4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #96

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

ChatteringBirds

ChatteringBirds

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
10,729
Reaction score
54,660
This tragedy seems to be breaking news:

Police said they responded to King Road for a report of an unconscious person. When officers arrived, they “discovered four individuals who were deceased...”

abcnews.go.com

4 Idaho college students killed in 'targeted attack,' no suspects in custody

Four University of Idaho students were found dead on Sunday, officials said.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com
Thread #1 Thread #2 Thread #3 Thread #4 Thread #5 Thread #6 Thread #7 Thread #8
Thread #9 Thread #10 Thread #11 Thread #12 Thread #13 Thread #14 Thread #15 Thread #16 Thread #17 Thread #18 Thread #19 Thread #20 Thread #21 Thread #22Thread #23 Thread #24 Thread #25 Thread #26 Thread #27 Thread #28 Thread #29 Thread #30 Thread #31 Thread #32 Thread #33 Thread #31 Thread #32 Thread #33 Thread #34 Thread #35Thread #36 Thread #37 Thread #38 Thread #39 Thread #40 Thread #41 Thread #42 Thread #43 Thread #44 Thread #45 Thread #46 Thread #47 Thread #48Thread #49 Thread #50 Thread #51 Thread #52 Thread #53 Thread #54 Thread #55 Thread #56 Thread #57 Thread #58 Thread #59 Thread #60 Thread #61 Thread#62 Thread #63Thread #64 Thread #65 Thread #66 Thread #67 Thread #68 Thread #69 Thread #70 Thread #71 Thread #72 Thread #73 Thread #74 Thread #75Thread #76 Thread #77 Thread #78 Thread #79 Thread #80 Thread #81 Thread #82 Thread #83 Thread #84 Thread #85 Thread #86 Thread #87 Thread #88 Thread #89 Thread #90Thread #91 Thread #92 Thread #93 Thread #94 Thread #96


Media Thread/No Discussion
Media Thread/No Discussion #2

Probable Cause Affidavit

Press photo album (compilation courtesy of WS member cujenn81)

Moscow ID Police Department Facebook page

City of Moscow re King Road Homicide

Media Guide to the Idaho Courts

Detectives are looking to develop context for the events and people involved in the four murders at 1122 King Rd in Moscow, Idaho. Anyone who observed notable behavior, has video surveillance, or can provide relevant information about these murders:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The alternative to "the prosecution has nothing to hide" is '"the prosecution is hiding something in 2024 and they'll have someone possibly innocent be sentenced to death and hope it never ever gets discovered"

All while the entire world is watching.

The implications there are so great that it's not even reasonable to me (IMO) to consider the latter argument.

MOO
 
www.websleuths.com

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

Are LEOs in Idaho "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...
www.websleuths.com www.websleuths.com

@Balthazar
That hearing was about the IGG. The post you quoted was not referring to the IGG. If you have a link showing the defense says the dna on the sheath is not a match to BK, please post it. There are so many motions and filings, I may have missed it.
IMO
 
Just a hypothetical question here:
If the Prosecution didn't withhold anything, but rather the police discarded materials that they deemed irrelevant or useless (not to the point of Brady Giglio, just things they didn't see value in) then the P could say "we don't have it" in good faith about things that did exist, but got erased/thrown away.
What happens then? Is there any recourse for the Defense if the stuff they're after ended up in the recycling bin?
 
schooling said:
The alternative to "the prosecution has nothing to hide" is '"the prosecution is hiding something in 2024 and they'll have someone possibly innocent be sentenced to death and hope it never ever gets discovered"

All while the entire world is watching.

The implications there are so great that it's not even reasonable to me (IMO) to consider the latter argument.

MOO
Click to expand...
There are some really bad apples out there practicing law, and some ARE prosecutors or are working in prosecutors' offices. There have been some spectacular downfalls of high-profile prosecutors who operated unethically for many years while people were watching.

But when I have questions about, say, discovery, in a case, without other evidence of wrongdoing my assumption is not that prosecutors are trying railroad an innocent person into prison or even worse into the death chamber. The vast majority of the time, I'm sure prosecutors believe the people they are prosecuting are actually guilty of the crimes charged. But even when that is so, that doesn't mean prosecutors are always aboveboard in turning over in a timely manner all evidence required to be given to the defense. Some may consider there's an element of "gamesmanship" involved in delay (it's NOT just the defense that may "play games"), others may be playing particular political games (DAs are elected), yet others may be motivated by "extra-judicial" concerns (if constantly arguing to those who control the budget the office needs more staff, it wouldn't be a surprise to see a lack of staff blamed for delay in turning over discovery, particularly in a high-profile case!), while others may think "the rules" favor the defense too much so they "push back" however they can. Finally, there are times some evidence IS iffy. Prosecutors may believe the "totality of the evidence" proves their case but that doesn't mean they want the iffy evidence to be known to the defense before it has to be. So there are many many reasons the defense may not receive required discovery in a timely manner. It's a very common occurrence.

In this case, the lack of information we have due to the ongoing gag order leaves us with even more questions about what's been turned over by the state. If things haven't been, it easily could be the state's "fault" without it being a matter of intentional prosecution of a man the state knows to be innocent. And for me, not knowing for sure what's been turned over by the state doesn't lead me to assume that, of course, everything has been. That prosecutors always do the right thing and do it quickly. Others may reach the opposite conclusion. But none of us know.
MOO
 
NCWatcher said:
There are some really bad apples out there practicing law, and some ARE prosecutors or are working in prosecutors' offices. There have been some spectacular downfalls of high-profile prosecutors who operated unethically for many years while people were watching.

But when I have questions about, say, discovery, in a case, without other evidence of wrongdoing my assumption is not that prosecutors are trying railroad an innocent person into prison or even worse into the death chamber. The vast majority of the time, I'm sure prosecutors believe the people they are prosecuting are actually guilty of the crimes charged. But even when that is so, that doesn't mean prosecutors are always aboveboard in turning over in a timely manner all evidence required to be given to the defense. Some may consider there's an element of "gamesmanship" involved in delay (it's NOT just the defense that may "play games"), others may be playing particular political games (DAs are elected), yet others may be motivated by "extra-judicial" concerns (if constantly arguing to those who control the budget the office needs more staff, it wouldn't be a surprise to see a lack of staff blamed for delay in turning over discovery, particularly in a high-profile case!), while others may think "the rules" favor the defense too much so they "push back" however they can. Finally, there are times some evidence IS iffy. Prosecutors may believe the "totality of the evidence" proves their case but that doesn't mean they want the iffy evidence to be known to the defense before it has to be. So there are many many reasons the defense may not receive required discovery in a timely manner. It's a very common occurrence.

In this case, the lack of information we have due to the ongoing gag order leaves us with even more questions about what's been turned over by the state. If things haven't been, it easily could be the state's "fault" without it being a matter of intentional prosecution of a man the state knows to be innocent. And for me, not knowing for sure what's been turned over by the state doesn't lead me to assume that, of course, everything has been. That prosecutors always do the right thing and do it quickly. Others may reach the opposite conclusion. But none of us know.
MOO
Click to expand...
Agree with this in general whilst owning that I don:t personally see any evidence of prosecution deliberately withholding discovery in this case or have reason to imagine or believe that they would have secret/iffy reasons to do so. IMO.

If the state is reprimanded down the track for discovery violations then I may alter my opinion. Based on my own following of this case currently that seems unlikely but Jmo.

Granted all exhibits after 3rd discovery responses and MTC are sealed in the interests of fair trial/no trial by media, but this of itself doesn't alter my opinion based on what is available. Moo

If I'm able will always attempt to challenge very specific statements made as if they are a fact (as in last thread re assertion that discovery related to steps taken to recover the dna is being withheld), where court doc's are available to show imo an inference might logically be made in the opposite direction. Jmo
 
jepop said:
Agree with this in general whilst owning that I don:t personally see any evidence of prosecution deliberately withholding discovery in this case or have reason to imagine or believe that they would have secret/iffy reasons to do so. IMO.

If the state is reprimanded down the track for discovery violations then I may alter my opinion. Based on my own following of this case currently that seems unlikely but Jmo.

Granted all exhibits after 3rd discovery responses and MTC are sealed in the interests of fair trial/no trial by media, but this of itself doesn't alter my opinion based on what is available. Moo

If I'm able will always attempt to challenge very specific statements made as if they are a fact (as in last thread re assertion that discovery related to steps taken to recover the dna is being withheld), where court doc's are available to show imo an inference might logically be made in the opposite direction. Jmo
Click to expand...
I agree with a number of your points. But just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting sealing exhibits or the gag order means one side must be doing something wrong. I also didn't mean to suggest we know nothing about what's going on. But given the relative death of information, it's easier to speculate. About either side.

The post I was responding to seemed to suggest the only conclusions that could be drawn were 1. the prosecution is trying to frame a possibly innocent man or 2. the prosecution has nothing to hide. The conclusion offered seemed to be if we reject #1 as being untenable, we have to accept #2. I don't think it's quite that simple. And while defendants are considered innocent until proven guilty, I don't think we must assume the state has promptly and fully complied with all discovery requests without access to proof. But that's my opinion. Others differ.
MOO
 
wendy44 said:
www.websleuths.com

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

Are LEOs in Idaho "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...
www.websleuths.com www.websleuths.com

@Balthazar
That hearing was about the IGG. The post you quoted was not referring to the IGG. If you have a link showing the defense says the dna on the sheath is not a match to BK, please post it. There are so many motions and filings, I may have missed it.
IMO
Click to expand...
I have never said that the defense says the DNA on the sheath doesn't match BK so I have no clue where your question is coming from.
 
(c) Change of Venue to a Different Judicial District.

(1)Venue Changed Pursuant to Subsection (a)(2). If change of venue to a different judicial district is granted pursuant to subsection (a)(2) a new presiding judge is assigned as follows:

(A) if the original judge desires to continue the assignment over the case, the judge may so indicate in the order, suggesting a court of proper venue, and refer to the administrative director of the courts for assignment by the Supreme Court to a court of proper venue and for assignment of a specific judge to preside; or

(B) if the original judge does not desire to continue the assignment over the case, the judge must enter an order transferring the case to a proper county and the receiving judicial district must assign a judge pursuant to the assignment procedures of that district.

(2)Venue Changed Pursuant to Subsection (a)(1)(A) or (B). If change of venue is granted pursuant to subsection (a)(1)(A) or (B) to a different judicial district is granted, the court must enter an order changing venue and suggesting a court of proper venue and refer the case to the administrative director of the courts for assignment by the Supreme Court to a court of proper venue and for assignment of a specific judge to preside. If the original judge does not desire to continue the assignment over the case, the judge may so indicate in the order.

 
iamshadow21 said:
Whoa. Was not expecting that.
Click to expand...
In the document filed, the court said, “Kohberger's Motion to Change Venue is granted pursuant to Idaho Criminal Rule 21(a) and 21(b). Consistent with the language of Idaho Criminal Rule 21(c)(2)(B), this Court orders transfer of venue "without specifying the new place of venue" and refers "the case to the administrative director of the courts for assignment by the Supreme Court to court of proper venue in another judicial district and assignment of specific judge to preside in the criminal proceeding."

From: Judge grants Bryan Kohberger's change of venue request.

Looks like JJJ doesn't want to be the Judge any more, also:

(B) if the original judge does not desire to continue the assignment over the case, the judge must enter an order transferring the case without specifying the new place of venue, and then refer the case to the administrative director of the courts for assignment by the Supreme Court to a court of proper venue in another judicial district and assignment of a specific judge to preside in the criminal proceeding.

From: I.C.R. 21. Transfer for Trial | Supreme Court
 
It is big news so of course many are reporting the news.

@WFLAJB

An Idaho judge has ruled to move the Bryan Kohberger trial to a new venue after a defense motion based on media coverage, social media and preconceived jury bias.Kohberger is charged with murdering four University of Idaho students in 2022.The venue will be named later.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1833180120120471675
 
arielilane said:
@kfixler

BREAKING: Judge grants venue change for #BryanKohberger murder trial. He left the decision of the location (and judge assignment) related to the #Idaho4 venue change to the #Idaho Supreme Court.

Story coming ... https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/2024/090624-Order-Granting-Defendants-Motion-Change-Venue.pdf


12:00 PM · Sep 9, 2024


https://twitter.com/x/status/1833173612444131775
Click to expand...
If it's accurate that he left the judge assignment to the ISC, maybe he's hoping he can get off this train.
 
Nila Aella said:
(c) Change of Venue to a Different Judicial District.

(1)Venue Changed Pursuant to Subsection (a)(2). If change of venue to a different judicial district is granted pursuant to subsection (a)(2) a new presiding judge is assigned as follows:

(A) if the original judge desires to continue the assignment over the case, the judge may so indicate in the order, suggesting a court of proper venue, and refer to the administrative director of the courts for assignment by the Supreme Court to a court of proper venue and for assignment of a specific judge to preside; or

(B) if the original judge does not desire to continue the assignment over the case, the judge must enter an order transferring the case to a proper county and the receiving judicial district must assign a judge pursuant to the assignment procedures of that district.

(2)Venue Changed Pursuant to Subsection (a)(1)(A) or (B). If change of venue is granted pursuant to subsection (a)(1)(A) or (B) to a different judicial district is granted, the court must enter an order changing venue and suggesting a court of proper venue and refer the case to the administrative director of the courts for assignment by the Supreme Court to a court of proper venue and for assignment of a specific judge to preside. If the original judge does not desire to continue the assignment over the case, the judge may so indicate in the order.

Click to expand...

I'm pleasantly surprised because it could have gone the other way, but not surprised at the decision itself. I've felt for a very long time that it would be next to impossible to find a completely objective jury in Moscow/Latah County just based on human behavior and the response to community trauma.

MOO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 154 more.
Total: 488 (members: 155, guests: 333)

Online statistics

Members online
155
Guests online
333
Total visitors
488
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,461
Messages
18,254,463
Members
234,657
Latest member
salemwitch
Back
Top