I don't think BK's driving times have shifted at all, only that the defense is starting to provide information about the most critical part of the timeline and most important, who their witness will be. I don't think the time before midnight is that important to this case, although, based on what the defense has written in the first alibi answer, I believe BK was already out driving during that timeframe.
To be clear, the first alibi response was filed July 24th in response to the state's demand for one:
There weren't even the vaguest details about where he was, just that they would be providing corroborating evidence that he wasn't at King Road.
The filing from last August was not an alibi response and not meant to be taken as an alibi. It was an objection to being compelled to provide one according to statute.
The filing from this month was a supplement to the original alibi response last July since the original response didn't satisfy the requirements of Idaho code. This is what he intends to present as his alibi.
But I agree--the time before midnight is not important if the 2:42am and 2:47am pings/footage of his car are not disputed by the defense. It will only become important if the defense tries to say he was elsewhere before midnight and therefore that could not be him in Pullman at those times.
We know that AT can only state what is the truth in court or in court documents. We also know that AT is not a cellular expert. Therefore, the ONLY way this could be the truth is if the expert (Sy Young) found this information in the course of his research and investigation. Sy Young's process is scientific and has been verified to be between 92% to 96% accurate, but in rural situations with fewer cell towers, the accuracy can be even higher. So, based on that, I'm going to say we have significantly more reason than not to believe that this IS scientifically provable factual information. I'm looking forward to seeing and hearing Sy Young's presentation and equally looking forward to seeing and hearing what the Prosecution presents. I wonder how similar the Prosecutors case will actually be to what is in the PCA?
United States v. Snipes, CRIMINAL 1:16-CR-212 | Casetext Search + Citator
So let's look at what AT
did state in the Supplemental Response.
He moved to Pullman in June 2022--true.
As an avid runner and hiker he explored many areas of the Palouse--sounds truthful.
He explored Wawawai Park in July 2022 and this became a favorite location--sounds truthful.
When he started classes his running and hiking decreased, but did not stop--okay.
His night time drives increased--okay.
The phone data shows him in the countryside late at night and early morning on several occasions, and includes photographs taken including in November--sounds truthful
He was out driving in the early morning hours of November 13th--true.
He drove throughout the area south of Pullman and west of Moscow, including Wawawai Park--if he told her this is what he was doing, she's not being untruthful to say this, especially since there are no times listed and it could actually be true, just not at 4am. It doesn't mean if he was at King Road at 4am AT has not told the truth, therefore he couldn't have been at King Road. That statement is so vague it's pretty safe from being debunked.
She then goes on to say that the
defense expert is going to testify that BK's mobile device was south of Pullman and west of Moscow, and did not travel east in those early morning hours and could not have been the vehicle captured in front of Floyd's Cannabis Shop. That's it. She herself does not say that. That's how this works. Defense attorneys find experts to support the defense. Leticia Stauch's defense lawyers found an expert to say she had Dissociative Identity Disorder and talked to the vampire council--her defense lawyers didn't necessarily believe that just because they found an expert who would testify to that and neither were they being untruthful to the court when they told the court they had an expert to testify to this.
AT will present her expert and the prosecution will present theirs and neither should be automatically believed by virtue of either side saying so. If there are conflicting experts it will be up to the jury to sort through it and decide which expert they believe. JMO