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

[arielilane]

Yesterday's news.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1839412679544578270

https://twitter.com/x/status/1839414912541692211

 

[Izzylizzy]

'New Judge, New Rules, New Date? This Case May Look Very Different For Kohberger + Hurricane Update'​

 

[Justice101]

That neck beard is not going to win him any friends.

 

[arielilane]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1839742145349202359

 

[ilovewings]

That neck beard is not going to win him any friends.

why does a neck beard matter? it doesn't matter to me--- just wondering

 

[Rolypolyoly]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1839284132024824082

I like this judge so far!

Judge asks the officers of the court to be civil.

And no theatrics (Ahem, Ms. Taylor )

 

[PinkParis2052]

I like this judge so far!



And no theatrics (Ahem, Ms. Taylor )

The judge was talking about both sides imo

 

[Balthazar]

Didn’t realize BK previous jail cell was located underneath the courtroom in Latah county.

BK handcuffed behind his back at hearing. Will that be the next motion? Asking that cuffs be removed during hearings/trial?

Anyone know if BK family have ever visited him?

moo

The handcuffs were in front. BK kept his hands in his lap throughout the hearing.

 

[Balthazar]

That neck beard is not going to win him any friends.

BK was clean shaven in court.

 

[PinkParis2052]

I understand the judge's stated concerns about the trial being an all-summer trial especially for potential jurors with children. (Others may vacation in summer too even without kids.) But I fail to see how a May start would be any better than a June start. If the trial itself takes around 2 1/2- 3 months (think that's what was said), a May 1 start would mean the trial ends in mid-to-late July. Then closing arguments, instructions from the judge, and the jury deliberates. (Anxious to leave so super quickly like the Anthony jury?) School started Aug 14 this year in Boise. So summer is over by then for parents.
2024-2025 School Year Information
Having a week-long summer (assuming nothing weird arises that slows the trial down) doesn't sound any better than having no summer to me. And having jurors predictably frantic to leave by the time deliberations occur (so they can salvage some summer) sounds bad.

If the concern really is not taking up the full summer for jurors, it seems a late summer or fall start would be best.
MOO

I think it's because kids go back to school in Mid to late Aug and if the trial starts in May and ends in mid to late July. Jurors who have kids in school will be able to help their kids with preparing for school since the trial will be over by the end of July. So they will have two weeks to help their kids get ready for school

 

[NCWatcher]

I think it's because kids go back to school in Mid to late Aug and if the trial starts in May and ends in mid to late July. Jurors who have kids in school will be able to help their kids with preparing for school since the trial will be over by the end of July. So they will have two weeks to help their kids get ready for school

Yes, per the published school calendars, kids in the Boise school district started classes Aug 14 this year and Aug 15 last year. So well before late Aug.

You may be quite right that's what the judge is thinking. But if I was a parent called for jury duty, and if I was worried about spending the summer in court and not with my kids and not being able to take a family vacation (plus perhaps having to pay for many weeks of extra child care because kids will be out of school during most of the trial), I would not be happy-- at all. Heck, even people without school-aged children may not be happy about giving up a huge part of summer, a traditional vacation time for many people. Parental tasks like buying school clothes, taking kids for back to school haircuts, and shopping for school supplies can be completed on weekends-- but a real vacation needs more than two days. Yet the judge seems to be making a big deal about not "inconveniencing" (don't think he used that word but think it's what he meant) parents unduly. That he thinks it will make it harder to seat a jury. But suddenly moving a big deal trial up by a month, putting jury selection about 6 months from now in April if trial is to start May 1 seems like a big deal especially if the defense objects. (May 1 is a bit over 3 weeks before public school ends in Boise in the spring.) And given the time each side said it needs when the issue was discussed in court, I'm not convinced the state and defense presentations (and any unanticipated rebuttal) would necessarily end by mid-July. Unexpected trial delays do happen and there are 3 state/federal holidays between May 1 & July 15. (And high school and college graduations fall in May and June.) There also needs to be time for closing arguments, the judge's instructions, and jury deliberations.

It just seems like moving the trial up is an awful lot of change for the judge to demand for exceedingly little "pay off." But we'll see. No matter what, there's no way for a 3-month jury trial to be convenient for jurors.
MOO

 

[PinkParis2052]

I like this judge so far!



And no theatrics (Ahem, Ms. Taylor )

I think that the judge means both sides and here's why.

During the Aug 18, 2023 DNA hearing, when Anne mentioned that she didn't have any additional information/testing about the three unknown male dna found at the crime scene, Bill was upset about it and said that he didn't know that this was going to be an issue today and he wasn't prepared to talk about it. Judge asked Bill about the three unknown male dna and Bill told the judge that they have given the defense everything that they have and that the defense is looking for something that doesn't exist. JJJ asked Bill to reach out to the lab again just to be sure that he was given everything and that nothing was missed. JJJ said that sometimes things can fall through the cracks. Bill agreed to do that. I think that Anne saw the three unknown male dna in discovery. Bill really thought that Anne wasn't going to ask him about those three dna samples that wasn't BK's, you got to be kidding me. In addition Jay L in a court document filed in June 2023 by the defense they didn't know what testing if any had been done with the three unknown male dna too. Just to be clear.

During the Oct 26, 2023 hearing for Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Indictment on Grounds of Error in Grand Jury Instructions, Jay L said that 6 grand jury members asked the prosecution for more information about something and JJJ said to Jay L that since the grand jury proceeding are secret it's best not state what the grand jury members did or didn't do. Jay L. shouldn't have said that in open court.

During the May 2, 2024 hearing when the defense argued why they thought that the 4th and 5th motion to compel hearings should be open to the public instead of closed hearing which was requested by the prosecution, when AT talked about the test drive from the FBI CAST expert AJ shushed her. That's was very unprofessional of AJ and the judge said that they didn't want to talk about the specifics of that in open court. When AJ shushed AT, she immediately stopped talking and looked over at AJ. The judge also smiled and laughed when this happened.

The April 2024 hearing when Bill T cross examined the expert for the defense about the jury survey, about how the jury survey expert knew that BK didn't stalk the victims. But the way Bill T handled this situation was very unprofessional of a prosecutor. This is not a TV show, this isn't one of those legal tv shows where they drill the witness on the stand to cause them to have a loud outburst while on the stand. I'm sure that someone that is friends with Bill T that is in the law field pulled him aside and talked to him about that which is why I think that Bill T has been very quiet ever since. I don't think that it was JJJ that spoke to Bill T in IMO.

During the motion to compel hearing June 2023 when AT talked about why she asked for the training records of three officers that was very involved in the Idaho 4 and the state didn't want to turn them over to the defense. AT said that that if those three officers were going to testify that they were stated on the stand that based on their training and their experience about why they asked the questions that they did when they questioned witnesses and why they made the investigative decisions that they made and JJJ asked AJ about it and she said that it was pure speculation on AT's part. wow. AT said that even though that the prosecution said that those officers wasn't going to be testifying in court that she could subpoena them to the testify.

This is all IMO.

 

[PinkParis2052]

I think that the judge means both sides and here's why.

During the Aug 18, 2023 DNA hearing, when Anne mentioned that she didn't have any additional information/testing about the three unknown male dna found at the crime scene, Bill was upset about it and said that he didn't know that this was going to be an issue today and he wasn't prepared to talk about it. Judge asked Bill about the three unknown male dna and Bill told the judge that they have given the defense everything that they have and that the defense is looking for something that doesn't exist. JJJ asked Bill to reach out to the lab again just to be sure that he was given everything and that nothing was missed. JJJ said that sometimes things can fall through the cracks. Bill agreed to do that. I think that Anne saw the three unknown male dna in discovery. Bill really thought that Anne wasn't going to ask him about those three dna samples that wasn't BK's, you got to be kidding me. In addition Jay L in a court document filed in June 2023 by the defense they didn't know what testing if any had been done with the three unknown male dna too. Just to be clear.

During the Oct 26, 2023 hearing for Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Indictment on Grounds of Error in Grand Jury Instructions, Jay L said that 6 grand jury members asked the prosecution for more information about something and JJJ said to Jay L that since the grand jury proceeding are secret it's best not state what the grand jury members did or didn't do. Jay L. shouldn't have said that in open court.

During the May 2, 2024 hearing when the defense argued why they thought that the 4th and 5th motion to compel hearings should be open to the public instead of closed hearing which was requested by the prosecution, when AT talked about the test drive from the FBI CAST expert AJ shushed her. That's was very unprofessional of AJ and the judge said that they didn't want to talk about the specifics of that in open court. When AJ shushed AT, she immediately stopped talking and looked over at AJ. The judge also smiled and laughed when this happened.

The April 2024 hearing when Bill T cross examined the expert for the defense about the jury survey, about how the jury survey expert knew that BK didn't stalk the victims. But the way Bill T handled this situation was very unprofessional of a prosecutor. This is not a TV show, this isn't one of those legal tv shows where they drill the witness on the stand to cause them to have a loud outburst while on the stand. I'm sure that someone that is friends with Bill T that is in the law field pulled him aside and talked to him about that which is why I think that Bill T has been very quiet ever since. I don't think that it was JJJ that spoke to Bill T in IMO.

During the motion to compel hearing June 2023 when AT talked about why she asked for the training records of three officers that was very involved in the Idaho 4 and the state didn't want to turn them over to the defense. AT said that that if those three officers were going to testify that they were stated on the stand that based on their training and their experience about why they asked the questions that they did when they questioned witnesses and why they made the investigative decisions that they made and JJJ asked AJ about it and she said that it was pure speculation on AT's part. wow. AT said that even though that the prosecution said that those officers wasn't going to be testifying in court that she could subpoena them to the testify.

This is all IMO.

To add, I don't have a problem with AT subpoenaing the investigators just to be clear. Also, but JJJ did ask AJ how could that be pure speculation on AT's part when AT just listed why she was requesting their training records when the prosecution replied to her that their training records didn't matter to their defense of their client.

This is all IMO.