4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #91

[Cool Cats]

When I was thinking of interested parties I meant everyone who could have a right to object

- LE / police detectives / the courts (I'm sure that would be upheld)
- BK and his defence team (questionable)
- the families and their legal representatives (unsure)

If any party strongly objected to the demolition and could put forward a solid argument then I feel quite sure the house would remain for the time being.

I just don't understand this. The prosecution has made it crystal clear they are not going to do a jury walk through with the house. The lead prosecutor Thompson says for many reasons this is not appropriate. One reason is being a health hazard due to multiple chemicals having been applied. Another reason is dangerous conditions due to some flooring having been removed.

Latham County can't risk a lawsuit because a jury member injured their eyes or lungs from contaminated air. Or a jury member twisted their ankle because flooring was missing.

The crime scene doesn't even look the same. Thompson says everything relative to the crime scenes is missing - all the relative night lights, furnishings, other personal items, etc...

How about a mistrial or a legitimate appeal because the jury did a walk through at an altered crime scene?

The jury votes guilty after they saw a crime scene that was totally changed from the original format.

I posted links several times.

2 cents

 

[whiterhino]

I just don't understand this. The prosecution has made it crystal clear they are not going to do a jury walk through with the house. The lead prosecutor Thompson says for many reasons this is not appropriate. One reason is being a health hazard due to multiple chemicals having been applied. Another reason is dangerous conditions due to some flooring having been removed.

Latham County can't risk a lawsuit because a jury member injured their eyes or lungs from contaminated air. Or a jury member twisted their ankle because flooring was missing.

The crime scene doesn't even look the same. Thompson says everything relative to the crime scenes is missing - all the relative night lights, furnishings, other personal items, etc...

How about a mistrial or a legitimate appeal because the jury did a walk through at an altered crime scene?

The jury votes guilty after they saw a crime scene that was totally changed from the original format.

I posted links several times.

2 cents

Just chiming in to agree. There have been countless other murder cases with convictions and guilty rulings where there was no "murder house" at all, whatsoever!

There have been many murder cases with re-enactments, visual models, demonstrations etc. All done right in the courtroom, not at the original scene.

For myself personally, my only opinion about the house was regarding how the parents might feel that it's too soon to tear it down. SG is quoted as saying he worried about whether the court might need it later on but it's not needed. Not about the forensic value.

JMO.

 

[katydid23]

I stand with the retired LE I know, who say that the Jury may want to look at the crime scene, as in the Alex Murdaugh case in South Carolina-he being convicted...
'Better to have the scene, than not. Pictures are often not enough for some Jurors. They want to See, Feel, Draw their own conclusions...One small detail might make the difference...

It would be a big mistake to allow the jurors into that home, IMO.

It does not look anything like it did that night. The furnishings and lamps and neon signs have been removed.

There are large pieces of wall and flooring missing. So any 'details' a jury might be looking for would not be accurate.

You wouldn't see or feel what the intruder saw or felt, by walking into that empty, damaged structure.

 

[ilovewings]

I initially thought the house should be left for the jurors to see if they wished. After reading why the prosecution does not plan to have the jurors do a walk thru with reasons stated above, I have changed my mind. With all the information we have that the house is no longer a realistic representation of what it was when the murders were committed, I believe it should be torn down.

 

[Cool Cats]

It would be a big mistake to allow the jurors into that home, IMO.

It does not look anything like it did that night. The furnishings and lamps and neon signs have been removed.

There are large pieces of wall and flooring missing. So any 'details' a jury might be looking for would not be accurate.

You wouldn't see or feel what the intruder saw or felt, by walking into that empty, damaged structure.

Exactly!

And if the jurors could somehow overcome the hazardous multiple chemicals that have been applied and don't go tripping on missing flooring, they still wouldn't get to see how it was that night. In fact, they could get a better view in court with the FARO 3D laser scanner.

These 3D images will allow investigators to return to the scene as it appeared on November 13, 2022 and eliminate some of the risk associated with investigator error. Several vantage points are recorded so that the laser can scan all sides of the crime scene and the related objects within.

Furthermore, 3D lasers pick up even the minute details – from blood splatter to bullet holes – details that the on scene investigator could easily miss in the traditional crime scene investigation scenario.

The Whole Picture: 3D Laser Scanning of Crime Scenes

By Alyssa Thompson The legal profession is everchanging. What used to be done with a pen and paper may now be done by typing or even with the swipe of a finger on a tablet. As new technologi…

jolt.richmond.edu

Faro 3D Laser scanner and software Discription.

 

[maskedwoman]

So the Defense filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings on Dec 21. And wants the prior motions to be sealed. The facts asserted in those earlier motions and in the interlocutory documents must be...possibly prejudicial to the defendant?

Sounds like the Judge agrees, as he quickly granted the motion to seal the motion for lnterlocutory (that could be about so many different factual matters - and non-factual ones as well, such as line of questioning).

It's amazing how locked down this case is.

JMO

And if I read the first document correctly, what she requested the judge to seal is her request that he reconsider his orders denying her earlier motions. Is that a lawyerly way of saying "Your Honor, I think you got that wrong and would like you to think about it again"? Ha! Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but it seems like a precursor to appealing his decision. Is that how you all read it too?

 

[Nila Aella]

Good morning all. I hope everyone had a peaceful holiday.

I recall that LE said Murphy did not have any blood on him, which suggests that Murphy was locked up during the crime. I firmly believe sweet Murphy would have gone to his mistress and at least checked on her if he was able. Animals understand when things are wrong, and the house would have smelled all wrong to him. Plus, if anyone made sounds of distress, I believe he would have gone to them if he was able. MOOooo

I agree, he would have gone to them or someone in the house if he could. MOO

Statements from LE:
Murphy was found by LE in Kaylee's bedroom.
LE found no evidence on Murphy.
LE found no indication that Murphy had entered the crime scenes.
The door to the house did not have damage and the door was still open when LE arrived.

There has been no official release stating whether the doors to the crime scene bedrooms were open or closed when LE arrived.

On December 6th 2022, it was still not clear to LE where Murphy was physically located during the crime. LE had done at least some of the initial interviews by this time IMO.

JMO MOO IMO

Chief Frye press conference: 10:26 time stamp: we are not 100% sure the door was unlocked but there was no damage to anything and the door was still open when we got there. Nov 17 2022
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=moscow police department press conference&mid=3381FABF36957754BBDF3381FABF36957754BBDF&ajaxhist=0

Not Clear where Murphy was physically located during the crime. No evidence on him. No entry into the crime scene. Found by LE in Kaylee's bedroom. Dec 6 2022
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi5ueWdnquDAxUzF2IAHQBXBvYQFnoECBAQAQ&url=https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/crime/idaho-college-murders-kaylee-goncalves-dog-b2239774.html&usg=AOvVaw2Qiyx0Xiwpdt6276qITKr6&opi=89978449

And if I read the first document correctly, what she requested the judge to seal is her request that he reconsider his orders denying her earlier motions. Is that a lawyerly way of saying "Your Honor, I think you got that wrong and would like you to think about it again"? Ha! Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but it seems like a precursor to appealing his decision. Is that how you all read it too?

Yes. And if the Judge is not going to reconsider, appeal his decision now (from an interlocutory order) with a stay or not. JMO

From Wiki:

Interlocutory appeals may be brought, however, if waiting to bring an appeal would be particularly prejudicial to the rights of one of the parties. The trial judge can "certify" one of his orders for immediate interlocutory appeal. Suppose all the claims and issues have been resolved as to one of the defendants, but the rest of the parties will be fighting out the case for another year or ten. The trial judge could "certify" (i.e. signal his agreement) to allow the part of the case that has been concluded at trial level to be appealed.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwip9vq53a-DAxVUKVkFHYpHDG4QFnoECCsQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FInterlocutory_appeal&usg=AOvVaw2mgu8c-1hR1f8PvEI0D9_-&opi=89978449

 

[girlhasnoname]

Interlocutory Order​

Interlocutory orders are orders that are issued by a court while a case is still ongoing. These orders are not meant to be final. They are simply meant to appease a situation within a situation, to resolve an issue temporarily while the case is decided on the whole. Because they are not final orders, it is very rare that an interlocutory order can be appealed. The point of an interlocutory order is to allow the case to progress by addressing an issue that otherwise would cause the case to stall.

Meh, typical AT & Company filing any and everything they can to cover themselves and any appellate issues. Too bad these motions are not free and they're running up quite the bill against the State I'd guess. Nothing I find worrisome.

moo

 

[girlhasnoname]

And if I read the first document correctly, what she requested the judge to seal is her request that he reconsider his orders denying her earlier motions. Is that a lawyerly way of saying "Your Honor, I think you got that wrong and would like you to think about it again"? Ha! Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but it seems like a precursor to appealing his decision. Is that how you all read it too?

Yes, AT is making a record, she's quite good at it. Judge Judge isn't going to reconsider his decision even if she disagrees lol.

moo

 

[Nila Aella]

Re: the house

Wasn't the house was cleaned post forensics?
The P, D, Faro scanners, Chief, LE have all entered the house without protective gear.

Even walking through with walls missing, furniture gone and floor missing would be beneficial to experience the layout, tightness, angles, sounds walking through, distances etc.

Jurors could also do an outside walk to get a first hand experience with the topography around the house, the viewpoints into the house from every angle, how far the street is from the house, the sounds outside, what it looks like at night, lighting etc. They could probably do that without the house present, but I think that would be better with the house.

ALL JMO

 

[iamshadow21]

Re: the house

Wasn't the house was cleaned post forensics?
The P, D, Faro scanners, Chief, LE have all entered the house without protective gear.

Even walking through with walls missing, furniture gone and floor missing would be beneficial to experience the layout, tightness, angles, sounds walking through, distances etc.

Jurors could also do an outside walk to get a first hand experience with the topography around the house, the viewpoints into the house from every angle, how far the street is from the house, the sounds outside, what it looks like at night, lighting etc. They could probably do that without the house present, but I think that would be better with the house.

ALL JMO

Most crime scenes are not preserved in aspic like the Ramsey house. They tend to be cleaned up and lived in very shortly after. Public locations, it's even quicker, often a matter of hours after LE leave, places are open to people again. The ones that get demoed, it's because the place is either unlivable in (they stripped Gacy's house to a bare frame for access to the crawl space, then completely removed it when they were done) or community wanting it gone (Dahmer's whole apartment block was torn down on an overwhelming vote for it to go by the residents).

The house has been scanned and measured and tested every which way, and it's not necessary for it to exist in a physical form for the case to go to trial. At this time, its continuing existence is an open wound to the community. It needs to go.

MOO

 

[Auntie Cipation]

My concern about the house being demolished isn't related to a jury visit -- but rather about something coming to light during the trial that wasn't ever investigated.

Something along the lines of the HVAC questions that arose initially (though not specifically that since I think we can trust that was indeed investigated).

Example: what if, during her testimony, DM or BF, or one of the early-arriving friends, recalls XYZ -- something new. Something on the roof, or a sound from the attic, or whatever.

Or that the defense comes up with some alternative theory (someone hid in the attic all day then came down and attacked) that can't be disproven without inspecting that spot.

I know none of this is realistic, I just worry that SOMETHING unanticipated will arise to make everyone say "I wish we could follow up on that"

MOO

 

[iamshadow21]

My concern about the house being demolished isn't related to a jury visit -- but rather about something coming to light during the trial that wasn't ever investigated.

Something along the lines of the HVAC questions that arose initially (though not specifically that since I think we can trust that was indeed investigated).

Example: what if, during her testimony, DM or BF, or one of the early-arriving friends, recalls XYZ -- something new. Something on the roof, or a sound from the attic, or whatever.

Or that the defense comes up with some alternative theory (someone hid in the attic all day then came down and attacked) that can't be disproven without inspecting that spot.

I know none of this is realistic, I just worry that SOMETHING unanticipated will arise to make everyone say "I wish we could follow up on that"

MOO

What attic? The roof was flat. Both sections. And photos of the outside and interior and the house plans from the renovation ten or fifteen years ago (whenever it was, I've blanked on the exact year) would show that.

Any last minute remembrances on the stand, years after the event, are unlikely to hold much water, especially if they are in contradiction with statements made in the aftermath. I expect that in a trial of this magnitude, the attorneys will have prepared their witnesses and their case well.

MOO

 

[ktm44]

I remember hearing/reading a lot that Murphy didn’t bark. But I don’t think it’s ever been mentioned for certain that he didn’t. Not on any publicly available court document anyway.

Is this just something that we’ve assumed all along because early assumptions were that everyone’s sleeping?

I believe in the PCA mentions one of the surviving roommates though KG was playing with her dog. with no greater clarity.

I have always assumed that her brain concluded that the scuffling noises she may have heard sounded like a dog playing with a tug toy but it could also be that Murphy barked when he got excited.

Factually, it is a myth that all dogs bark when the sense danger and KG's family did indicate they did not feel Murphy would bark because he was quite timid.

 

[Auntie Cipation]

What attic? The roof was flat. Both sections. And photos of the outside and interior and the house plans from the renovation ten or fifteen years ago (whenever it was, I've blanked on the exact year) would show that.

Any last minute remembrances on the stand, years after the event, are unlikely to hold much water, especially if they are in contradiction with statements made in the aftermath. I expect that in a trial of this magnitude, the attorneys will have prepared their witnesses and their case well.

MOO

Yes. I failed at coming up with actual possible examples. My point was *something unanticipated* that would have been resolvable if the house was still standing and could be checked.

But you're right that that's not how trials go, even if someone does make a new claim. And you're also right that the witnesses will have certainly been well-prepared.

That's why I said I know my worries aren't realistic. It's just an instinctual reaction to cover all the "just in case" bases that can be covered.

MOO

 

[katydid23]

Re: the house

Wasn't the house was cleaned post forensics?
The P, D, Faro scanners, Chief, LE have all entered the house without protective gear.

Even walking through with walls missing, furniture gone and floor missing would be beneficial to experience the layout, tightness, angles, sounds walking through, distances etc.

NO, I don't think the jury should go inside to try and see the layout because they could ERRONEOUSLY take in other details. They'd possibly make assumptions about how well someone could see or hear anything---but without the correct lighting or furnishings.

Things like angles, tightness, sounds would be DIFFERENT from what one would experience in the real circumstances.

They layout can easily be seen from the 3D version they already have.

Jurors could also do an outside walk to get a first hand experience with the topography around the house, the viewpoints into the house from every angle, how far the street is from the house, the sounds outside, what it looks like at night, lighting etc. They could probably do that without the house present, but I think that would be better with the house.

ALL JMO

 

[Justice101]

My concern about the house being demolished isn't related to a jury visit -- but rather about something coming to light during the trial that wasn't ever investigated.

Something along the lines of the HVAC questions that arose initially (though not specifically that since I think we can trust that was indeed investigated).

Example: what if, during her testimony, DM or BF, or one of the early-arriving friends, recalls XYZ -- something new. Something on the roof, or a sound from the attic, or whatever.

Or that the defense comes up with some alternative theory (someone hid in the attic all day then came down and attacked) that can't be disproven without inspecting that spot.

I know none of this is realistic, I just worry that SOMETHING unanticipated will arise to make everyone say "I wish we could follow up on that"

MOO

I thought the Defense signed off on having the house demolished and that they had time to already go there if they needed it. Does that not still apply?

 

[Auntie Cipation]

I thought the Defense signed off on having the house demolished and that they had time to already go there if they needed it. Does that not still apply?

Yes, I believe they have.

My comment was only about the idea that something unanticipated (ie not yet thought of) might arise.

I'm not actually arguing in favor of maintaining the house since I know that's already been decided.

I'm just expressing my opinion about doing something irrevocable.

MOO

 

[Balthazar]

What attic? The roof was flat. Both sections. And photos of the outside and interior and the house plans from the renovation ten or fifteen years ago (whenever it was, I've blanked on the exact year) would show that.

Any last minute remembrances on the stand, years after the event, are unlikely to hold much water, especially if they are in contradiction with statements made in the aftermath. I expect that in a trial of this magnitude, the attorneys will have prepared their witnesses and their case well.

MOO

The roof is not flat. Each part of the roof is a single angle slanted roof and real estate photos clearly showed an attic hatch on the 3rd floor in the hallway. There would be attic space without any question. It might be low so an adult had to crawl, but there is attic space. See the photo of the house here showing the angled roof:

The Idaho Murders, Part 1: How 4 College Kids Lived and Loved

The brutal murders of four Idaho college students shocked millions. Through social media posts, court records, and other primary sources, author Kathleen Hale forensically reconstructs their lives before the crime, and the night they were killed.

www.vanityfair.com

You can see the attic hatch, located in the ceiling just outside of MM's bedroom here (#11 of 23):

1122 King Road for $2,495/month on PadMapper

1122 King Road is a 6 bed, 3 bath house in Moscow, ID. Search for other sublets, houses and apartment rentals in Moscow, then use our bedroom, bathroom and rent price filters to find your perfect home.

www.padmapper.com

The ONLY non-angled part of the roof was the flat part of the roof on top of the front edge of the 1st floor and outside of Xana's bedroom window.

JMO

 

[somequestions]

It does not seem like the right time to demolish the house. All the students and community there for this academic year know the address so getting rid of it now does nothing to clear their memory or help the community heal for this academic year. Since the trial has not happened yet, it would not surprise me if youtubers and others who have an interest in this case try to visit the former house property even without the house there, assuming security goes away once the house is gone.

I think they should have compromised on the demolition date. It does not have to stand forever but letting it stand for this academic year and then tearing it down before the start of the next academic year in August 2024 would have been better if the university truly wanted to help the community and the university heal. The trial is supposed to start in June 2024, but even if it did not for some reason, then the university tearing it down would at least make sense for the new students and renters living in that area going into the next academic year.

Just because the house is not physically there does not mean everyone who lives in or around 1122 King Road is not going to know what happened at that location in the early morning hours of November 13th, 2022.