4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #94

[maskedwoman]

Not snipping, as the entire ^post^ is worth re-reading.
@whinewiththegravy TYVM.
“Thin gruel.”
An apt description of what I anticipate could be presented, if any fam's actually file petition in ct. for wrongful death against the ID.govt entities, which were previously given notice of claim under ID statute.
(Plus another potential def’t in Washington, under WA. statute? Pullman PD, City of Pullman, or WSU-Pullman, or ? I’ve forgotten.)

What actions did these ^ entities take (or fail to take) BEFORE Nov. 12-13, 2022, that would have PREVENTED these students’ deaths? IDK.

Imo jmo moo icbw

This is an interesting question. For everyone's sake, I hope there is nothing in his student "file" alarming enough to reasonably foreshadow what happened. I can't imagine how difficult it is for school administrators to balance the rights of all. You don't want to potentially ruin someone's life without good reason and probably get sued. And yet, you certainly want to keep everyone safe and knowing when is the right time to remove someone from your school must certainly be a very difficult decision.

 

[jepop]

I'I just caught up with yesterday's hearing.

1. Why does it always seem like Kohlberger's defense is a second away from dropping a bombshell...then whatever they end up doing is extremely underwhelming. MOO

2. The most interesting thing that they seem to be doing (MOO) is not only hinting at conspiracies or unwarranted secrecy by the FBI but ALSO leaking (that's what it is, let's be honest) and seemingly conditioning us for some the prosecutions case. Paraphrasing here but "He found X..." but they are not going to let us know what X is. and "surveillance" but we are not going to tell you what surveillance is. If this hearing deserves all of this cloak and dagger and implying and hinting it probably would have been more appropriate for a closed door hearing. IMO

3. If I heard them correctly it sounded like BK was under surveillance. Initially I thought, "they got him while he was a Pullman!". But then I remembered (or maybe misremembered) that this was said in reference to the PCA. So doesn't that mean the surveillance could have been outside of his home in PA? I was trying to go back and listen but got too lazy to find the time marker. Anyone have context?

4. It seems like prosecutors are pretty confident they are tracking the same Elantra from the home back to Pullman. And the defense is implying that prosecutors couldn't possibly know that it was the same Elantra because they didn't have surveillance from every other camera in Idaho (hyperbole on my part). That's not the doubt I think the defense thinks it is. MOO

5. They keep picking at the cell tower evidence data and the video because the combination of the two is extremely damning. You get one out and it weakens the other. You weaken one and it weakens the other. And if you do either of those things you can now question the DNA and introduce the implied secretive communications and non-saving of work. All of this is MOO, but if they are hinging the case on a calamity of errors or a helpless patsy or worse, a conspiracy. Good luck to BK.

AT is an extremely confident and competent lawyer though. I'm not sure BK could have gotten a better defense attorney with the cards he dealt himself.

MOO

I haven't been able to really sit down and listen fully to hearing yet but thank you for this summary. Moo Context can sometimes go awol; Hearing was ultimately held to address outstanding items in fourth and fifth (non IGG portion) motions to compel as I understood it. Judge's intention/priority (at least), and as stated in previous hearings, was to prioritise moving the case forward through clarifying what exactly def thinks is not being and/or has not been provided and then having the state address each item with aim of both sides reaching agreement. Moo

The cloak and dagger impressions arise imo because potential trial evidence has to be talked around. My belief is that def wanted to keep this hearing open because they feel it's their client's right to have the public know in minutest detail re how the state is dealing with the pretrial discovery process.jmo. However, imo judge opened the hearing because he considered that it could be managed without revealing specific potential trial evidence, and ultimately to ward off one more potential appellate issue.jmo but see judge's order to open hearing and annul initial order to close it.

Agree hearing would have been better off closed from the perspective of avoiding potentially baseless media speculation (generated from perceived inuendo and within the hole/gap opened by lack of actual material evidence).IMOO. But I guess ultimately this sort of thing won't really have a big impact on biasing jury pool. And no outside speculation can, in reality, have any effect on actual pretrial legal processes! (at least I hope not).

I did catch the last approx 30 to 40 mins yesterday,listened through a long catalogue of items listed by AT and responded to by AJ (the stellar Ashley Jennings). Imo JJJ did a good job mediating between both and clarifying individual items as they arose. This was to be honest really dull at times but the impression I came away with is that pros and def are certainly working through the discovery in question: some still needed, some doesn't exist but pros is double checking, many items were provided, some waiting/related to Tooey letter ( i missed that ref as in earlier section of trial if anyone knows). As far as video goes there was talk of all the video catalogued and specific items def is looking for or trying to locate within the material already catalogued. Moo

Looking forward to watching the whole thing some time over the weekend.

 

[wendy44]

I have something much better than that: there is a video recording of the Defense saying in court DURING A HEARING that the PCA is full of errors and the Prosecutor agreeing with her. It's the hearing in which BT admitted that BK never stalked any of the victims and that he never had any internet connection with him. This one:

SBM--do you have a time stamp where the prosecutor agrees with the defense that the PCA is full of errors?

I listened to the whole thing. At around 2:05:00 the defense attorney in her summation of the hearing, says that a lot of information in the PCA is flat out not true. Of course she's going to say that. She's going to say that there are things in the PCA that aren't true and that when they go to trial they're going to prove to the jury that they aren't true. For example, their contention will likely be that the cars caught on video are not BK's car, therefore it's not true when the PCA says that's his car caught on video. It doesn't mean it's actually not true. But they're not going to be arguing the PCA. They'll be arguing the evidence put on by the prosecution. You've said before this would be the defense lying to the court--this is not lying to the court, this is presenting a vigorous defense as every good defense attorney should do.

She doesn't list a single thing in the PCA that she is contending is not true, so pointing to this video doesn't answer the question that was posed--do you have court documents that list all the documents with errors.

Nowhere does the prosecution agree with her.

At issue in this video is the survey conducted for change of venue that contains two questions that are not part of the public record--the questions related to the defendant following the victims on social media and the defendant stalking the victims. The non-dissemination order, which was requested by the defense, prohibits extra-judicial statements outside of the public record, which is the court record, that could increase public condemnation of the defendant. At around 2:26:00 the judge states that those two questions at issue are not part of the public record, the court record.

Therefore, the questions involving internet connections and stalking were not part of the PCA.

I think you have inadvertently proven the defense's position though. At about 1:34:00 the expert admits that not all of the 9 fact-specific questions came from the PCA. The expert testified that the point of including "false facts" in the survey is to find out what people internalize as fact coming from the PCA as opposed to what is reported in the media, but not contained in the PCA. Nowhere are these false facts contained in the PCA, but because they're included in these survey questions, people can internalize that they are. Nowhere are these false facts in the public record, but because of the media coverage, people can internalize that they come from the public record or court record, which is prejudicial to the defendant.
JMO

 

[North_Idaho_Nony]

Well, this is incredibly disappointing: by stipulation, the Change of Venue Hearing has been pushed back by two months to 8/29/2024 at 9 AM.

• 05/31/2024 Stipulated Motion to Reset Hearing on Defendants Motion for Change of Venue
• 05/31/2024 Order to Continue Hearing on Defendants Motion for Change of Venue

I clearly recall AT saying her expert would only need 3 weeks to complete the COV surveys if allowed to do so and some minimal time to update the analysis.

That permission to proceed was granted by the court over a month ago on 4/19/2024.

MOO, these stalling tactics by the Defense are unconscionable

Edited to correct typo in COV Hearing date - no month has 39 days, my apologies.

 

[arielilane]

@BrianEntin

Filling in for Cuomo at 8pmET on @NewsNation -- Also -- yesterday's Bryan Kohberger hearing with cell expert was complex -- we'll have our own expert on to break it down and explain. Seeya at 8!


6:02 PM · May 31, 2024

https://twitter.com/x/status/1796663596098707561

 

[Balthazar]

Do you have a court document that lists all the documents with errors? Would like that link please.

Better than documents is actual video of the defense, prosecution and witnesses describing the mess. Watch the last 3 hearings where the prosecution agreed with the defense about these items. The prosecution has gone so far as to say that the PCA is not relevant at this point.

SBM--do you have a time stamp where the prosecutor agrees with the defense that the PCA is full of errors?

I listened to the whole thing. At around 2:05:00 the defense attorney in her summation of the hearing, says that a lot of information in the PCA is flat out not true. Of course she's going to say that. She's going to say that there are things in the PCA that aren't true and that when they go to trial they're going to prove to the jury that they aren't true. For example, their contention will likely be that the cars caught on video are not BK's car, therefore it's not true when the PCA says that's his car caught on video. It doesn't mean it's actually not true. But they're not going to be arguing the PCA. They'll be arguing the evidence put on by the prosecution. You've said before this would be the defense lying to the court--this is not lying to the court, this is presenting a vigorous defense as every good defense attorney should do.

You found it yourself.

She doesn't list a single thing in the PCA that she is contending is not true, so pointing to this video doesn't answer the question that was posed--do you have court documents that list all the documents with errors.

The hearing last Thursday and yesterday contain ALL of the information that is not true and they cite all of the documents by evidence numbers during hearings. I didn't hear the prosecution object at all, did you?

Nowhere does the prosecution agree with her.

The prosecution tacitly agreed with AT, did not object to any of this and further, BT went on to say that the PCA is "not relevant at this point." It's not relevant because a lot of it is false which AT proved in the past 3 hearings mostly with the prosecution's own witnesses.

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/2024/051024-Defendants-Response-States-Motion-Limit-Tesimony.pdf

At issue in this video is the survey conducted for change of venue that contains two questions that are not part of the public record--the questions related to the defendant following the victims on social media and the defendant stalking the victims. The non-dissemination order, which was requested by the defense, prohibits extra-judicial statements outside of the public record, which is the court record, that could increase public condemnation of the defendant. At around 2:26:00 the judge states that those two questions at issue are not part of the public record, the court record.

Therefore, the questions involving internet connections and stalking were not part of the PCA.

There is insinuation of stalking in the PCA on page 16, paragraph 2.

I think you have inadvertently proven the defense's position though. At about 1:34:00 the expert admits that not all of the 9 fact-specific questions came from the PCA. The expert testified that the point of including "false facts" in the survey is to find out what people internalize as fact coming from the PCA as opposed to what is reported in the media, but not contained in the PCA. Nowhere are these false facts contained in the PCA, but because they're included in these survey questions, people can internalize that they are. Nowhere are these false facts in the public record, but because of the media coverage, people can internalize that they come from the public record or court record, which is prejudicial to the defendant.
JMO

When the defense stated in court that a lot of information in the PCA is flat out not true, the prosecution did not object. That, in and of itself, proves the prosecution agrees with what the defense is stating. The prosecution knows the PCA isn't true otherwise the prosecution would have objected strenuously throughout the testimony of Mowery, Payne and Ray, but they didn't. The PCA was used to get an arrest warrant for BK and now we know from both the defense and the prosecution that it is mostly not true.

I find this situation to be absolutely awful. How will the victims and their families ever get justice?

 

[Balthazar]

Just because one witness with a bad background - who is getting paid - says there are errors does not make it true.

Most defense witnesses will say there are problems with the evidence.

2 Cents

Sy Ray doesn't have a "bad background," he has an excellent background and reputation. That judge who disallowed his testimony doesn't even know what an engineer is or the different ways in which software is tested and verified as accurate.

Did you notice the prosecution NEVER objected to anything Sy Ray said yesterday? That's because they KNOW he is right.

Also a little logic here...if AT thought there was a snowball's chance in hell that BK was guilty, she would not have hired Sy Ray. He's going to take all the data and find out exactly where BK really was. If Sy Ray finds out BK is guilty, he won't testify on his behalf, that's for certain.

 

[Balthazar]

I would like the Defense to be given expertly cataloged evidence yesterday. It doesn't suit either side to work under chaos, time constraints, and disorganization which is par for the course to a degree. So, take a time out for protocol ASAP. Perhaps this is common in ginormous evidence cases, but do it. JMOO

I've never heard of such a mess either. There is all kinds of software which can be used to categorize and organize case files, electronic evidence, hard evidence, scientific evidence, but it seems MPD doesn't use that so there's evidence on laptops instead of servers and spread all over who knows where. That's completely unacceptable.

 

[stemkb]

It's the hearing in which BT admitted that BK never stalked any of the victims and that he never had any internet connection with him.

BT did not admit to that. He positively stated the rumor that Kohberger stalked one of the victims was wrong, and known to be wrong, following the Moscow Homicide Unit's investigation into said rumor back in 2022.

 

[Balthazar]

BT did not admit to that. He positively stated the rumor that Kohberger stalked one of the victims was wrong, and known to be wrong, following the Moscow Homicide Unit's investigation into said rumor back in 2022.

Stalking was insinuated on the PCA on page 16:


This was in a sworn document where the signer had to state everything in the document was true. From page 18 of the PCA:

 

[wendy44]

Better than documents is actual video of the defense, prosecution and witnesses describing the mess. Watch the last 3 hearings where the prosecution agreed with the defense about these items. The prosecution has gone so far as to say that the PCA is not relevant at this point.

So there are no documents?

You found it yourself.

I didn't though. I listened to the whole thing. What is the time stamp where the prosecutor agrees with the defense that the PCA is full of errors and what does he say exactly? I didn't find it.

The hearing last Thursday and yesterday contain ALL of the information that is not true and they cite all of the documents by evidence numbers during hearings. I didn't hear the prosecution object at all, did you?

I didn't hear any of that. Do you have links, time stamps and quotes?

The prosecution tacitly agreed with AT, did not object to any of this and further, BT went on to say that the PCA is "not relevant at this point." It's not relevant because a lot of it is false which AT proved in the past 3 hearings mostly with the prosecution's own witnesses.

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/2024/051024-Defendants-Response-States-Motion-Limit-Tesimony.pdf

You said there is video of the prosecutor agreeing with the defense that the PCA is full of errors. There is no video of that. It may be your opinion that BT tacitly agreed because he didn't object, but that's opinion only. BT never said or agreed with the defense on this.

There is insinuation of stalking in the PCA on page 16, paragraph 2.

And, again, you are inadvertently supporting the defense's argument for the necessity of the false facts in the survey. The PCA does not make a claim of stalking. The judge stated this in court. The survey question of stalking was a false fact. The expert testified that it was. The defense is trying to prove that potential jurors may believe the PCA alleges stalking when it in fact does not, and this is prejudicial to their client. You are proving her point.

When the defense stated in court that a lot of information in the PCA is flat out not true, the prosecution did not object. That, in and of itself, proves the prosecution agrees with what the defense is stating. The prosecution knows the PCA isn't true otherwise the prosecution would have objected strenuously throughout the testimony of Mowery, Payne and Ray, but they didn't. The PCA was used to get an arrest warrant for BK and now we know from both the defense and the prosecution that it is mostly not true.

I find this situation to be absolutely awful. How will the victims and their families ever get justice?

So now the PCA is mostly not true? I think most people who spend a lot of time on websleuths know defense attorneys spend a lot of time saying the police are wrong, the prosecution is wrong, they have evidence to prove their client's innocence, etc. That's what defense attorneys do. The PCA is only meant to convince a judge that probable cause exists and to obtain an arrest warrant. It's not evidence. The lack of prosecution response to the defense saying what defense attorneys say about a document that is not evidence and only meant to obtain an arrest should not be taken as an agreement with the defense that there are things not true in the PCA. JMO

 

[Cool Cats]

Sy Ray doesn't have a "bad background," he has an excellent background and reputation. That judge who disallowed his testimony doesn't even know what an engineer is or the different ways in which software is tested and verified as accurate.

Did you notice the prosecution NEVER objected to anything Sy Ray said yesterday? That's because they KNOW he is right.

Also a little logic here...if AT thought there was a snowball's chance in hell that BK was guilty, she would not have hired Sy Ray. He's going to take all the data and find out exactly where BK really was. If Sy Ray finds out BK is guilty, he won't testify on his behalf, that's for certain.

Sy Ray doesn't have a "bad background," he has an excellent background and reputation. That judge who disallowed his testimony doesn't even know what an engineer is or the different ways in which software is tested and verified as accurate.

Did you notice the prosecution NEVER objected to anything Sy Ray said yesterday? That's because they KNOW he is right.

Also a little logic here...if AT thought there was a snowball's chance in hell that BK was guilty, she would not have hired Sy Ray. He's going to take all the data and find out exactly where BK really was. If Sy Ray finds out BK is guilty, he won't testify on his behalf, that's for certain.

I don't want assumptions I want facts. You often tell me and others to prove it and to provide links

You presume to know what everyone is thinking....

1.) The prosecution knows Sy is right so they didn't interrupt his testimony.

2.) If AT thought he was guilty she wouldn't have hired Sy.

3.) He's going to take all the data and find out exactly where BK really was.

He said:

"Based on the data he had received, he believed some statements in the records were not accurate, and he said the missing data could be helpful to the defense."

4.) If Sy Ray finds out BK is guilty, he won't testify on his behalf, that's for certain.

He is a hired expert under oath, he has to answer all questions truthfully, he can't pick and choose.

5.) That judge who disallowed Sy's testimony doesn't even know what an engineer is or the different ways in which software is tested and verified as accurate.

2 Cents

 

[stemkb]

Stalking was insinuated on the PCA on page 16:
<snip document>
This was in a sworn document where the signer had to state everything in the document was true. From page 18 of the PCA:

Obtaining a search warrant to help determine if Kohberger stalked any of the victims or surveilled the 1122 residence prior to the attack in no way says he was stalking them. The PCA has no bearing on this issue. The stalking rumor referenced in the defense team's survey that BT argued was misplaced relates to the MPD Facebook update copied above. It pertains to one of the victims (singular) not all four. JJJ stated near the end of the hearing "Those two questions were not in the public record. Okay? They weren't." Affirming the stalking rumor referenced in the survey originated externally and was the same incident as investigated in 2022. In short, BT never "admitted" or "conceded" anything. He was merely stating facts.

 

[Swansee]

Well, this is incredibly disappointing: by stipulation, the Change of Venue Hearing has been pushed back by two months to 8/29/2024 at 9 AM.

• 05/31/2024 Stipulated Motion to Reset Hearing on Defendants Motion for Change of Venue
• 05/31/2024 Order to Continue Hearing on Defendants Motion for Change of Venue

I clearly recall AT saying her expert would only need 3 weeks to complete the COV surveys if allowed to do so and some minimal time to update the analysis.

That permission to proceed was granted by the court over a month ago on 4/19/2024.

MOO, these stalling tactics by the Defense are unconscionable

Edited to correct typo in COV Hearing date - no month has 39 days, my apologies.

It is disappointing to see this hearing pushed back, however, IMO this does not equate to stalling by the defense.
Keep in mind the prosecution has a September deadline for discovery, and the defense is January.
COV hearings, or even an actual change of venue, will not have any bearing on that.
I too wish things would move along faster, but nothing that is going on right now is actually changing the broader timeline of the trial.
MOO

ETA: If I had to guess, I would bet that the results they got in other counties were not that different from what they found in Latah county. It really wouldn't surprise me since media coverage of this case has been so broad. So they are probably wondering what to do with their survey results, which probably don't help them argue for COV at all. MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Maybe they should make up their minds.

Bryan Kohberger gag order and other key developments from investigation

Details of items seized at the home of Kohberger's parents and information about his time as a fish cutter have emerged in recent days.

www.newsweek.com

Defense attorneys for Bryan Kohberger, the man accused of murdering four University of Idaho students, asked the Idaho Supreme Court this week to keep a gag order in place.

"What the media really seeks here is a procedural victory, knowing full well it cannot win on the merits of any test, given the pervasive and grotesquely twisted nature of media coverage that has occurred thus far," Jay Weston Logsdon, with the Kootenai County Public Defender's office, wrote in the court document.

He did not cite any examples of what he believed to be "twisted"coverage.

RSBBM
Of course it would have been Logsdon who said "What the media really seeks here is a procedural victory, knowing full well it cannot win on the merits of any test, given the pervasive and grotesquely twisted nature of media coverage that has occurred thus far,". Gosh he's soooo dramatic isn't he? The only thing I find grotesque is the brutal murders of 4 innocent college students by the Defendant.

It's been the Defense releasing tidbits as it suits them to the media (through Motions) and wanting Court Hearings open to the public. Can't have it both ways.

MOO

 

[Nila Aella]

Obtaining a search warrant to help determine if Kohberger stalked any of the victims or surveilled the 1122 residence prior to the attack in no way says he was stalking them. The PCA has no bearing on this issue. The stalking rumor referenced in the defense team's survey that BT argued was misplaced relates to the MPD Facebook update copied above. It pertains to one of the victims (singular) not all four. JJJ stated near the end of the hearing "Those two questions were not in the public record. Okay? They weren't." Affirming the stalking rumor referenced in the survey originated externally and was the same incident as investigated in 2022. In short, BT never "admitted" or "conceded" anything. He was merely stating facts.

In the PCA

Here are two headlines for newscasts (there are more), both referring to the above information in the PCA.

Idaho students murder: Bryan Kohberger allegedly stalked victims for months​

Daily Mail

​

Was Bryan Kohberger Stalking Idaho Victims Before He Murdered Them?​

Law and Crime

There has been widespread speculation on who was being stalked and how they were being stalked across many platforms. Most of the speculation in the media IMO originated from the content of the PCA.
JMO
edited to remove duplicate attachments

 

[katydid23]

I don't think this is true. I don't believe we know if the defense ran their own dna test. We haven't seen them challenge the match though.

I think this is the only avenue for the defense. If BK has a story for how his dna got on the sheath, but it's not his, he'll have to testify and tell that story and it will have to be believable to the jury. For example, if the sheath was sold in a local shop he could testify he went into that shop and looked at the items. If he doesn't testify, the defense could ask hypotheticals, like, could that dna have gotten there because someone who is not the killer handled it? And yes, that's possible, but it will be up to the jury to believe it or not. Without all the other evidence against him, that scenario could produce some doubt. But you start adding the other stuff in, it becomes harder to believe that explanation.

If the sheath was purchased online, that's going to be more difficult to explain, especially if there's a history of BK purchasing one. I can't really think of an explanation that I would buy as a juror for his dna being there in that scenario.
JMO

It's especially hard to believe that his DNA got there on the knife sheath, randomly, somehow, if you add into it, that he also happened to be driving around in the area of the crime scene, with his phone turned off, at same time the crime was happening---AND a car that looked just like his was seen speeding away at same time the killer with bushy eyebrows was seen walking out the door.

Adding those circumstances make it seem highly unlikely that the DNA left on the sheath was random. IMO

 

[katydid23]

RSBM...

I don't think the Defense is questioning the DNA match. But, it appears touch DNA is legally controversial evidence and convictions have been overturned where it was involved.

Who knows what the Defense will or will not do. But, you have to admit, this is an interesting case.

But there is a big difference between 'Touch DNA' and 'Single Source Touch DNA...which is what we have on the knife sheath.

If there was 'touch DNA' matching BK on the sheath, MIXED WITH other DNA profiles....that would be controversial and easier for the defense to discount and justify. That could mean that the owner of the knife left their DNA and they had somehow also picked up some skin cells somehow from BK....

But Single Source DNA , of BK, on the under rim of the snap from the knife sheath----that is much harder to explain away. The fact that it is the only DNA found points more directly at BK being the last person to unsnap that sheath. JMO




A leather sheath for a Ka-Bar brand combat-style knife was found at the off-campus home where the U of I students were killed. Investigators located a single source of male touch DNA on the sheath's button snap, which was later linked to Kohberger, police have said.Jan 12, 2024

Judge orders DNA records turned over to Kohberger defense​

 

[girlhasnoname]

It's especially hard to believe that his DNA got there on the knife sheath, randomly, somehow, if you add into it, that he also happened to be driving around in the area of the crime scene, with his phone turned off, at same time the crime was happening---AND a car that looked just like his was seen speeding away at same time the killer with bushy eyebrows was seen walking out the door.

Adding those circumstances make it seem highly unlikely that the DNA left on the sheath was random. IMO

Especially in the location that the DNA was recovered. It was on/around the clasp button, not easy to get there unless you have access to it and are opening and closing it.

JMO

 

[pittsburghgirl]

That, or one or more families are intending to claim they were wronged because the investigation took too long to produce a viable suspect

I can't wrap my head around this notion, since many investigations, some of nationally publicized multiple murder cases and some of more local, but still shocking, cases, never produce one viable suspect who is arrested. The Springfield Three comes to mind; no arrests in that case after 32 years. In the Pike County case, with the murders of 8 family members, took 2 1/2 years to get to arrest. Any family who thinks that it took too long to get to BK's arrest is misinformed about what is "too long."