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

[dgfred]

Could he not say I didn't do it as an alibi? I was driving in the area but I didn't do anything?

Then for the D to show innocence they would just need to nullify the P's evidence/proof of guilt.

The D wouldn't need witnesses to show alibi... just find a kink in the P's case.

?

 

[TL4S]

Ignorance is my middle name when it comes to legal matters, so I'm just not understanding why the D would talk about BK being elsewhere. Why bring it up at all? Whether through an alibi defense or the vague references to possibly proving him being somewhere else through witnesses statements, etc., if he doesn't plan to show an alibi, why is it even being suggested by the D when they could just focus on suppressing evidence and poking holes in the state's case? I don't understand the logic, strategy, or whatever it is supposed to be.

Again, I'm admittedly dumb about the law, but it just seems to me a fruitless way to go about an argument unless there's good reason to do so. I'm not saying BK has a good alibi, but I still say he's insisting to his D team that he was somewhere else, no matter that he can't prove it, and he's standing by that.

 

[10ofRods]

Could he not say I didn't do it as an alibi? I was driving in the area but I didn't do anything?

Then for the D to show innocence they would just need to nullify the P's evidence/proof of guilt.

The D wouldn't need witnesses to show alibi... just find a kink in the P's case.

?

To my understanding, that's called "pleading not guilty." I'm not being facetious - but an alibi is a claim that "I couldn't possibly commit the crime, because I was somewhere else, doing something else." He didn't actually plead "not guilty" in his own voice or words. The Court chose that option after he remained silent.

"Driving in the area, but I didn't get out of my car," is an alibi. Unfortunately, the only witness to this alibi would need to be produced and put on the stand (Kohberger himself). The video will support his car driving around, he would be admitting he was in it (I think that's dangerous for his defense). If he intends to use that alibi, he must notify the Court prior to trial (per the Court's deadlines). So far, what he's submitted is not that specific.

I believe that's because they want to leave it fluid and the evidence that the State has probably contradicts that alibi and only Kohberger's own testimony will be offered (if it is - I don't think they'll put him on the stand).

Finding a kink in the State's case is exactly what they seem to be doing (as opposed to mounting an alibi defense). The Defense do not *have* to have an alibi for him, which is why we are all puzzling over the meaning of recent filings. However if he is claiming "I was elsewhere," as I believe he must be, then the Defense does have to indicate that somehow (it's an alibi of some kind). They reserve the right to put him on the stand, which was unnecessary to say, legally, but they have alerted the Court as to the shape the alibi will take or might take.

Goal has to be to slash through the State's evidence to avoid putting Kohberger on the stand unless deemed absolutely necessary, or if he insists.

IMO.

 

[Pitsleuth]

Did LE ever search the areas off the road on the circuitous route he took back to Pullman in hopes of finding where he possibly ditched the knife/clothes/tarps/etc? Or was this considered an exercise in futility given the landscape? Just curious, I don't remember reading anything on this matter.

 

[jepop]

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 do think you might have a point. When the Amazon purchase was mentioned it wasn't clear to me if it was a speculation (from the warrants?) or a statement of fact - with no source mentioned. But it's been too long since I watched the program to remember properly now. Is it possible, jmo and just a thought, that what is presented as a possibility or deduced probability in the Dateline Report, has been construed as a statement of fact by viewers? Does anyone have a time stamp for that section of the report where they cover the April knife purchase?

 

[MomMommyMom2]

I am trying desperately to understand all the legal stuff posted here! Those of you that have broken it down, thank you so much!! It’s been very helpful!
I just can’t understand if BK does have an alibi why wouldn’t he just say it? This guy just gives me the creeps

 

[girlhasnoname]

Ignorance is my middle name when it comes to legal matters, so I'm just not understanding why the D would talk about BK being elsewhere. Why bring it up at all? Whether through an alibi defense or the vague references to possibly proving him being somewhere else through witnesses statements, etc., if he doesn't plan to show an alibi, why is it even being suggested by the D when they could just focus on suppressing evidence and poking holes in the state's case? I don't understand the logic, strategy, or whatever it is supposed to be.

Again, I'm admittedly dumb about the law, but it just seems to me a fruitless way to go about an argument unless there's good reason to do so. I'm not saying BK has a good alibi, but I still say he's insisting to his D team that he was somewhere else, no matter that he can't prove it, and he's standing by that.

I'm right there with you.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Did LE ever search the areas off the road on the circuitous route he took back to Pullman in hopes of finding where he possibly ditched the knife/clothes/tarps/etc? Or was this considered an exercise in futility given the landscape? Just curious, I don't remember reading anything on this matter.

I bet LE has searched every single spot where they could have pin pointed BK traveled. I would like to know more of the details myself.

 

[Boxer]

Did LE ever search the areas off the road on the circuitous route he took back to Pullman in hopes of finding where he possibly ditched the knife/clothes/tarps/etc? Or was this considered an exercise in futility given the landscape? Just curious, I don't remember reading anything on this matter.

I have been curious about this too.

 

[Boxer]

I am trying desperately to understand all the legal stuff posted here! Those of you that have broken it down, thank you so much!! It’s been very helpful!
I just can’t understand if BK does have an alibi why wouldn’t he just say it? This guy just gives me the creeps

MOO because he doesnt have an alibi. His attorney is searching for discovery information for any gap in surveillance to claim that is where he was.
In other words, He doens't want to pin himself down.

Yeah, yeah, that's where I was, yeah.

 

[ArianeEmory]

I bet LE has searched every single spot where they could have pin pointed BK traveled. I would like to know more of the details myself.

With the gag order in place (note: I’m a dummy about the gag orders), is it possible they might have found the weapon but the public doesn’t know it yet?

(General question for anyone who might know.)

 

[Boxer]

With the gag order in place (note: I’m a dummy about the gag orders), is it possible they might have found the weapon but the public doesn’t know it yet?

(General question for anyone who might know.)

Anything is possible behind the gag order.
MOO trying a Hail Mary constitutional issue and filing a "dont pin me down I might still possibly find an alibi" as an alibi indicate the state has solid evidence.

 

[10ofRods]

Did LE ever search the areas off the road on the circuitous route he took back to Pullman in hopes of finding where he possibly ditched the knife/clothes/tarps/etc? Or was this considered an exercise in futility given the landscape? Just curious, I don't remember reading anything on this matter.

We don't know and probably won't know until trial. I assume they did check the places where he stopped. I doubt they considered that futile, it's pretty essential to at least check.

It's possible the Grand Jury heard of it, but that's all sealed and under the gag order.

IMO.

 

[Jurisprudence]

Imagine every incarcerated person whose trial started by way of GJ indictment now telling the state of Idaho
"Hey, Anne Taylor succeeded in having the Idaho S Ct overrule itself. GJ indictments in this state have been unconstitutional. Now you have to

1. Free us (thankyouverymuch)
2. Re-try us
3. Only after a probable cause hearing

Until the Idaho legislature acts.

Imagine that.

 

[SpiderFalcon]

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.

Here is a BIG QUESTION, in my mind. It's been bugging me since I first read the PCA:

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

I'm hoping that @schooling can explain this above "connection". This seems like a flaw that AT would jump all over, and maybe it's why she answered the Demand for Alibi the way she did. I would love to hear from ALL OF YOU. I've been out of pocket and offline, I'm way behind, and trying to get caught up. TIA

 

[Jurisprudence]

Here is a BIG QUESTION, in my mind. It's been bugging me since I first read the PCA:

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

View attachment 438840

I'm hoping that @schooling can explain this above "connection". This seems like a flaw that AT would jump all over, and maybe it's why she answered the Demand for Alibi the way she did. I would love to hear from ALL OF YOU. I've been out of pocket and offline, I'm way behind, and trying to get caught up. TIA

MOO, they likely have corroborating video showing the car on the border - on the WA side, just as they likely have video showing the car - on the ID side, for their other alleged connections.

Just a guess since none of us has been able to see what they have. But this is something that immediately stood out to me too when I first read this upon his arrest.

jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

Here is a BIG QUESTION, in my mind. It's been bugging me since I first read the PCA:

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

View attachment 438840

I'm hoping that @schooling can explain this above "connection". This seems like a flaw that AT would jump all over, and maybe it's why she answered the Demand for Alibi the way she did. I would love to hear from ALL OF YOU. I've been out of pocket and offline, I'm way behind, and trying to get caught up. TIA

Sorry. I'm not schooling. I didn't see the request for schooling when I started typing and didn't mean to interrupt. I started typing bc it was something that stuck out to me too and you are the only person I've seen mention it.

 

[jepop]

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.

I disagree and I've read the relevant rule as many times as you have probably. On 24th July the defense could have filed a Notice to File Alibi Defense. If they did then it is incomplete and contrary to ICR requirements. That's the point. Did they or didn't they?. It was filed on the day the Notice was due. It was filed under the heading of Notice of Response to Alibi. Defense did not let the deadline pass. The Defense filed an incorrect Notice of Alibi Defense. State has to take the Notice at face value and that is what they are doing. Moo

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/072423+Notice+of+Defendants+Response+to+States+Alibi+Demand.pdf

"Evidence corroborating Mr. Kohberger being at a location other than the King Road address will be disclosed pursuant to discovery and evidentiary rules as well as statutory requirements. It is anticipated this evidence may be offered by way of cross-examination of witnesses produced by the State as well as calling expert witnesses."

The above says defense is going to present an alibi - ie that the defendant was elsewhere. Discovery and evidentiary rules and statutory requirements do not exclude ICRs519. It is anticipated that evidence of defendant being elsewhere may be offered by way of calling expert witnesses. All that without complying with ICRS519 2). Moo

edited spelling

 

[Jurisprudence]

Ignorance is my middle name when it comes to legal matters, so I'm just not understanding why the D would talk about BK being elsewhere. Why bring it up at all? Whether through an alibi defense or the vague references to possibly proving him being somewhere else through witnesses statements, etc., if he doesn't plan to show an alibi, why is it even being suggested by the D when they could just focus on suppressing evidence and poking holes in the state's case? I don't understand the logic, strategy, or whatever it is supposed to be.

Again, I'm admittedly dumb about the law, but it just seems to me a fruitless way to go about an argument unless there's good reason to do so. I'm not saying BK has a good alibi, but I still say he's insisting to his D team that he was somewhere else, no matter that he can't prove it, and he's standing by that.

You are not alone in not knowing why AT is proceeding the way she is. None of us can know for sure. We can only guess. My guess, which is MOO, is:

1. He has no verifiable alibi
2. She's hoping she can formulate one through cross of the prosecution's witnesses, both expert and non-expert (and by alluding to protected material, I'm guessing she plans to also go after at least one of the rookie officers whose training records she fought so hard to obtain because that is the only protected "material" (vs. protected witnesses) I am aware of. But we do not know all of the evidence)
3. And, she figures even if she cannot formulate an alibi, there is value in these tactics as they serve her client well by throwing mud in the wheels of this process

All jmo

 

[Megnut]

IMO she's doing her job. Filing every motion favorable to her client, conveniently resulting in delays. Soon, I expect her to ask for a second dismissal because her client's right to a speedy trial has been compromised, and then there'll be another flip, waiving the speedy trial and asking for continuances because of the terabyte data dump. Actual trial in early 2025 would not shock me.

There's no alibi defense or she'd have filed it.
IMO she intends to do exactly what she says she's going to do -- at trial, exploit every witness she can to get an admission that the eye witness isn't 100% sure, the experts can't pin his phone exactly to 1122, etc, etc, to establish that there's cumulatively a .0000000000002%: chance he wasn't there, without saying anything about where he supposedly would have been.

Even if they're successful in that regard, the percentage will be NOTHING compared to the octonanobazillion DNA match.

But she's got people talking, circumventing the gag order via motions. IEytan playbook.

Like I said, if she had stronger recourse, she'd use it.

JMO