4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #87

[Justice101]

It's like an Aesop's fable, hope the judge does not agree to meet in secret with the fox.

Well said!!!!

 

[Boxer]

Judge Judge rein this sprawling non defense in.

 

[al66pine]

If Def's Opening Stmt. Over Promises w Specifics Not Delivered in Trial?

I've seen a lot of opening statements by Defenses that claim they will prove x, y or z, and of course it never happened. I don't think I remember the State ever objecting in opening statements either....MOO

@girlhasnoname

Seems that (by the state refraining from making objection ^) gives the state the opportunity in closing argument to point out (subtly or not so subtly?) the def did not come thru w the evidence promised.
imo

 

[Boxer]

If Def's Opening Stmt. Over Promises w Specifics Not Delivered in Trial?

@girlhasnoname

Seems that (by the state refraining from making objection ^) gives the state the opportunity in closing argument to point out (subtly or not so subtly?) the def did not come thru w the evidence promised.
imo

Closing statement is late in the development of an opinion.
Powerful emotionally for sure but its the evidence during trial that creates the certainty for a verdict.

 

[Justice101]

I think the defense opening statement is that their client is innocent and that you would have to believe 100 pieces of random circumstantial evidence to believe the prosecution's case is valid. They will argue that reasonable doubt is equal to no smoking gun. (that is not what reasonable actually means)

To me based only on what I saw in the PCA, this will be hard for any reasonable person to not convict him:

1) DNA evidence on the knife sheath
2) Video evidence of similar car with no front plates like his PA car (both Idaho and Washington require both back and front plates)
3) Phone evidence
4) Potential evidence of a knife purchase
5) Eye witness testimony (DM) that does not exclude BK.
6) Circumstantial evidence of BK's behavior of hiding trash in neighbor's cans in PA.

The fact that the defense appears to be trying anything they can shows that they really don't have a defense.

Anyway, I think many people share my opinion.

I hope this does not go to trial so as to spare the family seeing and hearing the true evidence.

But BK may be so delusional that he thinks his lawyers can create reasonable doubt.

 

[Boxer]

In the defense's alibi notice document, they offered to go into more detail with the judge in an ex parte meeting, if the judge wanted more information regarding why the defense presented their alibi notice in the way that they did. AT was not asking for an ex parte meeting with the judge, but offering to do so if it would be helpful to the judge as he makes his decision on the state's motion to compel regarding the alibi notice.

Ex parte hearings are probably rare but held if needed. I don't see anything outrageous about AT offering this option to the court, but that is my opinion. Ex parte hearings are part of the judicial system.

A grand jury hearing, also, is held without the defense able to present witnesses or commnent on the evidence that the prosecution presents.

They offered more detail than nothing? Wow.
I think that AT is strategizing that if one of the roomates or a guest can be impugned with dealing that it will open the door for SODDI and in combination with a gullible juror...
This is like trying to deal with a weasel.

 

[Boxer]

I think the defense opening statement is that their client is innocent and that you would have to believe 100 pieces of random circumstantial evidence to believe the prosecution's case is valid. They will argue that reasonable doubt is equal to no smoking gun. (that is not what reasonable actually means)

To me based only on what I saw in the PCA, this will be hard for any reasonable person to not convict him:

1) DNA evidence on the knife sheath
2) Video evidence of similar car with no front plates like his PA car (both Idaho and Washington require both back and front plates)
3) Phone evidence
4) Potential evidence of a knife purchase
5) Eye witness testimony (DM) that does not exclude BK.
6) Circumstantial evidence of BK's behavior of hiding trash in neighbor's cans in PA.

The fact that the defense appears to be trying anything they can shows that they really don't have a defense.

Anyway, I think many people share my opinion.

I hope this does not go to trial so as to spare the family seeing and hearing the true evidence.

But BK may be so delusional that he thinks his lawyers can create reasonable doubt.

They are going to try. And the DP serves to keep their motivation high to keep trying

 

[Boxer]

Vallows conviction gives me hope thay Idaho juries can see deception for what it is.

 

[10ofRods]

I think the defense opening statement is that their client is innocent and that you would have to believe 100 pieces of random circumstantial evidence to believe the prosecution's case is valid. They will argue that reasonable doubt is equal to no smoking gun. (that is not what reasonable actually means)

To me based only on what I saw in the PCA, this will be hard for any reasonable person to not convict him:

1) DNA evidence on the knife sheath
2) Video evidence of similar car with no front plates like his PA car (both Idaho and Washington require both back and front plates)
3) Phone evidence
4) Potential evidence of a knife purchase
5) Eye witness testimony (DM) that does not exclude BK.
6) Circumstantial evidence of BK's behavior of hiding trash in neighbor's cans in PA.

The fact that the defense appears to be trying anything they can shows that they really don't have a defense.

Anyway, I think many people share my opinion.

I hope this does not go to trial so as to spare the family seeing and hearing the true evidence.

But BK may be so delusional that he thinks his lawyers can create reasonable doubt.

Excellent list. To that I'd add that the footprint must match (good footprint analysis will indicate not only his foot size, but the relative length of his toes and the height of his arch). For icing, it would be great if the State has a witness to Kohberger owning a pair of Vans or Vans-like shoes.

Also, by now there's also phone GPS, no doubt. (A subcategory under your "phone evidence").

This is without any bombshell witnesses, of which I believe there will be at least a couple.

IMO.

 

[10ofRods]

I don't like all this ex parte' stuff either Boxer. Defense already had their meetings ex parte' for Defense Expert Witnesses or was it just the Motion to present them. IDK?

Me either. It circumvents the intent of Idaho law (about notice of Alibi). There's a reason for the law and the State is supposed to receive notice (just as the Defense is supposed to receive all the GJ transcripts - which they have received).

 

[I'm Nobody]

The Objection

Wonderful comments everyone. Thank you. I've been struggling (for days actually) with AT's last minute, broad, vague non-alibi statement since it was submitted; mulling it over a few times (word by word & between the lines), & re-read Sec 19-519 Notice of Alibi.

AT knows, probably by heart, exactly what the Notice of Alibi requires.
As almost everyone & the news du jour have said it "hinted" at an alibi and
the objection statement did NOT meet the definition of an alibi.
Why? The D-team NEVER intended it to.
It is precisely the first seven words:
OBJECTION TO THE STATE’S MOTION TO COMPEL
In other words STOP BOTHERING US.

"MOTIVE OF DEFENSE OF ALIBI” .... tricky wording
AT does not make glaring errors like "Motive" instead of "Motion/Notice?"
so MOTIVE OF DEFENSE OF ALIBI was intentional, IMO, but why?
Motive is irrelevant. What's the reason AT used that word?

AT explains the reason with the "or"
or, ALTERNATIVELY TO BAR CERTAIN EVIDENCE
The motive of the state pushing for an alibi is so the D does not have time to find one.
In doing so:
"The state continually uses those opportunities to attempt to force a waiver of speedy trial. That is a decision left to Mr. Kohberger and Mr. Kohberger alone."
Uh Huh, lightbulb moment for me. The D is hinting BK's right to a speedy trial, a constitutional right, might be in jeopardy, in danger of being lost. Thus the ex parte suggestion.
AFAIK, Ex parte's are sacred, granted only with good cause and due to true extreme danger to the victim/party asking for it, physical, mental or constitutional damage.
Strategy peek: The D tends to go for a dismissal based on BK's constitutional rights being denied by the state. The proof will be all those requests the D had to make to get info.

AT accuses the state of wanting a " peek" into her work product / strategy.
Gosh, isn't every document AT files a peek inside her work-product?

Nutshell: This Objection was a finger-pointing accusation at the state. Three & 1/2 pages of how hardworking the D are; D having no-alibi is not caused by their failure to prepare, but the state is "hampering" them from doing so. BK is in danger of losing his speedy trial due to the state.

If this non-alibi objection doesn't provoke the ire of JudgeJJ, who IMO follows the constitutional & statutory requirements of law including legal terms (think "gag" order) & definitions, I don't know what would.

Will it work? I'm not betting the whole farm on it.

My take at the moment. MOOooooo.

edit: add to Motion, "Notice" Thanks @sarahw7147
& spelling

 

[sarahw7147]

The Objection

Wonderful comments everyone. Thank you. I've been struggling (for days actually) with AT's last minute, broad, vague non-alibi statement since it was submitted; mulling it over a few times (word by word & between the lines), & re-read Sec 19-519 Notice of Alibi.

AT knows, probably by heart, exactly what the Notice of Alibi requires.
As almost everyone & the news du jour have said it "hinted" at an alibi and
the objection statement did NOT meet the definition of an alibi.
Why? The D-team NEVER intended it to.
It is precisely the first seven words:
OBJECTION TO THE STATE’S MOTION TO COMPEL
In other words STOP BOTHERING US.

"MOTIVE OF DEFENSE OF ALIBI” .... tricky wording
AT does not make glaring errors like "Motive" instead of "Motion."
so MOTIVE OF DEFENSE OF ALIBI was intentional, IMO, but why?
Motive is irrelevant. What's the reason AT used that word?

AT explains the reason with the "or"
or, ALTERNATIVELY TO BAR CERTAIN EVIDENCE
The motive of the state pushing for an alibi is so the D does not have time to find one.
In doing so:
"The state continually uses those opportunities to attempt to force a waiver of speedy trial. That is a decision left to Mr. Kohberger and Mr. Kohberger alone."
Uh Huh, lightbulb moment for me. The D is hinting BK's right to a speedy trial, a constitutional right, might be in jeopardy, in danger of being lost. Thus the ex parte suggestion.
AFAIK, Ex parte's are sacred, granted only with good cause and due to true extreme danger to the victim/party asking for it, physical, mental or constitutional damage.
Strategy peek: The D tends to go for a dismissal based on BK's constitutional rights being denied by the state. The proof will be all those requests the D had to make to get info.

AT accuses the state of wanting a " peek" into her work product / strategy.
Gosh, isn't every document AT files a peek inside her work-product?

Nutshell: This Objection was a finger-pointing accusation at the state. Three & 1/2 pages of how hardworking the D are; D having no-alibi is not caused by their failure to prepare, but the state is "hampering" them from doing so. BK is in danger of loosing his speedy trial due to the state.

If this non-alibi objection doesn't provoke the ire of JudgeJJ, who IMO follows the constitutional & statutory requirements of law including legal terms (think "gag" order) & definitions, I don't know what would.

Will it work? I'm not betting the whole farm on it.

My take at the moment. MOOooooo.

I could be wrong, but I thought "Motive of Defense of Alibi" was a typo and it was meant to say "Notice of Defense of Alibi". Just a thought?

 

[gliving]

• 08/09/2023 Notice of Filing Affidavit in Support

 

[di anna]

So exactly what does this mean? Are they disputing the validity of the DNA found on the sheath?

 

[girlhasnoname]

• 08/09/2023 Notice of Filing Affidavit in Support

The Defense is going in fast and hard on this GGI to try and get the DNA thrown out. I don't think it'll happen in the long run, the STR that matched BK 5 octillion times more likely than any other person came from the knife sheath he left behind at the murder scene.

AT & Company are taking on the Feds, this should be good.

MOO

 

[Boxer]

The Objection

Wonderful comments everyone. Thank you. I've been struggling (for days actually) with AT's last minute, broad, vague non-alibi statement since it was submitted; mulling it over a few times (word by word & between the lines), & re-read Sec 19-519 Notice of Alibi.

AT knows, probably by heart, exactly what the Notice of Alibi requires.
As almost everyone & the news du jour have said it "hinted" at an alibi and
the objection statement did NOT meet the definition of an alibi.
Why? The D-team NEVER intended it to.
It is precisely the first seven words:
OBJECTION TO THE STATE’S MOTION TO COMPEL
In other words STOP BOTHERING US.

"MOTIVE OF DEFENSE OF ALIBI” .... tricky wording
AT does not make glaring errors like "Motive" instead of "Motion/Notice?"
so MOTIVE OF DEFENSE OF ALIBI was intentional, IMO, but why?
Motive is irrelevant. What's the reason AT used that word?

AT explains the reason with the "or"
or, ALTERNATIVELY TO BAR CERTAIN EVIDENCE
The motive of the state pushing for an alibi is so the D does not have time to find one.
In doing so:
"The state continually uses those opportunities to attempt to force a waiver of speedy trial. That is a decision left to Mr. Kohberger and Mr. Kohberger alone."
Uh Huh, lightbulb moment for me. The D is hinting BK's right to a speedy trial, a constitutional right, might be in jeopardy, in danger of being lost. Thus the ex parte suggestion.
AFAIK, Ex parte's are sacred, granted only with good cause and due to true extreme danger to the victim/party asking for it, physical, mental or constitutional damage.
Strategy peek: The D tends to go for a dismissal based on BK's constitutional rights being denied by the state. The proof will be all those requests the D had to make to get info.

AT accuses the state of wanting a " peek" into her work product / strategy.
Gosh, isn't every document AT files a peek inside her work-product?

Nutshell: This Objection was a finger-pointing accusation at the state. Three & 1/2 pages of how hardworking the D are; D having no-alibi is not caused by their failure to prepare, but the state is "hampering" them from doing so. BK is in danger of losing his speedy trial due to the state.

If this non-alibi objection doesn't provoke the ire of JudgeJJ, who IMO follows the constitutional & statutory requirements of law including legal terms (think "gag" order) & definitions, I don't know what would.

Will it work? I'm not betting the whole farm on it.

My take at the moment. MOOooooo.

edit: add to Motion, "Notice" Thanks @sarahw7147
& spelling

Floating your client out danger on an ocean of motions.
Hope the prosecution had their army at hand to handle the incoming appropriately.

 

[girlhasnoname]

The Objection

Wonderful comments everyone. Thank you. I've been struggling (for days actually) with AT's last minute, broad, vague non-alibi statement since it was submitted; mulling it over a few times (word by word & between the lines), & re-read Sec 19-519 Notice of Alibi.

AT knows, probably by heart, exactly what the Notice of Alibi requires.
As almost everyone & the news du jour have said it "hinted" at an alibi and
the objection statement did NOT meet the definition of an alibi.
Why? The D-team NEVER intended it to.
It is precisely the first seven words:
OBJECTION TO THE STATE’S MOTION TO COMPEL
In other words STOP BOTHERING US.

"MOTIVE OF DEFENSE OF ALIBI” .... tricky wording
AT does not make glaring errors like "Motive" instead of "Motion/Notice?"
so MOTIVE OF DEFENSE OF ALIBI was intentional, IMO, but why?
Motive is irrelevant. What's the reason AT used that word?

AT explains the reason with the "or"
or, ALTERNATIVELY TO BAR CERTAIN EVIDENCE
The motive of the state pushing for an alibi is so the D does not have time to find one.
In doing so:
"The state continually uses those opportunities to attempt to force a waiver of speedy trial. That is a decision left to Mr. Kohberger and Mr. Kohberger alone."
Uh Huh, lightbulb moment for me. The D is hinting BK's right to a speedy trial, a constitutional right, might be in jeopardy, in danger of being lost. Thus the ex parte suggestion.
AFAIK, Ex parte's are sacred, granted only with good cause and due to true extreme danger to the victim/party asking for it, physical, mental or constitutional damage.
Strategy peek: The D tends to go for a dismissal based on BK's constitutional rights being denied by the state. The proof will be all those requests the D had to make to get info.

AT accuses the state of wanting a " peek" into her work product / strategy.
Gosh, isn't every document AT files a peek inside her work-product?

Nutshell: This Objection was a finger-pointing accusation at the state. Three & 1/2 pages of how hardworking the D are; D having no-alibi is not caused by their failure to prepare, but the state is "hampering" them from doing so. BK is in danger of losing his speedy trial due to the state.

If this non-alibi objection doesn't provoke the ire of JudgeJJ, who IMO follows the constitutional & statutory requirements of law including legal terms (think "gag" order) & definitions, I don't know what would.

Will it work? I'm not betting the whole farm on it.

My take at the moment. MOOooooo.

edit: add to Motion, "Notice" Thanks @sarahw7147
& spelling

I believe that is why the State worded very clearly their response to this Motion asking the Judge reconsider. I'd be surprised if Judge Judge does reverse it at this point, but they have it on record which is a good thing.

BK not having waived his right to speedy trial, but also with the 37 day stay, could he then argue this very thing?
IANAL, but I would think that the Defense would have had to agreed to 37 days not jeopardizing his right to SP. IDK

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

So exactly what does this mean? Are they disputing the validity of the DNA found on the sheath?

The Defense wants the 'records' paperwork, notes, etc. of FBI in relations to doing the Genetic Genealogy Investigation that narrowed down the DNA to a male Kohberger. The State has submitted a response in their Motions they do not have access to those and that the FBI does not typically document their process them or provide them for trial.

MOO

 

[10ofRods]

• 08/09/2023 Notice of Filing Affidavit in Support

Her doctorate is in botany. I'm trying to wrap my head around how she became so certain she was a "genetic genealogist." If she's L.L. Larkin, then she has published - in plant genetics and in related topics.

She was hired on July 27, 2023 as an expert in this criminal matter.

And she mentions "uploading" of DNA "samples," when she means "DNA data derived from samples," as one cannot, to my knowledge, "upload DNA samples."

She then goes on to say she knows of a handful of cases where people messed up or lied in their use of samples for genetic genealogy. I think that's the point of her affidavit.

 

[Chloegirl]

Her doctorate is in botany. I'm trying to wrap my head around how she became so certain she was a "genetic genealogist." If she's L.L. Larkin, then she has published - in plant genetics and in related topics.

She was hired on July 27, 2023 as an expert in this criminal matter.

And she mentions "uploading" of DNA "samples," when she means "DNA data derived from samples," as one cannot, to my knowledge, "upload DNA samples."

She then goes on to say she knows of a handful of cases where people messed up or lied in their use of samples for genetic genealogy. I think that's the point of her affidavit.

Botany?! Plants not people. I feel like Yosemite Sam, what in tarnation is going on here?!

Add:

About Us

Our Story Everyone has a right to know their family history; that is my core philosophy. I began helping adoptees and others of unknown parentage as part of the search angel community, donating my…

thednageek.com