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

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
www.yahoo.com

Bryan Kohberger’s defense files alibi response in Idaho murder case. What court record says

The defense team for the former Washington State University graduate student met the court deadline for submitting the response on Monday.
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com

okay- common sense would seem to dictate that if you have a real legitimate alibi you provide it instead of playing cutsey games- I mean if he had a real alibi perhaps charges would be dropped, right? Of course we know why he isn't providing an alibi.
 
5 documented cases of police planted evidence out of 180,000 murder cases in the past 10 years. That seems low and is probably higher... but the only stat I could dig up.

So....yes it definitely does happen, but that is a very tough sell and very hard to prove. Easy to allege or insinuate it though.
 
ilovewings said:
www.yahoo.com

Bryan Kohberger’s defense files alibi response in Idaho murder case. What court record says

The defense team for the former Washington State University graduate student met the court deadline for submitting the response on Monday.
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com

okay- common sense would seem to dictate that if you have a real legitimate alibi you provide it instead of playing cutsey games- I mean if he had a real alibi perhaps charges would be dropped, right? Of course we know why he isn't providing an alibi.
Click to expand...

if you live alone and are sleeping and also YOUR CAR IS DRIVING IN ANOTHER TOWN like BK's was, you've got not alibi.

So, don't put forth one.

Just refute all the evidence that is was you in court.

He and the defense have didley squat.
 
Re: Planting DNA

The D said this:

In essence, the State argues that if the later STR testing is accurate then there is no reason to concern ourselves with how the State came to investigate Mr. Kohberger. State’s brief at 9. What the State’s argument asks this Court and Mr. Kohberger to assume is that the DNA on the sheath was placed there by Mr. Kohberger, and not someone else during an investigation that spans hundreds of members of law enforcement and apparently at least one lab the State refuses to name.


The prosecution replied with this

lf Defendant wishes to explore the theory that his DNA was planted on the Ka-Bar knife sheath, he is free to do so. But the family tree created by the FBI has no relevance to that theory.


The only person who used the word "planted" was the prosecutor. And subsequently, the press.
There is another alternative - transfer
Which is unintentional. MOO
 
girlhasnoname said:
I thought the Judge may rule against Expert Witness testimony in support of his alibi defense if they haven't notified that Prosecution.
Click to expand...
Sounds to me like AT is saying that the defense are not filing an alibi defense and that BK has a Constitutional right to silence that is acknowledged in the Idaho Code. On the other hand, as the defense and state both present expert witnesses during the trial (witnesses they are both planning to call to testify regardless of an alibi defense), during their expert testimony it will be disclosed that BK was at a location "other than the King Road address."

It seems to me that AT indirectly notes that the prosecution will know of the defense team's expert witnesses as both the defense and State continue to proceed with discovery and evidentiary rules, as well as statutory requirements, as they prepare for trial. So both sides will know in advance of the trial who the expert witnesses are, and both the State and defense will have a chance to cross-examination the witnesses produced by each side.

I think she has made it clear that she is protecting BK's right to silence under the Constitution while still finding a way to say publicly that just because they haven't filed an alibi defense, it doesn't mean there isn't one.


Very strategic and good defense lawyering, IMO.

Also, she has laid the ground for an appeal if BK's right to silence as stated in the Constitution and the Idaho Code are challenged with regard to the "defense alibi" procedural requirement. The whole "alibi defense" procedure is a controversial legal procedural issue that continues to be challenged in the high courts, and this case could end up making case law in the Idaho Supreme Court or even U.S. Supreme Court if BK's right to silence with regard to Idaho''s "alibi defense' is challenged and he is "punished" for not filing an alibi defense and any of his expert witnesses are prevented from giving testimony. Especially in a death-eligible case.

Here is the text of the section of AT's filing that I am quoting from in my remarks above:


Mr. Kohberger's defense team continues investigating and preparing his case. Evidence corroborating Mr. Kohberger's 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 offerd by way of cross-examination of witnesses produced by the State as well as calling expert witnesses.


Edited to add link to AT's court filing

 
Last edited:
maskedwoman said:
I 100% agree that the class confrontation didn't cause what happened at King Road. However, I have begun to wonder if the problems he was having as a TA might have escalated his timeline. If he had any inkling he might lose his job, could it have caused him to take action earlier than he otherwise might have?

I would be interested in hearing from our Sleuthers with experience with the academic environment, whether it's likely he might have realized he wasn't entirely in control of his timeline?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
Based on my experience working at universities, if the faculty had a problem with him serving as a TA because of the issues raised by the students, it is entirely possible they could have had a conversation with him in late October/early November to raise the issue that he might not retain his TA position for the next semester. They would be working on the next semester's schedule around that time and likely needed to put TAs in place for those second semester classes. Based on my experience with PhD programs, I suspect there would have been other PhD students wanting/needing the funding a TA position provides, so they likely had other candidates who could fill his role pretty easily. All MOO.
 
Sundog said:
Sounds to me like AT is saying that the defense are not filing an alibi defense and that BK has a Constitutional right to silence that is acknowledged in the Idaho Code. On the other hand, as the defense and state both present expert witnesses during the trial (witnesses they are both planning to call to testify regardless of an alibi defense), during their expert testimony it will be disclosed that BK was at a location "other than the King Road address."

It seems to me that AT indirectly notes that the prosecution will know of the defense team's expert witnesses as both the defense and State continue to proceed with discovery and evidentiary rules, as well as statutory requirements, as they prepare for trial. So both sides will know in advance of the trial who the expert witnesses are, and both the State and defense will have a chance to cross-examination the witnesses produced by each side.

I think she has made it clear that she is protecting BK's right to silence under the Constitution while still finding a way to say publicly that just because they haven't filed an alibi defense, it doesn't mean there isn't one.


Very strategic and good defense lawyering, IMO.

Also, she has laid the ground for an appeal if BK's right to silence as stated in the Constitution and the Idaho Code are challenged with regard to the "defense alibi" procedural requirement. The whole "alibi defense" procedure is a controversial legal procedural issue that continues to be challenged in the high courts, and this case could end up making case law in the Idaho Supreme Court or even U.S. Supreme Court if BK's right to silence with regard to Idaho''s "alibi defense' is challenged and he is "punished" for not filing an alibi defense and any of his expert witnesses are prevented from giving testimony. Especially in a death-eligible case.

Here is the text of the section of AT's filing that I am quoting from in my remarks above:


Mr. Kohberger's defense team continues investigating and preparing his case. Evidence corroborating Mr. Kohberger's 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 offerd by way of cross-examination of witnesses produced by the State as well as calling expert witnesses.
Click to expand...
All that you say is true, but I believe that if a defendant has a legitimate alibi why would they not come out with it right away? then of course the prosecution would investigate that alibi, and just think, if it checked out, the defendant would be released. But, we know that he doesn't have an alibi, so they have to go through all the usual defenses- that's okay. the defense has to do what its got to do.

I mean really, whose going to sit in jail if they have a real alibi? no one.
 
Sundog said:
It wasn't "due" yesterday, but that was the deadline if the defense was planning to submit an alibi defense.

Post above shows BK's attorney, Ann Taylor, filed a response indicating that the Idaho Code preserves BK's Constitutional right to silence.
Click to expand...
I think it was in fact due yesterday but it wasn't posted to the docket until either late last night or early today. After it was reported submitted yesterday it wasn't showing up on the docket right away.

MOO
 
Jurisprudence said:
They filed it EOD yesterday.

Translation: I retain my right to remain silent because I have no alibi but I'm still hopeful I'll find one.

jmo
Click to expand...
You made me laugh with that one! He and his defense attorneys will search high and lo for that alibi- good luck with that one - In the court of public opinion, which doesn't really count, his failure to provide an alibi and go through all those complicated defenses makes him look very guilty!
 
Nila Aella said:
Re: Planting DNA

The D said this:

In essence, the State argues that if the later STR testing is accurate then there is no reason to concern ourselves with how the State came to investigate Mr. Kohberger. State’s brief at 9. What the State’s argument asks this Court and Mr. Kohberger to assume is that the DNA on the sheath was placed there by Mr. Kohberger, and not someone else during an investigation that spans hundreds of members of law enforcement and apparently at least one lab the State refuses to name.


The prosecution replied with this

lf Defendant wishes to explore the theory that his DNA was planted on the Ka-Bar knife sheath, he is free to do so. But the family tree created by the FBI has no relevance to that theory.


The only person who used the word "planted" was the prosecutor. And subsequently, the press.
There is another alternative - transfer
Which is unintentional. MOO
Click to expand...
The state accidently put Kohbergers DNA on a knife sheath found beneath a victim?

A sheath which was immediately into secured evidence processing?
That's as colossel an allegation as planting.
 
I'm Nobody said:
Yes @Megnut
Hope you are right that it will not be an effective defense.
IMO The D has to get the touch DNA Thrown-out/Questioned/Refute the DNA to stand a chance.

The D might concentrate on what is not there
or fittingly the NO-Defense:
NO alibi--our great system does not require one
NO confession
NOcturnal pattern of living-witnesses verify this Accept & admit he was awake, he was driving around.
NO good car images/ faulty images/ wrong identification/any other white car
NO license plate number
NO cell phone data at exact time of murders. Refute the cellular accuracy.
NO BK fingerprints, blood, body fluids at scene
NO victim DNA in BK's car, home, office
NO knife--murder weapon
NO Vans-style shoes collected
NO reliable eyewitness Refute the roommate's testimony.
NO bushy eyebrows (BK trims eyebrows for trial)
NO identity for 3 unknown possible other male suspects at scene
NO SM connection to victims
NO criminal history
NO motive
NO direct proof
NO reason to charge BK much less convict--exonerate

What Magnet said "refute or get the judge to throw out the Prosecution's entire, careful case" by focusing on what is missing hopeful to get reasonable doubt.

List lover. JMO

edit words
Click to expand...

Regarding touch DNA—it’s a small point, but how do we know that the sheath DNA is touch?

I don’t think it’s been said by any reputable source, just assumed by us.

MOO
 
ilovewings said:
You made me laugh with that one! He and his defense attorneys will search high and lo for that alibi- good luck with that one - In the court of public opinion, which doesn't really count, his failure to provide an alibi and go through all those complicated defenses makes him look very guilty!
Click to expand...
And, compare Vallow's and how well that worked out for her, and hers could be corroborrated. Of course there were different (conspiracy) charges involved there.

jmo
 
ilovewings said:
his failure to provide an alibi and go through all those complicated defenses makes him look very guilty!
Click to expand...

<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.

 
maskedwoman said:
I read that as they would make their points on cross examination and rebuttal against state witnesses, but I could be wrong. :)
Click to expand...

Exactly, and also possibly with their own (defense's) own expert witnesses.

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.
 
wary said:
Regarding touch DNA—it’s a small point, but how do we know that the sheath DNA is touch?

I don’t think it’s been said by any reputable source, just assumed by us.

MOO
Click to expand...
From the D objection to P protective order:

Presumably, the Defense is expected to accept at face value that the sheath had touch DNA just waiting for testing by all the FBI’s myriad resources

BBM

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 111 more.
Total: 1,778 (members: 112, guests: 1,666)

Online statistics

Members online
112
Guests online
1,666
Total visitors
1,778
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
606,800
Messages
18,211,306
Members
233,965
Latest member
tammyb1025
Back
Top