4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #90

[Chimera]

No media cameras allowed but courtroom will video it ?
From what this article says ?

Bryan Kohberger's trial will be live streamed with court cameras

In his decision, Judge John C. Judge criticized the way in which journalists continue to cover the case. Kohberger is accused of murdering four Idaho college students last November.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[North_Idaho_Nony]

No audio or video recording by anyone in Court except by the Judge approved camera:

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/...ying-2nd-Mtn-to-Intervene_Granting-Motion.pdf

This is so much better, MOO!

 

[Cool Cats]

No media cameras allowed but courtroom will video it ?
From what this article says ?

Bryan Kohberger's trial will be live streamed with court cameras

In his decision, Judge John C. Judge criticized the way in which journalists continue to cover the case. Kohberger is accused of murdering four Idaho college students last November.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Link for the court motion here:

RELATED: Read the order: 'Motion to Remove Cameras from Courtroom' on the Idaho Cases of Interest page

Kohberger judge bars news media cameras from courtroom

Permitted cameras will be operated by the court and not media outlets, according to Judge John Judge.

www.ktvb.com

The Latah County judge agreed to provide a live video feed to be streamed on YouTube.

....will ensure the public still has access to see the proceedings for themselves

No difference with court operating the video except it will be done better.

 

[North_Idaho_Nony]

Link for the court motion here:

RELATED: Read the order: 'Motion to Remove Cameras from Courtroom' on the Idaho Cases of Interest page

Kohberger judge bars news media cameras from courtroom

Permitted cameras will be operated by the court and not media outlets, according to Judge John Judge.

www.ktvb.com

The Latah County judge agreed to provide a live video feed to be streamed on YouTube.

....will ensure the public still has access to see the proceedings for themselves

No difference with court operating the video except it will be done better.

And I’m hoping our courthouse might get an equipment upgrade!! Fingers crossed & Happy Monday!

 

[al66pine]

What BK's Def. Team Knows re DNA

What they know and how they know it is the same way the prosecution knows it, from the Idaho State Lab's forensic testing of the DNA.... 2 Cents.

snipped for focus. @Cool Cats
Yes, agreeing with ^, they KNOW what LE & prosecution know.

IF BK has not repeatedly asked, demanded, implored, & beseeched def team for DNA retest, seems team may INTERPRET such a silence as an indication of guilt, but that's not the same as KNOWING.
***ETA: And suspecting or knowing should not impact their duty to present a vigorous defense for BK.***

If BK did commit these homicides, from what I've read of BK, I doubt that he has spilled that to counsel. Just imo, ICBWrong.

In earlier post, I didn't intend to question the ID. lab's DNA match itself, so my apologies if post suggested that.

 

[Cool Cats]

What BK's Def. Team Knows re DNA

snipped for focus. @Cool Cats
Yes, agreeing with ^, they KNOW what LE & prosecution know.

IF BK has not repeatedly asked, demanded, implored, & beseeched def team for DNA retest, seems team may INTERPRET such a silence as an indication of guilt, but that's not the same as KNOWING.
***ETA: And suspecting or knowing should not impact their duty to present a vigorous defense for BK.***

If BK did commit these homicides, from what I've read of BK, I doubt that he has spilled that to counsel. Just imo, ICBWrong.

In earlier post, I didn't intend to question the ID. lab's DNA match itself, so my apologies if post suggested that.

Your post was super interesting. That asking for more testing can backfire. Hadn't thought of that. So what would happen, I believe, is that if BK demanded re-testing of his DNA, by say, a different lab, that the results would only double down on the true statistic that is against him.......

The 27 zeros!

2 Cents

 

[al66pine]

Judge's YouTube Channel?

....The Latah County judge agreed to provide a live video feed to be streamed on YouTube.

snipped for focus. @Cool Cats
Thx for directing us to the right place to view public hearings and the trial.

As a long time noticer of info only vaguely relevant to subject at hand , this* caught my attn: Channel was created May 19, 2020 and has 1.89K subscribers.
No videos and no posts???

Created for 3.5 yrs ago, not launched for this case. Long time w no uploads?
Do other ID. judges --- like judge who presided over Lori Callow case, which I did not follow --- have YT channels?

Wondering if whatever driving force prompted creation of this channel fizzled. Or ___?
Maybe one of our ID. sleuthers can enlighten us.

Regardless of reason, glad to read this news.

______________________________________
* " https://www.youtube.com/@judgejohnjudge
shows the Latah County, Idaho seal and ---
"Judge John Judge"
"@judgejohnjudge. 1.8K subscribers" [<--- earlier today, now 2.09K]
"More about this channel > "

"About
"Channel details"
" www.youtube.com/@judgejohnjudge
"1.89K subscribers" [ditto ^ increase]
"Joined May 19, 2020"

At "LIVE" tab: "This channel has no videos."
At "COMMUNITY" tab: "This channel hasn't posted yet"

 

[schooling]

And I’m hoping our courthouse might get an equipment upgrade!! Fingers crossed & Happy Monday!

A&E has a series on Youtube called "Court Cam". If you look at the most recent cases that's a pretty good representation of where a lot of the systems are currently in this country...most are extremely outdated but some did receive some love during COVID. El Paso County is probably the best out of the bunch. Multi-camera. Remotely controlled.

 

[Nila Aella]

Judge's YouTube Channel?

snipped for focus. @Cool Cats
Thx for directing us to the right place to view public hearings and the trial.

As a long time noticer of info only vaguely relevant to subject at hand , this* caught my attn: Channel was created May 19, 2020 and has 1.89K subscribers.
No videos and no posts???

Created for 3.5 yrs ago, not launched for this case. Long time w no uploads?
Do other ID. judges --- like judge who presided over Lori Callow case, which I did not follow --- have YT channels?

Wondering if whatever driving force prompted creation of this channel fizzled. Or ___?
Maybe one of our ID. sleuthers can enlighten us.

Regardless of reason, glad to read this news.

______________________________________
* " https://www.youtube.com/@judgejohnjudge
shows the Latah County, Idaho seal and ---
"Judge John Judge"
"@judgejohnjudge. 1.8K subscribers" [<--- earlier today, now 2.09K]
"More about this channel > "

"About
"Channel details"
" www.youtube.com/@judgejohnjudge
"1.89K subscribers" [ditto ^ increase]
"Joined May 19, 2020"

At "LIVE" tab: "This channel has no videos."
At "COMMUNITY" tab: "This channel hasn't posted yet"

At the top of the Cases of Interest page there is a live streaming directory of Magistrate and District Judges for all Idaho Counties. Most Judges listed have a you tube page.

Idaho Judicial Cases of Interest

edit: corrected each judge to most judges (some do not have a page)

 

[DFWNF]

It will be interesting to learn what the livestreams will focus on. I understand the defense’s position that each micro expression on BK’s face be over analyzed and somehow point to his guilt. But should the camera instead be focused on the individuals who are testifying? Should we be able to watch them, and will they be overanalyzed? Wide shots only?

Bbm, no jmo

 

[al66pine]

At the top of the Cases of Interest page there is a live streaming directory of Magistrate and District Judges for all Idaho Counties. Most Judges listed have a you tube page.

Idaho Judicial Cases of Interest

edit: corrected each judge to most judges (some do not have a page)

@Nila Aella Thanks a million. I appreciate the enlightenment.

Excuse my ignorance, as I spend a lotta time back in the cave.

 

[North_Idaho_Nony]

@Nila Aella Thanks a million. I appreciate the enlightenment.

Excuse my ignorance, as I spend a lotta time back in the cave.

Not to worry! It seems to me this is a relatively new phenom due to COVID. I didn’t check out the others, but the creation date of Judge Judge’s YouTube channel certainly coincides with my understanding. Even if it’s never been used by JJ, I loved that Idaho courts did their best to be proactive!

As always, MOO, and I’ll meet you back in the cave!

 

[Swansee]

Wondering if whatever driving force prompted creation of this channel fizzled. Or ___?
Maybe one of our ID. sleuthers can enlighten us.

RSBM
IMO, considering the date the channel was created, possibly related to COVID, in view of how everything was starting to be done done remotely in spring 2020. Then ended up not needing the YT channel for whatever reason, perhaps because other means such as Zoom or Teams were preferred.

 

[Swansee]

Interesting announcement from GEDmatch (BBM):
"GEDmatch’s commitment to user data privacy and security is a top priority. We recently learned that a small number of forensic genetic genealogy practitioners had circumvented GEDmatch settings in violation of our Terms of Use, enabling them to access some profiles of GEDmatch users who had not opted in to law enforcement investigations for violent crime and homicides. Further, the practitioners had advocated not to disclose this misuse to GEDmatch, trained others to use it, and doctored reports to prevent it from becoming known. The information accessed includes relationships that were otherwise not available for the law-enforcement investigations in question."
I am not on GEDmatch, so can't post a link to them directly, but the notice was relayed on Verogen's website:
Notice regarding investigations into FIGG practitioners circumventing GEDmatch settings and violating Terms of Service, and actions taken | Verogen - a QIAGEN company

 

[Chloegirl]

Interesting announcement from GEDmatch (BBM):
"GEDmatch’s commitment to user data privacy and security is a top priority. We recently learned that a small number of forensic genetic genealogy practitioners had circumvented GEDmatch settings in violation of our Terms of Use, enabling them to access some profiles of GEDmatch users who had not opted in to law enforcement investigations for violent crime and homicides. Further, the practitioners had advocated not to disclose this misuse to GEDmatch, trained others to use it, and doctored reports to prevent it from becoming known. The information accessed includes relationships that were otherwise not available for the law-enforcement investigations in question."
I am not on GEDmatch, so can't post a link to them directly, but the notice was relayed on Verogen's website:
Notice regarding investigations into FIGG practitioners circumventing GEDmatch settings and violating Terms of Service, and actions taken | Verogen - a QIAGEN company

I would think this would be grounds to throw out IGG information, however the prosecution is not using it. This is their entire we are not using that/we don't need it issue questioned by the defense. Could it prove to be an issue. Yes. But it's pretty murky prior to addressing. And, this would be something that they would set case precedence to but isn't defined entirely yet (if they're just after the fact finding it in a small percentage). To me, this seems frustrating but not significant. You would want GEDmatch to fix the problem, after acknowledging it, but absolutely nothing could be then about it after the date of acknowledgment unless practitioners continued to break the rules. I read this to be investigated and announced on of all dates November 13, 2023. Again 2023. JMOO

Notice regarding investigations into FIGG practitioners circumventing GEDmatch settings and violating Terms of Service, and actions taken | Verogen - a QIAGEN company

Update: November 13, 2023 PST As our investigation continues, we will continue to update this post with relevant information. Please continue to follow

verogen.com

 

[Justice101]

SBMFF. If that was the case, then no one would ever be successfully framed for a crime, ever.

JMO

That is mostly in movies.

 

[Justice101]

In my opinion, BK was probably told up front first thing by his defense team to choose to be silent with them if he was to tell them incriminating information. If he does, they cannot lie to the court.

No, I envision these defendant/defense lawyer conversations as being mostly one sided with counsel telling him what they plan to do to defend him and asking him vague questions like:

"The prosecution has a lot of cell phone data showing your phone was within 500 feet of that house multiple times.. how would you defend that evidence?" BK: "I have insomnia and drive around a lot at night."

Counsel: "Were you driving around that late Saturday night?" BK: "Yes, I was but I did not go to any house... just drove around".

Counsel: "While we are talking... prosecution has video footage of you at 3 am in Pennsylvania, going from neighbors trashcan to trashcan. Why would you do that?" BK: "I'm OCD and I have always done this... I don't want my snot rags touching our trashcan because it could give germs to my family when they put theirs in later. I'm up at night due to insomnia and that is just what I do."

I really think the defense doesn't really want the truth from a defendant if it is bad for his defense because his counsel cannot KNOWINGLY give false claims in court that he know is not true.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

That is mostly in movies.

Not true. While it's rare, it does happen. I'm not going to go through a ton of links that come up with Google, but here are some that back that up.

11 exonerees file federal lawsuits against former Chicago detective for coercing false confessions

Attorneys for the exonerated said a couple of the men have settled with the city but most are still waiting for their certification of innocence and compensation.

abc7chicago.com

Clarens Desrouleaux - National Registry of Exonerations

www.law.umich.edu

Man Framed for Wife's Murder Hopes for Conviction of New Suspect: 'Finally Getting the Person That Did This'

Russ Faria served three years for wife Betsy's 2011 killing, which a prosecutor now alleges was carried out by Betsy's friend over a $150,000 life insurance payout

people.com

 

[Nila Aella]

Idaho Judicial Cases of Interest

• 11/20/2023 Motion to Temporarily Seal Exhibit
• 11/20/2023 States Response to Defendants 10th Supplemental Request for Discovery
• 11/20/2023 Temporay Order Sealing Exhibit

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiD3YWbgtaCAxUJElkFHQTvAE4QFnoECBcQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcoi.isc.idaho.gov%2F&usg=AOvVaw3QpkN0NQPCGFbgfzIE_S1f&opi=89978449

ETA link

 

[Cool Cats]

In my opinion, BK was probably told up front first thing by his defense team to choose to be silent with them if he was to tell them incriminating information. If he does, they cannot lie to the court.

No, I envision these defendant/defense lawyer conversations as being mostly one sided with counsel telling him what they plan to do to defend him and asking him vague questions like:

"The prosecution has a lot of cell phone data showing your phone was within 500 feet of that house multiple times.. how would you defend that evidence?" BK: "I have insomnia and drive around a lot at night."

Counsel: "Were you driving around that late Saturday night?" BK: "Yes, I was but I did not go to any house... just drove around".

Counsel: "While we are talking... prosecution has video footage of you at 3 am in Pennsylvania, going from neighbors trashcan to trashcan. Why would you do that?" BK: "I'm OCD and I have always done this... I don't want my snot rags touching our trashcan because it could give germs to my family when they put theirs in later. I'm up at night due to insomnia and that is just what I do."

I really think the defense doesn't really want the truth from a defendant if it is bad for his defense because his counsel cannot KNOWINGLY give false claims in court that he know is not true.

I never heard of this.
Very interesting.

I am sure, or so I always thought, that a defendant can admit to their attorney they are guilty and the attorney has to keep it confidential or could end up disbarred.

Because it is all about can the prosecution prove their case, and there are many guilty clients but the prosecution can't prove their case.