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.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.
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?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?
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">
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
Source, please.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.
Of course they can believe he’s “innocent” at this point because no evidence has been presented, nor subject to cross examination etc.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.
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
Source, please.
Your original post asserts on the sheathe, not in the house. Care to correct it please to avoid spreading misinformation?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.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 sheathIn 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
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. JmoWithin 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
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.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
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.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.
I think they said they "firmly believe" which is opinion and can be based on their feelings.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.
That hearing was on Aug 18, 2023 and that's true what BT explained but the judge did ask Bill Thompson to reach out to the lab to be sure that the lab didn't over look anything.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
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.