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

[Boxer]

His alibi is in progress, and to "find" it may depend on trying to negate some witness statements during the trial in combination with seeing where the police did not have surveillance records to craft a "plausible" alibi in that surveillance shadow.
But he can't just say where he was like the other POCs did because his alibi is a fabrication.

 

[Nila Aella]

I think it means that the defense chooses not to provide the evidence in order to preserve the defendant's right to remain silent, and that the evidence will come out during the trial proceedings as the State's expert witnesses give testimony (and/or possibly the defense's expert witnesses as well) that will corroborate BK's being at a location other than the King Road address.

So no need for a defense alibi list of witnesses for the defense to provide to the prosecution, the witness list that the prosecution needs to prepare their case regarding an alibi for the defendant will be provided through regular evidentiary and statutory rules. Hence no need for an alibi defense to be filed with the required list of witnesses.

IANAL, but this is my understanding of AT's court filing yesterday.

<snipped by me for focus>

That is precisely why the procedural "alibi rule" is a controversial legal issue.

It was established so that prosecutors would have time to interview witnesses and identify their own witnesses in response to a defendant's "alibi defense." So the "alibi rule" was established in law only for a procedural and efficiency reason - for the efficient operation of the court (i.e. timely information so that trials can proceed on time, etc.). But the Constitutional issue is that a defendant has the right to remain silent and it is up to the state to prove the client is guilty. So the "alibi rule" could actually "punish" a defendant for remaining silent.

Below is an article I posted a few threads back regarding the controversy in the courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, regarding the "alibi rule" that was established in 1975, IIRC. It's a long article, but by skimming through it, a person can get a good sense of the issues.

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

Completely agree. JLs motion to dismiss and ATs response to the States alibi demand (it is not a notice of alibi) both address Constitutional law vs. Procedural law.
IMO Consitutional issues currently have a strong pulse Nationwide.

 

[jepop]

But he made the mistake of turning his phone back on about 20 miles south of Moscow.

He would have been far better off to leave the phone off, drive right back to his apartment, walk upstairs, THEN turn his phone on, walk downstairs and then drive off to somewhere else. That would "imply" that he was asleep up until 20 minutes after the murders and take a drive in the night.

But instead he made a big mistake and turned his phone on south of Moscow to find somewhere to ditch the knife and bloody clothes and to use maps to navigate him around that long path coming back to Pullman.

He did this and sped away from the crime scene because he actually thought the police would get there and catch him in Moscow.

That's a theory that makes a lot of sense as to why he turned his phone back on. I'd forgotten all about the possibility of him thinking LE were on their way. He planned for the killings to be quieter than they turned out to be. It's possible that he had other plans for a quicker return home and a different route but panicked and spontaneously decided to take the long cross country options. I think he wanted off the main roads urgently not only for cameras but for imagined multiple police presence and to ditch the evidence temporarily. The next evening he's back in the general vicinity at 5.30pm-8.30pm with phone off this time. Moo

 

[Sundog]

Completely agree. JLs motion to dismiss and ATs response to the States alibi demand (it is not a notice of alibi) both address Constitutional law vs. Procedural law.
IMO Consitutional issues currently have a strong pulse Nationwide.

Apparently the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the establishement of an "alibi rule" as a procedural element of trials is constitutional. But the Supreme Court has not ruled on the issue of sanctions/penalties if a defendant does not put forth an alibi rule as requested. The sanctions would be that the defendant who does not file an alibi defense before a trial is then prohibited from calling witnesses to testify to a defendant's alibi.

IANAL, this is my understanding from Chicago Law Review article I posted several times above.

 

[10ofRods]

Yes, I recall him saying that, too. But, I don't think that's strictly accurate. He was appointed to represent BK for any legal issues while in PA. Maybe that's the issue. The Alibi wasn't a PA legal issue and so LeBar could not represent him for that. That makes sense to me. However, the fact that his legal team has not done anything to present an alibi or prevent a trial from moving forward pretty much says there isn't an alibi that will hold up. I just find the idea ridiculous that, getting arrested for a high profile enough murder means you're going to trial even if you have an alibi. That sounds more like a system designed to get lawyers more money in fees than finding justice.

ETA: of course, it's also possible that what someone else suggested is possible. He really wanted to know what they had on him, and wanted to get back to ID. Maybe he also didn't understand the finger legal points of his situation re the alibi. MOOooo

He has a master's degree in Criminal Justice, in which nearly the whole required curriculum was criminal procedure, criminal law and the in's and out's of criminal investigation.

His attorney definitely understands what an alibi is (it's pretty straightforward).

Ultimately, they didn't provide an actual alibi ("wait and see at trial" is not an alibi).

Alibi is a pretty simple concept (from the Cambridge dictionary - but you can find it on many law pages):


proof that someone who is thought to have committed a crime could not have done it, especially the fact or statement that they were in another place at the time it happened:


IMO. He hasn't even stated in his response that he was in another place at the time the crime happened (probably because his attorney doesn't want to back him into a situation where he has to take the stand on his own behalf; she knows that will not go well for him). I think they both know what an alibi is.

 

[Justice101]

That's a theory that makes a lot of sense as to why he turned his phone back on. I'd forgotten all about the possibility of him thinking LE were on their way. He planned for the killings to be quieter than they turned out to be. It's possible that he had other plans for a quicker return home and a different route but panicked and spontaneously decided to take the long cross country options. I think he wanted off the main roads urgently not only for cameras but for imagined multiple police presence and to ditch the evidence temporarily. The next evening he's back in the general vicinity at 5.30pm-8.30pm with phone off this time. Moo

Yes, and that is where he probably either cleaned up the blood from the car and/or possibly disposed of or burned the clothing.

I think there is a chance they could possibly find the knife that I think was disposed of that early morning....I have my suspicions of places near where he turned the phone on.... but there is no telling where he went that second day.

 

[Justice101]

He has a master's degree in Criminal Justice, in which nearly the whole required curriculum was criminal procedure, criminal law and the in's and out's of criminal investigation.

His attorney definitely understands what an alibi is (it's pretty straightforward).

Ultimately, they didn't provide an actual alibi ("wait and see at trial" is not an alibi).

Alibi is a pretty simple concept (from the Cambridge dictionary - but you can find it on many law pages):


proof that someone who is thought to have committed a crime could not have done it, especially the fact or statement that they were in another place at the time it happened:


IMO. He hasn't even stated in his response that he was in another place at the time the crime happened (probably because his attorney doesn't want to back him into a situation where he has to take the stand on his own behalf; she knows that will not go well for him). I think they both know what an alibi is.

Bingo!

They will not risk him on the stand. The only thing the defense can do is question the prosecution to the void about the timeline and just say his client was not there. But THAT is no alibi. They are mincing words

 

[jepop]

He has a master's degree in Criminal Justice, in which nearly the whole required curriculum was criminal procedure, criminal law and the in's and out's of criminal investigation.

His attorney definitely understands what an alibi is (it's pretty straightforward).

Ultimately, they didn't provide an actual alibi ("wait and see at trial" is not an alibi).

Alibi is a pretty simple concept (from the Cambridge dictionary - but you can find it on many law pages):


proof that someone who is thought to have committed a crime could not have done it, especially the fact or statement that they were in another place at the time it happened:


IMO. He hasn't even stated in his response that he was in another place at the time the crime happened (probably because his attorney doesn't want to back him into a situation where he has to take the stand on his own behalf; she knows that will not go well for him). I think they both know what an alibi is.

If the D's response to Alibi Demand, filed on the deadline to provide Notice of Alibi, and a Notice of Alibi, are considered as separate filings according to ICRs, then the D has missed the deadline to file their Notice of Alibi. Therefore unless D asks for and can show good cause, D will not be able to call witnesses to support an alibi defense apart from BK himself testifying. Moo

 

[Nila Aella]

Apparently the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the establishement of an "alibi rule" as a procedural element of trials is constitutional. But the Supreme Court has not ruled on the issue of sanctions/penalties if a defendant does not put forth an alibi rule as requested. The sanctions would be that the defendant who does not file an alibi defense before a trial is then prohibited from calling witnesses to testify to a defendant's alibi.

IANAL, this is my understanding from Chicago Law Review article I posted several times above.

That is what I understand too.
They did not file a notice of Alibi so I don't think the D currently has any witnesses to corroborate where he was.
JMO

 

[Justice101]

That is what I understand too.
They did not file a notice of Alibi so I don't think the D currently has any witnesses to corroborate where he was.
JMO

Yep, IMO all they can do is try to poke holes in the description made by DM and say THAT proves he was somewhere else.

Very WEAK defense. They've got nothing!

 

[girlhasnoname]

Apparently the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the establishement of an "alibi rule" as a procedural element of trials is constitutional. But the Supreme Court has not ruled on the issue of sanctions/penalties if a defendant does not put forth an alibi rule as requested. The sanctions would be that the defendant who does not file an alibi defense before a trial is then prohibited from calling witnesses to testify to a defendant's alibi.

IANAL, this is my understanding from Chicago Law Review article I posted several times above.

That's how I see it as well, except that BK himself can take the stand on his own behalf. Oh how I hope that he does that.

He did win the 2011 Regional Extemporaneous Speaking Award. I don't know if I've mentioned that 1 or 20 times already.

MOO

ETA: DBM double words

 

[Boxer]

That's how I see it as well, except that BK himself can take the stand on his own behalf. Oh how I hope that he does that.

He did win the 2011 Regional Extemporaneous Speaking Award. I don't know if I've mentioned that 1 or 20 times already.

MOO

ETA: DBM double words

Let's hear his explanation of how in PA killing sorority girls is the norm because they really don't have sidewalks or laws there.

 

[al66pine]

PA. PD LaBar Was Appointed to Rep. BK re Extradition. And Anything Else?
@Balthazar said:
"The Public Defender in PA was hired for the extradition matter ONLY. Therefore, it would have been completely and totally inappropriate for him to represent BK for the murder charges which are a separate matter altogether. He would not have discussed anything to do with the murder charges with BK whatsoever, therefore, he would have no obligation to deal with BK's alibi, nor should he have dealt with it in any way, shape or form, since it would be far outside the scope of the extradition matter…." *
snipped for focus.@Balthazar
Yes, consistent w my memory from reading MSM, Jason LaBar, Chief Public Defender for Monroe County, PA.** was appointed to rep BK re extradition to ID & nothing else.**

Yes, I recall him saying that, too. But, I don't think that's strictly accurate. He was appointed to represent BK for any legal issues while in PA....

Snipped for focus. @maskedwoman
Imo, ^ any-legal-issues-in-PA. stmt seems overly broad. I doubt that the apptmt. was sufficiently broad enough to apply to any OTHER CRIM charges (or civil matters) in PA.
Ex's:
- Any other extradition matter, say, from another state, which may have surfaced then (just hypothetically speaking).
- Any crim charge relating to deaths or disappearances of young PA. women in years past (hypo again).
- Any crim charge relating to robbery of a PA. gas station in mid to late Dec.(hypo again).
Also doubt if LaBar was appointed to rep BK in any CIVIL lawsuit which might have been filed at that time (hypo again). Public defenders do not rep. clients in civil matters, other than a few narrow exceptions.***

Not trying to be a smart aleck, just a point of info, imo. ICBW.
Again, The Cow speaks Moo, moo, moo.
____________________________________
* 4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #86

** " Chief Public Defender for Monroe County, PA, Jason LaBar, was court-appointed to Kohberger before the alleged murderer was extradited to Idaho."
From caption under pic of LaBar. Published Jan. 13, 2023.

Bryan Kohberger's ex-attorney shrugs off evidence used to arrest him

University of Idaho murder suspect Bryan Kohberger's ex-attorney said while there is 'strong circumstantial evidence,' viewed individually, it could be easily attacked.

www.dailymail.co.uk

*** Public defender (United States) - Wikipedia

 

[katydid23]

Completely agree. JLs motion to dismiss and ATs response to the States alibi demand (it is not a notice of alibi) both address Constitutional law vs. Procedural law.
IMO Consitutional issues currently have a strong pulse Nationwide.

It seems like AT is using this case as a model case of protest against constitutional issues, like the Grand Jury and the Alibi Demand, and the Ancestral DNA search, etc.

But is the evidence and the basic facts of the case going to get lost in the process?

Is the basic question of Guilt or Innocence being deflected by the discussion of Grand Jury procedures and the like?

 

[kittythehare]

Does any one think he has an alibi
Either false n set up to cover his guilt

Or true if he is innocent
??

I do not believe he has .

That's how I see it as well, except that BK himself can take the stand on his own behalf. Oh how I hope that he does that.

He did win the 2011 Regional Extemporaneous Speaking Award. I don't know if I've mentioned that 1 or 20 times already.

MOO

ETA: DBM double words

He can say he was 'stalking/chasing' a girl who lived nearby and that is why his vehicle has been in the vicinity, he can say he got out for a walk and when he returned to his vehicle, his knife was missing from his vehicle because he was so lovesick he forgot to lock the doors.

Think he'll hire me?

 

[MassGuy]

Posting this again from @gitana1 as it’s brilliant. You think he’s innocent, let’s argue these facts:

Oh, in my opinion, based on decades researching true crime, and as a lawyer in general, the evidence is incredible.

The investigators did an impeccable job and built an exceedingly strong case. To recap:

1. A white sedan was captured on security footage leaving the area of WSU, on their security cameras, the morning of the murders.
2. What looked to be the same white sedan was captured crossing state lines from WA to ID right before 3:00 a.m.
3. A white sedan was captured on security cameras traveling towards the victims’ residence the morning of the murders, at 3:30 am.
4. The same car appeared to pass by the house several times thereafter.
5. The same car departed the area of the house at a high rate of speed, at 4:20 am.
6. A white sedan, appearing to be the same car in all the footage, crossed back over state lines into WA at 5:30 am.
7. BK was a student at WSU at the time.
8. BK drove a white Elantra that matched the vehicles seen in the footage.
9. BK was put on the radar after a search of all white sedans registered to students at WSU, due to tracing the footage of the sedan, from and to WSU. Not because BK is some weird guy. The evidence led to him.
10. BK’s cell phone records were thereafter searched and showed that on the morning of the murders, his phone pinged leaving his residence in Pullman, WA, at 2:47 am.
11. Those same records thereafter did not ping for the next two hours, as if it was turned off.
12. Then, at 4:48 am, his phone pings south of Moscow, ID, just into WA.
13. The pings match almost perfectly with the security footage of the white sedan, which is the car BK drives.
14. His cell then pinged again, at around 9:00 am, at the crime scene, prior to the time police were called. So back in Moscow.
15. Phone records showed BK’s phone was also at the crime scene 12 times in the early morning or late at night, prior to the murders. And yet there is zero evidence that the victims knew BK or had any dealings with him of any kind.
16. DNA from his family’s trash in PA showed that the genetic material belonged to the father of the person whose DNA was found on a knife sheath at the scene of the crime.
17. The knife sheath found at the scene matches the type of weapon used to stab the victims.

This is incredible evidence. Phenomenal.

 

[MassGuy]

Posting this again from @gitana1 as it’s brilliant. You think he’s innocent, let’s argue these facts:

Oh, in my opinion, based on decades researching true crime, and as a lawyer in general, the evidence is incredible.

The investigators did an impeccable job and built an exceedingly strong case. To recap:

1. A white sedan was captured on security footage leaving the area of WSU, on their security cameras, the morning of the murders.
2. What looked to be the same white sedan was captured crossing state lines from WA to ID right before 3:00 a.m.
3. A white sedan was captured on security cameras traveling towards the victims’ residence the morning of the murders, at 3:30 am.
4. The same car appeared to pass by the house several times thereafter.
5. The same car departed the area of the house at a high rate of speed, at 4:20 am.
6. A white sedan, appearing to be the same car in all the footage, crossed back over state lines into WA at 5:30 am.
7. BK was a student at WSU at the time.
8. BK drove a white Elantra that matched the vehicles seen in the footage.
9. BK was put on the radar after a search of all white sedans registered to students at WSU, due to tracing the footage of the sedan, from and to WSU. Not because BK is some weird guy. The evidence led to him.
10. BK’s cell phone records were thereafter searched and showed that on the morning of the murders, his phone pinged leaving his residence in Pullman, WA, at 2:47 am.
11. Those same records thereafter did not ping for the next two hours, as if it was turned off.
12. Then, at 4:48 am, his phone pings south of Moscow, ID, just into WA.
13. The pings match almost perfectly with the security footage of the white sedan, which is the car BK drives.
14. His cell then pinged again, at around 9:00 am, at the crime scene, prior to the time police were called. So back in Moscow.
15. Phone records showed BK’s phone was also at the crime scene 12 times in the early morning or late at night, prior to the murders. And yet there is zero evidence that the victims knew BK or had any dealings with him of any kind.
16. DNA from his family’s trash in PA showed that the genetic material belonged to the father of the person whose DNA was found on a knife sheath at the scene of the crime.
17. The knife sheath found at the scene matches the type of weapon used to stab the victims.

This is incredible evidence. Phenomenal.

And we now know there’s evidence he actually purchased that knife from Amazon…

 

[10ofRods]

Posting this again from @gitana1 as it’s brilliant. You think he’s innocent, let’s argue these facts:

Oh, in my opinion, based on decades researching true crime, and as a lawyer in general, the evidence is incredible.

The investigators did an impeccable job and built an exceedingly strong case. To recap:

1. A white sedan was captured on security footage leaving the area of WSU, on their security cameras, the morning of the murders.
2. What looked to be the same white sedan was captured crossing state lines from WA to ID right before 3:00 a.m.
3. A white sedan was captured on security cameras traveling towards the victims’ residence the morning of the murders, at 3:30 am.
4. The same car appeared to pass by the house several times thereafter.
5. The same car departed the area of the house at a high rate of speed, at 4:20 am.
6. A white sedan, appearing to be the same car in all the footage, crossed back over state lines into WA at 5:30 am.
7. BK was a student at WSU at the time.
8. BK drove a white Elantra that matched the vehicles seen in the footage.
9. BK was put on the radar after a search of all white sedans registered to students at WSU, due to tracing the footage of the sedan, from and to WSU. Not because BK is some weird guy. The evidence led to him.
10. BK’s cell phone records were thereafter searched and showed that on the morning of the murders, his phone pinged leaving his residence in Pullman, WA, at 2:47 am.
11. Those same records thereafter did not ping for the next two hours, as if it was turned off.
12. Then, at 4:48 am, his phone pings south of Moscow, ID, just into WA.
13. The pings match almost perfectly with the security footage of the white sedan, which is the car BK drives.
14. His cell then pinged again, at around 9:00 am, at the crime scene, prior to the time police were called. So back in Moscow.
15. Phone records showed BK’s phone was also at the crime scene 12 times in the early morning or late at night, prior to the murders. And yet there is zero evidence that the victims knew BK or had any dealings with him of any kind.
16. DNA from his family’s trash in PA showed that the genetic material belonged to the father of the person whose DNA was found on a knife sheath at the scene of the crime.
17. The knife sheath found at the scene matches the type of weapon used to stab the victims.

This is incredible evidence. Phenomenal.

Gitana's post is making me think about whether Kohberger somehow thought he only needed to have his phone turned off while he was in Idaho. As if he might have thought the most murder cases stay within the jurisdiction of the state where the murders occurred and as if that would keep Moscow PD from using cloud-based forensics to find out all his movements (and probably over more days than we know).

Makes me wonder if he really didn't know cloud-based forensics at all, and perhaps that's why the PD in Pullman decided he wasn't going to make a good intern (if they interviewed him by phone, mail or in person, they may not have thought him very knowledgeable).

I do wonder. The professor who called him brilliant did *not* teach cloud-based forensics.

I am just pondering. This is JMO.

 

[MassGuy]

Gitana's post is making me think about whether Kohberger somehow thought he only needed to have his phone turned off while he was in Idaho. As if he might have thought the most murder cases stay within the jurisdiction of the state where the murders occurred and as if that would keep Moscow PD from using cloud-based forensics to find out all his movements (and probably over more days than we know).

Makes me wonder if he really didn't know cloud-based forensics at all, and perhaps that's why the PD in Pullman decided he wasn't going to make a good intern (if they interviewed him by phone, mail or in person, they may not have thought him very knowledgeable).

I do wonder. The professor who called him brilliant did *not* teach cloud-based forensics.

I am just pondering. This is JMO.

He creeped all the girls out, and got fired. He profiles so perfectly it’s crazy, despite the fact that a first murder including 4 people is astoundingly rare.

We’ve had lots of outliers recently though (jake Patterson, Delphi, etc).

He’s a<modsnip> if he believed that, but he made so many mistakes I think he did.

 

[schooling]

Posting this again from @gitana1 as it’s brilliant. You think he’s innocent, let’s argue these facts:

Oh, in my opinion, based on decades researching true crime, and as a lawyer in general, the evidence is incredible.

The investigators did an impeccable job and built an exceedingly strong case. To recap:

1. A white sedan was captured on security footage leaving the area of WSU, on their security cameras, the morning of the murders.
2. What looked to be the same white sedan was captured crossing state lines from WA to ID right before 3:00 a.m.
3. A white sedan was captured on security cameras traveling towards the victims’ residence the morning of the murders, at 3:30 am.
4. The same car appeared to pass by the house several times thereafter.
5. The same car departed the area of the house at a high rate of speed, at 4:20 am.
6. A white sedan, appearing to be the same car in all the footage, crossed back over state lines into WA at 5:30 am.
7. BK was a student at WSU at the time.
8. BK drove a white Elantra that matched the vehicles seen in the footage.
9. BK was put on the radar after a search of all white sedans registered to students at WSU, due to tracing the footage of the sedan, from and to WSU. Not because BK is some weird guy. The evidence led to him.
10. BK’s cell phone records were thereafter searched and showed that on the morning of the murders, his phone pinged leaving his residence in Pullman, WA, at 2:47 am.
11. Those same records thereafter did not ping for the next two hours, as if it was turned off.
12. Then, at 4:48 am, his phone pings south of Moscow, ID, just into WA.
13. The pings match almost perfectly with the security footage of the white sedan, which is the car BK drives.
14. His cell then pinged again, at around 9:00 am, at the crime scene, prior to the time police were called. So back in Moscow.
15. Phone records showed BK’s phone was also at the crime scene 12 times in the early morning or late at night, prior to the murders. And yet there is zero evidence that the victims knew BK or had any dealings with him of any kind.
16. DNA from his family’s trash in PA showed that the genetic material belonged to the father of the person whose DNA was found on a knife sheath at the scene of the crime.
17. The knife sheath found at the scene matches the type of weapon used to stab the victims.

This is incredible evidence. Phenomenal.

The often overlooked pièce de résistance is BKs trip to Albertsons' the next morning. It's the punctuation mark (I'll let ya'll decide whether it's a period or exclamation) at the end of LE's cell + video argument.

The same cellular triangulation technology from the night before says the Elantra should be in the area of that Albertson's parking lot in Clarkston on that morning. Low and behold. A white Elantra pulls in, parks, the door pops open...

It's BK. In broad daylight.