4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #95

[ilovewings]

But that's the interesting thing about it, is that he was not in a DP state. He willfully travelled INTO a DP state from a non-DP state to commit the crime - allegedly.

He was living and going to school in Washington, a state w/no DP. The murders were committed in Idaho, which has the DP.

I think most people would presume that if any crime were DP-eligible, this one certainly is. I think BK knew this and may have purposefully committed the crime in a state with the DP. He may have thought he could get away with it, but if by some chance he didn't, he'd expect to be sentenced to death. If he hadn't done this, I wouldn't be surprised if he had suicidal plans instead. He may have seen this as a way to get that accomplished. All MOO.

Do you honestly believe whether a state has a death penalty or not is a deciding factor on who the murderer chooses as his/her victims? I have 100% conviction that if Kohberger is the killer (and I believe he is) of these four victims, the fact they resided in a death penalty state had not one thing to do with his choosing to kill them!!! It just blows my mind that anybody would think a murderer decides to kill someone or several people, based on whether the state has a death penalty!!!!

 

[Betty P]

Various news articles:

https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/crime/article291638295.html

Idaho judge halts Bryan Kohberger hearing after defense shows social media posts

The judge overseeing the case in which Kohberger stands accused of killing four University of Idaho students paused a hearing on the capital murder trial’s potential change of venue Thursday.

www.seattletimes.com

Bryan Kohberger hearing halted as defense shows social media posts: Live

Attorneys for Bryan Kohberger argue his murder trial should be relocated because potential jurors voiced concerns that the public would ‘burn the courthouse down’ if he is acquitted of murder charges

www.independent.co.uk

 

[jepop]

Do you honestly believe whether a state has a death penalty or not is a deciding factor on who the murderer chooses as his/her victims? I have 100% conviction that if Kohberger is the killer (and I believe he is) of these four victims, the fact they resided in a death penalty state had not one thing to do with his choosing to kill them!!! It just blows my mind that anybody would think a murderer decides to kill someone or several people, based on whether the state has a death penalty!!!!

100% agree with your thoughts and logic on this point (and actually most of your other postings too.) Imoo a person driven to murder his victims does not select them based on their being located outside a DP state. BK' s just not that special imo, so like most other murderers my contention is that he believed it likely he wouldn't be identified and would actually :get away with murder'...the usual thing. He thought he'd done Good enough job to cover his tracks. I can't stress enough what an outstanding job combined LE did in investigating this crime. Jmo

 

[Curiousobserver]

Pardon my ignorance.

Just curious but why was he a fugitive at that point? If he was a fugitive why didn't they just arrest him on either of the two traffic stops in Indiana on his way to PA?

The definition of a fugitive is a person who has escaped from a place or is in hiding, especially to avoid arrest or persecution.

Let's say LE did indeed believe he was 'on the run' then again why didn't they just arrest him either of the two times they pulled him over on his way to PA?

Another question is why didn't they just bring BK in for questioning when he was still in Idaho and ask him for a DNA sample then?

Why follow him across country?

What an incredible risk they took. What if he and his father had discussed an escape plan and he simply slipped out of that car at some point un-noticed with a duffle full of supplies.

It seemed reckless then and now even in hindsight.

 

[NCWatcher]

What an incredible risk they took. What if he and his father had discussed an escape plan and he simply slipped out of that car at some point un-noticed with a duffle full of supplies.

It seemed reckless then and now even in hindsight.

Definitely a risk. It was hardly unusual he left campus during the winter break. LE should have anticipated he might but choosing to let him go if he could be arrested was risky (IF that's what happened to make it a fugitive situation.) And IF (and it is an if too) BK did ask about other arrests, it would make sense he might wonder about his dad driving back with him and about both parents since he was staying in their house. But I think the helpers had to know he was a fugitive to be legally aiding and abetting and it seems even BK didn't know.
MOO

 

[CKS]

What an incredible risk they took. What if he and his father had discussed an escape plan and he simply slipped out of that car at some point un-noticed with a duffle full of supplies.

It seemed reckless then and now even in hindsight.

It doesn't make any sense imo.

Also, from the PA and ID arrest warrant timestamps is sure does appear that PA got the fugitive warrant before Idaho even issued the arrest warrant? Is that how it works normally?

 

[Curiousobserver]

It doesn't make any sense imo.

Also, from the PA and ID arrest warrant timestamps is sure does appear that PA got the fugitive warrant before Idaho even issued the arrest warrant? Is that how it works normally?

This part of the story just never has made any sense. I wonder if there was a sequencing issue they were trying to engineer. For example if they let him leave without tipping him off and arrest him en-route, or in PA, then he doesn't have an opportunity to hide or destroy evidence at his apartment or car after they question him.

It makes you wonder if at that point they still had some reason to think he might not be the right person, in direct contradiction to the PCA language.

 

[Boxer]

Multiple agencies.
He looked good for the charges but he was still under inveatigation.

 

[LinasK]

Do you honestly believe whether a state has a death penalty or not is a deciding factor on who the murderer chooses as his/her victims? I have 100% conviction that if Kohberger is the killer (and I believe he is) of these four victims, the fact they resided in a death penalty state had not one thing to do with his choosing to kill them!!! It just blows my mind that anybody would think a murderer decides to kill someone or several people, based on whether the state has a death penalty!!!!

I totally agree. Killers often think that they will get away with their crimes, so they aren't thinking about the consequences (DP state or not). This was a crime of opportunity and he selected his victims. I think that there WAS a social connection that just hasn't come out yet.

 

[Cool Cats]

Various news articles:

https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/crime/article291638295.html

Idaho judge halts Bryan Kohberger hearing after defense shows social media posts

The judge overseeing the case in which Kohberger stands accused of killing four University of Idaho students paused a hearing on the capital murder trial’s potential change of venue Thursday.

www.seattletimes.com

Bryan Kohberger hearing halted as defense shows social media posts: Live

Attorneys for Bryan Kohberger argue his murder trial should be relocated because potential jurors voiced concerns that the public would ‘burn the courthouse down’ if he is acquitted of murder charges

www.independent.co.uk

Bryan Kohberger’s defense says trial needs to be moved because of Idaho town’s vicious ‘mob mentality’​

Kohberger’s defense says trial needs a new venue because of town’s ‘mob mentality’

Kohberger is set to stand trial in 2025 for the slayings of four University of Idaho students in November 2022

www.independent.co.uk

The mob mentality within the community is the exact reason why the trial should be moved out of Latah County, the defense attorneys stated in the filing. Kohberger’s attorneys cited inflammatory and threatening remarks.​

Residents of the county who were surveyed by the defense said there would be riots and other violent repercussions if Kohberger was found not guilty.

One resident said that “there would likely be a riot and he wouldn’t last long, because someone would do the good ole’ boy justice,” according to the filing.

Another said “they’d burn the courthouse down” and that “outrage would be a mild description.”

While one other warned that residents “would probably find him and kill him.”

 

[Cool Cats]

Fugitive From Justice Warrant is issued when the arrested person needs to be extradited to another state. Standard Protocol in Pennsylvania

Extradition and Pennsylvania | PA Legal Blog

When a person in Pennsylvania is arrested and detained on behalf of another state, the process is called extradition.

www.manchesterandassociates.com

When a person in Pennsylvania is arrested and detained on behalf of another state, the process is called extradition. It is important for individuals and families to understand this often daunting and potentially confusing process.

This process could find an individual arrested in Pennsylvania as a “fugitive from justice. " Two Federal laws control extradition from one state to another: The Federal Fugitive Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 3182; and the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9121 et. seq.

When an individual is arrested as a fugitive from justice, there are specific rules that must be followed by Pennsylvania and the demanding state. The outcome is that the fugitive is either extradited to the demanding state, or released from Pennsylvania custody.​

After an individual is retained on a fugitive warrant, the law requires that they be brought in front of a judge as soon as possible. There is then a hearing to tell the individual what they are charged with, to determine if the person arrested is actually the person charged, and to set bail if appropriate.​

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Interested to learn if defense is receptive to empanelling a jury from outside of Latah County and bringing them to Moscow for the duration of the trial. Can't see why they would object to that, other than wanting to inflict frustration and inconvenience on the victim's families with the goal of making a plea deal more likely.

Because it's incredibly inconvenient for the jury and there's no likely way to prevent bias unless they're sequestered if they were in Moscow. We have to remember that trials are for the alleged criminal, not for the victims. I feel for the victims families, but that is not a reason to deny change of venue.

MOO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Jury of one's peers. Either jurors can set their bias and exposure aside or they can't.

I don't think you move a trial to a place where there's no exposure or less exposure. You seek jurors who can be impartial.

SBMFF.

That's not how human behavior works.

MOO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Sigh.

Solid tutorial on anatomy of a juror's mind.

Truly it's not possible to remove all bias, conscious and subconscious, but it's the system we use.

That's exactly the defense's point.

Boy, they're going all out to get the trial moved. But so far, I'm not hearing anything unique to this case and the challenge of juror bias that isn't true in any high publicity trial.

Each high publicity trial has different characteristics, but many nationally known trials that take place in small towns are moved.

Expert: I think it would be hard for anyone in this community to be on the jury.

Not exactly empirical.

Her recommendation: move the trial as far away as possible.

JMO

I think the research and the facts of what we know about bias and human behavior backs up the point quite well.

MOO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

But why is that different than any other high profile case that gets media attention?

It's not different than "any other." It's only different than some of them, because of how small the community of Moscow is and who the victims were. When the university makes up the majority of the population AND the employment in town and likely 99% of those people were affected by the tragedy, that really cuts into your jury pool.

MOO

 

[Cool Cats]

It's not different than "any other." It's only different than some of them, because of how small the community of Moscow is and who the victims were. When the university makes up the majority of the population AND the employment in town and likely 99% of those people were affected by the tragedy, that really cuts into your jury pool.

MOO

Prosecutor Thompson did argue in January that a shift to Lewis County, with a population of about 3,500 people and 2,200 active voters, could be a potential fit if Judge felt a change of venue was needed, the Idaho Statesman reported.

However, moving the trial almost 300 miles south to Boise is not convenient, the filing notes. Because of that, prosecutors wrote, “(The) defendant’s motion should be denied.”

They also wrote Idaho law would dictate seating a jury from a nearby county — not one on the other side of the state.

MSN

Idaho College Murders: Prosecutors Deliver Major Blow to Bryan Kohberger Defense Ahead of Quadruple Homicide Trial​

 

[gremlin444]

That's exactly the defense's point.



Each high publicity trial has different characteristics, but many nationally known trials that take place in small towns are moved.

Interestingly enough, the trial of Richard Allen for the murder of young Abby and Libby in Delphi, Indiana is staying local. The jurors are being selected from another and going through voir dire there, then will be transported and sequestered in Allen's home county.

 

[Arkay]

SBMFF.

That's not how human behavior works.

MOO

Alas, we can only seat humans on a jury, so it will never be perfect but must suffice.

IMO the Constitutional jury procedure does its best. Voir dire, peremptory challenges, and let the judge decide about change of venue.

I’m not in favor of changing the venue, but it’s not my call so I’ll accept what I must.

JMO

 

[dkaras]

Interested to learn if defense is receptive to empanelling a jury from outside of Latah County and bringing them to Moscow for the duration of the trial. Can't see why they would object to that, other than wanting to inflict frustration and inconvenience on the victim's families with the goal of making a plea deal more likely.

I don't know that they would object necessarily, but I personally think this is not a great idea. That is such an inconvenience for the jury. I am truly sorry for the victims' families, and all associated parties, but juries are literally your normal everyday people. I could not imagine being bussed here to there for however long every day and have to give up any kind of whatever is going on in my life for the duration of the trial. If they are truly concerned with juror bias or burning of the courthouse, they should grant the change of venue.