4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #93

[grannygates]

I just watched the hearing for today. I don’t understand why prosecution is withholding this discovery? Just give it to them. The witness from today did not make himself look good IMO. Quadruple homicide and you don’t save your work log? That’s just irresponsible. I would assume every person on this case would be working by the book, the letter, button it up tight so as NOT to screw it up.

Defense not being given any of the CAST reports until today and being denied videos is absurd.

If it’s true that prosecution has requested evidence from FBI and is waiting then they would have a photocopy of the written request that they could provide the defense, which would alleviate the allegations that they’re purposely withholding discovery because they don’t actually have the evidence.

I’m team fair trial and leave as little room for appeal as possible. AT and the prosecution are doing a good job of convincing me that something stinks here. ALL MOO

 

[North_Idaho_Nony]

No, Search Warrants do not work like that, they do not and cannot take everything and have no reason to take every piece of trash. There were specific items they were looking for in the house Warrant. Check the Warrant. All Warrants list specific types of items only.

They did take a "green leafy substance in plastic bag."

2 Cents

Excellent point!

<modsnip - personalizing>
“Mr. Kohberger was found awake in the kitchen area dressed in shorts and a shirt a [sic] wearing latex medical type gloves and apparently was taking his personal trash and putting it into a separate Ziploc baggies."
At Time of Arrest, Bryan Kohberger Was Wearing Latex Gloves and Putting Trash in Ziploc Bags: Prosecutor

Of course, anything on the person of BK was fair game for legal seizure at the time of his arrest. And what do you know — he had medical-type gloves on his person! You know, as we all tend to do at home at 1:30 AM

Maybe Mr. Mancuso actually knew what he was talking about!


DocumentCloud

EBM: sentence correction

 

[Cool Cats]

Excellent point!

<modsnip - personalizing>
“Mr. Kohberger was found awake in the kitchen area dressed in shorts and a shirt a [sic] wearing latex medical type gloves and apparently was taking his personal trash and putting it into a separate Ziploc baggies."
At Time of Arrest, Bryan Kohberger Was Wearing Latex Gloves and Putting Trash in Ziploc Bags: Prosecutor

Of course, anything on BK was fair game for legal seizure at the time of his arrest. And what do you know — he had medical-type gloves on his person! You know, as we all tend to do at home at 1:30 AM

Maybe Mr. Mancuso actually knew what he was talking about!

View attachment 505546
DocumentCloud

Yes! <modsnip - personalizing>

When in fact the gloves he mentions are in the Search Warrant of items seized. And clearly it was not necessary and would have been absurd for LE to take all the garbage out of the Kohberger's trash cans.

Thank you.

 

[schooling]

I just watched the hearing for today. I don’t understand why prosecution is withholding this discovery? Just give it to them. The witness from today did not make himself look good IMO. Quadruple homicide and you don’t save your work log? That’s just irresponsible. I would assume every person on this case would be working by the book, the letter, button it up tight so as NOT to screw it up.

Defense not being given any of the CAST reports until today and being denied videos is absurd.

If it’s true that prosecution has requested evidence from FBI and is waiting then they would have a photocopy of the written request that they could provide the defense, which would alleviate the allegations that they’re purposely withholding discovery because they don’t actually have the evidence.

I’m team fair trial and leave as little room for appeal as possible. AT and the prosecution are doing a good job of convincing me that something stinks here. ALL MOO

The defense seems to be obfuscating the timeline, IMO. The prosecutors took note and so did the officer with his emphatic "because YOU asked me for it". IMO the defense would love for you to think that this happened early in the investigation.

They could have easily dispelled all of this.

They know the officer who's in charge of the CAST reports but chose not to call him. If alterations had been made he could have brought with him previous work logs, reports, screen shots and/or exports. Some of it that may have been submitted into evidence prior to the testifying officer's access. Again, MOO.

Take the artifacts/evidence produced prior to this officers access and compare it to the screenshots he took and the data that currently exists in that file. Are there changes? No? All is well. Yes? We have a scandal.

Why didn't they call him?

A good analogy is...It's like printing out your book report, handing it in, and then someone else alters the book report on your computer and accuses you of cheating....

So this just came off as more distractions. IMO

MOO

 

[grannygates]

The defense seems to be obfuscating the timeline, IMO. The prosecutors took note and so did the officer with his emphatic "because YOU asked me for it". IMO the defense would love for you to think that this happened early in the investigation.

They could have easily dispelled all of this.

They know the officer who's in charge of the CAST reports but failed to call him. He could have easily cleared things up. How? IMO, without knowing anything about CAST.... he's likely accessed that set of data and capture worklogs and exported many times before. That's a reasonable assumption.

So if this officer, performing this very mundane act of capturing screenshots, ended up manipulating/delete data either accidentally or on purpose than the guy in charge likely has proof to show it. there's likely reports that predate his access that would shot it. Again, MOO.

A good analogy is...It's like printing out your book report, handing it in, and then someone else alters the book report on your computer and accuses you of cheating....

So this just came off as more distractions. IMO

MOO

IIRC this witness appeared solo today because of scheduling conflicts and the rest will appear later. I’m assuming whoever this second person is that was apparently more in charge of the CAST reports should appear later and hopefully give more clarity. Even a simple question such as how did you know what Data to include on your report, the witness responded that he didnt know. Surely he was given a brief telling him what to look for.

Even on webslueths we are asked to provide links/facts/show our work for what we say. His suggestion was for defense to run their own report. That doesn’t even fly here.

He ran CAST reports and reviewed video footage, contacted the highway department. IMO He investigated. He didn’t just compile. But he was careful not to acknowledge that brief because then that would also need to be provided to defense as well IMO.

ALL MOO

 

[katydid23]

I just watched the hearing for today. I don’t understand why prosecution is withholding this discovery? Just give it to them. The witness from today did not make himself look good IMO. Quadruple homicide and you don’t save your work log?

He was not 'working' the homicide on those dates and times she was asking the detective about. He had been asked by the prosecution to give them copies of the call log of BK for date of the murders. So he logged in specifically to make a copy of those. Then he logged out.

AT asked him why he didn't make a report and a copy of what he was doing---AS IF he was doing work on the murder case===which he wasn't. Who makes a copy of data for a project and then writes a report up and makes copies of themselves making copies? That makes no sense, but AT tried to make it look nefarious in some way.

That’s just irresponsible. I would assume every person on this case would be working by the book, the letter, button it up tight so as NOT to screw it up.

He was working by the book. He did nothing wrong.

Defense not being given any of the CAST reports until today and being denied videos is absurd.

It's not the Prosecution that has those CAST reports. They are still waiting for them as well.

If it’s true that prosecution has requested evidence from FBI and is waiting then they would have a photocopy of the written request that they could provide the defense, which would alleviate the allegations that they’re purposely withholding discovery because they don’t actually have the evidence.

How do we know there don't have that letter or request?

I’m team fair trial and leave as little room for appeal as possible. AT and the prosecution are doing a good job of convincing me that something stinks here. ALL MOO

Every trial I have followed ALWAYS has this same song and dance from the defense team---every single trial it's the same thing, same accusations, and I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. JMO

 

[jepop]

If you are slightly drunk and woken up in deep sleep being violently stabbed how exactly do you defend yourself?
BK had an advantage, he took them off-guard.
Are you wide awake at 4 am? and ready for hand to hand combat with a muscular wide awake armed masked man?
Now, think about if you were drunk, maybe stoned, or dead asleep.
If you stab someone directly in the neck or heart they aren't going to be able to fight back. IMHO. I'm sure experts can give you a much better description. But most people do not anticipate being stabbed to death in their bed at 4 am, our guards are down.

Precisely. Personally I am over, generally speaking, with insinuations about how 'odd' it is that the victims (and Ethan often tends to be singled out because of his gender) don't appear to have 'fought back'.
1. Everything you say
2. HAve the public seen autopsy results? No.
Moo

 

[Megnut]

Excellent point!

<modsnip - personalizing>
“Mr. Kohberger was found awake in the kitchen area dressed in shorts and a shirt a [sic] wearing latex medical type gloves and apparently was taking his personal trash and putting it into a separate Ziploc baggies."
At Time of Arrest, Bryan Kohberger Was Wearing Latex Gloves and Putting Trash in Ziploc Bags: Prosecutor

Of course, anything on the person of BK was fair game for legal seizure at the time of his arrest. And what do you know — he had medical-type gloves on his person! You know, as we all tend to do at home at 1:30 AM

Maybe Mr. Mancuso actually knew what he was talking about!

View attachment 505546
DocumentCloud

EBM: sentence correction

And not just wearing medical style gloves, apparently wearing TWO pairs. In the middle of the night. Sorting trash into baggies. As one does.

Observation: does BK ever sleep??????

Jmo

 

[maskedwoman]

That would have to be someone well versed in DNA, and the ability to break in BK apt. steal his knife/sheath, wipe them down but leave one small print/DNA sample on the snap.
Why leave a small sample if trying to frame him? It's kinda risky, isn't it?
Why would anyone want to frame him?

I totally agree. If his knife is being planted to frame him, why wipe it at all? Plus, since DNA often can't be seen, I don't see how such a person could even know that any DNA remained after cleaning.

 

[jepop]

Haven't had a chance to watch yesterday's hearing, but getting the general gist from comments here and @arielilane's coverage (thank you so much! ). Really just wanted to say that this was one defense summoned witness giving testimony out of context to the hearing as a whole (cos logistics). So imo, the bigger picture likely remains pretty obscure atm.Moo

I think D opposed P's initial motion to close this hearing mainly for strategic reasons: it's a prime opportunity to attempt to question State's and it seems LE's competence in the public realm prior to trial. This is what AT, in so many words, articulated as the right of her client at the previous hearing, whereby IIRC Judge found it necessary to point out that pre trial hearings, depending on context, differ as regards her client's right to a public trial. P made reference to earlier stipulations re non dissemination order; both sides have claimed that they want to avoid 'trial by media' before the trial has even started. Obviously since May 2nd, enough info provided for JJJ to make an informed decision as to content (evidence wise) and open hearing with provisos. Moo

Not saying there's anything wrong or even unusual re the D's flexible strategising per se, only noting the irony. Jmo

May 2nd Hearing as source for above (time stamped at approx 37:20 for some of JJJ's comments re fair trial).

 

[jepop]

Y'all just watched paint dry.

So I should prepare to be rivetted huh?

 

[Megnut]

Haven't had a chance to watch yesterday's hearing, but getting the general gist from comments here and @arielilane's coverage (thank you so much! ). Really just wanted to say that this was one defense summoned witness giving testimony out of context to the hearing as a whole (cos logistics). So imo, the bigger picture likely remains pretty obscure atm.Moo

I think D opposed P's initial motion to close this hearing mainly for strategic reasons: it's a prime opportunity to attempt to question State's and it seems LE's competence in the public realm prior to trial. This is what AT, in so many words, articulated as the right of her client at the previous hearing, whereby IIRC Judge found it necessary to point out that pre trial hearings, depending on context, differ as regards her client's right to a public trial. P made reference to earlier stipulations re non dissemination order; both sides have claimed that they want to avoid 'trial by media' before the trial has even started. Obviously since May 2nd, enough info provided for JJJ to make an informed decision as to content (evidence wise) and open hearing with provisos. Moo

Not saying there's anything wrong or even unusual re the D's flexible strategising per se, only noting the irony. Jmo

May 2nd Hearing as source for above (time stamped at approx 37:20 for some of JJJ's comments re fair trial).

RBBM

Says it all really. Out of context.

This was the step right before table pounding and demonstrates why she argued so fiercely to have the hearing livestreamed.

Theatre.

We should make no mistake. BK has a right to a trial before a jury of his peers. BK has a right to a vigorous defense. I'm not so sure he has a RIGHT to televised hearings. I'm not so sure he as a RIGHT for the public to know much of anything that the Court hadn't ruled as admissible for trial purposes!

The Defense called a detective who did in fact investigate BK on some dates and in some fashion. He has training in cellular data and CAST analysis but didn't function in that capacity in this case. Not the expert.

AT has been arguing loudly about missing discovery and missing audio and missing video.

Let me try to simplify yesterday.

DOT has cameras. But they don't record. Third-party websites, like WINDY.com, nab screenshots that they then incorporate for their own purposes, as I understand it.

Some time long ago, detectives went to that site, looked at it archival, in assuming, and found NOTHING. Mostly daytime screen shots, nothing relative to the timeframe in question (November 12/13).

This detective was asked, presumably by the State to satisfy the Defense, to gather what he could. Which he did. Likely searched through old emails to determine what files were involved. Looked at those files, opened them but did not manipulate them (except for one case of converting to the correct time) and didn't save them. Not work product. He pulled one screenshot, even though it had zero evidentiary value, turned it over along with the emails and files to the State who has them for the Defense.

It was a whole lot of nothing!

That lead went nowhere.

Not helpful to the State's case, not exculpatory and therefore IMO it doesn't even come close to the threshold of disclosure/discovery!

IMO AT is hoping to confuse the public, the media, the Judge and the jury pool. She's after headlines that imply the State is withholding discovery, namely exculpatory evidence, and that BK is somehow railroaded.

It's artful and enthusiastic but it's not substantiative! Screenshots that depict nothing and aren't even part of the State's case!

Argue the minutiae because the big picture is devastating!

JMO

 

[jepop]

@WFLAJB

5PM STREAM: "Secret Witness" to Testify in Idaho Murder Trial @LawyerYouKnow joins me ahead of the hearing on Bryan Kohberger's alibi and the fight for evidence in the probable cause affidavit. We'll be streaming the hearing at 5:30 ET.

Livestream Link: https://youtube.com/live/PEKmlSE15cw?feature=share

https://twitter.com/x/status/1793741838177972620

RBBM: It wasn't a hearing on the 'Alibi' (awaiting separate JJJ response to (non) imo alibi AT has already submitted). Not directed at you @arielilane just the news source. moo

 

[Megnut]

So I should prepare to be rivetted huh?

It's riveting for the performance value!

It's just not winning!

It really was just a preposterous waste of everyone's time.

JMO

 

[jepop]

Defense wants you to feel that way.

If this amounts to anything, I'll be shocked.

JMO

Indeed jmo

 

[Megnut]

RBBM: It wasn't a hearing on the 'Alibi' (awaiting separate JJJ response to (non) imo alibi AT has already submitted). Not directed at you @arielilane just the news source. moo

Funnily enough, AT has been saying she can't provide her full alibi defense because the State is withholding the discovery she needs.

If yesterday was an example of that withheld discovery, AT is in even more trouble than I already thought, and I already thought it was ginormous trouble.

It is my understanding that the State is supposed to turn over all relevant discovery and any exculpatory evidence. of the first part, that they intend to present at trial.

State wasn't going to present anything from WINDY.com. Nothing there TO present. Just an idea someone had, LE followed up on it (windfall if a third-party entity chanced to preserve a million dollar shot for posterity that DOT cameras by design do not preserve), found nothing and moved on to more lucrative leads.

How does this help AT craft an alibi defense? It doesn't. Nothing there. It neither implicates nor exculpates BK.

Doubtful that site retains its screenshots into years' time, but we've been given enough information IMO that any of us could dial up old windy and get a good idea about what LE was hoping to find. And didn't.

AT is really hoping the Judge listens and the public listens only to sound bites.

JMO

 

[Balthazar]

Search Warrants do not work like that, they do not and cannot take everything and have no reason to take every piece of trash. There were specific items they were looking for in the house Warrant. Check the Warrant. All Warrants list specific types of items only.

Take all trash and baggies is not listed on Search Warrant. Only specific types of items listed.

2 Cents

LE had good reason to take the ziplock bags: that PA DA implied that BK was attempting to conceal his trash. IF SO, then, LE would think that BK had a reason for attempting to conceal his trash. They would not know the reason without detailed examination of the trash. However, if it contained something related to the crime that BK was attempting to conceal and/or dispose of, he could have been charged with destroying or concealing evidence. Either way, LE would have had good reason to take it into evidence if what the PA DA said was correct. But they didn't take BK's "personal trash" into evidence. So, IMO, this story is likely false.

 

[Cool Cats]

LE had good reason to take the ziplock bags: that PA DA implied that BK was attempting to conceal his trash. IF SO, then, LE would think that BK had a reason for attempting to conceal his trash. They would not know the reason without detailed examination of the trash. However, if it contained something related to the crime that BK was attempting to conceal and/or dispose of, he could have been charged with destroying or concealing evidence. Either way, LE would have had good reason to take it into evidence if what the PA DA said was correct. But they didn't take BK's "personal trash" into evidence. So, IMO, this story is likely false.

BK was trying to hide his personal trash because he was trying to hide his DNA. That is it. Period.

LE did not need BK's banana peels, dirty kleenex, plastic food and beverage containers, nail clippings and anything else like this (for example) ....

..... to get his DNA.

The warrant wanted his DNA but not by taking his garbage.

2 Cents

 

[jepop]

Funnily enough, AT has been saying she can't provide her full alibi defense because the State is withholding the discovery she needs.

If yesterday was an example of that withheld discovery, AT is in even more trouble than I already thought, and I already thought it was ginormous trouble.

It is my understanding that the State is supposed to turn over all relevant discovery and any exculpatory evidence. of the first part, that they intend to present at trial.

State wasn't going to present anything from WINDY.com. Nothing there TO present. Just an idea someone had, LE followed up on it (windfall if a third-party entity chanced to preserve a million dollar shot for posterity that DOT cameras by design do not preserve), found nothing and moved on to more lucrative leads.

How does this help AT craft an alibi defense? It doesn't. Nothing there. It neither implicates nor exculpates BK.

Doubtful that site retains its screenshots into years' time, but we've been given enough information IMO that any of us could dial up old windy and get a good idea about what LE was hoping to find. And didn't.

AT is really hoping the Judge listens and the public listens only to sound bites.

JMO

AT's gotta know that Judge John Judge won't listen to sound bites but yeah she's hoping the jury pool will. Moo

 

[Nattyj1991]

BK was trying to hide his personal trash because he was trying to hide his DNA. That is it. Period.

LE did not need BK's banana peels, dirty kleenex, plastic food and beverage containers, nail clippings and anything else like this (for example) ....

..... to get his DNA.

The warrant wanted his DNA but not by taking his garbage.

2 Cents

Right?!?! They caught him attempting to hide his DNA IMO and they didn’t need to “take” anything to prove that. They witnessed it and that is enough. I don’t know why people want to believe someone else committed this crime. Like who? Somebody else whose DNA doesn’t exist at the crime scene? Weird. MOO.