?

Someone posted yesterday that it's about 40-41 states do require an declaration of the alibi pre-trial. That's to keep all heck from breaking loose. By that, I mean a Defense that just keeps accusing random people and bringing them to the stand to basically conduct a de novo public interrogation.

A good alibi is a strong defense and therefore should be stated early - it will influence matters in court a great deal. A series of weak alibis and spaghetti-throwing must be carefully managed. For example, if the alibi here is "There's this cop/security guard who hates me and I know that he framed me because neighbors saw him use his master keys to enter my apartment and take and then return objects from my house" then the security guard is now a suspect - but because a suspect in the middle of someone else's trial process. Not exactly the same kind of fair treatment we would all like to have (being accused by someone already accused of the same crime is a very serious and complicated legal matter).

In my example, Kohberger would have to take the stand to get these facts in OR subpoena the errant cop/security guard (probably both). But the subpoena isn't going to be issued by the court unless there's cause (sworn statement - which is the type of thing that should support the alibi document that Idaho and some other 40 states require).

In most states, the Court requires that the specific person who provides the alibi (saw the defendant somewhere else) or the camera footage or smartwatch data must show the same. Otherwise, that alibi cannot be used in court. So what BK's defense team submitted, AFAIK, is not (strictly speaking) an alibi. Defense is probably just trying to make it clear that he denies doing it and to me, it sounds like he is his own alibi (which isn't considered an alibi in the jurisdiction where I live - don't know about Idaho).

Which is why I remain intensely curious. Judge may just choose to move on, as I don't think it'll make much difference at trial. It just seems odd that the "alibi" is (per court documents) not the type that states exactly where the defendant was at the time alleged for the crime. And how they intend to prove it.

IMO.

 

[MyBelle]

They'll have a battle of the experts. It's par for the course and is the nature of this beast we call a jury trial.

MOO

I wish her luck in finding an expert witness who is going to disagree with the CAST expert, pg. 13:
JMO

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/122922+Affidavit+-+Exhibit+A+-+Statement+of+Brett-Payne.pdf

After receiving this information, I consulted with an FBI Special Agent (SA) that is certified as a member of the Cellular Analysis Survey Team (CAST). Members of CAST are certified with the FBI to provide expert testimony in the field of historical CSLI and are required to pass extensive training that includes both written and practical examinations prior to be certified with CAST as well as the completion of yearly certification requirements. Additionally, the FBI CAST SA that I consulted with has over fifteen years of federal law enforcement experience, which includes six years with the FBI. From information provided by CAST, I was able to determine estimated locations for the 8458 Phone from November 12, 2022 to November 13,2022, the lime period authorized by the court.