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

[GRT]

All I know is that they say they believe he’s innocent. JMO, it’s difficult to prove what a defense attorney believes at any point in time.

I wonder if they might be talking strictly in a legal sense, based on the evidence they currently have?

Do they firmly believe he will be found innocent?

There's a lot going on in the little town of Moscow, ID, that could influence the trial in my opinion.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Right, it means the District Attorney with his team was unable to prove their case. But nothing to be ashamed about if they did everything they could but the judge kept ruling against them hurting their case.

If the prosecution did a lousy job, made mistakes with evidence, timing, did not investigate or subpoena critical witnesses, etc...

Then they would have a problem with themselves and the public. Someone would lose their job.

I have every confidence in BT and the State's case. This whacko mass murderer is going away for a looooong time. The DP causes higher hurdles to clear IMO, and I don't think the State would have put it on the table right away if they didn't have substantial proof.

We don't even really know their evidence and their case really, just what small portion we've been able to glean from the PCA.

BK is a dark soul IMO, this wasn't just a one and done. He wanted to be a famous SK. He failed at everything else in life that would have given him the attention and notoriety he so desperately craves. I don't believe it was because of VSS, being overweight, that he was bullied, his parents didn't love him enough, or any of the basic BS excuses we usually hear about these guys. Some times it's just simply plain evil.

JMO

 

[iamshadow21]

I have every confidence in BT and the State's case. This whacko mass murderer is going away for a looooong time. The DP causes higher hurdles to clear IMO, and I don't think the State would have put it on the table right away if they didn't have substantial proof.

We don't even really know their evidence and their case really, just what small portion we've been able to glean from the PCA.

BK is a dark soul IMO, this wasn't just a one and done. He wanted to be a famous SK. He failed at everything else in life that would have given him the attention and notoriety he so desperately craves. I don't believe it was because of VSS, being overweight, that he was bullied, his parents didn't love him enough, or any of the basic BS excuses we usually hear about these guys. Some times it's just simply plain evil.

JMO

Agreed. People can have all kinds of garbage happen to and around them, but they still have choices. He could have chosen any number of paths in life. Work, study, therapy, creativity, spirituality, family. He chose violence.

MOO

 

[Justice101]

The DNA from Brian Kohberger's cheek is a match to the DNA found on the sheath at the scene.
That is extremely strong scientific evidence.
Any other discussion is legalism.

Yep, the jury is not going to buy a defense's argument that he happened to touch the sheath somewhere else... because why wasn't there anyone else's DNA on it? Single source... he was the ONLY ONE to touch the snap.

IMO, juries are generally down to earth and pragmatic and the DNA will mean a lot more when coupled with the other circumstantial evidence that it was him. JMO

 

[CKS]

Defense Attorneys, obviously can't say their client is guilty since it is their job to zealously defend their client, but, in my experience, Defense Attorneys certainly do not say their client is innocent if they believe their client is guilty - in my experience, they generally say nothing about guilt or innocence and simply try to get the jury to believe there is reasonable doubt. Also, as an officer of the court, Defense Attorneys cannot lie in court. So apparently, BK's Attorneys all believe he is innocent because they have stated so in court, while court is in session when they cannot lie.

All JMO.

All MOO


That's my point that they are under oath and both of his lawyers have made it point to state they believe that BK is innocent. Just find it interesting that they would state that under oath.

 

[Gigiky]

Just cause someone believes something don't make it so.

 

[ilovewings]

All MOO


That's my point that they are under oath and both of his lawyers have made it point to state they believe that BK is innocent. Just find it interesting that they would state that under oath.

obviously you can believe what you want but the fact is that many defense attorneys will state that their client is not guilty or innocent, no matter what they themselves believe. Even if the defense attorney believes their client is not guilty or innocent does not make it so.

 

[maskedwoman]

So do you think BK's lawyers are lying in court when they said they firmly believe that BK is not guilty?

Were you aware that they've gone out of their way to say they believe he is not guilty?

Hi all! Back after a short break. I don't personally know any of BK's lawyers, so I can't make an informed decision about their ethics, but parsing words has become almost as common place with lawyers as it is with politicians. Who can possibly know whether a lawyer is being honest by saying they "believe" someone is innocent?

 

[CKS]

I don't agree.
As I said MOO i dont believe defense attorneys seek establish the guilt or innocence of their client, they believe their client is actually the US Constitution, and their role is to defend individuals from violation of rights.
Its the responsibility of the state to prove otherwise than the individual is innocent.
And in BKs case they believe they can prevent a guilty verdict, <modsnip: NG does not equate to "innocent">

All MOO

Criminal defense attorneys are bound by ethical rules that govern their conduct, including rules regarding truthfulness and candor to the court. While defense attorneys have a duty to vigorously advocate for their clients' interests and to present the best possible defense, they are generally not permitted to knowingly make false statements to the court.

A defense attorney can assert that their client is innocent if they genuinely believe that to be the case based on the information available to them. However, if the attorney knows or strongly suspects that their client is guilty, they cannot ethically assert the client's innocence.

If a defense attorney were to knowingly make false statements to the court, such as asserting their client's innocence when they know or strongly suspect otherwise, they could face disciplinary action by the state bar association, which could include sanctions or even revocation of their law license. This is because knowingly making false statements in court would violate the attorney's duty of candor to the tribunal and undermine the integrity of the legal system.

While true that a criminal defense attorney can say their client is innocent, it's a pretty rare occurrence because if it turns out there is solid evidence against the client then the attorney will have lost all credibility going forward & it will also affect their credibility in other cases.

So, while defense attorneys have a duty to zealously advocate for their clients, they must do so within the bounds of ethical rules and cannot knowingly make false statements to the court.


All MOO

 

[CKS]

Yep, the jury is not going to buy a defense's argument that he happened to touch the sheath somewhere else... because why wasn't there anyone else's DNA on it? Single source... he was the ONLY ONE to touch the snap.

IMO, juries are generally down to earth and pragmatic and the DNA will mean a lot more when coupled with the other circumstantial evidence that it was him. JMO

There was actually two unidentified male DNA's on the sheath and one unidentified male DNA on a glove found outside but LE for some reason didn't follow through and test those three for some strange reason.

 

[iamshadow21]

There was actually two unidentified male DNA's on the sheath and one unidentified male DNA on a glove found outside but LE for some reason didn't follow through and test those three for some strange reason.

Source, please.

 

[Baby baby Jane]

All MOO


That's my point that they are under oath and both of his lawyers have made it point to state they believe that BK is innocent. Just find it interesting that they would state that under oath.

Of course they can believe he’s “innocent” at this point because no evidence has been presented, nor subject to cross examination etc.
Quite an easy statement for the lawyers to make, now, and even after he’s proven guilty, they can still believe it’s not been proven because they will feel process was flawed and appeal etc etc
Imo - Defense Lawyer logic.

 

[CKS]

If it is true that they personally believe he is innocent then I expect them to show some evidence at trial of possible other killers. And to explain at trial their client's DNA in the victim's bed on an object that holds large knives.

There would have to be a theory from her of what "really" happened because it wasn't BK.
Her opening statement will set the tone for this.

Usually when a defendant is adament they are not guilty they will ask their attorney for a bail hearing. Very odd that BK is totally innocent sitting in jail for someone else's homicides yet never tries to get bail.

Odd that AT pretty much acknowledged that this is BK's DNA when she thinks he is innocent. I haven't see any Motions accusing mishandling or incompetence against the Idaho State lab who profiled the DNA.

2 Cents

MOO

BK's defense has said that BF one of the surviving roommates has "exculpatory" information that is "material and necessary" to the alleged killer's defense.

At has also said that they will show exculpatory phone data evidence to show he wasn't around or at the house during the time of the crime.

Bryan Kohberger defense claims surviving roommate has evidence that would clear him

 

[CKS]

Source, please.

In the new filing, the defense notes, “by December 17, 2022, lab analysts were aware of two additional males’ DNA within the house where the deceased were located.”

Lab analysts discovered DNA for another unknown man on a glove found outside the residence on November 20, 2022, the filing states.

Link to an article

 

[jepop]

In the new filing, the defense notes, “by December 17, 2022, lab analysts were aware of two additional males’ DNA within the house where the deceased were located.”

Lab analysts discovered DNA for another unknown man on a glove found outside the residence on November 20, 2022, the filing states.

Link to an article

Your original post asserts on the sheathe, not in the house. Care to correct it please to avoid spreading misinformation?

 

[iamshadow21]

In the new filing, the defense notes, “by December 17, 2022, lab analysts were aware of two additional males’ DNA within the house where the deceased were located.”

Lab analysts discovered DNA for another unknown man on a glove found outside the residence on November 20, 2022, the filing states.

Link to an article

Within the house does not equal on the sheath.

The additional profiles didn't meet the threshold for testing. There are guidelines as to what is tested further and why.

I would speculate that the additional profiles were in places that suggest they had nothing to do with the crime (electricity meter, furnace, etc.) or were on items where their presence was explicable (food delivery bags, amazon boxes, mail, library books, etc.)

MOO

 

[ilovewings]

In the new filing, the defense notes, “by December 17, 2022, lab analysts were aware of two additional males’ DNA within the house where the deceased were located.”

Lab analysts discovered DNA for another unknown man on a glove found outside the residence on November 20, 2022, the filing states.

Link to an article

Don' t see two unidentified male DNAs on the sheath
don't know how you got that interpretation from what you posted which was two additional male DNA within the house where the deceased were located.

 

[jepop]

Within the house does not equal on the sheath.

The additional profiles didn't meet the threshold for testing. There are guidelines as to what is tested further and why.

I would speculate that the additional profiles were in places that suggest they had nothing to do with the crime (electricity meter, furnace, etc.) or were on items where their presence was explicable (food delivery bags, amazon boxes, mail, library books, etc.)

MOO

Correct. I'm searching for the hearing date from around June or July last year I think where BT explained that the two samples found in the house didn't qualify for CODIS. All that was gone through and clarified in that MTC hearing Imo. Will find a link and post or OP can research the hearing date at the Idaho Courts site BK cases of interest page. Jmo

 

[iamshadow21]

Correct. I'm searching for the hearing date from around June or July last year I think where BT explained that the two samples found in the house didn't qualify for CODIS. All that was gone through and clarified in that MTC hearing Imo. Will find a link and post or OP can research the hearing date at the Idaho Courts site BK cases of interest page. Jmo

Thank you. I appreciate it. I knew this had all been gone over at some point but I had no idea when or even where to start looking for the source in nearly a hundred threads.

The additional profiles are a nothing burger, I am 100% certain of it, but I don't expect anyone to just take my word for it.

MOO

 

[Balthazar]

obviously you can believe what you want but the fact is that many defense attorneys will state that their client is not guilty or innocent, no matter what they themselves believe. Even if the defense attorney believes their client is not guilty or innocent does not make it so.

If an attorney states that their client is innocent in court and doesn't believe it, they are unethical. The statement must be based upon facts.