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

[PinkParis2052]

...

 

[CKS]

Sorry but cherry picking and inking defense MTCs minus the p responses, outcomes of hearings and resultant orders which resolved individual items doesn't establish a thing. The d contended at various points that the p was deliberately withholding some items of discovery. The p disagreed on various grounds and points of contention were resolved by the court. Judge has never ruled that p was deliberately or inadvertently withholding discovery. Simply put any assertions to the contrary are opinion not fact and certainly not established truth.

Moo

Okay if I'm wrong I apologize but has the prosecution turned over one thing from that list that the defense as asked for? I am merely asking b/c I do not know. Thanks

 

[wendy44]

Yes it's true along with several other key pieces of evidence from the prosecution.

Snipped by me--Do you have a link for that?
IMO

 

[CKS]

on written request by the defendant:

I.C.R. 16. Discovery and Inspection | Supreme Court

isc.idaho.gov

This is the link to the Idaho Criminal Rule 16. Discovery and Inspection

Every thing that the defense has asked for, in court docs, is because defense HAS to make a written request.

And every time they make a written request, via a court doc, the Prosecution answers, via a court doc. So far.

Just asking b/c I honestly do not know.

You say they've answered the via a court doc but have they actually turned over one item from that list that the defense has requested?

Again, only asking b/c I was not aware that they had turned over anything from that list.


Thanks

 

[SpiderFalcon]

IMO


Here's a list of things the prosecution still has not shared with the defense. I'd refer to page 2 but check out all three please.


Motion to Compel Discovery


What's the defense up to now? 16 or 17 requests?

I just don't understand why the prosecution won't turn over the info to the defense?


Try this link

Just asking b/c I honestly do not know.

You say they've answered the via a court doc but have they actually turned over one item from that list that the defense has requested?

Again, only asking b/c I was not aware that they had turned over anything from that list.


Thanks

There's a gag order. Of course you're not aware. None of us are aware of what's been turned over. We are all aware, tho, that the laws of Idaho state that upon written request by the defense, the Prosecution has to turn it over. I've not seen one statement or order from the Judge that this hasn't been accomplished. So when you state: "Here's a list of things the prosecution still has not shared with the defense", it's either inaccurate, or please show a link. It didn't seem like you were asking. JMO, IMO

 

[wendy44]

IMO

I disagree.

The statement made by Chief Fry in the interview where he declares, "we have our guy the one that committed these murders," appears to go against the fundamental principle of the criminal justice system, which is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Law enforcement officials in most jurisdictions, including Idaho, are prohibited from making statements that suggest a suspect is guilty before they have been convicted in a court of law. Additionally, prosecutors are required to refrain from making extrajudicial comments that could potentially impact the suspect's right to a fair trial. Therefore, Chief Fry's statement raises questions about his adherence to these ethical and legal guidelines.

If law enforcement officials publicly state that "we have our guy" before a suspect has been convicted in a court of law, they may be violating several legal and ethical rules, including:

The principle of presumption of innocence: in Idaho, every person charged with a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Any statement by law enforcement officials that suggests otherwise could prejudice the case and potentially impact the suspect's right to a fair trial.

Idaho Rule of Professional Conduct 3.6: This rule applies to attorneys, including prosecutors, and prohibits them from making extrajudicial statements that have a substantial likelihood of prejudicing a criminal proceeding. If law enforcement officials make statements that suggest a suspect is guilty, they could be violating this rule.

Idaho Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8: This rule also applies to attorneys, including prosecutors, and requires them to "refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused." If law enforcement officials make statements that suggest a suspect is guilty, they could be violating this rule as well.

2 cents and just my opinion

In a court of law--presumption of innocence is wrapped up in due process in a court of law. It's completely normal for law enforcement to give a press conference after an arrest and tell the public they believe they've arrested the right person.

 

[GRT]

There's a gag order. Of course you're not aware. None of us are aware of what's been turned over. We are all aware, tho, that the laws of Idaho state that upon written request by the defense, the Prosecution has to turn it over. I've not seen one statement or order from the Judge that this hasn't been accomplished. So when you state: "Here's a list of things the prosecution still has not shared with the defense", it's either inaccurate, or please show a link. It didn't seem like you were asking. JMO, IMO

I'm reminded of the anger of Caylee Goncalves's father, who was interviewed after one such hearing. He said it was "business as usual," with the defense asking for evidence and the prosecution saying they can't turn over what they don't have.

There's an apparent disconnect between the opposing parties but today is the day the prosecution is finally supposed to turn over all they have.

 

[RANCH]

If your sheath is really a KBar brand sheath, the snap is untreated brass which has turned brown AKA tarnished. Brass is usually not painted but lacquered to prevent oxidation so it remains bright gold. But, more importantly, due to the friction of snapping and unsnapping the sheath, the inside of the snap where the DNA was found would not have had paint or lacquer on it.

All JMO.

Yes it is a KA-BAR brand. It's not lacquered, it looks to be painted. Same for the front of the rivets.

Do you have a link stating the DNA was recovered from the inside of the snap? I don't recall ever hearing that before.

Link below to Amazon where I bought the sheath in 2018.

Amazon.com

 

[jepop]

Okay if I'm wrong I apologize but has the prosecution turned over one thing from that list that the defense as asked for? I am merely asking b/c I do not know. Thanks

You can look up p responses, notices of hearings and any subsequent orders and p supplemental responses on Idaho court cases of interest page under kohberger. Motions and responses are in chronological order. You'll have to scroll through. 2nd MTC probably first half of 2023. Jmo

 

[al66pine]

Police Chief Fry's Statement. Source w Link, Pls?

....The statement made by Chief Fry in the interview where he declares, "we have our guy the one that committed these murders" ....

snipped for focus @CKS Only addressing one sentence of ^ post.

Above post has quotation marks around the stmt, indicating imo the post claims was made by Chief Fry.
IOW the ^ post states --- as a FACT---that Fry said exactly that, not just something along that line.

Can you pls provide a link to MSM or other WS-approved source to that stmt? And if in an audio or video link, would you pls add time stamp/marker.

Anyone? TiA

 

[Megnut]

Given the properties plain or treated brass might have, despite all this, a biological sample was taken, and a full profile was developed. And later matched, beyond all octillprobabillion, to the DNA of the accused. No alloy impeded that. Statistical match.

To date, except maybe on this thread, there's been no question or issue relative to how either sample was taken, codified, analyzed or matched. In 2024, IMO, it's accepted science.

Get it down to brass tacks, it's still BK's DNA. It was not diluted, corrupted, combined, nor incomplete.

BK's DNA.

It is an exercise in fantasy to imagine the many ways his epithelial cells could have floated on to a sheath from the likely murder weapon under a victim stabbed by which but none is very believable. Not believable = not reasonable.

It's very reasonable the the sheath owner had occasion to snap and unsnap that very sheath and the the owner and the owner should leave his and only his epithelial cells on the the clasp mechanism of a sheath he alone used.

JMO

 

[schooling]

In a court of law--presumption of innocence is wrapped up in due process in a court of law. It's completely normal for law enforcement to give a press conference after an arrest and tell the public they believe they've arrested the right person.

Yep. Not to mention the “perp walk” is a PR move as old as time.

Law enforcement earns goodwill and is celebrated and the community rests at ease knowing the “perp” is in custody.

MOO

 

[schooling]

Given Webster properties, plain or treated brass might have, despite all this, a biological sample was taken, and a full profile was developed. And later matched, beyond all octillprobabillion, to the DNA of the accused. No alloy impeded that. Statistical match.

To date, except maybe on this thread, there's been no question or issue relative to how either sample was taken, codified, analyzed or matched. In 2024, IMO, it's accepted science.

Get it down to brass tacks, it's still BK's DNA. It was not diluted, corrupted, combined, nor incomplete.

BK's DNA.

It is an exercise in fantasy to imagine the many ways his epithelial cells could have floated on to a sheath from the likely murder weapon under a victim stabbed by which but none is very believable. Not believable = not reasonable.

It's very reasonable the the sheath owner had occasion to snap and unsnap that very sheath and the the owner and the owner should leave his and only his epithelial cells on the the clasp mechanism of a sheath he alone used.

JMO

Seriously.

IMO You can’t “oops” (contaminate) your way into a 1 in 5 quintillion sequence of DNA…

The fact that the match lives a short drive away from the murder scene turns that 1 in 5 quintillion into what…? Those odds are literally unimaginable. JMO

MOO

 

[Nila Aella]

Police Chief Fry's Statement. Source w Link, Pls?

snipped for focus @CKS Only addressing one sentence of ^ post.

Above post has quotation marks around the stmt, indicating imo the post claims was made by Chief Fry.
IOW the ^ post states --- as a FACT---that Fry said exactly that, not just something along that line.

Can you pls provide a link to MSM or other WS-approved source to that stmt? And if in an audio or video link, would you pls add time stamp/marker.

Anyone? TiA

"I am certain this is our guy."
VIdeo right at the beginning.

"I am certain this is our guy": Moscow police chief has no doubts regarding suspect of Moscow murders

In an interview with NBC Nightly News, Moscow PD Chief Fry stated he had no doubts regarding the suspect in the murders of four University of Idaho students in November.

www.nbcrightnow.com

"We believe we have our guy."
Video right at the beginning.

Video 'We believe we have our guy' in Idaho murders: Police chief

In an interview with ABC News on Saturday, Moscow Police Chief James Fry said he does not anticipate additional arrests in connection with the Idaho murder case.

abcnews.go.com

"We believe we have our guy, the one who committed these murders."
Article

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjpwNH5nK-IAxWFTDABHZ40EGYQFnoECBcQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fabc13.com%2Fbryan-kohberger-arrest-who-is-idaho-murders-suspect-university-of-poconos%2F12635530%2F&usg=AOvVaw3IUuaBg2zQ4_LI9ot6qtPV&opi=89978449

 

[al66pine]

...

 

[al66pine]

"I am certain this is our guy."
VIdeo right at the beginning.

"I am certain this is our guy": Moscow police chief has no doubts regarding suspect of Moscow murders

In an interview with NBC Nightly News, Moscow PD Chief Fry stated he had no doubts regarding the suspect in the murders of four University of Idaho students in November.

www.nbcrightnow.com

"We believe we have our guy."
Video right at the beginning.

Video 'We believe we have our guy' in Idaho murders: Police chief

In an interview with ABC News on Saturday, Moscow Police Chief James Fry said he does not anticipate additional arrests in connection with the Idaho murder case.

abcnews.go.com

"We believe we have our guy, the one who committed these murders."
Article

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjpwNH5nK-IAxWFTDABHZ40EGYQFnoECBcQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fabc13.com%2Fbryan-kohberger-arrest-who-is-idaho-murders-suspect-university-of-poconos%2F12635530%2F&usg=AOvVaw3IUuaBg2zQ4_LI9ot6qtPV&opi=89978449

@Nila Aella
Thank you very much for finding these MSM sources for Chief Fry's statement.
And so darn quickly too.
You are a wizard.

 

[Book E'm]

Looks like if this DNA sample makes it into trial with what looks like several bits of circumstantial evidence that this guy will go to prison.

I think most people get convicted with both DnA and a lot of circumstantial evidence together.

Seems slam dunk but from reading here sounds like there is doubt about is this a correct genetic sample or not a full sample?

 

[Chloegirl]

I'm reminded of the anger of Caylee Goncalves's father, who was interviewed after one such hearing. He said it was "business as usual," with the defense asking for evidence and the prosecution saying they can't turn over what they don't have.

There's an apparent disconnect between the opposing parties but today is the day the prosecution is finally supposed to turn over all they have.

My guess is this is subjective. It might actually be that the defense wants to make sure that they have the most up-to-date information turned over to them, more of a questioning of addendum. It's probably a lot simpler than it's being made out here. They're required to request items if they think perhaps they have been added to and just want to be sure. JMOO

 

[al66pine]

Are LEOs in Idaho "prohibited from making statements that suggest a suspect is guilty before they have been convicted in a court of law"?

....Law enforcement officials in most jurisdictions, including Idaho, are prohibited from making statements that suggest a suspect is guilty before they have been convicted in a court of law.

snipped for focus @CKS
Trying to find a factual basis for the ^ excerpt of the post, the claim that there is a prohibition against LEOs in Idaho "making statements that suggest a suspect is guilty before they have been convicted in a court of law"?

What is the basis for ^ referenced prohibition? ID. statute? Or?
A source w quote & link pls?

 

[Cool Cats]

If that were true, then no criminal would ever be found not guilty.

MOO

A person can dream