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

[TL4S]

"The man accused of murdering four University of Idaho students last November says he could not have committed the murders because he was "elsewhere at the time," according to new court documents.'

'He was elsewhere at the time' | Bryan Kohberger claims he was somewhere else when 4 University of Idaho students were murdered

ETA: this is another regional article with reporting from Spokane, WA

From your link:

"A defendant's denial of the charges against him does not constitute an alibi, but as soon as he offers evidence that he was at some place other than where the crime of which he is charged was committed, he is raising the alibi defense," Taylor wrote in court documents.

So, does this just mean he's claimed to have been somewhere else, but there's no evidence thus far to support it? And that this evidence will come during testimony from witnesses?

 

[RANCH]

I think that the defense's "alibi" will be cross examining a state witness and asking if it's possible BK's DNA was left on the knife sheath day's before the murders and someone else used it or is it possible his DNA was planted after the sheath was found by LE

Can an expert witness tell the jury exactly when the DNA got on the knife sheath?

JMO.

 

[North_Idaho_Nony]

From your link:

"A defendant's denial of the charges against him does not constitute an alibi, but as soon as he offers evidence that he was at some place other than where the crime of which he is charged was committed, he is raising the alibi defense," Taylor wrote in court documents.

So, does this just mean he's claimed to have been somewhere else, but there's no evidence thus far to support it?

MOO only, but I'm interpreting it to be the Defense Team doing its job with a hefty dose of magical or wishful thinking & hoping.

 

[TL4S]

MOO only, but I'm interpreting it to be the Defense Team doing its job with a hefty dose of magical or wishful thinking & hoping.

She's saying he hasn't "offered" any evidence, yet in the other document, she says this evidence will come from a witness. I'm really curious. Does this go back to BF and their claim she has exculpatory evidence?

 

[Nila Aella]

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

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/072423%20Notice%20of%20Defendants%20Response%20to%20States%20Alibi%20Demand.pdf

BBM
I totally agree! Very strategic. This also leaves open SODDI/TODDI.
MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

I read that as they would make their points on cross examination and rebuttal against state witnesses, but I could be wrong.

And 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.

 

[RANCH]

While the defense can call it's own expert witness's to help it's case, I think that using the state's witness's to try and show that the DNA evidence has holes in it would carry more weight with the jury. JMO.

 

[Justice101]

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.

And they did it so cleverly...

They knew ahead of time what the intruder looked like so they could plant the DNA of someone that looked like them.
They found a local patsy (BK) and surveilled him long enough to get a DNA sample from a pizza crust or his trash.
They got all 4 people to lie on the chain of custody.

 

[Jurisprudence]

"The man accused of murdering four University of Idaho students last November says he could not have committed the murders because he was "elsewhere at the time," according to new court documents.'

'He was elsewhere at the time' | Bryan Kohberger claims he was somewhere else when 4 University of Idaho students were murdered

ETA: this is another regional article with reporting from Spokane, WA

If it's true that some of the guys went back to the house after the Frat party and they were making noise causing DM to tell them to shut up, and if they woke BF and BF looked out of her window and saw some of the guys outside, I suspect that this cross (examination) of BF, coupled with whatever AT is hoping to get suppressed (her reference to getting the alibi by cross and use of "evidentiary rules") is what she's looking to bank on to sew doubt that he was not present at the home.

Problem with that story, and this is MOO, is that I believe some people did go back to the house. I suspect DM did yell at them to shut up. And, I suspect that they are the guys we see walking in the police body cam coming from the King Road home at 3 am, all well before the crimes occurred, which does nothing to help BK's claim that he wasn't there. If I'm a juror and I hear testimony from DM and BF about this, I would imagine I would think it makes perfect sense.

All MOO and Speculation only.

 

[Sundog]

From your link:

"A defendant's denial of the charges against him does not constitute an alibi, but as soon as he offers evidence that he was at some place other than where the crime of which he is charged was committed, he is raising the alibi defense," Taylor wrote in court documents.

So, does this just mean he's claimed to have been somewhere else, but there's no evidence thus far to support it? And that this evidence will come during testimony from witnesses?

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.

 

[TwoBlueJays]

I think that the defense's "alibi" will be cross examining a state witness and asking if it's possible BK's DNA was left on the knife sheath day's before the murders and someone else used it or is it possible his DNA was planted after the sheath was found by LE

Can an expert witness tell the jury exactly when the DNA got on the knife sheath?

JMO.

I wondered this as well. Planting the DNA makes no sense. However if the timing cannot be established then the defense can state that it's possible that the DNA was left on the sheath at any other time prior to the murders, e.g., while examining the sheath at a store. Without 'aging', prosecution states that BK's DNA is on the sheath - defense says so what.

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1683835292430798848

https://twitter.com/x/status/1683887506625028096

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1683893281711861760

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/072423%20Notice%20of%20Defendants%20Response%20to%20States%20Alibi%20Demand.pdf

 

[tara83]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1683893281711861760

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/072423%20Notice%20of%20Defendants%20Response%20to%20States%20Alibi%20Demand.pdf

Unless his family will lie he was with them I don't know what crap he can come up with.<modsnip>

 

[girlhasnoname]

I wondered this as well. Planting the DNA makes no sense. However if the timing cannot be established then the defense can state that it's possible that the DNA was left on the sheath at any other time prior to the murders, e.g., while examining the sheath at a store. Without 'aging', prosecution states that BK's DNA is on the sheath - defense says so what.

BK's DNA left on a sheath under one of the murdered victims, in addition to all of the other evidence, is going to knock that coincidence out of the realm of reasonable IMO.

 

[RANCH]

I wondered this as well. Planting the DNA makes no sense. However if the timing cannot be established then the defense can state that it's possible that the DNA was left on the sheath at any other time prior to the murders, e.g., while examining the sheath at a store. Without 'aging', prosecution states that BK's DNA is on the sheath - defense says so what.

Yep. The defense just needs to instill reasonable doubt into one jurors mind to "win".

Will that happen in this case? I don't know. Over the years I've seen some really bad jury's that don't understand circumstantial evidence. That's why jury selection is so important. JMO.

 

[Jurisprudence]

If I have an alibi, I am screaming up and down for my atty to disclose it to the state in hope of being released asap and the charges potentially being withdrawn or dismissed. I am not saying "Let's keep it a secret. I'm good sitting in jail for 7-12 months." MOO, He doesn't have evidence he was elsewhere. Rather, they are hoping they can find evidence that will support he wasn't there (a distinction with a difference). I realize this is not how she worded it, but it wouldn't be the first time (imo) that her papers have been "odd." It's just a hunch that this is the plan.

jmo

 

[wary]

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

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/062323%20Objection%20to%20States%20Motion%20for%20Protective%20Order.pdf

Thank you! Notice that the Defense isn’t claiming that it’s touch DNA. Just implying, in a convoluted and sarcastic sentence, that it is. We’ll see.

 

[Cool Cats]

I think that the defense's "alibi" will be cross examining a state witness and asking if it's possible BK's DNA was left on the knife sheath day's before the murders and someone else used it or is it possible his DNA was planted after the sheath was found by LE

Can an expert witness tell the jury exactly when the DNA got on the knife sheath?

JMO.

No the defense cannot use this defense that BK left his DNA on his sheath beforehand and the sheath was then planted.

To use this defense they would have to admit that

1.) Yes this is BK's sheath

2.) Yes it is his DNA

And the judge will not allow them to say LE planted evidence. They cannot do that without providing evidence to back it up.

In trials you have to show the jury evidence, you can't just say LE framed BK without evidence. Not how trials work.

I do not believe they have any evidence that the DNA chain of custody was breeched.

2 Cents

 

[Boxer]

I wondered this as well. Planting the DNA makes no sense. However if the timing cannot be established then the defense can state that it's possible that the DNA was left on the sheath at any other time prior to the murders, e.g., while examining the sheath at a store. Without 'aging', prosecution states that BK's DNA is on the sheath - defense says so what.

A loner TA from the adjacent college comes to a party unnoticed by anyone wearing gloves and carrying a Kabar sheath.
Sorority type girls just love that kind of thing and might just take that item that to their room where it accidentally ends up below their dead body.