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

[Cool Cats]

sorry I dis agree about that. it's a long story.

Links would help and the only links I seem to see from posters supporting the defense are from Blume (spelling?) and he does not give proof, only hearsay sources. There is a gag order so he cannot even get real information, he speculates with mysterious "sources."

2 Cents

 

[Boxer]

sorry I dis agree about that. it's a long story.

The DNA from BKs cheek is a match to the crime scene by science, MOO the defense is fishing for an argument about events leading to the arrest, also know as getting off on a technicality.
A version of "you caught me unfairly."

 

[schooling]

are you talking about the one that was found by that private investigator that has a YouTube channel that was in the area on Nov 25, 2022? because it's a different glove than the one that was found by Idaho State Police or Moscow PD on Nov 20, 2022. View attachment 528839

I have to admit, I am confused about why BKs DNA found on a piece of the literal murder weapon isn't a big deal...and seems to be easily dismissed by some.

But a random lost glove in a Idaho winter (likely 1 of hundreds of lost gloves) is somehow a sign of reasonable doubt. Can someone please help me make sense out of this?

MOO

 

[MoominMama222]

AT has to provide BK with a competent defense. That DOES NOT extend to her telling the judge in court that she believes BK is innocent. Nor does EM need to state the same thing. That they have taken this step is out of the ordinary and beyond the normal scope of a defending a client. The notion that lawyers are allowed to lie for their clients is a total and complete misconception. Professional ethics do not allow that. They have seen the evidence the prosecution has provided and have had their own investigator examine the situation. They are well educated attorneys who are used to dealing with various criminal clients, yet, they are convinced BK is innocent. This is an interesting situation, IMO.

But isn't he "innocent" in the sense of "innocent until proven guilty"--I mean they are acting within the context of a court of law, defending their client who is literally innocent until proven guilty by law--so they can say they believe in his innocence --as a legal state of being--and not be lying, right? That's how I interpret every defense lawyer who says they believe their client is innocent--because they are until the jury finds them guilty.

 

[MoominMama222]

EM said "firmly believe."

AT's exact quote speaking to JJJ during the hearing was:
"Your honor, Bryan is innocent."

There were no qualifiers and no word parsing in AT's statement.

But he is innocent--until proven guilty. It's just a fact. At the present time, in a court of law--he has not been proven guilty--yet.

 

[Cool Cats]

D

 

[PinkParis2052]

Links would help and the only links I seem to see from posters supporting the defense are from Blume (spelling?) and he does not give proof, only hearsay sources. There is a gag order so he cannot even get real information, he speculates with mysterious "sources."

2 Cents

Yes I understand that links would help and I deleted the post because I didn't have time to add to it, what I wanted too. I don't really understand why you are bring up Blum right now because to me you sounds like when you said that the defense is going after the dna from the Bk's 4th amendment rights were violated which is in Blum's latest article on Airmail. I don't like Blum's article about the Idaho 4 case, do I read them yeah. Yeah I understand that there is a gag order, I understand that he can't even get any real information and that he speculates with mysterious "sources" and we all know that his sources are not all that mysterious imo. I understand that that Blum does not give proof and only hearsay sources..I have other post on here with court documents. I didn't have time today to go back and rewatch the hearing from Aug 2023 with the dna experts and look at some more court documents and add them to my post. I'm trying to see what exactly was the defense trying to do with that hearing and the filings of those expects. Also when they did get the SNP profile from the state and when did they get the STR profile from the state.I'm sorry but I'll be back later. I'm really tired today. It's been busy. You take care now.

 

[Cool Cats]

I have to admit, I am confused about why BKs DNA found on a piece of the literal murder weapon isn't a big deal...and seems to be easily dismissed by some.

But a random lost glove in a Idaho winter (likely 1 of hundreds of lost gloves) is somehow a sign of reasonable doubt. Can someone please help me make sense out of this?

MOO

It is a big deal and the prosecution and defense both know it is a big deal because it is reliable touch DNA commonly used to convict killers at trials done correctly through chain of evidence and done correctly through a competent lab analysis.

Yes I understand that links would help and I deleted the post because I didn't have time to add to it, what I wanted too. I don't really understand why you are bring up Blum right now because to me you sounds like when you said that the defense is going after the dna from the Bk's 4th amendment rights were violated which is in Blum's latest article on Airmail. I don't like Blum's article about the Idaho 4 case, do I read them yeah. Yeah I understand that there is a gag order, I understand that he can't even get any real information and that he speculates with mysterious "sources" and we all know that his sources are not all that mysterious imo. I understand that that Blum does not give proof and only hearsay sources..I have other post on here with court documents. I didn't have time today to go back and rewatch the hearing from Aug 2023 with the dna experts and look at some more court documents and add them to my post. I'm trying to see what exactly was the defense trying to do with that hearing and the filings of those expects. Also when they did get the SNP profile from the state and when did they get the STR profile from the state.I'm sorry but I'll be back later. I'm really tired today. It's been busy. You take care now.

I appreciate you wanting to check good reliable links and I need to also do more checking. I just want to have good discussions and compare the links you find compared to the links I find. I think you find some links that are different from mine and maybe links I am not aware of.

I am tired of opinion only posts after going on 2 years and want more links and I include myself in this.

I am just being honest that I do not find Blum credible when he does not quote the names of sources. When it is just a "source" I do not take it seriously and see it as speculation.

I try to be open minded because a juror needs to be open to both sides and I try to see it as a juror.

2 Cents

 

[GRT]

But isn't he "innocent" in the sense of "innocent until proven guilty"--I mean they are acting within the context of a court of law, defending their client who is literally innocent until proven guilty by law--so they can say they believe in his innocence --as a legal state of being--and not be lying, right? That's how I interpret every defense lawyer who says they believe their client is innocent--because they are until the jury finds them guilty.

That's kind of what I think is going on. And, I think that's why so many defense attorneys make the same statement about their clients. I think it's an ethical legal strategy.

 

[girlhasnoname]

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

Sorry, I'm going to have to disagree. It happens ALL the time, the Defense can get around it by interpreting what they believe to be facts. If every D attorney wouldn't/couldn't represent a defendant they pretty well knew was guilty of the crime they are accused, there would be no trials or a need for them.

It isn't the Defense's job to prove their client innocent, it's the State's job to prove he is guilty beyond a REASONABLE doubt, not every teeny, tiny, possible doubt. I believe the State will do this here in spades.

Once the trial is over BK will be gone and forgotten about in time, except by those whose lives he so viciously took that night and their grieving loved ones, friends, the College and the Community of Moscow. Even BK's own family, they'll be emotionally sentenced right along with him.

Let him sit in his little jail cell and eat his vegan meals because IMO he's not fit to be among the free. Even though ID has the DP I doubt we'll see him executed in our lifetime. I think for BK a life without parole sentence will be worse.

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Apologies I did think that I read or heard from one of the court hearings it was on the sheath. I promise I'm not trying to spread misinformation whatsoever.

“To this date, the Defense is unaware of what sort of testing, if any, was conducted on these samples other than the STR DNA profiles,” according to the filing.

Link again to one of the articles from CNN

Single source BK DNA in the 5 octillion percentage of matching is the gold standard, it doesn't get any better than that.

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

I'm gonna go with these are not the actions of an innocent man:

<snipped & BBM>

"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," Mancuso told BRC13.

Once authorities saw the suspect doing this, Mancuso says, it shed light on a possible reason as to why Kohberger's DNA was not found in the family's trash in the days prior.

At Time of Arrest, Bryan Kohberger Was Wearing Latex Gloves and Putting Trash in Ziploc Bags: Prosecutor

 

[girlhasnoname]

I have to admit, I am confused about why BKs DNA found on a piece of the literal murder weapon isn't a big deal...and seems to be easily dismissed by some.

But a random lost glove in a Idaho winter (likely 1 of hundreds of lost gloves) is somehow a sign of reasonable doubt. Can someone please help me make sense out of this?

MOO

IIRC it was found a couple of days after the murders by the dumpster. There are pictures of the dumpster area taken the morning/afternoon when the bodies were found and it was not there.

A random glove found after the murders in freezing weather with all of the foot traffic by that area is a big fat nothing ko-burger to me.

MOO