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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry, answering my own post. This is all probably old news to everyone else, but I hadn't seen it. Court has not made an order yet.

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/...of-Defense-Alibi-Alt-Bar-Certain-Evidence.pdf
I think it's one of several scheduled to be heard en masse on 18th August - including motion for scheduling order, motion to dismiss, second motion to stay proceedings and another one of the P's - can't remember off hand but hopefully not long after 18th August there'll be a bunch of new orders and some clarity. Moo

Oh that's right - also waiting on Motion for protective order - the genetic genealogy stuff. And motion to reconsider order to stay proceedings (the 37 day stay that the P has asked Judge to reconsider).

Prosecution Motions for 18th Aug

Defense Motions for 18th Aug
 

19-519. NOTICE OF DEFENSE OF ALIBI. (1) At any time after arraignment before a magistrate upon a complaint and upon written demand of the prosecuting attorney, the defendant shall serve, within ten (10) days or at such different time as the court may direct, upon the prosecuting attorney, a written notice of his intention to offer a defense of alibi. Such notice by the defendant shall state the specific place or places at which the defendant claims to have been at the time of the alleged offense and the names and addresses of the witnesses upon whom he intends to rely to establish such alibi.
(2) Within ten (10) days after receipt of the defendant’s notice of alibi but in no event less than ten (10) days before trial, unless the court otherwise directs, the prosecuting attorney shall serve upon the defendant or his attorney a written notice stating the names and addresses of the witnesses upon whom the prosecution intends to rely to establish the defendant’s presence at the scene of the alleged offense and any other witnesses to be relied on to rebut testimony of any of the defendant’s alibi witnesses.
(3) If prior to or during trial a party learns of an additional witness whose identity, if known, should have been included in the information furnished under subsection (1) or subsection (2) of this section, the party shall promptly notify the other party or his attorney of the existence and identity of such additional witness.
(4) Upon the failure of either party to comply with the requirements of this section, the court may exclude the testimony of any undisclosed witness offered by such party as to the defendant’s absence from or presence at, the scene of the alleged offense. This section shall not limit the right of the defendant to testify in his own behalf.
(5) For good cause shown the court may grant an exception to any of the requirements of subsections (1) through (4) of this section.

History:
[19-519, added 1978, ch. 301, sec. 1, p. 758.]



-----just for clarity I wanted to post the alibi statutes again because a couple things are being understated, imo.


Essentially :
The defendant shall serve, in a timely fashion, a written notice of his intention to offer a defense of alibi. Such notice by the defendant shall state the specific place or places at which the defendant claims to have been at the time of the alleged offense and the names and addresses of the witnesses upon whom he intends to rely to establish such alibi.


So obviously, the defense did not do any of the above. Yet they tried to tip toe around the statutes by claiming they are possibly going to reveal his alibi during the trial by cross examining the witnesses and perhaps putting the defendant upon the stand as well.


Additionally:
Upon the failure of either party to comply with the requirements of this section, the court may exclude the testimony of any undisclosed witness offered by such party as to the defendant’s absence from or presence at, the scene of the alleged offense. This section shall not limit the right of the defendant to testify in his own behalf.

So it seems like they do not have any defense alibi witnesses at this time that they want to bring forward.Otherwise they run the risk of them being excluded by the court.

IMO, they seem to be implying, that some of the prosecution witnesses can share some of is alibi evidence upon cross examination. Perhaps if they get the survivors to share some info which seems to indicate some question about BK being the intruder, that could create reasonable doubt. Yet that is not really a fit for the definition of alibi, as stated in the above statute.

It does not answer the question for the jury about where and what he was doing at 4 am that morning. The jury will be curious about that. If he decides he wants to explain he was home asleep that night, by not offering that alibi in a timely fashion, that might prevent other witnesses from testifying in corroboration.

I think his most believable alibi might be that he was driving around because he couldn't sleep. He could even use evidence in the PCA showing him doing so a dozen times previously. But if he doesn't answer that question for the court according to 19-519, he runs the risk of not being able to use any corroborating evidence he might find. If someone comes forward and says they sold him a soda in the convenience store at 4 am downtown, they couldn't testify because of the statute.
 
Last edited:
I see people complaining that if a single person is home alone all night, they have no alibi available. I disagree---

If he was a home alone, asleep, there could still be evidence of that. There'd be neighbours who saw him come ng home, or saw his car in the lot, or cameras that saw his car there, and his phone would ping in the apartment all night, and he might have ordered food in or spoken or texted someone that night, or his TV would have streamed a movie or his computer would have been used that night from home.

I know that Spectrum would be able to show that I used my TV at night, and for how long. And they'd know if I was using the wifi also, I believe.

IT experts would be able to check my computer and see that I was online, reading forums and answering e-mails. And I'd be using my cell phone at various times of the night.

If BK's alibi was that he was home all night, he could have said so and tried to gather corroborating evidence. JMO

He would have to be using his computer, streaming movies, using his phone, after 4:00am. LE knows they were alive at 4:00am so they know the murders were after 4:00am.

And going to bed while leaving your phone on and leaving your TV on doesn't give you an alibi. You can leave your phone turned on and leave it at home, and leave home with the TV on.

If BK was home that night then he wouldn't be in jail.

He wouldn't have left his sheath accidentally or deliberately under a victim and his phone would not have been pinging on a Moscow cell tower.

It is the DNA and the phone that will convict him, this is all they need.

Cell records alone convict defendants and DNA alone convicts defendants so the 2 of them together is enough to convict him. They have even more evidence than this.

2 Cents
 

19-519. NOTICE OF DEFENSE OF ALIBI. (1) At any time after arraignment before a magistrate upon a complaint and upon written demand of the prosecuting attorney, the defendant shall serve, within ten (10) days or at such different time as the court may direct, upon the prosecuting attorney, a written notice of his intention to offer a defense of alibi. Such notice by the defendant shall state the specific place or places at which the defendant claims to have been at the time of the alleged offense and the names and addresses of the witnesses upon whom he intends to rely to establish such alibi.
(2) Within ten (10) days after receipt of the defendant’s notice of alibi but in no event less than ten (10) days before trial, unless the court otherwise directs, the prosecuting attorney shall serve upon the defendant or his attorney a written notice stating the names and addresses of the witnesses upon whom the prosecution intends to rely to establish the defendant’s presence at the scene of the alleged offense and any other witnesses to be relied on to rebut testimony of any of the defendant’s alibi witnesses.
(3) If prior to or during trial a party learns of an additional witness whose identity, if known, should have been included in the information furnished under subsection (1) or subsection (2) of this section, the party shall promptly notify the other party or his attorney of the existence and identity of such additional witness.
(4) Upon the failure of either party to comply with the requirements of this section, the court may exclude the testimony of any undisclosed witness offered by such party as to the defendant’s absence from or presence at, the scene of the alleged offense. This section shall not limit the right of the defendant to testify in his own behalf.
(5) For good cause shown the court may grant an exception to any of the requirements of subsections (1) through (4) of this section.

History:
[19-519, added 1978, ch. 301, sec. 1, p. 758.]



-----just for clarity I wanted to post the alibi statutes again because a couple things are being understated, imo.


Essentially :
The defendant shall serve, in a timely fashion, a written notice of his intention to offer a defense of alibi. Such notice by the defendant shall state the specific place or places at which the defendant claims to have been at the time of the alleged offense and the names and addresses of the witnesses upon whom he intends to rely to establish such alibi.


So obviously, the defense did not do any of the above. Yet they tried to tip toe around the statutes by claiming they are possibly going to reveal his alibi during the trial by cross examining the witnesses and perhaps putting the defendant upon the stand as well.


Additionally:
Upon the failure of either party to comply with the requirements of this section, the court may exclude the testimony of any undisclosed witness offered by such party as to the defendant’s absence from or presence at, the scene of the alleged offense. This section shall not limit the right of the defendant to testify in his own behalf.

So it seems like they do not have any defense alibi witnesses at this time that they want to bring forward.Otherwise they run the risk of them being excluded by the court.

IMO, they seem to be implying, that some of the prosecution witnesses can share some of is alibi evidence upon cross examination. Perhaps if they get the survivors to share some info which seems to indicate some question about BK being the intruder, that could create reasonable doubt. Yet that is not really a fit for the definition of alibi, as stated in the above statute.

It does not answer the question for the jury about where and what he was doing at 4 am that morning. The jury will be curious about that. If he decides he wants to explain he was home asleep that night, by not offering that alibi in a timely fashion, that might prevent other witnesses from testifying in corroboration.

I think his most believable alibi might be that he was driving around because he couldn't sleep. He could even use evidence in the PCA showing him doing so a dozen times previously. But if he doesn't answer that question for the court according to 19-519, he runs the risk of not being able to use any corroborating evidence he might find. If someone comes forward and says they sold him a soda in the convenience store at 4 am downtown, they couldn't testify because of the statute.
Agree and thank you @katydid23
IMO BK's most believable alibi: he was driving around window peeping.

Why do I expect AT <modsnip> to find a way to make the alibi deadline rule a violation of the Constitution?
Something like........If BK fails to disclose a witness by the deadline, he is deemed to have forfeited his right to do so. Of course, the Framers.............blah, blah, blah. Cite a Civil War rule and quote Lincoln.

JMo
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I see people complaining that if a single person is home alone all night, they have no alibi available. I disagree---

If he was a home alone, asleep, there could still be evidence of that. There'd be neighbours who saw him come ng home, or saw his car in the lot, or cameras that saw his car there, and his phone would ping in the apartment all night, and he might have ordered food in or spoken or texted someone that night, or his TV would have streamed a movie or his computer would have been used that night from home.

I know that Spectrum would be able to show that I used my TV at night, and for how long. And they'd know if I was using the wifi also, I believe.

IT experts would be able to check my computer and see that I was online, reading forums and answering e-mails. And I'd be using my cell phone at various times of the night.

If BK's alibi was that he was home all night, he could have said so and tried to gather corroborating evidence. JMO
All the other POCs gave their alibis. He can't because he wasnt "elsewhere."
 

19-519. NOTICE OF DEFENSE OF ALIBI. (1) At any time after arraignment before a magistrate upon a complaint and upon written demand of the prosecuting attorney, the defendant shall serve, within ten (10) days or at such different time as the court may direct, upon the prosecuting attorney, a written notice of his intention to offer a defense of alibi. Such notice by the defendant shall state the specific place or places at which the defendant claims to have been at the time of the alleged offense and the names and addresses of the witnesses upon whom he intends to rely to establish such alibi.
(2) Within ten (10) days after receipt of the defendant’s notice of alibi but in no event less than ten (10) days before trial, unless the court otherwise directs, the prosecuting attorney shall serve upon the defendant or his attorney a written notice stating the names and addresses of the witnesses upon whom the prosecution intends to rely to establish the defendant’s presence at the scene of the alleged offense and any other witnesses to be relied on to rebut testimony of any of the defendant’s alibi witnesses.
(3) If prior to or during trial a party learns of an additional witness whose identity, if known, should have been included in the information furnished under subsection (1) or subsection (2) of this section, the party shall promptly notify the other party or his attorney of the existence and identity of such additional witness.
(4) Upon the failure of either party to comply with the requirements of this section, the court may exclude the testimony of any undisclosed witness offered by such party as to the defendant’s absence from or presence at, the scene of the alleged offense. This section shall not limit the right of the defendant to testify in his own behalf.
(5) For good cause shown the court may grant an exception to any of the requirements of subsections (1) through (4) of this section.

History:
[19-519, added 1978, ch. 301, sec. 1, p. 758.]



-----just for clarity I wanted to post the alibi statutes again because a couple things are being understated, imo.


Essentially :
The defendant shall serve, in a timely fashion, a written notice of his intention to offer a defense of alibi. Such notice by the defendant shall state the specific place or places at which the defendant claims to have been at the time of the alleged offense and the names and addresses of the witnesses upon whom he intends to rely to establish such alibi.


So obviously, the defense did not do any of the above. Yet they tried to tip toe around the statutes by claiming they are possibly going to reveal his alibi during the trial by cross examining the witnesses and perhaps putting the defendant upon the stand as well.


Additionally:
Upon the failure of either party to comply with the requirements of this section, the court may exclude the testimony of any undisclosed witness offered by such party as to the defendant’s absence from or presence at, the scene of the alleged offense. This section shall not limit the right of the defendant to testify in his own behalf.

So it seems like they do not have any defense alibi witnesses at this time that they want to bring forward.Otherwise they run the risk of them being excluded by the court.

IMO, they seem to be implying, that some of the prosecution witnesses can share some of is alibi evidence upon cross examination. Perhaps if they get the survivors to share some info which seems to indicate some question about BK being the intruder, that could create reasonable doubt. Yet that is not really a fit for the definition of alibi, as stated in the above statute.

It does not answer the question for the jury about where and what he was doing at 4 am that morning. The jury will be curious about that. If he decides he wants to explain he was home asleep that night, by not offering that alibi in a timely fashion, that might prevent other witnesses from testifying in corroboration.

I think his most believable alibi might be that he was driving around because he couldn't sleep. He could even use evidence in the PCA showing him doing so a dozen times previously. But if he doesn't answer that question for the court according to 19-519, he runs the risk of not being able to use any corroborating evidence he might find. If someone comes forward and says they sold him a soda in the convenience store at 4 am downtown, they couldn't testify because of the statute.
Great post. Imo the state's motion to compel is an attempt at addressing the concerns you raised. If the D's response to Alibi Demand is not clear (and it's not Imo because whilst they didn't comply - strictly speaking it is not a Notice of an Alibi Defense - they also do say that BK will offer a Defense of Alibi down the track and they do mention the possibility of calling an expert witness -links posted below), then the state cannot be sure that at a later point the D will not raise an issue that the state has not complied with 19-519 2) - ie the other side of the coin - offering witnesses/evidence that defendant was at the scene to counter. There is a time limit on that too. Moo

I don't think it would be wise for the state to assume that because the D has not complied and not asked for an additional exension of time that it's the end of the matter. The D's response to the demand is extremely ambiguous Imo. Motion to Compel is the way state has chosen to deal with that. Moo

D's "Response" to Alibi Demand 24th July

State's Motion to Compel 27th July.
 
<modsnip: quoted post was removed> Dateline specifically said a sister of his was suspicious of him so we know the source is his sister. But they don't cite a source for the April Amazon knife purchase. I am skeptical without them mentioning a source. Did I miss something?

To just state something as total fact without saying how they know makes it hard to believe. Even "People" gave 2 sources for the Instagram information. A LE source and they saw BK's Instagram account before it was deleted.

2 Cents
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dateline specifically said a sister of his was suspicious of him so we know the source is his sister. But they don't cite a source for the April Amazon knife purchase. I am skeptical without them mentioning a source. Did I miss something?

To just state something as total fact without saying how they know makes it hard to believe. Even "People" gave 2 sources for the Instagram information. A LE source and they saw BK's Instagram account before it was deleted.

2 Cents
BBM Not necessarily. The actual source for that could be another relative who was present at the holiday. I'm not familiar with the family structure, but an extended family member might have been present. That seems more likely to me than a member of the nuclear family being the source. MOOooo
 
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
I agree, @Megnut.

I especially like the "d" words you used.... "disingenuous".... "dodge" ....

And if can add to those... beneath it all is that he is "dastardly", IMO.

dastardly​

[ das-terd-lee ]


adjective
  1. cowardly; meanly base; sneaking: a dastardly act.
Dastardly Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
 
BBM Not necessarily. The actual source for that could be another relative who was present at the holiday. I'm not familiar with the family structure, but an extended family member might have been present. That seems more likely to me than a member of the nuclear family being the source. MOOooo
I wasn't clear. The sister is not the source for the knIfe, she was mentioned as being suspicious about BK's behavior. The sister is the source for his suspicious behavior.

The point is that they did not state their source for an April Amazon knife purchase.
If it was a relative then they needed to say that.

Did they see the actual Amazon online receipts if there are any? Or are they making assumptions based on the Warrants?

Did a LE investigator tell them and if so, what about the gag order? I'm sure LE can't talk about the Case to the media, why risk your job?

2 Cents
 
I wasn't clear. The sister is not the source for the knIfe, she was mentioned as being suspicious about BK's behavior. The sister is the source for his suspicious behavior.

The point is that they did not state their source for an April Amazon knife purchase.
If it was a relative then they needed to say that.

Did they see the actual Amazon online receipts if there are any? Or are they making assumptions based on the Warrants?

Did a LE investigator tell them and if so, what about the gag order? I'm sure LE can't talk about the Case to the media, why risk your job?

2 Cents
The source could be LE connected to the case in PA.

Jmo
 
I wasn't clear. The sister is not the source for the knIfe, she was mentioned as being suspicious about BK's behavior. The sister is the source for his suspicious behavior.

The point is that they did not state their source for an April Amazon knife purchase.
If it was a relative then they needed to say that.

Did they see the actual Amazon online receipts if there are any? Or are they making assumptions based on the Warrants?

Did a LE investigator tell them and if so, what about the gag order? I'm sure LE can't talk about the Case to the media, why risk your job?

2 Cents
The way I remember it was there were 'multiple' unnamed sources that said his sister was suspicious of his behavior after the murders when he was back at home "over the holidays", and a subset of those sources said it was both of his sisters, who later looked in his car.

This is IMO, because I don't know which MSM articles this information was in, or if it was an approved source here on WS. Or if it was accurate, but I think it generally was. If my brother came home from 2/3rds of the way across the country a month after 4 coeds were brutally murdered 11 miles from where he was living, and his car matched the description of the car LE was searching for, I would be seeing big red flags, and be suspicious as h e double toothpicks. Even if I had never had any concerns about his behavior in the past.

Speaking of his behavior, I think part of the reason she/they may have been suspicious of him was because the whole family probably observed him sorting trash streams, and may have heard or seen him going out in the middle of the night to put trash into the neighbor's bin.

Such weird behavior when home for the holidays, "even for him", IMO. I wouldn't put it past him to act extra suspicious around his family to put them on alert, if he wanted to get caught.

Re the April amazon knife purchase, I also remember seeing that in the news. IIRC, it was maybe a leaked detail that was not just speculated on from search warrant results, and was from an unnamed source, or it was wholesale speculation with an unnamed source.

There's also a sliver of possibility in my mind that the April 2022 amazon knife purchase evidence (the receipt) slipped through the cracks between the initial drafting of LE's PCA and BK's arrest warrant, and the judge's approval of the gag order.

If LE were already doing searches / data mining of big online retailers selling a certain kind of knife that could be the murder weapon before the gag order was official, some info on results of those initial searches for the murder weapon purchaser could have surfaced, IMO.

"What the gag order says

The arrest warrant and criminal affidavit for Kohberger were issued on December 29, 2022, and within a week the prosecution and defense jointly agreed to a gag order.

The January 3 order states that "investigators, law enforcement personnel, attorneys, and agents of the prosecuting attorney or defense attorney, are prohibited from making extrajudicial statements, written or oral, concerning this case, other than quotation from or reference to, without comment, the public records of the case," Magistrate Judge Megan Marshall wrote.

The order specifically forbade commentary on evidence of occurrences or transactions, the character or criminal record of a party, opinions about the merits of the case and "the existence or contents of any confession, admission, or statement given by the defendant.""


Why judges use gag orders in high-profile cases like Idaho student murders
 
I can't imagine what it must be like trying to sleep at night wondering if your brother in the next room is the same person who perpetrated this horror. Also whilst he's roaming around in the small hours acting strangely... let's just say I'd be stacking furniture up in front of my bedroom door.
 
The way I remember it was there were 'multiple' unnamed sources that said his sister was suspicious of his behavior after the murders when he was back at home "over the holidays", and a subset of those sources said it was both of his sisters, who later looked in his car.

This is IMO, because I don't know which MSM articles this information was in, or if it was an approved source here on WS. Or if it was accurate, but I think it generally was. If my brother came home from 2/3rds of the way across the country a month after 4 coeds were brutally murdered 11 miles from where he was living, and his car matched the description of the car LE was searching for, I would be seeing big red flags, and be suspicious as h e double toothpicks. Even if I had never had any concerns about his behavior in the past.

Speaking of his behavior, I think part of the reason she/they may have been suspicious of him was because the whole family probably observed him sorting trash streams, and may have heard or seen him going out in the middle of the night to put trash into the neighbor's bin.

Such weird behavior when home for the holidays, "even for him", IMO. I wouldn't put it past him to act extra suspicious around his family to put them on alert, if he wanted to get caught.

Re the April amazon knife purchase, I also remember seeing that in the news. IIRC, it was maybe a leaked detail that was not just speculated on from search warrant results, and was from an unnamed source, or it was wholesale speculation with an unnamed source.

There's also a sliver of possibility in my mind that the April 2022 amazon knife purchase evidence (the receipt) slipped through the cracks between the initial drafting of LE's PCA and BK's arrest warrant, and the judge's approval of the gag order.

If LE were already doing searches / data mining of big online retailers selling a certain kind of knife that could be the murder weapon before the gag order was official, some info on results of those initial searches for the murder weapon purchaser could have surfaced, IMO.

"What the gag order says

The arrest warrant and criminal affidavit for Kohberger were issued on December 29, 2022, and within a week the prosecution and defense jointly agreed to a gag order.

The January 3 order states that "investigators, law enforcement personnel, attorneys, and agents of the prosecuting attorney or defense attorney, are prohibited from making extrajudicial statements, written or oral, concerning this case, other than quotation from or reference to, without comment, the public records of the case," Magistrate Judge Megan Marshall wrote.

The order specifically forbade commentary on evidence of occurrences or transactions, the character or criminal record of a party, opinions about the merits of the case and "the existence or contents of any confession, admission, or statement given by the defendant.""


Why judges use gag orders in high-profile cases like Idaho student murders
The judge however has no reach to PA.

So potentially not a leak at all. Just a source in PA, with information to share, not bound by an Idaho court.

Makes sense to me.

JMO
 
The way I remember it was there were 'multiple' unnamed sources that said his sister was suspicious of his behavior after the murders when he was back at home "over the holidays", and a subset of those sources said it was both of his sisters, who later looked in his car.

This is IMO, because I don't know which MSM articles this information was in, or if it was an approved source here on WS. Or if it was accurate, but I think it generally was. If my brother came home from 2/3rds of the way across the country a month after 4 coeds were brutally murdered 11 miles from where he was living, and his car matched the description of the car LE was searching for, I would be seeing big red flags, and be suspicious as h e double toothpicks. Even if I had never had any concerns about his behavior in the past.

Speaking of his behavior, I think part of the reason she/they may have been suspicious of him was because the whole family probably observed him sorting trash streams, and may have heard or seen him going out in the middle of the night to put trash into the neighbor's bin.

Such weird behavior when home for the holidays, "even for him", IMO. I wouldn't put it past him to act extra suspicious around his family to put them on alert, if he wanted to get caught.

Re the April amazon knife purchase, I also remember seeing that in the news. IIRC, it was maybe a leaked detail that was not just speculated on from search warrant results, and was from an unnamed source, or it was wholesale speculation with an unnamed source.

There's also a sliver of possibility in my mind that the April 2022 amazon knife purchase evidence (the receipt) slipped through the cracks between the initial drafting of LE's PCA and BK's arrest warrant, and the judge's approval of the gag order.

If LE were already doing searches / data mining of big online retailers selling a certain kind of knife that could be the murder weapon before the gag order was official, some info on results of those initial searches for the murder weapon purchaser could have surfaced, IMO.

"What the gag order says

The arrest warrant and criminal affidavit for Kohberger were issued on December 29, 2022, and within a week the prosecution and defense jointly agreed to a gag order.

The January 3 order states that "investigators, law enforcement personnel, attorneys, and agents of the prosecuting attorney or defense attorney, are prohibited from making extrajudicial statements, written or oral, concerning this case, other than quotation from or reference to, without comment, the public records of the case," Magistrate Judge Megan Marshall wrote.

The order specifically forbade commentary on evidence of occurrences or transactions, the character or criminal record of a party, opinions about the merits of the case and "the existence or contents of any confession, admission, or statement given by the defendant.""


Why judges use gag orders in high-profile cases like Idaho student murders

IIRC Dateline stated unnamed sources claim one of his sisters became suspicious of his odd behavior of wearing gloves and sorting trash so much so that she shared concerns with father and they both searched his car for any telling signs of his odd behavior but found nothing.
 
The way I remember it was there were 'multiple' unnamed sources that said his sister was suspicious of his behavior after the murders when he was back at home "over the holidays", and a subset of those sources said it was both of his sisters, who later looked in his car.

This is IMO, because I don't know which MSM articles this information was in, or if it was an approved source here on WS. Or if it was accurate, but I think it generally was. If my brother came home from 2/3rds of the way across the country a month after 4 coeds were brutally murdered 11 miles from where he was living, and his car matched the description of the car LE was searching for, I would be seeing big red flags, and be suspicious as h e double toothpicks. Even if I had never had any concerns about his behavior in the past.

Speaking of his behavior, I think part of the reason she/they may have been suspicious of him was because the whole family probably observed him sorting trash streams, and may have heard or seen him going out in the middle of the night to put trash into the neighbor's bin.

Such weird behavior when home for the holidays, "even for him", IMO. I wouldn't put it past him to act extra suspicious around his family to put them on alert, if he wanted to get caught.

Re the April amazon knife purchase, I also remember seeing that in the news. IIRC, it was maybe a leaked detail that was not just speculated on from search warrant results, and was from an unnamed source, or it was wholesale speculation with an unnamed source.

There's also a sliver of possibility in my mind that the April 2022 amazon knife purchase evidence (the receipt) slipped through the cracks between the initial drafting of LE's PCA and BK's arrest warrant, and the judge's approval of the gag order.

If LE were already doing searches / data mining of big online retailers selling a certain kind of knife that could be the murder weapon before the gag order was official, some info on results of those initial searches for the murder weapon purchaser could have surfaced, IMO.

"What the gag order says

The arrest warrant and criminal affidavit for Kohberger were issued on December 29, 2022, and within a week the prosecution and defense jointly agreed to a gag order.

The January 3 order states that "investigators, law enforcement personnel, attorneys, and agents of the prosecuting attorney or defense attorney, are prohibited from making extrajudicial statements, written or oral, concerning this case, other than quotation from or reference to, without comment, the public records of the case," Magistrate Judge Megan Marshall wrote.

The order specifically forbade commentary on evidence of occurrences or transactions, the character or criminal record of a party, opinions about the merits of the case and "the existence or contents of any confession, admission, or statement given by the defendant.""


Why judges use gag orders in high-profile cases like Idaho student murders
Honestly, the sisters possibly suspecting their brother sounds totally plausible to me. Not only for the reasons you stated, like his proximity to the killings, a vehicle match, etc., but also because I think siblings look upon their brothers/sisters possibly more realistically than a parent might, just due to the dynamics within a family. Plus, if it's true he once stole his sister's phone, they know he's capable of committing crime, even against family.

To me, if it's true about the sisters, it's a scary hint that he had shown enough troubling behaviors in the past (or at least during Christmas break) that him committing a quadruple homicide was not outside the realm of possibility in their minds. JMO.
 
Negasi Zuberi, Cybersecurity Student?
Seeing new case below w "cybersecurity" student reference brought BK to mind.
Not saying there's any commonality between BK & this man, aside from being in jail after arrest for hideous crimes.

Of course, consider the source:
"cybersecurity" came from Zuberi's LinkedIn page.

(Meme: Reality vs. LinkedIn. ;)
) ;)

________________________________
"A LinkedIn page under one of his aliases Sakima Zuberi, accompanied by his photo, says he was studying cybersecurity at Klamath Community College since April of this year."
Per OR - Negasi Zuberi, 29, linked to 4 violent sexual assaults, kidnapped woman kept in makeshift cell in garage, Klamath Falls, 16 July '23 *Arrest*
 
IIRC Dateline stated unnamed sources claim one of his sisters became suspicious of his odd behavior of wearing gloves and sorting trash so much so that she shared concerns with father and they both searched his car for any telling signs of his odd behavior but found nothing.
Don't think would there be any evidence left in a car belonging to criminology student 6 weeks later.
Or any evidence at all in the first place if there was planning.
The sheath is just good luck for the victims and police. But it's an error, not a lack of planning.
 
Great post. Imo the state's motion to compel is an attempt at addressing the concerns you raised. If the D's response to Alibi Demand is not clear (and it's not Imo because whilst they didn't comply - strictly speaking it is not a Notice of an Alibi Defense - they also do say that BK will offer a Defense of Alibi down the track and they do mention the possibility of calling an expert witness -links posted below), then the state cannot be sure that at a later point the D will not raise an issue that the state has not complied with 19-519 2) - ie the other side of the coin - offering witnesses/evidence that defendant was at the scene to counter. There is a time limit on that too. Moo

I don't think it would be wise for the state to assume that because the D has not complied and not asked for an additional exension of time that it's the end of the matter. The D's response to the demand is extremely ambiguous Imo. Motion to Compel is the way state has chosen to deal with that. Moo

D's "Response" to Alibi Demand 24th July

State's Motion to Compel 27th July.

IANAL, but as far as I understand the Idaho Code and the alibi defense notification process, I don't see how a judge can "compel" an alibi defense. The defense is given notice by the prosecutor with a deadline to respond if the defense plans to present an alibi defense (this is how it is done in Idaho, in some states it is just up to the defense to give the alibi defense notice pre-trial).

If the defense does not file an alibi response then the case moves on. The defense understands that by not filing an alibi defense, they are preculuded from calling witnesses that would testify to an alibi defense, other than the defendant himself.

I don't think a judge would "compel" an alibi defense, since it is optional, not a requirement. Maybe the prosecution is asking for another 10 days to give the defense one more opportunity to file an alibi defense? I am not sure why they would do that, but maybe the prosecution feels they need to do that since they got an ambiguous response to their first request. Then, if they get a similar response, they can move on, knowing that they tried and therefore they won't be responsible for any appeal on this issue, at least on their part.

Maybe the judge will give another extension, but IMO he won't "compel" a response, since the law does not require a response by the defense.

I do wonder if the judge will have to address some of the parameters that the prosecution set in their Motion to Compel, such as prohibiting cross-examination by the defense of the state's witnesses.

JMO.

Edited to correct that some states do not require the prosecution to give notice of the deadline for an alibi defense, but in those states no one gives notice to the defense, the defense is aware that they need to file an alibi notice pre-trial if they are going to present an alibi defense. The judge is not involved in giving notice, nor is the prosecution.

The forfeiture operates automatically, no state official will ask the defendant why he has not given notice. It is a procedural default.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
165
Guests online
2,640
Total visitors
2,805

Forum statistics

Threads
599,935
Messages
18,101,793
Members
230,957
Latest member
Sarah573x
Back
Top