It's kind of funny to me, because every case I've followed through trial has been similar. A lot of people seem to think: a) the D is either incompetent or underhanded, b) that anyone who tries to guess the D's strategies is somehow in support of the defendant, and c) the judge is too patient with the D team. Admittedly, I haven't followed a whole lot of cases through trail, so it's just my personal observation and nothing more. I chalk it up to human nature and wanting to see justice for these horrible crimes, but again, that's JMO.
I know I bring up the Mollie Tibbetts trial a lot in comparison to this one, but something really stuck with me from that trial. The D laid out a very unconvincing, even silly, story before the court, so of course, all the above observations came into play. But what stuck with me was when the D was speaking with the media after court one day. They said that this was the story their client had told them consistently. I mean, IMO, they almost sounded defeated when they said that, like they were trying to be convincing and supportive of their client, but they also couldn't fully hide the fact that they KNEW what that story sounded like, even though they were the ones having to tell it. It really opened my eyes to what the D sometimes has to do in order to defend their client, especially when the client isn't forthright. JMO.
I've only followed a handful through trial - am doing so more regularly now that I'm almost retired. It is so fascinating. I love trials and legal proceedings (and have spent a lot of time observing court proceedings), but following one of the Big Headline trials is something else. I learn so much. The Murdaugh trial was riveting (and almost unbelievable). Unanimous against Murdaugh, of course - even though I was sitting at home wondering if the jury could see through the "defense." They did.
Locals are positioned uniquely to judge their peers. They know the community and its standards. They know their own levels of faith and they know the kinds of community values and intentions that govern common sense in their region.
Thank you so much for all your Mollie Tibbetts analysis. I didn't follow that one, but learn so much from you here. It was the Letecia Stauch trial where I first saw a defense...collapse? As in, rolling their eyes or looking as if they were asleep or coming in late. General body language stuff. Most of all, mostly avoiding looking at their client. They knew they had no defense. Their expert witness was a huge bust.
Of course, in CO, they allow an insanity defense, so I worried that one juror would find Letecia insane because, well, here on WS we were all saying, "She's CRAZY" and things like that (she is crazy in the colloquial sense - just not legally insane). I was worried for no reason.
It's the same with some worriers in this case, although I have real confidence in a rapid conviction once the jury gets the case of State v. Bryan Kohberger. As the State layers its various evidence (some of which was not even available at the time of the PCA), it will be riveting, repetitive and the jury will have made up its mind way before it's over (and start to feel numb). The SM records of BK and similar things from his various searches and purchases are going to be ground level circumstantial evidence, upon which ever more concrete and specific evidence will be erected. He admits being out and about that night, on top of everything else.
Since the State also has pairs of his shoes to compare to the wear pattern on the footprints in the house, I wouldn't be surprised if they choose that CE to start with - it will make it clear what the sex, general height - and FOOT TYPE the murderer had (and the evidence is written in the blood of a victim - probably Xana). It will be heartbreaking to hear, but Xana's evidence WILL be heard. Those footprints are real. And provide way more information than most people think.
In the past, before SM and the bizarre expectation that we're supposed to have videos or similar of every criminal action before we convict, those footprints plus the DNA would likely have been enough (and I bet the jury will be thinking the same thing). SOMEONE killed four people - and his footprint will reveal a great deal about who he is. His car will reveal more (by its make and model and its being out on the roads that night, as admitted by this defendant). That's without the DNA. Or the various digital components of this case (phone pings were confined to ATT cell towers in the PCA, as I understand it - by now they also have his GPS - more accurate, and pings/handshakes from various towers and masts). A camera shows him turning into the parking area of 1122 King Road mere minutes before the murders and then speeding off just afterwards.
The State has a strong story to tell. The Defense, so far, has no good alternate story and is already leaning into technicalities (and somehow, trying to impugn LEO's, which is a typical defense strategy but one that many jurors dislike, as we've all been in situations where a wrongdoer blames the person who caught them).
IMO.
