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

[Jurisprudence]

Excellent point IMO

From the response to States Motion to reconsider by JL:

He is not required to give up his right to a speedy trial in this matter because the State refuses to provide him materials as to its Genetic Genealogy search and chooses the protracted litigation involved with a grand jury rather than a preliminary hearing

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/072423%20Response%20to%20States%20Motion%20to%20Reconsider%20Order%20Staying%20Time%20for%20Speedy%20Trial.pdf

"...and chooses the protracted litigation involved with a grand jury rather than a preliminary hearing"

That is for you, you know. Well, not "you" but for anyone in the potential jury pool who may read these filings. It's not an accurate statement imo. Like many of the statements made in the defense filings. But that's MOO.

 

[maskedwoman]

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.

If that sheath DNA were the only evidence the state has, then that could be a great alibi. But with the entirety of the state's case, I suspect the jury will be saying so what. To AT. MOOooo

 

[Jurisprudence]

Well, as other people are posting, Dateline said so, by way of an anonymous source.

If that’s true, it creates an awkward situation for the defense. I presume that they’ll be trying to suggest that someone planted BK’s DNA on the sheath that BK owned?

Exactly. Or that BK did touch it innocently enough and LE knew he did this well in advance of the crimes. So much so that in between the time LE arrived on site and first started processing the scene on that day, LE knew enough to go to the true owner's property, be it a vehicle or residence, snatch the knife, wipe all the other DNA off it except for that one spot on the snap where BK touched it (because LE also somehow knew that it was only the snap BK touched), ran back to the scene, without compromising that invisible touch DNA, and put it under MM and the comforter. Sounds like I live in Crazy Town, doesn't it?

jmo

 

[maskedwoman]

Does the state have evidence that BK purchased the knife sheath?

Can the defense ask an expert witness if they can say exactly when the DNA was placed on the sheath and let the jury wonder about that?

JMO.

Even if they can't, they can prove when the sheath ended up under her body and that he was prowling the neighborhood, etc. I can hear the State's closing argument. "What is more likely? The BK accidentally left that sheath the night of the murders or that he touched it some time in the past, in some other place the defense cannot identify, and it magically ended up under a victim when she was murdered by someone else?"

 

[Jurisprudence]

Thanks.

So LE got warrants for Ebay. What about Amazon? Or Ka-Bar Knives?

Tons and tons. Meta (FB, IG), Reddit, Amazon, wireless carriers, Google, Ka Bar Knives, Twitter, Tik Tok. It seems the list is endless. Check out the docket posted to Idaho Cases of Judicial Interest. They are sealed, but they are all listed.

Idaho Judicial Cases of Interest

 

[Boxer]

Does the state have evidence that BK purchased the knife sheath?

Can the defense ask an expert witness if they can say exactly when the DNA was placed on the sheath and let the jury wonder about that?

JMO.

Betting on a gullible jury member.
Or a secret admirer of BK.

 

[North_Idaho_Nony]

Their papers are getting way too personal imo. The tone in that filing is well...

MOO, the Defense Team is doing its job & is very aware everyone is reading the filings.

MOO, it’s almost like they are trying to taint any possible jury pool anywhere in the US with the hyperbolic verbiage.

As always, MOO.

 

[Jurisprudence]

MOO, the Defense Team is doing its job & is very aware everyone is reading the filings.

MOO, it’s almost like they are trying to taint any possible jury pool anywhere in the US with the hyperbolic verbiage.

As always, MOO.

Agree. And, agree with @Boxer's statement "AT working the angles to engage conspiracy themes."

100% jmo

 

[North_Idaho_Nony]

Agree. And, agree with @Boxer's statement "AT working the angles to engage conspiracy themes."

100% jmo

Also agree. FWIW & MOO, Idaho juries in significant cases haven’t been playing recently!

 

[schooling]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1683876330650353664

AKA

"So is it possible that someone could have been elsewhere and not where the cell phone said they were?"

Good luck.

MOO

 

[Balthazar]

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

Disclosing the alibi at the wrong time can be disastrous. The defense has to thoroughly investigate the alibi and interview witnesses. It appears that is what they are doing but they might not be done yet. If the defense are seriously going to present an alibi as the defense, they need to dot every "I" and cross every "t" and double-check, triple-check, quadruple check and quadruple proof-read and proof-read again and again afterwards. Basically, in presenting an alibi, the defense is saying that LE goofed up and their investigation is a total fail. So the defense had better have everything absolutely, positively, correct and provable or the prosecution is going to rip them apart and destroy their case right in front of the jury.

 

[Balthazar]

I think touch DNA by definition is DNA left on an object "presumably" bc it was touched by the defendant. My guess is she'll try to get this excluded as unreliable unless the state can provide some support that he touched it. But, wasn't it reported that they traced the purchase by him to Amazon or am I misremembering?
MOO

LE requested his purchase history from Amazon, we have no idea, what, if anything was found. Based on what the defense wrote in a court filing it sounds like the state may not have received any results from these type of searches.

"The investigation has provided precious little," the defense writes. "There is no connection between Mr. Kohberger and the victims. There is no explanation for the total lack of DNA evidence from the victims in Mr. Kohbrerger's apartment, office, home, or vehicle." (Posting a link to this information yet again.)

Kohberger defense team aims to poke holes at DNA evidence linking him to U of I murders

MOSCOW, Idaho - Attorneys representing accused killer Bryan Kohberger will argue in court Tuesday that prosecutors need to hand over evidence about how it connected his DNA to the crime.

www.kxly.com

 

[schooling]

Disclosing the alibi at the wrong time can be disastrous. The defense has to thoroughly investigate the alibi and interview witnesses. It appears that is what they are doing but they might not be done yet. If the defense are seriously going to present an alibi as the defense, they need to dot every "I" and cross every "t" and double-check, triple-check, quadruple check and quadruple proof-read and proof-read again and again afterwards. Basically, in presenting an alibi, the defense is saying that LE goofed up and their investigation is a total fail. So the defense had better have everything absolutely, positively, correct and provable or the prosecution is going to rip them apart and destroy their case right in front of the jury.

I don't know...

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."
https://twitter.com/alcaprari23/status/1683876330650353664/photo/1

If I'm reading that correctly, particularly the last sentence...which completely blows up the first sentence where they imply that they might have alibi related discovery to share.

To me, IMO, looks like they have no plans on officially submitting an alibi. And that they are going to go for alibi by inference. If that's not his car. He's somewhere else. If that's not his phone. He's somewhere else.

I don't think we'll ever hear or know where that somewhere else is. Which is well within his right...

MOO, of course.

 

[Jurisprudence]

LE requested his purchase history from Amazon, we have no idea, what, if anything was found. Based on what the defense wrote in a court filing it sounds like the state may not have received any results from these type of searches.

"The investigation has provided precious little," the defense writes. "There is no connection between Mr. Kohberger and the victims. There is no explanation for the total lack of DNA evidence from the victims in Mr. Kohbrerger's apartment, office, home, or vehicle." (Posting a link to this information yet again.)

Kohberger defense team aims to poke holes at DNA evidence linking him to U of I murders

MOSCOW, Idaho - Attorneys representing accused killer Bryan Kohberger will argue in court Tuesday that prosecutors need to hand over evidence about how it connected his DNA to the crime.

www.kxly.com

I think their posts stated it was mentioned on Dateline from a source. I stated I also remembered hearing this somewhere but do not recall where.

jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

I don't know...


If I'm reading that correctly, particularly the last sentence...which completely blows up the first sentence where they imply that they might have alibi related discovery to share.

To me, IMO, looks like they have no plans on officially submitting an alibi. And that they are going to go for alibi by inference. If that's not his car. He's somewhere else. If that's not his phone. He's somewhere else.

I don't think we'll ever hear or know where that somewhere else is. Which is well within his right...

MOO, of course.

I agree. MOO

 

[schooling]

I think touch DNA by definition is DNA left on an object "presumably" bc it was touched by the defendant. My guess is she'll try to get this excluded as unreliable unless the state can provide some support that he touched it. But, wasn't it reported that they traced the purchase by him to Amazon or am I misremembering?
MOO

I've seen crimes committed 40 years ago being solved by DNA. I don't remember any in particular requiring prosecutors to specifically prove that the suspect/defendant touched the object where their DNA was left.

If that was the bar we'd have DNA evidence being thrown out left and right.

I'd like to think it's not going to fly. But OJ...

 

[Idaho transplant]

Also agree. FWIW & MOO, Idaho juries in significant cases haven’t been playing recently!

Isn't that a double-edged sword if the defense then turns around and asks for a venue change?

 

[Jurisprudence]

LE requested his purchase history from Amazon, we have no idea, what, if anything was found. Based on what the defense wrote in a court filing it sounds like the state may not have received any results from these type of searches.

"The investigation has provided precious little," the defense writes. "There is no connection between Mr. Kohberger and the victims. There is no explanation for the total lack of DNA evidence from the victims in Mr. Kohbrerger's apartment, office, home, or vehicle." (Posting a link to this information yet again.)

Kohberger defense team aims to poke holes at DNA evidence linking him to U of I murders

MOSCOW, Idaho - Attorneys representing accused killer Bryan Kohberger will argue in court Tuesday that prosecutors need to hand over evidence about how it connected his DNA to the crime.

www.kxly.com

Just ftr, and MOO, I have issues with the veracity of many of the defense team's filings. I find them to be disingenuous, at best, and I wish the judge would do something about it. I think the judge is afraid to do anything wrong in this case and risk an issue on appeal, and as a result, the defense is getting away with things they would ordinarily be shut down on.

I think the state did a good job of pointing this out quite well in some of their responses, particularly in their response to the motion to compel when they had to say Judge, their claim we have not been responsive is basically false (or disingenuous at best). We have provided them to date with thousands of pages of docs and endless terabytes of digital data, some items they have asked for have not yet been returned to us from the lab, and others, the defense knows she is not entitled to receive under the Idaho Criminal Rules.
(https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/051223 States Response to Defendants Motion to Compel Discovery.pdf)

I'm not trying to change your opinion. I'm responding only because you seem to be putting a lot of stock in their papers. I have the opposite opinion and have maintained it since their early filings. MOO is that motion to compel, like the many motions that have preceded it and have followed it, were done for public consumption - for people to spread the theory, taint the jury pool. To muddy the waters that were never muddied to start. To start far in advance to plant a seed of doubt. jmo Time will tell. Hopefully all the evidence they have will be admitted and then we can judge.

jmo

 

[Megnut]

"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

Exactly this. Alibi by inference.

They are building the case for their opening statement.

IMO they will cross-examine certain prosecution experts, hoping for the dramatic aha moment where the expert concedes, " yes, it's possible the phone could have been anywhere in this wider sector. Yes, there's cellular draft impacting where a phone really is and where it thinks it is. Can touch DNA have been transfered, a long time ago? Just because it's on a sheath now, doesn't mean it just got there, right? IMO the defense will attempt to raise doubt piece by piece, and string it all together again at closing argument, in attempt to suggest the Prosecution's case is built on a heap of unscientific supposes....

(Even though it's their supposes which are the unscientifickest.)

He's got good counsel. They're doing exactly what one would expect, when a defense has no defense.

BK was never anywhere else. He won't have an actual alibi, linking him to a real other place. What they have is: if his DNA could've gotten there another way, if his vehicle could've been mistaken, if the sleepy roommate was mistaken, if the cellar data is sketchy, if you can't prove he was there, then it's reasonable to conclude he could've been elsewhere.

Flawed.

But the beauty of all of this is that the defense would mount a stronger countercase if they could. This is all they've got. Smoke, mirrors and the walnutshell game.

JMO

 

[Jurisprudence]

Exactly this. Alibi by inference.

They are building the case for their opening statement.

IMO they will cross-examine certain prosecution experts, hoping for the dramatic aha moment where the expert concedes, " yes, it's possible the phone could have been anywhere in this wider sector. Yes, there's cellular draft impacting where a phone really is and where it thinks it is. Can touch DNA have been transfered, a long time ago? Just because it's on a sheath now, doesn't mean it just got there, right? IMO the defense will attempt to raise doubt piece by piece, and string it all together again at closing argument, in attempt to suggest the Prosecution's case is built on a heap of unscientific supposes....

(Even though it's their supposes which are the unscientifickest.)

He's got good counsel. They're doing exactly what one would expect, when a defense has no defense.

BK was never anywhere else. He won't have an actual alibi, linking him to a real other place. What they have is: if his DNA could've gotten there another way, if his vehicle could've been mistaken, if the sleepy roommate was mistaken, if the cellar data is sketchy, if you can't prove he was there, then it's reasonable to conclude he could've been elsewhere.

Flawed.

But the beauty of all of this is that the defense would mount a stronger countercase if they could. This is all they've got. Smoke, mirrors and the walnutshell game.

JMO

What a great post. MOO