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

[girlhasnoname]

I don't think she had to reply to the state's motion, I think she took advantage of the option to reply so that she could state on the record that an alibi defense might be forthcoming once she is able to cross examine witnesses and put defense expert witnesses on the stand. I think it was important for the defense to get this on record if needed for future appeals.

Exactly, she was covering her bases.

 

[katydid23]

Awhile back, someone (I apologize for not remembering who) had posted the Car Fax for BK's white elantra. They'd noted that BK had put a lot of miles on in the short amount of time since he'd purchased the car. The D would be able to compare the miles on his car at the time it was seized by LE, as well, subtracting his move to WA and Christmas break trip back to PA. My guess is the mileage will be significant towards them showing he drives around a lot.

We know of at least 12 times BK's phone was within cellular resource range of King Rd prior to the murders, but the D could come back with the mileage and say, "but that only accounts for a small fraction of what he's put on his car, because he goes for drives frequently, and takes a lot of different routes." There wouldn't still be camera footage from all his time in WA, so how do you prove or disprove anything? And what if turning his phone off was normal for him? Phone records could show that, as well as previous drives he took, not in Moscow, with his phone on. What we're seeing as a pathetic excuse for an alibi might actually jive with his normal behavior, and the D could then try to use that to their advantage.

And, once again, from the evidence we've seen per the PCA, there isn't any footage of the white elantra in Pullman actually entering or exiting Moscow. The PCA says the footage from WSU was the footage the FBI used to analyze the vehicle. Well, they aren't denying that the car in Pullman was BK. But what about the white elantra in Moscow? Was that analyzed by the FBI, too? Is there more footage than we know about, showing it entering or exiting Moscow? What's the proof it's the same white elantra other than a missing front plate in a college town with lots of out-of-staters? They could show photos of other vehicles in Moscow that only have one license plate because they come from states that don't require two.

My point isn't that I believe BK is innocent. But, IMO, it will really come down to the knife sheath DNA. After all, there was no victim DNA anywhere in BK's car, apartment, etc. So, if the D can give just enough reasonable doubt to BK's actual whereabouts that morning (poor guy was just on a habitual late-night drive to clear his head...haven't we all been there?), then the goal would be to get at least one juror to question the veracity of the sheath DNA evidence, and that's if the D can't get the DNA suppressed to begin with.

All JMO.

All true---except once he puts himself in a white Elantra, driving around aimlessly, he is taking away the possibility that he was framed by someone taking his car and cell to make him look guilty. So now he is using his alibi to put himself in the car with his own phone, and possibly at the crime scene.

Once that happens, the DNA in the bedroom under the victim becomes even more crucial. If his DNA was there and he could have shown evidence that he was home in bed, then it could be argued the DNA was faulty somehow. But now he is putting himself in the car, so the FBI phone pings are now in play.

 

[Jurisprudence]

<snipped for focus>

Agree, the defense is trying to keep the option open of establishing an alibi as the case proceeds. They may not present this "alibi" to the jury during the trial, but they have it on record with the court if they decide to go in that direction, and if the judge allows an exception to the alibi rule and lets them explore this line of defense during the trial with witnesses, which I think he would given that this is a death-eligible case.

Even if it doesn't meet the strict requirements of the alibi rule, AT has it on record as another possibility as reason for appeal if the defense is denied the option to cross examine witnesses, etc. during the trial.

In my opinion, with regard to AT, she knows what she is doing.

imo, if it's not even a close call, he will still allow it and give great deference to the defense. DP case aside, at this point, after all of his various rulings, I think we can easily gauge how he's handling this.

jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

Catch this last paragraph in AT's Response to Alibi BK is asking for exemption from further inquiry and is willing to provide further details in an ex party' hearing with the court:

View attachment 439024

Yes, convenient. Judge we'll meet with you in private to argue our case for an exception if you want, without the prosecution.

jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

I don't think she had to reply to the state's motion, I think she took advantage of the option to reply so that she could state on the record that an alibi defense might be forthcoming once she is able to cross examine witnesses and put defense expert witnesses on the stand. I think it was important for the defense to get this on record if needed for future appeals.

She was in a corner imo. No reply, ruling likely in state's favor.

MOO

 

[arielilane]

Brian Entin!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1687312533995061248

He may as well say he was there. Confession much? A DNA sample taken from BK showed it a near-exact match to the DNA found on a knife sheath at the scene. Supposedly the sheath was face down, partially under Maddie Mogen's body and (partially) under a bedding. So… science too says BK was there? And there’s so much more … we will see in due process. moo

 

[Sundog]

Catch this last paragraph in AT's Response to Alibi BK is asking for exemption from further inquiry and is willing to provide further details in an ex party' hearing with the court:

View attachment 439024

I think the judge would rather give the defense an exemption from further inquiry than the option to meet with the defense ex parte, without the prosecution present.

JMO, but I think that will be the judge's ruling (i.e. exemption from further inquiry).

 

[tara83]

So all this great alibi talk was that he was alone in his car?LOL.

 

[Boxer]

Just thinking, if hot prowl was a hobby, and he hot prowled 1122 and it went south when two girls were semi wake. He killed them then on adrenalin and blood lust he killed the downstairs
roomate and her boyfriend as he became aware of them.

It would explain how his preparation was a bit lacking for murder but plenty for B&E in another town.

 

[girlhasnoname]

imo, if it's not even a close call, he will still allow it and give great deference to the defense. DP case aside, at this point, after all of his various rulings, I think we can easily gauge how he's handling this.

jmo

J Tripps should be ruling on the letter of the law, without deference to either side. I know it's a DP high profile case, but that shouldn't cause the Judge to rule in any way other than based on the facts of Idaho's Rules of Law.

Neither side should have an advantage over the other when it comes to the Judge's rulings. If that has to be pointed out, than there's a problem already.

MOO

 

[Chloegirl]

I think the judge would rather give the defense an exemption from further inquiry than the option to meet with the defense ex parte, without the prosecution present.

JMO, but I think that will be the judge's ruling (i.e. exemption from further inquiry).

Having to choose between two such terrible options. I would like JJ say no to both and get his control over the Defense. This is pretty outlandish on the heels of the other antics related to the alibi. DT is making a mockery of the courts, JMOO.

 

[Jurisprudence]

Having to choose between two such terrible options. I would like JJ say no to both and get his control over the Defense. This is pretty outlandish on the heels of the other antics related to the alibi. DT is making a mockery of the courts, JMOO.

I wish he'd get control too and take back his power here.

jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

J Tripps should be ruling on the letter of the law, without deference to either side. I know it's a DP high profile case, but that shouldn't cause the Judge to rule in any way other than based on the facts of Idaho's Rules of Law.

Neither side should have an advantage over the other when it comes to the Judge's rulings. If that has to be pointed out, than there's a problem already.

MOO

Agree but Judge Tripps? Was this reassigned? This would not be a bad thing imo.

jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

I don't think she had to reply to the state's motion, I think she took advantage of the option to reply so that she could state on the record that an alibi defense might be forthcoming once she is able to cross examine witnesses and put defense expert witnesses on the stand. I think it was important for the defense to get this on record if needed for future appeals.

She was in a corner imo. No reply, ruling likely in state's favor.

MOO

I should add to this that it's also possible that the opposite is true. She deliberately wanted it public to 1) float the theory and examine social as to how it's being received; and 2) get in another complaint for public consumption that she didn't get her PC hearing and intimate that the state somehow acted underhandedly in convening a GJ.

jmo

 

[girlhasnoname]

Agree but Judge Tripps? Was this reassigned? This would not be a bad thing imo.

jmo

<snipped>

In his first court appearance back in January, Kohberger appeared before Judge Megan Marshall. She continued to oversee the case up until the grand jury issued its indictment. That’s when court documents show Judge John Judge took over.

However, once the indictment came through, the preliminary hearing was no longer needed, and the trial could proceed. At this point, the case was moved to District Court, which Judge John Judge oversees. District Court has jurisdiction over criminal cases and also includes a jury.

So, while there was a judge change, we can VERIFY that it was not unexpected and was part of the trial process.

No, there was not an unexpected change of judge in the Moscow murders trial

 

[dgfred]

All true---except once he puts himself in a white Elantra, driving around aimlessly, he is taking away the possibility that he was framed by someone taking his car and cell to make him look guilty. So now he is using his alibi to put himself in the car with his own phone, and possibly at the crime scene.

Once that happens, the DNA in the bedroom under the victim becomes even more crucial. If his DNA was there and he could have shown evidence that he was home in bed, then it could be argued the DNA was faulty somehow. But now he is putting himself in the car, so the FBI phone pings are now in play.

Well... he had too most likely.
For sure couldn't say he was at home IMO.
Driving around is his only out I think. Always can say he was framed- someone put his sheath and DNA in home but it wasn't him.
Also I don't see how not driving around an area (if usual area) after there is a high profile murder in said area is strange at all. Especially when 4 people are slaughtered.

 

[helpfulcharlie]

An alibi haiku

is an alibi
an actual alibi
if no one saw you?

 

[Jurisprudence]

<snipped>

In his first court appearance back in January, Kohberger appeared before Judge Megan Marshall. She continued to oversee the case up until the grand jury issued its indictment. That’s when court documents show Judge John Judge took over.

However, once the indictment came through, the preliminary hearing was no longer needed, and the trial could proceed. At this point, the case was moved to District Court, which Judge John Judge oversees. District Court has jurisdiction over criminal cases and also includes a jury.

So, while there was a judge change, we can VERIFY that it was not unexpected and was part of the trial process.

No, there was not an unexpected change of judge in the Moscow murders trial

Okay. I thought you said Judge Tripps. That was the confusion.

I knew about Judge Judge. A Magistrate (usually an atty from the community) is appointed to the court as a (Magistrate) judge to help the other judges in the district clear the docket by assisting with housekeeping duties and clearing the docket of low level offenses and routine matters like probable cause hearings, signing off on warrants, presiding over initial appearances, misdemeanor offenses, that sort of stuff. Magistrates cannot sit over these types of felony cases so this case was always going to get moved over to him at some point.

jmo

 

[10ofRods]

He may as well say he was there. Confession much? A DNA sample taken from BK showed it a near-exact match to the DNA found on a knife sheath at the scene. Supposedly the sheath was face down, partially under Maddie Mogen's body and (partially) under a bedding. So… science too says BK was there? And there’s so much more … we will see in due process. moo

It was an exact match. We'd need another planet with about 10 trillion humans on it for it to be anyone else.

DNA is like that. It's crisper than a fingerprint. Unless he has an identical twin, it's him.

IMO.

 

[Justice101]

All true---except once he puts himself in a white Elantra, driving around aimlessly, he is taking away the possibility that he was framed by someone taking his car and cell to make him look guilty. So now he is using his alibi to put himself in the car with his own phone, and possibly at the crime scene.

Once that happens, the DNA in the bedroom under the victim becomes even more crucial. If his DNA was there and he could have shown evidence that he was home in bed, then it could be argued the DNA was faulty somehow. But now he is putting himself in the car, so the FBI phone pings are now in play.

REALLY good points!

The lead question for the prosecution might be "if you were asleep, how did your car and phone get stolen (and returned, mind you) and yet you did report any of the such. Who did you lend it to?? Huh?

To me, his defense has very few opportunities.

DNA on the knife sheath, video of white Elantra, phone records in proximity of crime scene and lastly eyewitness testimony of DM that is consistent with BK... will be enough for a strong case.

I do feel that there is more evidence that we may not know about until the trial